Arctic Biodiversity Assessment

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Arctic Biodiversity Assessment 310 Arctic Biodiversity Assessment Purple saxifrage Saxifraga oppositifolia is a very common plant in poorly vegetated areas all over the high Arctic. It even grows on Kaffeklubben Island in N Greenland, at 83°40’ N, the most northerly plant locality in the world. It is one of the first plants to flower in spring and serves as the territorial flower of Nunavut in Canada. Zackenberg 2003. Photo: Erik Thomsen. 311 Chapter 9 Plants Lead Authors Fred J.A. Daniëls, Lynn J. Gillespie and Michel Poulin Contributing Authors Olga M. Afonina, Inger Greve Alsos, Mora Aronsson, Helga Bültmann, Stefanie Ickert-Bond, Nadya A. Konstantinova, Connie Lovejoy, Henry Väre and Kristine Bakke Westergaard Contents Summary ..............................................................312 9.4. Algae ..............................................................339 9.1. Introduction ......................................................313 9.4.1. Major algal groups ..........................................341 9.4.2. Arctic algal taxonomic diversity and regionality ..............342 9.2. Vascular plants ....................................................314 9.4.2.1. Russia ...............................................343 9.2.1. Taxonomic categories and species groups ....................314 9.4.2.2. Svalbard ............................................344 9.2.2. The Arctic territory and its subdivision .......................315 9.4.2.3. Greenland ...........................................344 9.2.3. The flora of the Arctic ........................................316 9.4.2.4. Canada ..............................................344 9.2.3.1. Taxonomic structure .................................317 9.4.2.5. Alaska ...............................................345 9.2.3.2. Endemic species .....................................318 9.4.3. Pan-Arctic surveys ...........................................345 9.2.3.3. Borderline species ...................................318 9.4.4. Trends ......................................................346 9.2.3.4. Non-native species ..................................318 9.4.5. Conclusions and recommendations ..........................346 9.2.3.5. Origin and integrity of the Arctic flora ����������������319 9.2.3.6. Species richness in Arctic subzones ������������������322 Acknowledgements ...................................................347 9.2.3.7. Species richness in floristic provinces ����������������322 References .............................................................347 9.2.3.8. Hotspots ............................................326 9.2.4. Traditional use of vascular plants .............................326 9.2.5. Rare and threatened Arctic endemic species .................326 9.2.5.1. Rare Arctic endemic species �������������������������326 9.2.5.2. Threatened Arctic species ����������������������������327 9.2.6. Trends and monitoring efforts ...............................328 9.2.7. Conclusions and recommendations ..........................329 9.3. Bryophytes ........................................................329 9.3.1. Bryophytes in the Arctic .....................................330 9.3.2. Arctic bryofloristic studies ...................................332 9.3.3. Regional surveys of Arctic bryodiversity .....................332 9.3.3.1. Russia ...............................................334 9.3.3.2. Svalbard ............................................335 9.3.3.3. Greenland ...........................................335 9.3.3.4. Canada .............................................335 9.3.3.5. Alaska ..............................................336 9.3.4. Taxonomic structure of the Arctic bryoflora ..................336 Willows grow much faster now on the banks of Kolyma. 9.3.5. Large scale variation of species richness .....................336 » As well in the summer pasture areas along the Arctic 9.3.5.1. Longitudinal variation ...............................336 Ocean tundra willows are more plentiful and more now. 9.3.5.2. Latitudinal variation .................................337 9.3.6. Origin of Arctic bryofloras and distribution types ............338 On River Suharnaya the willow bushes are much bigger. 9.3.7. Trends ......................................................339 Reindeer herders of the Chukchi community of Nutendli, 9.3.8. Conclusions and recommendations ..........................339 northeastern Sakha-Yakutia, Siberia; Mustonen 2007. 