DOCSLIB.ORG

USDA Final Calophya and P. Ichini

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Department of Field Release of the Insects Agriculture Calophya latiforceps Marketing and Regulatory (Hemiptera: Calophyidae) and Programs Pseudophilothrips ichini Animal and Plant Health Inspection (Thysanoptera: Service Phlaeothripidae) for Classical Biological Control of Brazilian Peppertree in the Contiguous United States Environmental Assessment, May 2019 Field Release of the Insects Calophya latiforceps (Hemiptera: Calophyidae) and Pseudophilothrips ichini (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae) for Classical Biological Control of Brazilian Peppertree in the Contiguous United States Environmental Assessment, May 2019 Agency Contact: Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Rd., Unit 133 Riverdale, MD 20737 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected]. Persons With Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845- 6136 (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by USDA over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish and other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended label practices for the use and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers. Contents I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action .................................................................................................... 1 II. Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 A. No Action ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 B. Issue Permits for Environmental Release of C. latiforceps .......................................................................................... 5 C. Issue Permits for Environmental Release of P. ichini ................................................................................................... 9 D. Issue Permits for Environmental Release of Both C. latiforceps and P. ichini (Preferred Alternative) ..................... 12 III. Affected Environment .................................................................................................................................. 12 A. Taxonomy of Brazilian Peppertree ............................................................................................................................. 12 B. Areas Affected by Brazilian Peppertree ..................................................................................................................... 13 C. Plants Related to Brazilian Peppertree and Their Distribution ................................................................................... 14 IV. Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................................... 16 A. No Action ................................................................................................................................................................... 16 B. Issue Permits for Environmental Release of C. latiforceps ........................................................................................ 19 C. Issue Permits for Environmental Release of P. ichini ................................................................................................. 25 D. Issue Permits for Environmental Release of Both C. latiforceps and P. ichini .......................................................... 31 V. Other Issues ................................................................................................................................................. 31 VI. Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted ................................................................................... 32 VII. References ................................................................................................................................................. 34 Appendix 1. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix 2. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix 3. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Appendix 4. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Appendix 5. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 69 Appendix 6. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 74 Appendix 7. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 76 I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits (PPBP) is proposing to issue permits for environmental release of two insects, Calophya latiforceps (Hemiptera: Calophyidae) and Pseudophilothrips ichini (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae). These agents would be used for the biological control of Brazilian peppertree, Schinus terebinthifolia (Anacardiaceae), in the contiguous United States. This environmental assessment1 (EA) has been prepared, consistent with USDA, APHIS' National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) implementing procedures (Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 372). It examines the potential effects on the quality of the human environment that may be associated with the release of C. latiforceps and P. ichini to control infestations of Brazilian pepperweed within the contiguous United States. This EA considers the potential effects of the proposed action and its alternatives, including no action. Notice of this EA was made available in the Federal Register on February 27, 2019 for a 30-day public comment period. APHIS received a total of 129 comments on the EA by the close of the comment period. Most comments (120) were in favor of the release of the biological control agents. Nine comments were either not in favor of or raised concerns regarding the release of the two agents. These comments are addressed in appendix 7 of this document. Classical biological control
Recommended publications
  • Department of Planning and Zoning

    Department of Planning and Zoning

    Department of Planning and Zoning Subject: Howard County Landscape Manual Updates: Recommended Street Tree List (Appendix B) and Recommended Plant List (Appendix C) - Effective July 1, 2010 To: DLD Review Staff Homebuilders Committee From: Kent Sheubrooks, Acting Chief Division of Land Development Date: July 1, 2010 Purpose: The purpose of this policy memorandum is to update the Recommended Plant Lists presently contained in the Landscape Manual. The plant lists were created for the first edition of the Manual in 1993 before information was available about invasive qualities of certain recommended plants contained in those lists (Norway Maple, Bradford Pear, etc.). Additionally, diseases and pests have made some other plants undesirable (Ash, Austrian Pine, etc.). The Howard County General Plan 2000 and subsequent environmental and community planning publications such as the Route 1 and Route 40 Manuals and the Green Neighborhood Design Guidelines have promoted the desirability of using native plants in landscape plantings. Therefore, this policy seeks to update the Recommended Plant Lists by identifying invasive plant species and disease or pest ridden plants for their removal and prohibition from further planting in Howard County and to add other available native plants which have desirable characteristics for street tree or general landscape use for inclusion on the Recommended Plant Lists. Please note that a comprehensive review of the street tree and landscape tree lists were conducted for the purpose of this update, however, only
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."

