DOCSLIB.ORG

Biology, Ecology and Invasion Characteristics Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Science Department of Botany Biology, ecology and invasion characteristics of Campylopus introflexus in the Czech Republic Biologie, ekologie a charakteristiky invaze druhu Campylopus introflexus v Ceskéˇ Republice Mgr. Eva Mikulášková Study programme: Biology; Botany Ph.D. thesis Brno 2012 Supervisor: RNDr. ZdenˇekSoldán, CSc. DECLARATION I hereby declare, that I made this thesis independently, using the listed refer- ences, or in the cooperation with other authors of the papers (for my contri- bution to particular papers see chapter 6 Author´s contribution). I did submit neither the thesis nor its any part to acquire any other academic title. Brno, 2012 Mgr. Eva Mikulášková ABSTRACT Ecological and economic impact of invasive plants to natural ecosystems is the subject of many studies; however, invasive bryophytes have been stud- ied only marginally. Campylopus introflexus (Hedw.) Brid. is one of the most strongly invasive bryophyte species in Europe. The species appears to be native in the Southern Hemisphere. In Europe, it was collected for the first time in the British Isles in 1941. The moss has expanded eastward and the first collection in the Czech Republic is dated to 1988. This thesis found that more than 70 localities were known known in the Czech Republic in 2006, and more than 100 localities became known by 2011. It has been further demonstrated that the Czech Republic was colonized repeatedly by generative spores and all populations have a unique genetic composition. Genetic variation of the populations is low, the genetic diver- sity of populations within the Czech Republic is not correlated with their geographic position or with any of the monitored environmental variables. At a fine scale within particular localities, the species disperses by vege- tative diaspores, while it uses generative spores for spreading over longer distances. In Central Europe, C. introflexus prefers open coniferous forests, especially plantations of either spruce or pine. It colonizes clearings, pathsides, forests edges and disturbed peatbogs. It may form large and compact stands at these habitats. It is able to colonize microhabitats with very heterogeneous ecologi- cal conditions. It inhabits acidic, nutrient-poor, bare soil without strong com- petition with vascular plants, lichens and other bryophytes. Cultivation ex- periments as well as vegetation-data analyses showed that the species thrives best on organic and sandy soils and avoids limestone and strongly water- logged soils. C. introflexus represents no significant risk to natural plant communities in Central Europe presently, because it colonizes mainly human-disturbed habitats. It can form stable mixed stands with the domestic pioneer species. It occupies free patches more rapidly than some native species, but it not able to outcompete them directly. The ratio of coverage of C. introflexus and native pioneer species is partially dependent on the amount of both generative and vegetative diaspores during initial colonization. In some cases C. introflexus can block the natural succession. v ABSTRAKT(INCZECH) Ekologický a ekonomický dopad invazních rostlin na pˇrirozené ekosystémy je pˇredmˇetemmnoha studií, avšak invazní mechorosty jsou studovány pouze okrajovˇe. Campylopus introflexus (Hedw.) Brid. je nejvýznamnˇejšíinvazní druh mechorostu v