Pineland Chaffhead (Carphephorus Carnosus Aka Litrisa Carnosa)

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Pineland Chaffhead (Carphephorus Carnosus Aka Litrisa Carnosa) Pineland chaffhead (Carphephorus carnosus aka Litrisa carnosa) For definitions of botanical terms, visit en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_botanical_terms. Pineland chaffhead is a short-lived perennial wildflower that occurs naturally in wet pine flatwoods, savannas and seepage slopes. It typically blooms in late summer through early fall and attracts butterflies, moths and other pollinators. It is endemic to only 13 Central and South Florida counties. The plant’s many purple rayless flowers are borne in broad terminal corymbs. Each flower is held by several hairy, spine-tipped bracts. The flower stalk emerges from a basal rosette of narrow, pointed leaves with entire margins. Stem leaves are significantly reduced. Stems are finely pubescent. Fruits are whitish pubescent achenes. Some botanists have separated most species of the genus Carphephorus into the genera Litrisa and Trilisa. Both genera names are anagrams of the genus Liatris, whose flowers have a similar appearance toCarphephorus Photo by Mary Keim flowers. Pineland chaffhead is the only species in the genus Litrisa. Family: Asteraceae (Aster, composite or daisy family) Native range: Central peninsula, Charlotte, Lee and Martin counties To see where natural populations of Pineland chaffhead have been vouchered, visit www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu. Hardiness: Zones 8–9 Soil: Wet to moderately dry sandy soils Exposure: Full sun Growth habit: 1–2’ tall Propagation: Seed Garden tips: Pineland chaffhead is drought tolerant in winter and spring, but needs plenty of water to survive the hot summer months. Pineland chaffhead plants are occasionally available from nurseries that specialize in Florida native plants. Visit www.PlantRealFlorida.org to find a nursery in your area. Florida Wildflower Foundation • 225 S. Swoope Ave., Suite 110, Maitland, FL 32751 • 407-622-1606 • www.FlaWildflowers.org.
Recommended publications
  • Fort Benning Training Areas
    FINAL REPORT Impacts of Military Training and Land Management on Threatened and Endangered Species in the Southeastern Fall Line Sandhills Communities SERDP Project SI-1302 MAY 2009 Dr. Rebecca R. Sharitz Dr. Donald W. Imm Ms. Kathryn R. Madden Dr. Beverly S. Collins Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia This document has been approved for public release. This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. i Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations …………………………………………………… iv List of Figures……………………………………………………………………...v List of Tables……………………………………………………………………...vii Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………….viii 1. Executive Summary………..………………………………………………… 1 2. Objectives……………………………………………………………………. 5 3. Background………………………………………………....………………... 6 4. Materials and Methods……..………………………………………………… 8 4.1. Characterize sandhills and related xeric woodlands and discriminate from adjacent forests………………………………………………… 8 4.2. Spatial analyses and mapping of sandhills and related xeric woodland communities and comparison with spatial information on forest management and military activities………………………… 9 4.3. Effects of forest understory control practices used to maintain RCW habitat on sandhills plant communities………………………... 9 4.4. Habitat characterization of selected TES plant species……………… 10 4.5. Development of habitat models for TES plants and identification of potential additional suitable habitat……………………………….. 11 4.6.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Medicinal Plants of Appalachia
    LACTUCA SCARZOLA L. (ASTERACEAE) COMMON NAMES: Prickly lettuce, compass plant, wild let- tuce, wild opium. DESCRIPTION: An annual or perennial that grows to 2 feet in height. Flowers are yellow, but purple or bluish when dried. Stem has a few prickles. Leaves are cleft, with lobes arranged on either side of a common axis. FLOWERING PERIOD: June to October. HABITAT: Cultivated fields, waste or disturbed areas, dry soil, and gardens. HARVEST: Leaves in summer or fall; milky juice of the stem in summer. USES: The milky juice of this plant is extremely irritating to the eyes. The whole herb has been used as a diuretic, antispasmodic, and emollient. LACTUCA SCARZOLA L. (ASTERACEAE) LEONURUS CARDZACA L. (LAM1ACEAE) COMMON NAMES: Motherwort, common motherwort, lion's ear, lion's tail, lion's tart, throwwort. DESCRIPTION: A perennial that grows to 3 to 6 feet in height. Stems are stout, with 2- to 5-inch long petioled leaves. The palmately lobed leaves have sharp teeth. Flowers are white to pink, and very hairy. FLOWERING PERIOD: May to August. HABITAT: Waste places, roadsides, gardens, and pastures. HARVEST: Herb at flowering time. USES: The herb is used as a stimulant and emmenagogue. In Europe it has been used to treat heart palpitations and asthma. LEONURUS CARDZACA L. (LAMIACEAE) LZNDERA BENZOIN (L.) BLUME (LAURACEAE) COMMON NAMES: Common spicebush, auspice bush, Benja- min bush, feverbush, spiceberry, spicebush, wild allspice. DESCRIPTION: A deciduous shrub that grows to more than, 15 feet in height. Leaves are 3 to 5 inches long, alternate, elliptical, aromatic, with smooth margins. Produces greenish- -yellow flowers in dense clusters and long, bright red berries.