DOCSLIB.ORG

ABSTRACT CULATTA, KATHERINE EMILY. Taxonomy, Genetic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ABSTRACT CULATTA, KATHERINE EMILY. Taxonomy, Genetic ABSTRACT CULATTA, KATHERINE EMILY. Taxonomy, Genetic Diversity, and Status Assessment of Nuphar sagittifolia (Nymphaeaceae). (Under the direction of Dr. Alexander Krings and Dr. Ross Whetten). Nuphar sagittifolia (Walter) Pursh (Nymphaeaceae), Cape Fear spatterdock, is an aquatic macrophyte considered endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain and of conservation concern in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. The existence of populations of unclear taxonomic identity has precluded assessment of the number of populations, distribution, and conservation needs of N. sagittifolia. Thus, the first objective of this thesis was to re-assess the circumscription of the species by evaluating four taxonomic hypotheses: 1) Populations of Nuphar in the N. sagittifolia range, including morphological intermediates, are members of a single polymorphic species; 2) Morphological intermediates in the N. sagittifolia range are hybrids between N. advena subsp. advena and N. sagittifolia; 3) Morphological intermediates are variants of N. advena subsp. advena or N. sagittifolia; 4) Intermediates, distinct from both N. advena subsp. advena and N. sagittifolia, are either disjunct populations of N. advena subsp. ulvacea or members of an undescribed taxon. The second objective was to summarize information on the taxonomy, biology, distribution, and genetic diversity of N. sagittifolia s.s to inform conservation decisions. Approximately 30 individuals from each of 21 populations of Nuphar across the N. sagittifolia range, and the type populations of N. advena subsp. advena, N. advena subsp. ulvacea, and N. sagittifolia were included in genetic and morphological analyses. Individuals were genotyped across 26 SNP loci identified for this study, and 31 leaf, flower and fruit morphological characters were measured. STRUCTURE analysis identified three genetic groups with corresponding morphological differences in the N. sagittifolia range: N. sagittifolia, N. advena subsp. advena, and a third group in the Chowan-Roanoke River drainage that requires further study. A revised key based on Classification and Regression Tree (CART) and Bayesian analyses identifies N. sagittifolia based on a leaf sinus-to-leaf length ratio < 0.22, leaves not emergent, and leaf length-to-width ratio usually greater than 2.4. 88% of the 64 previously documented N. sagittifolia localities were surveyed, with 61% present and 39% failed to find, and 34 additional new populations were documented. These results do not substantially change the known distribution of N. sagittifolia. Genetic analyses within the N. sagittifolia group as indicated by the revised key indicated relatively low clonality, with 260 individuals representing 235 multilocus genotypes. High FST and G’ST values indicated low gene flow among populations, and low values for Jost’s D indicated low allelic differentiation among populations. Observed heterozygosity was slightly higher than expected heterozygosity in all populations. Observations are consistent with a combination of sexual reproduction resulting in long-lived genets and limited clonal reproduction, and indicate that low genetic diversity in populations is not a conservation concern. Genetic and geographic distance were not correlated, with the northernmost population (the only population substantially outside the Cape Fear Arch geological region) most genetically similar to the southernmost populations. Survey results provide a baseline of observations for future monitoring. © Copyright 2020 by Katherine Culatta All Rights Reserved Taxonomy, Genetic Diversity, and Status Assessment of Nuphar sagittifolia (Nymphaeaceae) by Katherine Emily Culatta A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Plant Biology Raleigh, North Carolina 2020 APPROVED BY: _______________________________ _______________________________ Alexander Krings Ross Whetten Committee Co-Chair Committee Co-Chair _______________________________ JoAnn Burkholder Technical Consultant: _______________________________ Lilian Matallana BIOGRAPHY Katherine Culatta was born and raised in Boone, North Carolina. She first became interested in botany as a student at The University of North Carolina at Asheville, where she completed a Bachelor of Science / Bachelor of Arts degree in Biology and Studio Art in 2013. Before coming to graduate school at N.C. State University, she worked as a seasonal botany technician with the Nantucket Conservation Foundation and National Ecological Observatory Network. She is currently a Research Specialist for the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program in the N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor Alexander Krings for being an excellent role model as a botanist and teacher, for his unwavering support and encouragement, and for his guidance on every aspect of this project. Thank you to committee co-chair Ross Whetten for enormous help in acquiring, processing and interpreting genetic data and for patiently answering my many questions. Thank you to Lilian Matallana, who taught me everything I know about DNA extraction, spent many hours troubleshooting in the lab, and always made time to help me. Thank you to JoAnn Burkholder for consulting on environmental data collection