DOCSLIB.ORG

Saltcedar Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Saltcedar Management Proceedings Saltcedar and Water Resources in the West Symposium July 16-17, 2003 San Angelo Convention Center San Angelo, Texas Mention of a trademark or a propriety product does not constitute a guarantee or warrenty of the product by the Texas Agricultural Experiement Station or Texas Cooperative Extension, and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that also might be suitable. All programs and information of The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station or the Texas Cooperative Extension are available to everyone without regard to race, ethnic origin, religion, sex or age. Contents History and Biology of Saltcedar ……………………………………………… 1 History And Ecology Of Saltcedar (Tamarix) Fred E. Smeins…………………………………………………………..... 2-9 Distribution of Saltcedar in the Southwest Homer Sanchez and Patrick L. Shaver…………………………………… 10-15 Groundwater and surface water thresholds for maintaining Populus-Salix forests, San Pedro River, southern Arizona Sharon J. Lite and Juliet C. Stromberg…………………………………... 16-27 Threatened and Endanered Species …………………………………………... 28 Endangered Plant Species in Saltcedar Habitats F.M. Oxley……………………………………………………………..… 29-33 Pecos Pupfish: One Piece of the Puzzle Stacey Johnson…………………………………………………………... 34-37 Insects Associated wit Saltcedar, Baccharis and Willow in West Texas and Their Value as Food for Insectivorous Birds: Preliminary Results Allen Knutson, Mark Muegge, Tom Robbins and C. Jack DeLoach…..... 38-47 Water Use and Saltcedar …………………………………………………….... 48 Water us by saltcedar and associated vegetation along selected rivers in Texas Larry D. White, K Brian Hays, and Kurtiss M. Schmidt………………... 49-68 Simulating Wate Use By Saltcedar With The Epic Model J.R. Kiniry, J.R. Williams, K.M. Schmidt, and L.D. White…………….. 69-78 Saltcedar Management ...................................................................................... 79 Toxicology and Ecotoxicology and Summary for Imazapyr (ARSENAL® Herbicide) BASF Cooperation……………………………………………………..... 80-84 Spray Drift Control Models I.W. Kirk………………………………………………………………..... 85-93 Fire in Saltcedar Ecosystems Brent J. Racher and Carlton M. Britton………………………………….. 94-99 Aerial Spraying and Mechanical Saltcedar Control Kirk C. McDaniel and John P. Taylor…………………………………… 100-105 Individual Plant Treatment of Saltcedar Keith Duncan……………………………………………………………. 106-110 Restoration with Native Species Following Saltcedar Removal John P. Taylor and Kirk McDaniel……………………………………… 111-117 Initial Results of Biological Control of Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the United States Lindsey R. Millbrath, C. Jack DeLoach, and Allen E. Knutson………… 118-124 Saltcedar Project Updates …………………………………………………….. 125 Colorado River Saltcedar Control Project Allan McGinty and Okla Thornton………………………………………. 126-132 The Pecos River Ecosystem Project Charles R. Hart…………………………………………………………… 133-139 New Mexico Saltcedar Control Project Debbie Hughs…………………………………………………………….. 140-147 Arizona Saltcedar Project John H. Brock……………………………………………………………. 148-157 Tamarisk Control Activities in Colorado and Utah Tim Carlson……………………………………………………………… 158 History and Biology of Saltcedar 1 HISTORY AND ECOLOGY OF SALTCEDAR (TAMARIX) Fred E. Smeins Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843-2126 Introduction The goal of this review paper is to present a broad overview of the history, biology and ecology of the genus Tamarix (saltcedar). The intent is to provide the basic elements of this genus to 1) establish the basis for some of the known or perceived issues that exist relative to this group of plants, and 2) to set the stage for following presentations on specific aspects of the biology and ecology of the genus and efforts and approaches at management and restoration of ecosystems that have been impacted by members of this genus. Taxonomy Perhaps the first issue is to identify and characterize the subjects of interest. This is not a minor task, since total agreement does not exist on the number of species in the genus Tamarix, synonomy among the species, the taxonomic distinctions between species (Baum 1978), degree of hybridization between some species (Sudbrock 1993) or the phylogenetic