DOCSLIB.ORG

Classification of Vegetation Communities of New Jersey: Second Iteration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Classification of Vegetation Communities of New Jersey: Second Iteration By Thomas F. Breden, Yvette Alger, Kathleen Strakosch Walz, Andrew G. Windisch A Subset of the International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States Contents Preface xi Acknowledgments xiii Introduction 1 Background of the National Vegetation Classification 1 The Vegetation Classification System (The Hierarchy) 2 Application of the Classification’s Alliance Level for Mapping 7 Application of the Classification System for Conservation 8 Format of this Document 9 I. Forest 15 I.A.4.N.a. Lowland temperate seasonal evergreen forest 15 I.A.4.N.a.300. ILEX OPACA FOREST ALLIANCE 15 Ilex opaca/Morella pensylvanica Forest 15 I.A.8.N.g. Saturated temperate or subpolar needle-leaved evergreen forest 16 I.A.8.N.g.2. CHAMAECYPARIS THYOIDES SATURATED FOREST ALLIANCE 16 Chamaecyparis thyoides/Ilex glabra Forest 17 Chamaecyparis thyoides/Ilex verticillata Forest 18 Chamaecyparis thyoides/Rhododendron maximum Forest 18 I.A.8.N.g.300. PINUS TAEDA SATURATED FOREST ALLIANCE 19 Pinus taeda/Morella cerifera/Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis Forest 19 I.A.8.N.g.7. TSUGA CANADENSIS SATURATED FOREST ALLIANCE 21 Tsuga canadensis—Betula alleghaniensis/Ilex verticillata/Sphagnum spp. Forest 22 Tsuga canadensis/Rhododendron maximum/Sphagnum spp. Forest 22 I.B.2.N.a. Lowland or submontane cold-deciduous forest 23 I.B.2.N.a.4. ACER SACCHARUM—BETULA ALLEGHANIENSIS—(FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA) FOREST ALLIANCE 23 Acer saccharum—Betula alleghaniensis—Fagus grandifolia/Viburnum lantanoides Forest 24 I.B.2.N.a.5. ACER SACCHARUM—FRAXINUS AMERICANA—TILIA AMERICANA FOREST ALLIANCE 25 Acer saccharum—Fraxinus americana—Juglans cinerea/Staphylea trifolia Forest 26 Acer saccharum—Fraxinus americana—Tilia americana—Magnolia acuminata/ Actaea racemosa Forest 26 Acer saccharum—Fraxinus spp.—Tilia americana/Osmorhiza claytonii—Caulophyllum thalictroides Forest 27 I.B.2.N.a.46. CARYA (GLABRA, OVATA)—FRAXINUS AMERICANA—QUERCUS (ALBA, RUBRA) FOREST ALLIANCE 28 Carya (glabra, ovata)—Fraxinus americana—Quercus spp. Central Appalachian Forest 30 Quercus rubra—Carya (glabra, ovata)/Ostrya virginiana/Carex pensylvanica Forest 30 I.B.2.N.a.17. FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA—QUERCUS RUBRA—QUERCUS ALBA FOREST ALLIANCE 31 Fagus grandifolia—Quercus alba—Liriodendron tulipifera—Carya spp. Forest 32 Fagus grandifolia—Quercus alba—Quercus rubra—Liriodendron tulipifera Forest 33 Quercus velutina—Fagus grandifolia—Sassafras albidum/Ilex opaca Forest 33 New Jersey Vegetation Classification iii Contents I.B.2.N.a.27. QUERCUS ALBA—(QUERCUS RUBRA, CARYA SPP.) FOREST ALLIANCE 34 Quercus (alba, rubra, velutina)/Cornus florida/Viburnum acerifolium Forest 35 I.B.2.N.a.29. QUERCUS ALBA—QUERCUS (FALCATA, STELLATA) FOREST ALLIANCE 36 Quercus (falcata, alba, velutina)/Gaylussacia baccata—Vaccinium pallidum Forest 37 I.B.2.N.a.31. QUERCUS FALCATA FOREST ALLIANCE 38 Quercus falcata—Quercus phellos/Ilex opaca Forest 39 I.B.2.N.a.101. QUERCUS MUEHLENBERGII—(ACER SACCHARUM) FOREST ALLIANCE 39 Acer saccharum—Quercus muehlenbergii/Cercis canadensis Forest 41 Acer