DOCSLIB.ORG

River District Riparian Land Management Plan Village of Shorewood | July 2019 River District Riparian Land Management Plan Village of Shorewood | July 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
River District Riparian Land Management Plan Village of Shorewood | July 2019 River District Riparian Land Management Plan Village of Shorewood | July 2019 RIVER DISTRICT RIPARIAN LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN VILLAGE OF SHOREWOOD | JULY 2019 RIVER DISTRICT RIPARIAN LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN VILLAGE OF SHOREWOOD | JULY 2019 prepared by Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises Scott Horzen Kristin Schultheis TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... i 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 1 2. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2 General description of project area ..................................................................... 3 Prior work completed for project area ................................................................. 3 3. Vegetation Inventory ............................................................................................ 5 Results of vegetation inventory............................................................................ 5 Review of species .......................................................................................... 5 Plant communities......................................................................................... 6 Vegetation management zones .................................................................... 7 Other observations ............................................................................................... 7 4. Land Management Goals and Strategy .................................................................. 8 Overall vision and goals ........................................................................................ 8 Land management areas and priorities ................................................................ 8 Management Zone E (2.41 Acres) ................................................................. 8 Management Zone D (0.31 Acres) ................................................................. 9 Management Zone G (1.33 Acres) ................................................................. 9 Management Zone C (1.76 Acres) ............................................................... 10 Management Zone F (4.21 Acres) ............................................................... 10 Management Zone B (2.63 Acres) ............................................................... 11 Management Zone A (0.18 Acres) ............................................................... 11 5. Five-Year Vegetation Maintenance Plan.............................................................. 12 Annual maintenance tasks ................................................................................. 12 Capital projects ................................................................................................... 12 Resources ............................................................................................................. 7 Funding opportunities ................................................................................... 7 Volunteer and internship opportunities ....................................................... 9 Trail signage .......................................................................................................... 9 Review of ordinances ......................................................................................... 10 6. Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 12 7. Appendices ......................................................................................................... 13 VILLAGE OF SHOREWOOD | RIVER DISTRICT RIPARIAN LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE i LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Figures Figure 1 – Project Location Map Figure 2 – Community Types Figure 3 – Management Zones Appendix B Tables Table 1 – Spring Assessment, Comprehensive Vegetation Species List Table 2 – Annual Maintenance Budget Table 3 – Capital Projects Appendix C Photographic Log VILLAGE OF SHOREWOOD | RIVER DISTRICT RIPARIAN LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE ii 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Village of Shorewood (Village) has taken several actions towards fulfilling the vision of maintaining the wildness and protecting the overall quality of the natural areas within the P-3 River District corridor. This corridor is described as the area between the eastern bank of the Milwaukee River and the Oak Leaf Trail from Hubbard Park to East Capitol Drive. Recent significant actions include constructing the river trail in 2018, which addressed erosional areas, provided a stabilized trail and protects sensitive habitat areas, decommissioned social trails, and provides stabilized access to the river. The river trail work was based on vegetation inventories and restoration planning completed in 2008. The Village recognized the need to update the restoration planning, and this land management plan (LMP) provides the update. Steps to complete the LMP included a spring and autumnal vegetation inventory. During the spring inventory, 38 new species were