DOCSLIB.ORG

REGULATED PLANT INDEX of Sept

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The PALMETTO, Spring 1994, Page 7 Family Affiliation of Species on the REGULATED PLANT INDEX of Sept. 1993 by Naney C. Coile Florida's endangered plant species are protected by representative from each of the following organizations: state law. The specific authority comes through Florida Committee for Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals, Statutes, Sections 570.07(23) and 581.185(4). The Rules of Florida Federation of Garden Clubs, Florida Forestry the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Association, Florida Native Plant Society, Florida Nurs• Services, Division of Plant Industry, Chapter 5B-40, Florida erymen and Growers Association. The EPAC Chair for Administrative Code (FAC) is entitled: "Preservation of 1993-1994 is Richard Moyroud (representative of the Native Flora of Florida" and includes the "Regulated Plant Florida Native Plant Society). Other EPAC members are: Index". Penalties for violations of Rule Chapter 5B-40 are Dr. Loran C. Anderson (Florida State University), Dr. provided in Section 581.141 and 581.211 of the Florida Daniel F. Austin (Florida Atlantic University), Dr. Daniel Statutes. B. Ward (Committee for Rare and Endangered Plants and As stated in Rule Chapter 5B-40, FAC, the purpose is Animals), Ms. Eve R. Hannahs (Florida Federation of "to provide rules for the purpose of preserving the native Garden Clubs), Mr. Charles D. Daniel III (Florida Forestry flora of Florida, by encouraging the propagation of endan• Association), and Mr. David M. Drylie, Jr. (Florida Nurs• gered or depleted species of flora and by providing an erymen and Growers Association). Mr. Daniel C. Phelps orderly and controlled procedure for restricting harvesting (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Servic• of native flora from the wilds, thus preventing exploitation es, Division of Plant Industry) serves as the secretary. or destruction of Florida native plant populations." Florida A copy of Rule Chapter 5B-40, FAC, may be requested has many superb native plant nurseries, some of which from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer offer species listed as endangered or threatened. The Services, Division of Plant Industry, P.O. Box 147100, position of the Florida Native Plant Society (FNPS) is that Gainesville, FL 32614-7100. Also available is a publication "transplanting from the wild merely transfers native plants entitled "Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plants" from natural to man-made habitats and results in a net loss which provides up-to-date nomenclature, references, of native plants." (FNPS Board of Directors in a board common names, family, and a short description for each meeting on November 19, 1988.) However, FNPS encourag• listed species. The short description includes some or all of es transplanting nursery-grown native plants. A Plant and the following information: habit, key characteristics, Seroice Directory may be obtained from the Association of habitats, geographic range, and bloom time. This free Florida Native Nurseries, P.O. Box 1003, San Antonio, FL publication contains descriptions of these rare species, 33576. which are difficult to locate. Before species are placed on the Regulated Plant Index, The family affiliations provided below are grouped into the Endangered Plant Advisory Council (EPAC) examines four main categories: Lichens, Pteridophyta (ferns and fern• rare species and makes recommendations as to the feasibili• allies), Gymnospermae (conifers, cycads, etc.), and ty of including the species on the Regulated Plant Index. Angiospermae (flowering plants). Some families have The Regulated Plant Index consists of three species lists: alternate names as provided by the Code of International endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. The Nomenclature. Apiaceae (= Umbelliferae), Arecaceae (= listing of species is an ongoing activity and will probably Palma e), Asteraceae (= Compos itae), Brassicaceae (= Cru• never be static. As of September 20, 1993, the endangered ciferae), Caesalpinaceae (= Leguminosae, in part), Fabaceae plant list contained 255 species; the threatened plant list (= Leguminosae, in par!), Lamiaceae (= Labiatae), had 37 species and eight categories listed; and the commer• Mimosaceae (= Leguminosae, in part), Poaceae (= Grami• cially exploited list had 12 species. neae). Lobelia may also be placed in Campanulaceae. Nolina The threatened list has eight categories which do not list and Zephyranthes may also be placed in Liliaceae. Hyperi• individual species: ferns (see Pteridophytes below), cum may also be placed in Guttiferae. [Species in bold Zephyranthes (see Amaryllidaceae, hollies (see Aquifoli• print are on the Federal list.] aceae, bromeliads (see Bromeliaceae), cacti (see