DOCSLIB.ORG

Botanist Interior 40.3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Botanist Interior 40.3 74 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST Vol. 40 and overall appearance. They are however, finely hispid, and the general aspect of the plant also strikes one as nettle–like. The axillary flowers are arrayed in greenish to purple-tinged, loose, hemispherical heads, giving an unusual appear- ance to the plant. Illustrations are found in Wunderlin (1997) and photos on the internet at www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/weeds/mweed1.html. Specimen Citation: MICHIGAN. Jackson Co.: Rest area on S side of I-94 ca. 0.8 mi W of Business 94 exit on 1 west side of Jackson, SE ⁄4 sect. 25, T2S R2W, North Lat. 42° 16′ 15″ West Long. 84° 25′ 40″ (from map). Weed in perennial ground cover planting (low junipers) in beds around rest area building, Sept. 25, 2001, A.A. Reznicek et. al. 11300 (MICH, MSC, MU, and numerous du- plicates to be distributed). LITERATURE CITED DuQuesnay, D. 1974. Fatoua villosa (Moraceae) in Florida. Sida 5: 286. Massey, J.R. 1975. Fatoua villosa (Moraceae), Additional notes on distribution in the southeastern United States. Sida 6:116. Neal, J.C. 1998. Mulberry Weed or Hairy Crabweed (Fatoua villosa). Horticulture Information Leaflet #903. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Reed, C.F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds—Potential Problems in the United States. USDA Agriculture Handbook 498. Sanders, A.C. 1996. Noteworthy collections-California. Madroño 43: 524–532. Thieret, J.W. 1964. Fatoua villosa (Moraceae) in Louisiana: New to North America. Sida 1: 248. Vincent, M.A. 1993. Fatoua villosa (Moraceae), Mulberry Weed, in Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 93: 147–149. Wunderlin, R.P. 1997. Moraceae. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds, Fl. North Amer. 3:388–399 Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford. Yatskievych, G., & J.A. Raveill. 2001. Notes on the increasing proportion of non-native angiosperms in the Missouri flora, with reports of three new genera for the state. Sida 19: 701–709. Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 2001. http://www.wa.gov/agr/weedboard/ index.html REVIEWS DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS OF WISCONSIN LAKE PLANTS. Stanley A. Nichols. 1999. Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Bulletin 96. xi + 266 pages + two unnumbered pages at the back; metal- ring binding with a sturdy plastic cover. $15 + $3.25 postage and handling, avail- able from Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 3817 Mineral Point Road, Madison, WI 53705. Telephone orders at 608. 262. 1705, with V or MC only. www.uwex.edu/wgnhs/, but no sales via that site. This is not a taxonomic monograph. The names are simply taken from Glea- son & Cronquist, ed. 2, 1991. There are no keys. There are no descriptions. There are 107 species treated, by my rough count, in alphabetical order by Latin name, and nearly all are accompanied by a faithful and well-reproduced draw- 2001 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST 75 ing. The drawings are by Carol Watkins, whose work is acknowledged on p. 260. They are beautifully done and she deserves thanks and congratulations from botanists. As the title says, the book intends to document distribution. For each species, there is a distribution map of the state, with asterisks for literature re- ports believed to be reliable and little black squares for actual herbarium records. I believe the author included only herbarium records where the label indicated the plant was in a lake. Wet-roadside-ditch records appear not to have been included. This results in some really odd omissions, but in fairness to the author the maps should not be looked at uncritically. (At a glance, one might suppose that Typha latifolia is missing from much of eastern Wiscon- sin!) The Great Lakes and the pools of the Upper Mississippi River are also omitted, on the ground that collections are much more difficult to link to spe- cific locational or habitat characteristics. The first thing that occurred to me when I opened the book was, here’s an ex- cellent guide to finding some of the state’s floristic oddities. For example, the book shows there are four known occurrences of Potamogeton pulcher; I would have said from personal experience that the species doesn’t occur in Wisconsin. That opinion would have been re-inforced by the range statement in Gleason & Cronquist, ed. 2, which seems fairly clearly to exclude Wisconsin from the known range. [Voss in Michigan Flora shows only two sites.] For species abundant enough to yield meaningful data, the author has com- piled data on water depth, pH, conductivity, and alkalinity. Substrate preference and turbidity tolerance are