DOCSLIB.ORG

Sensitive and Conservation Plant Species Winn Range

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Botanical Report for Herbicide Release for Longleaf Pine Plantations 2013: Sensitive and Conservation Plant Species Winn Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest Southern Region USDA Forest Service Proposed Actions: Herbicide release on 535 acres in 17 separate stands of young longleaf pine trees. Contact Person: David Moore Forest Botanist, Kisatchie National Forest 2500 Shreveport Highway Pineville, LA (318) 473-7016 [email protected] Abstract. The Winn RD is proposing an herbicide release project in 17 longleaf pine plantations encompassing 535 acres. The herbicides proposed for use are triclopyr, imazapyr, and glyphosate. The herbicides will be applied as per label instructions, and by following Forest Service regulations and guidelines. This treatment should kill the competing understory and release the newly-planted longleaf pine trees. This action will also prevent further or future damage to trees after applications have been completed. Surveys were conducted by Moore on September 20, September 21, October 17, October 19, 2012, Nov. 8, 2012, Dec. 6, 2012 and Dec. 12, 2012. No sensitive or conservation plant species were found. No significant populations of non-native invasive species (NNIS) were found. It is expected that none of the 81 sensitive or conservation plant species on the Kisatchie National Forest will occur in the project area, and no trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability is expected to result from the proposed actions. Introduction and Proposed Management Actions This botanical report considers the effects of herbicide release in 17 longleaf pine plantations on the Winn Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest, Louisiana. Sensitive Plant Species are identified on the USFS Region 8 Intranet, at http://fsweb.r8.fs.fed.us/nr/fwr/PETS_FSWeb/ref/fs/080701_rfss_fsweb.xls. Conservation plant species are identified under the the1999 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (below called the ―Forest Plan‖) for the Kisatchie National Forest (NF). Moore performed surveys for TESC plant species and their habitats in select stands that comprise the project area (Table 1) on September 20, September 21, October 17, October 19, 2012, Nov. 8, 2012, Dec. 6, 2012 and Dec. 12, 2012. Forest Service direction relevant to this project 1 includes the 1999 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Kisatchie NF, the Environmental Impact Statement for the 1999 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, and Forest Service Manual (FSM) section 2670.32. The Forest Plan has guidelines regarding such habitats as bogs, bayhead swamps, calcareous prairies, calcareous streamside forest, glades, and barrens in Forest Wide (FW) standards and guidelines FW-677 through FW- 700 on pages 2-57 through 2-60. Table 1. Stands that comprise the Project Area. Road#/ Miles/ Cmpt Activity** Stand# Acres 4 6 26 Herbicide Release 10 9 18 Herbicide Release 22 19 58 Herbicide Release 23 30 16 Herbicide Release 28 25 25 Herbicide Release 33 10 36 Herbicide Release 36 27 33 Herbicide Release 48 27 34 Herbicide Release 61 10 17 Herbicide Release 63 23 17 Herbicide Release 64 22 29 Herbicide Release 65 12 30 Herbicide Release 68 28 77 Herbicide Release 68 31 32 Herbicide Release 69 1 10 Herbicide Release 79 2 43 Herbicide Release 115 42 34 Herbicide Release The forest plan also divides the Kisatchie NF into different sub-management areas, which, much like a city’s zoning plan, emphasize different goals in each sub-management area. This botanical report will consider which sensitive or conservation plant species may be present in the project area based on their habitat requirements, which conservation plant species have been found in the project area, and which conservation plant species will be excluded from further consideration based on a lack of appropriate habitat. The effects of the proposed actions on those plant species retained for further consideration will be evaluated and a determination of effects provided. Consultation history No consultation with other agencies occurred with regard to plant surveys because no threatened or endangered plants are known to occur on the Kisatchie NF and the project is occurring exclusively on Forest Service land. Conservation plant species considered and plant species evaluated A. General Considerations 2 The conservation plant species are taken from Table 3-7 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan. Not all of the species on this list have suitable habitat within the project area, or they may be found in habitats that may be present, but are prohibited from disturbance under the Forest Plan. With regard to the latter, it is important to note that the Forest Plan prohibits most activities that would disturb the land within 50 feet of a