DOCSLIB.ORG

The Biology of Ryegrass and Tall Fescue Office of the Gene Technology Regulator

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Biology of Ryegrass and Tall Fescue Office of the Gene Technology Regulator The Biology of Ryegrass and Tall fescue Office of the Gene Technology Regulator The Biology of Lolium multiflorum Lam. (Italian ryegrass), Lolium perenne L. (perennial ryegrass) and Lolium arundinaceum (Schreb.) Darbysh (tall fescue) Lolium arundinaceum Schreb. (tall fescue). (Figure from Burnett (2006) Grasses for dryland dairying. Tall fescue: Species and Cultivars. Department of Primary Industries, Victoria #AG1241). State of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries 2006 Version 2: November 2017 This document provides an overview of baseline biological information relevant to risk assessment of genetically modified forms of the species that may be released into the Australian environment. Version 2 incorporates updated research on Italian ryegrass, perennial ryegrass, and tall fescue, and includes a weed risk assessment of perennial ryegrass. For information on the Australian Government Office of the Gene Technology Regulator visit the OGTR website 1 The Biology of Ryegrass and Tall fescue Office of the Gene Technology Regulator TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE 1 SECTION 1 TAXONOMY ............................................................................................................................ 1 SECTION 2 ORIGIN AND CULTIVATION ............................................................................................ 11 2.1 CENTRE OF DIVERSITY AND DOMESTICATION ......................................................................... 11 2.2 COMMERCIAL USES .................................................................................................................. 11 2.3 CULTIVATION IN AUSTRALIA ................................................................................................... 11 2.3.1 Pasture ........................................................................................................................... 11 2.3.2 Turf................................................................................................................................. 13 2.3.3 Commercial propagation ............................................................................................... 13 2.3.2 Scale of cultivation ........................................................................................................ 15 2.3.3 Cultivation practices ...................................................................................................... 16 2.4 CROP IMPROVEMENT ............................................................................................................... 16 2.4.1 Breeding ......................................................................................................................... 17 2.4.2 Genetic modification ...................................................................................................... 18 SECTION 3 MORPHOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 20 3.1 PLANT MORPHOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 20 3.2 REPRODUCTIVE MORPHOLOGY ................................................................................................ 20 SECTION 4 DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 23 4.1 REPRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 23 4.1.1 Asexual reproduction ..................................................................................................... 23 4.1.2 Sexual reproduction ....................................................................................................... 25 4.2 POLLINATION AND POLLEN DISPERSAL .................................................................................... 27 4.3 FRUIT/SEED DEVELOPMENT AND SEED DISPERSAL .................................................................. 28 4.4 SEED DORMANCY AND GERMINATION ...................................................................................... 30 4.5 VEGETATIVE GROWTH AND DISPERSAL ................................................................................... 32 SECTION 5 BIOCHEMISTRY .................................................................................................................. 33 5.1 TOXINS ...................................................................................................................................... 33 5.2 ALLERGENS ............................................................................................................................... 34 5.3 OTHER UNDESIRABLE PHYTOCHEMICALS ............................................................................... 36 5.4 BENEFICIAL PHYTOCHEMICALS ............................................................................................... 37 SECTION 6 ABIOTIC INTERACTIONS ................................................................................................. 37 6.1 NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................................... 37 6.2 TEMPERATURE REQUIREMENTS AND TOLERANCES ................................................................ 38 6.3 WATER STRESS ......................................................................................................................... 