DOCSLIB.ORG

Armstrong Creek Project Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Armstrong Creek Project Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Armstrong Creek Project Environmental Assessment Forest Service Pisgah National Forest Grandfather Ranger District February, 2016 For More Information Contact: Jason Herron Environmental Coordinator 632 Manor Drive Mars Hill, NC 28754 (828) 689-9694 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment Contents Purpose and Need ..........................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1 Nantahala and Pisgah Forest Plan Direction .............................................................................................2 Purpose and Need for Action ....................................................................................................................4 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................................9 Descriptions of Proposed Actions .......................................................................................................12 Associated Actions ..............................................................................................................................16 Issues and Alternatives ................................................................................................................................18 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................................18 Issues .......................................................................................................................................................18 Range of Alternatives ..............................................................................................................................18 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...........................................................................................................19 Alternative A – No Action ..................................................................................................................19 Alternative B – Proposed Action .........................................................................................................19 Alternative C .......................................................................................................................................19 Alternative D .......................................................................................................................................19 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................................................19 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................................19 Project Design Features and Monitoring Common to Action Alternatives ............................................20 Monitoring ...........................................................................................................................................21 Summary Comparison of Actions by Alternative ...................................................................................22 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives...............................................................24 Hydrology and Aquatic Habitat ..............................................................................................................25 Scale of Analysis .................................................................................................................................25 Effects Analysis ...................................................................................................................................28 Determination of Effect .......................................................................................................................40 Mitigation Measures & Project Design Features .................................................................................41 Soil/Geology Resources ..........................................................................................................................42 Scope of the Analysis ..........................................................................................................................42 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................42 Hydric Soils Listing .............................................................................................................................43 Prime Farmland Soils Listing ..............................................................................................................43 Desired Condition of the Soils ............................................................................................................44 Direct & Indirect Effects Analysis ......................................................................................................44 Cumulative Effects Analysis ...............................................................................................................53 Wildlife ...................................................................................................................................................55 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................55 Terrestrial Wildlife Survey and Analysis Methods .............................................................................55 Existing Terrestrial Wildlife Condition ...............................................................................................56 Potential Effects and Analysis for Terrestrial Wildlife Resources ......................................................58 Specific Effects to TES, and FC Terrestrial Wildlife Species .............................................................60 Effects to Sensitive and Forest Concern Species Habitat ....................................................................62 Effects to Management Indicator Species and Habitat ........................................................................62 Effects by Alternative ..........................................................................................................................71 Summary of Effects .............................................................................................................................72 Botanical .................................................................................................................................................73 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................73 Botanical Survey and Analysis Methods .............................................................................................73 i Name of Project Existing Botanical Condition .............................................................................................................. 