DOCSLIB.ORG

DEFINITION: Ground Juniper And/Or Parts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DEFINITION: Ground Juniper And/Or Parts 9-11-2014 Request for a New AAFCO Ingredient Definition: for ground Juniperus pinchotii and Juniperus ashei DEFINITION: Ground Juniper and/or Parts Prepared for: AAFCO, Attn: Ms. Erin Bubb Miscellaneous Products Investigator Division of Agronomic & Regional Services Pennsylvania Depart. of Agric., Bureau of Plant Ind. 2301 N. Cameron Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 Dear Ms. Bubb: On behalf of Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Dr. Travis Whitney (Texas A&M AgriLife Research, San Angelo) is requesting that ground whole juniper trees (Juniperus pinchotii Sudw. and Juniperus ashei J. Buchholz) and/or parts, collectively referred to as “ground juniper”, be reviewed, approved as a feed ingredient in ruminant animal diets, and published as an official AAFCO ingredient definition. Based upon available published literature and unpublished results from the AgriLife Research Nutrition Program (San Angelo), it has been concluded at this time, that ground juniper (similar characteristics as “Ground Whole Aspen and/or Parts,” which received AAFCO approval in 1980; AAFCO, 2011) is safe for use as a feed ingredient in ruminant animal diets, according to good feeding practices and the intended use as cited in this proposal. Contact information of requester: Texas A&M AgriLife Research Attn: Dr. Travis Whitney, Associate Professor 7887 US Hwy 87N San Angelo, TX 76901 [email protected] ph: 325-653-4576 ext. 235 Sincerely, 7-1-2014 ____________________ ________________ Travis Whitney Date Associate Professor cc: John Walker: Professor and Director, TX A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center, San Angelo 1 Abbreviations ADF acid detergent fiber ADG average daily gain ADIN acid detergent insoluble nitrogen AAFCO Association of American Feed Control Officials ALD approximate lethal dose AST aspartate transaminase BUN blood urea nitrogen BW body weight CLA conjugated linoleic acid CP crude protein CSH cottonseed hulls CSM cottonseed meal CT condensed tannins d day DDGS dried distillers grains with solubles DE digestible energy DM dry matter DMD dry matter digestibility DMI dry matter intake FDA Food and Drug Administration FEC fecal egg count G:F gain-to-feed ratio GGT gamma glutamyltransferase GI gastrointestinal h hour HCWT hot carcass weight HT hydrolysable tannin IGF insulin-like growth hormone IVM ivermectin mo month NDF neutral detergent fiber NDIN neutral detergent insoluble nitrogen NPN non-protein nitrogen NRC National Research Council OM organic matter RDP rumen degradable protein RUP rumen undegradable protein SBM soybean meal SEM greatest standard error of the mean SFA saturated fatty acid spp. species SUN serum urea nitrogen tIVDMD true in vitro dry matter disappearance TMR total mixed ration VFA volatile fatty acids VO volatile oil vs. versus wk week wt weight wt/vol weight/volume wt/wt weight/weight yr year 2 DEFINITION: Ground Juniper and/or Parts TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Summary of Request ....................................................................................................... 5 2. Proposed Definition ......................................................................................................... 12 3. Description of Ingredient ................................................................................................ 13 4. Manufacturing Process .................................................................................................... 22 5. Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 23 6. Use Limitations ............................................................................................................... 23 7. Prior Sanctioned Use and Historical Regulation ............................................................. 23 8. Safety Assessment: Fiber Characteristics and Feeding Value ........................................ 24 9. Safety Assessment: Toxicology ...................................................................................... 41 9.1. Overview: Secondary compounds ........................................................................ 42 9.2. Non-ruminant toxicity........................................................................................... 43 9.3. Ruminant toxicity ................................................................................................. 44 9.4. Risk related to the human consumption of the animal products ........................... 63 10. How to ensure the safety of ingredient ............................................................................ 66 11. Proposed Labeling ........................................................................................................... 