|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Myrica cerifera | Southern Bayberry
ABBREVIATION :
MYRCER
SYNONYMS :
Morella cerifera (L.) Small
Cerothamnus cerifera (L.) Small
Cerothamnus Pumilus (Michx.) Small
Myrica carolinensis Mill.
Myrica pusilla Raf.
Myrica mexicana Willd.
SCS PLANT CODE :
MYCE
COMMON NAMES :
southern bayberry
southern waxmyrtle
waxmyrtle
candleberry
bayberry
dwarf waxmyrtle
cerero
arrayan
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for southern bayberry is Myrica
cerifera L. (Myricaceae). There are no recognized forms or subspecies.
Recognized varieties include [8]:
var. cerifera
var. pumila Michx.
M. cerifera var. cerifera is a dwarf variety recognized as a separate
species, Cerothamnus pumilis (Michx.), by Small [16].
M. cerifera hybridizes with M. pennsylvania to produce M. X macfarlanei
Youngken [16].
LIFE FORM :
Tree, Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Timothy R. Van Deelen, July 1991
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Van Deelen, Timothy R. 1991. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Myrica cerifera | Southern Bayberry
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Southern bayberry is most common in peninsular Florida and on the
Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States. It occurs from the
Florida Keys north to southern New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware; west
to eastern Texas, southeast Oklahoma, and central Arkansas. Atypical
reported occurrences include Maine, Massachusetts, and New York.
Outside the United States, southern bayberry grows in Bermuda, Cuba, the
Bahamas, Puerto Rico, and the British West Indies. It grows in Mexico,
Central America, and South America from Costa Rica to Belize [16,20,26].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES16 Oak - gum - cypress
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES41 Wet grasslands
STATES :
AR FL GA HI LA ME MD MA MS NY
NC OK TX VA MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ACAD ASIS BICY BITH CAHA CALO
COLO COSW CUIS EVER FOCA GATE
GUIS HOSP JELA
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
NO-ENTRY
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K062 Mesquite - live oak savanna
K079 Palmetto prairie
K080 Marl - everglades
K089 Black belt
K090 Live oak - sea oats
K091 Cypress savanna
K092 Everglades
K105 Mangrove
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
K112 Southern mixed forest
K113 Southern floodplain forest
K114 Pocosin
K116 Subtropical pine forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
70 Longleaf pine
71 Longleaf pine - scrub oak
72 Southern scrub oak
73 Southern redcedar
74 Cabbage palmetto
80 Loblolly pine - shortleaf pine
81 Loblolly pine
82 Loblolly pine - hardwood
83 Longleaf pine - slash pine
84 Slash pine
100 Pondcypress
102 Baldcypress - tupelo
103 Water tupelo - swamp tupelo
104 Sweetbay - swamp tupelo - red bay
105 Tropical hardwoods
106 Mangrove
111 South Florida slash pine
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Southern bayberry is common in a variety of habitats and plant
communities in the southeastern United States. It grows equally well
with the subtropical vegetation of south Florida and the temperate
vegetation of the Inland Coastal Plain. Southern bayberry is the most
common shrub in the longleaf (Pinus palustris)-slash pine (P. elliotii)
type [3,20,23,36]. Other common overstory associates include loblolly
pine (P. taeda), southern redcedar (Juniperus silicicola) [11], cabbage
palmetto (Sabel palmetto) [48], pond pine (Pinus serotina) [4], live oak
(Quercus virginiana) [19], spruce pine (Pinus glabra) [22], and
baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) [11,33]. Common understory associates
include dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), sawgrass (Cladium jamacensis) [30],
muhly grass (Muhlenbergia spp.), beard grass (Andropogon spp.), saltbush
(Baccharis halmifolia), myrsine (Myrsine floridana), and sweet bay
(Magnolia virginiana) [49].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Myrica cerifera | Southern Bayberry
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
A consistent contributor to the available browse biomass in southeastern
forests, southern bayberry is occasionally eaten by cattle [7].
Southern bayberry frequently invades rangeland and decreases the
production of more palatable forage [45]. Many birds eat southern
bayberry fruit, including the northern bobwhite quail and the wild
turkey [15]. The seeds are important winter food for Carolina wrens and
tree sparrows [17].
