DOCSLIB.ORG

2003 Survey of Tributaries for Eurasian Watermilfoil

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2003 Survey of Tributaries for Eurasian Watermilfoil It\OARRIN \f!I fresh Water Institute , ;ammw 7 7 mmnrr I In 1lllIiI@i liD' mpw I't W1I$UU II1I1 =pw Lake George, New York Adirondack Field Station at Bolton Landing A SURVEY OF TRIBUTARIICS TO LAKE GEORGI':, NEW YORK FOR THE PRESENCE OF I:URASIAN WATERMILFOIL prepared lor The fund for Lake George hy Lawrence W, Eichler Research Scientist T,aurie Ahrens-Franklin Sr. Laboratory Technician & Charles W. Boylen Associate Director DaHin Fresh Water Institute Rensselaer "PolJ1echnic instItutt; Troy, NY 12180-3590 Bolton Lanchng, NY 12814 March 2004 DrWI Technical Report 20U4-4 TABLE OF CONTt<:NTS The Survey of Lake George Tributaries for Eurasian watermilfoil· 200J executive Summary III Inlroduction Methods Results and Discussioll 3 References 12 Acknowl edgcrncnls 13 Appendix A. Site Locations Appendix B. MacroJlhyte Community Assessmrut data 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A survey of tributary Jellas in the south hasin of Lake George was conducted in 2003 to assess the extent of Eurasian watermi[foil (Myriophyllum spicatum L) infestation. The Darrin fresh Water blStitutc conducted the project with financial support from the fund for Lake George. Similar surveys were completed in 1987, 1989, 1991, 1994, 11)1)7 and 2000 as reference points. Delta areas were chosen as read; Iy identifiable points that historically harbor diverse assemblages of native aquatic plants. Results orthese surveys can he used to approximate the rate of spread of11111foil through the Lake George hasin. in 1987, when surveys were initiated, 30 percent of the sites were found to have milfoil. By 1989, this percentage had dropped to 23 percent due to harvesting of mil foil, although three new locations were found in 19R9. In 1991, over 45 percent of the trihutary sites surveyed In the south hasin had mil Coil. Results from the 1994 survey showed a slight reduction to 41 % of the sites colonized by Eurasian watermilfoil. The 1997 and 2000 surveys found this declining trend was continued from 1994, with 39% and 33% of the total sites infested, respectively. Tn 2003, the number of sites with Eurasian watertlulfoil present remained at 33% of sites surveyed. The decline in sites with Eurasian watermiloifl present is attributed to hand harvesting of mil foil in prior years. No new sites supporting Eurasian w<ltermilfoil were reported in the 2003 survey. Management e!Torts to date have heen implemented at 128 of 146 known mil foil locations. Management eff011s have reduced the milfoil biomass in these locations; however, milfoil has only heen clitlllnated at a handful of sites <llld reintroduction at these locations IS highly probable. Thus maintenance hecomes critical following initial management. At this time, Eurasian watemlilfoil is ranked lih by relative abundance (a function of cumulative percent cover) and 26th by frequency of occurrence for the 48 species found in this survey. The fact that milfoil has reached this level of abundance is testament to tllC plant's ability to spread rapidly and to outcompete native species. Maintenance will require sitc visits yearly or every other year to harvest regrowth ofmil[oiJ. Although the nill11ber of samples is lLmiLed for development of a statistically reliable rate of colonization, new sites continue to he colonizcd on <l year-to-year hasis. Expansion of Eurasian watennilfoil at the 4() tributary sites over the sixteen year span urthe study is approximately 2 new sites per year, or a 4%) annual rate of colonization. The occurrence of mil10il at sites that had heen cleared in previolls years also indicates that continued surveillance and maintenance ol'rniI1iJil sites is necessary. The more sohering indication from the recurrence of O1il1oil at previously harvested sites is that there arc no sites or cases to indicate any natural mortality or demise oCsmall popUlations of Eurasian watenml1iJil in Lake George. Although Lhese populations may not expand for several years, dearly they are not dying off on their own. Tributary surveys demonstrate the need for continued management of Eurasian watermilfoil in Lake George. Management programs currently encompass several diiTerent techniques renective of different stages ofmil1oil devcIopment. Tributary surveys provide a means of mapping milfoil colonization in Lake George, while management programs limit the spread of mil foil once sites have been located. Increased puhlic awareness of the effects of growth and spread of Eurasian watermil10il on the Lake George ecosystem can help reduce furLher introductiol1. 2003 TRIBUTARV SURVEV Introduction Streams entering Lak~ George, with nutrients and sllspended sediments derived from the terrestrial portion of the basin and deposited 011 their deltas, arc prime habitats for the continued establishment and reestablishment of Eurasian watcrmiUoil (Myriophyllum. spicatum r,.). Delta areas arc also disturbed habitats, as a result of sedimentation of terreslrially derived materials and scouring of existing sediments during times or accelerated nmoff. The comhination of changing sediment conditions and habitat disruption make: tributary deltas prime locations for Eurasian watermilfoil infestation. 