DOCSLIB.ORG

Effects of Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera Maackii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effects of Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera Maackii Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Open Access Dissertations Theses and Dissertations Fall 2013 Effects of Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii [Rupr.] Herder) Invasion and Removal on Native Vegetation and White-Footed Mice (Peromyscus leucopus) in Mixed-Hardwood Forests of Indiana Joshua Michael Shields Purdue University Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Shields, Joshua Michael, "Effects of Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii [Rupr.] Herder) Invasion and Removal on Native Vegetation and White-Footed Mice (Peromyscus leucopus) in Mixed-Hardwood Forests of Indiana" (2013). Open Access Dissertations. 60. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/60 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Graduate School ETD Form 9 (Revised 12/07) PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared By Joshua M. Shields Entitled Effects of Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii [Rupr.] Herder) invasion and removal on native vegetation and white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) in mixed-hardwood forests of Indiana Doctor of Philosophy For the degree of Is approved by the final examining committee: Michael Jenkins John B. Dunning Chair Michael Saunders Kevin Gibson Patrick Zollner To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Research Integrity and Copyright Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 20), this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of Purdue University’s “Policy on Integrity in Research” and the use of copyrighted material. Approved by Major Professor(s): ____________________________________Michael Jenkins ____________________________________ Approved by: Robert K. Swihart 09/11/2013 Head of the Graduate Program Date 1 EFFECTS OF AMUR HONEYSUCKLE (Lonicera maackii [Rupr.] Herder) INVASION AND REMOVAL ON NATIVE VEGETATION AND WHITE- FOOTED MICE (Peromyscus leucopus) IN MIXED-HARDWOOD FORESTS OF INDIANA A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Joshua M. Shields In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2013 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii For my mother and step-father, father and step-mother, grandparents (Shields and Castellon), and the rest of my family and friends who provided much love and support during my time at Purdue. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I’d like to thank my primary advisor Dr. Michael Jenkins and my graduate committee members Dr. Michael Saunders, Dr. Patrick Zollner, Dr. John Dunning, Jr., and Dr. Kevin Gibson for helping with every imaginable aspect of my research project at Purdue. I’d also like to thank Dr. Hao Zhang, Dr. Olin E. Rhodes, Jr., Dr. Marc Kéry, Dr. Gary White, Rob Morrissey, Justin Arseneault, Rita Blythe, and Lindsey Reschke for help with the study design, data analyses, and/or for commenting on implications. Thanks also to Dr. Hao Zhang, Dr. Christopher Webster, and Dr. Robert Swihart for reviewing earlier versions of manuscripts that will result from this dissertation. Thanks to Lindsay Jenkins, Rob Quackenbush, Kyle Leffel, Amanda Parks, Michael Loesch-Fries, Brian Bailey, Caleb Brown, Justin Schmal, Brian Beheler, Oriana Rueda Krauss, Seth Howard, Amy Wetzel, Taryn Clark, Crystal Bevis, Lindsey Purcell, Jeff Clark, Dr. Rick Meilan, Shelly Newman (mother), and Randy Newman (step-father) for their help collecting/entering data, removing invasive species, loaning us equipment, and/or cleaning Sherman traps. Thanks to Matt Kraushar, Dr. Zach Lowe, Keith Ruble, and Greg Ressler for advice on herbicide application. I’d also like to thank Burk Thompson, Andy Meier, Don Carlson, Brent Pursell, Dr. Kerry Rabenold, Mike Mycroft, Mike List, Jeff Cummings, Dave Rader, Roy Dane, Doug Ucci, Jay Young, and Kevin Leuck for helping find study sites and/or granting permission to work on properties. Thanks to Mike Homoya and Sally Weeks for their help identifying plant specimens. iv Thanks to Jennifer Spitznagle, Janis Gosewehr, Theresa Baker, Marlene Mann, Shelly Opperman, and Julie Pluimer for their help with business-related tasks. I’d also like to thank Purdue University, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources and the Hardwood Tree Improvement and Regeneration Center for their support. Other financial support was provided by the Purdue Doctoral Fellowship and the Frederick N. Andrews and Russell O. Blosser Environmental Travel Grant programs. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... xvi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1 1.1 The Problem with Invasive Species ...........................................................1 1.2 Amur Honeysuckle .....................................................................................4 1.3 Objectives of Dissertation ..........................................................................8 CHAPTER 2 AGE DISTRIBUTION AND SPATIAL PATTERNING OF AN INVASIVE SHRUB IN SECONDARY HARDWOOD FORESTS ...11 2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................11 2.2 Methods ....................................................................................................14 2.2.1 Study Sites ...........................................................................................14 2.2.2 Data Collection ....................................................................................15 2.2.3 Data Analyses ......................................................................................17 2.3 Results ......................................................................................................23 2.4 Discussion ................................................................................................25 vi Page CHAPTER 3 INFLUENCE OF INTENSITY AND DURATION OF INVASION BY AMUR HONEYSUCKLE (Lonicera maackii [Rupr.] Herder) WITHIN AND ACROSS MIXED-HARDWOOD FORESTS OF INDIANA .............................................................................................38 3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................38 3.2 Methods ....................................................................................................41 3.2.1 Study Sites ...........................................................................................41 3.2.2 Data Collection ....................................................................................43 3.2.3 Data Analyses ......................................................................................45 3.3 Results ......................................................................................................50 3.4 Discussion ................................................................................................53 CHAPTER 4 SHORT-TERM RESPONSE OF NATIVE FLORA TO THE REMOVAL OF NON-NATIVE SHRUBS IN MIXED-HARDWOOD FORESTS ...........................................................................................108 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................108 4.2 Methods ..................................................................................................112 4.2.1 Study Sites .........................................................................................112 4.2.2 Experimental Design .........................................................................113 4.2.3 Data Collection ..................................................................................114 4.2.4 Data Analyses ....................................................................................116 4.3 Results ....................................................................................................119 vii Page 4.3.1 Response of Amur honeysuckle ........................................................119 4.3.2 Response of native flora and garlic mustard .....................................119 4.4 Discussion ..............................................................................................125 CHAPTER 5 EFFECTS OF AMUR HONEYSUCKLE (Lonicera maackii [Rupr.] Herder) INVASION AND REMOVAL ON WHITE-FOOTED MICE (Peromyscus leucopus) .......................................................................167 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................167 5.2 Methods ..................................................................................................172 5.2.1 Study Sites .........................................................................................172 5.2.2 Experimental Design .........................................................................173 5.2.3 Data Collection ..................................................................................175 5.2.3.1 White-footed mice .............................................................................175
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lonicera Maackii Amur Honeysuckle
    Lonicera maackii (F.J. Ruprecht) C.J. Maximowicz Amur Honeysuckle (Caprifolium maackii, Xylosteon maackii) • Lonicera maackii is also known as Bush Honeysuckle; Amur Honeysuckle, which is a native of temperate Asia, forms a large deciduous irregular twiggy mound 12 to 15 tall with a similar or greater spread; growth rates can be rapid and plants can crowd out native vegetation; this is facilitated by the ability of Amur Honeysuckle to tolerate heavy shade until released; the gray pubescent buds of L. maackii can be distinguished from those of L. tatarica which are flattened and glabrous; the bluish green to medium green leaves of L. maackii are longer, 2 to 3 long, have mostly broadly cuneate to occasionally rounded bases, and acute to long acuminate tips while the medium to dark green leaves of L. tatarica are on average shorter, 1½ to 2½ long, with rounded to slightly cordate bases, and acute to short acuminate tips; new twigs have a whitish pubescence and may be flushed purple-red, later maturing to a gray-brown; excavated brown pith is present between the solid nodes; fall colors vary from almost nonexistent to a poor yellow; the tan-brown to gray- brown bark of old trunks develops vertical thin exfoliations. • A profusion of ¾ to 1 long white flowers are borne in spring, fading to a creamy yellow as they mature; flowers are generally reminiscent of those of L. japonica, flowers are produced in spring, occurring during or shortly after the foliage emerges; the flowers are followed by shiny, bright red, ¼to ½ diameter berries, produced mostly in one to two pairs per node, which hold into late winter if not eaten by birds or other wildlife.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE
    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
    [Show full text]
  • Lonicera Spp
    Species: Lonicera spp. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/lonspp/all.html SPECIES: Lonicera spp. Choose from the following categories of information. Introductory Distribution and occurrence Botanical and ecological characteristics Fire ecology Fire effects Fire case studies Management considerations References INTRODUCTORY SPECIES: Lonicera spp. AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION FEIS ABBREVIATION SYNONYMS NRCS PLANT CODE COMMON NAMES TAXONOMY LIFE FORM FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS OTHER STATUS AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION: Munger, Gregory T. 2005. Lonicera spp. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2007, September 24]. FEIS ABBREVIATIONS: LONSPP LONFRA LONMAA LONMOR LONTAT LONXYL LONBEL SYNONYMS: None NRCS PLANT CODES [172]: LOFR LOMA6 LOMO2 LOTA LOXY 1 of 67 9/24/2007 4:44 PM Species: Lonicera spp. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/lonspp/all.html LOBE COMMON NAMES: winter honeysuckle Amur honeysuckle Morrow's honeysuckle Tatarian honeysuckle European fly honeysuckle Bell's honeysuckle TAXONOMY: The currently accepted genus name for honeysuckle is Lonicera L. (Caprifoliaceae) [18,36,54,59,82,83,93,133,161,189,190,191,197]. This report summarizes information on 5 species and 1 hybrid of Lonicera: Lonicera fragrantissima Lindl. & Paxt. [36,82,83,133,191] winter honeysuckle Lonicera maackii Maxim. [18,27,36,54,59,82,83,131,137,186] Amur honeysuckle Lonicera morrowii A. Gray [18,39,54,60,83,161,186,189,190,197] Morrow's honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica L. [18,38,39,54,59,60,82,83,92,93,157,161,186,190,191] Tatarian honeysuckle Lonicera xylosteum L.
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Plants of the Southeast Flyer
    13 15 5 1 19 10 6 18 8 7 T o p 2 0 I n v a s i v e S p e c i e s 1. Chinese Privet, Ligustrum sinense 2. Nepalese Browntop, Microstegium vimineum 3. Autumn Olive, Elaeagnus umbellata 4. Chinese Wisteria, Wisteria sinensis & Japanese Wisteria, W. floribunda 5. Mimosa, Albizia julibrissin 6. Japanese Honeysuckle, Lonicera japonica 7. Amur Honeysuckle, Lonicera maackii 8. Multiflora Rose, Rosa multiflora 9. Hydrilla, Hydrilla verticillata 10. Kudzu, Pueraria montana 11. Golden Bamboo, Phyllostachys aurea 12. Oriental Bittersweet, Celastrus orbiculatus 13. English Ivy, Hedera helix 14. Tree-of-Heaven, Ailanthus altissima 15. Chinese Tallow, Sapium sebiferum 16. Chinese Princess Tree, Paulownia tomentosa 17. Japanese Knotweed, Polygonum cuspidatum 18. Silvergrass, Miscanthus sinensis 19. Thorny Olive, Elaeagnus pungens 20. Nandina, Nandina domestica The State Botanical Garden of Georgia and The Georgia Plant Conservation A l l i a n c e d e f i n i t i o n s you can help n a t i ve Avoid disturbing natural areas, including clearing of native vegetation. A native species is one that occurs in a particular region, ecosystem or habitat Know your plants. Find out if plants you without direct or indirect human action. grow have invasive tendencies. Do not use invasive species in landscaping, n o n - n a t i ve restoration, or for erosion control; use (alien, exotic, foreign, introduced, plants known not to be invasive in your area. non-indigenous) A species that occurs artificially in locations Control invasive plants on your land by beyond its known historical removing or managing them to prevent natural range.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Delaware Invasive Plants Booklet
    Planting for a livable Delaware Widespread and Invasive Growth Habit 1. Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora S 2. Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculata V 3. Japanese stilt grass Microstegium vimineum H 4. Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum H 5. Russian olive Elaeagnus umbellata S 6. Norway maple Acer platanoides T 7. Common reed Phragmites australis H 8. Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata A 9. Mile-a-minute Polygonum perfoliatum V 10. Clematis Clematis terniflora S 11. Privet Several species S 12. European sweetflag Acorus calamus H 13. Wineberry Rubus phoenicolasius S 14. Bamboo Several species H Restricted and Invasive 15. Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii S 16. Periwinkle Vinca minor V 17. Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata H 18. Winged euonymus Euonymus alata S 19. Porcelainberry Ampelopsis brevipedunculata V 20. Bradford pear Pyrus calleryana T 21. Marsh dewflower Murdannia keisak H 22. Lesser celandine Ranunculus ficaria H 23. Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria H 24. Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea H 25. Honeysuckle Lonicera species S 26. Tree of heaven Alianthus altissima T 27. Spotted knapweed Centaruea biebersteinii H Restricted and Potentially-Invasive 28. Butterfly bush Buddleia davidii S Growth Habit: S=shrub, V=vine, H=herbaceous, T=tree, A=aquatic THE LIST • Plants on The List are non-native to Delaware, have the potential for widespread dispersal and establishment, can out-compete other species in the same area, and have the potential for rapid growth, high seed or propagule production, and establishment in natural areas. • Plants on Delaware’s Invasive Plant List were chosen by a committee of experts in environmental science and botany, as well as representatives of State agencies and the Nursery and Landscape Industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Guide for Lonicera Maackii (Amur Honeysuckle)
    Management Guide for Lonicera maackii (Amur honeysuckle) Species Lonicera maackii (LOMA6)1,2 Common Name Amur honeysuckle Name Common name2, 3, 4 - Amur bush honeysuckle, bush Family: Caprifoliaceae Synonyms: honeysuckle, late honeysuckle. Form: Woody vine/shrub Former species name4- Xylosteum maackii Ruprecht Habitat:3, 4 Roadsides, railroads, woodland borders, some forests, fields, abandoned or disturbed lands and yard edges Occurrence:1, 2, 4 Native range:2, 3, 4, Ranges from NE United States and Ontario, to Eastern Asia (Japan, Korea and Manchuria, and China) North Dakota and east Texas, as well as Oregon Flowering time2, 3 - May – early June Weed class: OR- N/A, WA- N/A, BC- N/A Weed ID: 2, 3, 4 Can grow up to 16’ (5 m) in height, opposite ovate to lance-ovate leaves 3.5-8.5 cm long with acuminate tips, dark green above and lighter underside with pubescent veins. White (aging to yellow) bilabiate tubular flowers in erect pairs of 1.5-2 cm long and 3-4 cm wide at throat, on peduncles shorter than the petioles, fragrant. Fruit are bright to dark red spherical and 6 mm in diameter, ripening in late fall. Bark is gray to tan and exfoliates partly in vertical strips. Look-a-likes: see photos below Other Lonicera:4 - L. morrowii, L. quinuelocularis & L. tatarica (non-natives) Weed distinction4, 9, 14 Amur honeysuckle blooms later than other honeysuckles and has short pedicils with nearly sessile flowers and berries. Distinguishable from most native Lonicera by its bright red fruit and hairy styles, as well as leafing out and keeping leaves later than native Lonicera.
    [Show full text]
  • Honeysuckle, Amur, Tartarian, Morrow's and Bell's, Lonicera
    DEDHAM’S LEAST WANTED! Asian Bush Honeysuckles, Amur, Tartarian, Morrow’s and Bell’s, Lonicera, maackii, tatarica, morrowii, bella Zabel Origin: These exotic Honeysuckles occur throughout Asia. The Amur is from Japan and China, the Tartarian is from Russia and Central Asia, and the Morrow’s is also from Japan. Bell’s Honeysuckle is the only one from Europe. Identification / Habitat: This shrub may grow up to 17 feet tall. All non-native shrubs have hollow stems and twigs. The opposite leaves are long, to ovate in shape. The Amur Honeysuckle has acuminate leaves that taper to a small point; the flower can be white to pale pink. The Tartarian honeysuckle leaves are smooth on the underside. The flowers of Morrows are generally white, while Bella’s flowers are usually pink. All honeysuckle bushes flower in late May-June and this is followed by round red fruit in pairs that ripen mid to late summer on the stem. The easiest identification feature for these plants are their bright red berries, they stand out! Bush honeysuckles can grow in full sun to fairly shaded habitats. The soils it can grow in are also in a large spectrum. Some of the common habitats are woods, woodland edges, floodplain forest, swamps, roadside, and open fields. Dispersal: Birds eat the fruit of the honeysuckle plant then by passing through their digestive tract, drop the seed in other locations, furthering the spread of the plant. Problems: This plants form large dense stands that outcompete native plant species. They alter habitats by decreasing light availability, by depleting soil moisture and nutrients, and possibly by releasing toxic chemicals that prevent other plant species from growing in the vicinity.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Community Responses to the Removal of Lonicera Maackii from an Urban Woodland Park
