Invasive Poaceae.Indd
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Hay for Horses: Alfalfa Or Grass?
HAY FOR HORSES: ALFALFA OR GRASS? Anne Rodiek1 ABSTRACT Alfalfa hay is an excellent source of energy, protein, calcium and some other nutrients for horses. Its concentrations of protein and calcium meet the nutrient needs of horses in high levels of production, such as growth and lactation, but exceed the nutrient requirements of horses in other life stages. Controversy exists over the best use of alfalfa in horse rations. Grass hays are also popular for horses because of their lower energy, protein and calcium concentrations. Grass hay meets more closely the nutrient requirements of the largest percentage of horses, the idle horse. Tradition plays a large role in the selection of feeds for horses. Hay producers can help educate horse people about what hays are most beneficial to horses in different life stages. Key Words: alfalfa hay, grass hay, horses, nutrient requirements INTRODUCTION Alfalfa hay has been both heralded and maligned as a feed for horses. Tradition holds that timothy hay and oats are the best feeds for horses, and that alfalfa and corn spell disaster. Alfalfa hay may not be the best feed for all horses in all situations, but it contains nutrients needed for many classes of horses. Grass hay falls short of meeting the nutrient requirements of high production life stages, but is an excellent filler for horses that require bulk in the diet. An understanding of the nutrient requirements of horses compared to the nutrient content of alfalfa hay or grass hay will help nutritionists, hay producers, and horse owners make informed decisions about what type of hay to feed to horses. -
Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts
Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts Botanical Survey of Bussey Brook Meadow Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts New England Wildflower Society 180 Hemenway Road Framingham, MA 01701 508-877-7630 www.newfs.org Report by Joy VanDervort-Sneed, Atkinson Conservation Fellow and Ailene Kane, Plant Conservation Volunteer Coordinator Prepared for the Arboretum Park Conservancy Funded by the Arnold Arboretum Committee 2 Conducted 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................4 METHODS....................................................................................................................................6 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................8 Plant Species ........................................................................................................................8 Natural Communities...........................................................................................................9 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................15 Recommendations for Management ..................................................................................15 Recommendations for Education and Interpretation .........................................................17 Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................19 -
Lewis River Terrestrial Coordination
LEWIS RIVER TERRESTRIAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE Facilitator: KENDEL EMMERSON 503-813-6040; CELL 509-774-8102 Location: SKYPE MEETING ONLY October 14, 2020 Date: Time: 9:00 AM –11:00 AM Agenda Items 9:00 a.m. Welcome Review Agenda, 9/9/20 Meeting Notes Review and Accept Agenda, 9/9/20 Meeting Notes 9:15 a.m. Study/Work Product Updates Update Saddle Dam Seismic Big Hollow Fire Update Cresap Pond Moss Cave Woodland Park Camper’s Hideaway 2021 TCC Meeting Dates 10:45 a.m. Next Meeting’s Agenda Note: all meeting notes and the meeting schedule can be located at: https://www.pacificorp.com/energy/hydro/lewis-river/acc-tcc.html 11:00 a.m. Meeting adjourn Join Skype Meeting Join by phone (503) 813-5252 [Portland, OR] (US) English (United States) Conference ID: 4604738 FINAL Meeting Notes Lewis River License Implementation Terrestrial Coordination Committee (TCC) Meeting October 14, 2020 Conference Call Only TCC Representatives Present: (6) Kendel Emmerson, PacifiCorp Summer Peterman, PacifiCorp Kim McCune, PacifiCorp Erik White, Cowlitz Indian Tribe Eric Holman, WDFW Amanda Froberg, Cowlitz PUD Calendar: December 9, 2020 TCC Meeting Skype Call Only Assignments for October 14, 2020 Status Emmerson: Get back to the TCC about what seeds were distributed on the Vendor used fire break area at the Communications building in Management Unit 11. some older seed; PacifiCorp to return in mid- March 2021 to top seed with pollinator seed Parking Lot Items Status Emmerson/McCune: Contact PacifiCorp’s properties department to discuss In progress further TNC detail and report to the TCC at the next meeting. -
