DOCSLIB.ORG

Vegetation Alliances and Associations of the Great Valley Ecoregion, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vegetation Alliances and Associations of the Great Valley Ecoregion, California Vegetation Alliances and Associations of the Great Valley Ecoregion, California By Jennifer Buck-Diaz, Scott Batiuk and Julie M. Evens California Native Plant Society, Vegetation Program 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 April 2012 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding and In-kind Contributions California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) – In-kind staff time for field crew training, land owner access and logistics; reconnaissance and accuracy assessment field survey work in the Great Valley Ecoregion; contributed and compiled field survey data for classification analysis; review and advisement on a floristic and mapping classification California Department of Water Resources – Regional funding and assistance with land access California Native Plant Society – Contributed and compiled field survey data for classification analysis and report Geographical Information Center, Chico State University – Collaborating partner as mapping contractor Strategic Growth Council – Regional funding Field and Office Staff CDFG staff included Rachelle Boul, Mary Jo Colletti, Michael Gordon, Diana Hickson, Anne Klein, Todd Keeler-Wolf, Aicha Ougzin, Cynthia Roye, Joseph Stewart, and Rosie Yacoub CNPS staff included Scott Batiuk, Jennifer Buck-Diaz, Rebecca Crowe, Julie Evens, and Deborah Stout Collaborators Contributing Additional Vegetation Data in this Project Area California Department of Fish and Game, Region 4 Private Consultant, Carol Witham Solano Land Trust (Rush Ranch), Jessie Olson The Nature Conservancy, Sasha Gennet University of California, Berkeley Range Ecology Lab University of California, Davis, Ayzik Solomeshch University of California, Davis, M.G. Barbour Vernal Pool Team i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... i Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Background and Standards .......................................................................................................... 1 Table 1. Classification of Vegetation: Example Hierarchy .................................................... 2 Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Study Area ................................................................................................................................3 Field Sampling ..........................................................................................................................3 Vegetation Classification Data and Analysis.............................................................................3 Figure 1. Study area map of new and compiled surveys ...................................................... 4 Table 2. Count of compiled field survey data by project. ...................................................... 5 Descriptions and Stand Tables .................................................................................................7 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Species and Survey Data .......................................................................................................10 Vegetation Data and Analysis.................................................................................................10 Changes Since the 2nd Edition of the Manual of California Vegetation..................................10 Table 3. Vegetation classification for the Great Valley Ecoregion ...................................... 12 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix 1. Protocol and field forms used for vegetation sampling in 2010 and 2011............... 29 Appendix 2. List of plants analyzed in all surveys of the Great Valley Ecoregion with scientific names and nativity status accepted by UCB (2009) and codes and common names by USDA- NRCS (2011). ............................................................................................................................. 41 Appendix 3. Field key to vegetation types of the Great Valley, California. ................................. 71 Appendix 4. Descriptions and stand tables summarizing the environmental, vegetation and plant constancy/cover data for alliances and associations in the Great Valley Ecoregion. ............... 114 A. Tree Overstory Types........................................................................................................... 114 Acer negundo Alliance (Box-elder forest) ................................................................................. 114 Acer negundo Association ....................................................................................................115 Acer negundo–Salix gooddingii Association .........................................................................116 Aesculus californica Alliance (California buckeye groves)........................................................ 117 Aesculus californica/Toxicodendron diversilobum/Moss Association ...................................118 Ailanthus altissima Provisional Semi-Natural Stands (Tree-of-heaven groves)........................ 119 Alnus rhombifolia Alliance (White alder groves) ....................................................................... 