DOCSLIB.ORG

High Acer Campestre

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
High Acer Campestre Appendix Intermediate Intermediate None High None 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Abies alba Abies homolepis Acer barbinerve Acer campestre Acer ginnala 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● 500 500 500 500 500 ● ● ● NL ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 Laube et al. 2014 Laube et al. 2014 This study This study This study Intermediate Intermediate Highv High High 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Acer negundo Acer platanoides Acer pseudoplatanus Acer rubrum Acer saccharinum 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 NL NL ● 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● ● ● ● 500 500 500 500 NL NL ● 500 ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 Laube et al. 2014 This study Laube et al. 2014 Polgar 2014 Polgar 2014 High Intermediate Highv Intermediate High 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Acer saccharum Acer tataricum Aesculus flava Aesculus hippocastanum Aesculus parviflora 1500 1500 1500 ● 1500 1500 ● 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 NL ● ● ● ● ● ● 500 500 500 500 ● 500 ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 Laube et al. 2014 Laube et al. 2014 This study This study This study Intermediate None vHigh Intermediate Intermediate 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Alnus incana Alnus maximowiczii Alnus serrulata Amelanchier alnifolia Amelanchier florida 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● ● ● ● NL NL ● ● 500 ● 500 500 500 ● 500 ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 This study This study Polgar 2014 This study This study Intermediate None vHigh None None 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Amelanchier laevis Amorpha fruticosa Aronia arbutifolia Aronia melanocarpa Berberis dielsiana 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 ● 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● 500 ● ● 500 500 500 500 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 This study Laube et al. 2014 Polgar 2014 This study This study Intermediate None v High High High 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Berberis thunbergii Berberis vulgaris Betula lenta Betula nana Betula papyrifera 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 500 500 ● 500 500 500 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 C1 C2 C3 0 C1 C2 C3 0 C1 C2 C3 0 C1 C2 C3 0 C1 C2 C3 Polgar 2014 Polgar 2014 This study This study Polgar 2014 132" v 133" Figure S11 partial Figure S1 partial 134" 135" 136" IntermediateIntermediate None NoneNone NoneNone NoneNone 20002000 20002000 20002000 20002000 20002000 BetulaBetula pendulapendula BetulaBetula populifoliapopulifolia BuddlejaBuddleja albifloraalbiflora BuddlejaBuddleja alternifoliaalternifolia BuddlejaBuddleja davidiidavidii 15001500 15001500 15001500 15001500 15001500 10001000 10001000 10001000 10001000 10001000 500500 500500 ● 500500 500500 500500 ●● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ● 00 00 00 00 00 LaubeLaube etet al.al. 20142014 ThisThis studystudy ThisThis study study ThisThis study study ThisThis study study v None IntermediateIntermediate IntermediateIntermediate NoneNone HighHigh 20002000 20002000 20002000 20002000 20002000 CaraganaCaragana pygmaeapygmaea CarpinusCarpinus betulusbetulus CarpinusCarpinus laxifloralaxiflora CarpinusCarpinus monbeigianamonbeigiana CaryaCarya cordiformiscordiformis 15001500 15001500 15001500 15001500 15001500 10001000 10001000 10001000 10001000 10001000 ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● 500 500 ●● 500 ● 500 ●● 500 500 500 ●● 500 ● 500 500 ●● ●● ●● ●● 00 00 00 00 00 ThisThis studystudy ThisThis studystudy ThisThis study study ThisThis study study ThisThis study study High High HighHighv NoneNone IntermediateIntermediate 20002000 20002000 20002000 20002000 20002000 CaryaCarya glabraglabra CaryaCarya laciniosalaciniosa CaryaCarya ovataovata CastaneaCastanea sativasativa CedrusCedrus libanilibani ●● ●● 15001500 15001500 ●● 15001500 15001500 15001500 ●● 10001000 10001000 10001000 10001000 10001000 ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● 500500 NL NL ●● 500500 500500 500500 500500 00 00 00 00 00 PolgarPolgar 20142014 ThisThis studystudy ThisThis study study ThisThis study study ThisThis