DOCSLIB.ORG

34O Federal ~Sgister / Vol. 57, No~196W I Thursday

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
34O Federal ~Sgister / Vol. 57, No~196W I Thursday ~s ~34O Federal ~sgister / Vol. 57, No~196W I Thursday. October 8. i9~2-/ Rules and Regulations I collected in South Carolina..in.1888. This North Carolina and South Carolina), and coneflower grows up to 1.5 meters tail marble (in South Carolina and Georgia). from a vertical root stock; stems are Optimal sites are characterized by smooth, with few leaves. The largest abundant sunlight and little competition leaves are the basal leaves, which reach in the herbaceous layer (Caddy 1991). 20 cm in length and 7.5 cm in width. Natural fires, as well as large have long stems, and are elliptical to herbivores, are part of the history of the 50 CFR PART 17 broadly lanceolate. tapering to the base. vegetation in this species’ range; many and smooth to slightly rough. The mid- RIN 1O1S-A873 of the associated herbs are also stem leaves have shorter stems or no cormophytic, sun-loving species, which Endangered and Threatened Wildlife stems and are smaller in size than the depend on periodic disturbances to and Plants; Echinacea la.v$gata basal leaves. The rays of the flowers reduce the shade and competition of (Smooth Coneflower) Determined To (petal-like structures) are light pink to woody plants (Kral 1963 and Caddy purplish, usually drooping, and 5 to8 cm B. Endangered 1991) long. Flower heads are usually solitary. AGENCY: Fish and Wtldlife Service. Flowering occurs from May through July. A total of 59 populations of Echinacea Interior. The fruit is a gray-brown. oblong. loevigata have been reported historically from 24 counties in 8 States. ACTION: Final rule. prismatic achene, usually four-angled. and 4 to 4.5 mm long; seeds are .5 cm The reports from Alabama and SUMMARY~The Service determines the long (Kral 1983, Radford et a!. 1964, Arkansas are now believed to have plant Echinacea laevi,gata (smooth McGregor 1968. Cronquist 1980. Caddy been misidentifications (Caddy 1991). Of coneflower), a perennial herb 1im~ted to 1991, and Wofford 1989). The smooth the 21 remaining populations (located in 21 populations in Virginia, North conellower can be distinguished from its Pulaski. Montgomery, Campbell. and Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, most similar relative, the purple Franklin Counties. Virginia; Durham and to be an endangered species under the coneflower (E. purpurea), by its leaves, Granville Counties, North Carolina; euthonty of the Endangered Species Act which in the smooth coneflower are Oconee and Anderson Counties, South of 1973, as amended (Act). Echinacea never cordate (heart-shaped) like those Carolina; and Stephens County, Jaevigata is endangered by collecting, of the purple coneflower, In addition, the Georgia), 7 occur on land managed by encroachment of woody vegetation. awn of the pale in the smooth the U.S. Forest Service, 2 are on U.S. residential and industrial development. coneflower is incurved. while that of E. Army Corps of Engineers lands, I is on highway construction and improvement. purpurea is straight (Kral 1983, Caddy North Carolina Department of and certain types of roadside and power 1991. and Wofford 1989). Agriculture land, 1 site is owned by The line right-of-way maintenance. This The reported historical range of Nature Conservancy, I site is owned by action implements Federal protection Echinacea /aevigata included the South Carolina Heritage Trust provided by the Act for Echinacea Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Program. I site is within a right-of-way Iaevigata. Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, maintained by the South Carolina EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 1992. Alabama, and Arkansas. The species is Department of Highways and Public now known to survive only in Virginia. Transportation. 1 is on land managed by ADDRESSES: The complete file for this North Carolina, South Carolina, and rule i~available for inspection, by Clemson University, and the remaining 7 appointment, during normal business Georgia. Five populations survive in are on privately owned lands. Several of Virginia. six in North Carolina. seven in hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife South Carolina, and three in Georgia. these populations are in or near Service, 330 Ridgefield Court, Asheville, transmission line corridors of various Three additional populations in South utility companies or are near highway North Carolina 28806. Carolina (two in Aiken County and one FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACT: in Allendale County) are believed to rights-of-way.Extirpated populations Ms. Nora Murdock at the above address have been introduced. The habitat of are believed to have succumbed due to (704/665—1195. Ext. 231). smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar the absence of natural disturbance (fire SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry and/or grazing). highway construction and improvement, gas line installation, Background limestone bluffs, and power line rights- of-way. usually on magnesium- and and residential and industrial Echinacea /aevigata is a rhizomatous calcium-rich soils associated with development. The continued existence perennial herb described by Boynton limestone (in Virginia). gabbro (in North of Echin~ocealoevigata is threatened by and Beadle in Small (1903) from material Carolina and Virginia), diabase (in these activities, as well as by collecting. I Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 196 / Thursday, October 8, 1992 I Rules and Regulations 46341 herbicide use, and possibly by Summary of Comments and Granville County, North Carolina. This encroachment of exotic species. Recommendations population, which contains one-third of Federal government actions on this In the December 9. 