DOCSLIB.ORG

Facultative Ant-Plant Interactions: Nectar Sugar Preferences of Introduced Pest Ant Species in South Florida’

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Facultative Ant-Plant Interactions: Nectar Sugar Preferences of Introduced Pest Ant Species in South Florida’ BlOTROPlCA 30(2): 179-189 1998 Facultative Ant-Plant Interactions: Nectar Sugar Preferences of Introduced Pest Ant Species in South Florida’ Suzanne Koptur and Ni Truong Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, Florida 331 99, U.S.A.2 Fairchild Tropical Garden, Miami, Florida 33156, U.S.A. ABSTRACT We observed nectar use by native and exotic ant species in nature, garden, and urban situations, and found ants utilizing floral and extrafloral nectar of a variety of flowering plant species. We collected 31 plant nectars (29 floral, 2 extrafloral) and used them in feeding preference tests against standard solutions of sugars (20 percent fructose, glucose, and sucrose, and their mixture), 10 trials for each nectar-ant comparison. We comparcd time-to-discovcry and total ant visits to each droplet using ANOVA, and found that both trial and solution contributed significantly to the variation in most experiments. Seven of the floral ncctars tested were significantly more attractive to certain ant species than the sugar solutions. Not only do ants use floral nectar, but it appears that some floral nectars contain compounds that are especially attractive to ants. RESUMEN Se observ6 que varias especics de hormigas nativas y exoticas utilizaban nectar de florcs y nectar extrafloral dc varias cspecics de plantas en Aoraci6n, localizadas en jardincs, en el casco urbano y en areas naturalcs. Se colectaron 31 nectares dc plantas y su prcfcrencia fut comparada con soluciones de azucar (20 percicnto de fructosa, glucosa, y sucrosa, y sus rnczclas). Esta comparaci6n fuc realizada 10 vcces para cada combinacion de nectar y hormiga. Se utliz6 el Analisis de Varianza para comparar el tiempo quc lc tomaba a las hormigas en descubrir las solucioncs y el n6mero dc visitas a cada gota de nectar o solucibn. El analisis estadistico demonstrb que tanto el nhmero de replicaciones como la clase de soluci6n contribuia significativamcnte a la variacion dc la mayoria de 10s experi- mcntos. Sicte de 10s ncctarcs florales fueron mas significativos a algunas cspccics dc hormigas que las soluciones de azucar. Evidcntamentc, algunos nectarcs florales contcnian algunas substancias especialmente atraycntes a las hor- migas. Key words: mts; feeding; Florida; nectar: preference. ANTS ARE UBIQUITOUS AND PERFORM MANY IMPORTANT tile, ant-repellent substances in petal tissues of FUNc’ric” in the ecology of plants in tropical and plants, and demonstrated their existence in a sim- temperate areas (Huxley & Cutler 1991). Ants are ple experiment. often attracted to plants to collect exudates from The Bakers (1978) were the first to respond to extrafloral nectaries or from insects consuming the Janzen’s hypothesis, pointing out their observations plants. Flowers often contain nectar as the floral of chemicals in nectars such as alkaloids, phenolics, reward, and Janzen (1977) posed the question and nonprotein amino acids that may serve as de- “Why don’t ants visit flowers?”, hypothesizing that terrents to nectar theft. Feinsinger and Swarm floral nectar must contain ant repellents to protect (1978) tested the acceptability of nectar to ants of it for pollinators. Nearly one hundred years earlier, four common plant species in Trinidad, and found A. Kerner von Marilaun (1878) had described that responses of ants varied widely. Schubart and many ways in which plants can exclude nectar- Anderson (1978) offered freshly cut-open flowers thieving ants, including extrafloral nectaries, sticky of three plant species to ants in Brazil, and found stems, dense hairs, water traps, and distasteful sub- all to be readily consumed; though ants may have stances in floral tissue. Van der Pijl (1955) used the been excluded from flowers by structural barriers, term “myrmecophoby” for the deterrence of ants ant-repellent nectars were not indicated. Guerrant from flowers, hypothesizing the existence of vola- and Fiedler (1981) compared the acceptabiliry of floral nectars and floral tissue extracts to sugar so- lutions, and analyzed the plant substances chemi- Received 10 April 1997; revision accepted 29 Scptem- ber 1997. cally to detect deterrent substances; they found that * address for correspondence. floral nectars were attractive to ants, but floral tis- 179 180 Koptur and Truong Adenocalymna comosum Agave decipiens time to discovery time to discovery total ants total ants la 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 