Diplomová Práce Vytrvalé Slunečnice (Helianthus

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Diplomová Práce Vytrvalé Slunečnice (Helianthus Mendelova univerzita v Brně Zahradnická fakulta v Lednici Diplomová práce Vytrvalé slunečnice ( Helianthus L.): historie pěstování a hodnocení sortimentů Vedoucí práce Vypracovala doc. Dr. Ing Jiří Uher Bc. Kateřina Tejkalová Čestné prohlášení Prohlašuji, že jsem práci: Vytrvalé slunečnice (Helianthus L.): historie pěstování a hodnocení sortimentu vypracoval/a samostatně a veškeré použité prameny a informace uvádím v seznamu použité literatury. Souhlasím, aby moje práce byla zveřejněna v souladu s § 47b zákona. 111/1998 Sb., o vysokých školách ve znění pozdějších předpisů a v souladu s platnou Směrnicí o zveřejňování vysokoškolských závěrečných prací. Jsem si vědom/a, že se na moji práci vztahuje zákon. 121/2000 Sb., autorský zákon, a že Mendelova univerzita v Brně má právo na uzavření licenční smlouvy a užití této práce jako školního díla podle § 60 odst. 1 autorského zákona. Dále se zavazuji, že před sepsáním licenční smlouvy o využití díla jinou osobou (subjektem) si vyžádám písemné stanovisko univerzity, že předmětná licenční smlouva není v rozporu s oprávněnými zájmy univerzity, a zavazuji se uhradit případný příspěvek na úhradu nákladů spojených se vznikem díla, a to až do jejich skutečné výše. V Brně dne: 7. 5. 2015 .………………………….. podpis Poděkování Děkuji za odborné rady a pomoc vedoucímu diplomové práce, panu doc. Dr. Ing. Jiřímu Uhrovi. Dále děkuji konzultantovi panu Petru Hanzelkovi za poskytnutí rostlinného materiálu, stejně tak i Botanické zahradě Praha Troja, Olomouc a školkám Litomyšl. Děkuji také své rodině za podporu a trpělivost. Obsah ÚVOD .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 CÍL PRÁCE ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2 LITERÁRNÍ PŘEHLED .................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Botanická klasifikace ............................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Rod Helianthus ................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Šlechtitelské hledisko .......................................................................................................... 12 2.2.1 Možnosti šlechtění ....................................................................................................... 12 2.2.2 Využití výsledků ........................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3 Výsledky náhodného křížení ................................................................................... 13 2.3 Fyziologické a morfologické hledisko ........................................................................... 14 2.4 Pěstitelské hledisko .............................................................................................................. 16 2.4.1 Vývoj pěstování ............................................................................................................. 16 2.4.2 Pěstování a množení ................................................................................................... 17 2.4.3 Půdní podmínky a stanoviště .................................................................................. 18 2.4.4 Nároky na expozici a její vliv ................................................................................... 19 2.4.5 Zasolenost a tolerance k suchu............................................................................... 19 2.4.6 Mrazuvzdornost ........................................................................................................... 20 2.4.7 Choroby a škůdci .......................................................................................................... 20 2.4.8 Sortiment ......................................................................................................................... 23 2.5 Introdukce rodu Helianthus do evropských zahrad 20. století........................... 32 2.5.1 Období secese ................................................................................................................ 34 2.5.2 Období funkcionalismu.............................................................................................. 38 2.5.3 Období postmoderny .................................................................................................. 40 2.5.4 Zahrady současnosti ................................................................................................... 42 3 METODIKA .................................................................................................................................... 45 3.1 Užité metody ............................................................................................................................ 45 3.2 Charakteristika lokalit ......................................................................................................... 45 3.2.1 Průměrné teploty v lokalitách ................................................................................ 46 Lokalita A - rok 2011 .................................................................................................................. 46 Lokalita A, rok 2014 ................................................................................................................... 46 Lokalita B, rok 2014 ................................................................................................................... 47 3.3 Použitý materiál ve sledovaných lokalitách ............................................................... 