DOCSLIB.ORG

Kochia (Kochia Scoparia (L.) Schrad.) and Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia Biennis Willd.) Interference with Sunflower (Helianthus Annuus L.)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kochia (Kochia Scoparia (L.) Schrad.) and Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia Biennis Willd.) Interference with Sunflower (Helianthus Annuus L.) Kochia (Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.) and Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis Willd.) Interference with Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) BY DEREK WILLIAM LEWIS A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Plant Science University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba © Copyright by Derek W. Lewis 2012 ii THE UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ******* COPYRIGHT PERMISSION Kochia (Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.) and Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis Willd.) Interference with Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) By DEREK WILLIAM LEWIS A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE © Copyright by Derek W. Lewis 2012 Permission has been granted to the Library of the University of Manitoba to lend/sell copies of this thesis, to the National Library of Canada to microfilm this thesis and to lend or sell copies of the film, and to the University Microfilms Inc. to publish an abstract of this thesis. This reproduction or copy of this thesis has been made available by authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research, and may only be reproduced and copied as permitted by copyright laws or with express written authorization from the copyright owner. iii Table of Contents Abstract……………………………..……………………………………….……………vi Acknowledgements…...…………………………………………………………………viii List of Tables………………………….…………………………………………………..ix List of Figures………………………………………………………...……….…………..x 1.0 Introduction……………….……………………….………………………………..…1 2.0 Literature Review………………………………………………………………..…….3 2.1 The History of Sunflowers……….…………………………………………...…3 2.2 Sunflower Production Statistics.…….…………………………………………..3 2.3 Uses of Sunflowers…….…………………………………………………...…...4 2.3.1 Human Consumption…….………………………………………….......4 2.3.2 Livestock Feed and Forage…………....…………...………..………......4 2.4 Sunflower Morphology and Reproductive Biology……….………..………...…5 2.5 Sunflower Production Practices.………………………….……………..…...….6 2.5.1 Weed Management in Sunflowers………………….…………...………7 2.5.1.1 Mechanical Weed Management ………………………………..7 2.5.1.2 Cultural Weed Management ……………………….………..…8 2.5.1.3 Herbicidal Weed Management ……....……..…………….…10 2.6 Crop Yield Loss Related to Weeds…………….…………………………..…11 2.7 Weed Interference with Sunflowers..……………………….………………...11 2.8 Weed Interference Study Methods………………..……….……...…………..13 2.8.1 Additive Design Experiments……………………….…………...….…13 2.8.2 The Rectangular Hyperbola Yield Loss Model…………..……………14 2.9 Kochia ………………………………………………….…………….…..……15 2.9.1 Description of Kochia……………..…………….…….……………….15 iv 2.9.2 Biology and Growth of Kochia………………………………………..16 2.9.3 Geographic Distribution of Kochia……………………………………18 2.9.4 Herbicide Resistant Kochia……………………………………………18 2.9.5 Crop Yield Loss Caused by Kochia Interference………..………….…19 2.10 Biennial Wormwood……………………………………….….…………..….20 2.10.1 Description of Biennial Wormwood……………………………..…..20 2.10.2 Biology and Growth of Biennial Wormwood……….…………….…21 2.10.3 Geographic Distribution of Biennial Wormwood……………………23 2.10.4 Biennial Wormwood Management …..……………………….……..24 2.11 Experiment Objectives……………………………………………..……..….25 3.0 Effect of Kochia (Kochia scoparia L. Schrad.) Interference on Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) Yield ……………………………………………………………………26 3.1 Introduction………………………………………………….…………………26 3.2 Materials and Methods……………………………………….……………..….28 3.2.1 Experimental Locations………………….…………………………….28 3.2.2 Experimental Design and Plot Establishment..…………………….….39 3.2.3 Data Collection…………………………………………….………..…35 3.2.4 Statistical Analysis…………………………………………………….38 3.3 Results and Discussion……………………………………………………...…39 3.3.1 Kochia Seedling Recruitment………………………….….………...…39 3.3.2 Sunflower Yield and Yield Loss………………………….…………...39 3.3 3 Effect of Kochia Interference on Sunflower Growth and Development… ..……………………………………………………………………………..48 3.3.4 Effect of Kochia Interference on Sunflower Seed Quality ….……......52 3.3.5 Action Thresholds for Kochia Control in Sunflowers ………………..56 v 3.4 Conclusion.