"Celebrating Florida's Natural Heritage"

by Brian Kermath

The modern world arose as a volcanic eruption so suddenly and massively that it buried or transformed all that had preceded it, including landscapes and mindscapes.
(David Orr, Ecological Literacy, 1992, p. 181.)

Rationale

I am often asked "why go native?"  The simple answer is "because biodiversity matters."  The whole answer, however, is much more than that. It has to do with the big picture too — how our daily lives impact the environment and how the resulting physical manifestations symbolize our relationship with nature. Learning to recognize the meaningful environmental symbols of our lives and to use them beneficially is critical today, for it is undeniable that we are now for the first time in our occupation of Earth capable of, and likely already pushing global biogeochemical systems to their threshold breaking points. For most of human existence, anthropogenic environmental disasters occurred, but they did so when local or regional thresholds were crossed. Thus, while people here and there were affected from time to time, worldwide human-induced catastrophes were never likely possibilities. To be sure, some groups suffered and even perished, but most were able to simply pick up and move on when the environment could no longer support them; either way, the vast majority of those events have gone unnoticed by history. Today, however, with six billion people armed with modern technology, we face the real possibility of finding the entire planet less habitable tomorrow than today. Dealing with the now global issues — especially those related to nuclear contamination, fresh water quality and supply, human-induced climate change, and the loss of biodiversity — has become a hot item of intellectual, political, and even popular discourse.

Some commentators, the so-called "cornucopians" led by Herman Kahn, Julian Simon, and others, maintain that modern science and technology will come to the rescue, to the extent that a rescue is needed.   They argue that human ingenuity, responding to foresight and need under free market and democratic conditions, will produce the technology to avert serious human-induced environmental misfortunes and repair less serious ones. They assert too that more people mean more minds to tackle the issues of human concern and improve the human condition.

Although there is a seductive logic to the cornucopian thesis that stems from the adage "necessity is the mother of invention," I view it skeptically for two basic reasons. First, while it is possible for new, problem-solving technologies to be developed, we cannot be certain that they will arrive in time to fix disasters of the magnitude we may see in the future. It should be noted again that environmental problems of the past were only local or regional in scale, and yet many of them were not fixed by their makers, but were instead abandoned and left to nature. Indeed, landscapes everywhere serve as stark reminders of our past follies.   Some of tomorrow's problems, on the other hand, will be global in scale, and human history is without precedent for mending such wounds. Moreover, to move aside while Earth heals will not be an option — no longer do we have the luxury of living on an under-populated planet with vast frontiers that can accommodate nomads, shifting cultivators, expanding empires, and environmental refugees. An additional point of concern is that we do not know, and are perhaps unable of knowing exactly when environmental thresholds are being reached. Once thresholds are crossed, however, rapid adjustments to new and possibly very different ecological states can ensue.   Thus, we could be in for a rude awakening, the likes of which we have never seen before, making it likely that modern technology will either fail or be absent when we need it. Human folly on a global scale, then, is a scary scenario and I feel uneasy about relying on cornucopian solutions to problems that could be avoided with a change of course.

Second, even if we were able to get some of the technology right in time, technology cannot solve all of the problems. New technology could conceivably halt or even reverse human-induced stratospheric ozone depletion, clean polluted waters, or permit us to feasibly desalinate sea water on a scale large enough to meet our fresh water needs, but technology will not enable us to recover lost biodiversity. To borrow the title of a seminal book on the subject, "Extinction Is Forever" (Prance and Elias 1977).  We are now in the midst of one of the great extinction spasms of geological time (Wilson 1992:280). Not since the demise of the dinosaurs, some 65 million years ago, has the planet been losing as many species as today. World-renowned Harvard biologist Edward Wilson (1992:280) conservatively estimates that the losses from tropical forests alone are perhaps 27,000 species a year.   Given Wilson's (1992:280) estimate of the natural annual species extinction rate of one species lost per one million extant species (which he bases on the paleontological record), and liberally estimating the total number of species on the planet at 100 million (Wilson 1992:161; Savage 1995:674), the planet should naturally lose an average of 100 species per year at most. While the error margins for these numbers are certainly high (as Wilson himself acknowledges), it is clear that the human-induced species extinction rate, conservatively estimated here at 270 times the natural rate, is critically high.   Moreover, as alarming as these numbers are, they only begin to tell the whole story of biological impoverishment. When the huge genetic and ecological casualties that proceed daily with or without species extinctions, and the impact these losses have on evolutionary processes and future biodiversity are factored in (Myers 1997), the toll becomes incomprehensible. To make matters worse, the above numbers are from the tropics alone; imagine the global numbers!   Thus, if we value life in all its forms and the processes that support it, we need a new approach to living on the planet — one that works more in synch with ecological functions, not against them, and one that is proactive instead of reactive.

To this end, a disparate group of scholars and advocates alike have professed that a new, life ethic based on the ecological realities of our existence needs to be fashioned. Among them, Wilson espoused his views in his landmark book Biophilia in 1984, and again in The Diversity of Life in 1992.   Briefly put, Wilson argues that as creatures of the earth we are deeply connected to, and dependent on the planet's life web in ways that we cannot fully understand. He reminds us that having evolved in this world, our fitness and quality of life will be compromised in a biologically impoverished and ecologically dysfunctional world. Writing on biophilia in 1984, Wilson (1984:145) stated:

"... as biological knowledge grows the ethic will shift fundamentally so that everywhere ... the fauna and flora of a country will be thought part of the national heritage as important as its art, [and] its language ... ."

An extension of Wilson's thoughts is that if natural heritage does not become more intricately weaved into our cultural fabric, then we will not likely succeed in our attempts to safeguard Earth's natural bounty for future generations. The current extinction crisis is evidence of our failing to date — a failing that is especially vexing considering the ambitiousness of our conservation efforts and the high degree of public concern (if only superficial) for nature, combined with biodiversity's undeniable importance to posterity.   Ecologists Lovejoy and Oren (1981:12) poignantly illustrate one of the consequences of biological impoverishment when they state that the loss of tropical rainforests alone would limit biological science to "paleontology, the biology of weedy species, laboratory and zoo biology and the science of pickled parts."  As prophetic as their words are, biodiversity's worth extends way beyond its role as a biology subject, for a biologically impoverished world would be a world with fewer options for us to meet our growing needs (Myers 1992; Norton 1993; Wilson 1992). So how can we elevate the importance of natural heritage so that a deep, ecologically based, truly sustainable ethic can be forged?

One way is to alter key elements of the human landscape in strategic places, because they are physical expressions of our cultures. How we procure food, recreate, and manage our urban areas, for example, all have landscape expressions that reveal our worldviews, values, and past judgments.   When biodiversity and natural heritage matter more deeply to us, we will see our urban landscapes with more ecologically complex assemblages of native plants that are more wildlife friendly and reliant on natural processes than the ecologically simple, capital intensive, and environmentally toxic industrial landscapes we consume everywhere today. The landscape aesthetic too will shift, so that it is no longer determined by the physical end-product alone, but also by weighing in the environmental costs of production and management. When this happens, a truer sense-of-place that is deeply rooted in a genuine respect and appreciation for Earth's life-giving processes will sprout literally from our yards. The "garden of the month" award will no longer go to the mere prettiest garden in the community, but rather to the prettiest garden that best maintains ecological integrity.   Because college landscapes are highly visible symbols of our relationship with nature, making them more sustainable would go far to foster a biocentric ethic and encourage more sustainable living in the larger community.

Unfortunately, this has not yet happened in most places. In the United States, for example, the urban landscape is characteristically industrial (Bormann et al. 1993; Jenkins 1994).  It relies heavily on unsustainable inputs of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, fossil fuels, exotic plants derived from limited genetic stocks, and a market that is distorted by misdirected subsidies, accounting procedures that externalize important costs, and unreasonably high discount rates.   Bormann et al. (1993) expose some startling statistics for the United States:  1) we use more synthetic fertilizers in our cities than India (the entire country of a billion people!) uses in agriculture;  2) a quarter of our fertilizer profits come from residential applications;  3) we spend three quarters of a billion dollars annually on chemical pesticides for yards and we use ten times more of these pesticides per urban acre than we use per agricultural acre;  4) in Connecticut over 60 % of all pesticides are used on urban yards;  5) about a third of urban water consumption in the eastern states and 60 % in the west go to residential irrigation;  6) we use some 600 million gallons of gasoline annually in largely unregulated motors to mow our lawns;   7) in California, annual emissions from yard machinery equal those of 3.5 million cars (of the 1991 model year) driven 16,000 miles each; and  8) we spend more money to manage an acre of lawn than we do an acre of corn or rice.

In Florida, the situation can only be worse. Even without the actual numbers at hand, by carefully reading Florida's landscape it is easy to see how destructive urban landscaping is to the state's natural endowment. Just consider the above numbers for the U.S. proportioned appropriately to Florida with its large and rapidly growing urban population, long growing season, abundant pests, and generally infertile soils. The numbers alone surely are staggering. But worse yet, the numbers play out on highly porous soils and aquifers that do not filter out pollutants from the copious amounts of rain they receive as well as less permeable soils and aquifers. Imagine the impact on the state's fresh water.

Now consider biodiversity. Most of Florida's landscape plants were established in an earlier period and are now widely accepted as the best selections for the region, despite the existence of equal and even superior options. Many of the preferred species are exotics, some now naturalized and invasive in the regional flora. The result is that Florida's biota is threatened, in part because of urban landscape practices. Indeed, the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC 1999) states that more Florida nature is lost annually to invasive exotic plants than to development!  Many of the most pestiferous exotics, such as Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and camphor (Cinnamomum camphora), were introduced as ornamental plants and still many widely available landscape plants have become naturalized, some even invasive, in Florida's flora. For example, the three most common privets (Ligustrum japonicum, L. lucidum, L. sinense) are all naturalized and at least locally invasive in Florida, yet they remain widely available.   Another example is the Chinese fan palm (Livistona chinensis), which is presently among the popular exotic palms despite its recent listing by the FLEPPC (1999) as a naturalized exotic of concern.   Even exotic plants that are not yet invasive should be of concern, especially if they reproduce on their own in the local environment. Two such common landscape plants are the ever-popular crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) and yew podocarpus (Podocarpus macrophyllus). While neither is presently considered invasive in the flora, both could become so. The history of the amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maakii) in the eastern U.S. should remind us that plants can remain relatively benign in the landscape for decades (or longer) before becoming pestiferous (Hutchinson and Vankat 1998; Luken and Thieret 1996). While exotic plants can become problematic for many reasons, habitat fragmentation caused by urban sprawl appears to have provided the amur honeysuckle with its opportunity to invade the regional flora, after a long benign period. With the rapid pace of urban expansion and habitat fragmentation in Florida, the likelihood of presently non-invasive landscape plants becoming problematic in the flora will increase before it decreases, unless changes in the way we landscape are made.

