Connecticut Listed Species by County
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Columbia County Ground Beetle Species (There May Be Some Dutchess County Floodplain Forest Records Still Included)
Columbia County Ground Beetle Species (There may be some Dutchess County floodplain forest records still included). Anisodactylus nigerrimus Amara aenea Apristus latens Acupalpus canadensis Amara angustata Apristus subsulcatus Acupalpus partiarius Amara angustatoides Asaphidion curtum Acupalpus pauperculus Amara apricaria Badister neopulchellus Acupalpus pumilus Amara avida Badister notatus Acupalpus rectangulus Amara chalcea Badister ocularis Agonum aeruginosum Amara communis Badister transversus Agonum affine Amara crassispina Bembidion Agonum canadense Amara cupreolata Bembidion aenulum Agonum corvus Amara exarata Bembidion affine Agonum cupripenne Amara familiaris Bembidion antiquum Agonum errans Amara flebilis Bembidion basicorne Agonum extensicolle Amara lunicollis Bembidion carolinense Agonum ferreum Amara neoscotica Bembidion castor Agonum fidele Amara otiosa Bembidion chalceum Agonum galvestonicum Amara ovata Bembidion cheyennense Agonum gratiosum Amara pennsylvanica Bembidion frontale Agonum harrisii Amara rubrica Bembidion immaturum Agonum lutulentum Amara sp Bembidion impotens Agonum melanarium Amphasia interstitialis Bembidion inaequale Agonum metallescens Anatrichis minuta Bembidion incrematum Agonum moerens Anisodactylus discoideus Bembidion inequale Agonum muelleri Anisodactylus harrisii Bembidion lacunarium Agonum mutatum Anisodactylus kirbyi Bembidion levetei Agonum palustre Anisodactylus nigrita Bembidion louisella Agonum picicornoides Anisodactylus pseudagricola Bembidion mimus Agonum propinquum Anisodactylus rusticus -
Species of Greatest Conservation Need 2015 Wildlife Action Plan
RHODE ISLAND SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED 2015 WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN RI SGCN 2015 (454) Contents SGCN Mammals ............................................................................................................................. 2 SGCN Birds .................................................................................................................................... 3 SGCN Herptofauna ......................................................................................................................... 6 SGCN Fish ...................................................................................................................................... 7 SGCN Invertebrates ........................................................................................................................ 9 1 RHODE ISLAND SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED 2015 WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN SGCN Mammals (21) Scientific Name Common Name Balaenoptera physalus Fin Whale Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat Eubalaena glacialis North Atlantic Right Whale Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat Lasiurus borealis Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat Lynx rufus Bobcat Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale Microtus pennsylvanicus provectus Block Island Meadow Vole Myotis leibii Eastern Small-footed Myotis Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-eared Bat Perimyotis subflavus Tri-colored Bat Phoca vitulina Harbor Seal Phocoena phocoena Harbor Porpoise Scalopus aquaticus Eastern Mole Sorex (Otisorex) fumeus Smoky -
Papillose Nut-Sedge Scleria Pauciflora
Natural Heritage Papillose Nut-sedge & Endangered Species Scleria pauciflora Muhl. ex Willd. Program www.mass.gov/nhesp State Status: Endangered Federal Status: None Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife DESCRIPTION: Papillose Nut-sedge is a slender, perennial species in the Sedge family (Cyperaceae). Stems arise from short, branched, knotty rhizomes with fibrous roots. Plants are 10 to 50 cm tall, forming small clumps with numerous bluish-green leaves (1–2.5 mm wide) and 3 to 10 flowering culms. A larger number of flowering culms may develop after fire. Flowering culms often have a solitary terminal inflorescence that is sessile and subtended by a leafy bract, and a second short- Papillose Nut-sedge fruiting culm, with white achene covered with stalked inflorescence lower on the stem. The scales are warty projections (left), and characteristic cespitose (clumped) ovate. Achenes (dry, one-seeded fruits) are 1 to 2.5 mm growth form (right). Photos by Jennifer Garrett. long (up to 5 mm), white, and subglobose, with a short stiff tip. Achenes are covered with horizontally arranged AIDS TO IDENTIFICATION: Technical manuals warty projections. A disk called the hypogynium, found should be consulted to distinguish nut-sedge species. at the base of the achene, has six rounded tubercles or Papillose Nut-sedge is characterized by: knobby projections, a diagnostic characteristic for this • Cespitose growth form species. Flowering stems often produce only 1 to 4 • White achenes with warty projections fruits. Seeds may require the heat of a fire, physical • Hypogynium with six rounded tubercles abrasion, or long periods of saturation to break dormancy and germinate. -
