DOCSLIB.ORG

Southeastern Ecological Framework

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FINAL REPORT SOUTHEASTERN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Submitted to the Planning and Analysis Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia Submitted by Margaret H. Carr Thomas D. Hoctor Crystal Goodison Paul D. Zwick Jessica Green Patricia Hernandez Christine McCain Jason Teisinger Karen Whitney The GeoPlan Center Department of Landscape Architecture Department of Urban and Regional Planning Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation University of Florida Gainesville, Florida In Collaboration with Cory Berish John Richardson Rick Dubrow Stacy Fehlenberg Planning and Analysis Branch U.S. EPA Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia May 2002 Executive Summary The southeastern United States still harbors globally significant biodiversity and other important natural resources despite decades of habitat loss and ecosystem alterations. The Southeast is also the fastest growing region in the United States. The trend appears to be driven by climate, economic stability, cultural attractions and the natural environment. This growth will continue to deplete and degrade the critical ecological resources that remain, and it is imperative that comprehensive efforts to efficiently and effectively protect these resources are developed rapidly. This report represents exploration of a regional conservation strategy needed to conserve the integrity of ecological systems essential for human well-being. The Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF) is a decision support tool created through systematic landscape analysis of ecological significance and the identification of critical landscape linkages in a way that can be replicated, enhanced with new data, and applied at different scales. It is intended to provide a foundation for the adoption and implementation of effective and efficient conservation measures to minimize environmental degradation and protect important ecosystem services. It has been developed for all eight southeastern states contained within the boundaries of the Environmental Protection Agency Region 4: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky by staff of the Planning and Analysis Branch of EPA Region 4 and researchers at the University of Florida. Work on the project began in October 1998 and was completed in December 2001. The Framework was derived using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), a computer mapping technology that links maps and related information. Data on which the work was built were acquired for the entire region and from individual states within the region. Data availability and consistency is improving rapidly, but is currently somewhat limited for projects of this scale. The land area identified in the Framework represents 43 percent of the land in the eight states. Of that 43 percent, 22 percent is in existing conservation lands, 12 percent in open water (rivers, lakes and reservoirs), 14 percent is in wetlands outside existing conservation lands and 52 percent is in privately held uplands (that include 100 year floodplains). When the SEF was completed, three applications of it were developed to demonstrate its conservation usefulness at different scales. The first was a region-wide application: prioritization of the SEF to identify the most significant conservation priorities for the region. The second was analysis of the Mississippi Delta with the goal of developing a planning resource to highlight ecological priorities for a variety of natural resource programs, both federal and non-federal. The final application was at the local scale: the development of a conservation plan for Murray County, Georgia that included analysis of the usefulness of the SEF for local conservation purposes. This report includes some valuable tools for use by others: Guide to Resources for Regional Conservation Planning (Section IX), a listing of critical resources used in the development of this report and of value to anyone engaged in a similar endeavor; a Data Library (Section X) compiled on three compact disks that include input data, data analyses and results for the original SEF delineation and the three applications; and a listing of Conservation Tools and Strategies that can be employed in land conservation including both regulatory, incentive-based and voluntary strategies (Appendix H). While the work undertaken was supported by Region 4 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the products developed have potential value for other federal agencies, state and local agencies and for non-governmental organizations. It is the sincere hope of all involved, that the process and work products can be creatively employed to enhance effective conservation efforts in the southeastern United States and elsewhere. i