DOCSLIB.ORG

Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway a Baseline Inventory and Analysis of Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Animals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway a Baseline Inventory and Analysis of Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Animals Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway A Baseline Inventory and Analysis of Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Animals June 2011 Natural Heritage Inventory Program Bureau of Endangered Resources Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 PUBL ER-830 2011 Cover Photos (clockwise, from left): Long Island, photo by Brad Hutnik; Hine’s emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana) from the study areas, photo by Todd Sima; snow trillium (Trillium nivale) from the study area, photo by Ryan O’Connor; Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) from the study area, photo by Richard Staffen. Copies of this report can be obtained by writing to the Bureau of Endangered Resources at the address on the front cover. This publication is available in alternative format (large print, Braille, audio tape, etc) upon request. Please call (608-266-7012) for more information. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services, and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write to Equal Opportunity Office, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway A Baseline Inventory and Analysis of Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Animals Primary Authors: Terrell Hyde, Christina Isenring, Ryan O’Connor, Amy Staffen, Richard Staffen Natural Heritage Inventory Program Bureau of Endangered Resources Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707-7921 Acknowledgments We extend our appreciation to Bill Carlson, Kate Fitzgerald, Dan Goltz, Brian Hefty, Brad Hutnik, Bill Ishmael, Eric Lobner, Becky Roth, Ann Runyard, Jean Unmuth, Ryder Will, David Wiederholdt, Rebecca Schroeder, and Matt Zine and the South Central Region State Natural Area crew. We also thank the numerous individuals who reviewed this document and provided valuable input. Funding was provided by the Endangered Resources Fund, the Division of Lands, and the Division of Forestry. Primary Authors: Terrell Hyde, Christina Isenring, Ryan O’Connor, Amy Staffen, Richard Staffen Contributors: This project would not have been possible without the efforts and expertise of many people, including the following: Craig Anderson – botany, rare plants Jeb Barzen and Ferry Bluff Eagle Council – eagle winter roost data Matthew Berg – marsh birds Cathy Bleser – ecology, insects, birds, team coordination Julie Bleser – data management Gary Casper – herpetology Andy Clark – botany Barb Duerksen – birds Dawn Hinebaugh – report editing Randy Hoffman – report editing Aaron Holschbach – birds Terrell Hyde – zoology, data processing, GIS Christina Isenring – community ecology, botany, data processing, planning Kathy Kirk – terrestrial insects Janeen Laatsch – plants, communities John Lyons – fishes, report contributions Dave Marshall - fishes Mike Mossman – birds, herptiles, small mammals Ryan O’Connor – botany, community ecology, data processing Dave Redell – bats Scott Sauer – terrestrial insects Kurt Schmude – aquatic invertebrates Todd Sima – aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates William A. Smith – zoology, planning, aquatic invertebrates Amy Staffen – data processing, community ecology Rich Staffen – zoology, planning, data processing, birds, forest raptors Nathaniel Stewart – GIS Paul White – bats Table of Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 8 Project Purpose and Objectives .................................................................................... 8 Overview of Methods ................................................................................................. 10 Background on Previous Efforts................................................................................. 14 Special Management Designations............................................................................. 16 Regional Ecological Context ................................................................................................ 18 Western Coulee and Ridges Ecological Landscape.................................................... 18 Regional Biodiversity Needs and Opportunities......................................................... 19 Rare Species of the Western Coulee and Ridges Ecological Landscape.................... 20 Description of the Study Area.............................................................................................. 21 Location and Size........................................................................................................ 21 Ecoregion .................................................................................................................... 23 Physical Environment ................................................................................................. 25 Vegetation................................................................................................................... 27 Natural Communities of the Study Area..................................................................... 35 Rare Vascular Plants of the Study Area...................................................................... 36 Rare Animals of the Study Area ................................................................................. 