DOCSLIB.ORG

Juncus Scirpoides Lam. Scirpus-Like Rush

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Juncus Scirpoides Lam. Scirpus-Like Rush Juncus scirpoides Lam. scirpus-likescirpus-like rush, rush Page 1 State Distribution Photo by Bradford S. Slaughter Best Survey Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Status: State threatened Range: Scirpus-like rush is primarily a species of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains, ranging from Global and state rank: G5/S2 Rhode Island south to Florida, and west in the interior to Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas, with Other common names: needle-pod rush; round-headed outlying populations in Kansas and Nebraska in the rush central United States and Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan in the Great Lakes region. The species is considered Family: Juncaceae (rush family) vulnerable in Nebraska, imperiled in West Virginia, Indiana, Michigan, and Kansas, and critically imperiled Synonyms: Juncus echinatus Muhl.; J. scirpoides var. in New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois (NatureServe compositus R.M. Harper; J. scirpoides var. genuinus 2009). Buchenau; J. scirpoides var. macrostemon Engelm.; J. scirpoides var. meridionalis Buchenau State distribution: Scirpus-like rush is known from approximately 20 occurrences concentrated in Taxonomy: The Juncaceae is a family of ca. 350 western Lower Michigan, where the species has been rhizomatous or cespitose, sedge-like herbs characterized documented from Berrien, Van Buren, Kalamazoo, by terete or grass-like leaves (or leaves absent), Allegan, Barry, and Muskegon counties. The species inflorescences of headlike clusters or single bisexual, is also known from two sites in St. Clair County in radially symmetrical flowers with 3 or 6 stamens and southeastern Michigan. 1 pistil, and loculicidal (dehiscing along the midrib), 3-valved capsules. Nine genera (2 in North America) Recognition: Scirpus-like rush is a slender, erect, occur in this family. Within the genus Juncus, scirpus- perennial rhizomatous herb to 80 cm, bearing like rush is placed in the subgenus Septati, a group of terete, regularly cross-partitioned leaves 1-2 mm ca. 80 species that consists of species that (usually) lack in width. The inflorescence is aterminal, compact bracteoles, bear terete or compressed, septate leaves, to divaricately branched panicle of one to 20 or and produce small capsules with seeds untailed or more globose or lobed heads 8-12 mm thick, each of bearing short tails (Gleason and Cronquist 1991, FNA which contains 20-60 flowers. Flowers lack prophylls Editorial Committee 2000). (bracteoles), and consist of green to straw-colored Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552 scirpus-like rush, Page 2 lance-subulate tepals 2-3.5 mm long bearing acuminate Spiranthes cernua (nodding ladies’-tresses), Viola apices and 3 stamens. Fruits are slender, exserted, lanceolata (lance-leaved violet), Xyris difformis 1-locular capsules to 3-4 mm long that taper gradually (yellow-eyed-grass) and X. torta (yellow-eyed-grass). to a prominent beak 0.5-1 mm long that equals or One historic population was noted from an “open sandy exceeds the tepals. Capsules remain united at the oak grove,” likely remnant oak barrens. Associates apex after dehiscence. Oblong, yellow-brown seeds of presumably similar dry sites in the Chicago region lack tails. Scirpus-like rush is superficially similar to include Carex muhlenbergii (sedge), Coreopsis palmata several other Juncus species that bear multi-flowered (prairie coreopsis), Cyperus filiculmis (slender sand heads. Juncus canadensis (Canadian rush) can be sedge), Eragrostis spectabilis (purple love grass), distinguished from scirpus-like rush by its seeds, which Euphorbia corollata (flowering spurge), Hieracium bear pale appendages or “tails” at each end. Juncus gronovii (hairy hawkweed), Lechea villosa (hairy torreyi (Torrey’s rush) bears 6 stamens (as opposed to pinweed), Lespedeza capitata (round-headed bush- 3 stamens in J. scirpoides) and has tepals 4-6 mm long clover), Monarda punctata (horsemint), and Panicum and capsules measuring 4.3-5.7 mm with valves that oligosanthes (panic grass) (Swink and Wilhelm 1994). separate at dehiscence. Juncus nodosus (joint rush) is similar to Torrey’s