Table of Contents Section Page No. Executive Summary i Table of Contents ii Acknowledgements vii List of Figures viii List of Tables x Section I: Southeastern Ecological Framework Project: Principles & Introduction A. Introduction 1 B. Background Principles & Concepts Used in The SEF Project 3 a. Conservation Biology 3 b. Landscape Ecology 4 c. Conservation Planning Concepts 5 Section II: Delineation of the Southeastern Ecological Framework A. Model Background 11 B. GIS Modeling Techniques and Issues 12 a. The Use of GIS Modeling 12 b. GIS Basics 13 c. Vector GIS 13 d. Raster GIS 13 e. Cell Size & Resolution 14 f. Data Availability 15 C. Goal and Objectives of the Southeastern Ecological Framework 16 D. The Modeling Process to Delineate the Southeastern Ecological Framework 17 a. Identification of Priority Ecological Areas (PEAs) and Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) 18 b. Priority Ecological Area Exclusion 24 c. Delineation of Hubs 24 d. Identification of Landscape Linkages 25 e. Integration and Optimization of Framework Components 26 E. Results 26 a. Priority Ecological Areas and Significant Ecological Areas 26 b. Hubs 28 c. The EPA Region 4 Southeastern Ecological Framework 29 F. Discussion 32 ii Section Page No. Section III: Applications of the Southeastern Ecological Framework A. Introduction 36 a. EPA Applicability 36 b. Other Federal Agency Applicability 41 c. State and Local Agency Applicability 42 d. Applicability for Nonprofit Organizations 42 B. Specific Applications of the SEF 43 Section IV: Regional Application: Prioritization of the Southeastern Ecological Framework A. Introduction 44 B. Types of Prioritizations 44 a. The Single & Multiple Utility Assignment Ranking System 45 b. Reclassification Methods 46 C. Methods 46 a. Regional Prioritizations 46 i. Regional Prioritizations: Ecosystem Services 46 ii. Regional Prioritizations: Biodiversity 48 iii. Regional Prioritizations: Recreation Potential 50 iv. Regional Threats 51 b. Hub Prioritizations 51 i. Hub Prioritizations Adapted from Regional Prioritizations 51 ii. Hub Prioritizations: Ecosystem Services 52 iii. Hub Prioritizations: Biodiversity 53 iv. Hub Prioritizations: Recreational Potential 54 v. Hub Threats 54 vi. Hub Structure and Function 54 c. Linkage Prioritizations 56 i. Separating Linkages Into Discrete Segments 57 ii. Linkage Prioritizations: Internal Context Analyses 57 iii. Linkage Prioritizations: External Context Analyses 57 iv. Linkage Prioritizations: Width Analyses 58 v. Linkage Prioritizations: Hub Ranks 58 d. Creation Of Multiple Utility Assignments (MUAs) 59 i. Regional Prioritization MUAs 59 ii. Hub Prioritization MUAs 60 iii. Linkage Prioritization MUA 61 iv. SEF Prioritization MUA 61 D. Results and Discussion 62 a. Regional Prioritizations 62 i. Ecosystem Services 63 ii. Biodiversity 65 iii. Recreation Potential 67 iv. Threats To Ecological Integrity 70 iii Section Page No. v. Regional MUAs Combined 71 b. Hub Prioritizations 73 i. Ecosystem Services 74 ii. Biodiversity 75 iii. Recreation Potential Analysis 76 iv. Threats Analysis 77 v. Structure and Function 77 vi. Hub MUAs Combined 78 c. Linkage Prioritizations 79 E. Conclusions 80 Section V: Multi—State Scale Application: The Mississippi Delta Ecological Framework A. Introduction 81 B. Background 81 C. Objective and Goals 82 D. Methodology 82 E. Results 85 F. Conclusions 86 Section VI: Local Scale Application: Delineation of an Ecological Network in Murray County, Georiga A. Introduction 88 a. The Intent of the Local Application 88 b. Why should the SEF be utilized at the local level? 88 i. The Importance Of Conservation Scales: The Need For Integration Between Different Scale Conservation Projects 88 ii. Coordination Of Protection Efforts 89 iii. Utilization Of SEF Products, Information, Data, And Analyses 89 iv. Addressing Local Conservation Concerns Not Addressed In The SEF 89 c. How Can the SEF Products & Regional Data be Utilized at the Local Level? 90 i. Evaluating SEF Data To Utilize In The Local Conservation Planning Process 90 ii. Identification Of Local Priority Ecological Areas 90 iii. Regional Ecological Context: Evaluation And Prioritization Of Local Ecologically Significant Areas In The Regional Context 91 iv. Using The SEF Methodology To Create A Local Ecological Network 91 d. Data Issues 91 i. Data Availability 92 ii. Map Scale 92 iii. Combining Data Of Different Scales 92 iv Section Page No. B. Murray County, Georgia Case Study 93 a. Introduction 93 i. Murray County Background 94 ii. Local Environmental Concerns 97 iii. Georgia’s Greenspace Program 99 iv. Status Of Murray County (as of 12/01) 100 b. Delineating a Local Ecological Network for Murray County, Georgia 100 i. Conservation Goals & Objectives 100 ii. General Modeling Methodology 101 iii. Specific Modeling Methodology 103 C. Results
Recommended publications
  • Book of Abstracts.Pdf

