A survey of native plant materials use and commercial availability in the Eastern United States

REFERENCES

1. ↵
   1. Baughman O,
   2. Agneray A,
   3. Forister M,
   4. Kilkenny F,
   5. Espeland E,
   6. Fiegner R,
   7. Horning M,
   8. Johnson R,
   9. Kaye T,
   10. Ott J,
   11. St Clair J,
   12. Leger E.

   2019. Strong patterns of intraspecific variation and local adaptation in Great Basin plants revealed through a review of 75 years of experiments. Ecology and Evolution 9:6259–6275. doi:doi: 10.1002/ece3.5200

   OpenUrlCrossRef
2. ↵
   1. Bower A,
   2. St Clair J,
   3. Erickson V.

   2014. Generalized provisional seed zones for native plants. Ecological Applications 24(5):913–919.

   OpenUrlPubMed
3. 1. Brzuszek R,
   2. Harkess R,
   3. Mulley S.

   2007. Landscape architects’ use of native plants in the southeastern United States. HortTechnology 17(1):78–81.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
4. 1. Brzuszek R,
   2. Harkess R.

   2009. Green industry survey of native plant marketing in the Southeastern United States. HortTechnology 19(1):168–172.

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Brzuszek R,
   2. Harkess R,
   3. Kelly L.

   2010. Survey of Master Gardener use of native plants in the Southeastern United States. HortTechnology 20(2):462–466.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
6. ↵
   1. Creswell JD.

   2018. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. Newbury Park (CA): SAGE Publications. 304 p.
7. ↵
   1. Fowler FJ.

   2013. Survey research methods. 5th ed. Newbury Park (CA): SAGE Publications. 184 p.
8. ↵
   1. Fricker RD Jr.

   2008. Chapter 11: Sampling methods for web and e-mail surveys. In: Fielding N, Lee RM, Blank G, editors. The SAGE handbook of online research methods. Newbury Park (CA): SAGE Publications. p 195–217.
9. ↵
   1. Havens K,
   2. Vitt P,
   3. Still S,
   4. Kramer A,
   5. Fant J,
   6. Schatz K.

   2015. Seed sourcing for restoration in an era of climate change. Natural Areas Journal 35(1):122–133.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
10. ↵
    1. Hooper V.

    2003. Understanding Utah’s native plant market: coordinating public and private interest [MSc thesis]. Logan (UT): Utah State University. 116 p.
11. ↵
    1. Huenneke L.

    1991. Ecological implications of genetic variation in plant populations. In: Falk D, Holsinger K, editors. Genetics and conservation of rare plants. New York (NY): Oxford University Press. p 31–44.
12. ↵
    1. Hufford K,
    2. Mazer S.

    2003. Plant ecotypes: genetic differentiation in the age of ecological restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(3):147–155.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Jao C.

    2015. Preparing for native plant restoration on the L.A. River. Earth Focus, January 29. URL: https://www.kcet.org/shows/earth-focus/preparing-for-native-plant-restoration-on-the-la-river (accessed 18 Aug 2015). KCET, Public Media Group of Southern California.
14. ↵
    1. Kartesz JT.

    2014, and continuously updated. The Biota of North America Program (BONAP). Taxonomic Data Center. Phlox stolonifera. URL: http://www.bonap.net/tdc and http://bonap.net/MapGallery/County/Phlox%20stolonifera.png (accessed 6 Oct 2020). Maps generated from Kartesz JT. 2014. Floristic Synthesis of North America, Version 1.0. Biota of North America Program (BONAP). Chapel Hill (NC).
15. ↵
    1. Kauth P,
    2. Pérez H.

    2011. Production and marketing reports: industry survey of the native wildflower market in Florida. HortTechnology 21(6):779–788.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Kirchherr J,
    2. Charles K.

    2018. Enhancing the sample diversity of snowball samples: recommendations from a research project on anti-dam movements in Southeast Asia. PLoS ONE 13(8):e0201710. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201710

    OpenUrlPubMed
17. ↵
    1. Linhart Y.

    1995. Restoration, revegetation, and the importance of genetic and evolutionary perspectives. In: Roundy B, McArthur E, Haley J, Mann D, editors. Proceedings: Wildlands Shrub and Arid Land Restoration Symposium. Ogden (UT): USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report 315. p 271–288.
18. ↵
    1. Lynch M.

    1991. The genetic interpretation of inbreeding depression and outbreeding depression. Evolution 45:622–629.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
19. ↵
    1. McDonald JH.

    2014. The handbook of biological statistics. 3rd ed. Baltimore (MD): Sparky House Publishing. 299 p.
20. ↵
    1. Monan W.

    2019. Personal communication. Greenbelt (MD): Native Meadow Working Group First Annual Meeting, October 9th. University of Maryland Landscape Services and Arboretum & Botanical Garden. Associate Director.
21. ↵
    1. Montalvo A,
    2. Ellstrand N.

    2001. Nonlocal transplantation and outbreeding depression in the subshrub Lotus scoparius (Fabaceae). American Journal of Botany 88:258–269.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
22. ↵
    1. Norman G.

    2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘‘laws’’ of statistics. Advances in Health Science Education 15:625–632.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
23. ↵
    1. Peppin D,
    2. Fule P,
    3. Lynn J,
    4. Mottek-Lucas A,
    5. Sieg C.

    2010. Market perceptions and opportunities for native plant production on the southern Colorado Plateau. Restoration Ecology 18:113–124.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    [PCA] Plant Conservation Alliance. 2015. National seed strategy for rehabilitation and restoration 2015–2020. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. BLM/WO/GI-15/012+7400.
25. 1. Potts L,
    2. Roll M,
    3. Wallner S.

    2002. Colorado native plant survey: voices of the green industry. Native Plants Journal 2(3):121–125.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Rogers D,
    2. Montalvo A.

    2004. Genetically appropriate choices for plant materials to maintain biological diversity. Berkeley (CA): University of California. Report to the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. 335 p.
27. ↵
    1. Schmid B.

    1994. Effects of genetic diversity in experimental stands of Solidago altissima: evidence for the potential role of pathogens as selective agents in plant populations. Journal of Ecology 82(1):165–175.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
28. ↵
    1. Sedgwick P.

    2013. Questionnaire surveys: sources of bias. British Medical Journal 347:f5265. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5265

    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
29. ↵
    1. Sudman S.

    1976. Applied sampling. New York (NY): Academic Press.
30. 1. Tamimi L.

    1999. The use of native Hawaiian plants by landscape architects in Hawaii [MSc thesis]. Blacksburg (VA): Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 133 p.
31. ↵
    [USDA NRCS] USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020. The PLANTS database. URL: http://plants.usda.gov (accessed 19 Oct 2020). Greensboro (NC): National Plant Data Team.
32. ↵
    [US EPA NHEERL] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. 2013. Level III Ecoregions of the conterminous United States data set. URL: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/us/us_eco_l3.zip (accessed 1 Jun 2019). Corvallis (OR).
33. 1. Waterstrat J,
    2. Deeds J,
    3. Harkess RL.

    1998. Assessment of the native plants market in the Southeastern United States. In: Graham D, Herring D, editors. Proceedings of the 48th Annual Southern Agricultural Education Research Meeting: 1998 Feb 1–2; Little Rock, AR. HortScience 33(4):603. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.33.4.603e

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
34. ↵
    1. Woods A,
    2. Omernik J,
    3. Brown D.

    1999. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. Corvallis (OR): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. 57 p.