DOCSLIB.ORG

Snakeholme Pit Species

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Snakeholme Pit Species Taxon Group Common Name Taxon Name Earliest Latest acarine (Acari) Hydracarina Hydracarina 1986 1986 amphibian Common Frog Rana temporaria 1987 2018 amphibian Common Toad Bufo bufo 1987 2019 amphibian Smooth Newt Lissotriton vulgaris 1987 2018 annelid Alboglossiphonia heteroclita Alboglossiphonia heteroclita 1986 1986 annelid duck leech Theromyzon tessulatum 1986 1986 annelid Earthworm Oligochaeta 1986 1986 annelid Glossiphonia complanata Glossiphonia complanata 1986 1986 annelid leeches Erpobdella octoculata 1986 1986 bird Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula 2016 2017 bird Carrion Crow Corvus corone 2017 2017 bird Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs 2015 2017 bird Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita 2015 2018 bird Fieldfare Turdus pilaris 2015 2018 bird Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis 2018 2018 bird Great Tit Parus major 2015 2015 bird Grey Heron Ardea cinerea 2019 2017 bird Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 2009 2015 bird Kingfisher Alcedo atthis 1986 1986 bird Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus 2018 2018 bird Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 2015 2018 bird Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 2015 2015 bird Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 2017 2017 bird Robin Erithacus rubecula 2017 2018 bird Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata 1986 1986 bird Tawny Owl Strix aluco 2006 2015 bird Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus 2015 2015 bird Woodpigeon Columba palumbus 2018 2018 bird Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 2015 2018 bony fish (Actinopterygii) Tench Tinca tinca 2018 2018 bony fish (Actinopterygii) Three-spined Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 2018 2018 crustacean Copepoda Copepoda 1986 1986 crustacean Crangonyx pseudogracilis/floridanus Crangonyx pseudogracilis/floridanus sens. lat. 1986 1989 crustacean Proasellus meridianus Proasellus meridianus 1986 1986 fern Adder's-tongue Ophioglossum vulgatum 1988 2004 flatworm (Turbellaria) flatworms Dendrocoelum lacteum 1986 1986 flatworm (Turbellaria) Polycelis Polycelis 1986 1986 flatworm (Turbellaria) Schmidtea lugubris Schmidtea lugubris 1986 1986 flowering plant Agrimony Agrimonia eupatoria 1987 2004 flowering plant Alder Alnus glutinosa 1987 1987 flowering plant Alder Buckthorn Frangula alnus 2004 2004 flowering plant Amphibious Bistort Persicaria amphibia 1987 2004 flowering plant Ash Fraxinus excelsior 1987 2004 flowering plant Asparagus officinalis agg. Asparagus officinalis agg. 2004 2004 flowering plant Barren Brome Bromus sterilis 1987 1987 flowering plant Bee Orchid Ophrys apifera 2018 2018 flowering plant Betony Stachys officinalis 1987 2004 flowering plant Black Bryony Dioscorea communis 1987 2004 flowering plant Black Horehound Ballota nigra 1987 1987 flowering plant Black Medick Medicago lupulina 1987 2004 flowering plant Blackthorn Prunus spinosa 1987 2004 flowering plant Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. 1987 2004 flowering plant Bristly Oxtongue Picris echioides 1969 2004 flowering plant Broad-leaved Dock Rumex obtusifolius 1987 2004 flowering plant Broad-leaved Pondweed Potamogeton natans 1969 1987 flowering plant Broad-leaved Willowherb Epilobium montanum 1987 1987 flowering plant Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 1987 2004 flowering plant Bugle Ajuga reptans 1989 2018 flowering plant Bulbous Buttercup Ranunculus bulbosus 2001 2001 flowering plant Bulrush Typha latifolia 1969 2004 flowering plant Canadian Waterweed Elodea canadensis 1969 1969 flowering plant Cleavers Galium aparine 1987 2004 flowering plant Clustered Dock Rumex conglomeratus 1987 1987 flowering plant Cock's-foot Dactylis glomerata 1987 2004 flowering plant Colt's-foot