    Book of Abstracts.Pdf

    1 List of presenters A A., Hudson 329 Anil Kumar, Nadesa 189 Panicker A., Kingman 329 Arnautova, Elena 150 Abeli, Thomas 168 Aronson, James 197, 326 Abu Taleb, Tariq 215 ARSLA N, Kadir 363 351Abunnasr, 288 Arvanitis, Pantelis 114 Yaser Agnello, Gaia 268 Aspetakis, Ioannis 114 Aguilar, Rudy 105 Astafieff, Katia 80, 207 Ait Babahmad, 351 Avancini, Ricardo 320 Rachid Al Issaey , 235 Awas, Tesfaye 354, 176 Ghudaina Albrecht , Matthew 326 Ay, Nurhan 78 Allan, Eric 222 Aydınkal, Rasim 31 Murat Allenstein, Pamela 38 Ayenew, Ashenafi 337 Amat De León 233 Azevedo, Carine 204 Arce, Elena An, Miao 286 B B., Von Arx 365 Bétrisey, Sébastien 113 Bang, Miin 160 Birkinshaw, Chris 326 Barblishvili, Tinatin 336 Bizard, Léa 168 Barham, Ellie 179 Bjureke, Kristina 186 Barker, Katharine 220 Blackmore, 325 Stephen Barreiro, Graciela 287 Blanchflower, Paul 94 Barreiro, Graciela 139 Boillat, Cyril 119, 279 Barteau, Benjamin 131 Bonnet, François 67 Bar-Yoseph, Adi 230 Boom, Brian 262, 141 Bauters, Kenneth 118 Boratyński, Adam 113 Bavcon, Jože 111, 110 Bouman, Roderick 15 Beck, Sarah 217 Bouteleau, Serge 287, 139 Beech, Emily 128 Bray, Laurent 350 Beech, Emily 135 Breman, Elinor 168, 170, 280 Bellefroid, Elke 166, 118, 165 Brockington, 342 Samuel Bellet Serrano, 233, 259 Brockington, 341 María Samuel Berg, Christian 168 Burkart, Michael 81 6th Global Botanic Gardens Congress, 26-30 June 2017, Geneva, Switzerland 2 C C., Sousa 329 Chen, Xiaoya 261 Cable, Stuart 312 Cheng, Hyo Cheng 160 Cabral-Oliveira, 204 Cho, YC 49 Joana Callicrate, Taylor 105 Choi, Go Eun 202 Calonje, Michael 105 Christe, Camille 113 Cao, Zhikun 270 Clark, John 105, 251 Carta, Angelino 170 Coddington, 220 Carta Jonathan Caruso, Emily 351 Cole, Chris 24 Casimiro, Pedro 244 Cook, Alexandra 212 Casino, Ana 276, 277, 318 Coombes, Allen 147 Castro, Sílvia 204 Corlett, Richard 86 Catoni, Rosangela 335 Corona Callejas , 274 Norma Edith Cavender, Nicole 84, 139 Correia, Filipe 204 Ceron Carpio , 274 Costa, João 244 Amparo B.
  • Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae

    Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae

    SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY 0 NCTMBER 52 Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae Harold Robinson, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, andJames F. Weedin SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS City of Washington 1981 ABSTRACT Robinson, Harold, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, and James F. Weedin. Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae. Smithsonian Contri- butions to Botany, number 52, 28 pages, 3 tables, 1981.-Chromosome reports are provided for 145 populations, including first reports for 33 species and three genera, Garcilassa, Riencourtia, and Helianthopsis. Chromosome numbers are arranged according to Robinson’s recently broadened concept of the Heliantheae, with citations for 212 of the ca. 265 genera and 32 of the 35 subtribes. Diverse elements, including the Ambrosieae, typical Heliantheae, most Helenieae, the Tegeteae, and genera such as Arnica from the Senecioneae, are seen to share a specialized cytological history involving polyploid ancestry. The authors disagree with one another regarding the point at which such polyploidy occurred and on whether subtribes lacking higher numbers, such as the Galinsoginae, share the polyploid ancestry. Numerous examples of aneuploid decrease, secondary polyploidy, and some secondary aneuploid decreases are cited. The Marshalliinae are considered remote from other subtribes and close to the Inuleae. Evidence from related tribes favors an ultimate base of X = 10 for the Heliantheae and at least the subfamily As teroideae. OFFICIALPUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution’s annual report, Smithsonian Year. SERIESCOVER DESIGN: Leaf clearing from the katsura tree Cercidiphyllumjaponicum Siebold and Zuccarini. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Chromosome numbers in Compositae, XII.
  • 7/30/2018 Rare Plants of Kansas (S1 Only) 1 Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Global Rank State Rank