    "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.
  • What Is a Tree in the Mediterranean Basin Hotspot? a Critical Analysis

    What Is a Tree in the Mediterranean Basin Hotspot? a Critical Analysis

    Médail et al. Forest Ecosystems (2019) 6:17 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-019-0170-6 RESEARCH Open Access What is a tree in the Mediterranean Basin hotspot? A critical analysis Frédéric Médail1* , Anne-Christine Monnet1, Daniel Pavon1, Toni Nikolic2, Panayotis Dimopoulos3, Gianluigi Bacchetta4, Juan Arroyo5, Zoltán Barina6, Marwan Cheikh Albassatneh7, Gianniantonio Domina8, Bruno Fady9, Vlado Matevski10, Stephen Mifsud11 and Agathe Leriche1 Abstract Background: Tree species represent 20% of the vascular plant species worldwide and they play a crucial role in the global functioning of the biosphere. The Mediterranean Basin is one of the 36 world biodiversity hotspots, and it is estimated that forests covered 82% of the landscape before the first human impacts, thousands of years ago. However, the spatial distribution of the Mediterranean biodiversity is still imperfectly known, and a focus on tree species constitutes a key issue for understanding forest functioning and develop conservation strategies. Methods: We provide the first comprehensive checklist of all native tree taxa (species and subspecies) present in the Mediterranean-European region (from Portugal to Cyprus). We identified some cases of woody species difficult to categorize as trees that we further called “cryptic trees”. We collected the occurrences of tree taxa by “administrative regions”, i.e. country or large island, and by biogeographical provinces. We studied the species-area relationship, and evaluated the conservation issues for threatened taxa following IUCN criteria. Results: We identified 245 tree taxa that included 210 species and 35 subspecies, belonging to 33 families and 64 genera. It included 46 endemic tree taxa (30 species and 16 subspecies), mainly distributed within a single biogeographical unit.
  • American Smoketree (Cotinus Obovatus Raf.)

    American Smoketree (Cotinus Obovatus Raf.)

    ACADBJIY OJl'· SCIBNCm FOR 1M2 11 o AMERICAN SMOKETREE (COTINUS OBOVATUS RAP.), ONE OF OKLAHOMA'S RAREST TREE SPECIES ELBERT L. LITTLE, IlL, Forest Senlee United States DepartmeDt of J.grlealture, Washington, D. C. Though the American Smoketree was discovered in Oklahoma by Thomu Nuttall in 1819, only one more collection of this rare tree species within the state has been reported. This article summarizes these records, add8 a third Oklahoma locality, and calle attention to the older lClenttf1c name, Cotfftu ob0'V4tu Ral, which 8hould replace the one In ue, Coth," (lm.en. eo".. Hutt. II PROCDDINGS OJ' THE OKLAHOMA Nattall (1821), the flnt botaDl8t to mit what 11 now Okahoma, men­ tlODed In hie journal for July 18, 1819, the dl8covery, to his great 81U'Prlse, of thla new, Jarp Ihrub, aearcely dlltlnet from BA.. cot'"'' of Europe. He deIcrlbed the location as on l1mestone clUb of the Grand (or Neosho) RITer near a bend called the Eagle'e Neat more tban thirty miles north of the confluence of the Grand and Arkanlla8 River.. The place probably ..... alODC the 8&lt bank of the river In eoutheastern Mayes County, at the weetern edge of the Ozark Plateau in northeastern Oklahoma. It 11 hoped that Oklahoma botaDleti w1ll revisit the type locality and a1eo die. COTer other etatloD•. Thll Dew species was Dot mentioned In Nuttall'. (1837) unfinished publication on his collections of the flora of Arkansas Territory. Torrey aD4 Gray (1888) IDcluded Nuttall's frultfng specimens doubtfully under the related European species, then known as Rhu coUnu L., with Nuttall's upubllehed herbariUM Dame, Bh., coUnoUles Nutt., as a synonym.
  • Native Plant Group BBG Spring Sale List 2020 As of Mar22020