Startling as these estimates for the U.S. and Florida are, they also beg some important questions about our chosen landscaping practices. Is the landscaping norm necessary?  Certainly not. Is it determined by an objective sense of the best way to landscape the urban environment?  Again, the answer is negative. In fact, the way we manage our urban landscapes is merely an option in a field of many options, some of which are better for the environment and our health than the one we have chosen. The way we landscape is a learned preference that clearly reveals some of the environmental blind spots in our collective wisdom and how emotionally and spiritually disconnected from nature we are. On a positive note, however, it is also a preference that can change. But where will the impetus for change come from?

Although society at large must play the decisive role, certain key organizations must take a lead. Just as colleges and members of their communities have championed other relevant issues (e.g., gender and race), so too they should the environment (Bowers 1997; Chiras 1994; Collett and Karakashian 1996; Ehrlich 1997; Leal Filho 1999; Orr 1992, 1994). Instead, most colleges and universities to date have not been as connected to the solutions as they could be. Their environmental roles on the curricular side have been to provide society with technicians trained in the maintenance of the status quo and to appease well-intentioned campus environmentalists with "feel good" activities.   On the management side, their roles largely have been to comply with regulations. Not that these are entirely inappropriate roles, but it is important to challenge and move beyond conventional thought and praxis as well. True progress does not come about without challenging the orthodoxy and exploring the options. Such advice routinely rings from campus lecture and assembly halls everywhere. It is time to add substance to the rhetoric where the environment is concerned. In David Orr's (1992:97) words:
 
"... the way education occurs is as important as its content. Students taught environmental awareness in a setting that does not alter their relationship to basic life-support systems learn that it is sufficient to intellectualize, emote, or posture about such things without having to live differently."

Fortunately, the winds of change stirred at Stetson University when it approved the "Native Landscape Project" in 1995.  Based on the principles of ecological sustainability, the project aims to establish a native landscape that will be an attractive, durable alternative to the ecologically unsustainable industrial landscape that dominates most of the urban world today. Once established, it will serve as a model of how the region's urban landscape might look in the new millennium and it will become a highly visible symbol of Stetson's environmental commitment. Also, because Stetson does not have to landscape with natives, doing so would place the university ahead of the regulations and ahead of most institutions. On this score, it is worth noting some of what surfaced at a meeting of Stetson's Facilities Management leaders and its Environmental Task Force (made up of faculty, staff, and students) in February 1999.  At the meeting, it was acknowledged that much of what Facilities Management does environmentally is tied to regulations. But, it was also pointed out that it is oftentimes difficult for Facilities to put its abundant good intentions into practice if regulations do not exist. As an example it was stated that Facilities attempted to have carpet recycled in the past, but found that the infrastructure necessary to support such recycling at that time did not exist. If carpet recycling had been mandated by regulations, the infrastructure would have been in place. Landscaping is not so encumbered. The institution could choose to landscape sustainably and would encounter few, if any obstacles. In this way, Stetson would move ahead of the mainstream in one highly visible area of its day-to-day operations and would become a leader and not merely a follower of the rules.

The project also will influence the larger community. Although Stetson does not have programs in the landscaping field (e.g., landscape architecture or turf management), it does have a landscape and it educates and influences scores of people who either have or will have home landscapes. Thus, the project will reach out to the landscape industry in general — an industry, from consumers to suppliers, that could better embrace the sustainability concept. The late, distinguished landscape architect Ian McHarg (1969, 1998) suggested that the fields of landscape architecture and urban planning should become leaders in ecologically-based planning, management, and design. Instead, McHarg (1998:192) observed that there has been a dearth of environmental training within these professions. Others in the field support McHarg (Ahern and Boughton 1994; Van der Ryn and Cowan 1996). Landscape architects Ahern and Boughton (1994:173) of the University of Massachusetts, for example, state:

"The landscape industry thrives on an instant landscape mentality that accelerates ecological growth and development with heavy subsidies of labor and chemicals and with monocultures of genetically altered plants. Paradoxically, the landscape industry has become a major obstacle to the acceptance of a new landscape aesthetic founded explicitly on sustainable native species and natural processes."

It is here that the project's true potential is seen. It is not merely a tree planting campaign of the "feel-good" environmentalist genre. It is instead an appeal for, and a concrete demonstration of a more environmentally rational approach to urban living. Building on this project and working through the Environmental Science program and Facilities Management, Stetson’s campus could become a model of sustainability for Central Florida. Those who will come to appreciate the project's significance will take a deeper love-of-life and a more emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually enlightened appreciation for place and natural heritage wherever their intellectual pursuits may take them.  Already, the project has touched a growing handful of individuals in this way. As it expands and becomes better known, more people will be affected and the larger community will benefit.

Notes on Natives and Exotics

Conceptually deciding what is a native is easy. A plant is said to be native to all of the areas that it naturally occurs. Problems with this definition arise, however, when ecological dynamics, unknown past human influences, geographical scale, and the lack of congruence between social spaces (e.g., counties) and ecological spaces (e.g., habitats) are considered. Plant ranges constantly change, especially at their margins where they constrict and expand with ecological changes. For this project, I employ a somewhat liberal definition of native range, so that plants like the redbud (Cercis canadensis) and Britton's beargrass (Nolina brittoniana) are considered natives of the DeLand area. Although neither is reported to occur naturally in Volusia County today, both are extant in neighboring counties. The redbud occurs from as far south as Polk County to Lake County and north, while Britton's beargrass is present in Lake and Marion counties, both of which are contiguous with Volusia County.
 An exotic plant is a plant known to have been brought to Florida intentionally or accidentally by humans or through human agency. An exotic that has escaped into natural areas and is reproducing on its own in the regional flora is said to be naturalized. Those naturalized exotics that become so successful as to spread rapidly in the flora and out-compete native plants are said to be invasive or pestiferous. Ecosystems are said to be "packed" when they hold all the species they can hold (Gleason and Cronquist 1964; Wilson 1992:181). As new species arrive, naturally or otherwise, ecosystems become overloaded and eventually some species become extirpated. Because the time needed for ecosystems to adjust to new arrivals may be long (decades to centuries) and can vary significantly from place to place and by the species involved, all naturalized exotics should be viewed with at least a bit of caution. It could be, of course, that one or more of the naturalized exotics eventually would be the ones to drop out, but it could be too that a native gets eliminated. As natives become locally extirpated, even if they are not extinguished from nearby habitats, their genetic diversity is reduced. Thus all naturalized exotics, whether pestiferous or not, reduce native biodiversity. And, because it may take much time for introduced species to become naturalized, all exotics should be viewed as potentially problematic.

Project Implementation

To date, some 700 plants have been obtained for the grounds of the Gillespie Museum of Minerals, a one-acre site on the southeastern corner of Stetson's main campus in DeLand. Some 75 native plant species are now represented on the site and over 350 exotic plants (from 32 species) have been removed, several planting beds have been prepared, most of the plants have been planted, and planting will continue through the spring of 2000. Most of the work has been completed by students working as Environmental Science interns, enrolled in Geography and Environmental Science classes, or on work-study. To date, over 3,000 person hours of labor had been completed and some 150 yards of mulch (wood and leaf) and compost and 45 bales of pine straw had been laid. A detailed site map has been completed and students are now preparing an extensive information database on the plants and a basic brochure, in addition to maintaining the grounds. (See appendices for details.)

Conclusion

Biodiversity is undeniably important to the commonweal and it is clear that it needs better protection than we presently give it. While the proximate causes of the biodiversity crisis are numerous and complex, the underlying root cause is one of our collective worldview (Chiras 1994). One way to change the modern worldview is to alter our urban landscapes, for they are highly visible symbols of our relationship with nature. Making them a symbol of environmental harmony would do much to foster a truer sense-of-place and deep appreciation for nature, which in turn would spill over into other areas of our behavior that affect the environment. The Native Landscape Project at Stetson could do much for this cause. The benefits of the project will be numerous. (See appendix 1 for specifics.)  In general the project will:  1) increase biodiversity;  2) be ecologically sustainable;  3) help shape a new biocentric ethic and deeper sense-of-place among the region's inhabitants;  4) improve ecological literacy through Stetson's curriculum and the outreach programs of the Gillespie Museum and Department of Geography and Environmental Science;  5) place Stetson among the environmental leaders; and  6) demonstrate to the larger community that native landscapes are not only good for the environment, but also attractive, easy to maintain, and healthier for the people who live and work upon them.

It should be noted too that the Native Landscape Project is an educational work in progress. I have taken the students into somewhat uncharted territory. Some of the plants, while known in the botanical literature and in the wild, are poorly understood in urban settings. Some trial and error will naturally follow. Placement and replacement of some plants may occur. To date, however, all appears well and we have lost only a few of some 700 plants obtained.

It should also be mentioned that the project has only just begun. Although funding thus far limits the project to the grounds of the Gillespie Museum of Minerals, approval to expand the effort to all of Michigan Avenue from Amelia Avenue to Woodland Boulevard was granted in 1996. The project will remain a vital component of the Environmental Science program in the future. Indeed, as the Environmental Science program grows, it could grow in part around the landscape effort. Opportunities for students from all disciplines to study nature, sustainability, and environmental perception are numerous.