Turfgrass Selection Ryegrasses
Extension W159-F Turfgrass Selection Ryegrasses Tom Samples, Professor and John Sorochan, Associate Professor Plant Sciences Due to rapid seed germination and seedling growth, ryegrasses were once planted as nurse Varieties grasses in seed ‘Florida 80’ (1982, Florida AES), ‘Gulf’ (1958, mixtures with Texas AES and Plant Research Division ARS), slower-growing, ‘Jackson’ (1989, Mississippi AFES), ‘Marshall’ perennial cool- (1980, Mississippi AFES) and ‘TAM 90’ (1991, season species Texas AES) continue to be used to temporarily including the control soil erosion in the South. ‘Axcella,’ fescues and evaluated as ABT-99-3-268 and recently (2001) Kentucky released by the Texas AES, Overton, Texas, is the bluegrass. first turf-type variety marketed for winter over- Unfortunately, seeding of bermudagrass turfs. This variety is an ryegrasses early-maturing, dwarf-type and is darker than can be very other annual ryegrasses. Axcella has finer leaves, aggressive in greater stand density and a slower vertical growth mixed stands, and may dominate a preferred rate than many other annual ryegrasses. Seeds turfgrass species by competing for nutrients, of Axcella annual ryegrass are about 25 percent sunlight, water and space. Intermediate (Lolium larger than perennial ryegrass seeds. When over- hybridum) and perennial (Lolium perenne L.) seeded alone or with varieties of intermediate ryegrasses are sometimes used to over-seed and perennial ryegrasses, Axcella matures quickly dormant bermudagrass. Annual ryegrass (Lolium and transitions from the stand as bermudagrass multiflorum Lam.) is widely used to provide resumes growth in spring. temporary ground cover and soil erosion control until a perennial turf can be planted. Intermediate Ryegrass Annual Ryegrass Intermediate or transitional ryegrass is a hybrid Annual ryegrass, also known as Italian ryegrass, of annual and perennial ryegrass. -
Long-Term Changes in Biological Soil Crust Cover and Composition Eva Dettweiler-Robinson1*, Jeanne M Ponzetti2 and Jonathan D Bakker3
Dettweiler-Robinson et al. Ecological Processes 2013, 2:5 http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/2/1/5 RESEARCH Open Access Long-term changes in biological soil crust cover and composition Eva Dettweiler-Robinson1*, Jeanne M Ponzetti2 and Jonathan D Bakker3 Abstract Introduction: Communities change over time due to disturbances, variations in climate, and species invasions. Biological soil crust communities are important because they contribute to erosion control and nutrient cycling. Crust types may respond differently to changes in environmental conditions: single-celled organisms and bryophytes quickly recover after a disturbance, while lichens are slow growing and dominate favorable sites. Community change in crusts has seldom been assessed using repeated measures. For this study, we hypothesized that changes in crust composition were related to disturbance, topographic position, and invasive vegetation. Methods: We monitored permanent plots in the Columbia Basin in 1999 and 2010 and compared changes in crust composition, cover, richness, and turnover with predictor variables of herbivore exclosure, elevation, heat load index, time since fire, presence of an invasive grass, and change in cover of the invasive grass. Results: Bryophytes were cosmopolitan with high cover. Dominant lichens did not change dramatically. Indicator taxa differed by monitoring year. Bryophyte and total crust cover declined, and there was lower turnover outside of herbivore exclosures. Lichen cover did not change significantly. Plots that burned recently had high turnover. Increase in taxon richness was correlated with presence of an invasive grass in 1999. Change in cover of the invasive grass was positively related to proportional loss and negatively related to gain. Conclusions: Composition and turnover metrics differed significantly over 11 years, though cover was more stable between years. -
