Bottlebrush Buckeye Aesculus Parviflora
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate. -
Frugivory in Dirca (Thymelaeaceae) As a Method of Short-Distance Dispersal
Floden, A. 2011. Frugivory in Dirca (Thymelaeaceae) as a method of short-distance dispersal. Phytoneuron 2011-8: 1–3. FRUGIVORY IN DIRCA (THYMELAEACEAE) AS A METHOD OF SHORT-DISTANCE DISPERSAL AARON FLODEN Herbarium TENN Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996 [email protected] ABSTRACT Dispersal in Dirca remains relatively understudied, with only minimal data on hydrochory and no data supporting a hypothesis of bird dispersal. Observations are presented that suggest frugivory, as evidenced by rodent seed caches, as a mechanism for short-distance dispersal in Dirca . KEYWORDS : Dirca , rodent, frugivory, endochory, dispersal Given the close association of Dirca L. species with riparian systems, it has been assumed that a major mechanism for their dispersal is hydrochory (Nevling 1962; Ward & Horn 1998; Williams and Moriarity 1998; Floden 2009; Williams 2009). Recently, hydrochory was tested as a method of seed distribution for D. palustris L. and it was determined that the buoyancy time for the species does not support hydrochory as the predominant method for dispersal (Williams 2009). Seemingly in contrast to this observation, the distribution of D. palustris in the southernmost part of its range is largely confined to riparian systems (Floden et al. 2009; Schrader & Graves 2004; Ward & Horn 1998). Phylogeographic analyses of Dirca palustris might support hydrochory as the primary mode of long-distance dispersal, based on the genetic structure of the populations. Gravity as a method for dispersal, however, is indicated by the number of randomly scattered seedlings under individuals in cultivation and in situ. Nevling (1962) suggested bird distribution as a mechanism for dispersal, but the fruits do not ripen red to signal maturity, nor is there any evidence yet that supports this (Floden et al. -
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. -
Review of Three Dirca Species with Special Emphasis on D. Occidentalis Background
Review of Three Dirca Species With Special Emphasis on D. Occidentalis Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve Docent Research Report John Kriewall May 29,2001 Table of Contents Summary Page Background 1 Why study dirca? 2 Objectives 2 Conclusions 3 Discussion Literature Search and Network 6 Biogeography 7 Species Comparisons 10 DO Compared to DP 11 DM Compared to DO and DP 13 Habitat Comparisons 14 Toxicity and Chemical Analysis 15 Locations and Quantity of DO at JRBP 16 DO at Other Bay Area Locations 17 Pollinators 21 Propagation by Other Means 22 Seed Dispersal 22 Horticultural Attempts at Propagation 22 Additional Studies Required 23 Research in the Mail 26 Next? 27 N. American Ranges of D. species 1 Figures 1. Locations ofDO at JRPB (GPS) 3a 2. Early Tertiary Paleogeographic Map 8 3A. Mexican~Appalachian Paleogeography-! 9 3B. Mexican-Appalachian Paleogeography-II 9 4A. Stem Photomicrograph 10 4B. Enlarged Stem Photomicrograph 10 5A. DO v DP Flower Comparisons 12 5B DO v DP Leaf Comparisons 12 6 DM Sketches 14 Tables 1 Key: DO and DO 11 2 DP and DO Flower-LeafMetrics 13 3. Key: DO, DP and DM 13 Appendices I Bibliography 8 pages Published Papers 1 Specimen Images (Internet) 2 Descriptions/Overview (Internet) 2 Toxicity, Agricultural (Internet) 3 Horticultural/Landscaping/Nurseries (Internet) 3 Mise (Internet) 4 Citations not Retrieved 4 Pers Communications 4-8 II Network of Contacts 1-6 III Comparison ofDO, DP, and DM 1-7 Docent Research Report John Kriewall 5/29/01 Final Edit 8/01 Review of Three Dirca Species With Special Emphasis on D. -
Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions............................................................................................. -
Winter 2014-2015 (22:3) (PDF)
Contents NATIVE NOTES Page Fern workshop 1-2 Wavey-leaf basket Grass 3 Names Cacalia 4 Trip Report Sandstone Falls 5 Kate’s Mountain Clover* Trip Report Brush Creek Falls 6 Thank yous memorial 7 WEST VIRGINIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY NEWSLETTER News of WVNPS 8 VOLUME 22:3 WINTER 2014-15 Events, Dues Form 9 Judy Dumke-Editor: [email protected] Phone 740-894-6859 Magnoliales 10 e e e visit us at www.wvnps.org e e e . Fern Workshop University of Charleston Charleston WV January 17 2015, bad weather date January 24 2015 If you have thought about ferns, looked at them, puzzled over them or just want to know more about them join the WVNPS in Charleston for a workshop led by Mark Watson of the University of Charleston. The session will start at 10 A.M. with a scheduled end point by 12:30 P.M. A board meeting will follow. The sessions will be held in the Clay Tower Building (CTB) room 513, which is the botany lab. If you have any pressed specimens to share, or to ask about, be sure to bring them with as much information as you have on the location and habitat. Even photographs of ferns might be of interest for the session. If you have a hand lens that you favor bring it along as well. DIRECTIONS From the North: Travel I-77 South or 1-79 South into Charleston. Follow the signs to I-64 West. Take Oakwood Road Exit 58A and follow the signs to Route 61 South (MacCorkle Ave.). -
