DOCSLIB.ORG

Range Animal Science Department Sul Ross State University Alpine, Texas August, 1981

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Range Animal Science Department Sul Ross State University Alpine, Texas August, 1981 THE HISTORICAL VEGETATIVE ASPECT OF FORT DAVIS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE TEXAS Prepared by: Dr. James T. Nelson Range Animal Science Department Sul Ross State University Alpine, Texas August, 1981 .. ~?; Wdlo, l5r*t DaY11 Nat10nal Hllto~10 Iitl / Abstract As a basis for formulating a vegetative management program at Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas, a study was undertaken in the summer of 1981 to determine the historic vegetation scene of the mid to late 19th century period. The vegetative scene in 19 existing historic photographs was compared to that in modern photographs taken in the same locations. In addition to photographic analysis, use was made of botanical information in the historic literature, and data from on-site vegetation sampling was used to compare the present species composition with that of potential climax as described by the Soil Conservation Service range condition guidelines. Present species composition indicates a moderate departure from climax due to an increase of blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and several brush species - mostly catclaw mimosa (Himosa biuhicifera) . 60-70% of the species reported in the historical literature are listed today on the present species lists for Fort Davis National Historic Site and the Davis Mountains State Park. Photographic analysis indicates that the basic distribution of major vegetatibn types today is very similar to that of 100 years ago, with some notable exceptions. Grassland areas have decreased by about 7% while brush areas have increased. Brush (catclaw) density has increased from light to heavy concentrations. Mesquite, not mentioned in the historic literature or noticable in historic photos, is prominent today. In some areas tree density (oak and juniper) has increased (on cliffs) while in others it has decreased (flat-lands). Several historic trees were identified. Management recommendations were made to preserve historic trees and to selectively reduce brush by physical and/or chemical means. .. ';;j' " Table of Contents Pg. No. Abs tract Introduction. ....... ................................., 1 The Area To day. ....................................... 2 Relief & Topography.. ............................... 2 Climate. ............................................ 2 Soils. .............................................. 2 Vegetation 4 I Methods. .............................................. 5 Paired Photographic Analysis. ....................... 5 Review of Historic Literature. 6 I Vegetative Sampling 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 .. 7 Vegetation Map. .........0.000.0.....0.0.0.......0.O. 9 Results and Discussion.. .0 to, 0 . 000000000. ..........0.0 9 On Site Vegetation Sampling 00.0.00...0...0.0000..0.0 9 I Loamy Site o. 0..0000..0...000..0.0.000000..0......0 10 Gravelly Site . 0 0 0 . .0. 0 . 0 0 . O. 0 . 00. 10 Draw Site. 00 o. 00.0 o' . 0 0 to. 0 0 . 0 . 00. 0 . 0 . 0 o. 12 I I Igneous Hill and Mountain Range Sites.. 0 . 0 . 0 0 12 Permanent Sampling Points 0"0", 0.000.0000 , 0 0" 13 Historical Literature 0 to O' '0 0'00 0'" o' 0"0 o. 0...0." I 14 Climate. .00...0.000.00.00..0....00.0.000.......... 14 Vegetation 00....00.00.0.0000...0.000.0...000000... 15 I PhotographicAnalysis 0.0. 00"0"000' 0.00.0..0".0.0. 22 VegetativeType Distribution 0 0 "0 0 0.. 00 0 O. 65 Present Type Distribution 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . .. 65 I Distribution of 1880 Period... 0..000......0..0..00 66 Conclusions 0.. 0.0...0...0..000..0.............0...0..0 69 Management Recommendations.. 000.0.000.......00.......0 75 Literature Cited.. 000...0.0....0......00000...0..0.0.. 84 Appendix 00...00.000.00..0.....0..0..000.....0......... 86 -~ List of Tables Pg. No. Table 1. Percent Frequency Composition of 4 Range Sites on the Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas, June, 1981 11 Table 2. Plant Species Reported by Havard Around Fort Davis, Texas in 1885 '0' ' 17 Table 3. Plant Species Reported by Nealley Around Fort Davis, Texas in 1888 ... 20 Table 4. Percentage Area of Vegetation Types Today Compared with Area of Vegetation Types of the 1880-1900 Period, Fort Davis National Historic Si te, Texas. o. 0. 0. .. 68 Appendix Table 1. Permanent Sampling Data, Vegetation Point #1, (Mu) , Loamy Site 87 Table 2. Permanent Sampling Data, Vegetation Point #2 (SmB) , Gravelly Site 0 . 