DOCSLIB.ORG

Invasive Plant Inventory and Bird Cherry Control Trials

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Invasive Plant Inventory and Bird Cherry Control Trials MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE NON-NATIVE PLANT SURVEY A survey of non-native plants along major and secondary roads in the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska February 29, 2012 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE NON-NATIVE PLANT SURVEY A survey of non-native plants along major and secondary roads in the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska Prepared for: Anchorage Park Foundation and Municipality of Anchorage Anchorage Park Foundation 715 L Street, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 Prepared by: Helen Klein, Casey Greenstein, Miriah Phelps, Lindsey Flagstad, Helen Cortés-Burns and Matthew Carlson Alaska Natural Heritage Program University of Alaska Anchorage 707 A Street Anchorage, AK 99501 February 29, 2012 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE NON-NATIVE PLANT SURVEY i Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................. IV LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................... VI ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 METHODS .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 I. STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 II. SURVEY METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Systematic plots ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Outlier plots ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Work performed at each plot ................................................................................................................................. 7 Plot naming and numbering convention ................................................................................................................ 7 III. POST-FIELD WORK DELIVERABLES ................................................................................................................................. 8 Voucher collections ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Photo library .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Database ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 IV. POST-FIELDWORK ANALYSES ....................................................................................................................................... 8 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Prioritized species detected within the Municipality ........................................................................................... 11 Species previously unreported within Alaska ....................................................................................................... 15 Species previously unreported within the Municipality ....................................................................................... 16 Non-listed species detected within the Municipality ........................................................................................... 18 I. SENSITIVE AREA TRENDS ........................................................................................................................................... 19 II. SPECIAL NOTE ON ADDITIONAL ANCHORAGE AREA INFESTATIONS ..................................................................................... 19 III. CONTROL ACTIONS COMPLETED TO DATE ..................................................................................................................... 20 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 I. MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES ....................................................................................................................................... 21 HIGH-PRIORITY SPECIES ................................................................................................................................................... 21 A-listed species ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 B-listed species ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 U-listed species .................................................................................................................................................... 41 New arrivals to the State ..................................................................................................................................... 44 New arrivals to the Municipality .......................................................................................................................... 44 Non-listed species ................................................................................................................................................ 46 HIGH-PRIORITY LOCATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 47 Outlier populations .............................................................................................................................................. 47 II. MOWING PLAN ...................................................................................................................................................... 52 HIGHER PRIORITY ROAD SECTIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 55 LOWER PRIORITY ROAD SECTIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 57 III. RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPALITY’S PRIORITIZED LIST OF WEED SPECIES ....................................................... 60 IV. FUTURE PREVENTION AND MONITORING ..................................................................................................................... 61 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 63 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................ 69 APPENDIX I: PRIORITIZED LISTS OF NON-NATIVE PLANT SPECIES IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE ........................................... 69 APPENDIX II: FIELD DATA SHEET ........................................................................................................................................ 