A Comparison of PCR-Based Markers for the Molecular Identification of Sphagnum Species of the Section Acutifolia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Appendix 2: Plant Lists
Appendix 2: Plant Lists Master List and Section Lists Mahlon Dickerson Reservation Botanical Survey and Stewardship Assessment Wild Ridge Plants, LLC 2015 2015 MASTER PLANT LIST MAHLON DICKERSON RESERVATION SCIENTIFIC NAME NATIVENESS S-RANK CC PLANT HABIT # OF SECTIONS Acalypha rhomboidea Native 1 Forb 9 Acer palmatum Invasive 0 Tree 1 Acer pensylvanicum Native 7 Tree 2 Acer platanoides Invasive 0 Tree 4 Acer rubrum Native 3 Tree 27 Acer saccharum Native 5 Tree 24 Achillea millefolium Native 0 Forb 18 Acorus calamus Alien 0 Forb 1 Actaea pachypoda Native 5 Forb 10 Adiantum pedatum Native 7 Fern 7 Ageratina altissima v. altissima Native 3 Forb 23 Agrimonia gryposepala Native 4 Forb 4 Agrostis canina Alien 0 Graminoid 2 Agrostis gigantea Alien 0 Graminoid 8 Agrostis hyemalis Native 2 Graminoid 3 Agrostis perennans Native 5 Graminoid 18 Agrostis stolonifera Invasive 0 Graminoid 3 Ailanthus altissima Invasive 0 Tree 8 Ajuga reptans Invasive 0 Forb 3 Alisma subcordatum Native 3 Forb 3 Alliaria petiolata Invasive 0 Forb 17 Allium tricoccum Native 8 Forb 3 Allium vineale Alien 0 Forb 2 Alnus incana ssp rugosa Native 6 Shrub 5 Alnus serrulata Native 4 Shrub 3 Ambrosia artemisiifolia Native 0 Forb 14 Amelanchier arborea Native 7 Tree 26 Amphicarpaea bracteata Native 4 Vine, herbaceous 18 2015 MASTER PLANT LIST MAHLON DICKERSON RESERVATION SCIENTIFIC NAME NATIVENESS S-RANK CC PLANT HABIT # OF SECTIONS Anagallis arvensis Alien 0 Forb 4 Anaphalis margaritacea Native 2 Forb 3 Andropogon gerardii Native 4 Graminoid 1 Andropogon virginicus Native 2 Graminoid 1 Anemone americana Native 9 Forb 6 Anemone quinquefolia Native 7 Forb 13 Anemone virginiana Native 4 Forb 5 Antennaria neglecta Native 2 Forb 2 Antennaria neodioica ssp. -
<I>Sphagnum</I> Peat Mosses
ORIGINAL ARTICLE doi:10.1111/evo.12547 Evolution of niche preference in Sphagnum peat mosses Matthew G. Johnson,1,2,3 Gustaf Granath,4,5,6 Teemu Tahvanainen, 7 Remy Pouliot,8 Hans K. Stenøien,9 Line Rochefort,8 Hakan˚ Rydin,4 and A. Jonathan Shaw1 1Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708 2Current Address: Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000 Lake Cook Road Glencoe, Illinois 60022 3E-mail: [email protected] 4Department of Plant Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvagen¨ 18D, SE-752 36, Uppsala, Sweden 5School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 6Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden 7Department of Biology, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101, Joensuu, Finland 8Department of Plant Sciences and Northern Research Center (CEN), Laval University Quebec, Canada 9Department of Natural History, Norwegian University of Science and Technology University Museum, Trondheim, Norway Received March 26, 2014 Accepted September 23, 2014 Peat mosses (Sphagnum)areecosystemengineers—speciesinborealpeatlandssimultaneouslycreateandinhabitnarrowhabitat preferences along two microhabitat gradients: an ionic gradient and a hydrological hummock–hollow gradient. In this article, we demonstrate the connections between microhabitat preference and phylogeny in Sphagnum.Usingadatasetof39speciesof Sphagnum,withan18-locusDNAalignmentandanecologicaldatasetencompassingthreelargepublishedstudies,wetested -
Université De Montréal Inuit Ethnobotany in the North American