While the project asks the University to take a bold step away from the mainstream, it is in reality consistent with Stetson's mission and its past. The institution commits to social and environmental responsibility in its mission statement and it has a tradition of addressing issues of social concern. In my view, the project is an environmental leap forward for Stetson, and it could be the start of a new environmental era at the institution and for central Florida. Becoming a true environmental leader would not only help Stetson find durable solutions to environmental problems (one important goal of environmental science), but it could also enhance Stetson's place in the market, if the proper promotional strategy were adopted. Imagine being able to claim with substance that the institution has a management strategy and on-going academic projects based on, and committed to the principles of ecological sustainability. Here, I would urge Stetson to continue its support of the project and to expand its coverage to the entire campus. It need not rush out and remove all exotics immediately, but as it embarks on new planting projects, it could commit to natives. Moreover, if the university were to establish a sustainability institute, native landscaping could be one of its early and on-going outreach themes for the community.

On a final note, if I'm wrong about the need for change and we make changes, all that will happen is that a different landscape aesthetic will emerge, with no harm done. If, on the other hand, we need to make a change but do not, then we will find ourselves in trouble down the road. Evidence of the need for change is abundant and the opportunity to take action is knocking.   It is a clear case of "Pascal's wager."  The choice must now be made. I believe it incumbent upon the liberal arts institution to take the lead.
 
Perhaps by changing university landscapes, we can alter mindscapes for a more livable future!

Acknowledgements

Funding for the project has come from two Hollis Renaissance Grants. I am indebted to the Hollis Foundation for its support. I would also like to thank Stetson President Doug Lee, Dean Gary Maris, and others from the administration who recognized the merits of the project, and Dave Rigsby, Norm Pryor, and others from Stetson's Facilities Management for their cooperation and assistance. A special word of thanks goes to Bruce Bradford, Curator of the Gillespie Museum, for trusting me with the museum grounds, desire to broaden the Museum's educational mission to include natural heritage, and his willingness to provide additional direction for the project and to Holli Vanater for her moral and logistical support. Finally, I wish to thank the many students (well over a hundred in all) who have made the project literally come to life, especially Bill Gilbert, Lindsey Glenn, Jeri Briggs, Jackie Hall, Brian Lilly, Denise Long, Josh Appleton, and Sasha Salerno for their hard work, creativity, and enthusiasm!
 

 Bibliography

Adam, B. 1998. Timescapes of Modernity: The Environment and Invisible Hazards. Routledge, London.
Ahern, Jack and Jestena Boughton. 1994. "Wildflower Meadows as Sustainable Landscapes." Pages 172-187 in R. Platt, R. Rowntree, and P. Muick (eds.), The Ecological City: Preserving and Restoring Urban Biodiversity. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.
Alper, J. 1993. "Protecting the Environment with the Power of the Market." Science 260:1884-1885.
Altieri, Miguel A. and Laura C. Merrick. 1988. "Agroecology and In Situ Conservation of Native Crop Diversity in the Third World." Pages 361-369 in E. Wilson (ed.), Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Bandy, Joe. 1996. "Managing the Other of Nature: Sustainability, Spectacle, and Global Regimes of Capital in Ecotourism." Public Culture 8(3):539-566.
Berry, Wendell. 1990. "The Pleasures of Eating." Pages 145-152 in W. Berry, What Are People for? Essays by Wendell Berry. North Point Press, San Francisco.
Bormann, F. Herbert, Diana Balmori, and Gordon T. Geballe. 1993. Redesigning the American Lawn: A Search for Environmental Harmony. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Bowers, C.A. 1997. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. State University of New York Press, Albany.
Caldwell, Lynton K. 1984. "Political Aspects of Ecologically Sustainable Development." Environmental Conservation 11(4):299-308.
Cater, E. and G. Lowman (eds.). 1994. Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Center for Plant Conservation, Missouri Botanical Garden. 1999. CPC Home Page at <http://www.mobot.org/CPC/welcome.html>, St. Louis.
Chiras, Daniel D. 1994. Environmental Science: Action for a Sustainable Future, Fourth Edition. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, California.
Collett, J. and S. Karakashian (eds.). 1996. Greening the College Curriculum. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Commoner, Barry. 1990. Making Peace with the Planet. Pantheon Books, New York.
Crutchfield, J., J. Doyne Farmer, and N. Packard. 1986. "Chaos." Scientific American  255(6):46-57.
Daly, H.E. and J. Cobb Jr. 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press, Boston.
Ekins, Paul. 1989. "Beyond Growth: The Real Priorities of Sustainable Development." Environmental Conservation 16(1):5-6,12.
Ehrlich, Paul R. 1997. A World of Wounds: Ecologists and the Human Dilemma. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany.
Ehrlich, P.R. and Anne H. Ehrlich. 1996. Betrayal of Science and Reason. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
FLEPPC. 1999. List of Florida's Most Invasive Species. Internet site: <http://www.fleppc.org/99list.htm>. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council.
Fowler, Cary and Pat Mooney. 1990. Shattering: Food, Politics, and the Loss of Genetic Diversity. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Gleason, H. and A. Cronquist. 1964. The Natural Geography of Plants. Columbia University Press, New York.
Gleick, James. 1987. Chaos: Making a New Science. Viking Press, New York.
Godfrey, Robert K. 1988. Trees, Shrubs, and Woody Vines of Northern Florida and Adjacent Georgia and Alabama. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Goellner, H.E. and A.M. Weinberg. 1976. "The Age of Substitutability." Science 191:683-689.
Goodall, Jane and Phillip Berman. 1999. Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey. Warner Books, New York.
Goodland, Robert J.A. and George Ledec. 1987. "Neoclassical Economics and Principles of Sustainable Development." Ecological Modeling 38:19-46.
Harlan, J.R. 1975. "Our Vanishing Genetic Resources." Science 188:618-621.
Heywood, V., G. Mace, R. May, and S. Stuart. 1994. "Uncertainties in Extinction Rates." Nature 368:105.
Higgins, S.I., D.M. Richardson, and R.M. Cowling. 1996. "Modeling Invasive Plant Spread: The Role of Plant-Environment Interactions and Model Structure." Ecology 77(7):2043-2054.
Higgins, S., D. Richardson, R. Cowling, and T. Trinder-Smith. 1999. "Predicting the Landscape-Scale Distribution of Alien Plants and Their Threat to Plant Diversity." Conservation Biology 13(2):303-313.
Hutchinson, T. and J. Vankat. 1998. "Landscape Structure and the Spread of the Exotic Shrub Lonicera maakii (Amur Honeysuckle) in Southwestern Ohio Forests." American Midland Naturalist 139:383-390.
Jenkins, V. 1994. The Lawn: A History of an American Obsession. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Kellert, Stephen R. 1997. Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Kermath, Brian M. 1991. "Nature Conservation and Ecotourism in Brazilian Amazonia." Pages 401-409 in Jon A. Kusler (ed.), Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, Selected Papers From Two International Symposia (volume 1), Association of Wetland Managers, Bern, NY.
Kermath, Brian M., Bradley C. Bennett, and Lydia M. Pulsipher. Forthcoming. Food Plants in the Americas. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Korten, David C. 1992. "Sustainable Development." World Policy Journal 9(1):157-190.
Korten, D. 1995. When Corporations Rule the World. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, Connecticut.
Leal Filho, W. (ed.). 1999. Sustainability and University Life. Peter Lang Scientific, Bern, Switzerland.
Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lovejoy, T. and D. Oren. 1981. "Minimum Critical Size of Ecosystems." Pages 7-12 in R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe (eds.), Forest Island Dynamics in Man-dominated Landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Luken, J.O. and J.W. Thieret. 1996. "Amur Honeysuckle: Its Fall from Grace." Bioscience 46(1):18-24.
MacKenzie, James J., Roger C. Dower, and Don Chen. 1992. The Going Rate: What it Really Costs to Drive. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
McHarg, Ian L. 1969. Design with Nature. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.
McHarg, I. 1998. "Landscape Architecture." Pages 188-193 in I.L. McHarg and F.R. Steiner (eds.), To Heal the Earth. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W.W. Behrens. 1972. The Limits of Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New American Library, New York.
Mele, Andre. 1993. Polluting for Pleasure. Norton, New York.
Myers, Norman. 1979. The Sinking Ark: A New Look at the Problem of Disappearing Species. Pergamon Press, New York.
Myers, N. 1987. "The Extinction Spasm Impending: Synergisms at Work." Conservation Biology 1(1):14-21.
Myers, N. 1992. The Primary Source: Tropical Forests and Our Future. Norton, New York.
Myers, N. 1997. "The Rich Diversity of Biodiversity Issues."  Pages 125-138 in M.L. Reaka-Kudla, D.E. Wilson, and E.O. Wilson (eds.), Biodiversity II. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C.
Myers, N. and J. Kent. 1998. Perverse Subsidies. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg.
Nabhan, Gary P. 1992. "Native Crops of the Americas: Passing Novelties or Lasting Contributions to Diversity?" Pages 143-161 in N. Foster and L. Cordell (eds.), Chilies to Chocolate: Food the Americas Gave the World. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Nelson, Gil. 1994. The Trees of Florida: A Reference and Field Guide. Pineapple Press, Sarasota, Florida.
Nelson, G. 1996. The Shrubs and Woody Vines of Florida: A Reference and Field Guide. Pineapple Press, Sarasota, Florida.
Nordhaus, William D. and Edward C. Kokkelenberg (eds.). 1999.  Nature’s Numbers: Expanding the National Economic Accounts to Include the Environment. Panel on Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Norton, Bryan G. 1987. Why Preserve Natural Variety. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Orr, David. 1992. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. State University of New York Press, Albany.
Orr, D. 1994. Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Platt, R., R. Rowntree, and P. Muick (eds.). 1994. The Ecological City: Preserving and Restoring Urban Biodiversity. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.
Prance, G.T. and T.S. Elias (eds.). 1977. Extinction is Forever. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx.
Reaka-Kudla, M.L., D.E. Wilson, and E.O. Wilson (eds.). 1997. Biodiversity II. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C.
Redclift, M. 1987. Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. Methuen, New York.
Redclift, M. 1991. "The Multiple Dimensions of Sustainable Development." Geography 70(1):36-42.
Reichard, Sarah and Clement Hamilton. 1997. "Predicting Invasions of Woody Plants Introduced into North America." Conservation Biology 11(1):193-203.
Sauer, Carl O. 1938. "Theme of Plant and Animal Destruction in Economic History." Journal of Farm Economics 20(4):765-775.
Schmookler, Andrew B. 1993. The Illusion of Choice: How the Market Economy Shapes Our Destiny. State University of New York Press, Albany.
Schnaiberg, Alan. and Ken Gould. 1994. Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict. St. Martin's Press, New York.
Shepard, Paul.  1982.  Nature and Madness. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.
Shepard, Paul.  1998.  Coming Home to the Pleistocene. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Simberloff, Daniel, Don C. Schmitz, and Tom C. Brown (eds.). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Simon. Julian. 1980. "Resources, Population, Environment: Oversupply of False Bad News." Science 208(June 27):1431-1437.
Simon, Julian. 1996. The Ultimate Resource II. Princeton University Press, Ewing, New Jersey.
Simon, Julian and Herman Kahn. 1984. The Resourceful Earth. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Sisk, T., A. Launer, K. Switky, and P. Ehrlich. 1994. "Identifying Extinction Threats: Global Analyses of the Distribution of Biodiversity and the Expansion of the Human Enterprise." BioScience 44(9):592-604.
Tisdell, Clement Allan. 1988. "Sustainable Development: Differing Perspectives of Ecologists and Economists, and Relevance to LDCs." World Development 16(3):373-384.
Turco, R. 1997. Earth Under Siege: From Air Pollution to Global Change. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Union of Concerned Scientists. 1992. World’s Scientists' Warning to Humanity. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Van der Ryn, Sim and Stuart Cowan. 1996. Ecological Design. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report). Oxford University Press, New York.
Wight, Pamela. 1993. "Eco-tourism: Ethics or Eco-Sell?" Journal of Travel Research 31(3):3-9.
Willers, Bill. 1994. "Sustainable Development: A New World Deception." Conservation Biology 8(4):1146-1148.
Wilson, Edward O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Wilson, Edward O. (ed.). 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Wilson, Edward O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Norton, New York.
 APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Specific Objectives of Stetson University's Native Landscape Project