saccharum—Quercus muehlenbergii Forest 42 I.B.2.N.a.36. QUERCUS PRINUS—(QUERCUS COCCINEA, QUERCUS VELUTINA) FOREST ALLIANCE 43 Quercus prinus—Quercus (rubra, velutina)/Gaylussacia baccata Forest 44 I.B.2.N.a.37. QUERCUS PRINUS—QUERCUS (ALBA, FALCATA, RUBRA, VELUTINA) FOREST ALLIANCE 45 Quercus prinus—Quercus (alba, falcata, rubra, velutina) Forest [Placeholder] 46 Quercus prinus—Quercus velutina/Gaylussacia frondosa Forest 47 I.B.2.N.a.38. QUERCUS PRINUS—QUERCUS RUBRA FOREST ALLIANCE 47 Quercus prinus—Quercus rubra—Carya (glabra, alba)/Gaylussacia baccata Forest 48 I.B.2.N.a.39. QUERCUS RUBRA—(ACER SACCHARUM) FOREST ALLIANCE 49 Quercus rubra—Acer saccharum—Fagus grandifolia/Viburnum acerifolium Forest 50 Quercus rubra—Acer saccharum—Liriodendron tulipifera Forest 50 I.B.2.N.a.100. QUERCUS VELUTINA—QUERCUS ALBA—(QUERCUS COCCINEA) FOREST ALLIANCE 52 Quercus coccinea—Quercus velutina/Sassafras albidum/Vaccinium pallidum Forest 53 Quercus velutina—Quercus coccinea—Quercus prinus/Kalmia latifolia Forest 53 I.B.2.N.d. Temporarily flooded cold-deciduous forest 54 I.B.2.N.d.27. ACER SACCHARUM—CARYA CORDIFORMIS TEMPORARILY FLOODED FOREST ALLIANCE 54 Acer saccharum—Fraxinus spp.—Tilia americana/Matteuccia struthiopteris—Ageratina altissima Forest 55 I.B.2.N.e. Seasonally flooded cold-deciduous forest 55 I.B.2.N.e.1. ACER RUBRUM—FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA SEASONALLY FLOODED FOREST ALLIANCE 55 Acer rubrum—Fraxinus (pennsylvanica, americana)/Lindera benzoin/Symplocarpus foetidus Forest 57 Acer rubrum—Fraxinus pennsylvanica/Saururus cernuus Forest 57 I.B.2.N.e.6. LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA—(ACER RUBRUM) SEASONALLY FLOODED FOREST ALLIANCE 58 Liquidambar styraciflua—Acer rubrum—Quercus phellos/Leucothoe racemosa Forest 59 I.B.2.N.g. Saturated cold-deciduous forest 59 I.B.2.N.g.2. ACER RUBRUM—NYSSA SYLVATICA SATURATED FOREST ALLIANCE 59 Acer rubrum—Nyssa sylvatica—Liquidambar styraciflua—Populus heterophylla Forest 60 Acer rubrum—Nyssa sylvatica—Magnolia virginiana Forest 61 Acer rubrum—Nyssa sylvatica/Rhododendron viscosum—Clethra alnifolia Forest 61 I.B.2.N.g.1. FRAXINUS NIGRA—ACER RUBRUM SATURATED FOREST ALLIANCE 62 Fraxinus nigra—Acer rubrum—(Larix laricina)/Rhamnus alnifolia Forest 63 iv New Jersey Vegetation Classification Contents I.C.3.N.a. Mixed needle-leaved evergreen—cold-deciduous forest 64 I.C.3.N.a.35. PINUS (RIGIDA, ECHINATA)—QUERCUS COCCINEA FOREST ALLIANCE 64 Pinus (rigida, echinata)—Quercus coccinea/Ilex opaca Forest 64 Pinus rigida—Quercus coccinea/Vaccinium pallidum—(Morella pensylvanica) Forest 64 I.C.3.N.a.21. PINUS STROBUS—QUERCUS (ALBA, RUBRA, VELUTINA) FOREST ALLIANCE 65 Pinus strobus—Quercus (rubra, velutina)—Fagus grandifolia Forest 66 I.C.3.N.a.27. PINUS VIRGINIANA—QUERCUS (ALBA, STELLATA, FALCATA, VELUTINA) FOREST ALLIANCE 67 Pinus virginiana—Quercus falcata—Carya pallida Forest 68 I.C.3.N.a.32. TSUGA CANADENSIS—BETULA ALLEGHANIENSIS FOREST ALLIANCE 68 Tsuga canadensis—Betula alleghaniensis—Prunus serotina/Rhododendron maximum Forest 70 Tsuga canadensis—Betula alleghaniensis Lower New England/Northern Piedmont Forest 70 I.C.3.N.d. Saturated mixed needle-leaved evergreen—cold-deciduous forest 71 I.C.3.N.d.8. CHAMAECYPARIS THYOIDES—ACER RUBRUM SATURATED FOREST ALLIANCE 71 Chamaecyparis thyoides—Acer rubrum—Magnolia