Many ecological researchers travel long distances to study wilderness areas in exotic, foreign places while their own urban areas remain unnoticed and often misunderstood. Cities provide habitats for a variety of living things, and such urban habitats differ from those found in areas of less human intensive land use. In terms of climate, cities tend to be less windy, warmer, and have higher rainfall than nearby rural areas. This affects the growth and habit of plant and animal communities in cities. Pollution and fragmentation also influence urban wildlife. Additionally, species must adapt to the artificial conditions which inundate cities. For example, in urban areas "the sheer faces of buildings and quarries act as cliffs for nesting and roosting birds; street lamps, telegraph poles and pylons provide perching sites; cellars and roof spaces substitute as caves for bats" (Wheater 1999). 

Unfortunately, researchers often neglect to study urban habitats. Michael Hough (1995) illustrates that "little attention has been paid to understanding the natural processes that have contributed to the physical form of the city and which in turn have been altered by it." Instead, "recreation and amenity are seen as the exclusive function of urban spaces" (Hough 1995).

It is important to study the ecology of cities for several reasons. People are more familiar with and more often in contact with the landforms, vegetation, and animals of a city than with those of a wilderness area. Yet, in a world of increasing concern for environmental degradation, people tend to overlook the conditions of the very environment they live in -- the city. Thus, it is necessary to "rediscover, through insights that the natural sciences provide, the nature of the familiar places we live in." (Hough 1995). The fast pace of urbanization has resulted in seventy percent of the U.S. population living in urban areas. Thus, the ecology of cities affects the majority of Americans and is a significant aspect of our culture. Lastly, the complexity of separating and understanding natural processes from the social and historical systems that we create and live with makes cities important places to study human-environment interactions and examine the robustness of ecological theory.

The subject matter of a "natural" history is the history of nature -- of the geology, vegetation, ecology, land use, and human impacts of an area. The purpose of this project is to investigate the “natural” history of the University of South Carolina A. C. Moore Garden, which occupies roughly one city block located at the corner of Blossom and Pickens Streets in downtown Columbia, South Carolina. This urban ecosystem, owned and managed by the University of South Carolina, is largely unknown to the University community and the inhabitants of the surrounding city. Thus, this research should serve as an educational resource for the University, the residents of Columbia, and any other interested party, by helping to explain how natural processes and human interventions have interacted over time to shape this landmark.

The research is organized into three sections: pre-urbanization, European settlement and urbanization, and present conditions. Each section examines natural and human processes that interacted to create the environment currently known as the A. C. Moore Garden. Thus, the research provides a picture of the development of the Garden over time.

Chapter 2 offers an overview of the environmental conditions of Columbia, South Carolina prior to urbanization. It begins with information on the geology and significant landforms regions of South Carolina. Then, since the city of Columbia is located in the Sandhills, general information on the dominant plant communities found in that region is discussed. The investigation of pre-urbanization conditions concludes with a brief overview of the native people that inhabited the South Carolina area, focusing on how they used the land and its natural resources.

Chapter 3 traces the ownership and land use history of the area on which the A. C. Moore Garden is located. This information is central to the analysis of how human intervention has affected the land over time. The interaction of natural processes and people from the beginning of urbanization to the Garden’s present state, as a certified National Wildlife Federation Backyard Habitat owned by the University of South Carolina, is discussed.

This investigation includes information from a variety of sources. A chain of title search performed at the Richland County Judicial Center produced a list of previous owners of the land of the Garden. Historic descriptions and pictures of the Garden were obtained from the University of South Carolina Archives at the South Caroliniana Library. Non-extant structures on the Garden grounds were discovered using the Sanborn Maps of Columbia, and a search of the Columbia City Directories produced a list of people who lived in these residences.

The present condition of the human-modified environment in the Garden is considered in Chapter 4. An analysis was organized by assessing three functions of the Garden: urban park, educational resource, and wildlife habitat. A discussion of management of the Garden and ways it is used by different people reveals whether it presently serves its intended purpose as an urban park. The quality and scope of the Garden as an educational resource is also addressed. Lastly, the Garden's role as a wildlife habitat is analyzed by assessing the availability of four habitat criteria: food, shelter, nesting, and water. 

The investigation of the Garden's present condition was carried out largely by direct observation. Interviews and observations of people in the Garden were made on several different occasions. Although not a complete survey, a sample of plants found in the Garden in the spring of 2000 was collected and deposited in the University of South Carolina A. C. Moore Herbarium. These plants served as a basis for determining the type of food, shelter, and nesting available in the Garden. A description of birds, mammals, and fish commonly seen in the Garden is also included in this chapter.

Chapter 5 includes a summary of the research findings, with an overview of the human impact on the area of the A. C. Moore Garden. This provides a picture of how different the land would look if it had been left undeveloped. Additionally, a list of further research questions pertaining to the Garden is given. It is my hope that students will use these questions as a starting point to develop a greater understanding of the A. C. Moore Garden and of the urban ecological history of Columbia, South Carolina. Based on information from this research project, management recommendations for the Garden are also provided in Chapter 5.

2.1  INTRODUCTION

Citing evidence such as lush growth, seemingly limitless forests, an abundance of wild game, fish, and shellfish, and the healthy climate, early French and English explorers of what is today South Carolina described the state as a "semitropical paradise, an Eden" (Edgar 1998). Although difficulties arise in learning the details of South Carolina before North America was colonized, accounts from sixteenth century explorers, observations made over the centuries, and contemporary scientific studies allow us to create an image of the past (Edgar, 1998). This image marks the starting point for an understanding of how the ecosystems of South Carolina have changed over time. 

South Carolina's diminutive size may tempt one to simplify its natural history; however, this 31,113 square mile (80,583 square kilometer) state boasts a rich story of geology, flora, and native people. Numerous distinctive environments occupy this triangular state, which literally stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Appalachian Mountains. The Savannah River separates South Carolina from its southern neighbor, Georgia, and a "collection of interpretations, compromises, and errors" (Kovacik and Winberry 1989) resulted in the step-like nature of South Carolina's northern boundary.

The A. C. Moore Garden occupies an even smaller area of South Carolina's centrally located capitol city, Columbia. Nestled in the Sandhills region of South Carolina, Columbia marks the confluence of the Broad and Saluda Rivers, which then form the Congaree River. The A. C. Moore Garden sits on a steep southern facing slope near the center of the city. Blossom Street separates the Garden from the Rocky Branch Creek, which flows past on its way to the Congaree River.

2.2  FIVE LANDFORM REGIONS 

The geologic history of the A. C. Moore Garden begins with a story of colliding continents and receding oceans -- a story of the formation of the five landform regions of South Carolina. These regions are known as the Blue Ridge, Piedmont, Sandhills, Coastal Plain, and Coastal Zone. South Carolinians use the term "Up State" to refer to the northwestern third of the state, which includes the Blue Ridge and the Piedmont. The "Midlands" identifies the centrally located Sandhills region and specifically the city of Columbia. Lastly, if someone comes from the "Low Country," they are speaking collectively of the Coastal Plain and the Coastal Zone. 

The Piedmont rests between the Blue Ridge and the Sandhills. Six hundred million years ago, in the late Precambrian, the Piedmont existed as an island off the coast of the proto-North American continent. About 470 million years ago, during the Taconic orogeny, this island collided with North America, and the resulting impact began the formation of the Appalachian Mountains. Orogenies (from the Greek oros, meaning mountain) are the events in which mountains are formed. Today, elevations in the Piedmont range from 300 feet (91 meters) to 1200 feet (366 meters) and the topography varies from gently rolling in the southeast to very hilly in the northwest. 

Two additional geologic episodes occurred which contributed to the formation of the Appalachian Mountains as we know them today. Three hundred and fifty to four hundred million years ago, during the continental shifting that eventually formed Pangea, Europe and North America collided. This collision caused the Acadian orogeny, which thrust rocks northward and westward from Newfoundland to Pennsylvania, but presumably had little effect on the southern Appalachians. However, during the late Pennsyvanian, around 290 million years ago, the collective landmass of Europe and North America collided with Africa, producing the Alleghanian, or Appalachian orogeny. Massive folding, faulting, and uplifting associated with this event produced the mountains we today call the Appalachians. 

Part of the Appalachian Mountain system, the Blue Ridge occupies 2 percent of the state’s surface area. It contains elevations ranging from 1,400 feet to over 3,500 feet (427 to 1,067 miles) and consists of predominantly crystalline schists and gneisses. These metamorphic rocks, created by tremendous heat and pressure, resist erosion, thus accounting for the steep slopes and narrow stream valleys of the area's rugged topography. 

The Blue Ridge appears lower, more rounded, and more worn-down than the impressive Rockies, Sierra Nevadas, and Cascades, which were uplifted only one million years ago. This characteristic roundedness results from forces of erosion, which have been working for a much longer time on the Blue Ridge than on the mountains in Alaska and western North America. 

The Sandhills, located in portions of Aiken, Lexington, Richland, Kershaw, Sumter, and Chesterfield counties, consist of a hilly, discontinuous northeast-southwest trending belt traversing the center of the state. One hundred sixty-one kilometers (100 miles) from the coast, the Sandhills actually mark an ancient shoreline. About fifty-five million years ago, the sea covered much of eastern and southern South Carolina and its shoreline corresponded to the present-day Sandhills. During this period of submersion, marine sediments were laid down beneath the ocean to form the flat strata of sedimentary rocks that today are known as the Coastal Plain. When the earth's poles cooled about forty million years ago, a new ice cap formed in Antarctica, causing the seas to drop worldwide. This drop in sea level caused North America's Atlantic shoreline to retreat, exposing the Coastal Plain and leaving the sand dunes behind.

The Sandhills roughly overlap the Fall Line, or as some prefer, the Fall Zone, which runs northeast to southwest and separates the Piedmont from the Coastal Plain. In this zone, the erosion-resistant crystalline rocks of the Piedmont meet the more easily eroded sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain, and differential erosion causes characteristic rock outcrops, shoals, and rapids to arise in the state's rivers. Columbia's Broad and Saluda Rivers display fine examples of these features.

The Coastal Zone extends approximately ten miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean and has three distinct sub-regions. The Grand Strand is a sixty-mile stretch of sand from the North Carolina boarder to Winyah Bay. A twenty-mile complex of marshes and streams known as the Santee Delta is located south of the Grand Strand. Lastly, the sea islands begin south of the Santee Delta and extend one hundred miles to the Savannah River.

