DOCSLIB.ORG

Avian Population Density in the Maritime Forest of Two South Carolina Barrier Islands

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Avian Population Density in the Maritime Forest of Two South Carolina Barrier Islands HABITAT STUDY Avian population density in the maritime forest of two South Carolina barrier islands An investigation of the factors that influence speciesdiversity on these islands W. David Chamberlain INTRODUCTION giniana), CabbagePalmetto (Sabal pal- METHODS metto) and Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda). HEBARRIER ISLAND system of the The understory vegetationis dominated MODIFIEDSTRIP census method southeastern United States is under by Wax Myrtle (Myrica cerifera), (Emlen 1971) was employed, increasing developmental and recrea- Yaupon (Ilex vornitoria) and Cabbage with three transects laid out on each tional pressure. Little is known of the Palmetto (Table 1). island. All transects traversed the width faunal communities associated with the The topography of both islands is of the island from salt marsh to dune maritime forest on most of these is- characterizedby alternatingdune ridges field. Each transect was 400 feet { 122 m) lands. In South Carolina research on and high ground with drains and depres- wide and crosseda variety of habitats. island avian communities has been lim- sions. These low areas often have stand- Transects were designed to measure ited to qualitative statements produced ing water. This pattern of alternate xeric areas of heavily disturbed, lightly dis- by general field studies and Christmas and mesic sitesallows the development turbed and undisturbed habitat. All Bird Counts. This study was designedto of several vegetation communities transects were sampled biweekly from document avian density in maritime for- which vary in extent on each island. March-September 1979 between 0600 estsand to predict the impact of recrea- tional and developmentalpressures on barrier island habitat. BIJLL 8,•g STUDY AREAS ".[ ISLAND ATAWERE GATHERED fromCap- er's Island, 15 miles north of Charleston, Charleston County, South CAPERSISLAND Carolina, and Kiawah Island, 21 miles south of Charleston. These islands were selected because of their differences in size, accessibilityand vegetation. Cap- er's Island is a small state-owned wild- life sanctuary with approximately 830 acres of high land (Warner 1976). Ac- ß CM,•RLESTOIiI H,•RBOR cessible only by small boat, Caper's Island enjoys light recreational use lim- ited to nature observation and occa- sional primitive camping. On the other hand, Kiawah Island, with approxi- mately 3300 acres of high land, (Warner 1976)is privately owned, and undergo- ing intensedevelopment as a resort and second home community. It is accessi- ISLAND ble by bridge, and there is heavy recrea- tional and residential use over one half of the island. Maritime forest communities on both NORIll fOl$1'O RIVfR Kiawah and Caper's islands are domi- nated by Laurel Oak (Quercus General Stlldy area map/courtesy of Pete Laurie, Sollth Carolina Wildlife and Marine !aurifolia), Live Oak (Quercus vir- ResourcesDepartmentß 142 American Birds, March 1982 Table 1. Vegetationdensity of undisturbedMaritime Forest in two South Carolina barrier islands Height Canopy Cover Canopy trees/ Understorytrees/ Shrubsand saphngs/ Community (fi) % 100sq.m. I00 sq.m. 16 sq.m.t Kiawah Island Loblolly Pine•abbage palmetto 70-80' 60% 5.0 5.5 I 1.0 Transoct 3 Laurel Oak---Magnolia 30-40' 65-80% 6.8 9.0 4.0 Cabbage Palmetto 20-30' 50-60% 7.2 5.1) .5 Maritime Shrub 10-20' 20-50% -- 13.5 6.2 Loblolly Pine•weetgum--Live Oak 40-80' 60-70% 5.0 10.5 1.0 Laurel Oak--pine--Cabbage Palmetto 30-70' 60% 14.8 9.5 3.5 Caper's Island Laurel Oak---magnolia 30-40' 65-80% 3.8 3.2 .5 Transect 3 Loblolly Pine--Live Oak 60-75' 60% 2.2 3.8 1.5 Cabbage Palmetto-' 20-30' 50-60% I 1.5 27.8 10.0 Laurel Oak--pine 40-70' 60% 4.2 l0 5 .2 •A saplingis a tree species<6.6 cm 13in.} dbh. -'Thepresence of ChineseTallow Tree drasticallyincreased the densityof this community. [Source: Gaddy, unpublishedms.; Sharitz. 