DOCSLIB.ORG

Dock Control. Combining the Best Methods for Successful Control

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dock Control. Combining the Best Methods for Successful Control Technical guide 2018 | FiBL No. 1718 Dock Control Combining the best methods for successful control Combining preventive and direct control measures The two main dock species broad-leaved dock The strategy presented in this technical guide builds (Rumex obtusifolius) and curly dock (Rumex cris- on measures to prevent the (further) establishment pus L.) are a problem for many organic farms in of dock plants. Depending on the level of dock in- most areas. Although docks are not speci fically an festation, different techniques are recommended ‘organic’ problem, management on organic farms for removing and suppressing established docks. without recourse to herbicides can be particular- Only by dealing with the causes of dock prolifer- ly challenging. To date, there is no ‘magic bullet’ ation can the reproductive cycle be broken and for the solution of the dock problem on organic long-term control be achieved. farms. The most promising approach therefore is a combination of several measures. Dock control strategy 1. Avoid the causes of dock proliferation • Gaps in crops? • Weakened crops? • Spreading of dock seeds? > Pages 4–6 2. Assess the dock density 3. Select appropriate control measures • Control by removal of single Up to 0.25 plants is possible at this level. Dig out, till or kill Reseed gaps dock plants • Check dock proliferation regularly. single dock plants + in the pasture per m2 > Page 7 > Page 8 0.25 to 2 • Measures for single plants only Remove inflorescences Reseed gaps dock plants make sense in combination with + dig out, till or kill the or the entire 2 reseeding and a change of + per m cultivation practices. dock plants area > Page 7 > Page 8 Reseed the More than 2 • Removal of single plants is not Practice full dock entire area dock plants practicable at this level. control cultivation + 2 • The past cultivation and cropping > Page 8 per m practices must be questioned. • A new dock control strategy must Adapt crop be developed. > Page 9 + rotation Permanent pasture + Arable field Permanent pasture Arable field In pastures: Take the proportion of good grasses into account! Suppression of docks necessitates a competitive If the percentage of desirable grasses is below sward. For successful control, the proportion of 40 %, the proportion should – regardless of good grasses in the sward plays a central role. If dock proliferation – be increased by repeated the percentage of valuable grasses is over 40 %, oversowing or reseeding with suitable species. this should be an adequate basis for sward im- If the proportion of good grasses is under provement along with other dock control meas- 15 %, reseeding is necessary – regardless of ures. dock proli feration. 2 Dock control | 2018 | FiBL | ORC The dock’s strengths and weaknesses The problematic nature of the dock plant origi na- Wet fields and soils rich in nitrogen, potassium and tes, in part, in its great ability to re-grow and sup- magnesium are particularly inclined to encourage press other plants after cutting or grazing. This is docks. Thus, docks are an indicator of high nitro- due to the dock’s large storage root with regenera- gen content in the subsoil. On poor, shallow soils, tive buds at the crown. Additionally, docks have docks grow rather poorly. a enormous reproductive potential, thanks to the Dock seeds are dependent on light to germi- number of seeds that can be formed by each plant, nate, so a dense sward will help prevent them get- and which have an early germination capacity and ting established in grassland. robustness. From the 5- to 6-leaf stage onwards, docks can The broad-leaved dock spreads most rapidly no longer be controlled by either grazing or com- in intensively cultivated grassland with excessive petition from the pasture grasses. Soil compaction fertilisation or manuring and over-grazing, but further reduces grass competition and encourages also in under-grazed or poorly managed pasture. docks. Dock fact-sheet Seeds • One plant can produce up to 60,000 seeds per year. • Dock seeds are viable for up to 80 years. Leaves • 16 % of the seeds are viable only 6 days • The large leaf sur- after the first flowering. face makes the dock • 18 days after the first flowering 90 % of a space-robbing the green seeds are viable. plant. • Seeds are carried only a few meters by • The seedlings have a slow