1991, proposed rule the total smooth coneflower plants in species began with Section 12 of the Act and associated notifications, all existence, occupies a site that has (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directed interested parties were requested to recently been proposed for construction the Secretary of the Smithsonian submit factual reports or information of a regional hazardous waste Institution to prepare a report on those that might contribute to the development incinerator. Of the 21 extant plants considered to be endangered, of a final rule. Appropriate State populations, 13 are currently declining in threatened, or extinct. This report. agencies, county governments. Federal numbers of plants, only 7 are considered designated as House Document number agencies, scientific organizations, and stable, and 1 is increasing. Nineteen of 94-51. was presented to Congress on other interested parties were contacted the populations are currently threatened January 9. 1975. The Service published a and requested to comment. Newspaper by habitat alterations (Caddy 1991). notice in the July 1. 1975, Federal notices inviting public comment were Half of the remaining populations Register (40 FR 27832) of its acceptance published in the Durham Herald (North survive along roadsides. Three of the report of the Smithsonian Carolina) on December 29, 1991, and the populations remain on utility line nghts- Institution as a petition within the Roanoke Times and World News of-way, another is along an abandoned context of section 4(c)(2) (now section (Virginia) on December 27, 1991. railroad r!ght-of-way, ar.d a fifth s on 4(b)(3)l of the Act and of its intention Twenty-one comment letters were the edge of a motorbike trail in a wooded area. Most of the populations thereby to review the status of the plant received. Nineteen of these expressed taxa named within. support for the proposal. and two are small, with 11 containing less than presented additional information 100 plants each. Four of these contain Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as less than 10 plants each. Such small amended in 1982. requires the Secretary without stating a position. to make findings on certain pending populations are inherently vulnerable to Summary of Factors Affecting the extirpation as a result of highway and petitions within 12 months of their Species receipt. Section 2(b)(1) of the 1982 right-of-way improvement, particularly if herbicides are use. Amendments further requires that all After a thorough review and Highly restricted distribution and the petitions pending on October 13, 1982, consideration of all information scarcity of seed sources, as well as be treated as having been newly available, the Service has determined submitted on that date. This was the that Echinacea laevigata should be appropriate habitat, increase the severity of the threats faced by case for Echinacea laevigata because classified as an endangered species. Procedures found at section 4(a)(1) of Echinacea laevigata. As stated in the the Service had accepted the 1975 “Background” section above, this Smithsonian report as a petition. In each the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the species requires some form of October from 1983 through 1990. the disturbance to maintain its open habitat Service found that the petitioned listing listing provisions of the Act were followed. A species may be determined and can withstand mowing and timber- of this species was warranted but harvesting operations. if properly done. precluded by other listing actions of a to be endangered or threatened due to one or more of the five factors described It cannot withstand bulldozing or direct higher priority, and that additional data application of broadleaf herbicides. Iii on vulnerability and threats were still in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their applicauon to Echinacea /aevigata addition, the small populations that being gathered. (Boynton and Beadle) Blake (smooth survive on road edges could be easily On December 15. 1980, the Service coneflower) are as follows: destroyed by highway tmprovement published a revised notice of review for projects or by right-of-way maintenance native plants in the Federal Register (45 A. The Present or Threatened activities, if these are not done in a FR 82480); Echinacea Iaevigata was Destruction, Modification. or manner consistent with protecting the included in that notice as a category 2 Curtailment of its Habitat or Range.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Analysis of the Pollinators of Echinacea Purpurea in Relation to Their Perceived Efficiency and Color Preferences