1975] and 1000 hours. The data presented are viduals/km: (Table 2). Analysis of the confined to observations made in results by island and transect reveals maritime forest communities. Overfly- considerable variation particularly in ing marine and estuarine species were average density. not included. Similarly, swallows and Although the study lasted less than a similar specieswere omitted becauseof year, seasonal variations both in indi- the difficulty of accurate counting im- viduals and in densities were noted. In- posed by the dense vegetation. Care dividuals seen monthly per transect are was also taken to avoid the error im- given for both islands. Patterns as- posed by "driving" species along the sociated with the departure of winter transect. Individuals observed were residentsand the influx of springand fall mapped indicating position on each migrantsare more apparent on Caper's transect and distance from the center Island (Table 3). Further examination of Caper's I., •}'ansect 1, Maritime shrub. line. Additional notations were made seasonal distribution revealed the for singing males, copulating pairs or land Transect 3 traversed undisturbed greated number of species of all active nests. maritime forest. transects were permanent residents. Transects were laid out on each island Because continuing disturbance was Migratory species were approximately to take advantageof varying vegetation a factor on both islands. botanical data evenly distributed throughout the communities and levels of disturbance. were gathered only for undisturbed transects (Table 4). On Kiawah Island, Transec! I was transects.Sample plots were selectedin Habitat relationships strongly in- through highly altered maritime forest. representative communities along each fluenced both the number of species Portions of this transect included de- undisturbed transect. Plots were 400m' veloped areas of single family housing in area with 10m-' areas sampled for while the majority was along a golf coursefairway. All portionsi•fTransect trees,and4m-' forshrubs andsaplings. 1 were heavily disturbed. Transect 2 on RESULTS Kiawah Island ran along a lightly used dirt road through maritime forest and into an old pasture that was reverting to •3054•VER THEindividuals SAMPLE •fiodrepresenting atotal 77of •'•,";•'•{•'•' •:•' ' "•' •½•' the surroundingforest type. Transect 3, ran through undisturbedmaritime forest rangefor individualspecies ranged from _ and included the margin of a small <1 individual/kmeoraea. • to 66/km aeni,vz. On brackish pond. KiawahIsland theaverage density was On Caper's Island, Transect I ran a 2• individuals/km:, while the average KiawahI., 3'ansect1, Heavilydisturbed short distance through maritime forest on Caper's Island was 237 indi- maritimeforest. and included the margins of two large brackish impoundments. These pond Table 2. Number of bird species,individuals and averagedensity by transect margins were dominated by maritime shrub speciessuch as Wax Myrtle, Sea Area in Acres Average Densit)' Myrtle (Baccharis halimifolia), Yaupon Transect (Hectaresl Total Species Total Individuals lndividaals/km 2 and Chinese Tallow Tree (Saplure Caper's I. I 33.6 (13.6) 51 548 287 2 31.8 02.8) 30 305 170 sebiferum). Disturbance on Transect I 3 30.3 (12.2) 35 438 254 was light and limited primarily to hikers and campers. Transect 2 was located Kiawah 1. I 48.7 (19.7) 38 309 112 entirely in maritime forest along a 2 42.4 (17.1) 49 742 309 lightly travelled dirt road. Caper's Is- 3 34.9 (14.0) 47 712 361 Volume 36, Number 2 143 Table 3. Seasonal abundance of individuals on two coastal South Carolina Islands these, 15 were permanent residents. On Caper's Island 14 species were noted Transect March April May June July August September with seven being permanent residents. Caper's 1. I 114 84 63 69 96 62 69 Significantdifferences in the number of 2 34 45 44 57 33 34 58 3 77 48 43 32 56 122 68 singingindividuals were noted between the islands; the average numbers of Total 225 177 150 158 185 218 195 singingspecies encountered each sam- Kiawah I. I 46 65 49 55 37 35 41 ple day were 15.6 species for Kiawah, 2 85 90 131 128 92 107 II0 6.6 for Caper's. 3 109 143 84 98 84 103 91 Common species were also omitted Total 240 298 264 281 213 245 242 from the list of singing males for both islands. Two such species were the recorded on each transect and the total guilds and their number of representa- Great Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus number of individuals. Species diver- tives empha.size the importanceof crinitus) which was present but gave sity was clearly determined by the total habitat. As would be expected, only a short alarm call, and the Carolina diversity of available habitats. This fac- transects with seral stages displayed Chickadee (Parus carolinensis) which tor was particularly significant on larger numbers of ground-seed and did likewise. The Solitary Vireo (Vireo Kiawah Island where the presenceof an ground-insect guild