DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrated Pest Management Program: Monthly Ipm Treatment Report Form

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrated Pest Management Program: Monthly Ipm Treatment Report Form INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: MONTHLY IPM TREATMENT REPORT FORM County Department / Contractor Firm Name: Forster & Kroeger Landscape Maintenance, Inc. Month: July Year: 2018 CHEMICAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE PRODUCT APPLIED EPA REGISTRATION TOTAL PRODUCT USED APPLICATOR'S TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED UNDILUTED UNITS COST $ None QUANTITY (HIGHLIGT) LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA MANAGEMENT & CULTURAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE TREATMENT APPLIED TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION (EX/MOWING, WEEDING, PRUNING, MULCHING, SANITATION, CHECKING TRAPS, PEST IDENTIFICATION, PEST MAN/HOURS CODE EXCLUSION, WATER MANAGEMENT, SOIL SOLARIZATION, FERTILIZER/SOIL AMENDMENTS, DESTROYING ALTERNATE HOSTS, ETC.) 1 x per week Various Hand cut weeds and performed weedeating Annual grasses & 80 Various Various Applied worm castings and organic fertilizer to roses and planting areas Plantinghi l areas 40 REPORT PREPARED BY: DATE: PHONE: INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: MONTHLY IPM TREATMENT REPORT FORM INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: MONTHLY IPM TREATMENT REPORT FORM COUNTY DEPARTMENT / CONTRACTOR FIRM NAME: GARDENER’S GUILD, INC. MONTH: JULY 2018 10-20 San Pedro CHEMICAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE PRODUCT APPLIED EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER TOTAL PRODUCT USED APPLICATOR’S NAME TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION UNDILUTED UNITS (CIRCLE) COST CODE QUANTITY $ LB OZ FLOZ NO APPLICATIONS PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA MANAGEMENT & CULTURAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE TREATMENT APPLIED TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION (EX/ MOWING, WEEDING, PRUNING, MULCHING, SANITATION, CHECKING TRAPS, PEST IDENTIFICATION, PEST EXCLUSION, WATER MAN/HOURS CODE MANAGEMENT, SOIL SOLARIZATION, FERTILIZER/SOIL AMENDMENTS, DESTROYING ALTERNATE HOSTS, ETC.) 7-2-18 NSP 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 LEAF AND TRASH REMOVAL 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 HAND PULL WEEDS 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 PRUNING TREES AND PLANTS FOR PAINTING PROJECT 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 6 7-9-18 7-16-18 PRUNING 7-23-18 7-30-18 REPORT PREPARED BY: T B DATE:7-6-2018 PHONE (510) 439-3700 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: MONTHLY IPM TREATMENT REPORT FORM COUNTY DEPARTMENT / CONTRACTOR FIRM NAME: GARDENER’S GUILD, INC. MONTH: JULY 2018 Adrian Rosall Park CHEMICAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE PRODUCT APPLIED EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER TOTAL PRODUCT USED APPLICATOR’S NAME TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION UNDILUTED UNITS (CIRCLE) COST CODE QUANTITY $ LB OZ FLOZ NO APPLICATIONS PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA MANAGEMENT & CULTURAL TREATMENTS APPLICATI SITE TREATMENT APPLIED TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED ON DATE LOCATION (EX/ MOWING, WEEDING, PRUNING, MULCHING, SANITATION, CHECKING TRAPS, PEST IDENTIFICATION, PEST EXCLUSION, WATER MANAGEMENT, MAN/HOURS CODE SOIL SOLARIZATION, FERTILIZER/SOIL AMENDMENTS, DESTROYING ALTERNATE HOSTS, ETC.) 7-2-18 ARP 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 HAND PULL WEEDS AND MOW AND EDGE AND BLOW 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 MOW TURF AND EDGE AND BLOWING 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 MOW AND EDGE AND WEEDS 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 2 7-9-18 7-16-18 MOW AND EDGE AND PRUNING 7-23-18 7-30-18 REPORT PREPARED BY: T B DATE: 8-3-2018 PHONE: (510) 439-3700 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: MONTHLY IPM TREATMENT REPORT FORM COUNTY DEPARTMENT / CONTRACTOR FIRM NAME: GARDENER’S GUILD, INC. MONTH: JULY 2018 Alameda Del Prado CHEMICAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE PRODUCT APPLIED EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER TOTAL PRODUCT USED APPLICATOR’S NAME TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION UNDILUTED UNITS (CIRCLE) COST CODE QUANTITY $ LB OZ FLOZ NO APPLICATIONS PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA MANAGEMENT & CULTURAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE TREATMENT APPLIED TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION (EX/ MOWING, WEEDING, PRUNING, MULCHING, SANITATION, CHECKING TRAPS, PEST IDENTIFICATION, PEST EXCLUSION, WATER MAN/HOURS CODE MANAGEMENT, SOIL SOLARIZATION, FERTILIZER/SOIL AMENDMENTS, DESTROYING ALTERNATE HOSTS, ETC.) 7—2-18 ADP 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 HAND PULL WEEDS AND PRUNING 7-23-18 7-30-18 7—2-18 ADP 6 7-9-18 7-16-18 HAND PULL WEEDS AND RAKE LEAVES 7-23-18 7-30-18 7—2-18 ADP 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 HAND PULL WEEDS AND SHRUB PRUNING 7-23-18 7-30-18 7—2-18 ADP 6 7-9-18 7-16-18 HAND PULL WEEDS 7-23-18 7-30-18 7—2-18 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 PRUNING AND SHAPING 7-23-18 7-30-18 PAPER AND TRASH REMOVAL, LEAF DEBRIS 2 REPORT PREPARED BY: T B DATE 8-3-2018 PHONE: (510) 439-3700 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: MONTHLY IPM TREATMENT REPORT FORM COUNTY DEPARTMENT / CONTRACTOR FIRM NAME: GARDENERS GUILD INC. MONTH: JULY 2018 BON AIR MEDIANS CHEMICAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE PRODUCT APPLIED EPA REGISTRATION TOTAL PRODUCT USED APPLICATOR’S TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION NUMBER UNDILUTED UNITS NAME COST CODE QUANTITY (CIRCLE) $ LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA MANAGEMENT & CULTURAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE TREATMENT APPLIED TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION (EX/ MOWING, WEEDING, PRUNING, MULCHING, SANITATION, CHECKING TRAPS, PEST IDENTIFICATION, PEST EXCLUSION, HOURS CODE WATER MANAGEMENT, SOIL SOLARIZATION, FERTILIZER/SOIL AMENDMENTS, DESTROYING ALTERNATE HOSTS, ETC.) 7-2-18 BA 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 HAND PULLING WEEDS/STIRRUP HOE 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 WWEDS AND PRUNING 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 WEEDS AND LEAF DEBRIS 7-23-18 7-30-18 REPORT PREPARED BY: T B DATE: 7-6-18 PHONE: 510-439-3700 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: MONTHLY IPM TREATMENT REPORT FORM COUNTY DEPARTMENT / CONTRACTOR FIRM NAME: GARDENER’S GUILD, INC. MONTH: JULY 2018 Candy’s Park CHEMICAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE PRODUCT APPLIED EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER TOTAL PRODUCT USED APPLICATOR’S NAME TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION UNDILUTED UNITS (CIRCLE) COST CODE QUANTITY $ LB OZ FLOZ NO APPLICATIONS PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA MANAGEMENT & CULTURAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE TREATMENT APPLIED TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION (EX/ MOWING, WEEDING, PRUNING, MULCHING, SANITATION, CHECKING TRAPS, PEST IDENTIFICATION, PEST EXCLUSION, WATER MANAGEMENT, MAN/HOURS CODE SOIL SOLARIZATION, FERTILIZER/SOIL AMENDMENTS, DESTROYING ALTERNATE HOSTS, ETC.) 7-2-18 CP 2 7-9-18 7-16-18 HAND PULL WEEDS AND BLOWING 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 2 7-9-18 7-16-18 BLOW WALKPATHS AND ENTRANCE TO PARK 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 2 7-9-18 7-16-18 PRUNING AND LEAF AND TRASH REMOVAL 7-23-18 7-30-18 REPORT PREPARED BY T B DATE 8-3-2018 PHONE: (510) 439-3700 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: MONTHLY IPM TREATMENT REPORT FORM COUNTY DEPARTMENT / CONTRACTOR FIRM NAME: GARDENER’S GUILD, INC. MONTH: JULY 2018 Castro Field Park CHEMICAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE PRODUCT APPLIED EPA REGISTRATION TOTAL PRODUCT USED APPLICATOR’S TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION NUMBER UNDILUTED UNITS NAME COST CODE QUANTITY (CIRCLE) $ LB OZ FLOZ CFP NO APPLICATIONS PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA MANAGEMENT & CULTURAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE TREATMENT APPLIED TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION (EX/ MOWING, WEEDING, PRUNING, MULCHING, SANITATION, CHECKING TRAPS, PEST IDENTIFICATION, PEST MAN/HOURS CODE EXCLUSION, WATER MANAGEMENT, SOIL POLARIZATION, FERTILIZER/SOIL AMENDMENTS, DESTROYING ALTERNATE HOSTS, ETC.) 7-2-18 CFP 6 7-9-18 7-16-18 MOW AND EDGE AND BLOWING 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 6 7-9-18 7-16-18 BLOWING AND LEAF AND TRASH REMOVAL AND MOW AND EDGE 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 6 7-9-18 7-16-18 MOW AND EDGE AND HAND PULL WEEDS 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 6 7-9-18 7-16-18 MOW AND EDGE AND PRUNING 7-23-18 7-30-18 REPORT PREPARED BY: T B DATE: 8-3-2018 PHONE: (510) 439-3700 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: MONTHLY IPM TREATMENT REPORT FORM COUNTY DEPARTMENT / CONTRACTOR FIRM NAME: GARDENER’S GUILD, INC. MONTH: JULY 2018 Civic Center CHEMICAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE PRODUCT APPLIED EPA REGISTRATION TOTAL PRODUCT USED APPLICATOR’S NAME TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION NUMBER UNDILUTED UNITS (CIRCLE) COST CODE QUANTITY $ LB OZ FLOZ CC NO APPLICATIONS PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA LB OZ FLOZ PT QT GA MANAGEMENT & CULTURAL TREATMENTS APPLICATION SITE TREATMENT APPLIED TARGET PEST(S) ESTIMATED DATE LOCATION (EX/ MOWING, WEEDING, PRUNING, MULCHING, SANITATION, CHECKING TRAPS, PEST IDENTIFICATION, PEST EXCLUSION, WATER MAN/HOURS CODE MANAGEMENT, SOIL SOLARIZATION, FERTILIZER/SOIL AMENDMENTS, DESTROYING ALTERNATE HOSTS, ETC.) 7-2-18 CC 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 MOW AND EDGE AND HAND PULL WEEDS/ STIRRUP HOE 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 MOW AND EDGE AND BLOW WALKWAYS AND CURBLINES 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 MOW AND EDGE AND HAND PULL WEEDS IN MEDIAN ISLANDS 7-23-18 7-30-18 7-2-18 4 7-9-18 7-16-18 MOW AND EDGE AND PRUNING AND IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT 7-23-18 7-30-18 REPORT PREPARED BY: T B 7-6-2018 PHONE: (510) 439-3700 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: MONTHLY IPM TREATMENT REPORT FORM ________________ COUNTY DEPARTMENT / CONTRACTOR FIRM NAME: GARDENER’S GUILD, INC.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Relatives of Temperate Fruits) of the Book Series, "Wild Crop Relatives: Genetic, Genomic and Breeding Resources Ed C
    Volume 6 (Relatives of Temperate Fruits) of the book series, "Wild Crop Relatives: Genetic, Genomic and Breeding Resources ed C. Kole 2011 p179-197 9 Rubus J. Graham* and M. Woodhead Scottish Crop Research Institute, Dundee, DD2 5DA, UK *Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract The Rosaceae family consists of around 3, 000 species of which 500 belong to the genus Rubus. Ploidy levels range from diploid to dodecaploid with a genomic number of 7, and members can be difficult to classify into distinct species due to hybridization and apomixes. Species are distributed widely across Asia, Europe, North and South America with the center of diversity now considered to be in China, where there are 250-700 species of Rubus depending on the taxonomists. Rubus species are an important horticultural source of income and labor being produced for the fresh and processing markets for their health benefits. Blackberries and raspberries have a relatively short history of less than a century as cultivated crops that have been enhanced through plant breeding and they are only a few generations removed from their wild progenitor species. Rubus sp. are typically found as early colonizers of disturbed sites such as pastures, along forest edges, in forest clearings and along roadsides. Blackberries are typically much more tolerant of drought, flooding and high temperatures, while red raspberries are more tolerant of cold winters. Additionally, they exhibit vigorous vegetative reproduction by either tip layering or root suckering, permitting Rubus genotypes to cover large areas. The attractiveness of the fruits to frugivores, especially birds, means that seed dispersal can be widespread with the result that Rubus genotypes can very easily be spread to new sites and are very effective, high-speed invaders.
