DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix C, ANHC 2007)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Arkansas Traveler 100 SPU Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (with PETS Checklist) of Arkansas Traveler 100 SPU Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest Perry and Saline Counties, Arkansas by Sarah Thompson, MS Wildlife Biologist Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District 8607 Hwy 7 N Jessieville, AR 71913 501-984-5313(voice) 501-984-6253 (fax) [email protected] October 2014 October 2014 1 Arkansas Traveler 100 SPU Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Area Description and Location The Forest Service proposes to renew an existing special use permit to Arkansas Traveler 100 for a 100 mile endurance run on open National Forest Roads and trails. The recreation event will take place on the Winona Ranger District the first and second week of October each year. The special use permit will be renewed for five years. Special Habitat Designations There are no designations of “critical habitat” (Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) or “essential habitat” (Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service) within, adjacent to, or affected by this Project Area. Critical habitats are those areas designated as critical by the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce, for the survival and recovery of (federally) listed species. Essential habitats are those areas designated by a Regional Forester as possessing the same characteristics as critical habitat without having been declared critical habitat by the Secretary of Interior or Commerce. Essential habitats are those necessary to meet recovery objectives for endangered, threatened and proposed species and those necessary to maintain viable populations of sensitive species. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (PETS Checklist) The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List for the Ouachita National Forest (USDA- Forest Service 2007a) is composed of 81 species of plants and animals known to occur or that may occur on Forest Service lands and for which there is a viability concern. This list is all inclusive and represents plants and animals federally listed by the United State Fish and Wildlife Service as Proposed, Endangered or Threatened and those designated as Sensitive species by the Forest Service (PETS). Of these 81 species, 10 are federally designated as Endangered, 4 are federally designated as Threatened, 1 is federally designated Proposed, and 66 are Forest Service designated as Sensitive. The Forest Service is to ensure that approved projects do not result in a loss of viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing of any Sensitive species. Detailed information regarding Forest Service Sensitive Species can be found in the Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Purpose, Need and Objectives of the Biological Evaluation The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to evaluate if the proposed permit renewal and associated activities will affect any PETS species and is performed as part of the site-specific analysis. This discussion of effects upon PETS species and/or their habitats is needed to provide useful information to decision makers in the careful selection of activities to accomplish goals and achieve desired future conditions with overall objectives of maintaining wildlife, fish and plant populations and diversity of habitats. Discussion of Proposed Activities The proposed endurance run takes place on existing open roads within the Winona RD. Because of this, there will be no effects to any species or their habitat caused by this special use authorization. October 2014 2 Arkansas Traveler 100 SPU Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Protective Measures Protective measures have been set forth in a variety of guiding documents and correspondence including the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Ouachita National Forest (USDA- Forest Service 2005a), associated documents including the Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-Forest Service 2005b), Biological Assessment (USDA-Forest Service 2005c), the corresponding Concurrence Letter issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a) regarding eight federally listed species, and the Programmatic Biological Opinion for the American Burying Beetle (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b). An example of a protective measure established in the Revised Forest Plan and applied at the site specific level is the establishment of 30-foot and 100-foot Streamside Management Areas (SMAs) either side of intermittent and perennial streams, respectively. These areas are established to protect aquatic environments and associated plant and animal species (Management Area 9). In addition, strict operating guidelines are included as part of timber harvest and related silvicultural contracts and are administered and enforced on-the-ground by a Timber Sale Administrator, Contracting Officer’s Representative, and/or Inspectors. Additional protective measures and more detailed information are outlined in the Project Decision Memo. Project Coordination-District Level The District Biologist has coordinated with the recreation Forester/ORA to ensure that participants will remain on existing roads. Forest Level Consultation History with the U.S. Department of the Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and pursuant to Section 7 of said Act, Formal Consultation was requested by the Acting Regional Forester in a letter (dated 9 August 2005) to the Arkansas Field Supervisor of the United States Department of Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Biological Assessment of the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005c). The letter requested Formal Consultation based on the finding of “likely to adversely affect” for American Burying Beetle (ABB) due to proposed ground disturbing activities. The Biological Assessment also conveyed “not likely to adversely affect” findings for Leopard darter (Percina pantheria), Leopard darter critical habitat, harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum), Arkansas fatmucket mussel (Lampsilis powellii), scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon), Ouachita rock-pocketbook mussel (Arkansia wheeleri), Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). In response to this request for Formal Consultation the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service submitted a transmittal letter (dated 17 August 2005) accepting the request. The letter stated that a Biological Opinion would be prepared assessing the effects of Revised Forest Plan implementation on the ABB. The transmittal letter also concurred with the “not likely to adversely affect” finding for Leopard darter, Leopard darter critical habitat, harperella, Arkansas fatmucket mussel, Scaleshell mussel, Ouachita rock-pocketbook mussel, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Bald eagle and Indiana bat (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). October 2014 3 Arkansas Traveler 100 SPU Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ On 22 September 2005 the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service provided the Acting Regional Forester the Service’s Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) on the Revised Forest Plan addressing the potential impacts to the ABB (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b). The PBO concluded that after review of the current status of ABB, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, that the Revised Forest Plan, as proposed, is “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ABB across its entire range”. The PBO also provide terms and conditions for incidental take and concluded that the “[level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of [habitat] critical]” to the ABB (USDI- Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b). Issuance of the PBO by the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service concluded all Formal Consultation on the Revised Forest Plan as proposed by the Ouachita National Forest. The ‘action area” described in the PBO is designated the “American Burying Beetle Area” (ABBA) which occurs in portions of Logan, Scott, Sebastian and Yell counties in western Arkansas and LeFlore and McCurtain counties in eastern Oklahoma. The ABBA is the area from which
Recommended publications
  • "Pollinator Paradise" Garden at Chatham Mills

