(Kalmia Latifolia) and Sheep Laurel
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
© 2014 Alicia N. Shenko ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
© 2014 Alicia N. Shenko ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE INFLUENCE OF SMALL MAMMALS ON SUCCESSION AND RESTORATION OF POST-AGRICULTURAL WETLANDS By ALICIA NICOLE SHENKO A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution written under the direction of Dr. Rebecca C. Jordan and approved by ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey January, 2014 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Influence of Small Mammals on Succession and Restoration of Post-Agricultural Wetlands by ALICIA NICOLE SHENKO Dissertation Director: Dr. Rebecca C. Jordan Advancements in modern industry and technology are creating an abundance of post-agricultural lands that are in need of skilled restoration efforts to manage the confluence of factors involved with whole-ecosystem functioning. The influence of small mammals in succession and restoration has been undervalued in traditional restoration studies. This study uses post-agricultural cranberry farms to help answer questions surrounding the role of small mammals in their succession and restoration. The first chapter investigates those species inhabiting post-agricultural wetlands and how they compare to more natural species assemblages in reference locations. Meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) were the most abundant species present and had a strong correlation to post-agricultural sites with wet habitat characteristics; the second-most abundant species present, white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus), had a strong correlation to sites with dry characteristics. Post-agricultural wetlands were more similar to each other than to any more natural reference locations. -
Acadian-Appalachian Alpine Tundra
Acadian-Appalachian Alpine Tundra Macrogroup: Alpine yourStateNatural Heritage Ecologist for more information about this habitat. This is modeledmap a distributiononbased current and is data nota substitute for field inventory. based Contact © Josh Royte (The Nature Conservancy, Maine) Description: A sparsely vegetated system near or above treeline in the Northern Appalachian Mountains, dominated by lichens, dwarf-shrubland, and sedges. At the highest elevations, the dominant plants are dwarf heaths such as alpine bilberry and cushion-plants such as diapensia. Bigelow’s sedge is characteristic. Wetland depressions, such as small alpine bogs and rare sloping fens, may be found within the surrounding upland matrix. In the lower subalpine zone, deciduous shrubs such as nannyberry provide cover in somewhat protected areas; dwarf heaths including crowberry, Labrador tea, sheep laurel, and lowbush blueberry, are typical. Nearer treeline, spruce and fir that State Distribution: ME, NH, NY, VT have become progressively more stunted as exposure increases may form nearly impenetrable krummholz. Total Habitat Acreage: 8,185 Ecological Setting and Natural Processes: Percent Conserved: 98.1% High winds, snow and ice, cloud-cover fog, and intense State State GAP 1&2 GAP 3 Unsecured summer sun exposure are common and control ecosystem State Habitat % Acreage (acres) (acres) (acres) dynamics. Found mostly above 4000' in the northern part of NH 51% 4,160 4,126 0 34 our region, alpine tundra may also occur in small patches on ME 44% 3,624 2,510 1,082 33 lower ridgelines and summits and at lower elevations near the Atlantic coast. NY 3% 285 194 0 91 VT 1% 115 115 0 0 Similar Habitat Types: Acadian-Appalachian Montane Spruce-Fir-Hardwood Forests typically occur downslope. -
Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping Chesapeake Bay Watershed Acknowledgments
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping Chesapeake Bay Watershed Acknowledgments Contributors: Printing was made possible through the generous funding from Adkins Arboretum; Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management; Chesapeake Bay Trust; Irvine Natural Science Center; Maryland Native Plant Society; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; The Nature Conservancy, Maryland-DC Chapter; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Cape May Plant Materials Center; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Reviewers: species included in this guide were reviewed by the following authorities regarding native range, appropriateness for use in individual states, and availability in the nursery trade: Rodney Bartgis, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Ashton Berdine, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Chris Firestone, Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Chris Frye, State Botanist, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Mike Hollins, Sylva Native Nursery & Seed Co. William A. McAvoy, Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Mary Pat Rowan, Landscape Architect, Maryland Native Plant Society. Rod Simmons, Maryland Native Plant Society. Alison Sterling, Wildlife Resources Section, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Troy Weldy, Associate Botanist, New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Graphic Design and Layout: Laurie Hewitt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Special thanks to: Volunteer Carole Jelich; Christopher F. Miller, Regional Plant Materials Specialist, Natural Resource Conservation Service; and R. Harrison Weigand, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Division for assistance throughout this project. -
