DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Commercial Pollinator Seed Mixes for Western Oregon: Third Year Progress Report Amy Bartow and Annie Young-Mathews

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Commercial Pollinator Seed Mixes for Western Oregon: Third Year Progress Report Amy Bartow and Annie Young-Mathews 2014-2017 Progress Report NRCS Plant Materials Center, Corvallis, OR June 2018 Evaluation of Commercial Pollinator Seed Mixes for Western Oregon: Third Year Progress Report Amy Bartow and Annie Young-Mathews ABSTRACT There are many pollinator seed mixes available on the commercial market, but not all are likely to establish and perform well in our region, or provide high quality pollinator habitat. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a number of commercially available pollinator mixes for use in western Oregon. Started in the fall of 2014 at the Corvallis Plant Materials Center (PMC), this study includes small plots of seven different commercial pollinator mixes seeded at a standardized rate of 60 seeds/ft2. Plots were monitored every two to four weeks throughout the 2015, 2016, and 2017 bloom seasons (late February through September) for plant canopy cover, bloom period, flower abundance, and pollinator visitation. After three years of evaluation, we have found that the most important trait in a mix, for providing continuous bloom over multiple years to attract the most pollinators, is the right balance between annuals, short-lived perennials, and long-lived perennials. Annuals provide first year bloom and cover while the perennials are becoming established, but usually fall out completely by the third year. Short-lived perennials bloom heavily in the second year, usually re-seed, and continue to fill in bare areas in the planting. Long-lived perennials will continue to bloom every year after the first establishment year and expand over time. INTRODUCTION Pollinator habitat requires an array of plants that flower throughout the entire growing season. This provides a source of nectar and pollen for adult pollinators and a diversity of herbaceous plants important for immature pollinator life stages and nesting (Pendergrass et al., 2008; USDA- NRCS, 2016). The commercial seed industry is marketing pre-made seed mixes appropriate to attract pollinators. These mixes may not perform equally in different regions of the country. Some commercial mixes may contain plant species that can become invasive, or the mix may not contain appropriate species to provide pollinator forage throughout the year, or may not contain plant species that provide forage to the target pollinators (i.e., not all flowers are of equal value to pollinators). Where commercial pollinator seed mixes are being marketed, the PMC may determine it beneficial to evaluate commercial mixes against a standardized pollinator mix to be able to advise NRCS field offices and their customers on the commercial mixes’ relative value in providing pollinator forage. The purpose of this study is to evaluate seed mixtures for pollinator habitat value in western Oregon. Amy Bartow, Seed and Plant Production Manager, USDA-NRCS Corvallis Plant Materials Center, 3415 NE Granger Ave, Corvallis OR 97330, [email protected] MATERIALS AND METHODS Treatments in this study included a “standard” Xerces Society pollinator seed mix and six other commercially available wildflower/pollinator seed mixes (Table 1). The standard was developed for western Oregon by Corvallis PMC staff and staff from The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in 2014; it was designed to provide a continuous bloom throughout the growing season (at least three flowering species in early, mid-, and late season), including species that are readily available and relatively low in cost. Other mixes were selected for inclusion in this study from commercially available wildflower or pollinator mixes for the Pacific Northwest that 1) did not include any invasive or noxious weeds, 2) would likely provide abundant bloom throughout the season, 3) included some late-season nectar and pollen sources, 4) had a balance of annuals and perennials, and 5) provided a variety of flower color, shapes and sizes to accommodate different pollinators. The species composition of each mix is listed in the individual mix descriptions in Appendix 2. Fall 2014 plots (Round 1) were seeded at the Corvallis PMC on a Woodburn silt loam soil that had previously been in native perennial grass production for over five years. A firm seedbed was prepared by plowing followed by harrowing and rolling with a smooth roller. Non-replicated 20 x 50-ft plots were hand broadcast seeded and raked in on 23 September 2014 and it rained heavily the following day. Seeding rates were standardized to apply 60 seeds/ft2, but the vendor- recommended seeding rates and associated costs are also given in Table 1. Plots were not fertilized or irrigated during this study. Soil tests in May 2015 showed that the field had a pH of 4.9, high levels of P and K (133 and 258 