Njplantlist.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Amaranthus Pumilus (Seabeach Amaranth)
Bartonia No. 61, 2002-News and Notes Amaranthus pumilus Raf. (Seabeach Amaranth, Amaranthaceae) Rediscovered in Sussex County, Delaware In August of 2000, Amaranthus pumilus was rediscovered in Sussex Co., Delaware after 125 years without a sighting. It was first collected in Delaware in 1875 by Albert Commons (10 September 1875, A. Commons, s.n., "seabeach, Baltimore Hundred, Delaware," PH). Amaranthus pumilus was federally listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1993. Historically, this species was known from Massachusetts south to South Carolina (Weakley et al. 1996). Amaranthus pumilus was reported as rediscovered at Assateague Island National Seashore, Worcester County, Maryland in 1998 (Ramsey 2000). Prior to rediscovery on Assateague Island and in Sussex County, A. pumilus was extant on Long Island, New York, and in North Carolina and South Carolina. Lisa Marie Kendall of the Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Delaware Department of Natural Resources discovered the first plants on 7 August 2000. Subsequent surveys revealed a total of 41 individuals scattered over 22 kilometers of Atlantic shoreline. All plants found are within the boundaries of Delaware Seashore and Fenwick Island State Parks. The largest number of plants (28) was found within a 1.5-km stretch of shoreline near the swimming beach at Delaware Seashore State Park. This section of beach is the only area where A. pumilus was found that is off-limits to vehicular traffic. This area provides the best habitat for the long-term survival of A. pumilus. Individual plants were found growing on relatively open sand near the base of the primary foredune. -
Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate. -
"National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment. -
Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts
Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts New England Wildflower Society 180 Hemenway Road Framingham, MA 01701 508-877-7630 www.newfs.org Report by Joy VanDervort-Sneed, Atkinson Conservation Fellow and Ailene Kane, Plant Conservation Volunteer Coordinator Prepared for the Arboretum Park Conservancy Funded by the Arnold Arboretum Committee 2 Conducted 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................4 METHODS....................................................................................................................................6 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................8 Plant Species ........................................................................................................................8 Natural Communities...........................................................................................................9 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................15 Recommendations for Management ..................................................................................15 Recommendations for Education and Interpretation .........................................................17 Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................19 -
Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council. -
Earleaf Foxglove (Agalinis Auriculata)
Community Conservation Assessment for Earleaf Foxglove (Agalinis Auriculata) USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region Date Name Location This document is undergoing peer review, comments welcome This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information and serves as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject community, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service - Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. Community Conservation Assessment forEarleaf Foxglove (Agalinis Auriculata) 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. 4 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND SYNONYMS............................ 4 DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY............................................................................... 4 COMMUNITY ECOLOGY/ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONSError! Bookmark not defined. RANGE OF NATURAL VARIABILITY: COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION AND CONDITIONS -
Weed Risk Assessment for Vitex Rotundifolia L. F. (Lamiaceae)
Weed Risk Assessment for Vitex United States rotundifolia L. f. (Lamiaceae) – Beach Department of Agriculture vitex Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service June 4, 2013 Version 2 Left: Infestation in South Carolina growing down to water line and with runners and fruit stripped by major winter storm (Randy Westbrooks, U.S. Geological Survey, Bugwood.org). Right: A runner with flowering shoots (Forest and Kim Starr, Starr Environmental, Bugwood.org). Agency Contact: Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Weed Risk Assessment for Vitex rotundifolia Introduction Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) regulates noxious weeds under the authority of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000) and the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. § 1581-1610, 1939). A noxious weed is defined as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment” (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000). We use weed risk assessment (WRA)—specifically, the PPQ WRA model (Koop et al., 2012)—to evaluate the risk potential of plants, including those newly detected in the United States, those proposed for import, and those emerging as weeds elsewhere in the world. Because the PPQ WRA model is geographically and climatically neutral, it can be used to evaluate the baseline invasive/weed potential of any plant species for the entire United States or for any area within it. -
Outline of Angiosperm Phylogeny
