D. Testoni - Cortaderia Peruviana, Nuevo Sinónimo Deissn C
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Pampas Grass and Jubata Grass
PAMPAS GRASS AND JUBATA GRASS Cortaderia selloana Grass Family (Poaceae) Cortaderia jubata DESCRIPTION Pampas grass is a common name used masses. New seedlings often grow for both Cortaderia species. For clarity on the dead mass of the parent in this discussion, Cortaderia jubata plant, so what appears to be one will be called jubata grass,while pam- plant is often several generations, pas grass will refer only to C. selloana. growing one on top of the other.In Both species are rapid-growing contrast to jubata grass, pampas perennials that form large clumps. grass produces seeds only sexu- Jubata grass is found only in coastal ally, not apomictically, so both areas, but pampas grass also infests sexes of plants are necessary for more inland locales. Both are found in pollination and seed pro- disturbed areas, slopes and cliffs, duction. Both grasses PERENNIAL GRASSES coastal scrub, and forest clearings. can spread vegeta- Jubata grass leaves reach a height of tively from tillers or 5–7 feet at maturity. The dark green fragments of a leaves have sharply serrated margins.The mature plant that flowering stalks can tower up to 20 feet root in moist soil. above the mass of spreading leaves at the base. The inflorescence—a showy plume IMPACT ranging from pink to violet, turning Pampas grass is the more widespread creamy white or golden in maturity— species statewide, but jubata grass is con- typically appears from July to September. sidered more invasive in coastal areas. In Pampas grass leaves are gray-green forest gaps, both species can prevent the and narrower than those of jubata grass. -
By H.D.V. PRENDERGAST a Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Australian National University. January 1
STRUCTURAL, BIOCHEMICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL RELATIONSHIPS IN AUSTRALIAN c4 GRASSES (POACEAE) • by H.D.V. PRENDERGAST A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Australian National University. January 1987. Canberra, Australia. i STATEMENT This thesis describes my own work which included collaboration with Dr N .. E. Stone (Taxonomy Unit, R .. S .. B.S .. ), whose expertise in enzyme assays enabled me to obtain comparative information on enzyme activities reported in Chapters 3, 5 and 7; and with Mr M.. Lazarides (Australian National Herbarium, c .. s .. r .. R .. O .. ), whose as yet unpublished taxonomic views on Eragrostis form the basis of some of the discussion in Chapter 3. ii This thesis describes the results of research work carried out in the Taxonomy Unit, Research School of Biological Sciences, The Australian National University during the tenure of an A.N.U. Postgraduate Scholarship. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My time in the Taxonomy Unit has been a happy one: I could not have asked for better supervision for my project or for a more congenial atmosphere in which to work. To Dr. Paul Hattersley, for his help, advice, encouragement and friendship, I owe a lot more than can be said in just a few words: but, Paul, thanks very much! To Mr. Les Watson I owe as much for his own support and guidance, and for many discussions on things often psittacaceous as well as graminaceous! Dr. Nancy Stone was a kind teacher in many days of enzyme assays and Chris Frylink a great help and friend both in and out of the lab •• Further thanks go to Mike Lazarides (Australian National Herbarium, c.s.I.R.O.) for identifying many grass specimens and for unpublished data on infrageneric groups in Eragrostis; Dr. -
Austroderia Richardii
Austroderia richardii COMMON NAME Toetoe SYNONYMS Arundo richardii Endl.; Arundo kakao Steud.; Arundo australis A.Rich.; Gynerium zeelandicum Steud.; Cortaderia richardii (Endl.) Zotov FAMILY Poaceae AUTHORITY Austroderia richardii (Endl.) N.P.Barker et H.P.Linder FLORA CATEGORY Vascular – Native ENDEMIC TAXON Yes ENDEMIC GENUS Kakanui Mountains, Otago. Photographer: John Yes Barkla ENDEMIC FAMILY No STRUCTURAL CLASS Grasses NVS CODE AUSRIC CHROMOSOME NUMBER 2n = 90 CURRENT CONSERVATION STATUS Cortaderia richardii. Photographer: John Smith- Dodsworth 2012 | Not Threatened PREVIOUS CONSERVATION STATUSES 2009 | Not Threatened 2004 | Not Threatened DISTRIBUTION Endemic. Confined to the South Island. Possibly in the North Island, east of Cape Palliser. Naturalised in Tasmania. HABITAT Abundant, from the coast to subalpine areas. Common along stream banks, river beds, around lake margins, and in other wet places. Also found in sand dunes, especially along the Foveaux Strait. FEATURES Tall, gracile, slender tussock-forming grass up to 3 m tall when flowering. Leaf sheath glabrous, green, covered in white wax. Ligule 3.5 mm. Collar brown, basally glabrous, upper surface with short, stiff hairs surmounting ribs. Leaf blade 2-3 x 0.25 m, green, dark-green, often somewhat glaucous, upper side with thick weft of hairs at base, otherwise sparsely hairy up midrib with abundant, minute prickle teeth throughout. Undersurface with leaf with 5 mm long hairs near leaf margins, otherwise harshly scabrid. Culm up to 3 m, inflorescence portion up to 1 m tall, pennant-shaped, drooping, narrowly plumose. Spikelets numerous, 25 mm with 3 florets per spikelet. Glumes equal, > or equal to florets, 1- or 3-nerved. Lemma 10 mm, scabrid. -
