DOCSLIB.ORG

Northern Sierra Nevada Foothills Vegetation Project: Vegetation Mapping Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Northern Sierra Nevada Foothills Vegetation Project: Vegetation Mapping Report Northern Sierra Nevada Foothills Vegetation Project: Vegetation Mapping Report Prepared by: John Menke, Ed Reyes, and Debbie Johnson And Aerial Information Systems 112 First St. Todd Keeler-Wolf and Rosie Yacoub, Redlands, CA 92373 Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program Julie Evens and Kendra Sikes, Department of Fish and Game Vegetation Program 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 California Native Plant Society Sacramento, CA 95811 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 February 2011 Acknowledgements: We are grateful to the following agencies and organizations for financially supporting this effort: California Department of Fish and Game’s Wildlife Conservation Board, Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, and Sierra Nevada Conservancy. We want to thank individuals at AIS who provided GIS services from photo-interpretation to map compilation: John Fulton, Arin Glass, Anne Hepburn, Mike Nelson, Ben Johnson, Janet Reyes, Lisa Morse, and Lisa Cotterman. We also thank the following CNPS staff who provided GIS and field expertise during the map accuracy assessment: Jennifer Buck, Rebecca Crowe, Melinda Elster, Betsy Harbert, Theresa Johnson, and Lisa Stelzner, and in particular Suzanne Harmon and Danielle Roach. We are indebted to the CDFG staff who provided significant input and field checks: Rachelle Boul, Melanie Gogul-Prokurat, Diana Hickson, Anne Klein, Cynthia Roye, Steve Schoenig, and Jerrad Swaney. Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 Methods.........................................................................................................................................1 Figure 1. Study area of the Northern Sierra Nevada Foothills ................................................2 Figure 2. Location of Vegetation Rapid Assessment, Relevé, and Reconnaissance Surveys in the Study Area.....................................................................................................................4 Table 1. Summary of Accuracy Assessment scoring rationale with key to coding choices in AA database............................................................................................................................6 Results...........................................................................................................................................7 Figure 3. Resulting vegetation map of the NSNF region at the formation level. .....................8 Figure 4. Distribution of the Accuracy Assessment field surveys in the study area. ...............9 Table 2. Summary of the percent accuracy assessment of the vegetation map units.. ........10 Table 3. Contingency table comparing field-visited versus photo-interpreted map units for accuracy assessment of polygons.........................................................................................11 Table 4: Accuracy Assessment summary table for total number of map units with high, moderate and low sample sizes............................................................................................14 Table 5. Summary of fuzzy logic scores for Users’ and Producers’ Accuracy for those map units at <80% accuracy threshold. ........................................................................................15 Table 6. AA analysis display for Southern Vancouverian Scrub Group with producers’ and users’ calls ............................................................................................................................19 Table 7. AA analysis display for Mesic Chaparral Group with producers’ and users’ calls...20 Table 8. Display of AA analysis for Riparian/Wash Scrub Group with producers’ and users’ calls.......................................................................................................................................23 Table 9. Display of AA analysis for Salix exigua Alliance with producers’ and users’ calls ..24 References..................................................................................................................................26 Appendix A. Description of the Mapping Methods by AIS ........................................................ A-1 Appendix B. Mapping Classification and Other Map Attributes for the Northern Sierra Nevada Foothills..................................................................................................................................... B-1 Appendix C. Field Key for the Vegetation Types Mapped in the Region .................................. C-1 Appendix D. Description of the Sampling Allocation for Map Verification................................. D-1 Appendix E. Examples of Map Accuracy Assessment Survey Forms and Database.............. E-1 Appendix F. Descriptions of the Vegetation Map Units............................................................. F-2 Tree-Overstory Vegetation 1110 – Umbellularia californica (California bay forest) Alliance.......................................... F-2 1111 – Quercus wislizeni (Interior live oak woodland) Alliance .......................................... F-4 1210 – Pinus sabiniana (Ghost or Foothill pine woodland) Alliance ................................... F-6 1211 – Pinus attenuata (Knobcone pine forest) Alliance .................................................... F-8 1212 – Juniperus californica (California juniper woodland) Alliance................................. F-10 1213 – Callitropsis (Cupressus) macnabiana (McNab cypress woodland) Alliance ......... F-12 1311 – Quercus douglasii (Blue oak woodland) Alliance.................................................. F-16 1312 – Quercus kelloggii (California black oak forest) Alliance ........................................ F-18 1313 – Quercus lobata (Valley oak woodland) Alliance.................................................... F-20 1410 – Quercus chrysolepis (Canyon live oak forest) Alliance ......................................... F-22 2110 – Pseudotsuga menziesii – Calocedrus decurrens (Douglas-fir – Incense cedar forest) Alliance.........................................................................................................................F-24 2111– Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf maple forest) Alliance................................................ F-25 2200 – Plantation – (California Montane Conifer Forests Group) ..................................... F-26 2212 – Pinus ponderosa – Calocedrus decurrens (Mixed conifer forest) Alliance............ F-28 2213 – Calocedrus decurrens (Incense-cedar forest) Alliance ......................................... F-29 3110 – Populus fremontii (Fremont cottonwood forest) Alliance....................................... F-30 3111 – Salix laevigata (Red willow thickets) Alliance........................................................ F-32 3112 – Salix gooddingii (Black willow thickets) Alliance ................................................... F-33 3113 – Juglans hindsii (California walnut groves) Alliance ............................................... F-33 3210 – Alnus rhombifolia (White alder groves) Alliance.................................................... F-34 3211 – Fraxinus latifolia (Oregon ash groves) Alliance..................................................... F-35 3310 – Platanus racemosa (California sycamore woodlands) Alliance ............................ F-36 Shrub-Overstory Vegetation 4111 – Adenostoma fasciculatum (Chamise chaparral) Alliance...................................... F-38 4112 – Arctostaphylos viscida (White leaf manzanita chaparral) Alliance ........................ F-40 4113 – Ceanothus cuneatus (Wedge leaf ceanothus Chaparral) Alliance........................ F-42 4114 – Eriodictyon californicum (California yerba santa scrub) Alliance .......................... F-44 4115 – Arctostaphylos manzanita (Common manzanita chaparral) Alliance.................... F-46 4117 – Arctostaphylos myrtifolia (Ione manzanita chaparral) Alliance.............................. F-46 4200 – California Mesic Chaparral Alliance ...................................................................... F-46 4210 – Quercus berberidifolia (Scrub oak chaparral) Alliance.......................................... F-46 4211 – Cercocarpus montanus (Birch leaf mountain mahogany chaparral) Alliance ....... F-46 4212 – Heteromeles arbutifolia (Toyon chaparral) Alliance .............................................. F-48 4310 – Quercus durata (Leather oak chaparral) Alliance ................................................. F-50 4410 – Quercus wislizeni Shrub........................................................................................ F-50 4420 – Baccharis pilularis (Coyote brush scrub) Alliance ................................................. F-50 4501 – Frangula californica (including F. c. ssp. tomentella) (California coffee berry scrub) Alliance.........................................................................................................................F-50 4610 – Cytisus spp., Genista spp., and others (Broom) Shrubland Stand........................ F-50 6110 – Ceanothus integerrimus (Deer brush chaparral) Alliance ..................................... F-52 6111 – Quercus garryana/ var. breweri (Brewer oak scrub) Alliance................................ F-54 6210 – Baccharis salicifolia Alliance ................................................................................. F-55 6211 – Salix exigua (Sandbar willow thickets) Alliance ...................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Distribution of Woody Species in Relation to Climate and Fire in Yosemite National Park, California, USA Jan W
    van Wagtendonk et al. Fire Ecology (2020) 16:22 Fire Ecology https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-020-00079-9 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Open Access The distribution of woody species in relation to climate and fire in Yosemite National Park, California, USA Jan W. van Wagtendonk1* , Peggy E. Moore2, Julie L. Yee3 and James A. Lutz4 Abstract Background: The effects of climate on plant species ranges are well appreciated, but the effects of other processes, such as fire, on plant species distribution are less well understood. We used a dataset of 561 plots 0.1 ha in size located throughout Yosemite National Park, in the Sierra Nevada of California, USA, to determine the joint effects of fire and climate on woody plant species. We analyzed the effect of climate (annual actual evapotranspiration [AET], climatic water deficit [Deficit]) and fire characteristics (occurrence [BURN] for all plots, fire return interval departure [FRID] for unburned plots, and severity of the most severe fire [dNBR]) on the distribution of woody plant species. Results: Of 43 species that were present on at least two plots, 38 species occurred on five or more plots. Of those 38 species, models for the distribution of 13 species (34%) were significantly improved by including the variable for fire occurrence (BURN). Models for the distribution of 10 species (26%) were significantly improved by including FRID, and two species (5%) were improved by including dNBR. Species for which distribution models were improved by inclusion of fire variables included some of the most areally extensive woody plants. Species and ecological zones were aligned along an AET-Deficit gradient from cool and moist to hot and dry conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildflower Talk
    Wildflower Talk These are a series of short articles written by Kristen Currin of Humble Roots Native Plant Nursery in Mosier, Oregon, featuring plants from around the Columbia Gorge. Each of these articles appeared in an issue of the Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District’s newsletter, GROUNDWORK. I hope you enjoy them. All photos are courtesy of Kristen Currin. Please ask permission before using. www.humblerootsnursery.com Nothing in this document is to be construed as medical advice. A licensed herbalist should be consulted for proper identification and preparation before eating those plants designated as edible. Humble Roots Nursery nor the Conservation District are liable for improper consumption of plants listed in this document. INDEX Arnica, Heart-Leaf Glacier Lily Phlox, Cushion Bachelor Buttons Goldenrod Pineapple Weed Balsamroot Grass Widow Prairie Stars Bitterroot Indian Hemp Rabbitbrush (sp) Buckwheat, Arrowleaf Juniper Rabbitbrush, Gray Buckwheat, Snow Larkspur, Upland Rose, Wild California Poppy Kinnickinick Saxifrage Cattail Mariposa Lily Serviceberry Ceanothus Milkweed, Showy Shooting Star, Poet’s Chocolate Lily Miner’s Lettuce Sumac, Smooth Columbia Coreopsis Mugwort, Western Wapato Currant, Golden Native Shrubs Washington Lily Dutchman’s Breeches Nettle, Stinging Western Bunchberry Desert Parsley, Columbia Oceanspray Yellow Bee Plant Desert Parsley, Gray’s Oregon Grape Yellow Bells Elderberry, Blue Pearly Everlasting Yellow Star Thistle Gairdners Yampah Phantom Orchid 1 TOP Page Heart-leaf Arnica Arnica cordifolia Look for arnica's yellow flowers in spring. Arnica is an important native medicinal plant used topically to soothe sore muscles and sprains. A woodland plant and a good choice for the shady xeric garden. Bachelor Buttons, Cornflower Centaurea cyanus Many may think this beautiful blue flower is a native plant due to the fact that it dominates many of our meadows and is commonly sold in wildflower seed mixes.
