DOCSLIB.ORG

Using Digitized Herbarium Specimens to Predict Potential

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

USING DIGITIZED HERBARIUM SPECIMENS TO PREDICT POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF TENNESSEE’S HISTORICAL ANGIOSPERM SPECIES By Erica A. Rylander Joey Shaw David Aborn UC Foundation Professor of Biology, Geology, Associate Professor of Biology, Geology, and and Environmental Science Environmental Science (Chair) (Committee Member) Nyssa Hunt GIS Analyst (Committee Member) USING DIGITIZED HERBARIUM SPECIMENS TO PREDICT POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF TENNESSEE’S HISTORICAL ANGIOSPERM SPECIES By Erica A. Rylander A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Master of Science: Environmental Science The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga, Tennessee May 2020 ii Copyright © 2020 By Erica Anne Rylander All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Species distribution models (SDMs) have become an essential tool in focusing conservation efforts for species with incomplete distribution records. SDMs enable conservation managers to increase field survey efficiency by prioritizing areas to invest time and financial resources. This application is invaluable for historical species which remain suspended between extant and extirpated, having not been documented in many years, but lack sufficient evidence to be determined extirpated. Identifying suitable habitat and previously unknown locations for species of conservation-concern has historically represented an overwhelming and often impractical task, however the development of model-based sampling approaches has made this task more feasible. Here, SDMs are trained using digitized herbarium specimens to identify suitable habitat and therefore, the potential distribution of 16 historical plant species in Tennessee. The ultimate goal of this work is to provide conservation managers with an effective tool for guiding sampling strategies, enabling the rediscovery of Tennessee’s lost plant species. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge the members of the Shaw Lab, who have provided me with encouragement and thoughtful feedback throughout my work on this project. A tremendous thank you to Courtney Alley, Caleb Powell, John Shelton, and Dax Ledesma. The completion of this project truly would not have been possible without your steadfast support, collaboration, and comic relief. I would like to thank Dr. Joey Shaw for his advice, guidance, and encouragement throughout this process, and for providing me the opportunity to join him on a project which would ultimately lead me to pursue my master’s degree. You have always helped me get back on track when I found myself straying, and for that I am grateful. I must acknowledge Nyssa Hunt, as both a committee member and friend, thank you for always finding a way to resolve my ArcGIS frustrations and for always providing snacks. Thank you to Dr. David Aborn for your thoughtful insights and conservation expertise while serving on my committee. Furthermore, for being a wonderful professor, I am grateful to have learned so much across a variety of disciplines from you throughout my undergraduate and graduate careers. I would like to thank Dr. Thomas Wilson, whose passion for ecology, biology, and geospatial sciences have inspired me and encouraged me to grow as a scientist. A heartfelt thank you to Benjamin Jones, who has stood by my side and helped keep me sane through this entire process. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their unwavering support and guidance throughout my life and my educational career. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................ xiii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 II. TENNESSEE’S HISTORICAL PLANT SPECIES ............................................................ 4 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4 Tennessee’s Historical Angiosperm Species Profiles ......................................................... 11 Agalinis setacea ....................................................................................................... 12 Agrostis mertensii .................................................................................................... 12 Calopogon oklahomensis ......................................................................................... 13 Carex alopecoidea ................................................................................................... 14 Carex sterilis ............................................................................................................ 14 Carex vestita ............................................................................................................ 15 Clematis pitcheri ...................................................................................................... 15 Crotalaria purshii .................................................................................................... 16 Helianthemum bicknellii .......................................................................................... 16 Helianthemum canadense ........................................................................................ 17 Juncus trifidus .......................................................................................................... 18 Lachnocaulon anceps .............................................................................................. 18 Leavenworthia exigua var. lutea .............................................................................. 19 Rhynchospora alba .................................................................................................. 19 Rhynchospora latifolia ............................................................................................. 20 Rhynchospora wrightiana ........................................................................................ 20 Scrophularia lanceolata .......................................................................................... 21 Seymeria cassioides ................................................................................................. 21 Sida hermaphrodita ................................................................................................. 22 Silene regia .............................................................................................................. 23 Tetragonotheca helianthoides .................................................................................. 24 vi III. SPECIES DISTRIBUTION MODELING OF HISTORIC SPECIES IN TENNESSEE USING HERBARIUM SPECIMENS ................................................................................. 25 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 25 Species Distribution Models for Rare Species .................................................................... 26 Utilizing Presence Only-Data from Herbarium Specimens for Predictive Modeling .................................................................................................................. 28 Maximum Entropy Modeling .............................................................................................. 30 Materials and Methods ........................................................................................................ 32 Acquisition of Herbarium Specimen Data ............................................................... 32 Data Cleaning .......................................................................................................... 33 Species Selection ..................................................................................................... 36 Environmental Variable Selection and Processing .................................................. 36 Accounting for Sample Bias .................................................................................... 37 Model Algorithm and Settings Selection ................................................................. 41 Model Evaluation and Analysis ............................................................................... 42 Analysis of Variable Contribution and Environmental Profile ................................ 45 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................ 46 Agalinis setacea (threadleaf false foxglove) ............................................................ 51 Carex alopecoidea (foxtail sedge) ........................................................................... 57 Carex sterilis (dioecious sedge) ............................................................................... 62 Clematis pitcheri (bluebill) .....................................................................................
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

