Horsetails Equisetum Sp

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Horsetails Equisetum Sp Horsetails Equisetum sp. Horsetails have deep, long rhizomes that support hollow jointed and longitudinally ridged stems, which emerge in early spring. The stem spikelets can be between 5-60 cm tall. The majority of the stem and leaves are green and the blackish tip are reproductive shoots that appear early in the season from the sterile vegetative stems. The genus sits within the broad grouping of ancient land plants called Pteridophyta which also includes ferns, clubmosses and quillworts. Field (or common) horsetail Equisetum arvense and marsh horsetail E. palustre are perhaps the most widespread and can be found throughout England and Wales. As these are the species that livestock are most likely to come into contact with the rest of the leaflet is focused on these plants. Water horsetail E. fluviatile, Dutch rush E. hyemale, wood horsetail E. sylvaticum and giant or great horsetail E. telmateia are less Field horsetail © Cath Shellswell widespread. Shade horsetail E. pratense and variegated horsetail E. variegatum are nationally scarce in the UK Vascular Plant Red List, but only variegated horsetail is considered Near Threatened in the England Red List. Boston horsetail E. ramosissimum is only present in England, in North Lincolnshire near Boston and in North Somerset, and there is some uncertainty whether it is native or an introduced species. It is also considered to be Near Threatened in the England Vascular Plant Red List. Horsetails are sometimes confused with mare's-tail Hippuris vulgaris. This is because they both have primitive whorls of slender green branches radiating from joints or nodes in the main stem. These branches are much smaller in mare's-tail, which is mainly aquatic and confined to growing in ponds and slow moving ditches or streams, and rarely migrates into grassland. Great horsetail © Cath Shellswell Management of horsetails in species-rich Lifecycle grasslands Field and marsh horsetail are perennials. They Management of horsetail in species-rich have branching underground rhizomes that grasslands of conservation value using penetrate about 90 cm into the soil. Both herbicides should only be undertaken with species are highly invasive, require very little extreme caution if at all. Use of broad- nutrition and can grow in any soils. Field spectrum herbicides will kill all surrounding horsetail is strong enough to grow through vegetation, affecting desirable plants and tarmac and can become a destructive reducing the diversity of the sward. problem. Other management, including covering Reproduction is by aerial sporulation, through patches of horsetail with black plastic and underground rhizome spread and regeneration cutting, may also affect desirable herbs and from cut material. Vegetative spread is grasses. All cuttings should be removed to particularly successful because the silica-rich prevent smothering surrounding vegetation. vegetation is unpalatable and poisonous to Care should be taken to ensure that cuttings livestock, and is rarely knocked down by are not scattered across the grassland, which livestock movement sufficiently to suppress may inadvertently spread field and marsh spikelets. Frequent mechanical or chemical horsetail. defoliation appears to result in limited weakening of the rhizomes. Habitat Field horsetail distribution across Britain and Ireland Field and marsh horsetails grow in a wide The data used to create these maps has been provided under licence range of habitats, including watercourse from the Botanical Society of margins, hedge bottoms, woodland and Britain and Ireland (BSBI) and accessed from the Society’s online grassland. However, fertile heavier soils that distribution database. are slowly draining and may remain wet for periods of the year are preferred habitat. These soils are usually slightly acidic, but neutral and calcareous clays may also be colonised by field and marsh horsetails. Species-rich grasslands are most likely to have horsetail issues, with field horsetail and marsh horsetail present on lowland meadows and pasture. Marsh horsetail and water horsetail are more likely to be present on the damper purple moor-grass and rush pasture and marshy grasslands. Distribution Field and marsh horsetails are widespread across the UK. GB status and rarity The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain (2005) and the Irish Red Data Book (1988) do not list field and marsh horsetails and they are considered common. Management of horsetails The prospects of eliminating field and marsh horsetail are almost impossible, All horsetails are poisonous to livestock; and reducing the extent of these two cattle, sheep and (ironically!) horses. species even with repeated herbicide Horsetails contain the enzyme thiaminase, treatments and cutting is a slow process which is also found in bracken, which destroys with often limited success vitamin B1 (thiamine). The species that they are most likely to come into contact with are field horsetail and marsh horsetail, but