DOCSLIB.ORG

Changes in the Marsh and Aquatic Vascular Flora of East Harbor State Park, Ottawa County, Ohio, Since 18951

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Changes in the Marsh and Aquatic Vascular Flora of East Harbor State Park, Ottawa County, Ohio, Since 18951 CHANGES IN THE MARSH AND AQUATIC VASCULAR FLORA OF EAST HARBOR STATE PARK, OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO, SINCE 18951 DAVID L. MOORE, Department of Botany, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 Abstract. Numerous changes in the marsh and aquatic flora of East Harbor State Park have occurred since 1895. Of the 89 species collected and identified before 1900, 22 are no longer present. This represents a loss of approximately 25% of the species originally reported by Moseley (1899) and Pieters (1901). The species lost would rise to 42%, if those species formerly abundant, but now rare, or occurring as one or two small, isolated populations disappear. Probable causes for these changes are wind and water erosion, fluctuating water levels, dredging, establishment and spread of species new to the park, and increase or decrease in abundance of species already present. OHIO J. SCI. 76(2): 78, 1976. Since it was purchased in 1946 as a These sites were visited at two week intervals from June to August 1972, with additional col- site for an outdoor recreational facility, lections in April, May, September, and October. East Harbor State Park has undergone Plant specimens representing all the vascular both natural and artificial changes. The taxa present were collected by traversing the park is located on the south shore of Lake study sites on foot in paths parallel to the shore- line of both Middle and East Harbor, until the Erie, 81 miles west of Cleveland and 45 entire study site had been covered. The water miles east of Toledo, near Sandusky, at surfaces of study sites III, IV, V, and VI were the junction of State Routes 163 and 269 surveyed by canoe. A drag hook was employed in Danbury Township, Ottawa County, to sample the submersed aquatics. Two aerial photo flights were used to map the study sites Ohio (fig. 1). The site is an extensive and shoreline as well as to plot large communi- sand beach behind which is swamp, ties of aquatics. Voucher specimens were woods, marsh, and open water. The dried, mounted, and deposited at the Ohio water portions are divided by a causeway State University Herbarium after identification was completed. Pieters (1901), Moseley (1899), into East and Middle Harbors, although and 14 other investigators (see Moore, 1973) a seven foot culvert permits mixing of the had studied the same area and their data was water masses. used for comparison with my own study. An Pieters' (1901) enumeration and de- analytical list of collected species appears as scription of the plants present at East table 2. Harbor provide a reference point from which to judge the changes occurring RESULTS AND DISCUSSION there since 1898. The following year, The park lies at the extreme eastern Moseley (1899) published a catalogue end of the Prairie Peninsula (Transeau, of the flowering plants and ferns growing 1935) just beyond the northeastern ex- in Erie County and the islands and pen- tremity of the Mississippi embayment insula of Ottawa County. These two (Gleason, 1922), and exhibits an as- papers provide a basis for estimating semblage of plant species with western floristic changes at East Harbor since and southern geographic distributions 1895. not seen at the eastern end of Lake Erie. Moseley (1899) discusses the unique METHODS floristic diversity seen in the Sandusky Eleven study sites (table 1) were selected for region (of which East Harbor is an in- study, including most of the park area where tegral part), noting that, "the region vascular marsh or aquatic plants occurred. contains 305 native plants not known to Manuscript received October 14, 1975, and grow within fifty miles of Buffalo which in revised form February 12, 1976 (#75-60). lies at the eastern end of Lake Erie: The 78 No. 2 CHANGES IN EAST HARBOR VASCULAR FLORA 79 1972 MIDDLE HARBOR LAKE ERIE LAKE ERIE EAST HARBOR to Lakeside - Marblehead S.R.163 FIGURE 1. Outline map of East Harbor Area. Stippled areas are study sites as labeled, except for study site III which includes the open water of Middle Harbor, and study site VI which includes the shallow water and shoreline adjacent to West Harbor (Drawn from aerial photos, 1972). 