DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation Assessment for the Bigleaf Snowbell (Styrax Grandifolius Ait.)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conservation Assessment for the Bigleaf Snowbell (Styrax Grandifolius Ait.) Conservation Assessment for the Bigleaf Snowbell (Styrax grandifolius Ait.) Steven R. Hill, Ph.D. Division of Biodiversity and Ecological Entomology Biotic Surveys and Monitoring Section 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, Illinois 61820 Prepared for the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Eastern Region (Region 9), Shawnee and Hoosier National Forests INHS Technical Report 2007 (65) Date of Issue: 17 December 2007 Cover photo: Styrax grandifolius Ait., from the website: In Bloom – A Monthly Record of Plants in Alabama; Landscape Horticulture at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. http://www.ag.auburn.edu/hort/landscape/inbloomapril99.html This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on the subject taxon or community; or this document was prepared by another organization and provides information to serve as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service - Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. 2 Conservation Assessment for the Bigleaf Snowbell (Styrax grandifolius Ait.) Table of Contents Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................4 Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................5 Nomenclature and Taxonomy..........................................................................................................6 Description of the Species................................................................….……..................................7 Habitat and Ecology.........................................................................................................................7 Distribution and Abundance..........................................................................................................11 Protection Status............................................................................................................................13 Life History....................................................................................................................................14 Population Biology and Viability..................................................................................................15 Potential Threats............................................................................................................................17 Research and Monitoring...............................................................................................................20 Restoration.....................................................................................................................................22 Summary........................................................................................................................................23 References......................................................................................................................................24 Websites Consulted........................................................................................................................27 Contacts..........................................................................................................................................28 Appendix 1. Representative specimens of Styrax grandifolius examined or cited in the literature...............................................................................…................29 Appendix 2. The distribution of Styrax grandifolius. Information from herbarium specimens and the literature.........................................32 Appendix 3. Natural Diversity Database Element Ranking System..............................................33 3 Conservation Assessment for the Bigleaf Snowbell (Styrax grandifolius Ait.) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the staffs of the United States Forest Service, Shawnee and Hoosier National Forests, for the opportunity to compile these conservation assessments and for their invaluable assistance with data and field opportunities. Beth Shimp and Steve Widowski have been particularly helpful in facilitating these cost share agreements. I would also like to thank the grants and contracts staff of the Illinois Natural History Survey and the University of Illinois, Champaign, for their assistance with logistics necessary to complete these reports. Curators of several herbaria, cited in the appendices to this report, were very helpful in allowing access to the collections to obtain data on this plant. Several people also assisted by contributing additional information on this locally rare plant, including George Yatskievych in Missouri, Mike Homoya in Indiana, and Mike Vincent in Ohio. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Eastern Region, under Cost Share Award No. AG03-CS-11090804-024. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Eastern Region. 4 Conservation Assessment for the Bigleaf Snowbell (Styrax grandifolius Ait.) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Conservation Assessment is a review of the taxonomy, distribution, habitat, ecology, and status of the Bigleaf Snowbell, Styrax grandifolius Ait., throughout the United States and in the U.S.D.A. Forest Service lands, Eastern Region (Region 9), in particular. This document also serves to update knowledge about the potential threats, and conservation efforts regarding the Bigleaf Snowbell to date. The Bigleaf Snowbell is an individual small tree or colonial shrub varying from 1 – 4 meters tall, with showy, fragrant white bell-like flowers in axillary racemes, and it is normally found on slopes in shade near streams in mesic to dry-mesic upland forests. The species is known only from the United States, and it grows primarily in the southeastern states. It is known historically from fifteen states, from Virginia and Florida west to Illinois, Arkansas and Texas. The Bigleaf Snowbell has not been found in Missouri. It has declined in recent decades and is scarce at the margins of its range in the upper Midwest. Globally, its ranking is G5 (secure world-wide); its National ranking in the United States is NNR (not ranked nationally). It is most common in Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina. The Bigleaf Snowbell is listed as Endangered in Illinois and Indiana, and it is presumed Extirpated in Ohio. In Forest Service Region 9, the Bigleaf Snowbell is included on the Regional Forester Sensitive Species list (RFSS) for the Shawnee National Forest but not the Hoosier National Forest where it has not been found. It is at risk at the northern margin of its range. In addition to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or species of Concern by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service lists species that are Sensitive within each region (RFSS). The National Forest Management Act and U.S. Forest Service policy require that National Forest System land be managed to maintain viable populations of all native plant and animal species. A viable population is one that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the entity throughout its range within a given planning area. The objectives of this document are to: -Provide an overview of the current scientific knowledge on the species. -Provide a summary of the distribution and status on the species range-wide and within the Eastern Region of the Forest Service, in particular. -Provide the available background information needed to prepare a subsequent Conservation Approach. 5 Conservation Assessment for the Bigleaf Snowbell (Styrax grandifolius Ait.) NOMENCLATURE AND TAXONOMY Scientific Name: Styrax grandifolius Ait. [1789; orig. Styrax grandifolium Ait.] Common Names: Bigleaf Snowbell; Big-leaf Snowbell; Bigleaf Snowbell Bush; Big-leaf Snowbell Bush; Large-leaf Snowbell; Large-leaved Storax Synonymy: none known Class: Magnoliopsida (Flowering Plants - Dicotyledons) Family: Styracaceae (The Storax Family) Plants Code: STGR4 (USDA NRCS plant database, W-1) http://plants.usda.gov/ The woody genus Styrax, described by Linnaeus in 1753, contains approximately 120 species worldwide, most of which are found in the Mediterranean region, Southeast Asia, western Malaysia, tropical America, and warm-temperate North America (Mabberley 1987). Four species grow in North America, north of Mexico, namely, Styrax americanus Lam. (widespread in the southeastern U.S.), Styrax grandiflorus Ait. (also southeastern U.S.), Styrax platanifolius Engelm. ex Torr. (Texas only; includes Styrax texanus Cory), and Styrax redivivus (Torr.) Wheeler of California (Kartesz and Meacham 1999). The genus is the type genus of the family Styracaceae, the Storax or Snowbell Family, and the name Styrax is based upon an ancient name for the plant. This family has 12 genera, only one other of which,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Living in Drylands: Functional Adaptations of Trees and Shrubs to Cope with High Temperatures and Water Scarcity
    Review Living in Drylands: Functional Adaptations of Trees and Shrubs to Cope with High Temperatures and Water Scarcity José Javier Peguero-Pina 1,2,* , Alberto Vilagrosa 3 , David Alonso-Forn 1 , Juan Pedro Ferrio 1,4 , Domingo Sancho-Knapik 1,2 and Eustaquio Gil-Pelegrín 1 1 Unidad de Recursos Forestales, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), Avda. Montañana 930, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain; [email protected] (D.A.-F.); [email protected] (J.P.F.); [email protected] (D.S.-K.); [email protected] (E.G.-P.) 2 Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón -IA2- (CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza), 50059 Zaragoza, Spain 3 Mediterranean Center for Environmental Studies (Fundación CEAM), Joint Research Unit University of Alicante—CEAM, Univ. Alicante, PO Box 99, 03080 Alicante, Spain; [email protected] 4 Aragon Agency for Research and Development (ARAID), E-50018 Zaragoza, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-976-716-974 Received: 5 August 2020; Accepted: 22 September 2020; Published: 23 September 2020 Abstract: Plant functioning and survival in drylands are affected by the combination of high solar radiation, high temperatures, low relative humidity, and the scarcity of available water. Many ecophysiological studies have dealt with the adaptation of plants to cope with these stresses in hot deserts, which are the territories that have better evoked the idea of a dryland. Nevertheless, drylands can also be found in some other areas of the Earth that are under the Mediterranean-type climates, which imposes a strong aridity during summer. In this review, plant species from hot deserts and Mediterranean-type climates serve as examples for describing and analyzing the different responses of trees and shrubs to aridity in drylands, with special emphasis on the structural and functional adaptations of plants to avoid the negative effects of high temperatures under drought conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • SALT TOLERANT PLANTS Recommended for Pender County Landscapes