juvenile wind. development. • Viable seeds pass through the intestinal • Low sensitivity to cutting. tract of ruminants. In stacked manure • Only the young shoots and some and liquid manure germination capacity of the young leaves are eaten by of dock seeds decreases only very slow ly. cattle. The fully developed leaves • Seeds survive unharmed in hay and are only eaten by goats and sheep straw. be cause of their high content of • Unripe seeds on cut stems can mature oxa lic acid. and sprout while on the ground. Root • The taproot can grow through compacted, waterlogged, oxygen-poor soil down to depths of 2.6 m. From deeper soil levels, where there is little or no competition from other plants, it absorbs nutrients. • The roots are protected from rotting by tannins. • Dock roots have a great re-sprouting ability thanks to reserves. • The taproot has regenerative buds on the root crown, down to a soil depth of 10–12 cm. Dock control | 2018 | FiBL | ORC 3 Identifying the causes of docks spreading For successful dock control, the causes of its spread In arable and grassland farms, the dock often origi- must be identified and eliminated. The causes are nates from the grassland. Through seeds in farm- often found in cultivation practices, manuring or yard manure, it finds its way from the grassland, the crop rotation. Due to the dock’s biology, there or sometimes from field headlands, onto the arable are three main causes for its spread: field. Docks can be introduced into the farm via im- (1) gappy pastures, ported manure, contaminated seeds, grazing ani- (2) weakened fodder plants or advantageous mals, water and machines. growing conditions for the dock, and (3) dock plants spreading their seeds. Gaps in crops How to proceed? Damage by winterkill • Ensure ’fist-high‘ sward when going into winter. or drought • Oversow early in spring or after drought with a grass seed Gaps in pastures due to mixture adjusted to the location (for details see page 8). damages by winterkill or drought are common- places. Too low mowing • Do not cut permanent pasture and grass – clover lower than Mowing too low 6 cm, and lucerne – grass mixtures not lower than 7–8 cm. dama ges the pasture • Sharpen the blades regularly. and reduces its com pe- titiveness. Poaching and machi- • Do not graze pasture during wet periods. nery compaction • Avoid trampling damage around hayracks and water troughs Sward gaps and soil (move them regularly). Immediately reseed and roll in after compaction give docks trampling damage. an opportunity to • Avoid all driving on wet soil, or using overly heavy machinery establish. (axle load of max. 3–5 t, tyre pressure <0.8 bar). • Use twin tyres. Damage by • Trap vermine. wild animals • Harrow and roll meadows and pastures when growth starts. Moles, mice and voles • After grazing, harrow mole heaps and bare patches. can cause major dam- • Encourage birds of prey and other predators. age in some years. • Promote weasels with structural elements such as hedges or cairns. Open soil in • Control docks in arable crops after drilling. arable crops • As dock seedlings do not like competition, undersowing a ley Even small root pieces reseed in a competitive cereal such as oats will reduce estab- of docks can sprout lishment of new docks. again. 4 Dock control | 2018 | FiBL | ORC Weakened crops How to proceed? Over-grazing • Avoid grazing too hard, particularly in early spring when the Damage to the sward soil is wet, otherwise it will allow dock seeds to germinate. and excessive nutrient • Either practice set stocking which creates a dense sward, or ro- levels will encourage tational grazing with a short duration of grazing of 1 to 2 days docks. with rest intervals of 20 to 40 days, according to the season. • Make sure grazing height is at least 5–6 cm for set stocked sheep or 7–8 cm for cattle in early season. • Avoid late autumn mowing which may leave an open sward over winter. • Alternate grazing and cutting to create a dense competitive sward. Under-grazing • Ensure correct stocking rates. Under-grazing leads to • Avoid long periods between grazing or mowing. dead patches of grass • Sheep are more effective than cattle at creating a short dense and an open sward sward which will be less susceptible to weed invasion. susceptible to weed invasion. Over-fertilisation / • Apply mineral fertilisers and manures according to soil analy- in appropriate appli- sis recommendations. cation of manures • Adjust fertility to suit pasture species or crop type. Ensure good Excessive manure, soil