identified, with 18 of those species being native to Wisconsin. These species were added to prior inventories done for the project area for a total of 184 species, with 123 species being native. The species were classified into five plant community types, noted as developed park area, prairie, trail, wetlands, and hardwoods. The distribution and quality of plant species varies within each plant community, requiring differing land management needs. Thus, the plant communities were further divided into seven land management zones to better distinguish and define land management objectives and strategies. A phased, prioritized, five-year vegetation maintenance plan was developed for each land management zone focused on invasive plant species control for a cost of $10,000 per year ($50,000 over five years). Target herbaceous and woody species are included for each management zone, and the budget is broken down to focus initial efforts on the higher quality restorable areas. Four capital projects are recommended that require initial investment. The projects include eradication and replacement of a restricted invasive species population, enhancement of wetland areas, and further enhancement along the river trail. These projects range in cost from $5,700 to $9,400. There are several funding resources available to aid in the capital investment. The bulk of the work should be completed by a qualified restoration ecology contractor. There are opportunities for volunteers and college-level interns to aid in the work. VILLAGE OF SHOREWOOD | RIVER DISTRICT RIPARIAN LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE 1 2. INTRODUCTION The Village has undertaken extensive planning, acquisition, design, and construction efforts to the P-3 River District riparian area (River District). The River District spans the area between the eastern bank of the Milwaukee River and the Oak Leaf Trail from Hubbard Park to East Capitol Drive (Appendix A, Figure 1). It is a place of important recreational opportunities, open space, and habitat, which is valuable to the Village and to the region as the area is: ■ Located along a contiguous stretch of the Milwaukee River habitat corridor, ■ Is part of a regional water and upland trail system, and ■ Sustains an ecological diverse system of plant communities and habitat types. It is a place of historical significance, community gathering, and economic activity while also serving as a place of aesthetic beauty and wildness. For these reasons, the Village has made the River District a priority for enhancement and investment. The Village is focusing on the ecological significance of the River District by developing a LMP for the stewardship of the natural plant communities. This work includes: ■ Reviewing planning and implementation work completed to date ■ Collecting field data and updating vegetation inventories and plant communities ■ Updating land management goals ■ Developing a 5-year phased maintenance plan with associated costs This LMP documents these efforts. Other amenities, such as trails and a canoe launch, are outside the focus of an LMP. The LMP also excludes management and maintenance efforts required for Hubbard Park, including the turf areas, wood chipped and concrete trails, planters, and annual plantings. It is anticipated that the LMP will be updated once the 5-year period has completed. The scope of work would include an inventory and assessment of the plant communities, evaluation of LMP goals, and development of a new 5-year plan. VILLAGE OF SHOREWOOD | RIVER DISTRICT RIPARIAN LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE 2 General description of project area The project area is located in the northeast and northwest quarters of Section 9, Township 7 North, Range 22 East in the Village of Shorewood, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin and is zoned as P-3 River District. The 12.81 acre area is bounded to the north by East Capitol Drive, to the east by two commercial properties and the Oak Leaf Trail, to the south by the City of Milwaukee and Cambridge Woods, and to the west by the Milwaukee River. The site is within Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission’s (SEWRPC) primary environmental corridor and includes a critical species habitat of local area significance (NA-3) for the presence of Forked aster (Eurybia furcata), a State- designated Threatened plant species (SEWRPC, 2017). Prior work completed for project area Several resources were referenced and serve as a baseline for this LMP. These documents illustrate the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biological Soil Crust Rehabilitation in Theory and Practice: an Underexploited Opportunity Matthew A