Thus, we see that many different geologic and climatic processes interacted over millions of years to create the land of South Carolina as we know it today. Continents, such as Europe and Africa, that presently seem very distant, were actually closely involved in the creation of the state's mountains, and ice cap formation in Antarctica millions of years ago affected the contemporary location of South Carolina's shoreline. In actuality, present geographic boundaries, such as the immense oceans, disguise the intimate relationships between all regions of the world. 

2.3  NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE SANDHILLS

The unique geologic history of the Sandhills results in an equally distinctive vegetation. Although the area annually receives about 114 cm (45 inches) of rain, the extreme permeability of the sandy soils creates an arid environment. Thus, much of the flora in this region is xerophytic, meaning it is adapted to dry conditions. However, this xeric type of environment is not the rule in the Sandhills. The depth of the water table plays an extremely important role in determining habitats and successional patterns, and wet areas often arise where conditions allow. The sterility of the soil also varies considerably in the Sandhills since rapidly percolating water can leach soil of its nutrients. Fire also commonly affects the presence of certain vegetation communities in this region. 

The following is a discussion of some of the most characteristic and identifiable plant communities found in South Carolina's Sandhills region. However, one must keep in mind that natural communities do not exist in nature as discrete units, but as continua. Categorizing plant communities helps explain what is found in nature, but not all elements of the environment fall clearly into these categories. Also, although vegetation is just one part of an ecosystem, we focus our attention on it because vegetation, along with its habitat, is the stationary framework through and in which the remainder of the ecosystem moves (Gaddy 1976). 

The most xeric natural vegetation system found in the Sandhills is the turkey oak barren. This system, which is maintained by fire, forms only in the driest parts of the Sandhills, where the sand is deep and well drained. According to Berry (1980), someone walking through this system "would find an open canopy of tall longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) overtopping numerous turkey oaks (Quercus laevis), as well as a few Margaret's oaks or scrubby post oaks (Q. margaretta), bluejack oaks (Q. incana), blackgums (Nyssa sylvatica), and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)." 

Shrubby species in this system might include sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), deerberry (V. stamineum), rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides), St. Andrews cross (Hypericum hypericoides), sand myrtle (Leiophyllum buxifolium) and a legume known as bristly locust (Robinia hispida). The more scarce herbaceous plants may include wire plant (Stipulicida setacea), tread softly (Cnidoscolus stimulosus), sticky foxglove (Aureolaria pectinata), gerardia (Agalinis setacea), Carolina ipecac (Euphorbia ipecacuanhea), wiregrass (Aristida spp.), and jointweed (Polygonella polygama). Visitors to a turkey oak barren may also see the prickly pear cactus (Opuntia compressa).

Many of the plants in this system have the ability to withstand extreme heat, recurrent droughts, and periodic fires, which although controlled now, periodically swept through the region prior to colonization. For example, the turkey oak (Quercus laevis) is a tortifoliate, meaning it can reorient its leaves. Young plants especially display this behavior. Turning their leaves in a vertical direction enables the plants to reduce the amount of direct sunlight that hits the leaves and also to reduce the impact of light and heat reflected from the white, sandy soil during periods of intense sunlight. Other plants have adapted to the heat by obtaining a succulent habit, such as the prickly pear cactus, or by having plicate, or folded, leaves which reduce transpiration. Furthermore, many Sandhill plants have narrower leaves than closely related non-Sandhill species (Berry 1980), which also reduces water loss due to transpiration. The longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), which dominates turkey oak barrens, is the best fire-adapted pine in South Carolina. Although it once dominated the Sandhills, now that we largely control natural fires, it shares importance with the scrubby oaks, such as turkey oak (Quercus laevis).

Another type of vegetation system, the scrub oak barren, occurs where moisture conditions are slightly more favorable, where the subsoil consists of clay (Wells and Shunk 1931), or on Sandhills with a relatively high amount of organic matter (Nelson, 1986). Here, longleaf pine (P. palustris) still dominates the canopy, but turkey oak (Quercus laevis) is no longer the prevalent hardwood. Instead, other scrub oaks, such as blackjack (Q. marilandica), bluejack (Q. incana), post (Q. stellata), and Margaret's oak (Q. margaretta) increase in importance. Fire is probably not as frequent here as in the turkey oak barren (Nelson 1986) and the herbaceous stratum is more pronounced. Most herbaceous species found in turkey oak barrens are also found in scrub oak barrens.

In areas where conditions provide even more moderate amounts of moisture, pine-mixed hardwood forests arise. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) usually replaces longleaf pine (P. palustris) as the most important gymnosperm in this community.  The dominant oaks are post oak (Quercus stellata), southern red oak (Q. falcata), and scrubby post oak or Margaret's oak (Q. margaretta). Other oaks, such as black oak (Q. velutina), water oak (Q. nigra), and bluejack oak (Q. incana) also increase in importance. The most common hickories present, according to Berry (1980), include pignut (Carya glabra) and mockernut (C. tomentosa). The understory is frequently made up of flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), sassafrass (Sassafras albidum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). There is only a small potential for fire in this community, and usually there is no single species dominating the canopy (Nelson 1986). 

Bay forests are heavily forested wet areas dominated by bay species such as loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and red bay (Persea borbonia). Other commonly occurring woody species include pond pine (Pinus serotina), Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia). Herbs are sparse and sphagnum moss may be abundant (Nelson 1986).

A community similar to the bay forest is the Atlantic white cedar swamp. This is a periodically or permanently wet swampy area dominated by Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). Nelson (1986) lists other common species as sweet bay (magnolia virginiana), red maple (Acer Rubrum), pond pine (Pinus serotina), red bay (Persea borbonia), myrtle (Myrica cerifera and M. heterophylla), ti-ti (Cyrilla racemiflora), and fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida). It is thought that without fire, Atlantic white cedar swamps succeed to bay forests.

Nelson (1986) describes three other vegetation communities that are characteristic of the Sandhills: swale pocosins, streamhead pocosins, and seepage pocosins. These are all shrub-dominated systems associated with moist conditions. Swale pocosins occur in the depressions between or paralleling Sandhill ridges. They hold water indefinitely due to their poor drainage and usually have no distinct inlet or outlet. Streamhead pocosins occur at the headwaters and along the margins of Sandhill streams. Seepage pocosins are located along Sandhill slopes in areas remaining saturated throughout the year due to a rise in the hard clay lens relative to the soil surface. Frequent fires exclude woody species from occupying seepage pocosins.

As a region of transition between the Piedmont and the Coastal Plain, the Sandhills support a wide array of birds and animals. Before the time of increasing settlement and urbanization of South Carolina, deer, opossum, raccoon, and turkey were probably abundant. Bears were also present. Herring and sturgeon, among many other fish, stocked the rivers of the region. Also, passenger pigeons, which were an important source of food for the Catawba Indians (Hudson 1970), may have roosted in the pine trees of the Sandhills.

2.4 NATIVE AMERICANS

Thus far, we have addressed the geologic history of South Carolina, which produced various landform regions, and we have investigated the natural vegetation systems of the Sandhills, which exist in association with its unique landforms. Both of these factors help create a vision of South Carolina prior to urbanization. However, another factor remains to be addressed. The human impact on the landscape of this state did not begin with urbanization, colonization, or even exploration. Although 1670 marked the establishment of the first permanent European settlement in South Carolina, native North Americans had occupied the area probably fifteen hundred years earlier (Kovacik and Winberry 1989).  Unfortunately, very few descendents of these people remain today, and much work still needs to be done to learn about their culture. Thus, the following serves as a short overview of the indigenous people of South Carolina, focussing on their use of the land and its resources.

The first people in North America crossed the Bering Strait land bridge from Siberia to Alaska about forty thousand years ago, during the Pleistocene Epoch, also known as the Ice Age. During this period, which lasted about two million years, glaciers advanced and retreated across North America at least four times. Each time the ice advanced, temperatures fell, and "in some places precipitation increased, so that areas which had been deserts became covered with swamps and lush meadows of grass" (Hudson 1976). Also, sea levels dropped due to the large quantity of water trapped in the glaciers, thus exposing the Bering Straight. Then, when the glaciers retreated, they released water, which inundated the Bering Straight and elevated temperatures. These changes in turn caused swamps to revert back to deserts and dry plains.

The people who crossed the Bering Straight slowly migrated across North America.  The first humans entered South Carolina sometime around 13,000 BC, a period known as the Pre-Projectile Point Horizon. Palynological, or fossil pollen, analysis indicates that "grasslands and pine forests with some spruce and fir covered both the Coastal Plain and Piedmont during this time (Kovacik and Winberry 1989). Very little is known about the people of the Pre-Projectile Point Horizon. However, their remaining "scatterings of crudely made bifacial tools, including scrapers and choppers" (Kovacik and Winberry 1989) which were not hafted to a handle or shaft, suggest that these Carolinians survived by hunting the mastodon, mammoth, and great bison which roamed the area at that time. 

The Paleo-Indian way of life appeared in South Carolina perhaps around 11,000 BC, and is defined by the presence of lance-shaped projectile points, which were hafted onto spears to hunt large herds of animals. The people of the Paleo-Indian period, who often established their camps on ridges or slopes of hills overlooking watering spots, probably used ambush as their principle means of attack (Hudson 1976). They may also have used fire to trap animals in low-lying marshy areas (Kovacik and Winberry 1989). Little is known of the Paleo-Indian way of life, especially in the Southeast where low erosion and dense vegetation impede archeological discoveries. However, it is almost certain that these people had sources of food other than large animals such as the mastodon, mammoth, and great bison. Possibly, the Paleo-Indians relied on small game and vegetable foods rather heavily (Hudson 1976). 

More is known about the Archaic Horizon, which began around 8000 BC. This change in life-style coincided with the end of the Pleistocene glaciation, which stimulated changes in South Carolina's climate and flora to more closely resemble the present. The large, cold-adapted animals such as the mammoth became extinct, causing hunting traditions to adapt to smaller game, such as deer, turkey, and squirrel. Northern hardwood trees, such as birch, hemlock, beech, and elm established themselves, followed by oak, hickory, and sweet gums. During the Archaic Horizon, the gathering of hickory and acorn nuts and various berries supplemented a diet of wild game for the native people. 

The Archaic people also became increasingly sedentary, and agriculture arose during this period. The Late Archaic people made use of a few domesticated plants native to the Southeast, which are referred to as the "Eastern Agricultural Complex." In the Carolinas they probably included sunflower (Helianthus), sumpweed (Iva), and a large-seeded pigweed (Chenopodium). 