40 Threats to the Biodiversity of the LWSR ........................................................................... 49 Management Considerations and Opportunities for Biodiversity Conservation for the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway........................................................................................ 59 Landscape Level Priorities.......................................................................................... 59 Community Level Priorities and Restoration Opportunities ...................................... 62 Wisconsin’s Statewide Forest Strategy....................................................................... 71 Management Opportunities for Rare Species ............................................................. 72 Species List ............................................................................................................................ 97 Lower Wisconsin State Riverway 1 References............................................................................................................................ 102 Additional Resources.......................................................................................................... 111 List of Tables Table 1. Field surveys coordinated by the Natural Heritage Inventory during 2008-2009.........................12 Table 2. Major Natural Community Management Opportunities in the Western Coulee and Ridges Ecological Landscape (EMPT 2007 and WDNR 2006b) ...........................................................................19 Table 3. Listing Status for rare species in the Western Coulee and Ridges Ecological Landscape as of 2009. ...........................................................................................................................................................20 Table 4. NHI natural community types, with last observed dates, documented within the study area.......35 Table 5. NHI Working List plants documented within the study area........................................................38 Table 6. Rare animals documented within the study area...........................................................................43 Table 7. Rare species that are either 1) found within one mile of the LWSR and not found on the LWSR, 2) mapped at a low precision, or 3) ranked as historical. No natural communities fit this criteria.............48 Table 8. Widespread non-native invasive species currently known from the LWSR.................................53 Table 9. New or not-widespread non-native invasive species currently known from the LWSR.. ............54 Table 10. Non-native invasive species known from the area surrounding the LWSR, but not currently known from within the LWSR....................................................................................................................55 Table 11. Rare plant species on the LWSR associated with Floodplain Forests. .......................................72 Table 12. Rare plant species on the LWSR associated with Southern Mesic Forest..................................72 Table 13. Rare plant species on the LWSR associated with Oak Barrens and Dry Prairies.......................73 Table 14. Rare plant species on the LWSR associated with Oak Woodland, Oak Openings, and Dry Cliffs.. .........................................................................................................................................................74 Table 15. Bird species of conservation concern found in grassland habitats of the LWSR. ....................76 Table 16. Forest interior breeding birds of the LWSR................................................................................78 Table 17. Sensitive fish species identified in the Lower Wisconsin River (Marshall and Lyons 2008). ...82 Table 18. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened aquatic invertebrate species known from the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notes on Commelina 1. Flower Variants of C. Erecta in Northwest Puerto Rico
    Notes on Commelina 1. Flower variants of C. erecta in northwest Puerto Rico José A. Mari Mut edicionesdigitales.info 2018 #1 Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés. —Louis Pasteur! ©2018 edicionesdigitales.info. This work may be freely reproduced for educational, non-profit use. URLs- http://edicionesdigitales.info/ commelina/flowertypes.pdf, https://archive.org/details/flowertypes. Updated November 6, 2018." #2 Notes on Commelina 1. Flower variants of ! C. erecta in northwest Puerto Rico! José A. Mari Mut! Retired professor, Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez, PR 00680. [email protected]! Introduction! $During my early morning walks along roads and streets in northwest Puerto Rico, I have observed many plants referable to Commelina erecta and noted that they can be segregated into four flower types, even though only one variety of the species is included in current databases and floras of the island. The purpose of this report is to bring these types to the attention of botanists better equipped to study them and decide if they are simple variants, or if perhaps other varieties or maybe even other species have been lumped locally under C. erecta var. erecta.! $ Commelina erecta was described by Linnaeus in 1753 from specimens collected in Virginia, USA. The species has been described under other names, and varieties have been erected based mainly on pilosity and leaf shape. As currently understood, C. erecta has a very wide distribution, extending from the United States through Central America to South America and the Caribbean, it has also been reported from Africa, western Asia and Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Report110