73 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE NON-NATIVE PLANT SURVEY ii APPENDIX III: STREET NAME SITE CODE ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 74 APPENDIX IV: VOUCHER LIST ........................................................................................................................................... 75 APPENDIX V: SPECIES LIST ............................................................................................................................................... 77 APPENDIX VI: OUTLIER POPULATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 79 APPENDIX VII: SPECIES BIOGRAPHIES ................................................................................................................................. 84 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE NON-NATIVE PLANT SURVEY iii List of Figures Figure 1. Municipality of Anchorage study area, Alaska .......................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Schematic diagram of a systematic plot location and orientation. ........................................................... 6 Figure 3. Presence of high-priority non-native species at systematic and outlier plots completed for the Municipality of Anchorage roadside survey. ................................................................................................ 11
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Complete Chloroplast Genome of Rhipsalis Baccifera, The
    plants Article Complete Chloroplast Genome of Rhipsalis baccifera, the only Cactus with Natural Distribution in the Old World: Genome Rearrangement, Intron Gain and Loss, and Implications for Phylogenetic Studies 1,2,3, 1,2,3, 1,2,3, 1,2,3 Millicent Akinyi Oulo y, Jia-Xin Yang y, Xiang Dong y, Vincent Okelo Wanga , Elijah Mbandi Mkala 1,2,3 , Jacinta Ndunge Munyao 1,2,3, Victor Omondi Onjolo 1,2,3, Peninah Cheptoo Rono 1,2,3, Guang-Wan Hu 1,2,* and Qing-Feng Wang 1,2 1 CAS Key Laboratory of Plant Germplasm Enhancement and Specialty Agriculture, Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430074, China; [email protected] (M.A.O.); [email protected] (J.-X.Y.); [email protected] (X.D.); [email protected] (V.O.W.); [email protected] (E.M.M.); [email protected] (J.N.M.); [email protected] (V.O.O.); [email protected] (P.C.R.); [email protected] (Q.-F.W.) 2 Sino-Africa Joint Research Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430074, China 3 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] These authors contributed equally to this work. y Received: 1 July 2020; Accepted: 29 July 2020; Published: 31 July 2020 Abstract: Rhipsalis baccifera is the only cactus that naturally occurs in both the New World and the Old World, and has thus drawn the attention of most researchers. The complete chloroplast (cp) genome of R. baccifera is reported here for the first time. The cp genome of R.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of READING Delivering Biodiversity and Pollination Services on Farmland
    UNIVERSITY OF READING Delivering biodiversity and pollination services on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife- friendly farming schemes Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Agri-Environmental Research School of Agriculture, Policy and Development Chloe J. Hardman June 2016 Declaration I confirm that this is my own work and the use of all material from other sources has been properly and fully acknowledged. Chloe Hardman i Abstract Gains in food production through agricultural intensification have come at an environmental cost, including reductions in habitat diversity, species diversity and some ecosystem services. Wildlife- friendly farming schemes aim to mitigate the negative impacts of agricultural intensification. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of three schemes using four matched triplets of farms in southern England. The schemes were: i) a baseline of Entry Level Stewardship (ELS: a flexible widespread government scheme, ii) organic agriculture and iii) Conservation Grade (CG: a prescriptive, non-organic, biodiversity-focused scheme). We examined how effective the schemes were in supporting habitat diversity, species diversity, floral resources, pollinators and pollination services. Farms in CG and organic schemes supported higher habitat diversity than farms only in ELS. Plant and butterfly species richness were significantly higher on organic farms and butterfly species richness was marginally higher on CG farms compared to farms in ELS. The species richness of plants, butterflies, solitary bees and birds in winter was significantly correlated with local habitat diversity. Organic farms supported more evenly distributed floral resources and higher nectar densities compared to farms in CG or ELS. Compared to maximum estimates of pollen demand from six bee species, only organic farms supplied sufficient pollen in late summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Identification Works and Difficult and Under-Recorded Taxa
    Notes on identification works and difficult and under-recorded taxa P.A. Stroh, D.A. Pearman, F.J. Rumsey & K.J. Walker Contents Introduction 2 Identification works 3 Recording species, subspecies and hybrids for Atlas 2020 6 Notes on individual taxa 7 List of taxa 7 Widespread but under-recorded hybrids 31 Summary of recent name changes 33 Definition of Aggregates 39 1 Introduction The first edition of this guide (Preston, 1997) was based around the then newly published second edition of Stace (1997). Since then, a third edition (Stace, 2010) has been issued containing numerous taxonomic and nomenclatural changes as well as additions and exclusions to taxa listed in the second edition. Consequently, although the objective of this revised guide hast altered and much of the original text has been retained with only minor amendments, many new taxa have been included and there have been substantial alterations to the references listed. We are grateful to A.O. Chater and C.D. Preston for their comments on an earlier draft of these notes, and to the Biological Records Centre at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology for organising and funding the printing of this booklet. PAS, DAP, FJR, KJW June 2015 Suggested citation: Stroh, P.A., Pearman, D.P., Rumsey, F.J & Walker, K.J. 2015. Notes on identification works and some difficult and under-recorded taxa. Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland, Bristol. Front cover: Euphrasia pseudokerneri © F.J. Rumsey. 2 Identification works The standard flora for the Atlas 2020 project is edition 3 of C.A. Stace's New Flora of the British Isles (Cambridge University Press, 2010), from now on simply referred to in this guide as Stae; all recorders are urged to obtain a copy of this, although we suspect that many will already have a well-thumbed volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Autographa Gamma