    REVIEW Biological Soil Crust Rehabilitation in Theory and Practice: An Underexploited Opportunity Matthew A. Bowker1,2 Abstract techniques; and (3) monitoring. Statistical predictive Biological soil crusts (BSCs) are ubiquitous lichen–bryo- modeling is a useful method for estimating the potential phyte microbial communities, which are critical structural BSC condition of a rehabilitation site. Various rehabilita- and functional components of many ecosystems. How- tion techniques attempt to correct, in decreasing order of ever, BSCs are rarely addressed in the restoration litera- difficulty, active soil erosion (e.g., stabilization techni- ture. The purposes of this review were to examine the ques), resource deficiencies (e.g., moisture and nutrient ecological roles BSCs play in succession models, the augmentation), or BSC propagule scarcity (e.g., inoc- backbone of restoration theory, and to discuss the prac- ulation). Success will probably be contingent on prior tical aspects of rehabilitating BSCs to disturbed eco- evaluation of site conditions and accurate identification systems. Most evidence indicates that BSCs facilitate of constraints to BSC reestablishment. Rehabilitation of succession to later seres, suggesting that assisted recovery BSCs is attainable and may be required in the recovery of of BSCs could speed up succession. Because BSCs are some ecosystems. The strong influence that BSCs exert ecosystem engineers in high abiotic stress systems, loss of on ecosystems is an underexploited opportunity for re- BSCs may be synonymous with crossing degradation storationists to return disturbed ecosystems to a desirable thresholds. However, assisted recovery of BSCs may trajectory. allow a transition from a degraded steady state to a more desired alternative steady state. In practice, BSC rehabili- Key words: aridlands, cryptobiotic soil crusts, cryptogams, tation has three major components: (1) establishment of degradation thresholds, state-and-transition models, goals; (2) selection and implementation of rehabilitation succession.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary and Acronyms Glossary Glossary
    Glossary andChapter Acronyms 1 ©Kevin Fleming ©Kevin Horseshoe crab eggs Glossary and Acronyms Glossary Glossary 40% Migratory Bird “If a refuge, or portion thereof, has been designated, acquired, reserved, or set Hunting Rule: apart as an inviolate sanctuary, we may only allow hunting of migratory game birds on no more than 40 percent of that refuge, or portion, at any one time unless we find that taking of any such species in more than 40 percent of such area would be beneficial to the species (16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)(1)(A), National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act; 16 U.S.C. 703-712, Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and 16 U.S.C. 715a-715r, Migratory Bird Conservation Act). Abiotic: Not biotic; often referring to the nonliving components of the ecosystem such as water, rocks, and mineral soil. Access: Reasonable availability of and opportunity to participate in quality wildlife- dependent recreation. Accessibility: The state or quality of being easily approached or entered, particularly as it relates to complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accessible facilities: Structures accessible for most people with disabilities without assistance; facilities that meet Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards; Americans with Disabilities Act-accessible. [E.g., parking lots, trails, pathways, ramps, picnic and camping areas, restrooms, boating facilities (docks, piers, gangways), fishing facilities, playgrounds, amphitheaters, exhibits, audiovisual programs, and wayside sites.] Acetylcholinesterase: An enzyme that breaks down the neurotransmitter acetycholine to choline and acetate. Acetylcholinesterase is secreted by nerve cells at synapses and by muscle cells at neuromuscular junctions. Organophosphorus insecticides act as anti- acetyl cholinesterases by inhibiting the action of cholinesterase thereby causing neurological damage in organisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Methodstocharacterizeh
    WARNING: These printed materials may be out of date. Please ensure you have the current version that can be found on www.nyc.gov/oec. METHODS TO CHARACTERIZE HABITAT The following are some methods that can be employed to characterize habitat: ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ANALYSIS Every detailed natural resources evaluation should incorporate an ecological community analysis. This consists of identifying, describing, and mapping the community types present within the project area. The characterization of ecological communities is primarily based on vegetative types, but it may also consider abiotic factors and wildlife usage. Descriptions of ecological communities should generally follow Ecological Communities of New York State. In some cases, the dominant plant species listed in the community descriptions contained in this document may differ from the matching urban commu- nities found in New York City. Descriptions of the various plant communities can vary widely with re- spect to the species composition in New York City. It is important to note that all species listed under a particular plant community composition are not required to be present at each location to classify that particular plant community. Rather, each location must be viewed in context with the potential altered elements of the system, such as, past site disturbances, filling and depletion of soils and hydro- logic alterations to the site and adjacent areas that influence the vegetation composition. Therefore, relation to the these changes and additional collection of field data with respect to dominant and co- dominant vegetation, understory species composition, soils, and hydrology provides additional infor- mation as to the appropriate ecological community classification.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 27: Ecology and Plant Communities
