2020 Herb of the Year Red Raspberry, Black Raspberry, Blackberry & Wineberry UCONN EXTENSION MASTER GARDENER PROGRAM
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Genetic Diversity in Wild and Cultivated Black Raspberry (Rubus Occidentalis L.) Evaluated by Simple Sequence Repeat Markers
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska 2012 Genetic diversity in wild and cultivated black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis L.) evaluated by simple sequence repeat markers Michael Dossett Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre Nahla V. Bassil United States Department of Agriculture Kim S. Lewers United States Department of Agriculture Chad E. Finn United States Department of Agriculture, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub Dossett, Michael; Bassil, Nahla V.; Lewers, Kim S.; and Finn, Chad E., "Genetic diversity in wild and cultivated black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis L.) evaluated by simple sequence repeat markers" (2012). Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty. 1243. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/1243 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Genet Resour Crop Evol (2012) 59:1849–1865 DOI 10.1007/s10722-012-9808-8 RESEARCH ARTICLE Genetic diversity in wild and cultivated black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis L.) evaluated by simple sequence repeat markers Michael Dossett • Nahla V. Bassil • Kim S. Lewers • Chad E. Finn Received: 7 September 2011 / Accepted: 15 January 2012 / Published online: 26 February 2012 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2012 Abstract Breeding progress in black raspberry (Ru- (SSR), markers are highly polymorphic codominant bus occidentalis L.) has been limited by a lack of markers useful for studying genetic diversity, popula- genetic diversity in elite germplasm. -
Rubus Idaeus (Raspberry ) Size/Shape
Rubus idaeus (raspberry ) Raspberry is an upright deciduous shrub.The shrub has thorns be careful. It ha pinatelly compound leaves with a toothed edge. The plant has two different types of shoots ( canes) One which produces fruits in the given year and one which grows leaves only but will be the next year productive shoot. The fruits are small but very juicy. It grows best in full fun and moderately fertile soil. The best to grow raspberry in a raised bed or in area where any frame or trellis can be put around the plants , otherwise it will fall on the ground. Landscape Information French Name: Framboisier, ﻋﻠﻴﻖ ﺃﺣﻤﺮ :Arabic Name Plant Type: Shrub Origin: North America, Europe, Asia Heat Zones: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Hardiness Zones: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Uses: Screen, Border Plant, Mass Planting, Edible, Wildlife Size/Shape Growth Rate: Fast Tree Shape: Upright Canopy Symmetry: Symmetrical Plant Image Canopy Density: Medium Canopy Texture: Medium Height at Maturity: 1 to 1.5 m Spread at Maturity: 1 to 1.5 meters Time to Ultimate Height: 2 to 5 Years Rubus idaeus (raspberry ) Botanical Description Foliage Leaf Arrangement: Alternate Leaf Venation: Pinnate Leaf Persistance: Deciduous Leaf Type: Odd Pinnately compund Leaf Blade: 5 - 10 cm Leaf Shape: Ovate Leaf Margins: Double Serrate Leaf Textures: Rough Leaf Scent: No Fragance Color(growing season): Green Flower Image Color(changing season): Brown Flower Flower Showiness: True Flower Size Range: 1.5 - 3 Flower Type: Raceme Flower Sexuality: Monoecious (Bisexual) Flower Scent: No Fragance Flower Color: -
'Sanna' Lingonberry Derived by Micropropagation Vs. Stem Cuttings
PROPAGATION & TISSUE CULTURE HORTSCIENCE 35(4):742–744. 2000. (WPM) (Lloyd and McCown, 1980) contain- ing 30 g·L–1 sucrose and 5 mg·L–1 2-isopentenyl adenine (2iP) before being rooted (in the same Field Performance of ‘Sanna’ medium as SC plants) in the greenhouse with high humidity and artificial light (long day) in Lingonberry Derived by Winter 1993–94. No rooting compound was applied to either the TC or the SC plants. Well- Micropropagation vs. Stem Cuttings rooted and approximately similar-sized pot plants from both propagation sources were Björn A. Gustavsson transplanted in Fall 1994 from the nursery to an experimental field at Balsgård (56°7´N, Balsgård–Department of Horticultural Plant Breeding, S–291 94 Kristianstad, 14°10´E). The soil in this field is a