DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Inventories of Schoodic and Corea Peninsulas, Coastal Maine, 1996," for Transmission to the National Park Service, New England I System Support Office

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Inventories of Schoodic and Corea Peninsulas, Coastal Maine, 1996, FINAL REPORT I 'I Biological Inventories of Schoodic and Corea Peninsulas, Coastal Maine, 1996 I . I 'I I - ! June 30, 1999 I By: William E. Glanz, Biological Sciences Department, University of Maine and Bruce Connery, Acadia National Park, Co- Principal Investigators, With Chapters Contributed by Norman Famous, Glen Mittelhauser, Melissa Perera, Marcia Spencer-Famous, and Guthrie Zimmerman UNIVERSITY OF MAINE Department of Biological Sciences o 5751 Murray Hall o 5722 Deering Hall Orono. ME 04469-5751 Orono, ME 04469-5722 207/581-2540 207/581-2970 II FA-,{ 207/581-2537 FAX 207/581-2969 I·J 12 July 1999 Dr. Allan O'Connell Cooperative Park Studies Unit II South Annex A I I University of Maine II Orono, ME 04469 Dear Allan: Enclosed are three copies of the Final Report on "Biological Inventories of Schoodic and Corea Peninsulas, Coastal Maine, 1996," for transmission to the National Park Service, New England I System Support Office. I am delivering two additional copies to Bruce Connery, one for him as ! co-principal investigator and the other to be taken to James Miller at the US Navy base in Winter Harbor. This report is the final report for Amendment # 27 to the Cooperative Agreement between NPS and University of Maine (CA 1600-1-9016). The final version of this report incorporates most of the comments, editing, and suggestions from the reviews submitted to me. Bruce Connery revised the amphibian chapter to include all of Droege's suggestions; his recommendations for monitoring are outlined in the Discussion and Management Recommendations. Hadidian provided detailed editing suggestions, almost all of which were included in the amphibian, mammal and bird chapters. The several "missing" references are now included or corrected in the Literature Cited. The two detailed reviews of the bird chapter by Ralph and PeteIjohn (?) suggested many changes to that chapter. Where more methodological detail was requested, I have questioned Norm Famous (who did not send me any written revisions in response to the reviews) and have included responses to each request. An appendix of scientific and common names of bird species has been added, as urged by PeteIjohn. The first reference to each fruiting plant species now includes a scientific name. Additional references are cited for MAPS banding and species of special monitoring concern. In tables where subjective criteria were used for including bird species, I have imposed objective criteria based on quantitative changes in data on those species. Where the reviewers questioned Famous' proposed causes of population changes, I have chosen to retain those tables, but have omitted the purported causal agents from the tables, focusing them only on numerical changes in counts per species. In the Discussion I have rewritten the text to note factors (such as fruit production) that correlate with these changes and present Famous' 1 THE LAND GRANT UNIVERSITY AND SEA GRANT COLLEGE OF MAINE Printed on [{ecycled Paper evidence for them, but stress that they have not been tested adequately yet. The two reviewers gave conflicting recommendations for future work and techniques to use. I have been selective in incorporating their recommendations, and the final section includes most of Famous' ideas from [I previous drafts, with additional suggestions offered by both reviewers. In the bryophyte vegetation chapter, the editing comments by Hadidian have been followed. The chapter introduction has been extensively rewritten in response to comments by Steve Hubner (Navy), to differentiate bryophytes from other plants and to highlight their importance. More details on transect methodology have been added, as requested by ANP reviewers. The draft sent to ANP was missing a page on cover types. The missing text should clarify certain vegetation or site characteristics that were misinterpreted as site names. In response to the Navy review by Steve Hubner, author contact data have been added following the Acknowledgements on page ix. A summary of all listed species has been added to the Executive Summary, with page references to later text. Listed species are noted in bold type in each chapter, but the location of these may be in either Results or Discussion, depending on the