stream (this zone is known as a streamside habitat protection zone or SHPZ), including timber production, regeneration by clearcutting, seed-tree, or shelterwood, salvage of single or double trees, mechanical site preparation, log decks or landings, and extraction of common variety minerals (Forest Wide standards FW-510 and FW-511 on page 2-43 of the Forest Plan. An important consideration for determining which plant species to consider further is their habitat requirements. Plants whose habitats are not found in the project area do not need to be considered further. Different authors have used different terms to describe the same habitats, which can cause confusion. To make the terminology more uniform, the habitat terms used below are taken from the habitat types recognized by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, in particular the terms used in their surveys of the Kisatchie National Forest, such as Martin and Smith (1991). Table 2 below indicates which of the species considered were excluded from further analysis and the reasons for their exclusion. In the sections below the effects of the proposed project on the species that were not excluded will be evaluated. Table 2. Sensitive and Conservation plant species, their habitats, and whether or not these species are retained for further consideration. Considered Scientific name Common name Status Habitats found in further? Mixed hardwood/loblolly forest, small Amsonia ludoviciana Vail Louisiana bluestar S No stream forest Andropodon liebmannii Mohr’s bluestem C Western upland longleaf pine forest No Hack.1 Narrow-leaved Asclepias stenophylla Gray C Cook Mountain/ Jackson Calcareous Priarie No milkweed Black-stemmed Asplenium resiliens L. C Limestone outcrops No spleenwort Asplenium trichomanes L. Maidenhair spleenwort C Limestone outcrops No Astragalus crassicarpus Nutt. var. trichocalyx (Nutt.) Ground-plum C Cook Mountain/ Jackson Calcareous Priarie No Barneby Astragalus soxmaniorum Soxman's milkvetch C Western xeric sandhills Yes Lundell 1 Andropogon liebmannii is now referred to as Andropogon mohri (Hachk.) Hack. Ex. Vases according to the USDA Plants database at http://plants.usda.gov 3 Burmannia biflora L. Northern burmannia C Forested Seep, Bayhead Swamp No Calopogon barbatus (Walt.) Bearded grass-pink C Western Hillside Seepage Bog No Ames Calopogon oklahomensis Oklahoma grasspink C Western Hillside Seepage Bog No D.H. Goldman Camassia scilloides (Raf.) Wild hyacinth C Calcareous Forest No Cory Carex decomposita Muhl. Epiphytic sedge S/C Baldcypress Swamp, Bayhead Swamp No Cook Mountain/ Jackson Calcareous Prairie, Carex meadii Dewey Mead’s sedge C No Coastal Prairie Carex microdonta Torr. & Cook Mountain/ Jackson Calcareous Prairie, Small-toothed sedge C No Hook Coastal Prairie Carex stricta Lam. Tussock sedge C Small stream forest No Ceanothus herbaceous Raf. Prairie redroot C Cook Moutain/ Jackson calcareous prairie No Cheilanthes alabamensis Alabama lip-fern C Limestone Outcrop No (Buckl.) Kunzes Cheilanthes lanosa (Michx.) Sandstone outcrops in Western Upland Hairy lip-fern C No D. C. Eaton Longleaf Forest Cyperus grayioides Mohlenbrock's S Sandy woodland Yes Mohlenbr. Umbrella-sedge Cypripedium kentuckiense Southern Lady's Bottomland forest, Hardwood slope forest, S No C.F. Reed slipper Mixed hardwood/loblolly forest Hardwood Slope Forest, Mixed Hardwood- Dodecatheon meadia L. Shooting star C No Loblolly Forest, Calcareous Forest Draba cuneifolia Nutt. ex T. Wedge-leaved Western xeric sandhill, Calcareous Prairie, C Yes & G. Whitlow grass Cheniers Echinacea purpurea (L.) Purple coneflower C Calcareous prairie, Calcareous forest No Moench Long-leaved wild Eriogonum longifolium Nutt. C Western xeric sandhills Yes buckwheat Euphorbia discoidalis Summer Spurge S Mixed Harwood-Loblolly Forest No Chapm. Mixed Harwood-Loblolly Forest, Hardwood Geranium maculatum L. Wild geranium C No Slope Forest Hedyotis purpurea L. var. Purple bluet C Cook Mountain/ Jackson calcareous prairies No calycosa Gray Heliotropium tenellum (Nutt.) Cook Mountain/ Jackson calcareous prairie, Slender heliotrope C No Torr.2 beech ridges with shelly-sand substrate 2 This taxa is incorrectly referred to as Lithospermum tenellum (Nutt.) Torr. in the Environmental Impact Statement to the 1999 Forest Land Management and Resource plan for the Kisatchie NF. 4 Hexalectris spicata (Walt.) Mixed Hardwood-Loblolly Forest, Crested coral-root C No Barnh. Calcareous Forest, Hardwood Slope Forest Koeleria macrantha (Ledeb.) June grass C Calcareous Prairie No Schult. Lachnocaulon digynum Western hillside seepage bog, pine flatwoods Pineland bogbutton S No Koern. Bayhead swamp Jackson calcareous prairie, Western upland Liatris tenuis Shinners Slender gay feather S No longleaf pine forest, Sandy woodland
Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
  • 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.
  • Conference Series