PALATABILITY :
Southern bayberry is unpalatable to white-tailed deer in eastern Texas
[24,25]. Its palatability to cattle is unreported.
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE :
Diffuse southern bayberry growth provides some cover for northern
bobwhite quail, although unrestricted growth produces unusable habitat
[21].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Southern bayberry's usefullness for disturbed site rehabilitation is
unknown. Useful attributes include a moderate tolerance of salt-spray
[34] and an ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen at a rate that exeeds
that of legumes [9].
Wild southern bayberry seeds can be harvested by hand or shaken onto a
canvas. Seed processing requires removal of the waxy coat by mechanical
agitation or rubbing over a dry screen. Before sowing, the seeds
require stratification at 34 to 40 degrees F (1-4 deg C) for 90 days.
The seeds should be drilled into rows 8 to 12 inches (20-30 cm) apart
and covered with 0.25 inch (0.8 cm) of firmed soil. Fall plantings
should be mulched. Southern bayberry yields approximately 84,000
cleaned seeds per pound (184,000/kg) [20].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Southern bayberry is the source of wax used in making bayberry candles.
Boiling removes the wax from the fruit. The genus name comes from the
Greek "myrike", meaning tamarisk or some other fragrant plant. The
specific epithet, cerifera, means "wax-bearing" [20,41].
Southern bayberry was first cultivated in 1699 for medicinal purposes.
Its leaves, bark, and fruit yield pharmaceutical chemicals [20].
Southern bayberry is a popular ornamental because it grows quickly,
responds well to pruning, and is heavily clothed in attractive evergreen
foliage [20,41].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Southern bayberry is an understory pest on southern pine plantations.
It competes with pine seedlings and contribute to an accumulation of
understory fuels which increases the potential for damaging wildfires
[27,28]. Pearson and others [36] believe that the presence of southern
bayberry on grazed longleaf pine plantations may have eased grazing
pressure on the pine seedlings.
A 20 percent Garlon 4, 10 percent Cide-kick (a penetrant), 70 percent
diesel-oil herbicide mixture can be used for southern bayberry control.
Basal applications should be made in February, using the "streamline"
technique [32].
Tests of burning, chopping, and blading methods for southern bayberry
control found that southern bayberry can return to pretreatment levels
within 3 years [43].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Myrica cerifera | Southern Bayberry
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Southern bayberry is an erect, evergreen, small tree or shrub. It is
native to low-elevation tropical, subtropical, and warm-temperate
regions of the Americas. It grows to a maximum height of 40 feet (12
m), and a maximum d.b.h. of 12.5 inches (32 cm) at maturity [16,20].
Its flat leaves are toothed near the end and aromatic when crushed [3].
The diminutive flowers are unisexual, dioecious, and borne on catkinlike
axillary spikes. Southern bayberry fruit are small, light green, dry
drupes which are covered with a conspicuous layer of pale blue wax,
giving them a "warty" appearance. Each axillary spike bears 1 to 12
berries, which may persist over winter [10,20]. The seeds have no
endosperm [20].
Southern bayberry is clonal, with several stems growing from a common
root collar. Underground runners extend the growth laterally [16].
Root nodules, associated with a symbiotic actinomycete, are capable of
atmospheric nitrogen fixation [9].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Undisturbed State: Phanerophyte (microphanerophyte)
Phanerophyte (nanophanerophyte)
Burned or Clipped State: Cryptophyte (geophyte)
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Southern bayberry reproduces vegetatively by sprouting from its root
collar and underground runners [9]. Seedlings will establish on
disturbed sites [39], but the seeds require removal of their waxy
coating before they will germinate [20]. Birds, feeding on southern
bayberry fruit, probably accomplish wax removal and seed dispersal.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Southern bayberry grows on a variety of sites but seems to be restricted
to climates with mild winters and long, hot, humid summers, and
elevations below 500 feet (150 m). It grows in heavy soils [41] which
may be either wet or dry, in habitats that may be open or wooded [3].