Newsletter of the Arkansas Native Plant Society
CLAYTONIA Newsletter of the Arkansas Native Plant Society Vol. 30 No. 1 ANPS Donates $5,000 to Expand Warren Prairie Natural Area Spring/Summer 2010 In this issue: ANPS Supports Warren Prairie Natural Area Expansion Page 1 New Species of Leatherwood from Arkansas Page 2 Fall 2009 Minutes Page 6 Demaree Grant Awarded Page 6 ANPS Goes to the Arkansas Flower and Garden Show Page 8 Warren Prairie Natural Area is one of the most botanically diverse and unique sites in Arkansas’s System of Natural Areas. Rich with plant species, the site is a mosaic New Herbarium Gets Official of pine flatwoods and savanna, saline soil barrens, grasslands, marshes, oak forests Page 8 and woodlands, and bottomland sloughs. Photo courtesy of The Nature Conservancy. Spring Meeting Info Page 9 At the Fall Meeting the ANPS membership voted to donate $5,000 of the Society’s funds to the Arkansas Field Office of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to help expand Warren Prairie Natural Area. This expansion opportunity, which will more than double Notes from the Editor the Natural Area’s current size of 2,129 acres, came about after more than two years of Page 11 negotiations between TNC, the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC), and the landowner (Plum Creek Timber Company). Warren Prairie is one of Arkansas’s New, Announcements, Field most unique natural areas, with a mosaic of pine flatwoods and savanna, saline soil Trips & Events barrens, grasslands, marshes, oak forests and woodlands, and bottomland sloughs. Page 12 More than 440 plant species are known to occur on the area, including 16 species of conservation concern. -
Hippocastanaceae Yellow Buckeye
Aesculus octandra Family: Hippocastanaceae Yellow Buckeye The genus Aesculus contains 13 species, which grow in the United States [6], Mexico [1] and Eurasia [6]. Species cannot be separated based on microanatomy. The name aesculus is a Latin name of a European oak or other mast-bearing tree. Aesculus californica-California buckeye, horsechestnut Aesculus glabra*-American horsechestnut, buckeye, fetid buckeye, Ohio buckeye, sevenleaf buckeye, smooth buckeye, sticking buckeye, stinking buckeye, Texas buckeye, white buckeye Aesculus glabra var. glabra-Ohio buckeye (typical) Aesculus glabra var. arguta-Texas buckeye, white buckeye Aesculus hippocastanum-buckeye, common horsechestnut, conker-tree, European horsechestnut, horse chestnut (Europe) Aesculus octandra*-big buckeye, buckeye, large buckeye, Ohio buckeye, sweet buckeye, yellow buckeye Aesculus parviflora-bottlebrush buckeye, shrubby buckeye Aesculus pavia-buckeye, firecracker plant, red buckeye, red-flowered buckeye, red pavia, scarlet buckeye, woolly, woolly buckeye Aesculus sylvatica-dwarf buckeye, Georgia buckeye, painted buckeye *commercial species Distribution In the United States, buckeye ranges from the Appalachians of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina westward to Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Buckeye is not customarily separated from other species when manufactured into lumber and can be utilized for the same purposes as aspen, basswood, and sap yellow- poplar. The following description is for yellow buckeye (Aesculus octandra). The Tree Buckeye is a tree 30 to 70 ft (9 to 21 m) high and 2 ft (0.6 m) in diameter. It grows best in rich moist soil along the banks of streams and in river bottoms. Buckeye matures in 60 to 80 years. It is one of the initial trees to leaf-out in the spring. -
Biological Evaluation of Proposed, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species
Biological Evaluation of Proposed, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Wildlife Habitat Improvement and Fuels Reduction Project Proposed Action within Winston County, Alabama Responsible Agency: USDA Forest Service National Forests in Alabama William B. Bankhead Ranger District Contact: Deciding Officer: District Ranger Glen D. Gaines Biological Evaluation Preparer: Biological Scientist Allison Cochran PO Box 278 Double Springs, Alabama 35553 Telephone 205-489-5111 FAX 205-489-3427 E-mail [email protected] [email protected] Type of Document Categorical Exclusion – BE Summary The proposed project will reduce midstory and understory trees and shrubs in two sites, totaling approximately 47 acres, noted on the attached maps. The project sites are located