Ib 0 10 20 30 40 50 Aloe saponaria Aph elandra jacobinioides time to discovery time to discovery totai ants totai ants Ic 0 10 20 30 40 50 Id 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Brownea sp. Brun felsia grandiflora time to discovery time to discovery total ants total ants le 0 5 10 15 20 25 If 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 1. Results of feeding experiments with crazy ants, Paratrechina longicornis. Bars represent the means of ten trials for each experiment (variation not shown). The upper set of bars represents the time-to-discovery of the solution in minutes; the lower set of bars represents the total number of ants to visit that solution during the one hour that the experiment ran. EFN = extrafloral nectar. Solutions are abbreviated as: N = nectar, F = fructose, G = glucose, S = sucrose, and FGS = fructose, glucose, and sucrose. Significant differences shown by Analysis of Variance and Tukey post hoc tests are indicated by lower case letters, in which case bars with different letters are significantly different within that data set. Nectar Preferences of Pest Ants 181 Cnnum moorei Dipteryx panamensis (efn) time to discovery time to discovery total ants total ants lg 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ih 0 10 20 30 40 Hamelia patens (squeezed) Hamelia patens (2) time to discovery time to discovery total ants total ants li 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 li 0 10 20 30 40 50 lxora coccinea Justicia fulvicoma time to discovery time to discovery total ants total ants Ik 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 11 0 5 10 15 20 5 ~ ~ FIGURE 1. Continued. sues showed highly variable palatability. Haber et consumed, and many of those enjoyed by ants were al. (1981) had observed ants taking floral nectar known to have phenolics and/or alkaloids. Many from many species of plants in the lowland dry nectars, therefore, are readily consumed by ants forest of Costa Rica, and tested many of these by when they are offered out of their flowers, if they placing nectar droplets on branches of trees and have been collected carefully so as to not contam- noting whether or not they were consumed by ants inate them with any repellents present in the floral within five minutes; all but two tested were readily parts. 182 Koptur and Truong Kalanchoe gastonis-bonnieri Megaskepasma erythrochlamys time to discovery time to discovery total ants total ants 0 10 20 40 Im 0 10 20 30 40 In 30 Odontonema strictata Russelia sarmentusa time to discovery time to discovery total ants total ants 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Ip FIGURE I. Continued. In this study we document the use of nectars portant as pollinators since most have antifungal of a variety of cultivated tropical species by native metapleural secretions (.g.,myrmicacin) that kill and exotic ants, and investigate the attractiveness pollen (Beattie 1985). Our study relates primarily of the nectars to noncoevolved pest ant species in to the abilities of ants to obtain food, and to subtropical south Florida. In conducting the ex- whether or not the nectars tested might have non- periments we obtained information on the relative sugar constituents rendering them exceptionally at- preferences of these ants for the various sugar so- tractive to ants. lutions used in our controls as well as their different responses to the nectars tested. The facultative as- MATERIALS AND METHODS sociations observed suggested nectars that might be attractive to ants; we compared the acceptability of Observations were made over two years in the col- these nectars to standard sugar solutions in order lection of Fairchild Tropical Garden and, to a lesser to determine if any of these nectars were excep- extent, the University Park campus of Florida In- tionally attractive. Sugar solutions are nonvolatile, ternational University. We documented all ants us- and ants discover them by touch and taste; floral ing nectars, collecting ant specimens for determi- nectars may have other components that attract nation and later verification. ants from a distance, or affect their taste once they Several milliliters of nectar were collected into are tried. We do not presume that there are nec- a tiny centrifuge tube, and its concentration mea- essarily coevolved positive relationships between sured using a hand-held refractometer (Bellingham ants and floral nectars in natural communities. Un- & Stanley brand, reading percent sugar on a like the other social Hymenoptera, ants are usually weighdweight scale). Nectars were diluted with dis- visiting flowers as nectar robbers, and are unim- tilled water to a concentration of 20 percent, unless