DOCSLIB.ORG

Vascular Plants of the Hanford Site

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PNNL-13688 Vascular Plants of the Hanford Site M. R. Sackschewsky J. L. Downs September 2001 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062; ph: (865) 576-8401 fax: (865) 576-5728 email: [email protected] Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161 ph: (800) 553-6847 fax: (703) 605-6900 email: [email protected] online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm This document was printed on recycled paper. (8/00) PNNL-13688 Vascular Plants of the Hanford Site M. R. Sackschewsky J. L. Downs September 2001 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Executive Summary This report provides an updated listing of the vascular plants present on and near the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site. This document updates a listing of plants prepared by Sackschewsky et al. (1992). Since that time, the botanical knowledge of the Hanford Site has significantly increased. The current listing is based on an examination of herbarium collections held at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Washington State University (WSU)-Tri Cities, WSU-Pullman, Brigham Young University, and the University of Washington, and on examination of ecological literature derived from the Hanford Site and Benton County areas over the last 100 years. Based on the most recent analysis, there are approximately 725 different plant species that have been documented on or around the Hanford Site. This represents an approximate 20% increase in the number of species reported in Sackschewsky et al. (1992). This listing directly supports DOE and contractor efforts to assess the potential impacts of Hanford Site operations on the biological environment, including impacts to rare habitats and species listed as endangered or threatened. This document includes a listing of plants currently listed as endangered, threatened, or otherwise of concern to the Washington Natural Heritage Program or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as those that are currently listed as noxious weeds by the state of Washington. Also provided is an overview of how plants on the Hanford Site can be used by people. This information may be useful in developing risk assessment models and as supporting information for clean-up level and remediation decisions. iii Acknowledgments The preparation of this document would not have been possible without the contributions of many people. The contributions of Dan Landeen and Gary Baird to the 1992 version of The Vascular Plants of the Hanford Site formed much of the basis for this document. Katy Beck and Florence Caplow of Calypso Consulting were very generous with the data they collected on the Hanford Site during the mid to late 1990s. Katy Beck also reviewed this document several times, and provided many useful comments and suggestions. Georganne O’Connor provided a much needed editorial review. Lila Andor, Kathy Neiderhiser, and Elaine Schneider provided text processing support. The cover drawing of Oenothera pallida was prepared by Melaine Hess-Robinson. Programmatic support as well as personal encourage- ment for this project was provided by Dana Ward. Finally, we would both like to acknowledge the guidance and mentoring that we have received over the years from Dr. Bill Rickard. v Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................................. v 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1.1 1.1 Basis for the Hanford Site Plant List................................................................................. 1.4 1.2 Summary of the Hanford Plant List .................................................................................. 1.6 1.3 Document Contents and Uses ........................................................................................... 1.6 2.0 Plant Communities on the Hanford Site .................................................................................... 2.1 2.1 Shrub-Steppe Plant Communities ..................................................................................... 2.4 2.1.1 Big Sagebrush/Sandberg’s Bluegrass .................................................................. 2.8 2.1.2 Big Sagebrush or Bitterbrush/Needle-and-Thread Grass .................................... 2.8 2.1.3 Bitterbrush/Indian Ricegrass and Dune Complex................................................ 2.8 2.1.4 Sand Dropseed-Sandberg’s Bluegrass................................................................. 2.9 2.1.5 Greasewood/Saltgrass and Spiny Hopsage/Sandberg’s Bluegrass ...................... 2.9 2.1.6 Big Sagebrush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass................................................................ 2.10 2.1.7 Threetip Sagebrush/Bluebunch Wheatgrass ........................................................ 2.10 2.1.8 Plant Communities on Lithosols.......................................................................... 2.10 2.1.9 Abandoned Fields ................................................................................................ 2.11 2.1.10 Rare Plant Communities and Element Occurrences ............................................ 2.12 2.2 Disturbance Effects on Habitats and Seral Stages............................................................. 2.12 3.0 Vascular Plants of the Hanford Site........................................................................................... 3.1 4.0 Hanford Site Plant Species of Special Concern......................................................................... 4.1 4.1 Rare Plants of the Hanford Site......................................................................................... 4.1 4.2 Noxious Weeds on the Hanford Site ................................................................................. 4.6 5.0 Ethnobotany of the Hanford Site............................................................................................... 5.1 5.1 Edible Plants of the Hanford Site...................................................................................... 5.1 5.2 Poisonous Plants of the Hanford Site................................................................................ 5.4 5.3 Medicinal Plants of the Hanford Site ................................................................................ 5.4 5.4 Fiber and Dye Plants of the Hanford Site.......................................................................... 5.9 6.0 References ................................................................................................................................. 6.1 vii Appendix A – Alphabetical Listing by Genus ................................................................................... A.1 Appendix B – Alphabetical Listing by Family .................................................................................. B.1 Figures 1.1 Approximate Boundaries of the Region Included in the Hanford Site Plant List ..................... 1.2 1.2 Major Geographic Features of the Hanford Site........................................................................ 1.3 2.1 Shaded Relief Map of the Hanford Site Indicating Dominant Topographic Features............... 2.2 2.2 Soils Map for the Benton County Portion of the Hanford Site.................................................. 2.3 2.3 Vegetation Cover Types Found on the Hanford Site before the 2000 Command Fire.............. 2.5 2.4 Locations and Types of Element Occurrences on the Hanford Site.......................................... 2.13 Tables 1.1 Phylogenetic Distribution of Hanford Site Vascular Plants ...................................................... 1.6 2.1 Common Shrub-Steppe Plant Communities of the Hanford Site .............................................. 2.7 4.1 Plant Species of Concern on and Around the Hanford Site......................................................
Recommended publications
  • Identifying Key Components of Interaction Networks Involving Greater Sage Grouse