enable safe utilisation of the sward through poisoning by horsetail is rarely reported in grazing livestock. This may be achieved by a Britain. Animals are less likely to eat growing combination of mechanical cutting combined stems that are in dense patches if they can be with application of herbicide. Products based avoided, but they still pose a health risk. around MCPA, 2,4-D and dicamba can offer However, in fields that are severely infested, some control, but no herbicides will eliminate or spikelets scattered throughout the sward, horsetails altogether, and repeated control livestock may eat the plants and be poisoned measures will be required. Blanket spraying of as a result. herbicides should never be used and targeted spraying is best practice where it is suitable. Poisoning is therefore less likely to result Specialist advice should always be sought from ingestion of growing plants than from before using any herbicide to control field and cut herbage left to wilt in the grassland or marsh horsetails. Consult a BASIS qualified bailed for fodder, since drying/ensiling and agronomist for suitable and available storage do not destroy the complex poisoning herbicides that will affect horsetails and how agent. Dead material is as toxic as living to apply the chemicals in a safe manner. plants, and should be avoided when Herbicides should never be used on species- harvesting any grass crop, and animals should rich grasslands of conservation value as they not be reintroduced to grassland until any will affect desirable herbs and grasses. The cutting or standing dead stems have rotted use of herbicides may be covered by away. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and a screening decision may be required Infestation of grasslands can lead to under- before their use. management or even abandonment of grassland management as the fodder cannot In all instances, field and marsh horsetail will be grazed by livestock or taken as hay without re-grow from the rhizomes, even when posing a severe health risk. Field and marsh subject to repeat defoliation or herbicide horsetails often occur in low-lying wet application. Frequent repeat application of grassland areas where the more agricultural herbicide is unlikely to be acceptable on most and competitive grasses can dominate if not species-rich grasslands as the broad-spectrum frequently managed, either through cutting or herbicides would also kill desirable grazing. These grasslands are usually of vegetation. An additional complication is that significant botanical interest, which can be field and marsh horsetails are commonly threatened by rapid invasion of these found along the margins of watercourses and horsetail species. in wetter areas, where there are additional concerns and limitations applying herbicide Complete and effective control of established which could pollute waterways, as well as horsetail infestations in grassland is virtually possible access limitations. In these areas, impossible. Even if the grass is destroyed and there is often no alternative to mechanical the pasture re-sown after cultivation, which hand 'strimming' as the sole method of should not be considered in any botanically suppression. If cutting is being undertaken, rich grasslands, horsetails can still survive due the arisings should be removed from the to their deep rhizomes. The best that can grassland to prevent any livestock eating the usually be hoped for agronomically is to poisonous stems and regrowth from cut suppress the vegetative top growth and material. Care should be taken to prevent cut material from being spread as this may inadvertently lead to the establishment of References field and marsh horsetails over a wider area. Another way to control horsetails is to cover Cooper, M.R. and Johnson, A.W. (1998) the soil in an impermeable temporary cover Poisonous plants and fungi in Britain: animal blocking out the light, such as black plastic. and human poisoning. The Stationary Office. This has been found to suppress and kill the rhizomes in the upper soil layers, but the Garden Organic flower spikes are strong enough to penetrate https://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/weeds/fie some fabrics and, therefore, able to ld-horsetail photosynthesise and reproduce. The use of a cover should never be undertaken on species- Gillam, F. (2008) Poisonous plants of Great rich grasslands of conservation concern as Britain. Wooden Books. light would also be blocked to desirable herbs and grasses killing them far more quickly than Johnson, C. (2015) British poisonous plants. field and
Recommended publications
  • RI Equisetopsida and Lycopodiopsida.Indd