Palynological Evolutionary Trends Within the Tribe Mentheae with Special Emphasis on Subtribe Menthinae (Nepetoideae: Lamiaceae)
Plant Syst Evol (2008) 275:93–108 DOI 10.1007/s00606-008-0042-y ORIGINAL ARTICLE Palynological evolutionary trends within the tribe Mentheae with special emphasis on subtribe Menthinae (Nepetoideae: Lamiaceae) Hye-Kyoung Moon Æ Stefan Vinckier Æ Erik Smets Æ Suzy Huysmans Received: 13 December 2007 / Accepted: 28 March 2008 / Published online: 10 September 2008 Ó Springer-Verlag 2008 Abstract The pollen morphology of subtribe Menthinae Keywords Bireticulum Á Mentheae Á Menthinae Á sensu Harley et al. [In: The families and genera of vascular Nepetoideae Á Palynology Á Phylogeny Á plants VII. Flowering plantsÁdicotyledons: Lamiales (except Exine ornamentation Acanthaceae including Avicenniaceae). Springer, Berlin, pp 167–275, 2004] and two genera of uncertain subtribal affinities (Heterolamium and Melissa) are documented in Introduction order to complete our palynological overview of the tribe Mentheae. Menthinae pollen is small to medium in size The pollen morphology of Lamiaceae has proven to be (13–43 lm), oblate to prolate in shape and mostly hexacol- systematically valuable since Erdtman (1945) used the pate (sometimes pentacolpate). Perforate, microreticulate or number of nuclei and the aperture number to divide the bireticulate exine ornamentation types were observed. The family into two subfamilies (i.e. Lamioideae: bi-nucleate exine ornamentation of Menthinae is systematically highly and tricolpate pollen, Nepetoideae: tri-nucleate and hexa- informative particularly at generic level. The exine stratifi- colpate pollen). While the -
Rigid Flax Linum Medium (Planch.) Britt
Rigid Flax Linum medium (Planch.) Britt. var. texanum (Planch.) Fern State Status: Threatened Federal Status: None Description: Rigid Flax is a perennial herb of the flax family (Linaceae), with yellow five-petaled flowers borne on stiff, ascending branches. Plants grow 2 to 7 dm (~8– 28 in.) in height. The flower petals are 4 to 8 mm long. The styles are distinct (i.e., not united at the base). The sepals are imbricate, and the inner ones have teeth with bulbous glandular tips along their edges. Leaves are entire, lance-shaped, and up to 2.5 cm (1 in.) long with the largest leaves towards the base of the plant. The upper leaves are alternate and usually have pointed tips, while those of the lowest nodes are opposite and blunt tipped. The sepals persist long after the petals have withered and subtend the small (2 mm), dry seed capsules. The species is most often found growing in barren, disturbed areas on sterile soil. Aids to identification: • Plants with stiffly ascending branches • Densely leaved with 30 to 70 leaves below the inflorescence • Lowest leaves opposite; upper leaves alternate • Seed capsules more-or-less spherical with a flattened top • Inner sepals with glandular teeth • Most easily identified when fruit are present Similar species: Four yellow-flowered Linum species that might be mistaken for Rigid Flax occur in Massachusetts. Grooved Yellow Flax (L. sulcatum var. sulcatum) differs from the other three in that it is an annual and its styles are united at the base. Woodland Yellow Flax (L. virginianum) and Panicled Yellow Flax (L. -
Aullwood's Prairie Plants
Aullwood's Prairie Plants Taxonomy and nomenclature generally follow: Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Second ed. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, N.Y. 910 pp. Based on a list compiled by Jeff Knoop, 1981; revised November 1997. 29 Families, 104 Species (98 Native Species, 6 Non-Native Species) Angiosperms Dicotyledons Ranunculaceae - Buttercup Family Anemone canadensis - Canada Anemone Anemone virginiana - Thimble Flower Fagaceae - Oak Family Quercus macrocarpa - Bur Oak Caryophyllaceae - Pink Family Silene noctiflora - Night Flowering Catchfly* Dianthus armeria - Deptford Pink* Lychnis alba - White Campion* (not in Gleason and Cronquist) Clusiaceae - St. John's Wort Family Hypericum perforatum - Common St. John's Wort* Hypericum punctatum - Spotted St. John's Wort Primulaceae - Ebony Family Dodecatheon media - Shooting Star Mimosacea Mimosa Family Desmanthus illinoensis - Prairie Mimosa Caesalpiniaceae Caesalpinia Family Chaemaecrista fasiculata - Partridge Pea Fabaceae - Pea Family Baptisia bracteata - Creamy False Indigo Baptisia tinctoria - False Wild Indigo+ Baptisia leucantha (alba?) - White False Indigo Lupinus perennis - Wild Lupine Desmodium illinoense - Illinois Tick Trefoil Desmodium canescens - Hoary Tick Trefoil Lespedeza virginica - Slender-leaved Bush Clover Lespedeza capitata - Round-headed Bush Clover Amorpha canescens - Lead Plant Dacea purpureum - Purple Prairie Clover Dacea candidum - White Prairie Clover Amphicarpa bracteata -
Floristic Quality Assessment Report
FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN INDIANA: THE CONCEPT, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSERVATISM Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) the State tree of Indiana June 2004 Final Report for ARN A305-4-53 EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01 Prepared by: Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Upland, IN 46989-1001 Introduction Since the early nineteenth century the Indiana landscape has undergone a massive transformation (Jackson 1997). In the pre-settlement period, Indiana was an almost unbroken blanket of forests, prairies, and wetlands. Much of the land was cleared, plowed, or drained for lumber, the raising of crops, and a range of urban and industrial activities. Indiana’s native biota is now restricted to relatively small and often isolated tracts across the State. This fragmentation and reduction of the State’s biological diversity has challenged Hoosiers to look carefully at how to monitor further changes within our remnant natural communities and how to effectively conserve and even restore many of these valuable places within our State. To meet this monitoring, conservation, and restoration challenge, one needs to develop a variety of appropriate analytical tools. Ideally these techniques should be simple to learn and apply, give consistent results between different observers, and be repeatable. Floristic Assessment, which includes metrics such as the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean C values, has gained wide acceptance among environmental scientists and decision-makers, land stewards, and restoration ecologists in Indiana’s neighboring states and regions: Illinois (Taft et al. 1997), Michigan (Herman et al. 1996), Missouri (Ladd 1996), and Wisconsin (Bernthal 2003) as well as northern Ohio (Andreas 1993) and southern Ontario (Oldham et al. -
New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited By
New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited by: Stephen M. Young and Troy W. Weldy This list is also published at the website: www.nynhp.org For more information, suggestions or comments about this list, please contact: Stephen M. Young, Program Botanist New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 518-402-8951 Fax 518-402-8925 E-mail: [email protected] To report sightings of rare species, contact our office or fill out and mail us the Natural Heritage reporting form provided at the end of this publication. The New York Natural Heritage Program is a partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and by The Nature Conservancy. Major support comes from the NYS Biodiversity Research Institute, the Environmental Protection Fund, and Return a Gift to Wildlife. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... Page ii Why is the list published? What does the list contain? How is the information compiled? How does the list change? Why are plants rare? Why protect rare plants? Explanation of categories.................................................................................................................... Page iv Explanation of Heritage ranks and codes............................................................................................ Page iv Global rank State rank Taxon rank Double ranks Explanation of plant -
The Vermont Statutes Online Page 1 of 15
The Vermont Statutes Online Page 1 of 15 The Vermont Statutes Online Title 10 Appendix: Vermont Fish and Wildlife Regulations Chapter 1: GAME Sub-Chapter 1: General Provisions 10A V.S.A. § 10. Vermont endangered and threatened species rule § 10. Vermont endangered and threatened species rule 1.0 Authority This rule is adopted pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §§ 5402, 5403, and 5408 which provides that the Secretary "shall adopt by rule a state-endangered species list and a state threatened species list," and may "adopt rules for the protection and conservation of endangered and threatened species." 2.0 Purpose The purpose of this rule is to identify and list species of wild plants and animals that have been determined by the Secretary to be endangered and threatened in Vermont so that they may be protected under the law. The rule also sets out a process for Takings and Possession permits. 3.0 Definitions 3.1 "Endangered Species" means those species whose continued existence as viable components of the state's wild flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy or determined to be an "endangered species" under the federal Endangered Species Act. 3.2 "Listed Species" means any species that appears on the List in Section 5.0 this or has been determined to threatened or endangered by other relevant law. 3.3 "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources except where otherwise specified. 3.4 "Take and taking" means: pursuing, shooting, hunting, killing, capturing, trapping, snaring and netting fish, birds and quadrupeds and all lesser acts, such as disturbing, harrying or worrying or wounding or placing, setting, drawing or using any net or other device commonly used to take fish or wild animals, whether they result in the taking or not; and shall include every attempt to take and every act of assistance to every other person in taking or attempting to take fish or wild animals, provided that when taking is allowed by law, reference is had to taking by lawful means and in lawful manner. -