    North Carolina Cooperative Extension NC STATE UNIVERSITY SALT TOLERANT PLANTS Recommended for Pender County Landscapes Pender County Cooperative Extension Urban Horticulture Leaflet 14 Coastal Challenges Plants growing at the beach are subjected to environmental conditions much different than those planted further inland. Factors such as blowing sand, poor soils, high temperatures, and excessive drainage all influence how well plants perform in coastal landscapes, though the most significant effect on growth is salt spray. Most plants will not tolerate salt accumulating on their foliage, making plant selection for beachfront land- scapes particularly challenging. Salt Spray Salt spray is created when waves break on the beach, throwing tiny droplets of salty water into the air. On-shore breezes blow this salt laden air landward where it comes in contact with plant foliage. The amount of salt spray plants receive varies depending on their proximity to the beachfront, creating different vegetation zones as one gets further away from the beachfront. The most salt-tolerant species surviving in the frontal dune area. As distance away from the ocean increases, the level of salt spray decreases, allowing plants with less salt tolerance to survive. Natural Protection The impact of salt spray on plants can be lessened by physically blocking salt laden winds. This occurs naturally in the maritime forest, where beachfront plants protect landward species by creating a layer of foliage that blocks salt spray. It is easy to see this effect on the ocean side of maritime forest plants, which are “sheared” by salt spray, causing them to grow at a slant away from the oceanfront.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey for Special-Status Vascular Plant Species
    SURVEY FOR SPECIAL-STATUS VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES For the proposed Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Project Tehama and Shasta Counties, California Prepared for: Tehama Environmental Solutions 910 Main Street, Suite D Red Bluff, California 96080 Prepared by: Dittes & Guardino Consulting P.O. Box 6 Los Molinos, California 96055 (530) 384-1774 [email protected] Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvement Project - Botany Report Sept. 12, 2018 Prepared by: Dittes & Guardino Consulting 1 SURVEY FOR SPECIAL-STATUS VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Project Shasta & Tehama Counties, California T30N, R1W, SE 1/4 Sec. 25, SE1/4 Sec. 24, NE ¼ Sec. 36 of the Shingletown 7.5’ USGS Topographic Quadrangle TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 4 II. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 III. Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... 4 IV. Location .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 V. Methods ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Well-Known Plants in Each Angiosperm Order
    Well-known plants in each angiosperm order This list is generally from least evolved (most ancient) to most evolved (most modern). (I’m not sure if this applies for Eudicots; I’m listing them in the same order as APG II.) The first few plants are mostly primitive pond and aquarium plants. Next is Illicium (anise tree) from Austrobaileyales, then the magnoliids (Canellales thru Piperales), then monocots (Acorales through Zingiberales), and finally eudicots (Buxales through Dipsacales). The plants before the eudicots in this list are considered basal angiosperms. This list focuses only on angiosperms and does not look at earlier plants such as mosses, ferns, and conifers. Basal angiosperms – mostly aquatic plants Unplaced in order, placed in Amborellaceae family • Amborella trichopoda – one of the most ancient flowering plants Unplaced in order, placed in Nymphaeaceae family • Water lily • Cabomba (fanwort) • Brasenia (watershield) Ceratophyllales • Hornwort Austrobaileyales • Illicium (anise tree, star anise) Basal angiosperms - magnoliids Canellales • Drimys (winter's bark) • Tasmanian pepper Laurales • Bay laurel • Cinnamon • Avocado • Sassafras • Camphor tree • Calycanthus (sweetshrub, spicebush) • Lindera (spicebush, Benjamin bush) Magnoliales • Custard-apple • Pawpaw • guanábana (soursop) • Sugar-apple or sweetsop • Cherimoya • Magnolia • Tuliptree • Michelia • Nutmeg • Clove Piperales • Black pepper • Kava • Lizard’s tail • Aristolochia (birthwort, pipevine, Dutchman's pipe) • Asarum (wild ginger) Basal angiosperms - monocots Acorales
    [Show full text]
  • Low Variability of Dna Fingerprints of Texas Snowbells: Conservation Implications
    198 Phytologia (August 2011) 93(2) LOW VARIABILITY OF DNA FINGERPRINTS OF TEXAS SNOWBELLS: CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS Robert P. Adams Biology Department, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76706 [email protected] and Jackie Poole Wildlife Diversity Program, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX 78744 [email protected] ABSTRACT Texas snowbells (Styrax platanifolius var. texanus) is one of the most threatened native Texas plants. A preliminary study using DNA fingerprinting (RAPDs) was performed on plants from three natural populations. Almost no genetic variation was found, either within or between these three populations. Implications for conservation are discussed. Phytologia 93(2):198-202 (August 1, 2011) KEY WORDS: Styrax platanifolius var. texanus, Texas snowbells, RAPDs, conservation. Texas snowbells (Styrax platanifolius Engelm. ex Torr. var. texanus (Cory) B. L. Turner) is a shrub or small tree that grows out of crevices on steep limestone bluffs, rock ledges, or cliff faces along creeks. It can also grow in the dry gravel of streambeds. The flowers are clustered at the end of the branches and hang upside down. The flowers dangle and look like small white bells, thus the common name, snowbells. Texas snowbells are endemic to an area of a 64 km radius within the southwestern Edwards Plateau of Texas. All but two populations are on private land. The natural populations are represented by 15 sites, varying from one mature plant to about 350 individuals (seedlings, juveniles, and reproductive plants). The sizes of these sites range from a few square meters to about 100 acres. Texas Phytologia (August 2011) 93(2) 199 snowbells are in cultivation at the San Antonio Botanical Center and in seed storage at the Wildflower Center in Austin (as part of their Center for Plant Conservation collection).