Nectar Preferences of Pest Ants 183 xRuttyruspolia sp. Sanchezia speciosa time to discovery time to discovery total ants total ants 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 Iq 0 30 35 Ir Sch o tia bra ch yp efa la time to discovery total ants Is 0 10 20 30 40 50 FIGURE 1. Continued. they were less than 20 percent sugar to begin with, with a different colony of ants). We did not replace in which case more dilute sugar solutions were pre- the droplets if they were used up before the end of pared. the trial (except for reruns of Hameliuputens, which For each nectar-ant comparison, we ran ten tri- initially was consumed very quickly; see below). als of the following design. Standard solutions of Trials that were interrupted by external factors (dis- 20 percent fructose (F), 20 percent glucose (G), 20 turbance by urban wildlife, inclement weather) percent sucrose (S), and a mixture of 20 percent were not included.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "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.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 119/Thursday, June 20, 2019/Notices
    28850 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Notices or speech-impaired individuals may status reviews of 53 species under the Relay Service at 800–877–8339 for TTY access this number through TTY by Endangered Species Act, as amended. A assistance. calling the toll-free Federal Relay 5-year review is an assessment of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Service at 800–877–8339. best scientific and commercial data Dated: June 14, 2019. available at the time of the review. We Why do we conduct 5-year reviews? are requesting submission of Brian D. Montgomery, Under the Endangered Species Act of Acting Deputy Secretary. information that has become available since the last reviews of these species. 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 [FR Doc. 2019–13146 Filed 6–19–19; 8:45 am] et seq.), we maintain lists of endangered BILLING CODE 4210–67–P DATES: To allow us adequate time to and threatened wildlife and plant conduct these reviews, we must receive species in title 50 of the Code of Federal your comments or information on or Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR before August 19, 2019. However, we wildlife) and 17.12 (for plants: List). will continue to accept new information Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires us Fish and Wildlife Service about any listed species at any time. to review each listed species’ status at least once every 5 years. Our regulations [FWS–R4–ES–2019–N037; ADDRESSES: For instructions on how to FXES11130900000C2–190–FF09E32000] submit information and review at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information that we receive on these species, see Request for New announcing those species under active and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status review.
    [Show full text]
  • Reporton the Rare Plants of Puerto Rico
    REPORTON THE RARE PLANTS OF PUERTO RICO tii:>. CENTER FOR PLANT CONSERVATION ~ Missouri Botanical Garden St. Louis, Missouri July 15, l' 992 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Center for Plant Conservation would like to acknowledge the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the W. Alton Jones Foundation for their generous support of the Center's work in the priority region of Puerto Rico. We would also like to thank all the participants in the task force meetings, without whose information this report would not be possible. Cover: Zanthoxy7um thomasianum is known from several sites in Puerto Rico and the U.S . Virgin Islands. It is a small shrub (2-3 meters) that grows on the banks of cliffs. Threats to this taxon include development, seed consumption by insects, and road erosion. The seeds are difficult to germinate, but Fairchild Tropical Garden in Miami has plants growing as part of the Center for Plant Conservation's .National Collection of Endangered Plants. (Drawing taken from USFWS 1987 Draft Recovery Plan.) REPORT ON THE RARE PLANTS OF PUERTO RICO TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements A. Summary 8. All Puerto Rico\Virgin Islands Species of Conservation Concern Explanation of Attached Lists C. Puerto Rico\Virgin Islands [A] and [8] species D. Blank Taxon Questionnaire E. Data Sources for Puerto Rico\Virgin Islands [A] and [B] species F. Pue~to Rico\Virgin Islands Task Force Invitees G. Reviewers of Puerto Rico\Virgin Islands [A] and [8] Species REPORT ON THE RARE PLANTS OF PUERTO RICO SUMMARY The Center for Plant Conservation (Center) has held two meetings of the Puerto Rlco\Virgin Islands Task Force in Puerto Rico.