    University of Tennessee at Chattanooga UTC Scholar Student Research, Creative Works, and Honors Theses Publications 5-2021 An analysis of the pollinators of Echinacea purpurea in relation to their perceived efficiency and color efpr erences Carmen Black University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.utc.edu/honors-theses Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Black, Carmen, "An analysis of the pollinators of Echinacea purpurea in relation to their perceived efficiency and color efpr erences" (2021). Honors Theses. This Theses is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research, Creative Works, and Publications at UTC Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of UTC Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Analysis of the Pollinators of Echinacea purpurea in Relation to their Perceived Efficiency and Color Preferences Departmental Honors Thesis The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Department of Biology, Geology, and Environmental Sciences Examination Date: April 6th Dr. Stylianos Chatzimanolis Dr. Joey Shaw Professor of Biology Professor of Biology Thesis Director Department Examiner Dr. Elise Chapman Lecturer of Biology Department Examiner 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Abstract …………..…………………….………………………… 3 II. Introduction…………..………………….……………………....... 5 III. Materials and Methods…………...………………………………. 11 IV. Results…………..…………………….………………………….. 16 A. List of Figures…………...……………………………….. 21 V. Discussion…………..………….…………………………...…… 28 VI. Acknowledgements………….……………….………...………… 38 VII. Works Cited ……………………………………...……….……… 39 VIII. Appendices……………………………………………………….. 43 3 ABSTRACT This study aimed to better understand how insects interacted with species of Echinacea in Tennessee and specifically their preference to floral color. Based on previous studies I expected the main visitors to be composed of various bees, beetles and butterflies.
    [Show full text]
  • USFWS 2011 Coneflower
    Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office Raleigh, North Carolina 5-YEAR REVIEW Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methodology used to complete the review The information used to prepare this report was gathered from peer reviewed scientific publications, a status survey by Gaddy (1991), current data from the Georgia Natural Heritage Program (GANHP), North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), South Carolina Heritage Trust Program (SCHTP), and Virginia Natural Heritage Program (VANHP), correspondence from botanists and land managers who are knowledgeable of the species and personal field observations. The review was completed by the lead recovery biologist for Echinacea laevigata in the Raleigh, North Carolina Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The recommendations resulting from this review are the result of thoroughly assessing the best available information on Echinacea laevigata. Comments and suggestions regarding the review were received from peer reviewers within and outside the Service. A detailed summary of the peer review process is provided in Appendix A. No part of the review was contracted to an outside party. Public notice of this review was provided in the Federal Register on July 29, 2008, and a 60-day public comment period was opened (73 FR 43947). No comments were received during the comment period; however, the Service received population
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Xeric Hardpan Forest (Southern Prairie Barren Subtype)
    XERIC HARDPAN FOREST (SOUTHERN PRAIRIE BARREN SUBTYPE) Concept: Xeric Hardpan Forests are woodlands with open vegetation because of restricted rooting depth caused by dense or shrink-swell clay. The Southern Prairie Barren Subtype covers examples on gabbro-derived soils in the area of Mecklenburg County and adjacent South Carolina, which contain a diverse and distinctive herbaceous flora of prairie affinities. No well-developed remnants are known in North Carolina but flora in the area suggests they were once locally extensive.They generally have a higher species richness than the Basic Hardpan Subtype. The suite of prairie herbs is different for this region than for the range of the Northern Prairie Barren Subtype, apparently for biogeographic reasons. Distinguishing Features: The Southern Prairie Barren Subtype is distinguished from the closely related Northern Prairie Barren Subtype by a suite of different species. Species characteristic of the Northern and absent in the Southern include Echinacea laevigata, Oligoneuron album, Lithospermum canescens, and Baptisia australis var. aberrans. Species characteristic of the Southern and absent in the Northern include Symphyotrichum georgianum var. georgianum and Helianthus schweinitzii. Both subtypes are distinguished from the closely related Basic Hardpan Subtype and from all other subtypes by the presence of a substantial flora of prairie affinities, beyond widespread species such as Schizachyrium scoparium. Silphium terebinthinaceum, Cirsium carolinianum, Elymus canadensis, Eryngium yuccifolium, Liatris squarrosa, Parthenium auriculatum, Parthenium integrifolium, Tragia urens, and Sorghastrum nutans are typical of the both Prairie Barren subtypes and not the other subtypes. Synonyms: Quercus stellata - (Pinus echinata) / Schizachyrium scoparium - Symphyotrichum georgianum Woodland (CEGL003711). Ecological Systems: Piedmont Hardpan Woodland and Forest (CES202.268).