The Woodland Horizon arose about 1000 BC and brought with it an increasing reliance on agriculture. The early stages of the Woodland agricultural complex included crops such as the bottle gourd (Lagenaria) and squash (Cucurbita). By 200 BC, corn (Zea mays) had spread to South Carolina from Mexico and joined the number of other domesticated plants. Increases in agriculture supported a larger population and the development of more sedentary villages for the Woodlands people, for it is during this period that we see clear evidence of relatively permanent houses. Archeologists have also compiled a long list of plant foods gathered by Woodland people, which include hickory nuts, walnuts, butternuts, acorns, hazelnuts, beechnuts, chestnuts, chinquapins, grapes, persimmons, raspberries, blackberries, strawberries, blueberries, honey locust pods, and paw-paws (Hudson 1976).

About AD 1150, the Mississippians entered South Carolina from what is now Georgia and built fortified settlements in river valleys along the Fall Zone. The Woodlands people did not welcome these intruders, who defended their settlements with encircling palisades. The Mississippians received a much larger percentage of their food supply from domesticated plants than did the people of the Archaic or Woodland Horizons. They situated their villages and ceremonial centers on bluffs overlooking floodplains of major rivers and planted the rich bottomlands with corn, beans, squash, and other crops. Large earthen temple mounds served as the heart of their villages.

Contact with European explorers and settlers in the sixteenth century proved fatal for the native people of South Carolina. During this period, the Mississippian tradition disappeared, probably as a result of death from diseases introduced by the early Spanish explorers. In 1540, Hernan de Soto entered the Chiefdom of Cofitachequi and found several villages "almost depopulated by an epidemic that had ravaged the area two years previously. Whatever had killed the native population had likely been contracted by its interacting with the ill-fated Spanish colony of San Miguel de Gualdape" (Edgar 1993). In 1600, "there were perhaps 15,000 Indians in South Carolina, but their number had been halved by 1715" (Kovacik and Winberry 1989).

Our understanding of the Native American way of life in the eighteenth century is largely based on accounts from English travelers. Forests surrounding villages contained dispersed plots of land cleared for cultivation. Corn, beans, and squash were the predominant crops, with corn being the single most important crop for the Carolina Indians. To prepare fields for cultivation, fire was used to girdle trees, which were then allowed to die. In April, the brush was cut and burned. Then, the Indians mounded soil in small hills, in which they planted the seeds of corn and beans. Squash, pumpkins, gourds, sunflowers, a variety of root crops, and other domesticated plants were scattered throughout the plot. The tribes periodically abandoned these plots and allowed them to return to natural vegetation.

The Native American's use of fire affected the land and its vegetation in many ways. In addition to being used in the first stages of clearing forests, fires were set to drive game out of hiding and towards a group of awaiting hunters. Near villages, fire was used to burn brush that provided habitat for fleas and ticks and could also provide hiding places for enemies. In addition, the Indians set fires in forests to encourage secondary growth development that provided cover and food for deer and fowl. Also, burning stubble and debris in planted fields fertilized the soil.

In addition to game and crops, wild plants provided another important source of food. In the fall, chestnuts, hickory nuts, and acorns were eaten raw or ground and added to venison broth. The roots of plants such as greenbrier (Smilax), arrowhead (Sagittaria), and Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus) were collected and preserved, as were the fruits of plants such as persimmon (Diospyros), paw-paw (Asimina), crab-apples (Malus), blackberries (Rubus), and blueberries (Vaccinium). Cabbage palmetto (Sabel palmetto) and Indian Hemp (Apocynum cannabinum) provided food and fiber (Kovacik and Winberry 1989). On occasion, the Cherokee "used walnut bark to poison small areas of streams or ponds; the poison temporarily stunned the fish for easy gathering (Edgar 1990).

Plagues due to smallpox and other diseases worsened among the Native American population as English colonists arrived in Charles Town, South Carolina. War and slavery, among other problems, also contributed to the breakdown of their culture. In 1775 only four hundred Native Americans were left in South Carolina, many of them having retreated to the Catawba Nation in the northern part of the colony.

2.5 SUMMARY

 By examining the history of South Carolina's geology, vegetation, and native people, we see a web of interconnections. South Carolina's five landform regions were created by the interactions of many continents throughout a large time frame. Plant communities arose and adapted to the unique conditions of the Sandhills, and when Native Americans arrived in this area, they too exploited its unique offerings. However, they were not isolated, and influences from far away affected their lives in the form of domesticated crops and deadly diseases. So, South Carolina as it stood prior to urbanization was a region that had seen various stages of topography, a wide range of climates, flora and fauna, and a number of native peoples, each characteristically distinct.  This legacy of human influence and change will continue at an accelerated pace during the period of urbanization in South Carolina. 

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The nineteenth and twentieth centuries were a time of transition for Columbia. Before establishment of the city along the banks of the Congaree River, the vegetation and ecological relationships in the area were largely unaffected by humans. As settlers moved to the growing city, they altered the land and its resources in order to suit their needs. Today, the greater metropolitan area of Columbia is home to 450,000 people and occupies approximately 350 square miles. Humans have largely affected the natural setting upon which they built the city. 

Located in the original two square miles of the Columbia, the A. C. Moore Garden occupies a special place in the continuum of landscapes from rural to urban. It is not a fully transformed, "horticultural desert" (Hough, 1995), but neither has it escaped human intervention. Understanding the present state of the Garden demands knowledge of how this intervention has affected it over time. The history of the development of Columbia and of the ownership and land use of the area that the Garden occupies provides much of this information.

3.2 THE SETTLEMENT OF COLUMBIA

In 1786, the General Assembly of South Carolina began proceedings to move the capital from Charleston to a more central location. On March 22, they approved an act appointing commissioners to purchase two square miles of land near Friday's Ferry on the Congaree River, on the plain and hill where James and Thomas Taylor lived and operated a plantation (click here to  see figure 1). This land was purchased by the commissioners in April 1786 and divided into a grid of ten streets to the mile, making a total of 400 blocks. The first sale of lots began in Charleston in September 1786 (Hennig, 1936). Legislators from Charleston first arrived in Columbia in 1790 and were disappointed in the new seat of government, which seemed "little more than a pine barren wilderness" (Moore, 1993).

3.3 HISTORIC OWNERSHIP OF THE GARDEN

Hennig (1936) reports that by the Appropriation Act of 1816, the trustees of the Columbia Academy received a large portion of land, mostly previously unsold lots, in the southeastern corner of Columbia. These lost included the land of the present-day A. C. Moore Garden (click here to see figure 2). The letters "CA" in the bottom right-hand corner of this map designate land owned by the Columbia Academy. Established in 1795, the Columbia Academy was a private preparatory school for young men, who were taught reading, writing, arithmetic, English grammar, and geography. It is not clear if the school used the area of the A. C. Moore Garden. Whatever purpose it did serve, it is unlikely that it required major alterations. Thus, the original vegetation probably still dominated the landscape during the years owned by the Columbia Academy. 

James Gregg later acquired about 56 acres of the land owned by the Columbia Academy. The date of his acquisition is unknown since his original title was destroyed, but a map of Columbia around 1850 (click herer to see figure 3) shows Gregg as the owner of the land at that time. Gregg's property is one of the large undeveloped tracts on the right-hand side of the map. Under his ownership, the land, which includes but is not limited to the site of the A. C. Moore Garden, was used for farming purposes (Hennig, 1936). At his death, the land was passed to his daughters Julia B. Gregg and Cornelia M. Gregg. 

In 1869, Gregg's daughters sold this land, "56 acres more or less," to Samuel Irwin (Deed Book E, p. 274). The tract then became known as the Irwin Farm. Hennig (1936) notes that this land and other tracts in the southeastern portion of Columbia were farmed until the 1880s, when owners began laying out streets and selling lots more frequently. No records have been found describing the Irwin Farm, and it is unknown whether any of the land of the A. C. Moore Garden was planted. It is unlikely that the sloped land of the Garden was profitable farmland and thus, it probably was not cleared for agriculture. Also, the lower area of the Garden was probably boggy at that time period, which would have prevented it from being farmed. On the other hand, owners of the land could have graded the boggy area in order to make it useful farmland.

Samuel Irwin sold his land to Berry B. McCreery, who, on Feb. 9, 1895, sold it to the McCreery Land and Investment Company (Deed Book Z, p. 127). A Columbia city map from 1908 shows this tract (click here to see figure 4). Located in the center of the map, this property is exactly the same tract owned by James Gregg around 1850, except for one difference. The land owned by the McCreery Land and Investment Company does not include the southeastern corner of the previous tract. This is the section lying east of the Southern Railroad, and we do not know exactly when this portion of the land was sold. Also, rather than being bordered by other farm land, as it was in 1850, the land in 1908 was roughly bordered by Bull Street to the west, Wheat Street to the south, Green Street to the north, and Gregg Street to the east. It represented an island of roadless land in the middle of the rapidly growing city. No information has been found on how this tract, located adjacent to the University of South Carolina, was used by McCreery or the McCreery Land and Investment Company.

Fifteen years later, on Oct. 29, 1910, the McCreery Land and Investment Company sold their fifty acre tract to George R. Rembert for $50,000 (Deed Book AU, p. 195). The Rembert Development Company surveyed the land, dissected it with roads, and further divided it into lots to be sold (Click here to see figure 5). However, the section of the tract surrounding the Rocky Branch Creek was not dissected and sold, but given to the City to be used as a public park and named Maxcy Gregg Park (Hennig, 1936). Although the northwest corner of the fifty acre tract would eventually become the A. C. Moore Garden, in 1910 this area was not a part of the section to be developed as a park.

The development of Maxcy Gregg Park, located directly southeast from the land of the future A C. Moore Garden, was part of a movement in Columbia begun around the turn of the century to improve the physical surroundings of the city and its suburbs. This movement was fueled by the need to solve urban problems and a national trend known as the "city beautiful" movement inspired by the "White City" created at the Chicago World's Fair of 1893 (Moore, 1993).

As part of this beautification movement, work began on a sewerage system in Columbia in 1901, and a handful of municipal parks, including Maxcy Gregg Park, were established during the period from the 1890s to the 1920s. Despite these efforts at city beautification, the president of Rotary International chided his hosts during his visit to Columbia in 1916 for their "inadequate park system, less than 1 acre per 1,000 residents, compared to 1 acre per hundred in cities of similar size" (Moore, 1993). Twenty-seven years after the development of the Maxcy Gregg Park, University of South Carolina professors proposed the creation of a Botanical Garden and endorsed it as serving a dual purpose: educational opportunity and civic beautification. Perhaps the founding professors of this Botanical Garden, which would later become the A. C. Moore Garden, were influenced by the ideals developed in the City Beautiful Movement and thus recognized the extensive value of green space within cities. 

