USVI Public Records

Document text

VIRGIN ISLANDS _ RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COOPERATIVE BIOSPHERE RESERVE __._. RESEARCH REPORT NO.18A HERBARIUM OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK: CONSOLIDATION AND CURATION OF A REFERENCE COLLECTION Walter I. Knausenberger, , John M. Matuszak and Toni Ackerman Thomas University of the Virgin Islands Virgin Islands Cooperative Extension Service St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Virgin Islands National Park August, 1987 HERBARIUM OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK: CONSOLIDATION AND CURATION OF A REFERENCE COLLECTION 1987 BIOSPHERE RESERVE REPORT NO. 18A WALTER I. KNAUSENBERGER JOHN M. MATUSZAK TONI ACKERMAN THOMAS UNIVERSITY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS VIRGIN ISLANDS COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND VIRGIN ISLANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COOPERATIVE VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK P.O. BOX 7789, ST. THOMAS U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00801 LOCAL CONTRACTING AGENT ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION RED HOOK BOX 33, ST. THOMAS U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802 (NPS CONTRACT NO. CX-0001-3-0048) ABSTRACT This report documents the establishment of a reference collection of vascular plants indigenous to or naturalized on St. John, based on collections made by Roy 0. Woodbury and associates, largely in 1983 and 1984. Determinations were made almost exclusively by Woodbury. The collections were consolidated, curated and organized by the Virgin Islands Cooperative Extension Service (VICES) under contract to the Virgin Islands Resource Management Cooperative (VIRMC). The St. John reference collection (herbarium) is physically housed at the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve Center, Lind Point, St. John, with the voucher (and reference) collections of other organisms. The Woodbury collection consists of-at least 600 species distributed among 99 families, represented by some 1156 mounted specimens (List A of Reference Herbarium List). Sterile specimens in the collections are listed separately in List B. As a convenience and cross-reference, synoptic lists of the included families are provided in phylogenetic and alphabetical order (Lists C and D). . An additional 210 species are listed separately (Appendix I) as sight records, so that the total flora recorded stands at 810; including at least six new species and 12 rare, endangered species. The lists include numbers of specimens per species, and of specimens with inflorescence and/or fruit. Additional fern species noted by G. B. Proctor in 1984, but not in the reference collection, are noted in Appendix II. The VICES retained 185 species (186 sheets) of plants for which there were sufficient numbers of mounted specimens (Appendix III). The entire project served the important goal of enhancing the capability of the University of the V.I. in serving the public in plant-related information outreach through the VICES. Finally, an overview is presented of floristic studies (published, unpublished, and in progress) on St. John and the Virgin Islands. Information is summarized on existing herbarium collections, floral revisions in progress, endangered species of plants, vegetational structure, and living plant collections in the Virgin Islands. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our appreciation is extended to Roy 0. Woodbury for his cheerful advice on nomenclatural matters. For helpful discussions, material assistance, or both, we thank Peter L. Weaver (Institute of Tropical Forestry), Pedro Acevedo-Rodriguez, Ghillean T. Prance, John E. Earhart (New York Botanical Garden) and Caroline Rogers (V.I. National Park). Christene Henry provided invaluable and efficient secretarial services. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS POrewOrd 2... ccc ccc cc eee c ccc ec cece cw ence eens cece sceceececceccece Li Abstract ......cee0. ome cece c cece ecw ewan c ese ec ences ceueccceccccecs iii Acknowledgments .......ccccccccccccccccccccccs eer c cere er cncesecccces iv Table of Contents ..... pce ccc ccc wen ccc ccc ces eecccccccsccccccssece Vv Introduction 1... cc cccccccccccccccncccccccccacccccccccccccccsccccces 1 Overview of Botanical Activity in the Virgin Islands ............... 2 V.I. Herbarium Collections ..... eeccccece acc eee e ence ener enscecs 3 Revisions and Floras in Progress .......ccccccccccccccccccsceces 3 Endangered and Threatened Plants ........ 0. ccc cece cee c cece cceece 4 Vegetation Distribution and Structure ...........c ccc cece eee cece 4 Unpublished Studies ................-.- eee cece c aces are eeercees 4 Living Plant Collections ...........c.cccceee were ee sewccesevces 6 Reference Herbarium Development and Curation Project ... cece eee nee 7 The Reference Collection and List ........ cc cc ccc cece cee ee ccees 7 New and Rare SpecieS ......ccceccccccccccccccnccccccccescccccces 8 Summary and Recommendations .......... cece cee n cw ccc ceccccccccscccece 9 Literature Cited ........ ae ececescees acc e emcee cece e eee e eens eeene 9 ANNEX Reference Herbarium Plant Lists 2... 2... ccc ccc cc cc cece cece ccc ccees 15 List A. Main Checklist of Species .......... cc cece eee wees 16 List B. List of Sterile Specimens ...... eee cece w cee esceene eee SL List Cc. Phylogenetic Order of Families ............cccccceees 34 List D. Alphabetical Listing of Families ...............c000- 36 Appendix I. Plants of St. John Not in Main Collection ........... 38 Appendix II. Additional Fern Species Collected by G. R. Proctor .. 45 Appendix III. Duplicate Specimens Retained by V.I. Cooperative Extension Service 2... ccc ccc ccc cece cc ccc cece cc ceees 46 INTRODUCTION In connection with the establishment of the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve, a comprehensive series of coordinated research projects has been implemented to support environmentally acceptable management of terrestrial and marine resources (e.g., Putney 1986b, Rogers and Zullo 1985). Many of these studies generate, or should generate, voucher specimens in a biological reference collection. Such a collection has been developed for marine macrofauna and macroflora as part of the V.I. National Park Marine Specimen Collection (Beets and Lewand 1985). Voucher specimens ensure that identification of organisms studied can be verified and corrected if necessary, even in cases where a study cannot be repeated (e.g., Lee et al., eds., 1982). Herbarium collections are an archetypal source of voucher specimens. In 1982-83, comprehensive botanical field surveys and collections were undertaken by Roy 0. Woodbury on St. John for the V.I. National Park. Several repeat visits at various times of the year were made until 1986, to obtain a phenologically more representative collection, i.e., so the number of specimens with inflorescences and other critical structures would be maximized. The objectives of that study were in part to (Weaver and Woodbury 1982a and b) Woodbury and Weaver 1984): a. Collect and identify as complete a set of herbarium specimens as possible, including natural and naturalized species of herbs, shrubs and trees; b. Develop a complete species list, indicating the relative abundances by vegetation type; c. Find and. characterize the status of rare and endangered species, and d. Obtain appropriate collections of new species found. By this means, it was expected that a consistent and reasonably exhaustive baseline record of the natural terrestrial vegetation of St. John would be established. Thus, a definitive reference and voucher collection would be available to future researchers and the interested public. The collecting trips and processing of specimens were undertaken in collaboration with several other agencies: Institute of Tropical Forestry, New York Botanical Garden, the University of the Virgin Islands, the Virgin Islands National Park, and the Department of Natural Resources, Puerto Rico. This is the final report on the contract to the V.I. Cooperative Extension Service for the project to evaluate, document and curate Woodbury's collections as a baseline reference herbarium for the V.I. Biosphere Reserve. 4 ae Consistent with the education and training objectives of the V.I. Biosphere Reserve (e.g., Putney 1986a), and as the informal education branch of the University of the Virgin Islands, the V.I. Cooperative Extension Service took the opportunity of processing the Woodbury collection to strengthen its herbarium and to enhance its plant-related educational activities provided as a community service. OVERVIEW OF BOTANICAL ACTIVITY IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Botanical exploration in the Virgin Islands has been unusually extensive, beginning in the 1700s. The number of studies conducted on all aspects of the terrestrial flora of the Virgin Islands exceeds 200 (Highfield et al. in prep.), and floristics studies involving St. John Material number around 40. The most significant recent descriptive floras of the Virgin Islands include the Britton and Wilson (1923-30) "Flora of Porto Rico and Virgin Islands" series, with nomenclatural revisions by Liogier (1965, 1967) and Fosberg (1976); Little and Wadsworth (1964), Little, Woodbury and Wadsworth (1974, 1976); Woodbury and Little (1976). Many of the more important sources through 1970 are listed in Rundel's (1974) Annotated Bibliography of West Indian Plant Ecology. A recent systematic synopsis of the flora of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is provided by Liogier and Martorell (1982). Excellent reviews of the history of botany in these islands are available in Martorell et al. (1981) and Stevenson (1975). Among the most useful recent floras of the region are those of the Bahamas (Correll & Correll 1982), Hispaniola (Liogier 1982-83), Lesser Antilles (Howard 1974-79), and Jamaica (Adams 1972). The flora of Anguilla and other “limestone Caribbees" of the northwestern Leeward Islands was recently assessed by Howard and Kellogg (1987). A few technically rigorous publications designed for more general audiences are also available. For example, a profusely illustrated paperback on trees for urban use in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands was published by Schubert (1979). “Avid natural history buffs" will find the field guide to the common trees and large shrubs of Puerto Rico by Ashton (1985) of interest. An interesting treatment of about 130 St. John plants of economic significance was presented by Woodworth (1943); it deals mainly with indigenous species used for purposes such as fish bait, dye, soap, wood, fiber, or utensils, and plants with ornamental, weedy, or medicinal properties. Information on vines of the region has been difficult to obtain until recently, when, in avery useful contribution, Acevedo-Rodriguez and Woodbury (1985) produced the first of a two volume series on the vines of Puerto Rico. This volume treats 150 of ca. 300 species, including a discussion of the ecological importance of vines in tropical forests. NO Virgin Islands herbarium collections Despite the comparatively active investigation of the Virgin Islands flora, no single comprehensive herbarium collection or flora of any of the individual islands has been available in the Virgin Islands. The most complete herbaria in the V.I., besides the St. John reference collection at the V.I. National Park (Biosphere Reserve Center), are to be found at the following V.I. institutions: St. John: V.I. Ecological Research Station. St. Thomas: Extension Diagnostic Lab., V.I. Cooperative Extension ‘Service, University of the Virgin Islands. Includes portions of the Woodbury series of the St. John flora (Appendix III) and Bryophyta collected by W.R. Buck, N.Y. Botanical Garden. St. Croix: (1) Extension Diagnostic Lab., V.I. Cooperative Extension Service, University of the Virgin Islands. Strength in _ grasses and weeds. (2) Division of Fish & Wildlife, V.I. Department of Planning and Natural. Resource Management, Frederiksted. (3) West Indies Laboratory, Teague Bay. Most if not all of these collections have been reviewed, identified or confirmed by one or more of the botanists F. R. Fosberg, R. 0. Woodbury, G. R. Proctor (ferns) and H. A. Liogier. Revisions and floras in progress In 1983, George R. Proctor began field work for a revision of Maxon's (1926) volume on ferns for the Britton and Wilson series. He visited each of the U.S. and British Virgin Islands in March 1984. The resulting volume is presently in press. Dr. H. A. Liogier (1986) is engaged in producing a seven volume series on the flora of Puerto Rico and adjacent islands. Finally, the New York Botanical Garden is engaged in a project to produce a Flora of St. John, to serve as a field guide, based largely on Woodbury's checklist (J. Earhart, G. Prance, pers. comm.). Some interest has been expressed by the L. H. Bailey Hortoriun, Cornell University, in developing an Economic Botany of the Virgin Islands. The University of the Virgin Islands maintains a continuing interest in building local expertise in terrestrial botany and plant ecology (e.g., Matuszak and Stearman 1982). The Institute of Tropical Forestry (USDA, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Rio Piedras, P.R.) maintains an Experimental Forest of 149 acres on St. Croix at Estate Thomas (Little and Woodbury 1980). Endangered and threatened plants Endemic, rare, endangered and threatened tree species in the V.I. have been characterized by Little, Woodbury and Wadsworth (1974) and Little and Woodbury (1980). One V.I. plant so far, the prickly-ash Zanthoxylum thomasianum (family Rutaceae), has been Federally listed as endangered (U.S. Department of the Interior 1985, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1985). If the proposal is made final, this plant will receive all of the protection authorized under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. A total of some 18 species of plants on St. John are considered rare and endangered, including perhaps six species new to science (Woodbury and Weaver 1984). An additional 38 species have been suggested as needing protection (Matuszak 1985). The status of endemic plants in the northwestern Leeward Islands, including the B.V.I., was reviewed by Howard and Kellogg (1987). Matuszak (1985) listed some 14 species which may be considered endemic in the V.I. Vegetation distribution and structure Several studies relating to structural and distributional characteristics of the flora of St. John and the northwestern Leeward Islands are available, most of them quite general in nature, dealing with community type (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, Lugo and Brown 1982, Harris 1963, Multer and Gerhard 1974, Teytaud 1983, Weaver and Woodbury 1982a and b); others give more or less detailed breakdown by species (Beard 1949, Forman 1974, Forman and Hahn 1980, Boergesen and Paulsen 1898, Velez 1957, Woodbury and Weaver 1984). An important long-term study of the dynamics and successional patterns of secondary forests on St. John has been initiated on three permanent plots by members of the V.I. Resource Management Cooperative, in conjunction with the N.Y. Botanical Garden (Earhart et al. 1987, Matuszak et al. 1987). The Tropical Resources Institute of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies has placed interns on the above study and in general is interested in promoting hatural resource management studies in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico (e.g., Rasmussen 1984). Research presently being conducted by the Institute of Tropical Forestry on St. John is assessing phytosociological distribution with respect to topography (Weaver and Chinea-Rivera 1987), and long-term forest growth patterns (Weaver 1987, pers. commun.). University of California Research Expeditions have, since 1984, been investigating physiological and photosynthetic aspects of drought and water-stress adaptations of epiphytes on St. John (Ting, et al. 1985). Unpublished studies Many unpublished or “in-house” reports and studies contain worthwhile information and often reflect considerable effort. St. John and surrounding cays and islands have been the subject of an apparently unusually large number of such studies, although investigations of terrestrial plants are included in only a minority of these. Because many of these studies are available in the files of the Virgin Islands National Park (especially the Red Hook, Cruz Bay or Lind Pt. offices) and the Island Resources Foundation (IRF) at Red Hook, St. Thomas, we shall here refer to representative studies which include botanical data. Bibliographic reviews of such materials at the VINP and IRF, respectively, are available in part in Highfield et al. (1985) and Towle and Teytaud (1982). A series of ecological surveys of offshore cays including classifications of plant life, were conducted by students as part of the Hackley-Masters Science Seminars (Tarrytown, NY), including Agardy et al. (19801, Saba Is.); Dickensen et al. (19751, Saba Is., Turtle Dove Is.): Herrmann and Schessel (19711, Steven Cay); and Herrmann et al. (1972: , Henley Cay). Several other sources of more-or-less-detailed student reports. should be pointed out, because they are usually submitted by their supervisory professors for use by interested persons. Studies conducted by a series of students from Gustavus Adolphus College (Minnesota) at the V.I. Ecological Research Station (VIERS) are available in project report binders covering alternate years from 1972: through at least 1980! . Students at the West Indies Laboratory (WIL) of Fairleigh Dickensen Univ. on St. Croix. also have left a substantial record of studies, which are deposited at the WIL library (e.g. Thomas 1969! ). The majority of the above deal with marine ecology subjects. Field ecology trips by a group from the University of Connecticut to -Lameshur Bay resulted in a detailed list of vascular plants (A. H. Dammon 19721). A 160 p. draft manuscript for a high school-level text entitled “Botany in the V.I." by B. Rodrigue (1977! ) is in VINP files. of particular note are two documents produced by VINP staff as preliminary assessments of the flora: a. "A Preliminary Checklist of. the Woody Plants of St. John, Virgin Islands" (11 p.), by Vincent J. Mrazek1 , Chief Park Naturalist (1956?); lists some 300 plants, mostly personally verified by Mrazek, with common names, approximate blooming dates, and growth habits. b. "A Tentative Checklist of Plants of the Virgin Islands National Park, St. John" (224 p.), compiled by Charles F. Adams, Park Naturalist (about 1958?). An annotated list, based on literature reviews, of 1058 species, including lichens, mosses, liverworts and introduced food and ornamental plants. Notes include interpretation of the scientific names, common names, habitat and some ethnobotanical data. According to the introduction, a botanical card file representing the 132 families in this list was compiled and indexed as the basis of an herbarium which was to be established. A review of this list reveals some redundancies and synonymies, and suggests that native species are under-represented. Unpublished work recorded in Highfield et al. (1985). 3 Robertson (1957) developed a report on the biology of the new park including vegetation assessments and general estimates of the biological values of the park. Numerous collections of photographs dating back to 1936 are on file and are available to evaluate vegetative changes over time (e.g., see entries "Photographs of ..." and "Aerial Views of ..." in Highfield et al. 1985). Environmental Assessment Reports may also be useful sources cf botanical survey data, in connection with First Tier Major Permit Applications to the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Division of the V.I. Department of Planning and Natural Resources Management. These are on file for public review at the St. Croix and St. Thomas offices of the CZ™ Division. On St. Thomas, for example, lists of plants have been compiled for Long Point, Magens Bay (J.M. Matuszak) and Dorothea Bay (F. Grifs). Plant introductions are continually taking place, particularly in light of the significant expansion of the tourism sector. For instance, a list of palm species cultivated at Caneel Bay Plantation includes some 70 species, of which only few are indigenous to the Antilles (Rockresorts 1987). Living plant collections It is apt to provide a brief synopsis of what may be loosely referred to as "living plant collections" in the V.I., including deliberately assembled, groups of living plants, usually labeled, more-or-less well- tended, and accessible to the general’ public as "botanical gardens". St. Croix. The St. George Botanical Garden represents the largest such enterprise in the V.I., with about 150 labeled plants on some 30 acres. Estate Whim Plantation Museum has a small number of identifie plants. At the St. Croix Campus of the University of the V.I., 60 plants are labeled; and at the adjacent V.I. Agricultural Experiment Station, nearly 40 tropical fruit species, plus about 25 citrus lines, from the V.I. Agricultural Experiment Station(VIAES) Fruit Orchard and Museum are labeled. In 1898, a “Botanical Experiment Station" was established at Estate Anna's Hope, and for about 15 years, many species of plants were introduced and propagated there. Several palms and other trees remain prominently standing, but the property is overgrown. The commercial hursery, Cruzan Gardens, is notable for the many native or Antillean Species propagated there. At Estate Thomas, the Experimental Forest, planted by the U.S. Forest Service and the local Department of Agriculture, contains stands of about 16 species of trees (see bottom of p. 3 above). St. John. Caneel Bay Plantation has a fairly rich selection of plants in the landscape of this resort hotel operated by Rockrescrts, including some 75 species of palms (with nursery stock). St. Thomas. The former St. Thomas Arboretum, planted in the early 1930's in the southeastern section of Magens Bay, by Arthur Fairchild with local horticulturist Alfonso Nelthropp, remains largely intact, though long neglected (Zegetosky, 1980). Some clearing and restoration work has been accomplished since 1979, and while the Arboretum has not been forgotten, resources to complete the restoration satisfactorily have not been assembled. The Water Isle Botanical Garden, owned by Dr. Walter H. Philips on Water Island off St. Thomas, contains a diversity of labeled plants, some of which are succulent, drought-tolerant species. Dr. Philips "pioneered" hydroponics in the V.I., applying it to his botanical garden. On the St. Thomas campus of U.V.I., over 200 plants are labeled, and a selection of some 80 regionally native ornamental plants and fruit tree species is planted at the New House of this campus. REFERENCE HERBARIUM DEVELOPMENT AND CURATION PROJECT The goals of the curation project by the V.I. Cooperative Extension Service were to: a. Preserve, organize and curate the existing botanical collections (previously identified) made on St. John by Roy 0. Woodbury and other investigators in connection with the U.S. National Park Service and the Man and the Biosphere projects: ; b. Mount, label and incorporate additional plant specimens subsequently collected by Woodbury and associates; c. Assemble and catalogue the collection as a reference herbariun, part of the V.I. Biosphere Reserve baseline collections: and ad. Submit duplicate specimens to the New York Botanical Garden to support the possible development of a Flora of St. John. The reference collection and list Our main authority for spellings, nomenclature, and organization of the reference collection is the list developed by Woodbury and Weaver (1984; see their Appendix 1), but Liogier and Martorell (1982) and Adams (1972) were used as important supplementary sources. As of June 1987, the reference collection per se consisted of ca. 1156 specimens, representing 600 species among 99 families arranged phylogenetically. These species are all represented in the main list -- List A. In addition to the total number of specimens per species, notations were provided as to the numbers of sterile specimens, as well as specimens with fruits and/or inflorescences for each species. The more significant synonymies are provided in parentheses. List B lists the species in the main list which are represented only by sterile individuals, in the interest of facilitating future filling of gaps. To facilitate cross~comparisons and retrieval, Lists C and D provide synoptic lists of the phylogenetic and alphabetical order of families. Plants identified by Woodbury as present on St. John, but not represented by specimens in the reference collection, are listed in Appendix I. This list consists of 210 species. All told, therefore, these lists document the presence of 810 species and 115 families of indigenous and naturalized herbs, shrubs and trees on St. John. This is 18 more species than presented by Woodbury and Weaver (1984) because of subsequent collections. The latter authors also reported 116 families, but in the present lists, the Cuscutaceae are subsumed under Convolvulaceae, which accounts for the discrepancy. According to Howard and Kellogg (1987), existing floristic studies of the small northern Lesser Antilles are not comparable, so significant comparisons are difficult to make. However, St. John appears to have a considerably greater number of indigenous species than any of the eight islands compared by Howard and Kellogg. The highest number of species on the islands compared is for Tortola (equivalent to St. John in size and altitude), where 484 indigenous dicots are recorded, as opposed to possibly 600 on St. John. While this undoubtedly is influenced by interpretation of which plants are indigenous as opposed to introduced, it is likely also that the St. John total reflects a relatively more extensive collection effort. ew and rare species Of the 12 rare and endangered species found during Woodbury and Weaver's (1984) survey (listed in their Table 4), all but two are in the reference collection: Galactia eqgersii and Solanum mucronatum are not included at present. Of the six taxa listed as new in their table, all but the apocynaceous vine are in the collection. An additional one (Justicia sp.) is included in the present collection by Woodbury, but is not in the Woodbury and Weaver (1987) checklist. The new or unidentified species in this collection are: Acanthaceae Myrtaceae Justicia n. sp. Eugenia n. sp. Psidium n. sp. Malpighiaceae Byrsonima n. sp. Rubiaceae Malpighia n. sp. ' Machaonia n. sp. It is understood that additional collecting will inevitably turn up more records. As an example, the 1984 collecting trip by G. R. Proctor in connection with his revision of the fern flora of Puerto Rico and the V.I. (referred to earlier), resulted in an additional six species/subspecies of ferns recorded for St. John (Appendix II). 