representatives. •olitarius) recorded on Kiawah is a win- abandoned pasture reverting to mari- The impact of habitat alteration noted ter resident which apparently begins time forest accounted for a number of on Kiawah Transect i is again demon- singingprior to its springdeparture. speciesabsent from the other transects. strated by the paucity of ground-seed Table 4. Speciestotals by transectson two On Caper's Island the influenceof seral and ground-insectrepresentatives. The South Carolina barrier islands vegetation was also important on lack of foliage-nectarrepresentatives on Transect 1 where maritime shrub two of the Caper's Island transects and Perre. Sum. Wint. growth is present along the pond mar- Res. Res. Res. Trans. gins. Kiawahl. Disturbance factors noted on each Transect I 23 9 5 I transect did not appear to significantly Transect 2 32 9 6 3 Transect 3 27 12 6 2 affect bird populations with the excep- tion of Kiawah Transect 1. Dramatic Caper's 1. impacts related both to continuingdis- Transoct I 30 10 7 6 turbance and the wholesale removal of Transoct 2 16 7 5 3 Transect 3 17 9 6 4 understory vegetation were immedi- ately apparent (Table 5).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Invasive Trees of Georgia Pub10-14
    Pub. No. 39 October 2016 Invasive Trees of Georgia by Dr. Kim D. Coder, Professor of Tree Biology & Health Care Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia Georgia has many species of trees. Some are native trees and some have been introduced from outside the state, nation, or continent. Most of Georgia’s trees are well- behaved and easily develop into sustainable shade and street trees. A few tree species have an extrodinary ability to upsurp resources and take over sites from other plants. These trees are called invasive because they effectively invade sites, many times eliminat- ing other species of plants. There are a few tree species native to Georgia which are considered invasive in other parts of the country. These native invasives, may be well-behaved in Georgia, but reproduce and take over sites elsewhere, and so have gained an invasive status from at least one other invasive species list. Table 1. There are hundreds of trees which have been introduced to Georgia landscapes. Some of these exotic / naturalized trees are considered invasive. The selected list of Georgia invasive trees listed here are notorious for growing rampantly and being difficult to eradicate. Table 2. Table 1: Native trees considered invasive in other parts of the country. scientific name common name scientific name common name Acacia farnesiana sweet acacia Myrica cerifera Southern bayberry Acer negundo boxelder Pinus taeda loblolly pine Acer rubrum red maple Populus deltoides Eastern cottonwood Fraxinus americana white ash Prunus serotina black cherry Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Gleditsia triacanthos honeylocust Toxicodendron vernix poison sumac Juniperus virginiana eastern redcedar The University of Georgia is committed to principles of equal opportunity and affirmative action.
    [Show full text]
  • Waxmyrtle-- a Shrub for a Natural Riparian Buffer
    Waxmyrtle-- A Shrub for a Natural Riparian Buffer By Susan Camp When you live on a tidal creek or river, as do many of us on the Middle Peninsula, you bear a special responsibility to maintain a healthy interface between land and water. The plants that grow along a shoreline help to protect the adjacent waterway from erosion and pollutants, and they provide valuable habitat for the wildlife that live and feed along the banks. Jim and I are fortunate to live on property that was left in a natural state by the previous owners, and we have maintained the banks for 25 years with a minimum amount of labor and no expense. The native trees, shrubs, and grasses along the water’s edge maintain themselves with minor pruning of dead wood, trimming of greenbriers, and eradication of poison ivy. One of my favorite native shrubs is waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera or Morella cerifera), also called southern waxmyrtle or southern bayberry. Waxmyrtle is a small tree or large, multi-trunked, fast- growing shrub, depending on how it is pruned. Waxmyrtle produces numerous suckers that lend the shrub an irregular, leggy appearance, but it can be maintained with a single trunk. Waxmyrtle is found from New Jersey south to Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, and west to Texas and Oklahoma, surviving in a wide range of environments from wet swamps to elevated forestland, although it is most often found in marshes and along tidal creeks and stream banks. The shrub grows well in USDA Hardiness Zones 6b to 11. It is evergreen where winters are mild, but is classified as semi-evergreen in colder environments, which means it will lose its leaves when the temperature drops below 0 F.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Big Tree Registry a List of the Largest Trees in Texas Sponsored by Texas a & M Forest Service