0.. 88 Table 3. Permanent Sampling Data, Vegetation Point #3 (Ga) , Draw Site. 0" 89 Table 4. Species, Diameter and Estimated Age From Core Borings of Historic Trees. .. 90 Table 5. Category 1 and 2 Species and Their Status at Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas..,.,.., , 91 Table 6. Plant Species Found at Fort Davis National Historic Site, Texas, W Previously not Documented. ...,.,., 92 ..- List of Figures Pg. No. Figure 1. Historic Photograph JB-42 (Late 1890's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 24 Figure 2. Historic Photograph JB-43 (Late 1890's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 26 Figure 3. Historic Photograph AB-6 (1875) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 28 Figure 4. Historic Photograph HG-4/6 (1875) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 30 Figure 5. Historic Photograph HG-3 (1875) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 32 Figure 6. Historic Photograph AB-15 (1889) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 34 Figure 7. Historic Photograph AB-11 (1880's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 36 Figure 8. Historic Photograph BA-4 (1889) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 39 Figure 9. Historic Photograph HG-14 (1886) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 42 'I .. Figure 10. Historic Photograph HG-8 (1888) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas 44 Figure 11. Historic Photograph HG-10 (1871) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas 46 Figure 12. Historic Photograph HG-21 (1887) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981) Fort Davis, Texas 48 t Figure 13. Historic Photograph HC-27 (1890's) and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 51 Figure 14. Historic Photograph HG-16 (1887) and ~I its modern counterpart (June, 1981), 'I Fort Davis, Texas 53 Ii Figure 15. Historic Photograph AB-14 (1886) and 1(1 its modern counterpart (June, 1981), I," Fort Davis, Texas 55 I'; i Figure 16. Historic Photograph AB-16 (1891) and i.' Ili ii ! . its modern counterpart (June, 1981), " I Fort Davis, Texas 57 II:f: ~j '; Figure 17. Historic Photograph AB-18 (1880's) and ,' .I its modern counterpart (June, 1981), ~'I i III I Fort Davis, Texas 59 ,"I I ,~ Figure 18. Historic Photograph AB-4 (Hid 1880's) I t and its modern counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas 61 111"I ['III: Figure 19. Historic Photograph HD-31 (1880's) and its modern.counterpart (June, 1981), Fort Davis, Texas, 63 Appendix Figure 1. Range Soil Sites, F.D.N.H.S., TX. Figure 2. Vegetation Types, 1981, F.D.N.H.S., TX. Figure 3. Vegetation Types, 1880-1900, F.D.N.H.S., TX. Figure 4. Historical Photo Point Locations, F.D.N.H.S., TX. l1li "T' ~ I ~ Introduction ! I I I r',i Fort Davis National Historic Site was established by '.1 congress in 1961 to protect and preserve the historic I ' resource existant in the ruins of Fort Davis, a U.S. Army I Ii' I' : post established in 1854 and abandoned in 1891. The post has been partially reconstructed by the National Park Service II' to present to the public an accurate historical view of the ji" fort as it existed in the 1880-1891 period - the height of I" l' wI' physical development of old Fort Davis. One important 111,t, 'L,h aspect of maintaining an accurate historical image is the ~.'1" maintenance of historically accurate surroundings- a part i~11 I~ I1 of which includes vegetation management. ', ~I, In many parts of Texas and the southwest vegetation . ~ii is believed to have changed drastically in the past century . Grasslands have diminished while deserts, shrub-lands and ~II juniper woodlands have increased in area. Iii 1 I' The purpose of this investigation was to document the I i~ historic (mid to late 19th century) vegetation of the monument and to make recommendations on how to best maintain n~ or restore the historic scene. Documentation was based on ! the use of paired historic and modern photographs, vegetation sampling, and a search of historic vegetational information in literature. 1 - ----- -- --- ..- 2 The Area Today Relief & Topography Fort Davis lies in the Davis Mountains of Jeff Davis ft county, Texas at an elevation of 4,880 feet. The surrounding cliffs and hills rise to approximately 340 feet above the ~ " fort grounds (maximum elevation = 5220) and Limpia Creek flows eastward and northward along the site's northern II boundary. IJ!n.II II' Clima te , I II ! Climate of the Fort Davis area can be described as II )I I '" ,II: ; ! II' , generally dry and mild. Prolonged periods below freezing or ilill" . above lOOoF are rare. Winter mean daily minimum temperatures il! ' "'I I average 370 while summer mean daily maximum temperatures ~ !,- : ,,,' ;1 t average 880. Relative humidity averages about 40% at mid-day. il'" ~ '! 