DOCSLIB.ORG

Botanist Interior 43.1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Botanist Interior 43.1 100 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST Vol. 51 RELIC OR RECRUIT? NEWLY DISCOVERED ARONIA ARBUTIFOLIA (ELL.) PERS. (RED CHOKEBERRY) IN KENT COUNTY RAISES QUESTIONS REGARDING PAST AND FUTURE DISTRIBUTIONS Michael P. Ryskamp and David P. Warners Department of Biology Calvin College Grand Rapids, MI 49546 ABSTRACT The nomenclatural history of the genus Aronia is replete with name changes, misidentifications, and debates regarding classification. In Michigan, collections of Aronia arbutifolia (Ell.) Pers. (Red chokeberry) from the early 20 th century are thought to be misidentifications of Aronia prunifolia (Marsh.) Rehder (Purple chokeberry). A recent discovery of A. arbutifolia in West Michigan could represent a rare species that has naturally occurred in Michigan in the past or an adventive individ - ual that has only recently arrived. We provide documentation of the new state record and discuss its discovery in the context of earlier ambiguous records of Red chokeberry in the Great Lakes region. We also consider whether this species is exhibiting a coastal plain disjunct distribution, and we ex - amine the possibility that Red chokeberry is expanding its range in response to climate change. Fu - ture genetic research and molecular analysis could help answer some of the questions raised by this interesting discovery in Michigan. Keywords: Red chokeberry; Aronia arbutifolia, coastal plain disjunct, climate change INTRODUCTION In 1933, at the annual meeting of the Torrey Botanical Society, renowned botanist and landscape architect Henry Teuscher (1933) gave an address on the question “ what is a species ?” In his short talk, he used the Aronia (chokeberry) complex to illustrate some of the inherent problems of using morphological cri - teria to define species of plants. Four decades later, Professor James Hardin (1973) revisited “the enigmatic chokeberries” in a paper that outlined the taxo - nomic and nomenclatural confusion surrounding the shrubs since the early 20 th century . Today, the taxonomy of the two (or three) polymorphic chokeberry species in the Aronia genus (or sub-genus) is still debated, its history likely clouded by interbreeding (Hardin 1973; Voss 1985; Voss and Reznicek 2012), different reproductive strategies (Campbell et al. 1991; Hovmolm 2004), and inter-population variability (Hardin 1973; Uttal 1984; Brand 2010). Over the years, several different genus names have been assigned to this small group, in - cluding Mespillus L., Pyrus L. f. , Crataegus Lam., Adenorachis Nieuwl., and Photinia K.R. Robertson & J.B. Phipps (MacMillin 1892; Nieuwland 1915; Brit - ton and Brown 1970) [In this paper, we follow the nomenclature outlined by Voss (1985)]. More recently, studies involving nucleotide sequencing have es - tablished molecular phylogenies of Pyrinae (Rosaceae ) that distinguish Aronia 2012 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST 101 from Photinia (Campbell et al. 2007; Potter et al. 2007; Guo 2011). Campbell et al . (2007) recommend maintaining Photinia and Aronia as separate genera, as their results yielded no molecular evidence for placing them together, “or even near one another,” on a phylogenetic tree. The state of Michigan is no stranger to the botanical confusion associated with these shrubs. Early plant surveys in the state, circa 1900, reported Aronia arbutifolia (Ell.) Pers. (Red chokeberry) in St Clair (Dodge 1900), Berrien (Beal 1904; Hebert 1934), Ionia (Beal 1904), Kent (Cole 1901), and other counties. Botanical literature from that period, e .g., W. J. Beal’s Michigan Flora (1904) , lists two species of Aronia, A. arbutifolia and A. melanocarpa (Michx.) Elliot. (Black chokeberry) [the latter actually listed as A. nigra in Beal (1904)]. How - ever, these early records of Red chokeberry in Michigan are universally inter - preted as either reports or misidentifications of A. prunifolia (Marsh.) Rehder (Purple chokeberry) (which