    Texas Big Tree Registry A list of the largest trees in Texas Sponsored by Texas A & M Forest Service Native and Naturalized Species of Texas: 320 ( D indicates species naturalized to Texas) Common Name (also known as) Latin Name Remarks Cir. Threshold acacia, Berlandier (guajillo) Senegalia berlandieri Considered a shrub by B. Simpson 18'' or 1.5 ' acacia, blackbrush Vachellia rigidula Considered a shrub by Simpson 12'' or 1.0 ' acacia, Gregg (catclaw acacia, Gregg catclaw) Senegalia greggii var. greggii Was named A. greggii 55'' or 4.6 ' acacia, Roemer (roundflower catclaw) Senegalia roemeriana 18'' or 1.5 ' acacia, sweet (huisache) Vachellia farnesiana 100'' or 8.3 ' acacia, twisted (huisachillo) Vachellia bravoensis Was named 'A. tortuosa' 9'' or 0.8 ' acacia, Wright (Wright catclaw) Senegalia greggii var. wrightii Was named 'A. wrightii' 70'' or 5.8 ' D ailanthus (tree-of-heaven) Ailanthus altissima 120'' or 10.0 ' alder, hazel Alnus serrulata 18'' or 1.5 ' allthorn (crown-of-thorns) Koeberlinia spinosa Considered a shrub by Simpson 18'' or 1.5 ' anacahuita (anacahuite, Mexican olive) Cordia boissieri 60'' or 5.0 ' anacua (anaqua, knockaway) Ehretia anacua 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Carolina Fraxinus caroliniana 90'' or 7.5 ' ash, Chihuahuan Fraxinus papillosa 12'' or 1.0 ' ash, fragrant Fraxinus cuspidata 18'' or 1.5 ' ash, green Fraxinus pennsylvanica 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Gregg (littleleaf ash) Fraxinus greggii 12'' or 1.0 ' ash, Mexican (Berlandier ash) Fraxinus berlandieriana Was named 'F. berlandierana' 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Texas Fraxinus texensis 60'' or 5.0 ' ash, velvet (Arizona ash) Fraxinus velutina 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, white Fraxinus americana 100'' or 8.3 ' aspen, quaking Populus tremuloides 25'' or 2.1 ' baccharis, eastern (groundseltree) Baccharis halimifolia Considered a shrub by Simpson 12'' or 1.0 ' baldcypress (bald cypress) Taxodium distichum Was named 'T.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Native Trees Considered Invasive in Other Parts of the Country. Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name
    Invasive Trees of Georgia Dr. Kim D. Coder, Professor of Tree Biology & Health Care, Warnell School, UGA Georgia has many species of trees. Some are native trees and some have been introduced from outside the state, nation, or continent. Most of Georgia’s trees are well-behaved and easily develop into sustainable shade and street trees. A few tree species have an extrodinary ability to upsurp resources and take over sites from other plants. These trees are called invasive because they effectively invade sites, many times eliminating other species of plants. There are a few tree species native to Georgia which are considered invasive in other parts of the country. These native invasives, may be well-behaved in Georgia, but reproduce and take over sites elsewhere, and so have gained an invasive status from at least one other invasive species list. Table 1. There are hundreds of trees which have been introduced to Georgia landscapes. Some of these exotic / naturalized trees are considered invasive. The selected list of Georgia invasive trees listed here are notorious for growing rampantly and being diffi- cult to eradicate. Table 2. They should not be planted. Table 1: Georgia native trees considered invasive in other parts of the country. scientific name common name scientific name common name Acacia farnesiana sweet acacia Myrica cerifera Southern bayberry Acer negundo boxelder Pinus taeda loblolly pine Acer rubrum red maple Populus deltoides Eastern Fraxinus americana white ash cottonwood Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Prunus serotina black cherry Gleditsia triacanthos honeylocust Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Juniperus virginiana eastern Toxicodendron vernix poison sumac redcedar Table 2: Introduced (exotic) tree / shrub species found in Georgia listed at a regional / national level as being ecologically invasive.