fertility to encourage competitive pastures, but avoid ex- particularly slurry will cessive nitrogen which promotes docks and other nutrient-de- suppress the pasture pendent, competitive weeds. plants, leave bare soil • Avoid excessive use of manure and slurry. Low appli cation and encourage docks. rates such as 10–15 tonnes per ha FYM to grassland or 20 m3 per ha slurry are preferable. • Spread manure and slurry evenly. • Apply manure and slurry only in cool, humid weather on a dry, absorbent soil and a short sward, which will encourage pasture growth. • Avoid application to waterlogged soils. Dock control | 2018 | FiBL | ORC 5 Avoiding spreading of dock seeds How to proceed? Seeds spreading in • Cut flowering stalks and gather them as soon as they are visi- the field ble, at the latest before forage or cereal harvest, or mulching.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fungi of Slapton Ley National Nature Reserve and Environs
    THE FUNGI OF SLAPTON LEY NATIONAL NATURE RESERVE AND ENVIRONS APRIL 2019 Image © Visit South Devon ASCOMYCOTA Order Family Name Abrothallales Abrothallaceae Abrothallus microspermus CY (IMI 164972 p.p., 296950), DM (IMI 279667, 279668, 362458), N4 (IMI 251260), Wood (IMI 400386), on thalli of Parmelia caperata and P. perlata. Mainly as the anamorph <it Abrothallus parmeliarum C, CY (IMI 164972), DM (IMI 159809, 159865), F1 (IMI 159892), 2, G2, H, I1 (IMI 188770), J2, N4 (IMI 166730), SV, on thalli of Parmelia carporrhizans, P Abrothallus parmotrematis DM, on Parmelia perlata, 1990, D.L. Hawksworth (IMI 400397, as Vouauxiomyces sp.) Abrothallus suecicus DM (IMI 194098); on apothecia of Ramalina fustigiata with st. conid. Phoma ranalinae Nordin; rare. (L2) Abrothallus usneae (as A. parmeliarum p.p.; L2) Acarosporales Acarosporaceae Acarospora fuscata H, on siliceous slabs (L1); CH, 1996, T. Chester. Polysporina simplex CH, 1996, T. Chester. Sarcogyne regularis CH, 1996, T. Chester; N4, on concrete posts; very rare (L1). Trimmatothelopsis B (IMI 152818), on granite memorial (L1) [EXTINCT] smaragdula Acrospermales Acrospermaceae Acrospermum compressum DM (IMI 194111), I1, S (IMI 18286a), on dead Urtica stems (L2); CY, on Urtica dioica stem, 1995, JLT. Acrospermum graminum I1, on Phragmites debris, 1990, M. Marsden (K). Amphisphaeriales Amphisphaeriaceae Beltraniella pirozynskii D1 (IMI 362071a), on Quercus ilex. Ceratosporium fuscescens I1 (IMI 188771c); J1 (IMI 362085), on dead Ulex stems. (L2) Ceriophora palustris F2 (IMI 186857); on dead Carex puniculata leaves. (L2) Lepteutypa cupressi SV (IMI 184280); on dying Thuja leaves. (L2) Monographella cucumerina (IMI 362759), on Myriophyllum spicatum; DM (IMI 192452); isol. ex vole dung. (L2); (IMI 360147, 360148, 361543, 361544, 361546).
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Plant Disease Index
    Special Circular 128 December 1989 Ohio Plant Disease Index The Ohio State University Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Wooster, Ohio This page intentionally blank. Special Circular 128 December 1989 Ohio Plant Disease Index C. Wayne Ellett Department of Plant Pathology The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio T · H · E OHIO ISJATE ! UNIVERSITY OARilL Kirklyn M. Kerr Director The Ohio State University Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Wooster, Ohio All publications of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center are available to all potential dientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, sex, age, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status. 12-89-750 This page intentionally blank. Foreword The Ohio Plant Disease Index is the first step in develop­ Prof. Ellett has had considerable experience in the ing an authoritative and comprehensive compilation of plant diagnosis of Ohio plant diseases, and his scholarly approach diseases known to occur in the state of Ohia Prof. C. Wayne in preparing the index received the acclaim and support .of Ellett had worked diligently on the preparation of the first the plant pathology faculty at The Ohio State University. edition of the Ohio Plant Disease Index since his retirement This first edition stands as a remarkable ad substantial con­ as Professor Emeritus in 1981. The magnitude of the task tribution by Prof. Ellett. The index will serve us well as the is illustrated by the cataloguing of more than 3,600 entries complete reference for Ohio for many years to come. of recorded diseases on approximately 1,230 host or plant species in 124 families.
