DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Resource Condition Assessment, Saratoga National

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Resource Condition Assessment, Saratoga National National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Saratoga National Historical Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/NETN/NRR—2014/751 ON THE COVER A Revolutionary War replica cannon overlooking the Hudson River at Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. Photograph by: Rebecca Wagner Saratoga National Historical Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/NETN/NRR—2014/751 Rebecca Wagner, Charles Andrew Cole, Larry Gorenflo, Brian Orland and Ken Tamminga The Pennsylvania State University Department of Landscape Architecture University Park, PA 16802 Margaret C. Brittingham, C. Paola Ferreri and Margot Kaye The Pennsylvania State University Department of Ecosystem Science and Management University Park, PA 16802 January 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal, high-level peer review based on the importance of its content, or its potentially controversial or precedent-setting nature. Peer review was conducted by highly qualified individuals with subject area technical expertise and was overseen by a peer review manager. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available in digital format from http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/nrca/reports.cfm and the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). To receive this report in a format optimized for screen readers, please email [email protected]. Please cite this publication as: Wagner, R., C. A. Cole, M. Brittingham, C. P. Ferreri, L. Gorenflo, M. W. Kaye, B. Orland, and K. Tamminga. 2014. Saratoga National Historical Park natural resource condition assessment. Natural Resource Report NPS/NETN/NRR—2014/751. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 374/123442, January 2014 ii Contents Page Figures.................................................................................................................................................. vii Tables .................................................................................................................................................... xi Appendices ..........................................................................................................................................xiii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. xv Background and Context .............................................................................................................. xv Approach ...................................................................................................................................... xv Threats to SARA ......................................................................................................................... xvi Current Condition of Natural Resources in SARA .................................................................... xvii Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. xvii Forest Soil Dynamics ............................................................................................................ xvii Water Quantity and Stream Water Chemistry ......................................................................xviii PCB Contamination ..............................................................................................................xviii Invasive Exotic Plants and Animals .....................................................................................xviii Forest Vegetation.................................................................................................................... xix White-tailed Deer Herbivory .................................................................................................. xix Fish Community ..................................................................................................................... xix Bird Community ..................................................................................................................... xix Amphibians and Reptiles ......................................................................................................... xx Visitor Usage ........................................................................................................................... xx Landscape Dynamics .............................................................................................................. xxi Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................xxiii Chapter 1 NRCA Background Information ........................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Introduction and Resource Setting ........................................................................................ 5 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 History & Enabling Legislation ........................................................................................ 5 iii Contents (continued) Page 2.1.2 Geographic Setting ........................................................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Visitation Statistics ........................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Natural Resources ................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Ecological Units and Watersheds ................................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Resource Descriptions .................................................................................................... 14 2.2.3 Resource Issues Overview .............................................................................................. 30 2.3 Resource Stewardship ............................................................................................................ 35 2.3.1 Management Directives and Planning Guidance............................................................ 35 2.3.2 Status of the Supporting Science .................................................................................... 