DOCSLIB.ORG

Arresting the Spread of Eurasian Watermilfoil in Lake Superior

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arresting the Spread of Eurasian Watermilfoil in Lake Superior Arresting the Spread of Eurasian Watermilfoil in Lake Superior Final Report USEPA-Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Projects Grant #: GL-00E01291 POP: Jan 1, 2014 – Oct 31, 2016 MTU Principal Investigator: EPA Program Officer: Dr. Casey Huckins Marcia Damato U.S. Environmental Protection Michigan Technological University Agency Great Lakes Research Center Great Lakes National Program Office office: 906-487-2475 fax: 906-487-3167 77 West Jackson Blvd. (G-17J), Chicago, IL [email protected] 60604-3705 office: 312-886-0266, fax: 312-697-2606 [email protected] Other MTU Contributors: Guy Meadows, Amy Marcarelli, Rod Chimner, Colin Brooks, Pengfei Xue, Kevyn Juneau, Amanda Grimm, Erica Anderson, Riley Johnson, Jamey Anderson, Caryn Murray, Michael Poszyack, Colin Tyrell, Ryan Van Goethem, Carmen Leguizamon, and Jade Ortiz. January 2017 0 Table of Contents 1. Table of Contents 2. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 3 3. Project Overview/Background .............................................................................................................. 5 4. Project Tasks ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Task A. Eurasian Watermilfoil Environmental Associations and Efficacy of Control Agents .......... 9 Task A.1. Problem Definition/Background ....................................................................................... 9 Task A.2. Methods ............................................................................................................................. 9 Task A.3. Sampling Design ............................................................................................................. 10 Task A.3.1. Macrophyte Surveys ................................................................................................. 11 Task A.3.2. Myriophyllum Identification .................................................................................... 12 Task A.3.3. Environmental Sampling .......................................................................................... 12 Task A.3.4. Herbicide application ............................................................................................... 12 Task A.3.5. Analysis .................................................................................................................... 15 Task A.4. Outcomes/Products ......................................................................................................... 15 Task A.4.1. Environmental parameters of the bays ..................................................................... 15 Task A.4.2. Sediment relationships among sites.......................................................................... 16 Task A.4.3. Pre-treatment Macrophyte Communities ................................................................. 18 Task A.4.4. Myriophyllum identification. .................................................................................... 21 Task A.5. Responses to Efforts to Control Eurasian Watermilfoil .................................................. 21 Task A.5.1. Invasive watermilfoil management .......................................................................... 21 Task A.6. Major Conclusions and Study Constraints ...................................................................... 26 Task A.7. Other related projects ...................................................................................................... 27 Task A.7.1. Effects of stamp sands on the structure of Macrophyte communities in the Keweenaw Waterway ..................................................................................................................... 27 Task A.7.2. Effects of Eurasian watermilfoil and nutrients on algal assemblages - a mesocosm study 31 Task A.7.3. Laboratory Trial of Efficacy and Specificity of (Mycoleptodiscus terrestris) fungus as biocontrol. 34 Task B. Remote sensing and mapping ............................................................................................. 35 Task B.1. Optical mapping .............................................................................................................. 35 Task B.1.1. Problem Definition/Background .............................................................................. 35 Task B.1.2. Methods .................................................................................................................... 36 Task B.1.2.1. Field Spectra Collection .................................................................................... 36 Task B.1.2.2. Satellite-based Mapping .................................................................................... 37 Task B.1.2.3. Aerial Mapping with Unmanned Platforms ....................................................... 39 Task B.1.3. Major Conclusions ................................................................................................... 43 Task B.1.4. Constraints ................................................................................................................ 44 Task B.2. Sonar ............................................................................................................................... 44 Task B.2.1. Problem Definition/Background .............................................................................. 44 Task B.2.2. Methods .................................................................................................................... 45 1 Task B.2.3. Analysis .................................................................................................................... 