67 12. Literature Cited ............................................................................................................... 68 Figures Figure 1 Visual identification of redberry juniper .......................................................................... 13 Figure 2 Visual identification of blueberry juniper ......................................................................... 13 Figure 3 Manufacturing process. .................................................................................................... 22 Figure 4 Nutritional composition and true 48-h in vitro dry matter digestibility (tIVDMD) of immature and mature redberry and blueberry juniper, and other roughages .................... 25 Figure 5 Nutritional composition and true 48-h in vitro dry matter digestibility of mature redberry and blueberry juniper, and aspen ....................................................................... 26 Figure 6 Effects of replacing oat hay with ground juniper on lamb BW ........................................ 37 Figure 7 Particle distribution of a supplement separated by the Penn State Particle Separator ...... 90 Figure 8 Effects of replacing CSH with juniper leaves in growing rations on lamb BW ............... 95 Tables Table 1 Chemical composition (% DM basis) and digestibility of redberry and blueberry juniper trees and parts ....................................................................................................... 17 Table 2 Secondary compound composition of redberry and blueberry juniper trees and parts ..... 19 Table 3 Chemical composition (% DM basis) and digestibility of aspen material ........................ 27 Table 4 Chemical composition (% DM basis) and digestibility of traditional ruminant animal feed ingredients ..................................................................................................... 28 Table 5 Chemical composition (DM basis) of ground mesquite wood and cottonseed hulls ........ 30 Table 6 Ingredient, chemical composition (% DM basis), and digestibility of treatment diets ..... 35 Table 7 Effects of replacing oat hay with ground juniper on lamb performance .......................... 36 Table 8. Effects of dried distillers grains with solubles and replacing oat hay with ground juniper on lamb serum urea N, IGF-1, Ca, and P, and fecal P and N ............................... 37 Table 9 Ingredient and chemical composition (% DM basis) pelleted treatment supplements ..... 38 Table 10 Effects of using ground redberry juniper in ewe supplements on DMI, ewe milk quality, lamb survival, birth weight, and growth performance ......................................... 39 3 Table 11 Ingredient and chemical composition (%, DM basis) of sorghum sudangrass hay dried juniper, sorghum grain, and treatment supplement ................................................. 51 Table 12 Secondary compound composition of approved ruminant animal feed ingredients ......... 60 Table 13 Maximum intake (DM basis) of various plant species, volatile oil, and CT by ruminant livestock when not mixed with other ingredients .............................................. 61 Table 14 Maximum intake (DM basis) of plant species, volatile oil, and CT by ruminant livestock when consuming total mixed diets .................................................................... 62 Table 15 Ingredient, chemical composition (% DM basis), and digestibility of treatment diets ..... 84 Table 16 Effects of replacing oat hay with ground juniper on lamb performance .......................... 85 Table 17 Ingredient and chemical composition (DM basis) of sorghum sudangrass hay, dried juniper material, sorghum grain, and treatment supplement ................................... 87 Table 18 Ingredient and chemical composition (DM basis) pelleted treatment supplements ......... 88 Table 19 Effects of using ground redberry juniper in ewe supplements on DMI, ewe milk quality lamb survival, birth weight, and growth performance .......................................... 89 Table 20 Ingredients of treatments and chemical composition (DM basis) of basal diet, DDGS, juniper forage, and treatments .......................................................................................... 91 Table 21 Effects of adding water or molasses to ground juniper forage and DDGS on lamb performance ............................................................................................................. 91 Table 22 Ingredient and chemical composition (DM basis) of dry juniper leaves, cottonseed hulls, and treatment diets ................................................................................ 94 Table 23 Solubility, digestibility, particle-associated bacteria, and condensed tannins (DM basis) of dry juniper leaves, cottonseed hulls, and treatment diets
