DOCSLIB.ORG

FINAL REPORT Regenerating Longleaf Pine on Hydric Soils: Short- and Long-Term Effects on Native Ground-Layer Vegetation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FINAL REPORT Regenerating Longleaf Pine on Hydric Soils: Short- and Long-Term Effects on Native Ground-Layer Vegetation FINAL REPORT Regenerating Longleaf Pine on Hydric Soils: Short- and Long-term Effects on Native Ground-Layer Vegetation SERDP Project SI-1303 June 16, 2009 Joan L. Walker U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station Susan Cohen U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station Distribution Statement A:Approved for Public Release, Distribution is Unlimited 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. SI -1303 Regenerating Longleaf Pine on Hydric Soils: Short- and Long-term Effects on Native Ground-Layer Vegetation Final Report Principal Performers Joan L. Walker U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station, Clemson, SC Susan Cohen U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station, RTP, NC Prepared by Joan L. Walker, US Forest Service, Research Plant Ecologist Benjamin O. Knapp, Clemson University, Research Assistant April 22, 2009 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................x 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1 1.1. Project Context and SERDP Relevance........................................................................1 1.2. Research Questions, Technical Objectives, General Approaches ................................2 1.3. Organization of this report............................................................................................3 2. General Technical Background........................................................................................5 2.1. The longleaf pine ecosystem: habitat loss, Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species, management challenges...................................................5 2.2. Artificial regeneration of longleaf pines.......................................................................5 2.3. Site preparation for artificial regeneration....................................................................6 2.4. Site preparation for pine plantations on to somewhat poorly drained sites ..................7 2.5. Long-term effects of plantation establishment on ground cover composition and structure.............................................................................................9 3. Short-term effects of Longleaf Pine Plantation Establishment......................................11 3.1 Field Experiment Overview: study sites, experimental design, and experimental treatments ........................................................................................11 3.2 Treatment effects on longleaf pine mortality and growth through 20 months ............18 3.2.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................18 3.2.2 Data collection and analytical methods ....................................................................19 3.2.3 Results.......................................................................................................................21 3.2.4 Discussion.................................................................................................................22 3.2.5. Management Implications........................................................................................24 3.3 Relationship of longleaf pine seedling survival and growth to microsite conditions altered by site preparation treatments.........................................................30 3.3.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................30 3.3.2 Data collection and analysis......................................................................................32 3.3.3 Results.......................................................................................................................33 3.3.4 Discussion.................................................................................................................36 3.3.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................40 3.4. Ground layer vegetation responses to moderate site preparation methods on North Carolina flatwoods sites................................................................50 3.4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................50 3.4.2 Methods .............................................................................................................51 3.4.3 Results ...............................................................................................................54 3.4.4 Discussion..........................................................................................................58 3.4.5 Conclusion.........................................................................................................61 3.5. Site preparation treatments in wet coastal plain stands affect prescribed 2 fire behavior in young plantations ..............................................................................97 3.5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................97 3.5.2 Methods .............................................................................................................97 3.5.3 Results .............................................................................................................100 3.5.4 Discussion........................................................................................................102 3.5.5 Conclusion.......................................................................................................103 4. Long-term effects of Longleaf Pine Plantation Establishment....................................115 4.1 Composition and structure of managed pine stands compared to reference longleaf pine sites on Camp Lejeune in the outer coastal plain of North Carolina, USA............................................................................................................115 4.1.