also assessed. Flowering and fruiting times (taken from herbarium labels) are also given, though these are doubtless skewed— herbarium curators often discard specimens of Cyperaceae and Juncaceae that are only in flower. The motive in all this is to permit the framing of hypotheses that can be tested in the field or laboratory. At this stage in the process, the author concludes that “Species having similar habitat requirements are not necessarily found growing together; habitat similarities do not predict species associations very well.” One of the problems with this is that what we call habitat “requirements” may be nothing of the sort—they may be tolerance limits. Cannabis sativa around here is to be found only in sandy soils, if left to its own devices, but it will grow per- fectly well if planted in heavy lakebed clays. It strikes me that the line between “requirements” and “tolerances” has got awfully thin. Or blurred. Habitat similarities do not predict species associations very well. But what, if anything, do species associations tell us? The process of listing out on herbar- ium labels the associates of a species has always seemed to me to be a time- consuming and largely pointless exercise. If each species is a uniquely evolved entity, then listing all the species with which it is “associated” at any given site is about as meaningful as specifying all the people whom I shared a plane trip with. Moreover, recognizable associates will vary with the season, and with re- spect to aquatics they may also vary with water depth, in the sense that in deeper water many species remain vegetative and do not flower. Species associations are sometimes given in this book, but without amplification and certainly 76 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST Vol. 40 without statistical verification. I think these are little more than interesting anec- dotes. “Because the information presented here is open to interpretation, the report does not dwell on interpretation—readers can use the information in ways that fit their needs (p. 1).” I applaud the author’s discretion and caution. ——Neil A. Harriman Biology Department University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh Oshkosh, WI 54901 [email protected] THE LANDSCAPE REVOLUTION: GARDEN WITH MOTHER NATURE, NOT AGAINST HER. Andy Wasowski with Sally Wasowski. 2000. 166 pages. Contemporary Books, 4255 West Toughy Ave., Lincolnwood (Chicago), Illinois 60646-1975. ISBN: 0-8092-2665-0. U.S. $27.95. I have been a “revolutionary” since I bought my house in 1977. Then, how- ever, books like this weren’t available to guide me in my “natural landscaping” endeavors. The Wasowskis have landscaped in many different parts of the U.S. where they have lived. One weakness of a book like this, which attempts to cover the whole United States, is that detail needed for a particular region is sac- rificed to be comprehensive. Wasowski begins by explaining why our current landscapes are harmful to the environment. Anyone who has tried to maintain a perfect green velvet lawn knows the drill: Fertilize (the fertilizer then permeates to the ground water sup- ply and often runs off into nearby lakes and streams causing algae blooms); water extensively (Wasowski describes in detail the world wide water shortage and how a lawn’s “drinking problem” contributes to this); mow, polluting the air (inefficient gasoline mower motors are one the biggest air polluters) and con- tributing to global warming as well as using time that could be spent more en- joyably doing something else; bag those grass clippings in plastic bags and de- liver them to a landfill. Wasowski differentiates between a “natural” landscape, which he defines as using only “native” plants and a “naturalized” landscape, defined to include with the natives, some “well behaved,” i.e. non-invasive, exotics. His definition of a native plant is one that was germinated and raised within 100 miles of where the landscape is located. This he considers to be the local “provenance” of the species. In western Michigan where I live, however, that may be too extensive a range. Plants that thrive here along the Lake Michigan shoreline often can’t live a mere 15 miles inland and vice versa. The benefits of a natural or naturalized landscape are detailed: The plants are adapted to local natural conditions, so need minimal watering and fertilizing, and hence very little maintenance; local plants have evolved to live on the rainfall available in their provenance, whether 2001 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST 77 it be Pacific Coast Rain Forest or Arizona desert; the right species can provide food and cover for wildlife, such as favorite bird and butterfly species; alterna- tives to pesticides, again not usually needed for native plants because they have evolved along with the native predators. Wasowski offers tips for combating local “weed ordinances.” He also details how to convert a typical “cookie cutter” landscape into a natural or naturalized one, step by step. If the homeowner is lucky enough to be starting from scratch, the process is much easier and that too is described. Construction techniques to be used in new developments can be implemented to save existing vegetation when building.