DOCSLIB.ORG

Michigan Endangered Species Program – Hall's Bulrush Project E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Michigan Endangered Species Program – Hall's Bulrush Project E STATE: Michigan GRANT TITLE: Endangered Species Program – Hall’s Bulrush Project FEDERAL IDENTIFIER: E-11 SEGMENT: 2 REPORT TYPE: Annual Performance Report, Amendment 1 REPORTING PERIOD: 9/16/2005 – 3/31/2007 Summary: This Annual Performance Report covers the final year of funding this multi-year grant. This funding was expended during the Segment period of 9 September 2005 through 31 March 2007. The purpose of this amendment is to add the final report of activities and findings completed by the vendor contracted to conduct this study. The overall goal of this grant was to conduct population surveys to determine the status and characterize habitat requirements for Hall’s bulrush (Schoenoplectus hallii) in Michigan. This goal was addressed through objectives detailed in the grant proposal. The amount of each objective to be achieved was established in the grant agreement for this segment. A summary of the accomplishments completed by objective is given below. Accomplishments: The accomplishments by each project statement objective are summarized in the following table. Reporting units given are those established in the grant proposal. Objectives and Activities Progress 1. Continue monitoring of Allegan SGA population. Continue long-term monitoring Completed of the exemplary Allegan State Game Area population; add several additional parameters to allow comparison to other sites. 2. Conduct surveys of selected coastal plain marshes for de novo (new) Completed occurrences of Hall’s bulrush in Michigan. Continue and expands surveys to identify additional sites with Hall’s bulrush in Allegan, Muskegon and Van Buren Counties. Presence will be assessed either by the observation of aerial shoots or through the detection of achenes. 3. Characterize habitat at all newly identified sites where Hall’s bulrush is present. Completed Characterize the habitat of all additional populations discovered in #2. 4. Conduct qualitative monitoring, including identification of threats, on all known Completed and newly identified sites during 2003-2006. Conduct standardized qualitative monitoring (including identification of specific threats) on all known and newly identified sites, during 2005-2006. STATE OF MICHIGAN – E-11 Endangered Species Program – Hall’s Bulrush Project Amended Annual Performance Report Segment 2 – 4/1/2005-3/31/2007 Page 1 of 2 5. Compare habitat characterization across all documented Michigan sites and Completed analyze differences between germination and non-germination years. Conduct a comparative analysis of habitat characterization across all documented Michigan sites and between germination and non-germination years within sites. Reported Expenses: The expenses reported below are the total reported for activities reimbursable under this grant agreement, but were not necessarily charged to these federal assistance funds1. Labor and expenses were queried using activity codes rather than the funding and appropriation codes as are typically used to verify federal aid expenses. No travel or Motor Transport Division (MTD) costs were charged to this grant. Planned Actual Objectives Expenditures Expenditures 1. Continue monitoring of Allegan SGA population $2,264 $2,264 2. Conduct surveys of selected coastal plain marshes for de $9,264 $9,264 novo (new) occurrences of Hall’s bulrush in Michigan 3. Characterize habitat at all newly identified sites where $4,378 $4,378 Hall’s bulrush is present 4. Conduct qualitative monitoring, including identification of $6,860 $6,860 threats, on all known and newly identified sites during 2003-2006 5. Compare habitat characterization across all documented $14,144 $14,144 Michigan sites and analyze differences between germination and non-germination years Project Totals $36,910 $36,910 1The expenses provided are for grant evaluation purposes only and may include expenses that were eligible for reimbursement but were not actually charged to the grant. These values are not necessarily included in Financial Status Reports nor are they subject to financial audits. Actual grant expenditure tracking with supporting documentation necessary for audit purposes is not maintained by MDNR at the objective level. All financial tracking and reporting for the purposes of audits is at the grant level only. Slippages/Discussion of Accomplishments and Expenditures: All of the monitoring, surveys, modeling and results planned for in Segment 2 of this grant have been completed. The report of these activities including a final report on the project findings are attached to this document. This is the final report for this grant, no further work or expenditures will occur. STATE OF MICHIGAN – E-11 Endangered Species Program – Hall’s Bulrush Project Amended Annual Performance Report Segment 2 – 4/1/2005-3/31/2007 Page 2 of 2 Hall’s Bulrush Habitat Characterization and Monitoring Project 2004-2006 Final Report Prepared by: Michael R. Penskar and Phyllis J. Higman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944 For: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Office Minneapolis, MN March 20, 2008 Report Number 2007-14 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Study Site ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Population and Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................................... 