DOCSLIB.ORG

(Kalmia Latifolia) and Sheep Laurel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Kalmia Latifolia) and Sheep Laurel 2 5 I~ IIIiI2.8 2 5 :; ""I 2.8 11111_ . 11111 . 1.0 1.0 Ii.': '= w~ ~I"~ w~ III"~ .2 L:: I~ L:: ~J~ I:.:: I:.:: ~ g~ 2.0 ~ I~ '- " '"'- " 1.1 ...... u 1.1 1jJL;.1,.\. - --- - 111111.8 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS·1963-A NATIONAL BUREAU or STANDAROS·1963·A v -~========~ In~;rrm;rrE'CH~IIc.<IL BULLETIN No.. 219. ~ . DECEM.lIER, 19.'\0 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE \VASHINGTON, D. C. ~/IOUNTAIN-LAUREL (KAL1vIIA LATIFOLIA) AND SHEEP LAUREL (KAL~UA ANGcSTIFOLIA) AS STOCK-POISONING PLANTS By C. DWIGHT MARSH, Associate Physiologi<ltill C)lurgc of IIl1:('.~figatioll.~ Of Stock PoisOning by Plants, H1l(1 A. B. CLAWSON. Associate PlIY8iologist, Path. ologwal Di1/i.sion, BlIrC(llI, of Animal IlIdll,~try ~ t-= ~ l:i CO~TEXTS !'! c -' >­ rnl,",' Page !:! a: Introduction•••••, ......................... I . Discussion anel general conclusions-C'ontd. .l !-Description nnd blstory............... _.,' 1 Time [rom feeding to appearance of to:: Ul Kalmialntifolin...................... I sympto~_....................._...... 15 ~ K~IUli:l angustifoli!l.......... :1 Dumtionofslckness............ ...... 16 .. Z Expenmcntnl work........,"". ,( Remedies.... __ •_____ ................... IS ',~ - KolminlntiColia........ ... c!i Kalrn in nngustifolin.. '''",, __ , Animalsnlfccled by the plants.......... to lU 20 G hi Discussion and geneml conclusions.. Conditionsunderwhich pofsoningoccurs. ., (j Symptoms.......... .... __ ' . I:? . PoL>onin!;by ilel'h oennfmnls which have 1~ : eaten Kalmia......._.............__ ... :?O Z .. Z ~ficroscopiechnn!(esinnniruul ti~sllcS 12 I >'ummnry•.,. __ .............................. ~Q '(!:! Toxic nn'llcrhal dosage................. 11 • Literatllre cIted......__ ._.......__ •••••••••• :?t ~1 0 I') III ..: INTRODUCTION I{ahnia 7atifo7ia and g. angustifolia, commonly known a" monn­ tain-Iallrel anel ~heep laurel. l'e~pectj\'ely, Ill'(' :llllong the most promi­ nent stock-poisoning plants of the ('astern part of the enited States. They are widely di~triblltl'(1. wpll known to most people in the region ,,1)(,1'e tlw)' are found. nIHl prizl'd hp('tlllH' of tl1('ir beauty. 1Yhile many pl'ople: r('('ognizl' t1wm HS j,Pillg poi,,;ol1ol,ls. definite information in regard to the (lffp('t pl'o<lw'(\{] hy tlwlll, the toxic dosage. and possi­ ble 'ways of treating Doi:;oI1P(! :lllimub 01' In·oitlin!! Ios!:'('s have not been r;adil)" anljlai)le'. Fl'('qlll'l1t inquil'i('" are l'('ceiwd by tIl(' De­ partment of Agncultlll'(' ('onc('rning til('se plants. but there hus been no publication by tlw c1('partnwJlt or hy otlwrs which ('onld be used to answer these qUeJ'ies. The two plants produc(' tb(' same: (·fi'ect ann tlwi1' poisonous prop­ erties are due to the same substance, andromedotoxin: therefore it . seems advisable to dis('uBs both of th(,111 in a sing-Ie publicatioll. DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY KALMIA LATIFOLIA K. latifoliCL is sho'wll in'Figure L The following- dl:'scl'iptioll of the plant is from Gmy's },Tew)Iulluul of Botany. (fl. I). (j.U)! : 1 Italic IlUmbCl'S in pnrentbcl'I.'S n'fet: to I.ltl'rntlll'" {'it('ti, p. 21. 15144°-1\0-_1 1 GII'I ·JAN .14 1931 ~.,. 2 TECHNICAL BLTLLETIN 219, 1:. S. DEPT. OF AGlUCULTUllE Leave,,' mostly alternate, brig-ht green botll shk;.:, oyatc-lnnceolate or oblong, acute at each end, petioled; cor;rlllus terminal, many t!owel'ed, clammy-pubes­ cent; flowers 1.5-2.5 (~Il1. brotlt1, Ilink or white; lIOn depr('!"sed, glandular. Rocky hills :Illcl damp soH, N_ B. to Ont.• llll(l southw. TJl'uallj' a shrub, hut. in the mt". from Pa. soutlm-oo oftell tl·c!!-like. lIrlt~--.Tlllr. 1,'rlH'JI~J 1.-.-~rouutaill-laul'cl f Kulmi(l /(fti[oCif! t. "I\Owill~ till' plllllt in hlos"Olll find (111' "tl'lH'tlll'I' or lh,' IlolI"l'l' In the NC)I'tllei'1l Stnte~ thi" plallt is commollly eaHe<1 mountaill­ lalll'rl. In the South it i:-; generally calle!l in'. Other name" which haY(' been used are calieo flll:.-;h, br('jH(llpnf ltllil'C'l, hip:h lann~l, P01;;011 iry, monntain iT)" ivy bu::h~ h-,Ywood, big iyy. spoonWOt)<l, wicky. SPOOIl hnteh, l'oulldlenf lnn1'('l, p:l'cat hill reI , and willh'q.!l'cen. Tllt' 111'.;;{ l1wntion of this pLant Ull1~' hay(' bN'Il. in IG:2-b. b.