312 Arctic Biodiversity Assessment SUMMARY The Arctic territory is divided into 21 floristic provinces and five subzones. These strongly differ in species rich- Based on published scientific literature, the diversity of ness and composition. There is a pronounced increase plants in the Arctic is reviewed. The plants are divided in species numbers from the northernmost high Arctic into three main groups according to essential differ- subzone A (102 species) to the southernmost low Arctic ences in anatomy, morphology and reproduction. These subzone E (2,180 species). A comparison of species num- are vascular plants, bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) bers per floristic province showed a range from approxi- and algae (micro- and macroalgae). As a whole, these mately 200 species for the rather heavily glaciated and three plant groups have the ability to perform photosyn- northern floristic province Ellesmere Land-N Greenland thesis. As primary producers they play a key role in the to more than 800 species for Beringian W Alaska. environment, since photosynthesis provides resources for all other organisms. Vascular plants and bryophytes Polyploidy1 (allopolyploidy) levels are high in Arctic (together with the lichenized fungi, the lichens) are the plants. Endemism is well developed. One hundred six main structural components of terrestrial vegetation species (and subspecies), or c. 5% of the Arctic vascular and ecosystems, while algae are more abundant in fresh plant flora, are endemic to the Arctic. The genera Pa- water and marine ecosystems. paver (poppy), Puccinellia (salt marsh-grass, goose grass), Oxytropis, Potentilla and Draba (draba, whitlow-grass) Our knowledge of the taxonomic diversity of these three are particularly rich in endemic species, and almost all main groups is very uneven. Although serious knowledge endemic species are forbs and grasses, whereas there are gaps still exist, our understanding of vascular plant di- no endemic woody species. Though the absolute number versity in the Arctic was recently improved considerably of Arctic endemic species increases from north to south, by the publication of the Annotated Checklist of the Panarctic i.e. from the high Arctic to the low Arctic, the relative Flora (PAF) Vascular plants (Elven 2011), a result of many percentage of endemic species decreases. years of laborious research by taxonomists associated with the Panarctic Flora Project. The Arctic bryoflora is The floras of the northern floristic provinces Ellesmere relatively well known, but a circumpolar Arctic check- Land-N Greenland, Svalbard-Franz Joseph Land and list of mosses and liverworts has not yet been finalized. Wrangel Island are relatively rich in Arctic endemic Knowledge of the circumpolar Arctic taxonomic diversity species. Ten Arctic endemic species are restricted to of algae is still rather fragmentary. Preliminary biodiver- Wrangel Island and underline the hotspot character of sity assessments have been made for Arctic marine algae, this high Arctic island. Twenty Arctic endemic species but there has been no attempt yet to synthesize knowl- are very rare, and as such are possibly threatened. edge of the diversity of Arctic freshwater algae. Knowl- edge of the biodiversity of terrestrial algae in the Arctic is Borderline species are primarily non-Arctic species just also very fragmentary. reaching the southernmost extent of the Arctic (subzone E). Taxonomically this is a rather diverse group of 136 The main difficulties in assessing biological diversity at vascular plant species in 91 genera and 45 families. subgeneric levels are the dissimilarities that exist in the taxonomic species concept and classification between Non-native species that occur as persisting stabilized the Arctic countries. Moreover, current species concepts introductions in the Arctic account for 5% of the flora from traditional morphological assessments are chal- (101 species). In addition there are 89 species native to lenged by the latest molecular phylogenetic analyses, the Arctic that also occur as stabilized introductions in which sometimes conflict with traditional classification. other parts of the Arctic. In addition, more than 205 non-native species have been recorded in the Arctic only The vascular plant flora of the Arctic is relatively poor. as casual introductions that do not persist. Non-native Approximately 2,218 vascular plant species (including sub- species mainly occur in and around settlements and species, apomictic aggregates and some collective species) towns, in particular in climatologically favorable parts of are recognized. This is less than 1% of the known vascular the Euro-Siberian Arctic. plant species in the world (c. 0.85% based on an estimated total of 260,000 species; Raven et al. 2005). Arctic vascu- No single, predominantly Arctic vascular plant species lar plants belong to 430 genera and 91 families, almost all is known to have gone extinct due to human activi- within the flowering plants (angiosperms). Gymnosperms ties in the last 250 years. There are no species in the are rare and species diversity
Recommended publications
  • Hairy Braya (Braya Pilosa)