45 Task B.2.4. Outcomes/Products ................................................................................................... 47 Task B.2.5. Major Conclusions ................................................................................................... 50 Task B.2.6. Constraints ................................................................................................................ 50 Task C. Hydrodynamic Modeling .................................................................................................... 51 Task C.1. Problem Definition/Background ..................................................................................... 51 Task C.2. Outcomes/Products ......................................................................................................... 55 Task C.3. Major Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 57 Task C.4. Constraints ...................................................................................................................... 57 Task D. Data Portal and Outreach .................................................................................................... 57 Task D.1. Outcomes/Products ......................................................................................................... 57 Task D.1.1. Invasive Eurasian Watermilfoil Web Page ............................................................... 57 Task D.1.2. Presentations - Oral .................................................................................................. 58 Task D.1.3. Presentations - Poster ............................................................................................... 59 Task D.1.4. Published Manuscripts ............................................................................................. 60 Task D.1.5. Public Outreach ........................................................................................................ 60 Task D.1.6. Teacher Workshops: ................................................................................................. 61 5. References ........................................................................................................................................... 63 2 2. Executive Summary Michigan Technological University was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Grant (GL-00E01291) to conduct a multi-faceted project involving the control, detection, prediction, and outreach about the invasion of Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) in Lake Superior. This project was in part motivated by observations since the mid 2000's, of populations of the aquatic invasive species Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum or EWM) invading and spreading along the northern Great Lakes shorelines of Michigan's Upper Peninsula (Lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior). EWM is a prolific and costly invader with a complex invasion history that left unmanaged, impacts ecological and economic aspects of local communities through its effects on local ecosystems, fisheries, recreation, and aesthetics. Small communities along the Upper Peninsula's Great Lake shorelines, such as those along the Keweenaw waterway in the Keweenaw Peninsula, rely on nearshore waterways, ecosystems, and fish and bird habitat that enable the tourist industry and support quality of life for residents. The pattern of invasions and how best to control them is increasingly understood elsewhere, but relatively unknown in the northern Great Lakes such as Lake Superior where a colder climate, larger waterbody mass with episodic intense circulations, and critical fish, bird and plant habitat
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Well-Known Plants in Each Angiosperm Order
    Well-known plants in each angiosperm order This list is generally from least evolved (most ancient) to most evolved (most modern). (I’m not sure if this applies for Eudicots; I’m listing them in the same order as APG II.) The first few plants are mostly primitive pond and aquarium plants. Next is Illicium (anise tree) from Austrobaileyales, then the magnoliids (Canellales thru Piperales), then monocots (Acorales through Zingiberales), and finally eudicots (Buxales through Dipsacales). The plants before the eudicots in this list are considered basal angiosperms. This list focuses only on angiosperms and does not look at earlier plants such as mosses, ferns, and conifers. Basal angiosperms – mostly aquatic plants Unplaced in order, placed in Amborellaceae family • Amborella trichopoda – one of the most ancient flowering plants Unplaced in order, placed in Nymphaeaceae family • Water lily • Cabomba (fanwort) • Brasenia (watershield) Ceratophyllales • Hornwort Austrobaileyales • Illicium (anise tree, star anise) Basal angiosperms - magnoliids Canellales • Drimys (winter's bark) • Tasmanian pepper Laurales • Bay laurel • Cinnamon • Avocado • Sassafras • Camphor tree • Calycanthus (sweetshrub, spicebush) • Lindera (spicebush, Benjamin bush) Magnoliales • Custard-apple • Pawpaw • guanábana (soursop) • Sugar-apple or sweetsop • Cherimoya • Magnolia • Tuliptree • Michelia • Nutmeg • Clove Piperales • Black pepper • Kava • Lizard’s tail • Aristolochia (birthwort, pipevine, Dutchman's pipe) • Asarum (wild ginger) Basal angiosperms - monocots Acorales
    [Show full text]
  • Full of Beans: a Study on the Alignment of Two Flowering Plants Classification Systems
    Full of beans: a study on the alignment of two flowering plants classification systems Yi-Yun Cheng and Bertram Ludäscher School of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA {yiyunyc2,ludaesch}@illinois.edu Abstract. Advancements in technologies such as DNA analysis have given rise to new ways in organizing organisms in biodiversity classification systems. In this paper, we examine the feasibility of aligning two classification systems for flowering plants using a logic-based, Region Connection Calculus (RCC-5) ap- proach. The older “Cronquist system” (1981) classifies plants using their mor- phological features, while the more recent Angiosperm Phylogeny Group IV (APG IV) (2016) system classifies based on many new methods including ge- nome-level analysis. In our approach, we align pairwise concepts X and Y from two taxonomies using five basic set relations: congruence (X=Y), inclusion (X>Y), inverse inclusion (X<Y), overlap (X><Y), and disjointness (X!Y). With some of the RCC-5 relationships among the Fabaceae family (beans family) and the Sapindaceae family (maple family) uncertain, we anticipate that the merging of the two classification systems will lead to numerous merged solutions, so- called possible worlds. Our research demonstrates how logic-based alignment with ambiguities can lead to multiple merged solutions, which would not have been feasible when aligning taxonomies, classifications, or other knowledge or- ganization systems (KOS) manually. We believe that this work can introduce a novel approach for aligning KOS, where merged possible worlds can serve as a minimum viable product for engaging domain experts in the loop. Keywords: taxonomy alignment, KOS alignment, interoperability 1 Introduction With the advent of large-scale technologies and datasets, it has become increasingly difficult to organize information using a stable unitary classification scheme over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Biobasics Contents
    Illinois Biodiversity Basics a biodiversity education program of Illinois Department of Natural Resources Chicago Wilderness World Wildlife Fund Adapted from Biodiversity Basics, © 1999, a publication of World Wildlife Fund’s Windows on the Wild biodiversity education program. For more information see <www.worldwildlife.org/windows>. Table of Contents About Illinois Biodiversity Basics ................................................................................................................. 2 Biodiversity Background ............................................................................................................................... 4 Biodiversity of Illinois CD-ROM series ........................................................................................................ 6 Activities Section 1: What is Biodiversity? ...................................................................................................... 7 Activity 1-1: What’s Your Biodiversity IQ?.................................................................... 8 Activity 1-2: Sizing Up Species .................................................................................... 19 Activity 1-3: Backyard BioBlitz.................................................................................... 31 Activity 1-4: The Gene Scene ....................................................................................... 43 Section 2: Why is Biodiversity Important? .................................................................................... 61 Activity
    [Show full text]
  • A Key to Common Vermont Aquatic Plant Species
    A Key to Common Vermont Aquatic Plant Species Lakes and Ponds Management and Protection Program Table of Contents Page 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 How To Use This Guide ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Field Notes .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Plant Key ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Submersed Plants ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 8-20 Pipewort Eriocaulon aquaticum ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Wild Celery Vallisneria americana ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • ABSTRACTS 117 Systematics Section, BSA / ASPT / IOPB
    Systematics Section, BSA / ASPT / IOPB 466 HARDY, CHRISTOPHER R.1,2*, JERROLD I DAVIS1, breeding system. This effectively reproductively isolates the species. ROBERT B. FADEN3, AND DENNIS W. STEVENSON1,2 Previous studies have provided extensive genetic, phylogenetic and 1Bailey Hortorium, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853; 2New York natural selection data which allow for a rare opportunity to now Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458; 3Dept. of Botany, National study and interpret ontogenetic changes as sources of evolutionary Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, novelties in floral form. Three populations of M. cardinalis and four DC 20560 populations of M. lewisii (representing both described races) were studied from initiation of floral apex to anthesis using SEM and light Phylogenetics of Cochliostema, Geogenanthus, and microscopy. Allometric analyses were conducted on data derived an undescribed genus (Commelinaceae) using from floral organs. Sympatric populations of the species from morphology and DNA sequence data from 26S, 5S- Yosemite National Park were compared. Calyces of M. lewisii initi- NTS, rbcL, and trnL-F loci ate later than those of M. cardinalis relative to the inner whorls, and sepals are taller and more acute. Relative times of initiation of phylogenetic study was conducted on a group of three small petals, sepals and pistil are similar in both species. Petal shapes dif- genera of neotropical Commelinaceae that exhibit a variety fer between species throughout development. Corolla aperture of unusual floral morphologies and habits. Morphological A shape becomes dorso-ventrally narrow during development of M. characters and DNA sequence data from plastid (rbcL, trnL-F) and lewisii, and laterally narrow in M.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Basis of Development in Petaloid Monocot Flowers