………………………………………………………………....….60 4.0 Effect of Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis Willd.) Interference on Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) Yield ………………..……………………………………61 4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….……61 4.2 Materials and Methods……………………………………………………....…63 4.2.1 Experimental Locations …….…………………………………...…..63 4.2.2 Biennial Wormwood Seed Source …………...………………....…..64 4.2.3 Experimental Design and Plot Establishment .…….….…………….64 4.2.4 Data Collection …….……………………………….……………..…65 4.2.5 Statistical Analysis ..…………………………………………………66 4.3 Results and Discussion……………………………………………………...…67 4.3.1 Biennial Wormwood Seedling Recruitment ………………..…………67 4.3.2 Sunflower Yield and Yield Loss ……………...…………………...….68 4.3.3 Effect of Biennial Wormwood Interference on Sunflower Growth and Development …………………………………...........................…………...73 4.3.4 Effect of Biennial Wormwood Interference on Sunflower Seed Quality . ……………………………………………………………………………….76 4.3.5 Action Thresholds for Biennial Wormwood Control in Sunflowers….80 4.4 Conclusion.………………………………………………………….…………83 5.0 General Discussion…………………………………………………….……………..84 5.1 Kochia and Biennial Wormwood Interference in Sunflowers….…………..….84 5.2 The Effect of Environmental Conditions on Kochia and Biennial Wormwood Interference ...………………………………..………………………..……….......85 5.3 Integrated Weed Management in Sunflowers…………….…………………....85 5.4 Future Research……………………………….………..………………..….…87 6.0 Literature Cited…………………………………………………………….…………90 7.0 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………..97 vi Abstract Lewis, Derek W. The University of Manitoba, February 2013. Kochia (Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.) and Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis Willd.) Interference with Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) Kochia and biennial wormwood are two weeds sometimes found growing in sunflower fields that may be difficult to control. Weed management in sunflowers is usually conducted using a combination of herbicides and mechanical weed control methods. Some farmers are growing sunflowers in reduced tillage systems, which may rely solely on herbicides to manage weeds; however, the spectrum of broadleaf weeds that can be controlled with herbicides is limited. Field experiments were conducted across southern Manitoba to determine the effect of kochia and biennial wormwood density and relative time of weed seedling recruitment on sunflower growth and development, yield and seed quality and to determine action thresholds for each weed. Early emerging kochia (plants that emerged at about the same time as the sunflowers) reduced sunflower yield by as much as 82%, which was greater than early emerging biennial wormwood plants, which reduced yield by as much as 27%. At low weed densities, each kochia plant reduced sunflower yield by 0.52% and each biennial wormwood plant reduced sunflower yield by 0.17%. As the density of early emerging kochia plants increased, sunflower height, stem diameter, leaf counts and head diameter were reduced in some of the experiments. Increasing densities of early emerging biennial wormwood plants had minimal effect on sunflower growth and development. Early emerging kochia and biennial wormwood plants both had the potential to vii reduce sunflower seed size and seed weight, while late emerging kochia and biennial wormwood (plants that emerged after the 4-leaf stage of the sunflowers) did not affect sunflower seed quality. The action threshold (5% sunflower yield loss) for early emerging kochia was 10 plants m-2 and the action threshold for early emerging biennial wormwood was 36 plants m-2 in the combined site-year analysis. Kochia or biennial wormwood plants that recruited after the 4-leaf stage of the sunflower crop did not affect sunflower yield, or seed quality. viii Acknowledgements There are many people I would like to acknowledge who have helped and supported me as I worked towards my goal of earning my Masters degree. Thank you to all of my committee members for their assistance over the past few years. Dr. Gulden, Dr. Entz and Dr. Francis Zvomuya were supportive and thoughtful members of my advisory committee. Thank you to the past and present members of the weed science lab who helped with the research; Mary Price, Don Sanders, Arron MacCauley, Yirga Kidane, Nia Perron, Melissa Pieniuta, John Stott and Luana Koucas. The help with hand weeding for weeks and counting and measuring plants is what made all of this research possible. Without them, collecting this amount of data would have been impossible for one person. Most importantly, thank you to my wife Nicole, and daughters Ava and Olivia, who sacrificed countless hours with me so I could go back to school and further my education. ix List of Tables Table 3.1. Soil texture, pH and organic matter content at the experiment locations investigating the effect of kochia interference on sunflower growth and development, yield and seed quality …………………………………….