DOCSLIB.ORG

George Washington Carver National Monument Natural Resource Condition Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available from http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/htln/, and the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). Please cite this publication as: Annis G., M. DeBacker, D. Diamond, L. Elliott, A. Garringer, P. Hanberry, K. James, R. Lee, S. Leis, M. Morey, D. Pursell, and C. Young. 2011. George Washington Carver National Monument natural resource condition assessment. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2011/425. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.. NPS 397/108220, July 2011 ii Contents Page Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii Tables ........................................................................................................................................... xiii Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... xvii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xxi Prologue ....................................................................................................................................... xxi Chapter 1 NRCA Background Information .................................................................................... 1 NRCA Approach for George Washington Carver National Monument ................................ 3 Natural Resource Condition Assessment Terminology ........................................................... 4 Chapter 2 Park Resource Setting and Resource Stewardship Context ........................................... 7 Park Resource Setting .............................................................................................................. 7 Description and Characterization of Park Natural Resources ............................................. 7 Landscape and Watershed Context and Threat Assessment .................................................. 10 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 11 Landform History.............................................................................................................. 16 Cultural History ................................................................................................................ 16 Natural Communities ........................................................................................................ 17 Aquatic Resources In and Near George Washington Carver National Monument ......................................................................................................................... 18 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 18 Resource Stewardship Context .............................................................................................. 18 Park Enabling Legislation ................................................................................................. 18 Fundamental Resources and Values ................................................................................. 19 iii Contents (continued) Page Other Important Resources and Values ............................................................................ 19 Desired Conditions for Natural Resources ....................................................................... 21 Chapter 3 Study Approach ............................................................................................................ 23 Preliminary Scoping .............................................................................................................. 23 Assessment Framework Used in the Study ........................................................................... 23 Resource Types, Attributes and Indicators ............................................................................ 25 Landscape Condition ........................................................................................................ 26 Biotic Condition ................................................................................................................ 26 Chemical and Physical Characteristics ............................................................................. 27 Hydrology and Geomorphology ....................................................................................... 29 Natural Disturbance Regime ............................................................................................. 29 Chapter 4 Study Methods.............................................................................................................. 31 Landscape Condition ............................................................................................................. 31 Landscape Composition and Land Use/Land Cover ........................................................ 31 Biotic Condition..................................................................................................................... 33 Bird Community Composition .......................................................................................... 33 Invasive Exotic Plants ....................................................................................................... 34 Plant Community Structure and Composition .................................................................. 34 Fish Community Composition .......................................................................................... 34 Aquatic Invertebrate Community ..................................................................................... 39 Chemical and Physical Characteristics .................................................................................. 41 Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 41 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 41 iv Contents (continued) Page Hydrology and Geomorphology ............................................................................................ 42 Surface Water Flow .......................................................................................................... 42 Natural Disturbance Regime .................................................................................................. 42 Fire Regime ....................................................................................................................... 42 Chapter 5 Natural Resource Conditions ......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • C10 Beano1senn.Mimosa.Amo-Des
    LEGUMINOSAE PART ONE Caesalpinioideae, Mimosoideae, Papilionoideae, Amorpha to Desmodium Revised 04 May 2015 BEAN FAMILY 1 Amphicarpaea CAESALPINIACEAE Cassia Anthyllis Cercis Apios Chamaecrista Astragalus Gleditsia Baptisia Gymnocladus Caragana Senna Cladrastus MIMOSACEAE Desmanthus Coronilla Mimosa Crotalaria Schrankia Dalea PAPILIONACEAE Amorpha Desmodium un-copyrighted draught --- “No family of the vegetable kingdom possesses a higher claim to the attention of the naturalist than the Leguminosae, wether we regard them as objects of ornament or utility. Of the former, we might mention the splendid varieties of Cercis, with their purple flowers, the Acacias, with their airy foliage and silky stamens, the Pride of India, Colutea, and Cæsalpina, with a host of others, which, like the Sweet Pea, are redolent with perfume. Of the latter, the beans, peas, lentils, clover, and lucerne, are too well known to require recommendation. Among timber trees, the Rosewood (a Brazilian species of Mimosa), the Laburnum, whose wood is durable and of an olive-green color, and the Locust of our own country are preëminent. The following are a few important officinal products of this order. In medicine; liquorice is the product of the root of Glycyrrhiza glabra of S. Europe. The purgative senna consists of leaves of Cassia Senna, C. acutifolia, C. Æthiopica, and other species of Egypt and Arabia. C. Marilandica is also a cathartic, but more mild than the former. The sweet pulp tamarind, is the product of a large and beautiful tree (Tamarindus Indica) of the E. and W. Indies. Resins and Balsams: Gum Senegal is yielded by Acacia Verek of the River Senegal; Gum Arabic, by several species of Acacia of Central Africa; Gum Tragacynth, by Astragalus verus, &c., Persia.
