DOCSLIB.ORG

Guidelines for Describing Associations and Alliances of the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guidelines for Describing Associations and Alliances of the U.S GUIDELINES FOR DESCRIBING ASSOCIATIONS AND ALLIANCES OF THE U.S. NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION Michael Jennings1*, Don Faber-Langendoen2, Robert Peet3, Orie Loucks4, David Glenn-Lewin5, Antoni Damman6, Michael Barbour7, Robert Pfister8, Dennis Grossman2, David Roberts9, David Tart10, Marilyn Walker10, Stephen Talbot11, Joan Walker10, Gary Hartshorn12, Gary Waggoner1, Marc Abrams13, Alison Hill10, Marcel Rejmanek7 The Ecological Society of America Vegetation Classification Panel Version 4.0 July, 2004 1. U.S. Geological Survey, 2. NatureServe, 3. University of North Carolina, 4. Miami University, 5. Unity College, 6. Kansas State University, 7. University of California-Davis, 8. University of Montana, 9. Montana State University, 10. USDA Forest Service, 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 12. World Forestry Center, 13. Pennsylvania State University, * Manuscript contact: email [email protected]; phone 208-885-3901 The Ecological Society of America, Vegetation Classification Panel 1 ABSTRACT 2 The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines for describing and classifying plant 3 associations and alliances as formally recognized units of vegetation within the U.S. National 4 Vegetation Classification (NVC), a regional component of the International Vegetation 5 Classification (NatureServe 2003). The guidelines are intended to be used by anyone proposing 6 additions, deletions, or other changes to the named units of the NVC. By setting forth guidelines 7 for field records, analysis, description, peer review, archiving, and dissemination, the Ecological 8 Society of America’s Vegetation Classification Panel, in collaboration with the U.S. Federal 9 Geographic Data Committee, NatureServe, the U.S. Geological Survey, and others, seeks to 10 advance our common understanding of vegetation and improve our capability to sustain this 11 resource. 12 We begin by articulating the rationale for developing these guidelines and then briefly 13 review the history and development of vegetation classification in the United States. The 14 guidelines for floristic units of vegetation include definitions of the association and alliance 15 concepts. This is followed by a description of the requirements for field plot records and the 16 identification and classification of vegetation types. Guidelines for peer review of proposed 17 additions and revisions of types are provided, as is a structure for data access and management. 18 Since new knowledge and insight will inevitably lead to the need for improvements to the 19 guidelines described here, this document has been written with the expectation that it will be 20 revised with new versions produced as needed. Recommendations for revisions should be 21 addressed to the Panel Chair, Vegetation Classification Panel, Ecological Society of America, 22 Suite 400, 735 H St, NW, Washington, DC. Email contact information can be found at 23 http://www.esa.org/vegweb or contact the Ecological Society of America’s Science Program 24 Office, 1707 H St, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006, Telephone: (202) 833-8773. The 25 authors of this document work as volunteers in the service of the Ecological Society of America 26 and the professional opinions expressed by them in this document are not necessarily those of 27 the institutions that employ them. 1 Guidelines for Describing Associations and Alliances of the U.S. NVC, Version 3.0 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS 29 ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... 1 30 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3 31 1. RATIONALE............................................................................................................................ 3 32 2. BACKGROUND AND PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 5 33 2.1 DISCLAIMERS............................................................................................................... 7 34 3. A BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 8 35 3.1. DESCRIBING AND CLASSIFYING VEGETATION .................................................. 9 36 3.2. A NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION FOR THE UNITED STATES .. 18 37 ESTABLISHING AND REVISING FLORISTIC UNITS OF VEGETATION .......................... 21 38 4. THE ASSOCIATION AND ALLIANCE CONCEPTS ......................................................... 22 39 4.1. ASSOCIATION............................................................................................................. 22 40 4.2 ALLIANCE.................................................................................................................... 25 41 5. VEGETATION FIELD PLOTS ............................................................................................. 27 42 5.1. MAJOR TYPES OF REQUIRED DATA ..................................................................... 27 43 5.2. STAND SELECTION AND PLOT DESIGN ............................................................... 28 44 5.3 PLOT DATA................................................................................................................. 34 45 6. CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF FLORISTIC UNITS ................................... 