DOCSLIB.ORG

Pitcher's Thistle Recovery Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pitcher's Thistle Recovery Plan U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the Pitcher’s Thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) PITCHER'S THISTLE ( Cirsium pitcheri) RECOVERY PLAN Prepared by The Pitcher's Thistle Recovery Team for Region 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fort Snelling, Minnesota PITCHER’S THISTLE (Cirsium pitcheri) RECOVERY TEAM Noel B. Pavlovic, Leader U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Porter, Indiana Marlin L. Bowles The Morton Arboretum Lisle, Illinois Susan R. Crispin Montana Natural Heritage Program Helena, Montana Thomas C. Gibson University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin Kim D. Herman Michigan Department of Natural Resources Escanaba, Michigan Robert T. Kavetsky U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing, Michigan A. Kathryn McEachern U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Ventura, California Michael R. Penskar Michigan Natural Features Inventory Lansing, Michigan ii DISCLAIMER Recovery Plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery Plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director as approved. Approved Recovery Plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Pitcher’s Thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. vii + 92 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814-2158 800-582-3421 or 301-492-6403 Fax: 301-564-4059 Email: [email protected] http://fa.r9.fws.gov/r9fwrs/ TTY users may contact the Fish and Wildlife Reference Service through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 The fee varies according to the number of pages of the plan. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The recovery team thanks the following individuals for their contributions to this plan. Candice Stewart, Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin, prepared the cover art and figures 1, 2, and 3. Mary Regan, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, provided consultation for figure design and drafts. Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, provided updated Michigan occurrence information. Current Wisconsin data was provided by Darcy Kind, Landowner Contact Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Information and data regarding the flowerhead weevil was provided by Dr. Svata Louda, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Jeannette Bowles, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, East Lansing, Michigan, assisted with word processing. Final editing and word processing were completed by Mike DeCapita and Kate Lederle. iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Current Status: Pitcher’s thistle is listed as threatened by State and Federal governments. There are 173 known occurrences found in Michigan (90%), Indiana (5%) and Wisconsin (5%). Pitcher’s thistle needs open Great Lakes sand dune habitat subject to natural disturbance processes. Its survival is threatened by shoreline development, dune stabilization, recreation, and invasive non-native plants and insects. Habitat Requirements: Pitcher’s thistle is endemic to the unforested dune systems of the western Great Lakes and requires active sand dune processes to maintain its early successional habitat. The highest ranked occurrences are on large, intact, active dunes. Pitcher’s thistle is vulnerable to habitat loss by human development, construction, recreation, and by erosion when lake levels are high. Recovery Objective: Delisting. Recovery Strategy: Protect and manage occurrences and habitat. Recovery Criteria: Delisting can occur when: 1) the essential habitat associated with a total of 115 priority occurrences representing each biogeographic region and dune type is protected and managed under a management plan for each management unit; 2) regular field surveys to verify occurrences and record new occurrences have been established; 3) landowner contacts have been initiated and protection has been investigated for the remaining (rank<BC) public and private occurrences; 4) monitoring of known sites shows a stable or increasing trend toward recovery, and that protective plans are being implemented; 5) restoration of two occurrences from among historical sites where sufficient habitat remains in Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and southern Lower Michigan has been completed, and 6) research necessary to protect, manage and restore Pitcher’s thistle has been conducted. Actions Needed: 1. Protect and manage known occurrences and essential habitat. 1. Establish and conduct regular field surveys to verify known and record new occurrences. 3. Inform the public, recreationists, public land managers and private landowners. 4. Monitor occurrences for stable or increasing trends and implementation of protective plans. 