Tussilago farfara 1987 2018 flowering plant Common Bent Agrostis capillaris 2004 2004 flowering plant Common Bird's-foot-trefoil Lotus corniculatus 1987 2004 flowering plant Common Chickweed Stellaria media 1987 2001 flowering plant Common Duckweed Lemna minor 1987 1987 flowering plant Common Fleabane Pulicaria dysenterica 1987 2004 flowering plant Common Knapweed Centaurea nigra sens. lat. (=nigra/debauxii) 1987 2004 flowering plant Common Mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum 1987 1987 flowering plant Common Nettle Urtica dioica 1987 2004 flowering plant Common Ragwort Senecio jacobaea 1987 2004 flowering plant Common Sallow Salix cinerea 1969 2004 flowering plant Common Sorrel Rumex acetosa 1987 2004 flowering plant Common Spotted-orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsii 2018 2018 flowering plant Common Toadflax Linaria vulgaris 1987 1987 flowering plant Common Valerian Valeriana officinalis 1987 2004 flowering plant Common Vetch Vicia sativa 2004 2004 flowering plant Common Vetch Vicia sativa subsp. segetalis 1987 1987 flowering plant Compact Rush Juncus conglomeratus 1987 2004 flowering plant Cow Parsley Anthriscus sylvestris 1987 2004 flowering plant Cowslip Primula veris 1987 2004 flowering plant Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens 1987 2004 flowering plant Creeping Cinquefoil Potentilla reptans 1987 1987 flowering plant Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense 1987 2004 flowering plant Creeping-Jenny Lysimachia nummularia 1987 2004 flowering plant Cuckooflower Cardamine pratensis 1987 2018 flowering plant Curled Dock Rumex crispus 1987 1987 flowering plant Curled Pondweed Potamogeton crispus 1969 1969 flowering plant Daisy Bellis perennis 1987 2001 flowering plant Dewberry Rubus caesius 1987 1987 flowering plant Dog Rose Rosa canina agg. 1987 2004 flowering plant Downy Birch Betula pubescens 1987 2004 flowering plant Elder Sambucus nigra 2004 2004 flowering plant Elytrigia repens agg. Elytrigia repens agg. 1987 1987 flowering plant False Fox-sedge Carex otrubae 1987 2004 flowering plant False Oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius 1987 2004 flowering plant False-brome Brachypodium sylvaticum 1987 2004 flowering plant Field Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis 1987 1987 flowering plant Field Forget-me-not Myosotis arvensis 1987 2004 flowering plant Field Maple Acer campestre 1987 2004 flowering plant Field Wood-rush Luzula campestris 2001 2001 flowering plant Field-rose Rosa arvensis 1987 1987 flowering plant Garden Asparagus Asparagus officinalis 1989 2004 flowering plant Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolata 1987 1987 flowering plant Germander Speedwell Veronica chamaedrys 1987 2001 flowering plant Glaucous Sedge Carex flacca 2004 2004 flowering plant Goat Willow Salix caprea 1987 2004 flowering plant Goat's-beard Tragopogon pratensis 1987 2004 flowering plant Great Burnet Sanguisorba officinalis 1987 2004 flowering plant Great Willowherb Epilobium hirsutum 1987 2004 flowering plant Greater Burnet-saxifrage Pimpinella major 1987 2004 flowering plant Greater Plantain Plantago major 1987 1987 flowering plant Greater Stitchwort Stellaria holostea 1987 2001 flowering plant Ground-elder Aegopodium podagraria 1987 2004 flowering plant Ground-ivy Glechoma hederacea 1987 2001 flowering plant Guelder-rose Viburnum opulus 1987 1987 flowering plant Gypsywort Lycopus europaeus 1987 2004 flowering plant Hairy Bitter-cress Cardamine hirsuta 1987 1987 flowering plant Hairy Sedge Carex hirta 1987 1987 flowering plant Hairy St John's-wort Hypericum hirsutum 1987 2004 flowering plant Hairy Tare Vicia hirsuta 2004 2004 flowering plant Hard Rush Juncus inflexus 1987 2004 flowering plant Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 1987 2004 flowering plant Hazel Corylus avellana 1987 1987 flowering plant Hedera helix agg. Hedera helix agg. 1987 1987 flowering plant Hedge Woundwort