3 Floristic Characterization ....................................................................................................................... 3 Well Monitoring ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Seed Bank Characterization .................................................................................................................... 4 Photo Monitoring .................................................................................................................................... 4 Status Surveys ............................................................................................................................................. 5 De novo Surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 6 Population and Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................................... 6 Floristic Characterization ..................................................................................................................... 10 Well Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Seed Bank Characterization .................................................................................................................. 14 Photo Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 15 Status Surveys ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Carr Lake............................................................................................................................................... 20 Pine Island Marsh RNA ......................................................................................................................... 20 Pine Island Lake .................................................................................................................................... 21 36th Street Marsh .................................................................................................................................. 22 De Novo Surveys ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Summary and Future Work .................................................................................................................... 23 Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................... 25 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 27 List of Figures Figure 1. Study Site .................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Average percent cover of dominant vascular plants from 1999-2006 ......................................... 9 Figures 3-10. Chronological series of photos from NW corner of macroplot ..................................... 16-19 List of Tables Table 1. Percentage average cover and frequency of species identified in sampling quadrats from 1999- 2006....................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nitens (Cyperaceae) in Indiana
    2013 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST 25 REDISCOVERY OF RHYNCHOSPORA (PSILOCARYA) NITENS (CYPERACEAE) IN INDIANA Roger L. Hedge Emily J. Stork Indiana Department of Natural Resources Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Nature Preserves Division of Nature Preserves 402 W. Washington Street, Rm W267 5690 Chase St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 Merrillville, IN 46410 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT In 2012 the authors rediscovered Rhynchospora (Psilocarya) nitens in Porter County at its only known site of occurrence in Indiana, providing the first documentation of the species for the site and the state in over 50 years. Prior to the 2012 discovery, the species had been collected in the state only twice since 1899. An Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain disjunct, this sedge is represented by only two occurrences in the Great Lakes region: Allegan County, Michigan and Porter County, Indiana. INTRODUCTION Rhynchospora nitens (Vahl) A. Gray is an Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain sedge that ranges in the U.S. from Texas to Massachusetts and that has disjunct occurrences in Indiana and Michigan. Farther south it occurs in the West Indies and Central America (Kral 2002). In the Atlantic Coastal Plain states in the U.S. the species is listed as “vulnerable” to “critically imperiled” in 8 of the 14 states where it occurs, namely Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts, and as “possibly extirpated” in Vir - ginia (NatureServe 2014). It is listed as “apparently secure” in Louisiana and Mississippi (NatureServe 2014). Although NatureServe (2014) indicates that the species has not been ranked or is still under review in Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and Michigan Rothrock (2009) states it is “deemed secure from extir - pation in Florida and Mississippi” and Reznicek (1999) notes that it is primarily a southern coastal plain plant that is very rare in the northern parts of its range.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download