    IIntroductionntroduction byby FFrancisrancis UnderwoodUnderwood Rhode Island Equisetopsida, Lycopodiopsida and Isoetopsida Special Th anks to the following for giving permission for the use their images. Robbin Moran New York Botanical Garden George Yatskievych and Ann Larson Missouri Botanical Garden Jan De Laet, plantsystematics.org Th is pdf is a companion publication to Rhode Island Equisetopsida, Lycopodiopsida & Isoetopsida at among-ri-wildfl owers.org Th e Elfi n Press 2016 Introduction Formerly known as fern allies, Horsetails, Club-mosses, Fir-mosses, Spike-mosses and Quillworts are plants that have an alternate generation life-cycle similar to ferns, having both sporophyte and gametophyte stages. Equisetopsida Horsetails date from the Devonian period (416 to 359 million years ago) in earth’s history where they were trees up to 110 feet in height and helped to form the coal deposits of the Carboniferous period. Only one genus has survived to modern times (Equisetum). Horsetails Horsetails (Equisetum) have jointed stems with whorls of thin narrow leaves. In the sporophyte stage, they have a sterile and fertile form. Th ey produce only one type of spore. While the gametophytes produced from the spores appear to be plentiful, the successful reproduction of the sporophyte form is low with most Horsetails reproducing vegetatively. Lycopodiopsida Lycopodiopsida includes the clubmosses (Dendrolycopodium, Diphasiastrum, Lycopodiella, Lycopodium , Spinulum) and Fir-mosses (Huperzia) Clubmosses Clubmosses are evergreen plants that produce only microspores that develop into a gametophyte capable of producing both sperm and egg cells. Club-mosses can produce the spores either in leaf axils or at the top of their stems. Th e spore capsules form in a cone-like structures (strobili) at the top of the plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of Angiosperm Phylogeny
    Outline of angiosperm phylogeny: orders, families, and representative genera with emphasis on Oregon native plants Priscilla Spears December 2013 The following listing gives an introduction to the phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants that has emerged in recent decades, and which is based on nucleic acid sequences as well as morphological and developmental data. This listing emphasizes temperate families of the Northern Hemisphere and is meant as an overview with examples of Oregon native plants. It includes many exotic genera that are grown in Oregon as ornamentals plus other plants of interest worldwide. The genera that are Oregon natives are printed in a blue font. Genera that are exotics are shown in black, however genera in blue may also contain non-native species. Names separated by a slash are alternatives or else the nomenclature is in flux. When several genera have the same common name, the names are separated by commas. The order of the family names is from the linear listing of families in the APG III report. For further information, see the references on the last page. Basal Angiosperms (ANITA grade) Amborellales Amborellaceae, sole family, the earliest branch of flowering plants, a shrub native to New Caledonia – Amborella Nymphaeales Hydatellaceae – aquatics from Australasia, previously classified as a grass Cabombaceae (water shield – Brasenia, fanwort – Cabomba) Nymphaeaceae (water lilies – Nymphaea; pond lilies – Nuphar) Austrobaileyales Schisandraceae (wild sarsaparilla, star vine – Schisandra; Japanese
    [Show full text]
  • Vulgaris in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and Adjacent Areas
    Chloroplast DNA Phylogeography Reveals Repeated Range Expansion in a Widespread Aquatic Herb Hippuris vulgaris in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and Adjacent Areas Jin-Ming Chen1., Zhi-Yuan Du1., Shan-Shan Sun1,2, Robert Wahiti Gituru3, Qing-Feng Wang1* 1 Key Laboratory of Aquatic Botany and Watershed Ecology, Wuhan Botanical Garden, The Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei, China, 2 Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, 3 Botany Department, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya Abstract Background: The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (QTP) is one of the most extensive habitats for alpine plants in the world. Climatic oscillations during the Quaternary ice age had a dramatic effect on species ranges on the QTP and the adjacent areas. However, how the distribution ranges of aquatic plant species shifted on the QTP in response to Quaternary climatic changes remains almost unknown. Methodology and Principal Findings: We studied the phylogeography and demographic history of the widespread aquatic herb Hippuris vulgaris from the QTP and adjacent areas. Our sampling included 385 individuals from 47 natural populations of H. vulgaris. Using sequences from four chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) non-coding regions, we distinguished eight different cpDNA haplotypes. From the cpDNA variation in H. vulgaris, we found a very high level of population differentiation (GST = 0.819) but the phylogeographical structure remained obscure (NST = 0.853.GST = 0.819, P.0.05). Phylogenetic analyses revealed two main cpDNA haplotype lineages. The split between these two haplotype groups can be dated back to the mid-to-late Pleistocene (ca. 0.480 Myr). Mismatch distribution analyses showed that each of these had experienced a recent range expansion.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Equisetum Giganteum</I>