The Rembert Development Company sold pieces of the fifty acre tract purchased from the McCreery Land and Investment Company to Francis G. Keith on April 17, 1912 and March 10, 1913. (Deed Book BF, pp. 55, 53). This property, which would become the A. C. Moore Garden, included lots 1501, 1511, 1521, 1531, 1541, 1551, 1561, 640, 641, 650, and 651 in the top left-hand corner of the plat surveyed by the Rembert Development Company (Click here to see figure 5). 

3.4 THE KEITH PROPERTY: 1913-1937

The Keith property was bordered on the west by Bull Street, the south by Park Circle, an extension of Blossom Street, on the east by Pickens Street, and on the north by a row of privately owned homes on University Place, an extension of Devine Street. Sanborn Maps of Columbia indicate that there was at least one residence on the land owned by the Keiths. This home was located at 615 Pickens Street, on the eastern edge of the Garden, about halfway up the slope. There is no record of any one by the name of Keith living at this address. So, the Keiths most likely leased the property to others.

The 1919 map of Columbia produced by the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company shows the residence located at 615 Pickens Street (Click here to see figure 6). In this figure, Pickens Street is the vertical street on the right-hand side. The residence at 615 Pickens Street was a stuccoed, two-story wood frame building with a shingled roof. According to Columbia City Directories, people occupied this house from 1914 to 1959. Residents included several professors of the University, the State News Editor of the Columbia Record, and the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity, among others (see Appendix A). Part of the house and an even smaller section of the grounds can be seen in a photograph taken around 1930 of the fraternity members sitting in front of the house (Click here to see figure 7). The remains of two staircases and an old retaining wall are the only structural evidence of this house found in the Garden today. There is an absence of larger trees in the area defined by these two staircases and the retaining wall, which supports it as the location of the house. Growing very near this site is a patch of orchids, which could have been planted by residents of the home for ornamental purposes. It is also possible that residents maintained a vegetable garden, as was frequently done during this time period. However, no evidence of this has been found. 

The Columbia City Directories indicate that a residence was also located at 631 Pickens Street, further up the slope from 615 Pickens Street. The first reference to a resident of this address occurred in the 1923 Columbia City Directory, and as with the home at 615 Pickens Street, there is no reference to anyone by the name of Keith living there. The home was occupied from 1923 until 1959. However, no remains of it have been found and it is not known whether this house was located on the Keith property, or on property located to the north and owned by other entities. Possibly it was located on or very near the location of the present day Patterson Hall dormitory.

We can only make suppositions about the interaction between the residents and the land on which they lived. According to the Columbia City Directories, the tenants of both houses changed quite frequently. It is unlikely they maintained an outdoor privy, since as early as 1908 the city water system covered the entire city and the city sewer lines ran 152 miles (Hennig, 1936). There are reports of a tree house in an oak in the southeast corner of the Keith property. Possibly this was built by one of the residents for their children. There are no records of structures being built on the southern lots bordering Park Circle (today Blossom Street). The lack of structures built in this area may be an indication that it was always boggy in nature. Whether or not a pond existed at the location when Mrs. Keith acquired it is also unknown. 

3.5 THE PROPOSED BOTANICAL GARDENS

The creation of the A. C. Moore Garden began in 1936 when University of South Carolina Professor E. C. Coker addressed members attending the annual meeting of the University of South Carolina Alumni Association. He announced the possibility of the University acquiring about six acres of land to be used as a botanical garden.  This six acre area (Click here to see figure 8) consisted of the land sold to Mrs. Keith in 1912 and 1913 and the block to the south of it, which was at that time part of Maxcy Gregg Park (Prospectus of Botanical Garden of Native South Carolina Plants, 1936).

At the time of this meeting, Professor Coker had secured an option on Mrs.Keith's land for the price of $7,700 (Minutes of the Alumni Association Annual Meeting, 1936). The Board of Trustees of the University had come to an agreement with the Columbia City Council concerning the botanical garden.  If the University could secure Mrs. Keith's property for the said sum, then the city of Columbia would place the section of Maxcy Gregg park west of Pickens Street and south of Blossom Street "under the care of the University of South Carolina to be developed as a part of a Botanical Garden to be established by the University" (Prospectus of Botanical Garden, 1936). This agreement would reunite these two fragments of land once part of the same tract owned and farmed by James Gregg as early as 1850. The City Council specifically stated that "this agreement shall hold only so long as the proposed Botanical Garden shall be maintained as a well kept City Park" (Prospectus of Botanical Garden, 1936). 

Professor Coker and his committee, consisting of Dr. Baker, then President of the University, Dr. Derrick, and Professor Sumwalt, promoted the garden by saying that it would have an educational purpose. They planned "to develop on this land a Botanical Garden in which native plants, trees, shrubs, and herbs of South Carolina would be planted and labeled" (Minutes of the Alumni Association, 1936).  Also at the meeting, they proposed that the land would be "neatly landscaped" and that facilities would be provided "for the study by students of the University Botany classes." The committee received "the assurance of President Baker that after the land is acquired, it will be kept up by the University" (Minutes of the Alumni Association, 1936).

 The educational value of the botanical garden was to extend beyond the University as well. Professor Coker projected that the Garden would be useful to all South Carolina citizens interested in our native flora, especially the garden clubs and school organizations looking for native plants suitable for planting of school grounds and other public places (Minutes of the Alumni Association, 1936).

The Prospectus of Botanical Garden also included an endorsement by H.A. Smith, State Forester and Secretary to the Commission, which stated that "an education which does not create an interest in trees and plants and which does not increase the knowledge of our people along those lines cannot be complete." 

The second purpose of the botanical garden would be civic beautification. In the prospectus, Professor W. E. Hoy, Jr., head of the Biology Department in 1936, endorsed the Garden as an educational asset, but more importantly an asset to the Columbia community.

An arboretum and botanical garden would be of distinct value to the department of Biology as a teaching aid. Of greater importance is the fact that a botanical garden would attract the attention of the general public. One of the services which a university can render the public is the proper display of objects of interest and educational value in museums, etc., and botanical gardens are, in effect, botanical museums. 

The prospectus also included an endorsement from J. Rion McKissick, then Dean of the School of Journalism.
In every sense, our campus must be made as attractive as possible to our citizenship. The proposed arboretum and botanical garden constitute part of the program of varied and ever-widening service to the State which the University should render.

Patterson Wardlaw summarized the splendor felt by many University professors at the chance to acquire a botanical garden in his endorsement. "It would add to the institution's resources of refined recreation and beauty, intensifying pride in the State and love for Alma Mater" (Prospectus of Botanical Garden, 1936).

In 1937, Mrs. Keith sold her eleven lots to the Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina for the sum of "five dollars and other valuable considerations," (Deed Book EG, p. 248). As was the deal with the City Council, the neighboring property in Maxcy Gregg Park also came under the University's care at this time. Together, these two pieces of land were called the University Arboretum, also known as the Coker Arboretum.

 3.6 THE UNIVERSITY ARBORETUM: 1937-1940 

It is difficult to determine the appearance of Mrs. Keith's property when purchased by the University in 1937. We do know that it was bordered on the north by a row of privately owned homes on University Place, and records state that there was "a fine growth of trees on the slope on the north side of the property" (Prospectus of Botanical Garden, 1936). W. C. Coker, then professor of Botany at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and brother of Professor E. C. Coker of the University of South Carolina, praised the land for having "varied soil and topography to accommodate the different requirements of an extensive assortment of species" (Prospectus of the Botanical Garden, 1936). 

Two photographs of the site were included in the prospectus (Click here to see figures 9 and 10). Figure 9 shows the heavily wooded slope of the Arboretum, which according to the picture, had probably not been used for agriculture. In the foreground of the picture is the practically treeless flat area stretching from the bottom of the slope to Park Circle (today Blossom Street). This is the area that probably escaped development due to its boggy nature. However, since the picture shows no large trees in this section, it is possible that it was once cleared for farming.

The foreground of figure 10 shows the west-end of Maxcy Gregg Park. This was the area of the Park placed under the care of the University by the City. It too is relatively treeless, which could be expected since it previously served as farmland. The cabin located in this section of Maxcy Gregg Park was to be converted to a caretaker's office. The wooded ridge of land running parallel to Park Circle (today Blossom Street) can be seen in the background. 

Margaret Babcock Meriwether published an article in the January 1940 edition of the Garden Club of South Carolina's Bulletin that describes the new Arboretum in detail. At that time, the Coker Arboretum was a "well-rooted actuality on the hillside back of the new Sims College and along the banks of Rocky Branch, in adjacent Maxcy Gregg Park." There were three gates to the Arboretum at that time. Entrance gates were located on Blossom Street, and two smaller gates were located on Bull and Pickens Streets. Meriwether's description divides the Arboretum into several distinct sections. 

The hillside portion of the Arboretum was called the Moore Shrubbery Garden, in honor of Professor A. C. Moore. Trees added to the slope at that time included tulip trees, poplars, sweetgums, and chestnut oaks (Meriwether, 1940). Another section she described was "the upper tract above the hillside." This area was probably the top of the hill, where Patterson Hall is located today, but we do not have evidence of its exact location or extent. It consisted of original trees of oaks, hackberries, and gums. It was thought that the roots of these trees "held together the soil and contour of the hill which would otherwise have become a barren succession of gullies" (Meriwether, 1940).  Crabapples grew in the shade of the existing trees. Laurel, rhododendron, sweetbrush, dogwood, redbud, sparkleberry, cherry laurel, wild currant, catspaw, hemlock and cyrilla were added to it at that time (Meriwether, 1940). 

Meriwether describes the lower levels of the Garden as unshaded, and notes that much grading and soil building were done on this section at the time of her article. The Palmetto Garden Club "gave fifty loads of swamp muck to fill one large hollow" and planted it with a collection of all the native South Carolina hollies. American holly and Yaupon were also set near the central gates for decorative effect (Meriwether, 1940), although today these gates are planted with pomegranates.

Meriwether also mentions a spring-fed "pool" in her description of the Arboretum (Click here to  see figure 11). The University completed excavation of this pond in 1938, according to an article appearing in the Columbia Record (1938). At the time of excavation, the pond was filled with water and stocked with fish (Columbia Record, 1938). Located at the bottom of the slope, the pond, now much larger than in 1940, is still a feature of the Garden today. According to Meriwether, the "swampy bed around the pool" was planted with sweet myrtle and bay, live oak and willow, decorative grasses, pitcher plants, reeds and cattails. A group of pond and bald cypresses, junipers, and cedars were growing near the pond, as was a group of palmettos grown from seed (Meriwether, 1940).