    ~ ~ WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected RESEARCH Rivers of Wisconsin by Richard A. Lillie REPORT110 Bureau of Research, Monona December 1995 ~ Abstract The mayfly fauna of 25 rivers and streams in Wisconsin were surveyed during 1991-93 to document the temporal and spatial occurrence patterns of two state endangered mayflies, Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex. Both species are candidates under review for addition to the federal List of Endang­ ered and Threatened Wildlife. Based on previous records of occur­ rence in Wisconsin, sampling was conducted during the period May-July using a combination of sampling methods, including dredges, air-lift pumps, kick-nets, and hand-picking of substrates. No specimens of Anepeorus simplex were collected. Three specimens (nymphs or larvae) of Acanthametropus pecatonica were found in the Black River, one nymph was collected from the lower Wisconsin River, and a partial exuviae was collected from the Chippewa River. Homoeoneuria ammophila was recorded from Wisconsin waters for the first time from the Black River and Sugar River. New site distribution records for the following Wiscon­ sin special concern species include: Macdunnoa persimplex, Metretopus borealis, Paracloeodes minutus, Parameletus chelifer, Pentagenia vittigera, Cercobrachys sp., and Pseudiron centra/is. Collection of many of the aforementioned species from large rivers appears to be dependent upon sampling sand-bottomed substrates at frequent intervals, as several species were relatively abundant during only very short time spans. Most species were associated with sand substrates in water < 2 m deep. Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex should continue to be listed as endangered for state purposes and receive a biological rarity ranking of critically imperiled (S1 ranking), and both species should be considered as candidates proposed for listing as endangered or threatened as defined by the Endangered Species Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Relationships and Historical Biogeography of Tribes and Genera in the Subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)
    Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKBIJBiological Journal of the Linnean Society 0024-4066The Linnean Society of London, 2005? 2005 862 227251 Original Article PHYLOGENY OF NYMPHALINAE N. WAHLBERG ET AL Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 86, 227–251. With 5 figures . Phylogenetic relationships and historical biogeography of tribes and genera in the subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) NIKLAS WAHLBERG1*, ANDREW V. Z. BROWER2 and SÖREN NYLIN1 1Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 2Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331–2907, USA Received 10 January 2004; accepted for publication 12 November 2004 We infer for the first time the phylogenetic relationships of genera and tribes in the ecologically and evolutionarily well-studied subfamily Nymphalinae using DNA sequence data from three genes: 1450 bp of cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) (in the mitochondrial genome), 1077 bp of elongation factor 1-alpha (EF1-a) and 400–403 bp of wing- less (both in the nuclear genome). We explore the influence of each gene region on the support given to each node of the most parsimonious tree derived from a combined analysis of all three genes using Partitioned Bremer Support. We also explore the influence of assuming equal weights for all characters in the combined analysis by investigating the stability of clades to different transition/transversion weighting schemes. We find many strongly supported and stable clades in the Nymphalinae. We are also able to identify ‘rogue’
    [Show full text]
  • Descriptions of Two New Chlosyne (Nymphalid~) from Mexico, with a Discussion of Related Forms
    148 Vo1.14: no.Z DESCRIPTIONS OF TWO NEW CHLOSYNE (NYMPHALID~) FROM MEXICO, WITH A DISCUSSION OF RELATED FORMS by DAVID L. BAUER Some years ago while examining the series of C hlosyne lacinia Geyer in the collection of F. M. BROWN, I noticed five specimens without marginal or submarginal spots on the wings. These specimens were all from northeastern Mexico and this along with their other peculiarities interested me, so I set them aside and continued to examine the series. Later among the specimens of C hlosyne lacinia quehtala Reakirt, I found five more specimens which also did not have a trace of the marginal or submarginal spots on their wings. These last specimens were from southwestern Mexico. As soon as possible I examined the genitalia of these two insects to see if they were just another variation of the protean C. lacinia, of which I had already checked many forms, or something new. I was both surprised and delighted to find the genitalia w ere definitely not like those of true lacinia. Comparison with the genitalia of other species of Chlosyne showed them to be most like those of C. janais Drury. The next summer, 1954, a trip was taken to Mexico and several colonies of the first insect were found, its habits were observed, and a good series was collected, but only one specimen of the second insect was c3.ptured. However, that same year, and also two years later, KENT H. WILSON was collecting Papilio in Mexico, and knowing of my interest in the Chlosyne he collected as many as he could and sent them to me for study.