1 il 1 Yearly precipitation averages 14,64 inches, almost 12 , 'I . inches of which may be expected to fall between May 1st and I ~ I' October 31st. February is the driest month (0.40 inches) and I Ii ,\ ,~ July is the wettest (2.58 inches). Summer precipitation is I :1 in the form of intense, short duration thunder storms while spring or fall rains are more often less intense, 1 or 2 day rainy periods (U.S .D.A., S.C.S., 1977), Soils Four soil range sites have been mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (U.S.D.A., S.C.S., 1977) on the Fort III II ,11 i~ 3 Davis Monument (Fig.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wildflowers and Other Herbaceous Plants at LLELA
    Wildflowers and other herbaceous plants at LLELA Common Name Scientific Name Observed Abundance Yarrow Achillea millefolium C Prairie Agalinis Agalinis heterophylla C Mud Plaintain Alisma subcordatum U Wild Onion Allium canadense A Amaranth Amaranthus rudis U Western Ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya C Giant Ragweed Ambrosia trifida A Valley Redstem Ammannia coccinea C Broomweed Amphiachyris dracunculoides C Texas Bluestar Amsonia tabernaemontana U Tenpetal Thimbleweed Anemone berlandieri C Prickly Poppy Argemone polyanthemos R Green‐Dragon Arisaema dracontium R Texas Milkweed Asclepias texana C Butterfly Milkweed Asclepias tuberose R Green Milkweed Asclepias viridis C Drummond’s Aster Aster drummondii U Heath Aster Aster ericoides C Annual Aster Aster subulatus C Western Daisy Astranthium integrifolium R Water Fern Azolla caroliniana C Water Hyssop Bacopa monnieri U India Mustard Brassica juncea U* False Boneset Brickellia eupatorioides U Corn Gromwell Buglossoides arvensis C* Wine Cup Callirheo involucrate C Square‐bud Sundrops Calylophus berlandieri R Shepherd’s Purse Capsella bursa‐pastoris U* Nodding Thistle Carduus nutans U* Indian Paintbrush Castilleja indivisa C Basket Flower Centaurea americana C Ladybird’s Centaury Centaurium texense C Sticky Chickweed Cerastium glomeratum C Partridge Pea Chamaecrista fasciculata A Spotted Sandmat Chamaescyce maculata R Small Matted Sandmat Chamaesyce serpens U Hairy Golden Aster Chrysopsis pilosa U Horrid Thistle Cirsium horridulum U Texas Thistle Cirsium texanum C Bull Nettle Cnidoscolus texanus
    [Show full text]
  • Ageratina Thyrsiflora (E. Greene) R. King & H. Robinson, Phytologia 19:227. 1970. Kyrstenia Thyrsiflora E. Greene, Leafl. B
    Ageratina thyrsiflora (E. Greene) R. King & H. Robinson, Phytologia 19:227. 1970. Kyrstenia thyrsiflora E. Greene, Leafl. Bot. Observ. Crit. 1:9. 1903. Eupatorium thyrsiflorum (E. Greene) B.L. Robinson, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 43:36. 1907. TYPE: MEXICO. CHIHUAHUA: Southwestern Chihuahua, Aug 1885, E. Palmer 275 (LECTOTYPE, designated here: US, internet image!). Eupatorium arborescens M.E. Jones, Contr. West. Bot. 12:43. 1908. TYPE: MEXICO. CHIHUAHUA: Sierra Madre Mts., Guayanopa Canon, 3600 ft alt., in the Tropical Life Zone, 24 Sep 1903, M.E. Jones s.n. (LECTOTYPE, designated here: RSA-POM 41799, photocopy!; ISOLECTOTYPE: RSA-POM 41800, photocopy!). Koanophyllon palmeri (A. Gray) R. King & H. Robinson, Phytologia 22:150. 1971. Eupatorium palmeri A. Gray, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 21: 383. 1886. Gray did not cite a specific collection but noted “type locality, ‘shady places high up in mountains above Batopilas.’” TYPE: MEXICO. [CHIHUAHUA]: Southwestern Chihuahua, Aug–Nov 1885, Palmer 144 (LECTOTYPE, designated here: GH!; ISOLECTOTYPE: US, internet image!). Eupatorium thyrsiflorum var. holoclerum B.L. Robinson, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 43:36. 1907. TYPE: MEXICO. DURANGO: City of Durango and vicinity, Apr–Nov 1896, E. Palmer 755 (HOLOTYPE: GH; ISOTYPES: MO!, US, internet image!). Eupatorium solidaginifolium A. Gray, Smithsonian Contr. Knowl. 3(5) [Pl. Wright. 1]:87. 1852. TYPE: UNITED STATES: “Collected in Expedition from Western Texas to El Paso, New Mexico, May–Oct, 1849, by Charles Wright” [as on label], Wright 256 (HOLOTYPE: GH, photocopy!; ISOTYPE: GH, photocopy!). Chromolaena bigelovii (A. Gray) R. King & H. Robinson, Phytologia 20:208. 1970. Eupatorium bigelovii A. Gray in Torrey, Rep. U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 7/30/2018 Rare Plants of Kansas (S1 Only) 1 Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Global Rank State Rank