39 6.4 HERBICIDES .............................................................................................................................. 40 6.5 OTHER TOLERANCES ................................................................................................................ 41 SECTION 7 BIOTIC INTERACTIONS .................................................................................................... 43 7.1 WEEDS....................................................................................................................................... 43 7.2 PESTS AND PATHOGENS ............................................................................................................ 43 SECTION 8 WEEDINESS .......................................................................................................................... 46 8.1 WEEDINESS STATUS ON A GLOBAL SCALE ................................................................................ 47 8.2 WEEDINESS STATUS IN AUSTRALIA .......................................................................................... 47 8.3 WEEDINESS IN AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEMS ......................................................................... 49 8.4 WEEDINESS IN NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS .................................................................................... 50 8.5 CONTROL MEASURES ................................................................................................................ 50 SECTION 9 POTENTIAL FOR VERTICAL GENE TRANSFER......................................................... 53 9.1 BARRIERS TO INTRASPECIFIC CROSSING ................................................................................. 53 9.2 NATURAL INTERSPECIFIC AND INTERGENERIC CROSSING ...................................................... 53 9.3 CROSSING UNDER EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 54 i The Biology of Ryegrass and Tall fescue Office of the Gene Technology Regulator SECTION 10 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 55 SECTION 11 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 56 SECTION 12 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 86 APPENDIX 1 – EXAMPLES OF CULTIVARS OF L. PERENNE, L. MULTIFLORUM AND L. ARUNDINACEUM GROWN COMMERCIALLY IN AUSTRALIA .............................................................................................................................. 86 APPENDIX 2 – COMMON LAWN AND TURF WEEDS IN AUSTRALIA (COOPER, 2006; GARDENET, 2006). ............. 92 APPENDIX 3 – COMMON PASTURE WEEDS IN AUSTRALIA (GARDENET, 2006). .................................................. 93 APPENDIX 4 – COMMON NEMATODE PESTS OF TURF AND PASTURE CROPS IN AUSTRALIA (VARGAS, 2005). ..... 94 APPENDIX 5 – COMMON INSECT PESTS OF TURFGRASSES IN AUSTRALIA (GARDENET, 2006). ........................... 95 APPENDIX 6 – COMMON INSECT PESTS OF PASTURE GRASSES IN AUSTRALIA. ................................................... 97 APPENDIX 7 – COMMON PATHOGENS OF TURFGRASS IN AUSTRALIA (VARGAS, 2005; GARDENET, 2006). ..... 101 APPENDIX 8 – COMMON PATHOGENS OF PASTURE IN AUSTRALIA. .................................................................. 104 APPENDIX 9 – WEED RISK ASSESSMENT OF PERENNIAL RYEGRASS ............................................................... 107 1. Invasiveness of perennial ryegrass ............................................................................... 109 2. Impact of perennial ryegrass ........................................................................................ 114 ii The Biology of Ryegrass and Tall fescue Office of the Gene Technology Regulator PREAMBLE This document describes the biology of Lolium multiflorum Lam. (Italian ryegrass), Lolium perenne L. (perennial ryegrass) and Lolium arundinaceum Schreb. (tall fescue), with particular
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lewis River Terrestrial Coordination
    LEWIS RIVER TERRESTRIAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE Facilitator: KENDEL EMMERSON 503-813-6040; CELL 509-774-8102 Location: SKYPE MEETING ONLY October 14, 2020 Date: Time: 9:00 AM –11:00 AM Agenda Items 9:00 a.m. Welcome Review Agenda, 9/9/20 Meeting Notes Review and Accept Agenda, 9/9/20 Meeting Notes 9:15 a.m. Study/Work Product Updates Update Saddle Dam Seismic Big Hollow Fire Update Cresap Pond Moss Cave Woodland Park Camper’s Hideaway 2021 TCC Meeting Dates 10:45 a.m. Next Meeting’s Agenda Note: all meeting notes and the meeting schedule can be located at: https://www.pacificorp.com/energy/hydro/lewis-river/acc-tcc.html 11:00 a.m. Meeting adjourn Join Skype Meeting Join by phone (503) 813-5252 [Portland, OR] (US) English (United States) Conference ID: 4604738 FINAL Meeting Notes Lewis River License Implementation Terrestrial Coordination Committee (TCC) Meeting October 14, 2020 Conference Call Only TCC Representatives Present: (6) Kendel Emmerson, PacifiCorp Summer Peterman, PacifiCorp Kim McCune, PacifiCorp Erik White, Cowlitz Indian Tribe Eric Holman, WDFW Amanda Froberg, Cowlitz PUD Calendar: December 9, 2020 TCC Meeting Skype Call Only Assignments for October 14, 2020 Status Emmerson: Get back to the TCC about what seeds were distributed on the Vendor used fire break area at the Communications building in Management Unit 11. some older seed; PacifiCorp to return in mid- March 2021 to top seed with pollinator seed Parking Lot Items Status Emmerson/McCune: Contact PacifiCorp’s properties department to discuss In progress further TNC detail and report to the TCC at the next meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Weed Assessment Calculator: an Australian Evaluation