80 DAVID L. MOORE Vol. 76 lake's shore and marshes furnish quite a Stabilization of the plant communities number of species not found in the in- is intimately associated with fluctuating terior of the state . Owing to the water levels and, in low water years, ex- long summer enjoyed by places situated tensive mudflats were available where on the south shore of Lake Erie, many propagules of emersed species colonized. plants grow here which are not found In high water years, the abundance of farther north . quite a number of typical mudflat species was reduced, species appear to reach their eastern concomitant with decreased available limit." He lists some 80 species of habitat space. Occasionally floating mats which only 25 were recorded at East developed with communities of Pontederia Harbor, in this study. cor data, Sagittaria latifolia, Bidens spp., In the spring of 1945, causeway con- Polygonum spp., Rorippa paulstris, and struction made Middle Harbor a land- Cardamine spp., Car ex spp., Scirpus spp., locked lake. An unusually large number and grasses. Erosion has become a seri- of carp were confined within the harbor ous problem within the harbor area be- since this was the height of the spawning cause of high water, and power boats season (Anderson, 1950). Their feeding contribute to increased turbulence of the habits effected an almost complete loss of water in the shallower margins and cause Myriophyllum exalbescens, Najas flexilis, disturbances of the shoreline. Potamogeton crispus, P. foliosus, P. na- Some emersed species that were re- tans, P. pusillus, P. richardsonii, and P. ported by Pieters (1901) as abundant zosteriformis. Vallisneria americana was are now considerably reduced in abun- absent. Prior to 1945 vigorous growth dance or are quite rare. Examples are of Vallisneria americana was reported Eleocharis smallii, Justicia americana, along with Potamogeton pectinalus, My- Nelumbo lutea, Nuphar advena, Phrag- riophyllum exalbescens, and Scirpus vali- mites australis, Pontederia miles auslralis, dus. In October, 1948 rotenone was Pontederia cordata, Sagittaria latifolia, sprayed on Middle Harbor's 250 acres in Sagittaria rigida, Scirpus acutus, and a effort to reduce the excessive carp popu- Typha latifolia. Certain pioneer species lation (Wier and Starr, 1950). After of open areas on mudflats, which were spraying, a semiqualitative survey of rare in Pieters' time, are still rare or have plant species abundance was taken in even disappeared. Among these are September, 1949 (Anderson, 1950). The Ammannia coccinea, A triplex patula, Bol- most noticeable change was in the clarity tonia asteroides, Leucospora multifida, of the water. In one year Potamogeton Sagittaria graminea, Scirpus smithii, and pectinatus increased to about 28% dry Scirpus torreyi. Rooted submersed or weight of the sampling. About 6000 floating-leaved species which are now Vallisneria americana tubers were planted rare or absent include: in April, 1949 by park personnel, and by Elodea canadensis the time the survey was taken in Sep- Heteranthera dubia tember, substantial growth of these Megalodonta beckii plants had taken place. This growth of Najas flexilis V. americana, however, was not as pro- Najas guadalupensis Nymphaea tuberosa lific as in other areas of the park and Potamogeton amplifolius exhibited only rare seed production. Potamogeton gramineus Myriophyllum exalbescens increased only Potamogeton illinoensis to about 5% of the sampling, but today Potamogeton natans Potamogeton nodosus is one of the community dominants. Potamogeton perfoliatus Najas flexilis was reported as quite rare, Potamogeton richardsonii and Najas marina and N. minor com- Potamogeton robinsii posed 2% of the sampling (Anderson, Potamogeton zosteriformis 1950). No significant change in the Ranunculus longirostris amount of Potamogeton crispus was ob- Zannichellia palustris served, but it now shares commun- The reduction in the populations of many ity dominance with Myriophyllum of these species was most likely caused by exalbescens. the dredging of the harbor, resulting in No. 2 CHANGES IN EAST HARBOR VASCULAR FLORA 81 increased turbidity of the water, loss of of the Ohio State University, from his ex- suitable habitats, and increased use of tensive field experience. the area by man. Typha latifolia was the only cattail During the first season following dredg- noted in East Harbor by Pieters (1901). ing, 1968, the mudflat was photographed T. angustifolia was listed by Moseley and a record of the flora made by Dr. (1899) as scarce, occurring in the Castalia Ronald L. Stuckey and Mr. Alan Wentz stream, Portage River, and on North Bass of the Ohio State University. They Island, as opposed to the common occur- noted a total of 93 species (denoted by a rence of T. latifolia in the Sandusky area. t in table 2). By the summer of 1972, In 1972 only a few isolated colonies of the number had dropped to 73, a loss of T. latifolia at East Harbor State Park 21.4% of the species noted in 1968. If were found, three of which were in tem- rare species occurring in only one or two porary ponds behind the crushed rock- small populations are included, the loss fill in study site I. Conversely, T. would rise to 40% reflecting inundation angustifolia is dominant throughout study of nearly half of the mudflat because of sites II, IV, Va, Vb, VI, VII, VIII, and the high water in 1969 and subsequent XI (table 1). years, placement of crushed rockfill along Since 1900, several non-indigenous spe- the harbor shoreline resulting in the loss cies have become established and are of suitable shoreline habitat, and gradual spreading in the park. Among these are: invasion or expansion of the areas oc- Butomus umbellatus cupied by species such as Typha an- Echinochloa walteri guslifolia, Populus deltoides, Salix in- Epilobium hirsutum Lycopus asper terior, and 6".