    Molecular basis of development in petaloid monocot flowers Johansen, Bo; Frederiksen, Signe; Skipper, Martin Published in: Aliso Publication date: 2006 Document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Citation for published version (APA): Johansen, B., Frederiksen, S., & Skipper, M. (2006). Molecular basis of development in petaloid monocot flowers. Aliso, (22), 151-158. Download date: 26. Sep. 2021 Aliso 22, pp. 151–158 ᭧ 2006, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden MOLECULAR BASIS OF DEVELOPMENT IN PETALOID MONOCOT FLOWERS BO JOHANSEN,1 SIGNE FREDERIKSEN, AND MARTIN SKIPPER Biological Institute, University of Copenhagen, Gothersgade 140, DK-1123 Copenhagen K, Denmark 1Corresponding author ([email protected]) ABSTRACT The molecular background of flower development has been intensively studied within core eudicots, and several studies have confirmed the extended ABC model as the molecular background of flower development in this plant group. The core eudicots are characterized as having one copy of each of the B-class genes and at least two copies of A-class genes: one is expressed in floral meristems, the other in inflorescence meristems. In monocots and non-core eudicots the validity of the ABC model is under discussion. Generally, more than one functional copy is found of at least one of the B-class genes. The A-class genes apparently are expressed in meristems of both flower and inflorescence. Morphologically petaloid stamens and styles are well known within the petaloid monocots, whereas the phenomenon is rare in core eudicots. A simple model based on the extra copies of B-class genes can explain the molecular background of petaloid stamens in the monocots; the only requirement is that two copies of the same gene have different expression patterns and are responsible for develop- ment of petals and stamens, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Using ITS Sequences Suggests Lability in Reproductive Characters
    MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33 (2004) 127–139 www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Phylogeny of Coreopsideae (Asteraceae) using ITS sequences suggests lability in reproductive characters Rebecca T. Kimballa,*, Daniel J. Crawfordb a Department of Zoology, University of Florida, P.O. Box 118525, Gainesville, FL 32611-8525, USA b Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, The Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-2106, USA Received 3 November 2003; revised 14 April 2004 Available online 7 July 2004 Abstract Relationships among the 21 genera within the tribe Coreopsideae (Asteraceae) remain poorly resolved despite phylogenetic stud- ies using morphological and anatomical traits. Recent molecular phylogenies have also indicated that some Coreopsideae genera are not monophyletic. We used internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences from representatives of 19 genera, as well as all major lin- eages in those genera that are not monophyletic, to examine phylogenetic relationships within this group. To examine the affects of alignment and method of analysis on our conclusions, we obtained alignments using five different parameters and analyzed all five alignments with distance, parsimony, and Bayesian methods. The method of analysis had a larger impact on relationships than did alignments, although different analytical methods gave very similar results. Although not all relationships could be resolved, a num- ber of well-supported lineages were found, some in conflict with earlier hypotheses. We did not find monophyly in Bidens, Coreopsis, and Coreocarpus, though other genera were monophyletic for the taxa we included. Morphological and anatomical traits which have been used previously to resolve phylogenetic relationships in this group were mapped onto the well-supported nodes of the ITS phy- logeny.
    [Show full text]
  • Eudicots Monocots Stems Embryos Roots Leaf Venation Pollen Flowers
    Monocots Eudicots Embryos One cotyledon Two cotyledons Leaf venation Veins Veins usually parallel usually netlike Stems Vascular tissue Vascular tissue scattered usually arranged in ring Roots Root system usually Taproot (main root) fibrous (no main root) usually present Pollen Pollen grain with Pollen grain with one opening three openings Flowers Floral organs usually Floral organs usually in in multiples of three multiples of four or five © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. 1 Reproductive shoot (flower) Apical bud Node Internode Apical bud Shoot Vegetative shoot system Blade Leaf Petiole Axillary bud Stem Taproot Lateral Root (branch) system roots © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. 2 © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. 3 Storage roots Pneumatophores “Strangling” aerial roots © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. 4 Stolon Rhizome Root Rhizomes Stolons Tubers © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. 5 Spines Tendrils Storage leaves Stem Reproductive leaves Storage leaves © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. 6 Dermal tissue Ground tissue Vascular tissue © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. 7 Parenchyma cells with chloroplasts (in Elodea leaf) 60 µm (LM) © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. 8 Collenchyma cells (in Helianthus stem) (LM) 5 µm © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. 9 5 µm Sclereid cells (in pear) (LM) 25 µm Cell wall Fiber cells (cross section from ash tree) (LM) © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. 10 Vessel Tracheids 100 µm Pits Tracheids and vessels (colorized SEM) Perforation plate Vessel element Vessel elements, with perforated end walls Tracheids © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. 11 Sieve-tube elements: 3 µm longitudinal view (LM) Sieve plate Sieve-tube element (left) and companion cell: Companion cross section (TEM) cells Sieve-tube elements Plasmodesma Sieve plate 30 µm Nucleus of companion cell 15 µm Sieve-tube elements: longitudinal view Sieve plate with pores (LM) © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • VASCULAR PLANTS of MINNESOTA a Checklist and Atlas
