DOCSLIB.ORG

Hudson River Estuary Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Framework (P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hudson River Estuary Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Framework (P Literature Cited Calhoun, A. J. K., and M. W. Klemens. 2002. Best development practices: Conserving pool- breeding amphibians in residential and commercial developments in the northeastern United States. MCA Technical Paper No. 5, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York. Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke’s Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1997. FGDC vegetation classification and information standard, June 3, 1996 draft. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee (FGDC-VS). FGDC Secretariat, Reston, VA. Finton, A., P. Novak, and T. Weldy. 1999. Rare species and significant ecological communities of the towns bordering the Hudson River from Troy Dam to the Verrazano Narrows bridge. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Finton, A., P. Novak, K. Schneider, and T. Weldy. 2000. Rare species and significant ecological communities of the counties bordering the Hudson River estuary north of New York City. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 122pp. Fulton, W., R. Pendall, M. Nguyen, and A. Harrison. 2001. Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S. Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. 24pp. Internet: http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/ publications/fulton.pdf Howard, T., J. Jaycox, and T. Weldy. 2002. Rare species and significant natural communities of the significant biodiversity areas in the Hudson River Valley. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 142pp. (includes CD-ROM) Howard, T., P. Novak, T. Weldy, and A. Finton. 2001. Rare species and significant ecological communities of the significant biodiversity areas within the Hudson River watershed. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Kiviat, E., and G. Stevens. 2001. Biodiversity assessment manual for the Hudson River estuary corridor. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 508pp. Miller, N.A. and M.W. Klemens. 2002. Eastern Westchester Biotic Corridor. MCA Technical Paper No. 4, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York. 28 pp. 129 Mitchell, R. S. and Tucker, G. C. 1997. Revised Checklist of New York State Plants. NYS Museum Bulletin 490. National Audubon Society of New York State. 1998. Important Bird Areas. Compiled by J.V. Wells. Courtland, NY: Graphics Plus. NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1993. Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve final management plan. Annandale, NY. Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Latham, NY. 95pp. Richmond, M.E., S.D. Smith, and M. Laba. 2002. Purple loosestrife research and mapping for the Hudson River Valley study area: Final report. (In Preparation) New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Sample, D., and M. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds: A guide for Wisconsin. Bureau of Integrated Science Services, Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. 154pp. Smith, C., S. DeGloria, M. Richmond, S. Gregory, M. Laba, S. Smith, J. Braden, W. Brown, and E. Hill. 2001. An application of Gap Analysis procedures to facilitate planning for biodiversity conservation in the Hudson River Valley, Final Report, Part 1: Gap analysis of the Hudson River Valley and Part 2: Atlas of predicted ranges for terrestrial vertebrates in the Hudson River Valley. New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Smith, S.D., W.A. Brown, C.R. Smith, M.E. Richmond. 2004. Habitat Vulnerability Assessment for the Hudson River Valley. Final Report. New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Stevens, G. and E. Broadbent. 2002. Significant habitats of the Town of East Fishkill, Dutchess County, New York. Report to the Marilyn Milton Simpson Charitable Trusts and the Town of East Fishkill. Hudsonia Ltd., Annandale, NY. 56 pp. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Significant habitats and habitat complexes of the New York bight watershed. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern New England-New York Bight Ecosystems Program, Charleston, RI. 130 Vickery, P., M. Hunter, Jr., and S. Melvin. 1997. Effects of habitat area on the distribution of grassland birds in Maine. In Vickery, P., and P. Dunwiddie, editors, Grasslands of northeastern North America: Ecology and conservation of native and agricultural landscapes. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA. 297pp. Welsch, D. 1991. Riparian forest buffers: Function and design for protection and enhancement of water resources. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service publication NA-PR-07-91, Radnor, PA. Welsch, D., D. Smart, J. Boyer, P. Minkin, H. Smith, and T. McCandless. 1995. Forested wetlands: Functions, benefits, and the use of best management practices. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service publication NA-PR-01-95, Radnor, PA. Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent and vegetation. Office of Public Service & Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Internet: http://outreach.ecology.uga.edu/publications.html Will, G, R. Stumvoll, R. Gotie, and E. Smith. 