    [Show full text]
  • RESCON 2020 Proceedings
    POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF PERADENIYA SRI LANKA PGIS RESEARCH CONGRESS 2020 PROCEEDINGS 26th - 28th November 2020 Copyright © 2020 by Postgraduate Institute of Science All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, stored in a retrieval system, and transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-955-8787-10-6 Published by Postgraduate Institute of Science (PGIS) University of Peradeniya Peradeniya 20400 SRI LANKA Printed by Sanduni Offset Printers (Pvt) Ltd, 1/4, Sarasavi Uyana Goodshed Road, Sarasavi Uyana, Peradeniya 20400, Sri Lanka Printed in the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Message from the Director, Postgraduate Institute of Science ....................................... v Message from the Congress Chairperson ..................................................................... vii Message from the Editor-in-Chief .................................................................................ix Message from the Chief Guest .......................................................................................xi Editorial Board ............................................................................................................ xiii Academic Coordinators of the Virtual Technical Sessions .........................................xiv A Brief Biography of the Keynote Speaker .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Persius Duskywing Erynnis Persius Persius
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Eastern Persius Duskywing Erynnis persius persius in Canada ENDANGERED 2006 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION ENDANGERED WILDLIFE DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL IN CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Eastern Persius Duskywing Erynnis persius persius in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 41 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge M.L. Holder for writing the status report on the Eastern Persius Duskywing Erynnis persius persius in Canada. COSEWIC also gratefully acknowledges the financial support of Environment Canada. The COSEWIC report review was overseen and edited by Theresa B. Fowler, Co-chair, COSEWIC Arthropods Species Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur l’Hespérie Persius de l’Est (Erynnis persius persius) au Canada. Cover illustration: Eastern Persius Duskywing — Original drawing by Andrea Kingsley ©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2006 Catalogue No. CW69-14/475-2006E-PDF ISBN 0-662-43258-4 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – April 2006 Common name Eastern Persius Duskywing Scientific name Erynnis persius persius Status Endangered Reason for designation This lupine-feeding butterfly has been confirmed from only two sites in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Abstract Oak Openings
    Oak Openings CommunityOak Openings,Abstract Page 1 Historical Range Prevalent or likely prevalent Infrequent or likely infrequent Photo by Michael A. Kost Absent or likely absent Overview: Oak openings is a fire-dependent, savanna climatic tension zone. In the 1800s, oak openings were type dominated by oaks, having between 10 and located in the south-central Lower Peninsula of Michigan 60% canopy, with or without a shrub layer. The on sandy glacial outwash and coarse-textured moraines predominantly graminoid ground layer is composed (Wing 1937, Comer et al. 1995, NatureServe 2004). Oak of species associated with both prairie and forest openings occurred within the range of bur oak plains communities. Oak openings are found on dry-mesic and oak barrens, with oak openings dominating more on loams and occur typically on level to rolling topography dry-mesic to mesic soils, bur oak plains occupying more of outwash and coarse-textured end moraines. Oak mesic, flat sites in the southwestern part of the Lower openings have been nearly extirpated from Michigan; Peninsula, and oak barrens thriving on droughty sites. only two small examples have been documented. These similar oak savanna types often graded into each other. Oak openings were historically documented in Global and State Rank: G1/S1 the following counties: Allegan, Barry, Berrien, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Clinton, Eaton, Genesee, Hillsdale, Range: Oak savanna1 and prairie communities reached Ingham, Ionia, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Kent, Lapeer, their maximum coverage in Michigan approximately Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Montcalm, Monroe, 4,000-6,000 years ago, when post-glacial climatic Newaygo, Oakland, Ottawa, Shiawassee, St. Joseph, Van conditions were comparatively warm and dry.