    7/30/2018 Rare Plants of Kansas (S1 Only) 1 Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Global Rank State Rank

    7/30/2018 Rare Plants of Kansas (S1 only) 1 Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Global Rank State Rank Acacia angustissima Prairie Acacia G5 S1 Acacia angustissima var. hirta Prairie Acacia G5T4? S1 Acalypha deamii Deam's Copperleaf G4? S1 Actaea pachypoda White Baneberry G5 S1 Aesculus glabra var. glabra Eastern Ohio Buckeye G5T5 S1 Agalinis skinneriana Skinner's Agalinis G3G4 S1 Agrimonia gryposepala Hooked Agrimony G5 S1 Amaranthus californicus California Pigweed G4 S1 Amelanchier humilis Low Service-berry G5 S1 Ammoselinum butleri Butler's Sand-parsley G5 S1 Amorpha nana Dwarf Wild-indigo G5 S1 Amsonia illustris Ozark Bluestar G4G5 S1 Amsonia tabernaemontana Willow Bluestar G5 S1 Antennaria howellii ssp. neodioica Howell's Pussy's-toes G5T5 S1 Antennaria parvifolia Nuttall's Pussytoes G5 S1 Apocynum x floribundum Many-flower Dogbane GNA S1 Arabis pycnocarpa Western Hairy Rock-cress G5T5 S1 Arabis pycnocarpa var. adpressipilis Hairy Rockcress G5T4Q S1 Arabis pycnocarpa var. pycnocarpa Hairy Rockcress G5T5 S1 Aralia racemosa American-spikenard G5 S1 Aristida desmantha Curly Threeawn G5 S1 Aristida divaricata Poverty Threeawn G4G5 S1 Aristida havardii Harvard's Threeawn G5 S1 Aristida ramosissima Slender Threeawn G5 S1 Armoracia lacustris Lake Cress G4? S1 Artemisia frigida Prairie Sagewort G5 S1 Asclepias lanuginosa Wooly Milkweed G4? S1 Asclepias meadii Mead's Milkweed Threatened G2 S2 Asclepias quadrifolia Four-leaf Milkweed G5 S1 Astragalus ceramicus var. filifolius Painted Milk-vetch G4T4 S1 Astragalus hyalinus Summer Milk-vetch G4 S1 Astragalus sericoleucus Silky Milk-vetch G4 S1 Astragalus spatulatus Tufted Milk-vetch G5 S1 Astranthium integrifolium ssp.
  • Taxonomic Studies of the Genus Polymnia L

    Taxonomic Studies of the Genus Polymnia L

    This dissertation has been 64—6976 microfilmed exactly as received WELLS, James Ray, 1932— TAXONOMIC STUDIES OF THE GENUS POLYMNIA L. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1963 Botany University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan TAXONOMIC STUDIES OF THE GENUS POLYMNIA L. DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By JAMES RAY WELLS, B.S., M.S. The Ohio State University 1963 Approved by Adviser Department of Botany and Plant Pathology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. T. v Richard Fisher, my adviser, who suggested this problem and under whose guidance the work wan carried out. I am also grateful to Drs. Clara Weishaupt, J.W.A. Burley, C. E. Taft, and Glenn W. Blaydes for reading this dissertation and for offering helpful suggestions and criticisms. I am indebted to the curators of the several herbaria for making their material available. Permission to use Goode Base Maps (Copyright by the University of Chicago) for plotting plant distributions is gratefully acknowledged. This permission was granted through Goode Base Map Series, Department of Geography, The University of Chicago. My wife Jan, is due special recognition for her loyal support and cooperation throughout this endeavor. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................................... ii LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................ iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS................................ v INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 MORPHOLOGY ............................................. 3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION .............................. 5 ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE . .............................. 7 TAXONOMY ............................................... 8 KEY TO SPECIES AND VARIETIES.......................... 11 DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION OF T A X A .................... 15 EXPERIMENTAL TAXONOMIC INVESTIGATIONS ...............
  • Ecological Checklist of the Missouri Flora for Floristic Quality Assessment