5. Restore Pitcher’s thistle populations on two appropriate sites within its historical range. 6. Conduct research necessary for protection, management and restoration. Estimated Cost of Recovery ($ 000's) Year Task 1 Task2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Total 2003 113 26 26 78 92 164 499 2004 132 26 26 78 99 196 557 2005 132 26 26 78 99 189 550 2006 108 26 26 78 92 189 519 2007 108 26 26 78 92 189 519 2008 108 26 26 78 20 65 323 2009 108 26 26 78 20 65 323 2010 108 26 26 78 0 0 238 2011 108 26 26 78 0 0 238 2012 108 26 26 78 0 0 238 2013 108 26 26 78 0 0 238 2014 108 26 26 78 0 0 238 Total 1,349 312 312 936 514 1,057 4,480 Date of Recovery: Delisting should be initiated in 2014 if recovery criteria are met. v TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER ......................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................ iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES .................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... vii LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................ vii I. Introduction ..........................................................1 A. Description ....................................................1 B. Taxonomy and Genetics ..........................................1 C. Distribution ...................................................4 1. Canada ..................................................6 2. United States .............................................6 D. Habitat and Ecosystem ..........................................23 E. Life History and Ecology ........................................27 F. Threats ......................................................35 G. Conservation Measures .........................................40 H. Strategy of Recovery ...........................................43 II. Recovery ...........................................................45 A. Objective and Criteria ..........................................45 B. Step-Down Outline .............................................55 C. Narrative .....................................................57 D. Literature Cited ...............................................70 III. Implementation Schedule .............................................78 IV. Appendices ........................................................82 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Cirsium pitcheri (Eaton) Torrey & Gray ..............................2 Figure 2. Distribution of Cirsium pitcheri in the United States. ....................5 Figure 3. Generalized dune landscape providing Cirsium pitcheri habitat ...........24 Figure 4. Cirsium pitcheri dune landscape habitat types ........................26 Figure 5. Metapopulation model for conservation of species .....................34 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. The distribution of Cirsium pitcheri in Ontario, Canada ..................7 Table 2. Summary of Cirsium pitcheri occurrences in the United States. ............8 Table 3. The distribution of Cirsium pitcheri in Michigan. ......................10 Table 4. The distribution of Cirsium pitcheri in Wisconsin. .....................20 Table 5. The distribution of Cirsium pitcheri in Indiana. ........................21 Table 6. Herbarium information for extirpated Illinois Cirsium pitcheri collections. ..22 Table 7. Recommended protection strategies for each occurrence of Cirsium pitcheri. ...............................................................47 Table 8. Implementation schedule for the Cirsium pitcheri recovery plan. ..........79 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Common habitat and locations of plant species associated with Cirsium pitcheri .........................................................83 Appendix B. The NatureServe Element Global Ranking Criteria for Cirsium pitcheri ...............................................................85 Appendix C. Cirsium pitcheri Size Classes ..................................86 Appendix D. Explanation of Protection
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supporting Analysis
    APPENDIX A Supporting Analysis Table of Contents A.1 PARK SETTING ................................................................................................................................................ 2 A.2 DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................ 4 A.3 HISTORY OF THE LUDINGTON AREA ........................................................................................................... 6 A.4 HISTORY OF LUDINGTON STATE PARK ....................................................................................................... 7 A.5 LAND OWNERSHIP AND ACQUISITIONS ................................................................................................... 10 A.6 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER RECREATION RESOURCES ............................................................................. 13 A.7 LEGAL MANDATES ........................................................................................................................................ 19 A.8 NATURAL SYSTEMS AND NATURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 23 A.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 27 A.10 EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION ......................................................................................................... 30 A.11 RECREATION RESOURCES .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Milk Thistle