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 12-2016 Plant community responses to the removal of Lonicera maackii from an urban woodland park. Elihu H. Levine University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Part of the Forest Biology Commons Recommended Citation Levine, Elihu H., "Plant community responses to the removal of Lonicera maackii from an urban woodland park." (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2613. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/2613 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PLANT COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO THE REMOVAL OF LONICERA MAACKII FROM AN URBAN WOODLAND PARK By Elihu H. Levine B. A., Earlham College, 2005 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Biology Department of Biology University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky December 2016 PLANT COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO THE REMOVAL OF LONICERA MAACKII FROM AN URBAN WOODLAND PARK By Elihu H. Levine B.A., Earlham College, 2005 A Thesis Approved on November 16, 2016 By the following Thesis Committee: __________________________ Dr. Margaret Carreiro, Director __________________________ Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Plant List Index: Trees & Shrubs Pg
    2020 Plant List Index: Trees & Shrubs pg. 2-7 Perennials pg. 7-13 Grasses pg. 14 Ferns pg. 14-15 Vines pg. 15 Hours: May 1 – June 30: Tues.- Sat. 10 am - 6 pm Sun.11 am - 5 pm 3351 State Route 37 West www.sciotogardens.com On Mondays by appointment Delaware, OH 43015 Phone/fax: 740-363-8264 Email: [email protected] Sustainable, earth-friendly growth and maintenance practices: Real Soil = Real Difference. All plants are container-grown in a blend of local soil and compost. Plants are grown outside year-round. They are always in step with the seasons. Minimal pruning ensures a well-rooted, healthy plant. Use degradableRoot Pouch andcontainers. recycled containers to reduce waste. Use of controlled-release fertilizers minimizes leaching into the environment. Our primary focus is on native plants. However, non-invasive exotics are an equally important part of the choices we offer you. There is great creative opportunity using natives in combination with exotics. Adding more native plants into our landscapes provides food and habitat for wildlife and connections to larger natural areas. AdditionalAdditional species species may may be be available. available. Email Email oror call for currentcurrent availability, availability, sizes, sizes, and and prices. prices. «BOT_NAME» «BOT_NAME»Wetland Indicator Status—This is listed in parentheses after the common name when a status is known. All species «COM_NAM» «COM_NAM» «DESCRIP»have not been evaluated. The indicator code is helpful in evaluating«DESCRIP» the appropriate habitat for a
    [Show full text]
  • E - Gazette Mk II
    E - Gazette Mk II New Zealand Antique & Historical Arms Association Inc. # 19 July 2012 EDITORIAL May proved to be a great month for my collecting interests, I scored a Ross M 10 from my mate Pat, a Brown Bess from Ted Rogers auction, a great book on British Service Revolvers from Carvell’s auction, spent a fantastic day at the Lithgow SAF Museum, and another at the Australian War Memorial Museum in Canberra and finally the National Maritime Museum in Sydney. Now I just have to pay off the Visa card! In June the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow celebrated its Centenary, it officially opened on 8 June 1912 and went on to manufacture over 640,000 SMLE rifles as well as Vickers and Bren guns, followed by SLRs and Steyrs, many of which have served our own Armed Forces. To the workers past and present at the factory and the volunteers at the museum we send our best wishes. Once again my thanks to our readers who have sent comment or material for publication. If you have comments to make or news or articles to contribute, send them to [email protected] All views (and errors) expressed here are those of the Editor and not necessarily those of the NZAHAA Inc. Phil Cregeen, Editor [email protected] STOLEN GUNS On 20 th June I circulated two lists of stolen firearms and items of militaria to you. In one case the owner was asleep in bed when the burglary took place without him hearing anything to arouse his suspicion, in the other case the theft took place when the guns were in transit.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Assessment
    Document Type: EA-Administrative Record Index Field: Final EA Project Name: Cumberland Solar Project Project Number: 2017-11 CUMBERLAND SOLAR PROJECT Limestone County, Alabama FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee Submitted By: Silicon Ranch Corporation Prepared By: HDR, Inc. January 2018 For Information, contact: Ashley A. Pilakowski NEPA Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499 Phone: 865-632-2256 Email: [email protected] Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................................... 1-1 1.2 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .............................................. 1-3 1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 1-4 1.4 PERMITS AND APPROVALS ................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SOLAR PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVEs ....... 2-1 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Solar Facility .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]