DOCSLIB.ORG

Phalaris Arundinacea</Em>

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phalaris Arundinacea</Em> East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 5-2003 Fire, Soil, Native Species and Control of Phalaris arundinacea in a Wetland Recovery Project. Richard Douglas Foster East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Foster, Richard Douglas, "Fire, Soil, Native Species and Control of Phalaris arundinacea in a Wetland Recovery Project." (2003). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 773. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/773 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fire, Soil, Native Species, and Control of Phalaris arundinacea in a Wetland Recovery Project A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of Biology East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science in Biology by Richard D. Foster May 2003 Dr. Foster Levy, Chair Dr. Timothy McDowell, Dr. Paul Wetzel Keywords: biological control, controlled burn, hemiparasitism, invasive species, Pedicularis lanceolata, Phalaris arundinacea, soil conditions, wetland restoration. ABSTRACT Fire, Soil, Native Species, and Control of Phalaris arundinacea in a Wetland Recovery Project by Richard D. Foster Southern Appalachian Phalaris arundinacea control was investigated by: 1) correlating cover and species richness with soil characteristics across transects; 2) burning and herbicide use to determine conditions facilitating native plant establishment; and 3) hemi-parasitic Pedicularis lanceolata tested as a biological control. Phalaris cover was correlated with subsoil consolidation; areas without Phalaris had consolidated subsoil while Phalaris at >50% cover established on loose soil. Phalaris cover inhibited species richness (r2=0.78). No soil characteristic predicted species richness. Herbicide reduced Phalaris cover and aerial biomass by 23% and 63% respectively, compared to controls. Burning was ineffective. Two summers after herbicide Phalaris subterranean biomass remained 32% less than control biomass. Monocot transplants established readily following herbicide but dicot transplants were less likely to survive. Pedicularis parasitized Phalaris. Pedicularis’ effect on a mixed species total (r2=0.735) was non-linear; implying greater effect on large plants. Non-parasitic native plant species competition reduced biomass of Phalaris by 40%. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not have been possible without the efforts of my mentor, Paul Wetzel, who lured me from Michigan with the Shady Valley wetland restoration projects, and Douglas Wilcox, who brought us together. Timothy McDowell and Foster Levy were essential members of my committee. I am indebted to Hugh Miller, Harold Powell, and the John C. Warden Herbarium; all gave me use of vital facilities. Jamey Donaldson and Rebecca Pyles have my thanks for their contributions of materials, time, and expertise. Nathan Hartgrove and Thomas Zann lent soil sampling equipment. Brian Evanshen, Phillip Sheuerman, the ETSU Environmental Health Laboratory, as well as Cecilia McIntosh, Lee Pike, and the ETSU Chemistry Department kindly gave me the means to test my samples. Lev Yampolsky and John Kalbfleisch were repeatedly sources of great comfort regarding statistical and graphing software. Charles McQueen, the Shady Valley Volunteer Fire Department, and Kristi Tipton all gave me vital aid. Daniel Johnson and Darrel Moore were important sources of information and expertise on the workings of ETSU. Gabrielle Call and The Nature Conservancy’s Tennessee Chapter were fine people to work for and Rachel Myers donated her time. Primary funding was provided by The Nature Conservancy Tennessee Chapter through grants awarded to Paul Wetzel. Marcia Davis, her Marcia Davis award, and the ETSU Department of Biological Sciences have my thanks for the additional funding they contributed. 3 CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... 2 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... 10 LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. 12 Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 13 Background ................................................................................................. 13 Phalaris arundinacea ............................................................................. 13 The Orchard Bog Project ........................................................................ 14 Fen Habitat ............................................................................................. 14 Research Questions .................................................................................... 15 Soil Conditions and Phalaris arundinacea .............................................. 15 Native Plant Establishment in Phalaris arundinacea .............................. 15 Hemiparasitic Pedicularis lanceolata as a Biological Control ................. 17 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................ 18 Soil Conditions and Phalaris arundinacea ................................................... 18 Piezometers ........................................................................................... 20 Assessment of Plant Cover .................................................................... 20 Soil Sampling ......................................................................................... 21 Water Content ................................................................................... 22 Nitrogen ............................................................................................ 22 Phosphorus ....................................................................................... 23 pH ..................................................................................................... 23 4 Chapter Page Organic Matter .................................................................................. 23 Texture .............................................................................................. 24 Structure ........................................................................................... 26 Outflow Water Characteristics .......................................................... 26 Reducing Conditions ......................................................................... 26 Water Potential ................................................................................. 27 Bulk Density ...................................................................................... 27 Statistical Analysis ............................................................................ 28 Native plant establishment in Phalaris arundinacea .................................... 29 Phalaris arundinacea Burn and Herbicide Treatments ........................... 