and generously loaning field equipment. Thank you to field technician Emma Deuitch for assistance with bridge and boat surveys and scoring morphological data, and for keeping a cool head around unexpected alligators. Thank you to the USFWS for grant funding creating this M.S. opportunity, and a huge thanks to Raleigh USFWS staff Dale Suiter, John Ellis, and John Ann Shearer for guidance throughout this project and for assisting with boat surveys. I am extremely grateful to the organizations that made this work possible through graduate research grants: The American Society of Plant Taxonomists, The Botanical Society of America, The Garden Club of America, The North Carolina Native Plants Society, and The Society of Herbarium Curators. Thank you to Bladen Lakes State Forest, Keith Bradley, Janet Gray, Stacy Huskins and Ft. Bragg, Brendalee Philipps and Heinz NWR, Sandhills Game Land, John Townsend, and Andy Walker for help with permitting, site access, and field logistics. Thank you to Krings Lab members Alexandria Szakacs and Gregory Wilson for their encouragement, humor, and commiseration. Finally, thank you to my wonderful husband Nik iii Hay for moral, intellectual, and emotional support and for listening to many, many wild hypotheses that never panned out. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: On the taxonomic circumscription of Nuphar sagittifolia ..................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................... 6 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 37 Key to species of Nuphar of the Coastal Plain of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina ................................................................................................................................ 39 References .................................................................................................................................... 42 Chapter 2: On the genetic diversity and status assessment of Nuphar sagittifolia............... 45 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 45 Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................. 46 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 50 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 63 References .................................................................................................................................... 67 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Population collection locations, sample size, type status, and population abbreviations used throughout text ............................................................................. 7 Table 1.2 Continuous morphological characters included in datasets for cluster analysis ...... 13 Table 1.3 Means and standard deviations of all continuous morphological characters by genetic group ............................................................................................................ 22 Table 1.4 ANOVA and Tukey pairwise comparisons of continuous leaf morphological characters by genetic group .....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps
    Appendix 11.5.1: Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps These distribution maps are for 116 aquatic vascular macrophyte species (Table 1). Aquatic designation follows habitat descriptions in Haines and Vining (1998), and includes submergent, floating and some emergent species. See Appendix 11.4 for list of species. Also included in Appendix 11.4 is the number of HUC-10 watersheds from which each taxon has been recorded, and the county-level distributions. Data are from nine sources, as compiled in the MABP database (plus a few additional records derived from ancilliary information contained in reports from two fisheries surveys in the Upper St. John basin organized by The Nature Conservancy). With the exception of the University of Maine herbarium records, most locations represent point samples (coordinates were provided in data sources or derived by MABP from site descriptions in data sources). The herbarium data are identified only to township. In the species distribution maps, town-level records are indicated by center-points (centroids). Figure 1 on this page shows as polygons the towns where taxon records are identified only at the town level. Data Sources: MABP ID MABP DataSet Name Provider 7 Rare taxa from MNAP lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 8 Lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 35 Acadia National Park plant survey C. Greene et al. 63 Lake plant surveys A. Dieffenbacher-Krall 71 Natural Heritage Database (rare plants) MNAP 91 University of Maine herbarium database C. Campbell 183 Natural Heritage Database (delisted species) MNAP 194 Rapid bioassessment surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 207 Invasive aquatic plant records MDEP Maps are in alphabetical order by species name.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Edition Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist and John Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org Table of Contents LIST FORMAT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 NORTH CAROLINA RARE PLANT LIST ......................................................................................................................... 10 NORTH CAROLINA PLANT WATCH LIST ..................................................................................................................... 71 Watch Category
