DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower New England – Northern Piedmont Ecoregional Conservation Plan; First Iteration Edited

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower New England – Northern Piedmont Ecoregional Conservation Plan; First Iteration Edited Lower New England – Northern Piedmont Ecoregional Conservation Plan; First Iteration Edited PREPARED BY Henry Barbour and the LNE/NP Ecoregional Planning Team January 2001 EDITED BY Conservation Science Support Northeast & Caribbean Division February 2003 This document may be cited as follows: Barbour, H., M.G. Anderson et al. 2003. Lower New England – Northern Piedmont Ecoregional Conservation Plan; First Iteration, Edited. The Nature Conservancy, Northeast & Caribbean Division, Boston, MA Ó 2003 The Nature Conservancy. All rights reserved. Executive Summary None written. Turn the page for Introduction and Acknowledgements. INCOMPLETE EXEC-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER INTRODUCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION TO THE ECOREGION PRIORITIES AND LEADERSHIP ASSIGNMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY SPECIES Planning Methods for Ecoregional Targets: Species Results for Species TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS AND COMMUNITIES Planning Methods for Ecoregional Targets: Terrestrial Ecosystems and Communities Results for Terrestrial Communities and Systems MATRIX-FORMING ECOSYSTEMS Planning Methods for Ecoregional Targets: Matrix-Forming Ecosystems Results for Matrix-Forming Ecosystems AQUATIC SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS Planning Methods for Ecoregional Targets: Freshwater Aquatic Ecosystems Aquatic Results Results for Aquatic Systems Classification Results Geographic framework for aquatic assessments Watershed classification: Aquatic ecological systems Reach level classification: Macrohabitats Classification: Discussion and Conclusion Condition Results GIS screening Expert interviews Condition: Discussion and Conclusion Portfolio Assembly Results Portfolio number and miles Representation goals Connectivity goals Threats across the portfolio Portfolio Assembly: Discussion and Conclusion THREATS ASSESSMENT OPPORTUNITIES, NEEDS, LESSONS, AND NEXT STEPS GLOSSARY LNE APPENDICES Appendix 1: Target Species List Appendix 2: Secondary Targets with Eos in Portfolio and 10-year Action Sites Appendix 3: Viable Community Occurrences Grouped by Subregion Appendix 4: Matrix Forest Associations within Tier 1 Preferred Sites Appendix 5: Ecological Land Unit Gap Analysis Summary Appendix 6: The Seven Major LNE-NP Ecological Drainage Units Appendix 7: Planning Teams BIBLIOGRAPHY Introduction Ecoregional Planning in the Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy’s mission is to preserve the plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The increasing rate of extinction in recent years has led to the realization that conserving rare and threatened species and natural communities per se is insufficient to effectively protect biodiversity. In broadening the scope of its work, the Conservancy has shifted towards protecting landscapes on an ecoregional scale. Planning by ecoregions, or areas that are unified in climate, topography, geology, and vegetation, is more sensible ecologically than planning within political boundaries such as states or provinces. Ecoregional planning methods improve on the traditional approach of protecting rare species and terrestrial communities by expanding to include common ecosystems that are representative of each ecoregion. Protection of good examples of these representative ecosystems can serve as a “coarse filter,” protecting a broad diversity of both common and rare species. The methods chapters in this report explain and elaborate on the concepts introduced here, especially as they relate to ecoregional planning in the Northeast and East. Two criteria for assessing conservation sites have become part of the new thinking - “functionality” and size. Functional sites are simply those in which ecological processes are sufficiently intact to sustain focal species and natural communities over the long term. Size is important because large, complex, multi-scale and relatively intact conservation areas – or landscapes - are likely to be the most efficient and effective at conserving biodiversity. These ideas have dovetailed with the developing need to identify examples of common, widespread natural community types as conservation targets in ecoregional portfolios, and have led to the inclusion of matrix-forming communities (especially forest communities in the Eastern U.S.) as a landscape-scale conservation target in ecoregional plans. Ecoregional plans that address both the rare and the common, at the species, community, and landscape or watershed levels, will guide the Conservancy’s actions for years to come. Using all available data on the distribution of ecosystems, communities, and species, Conservancy teams and our partners are working to design networks of conservation areas within each ecoregion. Ecoregional plans identify a set of portfolio sites, or areas that need to be protected in order to conserve the native biodiversity of the region into the future. The plan is a product of a collective initiative between many people and organizations who participated in the project as partners, experts and advisors. Members of this cooperative effort generally include Conservancy staff, Natural Heritage Program scientists, university professionals, state and federal agencies, other conservation