study study IntermediateIntermediate IntermediateIntermediate vHighHigh HighHigh IntermediateIntermediate 20002000 20002000 20002000 20002000 20002000 CelastrusCelastrus orbiculatusorbiculatus CeltisCeltis caucasicacaucasica CeltisCeltis laevigatalaevigata CeltisCeltis occidentalisoccidentalis CephalanthusCephalanthus occidentalisoccidentalis 15001500 15001500 15001500 15001500 15001500 10001000 10001000 10001000 10001000 ●● 10001000 ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● 500500 500500 ●● 500500 500500 500500 00 00 00 00 00 PolgarPolgar 20142014 ThisThis studystudy ThisThis study study ThisThis study study ThisThis study study IntermediateIntermediate High vHighHigh NoneNone HighHigh 20002000 20002000 20002000 20002000 20002000 CercidiphyllumCercidiphyllum japonicumjaponicum CercidiphyllumCercidiphyllum magnificummagnificum CercisCercis canadensiscanadensis CercisCercis chinensischinensis CladrastisCladrastis lutealutea 15001500 15001500 15001500 15001500 15001500 10001000 10001000 10001000 10001000 10001000 ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ●● 500500 ●● ●● 500500 ●● 500500 500500 500500 ●● 00 00 00 00 00 ThisThis studystudy ThisThis studystudy ThisThis study study ThisThis study study ThisThis study study High High IntermediateIntermediate IntermediateIntermediate NoneNone 20002000 20002000 20002000 20002000 20002000 ClethraClethra alnifoliaalnifolia ComptoniaComptonia peregrinaperegrina CornusCornus albaalba CornusCornus amomumamomum CornusCornus kousakousa 15001500 15001500 15001500 15001500 15001500 10001000 10001000 10001000 10001000 10001000 NL ●● ●● ●● NL ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● 500500 ●● 500500 ●● 500500 ●● 500500 ●● 500500 00 C1 C2 C3 0 0 C1 C2 C3 0 0 C1 C2 C3 0 0 C1 C2 C3 0 0 C1 C2 C3 137" Polgar Polgar 20142014 PolgarPolgar 20142014 ThisThis study study PolgarPolgar 2014 2014 ThisThis study study 138" Figure S11 continued Figure S1 continued 139" 140" 141" None None None Intermediate None 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Cornus mas Corylopsis sinensis Corylopsis spicata Corylus americana Corylus avellana 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● 500 500 ● ● 500 ● 500 500 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 Laube et al. 2014 This study This study Polgar 2014 This study Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate None None 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Corylus heterophylla Corylus sieboldiana Decaisnea fargesii Deutzia gracilis Deutzia scabra 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● 500 500 500 ● 500 500 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 This study This study This study This study This study None None None None None 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Elaeagnus umbellata Elaeagnus ebbingei Eleutherococcus senticosus Eleutherococcus setchuensis Eleutherococcus sieboldianus 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 500 500 500 500 ● 500 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 Polgar 2014 This study This study This study This study Intermediate Intermediate High High High 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Euonymus alatus Euonymus europaeus Euonymus latifolius Fagus crenata Fagus engleriana 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● ● NL ● ● ● 500 ● 500 ● 500 500 500 ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 Polgar 2014 This study This study This study This study High High High None None 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Fagus grandifolia Fagus orientalis Fagus sylvatica Forsythia ovata Forsythia suspensa 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 ● NL NL ● 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● 500 500 ● 500 500 500 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 Polgar 2014 This study This study This study This study Intermediate Intermediate None Intermediate High 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Fraxinus americana Fraxinus chinensis Fraxinus excelsior Fraxinus latifolia ● Fraxinus ornus 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 ● 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● ● NL ● ● ● ● 500 500 ● 500 ● 500 500 ● ● 0 C1 C2 C3 0 C1 C2 C3 0 C1 C2 C3 0 C1 C2 C3 0 C1 C2 C3 142" Polgar 2014 Laube et al. 2014 Laube et al. 2014 This study This study 143" FigureFigure S11 S1 