    Chapter 27 Ecology and Plant Communities THE NATURE OF PLANT COMMUNITIES Each Plant Community Has Unique Attributes Plant Communities Change over Time VEGETATION TYPES Tundra Vegetation Occurs beyond Timberline Boreal Forest Is the Taiga of North America Eastern Deciduous Forest Has a Complex Physiognomy Grasslands Cover One-Fifth of North America Desert Scrub Is Dominated by Shrubs Chaparral and Woodland Are Mediterranean Vegetation Types Pacific Coast Conifer Forests Are the Most Massive in the World Upland Conifer Forests Have a Wide Distribution Wetlands and Aquatic Ecosystems Are Productive CONSERVATION BIOLOGY Ecosystem Restoration SUMMARY PLANTS, PEOPLE, AND THE ENVIRONMENT: Nature in Flux or Nature in Balance? 1 KEY CONCEPTS 1. A plant community is a group of recurring species that: share a characteristic habitat; collectively create a unique physiognomy; attain a typical range of species richness, annual productivity, and standing biomass; and through which nutrients and energy pass at predictable rates and with predictable efficiency. North America contains thousands of plant communities. 2. A vegetation type is composed of many communities that differ only in the identity of dominant or associated species, or both, but that otherwise share a similar physiognomy and environment. Two-thirds of North America is covered by only three major vegetation types: boreal forest, grassland, and tundra. 3. Successional plant communities change over time, whereas climax plant communities do not show any directional change, although they may fluctuate from year to year. 4. Conservation biology is a relatively new science that investigates ways to preserve, restore, and maintain biotic diversity in the face of human exploitation of natural ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Community Variability in Ponderosa Pine Forest Has
    RESEARCH ARTICLE ABSTRACT: Ponderosa pine plant community and forest structure were compared among three staI)ds in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: one stand had 120 years of artificial fire exclusion (NOBURN) and the other two nearby stands had been frequently burned (BURN-E and BURN-W). These forests are valuable places to gauge-anthropogenic changes associated· with European settlement, due to· their land history of limited livestock grazing and no logging. Precipitation varied greatly between sampling years (260 mm in 2000, 505 mm in 2001). Tree density was significantly higher at NOBURN (1424 • trees ha-1) with significantly higher rotten coarse woody debris (23.2 Mg ha-1) and duff depth (4.3 cm) than at the burned sites, as expected in the absence of fire. Although species richness was not signifi­ Plant Community cantly different among sites (48-89 species), richness differed significantly by year. Shannon's index of diversity increased by approximately 10% from the dry year to the wet year on all sites. Community composition and plant cover at NOBURN differed significantly from the two burned sites in both years Variability in in non-metric multidimensional scaling ordinations. Increasing duff depth was related to decreased plant cover. Two of the three dominant species were different at the fire-excluded site compared to the burned sites. We conclude that although plant community structure was related to fire history, environmental Ponderosa stress and within-stand variability were also important drivers. We suggest selecting reference sites in close proxinlity to the site to be restored and using a multi-scale, multi-year, multi-site approach to Pine Forest Has measure reference conditions in ponderosa pine.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter of the Arkansas Native Plant Society
    CLAYTONIA Newsletter of the Arkansas Native Plant Society Vol. 28 No. 2 An Audience With The Queen Fall/Winter 2008 By Theo Witsell In this issue: Craig “Coondog” Fraiser and I recently spent two long hot days in the Dr. Henry Robison Retires Springfield Plateau Page 3 section of the Ozarks exploring sinkhole ponds Creeping St. John’s Wort and two anonymous Page 4 spring-fed stream gorges*. We had hoped to find some new species Spring Meeting Minutes for Arkansas – Virginia Page 6 sneezeweed (Helenium virginicum), forked aster Field Trip Reports (Eurybia furcata) and tall Page 7 larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum), but struck out Showy lady’s-slipper orchid (Cypripedium reginae). Photo by John Pelton. Bellflower Seed Needed on all counts. But deep Page 10 down, unspoken even, we were both secretly hoping to discover a new population of the showy lady’s-slipper orchid (Cypripedium reginae), far and away the rarest and most seldom-seen lady’s- Fall Meeting Info slipper in Arkansas. It is so rare, and so spectacular, that it often goes by its other name: Page 11 The Queen. Woody Plant CD-ROM Review As we hiked up the rugged canyon of our first stream, we searched likely habitat for Page 13 forked aster (bases of bluffs and limestone ledges with an accumulation of rich, moist soil), but to no avail. But the scenery was spectacular and the water was among the Emerald Ash Borer cleanest and clearest I’ve ever seen in Arkansas. So clear, in fact, that the depth could be deceiving, turning what looked like a knee-deep step into a cold, take-your-breath- Almost to Arkansas away belly-deep plunge.