    Ecological Checklist of the Missouri Flora for Floristic Quality Assessment

    Ladd, D. and J.R. Thomas. 2015. Ecological checklist of the Missouri flora for Floristic Quality Assessment. Phytoneuron 2015-12: 1–274. Published 12 February 2015. ISSN 2153 733X ECOLOGICAL CHECKLIST OF THE MISSOURI FLORA FOR FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT DOUGLAS LADD The Nature Conservancy 2800 S. Brentwood Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63144 [email protected] JUSTIN R. THOMAS Institute of Botanical Training, LLC 111 County Road 3260 Salem, Missouri 65560 [email protected] ABSTRACT An annotated checklist of the 2,961 vascular taxa comprising the flora of Missouri is presented, with conservatism rankings for Floristic Quality Assessment. The list also provides standardized acronyms for each taxon and information on nativity, physiognomy, and wetness ratings. Annotated comments for selected taxa provide taxonomic, floristic, and ecological information, particularly for taxa not recognized in recent treatments of the Missouri flora. Synonymy crosswalks are provided for three references commonly used in Missouri. A discussion of the concept and application of Floristic Quality Assessment is presented. To accurately reflect ecological and taxonomic relationships, new combinations are validated for two distinct taxa, Dichanthelium ashei and D. werneri , and problems in application of infraspecific taxon names within Quercus shumardii are clarified. CONTENTS Introduction Species conservatism and floristic quality Application of Floristic Quality Assessment Checklist: Rationale and methods Nomenclature and taxonomic concepts Synonymy Acronyms Physiognomy, nativity, and wetness Summary of the Missouri flora Conclusion Annotated comments for checklist taxa Acknowledgements Literature Cited Ecological checklist of the Missouri flora Table 1. C values, physiognomy, and common names Table 2. Synonymy crosswalk Table 3. Wetness ratings and plant families INTRODUCTION This list was developed as part of a revised and expanded system for Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) in Missouri.
  • SWAP 2015 Report

    SWAP 2015 Report

    STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN September 2015 GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WILDLIFE RESOURCES DIVISION Georgia State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Recommended reference: Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2015. Georgia State Wildlife Action Plan. Social Circle, GA: Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Recommended reference for appendices: Author, A.A., & Author, B.B. Year. Title of Appendix. In Georgia State Wildlife Action Plan (pages of appendix). Social Circle, GA: Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Cover photo credit & description: Photo by Shan Cammack, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Interagency Burn Team in Action! Growing season burn on May 7, 2015 at The Nature Conservancy’s Broxton Rocks Preserve. Zach Wood of The Orianne Society conducting ignition. i Table&of&Contents& Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv! Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ x! I. Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................. 1! A Plan to Protect Georgia’s Biological Diversity ....................................................... 1! Essential Elements of a State Wildlife Action Plan .................................................... 2! Species of Greatest Conservation Need ...................................................................... 3! Scales of Biological Diversity
  • Vascular Flora of The

    Vascular Flora of The

    VASCULAR FLORA OF THE UPPER ETOWAH RIVER WATERSHED, GEORGIA by LISA MARIE KRUSE (Under the Direction of DAVID E. GIANNASI) ABSTRACT The Etowah River Basin in North Georgia is a biologically diverse Southern Appalachian River system, threatened by regional population growth. This is a two-part botanical study in the Upper Etowah watershed. The primary component is a survey of vascular flora. Habitats include riparian zones, lowland forest, tributary drainages, bluffs, and uplands. A total of 662 taxa were inventoried, and seventeen reference communities were described and mapped. Small streams, remote public land, and forested private land are important for plant conservation in this watershed. In the second component, cumulative plant species richness was sampled across six floodplain sites to estimate optimal widths for riparian buffer zones. To include 90% of floodplain species in a buffer, 60-75% of the floodplain width must be protected, depending on the stream size. Soil moisture influences species richness, and is dependent on upland water sources. An optimal buffer would protect hydrologic connections between floodplains and uplands. INDEX WORDS: Etowah River, Southeastern United States, floristic inventory, riparian buffer zone, floodplain plant species, plant habitat conservation VASCULAR FLORA OF THE UPPER ETOWAH RIVER WATERSHED, GEORGIA by LISA MARIE KRUSE B.S., Emory University, 1996 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE
  • Protecting Kosrae's Upland Forest