Stachys sylvatica 1987 2004 flowering plant Herb-Robert Geranium robertianum 2001 2001 flowering plant Hoary Ragwort Senecio erucifolius 1987 2004 flowering plant Hoary Willowherb Epilobium parviflorum 1987 1987 flowering plant Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium 1987 2004 flowering plant Holly Ilex aquifolium 1987 1987 flowering plant Honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum 1987 2004 flowering plant Hop Humulus lupulus 2004 2004 flowering plant Hop Trefoil Trifolium campestre 2004 2004 flowering plant Ivy-leaved Duckweed Lemna trisulca 1987 2004 flowering plant Ivy-leaved Speedwell Veronica hederifolia 1987 1987 flowering plant Jointed Rush Juncus articulatus 1987 1987 flowering plant Knotgrass agg. Polygonum aviculare agg. sensu lato 1987 1987 flowering plant Lady's Bedstraw Galium verum 1987 2004 flowering plant Large Bindweed Calystegia silvatica 1987 1987 flowering plant Lesser Bulrush Typha angustifolia 1983 1983 flowering plant Lesser Celandine Ranunculus ficaria 1987 2018 flowering plant Lesser Spearwort Ranunculus flammula 1987 1987 flowering plant Lesser Stitchwort Stellaria graminea 1987 2004 flowering plant Lesser Trefoil Trifolium dubium 2004 2004 flowering plant Lily-of-the-valley Convallaria majalis 2003 2003 flowering plant Lords-and-Ladies Arum maculatum 1987 1987 flowering plant Meadow Barley Hordeum secalinum 2004 2004 flowering plant Meadow Brome Bromus commutatus 2004 2004 flowering plant Meadow Buttercup Ranunculus acris 2001 2004 flowering plant Meadow Fescue Festuca pratensis 2004 2004 flowering plant Meadow Foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 1987 2004 flowering plant Meadow Vetchling Lathyrus pratensis 1987 2004 flowering plant Meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria 1987 2001 flowering plant Mouse-ear-hawkweed Pilosella officinarum 1987 1987 flowering plant Osier Salix viminalis 1969 1969 flowering plant Oxeye Daisy Leucanthemum vulgare 1987 2004 flowering plant Pedunculate Oak Quercus robur 1987 2004 flowering plant Pepper-saxifrage Silaum silaus 2004 2004 flowering plant Perennial Rye-grass Lolium perenne 1987 2004 flowering plant Perennial Sow-thistle Sonchus arvensis 1987 1987 flowering plant Pineappleweed Matricaria discoidea 1987 1987 flowering plant Prickly Sow-thistle Sonchus asper 2004 2004 flowering plant Primrose Primula vulgaris 2018 2018 flowering plant Ragged-Robin
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fauna Lepidopterologica Volgo-Uralensis" 150 Years Later: Changes and Additions
    ©Ges. zur Förderung d. Erforschung von Insektenwanderungen e.V. München, download unter www.zobodat.at Atalanta (August 2000) 31 (1/2):327-367< Würzburg, ISSN 0171-0079 "Fauna lepidopterologica Volgo-Uralensis" 150 years later: changes and additions. Part 5. Noctuidae (Insecto, Lepidoptera) by Vasily V. A n ik in , Sergey A. Sachkov , Va d im V. Z o lo t u h in & A n drey V. Sv ir id o v received 24.II.2000 Summary: 630 species of the Noctuidae are listed for the modern Volgo-Ural fauna. 2 species [Mesapamea hedeni Graeser and Amphidrina amurensis Staudinger ) are noted from Europe for the first time and one more— Nycteola siculana Fuchs —from Russia. 3 species ( Catocala optata Godart , Helicoverpa obsoleta Fabricius , Pseudohadena minuta Pungeler ) are deleted from the list. Supposedly they were either erroneously determinated or incorrect noted from the region under consideration since Eversmann 's work. 289 species are recorded from the re­ gion in addition to Eversmann 's list. This paper is the fifth in a series of publications1 dealing with the composition of the pres­ ent-day fauna of noctuid-moths in the Middle Volga and the south-western Cisurals. This re­ gion comprises the administrative divisions of the Astrakhan, Volgograd, Saratov, Samara, Uljanovsk, Orenburg, Uralsk and Atyraus (= Gurjev) Districts, together with Tataria and Bash­ kiria. As was accepted in the first part of this series, only material reliably labelled, and cover­ ing the last 20 years was used for this study. The main collections are those of the authors: V. A n i k i n (Saratov and Volgograd Districts), S.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRODUCTION BARLEY Barley (Also Known As Groats) Is a Cereal
