DOCSLIB.ORG

Special Status and Invasive Plant Management Pilot Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Special Status and Invasive Plant Management Pilot Project SPECIAL STATUS AND INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT PILOT PROJECT EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN MARCH 2018 Prepared for Prepared By 822 MAIN STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 30 Muir Road (925) 228-1027 Martinez, CA 94553 & California Department of Fish and Wildlife Ecosystem Conservation Division 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1208 Sacramento, CA 95814 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Species Ecology and Difficulties .................................................................................... 3 1.3. Target Species ............................................................................................................... 4 1.4. Project Goals .................................................................................................................. 9 Section 2. Study Methods ............................................................................................. 11 2.1. Seed Germination Study .............................................................................................. 11 2.2. Invasive Plant study ..................................................................................................... 17 2.3. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 20 2.4. Personnel and Field Investigation ................................................................................ 20 2.5. Limitations .................................................................................................................... 23 Section 3. Environmental Setting ................................................................................ 25 3.1. Setting .......................................................................................................................... 25 3.2. Precipitation ................................................................................................................. 25 Section 4. Results ......................................................................................................... 27 4.1. Seed Germination Study .............................................................................................. 27 4.2. Invasive Plant Treatment Study ................................................................................... 35 Section 5. Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................... 43 5.1. Discussion .................................................................................................................... 43 5.2. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 44 Section 6. References ................................................................................................... 46 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Seed Collection Dates and Locations ........................................................................... 13 Table 2. Seed Germination Study Work Dates ........................................................................... 21 Table 3. Medusa head Study Work Dates .................................................................................. 23 Table 5. Germination Rates ........................................................................................................ 27 Table 6. Special Status Plants Survival Rates ............................................................................ 28 Table 7. Germination Timing Season 1 ...................................................................................... 28 Table 8. Germination Timing in Season 2 ................................................................................... 30 Table 9. Phenology Season 1 ..................................................................................................... 32 Table 10. Phenology Season 2 ................................................................................................... 33 Table 11. Herbarium Record Phenology Table ........................................................................... 34 Table 12. Comparison of Treatments and Year Using ANOVA .................................................. 37 Table 13. Tukey HSD for Multiple Comparisons ......................................................................... 37 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Study Sites ................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Seed Collection and Germination Study Locations ..................................................... 12 Figure 3. Invasive Plant Treatment Locations ............................................................................. 18 Figure 4. Plot and Treatments at the Kreigor and Roddy Ranch Sites ....................................... 19 Figure 5. Germination Timing in Season 1 ................................................................................. 29 Figure 6. Germination Timing in Season 2 ................................................................................. 31 Special Status and Invasive Plant Management Pilot Study - LAG P1582104 ii Table of Contents Figure 7. Medusa head Cover Among Treatments Over Two Years .......................................... 36 Figure 8. Forb Cover Among Treatments Over Two Years ........................................................ 38 Figure 9. Native Cover Among Treatments Over Two Years...................................................... 39 Figure 10. Non-Native Cover Among Treatments Over Two Years ............................................ 40 Figure 11. Litter Cover Among Treatments Over Two Years ...................................................... 41 Figure 12. Bare Ground Cover Among Treatments Over Two Years ......................................... 