Livestock-Poisoning Plants of California

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Livestock-Poisoning Plants of California Making a Difference for California University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu Publication 8398 | January 2011 Livestock-Poisoning Plants of California LARRY FORERO, University of California Cooperative Extension Livestock Advisor, Shasta and Trinity Counties; GLENN NADER, University of California Cooperative Extension Livestock and Natural Resources Advisor, Sutter-Yuba and Butte Counties; ARTHUR CRAIGMILL, University of California Cooperative Extension Environmental Toxicology Specialist, Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center; JOSEPH M. DITOMASO, University of California Cooperative Extension Weed Specialist, Department of Plant Sciences, UC Davis; BIRGIT PUSCHNER, Professor of Veterinary Toxicology, California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory; and JOHN MAAS, University of California Cooperative Extension Veterinarian, School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis. Poisonous plants cause significant losses of livestock With few exceptions, livestock will not eat every year. A successful livestock operator must know poisonous plants unless forced to by hunger. The which poisonous plants occur on a given range or single most important way to prevent poisoning is to pasture and how they can be controlled or avoided. use proper range and pasture management practices This publication shows which plants are poisonous, to provide ample forage, encouraging consumption tells how they affect stock, and suggests ways to of nontoxic plants. Areas infested with poisonous reduce losses from poisoning. plants should be avoided when trailing, holding, or Undesirable effects may result from a single unloading animals. Supplemental feed may protect ingestion of a large amount of a poisonous plant, but stock if these conditions cannot be avoided, but some plants are so toxic that very small amounts may there are circumstances (for example, herbicide result in severe disease or death. Other plants cause applications) that may change palatability or increase chronic poisoning only after ingestion over weeks or toxicity in some plants. If toxic weeds are embedded months. The later situation may result in clinical signs in alfalfa cubes or included in total mixed rations, long after the exposure to the toxic plant material, and animals may not be able to avoid ingestion of them. treatment may no longer be possible. Many poisonous plants may be controlled with herbicides. Often, however, the uneven distribution Livestock-Poisoning Plants of California ANR Publication 8398 2 Diagnosing a plant poisoning can be difficult and Livestock Poisoning by Plants Possible poisonous plant in hay or feed: must be done quickly. In many cases, clinical signs in California What to do are nonspecific (such as diarrhea), and postmortem The California Animal Health and Food Safety • Work with your veterinarian to determine lesions are not characteristic. The assistance of your whether the animals’ clinical sign may be a result (CAHFS) Laboratory System toxicology laboratory veterinarian is crucial. This is especially important of plant exposure. investigated numerous cases of suspected plant in insurance or legal investigations. Producers • Collect the whole plant (if practical) or poisonings from 1990 to 2007. CAHFS veterinary and farm managers, along with veterinarians representative parts of the plant, including toxicologists have diagnosed plants as the cause of leaves, flowers, stems, roots, and fruit, and and diagnosticians, play important roles, and all toxicosis in more than 600 submitted cases, most of have it identified by a trained individual (local contribute information that may be important to these in livestock. The largest number of submissions nursery, county agricultural commissioner, UC diagnose a poisoning case. Once all the information Cooperative Extension Advisor, veterinarian, was for cattle, followed by horses, pigs, goats, and is available, all evidence is collected, and proper diagnostic laboratory, etc.). sheep. sampling of specimens has occurred, a summary • Save suspect plant material or feed for possible The most commonly diagnosed cause of plant of findings will be instrumental in preventing future evaluation. poisoning is ornamental oleander, a nonnative species recurrences. • Once plants are identified, ask your veterinarian (fig. 1). The data from CAFHS are from submitted to contact a veterinary toxicologist for detailed Accurate plant identification is critical if you samples, so they do not necessarily represent the consultation. suspect that a particular plant is causing problems overall occurrence of plant poisonings in California. • If the animal dies, submit it to a veterinary for your livestock. Producers can be most helpful by