    [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]
  • Legumes of the North-Central States: C
    LEGUMES OF THE NORTH-CENTRAL STATES: C-ALEGEAE by Stanley Larson Welsh A Dissertation Submitted, to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major Subject: Systematic Botany Approved: Signature was redacted for privacy. Signature was redacted for privacy. artment Signature was redacted for privacy. Dean of Graduat College Iowa State University Of Science and Technology Ames, Iowa I960 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 8 TAXONOMIC AND NOMENCLATURE TREATMENT 13 REFERENCES 158 APPENDIX A 176 APPENDIX B 202 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his deep gratitude to Professor Duane Isely for assistance in the selection of the problem and for the con­ structive criticisms and words of encouragement offered throughout the course of this investigation. Support through the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station and through the Industrial Science Research Institute made possible the field work required in this problem. Thanks are due to the curators of the many herbaria consulted during this investigation. Special thanks are due the curators of the Missouri Botanical Garden, U. S. National Museum, University of Minnesota, North Dakota Agricultural College, University of South Dakota, University of Nebraska, and University of Michigan. The cooperation of the librarians at Iowa State University is deeply appreciated. Special thanks are due Dr. G. B. Van Schaack of the Missouri Botanical Garden library. His enthusiastic assistance in finding rare botanical volumes has proved invaluable in the preparation of this paper. To the writer's wife, Stella, deepest appreciation is expressed. Her untiring devotion, work, and cooperation have made this work possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Theo Witsell Botanical Report on Lake Atalanta Park November 2013
    A Rapid Terrestrial Ecological Assessment of Lake Atalanta Park, City of Rogers, Benton County, Arkansas Prairie grasses including big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), and side‐oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) thrive in a southwest‐facing limestone glade overlooking Lake Atalanta. This area, on a steep hillside east of the Lake Atalanta dam, contains some of the highest quality natural communities remaining in the park. By Theo Witsell Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission November 30, 2013 CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Background and History ................................................................................................................................ 3 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................. 4 General Description .................................................................................................................................. 4 Karst Features ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Ecological Significance .............................................................................................................................. 5 Plant Communities ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • C14 Asters.Sym-Xan
    COMPOSITAE PART FOUR Symphyotrichum to Xanthium Revised 1 April 2015 SUNFLOWER FAMILY 4 COMPOSITAE Symphyotrichum Vernonia Tetraneuris Xanthium Verbesina Notes SYMPHYOTRICHUM Nees 1833 AMERICAN ASTER Symphyotrichum New Latin, from Greek symphysis, junction, & trichos, hair, referring to a perceived basal connation of bristles in the European cultivar used by Nees as the type, or from Greek symphyton, neuter of symphytos, grown together. A genus of approximately Copyrighted Draught 80 spp of the Americas & eastern Asia, with the greatest diversity in the southeastern USA (according to one source). Cook Co, Illinois has 24 spp, the highest spp concentration in the country. See also Aster, Eurybia, Doellingeria, Oclemena, & Ionactis. X = 8, 7, 5, 13, 18, & 21. Density gradient of native spp for Symphyotrichum within the US (data 2011). Darkest green (24 spp. Cook Co, IL) indicates the highest spp concentration. ©BONAP Symphyotrichum X amethystinum (Nuttall) Nesom AMETHYST ASTER, Habitat: Mesic prairie. Usually found close to the parents. distribution - range: Culture: Description: Comments: status: phenology: Blooms 9-10. “This is an attractive aster with many heads of blue or purple rays; rarer white and pink-rayed forms also occur. … Disk flowers are perfect and fertile; ray flowers are pistillate and fertile.” (ILPIN) VHFS: Formerly Aster X amethystinus Nutt. Hybrid between S novae-angliae & S ericoides. This is a possible hybrid of Aster novae-angliae and Aster ericoides, or of A. novae-angliae and A. praealtus” (Ilpin) Symphyotrichum X amethystinum Symphyotrichum anomalum (Engelmann) GL Nesom BLUE ASTER, aka LIMESTONE HEART-LEAF ASTER, MANY RAY ASTER, MANYRAY ASTER, MANY-RAYED ASTER, subgenus Symphyotrichum Section Cordifolii Copyrighted Draught Habitat: Dry woods.