ppm, respectively), and medium levels of other nutrients (9 ppm SO4-S, 4.3 meq/100 g Ca, and 0.7 meq/100 g Mg). A second set of plots were seeded in fall 2015 (Round 2), also on a Woodburn silt loam soil that had previously been in largely unmanaged turf for at least five years. Seedbed preparation was similar to the first year, and 20 x 50-ft plots were hand broadcasted and raked in on 8 October 2015. Soil tests in July 2016 showed that the field had a pH of 4.9, high levels of P and K (58 and 265 ppm, respectively), and medium levels of other nutrients (3.5 meq/100 g Ca and 0.9 meq/100 g Mg). Table 1. Pollinator seed mixes included in the 2014-2017 trials at the Corvallis Plant Materials Center. Vendor PMC Trial Rate Recommended at 60 seeds/ft2 Seeding Seeding Rate Rate Cost No. Oregon (lb per Cost per (lb per per ¼ Vendor Mix Name Species Natives* Annuals* ¼ ac) ¼ ac ¼ ac) ac American Native Pacific 18 UNK UNK 5.5-11 $394-787 3.3 $233 Meadows Northwest Wildflower Nature’s Northwest Wildflower 17 0% 47% 5.5 $275 1.8 $91 Finest Seed Blend Silver Falls West Cascade 17 68% 46% 2.25-3 $162-216 2.3 $162 Seed Wildflower Economy Xerces Pollinator Mix 2014 23 82% 26% 3.5 $230 3.5 $230 Society Silver Falls Native Pollinator Mix 18 48% 58% 3.75 $218 3.8 $218 Seed Heritage Wetland Prairie 21 100% 24% 1.25-2 $163-260 3.8 $488 Seedlings Flowers 1 Heritage General Pollinator 20 100% 25% 1.75-2.5 $229-328 5.5 $721 Seedlings Mix *Western Oregon native and annual species compositions are based on seed weight percentages in each mix. UNK= unknown. 2 Weed control consisted of one hand weeding of all plots in May 2015 and May 2016, and mowing in late fall each year after all plants had senesced. Weather data for the study period were collected from the Oregon State University Hyslop weather station. In general, the 2014- 2015 season in Corvallis was warmer and drier than average, the 2015-2016 season was warmer and wetter than average, and the 2016-2017 season was cooler and much wetter than average. Total precipitation for the October through May growing season was 35 inches in 2014-2015, 47 inches in 2015-2016, and 57 inches in 2016-2017, compared to a 20-year average of 39 inches. During the bloom period (late February through September 2015, March through August 2016, and April through August 2017), all plots were evaluated monthly for pollinator visitation, and bi-weekly for bloom period and flower abundance. Bloom abundance was measured by counting the number of open flowers of each species in 10 random 1-ft2 quadrats per plot. Pollinator visitation was monitored using the Streamlined Bee Monitoring Protocol for Assessing Pollinator Habitat (Ward et al., 2014). This protocol consists of conducting timed 7.5-minute counts of all floral visitors along two sets of two 50-ft transects (total of 15 minutes along 200 ft per plot). Pollinator visits were recorded in the following broad categories: honey bees, bumble bees, other native bees, wasps, flies, and butterflies/moths. Where possible, we tried to document which insects were visiting which flowers. Photographs were also taken monthly at established points in each plot. Canopy cover data were collected monthly during the establishment year of each set of plots (2015 and 2016), and once per year in June thereafter. Canopy cover was recorded by species at 1-ft intervals along a 50-ft line-point intersect transect running diagonally across each plot; all canopy layers were recorded in order to capture small native seedlings that might initially be hiding under weedy cover. This study is a non-replicated demonstration, so no statistical comparisons are possible. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Establishment and canopy cover In general, establishment rates for all mixes appeared to be much higher in the Round 2 plots (seeded in the fall of 2015) than in the Round 1 plots (seeded in the fall of 2014), with most mixes having at least 75% canopy cover of planted species by mid-summer in 2016, while weed cover and bare ground topped 50% in many mixes during mid-summer of 2015 (see cover charts for each mix in Appendix 2). Since site preparation and planting dates were similar in both years, this difference in establishment is difficult to explain, but may be due to a combination of varying pest pressure (slugs and birds), weather, and field history/weed pressure. Species composition and canopy cover changed dramatically from Year 1 to Year 2 in both rounds of plantings, as many annual species failed to reseed the second year, and the aggressive biennial riverbank lupine became dominant in most mixes where it was present. One exception to this loss in plant species diversity was the Xerces Pollinator Mix, which had an increase in the number of species present in the cover data in Year 2 as perennial species became the dominant cover.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plants for Pollinators Calendar & Practices to Support Pollinators