continuedcontinued 144" 145" 146" None High Intermediate Intermediate High 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Fraxinus pensylvanica Gaylussacia baccata Ginkgo biloba Hamamelis japonica Hamamelis vernalis 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 500 ● 500 ● 500 500 500 ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 Laube et al. 2014 Polgar 2014 This study This study This study High None None Intermediate Intermediate 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Hamamelis viginiana Heptacodium miconioides Hibiscus syriacus Hydrangea arborescens Hydrangea involucrata 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● ● ● 500 ● 500 500 ● 500 500 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 Polgar 2014 This study This study This study This study Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Hydrangea serrata Juglans ailantifolia Juglans cinerea Juglans regia Kalmia angustifolia 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● ● ● ● ● ● 500 500 500 ● 500 ● 500 NL ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 This study Laube et al. 2014 Laube et al. 2014 Laube et al. 2014 Polgar 2014 High None Intermediate Intermediate None 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Kalmia latifolia Larix decidua Larix gmelinii Larix kaempferi Ligustrum compactum 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 NL NL ● ● 500 500 500 500 ● 500 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 Polgar 2014 Laube et al. 2014 This study This study Polgar 2014 None None High None Intermediate 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Ligustrum ibota Ligustrum tschonoskii Lindera benzoin Liquidambar orientalis Liquidambar styraciflua 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 NL NL ● ● ● ● 500 500 500 500 ● 500 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 0 0 0 0 Polgar 2014 This study Polgar 2014 This study This study Intermediate None None None None 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Liriodendron tulipifera Lonicera alpigena Lonicera caerulea Lonicera maackii Lonicera maximowiczii 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ● 500 500
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Propagating with Nature: Simpler Is Better by Mike Creel Written for July 21, 2005 Workshop at the 22Nd Annual Cullowhee Conference “Native Plants in the Landscape
    Propagating WITH Nature: Simpler Is Better By Mike Creel Written for July 21, 2005 workshop at The 22nd Annual Cullowhee Conference “Native Plants in the Landscape CONTENTS Page ---- Topics 1 -- Why You Came Here - To Learn Simple Propagation What Is Different About Creel-Way Propagation? Low-Tech, Simple, Outdoors, Cheap A Few “Technical Terms Why Learn to Propagate Native Plants 2 -- How to Get Started in Creel-Way Propagation Principles of Creel-Way Propagation When Sticking Cuttings When Planting Seed Pots Identification Tags Woody Cutting Theory 3 -- Selecting & Mixing Your Media One All-Purpose Media Mix Shade Cloth Cools Cuttings Just Local Humus, No Rooting Hormones, Repotting Cuttings Varmint Caps for Seed Pots 4 -- Drilling Pots To Improve Drainage Drilling Thin-Walled Plastic Rescuing Pots In Peril Hold-Down Wires 5 -- Selection And Use Of Propagation Domes 6 -- Cuttings by the Calendar - Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall 7 -- Cutting Selection for Native Azaleas and Other Plants Unusual Cutting Types - InstantPlant, SuperPlant Unorthodox Propagation Pots - High-Rise, Collander, Dome-Pot Potpourri 8 -- Propagator’s Review Propagation With Motivation, Advantages of Creel-Way My Latest Experiments, Several Rules Nature Is My Greenhouse, Sharing Your Fruits 9 -- American Native Azalea Species in Bloom Order for Southeast Photos and Illustrations 10 -- Creel-Way Dome-Pot one gallon 11 -- Recommended Pots & Domes 12 - -Drilling & Filling Pots for Good Drainage 13-- Menagerie of Dome-Pots 14 -- Collander Dome-Pot 15 -- Dormant Cuttings Are Really Pruning Mike Creel 155 Cannon Trail Road Lexington, South Carolina 29073 [email protected] 1 -- Propagating WITH Nature: Simpler Is Better by Mike Creel Why You Came - You have probably come to this workshop wanting to learn new, simpler ways to propagate native plants on a small scale, and you will! I do not use rooting hormones other than what is contained in the plant cutting and in local soil bacteria.