    [Show full text]
  • Seed Dispersal and Propagation of Three Myrica Species
    Of Birds and Bayberries : Alfred j. Fordham Seed Dispersal and Propagation of Three Myrica Species The genus Myrica comprises about 50 tral United States and from Europe to north- species (often ill-defined) distributed east Asia. throughout the temperate and subtropical All three of these species have nitrogen- areas of both hemispheres. The Arnold Ar- fixing root nodules, which enable them to boretum collection includes three species: thrive m areas where many other plants M. pensylvanica, M. cerifera, andM. gale. could not survive. They are dioecious - Myrica pensylvanica Lois., the common having staminate (male) and pistillate (fe- bayberry or candleberry, occurs naturally male) flowers on different plants - like hol- from Newfoundland to western New York lies and ashes. and Maryland, chiefly in poor soil. It is suck- The fruits of Myrica pensylvanica and M. ering in habit and tends to form shrubby cerifera are small (2.5-3 mm and 3.5~.5 mm clumps, which at maturity can range from 2 in diameter respectively) globose nuts with to 8 feet in height. Frequently it is found on waxlike coatings. It is this waxlike material roadside cuts, railroad banks, gravel pits, and that provides the fragrance in bayberry- other locations where topsoil has been re- scented candles and soap. It becomes bluish moved completely. In Boston its shiny green gray as it dries, making the thickly clustered leaves remain on the branches until No- fruits conspicuous in the landscape. The vember. They are fragrant when crushed, a fruits ripen in late September and are eaten characteristic of all Myrica species.
    [Show full text]
  • Myrica Cerifera Southern Waxmyrtle1 Edward F
    Fact Sheet ST-410 October 1994 Myrica cerifera Southern Waxmyrtle1 Edward F. Gilman and Dennis G. Watson2 INTRODUCTION Multiple, twisted trunks with smooth, light grey bark, aromatic, olive green leaves, and clusters of grey-blue, waxy berries on female plants which are attractive to wildlife are just some of the reasons Southern Waxmyrtle is such a popular landscape plant (Fig. 1). Most specimens form a multi-stemmed, open, rounded canopy of weak trunks and branches. This rapidly-growing, small, evergreen native tree is capable of reaching a height of 25 feet with an equal spread but is usually seen in the 10 to 20-foot range. Sometimes used as a large shrubbery screen, Southern Waxmyrtle is ideal for use as a small tree, the lower limbs removed to reveal its picturesque form. One, or several clustered together, provide pleasing dappled shade for terraces or patios. Figure 1. Middle-aged Southern Waxmyrtle. GENERAL INFORMATION standard; small parking lot islands (< 100 square feet Scientific name: Myrica cerifera in size); narrow tree lawns (3-4 feet wide); specimen; Pronunciation: MEER-ih-kuh ser-IF-er-uh sidewalk cutout (tree pit); residential street tree; no Common name(s): Southern Waxmyrtle, Southern proven urban tolerance Bayberry Availability: generally available in many areas within Family: Myricaceae its hardiness range USDA hardiness zones: 7B through 11 (Fig. 2) Origin: native to North America DESCRIPTION Uses: Bonsai; container or above-ground planter; hedge; large parking lot islands (> 200 square feet in Height: 15 to 25 feet size); wide tree lawns (>6 feet wide); medium-sized Spread: 20 to 25 feet parking lot islands (100-200 square feet in size); Crown uniformity: irregular outline or silhouette medium-sized tree lawns (4-6 feet wide); Crown shape: round; vase shape recommended for buffer strips around parking lots or Crown density: moderate for median strip plantings in the highway; near a deck Growth rate: fast or patio; reclamation plant; screen; trainable as a 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxon: Morella Cerifera Family: Myricaceae Common Name Synonym
    Family: Myricaceae Taxon: Morella cerifera Synonym: Myrica cerifera L. (basionym) Common Name wax-myrtle bayberry candleberry Questionaire : current 20090513 Assessor: Chuck Chimera Designation: H(Hawai'i) Status: Assessor Approved Data Entry Person: Chuck Chimera WRA Score 20 101 Is the species highly domesticated? y=-3, n=0 n 102 Has the species become naturalized where grown? y=1, n=-1 103 Does the species have weedy races? y=1, n=-1 201 Species suited to tropical or subtropical climate(s) - If island is primarily wet habitat, then (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2- High substitute "wet tropical" for "tropical or subtropical" high) (See Appendix 2) 202 Quality of climate match data (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2- High high) (See Appendix 2) 203 Broad climate suitability (environmental versatility) y=1, n=0 n 204 Native or naturalized in regions with tropical or subtropical climates y=1, n=0 y 205 Does the species have a history of repeated introductions outside its natural range? y=-2, ?=-1, n=0 n 301 Naturalized beyond native range y = 1*multiplier (see y Appendix 2), n= question 205 302 Garden/amenity/disturbance weed n=0, y = 1*multiplier (see n Appendix 2) 303 Agricultural/forestry/horticultural weed n=0, y = 2*multiplier (see y Appendix 2) 304 Environmental weed n=0, y = 2*multiplier (see y Appendix 2) 305 Congeneric weed n=0, y = 1*multiplier (see y Appendix 2) 401 Produces spines, thorns or burrs y=1, n=0 n 402 Allelopathic y=1, n=0 y 403 Parasitic y=1, n=0 n 404 Unpalatable to grazing animals y=1, n=-1 n 405 Toxic to animals y=1, n=0 n 406