low-fertil- Sweden ity, sandy moraine, pH 5.6. Plants were grown in one row with three blocks of 10 plants each Vidmantas Stanys for a total of 30 plants per propagation method, Lithuanian Institute of Horticulture, 4335 Babtai, Kaunas District, Lithuania at a spacing of 40 cm. The field was mulched with 3–4 cm milled Additional index words. Vaccinium, cowberry, mountain cranberry, tissue culture, fruiting, peat 1 year after planting, and broadcast fertil- rhizomes ized each spring with 200 kg·ha–1 Complesal Abstract. Field performance in lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L. cv. Sanna) was (Hoechst, Lomma, Sweden) 12N–5P–14K. compared in 1995–97 for plants produced by tissue culture (TC) vs. stem cuttings (SC). Pot Irrigation was provided only in periods with plants of about the same size were transplanted from the nursery to an infertile, sandy prolonged lack of precipitation. -
Rubus Fruticosus L.: Constituents, Biological Activities and Health Related Uses
Molecules 2014, 19, 10998-11029; doi:10.3390/molecules190810998 OPEN ACCESS molecules ISSN 1420-3049 www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules Review Rubus Fruticosus L.: Constituents, Biological Activities and Health Related Uses Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq 1,*, Muhammad Riaz 2, Vincenzo De Feo 3, Hawa Z. E. Jaafar 4,* and Marius Moga 5 1 The Patent Office, Kandawala Building, M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi-74400, Pakistan 2 Department of Pharmacy, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal, Dir Upper-2500, Pakistan; E-Mail: [email protected] 3 Department of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Salerno, Salerno 84100, Italy; E-Mail: [email protected] 4 Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor, 43400, Malaysia; E-Mail: [email protected] 5 Department of Medicine, Transilvania University of Brasov, Brasov 500036 Romania; E-Mail: [email protected] * Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mails: [email protected] (M.Z.-U.-H.); [email protected] (H.Z.E.J.); Tel.: +92-322-250-6612 (M.Z.-U.-H.); +6-03-8947-4821 (H.Z.E.J.); Fax: +6-03-8947-4918 (H.Z.E.J.). Received: 21 April 2014; in revised form: 14 July 2014 / Accepted: 16 July 2014 / Published: 28 July 2014 Abstract: Rubus fruticosus L. is a shrub famous for its fruit called blackberry fruit or more commonly blackberry. The fruit has medicinal, cosmetic and nutritive value. It is a concentrated source of valuable nutrients, as well as bioactive constituents of therapeutic interest highlighting its importance as a functional food. Besides use as a fresh fruit, it is also used as ingredient in cooked dishes, salads and bakery products like jams, snacks, desserts, and fruit preserves. -
Transcriptome Assembly and Expression Analysis in Colletotrichum Gloeosporioides-Tolerant Rubus 7 Glaucus Benth
RESEARCH Transcriptome assembly and expression analysis in Colletotrichum gloeosporioides-tolerant Rubus 7 glaucus Benth. Juliana Arias1, Juan C. Rincón1*, Ana M. López1, and Marta L. Marulanda1 1Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, Grupo de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Biotecnología, Carrera 27 No. 10-02 Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia. *Corresponding author ([email protected]). Received: 9 April 2019; Accepted: 30 July 2019; doi:10.4067/S0718-58392019000400565 ABSTRACT Andean blackberry (Rubus glaucus Benth.) is an important crop of the Andean region affected by Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. In Colombia, tolerant plant material has been detected, but it has not been completely characterized. The objective of this research was oriented to analyze de novo transcriptome assembly of R. glaucus, and the comparison of the assembly with different reference genomes to further complete differential expression analysis of R. glaucus tolerant to C. gloespoiorides attack. To achieve this, three groups were used: infected tolerant material, infected susceptible material, and a susceptible group without inoculation. The RNA-seq sequencing was achieved through Illumina Hi-seq 2000. De novo assembly (Trinity, CD-HIT, TopHat) and functional annotation of sequences were carried out, additionally, mapping with reference genomes belonging to Rosaceae families was conducted (Bowtie2, TopHat). Subsequently, the differential expression was quantified (Cuffdiff) and analyzed through EdgeR. Variant analysis was made using MISA and SAMtools. After editing and assembly, 43579 consensus sequences were obtained (N50 = 489 bp; GC = 44.6%), annotation detected 35824 and 35602 sequences in Nt (partially non-redundant nucleotide sequences) and Nr (non-redundant protein sequences) databases, respectively. The 85% of Nr sequences was linked to members of Rosaceae family, mainly strawberry (67.6%). -
COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY of the INVASIVE RUBUS PHOENICOLASIUS and the NATIVE RUBUS ARGUTUS. Anne
ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY OF THE INVASIVE RUBUS PHOENICOLASIUS AND THE NATIVE RUBUS ARGUTUS. Anne Foss Innis, Doctor of Philosophy, 2005 Dissertation directed by: Associate Professor Irwin N. Forseth Department of Biology Invasive species are one of the most significant factors in human influenced global change. Management actions that prevent the spread and impacts of invasive species require knowledge of their ecological characteristics. The characteristics of the invasive wine raspberry (Rubus phoenicolasius Maxim.) and the native sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus Link) were examined in two forest habitats on the Maryland Coastal Plain. The invasive had greater negative effects on a common herbaceous plant (Duchesnea indica Andr. Focke) than the native. The invasive, R. phoenicolasius had higher leaf nitrogen concentrations (Nleaf), greater specific leaf areas (SLA) and higher maximal rates of photosynthesis (Amax) for a given dark respiration rate (Rd) than R. argutus. R. phoenicolasius depended less upon pollinators for fruit development and had higher fruiting rates with more seeds per fruit than the native species. In addition, seeds of R. phoenicolasius had higher germination rates. Survival of invasive seedlings was negatively affected by leaf litter additions, but seedling growth was not negatively influenced by shading. R. phoenicolasius seedlings grown in a greenhouse and inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi produced less biomass than seedlings that were not inoculated. The distribution of R. phoenicolasius may be affected by leaf litter, but presence of AMF is probably not necessary for seedling success. A three year demographic study showed that both species were negatively impacted by drought, but the invasive recovered faster than the native species in the higher light forest. -
Appendix 2: Plant Lists
Appendix 2: Plant Lists Master List and Section Lists Mahlon Dickerson Reservation Botanical Survey and Stewardship Assessment Wild Ridge Plants, LLC 2015 2015 MASTER PLANT LIST MAHLON DICKERSON RESERVATION SCIENTIFIC NAME NATIVENESS S-RANK CC PLANT HABIT # OF SECTIONS Acalypha rhomboidea Native 1 Forb 9 Acer palmatum Invasive 0 Tree 1 Acer pensylvanicum Native 7 Tree 2 Acer platanoides Invasive 0 Tree 4 Acer rubrum Native 3 Tree 27 Acer saccharum Native 5 Tree 24 Achillea millefolium Native 0 Forb 18 Acorus calamus Alien 0 Forb 1 Actaea pachypoda Native 5 Forb 10 Adiantum pedatum Native 7 Fern 7 Ageratina altissima v. altissima Native 3 Forb 23 Agrimonia gryposepala Native 4 Forb 4 Agrostis canina Alien 0 Graminoid 2 Agrostis gigantea Alien 0 Graminoid 8 Agrostis hyemalis Native 2 Graminoid 3 Agrostis perennans Native 5 Graminoid 18 Agrostis stolonifera Invasive 0 Graminoid 3 Ailanthus altissima Invasive 0 Tree 8 Ajuga reptans Invasive 0 Forb 3 Alisma subcordatum Native 3 Forb 3 Alliaria petiolata Invasive 0 Forb 17 Allium tricoccum Native 8 Forb 3 Allium vineale Alien 0 Forb 2 Alnus incana ssp rugosa Native 6 Shrub 5 Alnus serrulata Native 4 Shrub 3 Ambrosia artemisiifolia Native 0 Forb 14 Amelanchier arborea Native 7 Tree 26 Amphicarpaea bracteata Native 4 Vine, herbaceous 18 2015 MASTER PLANT LIST MAHLON DICKERSON RESERVATION SCIENTIFIC NAME NATIVENESS S-RANK CC PLANT HABIT # OF SECTIONS Anagallis arvensis Alien 0 Forb 4 Anaphalis margaritacea Native 2 Forb 3 Andropogon gerardii Native 4 Graminoid 1 Andropogon virginicus Native 2 Graminoid 1 Anemone americana Native 9 Forb 6 Anemone quinquefolia Native 7 Forb 13 Anemone virginiana Native 4 Forb 5 Antennaria neglecta Native 2 Forb 2 Antennaria neodioica ssp. -
Didymella Applanata) Control