1982. The ecological zones of northern New York. New York Fish and Game Journal 29:1-25. 131 Appendix I Steering committee members of the NYSDEC1 Hudson River Estuary Program, Biodiver- sity and Terrestrial Habitat Project (1997-2002). Name Organization Dave Adams NYSDEC, Bureau of Habitat Richard Anderson National Audubon Society Kris Alberga NYSDEC, Division of Lands and Forests Carina Bandle Hudsonia Ltd. Andy Beers The Nature Conservancy Betsy Blair NYSDEC, Bureau of Marine Resources Chris Bowser Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Al Breisch NYSDEC, Bureau of Wildlife William Conners Federation of Dutchess County Fish & Game Clubs Glen Cole NYSDEC, Bureau of Wildlife Nick Conrad NY Natural Heritage Program Jim Colqhoun NYSDEC, Bureau of Habitat Scott Cuppett NYSDEC, Hudson River Estuary Program2 Frank Dunstan NYSDEC, Division of Lands and Forests Frances Dunwell NYSDEC, Hudson River Estuary Program Melissa Everett Hudsonia Ltd. Stuart Findlay Institute of Ecosystem Studies Andy Finton New York Natural Heritage Program Laura Flynn The Nature Conservancy Karen Frolich NYSDEC, Hudson River Estuary Program3 Jean Gawalt NYSDEC, Bureau of Wildlife Fred Gerty NYSDEC, Land Services Gary Goff Cornell Cooperative Extension Colleen Hatfield Rutgers University Bob Herberger NYSDEC – Land Services Libby Herland United States Fish & Wildlife Service Michael Hodge Wildlife Habitat Council Nordica Holochuck NY Sea Grant Extension Timothy Howard NY Natural Heritage Program Leah Hurtgen NY Farm Bureau Paul Huth Mohonk Preserve, Inc. Paul Jensen NYSDEC, Hudson River Estuary Program3 Arthur Johnsen NYSDEC, Bureau of Wildlife Elizabeth Johnson American Museum of Natural History Steve Kahl U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chuck Keene Museum of the Hudson Highlands Ted Kerpez NYSDEC, Bureau of Wildlife Walt Keller NYSDEC, Bureau of Fisheries Erik Kiviat Hudsonia Ltd. Michael Klemens Wildlife Conservation Society Gary Kleppel State University of New York, Albany Vince Knoll Outdoor Coalition of New York Fred Koontz Wildlife Trust Paul Kupchok Green Chimney School Tom Lake Hudson River Almanac Don LaValley NYS Conservation Council 132 Name Organization Cara Lee The Nature Conservancy Eric Lind National Audubon Society Thomas Lyons NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Jim McDougal Wildlife Conservation Society Dave Miller National Audubon Society Nick Miller Wildlife Conservation Society Andrew Millliken U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Kathryn Moser The Nature Conservancy Paul Novak NY Natural Heritage Program Peter Nye NYSDEC, Bureau of Wildlife Ralph Odell NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Peg Olsen The Nature Conservancy Mark Penhollow NYSDEC, Hudson River Estuary Program3 Jenna Spear-O’Mara NYSDEC, Division of Lands and Forests Marcus Phelps U.S. Forest Service Rob Pirani Regional Plan Association Gerald Rasmussen NYSDEC, Bureau of Habitat Frank Regerro Orange County Federation of Sportsmen Milo Richmond New York Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Cornell University Jack Robbins Westchester County Parks Department Mark Russo Cornell Cooperative Extension/Rockland County Kathryn Schneider New York Natural Heritage Program Eric Scherer American Heritage Rivers Karen Schneller-McDonald Wildlife Conservation Society Joshua Schwartz Pace University Charles Smith Cornell University Randy Smith Dutchess County Parks Stephen Smith Cornell University Steve Stanne NYSDEC, Hudson River Estuary Program2 Margaret
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Types of American Grasses
    z LIBRARY OF Si AS-HITCHCOCK AND AGNES'CHASE 4: SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM oL TiiC. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE United States National Herbarium Volume XII, Part 3 TXE&3 OF AMERICAN GRASSES . / A STUDY OF THE AMERICAN SPECIES OF GRASSES DESCRIBED BY LINNAEUS, GRONOVIUS, SLOANE, SWARTZ, AND MICHAUX By A. S. HITCHCOCK z rit erV ^-C?^ 1 " WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1908 BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Issued June 18, 1908 ii PREFACE The accompanying paper, by Prof. A. S. Hitchcock, Systematic Agrostologist of the United States Department of Agriculture, u entitled Types of American grasses: a study of the American species of grasses described by Linnaeus, Gronovius, Sloane, Swartz, and Michaux," is an important contribution to our knowledge of American grasses. It is regarded as of fundamental importance in the critical sys- tematic investigation of any group of plants that the identity of the species described by earlier authors be determined with certainty. Often this identification can be made only by examining the type specimen, the original description being inconclusive. Under the American code of botanical nomenclature, which has been followed by the author of this paper, "the nomenclatorial t}rpe of a species or subspecies is the specimen to which the describer originally applied the name in publication." The procedure indicated by the American code, namely, to appeal to the type specimen when the original description is insufficient to identify the species, has been much misunderstood by European botanists. It has been taken to mean, in the case of the Linnsean herbarium, for example, that a specimen in that herbarium bearing the same name as a species described by Linnaeus in his Species Plantarum must be taken as the type of that species regardless of all other considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Fruit Production in Cranberry (Ericaceae: Vaccinium Macrocarpon): a Bet-Hedging Strategy to Optimize Reproductive Effort1