• improve ecological literacy and elevate the value placed on natural heritage through education
• be aesthetically pleasing (with a variety of flowering plants, colors, textures, fragrances, etc.) according to  even conventional aesthetics, while helping to change the urban aesthetic by incorporating ecological principles and environmental externalities into the calculus
• increase ecological complexity (as opposed to the ecologically simple industrial landscape) by increasing biological diversity at all levels (species, genetic, ecological)
• increase area under trees, shrubs, ground covers, & mulch, thus reducing the area mowed
• be as wildlife-positive as possible by providing food, cover, & water (as opposed to the wildlife intoxicating industrial landscape) (a butterfly garden and bat houses are planned)
• reduce the need to water & maximize the use of reclaimed water for those water needs that remain (to establish new plants & to supplement nature in the maintenance of scattered oases during dry periods) (Facilities Management has made much progress on reclaimed water use on campus and we have reclaimed water on the museum site)
• eliminate or minimize the use of unsustainable capital inputs (e.g.,  pesticides, inorganic fertilizers,  power equipment), thus reducing pollution and other environmental externalities
• improve the heating & cooling efficiency of campus buildings (by locating deciduous trees to let in winter sun & keep out summer sun)
• include useful plants (pest deterrents, edibles, etc.)
• include rare, threatened, and endemic plants to the extent possible (e.g., Illicium parviflorum, Nolina britoniana, Sabal etonia, Zamia integrifolia)
• include composting in cooperation with Facilities Management (grounds and food services) for demonstration purposes and as a source of organic fertilizer and a way to reduce waste
• establish and maintain the project through the Environmental Science curriculum working in cooperation with Facilities Management

Specific information to be included on plants:

• nomenclature and taxonomy: common & Latin names, phylogeny
• origin/range/occurrence: common or rare/threatened/endangered? used in urban landscapes?
• life-form & biology: tree (canopy/understory), shrub, ground cover, vine, epiphyte, deciduous, evergreen, leaf (size, shape, color), flower (conspicuous/inconspicuous, season, color, fragrance), bark, fruit, growth, life expectancy, reproduction, germination, pollination, dispersal, ecology, etc.
• community (e.g., sand scrub) & habitat requirements (water, soil, light, nutrients, fire, etc.)
• aesthetic value: color, foliage, fragrance, shape, bark texture, etc.
• hardiness: tolerance to salt, cold, shade, pests & disease, drought, fire, etc.
• wildlife value: does it provide food and/or cover and for what kinds of wildlife?
• human use value (past & present): food (edible landscape concept), medicinal, fuel, intruder deterrent, living fence, landscape use (shade, informal border, accent, framing, ground cover, etc.) & substitutability (Which exotic can the native replace in the landscape? Are the exotics they replace naturalized and/or invasive?)
• notes/comments:
 - hazards (poisonous, thorns, combustibility, resiliency of limbs & trunk to pests & wind,
   invasiveness, attractiveness to pests, sticky exudates, invasive or shallow roots, etc.)
 - good or bad for allergy sufferers (generally plants with inconspicuous flowers are worse)
 - performance in the urban environment
 - availability & cost

 Appendix 2: Native Plants Obtained

 ^ = Florida endemic
 @ = rare or threatened in Florida    Total

Acacia farnesiana (sweet acacia)    1
Acer rubrum (southern red maple)    1
Ardisia escallonioides (marlberry)    3
Asclepias tuberosa (butterfly-weed)    6
Carpinus caroliniana (ironwood)    7
Carya floridana (Florida scrub hickory)^   1
Carya glabra (pignut hickory)    7
Celtis laevigata (sugarberry or hackberry)   4
Cercis canadensis (redbud)     11
Chionanthus virginicus (fringe tree)    7
Chrysopsis marianna  (golden aster)    10
Cornus florida (dogwood)     4
Crataegus flava (yellow or summer haw)   4
Diospyros virginiana (American persimmon)   2
Eragrostis elliottii (Elliott's love grass)   10
Eragrostis spectabilis (purple love grass)   10
Erythrina herbacea (coral bean)    many seeds sown
Forestiera segregata (Florida privet)    6
Fraxinus americana (white ash)    2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash)    1
Hamelia patens (fire bush, scarlet bush)   15
Hypericum reductum (St. John's or scrub wort)  10
Ilex cassine (dahoon holly)     6
Ilex opaca (American holly)    2
Ilex vomitoria (yaupon holly)    6
Ilex vomitoria var. schillings (schillings holly)  16
Illicium parviflorum (yellow anise)^    6
Juniperus virginiana var. silicicola (southern red cedar) 1
Lindera benzoin (spice bush)    1
Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum)   5
Lonicera sempervirens (coral honeysuckle)   2
Lyonia ferruginea (rusty lyonia)    1
Magnolia grandiflora (magnolia)    8
Morus rubra (red mulberry)     1
Muhlenbergia sp. (muhly grass)    20
Myrcianthes fragrans (twinberry stopper)   10
Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle)    9
Nolina brittoniana (Britton's bear grass)^@   20
Nyssa sylvatica (sour gum)     2
Osmunda regalis (royal fern)    few
Persea borbonia (red bay)     2
Pinus elliottii (slash pine)     6
Pinus palustris (longleaf pine)    9
Pinus sp. (undetermined pine)    3
Prunus americana (American plum)    8
Prunus angustifolia (chickasaw plum)   3
Prunus sp. (perhaps umbellata)    10+/- (also 434 seeds sown)
Quercus geminata (sand live oak)    8
Quercus myrtifolia (myrtle oak)    4
Quercus shumardii (Shumard oak)    5
Quercus virginiana (Virginia live oak)   9 (plus ~10 seedlings)
Rhapidophyllum hystrix (needle palm)@   50
Rhododendron austrinum (Florida azalea)@   4
Rhododendron canescens (pinxter flower)    4
Sabal etonia (scrub palmetto)^    32
Sabal minor (blue stem palmetto)    2
Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm)    5
Sassafras albidum (sassafras)    1
Serenoa repens (saw palmetto)    75
Sideroxylon tenax (tough bumelia)    3 (small)
Taxodium distichum (bald cypress)    3 (1 small)
Ulmus alata (winged elm)     2
Vaccinium sp. (blueberry)     1
Viburnum obovatum (Walter's viburnum)   7
Viola sororia (sisterly violet)    2
Zamia integrifolia (coontie)@    150 (also 300+ seeds sown)
Zephyranthes atamasco (rain lily)    40

Appendix 3: Native Plants Preserved On Site (partial list)

Baccharis halimifolia (groundsel tree or saltbush)  few (outside west fence north of lab)
Callicarpa americana (beauty berry)    few
Ilex opaca (American holly)    1
Juniperus virginiana var. silicicola (southern red cedar) 2
Magnolia grandiflora (magnolia)    4
Oxalis violacea (violet wood-sorrel)    many
Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia creeper)  many
Prunus caroliniana (cherry laurel)    few, small
Prunus serotina (black cherry)    2-3, small (southwest corner)
Pteridium aquilinum (bracken fern)     many
Quercus hemisphaerica (laurel oak)    10+ (several large)
Quercus virginiana (live oak)    2-3
Sabal minor (blue stem palmetto)    few small
Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm)    ~8 large, many small
Smilax spp. (bullbriers/greenbriers)    many from at least two species
Yucca aloifolia (Spanish dagger/bayonet)   10+
Zamia integrifolia (coontie)     10-12 large, several small

