DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Factors Affecting the Distribution of Native and Invasive Aquatic Plants in the Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana, U.S.A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Factors Affecting the Distribution of Native and Invasive Aquatic Plants in the Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana, U.S.A Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2007 Environmental factors affecting the distribution of native and invasive aquatic plants in the Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana, U.S.A. Rachel Cathleen Walley Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Walley, Rachel Cathleen, "Environmental factors affecting the distribution of native and invasive aquatic plants in the Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana, U.S.A." (2007). LSU Master's Theses. 2931. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/2931 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF NATIVE AND INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS IN THE ATCHAFALAYA RIVER BASIN, LOUISIANA, U.S.A. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in The School of Renewable Natural Resources by Rachel C. Walley B.S., Louisiana State University, 2004 December 2007 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I thank my major professor, Dr. William E. Kelso for giving me this opportunity. I also thank Drs. D. Allen Rutherford and Megan LaPeyre for serving on my committee. I would also like to thank Jerry Lang, Adam Piehler, and Brian Heiman for all the sweaty field work they did for me. I thank the following persons who saved me from countless hours of grueling laboratory work: Lauren Hart, Robyn Sellers, Jenny Bodin, Alison Martin, and Rachel Smith. For their advice, I thank Jonathan Fisher, Thorpe Halloran, Aaron Podey, Jonathan West, and Jesse Bahm. I would also like to thank Dr. Robert Gambrell for all of his assistance and the use of his laboratory. Very special thanks to Dr. Michael D. Kaller for all of the encouragement and help with statistical analysis. And another special thanks to Deb Kelly for all the support, lunch breaks, and laboratory help. I would also like to thank Jefe, Gypsy, Guano, and Toulouse for never judging me and keeping a smile on my face through graduate school. Finally, I wish to thank my husband, Walley for all of his committed support, without him this would not have been possible, and the rest of my family for being there for me. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................ii LIST OF TABLES ..............................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................v ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................vi INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 METHODS Study Site .................................................................................................................8 Sampling and Laboratory Methods..........................................................................8 Statistical Methods.................................................................................................12 RESULTS Plant Collections ....................................................................................................15 Biomass Accumulation of Invasive Versus Native Macrophytes..........................21 Physicochemical Characteristics of Sampling Locations ......................................23 Physicochemical Associations with Native Macrophytes .....................................23 Physicochemical Associations with Invasive Macrophytes ..................................24 Macrophyte Associations .......................................................................................25 Differences between Vegetated and Non-vegetated Locations within Years........26 Year-to-year Changes in Plant Communities within a Location...........................27 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................32 LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................................39 APPENDIX A: WATER QUALITY DATA.....................................................................47 APPENDIX B: SOIL QUALITY DATA ..........................................................................63 APPENDIX C: PERCENT PLANT COVERAGE DATA ...............................................69 APPENDIX D: DRY WEIGHTS OF SAMPLED PLANTS ..........................................102 VITA ................................................................................................................................106 iii LIST OF TABLES 1. Percent coverage of macrophytes for the four habitat types of the Atchafalaya River Basin in 2005 and 2006. .......................................................................................17 2. Linear equations used to estimate dry weight of plants (g) from percent coverage. ....19 3. Mean biomass of macrophytes for the four habitat types of the Atchafalaya River Basin in 2005 and 2006..........................................................................................20 4. Principal component analysis of aquatic macrophyte groups within quadrats sampled in 2005....................................................................................................................26 5. Principal component analysis of aquatic macrophyte groups within quadrats sampled in 2006....................................................................................................................27 iv LIST OF FIGURES 