DOCSLIB.ORG

Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of the Washington - Baltimore Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of the Washington - Baltimore Area Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of the Washington - Baltimore Area Part II Monocotyledons Stanwyn G. Shetler Sylvia Stone Orli Botany Section, Department of Systematic Biology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560-0166 MAP OF THE CHECKLIST AREA Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of the Washington - Baltimore Area Part II Monocotyledons by Stanwyn G. Shetler and Sylvia Stone Orli Department of Systematic Biology Botany Section National Museum of Natural History 2002 Botany Section, Department of Systematic Biology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560-0166 Cover illustration of Canada or nodding wild rye (Elymus canadensis L.) from Manual of the Grasses of the United States by A. S. Hitchcock, revised by Agnes Chase (1951). iii PREFACE The first part of our Annotated Checklist, covering the 2001 species of Ferns, Fern Allies, Gymnosperms, and Dicotyledons native or naturalized in the Washington-Baltimore Area, was published in March 2000. Part II covers the Monocotyledons and completes the preliminary edition of the Checklist, which we hope will prove useful not only in itself but also as a first step toward a new manual for the identification of the Area’s flora. Such a manual is needed to replace the long- outdated and out-of-print Flora of the District of Columbia and Vicinity of Hitchcock and Standley, published in 1919. In the preparation of this part, as with Part I, Shetler has been responsible for the taxonomy and nomenclature and Orli for the database. As with the first part, we are distributing this second part in preliminary form, so that it can be used, criticized, and updated while the two parts are being readied for publication as a single volume. Corrections and comments are welcome. We hope that our now-completed Checklist stimulates much new fieldwork to check the current status of the local flora relative to what is being reported by us. The complete Checklist is available on our Web Site for the Flora of the Washington- Baltimore Area (www.nmnh.si.edu/botany/projects/dcflora) in pdf format and as a searchable database. The Herbarium of the Washington-Baltimore Area (“D.C. Herbarium”), consisting of nearly 60,000 preserved plant specimens collected over the past 125 years or so, is also accessible at this site. It has served as the basis for the Checklist. The Web database provides the label information for the specimens, distribution maps for the species, and, in many cases, a link to an image. We gratefully acknowledge the help of many persons. We are indebted in the first place to Carol Annable, ChristineBegle, MarcieBeyersdorfer, Laura Lehtonen, andSusan Wiser--all former assistants of Shetler--for their vital help in compiling the original working materials, including the initial list. In particular, Christine was largely responsible for compiling the working list from Hitchcock’s and Standley’s Flora (1919) and Hermann’s Checklist (1946). Help with the grasses was provided by Paul M. Peterson (especially, Agrostis, Bromus, Cenchrus, Cynodon, Muhlenbergia) and Robert (“Rob”) J. Soreng (esp. Festuca/Schedonorus, Hordeum, Poa). Rob reviewed the entire draft of the Poaceae and offered many useful comments. In preparing their recently published Atlas of Carex for Maryland and the District of Columbia (2002), Christopher T. Fryeand Christopher Lea examined all of ourCarex specimens and annotated many. Our treatment closely follows theirs, and we thank Chris Lea in particular for responding to many questions. Robert R. Haynes kindly annotated all of our Najadaceae and Potamogetonaceae, and his annotations guided our treatment of these families. Likewise, we were fortunate to have Larry J. Davenport annotate our Lemnaceae, providing the basis for our treatment. Mark Strong iv revised and annotated our collections of the species formerly treated broadly as Scirpus, and his treatment is followed. He also annotated other Cyperaceae and some Juncaceae. Dan H. Nicolson continued to give of his time and expertise to solve nomenclatural problems. Finally, we thank the BotanySection ofthe Department ofSystematic Biologyand especially W. John E. Kress, Head of the Section, for their continued encouragement and support of this project; and the Virginia E. Crouch Memorial Fund for Native Plant Conservation and Research, administered by Larry E. Morse of Natureserve, for partial support of the printing and distribution of Part II. Stanwyn G. Shetler Sylvia Stone Orli Department of Systematic Biology - Botany Section National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC 20560-0166 [email protected] August 2002 v CONTENTS Preface........................................................................................................................................ iii Introduction................................................................................................................................ vii Geographic Coverage..................................................................................................... vii Taxonomic Considerations............................................................................................ viii Revision Procedures...................................................................................................... ix Primary Sources............................................................................................................. ix Principal References...................................................................................................... x Format of Species Entries.............................................................................................. xi Excluded Species........................................................................................................... xiii Statistics......................................................................................................................... xiv Web Site for Flora of Washington-Baltimore Area....................................................... xiv Annotated Checklist................................................................................................................... 1 Key to Abbreviations of Authors............................................................................................... 53 Literature Cited.......................................................................................................................... 73 Index of Common and Scientific Names................................................................................... 83 vi vii INTRODUCTION by Stanwyn G. Shetler A brief history of floristics in the Washington-Baltimore was presented in the Introduction to Part I. The procedures and format for the Checklist, given in Part I, are repeated here for the convenience of the user. There are three innovations in this part that should make it easier to use than the first part. Running heads indicate the family or families treated on the pages, common and scientific names are in the same index, and genera with more than 15 species, i.e., genera likely to run to a second page or more, are indexed to species. Geographic Coverage As indicated in the Preface, our Checklist is based in the first instance on the D.C. Herbarium. The limits of the D.C. Herbarium, as expanded in the 1930s and 1940s for the Conference on District Flora, are the limits of the “Washington-Baltimore Area” as defined by Hermann (1941, 1946) in his Checklist and also used here. This Area (see map inside front cover)is bounded on the north by the Maryland-Pennsylvania line, on the east by the Chesapeake Bay (western shore), on the south by the Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers, and on the west by the east foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains. It includes the Bull Run and Catoctin mountains, but excludes Shenandoah National Park and the Eastern Shore. Encompassed are the District of Columbia and the following 23 counties and 5 independent cities in Maryland and Virginia: Maryland Counties: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Carroll, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George’s, St. Mary’s. Cities: Baltimore Virginia Counties: Arlington, Culpeper, Fairfax, Fauquier, KingGeorge, Lancaster, Loudoun, Northumberland, Prince William, Richmond, Stafford, Westmoreland. Cities: Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas So defined, the Washington-Baltimore Area represents a radius of coverage from the Capitol in Washington, D.C., of about 50 miles, more than three times the 15-mile radius of the previous Floras. In compiling the Atlas of the Virginia Flora, Harvill et al. (1992), included the independent cities within counties for the purpose of mapping specimen distributions. Thus, Alexandria viii specimens were mapped as though from Arlington Co., Fairfax and Falls Church specimens as though from Fairfax Co., and Manassas specimens as though from Prince William Co. It is important to keep this in mind when voucher herbarium specimens from these cities are checked against the Atlas. Taxonomic Considerations The Checklist includes all native and naturalized species of vascular plants known to occur or to have occurred within the defined geographic area. Naturalized species are alien (exotic) species introduced into the area that are now believed to be reproducing and spreading in the wild without cultivation if only on a limited scale. A few species are included that appear to spread only as clones but persist indefinitely
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Types of American Grasses