    PLANTS FOR POLLINATORS CALENDAR & PRACTICES TO SUPPORT POLLINATORS Jacqueline Cramer, Design Collaborators and Kimberly Leeper, Mariposa Naturescapes GREEN GARDENING WORKSHOP – Oct. 22, 2014 Increase Foraging Habitat – Succession of Flowers through Entire Growing Season – Plant in Clumps/Natural Drifts of Same Species and in Plant Corridors (Hedgerows) Choose nectar and pollen‐rich plants like native wildflowers and old‐fashioned (non‐native) varieties of perennial flowers that are NOT invasive. A corridor of pollinator gardens in neighborhoods, cities, and rural areas around the country could provide enough habitat to restore healthy communities of beneficial insects and pollinators. PLANTS FOR POLLINATORS CALENDAR Be aware that this plant list is a sampling of possible native and non‐native plants available for pollinators. Criteria for selection on this list: well‐behaved; less “messy” than some; easy to find; drought‐tolerant (“right plant, right plant”); multi‐functional (two functions+); and focus on being good for variety of bees. *Bloom times are approximate and will depend upon the weather that season as well as microclimates/site conditions; Observe bloom times of different species you’ve planted and tweak it so you have multiple species blooming over the growing season (Feb. – Oct.). You can find non‐native “versions” of some native plants listed. WINTER – January – February* ‐‐Cornelian Cherry – Cornus mas ‐‐Hardy Cyclamen (or Persian Violet) ‐‐ Cyclamen coum ‐‐BULBS – Narcissus (early varieties), Daffodil, and Crocus ‐‐Hellebore
    [Show full text]
  • Bumble Bee Pollen Foraging on Lupine (Lupinus: Fabaceae)
    BUMBLE BEE POLLEN FORAGING ON LUPINE (LUPINUS: FABACEAE): WITHIN-WHORL DECISIONS by Birgit Semsrott A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Biology May 2000 BUMBLE BEE POLLEN FORAGING ON LUPINE (LUPINUS: FABACEAE): WITHIN-WHORL DECISIONS by Birgit Semsrott We certify that we have read this study and that it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully acceptable, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts. Approved by the Master's Thesis Committee: Michael R. Mesler, Major Professor Michael &mann, Committee Member P. Dawn Goley, Committee Member Casey Lu, Committee Member Milton J. Boyd, Graduate Coordinator Ronald Fritzsche, Dean for Research and Graduate Studies ABSTRACT Bumble bee pollen foraging on lupine (Lupinus: Fabaceae): within-whorl decisions Birgit Semsrott Bumble bees (Bombus: Apidae) can maximize foraging efficiency in a resource-patchy environment by visiting mainly rewarding flowers and avoiding those that are either empty or less rewarding. This study investigated how bumble bees avoid unrewarding flowers of lupine (Lupinus: Fabaceae), a plant in which the pollen is hidden from view. I recorded whether bees left a whorl upon encountering various situations. Bumble bees clearly discriminated against flowers that showed unambiguous visual signs of being unrewarding. In the absence of any visual cues, bees made use of a presumably predictable spatial distribution of pollen within whorls. They were able to assess the amount of pollen collected per flower, and they departed upon encountering one or more unrewarding flowers.
    [Show full text]
  • Perennial Grain Legume Domestication Phase I: Criteria for Candidate Species Selection
    sustainability Review Perennial Grain Legume Domestication Phase I: Criteria for Candidate Species Selection Brandon Schlautman 1,2,* ID , Spencer Barriball 1, Claudia Ciotir 2,3, Sterling Herron 2,3 and Allison J. Miller 2,3 1 The Land Institute, 2440 E. Water Well Rd., Salina, KS 67401, USA; [email protected] 2 Saint Louis University Department of Biology, 1008 Spring Ave., St. Louis, MO 63110, USA; [email protected] (C.C.); [email protected] (S.H.); [email protected] (A.J.M.) 3 Missouri Botanical Garden, 4500 Shaw Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63110, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-785-823-5376 Received: 12 February 2018; Accepted: 4 March 2018; Published: 7 March 2018 Abstract: Annual cereal and legume grain production is dependent on inorganic nitrogen (N) and other fertilizers inputs to resupply nutrients lost as harvested grain, via soil erosion/runoff, and by other natural or anthropogenic causes. Temperate-adapted perennial grain legumes, though currently non-existent, might be uniquely situated as crop plants able to provide relief from reliance on synthetic nitrogen while supplying stable yields of highly nutritious seeds in low-input agricultural ecosystems. As such, perennial grain legume breeding and domestication programs are being initiated at The Land Institute (Salina, KS, USA) and elsewhere. This review aims to facilitate the development of those programs by providing criteria for evaluating potential species and in choosing candidates most likely to be domesticated and adopted as herbaceous, perennial, temperate-adapted grain legumes. We outline specific morphological and ecophysiological traits that may influence each candidate’s agronomic potential, the quality of its seeds and the ecosystem services it can provide.