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hygroscopic Weight Gain of Pollen Grains from Juniperus Species
    Int J Biometeorol (2015) 59:533–540 DOI 10.1007/s00484-014-0866-9 ORIGINAL PAPER Hygroscopic weight gain of pollen grains from Juniperus species Landon D. Bunderson & Estelle Levetin Received: 12 June 2013 /Revised: 26 June 2014 /Accepted: 27 June 2014 /Published online: 10 July 2014 # ISB 2014 Abstract Juniperus pollen is highly allergenic and is pro- Introduction duced in large quantities across Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. The pollen negatively affects human populations ad- The Cupressaceae is a significant source of airborne allergens, and jacent to the trees, and since it can be transported hundreds of the genus Juniperus is a major component of many ecosystems kilometers by the wind, it also affects people who are far from across the northern hemisphere (Mao et al. 2010; Pettyjohn and the source. Predicting and tracking long-distance transport of Levetin 1997). New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma are home to pollen is difficult and complex. One parameter that has been many species of juniper. Three species that represent a significant understudied is the hygroscopic weight gain of pollen. It is allergy contribution are Juniperus ashei, Juniperus monosperma, believed that juniper pollen gains weight as humidity increases and Juniperus pinchotii. J. ashei pollen is considered the most which could affect settling rate of pollen and thus affect pollen allergenic species of Cupressaceae in North America (Rogers and transport. This study was undertaken to examine how changes Levetin 1998). This species is distributed throughout central in relative humidity affect pollen weight, diameter, and settling Texas, Northern Mexico, the Arbuckle Mountains of south central rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Patterns in a Prosopis – Juniperus Savannah
    The Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources 30:63-77 (2017) 63 © Agricultural Consortium of Texas Spatial Patterns in a Prosopis – Juniperus Savannah Steven Dowhower Richard Teague*1 Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University System, Texas A&M AgriLife Research Center, P.O. Box 1658, Vernon, TX, USA. ABSTRACT We determined the distribution patterns and distance to nearest neighbor for Prosopis glandulosa and Juniperus pinchotii trees and saplings in west Texas to examine the intra- and interspecific spacing patterns of juvenile and mature trees to relate these patterns to their establishment dynamics on deep and shallow soils. Ordination was used to compare microsite vegetation associated with open grassland habitat and habitat proximal to big and small Prosopis and Juniperus plants. Analysis of similarities provided a multivariate index and probability of differences of vegetation between and among groups. Big Juniperus trees were randomly distributed on both soils, while the big Prosopis trees were random on the deep soil but aggregated on the shallow soil. Saplings of both species were strongly aggregated on both soils. Big and small Juniperus plants were positively associated with the dominant, established Prosopis trees and with litter cover but were negatively associated with bare soil and C4 grasses. In contrast, small Prosopis plants were negatively associated with both Juniperus and Prosopis trees on either soil and were positively associated with bare soil and C4 grasses. Prosopis trees facilitate establishment of Juniperus on deep or shallow soils, but Prosopis presence is probably not necessary for Juniperus establishment on either soil. The presence of big and small Juniperus plants close to and under the canopies of Prosopis trees and the inability of Prosopis seedlings to establish near Prosopis or Juniperus plants indicates that Juniperus trees would eventually dominate on the deep as well as the shallow soils.
    [Show full text]
  • EASTERN REDCEDAR (Juniperus Virginiana) EXPANSION, EFFECTS, and CONTROL
    EASTERN REDCEDAR (Juniperus virginiana) EXPANSION, EFFECTS, AND CONTROL A LITERATURE REVIEW FROM THE TALLGRASS PRAIRIE REGION OF THE CENTRAL U.S. Eastern redcedar burning, photo by Dirac Twidwell A collaborative product from the Great Plains Fire Science Exchange and Tallgrass Prairie and Oak Savanna Fire Science Consortium Written by: Tracy L. Hmielowski [email protected] Great Plains Pub # GPE 2014-17 Tallgrass Prairie Pub # TPOS LR02-2014 Page 1 of 14 Tallgrass prairie ecosystems in the United States are priorities for conservation of Key Points grassland communities. While much of the Changes in wildland fire regime have tallgrass prairie in the Great Plains and upper led to an expansion of eastern Midwest has been converted to cropland or redcedar in tallgrass prairie. other developments, some areas still support native