An Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

An Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants — — G-RSH THE FLORA OF GREAT SMOKYMOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK: AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OFTHE VASCULAR PLANTS AND A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS FLORISTIC WORK RESEARCH/RESOURCES MANAGEMENT REPORT SER-55 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SOUTHEAST REGION UPLANDS FIELD RESEARCH LABORATORY GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK TWIN CREEKS AREA GATLINBURC, TENNESSEE 37738 The Research/Resources Management Series of the Natural Science and Research Division, National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office, was established as a medium for distributing scientific information to park Superintendents, resource management specialists, and other National Park Service personnel in the parks of the Southeast Region. The papers in the Series also contain information potentially useful to other Park Service areas outside the Southeast Region and may benefit independent researchers working within units of the National Park System. The Series provides for the retention of research information in the biological, physical, and social sciences and makes possible more complete in-house evaluation of non-refereed research, technical, and consultant reports. The Research/Resources Management Series is not intended as a substitute for refereed scientific or technical journals. However, when the occasion warrants, a copyrighted journal paper authored by a National Park Service scientist may be reprinted as a Series report in order to meet park informational and disseminative needs. In such cases permission to reprint the copyrighted article is sought. The Series includes: 1. Research reports which directly address resource management problems in the parks. 2. Papers which are primarily literature reviews and/or bibliographies of existing information relative to park resource management problems. 3. Presentations of basic resource inventory data. 4. Reports of contracted scientific research studies funded or supported by the National Park Service. 5. Other reports and papers considered compatible to the Series, including approved reprints of copyrighted journal papers and results of applicable university or independent research. The Series is flexible in format and the degree of editing depends on content. Southeast Regional Research/Resources Management Reports are produced by the Natural Science and Research Division, Southeast Regional Office, in limited quantities. As long as the supply lasts, copies may be obtained from: Natural Science and Research Division National Park Service Southeast Regional Office 75 Spring Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 NOTE: Use of trade names does not imply U.S. Government endorsement of commercial products. THE FLORA OF GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK: AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS AND A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS FLORISTIC WORK Research/Resources Management Report SER-55 Peter S. White Uplands Field Research Laboratory Great Smoky Mountains National Park Twin Creeks Area Gatlihburg, Tennessee 37738 February, 1982 Department of the Interior National Park Service Southeast Regional Office 75 Spring Street, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 White, Peter S. 1982. The Flora of Great Smoky Mountains National Park: An Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants and a Review of Previous Floristic Work. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Research/Resources Management Report SER-55. 219 pp. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Documenting the flora of a large and diverse area like Great Smoky Mountains National Park is never the work of a single individual. This report is based on my three years of field work and herbarium research, but it also builds on over 50 years of botanical collecting by previous investigators. Among the pioneer collectors were Albert Ruth, H. M. Jennison, A. J. Sharp (still active), and Arthur Stupka; present-day botanists who have contributed to the collections described in this checklist include Tom Patrick, Jerry Jenkins, Charles Bryson, Leo Collins, Matt Hickler, George Ramseur, Ken Rogers, Rudi Becking, and J. Dan Pittillo. I would like to thank naturalists Don DeFoe, Bill Hooks, and Glenn Cardwell for valuable plant records. Rob Sutter and Paul Somers aided my search for rare plant records. I thank Jerry Jenkins for helpful discussions on Aster , Solidago , and Viola and Tom Patrick for review data on Trillium . I would like to also thank Gene Wofford, curator, for frequent use of the University of Tennessee Herbarium (where a duplicate set of park collections is kept) . I thank also the curators of the herbaria at the following universities which I visited during the course of this work: Western Carolina University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Duke University, North Carolina State University, Gray Herbarium (Harvard University), and the herbarium of the Smithsonian Institution. Some of the records herein were brought to my attention by the computerized data bases of the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Tennessee and North Carolina Heritage Programs. I would also like to thank the Great Smoky Mountains Natural History Association, which supported my travel to several herbaria and which also supported a project to computerize the park's herbarium label data. Claryse Myers and Kitty Manse ill helped my research in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park library and archives. My wife, Carolyn, is also to be thanked for the generous grants of evening, weekend, and vacation time, without which I would not have been able to complete this work. Finally, I would like to thank Nicki Macfarland for typing the manuscript, Lee Anne Renfro for assisting in proofreading, and Jim Wood for editing the manuscript. 