Southern bayberry's ecological amplitude is demonstrated by reported
growth on fresh to slightly brackish banks and shores, flats and
interdune swales, pine and palmetto flatwoods and savannas, cypress-gum
ponds and swamps, wet and dry prairies, pitcher-plant bogs, upland mixed
woodlands, old fields, and fence and hedge rows [6,16,40].
Additionally, it grows on sites that are peculiar to the Florida
Everglades, particularly the drier portions [29] where it reaches its
highest density with low to medium flooding [41]. Such sites include
tree islands, cypress heads, and wet and dry hammocks [10,16,29,47].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Southern bayberry is an early successional species. It is one of the
first woody plants to invade secondary dunes and beach meadows in the
Southeast [9], and naturally reseeds disturbed sites from adjacent
forests [31]. In the Everglades, increased human-caused disturbance,
such as draining and burning, has caused southern bayberry to become
more common as it invades sawgrass, marl prairie, and mixed hardwood
swamp communities. Dense thickets form, known locally as "hell nests"
[18,29,47].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Southern bayberry flowers between February and June. Its fruit ripens
from August to October [2].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Myrica cerifera | Southern Bayberry
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Southern bayberry is a fire survivor. Its root collar suvives fire and
it regenerates by basal sprouting [44,45].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
survivor species; on-site surviving root crown or caudex
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Myrica cerifera | Southern Bayberry
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Fire easily top-kills southern bayberry shrubs [44]. Typically the
entire aerial portion of the stem dies [13], although extremely light
fires may only kill the most recent annual growth [21]. The root collar
survives and remains vigorous.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
Southern bayberry stems die quickly. The stems and foliage of southern
bayberry contain large amounts of aromatic compounds that are quite
flammable [6], making it a potential fire hazard. Presumably, severe
enough fires will kill southern bayberry rootstock, although no such
instances were reported in the literature. The rootstock is apparently
quite hardy.
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Southern bayberry sprouts vigorously from surviving root collars
following fire [2]. The most vigorous growth occurs in the 1st postfire
year [1]. Stem density and frequency increase rapidly relative to
cover. Cover increases less rapidly because the southern bayberry
clones are self-thinning [2,44].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
Fire periodicity probably determines the long-term fire response of
southern bayberry. In loblolly stands in South Carolina, single or
occasional summer fires caused southern bayberry cover to increase. By
contrast, annual summer fires reduced southern bayberry cover and
sprouting vigor, eventually eliminating it. Lotti [27] documented 100
percent mortality after as few as three successive annual summer fires.
Fire response may be site dependant as well. A single fire on an
eastern Texas slash pine stand caused a steady decline in southern
bayberry for 3 years [24]. On wet everglades sites (sawgrass, marl
prairie, mixed hardwood swamp), drainage coupled with frequent burning
favors southern bayberry invasion [18,40,47]. On drier savannas, fire
suppression favors southern bayberry invasion [5,6]. On eastern Texas
longleaf pine savannas, southern bayberry control required fires every 5
years [6].
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Lotti [28] recommended four successive annual fires or three successive
biannual summer fires to achieve a cummulative southern bayberry
mortality of about 90 percent.
Winter fires are less effective than summer fires for southern bayberry
control and may be used when management goals call for southern bayberry
enhancement [28,44]. Winter fires can be used for control if done
frequently. When southern bayberry invasion is undesireable, fires
should be annual for the first several years, then become less frequent
as southern bayberry cover decreases. Such a prescription may be
combined with grazing for control and maintenance at a level where
southern bayberry provides livestock forage [26,45].
On nitrogen-poor sites, managers should be cautious about southern
bayberry control. Annual fires greatly reduce southern bayberry
density, minimizing its nitrogen-fixing contribution [42].
Dry fuel weights can be predicted from basal stem diameters for southern
bayberry. Refer to Reeves and Lenhart [39] for fuel load calculations.