Pestic. Phytomed. (Belgrade), 32(1), 2017, 25–32 UDC 632.952:632.4:634.711 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/PIF1701025S Original scientific paper Efficacy of fungicides with different modes of action in raspberry spur blight (Didymella applanata) control 1 2 3 Milan Stević* , Biljana Pavlović and Brankica Tanović 1 University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia 2 Scholar of Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia 3Institute of Pesticides and Environmental Protection, Banatska 31b, 11080 Belgrade Serbia *Corresponding author: [email protected] Received: 16 January 2017 Accepted: 1 March 2017 SUMMARY Efficacy trials of four multi-site fungicides (copper hydroxide, mancozeb, chlorothalonil and dithianon), as well as six fungicides with specific modes of action (fluopyram, boscalid, fluazinam, tebuconazole, azoxystrobin and pyraclostrobin) in raspberry spur blight (Didymella applanata) control were carried out in the seasons 2014 and 2016. The experiments were conducted as a randomized block design with four replicates in a commercial raspberry orchard in the locality Trešnjevica (Arilje) in western Serbia. All fungicides were applied preventively, four times until the beginning of harvest and once after harvest. The effects of the products tested were assessed three weeks after the last fungicide application according to the intensity of cane infection. Disease severity in control (untreated) plots were 53.7 (2014) and 76.3% (2016). In both years, the highest efficacy was achieved by tebuconazole (96.3 and 99.6%), followed by fluopyram (95.7 and 99.3%) and boscalid (94.7 and 95.9%). The broad-spectrum multi-site fungicides mancozeb, chlorothalonil, copper hydroxide and dithianon were effective against D. -
Mistaken Identity? Invasive Plants and Their Native Look-Alikes: an Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic
Mistaken Identity ? Invasive Plants and their Native Look-alikes an Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic Matthew Sarver Amanda Treher Lenny Wilson Robert Naczi Faith B. Kuehn www.nrcs.usda.gov http://dda.delaware.gov www.dsu.edu www.dehort.org www.delawareinvasives.net Published by: Delaware Department Agriculture • November 2008 In collaboration with: Claude E. Phillips Herbarium at Delaware State University • Delaware Center for Horticulture Funded by: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Cover Photos: Front: Aralia elata leaf (Inset, l-r: Aralia elata habit; Aralia spinosa infloresence, Aralia elata stem) Back: Aralia spinosa habit TABLE OF CONTENTS About this Guide ............................1 Introduction What Exactly is an Invasive Plant? ..................................................................................................................2 What Impacts do Invasives Have? ..................................................................................................................2 The Mid-Atlantic Invasive Flora......................................................................................................................3 Identification of Invasives ..............................................................................................................................4 You Can Make a Difference..............................................................................................................................5 Plant Profiles Trees Norway Maple vs. Sugar -
Appendix 6: Invasive Plant Species
USDA Forest Service Understanding i-Tree – Appendix 6: Invasive Plant Species APPENDIX 6 Invasive Plant Species The following is a list of invasive tree and shrub species by state that are included in i-Tree database (version 6). Each list of invasive species is followed by the reference of the source which were obtained circa 2014. Some of the Web addresses are no longer working; some have been relocated to alternative sites. State-specific invasive species lists will be updated in the future. Alabama Ailanthus altissima Lonicera japonica Poncirus trifoliate Albizia julibrissin Lonicera maackii Pyrus calleryana Ardisia crenata Lonicera morrowii Rosa bracteata Cinnamomum camphora Lonicera x bella Rosa multiflora Elaeagnus pungens Mahonia bealei Triadica sebifera Elaeagnus umbellata Melia azedarach Vernicia fordii Ligustrum japonicum Nandina domestica Wisteria sinensis Ligustrum lucidum Paulownia tomentosa Ligustrum sinense Polygonum cuspidatum Alabama Invasive Plant Council. 2007. 