121 Alnus rhombifolia Association ...............................................................................................122 Alnus rhombifolia/Cornus sericea Association......................................................................123 Alnus rhombifolia/Salix exigua(–Rosa californica) Association.............................................124 Alnus rhombifolia–Salix laevigata–Platanus racemosa Association .....................................125 Eucalyptus (globulus, camaldulensis) Semi-Natural Stands (Eucalyptus groves).................... 126 Eucalyptus (globulus, camaldulensis) Stand Type................................................................127 Fraxinus latifolia Alliance (Oregon ash groves) ........................................................................ 128 Fraxinus latifolia Association.................................................................................................129 Fraxinus latifolia–Alnus rhombifolia Association ...................................................................130 Juglans hindsii and Hybrids Special Stands & Semi-Natural Stands (Hinds’s walnut groves) . 131 Juglans hindsii / Herbaceous Provisional Stand Type ..........................................................132 Juniperus californica Alliance (California juniper woodland)..................................................... 133 ii Juniperus californica/Herbaceous Association......................................................................134 Pinus ponderosa Alliance (Ponderosa pine forest)................................................................... 135 Pinus ponderosa/Arctostaphylos viscida Provisional Association.........................................135 Pinus sabiniana Alliance (Ghost pine woodland)...................................................................... 136 Pinus sabiniana/Ceanothus cuneatus–Heteromeles arbutifolia Association ........................138 Pinus sabiniana/Frangula californica ssp. tomentella Provisional Association .....................139 Pinus sabiniana/grass–herb Association ..............................................................................140 Platanus racemosa Alliance (California sycamore woodlands) ................................................ 141 Platanus racemosa(/annual grass) Association....................................................................142 Platanus racemosa–Populus fremontii/Salix lasiolepis Association......................................143 Platanus racemosa–Quercus lobata Association..................................................................145 Populus fremontii Alliance (Fremont cottonwood forest) .......................................................... 146 Populus fremontii Great Valley Association ..........................................................................148 Populus fremontii/Baccharis salicifolia Association...............................................................149 Populus fremontii/Salix exigua Association...........................................................................150 Populus fremontii/Vitis californica Association......................................................................151 Populus fremontii–Acer negundo Association.......................................................................152 Populus fremontii–Salix gooddingii Association....................................................................153 Populus fremontii–Salix laevigata Association......................................................................154 Populus fremontii–Salix lasiolepis Association .....................................................................155 Prosopis pubescens Alliance (Screwbean mesquite bosques) ................................................ 156 Quercus agrifolia Alliance (Coast live oak woodland)............................................................... 157 Quercus chrysolepis Forest Alliance (Canyon live oak forest).................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "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]
  • Environmental Weeds of Coastal Plains and Heathy Forests Bioregions of Victoria Heading in Band
    Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Heading in band b Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Heading in band Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Contents Introduction 1 Purpose of the list 1 Limitations 1 Relationship to statutory lists 1 Composition of the list and assessment of taxa 2 Categories of environmental weeds 5 Arrangement of the list 5 Column 1: Botanical Name 5 Column 2: Common Name 5 Column 3: Ranking Score 5 Column 4: Listed in the CALP Act 1994 5 Column 5: Victorian Alert Weed 5 Column 6: National Alert Weed 5 Column 7: Weed of National Significance 5 Statistics 5 Further information & feedback 6 Your involvement 6 Links 6 Weed identification texts 6 Citation 6 Acknowledgments 6 Bibliography 6 Census reference 6 Appendix 1 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed alphabetically within risk categories. 7 Appendix 2 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed by botanical name. 19 Appendix 3 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed by common name. 31 Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria i Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment Melbourne, March2008 © The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2009 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
    [Show full text]
  • University of California Santa Cruz Responding to An
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENT PLANT PEST-PATHOGEN COMPLEX ACROSS SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SCALES A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES with an emphasis in ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY by Shannon Colleen Lynch December 2020 The Dissertation of Shannon Colleen Lynch is approved: Professor Gregory S. Gilbert, chair Professor Stacy M. Philpott Professor Andrew Szasz Professor Ingrid M. Parker Quentin Williams Acting Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Shannon Colleen Lynch 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables iv List of Figures vii Abstract x Dedication xiii Acknowledgements xiv Chapter 1 – Introduction 1 References 10 Chapter 2 – Host Evolutionary Relationships Explain 12 Tree Mortality Caused by a Generalist Pest– Pathogen Complex References 38 Chapter 3 – Microbiome Variation Across a 66 Phylogeographic Range of Tree Hosts Affected by an Emergent Pest–Pathogen Complex References 110 Chapter 4 – On Collaborative Governance: Building Consensus on 180 Priorities to Manage Invasive Species Through Collective Action References 243 iii LIST OF TABLES Chapter 2 Table I Insect vectors and corresponding fungal pathogens causing 47 Fusarium dieback on tree hosts in California, Israel, and South Africa. Table II Phylogenetic signal for each host type measured by D statistic. 48 Table SI Native range and infested distribution of tree and shrub FD- 49 ISHB host species. Chapter 3 Table I Study site attributes. 124 Table II Mean and median richness of microbiota in wood samples 128 collected from FD-ISHB host trees. Table III Fungal endophyte-Fusarium in vitro interaction outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Flora of Guadalupe Island, Mexico
    qQ 11 C17X NH THE FLORA OF GUADALUPE ISLAND, MEXICO By Reid Moran Published by the California Academy of Sciences San Francisco, California Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, Number 19 The pride of Guadalupe Island, the endemic Cisfuiillw giiailulupensis. flowering on a small islet off the southwest coast, with cliffs of the main island as a background; 19 April 1957. This plant is rare on the main island, surviving only on cliffs out of reach of goats, but common here on sjoatless Islote Nccro. THE FLORA OF GUADALUPE ISLAND, MEXICO Q ^ THE FLORA OF GUADALUPE ISLAND, MEXICO By Reid Moran y Published by the California Academy of Sciences San Francisco, California Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, Number 19 San Francisco July 26, 1996 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE: Alan E. Lcviton. Ediinr Katie Martin, Managing Editor Thomas F. Daniel Michael Ghiselin Robert C. Diewes Wojciech .1. Pulawski Adam Schift" Gary C. Williams © 1906 by the California Academy of Sciences, Golden (iate Park. San Francisco, California 94118 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any infcMination storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 96-084362 ISBN 0-940228-40-8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract vii Resumen viii Introduction 1 Guadalupe Island Description I Place names 9 Climate 13 History 15 Other Biota 15 The Vascular Plants Native
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • World Journal of Pharmaceutical Research Prasad Et Al
    World Journal of Pharmaceutical Research Prasad et al. World Journal of Pharmaceutical Research SJIF Impact Factor 7.523 Volume 6, Issue 14, 551-557. Research Article ISSN 2277– 7105 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE ESSENTIAL OIL OF ANAPHALIS MARGARITACEA FROM MUNSYARI, PITHORAGARH, INDIA Chandan Ram, Pushpa Joshi and Kundan Prasad* Department of Chemistry, D.S.B. Campus, K. U., Nainital, Uttarakhand – 263002. Article Received on ABSTRACT 02 Sept. 2017, Anaphalis margaritacea shows antiasthmatic, anticoughing, Revised on 24 Sept. 2017, Accepted on 15 Oct. 2017 expectorant and antiphlogistic activity. The leaves of Anaphalis DOI: 10.20959/wjpr201714-9923 margaritacea were collected in the month of September 2015 from Kalamuni (Munsyari)near Pithoragarh, location of Kumaon Himalayas. *Corresponding Author The plant Anaphalis margaritacea including leaves, stem, and flowers Kundan Prasad were extracted by hydro distillation method for 6 hours using Department of Chemistry, Clevenger apparatus. The hydro-distilled essential oil of Anaphalis D.S.B. Campus, K. U., margaritacea has been examined by means of gas chromatography- Nainital, Uttarakhand – mass spectrometry (GC-MS).77 constituents have been identified 263002. representing 94.08% of the total oil. The main compounds in major amounts were E-caryophyllene (21.22%), δ-Cadinene(6.51%), Caryophyllene oxide (6.36%), Cubenol (4.08%), γ-Cadinene(2.32%), α-Pinene (2.22%) and Ledol (1.55%). KEYWORDS: (E)-caryophyllene, Anaphalis margaritacea, Essential oil, GC-MS. 1. INTRODUCTION As a part of an ongoing study of the essential oilcomposition of Munsyari forest plants, Anaphalis margaritacea was investigated. A.margaritacea belongs to Gnaphalieae (Family Asteraceae), a small tribe of 22 genera and 320 species, which occur worldwide (Ahmed et.