    Protecting Kosrae's Upland Forest

    PROTECTING KOSRAE’S UPLAND FOREST BII OD VERSITY CEONS RVATION LESSONS LEARNED TECHNICAL SERIES 26 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION LESSONS LEARNED TECHNICAL SERIES 26 Protecting Kosrae’s Upland Forest Biodiversity Conservation Lessons Learned Technical Series is published by: Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) and Conservation International Pacific Islands Program (CI-Pacific) PO Box 2035, Apia, Samoa T: + 685 21593 E: [email protected] W: www.conservation.org The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund is a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. A fundamental goal is to ensure civil society is engaged in biodiversity conservation. Conservation International Pacific Islands Program. 2013. Biodiversity Conservation Lessons Learned Technical Series 26: Protecting Kosrae’s Upland Forest. Conservation International, Apia, Samoa Author: Jacob A Sanney, Kosrae Conservation and Safety Organization; John Mather, Pacific Invasives Initiative. Design/Production: Joanne Aitken, The Little Design Company, www.thelittledesigncompany.com Cover Photograph: © Jacob A Sanney, Kosrae Conservation and Safety Organization Series Editor: Leilani Duffy, Conservation International Pacific Islands Program Conservation International is a private, non-profit organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. OUR MISSION Building upon a strong foundation of science,
  • Leaf Essential Oil Compositions of Bear's Foot, Smallanthus Uvedalia

    Leaf Essential Oil Compositions of Bear's Foot, Smallanthus Uvedalia

    American Journal of Essential Oils and Natural Products 2019; 7(3): 31-35 ISSN: 2321-9114 AJEONP 2019; 7(3): 31-35 Leaf essential oil compositions of bear’s foot, © 2019 AkiNik Publications Received: 24-05-2019 Smallanthus uvedalia and Polymnia canadensis Accepted: 26-06-2019 Jonathan D Craft Jonathan D Craft, Sims K Lawson and William N Setzer Department of Chemistry, University of Alabama in Abstract Huntsville Huntsville, AL 35899, USA The leaves of Smallanthus uvedalia and Polymnia canadensis, two members of the Asteraceae important in Native American traditional herbal medicine, were collected in north Alabama. The essential oils were Sims K Lawson obtained by hydrodistillation and analyzed by gas chromatography – mass spectrometry. Caryophyllane Department of Chemistry, sesquiterpenoids dominated the leaf essential oil of S. uvedalia, including (E)-caryophyllene (16.5- University of Alabama in 24.5%), caryophyllene oxide (14.2-19.8%), 14-hydroxy-9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene (6.2-8.9%), 14- Huntsville Huntsville, AL 35899, hydroxy-9-epi-(Z)-caryophyllene (4.3-8.2%), caryophylla-4(12),8(13)-dien-5β-ol (2.3-5.5%), and USA caryophylla-4(12),8(13)-dien-5α-ol (0.9-2.0%). P. canadensis leaf oil, on the other hand, was rich in germacrene D (44.5-63.7%). The high concentrations of caryophyllane and germacrane sesquiterpenoids William N Setzer likely account for the traditional uses of these plants to reduce inflammation and swelling. (1) Department of Chemistry, University of Alabama in Keywords: Yellow flower leafcup, white flower leafcup, Asteraceae, traditional herbal medicine Huntsville Huntsville, AL 35899, USA (2) Aromatic Plant Research 1.
  • The Asteraceae of Northwestern Pico Zunil, a Cloud Forest in Western Guatemala

    The Asteraceae of Northwestern Pico Zunil, a Cloud Forest in Western Guatemala

    NUMBER 10 QUEDENSLEY AND BRAGG: ASTERACEAE OF PICO ZUNIL, GUATEMALA 49 THE ASTERACEAE OF NORTHWESTERN PICO ZUNIL, A CLOUD FOREST IN WESTERN GUATEMALA Taylor Sultan Quedensley1 and Thomas B. Bragg2 1Plant Biology Graduate Program, The University of Texas, 1 University Station A6720, Austin, Texas 78712 2Department of Biology, The University of Nebraska, 6001 Dodge Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68182-0040 Abstract: From 2003 to 2005, 46 genera and 96 species of native Asteraceae were collected on the northwestern slopes of Pico Zunil, a montane cloud forest habitat in southwestern Guatemala. Combining the present survey with past collections, a total of 56 genera and 126 species of Asteraceae have been reported from Pico Zunil, five of which are naturalized Old World species. In the present study, the Heliantheae contains the greatest number of native species (29). The most diverse genus is Ageratina (Eupatorieae, 9 species). Species richness of native Asteraceae measured along an elevational gradient ranged from a low of 16 species at 3400–3542 m to a high of 68 species at 2300–2699 m, where human land use most actively affects cloud forest habitat. Of the plants collected, Ageratina rivalis and Verbesina sousae were new species records for Guatemala. Six more species were new records for the Departmentof Quetzaltenango: Ageratina pichinchensis, A. prunellaefolia, A. saxorum, Koanophyllon coulteri, Stevia triflora, and Telanthophora cobanensis. In addition, 16 of the 96 native species collected are known only from to the western montane departments of Guatemala and the montane regions of southern Chiapas, Mexico. We provide a base of information against which future studies can measure temporal changes in presence of species such as may accompany environmental changes resulting from human activities and/or climate change.
  • Table of Described Plants the Following Table Lists the Plants André Michaux Described in His North American Journals and Letters

