DOCSLIB.ORG

Petition to List Yellow-Cedar, Callitropsis Nootkatensis, Under the Endangered Species Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petition to List Yellow-Cedar, Callitropsis Nootkatensis, Under the Endangered Species Act PETITION TO LIST YELLOW-CEDAR, CALLITROPSIS NOOTKATENSIS, UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Photo Credit: Walter Siegmund CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PETITIONER THE BOAT COMPANY, PETITIONER GREATER SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVTION COMMUNITY, PETITIONER GREENPEACE, PETITIONER JUNE 24, 2014 NOTICE OF PETITION Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20240 Phone: (202) 208-3100 [email protected] Dan Ashe, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop 3012 Washington, D.C. 20240 Phone: (202) 208-4717 Dan_ashe@ USFWS.gov Geoffrey Haskett, Regional Director Alaska Regional Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 geoff_haskett@ USFWS.gov PETITIONERS Kiersten Lippmann Center for Biological Diversity PO Box 100599 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-0599 [email protected] Kiersten Lippmann June XX, 2014 Conservation Biologist Center for Biological Diversity Phone: 907-793-8691 PO Box 100599, Anchorage, AK, 99510-0599 [email protected] www.BiologicalDiversity.org Hunter McIntosh The Boat Company 18819 3rd Ave. NE, Ste. 200 PO Box 1839 Poulsbo, WA 98370-0258 202-338-8055 Joe Mehrkens Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Community PO Box 6064 Sitka, AK, 99835 [email protected] Larry Edwards Alaska Forest Campaigner Greenpeace Box 6484 Sitka, AK, 99835 907-747-7557 Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §1533(b), Section 553(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), and 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(a), the Center for Biological Diversity, the Boat Company, Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Community (GSACC), and Greenpeace (collectively “Petitioners”) hereby petition the Secretary of the Interior, through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), to list the Yellow-cedar tree, Callitropsis nootkatensis, as a threatened or endangered species. The Center for Biological Diversity works through science, law, and policy to secure a future for all species, great or small, hovering on the brink of extinction. The Center has 775,000 members throughout Alaska and the United States. The Center and its members are concerned with the conservation of imperiled species, including the yellow-cedar tree, and the effective implementation of the ESA. The Boat Company is a nonprofit educational and charitable organization with a 35-year history of offering wilderness cruises in southeast Alaska, helping to build a strong constituency for wildlife and wildlands conservation through personal experience. GSACC's mission is to defend and promote the biological integrity of Southeast Alaska’s terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems for the benefit of current and future generations. Greenpeace is the leading independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and to promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future. USFWS has jurisdiction over this petition. This petition sets in motion a specific process, placing definite response requirements on USFWS. Specifically, USFWS must issue an initial finding as to whether the petition “presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A). USFWS must make this initial finding “[t]o the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving the petition.” Id. Petitioners need not demonstrate that a listing is warranted; rather, Petitioners must only present information demonstrating that such listing may be warranted. While Petitioners believe that the best available science demonstrates that listing the yellow-cedar tree as endangered is in fact warranted, there can be no reasonable dispute that the available information indicates that listing the species as either threatened or endangered may be warranted. As such, USFWS must promptly make a positive initial finding on the petition and commence a status review as required by 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B). Table of Contents Petition to List Yellow-cedar, Callitropsis nootkatensis, under the Endangered Species Act .............................................