author's presentation; refer to the Executive Summary for page numbers. Both federal and state designations are considered for each taxon. Missing pages and inconsistent table designations have been rectified. I was unable to fully accomodate the final two requests by Hubner. The file for the massive list of 335 vascular plant species in the 1994 inventory was not loaned to me and could not be scanned from its table format into an intelligible format on my computer. That list was compiled by previous investigators on a separate, previous contract, and was included in that project's final report. We or ANP personnel can add our 62 new site records and 9 new species to that list when the file becomes available. In response to Hubner's statement that "there are no management recommendations," I have found them in most chapters, and have added some and strengthened others in each chapter. These recommendations will not satisfy his requirements, as none advocate large-scale environmental manipulations by humans. Many involve limiting disturbance to rare or locally important habitats such as open water sites or certain wetland types; hence, if disturbance to a natural site is necessary, we recommend planning and management of that disturbance so that it affects more widespread or less important habitats. Another specifically addresses the spread of , alien plants, most of which become established at sites with direct disturbance of the vegetation by humans (see Chapter 7). The authors here have not outlined massive environmental manipulations to maintain diversity or certain species, largely because no such species or diversity relationships were identified. The status ofjack pine woodlands (noted by Hubner) was reviewed in the 1994 study, and monitoring, not burning, was recommended. I admit that their finding of no recent regeneration by jack pine in these stands suggests that burning may eventually be needed, but fire ecology was outside the scope of our 1996 inventory, and the timing of such a bum should be based on a more intensive study. Forest community dynamics was not part of the proposed work in 1996, and it is unfair to expect it be included here. Many other 2 recommendations (e.g. amphibians) also outline monitoring that would be necessary before management intervention is employed. I must stress that this study was a biological inventory, and with the 1994 data it provides the first inventory for this region. Inventories are the first step in management, to be followed by monitoring, which in tum will indicate whether manipulative interventions are needed. All three steps are part of management; for the Schoodic region, we are just completing step one for most taxa. Finally, as the Big Moose Navy site is small and embedded in a national park, and the Corea site is a designated Maine Critical Area, large-scale environmental interventions by humans would be difficult to undertake and of questionable legality. So I ask that you please accept the "management recomendations" offered here as sufficient for the scope of this study and as a useful first step toward more advanced forms of management. I will provide Bruce Connery with computer files for the text of this report. If others are needed, I will be happy to provide them. Contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, '\SJ--< ~ William Glanz Associate Professor, Biological Sciences (207) 581-2545 [email protected] 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................. v Acknowledgements and Addresses of Authors.......................................................... IX Chapter 1: Introduction... .. ....... .. ....... .... ...... .. .... ......... ............ ... .......... .................. 1 Chapter 2: Amphibian Inventory .............................................................................. 5 Chapter 3: Terrestrial Mammal Inventory................................................................. 14 Chapter 4: Inventory of Bats................................................ .................................... 22 [1 II Chapter 5: Inventories of Birds ................................................................................ 28 ! l Chapter 6: Bryophyte Vegetation Inventory............................................................. 48 Chapter 7: Additions to the Vascular Plant Flora of the Schoodic Region.................. 72 Chapter 8: General Recommendations for Management and Conservation................. 76 Literature Cited......................................................................................................... 79 Appendix 1. Amphibian Sampling Locations: Maps and UTM Coordinates ............... 87 Appendix 2. Amphibian Species Collected in the Schoodic Peninsula Study Areas, 1996 95 Appendix 3. Maps and UTM Coordinates of Bat Sampling Locations .................... 97 Appendix 4. Maps and UTM Coordinates of Small Mammal Sampling Locations, 1996 103 Appendix 5. Mammal Specimens Collected, Schoodic Region Study Areas, 1996 ..... 108 Appendix 6. Land Mammal Species Recorded from the Schoodic Region .................. 120 Appendix 7. Maps and UTM Coordinates for Bird Survey Sites ................................ 122 Appendix 8. Corea Heath and Schoodic Point
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase I Avian Risk Assessment
    PHASE I AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Report Prepared for: Heritage Sustainable Energy October 2007 Report Prepared by: Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D. John Guarnaccia Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 [email protected] [email protected] Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project, Delta County, MI Phase I Avian Risk Assessment Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Executive Summary Heritage Sustainable Energy is proposing a utility-scale wind-power project of moderate size for the Garden Peninsula on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in Delta County. This peninsula separates northern Lake Michigan from Big Bay de Noc. The number of wind turbines is as yet undetermined, but a leasehold map provided to Curry & Kerlinger indicates that turbines would be constructed on private lands (i.e., not in the Lake Superior State Forest) in mainly agricultural areas on the western side of the peninsula, and possibly on Little Summer Island. For the purpose of analysis, we are assuming wind turbines with a nameplate capacity of 2.0 MW. The turbine towers would likely be about 78.0 meters (256 feet) tall and have rotors of about 39.0 m (128 feet) long. With the rotor tip in the 12 o’clock position, the wind turbines would reach a maximum height of about 118.0 m (387 feet) above ground level (AGL). When in the 6 o’clock position, rotor tips would be about 38.0 m (125 feet) AGL. However, larger turbines with nameplate capacities (up to 2.5 MW and more) reaching to 152.5 m (500 feet) are may be used.
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphic Classification of Rivers
    9.36 Geomorphic Classification of Rivers JM Buffington, U.S. Forest Service, Boise, ID, USA DR Montgomery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Published by Elsevier Inc. 9.36.1 Introduction 730 9.36.2 Purpose of Classification 730 9.36.3 Types of Channel Classification 731 9.36.3.1 Stream Order 731 9.36.3.2 Process Domains 732 9.36.3.3 Channel Pattern 732 9.36.3.4 Channel–Floodplain Interactions 735 9.36.3.5 Bed Material and Mobility 737 9.36.3.6 Channel Units 739 9.36.3.7 Hierarchical Classifications 739 9.36.3.8 Statistical Classifications 745 9.36.4 Use and Compatibility of Channel Classifications 745 9.36.5 The Rise and Fall of Classifications: Why Are Some Channel Classifications More Used Than Others? 747 9.36.6 Future Needs and Directions 753 9.36.6.1 Standardization and Sample Size 753 9.36.6.2 Remote Sensing 754 9.36.7 Conclusion 755 Acknowledgements 756 References 756 Appendix 762 9.36.1 Introduction 9.36.2 Purpose of Classification Over the last several decades, environmental legislation and a A basic tenet in geomorphology is that ‘form implies process.’As growing awareness of historical human disturbance to rivers such, numerous geomorphic classifications have been de- worldwide (Schumm, 1977; Collins et al., 2003; Surian and veloped for landscapes (Davis, 1899), hillslopes (Varnes, 1958), Rinaldi, 2003; Nilsson et al., 2005; Chin, 2006; Walter and and rivers (Section 9.36.3). The form–process paradigm is a Merritts, 2008) have fostered unprecedented collaboration potentially powerful tool for conducting quantitative geo- among scientists, land managers, and stakeholders to better morphic investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthotrichum Hallii Sull