position of the family Tamaricaceae (Spichiger and Savolainen 1997). In addition the exact origin of species introduced to North America is not certain, and the number and places of introductions are not well-documented. Also, the horticultural industry continues to import, propagate and disperse species in the ornamental trade. All of this simply creates a caution when considering the application of management to uncertain taxonomic and genetic variations. That is, variations in response of populations to management may be as much a matter of genetic differences as it is the environment they occur in or the method or technology of management applied; what works one place may not work elsewhere because subtle genetic differences may not be apparent based on the morphological or outward appearance of the population being treated. Recent comparisons of Tamarix ramosissima from Arizona and Montana indicate the great amount of phenotypic and genotypic variation in this species (Sexton 2000). Between 8 and 10 species have been introduced into North America (Crins 1982, DeLoach et al. 2000). While complete agreement on nomenclature and number of species does not exist the most commonly available and used source for North America is the USDA, NRCS Plant Database which currently recognizes the following taxa: Tamarix africana Poir. African tamarisk Tamarix aphylla (L.) Karst Athel tamarisk (articulata Vahl) Tamarix aralensis Bunge Russian tamarisk Tamarix canariensis Willd. Canary Island tamarisk Tamarix chinensis Lour. Fivestamen tamarisk 2 (pentandra Pallas) Tamarix dioica Roxb. Ex. Roth Tamarisk Tamarix gallica L. French tamarisk Tamarix parviflora DC. Smallflower tamarisk (tetrandra auct. non Pallas) Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb. Saltcedar Tamarix tetragyna C. Ehrenb. History, Distribution and Introductions The natural geographic range of approximatley 54 species of Tamarix extends from southern Europe across the Middle East, into North Africa and into India, Pakistan and China (Baum 1979). There are no species of Tamarix native to the New World. This is an ancient genus. Fossil charcoal from Tamarix twigs have been found in Israel that date to before 10,000 BC ( Ley-Yadum and Weinstein-Evron 1994). Manna, an exudate, produced by the scale insect, Trabutina mannipara, is considered to be the biblical manna of the wandering Israelites (Ben- dov 1988). The name of the genus apparently comes from the Tamaris River in Spain (Di Tomasco 1998) or perhaps the Tamaro River in Nepal (Crins 1989). Introductions to North America began in the early 1800s. First introductions were from the Middle East (Frasier and Johnsen 1991) and advertisements for ornamental sales occurred in the 1820s (Duncan and McDaniel 1997). Over time as many as 10 species were introduced. Introductions were primarily for the horticultural trade, soil erosion control, streambank erosion protection and windbreaks ((Brotherson and Von Winkel 1986, Di Tomasco 1998). The first noticeable invasions into western riverine systems occurred between 1890 and 1920 and from then until 1950 most riverine systems were affected. The predominant species involved in these invasions is generally agreed to be Tamarix ramosissima. Saltcedar occupies up to 1.5 million hectares of riparian areas throughout the western United States and the invasion continues (Brotherson and Field 1987, Clarke and Nelson 1996, Duncan 1997, DeLoach 2000). Growth Habit, Life History Traits and Ecology The genus Tamarix consists of small deciduous trees or shrubs that function as facultative phreatophytes and facultative halophytes (DeLoach 2000). Depending on species, they may reach large tree size, but most invasive species are multi-stemmed shrubs of less than 8 m that can grow 3 to 4 m in a growing season (Sisneros 1991). Leaves are alternate, sessile, small, punctate, scalelike with salt-secreting glands and are self-pruning during drought periods (Diggs et al. 1999). They have extensive root systems that easily extend to 3 m and lengths of 53 m have been recorded (Waisel, Eshel and Kafkafi 1996). They produce a primary root that extends to the water table and then profuse secondary root production may occur (Brotherson and Von Winkel 1986). Adventitious roots easily develop from submerged or buried