Evropˇe.Pochází z jižní polokoule a v Evropˇebyl poprvé zaz- namenán v roce 1941 na Britských ostrovech, odkud se postupnˇešíˇrísmˇerem na východ. První údaj z Ceskéˇ republiky pochází z roku 1988. V rámci této práce bylo zjištˇeno,že v roce 2006 bylo v Ceskéˇ republice známo pˇres 70 lokalit, v roce 2011 už bylo známo více než 100 lokalit. Dále je ukazováno, že Ceskᡠrepublika byla kolonizována opakovanˇepomocí gener- ativních spor, všechny populace mají unikátní genotyp. Populace mají malou genetickou variabilitu, genetická diverzita v rámci Ceskéˇ republiky není ko- relována s geografickou pozicí ani s žádnou ze sledovaných promˇenných prostˇredí. V rámci jemného mˇeˇrítkajedné dílˇcílokality se rozšiˇrujepomocí vegetativních diaspor, zatímco pro šíˇrení na vˇetšívzdálenosti využívá gener- ativní spory. Ve stˇrední Evropˇe C. introflexus preferuje jehliˇcnatéprosvˇetlenélesy, zvláštˇe monokultury smrku ˇciborovice. Druh kolonizuje paseky, bˇrehy cest, okraje porost ˚ua narušená rašeliništˇe.Na tˇechtomístech m ˚užetvoˇrit rozsáhlé a kompaktní porosty. Je schopný osídlit mikrostanovištˇes velice r ˚uznorodými ekologickými podmínkami. Osidluje holou, kyselou, na živiny chudou p ˚udu bez veliké kompetice cévnatých rostlin, lišejník ˚ua ostatních mechorost ˚u. Kultivaˇcníexperimenty stejnˇejako analýzy vegetaˇcníchdat ukázaly, že druh nejlépe prosperuje na organických a písˇcitých p ˚udácha vyhýbá se p ˚udám vápenatým a silnˇepodmáˇceným. C. introflexus v souˇcasnédobˇenepˇredstavuje významné riziko pro pˇrirozená spoleˇcenstva stˇrední Evropy, protože kolonizuje pˇrevážnˇeantropogennˇenarušená stanovištˇe.S domácími pionýrskými druhy m ˚užetvoˇritstabilní smˇesnéporosty. Volný neosídlený prostor osidluje mnohem rychleji než ostatní domácí druhy, nicménˇeje není schopen pˇrímovytlaˇcovat. Pomˇerpokryvnosti druhu C. in- troflexus a domácích pionýrských druh ˚uje ˇcásteˇcnˇe závislý na množství pohlavních i nepohlavních diaspor pˇripoˇcáteˇcníkolonizaci. V nˇekterých pˇrí- padech m ˚uže C. introflexus blokovat pˇrirozenou sukcesi na stanovištích. vi Nature preserves the species, and cares but very little for individuals. — Voltaire ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, I would like to thank Michal Hájek, Jon and Blanka Shaw for motivation, support, and many indispensable advices. I thank to my Thesis adviser, ZdenˇekSoldán for help starting my work and for help in the field. I am grateful to Michal Hájek, Zuzana Fajmonová and Tomáš Fér for their comments on the manuscript of this thesis. My thanks are due to Matthew Johnson and Jon Shaw for the revision of English style. For some consultations and valuable information for on work in the DNA lab, I thank to Veronika Kuˇcabová, and I also thank to JiˇríVáˇnafor consulta- tions about bryology. I thank Ondˇrej Hájek for the creation of maps. For the precise assistance and kind atmosphere, I thank the staff of cryp- togamic section and the staff of the DNA lab of Department of Botany, Fac- ulty of Science, Charles University and staff of the Mire ecology group of Department of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University. I would like to thank my colleagues and friends from the Czech and Slo- vak lichenological community for nice experiences and kind atmosphere throughout the years. I deeply thank JiˇríMikulášek, Jindˇriškaand my family for their patience and all support. I thank to all babysitters who took care about Jindˇriškaduring writing this thesis. My work was supported by Grant Agency of Charles University (project no. 258/2004/B-BIO/PrF) and institutional support of Masaryk University. vii CONTENTS i introduction1 1 general introduction3 1.1 Bryophytes . 