    INTRODUCTION BARLEY Barley (also known as groats) is a cereal grain botanically known as Hordeum vulgare L. , and is believed for its origin from western Asia or Ethiopia. Barley is still considered one of the top five cereal grains in the world. Only ten percent of barley is used as human food, while the remaining percentage is used for brewing malt beverages, including beer and whiskey. However, the majority of harvest barley is used for livestock feed. Barley is also a prime ingredient in the making of variety of the popular foods in the world. The exact origin of barley is debatable, possibly originating in Egypt, Ethiopia, and the near East of Tibet (4). However, it is confirmed that certain barley species was among the earliest cultivated grains, around the same time as domestication of wheat, Barley was grown in the Middle East prior to 10,000 BC (5), but barley's cultivation in China and India probably occurred later (5, 20, 31) . The old English word for 'barley' was baere, which traces back to Proto-Indo- European and is cognate to the Latin word farina "flour". The un-derived world ‘baere’ survives in the north of Scotland as bere , and refers to a specific strain of six-row barley (4, 15). The word barn, which originally meant barley-house, is also rooted in these words (2). In a ranking of cereal crops (2007) in the world, barley was fourth both in terms of quantity produced (136 million tons) and in area of cultivation (566,000 km²) 6. 1 BARLEY IN ISLAMIC LITERATURE According to the scholars of Hadiths (Prophetic sayings) barley supposed to be very nutritious, beneficial in coughs and inflammation of the stomach.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hordeum Toolbox: the Barley Coordinated Agricultural Project Genotype and Phenotype Resource
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH The Hordeum Toolbox: The Barley Coordinated Agricultural Project Genotype and Phenotype Resource Victoria C. Blake,* Jennifer G. Kling, Patrick M. Hayes, Jean-Luc Jannink, Suman R. Jillella, John Lee, David E. Matthews, Shiaoman Chao, Timothy J. Close, Gary J. Muehlbauer, Kevin P. Smith, Roger P. Wise, and Julie A. Dickerson Abstract RADITIONALLY, plant breeders have collected phenotype The use of DNA markers in public sector plant breeding is now Tdata from breeding populations and used it to select the norm. Such markers are common across breeding programs for superior genotypes. Data access was limited to indi- and this commonality enables and enhances collaboration. vidual programs via spreadsheets or in-house databases. Therefore, large collaborative research projects that measure Th is approach has been successful in developing novel several phenotypes across multiple environments coupled with germplasm and varieties. However, with the exception the expanding amount of genotype data attainable with current of the few lines being grown in regional nurseries, the marker technologies are on the rise and these projects demand only scientists that had access to these extensive datasets effi cient data delivery. However, development of computational were those that were intimately associated with the pro- tools for advanced data integration, visualization, and analysis is grams that generated the data. Th erefore, there was little still a bottleneck, even though these resources have the greatest understanding of the relationship of germplasm between potential impact for users who are extracting and developing programs, and the ability to share germplasm between hypothesis-based solutions. The Hordeum Toolbox (THT) was programs in an intelligent manner was restricted.