    E-nEwslEttEr: no 77. April 2010 Deadline for next issue: Friday 14 May 2010 Guest message from the Treasurer It was with mixed emotions I attended the launch of the outstanding new publication “Threatened Plants of New Zealand” at the Department of Conservation national office a couple of weeks ago. Pride that the Network with its partners had supported and facilitated such a publication was tinged with sadness that the book showed that we are not making progress in the management of New Zealand’s biodiversity. This at the same time that funding for biodiversity management in general, and threatened species in particular, is under pressure both nationally and regionally. The irony is not lost in this the International Year of Biodiversity. What can we do about it? There are no easy answers but it has to start with each and every one of us and with the organisations we support and belong to. The work of the Network, and its achievements over the past 6 years, has been beyond what any of us could have imagined. Minister of Conservation The Hon. Kate Wilkinson Yet we need to do more. This work needs to speaks at the launch of Threatened Plants of New be managed in a coordinated and professional Zealand. manner. For that, we need resources and funding. Photo: Nadine Bott, Department of Conservation. One area of work that the Network supports is research into the conservation, protection and recovery of New Zealand’s threatened plant species and communities. The David Given Threatened Plant Scholarship was launched in 2008 with the first recipients being Drs Peter Heenan and Rob Smissen for their research into the conservation genetics and taxonomy of Convolvulus “glabrous”.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Plants
    KENILWORTH RACECOURSE CONSERVATION AREA – INDIGENOUS PLANTS FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME 2009 IUCN STATUS AIZOACEAE Carpobrotus edulis LC Erepsia aspera LC Erepsia gracilis LC Lampranthus bicolor * VU Lampranthus calcaratus * DD Lampranthus filicaulis * VU Lampranthus glaucus * VU Lampranthus reptans * EN Lampranthus tegens * DD Ruschia geminiflora * VU Ruschia macowanii LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Amaryllis belladonna Hessea cinnamomea Nerine humilis no data ANACARDIACEAE Searsia angustifolia (=Rhus angustifolia) LC Searsia glauca (= Rhus glauca) LC Searsia laevigata (= Rhus laevigata) LC Searsia lucida (= Rhus lucida) LC APIACEAE Arctopus echinatus LC Centella asiatica LC APOCYNACEAE Gomphocarpus physocarpus LC Gomphocarpus sp. APONOGETONACEAE Aponogeton angustifolius VU Aponogeton distachyos LC ARACEAE Zantedeschia aethiopica LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus asparagoides LC Asparagus capensis LC Asparagus rubicundus (= A. thunbergianus) LC ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine favosa LC Trachyandra ciliata LC Trachyandra divaricata LC Trachyandra filiformis LC Trachyandra hirsutiflora LC Trachyandra revoluta LC ASTERACEAE Athanasia crithmifolia LC Athanasia trifurcata LC Chrysanthemoides incana LC Chrysanthemoides monilifera LC Cotula coronopifolia LC Cotula turbinata (= Cenia turbinata) LC Edmondia sesamoides LC Elytropappus rhinocerotis no data Felicia tenella LC Helichrysum cymosum LC Metalasia muricata LC Plecostachys serpyllifolia LC Pseudognaphalium undulatum LC Senecio abruptus LC Senecio burchellii LC Senecio halimifolius LC ASTERACEAE Senecio littoreus LC Senecio
    [Show full text]
  • Desfayes Corretto 2.Qxd
    Michel Desfayes The specific status of Cyperus badius and the subspecies of Scirpoides holoschoenus (Cyperaceae), with special reference to Sardinia Abstract Desfayes, M.: The specific status of Cyperus badius and the subspecies of Scirpoides holoschoenus (Cyperaceae), with special reference to Sardinia. — Fl. Medit. 14: 173-188. 2004. — ISSN 1120-4052. The status of variously described subspecies or varieties of Scirpoides holoschoenus is evalu- ated, with to the conclusion that only two subspecies should be recognized from the Azores to Turkestan and Punjab: S. holoschoenus subsp. holoschoenus and S. holoschoenus subsp. aus- tralis. Another subspecies occurs disjunctly in southern Africa: S. holoschoenus subsp. thun- bergii. From the author’s field work in Sardinia, it emerges that only Scirpoides holoschoenus subsp. holoschoenus occurs in Sardinia. Cyperus badius is considered a species of its own, showing considerable and constant differences from C. longus. The latter was not found in Sardinia, while C. badius is widespread. Introduction The nomenclature of Scirpoides holoschoenus (L.) Soják, has been subjected to con- siderable confusion in the literature, too much weight being given to the number of flow- erheads. In the present paper I propose that only two subspecies be recognized from the Azores to Turkestan and Punjab: a western subspecies Scirpoides holoschoenus subsp. holoschoenus and an eastern and southern subspecies S. holoschoenus subsp. australis (Murray) Soják, the two differing by the tallness and robustness of the plant, and length and rigidity of the bract. Another disjunct subspecies very similar to S. holoschoenus subsp. holoschoenus from the Maghreb, occurs in southern Africa, Scirpoides holoschoenus (L.) Soják subsp. thunbergii (Schrad.) Soják.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Beaked Beaksedge, Rhynchospora Scirpoides