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control BIOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF EXOTIC T RU E T HISTL E S RACHEL WINSTON , RICH HANSEN , MA R K SCH W A R ZLÄNDE R , ER IC COO M BS , CA R OL BELL RANDALL , AND RODNEY LY M FHTET-2007-05 U.S. Department Forest September 2008 of Agriculture Service FHTET he Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 Tby the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, USDA, Forest Service, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ On the cover: Italian thistle. Photo: ©Saint Mary’s College of California. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for information only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Strategy for Pitcher's Thistle (Cirsium Pitcheri) in Canada
    Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy for Pitcher’s Thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) in CanadaRECOVERY—June 2010 STRATEGY SERIES Recovery Strategy for Pitcher’s Thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) in Canada Pitcher’s Thistle 2011 i Recovery Strategy for Pitcher’s Thistle in Canada 2011 About the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series What is the Species at Risk Act (SARA)? SARA is the Act developed by the federal government as a key contribution to the common national effort to protect and conserve species at risk in Canada. SARA came into force in 2003 and one of its purposes is “to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.” What is recovery? In the context of species at risk conservation, recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered, threatened or extirpated species is arrested or reversed, and threats are removed or reduced to improve the likelihood of the species’ persistence in the wild. A species will be considered recovered when its long-term persistence in the wild has been secured. What is a recovery strategy? A recovery strategy is a planning document that identifies what needs to be done to arrest or reverse the decline of a species. It sets goals and objectives and identifies the main areas of activities to be undertaken. Detailed planning is done at the action plan stage. Recovery strategy development is a commitment of all provinces and territories and of three federal agencies — Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada — under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.
    [Show full text]
  • 22 AUG 2021 Index Acadia Rock 14967
    19 SEP 2021 Index 543 Au Sable Point 14863 �� � � � � 324, 331 Belle Isle 14976 � � � � � � � � � 493 Au Sable Point 14962, 14963 �� � � � 468 Belle Isle, MI 14853, 14848 � � � � � 290 Index Au Sable River 14863 � � � � � � � 331 Belle River 14850� � � � � � � � � 301 Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Res- Belle River 14852, 14853� � � � � � 308 cue System (AMVER)� � � � � 13 Bellevue Island 14882 �� � � � � � � 346 Automatic Identification System (AIS) Aids Bellow Island 14913 � � � � � � � 363 A to Navigation � � � � � � � � 12 Belmont Harbor 14926, 14928 � � � 407 Au Train Bay 14963 � � � � � � � � 469 Benson Landing 14784 � � � � � � 500 Acadia Rock 14967, 14968 � � � � � 491 Au Train Island 14963 � � � � � � � 469 Benton Harbor, MI 14930 � � � � � 381 Adams Point 14864, 14880 �� � � � � 336 Au Train Point 14969 � � � � � � � 469 Bete Grise Bay 14964 � � � � � � � 475 Agate Bay 14966 �� � � � � � � � � 488 Avon Point 14826� � � � � � � � � 259 Betsie Lake 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agate Harbor 14964� � � � � � � � 476 Betsie River 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agriculture, Department of� � � � 24, 536 B Biddle Point 14881 �� � � � � � � � 344 Ahnapee River 14910 � � � � � � � 423 Biddle Point 14911 �� � � � � � � � 444 Aids to navigation � � � � � � � � � 10 Big Bay 14932 �� � � � � � � � � � 379 Baby Point 14852� � � � � � � � � 306 Air Almanac � � � � � � � � � � � 533 Big Bay 14963, 14964 �� � � � � � � 471 Bad River 14863, 14867 � � � � � � 327 Alabaster, MI 14863 � � � � � � � � 330 Big Bay 14967 �� � � � � � � � � � 490 Baileys
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity of Michigan's Great Lakes Islands
    FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE Biodiversity of Michigan’s Great Lakes Islands Knowledge, Threats and Protection Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist April 5, 1993 Report for: Land and Water Management Division (CZM Contract 14C-309-3) Prepared by: Michigan Natural Features Inventory Stevens T. Mason Building P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 3734552 1993-10 F A report of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. 309-3 BIODWERSITY OF MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS Knowledge, Threats and Protection by Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist Prepared by Michigan Natural Features Inventory Fifth floor, Mason Building P.O. Box 30023 Lansing, Michigan 48909 April 5, 1993 for Michigan Department of Natural Resources Land and Water Management Division Coastal Zone Management Program Contract # 14C-309-3 CL] = CD C] t2 CL] C] CL] CD = C = CZJ C] C] C] C] C] C] .TABLE Of CONThNTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORY AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES 4 Geology and post-glacial history 4 Size, isolation, and climate 6 Human history 7 BIODWERSITY OF THE ISLANDS 8 Rare animals 8 Waterfowl values 8 Other birds and fish 9 Unique plants 10 Shoreline natural communities 10 Threatened, endangered, and exemplary natural features 10 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS 13 Island research values 13 Examples of biological research on islands 13 Moose 13 Wolves 14 Deer 14 Colonial nesting waterbirds 14 Island biogeography studies 15 Predator-prey
    [Show full text]
  • Pitcher's Thistle (Cirsium Pitcheri) Monitoring Activities in Michigan
    Pitcher’s Thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) Monitoring Activities in Michigan Tameka Dandridge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Patty O’Connell and Sarah Stephens, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) The Pitcher’s thistle became federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, in July 1988. It is endemic to the unforested dune systems of the western Great Lakes and requires active sand dune processes to maintain its early to mid-successional habitat. Shoreline development, recreation, dune stabilization, and invasive plants and insects are primary threats to the species. The Pitcher’s thistle was monitored at eight sites in 1993, 1996 and 2001 in the Manistee National Forest (MNF) and at P.J. Hoffmaster State Park (Hoffmaster) in 2004 and 2006. P.J. Hoffmaster State Park Manistee National Forest USFWS counted and USFS monitored Pitcher’s recorded each Pitcher’s thistle at 8 sites within the thistle plant according to an Cadillac-Manistee Ranger unofficial age class District of the Manistee (seedling, small juvenile, National Forest. Eight large juvenile, adult) permanent baseline transects designation within 9 sites at were established with the park. Further counts randomly placed transects at are required to determine Manistee Co. each site. Contiguous 5m x 5m any population changes. sampling plots were placed along the random transects to Muskegon Co. assess population trends, associated plant species and threats. Pitcher's Thistle Seedlings Total Pitcher's Thistle Plants By Year 400 5000 Total Pitcher's
    [Show full text]
  • The Antagonistic and Mutualistic Plant-Insect Interactions of Pitcher's Thistle
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarShip THE ANTAGONISTIC AND MUTUALISTIC PLANT-INSECT INTERACTIONS OF PITCHER’S THISTLE (CIRSIUM PITCHERI [TORR. EX EAT.] TORR. & A. GRAY, ASTERACEAE), A FEDERALLY THREATENED GREAT LAKES DUNE AND COBBLE SHORE ENDEMIC PLANT Jaclyn N. Inkster April 2016 Director of Thesis: Dr. Claudia L. Jolls Major Department: Department of Biology Biological control is one of the tools used for integrated pest management of invasive plant species but it is not without risks to native plants. I researched the non-target impacts of the biological control agent, the seed head weevil Larinus planus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on the Great Lakes dune and cobble shore endemic threatened thistle, Cirsium pitcheri (Asteraceae). Pitcher’s thistle is an herbaceous perennial monocarpic plant with no means of vegetative reproduction, relying solely on seed set for population persistence. The seed head weevil is univoltine and lays eggs in thistle heads. The developing larva chews the ovules or seeds before emerging as an adult to overwinter in leaf litter. I repeatedly surveyed Pitcher’s thistle plants from three populations in northern lower Michigan for impacts. The insect oviposits on thistle heads from mid-June to early July, before C. pitcheri flowering. Heads that received oviposition were on average 12-14 mm in diameter. Approximately 32% of the 1,695 heads surveyed had oviposition. A subset of dissected heads had 56% weevil egg mortality. With weevil survival, the number of filled seeds was reduced by 62%. A generalized linear mixed binary logistic model reported date of oviposition and size of heads as significant predictors of oviposition on heads.