Elytrigia and Elymus (Agropyron)
Plant Crib ELYTRIGIA AND ELYMUS (AGROPYRON) 1. General There are number of problems which can cause confusion in these genera, though the species are themselves usually quite distinct. i) Changes in nomenclature. The current names and recent synonymy are as follows: Elymus caninus (L.) L. (Agropyron caninum) Elytrigia atherica (Link) Kerguélen ex Carreras Mart. (Elymus pycnanthus; Agropyron pungens) Elytrigia juncea (L.) Nevski (Elymus farctus; Agropyron junciforme) Elytrigia repens (L.) Desv. ex Nevski (Elymus repens; Agropyron repens) Leymus arenarius (L.) Hochst. (Elymus arenarius) ii) Plants with awns. Plants of Elytrigia repens with awns are quite common and tend to be recorded as Elymus caninus by the unwary (when the florets of the latter drop or are pulled off, the two glumes stay attached to the stem, but come off with the floret in Elytrigia repens). Elytrigia atherica may also have awns. iii) Both Elytrigia repens and E. atherica may grow on saltmarshes and adjacent banks, especially in the north, and are frequently confused by the unwary if it is assumed only the latter occurs on saltmarshes. iv) Hybrids may be locally frequent near the coast (e.g. E. ´ drucei seems to be much more common in Cumbria than E. atherica, which may not occur at all; Halliday 1997). When the jizz of the parents is known, hybrids can be picked out as intermediate from a few metres away. v) The hairs on the margins of the leaf sheaths may rub off late in the season. In the following rather unsatisfactory key (updated from Wigginton & Graham 1981) an attempt has been made to key out the hybrids, which as a rule have empty anthers. -
European Dactylis and Festuca Databases
European Dactylis and Festuca Databases Grzegorz Żurek 1, Włodzimierz Majtkowski 2 Plant Breeding & Acclimatization Instititute, 1 – Department of Grasses, Legumes and Energy Plants, Radzików, 05-870 Błonie, POLAND 2 – National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources, Botanical Garden, 85 – 687 Bydgoszcz, POLAND Major increase in database status was the effect of ECP/GR meeting held in Lindau (Switzerland) at 2005. Now there is 24 256 records in both databases. Table 1. Changes in databases since last report Database No. of records: last update added current status Festuca 8779 3705 12484 Dactylis 8793 2979 11772 Total 17572 6684 24256 Status of both databases by INSTCODE were given in tables 2 and 3. More than 85% of all resources from Dactylis genus was taken directly from wild, while 10.5% originated more or less from commercial breeding. In genus Festuca it is little different - 68.4 and 18.1 %, respectively. As it has been previously reported, records in both databases describe number of taxa, which names were given by data donors and only minor changes (mostly according to authorities names) were added by database managers. Only few records were described by taxa name not existing in any literature source, what is probably the reason of misspelling. Status of both databases by species name were given in tables 4 and 5. MOS identification has been also performed and proposed by managers (if not specified by data donors) (tables 6 and 7). As it can be seen from percentage of given MOS categories, more than 61% of Dactylis resources is held by donor but only 46% of Festuca. -
Hordeum Murinum L. Ssp. Leporinum (Link) Arcang. USDA
