DOCSLIB.ORG

(ANDROPOGON GERARDII)</I>

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Clemson University TigerPrints All Dissertations Dissertations 5-2011 AN ECOLOGICAL, GENETIC, AND REPRODUCTIVE STUDY OF BIG BLUESTEM (ANDROPOGON GERARDII) POPULATIONS IN THE CAROLINAS Robert Tompkins Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations Part of the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Tompkins, Robert, "AN ECOLOGICAL, GENETIC, AND REPRODUCTIVE STUDY OF BIG BLUESTEM (ANDROPOGON GERARDII) POPULATIONS IN THE CAROLINAS" (2011). All Dissertations. 724. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/724 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN ECOLOGICAL, GENETIC, AND REPRODUCTIVE STUDY OF BIG BLUESTEM (ANDROPOGON GERARDII) POPULATIONS IN THE CAROLINAS ________________________________________________________________________ A Dissertation Presented to The Graduate School of Clemson University ____________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Plant and Environmental Science ____________________________________________________ by Robert David Tompkins May 2011 ________________________________________________________________________ Accepted by Dr. William Stringer, Committee Chair Dr. Halina Knap Dr. Saara DeWalt Dr. Elena Mikhailova ABSTRACT AN ECOLOGICAL, GENETIC, AND REPRODUCTIVE STUDY OF BIG BLUESTEM (ANDROPOGON GERARDII) POPULATIONS IN THE CAROLINAS Andropogon gerardii (Big Bluestem) is a dominant grass of the North American tallgrass prairie and is also found in remnant populations in the eastern U.S., including North and South Carolina. This research included a systematic study of the ecology, genetics, and reproductive potential within and among A. gerardii populations in the Carolinas. Floristic composition and edaphic (soil) features were characterized for eight A. gerardii populations across various physiographic regions of North and South Carolina. A total of 362 quadrats (1 m x 1 m) were sampled during the 2006-2008 growing seasons. A total of 306 vascular plant species was identified comprising 64 families, including 99 (32%) graminoids. Andropogon gerardii had the highest Commonness Index (CI) value (5900), followed by Rubus spp. (1260). Community Coefficient (CC) values were <0.5 for all pairings between sites, indicating high dissimilarity in species composition among sites. Soil pH values varied among the sites from 4.8 to 6.9. Calcium and Mg nutrient values were also highly variable. An out- crossing reciprocity study was conducted with five A. gerardii populations. Fifteen treatments were established at four garden sites. Seed germination was low for both out- crossed (4.8%) and selfed (2.4%) pairings. However, germination was significantly higher for both out-crossed and selfed seeds from ramets from the Suther Prairie population. There were no significant differences in seed set among plants from the five populations. Protein electrophoresis was used to assess genetic variation within and among nine local A. gerardii populations from various physiographic regions of both ii North and South Carolina. Twenty-seven polymorphic loci and one monomorphic locus were resolved. Populations contained high levels of genotypic diversity. Genetic diversity was high at both the pooled species-wide level and at the mean within-population level. For the species-wide sample, percent polymorphic loci (Ps) was 96.7%, the number of alleles per polymorphic locus (APsp) was = 4.07, the mean number of alleles per locus (As) was = 3.97, and the genetic diversity (Hes) was 0.422. For within- populations, the mean Pp = 81.2%, APp, = 2.63, Ap = 2.38, and Hep = 0.340. Levels of within population (Hep) genetic diversity ranged from 0.181 for the Sumter National Forest I population to 0.462 for the Bowman Barrier population. Genetic structure among populations (Gst) was 0.175, indicating that 83% of the genetic variation is found within-populations. The level of genetic diversity for the three larger populations (He = 0.387) and for the six smaller populations (He = 0.330) was not significantly different (p = 0.5535). Nei‟s unbiased genetic identity between pairs of populations ranged from 0.6386 (populations BlackJacks Heritage Preserve and Sumter National Forest I) to 0.9692 (populations Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens and Suther Prairie). Of the population sites, the Blackjacks Heritage Preserve population had the lowest measure of genetic identity with the other population sites, while the Suther Prairie population had the highest. The Mantel test showed no significant genetic isolation by geographic distance (r = 0.065; p =0.614). Allelic richness values were high for the populations. Banding patterns were consistent with disomic inheritance. However for two loci (PGI3; UGPP1), tetrasomic patterns were indicated. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many individuals and agencies to thank for their contributions to making this research project possible. First of all I would like to acknowledge the following landowners and agencies for allowing me access to do research on their properties; the Suther family, Rick Harris, George Bowman, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Forest Service. Grant support for the research was made possible by the U.S. Forest Service and Dr. Elena Mikhailova. I will always be indebted as well to individuals who provided technical support for different aspects of the research; Dr. William Bridges, Jr. for help with the statistical analysis, Dr. Patrick McMillan for help with the identification of difficult taxa, Dr. Jim Hamrick and Dr. Dorset Trapnell of the University of Georgia for help with both the analysis and comments on the isozyme study; and Keith Richardson for help in the field and traveling with me to numerous sites. In addition, I want to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Saara DeWalt, Dr. Halina Knap, and Dr. Elena Mikhailova for their support throughout this project. I would like to especially thank my advisor, Dr. William Stringer, who helped me throughout this project with many different aspects of the research and analysis, for which I will be forever grateful. Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their patience and sacrifice over the five plus years of my program in completing this study. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE .................................................................................................................... i ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ ix INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1 - BIG BLUESTEM (ANDROPOGON GERARDII VITMAN) COMMUNITIES IN THE CAROLINAS: COMPOSITION AND ECOLOGICAL FACTORS ............................................................................................. 7 Abstract .................................................................................................................. 8 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 9 Study Sites ........................................................................................................... 10 Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 15 Results .................................................................................................................. 16 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 25 Literature Cited .................................................................................................... 30 Appendix ............................................................................................................. 35 CHAPTER 2 - AN OUT-CROSSING RECIPROCITY STUDY BETWEEN REMNANT BIG BLUESTEM (ANDROPOGON GERARDII VITMAN) POPULATIONS IN THE CAROLINAS ...................................................................... 53 Abstract ................................................................................................................ 54 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 55 Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 57 Results .................................................................................................................. 62 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 70 Literature Cited ...................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest Coniferous Forest Meadow Province

    Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest Coniferous Forest Meadow Province

    Selecting Plants for Pollinators A Regional Guide for Farmers, Land Managers, and Gardeners In the Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest Coniferous Forest Meadow Province Including the states of: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia And parts of: Georgia, Kentucky, and North Carolina, NAPPC South Carolina, Tennessee Table of CONTENTS Why Support Pollinators? 4 Getting Started 5 Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest 6 Meet the Pollinators 8 Plant Traits 10 Developing Plantings 12 Far ms 13 Public Lands 14 Home Landscapes 15 Bloom Periods 16 Plants That Attract Pollinators 18 Habitat Hints 20 This is one of several guides for Check list 22 different regions in the United States. We welcome your feedback to assist us in making the future Resources and Feedback 23 guides useful. Please contact us at [email protected] Cover: silver spotted skipper courtesy www.dangphoto.net 2 Selecting Plants for Pollinators Selecting Plants for Pollinators A Regional Guide for Farmers, Land Managers, and Gardeners In the Ecological Region of the Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest Coniferous Forest Meadow Province Including the states of: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia And parts of: Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee a nappc and Pollinator Partnership™ Publication This guide was funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the C.S. Fund, the Plant Conservation Alliance, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management with oversight by the Pollinator Partnership™ (www.pollinator.org), in support of the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign (NAPPC–www.nappc.org). Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest – Coniferous Forest – Meadow Province 3 Why support pollinators? In theIr 1996 book, the Forgotten PollInators, Buchmann and Nabhan estimated that animal pollinators are needed for the reproduction “ Farming feeds of 90% of flowering plants and one third of human food crops.
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016

    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.
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts

    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,
  • Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi

    Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi

    The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Honors Theses Honors College Spring 5-2016 Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi Hanna M. Miller University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses Part of the Biodiversity Commons, and the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Miller, Hanna M., "Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi" (2016). Honors Theses. 389. https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses/389 This Honors College Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College at The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Southern Mississippi Vascular Flora of the Possum Walk Trail at the Infinity Science Center, Hancock County, Mississippi by Hanna Miller A Thesis Submitted to the Honors College of The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in the Department of Biological Sciences May 2016 ii Approved by _________________________________ Mac H. Alford, Ph.D., Thesis Adviser Professor of Biological Sciences _________________________________ Shiao Y. Wang, Ph.D., Chair Department of Biological Sciences _________________________________ Ellen Weinauer, Ph.D., Dean Honors College iii Abstract The North American Coastal Plain contains some of the highest plant diversity in the temperate world. However, most of the region has remained unstudied, resulting in a lack of knowledge about the unique plant communities present there.
  • Conservation Advice: Acacia Meiantha

    Conservation Advice: Acacia Meiantha

    THREATENED SPECIES SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The Minister approved this conservation advice and included this species in the Endangered category, effective from 11/05/2018. Conservation Advice Acacia meiantha Summary of assessment Conservation status Acacia meiantha has been found to be eligible for listing in the Endangered category, as outlined in the attached assessment. Reason for conservation assessment by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee This advice follows assessment of information provided by New South Wales as part of the Common Assessment Method process, to systematically review species that are inconsistently listed under the EPBC Act and relevant state/territory legislation or lists. More information on the Common Assessment Method is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/cam The information in this assessment has been compiled by the relevant state/territory government. In adopting this assessment under the EPBC Act, this document forms the Approved Conservation Advice for this species as required under s266B of the EPBC Act. Public consultation Notice of the proposed amendment and a consultation document was made available for public comment for 32 business days between 16 August 2017 and 29 September 2017. Any comments received that were relevant to the survival of the species were considered by the Committee as part of the assessment process. Recovery plan A recovery plan for this species under the EPBC Act is not recommended, because the approved Conservation Advice provides sufficient direction to implement priority actions and mitigate against key threats. The relevant state/territory may decide to develop a plan under its equivalent legislation.
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018

    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.
  • Common Plants at the UHCC

    Common Plants at the UHCC

    Flora Checklist Texas Institute for Coastal Prairie Research and Education University of Houston Donald Verser created this list by combining lists from studies by Grace and Siemann with the UHCC herbarium list Herbarium Collections Family Scientific Name Synonym Common Name Native Growth Accesion Dates Locality Comments Status Habit Numbers Acanthaceae Ruellia humilis fringeleaf wild petunia N forb 269 10/9/1973 Acanthaceae Ruellia nudiflora violet wild petunia N forb Agavaceae Manfreda virginica false aloe N forb Agavaceae Polianthes sp. polianthes ? forb 130 8/3/1971 2004 roadside Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron radicans eastern poison ivy N woody/vine Apiaceae Centella erecta Centella asiatica erect centella N forb 36 4/11/2000 Area 2 Apiaceae Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace I forb 139-142 1971 / 72 No collections by Dr. Brown. Perhaps Apiaceae Eryngium leavenworthii Leavenworth's eryngo N forb 144 7/20/1971 wooded area in pipeline ROW E. hookeri instead? Apiaceae Eryngium yuccifolium button eryngo N forb 77,143,145 71, 72, 2000 Apiaceae Polytaenia texana Polytaenia nuttallii Texas prairie parsley N forb 32 6/6/2002 Apocynaceae Amsonia illustris Ozark bluestar N Forb 76 3/24/2000 Area 4 Apocynaceae Amsonia tabernaemontana eastern bluestar N Forb Aquifoliaceae Ilex vomitoria yaupon N woody Asclepiadaceae Asclepias lanceolata fewflower milkweed N Forb Not on Dr. Brown's list. Would be great record. Asclepiadaceae Asclepias longifolia longleaf milkweed N Forb 84 6/7/2000 Area 6 Asclepiadaceae Asclepias verticillata whorled milkweed N Forb 35 6/7/2002 Area 7 Asclepiadaceae Asclepias viridis green antelopehorn N Forb 63, 92 1974 & 2000 Asteraceae Acmella oppositifolia var.
  • Literature Cited

