DOCSLIB.ORG

Making Dollar$ and Sense Longleaf Pine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Proceedings of the Fifth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference Longleaf Alliance Report No. 8 May 2005 LongleafLongleaf Pine:Pine: MakingMaking Dollar$Dollar$ andand SenseSense October 12 - 15, 2004 Hattiesburg Lake Terrace Convention Center Hattiesburg, Mississippi www.longleafalliance.org Longleaf Pine: Making Dollar$ and Sense Proceedings of the Fifth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference October 12 - 15, 2004 Hattiesburg Lake Terrace Convention Center Hattiesburg, Mississippi This conference would not be possible without the financial support of the following organizations: Auburn University School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences Federal Land Bank of South Mississippi International Forest Company Meeks Farm & Nurseries, Inc. Mississippi Forestry Commission Mississippi Fish & Wildlife Foundation Oak Grove Farm Simmons Tree Farm Southern LINC Southern Company Southern Mississippi Pine Straw Association US Fish & Wildlife Service USDA Forest Service The Longleaf Alliance appreciates the generous support of these organizations. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 8 May 2005 Citation: Kush, John S., comp. 2005. Longleaf Pine: Making Dollar$ and Sense, Proceedings of the Fifth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference; 2004 October 12-15; Hattiesburg, MS. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 8. i FOREWORD Rhett Johnson, Co-Director, The Longleaf Alliance The theme of the Fifth Regional Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference was Longleaf Pine: Making Dollar$ and Sense. This theme emphasizes that longleaf makes both economic and ecological sense on public and private lands. This proceeding contains a compilation of papers and posters presented at the conference addressing specific subject matter topics involving the restoration and management of longleaf pine ecosystems to include silvicultural, ecological, social, political and economic challenges. The Fifth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference held at Lake Terrace Convention Center in Hattiesburg, Mississippi may have been our best yet. Attendance was good at 281 and the enthusiasm was contagious. The program covered a diverse array of topics while the facilities were excellent. As always, we enjoyed good food, drink, and fellowship. Our invited speakers were well prepared, delivering presentations that were both timely and interesting. The panels were particularly thought-provoking and the only complaint I heard was that, with concurrent sessions, participants had to choose between two sessions when they wanted to attend both. The field trips to the De Soto National Forest and the Tatum family property were excellent and a high point. Anytime you can take 281 people in the woods at 8:00 in the morning and bring them back out at 4:30 in the afternoon and they’re still excited and having a good time, you’ve done something right! Upon our return from the field trip we enjoyed a delicious buffet dinner at the Lake Terrace Conference Center followed by a most impressive musical entertainment. The Blues Rangers, a group of USDA Forest Service professionals, entertained us with original material that far exceeded my expectations and kept us clapping and tapping our feet until late into the night. I still listen to my CD occasionally just to remind me of the conference and some new good friends. Added treats were readings by recently published authors; Larry Earley, Jim Miller, and Gil Hoffman. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that the main reason the conference enjoyed so much success was the assistance of the local planning team. A relatively large group of natural resource professionals and landowners helped with the planning and organization of the conference a full year before we actually came to Hattiesburg. The local planning team was involved in, or took the lead in organizing everything from field trip to portapotties. It is always unfair to name individuals because some are left out, but Glenn Hughes, Randy Browning, Jim Elledge, Randy Rice, Linda Stine, John Lambert, Jan Barlow, Wayne Stone, Mike Davis, Ray Aycock, Don Seay, and Mark Anderson come to mind immediately. There were many others. Perhaps the most important was Mary Ann Iverson of Southern Mississippi’s Continuing Education Department. Mary Ann did a wonderful job coordinating the facilities, lodging, meals, registration, and virtually everything else. ii The Fifth Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference October 12-15, 2004 Hattiesburg, Mississippi Conference Program Tuesday, October 12 Lake View Terrace Convention Center 1:00 – 8:00 PM Registration 6:00 - 8:00 PM Ice Breaker, Poster Session Wednesday, October 13 Lake View Terrace Convention Center 7:00 – 8:30 AM Registration 8:30 AM Welcome & Introductions (Glenn Hughes, Mississippi State University (Moderator); Charles Lee, President of Mississippi State University; Jim Sledge, Mississippi State Forester; Graeme Lockaby, Assoc. Dean for Research, School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University) 8:45 AM Steam Logging in Mississippi: A Glimpse into the Past – Rev. David Price, Hattiesburg District Superintendent of the United Methodist Church & Railroad Enthusiast 9:20 AM Ecology of Longleaf Forests in Mississippi – Julie Moore, US Fish & Wildlife 10:00 AM Break 10:30 AM Correct Planting Density for Longleaf Pine: It Depends on Your Objectives and Who You Ask – David South, Auburn University 11:10 AM Economics of Pine Straw – Bill Pickens, North Carolina, Div. of Forestry 11:35 AM State of the Longleaf Alliance – Rhett Johnson, Co-Director, The Longleaf Alliance 12:00 Noon Lunch Provided iii Wednesday, October 13 Lake View Terrace Convention Center 1:30 PM Concurrent Session I - State and Federal Agencies and Their Issues – Panel: Ray Aycock, USFWS (Moderator); Roberta Moltzen, USFS; Ronnie Haynes, USFWS; Alan Holditch, NRCS; Jim Copeland, DoD; Jim Sledge, MS State For. 1:30 PM Concurrent Session II - Stand Density and Its Effect on Growth, Wood Quality, Pole Production, Wildlife Habitat, and Understory Composition – Panel: Steve Jack, JW Jones Ecological Research Center (Moderator); Wayne Stone, USFS; Jim Elledge, MS Consulting Forester; Will McDearman, USFWS; David South, Auburn University 3:00 PM Break 3:30 PM Concurrent Session III - Private Landowners and their Issues – Panel: Keville Larson, Larson & McGowin (Moderator); Judd Brooks, Mississippi Landowner; Paul Padgett, Cedar Creek; Robert Bonnie, Environmental Defense; Chester Hunt, MS Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks; Randy Rice, MS Consulting Forester 3:30 PM Concurrent Session IV - Burning Issues in Longleaf Stands – Panel: Sharon Hermann, Auburn University (Moderator); Jimmy Atkinson, JW Jones Ecological Research Center; Bill Boyer, USFS (Retired); Jerry Windham, Desoto National Forest; Sue Grace, USFWL; John Kush, Auburn University 5:00 PM Adjourn Wednesday, October 13 Evening Events – Lake View Terrace Convention Center 6:00 – 8:00 PM Social & Poster Session including Readings & Book Signings with: Mr. Lawrence S. Earley author of Looking for Longleaf: The Fall and Rise of an American Forest Dr. James Miller, USDA Forest Service, author of 1) Forest Plants of the Southeast and Their Wildlife Uses and 2) Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests: A Field Guide for Identification and Control Dr. Gil Hoffman, Hattiesburg historian, author of 1) Dummy Lines Through the Longleaf and 2) Steam Whistles in the Piney Woods Vol. I & II. iv Thursday, October 14 Field Day 8:00 AM Depart from the Lake Terrace Convention Center; One-half day at each site with lunch provided. Camp Shelby/DeSoto National Forest (Public Land Issues) Identifying and Controlling Cogon Grass, Lisa Yager and C.J. Sabette Understory Plant Diversity, Mike Davis and Julie Moore Single Tree/Group Selection/Forest Management, Steve Jack, Bob Franklin, & Bob Cooper Native Groundcover Restoration, George Ramseur TNC [Seed Collector and ASV/Positrac Demonstration] & Dennis McDevitt, Truax Native Seeder Critters, Carl Qualls and Ed Moody Managing Endangered Species, Diane Tyrone & Chris Potin Issues Facing Burning on Public Land/Prioritizing Burning, Tony Wilde and Kevin Hiers Growth and Yield, John Kush & Ralph Meldahl Tatum Family Property (Private Land Issues) Timber Products, Jim Elledge & Kenneth Conway Pine Straw, Bill Johnson Consultant Burning/Alternatives to Burning, John Buckley & Ken Outcalt Wildlife Management, Randy Browning & Chester Hunt Midstory Control Using Herbicides, Vic Nickels Scalping, Planting Techniques, Seedling Quality, Mark Hainds 5:00 PM Return to the Lake Terrace Convention Center 6:00 PM Social & Dinner at the Hattiesburg Lake Terrace Convention with music provided by the Blues Rangers v Friday, October 15 Lake View Terrace Convention Center 8:00 AM Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests – Jim Miller, USFS 8:40 AM Fire – Use It Lose It – Kevin Robertson, Tall Timbers 9:10 AM Identifying Longleaf Ecosystems Using Remote Sensing and GIS: Management Implications – John Hogland, Auburn University 9:35 AM Alternative Income Sources in Longleaf Forests – Daryl Jones, Mississippi State University 10:00 AM Break 10:30 AM Forecasting Market Trends for Longleaf Products - Eric Gee, South. Forest Prod. Assoc. 11:00 AM Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration: Long Rotation Economics - Larry Teeter, Auburn U. 11:30 AM Wrap Up – Dean Gjerstad, Co-Director, The Longleaf Alliance vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Remote Sensing of Pitcher Plant Habitat Quality Gabriel A. Blossom, Michael A. Davis and Greg Carter 1 The Conservation Management Apprenticeship Program at the Jones Center Lynne Boyd, Cory Drennan, Steve Jack, Mark Melvin and
Recommended publications
  • SALT TOLERANT PLANTS Recommended for Pender County Landscapes