    [Show full text]
  • KERN RIVER PARKWAY PLANT LIST (Only Plant Species Permitted for Projects Within the Kern River Parkway Area - Includes Streetscape and Parking Lots)
    KERN RIVER PARKWAY PLANT LIST (only plant species permitted for projects within the Kern River Parkway area - includes streetscape and parking lots) Scientific Name Common Name Type Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple Large tree Acer negundo ssp, californicum California box elder Large tree Aesculus californica California buckeye Large tree Alnus rhombifolia White alder Large tree Amelanchier pallida Western service berry Shrub or small tree Artemisia californica Coastal sage Shrub or small tree Artostaphlos densiflora Manzanita Shrub or small tree Artostaphlos glauca Manzanita Shrub or small tree Artostaphlos manzanita Manzanita Shrub or small tree Artostaphlos parryi Manzanita Shrub or small tree Atriplex lentiformis Quailbush Shrub or small tree Baccharis glutinosa Mulefat Shrub or small tree Baccharis pilularis "Twin Peaks" Dwarf coyote bush Flowering herb or groundcover Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanquinea Coyote bush Shrub or small tree Calycanthus occidentalis Western spice bush Shrub or small tree Carpenteria californica Tree anemone Shrub or small tree Castanopsis spp. Chiquapin Shrub or small tree Ceanothus cunneatus Ceanothus Shrub or small tree Ceanothus gloriosos Navarro ceanothus Flowering herb or groundcover Ceanothus griseus Carmel creeper Flowering herb or groundcover Ceanothus integerrimus Ceanothus Shrub or small tree Ceanothus leucodermis Ceanothus Shrub or small tree Ceanothus purpureus Ceanothus Shrub or small tree Ceanothus thrysiflorus Blue blossom Shrub or small tree Ceanothus thrysiflorus Ceanothus Shrub or small
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 – Northern Sierra Nevada Foothills Vegetation Mapping Report
    Northern Sierra Nevada Foothills Vegetation Project: Vegetation Mapping Report Prepared by: John Menke, Ed Reyes, and Debbie Johnson And Aerial Information Systems 112 First St. Todd Keeler-Wolf and Rosie Yacoub, Redlands, CA 92373 Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program Julie Evens and Kendra Sikes, Department of Fish and Game Vegetation Program 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 California Native Plant Society Sacramento, CA 95811 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 February 2011 Acknowledgements: We are grateful to the following agencies and organizations for financially supporting this effort: California Department of Fish and Game’s Wildlife Conservation Board, Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, and Sierra Nevada Conservancy. We want to thank individuals at AIS who provided GIS services from photo-interpretation to map compilation: John Fulton, Arin Glass, Anne Hepburn, Mike Nelson, Ben Johnson, Janet Reyes, Lisa Morse, and Lisa Cotterman. We also thank the following CNPS staff who provided GIS and field expertise during the map accuracy assessment: Jennifer Buck, Rebecca Crowe, Melinda Elster, Betsy Harbert, Theresa Johnson, and Lisa Stelzner, and in particular Suzanne Harmon and Danielle Roach. We are indebted to the CDFG staff who provided significant input and field checks: Rachelle Boul, Melanie Gogul-Prokurat, Diana Hickson, Anne Klein, Cynthia Roye, Steve Schoenig, and Jerrad Swaney. Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Quail Translocation Project 2011 Gearhart Mountain
    Mountain Quail Translocation Project 2011 Gearhart Mountain Benjamin Cate, Mountain Quail Technician Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Klamath Wildlife Area 1850 Miller Island Rd. West Klamath Falls, OR 97603 (541)-883-5732 Cover photo: Klamath County mountain quail chick by Ben Cate. 1 Table of Contents Page Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..2 Study Area……………………………………………………………………………………....3 Methods……………………………………………………………………………………...…..4 Results………………………………………………………………………………………...…5 Survival…………………………………………………………………………………..5 Movements…………………………………………………………………………...….6 Reproductive and Nest Site Characteristics…………………………………….…...…..7 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………….8 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………..10 Maps…………………………………………………………………………….……………..11 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………15 Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………………….…15 2 Introduction Over the past century mountain quail populations have significantly declined in the eastern portion of their range, likely as a result of habitat loss due to fire suppression, overgrazing, and water impoundment projects (Brennan 1991, 1994). Mountain quail were once found throughout Oregon and continue to be abundant in the Coastal and western Cascade forests, however; they are now restricted to isolated populations east of the Cascade Range (Map 1). Their current range extends from the most extreme southwestern portion of British Columbia south to Baja and east to Idaho and Nevada (Johnsgard 1973, Crawford 2000). Throughout their range, Mountain