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................7 I. Natural History, cultural importance, and economics of the yellow-cedar ..................9 A. Taxonomy and Naming ............................................................................................9 1. Taxonomic Nomenclature.....................................................................................9 2. Common Name ......................................................................................................9 B. Cultural and Economic Importance .......................................................................10 1. Cultural Importance.............................................................................................10 2. Economic Importance .........................................................................................11 C. Biology, lifecycle, and ecological role ..................................................................11 1. Lifecycle ..............................................................................................................11 2. Reproduction and Genetics .................................................................................13 3. Ecological Value of Yellow-cedar .....................................................................14 D. Distribution and Preferred Habitat .........................................................................18 II. Conservation Status: Yellow-cedar Decline .................................................................20 A. Introduction .............................................................................................................20 B. Physiological Factors Related to Decline: Root-Freezing of Yellow-cedar........24 1. Spring and Winter Dehardening .........................................................................24 2. Nutrient Acquisition Strategies ..........................................................................27 C. Mapping and Evaluating Risk factors for Yellow-cedar Decline ........................28 1. Yellow-cedar Decline and Climate: Regional Snow-Cover and Temperature28 2. Yellow-cedar Decline and Landscape Features: Slope, Aspect, Elevation .....30 3. Yellow-cedar Decline and Site-specific Conditions: Canopy Cover, Snow Cover, Air and Soil Temperature, Hydrology, and Soil Chemistry............................31 III. Yellow-cedar must be listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA ..............33 A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range ..............................................................................................................................34 1. The Earth’s Changing Climate ...........................................................................34 2. Climate Change in Southeast Alaska and British Columbia ............................35 3. Climate Change and Yellow-cedar Decline ......................................................37 4. Projected Range-wide Decline of Yellow-cedar ...............................................44 5. Habitat Threats Summary ...................................................................................45 B. Overutilization of the Species for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes .........................................................................................................46 1. The Tongass National Forest Timber Sale Program Targets Areas with Yellow-Cedar for Large Timber Sales..........................................................................46 2. Commercial Logging Exacerbates Yellow-Cedar Decline ...............................48 C. Disease and Predation .............................................................................................50 1. Root Disease ........................................................................................................51 2. Fungus and Insects ..............................................................................................51 3. Invasive Pathogens ..............................................................................................52 4. Bears and Deer.....................................................................................................52 D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms ....................................................52 1. Regulatory Mechanisms Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change are Inadequate ...................................................................................................52 2. Regulatory Mechanisms Addressing Management and Logging of Yellow- Cedar in the Face of Climate Change Are Inadequate.................................................57 E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence ..............58 IV. Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................59 V. Management Recommendations ...................................................................................60 A. Genetic Conservation ..............................................................................................61
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vietnamese Conifers and Some Problems of Their Sustainable Utilization Ke Loc Et Al