organizations, and local experts. Conservation sites that make up the portfolio generally range from small (several acres) to very large (tens of thousands of acres) sites. Local Conservancy units chose a subset of these sites, their ten-year action sites, where they will focus conservation activity in the next ten years. For these areas, the Conservancy will develop detailed Conservation Area 3/2003 INTRO-1 Plans which will spell out the specific actions needed to protect the site’s biological integrity. Conservation Goals Our overarching goal is to maintain the long-term viability of all native plant and animal species and examples of all natural communities across their natural ranges of occurrence and variation within the ecoregion while maintaining the natural processes critical to ensuring long-term ecological integrity. Specifically, the conservation objectives adopted by the planning team were: To ensure the continued existence of the matrix communities found in the ecoregion and restore the natural processes, including succession, to promote the development of mature (old growth) stands; To protect multiple viable examples of all the region’s natural communities through the development of a portfolio of conservation areas. The examples should represent the range of variability found within each of the communities in the ecoregion; To incorporate into the portfolio viable examples of all declining, disjunct, or otherwise vulnerable species, with the goal of protecting multiple viable populations of each species in the variety of habitats and ecoregional contexts in which it naturally occurs. To protect the full array of aquatic systems found within the ecoregion. This Ecoregional Plan Report This report includes the results of the first iteration assessment of the Lower New England — Northern Piedmont ecoregion, last revised in January 2001. The report has been reorganized to include methods chapters developed in 2003 as part of a standard template for ecoregional plans in the Northeast. In addition, full methods and results of the LNE aquatics analyses are presented here for the first time. Note that the methods chapters are meant to be relatively independent of one another, and so occasionally repeat some concepts or definitions. Following a general description of the ecoregion are several chapters that describe methods and results for various ecoregional targets: · Focal species · Terrestrial ecosystems and patch communities · Matrix-forming ecosystems · Aquatic systems 3/2003 INTRO-2 Acknowledgements Edited Version and Plan Template Conservation Science Support (CSS), formerly known as Eastern Conservation Science (ECS) and located at the Eastern Resource Office (ERO, formerly the Eastern Regional Office) in Boston, is responsible for this product. Most of the ecoregional plan documents refer to ECS. CSS provides leadership for science-based ecoregional and landscape-scale planning and design; geospatial and statistical terrestrial and aquatic analysis; data dissemination and training; and other specialized professional services to the Northeast and Caribbean Division of The Nature Conservancy. At the time of publication, CSS staff included: Mark Anderson, Director of Conservation Science; Shyama Khanna, Information and Project Coordinator; Greg Kehm, Spatial Ecologist and Lab Manager; Arlene Olivero, Aquatic Ecologist; Charles Ferree, Landscape Ecologist; Dan Morse, GIS Analyst; and Susan Bernstein, Communications Consultant. Methodologies The standard methodologies sections created for this and all Northeast ecoregional assessment reports were adapted from material originally written by team leaders and other scientists and analysts who served on ecoregional planning teams in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. The sections have been reviewed by several planners and scientists within the Conservancy. Team leaders included Mark Anderson, Henry Barbour, Andrew Beers, Steve Buttrick, Sara Davison, Jarel Hilton, Doug Samson, Elizabeth Thompson, Jim Thorne, and Robert Zaremba. Arlene Olivero was the primary author of freshwater aquatic methods. Mark Anderson substantially wrote or reworked all other methodologies sections. Susan Bernstein edited and compiled all sections. LNE/NP Planning Team and Working Groups We assembled a Core Team made up of the Conservancy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Checklist of Common Native Plants the Diversity of Acadia National Park Is Refl Ected in Its Plant Life; More Than 1,100 Plant Species Are Found Here
    National Park Service Acadia U.S. Department of the Interior Acadia National Park Checklist of Common Native Plants The diversity of Acadia National Park is refl ected in its plant life; more than 1,100 plant species are found here. This checklist groups the park’s most common plants into the communities where they are typically found. The plant’s growth form is indicated by “t” for trees and “s” for shrubs. To identify unfamiliar plants, consult a fi eld guide or visit the Wild Gardens of Acadia at Sieur de Monts Spring, where more than 400 plants are labeled and displayed in their habitats. All plants within Acadia National Park are protected. Please help protect the park’s fragile beauty by leaving plants in the condition that you fi nd them. Deciduous Woods ash, white t Fraxinus americana maple, mountain t Acer spicatum aspen, big-toothed t Populus grandidentata maple, red t Acer rubrum aspen, trembling t Populus tremuloides maple, striped t Acer pensylvanicum aster, large-leaved Aster macrophyllus maple, sugar t Acer saccharum beech, American t Fagus grandifolia mayfl ower, Canada Maianthemum canadense birch, paper t Betula papyrifera oak, red t Quercus rubra birch, yellow t Betula alleghaniesis pine, white t Pinus strobus blueberry, low sweet s Vaccinium angustifolium pyrola, round-leaved Pyrola americana bunchberry Cornus canadensis sarsaparilla, wild Aralia nudicaulis bush-honeysuckle s Diervilla lonicera saxifrage, early Saxifraga virginiensis cherry, pin t Prunus pensylvanica shadbush or serviceberry s,t Amelanchier spp. cherry, choke t Prunus virginiana Solomon’s seal, false Maianthemum racemosum elder, red-berried or s Sambucus racemosa ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Official List of Public Waters
