DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparative Assessment of Seedling Survival and Biomass Accumulation for Fourteen Wetland Plant Species Grown Under Minor Water-Depth Differences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparative Assessment of Seedling Survival and Biomass Accumulation for Fourteen Wetland Plant Species Grown Under Minor Water-Depth Differences WETLANDS, Vol. 25, No. 3, September 2005, pp. 520–530 ᭧ 2005, The Society of Wetland Scientists A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SEEDLING SURVIVAL AND BIOMASS ACCUMULATION FOR FOURTEEN WETLAND PLANT SPECIES GROWN UNDER MINOR WATER-DEPTH DIFFERENCES Lauchlan H. Fraser1,2 and Jason P. Karnezis1 1Department of Biology University of Akron Akron, Ohio, USA 44325-3908 2Present address: Department of Natural Resource Science Thompson Rivers University Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada V2C 5N3 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the survival and biomass accumulation of wetland plant species under different water depths in controlled microcosms. In the greenhouse, two-week- old seedlings were randomly assigned to one of seven water-depth treatments (Ϫ6, Ϫ4, Ϫ2, 0, ϩ2, ϩ4, and ϩ6 cm relative to the soil surface) and allowed to grow for six months. Species included five perennial sedges, four perennial and one annual grasses, and two perennial and two annual forbs. Twelve of the species had their lowest biomass and lowest survivorship at water depths greater than 0 cm. The root:shoot ratio, however, did not change across water-depth treatments. Biomass accumulation differed by plant form (sedg- esϾforbsϾgrasses). Annuals had the greatest biomass values across the widest range of water depths com- pared to perennials. Of the fourteen plants tested, Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife), one of the two invasive, non-native species tested, had the greatest biomass at water depths from Ϫ6toϩ2, whereas Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass), the other invasive, had comparatively small mean biomass values. Ranking of biomass between species was highly concordant between non-flooded treatments but not significantly concordant between flooded treatments indicating that plant species have distinct responses to flooding. This research suggests that newly established plant seedlings in wetland restorations should not be submerged, or if submergence is unavoidable, annuals and sedges may be more tolerant of prolonged flooding. Key Words: wetland restoration, flooding, hydrology, fundamental niche, hydrophyte INTRODUCTION Changes in land use have resulted in destruction and fragmentation of wetlands in North America over the Much of the literature in wetland research is focused past century, which has affected water quality, water on how hydrologic regimes affect the structure and recharge, and wildlife habitat. As a result, wetland res- function of a given wetland (Spence 1982, Gerritsen toration has recently become a common and wide- and Greening 1989, van der Valk et al. 1994, Baren- spread activity. Wetland restoration research has fo- dregt et al. 1995, Owen 1995, Busch et al. 1998, cused primarily on seed viability, seed germination, Moore et al 1999, Keddy and Fraser 2000, Baldwin et and seed-bank dynamics, as they relate to hydrology, al. 2001, Johnson et al. 2004). Laboratory, field, and nutrients, temperature, and time (van der Valk 1981, modeling techniques have all been employed to gain Keddy and Ellis 1985, Schneider and Sharitz 1986, insight into the processes that determine how abiotic Gerritsen and Greening 1989, Budelsky and Galato- factors contribute to wetland plant community struc- witsch 1999, van der Valk et al. 1999, Leck 2003, ture (van der Valk et al. 1994, Ellison and Bedford Jensen 2004). Little information is available regarding 1995, Weiher and Keddy 1995, Casanova and Brock how species perform, once germinated, over a range 2000, Cole and Brooks 2000, Baldwin et al. 2001, De of hydrologic treatments (Weiher et al. 1996, Budelsky Steven and Toner 2004, Johnson et al. 2004). Of all and Galatowitch 2000). Experiments have determined potential abiotic factors, hydrologic regimes have gen- that an increase in water level generally reduces the erally been shown to correlate most strongly with veg- growth and affects morphological responses of wet- etation type (Keddy 2000, De Steven and Toner 2004). land plants (Coops et al. 1996, Newman et al. 1996, 520 Fraser & Karnezis, WATER DEPTH EFFECTS ON PLANT BIOMASS 521 Table 1. Fourteen wetland plant species that were used in the experiment and grown at seven water depths. Scientific Name and Authoritya Code Common Name Life Form Life Cycle 1Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) Beauv. Cc Blue-joint grass Grass Perennial 1Carex lurida Wahlenb. Cl Hop sedge Sedge Perennial 1Carex stipata Hudson Cs Sawbeak sedge Sedge Perennial 2Carex tribuloides Wahlenb. Ct Bristlebract sedge Sedge Perennial 1Carex vulpinoidea Michx. Cv Fox sedge Sedge Perennial 2Elymus virginicus L. Ev Virginia wildrye Grass Perennial 2Glyceria canadensis (Michx.) Trin. Gc Rattlesnake mannagrass Grass Perennial 1Lythrum salicaria L. Ls Purple loosestrife Forb Facultative annual 1Mimulus ringens L. Mr Monkey flower Forb Facultative annual 1Phalaris arundinacea L. Pa Reed canarygrass Grass Perennial 1Rumex orbiculatus A. Gray Ro Great water dock Forb Perennial 1Scirpus cyperinus (L.) Kunth. Sc Woolgrass Sedge Perennial 2Verbesina alternifolia (L.) Britt. Va Yellow ironweed Forb Perennial 2Zizania aquatica L. Za Annual wildrice Grass Annual a from Crow and Hellquist (2000) 1 indicates field-collected seed. 2 indicates seed that was purchased from Ernst Conservation Seeds. Lentz and Dunson 1998, Lenssen et al. 1999, Miller short time period. Fourteen wetland species, repre- and Zedler 2003); however, the number of species test- senting a range of growth forms, were grown at seven ed is generally less than five for each study, the water- static water depths, from Ϫ6cmtoϩ6cmin2cm depth treatments tend to differ by at least 5 cm, and increments relative to the soil surface. Two-week-old the plants tested are generally not seedlings but veg- seedlings were used because it is already well-estab- etative ramets of mature plants (but see Kercher and lished that flooding is a constraint to germination (van Zedler 2004). der Valk 1981, Keddy and Ellis 1985, Casanova and Wetland restorations generally involve the new es- Brock 2000, Jensen 2004), but the gap in the literature tablishment of a plant community, either by natural regards the survivorship and growth of seedlings to seed dispersal, introduced seeds, or planted seedlings. water depth. The following questions were posited. (1) The establishment phase of the plant community is Does water depth affect biomass and root:shoot ratios critical to colonization and stand development. Con- of these wetland plants? (2) Is there a difference in trolled mesocosm experiments have shown that control seedling survivorship between water depths and be- of water depth during the first year can significantly tween species? (3) Does biomass at different water influence the potential for growth, mortality, and stand depths differ between life forms (grass, forb, and development in later years (Weiher and Keddy 1995, sedge) and life cycles (perennial and annual)? (4) Does Budelsky and Galatowitsch 2000). the hierarchy of growth performance remain consistent In natural systems, isolating an individual environ- across water-depth treatments? (5) Do non-native in- mental factor’s effect upon that system is nearly im- vasive species (Lythrum salicaria and Phalaris arun- possible. Using laboratory techniques, we can more dinacea) produce more biomass across the seven water clearly delineate the role of hydrology on a number of depths compared to the twelve native species tested? species (Fraser and Keddy 1997). Isolating the effect of water depth on a range of wetland species can re- MATERIALS AND METHODS veal fundamental niche boundaries, information that can be applied to predictive models of plant establish- Twelve species were selected to represent a broad ment and wetland restoration. range of plant life forms typically found in temperate The purpose of this experiment was to investigate eastern North American marsh and wet meadow wet- the growth responses (measured as seedling survival lands (Crow and Hellquist 2000) that are commonly and accumulated biomass) under different water used in wetland restoration projects (Hammer 1997, depths at small (2 cm) increments in controlled micro- Cronk and Fennessy 2001) (Table 1). In addition, we cosms. Although static water levels are generally not included two invasives, Lythrum salicaria (purple normal or realistic conditions found in natural marshes loosestrife, a facultative annual forb) and Phalaris or wet meadows, we were interested in identifying the arundinacea (reed canary grass, a perennial grass), constraints of absolute water depth to initial establish- commonly found throughout North America (Apfel- ment and performance of seedlings over a relatively baum and Sams 1987, Thompson et al. 1987). Species 522 WETLANDS, Volume 25, No. 3, 2005 represent three life forms (forbs, sedges, and grasses) species relating to germination date, but no more than and two life cycles (facultative or obligate annuals and two months separated the first and last species. perennials). Seeds were either purchased through Ernst Seed Company (Meadville, PA) or collected in the Standardized Conditions field. The seed source from Ernst Seed Company is a combination of field-collected and cultivated plants In order to isolate the effects of the water-depth that are bulk processed so that there is genetic vari- treatment on the fourteen species better, other abiotic ability. Field-collected seed were taken from multiple factors were standardized. A daily, 14-hour photope- individuals and from at least three sites, which were riod was provided
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Genera of Bambusoideae (Gramineae) in the Southeastern United States Gordon C