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerfield, J., and J. Wen. 2002. A morphometric analysis of Hedera L. (the ivy genus, Araliaceae) and its taxonomic implications. Adansonia 24: 197-212. Adams, P. 1961. Observations on the Sagittaria subulata complex. Rhodora 63: 247-265. Adams, R.M. II, and W.J. Dress. 1982. Nodding Lilium species of eastern North America (Liliaceae). Baileya 21: 165-188. Adams, R.P. 1986. Geographic variation in Juniperus silicicola and J. virginiana of the Southeastern United States: multivariant analyses of morphology and terpenoids. Taxon 35: 31-75. ------. 1995. Revisionary study of Caribbean species of Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 78: 134-150. ------, and T. Demeke. 1993. Systematic relationships in Juniperus based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). Taxon 42: 553-571. Adams, W.P. 1957. A revision of the genus Ascyrum (Hypericaceae). Rhodora 59: 73-95. ------. 1962. Studies in the Guttiferae. I. A synopsis of Hypericum section Myriandra. Contr. Gray Herbarium Harv. 182: 1-51. ------, and N.K.B. Robson. 1961. A re-evaluation of the generic status of Ascyrum and Crookea (Guttiferae). Rhodora 63: 10-16. Adams, W.P. 1973. Clusiaceae of the southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89: 62-71. Adler, L. 1999. Polygonum perfoliatum (mile-a-minute weed). Chinquapin 7: 4. Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, and C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 594-630. Affolter, J.M. 1985. A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Bot. Monographs 6. Ahles, H.E., and A.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeography, Phylogeny and Divergence Date Estimates of Artocarpus (Moraceae)
    Annals of Botany 119: 611–627, 2017 doi:10.1093/aob/mcw249, available online at www.aob.oxfordjournals.org Out of Borneo: biogeography, phylogeny and divergence date estimates of Artocarpus (Moraceae) Evelyn W. Williams1,*, Elliot M. Gardner1,2, Robert Harris III2,†, Arunrat Chaveerach3, Joan T. Pereira4 and Nyree J. C. Zerega1,2,* 1Chicago Botanic Garden, Plant Science and Conservation, 1000 Lake Cook Road, Glencoe, IL 60022, USA, 2Northwestern University, Plant Biology and Conservation Program, 2205 Tech Dr., Evanston, IL 60208, USA, 3Faculty of Science, Genetics Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/119/4/611/2884288 by guest on 03 January 2021 and Environmental Toxicology Research Group, Khon Kaen University, 123 Mittraphap Highway, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand and 4Forest Research Centre, Sabah Forestry Department, PO Box 407, 90715 Sandakan, Sabah, Malaysia *For correspondence. E-mail [email protected], [email protected] †Present address: Carleton College, Biology Department, One North College St., Northfield, MN 55057, USA. Received: 25 March 2016 Returned for revision: 1 August 2016 Editorial decision: 3 November 2016 Published electronically: 10 January 2017 Background and Aims The breadfruit genus (Artocarpus, Moraceae) includes valuable underutilized fruit tree crops with a centre of diversity in Southeast Asia. It belongs to the monophyletic tribe Artocarpeae, whose only other members include two small neotropical genera. This study aimed to reconstruct the phylogeny, estimate diver- gence dates and infer ancestral ranges of Artocarpeae, especially Artocarpus, to better understand spatial and tem- poral evolutionary relationships and dispersal patterns in a geologically complex region. Methods To investigate the phylogeny and biogeography of Artocarpeae, this study used Bayesian and maximum likelihood approaches to analyze DNA sequences from six plastid and two nuclear regions from 75% of Artocarpus species, both neotropical Artocarpeae genera, and members of all other Moraceae tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • First Steps Towards a Floral Structural Characterization of the Major Rosid Subclades