47 3.3.1 Lokalita A ......................................................................................................................... 47 3.3.2 Lokalita B ......................................................................................................................... 48 3.4 Výsledky .................................................................................................................................... 48 3.4.1 Morfologické vlastnosti ............................................................................................. 48 3.4.2 Fenologické vlastnosti ............................................................................................... 50 3.4.3 Doplňkové vlastnosti .................................................................................................. 50 3.4.4 Výsledky hodnocení .................................................................................................... 51 3.5 Srovnání odrůdových preferencí .................................................................................... 65 3.5.1 Nástin současného stavu ........................................................................................... 65 3.5.2 Nástin minulého stavu ............................................................................................... 67 4 DISKUZE ......................................................................................................................................... 68 ZÁVĚR ......................................................................................................................................................... 70 SOUHRN ..................................................................................................................................................... 72 RESUME ...................................................................................................................................................... 72 KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA ..................................................................................................................................... 72 Seznam tabulek ....................................................................................................................................... 73 Seznam příloh .......................................................................................................................................... 74 POUŽITÉ ZDROJE.................................................................................................................................... 75 PŘÍLOHY .................................................................................. Chyba! Záložka není definována. ÚVOD Jméno rodu Helianthus L. bylo vytvořeno složením dvou řeckých slov znamenající slunce, tedy „ helios“ a květ, tedy „ anthos“. Rod pochází ze Severní Ameriky. Zde jsou druhy hojně rozšířeny v prériích, loukách, skalních útesech, podél vodních toků a také v zahradách, ve kterých jsou zastoupeny mnoha kultivary. Svým rozšířením do Evropy v 17. století se staly součástí zdejší květeny, ať jako okrasné nebo plané rostliny. Nejznámější a užitečná je Helianthus annuus L., která splňuje roli nejen jako olejnina, ale i jako žádaná a obdivovaná okrasná rostlina. I přesto, že vytrvalé druhy jsou ve stínu jednoletých kultivarů, tak jsou oblíbené pro svoji krásu v zahradách i ve vazbách. Vytrvalé slunečnice se objevovaly a objevují v zahradách evropských zemí. Trsy těchto rostlin lemují pozemky, tvoří trvalkové záhony. Jejich mnohé žluté květy jsou ootěšením pro oko. Avšak intenzita růstu a rozšiřování, které může být ve vhodných podmínkách jejich předností, je mnohdytaké komplokací. Některé druhy a kultivary nejsou tolik vzrostné ani invazivní a jsou tak stále vhodnými adepty do zahrad
Recommended publications
  • APPROVED PLANT LIST Midtown Alliance Tree Well Adoption Program
    APPROVED PLANT LIST Midtown Alliance Tree Well Adoption Program Midtown Alliance launched the Tree Well Adoption program with the primary goal of enriching the experience of Midtown’s workers and residents while encouraging sustainability through the use of low-water, urban tolerant plant species. This list of plants was created to aid individuals and organizations in selecting plant material to plant in their adopted tree wells. This plant list is intended to encourage individual character in the tree wells, rather than restrict creativity in the selection of plants. The plants on the approved list were selected based on the following criteria: • Perennial. All plants listed are perennial, meaning they last for two or more growing seasons. Once established, these plants will require less water to maintain than annuals. • Heat tolerant. Plants in tree wells are exposed to high temperatures caused by vehicles and heat reflected from surrounding buildings, asphalt, and other urban surfaces. They must also be tolerant to high daytime temperatures, typical of Atlanta’s summer months, and cold hardy in the winter months. Atlanta is located in USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 7b/8a. • Water wise. Urban tree wells are surrounded by impervious surfaces and thus, are highly susceptible to periods of drought. Suitable plants must be able to survive periods of low rainfall. • Pollution tolerant. Vehicle exhaust may leave deposits and pollutants on plant foliage, which can kill sensitive plants. • Encourage wildlife. Flowering plants attract insects such as butterflies while others provide food sources for birds and other wildlife. • Grown locally. Many of the plants listed are native to the Atlanta area, and all can be found at local nurseries.
