DOCSLIB.ORG

Classification and Description of World Formation Types

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Department of Agriculture Classification and Description of World Formation Types Don Faber-Langendoen, Todd Keeler-Wolf, Del Meidinger, Carmen Josse, Alan Weakley, David Tart, Gonzalo Navarro, Bruce Hoagland, Serguei Ponomarenko, Gene Fults, Eileen Helmer Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Service Research Station Report RMRS-GTR-346 August 2016 Faber-Langendoen, D.; Keeler-Wolf, T.; Meidinger, D.; Josse, C.; Weakley, A.; Tart, D.; Navarro, G.; Hoagland, B.; Ponomarenko, S.; Fults, G.; Helmer, E. 2016. Classification and description of world formation types. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-346. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 222 p. Abstract An ecological vegetation classification approach has been developed in which a combi- nation of vegetation attributes (physiognomy, structure, and floristics) and their response to ecological and biogeographic factors are used as the basis for classifying vegetation types. This approach can help support international, national, and subnational classifica- tion efforts. The classification structure was largely developed by the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group (HRWG), which contained members from across the Americas. The HRWG was authorized by the U.S. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) to devel- op a revised global vegetation classification to replace the earlier versions of the structure that guided the U.S. National Vegetation Classification and International Vegetation Classification, which formerly relied on the UNESCO (1973) global classification (see FGDC 1997; Grossman and others 1998). This document summarizes the develop- ment of the upper formation levels. We first describe the history of the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group and discuss the three main parameters that guide the clas- sification—it focuses on vegetated parts of the globe, on existing vegetation, and includes (but distinguishes) both cultural and natural vegetation for which parallel hierarchies are provided. Part I of the report provides an introduction to the overall classification, focus- ing on the upper formation levels. Part II provides a description for each type, following a standardized template format. These descriptions are a first preliminary effort at global descriptions for formation types, and are provided to give some guidance to our concepts. Cover photos of Cool Temperate Forests from around the world. Clockwise from top left: 1. Western Eurasian Forest & Woodland division: European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest in Czech Republic (by Scott Franklin) 2. Eastern North American Forest & Woodland division: Eastern Hemlock-Sugar Maple (Tsuga canadensis-Acer saccharum) forest in central Wisconsin, United States (by Don Faber-Langendoen). 3. Eastern Asian Forest & Woodland division: Oak-pine / bamboo forest in Foping National Nature Reserve, Shaanxi Province, China (by Scott Franklin) 4. Valdivian Forest division: Southern beech (Nothofagus spp.) forest in Altos de Lircay National Reserve, Chile (by Bruce Young) 5. Southeast Australian Cool Temperate Forest & Woodland division: Australian Alps - mainly Mountain Ash (Eucalyptus regnans) (by Andy Gillison) United States Department of Agriculture Classification and Description of World Formation Types Don Faber-Langendoen, Todd Keeler-Wolf, Del Meidinger, Carmen Josse, Alan Weakley, David Tart, Gonzalo Navarro, Bruce Hoagland, Serguei Ponomarenko, Gene Fults, Eileen Helmer Hierarchy Revisions Working Group FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Service Research Station Report RMRS-GTR-346 August 2016 i Authors (in order of authorship) Don Faber-Langendoen: NatureServe, Conservation Science Division, Arlington, VA Todd Keeler-Wolf: Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA Del Meidinger: Meidinger Ecological Consultants Ltd., Victoria BC Carmen Josse: NatureServe, Conservation Science Division, Arlington, VA Alan Weakley: North Carolina Botanic Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC David Tart: USDA Forest Service - Intermountain Region, Natural Resources, Ogden, UT Gonzalo Navarro: Universidad Católica Boliviana “San Pablo, Cochabamba, Bolivia Bruce Hoagland: Oklahoma Biological Survey and Department of Geography, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK Serguei Ponomarenko: Ecological Integrity Branch, Parks Canada, Gatineau, Québec Gene Fults: Natural Resources Conservation Service - West National Technology Support Center, Portland, OR Eileen Helmer: USDA Forest Service - International Institute of Tropical Forestry, Fort Collins, CO ii Acknowledgments The work produced here was supported by the U.S. National Vegetation Classification partnership between U.S. Federal agencies, the Ecological Society of