Don't Plant a Pest!
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Phytotaxa, a Synthesis of Hornwort Diversity
Phytotaxa 9: 150–166 (2010) ISSN 1179-3155 (print edition) www.mapress.com/phytotaxa/ Article PHYTOTAXA Copyright © 2010 • Magnolia Press ISSN 1179-3163 (online edition) A synthesis of hornwort diversity: Patterns, causes and future work JUAN CARLOS VILLARREAL1 , D. CHRISTINE CARGILL2 , ANDERS HAGBORG3 , LARS SÖDERSTRÖM4 & KAREN SUE RENZAGLIA5 1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, 75 North Eagleville Road, Storrs, CT 06269; [email protected] 2Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, Australian National Herbarium, Australian National Botanic Gardens, GPO Box 1777, Canberra. ACT 2601, Australia; [email protected] 3Department of Botany, The Field Museum, 1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605-2496; [email protected] 4Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway; [email protected] 5Department of Plant Biology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901; [email protected] Abstract Hornworts are the least species-rich bryophyte group, with around 200–250 species worldwide. Despite their low species numbers, hornworts represent a key group for understanding the evolution of plant form because the best–sampled current phylogenies place them as sister to the tracheophytes. Despite their low taxonomic diversity, the group has not been monographed worldwide. There are few well-documented hornwort floras for temperate or tropical areas. Moreover, no species level phylogenies or population studies are available for hornworts. Here we aim at filling some important gaps in hornwort biology and biodiversity. We provide estimates of hornwort species richness worldwide, identifying centers of diversity. We also present two examples of the impact of recent work in elucidating the composition and circumscription of the genera Megaceros and Nothoceros. -
Anthocerotophyta
Glime, J. M. 2017. Anthocerotophyta. Chapt. 2-8. In: Glime, J. M. Bryophyte Ecology. Volume 1. Physiological Ecology. Ebook 2-8-1 sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Last updated 5 June 2020 and available at <http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology/>. CHAPTER 2-8 ANTHOCEROTOPHYTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Anthocerotophyta ......................................................................................................................................... 2-8-2 Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 2-8-10 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... 2-8-10 Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................................... 2-8-10 2-8-2 Chapter 2-8: Anthocerotophyta CHAPTER 2-8 ANTHOCEROTOPHYTA Figure 1. Notothylas orbicularis thallus with involucres. Photo by Michael Lüth, with permission. Anthocerotophyta These plants, once placed among the bryophytes in the families. The second class is Leiosporocerotopsida, a Anthocerotae, now generally placed in the phylum class with one order, one family, and one genus. The genus Anthocerotophyta (hornworts, Figure 1), seem more Leiosporoceros differs from members of the class distantly related, and genetic evidence may even present -
Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting -
Aquatic Vegetation Control in Arkansas George Selden, Extension Aquaculture Specialist
MP556 Aquatic Vegetation Control in Arkansas George Selden, Extension Aquaculture Specialist University of Arkansas at Pine Blu, United States Department of Agriculture, and County Governments Cooperating TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction...............................................................................................................................................2 Aquatic Plant Identification.....................................................................................................................2 Control Techniques...................................................................................................................................3 Herbicide Selection..................................................................................................................................6 Herbicide Types.........................................................................................................................................6 Why Treatments Fail.................................................................................................................................7 Herbicide Formulations............................................................................................................................7 Herbicide Application and Application Equipment............................................................................12 Herbicide Application Rate Calculation and Pond Size Determination..........................................14 Aquatic Plants that Commonly Become Problems -
Fuller’S Leadership and Over- Vincent of the Refuge Staff Are Notable for Having Sight Were Invaluable