virginiana Forest 71 Chamaecyparis thyoides—Acer rubrum Lower New England/Northern Piedmont Forest 72 I.C.3.N.d.300. PINUS RIGIDA—ACER RUBRUM SATURATED FOREST ALLIANCE 72 Pinus rigida—Acer rubrum/Rhododendron viscosum Forest 73 II. Woodland 75 II.A.4.N.a. Rounded-crowned temperate or subpolar needle-leaved evergreen woodland 75 II.A.4.N.a.26. PINUS RIGIDA WOODLAND ALLIANCE 75 Pinus rigida—(Pinus echinata)/Quercus (marilandica, ilicifolia)/Vaccinium pallidum Woodland 76 Pinus rigida/Carex pensylvanica Woodland 77 Pinus rigida/Hudsonia tomentosa Woodland 77 Pinus rigida/Quercus (marilandica, ilicifolia)/Pyxidanthera barbulata Woodland 78 Pinus rigida/Quercus ilicifolia—Kalmia angustifolia/Pyxidanthera barbulata Woodland 78 Pinus rigida/Quercus ilicifolia/Morella pensylvanica Woodland 79 Pinus rigida/Quercus ilicifolia/Photinia melanocarpa Woodland 79 II.A.4.N.b. Conical-crowned temperate or subpolar needle-leaved evergreen woodland 80 II.A.4.N.b.2. JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA WOODLAND ALLIANCE 80 Juniperus virginiana—Fraxinus americana/Danthonia spicata—Poa compressa Woodland 81 Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana/Morella pensylvanica Woodland 81 II.A.4.N.e. Seasonally flooded temperate or subpolar needle-leaved evergreen woodland 82 II.A.4.N.e.3. CHAMAECYPARIS THYOIDES SEASONALLY FLOODED WOODLAND ALLIANCE 82 Chamaecyparis thyoides North Atlantic Coast Woodland 82 II.A.4.N.f. Saturated temperate or subpolar needle-leaved evergreen woodland 83 II.A.4.N.f.13. PICEA MARIANA SATURATED WOODLAND ALLIANCE 83 Picea mariana/(Vaccinium corymbosum, Gaylussacia baccata)/Sphagnum sp. Woodland 84 II.A.4.N.f.8. PINUS RIGIDA SATURATED WOODLAND ALLIANCE 85 Pinus rigida/Chamaedaphne calyculata/Sphagnum spp. Woodland 85 Pinus rigida/Gaylussacia baccata—Kalmia angustifolia Woodland 86 New Jersey Vegetation Classification v Contents Pinus rigida/Gaylussacia dumosa/Calamovilfa brevipilis Woodland 86 Pinus rigida/Vaccinium corymbosum—Leucothoe racemosa/Sphagnum spp. Woodland 87 II.B.2.N.a. Cold-deciduous woodland 87 II.B.2.N.a.25. QUERCUS STELLATA—QUERCUS MARILANDICA WOODLAND ALLIANCE 87 Quercus stellata—Sassafras albidum/Smilax glauca Woodland 89 II.B.2.N.f. Tidal cold-deciduous woodland 89 II.B.2.N.f.1. ACER RUBRUM—FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA TIDAL WOODLAND ALLIANCE 89 Acer rubrum—Fraxinus pennsylvanica/Polygonum spp. Woodland 90 II.C.3.N.a. Mixed needle-leaved evergreen—cold-deciduous woodland 91 II.C.3.N.a.19. PINUS RIGIDA—QUERCUS (COCCINEA, VELUTINA) WOODLAND ALLIANCE 91 Pinus rigida—Quercus (coccinea, velutina)/Schizachyrium scoparium Woodland 91 Pinus rigida—Quercus velutina/Hudsonia tomentosa Woodland 91 III. Shrubland 93 III.A.2.N.i. Saturated temperate broad-leaved evergreen shrubland 93 III.A.2.N.i.100. MORELLA CERIFERA SATURATED SHRUBLAND ALLIANCE 93 Morella cerifera—Baccharis halimifolia/Spartina patens Shrubland 94 III.A.3.N.a. Needle-leaved evergreen shrubland 95 III.A.3.N.a.3. PINUS RIGIDA SHRUBLAND ALLIANCE 95 Pinus rigida—Quercus marilandica/Corema conradii Shrubland 95 III.B.2.N.a. Temperate cold-deciduous shrubland 96 III.B.2.N.a.9. MORELLA PENSYLVANICA—(PRUNUS MARITIMA) SHRUBLAND ALLIANCE 96 Morella pensylvanica—Rosa rugosa Shrubland 96 III.B.2.N.a.300.
Recommended publications
  • Department of Planning and Zoning