diagnostic laboratory. providing a grazing history, carefully observing what plants have been grazed, especially suspicious plants. The best approach is to collect the whole plant (if Possible poisonous plant in pasture: What to do practical) or representative parts of the plant, including 1. Work with your veterinarian to determine of poisonous plants on a range or in a pasture makes leaves, flowers, stems, roots, and fruit, and press whether the animal’s clinical sign may be a large-scale chemical control uneconomical. However, them dry in a folded newspaper between two sheets result of plant exposure. small patches of poisonous plants can and should be of cardboard, or roll them up between the pages of a 2. Determine whether a plant is found in your eradicated to prevent them from spreading to other newspaper or magazine. The plant sample can then be area. Visit the Calflora Web site, http://www. areas. The specifics of chemical control of poisonous taken or sent to your local UC Cooperative Extension calflora.org/. plants are beyond the scope of this publication; advisor or county agricultural commissioner office 3. Walk the field, collecting any unusual or toxic plants, and have them identified. see your county Farm Advisor or a UC Cooperative for identification. Local nurseries may also be a good 4. If you cannot identify a suspect plant, take it to Extension Specialist, or contact a pest control adviser source for plant identification. To determine whether your county agricultural commissioner or UC (PCA) for specific recommendations for your area. a particular plant is found in your area, see the Calflora Cooperative Extension office for identification. Web site, http://www.calflora.org/. 5. If an animal dies, submit it to a veterinary diagnostic lab. Livestock-Poisoning Plants of California ANR Publication 8398 3 Although most of the plants discussed in this treatment. Most important, recognition of poisonous publication are not among those that have confirmed plants in hay or forage may help prevent plant diagnoses, it is important to know that they can be poisonings in animals. poisonous. Awareness of poisonous plants growing in The following tables give summary information a certain geographical region, the season when they about livestock-poisoning plants in California. For full are most available, and their associated clinical signs information on plants listed, refer to the descriptions are instrumental in making a diagnosis and initiating in the text. 600 555 Plant PoisoningPlant Poisoning 1990-2007 1990-2007 500 400 300 200 134 Number of Diagnoses Number Diagnoses of 100 78 49 28 22 14 13 10 9 0 Oleander Nitrate Pyrrolizinine Oxalate Oak Avacado Yew Yellow Lupines Foxtails Accumulators Alkaloid OAK Star YEW Thistle LUPINES OXALATE AVOCADO FOXTAILS FOXTAILS Figure 1. Sources of OLEANDER plant poisoning in livestock, 1990–2007. Source: CAHFS. THISTLE NITRATE ALKALOID YELLOW STAR YELLOW PYRROLIZIDINE ACCUMULATORS Livestock-Poisoning Plants of California ANR Publication 8398 4 Table 1. Livestock-poisoning plants commonly found in selected regions of California Common name Scientific name Common name Scientific name North Coast starthistle Centaurea spp. arrowgrass Triglochin spp. tree tobacco Nicotiana spp. azalea Rhododendron spp. water hemlock Cicuta douglasii, C. maculata chokecherry Prunus virginiana Sierra Foothills dogbane Apocynum spp. cocklebur Xanthium spinosum, X. strumarium fiddleneck Amsinckia spp. deathcamas Zigadenus spp. milkweed Asclepias spp. dogbane Apocynum spp. ragweed or ragwort Senecio spp. foxtail Hordeum spp. and Setaria spp. rhododendrum Rhododendron spp. klamathweed Hypericum perforatum ryegrass, perennial Lolium spp. larkspur (low) Delphinium spp. tansy ragwort Senecio spp. milkweed Asclepias spp. veratrum (false hellebore) Veratrum californicum oak Quercus spp. water hemlock Cicuta douglasii, C. maculata ragweed or ragwort Senecio spp. South Coast toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia arrowgrass Triglochin spp. tree tobacco Nicotiana spp. chokecherry Prunus virginiana western azalea Rhododendron spp. dogbane Apocynum spp. Sierra Nevada Northern Range fiddleneck Amsinckia spp. chokecherry Prunus virginiana locoweed Astragalus spp. dogbane Apocynum spp. milkweed Asclepias spp. lupine Lupinus spp. tree tobacco Nicotiana spp. Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa Sacramento Valley Sierra Nevada Central Range cocklebur Xanthium spinosum, X. strumarium chokecherry Prunus virginiana curly dock Rumex crispus deathcamas Zigadenus spp. dogbane Apocynum spp. dogbane Apocynum spp. fiddleneck Amsinckia spp. larkspur (tall) Delphinium spp. foxtail Hordeum spp. and Setaria spp. Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa groundsel Senecio spp. ragwort or ragwort Senecio spp. milkweed Asclepias spp. toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia oak Quercus spp.