    1 Table of Contents Table of Contents Authors, Reviewers, Draft Log 4 Introduction to the Reference 6 Soybean Background 11 Arthropods 14 Primary Pests of Soybean (Full Pest Datasheet) 14 Adoretus sinicus ............................................................................................................. 14 Autographa gamma ....................................................................................................... 26 Chrysodeixis chalcites ................................................................................................... 36 Cydia fabivora ................................................................................................................. 49 Diabrotica speciosa ........................................................................................................ 55 Helicoverpa armigera..................................................................................................... 65 Leguminivora glycinivorella .......................................................................................... 80 Mamestra brassicae....................................................................................................... 85 Spodoptera littoralis ....................................................................................................... 94 Spodoptera litura .......................................................................................................... 106 Secondary Pests of Soybean (Truncated Pest Datasheet) 118 Adoxophyes orana ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Genus Bruchus Was Restricted by Schilsky (6
    THE HAIRY-VETCH BRUCHID, BRUCHUS BRACHIALIS FAHRAEUS, IN THE UNITED STATES ' By J. C. BRIDWELL, formerly Specialist in Bruchidae and Their Parasites, Division of Stored Product Insects^ Bureau of Entomology, and L. J. BOTTIMER, Assistant Entomologist^ Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture INTRODUCTION The genus Bruchus was restricted by Schilsky (6) ^ to include only the immediate allies of Bruchus pisorum (L.), the pea weevil, of which he tabulated 24 species knowQ to him. To these may be added others doubtfully distinct, imperfectly known, or more recently described, which increase the nominal species of the genus to a total of about 46. All these species are native to the Palearctic region. Two of them are already well known in the United States as major pests of the plants affected. B. pisorum was the first of the genus and one of the first species of the family to be recognized. It was described in 1752, and was recorded as having destroyed in the 1740's the flourishing colonial American industry of producing dry peas for ships' stores. B. ruß- manus Boheman, the broadbean weevil, has now practically destroyed the broadbean industry of Caüfornia. A third species, B, hrachialis Fahraeus, has in recent years gained a foothold in this country, for in 1931 the junior author found it heavily infesting the seeds of vetches growing in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina, and in 1932 it was found in Virginia. In view of these facts it seems wise to present a brief summary of the knowledge at present available of the habits of the members of this genus and to point out the increased danger of their estabhshment in the United States as a result of changed commercial conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlas of the Flora of New England: Fabaceae
    Angelo, R. and D.E. Boufford. 2013. Atlas of the flora of New England: Fabaceae. Phytoneuron 2013-2: 1–15 + map pages 1– 21. Published 9 January 2013. ISSN 2153 733X ATLAS OF THE FLORA OF NEW ENGLAND: FABACEAE RAY ANGELO1 and DAVID E. BOUFFORD2 Harvard University Herbaria 22 Divinity Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138-2020 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Dot maps are provided to depict the distribution at the county level of the taxa of Magnoliophyta: Fabaceae growing outside of cultivation in the six New England states of the northeastern United States. The maps treat 172 taxa (species, subspecies, varieties, and hybrids, but not forms) based primarily on specimens in the major herbaria of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, with most data derived from the holdings of the New England Botanical Club Herbarium (NEBC). Brief synonymy (to account for names used in standard manuals and floras for the area and on herbarium specimens), habitat, chromosome information, and common names are also provided. KEY WORDS: flora, New England, atlas, distribution, Fabaceae This article is the eleventh in a series (Angelo & Boufford 1996, 1998, 2000, 2007, 2010, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c) that presents the distributions of the vascular flora of New England in the form of dot distribution maps at the county level (Figure 1). Seven more articles are planned. The atlas is posted on the internet at http://neatlas.org, where it will be updated as new information becomes available. This project encompasses all vascular plants (lycophytes, pteridophytes and spermatophytes) at the rank of species, subspecies, and variety growing independent of cultivation in the six New England states.