Cactaceae), LICHENS: (one endangered) Cladollia perforata Rhododendron (see Ericaceae), orchids (see Orchidaceae), PTERIDOPHYT A: (fourteen endangered) Acrostichum aureum and palms (see Palmae). Eventually, the Endangered Plant (golden leather fern), Adiantum melanoleucum (fragrant maiden• Advisory Council may recommend listing individual hair fern), Asplenium auritwll (auricled spleenwort), Asplenium species rather than the categories. Some very common 1I1onanthes (San Felasco spleenwort), Asplenium pumilum (dwarf ferns, for example, are automatically placed in the threat• spleenwort), Asplenium serratum (bird's nest spleenwort), ened category even if "threatened" is clearly inappropiate Bleclwwll occidentale (sinkhole fern), Campyloneurum angustifolium for the widespread species, e.g. Thelypteris kunthii. (narrow strap fern), Cheilanthes microphylla (southern lip fern), The Endangered Plant Advisory Council includes two Dennstaedtia bipinnata (cuplet fern), Lycopodium dichotomum (hanging clubmoss), Ophioglossum palmatum (hand fern), Schizaea botanists who must be from a Florida university and a germanii (ray fern), Tectaria coriandrifolia (Hattie Bauer halberd Page 8, The PALMETTO, Spring 1994 fern); (two commercially exploited) Osmundn Cl11namomea CELASTRACEAE: (two endangered) Crossopetalum illicifolium (cinnamon fern), Osmunda regalis (royal fern) (Christmas berry), Crossopetalum rhacoma (rhacoma) All native fern and fern-allies species are listed as threatened, erST ACEAE: (two endangered) Lechea divaricata (spreading with the following exceptions: Azolla, Blechnum serrulatum pinweed), l.echea lakelae (Lakela's pinweed); (one threatened) (swamp fern), Polypodium aureum (serpent fern), Polypodium Lechea cernua (scrub pinweed) polypodioides (resurrection fern), Pteris aquilinum (conunon CLUSIACEAE: (one endangered) Clusia rosea (balsam-apple) bracken), Salvinia (water ferns), Thelypteris nomlalis (shield COMPOSITAE: (sixteen endangered) Aster hemisphericus (aster), Aster fern), and Woodwardia virginica (Virginia chain fern). spinulosus (pinewoods aster), Bigelowia nuttallii (Nuttall's rayless GYMNOSPERMAE goldenrod), Brickellia cordifolia (Flyr's nemesis), Brickellia mosieri (Brickell-bush), CltnJsopsis cruiseana (Cruise's golden-aster), TAXACEAE: (two endangered) Taxus floridana (Florida yew), Chrysops is floridana (Florida's golden-aster), Helianthus carnosus Torreya taxifolia (stinking cedar or Florida torreya) (flatwoods sunflower), Liatris oltlingerae (scrub blazing star), ZAMIACEAE: (one commercially exploited) Zamia (all native species) (coontie) Liatris provincialis (Godfrey's blazing star), Morshallia obovata (Barbara's buttons), Morshallia ramosa (Barbara's buttons), ANGIOSPERMAE Melanthera parvifolia (small-leaved melanthera), Pityopsis flexuosa ACANTHACEAE: (three endangered) Justicia cooleyi (Cooley's (Florida golden-aster), Rudbeckia nitida (St.John's Susan), Sachsia justicia), Justicia crassifolia (thick-leaved water willow), Ruellia bahamensis (Bahama sachsia); (four threatened) Cacalia diversifolia noctiflora (night-flowering wild petunia) (Indian plantain), Garberia heterophylla (garberia), Hartwrightia AGAVACEAE: (one endangered) Nolilla brittollialla (Britton's floridana (hartwrightia), Verbesina chapmanii (Chapman's beargrass); (one threatened) Nolina atopocarpa (Florida beargrass) crownbeard) AMARYLLIDACEAE: (one endangered) Zephyranthes simpsonii CONVOLVULACEAE: (seven endangered) Bonamia grandiflora (Simpson's zephyr-lily) (Florida bonamia), Cl1lystegia catesbaeiana (Catesby's bindweed), All other native, white-flowered species are on the threatened Ipomoea microdactyla (wild potato morning glory), Ipomoea list. tenuissima (rockland morning glory), Jacquemontia curtissii ANNONACEAE: (three endangered) Asimina tetramera (four• (pineland jacquemontia), Jacquemontia reclinata (beach petaled pawpaw), Deeringotltamllus pulcltel/us (white squirrel• jacquemontia), Stylisma abdita (hidden stylisrna) banana), Deeringotltamnus rugelii (yellow squirrel-banana) CORNACEAE: (one endangered) Comus altemifolia (pagoda dog• AQUIFOLIACEAE: (one endangered) Ilex krugiana (Krug's holly); wood) (two commercially exploited) Ilex cassine (dahoon), Ilex opaca CROOMIACEAE: (one endangered) Croomia paucifolia (croornia) (American holly) CRUCIFERAE: (three endangered) Arabis canadensis (sicklepod), All other native holly species are listed as threatened, except for Warea amplexifolia (clasping warea), Warea carteri (Carter's Ilex coriacea (large gallberry), Ilex glabra (gallberry), flex mustard) myrtifolia (myrtle-leaved holly) and Ilex vomitoria (yaupon). CUCURBITACEAE: (one endangered) Cucurbita okeecltobeellsis ARISTOLOCHIACEAE: (one endangered) Aristolochia tomentosa (Okeechobee gourd) (pipevine); (one threatened) Hexastylis arifolia (heartleaf wild CYPERACEAE:
Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."