    [Show full text]
  • Halesia Spp. Family: Styracaceae Silverbell
    Halesia spp. Family: Styracaceae Silverbell The genus Halesia is composed of about 4 species native to: the United States [3] and China [1]. The word halesia is named after Stephen Hales (1677-1761), British clergyman and author of Vegetable Staticks (1722). Halesia carolina-Bell-tree, Bell Olivetree, Bellwood, Box-elder, Carolina Silverbell, Catbell, Florida Silverbell, Four-winged Halesia, Little Silverbell, No-name-tree, Opossum, Opossumwood, Mountain Silverbell, Rattle-box, Silverbell-tree, Silver-tree, Snowdrop-tree, Tisswood, Wild Olivetree Halesia diptera-Cowlicks, Silverbell-tree, Snowdrop-tree, Southern Silverbell-tree, Two Wing Silverbell Halesia parviflora-Florida Silverbell, Little Silverbell. Distribution Southeastern United States and China. The Tree Silverbells are shrubs or trees with scaly reddish brown bark. The leaves and small branches are covered with stellate (star shaped) hairs. The showy white flowers are produced in small, pendulous clusters. They produce dry, winged fruits (samara). Silverbells can reach a height of 100 feet, although they normally grow to 40 feet. The bark is thin, separating into slightly ridged, reddish brown scales. The Wood General The wood of Silverbell is brown, strong, dense and close grained. It has a wide white sapwood and a pale brown heartwood. The luster is medium and it has no odor or taste. The texture is fine and uniform, with a straight grain. Mechanical Properties (2-inch standard) Compression Specific MOE MOR Parallel Perpendicular WMLa Hardness Shear gravity GPa MPa MPa MPa kJ/m3 N MPa Green .42 8.0 11.8 19.5 3.0 60.7 2090 6.4 Dry .48 9.1 59.3 35.4 4.7 47.6 2624 8.1 aWML = Work to maximum load.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Native Trees and Large Shrubs for the Washington, D.C. Area
    Green Spring Gardens 4603 Green Spring Rd ● Alexandria ● VA 22312 Phone: 703-642-5173 ● TTY: 703-803-3354 www.fairfaxcounty.gov/parks/greenspring NON - NATIVE TREES AND LARGE SHRUBS ­ FOR THE WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA ­ Non-native trees are some of the most beloved plants in the landscape due to their beauty. In addition, these trees are grown for the shade, screening, structure, and landscape benefits they provide. Deciduous trees, whose leaves die and fall off in the autumn, are valuable additions to landscapes because of their changing interest throughout the year. Evergreen trees are valued for their year-round beauty and shelter for wildlife. Evergreens are often grouped into two categories, broadleaf evergreens and conifers. Broadleaf evergreens have broad, flat leaves. They also may have showy flowers, such as Camellia oleifera (a large shrub), or colorful fruits, such as Nellie R. Stevens holly. Coniferous evergreens either have needle-like foliage, such as the lacebark pine, or scale-like foliage, such as the green giant arborvitae. Conifers do not have true flowers or fruits but bear cones. Though most conifers are evergreen, exceptions exist. Dawn redwood, for example, loses its needles each fall. The following are useful definitions: Cultivar (cv.) - a cultivated variety designated by single quotes, such as ‘Autumn Gold’. A variety (var.) or subspecies (subsp.), in contrast, is found in nature and is a subdivision of a species (a variety of Cedar of Lebanon is listed). Full Shade - the amount of light under a dense deciduous tree canopy or beneath evergreens. Full Sun - at least 6 hours of sun daily.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Collecting Expedition for Berry Crop Species Through Southeastern