1. The Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana and study sites................................................9 2. Digital photograph of aquatic macrophytes taken within a 0.25 m2 floating PVC quadrat....................................................................................................................12 3. Atchafalaya River stages for 2005 and 2006 ................................................................13 4. Areal coverage – dry weight regressions (with 95% confidence intervals) for exotic Hydrilla verticillata and native Ceratophyllum demersum ...................................21 5. Areal coverage – dry weight regressions (with 95% confidence intervals) for exotic Eichhornia crassipes and native Limnobium spongia ...........................................22 6. Areal coverage – dry weight regressions (with 95% confidence intervals) for exotic Salvinia minima and native Lemna spp. ................................................................22 7. Canonical discriminant function analysis of the plant community data for each location in 2005 and 2006......................................................................................29 8. Canonical discriminant function analysis of the plant community with the 22 out of 103 locations sampled that had a distance greater than two units along the CDFA axis .........................................................................................................................30 9. Canonical discriminant function analysis of the physicochemical data for the 22 locations from the reduced model..........................................................................31 v ABSTRACT Over the last century, the aquatic macrophyte community of the Atchafalaya River Basin (ARB) has become increasingly dominated by invasive species. I used digital photography and GIS software to determine ARB macrophyte community composition by measuring percent cover of each plant species within five 0.25-m2 quadrats sampled from 108 sites in 2005 and 103 sites in 2006. Macrophyte community data and measurements of soil and water physicochemistry at each site were used to investigate environmental associations of the macrophytes inhabiting bayou, lake, excavated canal, and swamp habitats. Analyses indicated substantial differences in physicochemical conditions among habitats, but none of the 20 macrophyte species collected during the study exhibited consistent preferences for specific habitat types. Percent coverage of invasive plants was greater than native plants across all habitat types in both years, with invasive plant richness increasing in 2006 with the arrival of giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta). Common salvinia (Salvinia minima) appeared to have the greatest impact on the native plants, exhibiting inverse abundance relationships with six of fourteen species (43%). Comparisons of slopes from areal coverage – dry weight regressions based on macrophytes that were photographed, collected, and dried from quadrats sampled at 26 sites in 2006 suggested that invasive species accumulated more biomass per unit area than ecologically similar native taxa. In both years, terrestrial plants were observed in association with floating mats of other macrophyte species, apparently taking advantage of the mats as “terrestrial” substrate. Submerged plants exhibited few significant differences in abundance among the four habitats,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aquatic Plants of Saratoga Lake
    Saratoga Lake Aquatic Plant Survey – 2009 Prepared By Lawrence Eichler Research Scientist and Charles Boylen Associate Director Darrin Fresh Water Institute 5060 Lakeshore Drive Bolton Landing, NY 12814 (518) 644-3541 (voice) (518) 644-3640 (fax) [email protected] December 1, 2009 DFWI Technical Report 2009-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background . 1 Introduction . 1 Survey Site . 1 Methods . 3 Species List and Herbarium Specimens . 3 Point Intercept Survey . 3 Results and Discussion Saratoga Lake Survey Results . 5 Maximum Depth of Colonization . 6 Species Richness and Distribution . 7 Summary . 14 References . 19 Acknowledgements . 20 Appendix A. Saratoga Lake aquatic plant distribution maps . A-1 List of Tables Page Table 1 Aquatic plant species present in Saratoga Lake in 2009 ….………... 5 Table 2 Saratoga Lake point intercept percent frequency of occurrence …… 8 Table 3 Saratoga Lake point intercept percent frequency of occurrence in 2009 9 Table 4 Species richness for the point intercept surveys …………………… 13 List of Figures Page Figure 1 Distribution of point intercept survey points for Saratoga Lake ..…… 4 Figure 2 Depth distribution of Saratoga Lake sampling points ..……………… 7 Figure 3 Distribution of Eurasian watermilfoil in Saratoga Lake in 2009 10 Figure 4 Frequency of occurrence summaries for sampling points of all water depth 11 Figure 5 Frequency of occurrence summaries for sampling points of <6m water depth ………………………………………………………………….. 12 Figure 6 Species richness for native species in the point intercept survey ……. 13 Figure 7 A comparison of the distribution of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) growth in Saratoga Lake in 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2009…. 16 iii Report on Aquatic Vegetation of Saratoga Lake, New York Background Quantitative aquatic plant surveys were undertaken in 2009 for Saratoga Lake, New York as part of a cooperative effort between Aquatic Control Technologies (ACT) and the Darrin Fresh Water Institute, and supported by the Saratoga Lake Protection and Improvement District (SLPID).