    [Show full text]
  • RHS the Garden Magazine Index 2017
    GardenThe INDEX 2017 Volume 142, Parts 1–12 Index 2017 1 January 2017 2 February 2017 3 March 2017 4 April 2017 5 May 2017 6 June 2017 Coloured numbers in Acer: Alchemilla mollis 6: 47, Governor’ 3: 24 in art exhibition, RHS Petheram 4: 31 bold before the page campestre ‘William 48, 49, 51 fanninii 1: 17 Lindley Library 9: 89 Aralia elata ‘Variegata’ 5: number(s) denote the Caldwell’ 8: 41 Alder, Fern, on: Gibbon’s ‘Mistral Tigre’ 10: 7 Newton’s apple tree 2: 31, 31 part number (month). reader’s response Rent alleyway, nemorosa ‘Flore Pleno’ 11 Arbutus unedo 11: 49 Each part is paginated 11: 90 Bermondsey, London 4: 54, 54 ‘Bardsey’ 8: 30 Archer, William separately. cappadocicum 10: 52–55 pavonina 3: 64 ‘Beauty of Bath’ 8: 30 (naturalist) 1: 43 ‘Aureum’ 8: 41 Allium: Angelica sylvestris ‘Braeburn’ 10: 49 arches, plants for 9: Numbers in italics x conspicuum photogram 11: 90 ‘Vicar’s Mead’ 12: 39 ‘Charles Ross’ 8: 30 22–23 denote an image. ‘Phoenix’ 12: 15 atropurpureum 6: 28– Annual General Meeting ‘Devonshire architectural plants 4: 42 davidii ‘Cascade’ 11: 23 29, 29 2017, RHS 1: 67; 7: 93; 9: Quarrenden’ 10: 91 Ardle, Jon, on: Where a plant has a griseum 12: 15, 15, 56, 56 sativum (see garlic) 91 ‘Discovery’ 8: 30, 30 La Seigneurie, Sark 1: Trade Designation micranthum 10: 97, 97 sphaerocephalon 6: 47, Anthriscus sylvestris ‘Gala’ 10: 49 52–56 (also known as a selling palmatum: 50 ‘Ravenswing’ 4: 50, 55 ‘James Grieve’ 8: 30, 30 winter gardening name) it is typeset in ‘Beni-kawa’ 12: 15 triquetrum 8: 15, 15 ants: ‘Katja’ 8: 30 tasks 11: 54–55 a different font to ‘Cascade Gold’ 3: 12, tuberosum flowers as a common black (Lasius ‘Laxton’s Fortune’ 8: Armillaria (see honey distinguish it from the 12 garnish 5: 98, 99, 99 niger) 6: 41 30, 30 fungus, under fungus) cultivar name (shown ‘Sango-kaku’ 12: 15 allotments: on peaches 10: 92 ‘Limelight’ 8: 30 Armitage, James, et al, in ‘Single Quotes’).