    [Show full text]
  • Species List For: Valley View Glades NA 418 Species
    Species List for: Valley View Glades NA 418 Species Jefferson County Date Participants Location NA List NA Nomination and subsequent visits Jefferson County Glade Complex NA List from Gass, Wallace, Priddy, Chmielniak, T. Smith, Ladd & Glore, Bogler, MPF Hikes 9/24/80, 10/2/80, 7/10/85, 8/8/86, 6/2/87, 1986, and 5/92 WGNSS Lists Webster Groves Nature Study Society Fieldtrip Jefferson County Glade Complex Participants WGNSS Vascular Plant List maintained by Steve Turner Species Name (Synonym) Common Name Family COFC COFW Acalypha virginica Virginia copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 2 3 Acer rubrum var. undetermined red maple Sapindaceae 5 0 Acer saccharinum silver maple Sapindaceae 2 -3 Acer saccharum var. undetermined sugar maple Sapindaceae 5 3 Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae/Anthemideae 1 3 Aesculus glabra var. undetermined Ohio buckeye Sapindaceae 5 -1 Agalinis skinneriana (Gerardia) midwestern gerardia Orobanchaceae 7 5 Agalinis tenuifolia (Gerardia, A. tenuifolia var. common gerardia Orobanchaceae 4 -3 macrophylla) Ageratina altissima var. altissima (Eupatorium rugosum) white snakeroot Asteraceae/Eupatorieae 2 3 Agrimonia pubescens downy agrimony Rosaceae 4 5 Agrimonia rostellata woodland agrimony Rosaceae 4 3 Allium canadense var. mobilense wild garlic Liliaceae 7 5 Allium canadense var. undetermined wild garlic Liliaceae 2 3 Allium cernuum wild onion Liliaceae 8 5 Allium stellatum wild onion Liliaceae 6 5 * Allium vineale field garlic Liliaceae 0 3 Ambrosia artemisiifolia common ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 3 Ambrosia bidentata lanceleaf ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 4 Ambrosia trifida giant ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 -1 Amelanchier arborea var. arborea downy serviceberry Rosaceae 6 3 Amorpha canescens lead plant Fabaceae/Faboideae 8 5 Amphicarpaea bracteata hog peanut Fabaceae/Faboideae 4 0 Andropogon gerardii var.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouriensis Volume 28 / 29
    Missouriensis Volume 28/29 (2008) In this issue: Improved Status of Auriculate False Foxglove (Agalinis auriculata) in Missouri in 2007 Tim E. Smith, Tom Nagel, and Bruce Schuette ......................... 1 Current Status of Yellow False Mallow (Malvastrum hispidum) in Missouri Tim E. Smith.................................................................................... 5 Heliotropium europaeum (Heliotropiaceae) New to Missouri Jay A. Raveill and George Yatskievych ..................................... 10 Melica mutica (Poaceae) New for the Flora of Missouri Alan E. Brant ................................................................................. 18 Schoenoplectus californicus (Cyperaceae) New to Missouri Timothy E. Vogt and Paul M. McKenzie ................................. 22 Flora of Galloway Creek Nature Park, Howell County, Missouri Bill Summers .................................................................................. 27 Journal of the Missouri Native Plant Society Missouriensis, Volume 28/29 2008 1 IMPROVED STATUS OF AURICULATE FALSE FOXGLOVE (AGALINIS AURICULATA) IN MISSOURI IN 2007 Tim E. Smith Missouri Department of Conservation P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180 Tom Nagel Missouri Department of Conservation 701 James McCarthy Drive St. Joseph, MO 64507-2194 Bruce Schuette Missouri Department of Natural Resources Cuivre River State Park 678 State Rt. 147 Troy, MO 63379 Populations of annual plant species are known to have periodic “boom” and “bust” years as well as years when plant numbers more closely approach long-term averages. In tracking populations of plant species of conservation concern (Missouri Natural Heritage Program, 2007), there are sometimes also boom years in the number of reports of new populations. Because of reports of five new populations and a surge in numbers of plants at some previously-known sites, 2007 provided encouraging news for the conservation of the auriculate false foxglove [Agalinis auriculata (Michx.) Blake] in Missouri.