    Table of Described Plants the Following Table Lists the Plants André Michaux Described in His North American Journals and Letters

    Table of Described Plants The following table lists the plants André Michaux described in his North American journals and letters. It is organized according to Michaux’s names for the species, and modern scientific and common names are provided for each species. Note: an asterisk (*) indicates that the name applied by Michaux is rec- ognized for a different species, and page numbers in italics refer to photographs. Modern Michaux’s names Common Page(s) in this binomial for a particular species name(s) volume (scientific name) Abies / Abies balsamea / Pinus 178, 179, 184, balsamea / Pinus balsamifera / Pi- Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. balsam fir 186, 189, 193 nus, needles notched at the tip Abies canadensis / Abies spruce 43, 73, 111, 113, / Pine or Sapinette / Pinus ab- Tsuga canaden- 174, 175, 179, 196, eastern hemlock ies canadensis / Pinus canadensis / sis (L.) Carrière 227, 238, 256, Thuya canadensis / Hemlock pines 257, 306, 364 Abies nigra / Pinus abies nigra / Pinus Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP. black spruce / 186, 188, 189, 190, abies rubra / Pinus fol. denticulatis or Picea rubens Sarg. red spruce 191, 192, 193, 256 Abies nigra? / Abies leaves scat- Tsuga caroliniana Engelm. Carolina hemlock 256, 258, 364 tered on all sides [NC] Abies, with sparse leaves on all sides / Pinus, with few leaves Picea sp. spruce 175, 178, 179, 185 on all sides / Pinus abies Acacia Acacia sp. undetermined 152 Acacia nilotica (L.) acacia de cayenne / Acacia de cayenne / Mimosa gum Arabic 151 Willd. ex Delile gum Arabic tree Senegalia catechu (L. f.) Acacia from India khair 151 P. J. H. Hurter & Mabb.
  • Notes on Certain Type Specimens of American Asteraceae in European Herbaria

    Notes on Certain Type Specimens of American Asteraceae in European Herbaria

    NOTES ON CERTAIN TYPE SPECIMENS OF AMERICAN ASTERACEAE IN EUROPEAN HERBARIA By S. F. BLAKE In the course of the writer's work at several of the larger European herbaria in the summer of 1925, special effort was made to determine the identity of various American species of Asteraceae which were imperfectly described by early authors and have since been unrecog- nized or misinterpreted. In this paper four generic names (Parastre- phia, PhUactisj Anaitis, and Aschenbornia) and about 115 specific names which have been misunderstood or regarded as doubtful since the time of their original publication are first given their rightful status as valid names or synonyms. A few identifications here in- cluded have already been published.1 The genera are arranged in the systematic order of the accepted names, the species alphabetically under the genera. Special attention was given to the investigation of the Heliantheae, particularly in the Prodromus Herbarium of the DeCandolles, now forming a unit in the Delessert Herbarium, Geneva, and in the Schultz Bipontinus Herbarium, which includes Sprengel's types and forms a part of the Cosson Herbarium at the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle at Paris. Schultz's herbarium includes, besides his own types and those of Sprengel, a wealth of fragments of types and authentic specimens from other authors, and the Prodromus Herba- rium is rich in authentic specimens of earlier writers in addition to De Candolle's own types. A rather hurried examination was made of all the Asteraceae of the Humboldt and Bonpland Herbarium at Paris, Notes, photographs, and in many cases small fragments of types or significant specimens were obtained of hundreds of species of American Asteraceae, of which those discussed in this paper represent only the comparatively small part in which some change of interpretation has been found necessary.