Expected and Unexpected Evolution of Plant
Hein and Knoop BMC Evolutionary Biology (2018) 18:85 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1203-4 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Expected and unexpected evolution of plant RNA editing factors CLB19, CRR28 and RARE1: retention of CLB19 despite a phylogenetically deep loss of its two known editing targets in Poaceae Anke Hein and Volker Knoop* Abstract Background: C-to-U RNA editing in mitochondria and chloroplasts and the nuclear-encoded, RNA-binding PPR proteins acting as editing factors present a wide field of co-evolution between the different genetic systems in a plant cell. Recent studies on chloroplast editing factors RARE1 and CRR28 addressing one or two chloroplast editing sites, respectively, found them strictly conserved among 65 flowering plants as long as one of their RNA editing targets remained present. Results: Extending the earlier sampling to 117 angiosperms with high-quality genome or transcriptome data, we find more evidence confirming previous conclusions but now also identify cases for expected evolutionary transition states such as retention of RARE1 despite loss of its editing target or the degeneration of CRR28 truncating its carboxyterminal DYW domain. The extended angiosperm set was now used to explore CLB19, an “E+”-type PPR editing factor targeting two chloroplast editing sites, rpoAeU200SF and clpPeU559HY, in Arabidopsis thaliana. We found CLB19 consistently conserved if one of the two targets was retained and three independent losses of CLB19 after elimination of both targets. The Ericales show independent regains of the ancestrally lost clpPeU559HY editing, further explaining why multiple-target editing factors are lost much more rarely than single target factors like RARE1. -
Literature Cited
Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volume 8, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treat- ments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recom- mended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbreviated, 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 et al. (1992– 2009). 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 alpha- betically 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”. There may be citations in this list that have dates suffixed “b” but that are not preceded by citations of “[a]” works for the same year, or that have dates suffixed “c,” “d,” or “e” but that are not preceded by citations of “[a],” “b,” “c,” and/or “d” works for that year. -
Native Pinelands Plants for the Landscape (Revised May 6, 2008)
Native Pinelands Plants for the Landscape (revised May 6, 2008) New Jersey Pinelands Commission phone: 609-894-7300 P.O. Box 7, New Lisbon, NJ 08064 fax: 609-894-7330 John C. Stokes, Executive Director www.nj.gov/pinelands The Pinelands Commission thanks botanist Joseph R. Arsenault of Franklinville, NJ for his permission to use the following list. The following list suggests common Pine Barrens plants and their uses for landscaping, habitat enhancement and forest restoration. These general uses include: • Buffers are used to separate land uses or property; • Specimen plants are used as a display for form, color or function; • Forest uses are specified for reclamation replanting projects, large and small scale; • Reclamation uses are directed towards cleared land: mines, farming; • Canopy reflects trees with potential to become large and tall; and • Foundation, shade, flowers or other plantings include canopy and smaller species. Species Common Name General Use Comments Trees: Evergreens Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White Cedar Buffer, specimen, forest Juniperus virginiana Red cedar Buffer, specimen, reclamation Pinus echinata Short-leaf pine Canopy, forest Pinus rigida Pitch pine Canopy, buffer, reclamation Pinus virginiana Virginia Pine Buffer, specimen, reclamation Trees: Deciduous Acer rubrum v. triloba Trident red maple Specimen, shade, wetland Betula lenta Black birch Specimen, shade, wetland Betula lutea Yellow birch Specimen, wetland Betula populifolia Gray birch Specimen Carya pallida Sand hickory Specimen, shade, wildlife -
Highstead Kalmia Collection Companion Plant List Cultivar/Form Qualities Bed(S)