    plants Perspective Agricultural Weed Assessment Calculator: An Australian Evaluation Hugh J. Beckie 1,* , Mechelle J. Owen 1, Catherine P.D. Borger 2 , Gurjeet S. Gill 3 and Michael J. Widderick 4 1 Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Perth 6009, Australia; [email protected] 2 Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Northam 6401, Australia; [email protected] 3 Discipline of Agricultural and Animal Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5064, Australia; [email protected] 4 Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Toowoomba 4350, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-8-6488-4615 Received: 25 November 2020; Accepted: 7 December 2020; Published: 9 December 2020 Abstract: Weed risk assessment systems are used to estimate the potential weediness or invasiveness of introduced species in non-agricultural habitats. However, an equivalent system has not been developed for weed species that occur in agronomic cropland. Therefore, the Agricultural Weed Assessment Calculator (AWAC) was developed to quantify the present and potential future adverse impact of a weed species on crop production and profitability (threat analysis), thereby informing or directing research, development, and extension (RDE) investments or activities. AWAC comprises 10 questions related primarily to a weed’s abundance and economic impact. Twenty weed species from across Australia were evaluated by AWAC using existing information and expert opinion, and rated as high, medium, or low for RDE prioritization based on total scores of 70 to 100, 40 to <70, or <40, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Identification Works and Difficult and Under-Recorded Taxa
    Notes on identification works and difficult and under-recorded taxa P.A. Stroh, D.A. Pearman, F.J. Rumsey & K.J. Walker Contents Introduction 2 Identification works 3 Recording species, subspecies and hybrids for Atlas 2020 6 Notes on individual taxa 7 List of taxa 7 Widespread but under-recorded hybrids 31 Summary of recent name changes 33 Definition of Aggregates 39 1 Introduction The first edition of this guide (Preston, 1997) was based around the then newly published second edition of Stace (1997). Since then, a third edition (Stace, 2010) has been issued containing numerous taxonomic and nomenclatural changes as well as additions and exclusions to taxa listed in the second edition. Consequently, although the objective of this revised guide hast altered and much of the original text has been retained with only minor amendments, many new taxa have been included and there have been substantial alterations to the references listed. We are grateful to A.O. Chater and C.D. Preston for their comments on an earlier draft of these notes, and to the Biological Records Centre at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology for organising and funding the printing of this booklet. PAS, DAP, FJR, KJW June 2015 Suggested citation: Stroh, P.A., Pearman, D.P., Rumsey, F.J & Walker, K.J. 2015. Notes on identification works and some difficult and under-recorded taxa. Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland, Bristol. Front cover: Euphrasia pseudokerneri © F.J. Rumsey. 2 Identification works The standard flora for the Atlas 2020 project is edition 3 of C.A. Stace's New Flora of the British Isles (Cambridge University Press, 2010), from now on simply referred to in this guide as Stae; all recorders are urged to obtain a copy of this, although we suspect that many will already have a well-thumbed volume.
    [Show full text]
  • A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Lolium
    2 8 2 5 2 5 1.0 :: 11111 . 11111 . 1.0 :; IllFa 11111 . ~ OOI3.~ !i,g 1~1I3.2 W 2.2 I:J a.:;. E~ a.:;. I~ w ~ &:0; I!i 2.0 '­ e~ &.:: B~ ... ~ ... " I 1.1 I.iU&... 1.1 L.a~ ... -- - - 1I1111.2~ 111111.4 111111.6 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUR" I OF STANDARDS·1963·A NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS·1963·A A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Lolium By EnwAim E. TERRELL Crops Research Division Technical Bulletin No. 1392 Agricultural Research Service UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONTENTS ,PAOB Introduction ------------------------------------------- 1 Cytology and genetics --________________________________ 3 Taxonomic and evolutionary relationships ___________------- 4 Systematic treatment ------_____________________________ 5 Key to mature and complete plants __________________ 6 1. Loli-um pe'renne L. --______________ . _._______________ 7 2. Loli1tm multijlo1"Um Lam. __________________________ 10 3. Lolium rigid1tm Gaud. ____________________________ 15 4. Lolium 8'ltbulatum Vis. ____________________________ 26 5. Loli1tm cana1'iense Steud. _________________________ 30 6. LoUum temulenium L. ____________________________ 35 7. Loli1tm 1'emot'lL'rn Schrank _________________________ 38 8. Lolium pen;iC1tm Boiss. & Hohen. ex Boiss. __________ 41 Literature cited --------________________________________ 44 Appendix ------------__________________________________ 46 Synonyms -----_________________________________ .___ 46 Names under Loli1Lm referring to hybrids ______________ 58 Dubious names ------_______________________________ 59 Excluded names --__________________________________ 59 Index to names ------__________________________________ 60 ., \ Washington, D.C. Issued August 1968 For 9111e by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Goverument Printing Office \Vnshington, D.C. 20·102 - Pric~ .10 cents ii A Taxonomic Revision of tbeGenus Lolitun By EDw,um E.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-And Multiple Herbicide Resistant Lolium Rigidum Guad