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Nova Scotia Provincial Status Report Spotted Pondweed
    Nova Scotia Provincial Status Report on Spotted Pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher Tuckerm.) prepared for Nova Scotia Species at Risk Working Group by David Mazerolle and Sean Blaney Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre P.O. Box 6416, Sackville, NB E4L 1C6 DRAFT Funding provided by Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources Submitted December 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................i WILDLIFE SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANCE...........................................1 Name and Classification............................................................................................1 Morphological Description ........................................................................................2 Field identification......................................................................................................3 Designatable Units .....................................................................................................4 Special Significance...................................................................................................5 DISTRIBUTION ...............................................................................................................7 Global Range ..............................................................................................................7 Canadian Range .........................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • 27April12acquatic Plants
    International Plant Protection Convention Protecting the world’s plant resources from pests 01 2012 ENG Aquatic plants their uses and risks Implementation Review and Support System Support and Review Implementation A review of the global status of aquatic plants Aquatic plants their uses and risks A review of the global status of aquatic plants Ryan M. Wersal, Ph.D. & John D. Madsen, Ph.D. i The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of speciic companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to [email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Ofice of Knowledge Exchange,
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
    [Show full text]
  • Najas Flexilis
    Najas flexilis the Slender Naiad (species code 1833) Article 17 Report Backing Document 2013 Photo by Cilian Roden Áine O Connor April 2013 1 Introduction to and structure of the report This report contains an expanded version of the conservation status assessment for Najas flexilis that is published in NPWS (2013c). The structure of the report follows that of the 2013 Article 17 forms and uses the same numbering and headings. See http://www.npws.ie/publications/article-17- reports-and-assessments for further information on the Irish Article 17 reports, where the 2013 overview report (NPWS, 2013a) and more detailed reports (NPWS, 2013b&c) can be downloaded. Since this report was written in April 2013, an NPWS study has produced further information on the distribution of Najas flexilis in Ireland (Roden and Murphy, 2014) and new records have been made during lake survey for ecological assessment purposes (e.g. Roden, 2014). In addition, site- specific conservation objectives have been published for Najas flexilis in several Special Areas of Conservation (see http://www.npws.ie/protected-sites/conservation-management-planning/conservation- objectives). This report is being made available to coincide with the publication of a supporting document on Annex I lake habitats in Ireland (O Connor, 2015). Áine O Connor, June 2015 References Evans, D. and Arvela, M. (2011) Assessment and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive Explanatory Notes & Guidelines for the period 2007-2012. Final version. July 2011. European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity NPWS (2013a) The Status of Protected EU Habitats and Species in Ireland. Overview Volume 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps
    Appendix 11.5.1: Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps These distribution maps are for 116 aquatic vascular macrophyte species (Table 1). Aquatic designation follows habitat descriptions in Haines and Vining (1998), and includes submergent, floating and some emergent species. See Appendix 11.4 for list of species. Also included in Appendix 11.4 is the number of HUC-10 watersheds from which each taxon has been recorded, and the county-level distributions. Data are from nine sources, as compiled in the MABP database (plus a few additional records derived from ancilliary information contained in reports from two fisheries surveys in the Upper St. John basin organized by The Nature Conservancy). With the exception of the University of Maine herbarium records, most locations represent point samples (coordinates were provided in data sources or derived by MABP from site descriptions in data sources). The herbarium data are identified only to township. In the species distribution maps, town-level records are indicated by center-points (centroids). Figure 1 on this page shows as polygons the towns where taxon records are identified only at the town level. Data Sources: MABP ID MABP DataSet Name Provider 7 Rare taxa from MNAP lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 8 Lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 35 Acadia National Park plant survey C. Greene et al. 63 Lake plant surveys A. Dieffenbacher-Krall 71 Natural Heritage Database (rare plants) MNAP 91 University of Maine herbarium database C. Campbell 183 Natural Heritage Database (delisted species) MNAP 194 Rapid bioassessment surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 207 Invasive aquatic plant records MDEP Maps are in alphabetical order by species name.