    Official List of Public Waters New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Water Division Dam Bureau 29 Hazen Drive PO Box 95 Concord, NH 03302-0095 (603) 271-3406 https://www.des.nh.gov NH Official List of Public Waters Revision Date October 9, 2020 Robert R. Scott, Commissioner Thomas E. O’Donovan, Division Director OFFICIAL LIST OF PUBLIC WATERS Published Pursuant to RSA 271:20 II (effective June 26, 1990) IMPORTANT NOTE: Do not use this list for determining water bodies that are subject to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA). The CSPA list is available on the NHDES website. Public waters in New Hampshire are prescribed by common law as great ponds (natural waterbodies of 10 acres or more in size), public rivers and streams, and tidal waters. These common law public waters are held by the State in trust for the people of New Hampshire. The State holds the land underlying great ponds and tidal waters (including tidal rivers) in trust for the people of New Hampshire. Generally, but with some exceptions, private property owners hold title to the land underlying freshwater rivers and streams, and the State has an easement over this land for public purposes. Several New Hampshire statutes further define public waters as including artificial impoundments 10 acres or more in size, solely for the purpose of applying specific statutes. Most artificial impoundments were created by the construction of a dam, but some were created by actions such as dredging or as a result of urbanization (usually due to the effect of road crossings obstructing flow and increased runoff from the surrounding area).
    [Show full text]
  • Backgrounder on Black Bears in Ontario June 2009
    iii Backgrounder on Black Bears in Ontario June 2009 Cette publication hautement specialisée Backgrounder on Black Bears in Ontario n’est disponible qu’en Anglais en vertu du Règlement 411/97 qui en exempte l’application de la Loi sur les services en français. Pour obtenir de l’aide en français, veuillez communiquer avec Linda Maguire au ministère des Richesses naturelles au [email protected]. i Backgrounder on Black Bears in Ontario June 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 HISTORIC AND PRESENT IMPORTANCE .................................................................................... 1 Ecological Importance ................................................................................................................... 1 Aboriginal Significance ................................................................................................................. 2 Social Importance .......................................................................................................................... 2 Economic Significance .................................................................................................................. 3 GENERAL ECOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 4 Description....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ERICACEAE
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ERICACEAE ERICACEAE (Heath Family) A family of about 107 genera and 3400 species, primarily shrubs, small trees, and subshrubs, nearly cosmopolitan. The Ericaceae is very important in our area, with a great diversity of genera and species, many of them rather narrowly endemic. Our area is one of the north temperate centers of diversity for the Ericaceae. Along with Quercus and Pinus, various members of this family are dominant in much of our landscape. References: Kron et al. (2002); Wood (1961); Judd & Kron (1993); Kron & Chase (1993); Luteyn et al. (1996)=L; Dorr & Barrie (1993); Cullings & Hileman (1997). Main Key, for use with flowering or fruiting material 1 Plant an herb, subshrub, or sprawling shrub, not clonal by underground rhizomes (except Gaultheria procumbens and Epigaea repens), rarely more than 3 dm tall; plants mycotrophic or hemi-mycotrophic (except Epigaea, Gaultheria, and Arctostaphylos). 2 Plants without chlorophyll (fully mycotrophic); stems fleshy; leaves represented by bract-like scales, white or variously colored, but not green; pollen grains single; [subfamily Monotropoideae; section Monotropeae]. 3 Petals united; fruit nodding, a berry; flower and fruit several per stem . Monotropsis 3 Petals separate; fruit erect, a capsule; flower and fruit 1-several per stem. 4 Flowers few to many, racemose; stem pubescent, at least in the inflorescence; plant yellow, orange, or red when fresh, aging or drying dark brown ...............................................Hypopitys 4 Flower solitary; stem glabrous; plant white (rarely pink) when fresh, aging or drying black . Monotropa 2 Plants with chlorophyll (hemi-mycotrophic or autotrophic); stems woody; leaves present and well-developed, green; pollen grains in tetrads (single in Orthilia).
