DOCSLIB.ORG

Rare Vascular Plants of Bibb County, Alabama

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rare Vascular Plants of Bibb County, Alabama RARE VASCULAR PLANTS OF BIBB COUNTY, ALABAMA A. Recently Described Taxa Endemic to Bibb County 1. Alabama gentian-pinkroot: Spigelia gentianoides var. alabamensis 2. Cahaba daisy fleabane: Erigeron strigosus var. dolomiticola 3. Cahaba paintbrush: Castilleja kraliana 4. Cahaba prairie-clover: Dalea cahaba 5. Cahaba torch: Liatris oligocephala 6. Deceptive marbleseed: Onosmodium decipiens 7. Ketona tickseed: Coreopsis grandiflora var. inclinata 8. Sticky rosinweed: Silphium glutinosum B. State Records Found Since 1992 9. Blue wild indigo: Baptisia australis var. australis 10. Catesby's Bindweed: Calystegia catesbiana s. str. (i.d. tentative ) 11. Dwarf horse-nettle: Solanum pumilum (S. carolinense var. hirsutum ) 12. False-cloak fern: Astrolepis integerrima (Notholaena integerrima ) 13. Shining ladies'-tresses: Spiranthes lucida 14. Thorne's beakrush: Rhynchospora thornei 15. Virginia nailwort: Paronychia virginica 16. Wiry beakrush: Rhynchospora capillacea C. Federally Listed Species 17. Mohr's Barbara's-buttons: Marshallia mohrii 18. Tennessee yellow-eyed-grass: Xyris tennesseensis D. Federal Candidates for Listing 19. Georgia aster: Symphyotrichum georgianum ( Aster georgianus ) 20. Georgia rockcress: Arabis georgiana E. Other Rarities 21. Alabama croton: Croton alabamensis 22. Alabama lipfern: Cheilanthes alabamensis 23. Alabama phlox: Phlox pulchra 24. Alabama skullcap: Scutellaria alabamensis 25. Alabama snow-wreath: Neviusia alabamensis 1 26. Allegheny spurge: Pachysandra procumbens 27. Barrens aster: Symphyotrichum laeve var. concinnum ( Aster concinnus ) 28. Bay star-vine: Schisandra coccinea (S. glabra ) 29. Big-flowered grass-of-Parnassus: Parnassia grandifolia 30. Boykin's milkwort: Polygala boykinii 31. Bulblet bladderfern: Cystopteris bulbifera 32. Butler's quillwort: Isoetes butleri 33. Cahaba lily: Hymenocallis coronaria 34. Croomia: Croomia pauciflora 35. Culver's root: Veronicastrum virginicum 36. Decumbent toadshade: Trillium decumbens 37. Eastern wahoo: Euonymus atropurpureus 38. Elliott's fan-petal: Sida elliottii 39. False rue-anemone: Enemion biternatum (Isopyrum biternatum ) 40. Ginseng: Panax quinquefolius 41. Glade beardtongue: Penstemon tenuiflorus 42. Great Plains ladies'-tresses: Spiranthes magnicamporum 43. Heart-leaved plantain: Plantago cordata 44. Impressed-nerved sedge: Carex impressinervia 45. Ivory sedge: Carex eburnea 46. Jamesianthus: Jamesianthus alabamensis 47. Lesser white-topped sedge: Rhynchospora colorata (Dichromena colorata ) 48. Limestone adder's-tongue fern: Ophioglossum engelmannii 49. Lobe-leaved brown-eyed Susan: Rudbeckia triloba var. pinnatiloba 50. Maidenbush Leptopus phyllanthoides (Andrachne phyllanthoides ) 51. Nashville breadroot: Pediomelum subacaule (Psoralea subacaulis ) 52. Needle palm: Rhapidophyllum hystrix 53. Nevius' stonecrop: Sedum nevii 54. One-flowered cancer-root: Orobanche uniflora 55. Ozark bunchflower: Melanthium woodii (Veratrum woodii ) 56. Pineland gentian: Gentiana villosa 57. Plains poppy-mallow: Callirhoe alcaeoides 2 58. Prickly-ash: Zanthoxylum americanum 59. Purple coneflower: Echinacea purpurea 60. Royal catchfly: Silene regia 61. Shadow-witch: Ponthieva racemosa 62. Small-flowered phacelia: Phacelia dubia var. dubia 63. Smith's sunflower: Helianthus smithii 64. Smooth blazing-star: Liatris cylindracea 65. Smooth rosinweed: Silphium trifoliatum var. latifolium 66. Soapwort gentian: Gentiana saponaria 67. Spring coralroot: Corallorhiza wisteriana 68. Streambank St. John's-wort: Hypericum nudiflorum 69. Streamside Barbara's-buttons: Marshallia trinervia 70. Sunnybells: Schoenolirion croceum 71. Wherry's catchfly: Silene caroliniana ssp. wherryi 72. White four-o'clock: Mirabilis albida 73. Wide-leaved bunchflower Melanthium latifolium (M. hybridum ) 74. Widespread gladecress: Leavenworthia uniflora 75. Yellow least gladecress: Leavenworthia exigua var. lutea 76. Yellow-wood: Cladrastis kentukea (C. lutea ) 3 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE
    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.A Conspectus of Mexican Melanthiaceae Including A
    Acta Botánica Mexicana ISSN: 0187-7151 [email protected] Instituto de Ecología, A.C. México Frame, Dawn; Espejo, Adolfo; López Ferrari, Ana Rosa A conspectus of mexican Melanthiaceae including a description of new taxa of schoenocaulon and Zigadenus Acta Botánica Mexicana, núm. 48, septiembre, 1999, pp. 27 - 50 Instituto de Ecología, A.C. Pátzcuaro, México Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=57404804 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto Acta Botánica Mexicana (1999), 48:27-50 A CONSPECTUS OF MEXICAN MELANTHIACEAE INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF NEW TAXA OF SCHOENOCAULON AND ZIGADENUS DAWN FRAME Laboratoire de Botanique, ISEM Institut de Botanique 163, rue A. Broussonet 34090 Montpellier France e-mail: [email protected] ADOLFO ESPEJO Y ANA ROSA LOPEZ-FERRARI Herbario Metropolitano Departamento de Biología, CBS Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Unidad Iztapalapa Apartado postal 55-535 09340 México, D.F. e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Seven new taxa of Schoenocaulon and one more of Zigadenus from Mexico are herein described. In addition, a brief description of the Mexican genera of Melanthiaceae and a key to genera and species known from Mexico are given. RESUMEN Se describen siete nuevos taxa de Schoenocaulon y uno de Zigadenus provenientes de diversos estados de México. Se incluyen claves para la identificación de los géneros y de las especies de la familia presentes en México y se hacen algunos comentarios breves sobre los mismos.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 213 (1995) Volume 104 (3-4) P
    Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 213 (1995) Volume 104 (3-4) p. 213-221 ADDITIONS TO THE FLORA OF SOUTHERN INDIANA, V and VI Michael A. Homoya, D. Brian Abrell, Cloyce L. Hedge, and Roger L. Hedge Division of Nature Preserves Indiana Department of Natural Resources Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 ABSTRACT: Fifty-eight taxa of vascular plants categorized as either 1) new to Indiana, 2) new to southern Indiana, or 3) rarely observed in southern Indiana were found during field inventories from 1 990 through 1 993. Those taxa new to Indiana are: Asclepias viridis, Diodia virginiana, Eupatorium album, Lonicera sempervirens, Lygodium palmatum, Panicum annulum, Paspalum floridanum, Ranunculus sardous, Sedum pulchellum, Senna obtusifolia, Styrax grandifolius, Uvularia perfoliata, and Vitis rupestris. Carex woodii, Chloris verticillata, Hieraceum longipilum, Hypericum adpressum, Lycopodium obscurum, Lysimachia vulgaris, Panicum verrucosum, Panicum villosissimum, Potamogeton pusillus, Puccinellia pallida, Sida hermaphrodita, and Viburnum rafinesquianum are new to southern Indiana. Those taxa rarely observed in southern Indiana include Aristida purpurascens, Azolla (cf.) caroliniana, Bacopa rotundifolia, Bartonia paniculata, Carex gigantea, Carex lupuliformis, Cimicifuga rubifolia, Crotonopsis elliptica, Didiplis diandra, Dryopteris cristata, Eupatorium hyssopifolium, Eupatorium rotundifolium, Festuca paradoxa, Gentiana villosa, Hieraceum caespitosum, Helianthemum bicknellii, Juncus secundus, Leptochloa panicoides, Linum striatum, Ludwigia