3 Similarly, subsequent collections in the long-term forest monitoring plots on St. John (Earhart et al. 1987, Matuszak et al. 1987) have turned up additional species, including G. eqgersii, one of the two mentioned above as not being in the reference herbariun. Finally, in the interest of augmenting the diagnostic herbarium of the V.I. Cooperative Extension Service (the contracted agency), the V.I. National Park agreed to the retention by the VICES of surplus specimens from the Woodbury series. As a result, 184 plant species (185 specimens) were added to the VICES collection. This list of species is presented in Appendix III. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS With the establishment of the V. I. Biosphere Reserve Center came the consolidation of existing natural history specimens, such as the Randall fish collection, with more recent assemblages such as the Marine Specimens Collection(e.g., Beets and Lewand 1985). The present botanical reference collection of some 600 species of plants constitutes the single most complete herbarium in the Virgin Islands. It is to be expected that these collections will be continually added to in the future. They serve as the key to all past and future reference to data derived from studies done in the V.I. Biosphere Reserve. As such, they are a vital national resource. The importance of proper care and maintenance of these collections cannot be overemphasized. Good guidelines are available, including methods appropriate to curation of small collections (e.g., Faber 1983), and pest control (e.g., Edwards et al. 1981). A voucher specimen concept should be developed and promulgated as part of the required documentation for any research project conducted within the V.I. National Park (e.g., Lee et al. 1982). Indeed, comprehensive standards should be developed for specimen documentation, preservation and storage, in coordination with national initiatives by the Association of Systematics Collections. Likewise, deposition costs ought to be included in research proposal budgets. LITERATURE CITED Acevedo-Rodriguez, P. and R. 0. Woodbury. 1985. Los bejucos de Puerto Rico. Vol. I. [The vines of Puerto Rico]. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-58. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 331 p. Adams, C.D. 1972. Flowering Plants of Jamaica. University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica. 848 p. Excellent keys and descriptions, systematic arrangement. Adams, C. F. 1958? A Tentative Check List of Plants of the V.I. National Park, St. John. St. John National Park Service. 224 p. Ashton, P. M. S. 1985. Forester's Field Guide to the Trees and Shrubs of Puerto Rico. Tropical Resources Institute, Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. 136 p. Beard, J. S&S. 1949. Natural Vegetation in Tropical America. Ecology 25:127-158. Beets, J. and L. Lewand. 1985. Collection of Common Organisms Within the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve/National Park. vV.I. Resource Management Tech. Publ. Series, Report No. 3. 45 p. Boergesen, F. and 0. Paulsen. 1898. Om Vegetationen paa de Dansk- Vestindiske Oer. Bot. Tidskr. Vol. 22:1-114, £.1-43. Translated by F. MacFarlane, 1923. On the Vegetation of the Virgin Islands of the United States, formerly the Danish West Indies. Pamphlet No. 12. Quarto. U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Britton, N. L. and P. Wilson. 1923-30. Descriptive Flora - Spermatophyta. Botany of Porto Rico & The Virgin Islands. New York Acad. of Sciences. Scientific Survey. (Keys and systematic arrangement of plant descriptions in Vol. 5, 6. Sci. names often outdated.) Correll, D. S. and H. B. Correll. 1982. Flora of the Bahama Archipelago (including the Turks and Caicos Islands). Vaduz, Switzerland: Gantner Verlag. (50)+ 1692 p. Earhart, J., A. Reilly and M. Davis. 1987 (in press). Initial Inventory of Three Permanent Forest Plots in the Virgin Islands National Park. Report #27. V.I. Resource Management Coop. Tech. Publ. Series. Edwards, S.R., et al., compilers. 1981. Pest Control in Museums. Assoc. Systematics Coll., Lawrence, Kansas. 34 p. (with ca. 130 p. appendix). Ewel, J. J. and J. L. Whitmore. 1973. The Ecological Life Zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Forest Service Research Paper ITF-18, Institute of Tropical Forestry, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. 72 pp. Faber, D. L., ed. 1983. Proceedings of 1981 Workshop on Care and Maintenance of Natural History Collections. National Museum of Canada. Syllogeus No. 44. Forman, R. T. T. 1974. An Introduction to the Ecosystems and Plants on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Spec. Publ. #7, West Indies Laboratory. Fairleigh Dickenson Univ., St. Croix. 37 p. . Forman, R. T. T. and D. C. Hahn. 1980. Spatial Patterns of Trees in a Caribbean Semievergreen Forest. Ecology 61(6) :1267-1274. Fosberg, F. R. 1976.. The Revision of the Flora of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Rhodora Vol. 78(813):79-119. Harris, D. R. 1963. Plants, Animals and Man in the Outer Leeward Islands, West Indies: An Ecological Study of Antigua, Barbuda and Anguilla. Ph.D. 10 dissertation, Univ. California, Berkeley, Geography. 298 p. Highfield A. R., P. H. Jensen, W. I. Knausenberger and M. L. Bumgarner (in preparation). A Comprehensive, Annotated and Indexed Virgin Islands Bibliography, 1493-1985. Project VIBIB, St. Croix. Univ. Virgin Islands. Approx. 1200 p., 3 vols. Highfield, A. R., W. I. Knausenberger and M. L. Bumgarner. 1985. Bibliographic holdings of the Virgin Islands National Park libraries relative to the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Danish West Indies. Project VIBIB. St. Croix, V.I. iii + 52 p. Howard, R.A. 1974-1979. Flora of the Lesser Antilles. 3 vols. Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts. Vol. I, Orchidaceae, 235 p.; Vol. II, Ferns/Fern allies, 414 p.; Vol. III Monocotyledons, 586 p. illus. Howard, R. A. and E. A. Kellogg. 1987. Contributions to a Flora of Anguilla and adjacent islands. J. Arnold Arboretum 68:105~131. Lee, W. L., B. M. Bell and J. F. Sutton. 1982. Guidelines for Acquisition and Management of Biological Specimens. Assoc. Systematic Collections, Mus. Natural History, Lawrence, Kansas. vii + 42 p. Liogier, H. A. 1965. Nomenclatural changes and additions to Britton and Wilson's “Flora of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands". Rhedora Vol. 67(772) 2315-361. Liogier, H. A. 1967. Further Changes and Additions to the Flora of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Rhodora Vol. 69:372-376. Uiogier, H. A. 1986 (in press). Descriptive Flora of Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands. Vol. I. Spermatophyta. Rio Piedras, P.R.: Editorial Univ. Puerto Rico. Liogier, H. A. and lL. F. Martorell. 1982. Flora of Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands: A Systematic Synopsis. Rio Piedras, P.R. Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, 342 p. (List of native and naturalized plants on Puerto Rico and adjacent islands: no descriptions. Current nomenclature, ecological notes, and distribution). Liogier, H. A. 1982-83. La Flora de la Espafiola I, II. Univ. Central del Este. Dominican Republic. Ser Cient. 12:1-312; 15:1-420. Little, E. L., Jr. and F. H. Wadsworth. 1964. Common Trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Agricultural Handbook #249. Forest Service, U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C. 548 p. illus. (Field guide format, well written, informative. Unfortunately out of print and difficult to get.) Little, E. L., R. 0. Woodbury and F. H. Wadsworth. 1974. Trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Agriculture Handbook 449, Forest Service, U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C. 1024 p. illus. (The second volume, less 11 common trees, same form and easy to use keys as Volume I. Equally difficult to come by). Little, E. L., R. 0. Woodbury and F. H. Wadsworth. 1976. Flora of Virgin Gorda (BVI)). U.S.D.A. Forest Serv. Res. Pap. ITF-21. 36 — sop. {Annotated list of native and introduced vascular plants based upon authors' collections 1969-1973). Little, E. L. and R. 0. Woodbury. 1980. Rare and Endemic Trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. U.S. Dept. Agric. Forest Service. Conserv. Research Rep. No. 27. 26 p. Lugo, A. E. and S. Brown, eds. 1982. Forestry in the Caribbean: Proceedings of the First Workshop of Caribbean Foresters, Castries, St. Lucia May 24-28, 1982. Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico: Inst. Trop. For., U.S. Man and the Biosphere Rep. No. 7. 137 p. Martorell, L. F., A. H. Liogier, and R. 0. Woodbury. 1981. Cataldgo de los nombres vulgares y cientificos de las plantas de Puerto Rico. Bol. 263, Est. Exp. Agric., Univ. P.R. 231 p. Matuszak, J. M. 1985. Aspects of Terrestrial Biology to Consider in the CZM Process, p. 9-23, In: Peter, Nathalie. Reports from the Coastal Zone Management Scientific and Technical Workshop Series. A Reference Manual. V.I. Marine Advisory Service, Univ. of Puerto Rico Sea Grant Programs. Publ. No. PRU-SG-87-001. Matuszak, J. M., E. Craft and W. I. Knausenberger. 1987. Establishment and Soil Characterization of Long-Term Monitoring Forest Plots in the Virgin Islands National Park. V.I. Resource Management Coop. Tech. Publ. Series, Report No. 18(B). Matuszak, J. M. and K. Stearman. 1982. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Abstracts of the Colloquium on Long-Term Ecological Research in the Virgin Islands, July 27, 1982, St. John. U.S. Dept. Interior, National Park Serv., Nat. Sci. & Research Div., Southern Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. pp. 6-7. Maxon, W. R. 1926. Botany of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Descriptive Flora - Pteridophyta. New York Acad. Sci. Surv. P.R. & Virgin Islands. Vol. VI:373-521. Multer, H. G. and L. C. Gerhard, eds. 1974. Guidebook for Geology and Ecology of Some Marine and Terrestrial Environments -- St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. West Indies Lab., Spec. Publ. #5. Proctor, G. R. 1984. (Virgin Islands Fern List). List of 56 species from U.S.V.I. and B.V.I. collected by author in collecting trip during the last week of March 1984. Puerto Rico Dept. Natural Resources. 12 Proctor, G. R. 1987 (in press). (Revision of Flora of Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands -- Pteridophyta) Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources. Putney, A. D. 1986a. Conceptual Framework for the Management of the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve. V.I. Resource Management Coop., Tech. Publ. Series, Report #16. 21 p. Putney, A. D. 1986b. Data Synthesis and Development of a Basis for Zoning of the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve. V.I. Resource Management Coop. Tech. Publ. Series, Report #15. 44 p. Rasmussen, P. 1984. Orchids, Coquis and Scorpions: Natural History Collections and Environmental Education in Puerto Rico. Tropical Resources Inst., Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Sci., New Haven, Connecticut. 87 p. Robertson, W. B. Jr. 1957. Initial Study and Development Survey: Virgin Islands National Park: Biology Report. [St. John? No location available]: 54 p. Rockresorts. 1987. Palm Species Cultivated at Caneel Bay, St. John. 5 p. Rogers, C. and V. S. Zullo. 1985. Research and Resource Manage-ment Program at Virgin Islands National Park/Biosphere Reserve. U.S. Dept. Interior, National Park Service. Park Science Vol. 5(4):3 Rundel, Philip W. 1974. An Annotated Bibliography of West Indian Plant Ecology. Bibliography Series No. 1. St. Thomas: V.I. Dept. Conserv. Cult. Aff., Bur. Lib. & Mus., 1974. 70p. Maps. Schubert, Thomas. H. 1979. Trees for Urban Use in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest Exp. Stn. Inst... Trop. For. Gen. Tech. Rep. 30-27. Stevenson, J. A. 1975. The Fungi of Puerto Rico and the American Virgin Islands. Baltimore, MD, Contrib. of Reed Herbarium No. XXIII. iv+ 743 p. Teytaud, A. R. 1983 (1986 rev.). Mapping of climatic, topographic, and edaphic factors, existing vegetation, and potential natural vegetation in St. John, with recommendations for research on the economic impacts of vegetation management - a report to the National Park Service. Island Resource Foundation, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. 70 p. Ting, I. P., E. M. Lord, L. da S. L. Sternberg, and M. L. DeNiro. 1985. Crassulacean acid metabolism in the strangler Clusia rosea Jacq. Science 229:969-971. Towle, E. UL. and A. R. Teytaud. 1982. Caribbean Island Resource Management: An Annotated Bibliography of Source Materials Focusing on the U.S. Virgin Islands' Experience and its Eastern Caribbean Context. U.S. MAB Miscellaneous Publication No. 2. St. Thomas: Island Resources 13 Foundation. 40 p. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Final Rule to Determine Zanthoxylum thomasianum (Prickly-Ash) to be an Endangered Species. Federal Register, Rules and Regulations. Vol. 50, No. 245 (Dec. 20, 1985) p. 51867-870. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service. 1985. Proposed Endangered Species Status for Caribbean Plant. Endangered Species Tech. Bull. Vol. X, No. 3:4. U.S. Dept. Iaterior. Velez, I. 1957. Herbaceous Angiosperms of the Lesser Antilles. Rio Piedras: Biol. Dept., Interamer. Univ. Puerto Rico. 121 p. Weaver, P. L. and J. D. Chinea~Rivera. 1987. A phytosociological study of Cinnamon Bay watershed, St. John, U. S. Virgin Islands. Caribbean J. Sci. (in press) Weaver, P. L. and R. 0. Woodbury. 1982a. Characterization of the Vegetation of St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, p.5, In: Abstr. Colloquium Long-Term Ecol. Research in the V.I. U.S. Dept. Interior, Nat. Park Serv., Nat. Sci. & Research Div., Southeast Reg. 25 p. Weaver, P. L. and R. 0. Woodbury. 1982b. Vegetation Survey on St. John, U.S.V.I. Proc. Ninth Symp. Natural Resources Dept., San Juan, Puerto Rico. pp. 169-183. Woodbury, R.O. and P. L. Weaver. 1987. The Vegetation of St. John and Hassel Island, U.S. Virgin Islands. U.S. Dept. Interior, National Park Service Report SER-83. 103 p. Map. Woodbury, R. O. and E. L. Little. 1976. Flora of Buck Island Reef National Monument. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv. Res. Pap. ITF-19. 27 p. Woodworth, R. H. 1943. Economic Plants of St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Vol. II, No. 2. 25 p. Zegetosky, Gene. 1980. The St. Thomas Arboretum. Bull. 10th Annual V.I. Agriculture and Food Fair. p. 67. 14 REFERENCE HERBARIUM PLANT LISTS FOR VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK VIRGIN ISLANDS BIOSPHERE RESERVE ST. JOHN compiled by John M. Matuszak and Toni Ackerman Thomas List A List B. List C. List D. Main List of Species List of Sterile Specimens Phylogenetic Order of Families Alphabetical Listing of Families Current as of June 1987 15 List A. Main Checklist of Species in Virgin Islands National Park Reference Herbarium Herbarium Specimens collected by Roy 0. Woodbury on St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, for the National Park Service # of Specimens Family Number (phylogenetic) Genus Species (#st-sterile; #fr-fruit; #infl-inflorescence) (Synonym) 1 Psilotaceae 2 Ophioglossaceae 3 Polypodiaceae Adiantum fragile Sw. 1 st 2 infl Adiantum tenerum Sw. 1 infl Asplenium pumilum Sw. 1 infl Blechnum occidentale L. 1 infl Doryopteris pedata (L.) Fee 1 infl Nephrolepis exaltata (L.) Schott 1 infl Odontosoria aculeata (L.) J. Sm. 1 st Pityrogramma calomelanos (L.) Link 1 st 1 infl Polypodium astrolepis Liebm. 1 st 4 infl Polypodium aureum L. 1 infl Polypodium heterophyllum L. 1 infl Polypedium latum Moore 1 infl Polypodium phyllitidis L. 1 infl Pteris biaurita L. 1 st Pteris longifolia L. 1 infl Thelypteris poiteana (Bory) Proctor 1 infl Thelypteris subtetragona 2 st 2 infl Thelypteris tetragona (Sw.) Small 1 st 1 infl 4 lLycopodiaceae 1 Lycopodium cernuum L. i st NPR PRP RRR PON RP BH PE Be Ww Dicotyledons 5 Casuarinaceae 2 Casuarina equisetifolia J.R.&G. Forst 2 infl 6 Piperaceae Peperomia glabella (Sw.) Dietr. 2 st Peperomia humilis (Vahl) Dietr. 1 st Peperomia magnoliifolia (Jacq.) A, Dietr. 1 infl Peperomia myrtifolia (Vahl) Dietr. 2 infl Piper amalago L. 1 infl 7 Ulmaceae Celtis iguanaea (Jacq.) Sarg. 2 st Celtis trinervia Lam. 4 fr 2 st Trema micranthum L. Blume 2 infl 8 Moraceae Cecropia peltata L. 2 st 1 infl Ficus citrifolia Mill. 1 infl Ficus trigonata L. 2 st NH bo RPNr rR be dF w& NRE PRP FPR NWP BPWwRP PUN NW haAPR PER w& w BHR w Rr w 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Urticaceae Pilea microphylla (L.) Liebm. 1 st Pilea nummulariifolia (Sw.) Wedd. 6 st Pilea sanctae-crucis Liebm. 2 st 2 infl Pilea tenerrima Miq. 3 st Vitis tiliifolia Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. 2 st Olacaceae Schoepfia obovata Wright ex Sauv. 2 st Schoepfia schreberi Gmel. 2 st 3 fr Ximenia americana L. 1 st Loranthaceae Dendropemon caribaeus Krug & Urb. 4 fr Aristolochiaceae Aristolochia trilobata L. 2 st Polygonaceae Antigonon leptopus Hook. & Arn. 1 inflk Coccoloba krugii Lindau 3 fr Coccoloba microstachya Willd. 1 st 2 infl Coccoloba swartzii Meissn. in DC. 1 infl Coccoloba uvifera (L.) L. 1 infl Coccoloba uvifera & krugii 2 st 1 infl Coccoloba venosa L. 5 st 1 infl Chenopodiaceae Atriplex pentandra (Jacq.) Standl. 1 infl Chenopodium ambrosioides L. 1 infl Amaranthaceae Achyranthes aspera L. var. aspera 1 infl Alternanthera ficoidea (L.) R.&S. 1 infl (Alternanthera tenella Colla) Alternanthera peploides (HBK) Urban 2 infl (Alternanthera caracasana HBK.) Amaranthus gracilis Dest. 1 infl Celosia nitida Vahl 1 infl Iresine angustifolia Euph. 1 infl Philoxerus vermicularium (L.) R. Br. 2 infl (Blutaparon vermiculare (L.) Mears) Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia diffusa L. 3 infl Boerhavia erecta L. 3 infl Guapira fragrans (Dum.-Cours.) Little 1 infl Neea buxifolia (Hook.) Heirmel 2 st Pisonia aculeata L. 1 fr Pisonia subcordata Sw. 1 infl Bataceae Batis maritima L. 1 infl Phytolaccaceae Petiveria alliacea L. 3 infl Rivina humilis L. 1 infl Trichostigma octandrum (L.) Walt. 1 fr Aizoaceae Cypselea humifusa Turp. 3 st Mollugo nudicaulis Lam. 1 infl Trianthema portulacastrum (L.) L. 1 infl Portulacaceae Portulaca oleracea L. 1 infl 1? Portulaca quadrifida L. 1 st Portulaca teretifolia HBK. 3 infl Talinum paniculatum (Jacq.) Gaertn. 1 fr Talinum triangulare (Jacq.) Willd. 1 infl 21 Basellaceae 1 Anredera leptostachys (Moq.) V.Steenis 1 infl 22 Menispermaceae RR we 2 Cissampelos pareira L. 1 st 1 infl 1 Hyperbaena domingensis (DC.) Benth. 1 st 23 Annonaceae 2 Annona glabra L. 1 st 1 infl 1 Annona muricata L. 1 st 1 Annona squamosa L. 1 infl 24 Lauraceae 1 Cassytha filiformis L. 1 infl 1 Licaria salicifolia (Sw.) Kostern. 1 st 2 Licaria triandra (Sw.) Kostern. 2 st 3 Ocotea coriacea (Sw.) Britt. 2 infl 4 fr (Nectandra coriacea (Sw.) Griseb.) 2 Ocotea globosa (Aubl.) Schlecht. & Cham. 2 infl (Nectandra antillana Meisn.) 2 Ocotea leucoxylon (Sw.) Mez. 1 fr 1 st 1 Phoebe elongatum (Vahl) Nees 1 infl (Cinnamomum elongatum (Nees) Kostermans) 25 Papaveraceae 2 Argemone mexicana L. 2 infl 26 Brassicaceae syn. Cruciferae 1 ‘Cakile lanceolata (Willd.) Schulz. 1 infl 5 Lepidium virginicum L 5 infl & fr 27 Capparaceae ‘ 2 Capparis amplissima Lam. 1 infl 1 fr 2 Capparis cynophallophora L. 2 fr 1 Capparis flexuosa (L.) L. 1 infl 1 Capparis frondosa Jacq. 1 infl 2 Capparis hastata Jacq. 2 infl 1 Capparis indica (L.) Fawc. & Rendle 1 infl 1 Cleome spinosa Jacq. 1 infl 1 Cleome viscosa L. 1 infil (Cleome icosandra L.) 3 Morisonia americana L. 1 st 2 infl 28 Moringaceae 1 Moringa oleifera (L.) Lam. 1 infl 29 Crassulaceae Kalanchoe pinnata (Lam.) Pers. 1 infl (Bryophyllum pinnatum (Lam.) Oken) 30 Chrysobalanaceae 31 Fabaceae-Mimosoideae 2 Acacia macracantha Humbl & Bonpl. 1 infl 1 infl «& fr 1 Acacia muricata (L.) Willd. 1 infl 2 Acacia tortuosa (L.) Willd. 1 fr & infl 3 Acacia westiana DC. 1 st 2 infl (Acacia riparia HBK.) 2 Adenanthera pavonina L. 2 st 2 Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth. 2 infl 2 Calliandra portoricensis (Jacq.) Benth. 1 st 1 infl & fr 18 (Calliandra carasacana (Jacq.) Benth.) Demanthus virgatus (L.) Willd. 1 fr & infl Inga fagifolia (L.) Willd. 2 infl Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) Dewitt. 1 infl Mimosa ceratonia L. 1 infl Mimosa pudica L. 1 infl Pithecellobium saman (Willd.) Benth. 1 st 1 infl (Samanea saman (Jacq.) Merrill) Pithecellobium unguis-cati (L.) Benth. 2 infl 32 Fabaceae-Caesalpiniocideae Bauhinia monandra Kurz 2 infl Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb. 1 infl Caesalpinia divergens Urb. 1 infl Caesalpinia pulcherrima (L.) Sw. 1 infl & fr Cassia alata Raf. 2 st Cassia bicapsularis L. 2 infl Cassia glandulosa L. var. swartzii (Wicker) Macbr. 2 infl Cassia grammica Spreng. 1 infl (Cassia lineata Swartz) Cassia occidentalis L. 1 st Cassia siamea Lam. 1 st 1 fr & infl Delonix regia (Boj.) Raf. 1 st 1 infl Hymenaea courbaril L. 1 st Parkinsonia aculeata L. 1 infl Tamarindus indica L. 1 infl 33 Fabaceae-Faboideae Abrus precatorius L. 2 st 1 infl Aeschynomene americana L. 1 fr & infl Alysicarpus vaginalis (L.) DC. 1 st Andira inermis HBK. 2 infl Canavalia maritima (Aubl.) Thouars. 1 st 1 infl & fr Centrosenma virginianum (L.) Benth. 2 infl Clitoria ternatea L. 1 fr Cracca caribaea (Jacq.) Benth. 3 st Crotalaria falcata Vahl ex DC. 2 infl Crotalaria incana L. 1 infl. Crotalaria lotifolia L. 1 fr Crotalaria retusa L. 1 infl Crotalaria verrucosa L. 1 fr & infl Dalbergia ecastaphylla (L.) Taub. 1 st Desmodium incanum DC. 1 infl (Desmodium canum (Gmel.) Thelling & Schinz) Desmodium mollis (Vahl) Dc. 1 infl Desmodium procumbens (Mill.) Hitch. 2 infl Erythrina corallodendrum L. 1 st Erythrina eggersii Kruk. & Mold. 4 st Galactia dubia Dc. 1 fr & infl Galactia striata (Jacq.) Urb. 1 infl 1 infl & fr Indigofera suffruticosa Mill. 1 infl & fr Indigofera tinctoria L. 1 infl & fr Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet 1 infl Machaerium lunatum (L.f.) Ducke 1 st Macroptilium lathyroides (L.) Urb. 1 infl Pictetia aculeata (Vahl) Urb. 2 infl Piscidia carthagenensis Jacq. 1 st 1 infl & fr NEP RR ne PNM YR RF db to Pee ON FP PREP PRP BPD WH DPR Bw NNR RP RRP RPP mee 19 NPRPRPEPN NYE a wr Onr re to tm am Ww UT db Ww dO YI DS pb NPR RB Pp 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Pueraria phaseoloides (Roxb.) Benth. 1 infl Rhynchosia minima (L.) DC. 1 fr 1 infl Rhynchosia reticulata (Sw.) DC. i infl 1 infl & fr Sesbania sericea (Willd.) Link 1 st 1 fr Sophora tomentosa L. 1 fr Stylosanthes hamata (L.) Taub. 1 infl Tephrosia cinerea (L.) Pers. 1 infl & fr Tephrosia senna HBK. 1 infl & fr Teramnus labialis (L.f.) Spreng. 2 fr Oxalidaceae Oxalis corniculata L. 1 infl & fr Zygophyllaceae Guaiacum officinale L. 1 fr Kallstroemia pubescens (G. Don.) Dandy 3 infl Malpighiaceae Bunchosia glandulosa (Cav.) L.C. Rich. 2 st Brysonima lucida (Miller) L.C. Rich 2 st 1 infl 2 infl & fr Brysonima sp. (New) 2 st Brysonima spicata (Cav.) HBK. 3 infl (Brysonima horneana Britt. & Small) (Brysonima coriacea (Sw.) DC.) Heteropteris purpurea (L.) Kunth 1 infl 1 infl & fr Malpighia sp. (poss. new sp.) 4 st 2 fr Malpighia linearis Jacq. 3 st Malpighia woodburyana Vivaldi 4 st Stigmaphyllon periplocifolium (Poir.) Juss. 1 infl Stigmaphyllon tomentosum Desf. 4 st (Stigmaphyllon ledifolium (HBK.) Small) Erythroxylaceae Erythroxylum brevipes DC. 2 fr Rutaceae Murraya paniculata (L.) Jacq. 1 st Pilocarpus racemosus Vahl 1 st Triphasia trifolia (Burm.f.) P.Wilson 1 st Zanthoxylum monophyllum (Lam.) P.Wilson 2 infl Zanthoxylum thomasianum (Krug & Urban) Krug & Urban 4 infl 4 st Simaroubiaceae Picrasma excelsa (Sw.) Planch. 1 st 1 infl Suriana maritima L. 2 infl Burseraceae Bursera simaruba (L.) Sarg. 1 fr Meliaceae Azadirachta indica (L.) Juss 2 st Polygalaceae Euphorbiaceae Acalypha chamaedrifolia (Lam.) Muell. 1 infl Acalypha indica Juss. 1 infl Adelia ricinella L. 1 infl Argythamnia candicans Sw. 1 infl Argythamnia fasciculata (Vahl) Muell. 1 infl & fr Argythamnia stahlii Urban 1 infl Ateramnus lucidus (Sw.) Roth 1 fr Chamaesyce articulata (Aubl.) Britton 1 infl Chamaesyce glomerifera Millsp. 2 infl (Chamaesyce hypericifolia (L.) Millsp.) 20 NF PPP RPP Re PRU NN PEP wre PPE Ee WP ND WNPRPNY HH FRR PRP Nb & WH & Chamaesyce hirta (L.) Millsp. 1 infl Chamaesyce mesembryanthemifolia (Jacq.) Dugand. 2 st (Chamaesyce buxifolia (Lam.) Small) Chamaesyce prostrata (Ait.) Small 1 infl Chamaesyce serpens (HBK.) Small 3 infl Chamaesyce thymifolia (L.) Millsp. 1 infl Croton betulinus Vahl 1 infl & fr Croton lobatus L. 1 infl Croton ovalifolius Vahl 1 infl Croton rigidus (Muell. Arg.) Britton 2 infl Dalechampia scandens L. 1 st 1 infl Drypetes alba Poit. 3 st Euphorbia cyathophora J. Murray 1 fr Euphorbia heterophylla L. 1 infl (Euphorbia geniculata Ort.) Euphorbia oerstediana (Klotzsch & Garcke) Boiss. 1 infl Euphorbia petiolaris Sims 1 infl Hippomane mancinella L. 1 infl Hura crepitans L. 1 infl Jatropha gossypifolia L. 1 infl Margaritaria nobilis L. f. 2 st 1 infl 1 fr Pedilanthus tithymaloides ssp. angustifolius (Poit.) Dressler 1 fr Phyllanthus acidus (L.) Skeels 1 st Phyllanthus amarus Schumach 3 infl Phyllanthus stipulatus (Raf.) Webster 1 infl Ricinus communis L. 1 infl Sapium laurocerasus Desf. 1 st Savia sessiliflora (Sw.) Willd. 