<I>Kalmia Latifolia</I>

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

<I>Kalmia Latifolia</I> American Journal of Botany 90(9): 1328±1332. 2003. FLORAL LONGEVITY AND REPRODUCTIVE ASSURANCE: SEASONAL PATTERNS AND AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST WITH KALMIA LATIFOLIA (ERICACEAE)1 BEVERLY J. RATHCKE2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1048 USA Floral longevity is assumed to re¯ect a balance between the bene®t of increased pollination success and the cost of ¯ower main- tenance. Flowers of Kalmia latifolia (Ericaceae), mountain laurel, have a long duration and can remain viable up to 21 d if unpollinated. I experimentally tested whether this long duration increases pollination success by clipping stigmas to reduce functional ¯oral longevity to 3±4 d. Clipping stigmas decreased fruit set from 65% to only 10%. Flowers with natural life spans were not pollination-limited, demonstrating that long ¯oral duration ensured female reproductive success. The long ¯oral duration of K. latifolia was unique in this site (the Great Swamp, Rhode Island, USA). Co¯owering shrubs in summer had a mean ¯oral life span of 3.4 d. Spring-¯owering species had signi®cantly longer mean ¯oral durations (7.2 d). These duration differences may re¯ect seasonal variation in pollinator availability. However, K. latifolia ¯owers in summer, when its bumble bee pollinators are abundant but it is a poor competitor for bees because its ¯owers produce little nectar. The long ¯oral duration allows K. latifolia to outlast co¯owering competitors and attract suf®cient pollinators. I hypothesize that the long ¯oral duration of K. latifolia functions as a mechanism for competitive avoidance and reproductive assurance. Key words: competition for pollinators; competitive avoidance; Ericaceae; ¯oral longevity; ¯owering phenology; fruit set; Great Swamp, Rhode Island; induced ¯oral senescence; Kalmia latifolia; pollination limitation; reproductive assurance. In pollination studies, much attention has focused upon ¯o- have demonstrated that longer durations of ¯oral life increase ral traits that assure successful pollination by increasing the fruit or seed set of ¯owers in the ®eld. attraction or rewards for animal pollinators (e.g., Waser, 1983; Here I present an experimental test of the pollination bene®t Bell, 1985; Real and Rathcke, 1991; Caruso, 2000) or by in- of long ¯oral duration for mountain laurel, Kalmia latifolia L. creasing the effectiveness of pollen transfer (e.g., Campbell et (Ericaceae). Flowers can remain viable for 2±3 wk if unpol- al., 1996). More recently, it has been recognized that ¯oral linated, and they rapidly senesce after pollination (Rathcke, longevity (the length of time a ¯ower remains open and func- 1988a; Nagy et al., 1999). I reduced the functional longevity tional) is a trait that could ensure successful pollination in of ¯owers by clipping stigmas and then compared fruit sets habitats where pollinators are sparse or uncertain (Primack, (fruits initiated per number of ¯owers) of experimental and 1985; Ashman and Schoen, 1994, 1996; Khadari et al., 1995). control ¯owers. I also did procedure controls, and I tested For example, plants growing in alpine habitats, which typically whether control (naturally pollinated) ¯owers were pollination have few, unpredictable pollinators, have longer ¯oral dura- limited by augmenting ¯owers with cross-pollen. I compare tions than plants at lower elevations with more abundant, pre- the ¯oral longevity of K. latifolia with other shrub species dictable pollinators (Arroyo et al., 1981; Stratton, 1989; Bing- growing in the same habitat and for different ¯owering seasons ham and Orthner, 1998; Blionis and Vokou, 2001; Blionis et (spring and summer). I discuss possible reasons for the main- al., 2001). Ashman and Schoen (1994, 1996) have proposed a tenance of long ¯oral duration in this species. mathematical model in which the duration of ¯oral life is de- termined by a balance