Appendix 4: Native Plants to Acquire

Asimina obovata (flag pawpaw) — Florida endemic
Chionanthus pygmaeus (pygmy fringe tree) — federally listed, endangered flowering Florida endemic tree
Dalea pinnata (summer-farewell) — flowering perennial herb
Echinacea purpurea (cone flower, echinacea) — flowering plant with medicinal properties
Glandularia tampensis (vervain) — flowering butterfly herb
Hamamelis virginiana (witch hazel) — small, attractive deciduous tree
Helianthus angustifolia (rough leaf sunflower)
Hibiscus coccineus (marsh hibiscus) - wetland hibiscus that adapts to upland sites, cold tender
Lilium michauxii (Carolina lily) — tall upland lily somewhat like gloriosa lily (Gloriosa superba)
Lupinus spp. (lupines) — flowering herbs
Lyonia lucida (fetterbush, shiny lyonia) — flowering shrub, perhaps too site specific, requiring acid soil
Opuntia spp. (prickly pear) — scrub and dune cactus with attractive yellow flower and edible fruit
Osmanthus megacarpus (scrub or wild olive) — small flowering tree
Ostrya virginiana (eastern hophornbeam) — medium sized deciduous tree
Philoblephis rigida (pennyroyal)
Quercus chapmanii (chapman oak)
Quercus falcata (southern red or Spanish oak)
Quercus laevis (turkey oak)
Quercus marilandica (blackjack oak)
Prunus geniculata (scrub plum) — federally listed, endangered Florida endemic (flowering, edible fruit?)
Ptelea trifoliata (common hop-tree) — small understory tree to 25', fruit used like hops
Viburnum rufidulum (blue, rusty, or southern black haw) — edible fruit, flowering shrub
Yucca flaccida [= Y. filamentosa] (Adam's needle or bear grass)

Appendix 5: Exotic Plants Removed
 
 * = invasive in Florida’s flora
 ~ = naturalized but not considered invasive in Florida’s flora
 # = with naturalized relatives (from same genus)

Albizia julibrissin (mimosa)*    4
Ardisia crenata (coral ardisia)*    many
Asparagus densiflorus (asparagus-fern)*   many
Bromelia pinguin (bromelia)    3+
Butia capitata (pindo palm)       2 (one yet to be removed)
Buxus microphylla (Japanese boxwood)   10
Cinnamomum camphora (camphor)*    ~20 large, hundreds of seedlings
Dioscorea bulbifera (air potato)*    hundreds
Eleagnus pungens (silverthorn, thorny eleagnus)*  1 (mass)
Eriobotrya japonica (loquat, Japanese plum)*  2 medium, several small
Gloriosa superba (gloriosa or flame lily)   several
Hedychium sp. (ginger-lily)     10
Hemerocalis sp. (lily)     ~100 square feet
Hibiscus rosa-sinensis (hibiscus)#    1
Ilex cornuta (Chinese holly)     3
Illicium anisatum (anise)     5-6
Koelreuteria elegans (goldenrain tree)*   hundreds (small)
Lagerstroemia indica (crape myrtle)~    1
Lantana camara (lantana)*     several
Ligustrum japonicum (Japanese privet)*     5-6
Liriope sp. (lily-turf)     several
Morus alba (white mulberry)*    1 large, few small
Nephrolepis cordifolia (tuberous sword fern)*  many
Phoenix canariensis (canary island date palm)#  1
Phyllostachys sp. (bamboo)*    ~200 square feet
Podocarpus macrophyllus (yew podocarpus)~   14 large, many seedlings
Podocarpus nagi (nagi)~     1
Rhododendron obtusum (kurume azalea)   4-5
Rhododendron simsii (Indian azalea)    ~100
Sansevieria hyacinthoides  =S. trifasciata (bowstring hemp)* ~10
Tradescantia sp. (wandering Jew)*    several
Viburnum odoratissimum (sweet viburnum)   4
 

 Appendix 8: Edible Native Plants at the Gillespie Museum (from Kermath et al. forthcoming)

 [Included as an example of the kinds of information to be used for heritage education.]
 [Note: many of the references contained herein do not appear in this report's bibliography,as they are from Kermath et al. (forthcoming).]

Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd.
FAMILY: Fabaceae or Leguminosae subfam. Mimosoideae (pea)
ENGLISH: cassie flower, sweet acacia
SPANISH: aromo, huisache, pela, uña de cabra
USES/NOTES: Reddish-brown fruit pods are eaten cooked, and leaves are used as a seasoning like tamarind (Tamarindus indica). Gum is a famine food. Also, fragrant, round, yellow flowers are used in perfumes. Small, thorny tree is cultivated as an ornamental for its flowers, delicate feathery leaves, and interesting form. Cultivated by the early 1600s in Italy.
NATURAL RANGE: American tropics possibly to South Florida, previously considered tropical African, widely naturalized
REFERENCES: Adams 1972, Alcorn 1984, Duke n.d., Facciola 1990, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Nelson 1994, Sturtevant 1972, Taylor 1998, Watkins and Sheehan 1975
 
Acer rubrum L.
FAMILY: Aceraceae (maple)
ENGLISH: red maple, scarlet maple, swamp maple
USES/NOTES: Attractive as a landscape specimen for its red displays in both spring (flowers and samaras) and fall (foliage). Primarily a wetland species, A. rubrum will establish in upland sites, but may become wilted during the heat of the day in Florida unless it is adequately irrigated. Tree's sap, though not abundant, can be made into a quality maple syrup.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern and Central North America from Canada (east to Manitoba) to Florida and eastern Texas
REFERENCES: Facciola 1990, Fernald et al. 1958, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Nelson 1994, Sturtevant 1972

Ardisia escallonioides Schldl. & Cham.
FAMILY: Myrsinaceae (myrsine)
ENGLISH: marlberry
SPANISH: capulín agrio, hualpuchun, pelat puchum, pejte, wal puchun
USES/NOTES: Evergreen shrub or small tree to over 3 meters with showy white flower clusters and abundant dark drupes. Juicy, though scant pulp of the small drupe is pleasantly tart, and eaten out of hand as a snack, or used in atole in Mexico. Also used medicinally in Mexico.
NATIVE RANGE: Central America, Mexico, the West Indies, and south and central peninsular Florida
REFERENCES: Alcorn 1984, Kermath (field notes), Morton 1977, Nelson 1994, Taylor 1998, Williams 1981

Asclepias tuberosa L.
FAMILY: Asclepiadaceae (milkweed)
ENGLISH: butterfly weed, chigger flower, Indian paintbrush, pleurisy root, tuberroot
USES/NOTES: Boiled fruits reportedly have been prepared with buffalo meat, flowers are said to have been used for sugar, and young shoots, leaves, and inflorescences are said to have been eaten as vegetables. Tubers have been reported as both edible and poisonous. Peterson warns that all plant parts are poisonous and should not be eaten.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern North America from Maine and Ontario to Florida and Texas
REFERENCES: Bailey Hortorium 1976, Facciola 1990, Harrington 1967, Medsger 1939, Peterson 1977, Uphof 1968, Yanovsky 1936

Callicarpa americana L.
FAMILY: Verbenaceae (verbena) [perhaps better placed with the mints Labiatae or Lamiaceae]
ENGLISH: American beauty berry, beauty berry, beauty bush, French mulberry
USES/NOTES: Sometimes used in informal borders for its abundant, tiny magenta (rarely white) drupes, which cluster on the stem near petioles. Often bland, to sometimes astringent or mildly sweet fruit may be eaten out of hand or preserved.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern North America to portions of the West Indies
REFERENCES: Kermath (field notes), Martin et al. 1987, Nelson 1994, Taylor 1998, Watkins and Sheehan 1975

Carpinus caroliniana Walter [syn. C. americana Michx.]
FAMILY: Betulaceae (birch) or Carpinaceae (carpinus)
ENGLISH: American hornbeam, blue beech, blue hornbeam, ironwood, musclewood, water beech
SPANISH: palo de barranco
USES/NOTES: Small ribbed nutlets are edible. Also an attractive understory, deciduous tree with an interesting, "muscled" trunk. Wood is hard and has been used for tool handles.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern United States, wet woods
REFERENCES: Bourke et al. 1987, FNAEC 1997, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Mabberley 1987, Martin et al. 1987,  Nelson 1994

Carya floridana Sarg.
FAMILY: Juglandaceae (walnut)
ENGLISH: Florida hickory, Florida scrub hickory, scrub hickory
USES/NOTES: Similar to the more common pignut hickory (C. glabra), though generally smaller with smaller leaves and fruits. Small kernels are sweet. Florida endemic, though underutilized, makes for an attractive, drought-tolerant landscape specimen, appropriate for small urban lots.
NATIVE RANGE: Central and northern peninsular Florida, scrub habitat
REFERENCES: FNAEC 1997, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes)

Carya glabra (Miller) Sweet [syn. C. ovalis (Wangenh.) Sarg.]
FAMILY: Juglandaceae (walnut)
ENGLISH: hognut, pignut, pignut hickory, sweet pignut
USES/NOTES: Thick shelled kernels of this large, deciduous, attractive tree can be sweet or bitter.
NATIVE RANGE: North America from Vermont, Ontario, southern Michigan, and Illinois, to central Florida and eastern Texas
REFERENCES: Brouk 1975, FNAEC 1997, Gibbons and Tucker 1979, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Manning 1950, Nelson 1994, Uphof 1968

Celtis laevigata Willd.
FAMILY: Ulmaceae (elm)
ENGLISH: hackberry, Mississippi hackberry, southern hackberry, sugarberry
SPANISH: latón, palo blanco
USES/NOTES: Medium sized to potentially large shade tree has a long dormant period in Florida. Small, orange to reddish-brown drupes are sweet, though with little pulp.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern United States to Texas and northeastern Mexico
REFERENCES: Bailey Hortorium 1976, Facciola 1990, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Medsger 1939

Cercis canadensis L. [includes C. occidentalis Torr. & A. Gray]
FAMILY: Leguminosae subfam. Caesalpinioideae or Fabaceae (bean or pea)
ENGLISH: California redbud (C. occidentalis), eastern redbud, Judas tree, redbud
SPANISH: árbol de Judea, árbol del amor, ciclamor
USES/NOTES: Flat, knife-shaped, immature fruit pods are eaten raw, boiled, or sautéed, flowers are added to salads in Mexico or may be eaten out of hand as a snack, flower buds are pickled. Flowers and pods taste somewhat like snap beans and were eaten frequently by Amerindians throughout the plant's range and by early European settlers in the eastern United States. Small trees also are widely cultivated for their abundant, magenta to purple, spring flowers. The California redbud has been treated as a distinct species.
NATIVE RANGE: North America, in Florida found in the panhandle south to Tampa Bay and Lake county
REFERENCES: Fernald et al. 1958, Gibbons and Tucker 1979, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Mabberley 1987, Munz 1974, Nelson 1994, Peterson 1977, Sternberg and Wilson 1995, Taylor 1998, Tull 1978, Uphof 1968