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2006 First steps towards a floral structural characterization of the major rosid subclades Endress, P K ; Matthews, M L Abstract: A survey of our own comparative studies on several larger clades of rosids and over 1400 original publications on rosid flowers shows that floral structural features support to various degrees the supraordinal relationships in rosids proposed by molecular phylogenetic studies. However, as many apparent relationships are not yet well resolved, the structural support also remains tentative. Some of the features that turned out to be of interest in the present study had not previously been considered in earlier supraordinal studies. The strongest floral structural support is for malvids (Brassicales, Malvales, Sapindales), which reflects the strong support of phylogenetic analyses. Somewhat less structurally supported are the COM (Celastrales, Oxalidales, Malpighiales) and the nitrogen-fixing (Cucurbitales, Fagales, Fabales, Rosales) clades of fabids, which are both also only weakly supported in phylogenetic analyses. The sister pairs, Cucurbitales plus Fagales, and Malvales plus Sapindales, are structurally only weakly supported, and for the entire fabids there is no clear support by the present floral structural data. However, an additional grouping, the COM clade plus malvids, shares some interesting features but does not appear as a clade in phylogenetic analyses. Thus it appears that the deepest split within eurosids- that between fabids and malvids - in molecular phylogenetic analyses (however weakly supported) is not matched by the present structural data. Features of ovules including thickness of integuments, thickness of nucellus, and degree of ovular curvature, appear to be especially interesting for higher level relationships and should be further explored.
    [Show full text]
  • Hairy Crabweed
    Hairy Crabweed Figure 1. Hairy crabweed seedlings. Figure 2. Mature hairy crabweed. Figure 3. Flower clusters in leaf axils. Hairy crabweed (Fatoua villosa), also known as be thrown up to 4 feet as a form of natural dispersal. Seeds mulberryweed, is an introduced annual in the mulberry germinate in warm weather (60–100°F), maturing within 12 family. Hairy crabweed is native to East Asia and was days after reaching the two-leaf stage. This maturity rate likely introduced to Louisiana around 1964. Other reports makes eradication difficult without persistent monitoring indicate that it escaped around New Orleans in the 1950s, of the site. perhaps by contaminated equipment brought back to the United States after World War II. Compared with Habitat other invasive plants, hairy crabweed is a fairly recent Hairy crabweed plants prefer moist areas in sun or introduction, yet it occurs over much of the United States shade, but mostly in shade. Landowners purchasing today. Hairy crabweed seems to avoid detection often until nursery plants should be cautious. Even though hairy it is well established on a site. This is possibly because crabweed may not be visible in the container, seeds may be of its similar appearance to seedling mulberry trees. In in the soil. Seeds can be thrown into containers by nearby addition, plants can produce seedlings around 1 inch tall, plants and go unnoticed until they germinate. Once in a making it difficult to detect while it becomes established. suitable habitat in the landscape, it will proliferate without eradication. Hairy crabweed adapts to a wide range of Description habitats, including sun to shade and wet to moderately With the common name of mulberryweed, hairy moist soils.
    [Show full text]
  • The Herbaceous Vascular Plants of Blackacre Preserve a Preliminary List
    The Herbaceous Vascular Plants of Blackacre Preserve A Preliminary List December 3, 2010 Submitted to: Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Submitted by: William E. Thomas Herbarium Indiana University Southeast Photo: Spiked Crested Coralroot by Richard Lyons 1 Scope The aim of this survey was to compile a rough list of herbaceous vascular plant species on the below described tract and was conducted from July 11, 2010 through the end of the growing season. In addition any extensive populations of invasive alien species were noted. Locale Description The Blackacre Preserve website states that the property consists of 170 acres in eastern Jefferson County Kentucky. It is the authors understanding that some additional acreage (size?) was appended to the southern border of the original 170 acre tract. The property is located at 3200 Tucker Station Rd. The tract is bordered on all sides by housing and urban areas; a railroad track runs along the north border. The terrain is of mostly gentle slopes with some wooded areas and open fields formerly used for pasture or crops. There are several ponds on the property; a limestone glade area constitutes the northeast corner of the tract. A small creek flows east to west across the tract north of the center. There are numerous foot trails, some designated and some rogue. An old section of Mann’s Lick road runs northward about midway in the tract. Map #1 from the Blackacre Preserve website provides a general layout of this tract. Map #2 is a topographic map with a NAD83 UTM 16 grid superimposed and the foot trails plotted in various colors.