35 Chapter 3 Study Scoping and Design .................................................................................................. 39 3.1 Preliminary Scoping ............................................................................................................... 39 3.2 Study Design .......................................................................................................................... 40 3.2.1 Indicator Framework, Focal Study Resources and Indicators ........................................ 40 3.2.2 Reporting Areas .............................................................................................................. 40 3.2.3 General Approach and Methods ..................................................................................... 40 Chapter 4 Natural Resource Conditions............................................................................................... 43 4.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 43 4.1.1 Ozone .............................................................................................................................. 44 4.1.2 Atmospheric Deposition & Stress .................................................................................. 45 4.1.3 Contaminants .................................................................................................................. 50 4.1.4 Visibility ......................................................................................................................... 53 4.2 Soils .......................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of Angiosperm Phylogeny
    Outline of angiosperm phylogeny: orders, families, and representative genera with emphasis on Oregon native plants Priscilla Spears December 2013 The following listing gives an introduction to the phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants that has emerged in recent decades, and which is based on nucleic acid sequences as well as morphological and developmental data. This listing emphasizes temperate families of the Northern Hemisphere and is meant as an overview with examples of Oregon native plants. It includes many exotic genera that are grown in Oregon as ornamentals plus other plants of interest worldwide. The genera that are Oregon natives are printed in a blue font. Genera that are exotics are shown in black, however genera in blue may also contain non-native species. Names separated by a slash are alternatives or else the nomenclature is in flux. When several genera have the same common name, the names are separated by commas. The order of the family names is from the linear listing of families in the APG III report. For further information, see the references on the last page. Basal Angiosperms (ANITA grade) Amborellales Amborellaceae, sole family, the earliest branch of flowering plants, a shrub native to New Caledonia – Amborella Nymphaeales Hydatellaceae – aquatics from Australasia, previously classified as a grass Cabombaceae (water shield – Brasenia, fanwort – Cabomba) Nymphaeaceae (water lilies – Nymphaea; pond lilies – Nuphar) Austrobaileyales Schisandraceae (wild sarsaparilla, star vine – Schisandra; Japanese
    [Show full text]
  • COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY of the INVASIVE RUBUS PHOENICOLASIUS and the NATIVE RUBUS ARGUTUS. Anne
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY OF THE INVASIVE RUBUS PHOENICOLASIUS AND THE NATIVE RUBUS ARGUTUS. Anne Foss Innis, Doctor of Philosophy, 2005 Dissertation directed by: Associate Professor Irwin N. Forseth Department of Biology Invasive species are one of the most significant factors in human influenced global change. Management actions that prevent the spread and impacts of invasive species require knowledge of their ecological characteristics. The characteristics of the invasive wine raspberry (Rubus phoenicolasius Maxim.) and the native sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus Link) were examined in two forest habitats on the Maryland Coastal Plain. The invasive had greater negative effects on a common herbaceous plant (Duchesnea indica Andr. Focke) than the native. The invasive, R. phoenicolasius had higher leaf nitrogen concentrations (Nleaf), greater specific leaf areas (SLA) and higher maximal rates of photosynthesis (Amax) for a given dark respiration rate (Rd) than R. argutus. R. phoenicolasius depended less upon pollinators for fruit development and had higher fruiting rates with more seeds per fruit than the native species. In addition, seeds of R. phoenicolasius had higher germination rates. Survival of invasive seedlings was negatively affected by leaf litter additions, but seedling growth was not negatively influenced by shading. R. phoenicolasius seedlings grown in a greenhouse and inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi produced less biomass than seedlings that were not inoculated. The distribution of R. phoenicolasius may be affected by leaf litter, but presence of AMF is probably not necessary for seedling success. A three year demographic study showed that both species were negatively impacted by drought, but the invasive recovered faster than the native species in the higher light forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Mistaken Identity? Invasive Plants and Their Native Look-Alikes: an Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic
    Mistaken Identity ? Invasive Plants and their Native Look-alikes an Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic Matthew Sarver Amanda Treher Lenny Wilson Robert Naczi Faith B. Kuehn www.nrcs.usda.gov http://dda.delaware.gov www.dsu.edu www.dehort.org www.delawareinvasives.net Published by: Delaware Department Agriculture • November 2008 In collaboration with: Claude E. Phillips Herbarium at Delaware State University • Delaware Center for Horticulture Funded by: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Cover Photos: Front: Aralia elata leaf (Inset, l-r: Aralia elata habit; Aralia spinosa infloresence, Aralia elata stem) Back: Aralia spinosa habit TABLE OF CONTENTS About this Guide ............................1 Introduction What Exactly is an Invasive Plant? ..................................................................................................................2 What Impacts do Invasives Have? ..................................................................................................................2 The Mid-Atlantic Invasive Flora......................................................................................................................3 Identification of Invasives ..............................................................................................................................4 You Can Make a Difference..............................................................................................................................5 Plant Profiles Trees Norway Maple vs. Sugar
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 6: Invasive Plant Species
    USDA Forest Service Understanding i-Tree – Appendix 6: Invasive Plant Species APPENDIX 6 Invasive Plant Species The following is a list of invasive tree and shrub species by state that are included in i-Tree database (version 6). Each list of invasive species is followed by the reference of the source which were obtained circa 2014. Some of the Web addresses are no longer working; some have been relocated to alternative sites. State-specific invasive species lists will be updated in the future. Alabama Ailanthus altissima Lonicera japonica Poncirus trifoliate Albizia julibrissin Lonicera maackii Pyrus calleryana Ardisia crenata Lonicera morrowii Rosa bracteata Cinnamomum camphora Lonicera x bella Rosa multiflora Elaeagnus pungens Mahonia bealei Triadica sebifera Elaeagnus umbellata Melia azedarach Vernicia fordii Ligustrum japonicum Nandina domestica Wisteria sinensis Ligustrum lucidum Paulownia tomentosa Ligustrum sinense Polygonum cuspidatum Alabama Invasive Plant Council. 2007. 2007 plant list. Athens, GA: Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council. http://www.se-eppc.org/ alabama/2007plantlist.pdf Alaska Alnus glutinosa Lonicera tatarica Sorbus aucuparia Caragana arborescens Polygonum cuspidatum Cytisus scoparius Prunus padus Alaska National Heritage Program. 2014. Non-Native plant data. Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska Anchorage. http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/akepic/non-native-plant-species- list/#content Arizona Alhagi maurorum Rhus lancea Tamarix parviflora Elaeagnus angustifolia Tamarix aphylla Tamarix ramosissima Euryops multifidus Tamarix chinensis Ulmus pumila Arizona Wildland Invasive Plant Working Group. 2005. Invasive non-native plants that threaten wildlands in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Southwest Vegetation Management Association https:// www.swvma.org/wp-content/uploads/Invasive-Non-Native-Plants-that-Threaten-Wildlands-in- Arizona.pdf (Accessed Sept 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Native Invasive Plants of the City of Alexandria, Virginia
    March 1, 2019 Non-Native Invasive Plants of the City of Alexandria, Virginia Non-native invasive plants have increasingly become a major threat to natural areas, parks, forests, and wetlands by displacing native species and wildlife and significantly degrading habitats. Today, they are considered the greatest threat to natural areas and global biodiversity, second only to habitat loss resulting from development and urbanization (Vitousek et al. 1996, Pimentel et al. 2005). The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation has identified 90 non-native invasive plants that threaten natural areas and lands in Virginia (Heffernan et al. 2014) and Swearingen et al. (2010) include 80 plants from a list of nearly 280 non-native invasive plant species documented within the mid- Atlantic region. Largely overlapping with these and other regional lists are 116 species that were documented in the City of Alexandria, Virginia during vegetation surveys and natural resource assessments by the City of Alexandria Dept. of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities (RPCA), Natural Lands Management Section. This list is not regulatory but serves as an educational reference informing those with concerns about non-native invasive plants in the City of Alexandria and vicinity, including taking action to prevent the further spread of these species by not planting them. Exotic species are those that are not native to a particular place or habitat as a result of human intervention. A non-native invasive plant is here defined as one that exhibits some degree of invasiveness, whether dominant and widespread in a particular habitat or landscape or much less common but long-lived and extremely persistent in places where it occurs.
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Plant List
    NON-NATIVE INVASIVE PLANTS OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA While up to 40% of the plants found in a typical urban environment are non-native species, a relatively small number of these “alien” plants are known to represent an ecological threat to the natural environment (parks, woodlands, and backyards). Known as “invasive species”, these non-natives will spread from urban plantings into natural areas, eliminate native species, alter natural plant communities, and degrade the environment. The following plants have been documented as invasive species in Arlington. Known invasive plant species should not be planted as part of any Arlington County sponsored project. This list will be periodically reviewed by the Invasive Plant Coordinator (DPR) and updated by Version (date). Invasive Plant Species List Acer spp.: campestre, tataricum var. ginnala Hedge, Amur maple Threat Acer spp.: palmatum, plantanoides, pseudoplatanus Japanese, Norway, Sycamore maple Invasive Actinidia arguta Hardy kiwi Threat Aegopodium podagraria Goutweed Invasive Agrostis capillaris Colonial bent-grass Invasive Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Invasive Akebia quinata Five-leaved akebia Invasive Albizia julibrissin Mimosa Invasive Aldrovanda vesiculosa* Waterwheel Threat Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard Invasive Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator weed Invasive Ampelopsis brevipedunculata Porcelainberry Invasive Aralia elata Japanese angelica tree Invasive Artemisia vulgaris Mugwort Invasive Arthraxon hispidus var. hispidus Hairy jointgrass Invasive Arum italicum