    [Show full text]
  • F a C T S H E E T Blackberries
    JEFFERSON COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD F A C T S H E E T BLACKBERRIES Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) Himalayan blackberry stems (canes) can grow to 9 feet in height but often trail along the ground, growing 20-40 feet long. Thorns grow along the stems as well as on the leaves and leaf stalks. Himalayan blackberries have five distinct leaflets; each leaflet has a toothed margin and is generally oval in shape. Canes start producing berries in their second year. Himalayan blackberry can be evergreen, depending on the site. Rose family. Himalayan blackberry Himalayan blackberry Evergreen blackberry The leaflets of evergreen blackberry are deeply lobed, making it easy to distinguish from WHY BE CONCERNED? Himalayan blackberry. Both Himalayan and evergreen DISTRIBUTION: blackberries form impenetrable Himalayan blackberry is extremely visible in thickets, consisting of both dead and most of Jefferson County, growing along live canes. These thickets out-compete roadsides, over fences and other vegetation, and native vegetation and are a good invading many open areas. Evergreen source of food and shelter for rats. blackberry is more common in the West end of the county, where it has been seen to invade Both Himalayan and evergreen riparian areas. blackberries are Class C Weeds 380 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 (360) 379-5610 Ext. 205 [email protected] http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeedBoard ECOLOGY: . Seeds can be spread by birds, humans and other mammals. The canes often cascade outwards, forming mounds, and can root at the tip when they hit the ground, expanding the infestation .
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 BGSS Abstract Book UPDATED
    th 26 Annual Biology Graduate Student Symposium Program and Abstracts Oregon State University Mark O. Hatfield Marine Science Center Newport, Oregon March 2nd, 2013 Table of Contents Page Message from 2013 Organizing Committee 1 Acknowledgements 2 General Information 2 Schedule of Talks 3 Keynote Speaker 4 Oral Presentation Abstracts 4 Poster Presentation Abstracts 10 Map of the Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC) 13 Directions to the Rental House from HMSC 14 Message from the 2013 Organizing Committee th Welcome to the 26 Annual Biology Graduate Student Symposium! This conference, organized by and for graduate students, brings together students from all the life science departments at Oregon State University. It is a forum to share research with our peers and to facilitate a better appreciation of the breadth of biological investigation that occurs at our university. This gathering is an opportunity to broaden our outlook on the study of biology; to discuss graduate life and current events; and encourage interactions between future researchers in the various life sciences. We hope you have a productive conference and that you will bring away a positive experience to share with other students. 2013 Organizing Committee Casey Benkwitt Elizabeth Cerny-Chipman Cammie Crowder Emily Hartfield Tye Kindinger Sheila Kitchen Dani Long Trang Nguyen Jessie Reimer Chenchen Shen Hannah Tavalire 1 Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the support of the following sponsors: OSU Departments: Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Department of Zoology College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences College of Education College of Science Graduate School Venue: Hatfield Marine Science Center of Oregon State University Refreshments and Food: First Alternative Co-Op Fred Meyer Rogue Brewery Safeway General Information Presentations: The symposium will take place in the Auditorium at the Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC) (map – p.