    Identifying Key Components of Interaction Networks Involving Greater Sage Grouse

    Identifying Key Components of Interaction Networks Involving Greater Sage Grouse Sarah Barlow and Bruce Pavlik Conservation Department Red Butte Garden and Arboretum Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Vegetation Forb seed Pollinators collections GSG Insects (chick diet) Chick Survivorship Linked to Vegetation Structure and Food Resource Abundance Gregg and Crawford 2009 J. Wildlife Man. 73:904-913 Astragalus geyeri Microsteris gracilis (Phacelia gracilis) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Microsteris_gracilis_1776.JPG/220px-Microsteris_gracilis_1776.JPG Agoseris heterophylla Achillea millefolium Taraxacum officinale Bransford, W.D. & Dophia http://www.americansouthwest.net/ Literature Survey: Forbs and Insects as Essential Foods Reference Field Site Insect Foods Forb Foods Achillea, Agoseris, Astragalus, Pennington et al. 2016 Review 41 invert taxa, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Lactuca, Orthoptera Taraxacum, Trifolium, Lepidium Greg and Crawford 2009 NW Nevada Lepidoptera larvae especially strong Microsteris gracilis relation to SB "productive forbs" not at Thompson et al. 2006 Wyoming > 3<11 cm Hymenoptera, Ants, Coleoptera expense of sagebrush cover Drut, Crawford, Gregg 1994 Oregon Scarabs, Tenebrionids, ants w/ high occurrence Drut, Pyle and Crawford June beetles most preferred on all sites, Agoseris, Astragalus, Crepis, 1994 Oregon then Microsteris Tenebrionids and ants (by mass & freq) Trifolium (by mass & freq) Orthoptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera (by Peterson 1970 Montana vol & freq) Taraxacum, Tragopogon, Lactuca (by
  • Environmental Weeds of Coastal Plains and Heathy Forests Bioregions of Victoria Heading in Band

    Environmental Weeds of Coastal Plains and Heathy Forests Bioregions of Victoria Heading in Band

    Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Heading in band b Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Heading in band Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Contents Introduction 1 Purpose of the list 1 Limitations 1 Relationship to statutory lists 1 Composition of the list and assessment of taxa 2 Categories of environmental weeds 5 Arrangement of the list 5 Column 1: Botanical Name 5 Column 2: Common Name 5 Column 3: Ranking Score 5 Column 4: Listed in the CALP Act 1994 5 Column 5: Victorian Alert Weed 5 Column 6: National Alert Weed 5 Column 7: Weed of National Significance 5 Statistics 5 Further information & feedback 6 Your involvement 6 Links 6 Weed identification texts 6 Citation 6 Acknowledgments 6 Bibliography 6 Census reference 6 Appendix 1 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed alphabetically within risk categories. 7 Appendix 2 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed by botanical name. 19 Appendix 3 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed by common name. 31 Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria i Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment Melbourne, March2008 © The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2009 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
  • Improving Seeding Success on Cheatgrass-Infested Rangelands in Northern Nevada