    [Show full text]
  • Inula Helenium: a Literature Review on Ethnomedical Uses, Bioactive Compounds and Pharmacological Activities
    Lucrări Ştiinţifice Seria Medicină Veterinară, 63 (1) / 2020, USAMV Iaşi Inula helenium : A literature review on ethnomedical uses, bioactive compounds and pharmacological activities Victoria BUZA *1 , Maria-Cătălina MATEI 1, Laura Cristina ȘTEFĂNUȚ 1 1 University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Preclinical Sciences, 3-5 Mănăștur Street, Cluj-Napoca, Romania e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Dynamic growth of antimicrobial and anthelmintic resistance throughout the years has caused increased interest in natural alternatives to synthetic drugs. Elecampane (Inula helenium L.), a widely distributed herbaceous plant, is one of the most researched and well-known member of the genus Inula, family Compositae. I. helenium has been included in the Chinese Pharmacopeia, Russian Pharmacopeia and Pharmacopeias of some European countries. This review is an up-to-date summary of the existing knowledge on Inula helenium’s ethnomedicinal uses, secondary metabolites and pharmacological activities. Initially used in the treatment of respiratory and digestive diseases in both humans and animals, the roots of elecampane have been also proven to possess a cytotoxic and antiproliferative effect on cancer cell lines, as well as anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antibacterial, antifungal and anthelmintic activities. The main bioactive compounds isolated from elecampane roots known to be responsible for their pharmacological activities are inulin, sesquiterpene lactones such as alantolactone and isoalantolactone, thymol derivatives, phenolic acids and flavonoids. This review suggests that I. helenium’s secondary metabolites have a strong therapeutic potential. However, further in vitro and in vivo studies of isolated I. helenium bioactive compounds are required in order to understand their mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics and potential adverse effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Checklist
    14 September 2020 Cystopteridaceae (Bladder Ferns) __ Cystopteris bulbifera Bulblet Bladder Fern FIELD CHECKLIST OF VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE KOFFLER SCIENTIFIC __ Cystopteris fragilis Fragile Fern RESERVE AT JOKERS HILL __ Gymnocarpium dryopteris CoMMon Oak Fern King Township, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario (second edition) Aspleniaceae (Spleenworts) __ Asplenium platyneuron Ebony Spleenwort Tubba Babar, C. Sean Blaney, and Peter M. Kotanen* Onocleaceae (SensitiVe Ferns) 1Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology 2Atlantic Canada Conservation Data __ Matteuccia struthiopteris Ostrich Fern University of Toronto Mississauga Centre, P.O. Box 6416, Sackville NB, __ Onoclea sensibilis SensitiVe Fern 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, ON Canada E4L 1G6 Canada L5L 1C6 Athyriaceae (Lady Ferns) __ Deparia acrostichoides SilVery Spleenwort *Correspondence author. e-mail: [email protected] Thelypteridaceae (Marsh Ferns) The first edition of this list Was compiled by C. Sean Blaney and Was published as an __ Parathelypteris noveboracensis New York Fern appendix to his M.Sc. thesis (Blaney C.S. 1999. Seed bank dynamics of native and exotic __ Phegopteris connectilis Northern Beech Fern plants in open uplands of southern Ontario. University of Toronto. __ Thelypteris palustris Marsh Fern https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/14382/). It subsequently Was formatted for the web by P.M. Kotanen and made available on the Koffler Scientific Reserve Website Dryopteridaceae (Wood Ferns) (http://ksr.utoronto.ca/), Where it Was revised periodically to reflect additions and taxonomic __ Athyrium filix-femina CoMMon Lady Fern changes. This second edition represents a major revision reflecting recent phylogenetic __ Dryopteris ×boottii Boott's Wood Fern and nomenclatural changes and adding additional species; it will be updated periodically.
    [Show full text]
  • Essential Guide to Rubus
    The Herb Society of America Essential Guide to Rubus Table of Contents From the Bramble Patch 2 The Brambles: Sorting through the Thicket of Rubus Terminology 3 General Culture 10 Cultivars of Note 12 Rubus as Metaphor: The Bramble Bush and the Law 16 On a Roll with Raspberries (With Recipes) 18 The Traditional Bramble (With Recipes) 21 Blackberry Leaf Tea 24 The Literary Rubus 25 Sources 28 The Herb Society of America, Inc. is dedicated to promoting the knowledge, use, and delight of herbs through educational programs, research, and sharing the experience of its members with the community. Environment Statement The Society is committed to protecting our global environment for the health and well-being of humankind and all growing things. We encourage gardeners to practice environmentally sound horticulture. Medical Disclaimer It is the policy of The Herb Society of America not to advise or recommend herbs for medicinal or health use. This information is intended for educational purposes only and should not be considered as a recommendation or an endorsement of any particular medical or health treatment. Please consult a health care provider before pursuing any herbal treatments. Information is provided as an educational service. Mention of commercial products does not indicate an endorsement by The Herb Society of America. 1 Ghost bramble Photo courtesy of robsplants.com Notes from the Bramble Patch From the blackberry tangled verges along country lanes to the new smaller, thornless raspberries being bred for today’s gardeners, the genus Rubus is a diverse one – feeding us and ornamenting our gardens and providing food and protective cover for wildlife and pollinators alike.