Another section of the Arboretum described by Meriwether consisted of the lower land beyond the A. C. Moore Gates, along the southern side of Blossom Street. This section of Maxcy Gregg Park had been "placed under the care of the University to be developed as part of a Botanical Garden" (Prospectus, 1936). It was known as University Forest, and big trees were "encouraged to grow in open groves of pine, oak, hickory, and gum" (Meriwether, 1940). A cabin on this property was converted to a caretaker's house and office. This cabin can be seen in one of the photographs included in the Prospectus of Botanical Garden (Click here to see figure 9).

The School of Pharmacy helped develop yet another section of the Arboretum, the "Drug Garden" (Meriwether, 1940). It was located south of the cabin and displayed some of the most useful plants in ancient and modern medicine (Meriwether, 1940). A series of photographs of pharmacy students tending the Drug Garden appeared in the October 23, 1955 edition of the State Magazine (Click here see figure 12 and 13). The picture captions name several plants being grown in the Drug Garden at that time. These included digitalis, castor, calibar bean vine, and capsicum.

3. 7 THE A. C. MOORE GARDEN: 1941 - PRESENT

On November 27, 1941 the Arboretum was dedicated to Professor A. C. Moore, and from then on it was known as the A. C. Moore Garden. We do not know if the land dedicated included the area south of Blossom Street where the University Forest and Drug Garden were located. However, according to Dr. David Rembert, the dedicated Garden did include the land on which Patterson Hall and South Tower were later built.

Documentation of the A. C. Moore Garden's vegetation after 1940 is scarce. A "University Garden Plants" list from 1941 names over one hundred species, but we cannot be sure these plants were in the A. C. Moore Garden (see Appendix B). They could have been plants in the Drug Garden, the University Forest, the A. C. Moore Garden, or somewhere else on campus. All additional University records concerning the grounds of the Garden were unattainable at the time of this research. 
Very little is known of the history of the A. C. Moore Garden from the 1940s to the present. In 1961 the University built Patterson Residence Hall on the northern hill of the Garden, south of Sims College. A second residence hall, South Tower, was built on the western edge of the Garden in 1964. The Columbia City Directory lists the houses located at 615 and 631 Pickens Street as vacant by 1961. They were probably torn down around 1960, in conjunction with the construction of Patterson Hall. Neither of the structures appears in the 1963 Sanborn Map of Columbia. Besides the two dormitories
and a gazebo, the University has built no other structures on the grounds of the present-day A. C. Moore Garden. Again, the lots facing Blossom Street were not desirable areas for development due to the natural spring and boggy nature of the surrounding area. 

Many questions remain concerning the fate of the piece of Maxcy Gregg Park to the south of Blossom Street that was entrusted to the University by the City Council to be part of the Botanical Gardens. Today, none of that land, once the Drug Garden and University Forest, is being used as a Botanical Garden (see Appendix C and click here to see figure 14). What we call the A. C. Moore Garden today consists of the small tract of land with a pond and wooded slope bounded on the west by Bull Street, on the south by Blossom Street, on the east by Pickens Street, and on the North by Patterson Residence Hall. 

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Today, the A. C. Moore Garden projects a multi-faceted personality onto the landscape of the University of South Carolina. Besides serving as an urban park and educational resource for the University of South Carolina and the Columbia community, the Garden was designated as a National Wildlife Federation Backyard Habitat in April 1998. By this designation, "the NWF recognizes USC's effort to promote common-sense conservation by reducing or eliminating the need for fertilizers, pesticides or irrigation water" (The State, 1998). Thus, the A. C. Moore Garden serves as an interface between human development and the natural environment. It is an island haven where people can repose and wildlife is plentiful -- a green oasis in the city, where steamy asphalt and toxic chemicals are somewhat excluded by the iron gates and arching canopy.

 Despite the aspirations of former President Baker, Professor Coker, and others on the Botanical Garden Committee in 1936, University maintenance of the Garden at present is very minimal. This is perhaps a blessing and a curse. Although the Garden is not subjected to fertilizers, pesticides, and massive weeding and pruning which would detract from its quality as a wildlife habitat, its general appearance has declined, resulting in a somewhat uncomfortable urban park. Understanding the present state of the Garden requires examining the effectiveness of its main purposes -- urban park, educational resource, and wildlife habitat -- and how they interact. 

4.2 THE A. C. MOORE GARDEN AS AN URBAN PARK

As mentioned previously, maintenance of the Garden is minimal. University employees pass through the Garden regularly to collect litter. However, volunteers, such as members of Students Allied for a Greener Earth and students in Dr. David Whiteman's "Ecology and Politics" classes, have performed most of the pruning, clearing of paths, and clean up over the past years. Master Gardeners voluntarily landscaped the northeastern corner of the Garden near Pickens Street. The University rarely adds new plantings to the Garden, and the paths and staircases are dilapidated at present. On the other hand, a new wrought iron fence has been installed this year, replacing the green chain-link fence that previously enclosed the land. Street lamps illuminate the perimeter of the Garden, but not the center. This partial lighting casts a dangerous atmosphere on the Garden after dark. However, illuminating the entire Garden after dark could disrupt wildlife. 

Visitors may wander at will through the gates of the A. C. Moore Garden. As an urban park, it is open to the public. However, the number of visitors in the Garden at any one time is rarely large, and it is often a place where one can go to be almost alone. Most frequently, students, faculty, and staff of the University use the Garden as a pleasant short cut between the southern and central sections of campus. University staff have been seen in the Garden enjoying meals and sharing them with the lively fish in the pond. Members of the public wander through the Garden or use it as a shortcut as well. Sometimes, the peaceful scenery compels one of these passers-by to stop and relax on a bench for a few minutes. Also, members of the public have been seen fishing for recreation in the Garden's pond. 

More people observe the A. C. Moore Garden from a distance than actually visit it. Blossom and Pickens Streets are both busy with traffic during the day, and both the city bus and the University Shuttle regularly pass by. A stoplight at the intersection of Blossom and Pickens Streets prompts many drivers and passengers to gaze upon the Garden for a few minutes during red lights. The small pond can be seen from Blossom Street. Also, many students who live in the nearby Park Circle apartments walk the eastern edge of the Garden as they travel along Pickens Street on their way to and from classes. However, pedestrians who travel up the hill on the Garden side of Pickens Street are abruptly punished by the discontinuation of the sidewalk once it passes the Garden. Thus, the next time they walk along Pickens Street, they are encouraged to walk on the other side of the road, which discourages them from visiting the A. C. Moore Garden. 
As it is located in an urban setting, the A. C. Moore Garden is subjected to pollution. Abundant noise pollution from traffic and dormitory air conditioning units constantly remind visitors of the bustling town of Columbia outside. The busy traffic also provides a steady flow of air pollution to the Garden. Patterson Hall operates a cafeteria on its ground level. Thus, smells of chicken broth or other kitchen products occasionally drift into the Garden. Cigarette butts and other forms of litter are always present. Perhaps this is because there is only one garbage can serving the Garden.

4.3 THE A. C. MOORE GARDEN AS AN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE

The A. C. Moore Garden is a unique educational value to the University of South Carolina. Although the Biology Department's general interest in botany has declined during the last forty years (the University no longer offers a major in Botany), the A. C. Moore Garden remains as evidence of the importance its founders attached to the study of plants. Its location on the University campus provides a superb opportunity for research and demonstration in a number of fields of study. 

A variety of students and faculty of the University use the A. C. Moore Garden as an educational resource. In recent years, stone markers have been placed at the base of certain trees of interest to identify and describe them. The USDA Forest Service provided funds for the publishing of an accompanying brochure, which is available to visitors of the Garden. Such application is no doubt what Dr. W. E. Hoy Jr. and others intended for the Garden when they likened it to a "botanical museum" (Prospectus, 1936). In the fall semester of 1999, civil engineering students conducted a senior seminar project in which they developed plans for the A. C. Moore Garden. A master's student in Geography is currently conducting water quality tests on the pond, and the Garden is also used by ornithology and botany students as a nearby field site. Furthermore, the A. C. Moore Garden provides a place where students can quietly contemplate any number of subject areas addressed at the University.

4.4 THE A. C. MOORE GARDEN AS A WILDLIFE HABITAT

The A. C. Moore Garden is an exceptional wildlife habitat. It is home to a great diversity of living things, and lack of intensive University maintenance has proved to be a blessing for the Garden's wildlife. Ornithology student Rhonda Wenk conducted a bird count in the Garden in the spring of 2000 and reported seeing Eastern cardinals, blue jays, mourning doves, red-bellied woodpeckers, American robins, Northern mockingbirds, brown thrashers, house sparrows, common grackles, and yellow-rumped warblers. The pond is home to a turtle, many bullfrogs, and a profuse number of sizable fish, including large mouth bass, mosquito fish, and bluegills. Two wood ducks and a muskrat have also recently been seen in the Garden. On occasion, cats visit the Garden and numerous squirrels occupy the canopy. 

Not all of this wildlife is native to the Garden. One individual encountered in the Garden reported that he and his brothers have been stocking the pond with fish caught in the nearby Congaree River. There are also reports of students depositing aquarium fish in the A. C. Moore Garden pond. 

The ecological value of the A. C. Moore Garden can be analyzed by considering a number of "key ingredients" for a functioning wildlife habitat. These ingredients are food, water, shelter, and nesting sites. Living things need all of these to survive and grow. If these ingredients are provided, wildlife can flourish.

4.4.1 FOOD. 

Dense vegetation in the Garden provides an abundant and diverse amount of food. Importantly, the absence of pesticides in maintaining the Garden provides the opportunity for this smorgasbord of edibles to be toxic-free. Indeed, a partial inventory of the plants in the Garden reveals a variety of fruits to be eaten, including mericarps, pods, legumes, nutlets, capsules, samaras, druplets, follicles, acorns, drupes, pomes, berries, caryopses, cypsellas, and cones. The more diverse the types of food offered in an area, the more diverse the insects and birds who can find food there. This diversity of wildlife is an important indicator of the environmental quality provided in the Garden. Generally, the more healthy the environment, the greater its species diversity. Thus, people creating urban wildlife habitats strive to accomplish the same amount of diversity as found in nature. Evidence suggests that the A. C. Moore Garden is largely successful in providing a healthy, livable habitat for a variety of wildlife.