    Department of Planning and Zoning

    Department of Planning and Zoning Subject: Howard County Landscape Manual Updates: Recommended Street Tree List (Appendix B) and Recommended Plant List (Appendix C) - Effective July 1, 2010 To: DLD Review Staff Homebuilders Committee From: Kent Sheubrooks, Acting Chief Division of Land Development Date: July 1, 2010 Purpose: The purpose of this policy memorandum is to update the Recommended Plant Lists presently contained in the Landscape Manual. The plant lists were created for the first edition of the Manual in 1993 before information was available about invasive qualities of certain recommended plants contained in those lists (Norway Maple, Bradford Pear, etc.). Additionally, diseases and pests have made some other plants undesirable (Ash, Austrian Pine, etc.). The Howard County General Plan 2000 and subsequent environmental and community planning publications such as the Route 1 and Route 40 Manuals and the Green Neighborhood Design Guidelines have promoted the desirability of using native plants in landscape plantings. Therefore, this policy seeks to update the Recommended Plant Lists by identifying invasive plant species and disease or pest ridden plants for their removal and prohibition from further planting in Howard County and to add other available native plants which have desirable characteristics for street tree or general landscape use for inclusion on the Recommended Plant Lists. Please note that a comprehensive review of the street tree and landscape tree lists were conducted for the purpose of this update, however, only
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE

    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE

    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts

    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts

    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
  • Grass Varieties for North Dakota

    Grass Varieties for North Dakota

    R-794 (Revised) Grass Varieties For North Dakota Kevin K. Sedivec Extension Rangeland Management Specialist, NDSU, Fargo Dwight A. Tober Plant Materials Specialist, USDA-NRCS, Bismarck Wayne L. Duckwitz Plant Materials Center Manager, USDA-NRCS, Bismarck John R. Hendrickson Research Rangeland Management Specialist, USDA-ARS, Mandan North Dakota State University Fargo, North Dakota June 2011 election of the appropriate species and variety is an important step in making a grass seeding successful. Grass species and varieties differ in growth habit, productivity, forage quality, drought resistance, tolerance Sto grazing, winter hardiness, seedling vigor, salinity tolerance and many other characteristics. Therefore, selection should be based on the climate, soils, intended use and the planned management. Planting a well-adapted selection also can provide long-term benefi ts and affect future productivity of the stand. This publication is designed to assist North Dakota producers and land managers in selecting perennial grass species and varieties for rangeland and pasture seeding and conservation planting. Each species is described following a list of recommended varieties Contents (releases). Variety origin and the date released are Introduction. 2 included for additional reference. Introduced Grasses . 3 A Plant Species Guide for Special Conditions, found Bromegrass . 3 near the end of this publication, is provided to assist Fescue . 4 in selection of grass species for droughty soils, arid Orchardgrass . 4 Foxtail. 5 or wet environments, saline or alkaline areas and Wheatgrass . 5 landscape/ornamental plantings. Several factors should Timothy. 7 be considered before selecting plant species. These Wildrye . 7 include 1) a soil test, 2) herbicides previously used, Native Grasses .
  • USFWS 2010 Georgia, Symphyotrichum Georgianmum Species Assessment

