DOCSLIB.ORG

Common Crupina Monitoring Report, ZPP 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Common Crupina Monitoring Report, ZPP 2011 Common crupina monitoring report, ZPP 2011 Common Crupina Increased in Abundance on Trail Creek of the Zumwalt Prairie Preserve from 2009-2011 Heidi Schmalz and Robert V. Taylor1 Summary: Common crupina is a noxious weed with a known population extent of ~ 51 ha on the Zumwalt Prairie Preserve (ZPP) that has been monitored for changes in abundance since 2009. After little change between 2009 and 2010, crupina increased in abundance significantly from 2010 to 2011. The increase in crupina occurred in the interior of the population and along the outer edge, indicating that the population is becoming denser and is spreading into surrounding areas. The ZPP Weed Management Plan states that the crupina population on Trail Creek will be monitored for five years, with actions taken to confine it to the 2010 extent and eradicate it outside of that area. Consideration of treatment before the five year time period elapses may be warranted given the evidence for a spreading infestation. About common crupina2 . Common crupina is a winter annual: seeds germinate in the fall, and seedlings require a period of cold winter temperatures followed by increasing day length to resume growth in the spring. Seeds are large and heavy and fall no more than 1 m from plants; bristles on the top of the seed facilitate movement into soil spaces . The seed bank is not persistent beyond the first year . Each common crupina produces a small number of seeds but seeds have high germination success . In general, common crupina has traits that favor persistence rather than rapid population growth . Crupina has been effectively reduced by hand- pulling prior to seed set, or with the following chemicals: picloram, glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D (amine) 1 Corresponding author: [email protected] 2 Photos are of the plant (Etienne Aspord) and seed (Julia Scher, Federal Noxious Weed Disseminules of the U.S.) Purpose and Objectives of Monitoring Common crupina (Crupina vulgaris) is a winter annual from the Mediterranean that was first discovered in Idaho in 1968 (Stickney, 1972). In Wallowa County, crupina is a class “A” noxious weed (Wallowa County weed board) and there are a number of known populations scattered throughout the extensive riparian and canyon lands of Wallowa County (M. Porter, Wallowa Resources, pers. comm.). The Nature Conservancy staff first became aware of the existence of crupina on the Zumwalt Prairie Preserve (ZPP) in 2007. (For more detailed information about crupina and its potential detriments, see Jansen et al. 2010.) Inventory efforts to document the extent of the crupina infestation at ZPP began in 2008. An infestation area was determined which circumscribes 51 ha of canyon hillslopes (Fig. 1). In 2009, a monitoring program was established to measure the abundance of crupina and its change over time. There are two primary objectives in this monitoring project: 1) to determine if crupina is increasing in abundance in the area it already occupies, and 2) to determine if crupina is increasing in extent beyond the boundaries established in 2009. A secondary objective is to document the abundance of several other species in the infestation area, including several native species and non-native annual grasses, to assess whether crupina is having an influence on these other species. The data and analysis derived from this project are intended to provide useful information to managers as they Figure 1: Results from inventory of crupina along Trail Creek in 2008 and 2009 (pre-monitoring). - 2 - make decisions about how to deal with this weed infestation. Methods Field Sampling There are 119 permanent3 monitoring plots within the 51-ha infestation area. Plots were stratified as either “Interior”, “Edge In” or “Edge Out” based on their relation to the known population. Plots were also stratified by topographic position (see Jansen et al. 2010 for details about how site locations were determined). The monitoring plots were visited on a yearly basis from 2009-2011, at a time when crupina was in flower and easily detected4. Prior to sampling, all observers were trained in the identification of all target species. Observers navigated to monitoring sites using a GPS and established a temporary 5 m-radius circular plot (78.54 m2). Frequency was measured by recording the presence of crupina in circular plots. We used a nested