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants of the Volusia Sandhill Herbaceous Plants Common Name
    Plants of the Volusia Sandhill Herbaceous plants Common name Latin name Plant Family Twinflower Dyschoriste oblongifolia Acanthaceae Carolina wild petunia Ruellia caroliniensis Acanthaceae Adam's needle Yucca filamentosa Agavaceae Cottonweed Froelichia floridana Amaranthaceae Pinelands milkweed Asclepias humistrata Apocynaceae Butterflyweed Asclepias tuberosa Apocynaceae Velvetleaf milkweed Asclepias tomentosa Apocynaceae Florida Indian Plantain Arnoglossum floridanum Asteraceae Silkgrass Pityopsis graminfolia Asteraceae Florida paintbrush Carphephorus corymbosus Asteraceae Goldenrod Solidago odora Asteraceae Rose-rush Lygodesmia aphylla Asteraceae Florida Green-eyes Berlandiera subacaulis Asteraceae Firewheel Gaillardia pulchella Asteraceae Shortleaf gayfeather Liatris tenuifolia Asteraceae Coastal-plain palafox Palafoxia integrifolia Asteraceae Ironweed Vernonia angustifolia Asteraceae Starry rosinweed Silphium asteriscus Asteraceae Lanceleaf tickseed Coreopsis lanceolata Asteraceae Rayless sunflower Helianthus radula Asteraceae Pricklypear Opuntia humifusa Cactaceae Gopher apple Geobalanus oblongifolius Chrysobalanaceae Pinebarren frostweed Crocanthemum corymbosum Cistaceae Atlantic St. Johns-wort Hypericum tenuifolium Clusiaceae Coastalplain dawnflower Stylisma patens Convolvulaceae Rushfoil Croton michauxii Euphorbiaceae Partridge pea Chamaecrista fasciculata Fabaceae Coralbean Erythrina herbacea Fabaceae Bastard false indigo Amorpha fruticosa Fabaceae Florida alicia Chapmannia floridana Fabaceae Buckroot Pediomelum canescens Fabaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Tallamy2 -Woody Plants by Lep Ranking.Xlsx
    Family per Family per Native Exotic Total Woody/ Genus Common Name Origin USDA Robinson'02 Lep spp Lep spp Lep spp Herb. Caprifoliaceae Caprifoliaceae Abelia abelia alien 1 0 1 w Malvaceae Malvaceae Abelmoschus okra alien 11 0 11 h Pinaceae Pinaceae Abies fir native 113 4 117 w Malvaceae Malvaceae Abutilon indian mallow, velvet leaf alien 4 1 5 h Fabaceae Leguminosae Acacia acacia, wattle native 10 1 11 w Euphorbiaceae Euphorbiaceae Acalypha copperleaf native 3 0 3 h Asteraceae Asteraceae Acanthospermum starburr native 0 0 0 h Aceraceae Aceraceae Acer maple, boxelder native 287 10 297 w Asteraceae Compositae Achillea yarrow, sneezeweed native 20 1 21 h Amaranthaceae Amaranthaceae Achyranthes chaff flower alien 0 0 0 h Calyceraceae Calyceraceae Acicarpha acicarpha alien 0 0 0 h Lamiaceae Lamiaceae Acinos basil thyme alien 0 0 0 h Asteraceae Asteraceae Acmella spotflower alien 0 0 0 h Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Aconitum monkshood native 3 0 3 h Acoraceae Acoraceae Acorus sweetflag native 0 0 0 h Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Actaea baneberry, bugbane native 4 0 4 h Pteridaceae Adiantaceae Adiantum maidenhair fern native 0 0 0 h Fumariaceae Fumariaceae Adlumia Allegheny vine native 0 0 0 w Ranunculaceae Ranunculaceae Adonis muskroot, pheasant's eye alien 0 0 0 h Adoxaceae Adoxaceae Adoxa adoxa native 0 0 0 h Poaceae Poaceae Aegilops goatgrass alien 0 0 0 h Apiaceae Umbelliferae Aegopodium goutweed alien 1 0 1 h Fabaceae Leguminosae Aeschynomene shyleaf, jointvetch native 1 0 1 h Hippocastanaceae Hippocastanaceae Aesculus horsechestnut, buckeye
    [Show full text]
  • Lakefront Restoration and Aquascaping
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction………………………………………………………………1 Basic Components of Aquatic Ecosystems………………………………2 Littoral Zone Planting and Aquascaping…………………………………4 Typical Plant Plan for a 100 ft Lakefront…………………………………7 Bioscape Species List……………………………………………………..8 Maintenance…...…………………………………………………………16 Permiting…………………………………………………………………17 Additional Homeowner Actions…………………………………………19 ii INTRODUCTION Lakefront homeowners can have major impacts on the water quality, habitat value and productivity of lakes and ponds. Through their actions they sometimes unwittingly promote the decline of the resource they enjoy the most. The cumulative effects of such things as clearing shoreline vegetation, installing septic tanks too close to the lake, fertilizer and pesticide run—off from lawns, and inflow of storm water have caused most urban and populated lakes to show signs of degradation or even total eutrophication. Our years of work as environmental consultants have introduced us to many examples of the problems described above and to many concerned people who want to remedy the situation as much as possible. We have found that most lakefront owners are willing to give up their white sandy beaches and work hard at protecting their lakes, once they really understand how to do so. At Biosphere Consulting we have volunteered a lot of time working with various groups and educating individuals about aquatic ecosystems. We maintain a nursery and farm where we propagate and conduct research on native plant species and restoration. One of our main projects is to introduce the concept of landscaping to improve or create habitat for native species. We have coined the word BIOSCAPE to describe this process and we are now researching and writing about methods and species to be used, both wetland and upland.
    [Show full text]
  • Understory Plant Community Response to Season of Burn in Natural Longleaf Pine Forests
    UNDERSTORY PLANT COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO SEASON OF BURN IN NATURAL LONGLEAF PINE FORESTS John S. Kush and Ralph S. Meldahl School of Forestry, 108 M. White Smith Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849 William D. Boyer U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 520 Devall Street, Auburn, AL 36849 ABSTRACT A season of burn study· was initiated in 1973 on the EscambiaExperimental Forest, near Brewton, Alabama. All study plots were established in l4-year-old longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) stands. Treatments conSisted of biennial burns in winter, spring, and summer, plus a no-burn check. Objectives of the current study were to determine composition and structure of understory plant communities after 22 years of seasonal burning, identify changes since last sampling in 1982, arid assess the structure of the communities that stabilized under each treatment regime. There were 114 species on biennial winter~burned plots, compared to 104 on spring- and summer-burned and 84 with no burning. The woody understory biomass «1 centimeter diameter at breast height) increased with all treatments compared with 1982. Grass and legume biomass increased with winter and spring burning. Forb biomass decreased across treatments. keywords: biomass, longleaf pine, Pinus palustris, plant response, prescribed fire, south Alabama, understory. Citation: Kush, 1.S., R$. Meldahl, and W.D. Boyer. 2000. Understory plant community response to season of burn in natural longleaf pine forests. Pages 32-39 inW Keith Moser and Cynthia F. Moser (eds.). Fire and forest ecology: innovative silviculture and vegetation management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 21. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide for Constructed Wetlands
    A Maintenance Guide for Constructed of the Southern WetlandsCoastal Plain Cover The constructed wetland featured on the cover was designed and photographed by Verdant Enterprises. Photographs Photographs in this books were taken by Christa Frangiamore Hayes, unless otherwise noted. Illustrations Illustrations for this publication were taken from the works of early naturalists and illustrators exploring the fauna and flora of the Southeast. Legacy of Abundance We have in our keeping a legacy of abundant, beautiful, and healthy natural communities. Human habitat often closely borders important natural wetland communities, and the way that we use these spaces—whether it’s a back yard or a public park—can reflect, celebrate, and protect nearby natural landscapes. Plant your garden to support this biologically rich region, and let native plant communities and ecologies inspire your landscape. A Maintenance Guide for Constructed of the Southern WetlandsCoastal Plain Thomas Angell Christa F. Hayes Katherine Perry 2015 Acknowledgments Our thanks to the following for their support of this wetland management guide: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (grant award #NA14NOS4190117), Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Coastal Resources and Wildlife Divisions), Coastal WildScapes, City of Midway, and Verdant Enterprises. Additionally, we would like to acknowledge The Nature Conservancy & The Orianne Society for their partnership. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of DNR, OCRM or NOAA. We would also like to thank the following professionals for their thoughtful input and review of this manual: Terrell Chipp Scott Coleman Sonny Emmert Tom Havens Jessica Higgins John Jensen Christi Lambert Eamonn Leonard Jan McKinnon Tara Merrill Jim Renner Dirk Stevenson Theresa Thom Lucy Thomas Jacob Thompson Mayor Clemontine F.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybridization in Compositae