    [Show full text]
  • Thymelaeaceae)
    Origin and diversification of the Australasian genera Pimelea and Thecanthes (Thymelaeaceae) by MOLEBOHENG CYNTHIA MOTS! Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree PHILOSOPHIAE DOCTOR in BOTANY in the FACULTY OF SCIENCE at the UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG Supervisor: Dr Michelle van der Bank Co-supervisors: Dr Barbara L. Rye Dr Vincent Savolainen JUNE 2009 AFFIDAVIT: MASTER'S AND DOCTORAL STUDENTS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This serves to confirm that I Moleboheng_Cynthia Motsi Full Name(s) and Surname ID Number 7808020422084 Student number 920108362 enrolled for the Qualification PhD Faculty _Science Herewith declare that my academic work is in line with the Plagiarism Policy of the University of Johannesburg which I am familiar. I further declare that the work presented in the thesis (minor dissertation/dissertation/thesis) is authentic and original unless clearly indicated otherwise and in such instances full reference to the source is acknowledged and I do not pretend to receive any credit for such acknowledged quotations, and that there is no copyright infringement in my work. I declare that no unethical research practices were used or material gained through dishonesty. I understand that plagiarism is a serious offence and that should I contravene the Plagiarism Policy notwithstanding signing this affidavit, I may be found guilty of a serious criminal offence (perjury) that would amongst other consequences compel the UJ to inform all other tertiary institutions of the offence and to issue a corresponding certificate of reprehensible academic conduct to whomever request such a certificate from the institution. Signed at _Johannesburg on this 31 of _July 2009 Signature Print name Moleboheng_Cynthia Motsi STAMP COMMISSIONER OF OATHS Affidavit certified by a Commissioner of Oaths This affidavit cordons with the requirements of the JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND COMMISSIONERS OF OATHS ACT 16 OF 1963 and the applicable Regulations published in the GG GNR 1258 of 21 July 1972; GN 903 of 10 July 1998; GN 109 of 2 February 2001 as amended.
    [Show full text]
  • "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]
  • Barcoding the Asteraceae of Tennessee, Tribe Coreopsideae
    Schilling, E.E., N. Mattson, and A. Floden. 2014. Barcoding the Asteraceae of Tennessee, tribe Coreopsideae. Phytoneuron 2014-101: 1–6. Published 20 October 2014. ISSN 2153 733X BARCODING THE ASTERACEAE OF TENNESSEE, TRIBE COREOPSIDEAE EDWARD E. SCHILLING, NICHOLAS MATTSON, AARON FLODEN Herbarium TENN Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee 37996 [email protected]; [email protected] ABSTRACT Results from barcoding studies of tribe Coreopsideae for the Tennessee flora using the nuclear ribosomal ITS marker are presented and include the first complete reports for 2 of the 20 species of the tribe that occur in the state, as well as updated reports for several others. Sequence data from the ITS region separate most of the species of Bidens in Tennessee from one another, but species of Coreopsis, especially those of sect. Coreopsis, have ITS sequences that are identical (or nearly so) to at least one congener. Comparisons of sequence data to GenBank records are complicated by apparent inaccuracies of older sequences as well as potentially misidentified samples. Broad survey of C. lanceolata from across its range showed little variability, but the ITS sequence of a morphologically distinct sample from a Florida limestone glade area was distinct in lacking a length polymorphism that was present in other samples. Tribe Coreopsideae is part of the Heliantheae alliance and earlier was often included in an expanded Heliantheae (Anderberg et al. 2007) in which it was usually treated as a subtribe (Crawford et al. 2009). The tribe shows a small burst of diversity in the southeastern USA involving Bidens and Coreopsis sect.