Acorns, abundant in the Garden, are eaten by almost all herbivorous birds, including blue jays, woodpeckers, mourning doves, and wood ducks. The berries of Cornus florida (flowering dogwood) are eaten by 75 species of song birds and game birds (Seidenberg, 1995). Interestingly, insects overwinter in the fruit of Malus angustifolia (crabapple), thus providing winter food for insect eating birds. Squirrels partake of the plentiful sources of food, including acorns and magnolia fruits.
Vegetation in the Garden also provides sap, nectar, and pollen, for hummingbirds and insects, including many species of moths and butterflies. Crab apple (Malus angustifolia) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum) provide sap through holes created by broken twigs or woodpeckers. Vetch (Vicia sativa), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum), crab apple (Malus angustifolia), and American holly (Ilex opaca) are just some of the plants that provide a variety of sources of nectar for butterflies, honey bees, and other insects in the Garden. Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum) are also good sources of pollen. All insects that find food in the Garden then become food for insect-eating birds. 

Another important characteristic of a successful habitat is that it provides sources of food throughout all seasons. In the A. C. Moore Garden, many herbaceous plants flower in spring to provide pollen, nectar, and seeds to eat. Summer food is provided by several fruiting trees, such as black cherry (Prunus serotina). Drupes of the white fringe tree mature in summer and are eaten by many birds and mammals (Seidenberg, 1995). The purple pomes of serviceberry (Amelanchier x Grandiflora) ripen in June and are also eaten by songbirds and mammals. Fall food includes the fruit of the Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), and holly berries (Ilex spp.), among others. River birch (Betula nigra), oak (Quercus spp.), baldcypress (Taxodium distichum), and sugar maple (Acer saccharum) are some of the sources of winter food in the Garden. The variety of food types found in the A. C. Moore Garden and their yearlong availability make it an ideal habitat during all seasons.

4.4.2 SHELTER AND NESTING.

The A. C. Moore Garden provides a variety of shelters and nesting sites. Many plants, such as Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), pansy (Viola sororia), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and American holly, (Ilex opaca) serve as larval hosts for a variety of butterflies and insects. The Garden's large and extensive tree canopy is well suited to house birds and squirrels. Sizable evergreen trees of live oak (Quercus virginiana) and American holly (Ilex opaca) provide year round nesting sites and shelters for birds and squirrels. Opossums, wood ducks, owls, and woodpeckers can find homes in the hollows of some trees in the Garden. Stones from old retaining walls serve as shelter for insects and amphibians. Abundant leaf litter on the eastern side of the Garden protects many living things as well. Dense patches of lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus) growing along the pond serve as exceptional cover for bullfrogs and other animal life. 

Nesting material is abundant in the Garden, and nests can be found by patient explorers. Of particular interest, an Eastern cottonwood tree (Populus deltoides) in the Garden provides cottony hairs attached to its seeds which some birds use to line their nests. Some birds also line their nests with ferns, which grow in the Garden as well. In general, the variety of shelters and nesting options provided in the A. C. Moore Garden draws a variety of living things to take up residence. 
It was the intent of the researcher to perform tree cores on various trees in the Garden to determine their age and stability as arbor shelters. However, it was later discovered that only gymnosperms produce annual rings and easily produce tree core data. Thus, due to the small number of gymnosperms in the Garden, a meaningful tree core analysis could not be conducted. 

4.4.3 WATER.

The water of the pond supports a variety of life. As mentioned before, bullfrogs, a variety of fish, and a turtle currently make their home at the pond. Dense patches of Iris, lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), bamboo, and grasses surround the swampy banks of the pond. One particular decorative grass with variegated leaves and a large spathe, Acorus gramineus Ait., growing by the pond is of particular interest. It is not a native grass and could be descendent from the decorative grasses that Meriwether mentioned were planted in the swampy beds surrounding the pond around 1940. 

Although the pond has been documented as a natural spring, its water comes from a variety of sources. The topography of the Garden ensures that much runoff water flows into the pond. Although water flowing down Bull and Pickens Street most likely flows into gutters rather than into the Garden, the pond does display an oily sheen sometimes. There have been reports that some water runoff from the roads is being diverted into the pond. Erosion on the sloping area of the Garden washes dirt, organic matter, and debris from the upper paths into the pond. A recently discovered pipe empties heated water into the pond during the winter. This creates a thermal gradient, which produces steam rising from the surface during cold mornings. The source of this water is currently unknown.

4.5 NON-NATIVE SPECIES

Currently there are many non-native species in the A. C. Moore Garden, despite its original purpose as a botanical garden of native plants. Non-native plants were either planted intentionally in the Garden, or they invaded gradually. Invasive non-native species are a particular threat to natural habitats because they grow outside the ecological relationships which keep the system in balance. Natural processes in the A. C. Moore Garden suffer from the presence of many non-native plants. In particular, English Ivy (Hetera helix) has usurped a large area of the northern bank of the pond and unhindered, is steadily creeping its way towards the slope. Periwinkle (Vinca major), a popular ornamental plant sold in nurseries, also grows freely over large areas of the Garden. 

4.6 SUMMARY

 The A. C. Moore Garden servers its main functions at varying degrees of quality. Its quality as an urban park is somewhat questionable. As a densely vegetated green oasis in the city, its value is uncontested. However, neglect has left the Garden with dilapidated paths and stairs and somewhat ineffective planting schemes. On the other hand, the A. C. Moore Garden is an exceptional example of an urban wildlife habitat, with its aged trees, various food sources, and natural spring pond. Lastly, although its potential as an educational tool is paramount, this purpose of the Garden deserves increased development. 

5.1  INTRODUCTION

 The A. C. Moore Garden is a creation of the interaction between man and nature. Understanding the human impact on the environment through research is important because it reveals the relationship between human intention and consequence. In creating aesthetically pleasing urban spaces, people often replace "naturally regenerating sites with horticultural deserts" (Hough, 1995). In order to prevent or remediate such deserts in our cities, we must examine sites, such as the A. C. Moore Garden, which have escaped this fate.

5.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Humans had very little impact on the area currently known as Columbia, South Carolina until the eighteenth century. Before the time of accelerated human intervention, the environment was evolving and creating dynamic natural systems. Millions of years ago, the landform regions of South Carolina were formed through plate tectonics, and certain vegetation communities naturally arose in the Sandhills region of South Carolina according to its unique geological characteristics and climate. 
With the end of the Pleistocene glaciation around 8000 BC, the climate and flora of South Carolina changed to more closely resemble that of today. Grasslands and pine forests with some spruce and fir trees were replaced by northern hardwoods such as birch, hemlock, beech, and elm. Although humans have occupied South Carolina since around 13,000 BC, their lifestyle prior to the eighteenth century caused relatively little alteration to the natural landscape. The small-scale agriculture and fire regimes conducted by the Native Americans were insignificant compared to the environmental changes of the modern era.

 The eighteenth century marked the beginning of a process of rapid human induced alteration of the natural environment in the area today known as the city of Columbia. As people began to settle in Columbia after it was established in 1786, forested areas were cleared to supply the building of homes and other structures. Eventually, water and sewer lines were established, roads were paved, wet areas drained, and creeks buried. Throughout this time of environmental change, one piece of land remained less developed than most areas of the original city. This tract is presently owned by the University of South Carolina and is known as the A. C. Moore Garden.

 If it had escaped human influence entirely, the corner of James Gregg's farm that later became the A. C. Moore Garden would appear different than it does today. Many of the present trees in the Garden have been planted and follow no sort of ecological pattern. However, if the land had escaped human intervention, it would probably resemble a pine mixed hardwood forest. Plant species would change gradually as one moved from the northern, drier end of the Garden to the southern, wetter end. Currently, other than groupings of bald cypress trees near the pond, there seems to be little correlation between the moisture gradient in the Garden and its vegetation. Also, if it had not been dredged in 1938, the pond probably would exist today as a boggy area rather than as an actual pond. 

The tree canopy would also be different if the Garden had evolved without human influence. Presently, there is at least one hole in the canopy where the residence at 615 Pickens Street was built, and it has not been filled by new trees. This opening could exist for a number of reasons. One reason may be that shrubs and trees are unable to grow in the opening because the foundations of the house are still present. Some cutting of grass probably also prevented the growth of saplings. In the absence of human interference, openings in the canopy of a forest are revegetated with opportunistic species. 

5.3  QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Understanding the interaction between human development and natural processes is a complex task. This project hopefully serves as a starting point for information about the natural history of the A. C. Moore Garden. However, many questions concerning this property still remain. Some of these questions, which span a variety of disciplines, are given below. Hopefully they will serve as a guide to developing a greater understanding of the A. C. Moore Garden and the urban ecological history of the city of Columbia, South Carolina.
 

1. What are the water sources of the A. C. Moore pond? A pipe currently releases heated water into the A. C. Moore pond. Does this water contain chemicals or other pollutants?
2. What is the rate of hillside erosion in the Garden, and what is the best way to maintain its topographic integrity? 
3. How does species abundance or other ecological characteristics of the A. C. Moore Garden compare to those of other urban parks in Columbia, such as the Horseshoe? How does it compare to a wilderness area?
4. Some people who lived on the grounds of the A. C. Moore Garden may still live in Columbia. What information do they have about the Garden?
5. What impression do current students of the University have of the A. C. Moore Garden and why?
6. Now the location of a naval reserve building and part of the temporary construction area for a new residence hall between Blossom and Wheat Streets, the block south of Blossom Street between Bull and Pickens Streets formerly constituted the Drug Garden and the University Forest. What records does the City Council have of this property? For what reasons did they lease part of it to the federal government? When and for what reasons was part of this land converted into a university parking lot? 
7. Developers buried creeks in several swampy areas of Columbia, such as Five Points and the area of Richland Fashion Mall, while other similar areas, such as Maxcy Gregg Park, were made into city parks. What considerations dominated these decisions and what impact have these decisions had on the residents of the city?

The intentions of the founders of the A. C. Moore Garden are captured in the Prospectus of Botanical Garden of Native South Carolina Plants (1936). Leonard T. Baker, then President of the University, wrote in the introduction to the prospectus that "native plants, trees, shrubs, and herbs of South Carolina would be planted and labeled" in the Garden. W. E. Hoy, then Head of the Biology Department, likened the proposed Garden to a "botanical museum" that serves the public and also noted that "it would be of distinct value to the department of Biology as a teaching aid" (Prospectus of Botanical Garden, 1936). Another endorsement included in the prospectus came from J. Rion McKissick, who said that "in every sense, our campus must be made as attractive as possible to our citizenship."  Patterson Wardlaw forecasted that the Garden would "add to the institution's resources of refined recreation and beauty, intensifying pride in the State and love for Alma Mater" (Prospectus of Botanical Garden, 1936). 

If indeed the purpose of the A. C. Moore Garden is to serve the University and the public as an educational and attractive "botanical museum" of native South Carolina plants, the University must work to accomplish this mission. The starting point for any Garden improvements should be obtaining a long-term commitment from the University for maintaining the Garden in accordance with its mission. Such a commitment would ensure that investments in the Garden would be properly managed and maintained rather than wasted. 