32 Data Collection ....................................................................................... 33 Soil .................................................................................................... 33 Piezometers ...................................................................................... 33 Cover ................................................................................................ 33 Biomass ............................................................................................ 33 Statistical Analysis ................................................................................. 34 Biomass ............................................................................................ 35 Species Richness and Cover ............................................................ 36 Hemiparasitic Pedicularis lanceolata as a biological control ........................ 37 Experimental Design .............................................................................. 37 Data Collection ....................................................................................... 39 Statistical Analysis ................................................................................. 40 3. RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 41 Soil conditions and Phalaris arundinacea .................................................... 41 Phalaris arundinacea and Soil Properties: Regression Analysis............. 41 5 Chapter Page Species Richness and Phalaris arundinacea Cover ............................... 44 Species richness and Soil Conditions: Regression Analysis .................. 45 Shifts of Phalaris arundinacea Cover ..................................................... 47 Qualitative Results ................................................................................. 48 Outflow Water Characteristics ................................................................ 48 Reducing Conditions .............................................................................. 48 Water Potential ......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Knowledge Document on the Impact of Priority Wetland Weeds
    Knowledge document on the impact of priority wetland weeds Step 2 – Impacts of priority wetland weeds Client Report for DELWP, Integrated Water and Catchments Division Arthur Ryah Institute for Environmental Research Acknowledgements This project has been undertaken with funding from Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) Water and Catchments Group. Pam Clunie (Arthur Rylah Institute; DELWP) and Doug Frood (Pathways Bushland & Environment) provided valuable assistance in determining the scope of the project and filtering the wetland weed list. Phil Papas and Di Crowther (Arthur Rylah Institute; DELWP) are thanked for reviewing the draft. Author Weiss, J. and Dugdale, T. 2017. Knowledge document of the impact of priority wetland weeds: Step 2 – Impacts of priority wetland weeds. Report prepared for Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) Water and Catchments Group by Agriculture Victoria. Photo credit Sagittaria platyphylla, Sagittaria, Delta Arrowhead (Anonymous, Agriculture Victoria, DEDJTR) © The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2017 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN 978-1-76047-452-2 (print) ISBN 978-1-76047-453-9 (pdf) Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1700 Native Plants of Bucks County, PA
    The 1700 Native Plants of Bucks County, PA Bucks County, PA is blessed with an enormous range of physiographic regions, soil types, and hydrological conditions. Habitats range from the diabase areas of the Upper Bucks to the coastal plains of Lower Bucks, high palisades of the Delaware River to bog remnants, pristine freshwater ponds to tidal areas. These varied conditions host a dizzying array of species, sub‐species, and naturally‐occurring varieties. Common species are regularly available from ArcheWild; many can be grown under contract. Call ArcheWild at 855‐752‐6862 or e‐mail us for more information at: [email protected] Symbol Scientific Name Common Name ACGR2 Acalypha gracilens slender threeseed mercury ACRH Acalypha rhomboidea common threeseed mercury ACVI Acalypha virginica Virginia threeseed mercury ACNE2 Acer negundo boxelder ACNEN Acer negundo var. negundo boxelder ACPE Acer pensylvanicum striped maple ACRU Acer rubrum red maple ACRUR Acer rubrum var. rubrum red maple ACRUT Acer rubrum var. trilobum red maple ACSA2 Acer saccharinum silver maple ACSA3 Acer saccharum sugar maple ACSAS Acer saccharum var. saccharum sugar maple ACSP2 Acer spicatum mountain maple ACMI2 Achillea millefolium common yarrow ACPA Actaea pachypoda white baneberry ACRA7 Actaea racemosa black baneberry ACRAR Actaea racemosa var. racemosa black bugbane ADPE Adiantum pedatum northern maidenhair ADFU Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine AEFL Aesculus flava yellow buckeye AGAU3 Agalinis auriculata earleaf false foxglove AGPU5 Agalinis purpurea purple false foxglove
    [Show full text]
  • Scarlet Ammannia (Ammannia Robusta) in Canada
    PROPOSED Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series Adopted under Section 44 of SARA Recovery Strategy for the Scarlet Ammannia (Ammannia robusta) in Canada Scarlet Ammannia 2014 Recommended citation: Environment Canada. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the Scarlet Ammannia (Ammannia robusta) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. XXI pp. + Appendix. For copies of the recovery strategy, or for additional information on species at risk, including the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Status Reports, residence descriptions, action plans, and other related recovery documents, please visit the Species at Risk (SAR) Public Registry (www.sararegistry.gc.ca). Cover illustration: © Emmet J. Judziewicz Également disponible en français sous le titre « Programme de rétablissement de l’ammannie robuste (Ammannia robusta) au Canada [Proposition] » © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of the Environment, 2014. All rights reserved. ISBN Catalogue no. Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. RECOVERY STRATEGY FOR THE SCARLET AMMANNIA (Ammannia robusta) IN CANADA 2014 Under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996), the federal, provincial, and territorial governments agreed to work together on legislation, programs, and policies to protect wildlife species at risk throughout Canada. In the spirit of cooperation of the Accord, the Government of British Columbia has given permission to the Government of Canada to adopt the “Recovery Strategy for the scarlet ammannia (Ammannia robusta) in British Columbia and Ontario” (Part 2) under Section 44 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA).