    [Show full text]
  • Preventing Extinction of At-Risk Plant Species in a Complex World Holly Lee Bernardo Washington University in St
    Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations Arts & Sciences Summer 8-15-2018 Preventing Extinction of At-Risk Plant Species in a Complex World Holly Lee Bernardo Washington University in St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/art_sci_etds Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Climate Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, and the Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons Recommended Citation Bernardo, Holly Lee, "Preventing Extinction of At-Risk Plant Species in a Complex World" (2018). Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1609. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/art_sci_etds/1609 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Arts & Sciences at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS Division of Biology & Biomedical Science Evolution, Ecology & Population Biology Dissertation Examination Committee: Scott A. Mangan, Chair Tiffany M. Knight, Co-Chair Matthew Albrecht Jonathan Myers Rachel Penczykowski Adam Smith Preventing Extinction of At-Risk Plant Species in a Complex World by Holly Lee Bernardo A dissertation
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Landscape and Vegetation Ecology for Alaska
    U. S. Department of the Interior BLM-Alaska Technical Report to Bureau of Land Management BLM/AK/TR-84/1 O December' 1984 reprinted October.·2001 Alaska State Office 222 West 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Glossary of Landscape and Vegetation Ecology for Alaska Herman W. Gabriel and Stephen S. Talbot The Authors HERMAN w. GABRIEL is an ecologist with the USDI Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office in Anchorage, Alaskao He holds a B.S. degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and a Ph.D from the University of Montanao From 1956 to 1961 he was a forest inventory specialist with the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Regiono In 1966-67 he served as an inventory expert with UN-FAO in Ecuador. Dra Gabriel moved to Alaska in 1971 where his interest in the description and classification of vegetation has continued. STEPHEN Sa TALBOT was, when work began on this glossary, an ecologist with the USDI Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office. He holds a B.A. degree from Bates College, an M.Ao from the University of Massachusetts, and a Ph.D from the University of Alberta. His experience with northern vegetation includes three years as a research scientist with the Canadian Forestry Service in the Northwest Territories before moving to Alaska in 1978 as a botanist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. or. Talbot is now a general biologist with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuge Division, Anchorage, where he is conducting baseline studies of the vegetation of national wildlife refuges. ' . Glossary of Landscape and Vegetation Ecology for Alaska Herman W.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary These Selective Glossary Entries Are Adapted from Several Sources, Including the Glossaries in Anderson Et Al
    Glossary These selective glossary entries are adapted from several sources, including the glossaries in Anderson et al. 1999 and Groves et al 2000. Alliance: A level in the US National Vegetation Classification, defined as a group of plant associations sharing one or more diagnostic species (dominant, differential, indicator, or character), which, as a rule, are found in the uppermost strata of the vegetation. Aquatic alliances correspond spatially to macrohabitats. Amphidromous: Refers to migratory fish species that may spawn and grow in either freshwater or saltwater, but migrate briefly to the opposite habitat for feeding. See also Diadromous, Catadromous, Potamodromous, Anadromous. Anadromous: Refers to migratory fish species that spawn in freshwater and grow primarily in saltwater. See also Diadromous, Catadromous, Potamodromous, Amphidromous. Aquatic Ecological System (AES): Dynamic spatial assemblages of ecological communities that 1) occur together in an aquatic landscape with similar geomorphological patterns; 2) are tied together by similar ecological processes (e.g., hydrologic and nutrients, access to floodplains and other lateral environments) or environmental gradients (e.g., temperature, chemical and habitat volume); and 3) form a robust, cohesive and distinguishable unit on a hydrography map. Association or Plant Association: The finest level of biological community organization in the US National Vegetation Classification, defined as a plant community with a definite floristic composition, uniform habitat conditions, and uniform physiognomy. With the exception of a few associations that are restricted to specific and unusual environmental conditions, associations generally repeat across the landscape. They also occur at variable spatial scales depending on the steepness of environmental gradients and the patterns of disturbances.
    [Show full text]
  • New Concepts for Assessment of Rangeland Condition
    New concepts for assessment of rangeland condition Item Type text; Article Authors Adams, D. C.; Short, R. E.; Pfister, J. A.; Peterson, K. R.; Hudson, D. B. Citation Adams, D. C., Short, R. E., Pfister, J. A., Peterson, K. R., & Hudson, D. B. (1995). New concepts for assessment of rangeland condition. Journal of Range Management, 48(3), 271-282. DOI 10.2307/4002433 Publisher Society for Range Management Journal Journal of Range Management Rights Copyright © Society for Range Management. Download date 02/10/2021 12:05:39 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/644429 J. Range Manage. 48:271-282 May 1995 NEW CONCEPTS FOR ASSESSMENT OF RANGELAND CONDITION TASK GROUP ON UNITY IN CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY COMRfITTEE hlEhlBERS E. Lamar Smith Phillip Sims Dave Franzen University of Arizona USDA/ARS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tucson. Arizona Woodward, Oklahoma Lakeview, Oregon 1989-94 1989-94 1989-91 Chairman 1989-92 Ray Smith Milt Suthers Patricia S. Johnson Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service South Dakota State Univ. Herndon, Virginia Evergreen. Colorado Brookings, South Dakota 1989-9-l 1991-91 1989-9-l Chairman 1992-94 Len Volland John Willoughby U.S. Forest Service Bureau of Land Management George Ruyle Portland, Oregon Sacramento, California University of Arizona 1989-92 1989-91 Tucson, Arizona 1989-94 Miles Hemstrom Ned Habich U.S. Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Fred Smeins Lakewood, Colorado Lakewood, Colorado Tesas A&h,1 University 1992-94 1992-94 College Station, Tesos 19&9-94 Everet Bainter Tom Gwen Soil Conservation Service National Park Service Dick Loper Casper, Wyoming San Francisco, California Consultant 1989-92 1992-93 Lander.