    [Show full text]
  • Corridors, Corridors, Everywhere
    Plant Communities and Corridors Plants in Nature and Plants in Gardens What are native plants? What are endemic plants? Arctostaphylos mewukka Indian Manzanita, an example of endemism California Floristic Province Ecological Hotspot Criteria: • Over 1500 species of irreplaceable endemic vascular plants CA has over 2100 • Less than 30% of original vegetation CA has 24% • 35 hotspots in the world • Cover just 2.3% of Earth’s land surface • Support more than 50% of plant species • California is one of just 5 Mediterranean hotspots Geology and topography help determine what grows where: Soils from ocean sediment, uplift, glaciation, volcanoes… Plants evolved on varied substrates They’re evolving while we speak! Plants in nature don’t use fertilizer Organic matter: leaves, stems, animal manure, dead things… Soil biota: decomposers (fungi, bacteria) and ‘soil animals’ (protozoa, nematodes) Decomposition by microbes is extremely complex. They decompose and build new organic Nutrient exchanges compounds. Soil interacts with the compounds. Native plants drive ecosystems via evolutionary interdependencies Each member provides ecosystem services There are multiple nutrition strategies Plants tend to congregate in overlapping Plant Communities Examples: • Oak Woodland • Chaparral • Dry Perennial/Scrub • Grassland • Riparian * These are just the main plant communities around Placerville and Cameron Park Oak Woodland Community 5 main oak species (Blue, Valley, Interior, Canyon, and Black oak) Grey pine Toyon Mexican elderberry California bay California
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Analysis of the Nodule Transcriptomes of Ceanothus Thyrsiflorus (Rhamnaceae, Rosales) and Datisca Glomerata (Datiscaceae, Cucurbitales)
    fpls-09-01629 November 12, 2018 Time: 18:56 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 14 November 2018 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01629 Comparative Analysis of the Nodule Transcriptomes of Ceanothus thyrsiflorus (Rhamnaceae, Rosales) and Datisca glomerata (Datiscaceae, Cucurbitales) Marco G. Salgado1, Robin van Velzen2, Thanh Van Nguyen1, Kai Battenberg3, Alison M. Berry3, Daniel Lundin4,5 and Katharina Pawlowski1* 1 Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 2 Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Department of Plant Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands, 3 Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States, 4 Centre for Ecology and Evolution in Microbial Model Systems, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden, 5 Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Edited by: Stefan de Folter, Two types of nitrogen-fixing root nodule symbioses are known, rhizobial and actinorhizal Centro de Investigación y de Estudios symbioses. The latter involve plants of three orders, Fagales, Rosales, and Cucurbitales. Avanzados (CINVESTAV), Mexico To understand the diversity of plant symbiotic adaptation, we compared the nodule Reviewed by: Luis Wall, transcriptomes of Datisca glomerata (Datiscaceae, Cucurbitales) and Ceanothus Universidad Nacional de Quilmes thyrsiflorus (Rhamnaceae, Rosales); both species are nodulated by members of the (UNQ), Argentina Costas Delis, uncultured Frankia clade, cluster II. The analysis focused on various features. In Technological Educational Institute both species, the expression of orthologs of legume Nod factor receptor genes of Peloponnese, Greece was elevated in nodules compared to roots. Since arginine has been postulated as *Correspondence: export form of fixed nitrogen from symbiotic Frankia in nodules of D. glomerata, the Katharina Pawlowski [email protected] question was whether the nitrogen metabolism was similar in nodules of C.