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Checklist of Vascular Flora, Cedar Breaks National
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Annotated Checklist of Vascular Flora Cedar Breaks National Monument Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR—2009/173 ON THE COVER Peterson’s campion (Silene petersonii), Cedar Breaks National Monument, Utah. Photograph by Walter Fertig. Annotated Checklist of Vascular Flora Cedar Breaks National Monument Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR—2009/173 Author Walter Fertig Moenave Botanical Consulting 1117 W. Grand Canyon Dr. Kanab, UT 84741 Editing and Design Alice Wondrak Biel Northern Colorado Plateau Network P.O. Box 848 Moab, UT 84532 February 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientifi c community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifi cally credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. The Natural Resource Technical Report series is used to disseminate the peer-reviewed results of scientifi c studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service’s mission. The reports provide contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. Current examples of such reports include the results of research that addresses natural resource management issues; natural resource inventory and monitoring activities; resource assessment reports; scientifi c literature reviews; and peer- reviewed proceedings of technical workshops, conferences, or symposia.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildflowers and Ferns Along the Acton Arboretum Wildflower Trail and in Other Gardens FERNS (Including Those Occurring Naturally
    Wildflowers and Ferns Along the Acton Arboretum Wildflower Trail and In Other Gardens Updated to June 9, 2018 by Bruce Carley FERNS (including those occurring naturally along the trail and both boardwalks) Royal fern (Osmunda regalis): occasional along south boardwalk, at edge of hosta garden, and elsewhere at Arboretum Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea): naturally occurring in quantity along south boardwalk Interrupted fern (Osmunda claytoniana): naturally occurring in quantity along south boardwalk Maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum): several healthy clumps along boardwalk and trail, a few in other Arboretum gardens Common polypody (Polypodium virginianum): 1 small clump near north boardwalk Hayscented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula): aggressive species; naturally occurring along north boardwalk Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum): occasional along wildflower trail; common elsewhere at Arboretum Broad beech fern (Phegopteris hexagonoptera): up to a few near north boardwalk; also in rhododendron and hosta gardens New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis): naturally occurring and abundant along wildflower trail * Ostrich fern (Matteuccia pensylvanica): well-established along many parts of wildflower trail; fiddleheads edible Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis): naturally occurring and abundant along south boardwalk Lady fern (Athyrium filix-foemina): moderately present along wildflower trail and south boardwalk Common woodfern (Dryopteris spinulosa): 1 patch of 4 plants along south boardwalk; occasional elsewhere at Arboretum Marginal
    [Show full text]
  • Lupinus Polyphyllus Ssp. Polyphyllus Lindl. Common Name: Bigleaf Lupine Assessors: Irina Lapina Matthew L
    ALASKA NON-NATIVE PLANT INVASIVENESS RANKING FORM Botanical name: Lupinus polyphyllus ssp. polyphyllus Lindl. Common name: bigleaf lupine Assessors: Irina Lapina Matthew L. Carlson, Ph.D. Botanist Associate Professor Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, 707 A Street, 707 A Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 257-2710 (907) 257-2790 Timm Nawrocki Helen I. Klein Research Technician Research Technician Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, 707 A Street, 707 A Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 257-2798 (907) 257-2798 Lindsey A. Flagstad Research Technician Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Anchorage, 707 A Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 257-2786 Reviewers: Michael Shephard Julie Riley Vegetation Ecologist Horticulture Agent Forest Health Protection, State & Private Forestry, UAF Cooperative Extension Service, 3301 'C' Street, Suite 202, 2221 E. Northern Lights Anchorage, AK, 99503 Blvd. #118 Anchorage, AK 99508-4143 (907) 743-9454 tel: (907) 786-6306 Jeff Conn, Ph. D. Jamie M. Snyder Research Agronomist UAF Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd. #118, 905 Koyukuk St. – UAF Campus, Anchorage, AK, 99508-4143 Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 (907) 786-6310 (907) 474-7652 Page Spencer, Ph.D. Gino Graziano Ecologist Natural Resource Specialist National Park Service, Alaska Region - Biological Resources Plant Materials Center, Division of Agriculture, Department of Team, Natural Resources, State of Alaska 240 W. 5th Ave, #114, 5310 S. Bodenburg Spur, Anchorage, AK, 99501 Palmer, Alaska, 99645 (907) 644-3448 (907) 745-4469 Robert L.