    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.
  • W. MICHAEL DENNIS, Ph.D

    W. MICHAEL DENNIS, Ph.D

    W. MICHAEL DENNIS, Ph.D. Areas of Specialization: Wetland delineation, permitting and mitigation; plant taxonomy and ecology; remote sensing and aerial photointerpretation; threatened and endangered (T&E) species; and wildlife evaluations. Experience: President, Breedlove, Dennis & Associates, Inc. (BDA), Winter Park, Florida. 1997 to present. Principal, BDA, Winter Park, Florida. 1984 to present. Vice President, BDA, Winter Park, Florida. 1983 to 1997. Senior Scientist, Breedlove & Associates, Inc., Gainesville, Florida. 1981 to 1983. Projects and responsibilities included development of technical data and management of projects in the following areas: Vegetation analysis and wetlands jurisdictional evaluations for land development activities in Alachua, Baker, Bay, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Collier, Columbia, Dade, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough ,Indian River, Jackson, Lake, Lee, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Monroe, Nassau, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Volusia, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington counties in Florida. Vegetation mapping of plant communities in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky, New Jersey, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Wetlands evaluations for phosphate, sand, and limerock mining activities. Wetland evaluations and permitting for major theme parks
  • Diversidad Y Distribución De La Familia Asteraceae En México

    Diversidad Y Distribución De La Familia Asteraceae En México

    Taxonomía y florística Diversidad y distribución de la familia Asteraceae en México JOSÉ LUIS VILLASEÑOR Botanical Sciences 96 (2): 332-358, 2018 Resumen Antecedentes: La familia Asteraceae (o Compositae) en México ha llamado la atención de prominentes DOI: 10.17129/botsci.1872 botánicos en las últimas décadas, por lo que cuenta con una larga tradición de investigación de su riqueza Received: florística. Se cuenta, por lo tanto, con un gran acervo bibliográfico que permite hacer una síntesis y actua- October 2nd, 2017 lización de su conocimiento florístico a nivel nacional. Accepted: Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la riqueza actualmente conocida de Asteraceae en México? ¿Cómo se distribuye a lo February 18th, 2018 largo del territorio nacional? ¿Qué géneros o regiones requieren de estudios más detallados para mejorar Associated Editor: el conocimiento de la familia en el país? Guillermo Ibarra-Manríquez Área de estudio: México. Métodos: Se llevó a cabo una exhaustiva revisión de literatura florística y taxonómica, así como la revi- sión de unos 200,000 ejemplares de herbario, depositados en más de 20 herbarios, tanto nacionales como del extranjero. Resultados: México registra 26 tribus, 417 géneros y 3,113 especies de Asteraceae, de las cuales 3,050 son especies nativas y 1,988 (63.9 %) son endémicas del territorio nacional. Los géneros más relevantes, tanto por el número de especies como por su componente endémico, son Ageratina (164 y 135, respecti- vamente), Verbesina (164, 138) y Stevia (116, 95). Los estados con mayor número de especies son Oaxa- ca (1,040), Jalisco (956), Durango (909), Guerrero (855) y Michoacán (837). Los biomas con la mayor riqueza de géneros y especies son el bosque templado (1,906) y el matorral xerófilo (1,254).
  • Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

    Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

    49398 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR time. The information on candidate taxa Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New will be revised and updated continually Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Fish and Wildlife Service by the Regional Offices identified as Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West having lead responsibility for the Virginia. 50 CFR Part 17 particular taxa. The Service anticipates Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Endangered and Threatened Wildlife publishing annually an update of the Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035± and Plants; Review of Plant and candidate notice of review, annual notice of findings on recycled petitions, 9589 (413/253±8615). Animal Taxa That Are Candidates or Region 6. Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Proposed for Listing as Endangered or and annual description of progress on listing actions. Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Threatened, Annual Notice of Findings Utah, and Wyoming. on Recycled Petitions, and Annual ADDRESSES: Interested persons or organizations should submit comments Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Description of Progress on Listing Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Actions regarding a particular taxon to the Regional Director of the Region Denver Federal Center, Denver, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, identified as having the lead Colorado 80225±0486 (303/236±7398). Interior. responsibility for that taxon. Comments Region 7. Alaska. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and ACTION: Notice of review. of a more general nature may be Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, submitted to the Chief, Division of Anchorage, Alaska 99503±6199 (907/ SUMMARY: In this document, the Fish Endangered Species, U.S.
  • Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae

    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.
  • A Landscape-Based Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability for All Native Hawaiian Plants

    A Landscape-Based Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability for All Native Hawaiian Plants

    Technical Report HCSU-044 A LANDscape-bASED ASSESSMENT OF CLIMatE CHANGE VULNEraBILITY FOR ALL NatIVE HAWAIIAN PLANts Lucas Fortini1,2, Jonathan Price3, James Jacobi2, Adam Vorsino4, Jeff Burgett1,4, Kevin Brinck5, Fred Amidon4, Steve Miller4, Sam `Ohukani`ohi`a Gon III6, Gregory Koob7, and Eben Paxton2 1 Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, Honolulu, HI 96813 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawaii National Park, HI 96718 3 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, Hilo, HI 96720 4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service —Ecological Services, Division of Climate Change and Strategic Habitat Management, Honolulu, HI 96850 5 Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawai‘i National Park, HI 96718 6 The Nature Conservancy, Hawai‘i Chapter, Honolulu, HI 96817 7 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Hawaii/Pacific Islands Area State Office, Honolulu, HI 96850 Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit University of Hawai‘i at Hilo 200 W. Kawili St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 933-0706 November 2013 This product was prepared under Cooperative Agreement CAG09AC00070 for the Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center of the U.S. Geological Survey. Technical Report HCSU-044 A LANDSCAPE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY FOR ALL NATIVE HAWAIIAN PLANTS LUCAS FORTINI1,2, JONATHAN PRICE3, JAMES JACOBI2, ADAM VORSINO4, JEFF BURGETT1,4, KEVIN BRINCK5, FRED AMIDON4, STEVE MILLER4, SAM ʽOHUKANIʽOHIʽA GON III 6, GREGORY KOOB7, AND EBEN PAXTON2 1 Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, Honolulu, HI 96813 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawaiʽi National Park, HI 96718 3 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Hawaiʽi at Hilo, Hilo, HI 96720 4 U.
  • Native Orchids of Oklahoma Dr. Lawrence K. Magrath Curator-USAO