    [Show full text]
  • 06 MI HMNFLRMP.Pdf
    Biological Opinion for the Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan March 2006 Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing Field Office 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101 East Lansing, Michigan 48823 CONSULTATION HISTORY • August 23, 2005: The Service received the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ (Forest) August 19, 2005 request for formal consultation on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (proposed Plan). The request included a BA that described the proposed Plan and made determinations of “may effect, likely to adversely affect” for the Pitcher's thistle, Kirtland's warbler, bald eagle, piping plover, Karner blue butterfly, and Indiana bat. The Forest made a determination of “may effect, not likely to adversely affect” for designated piping plover critical habitat. • September 16, 2005: The Service responded to the Forest’s request for formal consultation, indicating that the information received in the BA constituted a complete initiation package. • September – December 2005: Jessica Hogrefe (USFWS) worked with Forest biologists via email and telephone to discuss the proposed Plan and effects to listed species. • December 20, 2005: The Service transmitted a Draft Programmatic Biological Opinion to the Forest for review. • January 2006: The Forest transmitted several sets of comments to the Service on the Draft Programmatic Biological Opinion. Jessica Hogrefe discussed these comments with the Forest biologists and incorporated changes, where appropriate. • February 6, 2006: The Service transmitted a Draft Final Programmatic Biological Opinion to the Forest for review. BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Proposed Action The U.S. Forest Service proposes to revise the 1986 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forests (HMNF, Forest, Forest Service).
    [Show full text]
  • An Endemic Plant and the Plant-Insect Visitor Network of a Dune Ecosystem
    Global Ecology and Conservation 18 (2019) e00603 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Ecology and Conservation journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco Original Research Article An endemic plant and the plant-insect visitor network of a dune ecosystem * Claudia L. Jolls a, c, d, , Jaclyn N. Inkster a, b, Brian G. Scholtens c, e, Pati Vitt d, f, Kayri Havens d a Department of Biology, Howell Science Complex MS 551, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA b Nomad Ecology LLC, Martinez, CA, USA c University of Michigan Biological Station, Pellston, MI, USA d Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL, USA e College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, USA f Lake County Forest Preserves, Libertyville, IL, USA article info abstract Article history: Network theory increasingly is used to quantify and evaluate mutualistic interactions, such Received 14 November 2018 as those among plants and their flower-visiting insects or pollinators. Some plant species Received in revised form 26 March 2019 have been shown to be important in community structure using network metrics; how- Accepted 26 March 2019 ever, the roles of plant taxa, particularly rare species, are not well understood. Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri), a threatened endemic of Great Lakes shorelines, flowers late-June Keywords: to early-August, when other floral resources may be less abundant or unavailable. We Plant-insect visitor network performed 10 min insect visitor observations on all insect pollinated plants in 44e10 m by Cirsium pitcheri fl Rarity 10 m plots at Sturgeon Bay, northern lower MI, USA, during C. pitcheri owering and fl Dune endemics recorded plant species, number of open owers, species of insect visiting, and number of visits by insects.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment of a Cirsium Pitcheri Restored Population on the Coast of Lake Michigan
    Environmental Assessment of a Cirsium pitcheri Restored Population on the Coast of Lake Michigan by Kathryn E. Gerber, Christina J. Bohnet, Lauren B. Ebels, and Madison B. Springer FYRES: Dunes Research Report # 19 June 2016 Department of Geology, Geography and Environmental Studies Calvin College Grand Rapids, Michigan 1 ABSTRACT Ecological restoration poses a greater challenge when rare plants depend on specific environmental conditions. Endemic to the Great Lakes region, Cirsium pitcheri is a federally- protected, monocarpic thistle species. As such, restoration efforts to maintain and re-establish populations may be essential to the survival of these native plants. This study compared the characteristics of C. pitcheri in a second-generation artificially-restored population and a natural population in order to assess management possibilities. During the fall of 2015, we mapped the two populations, recorded physical plant characteristics and measured surface characteristics of the surrounding environments. Plant height, width, health, sand slope angle, and sand pH were compared among both populations. Herbivory, animal impacts and proximate human activity were observed in each study area. The greater density of C. pitcheri was recorded in the artificially-restored population. This group also displayed a greater average plant height, health rating, and soil pH than the naturally-occurring population. Results suggest that well-selected environmental locations for C. pitcheri regeneration have the potential to be effective management strategies to restore populations and keep them healthy into future generations. INTRODUCTION The sand dunes of eastern Lake Michigan are habitat to many unique species of flora and fauna, including the threatened thistle species Cirsium pitcheri (Pitcher’s thistle).