1 Around the entire lakeshore, then: are 128 listed stream tributaries (Madsen el a1. 1989 ). Because human activity in the Lake George basin has historically exacerbated water quality conditions, relative to disturbed areas, the rate of establishment and ~pread of milfoil has heen of particular cont:em in the management of Eurasian watcnnilfoil. A survey of all the trihutaries in tllC basin wa~ perfonned as pa11 of the 1 Sl~OMgg Lake George Aquatic Plant Survey (Madsen et a1. 1989). The survey provided a procedure for finding new sites with Eurasian watel111ilfoil, includlllg the establishment of a regular search pattem for milfoil sites to ascertain the relative distribution ofrnilloil among the native plant communities in Lake George. in order to balance the number of tributary sites surveyed each year and to stabilize the cost orthe survey, the south basin tributaries were divided into two groups in 1991. With approximately 45 tributaries in each group, a three-year cycle of surveys has been established with a south, central and north component of nearly equal numher of trihutaries. The tributaries in the southem half of the south basin were sun'eyed in 1991, those in the nor1hern hall" of the south basin (central) were the subject of the 1992, 1995 and 1998 surveys. The tributaries of the north basin were the subject of the 1993, 1996 and 1999 sunreys. The far south basin tributary survey was conduded in 1987, 1989, 1991, 19~)4, 1997 and in 2000 to provide infonnation on the rate of colonization of Eurasian watennilfoil (Madsen et aI, 1990). Since these are readily located site~ for which the presence or absence of Eurasian watennilfoil was knoVo/11 from the previolLs surveys noted above, these sitGS were revisited in 2003 to detennine whether appreciable new infestation, re~invasion or natural mortality of earlier mfestation had occurred. Methods The shoreline adjacent to tributary outflows in the south basin was surveyed for the presence of Eurasian watemlilfoil. The tributaries comprising this portion oraw survey 1 were visited between July 24th and September 30 \ 2003. Surveys consisted ofswirnrning a 100-meter segment of shoreline from the edge of the water to the outer edge of the littoral zone (maximum depth of rooted plant growth). I All cited literalure is found in References on Page 12. Diver swimover transects were also completed at each site in order to characterize the macrophyte (aquatic plcl11t) community present. Divers skilled in plant identification estimated the abundance of all aquatic plant species in each 1-meter (3 ft) depth in1erval using the following abundance classes: Class Code % Cover Range Centroid Ahundant A greater than 50% cover 75.0% Common C 25% to 50% cover 37.5% Present P 15% to 25% cover 20.0% Occasional 0 5% to 15% cover 10.0% Rare R less than 5% cover 2.5% Percent cover data provides both the average depth distribution ortbe plants present and an estimate of the relative abundance of species at the tributary sites. This information is also important for future management decisions conceming 111ilfoil control alternatives and permit applications required as part of any control strategy. A map showing the generallocatiun uflhis year's survey activity is shown in Figure 1. Specific tributaty locations in the current survey arc provided in Appendix A. Figure 1. Map of Lake George indicating the three regions included in the Tributary Survey. The southern segment was completed in 2003. rrlles 2 Results and Discussion The current survey included the southernmost portion of the lake basin tributaries (46 siles). The cenlral and northern porlions of the lake were complctcd ill 2001 and 2002, respectively. Maps with the locations of the tributaries surveyed m2003 are provided as Appendix A. Aquatic plant ahundance data for the 44 sites compared in the 1987 and 1989 surveys, plus 2 additional sites that were included during the 1991 survey are provided as Appendix 13. Methodologies employed by the three surveys were the same. The results of the south basin tributary surveys for all survey years are presented in Table 1. For each site, the tribulary number and site name is givt;n. Table 1. Tributary survey sites in the south basin and the presence (Yes) or absence (No) of Eurasian watennilfoil. M # is a sequential listing of sites with Eurasian waterl11ilfoil discovered since the survey began. TRIB M SITE \1up MILFOIL
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Dorchester County