America, and NatureServe staff, working through the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Vegetation Subcommittee. FGDC sponsored the mandate of the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group, which included international expertise into the process. For that reason, this product represents a collaboration of national and inter- national vegetation ecologists. We thank Ralph Crawford, chair of the FGDC vegetation subcommittee. We grate- fully acknowledge the support of the U.S. Federal agencies that helped fund the work of the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group from 2003 to 2012. We appreciate their pa- tience with our slow progress on this effort. Most recently, the U.S. Geological Survey, and in particular Alexa McKerrow, has supported the development of the formation descriptions that are provided in this document. We appreciate the support of the Ecological Society of America Vegetation Classification Panel for their peer review of this document. In particular, we thank the Panel’s chair, Scott Franklin, for facilitating review among the panel and internation- ally. Through his efforts, we benefited from international reviewers, including Ken Baldwin, John Benson, Sara del Río González, Jesus Izco, David Keith, Ángel Penas Merino, Salvador Rivas-Martínez, Michael Rutherford, and Daniel Sánchez-Mata, and we thank them for their input. A special thanks to Ángel Penas Merino for creating the North American and European macrobioclimate maps for this report. Over the years, various members of the HRWG have participated for a period of time. We thank Sherm Karl, Otto Huber, Jean-Pierre Saucier, and Andy Gray for their input at critical stages early on in the development of the formations. We thank Mary Russo and Kristin Snow, of NatureServe, for maintaining and editing the classification database and producing the Level 1–Level 3 description documents for Part II. iii iv Executive Summary An ecological vegetation (EcoVeg) classification approach has been developed in which a combination of vegetation attributes (physiognomy, structure, and floristics) and their response to ecological and biogeographic factors are used as the basis for classifying vegetation types (Faber-Langendoen and others 2014). This approach can help support international, national, and subnational classification efforts. Support for many aspects of the development of classification was provided by the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) partnership, in conjunction with development of the International Vegetation Classification (IVC) (FGDC 2008; Faber-Langendoen and others 2009; Jennings and others 2009). The classification structure was largely developed by the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group (HRWG), which contained members from across the Americas. The group was authorized by the U.S. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Vegetation Subcommittee (chaired by the U.S. Forest Service), to develop a revised global vegetation classification to replace the earlier versions of the structure that guided the USNVC and IVC, which relied on the UNESCO (1973) global classification (see FGDC 1997; Grossman and others 1998). This document summarizes the development of the upper formation levels. We first describe the history of the Hierarchy Revisions Working Group and discuss the three main parameters that guide the classification—it focuses on vegetated parts of the globe, on existing vegetation, and includes (but distinguishes) both cultural and natural vegetation for which parallel hierarchies are provided. For natural vegetation, we define three main physiognomic levels: Formation Class, Formation Subclass, and Formation; each of the types for all three levels is also described. For cultural vegetation, we define and describe four main physiog- nomic levels: Cultural Class, Cultural Subclass, Cultural Formation, and Cultural Subformation. We use a fourth physiognomic level for cultural vegetation because the floristic/biogeographic patterns used for natural vegetation at the fourth level are not nearly as relevant for cultural vegetation. We provide guidance for developing forma- tion type description and nomenclature. The upper levels were not developed in a strictly top down manner. Rather, mem- bers of the HRWG had access to draft mid and lower level units (from Division to Association) for the United States and parts of Canada and Latin America. A compre- hensive master spreadsheet of these draft units was organized under the upper levels and was used to critique the overall “naturalness” of the formation units. The HRWG reevaluated formation concepts where formations introduced undesirable splits in lower units that were otherwise ecologically and floristically similar. Our goal was to make
Recommended publications
  • Middle East Unit: Reading and Questions Part 1:​ Introduction Located at the Junction of Three Continents—​Europe​,​