Plant List Highstead Kalmia Collection Companion Plant List Cultivar/Form Qualities Bed(s) The site of the Kalmia Collection at Highstead lacked a tree Mountain LaureL Kalmia latifolia canopy and air movement, effectively trapping the heat from ‘Alpine Pink’ pink flower with white center H,S this southern exposure. While mountain laurel can grow in ‘Angel’ pure white flower S full sun, the site can not be excessively hot. As a result, a few f. apetala flowers lacking petals Q,S J N changes were made to improve this site so that the plantings ‘Baystate’ coral-colored flower H,S would thrive. A second pathway from the Collection to the ‘Big Boy’ pink bud, soft pink flower G,Q main trail was established, in order to create an additional channel for air movement. This helps to effectively cool the ‘Bravo’ dark pink bud and flower S N site. Companion plantings have been introduced in an effort ‘Bridesmaid’ deep pink flower with white center H,S O to restore a shade canopy, lessening the effects of the ‘Bristol’ broad cinnamon-maroon band Q M I southwest exposure received by these beds. Oak, dogwood, ‘Bullseye’ white flower with cinnamon band B,H,S K shadblow and witch hazel all provide a distinct contrast to the ‘Candy’ dark pink bud, dark pink flower H Q mountain laurel. Below is a list of some of the more ‘Carol’ deep red bud, white flower G,H,S P noteworthy of these plantings. ‘Carousel’ white flower with cinnamon band H,S F ‘Claydian Pink’ pink bud, clear pink flower G Winterberry Ilex verticillata ‘Comet’ white flowers and a more dense -
Calvert County Native Plant List
February 2011 CALVERT COUNTY NATIVE PLANT LIST Canopy Trees (Generally > 35 ft. tall at maturity) Planting Stock: 2-in. caliper in size spaced 20-40 ft. on center Common Name Species Notes Box Elder Acer negundo Red Maple Acer rubrum Silver Maple Acer saccharinum River Birch Betula nigra Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Pignut Hickory Carya glabra Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata Mockernut Hickory Carya tomentosa Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides Evergreen Common Persimmon Diospyros virginiana American Beech Fagus grandifolia Black Walnut Juglans nigra Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana Evergreen Sweet Gum Liquidambar styraciflua Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera Red Mulberry Morus rubra Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica Salt Tolerant Shortleaf Pine Pinus echinata Evergreen Pitch Pine Pinus rigida Evergreen; Salt Tolerant Pond Pine Pinus serotina Evergreen Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda Evergreen Virginia Pine Pinus virgiana Evergreen American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Black Cherry Prunus serotina Salt Tolerant White Oak Quercus alba Salt Tolerant Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor Salt Tolerant Scarlet Oak Quercus coccinea Salt Tolerant Southern Red Oak Quercus falcata Blackjack Oak Quercus marilandica Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii Chinquapin Oak Quercus muehlenbergii Water Oak Quercus nigra Pin Oak Quercus palustris Salt Tolerant Willow Oak Quercus phellos Chestnut Oak Quercus prinus Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra Salt Tolerant Post Oak Quercus stellata Salt Tolerant Black Oak Quercus velutina Salt Tolerant Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum Salt Tolerant American Basswood Tilia americana American Elm Ulmus americana 1 February 2011 CAL VERT COUNTY NATIVE PLANTS LIST (cont.) Understory Trees (Generally < 35 ft. tall at maturity) Planting Stock: 1 to 2-in. -
(Kalmia Microphylla) As a Stock-Poisoning Plant
S,,~ 11/1/2,8 2 f.so = 1.0 '""2.5 1.0 i~ 11111 ,8 1111'2.5 fi;; 1IIIIn SiJ 111If32 2.2 ,I gftd, ~113 6 D_ i_ »~tt_ ~1P6 L J~ :: W~;g .0 ::....;em!JO I . 0 Lot-'- ....~ .... ~ 1.1 L. ... ~ -- 1.1 -- 111111.8 111111.8 111111.25 1/1/11.4 /1111 1.6 111111.25 111111.4 /////1.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU Of STAN DAR OS 196, A NATlON,\l BUI!lAIi Uf' 51ANOAH1" 196. A . ~=~~~====~ TECHNICAL BULLl!TIN No. 391 ~;;) AUGUST 1933 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON. D.C. -=*!. [A~,PINE KALMIA (KALMIA MICROPHYLLA) AS A STOCK-POISONING PLANT ~ By A. Bl:C;r,Awsox . ~ Physiologist, Pathological Division, Bureau 'If Animal Indu$lry ..-!'"""' ..... [) CONTENTS ~ Page Pap Q Purpose of investigations._._____ •••___ ..._.. 1 Results of ~"perimental feeding-Oontinued Review of literature. ________ ..__________.___ 1 Torlc and lethal doses ____ ._____________ 7 Description and distribution of the plant ••. _ 3 Poisonous qualities of plant as related to Experimental procedure. ____ •________.._ .._ 4. stage of growth and rcgiolL____________ 8 Results of experimental feedir.!r__ ....__ ._____ 5 Summary___..._.__ ..___ ..._______ •_____ .___ 8 Typical case Ilf sheep 1162 ______ • __ ...___ 5 Literature cited.___........__ ......_________ '9 SJlIlptoms________________ ...__ ••_______ 6 .AppearanceilIness __ .- _____of symptoms •• ______________ nnd duration .• __ ____ of 6 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATIONS In the Uniterl States alpine kalmia (Kalmia microphyUa) grows in restricted ar€l1fof the livestock ranges, where it has been suspected of having poisoned sheep and cattle. -
Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping Maryland: Coastal Plain photo credit: USFWS May 2001 ABOUT THIS PLANT LIST This list provides information about native plants that can be used for habitat restoration and natural or environmentally beneficial landscaping projects such as BayScapes. All of the plants listed occur naturally in Maryland. Plants are grouped by plant type, then listed alphabetically by Latin name. This is not intended as a complete list of plants native to Maryland. Rather, plants have been included because they have both ornamental and wildlife value, and are generally available for sale. WHY USE NATIVE PLANTS? Native or indigenous plants naturally occur in the region in which they evolved. They are adapted to local soil, rainfall and temperature conditions, and have developed natural defenses to many insects and diseases. Because of these traits, native plants will grow with minimal use of water, fertilizers, and pesticides. Wildlife species evolve with plants; therefore, they use native plant communities as their habitat. Using native plants helps preserve the balance and beauty of natural ecosystems. TREASURED NATURAL RESOURCES Maryland's landscape includes a wide range of natural communities, physiographic provinces, and natural features. Here, one can find both southern and northern ecosystems in close proximity. From the cypress swamps, barrier islands, and Delmarva bays of the Eastern Shore; to the rolling hills, stream valleys, and hardwood forests of the Piedmont plateau; to the mountain boreal bogs, caves, and limestone woods to the west, Maryland offers a diversity of habitats that support an impressive variety of species. -
Southern Garden History Plant Lists
Southern Plant Lists Southern Garden History Society A Joint Project With The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation September 2000 1 INTRODUCTION Plants are the major component of any garden, and it is paramount to understanding the history of gardens and gardening to know the history of plants. For those interested in the garden history of the American south, the provenance of plants in our gardens is a continuing challenge. A number of years ago the Southern Garden History Society set out to create a ‘southern plant list’ featuring the dates of introduction of plants into horticulture in the South. This proved to be a daunting task, as the date of introduction of a plant into gardens along the eastern seaboard of the Middle Atlantic States was different than the date of introduction along the Gulf Coast, or the Southern Highlands. To complicate maters, a plant native to the Mississippi River valley might be brought in to a New Orleans gardens many years before it found its way into a Virginia garden. A more logical project seemed to be to assemble a broad array plant lists, with lists from each geographic region and across the spectrum of time. The project’s purpose is to bring together in one place a base of information, a data base, if you will, that will allow those interested in old gardens to determine the plants available and popular in the different regions at certain times. This manual is the fruition of a joint undertaking between the Southern Garden History Society and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. In choosing lists to be included, I have been rather ruthless in expecting that the lists be specific to a place and a time. -
Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping: Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Acknowledgments Reviewers: Species included in this guide were reviewed by the following authorities regarding native range, appropriateness for use in individual states, and availability in the nursery trade: Rodney Bartgis, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Ashton Berdine, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Chris Firestone, Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Chris Frye, State Botanist, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Mike Hollins, Sylva Native Nursery & Seed Co. William A. McAvoy, Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Mary Pat Rowan, Landscape Architect, Maryland Native Plant Society. Rod Simmons, Maryland Native Plant Society. Alison Sterling, Wildlife Resources Section, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Troy Weldy, Associate Botanist, New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Graphic Design and Layout: Laurie Hewitt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Special thanks to: Volunteer Carole Jelich; Christopher F. Miller, Regional Plant Materials Specialist, Natural Resource Conservation Service; and R. Harrison Wiegand, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Division for assistance throughout this project. Citation: Slattery, Britt E., Kathryn Reshetiloff, and Susan M. Zwicker. 2003, 2005. Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping: Chesapeake Bay Watershed. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD. 82 pp. Document may also be found online at: http://www.nps.gov/plants/pubs/chesapeake/ First printing, 2003 Second printing, 2005 Third printing, 2009 Fourth printing 2012 The Native Plant Center Citizens, schools, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies use this resource to select native plants to create landscapes to attract wildlife and reduce pollutants going into the Chesapeake Bay.