    USFWS 2010 Georgia, Symphyotrichum Georgianmum Species Assessment

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SPECIES ASSESSMENT AND LISTING PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT FORM SCIENTIFIC NAME: Symphyotrichum georgianum COMMON NAME: Georgia aster LEAD REGION: 4 INFORMATION CURRENT AS OF: March 2010 STATUS/ACTION Species assessment - determined species did not meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act and, therefore, was not elevated to Candidate status ___ New candidate _X_ Continuing candidate ___ Non-petitioned X Petitioned - Date petition received: May 11, 2004 90-day positive - FR date: 12-month warranted but precluded - FR date: Did the petition request a reclassification of a listed species? FOR PETITIONED CANDIDATE SPECIES: a. Is listing warranted (if yes, see summary of threats below)? yes b. To date, has publication of a proposal to list been precluded by other higher priority listing actions? yes c. If the answer to a. and b. is “yes”, provide an explanation of why the action is precluded. Higher priority listing actions, including court-approved settlements, court-ordered and statutory deadlines for petition findings and listing determinations, emergency listing determinations, and responses to litigation, continue to preclude the proposed and final listing rules for the species. We continue to monitor populations and will change its status or implement an emergency listing if necessary. The “Progress on Revising the Lists” section of the current CNOR (http://endangered.fws.gov/) provides information on listing actions taken during the last 12 months. __ Listing priority change Former LP: __ New LP: __ Date when the species first became a Candidate (as currently defined): 10/25/1999 ___ Candidate removal: Former LP: ___ A – Taxon is more abundant or widespread than previously believed or not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing or continuance of candidate status.
  • Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats

    Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats

    Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats J. W. Connelly S. T. Knick M. A. Schroeder S. J. Stiver Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies June 2004 CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE and SAGEBRUSH HABITATS John W. Connelly Idaho Department Fish and Game 83 W 215 N Blackfoot, ID 83221 [email protected] Steven T. Knick USGS Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center Snake River Field Station 970 Lusk St. Boise, ID 83706 [email protected] Michael A. Schroeder Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 1077 Bridgeport, WA 98813 [email protected] San J. Stiver Wildlife Coordinator, National Sage-Grouse Conservation Framework Planning Team 2184 Richard St. Prescott, AZ 86301 [email protected] This report should be cited as: Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Cover photo credit, Kim Toulouse i Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats Connelly et al. Author Biographies John W. Connelly Jack has been employed as a Principal Wildlife Research Biologist with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game for the last 20 years. He received his B.S. degree from the University of Idaho and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Washington State University. Jack is a Certified Wildlife Biologist and works on grouse conservation issues at national and international scales. He is a member of the Western Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Technical Committee and the Grouse Specialists’ Group.
  • Present-Day Genetic Structure of the Holoparasite Conopholis Americana