    J. Agr. Sci. Tech. (2018) Vol. 20: 1187-1200 Cross-and Multiple Herbicide Resistant Lolium rigidum Guad. (Rigid Ryegrass) Biotypes in Iran H. Sabet Zangeneh1*, H. R. Mohammaddust Chamanabad1, E. Zand2, A. Asghari1, Kh. Alamisaeid3, I. S. Travlos4, and M. T. Alebrahim1 ABSTRACT Weed competition, especially from grass species, is estimated to cause 23% reduction in yield in the wheat fields of Iran. During the years 2013 to 2016, a study was conducted to evaluate the resistance to herbicides of 30 rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) biotypes that had been collected from wheat fields of Khuzestan Province. The screening of these biotypes was conducted with clodinafop-propargyl in the greenhouse and revealed biotypes with a survival rate of greater than 20% in response to this herbicide. These biotypes were further studied for the evaluation of cross and multiple resistance. A total of 94 and 75% of the rigid ryegrass biotypes showed resistance to ACCase- and ALS- inhibitors, respectively. Approximately 69% of the rigid ryegrass biotypes included individuals with resistance to at least two herbicide mechanisms of action. This is the first report of cross and multiple resistance in rigid ryegrass biotypes from Iran. The leaves of the rigid ryegrass biotypes cross-resistance to ACCase-inhibitors were analyzed using CAPS and dCAPS markers to identify probable amino acid substitutions at 2,041, 2,088, 1,781, and 2,078 positions on the ACCase gene. In two and nine biotypes, mutations were observed in the 1,781 and 2,041 positions, respectively. These results indicated that there is a serious problem with herbicide resistance in rigid ryegrass, including cross and multiple resistance, and a need to implement long-term integrated management strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Weeds of Coastal Plains and Heathy Forests Bioregions of Victoria Heading in Band
    Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Heading in band b Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Heading in band Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Contents Introduction 1 Purpose of the list 1 Limitations 1 Relationship to statutory lists 1 Composition of the list and assessment of taxa 2 Categories of environmental weeds 5 Arrangement of the list 5 Column 1: Botanical Name 5 Column 2: Common Name 5 Column 3: Ranking Score 5 Column 4: Listed in the CALP Act 1994 5 Column 5: Victorian Alert Weed 5 Column 6: National Alert Weed 5 Column 7: Weed of National Significance 5 Statistics 5 Further information & feedback 6 Your involvement 6 Links 6 Weed identification texts 6 Citation 6 Acknowledgments 6 Bibliography 6 Census reference 6 Appendix 1 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed alphabetically within risk categories. 7 Appendix 2 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed by botanical name. 19 Appendix 3 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed by common name. 31 Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria i Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment Melbourne, March2008 © The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2009 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparisons of Vegetation Recovery Post Fire, Logging and Salvage Logging in the Victorian Central Highlands
    Comparisons of vegetation recovery post fire, logging and salvage logging in the Victorian Central Highlands David Paul Blair November 2018 A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The Australian National University © Copyright by David Blair 2018 All Rights Reserved Candidate’s declaration This thesis contains no material that has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university. The research, analysis and writing in the thesis are substantially (>90%) my own work. To the best of my knowledge, it contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text. 10 November, 2018 David Blair Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the Central Highlands, the land on which my research was conducted. I pay my respects to their Elders, past and present. I wish to thank the many people who supported me and gave me the opportunity to achieve this degree. It is only through standing on their strong, caring and supportive shoulders that I have had the privilege to gain a higher and more focused view of our amazing world. To my supervisors, Prof. David Lindenmayer, Dr. Sam Banks and Dr. Annabel Smith, thank you for guiding me along my path of discovery and allowing me space to explore. Your encouragement, belief in me, and genuine friendships have made the long tough road enjoyable. Special thanks also to Lachie McBurney. It’s been fantastic working with you over the years and knowing should I need some shade cloth, a rope, winch or quality night vision goggles, you will always be there for me.