……………………….….….30 Table 3.2. Summary of the planting dates of sunflowers and kochia for each of the experiments........................................................................................................................31 Table 3.3. Summary of the nutrient status at each of the experiment locations prior to seeding each year and the fertilizer added to each of the experiments…………………..32 Table 3.4. Mean monthly temperature and precipitation during the growing season (May to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • July 2008 Volume 31 Number 4
    Sego Lily July 2008 31 (4) July 2008 Volume 31 Number 4 Salt Lake Chapter Trek to the Beaver Dam Mountains By Bill Gray In April, eight Salt Lake Chapter members took a break from their long winter and headed south as far as they could get, actually ending up just over the border in Arizona. Somehow the Virgin River gorge and that part of the Beaver Dam Moun- tains feel as though they really be- long in Utah. Most of you have probably driven through the gorge on Interstate 15 en route to/from Las Vegas or Southern California, and have ad- mired the steep rugged cliffs where the river has carved its way down. From a speeding car it is possible to spot a few of the obvious standout plants of the Mojave Desert – Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), Above: Crevice penstemon, Penstemon petiolatus, grows in Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) mostly inaccessible crevices in rugged limestone cliffs in and rather modest specimens of Le- Utah’s Beaver Dam Mountains. Photo by Bill Gray conte's barrel cactus (Ferocactus acanthodes var. lecontei). But we wanted to take time to get In this issue: out and really experience first hand the other unusual plants from this Salt Lake Chapter Trek to the Beaver Dam Mountains . 1 area. In this we were very fortunate UNPS and Chapter News . 2 to have one of the best possible Bulletin Board . 3 guides in Dr. Larry Higgins. Larry Q and A: Growing Sego Lilies . 6 grew up in the area, getting to know Richard Joshua Shaw (1923-2008) .
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plant List
    UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plants Below is the most recently updated plant list for UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve. * non-native taxon ? presence in question Listed Species Information: CNPS Listed - as designated by the California Rare Plant Ranks (formerly known as CNPS Lists). More information at http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php Cal IPC Listed - an inventory that categorizes exotic and invasive plants as High, Moderate, or Limited, reflecting the level of each species' negative ecological impact in California. More information at http://www.cal-ipc.org More information about Federal and State threatened and endangered species listings can be found at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (US) and http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ t_e_spp/ (CA). FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME LISTED Ferns AZOLLACEAE - Mosquito Fern American water fern, mosquito fern, Family Azolla filiculoides ? Mosquito fern, Pacific mosquitofern DENNSTAEDTIACEAE - Bracken Hairy brackenfern, Western bracken Family Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens fern DRYOPTERIDACEAE - Shield or California wood fern, Coastal wood wood fern family Dryopteris arguta fern, Shield fern Common horsetail rush, Common horsetail, field horsetail, Field EQUISETACEAE - Horsetail Family Equisetum arvense horsetail Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii Giant horse tail, Giant horsetail Pentagramma triangularis ssp. PTERIDACEAE - Brake Family triangularis Gold back fern Gymnosperms CUPRESSACEAE - Cypress Family Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress CNPS - 1B.2, Cal IPC
    [Show full text]
  • Literaturverzeichnis Acken, H. Von Und P. Müllner (1972): Zur
