ISSN 1211-3026 Čas. Slez. Muz. Opava (A), 61: 219-225, 2012 DOI: 10.2478/v10210-012-0021-3

Interesting weed records from cereal fields in province ()

Šárka Cimalová

Interesting weed records from cereal fields in Zonguldak province (Turkey). − Čas. Slez. Muz. Opava (A), 61: 219-225, 2012.

Abstract: New floristic records of weed species were taken from cereal fields in June 2012 from localities in Akçabey village, Kayıkçılar village and from Degirmena ğzı in Zonguldak province (Turkey). The records represent a total of 69 taxa belonging to 24 families from which the most frequent are (13,04%), (10,14%), Poaceae (10,14%), (8.7%), Apiaceae (7,25%) and Ranunculaceae (5.8%). Most of listed species are native in flora of Turkey and also occur as threatened taxa in the flora of the Czech Republic as naturalized or casual archaeophytes ( Agrostemma githago, Bromus arvensis ), casual neophytes ( polymorpha, Trifolium tomentosum ) or as native species ( australis, vulgaris ).

Key words: species distribution, weed flora

Introduction

Turkey is situated at the crossroad of three major culture centers between Asia, Africa and Europe. Historical migration of people affected enrichment of diversity of cultivated which were brought to Turkey from distant lands. Nevertheless Turkey is also a center of origin of important global genetic resources for numerous agricultural crop plants including cereals (Zohary & Hopf 2000, Abbo et al. 2010). During a long time period of crop cultivation a specific group of vascular plants was selected as weed species accompanying crops. Interesting is, that weed species on fields in Turkey are often plants native by their origin, which is not typical for many weed floras of the world (Türe & Böcük 2008). Turkey belongs to countries which are under the long term anthropogenic effects of agriculture. Cultivated areas currently constitute about 35% of Turkey’s total surface area. 70% of the total agricultural area is formed by cropland and 18% is left fallow. The remaining 11,7% is created by orchards, vegetable gardens, vineyards and by olive groves (Anonymous 2007). Zonguldak province (Fig. 1) is situated in the western region with prevailing moderate oceanic climate in Mediterranean climatic zone (Akman 1990). Although it is one of the Turkey’s main ecological regions from the agricultural point of view (Anonymous 2007), weed field vegetation hasn’t been studied here. The recent information about segetal flora in Turkey, where is given systematical determination, life forms, phytogeographical regions or species frequency we can find from Anatolia province (Türe & Köse 2000, Türe 2003), Marmara province (Kireç & Yarci 1999, Uysal et al. 2003), Province (Kitis & Boz 2003) or province (Kaya & Zengin 2000). The main goal of this paper is to bring a short view into weed vegetation composition in the Zonguldak region and should be supplemented by further research.

Methods

Weed flora was studied on cereal fields on three localities in Zonguldak province (Fig. 1): Akçabey village (272 m a. s. l.) (loc. 1), Kayıkçılar village (28 m a. s. l.) (loc. 2) and Zonguldak Degirmena ğzı (43.1 m a. s. l.) (loc. 3). Field data were collected at the beginning of summer in June 2012. Interesting taxa were completed with their , biology and distribution by Davis (1965-1985), Davis et al. (1988) and Güner et al. (2000) and by Flora of the Czech Republic (K řísa 1988 a,b; Smejkal 1988; Šourková 1990; Kovanda 1992; Holub

219

1995; Kirschner & Št ěpánek 1995; Hrouda 1997 a, b; Kubát 1995; Šourková & Hrouda 1997; Štech 2004 a, b). Distribution maps of particular species were taken from database Tübives (Babac M.T., Uslu E. & Baki ş Y. 2001; Babaç 2004). Taxa are sorted by decreasing frequency of family (in brackets) and also alphabetically. Nomenclature follows Checklist of vascular plants of the Czech Republic (Danihelka et al. 2012), residence time status in the Czech Republic follows Pyšek et al. (2012). Red list for taxa following (Grulich 2012) (A1-extinct or vanished data, C1-critically threatened taxa, C2-endangered taxa, C3-vulnerable taxa; the reason for classification: t=declining trend, b=combination of declining trend and rarity).