frequency method with three plot sizes (1 m, 3 m, or 5 m-radius) and recorded the smallest plot in which the plant occurred. To provide a measure of density, Counts were made within 1 m-radius plots only. At each plot (5 m- radius) we also recorded the presence/absence of Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), annual brome grasses (Bromus spp.), and North Africa grass (Ventenata dubia). In addition to abundance data collected at the monitoring plots, the locations of common crupina plants encountered outside the monitoring plots were recorded with GPS units as “incidental observations”. Data Analysis For 2011 analyses, the data were grouped into two classes: “Interior” was a combination of the Interior and Edge In areas, while “Edge Out” remained the same as the previously defined Edge Out area. This grouping resulted in sample sizes of 79 for the Interior and 40 for Edge Out. Comparisons were made separately for each area. Topographic position was not used in data analysis. We used frequency data to test whether the abundance of crupina changed from 2010 to 2009. No changes in abundance between 2009 and 2010 were detected in a previous analysis (Jansen et al. 2010). Specifically we tested the null hypothesis that the frequency of crupina (i.e., the fraction of 5 m-radius plots in which crupina was present) was equal between the two years. Monitoring plots were considered permanent, thus McNemar’s test was used (ProcFREQ, SAS 9.2, SAS Institute Inc.). To define a 10% chance of detecting a change when in fact a change had not occurred, we chose an alpha level of 0.1 for inferring statistical significance. 3 Permanent is a relative term here. We did not permanently mark plots, but the same UTM coordinates were used each year to locate the plots. Due to GPS error, particularly in the canyons, this could result in discrepancies of up to 10 m. However, for purposes of data analysis we chose to treat the plots as permanent plots. 4 Monitoring took place on June 11th in 2009, June 2nd and 3rd in 2010, and on June 8th and 9th in 2011. - 3 - Density was calculated by dividing the number of plants counted within the 1 m-radius plot by the area of the plot (3.14 m2) to obtain plants per m2. Means and 90% confidence intervals of the means were obtained in JMP Software 9 (SAS Institute Inc.). No statistical tests were performed on density data. Results From 2010 to 2011, the frequency of crupina in 5 m-radius plots increased by 18% (± 17%; 90% confidence interval) in the Edge Out, by 17% (±11%) in the Interior, and by 17% (±9.5%) across all sites (Fig. 2). These changes were significant for the Edge Out (p = 0.02), the Interior (p < 0.01) and across all sites (p < 0.01). Mean density for the Interior and Edge Out locations is shown in Figure 3. Spatial representations of frequency measured in 2009, 2010, and 2011areshown on maps in Figure 4. Incidental observations are displayed in Figure 5. Figure 2: Frequency of common crupina in 5 m-radius plots by location and across the entire monitoring site. Error bars are 90% confidence intervals. Number of sampling plots were: Edge Out = 40; Interior = 79; All sites = 118. - 4 - Figure 3: Mean density for Interior and Edge Out locations, by year. Error bars are 90% confidence intervals. - 5 - - 6 - Figure 5: Records of incidental observations for 2009-2011. - 7 - The frequency data for all species within the 5 m-radius plots are summarized in Figure 6. This chart is helpful for interpreting relative frequencies—that is, the frequency of each species relative to the observations recorded for all species in a given year and area. This provides information regarding the prevalence of both native and non-native species that may be useful to future monitoring and management. For example, if the area is treated with herbicide and monitored afterward, it would be possible to compare pre- and post-treatment data regarding the abundance of target native species as well as non-native annual grasses and common crupina itself. Figure 6: Frequency of species within 5 m-radius plots, by area and year. Each bar for each species is proportional to the total number of observations of all species within the area and year. Abbreviations are: CRVU2 = Common crupina; PSSPS = Bluebunch wheatgrass; FEID = Idaho fescue; POSE = Sandberg’s bluegrass; RHGL = smooth sumac; Bromus = all annual non-native brome species; VEDU = North Africa grass; Native Grass is a combination of PSSPS, FEID, and POSE. Interpretations and Conclusions The key results from