    [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]
  • Download the Full Report Pdf, 2.9 MB
    VKM Report 2016:50 Assessment of the risks to Norwegian biodiversity from the import and keeping of aquarium and garden pond plants Opinion of the Panel on Alien Organisms and Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety Report from the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) 2016:50 Assessment of the risks to Norwegian biodiversity from the import and keeping of aquarium and garden pond plants Opinion of the Panel on Alien Organisms and Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety 01.11.2016 ISBN: 00000-00000 Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) Po 4404 Nydalen N – 0403 Oslo Norway Phone: +47 21 62 28 00 Email: [email protected] www.vkm.no www.english.vkm.no Suggested citation: VKM (2016). Assessment of the risks to Norwegian biodiversity from the import and keeping of aquarium and garden pond plants. Scientific Opinion on the on Alien Organisms and Trade in Endangered species of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety ISBN: 978-82-8259-240-6, Oslo, Norway. VKM Report 2016:50 Title: Assessment of the risks to Norwegian biodiversity from the import and keeping of aquarium and garden pond plants Authors preparing the draft opinion Hugo de Boer (chair), Maria G. Asmyhr (VKM staff), Hanne H. Grundt, Inga Kjersti Sjøtun, Hans K. Stenøien, Iris Stiers. Assessed and approved The opinion has been assessed and approved by Panel on Alien organisms and Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Members of the panel are: Vigdis Vandvik (chair), Hugo de Boer, Jan Ove Gjershaug, Kjetil Hindar, Lawrence Kirkendall, Nina Elisabeth Nagy, Anders Nielsen, Eli K.
    [Show full text]
  • A Key to Common Vermont Aquatic Plant Species
    A Key to Common Vermont Aquatic Plant Species Lakes and Ponds Management and Protection Program Table of Contents Page 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 How To Use This Guide ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Field Notes .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Plant Key ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Submersed Plants ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 8-20 Pipewort Eriocaulon aquaticum ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Wild Celery Vallisneria americana ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Najas Guadalupensis (Spreng.) Magnus; Najas Southern Naiad Marina Najas Marina L.; Hollyleaf Naiad Naiads
    A WEED REPORT from the book Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States This WEED REPORT does not constitute a formal recommendation. When using herbicides always read the label, and when in doubt consult your farm advisor or county agent. This WEED REPORT is an excerpt from the book Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States and is available wholesale through the UC Weed Research & Information Center (wric.ucdavis.edu) or retail through the Western Society of Weed Science (wsweedscience.org) or the California Invasive Species Council (cal-ipc.org). Najas guadalupensis (Spreng.) Magnus; Najas southern naiad marina Najas marina L.; hollyleaf naiad Naiads Family: Hydrocharitaceae or Najadaceae Range: Southern naiad is found throughout the United States. Hollyleaf naiad is found in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and New Mexico. Habitat: Southern naiad inhabits still or slow-moving water in a broad range of substrates, including ponds, Najas lakes, reservoirs, canals, rice fields, and irrigation ditches. Grows at water depths of 3 to 15 ft and tolerates polluted guadalupensis water or slightly brackish water. Hollyleaf naiad inhabits fresh to brackish water marshes, ponds, lakes, slow-moving streams, canals, and irrigation systems Origin: Southern naiad is a common widespread native of North and South America. Hollyleaf naiad is native to the southwestern United States. Impacts: Both naiads are usually not considered weedy in natural habitats. The foliage and seeds are an important food source for wildlife, especially shorebirds and waterfowl. However, they can become troublesome in ditches, human-made ponds, and disturbed or controlled aquatic systems where populations can become locally dominant, forming dense submersed mats of vegetation.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX B Biological Resources Vegetation Species Lists