5 1.2 Heath star moss Campylopus introflexus (Hedw.) Brid. 6 1.2.1 Taxonomy . 6 1.2.2 Anatomy, morphology and reproduction . 7 1.2.3 Ecology . 9 1.2.4 Phytosociology . 11 1.2.5 Biogeography – native and invasive distribution . 11 ii main thesis 15 2 the object and the aims of the study 17 3 outline of the thesis 19 3.1 The main ideas and results of papers . 19 3.1.1 Habitats colonized by C. introflexus in the Central Eu- rope (Paper 1)......................... 19 3.1.2 C. introflexus dispersal and genetic diversity (Paper 2). 20 3.1.3 Molecular methods optimalization (Paper 3)....... 21 3.1.4 The role of interspecific competition in C. introflexus spreading (Paper 4)...................... 21 3.1.5 Distribution of C. introflexus in the Czech Republic (Pa- per 5).............................. 22 3.2 The results of papers in the broader context of species biology . 22 3.2.1 Dispersal mode . 22 3.2.2 Invaded habitats . 23 3.2.3 Distribution . 25 4 conclusion 27 iii papers 37 5 list of papers 39 6 author´s contribution 41 7 habitats colonized by c. introflexus in the central europe 43 7.1 Introduction . 44 7.2 Methods . 46 7.2.1 Data sampling, vegetation data . 46 7.2.2 Data analyses . 48 7.3 Results . 50 7.3.1 Distribution of Campylopus introflexus in the Czech Re- public . 50 7.3.2 Vegetation composition of C. introflexus habitats . 51 7.3.3 Ecological characteristic of the habitats – field data . 53 7.3.4 Ecological characteristic of the habitats – cultivation ex- periment . 57 7.3.5 Invasibility of vegetation by C. introflexus ........ 58 ix x contents 7.4 Discussion . 59 7.4.1 Distribution pattern in the Czech Republic . 59 7.4.2 Recently invaded habitats and their ecological charac- teristics . 61 7.4.3 Differences in habitat affiliation between the Czech Re- public and Western Europe . 61 7.4.4 Future invasion potential . 63 7.4.5 Conclusions . 63 8 c. introflexus dispersal and genetic diversity (paper 2) 71 8.1 Introduction . 72 8.2 Methods . 74 8.2.1 Samples . 74 8.2.2 DNA extraction and AFLP fingerprinting . 77 8.2.3 Isozyme analysis . 77 8.2.4 Data analysis . 79 8.3 Results . 80 8.3.1 Clonal structure . 82 8.3.2 Genetic diversity . 83 8.3.3 Genetic structure . 83 8.3.4 Genetic relationships at the population scale . 85 8.4 Discussion . 85 8.4.1 Distribution mechanisms of C. introflexus ......... 89 8.4.2 Genetic variation among and within populations . 90 8.4.3 Spatial genetic structure in the Czech Republic . 91 8.4.4 Conclusions . 92 9 molecular methods optimalization (paper 3) 101 9.1 Introduction . 101 9.2 Methods . 103 9.2.1 Sample collection . 103 9.2.2 DNA extraction . 103 9.2.3 AFLP fingerprinting . 104 9.2.4 Assessment of AFLP error rate . 106 9.3 Results . 106 9.3.1 DNA extraction . 106 9.3.2 AFLP fingerprinting . 107 9.4 Discussion . 108 9.4.1 Optimization of DNA extraction . 108 9.4.2 AFLP fingerprinting . 113 9.4.3 Reproducibility tests . 114 10 the role of interspecific competition in c. introflexus spreading 119 10.1 Introduction . 120 10.2 Methods . 122 10.2.1 Field design . 122 10.2.2 Data analysis . 123 10.3 Results . 123 10.3.1 Colonization of unvegetated patches .
Recommended publications
  • The Ecology of the in the North York Moors National Park