    7/30/2018 Rare Plants of Kansas (S1 only) 1 Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Global Rank State Rank Acacia angustissima Prairie Acacia G5 S1 Acacia angustissima var. hirta Prairie Acacia G5T4? S1 Acalypha deamii Deam's Copperleaf G4? S1 Actaea pachypoda White Baneberry G5 S1 Aesculus glabra var. glabra Eastern Ohio Buckeye G5T5 S1 Agalinis skinneriana Skinner's Agalinis G3G4 S1 Agrimonia gryposepala Hooked Agrimony G5 S1 Amaranthus californicus California Pigweed G4 S1 Amelanchier humilis Low Service-berry G5 S1 Ammoselinum butleri Butler's Sand-parsley G5 S1 Amorpha nana Dwarf Wild-indigo G5 S1 Amsonia illustris Ozark Bluestar G4G5 S1 Amsonia tabernaemontana Willow Bluestar G5 S1 Antennaria howellii ssp. neodioica Howell's Pussy's-toes G5T5 S1 Antennaria parvifolia Nuttall's Pussytoes G5 S1 Apocynum x floribundum Many-flower Dogbane GNA S1 Arabis pycnocarpa Western Hairy Rock-cress G5T5 S1 Arabis pycnocarpa var. adpressipilis Hairy Rockcress G5T4Q S1 Arabis pycnocarpa var. pycnocarpa Hairy Rockcress G5T5 S1 Aralia racemosa American-spikenard G5 S1 Aristida desmantha Curly Threeawn G5 S1 Aristida divaricata Poverty Threeawn G4G5 S1 Aristida havardii Harvard's Threeawn G5 S1 Aristida ramosissima Slender Threeawn G5 S1 Armoracia lacustris Lake Cress G4? S1 Artemisia frigida Prairie Sagewort G5 S1 Asclepias lanuginosa Wooly Milkweed G4? S1 Asclepias meadii Mead's Milkweed Threatened G2 S2 Asclepias quadrifolia Four-leaf Milkweed G5 S1 Astragalus ceramicus var. filifolius Painted Milk-vetch G4T4 S1 Astragalus hyalinus Summer Milk-vetch G4 S1 Astragalus sericoleucus Silky Milk-vetch G4 S1 Astragalus spatulatus Tufted Milk-vetch G5 S1 Astranthium integrifolium ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Native Plants for Landscape Use in Kentucky
    Chapter 4 Native Plants for Landscape Use In Kentucky A publication of the Louisville Water Company Wellhead Protection Plan, Phase III Source Reduction Grant # X9-96479407-0 Chapter 4 Native Plants for Landscape Use in Kentucky Native Wildflowers and Ferns The U. S. Department of Transportation, (US DOT), has developed a listing of native plants, (ferns, annuals, perennials, shrubs, and trees), that may be used in landscaping in the State of Kentucky. Other agencies have also developed listings of native plants, which have been integrated into the list within this guidebook. While this list is, by no means, a complete report of the native species that may be found in Kentucky, it offers a starting point for additional research, should the homeowner wish to find additional KY native plants for use in a landscape design, or to check if a plant is native to the State. A reference book titled Wildflowers and Ferns of Kentucky, which was recommended by personnel at the Salato Wildlife Center as an excellent reference for native plants, was also used to develop the list. (A full bibliography is listed at the end of this chapter.) While many horticultural and botanical experts may dispute the inclusion of specific plants on the listing, or wish to add more plants, the list represents the latest information available for research, by the amateur, at the time. The information listed within the list was taken at face value, and no judgment calls were made about the suitability of plants for the list. The author makes no claims as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of this list.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Between the Lakes Golden Pond, Kentucky
    HELD AT BRANDONSPRJNG GROUPCAMP LANDBETWEEN THE Lms MARCH 6, 1993 Sponsored by: The Center for Field Biology Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee and Mumy State University Center for Reservoir Research and Tennessee Valley Authority - Land Between The Lakes Golden Pond, Kentucky EDITED BY: Steven W. Hamilton, Edward W. Chester, and A. Floyd Scott The Center for Field Biology Austin Peay State University Published by and available from: The Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee 37044 Price: $5.00 . SUGGESTED CITATION Hamilton, S.W., E.W. Chester and A.F. Scott. 1993. Proceedings of the fifth annual symposium on the natural history of lower Tennessee and Cumberland River Valleys. Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee. Published July 1993 PREFACE On March 5' and 6", 1993 over 120 students of regional natural history and field biology gathered at Brandon Spring Group Camp in TVA's Land Between The Lakes to participate in the Fifth Symposium on the Natural History of Lower Tennessee and Cumberland River Valleys. Sponsors of this symposium were The Center for Field Biology at Austin Peay State University, the Center for Reservoir Research at Murray State University, and Land Between The Lakes. On Friday afternoon the symposium attendees were welcomed by Dr. Ben Stone, Director of The Center for Field Biology at APSU and Dr. Gary Boggess, Dean of the College of Sciences at Murray State University. Representing Land Between The Lakes was Mr. John Mechler, manager of Land Management. In his welcoming presentation Mr. Mechler described LBL's three-pronged environmental mission of resource management, research, and education.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia Working Draft of March 17, 2004 by Alan S. Weakley University of North Carolina Herbarium North Carolina Botanical Garden University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Mail: CB 3280, Coker Hall, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3280 Telephone: 919.962.0578 E-mail: [email protected] (copies by permission of the author only) 1 Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia -- Current Status The publication thirty years ago of the Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas, by A.E. Radford, H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell, was a landmark. It was the result of an extraordinary effort to document the flora of the Carolinas, and after its publication, the existence of “the Manual” helped generate an interest in and further studies of the flora of the region. Since its publication in 1968, many additional species have been documented as part of the region's flora, additional alien species have become naturalized, new species have been described, monographs have given new taxonomic insights into groups, nomenclature accepted in 1968 has been found to be invalid, new and more reliable keys have been developed, and systematic treatments have (one hopes) generally advanced. Increasingly, identification of the flora of our area (and other states of the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic) by academic researchers, agency personnel, and advanced amateurs is hampered by the lack of an up-to-date flora. Without such a flora, identification must involve reference to herbaria and thousands of monographs, papers, and other floras -- resources not readily available to many people who need them.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Checklist of the Missouri Flora for Floristic Quality Assessment
    Ladd, D. and J.R. Thomas. 2015. Ecological checklist of the Missouri flora for Floristic Quality Assessment. Phytoneuron 2015-12: 1–274. Published 12 February 2015. ISSN 2153 733X ECOLOGICAL CHECKLIST OF THE MISSOURI FLORA FOR FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT DOUGLAS LADD The Nature Conservancy 2800 S. Brentwood Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63144 [email protected] JUSTIN R. THOMAS Institute of Botanical Training, LLC 111 County Road 3260 Salem, Missouri 65560 [email protected] ABSTRACT An annotated checklist of the 2,961 vascular taxa comprising the flora of Missouri is presented, with conservatism rankings for Floristic Quality Assessment. The list also provides standardized acronyms for each taxon and information on nativity, physiognomy, and wetness ratings. Annotated comments for selected taxa provide taxonomic, floristic, and ecological information, particularly for taxa not recognized in recent treatments of the Missouri flora. Synonymy crosswalks are provided for three references commonly used in Missouri. A discussion of the concept and application of Floristic Quality Assessment is presented. To accurately reflect ecological and taxonomic relationships, new combinations are validated for two distinct taxa, Dichanthelium ashei and D. werneri , and problems in application of infraspecific taxon names within Quercus shumardii are clarified. CONTENTS Introduction Species conservatism and floristic quality Application of Floristic Quality Assessment Checklist: Rationale and methods Nomenclature and taxonomic concepts Synonymy Acronyms Physiognomy, nativity, and wetness Summary of the Missouri flora Conclusion Annotated comments for checklist taxa Acknowledgements Literature Cited Ecological checklist of the Missouri flora Table 1. C values, physiognomy, and common names Table 2. Synonymy crosswalk Table 3. Wetness ratings and plant families INTRODUCTION This list was developed as part of a revised and expanded system for Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) in Missouri.