    Hybridization in Compositae Dr. Edward Schilling University of Tennessee Tennessee – not Texas, but we still grow them big! [email protected] Ayres Hall – University of Tennessee campus in Knoxville, Tennessee University of Tennessee Leucanthemum vulgare – Inspiration for school colors (“Big Orange”) Compositae – Hybrids Abound! Changing view of hybridization: once consider rare, now known to be common in some groups Hotspots (Ellstrand et al. 1996. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 93: 5090-5093) Comparison of 5 floras (British Isles, Scandanavia, Great Plains, Intermountain, Hawaii): Asteraceae only family in top 6 in all 5 Helianthus x multiflorus Overview of Presentation – Selected Aspects of Hybridization 1. More rather than less – an example from the flower garden 2. Allopolyploidy – a changing view 3. Temporal diversity – Eupatorium (thoroughworts) 4. Hybrid speciation/lineages – Liatrinae (blazing stars) 5. Complications for phylogeny estimation – Helianthinae (sunflowers) Hybrid: offspring between two genetically different organisms Evolutionary Biology: usually used to designated offspring between different species “Interspecific Hybrid” “Species” – problematic term, so some authors include a description of their species concept in their definition of “hybrid”: Recognition of Hybrids: 1. Morphological “intermediacy” Actually – mixture of discrete parental traits + intermediacy for quantitative ones In practice: often a hybrid will also exhibit traits not present in either parent, transgressive Recognition of Hybrids: 1. Morphological “intermediacy” Actually – mixture of discrete parental traits + intermediacy for quantitative ones In practice: often a hybrid will also exhibit traits not present in either parent, transgressive 2. Genetic “additivity” Presence of genes from each parent Recognition of Hybrids: 1. Morphological “intermediacy” Actually – mixture of discrete parental traits + intermediacy for quantitative ones In practice: often a hybrid will also exhibit traits not present in either parent, transgressive 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Asteráceas De Importancia Económica Y Ambiental Segunda
    Multequina ISSN: 0327-9375 [email protected] Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas Argentina Del Vitto, Luis A.; Petenatti, Elisa M. Asteráceas de importancia económica y ambiental Segunda parte: Otras plantas útiles y nocivas Multequina, núm. 24, 2015, pp. 47-74 Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas Mendoza, Argentina Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=42844132004 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto ISSN 0327-9375 ISSN 1852-7329 on-line Asteráceas de importancia económica y ambiental Segunda parte: Otras plantas útiles y nocivas Asteraceae of economic and environmental importance Second part: Other useful and noxious plants Luis A. Del Vitto y Elisa M. Petenatti Herbario y Jardín Botánico UNSL/Proy. 22/Q-416 y Cátedras de Farmacobotánica y Famacognosia, Fac. de Quím., Bioquím. y Farmacia, Univ. Nac. San Luis, Ej. de los Andes 950, D5700HHW San Luis, Argentina. [email protected]; [email protected]. Resumen El presente trabajo completa la síntesis de las especies de asteráceas útiles y nocivas, que ini- ciáramos en la primera contribución en al año 2009, en la que fueron discutidos los caracteres generales de la familia, hábitat, dispersión y composición química, los géneros y especies de importancia
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Four At-Risk Plant Species in Sandhill Ecosystems Of
    CONSERVATION OF FOUR AT-RISK PLANT SPECIES IN SANDHILL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHEASTERN COASTAL PLAIN by JACLIN A. DURANT (Under the Direction of Rebecca R. Sharitz) ABSTRACT Conservation and restoration of herbaceous plant species endemic to the longleaf pine sandhills ecosystem of the southeastern United States are essential for maintaining diversity in this habitat. This study focuses on four at-risk species that represent a variety of plant life forms associated with this ecosystem. Natural populations were surveyed for density and reproduction, and experiments were conducted to determine how varying environmental conditions affect germination. In addition, the growth and survival of these four species planted into experimental gardens under a variety of post-disturbance conditions were studied. Results suggest that these four plant species can survive disturbed conditions that are likely to be found in sandhills ecosystems and that restoration efforts can be