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX D BIOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT (Envirosphere Consultants Limited, 2020)
    APPENDIX D BIOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT (Envirosphere Consultants Limited, 2020) Environmental Assessment Registration Document: Welshtown Quarry Expansion Shelburne, Municipality of the District of Shelburne Nova Scotia Biophysical Assessment: Welshtown Quarry Expansion 10740 Upper Clyde Road, Welshtown, Shelburne County, Nova Scotia – PIDs 80106826, 80106875, 80106867 & 80106925 September 2020 Prepared for: Dexter Construction Company Limited Bedford, Nova Scotia Prepared by: Envirosphere Consultants Limited P.O. 2906, Unit 5 – 120 Morison Drive Windsor, Nova Scotia B0N 2T0 Tel: (902) 798-4022 | Fax: (902) 798-2614 www.envirosphere.ca P.O. 2906, Unit 5 – 120 Morison Drive Windsor, Nova Scotia B0N 2T0 Tel: (902) 798-4022 Fax: (902) 798-2614 Email: [email protected] www.envirosphere.ca Biophysical Description and Assessment for i Welshtown Quarry Expansion, September 2020 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Information Sources .............................................................................................................................. 1 3 Site Location and Study Area ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution of Intergeneric Relationships Within the Early-Diverging Angiosperm Family Nymphaeaceae Based on Chloroplast Phylogenomics
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 2 November 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201811.0071.v1 Peer-reviewed version available at Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3780; doi:10.3390/ijms19123780 Resolution of Intergeneric Relationships within the Early-Diverging Angiosperm Family Nymphaeaceae Based on Chloroplast Phylogenomics Ding-Xuan He1,2†, Andrew W. Gichira1, 4, 5†, Zhi-Zhong Li1, 4, John M. Nzei1,4,5, You-Hao Guo3, Qing-Feng Wang1,5, Jin-Ming Chen1* 1Key Laboratory of Aquatic Botany and Watershed Ecology, Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China 2 School of Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering, Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University, Xinyang, China 3Laboratory of Plant Systematics and Evolutionary Biology, College of Life Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China 4University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 5 Sino-Africa Joint Research Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China †These authors contributed equally to this work Running head: Intergeneric phylogeny of Nymphaeaceae *Corresponding author: Jin-Ming Chen: Address: Key Laboratory of Aquatic Botany and Watershed Ecology, Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China Tel.: +86-27-87700881; Fax: +86-27-87700802 E-mail: [email protected] © 2018 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license. Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 2 November 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201811.0071.v1 Peer-reviewed version available at Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3780; doi:10.3390/ijms19123780 Abstract: The order Nymphaeales, consisting of three families with a record of eight genera, has gained significant interest from botanists probably due to its position as a basal-angiosperm.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Lilies As Emerging Models for Darwin's Abominable Mystery
    OPEN Citation: Horticulture Research (2017) 4, 17051; doi:10.1038/hortres.2017.51 www.nature.com/hortres REVIEW ARTICLE Water lilies as emerging models for Darwin’s abominable mystery Fei Chen1, Xing Liu1, Cuiwei Yu2, Yuchu Chen2, Haibao Tang1 and Liangsheng Zhang1 Water lilies are not only highly favored aquatic ornamental plants with cultural and economic importance but they also occupy a critical evolutionary space that is crucial for understanding the origin and early evolutionary trajectory of flowering plants. The birth and rapid radiation of flowering plants has interested many scientists and was considered ‘an abominable mystery’ by Charles Darwin. In searching for the angiosperm evolutionary origin and its underlying mechanisms, the genome of Amborella has shed some light on the molecular features of one of the basal angiosperm lineages; however, little is known regarding the genetics and genomics of another basal angiosperm lineage, namely, the water lily. In this study, we reviewed current molecular research and note that water lily research has entered the genomic era. We propose that the genome of the water lily is critical for studying the contentious relationship of basal angiosperms and Darwin’s ‘abominable mystery’. Four pantropical water lilies, especially the recently sequenced Nymphaea colorata, have characteristics such as small size, rapid growth rate and numerous seeds and can act as the best model for understanding the origin of angiosperms. The water lily genome is also valuable for revealing the genetics of ornamental traits and will largely accelerate the molecular breeding of water lilies. Horticulture Research (2017) 4, 17051; doi:10.1038/hortres.2017.51; Published online 4 October 2017 INTRODUCTION Ondinea, and Victoria.4,5 Floral organs differ greatly among each Ornamentals, cultural symbols and economic value family in the order Nymphaeales.