    [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]
  • Vascular Plants of Santa Cruz County, California
    ANNOTATED CHECKLIST of the VASCULAR PLANTS of SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECOND EDITION Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland & Maps by Ben Pease CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CHAPTER Copyright © 2013 by Dylan Neubauer All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission from the author. Design & Production by Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland Maps by Ben Pease, Pease Press Cartography (peasepress.com) Cover photos (Eschscholzia californica & Big Willow Gulch, Swanton) by Dylan Neubauer California Native Plant Society Santa Cruz County Chapter P.O. Box 1622 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 To order, please go to www.cruzcps.org For other correspondence, write to Dylan Neubauer [email protected] ISBN: 978-0-615-85493-9 Printed on recycled paper by Community Printers, Santa Cruz, CA For Tim Forsell, who appreciates the tiny ones ... Nobody sees a flower, really— it is so small— we haven’t time, and to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time. —GEORGIA O’KEEFFE CONTENTS ~ u Acknowledgments / 1 u Santa Cruz County Map / 2–3 u Introduction / 4 u Checklist Conventions / 8 u Floristic Regions Map / 12 u Checklist Format, Checklist Symbols, & Region Codes / 13 u Checklist Lycophytes / 14 Ferns / 14 Gymnosperms / 15 Nymphaeales / 16 Magnoliids / 16 Ceratophyllales / 16 Eudicots / 16 Monocots / 61 u Appendices 1. Listed Taxa / 76 2. Endemic Taxa / 78 3. Taxa Extirpated in County / 79 4. Taxa Not Currently Recognized / 80 5. Undescribed Taxa / 82 6. Most Invasive Non-native Taxa / 83 7. Rejected Taxa / 84 8. Notes / 86 u References / 152 u Index to Families & Genera / 154 u Floristic Regions Map with USGS Quad Overlay / 166 “True science teaches, above all, to doubt and be ignorant.” —MIGUEL DE UNAMUNO 1 ~ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~ ANY THANKS TO THE GENEROUS DONORS without whom this publication would not M have been possible—and to the numerous individuals, organizations, insti- tutions, and agencies that so willingly gave of their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Nutritive Quality of Ceanothus Shrubs Conifer Forest
    Nutritive Quality of Ceanothus Shrubs in California Mixed Conifer Forest - JOHN G. KIE Abstract Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in the Sitm Nevada rely Deerbrush (Ceanothus integerrimus, H&A) and mountain white- htaviiy on mountain whittthom (Ceunothuscorduhtus, Ktii.) and thorn (C. cordulatus, Kell.) are important forage species for mule deerbrush (C. integerrhus, H&A) as summer forage. In thii study, deer (Odocoileus hemionus) on migratory and summer ranges in mountain whittthom leaves, dttrbrush itavtt, and dttrbush twigs the Sierra Nevada of California. They frequently are the most were coiitcttd from shrubs growing in full sun every 2 wteks during abundant species present in deer diets (Hagen 1953), and are also summer, and from shrubs growing under a range of overstory used by cattle grazing on summer allotments. crown ciosurtt during iatt summtr-eariy faii. Samples were ana- These shrubs become established following wildfire, prescribed lyzed for calcium, phosphorus, crude protein, in vitro digestible burning, or logging. As forest trees become reestablished, they dry matter (IVDDM), gross energy, digestible energy, and sequtn- shade out deerbrush and whitethorn shrubs (Tappeiner 1980), tiai fibers. Summer samples of ail 3 forages had adequate conctn- thereby reducing potential forage for deer. Although aspects of tratlons of calcium, apparently adequate concentrations of crude forage quality were investigated as early as the 1930’s (Cronemiller protein, and inadequate concentrations of digestible energy and 1953) advances in analytical techniques (Goering and Van Soest phosphorus for growth and development in deer. IVDDM values 1970) as well as evidence of the effects of shade on forage quality in were lower than expected based on flbtr content alone, suggesting other forest browse species (Blair et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribe Species Secretory Structure Compounds Organ References Incerteae Sedis Alphitonia Sp. Epidermis, Idioblasts, Cavities