    Vietnamese conifers and some problems of their sustainable utilization Ke Loc et al. Vietnamese conifers and some problems of their sustainable utilization Phan Ke Loc 1, 2, Nguyen Tien Hiep 2, Nguyen Duc To Luu 3, Philip Ian Thomas 4, Aljos Farjon 5, L.V. Averyanov 6, J.C. Regalado, Jr. 7, Nguyen Sinh Khang 2, Georgina Magin 8, Paul Mathew 8, Sara Oldfield 9, Sheelagh O’Reilly 8, Thomas Osborn 10, Steven Swan 8 and To Van Thao 2 1 University of Natural Science, Vietnam National University, Hanoi; 2 Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources; 3 Vietnam Central Forest Seed Company; 4 Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh; 5 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; 6 Komarov Botanical Institute; 7 Missouri Botanical Garden; 8 Fauna & Flora International; 9 Global Trees Campaign; 10 Independent Consultant Introduction Vietnam is now recognized as one of the top ten global conifer conservation ‘hotspots’, as defined by the Conifer Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Vietnam’s conifer flora has approximately 34 species that are indigenous to the country, making up about 5% of conifers known worldwide. Although conifers represent only less than 0.3% of the total number of higher vascular plant species of Vietnam, they are of great ecological, cultural and economic importance. Most conifer wood is prized for its high value in house construction, furniture making, etc. The decline of conifer populations in Vietnam has caused serious concern among scientists. Threats to conifer species are substantial and varied, ranging from logging (both commercial and subsistence), land clearing for agriculture, and forest fire. Over the past twelve years (1995-2006), Vietnam Botanical Conservation Program (VBCP), a scientific cooperation between the Missouri Botanical Garden in Saint Louis and the Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources in Hanoi, has conducted various studies on this important group of plants in order to gather baseline information necessary to make sound recommendations for their conservation and sustainable use.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Conservation of Tree Species by Botanic Gardens: a Reference Manual Integrated Conservation of Tree Species by Botanic Gardens: a Reference Manual
    Integrated conservation of tree species by botanic gardens: a reference manual Integrated conservation of tree species by botanic gardens: a reference manual Compiled by: Sara Oldfield and Adrian C. Newton November 2012 Acknowledgements Many individUals have generoUsly contribUted their time to the preparation of this manUal and are acknowledged with gratitUde. Andrea Kramer provided sUbstantial Recommended citation: comments on an early draft and helped to shape the Oldfield, S. and Newton, A.C. 2012. strUctUre and content of the manUal greatly enhancing Integrated conservation of tree species by the final docUment. Larry Stritch critically reviewed the botanic gardens: a reference manUal. final draft and provided valUable improvements to the Botanic Gardens Conservation International, text. Ildiko Whitton provided assistance with research Richmond, United Kingdom throUghoUt the preparation of the manUal and prepared case stUdies as noted in the text. GratefUl thanks are ISBN-10: 1-905164-44-0 also dUe to Bart C. O’Brien, Joachim Gratzfeld, Dan ISBN-13: 978-1-905164-44-8 LUscombe, Megan Marrison, Matt Parratt, Lorraine Perrins, Simon Marshall and Mark Nicholson for the Cover image: provision of expert case stUdies. Thank yoU also to Barney Wilczak/Wilczak Photography.co.Uk Professor Patricio Arce, Corey Barnes, Lillian ChUa, Allen Coombes, Tonya Lander, Dr Philip Moors, Maricela Design: RodrigUez Acosta and Xiangying Wen. We acknowledge Seascape. www.seascapedesign.co.Uk the major contribUtion of Professor Zeng Qingwen to the conservation of Magnolia spp. Zeng Qingwen Published by prepared the case stUdy on p 35. He died in the field Botanic Gardens Conservation International whilst collecting Magnolia specimens in 2012 and will Descanso HoUse, 199 Kew Road, Richmond, be remembered by the international botanical SUrrey, TW9 3BW, United Kingdom commUnity for his skills, enthUsiasm and willingness © BGCI 2012 to share information.
    [Show full text]
  • Malik Index Plantarum 2011