    [Show full text]
  • Desmodium Cuspidatum (Muhl.) Loudon Large-Bracted Tick-Trefoil
    New England Plant Conservation Program Desmodium cuspidatum (Muhl.) Loudon Large-bracted Tick-trefoil Conservation and Research Plan for New England Prepared by: Lynn C. Harper Habitat Protection Specialist Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Westborough, Massachusetts For: New England Wild Flower Society 180 Hemenway Road Framingham, MA 01701 508/877-7630 e-mail: [email protected] • website: www.newfs.org Approved, Regional Advisory Council, 2002 SUMMARY Desmodium cuspidatum (Muhl.) Loudon (Fabaceae) is a tall, herbaceous, perennial legume that is regionally rare in New England. Found most often in dry, open, rocky woods over circumneutral to calcareous bedrock, it has been documented from 28 historic and eight current sites in the three states (Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts) where it is tracked by the Natural Heritage programs. The taxon has not been documented from Maine. In Connecticut and Rhode Island, the species is reported but not tracked by the Heritage programs. Two current sites in Connecticut are known from herbarium specimens. No current sites are known from Rhode Island. Although secure throughout most of its range in eastern and midwestern North America, D. cuspidatum is Endangered in Vermont, considered Historic in New Hampshire, and watch-listed in Massachusetts. It is ranked G5 globally. Very little is understood about the basic biology of this species. From work on congeners, it can be inferred that there are likely to be no problems with pollination, seed set, or germination. As for most legumes, rhizobial bacteria form nitrogen-fixing nodules on the roots of D. cuspidatum. It is unclear whether there have been any changes in the numbers or distribution of rhizobia capable of forming effective mutualisms with D.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 1 Table 1. Current Taxonomic Keys and the Level of Taxonomy Routinely U
    Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Table 1. Current taxonomic keys and the level of taxonomy routinely used by the Ohio EPA in streams and rivers for various macroinvertebrate taxonomic classifications. Genera that are reasonably considered to be monotypic in Ohio are also listed. Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Species Pennak 1989, Thorp & Rogers 2016 Porifera If no gemmules are present identify to family (Spongillidae). Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Cnidaria monotypic genera: Cordylophora caspia and Craspedacusta sowerbii Platyhelminthes Class (Turbellaria) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nemertea Phylum (Nemertea) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Phylum (Nematomorpha) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nematomorpha Paragordius varius monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Ectoprocta monotypic genera: Cristatella mucedo, Hyalinella punctata, Lophopodella carteri, Paludicella articulata, Pectinatella magnifica, Pottsiella erecta Entoprocta Urnatella gracilis monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Polychaeta Class (Polychaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Annelida Oligochaeta Subclass (Oligochaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Hirudinida Species Klemm 1982, Klemm et al. 2015 Anostraca Species Thorp & Rogers 2016 Species (Lynceus Laevicaudata Thorp & Rogers 2016 brachyurus) Spinicaudata Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Williams 1972, Thorp & Rogers Isopoda Genus 2016 Holsinger 1972, Thorp & Rogers Amphipoda Genus 2016 Gammaridae: Gammarus Species Holsinger 1972 Crustacea monotypic genera: Apocorophium lacustre, Echinogammarus ischnus, Synurella dentata Species (Taphromysis Mysida Thorp & Rogers 2016 louisianae) Crocker & Barr 1968; Jezerinac 1993, 1995; Jezerinac & Thoma 1984; Taylor 2000; Thoma et al. Cambaridae Species 2005; Thoma & Stocker 2009; Crandall & De Grave 2017; Glon et al. 2018 Species (Palaemon Pennak 1989, Palaemonidae kadiakensis) Thorp & Rogers 2016 1 Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Informal grouping of the Arachnida Hydrachnidia Smith 2001 water mites Genus Morse et al.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 4: EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies)