    Table S1. List of secretory structures found in Rhamanaceae (excluding the nectaries), showing the compounds and organ of occurrence. Data extracted from the literature and from the present study (species in bold). * The mucilaginous ducts, when present in the leaves, always occur in the collenchyma of the veins, except in Maesopsis, where they also occur in the phloem. Tribe Species Secretory structure Compounds Organ References Epidermis, idioblasts, Alphitonia sp. Mucilage Leaf (blade, petiole) 12, 13 cavities, ducts Epidermis, ducts, Alphitonia excelsa Mucilage, terpenes Flower, leaf (blade) 10, 24 osmophores Glandular leaf-teeth, Flower, leaf (blade, Ceanothus sp. Epidermis, hypodermis, Mucilage, tannins 12, 13, 46, 73 petiole) idioblasts, colleters Ceanothus americanus Idioblasts Mucilage Leaf (blade, petiole), stem 74 Ceanothus buxifolius Epidermis, idioblasts Mucilage, tannins Leaf (blade) 10 Ceanothus caeruleus Idioblasts Tannins Leaf (blade) 10 Incerteae sedis Ceanothus cordulatus Epidermis, idioblasts Mucilage, tannins Leaf (blade) 10 Ceanothus crassifolius Epidermis; hypodermis Mucilage, tannins Leaf (blade) 10, 12 Ceanothus cuneatus Epidermis Mucilage Leaf (blade) 10 Glandular leaf-teeth Ceanothus dentatus Lipids, flavonoids Leaf (blade) (trichomes) 60 Glandular leaf-teeth Ceanothus foliosus Lipids, flavonoids Leaf (blade) (trichomes) 60 Glandular leaf-teeth Ceanothus hearstiorum Lipids, flavonoids Leaf (blade) (trichomes) 60 Ceanothus herbaceus Idioblasts Mucilage Leaf (blade, petiole), stem 74 Glandular leaf-teeth Ceanothus
    [Show full text]
  • Population Genetic Evidence of Restricted Gene Flow Between Host Races in the Butterfly Genus Mitoura (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)
    GENETICS Population Genetic Evidence of Restricted Gene Flow Between Host Races in the Butterfly Genus Mitoura (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) 1, 2 CHRIS C. NICE AND ARTHUR M. SHAPIRO Section of Evolution and Ecology and Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis 95616 Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 94(2): 257Ð267 (2001) ABSTRACT We surveyed variation in allozymes and in the mtDNA cytochrome oxidase subunit II (COII) gene in populations of three nominal species of hairstreak butterßies in the genus Mitoura in northern California. These species are separated on the basis of wing pattern and larval hostplant differences: M. nelsoni (Boisduval) larvae feed on incense cedar, Calocedrus decurrens (Torrey); M. muiri (Hy. Edwards) larvae feed on cypress, Cupressus macnabiana A. Murray and C. sargentii Jepson; and M. siva (W. H. Edwards) larvae feed on juniper, Juniperus occidentalis Carrie`re. All three taxa were indistinguishable using allozyme allele frequency data. Genetic distances among populations of all three species were very small (NeiÕs (1978) unbiased D ϭ 0.000Ð0.007). Percent uncorrected mtDNA divergences were similarly small (P ϭ 0.2Ð1.1%) and haplotypes are shared among taxa. However, analysis of molecular variation and exact tests for population differentiation indicate that populations of M. muiri in the coast range are differentiated from other populations. We conclude that divergence among these three taxa has occurred very recently. We further suggest the possibility that divergence is being driven by the evolution of larval host races, and that gene ßow is restricted between M. nelsoni and at least some populations of M. muiri. This restriction may result from the adultsÕ habit of mating preferentially on different host trees and through phenological differences in the timing of reproduction.
    [Show full text]