rush, but bears heads less than 1 cm Biology: Scirpus-like rush is a rhizomatous perennial wide and tepals 2.5-3.5 mm long. rush. Plants flower in summer and fruit in fall. Best survey time/phenology: Scirpus-like rush is most Conservation/management: Conservation of identifiable when it is in flower and fruit in August scirpus-like rush requires maintenance of groundwater through October. In sterile condition, the species may and surface water dynamics. Hydrologic alteration, be confused with several other rushes that bear terete including shoreline modification, lake level leaves with hard cross-partitions. stabilization, and dredging or substrate removal for the purposes of creating permanent bodies of water FQI Coefficient and Wetland Category: 9, FACW+ may result in shifts in community composition and structure, potentially eliminating habitat for scirpus-like Habitat: Scirpus-like rush is characteristic of seasonally rush. Use of off-road vehicles is another threat to the moist or wet, peaty sands on lakeshores and in open species. Off-road vehicles may directly destroy plants wetlands on sandy soils that experience seasonal water and/or alter their habitat by compacting soils, altering table fluctuation, such as coastal plain marsh, interdunal microtopography (and hydrology), disturbing the seed wetland, intermittent wetland, wet-mesic sand prairie, bank, and providing conduits for the establishment lakeplain wet prairie, and lakeplain wet-mesic prairie. of invasive species. Measures to restrict off-road The species also occurs in moist, sandy excavations vehicle access should be undertaken at all sites that (e.g., borrow pits) that experience similar water level support scirpus-like rush and its sensitive habitat. Fire fluctuations. The sandy soils that support scirpus-like suppression may be another threat to scirpus-like rush. rush are acidic and often contain significant organic Several of the wetland types that support the species content. Characteristic associates include Agalinis occur in fire-dependent landscapes that were historically purpurea (purple gerardia), Aletris farinosa (colic root), characterized by oak barrens, oak-pine barrens, and Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem), A. virginicus oak-dominated or oak- and pine-dominated forests (broom-sedge), Eleocharis melanocarpa (spike-rush), (Kost and Penskar 2000, Kost et al. 2007). Fires that E. tricostata (three-ribbed spike-rush), Euthamia remota burned these landscapes may have had a role in limiting (lakes flat-topped goldenrod),Fimbristylis autumnalis establishment of aggressive perennials, shrubs and (autumn sedge), Hypericum canadense (Canadian St. trees in embedded wetland habitats, particularly during John’s-wort), Juncus biflorus (two-flowered rush), long periods of dry conditions. Lack of fire may foster Liatris spicata (marsh blazing star), Lycopodiella establishment of these aggressive species, which may subappressa (northern clubmoss), Panicum virgatum eliminate habitat for scirpus-like rush. Occasional (switch grass), Pycnanthemum virginianum (common application of prescribed fire should be considered to mountain mint), Rhynchospora capitellata (beak- manage habitat for scirpus-like rush and associated rush), Spartina pectinata (cordgrass), Sorghastrum wetland and prairie species. Lack of fire may be nutans (Indian grass), Spiraea tomentosa (steeplebush), mitigated by periods of high water, which kills trees and shrubs that do establish. Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552 scirpus-like rush, Page 3 Comments: Michigan and northern Indiana populations Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of of scirpus-like rush are somewhat disjunct from the vascular plants of Northeastern United States and core range of the species, which stretches along the adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains and inland locally to Bronx, New York. 910 pp. southern Indiana, central Illinois, and Missouri. Many of the Michigan sites that support scirpus-like rush are Hiebert, R.D., D.A. Wilcox, and N.B. Pavlovic. characterized as coastal plain marsh or wet-mesic sand 1986. Vegetation patterns in and among pannes prairie, both state-imperiled communities that support (calcareous interdunal ponds) at the Indiana Dunes numerous other plant species that are disjunct from National Lakeshore, Indiana. American Midland their core ranges in the coastal plain. One Indiana site Naturalist 116: 276-281. is characterized by a series of interdunal pannes with bicarbonate-rich waters (Hiebert et al. 1986), indicating Kost, M.A., and M.R. Penskar. 