NEW YORK NON-NATIVE PLANT INVASIVENESS RANKING FORM Scientific name: Hordeum murinum L. ssp. leporinum (Link) Arcang. USDA Plants Code: HOMUL Common names: leporinum barley; hare barley Native distribution: Eurasia Date assessed: July 16, 2012 Assessors: Steven D. Glenn Reviewers: LIISMA SRC Date Approved: 14 August 2012 Form version date: 29 April 2011 New York Invasiveness Rank: Not Assessable Distribution and Invasiveness Rank (Obtain from PRISM invasiveness ranking form) PRISM Status of this species in each PRISM: Current Distribution Invasiveness Rank 1 Adirondack Park Invasive Program Not Assessed Not Assessed 2 Capital/Mohawk Not Assessed Not Assessed 3 Catskill Regional Invasive Species Partnership Not Assessed Not Assessed 4 Finger Lakes Not Assessed Not Assessed 5 Long Island Invasive Species Management Area Not Present Not Assessable 6 Lower Hudson Not Assessed Not Assessed 7 Saint Lawrence/Eastern Lake Ontario Not Assessed Not Assessed 8 Western New York Not Assessed Not Assessed Invasiveness Ranking Summary Total (Total Answered*) Total (see details under appropriate sub-section) Possible 1 Ecological impact 40 (10) 3 2 Biological characteristic and dispersal ability 25 (22) 15 3 Ecological amplitude and distribution 25 (21) 8 4 Difficulty of control 10 (6) 2 Outcome score 100 (59)b 28a † Relative maximum score -- § New York Invasiveness Rank Not Assessable * For questions answered “unknown” do not include point value in “Total Answered Points Possible.” If “Total Answered Points Possible” is less than 70.00 points, then the overall invasive rank should be listed as “Unknown.” †Calculated as 100(a/b) to two decimal places. §Very High >80.00; High 70.00−80.00; Moderate 50.00−69.99; Low 40.00−49.99; Insignificant <40.00 Not Assessable: not persistent in NY, or not found outside of cultivation. -
Characterising Forages for Ruminant Feeding**
116 Characterising Forages for Ruminant Feeding** R. A. Dynes*, D. A. Henry and D. G. Masters CSIRO Livestock Industries, Private Mail Bag 5, Wembley, WA 6913, Australia ABSTRACT : Forages are the most important feed resource for ruminants worldwide, whether fed as pastures, forage crops or conserved hay, silage or haylage. There is large variability in the quality of forages so measurement and prediction of feeding value and nutritive value are essential for high levels of production. Within a commercial animal production system, methods of prediction must be inexpensive and rapid. At least 50% of the variation in feeding value of forages is due to variation in voluntary feed intake. Identification of the factors that constrain voluntary feed intake allows these differences to be managed and exploited in forage selection. Constraints to intake have been predicted using combinations of metabolic and physical factors within the animal while simple measurements such as the energy required to shear the plant material are related to constraints to intake with some plant material. Animals respond to both pre- and post-ingestive feedback signals from forages. Pre-ingestive signals may play a role in intake with signals including taste, odour and texture together with learned aversions to nutrients or toxins (post-ingestive feedback signals). The challenge to forage evaluation is identification of the factors which are most important contributors to these feedback signals. Empirical models incorporating chemical composition are also widely used. The models tend to be useful within the ranges of the datasets used in their development but none can claim to have universal application. -
What About Hay?
Small Ruminant Series What About Hay? by Dr. Rick Machen Associate Professor & Extension Livestock Specialist Texas Agric ultural Exte nsio n Service, Uvalde Rumina nts ( goats, cattle, sheep, deer, ante lope, elk, bison, etc.) are, by desi gn, grazi ng animals. Their rumen, the largest gastrointestinal compartment, is an environment wherein bacteria anaerobically ferment (digest) forages. This unique digestive process converts solar energy captured by plants into higher quality, more nutrient dense foods like milk and meat. Compared to harvest by a grazing animal, hay production is an expensive process, involving fossi l fuel, mac hinery and man- hours. Haying als o involves si gnificant s oil nutri ent relocation when compared to grazing. Protein ( nitrogen) and minerals harveste d and hauled off the soil of a hay meadow or field must be replaced if optimal hay production is to be maintained. Grazing, on the other hand, is part of a natural cycle. A portion of the nitrogen and minerals from the consumed forage is returned to the soil with urine and feces. So, whether it s feeding beef cows on the open range or goats in a small paddock, hay is not a supplement - it is a substitute. A s ubstitute for the s tanding forage or browse that makes up the diet of a ruminant animal in their natural habitat. As shown in the Table 1, the typical diet of a foraging goat ranges from !S to ½ browse and ½ to !S grass, depending upon season and availability of the respective forages. Goats are opportunistic grazers and will select a diversity of plants to result in the highest attai nable diet quality. -