    z LIBRARY OF Si AS-HITCHCOCK AND AGNES'CHASE 4: SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM oL TiiC. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE United States National Herbarium Volume XII, Part 3 TXE&3 OF AMERICAN GRASSES . / A STUDY OF THE AMERICAN SPECIES OF GRASSES DESCRIBED BY LINNAEUS, GRONOVIUS, SLOANE, SWARTZ, AND MICHAUX By A. S. HITCHCOCK z rit erV ^-C?^ 1 " WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1908 BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Issued June 18, 1908 ii PREFACE The accompanying paper, by Prof. A. S. Hitchcock, Systematic Agrostologist of the United States Department of Agriculture, u entitled Types of American grasses: a study of the American species of grasses described by Linnaeus, Gronovius, Sloane, Swartz, and Michaux," is an important contribution to our knowledge of American grasses. It is regarded as of fundamental importance in the critical sys- tematic investigation of any group of plants that the identity of the species described by earlier authors be determined with certainty. Often this identification can be made only by examining the type specimen, the original description being inconclusive. Under the American code of botanical nomenclature, which has been followed by the author of this paper, "the nomenclatorial t}rpe of a species or subspecies is the specimen to which the describer originally applied the name in publication." The procedure indicated by the American code, namely, to appeal to the type specimen when the original description is insufficient to identify the species, has been much misunderstood by European botanists. It has been taken to mean, in the case of the Linnsean herbarium, for example, that a specimen in that herbarium bearing the same name as a species described by Linnaeus in his Species Plantarum must be taken as the type of that species regardless of all other considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of Wild Leguminous Plants in Grasslands Management in Forest Ecosystem of Protected Areas of Madhya Pradesh State
    Vol-6 Issue-2 2020 IJARIIE-ISSN(O)-2395-4396 Role of wild leguminous plants in grasslands management in forest ecosystem of Protected Areas of Madhya Pradesh State Muratkar G. D. , Kokate U. R G. D. Muratkar Department of Environmental Science , Arts , Science and Commerce college Chikhaldara , District Amravati 444807 U. R. Kokate Department of Botany , Arts , Science and Commerce college Chikhaldara , District Amravati 444807 ABSTRACT Grasslands in melghat forest are of annual , taller type with course grasses. The dominant grasses are Themeda quadrivalvis , Heteropogon contortus , Apluda mutica , Chloris barbata . The soil is murmi red with low water holding capacity , in some parts the soil diversity observed black , red soil with clay , silt , sand and loam. The grasses are annual and very few are perennials like Dicanthium annulatum , Dicanthium caricosum , Cynodon barberi , Bothrichloa bladhii. The palatability of th grasses depends upon the soil nutrients , chemicals. The soil in which the wild leguminous plants like Vigna trilobata , Phaseolus radiate , Glycine max , Rhyncosia minima shows the more distribution of wild leguminous plants the soil is with more nitrogenous content due to biological nitrogen fixation and the soil shows the effects on fodder value of the grasses. Keywords : Grasslands Protected Areas , palatable grasses , soil fertility , Wild leguminous plants Introduction Madhya Pradesh is one of those promising states in India.Whether it's Bandhavgarh or Kanha or Pench, each and every national park is far from the civilization and has a rustic charm of its own. Remarkable flora and fauna of these nine National Parks is matched by scenic landscapes along with the incredible diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE
    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Phytolith Reference Collection for the Mountains of Dhufar, Oman
    The use of phytoliths as a proxy for distinguishing ecological communities: A preliminary phytolith reference collection for the mountains of Dhufar, Oman Undergraduate Research Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation “with Honors Research Distinction in Evolution and Ecology” in the Undergraduate Colleges of The Ohio State University by Drew Arbogast The Ohio State University May 2019 Project Co-Advisors: Professor Ian Hamilton, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology Professor Joy McCorriston, Department of Anthropology 2 Table of Contents Page List of Tables...................................................................................................................................3 List of Figures..................................................................................................................................4 Abstract............................................................................................................................................5 Introduction......................................................................................................................................6 Background......................................................................................................................................7 Materials and Methods...................................................................................................................11 Results............................................................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Classification, Evolution and Reproduction