    [Show full text]
  • Aullwood's Prairie Plants
    Aullwood's Prairie Plants Taxonomy and nomenclature generally follow: Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Second ed. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, N.Y. 910 pp. Based on a list compiled by Jeff Knoop, 1981; revised November 1997. 29 Families, 104 Species (98 Native Species, 6 Non-Native Species) Angiosperms Dicotyledons Ranunculaceae - Buttercup Family Anemone canadensis - Canada Anemone Anemone virginiana - Thimble Flower Fagaceae - Oak Family Quercus macrocarpa - Bur Oak Caryophyllaceae - Pink Family Silene noctiflora - Night Flowering Catchfly* Dianthus armeria - Deptford Pink* Lychnis alba - White Campion* (not in Gleason and Cronquist) Clusiaceae - St. John's Wort Family Hypericum perforatum - Common St. John's Wort* Hypericum punctatum - Spotted St. John's Wort Primulaceae - Ebony Family Dodecatheon media - Shooting Star Mimosacea Mimosa Family Desmanthus illinoensis - Prairie Mimosa Caesalpiniaceae Caesalpinia Family Chaemaecrista fasiculata - Partridge Pea Fabaceae - Pea Family Baptisia bracteata - Creamy False Indigo Baptisia tinctoria - False Wild Indigo+ Baptisia leucantha (alba?) - White False Indigo Lupinus perennis - Wild Lupine Desmodium illinoense - Illinois Tick Trefoil Desmodium canescens - Hoary Tick Trefoil Lespedeza virginica - Slender-leaved Bush Clover Lespedeza capitata - Round-headed Bush Clover Amorpha canescens - Lead Plant Dacea purpureum - Purple Prairie Clover Dacea candidum - White Prairie Clover Amphicarpa bracteata
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Quality Assessment Report
    FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN INDIANA: THE CONCEPT, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSERVATISM Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) the State tree of Indiana June 2004 Final Report for ARN A305-4-53 EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01 Prepared by: Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Upland, IN 46989-1001 Introduction Since the early nineteenth century the Indiana landscape has undergone a massive transformation (Jackson 1997). In the pre-settlement period, Indiana was an almost unbroken blanket of forests, prairies, and wetlands. Much of the land was cleared, plowed, or drained for lumber, the raising of crops, and a range of urban and industrial activities. Indiana’s native biota is now restricted to relatively small and often isolated tracts across the State. This fragmentation and reduction of the State’s biological diversity has challenged Hoosiers to look carefully at how to monitor further changes within our remnant natural communities and how to effectively conserve and even restore many of these valuable places within our State. To meet this monitoring, conservation, and restoration challenge, one needs to develop a variety of appropriate analytical tools. Ideally these techniques should be simple to learn and apply, give consistent results between different observers, and be repeatable. Floristic Assessment, which includes metrics such as the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean C values, has gained wide acceptance among environmental scientists and decision-makers, land stewards, and restoration ecologists in Indiana’s neighboring states and regions: Illinois (Taft et al. 1997), Michigan (Herman et al. 1996), Missouri (Ladd 1996), and Wisconsin (Bernthal 2003) as well as northern Ohio (Andreas 1993) and southern Ontario (Oldham et al.
    [Show full text]
  • New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited By
    New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited by: Stephen M. Young and Troy W. Weldy This list is also published at the website: www.nynhp.org For more information, suggestions or comments about this list, please contact: Stephen M. Young, Program Botanist New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 518-402-8951 Fax 518-402-8925 E-mail: [email protected] To report sightings of rare species, contact our office or fill out and mail us the Natural Heritage reporting form provided at the end of this publication. The New York Natural Heritage Program is a partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and by The Nature Conservancy. Major support comes from the NYS Biodiversity Research Institute, the Environmental Protection Fund, and Return a Gift to Wildlife. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... Page ii Why is the list published? What does the list contain? How is the information compiled? How does the list change? Why are plants rare? Why protect rare plants? Explanation of categories.................................................................................................................... Page iv Explanation of Heritage ranks and codes............................................................................................ Page iv Global rank State rank Taxon rank Double ranks Explanation of plant
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Chloroplast Genome Analysis Of
    Comparative Chloroplast Genome Analysis of Medicinally Important Veratrum (Melanthiaceae) in China: Insights into Genomic Characterization and Phylogenetic Relationships Ying-min Zhang Yunnan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Li-jun Han Yunnan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Ying-Ying Liu Yunnan provincial food and drug evaluation and inspection center Cong-wei Yang Yunnan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Xing Tian Yunnan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Zi-gang Qian Yunnan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Guodong Li ( [email protected] ) Yunnan University of Chinese Medicine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9108-5454 Research Keywords: Veratrum, Chloroplast genome, Sequences variations, Medicine-herb, Phylogeny Posted Date: December 7th, 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-117897/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Page 1/15 Abstract Background: Veratrum is a genus of perennial herbs that are widely used as traditional Chinese medicine for emetic, resolving blood stasis and relieve pain. However, the species classication and the phylogenetic relationship of the genus Veratrum have long been controversial due to the complexity of morphological variations. Knowledge on the infrageneric relationships of the genus Veratrum can be obtained from their chloroplast genome sequences and increase the taxonomic and phylogenetic resolution. Methods: Total DNA was extracted from ten species of Veratrum and subjected to next-generation sequencing. The cp genome was assembled by NOVOPlasty. Genome annotation was conducted using the online tool DOGMA and subsequently corrected by Geneious Prime. Then, genomic characterization of the Veratrum plastome and genome comparison with closely related species was analyzed by corresponding software.
    [Show full text]
  • A Taxonomic Treatment of the Gentianaceae in Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1979 A taxonomic treatment of the Gentianaceae in Virginia Georgia A. Hammond-Soltis College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Systems Biology Commons Recommended Citation Hammond-Soltis, Georgia A., "A taxonomic treatment of the Gentianaceae in Virginia" (1979). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539625057. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-ry01-2w40 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thou waitest late, and com7st alone When woods are bare and birds have flown, And frosts and shortening days portend The aged year is near his end. Then doth thy sweet and quiet eye Tjook through its fringes to the sky Blue - blue - as if that sky let fall A flower from its cerulean wall. * Bryant , from Wiidflowers of the Alleghanies APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts iL a, d. m / Y m M i - M i iA Author Approved September, 1979 istav W. Hall, Stewart A. Ware, Ph. D. r~V>Dtnn% Pi. 2. Lf&te Donna M. E. Ware, Ph. D. Mitchell A. Byrd , ‘Ph. D. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................ v LIST OF TABLES................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES.................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Floristic Studies of Georgian Sandhill Ecosystems Reveals a Dynamic Composition of Endemics and Generalists James M
    Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern University Honors Program Theses 2017 Comparative Floristic Studies of Georgian Sandhill Ecosystems Reveals a Dynamic Composition of Endemics and Generalists James M. Long Honors College John Schenk Georgia Southern University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/honors-theses Part of the Biology Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Long, James M. and Schenk, John, "Comparative Floristic Studies of Georgian Sandhill Ecosystems Reveals a Dynamic Composition of Endemics and Generalists" (2017). University Honors Program Theses. 247. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/honors-theses/247 This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in University Honors Program Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comparative Floristic Studies of Georgian Sandhill Ecosystems Reveals a Dynamic Composition of Endemics and Generalists By James M. Long Under the mentorship of Dr. John Schenk ABSTRACT Sandhill habitats are characterized by sandy, xeric soils that contain a unique assemblage of plants and animals. Similar to the broader long-leaf pine (Pinus palustris) and wire grass (Aristida stricta) ecosystem that sandhills are a subset of, agriculture, development, and habitat modifications have caused sandhill ecosystems to become degraded, putting many species at risk of extinction. Previous studies have focused on diversity within individual sandhills, leaving us with an incomplete understanding of how these communities form, what species are endemic, whether endemics are widespread across sandhills, and how species have adapted to these communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire in the Southeastern Grasslands, By