Native Grasses Make New Products – a Review of Current and Past Uses and Assessment of Potential
Native grasses make new products – a review of current and past uses and assessment of potential JUNE 2015 RIRDC Publication No. 15/056 Native grasses make new products A review of current and past uses and assessment of potential by Ian Chivers, Richard Warrick, Janet Bornman and Chris Evans June 2015 RIRDC Publication No 15/056 RIRDC Project No PRJ-009569 © 2015 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-74254-802-9 ISSN 1440-6845 Native grasses make new products: a review of current and past uses and assessment of potential Publication No. 15/056 Project No. PRJ-009569 The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances. While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication. The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors. -
Vegetation Descriptions NORTH COAST and MONTANE ECOLOGICAL PROVINCE
Vegetation Descriptions NORTH COAST AND MONTANE ECOLOGICAL PROVINCE CALVEG ZONE 1 December 11, 2008 Note: There are three Sections in this zone: Northern California Coast (“Coast”), Northern California Coast Ranges (“Ranges”) and Klamath Mountains (“Mountains”), each with several to many subsections CONIFER FOREST / WOODLAND DF PACIFIC DOUGLAS-FIR ALLIANCE Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) is the dominant overstory conifer over a large area in the Mountains, Coast, and Ranges Sections. This alliance has been mapped at various densities in most subsections of this zone at elevations usually below 5600 feet (1708 m). Sugar Pine (Pinus lambertiana) is a common conifer associate in some areas. Tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus var. densiflorus) is the most common hardwood associate on mesic sites towards the west. Along western edges of the Mountains Section, a scattered overstory of Douglas-fir often exists over a continuous Tanoak understory with occasional Madrones (Arbutus menziesii). When Douglas-fir develops a closed-crown overstory, Tanoak may occur in its shrub form (Lithocarpus densiflorus var. echinoides). Canyon Live Oak (Quercus chrysolepis) becomes an important hardwood associate on steeper or drier slopes and those underlain by shallow soils. Black Oak (Q. kelloggii) may often associate with this conifer but usually is not abundant. In addition, any of the following tree species may be sparsely present in Douglas-fir stands: Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Ponderosa Pine (Ps ponderosa), Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), White Fir (Abies concolor), Oregon White Oak (Q garryana), Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), California Bay (Umbellifera californica), and Tree Chinquapin (Chrysolepis chrysophylla). The shrub understory may also be quite diverse, including Huckleberry Oak (Q. -
Cortaderia Jubata in (Source: Mandy Tu, the Nature Conservancy, Bugwood.Org)
Weed Risk Assessment for Cortaderia United States jubata (Lemoine ex Carrière) Stapf Department of Agriculture (Poaceae) – Jubata grass Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service February 18, 2014 Version 1 Left: Invasion of a coastal habitat in California by Cortaderia jubata in (source: Mandy Tu, The Nature Conservancy, Bugwood.org). Right: Habit of C. jubata (source: John M. Randall, The Nature Conservancy, Bugwood.org). Agency Contact: Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Weed Risk Assessment for Cortaderia jubata Introduction Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) regulates noxious weeds under the authority of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000) and the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. § 1581-1610, 1939). A noxious weed is defined as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment” (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000). We use weed risk assessment (WRA)—specifically, the PPQ WRA model (Koop et al., 2012)—to evaluate the risk potential of plants, including those newly detected in the United States, those proposed for import, and those emerging as weeds elsewhere in the world. Because the PPQ WRA model is geographically and climatically neutral, it can be used to evaluate the baseline invasive/weed potential of any plant species for the entire United States or for any area within it. -
GRAPHIE by Cornelia D. Niles with INTRODUCTION and BOTANICAL
A BIBLIOGRAPHIC STUDY OF BEAUVOIS' AGROSTO- • GRAPHIE By Cornelia D. Niles WITH INTRODUCTION AND BOTANICAL NOTES By Aones Chase nrntODTJCTiON The Essai d?une Nouvelle Agrostographie ; ou Nouveaux Genres des Graminees; avec figures representant les Oaracteres de tous les Genres, by A. M. F. J. Palisot de Beauvois, published in 1812, is, from the standpoint of the nomenclature of grasses, a very important work, its importance being due principally to its innumerable errors, less so because of its scientific value. In this small volume 69 new genera are proposed and some 640 new species, new binomials, and new names are published. Of the 69 genera proposed 31 are to-day recognized as valid, and of the 640 names about 61 are commonly accepted. There is probably not a grass flora of any considerable region anywhere in the world that does not contain some of Beauvois' names. Many of the new names are made in such haphazard fashion that they are incorrectly listed in the Index Kewensis. There are, besides, a number of misspelled names that have found their way into botanical literature. The inaccuracies are so numerous and the cita- tions so incomplete that only a trained bibliographer* could solve the many puzzles presented. Cornelia D. Niles in connection with her work on the bibliography of grasses, maintained in the form of a card catalogue in the Grass Herbarium, worked out the basis in literature of each of these new names. The botanical problems involved, the interpretation of descriptions and figures, were worked out by Agnes Chase, who is also respon- sible for the translation and summaries from the Advertisement, Introduction, and Principles. -
Pampasgrass and Jubatagrass Threaten California Coastal Habitats WRIC Leaflet 99-1 01/1999 (Edited 01/2010)
University of California WEED Research & Information Center Pampasgrass and Jubatagrass Threaten California Coastal Habitats WRIC Leaflet 99-1 01/1999 (edited 01/2010) Joseph M. DiTomaso1, Evelyn Healy1 Carl E. Bell2, Jennifer Drewitz1, and Alison Stanton1 1 UC Davis; 2 UCCE Imperial County Where do they come from? Pampasgrass (Cortaderia selloana) is native to Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, where it grows in relatively damp soils along river margins. It was first introduced to Europe in the early 1800s by a Scottish horticulturist. In 1848, nurserymen introduced pampasgrass to Santa Barbara, California. Commercial production began in California in 1874, and by 1895 nurserymen near Santa Barbara were the primary producers of pampasgrass as ornamental plants. In 1946, the Soil Conservation Service throughout Ventura and Los Angeles counties planted pampasgrass to provide supplementary dryland forage and Jubatagrass infestation prevent erosion. along the coast Jubatagrass (Cortaderia jubata) is native to northern Argentina, and along the Andes of Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador. It was first cultivated in France and Ireland from seed collected in Ecuador. It is not clear how or when it was introduced into California, but it may have come through France, via the horticultural trade. Both species are true grasses (members of the Poaceae). Jubatagrass plant in redwood forest What problems do they cause? Jubatagrass is the more widespread and aggressive species. It is often called pampasgrass because of the difficulty in distinguishing the two species. Once established, mature plants of both species are very competitive. Large infestations of pampasgrass and jubatagrass threaten California's coastal ecosystems by crowding out native species, particularly in sensitive coastal dune areas. -
Grass Flowers: an Untapped Resource for Floral Evo-Devo
Journal of Systematics JSE and Evolution doi: 10.1111/jse.12251 Review Grass flowers: An untapped resource for floral evo-devo Amanda Schrager-Lavelle1, Harry Klein1, Amanda Fisher2, and Madelaine Bartlett1* 1Biology Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA 2Biological Sciences Department, California State University, Long Beach, CA 90840, USA *Author for correspondence. E-mail: [email protected] Received 14 February 2017; Accepted 27 March 2017; Article first published online xx Month 2017 Abstract The abrupt origin and rapid diversification of the flowering plants presents what Darwin called “an abominable mystery”. Floral diversification was a key factor in the rise of the flowering plants, but the molecular underpinnings of floral diversity remain mysterious. To understand the molecular biology underlying floral morphological evolution, genetic model systems are essential for rigorously testing gene function and gene interactions. Most model plants are eudicots, while in the monocots genetic models are almost entirely restricted to the grass family. Likely because grass flowers are diminutive and specialized for wind pollination, grasses have not been a major focus in floral evo-devo research. However, while grass flowers do not exhibit any of the raucous morphological diversification characteristic of the orchids, there is abundant floral variation in the family. Here, we discuss grass flower diversity, and review what is known about the developmental genetics of this diversity. In particular, we focus on three aspects of grass flower evolution: (1) the evolution of a novel organ identity—the lodicule; (2) lemma awns and their diversity; and (3) the convergent evolution of sexual differentiation. The combination of morphological diversity in the grass family at large and genetic models spread across the family provides a powerful framework for attaining deep understanding of the molecular genetics of floral evolution. -
A Classification of the Chloridoideae (Poaceae)
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 55 (2010) 580–598 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev A classification of the Chloridoideae (Poaceae) based on multi-gene phylogenetic trees Paul M. Peterson a,*, Konstantin Romaschenko a,b, Gabriel Johnson c a Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013, USA b Botanic Institute of Barcelona (CSICÀICUB), Pg. del Migdia, s.n., 08038 Barcelona, Spain c Department of Botany and Laboratories of Analytical Biology, Smithsonian Institution, Suitland, MD 20746, USA article info abstract Article history: We conducted a molecular phylogenetic study of the subfamily Chloridoideae using six plastid DNA Received 29 July 2009 sequences (ndhA intron, ndhF, rps16-trnK, rps16 intron, rps3, and rpl32-trnL) and a single nuclear ITS Revised 31 December 2009 DNA sequence. Our large original data set includes 246 species (17.3%) representing 95 genera (66%) Accepted 19 January 2010 of the grasses currently placed in the Chloridoideae. The maximum likelihood and Bayesian analysis of Available online 22 January 2010 DNA sequences provides strong support for the monophyly of the Chloridoideae; followed by, in order of divergence: a Triraphideae clade with Neyraudia sister to Triraphis; an Eragrostideae clade with the Keywords: Cotteinae (includes Cottea and Enneapogon) sister to the Uniolinae (includes Entoplocamia, Tetrachne, Biogeography and Uniola), and a terminal Eragrostidinae clade of Ectrosia, Harpachne, and Psammagrostis embedded Classification Chloridoideae in a polyphyletic Eragrostis; a Zoysieae clade with Urochondra sister to a Zoysiinae (Zoysia) clade, and a Grasses terminal Sporobolinae clade that includes Spartina, Calamovilfa, Pogoneura, and Crypsis embedded in a Molecular systematics polyphyletic Sporobolus; and a very large terminal Cynodonteae clade that includes 13 monophyletic sub- Phylogenetic trees tribes. -
Purple Pampas Cortaderia Jubata
Purple pampas Cortaderia jubata Family Poaceae (grass) Also known as Cutty grass, Prince-of-Wales’ feathers Where is it originally from? South America What does it look like? Large, clump-forming grass (<3 m+). Very hairy leaf base with no white waxy surface. Leaves have a wide conspicuous midrib which does not continue into leaf base, and there are no secondary veins between midrib and leaf edge. Both leaf surfaces are dark green, leaves snap readily when tugged, and dead leaf bases spiral like wood shavings. Dense, erect, fluffy, bright purple flowerheads (Jan-Mar) fade to a dirty brown at the end of the flowering season. Photo: Carolyn Lewis Are there any similar species? Cortaderia selloana and native Austroderia species (toetoe). Toetoe leaves don't snap readily, have distinct secondary parallel veins between midrib and edge, midrib continues into leaf base, and leaves have white waxy sheaths. Dead leaves don't spiral. Drooping light golden-yellow flowers are produced from September to January. Why is it weedy? Tolerates heat and frost, salt, wind, wet and drought, moderate shade, most soils, and low fertility. Recovers quickly after fire. Prolific seeder and seeds are widely dispersed. How does it spread? Seeds are spread long distances by wind and occasionally water. Also Photo: Carolyn Lewis spreads by soil movement, dumped vegetation, contaminated forestry machinery, clothing, animal pelts. Common seed sources are plantation forests, roadsides, farm hedges, quarries and wasteland. What damage does it do? Colonises sprayed, burnt, slipped or otherwise disturbed sites, quickly becomes very dense. Replaces groundcovers, shrubs, and ferns, creates fire hazard, provides a habitat for possums and rats, and impedes access. -
A Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Resource Inventory of Diablo Canyon Lands, Volume Ii
A SENSITIVE PLANT AND.WILDLIFE RESOURCE INVENTORY OF DIABLO CANYON LANDS, VOLUME I: SURVEY PROCEDURES AND A SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS Prepared by: BioSystems Analysis, Inc. 303 Potrero Street, Suite 29-101 Santa Cruz, California 95060 and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Technical and Ecological Services 3400 Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, California 94583 Prepared for: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Land Stewardship Committee Diablo Canyon Power Plant Avila Beach, California © 1995 by PG&E (Revised 1996) Legal Notice Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) makes no warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe upon privately owned rights. Nor does PG&E assume any liability with respect to use of, or damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. © 1995 by PG&E All rights reserved EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PG&E owns or controls through long-term lease agreements approximately 10,000 acres of ecologically diverse coastal lands surrounding Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County, California. Beginning in 1992, a comprehensive survey of these lands was undertaken to identify and describe all sensitive plant and wildlife resources not previously known that might occur there. Though not required by state or federal regulatory agencies, this voluntary effort is consistent with PG&E's Corporate Policy on Management of Company Real Property (Section 7, paragraphs a and d), as well as specific Best Management Practices identified by the Diablo Canyon Land Stewardship Program (PG&E 1993a).