    [Show full text]
  • SP611 Trees to Plant Under Power Lines
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Forestry, Trees, and Timber UT Extension Publications 7-2003 SP611 Trees to Plant under Power Lines The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agexfores Part of the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation "SP611 Trees to Plant under Power Lines," The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service, SP 611 - 12M - 7/03 R12-4910-034-004-04, https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agexfores/56 The publications in this collection represent the historical publishing record of the UT Agricultural Experiment Station and do not necessarily reflect current scientific knowledge or ecommendations.r Current information about UT Ag Research can be found at the UT Ag Research website. This Trees for Tennessee Landscapes - Choosing the Right Tree is brought to you for free and open access by the UT Extension Publications at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Forestry, Trees, and Timber by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Agricultural Extension Service The University of Tennessee SP 611 Trees to Plant under Power Lines Tom Simpson Wayne K. Clatterbuck Regional Urban Forester Associate Professor Tennessee Dept. of Agriculture Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries Forestry Division Serious conflicts often develop between utilities The following table lists suitable tree species for plant- and trees. Trees that grow into electric wires pose serious ing near power lines. Each utility may have differ- safety issues and often result in less reliable service.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Planning and Zoning
    Department of Planning and Zoning Subject: Howard County Landscape Manual Updates: Recommended Street Tree List (Appendix B) and Recommended Plant List (Appendix C) - Effective July 1, 2010 To: DLD Review Staff Homebuilders Committee From: Kent Sheubrooks, Acting Chief Division of Land Development Date: July 1, 2010 Purpose: The purpose of this policy memorandum is to update the Recommended Plant Lists presently contained in the Landscape Manual. The plant lists were created for the first edition of the Manual in 1993 before information was available about invasive qualities of certain recommended plants contained in those lists (Norway Maple, Bradford Pear, etc.). Additionally, diseases and pests have made some other plants undesirable (Ash, Austrian Pine, etc.). The Howard County General Plan 2000 and subsequent environmental and community planning publications such as the Route 1 and Route 40 Manuals and the Green Neighborhood Design Guidelines have promoted the desirability of using native plants in landscape plantings. Therefore, this policy seeks to update the Recommended Plant Lists by identifying invasive plant species and disease or pest ridden plants for their removal and prohibition from further planting in Howard County and to add other available native plants which have desirable characteristics for street tree or general landscape use for inclusion on the Recommended Plant Lists. Please note that a comprehensive review of the street tree and landscape tree lists were conducted for the purpose of this update, however, only
    [Show full text]
  • Acer Ginnala (Amur Maple) Amur Maple Is a Small, Low-Branched, Deciduous Tree with Three-Lobed Leaves
    Acer ginnala (Amur Maple) Amur maple is a small, low-branched, deciduous tree with three-lobed leaves. The leaves turn red, yellow, orange in the fall.A tough and adaptable tree. Adopted well to urban landscape. Landscape Information Pronounciation: AY-ser jin-NAY-luh Plant Type: Tree Origin: Eastern Asia Heat Zones: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Hardiness Zones: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Uses: Screen, Hedge, Bonsai, Specimen, Container, Street, Pollution Tolerant / Urban Size/Shape Growth Rate: Moderate Tree Shape: Round, Spreading Canopy Symmetry: Symmetrical Canopy Density: Dense Canopy Texture: Fine Height at Maturity: 5 to 8 m, 