    [Show full text]
  • National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 1996
    National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary Indicator by Region and Subregion Scientific Name/ North North Central South Inter- National Subregion Northeast Southeast Central Plains Plains Plains Southwest mountain Northwest California Alaska Caribbean Hawaii Indicator Range Abies amabilis (Dougl. ex Loud.) Dougl. ex Forbes FACU FACU UPL UPL,FACU Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill. FAC FACW FAC,FACW Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. NI NI NI NI NI UPL UPL Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poir. FACU FACU FACU Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl. FACU-* NI FACU-* Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. NI NI FACU+ FACU- FACU FAC UPL UPL,FAC Abies magnifica A. Murr. NI UPL NI FACU UPL,FACU Abildgaardia ovata (Burm. f.) Kral FACW+ FAC+ FAC+,FACW+ Abutilon theophrasti Medik. UPL FACU- FACU- UPL UPL UPL UPL UPL NI NI UPL,FACU- Acacia choriophylla Benth. FAC* FAC* Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. FACU NI NI* NI NI FACU Acacia greggii Gray UPL UPL FACU FACU UPL,FACU Acacia macracantha Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. NI FAC FAC Acacia minuta ssp. minuta (M.E. Jones) Beauchamp FACU FACU Acaena exigua Gray OBL OBL Acalypha bisetosa Bertol. ex Spreng. FACW FACW Acalypha virginica L. FACU- FACU- FAC- FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acalypha virginica var. rhomboidea (Raf.) Cooperrider FACU- FAC- FACU FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acanthocereus tetragonus (L.) Humm. FAC* NI NI FAC* Acanthomintha ilicifolia (Gray) Gray FAC* FAC* Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl OBL OBL Acer circinatum Pursh FAC- FAC NI FAC-,FAC Acer glabrum Torr. FAC FAC FAC FACU FACU* FAC FACU FACU*,FAC Acer grandidentatum Nutt.
    [Show full text]
  • What a Comparison of the Two Flora Conservanda Lists Can Tell Us About Rare Plant Species in the New England Landscape Author(S): Jessica M
    Fifteen years of change: What a comparison of the two Flora Conservanda lists can tell us about rare plant species in the New England landscape Author(s): Jessica M. Gerke, Elizabeth J. Farnsworth, and William E. Brumback Source: Rhodora, 116(968):428-493. Published By: The New England Botanical Club, Inc. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3119/13-21 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3119/13-21 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. RHODORA, Vol. 116, No. 968, pp. 428–493, 2014 E Copyright 2014 by the New England Botanical Club DOI: 10.3119/13-21; first published on-line December 22, 2014. FIFTEEN YEARS OF CHANGE: WHAT A COMPARISON OF THE TWO FLORA CONSERVANDA LISTS CAN TELL US ABOUT RARE PLANT SPECIES IN THE NEW ENGLAND LANDSCAPE 1 JESSICA M.