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments Many people have contributed to this plan over many detailed and technical requirements of sub- the last seven years. Several key staff positions, missions to the Service, the Environmental Protec- including mine, have been filled by different people tion Agency, and the Federal Register. Jon during the planning period. Tom Palmer and Neil Kauffeld’s and Nita Fuller’s leadership and over- Vincent of the Refuge staff are notable for having sight were invaluable. We benefited from close col- been active in the planning for the entire extent. laboration and cooperation with staff of the Illinois Tom and Neil kept the details straight and the rest Department of Natural Resources. Their staff par- of us on track throughout. Mike Brown joined the ticipated from the early days of scoping through staff in the midst of the process and contributed new reviews and re-writes. We appreciate their persis- insights, analysis, and enthusiasm that kept us mov- tence, professional expertise, and commitment to ing forward. Beth Kerley and John Magera pro- our natural resources. Finally, we value the tremen- vided valuable input on the industrial and public use dous involvement of citizens throughout the plan- aspects of the plan. Although this is a refuge plan, ning process. We heard from visitors to the Refuge we received notable support from our regional office and from people who care about the Refuge without planning staff. John Schomaker provided excep- ever having visited. Their input demonstrated a tional service coordinating among the multiple level of caring and thought that constantly interests and requirements within the Service. -
Title Flowering Phenology and Anthophilous Insect Community at a Threatened Natural Lowland Marsh at Nakaikemi in Tsuruga, Japan
Flowering phenology and anthophilous insect community at a Title threatened natural lowland marsh at Nakaikemi in Tsuruga, Japan Author(s) KATO, Makoto; MIURA, Reiichi Contributions from the Biological Laboratory, Kyoto Citation University (1996), 29(1): 1 Issue Date 1996-03-31 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/156114 Right Type Departmental Bulletin Paper Textversion publisher Kyoto University Contr. biol. Lab. Kyoto Univ., Vol. 29, pp. 1-48, Pl. 1 Issued 31 March 1996 Flowering phenology and anthophilous insect community at a threatened natural lowland marsh at Nakaikemi in Tsuruga, Japan Makoto KATo and Reiichi MiuRA ABSTRACT Nakaikemi marsh, located in Fukui Prefecture, is one of only a few natural lowland marshlands left in westem Japan, and harbors many endangered marsh plants and animals. Flowering phenology and anthophilous insect communities on 64 plant species of 35 families were studied in the marsh in 1994-95. A total of 936 individuals of 215 species in eight orders of Insecta were collected on flowers from mid April to mid October, The anthophilous insect community was characterized by dominance of Diptera (58 9e of individuals) and relative paucity of Hymenoptera (26 9o), Hemiptera (6 9e), Lepidoptera (5 9e), and Coleoptera (5 9o), Syrphidae was the most abundant family and probably the most important pollination agents. Bee community was characterized by dominance of an aboveground nesting bee genus, Hylaeus (Colletidae), the most abundant species of which was a minute, rare little-recorded species. Cluster analysis on fiower-visiting insect spectra grouped 64 plant species into seven clusters, which were respectively characterized by dominance of small or large bees (18 spp.), syrphid fiies (13 spp.), Calyptrate and other flies (11 spp.), wasps and middle-sized bees (8 spp.), Lepidoptera (2 spp.), Coleoptera (1 sp.) and a mixture of these various insects (11 spp.). -
Hornwort Pyrenoids, Carbon-Concentrating Structures, Evolved and Were Lost at Least five Times During the Last 100 Million Years
Hornwort pyrenoids, carbon-concentrating structures, evolved and were lost at least five times during the last 100 million years Juan Carlos Villarreal1 and Susanne S. Renner Systematic Botany and Mycology, Department of Biology, University of Munich (LMU), Munich 80638, Germany Edited by John Raven, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom, and accepted by the Editorial Board September 24, 2012 (received for review August 7, 2012) Ribulose-1,5-Biphosphate-carboxylase-oxygenase (RuBisCO) has a have a stacked arrangement of thylakoid membranes (grana) that crucial role in carbon fixation but a slow catalytic rate, a problem results in the spatial separation of photosystems and increases the overcome in some plant lineages by physiological and anatomical efficiency of light capture in terrestrial environments (13). Horn- traits that elevate carbon concentrations around the enzyme. Such wort grana consist of stacks of short thylakoids and lack end carbon-concentrating mechanisms are hypothesized to have evolved membranes. Therefore, unlike other land plants, hornwort grana during periods of low atmospheric