    Conference Series

    Jurnal Biosains Vol. 6 No. 2 Agustus 2020 ISSN 2443-1230 (cetak) DOI: https://doi.org/10.24114/jbio.v6i2.17608 ISSN 2460-6804 (online) JBIO: JURNAL BIOSAINS (The Journal of Biosciences) http://jurnal.unimed.ac.id/2012/index.php/biosains email : [email protected] IDENTIFICATION OF MYCOHETEROTROPHIC PLANTS (Burmanniaceae, Orchidaceae, Polygalaceae, Tiuridaceae) IN NORTH SUMATRA, INDONESIA 1Dina Handayani, 1Salwa Rezeqi, 1Wina Dyah Puspita Sari, 2Yusran Efendi Ritonga, 2Hary Prakasa 1Department of Biology, FMIPA, State University of Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia. Jl. Willem Iskandar/ Pasar V, Kenangan Baru, Medan, Sumatera Utara, Indonesia 2Biologi Pecinta Alam Sumatera Utara (BIOTA SUMUT), Gg. Obat II No.14, Sei Kera Hilir II, Kec. Medan Perjuangan, Kota Medan, Sumatera Utara 20233 Email korespondensi: [email protected] Received: Februari 2020; Revised: Juli 2020; Accepted: Agustus 2020 ABSTRACT The majority of mycoheterotrophic herbs live in shady and humid forest. Therefore, the types of mycoheterotrophic plant are very abundant in tropical areas. One of the areas in Indonesia with the tropics is North Sumatera province. Unfortunately, the information about the species of mycoheterotrophic in North Sumatra is still limited. The objective of the research was to figure out the types of mycoheterotrophic plants in North Sumatra. The study was conducted in August until October 2019 in several areas of the Natural Resources Conservation Hall (BBKSDA) of North Sumatra province, the nature Reserve and nature Park. The research sites covered Tinggi Raja Nature Reserve, Dolok Sibual-Buali Nature Reserve, Sibolangit Tourist Park and Sicike-Cike Natural Park. In conducting sampling, the method used was through exploration or cruising method.
  • The Natural Communities of South Carolina

    The Natural Communities of South Carolina

    THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA BY JOHN B. NELSON SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE & MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 1986 INTRODUCTION The maintenance of an accurate inventory of a region's natural resources must involve a system for classifying its natural communities. These communities themselves represent identifiable units which, like individual plant and animal species of concern, contribute to the overall natural diversity characterizing a given region. This classification has developed from a need to define more accurately the range of natural habitats within South Carolina. From the standpoint of the South Carolina Nongame and Heritage Trust Program, the conceptual range of natural diversity in the state does indeed depend on knowledge of individual community types. Additionally, it is recognized that the various plant and animal species of concern (which make up a significant remainder of our state's natural diversity) are often restricted to single natural communities or to a number of separate, related ones. In some cases, the occurrence of a given natural community allows us to predict, with some confidence, the presence of specialized or endemic resident species. It follows that a reasonable and convenient method of handling the diversity of species within South Carolina is through the concept of these species as residents of a range of natural communities. Ideally, a nationwide classification system could be developed and then used by all the states. Since adjacent states usually share a number of community types, and yet may each harbor some that are unique, any classification scheme on a national scale would be forced to recognize the variation in a given community from state to state (or region to region) and at the same time to maintain unique communities as distinctive.
  • Diversification of Myco-Heterotrophic Angiosperms: Evidence From