2000. Natural the species is not restricted to acidic substrates. community abstract for coastal plain marsh. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. Research needs: The primary need is monitoring 5 pp. to assess the impacts of habitat management on populations of scirpus-like rush. Research on the Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, impacts of fire and other management techniques R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. on populations of the species will provide land Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification stewards with methods for maintaining and enhancing and Description. Michigan Natural Features populations. Research on the population biology of the Inventory, Report No. 2007-21, Lansing, MI.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas --- Taxa in Volume 1 (May 2004)
    Illustrated Flora of East Texas --- Taxa in Volume 1 (May 2004) Family Genus Species Var. or Subsp. Native or Intro Ferns & Fern Allies Psilotaceae Psilotum nudum N Isoetaceae Isoetes butleri N Isoetaceae Isoetes melanopoda N Lycopodiaceae Lycopodiella alopecuroides N Lycopodiacae Lycopodiella appressa N Lycopodiaceae Lycopodiella prostrata N Lycopodiaceae Palhinhaea cernua N Lycopodiaceae Pseudolycopodiella caroliniana N Selaginellaceae Selaginella apoda var. apoda N Selaginellaceae Selaginella arenicola subsp. riddellii N Equisetaceae Equisetum hyemale subsp. affine N Equisetaceae Equisetum laevigatum N Anemiaceae Anemia mexicana N Aspleniaceae Asplenium platyneuron N Aspleniaceae Asplenium resiliens N Azollaceae Azolla caroliniana N Azollaceae Azolla mexicana N Blechnaceae Woodwardia areolata N Blechnaceae Woodwardia virginica N Dennstaedtiaceae Pteridium aquilinum var. pseudocaudatum N Dryopteridaceae Athyrium filix-femina subsp. asplenioides N Dryopteridaceae Cyrtomium falcatum I Dryopteridaceae Cystopteris protrusa N Dryopteridaceae Dryopteris celsa N Dryopteridaceae Dryopteris ludoviciana N Dryopteridaceae Nephrolepis exaltata I Dryopteridaceae Onoclea sensibilis N Dryopteridaceae Polystichum acrostichoides N Dryopteridaceae Tectaria heracleifolia N Dryopteridaceae Woodsia obtusa subsp. obtusa N Dryopteridaceae Woodsia obtusa subsp. occidentalis N Lygodiaceae Lygodium japonicum I Marsileaceae Marsilea macropoda N Marsileaceae Marsilea vestita N Marsileaceae Pilularia americana N Ophioglossaceae Botrychium biternatum N Ophioglossaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE
    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin / New York State Museum
    Juncaceae (Rush Family) of New York State Steven E. Clemants New York Natural Heritage Program LIBRARY JUL 2 3 1990 NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN Contributions to a Flora of New York State VII Richard S. Mitchell, Editor Bulletin No. 475 New York State Museum The University of the State of New York THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Albany, New York 12230 NEW YORK THE STATE OF LEARNING Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from IMLS LG-70-15-0138-15 https://archive.org/details/bulletinnewyorks4751 newy Juncaceae (Rush Family) of New York State Steven E. Clemants New York Natural Heritage Program Contributions to a Flora of New York State VII Richard S. Mitchell, Editor 1990 Bulletin No. 475 New York State Museum The University of the State of New York THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Albany, New York 12230 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Regents of The University Martin C. Barell, Chancellor, B.A., I. A., LL.B Muttontown R. Carlos Carballada, Vice Chancellor , B.S Rochester Willard A. Genrich, LL.B Buffalo Emlyn 1. Griffith, A. B., J.D Rome Jorge L. Batista, B. A., J.D Bronx Laura Bradley Chodos, B.A., M.A Vischer Ferry Louise P. Matteoni, B.A., M.A., Ph.D Bayside J. Edward Meyer, B.A., LL.B Chappaqua Floyd S. Linton, A.B., M.A., M.P.A Miller Place Mimi Levin Lieber, B.A., M.A Manhattan Shirley C. Brown, B.A., M.A., Ph.D Albany Norma Gluck, B.A., M.S.W Manhattan James W.
