Diversity of Wisconsin Asterids
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Experimental Evidence That Evolutionarily Diverse Assemblages Result in Higher Productivity
Experimental evidence that evolutionarily diverse assemblages result in higher productivity Marc W. Cadotte1 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, ON, Canada M1C 1A4; and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3B2 Edited by Harold A. Mooney, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved April 22, 2013 (received for review January 28, 2013) There now is ample experimental evidence that speciose assemblages in polyculture against the expected performance from its mono- are more productive and provide a greater amount of ecosystem cultures (22, 23). Polycultures also might appear more productive services than depauperate ones. However, these experiments often compared with monocultures via a selection effect—if highly conclude that there is a higher probability of including complemen- productive species dominate the polyculture, displacing low- tary species combinations in assemblages with more species and lack productivity species (22). Thus, if distantly related species show a priori prediction about which species combinations maximize reduced resource overlap, then we should observe greater com- function. Here, I report the results of an experiment manipulating plementarity when they are combined. the evolutionary relatedness of constituent plant species across Here, I report the results of a biodiversity–ecosystem func- a richness gradient. I show that assemblages with distantly re- tion experiment that explicitly manipulated the phylogenetic -
The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory, -
Today, My Favorite Azalea Companion Plant of an Herbaceous Perennial Type Is
Today, My Favorite Azalea Companion Plant of an Herbaceous Perennial Type Is.... By William C. Miller III—Bethesda, Maryland This is the third in a series of “favorite” articles. The natural distribution, however, extends into The azaleas ‘Ambrosia’ and ‘Opal’ were previ- Canada and Mexico and private gardens across the ously identified as my favorite Glenn Dale and US where it is a very popular element in water and Linwood Hardy Hybrids respectively.1 It occurred rain gardens and might not be represented on the to me that it would be useful to expand my focus government map. It was introduced into Europe in to the rest of the plant kingdom, since very few the mid-1620s and has become naturalized. Since people have gardens that are limited to azaleas. it isn’t overly competitive, it is technically consid- Companion plants, often overlooked in the ered non-native rather than “invasive.” homeowner garden planning process, comprise a surprisingly significant feature in every garden. Lobelia, the Genus There is the canopy and the understory trees, above the azaleas, represented by the taller trees The genus was named after Matthias de l’Obel, (e.g., oak, beech, pine, maple) and the smaller a Flemish physician and botanist (1538-1616) by Charles Plumier, a French priest, botanist, and trees (e.g., dogwood, maple, redbud, and stewar- 2,3 tia). There are plants that share the profile level New World plant explorer (1646-1704). They with the azaleas (e.g., holly, viburnum, hydrangea, both were significant influences on Linnaeus who and other rhododendrons). Finally, there are the is often called the father of taxonomy. -
Outline of Angiosperm Phylogeny
Outline of angiosperm phylogeny: orders, families, and representative genera with emphasis on Oregon native plants Priscilla Spears December 2013 The following listing gives an introduction to the phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants that has emerged in recent decades, and which is based on nucleic acid sequences as well as morphological and developmental data. This listing emphasizes temperate families of the Northern Hemisphere and is meant as an overview with examples of Oregon native plants. It includes many exotic genera that are grown in Oregon as ornamentals plus other plants of interest worldwide. The genera that are Oregon natives are printed in a blue font. Genera that are exotics are shown in black, however genera in blue may also contain non-native species. Names separated by a slash are alternatives or else the nomenclature is in flux. When several genera have the same common name, the names are separated by commas. The order of the family names is from the linear listing of families in the APG III report. For further information, see the references on the last page. Basal Angiosperms (ANITA grade) Amborellales Amborellaceae, sole family, the earliest branch of flowering plants, a shrub native to New Caledonia – Amborella Nymphaeales Hydatellaceae – aquatics from Australasia, previously classified as a grass Cabombaceae (water shield – Brasenia, fanwort – Cabomba) Nymphaeaceae (water lilies – Nymphaea; pond lilies – Nuphar) Austrobaileyales Schisandraceae (wild sarsaparilla, star vine – Schisandra; Japanese -