    Plant Collecting Expedition for Berry Crop Species through Southeastern and Midwestern United States June and July 2007 Glassy Mountain, South Carolina Participants: Kim E. Hummer, Research Leader, Curator, USDA ARS NCGR 33447 Peoria Road, Corvallis, Oregon 97333-2521 phone 541.738.4201 [email protected] Chad E. Finn, Research Geneticist, USDA ARS HCRL, 3420 NW Orchard Ave., Corvallis, Oregon 97330 phone 541.738.4037 [email protected] Michael Dossett Graduate Student, Oregon State University, Department of Horticulture, Corvallis, OR 97330 phone 541.738.4038 [email protected] Plant Collecting Expedition for Berry Crops through the Southeastern and Midwestern United States, June and July 2007 Table of Contents Table of Contents.................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements:................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 4 Part I – Southeastern United States ...................................................................................... 5 Summary.............................................................................................................................. 5 Travelog May-June 2007.................................................................................................... 6 Conclusions for part 1 .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tree of the Year: Liquidambar Eric Hsu and Susyn Andrews
    Tree of the Year: Liquidambar Eric Hsu and Susyn Andrews With contributions from Anne Boscawen (UK), John Bulmer (UK), Koen Camelbeke (Belgium), John Gammon (UK), Hugh Glen (South Africa), Philippe de Spoelberch (Belgium), Dick van Hoey Smith (The Netherlands), Robert Vernon (UK) and Ulrich Würth (Germany). Affinities, generic distribution and fossil record Liquidambar L. has close taxonomic affinities with Altingia Noronha since these two genera share gum ducts associated with vascular bundles, terminal buds enclosed within numerous bud scales, spirally arranged stipulate leaves, poly- porate (with several pore-like apertures) pollen grains, condensed bisexual inflorescences, perfect or imperfect flowers, and winged seeds. Not surpris- ingly, Liquidambar, Altingia and Semiliquidambar H.T. Chang have now been placed in the Altingiaceae, as originally treated (Blume 1828, Wilson 1905, Chang 1964, Melikan 1973, Li et al. 1988, Zhou & Jiang 1990, Wang 1992, Qui et al. 1998, APG 1998, Judd et al. 1999, Shi et al. 2001 and V. Savolainen pers. comm.). These three genera were placed in the subfamily Altingioideae in Hamamelidaceae (Reinsch 1890, Chang 1979, Cronquist 1981, Bogle 1986, Endress 1989) or the Liquidambaroideae (Harms 1930). Shi et al. (2001) noted that Altingia species are evergreen with entire, unlobed leaves; Liquidambar is deciduous with 3-5 or 7-lobed leaves; while Semiliquidambar is evergreen or deciduous, with trilobed, simple or one-lobed leaves. Cytological studies have indicated that the chromosome number of Liquidambar is 2n = 30, 32 (Anderson & Sax 1935, Pizzolongo 1958, Santamour 1972, Goldblatt & Endress 1977). Ferguson (1989) stated that this chromosome number distinguished Liquidambar from the rest of the Hamamelidaceae with their chromosome numbers of 2n = 16, 24, 36, 48, 64 and 72.