Chionanthus virginicus L.
FAMILY: Oleaceae (lilac or olive)
ENGLISH: fringe flower, fringe tree, grandsie-gray-beard, old man's beard
USES/NOTES: Egg-shaped, one to two cm long, dark blue/purple, bitter fruits can be eaten pickled like common olives (Olea europaea). Also grown in acid soils for its showy, fragrant, hanging white flowers and dark green, deciduous foliage.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern United States from central Florida and New Jersey to eastern Texas and Ohio
REFERENCES: Facciola 1990, Kermath (field notes), Kunkel 1984, Nelson 1994, Watkins and Sheehan 1975

Crataegus flava Aiton
FAMILY: Rosaceae (rose)
ENGLISH: hawthorn, summer haw, yellow haw
USES/NOTES: Small pectin-rich fruits, typically red-orange, though variously yellow to greenish-yellow, to red or purple, are used in jellies or to make tea. Also attractive spring flowers and interesting weeping branches.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern United States
REFERENCES: Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Nelson 1994, Peterson 1977, Uphof 1968

Diospyros virginiana L.
FAMILY: Ebenaceae (ebony)
ENGLISH: American persimmon, common persimmon, North American ebony, persimmon, possumwood
SPANISH: caqui, caqui americano, placaminero
PORTUGUESE: caqui
USES/NOTES: Fruits, of this prolific medium to potentially large tree, typically remain astringent until very ripe when they become soft and sweet. Less astringent cultivars exist. Once relished as a foodstuff on the eastern American frontier. Attractive fall foliage.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern North America
REFERENCES: Bourke et al. 1987, Duke 1992, Godfrey 1988, Hyam and Pankhurst 1995, Johns and Stevenson 1985, Kermath (field notes), Popenoe 1974, Sokolov 1991

Erythrina herbacea L. [syn. E. rubrinervia Jacq.]
FAMILY: Leguminosae subfam. Papilionoideae or Fabaceae (bean or pea)
ENGLISH: cardinal-spear, bean, eastern coral bean, red cardinal
SPANISH: búcaro, bucayo, gallito, jutucu, pitp
USES/NOTES: Five cm long scarlet flowers are eaten boiled. Poisonous, hard, red seeds are used as beads and contain a compound used in rat poison. A decoction of the roots is used to reduce fevers. Also planted occasionally in urban landscapes in the southeastern United States for its attractive flowers.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern North America, Mexico, and the West Indies
REFERENCES: Alcorn 1984, Facciola 1990, Mabberley 1987, Nelson 1994, Niembro-Rocas 1992, OAS 1973, Taylor 1998, von Reis Altschul 1973, Watkins and Sheehan 1975, Wiersema et al. 1990

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.
FAMILY: Oleaceae (lilac or olive)
ENGLISH: American ash, Canadian ash, red ash, white ash
USES/NOTES: Potentially large attractive tree is over-planted in the eastern United States as a landscape specimen. Cambium was eaten cooked by the Ojibwa Indians.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern North America from Quebec and Manitoba to Florida and Texas
REFERENCES: Hunter 1997, Yanovsky 1936

Hamelia patens Jacq.
FAMILY: Rubiaceae (coffee or madder)
ENGLISH: firebush, scarlet bush
SPANISH: bálsamo, benzen yuca, chacloc, usia-ey, pata de pájaro, yoshin coshqui rao, yuto blanco, zapote maduro
USES/NOTES: Small, dark red to purplish-black, obovoid, generally mild tasting juicy fruits, are eaten out of hand or made into juice or alcoholic beverages. Fruit and other plant parts are medicinal. Also an attractive, scarlet-flowered, fast growing landscape shrub for tropical to nearly frost-free regions.
NATIVE RANGE: Humid American tropics from Paraguay to Mexico, peninsular Florida, the Antilles, and Bermuda
REFERENCES: Adams 1972, Alcorn 1984, Bush and Morton n.d., Duke and Vásquez 1994, Kermath (field notes), Martin et al. 1987, Nelson 1994

Ilex cassine L.
FAMILY: Aquifoliaceae (holly)
ENGLISH: cassena, cassina, cassine, Christmas berry, dahoon, dahoon holly
USES/NOTES: Dried, roasted leaves have been made into tea that should be consumed in moderation if at all, as ill side effects may result. Attractive for its red berries and evergreen foliage. Though a wetland species, I. cassine adapts to upland sites.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern North America, especially the coastal zone from North Carolina, to Florida, to Louisiana
REFERENCES: Bailey Hortorium 1976, Facciola 1990, Kermath (field notes), Nelson 1994, Uphof 1968, Wunderlin and Poppleton 1977

Ilex opaca Aiton
FAMILY: Aquifoliaceae (holly)
ENGLISH: American holly
USES/NOTES: Caffeine-free leaves were used to make a beverage tea during the American Civil War.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern North America
REFERENCES: Facciola 1990, Nelson 1994, Wunderlin and Poppleton 1977

Ilex vomitoria Aiton
FAMILY: Aquifoliaceae (holly)
ENGLISH: Carolina tea, emetic holly, yaupon, yaupon holly
SPANISH: apalachina
PORTUGUESE: apalachina, chá-dos-apalaches
USES/NOTES: Dried, young, caffeine-rich leaves and twig tips have long been used to make black drink or dark drink, a ceremonial and medicinal tea used by Amerindians of the southeastern United States. Early pioneers used the brew as a beverage tea, though it must be consumed in moderation due to its emetic effects. Leaves also have been used to flavor ice cream and soft drinks. Berries are an emetic medicinal. Also planted as a landscape specimen. The Schillings dwarf variety does not produce fruit.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern North America
REFERENCES: Alston and Schultes 1951, Bailey Hortorium 1976, Facciola 1990, Godfrey 1988, Jeffords 1949, Kermath (field notes), Nelson 1994, Usher 1974, Wunderlin and Poppleton 1977

Juniperus virginiana L. var. silicicola (Small) E. Murray [syn. J. silicicola (Small) Bailey]
FAMILY: Cupressaceae (cypress)
ENGLISH: coastal red cedar, red cedar, southern red cedar
SPANISH: cedro
USES/NOTES: Extract of the berry like, bluish cone and young twigs may be used to flavor gin and other beverages. Cones, eaten by many birds, also are edible in small quantities. Tree is smaller than J. virginiana var. virginiana.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern coastal plain from the Carolinas through Florida
REFERENCES: Adams 1986, Facciola 1990, FNAEC 1993, Godfrey 1988, Kunkel 1984, Nelson 1994, Tomikel 1986

Lindera benzoin (L.) Blume [syn. L. aestivale var. pubescens (Palmer & Steyerm.) Rehder, Benzoin aestivale (L.) Nees]
FAMILY: Lauraceae (laurel)
ENGLISH: Benjamin bush, common spicebush, spicebush, wild allspice
USES/NOTES: Red drupes, to about a cm long, may be eaten raw or more typically dried and ground as a spice in cooked foods, aromatic young leaves, twigs, bark, and fruits are used for tea or as a spice like allspice (Pimenta dioica), and young bark may be chewed. Deciduous shrub or small tree adds interest to any landscape and can be eaten too. Also said to be effective against yeast infections from Candida albicans in humans.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern North America from Ontario to northern Florida and eastern Texas
REFERENCES: Duke 1997, FNAEC 1997, Gibbons and Tucker 1979, Harris 1972, Kermath (field notes), Mabberley 1987, Nelson 1994, Peterson 1977,  Tomikel 1986, Uphof 1968

Liquidambar styraciflua L.
FAMILY: Hamamelidaceae (witch hazel)
ENGLISH: American sweetgum, bilsted, red gum, sweetgum
SPANISH: copalme, estoraque, goma dulce, liquidámbar, maripenda, nogal satinado, quirambaro
USES/NOTES: Large deciduous tree is a nice shade tree with attractive star-shaped leaves, though spiny fruits are a hazard under foot. Bitter resin has been used like chewing gum by children. Also medicinal.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern United States, eastern Mexico, and parts of northern Central America
REFERENCES: Alcorn 1984, Bailey Hortorium 1976, Kermath (field notes), Nelson 1994, OAS 1973

Magnolia grandiflora L.
FAMILY: Magnoliaceae (magnolia)
ENGLISH: bullbay, loblolly magnolia, southern magnolia
USES/NOTES: Flowers reportedly have been eaten pickled or dried and ground as a spice.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern Maryland to Kentucky through Florida to eastern Texas
REFERENCES: Facciola 1990, Godfrey 1988, Leggatt 1987, Nelson 1994, Sturtevant 1972, Tanaka 1978

Morus rubra L.
FAMILY: Moraceae (mulberry)
ENGLISH: red mulberry
SPANISH: mora, moral rojo
PORTUGUESE: amora
USES/NOTES: Delicate skinned juicy fruits, orange-red to dark when ripe and somewhat longer than those of the Asian white mulberry (M. alba), are consumed out of hand, in pies and jellies, or as juice or wine. Young, unfolding leaves may be eaten cooked. Peterson warns that unripe fruits and uncooked greens are hallucinogenic. Small to medium sized trees with pubescent leaves are messy due to their abundant fruit, but excel at attracting wildlife.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern North America from Ontario to Florida and Texas, naturalized elsewhere
REFERENCES: Bourke et al. 1987, Breedlove 1986, Gibbons 1962, Godfrey 1988, Harris 1972, Kermath (field notes), Nelson 1994, Peterson 1977, Sokolov 1991, Tomikel 1986, Turner and Szczawinski 1979, Uphof 1968