GREAT PLAINS REGION - NWPL 2016 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant Species Not Listed Are Considered UPL for Wetland Delineation Purposes
GREAT PLAINS REGION - NWPL 2016 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps region. -
Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List Flowering Latin Name Common Name Community Date
Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List Flowering Latin Name Common Name Community Date EQUISETACEAE HORSETAIL FAMILY Equisetum arvense L. Field Horsetail FF Equisetum fluviatile L. Water Horsetail LRB Equisetum hyemale L. ssp. affine (Engelm.) Stone Common Scouring-rush BS Equisetum laevigatum A. Braun Smooth Scouring-rush WM Equisetum variegatum Scheich. ex Fried. ssp. Small Horsetail LRB Variegatum DENNSTAEDIACEAE BRACKEN FAMILY Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn Bracken-Fern COF DRYOPTERIDACEAE TRUE FERN FAMILILY Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth ssp. angustum (Willd.) Northeastern Lady Fern FF Clausen Cystopteris bulbifera (L.) Bernh. Bulblet Fern FF Dryopteris carthusiana (Villars) H.P. Fuchs Spinulose Woodfern FF Matteuccia struthiopteris (L.) Tod. Ostrich Fern FF Onoclea sensibilis L. Sensitive Fern FF Polystichum acrostichoides (Michaux) Schott Christmas Fern FF ADDER’S-TONGUE- OPHIOGLOSSACEAE FERN FAMILY Botrychium virginianum (L.) Sw. Rattlesnake Fern FF FLOWERING FERN OSMUNDACEAE FAMILY Osmunda regalis L. Royal Fern WM POLYPODIACEAE POLYPODY FAMILY Polypodium virginianum L. Rock Polypody FF MAIDENHAIR FERN PTERIDACEAE FAMILY Adiantum pedatum L. ssp. pedatum Northern Maidenhair Fern FF THELYPTERIDACEAE MARSH FERN FAMILY Thelypteris palustris (Salisb.) Schott Marsh Fern WM LYCOPODIACEAE CLUB MOSS FAMILY Lycopodium lucidulum Michaux Shining Clubmoss OF Lycopodium tristachyum Pursh Ground-cedar COF SELAGINELLACEAE SPIKEMOSS FAMILY Selaginella apoda (L.) Fern. Spikemoss LRB CUPRESSACEAE CYPRESS FAMILY Juniperus communis L. Common Juniper Jun-E DS Juniperus virginiana L. Red Cedar Jun-E SD Thuja occidentalis L. White Cedar LRB PINACEAE PINE FAMILY Larix laricina (Duroi) K. Koch Tamarack Jun LRB Pinus banksiana Lambert Jack Pine COF Pinus resinosa Sol. ex Aiton Red Pine Jun-M CF Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List 1 Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List Flowering Latin Name Common Name Community Date Pinus strobus L. -
Maine Coefficient of Conservatism
Coefficient of Coefficient of Scientific Name Common Name Nativity Conservatism Wetness Abies balsamea balsam fir native 3 0 Abies concolor white fir non‐native 0 Abutilon theophrasti velvetleaf non‐native 0 3 Acalypha rhomboidea common threeseed mercury native 2 3 Acer ginnala Amur maple non‐native 0 Acer negundo boxelder non‐native 0 0 Acer pensylvanicum striped maple native 5 3 Acer platanoides Norway maple non‐native 0 5 Acer pseudoplatanus sycamore maple non‐native 0 Acer rubrum red maple native 2 0 Acer saccharinum silver maple native 6 ‐3 Acer saccharum sugar maple native 5 3 Acer spicatum mountain maple native 6 3 Acer x freemanii red maple x silver maple native 2 0 Achillea millefolium common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. borealis common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. millefolium common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea ptarmica sneezeweed non‐native 0 3 Acinos arvensis basil thyme non‐native 0 Aconitum napellus Venus' chariot non‐native 0 Acorus americanus sweetflag native 6 ‐5 Acorus calamus calamus native 6 ‐5 Actaea pachypoda white baneberry native 7 5 Actaea racemosa black baneberry non‐native 0 Actaea rubra red baneberry native 7 3 Actinidia arguta tara vine non‐native 0 Adiantum aleuticum Aleutian maidenhair native 9 3 Adiantum pedatum northern maidenhair native 8 3 Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine native 7 Aegopodium podagraria bishop's goutweed non‐native 0 0 Coefficient of Coefficient of Scientific Name Common Name Nativity -
The Campanulaceae of Ohio1