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................115 4.1.2 Methods ...........................................................................................................116 4.1.3 Results .............................................................................................................120 4.1.4 Discussion........................................................................................................121 4.1.5 Conclusion.......................................................................................................122 4.2 Using existing growth models to predict RCW habitat development following site preparation: pitfalls of the process and potential growth response .........................................................................................................132 4.2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................132 4.2.2 Methods ...........................................................................................................133 4.2.3 Results and Discussion....................................................................................135 4.2.4 Conclusion.......................................................................................................138 5. Implications for endangered, threatened, at-risk species (TERS) at MCB Camp Lejeune ................................................................................................146 5.1 Plantation management and restoring RCW foraging habitat ...................................146 5.2 Potential impacts of site-preparation on threatened, endangered, and at-risk species....................................................................................................148 6. Monitoring Experimental Plots....................................................................................154 6.1 Longleaf pines............................................................................................................154 6.1.1 Monitoring objectives......................................................................................154 6.1.2 Field methods ..................................................................................................154 6.1.3 Schedule ..........................................................................................................154
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Natural Communities of South Carolina
    THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA BY JOHN B. NELSON SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE & MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 1986 INTRODUCTION The maintenance of an accurate inventory of a region's natural resources must involve a system for classifying its natural communities. These communities themselves represent identifiable units which, like individual plant and animal species of concern, contribute to the overall natural diversity characterizing a given region. This classification has developed from a need to define more accurately the range of natural habitats within South Carolina. From the standpoint of the South Carolina Nongame and Heritage Trust Program, the conceptual range of natural diversity in the state does indeed depend on knowledge of individual community types. Additionally, it is recognized that the various plant and animal species of concern (which make up a significant remainder of our state's natural diversity) are often restricted to single natural communities or to a number of separate, related ones. In some cases, the occurrence of a given natural community allows us to predict, with some confidence, the presence of specialized or endemic resident species. It follows that a reasonable and convenient method of handling the diversity of species within South Carolina is through the concept of these species as residents of a range of natural communities. Ideally, a nationwide classification system could be developed and then used by all the states. Since adjacent states usually share a number of community types, and yet may each harbor some that are unique, any classification scheme on a national scale would be forced to recognize the variation in a given community from state to state (or region to region) and at the same time to maintain unique communities as distinctive.
    [Show full text]
  • Mysterious Chokeberries: New Data on the Diversity and Phylogeny of Aronia Medik. (Rosaceae)
    European Journal of Taxonomy 570: 1–14 ISSN 2118-9773 https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2019.570 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2019 · Shipunov A. et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). Research article Mysterious chokeberries: new data on the diversity and phylogeny of Aronia Medik. (Rosaceae) Alexey SHIPUNOV 1,*, Sofia GLADKOVA 2, Polina TIMOSHINA 3, Hye Ji LEE 4, Jinhee CHOI 5, Sarah DESPIEGELAERE 5 & Bryan CONNOLLY 5 1,4,5,6 Minot State University, Biology, 500 University Ave, Minot, ND, USA. 2,3 Department of Biology, Moscow State University, Russia. 7 Framingham State University, Biology, 100 State St, Framingham, MA, USA. * Corresponding author: [email protected] 2 Email: [email protected] 3 Email: [email protected] 4 Email: [email protected] 5 Email: [email protected] 6 Email: [email protected] 7 Email: [email protected] Abstract. Aronia Medik. (chokeberry, Rosaceae) is a genus of woody shrubs with two or three North American species. Species boundaries and relationships between species of Aronia are frequently under question. The only European species in the genus, A. mitschurinii A.K.Skvortsov & Maitul., is suggested to be an inter-generic hybrid. In order to clarify the relationships between species of Aronia, we performed several morphometric and molecular analyses and found that the molecular and morphological diversity within data on American Aronia is low, and species boundaries are mostly not clearly expressed. Whereas morphology is able to separate American species from A. mitschurinii, there is no support for such discrimination from the molecular data; our analyses did not reveal evidence of A.