1 st 1 infl Securinega acidoton (L.) Fawce. & Rendle 1 st Tragia volublis L. 1 infl 44 Anacardiaceae Anacardium occidentale L. 1 infl Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi 1 infl Spondias mombin L. 1 fr 45 Celastraceae Cassine xylocarpa Vent. 1 infl Crossopetalum rhacoma Crantz 1 fr Maytenus elliptica (Lam.) Krug & Urban 5 infl 7 fr (Maytenus laevigata (Vahl) Griseb. ex Eggers) Schaefferia frutescens Jacq 1 st 1 fr 46 Sapindaceae Allophyllus racemosus Sw. 2 infl Cupania triquetra A. Rich in Sagra 1 st Exothea paniculata (Juss.) Radlk. 1 st Melicoccus bijugatis Jacq. 2 infl Serjania polyphylla (L.) Radlk. 1 st 2 infl & fr 47 Aquifoliaceae Ilex urbaniana Loes. 3 st 2 infl 1 fr 48 Rhamnaceae Colubrina arborescens (Miller) Sarg. 1 infl Colubrina elliptica (Sw.) Briz. & Stern 4 st Gouania lupuloides (L.) Urban 1 infl 2 fr Krugiodendron ferreum (Vahl.) Urban 3 st Reynosia guama Urban 2 infl PRE NNR PRN NWP PRR RP RW PWR HE Ue B&F LS ed i] N We & bo kb 49 Vitaceae Cissus caustica Tuss Cissus sicyoides L. Cissus trifoliata L. ac. 1 st 4 infl 3 infl Vitis tiliifolia Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. 2 st 50 Tiliaceae Corchorus aestuans L Corchorus hirsutus L Triumfetta lappula L - 41 infl - 2 infl - 1 infl Triumfetta semitriloba Jacq. 1 51 Malvaceae infl Abutilon umbellatum (L.) Sweet 6 infl Bastardia viscosa (L Gossypium barbadense L. var. acuminatum (Roxb.) Mast. in Hook. 2 infl & fr -) HBK. 2 Herrisantia crispa (L.) 1 fr Malachra alceifolia Jacq. fr 1 infl & fr Malvastrum americanum (L.) Torr. 1 infl & fr (Malvastrum spicatum (L.) A. Gray) Malvastrum corchorifolium (Desr.) Britt. 1 fr ) Cav. 2 infl Pavonia spinifex (L. Sida alba L. 4 infl (Sida spinosa L.) Sida acuta Burm. f. Sida aggregata Presl Sida ciliaris L. 1 Sida cordifolia L. Sida glabra Mill. 3 Sida glomerata Cav. Sida glutinosa L. 3 Sida jamaicensis L. Sida rhombifolia L. Sida urens L. 1 inf Thespesia populnea (L.) Soland. ex Correa 1 infl 5 infl infl 1 infl infl 1 infl infl 1 infl 1 infl l Urena lobata L. ssp. lobata 1 infl & fr (Urena trilobata Ve Wissadula amplissina 11.) (L.) Fries 1 infl & 1 fr Wissadula periplocifolia (L.) Presl 1 infl & fr 52 Bombacaceae Quararibea turbinata §3 Sterculiaceae (Sw.) Poir. 1 st 1 infl Ayenia insulicola Cristobal 2 fr Guazuma ulmifolia Lam. 4 infl Helicteres jamaicens is Jacq. 1 Melochia pyramidata L. 3 infl Waltheria indica L. 54 Ochnaceae Ouratea littoralis U 55 Theaceae Ternstroemia peduncu 56 Clusiaceae syn. Guttif Clusia rosea Jacq. Mammea americana L. 57 Canellaceae Canella winterana (L 2 infl rban 1 st laris DC. erae 1 st 1 infl 1 st -) Gaertn. 22 infl & fr 3 st 3 infl 1 st 3 fr 1 infl & fr 58 Flacourtiaceae Casearia decandra Jacq. 1 infl Casearia guianensis (Aubl.) Urban 1 st 2 infl Casearia sylvestris Sw. 3 infl1 st Prockia crucis L. 2 infl Samyda dodecandra Jacq. 1 st 2 infl 1 fr Xylosma buxifolium A. Gray 1 st 59 Turneraceae Turnera diffusa Willd. 1 inflk Turnera ulmifolia L. 3 infl 60 Passifloraceae Passiflora foetida L. 1 infl & fr Passiflora multiflora L. 1 st 2 fr Passiflora rubra L. 2 infl & fr Passiflora suberosa L. 1 infl 61 Caricaceae 62 Cactaceae Opuntia dillenii (Ker-Gawl.) Haw. 1 infl Pilosocereus royenii (L.) Byles & Rowley 2 infl 63 Thymeleaceae 3 Daphnopsis americana(Mill.)J.R.Johnst. ssp. Caribaea (Griseb.) Nevil. 2 infl 1 infl & fr 64 Punicaceae 65 Rhizophoraceae Rhizophora mangle L. 1 infl 66 Lythraceae Ammanniua coccinea Rotth. 1 infl Ginoria rohrii (Vahl) Koehne 1 infl 67 Combretaceae Bucida buceras L. 4 infl Conocarpus erectus L. 1 infl 1 infl & fr Laguncularia racemosa (L.) Gaertn.f. 1 infl Quisqualis indica L. 1 infl Terminalia cataplpa L. 2 st 68 Myrtaceae Calyptranthes thomasiana Berg. 6 st 3 infl Eugenia axillaris (Sw.) DC. 3 st Eugenia biflora (L.) DC. 2 fr Eugenia confusa DC. 1 st 4 infl 1 fr & infl Eugenia cordata (Sw.)DC. 1 st 2 fr Eugenia lingustrina (Sw.) Willd. 2 fr Eugenia monticola (Sw.)DC. 6 infl Eugenia procera (Sw.) Poir. 1 st 1 infl 1 fr Eugenia pseudopsidium Jacq. 2 fr Eugenia rhombea (Berg) Krug & Urb. 2 fr Eugenia sessiliflora Vahl 4 st 1 infl Eugenia sp. (new species) 5 infl Myrcia citrifolia (Aubl.) Urb. 4 infl Myrcianthes fragrans (Sw.) McVaugh 2 st 3 fr Myrciaria floribunda (West ex Willd.) Berg. 2 st Pimenta racemosa (Mill.) Moore 2 infl Psidium amplexicaule Pers. 2 fr Psidium guajava L. 1 st Psidium sp. (new species) 5 st 69 Melastomaceae - noe mM bo w& dbo Ww RR bm & Fe rR Nr bd > We ND dS UF OF U1 Dd bo & Ob & DH bo W& Nb FULD & & bP Ru - NE PRP FPRWWWwne PRN pb 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 717 78 719 80 81 82 Miconia laevigata (L.) DC. 1 infl 3 fr Tetrazygia angustifolia (Sw.) DC. 2 infl Tetrazygia elaeagnoides (Sw.) DC. 2 infl Onagraceae Ludwigia octovalvis (Jacq.) Raven 1 infl Araliaceae Didymopanax morototoni (Aubl.) Decne. & Planch. 2 st Apiaceae syn. Umbelliferae Apium leptophyllum(Pers.)F. Muell. 1 infl & fr Theophrastaceae Jacquinia arborea Vahl. 1 infl & fr Jacquinia berterii Spreng. 2 fr Myrsinaceae Ardisia obovata Hamilt. 4 infl Plumbaginaceae Plumbago scandens L. 4 infl Sapotaceae Bumelia obovata (Lam.) A. DC. 2 infl Bumelia salicifolia (L.) Sw. 1 st 3 infl Chrysophyllum eggersii Pierre in Urban 1s t 3 infl Chrysophyllum pauciflorum Lam. 2 infl Manilkara bidentata (A. DC.) A. Chev. 1 st 4 infl Mastichodendrom foetidissimum (Jacq.)H.J. Lam. 1 st Symplocaceae Symplocos martinicensis Jacq. 1 st Oleaceae Forestiera eggersiana Krug & Urban 1 st 5 infl Jasminum fluminense Vell. 1 st (Jasminum azoricum L.) Jasminum multiflorum (Burm.f.)Andr. 1 infl Linociera caribaea ( Jacq.) KInobl. 2 infl (Chionanthus compactus Sw.) Loganiaceae Spigelia anthelmia L. 3 infl & fr Apocynaceae Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don 1 infl Nerium oleander L. 2 infl Plumeria alba L. 1 infl Prestonia agglutinata (Jacq.) Woods 2 st 1 fr Rauvolfia nitida Jacq. 1 st 1 infl 1 fr Rauvolfia viridis Willd. ex Roem & Schult. 1 infl Urechites Lutea (L.) Britton 1 infl & fr Asclepiadaceae Asclepias curassavica L. 1 infl Cryptostegia grandiflora R. Br. 1 infl Cynanchum cheesmanii Woods. 1 infl Matelea maritima (Jacq.) Woods. 2 st Convolvulaceae (incl. Cuscutaceae) Convolvulus nodiflorus Desr. 2 infl Cuscuta americana L. 1 infl Cuscuta indecora Choisy 1 infl & fr Evolvulus linifolius L. 2 infl Evolvulus nummularius (L.)L. 1 st Ipomoea acuminata (Vahl) R&S 1 infl (Ipomoea indica(Burm.f.) Merrill var. acuminata(Vahl) Fosb.) b> i Ipomoea fistulosa Mart. Ex choicy 1 infl Ipomoea macrantha Roem. & Schult. 1 infl Tpomoea nil (L.) Roth 1 infl Ipomoea pes-caprae (L.) R. Br. 1 infl Ipomoea repanda Jacq. 1 infl Ipomoea solanifolia L. 1 infl & fr (Jacquemontia solanifolia (L.) Hall. f.) Ipomoea steudelii Millsp. 1 st 2 infl Ipomoea tiliaceae (Willd.) Choisy 1 infl Ipomoea tricolor Cav. 1 infl Jacquemontia pentantha (Jacq.) G. Don 4 infl Merremia aegyptia (L.) Urban 1 infl & fr Merremia dissecta (Jacq.) Hall. f. 1 fr & infl Merremia quinquefolia (L.) Hall f. 2 infl Merremia umbellata (L.) Hall f. 2 infl & fr Stictocardia tiliifolia (Desr.) Hall f. 1 st 83 Boraginaceae Bourreria succulenta Jacq. 1 fr Cordia alba (Jacq.) R. & S. 2 infl Cordia alliodora (R & P.) Oken 1 st 1 infl Cordia collococca L. 1 st 1 infl Cordia laevigata Lam. 2 infl (Cordia nitida Vahl) Cordia polycephala (Lam.) I. M. Johnst. 1 infl Cordia rickseckeri Millsp. 1 infl Cordia sebestena L. 1 infl Cordia sulcata DC. 1 st 1 infl Heliotropium angiospermum Murray 2 infl Heliotropium curassavicum L. 1 infl Heliotropium indicum L. 1 infl Heliotropium procumbens Miller 2 infl Heliotropium ternatum Vahl 1 infl Rochefortia acanthophora (DC.)Griesb. 2 infl Tournefortia bicolor Sw. 1 infl Tournefortia filiflora Griseb. 1 infl Tournefortia gnaphalodes (L.)R. Br. 1 infl Tournefortia hirsutissima L. 1 infl Tournefortia microphylla Bert. 1 infl & fr (Tournefortia volubilis L.) 84 Verbenaceae Bouchea prismatica (L.) Kuntze 1 fr Citharexylum fruticosum L. 2 st 1 infl Citharexylum spinosum L. 2 fr Clerodendrum aculeatum (L.) Schlecht. 1 infl Duranta repens L. 1 fr Lantana camara L. 1 infl Lantana involucrata L. 2 infl Lantana urticifolia Miller 1 infl Priva lappulaceae (L.) Pers. 1 infl Stachytarpheta jamaicensis (L.) Vahl 1 infl Stachytarpheta strigosa Vahl 2 infl Vitex divaricata Sw. 2 st 85 Lamiaceae syn. Labiatae Hyptis capitata Jacq. 1 infl Hyptis pectinata (L.) Poit. 1 infl PND RP RRP RW PRP PEPE N dO bh Dd FS PRP RRP PR PPR BeBe NNP PPMP PRM Wr re 25 PUPP RPWN RPP RPh NWR EP PROF FRM FPN NEP NR Nr Pr WP FPwwnd PP PP Leonotis nepetifolia (L.) Ait.f. in Ait. Leonorus sibiricus L. 1 infl Ocimum micranthum Willd. 1 infl & fr Salvia occidentalis Sw. 3 infl Salvia serotina L. 2 infl & fr 86 Solanaceae Brunsfelsia americana L. 2 infl Capsicum baccatum L. 1 fr Cestrum laurifolium L. Her. 1 infl Datura innoxia Mill. 1 infl Physalis cordata Miller 2 infl & fr Solanum Solanun Solanum Solanum Solanum Solanun Solanun americanum var. nodiflorium (Jacq.) Edm. erianthum D. Don 1 infl lanceifolium Jacq. 1 fr & infl persicifolium Dunal 1 fr & infl polygamum Vahl 4 infl 1 fr racemosum Jacq. 5 infl torvum Sw. 2 infl 87 Scrophulariaceae Bacopa monnieri (L.) Pennell 4 infl Capraria biflora L. 1 infl Scoparia dulcis L. 2 infl & fr 88 Bignoniaceae Arrabidaea chica (H. & B.) Verlot 1 infl Crescentia cujete L. 1 st Crescentia linearifolia Miers 1 infl 1 fr Cydista aequinoctialis (L.) Miers 2 infl Enallagma latifolia (Mill.) Standl. 1 fr (Amphitecna latifolia (Mill.) A. Gentry) Macfadyena unguis-cati (L.) Gentry 1 st 1 fr Tabebuia heterophylla (DC.) Britt. 1 infl Tecoma stans (L.) HBK. 1 infl 89 Acanthaceae Blechum brownei Juss. 1 infl Justicia mirabiloides Lam. 2 infl Justicia periplocifolia Jacq. 1 infl Justicia sessilis Jacq. 1 infl (Siphonoglossa sessilis (Jacq.) Gibson) Justicia sp. 2 infl Oplonia Ruellia Ruellia Ruellia microphylla (Lam.) Stearn 2 st 1 infl coccinea (L.) Vahl 1 infl tuberosa L. 4 infl tweediana Griseb. 1 infl Stenandrium tuberosum (L.) Urban 1 st 1 infl 90 Myoporaceae 91 Plantaginaceae Plantago major L. 1 fr 92 Rubiaceae Borreria laevis (Lam.) Griseb. 4 infl Borreria ocymoides (Burm.f.) DC. 1 infl Chiococca alba (L.) A.S.Hitche. 5 infl Chione venosa (Sw.) Urban 2 st Erithalis fruticosa L. 3 infl Exostema caribaeum (Jacq.) R&S Faramea occidentalis (L.) A.Rich 1 infl 1 infl 2 infl & fr 1 fr 3 infl & fr Gonzalagunia spicata (Lam.) Gomez Maza 4 infl Guettarda parviflora Vahl 1 st 4 infl 1 fr Guettarda scabra (L.) Lam 1 infl 3 fr Txora ferrea (Jacq.) Benth. 2 infl Machaonia sp 4 infl Palicouria domingensis (Jacq.) DC. 3 infl Palicouria riparia Benth. 2 infl 1 fr (Palicouria crocea var. riparia (Benth.) Griseb.) Psychotria brownei Spreng. 1 st 3 infl 3 fr Psychotria microdon (DC.) Urban 5 infl 2 fr Psychotria nervosa Sw. 5 infl Randia aculeata L. 1 st Rondeletia pilosa Sw. 1 infl & fr 2 fr Scolosanthes versicolor Vahl 5 st 93 Cucurbitaceae Cayaponia americana (Lam.) Cogn. 1 st 1 infl & fr Corallacarpus emetoicatharticus (Gros.) Cogn. 1 fr- (Doyerea emetocatharticus (Grosourdy) 1 Momordica charantia L. 1 infl 94 Lobeliaceae 1 Hippobroma longiflora (L.) G. Don 1 infl 95 Goodeniaceae 96 Asteraceae syn. Compositae Acanthospermum hispidum DC. 1 fr Ageratum conyzoides L. 1 infl Bidens pilosa L. 1 infl (Bidens alba (L.)DC. var. radiata (Sch. -Bip. ) Ballard) Chaptalia nutans (L.) Polak. 1 infl Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cron. 1 infl Conyza canadensis (L.) Cron. var. pusilla (Nutt.) Cron. 1 infl Eclipta alba (L.) Hassk. 2 infl (Eclipta prostrata (L.) L.) Elephantopus mollis Kunth 1 infl Emelia fosbergii Nicols. 2 infl (Emelia coccinea) sagittata Vahl DC.) Emelia sonchifolia (L.) DC. 2 infl Erigeron cuneifolius DC. 1 infl Eupatorium corymbosum Aubl. 5 infl Eupatorium odoratum L. 1 infl Eupatorium sinuatum Lam. 3 infl Galinsoga ciliata (Raf.) Blake 1 infl (Galinsoga parviflora Cav.) Launaea intybacea (Jacq.) Beauverd 1 infl Neurolaena lobata (L.) Cass. 1 infl Parthenium hysterophorus L. 1 infl Pectis humifusa Sw. 4 infl Pectis linifolia L. 1 infl Piptocoma antillana Urban 1 infl Pluchea carolinensis (Jacgq.) G. Don 1 infl (Pluchea symphytifolia (Miller) Gillis) Pterocaulon virgatum (L.) DC: 1 infl Sonchus oleraceus L.' 1 st 1 infl Synedrella nodiflora (L.) Gaertn. 2 st Vernonia albicaulis Pers. 1 st 2 infl Vernonia sericea L. C. Rich. 2 infl mwr ow} -~l WW mde HD | oo ed NPR PPR s NR PRP RRP RPP HWP orp NWN NY FR 1 Wedelia parviflora L.C.Rich. 1 infl (Wedelia calycina var. parviflora (L.C.Rich.) Alain) 1 Wedelia trilobata (L.) A.S.Hitchec. 1 infl Monocotyledons 97 Typhaceae 98 Ruppiaceae 99 Zannichelliaceae 100 Hydrocharitaceae 101 Poaceae syn. Gramineae 1 Andropogon pertusus (L.) Willd. 1 infl (Bothriochloa pertusa (L.) A.Camus) Andropogon semiberbis (Nees) Kunth 1 infl (Schizachyrium sanguineum (Retz.) Alston var.sanguineum) Anthephora hermaphrodita (L.) Kuntze 1 infl Aristidia adscensionis L. 4 infl Aristidia cognata Trin.&Rupr. 2 infl Arthrostylidium capillifolium Griseb. 2 infl Axonopus compressus (Sw.) Beauv. 3 infl Cenchrus brownii R. & S. 3 infl Chloris barbata Sw. 2 infl (Chloris inflata Link) Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. 2 infl Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Beauv. 6 infl Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koeler 3 infl Echinochloa colona (L.) Link 2 infl Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. 1 infl Eragrostic ciliaris (L.) R.Br. 3 infl Eragrestic tenella (L.) Beauv. ex R. & S. 4 infl Eragrostic tephrosanthos Schult. 1 infl Eriochloa punctata (L.) Desv. 2 infl Heteropogon contortus (L.) Beauv. ex Roem. & Schult. 1 infl Lasiacis divaricata (L.) Hitchc. 7 infl Lasiacis maculata (Aubl) Urban 1 st Lasiacis rucifolia (HBK.) Hitche. 1 infl Lasiacis sorghoidea (Desv.) Hitchc. & Chase 4 infl Leptochloa virgata (L.) Beauv. 2 infl Leptochloopsis virgata (Poir.) Yates 3 infl (Uniola virgata (Poir.) Griseb.) Olyra latifolia L. 1 infl Oplismenus hirtellus (L.) Beauv. 2 infl Panicum adspersum Trin. 1 infl (Brachiaria adspersa (Trin.) Parodi) Panicum fasciculatum Sw. 2 infl (Brachiaria fassciculatum (Sw.) S.T.Blake) Panicum geminatum (Forssk.) Stapf) Panicum maximum Jacq. 3 infl Paspalum conjugatum Berg. 1 infl Paspalum fimbriatum HBK. 3 infl Paspalum laxum Lam. 8 infl Paspalum molle Poir. 2 infl Paspalum notatum Flugge 1 infl Paspalum vaginatum Sw. 1 infl Pharus glaber HBK. 2 infl Tricholaena repens (Willd.) Hitchc. 1 infl ray NM WwWWwH Dd & bP Wh RRR TR NR Rm & eB bo & oO bo ae bt FP PPRPM OW WH 23 (Rhynchelytrum repens (Willd.) C.E. Hubb) Setaria leiophylla (Nees) Kunth 1 infl Setaria setosa (Sw.) Beauv. 5 infl Setaria utowanaea (Schribn.) Pilger 1 infl Spartina patens (Ait.) Muhl. 2 st Sporobolus indicus (L.) R.Br. 2 infl Sporobolus virginicus (L.) Kunth 2 infl Stenotaphrum secundatum (Walt.) Kuntze 1 infl Syntherisma digitata (Sw.) Hitche. 3 infl (Digitaria horizontalis Willd.) Tragus berteronianus Schhult. 1 infl Trichachne insularis (L.) Nees 3 infl 102 Cyperaceae Abildgaardia monostachya (L.) Vahl 2 infl (Fimbristylis ovata (Burm.f) Kern) Bulbostylis pauciflora (Liebm.) Clarke 2 infl Cyperus compressus L. 2 infl Cyperus elegans L. 1 infl Cyperus ligularis L. 1 infl (Mariscus ligularis L.) Cyperus nanus Boeckl. 1 infl (Mariscus capillaris (Sw.) Vahl) Cyperus planifolius L.C.Rich. 1 infl Cyperus rotundus L. 2 infl Cyperus surinamensis Rottb. 1 infl Cyperus vahlii (Nees) Steud. 1 infl (Cyperus flexuosus Vahl) Dichromena radicans Schl. & Cham. 1 infl | , Eleocharis geniculata (L.) R.& S.) 6 infl ° (Rhynchospora radicans (S. & C.) Pfeiff.) Fimbristylis dichotoma (L.) Vahl. 2 infl Scleria lithosperma (L.) Sw. 1 infl Scleria pterota Presl 2 infl (Scleria melaleuca Cham. & Schlt.) 103 Arecaceae syn. Palme 104 Araceae 1 Anthurium acaule Britton & Wilson 1 infl (Anthurium crenatum (L.) Kunth) Anthurium cordatum (Willd.) G.Don 1 st Anthurium selloum C. Koch 2 infl (1 specimen on 2 sheets) Dieffenbachia seguine (Jacq.) Schott 1 st Philodendron giganteum Schott 1 st Philodendron scandens Koch & Sello 1 st Pistia stratiotes L. 1 st 105 Lemnaceae 106 Bromeliaceae Aechmea lingulata (L.) Baker 1 infl Bromelia pinguin L. 2 infl (1 specimen on 2 sheets Catopsis floribunda (Sw.) Griseb. 1 infl Pitcairnia angustifolia Aiton. 2 infl (1 specimen on 2 sheets) Tillandsia fasciculata Sw. 1 infl Tillandsia lineatispica Mez 4 infl Tillandsia recurvata L. 2 infl Tillandsia utriculata L. 3 infl 1 st 107 Commelinaceae WrRNNN FR Ute DP PRN FP FP PEND Bw WH oe od oo oe Oo NP bh Mm NO im de dO Fr nas) wl Callisia repens (Jacq.) L. 1 st Commelina elegans HBK. 1 infl Rhoeo spathacea (Sw.) Stearn 1 st Spironema fragrans Lindl. 1 infl (?) (Callisia fragrans (Lindl.) Woods.) 108 Liliaceae 1 Sansevieria trifasciata Prain 1 infl 109 Smilaceae 110 Hypoxidaceae PRP 1 Hypoxis decumbens L. 1 infl 111 Amaryllidaceae 1 Pancratium declinatum Jacq. 1 infl (Hymenocallis caribaea (L. emend. Gawl.) Herb.) 112 Agavaceae 113 Dioscoreaceae 1 Dioscorea alata L. 1 st 114 Iridaceae 115 Orchidaceae 1 Epidendrum ciliare L. 1 infl 1 Oncidium variegatum (Sw.) Sw. 1 infl 3 Tetramicra canaliculata (Aubl.) Urban 1 st 2 infl (Tetramicra elegans (Hamilt.) Cogn.) 1 Vanilla barbellata Rchb.f. 1 st 30 List B. Sterile Specimens Species only represented by sterile specimens in VINP Collection: Family No. & Family 3 Polypodiaceae Odontosoria aculeata Pteris biaurita 4 lLycopodiaceae Lycopodium cernuum 6 Piperaceae Peperomia glabella Peperomia humilis 7 Ulmaceae Celtis’ iguanaea 8 Moraceae Ficus trigonata 9 Urticaceae Pilea microphylla Pilea nummulariifolia Pilea tenerrima Vitis tiliifolia 12 Aristolochiaceae Aristolochia trilobata 16 Nyctaginaceae Neea buxifolia 19 Aizoaceae Cypselea humifusa 20 Portulacaceae Portulaca quadrifida 22 Menispermaceae Hyperbaena domingensis 23 Annonaceae Annona muricata 24 Lauraceae Licaria salicifolia Licaria triandra 31 Fabaceae-Mimosoideae Adenanthera pavonia 32 Fabaceae-Caesalpinioideae Cassia alata Cassia occidentalis Hymenaea courbaril 33 Fabaceae-Faboideae Alysicarpus vaginalis Cracca caribaea Dalbergia ecastaphylla Erythrina corallodendron Erythrina eggersii Machaerium lunatum 36 Malpighiaceae Bunchosia glandulosa 31 38 41 43 46 48 49 54 56 53. 67 68 71 716 717 78 81 82 84 88 92 Brysonima sp. Malpighia linearis Malpighia woodburyana Stigmaphyllon tomentosum Rutaceae Murraya paniculata Pilocarpus racemosus Triphasia trifolia Meliaceae Azadirachta indica Euphorbiaceae Chanaesyce mesembryanthemifolia Drypetes alba Phyllanthus acidus Sapium laurocerasus Securinega acidoton Sapindaceae Cupania triquetra Exothea paniculata Rhamnaceae Colubrina elliptica Krugiodendron ferreum Vitaceae Cissus caustica Ochnaceae Ouratea littoralis Clusiaceae syn. Guttiferae Mammea americana Flacourtiaceae Casearia guianensis Xylosma buxifolium Combretaceae Terminalia catappa Myrtaceae Eugenia axillaris Myrciaria floribunda Psidium sp. Araliaceae Didymopanax morototoni Sapotaceae Mastichodendron foetidissimum Symplocaceae Symplocos martinicensis Oleaceae Jasminum fluminense Vell. (Jasminum azoricum L.) Asclepiadaceae Matelea maritima Convolvulaceae Evolvulus nummularius Verbenaceae Vitex divaricata Bignoniaceae Crescentia cujete Rubiaceae Chione venosa Randia aculeata Scolosanthes veriscolor 96 Asteraceae syn. Compositae Synedrella nodiflora 101 Poaceae syn. Gramineae Spartina patens 104 Araceae Anthurium cordatun Dieffenbachia seguine Philodendron giganteum Pistia stratiotes 107 Commelinaceae Callisia repens Rhoeo spathacea 113 Dioscoreaceae Dioscorea alata 115 Orchidaceae Vanilla barbellata List C. Phylogenetic Order of Plant Families This is a synoptic listing of the phylogenetic order of plant families which is used in this document. this order is Woodbury and Weaver (1984) with minor exceptions. Family no. Family i Psilotaceae 2 Ophioglossaceae 3A Cyatheaceae 41 Meliaceae 3B Polypodiaceae 4 Lycopodiaceae Dicotyledons 5 Casuarinaceae 6 Piperaceae 7 Ulmaceae 8 Moraceae 9 Urticaceae 10 Olacaceae 11 Loranthaceae 12 Aristolochiaceae 13 Polygonaceae 14 Chenopodiaceae 15 Amaranthaceae 16 Nyctaginaceae 17 Bataceae 18° Phytolaccaceae 19 Aizoaceae 20. + Portulacaceae 21 Basellaceae 22 Menispermaceae 23 Annonaceae 24 Lauraceae 25 Papaveraceae 26 Brassicaceae syn. Cruciferae 27 Capparaceae 28 Moringaceae 29 Crassulaceae 30 Chrysobalanaceae 31 Fabaceae-Mimosoideae 32 Fabaceae-Caesalpinioideae 33 Fabaceae-Faboideae 34 Oxalidaceae 35 Zygophyllaceae 36 Malpighiaceae 37 Erythroxylaceae 38 Rutaceae 80 Apocynaceae 81 Asclepiadaceae 34 39 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 710 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 The authority for Simaroubiaceae Burseraceae Polygalaceae Euphorbiaceae Anacardiaceae Celastraceae Sapindaceae Aquifoliaceae Rhamnaceae Vitaceae Tiliaceae Malvaceae Bombacaceae Sterculiaceae Ochnaceae Theaceae Clusiaceae syn. Canellaceae Flacourtiaceae Turneraceae Passifloraceae Caricaceae Cactaceae Thymeleaceae Punicaceae Rhizophoraceae Lythraceae Combretaceae Myrtaceae Melastomaceae Onagraceae Araliaceae Apiaceae syn. Umbelliferae Theophrastaceae Myrsinaceae Plumbaginaceae Sapotaceae Symplocaceae Olaaceae Loganiaceae Guttiferae 82 Convolvulaceae 83 Boraginaceae 84 Verbenaceae 85 lLamiaceae syn. Labiatae 86 Solanaceae 87 Scrophulariaceae 88 Bignoniaceae 89 Acanthaceae 90 Myoporaceae 91 Plantaginaceae 92 Rubiaceae 93 Cucurbitaceae 94 Lobeliaceae 95 Goodeniaceae 96 Asteraceae syn. Compositae Monocotyledons 97 Typhaceae 98 Ruppiaceae 99 Zannichelliaceae 100 Hydrocharitaceae 101 Poaceae syn. Gramineae 102 Cyperaceae 103 Arecaceae syn. Palmae 104 Araceae 105 lLemnaceae 106 Bromeliaceae 107 Commelinaceae 108 Liliaceae 109 Smilaceae 110 Hypoxidaceae 111 = Amaryllidaceae 112 Agavaceae 113 Dioscoreaceae 114 Iridaceae 115 Orchidaceae 35 List D. Alphabetical Listing of Fami lies: Family no. Family 89 112 19 15 111 44 23 80 47 72 104 71 103 12 81 96 21 17 88 52 33 26 106 40 62 57 27 61 5 45 30 67 107 82 29 26 93 3A 102 113 37 43 32 31 33 3B 20 1 Acanthaceae Agavaceae Aizoaceae Amaranthaceae Amaryllidaceae Anacardiaceae Annonaceae Apocynaceae Aquifoliaceae Apiaceae syn. Umbelliferae Araceae Araliaceae Arecaceae syn. Palmae Aristolochiaceae Asclepiadaceae Asteraceae syn. Compositae Basellaceae Bataceae Bignoniaceae Bombacaceae Boraginaceae Brassicaceae syn. Cruciferae Bromeliaceae Burseraceae Cactaceae ' Canellaceae Capparaceae Caricaceae Casuarinaceae Celastraceae Chrysobalanaceae Combretaceae Commelinaceae Convolvulaceae Crassulaceae Cruciferae syn. Asteraceae Cucuribitaceae Cyatheaceae Cyperaceae Dioscoreaceae Erythroxylaceae Euphorbiaceae Fabaceae~Caesalpinioideae Fabaceae-Faboideae Fabaceae-Mimosoideae Polypodiaceae Portulacaceae Psilotaceae 36 58 95 101 56 100 110 114 85 24 105 108 94 719 11 66 36 51 69 41 22 28 90 74 68 16 10 78 710 22 115 34 103 25 60 18 91 75 101 42 13 Flacourtiaceae Goodeniaceae Gramineae syn. Poaceae Guttiferae syn. Clusiaceae Hydrocharitaceae Hypoxidaceae Iridaceae Labiatae syn. Lamiaceae Lauraceae Lemnaceae Liliaceae Lobeliaceae Loganiaceae Loranthaeae Lycopodiaceae Lythraceae Malpighiaceae Malvaceae Melastomataceae Meliaceae Menispermaceae Moraceae Moringaceae Myoporaceae Myrsinaceae Myrtaceae Nyctaginaceae Ochnaceae Olacaceae Oleaceae Onagraceae Ophioglossaceae Orchidaceae Oxalidaceae Palmae syn. Arecaceae Papaveraceae Passifloraceae Phytolaccaceae Piperaceae Plantaginaceae Plumbaginaceae Poaceae syn. Gramineae Polygalaceae Polygonaceae 64 Punicaceae 48 Rhamnaceae 65 Rhizophoraceae 92 Rubiaceae 98 Ruppiaceae 38 Rutaceae 46 Sapindaceae 76 Sapotaceae 87 Scrophulariaceae 39 Simaroubaceae 109 Smilacaceae 86 Solanaceae 53 Sterculiaceae 77 Symplocaceae 55 Theaceae 73 Theophrastaceae 63 Thymeleaceae 97 Typhaceae 50 Tiliaceae 59 Turneraceae 7 Ulmaceae 72 Umbelliferae syn. Apiaceae 9 Urticaceae 84 Verbenaceae 49 Vitaceae 99 Zannichelliaceae 35 Zygophyllaceae ~d > ~ Appendix I. Plants of St. John Not in the Main Collection Plant Species listed as occuring on St. John,as compiled in the checklist by R.O. Woodbury and P. Weaver (1984. 1987), but not represented in the collection made by R.O. Woodbury (List A above). Other sources undoubtedly will add more records. For example, G.P. Proctor in a 1984 survey of the V.I., found an additional 6 species/subspecies of ferns on St. John (see Appendix II.). Family no. Family 1 Psilotaceae Psilotum nudum (L.) Griseb. 2 Ophioglossaceae Ophioglossum reticulatun L. 3 Polypodiaceae Hemionitis palmata L. Thelypteris dentata (Forssk.) E. St. John 4 lycopodiaceae Dicotyledons 5 Casuarinaceae 6 Piperaceae Peperomia pellucida (L.) HBK. 7 Ulmaceae 8 Moraceae Artocarpus altilis (S.Park.) Fosb. Chlorophora tinctoria (L.) Gaud. 9 Urticaceae Fleurya aestuans (L.) Gaud. (Laportea aestuans (L.). Chew) 10 Olacaceae 11 Loranthaceae 12 Aristolochiaceae Aristolochia odoratissima L. 13 Polygonaceae Coccoloba diversifolia Jacq. 14 Chenopodiaceae 15 Amaranthaceae Alternanthera crucis (Moq.) Boldingh Amaranthus crassipes Schlecht. Amaranthus dubius Mart. Amaranthus viridis L. 16 Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia scandens (L.) Standl. 17 Bataceae 18 Phytolaccaceae 19 Azioaceae a Sesuvium portulacastrum (L.) L. 20 Portulacaceae Portulaca halimoides L. Portulaca pilosa L. 21 Basellaceae 38 Portulaca pilosa L. 21 Basellaceae 22 Menispermaceae 23 Annonaceae Annona reticulata L. Guatteria caribaea Urban 24 Lauraceae Ocotea floribunda (Sw.) Mez Ocotea sintenisii (Mez) Alain (Nectandra sintenisii Mez) 25 Papaveraceae 26 Brassicaceae syn. Cruciferae Brassica willdenovii Boiss. (Brassica integrifolia (Willd.) Rupr.) 27 Capparaceae Cleome gynandra L. 28 Moringaceae 29 Crassulaceae 30 Chrysobalanaceae Chrysobalanus icaco L. var. icaco 31 Fabaceae-Mimosoideae Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. Prosopis pallida (H.& B. ex Willd.) HBK. 32 Fabaceae-Caesalpiniodeae Cassia chamaecrista L. Cassia obtusifolia L. Haematoxylum campechianum L. 33 Fabaceae-Fabcoideae Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. Desmodium scopiurus (Sw.) Desv. Desmodium triflorum (L.) DC. Galactia eggersii Urban Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Kunth ex Walp. Sabinea florida (Vahl) Dc. Sesbania grandiflora (L.) Pers. Vigna luteola (Jacq.) Benth. 