    Improving Seeding Success on Cheatgrass-Infested Rangelands in Northern Nevada

    Improving Seeding Success on Cheatgrass- Infested Rangelands in Northern Nevada Item Type Article; text Authors Clements, C. D.; Harmon, D. N.; Blank, R. R.; Weltz, M. Citation Clements, C. D., Harmon, D. N., Blank, R. R., & Weltz, M. (2017). Improving Seeding Success on Cheatgrass-Infested Rangelands in Northern Nevada. Rangelands, 39(6), 174-181. DOI 10.1016/j.rala.2017.10.003 Publisher Society for Range Management Journal Rangelands Rights Copyright © Society for Range Management. Download date 01/10/2021 06:55:07 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/657853 Improving Seeding Success on Cheatgrass-Infested Rangelands in Northern Nevada By Charlie D. Clements, Daniel N. Harmon, Robert R. Blank, and Mark Weltz On the Ground nvasion of alien plant species influences many phases of wildland research in the Great Basin.1 The accidental • Cheatgrass has transformed secondary succes- I introduction and subsequent invasion of cheatgrass (Bromus sion in arid sagebrush plant communities in the tectorum L.) onto millions of hectares of Great Basin Great Basin by providing a fine-textured, early rangelands has led to the conversion of former big sagebrush maturing fuel that increases the chance, rate, (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.)/bunchgrass communities to cheatgrass spread, and season of wildfires. dominance (Fig. 1). Native to Europe, central Asia, and northern • The best known method to suppress cheatgrass Africa, cheatgrass was accidentally introduced to North America, densities and associated fuels is through the where it was first identified in Pennsylvania around 1861 and establishment of perennial grasses.
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park

    Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park

    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 9-17-2018 Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park" (2018). Botanical Studies. 85. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/85 This Flora of Northwest California-Checklists of Local Sites is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE REDWOOD NATIONAL & STATE PARKS James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State Univerity Arcata, California 14 September 2018 The Redwood National and State Parks are located in Del Norte and Humboldt counties in coastal northwestern California. The national park was F E R N S established in 1968. In 1994, a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Parks and Recreation added Del Norte Coast, Prairie Creek, Athyriaceae – Lady Fern Family and Jedediah Smith Redwoods state parks to form a single administrative Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosporum • northwestern lady fern unit. Together they comprise about 133,000 acres (540 km2), including 37 miles of coast line. Almost half of the remaining old growth redwood forests Blechnaceae – Deer Fern Family are protected in these four parks.
  • DANDELION Taraxacum Officinale ERADICATE

    DANDELION Taraxacum Officinale ERADICATE

    OAK OPENINGS REGION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DANDELION Taraxacum officinale ERADICATE This Best Management Practice (BMP) document provides guidance for managing Dandelion in the Oak Openings Region of Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan. This BMP was developed by the Green Ribbon Initiative and its partners and uses available research and local experience to recommend environmentally safe control practices. INTRODUCTION AND IMPACTS— Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) HABITAT—Dandelion prefers full sun and moist, loamy soil but can is native to Eurasia and was likely introduced to North America many grow anywhere with 3.5-110” inches of annual precipitation, an an- times. The earliest record of Dandelion in North America comes from nual mean temperature of 40-80°F, and light. It is tolerant of salt, 1672, but it may have arrived earlier. It has been used in medicine, pollutants, thin soils, and high elevations. In the OOR Dandelion has food and beverages, and stock feed. Dandelion is now widespread been found on sand dunes, in and at the top of floodplains, near across the planet, including OH and MI. vernal pools and ponds, and along roads, ditches, and streams. While the Midwest Invasive Species Information Net- IDENTIFICATION—Habit: Perennial herb. work (MISIN) has no specific reports of Dandelion in or within 5 miles of the Oak Openings Region (OOR, green line), the USDA Plants Database reports Dan- D A delion in all 7 counties of the OOR and most neighboring counties (black stripes). Dan- delion is ubiquitous in the OOR. It has demonstrated the ability to establish and MI spread in healthy and disturbed habitats of OH T © Lynn Sosnoskie © Steven Baskauf © Chris Evans the OOR and both the wet nutrient rich soils of wet prairies and floodplains as well Leaves: Highly variable in shape, color and hairiness in response to as sandy dunes and oak savannas.
  • Rinconada Checklist-02Jun19