    [Show full text]
  • Carex Austrodeflexa (Cyperaceae), a New Species of Carex Sect
    CAREX AUSTRODEFLEXA (CYPERACEAE), A NEW SPECIES OF CAREX SECT. ACROCYSTIS FROM THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN OF THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES Bruce A. Sorrie Patrick D. McMillan Brian van Eerden NC Natural Heritage Program Museum of Natural History The Nature Conservancy and UNC Herbarium, CB 3280 Clemson University 530 East Main Street Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, U.S.A. Clemson, South Carolina 29634, U.S.A. Richmond, Virginia 23219-2428, U.S.A. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Richard J. LeBlond Philip E. Hyatt Loran C. Anderson PO Box 787 610 East Sixth Street R.K. Godfrey Herbarium Richlands, North Carolina 28574, U.S.A. Mountain Home, Arkansas 72653, U.S.A. Florida State University [email protected] [email protected] Tallahassee, Florida 32306-4370, U.S.A. [email protected] ABSTRACT Carex austrodeflexa (sect. Acrocystis) is described from the coastal plain of the southeastern United States. This species inhabits distinc- tive wetland communities in streamheads and small-stream swamps, usually under seepage influence. It is the only wetland member of section Acrocystis found in the southern Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain. It may be told from the morphologically similar Carex deflexa on the basis of its loosely cespitose habit with long, slender, reddish rhizomes, papillose, glabrate, elliptic perigynium, longer perigynium beak, and longer staminate scales and spikes. RESUMEN Se describe Carex austrodeflexa (sect. Acrocystis) de la llanura costera del sureste de los Estados Unidos. Esta especie vive en comunidades de humedales en cabeceras de arroyos y pantanos de pequeños arroyos, usualmente bajo influencia de filtraciones.
    [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]
  • Checklist of the Washington Baltimore Area
    Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of the Washington - Baltimore Area Part I Ferns, Fern Allies, Gymnosperms, and Dicotyledons by Stanwyn G. Shetler and Sylvia Stone Orli Department of Botany National Museum of Natural History 2000 Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560-0166 ii iii PREFACE The better part of a century has elapsed since A. S. Hitchcock and Paul C. Standley published their succinct manual in 1919 for the identification of the vascular flora in the Washington, DC, area. A comparable new manual has long been needed. As with their work, such a manual should be produced through a collaborative effort of the region’s botanists and other experts. The Annotated Checklist is offered as a first step, in the hope that it will spark and facilitate that effort. In preparing this checklist, Shetler has been responsible for the taxonomy and nomenclature and Orli for the database. We have chosen to distribute the first part in preliminary form, so that it can be used, criticized, and revised while it is current and the second part (Monocotyledons) is still in progress. Additions, corrections, and comments are welcome. We hope that our checklist will stimulate a new wave of fieldwork to check on the current status of the local flora relative to what is reported here. When Part II is finished, the two parts will be combined into a single publication. We also maintain a Web site for the Flora of the Washington-Baltimore Area, and the database can be searched there (http://www.nmnh.si.edu/botany/projects/dcflora).
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Flora of Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area, Onslow and Pender Counties, North Carolina --In Press-- John B
    The Vascular Flora of Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area, Onslow and Pender Counties, North Carolina --In Press-- John B. Taggart Department of Environmental Studies, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 601 South College Road, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 ______________________________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT The vascular plants of Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area, located in portions of Onslow and Pender counties, North Carolina, are presented as an annotated species list. A total of 590 taxa in 315 genera and 119 families were collected from eight plant communities. Families with the highest numbers of species were the Asteraceae (80), Poaceae (66), and Cyperaceae (65). Two species, Carex lutea (golden sedge) and Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley’s meadowrue), have federal endangered status. A total of 23 taxa are tracked by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, while 29 others are considered rare, but not included on the priority list. Of 44 species considered strict endemic or near-endemic taxa to the North and South Carolina Coastal Plain, 18 (41%) were collected in this study. Selected pine savannas within the site were rated as nationally significant by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Fifty-one (51) non-native species were present and represented 8.7 % of the flora. _________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION Sandy Run Savannas State Natural Area encompasses portions of western Onslow and northeastern Pender counties in North Carolina. State acquisition of this coastal plain site began in 2007 as a cooperative effort between The Nature Conservancy in North Carolina and the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation to protect approximately 1,214 ha comprised of seven tracts (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Aronia Melanocarpa Products and By-Products for Health and Nutrition: a Review