    American Journal of Botany 93(6): 910–916. 2006. FRUIT PRODUCTION IN CRANBERRY (ERICACEAE: VACCINIUM MACROCARPON): A BET-HEDGING STRATEGY TO OPTIMIZE REPRODUCTIVE EFFORT1 ADAM O. BROWN2 AND JEREMY N. MCNEIL3 Department of Biology, Laval University, Quebec City, G1K 7P4 Canada In the cultivated cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon), reproductive stems produce 1–3 fruit even though they usually have 5–7 flowers in the spring. We undertook experiments to test the hypothesis that this was an adaptive life history strategy associated with reproductive effort rather than simply the result of insufficient pollination. We compared fruit production on naturally pollinated plants with those that were either manually pollinated or that were caged to exclude insects. Clearly, insects are necessary for the effective pollination of cranberry plants, but hand pollination of all flowers did not result in an increase in fruit number. Most of the upper flowers, which had significantly fewer ovules than did the lower flowers, aborted naturally soon after pollination. However, when the lower flower buds were removed, the upper flowers produced fruit. This suggests that the upper flowers may serve as a backup if the earlier blooming lower ones are lost early in the season. Furthermore, the late-blooming flowers may still contribute to the plant’s reproductive success as visiting pollinators remove the pollen, which could serve to sire fruit on other plants. These results are discussed in the context of their possible evolutionary and proximate causes. Key words:
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas
    ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of the Washington - Baltimore Area
    Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of the Washington - Baltimore Area Part II Monocotyledons Stanwyn G. Shetler Sylvia Stone Orli Botany Section, Department of Systematic Biology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560-0166 MAP OF THE CHECKLIST AREA Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of the Washington - Baltimore Area Part II Monocotyledons by Stanwyn G. Shetler and Sylvia Stone Orli Department of Systematic Biology Botany Section National Museum of Natural History 2002 Botany Section, Department of Systematic Biology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560-0166 Cover illustration of Canada or nodding wild rye (Elymus canadensis L.) from Manual of the Grasses of the United States by A. S. Hitchcock, revised by Agnes Chase (1951). iii PREFACE The first part of our Annotated Checklist, covering the 2001 species of Ferns, Fern Allies, Gymnosperms, and Dicotyledons native or naturalized in the Washington-Baltimore Area, was published in March 2000. Part II covers the Monocotyledons and completes the preliminary edition of the Checklist, which we hope will prove useful not only in itself but also as a first step toward a new manual for the identification of the Area’s flora. Such a manual is needed to replace the long- outdated and out-of-print Flora of the District of Columbia and Vicinity of Hitchcock and Standley, published in 1919. In the preparation of this part, as with Part I, Shetler has been responsible for the taxonomy and nomenclature and Orli for the database. As with the first part, we are distributing this second part in preliminary form, so that it can be used, criticized, and updated while the two parts are being readied for publication as a single volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of the Broom Crowberry (Corema Conradii)
    Ecology of the Broom Crowberry (Corema conradii) a Pine Barren Perennial Alyssa Rosso Health Science, College of Arts and Sciences University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT Introduction Methods Conrad's Broom-Crowberry (Corema conradii) is found in both the meadow 1. Randomly select three Crowberry plants in each habitat. and forest habitats of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. The Crowberry grows 2. Collect 50 g of the soil from under each plant and determine best in well-drained soils with an acidic pH. Wild fires have a significant the average height, diameter, and area using the equation “area = effect on the growth of its native wild life. Pine barren habitats are subject to πr2”. frequent wildfires, however the meadow habitat is burned annually as part of 3. Determine the water concentration, and pH of the soil samples. The the management of the Pine Barrens wilderness. water concentration of each soil sample was determined by taking Hypotheses the initial weight once collected then placing the soil in an autoclave 1. The meadow being the most recently burned habitat in the Pine oven at 42°C for 48 hours before weighing the sample again in order Barrens, is expected to exhibit a soil with a low water concentration to determine how much water evaporated. The pH of the soils were and an acidic pH. determined by placing the soil in a 1:1 ratio with deionized water for 2. The average diameter and area of the Conrad's Broom- 24 hours before using a Lab Quest to read the pH. Crowberry (Corema conradii) plants found in the meadow habitat will 4.