    [Show full text]
  • Pollenkitt Ropes of Notopora Schomburgkii Hook. F. (Ericaceae, Vaccinieae)
    Title Pollenkitt ropes of Notopora schomburgkii Hook. f. (Ericaceae, Vaccinieae) Author(s) SARWAR, A. K. M. Golam; ITO, Toshiaki; TAKAHASHI, Hideki Citation 日本花粉学会会誌, 51(2), 65-68 Issue Date 2005-12-31 Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/18854 Type article (author version) File Information 花粉学会51-2.pdf Instructions for use Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP (Short Communication) Pollenkitt ropes of Notopora schomburgkii Hook. f. (Ericaceae, Vaccinieae) A. K. M. Golam SARWAR1), Toshiaki ITO1) and Hideki TAKAHASHI1)2) 1) Graduate School of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, North 8 West 8, Sapporo 060-8589, Japan 2) The Hokkaido University Museum, North 10 West 8, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan Pollen morphology of Notopora schomburgkii Hook. f. was examined using light (LM), scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Pollenkitt ropes were observed and reported for the first time on pollen grains of N. schomburgkii, Ericaceae. With TEM these ropes show lipidic (“pollenkitt-like”) electron density but also show some resistance to acetolysis. Key words: Notopora schomburgkii, pollen morphology, pollenkitt ropes Introduction The genus Notopora Hook. f. (Ericaceae: Vaccinioideae: Vaccinieae) is a genus composed of five species of Neotropical blueberries (1 – 2) and it is endemic to the Guayana highland of Venezuela and adjacent Guyana (3 – 4). Maguire, Steyermark and Luteyn (3) are the only workers who have previously studied the pollen morphology of four species of this genus including N. schomburgkii, under both light (LM) and scanning electron microscopes (SEM). They reported that pollen tetrads of the genus Notopora were 42 – 56µm in size under LM, without viscin threads, exine sculpturing rugulate/verrucate becoming psilate along the aperture margins and at distal poles.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists
    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources List of Insect Species which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists Final Report to the USFWS Cooperating Agencies July 1, 1996 Catherine Reed Entomology Department 219 Hodson Hall University of Minnesota St. Paul MN 55108 phone 612-624-3423 e-mail [email protected] This study was funded in part by a grant from the USFWS and Cooperating Agencies. Table of Contents Summary.................................................................................................. 2 Introduction...............................................................................................2 Methods.....................................................................................................3 Results.....................................................................................................4 Discussion and Evaluation................................................................................................26 Recommendations....................................................................................29 References..............................................................................................33 Summary Approximately 728 insect and allied species and subspecies were considered to be possible prairie specialists based on any of the following criteria: defined as prairie specialists by authorities; required prairie plant species or genera as their adult or larval food; were obligate predators, parasites
    [Show full text]
  • Gaylussacia Vaccinium
    Contents Table des matières The Canadian Botanical The first Recipient of the 2005 Undergraduate Botanical Association Bulletin Presentation Regional Award / Première remise d’un prix régional pour la meilleure communication étudiante de premier cycle page 13 Bulletin de l’Association Editor’s Message / Message du rédacteur page 14 botanique du Canada May/ Mai 200 5 • Volume 38 No. / No 2 The first Recipient of the 2005 Undergraduate Botanical PhD Opportunities page 14 Presentation Regional Award Jessie Carviel, student at McMaster University, received this CBA award for the best student paper presented at the 2005 Biology Day in Sudbury, ON, Canada. Paper / Article Miss Carviel is representing the Ontario Region for this contest. The Undergraduate Botanical Presentation Award was created in 2003 by the CBA to encourage undergraduate students to pursue graduate research in botany and to enhance the visibility of the Association. The program offers annually one award of $200.00 for one of the undergraduate conferences/meetings in Biology for each of the five (5) regions of Canada: Atlantic region, Qué bec, Ontario, Prairies and Territories, and British Columbia. Première remise d’un prix ré gional pour la meilleure Poorly Known Economic communicationé tudiante de premier cycle Plants of Canada - 45. Eastern huckleberries Jessie Carviel, étudiante à l’université McMaster, a reçu ce prix de l’ABC pour (Gaylussacia spp.) une présentation faite lors de la Journée de biologie 2005 qui s’est déroulée à and western huckleberries Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. (Vaccinium spp.). E. Small and P.M. Catling Le prix de la meilleure communication étudiante de premier cycle a été créé en pages 15-23 2003 par l’ABC pour inciter les étudiant(e)s à poursuivre leurs études en botanique et pour améliorer la visibilité de l'Association.