    [Show full text]
  • Botanist Interior 40.3
    2001 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST 73 MULBERRY WEED (FATOUA VILLOSA) SPREAD AS FAR NORTH AS MICHIGAN A.A. Reznicek University of Michigan Herbarium 3600 Varsity Drive, Suite 112 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108-2287 [email protected] Mulberry weed, Fatoua villosa (Thunb.) Nakai, also known as hairy crab- weed, is a warm temperate annual widespread in Asia and introduced and rapidly spreading in North America. It first appeared in North America in Louisiana, where Thieret (1964) noted “Dr. Joseph Ewan of Tulane University informs me that the plant has been found as a weed in New Orleans for at least 15 years.” This implies that it entered North America at least as early as the late 1940s. Thieret comments that “seedlings were frequent on the campus [of the University of Southwestern Louisiana] this past spring, even following the se- vere winter of 1962–63, when the temperature in LaFayette dropped to 15 de- grees F.” This suggested, somewhat ominously, that the plant could become weedy over a much larger area than the extreme south. Indeed, it was reported from Florida in 1974 (DuQuesnay 1974) and, by 1975, it had been also found in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina (Massey 1975). In 1977, per- haps belatedly, it was listed as an economically important foreign weed that po- tentially could be a problem in the United States (Reed 1977). The distribution of Fatoua as mapped and reported in Flora North America now encompasses all of the southeast, including Texas, and north to Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia (Wunderlin 1997). It has also been re- ported from California (Sanders 1996), Washington (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board 2001), and is now known from southern Missouri (Yatskievych & Raveill 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • From Phylogenetics to Host Plants: Molecular and Ecological Investigations Into the Native Urticaceae of Hawai‘I
    FROM PHYLOGENETICS TO HOST PLANTS: MOLECULAR AND ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE NATIVE URTICACEAE OF HAWAI‘I A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BOTANY (ECOLOGY, EVOLUTION, AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY) DECEMBER 2017 By Kari K. Bogner Thesis Committee Kasey Barton, Chairperson Donald Drake William Haines Clifford Morden Acknowledgements The following thesis would not have come to fruition without the assistance of many people. Above all, I thank my graduate advisor, Dr. Kasey Barton, for her incredible support, knowledge and patience throughout my graduate career. She has been a wonderful advisor, and I look forward to collaborating with her on future projects. I also thank my other committee members: Drs. Will Haines, Don Drake, and Cliff Morden. Thank you for being such a wonderful committee. I have learned so much from everyone. It has been an amazing journey. In addition, I am thankful to Mitsuko Yorkston for teaching me so much about DNA sequencing and phylogenetic analysis. I also want to thank Rina Carrillo and Dr. Morden’s graduate students for assisting me in his lab. I thank Tarja Sagar who collected Hesperocnide tenella in California for me. I am grateful to the National Tropical Botanical Garden and Bishop Museum for providing me plant material for DNA sequencing. I also thank Drs. Andrea Westerband and Orou Gauoe who helped me learn R and advance my statistical knowledge. I also thank the volunteers of the Mānoa Cliffs Forest Restoration Site. Thank you for allowing me to collect leaves from the site and for being the breath of fresh air throughout my graduate career.