    [Show full text]
  • Tarset and Greystead Biological Records
    Tarset and Greystead Biological Records published by the Tarset Archive Group 2015 Foreword Tarset Archive Group is delighted to be able to present this consolidation of biological records held, for easy reference by anyone interested in our part of Northumberland. It is a parallel publication to the Archaeological and Historical Sites Atlas we first published in 2006, and the more recent Gazeteer which both augments the Atlas and catalogues each site in greater detail. Both sets of data are also being mapped onto GIS. We would like to thank everyone who has helped with and supported this project - in particular Neville Geddes, Planning and Environment manager, North England Forestry Commission, for his invaluable advice and generous guidance with the GIS mapping, as well as for giving us information about the archaeological sites in the forested areas for our Atlas revisions; Northumberland National Park and Tarset 2050 CIC for their all-important funding support, and of course Bill Burlton, who after years of sharing his expertise on our wildflower and tree projects and validating our work, agreed to take this commission and pull everything together, obtaining the use of ERIC’s data from which to select the records relevant to Tarset and Greystead. Even as we write we are aware that new records are being collected and sites confirmed, and that it is in the nature of these publications that they are out of date by the time you read them. But there is also value in taking snapshots of what is known at a particular point in time, without which we have no way of measuring change or recognising the hugely rich biodiversity of where we are fortunate enough to live.
    [Show full text]
  • An Annotated Catalogue of the Fungal Biota of the Roztocze Upland Monika KOZŁOWSKA, Wiesław MUŁENKO Marcin ANUSIEWICZ, Magda MAMCZARZ
    An Annotated Catalogue of the Fungal Biota of the Roztocze Upland Fungal Biota of the An Annotated Catalogue of the Monika KOZŁOWSKA, Wiesław MUŁENKO Marcin ANUSIEWICZ, Magda MAMCZARZ An Annotated Catalogue of the Fungal Biota of the Roztocze Upland Richness, Diversity and Distribution MARIA CURIE-SkłODOWSKA UNIVERSITY PRESS POLISH BOTANICAL SOCIETY Grzyby_okladka.indd 6 11.02.2019 14:52:24 An Annotated Catalogue of the Fungal Biota of the Roztocze Upland Richness, Diversity and Distribution Monika KOZŁOWSKA, Wiesław MUŁENKO Marcin ANUSIEWICZ, Magda MAMCZARZ An Annotated Catalogue of the Fungal Biota of the Roztocze Upland Richness, Diversity and Distribution MARIA CURIE-SkłODOWSKA UNIVERSITY PRESS POLISH BOTANICAL SOCIETY LUBLIN 2019 REVIEWER Dr hab. Małgorzata Ruszkiewicz-Michalska COVER DESIN, TYPESETTING Studio Format © Te Authors, 2019 © Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press, Lublin 2019 ISBN 978-83-227-9164-6 ISBN 978-83-950171-8-6 ISBN 978-83-950171-9-3 (online) PUBLISHER Polish Botanical Society Al. Ujazdowskie 4, 00-478 Warsaw, Poland pbsociety.org.pl Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press 20-031 Lublin, ul. Idziego Radziszewskiego 11 tel. (81) 537 53 04 wydawnictwo.umcs.eu [email protected] Sales Department tel. / fax (81) 537 53 02 Internet bookshop: wydawnictwo.umcs.eu [email protected] PRINTED IN POLAND, by „Elpil”, ul. Artyleryjska 11, 08-110 Siedlce AUTHOR’S AFFILIATION Department of Botany and Mycology, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin Monika Kozłowska, [email protected]; Wiesław
    [Show full text]
  • Host Range, Geographical Distribution and Current Accepted Names of Cercosporoid and Ramularioid Species in Iran
    Current Research in Environmental & Applied Mycology (Journal of Fungal Biology) 9(1): 122–163 (2019) ISSN 2229-2225 www.creamjournal.org Article Doi 10.5943/cream/9/1/13 Host range, geographical distribution and current accepted names of cercosporoid and ramularioid species in Iran Pirnia M Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran Pirnia M 2019 – Host range, geographical distribution and current accepted names of cercosporoid and ramularioid species in Iran. Current Research in Environmental & Applied Mycology (Journal of Fungal Biology) 9(1), 122–163, Doi 10.5943/cream/9/1/13 Abstract Comprehensive up to date information of cercosporoid and ramularioid species of Iran is given with their hosts, geographical distribution and references. A total of 186 taxa belonging to 24 genara are listed. Among them, 134 taxa were belonged to 16 Cercospora and Cercospora-like genera viz. Cercospora (62 species), Cercosporidium (1 species), Clypeosphaerella (1 species), Fulvia (1 species), Graminopassalora (1 species), Neocercospora (1 species), Neocercosporidium (1 species), Nothopassalora (1 species), Paracercosporidium (1 species), Passalora (21 species), Pseudocercospora (36 species), Rosisphaerella (1 species), Scolecostigmina (2 species), Sirosporium (2 species), Sultanimyces (1 species) and Zasmidium (1 species); and 52 taxa were belonged to 8 Ramularia and Ramularia-like genera viz. Cercosporella (2 species), Microcyclosporella (1 species), Neoovularia (2 species), Neopseudocercosporella (1 species), Neoramularia (2 species), Ramularia (42 species), Ramulariopsis (1 species) and Ramulispora (1 species). Key words – anamorphic fungi – biodiversity – Cercospora-like genera – Ramularia-like genera – west of Asia Introduction Cercosporoid and ramularioid fungi are traditionally related to the genus Mycospharella Johanson. Sivanesan (1984) investigated teleomorph-anamorph connexions in bitunicate ascomycetes and cited that Mycosphaerella is related to some anamorphic genera viz.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic, Biodiversity, Resource Protection and Social Values of Orchards: a Study of Six Orchards by the Herefordshire Orchards Community Evaluation Project
    Natural England Commissioned Report NECR090 Economic, biodiversity, resource protection and social values of orchards: A study of six orchards by the Herefordshire Orchards Community Evaluation Project First published 04 May 2012 www.naturalengland.org.uk Foreword Natural England commission a range of reports from external contractors to provide evidence and advice to assist us in delivering our duties. The views in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Natural England. Background This report describes the results of a partnership the different types and characteristics of orchards project, which ran from 2006-2010, to investigate the found in Herefordshire. All the orchards had multiple values of orchards beyond value generated by the values, although not all orchards had all the values economic enterprise of orchard management. assessed and values differed in importance across Uncertainty in markets for orchard produce, orchards. The project found that local communities development pressure, neglect and land use change cared about the orchards in their locality, and all pose threats to the continued existence of welcomed engagement about their worth. orchards, making a full understanding of the values Each of the chapters about orchard values in the of orchards an urgent need. report has been peer-reviewed but the findings are The project was set up by the Herefordshire Orchard the responsibility of the authors alone and do not Topic Group, an independent association of necessarily represent the views of any of the individuals and organizations working to support all partnership organisations. Monetary evaluation is a aspects of orchards and orcharding in Herefordshire.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Review No. CP 182 / 1807258 Weed Control Options And
    April 2019 Research Review No. CP 182 / 1807258 Weed control options and future opportunities for UK crops Authors: Sarah K. Cook, Laura R. Davies, Frances Pickering, Lynn V. Tatnell, Angela Huckle, Sonia Newman, Chloe Whiteside, Charlotte White, David Talbot, Helen Holmes (ADAS), Patricia E. Turnbull (Independent agronomist), Denis C. Buckley (Independent agronomist), Jim Scrimshaw (PGRO) and Pamela Chambers (UPL) Editors: James H Clarke, Steve Ellis and Sarah Clarke (ADAS Boxworth, Boxworth, Cambs CB23 4NN) This review was produced as the final report of a four month project (CP 182 / 1807258) that started in September 2018. The work was funded under a contract of £26,000 from AHDB and £10,000 from BBRO, with additional funding from BASF, Bayer CropScience, Belchim, Corteva Agriscience, FMC Agro Ltd, Syngenta and UPL Europe Ltd. Additional in-kind funders and contributors: Frontier, Garford Farm Machinery, Hutchinsons, Maize Growers Association, PGRO, Procam and Rootwave. While the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board seeks to ensure that the information contained within this document is accurate at the time of printing, no warranty is given in respect thereof and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board accepts no liability for loss, damage or injury howsoever caused (including that caused by negligence) or suffered directly or indirectly in relation to information and opinions contained in or omitted from this document. Reference herein to trade names and proprietary products without stating that they are protected does not imply that they may be regarded as unprotected and thus free for general use. No endorsement of named products is intended, nor is any criticism implied of other alternative, but unnamed, products.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Checklist of Myxomycota and Ascomycota from Fruška Gora Mountain