    [Show full text]
  • Oklahoma Native Plant Record
    ISSN 1536-7738 Oklahoma Native Plant Record Journal of the Oklahoma Native Plant Society Volume 1, Number 1, December 2001 Premier Issue Oklahoma Native Plant Society The purpose of the ONPS is to encourage the study, protection, propagation, appreciation and use of the native plants of Oklahoma. Membership in ONPS shall be open to any person who supports the aims of the Society. ONPS offers individual, student, family, and life membership. Officers and Board President: Pat Folley Photo Contest: Paul Reimer Vice-president: Chad Cox Ann Long Award Chair: Paul Reimer Secretary: Maurita Nations Harriet Barclay Award Chair: Treasurer: Mary Korthase Connie Taylor Board Members: ONPS Service Award Chair: Sue Amstutz Berlin Heck Newsletter Editor: Chad Cox Iris McPherson Librarian: Bonnie Winchester Sue Amstutz Website Manager: Chad Cox Jim Elder Paul Reimer Larry Magrath Managing editor: Sheila Strawn Technical editor: Pat Folley Northeast Chapter Chair: Jim Elder Technical advisor: Bruce Hoagland Central Chapter Chair: Judy Jordan Cross-timbers Chapter Chair: Ron Tyrl Historian: Lynn Allen Cover: Cercis canadensis (Redbud) Photo courtesy of Charles Lewallen. Conservation Chair: Berlin Heck “That man is truly ethical who shatters no Publicity Co-chairs: ice crystal as it sparkles in the sun, tears no Ruth Boyd & Betty Culpepper leaf from a tree…” Marketing Chair: Larry Magrath Albert Schweitzer Articles (c) The Authors Journal compilation (c) Oklahoma Native Plant Society Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike4.0 International License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-sa/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant Community Classification for Stones River National Battlefield
    VASCULAR PLANT COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION FOR STONES RIVER NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD Report for the Vertebrate and Vascular Plant Inventories: Appalachian Highlands and Cumberland/Piedmont Network Prepared by NatureServe for the National Park Service Southeast Regional Office October 2004 NatureServe is a non-profit organization providing the scientific knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action. A NatureServe Technical Report Prepared for the National Park Service under Cooperative Agreement H 5028 01 0435. Citation: Nordman, Carl. 2004. Vascular Plant Community Classification for Stones River National Battlefield. Durham, North Carolina: NatureServe. © 2004 NatureServe NatureServe 6114 Fayetteville Road, Suite 109 Durham, NC 27713 919-484-7857 International Headquarters 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor Arlington, Virginia 22209 www.natureserve.org National Park Service Southeast Regional Office Atlanta Federal Center 1924 Building 100 Alabama Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 The view and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government. This report consists of the main report along with a series of appendices with information about the plants and plant communities found at the site. Electronic files have been provided to the National Park Service in addition to hard copies. Current information on all communities described here can be found on NatureServe Explorer at www.natureserve.org/explorer. Cover photo: STRI plot 13, the Slaughter Pen. Photo by Carl Nordman. ii Acknowledgments I wish to thank all park employees, co-workers, volunteers, and academics who helped with aspects of the preparation, fieldwork, specimen identification, and report writing for this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of Ericameria, Chrysothamnus and Related Genera (Asteraceae : Astereae) Based on Nuclear Ribosomal DNA Sequence Data Roland P
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2002 Phylogeny of Ericameria, Chrysothamnus and related genera (Asteraceae : Astereae) based on nuclear ribosomal DNA sequence data Roland P. Roberts Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Recommended Citation Roberts, Roland P., "Phylogeny of Ericameria, Chrysothamnus and related genera (Asteraceae : Astereae) based on nuclear ribosomal DNA sequence data" (2002). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 3881. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/3881 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. PHYLOGENY OF ERICAMERIA, CHRYSOTHAMNUS AND RELATED GENERA (ASTERACEAE: ASTEREAE) BASED ON NUCLEAR RIBOSOMAL DNA SEQUENCE DATA A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In The Department of Biological Sciences by Roland P. Roberts B.S.Ed., Southwest Texas State University, 1991 M.S., Southwest Texas State University, 1996 December, 2002 DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my son Roland H. Roberts, my mother Rosetta Roberts and my niece Colleen Roberts, for being a continued source of mutual love and respect. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation was developed under the direction of my advisor, Dr. Lowell E. Urbatsch, Director of the Louisiana State University Herbarium and Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Flora of the Natchez Trace Parkway
    THE VASCULAR FLORA OF THE NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY (Franklin, Tennessee to Natchez, Mississippi) Results of a Floristic Inventory August 2004 - August 2006 © Dale A. Kruse, 2007 © Dale A. Kruse 2007 DATE SUBMITTED 28 February 2008 PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATORS Stephan L. Hatch Dale A. Kruse S. M. Tracy Herbarium (TAES), Texas A & M University 2138 TAMU, College Station, Texas 77843-2138 SUBMITTED TO Gulf Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network Lafayette, Louisiana CONTRACT NUMBER J2115040013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The “Natchez Trace” has played an important role in transportation, trade, and communication in the region since pre-historic times. As the development and use of steamboats along the Mississippi River increased, travel on the Trace diminished and the route began to be reclaimed by nature. A renewed interest in the Trace began during, and following, the Great Depression. In the early 1930’s, then Mississippi congressman T. J. Busby promoted interest in the Trace from a historical perspective and also as an opportunity for employment in the area. Legislation was introduced by Busby to conduct a survey of the Trace and in 1936 actual construction of the modern roadway began. Development of the present Natchez Trace Parkway (NATR) which follows portions of the original route has continued since that time. The last segment of the NATR was completed in 2005. The federal lands that comprise the modern route total about 52,000 acres in 25 counties through the states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The route, about 445 miles long, is a manicured parkway with numerous associated rest stops, parks, and monuments. Current land use along the NATR includes upland forest, mesic prairie, wetland prairie, forested wetlands, interspersed with numerous small agricultural croplands.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Flora of the Deep Fork River in Okmulgee, Creek and Okfuskee Counties, Oklahoma
    Publications of the Oklahoma Biological Survey 2nd Series Volume 6: 15-29, 2005 © Oklahoma Biological Survey, 2005 VASCULAR FLORA OF THE DEEP FORK RIVER IN OKMULGEE, CREEK AND OKFUSKEE COUNTIES, OKLAHOMA Bruce W. Hoagland1, 2, Forrest L. Johnson Oklahoma Biological Survey and 1Department of Geography University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019 ABSTRACT.—This paper reports the results of an inventory of the vascular plants on the Deep Fork River in Creek, Okfuskee, and Okmulgee counties. A total of 500 taxa of vascular plant species in 293 genera and 99 families was collected. The largest fam- ilies were the Poaceae (77 species), Asteraceae (58), Cyperaceae (46) and Fabaceae (36). One hundred and thirty-five species were annuals, 11 biennials, and 354 perennials. Seventy-four woody plant species were collected. Thirty-eight exotic species (7.6% of the total flora) were collected. No federally listed threatened or endangered species were found, but eight species tracked by the Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory were present. INTRODUCTION W and 35.7119° N to 35.6257° N; Figure 1). The EWMA The primary objective of this study was to provide is located in Okmulgee County (35.4745° N - 35.4679° N a comprehensive floristic inventory for resource man- and 95.8789° W - 95.8898° W) and encompasses 2,000 agers at the Deep Fork Wildlife Management Area ha. Both sites are managed by the Oklahoma (DFWMA) and Eufaula Wildlife Management Area, Department of Wildlife Conservation. The study sites Deep Fork Unit (EWMA). Such inventories aid man- are located within the Subtropical Humid (Cf) climate agers in locating populations of sensitive species and zone (Trewartha 1968).
    [Show full text]