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Myrica cerifera | Southern Bayberry
REFERENCES :
1. Abrahamson, Warren G. 1984. Post-fire recovery of Florida Lake Wales
Ridge vegetation. American Journal of Botany. 71(1): 9-21. [9509]
2. Abrahamson, Warren G. 1984. Species response to fire on the Florida Lake
Wales Ridge. American Journal of Botany. 71(1): 35-43. [9608]
3. Boyer, W. D. 1990. Pinus palustris Mill. longleaf pine. In: Burns,
Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of
North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 405-412. [13398]
4. Bramlett, David L. 1990. Pinus serotina Michx. pond pine. In: Burns,
Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of
North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 470-475. [13407]
5. Bridges, Edwin L.; Orzell, Steve L. 1989. Longleaf pine communities of
the west Gulf Coastal Plain. Natural Areas Journal. 9(4): 246-263.
[10091]
6. Christensen, Norman L. 1981. Fire regimes in southeastern ecosystems.
In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others],
technical coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties:
Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen.
Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service: 112-136. [4391]
7. Clary, Warren P. 1979. Grazing and overstory effects on rotationally
burned slash pine plantation ranges. Journal of Range Management. 32(4):
264-266. [9657]
8. Clewell, Andre F. 1985. Guide to the vascular plants of the Florida
Panhandle. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Press. 605 p.
[13124]
9. Davison, Kathryn L.; Bratton, Susan P. 1988. Vegetation response and
regrowth after fire on Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia.
Castanea. 53(1): 47-65. [4483]
10. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern
United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p.
[12764]
11. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
12. 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]
13. Grelen, H. E.; Enghardt, H. G. 1973. Burning and thinning maintain
forage in a longleaf pine plantation. Journal of Forestry. 71:
419,420,425. [7634]
14. Grelen, Harold E. 1983. Comparison of seasons and frequencies of burning
in a young slash pine plantation. Res. Pap. SO-185. New Orleans, LA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station. 5 p. [10996]
15. Grimm, William Cary. 1967. Recongizing native shrubs. Camping Journal.
September: 49-61. [10897]
16. Godfrey, Robert K. 1988. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern
Florida and adjacent Georgia and Alabama. Athens, GA: The University of
Georgia Press. 734 p. [10239]
17. Hardin, Kimberly I.; Evans, Keith E. 1977. Cavity nesting bird habitat
in the oak-hickory forests--a review. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-30. St. Paul,
MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station. 23 p. [13859]
18. Hofstetter, Ronald H.; Parsons, Frances. 1979. The ecology of sawgrass
in the Everglades of southern Florida. In: Linn, Robert M., ed.
Proceedings, 1st conference on scientific research in the National
Parks; 1976 November 9-12; New Orleans, LA. Vol. 1. Transactions and
Proceedings Series No. 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service: 165-170. [11527]
19. Johnston, Marshall C. 1963. Past and present grasslands of southern
Texas and northeastern Mexico. Ecology. 44(3): 456-466. [3941]
20. Krochmal, Arnold. 1974. Myrica L. Bayberry. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed.
Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agriculture Handbook No.
450. Washington: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service:
548-550. [7711]
21. Komarek, Roy. 1963. Fire and the changing wildlife habitat. In:
Proceedings, 2nd annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1963 March
14-15; Tallahassee, FL. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station:
35-43. [13532]
22. Kossuth, Susan V.; Michael, J. L. 1990. Pinus glabra Walt. spruce pine.
In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators.
Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654..
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 355-358.
[13195]
23. Klebenow, Donald A.; Beall, Robert C. 1977. Fire impacts on birds and
mammals on Great Basin rangelands. In: [Source unknown]. Reno, NV:
University of Nevada, Division of Renewable Natural Resources: 59-62. On
file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT. [1348]
24. Lay, Daniel W. 1956. Effects of prescribed burning on forage and mast
production in southern pine forests. Journal of Forestry. 54: 582-584.
[13828]
25. Lay, Daniel W. 1957. Browse quality and the effects of prescribed
burning in southern pine forests. Journal of Forestry. 55: 342-347.