    "Pollinator Paradise" Garden at Chatham Mills

    "Pollinator Paradise" Garden at Chatham Mills Created by Debbie Roos, North Carolina Cooperative Extension 206 species, 85% of them native to North Carolina More info at www.carolinapollinatorgarden.org Common Name Scientific Name Origin Perennial Flowers Yarrow Achillea millefolium 'Moonshine' NC Yarrow Achillea millefolium 'Paprika' NC Mexican giant hyssop Agastache mexicana 'Acapulco Orange' Mexico Anise hyssop Agastache x 'Blue Fortune' hybrid of U.S. native Mexican hyssop Agastache x 'Grape Nectar' Mexico Hummingbird mint Agastache x 'Red Happiness' southwest U.S. Licorice hyssop Agastache rupestris southwest U.S. Nodding onion Allium cernuum NC Dwarf indigo bush Amorpha herbacea NC Arkansas bluestar Amsonia hubrichtii Arkansas, Oklahoma Bluestar Amsonia tabernaemontana NC Tall anemone Anemone virginiana NC Eastern wild columbine Aquilegia canadensis NC Golden columbine Aquilegia chrysantha southwest U.S. Common leopardbane Arnica acaulis NC Swamp milkweed Asclepias incarnata NC Purple milkweed Asclepias purpurascens NC Common Name Scientific Name Origin Red milkweed Asclepias rubra NC Common milkweed Asclepias syriaca NC Butterfly weed Asclepias tuberosa NC Redring milkweed Asclepias variegata NC Whorled milkweed Asclepias verticillata NC Dwarf Tartarian aster Aster tataricus 'Jin Dai' exotic Wild indigo Baptisia x 'Carolina Moonlight' NC Wild indigo Baptisia x 'Purple Smoke' NC White wild indigo Baptisia alba NC Dwarf wild indigo Baptisia minor NC Downy wood mint Blephilia ciliata NC Decurrent false aster Boltonia decurrens central U.S. Bush's poppy mallow Callirhoe bushii central U.S. Fringed poppy mallow Callirhoe digitata central U.S. Prairie poppy mallow Callirhoe involucrata central U.S. Clustered poppy mallow Callirhoe triangulata NC Pink turtlehead Chelone lyonii NC Maryland golden aster Chrysopis mariana NC Field thistle Cirsium discolor NC Curlyheads Clematis ochroleuca NC Wild ageratum/mistflower Conoclinium coelestinum NC Palmleaf thoroughwort Conoclinium greggii southwest U.S.
  • Arkansas Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act and Pending Evaluations of Other Species