    [Show full text]
  • C3 Primitive Angiosperms
    Magnoliids & other Primitive Angiosperms Revised 5th of May 2015 Angiosperm, pl angiosperms; Angiospermae n (Greek anggeion (angeion), vessel, small container, & Greek σπέρµα, sperma, seed) A major division of the plant kingdom, commonly called flowering plants as their reproductive organs are in flowers, having seeds which develop in a closed ovary made of carpels, a very reduced gametophyte, & endosperm develop from a triple fusion nucleus; flowering plant producing seeds enclosed in a structure derived from the ovary; flowering plant, plants with ovules enclosed in ovary. A division of the seed plants (spermatophytes) that bear ovules & seeds in closed megaspores (carpels) in contrast to gymnosperms, which have exposed ovules & seeds, born “naked” on the megasporophylls. Angiosperms are distinguished by a unique process of sexual reproduction called “double fertilization”. According to the number of leaves (cotyledons) present in the embryo, two major groups are distinguished, the Monocotyledons & the Dicotyledons. Angiosperms are commonly referred to as “flowering plants: even though the reproductive organs of some gymnosperms are also borne in structures that fulfill the definition of a flower. Cf gymnosperm. Angiosperms have traditionally been split into monocotyledons & dicotyledons, or plants with one or two seed leaves respectively. One group of plants that have two seeds leaves was problematic, as it also had primitive flowers & some traits in common with monocots. This group is the Magnoliids, or primitive angiosperms. The remainder of the dicots are called Eudicots, the prefix eu-, from Greek ἐὐς, eus, good, meaning the good dicots. Magnoliids (Eumagnoliids?) About 8,500 (5,000-9,000) spp in 20 angiosperm families, of large trees, shrubs, vines, lianas, & herbs that are neither eudicotyledons nor monocotyledons, distributed in tropical & temperate areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Washington Baltimore Area
    Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of the Washington - Baltimore Area Part I Ferns, Fern Allies, Gymnosperms, and Dicotyledons by Stanwyn G. Shetler and Sylvia Stone Orli Department of Botany National Museum of Natural History 2000 Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560-0166 ii iii PREFACE The better part of a century has elapsed since A. S. Hitchcock and Paul C. Standley published their succinct manual in 1919 for the identification of the vascular flora in the Washington, DC, area. A comparable new manual has long been needed. As with their work, such a manual should be produced through a collaborative effort of the region’s botanists and other experts. The Annotated Checklist is offered as a first step, in the hope that it will spark and facilitate that effort. In preparing this checklist, Shetler has been responsible for the taxonomy and nomenclature and Orli for the database. We have chosen to distribute the first part in preliminary form, so that it can be used, criticized, and revised while it is current and the second part (Monocotyledons) is still in progress. Additions, corrections, and comments are welcome. We hope that our checklist will stimulate a new wave of fieldwork to check on the current status of the local flora relative to what is reported here. When Part II is finished, the two parts will be combined into a single publication. We also maintain a Web site for the Flora of the Washington-Baltimore Area, and the database can be searched there (http://www.nmnh.si.edu/botany/projects/dcflora).
    [Show full text]
  • DCR Guide to Aquatic Plants in Massachusetts
    A GUIDE TO AQUATIC PLANTS IN MASSACHUSETTS Contacts: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Lakes & Ponds Program www.mass.gov/lakesandponds Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection www.mass.gov/dep Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel www.northeastans.org Massachusetts Congress of Lakes & Ponds Associations (COLAP) www.macolap.org '-I... Printed on Recycled Paper 2016 A Guide to Aquatic Plants in Massachusetts Common Name Scientific Name Page No. Submerged Plants ........................................................................................................................9 Arrowhead .............................................................Sagittaria .......................................................................11 Bladderwort...........................................................Utricularia ......................................................................17 Common Bladderwort ...................................Utricularia vulgaris ........................................................18 Flatleaf Bladderwort ......................................Utricularia intermedia ....................................................18 Little Floating Bladderwort ............................Utricularia radiata .........................................................18 Purple Bladderwort........................................Utricularia purpurea.......................................................18 Burreed..................................................................Sparganium
    [Show full text]
  • Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia
    Native Vascular Flora City of Alexandria, Virginia Photo by Gary P. Fleming December 2015 Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia December 2015 By Roderick H. Simmons City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Natural Resources Division 2900-A Business Center Drive Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [email protected] Suggested citation: Simmons, R.H. 2015. Native vascular flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Alexandria, Virginia. 104 pp. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 3 History of Botanical Studies in Alexandria .............................................................................. 5 Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Botanist Interior 43.1
    2004 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST 137 FLORA AND VEGETATION OF KALAMAZOO COUNTY, MICHIGAN Duane D. McKenna Department of Organismic & Evolutionary Biology Harvard University 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 [email protected] Perennial lupine, Lupinus perennis, in remnant oak savanna along a railroad right-of-way in Portage Township, Kalamazoo County, Michigan. 138 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST Vol. 43 CONTENTS PURPOSE...............................................................................................138 PREFACE...............................................................................................139 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................140 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................140 Landscape & Climate ....................................................................140 Human History & Vegetation Patterns ..........................................141 History of Botanical Exploration...................................................141 METHODS.............................................................................................145 Overview........................................................................................145 Frequency & Distribution..............................................................147 Current Status ................................................................................147 Plant Communities.........................................................................148 Native
    [Show full text]