stems. Thus, they can expand their range through vegetative reproduction from stems or rootstocks that become dislodged and are later buried in a mudflat (Kerpez and Smith 1987), or from the profuse production of up to 100,000 or more small seeds per plant that are wind or water dispersed (Stevens 1985). The plants are insect pollinated although some wind pollination may occur (DeLoach 2000) Due to their short-lived viability (less than 2 months), the seeds must come in 3 contact with a moist substrate within a few weeks of dispersal. Seeds have no dormancy requirements and germinate in less than 24 hours. Actively growing plants produce a continual supply of seeds which can take advantage of suitable substrates when available during the growing season (Engel-Wilson and Ohmart 1978). New seedlings are highly susceptible to dessication and thus require a continually moist substrate for up to 4 weeks; one day of surface dessication can cause mortality (Kerpez and Smith 1987, Brotherson and Field 1987). Once established, however, seedlings can survive
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Overcoming the Challenges of Tamarix Management with Diorhabda Carinulata Through the Identification and Application of Semioche
    OVERCOMING THE CHALLENGES OF TAMARIX MANAGEMENT WITH DIORHABDA CARINULATA THROUGH THE IDENTIFICATION AND APPLICATION OF SEMIOCHEMICALS by Alexander Michael Gaffke A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ecology and Environmental Sciences MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana May 2018 ©COPYRIGHT by Alexander Michael Gaffke 2018 All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without the unconditional support of my family, Mike, Shelly, and Tony Gaffke. I must thank Dr. Roxie Sporleder for opening my world to the joy of reading. Thanks must also be shared with Dr. Allard Cossé, Dr. Robert Bartelt, Dr. Bruce Zilkowshi, Dr. Richard Petroski, Dr. C. Jack Deloach, Dr. Tom Dudley, and Dr. Dan Bean whose previous work with Tamarix and Diorhabda carinulata set the foundations for this research. I must express my sincerest gratitude to my Advisor Dr. David Weaver, and my committee: Dr. Sharlene Sing, Dr. Bob Peterson and Dr. Dan Bean for their guidance throughout this project. To Megan Hofland and Norma Irish, thanks for keeping me sane. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 Tamarix ............................................................................................................................1 Taxonomy ................................................................................................................1 Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Hybridization Affects Life-History Traits and Host Specificity in Diorhabda Spp
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/105494; this version posted February 3, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 Hybridization affects life-history traits and host specificity in Diorhabda spp. 2 3 Bitume, E.V., Bean, D. Stahlke, A.R., Hufbauer, R. A. 4 5 6 Addresses 7 1 Bioagricultural Science and Pest Management, Plant Sciences C129, Colorado State University, 8 Fort Collins, CO 9 2 Colorado Department of Agriculture, Palisade, CO 10 Statement of authorship: EB, DB, and RA designed the experiments, EB performed the 11 experiments and analysed the data. EB wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and DB, AS, and 12 RH contributed substantially to revisions. 13 Running title: Hybridization in Diorhabda 14 15 16 Corresponding author: 17 Ellyn Bitume 18 BSPM 19 Plant Sciences C129 20 Colorado State University 21 Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 22 [email protected] 23 24 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/105494; this version posted February 3, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 25 Abstract 26 27 Hybridization is an influential evolutionary process that has been viewed alternatively as an 28 evolutionary dead-end or as an important creative evolutionary force. In colonizing species, such 29 as introduced biological control agents, hybridization can negate the effects of bottlenecks and 30 genetic drift through increasing genetic variation.
    [Show full text]
  • "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.