    "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."

    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
  • Scrub Mint Dicerandra Frutescens Shinners

    Scrub Mint Dicerandra Frutescens Shinners

    Scrub Mint Dicerandra frutescens Shinners he scrub mint is a small, fragrant shrub that inhabits Federal Status: Endangered (Nov. 1, 1985) the scrub of central peninsular Florida. It bears a Critical Habitat: None Designated Tstrong resemblance to another Dicerandra species, Florida Status: Endangered Garretts mint, but can be differentiated by its scent, the Recovery Plan Status: Revision (May 18, 1999) color of its flowers, and the size of its leaves. Loss of habitat due to residential and agricultural development (particularly Geographic Coverage: Rangewide for citrus groves), as well as fire suppression in tracts of remaining habitat, are the principle threats to this plant. This account represents a revision of the existing Figure 1. County distribution of scrub mint. recovery plan for the scrub mint (FWS 1987). Description The scrub mint is a dense or straggly, low-growing shrub (Kral, 1983). It reaches 50 cm in height and grows from a deep, stout, spreading-branching taproot. Its branches are mostly spreading, and sometimes are prostrate. Its shoots have two forms, one which is strictly leafy and overwintering, and another which is flowering and dies back after fruiting. The leaves vary in shape. They can be narrowly oblong- elliptic, linear-elliptic, or linear-oblanceolate (Kral 1983). The upper surface of the leaves is dark green, with the midrib slightly impressed. The lower surface is slightly paler, with the midrib slightly raised. They are 1.5 to 2.5 cm long, 2 to 3 mm wide, subsessile, flattish but somewhat fleshy, narrowly or broadly rounded at the apical end, have entire margins, and are not revolute.
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE

    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE

    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
  • Biolphilately Vol-64 No-3

    Biolphilately Vol-64 No-3

    BIOPHILATELY OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE BIOLOGY UNIT OF ATA MARCH 2020 VOLUME 69, NUMBER 1 Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum. —Augustus De Morgan Dr. Indraneil Das Pangolins on Stamps More Inside >> IN THIS ISSUE NEW ISSUES: ARTICLES & ILLUSTRATIONS: From the Editor’s Desk ......................... 1 Botany – Christopher E. Dahle ............ 17 Pangolins on Stamps of the President’s Message .............................. 2 Fungi – Paul A. Mistretta .................... 28 World – Dr. Indraneil Das ..................7 Secretary -Treasurer’s Corner ................ 3 Mammalia – Michael Prince ................ 31 Squeaky Curtain – Frank Jacobs .......... 15 New Members ....................................... 3 Ornithology – Glenn G. Mertz ............. 35 New Plants in the Philatelic News of Note ......................................... 3 Ichthyology – J. Dale Shively .............. 57 Herbarium – Christopher Dahle ....... 23 Women’s Suffrage – Dawn Hamman .... 4 Entomology – Donald Wright, Jr. ........ 59 Rats! ..................................................... 34 Event Calendar ...................................... 6 Paleontology – Michael Kogan ........... 65 New Birds in the Philatelic Wedding Set ........................................ 16 Aviary – Charles E. Braun ............... 51 Glossary ............................................... 72 Biology Reference Websites ................ 69 ii Biophilately March 2020 Vol. 69 (1) BIOPHILATELY BIOLOGY UNIT
  • Environmental Assessment (EA) Is Tiered to Other Environmental Documents That Are Available for Review at the Lake George Ranger District Office