    Eastern Illinois University The Keep Faculty Research & Creative Activity Biological Sciences January 1988 The genera of Bambusoideae (Gramineae) 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 Bambusoideae (Gramineae) in the southeastern United States" (1988). Faculty Research & Creative Activity. 181. http://thekeep.eiu.edu/bio_fac/181 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, BAMBUSOIDEAE 239 THE GENERA OF BAMBUSOIDEAE (GRAMINEAE) IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATESu GoRDON C. T ucKER3 Subfamily BAMBUSOIDEAE Ascherson & Graebner, Synop. Mitteleurop. Fl. 2: 769. 1902. Perennial or annual herbs or woody plants of tropical or temperate forests and wetlands. Rhizomes present or lacking. Stems erect or decumbent (some­ times rooting at the lower nodes); nodes glabrous, pubescent, or puberulent. Leaves several to many, glabrous to sparsely pubescent (microhairs bicellular); leaf sheaths about as long as the blades, open for over tf2 their length, glabrous; ligules wider than long, entire or fimbriate; blades petiolate or sessile, elliptic to linear, acute to acuminate, the primary veins parallel to-or forming an angle of 5-10• wi th-the midvein, transverse veinlets numerous, usually con­ spicuous, giving leaf surface a tessellate appearance; chlorenchyma not radiate (i.e., non-kranz; photosynthetic pathway C.,).
    [Show full text]
  • NJ Native Plants - USDA
    NJ Native Plants - USDA Scientific Name Common Name N/I Family Category National Wetland Indicator Status Thermopsis villosa Aaron's rod N Fabaceae Dicot Rubus depavitus Aberdeen dewberry N Rosaceae Dicot Artemisia absinthium absinthium I Asteraceae Dicot Aplectrum hyemale Adam and Eve N Orchidaceae Monocot FAC-, FACW Yucca filamentosa Adam's needle N Agavaceae Monocot Gentianella quinquefolia agueweed N Gentianaceae Dicot FAC, FACW- Rhamnus alnifolia alderleaf buckthorn N Rhamnaceae Dicot FACU, OBL Medicago sativa alfalfa I Fabaceae Dicot Ranunculus cymbalaria alkali buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot OBL Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny blackberry N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, FACW Hieracium paniculatum Allegheny hawkweed N Asteraceae Dicot Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkeyflower N Scrophulariaceae Dicot OBL Ranunculus allegheniensis Allegheny Mountain buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot FACU, FAC Prunus alleghaniensis Allegheny plum N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, NI Amelanchier laevis Allegheny serviceberry N Rosaceae Dicot Hylotelephium telephioides Allegheny stonecrop N Crassulaceae Dicot Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine N Fumariaceae Dicot Centaurea transalpina alpine knapweed N Asteraceae Dicot Potamogeton alpinus alpine pondweed N Potamogetonaceae Monocot OBL Viola labradorica alpine violet N Violaceae Dicot FAC Trifolium hybridum alsike clover I Fabaceae Dicot FACU-, FAC Cornus alternifolia alternateleaf dogwood N Cornaceae Dicot Strophostyles helvola amberique-bean N Fabaceae Dicot Puccinellia americana American alkaligrass N Poaceae Monocot Heuchera americana
    [Show full text]
  • Wool-Grass – Mannagrass Mixed Shrub Marsh
    Wool-grass – Mannagrass Mixed Shrub Marsh System: Palustrine Subsystem: Herbaceous PA Ecological Group(s): Vernal Pool Global Rank: GNR State Rank: S4 General Description The Wool-grass – mannagrass mixed shrub marsh pool occurs in seasonally to somewhat permanently inundated depressions throughout Pennsylvania. The type can be described as a seasonally flooded, herbaceous swamp with well defined boundaries; some pools of this type exhibit somewhat poorly defined boundaries. The surrounding plant community varies with region, soils, and geology. The pools are generally deeper than those of the Rice cutgrass – bulrush marsh pool and may not dry completely over the summer months. This community is characterized as an open, seasonally to permanently flooded depression, dominated by herbaceous and shrubby species; wool-grass (Scirpus cyperinus) is usually dominant. Common co- dominant and associate species include floating mannagrass (Glyceria septentrionalis), rattlesnake mannagrass (Glyceria canadensis), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), pale meadowgrass (Torreyochloa pallida), sedges (e.g. Carex crinita, C. lurida, C. lupulina, C. vesicaria, C. folliculata), three-way sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum), mild water-pepper (Persicaria hydropiperoides), marsh-purslane (Ludwigia palustris), marsh St. Johns-wort (Triadenum fraseri). The federally endangered species, northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus), is also found in this type. Shrubs include hardhack (Spiraea tomentosa), meadow-sweet (S. alba), northern arrow-wood (Viburnum recognitum), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). Canopy trees, which are limited to the pool margins, most often include white oak (Quercus alba), sourgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Rank Justification Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. Identification Open, seasonally flooded depression, dominated by herbaceous plants, usually graminoids.