    Middle East Unit: Reading and Questions Part 1:​ Introduction Located at the Junction of Three Continents—​Europe​,​

    Middle East Unit: Reading and Questions Part 1: Introduction ​ Located at the junction of three continents—Europe, Asia, and Africa—the region ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ known as the Middle East has historically been a crossroads for conquerors, peoples, trade, and ideas as well as a transition zone for political and cultural interaction. Today the Middle East’s strategic location as a tricontinental hub, its vast petroleum reserves, its importance to Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike, and its many political disputes give it a global significance out of proportion to its size. The Middle East is a culturally, politically, and economically diverse region that extends for some 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers) from west to east and some 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometers) from north to south. It is made up of several countries located on or near the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Although definitions vary, it is generally understood to encompass Egypt, Lebanon, ​ ​ ​ ​ Syria, Jordan, Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, Iran, Iraq, and the Arabian ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Peninsula, which comprises Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. The part of the region closest to Europe ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ formerly was known as the Near East, and some agencies still use that term instead of the Middle East to describe the entire region. 1. What are the 3 continents that house the “Middle East”? 2. What are they known for? 3. Label your map with the countries and bodies of waters in this text. Color the waters blue and the countries each a different color.
  • Bioclimatic and Phytosociological Diagnosis of the Species of the Nothofagus Genus (Nothofagaceae) in South America

    Bioclimatic and Phytosociological Diagnosis of the Species of the Nothofagus Genus (Nothofagaceae) in South America

    International Journal of Geobotanical Research, Vol. nº 1, December 2011, pp. 1-20 Bioclimatic and phytosociological diagnosis of the species of the Nothofagus genus (Nothofagaceae) in South America Javier AMIGO(1) & Manuel A. RODRÍGUEZ-GUITIÁN(2) (1) Laboratorio de Botánica, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (USC). E-15782 Santiago de Com- postela (Galicia, España). Phone: 34-881 814977. E-mail: [email protected] (2) Departamento de Producción Vexetal. Escola Politécnica Superior de Lugo-USC. 27002-Lugo (Galicia, España). E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The Nothofagus genus comprises 10 species recorded in the South American subcontinent. All are important tree species in the ex- tratropical, Mediterranean, temperate and boreal forests of Chile and Argentina. This paper presents a summary of data on the phyto- coenotical behaviour of these species and relates the plant communities to the measurable or inferable thermoclimatic and ombrocli- matic conditions which affect them. Our aim is to update the phytosociological knowledge of the South American temperate forests and to assess their suitability as climatic bioindicators by analysing the behaviour of those species belonging to their most represen- tative genus. Keywords: Argentina, boreal forests, Chile, mediterranean forests, temperate forests. Introduction tually give rise to a temperate territory with rainfall rates as high as those of regions with a Tropical pluvial bio- The South American subcontinent is usually associa- climate; iii. finally, towards the apex of the American ted with a tropical environment because this is in fact the Southern Cone, this temperate territory progressively dominant bioclimatic profile from Panamá to the north of gives way to a strip of land with a Boreal bioclimate.
  • Dedicated to the Preservation of the California Native Flora

    Dedicated to the Preservation of the California Native Flora

    DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE FLORA NEWSLETTER Vol. 2, No. 3 June 1983 There wi 11 be no meetings in July and August. In lieu of field trips during the sumner, scouting trips to check on rare plant distribution will take place. Those who wi sh to become in- volved should contact Vince Yoder, -m 876-4275. President's message: Although we appear to be a little less active during the sumner, we should remember the need for our vigilance must continue unabated. And this can be expressed effectively in letter writing. The extent of the government's retreat from its duties to protect the lands from environmental destruction is appalling. The collective voice of CNPS members can be considerable when letters flood to legislators and officials at all levels of government. - The voiceof the people is still strong, but wemust keep shouting tobe heard. So take up pen and paper and keep the letters flowing, even in the sumne r . ---Vi nce Yoder FIELD TRIP REPORT The field trip of May 28-30 was an enjoyable experience for those who showed up. It was like another world as we had the Eureka Dunes all to ourselves, and only a helicopter broke the silence in the Last Chance Mountains. The small number in the group allowed flexibility for visit- ing rare sites. Among the interesting plants observed were: Astraqalus lentiqinosus var. micans (Eureka milk-vetch) Astragalus panamintensis (Cliff milk-vetch) Buddleia utahensi s (Utah buddleja) Cercocarpus intricatus (Little-leaf mahogany) Chaetadelpha wheeleri (Dune broom) Chamaesyce ocellata, formerly Euphorbia ocellata (Valley spurge) Cleome sparsifolia (Naked cleome) Cymopterus gilmanii (Gilman cymopterus) Dedeckera eurekensis (Dedeckera or July gold) Dicoria canescens ssp.
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."

    "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."