    [Show full text]
  • Cirsium Pitcheri (Torrey and Gray) Pitcher’S Thistle
    Cirsium pitcheri (Torrey and Gray) Pitcher’s thistle State Distribution Best Survey Period Photos by Sue Crispin Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: State threatened, Federal threatened Lake Michigan basin, especially in the Lower Peninsula counties of Emmet, Charlevoix, Leelanau, Benzie, Global and state rank: G3/S3 Manistee, Mason, and Oceana. Other common names: Dune thistle Recognition: This stout, prickly, dune species may grow to ca. 1 m or more in height, though stunted individuals as Family: Asteraceae (aster family) small as 10 cm may flower. The leaves and entire plant Total range: The range of this Great Lakes endemic falls are blue-green in color and densely covered with white- primarily within Michigan’s borders, occuring along the woolly hairs. The mature leaves are deeply divided into entire shoreline of Lake Michigan, with localities along the narrow, spine-tipped segments. The prickly, spine-tipped more limited dunes of Lake Huron and a few sites along flower heads are relatively large and strikingly cream- the extensive Grand Sable dunes of the Lake Superior colored, though they may occasionally have a slightly shore. In Canada this species occurs in northern Lake pinkish tint, yielding seeds with feathery bristles. Pitcher’s Huron and at least one site on the north shore of Lake thistle is unlikely to be easily confused with any other Superior. Several scattered sites occur along Lake thistle species in Michigan, including both native and non- Michigan in Wisconsin, and populations remain extant in native species, all of which can be distinguished by their Indiana within Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Yearbook 2012
    Science Yearbook 2012 Pitcher’s Thistle, MI Compiled by Kayri Havens-Young 2012 1 Executive Summary The Chicago Botanic Garden’s Plant Science and Conservation department had a remarkable year in 2012. On the research Front, a new weevil (Rhinocyllus conicus) introduced as a bio-control For weed thistles was discovered impacting the already threatened Pitcher’s thistle (Cirsium pitcheri). Garden scientists have been working For over 15 years to recover this important dune species. In Colorado, experiments were set up to test new post-wildFire restoration methods as part oF our Post-wildfire restoration plots – Pine Ridge, CO ongoing work with the Bureau of Land Management. From exploring biodiversity benefits of green roofs in Chicago, to understanding the impacts of climate change on rare plants in the Western U.S., and From developing sustainable pollination strategies For crops to developing tools to better conserve Fungi, Garden scientists and students are positively impacting plants and plant communities around the world. Training the next generation oF plant scientists and conservation biologists continues to be an important activity in the department. The joint CLM interns collecting seed in NM graduate program with Northwestern University is growing and thriving. Many oF our students received prestigious Fellowships and awards in 2012. Over 120 interns contributed to important stewardship activities on public lands as part oF our Conservation and Land Management Intern Program. Students From middle school through to post-doctoral researchers worked alongside Garden scientists as part oF the Science Career Continuum. Garden scientists contributed their expertise to conservation meetings and workshops in Taiwan and Korea and beyond.
    [Show full text]