    Arkansas Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act and Pending Evaluations of Other Species

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service December 2012 Arkansas Species listed under the Endangered Species Act and Pending Evaluations of Other Species Taxonomic Species in Multi- Species Other Listed Group District Litigation in Mega- Petitioned Species and Other Candidates Petition Species Mammals - - 4 4 Birds 1 1 1 5 Fishes 1 9 1 5 Amphibians - 1 3 1 Plants - 4 - 5 Reptiles - 1 1 - Mussels/ Snails 2 8 - 14 Ouachita Madtom, by Brian Wagner/ Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Crayfish - 9 - 2 Insects - 2 2 1 Total 4 35 12 37 Note: All numbers are subject to change based on new petitions, litigation and findings. Legal actions brought under the deadlines have been set for those final Endangered Species Act have listing decisions. dramatically increased the workload of the Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish Mega-Petition Caddo Mountain Salamander, by Stan and Wildlife Service. Under the 1973 Act, The Mega-Petition is a large petition Trauth, Arkansas State University any citizen may petition the Service to list filed in 2010 by several advocacy groups species as threatened or endangered. In that requested the Service to list 404 addition, the Service’s decisions may be aquatic and aquatic-dependent species challenged in a court of law. found mostly in the Southeast. In 2011, the Service determined 374 of those Multi-District Litigation species need to be further evaluated. No and Other Candidates deadlines have been set. In 2009 and 2010, two advocacy groups filed lawsuits related to the Service’s Other Petitions missed deadlines under the Act, and The Service continues to receive other the national backlog of 251 species petitions to list species as threatened or categorized as candidates for the Federal endangered under the Act.
  • Endangered Species

    Endangered Species

    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
  • Aquatic Fish Report

    Aquatic Fish Report

    Aquatic Fish Report Acipenser fulvescens Lake St urgeon Class: Actinopterygii Order: Acipenseriformes Family: Acipenseridae Priority Score: 27 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Gobal Rank: G3G4 — Vulnerable (uncertain rank) State Rank: S2 — Imperiled in Arkansas Distribution Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Ouachita Mountains Arkansas Valley South Central Plains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon 362 Aquatic Fish Report Ecobasins Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - Arkansas River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - St. Francis River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - White River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (Lake Chicot) - Mississippi River Habitats Weight Natural Littoral: - Large Suitable Natural Pool: - Medium - Large Optimal Natural Shoal: - Medium - Large Obligate Problems Faced Threat: Biological alteration Source: Commercial harvest Threat: Biological alteration Source: Exotic species Threat: Biological alteration Source: Incidental take Threat: Habitat destruction Source: Channel alteration Threat: Hydrological alteration Source: Dam Data Gaps/Research Needs Continue to track incidental catches. Conservation Actions Importance Category Restore fish passage in dammed rivers. High Habitat Restoration/Improvement Restrict commercial harvest (Mississippi River High Population Management closed to harvest). Monitoring Strategies Monitor population distribution and abundance in large river faunal surveys in cooperation
  • Five Fish Species Proposed As Endangered