    [Show full text]
  • National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 1996
    National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary Indicator by Region and Subregion Scientific Name/ North North Central South Inter- National Subregion Northeast Southeast Central Plains Plains Plains Southwest mountain Northwest California Alaska Caribbean Hawaii Indicator Range Abies amabilis (Dougl. ex Loud.) Dougl. ex Forbes FACU FACU UPL UPL,FACU Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill. FAC FACW FAC,FACW Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. NI NI NI NI NI UPL UPL Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poir. FACU FACU FACU Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl. FACU-* NI FACU-* Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. NI NI FACU+ FACU- FACU FAC UPL UPL,FAC Abies magnifica A. Murr. NI UPL NI FACU UPL,FACU Abildgaardia ovata (Burm. f.) Kral FACW+ FAC+ FAC+,FACW+ Abutilon theophrasti Medik. UPL FACU- FACU- UPL UPL UPL UPL UPL NI NI UPL,FACU- Acacia choriophylla Benth. FAC* FAC* Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. FACU NI NI* NI NI FACU Acacia greggii Gray UPL UPL FACU FACU UPL,FACU Acacia macracantha Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. NI FAC FAC Acacia minuta ssp. minuta (M.E. Jones) Beauchamp FACU FACU Acaena exigua Gray OBL OBL Acalypha bisetosa Bertol. ex Spreng. FACW FACW Acalypha virginica L. FACU- FACU- FAC- FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acalypha virginica var. rhomboidea (Raf.) Cooperrider FACU- FAC- FACU FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acanthocereus tetragonus (L.) Humm. FAC* NI NI FAC* Acanthomintha ilicifolia (Gray) Gray FAC* FAC* Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl OBL OBL Acer circinatum Pursh FAC- FAC NI FAC-,FAC Acer glabrum Torr. FAC FAC FAC FACU FACU* FAC FACU FACU*,FAC Acer grandidentatum Nutt.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA-Pesticides; Dodine
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDESDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code: 044301 DP Barcode: D338148 Date: January 22, 2008 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Ecological Risk Assessment for the Dodine Section 3 New Use on Peanuts and Bananas TO: Robert Westin, Product Manager Mary Waller, Team Leader Registration Division (7505P) FROM: Christopher J. Salice, P.h.D, Biologist Marietta Echeverria, Envronmental Scientist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) REVIEWED BY: Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Biologist R. David Jones, Ph.D., Senior Agronomist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) APPROVED BY: Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has reviewed the proposed label for the use of dodine (n-dodecylguanidine monoacetate; CAS 2439-10-3) and its end-use product SYLLIT® FL (39.6% dodine) fungicide on peanuts and bananas. The results of this screening-level risk assessment indicate that the proposed new uses of dodine on peanuts and bananas have the potential for direct adverse effects on listed and non-listed freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates, listed and non-listed vascular and non-vascular plants, and listed and non-listed birds and mammals. Major data gaps are listed below. Without these data potential risk to the associated taxa can not be precluded: • Aquatic vascular plant toxicity data (850.4400) There is uncertainty regarding the potential chronic effects of dodine to saltwater invertebrates and fish since there are no toxicity data. Using acute-to-chronic ratios (ACR) from freshwater species to calculate chronic endpoints for the saltwater species, however, suggests that risks may be low.