    Present-Day Genetic Structure of the Holoparasite Conopholis Americana

    Int. J. Plant Sci. 177(2):132–144. 2016. q 2015 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 1058-5893/2016/17702-0003$15.00 DOI: 10.1086/684180 PRESENT-DAY GENETIC STRUCTURE OF THE HOLOPARASITE CONOPHOLIS AMERICANA (OROBANCHACEAE) IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA AND THE LOCATION OF ITS REFUGIA DURING THE LAST GLACIAL CYCLE Anuar Rodrigues1,* and Saša Stefanović* *Department of Biology, University of Toronto, Mississauga, Ontario L5L 1C6, Canada Editor: Félix Forest Premise of research. Understanding how various organisms respond to previous changes in climate could provide insight into how they may respond or adapt to the current changes. Conopholis americana has a broad distribution across eastern North America, covering both previously glaciated and unglaciated regions. In this study, we investigated the postglacial history and phylogeographic structure of this parasitic plant spe- cies to characterize its genetic variation and structure and to identify the number and locations of refugia. Methodology. Molecular data from 10 microsatellite markers and DNA sequences from the plastid gene/ introns (clpP) were obtained for 281 individuals sampled from 75 populations spanning the current range of the species in eastern North America and analyzed using a variety of phylogeographic methods. Distribution modeling was carried out to determine regions with relatively suitable climate niches for populations at the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and present. Pivotal results. We inferred the persistence of a minimum of two glacial refugia for C. americana at the LGM, one in north-central Florida and southern Alabama and another in the Appalachian Mountains near the southern tip of the Blue Ridge Mountains.
  • Chamaecyparis Thyoides)

    Chamaecyparis Thyoides)

    Disease Resistance and Aesthetic Evaluation of Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) David R. Sandrock, Michael A. Dirr and Jean Williams-Woodward Horticulture and Plant Pathology - Athens, UGA Since the original cross in 1888, Leyland cypress (xCupressocyparis leylandii) has been planted worldwide. Its rapid upright growth and evergreen foliage make it a popular choice among consumers for windbreaks, hedges, screens, specimens and Christmas trees. However, Leyland cypress is susceptible to at least two fungal pathogens, Seiridium and Botryosphaeria. These pathogens cause canker development which leads to the death of branches and eventually kills the plant. This it is necessary to search for an alternative needle evergreen with similar aesthetic characteristics but greater disease resistance. A possible plant for this role is Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). My research consists of two objectives. The first is to screen Atlantic white cedar clones for resistance to Seiridium and Botryosphaeria. The second objective is to select superior taxa of Atlantic white cedar for production based on disease resistance, aesthetic characteristics, growth habits and performance in both field and nursery conditions. The disease screening experiment was initialed in the Fall of 1998. Seiridium, Botryodiplodia and Fusicoccum were isolated from infected branches of Leyland cypress and grown in pure culture. Plants for testing were vegetatively propagated during Fall, 1997. The disease resistance screening experiment consisted of 4 completely randomized blocks of 60 one- gallon plants. Each block contained 10 single-plant replications of 5 clones of Atlantic white cedar and one Leyland cypress. Plants were wounded with a wood rasp at a point on the stem measuring approximately 1 cm in diameter.
  • This Week's Sale Plants

    This Week's Sale Plants

    THIS WEEK’S SALE PLANTS (conifers, trees, shrubs, perennials, tropical, tenders, tomatoes, pepper) Botanical Name Common Name CONIFERS Cephalotaxus harringtonia 'Duke Gardens' Japanese Plum Yew Cephalotaxus harringtonia 'Prostrata' Japanese Plum Yew Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Nana Gracilis' Dwarf Hinoki Cypress Cupressus arizonica 'Carolina Sapphire' Arizona Cypress Juniperus conferta 'Blue Pacific' Shore Juniper Juniperus horizontalis 'Wiltonii' Blue Rug Juniper Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar Taxodium distichum 'Emerald Shadow' Bald Cypress Thuja 'Green Giant' Giant Arborvitae TREES Aesculus ×neglecta 'Erythroblastos' Hybrid Buckeye Aesculus hippocastanum 'Digitata' Horsechestnut Asimina triloba 'Levfiv' Susquehanna™ Pawpaw Asimina triloba 'Wansevwan' Shenandoah™ Pawpaw Asimina triloba Pawpaw Carpinus caroliniana 'J.N. Upright' Firespire™ Musclewood Cercidiphyllum japonicum 'Rotfuchs' Red Fox Katsura Tree Cercidiphyllum japonicum Katsura Tree Davidia involucrata 'Sonoma' Dove Tree Fagus grandifolia American Beech Ginkgo biloba 'Saratoga' Ginkgo Ostrya virginiana Hop Hornbeam Quercus alba White Oak Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak Quercus phellos Willow Oak SHRUBS Abelia ×grandiflora 'Margarita' Glossy Abelia Abelia ×grandiflora 'Rose Creek' Glossy Abelia Aesculus parviflora var. serotina 'Rogers' Bottlebrush Buckeye Aronia arbutifolia 'Brilliantissima' Chokeberry Aronia melanocarpa 'UCONNAM165' Low Scape® Mound Chokeberry Aucuba japonica 'Golden King' Japanese Aucuba Aucuba japonica 'Marmorata' Japanese Aucuba Berberis ×gladwynensis 'William
  • 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