between female ®tness accrual rates MATERIALS AND METHODS (pollen receipt), male ®tness accrual rates (pollen dissemina- This study was done in the Great Swamp, Rhode Island, USA (418299 N, tion), and the cost of ¯ower maintenance (see also Charnov, 728329 W) (for a description of the site, see Rathcke [1988a, b]). Kalmia 1996). By measuring pollen deposition and removal and esti- latifolia, mountain laurel, is a tall evergreen shrub that grows in the understory mating maintenance costs, Ashman and Schoen (1994) found of forests and on mountains in eastern North America. Shrubs have tubular, a signi®cant positive correlation between ¯oral longevities ob- pink-white ¯owers displayed in in¯orescences (corymbs) of 10±300 ¯owers, served in the ®eld and predicted ¯oral longevities for 11 plant and individual shrubs may have thousands of ¯owers open at the same time. species. However, they note that there was not a close quan- Bumble bees were the only ¯ower visitors and pollinators of K. latifolia (Rath- titative ®t and that environmental factors, including pollina- cke, 1988a, b). In this low elevation habitat, ¯owers do not self-pollinate tion, may in¯uence ¯oral longevity in the ®eld. Also, they did (Rathcke, 1988a), although ¯owers can self-pollinate at the end of ¯ower life not measure effects on fruit or seed set. No experimental tests in a montane habitat in Virginia (Rathcke and Real, 1993; Levri, 1998; Nagy et al., 1999). Fruits are dry capsules with hundreds of tiny seeds. 1 Manuscript received 22 November 2002; revision accepted 18 April 2003. Reduction of ¯oral durationÐFor the experiment, I tagged four budded The author thanks Lee Kass, Carol Landry, Hitashi Sato, Rachel Simpson, in¯orescences on each of 14 shrubs. For each shrub, two in¯orescences were and two anonymous reviewers, who provided many helpful suggestions on the manuscript; Irene Stuckey, who provided a home for me near the Great assigned to controls and two were assigned to experimental treatments. For Swamp so I could do this research; and William Crepet, who provided me each assigned in¯orescence, new ¯owers (in anthesis) were tagged with color- with an of®ce and facilities in the L. H. Bailey Hortorium during my sab- coded yarn every 2 d throughout the ¯owering season (12±29 June). To reduce batical at Cornell University. the functional ¯oral longevity for female function, I clipped the stigmas of 2 E-mail: [email protected]. all ¯owers after they had been receptive (glistening and sticky) for 3±4 d. I 1328 September 2003] RATHCKEÐFLORAL LONGEVITY OF KALMIA LATIFOLIA 1329 TABLE 1. Percentage fruit sets of Kalmia latifolia ¯owers with natural TABLE 2. Percentage fruit sets of Kalmia latifolia ¯owers in controls ¯oral longevities and with reduced functional longevities (3±4 d) and in two experimental treatments: (1) with stigmas pollinated and created by clipping stigmas (means 6 1 SD). Fruit set 5 100 (fruit/ subsequently clipped and (2) with stigmas clipped and styles im- ¯owers), N 5 number of plants (number of ¯owers). Difference mediately pollinated (means 6 1 SD). Fruit set 5 100 (fruit/¯ow- between control and treatment was tested using Friedman's non- ers), N 5 number of plants (number of ¯owers). Difference be- parametric t test with plant as the sample unit. The asterisk denotes tween control and treatment was tested using Friedman's nonpara- a signi®cant difference; probability level is shown. metric t test with plant as the sample unit. NS indicates no signif- icant difference. Treatment N Fruit set (%) P Fruit Natural longevity 14 (612) 65 6 17.7* ,0.0001 Treatment N set (%) Signi®cance Reduced longevity 14 (568) 10 6 8.3 Control 14 (612) 65 6 17.7 NS Pollinated, then clipped 9 (224) 61 6 16.2 Control 14 (612) 65 6 17.7 not tested chose 3±4 d because most other shrubs that co¯owered with K. latifolia in Clipped, then pollinated 9 (149) 0 June had ¯oral longevities of 3±4 d (Rathcke, 1988b). Stigmas were clipped with scissors just below the sticky