Weeds 'N' Seeds Plant Checklist
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Approved Plant List 10/04/12
FLORIDA The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time to plant a tree is today. City of Sunrise Approved Plant List 10/04/12 Appendix A 10/4/12 APPROVED PLANT LIST FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SG xx Slow Growing “xx” = minimum height in Small Mature tree height of less than 20 feet at time of planting feet OH Trees adjacent to overhead power lines Medium Mature tree height of between 21 – 40 feet U Trees within Utility Easements Large Mature tree height greater than 41 N Not acceptable for use as a replacement feet * Native Florida Species Varies Mature tree height depends on variety Mature size information based on Betrock’s Florida Landscape Plants Published 2001 GROUP “A” TREES Common Name Botanical Name Uses Mature Tree Size Avocado Persea Americana L Bahama Strongbark Bourreria orata * U, SG 6 S Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum * L Black Olive Shady Bucida buceras ‘Shady Lady’ L Lady Black Olive Bucida buceras L Brazil Beautyleaf Calophyllum brasiliense L Blolly Guapira discolor* M Bridalveil Tree Caesalpinia granadillo M Bulnesia Bulnesia arboria M Cinnecord Acacia choriophylla * U, SG 6 S Group ‘A’ Plant List for Single Family Homes Common Name Botanical Name Uses Mature Tree Size Citrus: Lemon, Citrus spp. OH S (except orange, Lime ect. Grapefruit) Citrus: Grapefruit Citrus paradisi M Trees Copperpod Peltophorum pterocarpum L Fiddlewood Citharexylum fruticosum * U, SG 8 S Floss Silk Tree Chorisia speciosa L Golden – Shower Cassia fistula L Green Buttonwood Conocarpus erectus * L Gumbo Limbo Bursera simaruba * L -
The Biology of the Sweet Potato Weevil K L
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Agricultural Experiment Station Reports LSU AgCenter 1954 The biology of the sweet potato weevil K L. Cockerham Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/agexp Recommended Citation Cockerham, K L., "The biology of the sweet potato weevil" (1954). LSU Agricultural Experiment Station Reports. 95. http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/agexp/95 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the LSU AgCenter at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Agricultural Experiment Station Reports by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Louisiana Technical Bulletin No. 483 January 1954 The Biology of the Sweet Potato Weevil By K. L. CocKERHAM, O. T. Deen, M. B. Christian and L. D. Newsom The sweet potato weevil: A, larva; B, pupa, under side; C, pupa, upper side; D, adult female. (All about 9 times natural size.) Louisiana State University AND Agricultural and Mechanical College Agricultural Experiment Station W. G. Taggart, Director CONTENTS Page Page Nature of damage 3 Flight 14 History and distribution 5 Host plants 17 Description of stages 6 Laboratory tests 17 Egg 6 Field experiments 19 Larva 6 Survey of host plants 20 Pupa 7 Natural enemies 22 Adult 7 Parasites 22 Rearing teclinique 8 Nematodes 22 Development of the insect ... 8 Mites 23 Incubation 8 Predators 23 Larval development and Diseases 23 habits 9 Seasonal occurrence 24 Pujaation 9 Effect on yield of sweet Development of the adult .10 potatoes 24 Mating and oviposition 10 Sanitation and farm practices . -
West Indian Iguana Husbandry Manual
1 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4 Natural history ............................................................................................................................... 7 Captive management ................................................................................................................... 25 Population management .............................................................................................................. 25 Quarantine ............................................................................................................................... 26 Housing..................................................................................................................................... 26 Proper animal capture, restraint, and handling ...................................................................... 32 Reproduction and nesting ........................................................................................................ 34 Hatchling care .......................................................................................................................... 40 Record keeping ........................................................................................................................ 42 Husbandry protocol for the Lesser Antillean iguana (Iguana delicatissima)................................. 43 Nutrition ...................................................................................................................................... -
Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (2012)
FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee Federal Geographic Data Committee June, 2012 Federal Geographic Data Committee FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard, June 2012 ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS PAGE 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Need ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Application ............................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Relationship to Previous FGDC Standards .............................................................. 4 1.6 Development Procedures ......................................................................................... 5 1.7 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................... 7 1.7.1 Build a Scientifically Sound Ecological Classification .................................... 7 1.7.2 Meet the Needs of a Wide Range of Users ...................................................... -
State of New York City's Plants 2018
STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species. -
NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY and the NATIONAL WETLANDS RESEARCH CENTER PROJECT REPORT FOR: GALVESTON BAY INTRODUCTION the U.S. Fi
NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY AND THE NATIONAL WETLANDS RESEARCH CENTER PROJECT REPORT FOR: GALVESTON BAY INTRODUCTION The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory is producing maps showing the location and classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. The Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States by Cowardin et al. is the classification system used to define and classify wetlands. Upland classification will utilize the system put forth in., A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System For Use With Remote Sensor Data. by James R. Anderson, Ernest E. Hardy, John T. Roach, and Richard E. Witmer. Photo interpretation conventions, hydric soils-lists and wetland plants lists are also available to enhance the use and application of the classification system. The purpose of the report to users is threefold: (1) to provide localized information regarding the production of NWI maps, including field reconnaissance with a discussion of imagery and interpretation; (2) to provide a descriptive crosswalk from wetland codes on the map to common names and representative plant species; and (3) to explain local geography, climate, and wetland communities. II. FIELD RECONNAISSANCE Field reconnaissance of the work area is an integral part for the accurate interpretation of aerial photography. Photographic signatures are compared to the wetland's appearance in the field by observing vegetation, soil and topography. Thus information is weighted for seasonality and conditions existing at the time of photography and at ground truthing. Project Area The project area is located in the southeastern portion of Texas along the coast. Ground truthing covered specific quadrangles of each 1:100,000 including Houston NE, Houston SE, Houston NW, and Houston SW (See Appendix A, Locator Map). -
Texas Coast Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh
ECOLOGICAL MAPPING SYSTEMS OF TEXAS: TEXAS COAST SALT AND BRACKISH TIDAL MARSH TEXAS COAST SALT AND BRACKISH TIDAL MARSH Nature Serve ID: CES203.473 Geology: Recent alluvial and eolian deposits along the coast. Landform: Nearly level very gentle slopes, and flats influenced by tides. Soils: Coastal sands and various Salt Marsh Ecological Sites. Description: These marshes occupy relatively low-lying, coastal situations on level landforms influenced by tidal fluctuations. Some sites are only influenced by storm tides, or tides resulting from extreme wind events. The composition of these marshes is primarily influenced by the frequency and duration of tidal inundation. Salinity on some marshes, particularly in the south, is maintained by salt spray from prevailing southeasterly winds. Low marshes are regularly flooded and representative examples are dominated by Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass), Juncus roemerianus (blackrush), or Avicennia germinans (black mangrove). Significant areas of Avicennia germinans (black mangrove) become more frequent towards the south, while extensive areas of Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass) become rare south of Corpus Christi Bay. Areas of decreased frequency and/or duration of tidal inundation are often referred to as high, or irregularly flooded, marsh. These marshes may be dominated by species such as Spartina patens (marshhay cordgrass), Distichlis spicata (saltgrass), Schoenoplectus robustus (sturdy bulrush), Schoenoplectus americanus (three-square bulrush), Sporobolus virginicus (seashore dropseed), Monanthochloe littoralis (shoregrass), and Spartina spartinae (Gulf cordgrass). Shrubs, subshrubs, and forbs, such as Batis maritima (saltwort), Borrichia frutescens (sea ox-eye daisy), Sesuvium portulacastrum (shoreline seapurslane), Salicornia spp. (glassworts), Suaeda linearis (annual seepweed), Limonium spp. (sea-lavenders), and Lycium carolinianum (Carolina wolfberry) are commonly encountered in these marshes. -