    List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Dorchester County July 2019 Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Larry Hogan, Governor Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, Secretary Wildlife & Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Tawes State Office Building, E-1 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 410-260-8540 Fax 410-260-8596 dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife Additional Telephone Contact Information: Toll free in Maryland: 877-620-8DNR ext. 8540 OR Individual unit/program toll-free number Out of state call: 410-260-8540 Text Telephone (TTY) users call via the Maryland Relay The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability. This document is available in alternative format upon request from a qualified individual with disability. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Maryland Department of Natural Resources would like to express sincere appreciation to the many scientists and naturalists who willingly share information and provide their expertise to further our mission of conserving Maryland’s natural heritage. Publication of this list is made possible by taxpayer donations to Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay and Endangered Species Fund. IMPORTANT NOTES This list is a subset of the main reports: Maryland Natural Heritage Program. 2019. List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of Maryland DNR 03-031319-135 and Maryland Natural Heritage Program. 2019. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of Maryland DNR 03-031319-136 and Maryland Natural Heritage Program. 2016. List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland DNR 03-1272016-633 Please refer to these for important information including grank, history, purpose, governing laws and regulations, understanding state and federal conservation status ranks and legal statuses, and for additional resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps
    Appendix 11.5.1: Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps These distribution maps are for 116 aquatic vascular macrophyte species (Table 1). Aquatic designation follows habitat descriptions in Haines and Vining (1998), and includes submergent, floating and some emergent species. See Appendix 11.4 for list of species. Also included in Appendix 11.4 is the number of HUC-10 watersheds from which each taxon has been recorded, and the county-level distributions. Data are from nine sources, as compiled in the MABP database (plus a few additional records derived from ancilliary information contained in reports from two fisheries surveys in the Upper St. John basin organized by The Nature Conservancy). With the exception of the University of Maine herbarium records, most locations represent point samples (coordinates were provided in data sources or derived by MABP from site descriptions in data sources). The herbarium data are identified only to township. In the species distribution maps, town-level records are indicated by center-points (centroids). Figure 1 on this page shows as polygons the towns where taxon records are identified only at the town level. Data Sources: MABP ID MABP DataSet Name Provider 7 Rare taxa from MNAP lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 8 Lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 35 Acadia National Park plant survey C. Greene et al. 63 Lake plant surveys A. Dieffenbacher-Krall 71 Natural Heritage Database (rare plants) MNAP 91 University of Maine herbarium database C. Campbell 183 Natural Heritage Database (delisted species) MNAP 194 Rapid bioassessment surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 207 Invasive aquatic plant records MDEP Maps are in alphabetical order by species name.
    [Show full text]
  • National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 1996
    National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary Indicator by Region and Subregion Scientific Name/ North North Central South Inter- National Subregion Northeast Southeast Central Plains Plains Plains Southwest mountain Northwest California Alaska Caribbean Hawaii Indicator Range Abies amabilis (Dougl. ex Loud.) Dougl. ex Forbes FACU FACU UPL UPL,FACU Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill. FAC FACW FAC,FACW Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. NI NI NI NI NI UPL UPL Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poir. FACU FACU FACU Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl. FACU-* NI FACU-* Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. NI NI FACU+ FACU- FACU FAC UPL UPL,FAC Abies magnifica A. Murr. NI UPL NI FACU UPL,FACU Abildgaardia ovata (Burm. f.) Kral FACW+ FAC+ FAC+,FACW+ Abutilon theophrasti Medik. UPL FACU- FACU- UPL UPL UPL UPL UPL NI NI UPL,FACU- Acacia choriophylla Benth. FAC* FAC* Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. FACU NI NI* NI NI FACU Acacia greggii Gray UPL UPL FACU FACU UPL,FACU Acacia macracantha Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. NI FAC FAC Acacia minuta ssp. minuta (M.E. Jones) Beauchamp FACU FACU Acaena exigua Gray OBL OBL Acalypha bisetosa Bertol. ex Spreng. FACW FACW Acalypha virginica L. FACU- FACU- FAC- FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acalypha virginica var. rhomboidea (Raf.) Cooperrider FACU- FAC- FACU FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acanthocereus tetragonus (L.) Humm. FAC* NI NI FAC* Acanthomintha ilicifolia (Gray) Gray FAC* FAC* Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl OBL OBL Acer circinatum Pursh FAC- FAC NI FAC-,FAC Acer glabrum Torr. FAC FAC FAC FACU FACU* FAC FACU FACU*,FAC Acer grandidentatum Nutt.