    [Show full text]
  • Conocimiento Tradicional De Plantas Silvestres En Una Comunidad De Los Valles Centrales De Oaxaca1
    Artículo de revisión ISSN: 2007-9559 Revista Mexicana de Agroecosistemas Vol. 5(1): 55-78, 2018 CONOCIMIENTO TRADICIONAL DE PLANTAS SILVESTRES EN UNA COMUNIDAD DE LOS VALLES CENTRALES DE OAXACA1 [TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF WILD PLANTS IN A TOWN FROM CENTRAL VALLEYS OF OAXACA] Angel Alfonso Arrazola-Guendulay1§, Ernesto Hernández-Santiago2, Gerardo Rodríguez-Ortiz2 1Licenciatura en Biología-Instituto Tecnológico del Valle de Oaxaca (ITVO). Ex Hacienda de Nazareno, Xoxocotlán. Oaxaca. C.P. 71233. 2Profesor-Investigador, ITVO. §Autor para correspondencia: ([email protected]) RESUMEN El conocimiento del uso de las plantas es el resultado de la interacción de una sociedad con la naturaleza a través de los años que ha sido transmitido por generaciones. Durante 2016-2017 se realizó un estudio etnobotánico en Ayoquezco de Aldama, Oaxaca, con el objetivo de documentar los saberes y manejo de la flora silvestre. Para registrar la información se aplicaron entrevistas semiestructuradas (n = 50, dirigido a curanderos, personas de la tercera edad, cocineras, últimos mayordomos, comerciantes y conocedores del bosque). Los datos fueron clasificados en nueve categorías de uso y analizados con estadística no paramétrica. Se proporciona además revisión bibliográfica exahustiva del conocimiento tradicional de la flora. El uso más frecuente en número de especies fue el medicinal (29.1%) y con mayor mención el alimenticio (21.2%). Se identificó un total de 200 plantas de las 209 con algún registro etnobotánico, agrupadas en 62 familias y 145 géneros. La familia con mayor frecuencia fue Asteraceae con el 15.5%. Se encontraron cuatro especies incluidas en alguna categoría de riesgo según la NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010; Brahea nitida (Protección especial), Tillandsia carlos- hankii (Amenazada), Juglans major var glabrata (Amenazada) y Litsea glaucescens (Peligro de extinción).
    [Show full text]
  • Element Occurrence Data Standard
    ELEMENT OCCURRENCE DATA STANDARD February 6, 2002 NatureServe in cooperation with the Network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers iii Table of Contents PREFACE.....................................................................................................................................currently under revision ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.....................................................................................................currently under revision ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................currently under revision 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................currently under revision 2 EO DEFINITION .................................................................................................................................................10 2.1 Principal EOs........................................................................................................................................................10 2.2 Sub-EOs.................................................................................................................................................................12 2.3 Feature Labels.......................................................................................................................................................13 2.4 Location Use Class..............................................................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of Angiosperm Phylogeny
    Outline of angiosperm phylogeny: orders, families, and representative genera with emphasis on Oregon native plants Priscilla Spears December 2013 The following listing gives an introduction to the phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants that has emerged in recent decades, and which is based on nucleic acid sequences as well as morphological and developmental data. This listing emphasizes temperate families of the Northern Hemisphere and is meant as an overview with examples of Oregon native plants. It includes many exotic genera that are grown in Oregon as ornamentals plus other plants of interest worldwide. The genera that are Oregon natives are printed in a blue font. Genera that are exotics are shown in black, however genera in blue may also contain non-native species. Names separated by a slash are alternatives or else the nomenclature is in flux. When several genera have the same common name, the names are separated by commas. The order of the family names is from the linear listing of families in the APG III report. For further information, see the references on the last page. Basal Angiosperms (ANITA grade) Amborellales Amborellaceae, sole family, the earliest branch of flowering plants, a shrub native to New Caledonia – Amborella Nymphaeales Hydatellaceae – aquatics from Australasia, previously classified as a grass Cabombaceae (water shield – Brasenia, fanwort – Cabomba) Nymphaeaceae (water lilies – Nymphaea; pond lilies – Nuphar) Austrobaileyales Schisandraceae (wild sarsaparilla, star vine – Schisandra; Japanese
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Williamson County Callirhoe Pedata (Hooker) A. Gray