Fig 1: Map of Zonguldak province with localities 1-3 (1- Akçabey village, 2- Kayıkçılar village and 3- Zonguldak Degirmena ğzı)

Results and discussion

This paper brings several new records of species for Zonguldak province. Interesting taxa which are mostly native species in Turkey and also occur in the Czech Republic as rare species are shown in the text bellow. Species names with * sign are new for flora of Zonguldak province (Saribas & Kaplan 2008 a, b). For a comparison of the species occurrence the distribution maps of taxa which are taken from database Tübives (Babac M.T., Uslu E. & Baki ş Y. (2001) are given on the Fig. 2a-j. Table 1 shows a list of represented families in species records. The most frequent families in weed vegetation of Zonguldak localities are Fabaceae (13,04%), Asteraceae (10,14%), Poaceae (10,14%), Rosaceae (8.7%), Apiaceae (7,25%) and Ranunculaceae (5.8%), which taxonomical distribution is comparable with other studies from agricultural areas in Turkey (Kireç & Yarci 1999, Türe & Köse 2000, Uysal et al. 2003). There are important differences among new species records. The records of widespread common species such as Polygonum aviculare or Viola arvensis show that weed flora in Zonguldak province has not been studied till now, simply because it has not been in the centre of interest of botanists. But records of rare species as Aphanes australis or Fumaria rostellata are very interesting. The first species is probably neglected similarly to relative Aphanes arvensis in the central Europe (Cimalová 2006). Aphanes australis is native in Turkey and its

220

distribution area extends to southern Europe, Cyprus, Palestine and NW Africa. The second named species, Fumaria rostellata is rare because it has mainly central European distribution and localities in Turkey are only secondary. The distribution areas of the other taxa of which all are native in Turkey include mainly southern (Mediterranean) parts of Europe and Asia with an overlap of northern Africa. Secondary introduced they are in America ( Filago vulgaris, Ranunculus arvensis, Turgenia latifolia, Bromus arvensis ), in Australia ( Briza maxima, Medicago polymorpha and Trifolium tomentosum ), in New Zealand or in the Far East of Asia ( Bupleurum rotundifolium ). In the Czech Republic have these taxa rare occurrence (Grulich 2012) as naturalized ( Agrostemma githago, Anagallis foemina ) or casual archaeophytes ( Bromus arvensis, Bupleurum rotundifolium ), casual neophytes ( Briza maxima , Medicago polymorpha, Trifolium tomentosum ) or as native species ( Aphanes australis, Filago vulgaris ) (Pyšek et al. 2012).

a) Anagallis foemina b) Adonis annua

c) Aphanes australis d) Briza maxima

e) Bromus arvensis f) Filago pyramidata

g) Filago vulgaris h) Fumaria rostellata

i) Ranunculus arvensis j) Trifolium tomentosum

Fig 2: Records of the species distribution in Turkey (Tübives 2012)

221

Fabaceae (13,04%)

*Medicago polymorpha (loc. 3): native to Mediterranean parts of Europe, northern Africa, the Azores, the Madeira Islands, the Canary Islands, western Asia, north-western India and Pakistan; naturalized in Australia, Norfolk and other parts of the world; in the Czech Republic as casual neophyte *Trifolium tomentosum (Fig.2j), (loc. 3): native to northern Africa, the Azores, the Madeira Islands, the Canary Islands, southern Mediterranean Europe and south-western Asia; naturalized in Australia; in the Czech Republic as casual neophyte

Asteraceae (10,14%)

Filago pyramidata (Fig. 2f), (loc. 1): native to southern and south-western Europe with Submediterranean- Subatlantic distribution, where it reaches its northern limit in England; northern Africa, south-western and central Asia (including the Caucasus, and Turkestan); in the Czech Republic as casual neophyte Filago vulgaris (Fig. 2g), (loc.2): native in western, central (including the Czech Republic-C1 t) and southern Europe, north-western Africa, the Crimea, the Caucasus; western border of the distribution is in northern Iran. The southern boundary passes through Algeria, Crete and northern Turkey. Secondary in North America

Poaceae (10,14%)

*Briza maxima (Fig. 2d), (loc. 3): native to southern Europe, western Asia and northern Africa; secondary in the British Islands, North and South America, Japan and Australasia; in the Czech Republic as casual neophyte *Bromus arvensis (Fig. 2e), (loc. 1): native to central and southern, mainly in the Mediterranean, part of Europe, south-western and central Asia; secondary in North and South America; in the Czech Republic as casual archaeophyte (C1 t)

Rosaceae (8.70%)

*Aphanes australis (Fig. 2c), (loc. 3): native to euro-subatlantic areas in western, central (including the Czech Republic-C1b) and southern Europe including the British Islands, Cyprus, Palestine, north-western Africa; secondary in North America

Apiaceae (7,25%)

*Bupleurum rotundifolium (loc. 2): native to south-western Asia, central, southern and western Europe; secondary in south-eastern Asia, North America, Australia and New Zealand; in the Czech Republic as casual archaeophyte (C1 t) *Caucalis platycarpos (loc. 2): native to Europe excluding of Scandinavia, eastern on the Caucasus, the Crimea and Iran; secondary in northern parts of distribution area; in the Czech Republic as naturalized archaeophyte (C2 b) *Turgenia latifolia (loc. 2): native (or archaeophyte) to western, southern and central Europe, north-western Africa, central and south-western Asia (Turkestan, Pakistan and Kashmir); secondary in North America; in the Czech Republic as casual archaeophyte (A1)