    Environmental Assessment (EA) Is Tiered to Other Environmental Documents That Are Available for Review at the Lake George Ranger District Office

    United States Department of Environmental Agriculture Forest Assessment Service March, 2011 Hog Valley Scrub PALS No. 25932 Lake George Ranger District, Ocala National Forest Marion and Putnam Counties, Florida For Information Contact: Mike Herrin, District Ranger 17147 E. Hwy 40 Silver Springs, FL 34488 352-625-2520 [email protected] The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion. age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………. 2 Background ………………………………………………………………………………... 2 Purpose and Need for Action …………………………………………………………….... 2 Proposed Action ………………………………………………………………………….... 3 Decision Framework ………………………………………………………………………. 4 Public Involvement ………………………………………………………………………... 4 Issues ………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 ALTERNATIVES ………………………………………………………………………….. 4 Alternatives ………………………………………………………………………………..
  • Great Wildflowers for Dry Landscapes

    Great Wildflowers for Dry Landscapes

    Great Wildflowers for Dry Landscapes Landscaping with Florida’s native wildflowers and plants provides refuge for birds, bees and butterflies while creating “habitat highways” through urban settings. / bob peterson (cc by 2.0) / bob peterson (cc by Many Florida landscapes have sandy soils that are naturally dry and well-drained, even after heavy rain. Instead of mulching or amending lantana involucrata these soils, embrace them and create a unique landscape by planting native wildflowers and grasses suited to dry conditions. Plan for Success Your palette of native plants should be made up of species naturally found in your Florida locale. Look for small- to Planting and Establishment medium-size shrubs, perennial wildflowers and grasses Many of Florida’s native plants and found in sandhills, flatwoods, dune systems and other xeric wildflowers do well in dry conditions. However, ecosystems. Consider bloom season and mature plant size they must be established properly to get off to a when choosing and placing plants. Plan to use wildflowers good start. Dig a hole twice the circumference as in groups of five to seven for visual impact and pollinator the pot. Loosen the plant’s roots and install it even attraction. with the ground. Water liberally and keep soil moist for two to three weeks. Gradually taper off Care watering to weekly for four to six weeks if there is no substantial rainfall. A light mulching with pine Prune ground-covering plants such as vines or low- straw can help reduce evapotranspiration and branching wildflowers as needed to keep them contained wilting. to the bed.
  • Quite a Few Reasons for Calling Carnivores 'The Most Wonderful

    Quite a Few Reasons for Calling Carnivores 'The Most Wonderful

    Annals of Botany 109: 47–64, 2012 doi:10.1093/aob/mcr249, available online at www.aob.oxfordjournals.org REVIEW Quite a few reasons for calling carnivores ‘the most wonderful plants in the world’ Elz˙bieta Kro´l1,*,†, Bartosz J. Płachno2,†, Lubomı´r Adamec3, Maria Stolarz1, Halina Dziubin´ska1 and Kazimierz Tre˛bacz1 1Department of Biophysics, Institute of Biology, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Akademicka 19, 20-033 Lublin, Poland, 2Department of Plant Cytology and Embryology, Jagiellonian University, Grodzka 52, 31-044 Cracow, Poland and 3Institute of Botany AS CR, Dukelska´ 135, 37982 Trˇebonˇ, Czech Republic †These authors contributed equally to this work. * For correspondence. E-mail [email protected] Received: 30 May 2011 Returned for revision: 28 June 2011 Accepted: 8 August 2011 Published electronically: 21 September 2011 Downloaded from † Background A plant is considered carnivorous if it receives any noticeable benefit from catching small animals. The morphological and physiological adaptations to carnivorous existence is most complex in plants, thanks to which carnivorous plants have been cited by Darwin as ‘the most wonderful plants in the world’. When considering the range of these adaptations, one realizes that the carnivory is a result of a multitude of different features. † Scope This review discusses a selection of relevant articles, culled from a wide array of research topics on plant carnivory, and focuses in particular on physiological processes associated with active trapping and digestion of http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ prey. Carnivory offers the plants special advantages in habitats where nutrient supply is scarce. Counterbalancing costs are the investments in synthesis and the maintenance of trapping organs and hydrolysing enzymes.
  • Native Plant Group BBG Spring Sale List 2020 As of Mar22020