    Зборник Матице српске за природне науке / Proc. Nat. Sci, Matica Srpska Novi Sad, № 123, 37—49, 2012 UDC 635.8(497.113 Fruška gora) DOI:10.2298/ZMSPN1223037K Maja A. Karaman1*, Milana S. Novaković 1, Dragiša Savić2, M i l a n N. M a t a v u l ј 1 1 University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Biology and Ecology, Dositeja Obradovića Square 2, 21 000 Novi Sad, Serbia 2 National Park Fruška Gora, Zmajev Square 1, 21 208 Sremska Kamenica, Serbia PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF MYXOMYCOTA AND ASCOMYCOTA FROM FRUŠKA GORA MOUNTAIN ABSTRACT: Fruška Gora mountain represents very important source of natural and semi-natural forest ecosystems in the northern part of the Republic of Serbia and therefore it is important source of habitats for different groups of fungi. As opposed to coordinated inventory and monitoring projects of fungi established around Europe long ago, mycologi- cal researches in Serbia are still sporadic and insufficiently coordinated by authorities and experts. In accordance with that, available data concerning the state of fungi in Serbia are scarce. The aim of this work was to collect all relevant unpublished data considering fungi in Fruška Gora and to present checklist of two fungal phyla: Myxomycota and Ascomycota. In the presented checklist, 23 recorded species of Myxomycota (known as fungal analogues) were distributed in 2 classes, 5 orders, and 7 families. The first class (Protosteliomycetes) contained only one species – Ceratiomyxa fruticulosa (fam. Ceratiomyxaceae). The largest order was Trichiales (9 species), while the dominant families were Stemonitidaceae and Trichiaceae, each with 6 species recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Docks (Rumex Spp.) in Organic Fodder Production – a True Bottleneck in Organic Farmed Branded Dairy and Meat Products
    Control of docks (Rumex spp.) in organic fodder production – a true bottleneck in organic farmed branded dairy and meat products Project description PART 1: The KMB project Summary Control of dock species are a true bottleneck in the development of grassland based organic production in Norway. Rumex obtusifolius, Rumex crispus and Rumex longifolius are among the most important perennial weeds in grassland areas throughout the world. These docks are undesirable in grasslands because they decrease yields and reduce forage feeding value. Numerous farmers feel powerlessness regarding how to manage the Rumex problem. Some farmers continue conventionally farming instead of organic, although they generally are motivated for transferring to organic production, due to the dock problem. The main goal of the project is a high quality and stable production of regional branded dairy and meat products based on fodder from grassland with non-chemical control of docks. This is to be achieved through knowledge on important factors that influence severity of dock infestation, studies on weak growth stages of docks, evaluation of biological control of docks and a synthesis of various measures to control these weeds. The return of the efforts of the project is increased organic production of meat and dairy products. 1. Objectives Main objective High quality and stable production of regional branded dairy and meat products based on fodder from grassland with non-chemical control of dock Sub objective 1 Reduce infestation of Rumex spp through knowledge on relationship between severity of dock infestation and grassland management, soil physical and chemical factors and site specific genetic variation. Sub objective 2 Improve dock control measures through a description of a life table of Rumex longifolius and evaluation of weak growth stages with emphasize on germination and early growth of seedlings.
    [Show full text]
  • Новости Систематики Низших Растений Novitates Systematicae Plantarum Non Vascularium
    ISSN 0568-5435 РОССИЙСКАЯ АКАДЕМИЯ НАУК БОТАНИЧЕСКИЙ ИНСТИТУТ им. В. Л. КОМАРОВА ACADEMIA SCIENTIARUM ROSSICA INSTITUTUM BOTANICUM NOMINE V. L. KOMAROVII НОВОСТИ СИСТЕМАТИКИ НИЗШИХ РАСТЕНИЙ ТОМ 45 NOVITATES SYSTEMATICAE PLANTARUM NON VASCULARIUM TOMUS XLV Товарищество научных изданий КМК Санкт-Петербург — Москва 2011 Новости систематики низших растений. Том 45, 2011 ГРИБЫ Е. Л. Гасич E. L. Gasich Ф. Б. Ганнибал Ph. B. Gannibal А. О. Берестецкий A. O. Berestetskiy Л. Б. Хлопунова L. B. Khlopunova И. В. Бильдер I. V. Bilder МАТЕРИАЛЫ К ИЗУЧЕНИЮ МИКРОМИЦЕТОВ СОРНЫХ РАСТЕНИЙ КРАСНОДАРСКОГО КРАЯ И РЕСПУБЛИКИ АДЫГЕЯ MATERIALS TO THE STUDY OF MICROMYCETES OF WEEDS IN THE KRASNODAR TERRITORY AND REPUBLIC OF ADYGEYA Всероссийский научно-исследовательский институт защиты растений 196608, Санкт-Петербург, Пушкин, шоссе Подбельского, д. 