    antioxidants Review Aronia melanocarpa Products and By-Products for Health and Nutrition: A Review Tomislav Jurendi´c 1,* and Mario Šˇcetar 2 1 Bioquanta Ltd. for Research and Development, Trg Zlate Bartl 11/A, 48000 Koprivnica, Croatia 2 Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, Pierottijeva 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +385-48-863-467 Abstract: Due to factors such as cultivar, fertilization, maturation or climate conditions, as well as the date of their harvest, chokeberries (Aronia melanocarpa) differ in their content of minerals, vitamins, carbohydrates, amino acids, organic acids, fats, aroma compounds and especially polyphenols, substances exerting a beneficial impact on health. The total content of the most important ingredients, polyphenolic compounds, influence many proven chokeberry activities like antioxidative, anti- inflammatory, hypotensive, antiviral, anticancer, antiplatelet, antidiabetic and antiatherosclerotic, respectively. Polyphenolic compounds such as anthocyanins, flavonoids, procyanidins and phenolic acids in different rates and amounts are responsible for all mentioned activities. In the human body, they undergo different biotransformative processes strengthening their bioactivity inside and outside cells. The popularity of chokeberry has been significant lately because of its effects on human health and not just because of its nutritional value. The main interest in this review has been refocused on the chokeberry benefits to human health, nutritional contribution of its components, particularly polyphenolic compounds, and its physiological effects. Citation: Jurendi´c,T.; Šˇcetar, M. Aronia melanocarpa Products and Keywords: Aronia melanocarpa; nutrition; polyphenolic compounds; antioxidant activity; health By-Products for Health and Nutrition: benefits A Review. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 1052.
    [Show full text]
  • Illustration Sources
    APPENDIX ONE ILLUSTRATION SOURCES REF. CODE ABR Abrams, L. 1923–1960. Illustrated flora of the Pacific states. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. ADD Addisonia. 1916–1964. New York Botanical Garden, New York. Reprinted with permission from Addisonia, vol. 18, plate 579, Copyright © 1933, The New York Botanical Garden. ANDAnderson, E. and Woodson, R.E. 1935. The species of Tradescantia indigenous to the United States. Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Reprinted with permission of the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University. ANN Hollingworth A. 2005. Original illustrations. Published herein by the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth. Artist: Anne Hollingworth. ANO Anonymous. 1821. Medical botany. E. Cox and Sons, London. ARM Annual Rep. Missouri Bot. Gard. 1889–1912. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis. BA1 Bailey, L.H. 1914–1917. The standard cyclopedia of horticulture. The Macmillan Company, New York. BA2 Bailey, L.H. and Bailey, E.Z. 1976. Hortus third: A concise dictionary of plants cultivated in the United States and Canada. Revised and expanded by the staff of the Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium. Cornell University. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Reprinted with permission from William Crepet and the L.H. Bailey Hortorium. Cornell University. BA3 Bailey, L.H. 1900–1902. Cyclopedia of American horticulture. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. BB2 Britton, N.L. and Brown, A. 1913. An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British posses- sions. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. BEA Beal, E.O. and Thieret, J.W. 1986. Aquatic and wetland plants of Kentucky. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort. Reprinted with permission of Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Immigration, Competition from Dominant Guilds, and the Ecological Assembly of High-Diversity Pine Savannas