    Natural Heritage Long-beaked Beaksedge & Endangered Species Rhynchospora scirpoides (Torrey) A. Gray Program www.mass.gov/nhesp State Status: Special Concern Federal Status: None Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife DESCRIPTION: Long-beaked Beaksedge is a cespitose annual in the Sedge family (Cyperaceae) that occurs on coastal plain pond shores in Massachusetts. The genus name Rhynchospora (“beaked seed”) refers to the tubercle (triangular projection) that is found at the summit of the achenes (one-seeded, dry, fruits). The species name scirpoides means “resembles a bulrush” (Scirpus), referring to the growth form and the shape of the spikes. Long-beaked Beaksedge grows 20 to 80 cm tall. It has both terminal and axillary inflorescences, with long, leafy bracts that exceed at least the axillary ones. AIDS TO IDENTIFICATION: A technical manual and hand lens or microscope are needed for identification of Long-beaked Beaksedge and other Rhynchospora species. This species is best identified with mature fruits. The achenes are orbicular to lenticular, red-brown to dark brown, with a faintly rugose (horizontally wrinkled) body. The achene is 1 to 3 mm long, including a tall tubercle (0.5–0.9 mm) that is continuous with the ridged margin of the achene. The leaves are flat, narrow, 1 to 5 mm wide, and have glabrous sheaths. The lower portion of the culm (flowering stem) is leafy. Distribution in Massachusetts 1985 - 2012 Based on records in the Long-beaked Beaksedge has terminal and axillary inflorescences Natural Heritage Database with long, leafy bracts (top); achenes are faintly rugose, with long tubercles (bottom). Photos by Jennifer Garrett.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Genus in Cypereae: Phylogeny, Character Homology Assessment and Generic Circumscription in Cypereae
    Bot. Rev. (2009) 75:52–66 DOI 10.1007/s12229-008-9018-4 What is a Genus in Cypereae: Phylogeny, Character Homology Assessment and Generic Circumscription in Cypereae A. Muthama Muasya1,2,6 & Alexander Vrijdaghs2 & David A. Simpson3 & Mark W. Chase3 & Paul Goetghebeur4 & Erik Smets2,5 1 Botany Department, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa 2 Laboratory of Plant Systematics, K.U. Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 31, BE-3001 Leuven, Belgium 3 Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond Surrey TW9 3DS, UK 4 Department of Biology, Ghent University, K.L. Ledegancksraat 35, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium 5 National Herbarium of the Netherlands, P. O. Box 9514, NL-2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands 6 Author for Correspondence; e-mail: [email protected] Published online: 6 December 2008 # The Author(s) 2008. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Using a DNA-based tree as the framework, the homology of key taxonomic characters in tribe Cypereae (900 species in 19 genera, the largest of which is Cyperus) is assessed and revisit the question of generic circumscription. Plastid DNA (rbcL gene, rps16 intron, trnL intron and trnL-F intergenic spacer) sequence matrix for 50 species in 19 genera of Cypereae is analysed using the maximum parsimony algorithm of PAUP. Two major groups are observed: the Ficinia and Cyperus clades. The Ficinia clade includes taxa with a center of diversity in the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa. These are predominantly perennial herbs (with exception of Isolepis, which is predominantly annual) having non-Kranz (C3) anatomy and spirally arranged glumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Alberta, Part 1: Ferns, Fern Allies, Gymnosperms, and Monocots
