|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Carex stricta | Tussock Sedge
ABBREVIATION :
CARSTR
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
CAST8
COMMON NAMES :
tussock sedge
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for tussock sedge is Carex
stricta Lam. (Cyperaceae) [13]. Some authorities recognize the variety
C. stricta var. strictior Dewey [13,28], but Standley [24] contends that
C. stricta presents no evidence of any discontinuities that would enable
recognition of intraspecific taxa.
Tussock sedge hybridizes with many other Carex species [4].
LIFE FORM :
Graminoid
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Milo Coladonato, March 1994
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Coladonato, Milo 1994. Carex stricta. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Carex stricta | Tussock Sedge
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Tussock sedge occurs from Newfoundland south to the Carolinas and
Tennessee and from Manitoba south to eastern Oklahoma and Texas
[12,14,19,20].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
FRES19 Aspen - birch
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES41 Wet grasslands
STATES :
AR CT DE IL IN IA KS KY ME MD
MA MI MN MO NE NH NJ NY NC ND
OH OK PA RI SC SD TN TX VT VA
WV WI WY MB NB NF NS ON PE PQ
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ACAD APIS CATO CUVA DEWA EFMO
INDU ISRO MACA MORR PIRO PIPE
RICH ROCR SLBE
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
10 Wyoming Basin
14 Great Plains
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K064 Grama - needlegrass - wheatgrass
K067 Wheatgrass - bluestem - needlegrass
K073 Northern cordgrass prairie
K074 Bluestem prairie
K079 Palmetto prairie
K081 Oak savanna
K082 Mosaic of K074 and K100
K084 Cross Timbers
K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
K098 Northern floodplain forest
K099 Maple - basswood forest
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K101 Elm - ash forest
K102 Beech - maple forest
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K107 Northern hardwoods - fir forest
K108 Northern hardwoods - spruce forest
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
K112 Southern mixed forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
1 Jack pine
14 Northern pin oak
15 Red pine
16 Aspen
17 Pin cherry
20 White pine - northern red oak - red maple
21 Eastern white pine
22 White pine - hemlock
23 Eastern hemlock
24 Hemlock - yellow birch
25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
26 Sugar maple - basswood
32 Red spruce
42 Bur oak
44 Chestnut oak
46 Eastern redcedar
51 White pine - chestnut oak
52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak
53 White oak
55 Northern red oak
62 Silver maple - American elm
64 Sassafras - persimmon
70 Longleaf pine
81 Loblolly pine
82 Loblolly pine - hardwood
110 Black oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Tussock sedge is a moist-site species [19]. It is often dominant in
meadows in New England and the upper Midwest [7,22]. Tussock sedge also
occurs in moist forest communities [23,31].
Common associates of tussock sedge include blueberries (Vaccinium spp.),
huckleberries (Gaylussacia spp.), common winterberry (Ilex verticillata)
bog rush (Juncus effusus), bog Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum),
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii
var. gerardii), bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), and other
sedges (Carex spp.) [3,7,15,17].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Carex stricta | Tussock Sedge
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
NO-ENTRY
PALATABILITY :
NO-ENTRY
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Tussock sedge established well in constructed wetland in Massachusetts.
It became dominant 1 to 2 years after construction [32].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
NO-ENTRY
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Shrub invasion is altering sedge meadows in Wisconsin that contain
tussock sedge. Invaded areas were consistently wetter than uninvaded
sedge meadows [29].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Carex stricta | Tussock Sedge
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Tussock sedge is a rhizomatous sedge reaching a height of about 3 feet
(1 m) [16]. The long narrow leaves are 0.25 inches (0.6 cm) wide and
about 2.5 feet (75 cm) long [19]. The wirelike rhizomes are usually
found in the top 6 inches (15 cm) of the soil and are variable in length
[5]. The fruit is an achene [14].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Hemicryptophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Tussock sedge regenerates primarily through rhizomes. Two types of
rhizomes are distinguished. Long rhizomes branch and produce distant
plants. Short rhizomes produce culms just offset from the parent [5].