    [Show full text]
  • Carex Barrattii Schwein
    New England Plant Conservation Program Conservation and Research Plan Carex barrattii Schwein. & Torr. Barratt's Sedge Prepared by: Penelope C. Sharp Environmental Consultant Northford, Connecticut 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, May 2001 SUMMARY Barratt’s sedge (Carex barrattii) is a regionally rare plant species that ranges from Alabama northward along the Atlantic coastal states to Connecticut. Primarily a species of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, it has also been documented at a number of disjunct sites in Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Its presence in New England is limited to Connecticut where there are seven occurrences, five of which are historic. The two extant sites for C. barrattii are in relatively close proximity, and the occurrences may be considered to be sub-populations of a single population. Population size is estimated to exceed 10,000 ramets. The state rank for the species is S1, and it is listed under Connecticut’s Endangered Species Act as State Endangered. The occurrence locations are on private property; therefore, C. barrattii is vulnerable to a number of potential threats including alteration of wetland hydrology and development activities. Natural succession and canopy closure also threaten the species, which appears to produce few fruiting culms under dense shade. Carex barrattii is an obligate wetland species and, in Connecticut, grows in seasonally saturated, acidic, sandy wetlands. In other parts of its range, it is found in wetland depressions in pine barrens, along the shores of rivers and ponds or in peaty bogs.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Conserving Plant Diversity in New England
    CONSERVING PLANT DIVERSITY IN NEW ENGLAND A COLLABORATION OF CONSERVING PLANT DIVERSITY IN NEW ENGLAND A COLLABORATION OF AUTHORS Mark Anderson Director of Conservation Science, Eastern United States, The Nature Conservancy Michael Piantedosi Director of Conservation, Native Plant Trust William Brumback Director of Conservation Emeritus, Native Plant Trust MAP PRODUCTION Arlene Olivero WEB TOOL Melissa Clark DESIGN Rachel Wolff-Lander Kate Wollensak Freeborn The authors wish to thank the six state Natural Heritage programs for sharing their data and for their support. ©2021 Published June 2021 © Peter James CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 PART ONE: CONSERVING PLANT DIVERSITY 1-1 Background 1-2 • Plant Diversity and Resilience 1-2 • Global Strategy for Plant Conservation and Global Deal for Nature 1-7 • Secured Lands and GAP Status 1-9 • New England Flora and Rare Taxa 1-11 • Threats to Plant Diversity in New England 1-14 • Conservation Actions to Counter Threats to Plant Diversity 1-17 Conservation of Habitats and Important Plant Areas 1-21 Introduction 1-21 • Terminology 1-21 • Overview and Methods 1-22 