three years of monitoring common crupina are that 1) its frequency increased significantly from year two to year three, after no increase from year one to year two and 2) the population appears to be spreading beyond the boundaries of the original infestation, as evidenced by the increased frequency in the Edge Out area and the additional incidentals outside of the boundary. From maps of frequency over the years, the population appears to be spreading directly along Trail Creek and along the northwest edge. Some caution is advised in interpreting abundance data for annual plants. As an annual species, crupina is likely to fluctuate in number from year to year, and whether or not the increased frequency in 2011 is the beginning of a sustained trend is impossible to know without further monitoring.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alhagi Maurorum
    Prepared By Jacob Higgs and Tim Higgs Class 1A EDRR- Early Detection Rapid Response Watch List Common crupina Crupina vulgaris African rue Peganum harmala Small bugloss Anchusa arvensis Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis Spring millet Milium vernale Syrian beancaper Zygophyllum fabago North Africa grass Ventenata dubia Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthiodes Malta thistle Centaurea melitensis Common Crupina Crupina vulgaris African rue Peganum harmala Small bugloss Anchusa arvensis Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis Spring millet Milium vernale Syrian beancaper Zygophyllum fabago North Africa grass Ventenata dubia Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthiodes Malta thistle Centaurea melitensis m Class 1B Early Detection Camelthorn Alhagi maurorum Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata Purple starthistle Cantaurea calcitrapa Goatsrue Galega officinalis African mustard Brassica tournefortii Giant Reed Arundo donax Japanese Knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum Vipers bugloss Echium vulgare Elongated mustard Brassica elongate Common St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum L. Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Cutleaf vipergrass Scorzonera laciniata Camelthorn Alhagi maurorum Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata Purple starthistle Cantaurea calcitrapa Goatsrue Galega officinalis African mustard Brassica tournefortii Giant Reed Arundo donax Japanese Knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum Vipers bugloss Echium vulgare Elongated mustard Brassica elongate Common St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum L. Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Cutleaf vipergrass Scorzonera laciniata Class 2 Control
    [Show full text]
  • Flora Mediterranea 26
    FLORA MEDITERRANEA 26 Published under the auspices of OPTIMA by the Herbarium Mediterraneum Panormitanum Palermo – 2016 FLORA MEDITERRANEA Edited on behalf of the International Foundation pro Herbario Mediterraneo by Francesco M. Raimondo, Werner Greuter & Gianniantonio Domina Editorial board G. Domina (Palermo), F. Garbari (Pisa), W. Greuter (Berlin), S. L. Jury (Reading), G. Kamari (Patras), P. Mazzola (Palermo), S. Pignatti (Roma), F. M. Raimondo (Palermo), C. Salmeri (Palermo), B. Valdés (Sevilla), G. Venturella (Palermo). Advisory Committee P. V. Arrigoni (Firenze) P. Küpfer (Neuchatel) H. M. Burdet (Genève) J. Mathez (Montpellier) A. Carapezza (Palermo) G. Moggi (Firenze) C. D. K. Cook (Zurich) E. Nardi (Firenze) R. Courtecuisse (Lille) P. L. Nimis (Trieste) V. Demoulin (Liège) D. Phitos (Patras) F. Ehrendorfer (Wien) L. Poldini (Trieste) M. Erben (Munchen) R. M. Ros Espín (Murcia) G. Giaccone (Catania) A. Strid (Copenhagen) V. H. Heywood (Reading) B. Zimmer (Berlin) Editorial Office Editorial assistance: A. M. Mannino Editorial secretariat: V. Spadaro & P. Campisi Layout & Tecnical editing: E. Di Gristina & F. La Sorte Design: V. Magro & L. C. Raimondo Redazione di "Flora Mediterranea" Herbarium Mediterraneum Panormitanum, Università di Palermo Via Lincoln, 2 I-90133 Palermo, Italy [email protected] Printed by Luxograph s.r.l., Piazza Bartolomeo da Messina, 2/E - Palermo Registration at Tribunale di Palermo, no. 27 of 12 July 1991 ISSN: 1120-4052 printed, 2240-4538 online DOI: 10.7320/FlMedit26.001 Copyright © by International Foundation pro Herbario Mediterraneo, Palermo Contents V. Hugonnot & L. Chavoutier: A modern record of one of the rarest European mosses, Ptychomitrium incurvum (Ptychomitriaceae), in Eastern Pyrenees, France . 5 P. Chène, M.