sometimes appeared in older literature as a variety of A. arbutifolia ). This taxon ( A. prunifolia) is typically understood to have orig - inated as a hybrid between A. melanocarpa and A. arbutifolia (Farwell 1918; Hardin 1973; Voss 1985). Our recent finding of A. arbutifolia in Kent County clarifies the occurrence of Aronia in Michigan by providing the first confirmed report of this taxon in the state. In this paper, we describe the A. arbutifolia dis - covery and then investigate some possible scenarios to explain its presence in West Michigan. MATERIALS AND METHODS On November 4, 2011, a group of eight potentially clonal Red chokeberries was discovered dur - ing a field trip to Townsend Park, Kent County, MI. The shrubs were found in a moist bottomland east of Bear Creek, growing in a backwater corridor that ran along the bottom of a west-facing hill - side. A small grove of large Thuja occidentalis (Northern White cedar) (10 –18 ′′ dbh) filled the canopy around the chokeberries, affording a relatively open understory characterized by groundwa - ter upwelling and several waste deep pockets of muck. To the west, a shrub zone of Cornus spp. (Dogwood) , Betula pumila (Bog birch) , Zanthoxylum americanum (Prickly ash) , and Physocarpus opulifolius (Ninebark) transitioned into an open wet meadow dominated by Carex stricta (Tussock sedge) , Onoclea sensibilis (Sensitive fern) , and Cirsium muticum (Swamp thistle). A shrubby ripar - ian zone marked the western edge of the meadow, the eastern banks of Bear Creek. At the time of the discovery in early November, dozens of bright-red cymose infructescences populated the distal ends of the shrubs’ branches. Tomentose beneath, the scarlet-colored leaves were elliptical and had short acuminate tips (Figure 1). The tallest shrub reached six meters in height and was supported by a cedar trunk. All the shrubs were elongate, their lower reaches mostly un- branched. Collections of flowering material were made on May 8 2012. VOUCHER SPECIMENS: Michigan, Kent Co., Cannon Twp. Townsend Park, c. 200 m SE of Ramsdell Dr. and Six Mile Rd., 43° 03 ′N, 85° 27 ′ W, 4 Nov. 2011, M.P. Ryskamp 1 (CALVIN, MICH); M.P. Ryskamp 2 (CALVIN, NY); 8 May 2012, M.P. Ryskamp 5 (CALVIN, MICH). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The presence of Red chokeberry in Kent County raises a variety of questions with regard to the origin, establishment, and mechanism of dispersal to West 102 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST Vol. 51 FIGURE 1. Photograph taken November 4, 2011 at Townsend Park in Kent County, Michigan showing the tomentose leaves and hairy stems of Aronia arbutifolia, with canescent berries still at - tached. Michigan. Below, we explore several different possibilities that might account for this surprising discovery, we discuss some of the implications of these possi - bilities, and we propose some future research initiatives. Given the history of misidentifications of Red chokeberry in Michigan (and in other states), one possible explanation is that what we have identified as Aro - nia arbutifolia is actually an introgressant of the hybrid ‘ A. prunifolia complex’ (Uttal 1984). This possibility, however, can be eliminated due to several distinct morphological features of the Townsend Park chokeberries. Firstly, the red- colored fruits observed on the shrubs at the time of discovery are unique to A. ar - butifolia, the fruits of A. prunifolia having a much darker purple to purple-black hue when ripe (Gleason and Cronquist 1963; Hardin 1973; Voss 1985). Uttal (1984) calls fruit color “the only reliable basis for separating chokeberry species.” The fact that both leaves and berries remained on the shrub in Novem - ber is also indicative of A. arbutifolia ; both Purple and Black chokeberry pro - duce fruit that ripen and drop earlier in the season (Hardin 1973; Voss 1985; Brand 2010). Additionally, the size of the pomes, which we measured to range 4–7 mm in diameter, is congruent with descriptions of A. arbutifolia —the pomes of A. prunifolia , in contrast, range from 8 to 10 mm (Gleason 1958; Gleason and Cronquist 1963). Lastly, Robinson and Fernald (1908) describe Red chokeberry as having cymes that are “more numerously fruited (9 –18)” than those of A. prunifolia , which have 3 –10 fruits. Even as late as November, the Townsend Park shrubs had some cymes with 10 or more pomes still attached (Figure 2), and during a field trip in May 2012, with the shrubs in full bloom, we counted 10–16 florets per cyme (Figure 3). In light of all these traits [and with confirma - 2012 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST 103 FIGURE 2. Another photograph taken on November 4, 2011 showing the bright red fall foliage and pomes of Aronia arbutifolia . tion from A.A. Reznicek (personal observation)], we are confident that the shrubs in question are indeed A. arbutifolia. A second possible explanation for the presence of these shrubs is that they represent an escaped horticultural form. Again, we think this possibility is un - likely in light of how closely the shrubs match morphological descriptions of wildtype Aronia arbutifolia (as described in the above paragraphs). The most commonly sold cultivar (and perhaps the only one), A. arbutifolia ‘Brilliantis - sima ,’ has a more compact form, more lustrous leaves, and has larger, glossier fruits than the wildtype species (Flint 1997; Dirr 2011). This description signifi - cantly contrasts with the small canescent berries and the tall elongate growth habit of the Townsend Park shrubs. Additionally, the habitat immediately sur - rounding the Townsend Park chokeberries was replete with native species that indicate relatively pristine conditions, which differs from the typical disturbed habitat in which most non-native escapees are found (Herman et al. 2001). Though we are confident the Townsend Park shrubs are wildtype Aronia ar - butifolia, there still remain several questions regarding how, when, and from where this species arrived . Distribution patterns of coastal plain species may pro - vide important insight to these questions. There are several communities of dis - junct flora around the Great Lakes region that occur outside their primary range of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains (Reznicek 1994). These concentrations 104 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST Vol. 51 FIGURE 3. Aronia arbutifolia in full bloom, Townsend Park, Kent County, Michigan, May 8, 2012.
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]
  • 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
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Ecological and Land Management Survey and Botanical Inventory for the Nipmuc River Conservation Area in Burrillville, Rhode Island
    Ecological and Land Management Survey and Botanical Inventory for the Nipmuc River Conservation Area in Burrillville, Rhode Island Submitted by Jackie Sones, Conservation Biologist Ecological Inventory, Monitoring, & Stewardship Program October 2004 Room 101, Coastal Institute in Kingston 1 Greenhouse Road, URI Kingston, RI 02881 401-874-5817 Table of Contents Page Site location 1 Directions 1 Access/parking 1 Survey dates and observers 1 Property description 1–2 Natural communities 2 Aquatic resources 2–3 Flora 3 Fauna 3–4 Soils 4 Abiotic condition 5 Ecological processes 5 Anthropogenic disturbances 5 Threats (including invasive species) 5–6 Management comments and monitoring needs 6 Adjacent conservation land 6 Inventory needs 6–7 Acknowledgements 7 References 7–8 List of Figures Figure 1. Topographic map of the Nipmuc River Conservation Area Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the Nipmuc River Conservation Area Figure 3. Survey routes covered by RINHS staff in 2004 Figure 4. Features and observations at the Nipmuc River Conservation Area Figure 5. Land use types at the Nipmuc River Conservation Area Figure 6. Locations of rare plants at the Nipmuc River Conservation Area Figure 7. Soil types present at the Nipmuc River Conservation Area Figure 8. Conservation land near the Nipmuc River Conservation Area List of Tables Table 1. List of all plant species recorded at the Nipmuc River Conservation Area in 2004, by life form Table 2. List of bird species recorded along the Nipmuc River Trail Table 3. List of mammal species with the potential to occur at the Nipmuc River Conservation Area Table 4. List of fish species recorded in the Nipmuc River Table 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin No. 35: Native Woody Plant Collection Checklist Michael P