    [Show full text]
  • New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited By
    New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited by: Stephen M. Young and Troy W. Weldy This list is also published at the website: www.nynhp.org For more information, suggestions or comments about this list, please contact: Stephen M. Young, Program Botanist New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 518-402-8951 Fax 518-402-8925 E-mail: [email protected] To report sightings of rare species, contact our office or fill out and mail us the Natural Heritage reporting form provided at the end of this publication. The New York Natural Heritage Program is a partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and by The Nature Conservancy. Major support comes from the NYS Biodiversity Research Institute, the Environmental Protection Fund, and Return a Gift to Wildlife. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... Page ii Why is the list published? What does the list contain? How is the information compiled? How does the list change? Why are plants rare? Why protect rare plants? Explanation of categories.................................................................................................................... Page iv Explanation of Heritage ranks and codes............................................................................................ Page iv Global rank State rank Taxon rank Double ranks Explanation of plant
    [Show full text]
  • Publications of H.H
    Publications of H.H. Iltis Iltis, H.H. 1945. Abundance of Selaginella in Oklahoma. Am. Fern. J. 35: 52. Iltis, H.H. 1947. A visit to Gregor Mendel’s home. Journal of Heredity 38: 162-166. Iltis, H.H. 1950. Studies in Virginia Plants I: List of bryophytes from the vicinity of Fredericksburg, Virginia. Castanea 15: 38-50. Iltis, H.H. 1953. Cleome, in Herter, G.W. Flora Illustrada del Uruguay. Fasc. 8 & 9. Iltis, H.H. 1954. Studies in the Capparidaceae I. Polanisia dodecandra (L.) DC., the correct name for Polanista graveolens Rafinesque. Rhodora 56: 64-70. Iltis, H.H. 1955. Evolution in the western North American Cleomoideae. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings 7: 118. (Abstract). Iltis, H.H. 1955. Capparidaceae of Nevada, in Archer, A.W. Contributions toward a Flora of Nevada, No. 35. U.S.D.A. Beltsville, MD l-24. Iltis, H.H. 1956. Studies in Virginia plants II. Rhododendron maximum in the Virginia coastal plain and its distribution in North America. Castanea 21:114-124. (Reprinted in “Wildflower”, January, 1957). Iltis, H.H. 1956. Studies in the Capparidaceae II. The Mexican species of Cleomella: Taxonomy and evolution. Madroño 13: 177-189. Iltis, H.H. 1957. Flora of Winnebago County, Illinois (Fell). Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 83: 313-314. (Book review). Iltis, H.H. 1957. Die Flechtbinse (Scirpus lacustris) (Seidler). Scientific Monthly 84: 266-267. (Book review). Iltis, H.H. 1957. Distribution and nomenclatorial notes on Galium (Rubiaceae). Rhodora 59: 38-43. Iltis, H.H. and Urban, E. 1957. Preliminary Reports on the Flora of Wisconsin No.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Standards Version 2.8 July 5
    Euro+Med Data Standards Version 2.8. July 5th, 2002 EURO+MED PLANTBASE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL CHECKLIST: DATA STANDARDS VERSION 2.8 JULY 5TH, 2002 This document replaces Version 2.7, dated May 16th, 2002 Compiled for the Euro+Med PlantBase Editorial Committee by: Euro+Med PlantBase Secretariat, Centre for Plant Diversity and Systematics, School of Plant Sciences, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AS United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)118 9318160 Fax: +44 (0)118 975 3676 E-mail: [email protected] 1 Euro+Med Data Standards Version 2.8. July 5th, 2002 Modifications made in Version 2.0 (24/11/00) 1. Section 2.4 as been corrected to note that geography should be added for hybrids as well as species and subspecies. 2. Section 3 (Standard Floras) has been modified to reflect the presently accepted list. This may be subject to further modification as the project proceeds. 3. Section 4 (Family Blocks) – genera have been listed where this clarifies the circumscription of blocks. 4. Section 5 (Accented Characters) – now included in the document with examples. 5. Section 6 (Geographical Standard) – Macedonia (Mc) is now listed as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Modification made in Version 2.1 (10/01/01) Page 26: Liliaceae in Block 21 has been corrected to Lilaeaceae. Modifications made in Version 2.2 (4/5/01) Geographical Standards. Changes made as discussed at Palermo General meeting (Executive Committee): Treatment of Belgium and Luxembourg as separate areas Shetland not Zetland Moldova not Moldavia Czech Republic