    [Show full text]
  • ZOOLOGY Zoology 110 (2007) 409–429
    ARTICLE IN PRESS ZOOLOGY Zoology 110 (2007) 409–429 www.elsevier.de/zool Towards an 18S phylogeny of hexapods: Accounting for group-specific character covariance in optimized mixed nucleotide/doublet models Bernhard Misofa,Ã, Oliver Niehuisa, Inge Bischoffa, Andreas Rickerta, Dirk Erpenbeckb, Arnold Staniczekc aAbteilung fu¨r Entomologie, Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany bDepartment of Coelenterata and Porifera (Zoologisch Museum), Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94766, 1090 GT Amsterdam, The Netherlands cStaatliches Museum fu¨r Naturkunde Stuttgart, Abt. Entomologie, Rosenstein 1, D-70191 Stuttgart, Germany Received 19 May 2007; received in revised form 2 August 2007; accepted 22 August 2007 Abstract The phylogenetic diversification of Hexapoda is still not fully understood. Morphological and molecular analyses have resulted in partly contradicting hypotheses. In molecular analyses, 18S sequences are the most frequently employed, but it appears that 18S sequences do not contain enough phylogenetic signals to resolve basal relationships of hexapod lineages. Until recently, character interdependence in these data has never been treated seriously, though possibly accounting for the occurrence of biased results. However, software packages are readily available which can incorporate information on character interdependence within a Bayesian approach. Accounting for character covariation derived from a hexapod consensus secondary structure model and applying mixed DNA/RNA substitution models, our Bayesian analysis of 321 hexapod sequences yielded a partly robust tree that depicts many hexapod relationships congruent with morphological considerations. It appears that the application of mixed DNA/RNA models removes many of the anomalies seen in previous studies. We focus on basal hexapod relationships for which unambiguous results are missing.
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Feeding Potential of Galerucella Placida Baly (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a Weed Biocontrol Agent for Polygonum Hydropiper Linn
    Journal of Biological Control, 30(1): 15-18, 2016 Research Article Biology and feeding potential of Galerucella placida Baly (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a weed biocontrol agent for Polygonum hydropiper Linn. D. DEY*, M. K. GUPTA and N. KARAM1 Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Central Agricultural University, Imphal-795004, India. 1Directorate of Research, Central Agricultural University, Imphal-795004, India. Corresponding author Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Galerucella placida Baly is a small leaf beetle belonging to the family Chrysomelidae. which feeds on aquatic weed Polygonum hydropiper Linn. The insect was reported from various regions of India during 1910-1936. Investigation on some biological parameters of G. placida and feeding of the P. hydropiper by G. placida was conducted in laboratory. The results indicated the fecundity of G. placida was 710-1210 eggs per female. Eggs were markedly bright yellow, pyriform basally rounded and oval at tip. It measured 0.67 mm in length and 0.46 mm in width. Average incubation period was 3.80 days. Larvae of G. placida underwent three moults. The first instar larva was yellow in colour and measured 1.26 mm in length and 0.40 mm in width. The second instar was yellowish in colour but after an hour of feeding, the colour of the grub changes to blackish brown from yellow. It measured 2.64 mm in length and 0.77 mm in width. The third instar measured 5.59 mm in length and 1.96 mm in width. The average total larval duration of G. placida was 13.30 days. The fully developed pupa looked black in colour and measured 4.58 mm in length and 2.37 mm in width.
    [Show full text]
  • Asparagus Fern Care
    plant care INSPIRATION REPOTTING & DIVIDING While Asparagus Ferns do not mind being pot- bound, likely, there will come a point where they need to be repotted or divided. Dividing, with a INFORMATION Asparagus Fern little patience is relatively easy. Once removed from the pot, using a clean, sharp knife, groups of ‘bulblets’ can be separated, with the attached foliage intact. Divided plants should be potted using a good quality potting mix (such as Sunshine LC1) in containers which allow for plenty of root growth. The crown of the plant should be at soil level. Water thoroughly. VARIETIES Sprengeri (Asparagus densiorus ‘Sprengeri’) Perhaps the most common of this group, it has long been favored as a foliage compliment in outdoor containers. As the hardiest of the Asparagus Ferns, it can survive temperatures well below freezing, & can last well into the winter oustide, sometimes adorning itself with Not actually a fern at all, Asparagus Ferns are directly related to the common vegetable, hence showy, bright red (but poisonous) berries. Developing a graceful, the name. They are also more distantly related to onions, garlic, and lilies, all within the family cascading habit, it is suitable for pots or baskets, indoors or out. Liliaceae. Despite their relationships, all parts of the ornamental Asparagus Ferns are poisonous. Adaptable, and extremely easy to grow, these plants are long lived, and can thrive with little Foxtail Fern (Asparagus densiorus ‘Meyersii’) care. Beware their soft appearance; stems of all varieties are lined with small but sharp thorns. This dramatic form produces spire-like fronds which radiate reliably from a central core.