8 to 15 m Spread at Maturity: 5 to 8 meters Time to Ultimate Height: 10 to 20 Years Notes Acer ginnala is a great plant for use in small landscapes Plant Image Acer ginnala (Amur Maple) Botanical Description Foliage Leaf Arrangement: Opposite Leaf Venation: Pinnate Leaf Persistance: Deciduous Leaf Type: Simple Leaf Blade: 5 - 10 cm Leaf Shape: Ovate Leaf Margins: Lobate, Serrate, Double Serrate Leaf Textures: Medium Leaf Scent: No Fragance Color(growing season): Green Flower Image Color(changing season): Red Flower Flower Showiness: False Flower Size Range: 0 - 1.5 Flower Sexuality: Diecious (Monosexual) Flower Scent: No Fragance Flower Color: White Seasons: Spring Trunk Trunk Susceptibility to Breakage: Generally resists breakage Number of Trunks: Multi-Trunked, Can be trained to one trunk Trunk Esthetic Values: Not Showy Fruit Fruit Type: Samara Fruit Showiness: True Fruit Size Range: 1.5 - 3 Fruit Colors: Pink Seasons:
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Common Native Plants the Diversity of Acadia National Park Is Refl Ected in Its Plant Life; More Than 1,100 Plant Species Are Found Here
    National Park Service Acadia U.S. Department of the Interior Acadia National Park Checklist of Common Native Plants The diversity of Acadia National Park is refl ected in its plant life; more than 1,100 plant species are found here. This checklist groups the park’s most common plants into the communities where they are typically found. The plant’s growth form is indicated by “t” for trees and “s” for shrubs. To identify unfamiliar plants, consult a fi eld guide or visit the Wild Gardens of Acadia at Sieur de Monts Spring, where more than 400 plants are labeled and displayed in their habitats. All plants within Acadia National Park are protected. Please help protect the park’s fragile beauty by leaving plants in the condition that you fi nd them. Deciduous Woods ash, white t Fraxinus americana maple, mountain t Acer spicatum aspen, big-toothed t Populus grandidentata maple, red t Acer rubrum aspen, trembling t Populus tremuloides maple, striped t Acer pensylvanicum aster, large-leaved Aster macrophyllus maple, sugar t Acer saccharum beech, American t Fagus grandifolia mayfl ower, Canada Maianthemum canadense birch, paper t Betula papyrifera oak, red t Quercus rubra birch, yellow t Betula alleghaniesis pine, white t Pinus strobus blueberry, low sweet s Vaccinium angustifolium pyrola, round-leaved Pyrola americana bunchberry Cornus canadensis sarsaparilla, wild Aralia nudicaulis bush-honeysuckle s Diervilla lonicera saxifrage, early Saxifraga virginiensis cherry, pin t Prunus pensylvanica shadbush or serviceberry s,t Amelanchier spp. cherry, choke t Prunus virginiana Solomon’s seal, false Maianthemum racemosum elder, red-berried or s Sambucus racemosa ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Aesculus Flava (Yellow Buckeye, Sweet Buckeye) Aesculus Flava Is a Medium to Large Deciduous Tree
    Aesculus flava (Yellow buckeye, sweet buckeye) Aesculus flava is a medium to large deciduous tree. The palmate compound leaves turn yellow in the fall. Large yellow flower appears in mid spring. Do not use this specimen as a street tree because of the litter produced by the falling leaves. Used as a shade tree. Landscape Information Pronounciation: ESS-kew-lus FLAY-vuh Plant Type: Tree Heat Zones: 5, 6, 7, 8 Hardiness Zones: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Uses: Screen, Specimen, Shade Size/Shape Growth Rate: Moderate Tree Shape: oval Canopy Symmetry: Symmetrical Canopy Density: Dense Canopy Texture: Coarse Height at Maturity: Over 23 Spread at Maturity: 8 to 10 meters Time to Ultimate Height: More than 50 Years Plant Image Aesculus flava (Yellow buckeye, sweet buckeye) Botanical Description Foliage Leaf Arrangement: Opposite Leaf Venation: Pinnate Leaf Persistance: Deciduous Leaf Type: Palmately Compound Leaf Blade: 5 - 10 cm Leaf Shape: Oval Leaf Margins: Serrate Leaf Textures: Coarse Leaf Scent: No Fragance Color(growing season): Green Color(changing season): Yellow Flower Flower Showiness: True Flower Size Range: 7 - 10 Flower Type: Panicle Flower Image Flower Sexuality: Monoecious (Bisexual) Flower Scent: No Fragance Flower Color: Yellow Seasons: Spring Trunk Trunk Has Crownshaft: False Trunk Susceptibility to Breakage: Generally resists breakage Number of Trunks: Single Trunk Trunk Esthetic Values: Not Showy Fruit Fruit Type: Nut Fruit Showiness: True Fruit Size Range: 1.5 - 3 Fruit Colors: Brown Seasons: Spring Aesculus flava (Yellow buckeye, sweet
    [Show full text]
  • Cherry Little Cherry 'Virus'
    Prepared by CABI and EPPO for the EU under Contract 90/399003 Data Sheets on Quarantine Pests Cherry little cherry 'virus' IDENTITY Name: Cherry little cherry 'virus' Synonyms: K & S disease, K & S little cherry Taxonomic position: Uncertain Common names: Little cherry (English) Petite cerise (French) Kleinfrüchtigkeit der Kirsche (German) Cereza pequeña (Spanish) Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature: The pathogen is graft-transmissible and infected plants contain flexuous filamentous virus-like particles (Ragetti et al., 1982) and pathogen- specific ds-RNA (Hamilton et al., 1980). A virus-like pathogen thus probably causes little cherry disease (Eastwell et al., 1996). EPPO computer code: CRLCXX EU Annex designation: II/A1 - for non-European isolates HOSTS Sweet cherry (Prunus avium) is the most sensitive host of the disease which causes fruit symptoms also in sour cherry (P. cerasus) and in P. pensylvanica. The ornamental cherries P. incisa, P. serrulata, P. sieboldii, P. subhirtella and P. yedoensis are often latently infected, especially the cultivars of the oriental flowering cherry P. serrulata including the cvs Kanzan and Shirofugen. P. emarginata, P. mahaleb and P. tomentosa were demonstrated as further tolerant hosts of the pathogen, while apricots, plums, peaches and P. virginiana could not be infected in experiments to transmit the pathogen of little cherry disease by bud-inoculation (Welsh & Cheney, 1976). With the exception of the American wild cherry species P. emarginata and P. pensylvanica, all host plants are cultivated in Europe as fruit trees or ornamental plants; sweet cherry and P. mahaleb are also endemic wild species. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION The disease, which originated in Japan, is probably now distributed world-wide in latently infected ornamental cherries.
    [Show full text]
  • Amur Maple Acer Ginnala Maxim., Syn Acer Tataricum Ssp
    MN NWAC Risk Common Name Latin Name Assessment Worksheet (04-2011) Amur maple Acer ginnala Maxim., syn Acer tataricum ssp. ginnala Reviewer Affiliation/Organization Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Laura Van Riper, MN Department of Natural Resources, 09/17/2015 Tim Power MN Nursery and Landscape Association Box Question Answer Outcome 1 Is the plant species or genotype non-native? Yes. Amur maple is native to Asia. Go to Box 3 3 Is the plant species, or a related species, Yes. Go to Box 6 documented as being a problem elsewhere? Regulated as a Restricted Invasive Species In Wisconsin (all cultivars exempt) (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Invasives/fact/AmurMaple.html). Ranked as moderately invasive in New York (http://www.nyis.info/user_uploads/4a6d0_1db2a_Acer.g innala.NYS.pdf). Listed on Illinois Departments of Natural Resources Exotic Species webpages (http://dnr.state.il.us/education/exoticspecies/amurmaple. htm). NatureServe I rank of Medium/Insignificant (http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?sear chName=Acer+ginnala). Listed as potentially invasive, but not banned in Connecticut (http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&stat efips=09, http://cipwg.uconn.edu/invasive_plant_list/). 6 Does the plant species have the capacity to Yes. Go to Box 7 establish and survive in Minnesota? 1 Box Question Answer Outcome A. Is the plant, or a close relative, currently Yes. Go to Box 7 established in Minnesota? Amur maple has been widely planted in Minnesota. EDDMaps reports Amur maple as present in 42 counties in Minnesota, especially in the northeastern part of the state (http://eddmaps.org/distribution/uscounty.cfm?sub=3965 ).