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository University of Calgary Press University of Calgary Press Open Access Books 2017-01 Vascular Plants of Alberta, Part 1: Ferns, Fern Allies, Gymnosperms, and Monocots Packer, John; Gould, A. Joyce University of Calgary Press http://hdl.handle.net/1880/51799 book http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca VASCULAR PLANTS OF ALBERTA: PART 1: FERNS, FERN ALLIES, GYMNOSPERMS, AND MONOCOTS John G. Packer and A. Joyce Gould ISBN 978-1-55238-683-5 THIS BOOK IS AN OPEN ACCESS E-BOOK. It is an electronic version of a book that can be purchased in physical form through any bookseller or on-line retailer, or from our distributors. Please support this open access publication by requesting that your university purchase a print copy of this book, or by purchasing a copy yourself. If you have any questions, please contact us at [email protected] Cover Art: The artwork on the cover of this book is not open access and falls under traditional copyright provisions; it cannot be reproduced in any way without written permission of the artists and their agents. The cover can be displayed as a complete cover image for the purposes of publicizing this work, but the artwork cannot be extracted from the context of the cover of this specific work without breaching the artist’s copyright. COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This open-access work is published under a Creative Commons licence. This means that you are free to copy, distribute, display or perform the work as long as you clearly attribute the work to its authors and publisher, that you do not use this work for any commercial gain in any form, and that you in no way alter, transform, or build on the work outside of its use in normal academic scholarship without our express permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Ficinia Nodosa
    Ficinia nodosa COMMON NAME Wiwi, knobby club rush, ethel sedge SYNONYMS Scirpus nodosus Rottb., Isolepis nodosa (Rottb.) R.Br., Scirpoides nodosa (Rottb.) Sojak; Holoschoenus nodosus (Rottb.) Dietr. FAMILY Cyperaceae AUTHORITY Ficinia nodosa (Rottb.) Goetgh., Muasya et D.A.Simpson FLORA CATEGORY Vascular – Native ENDEMIC TAXON No ENDEMIC GENUS No ENDEMIC FAMILY No STRUCTURAL CLASS Sedges NVS CODE Coromandel, January. Photographer: John FICNOD Smith-Dodsworth CHROMOSOME NUMBER 2n = 30 CURRENT CONSERVATION STATUS 2012 | Not Threatened PREVIOUS CONSERVATION STATUSES 2009 | Not Threatened 2004 | Not Threatened DISTRIBUTION Indigenous. Kermadec, Three Kings, North, South, Stewart and Chatham Coromandel, January. Photographer: John Islands. Widespread in the southern Hemisphere Smith-Dodsworth HABITAT Mostly coastal but occasional extending into montane area (up to 700 m a.s.l.). In a wide range of habitats but favouring open situations - commonly on sand, especially on sand dunes, sandy beaches and at the back of estuaries. Sometimes colonising sandstone, limestone of volcanic rock outcrops in lowland forest. Rarely in tussock grassland. FEATURES Rhizome short, 5-10 mm diameter, ascending to subhorizontal, woody, covered with red-brown bracts 5-10 mm long. Culms numerous, somewhat woody, 0.15-2.0 m, 1-2 mm diameter, yellow-green to bronze-green, densely packed on rhizome, rush-like, rigid and erect (sometimes in lush specimens with upper third curving over), terete or slightly compressed, finely striated when dry. Leaves reduced to 3-6 basal sheaths, the uppermost 50-130 mm long, brown or red-brown, the oblique orifice slightly dilated. Inflorescence an apparently lateral, solitary, hemispherical head, 7-15 mm wide, comprised of numerous, densely crowded, sessile spikelets; subtending bract continuous with the culm, rigid, erect, pungent, > inflorescence.
    [Show full text]
  • (Cypereae, Cyperaceae) Based on Molecular Phylogenetic Data
    Delimiting the genera of the Ficinia Clade (Cypereae, Cyperaceae) based on molecular phylogenetic data A. Muthama Muasya1,2 and Isabel Larridon2,3 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Bolus Herbarium, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa 2 Identification and Naming, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK 3 Department of Biology, Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Lab, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium ABSTRACT Generic delimitations in the Ficinia Clade of tribe Cypereae are revisited. In particular, we aim to establish the placement of annual species currently included in Isolepis of which the phylogenetic position is uncertain. Phylogenetic inference is based on two nuclear markers (ETS, ITS) and five plastid markers (the genes matK, ndhF, rbcL and rps16, the trnL intron and trnL-F spacer) data, analyzed using model based methods. Topologies based on nuclear and plastid data show incongruence at the backbone. Therefore, the results are presented separately. The monophyly of the smaller genera (Afroscirpoides, Dracoscirpoides, Erioscirpus, Hellmuthia, Scirpoides) is confirmed. However, Isolepis is paraphyletic as Ficinia is retrieved as one of its clades. Furthermore, Ficinia is paraphyletic if I. marginata and allies are excluded. We take a pragmatic approach based on the nuclear topology, driven by a desire to minimize taxonomic changes, to recircumscribe Ficinia to include the annual Isolepis species characterized by cartilaginous glumes and formally include all the Isolepis species inferred outside the core Isolepis clade. Consequently, the circumscription of Isolepis is narrowed to encompass only those species retrieved as part of the core Isolepis clade. Five new combinations are Submitted 20 August 2020 made (Ficinia neocapensis, Ficinia hemiuncialis, Ficinia incomtula, Ficinia leucoloma, Accepted 18 December 2020 Ficinia minuta).