Notes on Variation and Geography in Rayjacksonia Phyllocephala (Asteraceae: Astereae)
Nesom, G.L., D.J. Rosen, and S.K. Lawrence. 2013. Notes on variation and geography in Rayjacksonia phyllocephala (Asteraceae: Astereae). Phytoneuron 2013-53: 1–15. Published 12 August 2013. ISSN 2153 733X NOTES ON VARIATION AND GEOGRAPHY IN RAYJACKSONIA PHYLLOCEPHALA (ASTERACEAE: ASTEREAE) GUY L. NESOM 2925 Hartwood Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76109 [email protected] DAVID J. ROSEN Department of Biology Lee College Baytown, Texas 77522-0818 [email protected] SHIRON K. LAWRENCE Department of Biology Lee College Baytown, Texas 77522-0818 ABSTRACT Inflorescences of Rayjacksonia phyllocephala in the disjunct Florida population system are characterized by heads on peduncles with leaves mostly reduced to linear bracts; heads in inflorescences of the Mexico-Texas-Louisiana system are immediately subtended by relatively unreduced leaves. The difference is consistent and justifies recognition of the Florida system as R. phyllocephala var. megacephala (Nash) D.B. Ward. Scattered waifs between the two systems are identified here as one or the other variety, directly implying their area of origin. In the eastern range of var. phyllocephala , at least from Brazoria County, Texas, eastward about 300 miles to central Louisiana, leaf margins vary from entire to deeply toothed-spinulose. In contrast, margins are invariably toothed-spinulose in var. megacephala as well as in the rest of southeastern Texas (from Brazoria County southwest) into Tamaulipas, Mexico. In some of the populations with variable leaf margins, 70-95% of the individuals have entire to mostly entire margins. KEY WORDS : Rayjacksonia , morphological variation, leaf margins, disjunction, waifs Rayjacksonia phyllocephala (DC.) Hartman & Lane (Gulf Coast camphor-daisy) is an abundant and conspicuous species of the shore vegetation around the Gulf of Mexico. -
Widespread Paleopolyploidy, Gene Tree Conflict, and Recalcitrant Relationships Among the 3 Carnivorous Caryophyllales1 4 5 Joseph F
bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/115741; this version posted March 10, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 1 2 Widespread paleopolyploidy, gene tree conflict, and recalcitrant relationships among the 3 carnivorous Caryophyllales1 4 5 Joseph F. Walker*,2, Ya Yang2,5, Michael J. Moore3, Jessica Mikenas3, Alfonso Timoneda4, Samuel F. 6 Brockington4 and Stephen A. Smith*,2 7 8 2Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, 830 North University Avenue, 9 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1048, USA 10 3Department of Biology, Oberlin College, Science Center K111, 119 Woodland St., Oberlin, Ohio 44074- 11 1097 USA 12 4Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EA, United Kingdom 13 5 Department of Plant Biology, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. 1445 Gortner Avenue, St. Paul, MN 14 55108 15 CORRESPONDING AUTHORS: Joseph F. Walker; [email protected] and Stephen A. Smith; 16 [email protected] 17 18 1Manuscript received ____; revision accepted ______. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/115741; this version posted March 10, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 19 ABSTRACT 20 • The carnivorous members of the large, hyperdiverse Caryophyllales (e.g. -
Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY 0 NCTMBER 52 Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae Harold Robinson, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, andJames F. Weedin SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS City of Washington 1981 ABSTRACT Robinson, Harold, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, and James F. Weedin. Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae. Smithsonian Contri- butions to Botany, number 52, 28 pages, 3 tables, 1981.