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by KnowledgeBank at OSU 142 WIENS ET AL. Vol. 62 THE CAMPANULACEAE OF OHIO1 ROBERT W. CRUDEN2 Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Ohio State University, Columbus 10 In Ohio the family Campanulaceae is represented by three genera: Campanula, Lobelia, and Specularia; and eleven species, of which five are common throughout the state and two are quite limited in their distribution. Following the key to species each species is briefly described, and distribution, common names, chromosome numbers, if known, and other pertinent data are given. Chromosome numbers are those given in Darlington and Wylie (1956) and in the papers of Bowden (1959a, 1959b). Average time of flowering is indi- ^ontribution Nc. 666 of the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University. Research completed while a National Science Foundation Co-operative Fellow. 2Present address: Department of Botany, University of California, Berkeley 4, California. THE OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 62(3): 142, May, 1962. No. 3 CAMPANULACEAE OF OHIO 143 cated as well as the extreme flowering dates as determined from a study of her- barium material. The genera and species are arranged alphabetically. Distri- bution maps are included. A dot represents a collection of a particular species in a given county. No attempt has been made to indicate the general area of collection within the county, as a majority of herbarium specimens do not have this information. It should also be pointed out that many of the collections examined are forty or more years old and thus the distribution maps do not neces- sarily indicate present distribution. -
174 1.3.4.3.1. Campanulaceae 1.3.4.3.1.A. Características Porte
174 1.3.4.3.1. Campanulaceae 1.3.4.3.1.a. Características ¾ Porte: hierbas anuales o perennes, arbustos, a veces lianas o árboles terrestres, ocasionalmente acuáticas o epífitas, a menudo con látex lechoso. ¾ Hojas: por lo general alternas, enteras o dentadas, muy rara vez pinnatisectas, sin estípulas. ¾ Flores: generalmente perfectas, rara vez unisexuales por aborto, protandras; actinomorfas o zigomorfas, a veces dimorfas, casmógamas y cleistógamas; solitarias o en inflorescencias cimosas, a veces en forma de racimos o espigas. ¾ Perianto: cáliz generalmente 5-partido, muy rara vez gamosépalo, casi siempre persistente. Corola gamopétala 5-mera, por excepción dialipétala. ¾ Androceo: estambres libres o anteras unidas, a veces también los filamentos pueden estar parcialmente soldados; anteras introrsas de dehiscencia longitudinal. ¾ Gineceo: ovario ínfero, por excepción semi- o totalmente súpero; generalmente 2-5 locular, pluriovulado y de placentas axilares; estilo único, a menudo con pelos colectores; estigma lobado. ¾ Fruto: capsular de dehiscencia variada, raro bayas. ¾ Semillas: diminutas, numerosas, casi siembre lisas o casi lisas, albuminadas. Corte transversal del fruto Flor Fruto Dibujos: Daniel Cian 1.3.4.3.1.b. Biología floral. Las flores grandes y vistosas, predominantemente azules, son especialmente atractivas para las abejas, pero también muchos otros insectos participan en su polinización. En la base del estilo hay un disco glandular que segrega néctar y generalmente está cubierto por las bases dilatadas de los estambres que permiten la penetración de la trompas de los insectos entre ellas. En esta familia se ha desarrollado un interesante mecanismo floral para facilitar la polinización cruzada e impedir la autopolinización. Las flores son claramente protandras y el polen se deposita en el botón sobre el estilo (cuando los lóbulos de los estigmas están cerrados) que puede ser viscoso o velloso, para captar el polen. -
Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY
Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerfield, J., and J. Wen. 2002. A morphometric analysis of Hedera L. (the ivy genus, Araliaceae) and its taxonomic implications. Adansonia 24: 197-212. Adams, P. 1961. Observations on the Sagittaria subulata complex. Rhodora 63: 247-265. Adams, R.M. II, and W.J. Dress. 1982. Nodding Lilium species of eastern North America (Liliaceae). Baileya 21: 165-188. Adams, R.P. 1986. Geographic variation in Juniperus silicicola and J. virginiana of the Southeastern United States: multivariant analyses of morphology and terpenoids. Taxon 35: 31-75. ------. 1995. Revisionary study of Caribbean species of Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 78: 134-150. ------, and T. Demeke. 