    Feasibility Investigation Report Restoration of Hydrology along Mobile Bay Causeway December 2015 APPENDIX B Biological Resources Vegetation Species Lists Weston Solutions, Inc. Choccolatta Bay, June 2014 ORDER SALVINIALES SALVINIACEAE (FLOATING FERN FAMILY) Azolla caroliniana Willdenow —EASTERN MOSQUITO FERN, CAROLINA MOSQUITO FERN Salvinia minima Baker —WATER-SPANGLES, COMMON SALVINIA† ORDER ALISMATALES ARACEAE (ARUM FAMILY) Lemna obscura (Austin) Daubs —LITTLE DUCKWEED Spirodela polyrrhiza (Linnaeus) Schleiden —GREATER DUCKWEED ALISMATACEAE (MUD PLANTAIN FAMILY) Sagittaria lancifolia Linnaeus —BULLTONGUE ARROWHEAD HYDROCHARITACEAE (FROG’S-BIT FAMILY) Najas guadalupensis (Sprengel) Magnus —COMMON NAIAD, SOUTHERN NAIAD ORDER ASPARAGALES AMARYLLIDACEAE (AMARYLLIS FAMILY) Allium canadense Linnaeus var. canadense —WILD ONION ORDER COMMELINALES COMMELINACEAE (SPIDERWORT FAMILY) Commelina diffusa Burman f. —SPREADING DAYFLOWER, CLIMBING DAYFLOWER† PONTEDERIACEAE (PICKERELWEED FAMILY) Eichhornia crassipes (Martius) Solms —WATER HYACINTH† Pontederia cordata Linnaeus —PICKEREL WEED ORDER POALES TYPHACEAE (CATTAIL FAMILY) Typha domingensis Persoon —SOUTHERN CATTAIL JUNCACEAE (RUSH FAMILY) Juncus marginatus Rostkovius —GRASSLEAF RUSH † = non-native naturalized or invasive taxa Choccolatta Bay, June 2014 CYPERACEAE (SEDGE FAMILY) Cyperus esculentus Linnaeus —YELLOW NUTGRASS, CHUFA FLATSEDGE† Cyperus strigosus Linnaeus —STRAW-COLOR FLATSEDGE Schoenoplectus deltarum (Schuyler) Soják —DELTA BULRUSH Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (C.C. Gmelin) Palla
    [Show full text]
  • T 1. Alismatales.Indd
    Iheringia Série Botânica Museu de Ciências Naturais ISSN ON-LINE 2446-8231 Fundação Zoobotânica do Rio Grande do Sul Lista de Alismatales do estado de Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Vali Joana Pott1,3, Suzana Neves Moreira2, Ana Carolina Vitório Arantes1 & Arnildo Pott1 1,3Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Laboratório de Botânica, Herbário, Caixa Postal 549, CEP 79070-900, Campo Grande, MS, Brasil. [email protected] 2Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Departamento de Botânica, Avenida Antônio Carlos 6627, Pampulha, CEP 31270-901, Belo Horizonte, MG Recebido em 27.XI.2014 Aceito em 21.X.2015 DOI 10.21826/2446-8231201873s117 RESUMO – A presente lista de Alismatales engloba quatro famílias: Alismataceae, Araceae (Lemnoideae), Hydrocharitaceae e Potamogetonaceae. O estudo considerou coletas nos Herbários do Mato Grosso do Sul (CGMS, CPAP), além do R para Alismataceae. O número total de espécies mencionadas para o estado é de 41, sendo duas introduzidas (Egeria densa Planch. e Vallisneria spiralis L.), já citadas e coletadas no Mato Grosso do Sul. A família mais rica é Alismataceae, e o gênero mais numeroso Echinodorus Rich. ex Engelm. (12 espécies), ca. 24% do total. Echinodorus cordifolius (L.) Griseb. no Pantanal é uma ocorrência disjunta. Sagittaria planitiana G. Agostini é a primeira citação para o estado. Palavras-chave: Alismataceae, Araceae-Lemnoideae, Hydrocharitaceae, Potamogetonaceae ABSTRACT – Checklist of Alismatales of Mato Grosso do Sul state, Brazil. The present list contains Alismatales, with four families: Alismataceae, Araceae (Lemnoideae), Hydrocharitaceae and Potamogetonaceae. Our study included collections of the herbaria of Mato Grosso do Sul (CGMS, CPAP), beside R for Alismataceae. The total number of species cited for the state is 41, two being introduced (Egeria densa Planch.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent History of Submersed Aquatic Plants in Cayuga Lake
