DOCSLIB.ORG

Les Plantes Hã´Te Des Bruches (Coleoptera Bruchidael : Donnã©Enouvelles Et Corrections

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Les Plantes Hã´Te Des Bruches (Coleoptera Bruchidael : Donnã©Enouvelles Et Corrections - 277 - Bull. mens. Soc. iinn. Lyon, 2005,74 (7-8) : 277-291 Les plantes hôte des bruches (Coleoptera Bruchidael : donnéenouvelles et corrections. Bernard Delobel* et Alex Delobel- * INWNSA, Laboratoire BF 2 1,20 avenue A. Einstein, F-69621 Villeurbanne cedex ** 47 avenue Paul Langevin, F-92260 Fontenay-aux-Roses Résume- Les auteurs complhtent et corrigent des résultatantérieur (DELOBEL & DELOBEL,2003) sur les relations trophiques entre les bruches de la faune françaiset leurs plan- tes hbtes larvaires. Les nouvelles donnéeconcernent la France, l'Italie et la Grke. Quarante- quatre plantes hr3tes nouvelles ont étidentifiks, et ceci constitue pour plusieurs espècede bru- ches les toutes premihres donnéebiologiques. Le régimalimentaire de 86 % des bruches de ces trois pays est ddsorrnais connu avec une plus ou moins grande prkision. L'hypothès prké deminent emise, selon laquelle chaque espke de broche est infhdé une esee, un genre ou tout au plus à une tribu, et une seule, se trouve confirmde dans la grande majoritÃdes cas. The host plants of seed-beetles (Coleoptera Bruchidae): new data and errata Summary. - The authors complete and modify results published in 2003 on trophic rela- tionships between seed-beetles of the French fauna and their larval host plants. New data are given for France, Italy and Greece. Forty-four new host plants were identified, which constitutes for several beetle species the very tïrsbiological data available. The diet of 86 5% of the se&- batles in the three countries is now more or less precisely known. The previously expressed hypothesis, according to which any given beetle species will feed on a single plant species, genus or tribe, is confimaed in most cases. INTRODUCTION Les relations entre les insectes phytophages et les plantes font intervenir des fac- teurs spatiaux, temporels, chimiques, physiologiques, physiques, comportementaux et climatiques-De plus, l'étade la situation telle que nous l'observons actuellement est le résultad'une longue histoire évolutivqui se poursuit chaque jour. La complexitÃdes phdnomène en jeu est telle que leur étudne saurait pour l'instant êtr globale. Pourtant, certains groupes d'insectes peuvent apparaîtrd'une relative simplicitd pour aborder de telles &des ; c'est en particulier le cas pour les insectes dont la larve se ddveloppe ii l'intdrieur d'un seul fruit, choisi par la mèr au moment de la ponte. Cela reste cependant encore bien délicaet la premikre difficultk est comme toujours en bio- logie de savoir à qui est qui à : l'identification aussi fine que possible des plantes et de leurs insectes est un prdalable absolu et pourtant, quel que soit le groupe systématiqu choisi, c'est une source de probl2mes ardus. Une étudpkcédent (DELOBEL & DELOBEL,2003) a montrd que la simple connaissance des plantes hôte de chaque espè ce de Bruchidae de la faune de France dtait loin d'êtr réaliséLes donnéede la littd- AcceptÃpour publication le 21 avril 2005 rature étaienà la fois précieuseet parfois trompeuses. Une méthodologisimple mais rigoureuse de rkcolte des graines et d'dlevage des insectes étaidonc nécessaire L'étudpublié en 2003 apportait de nombleuses donnéenouvelles, mais plu- sieurs espècede bruches, surtout des Bruchidius, insectes plus méditerranéeque les Bruchus, manquaient ou étaiensous-représentà dans nos échantillonsEn effet, de trè nombreuses Légumineusesbien que présentedans la flore de France, y sont rares, trè localiséeet protégéeet comme notre échantillonnagde graines devait êtr suffisant pour espérepouvoir y trouver les bruches les moins communes, nous nous trouvions dans la nécessitde concentrer nos efforts sur le littoral méditerranéfrangais mais aussi d'aller chercher plus loin (Grècet Italie du sud) nos plantes hôte potentielles. Dans notre travail précédennous avons présentla taxinomie des Bruchidae en nous basant sur la dernièr révisio globale des bruches européennescelle de