    Malik Index Plantarum 2011 Listed about 4500 conifer cultivars in the Malík Gardens with 3050 photos. Gardenweb Galleries 2011 San Sebastian Broom Gem San Sebastian Broom World San Sebastian Broom World 2 San Sebastian Broom World 3 San Sebastian Broom World 4 San Sebastian Broom World 5 San Sebastian Broom World 6 San Sebastian Broom World 7 San Sebastian Broom World 8 San Sebastian Broom World 9 San Sebastian Broom World 10 San Sebastian Broom World 11 San Sebastian Broom World 12 Krejci Gardens 1 San Sebastian Broom World 13 Krejci Gardens 2 San Sebastian Broom World 14 Krejci Gardens 3 San Sebastian Broom World 15 The Simanek Family San Sebastian Broom World 16 Malik Collection Broom University Broom Universe 2 Broom Universe 3 Broom Universe 4 Valenta Gardens CZ Broom Universe 5 Malik Gardens CZ Broom Universe 6 Malik Gardens CZ Broom Universe 7 - Conifer Meeting at Malik Gardens CZ Broom Universe 8 Krejci Gardens CZ Broom Universe 9 The Pinus cembra Saga 1 Broom Universe 10 The Pinus cembra Saga 2 Broom Universe 11 The Pinus cembra Saga 3 Broom Universe 12 The Pinus cembra Saga 4 Broom Universe 13 The Pinus cembra Saga 5 Broom Universe 14 The Pinus cembra Saga 6 Broom Universe 15 The Pinus cembra Saga 7 Broom Universe 16 The Pinus cembra Saga 8 Broom Universe 17 Czech finds in the States Broom Universe 18 Doug brooms Broom Universe 19 Pinus leucodermis brooms Broom Universe 20 Doug brooms 2 Broom Universe 21 Doug brooms 3 Broom Universe 22 Fir brooms Broom Universe 23 The Pinus cembra Saga 9 Broom Universe 24 The Pinus cembra Saga
    [Show full text]
  • The Convention on Biological Diversity Plant Conservation Report a Review of Progress in Implementing the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) Foreword
    The Convention on Biological Diversity Plant Conservation Report A review of progress in implementing the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) Foreword t is a pleasure for me to contribute a foreword for this important report documenting the progress that has been made worldwide towards the achievement of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC). The adoption by the Convention on Biological Diversity of the Strategy in 2002 was a major achievement Ifor biodiversity conservation worldwide. It provided much needed and urgent recognition not only of the importance of plants for humanity but also of the critical threats faced by tens of thousands of plant species throughout the world. The unique importance of plants as essential renewable natural resources and as the basis for most terrestrial ecosystems demanded that such a strategy was required to help halt the loss of plant diversity and raise new awareness of the threats faced by plants. The Strategy was also an extremely innovative advance fo r the Convention too as it incorporated for the first time a series of targets for biodiversity conservation, aimed at achieving measurable plant conservation outcomes by 2010. The catalytic role of the Strategy in stimulating new programmes and initiatives at all levels has been significant too, linking a wide range of organisations and institutions in support of the Strategy. It is clear that much new plant conservation action has been encouraged and supported by the GSPC to date, including the generation of substantial new resources for biodiversity conservation that would not otherwise have become available without the Strategy. This report shows that substantial progress has been made towards reaching some of the GSPC targets, although for others it has been limited and will require renewed effort by the international community if they are to be achieved.
    [Show full text]
  • Nootkatensis, Secondary Metabolites, Biological Activities, and Chemical Ecology
    Journal of Chemical Ecology (2018) 44:510–524 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-018-0956-y REVIEW ARTICLE Yellow-Cedar, Callitropsis (Chamaecyparis) nootkatensis, Secondary Metabolites, Biological Activities, and Chemical Ecology Joseph J. Karchesy1 & Rick G. Kelsey2 & M. P. González-Hernández3 Received: 22 December 2017 /Revised: 26 March 2018 /Accepted: 28 March 2018 /Published online: 14 April 2018 # This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection 2018 Abstract Yellow-cedar, Callitropsis nootkatensis, is prevalent in coastal forests of southeast Alaska, western Canada, and inland forests along the Cascades to northern California, USA. These trees have few microbial or animal pests, attributable in part to the distinct groups of biologically active secondary metabolites their tissues store for chemical defense. Here we summarize the new yellow-cedar compounds identified and their biological activities, plus new or expanded activities for tissues, extracts, essential oils and previously known compounds since the last review more than 40 years ago. Monoterpene hydrocarbons are the most abundant compounds in foliage, while heartwood contains substantial quantities of oxygenated monoterpenes and oxygenated sesquiterpenes, with one or more tropolones. Diterpenes occur in foliage and bark, whereas condensed tannins have been isolated from inner bark. Biological activities expressed by one or more compounds in these groups include fungicide, bactericide, sporicide, acaricide, insecticide, general cytotoxicity, antioxidant and human anticancer. The diversity of organisms impacted by whole tissues, essential oils, extracts, or individual compounds now encompasses ticks, fleas, termites, ants, mos- quitoes, bacteria, a water mold, fungi and browsing animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Abies Koreana Abies