    Literaturverzeichnis Anmerkung: Die Literaturliste wurde automatisch aus einer Datenbank erzeugt. Wir haben uns bemüht, grobe Fehler & Doppeleinträge nachträglich „auszumerzen“, doch der Teufel steckt ja bekanntlich im Detail, so werden sich wahrscheinlich noch einige „Unzulänglichkeiten“ finden lassen. Unterschiedliche Zitierweisen und uneinheitliche Abkürzungen bitten wir zu entschuldigen! Acken, H. von und P. Müllner (1972): Zur Unterscheidung von Digitaria sanguinalis (Setaria sanguinalis Panicum sanguinale, Bluthirse) und Digitaria ischaemum (Setaria ischaemum, Panicum lineare, Fingerhirse). Kieler Not. Pflanzenk. Schleswig-Holstein 4 (2/3): 37-38 Ade, A. (1901): Flora des bayerischen Bodenseegebietes - Übersicht über die im bayerischen Bodenseegebiet bis jetzt beobachteten wildwachsenden Phanerogamen und Gefässkryptogamen. Ber. Bayer. Bot. Ges. 8: 3-127 Ade, A. (1957): Die Gattung Rubus in Südwestdeutschland. Versuch einer Bearbeitung der Brombeerflora Hessens, des nördlichen Bayerns, Badens, und Württembergs, einschließlich Rheinhessens, der Pfalz und des Nahegebietes, sowie der gesamten Rhön. Schriftenreihe NatSchutzstelle Darmstadt 7: 1-217 Ade, M. (1989, 1990): Flora von Oberndorf am Neckar. Veröff. Landesstelle Naturschutz Landschaftspflege Bad.-Württ. 64/65: 509-583 Ade, U. (1990): Seltene und geschützte Pflanzen im Landkreis Böblingen. In: Ade, U. et al.: Naturnahe Lebensräume und Flora im Schönbuch und Gäu. : 52-76 Ade, U., B. Baumann, H. Baumann u. W. Wahrenburg (1990): Naturnahe Lebensräume und Flora in Schönbuch und Gäu. : 244 Adema, F. (1968): En "oude" voor Nederland nieuwe Salvia-bastaard. Gorteria 4: 72-74 Adema, F. u. M.T. Jansen (1979): Xanthium L. in Nederland. Gorteria 9(9): 300-303 Adler, W., K. Oswald u. R. Fischer (1994): Exkursionsflora von Österreich (Hrsg.: Fischer, M.). E. Ulmer : 1180 Adolphi, K. (1981): Muscari armeniacum, eine verwilderte Zierpflanze.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the Natural History Museum
    Bulletin of _ The Natural History Bfit-RSH MU8&M PRIteifTBD QENERAl LIBRARY Botany Series VOLUME 23 NUMBER 2 25 NOVEMBER 1993 The Bulletin of The Natural History Museum (formerly: Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History)), instituted in 1949, is issued in four scientific series, Botany, Entomology, Geology (incorporating Mineralogy) and Zoology. The Botany Series is edited in the Museum's Department of Botany Keeper of Botany: Dr S. Blackmore Editor of Bulletin: Dr R. Huxley Assistant Editor: Mrs M.J. West Papers in the Bulletin are primarily the results of research carried out on the unique and ever- growing collections of the Museum, both by the scientific staff and by specialists from elsewhere who make use of the Museum's resources. Many of the papers are works of reference that will remain indispensable for years to come. All papers submitted for publication are subjected to external peer review for acceptance. A volume contains about 160 pages, made up by two numbers, published in the Spring and Autumn. Subscriptions may be placed for one or more of the series on an annual basis. Individual numbers and back numbers can be purchased and a Bulletin catalogue, by series, is available. Orders and enquiries should be sent to: Intercept Ltd. P.O. Box 716 Andover Hampshire SPIO lYG Telephone: (0264) 334748 Fax: (0264) 334058 WorW Lwr abbreviation: Bull. nat. Hist. Mus. Lond. (Bot.) © The Natural History Museum, 1993 Botany Series ISSN 0968-0446 Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 55-177 The Natural History Museum Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD Issued 25 November 1993 Typeset by Ann Buchan (Typesetters), Middlesex Printed in Great Britain at The Alden Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacology, Taxonomy and Phytochemistry of the Genus Artemisia Specifically from Pakistan: a Comprehensive Review