    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
  • California Vegetation Map in Support of the DRECP

    California Vegetation Map in Support of the DRECP

    CALIFORNIA VEGETATION MAP IN SUPPORT OF THE DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN (2014-2016 ADDITIONS) John Menke, Edward Reyes, Anne Hepburn, Deborah Johnson, and Janet Reyes Aerial Information Systems, Inc. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Renewable Energy Program and the California Energy Commission Final Report May 2016 Prepared by: Primary Authors John Menke Edward Reyes Anne Hepburn Deborah Johnson Janet Reyes Report Graphics Ben Johnson Cover Page Photo Credits: Joshua Tree: John Fulton Blue Palo Verde: Ed Reyes Mojave Yucca: John Fulton Kingston Range, Pinyon: Arin Glass Aerial Information Systems, Inc. 112 First Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 793-9493 [email protected] in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95811 and California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided by: California Energy Commission US Bureau of Land Management California Wildlife Conservation Board California Department of Fish and Wildlife Personnel involved in developing the methodology and implementing this project included: Aerial Information Systems: Lisa Cotterman, Mark Fox, John Fulton, Arin Glass, Anne Hepburn, Ben Johnson, Debbie Johnson, John Menke, Lisa Morse, Mike Nelson, Ed Reyes, Janet Reyes, Patrick Yiu California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Diana Hickson, Todd Keeler‐Wolf, Anne Klein, Aicha Ougzin, Rosalie Yacoub California
  • Annual Report COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE for RESEARCH in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

    Annual Report COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE for RESEARCH in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

    2015 Annual Report COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 2015 annual report University of Colorado Boulder UCB 216 Boulder, CO 80309-0216 COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES University of Colorado Boulder 216 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0216 303-492-1143 [email protected] http://cires.colorado.edu CIRES Director Waleed Abdalati Annual Report Staff Katy Human, Director of Communications, Editor Susan Lynds and Karin Vergoth, Editing Robin L. Strelow, Designer Agreement No. NA12OAR4320137 Cover photo: Mt. Cook in the Southern Alps, West Coast of New Zealand’s South Island Birgit Hassler, CIRES/NOAA table of contents Executive summary & research highlights 2 project reports 82 From the Director 2 Air Quality in a Changing Climate 83 CIRES: Science in Service to Society 3 Climate Forcing, Feedbacks, and Analysis 86 This is CIRES 6 Earth System Dynamics, Variability, and Change 94 Organization 7 Management and Exploitation of Geophysical Data 105 Council of Fellows 8 Regional Sciences and Applications 115 Governance 9 Scientific Outreach and Education 117 Finance 10 Space Weather Understanding and Prediction 120 Active NOAA Awards 11 Stratospheric Processes and Trends 124 Systems and Prediction Models Development 129 People & Programs 14 CIRES Starts with People 14 Appendices 136 Fellows 15 Table of Contents 136 CIRES Centers 50 Publications by the Numbers 136 Center for Limnology 50 Publications 137 Center for Science and Technology
  • Partial Flora Survey Rottnest Island Golf Course

    Partial Flora Survey Rottnest Island Golf Course

    PARTIAL FLORA SURVEY ROTTNEST ISLAND GOLF COURSE Prepared by Marion Timms Commencing 1 st Fairway travelling to 2 nd – 11 th left hand side Family Botanical Name Common Name Mimosaceae Acacia rostellifera Summer scented wattle Dasypogonaceae Acanthocarpus preissii Prickle lily Apocynaceae Alyxia Buxifolia Dysentry bush Casuarinacea Casuarina obesa Swamp sheoak Cupressaceae Callitris preissii Rottnest Is. Pine Chenopodiaceae Halosarcia indica supsp. Bidens Chenopodiaceae Sarcocornia blackiana Samphire Chenopodiaceae Threlkeldia diffusa Coast bonefruit Chenopodiaceae Sarcocornia quinqueflora Beaded samphire Chenopodiaceae Suada australis Seablite Chenopodiaceae Atriplex isatidea Coast saltbush Poaceae Sporabolis virginicus Marine couch Myrtaceae Melaleuca lanceolata Rottnest Is. Teatree Pittosporaceae Pittosporum phylliraeoides Weeping pittosporum Poaceae Stipa flavescens Tussock grass 2nd – 11 th Fairway Family Botanical Name Common Name Chenopodiaceae Sarcocornia quinqueflora Beaded samphire Chenopodiaceae Atriplex isatidea Coast saltbush Cyperaceae Gahnia trifida Coast sword sedge Pittosporaceae Pittosporum phyliraeoides Weeping pittosporum Myrtaceae Melaleuca lanceolata Rottnest Is. Teatree Chenopodiaceae Sarcocornia blackiana Samphire Central drainage wetland commencing at Vietnam sign Family Botanical Name Common Name Chenopodiaceae Halosarcia halecnomoides Chenopodiaceae Sarcocornia quinqueflora Beaded samphire Chenopodiaceae Sarcocornia blackiana Samphire Poaceae Sporobolis virginicus Cyperaceae Gahnia Trifida Coast sword sedge
  • Genome-Wide Data Substantiate Holocene Gene Flow from India To