At present, University landscapers have created plans for improvements to the Garden (Click here to see figure 15). These plans include replacement of the Garden paths and the steps passing along the center of the hillside. Construction of a deck extending from South Tower Dormitory, a raised boardwalk along the western edge of the Garden, a bridge spanning the pond, and a waterfall flowing down the hillside to aerate the pond are also included in these plans. 

Completion of these improvements would benefit the University by making the Garden more accessible and attractive to students and to the public. The deck extending from South Tower Dormitory would encourage interest in the Garden and help to better incorporate the Garden into the Carolina community. Completed successfully, the waterfall would contribute greatly to the value and attractiveness of the Garden and improve the water quality of the pond.  However, consideration must be taken to preserve the ecological integrity of the Garden throughout the various construction processes. 

Other proposed improvements to the Garden follow. Additional garbage and recycling containers should be installed in the Garden along the paths to reduce litter. Also, although the Garden was proposed for the display of native plants, it does currently house some non-natives. If not posing a particular threat, non-native trees should remain in the Garden or be removed gradually, so as not to create a large disturbance. Non-native vines, herbs, and shrubs should be removed. In particular, efforts should be made to eradicate English Ivy (Hetera helix) from the Garden, since it is particularly invasive. To maintain a toxic-free habitat, plant removal should be executed without the use of pesticides or other chemicals. Keeping with the original mission of the Garden, all plants added should be native to South Carolina. 

Efforts should be made to increase the educational value of the Garden. This could be achieved in a number of ways. Additional plants in the Garden should be labeled and described. A complete botanical survey of the Garden would prove beneficial as well. New planting schemes in the Garden should attempt to recreate natural vegetation habitats according to present conditions in the Garden. Furthermore, using innovative, environmentally sound building materials and construction methods for the proposed Garden improvements would be one way to extend its educational value to a number to different areas. 

5.5 CONCLUSIONS

Most of the numerous parks within Columbia are highly artificial. Seeding, mowing, fertilizing, and weeding expanses of turf grass creates a vast monoculture that offers little contribution to the functioning of natural environmental processes in these parks. Such highly controlled environments offer little food or shelter to urban wildlife, and as mass-produced horticultural plants replace Sandhill natives in green spaces, our sense of place is lost.

However, the University of South Carolina A. C. Moore Garden is a unique landmark of the city of Columbia. It is one of the few areas within the original city limits that has escaped extensive human induced alteration. Once part of the grounds of the Columbia Academy, then a section of farmland owned by many Columbia families, then slowly engulfed by urbanization as Columbia grew and passed into the hands of the University of South Carolina, the property today supports a plentitude of different plant and animal species. The history, wildlife, and character of the A. C. Moore Garden are distinctively Columbian. If one wishes to know how the landscape of the original city of Columbia would appear without elaborate human influence, the A. C. Moore Garden provides a beautiful answer. 

"A notable garden." The State Newspaper. May 14, 1998

Barry, John M. 1980. Natural Vegetation of South Carolina. Columbia, South Carolina: 
University of South Carolina Press.

Deed Books, 1869 -1937. Register of Deeds. Richland County Judicial Center, Columbia, 
South Carolina.

Edgar, Walter. 1998. South Carolina: A History. Columbia, South Carolina: University of 
South Carolina Press.

Hennig, Helen Kohn, ed. 1936. Columbia Capital City of South Carolina 1786-1936. 
Columbia, South Carolina: R. L. Bryan Company.

Hill's Columbia (Richland County, South Carolina) City Directory. Richmond, VA: Hill 
Directory Co., Inc., 1927, 1929-1966.

Hough, Michael. 1995. Cities and Natural Processes. London: Routledge.

Hudson, Charles. 1970. The Cawtaba Nation. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia 
Press.

---------. 1976. The Southeastern Indians. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Insurance Maps of Columbia, South Carolina. 1919. Sanborn Map Company: New York. 

Plat 51. Located in South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, South Carolina.

Kovacik, Charles F. and John J. Winberry. 1989. South Carolina: The Making of a 
Landscape. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press.

Maxey, Russell. 1980. South Carolina's Historic Columbia: Yesterday and Today in 
Photographs. Columbia, South Carolina: R. L. Bryan Company.

Meriwether, Margaret B. 1940 "The University Arboretum" The Bulletin of the Garden 
Club of South Carolina. 22:10-12. Illus.11 

Minutes of the University of South Carolina Alumni Association, 1936. Located in
University Archives, South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 
Columbia.

Moore, David. Project Director. 1995. Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment of 
Naval Reserve Centers within the Geographical Area of Responsibility of Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Charleston, South Carolina.

Moore, John Hammond. 1993. Columbia and Richland County: A South Carolina
Community, 1740-1990. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina 
Press.

Nelson, John B. 1986. The Natural Communities of South Carolina: Initial Classification 
and Description. Columbia: South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources
Department.

Prospectus of Botanical Garden of Native South Carolina Plants. 1936. University of
South Carolina. Located in University Archives, South Caroliniana Library, 
University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Regular Columbia, S.C. City Directory. Asheville, NC: Piedmont Directory Co. 1928.

Rembert, David. Interview with author. Columbia, South Carolina. 9 February 2000. 

Rockwell, David. 1998. The Nature of North America: A Handbook to the Continent. 
New York: Berkley Publishing Group.

Seidenberg, Charlotte. 1995. The Wildlife Garden. Jackson: University Press of
Mississippi.

Stearn, Colin W., Robert L. Carroll, and Thomas H. Clark. 1979. Geological Evolution of 
North America. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

"University Seeks Land For Botanical Gardens." State Magazine. December 10, 1935.
Located in University Archives, South Caroliniana Library, University of South 
Carolina, Columbia.

"University Garden Plants, September, 1941." Located in University Archives, South
Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

"University Garden to Have Three Gates." Columbia Record. March 26, 1938. Located in
 University Archives, South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 
Columbia.

Walsh's Columbia South Carolina City Directory. Charleston, SC: Walsh Directory
Company, Inc., 1912-1926.

Wells, B. W. and I. V. Shunk. 1931. "The vegetation and habitat factors of the coarse 
sands of the North Carolina coastal plain: an ecological study." Ecol. Monogr. 
1:465-520.

Wenk, Rhonda. Letter to author, April 10 2000. 

Wheater, C. Philip. 1999. Urban Habitats. London: Routledge.

Berg, Peter et al. 1990. A Green City Program for the San Francisco Bay Area and 

Beyond. San Francisco: Wingbow Press.

Hollis, Daniel W. 1951-1956. University of South Carolina. Columbia, South Carolina:
University of South Carolina Press.

Lesesne, Henry H. 1998. "The making of a southern research university: University
of South Carolina, 1940-1990." Ph. D. diss., University of South Carolina

Radford, Albert E., Harry E. Ahles, and C. Ritchie Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular
Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Russell, Emily W.B.  1997. People and the Land Through Time: Linking Ecology and
History. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Silver, Timothy. 1990.  A New Face on the Countryside: Indians, Colonists, and Slaves
in South Atlantic Forests, 1500-1800. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Walters, Dirk R. and David J. Keil. 1996. Vascular Plant Taxonomy Fourth Edition. 
Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall / Hunt Publishing Company.

615 PICKENS STREET

1914: A. Plumer Brown, of Brown's Creamery located at 905 Main Street, and wife 
Gertrude 
1915 - 1919: Dr. J. Heyward Gibbes, a prominent physician
1919: Adlai Osborne, a civil engineer
1920: F. W. Bradley, a professor at the University of South Carolina
1921-1925: Perry M. Teeple, a civil engineer and professor at the University of South  Carolina
1926: David E. Cohn 
1927-1928: W.A. Whitesell
1929: James H. Hammond, a lawyer and Notary in the Clark Law Building, Attorney for
the Security Building and Loan Association, and state Senator, his other residence 
being in Edgewood, South Carolina 
1930-1931: Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity 
1932 - 1942: Joseph E. Norwood, an assistant professor at the University, and 
wife Cornelia 
1942: Percy L. Steele, a clerk 
1943 - 1951: Laury (possibly Larry) B. Brazell, driver for the Checker Cab
1950: Laury B. Brazell and William C. Starr and his wife Janie 
1951 -1958: Robert H. Webster, manager of Detergents Inc., travel salesman, and
manufacturers agent, and wife Sarah M.
1958: vacant
1959: John M. Gordon, United States 
1960: vacant 

631 PICKENS STREET

1926 - 1940: James R. Cain, a bacteriologist who eventually became the 
Assistant Directory of the Hygiene Laboratory at the State Board of Health 
1941: vacant
1942 - 1947: James R. Cain, a bacteriologist who eventually became the 
Assistant Directory of the Hygiene Laboratory at the State Board of Health,
and wife Belle
1948 - 1955: Herbert M. Black 
1956: William C. Coleman
1957 - 1960: Theodore D. Ravenel, assistant at the State Forestry Commission, wife
Mary, and son Theodore Jr., laboratory assistant at the State Highway 
Department
1961: vacant

Ptermodophytes
Anchistea virginica--Virginia chain fern
Asplenium platyneuron--Ebony spleenwort
Cheilanthes tomentosa--Hairy-lip fern
Osmunda cinnamonea--Cinnamon fern
Osmunda regalis--Royal fern
Polystichum acrosticoides--Christmas fern
Woodsia obtusa--Wood fern

Spermatophytes
 Gymnospermae
Pinaceae Pine Family

1. Pinus taeda L. (Loblolly-pine)
2. Pinus australiz Michx. (Long-leaf pine)
3. Pinus palustris Mill. (Slash pine)
4. Pinus virginiana Mill. (Scrub-pine)
5. Strobus strobus (L.) Small (White-pine)
6. Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr. (Canada-hemlock)

1. Taxodium distichum (L.) L.C. Rich (Bald-cypress)
2. Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) B.S.P. (White cedar)
3. Sabina virginiana (L.) Antoine. (Red-cedar)

1. Sabal Palmetto (Walt.) Todd. (Cabbage-Tree)

 1.  Oronitium aquaticum L. (Golden-club)

 1.  Polygonatum biflorum (Walt.) Ell. (Solomon's-seal)

 1.  Yucca filamentosa L. (Adam's-needle)

 1.  Iris versicolor L. (Iris)

1. Limodorum tuberosum L. (Grass-pink)

Dicotyledonae
Juglandaceae  Walnut Family

1. Hichoria sp.

1. Cerothamnus carolinensis (Mill.) Tidestrom (Swamp-
candleberry)
2. Cerothamnus ceriferus (L.) Small (Wax-myrtle)

1. Salix nigra Marsh (Black-willow)
2.    "     babylonica L. (Weeping willow)
3.    "     discolor Muhl. (Pussy-willow)
4. Populus heterophylla L. (Swamp-cottonwood)