    Rinconada Checklist-02Jun19

    Checklist1 of Vascular Flora of Rinconada Mine and Rinconada Trail San Luis Obispo County, California (2 June 2019) David J. Keil Robert F. Hoover Herbarium Biological Sciences Department California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California Scientific Name Common Name Family Rare n ❀ Achyrachaena mollis blow wives ASTERACEAE o n ❀ Acmispon americanus var. americanus Spanish-clover FABACEAE o n Acmispon brachycarpus shortpod deervetch FABACEAE v n ❀ Acmispon glaber var. glaber common deerweed FABACEAE o n Acmispon parviflorus miniature deervetch FABACEAE o n ❀ Acmispon strigosus strigose deer-vetch FABACEAE o 1 Please notify the author of additions or corrections to this list ([email protected]). ❀ — See Wildflowers of San Luis Obispo, California, second edition (2018) for photograph. Most are illustrated in the first edition as well; old names for some species in square brackets. n — California native i — exotic species, introduced to California, naturalized or waif. v — documented by one or more specimens (Consortium of California Herbaria record; specimen in OBI; or collection that has not yet been accessioned) o — observed during field surveys; no voucher specimen known Rare—California Rare Plant Rank Scientific Name Common Name Family Rare n Acmispon wrangelianus California deervetch FABACEAE v n ❀ Acourtia microcephala sacapelote ASTERACEAE o n ❀ Adelinia grandis Pacific hound's tongue BORAGINACEAE v n ❀ Adenostoma fasciculatum var. chamise ROSACEAE o fasciculatum n Adiantum jordanii California maidenhair fern PTERIDACEAE o n Agastache urticifolia nettle-leaved horsemint LAMIACEAE v n ❀ Agoseris grandiflora var. grandiflora large-flowered mountain-dandelion ASTERACEAE v n Agoseris heterophylla var. cryptopleura annual mountain-dandelion ASTERACEAE v n Agoseris heterophylla var. heterophylla annual mountain-dandelion ASTERACEAE o i Aira caryophyllea silver hairgrass POACEAE o n Allium fimbriatum var.
  • Effects of Nitrogen Availability and Cheatgrass Competition on the Establishment of Vavilov Siberian Wheatgrass Monica B

    Effects of Nitrogen Availability and Cheatgrass Competition on the Establishment of Vavilov Siberian Wheatgrass Monica B

    Rangeland Ecol Manage 61:475–484 | September 2008 Effects of Nitrogen Availability and Cheatgrass Competition on the Establishment of Vavilov Siberian Wheatgrass Monica B. Mazzola,1 Kimberly G. Allcock,2 Jeanne C. Chambers,3 Robert R. Blank,4 Eugene W. Schupp,5 Paul S. Doescher,6 and Robert S. Nowak7 Authors are 1Graduate Research Assistant, 2Postdoctoral Associate, and 7Professor, Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences Department, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 89557, USA; 3Research Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Reno, NV 89512, USA; 4Soil Scientist, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Exotic and Invasive Weeds Unit, Reno, NV 89512, USA; 5Professor, Department of Rangeland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA; 6Professor, Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. Abstract Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) is the most widespread invasive weed in sagebrush ecosystems of North America. Restoration of perennial vegetation is difficult and land managers have often used introduced bunchgrasses to restore degraded sagebrush communities. Our objective was to evaluate the potential of ‘Vavilov’ Siberian wheatgrass (Agropyron fragile [Roth] P. Candargy) to establish on cheatgrass-dominated sites. We examined Vavilov establishment in response to different levels of soil nitrogen availability by adding sucrose to the soil to promote nitrogen (N) immobilization and examined cheatgrass competition by seeding different levels of cheatgrass. We used a blocked split-split plot design with two sucrose levels (0 and 360 g ? m22), two levels of Vavilov (0 and 300 seeds ? m22), and five levels of cheatgrass (0, 150, 300, 600, and 1 200 seeds ? m22). Seeding was conducted in fall 2003 and 2004, and measurements were taken in June 2004, 2005, and 2006.
  • Wet Meadow Plant Associations, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Harney County, Oregon

    Wet Meadow Plant Associations, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Harney County, Oregon