Propagation: Propagation tests for tussock sedge in Wisconsin showed
variable results. Seeds collected and planted within 2 weeks in 1988
were compared with seeds collected in 1987 and held in cold storage for
1 year. Germination rates for seeds collected and planted in 1988
were 70 to 95 percent; 1-year-old seeds showed less than 15 percent
germination. These results indicated that seeds should be planted while
still fresh, preferably within a week or two following harvest [1].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Tussock sedge is found in bogs, wet meadows, floodplains, swales,
marshes, and wet woodlands. It is found in areas where the soil is at or
just above the water level [5,12].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Tussock segde is shade intolerant hydro-successional species in the
sedge meadow community [5,17,26]. The sedge community is preceded by an
emergent marsh community of reeds (Phragmites spp.) and/or cattails (Typha
spp.) where the water is above the soil. The sedge community is
followed by a shrub communty of willows (Salix spp.), dogwoods (Cornus
spp.), and/or alders (Alnus spp.) as drier conditions are produced [5].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Depending on site, tussock sedge flowers from late May to mid-June. The
fruit ripens in August [8,17].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Carex stricta | Tussock Sedge
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
The rhizomes of tussock sedge make it resistant to fires that burn
little of the soil organic layer. Fire is important to the maintenance
of the sedge meadow community where tussock sedge grows [5,6]. It is a
natural feature of this environment and prevents the encroachment of
shrubs and trees. The wet habitat usually protects the roots and
rhizomes from fire. During severe droughts or when the meadows have
been partially or completely drained, however, fire has serious effects.
Underlying peat beds may ignite and smolder for long periods of time
Such fires can destroy roots of most plants. By lowering the meadow
surface and reducing plant cover, such fires may also convert a sedge
meadow to an emergent marsh community [5,10].
Tussock sedge probably colonizes burned areas by seeds and rhizomes.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Carex stricta | Tussock Sedge
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Fires that occur when meadows are moist or wet probably top-kill tussock
sedge. The rhizomes are probably killed by severe fires that remove
most of the soil organic layer [5].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Tussock sedge is typically an increaser following fire. In a study on
the effects of burning on sedge meadows in Wisconsin, tussock sedge was
found to occur at higher numbers on burned areas than on unburned areas
[29]. A spring fire was set in 1973 in Ontario to study the short-term
response of the shrub and herb layers. Tussock sedge had already
emerged at the time of the fire. Percent cover of tussock sedge was
similar in control and burned plots that summer. Later-emerging
associated species, however, showed more vigorous postfire growth; the
initially lower cover of tussock sedge may have been due to fire damage
to early spring growth. At postfire month 15, tussock sedge cover was
significantly (p=0.05) greater on burned plots than on unburned plots
[23].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE CASE STUDIES
SPECIES: Carex stricta | Tussock Sedge
CASE NAME :
Prescribed burning studies in trembling aspen woodlands in southern Ontario
REFERENCE :
James, T. D. W.; Smith, D. W. 1977 [33]
Smith, D. W.; James, T. D. W. 1977 [23]
Smith, D. W.; James, T. D. W. 1977 [31]
SEASON/SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION :
Spring/Low
STUDY LOCATION :
The study was conducted at the Mullin Tract in West Luther Township,
Wellington County, Ontario.
PREFIRE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY :
The prefire vegetation was dominated by an open stand of trembling aspen
(Populus tremuloides) (164 stems/ha, average d.b.h. 14 cm) with
red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) in the shrub layer. The herb layer
was codominated by tussock sedge (Carex stricta) and bluejoint reedgrass
(Calamagrostis canadensis).
TARGET SPECIES PHENOLOGICAL STATE :
No specific information was given on the phenological state of tussock
sedge but it was probably in a preflowering condition during these
spring fires.
SITE DESCRIPTION :
The site is at an elevation of 1,221 feet (470 m). Mean total
precipitation is 35.4 inches per year (885 mm/yr), the average length of
the growing season is 116 days, and the July mean daily temperture is 70
degrees Fahrenheit (21 deg C). The study was located on poorly drained,
organic muck soils approximately 1 foot (3 m) in depth. The area had
generally low relief but consisted of a mosiac of hummocks and hollows,
the latter filled with standing water in the early spring.
FIRE DESCRIPTION :
Burn Wind Relative Ambient Dead fuel Reaction
plot Date speed humidity temp combusted intensity
(m/min) (%) (deg C) (g/sq m) (kw/sq m/min)
1 5/8/72 91.7 56 14 674.7 509
2 5/8/72 87.4 58 15 750.4 375
3 4/24/73 43.5 72 13 756.2 569
4 4/24/73 68.7 43 15 651.1 489
Standard deviations are reported for wind speed, fuel combustion, and
reaction intensity data [2].
Fuel moisture content was "generally high" on the treatment plots in
both 1972 and 1973 and evidently tended to reduce fire intensity. The
pattern of burning in both years was heterogeneous. This was related to
the uneven microtopography and patchy distribution of fuel prior to the
fires. Areas dominated by tussock sedge had large amounts of surface
litter and standing dead material and consequently were the most
thoroughly burned.
FIRE EFFECTS ON TARGET SPECIES :
Short-term postfire response of tussock sedge after light prescribed
surface fire in trembling aspen woodlands were as follows:
Percent abundance Percent frequency
Burned 4/73 43.5 87.5
Burned 5/72 70.0 96.0
Control 54.0 83.5
Abundance of burned and control populations was not significantly
different (p=0.05) at postfire year 1. Growth of the burned population
may have been affected by scorch or by increased competition from
bluejoint reedgrass. Tussock sedge was substantially more abundant in
the plots measured 15 months following fire.