Plant Fact Sheet
United States Department of Agriculture NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Forestry Technical Note No. MT-27 April 2006 FORESTRY TECHNICAL NOTE ______________________________________________________________________ Performance Evaluations of Herbaceous Vegetation on Disturbed Forestland in Southeastern Montana Robert Logar, State Staff Forester Larry Holzworth, Plant Material Specialist Summary Information for seeding herbaceous vegetation following forestland disturbance was identified as a conservation need in southeastern Montana. The herbaceous vegetation could be used to control soil erosion, stabilize disturbed sites, manage noxious weeds and provide forage. The Fulton Ranch field evaluation planting (FEP) was established in November 1995 on a disturbed forestland site in southeastern Montana to study the adaptation, performance and use of various grass species. The site, a Ponderosa pine/Idaho fescue habitat-type, had received a light to moderate burn from a wildfire that occurred in August 1994 and was logged the following spring. Nineteen evaluation plots were established to test seventeen different accessions of grasses; two control (unseeded) plots were established. Each plot was one-quarter of an acre in size. Seeded species included ‘Sherman’ big bluegrass, ‘Latar’ orchardgrass, ‘Paiute’ orchardgrass, ‘Manska’ pubescent wheatgrass, ‘Oahe’ intermediate wheatgrass, ‘Rush’ intermediate wheatgrass, ‘Dacotah’ switchgrass, ‘Forestberg’ switchgrass, 9005308 mountain brome, ‘Regar’ meadow brome, ‘Redondo’ Arizona fescue, ‘Whitmar’ beardless wheatgrass, ‘Goldar’ bluebunch wheatgrass, M-1 Nevada bluegrass, ‘Killdeer’ sideoats grama, ‘Pierre’ sideoats grama, and ‘Pryor’ slender wheatgrass. An evaluation of several species for seeding road systems was also conducted as part of this FEP. Road surface, cut and fill slopes were seeded with ‘Luna’ pubescent wheatgrass, ‘Covar’ sheep fescue, ‘Durar’ hard fescue, ‘Critana’ thickspike wheatgrass, ‘Sodar’ streambank wheatgrass, and ‘Rosana’ western wheatgrass. -
FORAGE LEGUMES Clovers, Birdsfoot Trefoil, Cicer Milkvetch, Crownvetch and Alfalfa
FORAGE LEGUMES Clovers, Birdsfoot Trefoil, Cicer Milkvetch, Crownvetch and Alfalfa Craig C. Sheaffer Nancy J. Ehlke Kenneth A. Albrecht Jacob M. Jungers Minnesota Agricultural Jared J. Goplen Experiment Station Station Bulletin 608-2018 Forage Legumes Clovers, Birdsfoot Trefoil, Cicer Milkvetch, Crownvetch and Alfalfa Craig C. Sheaffer Nancy J. Ehlke Kenneth A. Albrecht Jacob M. Jungers Jared J. Goplen Station Bulletin 608-2018 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station University of Minnesota Saint Paul, Minnesota The University of Minnesota shall provide equal access to and opportunity in its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Editors Craig Sheaffer, Nancy Ehlke, and Jacob Jungers are agronomists with the University of Minnesota Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics in the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Saint Paul, Minnesota. Jared Goplen is an Extension Educator in Crops for University of Minnesota Extension. Kenneth Albrecht is an agronomist with the University of Wisonsin’s Department of Agronomy. Acknowledgments This publication is a revision of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 597-1993, Forage Le- gumes, orginally issued in 1993 and then updated in 2003 and then again in 2018. The editors of this third edition gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the coauthors of the original publication: Harlan Ford, Neal Martin, Russell Mathison, David Rabas and Douglas Swanson. Publications editing, design and development for the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station is by Shelly Gustafson, experiment station communications specialist. Photos are by Dave Hansen or Don Breneman.