    Native Plant Group BBG Spring Sale List 2020 As of Mar22020

    Native Plant Group - BBG Spring Sale 2020 Scientific or Botanical Common name EXPOSURE MOISTURE COLOR HEIGHT BLOOM REMARKS Butterfly Host Bee Drought name as of Feb. 2013 or Nectar Friendly Tolerant self seeds, good in rock Allium cernuum Nodding Onion sun avg pink 10-12" lt spring gardens Bee yes Amsonia ciliata Blue Star Sun-ptsun avg-dry blue 3' Apr-May Sandy soil, very fine leaves Bee yes Amsonia Willow leaf Small shrub, fall color, AL tabernaemontana Bluestar sun-shade avg-dry blue 3' lt spring variety Bee sun-pt red/yello Self seeds, hummingbird Aquilegia canadensis Columbine shade avg-dry w 18-20" spring plant nectar Bee yes Deciduous Ginger Asarum canadense shade moist maroon 8" spring groundcover Host for Swamp Butterfly host & nectar Monarch & Asclepias incarnata milkweed Sun-pt sun avg-moist pink 3' summer plant nectar Bee Host for Butterfly host & nectar Monarch & Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly Weed sun avg-dry orange 2-3' summer plant nectar Bee yes White False Baptisia alba Indigo sun-pt sun avg white 3' spring New stems charcoal color nectar Bee False Blue sun-pt Tolerates drought & poor Baptisia australis Indigo shade avg blue 3' summer soil nectar Bee Baptisia australis v Small Leaflet aberrans Blue Indigo sun avg-dry blue 3' summer Coosa Prairie plant nectar Bee Apalachicola Baptisia megacarpa Wild Indigo sun avg-moist white 3' spring found in Eunice, LA prairie nectar Bee Seedlings AL variety; yellow, Baptisia species False Indigo sun avg-dry various 3' Apr May blue, alba nectar Bee Apr- Baptisia sphaerocarpa Yellow Baptisia
  • Phylogenetic Relationships of Discyphus Scopulariae

    Phylogenetic Relationships of Discyphus Scopulariae

    Phytotaxa 173 (2): 127–139 ISSN 1179-3155 (print edition) www.mapress.com/phytotaxa/ PHYTOTAXA Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 1179-3163 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.173.2.3 Phylogenetic relationships of Discyphus scopulariae (Orchidaceae, Cranichideae) inferred from plastid and nuclear DNA sequences: evidence supporting recognition of a new subtribe, Discyphinae GERARDO A. SALAZAR1, CÁSSIO VAN DEN BERG2 & ALEX POPOVKIN3 1Departamento de Botánica, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 70-367, 04510 México, Distrito Federal, México; E-mail: [email protected] 2Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Av. Transnordestina s.n., 44036-900, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil 3Fazenda Rio do Negro, Entre Rios, Bahia, Brazil Abstract The monospecific genus Discyphus, previously considered a member of Spiranthinae (Orchidoideae: Cranichideae), displays both vegetative and floral morphological peculiarities that are out of place in that subtribe. These include a single, sessile, cordate leaf that clasps the base of the inflorescence and lies flat on the substrate, petals that are long-decurrent on the column, labellum margins free from sides of the column and a column provided with two separate, cup-shaped stigmatic areas. Because of its morphological uniqueness, the phylogenetic relationships of Discyphus have been considered obscure. In this study, we analyse nucleotide sequences of plastid and nuclear DNA under maximum parsimony
  • Diversity and Levels of Endemism of the Bromeliaceae of Costa Rica – an Updated Checklist

    Diversity and Levels of Endemism of the Bromeliaceae of Costa Rica – an Updated Checklist