FIRE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Carex stricta | Tussock Sedge
REFERENCES :
1. Apfeelbaum, S. I.; Leach, M.; Baller, R. 1989. Report propagation
results for Carex spp., other wetland species (Wisconsin). Restoration
and Management Notes. 7(1): 38-39. [8064]
2. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
3. Bray, William L. 1920. The history of forest development on an undrained
sand plain in the Adirondacks. Syracuse, NY: New York State College of
Forestry. 47 p. [21340]
4. Cayouette, J.; Catling, P. M. 1992. Hybridization in the genus Carex
with special reference to North America. Botanical Review. 58(4):
351-440. [20465]
5. Curtis, John T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: The
University of Wisconsin Press. 657 p. [7116]
6. Davis, Anthony M. 1979. Wetland succession, fire and the pollen record:
a Midwestern example. American Midland Naturalist. 102(1): 86-94.
[7311]
7. Dunlop, D. A. 1987. Community classification of the vascular vegetation
of a New Hampshire peatland. Rhodora. 89(860): 415-440. [20275]
8. Eckardt, Nancy A.; Biesboer, David D. 1988. Ecological aspects of
nitrogen fixation (acetylene reduction) associated with plants of a
Minnesota wetland community. Canadian Journal of Botany. 66: 1359-1363.
[14893]
9. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
10. Frolik, A. L. 1941. Vegetation on the peat lands of Dane County,
Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs. 11(1): 117-140. [16805]
11. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
12. Godfrey, Robert K.; Wooten, Jean W. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of
southeastern United States: Dicotyledons. Athens, GA: The University of
Georgia Press. 933 p. [16907]
13. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of
northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New
York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]
14. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
15. Hotchkiss, Neil; Stewart, Robert E. 1947. Vegetation of the Patuxent
Research Refuge, Maryland. American Midland Naturalist. 38(1): 1-75.
[22000]
16. Knobel, Edward; Faust, Mildred E. 1980. Field guide to the grasses,
sedges and rushes of the United States. 2d rev. ed. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc. 83 p. [14744]
17. Kudish, Michael. 1992. Adirondack upland flora: an ecological
perspective. Saranac, NY: The Chauncy Press. 320 p. [19377]
18. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
19. Magee, Dennis W. 1981. Freshwater wetlands: A guide to common indicator
plants of the Northeast. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
245 p. [14824]
20. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of
the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of
North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
21. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
22. Reuter, D. Dayton. 1986. Effects of prescribed burning, cutting and
torching on shrubs in a sedge meadow wetland. In: Koonce, Andrea L., ed.
Prescribed burning in the Midwest: state-of-the-art: Proceedings of a
symposium; 1986 March 3-6; Stevens Point, WI. Stevens Point, WI:
University of Wisconsin, College of Natural Resources, Fire Science
Center: 108-115. [16278]
23. Smith, D. W.; James, T. D. W. 1978. Changes in the shrub and herb layers
of vegetation after prescribed burning in Populus tremuloides woodland
in southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Botany. 56: 1792-1797. [16400]
24. Standley, Lisa A. 1989. Taxonomic revision of the Carex stricta
(Cyperaceae) complex in eastern North America. Canadian Journal of
Botany. 67: 1-14. [22093]
25. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern
Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
26. Tiner, Ralph W. 1991. The concept of a hydrophyte for wetland
identification. Bioscience. 41(4): 236-247. [16878]
27. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.
SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
28. Voss, Edward G. 1972. Michigan flora. Part I. Gymnosperms and monocots.
Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Herbarium. 488 p. [11471]
29. Warners, David P. 1987. Effects of burning on sedge meadow studied
(Wisconsin). Restoration & Management Notes. 5(2): 90-91. [3821]
30. Marshall, William H.; Buell, Murray F. 1955. A study of the occurrence
of amphibians in relation to a bog succession, Itasca State Park,
Minnesota. Ecology. 36(3): 381-387. [16690]
31. Smith, D. W.; James, T. D. 1978. Characteristics of prescribed burns &
resultant short-term environmental changes in Populus tremuloides
woodland in southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Botany. 56: 1782-1791.
[15114]
32. Jarman, Nancy M.; Dobberteen, Ross A.; Windmiller, Bryan; Lelito, Paul.
1991. Evaluation of created freshwater wetlands in Massachusetts.
Restoration & Management Notes. 9(1): 26-29. [15414]
33. James, T. D. W.; Smith, D. W. 1977. Short-term effects of surface fire
on the biomass and nutrient standing crop of Populus tremuloides in
southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 7: 666-679.
[6933]
Index
Related categories for Species: Carex stricta
| Tussock Sedge
|
 |