    Literature Cited

    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
  • A List of Grasses and Grasslike Plants of the Oak Openings, Lucas County

    A List of Grasses and Grasslike Plants of the Oak Openings, Lucas County

    A LIST OF THE GRASSES AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS OF THE OAK OPENINGS, LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO1 NATHAN WILLIAM EASTERLY Department of Biology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 4-3403 ABSTRACT This report is the second of a series of articles to be prepared as a second "Flora of the Oak Openings." The study represents a comprehensive survey of members of the Cyperaceae, Gramineae, Juncaceae, Sparganiaceae, and Xyridaceae in the Oak Openings region. Of the 202 species listed in this study, 34 species reported by Moseley in 1928 were not found during the present investigation. Fifty-seven species found by the present investi- gator were not observed or reported by Moseley. Many of these species or varieties are rare and do not represent a stable part of the flora. Changes in species present or in fre- quency of occurrence of species collected by both Moseley and Easterly may be explained mainly by the alteration of habitats as the Oak Openings region becomes increasingly urbanized or suburbanized. Some species have increased in frequency on the floodplain of Swan Creek, in wet ditches and on the banks of the Norfolk and Western Railroad right-of-way, along newly constructed roadsides, or on dry sandy sites. INTRODUCTION The grass family ranks third among the large plant families of the world. The family ranks number one as far as total numbers of plants that cover fields, mead- ows, or roadsides are concerned. No other family is used as extensively to pro- vide food or shelter or to create a beautiful landscape. The sedge family does not fare as well in terms of commercial importance, but the sedges do make avail- able forage and food for wild fowl and they do contribute plant cover in wet areas where other plants would not be as well adapted.
  • Ornamental Grasses for the Midsouth Landscape

    Ornamental Grasses for the Midsouth Landscape

    Ornamental Grasses for the Midsouth Landscape Ornamental grasses with their variety of form, may seem similar, grasses vary greatly, ranging from cool color, texture, and size add diversity and dimension to season to warm season grasses, from woody to herbaceous, a landscape. Not many other groups of plants can boast and from annuals to long-lived perennials. attractiveness during practically all seasons. The only time This variation has resulted in five recognized they could be considered not to contribute to the beauty of subfamilies within Poaceae. They are Arundinoideae, the landscape is the few weeks in the early spring between a unique mix of woody and herbaceous grass species; cutting back the old growth of the warm-season grasses Bambusoideae, the bamboos; Chloridoideae, warm- until the sprouting of new growth. From their emergence season herbaceous grasses; Panicoideae, also warm-season in the spring through winter, warm-season ornamental herbaceous grasses; and Pooideae, a cool-season subfamily. grasses add drama, grace, and motion to the landscape Their habitats also vary. Grasses are found across the unlike any other plants. globe, including in Antarctica. They have a strong presence One of the unique and desirable contributions in prairies, like those in the Great Plains, and savannas, like ornamental grasses make to the landscape is their sound. those in southern Africa. It is important to recognize these Anyone who has ever been in a pine forest on a windy day natural characteristics when using grasses for ornament, is aware of the ethereal music of wind against pine foliage. since they determine adaptability and management within The effect varies with the strength of the wind and the a landscape or region, as well as invasive potential.
  • Plant Coefficient Listing.Xlsx