34 Oxalidaceae 35 Zygophyllaceae Kallstroemia maxima (L.) Torr. & A.Gray 36 Malphighiaceae Galphimia glauca Cav. (Galphimia gracilis Bartl.) Heteropteris laurifolia (L.) A. Juss. Malpighia emarginata Sesse & Moc. ex DC. 37 Erythroxylaceae 38 Rutaceae Amyris elemifera L. Citrus aurantifolia (Christm.) Swingle Zanthoxylum martinicense (Lam.) DC. 39 Simaroubaceae Picrasma antillana (Eggers) Urban (?) Quassia amara L. 40 Burseraceae 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Meliaceae Melia azedarach L. Swietenia mahogani (L.) Jacq. Trichilia hirta L. Polygalaceae Polygala hecatantha Urban Euphorbiaceae Croton astroites Dryand Euphorbia tirucalli L. Jatropha curcas L. Phyllanthus niruri L. Sapium caribaeum Urban Anacardiaceae Comocladia dentata Jacq. Mangifera indica L. Spondias dulcis Parkinson Spondias purpurea L. Celastraceae Gyminda latifolia (Sw.) Urban Sapindaceae Cardiospermum microcarpum HBK. Sapindus saponaria L. Aquifoliaceae Tlex sideroxyloides (Sw.) Griseb. Rhamnaceae Ziziphus rignonii Delp. Vitaceae Tiliaceae Corchorus siliquosus L. Malvaceae Abutilon hirtum (Lam.) Sweet Malvastrum coromandelianum (L.) Gracke Sida acuminata DC. (Sida multiflorum (Jacq.) Fryxell) Sida javensis Cav. ssp. expilosa Borss. Sida procumbens Sw. (Sida abutilifolia Mill.) Sida salviifolia C. Presl. Urena lobata L. Bombacaceae Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn. Sterculiaceae - Melochia nodiflora Sw. Melochia tomentosa L. Ochnaceae Theaceae Clusiaceae syn. Guttiferae Canellaceae Flacourtiaceae Turneraceae Passifloraceae Passiflora edulis Sims Passiflora laurifolia L. Waalkes 61 Caricaceae Carica papaya L. 62 Cactaceae Consolea rubescens (Salm. Dyck.) Lem. Hylocereus trigonus (Haw.) Stafford Hylocereus undatus (Haw.)} Britton Lemaireocereus hystrix (Haw.) Britton & Rose Lemaireocereus littoralis (K.Brandeg.) H. E. Gates Mammillaria nivosa Link Melocactus intortus (Miller) Urban Nopalea cochenillifera (L.) Salm-Dyck Opuntia antillana Britton & Rose Opuntia repens Bello Selenicereus grandiflorus (L.) Britton & Rose Thymeleaceae Punicaceae Punica granatum L. Rhizophoraceae Lythraceae Combretaceae Buchenavia capitata (Vahl) Eichl. Myrtaceae Eugenia foetida Poir. Eugenia sintenisii Kiaersk. Myrcia citrifolia (Aubl.) Urban Syzygium jambos (L.) Alst. Melastomataceae Onagraceae Araliaceae Apiaceae syn. Umbelliferae Theophrastaceae Myrsinaceae Plumbaginaceae Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum cainito L. Manilkara zapota (L.)R. v. Royen Pouteria multiflora (A. DC.) Eyma Symplocaceae Oleaceae Loganiaceae Apocynaceae Thevetia peruviana (Pers.) K. Schum. Asclepiadaceae Calotropis procera (Aiton) Aiton f. Cynanchum grisebachianum (Schlecht.) Alain Convolvulaceae Evolvulus glaber Spreng. (Evolvulus convolvuloides (Willd. ex Schult.) Stearn) Ipomoea alba L. Ipomoea macrantha Roem. & Schult. Ipomoea hederifolia L. Ipomoea trilobata L. Jacquemontia cumanensis (HBK.) O. Kuntze 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Jacquemontia tamnifolia (L.) Griseb. Boraginaceae Verbenaceae Avicennia germinans (L.) L. Lantana aculeata L. (Lantana camara var aculeata (L.) Mold.) Lamiaceae syn. Labiatae Coleus amboinicus Lour. (Plectranthus amboinicus (Lour.) Launert) Hyptis suaveolens (L.) Poit. Salvia coccinea Buc'hoz ex Etlinger Solanaceae Capsicum frutescens L. Cestrum nocturnum L. _Cestrum diurnum L. Datura metel L. Physalis angulata L. Physalis pubescens L. Physalis turbinata Medic. Solanum conocarpum Dunal Solanum mucronatum 0.E. Schulz. Solanum seaforthianum Andr. Scrophulariaceae Bignoniaceae Spathodea campanulata Beauv. Acanthaceae Barleria lupulina Lindl. Dicliptera assurgens (L.) Juss. Justicia carthaginensis Jacq. Justicia pectoralis Jacq. Oplonia spinosa (Jacq.) Raf. Thunbergia alata Bojer Thunbergia fragrans Roxb. Myoporaceae Bontia daphnoides L. Plantaginaceae Rubiaceae Coffee arabica L. Ernodea littoralis Sw. Genipa americana L. Geophila repens (L.) Johnst. Morinda citrifolia L. Spermacoce confusa Rendle & Gillis Cucurbitaceae Cucumis anguria L. Melothria pendula L. Lobeliaceae Goodeniaceae Scaevola plumieri (L.) Vahl Asteraceae Bidens cynapiifolia HBK. (Bidens bipinnata L. var. cynapiifolia (HBK.) Gomez Maza) Conyza apurensis HBK. ron bo Cosmos caudatus hbk. Gundlachia corymbosa (Urban) Britton Milkiana cordifolia (L.f.) Willd. Pseudelephantopus spicatus (Juss.) Baker Tridax procumbens L. Vernonia cinerea (L.) Less. Wedelia calycina L.C. Rich. Zinnia peruviana (L.) L. Monocotyledons 97 Typhaceae Typha domingensis Pers. 98 Ruppiaceae Ruppia maritima L. 99 Zannichelliaceae Syringodium filiforme Kutz 100 Hydrocharitaceae Thalassia testudinum Banks & Solander 101 Poaceae syn. Gramineae Andropogon bicornis L. Andropogon ischaemum L. (Bothriochoa ischaemum (L.) Keng) Bambusa vulgaris Schrod. ex Wendl. Bouteloua americana (L.f.) Seribn. Cenchrus echinatus L. Cenchrus tribuloides L. Chloris radiata (L.) Sw. Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. Eragrostis urbaniana Hitche. Lithachne pauciflora (Sw.) Beauv. Panicum diffusum Sw. Panicum reptans L. (Brachiaria reptans (L.) Gardn. & C.E. Hubb.) Paspalum virgatum L. Setaria geniculata (Lam.) Beauv. Sporobolus tenuissimus (Schrank) Kuntze 102 Cyperaceae Cyperus alternifolius L. Cyperus brevifolius (Rottb.) Endl. ex Hassk. Cyperus odoratus L. (Torulinium odoratum (L.) Hooper) Eleocharis mutata (L.) R. & S. Frimbristylis ferruginea (L.) Vahl 103 Arecaceae syn. Palmae Coccothrinax alta (0.F. Cook) Becc Cocos nucifera L. Phoenix dactylifera L. Roystonea borinquena 0O.F. Cook Sabal causiarum (0.F.Cook) Becc 104 Araceae 105 Lemnaceae Lemna perpusilla Torrey 43 106 107 108 109 110 iii 112 113 114 115 Bromeliaceae Tillandsia usneoides (L.) L. Commelinaceae Commelina diffusa Burm.f. Liliaceae Aloe vera (L.) Burm.f. Yucca guatemalensus Baker Smilacaceae Smilax coriacea Spreng. (Smilax havanensis Jacq.) Smilax domingensis Willd. Hypoxidaceae Amaryllidaceae Hippeastrum puniceum (Lam.) Kuntze Zephyranthes grandiflora Lindl. Agavaceae Agave americana L. Agave missionum Trel. Agave sisalana Perrine Dioscoreaceae Dioscorea pilosiuscula Bertero ex Spreng. Iridaceae Galatea bulbosa (Miller) Britton (Eleutherine bulbosa (Miller) Urban) Orchidaceae Epidendrum bifidum Aubl. Oncidium prionochilum Kraenzlin Ponthieva racemosa (Walt.) Mohr. Prescottia oligantha (Sw.) Lindl. Prescottia stachyodes (Sw.) Lindl. Spiranthes elata (Sw.) L.C. Rich. Vanilla planifolia G.Jackson in Andr. ery da ee ee oe oe eee -——= ~- Appendix II. Additional Fern Species Additional species of ferns found on St. John, as listed by G.P. Proctor (1984, 1987), and not found in the R.O. Woodbury mounted collection or the R.O. Woodbury & P. Weaver (1984) checklist of plant species occuring on St. John: 3A Cyatheaceae Cyathea arborea 3B Polypodiaceae Adiantum fragile var. rigidulum Nephrolepis multiflora Pityrogramma chrysophylla var. gabriela Pteris vittata ’ Thelypteris hispidula var. inconstans 45 Appendix III. Duplicate Specimens Retained by V.I. Cooperative Extension Service, University of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas. Duplicate specimens of the following species were retained by the University of the Virgin Islands from the St. John collection for educational and research purposes. These specimens are in addition to the total collection by R.O. Woodbury, List A. One specimen was retained in all cases except two of Maytenus elliptica (Celastraceae--#45) . Family no. & Family 3 10 11 13 14 15 16 Polypodiaceae Adiantum tenerunm Asplenium pumilum Polypodium astrolepis Pteris biaurita Thelypteris subtetragona Piperaceae Peperomia glabella Peperomia humilis Ulmaceae Celtis iguanaea Celtis trinervia Urticaceae Pilea nummulariifolia Pilea sanctae-crucis Pilea tennerrima Vitex tiliifolia Olacaceae Schoepfia obovata Schoepfia schreberi Ximenia americana Loranthaceae Dendropemon caribaeus Polygonaceae Coccoloba uvifera & krugii Chenopodiaceae Atriplex pentandra Chenopodium ambrosioides Amaranthaceae Alternanthera ficoidea (L.) R.&S. (Alternanthera tenella Colla) Alternanthera peploides (HBK) Urban (Alternanthera caracasana HBK.) Iresine angustifolia Philorexus vermicularium Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia diffusa Boerhavia erecta Guapira fragrans 19 20 23 24 33 34 36 37 38 39 43 Neea buxifolia Aizoaceae Cypselea humifusa Mollugo nudicaulis Portulacaceae Portulaca quadrifida Portulaca teretifolia Annonaceae Annona glabra Lauraceae Licaria triandra Ocotea globosa Meisn. (Nectandra coriacea (Sw.) Britt.) Phoebe elongatum (Vahl) Nees (Cinnamomum elongatum (Nees) Kostern.) Fabaceae-Fabdideae Aeschynomene americana Alysicarpus vaginalis Crotalaria falcata Desmodium procumbens Erythrina eggersii Oxalidaceae Oxalis corniculata Malpighiaceae Brysonima lucida Brysonima sp. Malpighia linearis Malpighia woodburyana Stigmaphyllon tomentosum Desf. (Stigmaphyllon ledifolium (HBK.) Small Erythroxylaceae Erythroxylum brevipes Rutaceae Zanthoxylum thomasianum Simaroubiaceae Picrasma excelsa Suriana maritima Euphorbiaceae Acalpha chamaedrifolia Acalpha indica Adelia ricinella Argythamnia stahlil Chamaesyce glomerifera Millsp. (Chamaesyce hypericifolia (L.) Millsp.) Chamaesyce mesembryanthemifolia Chamaesyce prostrata Chamaesyce thymifolia Croton betulinus Dalechampia scandens Drypetes alba Euphorbia cyathophora Euphorbia oerstediana Pedilanthus tithymaloides spp. angustifolius 44 45 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 58 60 62 67 68 Phyllanthus acidus Phyllanthus amarus Securinega acidoton Anacariaceae Schinus terebinthifolius Celastraceae Maytenus elliptica Rhamnaceae Colubrina arborescens Krugiodendron ferreum Vitaceae Cissus sicyoides Cissus trifoliata Tiliaceae Corchorus aestuans Triumfetta lappula Triumfetta semitriloba Malvaceae Abutilon umbellatum Herrisantia crispa Malvastrum americanum Sida aggregata Sida glabra Sida glutinosa Wissadula amplissima Bombacaceae Quararibea turbinata Sterculiaceae Guazuma ulmifolia Melochia pyramidata Waltheria indica Ochnaceae Ouratea littoralis Flacourtiaceae Casearia sylvestris Prokia crucis Samyda dodecandra Xylosma buxifolium Passifloraceae Passiflora multiflora Cactaceae Pilosocereus royenii Combretaceae Bucida buceras Quisqualis indica Myrtaceae Eugenia confusa Eugenia cordata Eugenia sessiliflora Eugenia sp. Myrcianthes fragrans Pimenta racemosa Psidium sp. 48 71 73 78 79 82 83 84 85 86 88 89 92 96 Araliaceae Didymopanax morototoni Theophrastaceae Jacquinia berterii Oleaceae Forestiera eggersiana Jasminum multiflorum Loganiaceae Spigelia anthelmia Convolvulaceae Cuscuta indecora Evolvulus linifolius Ipomoea acuminata Ipomoea fistulosa Ipomoea steudelii Ipomoea tiliaceae Ipomoea tricolor Merremia aegyptia Boraginaceae Cordia laevigata Heliotropium procumbens Verbenaceae Duranta repens Priva lappulaceae Vitex divaricata Lamiaceae syn. Labiatae Hyptis pectinata Leonorus sibiricus Salvia occidentalis Solanaceae Capsicum baccatum Physalis cordata Bignoniaceae Arrabidaea chica Crescentia linearifolia Enallagma latifolfia (Mill.) Standl. (Amphitecna latifolia (Mill.) A. Gentry) Macfadyena unguis-cati Acanthaceae Justicia mirabiloides Justicia sp. Stenandrium tuberosum Rubiaceae Borreria laevis Exostema caribaeum Guettarda parviflora Machaonia sp. Palicourea riparia Benth. (Palicourea crocea var. riparia (Benth.) Psychotria brownei Asteraceae Ageratum conyzoides Bidens pilosa LS 4 Griseb.) ‘Conyza bonariensis Eclipta alba (L.) Hassk. (Eclipta prostrata (L.) L.) Erigeron cuneifolius Eupatorium corymbosum Eupatorium sinuatum Galinsoga ciliata (Raf.) Blake (Galinsoga parviflora Cav.) Launeae intybacea Pectis humifusa Pterocaulon virgatum Synedrella nodiflora 101 Poaceae syn. Gramineae Andropogon semiberbis Anthephora hermaphrodita Aristida adscensionis Chloris barbata Sw. (Chloris inflata Link) Digitaria ciliaris Eragrostis ciliaris Eriochloa punctata Heteropogon contortus Leptochloa virgata Leptochloopis virgata (Poir.) Yates (Uniola virgata (Poir.) Griseb.) Olyra latifolia Panicum fasciculatum Panicum geminatum Forssk. (Paspalidium geminatum (Forssk.) Stapf Panicum maximum Paspalum conjugatum Paspalum molle Paspalum vaginatum Rhynchelytrum repens (Willd.) C.E. Hubb (Tricholaena repens (Willd.) C.E. Hubb) Setaria leiophylla Setaria setosa Setaria utowanaea Spartina patens Stenotaphrum secundatum Trichachne insularis 102 Cyperaceae Abildgaardia monostachya (L.) Vahl (Fimbristyilis ovata (Burm. f.) Kern) Bulbostylis pauciflora Cyperus namus Dichromena radicans Fimbristylis dichotoma 106 Bromeliaceae Pitcairnia angustifolia 107 Commelinaceae Callisia repens Commelina elegans 115 Orchidaceae Vanilla barbellata - 51 VIRGIN ISLANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COOPERATIVE | BIOSPHERE RESERVE RESEARCH REPORT NO.18B ESTABLISHMENT AND SOIL CHARACTERIZATION OF _ LONG-TERM FOREST MONITORING PLOTS IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BIOSPHERE RESERVE John M. Matuszak, Ellen Craft and Waiter I. Knausenberger University of the Virgin Islands Virgin Islands Cooperative Extension Service St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Virgin Islands National Park August, 1987 ESTABLISHMENT AND SOIL CHARACTERIZATION OF LONG-TERM FOREST MONITORING PLOTS IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BIOSPHERE RESERVE 1987 BIOSPHERE RESERVE REPORT NO. 18B JOHN M. MATUSZAK ELLEN CRAFT WALTER I. KNAUSENBERGER _ UNIVERSITY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS VIRGIN ISLANDS COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND VIRGIN ISLANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COOPERATIVE VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK P.O. BOX 7789, ST. THOMAS U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00801 LOCAL CONTRACTING AGENT ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION RED HOOK BOX 33, ST. THOMAS U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802 (NPS CONTRACT NO. CX-0001-3~0048) ABSTRACT Three permanent study plots have been identified and established on St. John, with the overall long-term objective of monitoring representative components of secondary forest development on a small, steep-sloped, dry- to-moist tropical island. The plots are in representative ecological zones -- upland moist forest (Bordeaux), gallery moist forest (L' Esperance) and dry evergreen woodland (Hawksnest), and are 1.0, 0.5 and 0.5 ha in size, resp. They are situated on watersheds of critical importance to the vV.I. National Park: Reef Bay, Fish Bay, and Hawksnest Bay, respectively. The bays are the subject of several long-term marine studies by V.I. Resource Management Cooperative and other research groups. The implementation of vegetation and soil studies on these watersheds will allow specific aspects of the association of land and Marine systems on this island to be evaluated for the first time. Pertinent background on events leading to this study are given, as is the rationale for selection of the study areas. Topographic and geological characteristics, and past land-use, of these sites are briefly reviewed. The regenerating forest is an intriguing mixture of native and introduced species. Comparative study of the relative development of these two groups is likely to be most instructive, and of high relevance to other islands, especially in the Neotropics. Of the twelve species of trees most” abundant in one or more of the three plots, eight are discussed briefly in their biological, historical and cultural contexts: Acacia muricata, Andira inermis, Ardisia obovata, Byrsonima coriacea, Guapira fragrans, Inga fagifolia, Pimenta racemosa, and Tabebuia heterophylla. Soil was sampled at three depths from 33 sites immediately outside the perimeter of the three study plots. The samples were analyzed for pH, soluble salts, organic matter, sodium content, texture, five macronutrients (exchangeable P, K, Ca, Mg, S), and four micronutrients (exchangeable Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn). Nitrogen was not analyzed. The average pH ranged from 5.71 at Bordeaux, to 7.12 at Hawksnest. Percent organic matter was rather high, normal in a forest environment, but the Hawksnest plot was consistently lowest. Most of the nutrients were in the low-to-medium range, with the exception of iron, which was high to very high at the Bordeaux plot. The latter is consistent with the results of a geochemical survey of St. John by Tucker et al. (1985). Some differential in nutrient levels is apparent Within and among the study areas, and these could have an effect on plant distribution and growth, but detailed analysis of this is beyond the scope of the present report. Representative specific recommendations arising from this study are offered, concerning terrestrial plant development, soils and nutrient relationships, as they relate to management considerations and information and education needs in the Virgin Islands. Li ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We gladly recognize the significant role played in this project by Mr. John E. Earhart, who contributed to the initiation of the long-term forest monitoring concept on St. John; who stimulated the interest and salutary collaboration of Drs. Ghillean T. Prance, Scott A. Mori, as well as other scientists of the New York Botanical Garden; and who participated in various aspects of the plot location, layout, and installation, as well as data acquisition and processing. In connection with his continuation project (VIRMC III.10), taking up where the one reported here (VIRMC II.4) left off, Earhart arranged for the assistance of Ms. Anne E. Reilly and Mr. Matt Davis (at the time, interns with the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Science) to complete the layout of the Hawksnest plot, tag the trees at Hawksnest, help re-tag the Bordeaux plot and take diameter measurements from the latter two plots, in addition to other data acquisition as part of their continuation project ( e.g., height measurements and tree x,y coordinates). Involved in the extensive discussions and deliberations concerning permanent plot location were, with Matuszak and Earhart, Drs. G. T. Prance, Caroline S. Rogers (V.I. National Park Research Biologist), and Prof. Roy O. Woodbury (New York Botanical Garden). Mr. Rafe Boulon (V.I. Division of Fish and Wildlife) added a useful perspective. For their indispensable assistance in plot installation, layout, and record-taking, we acknowledge -- in addition to the above-mentioned Davis, Earhart and Reilly -- the following: Albion George, Francesca Grifo, C. Gibbons, Caroline Rogers, Herman Smith, Miriam Sorhaindo, and A. Wesselhoft. Dr. Peter L. Weaver (Institute of Tropical Forestry) offered useful technical advice. For their keen interest, taxonomic expertise in helping to complete the identifications of unknown plants, and for indispensable discussion, thanks go especially to Prof. R. 0. Woodbury, and Drs. Pedro Acevedo- Rodriguez, S. A. Mori, and G. T. Prance. For tireless assistance in obtaining and processing the soil samples for analysis we thank Mr. Dale Morton and Mr. Frank Drigo. The good work of Ms. Christene E. Henry, Mr. Rudy O'Reilly, Jr., Mrs. Toni Ackerman Thomas, Mrs. Maureen A. Mercer and Mr. Errol Chichester in assisting with manuscript preparation is gratefully acknowledged. For their helpful criticisms and input during the preparation of the manuscript, we recognize John E. Earhart, Anne E. Reilly, Peter L. Weaver and two anonymous reviewers. Any remaining errors of commission or omission are the responsibility of the authors. The actual forest plot work was carried out and coordinated by John M. Matuszak and he provided an early draft of the first section and many of the recommendations; Ellen Craft oversaw the soil analysis aspect and provided a draft of that section, including the appendix material; Walter I. Knausenberger was administratively involved in this project from the outset, prepared the review and final drafts of the manuscript, tables and figures, and added most of the material related to the literature cited. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ADSULACt ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc crew ewer eter ecererererecescscscesceresseeee Acknowledgments ......-.ccccec cscs cere ss ecrersrerererercccsrrcrcreer® Table of ContentS .....ceecc cece cece err e cere erst rcsreeseseserersreee List of Tables ....... cece cece ence cece eee rsesees ss eeeeseecerreseeees List of Figures ......cccece ces eeececccceees sce cesees eee c cece tec eeece Long-term Forest Monitoring: Plot Establishment Introduction ... 0... ccc cece cece cece e rece rece r rece eseeeerereeeee Study Area Selection .......eceeeeee cece cere eeererereeecserccces Plot Installation .....cccccecsccerceccsesecccccsreesseeecseeees Observations on Major Tree Species’ Occurrence and Distribution 2... ccc cw ccc rc ccc crew er errr ccsceeseeses Soil Chemistry Analysis INtroduction co.cc ccc cc ccc ccc cee eer cece erences eeesseesecceses Materials and Methods .......c ccc c cece cece cece rece cee eseceeeeee ResultS ...cceccccoes eee e ewe cece cee cece eee etree rece eeeeees DISCUSSION 1... .. cece cece ence nee e rece cree enc eer sees eeeeessenses Conclusions and Recommendations 2... ccc cece ccc c cece cece eer eeesaceces Terrestrial Vegetation 1... ccc www cece cece cece cere ee ester ecere Soils and Nutrient Relationships ........-.c cece cee ec cess cecee Community Education 2... cece cece cece cee cece cece ere ere ee seccees Literature Cited .... ccc ccc ec cee ete tec creases ec eese veneers scersens Appendix I. Soil Sampling Maps for the Bordeaux, Hawksnest and L'Esperance Plots ...............--- Appendix ITI. Tabulations of Individual Values of Soil Analysis Data .. oc ccc ccc tect cc eee c eee eees Appendix III. Bordeaux Plot: Test Results in Relation to Sampling Sites. ...cccc cee ccc cccscccce reves cssesees Appendix IV. Hawksnest Plot: Test Results in Relation to Sampling Sites ....... ccc cc ccc ce cc cece nc acceccnees Appendix V. L'Esperance Plot: Test Results in Relation to Sampling Sites ...... cece cece cece een cece ee ccccess iv Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1. 2. LIST OF TABLES Descriptive Summary of the Long-Term Forest Monitoring Plots on St. John 2.2... ... eee cece ccc ee cence ces ececcecce The Most Abundant Species of Trees in the Three Forest Plots ............ eww esaeevcccnes eee eccervccces cescecceee Guide to Interpretation of Soil Analysis Value Ranges (in ppm), as Applicable to Agronomic Crops .......cccc cece Summary of Average Analysis Values for Each Plot, by DEpth 22... cece cece cece cece cece eccccccccanccccecuccccccce Individual Soil Analysis Values for All Samples at Each Depth for pH, Organic Matter, Copper (Cu), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe), and Zinc (Zn) ..........000. eee cece ccsece Soil Analysis Results for All Samples at Each Depth for Soluble Salts, Phosphorus (P), Sulfate (So ), Potassium (K), Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), and Sodium (Na) ........ Soil Analysis Results for All Samples at Each Depth to Determine Texture Class by Partial Size Analysis for Sand (S), Silt (Si), and Clay (C) Content ................. Vv 14 20 21 22 39 41 43 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of the Location of the Bordeaux, Hawksnest and L'Esperance Forest Monitoring Plots on St. JOHN 2... ee eeee 4 Figure 2. Synopsis of the Spatial Distribution by Subplot of the Five Most Important Species of Trees in the Bordeaux Plot cc. cece cece cee ccc ener es en eee rcccesecceres 15 Figure 3. Synopsis of the Spatial Distribution by Subplot of the Five Most Important Species of Trees in the L'Esperance Plot ......cccccrcecccenccccceccecererccsseees 16 Figure 4. Relative Location of the Soil Sampling Sites Along the Exterior of the Three Plots ........cccecrccesccccrees 38 vi LONG-TERM FOREST MONITORING Introduction The Virgin Islands National Park on St. John has long been viewed as primarily a marine park. Most research attention there has been directed towards marine resources. While the island's land-based natural resources have received a fairly wide range of attention (U.S. Dept. Interior 1982: Highfield et al. 1985; Rogers 1987), much of this attention relates directly to the immediate management needs of the park, such as the study of burro feeding habits (Swanbeck 1985, Nellis et al. 1987 in prep.). Although of high relevance to interdisciplinary research and long-range planning, limited systematic work on vegetation structure and growth has been available to managers, researchers, or the public. As yet, no appropriate botanical framework is available with which to integrate other knowledge. The lack of detailed baseline and interpretative data on plants has hampered park managers and researchers making decisions about activities and resources influenced by, or influencing, vegetation. The modern ecosystems on St. John reflect the long, continuous and dynamic interaction between man and nature. Those seeking: to understand or manage the ecosystems must incorporate a historical and cultural dimension into their analytical framework. Within the Virgin Islands National Park (VINP), the terrestrial flora is in a state of recovery from the severe impacts of wood harvests and agriculture in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century (e.g., Oldendorp 1777; Tyson 1984). Little is known of the original forest on St. John (but see Beard 1949, in Earhart et al. 1987, and in Teytaud 1986). Until the recent work by Woodbury and Weaver (1987), large components of the current vegetation had gone unassessed. The status of botanical work to date is summarized by Earhart et al. (1987). and Knausenberger et al. (1987). A valuable annotated and indexed bibliography of forestry in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands is available (Mosquera and Feheley 1984). While it is clear that terrestrial and marine ecosystems are in close harmony, little specific information exists as to the impact of major vegetative alteration on coral reefs or marine fisheries. Privately-owned lands on St. John are presently undergoing rapid development, and the extent of the impact on nearshore marine ecosystems has been under investigation. Currently, Coastal Zone Management permits require assessments of vegetation; preliminary recommendations have been made by Matuszak (1985) as to which plants should be accorded special protection in the V.I. by virtue of their being endemic, rare, threatened or endangered. The Man and Biosphere Program has stimulated the VINP and V.I. scientists to look at the total St. John environment in a coordinated series of projects. As an example, in a study of the impact of terrigenous sediment on coral growth as related to historical development of the island, Hubbard et al. 1986 found that growth rates had decreased during the post-cultivation fallow period (1910-1950), contrary to their initial hypothesis. They suggest that insights into why this may be so would come from a study of forest succession, such as the relative development of understory as opposed to overstory. Another possibility raised by the i i il retention by a Hubbard study to explain the apparent relative lack of sol recovering forest cover, is that the water flow-restraining terraces have degraded steadily over the years. fhe intent of the present study is to document the initiation of a long-term study of plant succession and forest stand development through the establishment of several permanent plots on the island of St. John. This report is presented in two sections. The first deals with _the initiation and installation work undertaken before and during the first year of the project, and is chronologically an antecedent companion study to the work reported in Earhart et al. (1987). The second part describes basic soil chemical characters of the immediate study areas. The long-term forest monitoring project on St. John is one of very few of its sort on small island ecosystems. It is probably unique in the tropical region, situated as it is on an island nearly 70% protected under biosphere reserve and national park status. The steep terrain of these islands -- 80 % of the slopes exceed 30 degrees (Rivera et al. 1970) -- and the fact that the plots are located on protected national park land, lend this study increased significance. Background to the Present Study. In 1982, the National Park ‘Service (NPS) contracted with Prof. Roy 0. Woodbury (then with the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources) and Dr. Peter L. Weaver (Institute of Tropical Forestry -- ITF) to survey the plants of St. John and rework the vegetation classification. The Principal Investigator (P.I.) (JMM) of the project which this report reflects, seized this opportunity to work with these individuals whenever possible. Woodbury is recognized to be the authority on the identification and ecology of the vegetation of the northeast Caribbean. His experience bore fruit in the identification of six species potentially new to science, and in the reporting of dozens of species not previously reported from St. John (Woodbury and Weaver 1987). This project formed the basis of the subsequent development of a reference herbarium, assembled from Woodbury's accessions by the College of the Virgin Islands' Cooperative Extension Service (CVI-CES) in connection with a VIRMC Cycle II (1984-85) project (Knausenberger et al. 1987). In 1983, the P.I. of the eventual 1985-86 VIRMC III Forest Dynamics Project, J. E. Earhart, joined these investigators in studying the St. John vegetation. During these meetings, discussions ensued about the opportunity that the National Park offered for the study of secondary forest development and recovery. The VINP was interested in formalizing such a study through VIRMC. Simultaneously, Earhart, then at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, contacted. the New York Botanical Garden (NYBG) and ascertained their genuine interest in participating in such a study. A meeting was held in July 1984 among Prof. Woodbury and representatives of the National Park, NYBG, the College of the Virgin Islands, and V.I. Division of Fish and Wildlife. An agreement was reached to undertake the current study, and a research proposal was submitted to VIRMC through the CVI-Cooperative Extension Service of the University of the Virgin Islands (UVI; the College of the Virgin Islands was formally renamed University of the V.I. in March 1987). Objectives. A long-term forest dynamics/vegetation monitoring project was therefore undertaken with the following objectives: 1. To establish baseline information on forest composition and structure, and to evaluate its current status in relation to historical land use patterns, as well as topographic and climatic factors. It is hoped that methods developed, and information and insight gained, will facilitate management decisions in protected areas in the V.I. and the eastern Caribbean; 2. To develop initial basic pedological data for the study areas, concentrating on available macro- and micronutrients; and 3. To provide information for community training and educational programs regarding the ecological role of vegetation, its dynamics, and the effects of management decisions on the total island ecosystem, thus to provide a basis of interaction and appreciation between the park and the community as is envisioned in the biosphere reserve concept; As an important benefit of this long-term project, which is expected to continue for decades, we look forward to strengthened linkages between island institutions, e.g., UVI and VINP, and centers of excellence in botany and vegetation management, e.g., the NYBG, Institute of Tropical Forestry (ITF), and Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, among others. The present report deals with aspects of the first two objectives. We emphasize again that Earhart et al. (1987) deal with the same three long- term monitoring plots (Bordeaux, Hawksnest, L'Esperance) treated herein. In the future, other plots may well be added, and at least the L'Esperance plot is expected to be enlarged. A beginning has been made by the UVI-Cooperative Extension Service on the training and educational objective. Several public seminars, workshops and exhibits relating to herbarium techniques, plant identification, native plant use and ethnobotany have been conducted which have directly or indirectly related to information deriving from the plots. Community education programs of the VICES on radio and television have repeatedly referred to the long-term forest monitoring plots. Also, several native residents were employed during the installation ‘process. Indeed, the process of installation itself was an excellent learning experience. Study Area Selection Three sites were chosen for study (Figure 1, Table 1) representing a small portion of the number initially envisioned for the project (up to 12), which were to have included most vegetative zones throughout the island. Current site selection criteria were determined within the context of critical watersheds designated by VIRMC. Practical considerations such as ease of access and sufficient size for placement, and minimizing edge effects, were major determinants. The three sites were all chosen in areas ("ssauspTy pue morg ‘yoeTg Aq paaedaid (gz ‘ON) dey uoTjonpay Juswypes wor dew aseq [eUFsTAQ) ‘aTBos 07 ATojeWTXoidde e1e SjOTq ‘uyor *4g UO S0Tq BUTIOITUOW 4Set0q w1aq-B3u0] souvisdsg,] pue Jsousymey ‘xneeprog ay JO uoTIeI07] 942 Jo dey *] aan3Ty Og IN WOg de020008 ——s id Aeg eqajoo09 Ang faay dog nua Table 1. Descriptive summary of the long-term forest monitoring plots on St. John. SRESIsaS sess sssssrssss22s2s2l2= =o Plot (Estate) Characteristics Bordeaux Hawksnest L'Esperance 100x1i00m 50x100m 50x100m Watershed Eastern Western Eastern Reef Bay Hawksnest Bay Fish Bay Soil Series * Cramer (CrF) Cramer (CrE)??* crr ?? Soil Origin” N/A N/A N/A Soil Classification ° N/A N/A N/A Ecological Life Zone’ Subtropical Snf Snf Holdridge Life Zone” Vegetation Type ° Average Slope’ Elevation Range (approx.)® Mean Annual Rainfall Drought Months Moist Forest Moist Forest Upland Moist Forest 19 % 800-850 ft. over 1270 mm 4-6 Moist Forest/ Dry Transition Dry Evergreen Woodland with narrow strip of Gallery Moist Forest in gut 37 % 240-280 ft. 1140-1270 mm 5-8 Moist Forest/ Dry Transition Gallery Moist Forest 18 % 650-700 ft. 1140-1270 mm 5-8 1 Extreme stoniness, lithologic discontinuities, and color, suggest that soil series identifcations need to be reassessed. 2 Weathered, inclined, metamorphic, sedimentary and volcaniclastic rock with - metallized intrusives (Tucker et al. 1985). stratigraphic associations are needed. Detailed physical, chemical and mineralogical analyses are needed. Ewel and Whitmore (1973) Teytaud (1986) Hubbard et al. (1985). orn ono fF w Woodbury & Weaver (1987) Respectively 246-260 m; 74-86 m; 200-215 m. Detailed site assessments for Refers to several transects for entire watershed. with secondary forests already well-established, so as to yield more immediate data on recovery patterns and to represent the current status of the majority of forests on St. John. Future plot establishment may be desirable on sites with less well-established forest cover. Extensive discussions were held on the size of the plots. Initially the Bordeaux plot was 0.5 hectare (ha). In discussions with S. Mori of the NYBG, it was determined that at least one of the plots should be a full hectare for comparison with other similar studies of terrestrial vegetation under way in the Neotropics (e.g. Ewel 1980). It was decided that for the Bordeaux plot, a 1.0 ha plot would be best, based on the calculation of a species area curve. The Hawksnest plot was adequately sampled by a 0.5 ha plot. While the species-area curve for the L'Esperance plot indicated that a 1.0 ha plot would be ideal, time constraints led to the establishment of a 0.5 ha plot, with the hope that the plot can be enlarged in the near future. See Earhart et al. 1987 for details of plot location. Bordeaux -- Eastern Reef Bay Watershed. The first site to be selected was the Bordeaux mountain site. It is situated in an Upland Moist Forest area within one of the VIRMC critical watersheds. It is in the lee of the highest peak on St. John at ca. 250 m elevation. This area, the Bordeaux peak, has some of the richest and most unique vegetation on the island (Woodbury pers. commun. 1984). It has a well-established secondary forest and evidence of earlier agricultural activity: terraces, a nearby coal pit and ruins remain. , There is evidence of arboreal manipulation, with an abundance of bay rum trees (P, racemosa var. racemosa) long used in the small industry which flourished on St. John, and Bordeaux Mt. had one of the more important stands. Little and Wadsworth (1964) consider P. racemosa racemosa as native to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and Landrum (1986) considers it "probably" to be native in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Lesser Antilles. However, Woodbury, in personal conversations, argues that this particular variety is not found wild in the British Virgin Islands, and therefore must be introduced (see discussion under this species below). Amarat, Acacia muricata, is also found there in abundance, and this was a favored tree for charcoal production -~- also a major industry on St. John during the last century. Historically, Bordeaux Mt. was known for its specialized coffee, cocoa, and citrus production (Oldendorp 1777), in addition to sugar. This plot contains most major landscape features of the upland terrestrial ecosystems of St. John, including ridges, slopes with opposite- facing aspects and convergent drainage guts. There are areas of major boulder outcroppings at ridge ends in subplots E&F 2&3; A 8&9; B 8. The plot was near a major area of intensive metallization which is evidenced by geochemical anomalies, Pb, Cu, Ba, Ag, & Au as reported by Tucker et al. (1985, Site Nos. 66, 68 & 85). Their study reports locally very high levels of a number of different heavy metals. Baseline data on the chemical profiles of the associated soil would allow some insight into the importance of these heavy metal elements as a determining factor in vegetation composition. L'Esperance -- West Fish Bay Watershed. The second study area, in Estate L'Esperance, was chosen as a comparative site to the Bordeaux plot. It is found in the lee of the ridge which continues to Camelberg peak -- the second highest peak on St. John. This peak and ridge area differ from Bordeaux in forest species composition. The forest is not as well developed as in the Bordeaux plot and, although it does not contain an abundance of exotic species or signs of past cultivation (but some remnants of terraces are detectable), there are trees swollen with old barbed wire attachments (subplot C5) and evidence of human manipulation of the vegetation, both to the immediate east and west of the plot. There are sizable patches of Bromelias pinguin bordering subplots Al-C1, and a high density of sweetlime (Triphasia trifolia) and sandbox (Hura crepitans) bordering E5-JS. The plot is close to an old road and a major plantation ruin for which there are fairly good historical tax records, the so-called matricules (Tyson pers. commun., 1985). This smaller plot has a single drainage gut which traverses it from east to west. It contains north and south facing slopes extending on the south to a ridge (J1) which drops off to an area of large boulders adjacent to the southern limit of the plot (J 2-4). The species composition is rather different from Bordeaux, providing the potential to test hypotheses relating to seed source, age, moisture or nutrient status effects on vegetation. It would also be possible to compare developmental patterns in future generations to determine if the island as a whole would move toward an equilibrium. Fairly good rainfall records are available for this area, as there is a nearby weather station which has been maintained for many years at the park biologist's house (171 Centerline Road). This is also a site of considerable metallization with high levels of metals -- Pb, Cu, Ba, Ag, Bi, and Si found in the drainage gut (Tucker et al. 1985; Test site #54). As evidenced by the data included in this report, the nutrient status of the site is considerably different from Bordeaux. Hawksnest Bay -- Western Watershed. The third study area, at Hawksnest, was chosen as the only site in this watershed on VINP land extensive enough for a plot. A watershed immediately to the east drains a larger area, but is on private land. It is that eastern sub-watershed which drains the area impacted by the clinic development, and any sedimentation or erosion studies should focus on that area. The western watershed in which the plot is located represents a lower elevation area heavily impacted by erosion and dominated by an exotic species, i.e., Melicoccus bijugatus, genip. Limited information on historic land use is available for this specific area; it was an annex to the fertile Caneel estate to the west. The current status of the site indicates a heavy impact and slow. recovery, which suggests possible exploitation for fuelwood and/or possibly for grazing, as is suggested by data in Tyson (1984). The drainage gut runs south to north with an extremely steep slope on the west and a gentler slope on the east. The plot contains no ridge areas, but the westward rows (1-3) are bordered by a steep wall of boulders. There are numerous rock outcroppings in the eastern half of the plot. The site also includes an area of metallization -- mainly Cu & Pb -- relatively extensive for the size of the watershed (Tucker et al. 1985, Site #3). The extremely steep aspect of the western slope and the high degree of erosion and percentage rock cover, make nutrient availability a major constraint for any vegetation. Insight which 1s gained on how an area like this recovers naturally, may offer valuable lessons for use elsewhere in similar situations. Plot Installation The choice of plot sites was a joint effort: the Bordeaux site initially was identified by J. E. Earhart, L'Esperance identified by Matuszak and Woodbury, and Hawksnest identified by a team of the aforementioned three and P. Acevedo and G. Prance of N.Y.B.G. In each case the other principals, Matuszak, Earhart and Woodbury, made the final decision jointly in consultation with the park biologist C. Rogers. The methodology of plot installation proved to require many adjustments during the course of the work, particularly in the Bordeaux and Hawksnest plots. Initial hurdles arose when the plots were established, measuring the periphery of the Bordeaux plot. The corner posts were installed as "Permanent PVC" pipe set in concrete. Concrete, water and the pipe were all carried in ca. 1000 m via steep terrain. Heavy duty twine was strung between the corner posts; treated 2 x 2 inch wooden stakes were installed every 10 meters, and twine was then strung between the stakes to delineate 10 x 10 m subplots. The placement of the stakes and the crosslines required at least three persons at one time. Tagging of the trees was begun prior to completion of the installation of all subplots. Measurements were recorded on a subplot- by-subplot basis. Tree tags on the first few subplots were nailed in at 135 cm fron the ground, where diameter was measured. Upon the recommendation of P. L. Weaver (while on island examining ITF plots at Cinnamon Bay), the tags were subsequently installed (and reinstalled) either 10 cm above or below the diameter at breast height (dbh) measurement to avoid an abnormal swelling resulting from the nail. Aluminun tags and nails were utilized in this process. All trees with the trunk splitting below or at dbh were tagged on each trunk >) 5 cm dbh, and each was recorded separately, as were the root-trunks of epiphytic trees > 5 cm in diameter. Earhart et al. (1987) report all these measurements for each stem individually. The epiphyte Clusia rosea (Guttiferae) presented a particular challenge. This species usually had only its woody roots present at breast height. Many of these were of sufficient size to be included in the study. A single tag was assigned to a given epiphyte specimen, and its individual roots were labeled with a letter and measured individually in a clockwise direction. . Determining where to measure actual dbh was complicated by the fact that many of the trees are growing at considerable angles away from perpendicular. To the extent possible, therefore, the length of the trunk was measured directly, the measurement being taken at the specified distance from where the trunk emerged from the ground, as distinct from an actual height. This measurement was always taken at the high point {i.e., on the uphill side) of the trunk/soil intersection, as this point varied substantially around the trunk on steep slopes. The dbh level was marked with fluorescent spray paint or tree crayons so the same spot would be measured in the future. The permanence of these markings, however, is limited, so that annual, or at least biennial, maintenance is needed. In the two-year period that the plots were visited after installation, much of the original marking was gone from many trees, especially those like Pimenta, with exfoliating bark. Because of the extreme variation in topography, it was not possible to lay out the grid with high accuracy. The Bordeaux plot, on the basis of peripheral measurements, was discovered to have a bottom boundary 5 m_ too long and a side boundary which was off by a few meters. A tentative decision was reached that this was not a significant problem, because the individual 10 x 10 m subplots were considered to take precedence. Tagging, measuring and identification therefore proceeded to near completion. Matuszak was responsible for the bulk of the identifications. Unknown species were collected or recorded for later identification by Woodbury. A few months later, in November 1985, Woodbury and S. Mori visited the site. The plot dimensions were judged to be too inaccurate after all. Mori also argued convincingly that for the studies to be useful in comparison to other studies of a similar nature being done elsewhere (e.g., Briscoe and Wadsworth 1970; Soriano-Ressy et al. 1970), plots would have to be at least 1.0 ha. A compromise was reached such that one plot, Bordeaux, would be 1.0 ha, while the other two plots would be 0.5 ha each. This allowed for comparisons between the plots using only a half hectare of the Bordeaux data and also an evaluation regarding the size hecessary to accurately assess the ecological processes. As noted earlier, it is expected that the L'Esperance study area will be enlarged to 1.0 ha in the immediate future. . This re-evaluation led to the reinstallation of the entire grid system, and caused many specimens to be reassigned from one plot to another. With the addition of the second half hectare at Bordeaux, it was decided to re-tag the entire plot, thus providing for consistent stem location and coordinate data. The decision to reinstall was made during a visit by Earhart, Woodbury, Prance, and Acevedo. At that time, Acevedo also took specimens of undetermined species which were flowering in the canopy. Also in November 1985, installation began for the L'Esperance plot. The Hawksnest plot was established in March 1986 and completed that summer . Complete tagging and retagging of the latter two plots was not accomplished until the summer of 1986, during the taking of coordinates by a joint team of personnel. from the VIRMC cycles II & III involved in the long-term forest monitoring project (Matuszak et al. 1987; and Earhart et al. 1987, resp.). Observations On Major Tree Species’ Occurrence and Distribution Although the basic inventory and mensuration data of the plots is available (Earhart et al. 1987), much verification and interpretation of species occurrence is still required. Many questions on identification remain to be addressed via the collecting of specimens and comparison with type specimens. This is especially true of the rare and endemic species, Calyptranthes thomasiana Berg. in Hawksnest, and Chrysophyllum eggersii Pierre, in L'Esperance. Flowering and fruiting specimens of these species are needed from the plots, though these species do possess several other fairly distinctive structural features. Additional individuals of C. thomasiana and C. eggersii have been found on land adjacent to the study areas, which are being monitored for fertile parts (Earhart, pers. commun.) . Closely related genera represented by more than one species, e.g., Guettarda, Cordia, and Licaria, also need to have specimens collected of each species. The currently available data regarding distribution within and between plots also need to be examined in much greater detail. These and related matters are presently under investigation by scientists from the ITF, NYBG, UVI and Yale University, and others. A series of publications interpreting the distributional data in relation to topographic, synecological and other considerations is in preparation by J. E. Earhart, G. T. Prance, A. Reilly et alia. A related phytosociolog- ical study is in progress by the ITF in the Cinnamon Bay watershed, St. John (Weaver and Chinea-Rivera 1987). The latter study demonstrates a clear relationship between plant distribution and topography. The spatial distribution of the most abundant trees in the Bordeaux and L'Esperance plots, by subplot, is represented in rough synoptic fashion in Figures 2 and 3, using the codes interpreted in Table 2. This table presents only those species which are among the five most common on one or more of the three plots (Earhart et al. 1987). A discussion of certain distributional and ethnobotanical correlates for some of the prominent species follows. Acacia muricata (L.) Willd. -- Amarat; Spineless Acacia. This deciduous tree has a hard, heavy wood considered excellent for charcoal; it has also been used for rough construction, fence posts and fish pot braces (Woodworth 1943). In the plots it is extremely localized, not occurring in L'Esperance, and there is only one specimen in Hawksnest. In Bordeaux it occurs primarily in the northwest corner, along the west ridge and along the northeast below the ruin (A1-A8; B1-B7;.C1-C4; D1-D2; E1-E2; I4-I5; J3- J5). Elsewhere on Bordeaux mountain it does appear to be locally common. This distribution may be related to previous land use. Other questions of relevance to distribution arise, such as the role nutrient availability plays; whether there are rhizobial associations and, if so, does innoculun or molybdenum availability play a role? This species may be in the process of being supplanted during the course of succession. Thus, in the one subplot with smaller trees measured (6A), the total stem number > 5 cm was very high (n=41), and amarat was a high percentage of the total, 16 stems; however, in the 23 stems measured 10 between 3-5 cm, none were amarat. This may indicate a trend toward the eventual elimination of this Species. Amarat is normally found in considerable abundance in lower dryer areas, such as in the White Cliffs area on St. John; its presence may be an artifact of clearing. This may represent a trend in which species more typically from dryer areas colonize uplands after Clearing. Such a trend might be applicable in the development of management strategies elsewhere for. reclaiming degraded watershed with forestry or agroforestry projects, or expediting recovery of natural forests. The possible reduction of this species could indicate a trend toward a change from a deciduous to an evergreen canopy/subcanopy. A moisture/transpiration parameter could be associated with this trend (e.g., Teytaud 1986). Andira inermis (W. Wright) H.B.K. -- Pigturd, Bastard mahogany (Woodworth (1943) cites "Hunklut"” as an old Creole name on St. John). This deciduous tree is found in all plots in relatively high numbers, although it is a dominant tree only in L'Esperance. It is not known to reach great heights and its ability to survive in mature evergreen forests is questionable. This species is less common in the Bordeaux plot than in the other two, especially L'Esperance. Thus it is possible that Bordeaux is in a later stage of development, and that the A. inermis remaining there will soon die out. In Costa Rican lowlands, A.. inermis is an occasional member of the subcanopy and understory, flowers regularly, and fruits once in two years (Hartshorn, Ch. 7 in Janzen 1983). In the V.I. the wood is traditionally regarded as good for furniture making (Woodworth 1943) and construction, especially for boat building. It has occasionally been used for coffee shade and this, along with its copious fruit production, attractiveness to animals, and ability to colonize open areas, may all lend to its wide distribution. Ardisia obovata Desv. -- Whitewood, Breakbill. This small evergreen tree, which is the most abundant tree in the L'Esperance plot, is also found in Hawksnest and in high numbers in Bordeaux. It challenges Foramea as the dominant understory tree, in some places becoming much larger and playing a role in the subcanopy. Its effect on microclimate -- light intensity, moisture, and nutrient cycling -- play an important but undefined role in the ecology of areas where it is a dominant species. Whitewood appears to be rather shade tolerant and may not be an early gap species (Earhart, 1987 pers. commun.). The hardwood is used primarily for charcoal and posts in St. John, but the latter last only about two years (Woodworth 1943, as A. guadalupenis). Byrsonima coriacea (Sw.) DC -- Hogberry. This large evergreen tree with moderately hard wood is found only in the Bordeaux plots and is locally abundant there. It is found especially in the southeast corner (J 7-J 10; I 7-I 10) and along the eastern gut, extending to the western half of the plots in a few concentrations (C9-E9; C8-D8; C5-E5). The seeds of this species are in a small fleshy yellow fruit which is edible, though mealy and sometimes tart. The fruit may play an as yet undetermined role in distribution (e.g., seed dispersal through frugivory). 