    [Show full text]
  • Puerto Rico Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2005
    Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Puerto Rico PUERTO RICO COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY 2005 Miguel A. García José A. Cruz-Burgos Eduardo Ventosa-Febles Ricardo López-Ortiz ii Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Puerto Rico ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Financial support for the completion of this initiative was provided to the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Federal Assistance Office. Special thanks to Mr. Michael L. Piccirilli, Ms. Nicole Jiménez-Cooper, Ms. Emily Jo Williams, and Ms. Christine Willis from the USFWS, Region 4, for their support through the preparation of this document. Thanks to the colleagues that participated in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) Steering Committee: Mr. Ramón F. Martínez, Mr. José Berríos, Mrs. Aida Rosario, Mr. José Chabert, and Dr. Craig Lilyestrom for their collaboration in different aspects of this strategy. Other colleagues from DNER also contributed significantly to complete this document within the limited time schedule: Ms. María Camacho, Mr. Ramón L. Rivera, Ms. Griselle Rodríguez Ferrer, Mr. Alberto Puente, Mr. José Sustache, Ms. María M. Santiago, Mrs. María de Lourdes Olmeda, Mr. Gustavo Olivieri, Mrs. Vanessa Gautier, Ms. Hana Y. López-Torres, Mrs. Carmen Cardona, and Mr. Iván Llerandi-Román. Also, special thanks to Mr. Juan Luis Martínez from the University of Puerto Rico, for designing the cover of this document. A number of collaborators participated in earlier revisions of this CWCS: Mr. Fernando Nuñez-García, Mr. José Berríos, Dr. Craig Lilyestrom, Mr. Miguel Figuerola and Mr. Leopoldo Miranda. A special recognition goes to the authors and collaborators of the supporting documents, particularly, Regulation No.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Theecological Systemsof Puerto Rico
    United States Department of Agriculture Guide to the Forest Service Ecological Systems International Institute of Tropical Forestry of Puerto Rico General Technical Report IITF-GTR-35 June 2009 Gary L. Miller and Ariel E. Lugo The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Authors Gary L. Miller is a professor, University of North Carolina, Environmental Studies, One University Heights, Asheville, NC 28804-3299.
    [Show full text]
  • CARIBBEAN REGION - NWPL 2014 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant Species Not Listed Are Considered UPL for Wetland Delineation Purposes
    CARIBBEAN REGION - NWPL 2014 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps region.
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Environment Programme
    UNITED NATIONS EP Distr. LIMITED United Nations Environment UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.38/4 26 September 2016 Programme Original: ENGLISH Seventh Meeting of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) to the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) in the Wider Caribbean Region Miami, Florida, 2 ‐ 4 November 2016 REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON THE APPLICATION OF CRITERIA FOR LISTING OF SPECIES UNDER THE ANNEXES TO THE SPAW PROTOCOL (INCLUDES SPECIES PROPOSED FOR LISTING IN ANNEXES II and III) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Background.......................…………..................................…………………………………………….…….. 1 II. Annotated list of species recommended for inclusion on the SPAW Annexes ………………………............. 2 Appendix 1: Revised Criteria and Procedure for the Listing of Species in the Annexes of the SPAW Protocol ...... 4 Appendix 2: Annexes of the SPAW Protocol Revised (2016)………………………………………………….........6 UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.38/4 Page 1 REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON THE APPLICATION OF CRITERIA FOR LISTING OF SPECIES UNDER THE ANNEXES TO THE SPAW PROTOCOL (INCLUDES SPECIES PROPOSED FOR LISTING IN ANNEXES II and III) I. Background At the Third Meeting of the Contracting Parties (COP 3) to the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) in the Wider Caribbean Region, held in Montego Bay, Jamaica, September 27, 2004, the Parties approved the Revised Criteria for the Listing of Species in the Annexes of the SPAW Protocol and the Procedure for the submission and approval of nominations of species for inclusion in or deletion from Annexes I, II and III. At the 6th Meeting of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC6) and 8th Meeting of the Contracting Parties (COP8) to the SPAW Protocol held in Cartagena, Colombia, 8 and 9 December 2014 respectively, the procedure for listing was further revised by Parties using Article 11(4) as a basis and the existing approved Guidelines and Criteria (see Appendix 1 to this report).