Outline of angiosperm phylogeny: orders, families, and representative genera with emphasis on Oregon native plants Priscilla Spears December 2013 The following listing gives an introduction to the phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants that has emerged in recent decades, and which is based on nucleic acid sequences as well as morphological and developmental data. This listing emphasizes temperate families of the Northern Hemisphere and is meant as an overview with examples of Oregon native plants. It includes many exotic genera that are grown in Oregon as ornamentals plus other plants of interest worldwide. The genera that are Oregon natives are printed in a blue font. Genera that are exotics are shown in black, however genera in blue may also contain non-native species. Names separated by a slash are alternatives or else the nomenclature is in flux. When several genera have the same common name, the names are separated by commas. The order of the family names is from the linear listing of families in the APG III report. For further information, see the references on the last page. Basal Angiosperms (ANITA grade) Amborellales Amborellaceae, sole family, the earliest branch of flowering plants, a shrub native to New Caledonia – Amborella Nymphaeales Hydatellaceae – aquatics from Australasia, previously classified as a grass Cabombaceae (water shield – Brasenia, fanwort – Cabomba) Nymphaeaceae (water lilies – Nymphaea; pond lilies – Nuphar) Austrobaileyales Schisandraceae (wild sarsaparilla, star vine – Schisandra; Japanese -
State of New York City's Plants 2018
STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species. -
Native Milkweeds of Oklahoma
Native Milkweeds of Oklahoma Scientific Name Common Name # of counties where Habitat, part of state Growing at Kerr Notes occurrence has been where it most occurs Center? documented Asclepias amplexicaulis Clasping milkweed 32 West central Asclepias arenaria Sand milkweed 24 West Asclepias asperula Antelope horns, 47 Dry soils of prairies, Planting seed in spider milkweed mostly western 2015 Asclepias brachystephana Bract milkweed 1 Far west Asclepias engelmanniana Engelmann's 23 Scattered across state, mostly west Asclepias hirtella Tall green milkweed 21 Scattered, mostly east Planting seed in 2015 Asclepias incarnata Rose, Marsh or 20 Wet areas statewide, Yes, planted 2014, Observed Swamp milkweed more common in east planting seed in monarch 2015 caterpillars eating it in Sept. 2014 Asclepias involucrata Dwarf milkweed 1 Rare, in Cimarron County Asclepias latifolia Broad-leaf milkweed 19 Central and west; widely distributed on dry plains Asclepias macrotis Long hood 1 Panhandle, rare milkweed Native Milkweeds of Oklahoma Asclepias obovata Pineland milkweed 8 Eastern Asclepias oenotheroides Sidecluster 7 Central, south milkweed, Zizotes central, southwest milkweed Asclepias pumila Plains milkweed 14 Southwest, northwest Asclepias purpurascens Purple milkweed 4 Dry fields, meadows, open woods in a few eastern counties Asclepias quadrifolia Fourleaf milkweed 16 Most common in eastern OK Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed 19 Moist soil of open Planting seed in areas, also in 2015 panhandle Asclepias stenophylla Narrow-leaf 47 Western half -
Download Curriculum Vitae
Jason Ager Koontz Biology Department, Augustana College Phone: 309-794-3442 639-38th Street FAX: 309-794-8004 Rock Island, IL 61201 E-mail: [email protected] Education 1993 B.S. (Botany) Iowa State University, Ames, IA (with Distinction, Honors Program, and Phi Beta Kappa) 1995 M.S. (Botany) Miami University, Oxford, OH 2000 Ph.D. (Botany) Washington State University, Pullman, WA Current Position 7/14-present: Chair of Biology 8/11-7/14: Co-Chair of Biology 8/10: Tenured and promoted to Associate Professor 9/04-8/10: Assistant Professor of Biology Becoming Biologists (BI150), General Botany (BI220), Cell Biology (BI210), Nutrition (BI263; 2004-2006), Natural History of Ireland (BI328; 2010, 2013), Conservation Biology (BI410), Conservation Biology Senior Inquiry (BI464) Non-Academic Positions 5/12-present: Research Associate, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, CA. 1/06-present: Research Associate, Department of Botany, The Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL. 10/04-present: Adjunct Assistant Professional Scientist, Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, IL. 5/00-9/04: Assistant Research Scientist III, Plant Systematist, Centers for Biodiversity and Wildlife and Plant Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL. Academic Positions 10/01-12/07: Affiliate Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. 8/95-5/00: Graduate Teaching Assistant, Department of Botany, Washington State University, -
Aristolochia Serpentaria L
New England Plant Conservation Program Aristolochia serpentaria L. Virginia Snakeroot Conservation and Research Plan for New England Prepared by: Dorothy J. Allard, Ph.D. Analytical Resources, LLC P.O. Box 279 East Montpelier, VT 05651 For: New England Wild Flower Society 180 Hemenway Road Framingham, MA 01701 508/877-7630 e-mail: [email protected] • website: www.newfs.org Approved, Regional Advisory Council, 2002 SUMMARY Aristolochia serpentaria L., commonly known as Virginia Snakeroot, is a perennial herb in the Aristolochiaceae. Several varieties have been described in the past, but they are no longer recognized in most taxonomic manuals. Aristolochia serpentaria occurs in 26 eastern states and is common in the southern and central part of its range, while becoming rare along its northern periphery. It is listed as a Division 2 species in Flora Conservanda (Brumback and Mehrhoff et al. 1996). Connecticut is the only New England state in which it is found, where it occurs at 12 known sites in ten towns. It grows in a variety of upland forest communities, but is more likely to be found in dry, somewhat rich, rocky, deciduous or mixed deciduous-coniferous woods in Connecticut. Farther south, it also has broad environmental requirements, occupying many upland soil and forest types. Population trends for the species in Connecticut are unclear. One new population was discovered in 2001. Monitoring in 2001 of eight extant sites found that two populations had decreased, three had increased, and one had stayed the same. Several known populations are threatened by habitat modification, invasive species, or site fragility. Two extant populations have not been surveyed for several years.