surface, and the scissors were sterilized with ethanol after each use. Experimental ¯owers and control ¯owers were same family (Ericaceae), the same comparisons were made using only eri- exposed to natural pollination, and subsequent fruit sets were measured and caceous shrubs. compared. I also did a procedural control treatment to ascertain whether stigma clip- Statistical analysesÐDifferences in fruit sets among different treatments ping harmed ¯owers or normal fruit development. I augmented other ¯owers were tested with nonparametric Friedman's paired-sample sign tests because with cross-pollen and clipped their stigmas the following day. To determine percentage data are not distributed normally and because individual shrubs whether stigma clipping would preclude subsequent pollination and fertiliza- can differ in fruit set for other reasons and can be considered blocks. In this tion as assumed, I clipped stigmas of virgin ¯owers and immediately added test, the ranking in one block (plant) is independent of the ranking in another pollen to the remaining styles. Fruit sets were compared between these treat- block (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). Tests are based on plants (blocks), not ¯owers, ments and controls. although the numbers of ¯owers are shown. Differences in ¯oral longevities of different species were tested with Student's t tests because the data met Fruit setÐFruit set was calculated as the percentage of ¯owers that initi- the assumption of homogeneity of variances based on Bartlett's tests. Statis- ated fruits. Percentage fruit set was calculated for each in¯orescence, and a tical analyses were done using SYSTAT, version 5.01 (Systat Inc., Evanston, mean was calculated for each individual shrub for each treatment. Fruit ini- Illinois, USA). tiation after a month of development was assumed to indicate that ¯owers had been successfully pollinated and fertilized. Previous studies showed that RESULTS little fruit abortion occurs after initiation, so these values also closely re¯ect ®nal fruit set (Rathcke, 1988a). Seeds were not measured. Floral longevity experimentÐFlowers with reduced func- tional ¯oral longevity had only 10% fruit set, whereas control Pollination limitationÐTo test for pollination limitation of fruit set of ¯ow- ¯owers with natural longevities had 65% fruit set (Table 1).
Recommended publications
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ERICACEAE
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ERICACEAE ERICACEAE (Heath Family) A family of about 107 genera and 3400 species, primarily shrubs, small trees, and subshrubs, nearly cosmopolitan. The Ericaceae is very important in our area, with a great diversity of genera and species, many of them rather narrowly endemic. Our area is one of the north temperate centers of diversity for the Ericaceae. Along with Quercus and Pinus, various members of this family are dominant in much of our landscape. References: Kron et al. (2002); Wood (1961); Judd & Kron (1993); Kron & Chase (1993); Luteyn et al. (1996)=L; Dorr & Barrie (1993); Cullings & Hileman (1997). Main Key, for use with flowering or fruiting material 1 Plant an herb, subshrub, or sprawling shrub, not clonal by underground rhizomes (except Gaultheria procumbens and Epigaea repens), rarely more than 3 dm tall; plants mycotrophic or hemi-mycotrophic (except Epigaea, Gaultheria, and Arctostaphylos). 2 Plants without chlorophyll (fully mycotrophic); stems fleshy; leaves represented by bract-like scales, white or variously colored, but not green; pollen grains single; [subfamily Monotropoideae; section Monotropeae]. 3 Petals united; fruit nodding, a berry; flower and fruit several per stem . Monotropsis 3 Petals separate; fruit erect, a capsule; flower and fruit 1-several per stem. 4 Flowers few to many, racemose; stem pubescent, at least in the inflorescence; plant yellow, orange, or red when fresh, aging or drying dark brown ...............................................Hypopitys 4 Flower solitary; stem glabrous; plant white (rarely pink) when fresh, aging or drying black . Monotropa 2 Plants with chlorophyll (hemi-mycotrophic or autotrophic); stems woody; leaves present and well-developed, green; pollen grains in tetrads (single in Orthilia).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 2: Plant Lists