    SPECIES FACT SHEET Common Name: Hall’s Orthotrichum Scientific Name: Orthotrichum hallii Sull. & Lesq. Recent synonyms: Division: Bryophyta Class: Bryopsida Order: Orthotrichales Family: Orthotrichaceae Taxonomic Note: Substratum information is needed to identify this species. Usually sporophytes are needed to identify species within this genus, but the bistratose leaves make this one easy to distinguish. Technical Description: Plants olive-green to dark green, in 2.5 cm tall tuffs or cushions, stems sometimes branched; leaves lanceolate, acute ± obtuse; lamina bistratose, margins entire, recurved below, bistratose in the upper ½, sometimes with unistratose streaks; costa percurrent, upper medial cells irregularly rounded, 9–14m , with 1–3 small conical papillae per cell; basal cells rectangular to short-rectangular, quadrate on the margins; Autoicous, seta 0.5 – 1.0 mm long , immersed when moist to about ½ emergent when dry, oblong, oblong-ovate, stomata immersed in the middle and lower portion of the urn, strongly 8 ribbed ½ to the full length when dry; peristome double, exostome teeth 8, occasionally spilt to 16, incurved when young, spreading or rarely reflexed when old, never erect. Calyptra oblong, smooth, sparsely hairy, hairs papillose. Spores 10–17m, coarsely papillose. Distinctive characters: (1) bistratose leaves, (2) immersed stomata on an eight ribbed capsule. Similar species: Orthotrichum hallii is distinguished from other species of Orthotrichums by its bistratose leaves and oblong, 8-ribbed emergent sporophyte. Other Descriptions and illustrations: Vitt (1973), Sharp, Crum, & Eckel (1994), Lewinsky-Haapasaari & Tan (1995), Lawton (1971), Exeter et al. 2016: 128-130, Vitt (2014): 56. Life History: Few details are known about O. hallii. Protonema, bud and shoot formation are typical for all moss development.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016
    Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016 April 1981 Revised, May 1982 2nd revision, April 1983 3rd revision, December 1999 4th revision, May 2011 Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce Ohio Department of Natural Resources National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Division of Wildlife Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 2045 Morse Road, Bldg. G Estuarine Reserves Division Columbus, Ohio 1305 East West Highway 43229-6693 Silver Spring, MD 20910 This management plan has been developed in accordance with NOAA regulations, including all provisions for public involvement. It is consistent with the congressional intent of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and the provisions of the Ohio Coastal Management Program. OWC NERR Management Plan, 2011 - 2016 Acknowledgements This management plan was prepared by the staff and Advisory Council of the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve (OWC NERR), in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources-Division of Wildlife. Participants in the planning process included: Manager, Frank Lopez; Research Coordinator, Dr. David Klarer; Coastal Training Program Coordinator, Heather Elmer; Education Coordinator, Ann Keefe; Education Specialist Phoebe Van Zoest; and Office Assistant, Gloria Pasterak. Other Reserve staff including Dick Boyer and Marje Bernhardt contributed their expertise to numerous planning meetings. The Reserve is grateful for the input and recommendations provided by members of the Old Woman Creek NERR Advisory Council. The Reserve is appreciative of the review, guidance, and council of Division of Wildlife Executive Administrator Dave Scott and the mapping expertise of Keith Lott and the late Steve Barry.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of New Zealand Mosses
    FLORA OF NEW ZEALAND MOSSES BRACHYTHECIACEAE A.J. FIFE Fascicle 46 – JUNE 2020 © Landcare Research New Zealand Limited 2020. Unless indicated otherwise for specific items, this copyright work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence Attribution if redistributing to the public without adaptation: "Source: Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research" Attribution if making an adaptation or derivative work: "Sourced from Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research" See Image Information for copyright and licence details for images. CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION Fife, Allan J. (Allan James), 1951- Flora of New Zealand : mosses. Fascicle 46, Brachytheciaceae / Allan J. Fife. -- Lincoln, N.Z. : Manaaki Whenua Press, 2020. 1 online resource ISBN 978-0-947525-65-1 (pdf) ISBN 978-0-478-34747-0 (set) 1. Mosses -- New Zealand -- Identification. I. Title. II. Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd. UDC 582.345.16(931) DC 588.20993 DOI: 10.7931/w15y-gz43 This work should be cited as: Fife, A.J. 2020: Brachytheciaceae. In: Smissen, R.; Wilton, A.D. Flora of New Zealand – Mosses. Fascicle 46. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln. http://dx.doi.org/10.7931/w15y-gz43 Date submitted: 9 May 2019 ; Date accepted: 15 Aug 2019 Cover image: Eurhynchium asperipes, habit with capsule, moist. Drawn by Rebecca Wagstaff from A.J. Fife 6828, CHR 449024. Contents Introduction..............................................................................................................................................1 Typification...............................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms
    Title 430 – National Soil Survey Handbook Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms Subpart A – General Information 629.0 Definition and Purpose This glossary provides the NCSS soil survey program, soil scientists, and natural resource specialists with landform, geologic, and related terms and their definitions to— (1) Improve soil landscape description with a standard, single source landform and geologic glossary. (2) Enhance geomorphic content and clarity of soil map unit descriptions by use of accurate, defined terms. (3) Establish consistent geomorphic term usage in soil science and the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). (4) Provide standard geomorphic definitions for databases and soil survey technical publications. (5) Train soil scientists and related professionals in soils as landscape and geomorphic entities. 629.1 Responsibilities This glossary serves as the official NCSS reference for landform, geologic, and related terms. The staff of the National Soil Survey Center, located in Lincoln, NE, is responsible for maintaining and updating this glossary. Soil Science Division staff and NCSS participants are encouraged to propose additions and changes to the glossary for use in pedon descriptions, soil map unit descriptions, and soil survey publications. The Glossary of Geology (GG, 2005) serves as a major source for many glossary terms. The American Geologic Institute (AGI) granted the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) permission (in letters dated September 11, 1985, and September 22, 1993) to use existing definitions. Sources of, and modifications to, original definitions are explained immediately below. 629.2 Definitions A. Reference Codes Sources from which definitions were taken, whole or in part, are identified by a code (e.g., GG) following each definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 2. Summary of Key Project Metrics for Setback Levee Alternatives
    TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF KEY PROJECT METRICS FOR SETBACK LEVEE ALTERNATIVES Existing Metric Units Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Conditions CARBON RIVER, LEVEE, AND FLOODPLAIN Reach River Miles River Miles RM 3.0 - 4.5 RM 3.0 - 4.5 RM 3.0 - 4.5 RM 3.0 - 4.5 RM 3.0 - 3.9 Reach Length River Miles 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.9 New Levee Overall 1.1, plus Miles 1.43 1.61 1.69 1.84 Length 0.3 stub levee New Levee Overall Feet 7600 8500 8900 9700 7400 Length Floodwall Length Feet 0 0 500 0 0 Ties into accredited levee or high ground Yes/No No No No No No upstream? Ties into accredited levee or high ground Yes/No No No No No No downstream? Potential Channel Migration Area (area Acres 0.0 60 122 124 43 between existing levee and setback levee) Reconnected Floodplain Area within Acres 0 45 74 70 23 100-year Inundation Area Reconnected Floodplain Area within Acres 0 34 49 46 20 2-year Inundation Area Carbon River Potential Active Channel Width at RM 3.8 Pinch Point Feet 260 540 540 850 380 (assuming right bank side remains fixed) HABITAT Side channel created Lineal Feet 0.0 3500 3500 3600 600 Existing Metric Units Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Conditions 26 multi-log jams and 583 individual Wood added to active Number key logs 700 750 750 300 channel pieces (Per analysis of 2018 aerial photograph) Wood added to Number key Not 200 250 250 100 floodplain pieces measured Wetlands Impacted by Acres 0.0 7 5 5 4 Levee Footprint Floodplain Riparian and Wetland Acres 0.0 45 61 60 25 Establishment or Enhancement VOIGHTS CREEK Voights Creek Reach Length in Same as Reconnected Miles 0.00 0.16 0.57 0.39 existing Floodplain (Setback condition Levee to Existing Levee) Voights Creek Length Same as SR162 to Setback Miles 0.57 0.41 0.0 0.18 existing Levee condition Crossing at New Crossing New Crossing existing at Setback at Setback levee No new Retains Fish passable Levee Levee -- appears to crossing existing crossings replaces replaces meet WDFW required.