    [Show full text]
  • LIBERTO's SEEDS and BULBS
    LIBERTO’s SEEDS AND BULBS GARDEN SEEDS 2018/2019 Here is a selection of seeds collected from my gardens, Please scroll to the end of the catalog for sowing and ordering instructions. Listings of orange color, are new items in the 2018/2019 list. Acacia cognata 3€/20seeds. A small tree with an interesting weeping form and a light canopy that is very playful with the sun above. Acacia greggii 3€/20seeds. Small deciduous tree with small leaves that gets covered with yellow flowers in late spring. Acacia karoo 4€/20seeds. Slow in the beginning but as soon as it anchors itself onto the ground it creates an umbrella like tree with sweet scented late spring flowers and most importantly 10cm white spines that will protect it from giraffes (if you have them!) and are very ornamental nevertheless. Acacia mearnsii 4€/20seeds. A nice medium sized tree with ferny foliage and pic panicles of soft lemon flowerheads in late spring. Don’t plant in areas where there is a danger of becoming invasive. Aechmea recurvata ´Big Mama´ 3€/20seeds. One of the best (and biggest) recurvata selections that colors up in pinks and oranges when in flower and then goes back to green when in fruit. Aethionema grandiflorum 3€/20seeds. Tough and long lived Aethionema that takes summer drought excellent. Gets covered in pink in spring. Alyssoides utriculata 3.30€/20seeds. Perfectly suited to screes and rocky soils on a big rock garden or equally at home at a Mediterranean drought tolerant border with good air circulation, this useful shrublet has both vibrant yellow flowers and peculiar round seedpods in short stems above the leaves.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Coefficient of Conservatism
    Coefficient of Coefficient of Scientific Name Common Name Nativity Conservatism Wetness Abies balsamea balsam fir native 3 0 Abies concolor white fir non‐native 0 Abutilon theophrasti velvetleaf non‐native 0 3 Acalypha rhomboidea common threeseed mercury native 2 3 Acer ginnala Amur maple non‐native 0 Acer negundo boxelder non‐native 0 0 Acer pensylvanicum striped maple native 5 3 Acer platanoides Norway maple non‐native 0 5 Acer pseudoplatanus sycamore maple non‐native 0 Acer rubrum red maple native 2 0 Acer saccharinum silver maple native 6 ‐3 Acer saccharum sugar maple native 5 3 Acer spicatum mountain maple native 6 3 Acer x freemanii red maple x silver maple native 2 0 Achillea millefolium common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. borealis common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. millefolium common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea ptarmica sneezeweed non‐native 0 3 Acinos arvensis basil thyme non‐native 0 Aconitum napellus Venus' chariot non‐native 0 Acorus americanus sweetflag native 6 ‐5 Acorus calamus calamus native 6 ‐5 Actaea pachypoda white baneberry native 7 5 Actaea racemosa black baneberry non‐native 0 Actaea rubra red baneberry native 7 3 Actinidia arguta tara vine non‐native 0 Adiantum aleuticum Aleutian maidenhair native 9 3 Adiantum pedatum northern maidenhair native 8 3 Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine native 7 Aegopodium podagraria bishop's goutweed non‐native 0 0 Coefficient of Coefficient of Scientific Name Common Name Nativity
    [Show full text]
  • Cow Vetch Vicia Cracca
    Cow vetch Vicia cracca Description Species is a large concern in prairie and other natural habitat restoration or land reclamation projects. Habit Herbaceous, climbing or trailing, perennial, up to 3 ft long forb, 1-3 ft taproot. Leaves Pinnately-divided into 5-11 pairs of linear leaflets, leaf tips with tendrils. Stems Weak; range from 2-3 ft high; clamber over other vegetation; smothering; spreading hairs. Flowers Blue in color, 5-parted, 1/2 in long, calyx base not swollen, inflorescence a crowded, long-stalked Source: MISIN. 2021. Midwest Invasive Species Information Network. Michigan State University - Applied Spatial Ecology and Technical Services Laboratory. Available online at https://www.misin.msu.edu/facts/detail.php?id=163. cluster (raceme) with 20-50 stalked flowers. Fruits and Seeds Seeds are contained in numerous inch long pods, brownish lance-shaped and flat. Habitat Native to Eurasia. Found in fields, roadsides, meadows. Reproduction By seed. Similar American vetch (Vicia americana). Monitoring and Rapid Response Pulling small infestations before seeds develop; spray with selective herbicide such as clopyralid. Credits The information provided in this factsheet was gathered from the USDA PLANTS Database. Individual species images that appear with a number in a black box are courtesy of the Bugwood.org network (http://www.invasive.org).Individual photo author credits may not be included due to the small display size of the images and subsequent difficulty of reading the provided text. All other images appear courtesy of Google (http://images.google.com). Source: MISIN. 2021. Midwest Invasive Species Information Network. Michigan State University - Applied Spatial Ecology and Technical Services Laboratory.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Flowering Plants of South Norwood Country Park