    Five Fish Species Proposed As Endangered

    DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE news release For Release December 30, 1977 Levitt 202/343-5634 FIVE FISH SPECIES PROPOSEDAS ENDANGERED Five species of fish found in North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee have been proposed for the endangered list by the Interior Department’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, .Keith M. Schreiner, Associate Director, announced today. The proposal, published in the December 30, 1977, Federal Register, also lists critical habitat for the Waccamaw darter, Waccamaw killifish. Waccamaw silverside, Ouachita madtom, and Barrens topminnow. Interested persons have until February 28, 1978, to comment on this rulemaking. North Carolina’s Lake Waccamaw, where three of the species occur, is a shallow, mostly sandy bottomed, coastal plain lake that is spring-fed. Its clear water is in contrast to the bog-stained “black water” that is characteristic of most lakes and ponds in the area. The three species depend upon the water quality of the lake which is being threatened by a rapidly growing seasonal tourist and resident population. The area is without a modern waste disposal system, and much of the domestic waste seeps into the lake. Run-off from fertilizer applied to gardens and lawns along the developed northern lake shore creates additional problems in the lake. Excavation of drainage canals for real estate development also jeopardizes these species by increasing siltation. Herbicides used for vegetation control in canals which drain into the lake have also severely depleted fish populations. The Ouachita madtom, which is found in south-central Arkansas, is threatened by stream alteration projects and construction activities.
  • DISTRIBUTION, ECOLOGY, and REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY of the ORANGEFIN MADTOM (NOTURUS GILBERTI) by Timothy Dale Simonson

    DISTRIBUTION, ECOLOGY, and REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY of the ORANGEFIN MADTOM (NOTURUS GILBERTI) by Timothy Dale Simonson

    DISTRIBUTION, ECOLOGY, AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY OF THE ORANGEFIN MADTOM (NOTURUS GILBERTI) by Timothy Dale Simonson Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences APPROVED: Richard J. Neves, Chair Dona:;[d J. Orth Johm J. Ney Louis A. Hel:frich April 1987 Blacksburg, Virginia DISTRIBUTION, ECOLOGY, AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY OF THE ORANGEFIN MADTOM (NOTURUS GILBERTI) by Timothy Dale Simonson Richard J. Neves, Chair Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences (ABSTRACT) Distribution of the orangefin madtom (Noturus gilberti) was determined from 347 sites sampled in Virginia and North Carolina. This species inhabited 264 stream kilometers, over twice the reported range, in the following systems: Craig Creek, Roanoke River, Dan River, Big Chestnut Creek, South Mayo River, Pigg River, and Smith River. The orangefin madtom was somewhat common; 33% (Dan River) to 70% (Craig Creek) of the sites sampled were occupied. Negative interspecific associates of orangefin madtoms included chubs, mountain redbelly dace, rosyside dace, crescent shiners, and crayfish; only Roanoke darters were considered positive associates. Sand and silt levels were significantly lower at sites with !L. gilberti, while per- centage of small cobble, local gradient, and depth were sig- nificantly higher. Discriminant function analysis identified large gravel, local gradient, silt, and occurrence of rosyside dace and crayfish, as significant predictors of the occurrence of the orangefin madtom. Seasonal samples from Craig Creek consisted of three age groups. The smallest individual captured was 33 mm total length (TL) and the largest was 111 mm TL.
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003

    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003

    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6
  • Manchester Road Redevelopment District: Form-Based Code