    [Show full text]
  • Crupina Vulgaris Cass
    WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD (Updated December 1999) Scientific Name: Crupina vulgaris Cass. Common Name: Common crupina Family: Compositae (Asteraceae) Legal Status: Class A in Washington; also on Federal Noxious Weed List Description and Variation: Common crupina is an erect winter annual, 1 to 3 feet tall. Cotyledons are large, thick, shiny and dark green, with a prominent mid-rib that may be purple to red. The species overwinters as a rosette. Plants have alternate leaves that are finely divided into lace-like leaflets (pinnatifid or bipinnatifid). Both the leaves and stem have short stiff spines. Flowers are lavender to purple and grow in ½-inch long heads. Each plant can have as many as 40 flowering heads; individual heads produce 1 to 5 seeds. Flowers partially protrude through a whorl of bracts. Seeds (achenes) are 1/8 to ¼ inch long, and are cylindrical, tapering to a blunt end. The seed coat is covered with tiny hairs, giving the seeds a black to silvery beige appearance. The apical end of the seed has dark, stiff, barbed hairs (pappus) (Thill et al. 1987). Two varieties of Crupina vulgaris are found in the Pacific Northwest. Washington’s infestation is C. vulgaris var. brachypappa. The infestations found in Idaho, Oregon, and California are C. vulgaris var. typica. The two varieties can be distinguished by their achenes. Var. typica achenes are 4-5 mm long; the longest pappus silk is 7-8 mm. Var. brachypappa achenes are 3.5-5.0 mm, with pappus silk of 4-5 mm (Couderc-LeVaillant and Talbott Roche 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Years of Conservation Science on the Zumwalt Prairie
    10 YEARS OF CONSERVATION SCIENCE ON THE ZUMWALT PRAIRIE What Have We Learned? Geographically isolated and comprised mostly of private lands, scant scientific information exists regarding the soils, vegetation, wildlife and ecology of the Zumwalt Prairie. Science is at the core of the Nature Conservancy’s conservation approach and soon after the Conservancy acquired the Zumwalt Prairie Preserve in 2000, the organization recognized the need to support scientific inquiry into the prairie’s ecology and how human actions such as livestock grazing, fire, and invasive species affect it. Beginning with a study of the prairie’s raptor populations in 2003, the Conservancy has collaborated with universities and agencies for over ten years in its quest to find answers to key conservation questions. Over 10 published papers, dozens of reports and presentations have resulted in these efforts, broadening our knowledge of the biodiversity and ecological processes of the Zumwalt and informing stewardship and other conservation actions. Conservancy staff also serve on technical advisory groups, review boards, and in other roles to promote scientific inquiry and communication of information to landowners and other stakeholders. Short summaries of findings resulting from Zumwalt Science efforts are summarized below. For more information contact Rob Taylor ([email protected]). Many of the reports, lists, and publications cited here can be found on the Conservation Gateway at: https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/oregon/grasslands/zumwalt BIODIVERSITY While no formal “bio blitz” has ever been undertaken on the Zumwalt Prairie, various inventory, monitoring and research projects have contributed to our understanding of the biodiversity that inhabits this extraordinary grassland ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Biological Control of Invasive
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States Roy Van Driesche Bernd Blossey Mark Hoddle Suzanne Lyon Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team—Morgantown, West Virginia United States Forest FHTET-2002-04 Department of Service August 2002 Agriculture BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES Technical Coordinators Roy Van Driesche and Suzanne Lyon Department of Entomology, University of Massachusets, Amherst, MA Bernd Blossey Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Mark Hoddle Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, USDA, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the authors of the