    [Show full text]
  • Alder Canopy Dieback and Damage in Western Oregon Riparian Ecosystems
    Alder Canopy Dieback and Damage in Western Oregon Riparian Ecosystems Sims, L., Goheen, E., Kanaskie, A., & Hansen, E. (2015). Alder canopy dieback and damage in western Oregon riparian ecosystems. Northwest Science, 89(1), 34-46. doi:10.3955/046.089.0103 10.3955/046.089.0103 Northwest Scientific Association Version of Record http://cdss.library.oregonstate.edu/sa-termsofuse Laura Sims,1, 2 Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, 1085 Cordley Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Ellen Goheen, USDA Forest Service, J. Herbert Stone Nursery, Central Point, Oregon 97502 Alan Kanaskie, Oregon Department of Forestry, 2600 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97310 and Everett Hansen, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, 1085 Cordley Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Alder Canopy Dieback and Damage in Western Oregon Riparian Ecosystems Abstract We gathered baseline data to assess alder tree damage in western Oregon riparian ecosystems. We sought to determine if Phytophthora-type cankers found in Europe or the pathogen Phytophthora alni subsp. alni, which represent a major threat to alder forests in the Pacific Northwest, were present in the study area. Damage was evaluated in 88 transects; information was recorded on damage type (pathogen, insect or wound) and damage location. We evaluated 1445 red alder (Alnus rubra), 682 white alder (Alnus rhombifolia) and 181 thinleaf alder (Alnus incana spp. tenuifolia) trees. We tested the correlation between canopy dieback and canker symptoms because canopy dieback is an important symptom of Phytophthora disease of alder in Europe. We calculated the odds that alder canopy dieback was associated with Phytophthora-type cankers or other biotic cankers.
    [Show full text]
  • RED ALDER Northwest Extracted a Red Dye from the Inner Bark, Which Was Used to Dye Fishnets
    Plant Guide and hair. The native Americans of the Pacific RED ALDER Northwest extracted a red dye from the inner bark, which was used to dye fishnets. Oregon tribes used Alnus rubra Bong. the innerbark to make a reddish-brown dye for basket Plant Symbol = ALRU2 decorations (Murphey 1959). Yellow dye made from red alder catkins was used to color quills. Contributed by: USDA NRCS National Plant Data Center A mixture of red alder sap and charcoal was used by the Cree and Woodland tribes for sealing seams in canoes and as a softener for bending boards for toboggans (Moerman 1998). Wood and fiber: Red alder wood is used in the production of wooden products such as food dishes, furniture, sashes, doors, millwork, cabinets, paneling and brush handles. It is also used in fiber-based products such as tissue and writing paper. In Washington and Oregon, it was largely used for smoking salmon. The Indians of Alaska used the hallowed trunks for canoes (Sargent 1933). Medicinal: The North American Indians used the bark to treat many complaints such a headaches, rheumatic pains, internal injuries, and diarrhea (Moerman 1998). The Salinan used an extract of the bark of alder trees to treat cholera, stomach cramps, and stomachaches (Heinsen 1972). The extract was made with 20 parts water to 1 part fresh or aged bark. The bark contains salicin, a chemical similar to aspirin (Uchytil 1989). Infusions made from the bark of red alders were taken to treat anemia, colds, congestion, and to © Tony Morosco relieve pain. Bark infusions were taken as a laxative @ CalFlora and to regulate menstruation.
    [Show full text]
  • 08 Figueroa.Indd
    SEEDLING EMERGENCE IN A FIRE-FREE MATORRAL IN CENTRAL CHILE 101 REVISTA CHILENA DE HISTORIA NATURAL Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 85: 101-111, 2012 © Sociedad de Biología de Chile RESEARCH ARTICLE The effect of heat and smoke on the emergence of exotic and native seedlings in a Mediterranean fi re-free matorral of central Chile Efecto del calor y el humo sobre la emergencia de plántulas exóticas y nativas en un matorral mediterráneo libre de fuego en Chile central JAVIER A. FIGUEROA1, 2, 3, * & LOHENGRIN A. CAVIERES4, 5 1Facultad de Ciencias, Pontifi cia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Casilla 4059, Avenida Universidad 330, Curauma, Placilla, Valparaíso, Chile 2Escuela de Ecología y Paisaje, Facultad de Arquitectura, Universidad Central de Chile, Santiago, Chile 3Center for Advanced Studies in Ecology and Biodiversity, Pontifi cia Universidad Católica de Chile, Casilla 114-D, Santiago CP 6513677, Chile 4ECOBIOSIS, Departamento de Botánica, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Oceanográfi cas, Universidad de Concepción, Casilla 160C, Concepción, Chile 5Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad (IEB), Santiago CP 7800024, Ñuñoa, Chile *Corresponding author: javier.fi [email protected] ABSTRACT We studied the effect of heat shock and wood-fueled smoke on the emergence of native and exotic plant species in soil samples obtained in an evergreen matorral of central Chile that has been free of fi re for decades. It is located on the eastern foothills of the Andes Range in San Carlos de Apoquindo. Immediately after collection samples were dried and stored under laboratory conditions. For each two transect, ten samples were randomly chosen, and one of the following treatments was applied: (1) heat-shock treatment, (2) plant-produced smoke treatment, (3) combined heat-and-smoke treatment, and (4) control, corresponding to samples not subjected to treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Monitoring Minarets High School Project (1-1-07-F-0307) Madera County, California