    VASCULAR PLANTS of MINNESOTA This page intentionally left blank VASCULAR PLANTS of MINNESOTA A Checklist and Atlas Gerald B. Ownbey and Thomas Morley UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MINNEAPOLIS • LONDON The University of Minnesota Press gratefully acknowledges the generous assistance provided for the publication of this book by the Margaret W. Harmon Fund Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Minnesota State Horticultural Society Olga Lakela Herbarium Fund—University of Minnesota—Duluth Natural Heritage Program of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Copyright © 1991 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. First paperback printing 1992 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Published by the University of Minnesota Press 2037 University Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis, MN 55455 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ownbey, Gerald B., 1916- Vascular plants of Minnesota : a checklist and atlas / Gerald B. Ownbey and Thomas Morley. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8166-1915-8 1. Botany-Minnesota. 2. Phytogeography—Minnesota— Maps. I. Morley, Thomas. 1917- . II. Title. QK168.096 1991 91-2064 582.09776-dc20 CIP The University of Minnesota is an equal-opportunity educator and employer. Contents Introduction vii Part I. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Minnesota 1 Pteridophytes 3 Gymnosperms 6 Angiosperms 7 Appendix 1. Excluded names 81 Appendix 2. Tables 82 Part II. Atlas of the Vascular Plants of Minnesota 83 Index of Generic and Common Names 295 This page intentionally left blank Introduction The importance of understanding the vegetation of al distributional comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Identification of the 50 Most Common Plant Families in Temperate Regions
    Field identification of the 50 most common plant families in temperate regions (including agricultural, horticultural, and wild species) by Lena Struwe [email protected] © 2016, All rights reserved. Note: Listed characteristics are the most common characteristics; there might be exceptions in rare or tropical species. This compendium is available for free download without cost for non- commercial uses at http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~struwe/. The author welcomes updates and corrections. 1 Overall phylogeny – living land plants Bryophytes Mosses, liverworts, hornworts Lycophytes Clubmosses, etc. Ferns and Fern Allies Ferns, horsetails, moonworts, etc. Gymnosperms Conifers, pines, cycads and cedars, etc. Magnoliids Monocots Fabids Ranunculales Rosids Malvids Caryophyllales Ericales Lamiids The treatment for flowering plants follows the APG IV (2016) Campanulids classification. Not all branches are shown. © Lena Struwe 2016, All rights reserved. 2 Included families (alphabetical list): Amaranthaceae Geraniaceae Amaryllidaceae Iridaceae Anacardiaceae Juglandaceae Apiaceae Juncaceae Apocynaceae Lamiaceae Araceae Lauraceae Araliaceae Liliaceae Asphodelaceae Magnoliaceae Asteraceae Malvaceae Betulaceae Moraceae Boraginaceae Myrtaceae Brassicaceae Oleaceae Bromeliaceae Orchidaceae Cactaceae Orobanchaceae Campanulaceae Pinaceae Caprifoliaceae Plantaginaceae Caryophyllaceae Poaceae Convolvulaceae Polygonaceae Cucurbitaceae Ranunculaceae Cupressaceae Rosaceae Cyperaceae Rubiaceae Equisetaceae Rutaceae Ericaceae Salicaceae Euphorbiaceae Scrophulariaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist Flora of the Former Carden Township, City of Kawartha Lakes, on 2016
    Hairy Beardtongue (Penstemon hirsutus) Checklist Flora of the Former Carden Township, City of Kawartha Lakes, ON 2016 Compiled by Dale Leadbeater and Anne Barbour © 2016 Leadbeater and Barbour All Rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or database, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, without written permission of the authors. Produced with financial assistance from The Couchiching Conservancy. The City of Kawartha Lakes Flora Project is sponsored by the Kawartha Field Naturalists based in Fenelon Falls, Ontario. In 2008, information about plants in CKL was scattered and scarce. At the urging of Michael Oldham, Biologist at the Natural Heritage Information Centre at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Dale Leadbeater and Anne Barbour formed a committee with goals to: • Generate a list of species found in CKL and their distribution, vouchered by specimens to be housed at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, making them available for future study by the scientific community; • Improve understanding of natural heritage systems in the CKL; • Provide insight into changes in the local plant communities as a result of pressures from introduced species, climate change and population growth; and, • Publish the findings of the project . Over eight years, more than 200 volunteers and landowners collected almost 2000 voucher specimens, with the permission of landowners. Over 10,000 observations and literature records have been databased. The project has documented 150 new species of which 60 are introduced, 90 are native and one species that had never been reported in Ontario to date.
    [Show full text]