    Native Plant Group BBG Spring Sale List 2020 As of Mar22020

    Native Plant Group - BBG Spring Sale 2020 Scientific or Botanical Common name EXPOSURE MOISTURE COLOR HEIGHT BLOOM REMARKS Butterfly Host Bee Drought name as of Feb. 2013 or Nectar Friendly Tolerant self seeds, good in rock Allium cernuum Nodding Onion sun avg pink 10-12" lt spring gardens Bee yes Amsonia ciliata Blue Star Sun-ptsun avg-dry blue 3' Apr-May Sandy soil, very fine leaves Bee yes Amsonia Willow leaf Small shrub, fall color, AL tabernaemontana Bluestar sun-shade avg-dry blue 3' lt spring variety Bee sun-pt red/yello Self seeds, hummingbird Aquilegia canadensis Columbine shade avg-dry w 18-20" spring plant nectar Bee yes Deciduous Ginger Asarum canadense shade moist maroon 8" spring groundcover Host for Swamp Butterfly host & nectar Monarch & Asclepias incarnata milkweed Sun-pt sun avg-moist pink 3' summer plant nectar Bee Host for Butterfly host & nectar Monarch & Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly Weed sun avg-dry orange 2-3' summer plant nectar Bee yes White False Baptisia alba Indigo sun-pt sun avg white 3' spring New stems charcoal color nectar Bee False Blue sun-pt Tolerates drought & poor Baptisia australis Indigo shade avg blue 3' summer soil nectar Bee Baptisia australis v Small Leaflet aberrans Blue Indigo sun avg-dry blue 3' summer Coosa Prairie plant nectar Bee Apalachicola Baptisia megacarpa Wild Indigo sun avg-moist white 3' spring found in Eunice, LA prairie nectar Bee Seedlings AL variety; yellow, Baptisia species False Indigo sun avg-dry various 3' Apr May blue, alba nectar Bee Apr- Baptisia sphaerocarpa Yellow Baptisia
  • Factors Influencing Density of the Northern Mealy Amazon in Three Forest Types of a Modified Rainforest Landscape in Mesoamerica

    Factors Influencing Density of the Northern Mealy Amazon in Three Forest Types of a Modified Rainforest Landscape in Mesoamerica

    VOLUME 12, ISSUE 1, ARTICLE 5 De Labra-Hernández, M. Á., and K. Renton. 2017. Factors influencing density of the Northern Mealy Amazon in three forest types of a modified rainforest landscape in Mesoamerica. Avian Conservation and Ecology 12(1):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00957-120105 Copyright © 2017 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Research Paper Factors influencing density of the Northern Mealy Amazon in three forest types of a modified rainforest landscape in Mesoamerica Miguel Ángel De Labra-Hernández 1 and Katherine Renton 2 1Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, México, 2Estación de Biología Chamela, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Jalisco, México ABSTRACT. The high rate of conversion of tropical moist forest to secondary forest makes it imperative to evaluate forest metric relationships of species dependent on primary, old-growth forest. The threatened Northern Mealy Amazon (Amazona guatemalae) is the largest mainland parrot, and occurs in tropical moist forests of Mesoamerica that are increasingly being converted to secondary forest. However, the consequences of forest conversion for this recently taxonomically separated parrot species are poorly understood. We measured forest metrics of primary evergreen, riparian, and secondary tropical moist forest in Los Chimalapas, Mexico. We also used point counts to estimate density of Northern Mealy Amazons in each forest type during the nonbreeding (Sept 2013) and breeding (March 2014) seasons. We then examined how parrot density was influenced by forest structure and composition, and how parrots used forest types within tropical moist forest.
  • Phylogeny and Systematics of the Tribe Thlaspideae (Brassicaceae) and the Recognition of Two New Genera Shokouh Esmailbegi, Ihsan A

    Phylogeny and Systematics of the Tribe Thlaspideae (Brassicaceae) and the Recognition of Two New Genera Shokouh Esmailbegi, Ihsan A