    [Show full text]
  • What Are Grass Carp (Aka White Amur)
    Considerations regarding introduction of Grass Carp to Lake Chaffee 05-16-2012 - authored by Ralph Sherman – LCIA Environmental Chairman Contents Objective of this document .................................................................................................................................. 2 What are Grass Carp (aka White Amur)................................................................................................................ 2 What do they look like and how big are they? .................................................................................................. 3 How long do they live ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Why are they used for weed control? .............................................................................................................. 4 How long will it take to see an effect on the lake? ............................................................................................ 4 Can you fish for Grass Carp? ............................................................................................................................ 4 Can you eat the Grass Carp? ............................................................................................................................ 4 What do Grass Carp eat? ................................................................................................................................. 4 Some Plants that Grass Carp are considered
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Invasive Plants Information and Identification Tips
    AQUATIC INVASIVE PLANTS INFORMATION AND IDENTIFICATION TIPS Alberta Lake Management Society PO Box 4283, Edmonton AB T6E 4T3 www.alms.ca INTRODUCTION This document is intended to provide an identification resource for aquatic invasive plants and encourage Alberta lake-users to watch for these species. The importance and issues associated with all aquatic plants are outlined and the implications of infestations of invasive species are discussed. We highlight four invasive aquatic plant species of concern for Alberta lakes: • Hydrilla • Curly-leafed Pondweed • Eurasian Water milfoil • Flowering Rush Detailed information on the plant is included for each species as well as a comparison between the invasive species and a similar species native to Alberta. Major distinguishing characteristics are in blue font while glossary words are underlined. If you believe you have found an invasive aquatic plant in your lake please contact us via www.alms.ca. AQUATIC VEGETATION: BENEFITS AND ISSUES What do aquatic plants do for the lake? Aquatic vegetation has many important functions within an aquatic ecosystem. Many aquatic plants provide food for fish or aquatic invertebrates, and are a key member in the food chain for these ecosystems. Many small aquatic invertebrates feed from and lay their eggs on macrophytes. In addition to food sources, aquatic plants provide shelter for young and small fish from larger predators. They are also used as spawning areas for fish and amphibians. Emergent aquatic plant such as cattails, sedges and rushes improve shoreline stability and reduce shoreline erosion. The presence of these emergent plants as well as submerged varieties, aid improving water clarity due to the binding of roots with the lake’s substrate.
    [Show full text]
  • Pontederia Cordata L.)
    INHERITANCE OF MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS OF PICKERELWEED (Pontederia cordata L.) By LYN ANNE GETTYS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005 Copyright 2005 by Lyn Anne Gettys ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. David Wofford for his guidance, encouragement and support throughout my course of study. Dr. Wofford provided me with laboratory and greenhouse space, technical and financial support, copious amounts of coffee and valuable insight regarding how to survive life in academia. I would also like to thank Dr. David Sutton for his advice and support throughout my program. Dr. Sutton supplied plant material, computer resources, career advice, financial support and a long-coveted copy of Gray’s Manual of Botany. Special thanks are in order for my advisory committee. Dr. Paul Pfahler was an invaluable resource and provided me with laboratory equipment and supplies, technical advice and more lunches at the Swamp than I can count. Dr. Michael Kane contributed samples of his extensive collection of diverse genotypes of pickerelweed to my program. Dr. Paul Lyrene generously allowed me to take up residence in his greenhouse when my plants threatened to overtake all of Gainesville. My program could not have been a success without the help of Dr. Van Waddill, who provided significant financial support to my project. I appreciate the generosity of Dr. Kim Moore and Dr. Tim Broschat, who allowed me to use their large screenhouses during my tenure at the Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Pickerelweed RANTON G RIGITTE (Pontederia Cordata) B ILLUSTRATION by by P
    Blazing Summer/4.qxd 11/28/07 2:04 PM Page 2 SUMMER 2006, VOLUME 7, ISSUE 3 NEWSLETTER OF THE NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY Native Plant to Know Pickerelweed RANTON G RIGITTE (Pontederia cordata) B ILLUSTRATION BY by P. Allen Woodliffe I first encountered pickerelweed as a summer student at Rondeau Provincial Park on the north shore of Lake Erie. I was exploring Rondeau’s huge coastal marsh looking for plants to use in an inter- pretive display. Among the large stands of cattail (Typha spp.) were channels where the water was deeper, allowing me to paddle my canoe more easily. However, within these open patches were clusters of emergent vegetation that slowed my progress – much to my delight. The dark green, shiny, heart-shaped leaves in combination with a robust spike of delicate, richly-coloured, bluish-purple flow- ers left an indelible impression on me. My field guide to wildflowers identified this gem of the wetlands as Pontederia cordata. Pickerelweed is a perennial and a member of the water-hyacinth (Pontederiaceae) family. The genus ‘Pontederia’ was named in honour of Giulio Pontedera (1688-1757), a botany professor in Padua, Italy. The species name ‘cordata’ refers to the cordate or heart-shaped leaves. The common name pickerelweed was given to this striking plant as it was believed that the wide leaves shading the water below provided good habitat for fish. Adding support to this idea is the fact that in the Ojibway language pickerelweed is known as ‘kinozhaeguhnsh’ or pike’s plant. Pontederia cordata is typically, and sometimes abundantly, found in freshwater streams, ponds, marshes or around the shallow, muddy edges of small lakes.
    [Show full text]