    Genome-Wide Data Substantiate Holocene Gene Flow from India To

    Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia Irina Pugacha,1, Frederick Delfina,b, Ellen Gunnarsdóttira,c, Manfred Kayserd, and Mark Stonekinga aDepartment of Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany; bDNA Analysis Laboratory, Natural Sciences Research Institute, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines; cdeCODE Genetics, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland; and dDepartment of Forensic Molecular Biology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Edited by James O’Connell, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, and approved November 27, 2012 (received for review July 21, 2012) The Australian continent holds some of the earliest archaeological ancestry living in Utah (CEU); Han Chinese individuals from evidence for the expansion of modern humans out of Africa, with Beijing, China (CHB); and Gujarati Indians from Houston, TX initial occupation at least 40,000 y ago. It is commonly assumed (GIH) (19). The final dataset comprised 344 individuals (Table that Australia remained largely isolated following initial coloniza- S1 and Fig. 1); and after data cleaning and integration, we had tion, but the genetic history of Australians has not been explored in 458,308 autosomal SNPs for the analysis. detail to address this issue. Here, we analyze large-scale genotyp- ing data from aboriginal Australians, New Guineans, island South- Results east Asians and Indians. We find an ancient association between Genetic Relationships Between Populations. First, to place aborigi- Australia, New Guinea, and the Mamanwa (a Negrito group from nal Australians into a global context, we carried out principal fi the Philippines), with divergence times for these groups estimated component analysis (PCA) (20).
  • Appendix F3 Rare Plant Survey Report

    Appendix F3 Rare Plant Survey Report

    Appendix F3 Rare Plant Survey Report Draft CADIZ VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND STORAGE PROJECT Rare Plant Survey Report Prepared for May 2011 Santa Margarita Water District Draft CADIZ VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND STORAGE PROJECT Rare Plant Survey Report Prepared for May 2011 Santa Margarita Water District 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 www.esassoc.com Oakland Olympia Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills D210324 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project: Rare Plant Survey Report Page Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................2 Objective .......................................................................................................................... 2 Project Location and Description .....................................................................................2 Setting ................................................................................................................................... 5 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 5 Topography and Soils ......................................................................................................5
  • Their Botany, Essential Oils and Uses 6.86 MB

    Their Botany, Essential Oils and Uses 6.86 MB

    MELALEUCAS THEIR BOTANY, ESSENTIAL OILS AND USES Joseph J. Brophy, Lyndley A. Craven and John C. Doran MELALEUCAS THEIR BOTANY, ESSENTIAL OILS AND USES Joseph J. Brophy School of Chemistry, University of New South Wales Lyndley A. Craven Australian National Herbarium, CSIRO Plant Industry John C. Doran Australian Tree Seed Centre, CSIRO Plant Industry 2013 The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) was established in June 1982 by an Act of the Australian Parliament. ACIAR operates as part of Australia's international development cooperation program, with a mission to achieve more productive and sustainable agricultural systems, for the benefit of developing countries and Australia. It commissions collaborative research between Australian and developing-country researchers in areas where Australia has special research competence. It also administers Australia's contribution to the International Agricultural Research Centres. Where trade names are used this constitutes neither endorsement of nor discrimination against any product by ACIAR. ACIAR MONOGRAPH SERIES This series contains the results of original research supported by ACIAR, or material deemed relevant to ACIAR’s research and development objectives. The series is distributed internationally, with an emphasis on developing countries. © Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) 2013 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from ACIAR, GPO Box 1571, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia, [email protected] Brophy J.J., Craven L.A. and Doran J.C. 2013. Melaleucas: their botany, essential oils and uses. ACIAR Monograph No. 156. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra.
  • The Role of Leaf Cellulose Content in Determining Host Plant Preferences of Three Defoliating Insects Present in the Andean-Patagonian Forest