    2016 VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONGHORN BEETLE MONITORING MINARETS HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT (1-1-07-F-0307) MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By: LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC. David J. Hartesveldt, Senior Botanist and Principal Jeff Gurule, Senior Project Manager For: Darren Sylvia Chawanakee Unified School District PO Box 400 33030 Road 228 North Fork, CA 93643 January 9, 2017 091-08 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On December 2, 2016, Jeff Gurule of Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) surveyed the approximately 2-acre Elderberry Conservation Area (ECA) for blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) replacement planting success and presence of the federally threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) (VELB). The ECA was created to preserve and protect 96 replacement elderberry plantings as mitigation for the loss of 16 mature elderberry shrubs that resulted from the construction of the Minarets High School. The success criterion for the replacement plantings is 80% survivorship or 77 surviving elderberries. The ECA is currently owned and managed by the Chawanakee Unified School District (District) and is located in the Sierra Nevada foothills of Madera County in the community of O’Neals northeast of the intersection of State Route 41 and Road 200. During the 2016 survey, Mr. Gurule found all elderberry replacement plantings dead within the Minarets High School ECA. This number equates to 0% survivorship. Individual VELB and potential VELB exit holes were not observed. Irrigation infrastructure had been dismantled. Fencing and signage around the ECA was in good condition. Fencing around the larger open space preserve was found to be broken in one location. Elderberry plantings failed to meet the success criteria of 80% survivorship; therefore, monitoring must start anew in 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Grasses (Poaceae) for the Flora of China, VI. New Combinations in Stipeae and Anthoxanthum Author(S): Sylvia M
    Notes on Grasses (Poaceae) for the Flora of China, VI. New Combinations in Stipeae and Anthoxanthum Author(s): Sylvia M. Phillips and Wu Zhen-Lan Source: Novon, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 474-476 Published by: Missouri Botanical Garden Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3393497 Accessed: 21-07-2016 02:11 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Missouri Botanical Garden Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novon This content downloaded from 159.226.89.2 on Thu, 21 Jul 2016 02:11:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Notes on Grasses (Poaceae) for the Flora of China, VI. New Combinations in Stipeae and Anthoxanthum S+-lvia;V. Phillips Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Keu. Surrey TB79 3ABt United Kingdom. [email protected] Wu Zhen-LvIrl Herbarium, Northwest Plateau Institute of Biolog!. \(aclemia Sinica, 78 Xiguan Street, Xining, Qinghai 810()01. China ABSTRACT. When Or^zopsis is e onfined to the tv^)e gelleIic reassessmellt for North America and w-ith species, Chinese species are placed in Achrlathe- ollal-)oIatoIs folloss-ed this uith a report on molec- rum and Piptatherum.
    [Show full text]
  • Ventura County Plant Species of Local Concern
    Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants (Twenty-second Edition) CNPS, Rare Plant Program David L. Magney Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants1 By David L. Magney California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program, Locally Rare Project Updated 4 January 2017 Ventura County is located in southern California, USA, along the east edge of the Pacific Ocean. The coastal portion occurs along the south and southwestern quarter of the County. Ventura County is bounded by Santa Barbara County on the west, Kern County on the north, Los Angeles County on the east, and the Pacific Ocean generally on the south (Figure 1, General Location Map of Ventura County). Ventura County extends north to 34.9014ºN latitude at the northwest corner of the County. The County extends westward at Rincon Creek to 119.47991ºW longitude, and eastward to 118.63233ºW longitude at the west end of the San Fernando Valley just north of Chatsworth Reservoir. The mainland portion of the County reaches southward to 34.04567ºN latitude between Solromar and Sequit Point west of Malibu. When including Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands, the southernmost extent of the County occurs at 33.21ºN latitude and the westernmost extent at 119.58ºW longitude, on the south side and west sides of San Nicolas Island, respectively. Ventura County occupies 480,996 hectares [ha] (1,188,562 acres [ac]) or 4,810 square kilometers [sq. km] (1,857 sq. miles [mi]), which includes Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands. The mainland portion of the county is 474,852 ha (1,173,380 ac), or 4,748 sq.
    [Show full text]