    Vascular Plants of Williamson County Callirhoe pedata − FINGER POPPYMALLOW [Malvaceae] Callirhoe pedata (Hooker) A. Gray, FINGER POPPYMALLOW. Perennial herb, with storage taproot, rosetted, several-stemmed at base, with ascending to spreading branches, in range to 50 cm tall; shoots with to 5 basal leaves and < 5 cauline leaves, sparsely hairy mostly with unbranched hairs to 2 mm long; taproot of large plant sometimes 15+ mm diameter. Stems: initially inconspicuously low-ridged aging cylindric, to 4 mm diameter, ridges descending from stipules, tough, green tissue and often glaucous (appearing grayish green), upper portion often glabrous and lower portion with widely spaced pilose or approaching inflorescence pilose and with short stellate hairs having appressed arms (to 4-armed). Leaves: helically alternate, deeply palmately lobed with 5 or 7 (3) principal lobes, long- petiolate (most leaves) to subsessile or sessile (the uppermost cauline leaf and bracts), with stipules; stipules 2, attached diagonally at node beneath petiole, suberect later relaxed, asymmetric to symmetric ovate, 5.5−9 × 2.3−7 mm, often unequal in pairs, green and glaucous, large side with basal lobe and often having a shoulder below midpoint, ciliate on margins with unbranched hairs, acute at tip, with 7+ veins at base, ± persistent; petiole channeled, to 120 mm long (basal leaves) decreasing upward, on lower plant petiole > blade, tough, glabrous or with pilose hairs on edges; blade mostly roundish in outline with radiating principal lobes, in range 22−60 mm, appearing cordate at base, lobes somewhat fan-shaped with sublobes to 10 mostly arising at midpoint, most leaves with lobes and sublobes linear, slender, and channeled, sublobes on lower basal leaf oblong if long and obtuse at tip, terminal lobe to 35 × 25 mm, adjacent lobes similar but not as wide, short- ciliate to pilose-ciliate on margins, palmately veined at base with principal vein to each lobe raised on lower surface, surfaces glabrous or with scattered, short stellate hairs having appressed arms.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants
    The Importance of Competition in the Isolation and Establishment of Helianthus Paradoxus (Asteraceae) 1 OSCAR W. VAN AUKEN AND JANIS. K. BUSH Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249 1Author for correspondence and reprints. FAX 210-458-5658; E-mail [email protected] ABSTRACT: Helianthus paradoxus (the Pecos or puzzle sunflower) is a threatened, federally listed annual species that is found in a few locations in west Texas and New Mexico. Two greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate the ability of H. paradoxus to compete with its progenitors and a with potential ecosystem competitor, Distichlis spicata (saltgrass) in simulated salt marsh and non-salt marsh environments. The results were usually dependent on soil salinity. Helianthus paradoxus was the better competitor in high saline soil and its progenitor H. annuus (common sunflower) was the better competitor in low saline soil. However, H. paradoxus was the better competitor in both high and low saline soils when compared to it progenitor H. petiolaris (plains sunflower) and to D. spicata, an ecosystem competitor. The ability of H. paradoxus to tolerate higher saline conditions, and perhaps even restrict the more geographically widespread H. annuus in saline soils may have allowed H. paradoxus to establish, become genetically isolated and survive as a species in inland salt marshes. Data presented here indicate that while H. paradoxus can grow in low saline soil, interference from H. annuus in low saline soils could restrict H. paradoxus to saline environments within salt marshes. The ability of H. paradoxus to out-compete D.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Leafhoppers of Minnesota
    Technical Bulletin 155 June 1942 The Leafhoppers of Minnesota Homoptera: Cicadellidae JOHN T. MEDLER Division of Entomology and Economic Zoology University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station The Leafhoppers of Minnesota Homoptera: Cicadellidae JOHN T. MEDLER Division of Entomology and Economic Zoology University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Accepted for publication June 19, 1942 CONTENTS Page Introduction 3 Acknowledgments 3 Sources of material 4 Systematic treatment 4 Eurymelinae 6 Macropsinae 12 Agalliinae 22 Bythoscopinae 25 Penthimiinae 26 Gyponinae 26 Ledrinae 31 Amblycephalinae 31 Evacanthinae 37 Aphrodinae 38 Dorydiinae 40 Jassinae 43 Athysaninae 43 Balcluthinae 120 Cicadellinae 122 Literature cited 163 Plates 171 Index of plant names 190 Index of leafhopper names 190 2M-6-42 The Leafhoppers of Minnesota John T. Medler INTRODUCTION HIS bulletin attempts to present as accurate and complete a T guide to the leafhoppers of Minnesota as possible within the limits of the material available for study. It is realized that cer- tain groups could not be treated completely because of the lack of available material. Nevertheless, it is hoped that in its present form this treatise will serve as a convenient and useful manual for the systematic and economic worker concerned with the forms of the upper Mississippi Valley. In all cases a reference to the original description of the species and genus is given. Keys are included for the separation of species, genera, and supergeneric groups. In addition to the keys a brief diagnostic description of the important characters of each species is given. Extended descriptions or long lists of references have been omitted since citations to this literature are available from other sources if ac- tually needed (Van Duzee, 1917).