    [Show full text]
  • The Genera of Elatinaceae in the Southeastern United States Gordon C
    Eastern Illinois University The Keep Faculty Research & Creative Activity Biological Sciences January 1986 The genera of Elatinaceae in the southeastern United States Gordon C. Tucker Eastern Illinois University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://thekeep.eiu.edu/bio_fac Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Tucker, Gordon C., "The eg nera of Elatinaceae in the southeastern United States" (1986). Faculty Research & Creative Activity. 184. http://thekeep.eiu.edu/bio_fac/184 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Research & Creative Activity by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TUCKER, ELATINACEAE THE GENERA OF ELATINACEAE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1 Gordon C. Tucker 2 ELATINACEAE Dumortier, Anal. Fam. PL 44, 49. 1829, "Elatinideae," (Waterwort Family) Annual or perennial plants (up to 50 cm tall) of aquatic or moist terrestrial habitats. Roots fibrous; lower nodes usually with adventitious roots. Plants glabrous or glandular pubescent throughout, with unicellular or multicellular multiseriate capitate trichomes. Leaves opposite or decussate, entire or coarsely serrate; stomata anomocytic; 3 stipules scarious. Flowers small, actinomorphic, lablished in the first p.. (Inn, nold >,h V »n \h 19S8) and continued < •> Carolina, Georgia, \ he area covered by the nei ic i lora in< hides North and South Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The descriptions are based prim; , Alabama, 1 for Hi. oppo.tunities provided by the Generic Flor; I thanl., Norton Miller and Carroll Wood icr. Thomas . s help in the development c,1 ihepres.
    [Show full text]
  • AQUATIC PLANTS – Seasonal Cycles Roberta Hill
    AQUATIC PLANTS – Seasonal cycles Roberta Hill Life, whether we are aware of it or not, is dominated by cycles. The water cycle, the nutrient cycle, the cycle of life itself, are all natural processes, fundamental to life on earth, which essentially follow circular trajectories. One of the great joys of exploring the littoral zone is the discovery of the many ways in which nature’s cycles, grand and minute, elaborate and simple, are played out in these sun-filled watery places. The annual cycle of the seasons is one of the most obvious--and most extraordinary-- cyclical processes in the littoral zone. In Maine, where the environmental conditions vary so sharply from one season to the next, changes in these areas are especially dramatic and at no time are these conditions so extreme as in the winter. How do aquatic plant communities respond to the shortened days, the decrease in the intensity of the sun’s energy, the plummeting air and water temperatures, the transformation of the habitat from one that is warm and liquid, to one that encrusted under a thick layer of ice and snow? Though each species has its own unique approach to preparing for and surviving through the hardships of winter, there are some common strategies employed. Since most aquatic plants evolved from terrestrial plants, it is not surprising that many of their over-wintering strategies are similar to those of their wild and cultivated upland kin; strategies you may Cattails in winter already know well from observing the plants in your garden. Aquatic plants, just like garden plants, can be sorted into groups based up what they do in response to winter and how they provide for regeneration the following spring.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 PEI State of Wildlife Report
    State of Wildlife Report 2007 1 State of Wildlife – 2007 Cover photo Tourism PEI, AnnMacNeill Photographer Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Background information ......................................1 1.1.1 Location ............................................1 1.1.2 Climate.............................................1 1.1.3 Geology and Soils ....................................1 1.1.4 Land Use ...........................................2 1.1.5 History of Wetlands in Prince Edward Island................3 1.1.6 Rivers and Streams ...................................4 2.0 Habitat 5 2.1 Status of Forests ...........................................5 2.1.1 Forest Inventory......................................5 2.1.2 Forest Communities...................................6 2.2 Status of Fish Habitat ........................................7 2.2.1 Impoundments and Fish Habitat .........................7 2.2.2 Fish Passage ........................................7 2.3 Status of Wetlands ..........................................8 2.3.1 Freshwater Wetlands ..................................8 2.3.2 Coastal Wetlands and Estuaries .........................8 2.4 Status of Sand Dunes ........................................9 2.5 Status of Public Land .......................................10 2.5.1 Public Ponds .......................................10 2.5.2 Provincial Forests ...................................11 2.5.3 Natural Areas .......................................11 2.5.4 Wildlife Management Areas ............................12 2.5.5
    [Show full text]
  • Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia
    Native Vascular Flora City of Alexandria, Virginia Photo by Gary P. Fleming December 2015 Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia December 2015 By Roderick H. Simmons City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Natural Resources Division 2900-A Business Center Drive Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [email protected] Suggested citation: Simmons, R.H. 2015. Native vascular flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Alexandria, Virginia. 104 pp. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 3 History of Botanical Studies in Alexandria .............................................................................. 5 Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • INTRODUCTION This Check List of the Plants of New Jersey Has Been