    [Show full text]
  • VH Flora Complete Rev 18-19
    Flora of Vinalhaven Island, Maine Macrolichens, Liverworts, Mosses and Vascular Plants Javier Peñalosa Version 1.4 Spring 2019 1. General introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------1.1 2. The Setting: Landscape, Geology, Soils and Climate ----------------------------------2.1 3. Vegetation of Vinalhaven Vegetation: classification or description? --------------------------------------------------3.1 The trees and shrubs --------------------------------------------------------------------------3.1 The Forest --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.3 Upland spruce-fir forest -----------------------------------------------------------------3.3 Deciduous woodlands -------------------------------------------------------------------3.6 Pitch pine woodland ---------------------------------------------------------------------3.6 The shore ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.7 Rocky headlands and beaches ----------------------------------------------------------3.7 Salt marshes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.8 Shrub-dominated shoreline communities --------------------------------------------3.10 Freshwater wetlands -------------------------------------------------------------------------3.11 Streams -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.11 Ponds -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.11
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Sphagnum</I> Peat Mosses
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE doi:10.1111/evo.12547 Evolution of niche preference in Sphagnum peat mosses Matthew G. Johnson,1,2,3 Gustaf Granath,4,5,6 Teemu Tahvanainen, 7 Remy Pouliot,8 Hans K. Stenøien,9 Line Rochefort,8 Hakan˚ Rydin,4 and A. Jonathan Shaw1 1Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708 2Current Address: Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000 Lake Cook Road Glencoe, Illinois 60022 3E-mail: [email protected] 4Department of Plant Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvagen¨ 18D, SE-752 36, Uppsala, Sweden 5School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 6Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden 7Department of Biology, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101, Joensuu, Finland 8Department of Plant Sciences and Northern Research Center (CEN), Laval University Quebec, Canada 9Department of Natural History, Norwegian University of Science and Technology University Museum, Trondheim, Norway Received March 26, 2014 Accepted September 23, 2014 Peat mosses (Sphagnum)areecosystemengineers—speciesinborealpeatlandssimultaneouslycreateandinhabitnarrowhabitat preferences along two microhabitat gradients: an ionic gradient and a hydrological hummock–hollow gradient. In this article, we demonstrate the connections between microhabitat preference and phylogeny in Sphagnum.Usingadatasetof39speciesof Sphagnum,withan18-locusDNAalignmentandanecologicaldatasetencompassingthreelargepublishedstudies,wetested
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Classification and Mapping Project Report
    U.S. Geological Survey-National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Program Acadia National Park, Maine Project Report Revised Edition – October 2003 Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey. USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Acadia National Park U.S. Geological Survey-National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Program Acadia National Park, Maine Sara Lubinski and Kevin Hop U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center and Susan Gawler Maine Natural Areas Program This report produced by U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 2630 Fanta Reed Road La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603 and Maine Natural Areas Program Department of Conservation 159 Hospital Street 93 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0093 In conjunction with Mike Story (NPS Vegetation Mapping Coordinator) NPS, Natural Resources Information Division, Inventory and Monitoring Program Karl Brown (USGS Vegetation Mapping Coordinator) USGS, Center for Biological Informatics and Revised Edition - October 2003 USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Acadia National Park Contacts U.S. Department of Interior United States Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division Website: http://www.usgs.gov U.S. Geological Survey Center for Biological Informatics P.O. Box 25046 Building 810, Room 8000, MS-302 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225-0046 Website: http://biology.usgs.gov/cbi Karl Brown USGS Program Coordinator - USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Phone: (303) 202-4240 E-mail: [email protected] Susan Stitt USGS Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technologies Specialist USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Phone: (303) 202-4234 E-mail: [email protected] Kevin Hop Principal Investigator U.S.
    [Show full text]