46 46 6.1. FROM PLANNING TO DATA INTERPRETATION ................................................. 46 47 6.2. DOCUMENTATION AND DESCRIPTION OF TYPES............................................. 51 48 6.3. NOMENCLATURE OF ASSOCIATIONS AND ALLIANCES................................. 54 49 7. PEER REVIEW...................................................................................................................... 58 50 7.1 CLASSIFICATION CONFIDENCE............................................................................. 59 51 7.2. PEER-REVIEW PROCESS........................................................................................... 61 52 8. DATA ACCESS AND MANAGEMENT.............................................................................. 64 53 8.1 BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE .............................................................................. 64 54 8.2 PLOT DATA ARCHIVES AND DATA EXCHANGE................................................ 66 55 8.3 COMMUNITY-TYPE DATABASES........................................................................... 67 56 8.4 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND THE NVC PROCEEDINGS.................................. 68 57 9. DEFINTIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR FIELD APPLICATIONS .................................... 68 58 9.1 DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA FOR FLORISTIC UNITS....................................... 69 59 9.2 COLLECTING FIELD PLOTS..................................................................................... 70 60 9.3. CLASSIFYING AND DESCRIBING ASSOCIATIONS AND ALLIANCES ............ 75 61 9.4 PEER REVIEW OF PROPOSED VEGETATION TYPES .......................................... 79 62 9.5. MANAGEMENT OF VEGETATION DATA.............................................................. 82 63 LOOKING AHEAD ..................................................................................................................... 84 64 10. INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION, PROSPECTS AND DIRECTIONS................... 84 65 10.1 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION .................................................................... 84 66 10.2 BUILDING THE CLASSIFICATION CONSORTIUM FOR THE FUTURE............. 85 67 10.3 PROSPECTS FOR SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT .................................................. 86 2 The Ecological Society of America, Vegetation Classification Panel 68 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ 88 69 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 89 70 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................... 101 71 APPENDIX 1.............................................................................................................................. 107 72 APPENDIX 2.............................................................................................................................. 124 73 APPENDIX 3.............................................................................................................................. 137 74 APPENDIX 4.............................................................................................................................. 147 75 TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 148 76 FIGURES.................................................................................................................................... 157 77 TEXT BOXES ............................................................................................................................ 162 78 79 INTRODUCTION 80 1. RATIONALE 81 A standardized, widely accepted vegetation classification for the United States is required 82 for effective inventory, assessment, and management of the nation's ecosystems. These needs 83 are increasingly apparent as individuals, private organizations, and governments grapple with the 84 escalating alteration and loss of natural vegetation (for examples, see
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amphibian Alliance for Zero Extinction Sites in Chiapas and Oaxaca
    Amphibian Alliance for Zero Extinction Sites in Chiapas and Oaxaca John F. Lamoreux, Meghan W. McKnight, and Rodolfo Cabrera Hernandez Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 53 Amphibian Alliance for Zero Extinction Sites in Chiapas and Oaxaca John F. Lamoreux, Meghan W. McKnight, and Rodolfo Cabrera Hernandez Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 53 The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or other participating organizations. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Copyright: © 2015 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: Lamoreux, J. F., McKnight, M. W., and R. Cabrera Hernandez (2015). Amphibian Alliance for Zero Extinction Sites in Chiapas and Oaxaca. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xxiv + 320pp. ISBN: 978-2-8317-1717-3 DOI: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2015.SSC-OP.53.en Cover photographs: Totontepec landscape; new Plectrohyla species, Ixalotriton niger, Concepción Pápalo, Thorius minutissimus, Craugastor pozo (panels, left to right) Back cover photograph: Collecting in Chamula, Chiapas Photo credits: The cover photographs were taken by the authors under grant agreements with the two main project funders: NGS and CEPF.
    [Show full text]
  • Grasses of Oklahoma
    osu p.llaotten Technical Bulletin No. 3 October, 1938 OKLABOJIA AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE AGRICULTURAL ExPERIMENT STATION Lippert S. Ellis, Acting Director GRASSES OF OKLAHOMA By B. I. FEATHERLY Professor of Botany and Plant Pathology Stillwater, Oklahoma Technical Bulletin No. 3 October, 1938 OKLAHOMA AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Lippert S. Ellis. Acting Director GRASSES OF OI(LAHO~lA By H. I. FEATHERLY Professor of Botany and Plant Pathology Stillwater, Oklahoma ERRATA Page 6, No. 6: For "Leptochlea" read "Leptochloa." Page 10, No. 3 (second line): For "E. colona" read "E. colonum." Page 11, in "Distribution" of Phalaris caroliniana (Walt.): For "Ste-.vens" read "Stevens." Page 23, No. 2b: J:o"'or "Elymus canadensis ar. brachystachys" read "Elymus canadensis var. brachystachys." Page 28: For "Cynodon Dactylon ... etc." read "Cynodon dactylon (I,.) Pers. (Capriola dactylon Kuntz.) Bermuda G1·ass." Page 41, No. 13: For "Aristida divaricata Humb. and Bonnl." read "Aristida divaricata Humb. and Bonpl." Page 65, No. 3: For "Triodia clongata" read "Triodia elongata." Page 67. No. 11 (thud linel: For "ekels" read "keels." Page 71, No. 9 and Fig 81: For "Eragrostis sessilispicata" read "EragTostis sessilispica." Page 84, first line at top of page: For Melica nitens (Nutt.)'' re~d '?tE:cH~·a nH:ens CSc-;:itn.) !-Iutt." Page 106, No. 12, third line of description: For "within white margins" read "with white margins." Page 117. No. 2: l',or "Erianthus ... etc." read "Erianthus alopecuroides (L.) Ell. (E. divaricatus (L.) Hitchc.) Silver Plume-grass." Fage 123, No. 8: For "(A. torreanus Steud.)" read "A. tor­ rey:Jnus Steuc1.)" PREFACE The grass family needs no introduction.
    [Show full text]
  • A Taxonomic Re-Evaluation of the Allium Sanbornii Complex
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 1986 A taxonomic re-evaluation of the Allium sanbornii complex Stella Sue Denison University of the Pacific Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Denison, Stella Sue. (1986). A taxonomic re-evaluation of the Allium sanbornii complex. University of the Pacific, Thesis. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/2124 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A TAXONOMIC RE-EVALUATION OF THE ALLIUM SANBORNII COMPLEX A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of the Pacific In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Stella S. Denison August 1986 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many contributions have been made for my successful completion of this work. Appreciation is extended to: Drs. Dale McNeal, Alice Hunter, and Anne Funkhouser for their advice and assistance during the research and in the preparation of this manuscript, the entire Biology faculty for their, friendship and suggestions, Ginger Tibbens for the typing of this manuscript, and to my husband, Craig, and my children, Amy, Eric and Deborah for their continued support and encouragement. Grateful acknowledgement is made to the curators of the herbaria from which material was borrowed during this investigation. These herbaria are indicated below by the standard abbreviations of Holmgren and Keuken (1974}.
    [Show full text]
  • Subphyl. Nov., Based on Multi-Gene Genealogies
    ISSN (print) 0093-4666 © 2011. Mycotaxon, Ltd. ISSN (online) 2154-8889 MYCOTAXON Volume 115, pp. 353–363 January–March 2011 doi: 10.5248/115.353 Mortierellomycotina subphyl. nov., based on multi-gene genealogies K. Hoffmann1*, K. Voigt1 & P.M. Kirk2 1 Jena Microbial Resource Collection, Institute of Microbiology, University of Jena, Neugasse 25, 07743 Jena, Germany 2 CABI UK Centre, Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY, United Kingdom *Correspondence to: Hoff[email protected] Abstract — TheMucoromycotina unifies two heterogenous orders of the sporangiferous, soil- inhabiting fungi. The Mucorales comprise saprobic, occasionally facultatively mycoparasitic, taxa bearing a columella, whereas the Mortierellales encompass mainly saprobic fungi lacking a columella. Multi-locus phylogenetic analyses based on eight nuclear genes encoding 18S and 28S rRNA, actin, alpha and beta tubulin, translation elongation factor 1alpha, and RNA polymerase II subunits 1 and 2 provide strong support for separation of the Mortierellales from the Mucoromycotina. The existence of a columella is shown to serve as a synapomorphic morphological trait unique to Mucorales, supporting the taxonomic separation of the acolumellate Mortierellales from the columellate Mucoromycotina. Furthermore, irregular hyphal septation and development of subbasally vesiculate sporangiophores bearing single terminal sporangia strongly correlate with the phylogenetic delimitation of Mortierellales, supporting a new subphylum, Mortierellomycotina. Key words — Zygomycetes, SSU rDNA, LSU rDNA, protein-coding genes, monophyly Introduction The type species ofMortierella Coem. 1863, M. polycephala Coem. 1863, was originally isolated from a parasitic interaction with a mushroom and named in honour of M. Du Mortier, the president of the Société de Botanique de Belgique (Coemans 1863). However, the common habit of mortierellalean species is as soil saprobes, enabling the fungi to grow on excrements, decaying plants, or (not infrequently) on decaying mushrooms and mucoralean fungi (Fischer 1892).
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Inferences in Prunus (Rosaceae) Using Chloroplast Ndhf and Nuclear Ribosomal ITS Sequences 1Jun WEN* 2Scott T
    Journal of Systematics and Evolution 46 (3): 322–332 (2008) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1002.2008.08050 (formerly Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica) http://www.plantsystematics.com Phylogenetic inferences in Prunus (Rosaceae) using chloroplast ndhF and nuclear ribosomal ITS sequences 1Jun WEN* 2Scott T. BERGGREN 3Chung-Hee LEE 4Stefanie ICKERT-BOND 5Ting-Shuang YI 6Ki-Oug YOO 7Lei XIE 8Joey SHAW 9Dan POTTER 1(Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, MRC 166, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA) 2(Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA) 3(Korean National Arboretum, 51-7 Jikdongni Soheur-eup Pocheon-si Gyeonggi-do, 487-821, Korea) 4(UA Museum of the North and Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960, USA) 5(Key Laboratory of Plant Biodiversity and Biogeography, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650204, China) 6(Division of Life Sciences, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 200-701, Korea) 7(State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China) 8(Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598, USA) 9(Department of Plant Sciences, MS 2, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA) Abstract Sequences of the chloroplast ndhF gene and the nuclear ribosomal ITS regions are employed to recon- struct the phylogeny of Prunus (Rosaceae), and evaluate the classification schemes of this genus. The two data sets are congruent in that the genera Prunus s.l. and Maddenia form a monophyletic group, with Maddenia nested within Prunus.
    [Show full text]
  • Herbivorous Insects and the Hawaiian Silversword Alliance: Coevolution Or Cospeciation?L
    Pacific Science (1997), vol. 51, no. 4: 440-449 © 1997 by University of Hawai'i Press. All rights reserved Herbivorous Insects and the Hawaiian Silversword Alliance: Coevolution or Cospeciation?l GEORGE K. RODERICK2 ABSTRACT: Numerous groups of herbivorous insects in the Hawaiian archipelago have undergone adaptive radiations. R. C. L. Perkins collected and documented species in nearly all of these groups. In this study I tested whether patterns of host plant use by herbivorous insects can be explained by host plant history. I examined a group ofinsects in the planthopper genus Nesosydne (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) that feed on plants in the Hawaiian silversword alliance, many of which are endangered or threatened. For these Nesosydne species feeding on the silversword alliance, mitochondrial DNA sequence data revealed a statistically significant pattern of cospeciation between these insects and their hosts. These planthoppers are highly host-specific, with each species feeding on only one, or a few closely related, plant species. Patterns ofhost plant use across the plant lineage, as well as within extensive hybrid zones between members of the silversword alliance, suggest that planthopper diversification parallels host plant diversification. Data collected thus far are consis­ tent with, but do not directly demonstrate, reciprocal adaptation. For other herbivo­ rous insects associated with members of the Hawaiian silversword alliance, patterns of host plant use and evolutionary history are not yet well understood. However, cospeciation appears not to be universal. For example, endemic flies in the family Tephritidae (Diptera) are less host-specific and demonstrate host-switching. Research is under way to reveal the mechanisms associated with cospeciation and host­ switching for different insect groups associated with the Hawaiian silversword alliance.
    [Show full text]
  • (Asteraceae) on the Canary Islands
    G C A T T A C G G C A T genes Article Evolutionary Comparison of the Chloroplast Genome in the Woody Sonchus Alliance (Asteraceae) on the Canary Islands Myong-Suk Cho 1, Ji Young Yang 2, Tae-Jin Yang 3 and Seung-Chul Kim 1,* 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea; [email protected] 2 Research Institute for Ulleung-do and Dok-do Island, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea; [email protected] 3 Department of Plant Science, Plant Genomics and Breeding Institute, Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-31-299-4499 Received: 11 February 2019; Accepted: 11 March 2019; Published: 14 March 2019 Abstract: The woody Sonchus alliance consists primarily of woody species of the genus Sonchus (subgenus Dendrosonchus; family Asteraceae). Most members of the alliance are endemic to the oceanic archipelagos in the phytogeographic region of Macaronesia. They display extensive morphological, ecological, and anatomical diversity, likely caused by the diverse habitats on islands and rapid adaptive radiation. As a premier example of adaptive radiation and insular woodiness of species endemic to oceanic islands, the alliance has been the subject of intensive evolutionary studies. While phylogenetic studies suggested that it is monophyletic and its major lineages radiated rapidly early in the evolutionary history of this group, genetic mechanisms of speciation and genomic evolution within the alliance remain to be investigated. We first attempted to address chloroplast (cp) genome evolution by conducting comparative genomic analysis of three representative endemic species (Sonchus acaulis, Sonchus canariensis, and Sonchus webbii) from the Canary Islands.