    Manchester Road Redevelopment District: Form-Based Code

    TaBle 11: deFiniTionS illuSTraTed manchester road Form-Based Code a. ThoroughFare & FronTageS Building Private Public Vehicular Public Private Building Frontage Frontage Lanes Frontage Frontage Private lot Thoroughfare (r.o.w.) Private lot b. Turning radiuS c. Building diSPoSiTion 3 3 2 2 1 Parking Lane Moving Lane 1- Principal Building 1 1 2- Backbuilding 1-Radius at the Curb 3- Outbuilding 2-Effective Turning Radius (± 8 ft) d. loT LAYERS e. FronTage & loT lineS 4 3rd layer 4 2 1 4 4 4 3 2nd layer Secondary Frontage 20 feet 1-Frontage Line 2-Lot Line 1st layer 3 3 Principal Frontage 3-Facades 1 1 4-Elevations layer 1st layer 2nd & 3rd & 2nd f. SeTBaCk deSignaTionS 3 3 2 1 2 1-Front Setback 2-Side Setback 1 1 3-Rear Setback 111 Manchester Road Form-Based Code ARTICLE 9. APPENDIX MATERIALS MBG Kemper Center PlantFinder About PlantFinder List of Gardens Visit Gardens Alphabetical List Common Names Search E-Mail Questions Menu Quick Links Home Page Your Plant Search Results Kemper Blog PlantFinder Please Note: The following plants all meet your search criteria. This list is not necessarily a list of recommended plants to grow, however. Please read about each PF Search Manchesterplant. Some may Road be invasive Form-Based in your area or may Code have undesirable characteristics such as above averageTab insect LEor disease 11: problems. NATIVE PLANT LIST Pests Plants of Merit Missouri Native Plant List provided by the Missouri Botanical Garden PlantFinder http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder Master Search Search limited to: Missouri Natives Search Tips Scientific Name Scientific Name Common NameCommon Name Height (ft.) ZoneZone GardeningHelp (ft.) Acer negundo box elder 30-50 2-10 Acer rubrum red maple 40-70 3-9 Acer saccharinum silver maple 50-80 3-9 Titles Acer saccharum sugar maple 40-80 3-8 Acer saccharum subsp.
  • Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M

    Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M

    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 27 Article 11 1973 Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M. Buchanan University of Arkansas – Fort Smith Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Population Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Buchanan, Thomas M. (1973) "Checklist of Arkansas Fishes," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 27 , Article 11. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol27/iss1/11 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 27 [1973], Art. 11 Checklist of Arkansas Fishes THOMAS M.BUCHANAN Department ot Natural Science, Westark Community College, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72901 ABSTRACT Arkansas has a large, diverse fish fauna consisting of 193 species known to have been collected from the state's waters. The checklist is an up-to-date listing of both native and introduced species, and is intended to correct some of the longstanding and more recent erroneous Arkansas records.
  • Complete Iowa Plant Species List

    Complete Iowa Plant Species List

    !PLANTCO FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE: IOWA DATABASE This list has been modified from it's origional version which can be found on the following website: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~herbarium/Cofcons.xls IA CofC SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PHYSIOGNOMY W Wet 9 Abies balsamea Balsam fir TREE FACW * ABUTILON THEOPHRASTI Buttonweed A-FORB 4 FACU- 4 Acalypha gracilens Slender three-seeded mercury A-FORB 5 UPL 3 Acalypha ostryifolia Three-seeded mercury A-FORB 5 UPL 6 Acalypha rhomboidea Three-seeded mercury A-FORB 3 FACU 0 Acalypha virginica Three-seeded mercury A-FORB 3 FACU * ACER GINNALA Amur maple TREE 5 UPL 0 Acer negundo Box elder TREE -2 FACW- 5 Acer nigrum Black maple TREE 5 UPL * Acer rubrum Red maple TREE 0 FAC 1 Acer saccharinum Silver maple TREE -3 FACW 5 Acer saccharum Sugar maple TREE 3 FACU 10 Acer spicatum Mountain maple TREE FACU* 0 Achillea millefolium lanulosa Western yarrow P-FORB 3 FACU 10 Aconitum noveboracense Northern wild monkshood P-FORB 8 Acorus calamus Sweetflag P-FORB -5 OBL 7 Actaea pachypoda White baneberry P-FORB 5 UPL 7 Actaea rubra Red baneberry P-FORB 5 UPL 7 Adiantum pedatum Northern maidenhair fern FERN 1 FAC- * ADLUMIA FUNGOSA Allegheny vine B-FORB 5 UPL 10 Adoxa moschatellina Moschatel P-FORB 0 FAC * AEGILOPS CYLINDRICA Goat grass A-GRASS 5 UPL 4 Aesculus glabra Ohio buckeye TREE -1 FAC+ * AESCULUS HIPPOCASTANUM Horse chestnut TREE 5 UPL 10 Agalinis aspera Rough false foxglove A-FORB 5 UPL 10 Agalinis gattingeri Round-stemmed false foxglove A-FORB 5 UPL 8 Agalinis paupercula False foxglove
  • Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater

    Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater

    FishTraits database Traits References Allen, D. M., W. S. Johnson, and V. Ogburn-Matthews. 1995. Trophic relationships and seasonal utilization of saltmarsh creeks by zooplanktivorous fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42(1)37-50. [multiple species] Anderson, K. A., P. M. Rosenblum, and B. G. Whiteside. 1998. Controlled spawning of Longnose darters. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 60:137-145. [678] Barber, W. E., D. C. Williams, and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila Spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970(1):9-18. [485] Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Belk, M. C., J. B. Johnson, K. W. Wilson, M. E. Smith, and D. D. Houston. 2005. Variation in intrinsic individual growth rate among populations of leatherside chub (Snyderichthys copei Jordan & Gilbert): adaptation to temperature or length of growing season? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14:177-184. [349] Bonner, T. H., J. M. Watson, and C. S. Williams. 2006. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinella proserpina Girard, 1857 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. In Press. [133] Bonnevier, K., K. Lindstrom, and C. St. Mary. 2003. Parental care and mate attraction in the Florida flagfish, Jordanella floridae. Behavorial Ecology and Sociobiology 53:358-363. [410] Bortone, S. A. 1989. Notropis melanostomus, a new speices of Cyprinid fish from the Blackwater-Yellow River drainage of northwest Florida. Copeia 1989(3):737-741. [575] Boschung, H.T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington. [multiple species] 1 FishTraits database Breder, C. M., and D. E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes.
  • Samenkatalog Graz 2016.Pdf

    Samenkatalog Graz 2016.Pdf

    SAMENTAUSCHVERZEICHNIS Index Seminum Seed list Catalogue de graines des Botanischen Gartens der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Ernte / Harvest / Récolte 2016 Herausgegeben von Christian BERG, Kurt MARQUART & Jonathan WILFLING ebgconsortiumindexseminum2012 Institut für Pflanzenwissenschaften, Januar 2017 Botanical Garden, Institute of Plant Sciences, Karl- Franzens-Universität Graz 2 Botanischer Garten Institut für Pflanzenwissenschaften Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Holteigasse 6 A - 8010 Graz, Austria Fax: ++43-316-380-9883 Email- und Telefonkontakt: [email protected], Tel.: ++43-316-380-5651 [email protected], Tel.: ++43-316-380-5747 Webseite: http://garten.uni-graz.at/ Zitiervorschlag : BERG, C., MARQUART, K. & Wilfling, J. (2017): Samentauschverzeichnis – Index Seminum – des Botanischen Gartens der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Samenernte 2016. – 54 S., Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Personalstand des Botanischen Gartens Graz: Institutsleiter: Ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Helmut MAYRHOFER Wissenschaftlicher Gartenleiter: Dr. Christian BERG Gartenverwalter: Jonathan WILFLING, B. Sc. Gärtnermeister: Friedrich STEFFAN GärtnerInnen: Doris ADAM-LACKNER Viola BONGERS Magarete HIDEN Franz HÖDL Kurt MARQUART Franz STIEBER Ulrike STRAUSSBERGER Monika GABER Gartenarbeiter: Philip FRIEDL René MICHALSKI Oliver KROPIWNICKI Gärtnerlehrlinge: Gabriel Buchmann (1. Lehrjahr) Bahram EMAMI (3. Lehrjahr) Mario MARX (3. Lehrjahr) 3 Inhaltsverzeichnis / Contents / Table des matières Abkürzungen / List of abbreviations / Abréviations