    [Show full text]
  • "How To" Tips on Hedge and Tree Maintenance
    How To Tips Landscaping Suggestions for Shady Yards Part of what makes Greenbelt so special is its abundant trees. However our wealth of tree cover can also present some challenges in yard landscaping. If your yard has partial to full shade this information sheet will provide some of the landscaping options for a beautiful GHI yard. Grass options for shady yards If your yard has at least partial sun during the summer months you can probably maintain a healthy grass layer by following these tips. Choose the right seed type. Mixes with Red Fescue and Perennial Rye tend to do better in shady yards. Make sure to read the label on any seed mix you buy to make sure what type of seed you are buying. Fertilize and aerate your yard in the spring. Don’t mow too short. Let the grass grow to 3-3.5 inches in shady areas. Short cutting will overstress the plants. See “How to Tips Establishing a Great Lawn” for more details. Leaving the turf behind If your yard is full shade during the summer, growing grass is probably not an option. Consider yourself lucky. This means you don’t need to worry about mowing. But you do need to cover bare spots to prevent erosion. Don’t worry there are options for heavily shaded yards that are both beautiful and manageable. Ground Moss Ground moss plants are a low-growing, no-maintenance grass alternative. Some mosses, massed together, give a smooth appearance, including rock cap mosses (Dicranum), fern mosses (Thuidium) and the aptly named "cushion" mosses (Leucobryum).
    [Show full text]
  • 321 Cmr: Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
    321 CMR: DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 321 CMR 10.00: MASSACHUSETTS ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REGULATIONS PART I: GENERAL PROVISIONS: DEFINITIONS, LISTING, TAKING PERMITS, RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE AGENCIES Section 10.01: Introduction and Purpose 10.02: Definitions and Abbreviations 10.03: Listing of Species 10.04: Taking and Possession of Species on State and Federal Lists 10.05: Responsibilities of State Agencies 10.06: Penalties 10.07: Addresses PART II: DELINEATION OF PRIORITY HABITAT AND REVIEW OF PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES WITHIN PRIORITY HABITAT 10.11: Introduction 10.12: Delineation of Priority Habitat of State-listed Species 10.13: Sites or Projects not in Priority Habitat 10.14: Exemptions from Review for Projects or Activities in Priority Habitat 10.15: Emergencies 10.16: Project Segmentation and the Availability of Comprehensive MESA Reviews and Permits for Certain Municipalities 10.17: Requests for State-listed Species Information 10.18: Review of Projects or Activities for Take of State-listed Species in Priority Habitat 10.19: Performance Standard for Avoidance of Take of State-listed Species 10.20: Project Filing Requirements 10.21: Denial and Appeal 10.22: Extension of a Determination 10.23: Conservation and Management Permit 10.24: Effective Date 10.25: Appeal Process 10.26: Conservation Planning for State-listed Species of Special Concern PART III: DESIGNATION OF SIGNIFICANT HABITAT 10.30: Designation of Significant Habitat 10.31: Designation Proposal 10.32: Notice and Public Hearing 10.33: Review of Proposed Designation
    [Show full text]
  • The Genus Vaccinium in North America
    Agriculture Canada The Genus Vaccinium 630 . 4 C212 P 1828 North America 1988 c.2 Agriculture aid Agri-Food Canada/ ^ Agnculturo ^^In^iikQ Canada V ^njaian Agriculture Library Brbliotheque Canadienno de taricakun otur #<4*4 /EWHE D* V /^ AgricultureandAgri-FoodCanada/ '%' Agrrtur^'AgrntataireCanada ^M'an *> Agriculture Library v^^pttawa, Ontano K1A 0C5 ^- ^^f ^ ^OlfWNE D£ W| The Genus Vaccinium in North America S.P.VanderKloet Biology Department Acadia University Wolfville, Nova Scotia Research Branch Agriculture Canada Publication 1828 1988 'Minister of Suppl) andS Canada ivhh .