11 he limited distribution? Is it related to high levels of Fe and cu (aera sample sites B12-B13 -- see Appendix III), or 1s it strictly due to seed source? The importance of seed source, seed availability, and dispersal mechanism, may play an important role in any kind of restoration ecology for watersheds. This also is true of other species of limite distribution found in this study, e.g., Pimenta, Pouteria, Acacia muricata, Ilex, Picrasmia, etc. Rather than being randomly distributed or hyperdispersed, many upper canopy tropical forest trees tend to be found in clumps (e.g., Hartshorn 1983 in Janzen 1983). The wood is recommended for furniture, flooring and all kinds of carpentry uses (Little and Wadsworth 1964) and may have played a historic role in plantation construction. Guapira fragrans (DC) Little -- Black mampoo; Loblolly. This soft- wood, fast-growing evergreen tree is found throughout the three plots and is one of the dominant species in each. It is especially abundant in areas around ridges and those with an abundance of boulders. The importance of this species needs to be analyzed more thoroughly. In Bordeaux, nearly all of the specimens appear to be affected by a disorder which manifests itself as swellings in the trunk. These symptoms are also found in the other plots. The causal agent should be isolated and identified, and the extent and importance of this phenomenon be determined. Is this species declining in numbers, and what are the reasons if it is? The wood of this species is so soft that it is not even considered useful as a fuel. It is regularly employed by local gardeners as a soil amendment, especially in containers, due to its water holding capacity after rapid decay. In the forest, fallen limbs and trunks provide an excellent microenvironment for natural seedling establishment in areas with limited organic matter or moisture availability. Inga fagifolia (L.) Willd. [syn. Inga laurina (Sw.) Willd.] -- Sweetpea. This medium-sized evergreen tree is a major component of the two upland plots, Bordeaux and L'Esperance, but is not found in Hawksnest. Although found throughout the plots, it is regularly abundant in the areas adjacent to the guts. Is this because of moisture requirements, tolerance of occasional flooding, or simply because the large seeds are carried to low spots during heavy rains? What role do animals play in its distribution? The moderately hard wood is considered excellent for fish pot frames (Woodworth 1943) and charcoal, but is of limited use in construction because it is susceptible to dry wood termites. Sweetpea is regularly used for coffee shade (Little and Wadsworth 1964). Its abundance in the upland areas may be in part due to this historic use. St. John was historically known for its coffee production (Oldendorp 1777) and coffee can still be found on Bordeaux to the west of the plot. Pimenta racemosa (Mill.) Moore var. racemosa -- bay run. This evergreen tree with very hard wood is found throughout Bordeaux, but is not found in the other plots. In Bordeaux there are heavy concentrations in the areas around Cl; G1-H1; J3-10; and E9-F9. It has been suggested that these trees were planted and that this variety was introduced to St. John 12 (Woodbury pers. commun. 1984). In a recent monograph on seven Myrtaceae genera, Landrum (1986) considers P. racemosa racemosa to be native to the Virgin Islands and the Lesser Antilles. The grove around subplot Cl includes many trees which have similarly split trunks, all at approximately breast height. This also applies to the stand at the old bay rum distillery at America Hill in the Cinnamon Bay area, St. John. Such uniformity suggests that the trees may have been pruned for greater leaf production. The uneven spatial distribution indicates that the trees were probably not planted but may have been “saved". This is a common practice of enlightened workers throughout the West Indies, described from Jamaica in its current context by Rashford (1987), in which volunteer seedlings and saplings of desirable species are identified and encouraged. The leaves of this variety are used in the production of bay oil and bay rum. St. John was historically known for this production, with the Bordeaux Mountain area recognized as a major production spot. It is interesting that this variety thus far has not been found in the wild in Tortola -- where the common variety is P. r. grisea (Kiaerskou) Fosberg -~- though P. r. racemosa is recorded from Virgin Gorda (Landrun 1986). The grisea variety has a lemon scent and produces an inferior oil, reducing the value by as much as 90%, even with only minor contamination. Pimenta racemosa var. grisea is not known from St. John or St. Thomas. Conceivably, this may be due to the historical industrial importance of the essential oils of bay rum, thus a strict requirement of distillers, and vigilance and advice of agricultural advisors, calling for selective rogueing of this variety. The hard wood of this species and most members of the family Myrtaceae is excellent for charcoal, posts and fish pot construction. Tabebuia heterophylla (DC.) Britt. -- Cedar, Pink cedar. This deciduous tree with moderately hard, heavy wood is found throughout the three plots in moderate to high numbers, reflecting its wide distribution throughout the V.I. It is to be found in nearly all vegetation types/ecological zones in these islands. The wood of this tree is considered valuable by islanders for boat building (Woodworth 1943), home construction, and especially for landscaping. Its role in the forest and ability to persist need to be more thoroughly investigated. Although it is one of the larger trees found, it is the most frequently colonized by the epiphyte Clusia rosea (Guttiferae) and as such is susceptible to windthrow, perhaps because of the unusual weight distribution, e.g., Bordeaux Gl; L'Esperance Jl. Is this relationship with Clusia due to an interaction with birds, as Woodbury (pers. commun. 1985) suggests? If so, what species of birds? Will cedar persist in mature evergreen forests, or is it a primary colonizer of cleared sites which will be eliminated? A seedling study of this and other deciduous species needs to be undertaken | in areas with closed canopies, to determine their ability to persist in the evolving forest. It is significant to note also that recent tropical storms have 13 caused considerable windthrows of cedar. In general, the role of windthrow is likely to be comparatively more important in the succession of insular forest stands than it is in forests of continental areas. Other Species. Four additional species (Bs, Kf, Mb and Oc in Table 2), all among the most common species in the Hawksnest plot, but uncommon or absent in the other plots, are consistently associated with dry woodlands and thickets, generally at low and mid-elevations from northern South America, through the Caribbean islands, Central America, and, in part, far southern North America. Melicoccus bijugatus, which thrives in the dry transitional/moist forest context, is by far the dominant tree in Hawksnest (see Earhart et al. 1987). It is an aggressive and successful colonizer, thanks in good part to its large seed and popular fruit. Indeed, it can be characterized as a "weed" species. Table 2. The Most Abundant Species of Trees in the Three Long-Term Monitoring Forest Plots Code Species Family. Common Names ” Plots , Am Acacia muricata Fabaceae-Mimosoideae Amarat, Spineless Acacia B Ai Andira inermis Fabaceae~Papilionoideae Pigturd, "Hunklut", Bastard Mahogany E Ro Ardisia obovata Myrsinaceae Whitewood, Badula, Breakbill E Bs Bursera simaruba Buseraceae Turpentine tree, W.I. birch, qm tree H Be Byrsonina coriacea Malpighiaceae Hogberry B Gf Guapira fragrans Nyctaginaceae Black mampoo, loblolly B,H,E If Inga fagifolia Fabaceae~Mimosoideae Sweet peas, Sweetpea B,E Kf Krugiodendron ferreum Rhamnaceae Black ironwood, Ebony H Mb Melicoccus bijugatus Sapindaceae Genip, K'nip, Spanish Lime H Oc Ocotea coriacea Lauraceae Laurel H Pr Pimenta racemosa Myrtaceae Bay rum, Bay tree B Th Tabebuia heterophylla Bignoniaceae Cedar, Pink cedar E 1 B — Bordeaux (Plot 1); E— L'Esperance (Plot 2); H — Hawksnest (Plot 3). Includes only those species among the 5 most abundant in the plots indicated, based on the analysis presented in Earhart et al. (1987). 2 Drawn from local oral sources and appropriate literature (e.g., Liogier and Martorell 1982, Martorell et al. 1981; Little and Wadsworth 1964, Little et al. 1974, Woodworth 1943). 14 Pr b2 Be 6 Be 5 Be 2 If § Pr 3 Tf 3 Be 6 If 3 If 3 tes i te2 | re4} 12] prif we2 | pr2 tise | peo GE2 1 19 ge 4 GE 2 Gf 1 Pr l Be 1 Be 1 Be | Pr 2 Be 1 Pr l GE i Am 1 Be 7 If 3 Be 3 If 7 Pr 7? Pr i3 |} If 7 If 8 If 9 GE Il If 7 Pr 3 If 1 Pri Lf 4 Be 4 Be 7 Pr 2 Pr 2 9 Pr 5 Be 3 Be 1 Be 3 Pr l Pr 2 Gf 2 GE 1 Gf 1 Gf 1 Gf 1 Gf_l Be 12 ! Pr 5 If 3 If 6 If 3 If 5 If 7 If 9 Gf 5 GE 3 Pr 8 GE $ Pr 3 Be 2 Be 3 Pr 2 Be 3 Be 3 If 1 An | 8 If 4 Be 4 GE 2 Pr 1 Pr l Be 1 Pr 3 Bo 2 Tf 2 Be 1 Gf 1 Gf 1 Gf£_l Gf£_i Pr l2 ! Be 8 Pr 3 If 1 Pr 2 GE 5 If 4 If 4 G£ 3 Am 5 Be ll Pr 6 Tf 2 If 2 Tf 1 GE 4 Pr 3 Am i Pr 3 7 if 4 If 2 Gf 2 Be 1 Pr l Pr il Gf 2 Pr il Gf 3 Gf 1 GE 1 Bol Pr ll Pr 6 Be 2 If 4 If 3 GE 4 GE 6 Tf 4 Am 4 An 16 If l Gf 2 If 1 Gf | Be 2 If 1 If 3 Gf 3 Gf 2 Gf 6 6 Tf 2 Be 1 Pr 1 Pr i Am 2 Pr 2 Pr 3 Pr l Pr? If 2 If 6 Tf 3 GE 4 Gf 5 GE 7 GE 6 Am 6 Am 17 Am 5 Gf i GE 2 Gf 2 If 1 If 2 If 3 Be 1 Gf 4 Pr § 5 Am | Be 1 Pr l Pr 2 Be 2 If l Pr 2 GE i Be 1 Pr l T£ 1 “Pr TI An 3 Tf 5 Pr 3 Tf 3 If l Gf 9 Gf 8 Am 2 Am 14 Am 7 Pr 2 Be 3 If 2 Gf 1 Be 1 Am 6 Pr 2 Gf 8 4 Tf l Gf 1 Pr l Pr l 1 Gf l Pr l cl Tf 1 GEL Pr 12 Tf 9 Tf 3 If 2 GE 4 Gf 9 1+ Gf 10 | Am § 4m 10 ¢ Am Ll am 4! Pr 4 GE3 j cei} 11 | rei {Bei | Be Pr 4 | GE 6 3 If l Gf 3 Be 1 An 1 Pr i it ; Gf 3 Fr 3 If 7 if 4 If 3 If 3 Pr 3 G£ 16 | GE 6 Am ll ¢ Am 9 Am 7 Be 5 Be 3 Gf 1 GE 3 GE 3 If l Am 5 Pr 6 Pr 3 GE 5 2 Pr 3 Pr il . Tf l An | Pr 4 Gf l Pr 2 Gf 2 If 5 Pr 2 Pr 6 Pr 8 Gf 4 Am 5 Am 20 Pr 16 ; Am 17 Am 14 Be 2 Tf 2 Tf 4 Gf 5 Pr 3 Pr 3 Gt 7 Am 6 Pr 5 Gf 5 1 GE 2 Gf 1 If l Tfé 1 GE 2 Pr 3 Gf 2 Tf l Pr 4 Tf l J rt H G F E D Cc B A Figure 2. Synopsis of the Spatial Distribution by Subplot of the Five Most Important Species of Trees in the Bordeaux Plot. Subplots are 10x10m. 15 “WOTXOT aze sjotdqnsg ‘}0[d souezsedsg,7 ey ut saeay, Jo satoaeds jue3xz0dur 3SON PATA BYR JO VOTdQns Aq uoTINnqTaystd TeTzeds ayy Jo stsdoudS ‘*E€ daANbty Vv a ) d d 7] H I cr ¢ 39 1 FV T 4 @ FV T 39 I 31 1 39 z FV € TV 1 3li 2 FV € Wl TW 1 39 @ FV ct SI 9 JI € #1 € 3Jd1 2 FI 9 JI L UL y UL @ UL Z OV T ov 8 OV £ oy 8 OV i 6 OV 8 OV ft TT OV L oy Z OV T ¥¥ 1 39 T 39 T UL T WL T 39 1 39 ZOUL T FI € TV T FV T 59 T 31 1 39 T FV T WL ys} ew} esr) tart cary ee to rart tart PI cur 8 OV 8 OV £1 OV € ov 6 OV f Vv €1l OV + SI OV if ¥ i 02 ov FI FI t t sO Tt FV | HV { TV 1 ty TJD! 2 399 I JI 1 5I @ FI T UL € OV 9 T FV € oy zc OFV @ FV f 39 @ UL T JI y OV y 49 of V € ov y IV! 6 OV VT OV | 22 *OV «| ST OV '! QT oy T FV z 59 J L T FV T TV T FI Tt 39 9 TV W T 39 139, 4 TV T FV z 39 1 39 9 OV 6 OV OV € ov G OV; 6 OV 9T OV 6 OV | OT OV | TZ OF Ts Tgo' 1d 31 1 ¥¥ @ 39 @ FV a FV t Ve T FV T FI T JI € ov € ¥V € UL 9 OV 9 JI! 2 FI @ FI @ 439 9 59 1 39 9 39 8 OV y OV 2 UL 9 ov! ¢Z OV £2 OV 8 OV ! ZT OV |! ZI OV 16 SOIL CHEMISTRY ANALYSIS introduction Limited information is available on soil-forest interactions, particularly within the Caribbean (Lugo et al., 1981). However, the fact that soil physical, chemical and biological properties interact in a complex way with forest composition is well established (e.g., Cole et al., 1377; Cole and Johnson 1978; Lugo and Brown, 1982; Odum and Pigeon 1970). This complex relationship makes generalizations about nutrient cycling in forested areas difficult. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate each area individually. Within the U.S. Virgin Islands, soil physical, chemical, and mineralogical characteristics have not been assessed in detail. Of some 25 entries for the U.S. Virgin Islands in Orvedal's (1978) bibliography of soils of the tropics, only 5 deal specifically with soils, the remainder deal with geology (9), geography (6), water resources ( 3) or other subjects. The Soil Conservation Service (1967) has completed characterizations and data sets for only eight Virgin Islands pedons (soils), none from St. John. Sixteen pedons have recently been analyzed from the three main Virgin Islands, of which three are from St. John (Collins and Craft, unpubl. data). Six of the total are addressed in Collins and Craft (1988), including one from St. John. Rivera et al. (1966, 1970) mapped and classified the soils of the U.S.V.I. based on extensive air photos, including commendable interpretations for a wide range of uses related to agriculture and construction. However, subsequent experience suggests that the classifications need to be revised and adjusted in the light of changing concepts of soil series applicable to local tropical insular conditions with a complex geological history, particularly for St. John and parts of St. Croix (Collins and Craft 1988). An insightful attempt at synthesis is made by Teytaud (1986), in which he seeks to place the hierarchical soil taxonomy of the USDA into the context of the zonal system of soil classification and the FAO Soil Map of the World, and to integrate this into Holdridge associations of environmental factors. His designation and mapping of such associations for St. John has considerable merit, but is compromised by the very incomplete characterization of St. John soils to date. Thus, the information on soils gathered in this study can contribute to the strengthening of a vital information base for future understanding of soil development on St. John. Materials and Methods Soil samples were taken from each plot within a several weeks' period during May and June, 1986. Samples were taken at about 20 meter intervals 3m outside the perimeter along the three up-slope sides of the Bordeaux and L'Esperance plots. Sampling was performed outside the plots so as to avoid disturbing the integrity of the soil cover and the plants' root Spheres within the plots. Due to the extreme rockiness of the Hawksnest plot, and equipment and time constraints, only three samples were taken there, on the exterior of the plot in the same fashion as at the other two 17 plots. All told, 33 sites were sampled, for a total of about 100 usable samples. At each site, samples were taken over three depths, symbolized as A = 0 - 3 inches, B = 3 - 8 inches, C = 8 - 12 inches. Because of the shallow depth of most of the soils and the abundance of rocks in many of then, the precision of the depth separations undoubtedly varied somewhat from site to site. Sampling maps for each site are given in Figure 4 _ (Appendix I), showing the relative location of the sample sites. The sites' distance from the perimeter, not to scale in Figure 4, was Maintained as close to three meters as possible. Each sample consisted of ca. 1000 cc in actual volume. No special attempt was made to remove surface organic detritus (leaf litter, etc.) before sampling. Field notes were made for the soil sampling sites, including observations on surface features, understory and canopy. The samples were submitted to the VICES Diagnostic Laboratory for soil analysis. The samples were dried for 24 hours at 105° F. They were then ground to 10-mesh size using a Dynacrush grinder. The samples were analyzed for pH; soluble salts, organic matter and sodium content; texture; and ten elements: sodium, five macronutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg, S) and four micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn). Nitrogen could not be analyzed due to equipment unavailability when the samples were being processed. Aliquots of all soil samples from the three St. John plots have been retained in case of a need for future reference or verification. The lab utilized a 1:2.5 water pH and soluble salt test (McLean, 1982; Rhoades, 1982). Organic matter was determined by acid dichromate digestion and read on a Bausch & Lomb Spectronic 20 (Hunter, 1983). Sulfate was analyzed with a calcium phosphate extraction colorimetric method (Hunter, 1983) and read on the Spectronic 20. Phosphorus, potassium, copper, iron, manganese and zinc were extracted using a sodium bicarbonate EDTA ammonium fluoride solution (Hunter, 1983). Phosphorus was then complexed with an antimony trioxide ammonium molybdate solution in a colorimetric reaction and measured on the Spectronic 20. The latter elements were read directly on an Instrumentation Laboratory (now Fisher Scientific) Model 457 atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AA). Calciun, Magnesium and sodium were measured by potassium chloride extraction (Hunter, 1983) and read directly on the AA. A summary of the chemical analysis procedures is given in Table 3. Texture was assessed by hydrometer particle size analysis (Gee and Bauder, 1986). A guide to interpretation of the soil test values in relation to plant nutrient availability to agronomic crops is outlined in Table 4. This interpretation may be different for the vegetation found within the research plots. Results Average results for the sampling sites over sampling depths for each plot are outlined in Table 5 and summarized below. Tables 6 through 8 (Appendix II) list the results of each test for each sampling site and depth for each plot. Test results in relation to sampling site for ‘18 a 7 Bordeaux, Hawksnest and L'Esperance plots are found in Appendices III, Iv and V, respectively. Soil pH. The average pH varies between plots, with the Hawksnest plot being highest at 7.12, and Bordeaux lowest, at 5.71. This variation in average PH between plots could influence the natural selection of plant species growing in those areas. For both the Bordeaux and L'Esperance plots, the PH decreased with depth, which is consistent with principles of soil formation. However, the Hawksnest plot increased in pH with increasing depth. At this time, no reason for this is apparent. Organic Matter. The surface horizons on all three plots have high organic matter contents, which is to be expected within a forested area. The significant and consistent decrease in organic matter content with depth is consistent with soil development. There is only a slight change with depth in the percent organic matter content of the Hawksnest plot. This may be caused by several possible factors. There may be less deposition of vegetative material due to a difference in vegetative species. It also may indicate faster movement of water through this area due to the rocky soils and less underbrush to slow water movement. Any vegetative material deposited could easily be washed through the gut area and deposited below. . Soluble Salt Content. The soluble salt content is low and consistent over. the area within each plot. Relative differences with depth are non- significant. Available Phosphorus. The phosphorus level at all sites is low, with no significant change between plots. It also does not change significantly with depth in any of the plots. Available Potassium. The potassium level of the surface is moderate to high, declining to low-moderate with depth for the Bordeaux and L'Esperance plots. There is no significant difference between these plots. The Hawksnest plot has a high potassium content in the surface, declining to medium over depth. This difference could be attributed to either mineralogy or nutrient cycling related to vegetative cover. Available Calcium. In all of the plots there was a moderate amount of available calcium. The calcium content in both the Bordeaux and L'Esperance plots decreased with depth. The calcium content is slightly higher in the Hawksnest plot but not significantly different from the other plots. Within the Hawksnest plot there is also essentially no change over depth in the availability of calciun. Available Magnesium. Low-medium levels of magnesium were available in each of the plots. The L'Esperance plot does have a slightly higher level of available magnesium than the other two plots. However, there is no significant difference between plots or over the depth of the plots. 19 Outline of Soil Analysis Procedures, as Summarized from Agro Services International, Inc. > procedures manual (Hunter 1983). SAMPLE [EXTRACTION STIRRING _—s| FILTRATE [COMPLEX REAGENT. ELEMENT|SIZE [VOLUME] REAGENT TIME |SPRED |VOLUME __|VOLUME | REAGENT TIME | INST. pH 10 mi. [25 ml |DEIZ.H,0 10 min.| 400 rpn [NONE pH METER CONDUCT. | SOLUBLE SFLTS |10 mi |25 ml |DEIZ.H0 10 min.} 400 rpm NONE BRIDGE P S75 ml [25m {0.05 N NaHOO, [10 min. [400 rpmj1 mi TO mi |ANIIMONY- [40 min. [SPEC 20 | 0.01 M EDTA TRIOXIDE 680 nm 0.01 N NH,F AMMONIUM- - MOLYBDATE 9 ml |DIEZ. H.0 K 25 mi [25 mi [0.25 N NaHCO, [10 min./ 400 rpm(1 mi 19 ml [DEIZ. 50 AA 0.01 M EDTA 766.5 0.01 N NH|F fer) 2.5 ml (25 ml [0.25 N NaHoO, [10 min.|/ 400 rpm NONE AA 0.01 M EOTA 324.7 0.01 N NH F Fe 2.5 ml [25 mi [0.25 N NakkO, {10 min. [400 rpm NONE AA 0.01 M EDTA 248.3 | ]0.02 N NH F rs) 2.5 ml [25 mi (0.25 N NaHOO, [10 min./400 rpm NONE AA 0.01 M EDTA 279.3 0.01 N NB F an 2.5 ml 25 ml (0.25 N NaHCO, [10 min./400 rpm NONE BA 0.01 M EDTA 213.9 0.01 N NH F Ca 2.5 mi [25 mi [I N KCT TO min. [400 rpm(T mi Omi |DEIZ-HO AA 10 ml [18 La.C, 422.7 Mg 2.5 Mi joo mL {1 N KCL TO min. | 400 rpm]i mi 3 ml |DEIZ.H50 AA 10 mi [18 1a,6, 285.2 Na 2.5 ml (25 ml | 1 N KCL 10 min. |400 rpm{1 m2 9 ml |DEIZ.#,0 ‘AA 10m {18 ta, 589.0 SO S ml [25 mL |CaH, (PO,) 10 min. |400 rpm(7 mi 9 ml |HNO,-GLAC. [20 min. |SPEC 20 4 ve? ACETIC ACID 535 nm 4 ml | BaCl,-PVP — ORGANIC /I ml [10m NaCr,05-H,S0,] DIGEST 300 F 25 ml. | DEIZ. HO SPEC 20 MATTER 2m 10 ml |Dezz. #20 650 rm 20 Table 4. Guide to interpretation of soil analysis value ranges (in ppm), as applicable to agronomic crops. S2sanceme=sensces mma Satssnacseeseseseessce== Test Variables Low Medium High Soluble Salts 1000 1000-4000 4000+ Phosphorus 25 75 150 Potassium 90 150 300 Calcium 1600 7200 14,400 Magnesium 480 2160 7200 Sulfate 25 75 . 150 Zinc 4 18 35 Iron 40 200 400 Copper 3 10 20 Manganese 10 50 100 Sodium as low as possible for optimum conditions 21 Table 5. Summary of average analysis values for each plot by depth. — Analysis Depth? Bordeaux L' Esperance Hawksnest pH A 5.93 7,13 6.87 B 5.65 6.39 7.09 c §.55 6.16 7.16 Total §.71 6.49 7.12 % Organic A 7.35 6.24 4.83 Matter B §.92 4.39 4.30 Cc 4.28 3.55 4.60 Total 5.82 4.80 4.58 ppm Soluble A 144 185 167 Salts B 101 75 83 c 47 20. 100 Total 97 98 119 Macronutrients Phosphorus A 11.4 9.30 7.70 : B 6.7 5.70 8.00 c 16.4 4.58 3.50 Total 11.5 6.74 6.75 Potassium A 214 238 303 B 154 168 292 Cc 110 115 187 Total 159 181 270 Calcium A 1868 2621 4465 B 1390 2522 3697 c 1019 2308 4822 Total 1418 2491 4266 Magnesium A 625 851 620 B 560 976 639 Cc 552 855 902 Total 578 910 750 Sulfate A 16.0 11.3 16.0 B 8.4 7.6 9.0 Cc 7.3 8.1 9.0 Total 10.5 9.0 11.6 22 Table 5 (cont'd.). Summary of Average Analysis Values Plot Analysis Depth? Bordeaux L' Esperance Hawksnest Micronutrients ppm Zine A 7.72 1,32 1.27 B 7.97 1.85 0.53 c 5.68 1.47 1.20 Total 7.11 1.55 0.98 Iron A 146 45 30 B 527 101 15 c 7521 134 21 Total 481 91 22 Copper A 2.56 3.39 2.97 B 5.61 5.53 2.70 c 6.13 5.77 3.85 Total 4.81 4.85 3.09 Manganese A 21.8 6.7 7.3 B 20.4 6.2 2.7 c 17.0 5.4 2.6 Total 19.7 6.1 4.4 Other Sodium A 79 123 85 B 94 101 77 c 107 121 59 Total 94 115 76 % Sand A 69 66 67 Content B 65 np 59 c 56 57 61 Total 63 62 61 Silt A 22 23 19 Content B 23 np 23 Cc 26 26 21° Total 24 25 21 Clay A 9 11 14 Content B 12 np 18 Cc 17 17 18 Total 13 14 17 Texture 7 A sl sl sl B sl sl sl c sl sl sl Total sl sl sl l i -8 inches, C = 8-12 inches =z Q-3 inches, B = 3-8 inc ' hes a = sandy loam, np = not preformed due to minimal sample 23 Available Sulfate. All of the plots have low levels of sulfate available. This is consistent within all plots as well as over depth. Available Zinc. A low level of zinc is available within all of the plots and over depth within the plots. There is no significant difference between plots. Available Iron. The iron content is consistent within plots but not between plots or over the depth of plots. The variations found could influence the selection of vegetative species growing in the areas. The Bordeaux plot is high.to very high in iron. The high level of jron in the Bordeaux plot is most likely due to differences in the mineralogy of the parent materials of the plot. The increase in availability with depth in this plot is significant. The L'Esperance plot has a low-medium iron content while the Hawksnest plot has a low iron content. Available Copper. The copper content is consistently low within all of the plots. The difference between plots is not significant. There is a decrease in copper content over depth; however, it is not significant. Available Manganese. Both the Hawksnest and L'Esperance plots are consistently low in manganese. The amount available decreases with depth but is not significant. The Bordeaux plot has consistently low-medium levels of available manganese. The difference between plots may be due to the mineralogy of the soils. This difference, may but most likely would not, influence plant species found within the plots. Sodium. There is no significant difference in the levels of sodium occurring between plots or over depth within plots. Texture. The soil texture at all sites averaged a sandy loam but closely verging on a clay loam texture. The percent sand, percent silt and percent clay are all consistent within a plot and over the depth of sampling. , ssio The initial soil analysis was performed to gather baseline data and to determine whether or not significant differences in nutrient availability occurred between plots. The results have demonstrated that there are relative differences in soil nutrient availability between plots which could have a direct effect on plant selection and growth. Therefore, further investigative efforts are encouraged. The soils within each plot have been identified as Cramer. However, further characterization is needed to verify the actual soil series located at each site. This is particularly true for the Hawksnest plot where the soil is identified as a Cramer-Isaac gravely clay loam which is classified as a Lithic Argiustoll/Udic Argiustoll (Rivera et al. 1970). However, the 24 high Stone content makes this classification very questionable. In addition, the epipedon does not meet the requirements for a mollic epipedon, for inclusion into the Mollisol order. Further, the soil series Classification (Rivera et al. 1970), on St. John 1n particular, is based almost exclusively on aerial photogrammetry, with a minimal amount of ground truthing. Thus, it is perhaps inevitable that substantial discrepancies have arisen. The Soil Conservation Service intends to re~survey the soils of St. John and the other U.S.V.I. beginning in 1988 (G. Acevedo, SCS, Puerto Rico, pers. commun. 