prairie species (Samson and Knopf 1994). Increased eastern redcedar leads to Less than 4% of the original tallgrass prairie decreased herbaceous biodiversity, remains (Samson and Knopf 1994). In addition decreased forage production, and to the threats of expanding urban development increased Wildland Urban Interface and agriculture, many of these open grasslands concerns. are being invaded by woody species (Briggs et Prescribed fire is most effective for al. 2005). One tree species of concern in this controlling small trees, or change to woody dominance is eastern maintaining sites where eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana; hereafter cedar is not a problem; mechanical redcedar) a rapidly expanding evergreen treatments may be necessary for common throughout the eastern United States. In this document, we focus on the expansion of dealing with larger trees. redcedar (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Analyses of Juniperus Species in Turkey and Their Relations with Other Juniperus Based on Cpdna Supervisor: Prof
    MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES OF JUNIPERUS L. SPECIES IN TURKEY AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH OTHER JUNIPERS BASED ON cpDNA A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY AYSUN DEMET GÜVENDİREN IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN BIOLOGY APRIL 2015 Approval of the thesis MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES OF JUNIPERUS L. SPECIES IN TURKEY AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH OTHER JUNIPERS BASED ON cpDNA submitted by AYSUN DEMET GÜVENDİREN in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Department of Biological Sciences, Middle East Technical University by, Prof. Dr. Gülbin Dural Ünver Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Prof. Dr. Orhan Adalı Head of the Department, Biological Sciences Prof. Dr. Zeki Kaya Supervisor, Dept. of Biological Sciences METU Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. Musa Doğan Dept. Biological Sciences, METU Prof. Dr. Zeki Kaya Dept. Biological Sciences, METU Prof.Dr. Hayri Duman Biology Dept., Gazi University Prof. Dr. İrfan Kandemir Biology Dept., Ankara University Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sertaç Önde Dept. Biological Sciences, METU Date: iii I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : Aysun Demet GÜVENDİREN Signature : iv ABSTRACT MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES OF JUNIPERUS L. SPECIES IN TURKEY AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH OTHER JUNIPERS BASED ON cpDNA Güvendiren, Aysun Demet Ph.D., Department of Biological Sciences Supervisor: Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Big Tree Registry a List of the Largest Trees in Texas Sponsored by Texas a & M Forest Service
    Texas Big Tree Registry A list of the largest trees in Texas Sponsored by Texas A & M Forest Service Native and Naturalized Species of Texas: 320 ( D indicates species naturalized to Texas) Common Name (also known as) Latin Name Remarks Cir. Threshold acacia, Berlandier (guajillo) Senegalia berlandieri Considered a shrub by B. Simpson 18'' or 1.5 ' acacia, blackbrush Vachellia rigidula Considered a shrub by Simpson 12'' or 1.0 ' acacia, Gregg (catclaw acacia, Gregg catclaw) Senegalia greggii var. greggii Was named A. greggii 55'' or 4.6 ' acacia, Roemer (roundflower catclaw) Senegalia roemeriana 18'' or 1.5 ' acacia, sweet (huisache) Vachellia farnesiana 100'' or 8.3 ' acacia, twisted (huisachillo) Vachellia bravoensis Was named 'A. tortuosa' 9'' or 0.8 ' acacia, Wright (Wright catclaw) Senegalia greggii var. wrightii Was named 'A. wrightii' 70'' or 5.8 ' D ailanthus (tree-of-heaven) Ailanthus altissima 120'' or 10.0 ' alder, hazel Alnus serrulata 18'' or 1.5 ' allthorn (crown-of-thorns) Koeberlinia spinosa Considered a shrub by Simpson 18'' or 1.5 ' anacahuita (anacahuite, Mexican olive) Cordia boissieri 60'' or 5.0 ' anacua (anaqua, knockaway) Ehretia anacua 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Carolina Fraxinus caroliniana 90'' or 7.5 ' ash, Chihuahuan Fraxinus papillosa 12'' or 1.0 ' ash, fragrant Fraxinus cuspidata 18'' or 1.5 ' ash, green Fraxinus pennsylvanica 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Gregg (littleleaf ash) Fraxinus greggii 12'' or 1.0 ' ash, Mexican (Berlandier ash) Fraxinus berlandieriana Was named 'F. berlandierana' 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Texas Fraxinus texensis 60'' or 5.0 ' ash, velvet (Arizona ash) Fraxinus velutina 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, white Fraxinus americana 100'' or 8.3 ' aspen, quaking Populus tremuloides 25'' or 2.1 ' baccharis, eastern (groundseltree) Baccharis halimifolia Considered a shrub by Simpson 12'' or 1.0 ' baldcypress (bald cypress) Taxodium distichum Was named 'T.