individual chap- We would also like to thank the U.S. Depart- ters for their expertise in reviewing and summariz- ment of Agriculture–Forest Service, Forest Health ing the literature and providing current information Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West on biological control of the major invasive plants in Virginia, for providing funding for the preparation the Eastern United States. and printing of this publication. G. Keith Douce, David Moorhead, and Charles Additional copies of this publication can be or- Bargeron of the Bugwood Network, University of dered from the Bulletin Distribution Center, Uni- Georgia (Tifton, Ga.), managed and digitized the pho- versity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, (413) tographs and illustrations used in this publication and 545-2717; or Mark Hoddle, Department of Entomol- produced the CD-ROM accompanying this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Vertebrate and Floristic Inventories at Minuteman Missile National Historic Site: 2007 Status Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Vertebrate and Floristic Inventories at Minuteman Missile National Historic Site: 2007 Status Report Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NGPN/NRTR—2008/124 ` ON THE COVER Swift fox den at Minuteman Missile National Historic Site Photograph by: Rikk Flohr Vertebrate and Floristic Inventories at Minuteman Missile National Historic Site: 2007 Status Report Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NGPN/NRTR—2008/124 Marcia H. Wilson National Park Service Northern Great Plains Inventory and Monitoring Network 231 East Saint Joseph Street Rapid City, SD 57701 Robert A. Gitzen University of Missouri Northern Great Plains I&M Network 231 East Saint Joseph Street Rapid City, SD 57701 Michael Bynum National Park Service Northern Great Plains I&M Network 231 East Saint Joseph Street Rapid City, SD 57701 September 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. The Natural Resources Technical Reports series is used to disseminate the peer-reviewed results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service’s mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants in Chapter 5B-57.007, Florida Administrative Code Noxious Weed List
    Plants in chapter 5B-57.007, Florida Administrative Code Noxious Weed List Mark A. Garland Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services July 6, 2004 Parasitic Weeds Scientific Name Common Family Origin In USDA DEP EPPC Notes/References Name Fla? Aeginetia spp. aeginetia Orobanchaceae Indomalaysian * 3 species. Non-photosynthetic (broomrape family) region and parasites on grasses and other East Asia monocots. A. indica is pest of sugarcane. Photos: http://www.science.siu.edu/parasitic - plants/Scrophulariaceae/NoPhoto.Sc rophs.html Alectra spp. alectra Scrophulariaceae Tropical * 40 species. Hemiparasites (with (snapdragon family) Africa, Asia chlorophyll). Photos: or Orobanchaceae http://www.science.siu.edu/parasitic (broomrape family) - plants/Scrophulariaceae/Hemipar.ht ml. Cuscuta spp., except dodder Convolvulaceae Cosmopolitan * all ~145 species, 8 native to Florida. the native Florida (morning-glory (C. except Yellow-stemmed non- family) japo- native photosynthetic twining parasites of species nica) U.S. herbs and woody plants. Species species are distinguished by minute floral and fruit characters. Orobanche spp., broomrape Orobanchaceae Temperate and * 150 species, 1 native to Florida. except native O. (broomrape family) subtropical Non-photosynthetic parasites. regions Photos: uniflora. http://www.science.siu.edu/parasitic - plants/Scrophulariaceae/Orobanche. Gallery.html 2 Terrestrial Weeds Scientific Name Common Family Origin In USDA DEP EPPC Notes/References Name Fla? Ageratina crofton weed Compositae or Mexico * Serious rangeland weed in India, adenophora Asteraceae Nigeria, Southeast Asia, Pacific (sunflower family) Islands, Australia, New Zealand, California. Toxic to livestock. http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/datastore/det ailreport.cfm?usernumber=2&survey number=182 Alternanthera sessilis sessile joyweed Amaranthaceae South Asia? * * Weed of over 30 crops, mostly in (amaranth family) tropics and subtropics.