    [Show full text]
  • Rubus Phoenicolasius
    www.naturachevale.it [email protected] Nature Integrated Management to 2020 LIFE IP GESTIRE 2020 Rubus phoenicolasius Distribuzione specie (celle 10x10 km) Gestione Facilità gestione/eradicazione Impatti Potenziale gravità impatti Gravità impatti in Lombardia 1. DESCRIZIONE SPECIE a. Taxon (classe, ordine, famiglia): Magnoliopsida, Rosales, Rosaceae. b. Nome scientifico: Rubus phoenicolasius Maxim. c. Nome comune: lampone asiatico. d. Area geografica d’origine: Asia orientale (Cina, Corea e Giappone) e. Habitat d’origine e risorse: R. phoenicolasius è presente nella fascia temperata dell'Asia orientale. Predilige esposizioni soleggiate, su terreni calcarei, ricchi d'humus e con una buona disponibilità idrica. Si trova ai margini dei boschi, nelle radure (es. colonizza nuove aree bene esposte alla luce dopo la caduta di alberi), ai margini di zone umide, in boschi chiari e ai bordi di campi e argini, così come in formazioni prative. In Lombardia si rinviene soprattutto in boschi non gestiti, spesso acidofili (dominanza pino, castagno, faggete). Si può anche trovare ai bordi delle strade, presso vecchie baite (residuo colturale). f. Morfologia e possibili specie simili in Italia o nazioni confinanti: Arbusto alto 1-2 m; fusti arcuati, con sparse spine esili, setole e caratteristici peli ghiandolari rossi, presenti anche nell’infiorescenza e sul picciolo fogliare. Foglie caduche, alterne, composte da 3(-5) foglioline, le laterali subsessili, la terminale (spesso lobata) con peduncolo di 2-3 cm; lamina delle foglioline ovale o rombica, di 4-8×2-5 cm, apice acuto o acuminato, base arrotondata o subcordata, margine irregolarmente seghettato, pagina inferiore grigio-tomentosa, pagina superiore glabra o sparsamente pubescente, di colore verde; stipole lineari, di 5-8 mm.
    [Show full text]
  • Japanese Wineberry Rubus Phoenicolasius
    Japanese wineberry Rubus phoenicolasius Description Introduced in the United States in 1890 as breeding stock for new Rubus cultivars (blackberries and raspberries). It is used today by berry breeders to add specific genes to berry varieties or species. Habit Perennial shrub with long arching stems (canes) up to 9 ft in length. Leaves Alternate, palmately compound, 3 heart-shaped serrated leaflets. Stems Arching, known as canes, grows up to 9 ft in length, Upright stems have red gland tipped hairs and small spines. Source: MISIN. 2021. Midwest Invasive Species Information Network. Michigan State University - Applied Spatial Ecology and Technical Services Laboratory. Available online at https://www.misin.msu.edu/facts/detail.php?id=73. Flowers Small, greenish in color with white petals and reddish hairs; blooms in late spring to early summer. Fruits and Seeds Edible raspberry-like fruit, bright red to orange-red in color, multiple drupes and ripens in mid summer. Produces seeds as well. Habitat Native to Japan, Korea, and China. Found in forests, fields, streams and wetland edge habitats, open woods, savannas and prairie habitats. Reproduction By seeds, and through vegetative means including root buds and the sprouting of new plants from where canes touch the soil. Similar Red raspberry (Rubus idaeus), black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis) / (Rubus leucodermis) and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus). Monitoring and Rapid Response Removal of plants by hand-pulling or use a 4-prong spading fork when the soil is moist. Branches and berries should be bagged but the remaining plant material can be left to compost. Sites can be burned or mowed.
    [Show full text]