DOCSLIB.ORG

The Study Report Can Be Downloaded Here

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Study Report Can Be Downloaded Here Agriculture & Environment Research Unit School of Life and Medical Sciences Guidance and tool to support farmers in taking aware decisions on Ecological Focus Areas Invitation to Tender: JRC/IPR/2014/H.4/0022/NC Final Report Agriculture and Environment Research Unit School of Life and Medical Sciences University of Hertfordshire United Kingdom 15 December 2015 GUIDANCE AND TOOL TO SUPPORT FARMERS IN TAKING AWARE DECISIONS ON ECOLOGICAL FOCUS AREAS: FINAL REPORT Report Preparation: Title: Guidance and tool to support farmers in taking aware decisions on Ecological Focus Areas Subtitle: Final report Reference: JRC/IPR/2014/H.4/0022/NC Report to: Joint Research Centre (JRC) Date: Draft submitted: 29 September 2015; revised 13 October; final revision 15 December 2015 Project co-ordinator: University of Hertfordshire, UK Organisation: Agriculture and Environment Research Unit School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, UK. Written by: Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D.J., Green, A. and Lewis, K.A. Release authorisation (Administration, Finance, Quality): Release authorisation (Scientific and technical): Please cite as: Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D.J., Green, A. and Lewis, K.A. (2015) Guidance and tool to support farmers in taking aware decisions on Ecological Focus Areas. Final report for Project JRC/IPR/2014/H.4/0022/NC. Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission 1 GUIDANCE AND TOOL TO SUPPORT FARMERS IN TAKING AWARE DECISIONS ON ECOLOGICAL FOCUS AREAS: FINAL REPORT Contents Executive summary............................................................................................................................................ 8 Executive summary (French) ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.0. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 13 1.1. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 13 1.2. Aims and objectives .............................................................................................................................. 14 1.3. Methodology, tasks and activities ........................................................................................................ 14 2.0. Literature review on the effects of EFA elements .................................................................................... 17 2.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 17 2.2. Individual EFA elements ....................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.1. Fallow land ..................................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2. Terraces ......................................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.3. Hedges or wooded strips ............................................................................................................... 20 2.2.4. Isolated trees ................................................................................................................................. 24 2.2.5. Trees in line ................................................................................................................................... 26 2.2.6. Trees in groups and field copses ................................................................................................... 28 2.2.7. Field margins ................................................................................................................................. 29 2.2.8. Ponds ............................................................................................................................................. 31 2.2.9. Ditches ........................................................................................................................................... 35 2.2.10. Traditional stone walls ................................................................................................................ 39 2.2.11. Other landscape features ............................................................................................................ 40 2.2.12. Buffer strips ................................................................................................................................. 42 2.2.13. Agroforestry ................................................................................................................................. 45 2.2.14. Strips along forest edges ............................................................................................................. 46 2.2.15. Short rotation coppice ................................................................................................................. 49 2.2.16. Afforested areas .......................................................................................................................... 53 2.2.17. Catch crops or green cover .......................................................................................................... 57 2.2.18. Nitrogen fixing crops ................................................................................................................... 60 2.3. Whole landscape perspective ............................................................................................................... 