[7633]
26. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native
and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952]
27. Lotti, Thomas. 1955. Summer fires kill understory hardwoods. Res. Notes
Number 71. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 3 p. [11615]
28. Lotti, Thomas. 1959. The use of fire in the management of Coastal Plain
loblolly pine. In: Proceedings, Society of American Foresters annual
meeting; 1959; San Francisco, CA. Bethesda, MD: Society of American
Foresters: 18-20. [11614]
29. Loveless, Charles M. 1959. A study of the vegetation in the Florida
Everglades. Ecology. 40(1): 1-9. [11478]
30. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession
following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall
Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council
fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.
14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
31. Manci, Karen M. 1989. Riparian ecosystem creation and restoration: a
literature summary. Biol. Rep.89(20). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 60 p. [11757]
32. Miller, James H. 1990. Streamline basal application of herbicide for
small-stem hardwood control. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry.
14(4): 161-165. [13538]
33. Monk, Carl D.; Brown, Timothy W. 1965. Ecological consideration of
cypress heads in north-central Florida. American Midland Naturalist. 74:
126-140. [10848]
34. Oosting, Henry J. 1954. Ecological processes and vegetation of the
maritime strand in the southeastern United States. Botanical Review. 20:
226-262. [10730]
35. Pearson, H. A.; Whitaker, L. B.; Duvall, V. L. 1971. Slash pine
regeneration under regulated grazing. Journal of Forestry. 69: 744-746.
[13830]
36. Pearson, Henry A.; Grelen, Harold E.; Parresol, Bernie R.; Wright,
Vernon L. 1987. Detailed vegetative description of the longleaf-slash
pine type, Vernon District, Kisatchie National Forest, Louisiana. In:
Pearson, Henry A.; Smeins, Fred E.; Thill, Ronald E., compilers.
Ecological, physical, and socioeconomic relationships within southern
National Forests: Proceedings of the southern evaluation project
workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Long Beach, MS. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-68. New
Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Forest Experiment Station: 107-115. [11574]
37. Pessin, L. J. 1933. Forest associations in the uplands of the lower Gulf
Coastal Plain (longleaf pine belt). Ecology. 14(1): 1-14. [12389]
38. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
39. Reeves, Hershel C.; Lenhart, J. David. 1988. Fuel weight prediction
equations for understory woody plants in eastern Texas. Texas Journal of
Science. 40(1): 49-53. [3682]
40. Richardson, Donald Robert. 1977. Vegetation of the Atlantic Coastal
Ridge of Palm Beach County, Florida. Florida Scientist. 40(4): 281-330.
[9644]
41. Soper, James H.; Heimburger, Margaret L. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Life
Sciences Misc. Publ. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum. 495 p. [12907]
42. Stone, Earl L., Jr. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on long-term
productivity of Coastal Plain soils. In: Prescribed burning symposium:
Proceedings; 1971 April 14-16; Charleston, SC. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station: 115-129. [10427]
43. Stransky, John J.; Huntley, Jimmy C.; Risner, Wanda J. 1986. Net
community production dynamics in the herb-shrub stratum of a loblolly
pine-hardwood forest: effects of clearcutting and site prepar. Gen.
Tech. Rep. SO-61. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 11 p. [9835]
44. Taylor, Dale L.; Herndon, Alan. 1981. Impact of 22 years of fire on
understory hardwood shrubs in slash pine communities within Everglades
National Park. Report T-640. Homestead, FL: National Park Service, South
Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park. 30 p. [11961]
45. Terry, Steve W.; White, Larry D. 1979. Southern wax-myrtle response
following winter prescribed burning in south Florida. Journal of Range
Management. 32(4): 326-327. [10043]
46. 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]
47. Wade, Dale; Ewel, John; Hofstetter, Ronald. 1980. Fire in South Florida
ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-17. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 125
p. [10362]
48. Wade, Dale D.; Langdon, O. Gordon. 1990. Sabal palmetto (Walt.) Lodd. ex
J. A. & J. H. Schult. cabbage palmetto. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala,
Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Vol. 2.
Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 762-767. [13806]
49. Wunderlin, Richard P. 1982. Guide to the vascular plants of central
Florida. Tampa, FL: University Presses of Florida, University of South
Florida. 472 p. [13125]
Index
Related categories for Species: Myrica cerifera
| Southern Bayberry
|
 |