Université de Montréal Inuit Ethnobotany in the North American Subarctic and Arctic: Celebrating a Rich History and Expanding Research into New Areas Using Biocultural Diversity par Christian H. Norton Département de sciences biologiques Faculté des arts et des sciences Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l’obtention du grade de maîtrise en sciences biologiques Novembre 2018 © Christian H. Norton 2018 2 Résumé Historiquement, l'utilisation des plantes par les Inuits était considérée comme minimale. Notre compréhension de l'utilisation des plantes par les Inuits a commencé par suite de la prise en compte de concepts tels que la diversité bioculturelle et les espèces clés, et ces nouvelles idées ont commencé à dissiper les mythes sur le manque d’importance des plantes dans la culture inuite. Les Inuits peuvent être regroupés en quatre régions en fonction de la langue: l'Alaska, l'Arctique ouest canadien, l'Arctique et la région subarctique est canadienne et le Groenland. Le chapitre 1 passera en revue la littérature sur l'utilisation des plantes inuites de l'Alaska au Groenland. Au total, 311 taxons ont été mentionnés dans les quatre régions, ce qui correspond à 73 familles. Les niveaux de diversité étaient similaires dans les quatre régions. Seuls 25 taxons et 16 familles étaient communs à toutes les régions, mais 50%-75% des taxons et 75%-90% familles étaient signalés dans au moins deux régions, et les régions voisines ont généralement un chevauchement plus élevé que les régions plus éloignées. De la même manière, les Inuits des quatre régions ont indiqué comestible, médecine, incendie et design comme principales catégories d'utilisation, ainsi qu'une différenciation commune claire en ce qui concerne les taxons utilisés à des fins spécifiques. -
Field Guide to the Moss Genera in New Jersey by Keith Bowman
Field Guide to the Moss Genera in New Jersey With Coefficient of Conservation and Indicator Status Keith Bowman, PhD 10/20/2017 Acknowledgements There are many individuals that have been essential to this project. Dr. Eric Karlin compiled the initial annotated list of New Jersey moss taxa. Second, I would like to recognize the contributions of the many northeastern bryologists that aided in the development of the initial coefficient of conservation values included in this guide including Dr. Richard Andrus, Dr. Barbara Andreas, Dr. Terry O’Brien, Dr. Scott Schuette, and Dr. Sean Robinson. I would also like to acknowledge the valuable photographic contributions from Kathleen S. Walz, Dr. Robert Klips, and Dr. Michael Lüth. Funding for this project was provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, State Wetlands Protection Development Grant, Section 104(B)(3); CFDA No. 66.461, CD97225809. Recommended Citation: Bowman, Keith. 2017. Field Guide to the Moss Genera in New Jersey With Coefficient of Conservation and Indicator Status. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Forest Service, Office of Natural Lands Management, Trenton, NJ, 08625. Submitted to United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, State Wetlands Protection Development Grant, Section 104(B)(3); CFDA No. 66.461, CD97225809. i Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Descriptions -
Aquatic Insects: Holometabola – Diptera, Suborder Nematocera
Glime, J. M. 2017. Aquatic Insects: Holometabola – Diptera, Suborder Nematocera. Chapt. 11-13a. In: Glime, J. M. 11-13a-1 Bryophyte Ecology. Volume 2. Bryological Interaction. Ebook sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Last updated 19 July 2020 and available at <http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology2/>. CHAPTER 11-13a AQUATIC INSECTS: HOLOMETABOLA – DIPTERA, SUBORDER NEMATOCERA TABLE OF CONTENTS DIPTERA – Flies .......................................................................................................................................... 11-13a-2 Suborder Nematocera ............................................................................................................................. 11-13a-5 Nymphomyiidae .............................................................................................................................. 11-13a-6 Cylindrotomidae – Long-bodied Craneflies .................................................................................... 11-13a-6 Limoniidae – Limoniid Craneflies .................................................................................................. 11-13a-8 Pediciidae – Hairy-eyed Craneflies ............................................................................................... 11-13a-11 Tipulidae – Craneflies ................................................................................................................... 11-13a-11 Anisopodidae – Wood Gnats, Window Gnats ............................................................................. -