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Plant Names Catalog Alphabetical by Common Name
    2016 Plant Names Catalog Alphabetical by Common Name LOCATION(S) IN COMMON NAME(S) BOTANICAL NAME FAMILY GARDEN abaca Musa textilis MUSACEAE Plot 76 abiu Pouteria caimito 'Whitman' SAPOTACEAE Plot 128a Abraham- bush:hardhead:scipio- Phyllanthus epiphyllanthus PHYLLANTHACEAE Plot 164 bush:sword-bush African iris Dietes iridioides IRIDACEAE Plot 143 Plot 131:Plot 19a:Plot African Mahogany Khaya nyasica MELIACEAE 58 African moringa Moringa stenopetala MORINGACEAE Plot 32a Plot 71a:Plot 83:Plot African oil palm Elaeis guineensis ARECACEAE 84a:Plot 96 African spiral flag Costus lucanusianus COSTACEAE Plot 76 African tulip-tree Spathodea campanulata BIGNONIACEAE Plot 29 alligator flag Thalia geniculata MARANTACEAE Royal Palm Lake Plot 158:Plot 45:Plot allspice Pimenta dioica MYRTACEAE 46 Amazon lily Eucharis x grandiflora AMARYLLIDACEAE Plot 131 Plot 131:Plot 151:Plot Amazon-lily Eucharis amazonica AMARYLLIDACEAE 152 Plot 176a:Plot American beauty Callicarpa americana LAMIACEAE 176b:Plot 19b:Plot berry 3a:Plot 51 anaqua Ehretia anacua BORAGINACEAE Plot 52 anchovy pear Grias cauliflora LECYTHIDACEAE Plot 112:Plot 32b andiroba:bastard Carapa guianensis MELIACEAE Plot 133:Plot 158 mahogany Plot 17:Plot 18:Plot angel's trumpet Brugmansia aurea SOLANACEAE 27d:Plot 50 angel's trumpet Brugmansia aurea x SOLANACEAE Plot 32b angel's trumpet Brugmansia 'Ecuador Pink' SOLANACEAE RPH-B4 angel's trumpet Brugmansia sp. SOLANACEAE Plot 133 Plot 143:Plot 27d:Plot angel's trumpet Brugmansia suaveolens SOLANACEAE 32b:Plot 3a:Plot 49:Plot 50 Brugmansia suaveolens
    [Show full text]
  • High Throughput Search of Drought Tolerant Genes in Agave Sisalana L
    High Throughput Search of Drought Tolerant Genes in Agave sisalana L. SANIA RIAZ CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB LAHORE PAKISTAN (2015) High Throughput Search of Drought Tolerant Genes in Agave sisalana L. A THESIS SUBMITTED TO UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB IN FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY By SANIA RIAZ Supervisor: Dr. Tayyab Husnain (Prof & Acting Director) Centre of Excellence in Molecular Biology. University of the Punjab, Lahore CERTIFICATE It is certified that the research work described in this thesis is the original work of the author Ms. Sania Riaz and has been carried out under my direct supervision. I have personally gone through all the data reported in the manuscript and certify their correctness and authenticity. It is further certified that the material included in this thesis have not been used in part or full manuscript already submitted or in the process of submission in partial/complete fulfillment of the award of any other degree from any other institution. It is also certified that the thesis has been prepared under my supervision according to the prescribed format and we endorse its evaluation for the award of Ph.D degree through the official procedures of the university. In accordance with the rules of the centre, data book #852 is declared as unexpendable document that will be kept in the registry of the Centre for a minimum of three years from the date of the Thesis defense examination. Signature of the supervisor________________________________ Name: Dr. Tayyab Husnain Designation: Prof & Acting Director (Allah) Most Gracious! It is He Who has taught the Qur'an.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Intent to Sue for Violations of the Endangered Species Act Concerning Registration of Pesticide Products Containing Malathion
    March 20, 2018 Sent via Email and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested Scott Pruitt, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460 [email protected] Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior Greg Sheehan, Acting Director U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street, NW 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 Washington, DC 20240 [email protected] [email protected] Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary of Commerce Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Fisheries 1401 Constitution Ave., NW 1315 East-West Highway Washington, DC 20230 Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] [email protected] Re: Notice of Intent to Sue for Violations of the Endangered Species Act Concerning Registration of Pesticide Products Containing Malathion Dear Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Zinke: On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, and Californians for Pesticide Reform (collectively, “Center”), this letter provides notice of intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) for violations of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C § 1536, 1538 and the ESA Interagency Cooperation Regulations, 50 C.F.R. Part 402. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 11(g) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g). Specifically, EPA is in violation of ESA Section 7(a)(2), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), Section 7(d), 16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]