    The Ecology of the in the North York Moors National Park

    The ecology of the invasive moss Campylopus introflexus in the North York Moors National Park by Miguel Eduardo Equihua Zamora A thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Biology at the University of York November 1991 I hereby declare that the work presented in this thesis is the result of my own investigation and has not been accepted in previous applications for the award of a degree. Exceptions to this declaration are part of the field data used in chapter 4, which was collected and made available to me by Dr. M.B. Usher. The distribution map on Campylopus introflexus was provided by P.T. Harding (Biological Records Centre, ITE, Monks Wood). R.C. Palmer (Soil Survey and Land Research Centre, University of York) made available to me the soil and climatological data of the area, and helped me to obtain the corresponding interpolation values for the sampled sites. Miguel Eduardo Equihua Zamora 1 CONTENTS page Acknowledgements . 4 Abstract................................................. 5 1. Introduction 1.1 The invader: Campylopus introflexus ..................... 7 The invasion of the Northern Hemisphere ............... 7 Taxonomyand identity ............................ 13 Ecology....................................... 16 1.2 The problem ...................................... 19 1.3 Hypothetical mechanisms of interaction ................... 22 2. Aims of the research ......................................28 3. Description of the study area .................................29 4.Ecological preferences of Campylopus introflexus in the North York Moors National Park 4.1 Introduction ....................................... 35 4.2 Methods ......................................... 36 Thefuzzy c-means algorithm ........................ 39 Evaluation of the associations ........................ 43 Desiccation survival of the moss carpets ................ 44 4.3 Results .......................................... 45 Vegetationanalysis ............................... 45 Assessment of moss associations .....................
  • Systematic Studies on Bryophytes of Northern Western Ghats in Kerala”

    Systematic Studies on Bryophytes of Northern Western Ghats in Kerala”

    1 “Systematic studies on Bryophytes of Northern Western Ghats in Kerala” Final Report Council order no. (T) 155/WSC/2010/KSCSTE dtd. 13.09.2010 Principal Investigator Dr. Manju C. Nair Research Fellow Prajitha B. Malabar Botanical Garden Kozhikode-14 Kerala, India 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Dr. K.R. Lekha, Head, WSC, Kerala State Council for Science Technology & Environment (KSCSTE), Sasthra Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram for sanctioning the project to me. I am thankful to Dr. R. Prakashkumar, Director, Malabar Botanical Garden for providing the facilities and for proper advice and encouragement during the study. I am sincerely thankful to the Manager, Educational Agency for sanctioning to work in this collaborative project. I also accord my sincere thanks to the Principal for providing mental support during the present study. I extend my heartfelt thanks to Dr. K.P. Rajesh, Asst. Professor, Zamorin’s Guruvayurappan College for extending all help and generous support during the field study and moral support during the identification period. I am thankful to Mr. Prasobh and Mr. Sreenivas, Administrative section of Malabar Botanical Garden for completing the project within time. I am thankful to Ms. Prajitha, B., Research Fellow of the project for the collection of plant specimens and for taking photographs. I am thankful to Mr. Anoop, K.P. Mr. Rajilesh V. K. and Mr. Hareesh for the helps rendered during the field work and for the preparation of the Herbarium. I record my sincere thanks to the Kerala Forest Department for extending all logical support and encouragement for the field study and collection of specimens.
  • Bryophytes of Adjacent Serpentine and Granite Outcrops on the Deer Isles, Maine, U.S.A

    Bryophytes of Adjacent Serpentine and Granite Outcrops on the Deer Isles, Maine, U.S.A

    RHODORA, Vol. 111, No. 945, pp. 1–20, 2009 E Copyright 2009 by the New England Botanical Club BRYOPHYTES OF ADJACENT SERPENTINE AND GRANITE OUTCROPS ON THE DEER ISLES, MAINE, U.S.A. LAURA R. E. BRISCOE The Field Museum, 1400 South Lakeshore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605 TANNER B. HARRIS University of Massachusetts, Fernald Hall, 270 Stockbridge Road, Amherst, MA 01003 WILLIAM BROUSSARD University of Maine, 421 Estabrooke Hall, Orono, ME 04469 1 EVA DANNENBERG,FRED C. OLDAY, AND NISHANTA RAJAKARUNA College of the Atlantic, 105 Eden Street, Bar Harbor, ME 04609 1Author for Correspondence; Current Address: Department of Biological Sciences, One Washington Square, San Jose´ State University, San Jose´, CA 95192-0100 e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT. The serpentine-substrate effect is well documented for vascular plants, but the literature for bryophytes is limited. The majority of literature on bryophytes in extreme geoedaphic habitats focuses on the use of species as bioindicators of industrial pollution. Few attempts have been made to characterize bryophyte floras on serpentine soils derived from peridotite and other ultramafic rocks. This paper compares the bryophyte floras of both a peridotite and a granite outcrop from the Deer Isles, Hancock County, Maine, and examines tissue elemental concentrations for select species from both sites. Fifty-five species were found, 43 on serpentine, 26 on granite. Fourteen species were shared in common. Twelve species are reported for the first time from serpentine soils. Tissue analyses indicated significantly higher Mg, Ni, and Cr concentrations and significantly lower Ca:Mg ratios for serpentine mosses compared to those from granite.
  • An Annotated Checklist of Tasmanian Mosses