    Recent History of Submersed Aquatic Plants in Cayuga Lake 1928 To 2017 Northwest Cayuga Lake 80 (+1 SE) 70 Acentria recorded 60 in lake - 1991 50 40 30 % Milfoil 20 10 0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Year Cayuga Lake Watershed Network’s Fall Community Conference November 4, 2017 Bob Johnson Albert Vogel’s Cornell Masters Thesis 1973 “Changes in the Submerged Aquatic Flora at the South End of Cayuga Lake between 1929 and Early aquatic plant history1970 from” Al’s Thesis (40 years) Myriophyllum exalbescens (a native species) ID’ed in his Thesis in 1970 is correct for earlier research before Al, however in 1970 his milfoil was the non- native invasive M. spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil) Past records concentrated on the area south of line from Wheatons on the West shore, through the pile cluster to Willow Point on the East shore Muenscher 1928, Leister 1929, Eurasian watermilfoil Hewitt 1944 and Vogel 1973 Al Vogel conducted his study in 1970 and contrasted his findings with the researchers from 1928 to 1944 who were studying submerged aquatic plants as a food source for ducks. Vogel’s purpose of his study was to determine the changes over the last 40 years. His hypothesis was that abundant growth occurred over a larger area with fewer species and water milfoil as the dominant plant. That all happened, however the watermilfoil identification was not correct. A lot of confusion in the 1960’s as to ID of milfoils. Al Vogel finished his data collection and went back home to CA in 1971 to write his thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Naiads Najas Spp
    Maryland DepartmentofNatural Resources Naiads Najas spp. Native to Chesapeake Bay except for N. minor; non-invasive Najas minor Family - Najadaceae Distribution - Four naiad species occur in Chesapeake Bay. The first two are more common than the latter two. · Najas guadalupensis (southern naiad or bushy pondweed) · Najas minor (no common name) · Najas flexilis (northern naiad) · Najas gracillima (slender naiad). Najas guadalupensis Naiads are native except for N. minor which was introduced from Europe. Naiads grow in small freshwater streams, and freshwater portions of Bay tributaries. Bushy pondweed tolerates slightly brackish water. Naiads prefer sandy substrates and tolerate relatively low light. Recognition - Naiads vary in size from inch-high tufts on sandy bottoms to highly branched plants two or three feet high on silty bottoms. In general the naiads have slender, branching stems with narrow leaves that broaden at the base and are opposite or in whorls. Naiads have small, fibrous roots without rhizomes or tubers. The four species in Chesapeake Bay resemble one another, however, their leaves provide distinguishing characteristics. Najas spp. Bushy pondweed and northern naiad have wider leaves than the other two species. Bushy pondweed leaves are flat and straight, whereas leaves of northern naiad curve out from the stem at maturity. Slender naiad and N. minor have slender leaves with a truncated (abruptly-ending) basal sheath. N. minor is distinguished from slender naiad by stiff, recurved leaves and lengthwise ribs on its seed coat. Slender naiad has minute leaf-margin teeth that are difficult to see, whereas leaf-margin teeth of N. minor are visible to the naked eye.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquariums and Garden Ponds
    121 Threats to the biodiversity of northeastem North American lakes: aquariums and garden ponds Paul H. Lord 1 ABSTRACT Many nuisance aquatic plants (e.g., Eurasian water-milfoil, water chestnut, and Brazilian elodea) have been introduced to Northeastern North American (NE) waters by aquarium enthusiasts. The growing enthusiasm for water gardens provides significant potential for new exotics escaping into our lakes. Federal and New York State (NYS) laws require proof of damage to the environment prior to initiating action to regulate potential introductions. Since garden ponds make more common use of temperate exotics than do aquariums, new exotics will be introduced into NE lakes unless preemptive action is taken. BACKGROUND Twentieth century changes in NE lakes have been largely associated with the introduction of non-native species. Lampreys, alewives (Warner, 1999), zebra mussels, Eurasian water-milfoil, and purple loosestrife have all had profound impacts on NE lacustrine environments (Sinnot and Paul, 1993; Harman et al., 1997; Claudi and Leach, 2000). Macrophytes, large aquatic plants attached to the bottom, are important lacustrine community members. They are competitors with planktonic algae for dissolved nutrients. By removing nutrients (particularly phosphorous which is most often limiting in NE lakes) from the water, macrophytes limit algae growth and improve water clarity (Harman et aI., 2000). Macrophytes are restricted to relatively shallow water by pressure and light penetration (Hutchinson, 1975), but their growth in these shallow waters helps to trap nutrients as the nutrients enter a lake. Macrophyte shallow-water growth also helps to stabilize lake bottoms minimizing the mixing ofbottom sediments into the water column that can occur when boats or winds stir shallow waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Njplantlist.Pdf