-Chromosome reports are provided for 145 populations, including first reports for 33 species and three genera, Garcilassa, Riencourtia, and Helianthopsis. Chromosome numbers are arranged according to Robinson’s recently broadened concept of the Heliantheae, with citations for 212 of the ca. 265 genera and 32 of the 35 subtribes. Diverse elements, including the Ambrosieae, typical Heliantheae, most Helenieae, the Tegeteae, and genera such as Arnica from the Senecioneae, are seen to share a specialized cytological history involving polyploid ancestry. The authors disagree with one another regarding the point at which such polyploidy occurred and on whether subtribes lacking higher numbers, such as the Galinsoginae, share the polyploid ancestry. Numerous examples of aneuploid decrease, secondary polyploidy, and some secondary aneuploid decreases are cited. The Marshalliinae are considered remote from other subtribes and close to the Inuleae. Evidence from related tribes favors an ultimate base of X = 10 for the Heliantheae and at least the subfamily As teroideae. OFFICIALPUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution’s annual report, Smithsonian Year. SERIESCOVER DESIGN: Leaf clearing from the katsura tree Cercidiphyllumjaponicum Siebold and Zuccarini. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Chromosome numbers in Compositae, XII. -
Red Ring Disease of Coconut Palms Is Caused by the Red Ring Nematode (Bursaphelenchus Cocophilus), Though This Nematode May Also Be Known As the Coconut Palm Nematode
1 Red ring disease of coconut palms is caused by the red ring nematode (Bursaphelenchus cocophilus), though this nematode may also be known as the coconut palm nematode. This disease was first described on coconut palms in 1905 in Trinidad and the association between the disease and the nematode was reported in 1919. The vector of the nematode is the South American palm weevil (Rhynchophorus palmarum), both adults and larvae. The nematode parasitizes the weevil which then transmits the nematode as it moves from tree to tree. Though the weevil may visit many different tree species, the nematode only infects members of the Palmae family. The nematode and South American palm weevil have not yet been observed in Florida. 2 Information Sources: Brammer, A.S. and Crow, W.T. 2001. Red Ring Nematode, Bursaphelenchus cocophilus (Cobb) Baujard (Nematoda: Secernentea: Tylenchida: Aphelenchina: Aphelenchoidea: Bursaphelechina) formerly Rhadinaphelenchus cocophilus. University of Florida, IFAS Extension. EENY236. Accessed 11-27-13 http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in392 Griffith, R. 1987. “Red Ring Disease of Coconut Palm”. The American Pathological Society Plant Disease, Volume 71, February, 193-196. accessed 12/5/2013- http://www.apsnet.org/publications/plantdisease/ba ckissues/Documents/1987Articles/PlantDisease71n02_193.PDF Griffith, R., R. M. Giblin-Davis, P. K. Koshy, and V. K. Sosamma. 2005. Nematode parasites of coconut and other palms. M. Luc, R. A. Sikora, and J. Bridges (eds.) In Plant Parasitic Nematodes in Subtropical and Tropical Agriculture. C.A.B. International, Oxon, UK. Pp. 493-527. 2 The host trees susceptible to the red ring nematode are usually found in the family Palmae. -
Transplanting Palms in the Landscape1 Timothy K
CIR1047 Transplanting Palms in the Landscape1 Timothy K. Broschat2 Palms, when compared to similar-sized broadleaf trees, are Understanding how palm roots grow and respond to being relatively easy to transplant into the landscape. Many of the cut can greatly improve the chances of success when trans- problems encountered when transplanting broadleaf trees, planting palms. In addition, other factors—such as rootball such as wrapping roots, are never a problem in palms due size, leaf removal and tying, physiological age of the palm, to their different root morphology and architecture. While transplanting season, and planting depth—can also have a broadleaf trees typically have only a few large primary roots significant impact on the success of palm transplants. The originating from the base of the trunk, palm root systems purpose of this document is to discuss how these and other are entirely adventitious. In palms, large numbers of roots factors contribute to palm transplant survival rate. of a relatively small diameter are continually being initiated from a region at the base of the trunk, a region called the Transplanting Container-Grown root-initiation zone (Figure 1). And while the roots of broadleaf trees continually increase in diameter, palm roots Palms into the Landscape remain the same diameter as when they first emerged from Container-grown plants often have roots that wrap around the root-initiation zone. the inside of the container. In broadleaf trees, these large, wrapping roots must be cut prior to transplanting, or root distribution patterns and tree stability will be permanently affected. With container-grown palms, however, there is no need to cut such wrapping roots since large numbers of new, adventitious roots arising from the root initiation zone will initially supplement and will ultimately replace those early roots that were confined to the container.