    [Show full text]
  • Removing Invasive Species in Your Backyard Town of Bar Harbor Conservation Commission in Collaboration with the Bar Harbor Garden Club
    Removing Invasive Species in Your Backyard Town of Bar Harbor Conservation Commission In collaboration with the Bar Harbor Garden Club Invasive Species – Goals II.1.B.iv and II.5.A.iv of the Open Space Plan Thank you for reviewing the Invasive Species PowerPoint; now, the Bar Harbor Conservation Commission and the Bar Harbor Garden Club invite you to get out there and eradicate some invasives! We have developed a log so you can document your efforts to remove these unwanted plants and to “thank you,” we will send the first 50 participants a package of seeds of NATIVE lupines (Lupine perennis). After you have filled out your log, please submit it to: Bar Harbor Conservation Commission c/o Planning Department Municipal Building 93 Cottage Street Bar Harbor, ME 04609 Be sure to include your name and address so we can mail the lupine seeds to you. The seeds are a donation from the Bar Harbor Garden Club and the cost of mailing is donated by the Bar Harbor Conservation Commission. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact the members of the Bar Harbor Conservation Commission at the Town of Bar Harbor website – barharbormaine.gov. Thank you for helping to restore native plant species to MDI! Bar Harbor Garden Club Bar Harbor Conservation Commission Spring invasive species and why to remove them • Lupine (Lupinus polyphyllus) • Dame’s Rocket (Hesperis matronalis) • Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) • Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) Bar Harbor Conservation Commission Bar Harbor Garden Club What is a native species? • Plants indigenous to Maine prior to colonization.
    [Show full text]
  • Perennial Or Russell Lupin: a Potential High Country Pasture Legume
    -- Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 50: 203-206 (1989) PERENNIAL OR RUSSELL LUPIN: A POTENTIAL HIGH COUNTRY PASTURE LEGUME D. Scott Grasslands Division, OS/R, Lincoln Abstract The origin of the horticultural strain of Lupinus polyphyllus is outlined and New Zealand investigations showing its potential as a pasture legume suited to moister, low fertility high country both in revegetation and as grazing are briefly reviewed. Provisional management guidelines on site selection, establishment, management, animal use and seed production are given. Keywords: high country, Lupinus pofyphyllus,soil fertility, Russell lupin INTRODUCTION Summer tourists travelling through South Island high country enjoy the multi- coloured lupin flowering along roadsides. Farmers and farm advisers should also recognise this plant as a vigorous, persistent, perennial legume, well adapted to the high country environment. Five years of agricultural trials at Lake Tekapo, Tara Hills and in Central Otago indicate that it has the potential to become a major grazing legume for moist, acid, loose-textured soil of the higher rainfall areas where only low to moderate fertiliser rates could be afforded. Other legumes are not suited to this combination of conditions. Perennial or Russell lupin’s likely role is as standing feed for autumn or spring, or as a substitute tussock. Seasonal unacceptability limits its summer use. This paper describes these attributes and gives provisional guidance on various aspects of its use. ORIGIN AND HISTORY There are several hundred different lupin species, mostly perennials originating from North and South America Some annual species, like the blue, white and yellow fodder or green-feed lupins, come from the Mediterranean region.
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet Lupinus Polyphyllus
    NOBANIS – Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet Lupinus polyphyllus Author of this species fact sheet: Eli Fremstad, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway. + 47 73 59 22 56. [email protected] Bibliographical reference – how to cite this fact sheet: Fremstad, E. (2010): NOBANIS – Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet – Lupinus polyphyllus. – From: Online Database of the European Network on Invasive Alien Species – NOBANIS www.nobanis.org, Date of access x/x/201x. Species description Scientific name: Lupinus polyphyllus Lindley. Described 1827 in Botanical Register 13: 1096. Belongs to the family Fabaceae. Synonyms: None Common names: Garden Lupin (GB), mangebladet lupin (DK), hulgalehine lupiin (EE), komaelupiini (FI), Vielblättrige Lupine, Stauden-Lupine (DE), daudzlapu lupīna (LV), gausialapis lubinas (LT), hagelupin (NO), łubin trwaly (PL), люпин многолистный (RU), blomsterlupin (SE). Fig. 1a and b. Inflorescence and fruits (right), photo by Uwe Starfinger. Fig. 2. Lupinus polyphyllus in a ruderal site in Central Norway, photo by Eli Fremstad. Fig. 3. A large stand of Lupinus polyphyllus of unknown origin in a roadside slope in Central Norway, photo by Eli Fremstad. 2 Species identification Herbaceous, 50-150 cm high, tuft-forming perennial (biennial or short-lived perennial, Preston et al. 2002) with unbranched stems with alternate, palmate leaves with long petioles and 10-15 narrowly oblong (lanceolate), 1-2 cm broad leaflets. Stems and petioles with rather sparse, short hairs. Flowers (up to 80) in one terminal, erect raceme, in shades of blue. Pink and white flowers are also found. In Lithuania, the average number of flowers in terminal racemes is 120, and 200 has been recorded as a maximum (Z.
