Paper · 1969 · OhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network)

A Vascular Flora of Winous Point, Ottawa and Sandusky Counties, Ohio

Richard M. Lowden

6
claims
6
verbatim quotes
8
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

This study describes the present-day vascular flora of the marshes, woodlots, dikes, and drainage ditches of Winous Point, which is located approximately 3 1/2 miles southwest of Port Clinton, Ohio, near the mouth of Muddy Creek, at the western end of Sandusky Bay. Vascular plants found are recorded in a catalogue. Changes in the floristic composition of the marshes are discussed by comparing A. J. Pieters' observations (1901) of some marsh plants at the western end of Lake Erie with the present marsh flora. Plants reported by Pieters but not found at the present are predominantly submersed or partially emersed rooted aquatics, such as Elodea canadensis Michx., Nais flexilis Rost & Schmidt., Sagittaria graminea Michx., Vallisneria americana Michx., and some Potamogeton species. Zizania aquatica L. was common at the turn of the century, while at present it is uncommon. In 1901 Phragmites communis Trin. formed "extensive associations," while now it is common only in small scattered patches. Pieters reported Typha latifolia L. as everywhere and T. angustifolia L. as rare. Now T. angustifolia is very common, whereas T. latifolia is found only sporadically. Sagittaria rigida Pursh and S. latifolia Willd. are also reversed in frequency, with S. rigida rare today and S. latifolia now common. Factors that probably have contributed to these floristic changes, as exemplified by the above species, are construction of drainage ditches in the Black Swamp, marsh management practices at Winous Point, and pronounced physiographic changes that have occurred over the past 150 years (based on maps) at the mouths of Muddy Creek and the Sandusky River.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plants reported in 1901 but absent at present were predominantly rooted aquatic species.

Taxon
rooted aquaticse0
Outcome
not found at the presente0

Verbatim

e0

“Plants reported by Pieters but not found at the present are predominantly submersed or partially emersed rooted aquatics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 514–634 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zizania aquatica changed from common at the turn of the century to uncommon at present.

Taxon
Zizania aquatica L.Zizania aquaticae0
Outcome
uncommone0
Comparator
common at the turn of the centurye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zizania aquatica
Zizania aquatica · TaxonMichael Wolf · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Zizania aquatica L. was common at the turn of the century, while at present it is uncommon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 789–879 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phragmites communis now occurs only in small scattered patches compared with extensive historical associations.

Taxon
Phragmites communis Trin.Phragmites australise0
Outcome
common only in small scattered patchese0
Comparator
extensive associationse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Phragmites australis
Phragmites australis · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In 1901 Phragmites communis Trin. formed "extensive associations," while now it is common only in small scattered patches”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 881–1002 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Typha angustifolia is now very common whereas Typha latifolia is sporadic.

Taxon
T. angustifoliaTypha angustifoliae0
Outcome
very commone0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Typha angustifolia
Typha angustifolia · TaxonW. Bulach · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Now T. angustifolia is very common, whereas T. latifolia is found only sporadically”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1086–1169 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sagittaria rigida is rare today.

Taxon
S. rigidaSagittaria rigidae0
Outcome
rare todaye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sagittaria rigida
Sagittaria rigida · TaxonBonnie Isaac · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“S. rigida rare today and S. latifolia now common”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1256–1304 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sagittaria latifolia is now common.

Taxon
S. latifoliaSagittaria latifoliae0
Outcome
now commone0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sagittaria latifolia
Sagittaria latifolia · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“S. rigida rare today and S. latifolia now common”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1256–1304 · show in text ↑