\T.,Capy. •Tobn Sl11lth (18), ,\'110 d<';;('I'liJl'(l fl "kInd of tree 11kc Low('('11 "; tlus l\WUNTAIN AND SHEEP LAURELS AS POISONOUS PLANTS 3 very likely was K. latifolia. In the account of Robert Ivet (14.) of the'third voyage of Henry Hudson in 1609 is the statement, " and t.hey went on land and found goorlly Grapes and Rose trees." The location as shown by the lati­ tude observations must han' been Cape Cod. Some author~. including Crawford (10), hay(' supposed that the " rOse tre('s ,. were mountain-laurel; this has seemed questionable to the authors of this bulletin. and Professor Fernald, of Harvard University, whe is intinmtely acquainted with the New Eng­ land flora, was asked to express his opinion. He wrote that there was no e,~c1ence of tbe presence of K. latifolia 'on Cape Cod, but that roses weI'£' ?,bunc1ant all oYer the Ca]H' and he saw no renson for inter­ preting roses as anything other than roses. It was described by Gl'0110­ vius (lJ) and Catesby (6) and given its prCf:ent scientifi(' nunl(> by Linnaeus in 17il:} (J6). The generic nit 111 c. Kalmia. was gin>n in honot: of PrteJ' Kahn (J 5), a Swedish tmvelrr, who ill 1770 wrote an ('xtenc1ec1 and inten'stin!! account of the appearance anc] hahhs of the plant. and oT its poisonol1s pr()p{>l'tie~. Mnch of the lllatt'rial written by latrr allthor~ about the pJUilt wns drawn from Kahn's neC'oullt. The first publieation of its P2?iSOll01lS properties. was. ill 1143. when GroIlovllls (I.J) wrotr that it WilS poisonous to sheep. a~lrl Catesby (5) that it ,va" pOlSOn()llS to cattl(> amI "het'p hut not to dl'(>I·. KALlIUA ANGUSTIFOLIA K. an{Iu.Rti/o7ia in blossorn j:; shown in Figul'(> 2. Following is thr desC'I'iption fl'om Gl'ay's .Manual (Il) 1). O,J.3): Shr"h rnl'('l~' 1 11\. high: len.Yt'5 comlllonly OI>I)ol'ih" OJ' in thl'I'l'S', pnh' nnll glnhrlltl' Unclf>J"Ilenth., brl~ht ATeen nboy(', IHll'l'owly ohlong. ohtul"l', petiole(f; . cor~'11IJ8 1nlernl (appe:u'ing later thlln the !'hootii of {lit; ::l'U;;OIl), !'llightly ,..'(;, 4 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 219, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRlCULTURE gliUldular, many-flowered; flowers rarely 1 cm. broad, crimson; calyx glnndular; pod depressed, nearly smooth; pedicels recurvecl in fruit. Hillsides, pastures, and bogs, Lab. to Ont., and southw. June, July. The plant is most commonly known as sheep laurel. Other names which have been applied to it are calfkill, lambkill, killkid, narrow­ leaf laurel, dwarf laurel, sheep poison, spoonwood ivy, i.vy, winter- . green, and wicky. While the plant had been seen by' prececling authors, Gronovius (13) and Oatesby (5) in 1743, it was first given its permanent scientific name by Linnaeus in 1753 (16). The first notice of its poisonous properties was by Colden in 1749 (9) . whoaaid that it was deadly to sheep. Kalm (15, 1). ~, p. 215­ 216) in 1771 stated that it poisoned" sheep and other lesser animals." As will be seen from the foregoing descriptions the two plants differ markedly in size, form of leaves, and color of flowers. The corymbs in K. latifolia are terminal. while in K. angustifolia. they are laterali this difference is clearly seen in Figures 1 and 2. The plants are ordinarily called evergreen. This is not strictly true as the leaTes are shed at the end of. the second snmmer. There­ fore, in the smnmer the plants have the leaves of two seasons and in the winter of one. In both plants the corollas are salver shaped and the stamens bent over and attached in little pockets, as shown in Figure 1. The stamens are under tension, and when released by the movement of insects seeking honey throw the pollen with considerable force. This force is so great that the pollen is thrown upon other blossoms, and in this way Illld by the transfer of the pollen to other blossoms by the insects cross-fertilization is broufrht, about. EXPERIMENTAL WORK Oomparatively little e:\.-perimental work has been clone to determine the symptoms, dosage, and treatment of poisoning b)~ these species of Kalmia. The following anthors made some experiments with K. latifolia: Thomas (19), in 1802; Bigelow (.'3), in 18l'7; Orawford (10) , in 1908; and Ohesnut (6, 8), in 1898 and 1899. The only author who has reported experiments with K. angu.stifoUn is Wood (121). in 1883. The results obtained by these authors wili be alluded to later under Discussion and Gf'neral Oonclusions. The experimental w.ork of the ·writers was carried on at the Salina Expe.riment Station, 8a11na, rtah, in the years 1927, 1928, and 1929. '1'he material used was collected in the eastem part of the United States and after drying was shipped to 8alina.2 l\Iost of the experiments were mltele by administering to the ani­ mals, by balling gun, weighed quantities of ground plant moistened 'with water. In a few cases the animals ate the plant which had been mixed with hay or bran. WIth K. latifoUa there were 8 experiments with cattle, 5 with goats, and 16 with sheep. 'With K.
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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • (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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]