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite National Park U.S
    National Park Service Yosemite National Park U.S. Department of the Interior Invasive Plant Management Plan Update Environmental Assessment In 2008, Yosemite National Park created the Invasive Plant Management Plan (2008 IPMP) to provide a comprehensive, prioritized program of invasive plant prevention, early detection, control, systematic monitoring, and research. The 2009 Big Meadow Fire, and issues related to managing Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and other plants, highlighted the need for a more adaptive, programmatic plan that offers additional tools necessary to address the threat that invasive plants pose to park resources. Yosemite National Park is updating the 2008 IPMP to provide additional methods that can increase the effectiveness of the park’s invasive plant management efforts. Invasive The spread of invasive species is recognized as one of the major factors contributing to ecosystem change and instability throughout the world. An invasive species is “a non-native Species….. species whose introduction does, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm or What are they harm to human, animal, or plant health” (Executive Order 13112, 1999). These species have and why are the ability to displace or eradicate native species, alter fire regimes, damage infrastructure, and threaten human livelihoods. they a problem? Invasive species are changing the iconic landscapes of our national parks. In areas dominated by non-native plant species, native plant populations can be reduced to small, isolated populations, or even driven to local extinction. As native plants decline in numbers, so may the wildlife that depend on them for food. Invasive plants can harm the visitor’s experience by replacing the park’s spectacular and diverse displays of showy wildflowers with large, unattractive monocultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Blackberry (Rubus Armeniacus/Discolor/Procerus)
    Best Practices for Invasive Species Management in Garry Oak and Associated Ecosystems: Evergreen Blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) and Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus/discolor/procerus) Assess the site characteristics and your available resources to help you decide where to take management action, what action to take, and when. These decisions should be made within the context of the overall restoration objectives (and restoration plan, if one exists). Before proceeding, be aware that it is very important to not confuse Evergreen blackberry (R. laciniatis) with the native Rubus ursinus. Evergreen blackberry is often found in association with Himalayan blackberry. If Evergreen blackberry is found alone and you are uncertain you have identified it correctly, leave it alone. Also leave it alone if it is in trailing form (rather than upright); you may damage understory vegetation by trying to remove it. a) Deciding where to take action Factor 1: Blackberry density Survey the areas in the GOE where blackberry occurs. Sketch-out and label these areas “zone 1”, “zone 2” or “zone 3” on your sketch map. Use the following descriptions: Zone 1 satellite patches (from a few canes, to a 5 foot by 5 foot patch) Zone 2 edges around larger patches Zone 3 larger patches (larger than 5’ by 5’) Where to focus your effort? Follow the Priority Principle: contain the invasive species first, then reduce its amount! The highest priority is to prevent further spread of blackberry. Only take action to reduce the “footprint” of the blackberry invasion after it is contained. Therefore Zones 1 and 2 should be your first priority, and you should only move into Zones 3 areas when blackberry has been successfully removed from Zones 1 and 2.
    [Show full text]
  • We Hope You Find This Field Guide a Useful Tool in Identifying Native Shrubs in Southwestern Oregon
    We hope you find this field guide a useful tool in identifying native shrubs in southwestern Oregon. 2 This guide was conceived by the “Shrub Club:” Jan Walker, Jack Walker, Kathie Miller, Howard Wagner and Don Billings, Josephine County Small Woodlands Association, Max Bennett, OSU Extension Service, and Brad Carlson, Middle Rogue Watershed Council. Photos: Text: Jan Walker Max Bennett Max Bennett Jan Walker Financial support for this guide was contributed by: • Josephine County Small • Silver Springs Nursery Woodlands Association • Illinois Valley Soil & Water • Middle Rogue Watershed Council Conservation District • Althouse Nursery • OSU Extension Service • Plant Oregon • Forest Farm Nursery Acknowledgements Helpful technical reviews were provided by Chris Pearce and Molly Sullivan, The Nature Conservancy; Bev Moore, Middle Rogue Watershed Council; Kristi Mergenthaler and Rachel Showalter, Bureau of Land Management. The format of the guide was inspired by the OSU Extension Service publication Trees to Know in Oregon by E.C. Jensen and C.R. Ross. Illustrations of plant parts on pages 6-7 are from Trees to Know in Oregon (used by permission). All errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors. Book formatted & designed by: Flying Toad Graphics, Grants Pass, Oregon, 2007 3 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................ 