    [Show full text]
  • Allelopathy of Wax Myrtle (Myrica Cerifera) on Schinus Terebinthifolius
    No. 1, 1981] DUNEVITZ AND EWEL — ALLELOPATHY 13 KUSHLAN, J. A. 1978. White Ibis. Pp. 83-84. In Kale, H. W. II (ed.). Endangered Biota of Florida, vol. 2, Birds. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville. KUSHLAN, J. A., AND D. A. WHITE. 1977. Nesting wading bird populations in southern Florida. Florida Sci. 40:65-72. MURRAY, R. W., AND O. E. FRYE, JR. 1957. The bobwhite quail and its management in Florida. Florida Game Fresh Water Fish Comm., Game Publ. 2:1-56. OGDEN, J. C. 1978. Wood Stork. Pp. 3-4. In Kale, H. W. II (ed.). Endangered Biota of Florida, vol. 2, Birds. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville. ROBERTSON, W. B., JR., AND J. A. KUSHLAN. 1974. The southern Florida avifauna. Pp. 414-452. In Gleason, P. J. (ed.). Environments of South Florida: Past and Present. Miami Geological Soc., Memoir 2. ROHWER, S. A., AND G. E. WOOLFENDEN. 1969. Breeding birds of two Florida woodlands: comparisons with areas north of Florida. Condor. 71:38-48. STODDARD, H. L. 1963. Bird habitat and fire. Proc. Ann. Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. 2:163-175. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED. 1978. Preliminary biological report for the proposed DeSoto Site Development. Prepared for Florida Power & Light Co., Miami. VOCL, R. J. 1973. Effects of fire on the plants and animals of a Florida wetland. Amer. Midi. Nat. 89:334-347. Florida Sci. 44(1):1-13. 1981. Biological Sciences ALLELOPATHY OF WAX MYRTLE (MYRICA CERIFERA) ON SCHINUS TEREBINTHIFOLIUS VICKI DUNEVITZ AND JOHN EWEL Botany Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 ABSTRACT: Nutrient solution leached through soil in which wax myrtle teas rooted inhibited growth of schinus.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Department Planting Guide
    CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT PLANTING GUIDE Page Planting Plan Requirements ----------------------------------------------- 2 CT Invasive Plant List Potentially Invasive Species ----------------------------------------------- 3-9 & Possible Native Substitutes Wetland Plant Suggestions: Less ----------------------------------------- 10-12 Subject to Deer Browse Salt Tolerant Plantings ----------------------------------------------------- 13 Native Plants ----------------------------------------------------------------- 14-18 Nurseries & ------------------------------------------------------------------- 19-20 Leaf Mulch Providers Buffer Plantings -------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Raingardens ------------------------------------------------------------------- 22-23 The Connecticut Butterfly Association ---------------------------------- 24 Planting Guide Xerces Society Pollinator Planting --------------------------------------- 25 Guide: Northeast Region References -------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 Prepared by: Westport Conservation Department Staff Revised: June 2019 Planting Plan Requirements All planting plans prepared for the Conservation Department are to show the following information. Survey of property. Maximum scale is 1”= 20’-0”. Smaller scale, 1”=10’-0” is also acceptable. Designer of the plan, address and phone number Address of property and property owner name Scale of drawing Date of drawing Title of drawing North arrow Adjoining streets Wetland limits
    [Show full text]
  • Half a Century of Ornithology in Texas: the Legacy of Dr