    Appendix 2: Plant Lists Master List and Section Lists Mahlon Dickerson Reservation Botanical Survey and Stewardship Assessment Wild Ridge Plants, LLC 2015 2015 MASTER PLANT LIST MAHLON DICKERSON RESERVATION SCIENTIFIC NAME NATIVENESS S-RANK CC PLANT HABIT # OF SECTIONS Acalypha rhomboidea Native 1 Forb 9 Acer palmatum Invasive 0 Tree 1 Acer pensylvanicum Native 7 Tree 2 Acer platanoides Invasive 0 Tree 4 Acer rubrum Native 3 Tree 27 Acer saccharum Native 5 Tree 24 Achillea millefolium Native 0 Forb 18 Acorus calamus Alien 0 Forb 1 Actaea pachypoda Native 5 Forb 10 Adiantum pedatum Native 7 Fern 7 Ageratina altissima v. altissima Native 3 Forb 23 Agrimonia gryposepala Native 4 Forb 4 Agrostis canina Alien 0 Graminoid 2 Agrostis gigantea Alien 0 Graminoid 8 Agrostis hyemalis Native 2 Graminoid 3 Agrostis perennans Native 5 Graminoid 18 Agrostis stolonifera Invasive 0 Graminoid 3 Ailanthus altissima Invasive 0 Tree 8 Ajuga reptans Invasive 0 Forb 3 Alisma subcordatum Native 3 Forb 3 Alliaria petiolata Invasive 0 Forb 17 Allium tricoccum Native 8 Forb 3 Allium vineale Alien 0 Forb 2 Alnus incana ssp rugosa Native 6 Shrub 5 Alnus serrulata Native 4 Shrub 3 Ambrosia artemisiifolia Native 0 Forb 14 Amelanchier arborea Native 7 Tree 26 Amphicarpaea bracteata Native 4 Vine, herbaceous 18 2015 MASTER PLANT LIST MAHLON DICKERSON RESERVATION SCIENTIFIC NAME NATIVENESS S-RANK CC PLANT HABIT # OF SECTIONS Anagallis arvensis Alien 0 Forb 4 Anaphalis margaritacea Native 2 Forb 3 Andropogon gerardii Native 4 Graminoid 1 Andropogon virginicus Native 2 Graminoid 1 Anemone americana Native 9 Forb 6 Anemone quinquefolia Native 7 Forb 13 Anemone virginiana Native 4 Forb 5 Antennaria neglecta Native 2 Forb 2 Antennaria neodioica ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • (Kalmia Latifolia) and Sheep Laurel
    2 5 I~ IIIiI2.8 2 5 :; ""I 2.8 11111_ . 11111 . 1.0 1.0 Ii.': '= w~ ~I"~ w~ III"~ .2 L:: I~ L:: ~J~ I:.:: I:.:: ~ g~ 2.0 ~ I~ '- " '"'- " 1.1 ...... u 1.1 1jJL;.1,.\. - --- - 111111.8 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS·1963-A NATIONAL BUREAU or STANDAROS·1963·A v -~========~ In~;rrm;rrE'CH~IIc.<IL BULLETIN No.. 219. ~ . DECEM.lIER, 19.'\0 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE \VASHINGTON, D. C. ~/IOUNTAIN-LAUREL (KAL1vIIA LATIFOLIA) AND SHEEP LAUREL (KAL~UA ANGcSTIFOLIA) AS STOCK-POISONING PLANTS By C. DWIGHT MARSH, Associate Physiologi<ltill C)lurgc of IIl1:('.~figatioll.~ Of Stock PoisOning by Plants, H1l(1 A. B. CLAWSON. Associate PlIY8iologist, Path. ologwal Di1/i.sion, BlIrC(llI, of Animal IlIdll,~try ~ t-= ~ l:i CO~TEXTS !'! c -' >­ rnl,",' Page !:! a: Introduction•••••, ......................... I . Discussion anel general conclusions-C'ontd. .l !-Description nnd blstory............... _.,' 1 Time [rom feeding to appearance of to:: Ul Kalmialntifolin...................... I sympto~_....................._...... 15 ~ K~IUli:l angustifoli!l.......... :1 Dumtionofslckness............ ...... 16 .. Z Expenmcntnl work........,"". ,( Remedies.... __ •_____ ................... IS ',~ - KolminlntiColia........ ... c!i Kalrn in nngustifolin.. '''",, __ , Animalsnlfccled by the plants.......... to lU 20 G hi Discussion and geneml conclusions.. Conditionsunderwhich pofsoningoccurs. ., (j Symptoms.......... .... __ ' . I:? . PoL>onin!;by ilel'h oennfmnls which have 1~ : eaten Kalmia......._.............__ ... :?O Z .. Z ~ficroscopiechnn!(esinnniruul ti~sllcS 12 I >'ummnry•.,. __ .............................. ~Q '(!:! Toxic nn'llcrhal dosage................. 11 • Literatllre cIted......__ ._.......__ •••••••••• :?t ~1 0 I') III ..: INTRODUCTION I{ahnia 7atifo7ia and g.