    [Show full text]
  • INPS Newsletter October 2006
    NEWSLETTER IOWA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY Volume 12, Issue 3 October 2006 An Aster By Any Other Name...?: The Dismantling of the Genus Aster by Deb Lewis (based on information by Dr. George Yatskievych in Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri, Volume 2) Fall in Iowa brings forth an abundance of blooming asters in our landscapes in shades of purple, white, blue and pink that contrast with the yellows and golds of the sunflowers and goldenrods. While we’ve been aware of some controversy over the “correct” scientific name of some of the species, like sneezewort aster (Solidago/Aster ptarmicoides), recent molecular work has really brought about major changes! The experts now tell us that we have NO native asters (of the genus Aster as currently recognized) in Iowa, rather that all of our aster species now have a new name. Worldwide, what has been considered in the past to be Aster has now been split into at least 25 genera. Of course our already completed floristic checklists for various areas in Iowa, as well as The Vascular Plants of Iowa: A Checklist and Natural History by Lawrence J. Eilers and Dean M. Roosa use the name Aster for these species – so why should we be concerned about these changes? New publications are likely to pick up these new names, as it appears that these changes are well-founded based on several studies. The Asteraceae (daisy family) treatment for Flora of North America will most likely follow these concepts. These changes have already appeared in several recent publications, including the very recently published 2nd volume of Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri by Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Checklist of the Missouri Flora for Floristic Quality Assessment
    Ladd, D. and J.R. Thomas. 2015. Ecological checklist of the Missouri flora for Floristic Quality Assessment. Phytoneuron 2015-12: 1–274. Published 12 February 2015. ISSN 2153 733X ECOLOGICAL CHECKLIST OF THE MISSOURI FLORA FOR FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT DOUGLAS LADD The Nature Conservancy 2800 S. Brentwood Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63144 [email protected] JUSTIN R. THOMAS Institute of Botanical Training, LLC 111 County Road 3260 Salem, Missouri 65560 [email protected] ABSTRACT An annotated checklist of the 2,961 vascular taxa comprising the flora of Missouri is presented, with conservatism rankings for Floristic Quality Assessment. The list also provides standardized acronyms for each taxon and information on nativity, physiognomy, and wetness ratings. Annotated comments for selected taxa provide taxonomic, floristic, and ecological information, particularly for taxa not recognized in recent treatments of the Missouri flora. Synonymy crosswalks are provided for three references commonly used in Missouri. A discussion of the concept and application of Floristic Quality Assessment is presented. To accurately reflect ecological and taxonomic relationships, new combinations are validated for two distinct taxa, Dichanthelium ashei and D. werneri , and problems in application of infraspecific taxon names within Quercus shumardii are clarified. CONTENTS Introduction Species conservatism and floristic quality Application of Floristic Quality Assessment Checklist: Rationale and methods Nomenclature and taxonomic concepts Synonymy Acronyms Physiognomy, nativity, and wetness Summary of the Missouri flora Conclusion Annotated comments for checklist taxa Acknowledgements Literature Cited Ecological checklist of the Missouri flora Table 1. C values, physiognomy, and common names Table 2. Synonymy crosswalk Table 3. Wetness ratings and plant families INTRODUCTION This list was developed as part of a revised and expanded system for Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) in Missouri.
    [Show full text]