    SPECIES STATUS REPORT Hairy Braya (Braya pilosa) in the Northwest Territories Threatened December 2012 Status of Hairy Braya in the NWT Species at Risk Committee status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of species suspected of being at risk in the Northwest Territories (NWT). Suggested citation: Species at Risk Committee. 2012. Species Status Report for Hairy Braya (Braya pilosa) in the Northwest Territories. Species at Risk Committee, Yellowknife, NT. © Government of the Northwest Territories on behalf of the Species at Risk Committee ISBN: 978-0-7708-0202-8 Production note: The drafts of this report were prepared by James G. Harris, prepared under contract with the Government of the Northwest Territories, and edited by Joanna Wilson and Michelle Henderson. For additional copies contact: Species at Risk Secretariat c/o SC6, Department of Environment and Natural Resources P.O. Box 1320 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2L9 Tel.: (855) 783-4301 (toll free) Fax.: (867) 873-0293 E-mail: [email protected] www.nwtspeciesatrisk.ca ABOUT THE SPECIES AT RISK COMMITTEE The Species at Risk Committee was established under the Species at Risk (NWT) Act. It is an independent committee of experts responsible for assessing the biological status of species at risk in the NWT. The Committee uses the assessments to make recommendations on the listing of species at risk. The Committee uses objective biological criteria in its assessments and does not consider socio-economic factors. Assessments are based on species status reports that include the best available Aboriginal traditional knowledge, community knowledge and scientific knowledge of the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Land Plants Today: Index of Liverworts & Hornworts 2015–2016
    Phytotaxa 350 (2): 101–134 ISSN 1179-3155 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/pt/ PHYTOTAXA Copyright © 2018 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 1179-3163 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.350.2.1 Early Land Plants Today: Index of Liverworts & Hornworts 2015–2016 LARS SÖDERSTRÖM1, ANDERS HAGBORG2 & MATT VON KONRAT2 1 Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491, Trondheim, Norway; lars.soderstrom@ ntnu.no 2 Department of Research and Education, The Field Museum, 1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605–2496, U.S.A.; [email protected], [email protected] Abstract A widely accessible list of known plant species is a fundamental requirement for plant conservation and has vast uses. An index of published names of liverworts and hornworts between 2015 and 2016 is provided as part of a continued effort in working toward maintaining an updated world checklist of these groups. The list herein includes 64 higher taxon names, 225 specific names, 35 infraspecific names, two infrageneric autonyms and 21 infraspecific autonyms for 2015 and 2016, including also names of fossils and invalid and illegitimate names. Thirty-three older names omitted in the earlier indices are included. Key words: Liverworts, hornworts, index, nomenclature, fossils, new names Introduction Under the auspices of the Early Land Plants Today project, there has been a strong community-driven effort attempting to address the critical need to synthesize the vast nomenclatural, taxonomic and global distributional data for liverworts (Marchantiophyta) and hornworts (Anthocerotophyta) (von Konrat et al. 2010a). These endeavors, building on decades of previous efforts, were critical in providing the foundation to develop a working checklist of liverworts and hornworts worldwide published in 2016 (Söderström et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in the Composition of Marine and Sea-Ice Diatoms Derived from Sedimentary Ancient DNA of the Eastern Fram Strait Over the Past 30,000 Years Heike H
    https://doi.org/10.5194/os-2019-113 Preprint. Discussion started: 11 November 2019 c Author(s) 2019. CC BY 4.0 License. Changes in the composition of marine and sea-ice diatoms derived from sedimentary ancient DNA of the eastern Fram Strait over the past 30,000 years Heike H. Zimmermann1, Kathleen R. Stoof-Leichsenring1, Stefan Kruse1, Juliane Müller2,3,4, Rüdiger 5 Stein2,3,4, Ralf Tiedemann2, Ulrike Herzschuh1,5,6 1Polar Terrestrial Environmental Systems, Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Potsdam, 14473, Germany 2Marine Geology, Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, 27568 Bremerhaven, Germany 3MARUM, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany 10 4Faculty of Geosciences, University of Bremen, 28334 Bremen, Germany 5Institute of Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany 6Institute of Environmental Sciences and Geography, University of Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany Correspondence to: Heike H. Zimmermann ([email protected]) Abstract. The Fram Strait is an area with a relatively low and irregular distribution of diatom microfossils in surface 15 sediments, and thus microfossil records are underrepresented, rarely exceed the Holocene and contain sparse information about past diversity and taxonomic composition. These attributes make the Fram Strait an ideal study site to test the utility of sedimentary ancient DNA (sedaDNA) metabarcoding. By amplifying a short, partial rbcL marker, 95.7 % of our sequences are assigned to diatoms across 18 different families with 38.6 % of them being resolved to species and 25.8 % to genus level. Independent replicates show high similarity of PCR products, especially in the oldest samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Antarctic Bryophyte Research—Current State and Future Directions