    [Show full text]
  • 58. DIARRHENA P. Beauvois, Ess. Agrostogr. 142. 1812, Nom. Cons
    224 POACEAE 58. DIARRHENA P. Beauvois, Ess. Agrostogr. 142. 1812, nom. cons. 龙常草属 long chang cao shu Neomolinia Honda. Description and distribution as for tribe. 1a. Keels of palea smooth; anthers 0.7–1.2 mm; panicle open, branches spreading ......................................................... 1. D. japonica 1b. Keels of palea ciliate; anthers 1.5–2 mm; panicle ± contracted, branches erect to ascending. 2a. Panicle contracted at first, becoming somewhat lax at maturity, primary branches often further divided; lemmas smooth on veins; lowest lemma 3.5–4 mm .................................................................................................. 2. D. fauriei 2b. Panicle always contracted, primary branches erect, simple; lemmas scabrid on veins near apex; lowest lemma 4.5–5 mm ............................................................................................................................................. 3. D. mandshurica 1. Diarrhena japonica Franchet & Savatier, Enum. Pl. Jap. 2: puberulous, abaxial surface scabrid or nearly smooth, apex 603. 1879. gradually long-acuminate; ligule ca. 0.5 mm. Panicle laxly con- tracted, narrowly lanceolate at first, later slightly more spread- 日本龙常草 ri ben long chang cao ing, 12–15 × 2–3 cm; primary branches in clusters of 2–5, erect Neomolinia japonica (Franchet & Savatier) Probatova. to ascending, scabrid, each branch with branchlets, loosely bearing 4–13 spikelets. Spikelets obovate at maturity, 4–7 Culms tufted, erect, 50–80 cm tall, 1–1.5 mm in diam., 4– mm, florets 2; glumes lanceolate, usually 1-veined, acute, lower 5-noded, glabrous below nodes. Leaf sheaths mostly shorter glume 1–1.5 mm, upper glume ca. 2 mm; lemmas 3.5–4 mm, 3- than internodes, glabrous; leaf blades flat, 20–30 × 0.8–1.5 cm, veined, veins smooth, apex subacute; palea keels ciliolate.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Classification and Mapping Project Report
    U.S. Geological Survey-National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Program Acadia National Park, Maine Project Report Revised Edition – October 2003 Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey. USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Acadia National Park U.S. Geological Survey-National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Program Acadia National Park, Maine Sara Lubinski and Kevin Hop U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center and Susan Gawler Maine Natural Areas Program This report produced by U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 2630 Fanta Reed Road La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603 and Maine Natural Areas Program Department of Conservation 159 Hospital Street 93 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0093 In conjunction with Mike Story (NPS Vegetation Mapping Coordinator) NPS, Natural Resources Information Division, Inventory and Monitoring Program Karl Brown (USGS Vegetation Mapping Coordinator) USGS, Center for Biological Informatics and Revised Edition - October 2003 USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Acadia National Park Contacts U.S. Department of Interior United States Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division Website: http://www.usgs.gov U.S. Geological Survey Center for Biological Informatics P.O. Box 25046 Building 810, Room 8000, MS-302 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225-0046 Website: http://biology.usgs.gov/cbi Karl Brown USGS Program Coordinator - USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Phone: (303) 202-4240 E-mail: [email protected] Susan Stitt USGS Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technologies Specialist USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Phone: (303) 202-4234 E-mail: [email protected] Kevin Hop Principal Investigator U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Plant Propagation Protocol