Recommended publications
  • Tamarind 1990 - 2004
    Tamarind 1990 - 2004 Author A. K. A. Dandjouma, C. Tchiegang, C. Kapseu and R. Ndjouenkeu Title Ricinodendron heudelotii (Bail.) Pierre ex Pax seeds treatments influence on the q Year 2004 Source title Rivista Italiana delle Sostanze Grasse Reference 81(5): 299-303 Abstract The effects of heating Ricinodendron heudelotii seeds on the quality of the oil extracted was studied. The seeds were preheated by dry and wet methods at three temperatures (50, 70 and 90 degrees C) for 10, 20, 30 and 60 minutes. The oil was extracted using the Soxhlet method with hexane. The results showed a significant change in oil acid value when heated at 90 degrees C for 60 minutes, with values of 2.76+or-0.18 for the dry method and 2.90+or-0.14 for the wet method. Heating at the same conditions yielded peroxide values of 10.70+or-0.03 for the dry method and 11.95+or-0.08 for the wet method. Author A. L. Khandare, U. Kumar P, R. G. Shanker, K. Venkaiah and N. Lakshmaiah Title Additional beneficial effect of tamarind ingestion over defluoridated water supply Year 2004 Source title Nutrition Reference 20(5): 433-436 Abstract Objective: We evaluated the effect of tamarind (Tamarindus indicus) on ingestion and whether it provides additional beneficial effects on mobilization of fluoride from the bone after children are provided defluoridated water. Methods: A randomized, diet control study was conducted in 30 subjects from a fluoride endemic area after significantly decreasing urinary fluoride excretion by supplying defluoridated water for 2 wk.
    [Show full text]
  • California Vegetation Map in Support of the DRECP
    CALIFORNIA VEGETATION MAP IN SUPPORT OF THE DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN (2014-2016 ADDITIONS) John Menke, Edward Reyes, Anne Hepburn, Deborah Johnson, and Janet Reyes Aerial Information Systems, Inc. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Renewable Energy Program and the California Energy Commission Final Report May 2016 Prepared by: Primary Authors John Menke Edward Reyes Anne Hepburn Deborah Johnson Janet Reyes Report Graphics Ben Johnson Cover Page Photo Credits: Joshua Tree: John Fulton Blue Palo Verde: Ed Reyes Mojave Yucca: John Fulton Kingston Range, Pinyon: Arin Glass Aerial Information Systems, Inc. 112 First Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 793-9493 [email protected] in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95811 and California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided by: California Energy Commission US Bureau of Land Management California Wildlife Conservation Board California Department of Fish and Wildlife Personnel involved in developing the methodology and implementing this project included: Aerial Information Systems: Lisa Cotterman, Mark Fox, John Fulton, Arin Glass, Anne Hepburn, Ben Johnson, Debbie Johnson, John Menke, Lisa Morse, Mike Nelson, Ed Reyes, Janet Reyes, Patrick Yiu California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Diana Hickson, Todd Keeler‐Wolf, Anne Klein, Aicha Ougzin, Rosalie Yacoub California
    [Show full text]
  • EFFICACY of ORGANIC WEED CONTROL METHODS Scott Snell, Natural Resources Specialist
    FINAL STUDY REPORT (Cape May Plant Materials Center, Cape May Court House, NJ) EFFICACY OF ORGANIC WEED CONTROL METHODS Scott Snell, Natural Resources Specialist ABSTRACT Organic weed control methods have varying degrees of effectiveness and cover a broad range of costs financially and in time. Studies were conducted at the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Cape May Plant Materials Center, Cape May Court House, New Jersey to examine the efficacy and costs of a variety of organic weed control methods: tillage, organic herbicide (acetic acid), flame treatment, solarization, and use of a smother cover crop. The smother cover and organic herbicide treatment plots displayed the least efficacy to control weeds with the average percent weed coverage of each method being over 97%. The organic herbicide plots also had the greatest financial costs and required the second most treatment time following the flame treatment plots. Although the flame treatment method was time consuming, it was effective resulting in an average of 12.14% weed coverage. Solarization required below average treatment time and resulted in an average of 49.22% weed coverage. The tillage method was found to be the most effective means of control and also had well below average financial costs and required slightly above average treatment time. INTRODUCTION The final results of the third biennial national Organic Farming Research Foundation’s (OFRF) survey found that organic producers rank weed control as one of the top problems negatively affecting their farms’ profitability (1999). Weed control options available for organic producers are far more limited than those of conventional production due to organic certification standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Weeds of the Appalachian Region