    Plant Coefficient Listing.Xlsx

    Wisconsin Native Plants Coefficient of Conservativsm Table August 2013 Coefficient of Latin Name Common Name Family Conservatism Acalypha rhomboidea Rhombic Cooper Leaf Euphorbiaceae 0 Achillea millefolium Yarrow Asteraceae 1 Aconitum columbianum Columbia Monk's Hood Ranunculaceae 10 Aconitum noveboracense Northern Blue Monkshood Ranunculaceae 10 Acorus americanus Sweet flag Acoraceae 7 Actaea pachypoda White baneberry Ranunculaceae 6 Actaea rubra Red baneberry Ranunculaceae 7 Adiantum pendatum Maidenhair Fern Pteridaceae 7 Adlumia fungosa Allegheny Vine Fumariaceae 7 Adoxa moschatellina Moschatel Adoxaceae 10 Agalinis aspera Rough false foxglove Scrophulariaceae 7 Agalinis gattingeri Round-stem False Foxglove Scrophulariaceae 8 Agalinis paupercula Small-flowered False Foxglove Scrophulariaceae 7 Agalinis purpurea Purple False Foxglove Scrophulariaceae 7 Agalinis skinneriana Pale False Foxglove Scrophulariaceae 9 Agalinis tenuifolia Common Foxglove Scrophulariaceae 7 Agastache foeniculum Blue Giant Hyssop Lamiaceae 5 Agastache nepetoides Yellow giant hyssop Lamiaceae 5 Agastache scrophulariaefolia Purple giant hyssop Lamiaceae 4 Agrimonia gryposepala Tall agrimony Rosaceae 2 Agrimonia parviflora Southern Agrimony Rosaceae 4 Agrimonia pubescens Downy Agrimony Rosaceae 5 Agrimonia striata Grooved Agrimony Rosaceae 3 Agrostis hyemalis Ticklegrass Poaceae 4 Aletris farinosa Colic root Liliaceae 9 Alisma gramineum Grass-leaved Water Plantain Alismataceae 5 Alisma subcordatum Common Water Plantain Alismataceae 3 Alisma triviale Northern Water
  • Species List For: Labarque Creek CA 750 Species Jefferson County Date Participants Location 4/19/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey

    Species List For: Labarque Creek CA 750 Species Jefferson County Date Participants Location 4/19/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey

    Species List for: LaBarque Creek CA 750 Species Jefferson County Date Participants Location 4/19/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey 5/15/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey 5/16/2006 Nels Holmberg, George Yatskievych, and Rex Plant Survey Hill 5/22/2006 Nels Holmberg and WGNSS Botany Group Plant Survey 5/6/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey Multiple Visits Nels Holmberg, John Atwood and Others LaBarque Creek Watershed - Bryophytes Bryophte List compiled by Nels Holmberg Multiple Visits Nels Holmberg and Many WGNSS and MONPS LaBarque Creek Watershed - Vascular Plants visits from 2005 to 2016 Vascular Plant List compiled by Nels Holmberg Species Name (Synonym) Common Name Family COFC COFW Acalypha monococca (A. gracilescens var. monococca) one-seeded mercury Euphorbiaceae 3 5 Acalypha rhomboidea rhombic copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 1 3 Acalypha virginica Virginia copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 2 3 Acer negundo var. undetermined box elder Sapindaceae 1 0 Acer rubrum var. undetermined red maple Sapindaceae 5 0 Acer saccharinum silver maple Sapindaceae 2 -3 Acer saccharum var. undetermined sugar maple Sapindaceae 5 3 Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae/Anthemideae 1 3 Actaea pachypoda white baneberry Ranunculaceae 8 5 Adiantum pedatum var. pedatum northern maidenhair fern Pteridaceae Fern/Ally 6 1 Agalinis gattingeri (Gerardia) rough-stemmed gerardia Orobanchaceae 7 5 Agalinis tenuifolia (Gerardia, A. tenuifolia var. common gerardia Orobanchaceae 4 -3 macrophylla) Ageratina altissima var. altissima (Eupatorium rugosum) white snakeroot Asteraceae/Eupatorieae 2 3 Agrimonia parviflora swamp agrimony Rosaceae 5 -1 Agrimonia pubescens downy agrimony Rosaceae 4 5 Agrimonia rostellata woodland agrimony Rosaceae 4 3 Agrostis elliottiana awned bent grass Poaceae/Aveneae 3 5 * Agrostis gigantea redtop Poaceae/Aveneae 0 -3 Agrostis perennans upland bent Poaceae/Aveneae 3 1 Allium canadense var.