    [Show full text]
  • County Inventory Mockup
    A Survey of Natural Area Sites in Cherokee County, Kansas Open-File Report No. 125 December 31, 2005 Hillary Loring, Kelly Kindscher, and Jennifer Delisle Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory Kansas Biological Survey 2101 Constant Avenue Lawrence, KS 66047 A Survey of Natural Area Sites in Cherokee County, Kansas Cover Photo: Native Low Prairie in Cherokee County, 2005. Photo Hillary Loring. This Low Prairie is protected under the Wetlands Reserve Program of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Report submitted December 31, 2005. Citation: Loring, H., K. Kindscher, and J. Delisle. A Survey of Natural Area Sites in Cherokee County, Kansas. Open-File Report No. 125. Kansas Biological Survey. Lawrence, KS. iii+33 pp. Abstract During the summer and fall of 2005, the Kansas Biological Survey surveyed 29 high- quality natural areas in Cherokee County. The high-quality prairie communities that were surveyed during this study were Unglaciated Tallgrass Prairie, Low Prairie, and Hardpan Prairie. The high-quality forests surveyed in this study are classified as Ozark Upland Forest. Based on the site surveys, we determined species richness values and floristic quality index (FQI) scores for each parcel. Species richness varied from 133 to 35. FQI scores ranged from a high of 43.6 to 19.5 for the lowest. State ranked rare plant species were identified at 28 of the 29 sites for a total of 118 new state records. We suggest several management recommendations for landowners as well as opportunities for both landowners and planning commissions to conserve some of these biologically rich tracts of land. A ranking of preservation priorities is provided along with a map showing the locations of the high-quality prairies and forests in Cherokee County.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • George Washington Carver National Monument Natural Resource Condition Assessment
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science George Washington Carver National Monument Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2011/425 ON THE COVER Boyhood statue of George Washington Carver. Photograph courtesy of George Washing Carver National Monument George Washington Carver National Monument Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2011/425 Gust M. Annis1, Michael D. DeBacker2, David D. Diamond1, Lee F Elliott1, Aaron J. Garringer1, Phillip A. Hanberry1, Kevin M. James2, Ronnie D. Lee1, Sherry A. Leis3, Michael E. Morey1, Dyanna L. Pursell1, and Craig C. Young2 1Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership (MoRAP) School of Natural Resources University of Missouri 4200 New Haven Road Columbia, MO 65201 2National Park Service Heartland I&M Network 6424 West Farm Road 182 Republic, MO 65738 3Missouri State University Biology Department 901 South National Avenue Springfield, MO 65897 July 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Plant Availability List, Including Descriptions 2021 Issue No 6: Final Autumn Stock Pelham Plants Nursery Ltd
    Current plant availability list, including descriptions 2021 Issue no 6: Final autumn stock Pelham Plants Nursery Ltd Listed below are the plants currently available. Please use this list to order from us by email at [email protected] or over the phone on 07377 145970. Please use the most recent version of this list as more varieties are being added all the time. Some cultivars produced in small numbers may also sell out. We are proud of ‘home growing’ all our plants. The list will grow and change substantially as many new varieties become available week by week. It is also advisable to book to visit the nursery in person for the best range and advice. It can be difficult to keep this list up to date at our busiest times or when batches are small. We reserve the right to withdraw plants or changes prices without notice. Full explanation, delivery charges and terms and conditions are listed on our website www.pelhamplants.co.uk Plants currently Approx Price Description available pot size Acis autumnalis. AGM. 0.5L £4.50 A little 'Leucojum' now renamed Acis. Little white bonnets in autumn over grassy foliage and stems. Ideal for a focal pot. 10cm. Aconitum 'Blue Opal'. 2.0L £8.50 Opalescent violet-blue flowers in late summer. Aconitum carmichaelii 2.0L £8.50 syn. Late Vintage. Originally a seed strain, this is a valuable late 'Spätlese'. summer flowering selection with lilac-purple flowers from pale green buds. Aconitum carmichaelii 2.0L £8.50 Late summer flowering in a particularly good cobalt blue.