    [Show full text]
  • MORACEAE Genera Other Than FICUS (C.C
    Flora Malesiana, Series I, Volume 17 / Part 1 (2006) 1–152 MORACEAE GENera OTHer THAN FICUS (C.C. Berg, E.J.H. Corner† & F.M. Jarrett)1 FOREWORD The following treatments of Artocarpus, Hullettia, Parartocarpus, and Prainea are based on the monograph by Jarrett (1959–1960) and on the treatments she made for this Flora in cooperation with Dr. M. Jacobs in the 1970s. These included some new Artocarpus species described in 1975 and the re-instatement of A. peltata. Artocarpus lanceifolius subsp. clementis was reduced to the species, in A. nitidus the subspe- cies borneensis and griffithii were reduced to varieties and the subspecies humilis and lingnanensis included in var. nitidus. The varieties of A. vrieseanus were no longer recognised. More new Malesian species of Parartocarpus were described by Corner (1976), Go (1998), and in Artocarpus by Kochummen (1998). A manuscript with the treatment of the other genera was submitted by Corner in 1972. Numerous changes to the taxonomy, descriptions, and keys have been made to the original manuscripts, for which the present first author is fully responsible. References: Corner, E.J.H., A new species of Parartocarpus Baillon (Moraceae). Gard. Bull. Singa- pore 28 (1976) 183–190. — Go, R., A new species of Parartocarpus (Moraceae) from Sabah. Sandaka- nia 12 (1998) 1–5. — Jarrett, F.M., Studies in Artocarpus and allied genera I–V. J. Arnold Arbor. 50 (1959) 1–37, 113–155, 298–368; 51 (1960) 73–140, 320–340. — Jarrett, F.M., Four new Artocarpus species from Indo-Malesia (Moraceae). Blumea 22 (1975) 409–410. — Kochummen, K.M., New species and varieties of Moraceae from Malaysia.
    [Show full text]
  • Fatoua Villosa) in Ornamental Crop Production1 Chris Marble and Shawn Steed2
    ENH1256 Biology and Management of Mulberry Weed (Fatoua villosa) in Ornamental Crop Production1 Chris Marble and Shawn Steed2 Species Description Class: Dicotyledonous plant Family: Moraceae (mulberry family) Other Common Names: Hairy crabweed, fatoua Life Span: Summer annual Habitat: Occurs in disturbed areas and wetlands; often found growing in landscapes, greenhouses, container pads, and nursery pots. It prefers to grow in irrigated or moist shaded areas. Distribution: Mulberry weed is native to eastern Asia and was first reported in Louisiana in the 1950s (Bryson and DeFelice 2009). Mulberry weed has naturalized throughout much of the eastern United States and is found from Texas to Florida and north to Michigan and Delaware. It also oc- curs along the west coast from California into Washington Figure 1. Mulberry weed (Fatoua villosa) growing inside a nursery (Gregory 2014; USDA NRCS 2014). container. Note upright growth habit. Credits: Annette Chandler, UF/IFAS Growth Habit: Upright growth habit (Figure 1) 1. This document is ENH1256, one of a series of the Environmental Horticulture Department, UF/IFAS Extension. Original publication date April 2015. Revised November 2018. Visit the EDIS website at https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu for the currently supported version of this publication. 2. Chris Marble, assistant professor, UF/IFAS Mid-Florida Research and Education Center; and Shawn Steed, environmental horticulture production Extension agent; UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL 32611. Mention of a commercial or herbicide brand name or chemical does not constitute a recommendation or warranty of the product by the authors or the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, nor does it imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that may also be suitable.
    [Show full text]
  • Berkov's Full Testimony with Facts About
    Dr. Amy Berkov, [email protected] City College of New York, Dept. Biology I don’t understand how the city can even propose an Environmental Impact Statement for a plan that is unprecedented in its destruction: how can anyone predict impact, when there is no precedent? In my area of expertise, terrestrial biodiversity, the DEIS is incomplete, inaccurate and makes unjustified assumptions. 1) The incomplete and inaccurate assessment is based on two four-hour mid-summer walkthroughs, supplemented with external information (not site-specific). The walkthroughs documented approximately 18 bird and insect species (DEIS Appendix F1: "invertebrate species richness was low, as anticipated for a heavily-disturbed, urban system"). According to DEIS 5.6-31, the USFWS iPaC tool gave list of 58 migratory birds that might use the ESCR region. Citizen Scientists have documented >430 species, including 82 bird and 104 insect species. In DEIS Appendix H1, the NYS Natural Heritage Program lists the peregrine falcon as an endangered species known to nest on the Williamsburg bridge. The letter from NYSNHP points out: “For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted… further information from on-site surveys or other sources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological resources.” Citizen Scientists have documented nine birds and one bumble bee that are on the NYSNHP list of rare animal species; several are Endangered or Critically Imperiled in NYS (see attached documentation from Loyan Beausoleil’s 5-month bird survey, e- bird, and iNaturalist). All ten require thoughtful, individual mitigation plans. 2) The DEIS (6.5-13) makes unjustified assumptions about the temporary nature of negative impacts when it proposes that urban wildlife will "relocate to other suitable areas".