63 3.0. Impact assessment (establishment of criteria and guidelines) ................................................................ 65 3.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 65 3.2. The impact assessment framework ...................................................................................................... 65 3.2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 65 3.2.2. EFA elements and farm features ................................................................................................... 65 3.2.3. Impact categories .......................................................................................................................... 67 3.2.4. Parameters and parameter classes ............................................................................................... 67 3.2.5. Scoring impacts .............................................................................................................................. 67 3.2.5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 67 3.2.5.2. Quantitative (meta-model) approach .................................................................................... 69 3.2.5.3. Qualitative (risk factor) approach ........................................................................................... 70 3.2.6. Aggregation techniques ................................................................................................................. 72 3.2.7. Additional ranking impact categories ............................................................................................ 73 3.3. Overview of feature-impacts (criteria and guidelines) ......................................................................... 74 3.3.1. Agroforestry ................................................................................................................................... 74 3.3.2. Ancient monuments ...................................................................................................................... 77 3.3.3. Ancient stones ............................................................................................................................... 78 3.3.4. Archaeological sites ....................................................................................................................... 79 3.3.5. Catch crops or green cover ............................................................................................................ 80 3.3.6. Ditches ........................................................................................................................................... 83 3.3.7. Fallow land ..................................................................................................................................... 87 2 GUIDANCE AND TOOL TO SUPPORT FARMERS IN TAKING AWARE DECISIONS ON ECOLOGICAL FOCUS AREAS: FINAL REPORT 3.3.8. Garrigue ......................................................................................................................................... 89 3.3.9. Hedges or wooded strips ............................................................................................................... 90 3.3.10. Isolated trees ............................................................................................................................... 93 3.3.11. Land strips (adjacent/parallel to water) ...................................................................................... 95 3.3.12. Land strips (other) ......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Studies in the Compositae of the Arabian Peninsula and Socotra – 3
    Willdenowia 29 – 1999 197 SUSANNE KING-JONES & NORBERT KILIAN Studies in the Compositae of the Arabian Peninsula and Socotra – 3. Pluchea aromatica from Socotra is actually a species of Pulicaria (Inuleae) Abstract King-Jones [née Hunger], S. & Kilian, N.: Studies in the Compositae of the Arabian Peninsula and Socotra – 3. Pluchea aromatica from Socotra is actually a species of Pulicaria (Inuleae).– Willdenowia 29: 197-202. 1999 – ISSN 0511-9618. An endemic shrub from Socotra, only known from a few late 19th century collections and hitherto misplaced in Pluchea (Plucheeae) is studied with respect to, in particular, flower, achene and pappus morphology. The species is placed in Pulicaria and the new combination Pulicaria aromatica is made. Pluchea aromatica, which was characterized by Isaac Balfour (1888: 126) as “a very beautiful, small, and strongly aromatic shrub of the higher parts of the Haghier hills” is known from only five collections, made during four expeditions to Socotra between 1880 and 1899. In spite of ex- tensive collecting activities on Socotra over the last years, the species has not been recollected. This is rather surprising, as it was collected in the late 19th century not only at higher altitudes of the Haghier Mountains but also on its foothills not far from the main settlement of the island. It was even known locally by a vernacular Socotri name, reported independently from two of its collectors. Balfour had already expressed some uncertainty about the placement of this species in Pluchea. In the course of a revision of Pluchea in the Old World and Australia by the senior au- thor (Hunger 1996, 1997, King-Jones in prep.) it became obvious that the species is not only mis- placed in Pluchea but is not even a member of the Plucheeae.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Botanical Garden in Lublin As a Refuge of the Moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) Within the City