    [Show full text]
  • The Macrofungal Community and Fire in a Mountain Ash Forest in Southern Australia
    Fungal Diversity The macrofungal community and fire in a Mountain Ash forest in southern Australia Sapphire J.M. McMullan-Fisherl,z*, Tom W. May3 and Phil J. Keanel 'School of Botany, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3084, Australia 2Current address: University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-78, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia 3Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne, Birdwood Ave, South Yarra, Victoria 3141, Australia McMullan-Fisher, S.J.M., May, T.W. and Keane, P.J. (2002). The macrofungal community and fire in a Mountain Ash forest in southern Australia. In: Fungal Succession (eds. K.D. Hyde and E.B.G. Jones). Fungal Diversity 10: 57-76. Changes in the occurrence of macrofungi with time following forestry activities and fire were studied at 14 sites in Mountain Ash (Eucalyptus regnans) dominated forests, in the Eastern Central Highlands, Victoria, Australia. Forests of 0-57 years after fire were used to compare macrofungal communities. Pattern analysis through classification and ordination showed that there was a distinct change in the macrofungal community over time since disturbance. Three phases were apparent in the process of recolonisation after fire: (1) immediate post-fire (0• year), (2) an intermediate phase (2- and 4-year-old), and (3) a mature phase (7-year-old and older). The macrofungi evident in the Mountain Ash forest during the first year after fire were the most distinctive. The change in the suite of macrofungi closely reflected the changes in macro fungal substrates in the forests of different ages. Macrofungi found to be specific to certain stages of regeneration after fire will provide a subset of indicator taxa suitable for use in further surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Endophyte Infection on the Performance of Fall Armyworm Feeding on Meadow Fescue Under a Range of Water Stress Levels Siow Yan Jennifer Angoh
    Effects of Endophyte Infection on the Performance of Fall Armyworm Feeding on Meadow Fescue under a Range of Water Stress Levels Siow Yan Jennifer Angoh A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Science and Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science Undergraduate Program in Biology York University Toronto, Ontario April 2013 © Siow yan Jennifer Angoh, 2013 Abstract Endophytes have been shown to provide protection against herbivory to their host via the synthesis of alkaloids. Under drought stress, some photosynthetic organisms do benefit from their symbiotic relationship with certain fungus. In fact, endophytes facilitate changes in their host morphology, osmotic properties, resource allocation, and regrowth dynamics, which subsequently could provide the latter with enhanced drought resistance. Changes in the morphology and physiology of fodder species can also affect the herbivores feeding on them. In this study, cloned daughter endophyte-infected and endophyte-uninfected meadow fescue (Schedonorus pratensis) plants were assigned to two greenhouse experiments in which water levels needed to cause drought stress in the grass was determine. Also, water stressed plants utilised for a bioassay with fall armyworms (Spodoptera frugiperda) larvae were generated. Percentage water content of meadow fescue leaves decreased over a period of 6 days. Larvae fed with endophyte-infected grass maintained under a low water regime had the lowest relative growth rates (RGR) (0.19±0.05 mg/mg/day) which was significantly different from the RGR of larvae fed with grasses maintained under higher water regimes. Résumé Les endophytes fournissent une protection à leur hôte contre les herbivores via la synthèse d'alcaloïdes.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Species to AVOID for Landscaping, Revegetation, and Restoration Colorado Native Plant Society Revised by the Horticulture and Restoration Committee, May, 2002
    Plant Species to AVOID for Landscaping, Revegetation, and Restoration Colorado Native Plant Society Revised by the Horticulture and Restoration Committee, May, 2002 The plants listed below are invasive exotic species which threaten or potentially threaten natural areas, agricultural lands, and gardens. This is a working list of species which have escaped from landscaping, reclamation projects, and agricultural activity. All problem plants may not be included; contact the Colorado Dept. of Agriculture for more information (see references below). Some drought resistent, well adapted exotic plants suggested for landscaping survive successfully outside cultivation. If you are unsure about introducing a new plant into your garden or reclamation/restoration plans, maintain a conservative approach. Try to research a new plant thoroughly before using it, or omit it from your plans. While there are thousands of introduced plants which pose no threats, there are some that become invasive, displacing and outcompeting native vegetation, and cost land managers time and money to deal with. If you introduce a plant and notice it becoming aggressive and invasive, remove it and report your experience to us, your county extension agent, and the grower. If you see a plant for sale that is listed on the Colorado Noxious Weed List, please report it to the CO Dept. of Ag. (Jerry Cochran, Nursery Specialist; 303.239.4153). This list will be updated periodically as new information is received. For more information, including a list of suggested native plants for horticultural use, and to contact us, please visit our website at www.conps.org. NOX NE & NRCS INV RMNP WISC CA CoNPS CD PCA UM COMMENTS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME* (CO) GP INVASIVE EXOTIC FORBS – Often found in seed mixes or nurseries Baby's breath Gypsophila paniculata X X X X NATIVE ALTERNATIVES: Native penstemon Saponaria officinalis (Lychnis (Penstemon spp.); Rocky Mtn Beeplant (Cleome Bouncing bet, soapwort X X X X X saponaria) serrulata); Native white yarrow (Achillea lanulosa).