    $10 $10 PB1785 PB1785 Invasive Weeds Invasive Weeds of the of the Appalachian Appalachian Region Region i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments……………………………………...i How to use this guide…………………………………ii IPM decision aid………………………………………..1 Invasive weeds Grasses …………………………………………..5 Broadleaves…………………………………….18 Vines………………………………………………35 Shrubs/trees……………………………………48 Parasitic plants………………………………..70 Herbicide chart………………………………………….72 Bibliography……………………………………………..73 Index………………………………………………………..76 AUTHORS Rebecca M. Koepke-Hill, Extension Assistant, The University of Tennessee Gregory R. Armel, Assistant Professor, Extension Specialist for Invasive Weeds, The University of Tennessee Robert J. Richardson, Assistant Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, North Caro- lina State University G. Neil Rhodes, Jr., Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, The University of Ten- nessee ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank all the individuals and organizations who have contributed their time, advice, financial support, and photos to the crea- tion of this guide. We would like to specifically thank the USDA, CSREES, and The Southern Region IPM Center for their extensive support of this pro- ject. COVER PHOTO CREDITS ii 1. Wavyleaf basketgrass - Geoffery Mason 2. Bamboo - Shawn Askew 3. Giant hogweed - Antonio DiTommaso 4. Japanese barberry - Leslie Merhoff 5. Mimosa - Becky Koepke-Hill 6. Periwinkle - Dan Tenaglia 7. Porcelainberry - Randy Prostak 8. Cogongrass - James Miller 9. Kudzu - Shawn Askew Photo credit note: Numbers in parenthesis following photo captions refer to the num- bered photographer list on the back cover. HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE Tabs: Blank tabs can be found at the top of each page. These can be custom- ized with pen or marker to best suit your method of organization. Examples: Infestation present On bordering land No concern Uncontrolled Treatment initiated Controlled Large infestation Medium infestation Small infestation Control Methods: Each mechanical control method is represented by an icon.
    [Show full text]
  • Weeds: Control and Prevention
    Weed Control and Prevention Sheriden Hansen Assistant Professor, Horticulture USU Extension, Davis County COURSE OBJECTIVES • What is the definition of a weed • Why are weeds so difficult to control? • Annuals vs. biennials vs. perennials • Methods of spread • Noxious weeds • How to control • Methods of control • Tips to win the weed war • Common weeds and how to beat them! What is a weed? • A plant out of place • An undesirable plant • An interfering plant • “A plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered.” Ralph Waldo Emmerson • A plant that has mastered every survival skill except how to grow in rows • A plant that someone will spend time and money to kill! What is a weed? • Any plant that interferes with the management objectives for a given area of land at a given point in time. Weeds are successful survivors! • Excellent reproducers • They grow FAST • They are hardy generalists and can live just about anywhere Multiple ways of spreading! • By seed production • Seeds remain viable for YEARS! • Produce copious seeds • Runners or rhizomes/stolons • They have adapted to being spread in creative ways • Animal fur • Wind • Bird, deer, lizard digestion • Wheels Photo: Missoula County Weed District and Extension Annual vs biennial vs perennial weeds • What is an annual? • Plant that performs its entire lifecycle from seed to flower to seed in a single growing season • Dormant seed bridges the gap from one generation to the next F.D. Richards, Flickr.com Annual vs biennial vs perennial weeds • Annual weeds spread by seed only • Spurge
    [Show full text]
  • Beta Cinema Presents a Purple Bench Films / Zero Gravity Films / Live Through the Heart Films / Barry Films / Furture Films Production “Walter” Andrew J