Ranunculaceae (5.80%)

*Adonis annua (Fig. 2b), (loc. 1): native to mediterranean areas of southern Europe, Cyprus, Syria, Turkey, western and northern Iraq; secondary in western and central Europe; in the Czech Republic as casual neophyte from 1874 *Ranunculus arvensis (Fig. 2i), (loc. 2): native to Europe excluding of Scandinavia, south-western Asia (Turkestan), northern Africa, Canary Islands; secondary in North America; in the Czech Republic as naturalized archaeophyte (C2 t)

Caryophyllaceae (2,9%)

*Agrostemma githago (Fig. 3), (loc. 2): native to eastern Mediterranean areas, secondary in the whole Europe and other continents; in the Czech Republic as naturalized archaeophyte (C1)

222

Fig 3: Agrostemma githago in Kayıkçılar village (Photo by Š. Cimalová)

223

Primulaceae (2.9%)

*Anagallis foemina (Fig. 2a), (loc. 2): native to south-western and central Europe, the Crimea, western Siberia, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan; secondary in Macaronesia northern Europe or North America; in the Czech Republic as naturalized archaeophyte (C3)

Fumariaceae (1,45%)

*Fumaria rostellata (Fig. 2h), (loc. 2): native to central and eastern Europe, the Balkan, probably Ukraina; secondary in Turkey or in Chile; in the Czech Republic as naturalized archaeophyte (C3)

Tab 1: The list of families and their percentage ratios in the dataset of weed taxa recorded in Zonguldak province in 2012

Fabaceae 13.04% Convolvulaceae 2.90%

Asteraceae 10.14% Plantaginaceae 2.90% Poaceae 10.14% Primulaceae 2.90% Rosaceae 8.70% Campanulaceae 1.45% Apiaceae 7.25% Dipsacaceae 1.45% Ranunculaceae 5.80% Euphorbiaceae 1.45%

Boraginaceae 4.35% Fumariaceae 1.45%

Lamiaceae 4.35% Hypericaceae 1.45% Papaveraceae 4.35% Juncaceae 1.45% Polygonaceae 4.35% Rubiaceae 1.45% Brassicaceae 2.90% Scrophulariaceae 1.45% Caryophyllaceae 2.90% Violaceae 1.45%

Acknowledgement: Author would like to thank to Assoc. Prof. Güray Uyar and his assistant Yasin Hazer for their help during field work and to Marcin Nobis and Arkadiusz Nowak for their advices in determination of some species.

References

Abbo S., Lev-Yadun S. & Gopher A. (2010): Agricultural origins: centers and noncenters; a Near Eastern reappraisal. – Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 29: 317-328. Akman Y. (1990): İklim ve Biyoiklim (Climate and Bioclimate), Palme Yayınları, . Anonymous (2007): The National Biological Diversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Tasarım Ofset, Ankara. Babaç M.T. (2004): Possibility of an information system on plants of South-West Asia with particular reference to the Turkish Plants Data Service (TÜBIVES). – Turkish Journal of Botany, 28:119-227. Babaç M.T., Uslu E. & Baki ş Y. (2001): Turkish Plants Data Service (Tübives); Version 2.0 BETA [online]. [cit. 2012-12-30]. Available from : http://turkherb.ibu.edu.tr/index.php Cimalová Š. (2006): Historické a recentní rozší ření vzácných druh ů polních plevel ů severní a st řední Moravy a Slezska (Historical and recent distribution of rare weed species in northern and central Moravia and Silesia). – Čas. Slez. Muz. Opava (A), 55: 165-192. Danihelka J., Chrtek J. jun & Kaplan Z. (2012): Checklist of vascular plants of the Czech Republic. – Preslia 84: 647-811. Davis P.H. (ed.) (1965-1985): Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. – Vol. 1-9, University Press, Edinburgh. Davis P.H., Mıll R. & Tan K. (1988): Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islans (Supplement). – Vol. 10, University Press, Edinburgh. Grulich V. (2012): Red list of vascular plants of the Czech Republic: 3 rd edn. – Preslia 84:631-645. Güner A, Özhatay N, Ekim T & Ba şer KHC (eds) (2000): Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. – Vol. 11 (supplement 2), University Press, Edinburgh.