Conservation of Habitats: Progress Toward Global and Regional Goals 1-26 • Matrix Forests 1-26 • Wetlands 1-30 • Patch-forming Habitats 1-33 • Risk of Conversion 1-36 Conservation of Important Plant Areas (IPAs) 1-37 • Definition and Location of IPAs 1-37 • Conservation Status and Progress Toward Goals 1-40 • Representation of Habitats in the IPAs 1-42 Conservation of Threatened Species 1-48 • Threatened Plants Conserved in situ 1-48 • Threatened Plants Conserved in ex situ Collections 1-49 Results and Recommendations 1-58 i CONTENTS continued PART TWO: STATUS REPORT AND MAPS 2-1 Overview 2-4 New England’s Terrestrial Habitats 2-7 Map Page Layout 2-13 Upland Habitats: Matrix Forest 2-16 Upland Habitats: Patch-forming Habitats 2-53 Wetland Habitats 2-80 PART THREE: SUPPORTING MATERIAL 3-1 Bibliography 3-2 Appendices 3-11 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Plant List
    1 AQUATIC PLANT LlST ,2 Common Name" Scientific Name Campanulaceae (Bluebell family) Acanthaceae (Acanthus family) Marsh bluehellS,E Campanula aparinoides Pursh. Water wiliowE Dianthera americana L. Ceratophyllaceae (Hornwort family) E Dianthera ovata Wall. Common coon tailS Ceratophyllum demersum L. Alismaceae (Water plantain family) Prickly coontailS Ceratophyllum echinatum Gray Narrowleaf waterplantainE,S Alisma gramineum K. C. Gmel. Characeae (Stoneworts and muskgrass family) Waterplantain, broadleaf waterplantainE,s Alisma plantago-aquatica L. CharaS Chara globularis Thuill. Common waterplantainE A lisma criviale i'ursh. CharaS Cham vulgaris L. DamasoniumE Damasonium californicum Torr. N iteliaS Nitella fiexilis (L.) Ag. Upright burheadE Echinodorus cordifolius (L.) Griseb. ;\IitellaS Nitella hyalina (DC.) Ag. Creeping burheadE Echinodorus radicans (NutL) Engelm. Compositae (Composite family) BurheadE Echinodorus teneZlus (Martius) Buchenau AsterE Aster puniceus L. Hooded arrowheadE Lophotocarpus calycinus (Engelm.) Saltmarsh asterE Aster subulatus Michx. J. G. Sm. bur marigoldE Bidens cernua (L.) E Sagittaria ambigua J. G. Sm. Brook sunfiowerE Bidens laevis (L.) BSP E Sagittaria arifolia G_ Joe-Pye weed~~ Eupatorium dU/Jium Willd. Englemann arrowheadE Sagittaria australis (J. G. Sm.) WatermarigoldS,E Megalodonla beckii (Torr.) Greene Small Englemann arrowheadE Sagitlaria brevirostra Mack. and Cruciferae (Cress family) Bush. California arrowheadE Sagittaria calycilla Engelm. WatercressS.E Nasturtium otticinale R. Br. Slender arrowheadE Sagittaria cristata Engelm. Lake cressE Neobeckia aquatica (Eaton) Britton Northern arrowheadE Sagittaria cuneata Sheldon Great watercressE Rorippa amphibia (L.) Bess. t; Engelmann arrowheadE Sagittaria engelmanniana J. G. Sm. Rorippa obtusa (NutL) Britton Costal arrowhead, costal Yellow cress t; Rorippa palustris (L.) Bess. wapato, bulltongueE Sagittaria talcata Pursh. E Rorippa sinuata (Nutt.) Hitchc. E Sagittaria graminea Michx. Awlwortfo: Subularia aquatica L.