in the Black Pond and Hickory Grove communities. They are found in Forest Service management compartments 163 and 19. The sites proposed for treatment are loblolly pine stands. They were thinned in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Selected vegetation between 1 inch and 6 inches DBH will be removed in upland pine- dominant habitat. In compartment 163, the result will be an open pine stand with reduced fuel loading and advanced hardwood regeneration. In compartment 19, the result will be an open pine stand with reduced fuel loading. The result will allow for restoration and maintenance of native forest communities, including upland oak-hickory forest in compartment 163 and fire dependent pine woodlands in compartment 19. The purpose and need for the project is to improve wildlife habitat, improve conditions for native upland plants, restore and maintain native forest communities, and to decrease the risk of catastrophic wildfires by reducing fuels. -
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. -
Chapter Four: Landscaping with Native Plants a Gardener’S Guide for Missouri Landscaping with Native Plants a Gardener’S Guide for Missouri
Chapter Four: Landscaping with Native Plants A Gardener’s Guide for Missouri Landscaping with Native Plants A Gardener’s Guide for Missouri Introduction Gardening with native plants is becoming the norm rather than the exception in Missouri. The benefits of native landscaping are fueling a gardening movement that says “no” to pesticides and fertilizers and “yes” to biodiversity and creating more sustainable landscapes. Novice and professional gardeners are turning to native landscaping to reduce mainte- nance and promote plant and wildlife conservation. This manual will show you how to use native plants to cre- ate and maintain diverse and beauti- ful spaces. It describes new ways to garden lightly on the earth. Chapter Four: Landscaping with Native Plants provides tools garden- ers need to create and maintain suc- cessful native plant gardens. The information included here provides practical tips and details to ensure successful low-maintenance land- scapes. The previous three chap- ters include Reconstructing Tallgrass Prairies, Rain Gardening, and Native landscapes in the Whitmire Wildflower Garden, Shaw Nature Reserve. Control and Identification of Invasive Species. use of native plants in residential gar- den design, farming, parks, roadsides, and prairie restoration. Miller called his History of Native work “The Prairie Spirit in Landscape Landscaping Design”. One of the earliest practitioners of An early proponent of native landscap- Miller’s ideas was Ossian C. Simonds, ing was Wilhelm Miller who was a landscape architect who worked in appointed head of the University of the Chicago region. In a lecture pre- Illinois extension program in 1912. He sented in 1922, Simonds said, “Nature published a number of papers on the Introduction 3 teaches what to plant. -
Sensitive Species That Are Not Listed Or Proposed Under the ESA Sorted By: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci
Forest Service Sensitive Species that are not listed or proposed under the ESA Sorted by: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci. Name; Legend: Page 94 REGION 10 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 8 REGION 9 ALTERNATE NATURESERVE PRIMARY MAJOR SUB- U.S. N U.S. 2005 NATURESERVE SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) COMMON NAME GROUP GROUP G RANK RANK ESA C 9 Anahita punctulata Southeastern Wandering Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G4 NNR 9 Apochthonius indianensis A Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1G2 N1N2 9 Apochthonius paucispinosus Dry Fork Valley Cave Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 Pseudoscorpion 9 Erebomaster flavescens A Cave Obligate Harvestman Invertebrate Arachnid G3G4 N3N4 9 Hesperochernes mirabilis Cave Psuedoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G5 N5 8 Hypochilus coylei A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G3? NNR 8 Hypochilus sheari A Lampshade Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 NNR 9 Kleptochthonius griseomanus An Indiana Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Kleptochthonius orpheus Orpheus Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 9 Kleptochthonius packardi A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 N2N3 9 Nesticus carteri A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid GNR NNR 8 Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Nesticus crosbyi A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1? NNR 8 Nesticus mimus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2 NNR 8 Nesticus sheari A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR 8 Nesticus silvanus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR