DOCSLIB.ORG

Kaszan Udel 0060M 14

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kaszan Udel 0060M 14 UTILIZING COOL-SEASON GRASSES IN A NATIVE MID-ATLANTIC FLOWER VISITOR SUPPORTING MEADOW MIX AND TESTING ITS SUITABILITY FOR SOD PRODUCTION by John Kaszan A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Plant and Soil Sciences Summer 2020 © 2020 John Kaszan All Rights Reserved UTILIZING COOL-SEASON GRASSES IN A NATIVE MID-ATLANTIC FLOWER VISITOR SUPPORTING MEADOW MIX AND TESTING ITS SUITABILITY FOR SOD PRODUCTION by John Kaszan Approved: __________________________________________________________ Erik Ervin, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee Approved: __________________________________________________________ Erik Ervin, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Plant and Soil Sciences Approved: __________________________________________________________ Mark Rieger, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Approved: __________________________________________________________ Douglas J. Doren, Ph.D. Interim Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education and Dean of the Graduate College ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe the deepest thanks to my advisor, Erik Ervin, for giving me the opportunity to develop and pursue this research and helping me make the transition from a horticulturist to a scientist. I would also like to thank Sue Barton for taking the time to share her experiences in meadow establishment throughout her years of work in the field. The flower visitation portion of this research would not have been possible without the guidance and reassurance of Debbie Delaney, who’s passion for flower visitors helped reveal my own interest in plant-visitor interactions. I also owe my thanks to Andrew Adams for his frequent assistance with tasks at the establishment of this project and throughout. Lastly, Laura Sweeney, who would often ask, upon being told about my progress on this thesis, “you’re still not finished that thing?”, thank you for being my special person and a constant pillar of support. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xi ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ xiii Chapter INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 1 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR MEADOWS WITHIN THE MID-ATLANTIC ............................................................................................... 6 Rising Interest and Challenges for Meadow Establishment in the Mid- Atlantic ............................................................................................................... 6 The State of Grassland, Meadow, and Savanna Ecosystems in the Mid- Atlantic ............................................................................................................... 8 Plant Selection and Seed Selection ................................................................... 10 Site Preparation ................................................................................................ 14 Calculating Seeding Rates ................................................................................ 15 Sowing .............................................................................................................. 21 Establishment and Management Practices ....................................................... 23 Meadow Ecosystems and Flower Visiting Insects ........................................... 26 Past Attempts at Creating Wildflower Sod ...................................................... 29 Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................ 32 2 EVALUATING COOL-SEASON GRASS MEADOW ESTABLISHMENT 33 Research Objectives and Hypotheses ............................................................... 33 Materials and Methods ..................................................................................... 34 Plant Selection ............................................................................................ 34 Meadow Seed mixes ................................................................................... 34 Calculating Seeding Rates .......................................................................... 38 Site Preparation .......................................................................................... 39 Sowing ........................................................................................................ 39 Site Monitoring and Data Collection .......................................................... 40 Site Maintenance ........................................................................................ 43 Results .............................................................................................................. 43 Germination and Coverage ......................................................................... 43 Spontaneous Vegetation ............................................................................. 48 Community Composition ........................................................................... 53 iv Discussion ......................................................................................................... 56 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 60 3 EVALUATING FLOWER VISITATION IN A CONSTRUCTED COOL- SEASON GRASS MEADOW ......................................................................... 61 Research Question and Hypothesis .................................................................. 61 Materials and Methods ..................................................................................... 61 Results .............................................................................................................. 64 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 69 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 76 4 UTILIZING COOL SEASON GRASSES TO DEVELOP A MEADOW SOD .................................................................................................................. 77 Research Objectives and Hypothesis ................................................................ 