    Vol. 67 (2) • April 2018 International Journal of Taxonomy, Phylogeny and Evolution Electronic Supplement to Phylogeny and systematics of the tribe Thlaspideae (Brassicaceae) and the recognition of two new genera Shokouh Esmailbegi, Ihsan A. Al-Shehbaz, Milan Pouch, Terezie Mandáková, Klaus Mummenhoff, Mohammad Reza Rahiminejad, Mansour Mirtadzadini & Martin A. Lysak Taxon 67: 324–340 (https://doi.org/10.12705/672.4) https://doi.org/10.12705/672.4.S1 (DNA sequence alignment: https://doi.org/10.12705/672.4.S2) TAXON 67 (2) • April 2018 Electr. Suppl. to: Esmailbegi & al. • Phylogeny and systematics of Thlaspideae (Brassicaceae) Table S1. ITS and trnL-F primers used in phylogenetic study. Gene Primer Sequence Reference ITS ITS1 TCC GTA GGT GAA CCT GCG G White & al., 1990 ITS4 TCC TCC GCT TAT TGA TAT GC White & al., 1990 ITS-18F GGA AGG AGA AGT CGT AAC AAG G Mummenhoff & al., 1997 trnL-F tabC CGA AAT CGG TAG ACG CTA CG Shaw & al., 2005 tabF ATT TGA ACT GGT GAC ACG AG Shaw & al., 2005 White, T.J., Bruns, T., Lee, S. & Taylor, J. 1990. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. Pp. 315–322 in: Innis, M.A., Gelfand, D.H., Sninsky, J.J. & White, T.J. (eds.), PCR protocols: A guide to methods and applications. San Diego: Academic Press. Mummenhoff, K., Franzke, A. & Koch, M. 1997. Molecular data reveal convergence in fruit characters used in the classification of Thlaspi s.l. (Brassicaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 125: 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.1997.tb02253.x Shaw, J., Lickey, E., Beck, J.T., Farmer, S.B., Liu, W., Miller, J., Siripun, K.C., Winder, C.T., Schilling, E.E.
  • Wildlife Management Activities and Practices

    Wildlife Management Activities and Practices

    WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICES COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLANNING GUIDELINES for the Gulf Prairies and Marshes Ecological Region Revised April 2010 The following Texas Parks & Wildlife Department staff have contributed to this document: Kirby Brown, Private Lands and Habitat Program Director (Retired) Gary Homerstad, Technical Guidance Biologist (Retired) Matt Wagner, Technical Guidance Biologist – College Station Jim Dillard, Technical Guidance Biologist – Mineral Wells (Retired) Linda Campbell, Program Director, Private Lands and Public Hunting Program -- Austin Linda McMurry, Private Lands and Public Hunting Program Assistant -- Austin With Additional Contributions From: Terry Turney, Rare Species Biologist, San Marcos Trey Carpenter, Manager -- Granger Wildlife Management Area Dale Prochaska, Private Lands Biologist – Kerr Wildlife Management Area Nathan Rains, Private Lands Biologist – Cleburne TABLE OF CONTENTS Comprehensive Wildlife Management Planning Guidelines Gulf Prairies and Marshes Ecological Region INTRODUCTION Specific Habitat Management Practices, by Activities HABITAT CONTROL EROSION CONTROL PREDATOR CONTROL PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL WATER PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL SHELTER CENSUS APPENDICES APPENDIX A: General Habitat Management Considerations, Recommendations, and Intensity Levels APPENDIX B: Determining Qualification for Wildlife Management Use APPENDIX C: Wildlife Management Plan Overview APPENDIX D: Livestock Management Recommendations APPENDIX E: Vegetation Management
  • Weed Risk Assessment for Pistacia Chinensis Bunge (Anacardiaceae)

    Weed Risk Assessment for Pistacia Chinensis Bunge (Anacardiaceae)

    Weed Risk Assessment for Pistacia United States chinensis Bunge (Anacardiaceae) – Department of Agriculture Chinese pistache Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service November 27, 2012 Version 1 Pistacia chinensis (source: D. Boufford, efloras.com) Agency Contact: Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Weed Risk Assessment for Pistacia chinensis Introduction Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) regulates noxious weeds under the authority of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000) and the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. § 1581-1610, 1939). A noxious weed is defined as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment” (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000). We use weed risk assessment (WRA)—specifically, the PPQ WRA model (Koop et al., 2012)—to evaluate the risk potential of plants, including those newly detected in the United States, those proposed for import, and those emerging as weeds elsewhere in the world. Because the PPQ WRA model is geographically and climatically neutral, it can be used to evaluate the baseline invasive/weed potential of any plant species for the entire United States or for any area within it. As part of this analysis, we use a stochastic simulation to evaluate how much the uncertainty associated with the analysis affects the model outcomes.
  • Livro-Inpp.Pdf