    Ecology, 90(10), 2009, pp. 2745–2754 Ó 2009 by the Ecological Society of America Local immigration, competition from dominant guilds, and the ecological assembly of high-diversity pine savannas 1,3 1,2 JONATHAN A. MYERS AND KYLE E. HARMS 1Department of Biological Sciences, Division of Systematics, Ecology, and Evolution, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 USA 2Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Ancon, Republic of Panama Abstract. In high-diversity communities, rare species encounter one another infrequently and therefore may compete more intensely with common species or guilds for limiting space and resources. In addition, rare species may be strongly recruitment limited because of their low abundances. Under these conditions, stochastic dispersal and immigration history can have an important influence on community structure. We tested the hypothesis that local immigration and competition from common, large-stature guilds interact to structure local biodiversity in high-diversity longleaf pine savanna groundcover assemblages (.30 species/m2). In two factorial field experiments, we increased local immigration by adding seeds of 38 mostly rare, small-stature forbs and sedges to plots physically dominated by either a common, large-stature bunchgrass or shrub species and to plots in which competition from these dominant guilds was reduced. We measured species richness and abundance at two spatial scales (0.01 and 0.25 m2) over two years. Immigration increased total species richness and richness of focal seed addition species regardless of levels of competition with bunchgrasses and shrubs, indicating that many rare, small-stature species can recruit in the face of potential competition from dominant guilds.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Flora of the Natchez Trace Parkway
    THE VASCULAR FLORA OF THE NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY (Franklin, Tennessee to Natchez, Mississippi) Results of a Floristic Inventory August 2004 - August 2006 © Dale A. Kruse, 2007 © Dale A. Kruse 2007 DATE SUBMITTED 28 February 2008 PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATORS Stephan L. Hatch Dale A. Kruse S. M. Tracy Herbarium (TAES), Texas A & M University 2138 TAMU, College Station, Texas 77843-2138 SUBMITTED TO Gulf Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network Lafayette, Louisiana CONTRACT NUMBER J2115040013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The “Natchez Trace” has played an important role in transportation, trade, and communication in the region since pre-historic times. As the development and use of steamboats along the Mississippi River increased, travel on the Trace diminished and the route began to be reclaimed by nature. A renewed interest in the Trace began during, and following, the Great Depression. In the early 1930’s, then Mississippi congressman T. J. Busby promoted interest in the Trace from a historical perspective and also as an opportunity for employment in the area. Legislation was introduced by Busby to conduct a survey of the Trace and in 1936 actual construction of the modern roadway began. Development of the present Natchez Trace Parkway (NATR) which follows portions of the original route has continued since that time. The last segment of the NATR was completed in 2005. The federal lands that comprise the modern route total about 52,000 acres in 25 counties through the states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The route, about 445 miles long, is a manicured parkway with numerous associated rest stops, parks, and monuments. Current land use along the NATR includes upland forest, mesic prairie, wetland prairie, forested wetlands, interspersed with numerous small agricultural croplands.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plant List the a Better Way to Beautiful
    The Plant List The Plant THE a better way to beautiful LIST A Companion to the Choosing the Right Plants Natural Lawn & Garden Guide Waterwise garden by Stacie Crooks Discover a better way to beautiful! his plant list is a companion to Choosing the Right The list on the following pages contains just some of the Plants, one of the Natural Lawn & Garden Guides many plants that can be happy here in the temperate Pacific T (see the back panel to request your free copy). Northwest, organized by several key themes. A number of These guides will help you garden in balance with nature, so these plants are Great Plant Picks ( ) selections, chosen you can enjoy a beautiful yard that’s healthy, easy to maintain because they are vigorous and easy to grow in Northwest and good for the environment. gardens, while offering reasonable resistance to pests and diseases, as well as other attributes. (For details about the When choosing plants, we often think about factors like size, GPP program and to find additional reference materials, shape, foliage and flower color. But the most important con- refer to Resources & Credits on page 12.) sideration should be whether a site provides the conditions a specific plant needs to thrive. Soil type, drainage, sun and Remember, this plant list is just a starting point. The more shade—all affect a plant’s health and, as a result, its appear- information you have about your garden’s conditions and ance and maintenance needs. a particular plant’s needs before you purchase a plant, the better.
    [Show full text]