77 Sod Development in a Greenhouse Setting ...................................................... 78 Materials and Methods ..................................................................................... 78 Greenhouse Sod Treatments and Sowing ................................................... 78 Sod Tray Evaluation ................................................................................... 81 Results .............................................................................................................. 82 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 86 Sod Development on Plastic ............................................................................. 89 Materials and Methods ..................................................................................... 89 Seed Mixes ................................................................................................. 89 Soil and Establishment ............................................................................... 92 Transplant and Data Collection .................................................................. 93 Results .............................................................................................................. 94 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 96 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 100 Appendix A SPECIES FOUND WITHIN THESE SEED MIXES AND THE ATTRIBUTES THAT BROUGHT ON THEIR INCLUSION ...................... 112 v Cool-Season Grasses ...................................................................................... 112 Forbs ............................................................................................................... 115 Warm-Season Grasses .................................................................................... 122 B WEATHER DATA AND SUPPLEMENTAL INPUTS ................................ 124 C ANOVA TABLES .......................................................................................... 168 vi LIST OF TABLES Reproduction of Table 4 from Shirley, 1994, Restoring the Tallgrass Prairie. Metric conversions are my own. Seeds per kilogram rounded to the nearest hundred. ............................................................................. 20 Fescue dominant seed mix: seeding rates of all species within the fescue mix with total weight of PLS per plot. ......................................... 36 Non-fescue seed mix—seeding rates of all species within the non- fescue mix with total weight of PLS per plot. ......................................... 37 Complete list of all occurring species that were not part of the seed mix in the first year of the spring plots (Spring Y1), second year of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Caryophyllales 2018 Instituto De Biología, UNAM September 17-23
    Caryophyllales 2018 Instituto de Biología, UNAM September 17-23 LOCAL ORGANIZERS Hilda Flores-Olvera, Salvador Arias and Helga Ochoterena, IBUNAM ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Walter G. Berendsohn and Sabine von Mering, BGBM, Berlin, Germany Patricia Hernández-Ledesma, INECOL-Unidad Pátzcuaro, México Gilberto Ocampo, Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes, México Ivonne Sánchez del Pino, CICY, Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán, México SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Thomas Borsch, BGBM, Germany Fernando O. Zuloaga, Instituto de Botánica Darwinion, Argentina Victor Sánchez Cordero, IBUNAM, México Cornelia Klak, Bolus Herbarium, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa Hossein Akhani, Department of Plant Sciences, School of Biology, College of Science, University of Tehran, Iran Alexander P. Sukhorukov, Moscow State University, Russia Michael J. Moore, Oberlin College, USA Compilation: Helga Ochoterena / Graphic Design: Julio C. Montero, Diana Martínez GENERAL PROGRAM . 4 MONDAY Monday’s Program . 7 Monday’s Abstracts . 9 TUESDAY Tuesday ‘s Program . 16 Tuesday’s Abstracts . 19 WEDNESDAY Wednesday’s Program . 32 Wednesday’s Abstracs . 35 POSTERS Posters’ Abstracts . 47 WORKSHOPS Workshop 1 . 61 Workshop 2 . 62 PARTICIPANTS . 63 GENERAL INFORMATION . 66 4 Caryophyllales 2018 Caryophyllales General program Monday 17 Tuesday 18 Wednesday 19 Thursday 20 Friday 21 Saturday 22 Sunday 23 Workshop 1 Workshop 2 9:00-10:00 Key note talks Walter G. Michael J. Moore, Berendsohn, Sabine Ya Yang, Diego F. Registration
    [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]
  • Characterization of a Glycan Exo-Hydrolase That Shows A
    iochemis t B try n & la P P h f y o s l Dominguez et al., J Plant Biochem Physiol 2014, 2:4 i Journal of o a l n o r g u y DOI: 10.4172/2329-9029.1000137 o J ISSN: 2329-9029 Plant Biochemistry & Physiology Research Article Article OpenOpen Access Access Characterization of a Glycan Exo-Hydrolase that Shows a Biphasic Expression in the Course of an In Vitro Culture of Photoautotrophic Oxybasis rubra Cells Dominguez OV1, Peters W2, Reinbothe C1, Schwarz W3, Zverlov V3 and Beck E1* 1Universität Bayreuth, Universitätsstr. 30, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany 2Industrielle Biotechnologie Bayern Netzwerk GmbH, Am Klopferspitz 19, D-82152 Martinsried, Germany 3Lehrstuhl für Mikrobiologie, Technische Universität München, Emil-Ramann-Str. 4, 85350 Freising, Germany Abstract Like plant leaves, suspension cultures of photoautotrophic Oxybasis rubra Fuentes-Bazan (syn. Chenopodium rubrum L.) cells pass through distinct developmental phases when grown under CO2 as the sole carbon source: an initial cell division phase of 4 weeks, a stationary phase of another 4 weeks and an aging phase (3-4 weeks) when the cell senesce and finally die. These phases are reflected by differential gene expression. A gene that was strongly expressed in the course of the stationary phase but much lesser during the exponential growth phase of the cell culture was isolated from a cDNA-library of stationary cells and completed by 5’-RACE. From homology analysis, the gene was tentatively identified as glycan exo-hydrolase (Oxybasis rubra glycan exo-hydrolase, OrGEH). Heterologous expression in E. coli yielded a protein with a preference to hydrolyze the ß-D-galactopyranoside, ß-D-fucopyranoside and ß-D-glucopyranoside of the corresponding artificial p-nitrophenyl substrates.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on <I>Atriplex, Oxybasis</I> and <I>Dysphania</I
    Plant Ecology and Evolution 149 (2): 249–256, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.5091/plecevo.2016.1181 SHORT COMMUNICATION Notes on Atriplex, Oxybasis and Dysphania (Chenopodiaceae) in West-Central Tropical Africa Alexander P. Sukhorukov1,*, Maria Kushunina2 & Filip Verloove3 1Department of Higher Plants, Biological Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 119234, Moscow, Russian Federation 2Department of Plant Physiology, Biological Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 119234, Moscow, Russian Federation 3Botanic Garden Meise, Nieuwelaan 38, BE-1860 Meise, Belgium *Author for correspondence: [email protected] Background and aims – The indigenous representatives of Chenopodiaceae in tropical Africa are still insufficiently studied. Some genera, especially Atriplex L., Oxybasis Kar. & Kir. and Dysphania R.Br. (subfam. Chenopodioideae), are difficult to diagnose and are often confused with other native or alien taxa. Methods – The morphological characters of Atriplex, Oxybasis and Dysphania were reviewed using speci- mens from the herbaria B, BM, BR, BRLU, E, G, K, LE, MHA, MW, P, and W. Key results – A new species Atriplex congolensis Sukhor. is described from the highlands of D.R.Congo and illustrated. It was previously cited as A. hastata L. (now A. prostrata Boucher ex DC.) and is the only species of Atriplex sect. Teutliopsis Dumort. emend. Sukhor. in tropical Africa. A morphological comparison of all Atriplex representatives encountered in Africa (A. chenopodioides Batt., A. congolensis Sukhor., A. davisii Aellen, A. nilotica Sukhor., A. patula L., A. prostrata Boucher ex DC., and A. verreauxii Moq.) is provided. All records of the rare native Dysphania congolana (Hauman) Mosyakin & Clemants in mountainous tropical Africa are mapped using previously known and re-identified locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Chenopodioideae, Chenopodiaceae/ Amaranthaceae): Implications for Evolution and Taxonomy
    Fruit and Seed Anatomy of Chenopodium and Related Genera (Chenopodioideae, Chenopodiaceae/ Amaranthaceae): Implications for Evolution and Taxonomy Alexander P. Sukhorukov1,2*, Mingli Zhang1,3 1 Key Laboratory of Biogeography and Bioresource in Arid Land, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China, 2 Department of Higher Plants, Biological Faculty, Moscow Lomonosov State University, Moscow, Russia, 3 Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China Abstract A comparative carpological study of 96 species of all clades formerly considered as the tribe Chenopodieae has been conducted for the first time. The results show important differences in the anatomical structure of the pericarp and seed coat between representatives of terminal clades including Chenopodium s.str.+Chenopodiastrum and the recently recognized genera Blitum, Oxybasis and Dysphania. Within Chenopodium the most significant changes in fruit and seed structure are found in members of C. sect. Skottsbergia. The genera Rhagodia and Einadia differ insignificantly from Chenopodium. The evolution of heterospermy in Chenopodium is discussed. Almost all representatives of the tribe Dysphanieae are clearly separated from other Chenopodioideae on the basis of a diverse set of characteristics, including the small dimensions of the fruits (especially in Australian taxa), their subglobose shape (excl. Teloxys and Suckleya), and peculiarities of the pericarp indumentum. The set of fruit and seed characters evolved within the subfamily Chenopodioideae is described. A recent phylogenetic hypothesis is employed to examine the evolution of three (out of a total of 21) characters, namely seed color, testa-cell protoplast characteristics and embryo orientation. Citation: Sukhorukov AP, Zhang M (2013) Fruit and Seed Anatomy of Chenopodium and Related Genera (Chenopodioideae, Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae): Implications for Evolution and Taxonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Flora Checklist a Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium
    Washington Flora Checklist A checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium The Washington Flora Checklist aims to be a complete list of the native and naturalized vascular plants of Washington State, with current classifications, nomenclature and synonymy. The checklist currently contains 3,929 terminal taxa (species, subspecies, and varieties). Taxa included in the checklist: * Native taxa whether extant, extirpated, or extinct. * Exotic taxa that are naturalized, escaped from cultivation, or persisting wild. * Waifs (e.g., ballast plants, escaped crop plants) and other scarcely collected exotics. * Interspecific hybrids that are frequent or self-maintaining. * Some unnamed taxa in the process of being described. Family classifications follow APG IV for angiosperms, PPG I (J. Syst. Evol. 54:563?603. 2016.) for pteridophytes, and Christenhusz et al. (Phytotaxa 19:55?70. 2011.) for gymnosperms, with a few exceptions. Nomenclature and synonymy at the rank of genus and below follows the 2nd Edition of the Flora of the Pacific Northwest except where superceded by new information. Accepted names are indicated with blue font; synonyms with black font. Native species and infraspecies are marked with boldface font. Please note: This is a working checklist, continuously updated. Use it at your discretion. Created from the Washington Flora Checklist Database on September 17th, 2018 at 9:47pm PST. Available online at http://biology.burke.washington.edu/waflora/checklist.php Comments and questions should be addressed to the checklist administrators: David Giblin ([email protected]) Peter Zika ([email protected]) Suggested citation: Weinmann, F., P.F. Zika, D.E. Giblin, B.
    [Show full text]
  • An Illustrated Key to the Amaranthaceae of Alberta
    AN ILLUSTRATED KEY TO THE AMARANTHACEAE OF ALBERTA Compiled and writen by Lorna Allen & Linda Kershaw April 2019 © Linda J. Kershaw & Lorna Allen This key was compiled using informaton primarily from Moss (1983), Douglas et. al. (1998a [Amaranthaceae], 1998b [Chenopodiaceae]) and the Flora North America Associaton (2008). Taxonomy follows VASCAN (Brouillet, 2015). Please let us know if there are ways in which the key can be improved. The 2015 S-ranks of rare species (S1; S1S2; S2; S2S3; SU, according to ACIMS, 2015) are noted in superscript (S1;S2;SU) afer the species names. For more details go to the ACIMS web site. Similarly, exotc species are followed by a superscript X, XX if noxious and XXX if prohibited noxious (X; XX; XXX) according to the Alberta Weed Control Act (2016). AMARANTHACEAE Amaranth Family [includes Chenopodiaceae] Key to Genera 01a Flowers with spiny, dry, thin and translucent 1a (not green) bracts at the base; tepals dry, thin and translucent; separate ♂ and ♀ fowers on same the plant; annual herbs; fruits thin-walled (utricles), splitting open around the middle 2a (circumscissile) .............Amaranthus 01b Flowers without spiny, dry, thin, translucent bracts; tepals herbaceous or feshy, greenish; fowers various; annual or perennial, herbs or shrubs; fruits various, not splitting open around the middle ..........................02 02a Leaves scale-like, paired (opposite); stems feshy/succulent, with fowers sunk into stem; plants of saline habitats ... Salicornia rubra 3a ................. [Salicornia europaea] 02b Leaves well developed, not scale-like; stems not feshy; plants of various habitats. .03 03a Flower bracts tipped with spine or spine-like bristle; leaves spine-tipped, linear to awl- 5a shaped, usually not feshy; tepals winged from the lower surface ..............
    [Show full text]
  • From Cacti to Carnivores: Improved Phylotranscriptomic Sampling And
    Article Type: Special Issue Article RESEARCH ARTICLE INVITED SPECIAL ARTICLE For the Special Issue: Using and Navigating the Plant Tree of Life Short Title: Walker et al.—Phylotranscriptomic analysis of Caryophyllales From cacti to carnivores: Improved phylotranscriptomic sampling and hierarchical homology inference provide further insight into the evolution of Caryophyllales Joseph F. Walker1,13, Ya Yang2, Tao Feng3, Alfonso Timoneda3, Jessica Mikenas4,5, Vera Hutchison4, Caroline Edwards4, Ning Wang1, Sonia Ahluwalia1, Julia Olivieri4,6, Nathanael Walker-Hale7, Lucas C. Majure8, Raúl Puente8, Gudrun Kadereit9,10, Maximilian Lauterbach9,10, Urs Eggli11, Hilda Flores-Olvera12, Helga Ochoterena12, Samuel F. Brockington3, Michael J. Moore,4 and Stephen A. Smith1,13 Manuscript received 13 October 2017; revision accepted 4 January 2018. 1 Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, 830 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1048 USA 2 Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 1445 Gortner Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108 USA 3 Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EA, UK 4 Department of Biology, Oberlin College, Science Center K111, 119 Woodland Street, Oberlin, OH 44074-1097 USA 5 Current address: USGS Canyonlands Research Station, Southwest Biological Science Center, 2290 S West Resource Blvd, Moab, UT 84532 USA 6 Institute of Computational and Mathematical Engineering (ICME), Stanford University, 475 Author Manuscript Via Ortega, Suite B060, Stanford, CA, 94305-4042 USA This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record.