    [Show full text]
  • Redescription of Tripleurospermum Heterolepis (Asteraceae), Endemic to Turkey
    Phytotaxa 202 (3): 214–218 ISSN 1179-3155 (print edition) www.mapress.com/phytotaxa/ PHYTOTAXA Copyright © 2015 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 1179-3163 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.202.3.4 Redescription of Tripleurospermum heterolepis (Asteraceae), endemic to Turkey HUSEYIN INCEER Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Biology, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey; e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Tripleurospermum heterolepis (Freyn & Sintenis) Bornmüller has been poorly known as a local endemic species classified within DD category of IUCN. It had not been collected since its introduction to scientific community in 1895. In 2007, T. heterolepis was rediscovered in its type locality. Based on its syntypes deposited at B and G as well as the new specimens collected from the type locality, a misdescription of the species in the Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands is also reported. A new description of T. heterolepis, amended and extended, is presented here, and its updated conservation status is indicated. The diagnostic morphological characters that distinguish the species from its close relatives are discussed. Key words: Compositae, Flora of Turkey, morphology, taxonomy Introduction Tripleurospermum Schultz Bipontinus (1844: 31) is a small genus of the tribe Anthemideae of the family Asteraceae with ca. 40 species that is mainly distributed in Europe, temperate Asia, North America and North Africa (Oberprieler et al. 2007, Himmelreich et al. 2008). It is also difficult to determine the exact number of species without a monographical treatment of the whole genus because its species have often been referred to other Anthemideae genera such as Anthemis Linnaeus (1753: 893), Chamaemelum Miller (1754: 315), Chrysanthemum Linnaeus (1753: 887), Matricaria Linnaeus (1753: 890) and Tanacetum Linnaeus (1753: 843) (Pobedimova 1995, Inceer & Hayırlıoglu-Ayaz 2010, Inceer & Hayırlıoglu-Ayaz 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • And Natural Community Restoration
    RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING AND NATURAL COMMUNITY RESTORATION Natural Heritage Conservation Program Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 August 2016, PUB-NH-936 Visit us online at dnr.wi.gov search “ER” Table of Contents Title ..……………………………………………………….……......………..… 1 Southern Forests on Dry Soils ...................................................... 22 - 24 Table of Contents ...……………………………………….….....………...….. 2 Core Species .............................................................................. 22 Background and How to Use the Plant Lists ………….……..………….….. 3 Satellite Species ......................................................................... 23 Plant List and Natural Community Descriptions .…………...…………….... 4 Shrub and Additional Satellite Species ....................................... 24 Glossary ..................................................................................................... 5 Tree Species ............................................................................... 24 Key to Symbols, Soil Texture and Moisture Figures .................................. 6 Northern Forests on Rich Soils ..................................................... 25 - 27 Prairies on Rich Soils ………………………………….…..….……....... 7 - 9 Core Species .............................................................................. 25 Core Species ...……………………………….…..…….………........ 7 Satellite Species ......................................................................... 26 Satellite Species
    [Show full text]
  • Heterolepis: an Unplaced Genus
    Chapter 31 Heterolepis: an unplaced genus Vicki A. Funk and Per Ola Karis HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND MORPHOLOGY Heterolepis the anthers are caudate with barely branched tails (somewhat similar to those of the Berkheya clade of The three species of Heterolepis Cass. are found in south- Gorteriinae). The anther apical appendages of Heterolepis ern South Africa and especially in parts of the Succulent are soft but longer and quite unlike the shorter but like- Karoo and almost throughout the Cape Floristic Region wise soft ones of Arctotidinae. Also Heterolepis has an- (CFR; Linder 2003). One of the species, H. aliena (L. f.) thers with a polarized endothecium, or many cells have Druce, forms a small shrub covered with large yel- a plate but no polarized pattern, which is similar to the low heads and is often cultivated. The genus has been endothecium in some species of the Berkheya clade of moved from tribe to tribe. Cassini (1816, 1821) described Gorteriinae. In contrast, Arctotidinae have a consistently Heterolepis and placed it in the tribe Arctotideae. Lessing radial endothecium. (1832) treated the whole tribe Arctotideae along with Bremer's (1994) morphological cladistic analysis Calenduleae and some Senecioneae, as part of a large placed Heterolepis as the sister group to the Platycarpha- Cynaroideae. Bentham (1873) reestablished Arctotideae Arctotidinae clade or in a trichotomy with the two main but he placed Heterolepis in Inuleae; Hoffmann (1890— subtribes depending on the outgroup used. Based on this 1894) followed Bentham. Robinson and Brettell (1973a) analysis Bremer decided to list Heterolepis as belonging returned Heterolepis to Arctotideae, and Norlindh (1977) to Arctotideae but unassigned to subtribe, and the same placed it in the subtribe Gorteriinae.