    [Show full text]
  • Download 20033-Echinacea-Report-Interactive
    RESEARCH REPORT Echinacea FOR THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION Sam Hoadley, Manager of Horticultural Research INTRODUCTION Skipper butterfly feeding on Echinacea ‘Glowing Dream’ 2 ECHINACEA FOR THE MID-ATLANTIC ECHINACEA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS CONEFLOWERS, are among the most iconic and recognizable native plants in North America. The earliest documented horticultural use of Echinacea can be traced to the late 17th century when Echinacea purpurea seeds were sent to England by the Virginia clergyman and naturalist John Banister. Medicinal use dates back even further as Native Americans used Echinacea to treat a variety of ailments, a tradition that has carried into modern times. Echinacea has enjoyed continued popularity for treating colds and for boosting the immune system. Although there is little scientific evidence of its benefits, Echinacea is currently one of the most popular commercially traded herbal supplements. The nine species of Echinacea are North American natives and predominantly occur in the central and eastern United States. The majority of wild coneflowers display pink, purple, and rarely white flowers from late spring to summer. Only one species, Echinacea paradoxa, breaks this color trend and produces canary yellow blooms in June. Dr. Jim Ault of the Chicago Botanic Garden was among the first plant breeders to intentionally cross multiple species in the 1990s. Since that time, the breeding and selection of coneflower species has further unlocked the horticultural potential of this genus resulting in a staggering variety of new cultivars in American and European horticultural markets. Today, Echinacea are available in an array of colors including, white, yellow, orange, red, pink, purple, and even green.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan
    SMOOTH CONEFLOWER (Echinacea laevigata) Recovery Plan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region S Atlanta, Georgia RECOVERY PLAN for Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) Prepared by Nora A. Murdock U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville. North Carolina for Southeast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Atlanta. Georgia Approved: Noreen K. dough, Regiona U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: /j~jVAiI Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors. State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as aDproved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and completion of the recovery tasks. Literature citations should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Smooth Coneflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA. 31 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492-6403 or 1-800/582-3421 Fees for recovery plans vary, depending upon the number of pages.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Avifauna in North Carolina Piedmont Prairies
    Assessment of Avifauna in North Carolina Piedmont Prairies by Conor Makepeace Advisor: Dr. Nicolette Cagle Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University 2017 Assessment of Avifauna in Makepeace2 North Carolina Piedmont Prairies Executive Summary Piedmont Prairies are an important early stage of successional habitat in the Southeastern United States. These historic ecosystems once ranged up to 40 km in size and were maintained by frequent disturbance from fires, grazing of large herbivores, and common drought. By the turn of the century, most of these historic prairies had been replaced by cities or agricultural fields. Today, land management organizations including businesses and corporations, especially those in Research Triangle (i.e., RTP), have taken an interest in restoring small sections of prairie habitats to create useful living landscapes. One of the goals of this restoration work is to attract native species such as insects and birds by providing habitat for foraging and nesting. Using birds as an indicator species, this study attempted to quantify the changes in ecosystems and species composition resulting from the restoration of native Piedmont Prairie sites. This study used a paired sample design where each prairie site was paired with a non-prairie alternative site, most often an unmanaged open grassy area. The prairie sites were half restored prairies, utilizing specific management to promote native vegetation, and half native prairies, lightly managed areas where historic habitat still persists. Twenty-two total sites were used in this study, eleven prairies and eleven paired alternative sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Reintroduction of the Endangered Echinacea Laevigata: Comparison of Planting Methods and Effects of Light Intensi