    SALT TOLERANT PLANTS Recommended for Pender County Landscapes

    North Carolina Cooperative Extension NC STATE UNIVERSITY SALT TOLERANT PLANTS Recommended for Pender County Landscapes Pender County Cooperative Extension Urban Horticulture Leaflet 14 Coastal Challenges Plants growing at the beach are subjected to environmental conditions much different than those planted further inland. Factors such as blowing sand, poor soils, high temperatures, and excessive drainage all influence how well plants perform in coastal landscapes, though the most significant effect on growth is salt spray. Most plants will not tolerate salt accumulating on their foliage, making plant selection for beachfront land- scapes particularly challenging. Salt Spray Salt spray is created when waves break on the beach, throwing tiny droplets of salty water into the air. On-shore breezes blow this salt laden air landward where it comes in contact with plant foliage. The amount of salt spray plants receive varies depending on their proximity to the beachfront, creating different vegetation zones as one gets further away from the beachfront. The most salt-tolerant species surviving in the frontal dune area. As distance away from the ocean increases, the level of salt spray decreases, allowing plants with less salt tolerance to survive. Natural Protection The impact of salt spray on plants can be lessened by physically blocking salt laden winds. This occurs naturally in the maritime forest, where beachfront plants protect landward species by creating a layer of foliage that blocks salt spray. It is easy to see this effect on the ocean side of maritime forest plants, which are “sheared” by salt spray, causing them to grow at a slant away from the oceanfront.
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016

    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.
  • Elaeagnus (Elaeagnaceae)

    Elaeagnus (Elaeagnaceae)

    Eleagnus Elaeagnus (Elaeagnaceae) angustifolia, Russian Olive Origin: Southern Europe, Central Asia, China. Large shrub or small deciduous tree, thorny with spreading branches, covered in silvery scales. Lanceolate leaves, up to 8cm long, 2- 3cm wide, grey-green on the upper side, silver underneath. Small, yellowish-white flowers in summer, followed by silvery-yellow fruit which look like small olives, in autumn. Grows well in all types of soil, even dry and sandy soil. Resistant to drought, saltiness and pollution. Useful for green screens and seaside boulevards. x ebbingei Origin: hybrid between Elaeagnus macrophylla and Elaeagnus pungens. Evergreen shrub with upright, compact habit. The branches are slightly thorny, over time they get very long and become weeping at the ends. Alternate, oval, slightly undulate leaves, 5-10cm long and 3-6cm wide, glossy dark green on the upper side, silvery with brown spots on the underside. White, hanging flowers like small tubes 1cm long in groups of 3-6. They open from September to November on the axils of the leaves. Reddish fruits, edible, that look like small olives. Grows in almost all types of soil, even sandy, calcareous on the surface or very moist in winter. Tolerates maritime exposure. Withstands pruning and is used for obtaining beautiful evergreen hedges in a short time. When formed into a tree it can be included in the range of trees used for making evergreen avenues near the sea. Vivai MGF – Nursery – Pépinières – Viveros - Baumschulen Eleagnus x ebbingei “Eleador”® Origin: France. Selection of Elaeagnus x ebbingei “Limelight”, from which it differs in the following ways: • in the first years it grows more in width and less in height; • the leaves are larger (7-12cm long, 4-6cm wide), and the central golden yellow mark is wider and reaches the margins; • it does not produce branches with all green leaves, but only an occasional branch which bears both variegated leaves and green leaves.
  • Tracing History

    Tracing History

    Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 911 Tracing History Phylogenetic, Taxonomic, and Biogeographic Research in the Colchicum Family BY ANNIKA VINNERSTEN ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS UPPSALA 2003 Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Lindahlsalen, EBC, Uppsala, Friday, December 12, 2003 at 10:00 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Abstract Vinnersten, A. 2003. Tracing History. Phylogenetic, Taxonomic and Biogeographic Research in the Colchicum Family. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 911. 33 pp. Uppsala. ISBN 91-554-5814-9 This thesis concerns the history and the intrafamilial delimitations of the plant family Colchicaceae. A phylogeny of 73 taxa representing all genera of Colchicaceae, except the monotypic Kuntheria, is presented. The molecular analysis based on three plastid regions—the rps16 intron, the atpB- rbcL intergenic spacer, and the trnL-F region—reveal the intrafamilial classification to be in need of revision. The two tribes Iphigenieae and Uvularieae are demonstrated to be paraphyletic. The well-known genus Colchicum is shown to be nested within Androcymbium, Onixotis constitutes a grade between Neodregea and Wurmbea, and Gloriosa is intermixed with species of Littonia. Two new tribes are described, Burchardieae and Tripladenieae, and the two tribes Colchiceae and Uvularieae are emended, leaving four tribes in the family. At generic level new combinations are made in Wurmbea and Gloriosa in order to render them monophyletic. The genus Androcymbium is paraphyletic in relation to Colchicum and the latter genus is therefore expanded.
  • Than a Meal: the Turkey in History, Myth

    Than a Meal: the Turkey in History, Myth

    More Than a Meal Abigail at United Poultry Concerns’ Thanksgiving Party Saturday, November 22, 1997. Photo: Barbara Davidson, The Washington Times, 11/27/97 More Than a Meal The Turkey in History, Myth, Ritual, and Reality Karen Davis, Ph.D. Lantern Books New York A Division of Booklight Inc. Lantern Books One Union Square West, Suite 201 New York, NY 10003 Copyright © Karen Davis, Ph.D. 2001 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of Lantern Books. Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data For Boris, who “almost got to be The real turkey inside of me.” From Boris, by Terry Kleeman and Marie Gleason Anne Shirley, 16-year-old star of “Anne of Green Gables” (RKO-Radio) on Thanksgiving Day, 1934 Photo: Underwood & Underwood, © 1988 Underwood Photo Archives, Ltd., San Francisco Table of Contents 1 Acknowledgments . .9 Introduction: Milton, Doris, and Some “Turkeys” in Recent American History . .11 1. A History of Image Problems: The Turkey as a Mock Figure of Speech and Symbol of Failure . .17 2. The Turkey By Many Other Names: Confusing Nomenclature and Species Identification Surrounding the Native American Bird . .25 3. A True Original Native of America . .33 4. Our Token of Festive Joy . .51 5. Why Do We Hate This Celebrated Bird? . .73 6. Rituals of Spectacular Humiliation: An Attempt to Make a Pathetic Situation Seem Funny . .99 7 8 More Than a Meal 7.
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Edition Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist and John Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org Table of Contents LIST FORMAT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 NORTH CAROLINA RARE PLANT LIST ......................................................................................................................... 10 NORTH CAROLINA PLANT WATCH LIST ..................................................................................................................... 71 Watch Category
  • Vascular Flora and Vegetation Classification of the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Limestone Forest Association of Central Georgia

    Vascular Flora and Vegetation Classification of the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Limestone Forest Association of Central Georgia

    VASCULAR FLORA AND VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN LIMESTONE FOREST ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL GEORGIA by PATRICK SUMNER LYNCH (Under the Direction of J.L. Hamrick) ABSTRACT The South Atlantic Coastal Plain Limestone forest is a globally imperiled (G2) forest association known only from the upper Coastal Plain of central Georgia. These calcareous forest communities support diverse floristic assemblages unique among the Georgia Coastal Plain, but have not been subject to detailed floristic study. I conducted a comprehensive floristic inventory, multivariate community analyses and floristic quality assessments to document composition, elucidate community structure and underlying physiographic regimes, and assess habitat integrity for seven sites in Houston, Bleckley and Twiggs counties. Community analyses revealed twelve community types within two floristically defined domains corresponding to uplands and slopes, and bottomlands, respectively, and governed largely by moisture content and degree of inclination. Floristic quality assessments revealed varying degrees of floristic quality and habitat integrity corresponding primarily to local physiography and disturbance history. Floristic inventory recovered 339 vascular plant taxa representing 218 genera in 98 families, including 17 rare Georgia species. INDEX WORDS: Limestone forest, community analysis, floristic inventory, floristic quality assessment, Georgia, Coastal Plain. VASCULAR FLORA AND VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN LIMESTONE FOREST ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL GEORGIA by PATRICK SUMNER LYNCH B.S., The University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 2006 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2010 © 2012 Patrick Sumner Lynch All Rights Reserved VASCULAR FLORA AND VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN LIMESTONE FOREST ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL GEORGIA by PATRICK SUMNER LYNCH Major Professor: J.L.
  • Vertebrate Utilization of Reclaimed Habitat on Phosphate Mined Lands in Florida: a Research Synopsis and Habitat Design Recommendations'

    Vertebrate Utilization of Reclaimed Habitat on Phosphate Mined Lands in Florida: a Research Synopsis and Habitat Design Recommendations'

    VERTEBRATE UTILIZATION OF RECLAIMED HABITAT ON PHOSPHATE MINED LANDS IN FLORIDA: A RESEARCH SYNOPSIS AND HABITAT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS' by J. H. Kiefer, PE, PWS2 Abstract: Several studies have documented the cumulative presence of 348 species of vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish) on reclaimed phosphate mines in Florida. Many of these species, however, are found at low population densities or on a small number of sites. The studies also provided comparative data for unmined habitat in the region and reported 324 species. About 12% of the species reported for reclaimed habitat were not reported for unmined habitat, while 6% of the species reported for unmined habitat were not reported for reclaimed habitat. Similar numbers of rare and endangered species occur on reclaimed and unmined habitats in the region. Differences in the fauna! assemblages of reclaimed and unmined areas can generally be traced to the effects of habitat maturity, wetland hydroperiod, the presence of large lakes, sandy substrates, and dispersal factors. The information suggests that additional species, or more robust populations of particular species, could be recruited to reclaimed habitat if several factors are incorporated into designs. Most reclaimed wetlands were constructed to have relatively stable water levels and extended hydroperiods. More ephemeral marshes should be created. Most uplands are reclaimed with a loamy-overburden soil cap. Large sand lenses should be left at the surface to provide a more suitable medium for fossorial animals. More care should be taken to situate reclaimed habitats to facilitate animal movement between habitat types. Many projects provide only two vegetative strata (trees and groundcover).
  • Restoring Longleaf Pine Forest Ecosystems in the Southern U.S

    Restoring Longleaf Pine Forest Ecosystems in the Southern U.S

    chapter thirty-two Restoring longleaf pine forest ecosystems in the southern U.S. Dale G. Brockway, Kenneth W. Outcalt, and Donald J. Tomczak US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Everett E. Johnson Auburn University Contents 32.1 Southern forest environment .......................................................................................... ..50 2 32.2 Longleaf pine ecology.. ..................................................................................................... .502 32.2.1 Longleaf pine ecosystems .................................................................................. ..50 2 32.2.2 Ecological significance ........................................................................................ ..50 . 32.3 History of longleaf pine ecosystems.. ............................................................................. .505 32.4 Social and political context ............................................................................................ ..50 6 32.5 Restoration perspectives.. ................................................................................................. .507 32.6 Restoration methods ........................................................................................................ ..50 7 32.6.1 Restoration framework ...................................................................................... ..50 7 32.6.2 Selecting techniques ............................................................................................. .508 32.6.3 Restoration prescriptions.
  • Mesic Pine Flatwoods

    Mesic Pine Flatwoods

    Mesic Pine Flatwoods he mesic pine flatwoods of South Florida are of FNAI Global Rank: Undetermined critical, regional importance to the biota of South FNAI State Rank: S4 TFlorida. They provide essential forested habitat for a Federally Listed Species in S. FL: 9 variety of wildlife species including: wide-ranging, large carnivores such as the Florida panther (Puma (=Felis) State Listed Species in S. FL: 40 concolor coryi) and the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus); mid-sized carnivores; fox squirrels (Sciurus niger spp.); and deer (Odocoileus Mesic pine flatwoods. Original photograph by Deborah Jansen. virginianus). They provide tree canopy for canopy- dependent species including neotropical migrants, tree-cavity dependent species, and tree-nesting species. Mesic pine flatwoods are also important as the principal dry ground in South Florida, furnishing refuge and cover for ground-nesting vertebrates as well as habitat for non- aquatic plant life (such as upland perennials and annuals). During the summer wet season, the mesic pine flatwoods of South Florida function as the upland ark for non-aquatic animals. Mesic flatwoods serve as ground bird nesting areas; adult tree frog climbing areas; black bear foraging, denning, and travelways; and essential red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) foraging and nesting habitat. At the current rate of habitat conversion, the mesic pine flatwoods, once the most abundant upland habitat in South Florida, is in danger of becoming one of the rarest habitats in South Florida. The impact of this loss on wide- ranging species, listed species, and biodiversity in South Florida could be irreparable. Synonymy The mesic pine flatwoods association of southwest Florida has been variously recognized and alluded to in the plant community literature.
  • Microsoft Outlook

    Microsoft Outlook

    Justin Eddy From: Patty Frantz Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 10:26 AM To: Joyce Chisolm; Justin Eddy; Gayle Nipper; Yolanda Velazquez Subject: FW: Alafia River Mit Bank CompleteClarificationResponse_03062017 Attachments: PLANS.pdf Please upload to App Id 696643. Thanks. From: sharon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:31 PM To: Patty Frantz <[email protected]>; John Emery <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Alafia River Mit Bank CompleteClarificationResponse_03062017 Hi and good afternoon Pat and John: With respect to what I sent you Monday, I found a minor discrepancy in the ‘Plans” Component. The oversight lies in Mitigation Plan Tables 4 & 6 that I had not fixed after the changes to access. Please discard the “Plans” pdf package sent on Monday and replace it with what is attached. Table 1 and UMAM Parts I & II are correct. The number of credits should be 35.52 not 35.48 as shown in Parts I & II but not Table 4. The correction is on Table 4: adjust score 7.15 to 7.19 credits with 89.93 acres for Mitigation Category U2. The corrected adjustment on Table 6 is: 1.77 to 1.78 In the Bank Credits segment attached with the “Plans” the acres were updated to reflect the corrected 89.93 U2 acres. Thank you and my apologies for the oversight… Sharon Collins TerraBlue Environmental P.O. Box 135 Homosassa Springs, FL 34447 386-878-3064 [email protected] From: sharon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 9:57 AM To: Patty Frantz ([email protected]); John Emery ([email protected]); Adrienne Vining ([email protected]) Cc: Campbell McLean ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Alafia River Mit Bank CompleteClarificationResponse_03062017 Hi and good morning Pat, John and Adrienne: As mentioned below, for your internal use to make your search for approved documents easier I sent you a table.
  • Non-Native Invasive Plants of the City of Alexandria, Virginia

    Non-Native Invasive Plants of the City of Alexandria, Virginia

    March 1, 2019 Non-Native Invasive Plants of the City of Alexandria, Virginia Non-native invasive plants have increasingly become a major threat to natural areas, parks, forests, and wetlands by displacing native species and wildlife and significantly degrading habitats. Today, they are considered the greatest threat to natural areas and global biodiversity, second only to habitat loss resulting from development and urbanization (Vitousek et al. 1996, Pimentel et al. 2005). The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation has identified 90 non-native invasive plants that threaten natural areas and lands in Virginia (Heffernan et al. 2014) and Swearingen et al. (2010) include 80 plants from a list of nearly 280 non-native invasive plant species documented within the mid- Atlantic region. Largely overlapping with these and other regional lists are 116 species that were documented in the City of Alexandria, Virginia during vegetation surveys and natural resource assessments by the City of Alexandria Dept. of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities (RPCA), Natural Lands Management Section. This list is not regulatory but serves as an educational reference informing those with concerns about non-native invasive plants in the City of Alexandria and vicinity, including taking action to prevent the further spread of these species by not planting them. Exotic species are those that are not native to a particular place or habitat as a result of human intervention. A non-native invasive plant is here defined as one that exhibits some degree of invasiveness, whether dominant and widespread in a particular habitat or landscape or much less common but long-lived and extremely persistent in places where it occurs.