    An Annotated Checklist of Tasmanian Mosses

    15 AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF TASMANIAN MOSSES by P.I Dalton, R.D. Seppelt and A.M. Buchanan An annotated checklist of the Tasmanian mosses is presented to clarify the occurrence of taxa within the state. Some recently collected species, for which there are no published records, have been included. Doubtful records and excluded speciei. are listed separately. The Tasmanian moss flora as recognised here includes 361 species. Key Words: mosses, Tasmania. In BANKS, M.R. et al. (Eds), 1991 (3l:iii): ASPECTS OF TASMANIAN BOTANY -- A TR1BUn TO WINIFRED CURTIS. Roy. Soc. Tasm. Hobart: 15-32. INTRODUCTION in recent years previously unrecorded species have been found as well as several new taxa described. Tasmanian mosses received considerable attention We have assigned genera to families followi ng Crosby during the early botanical exploration of the antipodes. & Magill (1981 ), except where otherwise indicated in One of the earliest accounts was given by Wilson (1859), the case of more recent publications. The arrangement who provided a series of descriptions of the then-known of families, genera and species is in alphabetic order for species, accompanied by coloured illustrations, as ease of access. Taxa known to occur in Taslnania ami Part III of J.D. Hooker's Botany of the Antarctic its neighbouring islands only are listed; those for Voyage. Although there have been a number of papers subantarctic Macquarie Island (politically part of since that time, two significant compilations were Tasmania) are not treated and have been presented published about the tum of the century. The first was by elsewhere (Seppelt 1981).
  • Hypopterygium

    Hypopterygium

    HYPOPTERYGIUM Hans (J.D.) Kruijer1 Hypopterygium Brid., Bryol. Univ. 2: 709 (1827); from the Greek ύπo (hypo-, under) and πτερυγιov (pterygion, a little wing), in reference to the amphigastria. Hypopterygium Brid. sect. Euhypopterygium Müll.Hal., Syn. Musc. Frond. 2: 3 (1850), nom. illeg. [Hypopterygium Brid. sect. Hypopterygium]; Hypopterygium Brid. subg. Euhypopterygium Bosch & Sande Lac., Bryol. Jav. 2: 10 (1861), nom. illeg. [Hypopterygium Brid. subg. Hypopterygium]; fide R. van der Wijk et al. (Index Musc. 3: 178, 1964), based on Hypopterygium Brid. sect. Euhypopterygium Müll.Hal. Lecto: Hypopterygium laricinum (Hook.) Brid. [= Hypopterygium tamarisci (Sw.) Brid. ex Müll.Hal.]. Hypopterygium Brid. sect. Pseudotamariscina Kindb., Hedwigia 40: 285 (1901), as Pseudo-Tamariscina; Hypopterygium Brid. subsect. Pseudotamariscina (Kindb.) M.Fleisch., Musc. Buitenzorg 3: 1080 (1908), as Pseudo-Tamariscina. T: Hypopterygium tasmanicum Kindb. [= H. didictyon Müll.Hal.]. Hypopterygium Brid. subg. Euhypopterygium Kindb., Hedwigia 40: 284 (1901), nom. illeg.; Hypopterygium Brid. sect. Euhypopterygium (Kindb.) M.Fleisch., Musc. Buitenzorg 3: 1080 (1908), nom. illeg., incl. type of Hypopterygium Brid., fide J.D.Kruijer, Blumea, Suppl. 13: 139 (2002). Hypopterygium Brid. sect. Tamariscina Kindb., Hedwigia 40: 287 (1901), nom. illeg.; Hypopterygium Brid. subsect. Tamariscina (Kindb.) M.Fleisch., Musc. Buitenzorg 3: 1083. (1908), nom. illeg., incl. type of Hypopterygium Brid., fide J.D.Kruijer, Blumea, Suppl. 13: 139 (2002). Plants pinnate to umbellate. Stipe tomentose or glabrous above base. Frond transversely (ob-) ovate to elliptic, glabrous (partly tomentose in one species); ramification pinnate to bipinnate (or partly tripinnate); rudimentary branches absent; axes terete; central strand present; axial cavities absent; axillary hairs 2–4-celled. Foliation partly or entirely complanate.
  • Household and Personal Uses