    BETA CINEMA PRESENTS A PURPLE BENCH FILMS / ZERO GRAVITY FILMS / LIVE THROUGH THE HEART FILMS / BARRY FILMS / FURTURE FILMS PRODUCTION “WALTER” ANDREW J. WEST JUSTIN KIRK NEVE CAMPBELL LEVEN RAMBIN MILO VENTIMIGLIA JIM GRAFFIGAN BRIAN WHITE PETER FACINELLI VIRGINIA MADSEN WILLIAM H. MACY CASTING J.C. CANTU MUSIC DAN ROMER MUSIC SUPERVISOR KIEHR LEHMAN EDITING KRISTIN MCCASEY DIRCTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY STEVE CAPITANO CALITRI PRODUCTION DESIGN MICHAEL BRICKER COSTUMES LAUREN SCHAD EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS BILL JOHNSON SAM ENGELBARDT JENNIFER LAURENT RICK ST. GEORGE JOHN FULLER CARL RUMBAUGH TIM HILL RICKY MARGOLIS SIMON GRAHAM-CLARE WOLFGANG MUELLER MICHEL MERKT ANNA MASTRO CO-EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS STEFANIE MASTRO MICHAEL DAVID MASTRO KEITH MATSON AND JOANNE MATSON CO-PRODUCER ANTONIO SCLAFANI ASSOCIATE PRODUCER MICHAEL BRICKER PRODUCED BY MARK HOLDER CHRISTINE HOLDER BRENDEN PATRICK HILL RYAN HARRIS BENITO MUELLER WRITTEN BY PAUL SHOULBERG DIRECTED BY ANNA MASTRO Director Anna Mastro (GOSSIP GIRL) Cast William H. Macy (SHAMELESS, FARGO) Virginia Madsen (SIDEWAYS) Peter Facinelli (TWILIGHT) Andrew J. West (THE WALKING DEAD) Justin Kirk (WEEDS, MR. MORGAN‘S LAST LOVE) Neve Campbell (SCREAM, WILD THINGS) Milo Ventimiglia (HEROS, THAT´S MY BOY) Genre Comedy / Drama Language English Length 88 min Produced by Zero Gravity, Purple Bench Films, Barry Films and Demarest Films WALTER SYNOPSIS Walter believes himself to be the son of God. As such, it is his responsibility to judge whether people will spend eternity in heaven or hell. That’s a lot to manage along with his job as a ticket- tearer at a movie theater, his loving but neurotic mother, and his growing but unspoken affection for his co-worker Kendall.
    [Show full text]
  • 21 CFR Ch. I (4–1–10 Edition) § 582.20
    § 582.20 21 CFR Ch. I (4–1–10 Edition) Common name Botanical name of plant source Marjoram, sweet .......................................................................... Majorana hortensis Moench. Mustard, black or brown .............................................................. Brassica nigra (L.) Koch. Mustard, brown ............................................................................ Brassica juncea (L.) Coss. Mustard, white or yellow .............................................................. Brassica hirta Moench. Nutmeg ........................................................................................ Myristica fragrans Houtt. Oregano (oreganum, Mexican oregano, Mexican sage, origan) Lippia spp. Paprika ......................................................................................... Capsicum annuum L. Parsley ......................................................................................... Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Mansf. Pepper, black ............................................................................... Piper nigrum L. Pepper, cayenne ......................................................................... Capsicum frutescens L. or Capsicum annuum L. Pepper, red .................................................................................. Do. Pepper, white ............................................................................... Piper nigrum L. Peppermint .................................................................................. Mentha piperita L. Poppy seed
    [Show full text]
  • Field Release of the Insects Calophya Latiforceps
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Street Tree Species List San Francisco Urban Forestry Council Updated May 2014
    Recommended Street Tree Species List San Francisco Urban Forestry Council Updated May 2014 The Urban Forestry Council annually reviews and updates this list of trees, in collaboration with public and non-profit urban forestry stakeholders, including San Francisco’s Department of Public Works Urban Forestry Division and Friends of the Urban Forest. It’s impottant to carefully match the conditions of your site with the tree you choose. Please note that while this list contains recommendations that are known to do well in many locations in San Francisco, no tree is perfect for every potential tree planting location. This list should be used as a guideline for choosing which street tree to plant, but should not be used without the help of a tree professional. Section 1: Tree species, varieties, and cultivars that do well in most locations in the San Francisco. Evergreen Deciduous Arbutus x ‘Marina’ Prunus serrulata ‘Kwanzan’ Ceanothus ‘Ray Hartman’ Magnolia grandifiora ‘Little Gem’ Tristaniopsis laurina (formerly Tristania laurina) Evergreen Deciduous Agonis fiexuosa None recommended E Callistemon viminalis Cupaniopsis anacardioides Magnolia grandiflora ‘St. Mary,’ Melaleuca linarifolia Evergreen Deciduous Lagunaria patersonii Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold’, ‘Princeton Sentry’ ‘Saratoga’ Lophostemon confertus (formerly Tristania conferta) Platanus x acerifolia ‘Bloodgood,’ ‘Columbia’ ‘Yarwood’ Magnolia grandifiora ‘Sam Sommers,’ ‘Majestic Beauty,’ Ulmus parvifolia ‘Drake’ ‘Sempervirens’ Pittosporum undulatum Section 2: Tree species, varieties,