    [Show full text]
  • Common Plants of Longleaf Pine-Bluestem Range
    LONGLEAF PINE- BLUESTEM RANGE Harold E. Grelen Vinson L. Duvall In preparing this handbook, the authors have received substantial assistance from predecessors and colleagues. Much of the information is from the Forest Service's "Field Book of Forage Plants on Longleaf Pine-Bluestem Ranges," by O. Gordon Langdon, the late Miriam L. Bomhard, and John T. Cassady (1952) . Charles Feddema, Lowell K. Halls, J. B. Hilmon, and Alfred W. Johnson, U. S. Forest Service, and Thomas N. Shiflet, U. S. Soil Conservation Service, reviewed the manu- script and made important suggestions regarding content and organiza- tion. Phil D. Goodrum, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, supplied much information on values of range plants to wildlife. Jane Roller, Forest Service, prepared illustrated keys as well as many technical descriptions and drawings. Most other drawings were by the late Leta Hughey, Forest Service, and the senior author; several are from other U. S. Department of Agriculture publica- tions. U. S. FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH PAPER SO-23 COMMON PLANTS OF LONGLEAF PINE-BLUESTEM RANGE Harold E. Grelen Vinson L. Duvall SOUTHERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION Thomas C. Nelson, Director FOREST SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Contents The type ...... Grasses ...... Bluestems ..... Panicums ..... Paspalums .... Miscellaneous grasses Grasslike plants ... Forbs ....... Legumes ..... Composites .... Miscellaneous forbs . Shrubs and woody vines Bibliography .... Glossary ...... Index of plant names . COMMON PLANTS OF LONGLEAF PINE-BLUESTEM RANGE This publication describes many grasses, salient taxonomic features of species mention- grasslike plants, forbs, and shrubs that inhabit ed briefly as well as of those described fully. longleaf pine-bluestem range.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Management 147: 108–123
    Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation Manuscript - NO track change Click here to view linked References Can artificial ecosystems enhance local biodiversity? The case of a constructed wetland in a 1 2 Mediterranean urban context 3 4 Abstract 5 6 7 Constructed wetlands (CW) are considered a successful tool to treat wastewater in many countries: 8 9 5 their success is mainly assessed observing the rate of pollution reduction, but CW can also 10 11 contribute to the conservation of ecosystem services. Among the many ecosystem services 12 13 provided, the biodiversity of constructed wetlands has received less attention. 14 The EcoSistema Filtro (ESF) of the Molentargius-Saline Regional Natural Park is a constructed 15 16 wetland situated in Sardinia (Italy), built to filter treated wastewater, increase habitat diversity and 17 18 10 enhance local biodiversity. A floristic survey has been carried out yearly one year after the 19 20 construction of the artificial ecosystem in 2004, observing the modification of the vascular flora 21 22 composition in time. The flora of the ESF accounted for 54% of the whole Regional Park’s flora; 23 alien species amount to 12%, taxa of conservation concern are 6%. Comparing the data in the years, 24 25 except for the biennium 2006/2007, we observed a continuous increase of species richness, together 26 27 15 with an increase of endemics, species of conservation concern and alien species too. Once the 28 29 endemics appeared, they remained part of the flora, showing a good persistence in the artificial 30 31 wetland.
    [Show full text]