    INTRODUCTION This Check List of the Plants of New Jersey has been compiled by updating and integrating the catalogs prepared by such authors as Nathaniel Lord Britton (1881 and 1889), Witmer Stone (1911), and Norman Taylor (1915) with such other sources as recently-published local lists, field trip reports of the Torrey Botanical Society and the Philadelphia Botanical Club, the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program’s list of threatened and endangered plants, personal observations in the field and the herbarium, and observations by other competent field botanists. The Check List includes 2,758 species, a botanical diversity that is rather unexpected in a small state like New Jersey. Of these, 1,944 are plants that are (or were) native to the state - still a large number, and one that reflects New Jersey's habitat diversity. The balance are plants that have been introduced from other countries or from other parts of North America. The list could be lengthened by hundreds of species by including non-persistent garden escapes and obscure waifs and ballast plants, many of which have not been seen in New Jersey since the nineteenth century, but it would be misleading to do so. The Check List should include all the plants that are truly native to New Jersey, plus all the introduced species that are naturalized here or for which there are relatively recent records, as well as many introduced plants of very limited occurrence. But no claims are made for the absolute perfection of the list. Plant nomenclature is constantly being revised. Single old species may be split into several new species, or multiple old species may be combined into one.
    [Show full text]
  • Njplantlist.Pdf
    List of Endangered Plant Species and Plant Species of Concern June 2016 Scientific Name Common Name G Rank S Rank Federal Status State Status Other Status Abies balsamea Balsam Fir G5 S1 E LP, HL Acorus americanus American Sweetflag G5 S1? HL Actaea rubra var. rubra Red Baneberry G5T5 S2 HL Adlumia fungosa Climbing Fumitory G4 S2 HL Aeschynomene virginica Sensitive Joint-vetch G2 S1 LT E LP, HL Agalinis auriculata Ear-leaf False Foxglove G3 SX HL Agalinis fasciculata Pine Barren Foxglove G5 S3 HL Agalinis paupercula var. paupercula Small-flower False Foxglove G5T5 S2 HL Agastache nepetoides Yellow Giant-hyssop G5 S2 HL Agastache scrophulariifolia Purple Giant-hyssop G4 S2 HL Agrimonia microcarpa Small-fruit Grooveburr G5 S2 HL Agrostis geminata Ticklegrass G5 S1? HL Alisma triviale Large Water-plantain G5 S1 E LP, HL Alopecurus aequalis var. aequalis Short-awn Meadow-foxtail G5T5 S2 HL Alopecurus carolinianus Tufted Meadow-foxtail G5 S3 HL Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach Amaranth G2 S1 LT E LP, HL Amelanchier humilis Low Service-berry G5 S1S2 HL Amelanchier nantucketensis Nantucket Service-berry G3Q S1 HL Amelanchier sanguinea var. sanguinea Round-leaf Service-berry G5T5 S1.1 E LP, HL Amelanchier stolonifera Running Service-berry G5 S3 HL Amianthium muscitoxicum Fly Poison G4G5 S2 HL Ammannia latifolia Koehn's Toothcup G5 S1 E LP, HL Andromeda polifolia var. glaucophylla Bog Rosemary G5T5 S1 E LP, HL Andropogon glomeratus var. hirsutior Hairy Beardgrass G5T5 SH.1 HL Andropogon gyrans Elliott's Beardgrass G5 S2 HL Andropogon ternarius var. ternarius Silvery Beardgrass G5T5? S2 HL Anemone canadensis Canada Anemone G5 SX HL Anemone cylindrica Long-head Anemone G5 S1 E LP, HL Anemone virginiana var.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Maine Plants Found in Watchic Lake - 2016 Screening Day
    Native Maine Plants Found in Watchic Lake - 2016 Screening Day. On July 17, 2016 a group of 10 WLA board members and volunteers surveyed Watchic Lake for invasive plant species – none were found. As a member of the Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program, we are asked to submit an inventory of the native plants found in the lake (this list of plants). Most of the materials below come from the Maine VLMP. Where materials have come from other agencies, those are noted in the summary along with links to more detail. Alpine or Red Pondweed Potamogeton alpinus Red/Alpine pondweed has two distinct leaf types: submersed leaves and floating leaves. Red/Alpine pondweed is native to Maine, New England and much of the northern and western United States. Two varieties of red pondweed have been documented in the US (var. tenuifolius and subellipticus), primarily based upon the submersed leaf shape. However, since both leaf types may be observed in the same population, the distinction is rarely recognized. More details from Maine VLMP here on Alpine/Red Pondweed. Alpine or Red Pondweed Bladderwort, northern Utricularia intermedia Northern Bladderwort is one of four commonly found Bladderworts in Maine. Tiny, lopsided sack-like bladders used for capturing invertebrate prey are either attached directly to the leaves or to specialized leafless stems. In addition to this key shared feature, all four bladderworts that are native to Maine have finely-divided, branched, submersed leaves and produce irregular snapdragon-like flowers. More details from Maine VLMP here “Bladderworts” Alpine or Red Pondweed Wathic Lake Standish ME Native Plants as for 7/17/2016 - Page 1 of 8 Bladderwort, common Utricularia macrorhiza Common Bladderwort Common Bladderwort is one of four commonly found Bladderworts in Maine.