    [Show full text]
  • Eupatorium Leucolepis (DC.) T
    New England Plant Conservation Program Eupatorium leucolepis (DC.) T. & G. var. novae-angliae Fern. New England Boneset Conservation and Research Plan for New England Prepared by: Ted Elliman Ecological Consultant Slingerlands, New York For: New England Wild Flower Society 180 Hemenway Road Framingham, MA 01701 508/877-7630 e-mail: [email protected] • website: www.newfs.org Through a cooperative agreement with Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program and Manomet, Inc. Approved, Regional Advisory Council, December 2001 1 SUMMARY Eupatorium leucolepis (DC.) T. & G. var. novae-angliae Fern., New England boneset (Asteraceae), is endemic to the coastal plain region of southeastern Massachusetts and southern Rhode Island. New England boneset is classified as a Regionally Rare taxon (Division 2) in Flora Conservanda. The taxon has 16 current occurrences, ten of which are in Massachusetts and six in Rhode Island. Two Massachusetts populations documented in the early twentieth century have been extirpated. The ten existing Massachusetts populations are located in Plymouth County (nine occurrences) and in Barnstable County (one occurrence). The Rhode Island populations are located in Washington County (five occurrences) and in Newport County (one occurrence). New England boneset flowers lack pollen and are male-sterile. Plants reproduce vegetatively from stolons and through the asexual production of viable seeds and embryos in a process known as agamospermy ("without gametes"). In spite of the absence of pollen, a variety of insects visit the flowers, which are in peak bloom in August. New England boneset fruits are dispersed by wind in the fall. The habitat for all of the New England boneset occurrences except for one Rhode Island site is sandy coastal plain pond shores.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Involved in the Maintenance of the Grassy Balds of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 3-1968 Factors Involved in the Maintenance of the Grassy Balds of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park Stephen Walker Radford University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Radford, Stephen Walker, "Factors Involved in the Maintenance of the Grassy Balds of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1968. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1446 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Stephen Walker Radford entitled "Factors Involved in the Maintenance of the Grassy Balds of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Botany. Edward E. C. Clebsch, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Ronald H. Peterson, Edward R. Buckner Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) February 28, 1968 To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Stephen Walker Radford entitled "Factors Involved in the Maintenance of the Grassy Balds of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park." I recommend that it be accepted for nine quarter hours of credit in partial fulfillment o�the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Botany.