    Half a Century of Ornithology in Texas: the Legacy of Dr. Keith Arnold Edited by Daniel M. Brooks Miscellaneous Publications of The Houston Museum of Natural Science, Number 7 Ecology, behavior and reproduction of an introduced population of Scaly-breasted Munias (Lonchura punctulata ) in Houston, Texas Alyssa R. Conn 1, Lynn Chamberlain 2 and Daniel M. Brooks 1 1 Houston Museum of Natural Science, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, 5555 Hermann Park Drive, Houston, Texas 77030-1799; e-mail: [email protected] 2 AECOM, 19219 Katy Freeway, Suite 100, Houston, TX 77094 Abstract - Results of a citizen-science project are reported to better understand potential impacts of an introduced population of Scaly-breasted Munias ( Lonchura punctulata ) in Houston, Texas. Houston records of munias accounted for 96% of all sightings in Texas. Nearly two-thirds of munias are found in urban habitats, with the remainder in more natural areas, especially parkland. A globose-shaped nest is built with young raised between early April - late September, and several nesting events are described. Munias are non-migratory, with flock size averaging 6.1 (range = 1-30), and three larger ‘mega-flocks’ are described. Munias are completely unaggressive towards other species and are observed foraging at feeders with 22 other species, of which 32% are other introduced species. The species most frequently associated with munias are House Finches ( Haemorhous mexicanus ) and American Goldfinches ( Spinus tristis ) which combined represented over one-half of all associations. Frequent behaviors included foraging (38%), vocalizing (24%), and perching (16%). The most common of the 25 species of plants used for perching are oak trees ( Quercus sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Woody and Herbaceous Plants Native to Haiti for Use in Miami-Dade Landscapes1
    Woody and Herbaceous Plants Native to Haiti For use in Miami-Dade Landscapes1 Haiti occupies the western one third of the island of Hispaniola with the Dominican Republic the remainder. Of all the islands within the Caribbean basin Hispaniola possesses the most varied flora after that of Cuba. The plants contained in this review have been recorded as native to Haiti, though some may now have been extirpated due in large part to severe deforestation. Less than 1.5% of the country’s original tree-cover remains. Haiti’s future is critically tied to re- forestation; loss of tree cover has been so profound that exotic fast growing trees, rather than native species, are being used to halt soil erosion and lessen the risk of mudslides. For more information concerning Haiti’s ecological plight consult references at the end of this document. For present purposes all of the trees listed below are native to Haiti, which is why non-natives such as mango (the most widely planted tree) and other important trees such as citrus, kassod tree (Senna siamea) and lead tree (Leucanea leucocephala) are not included. The latter two trees are among the fast growing species used for re-forestation. The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History’s Flora of the West Indies was an invaluable tool in assessing the range of plants native to Haiti. Not surprisingly many of the listed trees and shrubs 1 John McLaughlin Ph.D. U.F./Miami-Dade County Extension Office, Homestead, FL 33030 Page | 1 are found in other parts of the Caribbean with some also native to South Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Habitat Make a Home for Birds, Butterflies, and Nature's Other Creatures
    Wildlife Habitat Make a home for birds, butterflies, and nature's other creatures. In your backyard by the tallest tree branches; under- Trees and shrubs are the backbone story vegetation consisting of smaller of any landscaping design and are Habitat is a combination of food, trees, shrubs, and vines; the floor important for wildlife shelter. Many water, shelter, and space arranged to which is often dominated by low- tree and shrub species are excellent meet the needs of wildlife. Even a growing groundcovers; and the base- sources of food for wildlife. Proper small yard can be landscaped to ment where a variety of organisms selection of plant material can meet attract birds, butterflies, beneficial exist in the soil. Different wildlife both the aesthetic needs of the insects, and small animals.Trees, species live in each of these zones, homeowner and the food and shelter shrubs, and other plants provide so numerous habitats can be provid- needs of wildlife. Remember that shelter and food for wildlife. ed on a small piece of land. you are part of the habitat! The plants you use for food and cover will help determine the wildlife species attracted to your backyard. Nesting boxes, feeders, and watering sites can be added to improve the habitat. Planning your wildlife habitat Planning is necessary for attractive and productive wildlife habitat.You have both a horizontal area to work with--the size of your lot--as well as a vertical area that stretches from your soil to the treetops.The vertical area is composed of the canopy formed To attract wildlife to your backyard, choose and plant the trees, shrubs, and plants that offer the food and shelter that those species of wildlife need to survive.
    [Show full text]