    Conifers for Urban & Community Forests: The Good, the Bad, and the Underused Bert Cregg, Ph.D. Michigan State University Department of Horticulture & Department of Forestry John Ruter, Ph.D. University of Georgia Department of Horticulture Why conifers? • Year-round interest – Evergreen – Bark – Cones • Botanically interesting • Often low maintenance • Add unique form, texture, color to landscape Why conifers? • Variety of design functions – Specimens – Contrast elements – Borders – Mass as background • Increased interest in dwarf and unusual forms Understanding Conifers What is a conifer ? What is a conifer ? • Conifer - Latin for ‘cone bearing’ • Male and female strobili rather than flowers • Wind pollinated • Some have fleshy cones • Leaved needle-like or scale like • Mostly evergreen Ornamental conifer nurseries typically list conifers based on American Conifer Society specifications • Size class • Form class Conifer sizes Miniature <1” per year Conifer sizes Dwarf 1-6” per year Conifer sizes Intermediate 6”-12”per year Conifer sizes Large >1’ per year Conifer forms • Globose: globe-like or rounded in general outline. Conifer forms • Pendulous: upright or mounding with varying degrees of weeping branches. Conifer forms • Narrow upright: much taller than broad; includes plants referred to as fastigiate, columnar, narrowly pyramidal or narrowly conical. • Conifer forms • Prostrate: ground- hugging, carpeting plants without an inclination to grow upward. Conifer forms • Broad upright: includes all other upright plants with do not fit into categories 1-3. Conifer forms • Spreading: wider than tall. Conifer forms • Irregular: erratic growth pattern. Conifer forms • Culturally altered: pruned or trained into formal or imaginative shapes, such as high grafts or standards. Conifer forms • Culturally altered: pruned or trained into formal or imaginative shapes, such as high grafts or standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Polly Hill Arboretum Plant Collection Inventory March 14, 2011 *See
    Polly Hill Arboretum Plant Collection Inventory March 14, 2011 Accession # Name COMMON_NAME Received As Location* Source 2006-21*C Abies concolor White Fir Plant LMB WEST Fragosa Landscape 93-017*A Abies concolor White Fir Seedling ARB-CTR Wavecrest Nursery 93-017*C Abies concolor White Fir Seedling WFW,N1/2 Wavecrest Nursery 2003-135*A Abies fargesii Farges Fir Plant N Morris Arboretum 92-023-02*B Abies firma Japanese Fir Seed CR5 American Conifer Soc. 82-097*A Abies holophylla Manchurian Fir Seedling NORTHFLDW Morris Arboretum 73-095*A Abies koreana Korean Fir Plant CR4 US Dept. of Agriculture 73-095*B Abies koreana Korean Fir Plant ARB-W US Dept. of Agriculture 97-020*A Abies koreana Korean Fir Rooted Cutting CR2 Jane Platt 2004-289*A Abies koreana 'Silberlocke' Korean Fir Plant CR1 Maggie Sibert 59-040-01*A Abies lasiocarpa 'Martha's Vineyard' Arizona Fir Seed ARB-E Longwood Gardens 59-040-01*B Abies lasiocarpa 'Martha's Vineyard' Arizona Fir Seed WFN,S.SIDE Longwood Gardens 64-024*E Abies lasiocarpa var. arizonica Subalpine Fir Seedling NORTHFLDE C. E. Heit 2006-275*A Abies mariesii Maries Fir Seedling LNNE6 Morris Arboretum 2004-226*A Abies nephrolepis Khingan Fir Plant CR4 Morris Arboretum 2009-34*B Abies nordmanniana Nordmann Fir Plant LNNE8 Morris Arboretum 62-019*A Abies nordmanniana Nordmann Fir Graft CR3 Hess Nursery 62-019*B Abies nordmanniana Nordmann Fir Graft ARB-CTR Hess Nursery 62-019*C Abies nordmanniana Nordmann Fir Graft CR3 Hess Nursery 62-028*A Abies nordmanniana Nordmann Fir Plant ARB-W Critchfield Tree Fm 95-029*A Abies nordmanniana Nordmann Fir Seedling NORTHFLDN Polly Hill Arboretum 86-046*A Abies nordmanniana ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Cupressaceae) Andan Zhu1,2,3†, Weishu Fan1,2,3†, Robert P
    Zhu et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology (2018) 18:137 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1258-2 RESEARCHARTICLE Open Access Phylogenomic evidence for ancient recombination between plastid genomes of the Cupressus-Juniperus-Xanthocyparis complex (Cupressaceae) Andan Zhu1,2,3†, Weishu Fan1,2,3†, Robert P. Adams4 and Jeffrey P. Mower1,2* Abstract Background: Phylogenetic relationships among Eastern Hemisphere cypresses, Western Hemisphere cypresses, junipers, and their closest relatives are controversial, and generic delimitations have been in flux for the past decade. To address relationships and attempt to produce a more robust classification, we sequenced 11 new plastid genomes (plastomes) from the five variously described genera in this complex (Callitropsis, Cupressus, Hesperocyparis, Juniperus,and Xanthocyparis) and compared them with additional plastomes from diverse members of Cupressaceae. Results: Phylogenetic analysis of protein-coding genes recovered a topology in which Juniperus is sister to Cupressus, whereas a tree based on whole plastomes indicated that the Callitropsis-Hesperocyparis-Xanthocyparis (CaHX) clade is sister to Cupressus. A sliding window analysis of site-specific phylogenetic support identified a ~ 15 kb region, spanning the genes ycf1 and ycf2, which harbored an anomalous signal relative to the rest of the genome. After excluding these genes, trees based on the remainder of the genes and genome consistently recovered a topology grouping the CaHX clade and Cupressus with strong bootstrap support. In contrast, trees based on the ycf1 and ycf2 region strongly supported a sister relationship between Cupressus and Juniperus. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that standard phylogenomic analyses can result in strongly supported but conflicting trees. We suggest that the conflicting plastomic signals result from an ancient introgression event involving ycf1 and ycf2 that occurred in an ancestor of this species complex.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Glauca Pendula' Cephalotaxus Harringtonia 'Duke Gardens'
    CONIFER GARDEN TREE LIST (Conifer tree list for web.doc) [6/17/12 edition] Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name 101 Atlantic whitecedar Chamaecyparis thyoides ‘Glauca Pendula’ 219 Japanese plum yew Cephalotaxus harringtonia ‘Duke Gardens’ 102 Atlantic whitecedar Chamaecyparis thyoides ‘Glauca Pendula’ 220 Eastern arborvitae Thuja occidentalis ‘Sherwood Moss’ 103 Baldcypress Taxodium distichum 221 Japanese white pine Pinus parviflora ‘Tanima-No-Yuki’ 104 Japanese red pine Pinus densiflora ‘Oculus-Draconis’ 222 Chinese juniper Juniperus procumbens ‘Nana’ 105 Baldcypress Taxodium distichum 223 Canadian hemlock Tsuga canadensis 106 Alaska cedar Xanthocyparis nootkatensis 224 Dawn redwood Metasequoia glyptostroboides 107 Korean pine Pinus koraiensis 225 Colorado spruce Picea pungens ‘St. Mary’s Broom’ 108 Baldcypress Taxodium distichum ‘Peve Minaret’ 226 Scotch pine Pinus sylvestris ‘Albyn’ 109 Chinese juniper Juniperus procumbens ‘Nana’ 227 Japanese falsecypress Chamaecyparis pisifera ‘Sawara’ 110 Eastern white pine Pinus strobus 228 Norway spruce Picea abies ‘Pendula’ 111 Eastern arborvitae Thuja occidentalis ‘Degroots Spire’ 229 Atlantic whitecedar Chamaecyparis thyoides ‘Little Jamie’ 112 Atlas cedar Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca Pendula’ 230 Baldcypress Taxodium distichum ‘Peve Minaret’ 113 231 Alcock’s spruce Picea alcoquiana ‘Howells Dwarf Tigertail’ 114 Eastern arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 232 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba ‘Chase Manhattan’ 115 Contorted deodar cedar Cedrus deodara ‘Twisted Growth’ 233 Hinoki falsecypress Chamaecyparis
    [Show full text]
  • Xanthocyparis Vietnamensis It Is Ten Years Since the First Introductions of This Conifer Were Made to Cultivation
    Xanthocyparis vietnamensis It is ten years since the first introductions of this conifer were made to cultivation. TOM CHRISTIAN assesses its performance in the United Kingdom and Ireland in this time. The Vietnamese yellow cypress caused a small sensation when it was first described to science in 2002. True, it didn’t have the same extraordinary PR machine and marketing behind it as the Wollemi pine, but never the less it has been a source of great interest and intrigue to all who know of it. The discovery of this new conifer is well documented, for example by Farjon (2008) and the ensuing nomenclatural disputes are, for the brave, outlined in Grimshaw & Bayton (2009). However this short article is concerned neither with the issue of Xanthocyparis vs. Cupressus vs. Callitropsis nor of lengthy botanical descriptions, but of what the last ten years have taught us about growing this enigmatic new conifer. The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh’s International Conifer Conservation Programme (ICCP) first introduced this species to cultivation in the UK through cuttings. These cuttings were excess from experiments conducted in Vietnam as part of the ‘Northern Vietnam First Darwin Expedition’ – an international collaboration – and were brought to Edinburgh under full 50 permission and permits in November 2002. More cutting material followed in 2003, and RBGE horticulturists began to bulk up the collections through vegetative propagation. Like so many other members of the Cupressaceae, X. vietnamensis was found to come relatively easily from cuttings. Semi-ripe heel cuttings of the adult foliage, taken in the autumn and dusted with a medium-strength rooting hormone powder will usually root within three months when placed in a 50:50 mix of coir and perlite in a fogging unit or on a mist bench with gentle bottom heat.
    [Show full text]
  • 21St Century Plant Identification Because It Does Not Ally with Other Petroselinum Species (E.G., P
    VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1 OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY FEBRUARY 2007 21st century plant identification because it does not ally with other Petroselinum species (e.g., P. by Aaron Liston & Richard Halse crispum, parsley) and might be a new genus.” Petroselinum segetum (L.) Koch, or “corn caraway,” is a Every year, new plants are discovered in Oregon. These are weed of arable land and hedgerows in northwestern Europe. In not “new species” unknown to science, but rather species that fact, it is considered a declining species in Great Britain, where are well known somewhere else in the world, but have never modern agricultural practices have greatly reduced its native been found growing in this state. Although occasionally new habitat. It does not seem to be a very “successful” weed, and native plants are discovered in Oregon, most of the additions to this is apparently the first report of corn caraway outside of the state flora are introduced species, native to other parts of the its native range. Unlike many Apiaceae, the plant has neither world. One such plant was found by Richard Halse last year in ornamental nor culinary attraction, and thus it is not a plant late September. It was growing on the gravel road shoulder of that is grown in gardens. How it came to a roadside in Douglas State Highway 42 northeast of Camas Valley in Douglas Coun- County, Oregon is a mystery that may never be solved. ty. The plants formed a couple of small patches and were obvi- With a name in hand, we returned to check the venerable ously in the Apiaceae (Umbelliferae – Carrot Family).
    [Show full text]
  • In the Past Three Editions of Conifer Corner, We've Worked Our Way
    By Bert Cregg, Ph.D. Michigan State University, Department of Horticulture and Department of Forestry In the past three editions of Conifer Corner, we’ve worked our way through the various size classes of conifers recognized by the American Conifer Society (ACS). In this edition, I’ll conclude the discussion with the big boys: Large Conifers. December 2007 19 The ACS defines large conifers as trees that at Hidden Lake Gardens contains over 500 grow one foot or more per year and reach a height plants of every color, shape and size imaginable, of 15 feet by age ten. In nature, many conifers yet invariably it is the large conifers that make Among the — especially members of the Pinaceae — are the most lasting impression. Every visitor to the large trees. In fact, their large size is one of the Harper Collection will have a different favorite, four size attributes that makes conifers such a fascinating but the large conifers such as the Taxodium group of plants. The tallest (379' Coast Redwood, distichum ‘Pendens’, Cedrus libani var. stenocoma, classes Sequoia sempervirens) and largest (325" diameter Picea omorika ‘Pendula’, and Chamaecyparis Giant Sequoia, Sequoiadendron giganteum) trees nootkatensis ‘Pendula’ stop nearly everyone in recognized in the world are conifers. their tracks. Among the four size classes recognized From a landscape design and use perspective, by the ACS, large conifers represent the most by the large conifers present both a challenge and diverse group in terms of species. Dwarf conifers ACS, large opportunity. The challenge, of course, is that have the largest number of total entries in the ACS large conifers can overwhelm a small space or database, but this reflects the large number of conifers interfere with overhead utilities if not sited properly.
    [Show full text]