    [Show full text]
  • Caliwomenbotany00hollrich.Pdf
    88/51 Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California CALIFORNIA WOMEN IN BOTANY Annetta Carter UC Herbarium Botanist, Collector and Interpreter of Baja California Plants Mary DeDecker Botanist and Conservationist of the Inyo Region Elizabeth McClintock California Academy of Sciences Curator, Ornamental Plant Specialist With Interview Introductions by Lincoln Constance, Betty Gilchrist, Peter Rowlands, John Hunter Thomas Interviews Conducted by Carol Holleuffer 1985 Copyright (c) 1987 by The Regents of the University of California This manuscript is made available for research purposes. No part of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library of the University of California at Berkeley. Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 486 Library, and should include identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated use of the passages, and identification of the user. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: To cite the volume: California Women in Botany, an oral history conducted in 1985, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1987. To cite individual interview: Annetta Carter, "UC Herbarium Botanist, Collector and Interpreter of Baja California Plants," an oral history conducted 1985 by Carol Holleuffer, in California Women in Botany, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1987. Copy No. /| OAKLAND THE DAILY CALIFORNIAN TRIBUNE 1991 May 17, 1991 May 16, I ' . .-,<. TVjW'-wiKjs Annetta Carter, ^UC'Berkeleyl 'botanist dies UC botanist ' I" W-! f . -: ^.,.v X **\; -':.
    [Show full text]
  • Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae
    SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY 0 NCTMBER 52 Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae Harold Robinson, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, andJames F. Weedin SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS City of Washington 1981 ABSTRACT Robinson, Harold, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, and James F. Weedin. Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae. Smithsonian Contri- butions to Botany, number 52, 28 pages, 3 tables, 1981.-Chromosome reports are provided for 145 populations, including first reports for 33 species and three genera, Garcilassa, Riencourtia, and Helianthopsis. Chromosome numbers are arranged according to Robinson’s recently broadened concept of the Heliantheae, with citations for 212 of the ca. 265 genera and 32 of the 35 subtribes. Diverse elements, including the Ambrosieae, typical Heliantheae, most Helenieae, the Tegeteae, and genera such as Arnica from the Senecioneae, are seen to share a specialized cytological history involving polyploid ancestry. The authors disagree with one another regarding the point at which such polyploidy occurred and on whether subtribes lacking higher numbers, such as the Galinsoginae, share the polyploid ancestry. Numerous examples of aneuploid decrease, secondary polyploidy, and some secondary aneuploid decreases are cited. The Marshalliinae are considered remote from other subtribes and close to the Inuleae. Evidence from related tribes favors an ultimate base of X = 10 for the Heliantheae and at least the subfamily As teroideae. OFFICIALPUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution’s annual report, Smithsonian Year. SERIESCOVER DESIGN: Leaf clearing from the katsura tree Cercidiphyllumjaponicum Siebold and Zuccarini. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Chromosome numbers in Compositae, XII.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuller’S Leadership and Over- Vincent of the Refuge Staff Are Notable for Having Sight Were Invaluable
    Acknowledgments Acknowledgments Many people have contributed to this plan over many detailed and technical requirements of sub- the last seven years. Several key staff positions, missions to the Service, the Environmental Protec- including mine, have been filled by different people tion Agency, and the Federal Register. Jon during the planning period. Tom Palmer and Neil Kauffeld’s and Nita Fuller’s leadership and over- Vincent of the Refuge staff are notable for having sight were invaluable. We benefited from close col- been active in the planning for the entire extent. laboration and cooperation with staff of the Illinois Tom and Neil kept the details straight and the rest Department of Natural Resources. Their staff par- of us on track throughout. Mike Brown joined the ticipated from the early days of scoping through staff in the midst of the process and contributed new reviews and re-writes. We appreciate their persis- insights, analysis, and enthusiasm that kept us mov- tence, professional expertise, and commitment to ing forward. Beth Kerley and John Magera pro- our natural resources. Finally, we value the tremen- vided valuable input on the industrial and public use dous involvement of citizens throughout the plan- aspects of the plan. Although this is a refuge plan, ning process. We heard from visitors to the Refuge we received notable support from our regional office and from people who care about the Refuge without planning staff. John Schomaker provided excep- ever having visited. Their input demonstrated a tional service coordinating among the multiple level of caring and thought that constantly interests and requirements within the Service.
    [Show full text]