    EXPERIMENTAL REINTRODUCTION OF THE ENDANGERED ECHINACEA LAEVIGATA: COMPARISON OF PLANTING METHODS AND EFFECTS OF LIGHT INTENSITY ON BIOMASS AND PHOTOSYNTHESIS by HEATHER ALLEY (Under the direction of DR. JAMES M. AFFOLTER) ABSTRACT In an experimental reintroduction of the endangered species Echinacea laevigata, we tested several planting methods to determine the optimal method for establishing populations in the wild. High survival rates and comparable growth among plants from all planting methods suggests that reintroduction is a promising conservation strategy for the species and that there are various options for introducing populations. Plants performed well regardless of age at the time of planting, spacing, and presence or absence of soil amendment. Therefore, reintroduction practitioners may weigh logistical costs and benefits when choosing reintroduction methods for E. laevigata. Based on theoretical predictions and our findings, we suggest that an ideal method for establishing populations is to plant adult plants (older than one year) in the spring, without soil amendment. This recommendation is preliminary and contingent on the future survival and reproductive success of reintroduced individuals. In order to more effectively and efficiently manage E. laevigata populations, it is important to understand the role of the light environment in the species’ decline. While it is generally agreed that the species decline is in part due to the lack of fire-maintained, early successional habitat, the extent to which light limits population persistence has not been quantified. We compare the effects of high, medium and low developmental light levels on photosynthetic performance as described by light curves, and on biomass allocation. We found no significant difference in photosynthetic response among plants grown at different light levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Uwharrie National Forest
    BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE NC 24/27 WIDENING – UWHARRIE NATIONAL FOREST MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NC TIP NO. R-2527 WBS ELEMENT 35572.1.1 APRIL 2019 Contact Person: Matthew M. Haney Environmental Program Specialist North Carolina Department of Transportation Natural Environment Section Biological Surveys Group 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 919.707.6122 [email protected] Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 II. POTENTIAL IMPACTS CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 1 III. SPECIES CONSIDERED AND METHODS ........................................................................... 2 IV. EXISTING BIOLOGICAL CONDITION ............................................................................... 2 A. BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AREA................................................................................................................. 2 B. STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................................................... 7 C. TIMING OF FIELD SURVEYS ................................................................................................................... 7 D. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN, AND NORTH CAROLINA LISTED SPECIES .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Common Name: SMOOTH CONEFLOWER
    Common Name: SMOOTH CONEFLOWER Scientific Name: Echinacea laevigata (C. L. Boynton & Beadle) Blake Other Commonly Used Names: none Previously Used Scientific Names: Echinacea purpurea (Linnaeus) Moench var. laevigata (C. L. Boynton & Beadle) Cronquist Family: Asteraceae/Compositae (aster) Rarity Ranks: G2/S2 State Legal Status: Endangered Federal Legal Status: Endangered Federal Wetland Status: none Description: Perennial herb with smooth, usually unbranched stems up to 14 - 43 inches (35 - 110 cm) tall. Basal leaf blades 4 - 20 inches (10 - 50 cm) inches long and 1 - 2½ inches (3 - 6.5 cm) wide, with slightly winged, purplish leaf stalks up to 10 inches (26 cm) long; lower leaf surface smooth, upper surface smooth or slightly rough; leaf margins with small teeth, especially near the tip. Stem leaves similar in shape to basal leaves, alternate, widely spaced, and gradually reduced in size up the stem. Flower head solitary