    [Show full text]
  • New Combinations in the Vascular Flora of Finland, in the Genera Spinulum, Oxybasis and Potentilla
    36Memoranda Soc. Fauna Flora Fennica 95:Kurtto 36–39. & Uotila 2019 • Memoranda Soc. Fauna FloraISSN Fennica 0373-6873 95, (print) 2019 Helsinki 19 February 2019 ISSN 1796-9816 (online) New combinations in the vascular flora of Finland, in the genera Spinulum, Oxybasis and Potentilla Arto Kurtto & Pertti Uotila Kurtto, A., Botanical Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History, P.O.Box 7, FI­00014 University of Helsinki. E­mail [email protected] Uotila, P., Botanical Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History, P.O.Box 7, FI­00014 University of Helsinki. E­mail [email protected] In the course of compiling an updated checklist of vascular plants of Finland, a few cases were revealed where nomenclatural changes proved necessary. Four new nomenclatural combinations are proposed: Spinulum annotinum (L.) A. Haines subsp. alpestre (Hartm.) Uotila (Lycopodiace- ae), Oxybasis salina (Standl.) Uotila (Chenopodiaceae), Potentilla neglecta Baumg. var. acutifida (Markl.) Kurtto (Rosaceae) and Potentilla neglecta var. decora (Markl.) Kurtto (Rosaceae). Introduction Spinulum annotinum A checklist of the vascular plants of Finland was Recently, an attempt at a consensus classifica- published over 30 years ago (Kurtto & Lahti tion of lycophytes and ferns down to genus lev- 1987). Later it was updated to some extent (in- el has been proposed by The Pteridophyte Phy- digenous plants, established aliens and most com- logeny Group (2016). This classification will be mon casuals) in the Field Flora of Finland (most followed in the new checklist of Finnish plants. recent, 4th edition, Hämet-Ahti & al. 1998) and In the new classification a narrower generic its updates (Hämet-Ahti & al.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Phylogenetic Data and Seed Coat Morphology Resolve The
    Caryophyllales 2018 Molecular phylogenetic data and seed coat morphology resolve the generic position of some critical Chenopodioideae (Chenopodiaceae–Amaranthaceae) with reduced perianth segments Alexander P. Sukhorukov (*1), Maya V. Nilova (1), Anastasiya A. Krinitsina (1), Maxim A. Zaika (1), Kelly A. Shepherd (2) (1) Dept. of Higher Plants, Biological Faculty, Moscow Lomonosov State University, 119234, Moscow, Russia (2) Western Australian Herbarium, Department of Biodiversity, Conservation & Attractions, 17 Dick Perry Avenue, Kensington, Western Australia, 6151, Australia [email protected] The former Chenopodium subgen. blitum and the genus Monolepis (Chenopodioideae) are characterized in part by a reduced (0–4) number of perianth segments. According to recent molecular phylogenetic studies these groups belong to the reinstated genera Blitum incl. Monolepis (tribe Anserineae) and Oxybasis (tribe Chenopodieae). However, key species such as Chenopodium antarcticum, C. exsuccum, C. litwinowii, C. foliosum subsp. montanum, and Monolepis spathulata were not included, and so their phylogenetic position within Chenopodioideae remained equivocal. These species were incorporated into an expanded phylogenetic study based on nrDNA (ITS region) and cpDNA (trnL-trnF and atpB- rbcL intergenic spacers and rbcL gene). Analyses confirm the placement ofChenopodium antarcticum, currently known as Oxybasis antarctica, C. exsuccum, C. litwinowii and C. foliosum subsp. montanum within Blitum. Two of the three accepted species of Monolepis, the type species M. trifida (= M. nuttalliana) and M. asiatica, were included in Blitum congruent with previous studies. The North American M. spathulata nested within (ITS and atpB-rbcL analyses) or sister (trnL-trnF intergenic spacer) to the tribe Dysphanieae. To date, few reliable morphological characters have been proposed that consistently distinguish Blitum (incl.