42 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A 2014 Weed Memo ......................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX B Seed Germination Study Data Form ............................................................. 61 Special Status and Invasive Plant Management Pilot Study - LAG P1582104 iii Section 1 Introduction Section 1. INTRODUCTION This project is a targeted study aimed at supporting adaptive management strategies for managing sensitive plant species that are listed in the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP (“HCP/NCCP” or “Plan”). Specifically, the goals of this project are to clarify the potential impacts of invasive weed management on select special status species covered by the HCP/NCCP and identify management tools and recommendations that increase efficacy of weed treatment while also protecting special status plant species. This project was the result of a collaboration between Nomad, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Conservancy) and the East Bay Regional Parks Department (EBRPD). Nomad was responsible for designing and implementing the study as well as collecting, analyzing and reporting the results of the data, EBPRD assisted with herbicide application, and the Conservancy provided oversight and grant administration. 1.1. BACKGROUND The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy has biological goals and objectives for a number of plant species. Controlling invasive weeds is a key component to achieving biological goals of preserving and increasing rare plant populations in the HCP/NCCP Preserve System. Where invasive and special status species co-occur, management becomes complicated. Based on initial botanical resource surveys, two invasive grass species have been identified as threats for impacting sensitive plant species in the Preserve System. This study was designed to provide practical biological information to inform and design weed management strategies that will be effective, while having limited impact on special status species plant populations. Specifically, this inquiry focuses on the biology and relationship between three special status plant species targeted in the HCP/NCCP for conservation; round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla), shinning navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians), and big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa); and two invasive grass species, medusa head (Elymus caput-medusae) and barbed goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis). By comparing phenological patterns of these species as well as investigating the effects of different weed treatments on species composition, we hoped to identify key points of intervention and provide guidelines for effective management of both invasive weeds and special status plant species. The study was comprised two different investigations: 1) a seed germination study and 2) an invasive weed management study. The seed germination study was set up and implemented at Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve (BDMRP) and Vaquero Farms. These areas were selected because they both support the special status plants and invasive plants targeted in this study and they reflect the extreme range of climates within the geographic area of the HCP/NCCP. Seed collection of the target species was completed on Roddy Ranch, Thomas South (Kreigor), Adrienne Galvin, and Young’s Canyon (owned by Save Mount Diablo). Invasive plant treatments and monitoring occurred at two locations within
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genomespecific Introgression Between Wheat and Its Wild Relative
    doi: 10.1111/jeb.12040 SHORT COMMUNICATION Genome-specific introgression between wheat and its wild relative Aegilops triuncialis C. PARISOD*, C. DEFINOD*, A. SARR*, N. ARRIGO*† &F.FELBER*1 *Laboratory of Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Biology, University of Neuchaˆtel, Neuchaˆtel, Switzerland †Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Keywords: Abstract barbed goatgrass; Introgression of sequences from crop species in wild relatives is of funda- containment strategy; mental and practical concern. Here, we address gene flow between culti- crop-to-wild gene flow; vated wheat and its widespread polyploid relative, Aegilops triuncialis, using genetically modified wheat; 12 EST-SSR markers mapped on wheat chromosomes. The presence of genome-specific introgression; wheat diagnostic alleles in natural populations of the barbed goatgrass hybridization; growing in proximity to cultivated fields highlights that substantial gene mapped EST-SSR; flow occurred when both species coexisted. Furthermore, loci from the A transgene escape. subgenome of wheat were significantly less introgressed than sequences from other subgenomes, indicating differential introgression into Ae. triun- cialis. Gene flow between such species sharing nonhomeologous chromo- somes addresses the evolutionary outcomes of hybridization and may be important for efficient gene containment. have been reported in European agro-ecosystems Introduction (Felber et al., 2007). With the advent of genetically Reproduction between genetically distinct taxa, pro- modified crops, the consequences of introgression on ducing offspring of mixed ancestry (i.e. hybridization), local biota are receiving growing attention (Chapman plays a crucial role in evolution (Arnold, 2006). & Burke, 2006; Kwit et al., 2011). However, interspecific gene flow has been generally The Triticum/Aegilops species complex represents an overlooked, and the factors determining the outcome outstanding model to evaluate crop-to-wild gene flow.
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Costa County, California