    Household and Personal Uses

    Glime, J. M. 2017. Household and Personal Uses. Chapt. 1-1. In: Glime, J. M. Bryophyte Ecology. Volume 5. Uses. Ebook sponsored 1-1-1 by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Last updated 5 October 2017 and available at <http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology/>. CHAPTER 1 HOUSEHOLD AND PERSONAL USES TABLE OF CONTENTS Household Uses...................................................................................................................................................1-1-2 Furnishings...................................................................................................................................................1-1-4 Padding and Absorption...............................................................................................................................1-1-5 Mattresses.............................................................................................................................................1-1-6 Shower Mat...........................................................................................................................................1-1-7 Urinal Absorption.................................................................................................................................1-1-8 Cleaning.......................................................................................................................................................1-1-8 Brushes and Brooms.............................................................................................................................1-1-8
  • Flora of New Zealand Mosses Leucobryaceae Aj Fife

    Flora of New Zealand Mosses Leucobryaceae Aj Fife

    FLORA OF NEW ZEALAND MOSSES LEUCOBRYACEAE A.J. FIFE Fascicle 48 – DECEMBER 2020 © Landcare Research New Zealand Limited 2020. Unless indicated otherwise for specific items, this copyright work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence Attribution if redistributing to the public without adaptation: "Source: Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research" Attribution if making an adaptation or derivative work: "Sourced from Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research" See Image Information for copyright and licence details for images. CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION Fife, Allan J. (Allan James), 1951- Flora of New Zealand : mosses. Fascicle 48, Leucobryaceae / Allan J. Fife. -- Lincoln, N.Z. : Manaaki Whenua Press, 2020. 1 online resource ISBN 978-0-947525-70-5 (pdf) ISBN 978-0-478-34747-0 (set) 1.Mosses -- New Zealand -- Identification. I. Title. II. Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd. UDC 582.344.29(931) DC 588.20993 DOI: 10.7931/5zzx-2719 This work should be cited as: Fife, A.J. 2020: Leucobryaceae. In: Smissen, R. (ed.) Flora of New Zealand — Mosses. Fascicle 48. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln. http://dx.doi.org/10.7931/5zzx-2719 Date submitted: 21 Sep 2020; Date accepted: 22 Sep 2020; Date published: 2 January 2021 Cover image: Leucobryum javense, habit with capsule, dry capsule, dwarf ♂ plant on leaf, and cross section at mid leaf. Drawn by Rebecca Wagstaff from J.E. Beever 31-28, CHR 406176, G. Brownlie 681, CHR 427667, and J.E. Beever 31-99, CHR 406114. Contents Introduction..............................................................................................................................................1
  • Field Guide to the Moss Genera in New Jersey by Keith Bowman