    A peer-reviewed open-access journal PhytoKeys 29: 17–62Diversity (2013) and levels of endemism of the Bromeliaceae of Costa Rica... 17 doi: 10.3897/phytokeys.29.4937 CHECKLIST www.phytokeys.com Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Diversity and levels of endemism of the Bromeliaceae of Costa Rica – an updated checklist Daniel A. Cáceres González1,2, Katharina Schulte1,3,4, Marco Schmidt1,2,3, Georg Zizka1,2,3 1 Abteilung Botanik und molekulare Evolutionsforschung, Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut Frankfurt/Main, Germany 2 Institut Ökologie, Evolution & Diversität, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main, Germany 3 Biodive rsität und Klima Forschungszentrum (BiK-F), Frankfurt/Main, Germany 4 Australian Tropical Herbarium & Center for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia Corresponding author: Daniel A. Cáceres González ([email protected]) Academic editor: L. Versieux | Received 1 March 2013 | Accepted 28 October 2013 | Published 11 November 2013 Citation: González DAC, Schulte K, Schmidt M, Zizka G (2013) Diversity and levels of endemism of the Bromeliaceae of Costa Rica – an updated checklist. PhytoKeys 29: 17–61. doi: 10.3897/phytokeys.29.4937 This paper is dedicated to the late Harry Luther, a world leader in bromeliad research. Abstract An updated inventory of the Bromeliaceae for Costa Rica is presented including citations of representa- tive specimens for each species. The family comprises 18 genera and 198 species in Costa Rica, 32 spe- cies being endemic to the country. Additional 36 species are endemic to Costa Rica and Panama. Only 4 of the 8 bromeliad subfamilies occur in Costa Rica, with a strong predominance of Tillandsioideae (7 genera/150 spp.; 75.7% of all bromeliad species in Costa Rica).
  • Extrapolating Demography with Climate, Proximity and Phylogeny: Approach with Caution

    Extrapolating Demography with Climate, Proximity and Phylogeny: Approach with Caution

    ! ∀#∀#∃ %& ∋(∀∀!∃ ∀)∗+∋ ,+−, ./ ∃ ∋∃ 0∋∀ /∋0 0 ∃0 . ∃0 1##23%−34 ∃−5 6 Extrapolating demography with climate, proximity and phylogeny: approach with caution Shaun R. Coutts1,2,3, Roberto Salguero-Gómez1,2,3,4, Anna M. Csergő3, Yvonne M. Buckley1,3 October 31, 2016 1. School of Biological Sciences. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science. The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia. 2. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, UK. 3. School of Natural Sciences, Zoology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland. 4. Evolutionary Demography Laboratory. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. Rostock, DE-18057, Germany. Keywords: COMPADRE Plant Matrix Database, comparative demography, damping ratio, elasticity, matrix population model, phylogenetic analysis, population growth rate (λ), spatially lagged models Author statement: SRC developed the initial concept, performed the statistical analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. RSG helped develop the initial concept, provided code for deriving de- mographic metrics and phylogenetic analysis, and provided the matrix selection criteria. YMB helped develop the initial concept and advised on analysis. All authors made substantial contributions to editing the manuscript and further refining ideas and interpretations. 1 Distance and ancestry predict demography 2 ABSTRACT Plant population responses are key to understanding the effects of threats such as climate change and invasions. However, we lack demographic data for most species, and the data we have are often geographically aggregated. We determined to what extent existing data can be extrapolated to predict pop- ulation performance across larger sets of species and spatial areas. We used 550 matrix models, across 210 species, sourced from the COMPADRE Plant Matrix Database, to model how climate, geographic proximity and phylogeny predicted population performance.
  • Carnivorous Plant Responses to Resource Availability

    Carnivorous Plant Responses to Resource Availability

    Carnivorous plant responses to resource availability: environmental interactions, morphology and biochemistry Christopher R. Hatcher A doctoral thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University November 2019 © by Christopher R. Hatcher (2019) Abstract Understanding how organisms respond to resources available in the environment is a fundamental goal of ecology. Resource availability controls ecological processes at all levels of organisation, from molecular characteristics of individuals to community and biosphere. Climate change and other anthropogenically driven factors are altering environmental resource availability, and likely affects ecology at all levels of organisation. It is critical, therefore, to understand the ecological impact of environmental variation at a range of spatial and temporal scales. Consequently, I bring physiological, ecological, biochemical and evolutionary research together to determine how plants respond to resource availability. In this thesis I have measured the effects of resource availability on phenotypic plasticity, intraspecific trait variation and metabolic responses of carnivorous sundew plants. Carnivorous plants are interesting model systems for a range of evolutionary and ecological questions because of their specific adaptations to attaining nutrients. They can, therefore, provide interesting perspectives on existing questions, in this case trait-environment interactions, plant strategies and plant responses to predicted future environmental scenarios. In a manipulative experiment, I measured the phenotypic plasticity of naturally shaded Drosera rotundifolia in response to disturbance mediated changes in light availability over successive growing seasons. Following selective disturbance, D. rotundifolia became more carnivorous by increasing the number of trichomes and trichome density. These plants derived more N from prey and flowered earlier.