An All-Taxa Biodiversity Inventory of the Huron Mountain Club
AN ALL-TAXA BIODIVERSITY INVENTORY OF THE HURON MOUNTAIN CLUB Version: August 2016 Cite as: Woods, K.D. (Compiler). 2016. An all-taxa biodiversity inventory of the Huron Mountain Club. Version August 2016. Occasional papers of the Huron Mountain Wildlife Foundation, No. 5. [http://www.hmwf.org/species_list.php] Introduction and general compilation by: Kerry D. Woods Natural Sciences Bennington College Bennington VT 05201 Kingdom Fungi compiled by: Dana L. Richter School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI 49931 DEDICATION This project is dedicated to Dr. William R. Manierre, who is responsible, directly and indirectly, for documenting a large proportion of the taxa listed here. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 5 SOURCES 7 DOMAIN BACTERIA 11 KINGDOM MONERA 11 DOMAIN EUCARYA 13 KINGDOM EUGLENOZOA 13 KINGDOM RHODOPHYTA 13 KINGDOM DINOFLAGELLATA 14 KINGDOM XANTHOPHYTA 15 KINGDOM CHRYSOPHYTA 15 KINGDOM CHROMISTA 16 KINGDOM VIRIDAEPLANTAE 17 Phylum CHLOROPHYTA 18 Phylum BRYOPHYTA 20 Phylum MARCHANTIOPHYTA 27 Phylum ANTHOCEROTOPHYTA 29 Phylum LYCOPODIOPHYTA 30 Phylum EQUISETOPHYTA 31 Phylum POLYPODIOPHYTA 31 Phylum PINOPHYTA 32 Phylum MAGNOLIOPHYTA 32 Class Magnoliopsida 32 Class Liliopsida 44 KINGDOM FUNGI 50 Phylum DEUTEROMYCOTA 50 Phylum CHYTRIDIOMYCOTA 51 Phylum ZYGOMYCOTA 52 Phylum ASCOMYCOTA 52 Phylum BASIDIOMYCOTA 53 LICHENS 68 KINGDOM ANIMALIA 75 Phylum ANNELIDA 76 Phylum MOLLUSCA 77 Phylum ARTHROPODA 79 Class Insecta 80 Order Ephemeroptera 81 Order Odonata 83 Order Orthoptera 85 Order Coleoptera 88 Order Hymenoptera 96 Class Arachnida 110 Phylum CHORDATA 111 Class Actinopterygii 112 Class Amphibia 114 Class Reptilia 115 Class Aves 115 Class Mammalia 121 INTRODUCTION No complete species inventory exists for any area. -
Sphagnum Russowii Russow’S Bog-Moss Section Acutifolia
Sphagnales Sphagnum russowii Russow’s Bog-moss Section Acutifolia Stem leaf 1 mm 5 mm Identification S. russowii is a medium to large plant, found in soft hummocks or loose carpets. There is usually some red present, often with a banded appearance owing to irregular pigmentation; it is sometimes all deep red, but only rarely all green. The capitulum is flat-topped and stellate, with a definite but inconspicuous terminal bud. Fascicles have 2 spreading branches and 1 or 2 pendent branches. Branch leaves are usually in straight lines. The stem leaf is tongue-shaped, with a rounded tip that is usually notched or fringed (hence looks truncate). It is often necessary to examine several stem leaves before a clear example of this tip shape can be seen. Capsules are rare. Similar species In structure, this species is most like S. girgensohnii (p. 284), but that species never has any trace of red, has a more prominent terminal bud, branch leaves that are never in straight lines and stem leaves that differ in shape at the tip. S. capillifolium subsp. rubellum (p. 288) shares the flat-topped, stellate capitula, but lacks a terminal bud and the rather similar stem leaves are not truncate or notched at the tip. S. warnstorfii (p. 287) grows in more base-rich mires and is often an especially vivid red, with markedly 5-ranked branch leaves. S. quinquefarium (p. 286) has 3 spreading branches per fascicle. A central Norwegian species similar to S. russowii, not so far recorded from the British Isles, is S. rubiginosum. -
Sphagnum Centrale and S. Palustre from Mediterranean Basin: a Comparison with Conspecific North American Populations by Microsatellite Analysis