    Field Guide to the Moss Genera in New Jersey by Keith Bowman

    Field Guide to the Moss Genera in New Jersey With Coefficient of Conservation and Indicator Status Keith Bowman, PhD 10/20/2017 Acknowledgements There are many individuals that have been essential to this project. Dr. Eric Karlin compiled the initial annotated list of New Jersey moss taxa. Second, I would like to recognize the contributions of the many northeastern bryologists that aided in the development of the initial coefficient of conservation values included in this guide including Dr. Richard Andrus, Dr. Barbara Andreas, Dr. Terry O’Brien, Dr. Scott Schuette, and Dr. Sean Robinson. I would also like to acknowledge the valuable photographic contributions from Kathleen S. Walz, Dr. Robert Klips, and Dr. Michael Lüth. Funding for this project was provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, State Wetlands Protection Development Grant, Section 104(B)(3); CFDA No. 66.461, CD97225809. Recommended Citation: Bowman, Keith. 2017. Field Guide to the Moss Genera in New Jersey With Coefficient of Conservation and Indicator Status. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Forest Service, Office of Natural Lands Management, Trenton, NJ, 08625. Submitted to United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, State Wetlands Protection Development Grant, Section 104(B)(3); CFDA No. 66.461, CD97225809. i Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Descriptions
  • Bryophytes of North Carolina (2021-10-01) Nc-Biodiversity.Com [State Rank Global Rank] {State Status} Comments SCAPANIACEAE: [Cont.] 36 Diplophyllum Taxifolium

    Bryophytes of North Carolina (2021-10-01) Nc-Biodiversity.Com [State Rank Global Rank] {State Status} Comments SCAPANIACEAE: [Cont.] 36 Diplophyllum Taxifolium

    List of the Moss, Liverwort, Hornwort taxa of North Carolina (2021-10-01) This is a listing of the 692 taxa (692 native) that have been (documented to or which might) occur in the state [455 Mosses, 230 Liverworts, 7 Hornworts]. The scientific and common names used in this list are from: (Mosses ???), (Liverworts ???), and (Hornworts ???). The list also includes the State Rank, Global Rank, State Status, and U.S. Status (if it has such statuses) for each species. The ranks are those of the Biotics database of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and NatureServe, October 2016. The NC NHP provides the Significantly Rare and Watch List status categories. [State Rank Global Rank] {State Status} Comments ••• Hornworts ••• ANTHOCEROTACEAE: [2] 1 Anthoceros adscendens ....................................... ascending hornwort ..................... [S2?G3?] {W7} 2 Anthoceros lamellatus ........................................... walled hornwort ........................... [S1GNR] {SR-L} DENDROCEROTACEAE: [1] 3 Nothoceros aenigmaticus ..................................... mystery hornwort ......................... [S3G3] {W1} ••• Liverworts ••• CEPHALOZIACEAE: [2] 4 Fuscocephaloziopsis connivens var. bifida ........... split Cephalozia ........................... [S1G5T1Q] 5 Fuscocephaloziopsis pleniceps var. caroliniana ... Carolina Cephalozia .................... [SHG5T1] CEPHALOZIELLACEAE: [5] 6 Cephaloziella hampeana ...................................... Hampe's Cephaloziella ................ [S1G5] 7 Cephaloziella massalongoi ..................................
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2021

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2021

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2021 Compiled by Brenda L. Wichmann, Botanist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2021 Compiled by Brenda L. Wichmann, Botanist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised every other year as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate. Further information may be obtained by contacting the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, 1651 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1651; by contacting the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 1701 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1701; or by contacting the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1060 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1060.
  • An All-Taxa Biodiversity Inventory of the Huron Mountain Club