    Acta Biologica 23/2016 | www.wnus.edu.pl/ab | DOI: 10.18276/ab.2016.23-02 | strony 15–34 The Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Botanical Garden in Lublin as a refuge of the moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) within the city Łukasz Dawidowicz,1 Halina Kucharczyk2 Department of Zoology, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Akademicka 19, 20-033 Lublin, Poland 1 e-mail: [email protected] 2 e-mail: [email protected] Keywords biodiversity, urban fauna, faunistics, city, species composition, rare species, conservation Abstract In 2012 and 2013, 418 species of moths at total were recorded in the Botanical Garden of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin. The list comprises 116 species of Noctuidae (26.4% of the Polish fauna), 116 species of Geometridae (28.4% of the Polish fauna) and 63 species of other Macrolepidoptera representatives (27.9% of the Polish fauna). The remaining 123 species were represented by Microlepidoptera. Nearly 10% of the species were associated with wetland habitats, what constitutes a surprisingly large proportion in such an urbanised area. Comparing the obtained data with previous studies concerning Polish urban fauna of Lepidoptera, the moths assemblages in the Botanical Garden were the most similar to the one from the Natolin Forest Reserve which protects the legacy of Mazovian forests. Several recorded moths appertain to locally and rarely encountered species, as Stegania cararia, Melanthia procellata, Pasiphila chloerata, Eupithecia haworthiata, Horisme corticata, Xylomoia graminea, Polychrysia moneta. In the light of the conducted studies, the Botanical Garden in Lublin stands out as quite high biodiversity and can be regarded as a refuge for moths within the urban limits of Lublin.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • Snail Herbivory Decreases Cyanobacterial Abundance And
    Snail herbivory decreases cyanobacterial abundance and lichen diversity along cracks of limestone pavements 1 2, 2 2 LARS FRO€BERG, PETER STOLL, ANETTE BAUR, AND BRUNO BAUR 1Botanical Museum, Department of Biology, O¨ stra Vallgatan 18, SE-223 61 Lund, Sweden 2Section of Conservation Biology, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Basel, St. Johanns-Vorstadt 10, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland Abstract. Herbivores are known to decrease plant species diversity in ecosystems with low productivity. Limestone pavements are low-productive habitats harboring specialized communities of cyanobacteria, and endo- and epilithic lichens exposed to extreme temperature and humidity fluctuations. Pavements of the Great Alvar (O¨ land, Sweden) are covered by free-living cyanobacteria giving the rock surface a dark color. Based on cyanobacterial abundance along the edges, two types of cracks intersecting the pavements have been described: Type one with abundant cyanobacteria and type two without cyanobacteria resulting in light-colored edges. Erosion and different lengths of inundation by melt water have been suggested to cause the conspicuous differences in community composition and hence color between cracks. We hypothesized that this pattern results from the grazing activity of the cyanobacteria- and lichen-feeding snail Chondrina clienta, which reduces cyanobacterial cover along light-colored cracks and facilitates endolithic lichens. Three dark and three light-colored cracks were investigated at each of three localities. Crack characteristics (i.e., aspect, width, depth and erosion) and snail density were assessed at the crack level. Cyanobacterial cover and lichen diversity were recorded in 1-cm sections, sampled every 5 cm along eight 160-cm-long transects per crack.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyprus at Christmas
    Cyprus at Christmas Naturetrek Tour Report 20 - 27 December 2019 Eastern Strawberry Tree Greater Sand Plover Snake-eyed Lizard True Cyprus Tarantula Report by Duncan McNiven Photos by Debbie Pain Naturetrek Mingledown Barn Wolf's Lane Chawton Alton Hampshire GU34 3HJ UK T: +44 (0)1962 733051 E: [email protected] W: www.naturetrek.co.uk Tour Report Cyprus at Christmas Tour participants: Yiannis Christofides & Duncan McNiven (leaders), Debbie Pain (co-leader) and Theodoros Theodorou (Doros, driver) with a group of 16 Naturetrek clients Day 1 Friday 20th December Gatwick - Mandria Beach – Paphos Sewage Works - Paphos The bulk of our group of ‘Christmas refugees’ took the early morning flight from Gatwick to Paphos where we met up with our local guide Yannis and driver Doros, as well as the remaining guests who had arrived separately. At the airport we boarded our bus and drove the short distance to Mandria beach. Although it was already late afternoon in Cyprus, here we had a chance to stretch our legs, get some fresh air, feel the warmth of the Mediterranean sun and begin to explore the nature of Cyprus in winter. Amongst the coastal scrub at the back of the beach we noted some familiar Painted Lady butterflies and a flock of lovely Greenfinches that positively glowed in the low winter sun. The scrub was full of Stonechats and noisy Sardinian Warblers, a chattering call that would form the backdrop to our trip wherever we went. A Zitting Cisticola popped up briefly but our attention was drawn to the recently ploughed fields beyond the scrub.