    [Show full text]
  • Toxic Plants
    forage grazing management: crops toxic plants A Shortage of good-quality pasture can Glucosinolates Glucosinolates are natural compounds that give be a limiting factor for a cattle operation. plants a bitter, “hot” taste. Found in the leaves of Annual forage crops grown in place of fallow can certain plants, they are highly concentrated in seed. provide high-quality forage during key produc- When consumed by livestock, glucosinolates interfere tion periods and may help reduce soil erosion, with thyroid function, cause liver and kidney lesions, suppress weeds, and increase soil nutrient profiles. and reduce mineral uptake. For livestock, the most Traditionally grown for agronomic or soil benefits serious issue is inhibited iodine uptake which can but not harvested, cover crops are being considered reduce production of the hormone thyroxine and result for grazing, haying, or planting as annual forages. in goiters. They are appealing because of the potential for addi- tional revenue from improved cattle performance Grass Tetany combined with the benefits of soil stabilization. Also known as grass staggers or wheat pasture Those contemplating this decision should know that poisoning, grass tetany is a metabolic disorder char- plants that work well as cover crops may not be acterized by low magnesium levels in the blood. Grass suitable for forage or grazing. In fact, some species tetany mainly affects older lactating cows grazing succu- can be toxic or fatal to livestock. This publication lent, immature grass. It can result in uncoordinated gait describes popular cover crops and the dangers they (staggers), convulsion, coma, and death. To prevent present for grazing livestock.
    [Show full text]
  • The Phytochemistry of Cherokee Aromatic Medicinal Plants
    medicines Review The Phytochemistry of Cherokee Aromatic Medicinal Plants William N. Setzer 1,2 1 Department of Chemistry, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA; [email protected]; Tel.: +1-256-824-6519 2 Aromatic Plant Research Center, 230 N 1200 E, Suite 102, Lehi, UT 84043, USA Received: 25 October 2018; Accepted: 8 November 2018; Published: 12 November 2018 Abstract: Background: Native Americans have had a rich ethnobotanical heritage for treating diseases, ailments, and injuries. Cherokee traditional medicine has provided numerous aromatic and medicinal plants that not only were used by the Cherokee people, but were also adopted for use by European settlers in North America. Methods: The aim of this review was to examine the Cherokee ethnobotanical literature and the published phytochemical investigations on Cherokee medicinal plants and to correlate phytochemical constituents with traditional uses and biological activities. Results: Several Cherokee medicinal plants are still in use today as herbal medicines, including, for example, yarrow (Achillea millefolium), black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa), American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), and blue skullcap (Scutellaria lateriflora). This review presents a summary of the traditional uses, phytochemical constituents, and biological activities of Cherokee aromatic and medicinal plants. Conclusions: The list is not complete, however, as there is still much work needed in phytochemical investigation and pharmacological evaluation of many traditional herbal medicines. Keywords: Cherokee; Native American; traditional herbal medicine; chemical constituents; pharmacology 1. Introduction Natural products have been an important source of medicinal agents throughout history and modern medicine continues to rely on traditional knowledge for treatment of human maladies [1]. Traditional medicines such as Traditional Chinese Medicine [2], Ayurvedic [3], and medicinal plants from Latin America [4] have proven to be rich resources of biologically active compounds and potential new drugs.
    [Show full text]