    [Show full text]
  • Nitens (Cyperaceae) in Indiana
    2013 THE MICHIGAN BOTANIST 25 REDISCOVERY OF RHYNCHOSPORA (PSILOCARYA) NITENS (CYPERACEAE) IN INDIANA Roger L. Hedge Emily J. Stork Indiana Department of Natural Resources Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Nature Preserves Division of Nature Preserves 402 W. Washington Street, Rm W267 5690 Chase St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 Merrillville, IN 46410 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT In 2012 the authors rediscovered Rhynchospora (Psilocarya) nitens in Porter County at its only known site of occurrence in Indiana, providing the first documentation of the species for the site and the state in over 50 years. Prior to the 2012 discovery, the species had been collected in the state only twice since 1899. An Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain disjunct, this sedge is represented by only two occurrences in the Great Lakes region: Allegan County, Michigan and Porter County, Indiana. INTRODUCTION Rhynchospora nitens (Vahl) A. Gray is an Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain sedge that ranges in the U.S. from Texas to Massachusetts and that has disjunct occurrences in Indiana and Michigan. Farther south it occurs in the West Indies and Central America (Kral 2002). In the Atlantic Coastal Plain states in the U.S. the species is listed as “vulnerable” to “critically imperiled” in 8 of the 14 states where it occurs, namely Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts, and as “possibly extirpated” in Vir - ginia (NatureServe 2014). It is listed as “apparently secure” in Louisiana and Mississippi (NatureServe 2014). Although NatureServe (2014) indicates that the species has not been ranked or is still under review in Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and Michigan Rothrock (2009) states it is “deemed secure from extir - pation in Florida and Mississippi” and Reznicek (1999) notes that it is primarily a southern coastal plain plant that is very rare in the northern parts of its range.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Journal of Science Official Publication of the Virginia Academy of Science
    VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Vol. 62 No. 3 Fall 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLES PAGE Breeding Biology of Oryzomys Palustris, the Marsh Rice Rat, in Eastern Virginia. Robert K. Rose and Erin A. Dreelin. 113 Abstracts missing from Volume 62 Number 1 & 2 123 Academy Minutes 127 The Horsley Award paper for 2011 135 Virginia Journal of Science Volume 62, Number 3 Fall 2011 Breeding Biology of Oryzomys Palustris, the Marsh Rice Rat, in Eastern Virginia Robert K. Rose1 and Erin A. Dreelin2, Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23529-0266 ABSTRACT The objectives of our study were to determine the age of maturity, litter size, and the timing of the breeding season of marsh rice rats (Oryzomys palustris) of coastal Virginia. From May 1995 to May 1996, monthly samples of rice rats were live-trapped in two coastal tidal marshes of eastern Virginia, and then necropsied. Sexual maturity was attained at 30-40 g for both sexes. Mean litter size of 4.63 (n = 16) did not differ among months or in mass or parity classes. Data from two other studies conducted in the same county, one of them contemporaneous, also were examined. Based on necropsy, rice rats bred from March to October; breeding did not occur in December-February. By contrast, rice rats observed during monthly trapping on nearby live-trap grids were judged, using external indicators, to be breeding year-round except January. Compared to internal examinations, external indicators of reproductive condition were not reliable for either sex in predicting breeding status in the marsh rice rat.
    [Show full text]
  • Holocentric Karyotype Evolution in Rhynchospora Is Marked by Intense
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 10 September 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.536507 Holocentric Karyotype Evolution in Rhynchospora Is Marked by Intense Numerical, Structural, and Genome Size Changes Edited by: 1 2† 1† 1 Hanna Weiss-Schneeweiss, Paula Burchardt , Christopher E. Buddenhagen , Marcos L. Gaeta , Murilo D. Souza , 3 1 University of Vienna, Austria Andre´ Marques * and Andre´ L. L. Vanzela * Reviewed by: 1 Laborato´ rio de Citogene´ tica e Diversidade Vegetal, Departamento de Biologia Geral, CCB, Universidade Estadual de Ekaterina D. Badaeva, Londrina, Londrina, Brazil, 2 Forage Science, AgResearch Limited, Hamilton, New Zealand, 3 Department of Chromosome Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Biology, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany Eva Maria Temsch, University of Vienna, Austria Tae-Soo Jang, Cyperaceae is a family of Monocotyledons comprised of species with holocentric Chungnam National University, South Korea chromosomes that are associated with intense dysploidy and polyploidy events. Within *Correspondence: this family the genus Rhynchospora has recently become the focus of several studies that Andre´ L. L. Vanzela characterize the organization of the holocentric karyotype and genome structures. To [email protected] broaden our understanding of genome evolution in this genus, representatives of Andre´ Marques [email protected] Rhynchospora were studied to contrast chromosome features, C-CMA/DAPI band †ORCID: distribution and genome sizes. Here, we carried out a comparative analysis for 35 taxa Christopher E. Buddenhagen of Rhynchospora, and generated new genome size estimates for 20 taxa. The DNA 2C- orcid.org/0000-0002-3016-1054 Marcos L. Gaeta values varied up to 22-fold, from 2C = 0.51 pg to 11.32 pg, and chromosome numbers orcid.org/0000-0003-1260-9641 ranged from 2n = 4 to 61.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