1. Betula nigra L. (River-birch)
2.    "       lenta L. (Cherry-birch)

1. Quercus marylandica Muench. (Black-jack)
2.      "        velutina Lam. (Black-oak)
3.      "        nigra L. (Water-oak)
4.      "        prinus L. (Basket-oak)
5.      "        phellos L. (Willow-oak)
6.      "        virginiana Mill. (Live-oak)
7.      "        montana Willd. (Chestnut-oak)
8.      "        borealis Michx. (Gray-oak)
9.      "        coccinea Wang. (Scarlet-oak)
10.      "        laurifolia Michx. (Laurel-oak)
11.      "        suber L. (Cork-oak)
12.      "        sp. (Japanese-oak)
13. Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. (Beech)
14. Quercus imbricaria (Shingle-oak)

1. Morus rubra L. (Red-mulberry)
2. Toxylon pomiferum Raf. (Osage-orange)

1. Ulmus alata Michx. (Winged-elm)
2.     "      americana L. (American-elm)

1. Hepatica Hepatica (L.) Karst. (Liver-leaf)
2. Syndesmon thalictroides (L.) Hoffing. (Rue-anemone)

 1.  Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal. (Pawpaw-apple)

1. Liriodendron tulipifera L. (Tulip-tree)
2. Magnolia grandiflora L. (Southern-magnolia)
3.       "         virginiana L. (Sweet-bay)
4.       "         tripetala L. (Umbrella-tree)

1. Podophyllum peltatum L. (Mandrake)

1. Sarracenia purpurea L. (Pitcher-plant)
2.        "          rubra Walt. (Sweet Pitcher-plant)
3.        "          flava L. (Golden-trumpets)

1. Heuchera americana L. (Alum root)

1. Hammamelis virginiana L. (Witch-hazel)

1. Liquidamber styraciflua L. (Sweet-gum)

1. Plantanus occidentalis L. (Sycamore)

1. Crataegus spp.
2. Malus angustifolia (Ait. ) Michx. (Crab-apple)
3. Aronia arbutifolia (L.) Ell. (Red choke-berry)
4. Amelanchier canadensis (L.) Medic. (Juneberry)
5.         "            laevis Wiegand. (Service-berry)

1. Laurocerasus caroliniana (Mill.) Roem. (Mock-orange)
2. Prunus pennsylvanica L. (Wild red-cherry)

1. Albizzia Julibrissen (Willd.) Durazz (Silk-tree)

1. Gleditsia triacanthos L. (Honey-locust)
2. Cercis canadensis L. (Red-bud)

1. Ribinia Pseudo-Acacia L. (Black-locust)
2. Baptisia sp.

1. Ailanthus altissima Swingle (Tree-of-heaven)

1. Melis Azedarach L. (China-berry)

1. Ceratiola ericoides Michx. (Rosemary)

1. Ilex decidua Walt. (Deciduous-holly)
2.   "    vomitoria Ait. (Yapon)
3.   "    verticillata (L.) Gray (Winterberry)
4.   "    myrtifolia Walt. (Yapon)
5.   "    coriacea (Pursh) Chapm. (Large-gallberry)
6.   "    glabra (L.) A. Gray (Ink-berry)
7.   "    ambigua (Michx.) Chapman
8.   "    opaca Ait. (American-holly)
9.   "    Amelanchier

 1.  Aesculus Pavia L. (Red-buckeye) 

1. Negundo Negundo (L.) Karst. (Ash-leaved maple)
2. Acer rubrum (l.) Small (Red-maple)

1. Tamarix gallica L. (Tamarisk)

1. Franklinia Alatamaha Marsh. (Lost camellia)
2. Gordonia Lasianthus (L.) Ellis. (Loblolly-bay)
3. Malachodendron pentagynum (L'Her.) Small (Mountain-
staurtia)
4. Stuartia Malachodendron L. (Silky camellia)

1. Viola spp.

1. Tamala pubescens (Pursh.) Small (Swamp-bay)
2. Sassafras Sassafras (L.) Karst. (Sassafras)
3. Camphora Camphora (L.) Karst. (Camphor-tree)

1. Cynoxylon floridum (L.) Raf. (Flowering dogwood)

1. Axalea nudiflora L. (Wild azalea)
2. Rhododendron maximun L. (Great-laurel)
3.           "              catawbiense Michx. (Purple-laurel)
4. Lerophyllum buxifolium (Berg.) Ell. (Sand-myrtle)
5. Rhododendron minus Michx.
6. Azalea viscosa L. (Swamp-azalea)
7. Kalmia latifolia L. (Mountain-laurel)
8.      "      angustifolia L. (Sheep-laurel)
9. Desmothamnus lucidus (Lam.) Small (Fetter-bush)
10. Oxydendron arboreum (L.) DC. (Sourwood)

1. Batodendron arboreum (Marsh.) Nutt. (Sparkleberry)
2. Herpothamnus crassifolius (Andr.) Small (Creeping-blueberry)

1. Galax aphylla L. (Galax)

1. Diospyros virginiana L. (Persimmon)

1. Symploca tinctoria (L.) L'Her. (Horse-sugar)

1. Styrax americana Lam. (Storax)
2.     "      grandiflora Ait. (Storax)
3. Halesia carolina L. (Wild-olive tree)

1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh (Red-ash)
2. Chionanthus virginica L. (Fringe-tree)
3. Amarolea americana (L.) Small (Wild-olive)

1. Gelsemium sempervirens (L.) Ait. (Yellow-jessamine)

1. Phlox subulata L.(Moss-phlox)

1. Bignonia radicans L. (Trumpet-creeper)

1. Viburnum spp.
2. Phenianthus sempervirens (L.) Raf. (Woodbine)

Shortia

Azalea amoena
Azalea arborescens
Flame azalea
   "      calend.

Piedmont Azalea - A. canescens

Azalea nudiflora

Pink shell azalea - A. vaseyi

Rhododendron Max.

Rhododendron Catawb.

Rhododendron Carolina

Frazer's Fir

Arrowwood - Viburnum dentatum

Witch hazel - Hamelis Virg.

Swamp dogwood - Corrsus

Ilex opaca - American Holly

Ilex Cassine

Ilex verticillata

Ilex lucida

Ilex ambigua

Ilex monticola

Ilex laevigata

Nannyberry - viburnum lentago

Maple-leaf Vib. - Viburnum acerifolia

Wytherod - Vib. Cassinoides

Blueberry - Vaccinium pallidum

Amer. Larch - Larix laricina

Cucumber-tree - Magnolia acum.

Sweet Fern - Comptonia asplenifolia

Fringe tree - Chionanthus Virg.

Yellow Buckeye - Aesculus octandra

The city of Columbia leased the section of Maxcy Gregg Park between Bull and Pickens Streets south of Rocky Branch Creek to the federal government in 1946 for $1 per year. Currently this lease is renewable until June 30, 2006 (Moore, 1995). The government built a Navy Reserve building on the land in 1947, with additions built in 1950 and 1988. The resulting complex of white buildings is seen in the center of figure 14. The University transformed the portion of the Garden between Rocky Branch Creek and Blossom Street, which used to house the Drug Garden, into a gravel parking lot known by all students and faculty as "the Pit." This parking lot is pictured between the A. C. Moore Garden and the Naval Reserve complex in figure 14. Currently, this portion of the land is not a parking lot, however. It has been covered with a large pile of dirt due to the adjacent construction of South Quad East Dormitory. 

(This is by no means a complete survey of the vegetation of the A. C. Moore Garden.)
 

Aceraceae
 Acer saccharum Marshall sugar maple
Amaryllidaceae
 Leucojum aestivum L.  snowflake
Apocynaceae
 Vinca major L.  periwinkle
Aquifolicaeae
 Ilex opaca Aiton  American holly
 Ilex vomitoria Aiton  yapon
Araceae
 Acorus gramineus Ait.
Arecaceae
 Sabal palmetto Lodd. ex Schultes cabbage palmetto

Aspleniaceae
 Asplenium platyneuron (L.) Oakes ebony spleen
Asteraceae
Crepis japonica (L.) Benth.  hawk's beard
Hypochoeris   cat's ear
Sonchus oleraceus L.  common sow-thistle
Betulaceae
 Betula nigra L.   river birch
 Ostrya virginiana (Miller) K. Koch.  American hophornbeam, ironwood
Cornaceae
 Cornus florida L.  flowering dogwood
Coryophyllaceae
 Cerastium viscosum L. mouse-ear chickweed
Cyperaceae
 Carex
Dryopteridaceae
 Cyrtomium flacatum (L.F.) Presl. holly fern
Ericaceae
 Rhododendron obtusum azalea
Fabaceae
Cercis canadensis L.  Eastern redbud
Cladrastis kentukea  American yellowwood
Trifolium dubium Sibthorp low hop clover
Trifolium repens L.  white clover
Fagaceae
Fagus grandifolia Ehrhart  American beech 
Quercus glauca   blue Japanese oak
Quercus phellos L.  willow oak
Quercus virginiana Miller  live oak
Geraniaceae
 Geranium carolinianum L. crane's bill
Hydrophyllaceae
 Nemophila aphylla 
Juglandaceae 
 Juglans nigra L.  black walnut
Lamiaceae
Ajuga reptans L.  bugle-weed
Glecoma hederaceae L. 
Rosmarinus officinalis L. rosemary
Salvia lyrata L.  sage
Magnoliaceae
 Magnolia grandiflora L.  Southern magnolia
Oleaceae
 Osmanthus fragrans  tea olive
Oxalidaceae
 Oxalis rubra St. Hil.  wood sorrel
Poaceae
 Poa annua L.
Pinaceae
 Pinus taeda L.   loblolly pine
 Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr.  Eastern hemlock
Rosaceae
Chaenomeles japonica flowering quince
Duchesnea indica (Andrz.) Focke.  false strawberry
Malus angustifolia (Aiton) Michaux  crap apple
Prunus serotina Ehrhart  black cherry
Rubus trivialis Michaux dewberry
Rubiaceae
 Galium aparine L.  bedstraw
Salicaceae
 Populus deltoides Marshall  Eastern cottonwood
Saururaceae
 Saurus cernuus L.  lizard's tail
Scrophulariaceae
 Veronica spp.
Taxodiaceae
 Taxodium distichum (L.) Richard bald cypress
Thymelaeaceae
 Daphne odora Thuub.
Violaceae
 Viola sororia (Willd.) Pollard. pansy