    [Show full text]
  • Plastome Sequence Determination and Comparative Analysis for Members of the Lolium-Festuca Grass Species Complex
    G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics Early Online, published on March 11, 2013 as doi:10.1534/g3.112.005264 Plastome sequence determination and comparative analysis for members of the Lolium-Festuca grass species complex Melanie L. Hand*,†,‡, German C. Spangenberg*,†,‡, John W. Forster*,†,‡, Noel O.I. Cogan*,† *Department of Primary Industries, Biosciences Research Division, AgriBio, the Centre for AgriBioscience, La Trobe University Research and Development Park, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia †Dairy Futures Cooperative Research Centre, Australia ‡La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Australia 1 © The Author(s) 2013. Published by the Genetics Society of America. Running Title: Plastome sequences of Lolium-Festuca species Keywords: Italian ryegrass, meadow fescue, tall fescue, perennial ryegrass, chloroplast DNA, phylogenetics Corresponding author: John Forster AgriBio, the Centre for AgriBioscience 5 Ring Road Bundoora Victoria 3083 Australia +61 3 9032 7054 [email protected] 2 ABSTRACT Chloroplast genome sequences are of broad significance in plant biology, due to frequent use in molecular phylogenetics, comparative genomics, population genetics and genetic modification studies. The present study used a second-generation sequencing approach to determine and assemble the plastid genomes (plastomes) of four representatives from the agriculturally important Lolium-Festuca species complex of pasture grasses (Lolium multiflorum, Festuca pratensis, Festuca altissima and Festuca ovina). Total cellular DNA was extracted from either roots or leaves, was sequenced, and the output was filtered for plastome-related reads. A comparison between sources revealed fewer plastome-related reads from root-derived template, but an increase in incidental bacterium-derived sequences. Plastome assembly and annotation indicated high levels of sequence identity and a conserved organisation and gene content between species.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Mowing on Annual Bluegrass Weevil
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Agricultural Sciences EFFECTS OF MOWING ON ANNUAL BLUEGRASS WEEVIL, LISTRONOTUS MACULICOLLIS KIRBY (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE) ADULT BEHAVIOR AND LARVAL DEVELOPMENT IN GOLF COURSE PUTTING GREENS A Thesis in Agronomy by Benjamin D. Czyzewski © 2016 Benjamin D. Czyzewski Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science December 2016 The thesis of Benjamin D. Czyzewski was reviewed and approved* by the following: Benjamin A. McGraw Associate Professor of Turfgrass Science Thesis Adviser Peter J. Landschoot Associate Professor of Turfgrass Science Director of Graduate Studies in Agronomy Maxim J. Schlossberg Associate Professor of Turfgrass Science Edwin G. Rajotte Professor of Entomology *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School ii Abstract The annual bluegrass weevil (Listronotus maculicollis Kirby) is the most destructive insect pest of low-mown golf course turf in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic United States, and southeastern Canada. Golf course superintendents rely heavily on chemical controls, particularly on high-valued turf areas such as fairways, tees, greens, and their immediate surrounds (collars). These areas, particularly putting greens, are of the highest value to the course and the game of golf. Therefore, multiple insecticide applications, targeting both adults and larvae, are made throughout the year, often using the same insecticide classes. The overuse of insecticides, particularly the pyrethroids, has resulted in an increase in insecticide-resistant populations, and a dire need to develop alternative control strategies. I investigated the effect that cultural practices have on L. maculicollis survival, behavior, and development in golf course putting greens to determine if populations may be reduced in these areas without synthetic insecticides and to develop Best Management Practices (BMPs) for putting greens.
    [Show full text]