    [Show full text]
  • Euphorbiaceae)
    Yang & al. • Phylogenetics and classification of Euphorbia subg. Chamaesyce TAXON 61 (4) • August 2012: 764–789 Molecular phylogenetics and classification of Euphorbia subgenus Chamaesyce (Euphorbiaceae) Ya Yang,1 Ricarda Riina,2 Jeffery J. Morawetz,3 Thomas Haevermans,4 Xavier Aubriot4 & Paul E. Berry1,5 1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 830 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1048, U.S.A. 2 Real Jardín Botánico, CSIC, Plaza de Murillo 2, Madrid 28014, Spain 3 Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, California 91711, U.S.A. 4 Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Département Systématique et Evolution, UMR 7205 CNRS/MNHN Origine, Structure et Evolution de la Biodiversité, CP 39, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris cedex 05, France 5 University of Michigan Herbarium, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 3600 Varsity Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108, U.S.A. Author for correspondence: Paul E. Berry, [email protected] Abstract Euphorbia subg. Chamaesyce contains around 600 species and includes the largest New World radiation within the Old World-centered genus Euphorbia. It is one of the few plant lineages to include members with C3, C4 and CAM photosyn- thesis, showing multiple adaptations to warm and dry habitats. The subgenus includes North American-centered groups that were previously treated at various taxonomic ranks under the names of “Agaloma ”, “Poinsettia ”, and “Chamaesyce ”. Here we provide a well-resolved phylogeny of Euphorbia subg. Chamaesyce using nuclear ribosomal ITS and chloroplast ndhF sequences, with substantially increased taxon sampling compared to previous studies. Based on the phylogeny, we discuss the Old World origin of the subgenus, the evolution of cyathial morphology and growth forms, and then provide a formal sectional classification, with descriptions and species lists for each section or subsection we recognize.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of the Vegetation Alliances and Associations of Sonoma County, California
    Classification of the Vegetation Alliances and Associations of Sonoma County, California Volume 1 of 2 – Introduction, Methods, and Results Prepared by: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program California Native Plant Society Vegetation Program For: The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District The Sonoma County Water Agency Authors: Anne Klein, Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie Evens December 2015 ABSTRACT This report describes 118 alliances and 212 associations that are found in Sonoma County, California, comprising the most comprehensive local vegetation classification to date. The vegetation types were defined using a standardized classification approach consistent with the Survey of California Vegetation (SCV) and the United States National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) system. This floristic classification is the basis for an integrated, countywide vegetation map that the Sonoma County Vegetation Mapping and Lidar Program expects to complete in 2017. Ecologists with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Native Plant Society analyzed species data from 1149 field surveys collected in Sonoma County between 2001 and 2014. The data include 851 surveys collected in 2013 and 2014 through funding provided specifically for this classification effort. An additional 283 surveys that were conducted in adjacent counties are included in the analysis to provide a broader, regional understanding. A total of 34 tree-overstory, 28 shrubland, and 56 herbaceous alliances are described, with 69 tree-overstory, 51 shrubland, and 92 herbaceous associations. This report is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 (this volume) is composed of the project introduction, methods, and results. It includes a floristic key to all vegetation types, a table showing the full local classification nested within the USNVC hierarchy, and a crosswalk showing the relationship between this and other classification systems.
    [Show full text]