    APPENDIX G BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND ARBORIST REPORTS Biological Resources Assessment for the Sufi Church Project Contra Costa County, California Prepared for: Meher Schools G-1 Prepared for: Meher Schools 999 Leland Drive Lafayette, CA 94549 925-938-9958 Prepared by: EDAW 2099 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 204 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 279-0580 June 18, 2008 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SUFI CHURCH PROJECT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA G-2 The information provided in this document is intended solely for the use and benefit of Meher Schools. No other person or entity shall be entitled to rely on the services, opinions, recommendations, plans or specifications provided herein, without the express written consent of EDAW, 2099 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 204, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. G-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS .............................................................................1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................................................................5 2.1 SETTING......................................................................................................................5 2.2 PLANT COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITATS........................................................5 3.0 SPECIAL-STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................7 3.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS ...........................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Gopher–Plant–Fungal Interactions Affect
    Ecology, 84(1), 2003, pp. 120±128 q 2003 by the Ecological Society of America GOPHER±PLANT±FUNGAL INTERACTIONS AFFECT ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INVASIVE GRASS VALERIE T. E VINER1,3 AND F. S TUART CHAPIN, III2 1Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720 USA 2Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 USA Abstract. Many attempts have been made to link invasions of exotic plants to speci®c plant traits and key attributes of invaded ecosystems. While these factors play a role in determining the potential for invasion, they are often inadequate in predicting the success of a speci®c invasion. We show that interactions of an invasive grass with other members of the community determine the local pattern of invasion. A fungus, Ulocladium atrum, aids the establishment of barbed goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis) by weakening the grass's tough seed head, thereby accelerating germination and seedling establishment. In contrast, gophers, Thomomys bottae, decrease establishment of this invader by selectively burying patches of goatgrass seedlings under mounds. Plants that survive these gopher disturbances produce seeds that are uninfected by Ulocladium atrum, which may further decrease the establishment of the next generation of goatgrass. A ®eld survey indicated that goatgrass achieves dominance in areas with minimal gopher disturbance, but has limited establishment in pastures with high gopher activity, indicating that the landscape pattern of gopher activity in¯uences patterns of goatgrass invasion by manipulating gopher±plant±fungal interactions. Key words: Aegilops triuncialis; California (USA) annual grasslands; disturbance; fungus; ger- mination; goatgrass; plant invasion; pocket gophers; species interactions, role in plant invasion; Thomomys bottae; Ulocladium atrum.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • 18 New Nothogenera and 8 New Combinations in the Grass Family Poaceae
    CACTOLOGIA PHANTASTICA 3(2) 4 FEB 2019 ​ ​ ​ 10 ISSN 2590-3403 DOI 10.5281/zenodo.2556225 ​ ​ ​ 18 New Nothogenera and 8 New Combinations in the Grass Family Poaceae By MAARTEN H. J. VAN DER MEER ​ The grass family Poaceae includes major crop genera like Triticum (wheat), Hordeum (barley) and Secale (rye) in the ​ ​ subfamily Pooideae, and Saccharum (sugarcane), Sorghum ​ ​ ​ (sorghum) and Zea (maize) in the subfamily Panicoideae. Species ​ ​ from this family have been used for extensive hybridization experiments. No less than 59 valid nothogenera are listed in IPNI, yet dozens of intergeneric hybrids remain nameless.1 Notho- generic names are proposed here for eighteen intergeneric hybrids, including one tetrageneric hybrid, ten trigeneric hybrids and seven bigeneric hybrids. In addition, seven new combinations for nothospecies are proposed. Wheat Barley Rye David Monniaux Cliff LSDSL CC BY-SA 3.0 / Wikimedia CC BY 2.0 / Wikimedia CC BY-SA 3.0 / Wikimedia 1 Note that the widely used ×Triticale, an invalid younger synonym of ×Triticosecale, is not ​ ​ ​ ​ listed. MAARTEN H. J. VAN DER MEER ROGGEKAMP 379 NL-2592 VV DEN HAAG [email protected] CACTOLOGIA PHANTASTICA 3(2) 4 FEB 2019 ​ ​ ​ 11 ISSN 2590-3403 DOI 10.5281/zenodo.2556225 ​ ​ ​ Valid Nothogenera in Poaceae NOTHOGENUS PARENT 1 PARENT 2 PARENT 3 ×Achnella Achnatherum Nassella ​ ×Aegilosecale Aegilops Secale ​ ×Aegilotriticum Aegilops Triticum ​ ×Agrocalamagrostis Agrostis Calamagrostis ​ ×Agroëlymus Agropyron Elymus ​ ×Agrohordeum Agropyron Hordeum ​ ×Agropogon Agrostis Polypogon ​ ×Agrositanion Acropyron Sitanion ​ ×Agrotrigia Agropyron Elytrigia ​ ×Agrotrisecale Agropyron Secale Triticum ​ ×Agrotriticum Agropyron Triticum ​ ×Ammocalamagrostis Ammophila Calamacrostis ​ ×Arctodupontia Arctophila Dupontia ​ ×Bromofestuca Bromus Festuca ​ ×Calamophila Ammophila Calamagrostis ​ ×Cynochloris Chloris Cynodon ​ ×Danthosieglingia Danthonia Sieglingia ​ ×Dupoa Dupontia Poa ​ ×Dupontopoa Arctopoa Dupontia ​ ×Elyleymus Elymus Leymus ​ ×Elymopyron Agropyron Elymus ​ ×Elymordeum Elymus Hordeum ​ MAARTEN H.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Species Accounts Appendix D Species Accounts