Cryptogamie, Bryologie, 2016, 37 (2): 211-223 © 2016 Adac. Tous droits réservés Sphagnum centrale and S. palustre from Mediterranean basin: a comparison with conspecific North American populations by microsatellite analysis David CRESPO PARDO*, Simonetta GIORDANO, Maria Cristina SORRENTINO & Valeria SPAGNUOLO Dipartimento di Biologia, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Complesso Universitario Monte S. Angelo, Via Cinthia 4 - 80126 Napoli, Italy. Abstract – Twenty nine South European specimens of Sphagnum centrale, S. palustre, S. papillosum and S. magellanicum were studied with 15 microsatellite markers. In contrast with eastern North American populations, our analysis showed a genetic overlapping between S. centrale and S. palustre in mixed populations. Moreover, Mediterranean species showed a genetic richness (total number of alleles) higher than that calculated in conspecific American samples. As Mediterranean Sphagnum bogs are remnant populations, microsatellites could well work for selecting source populations in order to recover Mediterranean peatlands. Genetic richness / Mediterranean peatland conservation / peat mosses / relict populations INTRODUCTION Peatlands are ecosystems with a great importance in the global climate since they fix large amounts of carbon. These systems cover about 3% of theEarth land surface (Yu et al., 2011). Even if peatlands are distributed worldwide, the largest areas are in North America and North Eurasia, whereas in South Europe they are in regression (Vasander et al., 2003; Yu et al., 2011). Indeed peatlands are protected by the European Council Habitat Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). One primary objective of nature conservation is the maintenance of genetic diversity, which implies the need to acquire information about intraspecific genetic variation in populations of endangered/vulnerable species (Reed & Frankham, 2003). -
Biodiversity
Appendix I Biodiversity Appendix I1 Literature Review – Biodiversity Resources in the Oil Sands Region of Alberta Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Extension Project Volume 3 – EIA Appendices December 2014 APPENDIX I1: LITERATURE REVIEW – BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES IN THE OIL SANDS REGION OF ALBERTA TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 BIOTIC DIVERSTY DATA AND SUMMARIES ................................................................ 1 1.1 Definition ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Biodiversity Policy and Assessments .................................................................... 1 1.3 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Ecosystems ........................................................................................... 2 1.3.2 Biota ...................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Key Issues ............................................................................................................. 9 1.4.1 Alteration of Landscapes and Landforms ............................................. 9 1.4.2 Ecosystem (Habitat) Alteration ........................................................... 10 1.4.3 Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effects ............................................ 10 1.4.4 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................. 12 1.4.5 Climate Change ................................................................................. -
Palaeoecology of Sphagnum Riparium (Ångström) in Northern Hemisphere Peatlands: Implications for Peatland Conservation and Palaeoecological Research
Published in Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 254, 1-7, 2018 1 which should be used for any reference to this work Palaeoecology of Sphagnum riparium (Ångström) in Northern Hemisphere peatlands: Implications for peatland conservation and palaeoecological research Mariusz Gałka a,⁎, Jennifer M. Galloway b, Natalie Lemonis c,YuriA.Mazeid,e,EdwardA.D.Mitchellc,f, Peter D. Morse b, R. Timothy Patterson g, Andrey N. Tsyganov e, Stephen A. Wolfe b, Graeme T. Swindles g,h a Department of Biogeography and Palaeoecology, Faculty of Geographical and Geological Sciences, Adam Mickiewicz University, B. Krygowskiego 10, PL-61 680 Poznań,Poland b Natural Resources Canada/Ressources naturelles Canada, Geological Survey of Canada/Commission géologique du Canada, Calgary, Alberta T2L 2A7, Canada