    Livro-Inpp.Pdf

    GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL President of Republic Michel Miguel Elias Temer Lulia Minister for Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications Gilberto Kassab MUSEU PARAENSE EMÍLIO GOELDI Director Nilson Gabas Júnior Research and Postgraduate Coordinator Ana Vilacy Moreira Galucio Communication and Extension Coordinator Maria Emilia Cruz Sales Coordinator of the National Research Institute of the Pantanal Maria de Lourdes Pinheiro Ruivo EDITORIAL BOARD Adriano Costa Quaresma (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia) Carlos Ernesto G.Reynaud Schaefer (Universidade Federal de Viçosa) Fernando Zagury Vaz-de-Mello (Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso) Gilvan Ferreira da Silva (Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental) Spartaco Astolfi Filho (Universidade Federal do Amazonas) Victor Hugo Pereira Moutinho (Universidade Federal do Oeste Paraense) Wolfgang Johannes Junk (Max Planck Institutes) Coleção Adolpho Ducke Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi Natural resources in wetlands: from Pantanal to Amazonia Marcos Antônio Soares Mário Augusto Gonçalves Jardim Editors Belém 2017 Editorial Project Iraneide Silva Editorial Production Iraneide Silva Angela Botelho Graphic Design and Electronic Publishing Andréa Pinheiro Photos Marcos Antônio Soares Review Iraneide Silva Marcos Antônio Soares Mário Augusto G.Jardim Print Graphic Santa Marta Dados Internacionais de Catalogação na Publicação (CIP) Natural resources in wetlands: from Pantanal to Amazonia / Marcos Antonio Soares, Mário Augusto Gonçalves Jardim. organizers. Belém : MPEG, 2017. 288 p.: il. (Coleção Adolpho Ducke) ISBN 978-85-61377-93-9 1. Natural resources – Brazil - Pantanal. 2. Amazonia. I. Soares, Marcos Antonio. II. Jardim, Mário Augusto Gonçalves. CDD 333.72098115 © Copyright por/by Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, 2017. Todos os direitos reservados. A reprodução não autorizada desta publicação, no todo ou em parte, constitui violação dos direitos autorais (Lei nº 9.610).
  • Vascular Plants of Williamson County Rhus Aromatica − SKUNKBRUSH, FRAGRANT SUMAC [Anacardiaceae]

    Vascular Plants of Williamson County Rhus Aromatica − SKUNKBRUSH, FRAGRANT SUMAC [Anacardiaceae]

    Vascular Plants of Williamson County Rhus aromatica − SKUNKBRUSH, FRAGRANT SUMAC [Anacardiaceae] Rhus aromatica Aiton (includes varieties), SKUNKBRUSH, FRAGRANT SUMAC. Shrub, winter-deciduous, clump-forming, with long shoots and short lateral and spur shoots, 50– 200 cm tall; shoots short-tomentose, strongly aromatic like wintergreen (Gaultheria) when cut or crushed (having resin ducts with terpenes); bark tight, light gray, ± smooth. Stems: cylindric, when young typically < 4 mm diameter, limber, reddish, puberulent on young periderm, knobby at nodes from persistent, short-projecting bases of old petioles (1 mm); containing colorless resin from ducts in stem. Leaves: helically alternate, 3-foliolate, typically 30–50 mm long, petiolate with the 3 leaflets subsessile to sessile arising at same point, without stipules; petiole 5−15 mm long; blades of leaflets ovate to obovate or fan- shaped to rhombic, 5−28 × 5−26 mm, terminal leaflet > lateral leaflets, rounded or obtuse (lateral leaflets) to tapered (terminal leaflets) at base, shallowly to deeply 3-lobed and short-crenate, pinnately veined with principal veins slightly raised on lower surface. Inflorescence: panicle of racemes, on spur shoots clustered at tips of winter stems, panicle to 60 mm long, racemes to 10, 10−15 mm long, each raceme ± 20-flowered, flowers helically arranged and tightly clustered, buds formed in midsummer and flowering starting before leaves, bracteate, densely short-tomentose with brown hairs; peduncle to 5 mm long; bract subtending each branch deltate-broadly awl-shaped and cupped, 1−2 mm long, brownish red, stiff, short-tomentose especially below midpoint, persistent; axes stiff, short-hairy; bractlets subtending pedicel 2, partially hidden by and ⊥ to bract, ovate, 1 mm long, keeled, puberulent at base and on inner surface; pedicel 1−2 mm long increasing in fruit, greenish, sparsely hairy or glabrous.