    [Show full text]
  • National Wetlands Inventory Map Report for Quinault Indian Nation
    National Wetlands Inventory Map Report for Quinault Indian Nation Project ID(s): R01Y19P01: Quinault Indian Nation, fiscal year 2019 Project area The project area (Figure 1) is restricted to the Quinault Indian Nation, bounded by Grays Harbor Co. Jefferson Co. and the Olympic National Park. Appendix A: USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangles: Queets, Salmon River West, Salmon River East, Matheny Ridge, Tunnel Island, O’Took Prairie, Thimble Mountain, Lake Quinault West, Lake Quinault East, Taholah, Shale Slough, Macafee Hill, Stevens Creek, Moclips, Carlisle. • < 0. Figure 1. QIN NWI+ 2019 project area (red outline). Source Imagery: Citation: For all quads listed above: See Appendix A Citation Information: Originator: USDA-FSA-APFO Aerial Photography Field Office Publication Date: 2017 Publication place: Salt Lake City, Utah Title: Digital Orthoimagery Series of Washington Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: raster digital data Other_Citation_Details: 1-meter and 1-foot, Natural Color and NIR-False Color Collateral Data: . USGS 1:24,000 topographic quadrangles . USGS – NHD – National Hydrography Dataset . USGS Topographic maps, 2013 . QIN LiDAR DEM (3 meter) and synthetic stream layer, 2015 . Previous National Wetlands Inventories for the project area . Soil Surveys, All Hydric Soils: Weyerhaeuser soil survey 1976, NRCS soil survey 2013 . QIN WET tables, field photos, and site descriptions, 2016 to 2019, Janice Martin, and Greg Eide Inventory Method: Wetland identification and interpretation was done “heads-up” using ArcMap versions 10.6.1. US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping contractors in Portland, Oregon completed the original aerial photo interpretation and wetland mapping. Primary authors: Nicholas Jones of SWCA Environmental Consulting. 100% Quality Control (QC) during the NWI mapping was provided by Michael Holscher of SWCA Environmental Consulting.
    [Show full text]
  • Master Plant List for Texas Range and Pasture Plant
    MASTER PLANT LIST FOR TEXAS RANGE AND RS1.044 PASTURE PLANT IDENTIFICATION CONTEST MASTER PLANT LIST NAME OF PLANT SEASON OF LONGEVITY GROWTH ORIGIN ECONOMIC VALUE Latin Names are for reference only WILDLIFE GRAZING GRASSES Annual Perennial Cool Warm Native Introduced Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Poison 1 Alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides X X X X X 2 Bahiagrass Paspalum notatum X X X X X 3 Barnyardgrass Echinocloa crusgalli var. crusgalli X X X X X 4 Beaked panicum Panicum anceps X X X X X 5 Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon X X X X X 6 Big bluestem Adropogon gerardii X X X X X 7 Black grama Bouteloua eriopoda X X X X X 8 Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis X X X X X 9 Broomsedge bluestem Andropogon virginicus X X X X X 10 Brownseed paspalum Paspalum plicatulum X X X X X 11 Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides X X X X X 12 Buffelgrass Pennisetum ciliare X X X X X 13 Burrograss Scleropogon brevifolius X X X X X 14 Bush muhly Muhlenbergia porteri X X X X X 15 California cottontop Digitaria californica X X X X X 16 Canada wildrye Elymus canadensis X X X X X 17 Common carpetgrass Axonopus affinis X X X X X 18 Common curlymesquite Hilaria belangeri X X X X X 19 Dallisgrass Paspalum dilatatum X X X X X 20 Eastern gamagrass Tripsacum dactyloides X X X X X 21 Fall witchgrass Leptoloma cognatum X X X X X 22 Florida paspalum Paspalum floridanum X X X X X 23 Green sprangletop Leptochloa dubia X X X X X 24 Gulf cordgrass Spartina spartinae X X X X X 25 Hairawn muhly Muhlenbergia capillaris X X X X X 26 Hairy grama Boutelous hirsuta X X X X X 27 Hairy tridens Erioneuron pilosum X X X X X 28 Hall panicum Panicum hallii var.
    [Show full text]