    List of Endangered Plant Species and Plant Species of Concern June 2016 Scientific Name Common Name G Rank S Rank Federal Status State Status Other Status Abies balsamea Balsam Fir G5 S1 E LP, HL Acorus americanus American Sweetflag G5 S1? HL Actaea rubra var. rubra Red Baneberry G5T5 S2 HL Adlumia fungosa Climbing Fumitory G4 S2 HL Aeschynomene virginica Sensitive Joint-vetch G2 S1 LT E LP, HL Agalinis auriculata Ear-leaf False Foxglove G3 SX HL Agalinis fasciculata Pine Barren Foxglove G5 S3 HL Agalinis paupercula var. paupercula Small-flower False Foxglove G5T5 S2 HL Agastache nepetoides Yellow Giant-hyssop G5 S2 HL Agastache scrophulariifolia Purple Giant-hyssop G4 S2 HL Agrimonia microcarpa Small-fruit Grooveburr G5 S2 HL Agrostis geminata Ticklegrass G5 S1? HL Alisma triviale Large Water-plantain G5 S1 E LP, HL Alopecurus aequalis var. aequalis Short-awn Meadow-foxtail G5T5 S2 HL Alopecurus carolinianus Tufted Meadow-foxtail G5 S3 HL Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach Amaranth G2 S1 LT E LP, HL Amelanchier humilis Low Service-berry G5 S1S2 HL Amelanchier nantucketensis Nantucket Service-berry G3Q S1 HL Amelanchier sanguinea var. sanguinea Round-leaf Service-berry G5T5 S1.1 E LP, HL Amelanchier stolonifera Running Service-berry G5 S3 HL Amianthium muscitoxicum Fly Poison G4G5 S2 HL Ammannia latifolia Koehn's Toothcup G5 S1 E LP, HL Andromeda polifolia var. glaucophylla Bog Rosemary G5T5 S1 E LP, HL Andropogon glomeratus var. hirsutior Hairy Beardgrass G5T5 SH.1 HL Andropogon gyrans Elliott's Beardgrass G5 S2 HL Andropogon ternarius var. ternarius Silvery Beardgrass G5T5? S2 HL Anemone canadensis Canada Anemone G5 SX HL Anemone cylindrica Long-head Anemone G5 S1 E LP, HL Anemone virginiana var.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Lakes Year-End Report
    BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES MORRIS COUNTY, NJ 2016 YEAR-END REPORT LAKES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES 580 Rockport Road Hackettstown, NJ 07840 908-850-0303 December 24, 2016 1 Introduction The following report is submitted to the Borough of Mountain Lakes as a Year End Report summarizing the Aquatic Vegetation Management Program for Mountain Lakes in 2016. As in previous years, the program included weekly surveys of all lakes, biweekly unicellular phytoplankton sampling during June through August, herbicide and algaecide applications to control nuisance plants and phytoplankton, and a water quality monitoring program. Each lake shall be discussed individually regarding aquatic plant and phytoplankton management and water chemistry results. After the 2016 summary discussions, additional topics such as the fecal coliform sampling that occurred at Birchwood and Mountain Lake, water clarity at Mountain Lake, the Lakes Cleaning Program, and nutrient loading in all of the lakes will be discussed. Finally, a 2016 summary is presented as well as specific Lake Management strategies for 2017. Copies of all of the graphs and data utilized in this report are included in the Appendix of this report. Submersed Aquatic Macrophyte Summaries Scientific Name Common Name Observed 2016 Last Observed Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian Water milfoil X Potamogeton epihydrus Ribbon-leaf Pondweed X Utricularia vulgaris Common Bladderwort 2012 Ceratophyllum echinatum Spiny Hornwort 2009 Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail 2012 Najas guadalupensis Southern Naiad X Najas flexilis Slender Naiad 2015 Potamogeton foliosus Leafy Pondweed X Nymphaea odorata White Water Lily X Nuphar variegata Spatterdock X Brasenia schreberi Watershield X Chara sp. Muskgrass X Potamogeton robbinsii Robbin’s Pondweed X Myriophyllum humile Low Water Milfoil 2011 Lemna minor Small Duckweed X Potamogeton amplifolius Bass Weed X Ludwigia sp.
    [Show full text]