    [Show full text]
  • © 2014 Alicia N. Shenko ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
    © 2014 Alicia N. Shenko ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE INFLUENCE OF SMALL MAMMALS ON SUCCESSION AND RESTORATION OF POST-AGRICULTURAL WETLANDS By ALICIA NICOLE SHENKO A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution written under the direction of Dr. Rebecca C. Jordan and approved by ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey January, 2014 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Influence of Small Mammals on Succession and Restoration of Post-Agricultural Wetlands by ALICIA NICOLE SHENKO Dissertation Director: Dr. Rebecca C. Jordan Advancements in modern industry and technology are creating an abundance of post-agricultural lands that are in need of skilled restoration efforts to manage the confluence of factors involved with whole-ecosystem functioning. The influence of small mammals in succession and restoration has been undervalued in traditional restoration studies. This study uses post-agricultural cranberry farms to help answer questions surrounding the role of small mammals in their succession and restoration. The first chapter investigates those species inhabiting post-agricultural wetlands and how they compare to more natural species assemblages in reference locations. Meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) were the most abundant species present and had a strong correlation to post-agricultural sites with wet habitat characteristics; the second-most abundant species present, white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus), had a strong correlation to sites with dry characteristics. Post-agricultural wetlands were more similar to each other than to any more natural reference locations.
    [Show full text]
  • MARITIME DECIDUOUS FOREST Concept
    MARITIME DECIDUOUS FOREST Concept: Maritime Deciduous Forests are barrier island upland forests dominated or codominated by deciduous hardwood trees, especially Quercus falcata, Fagus grandifolia, and Quercus nigra along with Pinus taeda. This community needs more shelter from salt spray than Maritime Evergreen Forest but has distinctive species combinations not found in mainland forests. Distinguishing Features: Maritime Deciduous Forest is readily distinguished from all other barrier island upland forests by the dominance or codominance of deciduous hardwoods. Maritime Swamp Forest differs its dominance by wetland tree species. In the few cases of forests dominated by species that could belong to either, such as Acer rubrum or Liquidambar styraciflua, the lower strata should distinguish upland and wetland communities. Maritime Deciduous Forests may resemble some Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) communities of the mainland, but the former have lower species richness while at the same time, having species suggestive of a greater range of moisture tolerance. In addition, maritime species such as Quercus hemisphaerica and Quercus virginiana are often present in Maritime Deciduous Forest. Synonyms: Quercus falcata - Pinus taeda - (Fagus grandifolia, Quercus nigra) / Persea palustris Maritime Forest (CEGL007540). Ecological Systems: Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest (CES203.302). Sites: Maritime Deciduous Forests occur only on the more sheltered parts of unusually wide stable barrier islands. They are farther from the ocean and have more shelter from salt spray than even most Maritime Evergreen Forest occurrences. Soils: Most areas are mapped as Fripp (Typic Quartzipsamment). A few parts are mapped as Ousley (Aquic Quartzipsamment) and Duckston (Typic Psammaquent). Hydrology: Hydrology is typical of the theme as a whole, ranging from apparently xeric to mesic.
    [Show full text]
  • Addendum to the Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware Estuary
    ADDENDUM TO THE UIDE TO THE ATURAL OMMUNITIES G N C OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY SEPTEMBER0 2009 Citation: Largay, E. and L. Sneddon. 2009. Addendum to the Guide to the Ecological Systems and Vegetation Communities of the Delaware Estuary. NatureServe. Arlington, Virginia. Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Report #09-XX. 112 pp. PDE Report No. 09-XX Copyright © 2009 NatureServe COVER PHOTOS Top L: Overwash Dunes, photo from Delaware Natural Heritage Program Top R: Coastal Plain Muck Pondshore, photo by Kathleen Strakosch Walz, New Jersey Natural Heritage Program Bottom L: Dry Oak Hickory Forest, photo by Tony Davis, Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program Bottom R: Inland Dune and Ridge Forest/Woodland, Kathleen Strakosch Walz, New Jersey Natural Heritage Program ADDENDUM TO THE GUIDE TO THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY Ery Largay Lesley Sneddon September 2009 Acknowledgements: This work was made possible through funding from the Delaware Estuary Program (EPA 320 Funding). Kristin Snow and Mary Russo from NatureServe provided essential data management services to develop this report and report format. Robert Coxe and Bill McAvoy from the Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Kathleen Strakosch Walz from the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, Tony Davis from the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Linda Kelly and Karl Anderson, independent botanists, provided ecological expertise, energy and insight. Mark Anderson and Charles Ferree from The Nature Conservancy developed ecological systems maps to accompany this work. Danielle Kreeger, Laura Whalen, and Martha-Maxwell Doyle from the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary provided support and guidance throughout this project. We thank everyone who helped us with this effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Acadian-Appalachian Alpine Tundra