    [Show full text]
  • Chenopodiaceae)
    Mosyakin, S.L. 2013. New nomenclatural combinations in Blitum , Oxybasis , Chenopodiastrum , and Lipandra (Chenopodiaceae). Phytoneuron 2013-56: 1–8. Published 12 August 2013. ISSN 2153 733X NEW NOMENCLATURAL COMBINATIONS IN BLITUM , OXYBASIS, CHENOPODIASTRUM , AND LIPANDRA (CHENOPODIACEAE) SERGEI L. MOSYAKIN M.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 2 Tereshchenkivska Street Kiev (Kyiv), 01601 Ukraine [email protected] ABSTRACT Following the recent recognition of several genera segregated from Chenopodium sensu lato (Chenopodiaceae), new nomenclatural combinations are proposed in the genera Blitum L. (sect. Atriplicina (Aellen) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; Blitum capitatum L. subsp. hastatum (Rydb.) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; Blitum × tkalcsicsii (H. Melzer) Mosyakin, comb. nov. = B. bonus-henricus × B. virgatum ), Oxybasis Kar. & Kir. (sect. Pseudoblitum (Hook. f.) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; sect. Glauca (Standl.) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; sect. Urbica (Standl.) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; sect. Thellungia (Aellen) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; Oxybasis antarctica (Hook. f.) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; Oxybasis erosa (R. Br.) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; Oxybasis glauca (L.) S. Fuentes, Uotila, & Borsch subsp. ambigua (R. Br.) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; Oxybasis glauca subsp. amurensis (Ignatov) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; Oxybasis glauca subsp. salina (Standl.) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; Oxybasis rubra (L.) S. Fuentes, Uotila, & Borsch var. humilis (Hook.) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; Oxybasis × schulzeana (Murr) Mosyakin, comb. nov. = O. glauca × O. rubra ), Chenopodiastrum S. Fuentes, Uotila, & Borsch (sect. Grossefoveata (Mosyakin) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; Chenopodiastrum fasciculosum (Aellen) Mosyakin, comb. nov.; Chenopodiastrum fasciculosum var. schimperi (Asch.) Mosyakin, comb. nov.), and Lipandra (Lipandra polysperma (L.) S. Fuentes, Uotila, & Borsch var. acutifolia (Sm.) Mosyakin, comb. nov.). The name × Lipastrum Mosyakin is proposed for intergeneric hybrids Chenopodiastrum × Lipandra , as well as the new combination × Lipastrum perhybridum (Ponert) Mosyakin, comb.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Programme and Abstracts
    Conference Programme and Abstracts enue etc. x Caryophyllales 2015 September 14-19, 2015 Conference Programme Caryophyllales 2015 – Conference Programme and Abstracts Berlin September 14-19, 2015 © The Caryophyllales Network 2015 Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem Freie Universität Berlin Königin-Luise-Straße 6-8 WLAN Name: conference 14195 Berlin, Germany Key: 7vp4erq6 Telephon Museum: +49 30 838 50 100 2 Programme overview Pre-conference Core conference Workshops Time slot * Sept 13, 2015 (Sun) Sept 14, 2015 (Mon) Sept 15, 2015 (Tue) Sept 16, 2015 (Wed) Sept 17, 2015 (Thu) Sept 18, 2015 (Fri) Session 3: Session 7: Floral EDIT Platform Herbarium management: 9.00-10.30 Opening session Caryophyllaceae (1) morphology (Introduction) JACQ Coffee break & Coffee break & Coffee break & 10.30-11.00 Coffee break Coffee break Poster session Poster session Poster session Herbarium Sileneae Session 1: Session 4: Session 8: EDIT Platform 11.00-12.30 management biodiversity Adaptive evolution Caryophyllaceae (2) A wider picture (hands-on) JACQ informatics 12.30-14.00 Lunch break Lunch break Lunch break Sileneae Session 2: Session 5: Session 9: EDIT Platform 14.00-15.30 Xper2 biodiversity Amaranthaceae s.l. Portulacinae Different lineages (hands-on) informatics Coffee break & Coffee break & 15.30-16.00 Coffee break Coffee break Coffee break Poster session Poster session Session 6a/b: Tour: Garden & EDIT Platform 16.00-17.30 Caryophyllaceae (3) Closing session Xper2 Dahlem Seed Bank (hands-on) / Aizoaceae Tour: Herbarium, 17:30-18:45 Museum, Library 18:30 19:00 Ice-breaker Conference dinner * exact timing see programme Caryophyllales 2015 September 14-19, 2015 Conference Programme Sunday, Sept.
    [Show full text]