    Appendix D Species Accounts Appendix D Species Accounts Table of Contents San Joaquin Spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) ...................................................... 1 Recurved Larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum) ........................................................ 4 Big Tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) .................................................................... 6 Congdon’s Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) ..................................... 8 Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus palmatus) ....................................... 10 Livermore tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii) ........................................................ 11 Longhorn Fairy Shrimp ......................................................................................... 12 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp ..................................................................................... 15 Callippe Silverspot Butterfly ................................................................................ 18 California Tiger Salamander ................................................................................. 21 California Red-Legged Frog .................................................................................. 25 Foothill yellow-legged frog .................................................................................. 28 Alameda Whipsnake ............................................................................................ 31 Central California Coast Steelhead .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical Priority Guidebook
    Botanical Priority Protection Areas Alameda and Contra Costa Counties the East Bay Regional Park District. However, certain BPPAs include Hills have been from residential development. public parcels or properties with other conservation status. These are cases where land has been conserved since the creation of these boundaries or where potential management decisions have the poten- Following this initial mapping effort, the East Bay Chap- \ ntroduction tial to negatively affect an area’s botanical resources. Additionally, ter’s Conservation Committee began to utilize the con- each acre within these BPPAs represents a potential area of high pri- cept in draft form in key local planning efforts. Lech ority. Both urban and natural settings are included within these Naumovich, the chapter’s Conservation Analyst staff The lands that comprise the East Bay Chapter are located at the convergence boundaries, therefore, they are intended to be considered as areas person, showcased the map set in forums such as the of the San Francisco Bay, the North and South Coast Ranges, the Sacra- warranting further scrutiny due to the abundance of nearby sensitive BAOSC’s Upland Habitat Goals Project and the Green mento-San Joaquin Delta, and the San Joaquin Valley. The East Bay Chapter botanical resources supported by high quality habitat within each E A S T B A Y Vision Group (in association with Greenbelt Alliance); area supports a unique congregation of ecological conditions and native BPPA. Although a parcel, available for preservation through fee title C N P S East Bay Regional Park District’s Master Plan Process; plants. Based on historic botanical collections, the pressures from growth- purchase or conservation easement, may be located within the and local municipalities.
    [Show full text]
  • Barb Goatgrass
    University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu Publication 8315 / October 2008 Barb Goatgrass JOSH S. DAVY, University of California Livestock and Natural Resources Program Representative, Tehama, Glenn, and Colusa Counties; JOSEPH M. DITOMASO, University of California Cooperative Extension Specialist; EmILIO A. LACA, Rangeland Ecologist, University of California, Davis Barb Barb goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis L.; see fig. 1) is a winter goatgrass annual that is native to Mediterranean Europe and western Asia. Although barb goatgrass was first identified in California in the early 1900s, its rapid spread is relatively recent. Its first introduction into California was associated with the importation of Mexican cattle to El Dorado and Sacramento Counties. This species is expanding throughout Northern California and the Central and South Coast in areas below 1,100 meters (3,600 feet) in elevation. Barb goatgrass populations quickly create a devastating monoculture (fig. 2) that diminishes species diversity, forage quality and quantity, and wildlife habitat of infested areas. It primarily inhabits dryland fields, roadsides, annual rangelands, and oak woodlands in both disturbed and undisturbed sites. Infestations generally do not occur in irrigated areas. A distinguishing feature of barb goatgrass is its ability to proliferate in varying types of conditions, including serpentine soils where many annual grasses Figure 1. have not prospered. Mature barb goatgrass. Barb goatgrass is one of Photo: J. S. Davy. three goatgrass species prevalent in California. The others are jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrical Host) and ovate goatgrass (Aegilops ovata L.). All three goatgrass species can hybridize with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and are currently B-rated noxious weeds in California by the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Tarplant (Blepharizonia Plumosa)