    Available online at http://pbr.mazums.ac.ir PBR Review Article Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research Pharmacology, taxonomy and phytochemistry of the genus Artemisia specifically from Pakistan: a comprehensive review Sobia Zeb5, Ashaq Ali18, Wajid Zaman2,3,8*, Sidra Zeb6, Shabana Ali7, Fazal Ullah2, Abdul Shakoor8* 1Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China 2Department of Plant Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, Pakistan 3State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 4Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 5Department of Biotechnology, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, Pakistan 6Department of Microbiology, Abdulwali Khan University Mardan, Pakistan 7National institute of Genomics and Advance biotechnology, National Agriculture Research Centre 8University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T *Corresponding author: The genus Artemisia belongs to family Asteraceae and commonly used for ailments of multiple lethal diseases. [email protected] Twenty-nine species of the genus have been identified from Pakistan which are widely used as pharmaceutical, agricultural, cosmetics, sanitary, perfumes and food industries. In this review we studied the medicinal uses, Article history: taxonomy, essential oils as well as phytochemistry were compiled. Data was collected from the original research Received: Oct 12, 2018 articles, texts books and review papers including globally accepted search engines i.e. PubMed, ScienceDirect, Accepted: Dec 21, 2018 Scopus, Google Scholar and Web of Science. Species found of Artemisia in Pakistan with their medicinal properties and phytochemicals were recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • Picture Canyon Plant List 2014
    Picture Canyon Plant List 2014 Family Scientific Name Common Name Special Notes Wood Fern Woodsia neomexicana New Mexico Cliff Fern Named after the plates of bark that Cypress Juniperus deppeana Alligator Juniper resemble an alligator's skin Native Americans ate berries whole Juniperus monosperma Oneseed Juniper or ground them into flour for bread Juniperus scopulorum Rocky Mountain Juniper Pinyon pine is used to make medicine Pine Pinus edulis Pinyon Pine or equipment in almost event Navajo ceremony Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine Pigweed Amaranthus blitoides Prostrate Pigweed Amaranthus palmeri Careless Weed Non-native species to Picture Canyon Amaranthus powellii Powell's Amaranth Bassia hyssopifolia Smotherweed Non-native species to Picture Canyon Chenopodium album Lamb’s Quarters Non-native species to Picture Canyon Extensively foraged as a wild plant by Chenopodium berlandieri Pitseed Goosefoot prehisotric people Many Native American tribes utilize this plant for food - the greens as a Chenopodium fremontii Fremont's Goosefoot vegetable and the seeds as grain for bread Leaves were boiled and eaten by Chenopodium pratericola Desert Goosefoot prehistoric people Dysphania graveolens Fetid Goosefoot Kochia scoparia Mock Cypress Non-native species to Picture Canyon Salsola tragus Russian Thistle Non-native species to Picture Canyon Branches are used by tribes to Sumac Rhus aromatic Squaw Bush construct baskets Toxicodendron rydbergii Poison Ivy Dried flowers are made into lotion to Elderberry Sambucus cerulea Blue Elderberry treat fevers,
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant Species of the Pawnee National Grassland
    ,*- -USDA United States Department of Agriculture Vascular Plant Species of the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Pawnee National Grassland Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-17 September 1998 Donald L. Hazlett Abstract Hazlett, Donald L. 1998. Vascular plant species of the pawnee National Grassland. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-17. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 26 p. This report briefly describes the main vegetation types and lists the vascular plant species that are known to occur in and near the Pawnee National Grassland, Weld County, Colorado. A checklist includes the scientific and common names for 521 species. Of these, 115 plant species (22 percent) are not native to this region. The life forms, habitats, and geographic distribution of native and introduced plants are summarized and discussed. Keywords: grasslands, Colorado flora, Great Plains flora, plant lists The Author Dr. Donald L. Hazlett, a native of the eastern plains of Colorado, has lived and worked in the Pawnee National Grassland region since 1983. Before 1983 Don spent 12 years working in Honduras and Costa Rica. He has worked for Colorado State University as site manager for the Central Plains Experimental Range, as a visiting professor in the biology department, and as a plant taxonomist for the Center for Ecological Management of Military Lands. Since 1995 Don has been a research contractor for ecological and floristic studies in the western United States. He prefers ethnobotanical studies. Publisher Rocky Mountain Research Station Fort Collins, Colorado September 1998 You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media.