4 Plant parts ................................................................................... 6 How to use the dichotomous keys ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • NAME of SPECIES: Rubus Armeniacus Focke Synonyms: R
    NAME OF SPECIES: Rubus armeniacus Focke Synonyms: R. discolor Weihe & Nees, R. hedycarpus var. armeniacus (Focke) Focke, R. procerus auct. non P.J. Mull. Ex Genev Common Name: Himalayan blackberry, Himalaya giant Cultivars? YES NO blackberry, Himalaya-berry A. CURRENT STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION I. In Wisconsin? 1. YES NO 2. Abundance: None 3. Geographic Range: N/A 4. Habitat Invaded: Pastures, riparian areas, wastelands, fence lines, forest plantations, roadsides, creek gullies, river flats and right-of-ways (1, 2) Disturbed Areas Undisturbed Areas 5. Historical Status and Rate of Spread in Wisconsin: N/A 6. Proportion of potential range occupied: Low II. Invasive in Similar Climate 1. YES NO Zones Where (include trends): Western United States, Midwestern states inlcuding southern Il, Missouri, Arkansas and the southeastern US (1) III. Invasive in Which Habitat 1. Upland Wetland Dune Prairie Aquatic Types Forest Grassland Bog Fen Swamp Marsh Lake Stream Other: IV. Habitat Affected 1. Soil types favored or tolerated: Wet spots on both acidic and alkaline soils (2) 2. Conservation significance of threatened habitats: Forms dense thickets in wet areas, potentially inhibiting medium and large animals’ access to water (2) V. Native Range and Habitat 1. List countries and native habitat types: Western Europe (2) VI. Legal Classification 1. Listed by government entities? WA and OR Noxious Weeds Lists (1) 2. Illegal to sell? YES NO Notes: Cannot import to United States from other countries without special permit (4) B. ESTABLISHMENT POTENTIAL AND LIFE HISTORY TRAITS I. Life History 1. Type of plant: Annual Biennial Monocarpic Perennial Herbaceous Perennial Vine Shrub Tree 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (2MB)
    MAGYAR NYELVŐR 137. ÉVF. * 2013. JÚLIUS–SZEPTEMBER * 3. SZÁM A Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság működésének kezdetei 1905-ben Kik alkották a társaság tagságát a megalakulást követő évben?*1 1. Szily Kálmán a Magyar Nyelv 1906. évi kötetének az elején Olvasóinkhoz cí- men röviden utalt a Társaság és folyóirata indulásával kapcsolatos aggodalmaira, de – állapítja meg ugyanakkor – ez utóbbiak feleslegesnek bizonyultak. Meg is in- dokolta miért: „Társaságunk tagjai a lefolyt évben oly mértékben felszaporodtak s folyóiratunk köré annyi előfizető sorakozott, hogy semmit sem kellett Semsey Andor adományából elköltenünk s az egészet alaptőkénkhez csatolhattuk, sőt még ezen felül is jelentékeny összeggel szaporíthattuk a Társaság vagyonát. Társasá- gunk és folyóiratunk léte ez idő szerint tehát biztosítva van” (Szily 1906: 1–2). Felidézte aztán a Társaság alapszabályaiban rögzített feladatokat. Megjegyzem még, hogy Bárczi tanár úr is a Társaság gyors felvirágzásáról beszélt a hatvanéves jubileumon (Bárczi 1965: 5). Szily Kálmán elnök az 1905. január 24-i választmányi ülésen már bemutatta a tervnek pontosan megfelelően a Magyar Nyelv első füzetét. A füzetből 1100 pél- dányt nyomtattak, 700-at a tagok számára, 300-at mutatványszámnak és 100-at a könyvárusok részére. Az elnök bemutatta az 1904. évről szóló számadást és az 1905. évre javasolt költségvetést. 2. Hogy milyen gondja volt a vezetőségnek a népnyelvi gyűjtésre, azt igazolja az 1905. évi január 24-i választmányi ülésen hozott határozat. Eszerint „addig is, amíg a népnyelvi gyűjtést rendszeresen megkezdhetik, a Nagy Szótár anyagából azt, a mi a Magyar Tájszótárban nincs meg, a Magyar Nyelvben közzéteszik” (1905: 188). Ezen az ülésen is regisztrálták a rendes tagoknak felvetteket. A Szily Kál- mán ajánlatára elfogadott 53 rendes tag között volt például Baksay Sándor Duna- melléki református püspök (Kunszentmiklós), Csánki Dezső országos levéltár - nok (Budapest), Goldziher Ignác orientalista egyetemi tanár (Budapest), Marczali Henrik történész egyetemi tanár (Budapest), Móricz Zsigmond író (Budapest), id.