    Bry. Div. Evo. 043 (1): 221–233 ISSN 2381-9677 (print edition) DIVERSITY & https://www.mapress.com/j/bde BRYOPHYTEEVOLUTION Copyright © 2021 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 2381-9685 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/bde.43.1.16 Antarctic bryophyte research—current state and future directions PAULO E.A.S. CÂMARA1, MicHELine CARVALHO-SILVA1 & MicHAEL STecH2,3 1Departamento de Botânica, Universidade de Brasília, Brazil UnB; �[email protected]; http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3944-996X �[email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2389-3804 2Naturalis Biodiversity Center, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands; 3Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands �[email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9804-0120 Abstract Botany is one of the oldest sciences done south of parallel 60 °S, although few professional botanists have dedicated themselves to investigating the Antarctic bryoflora. After the publications of liverwort and moss floras in 2000 and 2008, respectively, new species were described. Currently, the Antarctic bryoflora comprises 28 liverwort and 116 moss species. Furthermore, Antarctic bryology has entered a new phase characterized by the use of molecular tools, in particular DNA sequencing. Although the molecular studies of Antarctic bryophytes have focused exclusively on mosses, molecular data (fingerprinting data and/or DNA sequences) have already been published for 36 % of the Antarctic moss species. In this paper we review the current state of Antarctic bryological research, focusing on molecular studies and conservation, and discuss future questions of Antarctic bryology in the light of global challenges. Keywords: Antarctic flora, conservation, future challenges, molecular phylogenetics, phylogeography Introduction The Antarctic is the most pristine, but also most extreme region on Earth in terms of environmental conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Oklahoma
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE MACRONUTRIENTS SHAPE MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES, GENE EXPRESSION AND PROTEIN EVOLUTION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By JOSHUA THOMAS COOPER Norman, Oklahoma 2017 MACRONUTRIENTS SHAPE MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES, GENE EXPRESSION AND PROTEIN EVOLUTION A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY AND PLANT BIOLOGY BY ______________________________ Dr. Boris Wawrik, Chair ______________________________ Dr. J. Phil Gibson ______________________________ Dr. Anne K. Dunn ______________________________ Dr. John Paul Masly ______________________________ Dr. K. David Hambright ii © Copyright by JOSHUA THOMAS COOPER 2017 All Rights Reserved. iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my two advisors Dr. Boris Wawrik and Dr. J. Phil Gibson for helping me become a better scientist and better educator. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Anne K. Dunn, Dr. K. David Hambright, and Dr. J.P. Masly for providing valuable inputs that lead me to carefully consider my research questions. I would also like to thank Dr. J.P. Masly for the opportunity to coauthor a book chapter on the speciation of diatoms. It is still such a privilege that you believed in me and my crazy diatom ideas to form a concise chapter in addition to learn your style of writing has been a benefit to my professional development. I’m also thankful for my first undergraduate research mentor, Dr. Miriam Steinitz-Kannan, now retired from Northern Kentucky University, who was the first to show the amazing wonders of pond scum. Who knew that studying diatoms and algae as an undergraduate would lead me all the way to a Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plankton Lifeform Extraction Tool: a Digital Tool to Increase The
    Discussions https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-171 Earth System Preprint. Discussion started: 21 July 2021 Science c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License. Open Access Open Data The Plankton Lifeform Extraction Tool: A digital tool to increase the discoverability and usability of plankton time-series data Clare Ostle1*, Kevin Paxman1, Carolyn A. Graves2, Mathew Arnold1, Felipe Artigas3, Angus Atkinson4, Anaïs Aubert5, Malcolm Baptie6, Beth Bear7, Jacob Bedford8, Michael Best9, Eileen 5 Bresnan10, Rachel Brittain1, Derek Broughton1, Alexandre Budria5,11, Kathryn Cook12, Michelle Devlin7, George Graham1, Nick Halliday1, Pierre Hélaouët1, Marie Johansen13, David G. Johns1, Dan Lear1, Margarita Machairopoulou10, April McKinney14, Adam Mellor14, Alex Milligan7, Sophie Pitois7, Isabelle Rombouts5, Cordula Scherer15, Paul Tett16, Claire Widdicombe4, and Abigail McQuatters-Gollop8 1 10 The Marine Biological Association (MBA), The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, PL1 2PB, UK. 2 Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquacu∑lture Science (Cefas), Weymouth, UK. 3 Université du Littoral Côte d’Opale, Université de Lille, CNRS UMR 8187 LOG, Laboratoire d’Océanologie et de Géosciences, Wimereux, France. 