1993. Systematic relationships in Juniperus based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). Taxon 42: 553-571. Adams, W.P. 1957. A revision of the genus Ascyrum (Hypericaceae). Rhodora 59: 73-95. ------. 1962. Studies in the Guttiferae. I. A synopsis of Hypericum section Myriandra. Contr. Gray Herbarium Harv. 182: 1-51. ------, and N.K.B. Robson. 1961. A re-evaluation of the generic status of Ascyrum and Crookea (Guttiferae). Rhodora 63: 10-16. Adams, W.P. 1973. Clusiaceae of the southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89: 62-71. Adler, L. 1999. Polygonum perfoliatum (mile-a-minute weed). Chinquapin 7: 4. Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, and C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 594-630. Affolter, J.M. 1985. A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Bot. Monographs 6. Ahles, H.E., and A.E. -
Floristic Quality Assessment Report
FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN INDIANA: THE CONCEPT, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSERVATISM Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) the State tree of Indiana June 2004 Final Report for ARN A305-4-53 EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01 Prepared by: Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Upland, IN 46989-1001 Introduction Since the early nineteenth century the Indiana landscape has undergone a massive transformation (Jackson 1997). In the pre-settlement period, Indiana was an almost unbroken blanket of forests, prairies, and wetlands. Much of the land was cleared, plowed, or drained for lumber, the raising of crops, and a range of urban and industrial activities. Indiana’s native biota is now restricted to relatively small and often isolated tracts across the State. This fragmentation and reduction of the State’s biological diversity has challenged Hoosiers to look carefully at how to monitor further changes within our remnant natural communities and how to effectively conserve and even restore many of these valuable places within our State. To meet this monitoring, conservation, and restoration challenge, one needs to develop a variety of appropriate analytical tools. Ideally these techniques should be simple to learn and apply, give consistent results between different observers, and be repeatable. Floristic Assessment, which includes metrics such as the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean C values, has gained wide acceptance among environmental scientists and decision-makers, land stewards, and restoration ecologists in Indiana’s neighboring states and regions: Illinois (Taft et al. 1997), Michigan (Herman et al. 1996), Missouri (Ladd 1996), and Wisconsin (Bernthal 2003) as well as northern Ohio (Andreas 1993) and southern Ontario (Oldham et al. -
Wildflower in Focus: Cardinal Flower
throated hummingbirds. Their vivid color is the traditional color of the robes worn by Roman Wildflower in Focus Catholic Cardinals - and thus the name. Their hue is also similar to the color of the native male bird Text by Melanie Choukas-Bradley that shares the name cardinal. Growing in wet Artwork by Tina Thieme Brown meadows, springs, freshwater marshes, and along streams, rivers, and ponds throughout the state, the Cardinal Flower cardinal flower is one of several members of the Lobelia cardinalis L. Lobelia genus native to Maryland and the only one Bellflower or Bluebell Family (Campanulaceae) with red flowers. Other Lobelias growing here [Some taxonomists place this genus in a separate have flowers ranging from blue to whitish-blue, family — the Lobelia Family (Lobeliaceae)] lilac, and rarely white. The cardinal flower blooms during the verdant days of mid to late summer and stays in bloom as autumn stirs. Specific Characteristics of the Cardinal Flower Flowers: Scarlet, irregular, 2-lipped, with a 2-lobed upper lip, a 3-lobed lower one and a tubular base. Sexual parts protrude in a beak-like fashion (see illustration). Flowers 1-2" long and wide in upright racemes. Five sepals are thin (almost hair-like). Leaves: Alternate, simple, lanceolate to oblong or narrowly ovate, tapered to apex and base, pubescent or glabrous. Toothed, often irregularly so (sometimes dentate). Short-petioled to sessile, 2-7" long. Height and Growth Habit: 1-5'; usually unbranched. Range: New Brunswick to Minnesota, south to the Gulf of Mexico. Herbal Lore: American Indians used the roots and leaves of this plant for a number of conditions, including syphilis, typhoid, fevers, headaches and rheumatism.