    [Show full text]
  • Szó- És Szólásmagyarázatok
    Szó- és szólásmagyarázatok Erdei gyümölcsök I. Fajnevek a Rubus nemzetségben A szeder és a málna nemzetsége a Rubus. Fajainak két fő központja van: Európa és Észak-Amerika. Laikus számára a hazai szederfélék felismerése nem könnyű feladat, de nem is feltétlenül fontos, hiszen a szedernek egyetlen része sem mérgező. Sőt az egyik legrégebbi gyógynövény, már az ókor- ban említik jótékony hatását. földi szeder J. Rubus fruticosus (P. 485). Gyűjtőfaj, a legtöbb hazai szeder a földi szeder faj- csoportba tartozik. Egész Európában elterjedt. A nyersen üdítő gyümölcs alkalmas süteményekbe, gyümölcstortákba, lekvár és gyümölcsbor készítésére is. Neve 1578-tól adatolható: „fa és földi Sзedery” (Herbarium, Fol. 2). 1803-ban Kitaibel Pál beregi útinaplóiban, Tokaj környékén Földi szeder ’Rubus sp.’ (OrvTörtKözl. 1984: 3/4). 1924-ben földi szeder (MF. II: 485), 1966-ban földiszeder ’Rubus’ (MNöv. 273), de más helyén pontosab- ban: földi szeder ’Rubus p.p. excl. Rubus idaeus’ (uo. 64) (p. p. [pro parte], azaz a név az illető nemzetségnek nem összes fajára vonatkozik). A népnyelvben fődi szeder (uo.), Baranyában fődi- szödörnye (ÚMTsz.). Az összetétel előtagja azt fejezi ki, hogy a növény a rendesnél kisebb, földkö- zeli. Ugyanez a névadás szemléleti háttere a gyalogszeder (MNöv. 71; R. 1808: SI.) neve esetében. Hasonló gyalog- előtagú összetétel például a gyalogbodza vagy a gyalogeper, jelzős szerkezetekből forrtak össze, az előtag melléknévi funkcióban szerepel bennük. Azt fejezi ki, hogy az így jelölt növények alacsonyak. Erdélyben a gyaloktök ’nem ugy nőül bokorba, nincsen neki futása’, azaz a földön, alacsonyan, nem felfutva terem. Társneve a gyümölcs színére utaló fekete szeder (P. 235), akárcsak a fi. mustavatukka (PN.), azaz ’fekete szeder’ és az ol.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream & Wetland Enhancement Guide
    Stream & Wetland Enhancement Guide Department of Community Development (541) 488-5305 www.ashland.or.us Stream & Wetland Enhancement Guide A healthy network of urban streams and wetlands protects water quality, reduces fl ood- ing impacts, provides fi sh and wildlife habitat, and enhances the beauty and livability of our community. You can help protect and enhance these important natural resources by learning the techniques outlined in this guide. These techniques will help you control erosion, man- age invasive plants, and cultivate a healthy, native landscape. This guide is arranged into sections to help you understand, design, plant and manage streamside vegetation. Local, state and federal permits may be required for work in and around streams and wetlands. Chapter 18.63 Water Resources Protection Zones of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) regulates activities such as vegetation removal, earth-moving activities and construction in and around streams and wetlands. Additionally, earth-moving ac- tivities and construction in fl ood plain lands is regulated by Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints of the AMC. For more information about local regulations pertaining to the alteration of riparian and wetland habitats, contact the City of Ashland at (541) 488-5305. Stream & Wetland Enhancement Guide Contents 1. Rogue Basin Native Plants 2. Noxious, Invassive and Inappropriate Plants 3. Plant Communities Wetlands Riparian Woodlands 4. Planting and Managing Streamside Vegetation 5. Planting Techniques 6. Plant Protection 7. Streamside