11 ABSTRACT One hundred-seventy additions (163 species and seven additional taxa of infraspecif ic rank) to the vascular flora of Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee are presented in an annotated checklist. These additions increase the park's known vascular flora by 13 percent to 1,492 taxa (1,438 species plus an additional 54 infraspecif ic taxa). There are 135 families and 574 genera. The largest families are Asteraceae (162 species), Poaceae (132 species), Cyperaceae (94 species), Rosaceae (79 species), and Fabaceae (72 species). Eleven percent of the flora is contained in the five largest genera: Carex (69 species), Panicum (27 species), Viola (26 species), Aster (20 species), and Solidago (19 species). Two hundred-ninety-eight species of woody plants are included (21 percent of the flora). The checklist includes 288 exotics (20 percent); the woody flora is 23 percent exotic. The 163 species new to the flora include exotics (42 percent of the additions) and graminoids (18 percent) Eighteen native woody plants (11 percent) are also included (e.g., Amelanchier sanguinea , Betula cordif olia , Celastrus scandens , Decumaria barbara , Ilex verticillata , Magnolia macrophylla , Smilax bona-nox , and Spiraea virginiana ) . Among the other native additions to the flora are: Asplenium ru ta-mur ar ia , Carex pedunculata , Carex platyphylla , Dodacatheon meadia , Draba ramosissima , Euphorbia purpurea , Juncus trif idus var. monanthos , Millium ef f usum , Potamogeton amplif olius , Swertia caroliniensis , Thelypteris simulata , and Xyris torta ). Four families (Cannabaceae, Lemnaceae, Potamogetonaceae, and Xyridaceae) and 41 genera new to the park are included. Supplementary lists also are presented for excluded species, status of 35 plants listed by Hoffman based on locales outside the park, additional plants in the Chilhowee flora and the five counties around the park, woody plants, status of exotic plants, and exotic plants of developed areas. 1X1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i ABSTRACT ii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES iv INTRODUCTION 1 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS CHECKLISTS AND PLANT RECORDS 2 The Pepoon Checklist (1931) 2 Jennison Checklists (1937-1939) 4 A. J. Sharp Checklists (1942-1975) 9 Royal Shanks Checklists (1947-1961) ' 10 Arthur Stupka Records (1935-1961) 11 Frank H. Miller Records (1937-Present) 12 The H. L. Hoffman Checklist (196U, 1966b) 13 Miscellaneous Checklists and Records 14 Other Sources of Information 15 17 METHODS: CRITERIA FOR SPECIES INCLUSION . Herbarium Research 17 Geographic Scope 18 "Unmappable" Locales 19 Exotic Species: Criteria for Inclusion and Examples 22 Excluded Species " 26 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..... 26 The GRSM Flora: Summary Statistics 26 Additions to the Checklist 27 Plant Distribution in GRSM 32 Regional Diversity 37 Threats to the flora 39 Future Work. 42 CHECKLIST FORMAT , 43 THE ANNOTATED CHECKLIST 47 Pteridophyta 47 Spermatophyta 53 Gymnospermae 53 Angiospermae 54 Monocotyledoneae 54 Dicotyledoneae 82 LITERATURE CITED 168 APPENDICES I77 iv LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table Page 1. Early contributors to the GRSM Herbarium 5 2. Species listed by Jennison ( 1939b) but not presently known from the flora of GRSM 8 3. The largest families and genera in GRSM 28 h. Families with the largest numbers of exotic species in GRSM 28 5. Selected, phytogeographically important additions to the GRSM flora since the work of Hoffman (196U, 1966b) 31 6. Northern species in the GRSM flora 33 7. Representative species of special habitats and distributions in western GRSM 35 8. Representative species more common in or restricted to eastern GRSM, southern GRSM, and higher elevations in the Clingmans Dome-Mount LeConte-Charlies Bunion area 36 9. Southern Appalachian endemics in the GRSM flora .... 38 10. Threats to the GRSM flora 40 Figure 1 Location and general geography of GRSM 20 . INTRODUCTION The first published
Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • New Design Water Treatment Plant /'7I.E.C
    Final Report Potomac River Source Water ~s.ejgitllm~tsjjK.,..~IW1I~ for Marylan . Prepared by: Becker and O'Melia, LLC in association with Straughan Environmental Services, Inc. Becker and O'Melia, LLC WATER PROCESS RESEARCHERS AND CONSULTANTS POTOMAC SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENTS Introduction The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments required states to develop and implement source water assessment prograIlli to evaluate the safety of all public drinking water systems. A Source Water Assessment (SWA) is a process for evaluating the vulnerability to contamination ofthe source of a public drinking water supply. The assessment does not address the treatment processes, or the storage and distribution aspects of the water system, which are covered under separate provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is the lead state agency in this source water assessment effort. There are three main steps in the assessment process: (1) delineating the watershed drainage area that is likely to contribute to the drinking water supply, (2) identijYing potential contaminants within that area and (3) assessing the vulnerability, or susceptibility, of the system to those contaminants. Public notification is the final component of the source water assessment report process. The goal of the source water assessment program is to provide a framework for local stakeholders and governments in developing a Source Water Protection Plan. The source water assessments for Maryland water systems utilizing the Potomac River was undertaken as a joint effort by MDE, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Conunission (WSSC), and several consultants, including The Center for Watershep Ptotection, and Becker & O'Melia, the lead consultant.