    Guide to Aquatic Invertebrate Families of Mongolia | 2009 CHAPTER 4 EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies) EPHEMEROPTERA Draft June 17, 2009 Chapter 4 | EPHEMEROPTERA 45 Guide to Aquatic Invertebrate Families of Mongolia | 2009 ORDER EPHEMEROPTERA Mayflies 4 Mayfly larvae are found in a variety of locations including lakes, wetlands, streams, and rivers, but they are most common and diverse in lotic habitats. They are common and abundant in stream riffles and pools, at lake margins and in some cases lake bottoms. All mayfly larvae are aquatic with terrestrial adults. In most mayfly species the adult only lives for 1-2 days. Consequently, the majority of a mayfly’s life is spent in the water as a larva. The adult lifespan is so short there is no need for the insect to feed and therefore the adult does not possess functional mouthparts. Mayflies are often an indicator of good water quality because most mayflies are relatively intolerant of pollution. Mayflies are also an important food source for fish. Ephemeroptera Morphology Most mayflies have three caudal filaments (tails) (Figure 4.1) although in some taxa the terminal filament (middle tail) is greatly reduced and there appear to be only two caudal filaments (only one genus actually lacks the terminal filament). Mayflies have gills on the dorsal surface of the abdomen (Figure 4.1), but the number and shape of these gills vary widely between taxa. All mayflies possess only one tarsal claw at the end of each leg (Figure 4.1). Characters such as gill shape, gill position, and tarsal claw shape are used to separate different mayfly families.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Plant List
    APPENDIX B-Tree Technical Manual, Download at the "Unified Development Code" from: http://www.cityofedinburg.com/ City of Edinburg Native (Permitted) Plant List e e = P Wildlif s t rac espan: Scientific Name Family Common Name(s) Slow) Medium, Fast, COMMENTS Perennial, A=Annual, D=deciduous Period Blooming Color Bloom Aquatic Soils Moist Riparian Upland Full Shade Shade/Sun Full Sun Att Lif (Bi=Bird Bu=Butterfly(Bi=Bird Be=Bee Height Mature Width Mature Rate Growth ( Spacing Large Trees (Parking lot shade) Acacia wrightii Fabaceae Wright's Acacia X X X Be 30' 20' Medium 20' P, D Spring White Recurved spines; heat & drought tolerant Fast growing shade tree; small fruit is extremely valuable for birds; limbs fairly Celtis laevigata Ulmaceae Sugar Hackberry X X X X X Bi 45' 50' Fast 50' P, D Spring Greenish brittle; drops fine, sticky sap, which is messy Fragrant, showy clusters of small, white flowers produce large quantities of fruit Ehretia anacua Boraginaceae Anacua X X X Bi 45' 50' Slow 50' P, D Jun-Oct White valuable to wildlife; fruit drop can be messy; good shade tree Large, spreading tree that requires regular watering to reach full potential; Fraxinus berlandieriana Oleaceae Mexican Ash, Fresno X X X X Bi 50' 75' Medium 75' P, D Spring Greenish papery, winged fruits on female trees only Very fast growing tree, but relatively Tepeguaje, Lead Leucaena pulverulenta Fabaceae X X Be 40' 50' Fast 50' P, D Spring Summer White short lived; limbs brittle and break easily, Tree and subject to girdling beetles Dense shade tree provides important
    [Show full text]
  • RECORDS of the HAWAII BIOLOGICAL SURVEY for 1994 Part 2: Notes1
    1 RECORDS OF THE HAWAII BIOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR 1994 Part 2: Notes1 This is the second of two parts to the Records of the Hawaii Biological Survey for 1994 and contains the notes on Hawaiian species of plants and animals including new state and island records, range extensions, and other information. Larger, more comprehensive treatments and papers describing new taxa are treated in the first part of this volume [Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 41]. New Hawaiian Plant Records. I BARBARA M. HAWLEY & B. LEILANI PYLE (Herbarium Pacificum, Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, P.O. Box 19000A, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817, USA) Amaranthaceae Achyranthes mutica A. Gray Significance. Considered extinct and previously known from only 2 collections: sup- posedly from Hawaii Island 1779, D. Nelson s.n.; and from Kauai between 1851 and 1855, J. Remy 208 (Wagner et al., 1990, Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai‘i, p. 181). Material examined. HAWAII: South Kohala, Keawewai Gulch, 975 m, gulch with pasture and relict Koaie, 10 Nov 1991, T.K. Pratt s.n.; W of Kilohana fork, 1000 m, on sides of dry gulch ca. 20 plants seen above and below falls, 350 °N aspect, 16 Dec 1992, K.R. Wood & S. Perlman 2177 (BISH). Caryophyllaceae Silene lanceolata A. Gray Significance. New island record for Oahu. Distribution in Wagner et al. (1990: 523, loc. cit.) limited to Kauai, Molokai, Hawaii, and Lanai. Several plants were later noted by Steve Perlman and Ken Wood from Makua, Oahu in 1993. Material examined. OAHU: Waianae Range, Ohikilolo Ridge at ca. 700 m elevation, off ridge crest, growing on a vertical rock face, facing northward and generally shaded most of the day but in an open, exposed face, only 1 plant noted, 25 Sep 1992, J.
    [Show full text]