    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).
  • Pollenkitt Ropes of Notopora Schomburgkii Hook. F. (Ericaceae, Vaccinieae)

    Pollenkitt Ropes of Notopora Schomburgkii Hook. F. (Ericaceae, Vaccinieae)

    Title Pollenkitt ropes of Notopora schomburgkii Hook. f. (Ericaceae, Vaccinieae) Author(s) SARWAR, A. K. M. Golam; ITO, Toshiaki; TAKAHASHI, Hideki Citation 日本花粉学会会誌, 51(2), 65-68 Issue Date 2005-12-31 Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/18854 Type article (author version) File Information 花粉学会51-2.pdf Instructions for use Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP (Short Communication) Pollenkitt ropes of Notopora schomburgkii Hook. f. (Ericaceae, Vaccinieae) A. K. M. Golam SARWAR1), Toshiaki ITO1) and Hideki TAKAHASHI1)2) 1) Graduate School of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, North 8 West 8, Sapporo 060-8589, Japan 2) The Hokkaido University Museum, North 10 West 8, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan Pollen morphology of Notopora schomburgkii Hook. f. was examined using light (LM), scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Pollenkitt ropes were observed and reported for the first time on pollen grains of N. schomburgkii, Ericaceae. With TEM these ropes show lipidic (“pollenkitt-like”) electron density but also show some resistance to acetolysis. Key words: Notopora schomburgkii, pollen morphology, pollenkitt ropes Introduction The genus Notopora Hook. f. (Ericaceae: Vaccinioideae: Vaccinieae) is a genus composed of five species of Neotropical blueberries (1 – 2) and it is endemic to the Guayana highland of Venezuela and adjacent Guyana (3 – 4). Maguire, Steyermark and Luteyn (3) are the only workers who have previously studied the pollen morphology of four species of this genus including N. schomburgkii, under both light (LM) and scanning electron microscopes (SEM). They reported that pollen tetrads of the genus Notopora were 42 – 56µm in size under LM, without viscin threads, exine sculpturing rugulate/verrucate becoming psilate along the aperture margins and at distal poles.
  • 2019 Domain Management Plan

    2019 Domain Management Plan

    Domain Management Plan 2019-2029 FINAL DRAFT 12/20/2019 Owner Contact: Amy Turner, Ph.D., CWB Director of Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability The University of the South Sewanee, Tennessee Office: 931-598-1447 Office: Cleveland Annex 110C Email: [email protected] Reviewed by: The Nature Conservancy Forest Stewards Guild ____________________________________________________________________________ Tract Location: Franklin and Marion Counties, Tennessee Centroid Latitude 35.982963 Longitude -85.344382 Tract Size: 13,036 acres | 5,275 hectares Land Manager: Office of Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability, The University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee 2 Executive Summary The primary objective of this management plan is to provide a framework to outline future management and outline operations for the Office of Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability (OESS) over the next ten years. In this plan, we will briefly introduce the physical and biological setting, past land use, and current uses of the Domain. The remainder of the plan consists of an assessment of the forest, which has been divided into six conservation areas. These conservation areas contain multiple management compartments, and the six areas have similarities in topographical position and past land use. Finally, the desired future condition and project summary of each conservation area and compartment has been outlined. Background The University of the South consists of an academic campus (382 acres) with adjacent commercial and residential areas (783 acres) that are embedded within and surrounded by diverse natural lands (11,838 acres). The term “Domain” is used interchangeably to describe both the entire ~13,000 acres and the 11,800-acre natural land matrix (also referred to as the “Greater Domain”).