    [Show full text]
  • View of the Study Organisms Galerucella Sagittariae and Larvae on Potentilla Palustris (L.) Scop, One of the Main Its Host Plant Potentilla Palustris
    Verschut and Hambäck BMC Ecol (2018) 18:33 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-018-0187-7 BMC Ecology RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access A random survival forest illustrates the importance of natural enemies compared to host plant quality on leaf beetle survival rates Thomas A. Verschut* and Peter A. Hambäck Abstract Background: Wetlands are habitats where variation in soil moisture content and associated environmental condi- tions can strongly afect the survival of herbivorous insects by changing host plant quality and natural enemy densi- ties. In this study, we combined natural enemy exclusion experiments with random survival forest analyses to study the importance of local variation in host plant quality and predation by natural enemies on the egg and larval survival of the leaf beetle Galerucella sagittariae along a soil moisture gradient. Results: Our results showed that the exclusion of natural enemies substantially increased the survival probability of G. sagittariae eggs and larvae. Interestingly, the egg survival probability decreased with soil moisture content, while the larval survival probability instead increased with soil moisture content. For both the egg and larval survival, we found that host plant height, the number of eggs or larvae, and vegetation height explained more of the variation than the soil moisture gradient by itself. Moreover, host plant quality related variables, such as leaf nitrogen, carbon and phosphorus content did not infuence the survival of G. sagittariae eggs and larvae. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the soil moisture content is not an overarching factor that determines the interplay between factors related to host plant quality and factors relating to natural enemies on the survival of G.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report 1
    Sand pit for Biodiversity at Cep II quarry Researcher: Klára Řehounková Research group: Petr Bogusch, David Boukal, Milan Boukal, Lukáš Čížek, František Grycz, Petr Hesoun, Kamila Lencová, Anna Lepšová, Jan Máca, Pavel Marhoul, Klára Řehounková, Jiří Řehounek, Lenka Schmidtmayerová, Robert Tropek Březen – září 2012 Abstract We compared the effect of restoration status (technical reclamation, spontaneous succession, disturbed succession) on the communities of vascular plants and assemblages of arthropods in CEP II sand pit (T řebo ňsko region, SW part of the Czech Republic) to evaluate their biodiversity and conservation potential. We also studied the experimental restoration of psammophytic grasslands to compare the impact of two near-natural restoration methods (spontaneous and assisted succession) to establishment of target species. The sand pit comprises stages of 2 to 30 years since site abandonment with moisture gradient from wet to dry habitats. In all studied groups, i.e. vascular pants and arthropods, open spontaneously revegetated sites continuously disturbed by intensive recreation activities hosted the largest proportion of target and endangered species which occurred less in the more closed spontaneously revegetated sites and which were nearly absent in technically reclaimed sites. Out results provide clear evidence that the mosaics of spontaneously established forests habitats and open sand habitats are the most valuable stands from the conservation point of view. It has been documented that no expensive technical reclamations are needed to restore post-mining sites which can serve as secondary habitats for many endangered and declining species. The experimental restoration of rare and endangered plant communities seems to be efficient and promising method for a future large-scale restoration projects in abandoned sand pits.