    Acadian-Appalachian Alpine Tundra Macrogroup: Alpine yourStateNatural Heritage Ecologist for more information about this habitat. This is modeledmap a distributiononbased current and is data nota substitute for field inventory. based Contact © Josh Royte (The Nature Conservancy, Maine) Description: A sparsely vegetated system near or above treeline in the Northern Appalachian Mountains, dominated by lichens, dwarf-shrubland, and sedges. At the highest elevations, the dominant plants are dwarf heaths such as alpine bilberry and cushion-plants such as diapensia. Bigelow’s sedge is characteristic. Wetland depressions, such as small alpine bogs and rare sloping fens, may be found within the surrounding upland matrix. In the lower subalpine zone, deciduous shrubs such as nannyberry provide cover in somewhat protected areas; dwarf heaths including crowberry, Labrador tea, sheep laurel, and lowbush blueberry, are typical. Nearer treeline, spruce and fir that State Distribution: ME, NH, NY, VT have become progressively more stunted as exposure increases may form nearly impenetrable krummholz. Total Habitat Acreage: 8,185 Ecological Setting and Natural Processes: Percent Conserved: 98.1% High winds, snow and ice, cloud-cover fog, and intense State State GAP 1&2 GAP 3 Unsecured summer sun exposure are common and control ecosystem State Habitat % Acreage (acres) (acres) (acres) dynamics. Found mostly above 4000' in the northern part of NH 51% 4,160 4,126 0 34 our region, alpine tundra may also occur in small patches on ME 44% 3,624 2,510 1,082 33 lower ridgelines and summits and at lower elevations near the Atlantic coast. NY 3% 285 194 0 91 VT 1% 115 115 0 0 Similar Habitat Types: Acadian-Appalachian Montane Spruce-Fir-Hardwood Forests typically occur downslope.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping Chesapeake Bay Watershed Acknowledgments
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping Chesapeake Bay Watershed Acknowledgments Contributors: Printing was made possible through the generous funding from Adkins Arboretum; Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management; Chesapeake Bay Trust; Irvine Natural Science Center; Maryland Native Plant Society; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; The Nature Conservancy, Maryland-DC Chapter; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Cape May Plant Materials Center; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Reviewers: species included in this guide were reviewed by the following authorities regarding native range, appropriateness for use in individual states, and availability in the nursery trade: Rodney Bartgis, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Ashton Berdine, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Chris Firestone, Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Chris Frye, State Botanist, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Mike Hollins, Sylva Native Nursery & Seed Co. William A. McAvoy, Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Mary Pat Rowan, Landscape Architect, Maryland Native Plant Society. Rod Simmons, Maryland Native Plant Society. Alison Sterling, Wildlife Resources Section, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Troy Weldy, Associate Botanist, New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Graphic Design and Layout: Laurie Hewitt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Special thanks to: Volunteer Carole Jelich; Christopher F. Miller, Regional Plant Materials Specialist, Natural Resource Conservation Service; and R. Harrison Weigand, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Division for assistance throughout this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Expected and Unexpected Evolution of Plant