1987). The geological materials from which soils develop can influence the resulting soil physical properties, which in turn could influence the natural selection of plant species. The texture of a developing soil is dramatically influenced by the parent material. In comparing the determination of soil texture by field texture evaluation as opposed to particle-size analysis, Collins and Craft (1988) found that lab analysis resulted in higher sand contents than determined in the field. The highly weathered rock fragments found in soils throughout the U.S. Virgin Islands easily crumble to sand-size particles with minimal pressure. Further evaluation of soil physical properties between the plots may indicate significant differences which could influence plant growth. Soil sampling was performed only to a depth of 12 inches. However, the influence of the subsoil could prove important. The steep topography of the islands lends itself to dynamic land forms which remain mobile. As observed by Squires (1940), the steep hillsides are basically talus slopes derived from highly inclined stratified metamorphic beds, whose tops have been frayed off and scattered down the Slopes in the form of rocks of various sizes, mixed with soil derived from them. These rocks lend themselves well to terrace construction, thus having made extensive conversion of the hillsides to agriculture possible when labor was cheap -- and soil conservation was not recognized as a need. In an evaluation of certain soils of the Virgin Islands, Collins and Craft (1987) found that many soils had lithologic discontinuities. Colluvial material (moved by gravity) were identified in the upper soil portions and often overlaid residual. Determining the genesis of these soils becomes complicated due to the occurrence of several of these colluvial events, creating layers of various-sized particles within a profile. These events can be separated by analyzing relative particle sizes and locations of stone lines. The occurrence of the layers can influence many soil physical properties, including aeration and water movement, which modify the rooting environment for plants. Natural selection of plant species could be influenced by the occurrence of these colluvial layers and the depth to bedrock. In a geochemical survey of St. John and St. Thomas for the U.S. Geological Survey, Tucker et al.( 1985) found high levels of heavy metals in the areas where the plots are located, but particularly in the Bordeaux Mountain area. These elements should be evaluated to determine availability and potential influence on selection and phytosociological attributes. Ramos-Perez et al. (1987) studied heavy metal export, both in 25 ——————__ the dissolved and suspended form, to marine near-shore environments of st. John with a view to estimating possible toxicity of the heavy me ans oth marine biota. In order of decreasing concentration, the metals foun a in the stream water and marine sediment samples, were: magnesium, on manganese, copper, nickel and zinc. All values were considerably lower than those normally found in bays receiving industrial and domestic pollution. The preliminary baseline data gathered in this study provides only a first step towards assessing the actual plant-soil relationships within these plots and in ecosystems within the U.S. Virgin Islands. To more fully understand these ecosystems and the influence which soil properties and nutrient distribution have on the resulting plant growth, further soil and plant analyses must be performed. For the influence of topography and site location on plant selection and/or growth to be better understood, the soils should be further characterized, including soil physical properties, to evaluate their effect on root distribution, aeration and water relations. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Three permanent study plots have been identified and established on St. John, with the overall long-term objective of monitoring representative components of secondary forest development on a small dry-to-moist tropical island. -The plots are in representative ecological zones -- upland moist forest (Bordeaux), gallery moist forest (L'Esperance) and dry evergreen woodland (Hawksnest) -- and are situated on watersheds of critical importance to the park: Reef Bay, Fish Bay, and Hawksnest Bay, respectively. The near-offshore areas of these bays are the subject of several long-term marine studies by VIRMC and other research groups. The implementation of vegetation and soil studies on these watersheds will allow specific aspects of the association of land and marine systems on this island to be evaluated for the first time. The regenerating forest is an intriguing mixture of native and exotic species. Comparative study of the interaction between these two groups, and their relative development is likely to be most instructive, and of high relevance to other islands, especially in the Neotropics. Clearly, a wide spectrum of primary and secondary studies could justifiably be undertaken on the three permanent forest monitoring plots on St. John, described herein. These include: (1) autecological aspects and physiognomic features and patterns -- e.g., bark, leaves, roots, Stratification, epiphytes, parasites; (2) community ecology -- primary and secondary productivity; nutrient distribution and cycling; phenology; reproductive biology (e.g., Flores and Schemske 1984); dominance and diversity; forest succession and dynamics; and (3) soil and water relation- ships, including land-use, erosion, and sediment movement studies; and nutrient-plant distribution assessments. 26 Some specific recommendations for further investi i gation, and rel observations, are presented below. ated Terrestrial Vegetation Information needs are here considered in four sections: (a) analyses needed on plot data currently available; (b) future research needs specifically associated with the long-term plots; (c) suggested work on other aspects of VINP terrestrial vegetation, and its management; and (a) soils and nutrient relationships. A terrestrial ecology subcommittee of VIRMC should be set up to advise the park research biologist and superintendent. This group would review research proposals associated with the long-term vegetation monitoring plots and could be available for consultation on management decisions. There is a need to coordinate research and insure, for example, that destructive sampling does not occur within the plot (e.g., soil samples should be taken outside the plots). The establishment of this formal group might also better insure that there is regular monitoring and maintenance of the plots. Establishment and Initial Inventory Data Follow-up. Data acquired in these plots are in the process of being analyzed on a subplot and species basis to begin to look at the following sorts of questions, some of which will be the subject of future publications (e.g., Earhart, Prance and Reilly, in prep.): 1. What is the nature of the trends in vegetation distribution relative to position in the landscape (proximity to ridges, guts, etc.)? In this connection, Weaver and Chinea~Rivera (1987) recently reported work on a series of 16 plots in the Cinnamon Bay Watershed on St. John, from sea level to summit, located on ridge, slope and gut topography, to explore relationships via reciprocal averaging ordinations. They showed that there are correlations not only with topography but also elevation. 2. How important is the role of seed source, as modified by relief and prevailing winds? 3. What species-to-size relationships are there, and is there significance to preliminary observations on the paucity of smaller (younger) trees of currently important species like A. muricata and G. fragrans in Bordeaux and G. fragrans in L'Esperance? Do these reflect developmental trends from a deciduous to an "evergreen" forest? 4. Are there interactions of nutrients and metals with respect to forest species? Is there an association with a threshold of soil organic matter, or are canopy and seed source more important, as a preliminary assessment might indicate? Long-term Vegetation Monitoring. Additional data collection _on the following aspects would be useful in evaluating the relative significance of determinants of forest composition and developmental patterns (also, see soils and nutrient relationships section below). 27 1. A collection of voucher specimens needs to be completed for definitive identification and reference. Such a collection is berag assembled in connection with the Flora of St. John project of the NYBG . Reilly, pers. commun. 1987). 2. Preliminary observation indicates a disease may be affecting ‘&. fragrans. The causal organism of this needs to be determined and its influence on the paucity of smaller trees and seedlings needs to be evaluated. Microorganisms may be significant in disease and may also be significant as beneficials in mycorrhizal and rhizobial associations. 3. A baseline survey of other organisms in the plots and their interaction with the flora should be undertaken. This would involve birds and pollination, and seed distribution, including the distribution of Clusia rosea, which seems to be significant in treefall. Insects and their role in pollination and predation may be significant. 4. Arthropods have a strong direct and indirect influence over plant productivity and nutrient cycling. For example, the standing crop of fecal pellets from macroarthropod detritivores such as millipedes may locally exceed annual litterfall inputs (Seastedt and Crossley 1984). Studies on herbivore-plant and detritivore-detritus interactions would shed vital information on nutrient cycling. 5. Research information is needed on the differential growth of island vegetation. Aspects of this line of inquiry are being pursued on the 16 permanently marked plots on St. John by the ITF (Weaver, pers. commun. 1987). 6. The long-term study of developmental patterns in these forests is predicated on the ecological dynamics of successional generations. The single subplot in which sapling trees 3 - 5 cm are found has demonstrated some interesting trends. Of even more significance is seedling germination and survival. Seedlings and saplings should be surveyed to elucidate the effects of various environmental stresses on the different species. Duke's (1965) key on identification of seedlings of major forest types in Puerto Rico could be usefully modified in this regard. General Terrestrial Plant Management Needs. Besides specific research related to the long-term plots, there are several priority needs for data which would be useful to park managers, to the neighboring community, or the visiting public. For example: i. Numerous requests have been made of the park regarding the possibility of harvesting traditionally used plant products from the park. Work needs to be undertaken to define the ecological abundance and location and to determine the effect of cutting and harvesting birch (Eugenia biflora, and E. monticola) which is used in the construction of fishpots, or hoop vines (Trichostigma octandra and Serjania polyphylla) and on bay leaves (Pimenta racemosa var. racemosa). 28 2. Similarly, there is a significant threat to the island's herbaceous vegetation, being harvested for ornamental use in landscaping. This is particularly true of the Orchidaceae, Bromeliaceae, Cactaceae, Araceae and Urticaceae. Especially important in this group are studies of the endemics Tillandsia lineataspika, Anthurium sellosium, and Pilea Santaecrucis. Probably as vulnerable are the dancing lady orchids Oncidiun Spp., and Philodendron giganteum. Studies on the propagation of these, especially on the possibility of utilizing tissue culture for mass propagation, might be a way to prevent their seemingly inexorable loss. 3. Related research on the propagation of tree species, especially uncommon ones, which are thought to have been abundant at one time, such as Manilkara balata, Masticodendron foetidisimum and Roystonea borenquena, should also be undertaken, if possible on site. Seed sources of these trees need to be identified and ecologically appropriate sites selected. There are also plants which were originally recorded from St. John which can no longer be found. Among these are Zanthoxylum flavum and Acromedia media. The selected culling of “weedy” or dominant exotic species: may be necessary and desirable on reintroduction sites. 4. The park may want to consider the creation of a nursery for the propagation of plant materials and the staffing of a professional forester/horticulturist. Alternatively, the park may find it desirable to contract out this work or at least perform preliminary studies on propagation requirements. The UVI is one possibility for undertaking such a study. Another is the Caneel Bay Resort. The resort already has an excellent horticultural staff and may be able not only to investigate propagation requirements, but also to undertake the actual propagation and distribution. ° 5. The rare, endemic and "new" species of St. John all need to be more thoroughly studied including their distribution, abundance, and ecological and propagation requirements. A priority should be given to the production of a document detailing their descriptions and abundance. 6. Finally, a modern flora and botanical key to the plants of St. John are needed. A commitment to such a project has been made by the NYBG. Accompanying such a work, and very useful when interpreted for public use, would be checklists of the trails and high-use areas like the beaches. Soils and Nutrient Relationships In areas which, based on the existing soils data (Appendix I-V), show patterns of nutrient correlation with species composition, more extensive soil testing should be undertaken. What is the significance of the Mg/K, Fe/Zn or Fe/Mn interactions, for example? Similarly, in conjunction with this, it may be worthwhile to undertake a tissue testing program to identify indicator plants and to look at nutrient uptake by different species. This would allow for testing within the plots without the Significant impact which excavation would involve. To do this, it is necessary to determine "normal" levels and define a specific methodology regarding what tissue to test and when it should be sampled. Nutrients are utilized and stored at different levels by different tissues and this 29 —— compartmentalization is variable depending upon the age and physiological condition of the plant. Lack of equipment at the time of analysis, prevented determination of nitrogen levels in any form. Thus, nitrogen availability, which is so closely related to the rate of litter decomposition, and can in turn indicate rates of mineralization and soil leaching, should be analyzed in the near future to have as a reference base. The contribution of nitrogen- fixing plants located within the plots and surrounding areas should also be evaluated. While this study determined the amount of exchangeable nutrients, it must be noted that the total amount of elements present, particularly metals, can also influence plant growth due to chemical interactions. Thus, analysis for the total element levels may provide useful insights into nutrient availability and/or toxic influences. The present study did not attempt to address the question of plant productivity and nutrient cycling in relation to soil chemistry within and between the plot ecosystems. An evaluation of the nutrient distribution between soil, plant tissue, litter, soil flora and fauna is needed. Other aspects such as the potential for nutrient, and mineral movement due to surface run-off or leaching (particularly in the stony soil at the Hawksnest plot) should be evaluated. The St. John study on transport of bedrock-derived metals by Ramos-Perez et al. (1987) is of interest in this regard. In addition, assessing nutrient accumulation from allochtonous sources, such as stream flow deposition or throughfall (dust, rain, leaves from upwind sources, etc.) would be beneficial. Airborne input of minerals essential for a plant growth is considered a major source of nutrients for the Amazonian rain forest; Sahara dust carried by the trade winds is considered to provide the bulk of this input (Reichholf 1986). In the Virgin Islands, airborne particle deposition appears to be high, and it is generally assumed that Sahara dust is a main contributor. The influence of litter decomposition rates on soil nutrient status was not considered in this study either. Decomposition rates via standard decomposition bag techniques or other means should be -evaluated to determine how the plant species composition is influencing the rate of nutrient cycling. Commu Education Many public education opportunities exist in connection with the forest monitoring project. Some of these are along the line in which the V.I. Cooperative Extension Service has already developed programming with its Terrestrial Flora Awareness effort, such as on plant pressing techniques and related crafts projects, native plant recognition and use; historical interrelationships of people and plants. VICES community education programs broadcast via radio and television have included descriptions of the forest monitoring project. 30 Other interpretive programming needs to be developed relating to the ecosystem services of the forest. Information and insights gained from the project will be useful in increasing public appreciation of watershed management as an important element in maintenance of land, forest, soil, water, wildlife and coastal ecosystems. Additional opportunities exist to address such potential enterprises as agroforestry and cottage industries related to plant materials-based handicrafts (e.g., U.S. Congress 1987). The interested reader is also referred to related broader recommendations dealing with institution-building, land and watershed management, and integrated renewable resource management in the Caribbean (Lugo and Brown 1984, U.S. Congress 1987). LITERATURE CITED Briscoe, C. B. and F. H. Wadsworth. 1970. Stand Structure and Yield in the Tabonuco Forest of Puerto Rico, Pp. B79-B89. In: Odum, H. T. and R. F. Briscoe, eds. A Tropical Rain Forest: A Study of Irradiation and Ecology at El Verde, Puerto Rico. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Book 1, Chapter B-6. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia. Cole, D. W., S. P. Gessel, and J. Turner. 1977. Comparative Mineral Cycling in Red Alder and Douglas-fir. Pp. 327 - 336 in proceedings of a Symposium (title unknown), College of Forest Resources, Univ. Washington. Ocean Shore, Washington. April 1977. Cole, D. W., D. W. Johnson. 1978. Mineral Cycling in Tropical Forests. Pp. 341 - 356 In: Forest Soils and Land Use. Proceedings of the Fifth North American Forest Soils Conference. Dept. Forestry and Wood Science, Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, Colorado. April 1978. Collins, M. E. and E. Craft. 1988. Agriculture and Soils of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Soil Survey Horizons. (In review). Duke, J. A. 1965. Keys for the Identification of Seedlings of Some Prominent Woody Species in Eight Forests Types in Puerto Rico. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 53(3):314-350. . Earhart, J., A. Reilly and M. Davis. 1987 . Initial Inventory of Three Permanent Forest Plots in the Virgin Islands National Park. V.I. Resource Management Coop. Tech. Publ. Series, Report No.27. (in press) Ewel, J. J. 1980. Special Issue on Tropical Succession. Biotropica 12(Suppl.):1. Ewel, J. J. and J. L. Whitmore. 1973. The Ecological Life Zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Forest Service Research Paper ITF-18, Institute of Tropical Forestry, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. 72 p. 31 | i in the Flora of Flores, S. and D. W. Schemske. 1984. Dioecy and Monoecy in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands: Ecological Correlates. Biotropica 16(2) : 132-39. Gee, G. W. and J. W. Bauder. 1986. Particle-size analysis. In: Klute, A. (ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed. Amer. Soc. Agronomy Monograph 9:383-412. Highfield, A. R., W. I. Knausenberger, and M. L. Bumgarner. 1985. Bibliographic Holdings of the Virgin Islands National Park Libraries Relative to the U.S. Virgin Islands and Danish West Indies. Project VIBIB - V.I. Bibliography. St. Croix, V.I. iii+52 p. Hubbard, D. E., J. D. Stump, and B. Carter. 1986. Sedimentation and Reef Development in Hawksnest, Fish and Reef Bays, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. V.I. Resource Managem. Coop., Tech. Publ. Series, Report No. 21. 100 p. Hunter, A. H. 1983. ASI Soil Analysis Manual. Agro Services International, Florida. [paginated in multiple sections]. - Janzen, ‘D. E., ed. 1983. Costa Rica Natural History. Chicago, Il: Univ. Chicago Press. 816p. Knausenberger, W. I., J. M. Matuszak and T. A. Thomas. 1987. Herbarium of the Virgin Islands National Park: Consolidation and Curation of a Reference Collection. V.I. Resource Management Cooperative, Tech. Publ. Series, Report No. 18A. 51 p. Landrum, L. R. 1986. Campomanesia, Pimenta, Blepharocalyx, Legrandia, .Acca, Myrrhinium, and Luma (Myrtaceae). Flora Neotropica: Monograph 45. ( Publ. for Organization for Flora Neotropica, The New York Botanical Garden, New York.) Liogier, H. A. and L. F. Martorell. 1982. Flora of Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands: A Systematic Synopsis. Rio Piedras, P.R. Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, 342 p. Little, E. L., Jr. and F. H. Wadsworth. 1964. Common Trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Agricultural Handbook #249. Forest Service, U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C. 548 p. illus. Little, E. L., R. 0. Woodbury and F. H. Wadsworth. 1974. Trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Agriculture Handbook 449, Forest Service, U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C. 1024 p. illus. Lugo, A. E. and S$. Brown, eds. 1982. Forestry in the Caribbean: Proceedings of the First Workshop of Caribbean Foresters, Castries, St. Lucia, May 24-28, 1982. Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico: Inst. Trop. For., U.S. Man and the Biosphere Rep. No. 7. 137 p. 32 Lugo, A. E. and Ss. Brown, eds. 1984. Watershed Management in the Caribbean. Proceedings, Second Workshop Caribbean Foresters, Kingstown, St. Vincent. Mar. 19-23, 1984. 157 p- Lugo, A. E., R. Schmidt and s. Brown, 1981. Tropical Forests in the Caribbean. Ambio 10(6):318-324. Martorell, L. F., A. H. Liogier, and R. 0. Woodbury. 1981. Catalégo de los Nombres Vulgares y Cientificos de las Plantas de Puerto Rico. Bol. 263, Est. Exp. Agric., Univ. P.R. 231 Pp. Matuszak, J. M. 1985. Aspects of Terrestrial Biology to Consider in the C2M Process, p. 9-23, In: Peter, N., ed. Reports from the Coastal Zone Management Scientific and Technical Workshop Series. A Reference Manual. V.I. Marine Advisory Service, Univ. of Puerto Rico Sea Grant Programs. Publ. No. PRU-SG-87-001. McLean, E. 0., 1982. Soil pH and Lime Requirement. In: Page, A.L., et. al. (eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd ed. Amer. Soc. Agronomy Monograph 9: 199-224. Mosquera, M. and J. Feheley, compilers. 1984. Bibliography of Forestry in Puerto Rico. U.S. Dept. of Agric., For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. S0-51. South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, Louisiana. 196 p. Odum, H. T. and R. F. Pigeon. 1970. A Tropical Rain Forest: A Study of Irradiation and Ecology at El Verde, Puerto Rico. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Books 1-3. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia. Oldendorp, C. G. A. 1777 [transl. 1987]. [History of the Mission of the Evangelica Brethren on the Caribbean Islands of St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John]. English edition and translation by A. R. Highfield and V. Barac. Karoma Publ. Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. 737 p. [ Part I, Book 2, Sections 9-11: Sect. 9, "Useful Plants", p. 97-114; Sect 10, "Medicinal Plants, Building-woods, and Dyewoods, p. 115-124; Sect. 11, "Some Curious Plants and Flowers", p. 125-134 J. Orvedal, A. C., comp., 1978. Bibliography of Soils of the Tropics. Vol. III. Tropics in General, Middle America and West Indies. Agric. Technol. for Developing Countries. Tech. Bull. No. 17. U.S. Agency Internat. Dev., Washington, D.C. 178 p. Ramos-Perez, C.R., C. Gines-Sanchez, and W. H. McDowell. 