at the top of the stem, with a central, rounded or cone-shaped disk about 1 inch (3 cm) wide and 1 ½ inches (4 cm) high. Ray flowers 1⅜ - 3 inches (3.5 - 8 cm) long, pink to pale purple, drooping. Disk flowers purple, with yellow pollen 3 and sharp bristles (chaff) with purple, incurving tips. Fruit about /16 inch (0.5 cm) long, dry, seedlike, 4-sided. Similar Species: Pale purple coneflower (Echinacea pallida) basal leaves are up to 13 inches (33 cm) long and only 1½ inches (4 cm) wide; its pollen grains are white. It is not native to Georgia but has escaped from gardens into natural areas. Related Rare Species: Purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea, Special Concern) is widely planted in gardens but, because it requires basic soils, is rare in the wild in Georgia; it occurs in open woodlands in several north Georgia counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Reintroduction and Seed Banking (Aka Ex Situ Conservation) Ex Situ Conservation
    Plant Reintroduction and Seed Banking (aka Ex situ conservation) Ex situ Conservation Protecting species outside of their natural habitat to areas equipped for their protection and preservation Center for Plant Conservation Everything you always wanted to know about plant conservation, but were afraid to ask. The ex situ/in situ continuum • 1,800 botanic gardens hold 2.5 million accessions, representing over 18,000 taxa • About 100 taxa exist only in botanic gardens • Many ex situ collections vastly outnumber surviving wild populations • In the US, over 80 rare taxa are being reintroduced (mostly through CPC) • Seeds of Success (US DOI/BLM) partners providing seed of common plants for broad scale habitat restoration Determining ex situ needs in plant conservation • Are ex situ activities appropriate and needed? • If so, what techniques? . Cultivation? . Seed banking as an “insurance policy”? . Alternative techniques for taxa that cannot be stored? . Reintroduction/translocation? Clues that ex situ activities are needed • Small populations (size and/or number decreasing) • Increased fragmentation and/or isolation • Variable environment or current stressors • Imminent threats • Highly degraded habitat • Genetic or demographic problems • High priority species not receiving “attention” More clues – Plants aren’t reproducing • No seeds…. – Lack of pollinators – Lack of compatible mates • No seedlings… – Poor conditions for establishment – Fruit dispersal agent unknown or lacking – Severe inbreeding Seed processing and storage at NCBG # of new
    [Show full text]
  • Chicoric Acid: Chemistry, Distribution, and Production
    REVIEW ARTICLE published: 31 December 2013 doi: 10.3389/fchem.2013.00040 Chicoric acid: chemistry, distribution, and production Jungmin Lee 1* and Carolyn F. Scagel 2 1 United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Horticultural Crops Research Unit Worksite, Parma, ID, USA 2 United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Horticultural Crops Research Unit, Corvallis, OR, USA Edited by: Though chicoric acid was first identified in 1958, it was largely ignored until recent popular Matteo Balderacchi, Università media coverage cited potential health beneficial properties from consuming food and Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy dietary supplements containing this compound. To date, plants from at least 63 genera Reviewed by: and species have been found to contain chicoric acid, and while the compound is used Massimiliano Valentini, Agricultural Research Council, Italy as a processing quality indicator, it may also have useful health benefits. This review of Giorgia Sarais, University of Cagliari, chicoric acid summarizes research findings and highlights gaps in research knowledge Italy for investigators, industry stakeholders, and consumers alike. Additionally, chicoric acid *Correspondence: identification, and quantification methods, biosynthesis, processing improvements to Jungmin Lee, United States increase chicoric acid retention, and potential areas for future research are discussed. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Keywords: phenolics, polyphenolics, cichoric acid, caffeic acid derivative, dicaffeoyltartaric acid, hydroxycinnamic Horticultural Crops Research Unit acid, phenolic acid Worksite, 29603 U of I Ln, Parma, ID 83660, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] INTRODUCTION or signaling molecules (Harborne, 1979; Gallagher et al., 2010; Recent US consumer interest in boosting their dietary intake Mandal et al., 2010).
    [Show full text]