    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 3-24-2009 Ecophysiology and Biomechanics of Equisetum Giganteum in South America Chad Eric Husby Florida International University, [email protected] DOI: 10.25148/etd.FI10022522 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Husby, Chad Eric, "Ecophysiology and Biomechanics of Equisetum Giganteum in South America" (2009). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 200. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/200 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida ECOPHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS OF EQUISETUM GIGANTEUM IN SOUTH AMERICA A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in BIOLOGY by Chad Eric Husby 2009 To: Dean Kenneth Furton choose the name of dean of your college/school College of Arts and Sciences choose the name of your college/school This dissertation, written by Chad Eric Husby, and entitled Ecophysiology and Biomechanics of Equisetum Giganteum in South America, having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgment. We have read this dissertation and recommend that it be approved. _______________________________________ Bradley C. Bennett _______________________________________ Jack B. Fisher _______________________________________ David W. Lee _______________________________________ Leonel Da Silveira Lobo O'Reilly Sternberg _______________________________________ Steven F. Oberbauer, Major Professor Date of Defense: March 24, 2009 The dissertation of Chad Eric Husby is approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Scouring-Rush Horsetail Scientific Name: Equisetum Hyemale Order
    Common Name: Scouring-rush Horsetail Scientific Name: Equisetum hyemale Order: Equisetales Family: Equisetaceae Wetland Plant Status: Facultative Ecology & Description Scouring-rush horsetail is an evergreen, perennial plant that completes a growing season in two years. At maturity, scouring-rush horsetail usually averages 3 feet in height but can be range anywhere from 2 to 5 feet. It can survive in a variety of environments. One single plant can spread 6 feet in diameter. It has cylindrical stems that averages a third of an inch in diameter. Noticeably spotted are the jointed unions that are located down the plant. The stems are hollow and don’t branch off into additional stems. Also, scouring- rush horsetail has rough ridges that run longitudinal along the stem. Although not covered in leaves, tiny leaves are joined together around the stem which then forms a black or green band, or sheath at each individual joint on the stem. This plant has an enormous root system that can reach 6 feet deep and propagates in two ways: rhizomes and spores. Incredibly, due to the fact that this plant is not full of leaves, it is forced to photosynthesize through the stem rather than leaves. Habitat Scouring-rush horsetail is highly tolerant of tough conditions. It can survive and thrive in full sun or part shade and can successfully grow in a variety of soil types. It can also grow in moderate to wet soils, and can survive in up to 4 inches of water. Distribution Scouring-rush horsetail can be found throughout the United States, Eurasia, and Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • The Timescale of Early Land Plant Evolution PNAS PLUS
    The timescale of early land plant evolution PNAS PLUS Jennifer L. Morrisa,1, Mark N. Putticka,b,1, James W. Clarka, Dianne Edwardsc, Paul Kenrickb, Silvia Presseld, Charles H. Wellmane, Ziheng Yangf,g, Harald Schneidera,d,h,2, and Philip C. J. Donoghuea,2 aSchool of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TQ, United Kingdom; bDepartment of Earth Sciences, Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom; cSchool of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10, United Kingdom; dDepartment of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom; eDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom; fDepartment of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom; gRadclie Institute for Advanced Studies, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138; and hCenter of Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yunnan 666303, China Edited by Peter R. Crane, Oak Spring Garden Foundation, Upperville, VA, and approved January 17, 2018 (received for review November 10, 2017) Establishing the timescale of early land plant evolution is essential recourse but to molecular clock methodology, employing the for testing hypotheses on the coevolution of land plants and known fossil record to calibrate and constrain molecular evolu- Earth’s System. The sparseness of early land plant megafossils and tion to time. Unfortunately, the relationships among the four stratigraphic controls on their distribution make the fossil record principal lineages of land plants, namely, hornworts, liverworts, an unreliable guide, leaving only the molecular clock. However, mosses, and tracheophytes, are unresolved, with almost every the application of molecular clock methodology is challenged by possible solution currently considered viable (14).