3 [email protected] Представлены результаты изучения микобиоты сорных растений в Красно- дарском крае и Республике Адыгея в 2002, 2004 и 2008 гг. Микромицеты об- наружены на 60 видах растений из 48 родов, 20 семейств. Идентифицировано 77 видов грибов. Выявленные микромицеты относятся к 41 роду, 8 семействам, 7 порядкам из отделов Oomycota, Ascomycota, Basidiomycota и анаморфных гри- бов. Ключевые слова: микобиота, Ascochyta, Puccinia, Ramularia, Septoria, Крас- нодарский край, Республика Адыгея, сорные растения, вьюнок, осот. The article presents results of a study of weeds mycobiota in the Krasnodar Terri- tory and Republic of Adygeya (North Caucasus) in 2002, 2004 and 2008. Micromyce- tes were found on 60 plant species of 48 genera and 20 families. We have identifi ed 77 fungal species. The revealed species belong to 41 genera, 8 families and 7 orders of Oomycota, Ascomycota, Basidiomycota and anamorphic fungi.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tale of the Fungi of Two Gardens: Non-Lichenised Fungi of the Botanic Gardens in Glasgow
    The Glasgow Naturalist (online 2019) Volume 27, Part 1 The tale of the fungi of two gardens: non-lichenised fungi of the Botanic Gardens in Glasgow R. Watling Caledonian Mycological Enterprises, Edinburgh EH4 3HU E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT J.F. Klotzsch. Hooker had collected a few specimens, A brief history of the early days of mycology in Scotland some of which are in the herbarium of the Royal Botanic is given to act as a starting point from which to view the Gardens, Edinburgh, but Klotzsch set about fungal records made in the gardens at Sandyford and documenting these as well as gathering fungi from Kelvinside. The former was vacated in 1842 and the around Glasgow for inclusion in Hooker’s herbarium. garden transferred to the present site at Kelvinside under He also travelled further afield, e.g. to Castle Semple, the authority of the Glasgow City Council. The role of Renfrewshire, and to the Highlands where he J.F. Klotzsch in generating the earliest records is accompanied Hooker. Watling (2016) listed the emphasised and the compilation of fungal records, localities where Klotzsch collected whilst in Scotland. mainly of macrofungi, until the present day is discussed. Klotzsch stayed in Glasgow for two years, accumulated A short account of the microfungi is given. A complete a vast collection for Hooker, and introduced the idea of list of the fungi recorded from the two gardens is slicing specimens before they were dried for provided. preservation. Following the tradition of the time, these specimens, along with his library and manuscripts, INTRODUCTION - SETTING THE SCENE followed Hooker to the Kew Botanical Gardens when he Thomas Hopkirk was a founding father of the Royal went there as Director in 1841 (Bower, 1901).
    [Show full text]
  • An Inventory of Fungal Diversity in Ohio Research Thesis Presented In
    An Inventory of Fungal Diversity in Ohio Research Thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with research distinction in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University by Django Grootmyers The Ohio State University April 2021 1 ABSTRACT Fungi are a large and diverse group of eukaryotic organisms that play important roles in nutrient cycling in ecosystems worldwide. Fungi are poorly documented compared to plants in Ohio despite 197 years of collecting activity, and an attempt to compile all the species of fungi known from Ohio has not been completed since 1894. This paper compiles the species of fungi currently known from Ohio based on vouchered fungal collections available in digitized form at the Mycology Collections Portal (MyCoPortal) and other online collections databases and new collections by the author. All groups of fungi are treated, including lichens and microfungi. 69,795 total records of Ohio fungi were processed, resulting in a list of 4,865 total species-level taxa. 250 of these taxa are newly reported from Ohio in this work. 229 of the taxa known from Ohio are species that were originally described from Ohio. A number of potentially novel fungal species were discovered over the course of this study and will be described in future publications. The insights gained from this work will be useful in facilitating future research on Ohio fungi, developing more comprehensive and modern guides to Ohio fungi, and beginning to investigate the possibility of fungal conservation in Ohio. INTRODUCTION Fungi are a large and very diverse group of organisms that play a variety of vital roles in natural and agricultural ecosystems: as decomposers (Lindahl, Taylor and Finlay 2002), mycorrhizal partners of plant species (Van Der Heijden et al.
    [Show full text]