CO2. Hornworts, the sister to are devoid of the membrane “sacs” that enclose intrathylakoid vascular plants, have a carbon-concentrating mechanism that relies spaces. Presumably, the perpendicular channel thylakoid system in on pyrenoids, proteinaceous bodies mostly consisting of RuBisCO. hornwort plastids serves to isolate biochemical processes (13). We generated a phylogeny based on mitochondrial and plastid Organic isotope discrimination supports a function in CO2 sequences for 36% of the approximately 200 hornwort species to concentration for hornwort pyrenoids (14–18). Mass spectrometry infer the history of gains and losses of pyrenoids in this clade; we analyses show that hornworts with pyrenoids (e.g., Phaeoceros and also used fossils and multiple dating approaches to generate a chro- Notothylas) have lower compensation points (11–13 vs. -
Unwise Plant Choices
Don’t Be Fooled by Unwise Water-Wise Plant Choices California’s drought is popularizing low-water landscaping: lawns are coming out, xeriscaping is going in. Fortunately, water agencies, nurseries, and garden media are all promoting drought-tolerant plant lists to guide purchasing decisions and reduce water usage. Unfortunately, in this rush for water conservation, invasive plants are creeping onto some of these lists! Maybe you’ve already noticed… There is little surprise that many invasive plants are drought-resistant. By definition, invasive plants can spread into new regions and take over without extra fertilizers or irrigation. Water-wise lists that include drought-tolerant plants are missing the point, however. Why? An invasive plants’ damaging impacts are numerous. For example, in Southern California green fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) plants do not provide habitat or forage for wildlife and add considerable fuel-load to wildfires. Other plants can alter soil composition, influence erosion, or even affect our waterways. Giant reed (Arundo donax), was previously a common ornamental that now grows densely in stream banks, increasing flood impacts and clogging water passages. Lastly, the use of herbicides on invasive plants, while in many cases the best available option, poses risk to water quality in our streams, aquifers and oceans. With this in mind, gardeners and landscape professionals can be truly “water-wise” by: 1. Insisting on non-invasive plants when designing drought-tolerant landscapes. Plants that we’ve seen (in order of prevalence) on drought- tolerant plant lists include: Mexican feathergrass (Nassella or Stipa tenuissima) – emerging invasive, Green fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), Highway iceplant, (Carpobrotus edulis), Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), Capeweed (Arctotheca calendula) and Big leaf periwinkle (Vinca major). -
Laurentian-Acadian Alkaline Conifer-Hardwood Swamp
Laurentian-Acadian Alkaline Conifer-Hardwood Swamp Macrogroup: Northern Swamp yourStateNatural Heritage Ecologist for more information about this habitat. This is modeledmap a distributiononbased current and is data nota substitute for field inventory. based Contact © Elizabeth Thompson (Vermont Land Trust) Description: A forested swamp of alkaline wetlands associated with limestone or other calcareous substrate in the northern part of the glaciated northeast. Northern white cedar is often present and may dominate the canopy or be mixed with other conifers or with deciduous trees, most commonly red maple or black ash. Some examples can be almost entirely deciduous and dominated by black ash. Red-osier dogwood is a common shrub. The herb layer tends to be more diverse than in acidic swamps, due to higher pH and nutrient level. Small open fenny areas may occur within the wetland. The moss layer is often extensive and diverse. Seepage may influence parts of the wetland, but the hydrology is State Distribution: CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, VT dominated by the basin setting. Total Habitat Acreage: 921,478 Ecological Setting and Natural Processes: Percent Conserved: 19.5% These forested wetlands are uncommon in the glaciated State State GAP 1&2 GAP 3 Unsecured northeast except in areas with extensive limestone or similar State Habitat % Acreage (acres) (acres) (acres) substrate. The substrate is typically mineral soil, but there ME 56% 520,121 14,203 60,307 445,611 may be some peat, and there is often direct contact with NY 38% 345,750 49,536 44,764 251,450 alkaline groundwater. VT 5% 43,899 1,177 4,786 37,935 NH 1% 7,363 2,054 1,013 4,295 MA 0% 4,261 643 1,267 2,350 CT 0% 86 0 0 86 Similar Habitat Types: Similar to North-Central Interior and Appalachian Rich Swamp, but with a flora characteristic of a cooler climate. -
Extant Diversity of Bryophytes Emerged from Successive Post-Mesozoic Diversification Bursts