    Connecticut College Digital Commons @ Connecticut College Bulletins Connecticut College Arboretum 12-1996 Bulletin No. 35: Native Woody Plant Collection Checklist Michael P. Harvey Glenn D. Dreyer Connecticut College Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/arbbulletins Part of the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Harvey, Michael P. and Dreyer, Glenn D., "Bulletin No. 35: Native Woody Plant Collection Checklist" (1996). Bulletins. Paper 35. http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/arbbulletins/35 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Connecticut College Arboretum at Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletins by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author. NATIVE WOODY PLANT COLLECTION 0CHECKLIST BULLETIN NO. 35 -THE CONNECTICUT COLLEGE ARBORETUM NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT CONNECTICUT COLLEGE John C Evans, Chair, Board of Trustees Claire L. Gaudiani '66, President Robert E. Proctor, Provost ARBORETUM STAFF Glenn D. Dreyer MA '83, Director William A. Niering, Research Director Jeffrey D. Smith, Horticulturist Craig O. Vine, Horticultural Assistant Katherine T. Dame '90, Program Coordinator Sally L. Taylor, Education Coordinator Robert A. Askins, Paul E. Fell, Research Associates Pamela G. Hine, MA'84, R. Scott Warren, Research Associates Richard H. Goodwin, Technical Advisor THE CONNECTICUT COLLEGE ARBORETUM ASSOCIATION Membership is open to individuals and organizations interested in supporting the Arboretum and its programs. Members receive Arboretum publications, advance notice of programs and a discount on programs. For more information write to The Connecticut College Arboretum, Campus Box 5201 Conn.
    [Show full text]
  • Chokeberries - Appelbes (Geslacht) - Apfelbeeren Aronia
    Aronia - chokeberries - Appelbes (geslacht) - Apfelbeeren Aronia Sauter à la navigation Sauter à la recherche Aronia Aronia prunifolia Classification de Cronquist (1981) Règne Plantae Sous-règne Tracheobionta Division Magnoliophyta Classe Magnoliopsida Sous-classe Rosidae Ordre Rosales Famille Rosaceae Genre Aronia Medik. (1789) Classification APG III (2009) Classification APG III (2009) Clade Angiospermes Clade Dicotylédones vraies Clade Rosidées Clade Malvidées Ordre Rosales Famille Rosaceae Sous-famille Maloideae Aronia est un genre d'arbustes caducs de la famille des Rosaceae, originaire d'Amérique du Nord. Sommaire 1 Description 2 Espèces 3 Culture 4 Intérêt nutritionnel 5 Liste d'espèces 6 Notes et références 7 Liens externes Description Les feuilles sont alternes, simples, et à bord denté ; en automne, elles deviennent rouge vif. Les fleurs à 5 pétales sont petites et s'étalent en corymbes de 10 à 25. Le fruit est une petite baie, au goût amer et astringent ; il est mangé par les oiseaux qui en dispersent les graines. On peut les cuire et les sucrer pour en faire des jus ou des confitures, elles ont alors un goût proche du cassis. Ces baies peuvent aussi servir à accompagner des plats salés, à l'instar des canneberges, des airelles ou des groseilles à maquereaux. Espèces Aronia rouge (Aronia arbutifolia) L'aronia rouge (Aronia arbutifolia (L.) Pers.) mesure de 2 à 4 m de haut, parfois 6 m, avec des feuilles de 5 à 8 cm de long. Les fleurs de 1 cm de diamètre sont blanches ou rose pale et le fruit rouge mesure entre 4 et 7 mm de diamètre. Aronia noir (Aronia melanocarpa) L'aronia noir (Aronia melanocarpa (Michx.) Elliott) est plus petit (de 1 à 3 m), et se propage facilement.
    [Show full text]