    [Show full text]
  • Acacia Saligna RA
    Risk Assessment: ………….. ACACIA SALIGNA Prepared by: Etienne Branquart (1), Vanessa Lozano (2) and Giuseppe Brundu (2) (1) [[email protected]] (2) Department of Agriculture, University of Sassari, Italy [[email protected]] Date: first draft 01 st November 2017 Subsequently Reviewed by 2 independent external Peer Reviewers: Dr Rob Tanner, chosen for his expertise in Risk Assessments, and Dr Jean-Marc Dufor-Dror chosen for his expertise on Acacia saligna . Date: first revised version 04 th January 2018, revised in light of comments from independent expert Peer Reviewers. Approved by the IAS Scientific Forum on 26/10/2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Branquart, Lozano & Brundu PRA Acacia saligna 8 9 10 Contents 11 Summary of the Express Pest Risk Assessment for Acacia saligna 4 12 Stage 1. Initiation 6 13 1.1 - Reason for performing the Pest Risk Assessment (PRA) 6 14 1.2 - PRA area 6 15 1.3 - PRA scheme 6 16 Stage 2. Pest risk assessment 7 17 2.1 - Taxonomy and identification 7 18 2.1.1 - Taxonomy 7 19 2.1.2 - Main synonyms 8 20 2.1.3 - Common names 8 21 2.1.4 - Main related or look-alike species 8 22 2.1.5 - Terminology used in the present PRA for taxa names 9 23 2.1.6 - Identification (brief description) 9 24 2.2 - Pest overview 9 25 2.2.2 - Habitat and environmental requirements 10 26 2.2.3 Resource acquisition mechanisms 12 27 2.2.4 - Symptoms 12 28 2.2.5 - Existing PRAs 12 29 Socio-economic benefits 13 30 2.3 - Is the pest a vector? 14 31 2.4 - Is a vector needed for pest entry or spread? 15 32 2.5 - Regulatory status of the pest 15 33 2.6 - Distribution
    [Show full text]
  • Heathland 700 the Park & Poor's Allotment Species List
    The Park & Poor's Allotment Bioblitz 25th - 26th July 2015 Common Name Scientific Name [if known] Site recorded Fungus Xylaria polymorpha Dead Man's Fingers Both Amanita excelsa var. excelsa Grey Spotted Amanita Poor's Allotment Panaeolus sp. Poor's Allotment Phallus impudicus var. impudicus Stinkhorn The Park Mosses Sphagnum denticulatum Cow-horn Bog-moss Both Sphagnum fimbriatum Fringed Bog-moss The Park Sphagnum papillosum Papillose Bog-moss The Park Sphagnum squarrosum Spiky Bog-moss The Park Sphagnum palustre Blunt-leaved Bog-moss Poor's Allotment Atrichum undulatum Common Smoothcap Both Polytrichum commune Common Haircap The Park Polytrichum formosum Bank Haircap Both Polytrichum juniperinum Juniper Haircap The Park Tetraphis pellucida Pellucid Four-tooth Moss The Park Schistidium crassipilum Thickpoint Grimmia Poor's Allotment Fissidens taxifolius Common Pocket-moss The Park Ceratodon purpureus Redshank The Park Dicranoweisia cirrata Common Pincushion Both Dicranella heteromalla Silky Forklet-moss Both Dicranella varia Variable Forklet-moss The Park Dicranum scoparium Broom Fork-moss Both Campylopus flexuosus Rusty Swan-neck Moss Poor's Allotment Campylopus introflexus Heath Star Moss Both Campylopus pyriformis Dwarf Swan-neck Moss The Park Bryoerythrophyllum Red Beard-moss Poor's Allotment Barbula convoluta Lesser Bird's-claw Beard-moss The Park Didymodon fallax Fallacious Beard-moss The Park Didymodon insulanus Cylindric Beard-moss Poor's Allotment Zygodon conoideus Lesser Yoke-moss The Park Zygodon viridissimus Green Yoke-moss
    [Show full text]
  • Syn. Varthemia Iphionoides): a Review