    Hein and Knoop BMC Evolutionary Biology (2018) 18:85 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1203-4 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Expected and unexpected evolution of plant RNA editing factors CLB19, CRR28 and RARE1: retention of CLB19 despite a phylogenetically deep loss of its two known editing targets in Poaceae Anke Hein and Volker Knoop* Abstract Background: C-to-U RNA editing in mitochondria and chloroplasts and the nuclear-encoded, RNA-binding PPR proteins acting as editing factors present a wide field of co-evolution between the different genetic systems in a plant cell. Recent studies on chloroplast editing factors RARE1 and CRR28 addressing one or two chloroplast editing sites, respectively, found them strictly conserved among 65 flowering plants as long as one of their RNA editing targets remained present. Results: Extending the earlier sampling to 117 angiosperms with high-quality genome or transcriptome data, we find more evidence confirming previous conclusions but now also identify cases for expected evolutionary transition states such as retention of RARE1 despite loss of its editing target or the degeneration of CRR28 truncating its carboxyterminal DYW domain. The extended angiosperm set was now used to explore CLB19, an “E+”-type PPR editing factor targeting two chloroplast editing sites, rpoAeU200SF and clpPeU559HY, in Arabidopsis thaliana. We found CLB19 consistently conserved if one of the two targets was retained and three independent losses of CLB19 after elimination of both targets. The Ericales show independent regains of the ancestrally lost clpPeU559HY editing, further explaining why multiple-target editing factors are lost much more rarely than single target factors like RARE1.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volume 8, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treat- ments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recom- mended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbreviated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu et al. (1992– 2009). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alpha- betically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. There may be citations in this list that have dates suffixed “b” but that are not preceded by citations of “[a]” works for the same year, or that have dates suffixed “c,” “d,” or “e” but that are not preceded by citations of “[a],” “b,” “c,” and/or “d” works for that year.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Pinelands Plants for the Landscape (Revised May 6, 2008)
    Native Pinelands Plants for the Landscape (revised May 6, 2008) New Jersey Pinelands Commission phone: 609-894-7300 P.O. Box 7, New Lisbon, NJ 08064 fax: 609-894-7330 John C. Stokes, Executive Director www.nj.gov/pinelands The Pinelands Commission thanks botanist Joseph R. Arsenault of Franklinville, NJ for his permission to use the following list. The following list suggests common Pine Barrens plants and their uses for landscaping, habitat enhancement and forest restoration. These general uses include: • Buffers are used to separate land uses or property; • Specimen plants are used as a display for form, color or function; • Forest uses are specified for reclamation replanting projects, large and small scale; • Reclamation uses are directed towards cleared land: mines, farming; • Canopy reflects trees with potential to become large and tall; and • Foundation, shade, flowers or other plantings include canopy and smaller species. Species Common Name General Use Comments Trees: Evergreens Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White Cedar Buffer, specimen, forest Juniperus virginiana Red cedar Buffer, specimen, reclamation Pinus echinata Short-leaf pine Canopy, forest Pinus rigida Pitch pine Canopy, buffer, reclamation Pinus virginiana Virginia Pine Buffer, specimen, reclamation Trees: Deciduous Acer rubrum v. triloba Trident red maple Specimen, shade, wetland Betula lenta Black birch Specimen, shade, wetland Betula lutea Yellow birch Specimen, wetland Betula populifolia Gray birch Specimen Carya pallida Sand hickory Specimen, shade, wildlife
    [Show full text]
  • Highstead Kalmia Collection Companion Plant List Cultivar/Form Qualities Bed(S)
    Plant List Highstead Kalmia Collection Companion Plant List Cultivar/Form Qualities Bed(s) The site of the Kalmia Collection at Highstead lacked a tree Mountain LaureL Kalmia latifolia canopy and air movement, effectively trapping the heat from ‘Alpine Pink’ pink flower with white center H,S this southern exposure. While mountain laurel can grow in ‘Angel’ pure white flower S full sun, the site can not be excessively hot. As a result, a few f. apetala flowers lacking petals Q,S J N changes were made to improve this site so that the plantings ‘Baystate’ coral-colored flower H,S would thrive. A second pathway from the Collection to the ‘Big Boy’ pink bud, soft pink flower G,Q main trail was established, in order to create an additional channel for air movement. This helps to effectively cool the ‘Bravo’ dark pink bud and flower S N site. Companion plantings have been introduced in an effort ‘Bridesmaid’ deep pink flower with white center H,S O to restore a shade canopy, lessening the effects of the ‘Bristol’ broad cinnamon-maroon band Q M I southwest exposure received by these beds. Oak, dogwood, ‘Bullseye’ white flower with cinnamon band B,H,S K shadblow and witch hazel all provide a distinct contrast to the ‘Candy’ dark pink bud, dark pink flower H Q mountain laurel. Below is a list of some of the more ‘Carol’ deep red bud, white flower G,H,S P noteworthy of these plantings. ‘Carousel’ white flower with cinnamon band H,S F ‘Claydian Pink’ pink bud, clear pink flower G Winterberry Ilex verticillata ‘Comet’ white flowers and a more dense
    [Show full text]