4 Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, Plymouth, PL1 3DH, UK. 5 15 Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN), CRESCO, 38 UMS Patrinat, Dinard, France. 6 Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Angus Smith Building, Maxim 6, Parklands Avenue, Eurocentral, Holytown, North Lanarkshire ML1 4WQ, UK. 7 Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Lowestoft, UK. 8 Marine Conservation Research Group, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK. 9 20 The Environment Agency, Kingfisher House, Goldhay Way, Peterborough, PE4 6HL, UK. 10 Marine Scotland Science, Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9DB, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic and Wet Marchantiophyta, Order Metzgeriales: Aneuraceae
    Glime, J. M. 2021. Aquatic and Wet Marchantiophyta, Order Metzgeriales: Aneuraceae. Chapt. 1-11. In: Glime, J. M. Bryophyte 1-11-1 Ecology. Volume 4. Habitat and Role. Ebook sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Last updated 11 April 2021 and available at <http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology/>. CHAPTER 1-11: AQUATIC AND WET MARCHANTIOPHYTA, ORDER METZGERIALES: ANEURACEAE TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBCLASS METZGERIIDAE ........................................................................................................................................... 1-11-2 Order Metzgeriales............................................................................................................................................................... 1-11-2 Aneuraceae ................................................................................................................................................................... 1-11-2 Aneura .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-11-2 Aneura maxima ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-11-2 Aneura mirabilis .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-11-7 Aneura pinguis ..........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Within-Arctic Horizontal Gene Transfer As a Driver of Convergent Evolution in Distantly Related 1 Microalgae 2 Richard G. Do
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.31.454568; this version posted August 2, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Within-Arctic horizontal gene transfer as a driver of convergent evolution in distantly related 2 microalgae 3 Richard G. Dorrell*+1,2, Alan Kuo3*, Zoltan Füssy4, Elisabeth Richardson5,6, Asaf Salamov3, Nikola 4 Zarevski,1,2,7 Nastasia J. Freyria8, Federico M. Ibarbalz1,2,9, Jerry Jenkins3,10, Juan Jose Pierella 5 Karlusich1,2, Andrei Stecca Steindorff3, Robyn E. Edgar8, Lori Handley10, Kathleen Lail3, Anna Lipzen3, 6 Vincent Lombard11, John McFarlane5, Charlotte Nef1,2, Anna M.G. Novák Vanclová1,2, Yi Peng3, Chris 7 Plott10, Marianne Potvin8, Fabio Rocha Jimenez Vieira1,2, Kerrie Barry3, Joel B. Dacks5, Colomban de 8 Vargas2,12, Bernard Henrissat11,13, Eric Pelletier2,14, Jeremy Schmutz3,10, Patrick Wincker2,14, Chris 9 Bowler1,2, Igor V. Grigoriev3,15, and Connie Lovejoy+8 10 11 1 Institut de Biologie de l'ENS (IBENS), Département de Biologie, École Normale Supérieure, CNRS, 12 INSERM, Université PSL, 75005 Paris, France 13 2CNRS Research Federation for the study of Global Ocean Systems Ecology and Evolution, 14 FR2022/Tara Oceans GOSEE, 3 rue Michel-Ange, 75016 Paris, France 15 3 US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 16 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley,
    [Show full text]
  • About the Book the Format Acknowledgments
    About the Book For more than ten years I have been working on a book on bryophyte ecology and was joined by Heinjo During, who has been very helpful in critiquing multiple versions of the chapters. But as the book progressed, the field of bryophyte ecology progressed faster. No chapter ever seemed to stay finished, hence the decision to publish online. Furthermore, rather than being a textbook, it is evolving into an encyclopedia that would be at least three volumes. Having reached the age when I could retire whenever I wanted to, I no longer needed be so concerned with the publish or perish paradigm. In keeping with the sharing nature of bryologists, and the need to educate the non-bryologists about the nature and role of bryophytes in the ecosystem, it seemed my personal goals could best be accomplished by publishing online. This has several advantages for me. I can choose the format I want, I can include lots of color images, and I can post chapters or parts of chapters as I complete them and update later if I find it important. Throughout the book I have posed questions. I have even attempt to offer hypotheses for many of these. It is my hope that these questions and hypotheses will inspire students of all ages to attempt to answer these. Some are simple and could even be done by elementary school children. Others are suitable for undergraduate projects. And some will take lifelong work or a large team of researchers around the world. Have fun with them! The Format The decision to publish Bryophyte Ecology as an ebook occurred after I had a publisher, and I am sure I have not thought of all the complexities of publishing as I complete things, rather than in the order of the planned organization.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Cape Town