    [Show full text]
  • 3211320 Central Mixedgrass Prairie
    LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting Model Biophysical Setting 3211320 Central Mixedgrass Prairie This BPS is lumped with: This BPS is split into multiple models: General Information Contributors (also see the Comments field) Date 1/10/2007 Modeler 1 Delbert M. [email protected] Reviewer Sam Fuhlendorf [email protected] Bassett du Modeler 2 Lee Elliott [email protected] Reviewer Modeler 3 Reviewer Vegetation Type Dominant Species Map Zone Model Zone BOBA3 Upland 32 Alaska Northern Plains SCSC Grassland/Herbaceous California N-Cent.Rockies General Model Sources NALE3 Great Basin Pacific Northwest Literature ERIN Great Lakes South Central Local Data BOGR2 Hawaii Southeast Expert Estimate BOCU Northeast S. Appalachians SONU2 Southwest PRGL2 Geographic Range This type historically occurs in western KS, western NE, eastern CO, northeastern NM, the eastern Texas panhandle into central TX, and along the western portion of OK proper. This BpS comprises the eastern half of MZ34 in ECOMAP sections 332F and 315C. This type occurs in the western half of MZ32 and in the northern half of MZ35 (west of Interstate-35). Biophysical Site Description This type occurs on sandy loam, loamey, or clayey upland sites of the southern Great Plains. In TX and OK, elevations range from 915-275m (Wright and Bailey 1982). Precipitation ranges from 20 to 28 inches (Wright and Bailey 1982), although mixedgrass can occur on sites with up to 32in, and occurs mostly from May through September. Vegetation Description Historically, vegetation was generally dominated by midgrass, with some areas occupied by tallgrasses or short grasses, as an effect of grazing, edaphic and topographic conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Woodlands Author: Kerry Dooley Historically the Primary Interest Area for National Inventories Was Timber
    Woodlands Author: Kerry Dooley Historically the primary interest area for national inventories was timber. Consequently, the national inventory framework and collection protocols were focused on productive timber- lands (USDA Forest Service 2005). Over time, information such as estimations of carbon sequestration, wildfire fuel loads, and nontimber forest products and services (e.g., biofuels and wildlife habitat) has become topics of increasing interest. The FIA program—the national inventory used in the United States—broadened the focus of its surveys to include non- timberland forests, including woodlands, better aligning with these changing focus areas. Woodlands generally occur in less productive growing condi- tions, such as the arid Southwestern United States. Woodlands provide much, if not all, of the same services provided by forests; that is, they function as important wildlife habitat, improve water quality, serve as carbon sinks (or sources, in the event of wildfires), and provide fuel during wildfire season. The species that comprise woodlands differ in characteristics from most trees. On average, woodland species tend to be slower growing, smaller in stature, and of a form with more forks and branches near the base of the tree. Woodland species often grow as clumps of stems rather than one central stem. Beyond the characteristics of the trees classified as woodland species, specific parameters pertain to classification of the land use category of woodlands, while the Resources Planning Act (RPA) derives calculations of woodland for this report from the FIA data, the FIA and RPA definitions of woodland differ somewhat, as outlined in the following paragraphs. Forest Inventory and Analysis Definitions and Parameters FIA defines woodlands strictly along the lines of species com- position and associated forest types, and considers woodlands a subset of forest lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Tips for Identifying Juniperus Ashei for the Pollen Trackers Campaign November 2019
    Tips for identifying Juniperus ashei for the Pollen Trackers campaign November 2019 www.usanpn.org Welcome to the Pollen Trackers campaign! We are interested in your observations of pollen cones on Juniperus ashei in Texas from December to February. This guide will help you to identify the correct species of juniper and selecting a male, as opposed to a female, tree. Please refer to the Phenophase Photo Guide for Juniperus ashei, located on the Pollen Trackers landing page (usanpn.org/nn/PollenTrackers), for photos of pollen cones. www.usanpn.org Where can I find Juniperus ashei? This species is primarily found in central Texas www.usanpn.org What does Juniperus ashei look like? • Small coniferous tree that can grow as tall as 30’. • Grows in both open areas and in closed canopy forests. • Scale-like leaves are green year-round and the shoots are rounded but not flattened. • Blue seed cones and pollen cones reach maturity in December to February. • Reaches reproductive maturity at heights as short as 4’. Its bark is reddish-brown and peels into long strips. • Male trees have small green or brown pollen cones. Female trees have blue juniper “berries.” www.usanpn.org What does Juniperus ashei look like? Adult trees: Open-grown Ashe’s Closed canopy juniper trees Ashe’s juniper tree Daniel Katz. CC BY-NC 4.0 Daniel Katz. CC BY-NC 4.0 www.usanpn.org What does Juniperus ashei look like? Adult trees: Daniel Katz. CC BY-NC 4.0 Daniel Katz. CC BY-NC 4.0 www.usanpn.org How do I know if I have a male tree? Male trees have small green or brown pollen cones Note dark orange color of male trees (due to pollen cones) Daniel Katz.