    [Show full text]
  • Asparagus Densiflorus 'Sprengeri'
    FPS051 Asparagus densiflorus ‘Sprengeri’ Sprengeri Asparagus Fern1 Edward F. Gilman, Ryan W. Klein, and Gail Hansen2 Introduction ‘Sprengeri’ Asparagus Fern is a rounded herbaceous perennial that is used in the landscape for its attractive, fine-textured foliage. This 1 to 4 foot-tall plant has true leaves that are scale-like and inconspicuous. The structures that most refer to as leaves are actually leaf-like branchlets called cladophylls. These tiny cladophylls are linear, flat- tened structures that are bright green in color. They occur singly or in groups of 3 or more at a node. The stems of this plant emerge directly from the ground and become woody and spiny, so be careful when handling this species. The thorns cause significant irritation to many people Figure 1. Full form—Asparagus densiflorus: ‘Sprengeri’ Sprengeri that handle the plant. Pretty, red, ovoid berries occur on asparagus fern. Asparagus densiflorus throughout the year. Several birds eat Credits: Edward F. Gilman, UF/IFAS and probably distribute the fruit. These fruits follow tiny, General Information white, flowers that occur in axillary racemes; the flowers are inconspicuous for the most part but fragrant. Seeds Scientific name: Asparagus densiflorus ‘Sprengeri’ germinate in the landscape and the plant has escaped into Pronunciation: ass-SPAR-uh-gus den-sif-FLOR-us natural habitats in parts of Florida. It can also become a Common name(s): ‘Sprengeri’ asparagus fern weed in your landscape. Family: Liliaceae Plant type: herbaceous; perennial USDA hardiness zones: 9B through 11 (Figure 2) Planting month for zone 7: year round Planting month for zone 8: year round Planting month for zone 9: year round Planting month for zone 10 and 11: year round Origin: not native to North America Invasive potential: potentially invasive 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Nature Reserve Management Plan 2020 – 2024
    Bisley Road Cemetery, Stroud Local Nature Reserve Management Plan 2020 – 2024 Prepared for Stroud Town Council CONTENTS 1 VISION STATEMENT 2 POLICY STATEMENTS 3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3.1 General background information 3.1.1 Location and site boundaries Map 1 Site Location 3.1.2 Tenure Map 2 Schedule Plan 3.1.3 Management/organisational infrastructure 3.1.4 Site infrastructure 3.1.5 Map coverage 3.2 Environmental information 3.2.1 Physical 3.2.2 Biological 3.2.2.1 Habitats Map 3 Compartment Map – Old Cemetery Map 4 Compartment Map – New Cemetery 3.2.2.2 Flora 3.2.2.3 Fauna 3.3 Cultural 3.3.1 Past land use 3.3.2 Present land use 3.3.3 Past management for nature conservation 3.3.4 Present legal status 4 NATURE CONSERVATION FEATURES OF INTEREST 4.1 Identification and confirmation of conservation features 4.2 Objectives 4.2.1 Unimproved grassland 4.2.1.1 Summary description 4.2.1.2 Management objectives 4.2.1.3 Performance indicators 4.2.1.4 Conservation status 4.2.1.5 Rationale 4.2.1.6 Management projects 4.2.2 Trees and Woodland 4.2.2.1 Summary description 4.2.2.2 Management objectives 4.2.2.3 Performance indicators 4.2.2.4 Conservation status 4.2.2.5 Rationale 4.2.2.6 Management projects 4.2.3 Lichens 4.2.3.1 Summary description 4.2.3.2 Management objectives 4.2.3.3 Performance indicators 4.2.3.4 Conservation status 4.2.3.5 Rationale 4.2.3.6 Management projects 4.3 Rationale & Proposals per compartment Bisley Rd Cemetery Mgmt Plan 2020-2024 2 5 HISTORIC INTEREST 5.1 Confirmation of conservation features 5.2 Objectives 5.3 Rationale 6 STAKEHOLDERS 6.1 Evaluation 6.2 Management projects 7 ACCESS / TOURISM 7.1 Evaluation 7.2 Management objectives 8 INTERPRETATION 8.1 Evaluation 8.2 Management Projects 9 OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES 9.1 Operational objectives 9.2 Management projects 10 WORK PLAN Appendix 1 Species List Bisley Rd Cemetery Mgmt Plan 2020-2024 3 1 VISION STATEMENT Stroud Town Council are committed to conserving Stroud Cemetery to: • Enable the people of Stroud to always have a place of peace and quiet reflection and recreation.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilimsel Araştırma Projesi (8.011Mb)