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Unit Summaries for Springwater Corridor (SCOR)
    Vegetation Unit Summaries for Springwater Corridor (SCOR) Report date: 3/27/2007 '*' = non-native invasive species Visit data as of: 3/27/2007 Unit rSCOR*104 Size: 0.16 Acres NVCS Subclass: Deciduous forest % Tree canopy: 60% % Non-Native Cover: 90 Slope: na Aspect: na Visit date: 8/2/2006 Wetland indicators: Streams, Hydrophilic Vegetation. (Surface water was present) Dominant Trees: red alder (Alnus rubra). Dominant Shrubs: Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor*). Shrubs > 20% cover: red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea ssp. sericea). Dominant Grasses: reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea* > 50% cover). Additional Invasives: yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus*), bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara*). Ecological Health: Fair. Primary Management concerns: heavy level of invasive species, Stream Bank Erosion. Unit rSCOR*105 Size: 7.54 Acres NVCS Subclass: Deciduous woodland % Tree canopy: 55% % Non-Native Cover: 90 Slope: na Aspect: na Visit date: 8/2/2006 Wetland indicators: Streams, Hydrophilic Vegetation. (Surface water was present) Dominant Trees: red alder (Alnus rubra). Dominant Shrubs: Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor*). Shrubs > 20% cover: red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea ssp. sericea). Dominant Grasses: reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea* > 50% cover). Additional Invasives: yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus*), bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara*). Ecological Health: Fair. Primary Management concerns: heavy level of invasive species, Stream Bank Erosion. Unit rSCOR*108 Size: 0.32 Acres NVCS Subclass: Deciduous woodland % Tree canopy: 40% % Non-Native Cover: 90 Slope: na Aspect: na Visit date: 8/2/2006 Wetland indicators: Streams, Hydrophilic Vegetation. (Surface water was present) Dominant Trees: red alder (Alnus rubra). Dominant Shrubs: Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor*). Dominant Grasses: reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea* > 50% cover).
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Standards 11
    LANDSCAPE STANDARDS 11 Section 11 describes the landscape guidelines and standards for the Badger Mountain South community. 11.A Introduction.................................................11-2 11.B Guiding Principles..............................................11-2 11.C Common Standards Applicable to all Districts......11-3 11.D Civic and Commercial District Standards................11-4 11.E Residential Standards........................................11-4 11.F Drought Tolerant and/or Native/Naturalized Plant List ......................................................11-5 - 11-11 11.G Refined Plant List....................................11-12 - 11-15 Issue Date: 12-07-10 Badger Mountain South: A Walkable and Sustainable Community, Richland, WA 11-1 11.A INTRODUCTION 11.B GUIDING PRINCIPLES The landscape guidelines and standards which follow are intended to complement the natural beauty of the Badger Mountain Preserve, help define the Badger Mountain South neighborhoods and commercial areas and provide a visually pleasant gateway into the City of Richland. The landscape character of the Badger Mountain South community as identified in these standards borrows heavily from the precedent of the original shrub-steppe landscape found here. However that historical character is joined with other opportunities for a more refined and urban landscape pattern that relates to edges of uses and defines spaces into activity areas. This section is divided into the following sub-sections: Guiding Principles, which suggest the overall orientation for all landscape applications; Common Standards, which apply to all Districts; District-specific landscape standards; and finally extensive plant lists of materials suitable in a variety of situations. 1. WATER CONSERVATION WATER CONSERVATION continued 2. REGIONAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER a. Drought tolerant plants. d. Design for low maintenance. a.
    [Show full text]