    [Show full text]
  • Seabrook Native Plant List
    SEABROOK NATIVE PLANT LIST The plant identification guide used for this list is: Oemleria cerasiformis* Indian-Plum PLANTS OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST COAST by: Jim Oplopanax horridus Devil’s Club Pojar and Andy MacKinnon. Philadelphus lewisii* Mock Orange Physocarpus capitatus* Pacific Nine Bark Those plants listed in Bold have been identified in Seabrook. Ribes sanguineu* Red Flowering Currant Others may occur within Seabrook or would likely find the climate Rhododendron occidentale* Western Azalea suitable for their survival and health. Rhododendron macrophyllum Pacific Rhododendron Rosa gymnocarpa* Baldhip Rose PLANTS WITH AN “*” ARE LIKELY TO BE FOUND Rosa nutkana* Nootka rose WITHIN REPUTABLE NATIVE PLANT NURSERIES. Rosa pisocarpa * Cluster Rose Rosa woodsii* Wood’s Rose Trees: Rubus parviflorus* Thimbleberry Rubus spectabilis* Salmonberry Abies grandis* Grand Fir Sorbus sitchensis Sitka Mountain Ash Acer circinatum* Vine Maple Spirea douglasii* Douglas Spirea Acer macrophyllum* Bigleaf Maple Symphoricarpus albus* Common Snowberry Alnus rubra* Red Alder Symphoricarps smollis Creeping Snowberry Arbutus menziesii Pacific Madrone Vaccinium alaskaense Alaskan Blueberry Betula pspyrrferg* White Birch Vaccinium ovalifolium Oval-Leaved Blueberry Chemeocyparis nootkatnesis* Alaska Cedar Vaccinium ovatum* Evergreen Huckleberry Cornus nuttallii Pacific Dogwood Vaccinium parvifolium Red Huckleberry Crataegus douglasii Black Hawthorn Fraxinus latifolia Sitka Ash Malus fusca* Pacific Crab Apple Ground Covers: Picea sitchensis* Sitka Spruce Pinus contorta* Shore pine Asarium caudatum* Wild Ginger Populus trichocarpa Black Cottonwood Cornus Canadensis* Bunchberry Prunus emarginatai Bitter Cherry Empetrum nigrum Crowberry Pseudotsuga menziesii* Douglas Fir Fragaria chiloensis* Beach Strawberry Rhamnus purshiana Cascara Fragaria vesca Wood’s Stawberry Salix fluvialilis Columbia River Willow Fragaria virginiana* Wild Strawberry Salix geyeriana Geyer’s Willow Linnaea borealis Twinflower Salix hookeriana*.
    [Show full text]
  • Lupinus Polyphyllus Lupini
    Lupinus polyphyllus Lupini Life cycle Perennial/ annual Family/origin Leguminosea/ North America Popular uses First-year-flowering perennial, patio and garden beds, accent plant Mature plant height 35-40 cm (14-16”) Mature plant width 30-35 cm (12-14”) Pot size 10-15 cm (4-6”) gallon containers and larger Plants per pot 1 per 10 cm (4”) 3 per larger pot Sun exposure Full sun, part shade Water requirements Reduced, avoid wet conditions Flowering season Late spring, early summer Lupini Media A well-drained, porous media is Growth regulators best to prevent over watering Daminozide (Dazide, B-Nine), pH 5.5-6.2 Paclobutrazol (Bonzi) EC 0.7-1.2 (100-175 ppm) Growing temperature Temperature for active growth Common Diseases 10-16ºC (50-60ºF) at night Wet foliage needs to be avoided to days up to 16°C (60°F) prevent Colletotrichum acutatum, Higher average day temperature Glomerella leaf spots and stem rot will speed up the process Light Increasing daylength induces Common Pests flowering Spider Mites, Aphids Fertilizer needs Well balanced calcium based fertilizer, avoid those based on Pinching ammonium nitrate as that will No need, although frequent cutting will promote stretch enhance re-growth EC 1.4-2.5 (100-200 ppm) Crop time 15-20 weeks (first year) Crop type 35-37 weeks (overwinter) First year flowering perennial, Hardiness zone Z 6-8 (no vernalisation needed) Plants/m² finished 15 cm (6”) 16 plants/m² 12 cm (5”) 20 plants/m² Cultural information is issued as a guide to growers based on our own trial experience.
    [Show full text]