2007 plant list. Athens, GA: Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council. http://www.se-eppc.org/ alabama/2007plantlist.pdf Alaska Alnus glutinosa Lonicera tatarica Sorbus aucuparia Caragana arborescens Polygonum cuspidatum Cytisus scoparius Prunus padus Alaska National Heritage Program. 2014. Non-Native plant data. Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska Anchorage. http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/akepic/non-native-plant-species- list/#content Arizona Alhagi maurorum Rhus lancea Tamarix parviflora Elaeagnus angustifolia Tamarix aphylla Tamarix ramosissima Euryops multifidus Tamarix chinensis Ulmus pumila Arizona Wildland Invasive Plant Working Group. 2005. Invasive non-native plants that threaten wildlands in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Southwest Vegetation Management Association https:// www.swvma.org/wp-content/uploads/Invasive-Non-Native-Plants-that-Threaten-Wildlands-in- Arizona.pdf (Accessed Sept 3. -
Non-Native Invasive Plants of the City of Alexandria, Virginia
March 1, 2019 Non-Native Invasive Plants of the City of Alexandria, Virginia Non-native invasive plants have increasingly become a major threat to natural areas, parks, forests, and wetlands by displacing native species and wildlife and significantly degrading habitats. Today, they are considered the greatest threat to natural areas and global biodiversity, second only to habitat loss resulting from development and urbanization (Vitousek et al. 1996, Pimentel et al. 2005). The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation has identified 90 non-native invasive plants that threaten natural areas and lands in Virginia (Heffernan et al. 2014) and Swearingen et al. (2010) include 80 plants from a list of nearly 280 non-native invasive plant species documented within the mid- Atlantic region. Largely overlapping with these and other regional lists are 116 species that were documented in the City of Alexandria, Virginia during vegetation surveys and natural resource assessments by the City of Alexandria Dept. of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities (RPCA), Natural Lands Management Section. This list is not regulatory but serves as an educational reference informing those with concerns about non-native invasive plants in the City of Alexandria and vicinity, including taking action to prevent the further spread of these species by not planting them. Exotic species are those that are not native to a particular place or habitat as a result of human intervention. A non-native invasive plant is here defined as one that exhibits some degree of invasiveness, whether dominant and widespread in a particular habitat or landscape or much less common but long-lived and extremely persistent in places where it occurs. -
Invasive Plant List
NON-NATIVE INVASIVE PLANTS OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA While up to 40% of the plants found in a typical urban environment are non-native species, a relatively small number of these “alien” plants are known to represent an ecological threat to the natural environment (parks, woodlands, and backyards). Known as “invasive species”, these non-natives will spread from urban plantings into natural areas, eliminate native species, alter natural plant communities, and degrade the environment. The following plants have been documented as invasive species in Arlington. Known invasive plant species should not be planted as part of any Arlington County sponsored project. This list will be periodically reviewed by the Invasive Plant Coordinator (DPR) and updated by Version (date). Invasive Plant Species List Acer spp.: campestre, tataricum var. ginnala Hedge, Amur maple Threat Acer spp.: palmatum, plantanoides, pseudoplatanus Japanese, Norway, Sycamore maple Invasive Actinidia arguta Hardy kiwi Threat Aegopodium podagraria Goutweed Invasive Agrostis capillaris Colonial bent-grass Invasive Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Invasive Akebia quinata Five-leaved akebia Invasive Albizia julibrissin Mimosa Invasive Aldrovanda vesiculosa* Waterwheel Threat Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard Invasive Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator weed Invasive Ampelopsis brevipedunculata Porcelainberry Invasive Aralia elata Japanese angelica tree Invasive Artemisia vulgaris Mugwort Invasive Arthraxon hispidus var. hispidus Hairy jointgrass Invasive Arum italicum