74 Effects Analysis of Botanical Resources ............................................................................................ 82 Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Forest Concern Species ...................................... 83 Effects to Potential Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Forest Concern Plant Species ............................................................................................................................................................ 87 Effects of Non-Native Invasive Plant Species within the Botanical Analysis Area ........................... 89 Effects to Research Natural Areas or Botanical Special Interest Areas .............................................. 93 Summary of Effects ............................................................................................................................ 93 Forest Vegetation .................................................................................................................................... 94 Existing Condition .............................................................................................................................. 94 Direct and Indirect Effects .................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [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]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Edition Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist and John Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org Table of Contents LIST FORMAT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 NORTH CAROLINA RARE PLANT LIST ......................................................................................................................... 10 NORTH CAROLINA PLANT WATCH LIST ..................................................................................................................... 71 Watch Category
    [Show full text]
  • Reticulate Evolution in the Parasitic Genus Cuscuta (Convolvulaceae): Over and Over Again1
    791 Reticulate evolution in the parasitic genus Cuscuta (Convolvulaceae): over and over again1 Sasˇa Stefanovic´ and Mihai Costea Abstract: The frequency and relative importance of hybridization in plants has been an area of intense debate. Although this evolutionary phenomenon has received considerable attention from plant biologists, there are no well-supported cases of reticulate evolution involving parasitic plants, to date. Recent molecular phylogenetic analyses revealed that the subge- nus Grammica, the largest and most diverse group of the stem-parasitic genus Cuscuta (dodder), consists of 15 major clades. We describe here five cases of strongly supported discordance between phylogenies derived from plastid and nu- clear data, and interpret them as results of five independent hybridization events. Three of these cases could represent rela- tively recent reticulations, as each of them involves more closely related species, always confined within the same major clade as their putative parental species, and are currently sympatric or parapatric with them. The two remaining cases in- volve species whose potential progenitors are derived from different major groups of Grammica, and which are allopatric in their present distribution. A series of statistical tests was conducted to assess and further explore the significance of this phylogenetic incongruence. Alternative explanations for discordant gene topologies are explored. Cuscuta liliputana sp. nov., a new Mexican species of hybrid origin is described. Key words: Convolvulaceae, Cuscuta, Cuscuta liliputana sp. nov., molecular phylogeny, parasitic plants, reticulate evolution. Re´sume´ : La fre´quence et l’importance relative de l’hybridation chez les plantes soule`vent d’intenses de´bats. Bien que ce phe´nome`ne e´volutif ait rec¸u beaucoup d’attention de la part des phytobiologistes, a` ce jour, on ne connaıˆt pas de cas bien e´tabli d’e´volution re´ticule´e impliquant des plantes parasites.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomová Práce
    UNIVERZITA KARLOVA V PRAZE FARMACEUTICKÁ FAKULTA V HRADCI KRÁLOVÉ KATEDRA FARMACEUTICKÉ BOTANIKY A EKOLOGIE DIPLOMOVÁ PRÁCE Fytochemický výzkum Helianthus annuus L. IV Phytochemical study of Helianthus annuus L. IV Hradec Králové 2008 Jana Podlipná Ráda bych touto cestou podkovala PharmDr. Jan Karlíkové, Ph.D. za odborné vedení, poskytnutí cenných rad a za všestrannou pomoc pi vypracování této diplomové práce. Dkuji PharmDr. Zuzan ehákové, Ing. Katein Macákové a Mgr. Jitce Vytlailové za pomoc pi testování extrakt a jednotlivých frakcí a také všem ostatním pracovníkm katedry farmaceutické botaniky a ekologie za vytvoení dobrých podmínek pro práci. Také bych chtla podkovat RNDr. Alen Tiché, Ph.D. z Geronto-metabolické kliniky Fakultní nemocnice v Hradci Králové za provedení GC/MS analýzy. 2 Tato práce vznikla za finanní podpory grantové agentury Univerzity Karlovy GA UK 118/2006/ B BIO. Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci na téma „Fytochemický výzkum Helianthus annuus L. IV“ vypracovala samostatn a použila jsem jen pramen, které uvádím v piloženém seznamu literatury. 3 OBSAH: I. ÚVOD............................................................................................................................ 8 II. CÍL PRÁCE.................................................................................................................. 11 III. TEORETICKÁ ÁST.................................................................................................... 13 1. Botanická charakteristika ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Plant List for Scheier Natural Area - Fluvanna County Plant List Compiled by Glenn Metzler and Tom Dierauf in Late Summer 2001