Executive Summary
A Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware Estuary June 2006 Citation: Westervelt, K., E. Largay, R. Coxe, W. McAvoy, S. Perles, G. Podniesinski, L. Sneddon, and K. Strakosch Walz. 2006. A Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware Estuary: Version 1. NatureServe. Arlington, Virginia. PDE Report No. 06-02 Copyright © 2006 NatureServe COVER PHOTOS Top L: Eastern Hemlock - Great Laurel Swamp, photo from Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Top R: Pitch Pine - Oak Forest, photo by Andrew Windisch, photo from New Jersey Natural Heritage Bottom R: Maritime Red Cedar Woodland, photo by Robert Coxe, photo from Delaware Natural Heritage Bottom L: Water Willow Rocky Bar and Shore in Pennsylvania, photo from Pennsylvania Natural Heritage A GUIDE TO THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY Kellie Westervelt Ery Largay Robert Coxe William McAvoy Stephanie Perles Greg Podniesinski Lesley Sneddon Kathleen Strakosch Walz. Version 1 June 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................................................................................11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 12 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 13 CLASSIFICATION APPROACH..................................................................................................... 14 International Terrestrial Ecological Systems Classification -
Connecticut's Forest Action Plan 2010 Building a Better Tomorrow For
Connecticut’s Forest Action Plan 2010 (Revised 2015) Building a better tomorrow for Connecticut’s forests today Prepared by: Helene Hochholzer, Connecticut Forest Planner GIS Mapping done by Joel Stocker, Assistant Extension Educator, University of Connecticut Connecticut Roundtable Report done by William R. Bentley, Salmon Brook Associates 2015 Review done by Dan Peracchio, Connecticut Forest Planner Contents Introduction and Purpose for State Strategies ............................................................................. 1 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 2 The History of Connecticut’s Forestlands ................................................................................... 4 PART 1. STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCE ASSESSMENT .................................................. 7 SECTION 1. Connecticut Forest Conditions and Trends ........................................................... 7 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Criterion 1. Conservation of Biological Diversity ................................................................................................ 7 Criterion 2. Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems ............................................................ 25 Criterion 3. Maintaining Forest Ecosystem Health and Vitality ........................................................................ -
Chapter Four: Landscaping with Native Plants a Gardener’S Guide for Missouri Landscaping with Native Plants a Gardener’S Guide for Missouri
Chapter Four: Landscaping with Native Plants A Gardener’s Guide for Missouri Landscaping with Native Plants A Gardener’s Guide for Missouri Introduction Gardening with native plants is becoming the norm rather than the exception in Missouri. The benefits of native landscaping are fueling a gardening movement that says “no” to pesticides and fertilizers and “yes” to biodiversity and creating more sustainable landscapes. Novice and professional gardeners are turning to native landscaping to reduce mainte- nance and promote plant and wildlife conservation. This manual will show you how to use native plants to cre- ate and maintain diverse and beauti- ful spaces. It describes new ways to garden lightly on the earth. Chapter Four: Landscaping with Native Plants provides tools garden- ers need to create and maintain suc- cessful native plant gardens. The information included here provides practical tips and details to ensure successful low-maintenance land- scapes. The previous three chap- ters include Reconstructing Tallgrass Prairies, Rain Gardening, and Native landscapes in the Whitmire Wildflower Garden, Shaw Nature Reserve. Control and Identification of Invasive Species. use of native plants in residential gar- den design, farming, parks, roadsides, and prairie restoration. Miller called his History of Native work “The Prairie Spirit in Landscape Landscaping Design”. One of the earliest practitioners of An early proponent of native landscap- Miller’s ideas was Ossian C. Simonds, ing was Wilhelm Miller who was a landscape architect who worked in appointed head of the University of the Chicago region. In a lecture pre- Illinois extension program in 1912. He sented in 1922, Simonds said, “Nature published a number of papers on the Introduction 3 teaches what to plant.