    [Show full text]
  • A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion
    A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion June 2004 © The Nature Conservancy This document may be cited as follows: The Nature Conservancy. 2004. A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion. Edwards Plateau Ecoregional Planning Team, The Nature Conservancy, San Antonio, TX, USA. Acknowledgements Jasper, Dean Keddy-Hector, Jean Krejca, Clifton Ladd, Glen Longley, Dorothy Mattiza, Terry The results presented in this report would not have Maxwell, Pat McNeal, Bob O'Kennon, George been possible without the encouragement and Ozuna, Jackie Poole, Paula Power, Andy Price, assistance of many individuals and organizations. James Reddell, David Riskind, Chuck Sexton, Cliff Most of the day-to-day work in completing this Shackelford, Geary Shindel, Alisa Shull, Jason assessment was done by Jim Bergan, Bill Carr, David Singhurst, Jack Stanford, Sue Tracy, Paul Turner, O. Certain, Amalie Couvillion, Lee Elliott, Aliya William Van Auken, George Veni, and David Wolfe. Ercelawn, Mark Gallyoun, Steve Gilbert, Russell We apologize for any inadvertent omissions. McDowell, Wayne Ostlie, and Ryan Smith. Finally, essential external funding for this work This project also benefited significantly from the came from the Department of Defense and the U. S. involvement of several current and former Nature Army Corps of Engineers through the Legacy Grant Conservancy staff including: Craig Groves, Greg program. Without this financial support, many of the Lowe, Robert Potts, and Jim Sulentich. Thanks for critical steps in the planning process might not have the push and encouragement. Our understanding of ever been completed. Thank you. the conservation issues important to the Edwards Plateau was greatly improved through the knowledge and experiences shared by many Conservancy staff including Angela Anders, Gary Amaon, Paul Barwick, Paul Cavanagh, Dave Mehlman, Laura Sanchez, Dan Snodgrass, Steve Jester, Bea Harrison, Jim Harrison, and Nurani Hogue.
    [Show full text]
  • Tobusch Fishhook Cactus Species Status Assessment - Final
    Tobusch Fishhook Cactus Species Status Assessment - Final SPECIES STATUS ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR TOBUSCH FISHHOOK CACTUS (SCLEROCACTUS BREVIHAMATUS SSP. TOBUSCHII (W.T. MARSHALL) N.P. TAYLOR) February, 2017 Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, NM Tobusch Fishhook Cactus Species Status Assessment - Final Prepared by Chris Best, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, Suggested citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Species status assessment of Tobusch Fishhook Cactus (Sclerocactus brevihamatus ssp. tobuschii (W.T. Marshall) N.P. Taylor). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 65 pp. + 2 appendices. i Tobusch Fishhook Cactus Species Status Assessment - Final EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tobusch fishhook cactus is a small cactus, with curved “fishhook” spines, that is endemic to the Edwards Plateau of Texas. It was federally listed as endangered on November 7, 1979 (44 FR 64736) as Ancistrocactus tobuschii. At that time, fewer than 200 individuals had been documented from 4 sites. Tobusch fishhook cactus is now confirmed in 8 central Texas counties: Bandera, Edwards, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Real, Uvalde, and Val Verde. In recent years, over 4,000 individuals have been documented in surveys and monitoring plots. Recent phylogenetic evidence supports classifying Tobusch fishhook cactus as Sclerocactus brevihamatus ssp. tobuschii. It is distinguished morphologically from its closest relative, S. brevihamatus ssp. brevihamatus, on the basis of yellow versus pink- or brown-tinged flowers, fewer radial spines, and fewer ribs. Additionally, subspecies tobuschii is endemic to limestone outcrops of the Edwards Plateau, while subspecies brevihamatus occurs in alluvial soils in the Tamaulipan Shrublands and Chihuahuan Desert. A recent investigation found genetic divergence between the two subspecies, although they may interact genetically in a narrow area where their ranges overlap.