optimized by the pre-treatment of seeds using heat, cold stratification, or scarification techniques. INDEX WORDS: Sandhills, Plant Conservation, Longleaf Pine Ecosystem, Baptisia lanceolata, Carphephorus bellidifolius, Nolina georgiana, Stylisma pickeringii, Disturbance, Rare Plants CONSERVATION OF FOUR AT RISK PLANT SPECIES IN SANDHILL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHEASTERN COASTAL PLAIN by JACLIN A DURANT B.S., University of South Carolina, 2003 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2009 © 2009 Jaclin A. DuRant All Rights Reserved CONSERVATION OF FOUR AT RISK PLANT SPECIES IN SANDHILL ECOSYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHEASTERN COASTAL PLAIN by JACLIN A. DURANT Major Professor: Rebecca R. Sharitz Committee: James Affolter Wendy Zomlefer Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2009 DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my parents, Linda J.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Floristic Studies of Georgian Sandhill Ecosystems Reveals a Dynamic Composition of Endemics and Generalists James M
    Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern University Honors Program Theses 2017 Comparative Floristic Studies of Georgian Sandhill Ecosystems Reveals a Dynamic Composition of Endemics and Generalists James M. Long Honors College John Schenk Georgia Southern University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/honors-theses Part of the Biology Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Long, James M. and Schenk, John, "Comparative Floristic Studies of Georgian Sandhill Ecosystems Reveals a Dynamic Composition of Endemics and Generalists" (2017). University Honors Program Theses. 247. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/honors-theses/247 This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in University Honors Program Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comparative Floristic Studies of Georgian Sandhill Ecosystems Reveals a Dynamic Composition of Endemics and Generalists By James M. Long Under the mentorship of Dr. John Schenk ABSTRACT Sandhill habitats are characterized by sandy, xeric soils that contain a unique assemblage of plants and animals. Similar to the broader long-leaf pine (Pinus palustris) and wire grass (Aristida stricta) ecosystem that sandhills are a subset of, agriculture, development, and habitat modifications have caused sandhill ecosystems to become degraded, putting many species at risk of extinction. Previous studies have focused on diversity within individual sandhills, leaving us with an incomplete understanding of how these communities form, what species are endemic, whether endemics are widespread across sandhills, and how species have adapted to these communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire in the Southeastern Grasslands, By
    Fire in the Southeastern Grasslands RICHARD J. VOGL Department of Biology California State University Los Angeles, CA 90032 INTRODUCTION ~ERE has been more research on the effects of fire in the southeastern United States than in any region of North America. Most studies have been concerned with the effects of fire on the trees, including the role of fire in controlling hardwood suc­ cession, fire damage to trees, the effects of fire on soils and litter, the influence of fire on conifer growth and reproduction, and the relationships of fire to tree diseases (Garren 1943; Ahlgren and Ahlgren 1960; Cushwa 1968). A lesser, but stilI substantial number of studies have been focused on the effects of fire on forage yields and livestock production (Wahlenberg et al. 1939), and the use of fire in wildlife management in the Southeast. But academic or phy­ tosociological studies of the vegetational composition and of the effects of fire on the understory vegetation are generally lacking. Except for some range and wildlife research and several general studies (Wells and Shunk 1931; Leukel and St<Jkes 1939; Biswell and Lemon 1943; Burton 1944; Lemon 1949, 1967; Campbell 1955; Biswell1958; Hodgkins 1958; Arata 1959; Cushwa et al. 1966, 1970; Wolters 1972) , most investigators have ignored the herbaceous cover or grassland vegetation under southeastern trees. Even early botanists often became more interested in the unusual botanical features such as the southern extent of Appalachian tree species (Harper 1943, 1952), the description of the silaceous dunes of the 175 RICHARD J. VOGL Gulf Coast (Kurz 1942), the habits of eastern red cedar (Harper 1912), the vegetation of the Okefenokee Swamp (Wright and Wright 1932), or why the Black Belt Prairie of Alabama was treeless (Ranking and Davis 1971), thereby neglecting the widespread and common grassland vegetation and its relationship to fire.
    [Show full text]