224

Holub J. (1995): Aphanes arvensis L. In Slavík B. (ed.), Kv ětena České Republiky, Vol. 4: 271-273, Academia, Praha. Hrouda L. (1997 a): Turgenia latifolia (L). Hoffm. In Slavík B. (ed.), Kv ětena České Republiky, Vol. 5: 305, Academia, Praha. − (1997 b): Caucalis platycarpos L. In Slavík B. (ed.), Kv ětena České Republiky, Vol. 5: 298-300, Academia, Praha. Kaya Y. & Zengin H. (2000): Pasinler Ovasındaki Bu ğday Tarlalarında Sorun Olu şturan Yabancı Otlarla, Rastlama Sıklıkları, Hayat Formlarıve Fitoco ğrafik Bölgelerinin Belirlenmesi (Determination of Weeds and Their Life and Phytogeographic Regions in Wheat Fields of Pasinler Plain). – Türkiye Herboloji Dergisi (The Journal of Turkish Weed Science), 3/1: 17-26. Kireç M. & Yarci C. (1999): The flora of the agricultural areas in () and environs. – Turkish Journal of Botany, 23: 53-62. Kirschner J. & Št ěpánek J. (1995): Medicago polymorpha L. In Slavík B. (ed.), Kv ětena České Republiky, Vol. 4: 461-462, Academia, Praha. Kitis E. & Boz O. (2003): Isparta İli Bu ğday Ekim Alanlarındaki Yabancı Otların Yaygınlık ve Yo ğunluklarının Saptanması (Determination of the Weed Species, Their Observation Frequencies and Densities in Wheat Fields in ). – Türkiye Herboloji Dergisi (The Journal of Turkish Weed Science), 6/1: 16-38. Kovanda M. (1992): Anagallis foemina L. In S. Hejný & B. Slavík (eds.), Květena České republiky, Vol. 3: 273, Academia, Praha. Křísa B. (1988 a): Adonis annua L. In Hejný S. & Slavík B. (eds.), Kv ětena České socialistické republiky, Vol. 1: 470, Academia, Praha. − (1988 b): Ranunculus arvensis L. In Hejný S. & Slavík B. (eds.), Kv ětena České socialistické republiky, Vol. 1: 436-438, Academia, Praha. Kubát K. (1995): Trifolium tomentosum L. In Slavík B. (ed.), Kv ětena České Republiky, Vol. 4: 481, Academia, Praha. Pyšek P., Danihelka J., Sádlo J., Chrtek J. jun., Chytrý M. et al. (2012): Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic (2 nd edn.): Checklist update, taxonomic diversity and invasion patterns. – Preslia 84: 155- 255. Saribas M. & Kaplan A. (2008 a): Contribution on the flora of Zonguldak/Turkey. Biological Diversity and Conservation (Biyolojik Çesitlilik ve Koruma) 1/1: 40-65. − (2008 b): Zonguldak İli Bitkileri (Plants of Zonguldak province). 93-185 pp. In: Saribas M., Sözen M., Özkazanç O., Uyar G. & Kaplan A. (eds.): Zonguldak İli Biyoçe şitlili ği (Biodiversity of Zonguldak province). – T.C. Çevre ve Orman Bakanlı ğı, Zonguldak İl Müdürlü ğü, Do ğa Koruma ve Milli Parklar Şube Müdürlü ğü, Bakanlık yayın. (Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Provincial Directorate, Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks). Smejkal M. (1988): Fumaria rostellata Knaf. In Hejný S. & Slavík B. (eds.), Kv ětena České socialistické republiky, Vol. 1: 504, Academia, Praha. Šourková M. & Hrouda L. (1997): Bupleurum rotundifolium L. In Slavík B. (ed.), Kv ětena České Republiky, Vol. 5: 323, Academia, Praha. Šourková M. (1990): Agrostemma githago L. In In Hejný S. & Slavík B. (eds.), Kv ětena České republiky, Vol. 2: 159-160, Academia, Praha. Štech M. (2004 a): Filago pyramidata L. In Slavík B. & Št ěpánková J. (eds.), Kv ětena České Republiky, Vol. 7: 94, Academia, Praha. − (2004 b): Filago vulgaris Lam. In Slavík B. & Št ěpánková J. (eds.), Kv ětena České Republiky, Vol. 7: 91- 92, Academia, Praha. Türe C. (2003): An Investigation on the Weed Diversity in Some Agricultural Fields of İnegöl (-Turkey) and its Environments. – Türkiye Herboloji Dergisi (The Journal of Turkish Weed Science), 6: 48-59. Türe C. & Böcük H. (2008): Investigation of Threatened Arable Weeds and Their Conservation Status in Turkey. – Weed Research, 18: 289-296. Türe C. & Köse Y.B. (2000): An investigation on the weed distribution in some agricultural fields of Eskisehir and environs. – Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 24: 327-331. Uysal İ., Karabacak E., Seçmen Ö. & Oldacay S. (2003): The Flora of Agricultural Areas and Their Environs in Çanakkale (-Ezine). – Turkish Journal of Botany, 27 (2): 103-116. Zohary D. & Hopf M. (2000): Domestication of Plants in the Old World. 3 rd edn., Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Author’s address: Šárka Cimalová, Department of Biology & Ecology, University of Ostrava, Chittussiho 10, Ostrava CZ-710 00, Czech Republic, e-mail: [email protected]

225