    An All-Taxa Biodiversity Inventory of the Huron Mountain Club

    AN ALL-TAXA BIODIVERSITY INVENTORY OF THE HURON MOUNTAIN CLUB Version: August 2016 Cite as: Woods, K.D. (Compiler). 2016. An all-taxa biodiversity inventory of the Huron Mountain Club. Version August 2016. Occasional papers of the Huron Mountain Wildlife Foundation, No. 5. [http://www.hmwf.org/species_list.php] Introduction and general compilation by: Kerry D. Woods Natural Sciences Bennington College Bennington VT 05201 Kingdom Fungi compiled by: Dana L. Richter School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI 49931 DEDICATION This project is dedicated to Dr. William R. Manierre, who is responsible, directly and indirectly, for documenting a large proportion of the taxa listed here. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 5 SOURCES 7 DOMAIN BACTERIA 11 KINGDOM MONERA 11 DOMAIN EUCARYA 13 KINGDOM EUGLENOZOA 13 KINGDOM RHODOPHYTA 13 KINGDOM DINOFLAGELLATA 14 KINGDOM XANTHOPHYTA 15 KINGDOM CHRYSOPHYTA 15 KINGDOM CHROMISTA 16 KINGDOM VIRIDAEPLANTAE 17 Phylum CHLOROPHYTA 18 Phylum BRYOPHYTA 20 Phylum MARCHANTIOPHYTA 27 Phylum ANTHOCEROTOPHYTA 29 Phylum LYCOPODIOPHYTA 30 Phylum EQUISETOPHYTA 31 Phylum POLYPODIOPHYTA 31 Phylum PINOPHYTA 32 Phylum MAGNOLIOPHYTA 32 Class Magnoliopsida 32 Class Liliopsida 44 KINGDOM FUNGI 50 Phylum DEUTEROMYCOTA 50 Phylum CHYTRIDIOMYCOTA 51 Phylum ZYGOMYCOTA 52 Phylum ASCOMYCOTA 52 Phylum BASIDIOMYCOTA 53 LICHENS 68 KINGDOM ANIMALIA 75 Phylum ANNELIDA 76 Phylum MOLLUSCA 77 Phylum ARTHROPODA 79 Class Insecta 80 Order Ephemeroptera 81 Order Odonata 83 Order Orthoptera 85 Order Coleoptera 88 Order Hymenoptera 96 Class Arachnida 110 Phylum CHORDATA 111 Class Actinopterygii 112 Class Amphibia 114 Class Reptilia 115 Class Aves 115 Class Mammalia 121 INTRODUCTION No complete species inventory exists for any area.
  • The Moss Flora of Mauritius

    The Moss Flora of Mauritius

    Moss Flora of Mauritius 1 The Moss Flora of Mauritius Jan-Peter Frahm1, Brian J. O'Shea 2 & Boon-Chuan Ho1 1Nees Institut für Biodiversität der Pflanzen, Universität Bonn, Meckenheimer Allee 170, 53115 Bonn, Germany; 2141 Fawnbrake Avenue, London SE24 0BG, United Kingdom. Abstract: The mosses reported from Mauritius were compiled from the literature and are listed with localities and references. Included are collections by the first author made in 2007 on the island. Barbula indica, Campylopus flavicoma, Racopilum ayresii and Ectropothecium chenagonii, Groutiella tomentosa, Schlotheimia ferruginosa and Trichostomum crispulum are reported as new to Mauritius. The list includes 238 species. A short survey of the bryological exploration of the island is given. Introduction Mauritius is (with Rodriguez and Réunion) part of the Mascarenes and situated east of Madagascar on 21° S. The climate is determined by the SE winds, resulting in a distinct dry period from May to October and a rainy season from October to April. The rocks are volcanic and originated about 20 million years ago (as in Rodriguez and Réunion). The island is relatively small, about 60 km from W to E and 80 km from N to S, and also relatively low with only a few mountains reaching 800 m altitude. Due to massive habitat destruction and deforestation, the natural forest is almost totally destroyed. Already Renauld (1897) stated "l'extension des cultures a forcément diminué la richesse de la vegetation spontanée". The lower altitudes are almost totally converted to sugar cane plantations. The largest semi-natural part of the island is the Black River National Park in the SW of the island, a high plateau with partial swampy forests, which is eroded by deep gorges.