    [Show full text]
  • Rice Cutgrass – Bulrush Vernal Pool
    Rice Cutgrass – Bulrush Vernal Pool System: Palustrine Subsystem: Herbaceous PA Ecological Group(s): Vernal Pool Global Rank: GNR, G1 State Rank: S2? General Description This community is characterized as an open, seasonally flooded, mixed-herbaceous wetland meadow with defined basin boundaries and usually occurs within dry, oak-dominated forests with open canopies. Common dominant species include pale meadowgrass (Torreyochloa pallida), mannagrass (Glyceria acutiflora), rattlesnake mannagrass (Glyceria canadensis), three-way sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum), Canada bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), sedges (e.g. Carex tribuloides, C. lurida, C. gynandra, C. vesicaria, C. folliculata), dotted smartweed (Persicaria punctata), marsh St. Johns-wort (Triadenum fraseri), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), needle spike-rush (Eleocharis acicularis), and white beak-rush (Rhynchospora alba). The federally endangered species, northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus), is also found in this type, and can sometimes comprise a significant area within the pool. The invasive low smartweed (Persicaria longiseta) was present within this type in some pools and stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), can form dense patches on the edges of the pools. Shrubs such as winterberry (Ilex verticillata) and swamp dewberry (Rubus hispidus) are present, but never dominant and canopy trees most often include white oak (Quercus alba), sourgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The pools may also contain a substantial bryophyte
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Surveys of the Osceola-Missaukee Grasslands State Game Area, Osceola and Missaukee Counties, Michigan
    VEGETATION SURVEYS OF THE OSCEOLA-MISSAUKEE GRASSLANDS STATE GAME AREA, OSCEOLA AND MISSAUKEE COUNTIES, MICHIGAN PREPARED BY: BRADFORD S. SLAUGHTER AND PHYLLIS J. HIGMAN MICHIGAN NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY PO BOX 13036 LANSING, MI 48901-3036 FOR: MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, WILDLIFE DIVISION 8 OCTOBER 2014 REPORT NO. 2014-15 Funding for this project was provided by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Suggested Citation: Slaughter, B.S., and P.J. Higman. 2014. Vegetation Surveys of the Osceola-Missaukee Grasslands State Game Area, Osceola and Missaukee Counties, Michigan. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report No. 2014-15, Lansing, MI. 60 pp. Copyright 2014 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 orientations, marital status, or family status. Cover photograph: OMG Unit 1 old field, Osceola Co., MI, 20 June 2014. All photographs in report by B.S. Slaughter. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of Area ................................................................................................................. 1 METHODS .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Dark Septate Fungi in Plants Associated with Aquatic Environments Doi: 10.1590/0102-33062016Abb0296
    Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and dark septate fungi in plants associated with aquatic environments doi: 10.1590/0102-33062016abb0296 Table S1. Presence of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and/or dark septate fungi (DSF) in non-flowering plants and angiosperms, according to data from 62 papers. A: arbuscule; V: vesicle; H: intraradical hyphae; % COL: percentage of colonization. MYCORRHIZAL SPECIES AMF STRUCTURES % AMF COL AMF REFERENCES DSF DSF REFERENCES LYCOPODIOPHYTA1 Isoetales Isoetaceae Isoetes coromandelina L. A, V, H 43 38; 39 Isoetes echinospora Durieu A, V, H 1.9-14.5 50 + 50 Isoetes kirkii A. Braun not informed not informed 13 Isoetes lacustris L.* A, V, H 25-50 50; 61 + 50 Lycopodiales Lycopodiaceae Lycopodiella inundata (L.) Holub A, V 0-18 22 + 22 MONILOPHYTA2 Equisetales Equisetaceae Equisetum arvense L. A, V 2-28 15; 19; 52; 60 + 60 Osmundales Osmundaceae Osmunda cinnamomea L. A, V 10 14 Salviniales Marsileaceae Marsilea quadrifolia L.* V, H not informed 19;38 Salviniaceae Azolla pinnata R. Br.* not informed not informed 19 Salvinia cucullata Roxb* not informed 21 4; 19 Salvinia natans Pursh V, H not informed 38 Polipodiales Dryopteridaceae Polystichum lepidocaulon (Hook.) J. Sm. A, V not informed 30 Davalliaceae Davallia mariesii T. Moore ex Baker A not informed 30 Onocleaceae Matteuccia struthiopteris (L.) Tod. A not informed 30 Onoclea sensibilis L. A, V 10-70 14; 60 + 60 Pteridaceae Acrostichum aureum L. A, V, H 27-69 42; 55 Adiantum pedatum L. A not informed 30 Aleuritopteris argentea (S. G. Gmel) Fée A, V not informed 30 Pteris cretica L. A not informed 30 Pteris multifida Poir.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Community Monitoring at Ocmulgee National Monument, 2011
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Vegetation Community Monitoring at Ocmulgee National Monument, 2011 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2014/702 ON THE COVER Duck potato (Sagittaria latifolia) at Ocmulgee National Monument. Photograph by: Sarah C. Heath, SECN Botanist. Vegetation Community Monitoring at Ocmulgee National Monument, 2011 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2014/702 Sarah Corbett Heath1 Michael W. Byrne2 1USDI National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network Cumberland Island National Seashore 101 Wheeler Street Saint Marys, Georgia 31558 2USDI National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network 135 Phoenix Road Athens, Georgia 30605 September 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Data Series is intended for the timely release of basic data sets and data summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis and interpretation of the data has not been completed. Consequently, the initial analyses of data in this report are provisional and subject to change. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]