    Diversification of Myco-Heterotrophic Angiosperms: Evidence From

    BMC Evolutionary Biology BioMed Central Research article Open Access Diversification of myco-heterotrophic angiosperms: Evidence from Burmanniaceae Vincent Merckx*1, Lars W Chatrou2, Benny Lemaire1, Moses N Sainge3, Suzy Huysmans1 and Erik F Smets1,4 Address: 1Laboratory of Plant Systematics, K.U. Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 31, P.O. Box 2437, BE-3001 Leuven, Belgium, 2National Herbarium of the Netherlands, Wageningen University Branch, Generaal Foulkesweg 37, NL-6703 BL Wageningen, The Netherlands, 3Centre for Tropical Forest Sciences (CTFS), University of Buea, Department of Plant & Animal Sciences, P.O. Box 63, Buea, Cameroon and 4National Herbarium of the Netherlands, Leiden University Branch, P.O. Box 9514, NL-2300 RA, Leiden, The Netherlands Email: Vincent Merckx* - [email protected]; Lars W Chatrou - [email protected]; Benny Lemaire - [email protected]; Moses N Sainge - [email protected]; Suzy Huysmans - [email protected]; Erik F Smets - [email protected] * Corresponding author Published: 23 June 2008 Received: 25 February 2008 Accepted: 23 June 2008 BMC Evolutionary Biology 2008, 8:178 doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-178 This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/178 © 2008 Merckx et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background: Myco-heterotrophy evolved independently several times during angiosperm evolution. Although many species of myco-heterotrophic plants are highly endemic and long- distance dispersal seems unlikely, some genera are widely dispersed and have pantropical distributions, often with large disjunctions.
  • 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.
  • Specificity of Assemblage, Not Fungal Partner Species, Explains

    Specificity of Assemblage, Not Fungal Partner Species, Explains

    The ISME Journal (2021) 15:1614–1627 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-020-00874-x ARTICLE Specificity of assemblage, not fungal partner species, explains mycorrhizal partnerships of mycoheterotrophic Burmannia plants 1 1 2 3,4 2 Zhongtao Zhao ● Xiaojuan Li ● Ming Fai Liu ● Vincent S. F. T. Merckx ● Richard M. K. Saunders ● Dianxiang Zhang 1 Received: 9 July 2020 / Revised: 29 November 2020 / Accepted: 7 December 2020 / Published online: 6 January 2021 © The Author(s) 2021. This article is published with open access Abstract Mycoheterotrophic plants (MHPs) growing on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) usually maintain specialized mycorrhizal associations. The level of specificity varies between MHPs, although it remains largely unknown whether interactions with mycorrhizal fungi differ by plant lineage, species, and/or by population. Here, we investigate the mycorrhizal interactions among Burmannia species (Burmanniaceae) with different trophic modes using high-throughput DNA sequencing. We characterized the inter- and intraspecific dynamics of the fungal communities by assessing the composition and diversity of fungi among sites. We found that fully mycoheterotrophic species are more specialized in their 1234567890();,: 1234567890();,: fungal associations than chlorophyllous species, and that this specialization possibly results from the gradual loss of some fungal groups. In particular, although many fungal species were shared by different Burmannia species, fully MHP species typically host species-specific fungal assemblages, suggesting that they have a preference for the selected fungi. Although no apparent cophylogenetic relationship was detected between fungi and plants, we observe that evolutionarily closely related plants tend to have a greater proportion of shared or closely related fungal partners. Our findings suggest a host preference and specialization toward fungal assemblages in Burmannia, improving understanding of interactions between MHPs and fungi.
  • ATLAS of FLORIDA PLANTS - 7/29/19 Lake County Native Species