    [Show full text]
  • Allelopathic Potential of Artemisia Biennis (Biennial Wormwood)
    Vol.3, No.4, 582-587 (2012) Agricultural Sciences doi:10.4236/as.2012.34070 Allelopathic potential of Artemisia biennis (biennial wormwood) George O. Kegode1*, Mark G. Ciernia2, David B. Vlieger1 1Department of Agricultural Sciences and Department of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Information Systems, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, USA; *Corresponding author: [email protected] 2Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, USA Received 3 March 2012; revised 14 April 2012; accepted 17 May 2012 ABSTRACT Keywords: Allelopathic Potential; Artemisia biennis; Biennial Wormwood; Garden Huckleberry; Solanum In this study, Artemisia biennis was seeded in a melanocerasum greenhouse and raised to an average plant height of 100 cm. Aboveground plant portions were harvested and partitioned into leaves and 1. INTRODUCTION stems, and dried; while roots were either re- Artemisia biennis is native to northwest U.S. and west- moved from some soil (soil – roots) or left in soil ern Canada [1] and has now spread and become a prob- (soil + roots). Greenhouse studies were con- lem in several crops in the United States, Southern Can- ducted to evaluate the allelopathic potential of A. ada, and Europe [2,3]. Originally classified as a biennial biennis leaves, roots, and stems; and soil – weed of meadows, roadsides, and waste areas [1,4], A. roots, and soil + roots on Solanum melanocer- biennis infestations became larger in size and more fre- asum plant height and fresh weight plant–1. quent in cultivated fields in the 1990s [3,5]. The suc- When 5 g of root and stem biomass were added cessful spread of A.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity
    Appendix I Biodiversity Appendix I1 Literature Review – Biodiversity Resources in the Oil Sands Region of Alberta Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Extension Project Volume 3 – EIA Appendices December 2014 APPENDIX I1: LITERATURE REVIEW – BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES IN THE OIL SANDS REGION OF ALBERTA TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 BIOTIC DIVERSTY DATA AND SUMMARIES ................................................................ 1 1.1 Definition ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Biodiversity Policy and Assessments .................................................................... 1 1.3 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Ecosystems ........................................................................................... 2 1.3.2 Biota ...................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Key Issues ............................................................................................................. 9 1.4.1 Alteration of Landscapes and Landforms ............................................. 9 1.4.2 Ecosystem (Habitat) Alteration ........................................................... 10 1.4.3 Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effects ............................................ 10 1.4.4 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................. 12 1.4.5 Climate Change .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Vascular Plants of the Southern Rocky Mountain Region
    Checklist of Vascular Plants of the Southern Rocky Mountain Region (VERSION 3) NEIL SNOW Herbarium Pacificum Bernice P. Bishop Museum 1525 Bernice Street Honolulu, HI 96817 [email protected] Suggested citation: Snow, N. 2009. Checklist of Vascular Plants of the Southern Rocky Mountain Region (Version 3). 316 pp. Retrievable from the Colorado Native Plant Society (http://www.conps.org/plant_lists.html). The author retains the rights irrespective of its electronic posting. Please circulate freely. 1 Snow, N. January 2009. Checklist of Vascular Plants of the Southern Rocky Mountain Region. (Version 3). Dedication To all who work on behalf of the conservation of species and ecosystems. Abbreviated Table of Contents Fern Allies and Ferns.........................................................................................................12 Gymnopserms ....................................................................................................................19 Angiosperms ......................................................................................................................21 Amaranthaceae ............................................................................................................23 Apiaceae ......................................................................................................................31 Asteraceae....................................................................................................................38 Boraginaceae ...............................................................................................................98