    [Show full text]
  • Subclase Equisetidae ¿Tienes Alguna Duda, Sugerencia O Corrección Acerca De Este Taxón? Envíanosla Y Con Gusto La Atenderemos
    subclase Equisetidae ¿Tienes alguna duda, sugerencia o corrección acerca de este taxón? Envíanosla y con gusto la atenderemos. Ver todas las fotos etiquetadas con Equisetidae en Banco de Imagénes » Descripción de WIKIPEDIAES Ver en Wikipedia (español) → Ver Pteridophyta para una introducción a las plantas Equisetos vasculares sin semilla Rango temporal: Devónico-Holoceno PreЄ Є O S D C P T J K Pg N Los equisetos , llamados Equisetidae en la moderna clasificación de Christenhusz et al. 2011,[1] [2] [3] o también Equisetopsida o Equisetophyta, y en paleobotánica es más común Sphenopsida, son plantas vasculares afines a los helechos que aparecieron en el Devónico, pero que actualmente sobrevive únicamente el género Equisetum, si bien hay representantes de órdenes extintos que se verán en este artículo. Este grupo es monofilético, aun con sus representantes extintos, debido a su morfología distintiva. Son plantas pequeñas, aunque en el pasado una variedad de calamitácea alcanzó los 15 metros durante el pérmico.[4] Índice 1 Filogenia 1.1 Ecología y evolución 2 Taxonomía 2.1 Sinonimia Variedades de Equisetum 2.2 Sistema de Christenhusz et al. 2011 Taxonomía 2.3 Clasificación sensu Smith et al. 2006 2.4 Otras clasificaciones Reino: Plantae 3 Caracteres Viridiplantae 4 Véase también Streptophyta 5 Referencias Streptophytina 6 Bibliografía Embryophyta (sin rango) 7 Enlaces externos Tracheophyta Euphyllophyta Monilophyta Filogenia[editar] Equisetopsida o Sphenopsida Introducción teórica en Filogenia Clase: C.Agardh 1825 / Engler 1924 Equisetidae Los análisis moleculares y genéticos de filogenia solo Subclase: se pueden hacer sobre representantes vivientes, Warm. 1883 como circunscripto según Smith et al. (2006) (ver la Órdenes ficha), al menos Equisetales es monofilético (Pryer et Equisetales (DC.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Williamson County Equisetum Hyemale L. Subsp. Affine
    Vascular Plants of Williamson County Equisetum hyemale subsp. affine − COMMON SCOURING RUSH [Equisetaceae] Equisetum hyemale L. subsp. affine (Engelm.) Calder & Roy L. Taylor, COMMON SCOURING RUSH. Perennial herb, clonal, evergreen with photosynthetic stems, rhizomatous, fibrous-rooted, many-stemmed at base, stems jointed, unbranched above base (year 1), sometimes with 1−5 ascending branches at particular nodes (older stems), erect to ascending, in range 100–275 cm tall; shoots without foliage, each green stem persisting for 2 or more years and potentially with a terminal, spore-producing cone (in range most shoots sterile), glabrous; rhizomes deep-seated, horizontal and ascending, ± 7 mm diameter, dull black, in ×-section oblong and hollow (internodes) with a ring of 20+ canals. Stems: with 22−30(−44+) low ridges, 6−8(−12) mm diameter at base, straight, tough, slightly constricted at nodes, each segment green to blue-green with a broad black band on lower internode underneath sheath of older stem segment, internodes typically 15−28 per shoot and 25−160 mm long, scabrous due to silica projections (transverse ridges) in cell walls, with 2 longitudinal lines of sunken stomates within each stem valley; internode hollow, mature wall 0.5–2 mm thick, in ×-section with a canal beneath each ridge; lateral branches whorled but not symmetrically so, ± 16-ridged, ca. 3 mm diameter. Leaves: as many as stem ridges, whorled and fused forming sheath around node with scalelike free portions; sheath cylindric, (7−)10−13(−17) mm long, diameter < length, initially pale yellow green above node, with a black band formed by upper sheath and lobes, in age forming a second black band near midpoint between base and tip separated by an ash-gray band; free portion of leaf flat needle-shaped, 0.5−1 mm wide, soon dead and brownish, 1- veined, mostly abscised; free portions on microphylls of lateral branches 0.5 mm wide, black base to tip.