    [Show full text]
  • Styrax Japonicus Japanese Snowbell1 Edward F
    Fact Sheet ST-605 October 1994 Styrax japonicus Japanese Snowbell1 Edward F. Gilman and Dennis G. Watson2 INTRODUCTION Japanese Snowbell is a small deciduous tree that slowly grows from 20 to 30 feet in height and has rounded canopy with a horizontal branching pattern (Fig. 1). With lower branches removed, it forms a more vase-shaped patio-sized shade tree. The smooth, attractive bark has orange-brown interlacing fissures adding winter interest to any landscape. The white, bell-shaped, drooping flower clusters of Japanese Snowbell are quite showy in May to June. GENERAL INFORMATION Scientific name: Styrax japonicus Pronunciation: STY-racks juh-PAWN-ih-kuss Common name(s): Japanese Snowbell Figure 1. Middle-aged Japanese Snowbell. Family: Styracaceae USDA hardiness zones: 6 through 8A (Fig. 2) DESCRIPTION Origin: not native to North America Uses: container or above-ground planter; large Height: 20 to 30 feet parking lot islands (> 200 square feet in size); wide Spread: 15 to 25 feet tree lawns (>6 feet wide); medium-sized parking lot Crown uniformity: symmetrical canopy with a islands (100-200 square feet in size); medium-sized regular (or smooth) outline, and individuals have more tree lawns (4-6 feet wide); recommended for buffer or less identical crown forms strips around parking lots or for median strip plantings Crown shape: round; vase shape in the highway; near a deck or patio; trainable as a Crown density: moderate standard; small parking lot islands (< 100 square feet Growth rate: slow in size); narrow tree lawns (3-4 feet wide); specimen; Texture: medium sidewalk cutout (tree pit); residential street tree; no proven urban tolerance Availability: grown in small quantities by a small number of nurseries 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ERICACEAE
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ERICACEAE ERICACEAE (Heath Family) A family of about 107 genera and 3400 species, primarily shrubs, small trees, and subshrubs, nearly cosmopolitan. The Ericaceae is very important in our area, with a great diversity of genera and species, many of them rather narrowly endemic. Our area is one of the north temperate centers of diversity for the Ericaceae. Along with Quercus and Pinus, various members of this family are dominant in much of our landscape. References: Kron et al. (2002); Wood (1961); Judd & Kron (1993); Kron & Chase (1993); Luteyn et al. (1996)=L; Dorr & Barrie (1993); Cullings & Hileman (1997). Main Key, for use with flowering or fruiting material 1 Plant an herb, subshrub, or sprawling shrub, not clonal by underground rhizomes (except Gaultheria procumbens and Epigaea repens), rarely more than 3 dm tall; plants mycotrophic or hemi-mycotrophic (except Epigaea, Gaultheria, and Arctostaphylos). 2 Plants without chlorophyll (fully mycotrophic); stems fleshy; leaves represented by bract-like scales, white or variously colored, but not green; pollen grains single; [subfamily Monotropoideae; section Monotropeae]. 3 Petals united; fruit nodding, a berry; flower and fruit several per stem . Monotropsis 3 Petals separate; fruit erect, a capsule; flower and fruit 1-several per stem. 4 Flowers few to many, racemose; stem pubescent, at least in the inflorescence; plant yellow, orange, or red when fresh, aging or drying dark brown ...............................................Hypopitys 4 Flower solitary; stem glabrous; plant white (rarely pink) when fresh, aging or drying black . Monotropa 2 Plants with chlorophyll (hemi-mycotrophic or autotrophic); stems woody; leaves present and well-developed, green; pollen grains in tetrads (single in Orthilia).
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT BIAN, YANG. Genetic Diversity And
    ABSTRACT BIAN, YANG. Genetic Diversity and Population Structure of Cultivated Blueberries (Vaccinium section Cyanococcus spp.). (Under the direction of Dr. Allan Brown). Blueberry (Vaccinium section Cyanococcus spp.) is an important small fruit crop native to North America with an incredible amount of genetic diversity that has yet to be efficiently characterized. Through broad natural and directed hybridization, the primary and secondary genepools currently utilized includes several distinct species and species hybrids in the section Cyanococcus. To date, only a limited number of cultivated blueberries have been assessed for genetic diversity in individual taxonomic groups using a limited number of molecular markers. A source of genomic SSRs is currently available through the generation and assembly of a draft genomic sequence of diploid V. corymbosum (‘W8520’). This genomic resource allows for a genome-wide survey of SSRs and the large scale development of molecular markers for blueberry genetic diversity studies and beyond. Of ~ 358 Mb genomic sequence surveyed, a total number of 43,594 SSRs were identified in 7,609 SSR-containing scaffolds (~ 122 counts per Mb). Dinucleotide repeats appeared the most abundant repeat types in all genomic regions except the predicted gene coding sequences (CDS). SSRs were most frequent and longest in 5’ untranslated region (5’ UTR), followed by 3’ UTR, while CDS contained the least frequent and shortest SSRs on average. AG/CT and AAG/CTT motifs were most frequent while CG/CG and CCG/CGG motifs were the least frequent for dinucleotide and trinucleotide motifs, respectively, in transcribed DNA. AAT/ATT motif was the most frequent trinucleotide motif in the nontranscribed DNA.
    [Show full text]