1987 in prep. Geochemistry of St. John, and Influence on Marine Systems. Virgin Islands Resource Managem. Coop., Tech. Publ. Ser., Report No.28, ca. 20p. Rashford, J. 1987. How Jamaican Farmers View Crop Diversification: The Food Forest Concept. Paper presented at 23rd Annual Meeting of Caribb. Food Crops Soc., 23-28 August, 1987. Antigua, W.I. Reichholf, J. H. 1986. Is Saharan Dust a Major Source of Nutrients for the Amazonian Rain Forest? Stud. Neotrop. Fauna & Envir. 21(4):251-255. 33 i i illi 966. Soils and their Rivera, L. H., W. E. McKenzie and H. H. Williamson. 1 Interpretations for Various Uses: St. Thomas and St. John, American Virgin Islands. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Soil Conservation Service, Caribbean Area. 52 p., 6 fold-in maps. Rivera, L. H., W. D. Frederick, C. Farris, E. H. Jensen, et al. 1970. Soil Survey of the Virgin Islands of the United States. A U.S. Dept. Agric., Soil Conserv. Serv. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 82 p., 32 detailed fold-in maps. Rhoades, J. D. 1982. Soluble Salts. In: Page, A.L., et al. (eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd ed. Amer. Soc. Agronomy Monograph 9: 199-224. Rogers, C. 1987. Synthesis of Selected Resource Management Information for Virgin Islands National Park and Biosphere. VIRMC Tech. Publ. Series, Report No. 29 (in press). Seastedt, T. R. and D. A. Crossley, Jr. The Influence of Arthropods on Ecosystems. BioScience 34(3):157-161. Soil Conservation Service. 1967. Soil Survey Laboratory Data and Descriptions for Some Soils of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. U.S.D.A.-S.C.S. Soil Survey Investig. Report No. 12. 191 p. Soriano-Ressy, M., A. P. Desmarais and J. W. Perez. 1970. A Comparison of Environments of Rain Forests in Dominica, British West Indies, and Puerto Rico, Pp. B-329-346. In: Tropical Rain Forest: A Study of Irradiation and Ecology at El Verde, Puerto Rico. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Book 1, Chapter B-21. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia. pp. B329-346. Squire, F. A. 1940. Influence of the Geology of the Virgin Islands on Local Agricultural Practices. Nature (London) 145, No. 3663. p. 71. Swanbeck, A. 1985. Burros on St. John: A Danger to the Ecology? 15th Annual Agriculture and Food Fair bulletin. Pp. 53-54. Teytaud, R. 1986. Environmental Factors and Potential Natural Vegetation in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Report to the National Park Serv. Island Resources Foundation, St. Thomas. 43 p. Maps. Tucker, R. E., H. V. Alminas and R. T. Hopkins. 1985. Geochemical Evidence for Mineralization on St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. U.S. Dept. Interior, Geol. Survey Open-File Report 85-297. 56 Pp. Tyson, ‘SG. F. 1984. A History of Land Use on St. John, 1718-1950 (Preliminary Report). V. I. National Park, St. John. 84 p. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas. OTA-F~-325. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office 441. 443 p. 34 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1982. Abstracts of the Colloquium on Long-Term Ecological Research in the Virgin Islands, July 27, 1982. Natural Science and Research Division, Southeast Regional Division, South East Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. 25 p. Weaver, P. L. and J. D. Chinea-Rivera. 1987. A phytosociological study of Cinnamon Bay watershed, St. John, U. S$. Virgin Islands. Caribbean J. Sci. (in press) Woodbury, R. 0. and P. L. Weaver. 1987. The Vegetation of St. John and Hassel Island, U.S. Virgin Islands. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Region, Research/Resources Management Report SER-83. 101 p. Woodworth, R. H. 1943. Economic Plants of St. John, U. S. Virgin Islands. Harvard Univ. Botanical Mus. Leaflets 11(2): 29-54. 35 APPENDIX I. Soil Sampling Maps for the Bordeaux, | “Note: Hawksnest and L'Esperance Plots, St. John, U. S. Virgin Islands The Location of the Sites Averaged 3 m Outside the Perimeter of the Plots, and 20 m apart. L'Esperance Site 12 (E12) and Hawksnest Site 3 (H3) were taken along the embankment of their respective streambeds (guts) directly below the plots. The distance from the perimeter is not to scale. 36 PLOT: BORDEAUX - SOIL SAMPLING MAP 13 1 — 4 12 . . . ; 15 ll . . . . 16 10 . . . . 17 9 ° ° ° . . 18 8 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 PLOT: HAWKSNEST 3 SOIL SAMPLING MAP ! 2 1 PLOT: L'ESPERANCE 2 SOIL SAMPLING MAP 1 10 3 9 8 7 6 5 4 Figure 4. Relative Location and Spacing of the Soil Sampling Sites Along the Exterior of the Three Plots. The Distance Between the Dots Represents 20 meters. In Each Case, Down Slope is Towards the Top of the Figure. 37 APPENDIX II. Tabulations of Individual Values of Soil Analysis Data for all Plots and Sampling Sites. 38 Table 6. Individual soil analysis values for all samples at each depth for pH, organic matter, copper(Cu), mManganese(Mn), iron(Fe), and zinc(Zn). Organic Plot! we, Depth? py Matter Cu Mn Fe Zn S tr tte eee ppm = - - ~~~ E 1 A 6.47 4.50 §.30 9.50 108.10 1.50 E 1 B 5.64 3.70 7.80 8.80 287.00 6.00 E 1. c 5.16 4.40 10.50 10.10 695.10 1.20 E 2 A 6.44 6.70 5.30 8.60 76.80 1.20 E 2 B 6.29 4.80 5.10 - 5,30 36.30 0.80 E 2 c 5.81 3.20 5.90 6.10 75.40 7.00 - E 3 A 6.46 6.50 3.10 6.00 43.10 1.10 E 3 B 5.79 4.80 6.30 9.80 323.00 1.90 E 3 c 5.93 2.10 7.10 11.90 95.20 0.70 E 4 A 6.62 6.50 3.50 11.20 54.70 1.80 E 4 B 6.22 2.60 5.70 4.50 67.50 0.80 E 4 Cc 6.69 4.80 5.90 3.20 58.80 0.90 E 5 A 6.80 6.90 1.80 3.90 30.60 1.10 E 5 B 6.82 4.00 6.80 8.20 64.40 0.50 E 5 Cc. 6.69 2.60 5.70 7.30 65.10 1.00 E 6 A 6.73 7.30 3.40 5.40 41.50 1.60 E 6. B 6.67 5.20 5.20 6.90 62.80 3.40 E 6 c 6.97 3.30 4.70 5.80 61.80 0.90 E 7 A. 6.73 3.50 3.80 6.50: 48.00 1.30 E 7 B 6.16 5.50 5.60 ° 5.80 107.40 2.40 E 7 c 6.02 1.90 6.30 5.60 174,20 1.00 E 8 A 7.28 6.50 2.60 6.60 36.00 0.70 E 8 B 6.80 5.20 3.10 3.80 29.40 0.50 E 8 c 6.44 2.70 4.60 5.60 69.10 0.80 E 9 A 7.00 6.00 3.10 7.50 48.90 1.80 E 9 B 6.35 3.00 6.10 7.50 67.50 1.00 E 9 c 6.17 3.20 7.10 3.80 71.70 0.80 E 10 A 7.48 9.70 0.90 5.20 12.00 1.30 E 10 Cc 6.23 5.70 1.80 0.60 25.90 0.50 E il A 6.98 7.30 2.60 6.50 19.70 1.40 E 11 B 6.82 5.30 4.40 3.10 25.80 1.90 E 11 c 6.14 4.20 3.80 1.20 18.10 0.90 E 12 A 7,44 3.50 5.30 3.70 25.50 1.00 E 12 B 6.39 6.00 4.60 3.10 80.40 2.20 H 1 A 7.08 5.00 3.70 4.40 34.80 1.70 H 1 B 6.56 5.70 3.80 0.90 19.70 0.40 H 1 Cc 7.01 4.50 5.40 4,20 28.40 1.70 H 2 A 7.06 5.00 2.60 5.50 29.50 0.80 F 2 B 7.27 2.80 2.50 2.70 9.80 0.50 H 2 Cc 7.31 4.70 2.30 0.90 12.60 0.70 H 3. A 7.25 4.50 2.60 11.90 26.40 1.30 H 3 B 7.44 4.40 1.80 4.40 15.00 0.70 39 Table 6,_ (cont'd) s Individual Soil Analysis Values: Organic on. Plot! No. Depth? pH Matter Cu Mn Fe ee. ee . 63.50 8.80 e i 8 338 6.20 0.80 30.40 «436,00 «16.50 B 1 B 5.28 6.20 : . 9016.50 00 1.60 30.60 649. : B 1 C 5.68 6. 1.80 5.57 7.30 1.00 32.30 90.90 ; Hs 3 3 : 6.50 1.80 24.10 675.00 8.50 B 2 B 2-27 ° ° 660.00 6.40 4.50 2.10 13.20 : B 2 5 3:8 7.30 4:70 25.40 582.40 11.00 3 ; 5.25 9.00 12,50 20.10 992.00 11.20 3 3 : 4.40 13,60 10.50 956,00 5.80 B 4 A 3790 9,50 1.70 42.70 36.10 20.90 4 B 4.92 5.30 5.70 34.70 456.00 13.10 5.08 3.60 6.90 21.30 1047.00 7.80 3 5 A : 3.50 8.10 54.40 7.90 B ; , e833 4.80 8.00 3.80 58.90 11.10 B 5 B 6.52 4.50 : : : 1.10 5.58 3.00 10.00 18.60 473.00 : 3 g A 6.03 9.70 1.70 11.50 92.00 8.20 3 5.68 4.80 3.40 13.10 503,00 10.70 8 . : 9.70 494,50 7.50 3 ; A 3 65 3°30 380 17.90 98.20 8.00 3 ; B 5.50 7.70 5.50 12.80 743.40 9.10 B 7 C 5.75 4.40 7.90 13.30 1122.00 6.70 B 8 A 6.16 5.40 3.50 9.1 +30 8.90 B 8 8B 5.35 4.80 6.80 9.60 494.00 0.10 B 8 c 5.32 2.80 7.50 8.70 1051.0 7.80 B 9 A 5.79 7.80 1.40 31.80 61.10 2.40 B 9 B 5.59 5.70 2.30. 12.70 401. 2.10 B 9 ¢ 5.59 4.50 1.70. 9.80 309.00 -40 B10 A 6.11 10.20 1.70 31,00 54.70 4.8 B10 A 6.24 7.60 3.80 16.10 325.00 6.20 B10 C 6.89 5.80 6.10 18.40 530.00 5.40 Bill A 5.33 6.00 8.70 19.80 534,00 2.90 Bl B 5.54 3.60 15.40 13.70 800.00 2.80 Bil ¢ 5.66 3.20 14.70 7.80 9857.00 1.50 B12 B 5.41 5.40 12.20 24.10 1478.00 7.30 B12 C 5.28 3.30 13.10 24.60 1380.00 5.90 B13 A 5.93 5.50 4.20 26.70 446.50 710 B13 B 5.20 7.10 9.40 26.10 107.20 4.80 B13 ¢ 4.91 6.80 8.30 21,00 1348.00 2.50 Bold A 6.23 6.80 1.50 - 8.80 63.90 4.40 B14 B 6.69 4.00 5.20 10.60 985.70 4.90 B14 C 5.65 2.20 2.10 10.10 465.00 3.30 B15 A 6.74 6.20 1.50 8.40 57.10 2.90 B15 B 5.84 5.20 1,00 5.90 105.80 4.3 B15 C 5.66 2.80 4.80 13.10 488.00 5.50 B16 A 6.14 7.60 2.50 9.40 49.50 6.10 B16 B 5.69 4.80 2.60 17.00 542.50 4.30 B16 c 5.51 6.40 1,20 13.30 494.00 3.70 B17 A 5.57 6.70 1,10 34.60 67.50 8.70 BO oQ7 B 5.54 8.20 1,50 67.50 685.30 6.50 B17 C 5.48 4.50 1.10 43.70 596.40 5.00 B18 A 5.89 8.70 1.40 29.20 86.70 10.30 B18 B 6.18 6.20 2.20 24.70 §99.20 10.20 B 18 C 5.68 4.40 2.80 17.40 602.50 5.40 Bordeaux, E = L'Esperance, H = Hawksnest plots 1 2 0-3 inches, B = 3-8 inches, C = 8-12 inches B A 40 Table 7. Soil analysis results for all samples at each depth for soluble salts, phosphorus(P), sulfate(S04), potassium(K), calcium(Ca), magnesium(Mg), and sodium(Na). 1 2 Soluble _ Plot No.Depth Salts P SO, K Ca Mg Na — we ew ewe ewe we ewe ee swe es | pram 7-H TH we E 1 éA 125 8 19 297 1672 549 71 E 1 B 50 4 7 278 1895 745 84 E 1 ¢ 0 4 15 157 1721 676 141 E 2éA 100 8 11 299 1929 630 108 E 2 8B 100 8 6 165 2198 838 89 E 2 Cc 0 4 11 178 2166 911 127 E 3 4A 100 8 11 312 2704 695 112 E 3B 50 5 7 215 1778 548 80 E 3 C 0 4 11 169 2096 914 142 E 4 A 100 8 11 259 2176 822 75 E 4 8B 50 5 3 176 2066 898 83 E 4 ¢ 0 8 3 146 2402 756 90 E 5 A 100 1l 6 173 2378 639 83 E 5 B 100 4 6 98 2123 1200 106 E 5 Cc 100 4 6 131 2090 1044 123 E 6 A 150 7 1l 148 2217 1054 80 E 6 B 50 5 6 119 1798 1009 75 E 6 ¢ 0 7 6 114 1764 999 104 E 7 =A 100 11 8 173 2314 780 130 E 7 B 0 8 15 85 1377 993 54 E 7° C¢ 100 5 6 55 1205 991 117 E 8 A 300 11 6 254 1875 1728 142 E 8 B 150 5 ll 182 4375 1756 191 E 8 Cc 50 3 8 79 2013 1697 154 E 9 A 150 8 8 222 4360 1198 49 E 9 B 50 5 6 165 2077 1144 213 E 9 C¢ 0 7 0 140 2214 872 111 E 10 A 300 14 21 246 3090 750 87 E 10 ~«6C¢C 50 4 13 109 3516 654 75 E 11 A 200 10 ll 357 4920 549 52 E 11 B 100 5 15 229 6105 836 45 E 11 C¢ 0 4 8 124 3984 553 112 E 12 +A 500 7 13 120 1711 = 822 495 E 12 B 100 10 3 170 2378 702 106 H 1 éA 100 4 6 282 5165 1059 90 H 1 B 50 9 6 206 3140 860 98 H 1 ¢ 100 3 11 160 5515 1168 40 H 2éA 100 8 27 259 3460 620 76 H 2 8B 100 7 8 252 4164 511 63 H 2 Cc 100 4 7 214 4130 542 77 H 3 =A 300 ll 15 368 4770 689 97 H 3 8B 100 8 13 417 3786 547 69 41 Table 7. (cont'd). Soil analysis results. 1 2 Soluble Plot~ _No.Depth* Salts P SO, K Ca Mg Na swe eww se @ewee2®e = ppm ae eweeweeeese ss ewe es = = B 1 éA 100 13 11 172 1841 560 73 B 1 8B 100 10 7 151 1781 622 73 B 1 oc 50 8 3 110 1226 541 90 B 2 éA 150 13 19 163 1935 538 54 B 2 8 100 5 6 118 1258 496 83 B 2 c¢ 50 8 7 112 861 474 113 B 3 =é«OA 100 9 “lil 163 1763 671 71 B 3 8B 100 6 3 105 1238 546 73 B 3 Cc ) 6 6 47 508 410 69 B 4 A 250 31 18 133 1952 642 101 B 4 B 100 6 7 148 1105 481 102 B 4c 0 6 7 162 1033 484 59 B 5S A 200 4 15 300 1693 599 29 B 5 B 150 8 0 110 1904 845 92 B 5 ¢c 50 6 7 104 1007 712 151 B 6 6A 100 6 11 266 1910 1046 83 B 6 B 100 4 3 155 1546 1077 115 B 6 ¢ 50 5 7 101 971 1101 170 B 7 =A 150 10 19 251 1804 556 96 B 7 B 100 13 7 223 1172 496 40 B 7 = ¢ 0 6 3 87 736 455 41 B 8 A 100 13 32 161 1958 495 64 B 8 B 100 6 7 170 1448 556 82 B 8 ¢ 50 6 3 144 882 595 89 B 9 A 100 18 15 283 1895 731 80 B 9 8B 50 5 3 116 1295 656 81 B 9 C¢ 50 4 7 114 906 766 92 B 10 A 200 15 19 315 2110 541 116 B 10 A 200 6 10 135 2241 511 92 B 10 ¢ 300 8 15 86 3398 886 187 B 11 sé6A 50 5 7 152 1457 456 102 B 11 8B 50 6 3 138 869 411 128 B ll c¢ 0 5 11 102 533 296 101 B 12 8B 50 5 45 165 1115 482 58 B 12 ¢c 75 8 15 167 653 367 70 B 13°=«OA 150 10 15 236 1663 552 79 B 13 B 100 1 7 183 1014 389 145 B 13 Cc 75 6 15 171 1060 290 77 B 14 é6A 200 8 15 258 1681 526 61 B 14° «8B 150 8 11 234 1425 428 54 B 14 °~«C 0 185 3 132 688 474 97 B 15 A 200 9 19 272 1888 652 45 B 15 B 75 6 7 168 1603 482 119 B 15 c¢ 0 9 1l 148 1364 468 60 B 166A 100 7 13 112 2308 612 85 B 16 B 100 8 7 157 1264 451 50 B 16 ¢ 0 6 6 91 818 516 86 B 17 +A 150 14 19 170 2026 709 96 B 17 2B 100 9 15 170 1426 593 159 B 17 Cc 100 8 3 58 915 540 195 B 18 A 150 9 15 238 1876 733 110 B 18 2B 100 8 3 129 1322 558 145 B 18 c¢ 50 6 3 52 786 560 174 1 2 B A Bordeaux, E = L'Esperance, 42 H = Hawksnest plots 0-3 inches, B = 3-8 inches, C = a 8-12 inches Table 8. Soil analysis results for all samples at each depth to determine texture class by partial size analysis for sand(S), silt(Si), and clay (C) content. l 2 Texture Plot No.Depth” Class § Si Cc SL 67 22 11 SL 64 23 13 L 45 30 25 SL 57 27 16 SL 64 23 13 SL 60 27 13 SL 64 27. 9 SL 64 25 11 SL 56 26 18 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP SL 59 25 16 SL 59 26 15 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP SL 67 25 8 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP SL 59 27 14 WOW MDDODYNIAAANU UU © WWW PAE ae AE GS Ghd dd ddd ed do Od ot td BPFODvYAGHUHYADHOYADPADHOWPOADPOD>OWPAW>SOUW SOW 10 SL 78 #15 7 10 SCL 53 26 21 ll NP NP NP NP 11 NP NP NP NP ll SL 67 21 12 12 SL 72 °#«17~«2121 12 SL 61 18 21 1 NP NP NP NP 1 SL 47 22 31 1 NP NP NP NP 2 SL 67 19 14 2 SL 63 23 14 2 SL 61 21 18 3 NP NP NP NP 3 SL 67 25 8 43 Table 8. (cont'd). Soil analysis results. 1 2 Texture oe Plot _No.Depth” Class__S = — B 1 sA SL 72 #18 #10 B 1 8B SL 70 24 6 B 1c SL 57 30 13 B 2A SL 72 24 4 B 2 8B SL 61 25 14 B 2c sL 55 28 17 B 3 A SL 64 24 12 B 3 8B SL 59 25 16 B 3. C¢ SL 47 25 28 B 4A SL 73 16 11 B 4.8 SL 60 22 18 B 4 ¢ SL 61 24 15 B 5 A SL 74 21 5 B 5 8B SL 49 28 23 B 5 c¢ L 48 32 20 B 6 A SL 71 #419 «10 B 6 B SL 65 23 12 B 6 ¢c L 50 30 20 B 7 OA SL 72 #22 6 B 7° =#2&B SL 67 18 15 B 7 ¢ SL §9 23 18 B 8 A SL 66 23 IL B 8 B SL 64 24 12 B 8 Cc SL 56 26 18 B 9 A SL 62 28 10 B 9° 8B SL 68 18 14 B 9 Cc SL 57 24 19, B 10 A SL 71 #24 5 B 10 =A SL 69 25 Ly B 10 ¢c L 47 32 21 B 11 séA SL 57 26 17 B ll 8B SL 66 25 9 B ll c SCL 49 25 26 B 12 8B SL 75 #14 #411 B 12 C SL 67 16 17 B 13 A SL 70 23 7 B 13 «2B SL 77 #13 «210 B 13 ~c¢ SL 67 18 15 B 146A SL 69 23 8 B 14 8B SL 59 29 12 B 14,°¢C¢ SL 62 25 13 B 15 A SL 79 #216 5 B 15 8B SL 65 23 12 B 15 c SL 68 25 7 B 16 6A SL 61 26 13 B 16 8B SL 66 27 7 B 16 Ci. SL 57 28 15 B 17 =A SL 72 #+%«18 «#210 B 17 +B SL 67 24 9 B 17 +¢ SL 61 27 12 B 18 ~=éOA SL 66 26 8 B 18 #B SL 59 30 11 B 18 Cc L 46 36 18 I B = Bordeaux, E = L'Esperance, H = Hawksnest plots A = 0-3 inches, B = 3-8 inches, C = 8-12 inches 44 APPENDIX III. Bordeaux Plot: Test Results in Relation to Sampling Sites. Tests: pH Organic Matter, Percent Soluble Salt Content, ppm Phosphorus, ppm Potassium, ppm Calcium, ppm Magnesium, ppm Sulfate, ppm Zinc, ppm Iron, ppm Copper, ppm Manganese, ppm Sodium, ppm Texture 45 A 5.93 5.33 6.11" 5.79 6.16" B 5.20 5.41 5.54 6.24" 5.59 5.35 PLOT: BORDEAUX TEST: pH A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = below 6.00, m= 6.00 - 7.00, h = 7,01 + c A B Cc 4.91 6.23" - 6.69" 5.65 5.28 . . . . 6.74" 5.84 5.66 5.66 . . . . 6.14" §.69 §.51 6.89" . . oo, 5.57 5.54 5.48 5.59 . . . . 5.89 6.18" 5.68 5.32 5.§4 5.28 5.68 A 5.65 6.037 6.67 5.99 5.58 5.57 B 5.55 5.68 6.52" 4.92. 5.25 5.27 Cc §.75 5.61 5.58 5.08- 5.16 5.40 46 PLOT: BORDEAUX TEST: ORGANIC MATTER, PERCENT A = 0=3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A B c A B c 5.8% 7h 6 gh 6.8% 4.0 2.2 5.4% 3,37 . 6.2 s2t a 6.0% 3.6% = 3.2m . . . 7.6% 4g 4g gh 10.2" 7.6 sigh . . . . 6.72 gah og gm 7.8% 5.72 4.5m . . . . g.7 6.2% 4 gm 5.4% gg™ ong 7.7 6.2% 6.9% aA 7.3% 9,72 5.38 og sh 7. 3h og gh B 7.7 ag gs og 3h og. gh) g gh c 4.4" 4.5™ 3.07 3.6 ga og gm 47 PLOT: BORDEAUX oe TEST: SCLUBLE SALT CONTENT, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A B c A B Cc 150 100 75 200 150 0 50 75 . . . : 200 75 i) 50 50 0 . . . . 100 100 0 200 200 300 . . . . 150 100 100 100 50 0 . . . . 150 100 50 100 100 50 100 100 50 A 150 100 250 250 100 150 B 100 100 150 100 * 100 100 48 PLOT: BORDEAUX TEST: AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS, Pp A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A B c A B c 10 1 6 8 8 igs" 5 8 . . . 9 6 9 5 6 5 . . . 7 8 6 15 6 8 . . . . 14 9 8 18 5 4 . . . . 9 8 6 13 6 6 13 10 8 A 10 6 4 31 9 13 B 13 4 8 6 6 5 Cc 6 5 6 6 6 8 49 PLOT: BORDEAUX TEST: AVAILABLE POTASSIUM, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A B c A B c 236" ig3s™ 1707 258" 234" 132 w6s™ = 167" . . . . 27 6s 148 152" 138 102 . . . . 112 is 91 315 135 86 . . . . 170" = 170 58 283" 116 114 . . . . 238" = 129 52 1wel™ = =170" = 144 1729 A 251" 266" = 300% )~— 133 163" = 163 1si™ = 110 B 223" ass™ 419 148 105 118 Cc 87 101 104 162" 47 112 50 PLOT: BORDEAUX TEST: AVAILABLE CALCIUM, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m= mediun, h = high A B c A B c 1663 1014 1060 1681 1425 688 1115 653 . . . . 1888 1603 1364 1457-869 533 . . . . 2308 =: 1264 818 2110 2241 3398 . . . . 2026 1426 915 1896 1295 906 . . . . 1876 1322 786 1958 1448 882 1841 1781 1226 A 1804 1910 1693 1952 1763 1935 B 1172 1546 1904 1105 1238 1258 Cc 736 971 1007 1033 508 861 51 552 456 541 731 495 389 482 411 Sil 656 556 290 367 296 866 766 595 PLOT: BORDEAUX TEST: AVAILABLE MAGNESIUM, -prm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high 556 1046 599 496 1077 845, 455 1101 712 52 642 481 . 484 671 | 546 410 538 496 474 526 652 612 709 733 560 428 482 451 593 558 622 474 468 516 540 560 541 PLOT: BORDEAUX TEST: AVAILABLE ZINC, PE A = 0-3 INCHES, B= 348 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m= medium, h = high A B c A B Cc 7.1 4.8 2.5 4.4 4.9 3.3 7.3 5.9 . . 2.9 4.1 5.5 2.9 2.8 1.5 . . 6.1 4.3 3.7 4.8 6.2 5.4 . . . . 8.7 6.5 5.0 2.4 2.1 1.4 . . . . 10.3. 10.2 5.4 8.9 10.1 7.8 8.8 16.5 11.8 A 8.0 8.2 7.9 20.9" 11.0 8.0 B 9,1 10.7 11.1 13.1 11.2 8.5 53 PLOT: BORDEAUX TEST: AVAILABLE IRON, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A B c A 446.5" 107.2 1348.09 63.9 1478.0" 1380.00 . . 57.1 534.0" go0.0" 957.07 . . . . 49.5 54.7 325.0" 530.0" . , . 67.5 61.1 401.07 309.07 . . . . 86.7 47.3 494.0" 1051.04 63.5 A 98.2 92.0 54.4 36,1 582.4" 90.9 h h h B 743.47 503.0 58.9 456.0 992.0% 675.9 C 1122.0 494.5" 473.0% 1047.0" 956.00 660.0" 54 85.7 105.8 c 465.07 488.0" 542.5 494,90 685.3" 596, 4h §99,2" 602, 5h 436,50 649.6% 4.2 8.7 1.7 1.4 3.5 9.4 12.2% 15.4" - 3.8 2.3 6.8 8.3 13.1" 14.7 6.1 1.7 7.5 PLOT: BORDEAUX TEST: AVAILABLE COPPER, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high 2.6 1.7 3.5 1.7 5.5 3.4 8.0 5.7 7.9 4.9 10.0" 6.9 55 4.7 12.5" 13.6" 1.0 1.8 2.1. 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.1 1.4 0.8 5.2 1.0 2.6 1.5 2.2, 1.6 2.1 4.8 1.2 1.1 2.8 1.6. PLOT: EORDEAUX TEST: AVAILABLE MANGANESE, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8~12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A B c A B Cc 26.7. 26.1 = 21.0 . 8.8 10.6 10.1 24.1 24.6 . . . : 8.4 5.9 13.1 19.8 13.7 7.8 : . : . 9.4 17.0 13.3 31.0 16.1 18.4 y . : . 34.6 67.5 43.7 31.8 12.7 9.8 . . : . 29.2 24.7, 17.4 9.1 9.6 8.7 23.0 30.4 30.6 A 17.9 11.5 8.1: 42.7+ 25.4 32.3 B 12.8 13.1 3.8° 34.7 20.1 24.1 Cc 13.3 9.7 18.6 21.3 10.5 13.2 56 15 19 15 32 45 10 15 15 11 15 PLOT: TEST: BORDEAUX AVAILABLE SULFATE, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 15 . . . . 19 . . . . 13 . . . * 19 . . . . 15 11 19 11 15 18 11 19 7 3 0 7 3 6 3 7 7 7 6 7 57 11 15 1l- 79 102 116 80 64 145 58 128 92 81 82 PLOT BORDEAUX TEST: SODIUM, ppm 58 A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES c A 77 61 70 . . . . 45 101 . . . 85 187 . 96 92 . . . . 110 89 73 A 96 83 29 10.071 54 B 40 115 92 10273 83 c¢ 42 170 150 59 «69 113 54 119 50 159 145 73 97 60 86 195 174 90 TEST: TEXTURE CLASS A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8~12 INCHES SL = SANDY LOAM, SCL = SANDY CLAY LOAM, L = LOAM A B c A B c SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL . . . . SL SL SL SL SL scL . . . . SL SL SL SL SL L . . . . sl SL SL SL SL SL . . . . SL SL L SL SL SL SL SL SL A SL SL SL SL SL SL B SL SL SL SL SL SL Cc SL L L SL SL SL 59 APPENDIX IV. Hawksnest Plot: Test Results in Relation to Sampling Sites. Tests: pH Organic Matter, Percent Soluble Salt Content, ppm Phosphorus, ppm Potassium, ppm Calcium, ppm Magnesium, ppm Sulfate, ppm Zinc, ppm Iron, ppm Copper, ppm Manganese, ppm Sodium, ppm Texture 60 PLOT TEST HAWKSNEST PH A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = below 6.00, m = 6.00 ~ 7,00, h = 7.01 + ae A 7,250 w 7.44 A B c 7.06% 7,272 7,3, 7.08" 6.56 7,012 PLOT: HAWKSNEST TEST: ORGANIC MATTER, PERCENT A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 9-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 455 5.0 2.8 4.7 s.0° 5.7 4.5m 61 PLOT: HAWKSNEST TEST: SOLUBLE SALT CONTENT, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 300 B 100 A B 100 100 100 50 PLOT: HAWKSNEST TEST: AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8=12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = mediun, h = high 62 100 100 PLOT TEST HAWKSNEST AVAILABLE POTASSIUM, prom A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high ° e 2 . A 368 B a7 A B c . e ° H . e 259" 252™ oy gm 282" 296" ~~ 16g PLOT: HAWKSNEST TEST: AVALIABLE CALCIUM, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 4770 B 3786 A B c 3460 4164 4130 5165 3140 5515 63 PLOT: HAWKSNEST TEST: AVAILABLE MAGNESIUM, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 689 B 547 A B c 620 511 542 1059 860 1168 PLOT: HAWKSNEST TEST: AVAILABLE SULFATE, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high 27 8 7 64 PLOT: HAWKSNEST TEST: AVAILABLE ZINC, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 1.3 0.8 0.5 1.7 0.4 PLOT: HAWKSNEST TEST: AVAILABLE IRON, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high 29.5 9.8 34.8 19.7 65 0.7 1.7 12.6 28.4 PLOT: HAWKSNEST TEST: AVAILABLE COPPER, ppm A = 0~3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 2.6 2.6 2.5 3.7 3.8 PLOT: HAWKSNEST TEST: AVAILABLE MANGANESE, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 11.9 5.0 2.7 4.4 0.9 66 2.3 5.4 0.9 4.2 PLOT: HAWKSNEST TEST: SODIUM, pom A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m= medium, h = high A 97 B 69 A B Cc . e . H ° ° 76 63 77 90 98 40 PLOT: HAWKSNEST TEST: TEXTURE CLASS A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 9-12 INCHES SL = SANDY LOAM, NP = NOT PERFORMED DUE TO MINIMAL SAMPLE A NP B SL A B Cc . . . i) . ° SL SL SL . . . . . NP SL NP 67 APPENDIX V. L'Esperance Plot: Test Results in Relation to Sampling Sites. Tests: pH Organic Matter, Percent Soluble Salt Content, ppm Phosphorus, ppm Potassium, ppm Calcium, ppm Magnesium, ppm Sulfate, ppm Zinc, ppm — Tron, ppm Copper, ppm Manganese, ppm Sodium, ppm Texture 68 PLOT: L'ESPERANCE TEST: pH A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 812 INCHES Superscript: none = below 6.00, m = 6.00 - 7,00, h = 7,01 + A 7.44 B 6.39 A B Cc A B c ° . . H ° ° . 6.47 5.64 5.16 6.98 6.82 6.14 . y . . . 6.44 6.29 5.81 7.48 6.23, . . . . . 6.46 5.79 5.93 A 7,00 7.28 6.73 6.73 6.80 6.62 B 6.35 6.80 6.16 6.67 6.82 6.22 Cc 6.17 6.44 6.02 6.97 6.69 6.69 69 PLOT: L' ESPERANCE TEST: SOLUBLE SALT CONTENT, ppm A = 0-3. INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 500 B 100 A B Cc A B Cc . ° - ft. : « 125 50 0 200 100 0 . . . . . - 100 100 0 300 50 . . . . . - 100 50 0 A 150 300 100 150 100 100 B 50 150 0 50 100 50 c 0 50 100 0 100 0 70 PLOT: L'ESPERANCE TEST: ORGANIC MATTER, PERCENT A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 3.5 B 6.0 A B c A B c . . » do. . « 4.5 3.7 4.4 7.3 5.3 4.2 . . . . . - 6.7 4.8 3.2 9.7 5.7 . . . ‘. . « 6.5 4.8 2.1 71 PLOT: TEST: A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A B c 10 5 4 . 14 4 . L' ESPERANCE AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS, ppm ll 72 11 10 1l PLOT TEST L' ESPERANCE AVAILABLE POTASSIUM, Pram A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-3 INCHES, C = 812 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A ~ 120 B 170 A B c A B Cc . . » |. . + 297 278 160 357 229 124 . . . . oo - 299 165 178 246 109 . . . . . - 312 215 169 A 222 254 173 148 173 © 259 B 165 182 85 119 131 175 © 140 79 55 114 99 146 73 PLOT: L'ESPERANCE TEST: AVAILABLE CALCIUM, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3~8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high ee 08 A 1711 B 2198 A B c A B c . . ee rr . 1672 1895 1721 4920 6105 3984 . . : . . . ° 1929 2198 2166 3090 3516 . : . . . - 2704 1778 2096 A 4360 1875 2314 2217 2378 2176 B 2077 4375 1377 1798 2090 ~—«-.2066 Cc 2214 2013 1205 1764 2123 2402 74 549 750 PLOT: L'ESPERANCE TEST: AVAILABLE MAGNESIUM, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 822 B 702 B c A B . . * to. ° . 549 745 836 553 . . . . ° . 630 838 654 ° ° ° . . . 695 548 A 1198 1728 780 1054 756 822 B 1144 1756 993 1008 639 898 ¢ 872 1697 991 999 1044 756 75 676 911 913° PLOT: L'ESPERANCE TEST: AVAILABLE SULFATE, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 812 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 3 B 6 8 . . . . . . 13 * . . . . . A 8 6 8 ll 6 11 B 6 ll 15 6 6 3 c 0 8 6 6 6 3 76 15 11 ll PLOT TEST L' ESPERANCE AVAILABLE ZINC, prem A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 9-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = mediun, h = high A 1.0 B 2.2 A B c A B c ° . » |. ° « 21.5 6.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 0.9 . . . . . » 1.2 0.8 7.0 1.3 0.5 . . . . . » dl 1.9 0.7 77 PLOT: L' ESPERANCE TEST: AVAILABLE IRON, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 25.5 B 80.4 A B c A B Cc . . ee . - 108.1 287.0 695.1 19.7 25.8 18.1. . . . . . 76.8 36.3 75.4 12.0 25.9 . . ° . . » 43.1 323.0 95.2 A 48.9 36.0 48.0 41.5 30.6 54.7 B 67.5 29.4 107.4 62.8 64.4 67.5 Cc 71.7 69.1 174.2 61.8 65.1 58.8 78 PLOT: L'ESPERANCE TEST: AVAILABLE COPPER, pom A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 5.3 B 4.6 A B Cc A B Cc ° . - Fo. . - 5.3 7.8 10.5 2.6 4.4 3.8 . . . . . - 5.3 5.1 5.9 0.9 1.8 . . . . . » 3.1 6.3 7.1 79 6.5 5.2 3.1 PLOT: L'ESPERANCE TEST: AVAILABLE MANGANESE, ppm A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES Superscript: none = low, m = medium, h = high A 3.7 B 3.1 c A B . . » toe - 9.5 8.8 1.2 . . . . . - 8.6 5.3 0.6 . . . . . - 6.0 9.8 A 7.5 6.6 6.5 5.4 3.9 11.2 80 10.1 6.1 11.9 PLOT: L'ESPERANCE TEST: TEXTURE CLASS A = 0-3 INCHES, B = 3-8 INCHES, C = 8-12 INCHES SL = SANDY LOAM, SCL = SANDY CLAY LOAM, L = LOAM A SL B SL A B . . . fo. . - SL ~~ sL ° . . . . >» SL sb SL =, . . . . - SL sb A NP WP SL =—sNP SL NP B NP NP NP NP NP NP Cc S&L wp NP NP NP SL 81