BOROWIEC(1988). Nous avons choisi ici de prendre en compte les travaux plus récent de ANTON(1998, 1999, 2001, comm. pers.) sur les bruches européenneet asiatiques, qui apportent nombre d'éclaircissementsur ce groupe particuli2rement difficile. Un certain nombre de rectifications sont ainsi devenues inévitable;elles sont indiquéeau chapitre Discussion È Pour l'essentiel, nous invitons le lecteur ii se reporter à la description des métho des employéepublié dans notre prMdent article. Des pdlèvement de gousses et de graines de diverses plantes hôte potentielles ont éteffectuks par les auteurs au cours de l'anné2003 en France et dans le sud de l'Italie (régionde Basilicata et Calabria). Au cours de l'anné2004, des prélèvemenont éteffectué en Gri%ce,principalement dans le Péloponnè(région de Korinthos, Lakonia, Voiotia, Fokidda, Arkhadia) dans les localitécitée par BOROWIEC(1986). Les comptes rendus de voyage récent (MAGNOULOUX& MACQUERON, 2003 ;COULOT et al., 2003) nous ont éttrè utiles pour localiser les zones les plus riches. Au cours de l'anné2004 égalementde nombreux échantillonde gousses de Ugumineuses ont étrhlté dans la dgion de Montpellier (Héraultpar P. Delobel et C. Delobel-Pascal, que nous remercions vivement ici. Les localisations précisedes captures sont disponibles sur demande auprèdes auteurs. Au total, plus de 450 échantillonde gousses ou graines, reprk~entantprè de 200 espkes végétaleont étcollectés identifiés analysés mis en incubation. L'identification des plantes italiennes a étréalisà en utilisant Flora d'Italia (PIGNATTI,1982) et en complémenFlora ltalica (ZANGHERI,1976). Pour la Grèceseuls deux volumes de Flora Hellenica sur les dix prévuont étpubliés et les Fabaceae n'ont pas encore éttraitées Heureusement, les flores d'Italie précédemmecitée et la flore de Turquie (DAVIS,1970) permettent de couvrir la quasi-totalitÃdes plantes du sud de la Grèceen complémende Flora Europaea (TUTTINet al., 1968). Pour les endé miques grecques, il existe plusieurs ouvrages qui traitent soit des plantes des montagnes de Grèc (POLUNIN,1980 ; STRID,1986), soit des endémiquedu Péloponnè(TAN & IATROU,2001). La nomenclature utiliséest, sauf rares exceptions, celle de I'ILDIS. La liste ci-dessous présentl'ensemble des donnéeobtenues en 2003 et 2004, ainsi qu'un certain nombre de donnéebibliographiques nouvelles, en particulier celles de JERMY& SZENTESI(2003). Pour la prksentation de cette liste, nous avons utilisÃles même conventions que dans notre article précéde: les noms d'espèce botaniques en gras indiquent que la plante h6te appartient il la à tribu (ou famille) hôt à de la bruche considéréLe nom des familles et, pour les Légumineusescelui des tribus, est abrég entre parenthèse selon le code suivant : Ap, Apiaceae : Papilionoideae : Ga, Galegeae ; Ge, Genisteae : He, Hedysareae : Lo, Loteae ; Tr. Trifolieae ; Vi, Vicieae ; Zy, Zygophyllaceae. Un asterisque placÃen débude ligne signale une plante hôt origina- le pour l'espèc considéréLorsqu'une donnébibliographique indique que l'adulte a étrécolt sur une plante, sans précisiosur la relation trophique larvaire, la réfdrenc correspondante est mise entre crochets. Enfin, le signe *O placÃen bout de ligne signale que l'organisme (plante ou bruche) n'appartient pas 21 la flore ou à la faune française Les taux d'infestation (nombre de broches obtenues / nombre de graines, gousses (go) ou infrutescences (inf) sont indiquéa la suite de la date de récoltde l'échantillo 1 Fis. 1-2 - Brininduis ruhi.qi~io.su.vcf. 1 : habitus (échell - Bruchidius annulicornis (Allard) ** *Trifoliumcherleri (Tr) : Korinthos, mai 2004 (812321) - Bruchtdius bernardi Delobel et Anton ** *Astragalus depressus (Ga) : Basilicata, juin 2003 (1 1/88 go) ; bruche récem ment décrit(DELOBEL et al., 2004) - Bruchidius bimacalatus (Olivier) Medicago minima (Tr): Héraultmai 2004 (1121 93,5136 10) Medieago muricoleptis (Tr) : Hkrault, juin 2004 (113634) Medicago orbieularis (Tr) : Hdrault, juin 2003 (112720), mai 2004 (1/847) Medicago po&morpha (Tr) : Héraultmai 2004 (111576, 4/474), juin 2003 (21567) Medicago praecox (Tr) : Héraultmai 2004 (11305 1,2013062) Medicago rigidula (Tr) : Hkrault, mai 2004 (3/3451) - Bruchidius bituberculatus Schilsky ** Hymenocarpos circinnatus (Lo) : Korinthos, mai 2004 (1/573) ; bruche obte- nue en Irak de graines de la mêm plante-h&te(ABDUL-RASSOUL et al., 1986) - Bruchidius borowieci Anton ** *Scorpiurus muricatus (Lo) : Lakonia, juin 2004 (111768) - Bruchidius caninus (Kraatz) Astragalus hamosus (Ga) : Basilicata, juin 2003 ;Voiotia, mai 2004 (118580) ; Lakonia, juin 2004 (211010) ; Korinthos, mai 2004 (2916321, 316386) *Astragalus scorpwides (Ga) : Basilicata, juin 2003 - Bruchidius cinerascens (Gyllenhal) Eryaeium marifimum (Ap) : Vend&, mars 2004 - Bruchidius dispar (Gyllenhal) *Zhfoliam bocconei (Tr) : Héraultjuillet 2004 (1J13494) *Trifoliumochroleucon (Tr) : Basilicata, juin 2003 Trifolium pratense (Tr) : Rhônejuin 2003 ; Hdrault, juin 2004, juillet 2004 (511510) ;Yonne, juillet 2004 ;Hdrault, aoot 2004 (113700) Trifolium sîriatu(Tr)fcfe DAUPHIN(1 993) - Bruchidius imbricomis (Panzer) Galega officinalis (Ga) : Rhôneaofit 2004 (135J1253) ; Yvelines, aoQt 2004 (45/1695) - Bruchidius lividimanus (Gyllenhal) Calicotome spiaosa (Ge) : Calabria, juin 2003 (3/1072) Chamaecytisus himtus (Ge) : Basilicata, juin 2003 (20/459) - Bruchidius lutescens (Blanchard) ** Onobrychis caput-galli (He) : Korinthos, mai 2004 (111 147) ;Fokida, mai 2004 (11291) ;bruche obtenue en
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Introduction
    National Strategy for the Conservation of Crop Wild Relatives of Spain María Luisa Rubio Teso, José M. Iriondo, Mauricio Parra & Elena Torres PGR Secure: Novel characterization of crop wild relative and landrace resources as a basis for improved crop breeding The research reported here was made possible with funding from the EU Seventh Framework Programme. PGR Secure is a collaborative project funded under the EU Seventh Framework Programme, THEME KBBE.2010.1.1-03, ‘Characterization of biodiversity resources for wild crop relatives to improve crops by breeding’, Grant Agreement no. 266394. The information published in this report reflects the views of PGR Secure partner, URJC. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. Acknowledgements: We are grateful to Cristina Ronquillo Ferrero and Aarón Nebreda Trejo who collaborated in the process of data gathering and data analysis for the generation of this strategy. We are also grateful to Lori De Hond for her help with proof reading and linguistic assistance. Front Cover Picture: Lupinus angustifolius L., by Rubén Milla 2 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 2 Prioritization of Crop Wild Relatives in Spain ................................................................ 6 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Methods .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Genus Bruchus Was Restricted by Schilsky (6
    THE HAIRY-VETCH BRUCHID, BRUCHUS BRACHIALIS FAHRAEUS, IN THE UNITED STATES ' By J. C. BRIDWELL, formerly Specialist in Bruchidae and Their Parasites, Division of Stored Product Insects^ Bureau of Entomology, and L. J. BOTTIMER, Assistant Entomologist^ Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture INTRODUCTION The genus Bruchus was restricted by Schilsky (6) ^ to include only the immediate allies of Bruchus pisorum (L.), the pea weevil, of which he tabulated 24 species knowQ to him. To these may be added others doubtfully distinct, imperfectly known, or more recently described, which increase the nominal species of the genus to a total of about 46. All these species are native to the Palearctic region. Two of them are already well known in the United States as major pests of the plants affected. B. pisorum was the first of the genus and one of the first species of the family to be recognized. It was described in 1752, and was recorded as having destroyed in the 1740's the flourishing colonial American industry of producing dry peas for ships' stores. B. ruß- manus Boheman, the broadbean weevil, has now practically destroyed the broadbean industry of Caüfornia. A third species, B, hrachialis Fahraeus, has in recent years gained a foothold in this country, for in 1931 the junior author found it heavily infesting the seeds of vetches growing in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina, and in 1932 it was found in Virginia. In view of these facts it seems wise to present a brief summary of the knowledge at present available of the habits of the members of this genus and to point out the increased danger of their estabhshment in the United States as a result of changed commercial conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlas of the Flora of New England: Fabaceae
    Angelo, R. and D.E. Boufford. 2013. Atlas of the flora of New England: Fabaceae. Phytoneuron 2013-2: 1–15 + map pages 1– 21. Published 9 January 2013. ISSN 2153 733X ATLAS OF THE FLORA OF NEW ENGLAND: FABACEAE RAY ANGELO1 and DAVID E. BOUFFORD2 Harvard University Herbaria 22 Divinity Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138-2020 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Dot maps are provided to depict the distribution at the county level of the taxa of Magnoliophyta: Fabaceae growing outside of cultivation in the six New England states of the northeastern United States. The maps treat 172 taxa (species, subspecies, varieties, and hybrids, but not forms) based primarily on specimens in the major herbaria of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, with most data derived from the holdings of the New England Botanical Club Herbarium (NEBC). Brief synonymy (to account for names used in standard manuals and floras for the area and on herbarium specimens), habitat, chromosome information, and common names are also provided. KEY WORDS: flora, New England, atlas, distribution, Fabaceae This article is the eleventh in a series (Angelo & Boufford 1996, 1998, 2000, 2007, 2010, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c) that presents the distributions of the vascular flora of New England in the form of dot distribution maps at the county level (Figure 1). Seven more articles are planned. The atlas is posted on the internet at http://neatlas.org, where it will be updated as new information becomes available. This project encompasses all vascular plants (lycophytes, pteridophytes and spermatophytes) at the rank of species, subspecies, and variety growing independent of cultivation in the six New England states.
    [Show full text]
  • Specificity in Legume-Rhizobia Symbioses
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences Review Specificity in Legume-Rhizobia Symbioses Mitchell Andrews * and Morag E. Andrews Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Lincoln University, PO Box 84, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +64-3-423-0692 Academic Editors: Peter M. Gresshoff and Brett Ferguson Received: 12 February 2017; Accepted: 21 March 2017; Published: 26 March 2017 Abstract: Most species in the Leguminosae (legume family) can fix atmospheric nitrogen (N2) via symbiotic bacteria (rhizobia) in root nodules. Here, the literature on legume-rhizobia symbioses in field soils was reviewed and genotypically characterised rhizobia related to the taxonomy of the legumes from which they were isolated. The Leguminosae was divided into three sub-families, the Caesalpinioideae, Mimosoideae and Papilionoideae. Bradyrhizobium spp. were the exclusive rhizobial symbionts of species in the Caesalpinioideae, but data are limited. Generally, a range of rhizobia genera nodulated legume species across the two Mimosoideae tribes Ingeae and Mimoseae, but Mimosa spp. show specificity towards Burkholderia in central and southern Brazil, Rhizobium/Ensifer in central Mexico and Cupriavidus in southern Uruguay. These specific symbioses are likely to be at least in part related to the relative occurrence of the potential symbionts in soils of the different regions. Generally, Papilionoideae species were promiscuous in relation to rhizobial symbionts, but specificity for rhizobial genus appears to hold at the tribe level for the Fabeae (Rhizobium), the genus level for Cytisus (Bradyrhizobium), Lupinus (Bradyrhizobium) and the New Zealand native Sophora spp. (Mesorhizobium) and species level for Cicer arietinum (Mesorhizobium), Listia bainesii (Methylobacterium) and Listia angolensis (Microvirga).
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Coefficient of Conservatism
    Coefficient of Coefficient of Scientific Name Common Name Nativity Conservatism Wetness Abies balsamea balsam fir native 3 0 Abies concolor white fir non‐native 0 Abutilon theophrasti velvetleaf non‐native 0 3 Acalypha rhomboidea common threeseed mercury native 2 3 Acer ginnala Amur maple non‐native 0 Acer negundo boxelder non‐native 0 0 Acer pensylvanicum striped maple native 5 3 Acer platanoides Norway maple non‐native 0 5 Acer pseudoplatanus sycamore maple non‐native 0 Acer rubrum red maple native 2 0 Acer saccharinum silver maple native 6 ‐3 Acer saccharum sugar maple native 5 3 Acer spicatum mountain maple native 6 3 Acer x freemanii red maple x silver maple native 2 0 Achillea millefolium common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. borealis common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. millefolium common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea ptarmica sneezeweed non‐native 0 3 Acinos arvensis basil thyme non‐native 0 Aconitum napellus Venus' chariot non‐native 0 Acorus americanus sweetflag native 6 ‐5 Acorus calamus calamus native 6 ‐5 Actaea pachypoda white baneberry native 7 5 Actaea racemosa black baneberry non‐native 0 Actaea rubra red baneberry native 7 3 Actinidia arguta tara vine non‐native 0 Adiantum aleuticum Aleutian maidenhair native 9 3 Adiantum pedatum northern maidenhair native 8 3 Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine native 7 Aegopodium podagraria bishop's goutweed non‐native 0 0 Coefficient of Coefficient of Scientific Name Common Name Nativity
    [Show full text]
  • Cow Vetch Vicia Cracca
    Cow vetch Vicia cracca Description Species is a large concern in prairie and other natural habitat restoration or land reclamation projects. Habit Herbaceous, climbing or trailing, perennial, up to 3 ft long forb, 1-3 ft taproot. Leaves Pinnately-divided into 5-11 pairs of linear leaflets, leaf tips with tendrils. Stems Weak; range from 2-3 ft high; clamber over other vegetation; smothering; spreading hairs. Flowers Blue in color, 5-parted, 1/2 in long, calyx base not swollen, inflorescence a crowded, long-stalked Source: MISIN. 2021. Midwest Invasive Species Information Network. Michigan State University - Applied Spatial Ecology and Technical Services Laboratory. Available online at https://www.misin.msu.edu/facts/detail.php?id=163. cluster (raceme) with 20-50 stalked flowers. Fruits and Seeds Seeds are contained in numerous inch long pods, brownish lance-shaped and flat. Habitat Native to Eurasia. Found in fields, roadsides, meadows. Reproduction By seed. Similar American vetch (Vicia americana). Monitoring and Rapid Response Pulling small infestations before seeds develop; spray with selective herbicide such as clopyralid. Credits The information provided in this factsheet was gathered from the USDA PLANTS Database. Individual species images that appear with a number in a black box are courtesy of the Bugwood.org network (http://www.invasive.org).Individual photo author credits may not be included due to the small display size of the images and subsequent difficulty of reading the provided text. All other images appear courtesy of Google (http://images.google.com). Source: MISIN. 2021. Midwest Invasive Species Information Network. Michigan State University - Applied Spatial Ecology and Technical Services Laboratory.
    [Show full text]
  • Research & Technology Transfer
    Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Research & Technology Transfer ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Vetch Infestations in Alaska Prepared by: Andrew Nolen Agronomist Alaska Plant Materials Center Division of Agriculture Department of Natural Resources State of Alaska Date September 30, 2002 Prepared for: Alaska Department of Transportation Statewide Research Office 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, AK 99801-7898 FHWA-AK-RD-02-11 Form approved OMB No. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestion for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-1833), Washington, DC 20503 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (LEAVE BLANK) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED FHWA-AK-RD-02-11 September 30, 2002 Final, 8/2001 – 9/2002 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Vetch Infestations in Alaska 6. AUTHOR(S) Nolen, Andrew 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Alaska Plant Materials Center Division of Agriculture Department of Natural Resources AKSAS PROJECT# 74716 State of Alaska 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER State of Alaska, Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities Research and Technology Transfer FHWA-AK-RD-02-11 2301 Peger Rd Fairbanks, AK 99709-5399 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Inventory No. 173
    Plant Inventory No. 173 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Washington, D.C., March 1969 UCED JANUARY 1 to DECEMBER 31, 1965 (N( >. 303628 to 310335) MAY 2 6 1969 CONTENTS Page Inventory 8 Index of common and scientific names 257 This inventory, No. 173, lists the plant material (Nos. 303628 to 310335) received by the New Crops Research Branch, Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, during the period from January 1 to December 31, 1965. The inventory is a historical record of plant material introduced for Department and other specialists and is not to be considered as a list of plant ma- terial for distribution. The species names used are those under which the plant ma- terial was received. These have been corrected only for spelling, authorities, and obvious synonymy. Questions related to the names published in the inventory and obvious errors should be directed to the author. If misidentification is apparent, please submit an herbarium specimen with flowers and fruit for reidentification. HOWARD L. HYLAND Botanist Plant Industry Station Beltsville, Md. INVENTORY 303628. DIGITARIA DIDACTYLA Willd. var DECALVATA Henr. Gramineae. From Australia. Plants presented by the Commonwealth Scientific and In- dustrial Research Organization, Canberra. Received Jan. 8, 1965. Grown at West Ryde, Sydney. 303629. BRASSICA OLERACEA var. CAPITATA L. Cruciferae. Cabbage. From the Republic of South Africa. Seeds presented by Chief, Division of Plant and Seed Control, Department of Agricultural Technical Services, Pretoria. Received Jan. 11, 1965. Cabbage Number 20. 303630 to 303634. TRITICUM AESTIVUM L. Gramineae. From Australia. Seeds presented by the Agricultural College, Roseworthy. Received Jan. 11,1965.
    [Show full text]
  • WEED WACKERS! K-6 Educators Guide to Invasive Plants of Alaska
    WEED WACKERS! K-6 Educators Guide to Invasive Plants of Alaska By Katie L. Villano and Christine P. Villano WEED WACKERS! K-6 Educators Guide to Invasive Plants of Alaska By Katie L. Villano and Christine P. Villano October 2008 Fairbanks, Alaska With Generous Support from: Salcha-Delta Soil and Water Conservation District 2 WEED WACKERS! K-6 Educators Guide to Invasive Plants of Alaska Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... 4 Preface .................................................................................................................... 5 Why Use WEED WACKERS? .............................................................................. 7 How to Use WEED WACKERS ............................................................................ 9 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 13 Lessons by Grade Level ...................................................................................... 15 Lesson Activities .................................................................................................. 17 Unit 1: Invasive Plants in Alaska ...................................................................... 19 Introduction to Plants ........................................................................................................... 21 Invasion in Alaska!? ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Functional and Structural Diversity – Bacteria
    Rhiz sphere 2 Session 6 - Functional and structural diversity - bacteria M Keynote presentation K-1204 Global change impacts underground: structural and functional impacts on soil-borne microbial communities Kowalchuk George Netherlands Institute of Ecology Terrestrial Microbial Ecology P.O. Box 40 6666 ZG Heteren, The Netherlands In plant-soil systems, methods that attempt to link microbial identity with function are providing insight into the many roles that microbes play, including the recycling of nutrients, buffering against perturbations such as climate and land use change, and controlling plant pathogens. Most significantly, microbial ecology of the rhizosphere is moving forward from just describing microbial diversity to trying to elucidate what it actually does. The recent application of molecular and genomics approaches in microbial ecology is providing access to this reservoir of diversity, providing the opportunity to better understand how rhizosphere communities function, and how microbial activities might better be exploited. In this presentation, I will provide a number of examples of how we are attempting to gain insight into the organization of rhizos- phere communities and the forces that drive microbial community structure, diversity and function in this vital soil compartment. Special emphasis will be paid to the effects of environmental perturbations and change, specifically the effects of global warming, rising atmosphe- ric CO2 concentrations and changing land usage. I seek to highlight the advances being made in
    [Show full text]
  • Vicia Cracca)
    Tufted Bird Vetch (Vicia cracca) Identification Overview Flowers: Flowers are pea-like and Tufted bird vetch is a perennial are arranged on one side of the herb in the pea family. A native stem. The 10 to 30 flowers are from Europe and Asia, tufted bird densely packed. vetch was introduced in North America purposely for forage and Stems: Multiple, branching, climbing cover crops. or trailing up to 2 meter long. Vine- Tufted bird vetch has escaped like stems are weak but have small from cultivation and is found tendrils that allow for climbing. throughout Canada, Alaska and the northern US states. Leaves: The leave consists of 12 – Tufted bird vetch is very palatable 24 leaflets. Leavlets are linear to to livestock. lanceolate and end in a pointed tip. It is found in gardens, waste Seed: The 4-8 seeds grow in a Flowers grow in a one-sided spike. places, old fields and along roads. pod. Seeds are viable for five to Photo: M. Rasy, University of Alaska, bugwood.org. Tufted bird vetch reproduces by seven years and large seed banks abundant seed production and are common. vegetative spread by underground stems. Infestations in Yukon are found in most communities including Whitehorse, Dawson, Watson Lake and Haines Junction. Tendrils allow the plant to attach to other plants or objects. Photo: M. Rasy, University of Alaska, bugwood.org. Ecological Impact Tufted bird vetch crowds out Tufted bird vetch alters soil conditions due to nitrogen fixation. This plant native vegetation and can is very successful at climbing and covering fences, trees and other aggressively take over areas by vegetation.
    [Show full text]
  • Title: Occurrence of Temporarily-Introduced Alien Plant Species (Ephemerophytes) in Poland - Scale and Assessment of the Phenomenon
    Title: Occurrence of temporarily-introduced alien plant species (ephemerophytes) in Poland - scale and assessment of the phenomenon Author: Alina Urbisz Citation style: Urbisz Alina. (2011). Occurrence of temporarily-introduced alien plant species (ephemerophytes) in Poland - scale and assessment of the phenomenon. Katowice : Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego. Cena 26 z³ (+ VAT) ISSN 0208-6336 Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Œl¹skiego Katowice 2011 ISBN 978-83-226-2053-3 Occurrence of temporarily-introduced alien plant species (ephemerophytes) in Poland – scale and assessment of the phenomenon 1 NR 2897 2 Alina Urbisz Occurrence of temporarily-introduced alien plant species (ephemerophytes) in Poland – scale and assessment of the phenomenon Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego Katowice 2011 3 Redaktor serii: Biologia Iwona Szarejko Recenzent Adam Zając Publikacja będzie dostępna — po wyczerpaniu nakładu — w wersji internetowej: Śląska Biblioteka Cyfrowa 4 www.sbc.org.pl Contents Acknowledgments .................. 7 Introduction .................... 9 1. Aim of the study .................. 11 2. Definition of the term “ephemerophyte” and criteria for classifying a species into this group of plants ............ 13 3. Position of ephemerophytes in the classification of synanthropic plants 15 4. Species excluded from the present study .......... 19 5. Material and methods ................ 25 5.1. The boundaries of the research area ........... 25 5.2. List of species ................. 25 5.3. Sources of data ................. 26 5.3.1. Literature ................. 26 5.3.2. Herbarium materials .............. 27 5.3.3. Unpublished data ............... 27 5.4. Collection of records and list of localities ......... 27 5.5. Selected of information on species ........... 28 6. Results ..................... 31 6.1. Systematic classification ............... 31 6.2. Number of localities ................ 33 6.3. Dynamics of occurrence ..............
    [Show full text]