    [Show full text]
  • Links Between Genetic Groups, Indole Alkaloid Profiles and Ecology Within the Grass-Parasitic Claviceps Purpurea Species Complex
    Toxins 2015, 7, 1431-1456; doi:10.3390/toxins7051431 OPEN ACCESS toxins ISSN 2072-6651 www.mdpi.com/journal/toxins Article Links between Genetic Groups, Indole Alkaloid Profiles and Ecology within the Grass-Parasitic Claviceps purpurea Species Complex Mariell Negård 1,2, Silvio Uhlig 1,3, Håvard Kauserud 2, Tom Andersen 2, Klaus Høiland 2 and Trude Vrålstad 1,2,* 1 Norwegian Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 750 Sentrum, 0106 Oslo, Norway; E-Mails: [email protected] (M.N.); [email protected] (S.U.) 2 Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1066 Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway; E-Mails: [email protected] (H.K.); [email protected] (T.A.); [email protected] (K.H.) 3 Department of the Chemical and Biological Working Environment, National Institute of Occupational Health, P.O. Box 8149 Dep, 0033 Oslo, Norway * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +47-2321-6247. Academic Editor: Christopher L. Schardl Received: 3 January 2015 / Accepted: 22 April 2015 / Published: 28 April 2015 Abstract: The grass parasitic fungus Claviceps purpurea sensu lato produces sclerotia with toxic indole alkaloids. It constitutes several genetic groups with divergent habitat preferences that recently were delimited into separate proposed species. We aimed to 1) analyze genetic variation of C. purpurea sensu lato in Norway, 2) characterize the associated indole alkaloid profiles, and 3) explore relationships between genetics, alkaloid chemistry and ecology. Approximately 600 sclerotia from 14 different grass species were subjected to various analyses including DNA sequencing and HPLC-MS.
    [Show full text]
  • CRP-SAFE for Karner Blue Butterflies Recommendations for Wisconsin Landowners and Conservationists
    CRP-SAFE for Karner Blue Butterflies Recommendations for Wisconsin Landowners and Conservationists August 2013 The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation www.xerces.org Acknowledgements We thank Scott Swengel, Scott Hoffman Black, Jane Anklam, Andrew Bourget and John Sippl for helpful comments on earlier versions of this document, and additional USDA FSA and NRCS Altoona Service Center staff, UW-Eau Claire Office of Research and Sponsored Projects and undergraduate researchers for their collaboration and support. We also thank Karner blue CRP- SAFE participants for their participation in the conservation program. Authors Dr. Paula Kleintjes Neff University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire Department of Biology Eric Mader Assistant Pollinator Program Director The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Editing and layout Kaitlyn Rich, Matthew Shepherd, Hailey Walls, Ashley Minnerath. Photo credits Thank you to the photographers who generously allowed use of their images. Copyright of all photographs remains with the photographers. Cover main: Karner blue butterfly. William Bouton. Cover bottom left: Lupine field. Eric Mader, The Xerces Society. Cover bottom right: CRP-SAFE field. Paula Kleintjes Neff. Copyright © 2013 The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 628 NE Broadway Suite 200, Portland, OR 97232 855-232-6639 www.xerces.org The Xerces Society is a nonprofit organization that protects wildlife through the conservation of invertebrates and their habitat. Established in 1971, the Society is at the forefront of invertebrate protection worldwide. The Xerces Society is an equal opportunity employer. 2 Date Last Modified: August 30, 2013 CRP-SAFE for Karner Blue Butterflies Recommendations for Wisconsin Landowners and Conservationists Introduction Nearly 2,000 acres of habitat for the federally endangered Karner blue butterfly Lycaeides( melisssa samuelis) have been established in western Wisconsin through the CRP-SAFE program since 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 2: Plant Lists
    Appendix 2: Plant Lists Master List and Section Lists Mahlon Dickerson Reservation Botanical Survey and Stewardship Assessment Wild Ridge Plants, LLC 2015 2015 MASTER PLANT LIST MAHLON DICKERSON RESERVATION SCIENTIFIC NAME NATIVENESS S-RANK CC PLANT HABIT # OF SECTIONS Acalypha rhomboidea Native 1 Forb 9 Acer palmatum Invasive 0 Tree 1 Acer pensylvanicum Native 7 Tree 2 Acer platanoides Invasive 0 Tree 4 Acer rubrum Native 3 Tree 27 Acer saccharum Native 5 Tree 24 Achillea millefolium Native 0 Forb 18 Acorus calamus Alien 0 Forb 1 Actaea pachypoda Native 5 Forb 10 Adiantum pedatum Native 7 Fern 7 Ageratina altissima v. altissima Native 3 Forb 23 Agrimonia gryposepala Native 4 Forb 4 Agrostis canina Alien 0 