    Fire in the Southeastern Grasslands RICHARD J. VOGL Department of Biology California State University Los Angeles, CA 90032 INTRODUCTION ~ERE has been more research on the effects of fire in the southeastern United States than in any region of North America. Most studies have been concerned with the effects of fire on the trees, including the role of fire in controlling hardwood suc­ cession, fire damage to trees, the effects of fire on soils and litter, the influence of fire on conifer growth and reproduction, and the relationships of fire to tree diseases (Garren 1943; Ahlgren and Ahlgren 1960; Cushwa 1968). A lesser, but stilI substantial number of studies have been focused on the effects of fire on forage yields and livestock production (Wahlenberg et al. 1939), and the use of fire in wildlife management in the Southeast. But academic or phy­ tosociological studies of the vegetational composition and of the effects of fire on the understory vegetation are generally lacking. Except for some range and wildlife research and several general studies (Wells and Shunk 1931; Leukel and St<Jkes 1939; Biswell and Lemon 1943; Burton 1944; Lemon 1949, 1967; Campbell 1955; Biswell1958; Hodgkins 1958; Arata 1959; Cushwa et al. 1966, 1970; Wolters 1972) , most investigators have ignored the herbaceous cover or grassland vegetation under southeastern trees. Even early botanists often became more interested in the unusual botanical features such as the southern extent of Appalachian tree species (Harper 1943, 1952), the description of the silaceous dunes of the 175 RICHARD J. VOGL Gulf Coast (Kurz 1942), the habits of eastern red cedar (Harper 1912), the vegetation of the Okefenokee Swamp (Wright and Wright 1932), or why the Black Belt Prairie of Alabama was treeless (Ranking and Davis 1971), thereby neglecting the widespread and common grassland vegetation and its relationship to fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildflower Wonders
    AppalachianThe FREE August/September 2017 VOICE Wildflower Wonders Discover some of the region’s brilliant late-summer blooms Appalachia’s Health Report Residents contend with a rise in black lung disease and opioid abuse along with other environmental threats Cultivating Forest Medicinals | Pipelines Update | Hiking at Kentucky’s Natural Bridge The AppalachianVOICE A note from our team A note from our executive director For many Appalachians, summer means keeping As Appalachian Voices continues to fight new investments in A publication of fossil fuels, we’re also striving to advance clean energy, including Environmental News From Around the Region our gardens watered, spending time in the woods and AppalachianVoices the most effective, low-cost solution — energy efficiency. catching up on home projects. What we don’t typically Home energy efficiency improvements can lift the burden of West Virginia Acquires Land for Newly Reintroduced Elk NC: 589 W. King St., Boone, NC 28607 • 828-262-1500 worry about is our energy costs. But as we lean towards high utility bills — especially for low-income families — and make VA: 812 E. High St., Charlottesville, VA 22902 • 434-293-6373 By Rachel Pressley acquired more than 44,000 acres that The groups are all helping with the a lot of opportunities for public enjoy- fall, tens of thousands of families will once again face homes healthier, all while protecting our air and water from the Other Regional Offices: Knoxville, TN • Norton, VA • Raleigh, NC make up the Wildlife Management Area active elk restoration plan, which, ac- ment,” says Randy Kelley, the state’s elk the worry of how they’re going to pay their energy bills.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping Chesapeake Bay Watershed Acknowledgments
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping Chesapeake Bay Watershed Acknowledgments Contributors: Printing was made possible through the generous funding from Adkins Arboretum; Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management; Chesapeake Bay Trust; Irvine Natural Science Center; Maryland Native Plant Society; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; The Nature Conservancy, Maryland-DC Chapter; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Cape May Plant Materials Center; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Reviewers: species included in this guide were reviewed by the following authorities regarding native range, appropriateness for use in individual states, and availability in the nursery trade: Rodney Bartgis, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Ashton Berdine, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Chris Firestone, Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Chris Frye, State Botanist, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Mike Hollins, Sylva Native Nursery & Seed Co. William A. McAvoy, Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Mary Pat Rowan, Landscape Architect, Maryland Native Plant Society. Rod Simmons, Maryland Native Plant Society. Alison Sterling, Wildlife Resources Section, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Troy Weldy, Associate Botanist, New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Graphic Design and Layout: Laurie Hewitt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Special thanks to: Volunteer Carole Jelich; Christopher F. Miller, Regional Plant Materials Specialist, Natural Resource Conservation Service; and R. Harrison Weigand, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Division for assistance throughout this project.
    [Show full text]