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution Records of Southern Indiana Vascular Plants Iii
    2009. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science ll8(1):31-38 DISTRIBUTION RECORDS OF SOUTHERN INDIANA VASCULAR PLANTS III William E. Thomas and Richard H. Maxwell: Herbarium, Indiana University Southeast, New Albany, Indiana 47150 USA ABSTRACT. New collections in the Indiana University Southeast Herbarium, and review of existing collections, yielded eight new vascular plant state records and 120 new county records mainly for Clark, Crawford, Floyd, Harrison, and Jefferson counties in southern Indiana. Indiana vascular plant species listed as state endangered, threatened, or rare are noted. Keywords: Vascular plants, Indiana, distribution records, county records, state records The Indiana University Southeast Herbari­ Plants were collected from various sources, um contains vascular plant collections primar­ including contract surveys for The Nature ily from Clark, Crawford, Floyd, Harrison, and Conservancy and ongoing searches for state­ Jefferson counties, with occasional collections listed species in area parks and forests. Site from other southern Indiana counties. This information for state-listed species was report­ area of southern Indiana includes the lower­ ed to the Indiana Department of Natural most parts of the Mitchell Karst Plain and Resources, Division of Nature Preserves. Re­ Knobstone Escarpment sections of the High­ cord vouchers were retained at the Indiana land Rim Natural Region and the Shawnee University Southeast herbarium. Hills Natural Region (Homoya et al. 1985). Revision of county species lists and entry of STATE RECORDS all mounted herbarium sheets into a computer Cardamine impatiens L. (Brassicaceae). Nar­ database have allowed collectors to target row Leaved Bittercress. This introduced spe­ species which are potential state or county cies, found mainly to the east of Indiana, was records.
    [Show full text]
  • MORACEAE 桑科 Sang Ke
    Flora of China 5: 21-73. 2003. MORACEAE 桑科 sang ke Zhou Zhekun (周浙昆)1; Michael G. Gilbert2 Trees, shrubs, vines, or rarely herbs, frequently with milky or watery latex, sometimes spiny. Stipules present, frequently caducous. Leaves alternate, rarely opposite; petiole often present and well-defined; leaf blade simple, sometimes with cystoliths, margin entire or palmately lobed, venation pinnate or palmate. Inflorescences axillary, frequently paired, racemose, spicate, capitate, or rarely cymose, sometimes a fig or syconium with flowers completely enclosed within a hollow receptacle. Flowers unisexual (plants monoecious or dioecious), small to very small. Calyx lobes (1 or)2–4(–8), free or connate, imbricate or valvate. Corolla absent. Male flowers: stamens as many as and opposite to calyx lobes (except in Artocarpus), straight or inflexed in bud; anthers 1- or 2-loculed, crescent-shaped to top-shaped; pistillode (rudimentary sterile pistil) often present. Female flowers: calyx lobes usually 4; ovary superior, semi-inferior, or inferior, 1(or 2)-loculed; ovules 1 per locule, anatropous or campylotropous; style branches 1 or 2; stigmas usually filiform. Fruit usually a drupe, rarely an achene, enveloped by an enlarged calyx and/or immersed in a fleshy receptacle, often joined into a syncarp. Seed solitary; endosperm present or absent. Between 37 and 43 genera and 1100–1400 species: widespread in tropical and subtropical areas, less common in temperate areas; nine genera and 144 species (26 endemic, five introduced) in China. Economically, the most important species are those of Morus and Maclura associated with the production of silk. Some species in Broussonetia, Maclura, and Morus are important for paper making; some species in Artocarpus, Ficus, and Morus have edible fruit; and some species of Artocarpus and Broussonetia are used for furniture or timber.
    [Show full text]