Graminoid 2 Agrostis gigantea Alien 0 Graminoid 8 Agrostis hyemalis Native 2 Graminoid 3 Agrostis perennans Native 5 Graminoid 18 Agrostis stolonifera Invasive 0 Graminoid 3 Ailanthus altissima Invasive 0 Tree 8 Ajuga reptans Invasive 0 Forb 3 Alisma subcordatum Native 3 Forb 3 Alliaria petiolata Invasive 0 Forb 17 Allium tricoccum Native 8 Forb 3 Allium vineale Alien 0 Forb 2 Alnus incana ssp rugosa Native 6 Shrub 5 Alnus serrulata Native 4 Shrub 3 Ambrosia artemisiifolia Native 0 Forb 14 Amelanchier arborea Native 7 Tree 26 Amphicarpaea bracteata Native 4 Vine, herbaceous 18 2015 MASTER PLANT LIST MAHLON DICKERSON RESERVATION SCIENTIFIC NAME NATIVENESS S-RANK CC PLANT HABIT # OF SECTIONS Anagallis arvensis Alien 0 Forb 4 Anaphalis margaritacea Native 2 Forb 3 Andropogon gerardii Native 4 Graminoid 1 Andropogon virginicus Native 2 Graminoid 1 Anemone americana Native 9 Forb 6 Anemone quinquefolia Native 7 Forb 13 Anemone virginiana Native 4 Forb 5 Antennaria neglecta Native 2 Forb 2 Antennaria neodioica ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • A Taxonomic Study of the Genus Galium in Iowa
    Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science Volume 47 Annual Issue Article 15 1940 A Taxonomic Study of the Genus Galium in Iowa Philip Jordon Leyendecker Jr. Iowa State College Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©1940 Iowa Academy of Science, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias Recommended Citation Leyendecker, Philip Jordon Jr. (1940) "A Taxonomic Study of the Genus Galium in Iowa," Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 47(1), 101-113. Available at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias/vol47/iss1/15 This Research is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa Academy of Science at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science by an authorized editor of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Leyendecker: A Taxonomic Study of the Genus Galium in Iowa A TAXONOMIC STUDY OF THE GENUS GALIUM IN IOWA PHILIP JORDON LEYENDECKER, JR. The genus Gali urn, a member of the Madder family (Rubiaceae), is world-wide in its distribution and includes approximately two hundred and fifty species. Ten species of Galium were enumerated by R. I. Cratty 1 in his annotated list of Iowa flora. Two new species, four varieties and three forms have since been reported for the state. The present study of the genus was undertaken with two objects in view: first, to clarify our understanding of the species found in Iowa, many of these specimens having been incorrectly named, and second, to incorporate the several name changes since the last edition of Gray's2 Manual ( 1908), five of which involve Iowa species.
    [Show full text]
  • Invisible Connections: Introduction to Parasitic Plants Dr
    Invisible Connections: Introduction to Parasitic Plants Dr. Vanessa Beauchamp Towson University What is a parasite? • An organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. Symbiosis https://www.superpharmacy.com.au/blog/parasites-protozoa-worms-ectoparasites Food acquisition in plants: Autotrophy Heterotrophs (“different feeding”) • True parasites: obtain carbon compounds from host plants through haustoria. • Myco-heterotrophs: obtain carbon compounds from host plants via Image Credit: Flickr User wackybadger, via CC mycorrhizal fungal connection. • Carnivorous plants (not parasitic): obtain nutrients (phosphorus, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pin nitrogen) from trapped insects. k_indian_pipes.jpg http://www.welivealot.com/venus-flytrap- facts-for-kids/ Parasite vs. Epiphyte https://chatham.ces.ncsu.edu/2014/12/does-mistletoe-harm-trees-2/ By © Hans Hillewaert /, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6289695 True Parasitic Plants • Gains all or part of its nutrition from another plant (the host). • Does not contribute to the benefit of the host and, in some cases, causing extreme damage to the host. • Specialized peg-like root (haustorium) to penetrate host plants. https://www.britannica.com/plant/parasitic-plant https://chatham.ces.ncsu.edu/2014/12/does-mistletoe-harm-trees-2/ Diversity of parasitic plants Eudicots • Parasitism has evolved independently at least 12 times within the plant kingdom. • Approximately 4,500 parasitic species in Monocots 28 families. • Found in eudicots and basal angiosperms • 1% of the dicot angiosperm species • No monocot angiosperm species Basal angiosperms Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2016.67:643-667 True Parasitic Plants https://www.alamy.com/parasitic-dodder-plant-cuscuta-showing-penetration-parasitic-haustor The defining structural feature of a parasitic plant is the haustorium.
    [Show full text]