    The Role of Leaf Cellulose Content in Determining Host Plant Preferences of Three Defoliating Insects Present in the Andean-Patagonian Forest

    Austral Ecology (2016) , – The role of leaf cellulose content in determining host plant preferences of three defoliating insects present in the Andean-Patagonian forest A. L. PIETRANTUONO, O. A. BRUZZONE AND V. FERNANDEZ-ARHEX* Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Bariloche, CONICET – Instituto Nacional de Tecnologıa Agropecuaria, CC277, Av. Modesta Victoria 4450, 8400 San Carlos de Bariloche, Rıo Negro, Argentina (E-mail: [email protected]) Abstract Phytophagous insects choose their feeding resources according to their own requirements in addition to properties of the host plants, such as biomechanical defences. The feeding preferences of the native folivorous insects of the Andean-Patagonian forest (Argentina) have rarely been studied. These environments present a wide diversity and abundance of insects associated with trees of the Nothofagus and Lophozonia (Nothofagaceae) genera, which represent the main tree species of the forests of the southern hemisphere. In particular, Lophozonia alpina and Lophozonia obliqua are of great interest because they have a wide distribution, a high capacity for hybridization and exhibit great phenotypic plasticity. This versatility causes substantial variation in the biome- chanical properties of leaves, affecting the feeding preferences of insects. The purpose of this work was to study the food selection behaviour of three leaf-chewing insects (Polydrusus nothofagii, Polydrusus roseaus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Perzelia arda (Lepidoptera: Oecophoridae)) associated with L. alpina and L. obliqua as host plants. Based on their choices, our aim was to determine a preference scale for each insect species and the vari- ables on which these preferences were based. Therefore, we selected trees of L. alpina and L. obliqua, measured several properties such as cellulose content and recorded which leaves were eaten.
  • Grasses of Oklahoma

    Grasses of Oklahoma

    osu p.llaotten Technical Bulletin No. 3 October, 1938 OKLABOJIA AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE AGRICULTURAL ExPERIMENT STATION Lippert S. Ellis, Acting Director GRASSES OF OKLAHOMA By B. I. FEATHERLY Professor of Botany and Plant Pathology Stillwater, Oklahoma Technical Bulletin No. 3 October, 1938 OKLAHOMA AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Lippert S. Ellis. Acting Director GRASSES OF OI(LAHO~lA By H. I. FEATHERLY Professor of Botany and Plant Pathology Stillwater, Oklahoma ERRATA Page 6, No. 6: For "Leptochlea" read "Leptochloa." Page 10, No. 3 (second line): For "E. colona" read "E. colonum." Page 11, in "Distribution" of Phalaris caroliniana (Walt.): For "Ste-.vens" read "Stevens." Page 23, No. 2b: J:o"'or "Elymus canadensis ar. brachystachys" read "Elymus canadensis var. brachystachys." Page 28: For "Cynodon Dactylon ... etc." read "Cynodon dactylon (I,.) Pers. (Capriola dactylon Kuntz.) Bermuda G1·ass." Page 41, No. 13: For "Aristida divaricata Humb. and Bonnl." read "Aristida divaricata Humb. and Bonpl." Page 65, No. 3: For "Triodia clongata" read "Triodia elongata." Page 67. No. 11 (thud linel: For "ekels" read "keels." Page 71, No. 9 and Fig 81: For "Eragrostis sessilispicata" read "EragTostis sessilispica." Page 84, first line at top of page: For Melica nitens (Nutt.)'' re~d '?tE:cH~·a nH:ens CSc-;:itn.) !-Iutt." Page 106, No. 12, third line of description: For "within white margins" read "with white margins." Page 117. No. 2: l',or "Erianthus ... etc." read "Erianthus alopecuroides (L.) Ell. (E. divaricatus (L.) Hitchc.) Silver Plume-grass." Fage 123, No. 8: For "(A. torreanus Steud.)" read "A. tor­ rey:Jnus Steuc1.)" PREFACE The grass family needs no introduction.