    The copyright of this thesis rests with the University of Cape Town. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non-commercial research purposes only. University of Cape Town Addendum (1) Soon after submitting this thesis a more recent comprehensive classification by Crandall-Stotler et al. (2009)1 was published. This recent publication does not undermine the information presented in this thesis. The purpose of including the comprehensive classification of Crandall-Stotler and Stotler (2000) was specifically to introduce some of the issues regarding the troublesome classification of this group of plants. Crandall-Stotler and Stotler (2000), Grolle and Long (2000) for Europe and Macaronesia and Schuster (2002) for Austral Hepaticae represent three previously widely used yet differing opinions regarding Lophoziaceae classification. They thus reflect a useful account of some of the motivation for initiating this project in the first place. (2) Concurrently or soon after chapter 2 was published by de Roo et al. (2007)2 more recent relevant papers were published. These include Heinrichs et al. (2007) already referred to in chapter 4, and notably Vilnet et al. (2008)3 examining the phylogeny and systematics of the genus Lophozia s. str. The plethora of new information regarding taxa included in this thesis is encouraging and with each new publication we gain insight and a clearer understanding these fascinating little plants. University of Cape Town 1 Crandall-Stotler, B., Stotler, R.E., Long, D.G. 2009. Phylogeny and classification of the Marchantiophyta.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeography and Diversification of Brassicales
    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 99 (2016) 204–224 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Biogeography and diversification of Brassicales: A 103 million year tale ⇑ Warren M. Cardinal-McTeague a,1, Kenneth J. Sytsma b, Jocelyn C. Hall a, a Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada b Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA article info abstract Article history: Brassicales is a diverse order perhaps most famous because it houses Brassicaceae and, its premier mem- Received 22 July 2015 ber, Arabidopsis thaliana. This widely distributed and species-rich lineage has been overlooked as a Revised 24 February 2016 promising system to investigate patterns of disjunct distributions and diversification rates. We analyzed Accepted 25 February 2016 plastid and mitochondrial sequence data from five gene regions (>8000 bp) across 151 taxa to: (1) Available online 15 March 2016 produce a chronogram for major lineages in Brassicales, including Brassicaceae and Arabidopsis, based on greater taxon sampling across the order and previously overlooked fossil evidence, (2) examine Keywords: biogeographical ancestral range estimations and disjunct distributions in BioGeoBEARS, and (3) determine Arabidopsis thaliana where shifts in species diversification occur using BAMM. The evolution and radiation of the Brassicales BAMM BEAST began 103 Mya and was linked to a series of inter-continental vicariant, long-distance dispersal, and land BioGeoBEARS bridge migration events. North America appears to be a significant area for early stem lineages in the Brassicaceae order. Shifts to Australia then African are evident at nodes near the core Brassicales, which diverged Cleomaceae 68.5 Mya (HPD = 75.6–62.0).
    [Show full text]
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24
    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2018-07-24 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff July 24, 2018 2 Cover image: map of 16,213 georeferenced occurrence records included in the checklist. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Native species 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 55 Vascular Plants........................................................ 91 Bryophytes ..........................................................164 Other Plants .........................................................171 Chromista...........................................................171 Fungi .............................................................173 Protozoans ..........................................................186 Non-native species 187 Vertebrates ..........................................................187 Invertebrates .........................................................187 Vascular Plants........................................................190 Extirpated species 207 Vertebrates ..........................................................207 Vascular Plants........................................................207 Change log 211 References 213 Index 215 3 Introduction Purpose to avoid implying
    [Show full text]