    [Show full text]
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Hiking Schedule.Pages
    Tellico Village Hiking Club 2018 Schedule This document was produced in December 2017 and may change. For the latest information check Channel 3, Tell-E-Gram emails, or the TellicoLife Event Calendar. If you do not have access to TellicoLife and want to be added to our email distribution, contact John Winn at [email protected]. 1) Jan. 12, 2018 (Fri.) Old Sugarlands/Twin Creeks 8 - 10 miles, rated moderate 1-½ hour travel time Bob Kutschera (865) 356-1086 [email protected] 2) Jan. 24, 2018 (Wed.) Frozen Head Mountain 8 miles, rated moderate 1-¼ hour travel time John Winn (865) 824-6200 [email protected] 3) Feb. 9, 2018 (Fri.) Courthouse Rock 5 miles. rated moderate 1-½ hour travel time Bev Hawkins (865) 406-0297 [email protected] 4) Feb. 21, 2018 (Wed.) Black Mountain 8 miles, rated moderate 1-¼ hour travel time George Zola (614) 937-0767 [email protected] 5) Mar. 9, 2018 (Fri.) Little River/Cucumber Gap Loop 6 miles, rated easy 1-½ hour travel time Becky Speas (615) 347-5311 [email protected] 6) Mar. 21, 2018 (Wed.) Twin Arches and Slave Falls - Big South Fork 9.5 miles, rated difficult 2-½ hour travel time but well worth it George Zola (614) 937-0767 [email protected] 7) Apr. 6, 2018 (Fri.) Lumber Ridge Trail and Spruce Flat Falls 9 miles, rated moderate 1-¼ hour travel time Janette Pacitti (865) 399-2181 [email protected] 8) Apr. 25, 2018 (Wed.) Shuckstack Fire Tower from 20 Mile Ranger Station 10.6 miles, rated difficult 1-½ hour travel time Thom Lewis (248) 762-7053 [email protected] 9) May 11, 2018 (Fri.) Honey
    [Show full text]
  • Program Overview
    WWeett WWaaddeerrss aanndd BBeeyyoonndd TThhee CCoonnddiittiioonn ooff OOuurr SSttaattee’’ss WWaatteerrss AA CCiittiizzeenn’’ss PPeerrssppeeccttiivvee 1 WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water and Waste Management, Nonpoint Section 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 The document was prepared by Tim Craddock, WV DEP’s Citizens’ Monitoring Coordinator and is available electronically in Portable Document Format (PDF). To request your copy send e-mail to Tim Craddock at: [email protected]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Color photographs provided by: Alana Hartman, DEP’s Potomac Basin Coordinator; Abby Chappel, WV River Network; Sherry Evasic, Blue Heron Environmental Network; Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute; Suzanne Hubbard, The Mountain Institute; Renee Cain, Lower West Fork Watershed Association; Martin Christ, Friends of Deckers Creek; Bobby Bonnett, Heizer-Manila Watershed Organization; Diana Green, Davis Creek Watershed Association; James Grey, Morris Creek Watershed Association; Larry Orr, Kanawha Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited; Valerie Wilson, Science Teacher, Oak Hill Catholic Center; Brad Durst, WV Conservation Agency and Curtis Canada, Upper Guyandotte Watershed Association. WV Save Our Streams would like to recognize all the volunteer monitors, not only those directly associated with the program, but any others who have given their time and energy in an effort to protect our state’s streams and rivers. WV Save Our Streams would also like to recognize all of the agency and other partners who have provided assistance of any kind, to help guide volunteers through the myriad of processes involved with water quality issues. “Perception is not acquired by formal education, nor is it reserved for persons learned in the arts or sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Delaware Invasive Plants Booklet
    Planting for a livable Delaware Widespread and Invasive Growth Habit 1. Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora S 2. Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculata V 3. Japanese stilt grass Microstegium vimineum H 4. Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum H 5. Russian olive Elaeagnus umbellata S 6. Norway maple Acer platanoides T 7. Common reed Phragmites australis H 8. Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata A 9. Mile-a-minute Polygonum perfoliatum V 10. Clematis Clematis terniflora S 11. Privet Several species S 12. European sweetflag Acorus calamus H 13. Wineberry Rubus phoenicolasius S 14. Bamboo Several species H Restricted and Invasive 15. Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii S 16. Periwinkle Vinca minor V 17. Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata H 18. Winged euonymus Euonymus alata S 19. Porcelainberry Ampelopsis brevipedunculata V 20. Bradford pear Pyrus calleryana T 21. Marsh dewflower Murdannia keisak H 22. Lesser celandine Ranunculus ficaria H 23. Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria H 24. Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea H 25. Honeysuckle Lonicera species S 26. Tree of heaven Alianthus altissima T 27. Spotted knapweed Centaruea biebersteinii H Restricted and Potentially-Invasive 28. Butterfly bush Buddleia davidii S Growth Habit: S=shrub, V=vine, H=herbaceous, T=tree, A=aquatic THE LIST • Plants on The List are non-native to Delaware, have the potential for widespread dispersal and establishment, can out-compete other species in the same area, and have the potential for rapid growth, high seed or propagule production, and establishment in natural areas. • Plants on Delaware’s Invasive Plant List were chosen by a committee of experts in environmental science and botany, as well as representatives of State agencies and the Nursery and Landscape Industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Involved in the Maintenance of the Grassy Balds of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 3-1968 Factors Involved in the Maintenance of the Grassy Balds of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park Stephen Walker Radford University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Radford, Stephen Walker, "Factors Involved in the Maintenance of the Grassy Balds of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1968. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1446 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Stephen Walker Radford entitled "Factors Involved in the Maintenance of the Grassy Balds of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Botany. Edward E. C. Clebsch, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Ronald H. Peterson, Edward R. Buckner Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) February 28, 1968 To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Stephen Walker Radford entitled "Factors Involved in the Maintenance of the Grassy Balds of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park." I recommend that it be accepted for nine quarter hours of credit in partial fulfillment o�the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Botany.
    [Show full text]
  • Cereal Rust Bulletin Mailing List Next Season, Please Return the Enclosed Card by September 1, 1984
    CEREAL RUST Report No: 1 BULLETIN April 17, 1984 From: Issued By: CEREAL RUST LABORATORY AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE U, S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, ST. PAUL 55108 (In cooperation with the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station) The cold winter and cool spring weather has slowed development of small grains to 1-2 weeks behind normal across the southern United States. In most of this region, moisture has been adequate but in south Texas the crop is under moisture stress. In the central and northern U.S. wheat growing areas, the winter was cold with spotty snow cover. In southern Nebraska and ~orthern Kansas, winter k i 11 i ng was more severe than normal due to the lack of snow cover. In the central plains, spring seeding of oats and barley is in full swing. In the northern plains, the initial planting of spring grains started but was delayed by rains. Warm drying weather should soon result in the resumption of planting. Wheat stem rust--In 1984, the first wheat stem rust was observed in McNair 701 disease detection plots at Victoria and Uvalde, Texas, experiment stations on April 7. At the Victoria site, the rust overwintered and with the increase in spring temperatures the rust increased to the point where it killed the plants. In the Uvalde plots, the rust infection was approximately three weeks old. Scattered pustules developed from spores that were deposited with rainfall. These spores probably originated some distance from the plot. These are the only reports of wheat stem rust in the United States at the present time.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Edition Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist and John Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org Table of Contents LIST FORMAT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 NORTH CAROLINA RARE PLANT LIST ......................................................................................................................... 10 NORTH CAROLINA PLANT WATCH LIST ..................................................................................................................... 71 Watch Category
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas
    ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D.
    [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]
  • 4Th Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference
    Stephen F. Austin State University SFA ScholarWorks Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference SFA Gardens 2008 4th Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference David Creech Dept of Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State University, [email protected] Greg Grant Stephen F. Austin State University James Kroll Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State University, [email protected] Dawn Stover Stephen F. Austin State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/sfa_gardens_lonestar Part of the Agricultural Education Commons, Botany Commons, Forest Sciences Commons, Horticulture Commons, Other Plant Sciences Commons, and the Viticulture and Oenology Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Repository Citation Creech, David; Grant, Greg; Kroll, James; and Stover, Dawn, "4th Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference" (2008). Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference. 6. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/sfa_gardens_lonestar/6 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the SFA Gardens at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Lone Star Regional Native Plant Conference by an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. • In 00 5' --. , In Associqtion with the cullowhee Nqtive plqnt Confetence Ptoceec!ings ofthe 4th Lone Stat Regional Native Plant Confetence Hoste~ by Stephen F. Austin St~te University Pineywoods N~tive PI~nt Centel' N~cogdoches, Texqs M~y 28-31,2008 Proceed ings ofthe 4th
    [Show full text]