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Quality Assessment Report
    FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN INDIANA: THE CONCEPT, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSERVATISM Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) the State tree of Indiana June 2004 Final Report for ARN A305-4-53 EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01 Prepared by: Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Upland, IN 46989-1001 Introduction Since the early nineteenth century the Indiana landscape has undergone a massive transformation (Jackson 1997). In the pre-settlement period, Indiana was an almost unbroken blanket of forests, prairies, and wetlands. Much of the land was cleared, plowed, or drained for lumber, the raising of crops, and a range of urban and industrial activities. Indiana’s native biota is now restricted to relatively small and often isolated tracts across the State. This fragmentation and reduction of the State’s biological diversity has challenged Hoosiers to look carefully at how to monitor further changes within our remnant natural communities and how to effectively conserve and even restore many of these valuable places within our State. To meet this monitoring, conservation, and restoration challenge, one needs to develop a variety of appropriate analytical tools. Ideally these techniques should be simple to learn and apply, give consistent results between different observers, and be repeatable. Floristic Assessment, which includes metrics such as the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean C values, has gained wide acceptance among environmental scientists and decision-makers, land stewards, and restoration ecologists in Indiana’s neighboring states and regions: Illinois (Taft et al. 1997), Michigan (Herman et al. 1996), Missouri (Ladd 1996), and Wisconsin (Bernthal 2003) as well as northern Ohio (Andreas 1993) and southern Ontario (Oldham et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Four: Landscaping with Native Plants a Gardener’S Guide for Missouri Landscaping with Native Plants a Gardener’S Guide for Missouri
    Chapter Four: Landscaping with Native Plants A Gardener’s Guide for Missouri Landscaping with Native Plants A Gardener’s Guide for Missouri Introduction Gardening with native plants is becoming the norm rather than the exception in Missouri. The benefits of native landscaping are fueling a gardening movement that says “no” to pesticides and fertilizers and “yes” to biodiversity and creating more sustainable landscapes. Novice and professional gardeners are turning to native landscaping to reduce mainte- nance and promote plant and wildlife conservation. This manual will show you how to use native plants to cre- ate and maintain diverse and beauti- ful spaces. It describes new ways to garden lightly on the earth. Chapter Four: Landscaping with Native Plants provides tools garden- ers need to create and maintain suc- cessful native plant gardens. The information included here provides practical tips and details to ensure successful low-maintenance land- scapes. The previous three chap- ters include Reconstructing Tallgrass Prairies, Rain Gardening, and Native landscapes in the Whitmire Wildflower Garden, Shaw Nature Reserve. Control and Identification of Invasive Species. use of native plants in residential gar- den design, farming, parks, roadsides, and prairie restoration. Miller called his History of Native work “The Prairie Spirit in Landscape Landscaping Design”. One of the earliest practitioners of An early proponent of native landscap- Miller’s ideas was Ossian C. Simonds, ing was Wilhelm Miller who was a landscape architect who worked in appointed head of the University of the Chicago region. In a lecture pre- Illinois extension program in 1912. He sented in 1922, Simonds said, “Nature published a number of papers on the Introduction 3 teaches what to plant.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Wisconsin 2016 Wetland Plant List
    5/12/16 State of Wisconsin 2016 Wetland Plant List Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ Trillium cernuum L. (Whip-Poor-Will-Flow er) Photo: Dan Tenaglia List Counts: Wetland MW NCNE Total UPL 91 109 200 FACU 510 534 1044 FAC 272 288 560 FACW 333 317 650 OBL 480 481 961 Rating 1686 1729 1729 User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps Region. 3) Some state boundaries lie within two or more Corps Regions. If a species occurs in one region but not the other, its rating will be shown in one column and the other column will be BLANK. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 1/26 5/12/16 NORTHCENTRAL GREAT LAKES 2016 SUBREGIONAL WETLAND PLANT LIST Scientific Name Authorship Subregion NCNE Common Name Populus tremuloides Michx. NGL = FAC FACU Quaking Aspen Rubus idaeus L. NGL = FAC FACU Common Red Raspberry 2/26 5/12/16 Scientific Name Authorship MW NCNE Common Name Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill. FACW FAC Balsam Fir Abutilon theophrasti Medik. FACU FACU Velvetleaf Acalypha gracilens Gray FACU FACU Slender Three-Seed-Mercury Acalypha rhomboidea Raf. FACU FACU Common Three-Seed-Mercury Acer negundo L. FAC FAC Ash-Leaf Maple Acer nigrum Michx.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscaping for Season Long Color
    JANUARY 2019 HOME HORTICULTURE landscaping for season long color JayDee Gunnell, Horticulture Agent, Cache County Extension Sheriden Hansen, Extension Assistant Professor, Davis County Linden Greenhalgh, Extension Associate Professor, Tooele County Holly Christley, Horticulture Assistant, Tooele County Each season brings with it new colors and emotions. Many homeowners seek help in selecting plant material that will offer season-long interest in the landscape. Different colors can add variety and add interest to the landscape. Plants should add consistency and tie the landscape design together. Harmony in a landscape is often accomplished when the same color schemes are repeated. When planting for color, it is good to remember some general rules. Cool colors, such as shades of green, blue, and soft pastels, blend well together and have a tendency to make an area seem larger in appearance. These colors also suggest calmness or tranquility. Warm colors, such as shades of red, Tulips in early spring. orange, and yellow, jump out visually and act as colorful accents. These colors imply lively and inviting feelings. Complementary colors are those colors that most optimally accentuate each other. Yellow is considered complementary to purple. Red is complementary to green. Orange is complementary to blue. White is one of those universal colors, which complements all colors. There are many different plants which can add seasonal splendor to a landscape. Many plants display an array of flower colors throughout the season. Some plants offer different textures while others put on a spectacular show in the autumn as their colorful leaves proclaim the end of the season. When planting for color, it is important to think of the Butterfly Weed (Asclepias importance of foliage effect along tuberosa) blooms in July and offers Lilacs offer early spring color.
    [Show full text]