    [Show full text]
  • Bird Vulnerability Assessments
    Assessing the vulnerability of native vertebrate fauna under climate change, to inform wetland and floodplain management of the River Murray in South Australia: Bird Vulnerability Assessments Attachment (2) to the Final Report June 2011 Citation: Gonzalez, D., Scott, A. & Miles, M. (2011) Bird vulnerability assessments- Attachment (2) to ‘Assessing the vulnerability of native vertebrate fauna under climate change to inform wetland and floodplain management of the River Murray in South Australia’. Report prepared for the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. For further information please contact: Department of Environment and Natural Resources Phone Information Line (08) 8204 1910, or see SA White Pages for your local Department of Environment and Natural Resources office. Online information available at: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au Permissive Licence © State of South Australia through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. You may copy, distribute, display, download and otherwise freely deal with this publication for any purpose subject to the conditions that you (1) attribute the Department as the copyright owner of this publication and that (2) you obtain the prior written consent of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources if you wish to modify the work or offer the publication for sale or otherwise use it or any part of it for a commercial purpose. Written requests for permission should be addressed to: Design and Production Manager Department of Environment and Natural Resources GPO Box 1047 Adelaide SA 5001 Disclaimer While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources makes no representations and accepts no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or fitness for any particular purpose of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of or reliance on the contents of this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing W Grasses Complete Notes
    DESIGNING W/ GRASSES: SLIDESHOW NAMES TONY SPENCER Google search botanical plant names or visit Missouri Botanical Garden site for more info: 1. Pennisetum alopecuroides + Sanguisorba + Molinia arundinacea ‘Transparent’ 2. Pennisetum alopecuroides + Aster + Molinia arundinacea ‘Transparent’ 3. Calamagrostis x. acutiflora ‘Karl Foerster’ + Panicum ‘Shenandoah’ 4. Helianthus pauciflorus – Photo Credit: Chris Helzer 5. Nassella tenuissima + Echinacea simulata + Monarda bradburiana 6. Hordeum jubatum + Astilbe 7. Deschampsia cespitosa + Helenium autumnale 8. Calamagrostis brachytricha + Miscanthus sinensis + Cimicifuga atropurpurea 9. Sporobolus heterlolepis + Echinacea pallida 10. Panicum virgatum + Echinacea pallida + Monarda + Veronica 11. Molinia arundinacea ‘Transparent + Sanguisorba officinalis 12. Bouteloua gracilis 13. Calamagrostis brachytricha + Helenium autumnale 14. Peucedanum verticillare 15. Anemone ‘Honorine Jobert’ 2016 Perennial Plant of the Year 16. Miscanthus sinsensis 17. Calamagrostis brachytricha 18. Molinia caerulea + Calamagrostis ‘Karl Foerster’ 19. Calamagrostis ‘Karl Foerster’ + Lythrum alatum + Parthenium integrafolium 20. Panicum virgatum ‘Shenandoah’ 21. Bouteloua gracilis + Echinacea ‘Kim’s Knee High’ + Salvia nemorosa 22. Baptisia alba 23. Calamagrostis ‘Karl Foerster’ in Hummelo meadow planting 24. Panicum amarum ‘Dewey Blue’ + Helenium autumnale 25. Deschampsia cespitosa 26. Echinacea purpurea seedheads 27. Calamagrostis brachytricha + Calamagrostis ‘Karl Foerster’ + Echinacea + Veronicastrum + Eupatorium
    [Show full text]
  • New Zealand Rushes: Juncus Factsheets
    New Zealand Rushes: Juncus factsheets K. Bodmin, P. Champion, T. James and T. Burton www.niwa.co.nz Acknowledgements: Our thanks to all those who contributed photographs, images or assisted in the formulation of the factsheets, particularly Aarti Wadhwa (graphics) at NIWA. This project was funded by TFBIS, the Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity information System (TFBIS) Programme. TFBIS is funded by the Government to help New Zealand achieve the goals of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and is administered by the Department of Conservation (DOC). All photographs are by Trevor James (AgResearch), Kerry A. Bodmin or Paul D. Rushes: Champion (NIWA) unless otherwise stated. Additional images and photographs were kindly provided by Allan Herbarium; Auckland Herbarium; Larry Allain (USGS, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center); Forest and Kim Starr; Donald Cameron (Go Botany Juncus website); and Tasmanian Herbarium (Threatened Species Section, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania). factsheets © 2015 - NIWA. All rights Reserved. Cite as: Bodmin KA, Champion PD, James T & Burton T (2015) New Zealand Rushes: Juncus factsheets. NIWA, Hamilton. Introduction Rushes (family Juncaceae) are a common component of New Zealand wetland vegetation and species within this family appear very similar. With over 50 species, Juncus are the largest component of the New Zealand rushes and are notoriously difficult for amateurs and professionals alike to identify to species level. This key and accompanying factsheets have been developed to enable users with a diverse range of botanical expertise to identify Juncus to species level. The best time for collection, survey or identification is usually from December to April as mature fruiting material is required to distinguish between species.
    [Show full text]