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN and MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION ORGANISATION EUROPEENNE ET MEDITERRANEENNE POUR LA PROTECTION DES PLANTES 11-17190 Final for the Web
    EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION ORGANISATION EUROPEENNE ET MEDITERRANEENNE POUR LA PROTECTION DES PLANTES 11-17190 Final for the web Report of a Pest Risk Analysis for Drosophila suzukii This summary presents the main features of a pest risk analysis which has been conducted on the pest, according to EPPO Decision support scheme for quarantine pests. Pest: Drosophila suzukii PRA area: EPPO region Assessors: BAKER Richard (Mr) Food and Environment Research AgencyYork (GB) BAUFELD Peter (Mr) Julius Kühn-Institut (JKI), Kleinmachnow (DE) GRASSI Alberto (Mr) Fondazione Edmund Mach – IASMA, S.Michele all’Adige (IT) GUITIAN CASTRILLON Jose Maria (Mr) Tecnologias y Servicios Agrarios, S. A. - TRAGSATEC, Madrid (ES) HAUSER Martin (Mr) California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento (USA) HUEPPELSHEUSER Tracy (Ms) British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Abbotsford (CA) KNIGHT Jonathan (Mr) Imperial College London, (United Kingdom) REYNAUD Philippe (Mr) Laboratoire de la Santé des Végétaux, Angers (FR) OEPP/EPPO PETTER Françoise (Ms), Paris (FR) SUNLEY Robert (Mr) Paris (FR) Date: 2010-07-05/08 STAGE 1: INITIATION Reason for doing PRA: In November 2009, Italy notified the occurrence of D. suzukii in the Trentino-Alto-Adige region. In El Perelló, Spain (150 km from Barcelona, Catalonia) the insect has been detected in traps since October 2008. In France D. suzukii was collected in traps and identified in both Montpellier and Minière de Vallauria in 2009. It was subsequently officially identified in June 2010 on cherry, peach and apricot in Corsica, and on strawberry in the Alpes Maritimes. In the USA and Canada this species is an important pest which has spread very fast through the fruit and wine growing areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Tree Vegetation Technical Manual
    CITY OF SALEM TREE AND VEGETATION TECHNICAL MANUAL G:\GROUP\PUBWKS\WATER RESOURCES\TREES AND VEGETATION\SALEM TREE ITEMS\VEGETATION TECHNICAL MANUAL.DOC Native Trees and Shrubs The following native plants are common to Salem and the Willamette Valley and are available commercially from local nurseries. These plants may be used to fulfill the requirements of Salem Revised Code Chapter 68. Native Trees Scientific Name Common Name Ave. Height (feet) Abies grandis grand fir 100-125 Acer circinatum Vine Maple 10-20 Acer macrophyllum Big-leaf maple 50-100 Alnus rhombifolia White alder 50-80 Alnus rubra Red alder 40-50 Amelanchier alnifolia Western serviceberry 30 Arbutus menziesii Madrone 20-65 Cornus nutallii Pacific dogwood 30-40 Crataegus douglasii Black hawthorn 30-40 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash 40-80 Malus fusca Pacific crabapple 30 Pinus ponderosa Valley ponderosa pine 60-100 Populus balsamifera ssp. Black cottonwood 50-65 trichocarpa* Prunus emarginata Bitter cherry 7-50 Prunus virginiana Common chokecherry 30 Psedutsuga menziesii Douglas Fir 130 Quercus garryana Oregon white 40-90 oak/Garry oak Rhamnus purshiana Cascara 50 Salix spp.** Willow 15-40 Taxus brevifolia Pacific yew 40-50 Thuja plicata Western red cedar 50-70 Tsuga herterophylla Western hemlock 60-100 * Please consult with Public Works Stormwater Services before planting cottonwoods. ** Please consult with Public Works Wastewater Collection before planting willows. G:\GROUP\PUBWKS\WATER RESOURCES\TREES AND VEGETATION\SALEM TREE ITEMS\VEGETATION TECHNICAL MANUAL.DOC Native
    [Show full text]