    [Show full text]
  • Yellow Starthistle Management Guide
    Yellow Starthistle Management Guide JOSEPH M. DITOMASO Weed Science Program, Department of Plant Sciences University of California, Davis GUY B. KYSER Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis MICHAEL J. PITCAIRN Biocontrol Program, Integrated Pest Management Branch California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento Published by the California Invasive Plant Council US Army Corps of Engineers September 2006 Engineer Research and Development Center YSTMgmt(FINAL).indd 1 10/12/06 12:49:19 PM ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Development of this management guide was one of the long-term goals of a re- search demonstration project on Integrated Weed Management of Yellow Starthistle at Fort Hunter Liggett, CA. The authors are grateful to the Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program for partial funding through Legacy Project Model Invasive Species Control Project: Yellow Starthistle (Legacy Project #01-160 and 03-160) under MIPR W31RYO30983808, and the U.S. Army Environmental Center for their financial support of the project, and to the Western Integrated Pest Management Center “IPM Issues” program for their financial support of the preparation and publication of this management guide. The authors also thank the many people who assisted in the development and completion of the Fort Hunter Liggett project. Dr. Steven R. Bennett, U.S. Army Environmental Center, provided leadership on the the project’s vision and orga- nization. Dr. Al Cofrancesco, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, and Dr. Herb Bolton, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service liaison to the U.S. Army Environmental Center, assisted with technical coordination for the project.
    [Show full text]
  • APHIS Actions (Updated August 3, 2021) TAG No. P
    Technical Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds TAG Petitions - APHIS Actions (Updated August 3, 2021) ESA Sect. 7 Consultation NEPA Process TAG No. Petitioner Petition Type Agent (Biological Control Target Weed TAG APHIS Decision Biological F&WS PPQ initiates FONSI Date Permit Organism) Recommendation Letter (date)/ Assessment to Concurrence process (date) signed Issued/ (date) Action F&WS (date) NLAA (date) with Draft EA Release Authorized 21-01 John Gaskin Host Test Plant N/A: no specific identification at this Field bindweed, Convolvulus 8/3/21: List time. arvensis (Convolvulaceae) Recommendation for the Petitioner to examine all comments provided and proceed with testing with the understanding that concerns raised by the reviewers should be considered, and addressed where possible and reasonable. 20-02 Mark Schwarzlander Field Release Mogulones borraginis (Fabricius) Cynoglossum officinale L. Recommended for (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) (weevil) (houndstongue) Release (2/25/2021) 20-01 Mark Schwarzlander Field Release Ceutorhynchus cardariae (weevil) Lepidium draba, L. Not recommended for chalepense and L. Release (8/13/20) appelianum (hoary cress species) 19-03 Timothy Collier Field Release Aceria angustifoliae (mite) Elaeagnus angustifolia Recommended for (Russian olive) Release (5/27/2020) 19-02 Melissa C. Smith Host Test Plant N/A: no specific identification at this Acacia auriculiformis A. 3/11/20: List time. Cunn. ex Benth. (Fabaceae) Recommendation for Common name: Earleaf the Petitioner to acacia examine all comments provided and proceed with testing with the understanding that concerns raised by the reviewers should be considered, and addressed where possible and reasonable. 19-01 Melissa C. Smith Field Release Lophodiplosis indentata Gagné Melaleuca quinquenervia Recommended for 11/18/2020 (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) (Cav) S.T.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
    United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Biological Assessment for Boise District Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Management DOI-BLM-ID-B000-2016-0002-EA ESA-Listed Aquatic Invertebrates Bruneau hot springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis) ESA-Listed Plants Slickspot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum) Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Relationship of the Proposed Action to Future Federal Actions ................................................ 8 Consultation History ................................................................................................................... 9 Relationship of Section 7 Consultation for Future Federal Actions of the Proposed Action ..... 9 Species and Critical Habitats .................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 13 Targeted Plant Communities..................................................................................................... 13 Noxious Weeds ..................................................................................................................... 13 Invasive Plants .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pala Earctic G Rassland S