    Plant List for Scheier Natural Area - Fluvanna County Plant list compiled by Glenn Metzler and Tom Dierauf in late summer 2001. This list is from a single season observation only and is not comprehensive. Club Mosses Lycopodiaceae Lycopodium digitatum running cedar Lycopodium obscurum ground pine Ferns and Fern Allies Ophioglossaceae Botrychium dissectum grapefern Osmundaceae Osmunda cinnamomea cinnamon fern Osmunda regalis fern, royal Polypodiaceae Asplenium platyneuron spleenwort, ebony Athyrium asplenioides southern lady fern Dryopteris cristata shield-fern,crested Woodwardia areolata netted chain fern Onoclea sensibilis sensitive fern Polystichum acrostichoides fern,christmas Pteridium aquilinum fern,bracken Thelypteris noveboracensis new york fern Dennstaedtia punctilobula hay-scented fern Conifers Cupressaceae Juniperus virginiana cedar,eastern red Pinaceae Pinus echinata short-leaved pine Pinus strobus white pine Pinus taeda loblolly pine Pinus virginiana Virginia pine Monocots Araceae Arisaema triphyllum jack-in-the-pulpit Commelinaceae Commelina diffusa dayflower,spreading Cyperaceae Carex crinita sedge Carex lurida sedge,shallow Carex intumescens sedge Carex plantaginea? sedge Cyperus strigosus sedge Rhynchospora capitellata? beak rush Scirpus atrovirens bulrush,green Scirpus cyperinus woolgrass Scirpus polyphyllus bulrush,leafy Dioscoreaceae Dioscorea villosa yam,yellow Juncaceae Juncus effusus common rush Juncus tenuis path rush Liliaceae Medeola virginiana indian cucumber root Polygonatum biflorum solomon's-seal,small Smilax
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerfield, J., and J. Wen. 2002. A morphometric analysis of Hedera L. (the ivy genus, Araliaceae) and its taxonomic implications. Adansonia 24: 197-212. Adams, P. 1961. Observations on the Sagittaria subulata complex. Rhodora 63: 247-265. Adams, R.M. II, and W.J. Dress. 1982. Nodding Lilium species of eastern North America (Liliaceae). Baileya 21: 165-188. Adams, R.P. 1986. Geographic variation in Juniperus silicicola and J. virginiana of the Southeastern United States: multivariant analyses of morphology and terpenoids. Taxon 35: 31-75. ------. 1995. Revisionary study of Caribbean species of Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 78: 134-150. ------, and T. Demeke. 1993. Systematic relationships in Juniperus based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). Taxon 42: 553-571. Adams, W.P. 1957. A revision of the genus Ascyrum (Hypericaceae). Rhodora 59: 73-95. ------. 1962. Studies in the Guttiferae. I. A synopsis of Hypericum section Myriandra. Contr. Gray Herbarium Harv. 182: 1-51. ------, and N.K.B. Robson. 1961. A re-evaluation of the generic status of Ascyrum and Crookea (Guttiferae). Rhodora 63: 10-16. Adams, W.P. 1973. Clusiaceae of the southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89: 62-71. Adler, L. 1999. Polygonum perfoliatum (mile-a-minute weed). Chinquapin 7: 4. Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, and C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 594-630. Affolter, J.M. 1985. A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Bot. Monographs 6. Ahles, H.E., and A.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Quality Assessment Report
    FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN INDIANA: THE CONCEPT, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSERVATISM Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) the State tree of Indiana June 2004 Final Report for ARN A305-4-53 EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01 Prepared by: Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Upland, IN 46989-1001 Introduction Since the early nineteenth century the Indiana landscape has undergone a massive transformation (Jackson 1997). In the pre-settlement period, Indiana was an almost unbroken blanket of forests, prairies, and wetlands. Much of the land was cleared, plowed, or drained for lumber, the raising of crops, and a range of urban and industrial activities. Indiana’s native biota is now restricted to relatively small and often isolated tracts across the State. This fragmentation and reduction of the State’s biological diversity has challenged Hoosiers to look carefully at how to monitor further changes within our remnant natural communities and how to effectively conserve and even restore many of these valuable places within our State. To meet this monitoring, conservation, and restoration challenge, one needs to develop a variety of appropriate analytical tools. Ideally these techniques should be simple to learn and apply, give consistent results between different observers, and be repeatable. Floristic Assessment, which includes metrics such as the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean C values, has gained wide acceptance among environmental scientists and decision-makers, land stewards, and restoration ecologists in Indiana’s neighboring states and regions: Illinois (Taft et al. 1997), Michigan (Herman et al. 1996), Missouri (Ladd 1996), and Wisconsin (Bernthal 2003) as well as northern Ohio (Andreas 1993) and southern Ontario (Oldham et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Lytton John Musselman Curriculum Vitae 1 January 2021
    Lytton John Musselman Curriculum Vitae 1 January 2021 Lytton John Musselman CURRICULUM VITAE 1 January 2021 1 Lytton John Musselman Curriculum Vitae 1 January 2021 CURRENT POSITION AND MAILING ADDRESS Lytton John Musselman Mary Payne Hogan Distinguished Professor of Botany Manager, Blackwater Ecologic Preserve Department of Biological Sciences 304 Mills Godwin Building Old Dominion University 5115 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, Virginia 23529-0266 USA TELECOMMUNICATION Phone: 757-683-3597 (office), 757-771-6156 (cell) Fax: 757-683-5283 (department) Email: [email protected] Web sites: http://www.odu.edu/~lmusselm/ and http://ww2.odu.edu/~lmusselm/plant/index.php POSITIONS Visiting Eminent Professor, Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Research, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, June 2014-2017 Visiting Professor, American University of Iraq-Sulaimani, May 2012, May 2013 Visiting Professor, University of Virginia Mountain Lake Biological Station, June-July 2012; Visiting Assistant Professor, summers 1975, 1977, 1979. Botanist, A Prairie Home Companion cruises. Alaska August 2016, Eastern Caribbean 14-21 March 2015, Baltic Capitals, 8-23 August 2014; Barcelona-Venice, 18-29 August 2013; Amsterdam-Barcelona, 8- 17 July 2011, Boston-Montreal August 2009. Visiting Professor, Cranberry Lake Biological Station, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, July 2915, July-August 2014, July-August 2013, July-August 2012, July-August 2011, August 2010; July-August 2009. Chair, Department of Biological Sciences. July 2002-July 2008. Visiting Professor of Biology, and Post Herbarium, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon February-June 2002. 2 Lytton John Musselman Curriculum Vitae 1 January 2021 Visiting Professor, Aleppo University, Aleppo, Syria. May-August 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Animal Dispersal, Vicariance and Diversification in the Holarctic
    Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (2001), 73: 345-390. With 15 figures doi:10.1006/bij1.2001.0542, available online at http;//www.idealibrary.comon IDE bl 0 c Patterns of animal dispersal, vicariance and diversification in the Holarctic ISABEL SANMARTIN1*, HENRIK ENGHOFF' and FREDRIK RONQUISTl 'Department of Systematic Zoology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvugen 180, SE-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden 2Zoologisk Museum, Uniuersitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Received 23 October 2000; accepted for publication 25 March 2001 We analysed patterns of animal dispersal, vicariance and diversification in the Holarctic based on complete phylogenies of 57 extant non-marine taxa, together comprising 770 species, documenting biogeographic events from the Late Mesozoic to the present. Four major areas, each corresponding to a historically persistent landmass, were used in the analyses: eastern Nearctic (EN), western Nearctic (WN), eastern Palaeoarctic (EP) and western Palaeoarctic (WP). Parsimony-based tree fitting showed that there is no significantly supported general area cladogram for the dataset. Yet, distributions are strongly phylogenetically conserved, as revealed by dispersal- vicariance analysis (DIVA). DIVA-based permutation tests were used to pinpoint phylogenetically determined biogeographic patterns. Consistent with expectations, continental dispersals (WP-EP and WN-EN) are sig- nificantly more common than palaeocontinental dispersals (WN-EP and EN-WP), which in turn are more common than disjunct dispersals (EN-EP and WN-WP). There is significant dispersal asymmetry both within the Nearctic (WN+EN more common than EN+WN) and the Palaeoarctic (EP+WP more common than WP-tEP). Cross- Beringian faunal connections have traditionally been emphasized but are not more important than cross-Atlantic connections in our data set.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant Inventory and Ecological Community Classification for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park
    VASCULAR PLANT INVENTORY AND ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION FOR CUMBERLAND GAP NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK Report for the Vertebrate and Vascular Plant Inventories: Appalachian Highlands and Cumberland/Piedmont Networks Prepared by NatureServe for the National Park Service Southeast Regional Office March 2006 NatureServe is a non-profit organization providing the scientific knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action. Citation: Rickie D. White, Jr. 2006. Vascular Plant Inventory and Ecological Community Classification for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. Durham, North Carolina: NatureServe. © 2006 NatureServe NatureServe 6114 Fayetteville Road, Suite 109 Durham, NC 27713 919-484-7857 International Headquarters 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor Arlington, Virginia 22209 www.natureserve.org National Park Service Southeast Regional Office Atlanta Federal Center 1924 Building 100 Alabama Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 The view and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government. This report consists of the main report along with a series of appendices with information about the plants and plant (ecological) communities found at the site. Electronic files have been provided to the National Park Service in addition to hard copies. Current information on all communities described here can be found on NatureServe Explorer at www.natureserveexplorer.org. Cover photo: Red cedar snag above White Rocks at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. Photo by Rickie White. ii Acknowledgments I wish to thank all park employees, co-workers, volunteers, and academics who helped with aspects of the preparation, field work, specimen identification, and report writing for this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Cuscuta Coryli Engelm
    Cuscuta coryli Engelm. Common Names: Hazel dodder (3). Etymology: With Arabic origins, Kushkut, means dodder plant or parasitic plant; in New Latin, Cuscuta directly translates as dodder. Corylus converts to hazel in Greek. The species epithet, coryli, refers to the tendency to parasitize Corylus (1,2). Botanical synonyms (4): Cuscuta compacta var. crenulata (Engelm.) Choisy Cuscuta crenulata Engelm. Cuscuta inflexa Engelm. Epithymum coryli (Engelm.) Nieuwl. & Lunell Grammica coryli Family: Convolvulaceae, the morning glory family Quick Notable Features: ¬ Reduced stem and leaf structure ¬ Thread-like stem is 0.4-0.6mm in diameter ¬ Tiny flowers, ~1.5-2.5mm, with translucent yellowish-white petals, growing in cymose-paniculate clusters or compact glomerulate bunches ¬ Corolla lobes are inflexed ¬ Most often present in hazel (Corylus) fields Plant Height: The height of Cuscuta coryli is dependent on the host; H.L. Dean measured the length of a single dodder plant at nearly half a mile (14). Subspecies/varieties recognized (4): Cuscuta coryli var. coryli and Cuscuta coryli var. stylosa Engelm. Most Likely Confused with: Any other species of Cuscuta—in Michigan these might be: C. cephalathi, C. epilinum, C. epithymum, C. glomerata, C. indecora, C. pentagona or C. polygonorum. Habitat Preference: In Michigan, C. coryli parasitizes Amphicarpaea, Aster, Bidens, Ceanothus, Corylus, Euthamia, Mentha, Monarda, Solidago, Stachys and Symphoricarpos (6). It has also been noted in sandy areas along pond perimeters and low, dry surfaces (17). Geographic Distribution in Michigan: C. coryli is found in eight counties in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula: Cass, Kalamazoo, Monroe, Wayne, Oakland, St. Clair, Midland and Bay (6). Known Elevational Distribution: The altitudinal limit of C.
    [Show full text]