    1 T.C. GAZİOSMANPAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Komisyonu Sonuç Raporu Proje No: 2008/26 Projenin Başlığı AMASYA, SİVAS VE TOKAT İLLERİNİN KELKİT HAVZASINDAKİ FARKLI BÖCEK TAKIMLARINDA BULUNAN TACHINIDAE (DIPTERA) TÜRLERİ ÜZERİNDE ÇALIŞMALAR Proje Yöneticisi Prof.Dr. Kenan KARA Bitki Koruma Anabilim Dalı Araştırmacı Turgut ATAY Bitki Koruma Anabilim Dalı (Kasım / 2011) 2 T.C. GAZİOSMANPAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Komisyonu Sonuç Raporu Proje No: 2008/26 Projenin Başlığı AMASYA, SİVAS VE TOKAT İLLERİNİN KELKİT HAVZASINDAKİ FARKLI BÖCEK TAKIMLARINDA BULUNAN TACHINIDAE (DIPTERA) TÜRLERİ ÜZERİNDE ÇALIŞMALAR Proje Yöneticisi Prof.Dr. Kenan KARA Bitki Koruma Anabilim Dalı Araştırmacı Turgut ATAY Bitki Koruma Anabilim Dalı (Kasım / 2011) ÖZET* 3 AMASYA, SİVAS VE TOKAT İLLERİNİN KELKİT HAVZASINDAKİ FARKLI BÖCEK TAKIMLARINDA BULUNAN TACHINIDAE (DIPTERA) TÜRLERİ ÜZERİNDE ÇALIŞMALAR Yapılan bu çalışma ile Amasya, Sivas ve Tokat illerinin Kelkit havzasına ait kısımlarında bulunan ve farklı böcek takımlarında parazitoit olarak yaşayan Tachinidae (Diptera) türleri, bunların tanımları ve yayılışlarının ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır. Bunun için farklı böcek takımlarına ait türler laboratuvarda kültüre alınarak parazitoit olarak yaşayan Tachinidae türleri elde edilmiştir. Kültüre alınan Lepidoptera takımına ait türler içerisinden, Euproctis chrysorrhoea (L.), Lymantria dispar (L.), Malacosoma neustrium (L.), Smyra dentinosa Freyer, Thaumetopoea solitaria Freyer, Thaumetopoea sp. ve Vanessa sp.,'den parazitoit elde edilmiş,
    [Show full text]
  • Noctuid Moth (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) Communities in Urban Parks of Warsaw
    POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES • INSTITUTE OF ZOOLOGY MEMORABILIA ZOOLOGICA MEMORABILIA ZOOL. 42 125-148 1986 GRAŻYNA WINIARSKA NOCTUID MOTH (LEPIDOPTERA, NOCTUIDAE) COMMUNITIES IN URBAN PARKS OF WARSAW ABSTRACT A total of 40 noctuid moth species were recorded in four parks of Warsaw. Respective moth communities consisted of a similar number of species (17—25), but differed in their abundance index (3.5 —7.9). In all the parks, the dominant species were Autographa gamma and Discrestra trifolii. The subdominant species were represented by Acronicta psi, Trachea atriplicis, Mamestra suasa, Mythimna pallens, and Catocala nupta. There were differences in the species composition and dominance structure among noctuid moth communities in urban parks, suburban linden- oak-hornbeam forest, and natural linden-oak-hornbeam forest. In the suburban and natural linden-oak-hornbeam forests, the number of species was higher by 40% and their abundance wao 5 — 9 times higher than in the urban parks. The species predominating in parks occurred in very low numbers in suburban and natural habitats. Only T. atriplicis belonged to the group of most abundant species in all the habitats under study. INTRODUCTION In recent years, the interest of ecologists in urban habitats has been increasing as they proved to be rich in plant and animal species. The vegetation of urban green areas is sufficiently well known since its species composition and spatial structure are shaped by gardening treatment. But the fauna of these areas is poorly known, and regular zoological investigations in urban green areas were started not so long ago, when urban green was recognized as one of the most important factors of the urban “natural” habitat (Ciborowski 1976).
    [Show full text]