c Laboratory of Soil Biodiversity, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland d Department of Hydrobiology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Leninskiye gory, 1, 119991 Moscow, Russia e Department of Zoology and Ecology, Penza State University, Krasnaya str., 40, Russia f Jardin Botanique de Neuchâtel, Chemin du Perthuis-du-Sault 58, CH-2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland g Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre and Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada h School of Geography, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom abstract Sphagnum riparium (Ångström) is a rare constituent of modern peatland plant communities and is also very rarely found as a subfossil in peat archives. We present new data on the occurrence of Sphagnum riparium mac- Keywords: rofossils in three Northern Hemisphere peatlands from Yellowknife (NW Canada), Abisko (N Sweden), and the Plant macrofossils Northern Ural Mountains (NW Russia). Sphagnum riparium macrofossils were present in transitional phases be- Testate amoebae tween rich fen and oligotrophic bog. -
Allenberg Bog Plant List
ALLENBERG BOG AUDUBON NATURE PRESERVE Allenberg Bog is also known to some as Waterman's Swamp, Congdon's Pond, and Owlenburg Bog and is on the border of the towns of Napoli and New Albion, New York in Cattaraugus County. A unique and fascinating refuge of 390 acres, it is the jewel of the Buffalo Audubon Preserve System. Even before the first parcels joined Audubon's preserve holdings in 1957, the area was famous among botanists for its wild orchids, more than 30 species of liverworts, nearly 60 species of mosses, and approximately 258 species of vascular plants. It should be noted that any collecting of any plants in this or any of our refuges is strictly prohibited. Please respect the purposes behind "Preserves." Plant List: Liverworts Family Ptilidiaceae Trichocolea tomentella Family Lepidoziaceae Bazzania trilobata Family Calypogeiaceae Calypogeia neesiana Calypogeia sphagnicola Calypogeia trichomanis Family Cephaloziaceae Cephalozia connivens Cephalozia media Cladopodiella fluitans Family Jungermanniaceae Lophoxia gracilis Jamesoniella autumnalis Plectocolea crenulata Family Harpanthaceae Lophocolea heterophylla Chiloscyphus pallescens Harpanthus scutatus Geocalyx graveolans Family Porellaceae Porella platyphylloides Family Radulaceae Radula complanata Family Frullaniaceae Frullania asagrayana Frullania brittoniae Frullania eboracensis Frullania oakesiana Frullania tamirisci Family Pelliaceae Pellia jabbroniana Family Pallavicniaceae Pallavicinia lyelli Family Riccardiaceae Riccardia latrifons Riccardia multifida Family Marchantiaceae -
Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2018 Revised October 19, 2018
Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2018 Revised October 19, 2018 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA (Wataug>f Wnke8 /Madison V" Burke Y H Buncombe >laywoodl Swain f/~~ ?uthertor< /Graham, —~J—\Jo< Polk Lenoii TEonsylvonw^/V- ^ Macon V \ Cherokey-^"^ / /Cloy Union I Anson iPhmonf Ouptln Scotlar Ons low Robeson / Blodon Ponder Columbus / New>,arrfver Brunewlck Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2018 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate. The list is published every two years. Further information may be obtained by contacting the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, 1651 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1651; by contacting the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 1701 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699- 1701; or by contacting the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1060 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1060. Additional information on rare species, as well as a digital version of this list, can be obtained from the Natural Heritage Program’s website at www.ncnhp.org. Cover Photo of Allium keeverae (Keever’s Onion) by David Campbell. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................