    WET MEADOW PLANT ASSOCIATIONS, DOUBLE O UNIT, MALHEUR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON John A. Christy Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources Portland State University July 2016 Summary This report summarizes vegetation data collected in July 2015 in wet meadow and marshy habitats on the Double O Unit of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR). Because vegetation sampled at the Double O was wetter and more alkaline than wet meadows sampled at the south end of the refuge in 2012 and 2013 (Christy 2014), data from the Double O Unit were analyzed and summarized separately. A total of 83 plots were sampled in 2015, and analysis of the data identified 14 plant associations: Alopecurus aequalis - Juncus balticus, Alopecurus pratensis - Potentilla anserina, Carex praegracilis - Juncus balticus, Cicuta douglasii - Carex nebrascensis, Distichlis spicata - Amphiscirpus nevadensis, Distichlis spicata - Nitrophila occidentalis, Eleocharis palustris - Juncus balticus, Eleocharis rostellata, Juncus balticus - Glaux maritima, Hippuris vulgaris - Triglochin maritima, Leymus triticoides - Juncus balticus, Schoenoplectus americanus, Spartina gracilis, and Triglochin maritima. Plant associations spanned a wetland gradient from seasonally moist to seasonally or perennially flooded, but surface water had left most stands at time of sampling. Mean Wetland Indicator Status scores and species composition help to place the plant associations within gradients in soil moisture and alkalinity. Seven of the 14 plant associations are listed in the International Vegetation Classification, and the remaining types are provisional. Acknowledgments Jess Wenick and Chad Karges of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) provided guidance, logistical support, and funding to The Wetlands Conservancy (TWC) for this project. Esther Lev of TWC coordinated the project and provided guidance as a member of the Ecology Woring Group (EWG).
  • Draft Plant Propagation Protocol

    Draft Plant Propagation Protocol

    Plant Propagation Protocol for Agrostis scabra ESRM 412 – Native Plant Production Protocol URL: https://courses.washington.edu/esrm412/protocols/AGSC5.pdf TAXONOMY Family Names Family Scientific Name Poaceae Family Common Name Grass Family Scientific Names Genus Agrostis L. Species scabra Authority Willd. Varieties N/A Sub-species N/A Cultivar N/A Common Synonym(s) Agrostis scabra Willd. var. geminata (Trin.) Swallen Agrostis scabra Willd. var. septentrionalis Fernald Agrostis scabra Willd. subsp. septentrionalis (Fernald) Á. Löve & D. Löve Agrostis geminata Trin. Agrostis hyemalis (Walter) Britton, Sterns & Poggenb. var. geminata (Trin.) Hitchc. Agrostis hyemalis (Walter) Britton, Sterns & Poggenb. var. scabra (Willd.) Blomquist Agrostis hyemalis (Walter) Britton, Sterns & Poggenb. var. tenuis (Tuck.) Gleason Common Name(s) Rough bentgrass, hair bentgrass, winter bentgrass ticklegrass, fly-away grass Species Code (as per USDA Plants AGSC5 database) GENERAL INFORMATION Geographical range Native range in North America (6 – numbers in parenthesis refer to reference number in citations) Counties with AGSC5 in Washington state with green circles representing specimen markers for AGSC5 (1). Ecological distribution Open parks that are wet in spring and early summer and dry out as growing season progresses (8). Also occurs in moist meadows and along streams (7). Often found at disturbed sites, especially in clearings and roadsides. Found in rocky slopes, gravelly river bars and on rocks near waterfalls (7) Has a facultative wetland indicator status (6) Climate and elevation range Common at low to middle elevations (7). Local habitat and abundance See WA distribution map. Associated with myriad species but common with spruce-cedar-hemlock forests in western Washington (4). Plant strategy type / successional Facultative Seral Species that is generally a pioneer or stage invader species that thrives in open sunny locations (4).
  • NJ Native Plants - USDA