    [Show full text]
  • Cupressaceae – Cypress Family
    CUPRESSACEAE – CYPRESS FAMILY Plant: shrubs and small to large trees, with resin Stem: woody Root: Leaves: evergreen (some deciduous); opposite or whorled, small, crowded and often overlapping and scale-like or sometimes awl- or needle-like Flowers: imperfect (monoecious or dioecious); no true flowers; male cones small and herbaceous, spore-forming; female cones woody (berry-like in junipers), scales opposite or in 3’s, without bracts Fruit: no true fruits; berry-like or drupe-like; 1-2 seeds at cone-scale, often with 2 wings Other: sometimes included with Pinaceae; locally mostly ‘cedars’; Division Coniferophyta (Conifers), Gymnosperm Group Genera: 30+ genera; locally Chamaecyparis, Juniperus (juniper), Thuja (arbor vitae), Taxodium (cypress) WARNING – family descriptions are only a layman’s guide and should not be used as definitive Flower Morphology in the Cupressaceae (Cypress Family) Examples of some common genera Common Juniper Juniperus communis L. var. depressa Pursh Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum (L.) L.C. Rich. Arbor Vitae [Northern White Cedar] Eastern Red Cedar [Juniper] Thuja occidentalis L. Juniperus virginiana L. var. virginiana CUPRESSACEAE – CYPRESS FAMILY Ashe's Juniper; Juniperus ashei J. Buchholz Common Juniper; Juniperus communis L. var. depressa Pursh Utah Juniper; Juniperus osteosperma (Torr.) Little Eastern Red Cedar [Juniper]; Juniperus virginiana L. var. virginiana Bald Cypress; Taxodium distichum (L.) L.C. Rich. Arbor Vitae [Northern White Cedar]; Thuja occidentalis L. Ashe's Juniper USDA Juniperus ashei J. Buchholz Cupressaceae (Cypress Family) Ashe Juniper Natural Area, Stone County, Missouri Notes: shrub to small tree; leaves evergreen, scale- like in 2-4 ranks, somewhat ovate with acute tip, no glands but resinous, margin with minute teeth; bark gray-brown-reddish, shreds easily, white blotches ring trunk and branches; fruit globular, fleshy and hard, blue, glaucous; dolostone bluffs and glades [V Max Brown, 2010] Common Juniper USDA Juniperus communis L.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3. Brush Management As a Rangeland Conservation Strategy
    CHAPTER 3 Brush Management as a Rangeland Conservation Strategy: A Critical Evaluation Steven R. Archer,1 Kirk W. Davies,2 Timothy E. Fulbright, 3 Kirk C. McDaniel,4 Bradford P. Wilcox,5 and Katharine I. Predick6 Authors are 1Professor, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0043, USA; 2Rangeland Scientist, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR 97720, USA; 3Regent's Professor and Meadows Professor in Semiarid Land Ecology, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University–Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 78363, USA; 4Professor, Animal and Range Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA; 5Professor , Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2126, USA; and 6Senior Research Specialist, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0043, USA Reference to any commercial product or service is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by USDA is implied 105 Woody plant encroachment “represents a threat to grassland, shrub- steppe, and savanna ecosystems and the plants and animals endemic to them… ” 106 Conservation Benefits of Rangeland Practices Brush Management as a Rangeland Conservation Strategy: A Critical Evaluation 3 Steven R. Archer, Kirk W. Davies, Timothy E. Fulbright, Kirk C. McDaniel, Bradford P. Wilcox, and Katharine I. Predick IntRoduCtIon et al. 2009). In semiarid and subhumid areas, encroachment of shrubs and trees Rangelands support the majority of the world’s into grasslands and savannas may have livestock production (Safriel and Adeel 2005) neutral to substantially positive effects on and play an important role in human health primary production, nutrient cycling, and and global carbon, water, and nitrogen cycles accumulation of soil organic matter (Archer (Campbell and Stafford Smith 2000).
    [Show full text]