ARTICLE Received 20 Mar 2014 | Accepted 3 Sep 2014 | Published 27 Oct 2014 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6134 Extant diversity of bryophytes emerged from successive post-Mesozoic diversification bursts B. Laenen1,2, B. Shaw3, H. Schneider4, B. Goffinet5, E. Paradis6,A.De´samore´1,2, J. Heinrichs7, J.C. Villarreal7, S.R. Gradstein8, S.F. McDaniel9, D.G. Long10, L.L. Forrest10, M.L. Hollingsworth10, B. Crandall-Stotler11, E.C. Davis9, J. Engel12, M. Von Konrat12, E.D. Cooper13, J. Patin˜o1, C.J. Cox14, A. Vanderpoorten1,* & A.J. Shaw3,* Unraveling the macroevolutionary history of bryophytes, which arose soon after the origin of land plants but exhibit substantially lower species richness than the more recently derived angiosperms, has been challenged by the scarce fossil record. Here we demonstrate that overall estimates of net species diversification are approximately half those reported in ferns and B30% those described for angiosperms. Nevertheless, statistical rate analyses on time- calibrated large-scale phylogenies reveal that mosses and liverworts underwent bursts of diversification since the mid-Mesozoic. The diversification rates further increase in specific lineages towards the Cenozoic to reach, in the most recently derived lineages, values that are comparable to those reported in angiosperms. This suggests that low diversification rates do not fully account for current patterns of bryophyte species richness, and we hypothesize that, as in gymnosperms, the low extant bryophyte species richness also results from massive extinctions. 1 Department of Conservation Biology and Evolution, Institute of Botany, University of Lie`ge, Lie`ge 4000, Belgium. 2 Institut fu¨r Systematische Botanik, University of Zu¨rich, Zu¨rich 8008, Switzerland. -
Garden Wise Non-Invasive Plants for Your Garden
Garden Wise Non-Invasive Plants for Your Garden Western Washington Guide Voluntary codes of conduct For the gardening public (annotated): In an effort to reduce the spread of invasive plants used for horticultural purposes, experts have created the “Voluntary Codes of Conduct,” a series of steps that nursery professionals, landscape architects, gardeners, and others can take to help curb the spread of invasive horticultural plants. ◊ Ask for only non-invasive species when you acquire plants. Plant only environmentally safe species in your gardens. Work towards and promote new landscape design that is friendly to regional ecosystems. ◊ Seek information on which species are invasive in your area. Sources could include botanical gardens, horticulturists, conservationists, and government agencies. Remove invasive species from your land and replace them with non-invasive species suited to your site and needs. ◊ Do not trade plants with other gardeners if you know they are species with invasive characteristics. ◊ Request that botanical gardens and nurseries promote, display, and sell only non-invasive species. ◊ Help educate your community and other gardeners in your area through personal contact and in such settings as garden clubs and other civic groups. For the full Gardening Codes of Conduct, or to learn about the Codes of Conduct for Government, Nursery Professionals, Landscape Architects, and Botanic Gardens and Arboreta, please go to the Invasive.org, TNC’s Global Invasive Species Team webpage: www.invasive.org/gist/horticulture/using-codes.html. Garden Wise is dedicated to Ann Lennartz Garden Wise Non-Invasive Plants for Your Garden While most exotic plants are not problematic, a few have become invasive in Washington State. -
Assessment of the Efficacy of Contained Grass Carp at Removing the Aquatic Weed Hornwort
Assessment of the Efficacy of Contained Grass Carp at Removing the Aquatic Weed Hornwort MPI Technical Paper No: 2012/15 Prepared for MPI by DE Hofstra and JS Clayton NIWA ISBN No: 978-0-478-40020-5 (online) ISSN No: 2253-3923 (online) August 2012 Disclaimer While every effort has been made to ensure the information in this publication is accurate, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) does not accept any responsibility or liability for error or fact omission, interpretation or opinion which may be present, nor for the consequences of any decisions based on this information. Any view or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the official view of MPI. The information in this report and any accompanying documentation is accurate to the best of the knowledge and belief of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) acting on behalf of MPI. While NIWA has exercised all reasonable skill and care in preparation of information in this report, neither NIWA nor MPI accept any liability in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss, damage, injury, or expense, whether direct, indirect or consequential, arising out of the provision of information in this report. Requests for further copies should be directed to: Publications Logistics Officer Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 WELLINGTON 6140 Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 00 83 33 Facsimile: 04-8940300 This publication is also available on the Ministry for Primary Industries website at http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/publications.aspx © Crown