    Plant Propagation Protocol for Vulpia octoflora ESRM 412 – Native Plant Production Protocol URL: https://courses.washington.edu/esrm412/protocols/VUOC.pdf ©Matt Lavin ©Mary Wright Gill ©University of South Florida TAXONOMY Plant Family Scientific Name Poaceae Common Name Grass family Species Scientific Name Scientific Name Vulpia octoflora (Walter) Rydb. Varieties Vulpia octoflora var. octoflora Vulpia octoflora var. glauca Vulpia octoflora var. hirtella Vulpia octoflora var. tenella (ITIS, 2017) Sub-species Festuca glacilenta Buckley Festuca tenella Willd (ITIS, 2017) Cultivar None found Common Synonym(s) Festuca octoflora Walt. var. aristulata Torr. ex L.H. Dewey Diarrhena setacea (Poir.) Roem. & Schult. Festuca parviflora Elliott Festuca setacea Poir. Gnomonia octoflora (Walter) Lunell Vulpia antofagastensis Parodi Festuca tenella var. aristulata Torr. Note: Vulpia octoflora was listed under the genus of fescue for a number of years, thus many of the common synonyms are under the name festuca. However, the current taxonomy now lists Vulpia octoflora under the vulpia genus. (ITIS, 2017) Common Name(s) Sixweek fescue Sixweeks grass Six-weeks grass Common sixweeks grass Pull out grass Eight-flower sixweeks grass Eight-flowered fescue (ITIS, 2017) Species Code VUOC GENERAL INFORMATION Geographical range (USDA, 2018) (WTU, 2018) Ecological distribution Vulpia octoflora can be found across a variety of ecosystems in North America. Desert grasslands, desert shrub, sagebrush, mixed grass prairie, and annual grasslands are among the ecosystems that the grass inhabits. (Thacker, 2008) Climate and elevation Sun: Direct sunlight range Elevation: 15’-6455’ Annual precipitation: 3.0” - 49.5” Summer precipitation: 0.14” - 2.69” Coldest Month: 37.4 ᵒF - 60.4 ᵒF Hottest Month: 60.7 ᵒF - 88.7 ᵒF Humidity: 0.47 - 40.10 vpd (vapor pressure deficit) Drainage: Fast (CNPS, 2018) Local habitat and Vulpia octoflora is found abundantly in pristine prairie ecosystems, abundance commonly on dry sites and between bunchgrass species in the Pacific Northwest.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the 990 Meeting 12 September 2003 Arthur V. Gilman
    New England Botanical Club - Minutes of the 990th Meeting 12 September 2003 Arthur V. Gilman, Recording Secretary pro tempore The 763rd meeting of the New England Botanical Club, being the 990th since its original organization was held at the University of Massachusetts-Boston Field Station on Polpis Rd., Nantucket, MA. The fall away meeting was well attended by over 25 members and guests. Following brief remarks and remembrances of long-time Club member Dr. Wesley N. Tiffney, Jr., who ran the field station for many years, the Club welcomed Dr. Ernie Steinauer, Director of the Massachusetts Audubon Society’s programs on Nantucket, who spoke on “Restoring and Maintaining Nantucket’s Rare Plant Communities.” The particular Nantucket communities of most concern from a botanical perspective are sandplain grassland, which is considered globally endangered, and coastal heathland, which is considered globally threatened. Rare species of these habitats include butterfly-weed (Asclepias tuberosa), bushy rockrose (Helianthemum dumosum), broom crowberry (Corema conradii), silvery aster (Aster concolor), New England blazing star (Liatris borealis var. novae-angliae), and lion’s-foot (Prenanthes serpentaria). There is a serious debate about the original extent of these habitats. In presettlement times (when there a was large but mostly seasonal population of Native Americans) they may have been limited to immediate coastal areas, where salt spray reduced woody plant cover. In any case, it is apparent that these plant communities were in large part maintained over a period of more than 200 years by sheep-grazing, which was at times quite intensive (in 1700 there were 17,000 sheep on the island).
    [Show full text]