    Issue 46 (July 2020) ISSN 2627-9827 - DOI 10.21570/EDGG.PG.46 Journal of the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group Dry Grassland of the Eurasian Journal PALAEARCTIC GRASSLANDS PALAEARCTIC 2 Palaearctic Grasslands 46 ( J u ly 20 2 0) Table of Contents Palaearctic Grasslands ISSN 2627-9827 DOI 10.21570/EDGG.PG46 Palaearctic Grasslands, formerly published under the names Bulletin of the European Editorial 3 Dry Grassland Group (Issues 1-26) and Bulletin of the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group (Issues 27-36) is the journal of the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group (EDGG). It usually appears in four issues per year. Palaearctic Grasslands publishes news and announce- ments of EDGG, its projects, related organisations and its members. At the same time it serves as outlet for scientific articles and photo contributions. News 4 Palaearctic Grasslands is sent to all EDGG members and, together with all previous issues, it is also freely available at http://edgg.org/publications/bulletin. All content (text, photos, figures) in Palaearctic Grasslands is open access and available under the Creative Commons license CC-BY-SA 4.0 that allow to re-use it provided EDGG Publications 8 proper attribution is made to the originators ("BY") and the new item is licensed in the same way ("SA" = "share alike"). Scientific articles (Research Articles, Reviews, Forum Articles, Scientific Reports) should be submitted to Jürgen Dengler ([email protected]), following the Au- Aleksanyan et al.: Biodiversity of 12 thor Guidelines updated in Palaearctic Grasslands 45: 4. They are subject to editorial dry grasslands in Armenia: First review, with one member of the Editorial Board serving as Scientific Editor and deciding results from the 13th EDGG Field about acceptance, necessary revisions or rejection.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Information
    Supplementary Information Annex 1. List of plant species collected in Al-shouf and Ehden cedar forests during data collection following the designed sampling strategy and field explorations held between 2000 and 2003. Family Acanthaceae Acanthus syriacus Boiss. Family Amaranthaceae Chenopodium virgatum Ambrosi Family Amaryllidaceae Sternbergia clusiana Ker-Gawler Family Anacardiaceae Pistacia palaestina Boiss. Family Apiaceae Bupleurum linearifolium DC. Chaetosciadium trichospermum Boiss. Daucus carota L. Lagoecia cuminoides L. Prangos asperula Boiss. Scandix australis L. subsp. grandiflora (L.) Thell. Tordylium cordatum Poir. Family Apocynaceae Vinca libanotica Zucc. Family Asteraceae Achillea kotschyi Boiss. Achillea odorata W. Koch. Anthemis chia L. Anthemis hyalina DC. Anthemis tinctoria L. Anthemis tinctoria L. var. dioscoidea (All.) Vahl. Anthemis tricolor L. Anthriscus lamprocarpa Boiss. Calendula palaestina Boiss. Carlina involucrata Poiret subsp. libanotica (Boiss.) Meusel & Kastner Centaurea calcitrapa L. Centaurea iberica Trevir. ex. Sprengel Centaurea triumfetti All. Cephalorrhynchus tuberosus (Steven) Schchian 2 Crepis syriaca (Bornm.) Babc. & Navashin. Cruciata coronata (Sibth. & Sm.) Ehrend. Crupina crupinastrum Vis. Doronicum orientale Hoffm. Gundelia tournefortii L. Helichrysum conglobatum Steudel. subsp. conglobatum Helichrysum pallasii Ledeb. Helichrysum plicatum DC. subsp. plicatum DC. Inula salicina L. Matricaria chamomilla L. Matricaria recutila (L.) Reuschert Pallenis spinosa (L.) Cass Picnomon carota L. Ptilostemon diacantha (Labill.) Greuter subsp. diacantha Scolymus maculatus L. Scorzonera mollis M. Bieb. Senecio vernalis Waldst. & Kit. Serratula pusilla (Labill.) Dittrich Tanacetum aucheri DC. Family Berberidaceae Berberis libanotica Ehrenb. Ex C. K. Schneid. Family Boraginaceae Anchusa strigosa Labill. Brunnera orientalis I. M. Johnst. Cynoglossum montanum L. Onosma frutescens Lam. Onosma orientalis L. Solenanthus stamineus J. F. Macbr. Symphytum palaestinum Boiss. Family Brassicaceae Aethionema coridifolium DC. Alyssum murale Waldst.
    [Show full text]