    Plant Classification, Evolution, and Reproduction Plant classification, evolution and reproduction! Traditional plant classification! ! A phylogenetic perspective on classification! ! Milestones of land plant evolution! ! Overview of land plant diversity! ! Life cycle of land plants! Classification “the ordering of diversity into a meaningful hierarchical pattern” (i.e., grouping)! The Taxonomic Hierarchy! Classification of Ayahuasca, Banisteriopsis caapi! Kingdom !Plantae! Phylum !Magnoliophyta Class ! !Magnoliopsida! Order !Malpighiales! Family !Malpighiaceae Genus ! !Banisteriopsis! Species !caapi! Ranks above genus have standard endings.! Higher categories are more inclusive.! Botanical nomenclature Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778)! Species Plantarum! published 1753! 7,300 species! Botanical nomenclature Polynomials versus binomials! Know the organism “The Molesting Salvinia” Salvinia auriculata (S. molesta)! hp://dnr.state.il.us/stewardship/cd/biocontrol/2floangfern.html " Taxonomy vs. classification! Assigning a name! A system ! ! ! Placement in a category! Often predictive ! because it is based on Replicable, reliable relationships! results! ! Relationships centered on genealogy ! ! ! ! Edward Hitchcock, Elementary Geology, 1940! Classification Phylogeny: Reflect hypothesized evolution. relationships! Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859! Ernst Haeckel, Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, 1866! Branching tree-like diagrams representing relationships! Magnolia 1me 2 Zi m merman (1930) Lineage branching (cladogenesis or speciation) Modified
    [Show full text]
  • FLORA from FĂRĂGĂU AREA (MUREŞ COUNTY) AS POTENTIAL SOURCE of MEDICINAL PLANTS Silvia OROIAN1*, Mihaela SĂMĂRGHIŢAN2
    ISSN: 2601 – 6141, ISSN-L: 2601 – 6141 Acta Biologica Marisiensis 2018, 1(1): 60-70 ORIGINAL PAPER FLORA FROM FĂRĂGĂU AREA (MUREŞ COUNTY) AS POTENTIAL SOURCE OF MEDICINAL PLANTS Silvia OROIAN1*, Mihaela SĂMĂRGHIŢAN2 1Department of Pharmaceutical Botany, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Tîrgu Mureş, Romania 2Mureş County Museum, Department of Natural Sciences, Tîrgu Mureş, Romania *Correspondence: Silvia OROIAN [email protected] Received: 2 July 2018; Accepted: 9 July 2018; Published: 15 July 2018 Abstract The aim of this study was to identify a potential source of medicinal plant from Transylvanian Plain. Also, the paper provides information about the hayfields floral richness, a great scientific value for Romania and Europe. The study of the flora was carried out in several stages: 2005-2008, 2013, 2017-2018. In the studied area, 397 taxa were identified, distributed in 82 families with therapeutic potential, represented by 164 medical taxa, 37 of them being in the European Pharmacopoeia 8.5. The study reveals that most plants contain: volatile oils (13.41%), tannins (12.19%), flavonoids (9.75%), mucilages (8.53%) etc. This plants can be used in the treatment of various human disorders: disorders of the digestive system, respiratory system, skin disorders, muscular and skeletal systems, genitourinary system, in gynaecological disorders, cardiovascular, and central nervous sistem disorders. In the study plants protected by law at European and national level were identified: Echium maculatum, Cephalaria radiata, Crambe tataria, Narcissus poeticus ssp. radiiflorus, Salvia nutans, Iris aphylla, Orchis morio, Orchis tridentata, Adonis vernalis, Dictamnus albus, Hammarbya paludosa etc. Keywords: Fărăgău, medicinal plants, human disease, Mureş County 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 9 BIOL 325 – Plant Systematics Name
    BIOL 325 – Plant Systematics Name: ___________________________ Sample Topics & Questions for Exam 1 This document and questions are the copyright of CRHardy, 2016 onwards. Topic 01 – Introduction, Sample Topics & Questions: 1. What major topics to Rhoads and Block (2007) discuss in the introduction to their book? 2. What are the reasons that Prather et al. (2004) list for continued herbarium collecting even in places like North America the flora is thought to be well known? 3. What method(s) does Dirig (2005) discuss for mounting pressed specimens to herbarium sheets? 4. What methods does Dirig (2005) discuss for collecting plant specimens for later pressing? 5. What do the graphs used by Prather et al. (2004) show about herbarium plant collecting in the US? 6. How does one define plant systematics? Name at least one synonym for plant systematics? 7. What are practitioners of plant systematics called and what are some of their important products? 8. Be able to explain how each of these products are important to people and other scientists outside the field of systematics. 9. What is a phylogeny? 10. What is a herbarium? 11. Name the important components of a herbarium specimen. 12. What are herbarium specimens used for? 13. Although taxonomy and systematics are often treated as synonyms by many, they are not actually the same thing. Which of the two is a broader term and how so? 14. The far majority of plant species are described from studies in ... a. botanical gardens b. herbaria c. the field d. plant nurseries e. zoological museums Page 1 of 9 15.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument
    In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service This page left intentionally blank. In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument By Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt, William L. Halvorson, and Pamela Anning Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station University of Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior School of Natural Resources U.S. Geological Survey 125 Biological Sciences East National Park Service Tucson, Arizona 85721 U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web:http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested Citation Powell, B.F., Schmidt, C.A., Halvorson, W.L., and Anning, Pamela, 2008, Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory of Chiricahua National Monument: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1023, 104 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1023/]. Cover photo: Chiricahua National Monument. Photograph by National Park Service. Note: This report supersedes Schmidt et al. (2005). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Arundinelleae; Panicoideae; Poaceae)
    Bothalia 19, 1:45-52(1989) Kranz distinctive cells in the culm of ArundineUa (Arundinelleae; Panicoideae; Poaceae) EVANGELINA SANCHEZ*, MIRTA O. ARRIAGA* and ROGER P. ELLIS** Keywords: anatomy, Arundinella, C4, culm, distinctive cells, double bundle sheath, NADP-me ABSTRACT The transectional anatomy of photosynthetic flowering culms of Arundinella berteroniana (Schult.) Hitchc. & Chase and A. hispida (Willd.) Kuntze from South America and A. nepalensis Trin. from Africa is described and illustrated. The vascular bundles are arranged in three distinct rings, the outermost being external to a continuous sclerenchymatous band. Each of these peripheral bundles is surrounded by two bundle sheaths, a complete mestome sheath and an incomplete, outer, parenchymatous Kranz sheath, the cells of which contain large, specialized chloroplasts. Kranz bundle sheath extensions are also present. The chlorenchyma tissue is also located in this narrow peripheral zone and is interrupted by the vascular bundles and their associated sclerenchyma. Dispersed throughout the chlorenchyma are small groups of Kranz distinctive cells, identical in structure to the outer bundle sheath cells. No chlorenchyma cell is. therefore, more than two cells distant from a Kranz cell. The structure of the chlorenchyma and bundle sheaths indicates that the C4 photosynthetic pathway is operative in these culms. This study clearly demonstrates the presence of the peculiar distinctive cells in the culms as well as in the leaves of Arundinella. Also of interest is the presence of an inner bundle sheath in the vascular bundles of the culm whereas the bundles of the leaves possess only a single sheath. It has already been shown that Arundinella is a NADP-me C4 type and the anatomical predictor of a single Kranz sheath for NADP-me species, therefore, either does not hold in the culms of this genus or the culms are not NADP-me.
    [Show full text]
  • (Hordeum Vulgare Subsp. Spontaneum (C. Koch) Thell.) Across Bioclimatic Regions in Jordan
    Phenotypic Evolution of The Wild Progenitor of Cultivated Barley (Hordeum Vulgare Subsp. Spontaneum (C. Koch) Thell.) Across Bioclimatic Regions In Jordan Nawal Al Hajaj ( [email protected] ) National Agricultural Research Center-NARC https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8836-7664 Stefania Grando Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT: Alliance of Bioversity International and International Center for Tropical Agriculture Maysoon Ababnah National Agricultural Research Centre Nawar Alomari National Agricultural Research Centre Ahmad Albatianh National Agricultural Research Centre Jeehan Nesir National Agricultural Research Centre Hussain Migdadi National Agricultural Research Centre Yahya Shakhatreh Arab Atomic Energy Agency (AAEA) Salvatore Ceccarelli Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT: Alliance of Bioversity International and International Center for Tropical Agriculture Research Article Keywords: Environmental adaptation, Hordeum spontaneum, ecogeographical differentiation, phenotypic evolution, climate change, CWR Posted Date: August 30th, 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-802790/v1 Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/CommonHTML/jax.js Page 1/38 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/CommonHTML/jax.js Page 2/38 Abstract Climate change affects the evolutionary potential and the survival of wild plant populations by acting on tness traits. Resurrection approach was applied to investigate the phenotypic changes during the evolution of the wild progenitor of cultivated barley, Hordeum spontaneum K. Koch in Jordan. We compared 40 Hordeum spontaneum K. Koch populations collected in Jordan in 1991 with 40 Hordeum spontaneum K. Koch populations collected from the same sites in 2014. In the comparison we included seven Hordeum vulgare checks (one local landrace and six improved varieties).
    [Show full text]