    Native Orchids of Oklahoma Dr. Lawrence K. Magrath Curator-USAO

    Oklahoma Native Plant Record 39 Volume 1, Number 1, December 2001 Native Orchids of Oklahoma Dr. Lawrence K. Magrath Curator-USAO (OCLA) Herbarium Chickasha, OK 73018-5358 As of the publication of this paper Oklahoma is known to have orchids of 33 species in 18 genera, which compares to 20 species and 11 genera reported by Waterfall (1969). Four of the 33 species are possibly extinct in the state based on current survey work. The greatest concentration of orchid species is in the southeastern corner of the state (Atoka, Bryan, Choctaw, LeFlore, McCurtain and Pushmataha Counties). INTRODUCTION Since the time of Confucius (551-479 BCE) who mentioned lan in his writings, "acquaintance with The family Orchidaceae is the largest of the good men was like entering a room full of lan or families of flowering plants with somewhere between fragrant orchids" (Withner, 1959), orchids have been 25,000 and 35,000 species, with new species important in many facets of Chinese life including continually being described. There are also literature, painting, horticulture, and not least, numerous natural and artificial hybrids. The only medicine". They are mentioned in the materia place where orchids are not known to occur is medica, “Sheng nung pen ts'ao ching”, tracing back Antarctica. to the legendary emperor Sheng Nung (ca. 28th Orchids fascinate us because of the century BCE). The term "lan hua" in early Chinese seemingly infinite combinations of colors and forms records refers to species of the genus Cymbidium that are found in orchid flowers from the Arctic to (Withner, 1959), most likely Cymbidium the tropical rain forests.
  • NJ Native Plants - USDA

    NJ Native Plants - USDA

    NJ Native Plants - USDA Scientific Name Common Name N/I Family Category National Wetland Indicator Status Thermopsis villosa Aaron's rod N Fabaceae Dicot Rubus depavitus Aberdeen dewberry N Rosaceae Dicot Artemisia absinthium absinthium I Asteraceae Dicot Aplectrum hyemale Adam and Eve N Orchidaceae Monocot FAC-, FACW Yucca filamentosa Adam's needle N Agavaceae Monocot Gentianella quinquefolia agueweed N Gentianaceae Dicot FAC, FACW- Rhamnus alnifolia alderleaf buckthorn N Rhamnaceae Dicot FACU, OBL Medicago sativa alfalfa I Fabaceae Dicot Ranunculus cymbalaria alkali buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot OBL Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny blackberry N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, FACW Hieracium paniculatum Allegheny hawkweed N Asteraceae Dicot Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkeyflower N Scrophulariaceae Dicot OBL Ranunculus allegheniensis Allegheny Mountain buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot FACU, FAC Prunus alleghaniensis Allegheny plum N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, NI Amelanchier laevis Allegheny serviceberry N Rosaceae Dicot Hylotelephium telephioides Allegheny stonecrop N Crassulaceae Dicot Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine N Fumariaceae Dicot Centaurea transalpina alpine knapweed N Asteraceae Dicot Potamogeton alpinus alpine pondweed N Potamogetonaceae Monocot OBL Viola labradorica alpine violet N Violaceae Dicot FAC Trifolium hybridum alsike clover I Fabaceae Dicot FACU-, FAC Cornus alternifolia alternateleaf dogwood N Cornaceae Dicot Strophostyles helvola amberique-bean N Fabaceae Dicot Puccinellia americana American alkaligrass N Poaceae Monocot Heuchera americana
  • Research Article Cytotoxicity of Selected Medicinal and Nonmedicinal Plant Extracts to Microbial and Cervical Cancer Cells

    Research Article Cytotoxicity of Selected Medicinal and Nonmedicinal Plant Extracts to Microbial and Cervical Cancer Cells

    Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology Volume 2012, Article ID 106746, 4 pages doi:10.1155/2012/106746 Research Article Cytotoxicity of Selected Medicinal and Nonmedicinal Plant Extracts to Microbial and Cervical Cancer Cells Gary M. Booth,1 Robert D. Malmstrom,1 Erica Kipp,2 and Alexandra Paul1 1 Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA 2 The New York Botanical Garden, 200th Street and Kazimiroff Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10458-5126, USA Correspondence should be addressed to Gary M. Booth, gary [email protected] Received 2 August 2011; Accepted 16 December 2011 Academic Editor: Ikhlas A. Khan Copyright © 2012 Gary M. Booth et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This study investigated the cytotoxicity of 55 species of plants. Each plant was rated as medicinal, or nonmedicinal based on the existing literature. About 79% of the medicinal plants showed some cytotoxicity, while 75% of the nonmedicinal plants showed bioactivity. It appears that Asteraceae, Labiatae, Pinaceae, and Chenopodiaceae were particularly active against human cervical cancer cells. Based on the literature, only three of the 55 plants have been significantly investigated for cytotoxicity. It is clear that there is much toxicological work yet to be done with both medicinal and nonmedicinal plants. 1. Introduction with the most medicinal species. It was hoped that our data might show some trends of toxicity within medicinally rich There is a one-in-four chance that a drug used from any families.
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerfield, J., and J. Wen. 2002. A morphometric analysis of Hedera L. (the ivy genus, Araliaceae) and its taxonomic implications. Adansonia 24: 197-212. Adams, P. 1961. Observations on the Sagittaria subulata complex. Rhodora 63: 247-265. Adams, R.M. II, and W.J. Dress. 1982. Nodding Lilium species of eastern North America (Liliaceae). Baileya 21: 165-188. Adams, R.P. 1986. Geographic variation in Juniperus silicicola and J. virginiana of the Southeastern United States: multivariant analyses of morphology and terpenoids. Taxon 35: 31-75. ------. 1995. Revisionary study of Caribbean species of Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 78: 134-150. ------, and T. Demeke. 1993. Systematic relationships in Juniperus based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). Taxon 42: 553-571. Adams, W.P. 1957. A revision of the genus Ascyrum (Hypericaceae). Rhodora 59: 73-95. ------. 1962. Studies in the Guttiferae. I. A synopsis of Hypericum section Myriandra. Contr. Gray Herbarium Harv. 182: 1-51. ------, and N.K.B. Robson. 1961. A re-evaluation of the generic status of Ascyrum and Crookea (Guttiferae). Rhodora 63: 10-16. Adams, W.P. 1973. Clusiaceae of the southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89: 62-71. Adler, L. 1999. Polygonum perfoliatum (mile-a-minute weed). Chinquapin 7: 4. Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, and C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 594-630. Affolter, J.M. 1985. A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Bot. Monographs 6. Ahles, H.E., and A.E.
  • Mississippi Natural Heritage Program Special Plants - Tracking List -2018

    Mississippi Natural Heritage Program Special Plants - Tracking List -2018

    MISSISSIPPI NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM SPECIAL PLANTS - TRACKING LIST -2018- Approximately 3300 species of vascular plants (fern, gymnosperms, and angiosperms), and numerous non-vascular plants may be found in Mississippi. Many of these are quite common. Some, however, are known or suspected to occur in low numbers; these are designated as species of special concern, and are listed below. There are 495 special concern plants, which include 4 non- vascular plants, 28 ferns and fern allies, 4 gymnosperms, and 459 angiosperms 244 dicots and 215 monocots. An additional 100 species are designated “watch” status (see “Special Plants - Watch List”) with the potential of becoming species of special concern and include 2 fern and fern allies, 54 dicots and 44 monocots. This list is designated for the primary purposes of : 1) in environmental assessments, “flagging” of sensitive species that may be negatively affected by proposed actions; 2) determination of protection priorities of natural areas that contain such species; and 3) determination of priorities of inventory and protection for these plants, including the proposed listing of species for federal protection. GLOBAL STATE FEDERAL SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS BRYOPSIDA Callicladium haldanianum Callicladium Moss G5 SNR Leptobryum pyriforme Leptobryum Moss G5 SNR Rhodobryum roseum Rose Moss G5 S1? Trachyxiphium heteroicum Trachyxiphium Moss G2? S1? EQUISETOPSIDA Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail G5 S1S2 FILICOPSIDA Adiantum capillus-veneris Southern Maidenhair-fern G5 S2 Asplenium
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas

    Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas

    ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D.