    [Show full text]
  • Plant List (Pdf)
    Appendix D. Plant List Table D-1. Plant Species of Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge MAPLE FAMILY (ACERACEAE) Big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) N ADOXACEAE Blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) N SEAFIG FAMILY (AIZOACEAE) Ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis) New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia expansa) WATER PLANTAIN FAMILY (ALISMATACEAE) Water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica) N SUMAC FAMILY (ANACARDIACEAE) Poison oak (Toxicodendron divers) N CARROT FAMILY (APIACEAE) Chervil (Anthriscus scandicina) Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) Marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides) N Pacific oenanthe (Oenanthe sarmentosa) N Yampah (Perideridia kelloggii) N Pacific sanicle (Sanicula crassicaulis) N DOGBANE FAMILY (APOCYNACEAE) Periwinkle (Vinca major) HOLLY FAMILY (AQUIFOLIACEAE) 1 Holly (Ilex aquifolium) ARACEAE Calla lily (Zantedeschia aethiopica) GINSENG FAMILY (ARALIACEAE) English ivy (Hedera helix) ASTER FAMILY (ASTERACEAE) Yarrow (Achillea millefolium) N Sticky snake root (Ageratina adenophora) Pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margaritacea) N Mayweed (Anthemis cotula) Biennial sagewort (Artemisia biennis) Mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) N Common California aster (Aster chilensis) N Salt marsh baccharis (Baccharis douglasii) N Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) N Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis var. consanguinea) N Bur-marigold (Bidens laevis) N Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) Slender-flowered thistle (Carduus tenuiflorus) Napa starthistle (Centaurea melitensis) Star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) Congdon's
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Problem Weeds in Soybean Production
    SoybeaniGrow BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Chapter 34: Management of Problem Weeds in Soybean Production Michael Moechnig Sharon A. Clay ([email protected]) Darrell Deneke The widespread adoption of Roundup Ready® soybeans has greatly simplified soybean herbicide The widespread adoption of Roundup Ready® soybeans has greatly simplified soybean herbicide programs ThThe widespread adoption of Roundup Ready® soybeans has greatly simplified soybean herbicide The widespread adoption of Roundup Ready® soybeans has greatly simplified soybean herbicide programs but excessive dependence on glyphosate has resulted in glyphosate-resistant weed species in several fields. Other weeds continue to be a problem in soybean production systems, regardless of the herbicide management system. These problems result from late emergence or partial or near complete tolerance to glyphosate. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss management of problem weeds in soybean production systems (Table 34.1). As always, it is important to read and follow herbicide label instructions. Soybeans in cropping systems for weed management Including soybeans in crop rotations provides many benefits for managing several soil and pest problems, including weed control. Prior to the introduction of Roundup Ready® crops, including soybeans in a corn-soybean crop rotation was important for managing annual grass weed species in the soil seed bank as herbicide options for grass control were limited in corn, and broadleaf control in corn was much easier than in soybeans. The widespread adoption of Roundup Ready® technology has greatly simplified weed control in corn and soybeans, but excessive dependence on glyphosate has resulted in glyphosate-resistant weed species in several fields. In recent years, soybean has been an important rotational crop because it is planted at a later time than corn enabling control of several weeds prior to soybean emergence.
    [Show full text]