Myrcianthes fragrans (Sw.) McVaugh [syn. Eugenia fragrans Willd., Myrtus fragrans Sw.]
FAMILY: Myrtaceae (myrtle)
ENGLISH: Simpson's stopper, twinberry, twinberry stopper, zebra wool
SPANISH: guayabillo
USES/NOTES: Small, round, orange to red berries are highly variable in flavor, ranging from bitter to pleasantly tart with an unusual turpentine-like aftertaste, to sweet with little aftertaste. Also attractive for its displays of white, snowflake-like aromatic flowers, red fruit, flaking reddish bark, and aromatic, shiny evergreen leaves.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, coastal peninsular Florida, Colombia, Venezuela, and perhaps Ecuador and Peru
REFERENCES: Adams 1972, Brako and Zarucchi 1993, Kermath (field notes), Martin et al. 1987, Nelson 1994, Taylor 1998

Myrica cerifera L. [syn M. cerifera var. pumila Michaux, M. pumila (Michaux) Small]
FAMILY: Myricaceae (wax-myrtle)
ENGLISH: bayberry, candle tree, candleberry, common wax myrtle, dwarf wax myrtle (var. pumila), southern bayberry, southern wax myrtle, tallow shrub, wax myrtle, wax wood, waxberry
SPANISH: árbol de cera, arraigán, arrayán, arrayán brabántico, cera vegetal, cerero, palo de velas, mirica cerífera
PORTUGUESE: árvore-da-cera
USES/NOTES: Leaves and tiny, nut-like drupes may be used as a substitute for bay leaves (Laurus nobilis) to season meats, sauces, soups, and stews, or as tea. Drupes are coated with the fragrant myrtle wax (or bayberry tallow) used for candles. A tonic is made from the root bark. Also popular in urban landscapes, especially as a clipped hedge.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern United States, Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Greater Antilles, Bahamas, Bermuda, and Guadeloupe
REFERENCES: Adams 1972, Bourke et al. 1987, de Gámez 1973, FNAEC 1997, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), OAS 1973, Peterson 1977, Rehm and Espig 1991, Tull 1978, Usher 1974

Nyssa sylvatica Marshall var. sylvatica
FAMILY: Nyssaceae (nyssa, sour-gum, or tupelo)
ENGLISH: pepperidge, sour gum, tupelo
USES/NOTES: Small, dark, sour drupes can be eaten as a snack or made into preserves. Potentially large, deciduous tree is also an attractive landscape specimen with excellent fall color.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern North America, upland forests
REFERENCES: Fernald et al. 1958, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Lakela and Wunderlin 1980, Nelson 1994

Osmunda regalis L.
FAMILY: Osmundaceae (royal fern)
ENGLISH: royal fern
USES/NOTES: Fiddleheads are edible.
NATIVE RANGE: North temperate areas to Africa and South America
REFERENCES: Mabberley 1987

Oxalis violacea L. [syn. Acetosella violacea (L.) Kuntze]
FAMILY: Oxalidaceae (wood-sorrel)
ENGLISH: sheep sorrel, violet wood-sorrel
USES/NOTES: Sour leaves, attractive pinkish purple flowers, and roots of this weedy herb are eaten raw or cooked. Three-lobed leaves also may be steeped to make a refreshing beverage.
NATIVE RANGE: North America
REFERENCES: Bailey Hortorium 1976, Facciola 1990, Fernald 1950, Kermath (field notes), Kindscher 1987, Morton 1976, Peterson 1977, Yanovsky 1936

Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch.
FAMILY: Vitaceae (grape)
ENGLISH: Virginia creeper
USES/NOTES: Yanovsky stated that the fruit were eaten raw and stalks were eaten peeled and boiled by Amerindians of the northern United States. Peterson, however, warns that the fruit should not be eaten. Also an effective, though deciduous, ground cover.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern and northern United States to Mexico
REFERENCES: Kermath (field notes),  Peterson 1977, Yanovsky 1936

Persea borbonia (L.) Sprengel
FAMILY: Lauraceae (laurel)
ENGLISH: Carolina bay, red bay, tisswood
USES/NOTES: Aromatic leaves are used as a bay leaf substitute in sauces, soups, and stews, purple fruit is eaten by wildlife, and wood has been used for cabinets. Evergreen tree, to 50 feet or more, has an interesting form.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern United States to Texas
REFERENCES: Facciola 1990, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Morton 1977, Nelson 1994, Smith et al. 1992, Taylor 1998, Tull 1978, Uphof 1968

Piloblephis rigida (Bartram ex Benth.) Raf. [syn. Satureja rigida Bartram ex Benth.]
FAMILY: Labiatae or Lamiaceae (mint)
ENGLISH: pennyroyal
USES/NOTES: Leaves are used in herbal teas or as a spice. Seminoles flavored turtle meat with the leaves.
NATIVE RANGE: Florida
REFERENCES: Bennett (unpublished), Taylor 1998, Uphof 1968

Prunus americana Marshall
FAMILY: Rosaceae (rose)
ENGLISH: American plum, American wild plum, August plum, goose plum, North American plum, river plum, wild plum
USES/NOTES: Often tart, though sometimes sweet fruits, occasionally sold in markets, are eaten preserved, cooked, or rarely dried or out of hand. Kernel is said to be edible. Small tree, with exfoliating bark, also is grown for its abundant, sweetly fragrant, white flowers. The American plum was once much improved in cultivation for its fruit. Competition from more improved Old World cultivars, however, led to the near abandonment of American plum cultivation.
NATIVE RANGE: widespread from north-central Florida to southeastern Canada
REFERENCES: Bailey Hortorium 1976, Godfrey 1988, Harrington 1967, Kermath (field notes), Kindscher 1987, Mabberley 1987, Nelson 1994, Sauer 1993, Uphof 1968

Prunus angustifolia Marshall [syn. P. chicasa nomen illegit.]
FAMILY: Rosaceae (rose)
ENGLISH: chickasaw plum, Indian cherry, mountain cherry, wild plum
USES/NOTES: Crimson to pink or yellow fruits, of wild and cultivated varieties, vary in quality and degree of tartness from very tart to sweet and are eaten out of hand, or more typically cooked or preserved. Thicket forming, small trees are used in urban landscaping for their abundant, though somewhat insipid smelling, white flowers.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern North America
REFERENCES: Crowhurst 1972, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Mabberley 1987, Nelson 1994, Sturtevant 1972, Uphof 1968

Prunus serotina Erhart
FAMILY: Rosaceae (rose)
ENGLISH: black cherry, wild black cherry
SPANISH: capulí, cereza, cerezo americana, cerezo de los Andes, cerezo negro silvestre
USES/NOTES: Small, dark red to black, tart fruit, of this potentially large deciduous tree, may be consumed fresh, as juice, or in marmalades. Twigs and leaves are bitter due hydrocyanic acid and should not be eaten. Though not an especially attractive landscape tree, P. serotina does produce excellent fall foliage and abundant food for wildlife. Dark attractive wood has been valued for cabinet and furniture making.
NATIVE RANGE: Nova Scotia to Minnesota to eastern Texas and central Florida, widely naturalized and pestiferous elsewhere
REFERENCES: Bourke et al. 1987, Facciola 1990, Fernald et al. 1958, Gibbons 1962, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Martin et al. 1987, Morton 1976, Nelson 1994, OAS 1973, Peterson 1977, Taylor 1998, Tomikel 1986

Prunus umbellata Elliott
FAMILY: Rosaceae (rose)
ENGLISH: black slöe, flatwoods plum, hog plum, southern slöe, wild plum
USES/NOTES: Small, tart to astringent fruits, red to yellow when immature, generally becoming purple when ripe, are occasionally eaten preserved or cooked. Also attractive for its showy white spring flowers.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern United States, coastal plain
REFERENCES: Facciola 1990, Godfrey 1988, Nelson 1994, Sturtevant 1972, Uphof 1968

Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn in Decken [includes P. aquilinum (L.) Kuhn var. caudatum (L.) Sadebeck [syn. Pteris caudata L.]]
FAMILY: Dennstaedtiaceae or Polypodiaceae (polypody)
ENGLISH: brake, brake fern, bracken, bracken fern, eagle fern, eastern bracken, hog-pasture brake, lacey bracken (var. caudatum), pasture brake, tailed bracken, warabi, western bracken
SPANISH: helecho
PORTUGUESE: samambaia-do-campo, samambaia-verdadeira
USES/NOTES: Young unopened fiddleheads and shoots (called munhecas in Brazil) have been widely eaten cooked, though now thought possibly to be carcinogenic. Boiled rhizomes are edible and the source of warabi starch. Dried rhizomes are used for bread or like hops (Humulus lupulus).
NATIVE RANGE: varieties in the Americas from Canada, United States, Mexico, Central America, West Indies, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, the Guianas, Peru, and Brazil
REFERENCES: Bailey Hortorium 1976, Brouk 1975, Facciola 1990, FNAEC 1993, IBGE 1980, Jardim Botânico de Brasília 1989, Mabberley 1987, Peterson 1977, Tomikel 1986, Uphof 1968

Quercus geminata Small [syn. Q. virginiana Miller var. geminata (Small) Sargent]
FAMILY: Fagaceae (beech or oak)
ENGLISH: sand live oak
USES/NOTES: Acorns, often born in pairs (hence the specific name geminata), are somewhat smaller than, though similar in shape to those of the live oak (Q. virginiana) and like the live oak are of the sweeter, white oak group. Generally smaller than the live oak, though similar in form, the under-utilized, long-lived sand live oak with its deeply furrowed dark bark and curvaceous limbs is an attractive landscape specimen, especially suitable for small lots. Also a quality hard wood source.
NATIVE RANGE: Coastal North Carolina through Florida to coastal Louisiana
REFERENCES: FNAEC 1997, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes)

Quercus virginiana Miller
FAMILY: Fagaceae (beech or oak)
ENGLISH: live oak, southern live oak
USES/NOTES: Acorns, of Georgia's state tree, are of the sweeter white group and were eaten by early inhabitants after leaching to remove bitterness. Also an attractive, long-lived, and over-used landscape specimen and important lumber source.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern United States from Virginia through Florida to Texas
REFERENCES: Bennett 1997, FNAEC 1997, Godfrey 1988, Hall 1989

