Monitoring Michaux’s Sumac Requires More Systematic Approaches

References

1. 1. Braham R. R.,
   2. Murray C.,
   3. Boyer M.

   2006. Mitigating impacts to Michaux’s sumac: a case study of transplanting an endangered shrub. Castanea 71:265–271.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
2. 1. Boynton C.L.

   1901. Biltmore botanical study field notes for Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, and North Carolina. U.S. National Herbarium, Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C.
3. 1. Emrick V.,
   2. Jones J.

   2008. Influence of competition on the density of the federally endangered Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) at Fort Pickett, Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist 7:61–68.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
4. 1. Fleming G. P.,
   2. Ludwig J. C.

   1996. Noteworthy collections: Virginia. Castanea 61:89–94.

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Levin D. A.,
   2. Francisco-Ortega J.,
   3. Jansen R. K.

   1996. Hybridization and the extinction of rare plant species. Conservation Biology 10:10–16.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
6. 1. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

   . 1993. Recovery Plan for Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii Sarg.). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.
7. 1. Willis M.S.

   2008. Status and Soil Requirements of Rhus michauxii in North Carolina. M.S. thesis, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, N. C. State University, Raleigh.