    ATLAS of FLORIDA PLANTS - 7/29/19 Lake County Native Species

    ATLAS OF FLORIDA PLANTS - 7/29/19 Lake County Native Species Scientific_Name Common_Name Endemic State US 1 Abutilon hulseanum MAUVE N 2 Acalypha gracilens SLENDER THREESEED MERCURY N 3 Acalypha ostryifolia PINELAND THREESEED MERCURY N 4 Acer negundo BOXELDER N 5 Acer rubrum RED MAPLE N 6 Acrolejeunea heterophylla 7 Acrostichum danaeifolium GIANT LEATHER FERN N 8 Aeschynomene americana SHYLEAF N 9 Aeschynomene viscidula STICKY JOINTVETCH N 10 Aesculus pavia RED BUCKEYE N 11 Agalinis fasciculata BEACH FALSE FOXGLOVE N 12 Agalinis filifolia SEMINOLE FALSE FOXGLOVE N 13 Agalinis linifolia FLAXLEAF FALSE FOXGLOVE N 14 Agalinis plukenetii PLUKENET'S FALSE FOXGLOVE N 15 Agarista populifolia FLORIDA HOBBLEBUSH; PIPESTEM N 16 Ageratina jucunda HAMMOCK SNAKEROOT N 17 Aletris lutea YELLOW COLICROOT N 18 Allium canadense var. canadense MEADOW GARLIC N 19 Amaranthus australis SOUTHERN AMARANTH N 20 Amblystegium serpens 21 Ambrosia artemisiifolia COMMON RAGWEED N 22 Amorpha fruticosa BASTARD FALSE INDIGO N 23 Amorpha herbacea var. herbacea CLUSTERSPIKE FALSE INDIGO N 24 Amphicarpum muehlenbergianum BLUE MAIDENCANE N 25 Amsonia ciliata FRINGED BLUESTAR N 26 Andropogon brachystachyus SHORTSPIKE BLUESTEM N 27 Andropogon floridanus FLORIDA BLUESTEM N 28 Andropogon glomeratus var. glaucopsis PURPLE BLUESTEM N 29 Andropogon glomeratus var. hirsutior BUSHY BLUESTEM N 30 Andropogon glomeratus var. pumilus BUSHY BLUESTEM N 31 Andropogon gyrans ELLIOTT'S BLUESTEM N 32 Andropogon longiberbis HAIRY BLUESTEM N 33 Andropogon ternarius SPLITBEARD BLUESTEM N 34 Andropogon
  • 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.
  • 4Th Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference

    4Th Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference

    Stephen F. Austin State University SFA ScholarWorks Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference SFA Gardens 2008 4th Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference David Creech Dept of Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State University, [email protected] Greg Grant Stephen F. Austin State University James Kroll Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State University, [email protected] Dawn Stover Stephen F. Austin State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/sfa_gardens_lonestar Part of the Agricultural Education Commons, Botany Commons, Forest Sciences Commons, Horticulture Commons, Other Plant Sciences Commons, and the Viticulture and Oenology Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Repository Citation Creech, David; Grant, Greg; Kroll, James; and Stover, Dawn, "4th Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference" (2008). Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference. 6. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/sfa_gardens_lonestar/6 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the SFA Gardens at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference by an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. • In 00 5' --. , In Associqtion with the cullowhee Nqtive plqnt Confetence Ptoceec!ings ofthe 4th Lone Stat Regional Native Plant Confetence Hoste~ by Stephen F. Austin St~te University Pineywoods N~tive PI~nt Centel' N~cogdoches, Texqs M~y 28-31,2008 Proceed ings ofthe 4th
  • Lilioceris Egena Air Potato Biocontrol Environmental Assessment

    Lilioceris Egena Air Potato Biocontrol Environmental Assessment

    United States Department of Field Release of the Beetle Agriculture Lilioceris egena (Coleoptera: Marketing and Regulatory Chrysomelidae) for Classical Programs Biological Control of Air Potato, Dioscorea bulbifera (Dioscoreaceae), in the Continental United States Environmental Assessment, February 2021 Field Release of the Beetle Lilioceris egena (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) for Classical Biological Control of Air Potato, Dioscorea bulbifera (Dioscoreaceae), in the Continental United States Environmental Assessment, February 2021 Agency Contact: Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Rd., Unit 133 Riverdale, MD 20737 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form.