    European Journal of Medicinal Plants 31(14): 84-97, 2020; Article no.EJMP.61923 ISSN: 2231-0894, NLM ID: 101583475 Pharmacological Properties and Chemical Constituents of Chiliadenus iphionoides (Syn. Varthemia iphionoides): A Review Abeer R. Abdelhalim1* 1Department of Chemistry, College of Science, Taibah University, 30002, Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah, Saudi Arabia. Author’s contribution The sole author designed, analysed, interpreted and prepared the manuscript. Article Information DOI: 10.9734/EJMP/2020/v31i1430318 Editor(s): (1) Dr. Prem K. Ramasamy, Brandeis University, USA. (2) Marcello Iriti, University of Milan, Italy. Reviewers: (1) Hossny Awad Hassan, Cairo University, Egypt. (2) Christopher Edet Ekpenyong, University of Uyo, Nigeria. Complete Peer review History: http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/61923 Received 02 July 2020 Accepted 07 October 2020 Review Article Published 14 October 2020 ABSTRACT Chiliadenus iphionoides (Boiss. & Blanche) Brullo has been used in traditional medicine for different medical issues including stomach ailments, diabetes, male and female fertility problems, eye infection, kidney stones, and as an anti-inflammatory. Extracts of C. iphionoides have shown to exhibit useful pharmacological activities. Phytochemical studies have shown the existence of many biologically active compounds, such as essential oils, flavonoids, and phenolic compounds. This review aims to collect the published research about the traditional uses, chemical constituents, and pharmacological properties of C. iphionoides. This review showed that different extracts and active ingredients of C. iphionoides had various pharmacological properties such as anticancer, antidiabetic, antimicrobial, antioxidant, antispasmodic, and antiplatelet activities which might be due to the excitant of flavonoids and phenolic compounds. Chiliadenus iphionoides and its constituents exhibit many pharmacological properties that play a crucial role in human health, therefore, clinical trials should be conducted to study the valuable effects of the active ingredients of C.
    [Show full text]
  • Galega Orientalis
    et International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11 (2): 910-914(2020) ISSN No. (Print): 0975-8364 ISSN No. (Online): 2249-3255 The Efficiency of Eastern Galega ( Galega orientalis ) Cultivation Alexsandr Pavlovich Eryashev 1, Oleg Alekseevich Timoshkin 2 and Anna Nikolaevna Kshnikatkina 3 1Mordovian State University named after N.P. Ogarev, Bolshevitskaya Street, 68, Saransk, 430005, Russia. 2Federal Research Center for Bast Crops, Michurina Street, 1B, Lunino, 442731, Russia. 3Penza State Agrarian University, Botanicheskaya Street, 30, Penza, 440014, Russia. (Corresponding author: Alexsandr Pavlovich Eryashev) (Received 20 January 2020, Revised 14 March 2020, Accepted 18 March 2020) (Published by Research Trend, Website: www.researchtrend.net) ABSTRACT: Taking into account the increasing need for eastern galega seeds, it is necessary to look for effective ways to increase their yield. One of the methods is the use of plant protection products and the Albite growth regulator. The purpose of the research was to provide the scientific rationale for the economic and energetic viability of using crop protection agents and the Albite growth regulator on seed stands of Galega orientalis . The effect of these factors on yield capacity was studied in the field experiments (2012- 2014) and the economic and energetic efficiency of the agricultural methods was calculated. Field experiments, observations, analyses, accounting and processing of the obtained results were carried out according to modern methods used in crop production. The studies showed that the highest yield of Galega orientalis seeds was obtained against the pesticide-free background when plants were sprayed with the Albite growth regulator at the beginning of spring regrowth and budding phases and against the pesticide background during the spring regrowth phase; it was higher than in the control by 55.3% and 50.1%.