    Flowering Plants Of South Norwood Country Park Robert Spencer Introduction South Norwood Country Park relative to its size contains a wide range habitats and as a result a diverse range of plants can be found growing on site. Some of these plants are very conspicuous, growing in great abundance and filling the park with splashes of bright colour with a white period in early May largely as a result of the Cow Parsley, this is followed later in the year by a pink period consisting of mainly Willow herbs. Other plants to be observed are common easily recognisable flowers. However there are a great number of plants growing at South Norwood Country Park that are less well-known or harder to spot, and the casual observer would likely be surprised to learn that 363 species of flowering plants have so far been recorded growing in the park though this number includes invasive species and garden escapes. This report is an update of a report made in 2006, and though the site has changed in the intervening years the management and fundamental nature of the park remains the same. Some plants have diminished and some have flourished and the high level of diversity is still present. Many of these plants are important to other wildlife particularly in their relationship to invertebrate pollinators, and some of these important interactions are referenced in this report. With so many species on the plant list there is a restriction on how much information is given for each species, with some particularly rare or previously observed but now absent plants not included though they appear in the index at the back of the report including when they were last observed.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Santa Cruz County, California
    ANNOTATED CHECKLIST of the VASCULAR PLANTS of SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECOND EDITION Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland & Maps by Ben Pease CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CHAPTER Copyright © 2013 by Dylan Neubauer All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission from the author. Design & Production by Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland Maps by Ben Pease, Pease Press Cartography (peasepress.com) Cover photos (Eschscholzia californica & Big Willow Gulch, Swanton) by Dylan Neubauer California Native Plant Society Santa Cruz County Chapter P.O. Box 1622 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 To order, please go to www.cruzcps.org For other correspondence, write to Dylan Neubauer [email protected] ISBN: 978-0-615-85493-9 Printed on recycled paper by Community Printers, Santa Cruz, CA For Tim Forsell, who appreciates the tiny ones ... Nobody sees a flower, really— it is so small— we haven’t time, and to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time. —GEORGIA O’KEEFFE CONTENTS ~ u Acknowledgments / 1 u Santa Cruz County Map / 2–3 u Introduction / 4 u Checklist Conventions / 8 u Floristic Regions Map / 12 u Checklist Format, Checklist Symbols, & Region Codes / 13 u Checklist Lycophytes / 14 Ferns / 14 Gymnosperms / 15 Nymphaeales / 16 Magnoliids / 16 Ceratophyllales / 16 Eudicots / 16 Monocots / 61 u Appendices 1. Listed Taxa / 76 2. Endemic Taxa / 78 3. Taxa Extirpated in County / 79 4. Taxa Not Currently Recognized / 80 5. Undescribed Taxa / 82 6. Most Invasive Non-native Taxa / 83 7. Rejected Taxa / 84 8. Notes / 86 u References / 152 u Index to Families & Genera / 154 u Floristic Regions Map with USGS Quad Overlay / 166 “True science teaches, above all, to doubt and be ignorant.” —MIGUEL DE UNAMUNO 1 ~ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~ ANY THANKS TO THE GENEROUS DONORS without whom this publication would not M have been possible—and to the numerous individuals, organizations, insti- tutions, and agencies that so willingly gave of their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]