    NJ Native Plants - USDA

    NJ Native Plants - USDA Scientific Name Common Name N/I Family Category National Wetland Indicator Status Thermopsis villosa Aaron's rod N Fabaceae Dicot Rubus depavitus Aberdeen dewberry N Rosaceae Dicot Artemisia absinthium absinthium I Asteraceae Dicot Aplectrum hyemale Adam and Eve N Orchidaceae Monocot FAC-, FACW Yucca filamentosa Adam's needle N Agavaceae Monocot Gentianella quinquefolia agueweed N Gentianaceae Dicot FAC, FACW- Rhamnus alnifolia alderleaf buckthorn N Rhamnaceae Dicot FACU, OBL Medicago sativa alfalfa I Fabaceae Dicot Ranunculus cymbalaria alkali buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot OBL Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny blackberry N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, FACW Hieracium paniculatum Allegheny hawkweed N Asteraceae Dicot Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkeyflower N Scrophulariaceae Dicot OBL Ranunculus allegheniensis Allegheny Mountain buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot FACU, FAC Prunus alleghaniensis Allegheny plum N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, NI Amelanchier laevis Allegheny serviceberry N Rosaceae Dicot Hylotelephium telephioides Allegheny stonecrop N Crassulaceae Dicot Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine N Fumariaceae Dicot Centaurea transalpina alpine knapweed N Asteraceae Dicot Potamogeton alpinus alpine pondweed N Potamogetonaceae Monocot OBL Viola labradorica alpine violet N Violaceae Dicot FAC Trifolium hybridum alsike clover I Fabaceae Dicot FACU-, FAC Cornus alternifolia alternateleaf dogwood N Cornaceae Dicot Strophostyles helvola amberique-bean N Fabaceae Dicot Puccinellia americana American alkaligrass N Poaceae Monocot Heuchera americana
  • Riverside State Park

    Riverside State Park

    Provisonal Report Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park Pacific Biodiversity Institute 2 Provisonal Report Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park Peter H. Morrison [email protected] George Wooten [email protected] Juliet Rhodes [email protected] Robin O’Quinn, Ph.D. [email protected] Hans M. Smith IV [email protected] January 2009 Pacific Biodiversity Institute P.O. Box 298 Winthrop, Washington 98862 509-996-2490 Recommended Citation Morrison, P.H., G. Wooten, J. Rhodes, R. O’Quinn and H.M. Smith IV, 2008. Provisional Report: Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, Washington. 433 p. Acknowledgements Diana Hackenburg and Alexis Monetta assisted with entering and checking the data we collected into databases. The photographs in this report were taken by Peter Morrison, Robin O’Quinn, Geroge Wooten, and Diana Hackenburg. Project Funding This project was funded by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 3 Executive Summary Pacific Biodiversity Institute (PBI) conducted a rare plant and vegetation survey of Riverside State Park (RSP) for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC). RSP is located in Spokane County, Washington. A large portion of the park is located within the City of Spokane. RSP extends along both sides of the Spokane River and includes upland areas on the basalt plateau above the river terraces. The park also includes the lower portion of the Little Spokane River and adjacent uplands. The park contains numerous trails, campgrounds and other recreational facilities. The park receives a tremendous amount of recreational use from the nearby population.
  • Trees, Shrubs, and Perennials That Intrigue Me (Gymnosperms First

    Trees, Shrubs, and Perennials That Intrigue Me (Gymnosperms First

    Big-picture, evolutionary view of trees and shrubs (and a few of my favorite herbaceous perennials), ver. 2007-11-04 Descriptions of the trees and shrubs taken (stolen!!!) from online sources, from my own observations in and around Greenwood Lake, NY, and from these books: • Dirr’s Hardy Trees and Shrubs, Michael A. Dirr, Timber Press, © 1997 • Trees of North America (Golden field guide), C. Frank Brockman, St. Martin’s Press, © 2001 • Smithsonian Handbooks, Trees, Allen J. Coombes, Dorling Kindersley, © 2002 • Native Trees for North American Landscapes, Guy Sternberg with Jim Wilson, Timber Press, © 2004 • Complete Trees, Shrubs, and Hedges, Jacqueline Hériteau, © 2006 They are generally listed from most ancient to most recently evolved. (I’m not sure if this is true for the rosids and asterids, starting on page 30. I just listed them in the same order as Angiosperm Phylogeny Group II.) This document started out as my personal landscaping plan and morphed into something almost unwieldy and phantasmagorical. Key to symbols and colored text: Checkboxes indicate species and/or cultivars that I want. Checkmarks indicate those that I have (or that one of my neighbors has). Text in blue indicates shrub or hedge. (Unfinished task – there is no text in blue other than this text right here.) Text in red indicates that the species or cultivar is undesirable: • Out of range climatically (either wrong zone, or won’t do well because of differences in moisture or seasons, even though it is in the “right” zone). • Will grow too tall or wide and simply won’t fit well on my property.