    Plants Big Tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) Big Tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) Status Federal: None State: None CNPS: List 1B Population Trend Global: Unknown State: Unknown Within Inventory Area: Unknown © 2002 John Game Data Characterization The location database for big tarplant includes 36 data records dated from 1916 to 2001 (California Natural Diversity Database 2005). Twenty-nine of the occurrences were documented within the last 10 years. Seven of the occurrences have not been observed for over 60 years, but all the other occurrences are believed to be extant (California Natural Diversity Database 2005). Most of the occurrences are of high precision and may be accurately located, including those within the inventory area. Very little ecological information is available for big tarplant. The published literature on the species pertains primarily to its taxonomy. The main sources of general information on this species are the Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993) and the California Native Plant Society (2005). Specific observations on habitat and plant associates, threats, and other factors are summarized in the California Natural Diversity Database (2005). Range Big tarplant is endemic to the Mount Diablo foothills and is found primarily in eastern Contra Costa, eastern Alameda, and western San Joaquin Counties (Hoover 1937). Occurrences within the ECCC HCP/NCCP Inventory Area In the inventory area, big tarplant is known from 4 occurrences on Cowell Ranch, west of Brentwood, 7 occurrences on Roddy Ranch, south of Antioch, and one occurrence in Mount Diablo State Park, southeast of Clayton (California Natural Diversity Database 2005, Lake 2004). The historic occurrences in Antioch are likely to have been extirpated, although at least 1 population is present at Black Diamond Mines Regional Park (Preston pers.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenies and Secondary Chemistry in Arnica (Asteraceae)
    Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 392 Phylogenies and Secondary Chemistry in Arnica (Asteraceae) CATARINA EKENÄS ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS ISSN 1651-6214 UPPSALA ISBN 978-91-554-7092-0 2008 urn:nbn:se:uu:diva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ist of Papers This thesis is based on the following papers, which are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals: I Ekenäs, C., B. G. Baldwin, and K. Andreasen. 2007. A molecular phylogenetic
    [Show full text]
  • Aegilops Triuncialis Subsp. Bozdagensis (Poaceae), a New Subspecies from South-Western Turkey
    Aegilops triuncialis subsp. bozdagensis (Poaceae), a new subspecies from South-Western Turkey Evren CABİ*1, Burçin EKİCİ2, Musa DOĞAN3 1Department of Biology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Namık Kemal University, 59030, Tekirdağ, Turkey. 2Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Fine Arts, Design and Architecture, Namık Kemal University, 59030, Tekirdağ, Turkey. 3Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. *Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract: A new subspecies Aegilops triuncialis L. subsp. bozdagensis Cabi & Doğan, is described and illustrated. This new subspecies is confined to Denizli, Acıpayam, Bozdağ in southwestern Anatolia. It differs from the other two subspecies of Ae. triuncialis subsp. triuncialis and Ae. triuncialis subsp. persica, by its unawned glumes of the lateral spikelets. Concerning the new subspecies, IUCN red list category, distribution map, notes on its biogeography and ecology are given. An identification key of the subspecies of Ae. triuncialis is also provided. Keywords: Aegilops, Poaceae, New subspecies, Turkey. Introduction 2009 and collected a large number of specimens for The genus Aegilops L. consists of ca. 25 species in the revising the genus Aegilops. In addition, population size, world. It constitutes the primary and secondary gene pool phenological traits and ecological preferences of the for cultivated wheats (van Slageren, 1994; Cabi, 2010). species in the genus were observed during the field Species in the genus are distributed in Southwest and studies. Particular attention was paid to Aegilops Central Asia and throughout the Mediterranean basin. A specimens collected from Bozdağ Mountain, Southwest primary center of diversity of the Aegilops is considered Anatolia (B2 Denizli sensu Davis, 1965) in 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Round Valley Regional Preserve Checklist of Wild Plants Sorted Alphabetically by Growth Form, Scientific Name
    Round Valley Regional Preserve Checklist of Wild Plants Sorted Alphabetically by Growth Form, Scientific Name This is a comprehensive list of the wild plants reported to be found in Round Valley Regional Preserve. The plants are sorted alphabetically by growth form, then by scientific name. This list includes the common name, family, status, invasiveness rating, origin, longevity, habitat, and bloom dates. EBRPD plant names that have changed since the 1993 Jepson Manual are listed alphabetically in an appendix. Column Heading Description Checklist column for marking off the plants you observe Scientific Name According to The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (JM2) and eFlora (ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html) (JM93 if different) If the scientific name used in the 1993 edition of The Jepson Manual (JM93) is different, the change is noted as (JM93: xxx) Common Name According to JM2 and other references (not standardized) Family Scientific family name according to JM2, abbreviated by replacing the “aceae” ending with “-” (ie. Asteraceae = Aster-) Status Special status rating (if any), listed in 3 categories, divided by vertical bars (‘|’): Federal/California (Fed./Calif.) | California Native Plant Society (CNPS) | East Bay chapter of the CNPS (EBCNPS) Fed./Calif.: FE = Fed. Endangered, FT = Fed. Threatened, CE = Calif. Endangered, CR = Calif. Rare CNPS (online as of 2012-01-23): 1B = Rare, threatened or endangered in Calif, 3 = Review List, 4 = Watch List; 0.1 = Seriously endangered in California, 0.2 = Fairly endangered in California EBCNPS (online as of 2012-01-23): *A = Statewide listed rare; A1 = 2 East Bay regions or less; A1x = extirpated; A2 = 3-5 regions; B = 6-9 regions; C = watch list Inv California Invasive Plant Council Inventory (Cal-IPCI) Invasiveness rating: H = High, L = Limited, M = Moderate, N = Native OL Origin and Longevity.
    [Show full text]