    [Show full text]
  • Floral Symmetry Genes and the Origin and Maintenance of Zygomorphy in a Plant- Pollinator Mutualism
    Floral symmetry genes and the origin and maintenance of zygomorphy in a plant- pollinator mutualism Wenheng Zhang, Elena M. Kramer, and Charles C. Davis1 Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, MA 02138 Edited by Michael J. Donoghue, Yale University, New Haven, CT, and approved February 10, 2010 (received for review September 8, 2009) The evolution of floral zygomorphy is an important innovation in provides the bees access to oil glands, which are borne in pairs on flowering plants and is thought to arise principally from special- the abaxial surface of the sepals. The stereotypical floral mor- ization on various insect pollinators. Floral morphology of neo- phology of New World Malpighiaceae, despite tremendous var- tropical Malpighiaceae is distinctive and highly conserved, especially iation in vegetative and fruit morphology, led Anderson (9) to with regard to symmetry, and is thought to be caused by selection hypothesize that floral uniformity in the group results from their by its oil-bee pollinators. We sought to characterize the genetic specialization on these oil-bee pollinators. basis of floral zygomorphy in Malpighiaceae by investigating Interpreting the origin and maintenance of this unique floral CYCLOIDEA2-like (CYC2-like) genes, which are required for estab- morphology in a comparative evolutionary framework, however, lishing symmetry in diverse core eudicots. We identified two copies has remained elusive, in large part because of our lack of of CYC2-like genes in Malpighiaceae, which resulted from a gene understanding of the closest phylogenetic relatives of Malpigh- duplication in the common ancestor of the family. A likely role for iaceae.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Methodology
    Wrighter Lake C/O Mr. Tom Dooley 6729 Mimosa Lane Dallas, Texas 75230 RE: Wrighter Lake – 2021 SAV Survey Thompson, Pennsylvania Project #1950.002 August 4, 2021 Dear Mr. Dooley, Princeton Hydro is pleased to submit the following letter report detailing the submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) survey conducted in 2021. Introduction Wrighter Lake is an approximately 87-acre waterbody located in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. The immediate watershed surrounding Wrighter Lake is comprised of a mixture of forests, agriculture, and low-density residential which encompasses, primarily, the lake houses immediately surrounding the shoreline. The maximum depth of Wrighter Lake is approximately 11 m (36’) with an extensive littoral zone where submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) flourishes. Wrighter Lake approached Princeton Hydro to conduct a SAV survey of the lake and to utilize this data to recommend SAV control measures. As such, Princeton Hydro conducted a complete survey of the lake on July 7, 2021. This survey is a follow-up to that conducted on July 7, 2020. The results of this survey, and implications for management, are discussed below. Methodology The SAV survey was conducted by two (2) Princeton Hydro staff scientists on July 7, 2021. During this survey, nine (9) transects were sampled (Figure 1). Figure 1: Wrighter Lake – 2021 SAV Survey Locations Princeton Hydro, LLC Page | 2 Princeton Hydro conducted a SAV survey of nine (9) transects on July 7, 2021. Each transect was established near shoreline with a floating rope which was then extended 150’ towards the center of the lake. The start and end point of each transect was then marked via GPS.
    [Show full text]