    [Show full text]
  • Abscisic Acid (ABA)-Mediated Plant Mechanisms for Conserving Water Under Low Humidity
    plants Review Surviving a Dry Future: Abscisic Acid (ABA)-Mediated Plant Mechanisms for Conserving Water under Low Humidity Frances C. Sussmilch 1,2 ID and Scott A. M. McAdam 3,* 1 School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia; [email protected] 2 Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology and Biophysics, University of Würzburg, D-97082 Würzburg, Germany 3 Purdue Center for Plant Biology, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-765-494-3650 Received: 3 October 2017; Accepted: 1 November 2017; Published: 4 November 2017 Abstract: Angiosperms are able to respond rapidly to the first sign of dry conditions, a decrease in air humidity, more accurately described as an increase in the vapor pressure deficit between the leaf and the atmosphere (VPD), by abscisic acid (ABA)-mediated stomatal closure. The genes underlying this response offer valuable candidates for targeted selection of crop varieties with improved drought tolerance, a critical goal for current plant breeding programs, to maximize crop production in drier and increasingly marginalized environments, and meet the demands of a growing population in the face of a changing climate. Here, we review current understanding of the genetic mechanisms underpinning ABA-mediated stomatal closure, a key means for conserving water under dry conditions, examine how these mechanisms evolved, and discuss what remains to be investigated. Keywords: stomata; humidity; vapor pressure deficit (VPD); abscisic acid (ABA); 9-cis-epoxycarotenoid dioxygenase (NCED); water deficit stress; evolution; sensing water status 1. Introduction Water availability is a major limiting factor for plant survival and growth, and is one of the most significant constraining factors for crop production.
    [Show full text]
  • Temporality of Flower Initiation and Control of Inflorescence Architecture Anaïs Chaumeret
    Temporality of Flower Initiation and Control of Inflorescence Architecture Anaïs Chaumeret To cite this version: Anaïs Chaumeret. Temporality of Flower Initiation and Control of Inflorescence Architecture. Vegetal Biology. Université de Lyon, 2017. English. NNT : 2017LYSEN059. tel-01662417 HAL Id: tel-01662417 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01662417 Submitted on 13 Dec 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ! Numéro National de Thèse : 2017LYSEN059 THESE de DOCTORAT DE L’UNIVERSITE DE LYON opérée par L’Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon Ecole Doctorale N° 340 Biologie Moléculaire et Intégrée de la Cellule Spécialité de doctorat : Biologie du développement, Biologie des plantes Discipline : Sciences de la vie Soutenue publiquement le 27/10/2017, par : Anaïs CHAUMERET Temporalité de l’initiation des fleurs et contrôle de l’architecture de l’inflorescence Temporality of flower initiation and control of inflorescence architecture Devant le jury composé de : FERRANDIZ, Cristina : Lecturer, Maestre ; IBMCP Valencia, Espagne ; Rapporteure
    [Show full text]
  • 583–584 Angiosperms 583 *Eudicots and Ceratophyllales
    583 583 > 583–584 Angiosperms These schedules are extensively revised, having been prepared with little reference to earlier editions. 583 *Eudicots and Ceratophyllales Subdivisions are added for eudicots and Ceratophyllales together, for eudicots alone Class here angiosperms (flowering plants), core eudicots For monocots, basal angiosperms, Chloranthales, magnoliids, see 584 See Manual at 583–585 vs. 600; also at 583–584; also at 583 vs. 582.13 .176 98 Mangrove swamp ecology Number built according to instructions under 583–588 Class here comprehensive works on mangroves For mangroves of a specific order or family, see the order or family, e.g., mangroves of family Combretaceae 583.73 .2 *Ceratophyllales Class here Ceratophyllaceae Class here hornworts > 583.3–583.9 Eudicots Class comprehensive works in 583 .3 *Ranunculales, Sabiaceae, Proteales, Trochodendrales, Buxales .34 *Ranunculales Including Berberidaceae, Eupteleaceae, Menispermaceae, Ranunculaceae Including aconites, anemones, barberries, buttercups, Christmas roses, clematises, columbines, delphiniums, hellebores, larkspurs, lesser celandine, mandrake, mayapple, mayflower, monkshoods, moonseeds, wolfsbanes For Fumariaceae, Papaveraceae, Pteridophyllaceae, see 583.35 See also 583.9593 for mandrakes of family Solanaceae .35 *Fumariaceae, Papaveraceae, Pteridophyllaceae Including bleeding hearts, bloodroot, celandines, Dutchman’s breeches, fumitories, poppies See also 583.34 for lesser celandine .37 *Sabiaceae * *Add as instructed under 583–588 1 583 Dewey Decimal Classification
    [Show full text]