\\ ailabla in Canada through Authorized Hook nta ami other books! or by mail from Canadian Government Publishing Centre Supply and Services Canada Ottawa, Canada K1A0S9 Catalogue No.: A43-1828/1988E ISBN: 0-660-13037-8 Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data VanderKloet,S. P. The genus Vaccinium in North America (Publication / Research Branch, Agriculture Canada; 1828) Bibliography: Cat. No.: A43-1828/1988E ISBN: 0-660-13037-8 I. Vaccinium — North America. 2. Vaccinium — North America — Classification. I. Title. II. Canada. Agriculture Canada. Research Branch. III. Series: Publication (Canada. Agriculture Canada). English ; 1828. QK495.E68V3 1988 583'.62 C88-099206-9 Cover illustration Vaccinium oualifolium Smith; watercolor by Lesley R. Bohm. Contract Editor Molly Wolf Staff Editors Sharon Rudnitski Frances Smith ForC.M.Rae Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada - Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada http://www.archive.org/details/genusvacciniuminOOvand
    [Show full text]
  • Samplepalo Ooza 201 4
    Samplepalooza 2014 Compiled by Andrea Donlon & Ryan O’Donnell Connecticut River Watershed Council 0 Samplepalooza 2014 Acknowledgements: CRWC would like thank the following staff people and volunteers who collected samples and/or participated in planning meetings: CRWC staff Peggy Brownell Andrea Donlon David Deen Andrew Fisk Ron Rhodes VT Department of Environmental Conservation Marie Caduto Tim Clear Ben Copans Blaine Hastings Jim Ryan Dan Needham NH Department of Environmental Services Amanda Bridge Barona DiNapoli Tanya Dyson Margaret (Peg) Foss Andrea Hansen David Neils Vicki Quiram Ted Walsh Watershed organizations: Black River Action Team – Kelly Stettner Ottaqueechee River Group – Shawn Kelley Southeast Vermont Watershed Alliance – Phoebe Gooding, Peter Bergstrom, Laurie Callahan, Cris White White River Partnership – Emily Miller CRWC volunteers: Greg Berry Marcey Carver Glenn English Jim Holmes Liberty Foster Paul Friedman Paul Hogan Sean Lawson Mark Lembke Dianne Rochford 1 Samplepalooza 2014 Table of Contents Acknowledgements: ............................................................................................................................................. 1 List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Factors That Affect Yield in Wild Blueberry, Vaccinium Angustifolium Aiton
    Mini Review Agri Res & Tech: Open Access J Volume 22 Issue 5 - September 2019 Copyright © All rights are reserved by Drummond FA DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2019.22.556212 Factors That Affect Yield in Wild Blueberry, Vaccinium Angustifolium Aiton Drummond FA* School of Biology and Ecology, University of Maine, USA Submission: September 19, 2019; Published: September 23, 2019 *Corresponding author: Drummond FA, School of Biology and Ecology, University of Maine, USA Mini Review Wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Aiton), also known also universal mothers (meaning they can accept pollen from as lowbush blueberry is an ericaceous native North American levels of self-compatibility. These self-compatible individuals are any sire and have high levels of fruit set) and because of this have plant that is managed for berry production in the eastern U.S., high yield potential either through self or outcrossed pollination. the Canadian Maritimes and Quebec. The crop is not planted, it Flower number per stem and stems density increase yield if bee is a natural component of the understory in mixed deciduous and coniferous forest and when trees are harvested, existing blueberry increased with fertilization and the height and timing of pruning abundance is adequate. Stem density and flowers per stem can be lab has been studying wild blueberry pollination and other plants are managed to produce agricultural fields [1]. My research factors that affect yield for over 30 years. Figure 1 is a synthesis (early in season). Pollination is a strong determinant of yield Weeds, plant disease, and insect pests can indirectly and directly of our knowledge of factors that affect yield of this native North (in any given year explaining 25-60% of the variance in yield).
    [Show full text]