    [Show full text]
  • Presencia De Balea Heydeni Von Maltzan, 1881 (Gastropoda
    Spira 6 (2016) 91–93 http://www.molluscat.com/spira.html Presencia de Balea heydeni von Maltzan, 1881 (Gastropoda: Clausiliidae) en Cantabria Jesús Ruiz Cobo1 & Sergio Quiñonero Salgado2,* 1Grupo de Espeleología e Investigaciones Subterráneas Carballo­Raba, c/ Alcalde Arche s/n, 39600 Muriedas, Cantabria, Spain; 2Associació Catalana de Malacologia, Museu Blau, Plaça Leonardo da Vinci 4­5, 08019 Barcelona, Spain. Rebut el 5 de juliol de 2016 Acceptat el 2 d’octubre de 2016 © Associació Catalana de Malacologia (2016) Balea heydeni von Maltzan, 1881 es un molusco gasterópodo guignat, 1857 como un sinónimo de B. heydeni que tendría priori­ terrestre, perteneciente a la familia Clausiliidae, distribuido por dad. Sin embargo, por las razones aducidas por Gittenberger (2010) y buena parte del suroeste de Europa (Cadevall & Orozco, 2016). En Bank (2011), consideramos que el nombre correcto es Balea lucifuga España se conoce su presencia en Galicia y Asturias (Gittenberger Gray, 1824 (con distinta autoría), y que éste debe considerarse un et al., 2006; Martinez­Ortí, 2006; Cadevall & Orozco, 2016). Aunque sinónimo posterior de Balea perversa. en Cantabria se ha citado Balea perversa (Linnaeus, 1758) (Altonaga Damos a conocer aquí la presencia de B. heydeni en las siguien­ et al., 1994; Cadevall & Orozco, 2016), a pesar de disponerse de un tes 18 localidades de Cantabria (Figuras 1–2). En todas ellas se en­ buen número de muestreos distribuidos por Cantabria, no hemos lo­ contraron conchas vacías en buen estado de conservación. Son las calizado esta especie. Todos los ejemplares del género Balea J.E Gray, siguientes, ordenadas aproximadamente de oeste a este: 1824 recolectados corresponden a B.
    [Show full text]
  • ISTA List of Stabilized Plant Names 7Th Edition
    ISTA List of Stabilized Plant Names th 7 Edition ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. M. Schori Published by All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be The Internation Seed Testing Association (ISTA) reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted Zürichstr. 50, CH-8303 Bassersdorf, Switzerland in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior ©2020 International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) permission in writing from ISTA. ISBN 978-3-906549-77-4 ISTA List of Stabilized Plant Names 1st Edition 1966 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Prof P. A. Linehan 2nd Edition 1983 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. H. Pirson 3rd Edition 1988 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. W. A. Brandenburg 4th Edition 2001 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. J. H. Wiersema 5th Edition 2007 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. J. H. Wiersema 6th Edition 2013 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. J. H. Wiersema 7th Edition 2019 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. M. Schori 2 7th Edition ISTA List of Stabilized Plant Names Content Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Symbols and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Buchbesprechungen 247-296 ©Verein Zur Erforschung Der Flora Österreichs; Download Unter
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Neilreichia - Zeitschrift für Pflanzensystematik und Floristik Österreichs Jahr/Year: 2006 Band/Volume: 4 Autor(en)/Author(s): Mrkvicka Alexander Ch., Fischer Manfred Adalbert, Schneeweiß Gerald M., Raabe Uwe Artikel/Article: Buchbesprechungen 247-296 ©Verein zur Erforschung der Flora Österreichs; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Neilreichia 4: 247–297 (2006) Buchbesprechungen Arndt KÄSTNER, Eckehart J. JÄGER & Rudolf SCHUBERT, 2001: Handbuch der Se- getalpflanzen Mitteleuropas. Unter Mitarbeit von Uwe BRAUN, Günter FEYERABEND, Gerhard KARRER, Doris SEIDEL, Franz TIETZE, Klaus WERNER. – Wien & New York: Springer. – X + 609 pp.; 32 × 25 cm; fest gebunden. – ISBN 3-211-83562-8. – Preis: 177, – €. Dieses imposante Kompendium – wohl das umfangreichste Werk zu diesem Thema – behandelt praktisch alle Aspekte der reinen und angewandten Botanik rund um die Ackerbeikräuter. Es entstand in der Hauptsache aufgrund jahrzehntelanger Forschungs- arbeiten am Institut für Geobotanik der Universität Halle über Ökologie und Verbrei- tung der Segetalpflanzen. Im Zentrum des Werkes stehen 182 Arten, die ausführlich behandelt werden, wobei deren eindrucksvolle und umfassende „Porträt-Zeichnungen“ und genaue Verbreitungskarten am wichtigsten sind. Der „Allgemeine“ Teil („I.“) beginnt mit der Erläuterung einiger (vor allem morpholo- gischer, ökologischer, chorologischer und zoologischer) Fachausdrücke, darauf
    [Show full text]