Sabal etonia Swingle ex Nash
FAMILY: Arecaceae or Palmae (palm)
ENGLISH: scrub cabbage, scrub palmetto
USES/NOTES: Scant fruit pulp and terminal bud, known as cabbage, are edible. Stem is subterranean. Similar to S. minor, but with larger fruits and yellow-green leaves.
NATIVE RANGE: Endemic to central and southeastern Florida
REFERENCES: Facciola 1990, Godfrey 1988, Henderson et al. 1995, Kermath (field notes), Morton 1977, Sturtevant 1972, Zona and Judd 1986

Sabal minor (Jacq.) Pers.
FAMILY: Arecaceae or Palmae (palm)
ENGLISH: blue stem, bush palmetto, dwarf palmetto, latanier
USES/NOTES: Typically subterranean stem and interesting leaf makes this palm an attractive addition to landscapes for its tropical look. Pith reportedly is edible. Inflorescence is generally longer than the leaves.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern North Carolina to southeastern Oklahoma, eastern Texas, and Florida
REFERENCES: Facciola 1990, Godfrey 1988, Henderson et al. 1995, Kermath (field notes), Sturtevant 1972

Sabal palmetto (Walt.) Lodd. ex Schult. & Schult. f. [syn. S. bahamensis (Becc.) L.H. Bailey]
FAMILY: Arecaceae or Palmae (palm)
ENGLISH: cabbage palm, cabbage palmetto, palmetto, palmiste, sabal palm, swamp cabbage
SPANISH: guana cana, palma cana, palmicho
PORTUGUESE: juçara, palmitiqueira, palmito, palmito-do-campo
USES/NOTES: The fruit pulp and heart of Florida’s state tree are edible.
NATIVE RANGE: North Carolina coast, south through the Florida peninsula, and portions of the Bahamas and Cuba, occasionally cultivated outside its natural range
REFERENCES: Facciola 1990, Henderson et al. 1995, Kermath (field notes), Mabberley 1987, Martin et al. 1987, Nelson 1994, OAS 1973, Omawale 1973

Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees [syn. S. officinale Nees & Eberm., S. variifolium Kuntze]
FAMILY: Lauraceae (laurel)
ENGLISH: augue tree, sassafras
SPANISH: sasafrás
PORTUGUESE: canela-sassafrás, sassafrás
USES/NOTES: Small to medium sized, generally attractive tree is under-utilized in urban landscaping. Bark and root extract has been used as a flavoring agent, especially in root beer, to scent soaps, perfumes, and ointments, and is antiseptic and a diaphoretic. Root and root bark are made into sassafras tea. Leaf is the source of filé powder used to flavor and thicken the Cajun dish gumbo filé of Louisiana. Caution is advised, however, as S. albidum contains a chemical that has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. Sassafras was among the first spices taken to Europe from North America.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern North America
REFERENCES: Carneiro Martins 1989, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Lakela and Wunderlin 1980, Nelson 1994, Peterson 1977, Uphof 1968, Weatherford 1988

Serenoa repens (Bartr.) Small [syn. Sabal serrulata (F. Michx.) Nutt. ex Schultes & Schultes f.]
FAMILY: Arecaceae or Palmae (palm)
ENGLISH: palmetto, saw palm, saw palmetto
USES/NOTES: Fruit pulp, though often unpleasant tasting, was a food source for Amerindians and early pioneers, and sweet hearts have been eaten as a vegetable. Because of the plant's cespitose nature, hearts can be harvested without killing the plant as long as one stem remains intact. Fruits now are harvested in large quantities from the wild, then processed into powder for sale in health food stores as a natural prostate medicine, especially in Europe. Permixon extracted from the fruit is used to treat swollen prostates. Low-growing green or bluish palms, often with subterranean stems, are used in urban landscaping with increasing frequency.
NATIVE RANGE: United States southeastern coastal plain from eastern Louisiana through Florida and southern Georgia through the Carolina coasts, possibly to southeastern Virginia
REFERENCES: Bennett 1997, Di Silverio et al. 1992, Gibbons and Tucker 1979, Henderson et al. 1995, Kermath (field notes), Mabberley 1987, Morton 1977, Nelson 1994, Tabora et al. 1993, Uphof 1968

Smilax rotundifolia L.
FAMILY: Smilacaceae (smilax)
ENGLISH: bull brier, cat brier, common greenbrier, horse-brier
SPANISH: sarsa
USES/NOTES: Roots are ground into a meal added to soups or baked goods, made into jelly, or fermented into a beverage. Berries are eaten raw or cooked and young shoots are eaten as a vegetable raw, cooked like asparagus (Asparagus officinalis), or pickled.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern United States to northeastern Mexico
REFERENCES: Bailey Hortorium 1976, Correll and Johnston 1970, Facciola 1990, Kermath (field notes), Peterson 1977, Tomikel 1986, Uphof 1968

Stachys floridana Shuttlew. ex Benth.
FAMILY: Labiatae or Lamiaceae (mint)
ENGLISH: betony, Florida betony, hedge nettle
USES/NOTES: Small, crisp, white tubers are eaten raw or cooked.
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern United States to Texas
REFERENCES: Black and Ruppert 1995, Correll and Johnston 1970, Kermath (field notes), Taylor 1998

Tillandsia recurvata (L.) L.
FAMILY: Bromeliaceae (pineapple)
ENGLISH: ball moss, bunch moss
USES/NOTES: Young shoots and inflorescences of this common epiphyte are edible. Often associated with Spanish moss or Florida moss (T. usneoides L.).
NATIVE RANGE: Southeastern United States to northern Argentina
REFERENCES: Bailey Hortorium 1976, Bennett 1995, Bennett (in press), Smith and Downs 1977

Tradescantia virginiana L.
FAMILY: Commelinaceae (spiderwort)
ENGLISH: spiderwort
USES/NOTES: Though not used typically as a landscape plant, an attractive display of generally purple though occasionally white flowers can be achieved by planting masses of T. virginiana. Young stems and leaves are eaten raw in salads or cooked as potherbs. Flowers can be eaten candied.
NATIVE RANGE: Eastern United States
REFERENCES: Facciola 1990, Kermath (field notes), Kindscher 1987, Peterson 1977, Tomikel 1986, Uphof 1968

Viola sororia Willd. [syn. V. papilionacea Pursh]
FAMILY: Violaceae (violet)
ENGLISH: blue violet, sisterly violet, woolly blue violet
USES/NOTES: Leaves, rich in vitamins A and C, are eaten like spinach, added to salads when still young, or used for tea, and flowers are edible preserved, in cooked dishes, or candied.
NATURAL RANGE: Eastern and central United States from the Dakotas and Maine to Oklahoma and Florida
REFERENCES: Bailey Hortorium 1976, Crowhurst 1972, Facciola 1990, Gibbons 1966, Harrington 1967, Kartesz 1994, Kindscher 1987, Peterson 1977, Taylor 1998, Uphof 1968

Yucca aloifolia L.
FAMILY: Agavaceae (agave)
ENGLISH: Spanish bayonet, Spanish dagger, yucca
SPANISH: bayoneta, cogollo de itabo, cogollo de izote, espinero, espino, flor de itabo, itabo, izote, jérico, palmita, palmito, tuk
PORTUGUESE: iúca
USES/NOTES: Flowers, leaf bases (cogollo de izote in Central America), seeds, fruits, and roots are edible, the latter two of poor food value however. Its firm, lance-shaped, spine tipped leaves makes it an effective living fence, though dangerous. Planted occasionally as a landscape specimen, Y. aloifolia imparts an interesting tropical effect.
NATIVE RANGE: Coastal zones of the Caribbean and the southeastern United States from the Carolinas to Louisiana, though Taylor suggests a Caribbean/Mexican origin
REFERENCES: Bourke et al. 1987, Duke 1986, Facciola 1990, Godfrey 1988, Horst 1992a, Kermath (field notes), Niembro-Rocas 1992, OAS 1973, Ruberté 1984, Taylor 1998, Usher 1974, Zeven and Zhukovsky 1975

Zamia integrifolia Willd. [syn. Z. erosa Cook & Collins, Z. floridana A. DC., Z. lucayana Britton, Z. media Jacq., Z. silvicola Small, Z. tenuis Willd., Z. umbrosa Small; previously identified as Z. pumila L.]
FAMILY: Zamiaceae (zamia) or Cycadaceae (cycad)
ENGLISH: comfortroot, compties, contis, coontie, coontie fern, Florida arrowroot, Florida coontie, konti, Seminole bread
SPANISH: acesiva, guáyara, guáyiga, marunguey, yuquilla de ratón
PORTUGUESE: palmeirinha
USES/NOTES: Dense, shrubby, drought-tolerant Z. integrifolia is used increasingly, along with several exotic Zamia spp., as an urban landscape plant in Florida for its lush, tropical look. A glimpse of the colorful orange to red seeds occurs in late summer through fall as the large female cones open to allow the seeds out. Cultivated also for the leaves, used like ferns for cut flower arrangements. Roots were an important starch source (Florida arrowroot), made into bread and sofkee stew, for Amerindians throughout the plant's range and by early European settlers in Florida. Roots must be cooked to remove the toxic cycasin before being eaten. Unfortunately, the plant is now endangered in the wild due to past harvests for starch, more recent habitat loss, and the unscrupulous removal of wild specimens for urban planting. Also a food source for the rare atala butterfly (Eumaeus atala). The pulp that covers the seeds contains germination inhibitors. Thus when sowing seeds, germination can be speeded up by removing the pulp. Also, germination rates can be improved by placing the seeds in a bucket of water and removing those that float, as they are less likely to be viable than those that sink. Much taxonomic confusion exists in the literature on the Florida coontie. Although it has been listed recently as Z. pumila, Stevenson et al. call for the use of Z. integrifolia.
NATIVE RANGE: Southern coastal Georgia and Florida, portions of the Bahamas, western Cuba, the Cayman Islands, and south-central Puerto Rico (Z. pumila from central Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and southern Puerto Rico)
REFERENCES: Bennett 1997, Dehgan 1983, Eckenwalder 1980, Facciola 1990, FNAEC 1993, Godfrey 1988, Kermath (field notes), Morton 1977, OAS 1973, Rodríguez Martínez 1987, Stevenson 1987a, Stevenson 1987b, Stevenson et al. 1990, Uphof 1968, Ward n.d., Wunderlin 1998