DOCSLIB.ORG

GU Campus Species

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Species found in Glasgow Necropolis (February 2013) Group Species Common Name EarliestLatest Total slime mould Mucilago crustacea var. crustacea 'Scrambled-egg' slime mould 2011 2011 1 fungus Entoloma papillatum Papillate Pinkgill 2012 2012 1 fungus Pholiota aurivella Golden Scalycap 2010 2010 1 fungus Psathyrella candolleana Pale Brittlestem 2012 2012 1 fungus Calocybe gambosa St. George's Mushroom 2012 2012 1 lichen Lepraria incana 2005 2005 2 lichen Lecania cyrtella 2005 2005 1 lichen Candelariella vitellina forma vitellina 2005 2005 1 lichen Cladonia coniocraea 2005 2005 1 lichen Hypogymnia 2005 2005 1 lichen Melanelia fuliginosa subsp. fuliginosa 2005 2005 1 lichen Parmelia 2005 2005 1 lichen Physcia adscendens 2005 2005 1 lichen Physcia aipolia 2005 2005 1 lichen Xanthoria candelaria 2005 2005 1 lichen Xanthoria parietina 2005 2005 1 lichen Evernia prunastri 2005 2005 1 lichen Hypogymnia physodes 2005 2005 1 lichen Parmelia saxatilis 2005 2005 1 lichen Physcia tenella 2005 2005 1 lichen Xanthoria polycarpa 2005 2005 1 clubmoss Lycopodium clavatum Stag's-horn Clubmoss 1985 1988 4 horsetail Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail 1984 2004 3 fern Asplenium ruta-muraria Wall-rue 2004 2004 1 fern Asplenium trichomanes Maidenhair Spleenwort 2004 2004 1 fern Phyllitis scolopendrium Hart's-tongue 1985 2004 2 fern Dryopteris dilatata Broad Buckler-fern 1984 1986 2 fern Dryopteris filix-mas Male-fern 1984 1986 2 fern Polypodium vulgare Polypody 1985 1985 1 fern Athyrium filix-femina Lady-fern 1984 2004 3 conifer Chamaecyparis pisifera Sawara Cypress 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Carex pilulifera Pill Sedge 1995 1984 1 flowering plant Juncus bufonius Toad Rush 1985 2004 2 flowering plant Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell 1984 2005 3 flowering plant Dactylorhiza fuchsii Common Spotted-orchid 2010 2012 3 flowering plant Epipactis helleborine Broad-leaved Helleborine 1986 1986 1 flowering plant Agrostis capillaris Common Bent 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent 1984 1984 1 flowering plant Aira caryophyllea Silver Hair-grass 1985 1985 1 flowering plant Aira praecox Early Hair-grass 1985 2004 2 flowering plant Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass 1984 2004 2 flowering plant Polygonum aviculare agg. Knotgrass agg. 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat-grass 1984 2004 3 flowering plant Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted Hair-grass 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy Hair-grass 1984 2004 3 flowering plant Elytrigia repens Common Couch 1984 1986 2 flowering plant Festuca pratensis Meadow Fescue 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Festuca rubra Red Fescue 1986 1986 1 flowering plant Senecio vulgaris var. hibernicus Groundsel 1986 1986 1 flowering plant Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Holcus mollis Creeping Soft-grass 1985 2004 3 flowering plant Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Poa annua Annual Meadow-grass 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Poa chaixii Broad-leaved Meadow-grass 1984 1984 2 flowering plant Vulpia myuros Rat's-tail Fescue 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Acer platanoides Norway Maple 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore 1986 2006 3 flowering plant Acer pseudoplatanus forma purpureum Purple Sycamore 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Acer pseudoplatanus forma variegatum Variegated Sycamore 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Acer pseudoplatanus 'Brilliantissimum' Brilliant Sycamore 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Acer rubrum Red Maple 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Aegopodium podagraria Ground-elder 1984 2004 2 flowering plant Anthriscus sylvestris Cow Parsley 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Myrrhis odorata Sweet Cicely 2010 2010 1 flowering plant Ilex aquifolium Holly 1984 2006 3 flowering plant Ilex aquifolium x perado = I. x altaclerensis Highclere Holly 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Hedera colchica Persian Ivy 1985 1985 1 flowering plant Hedera helix Ivy 1984 2010 5 flowering plant Hedera hibernica Atlantic Ivy 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Achillea millefolium Yarrow 1986 2009 3 flowering plant Artemisia vulgaris Mugwort 1984 1986 2 flowering plant Bellis perennis Daisy 1986 2005 3 flowering plant Centaurea nigra Common Knapweed 1984 1986 2 flowering plant Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Gnaphalium uliginosum Marsh Cudweed 1985 2004 2 flowering plant Hieracium acuminatum Green-leaved Hawkweed 1984 1984 1 flowering plant Hieracium latobrigorum a hawkweed 1986 1986 1 flowering plant Hieracium salticola a hawkweed 1984 1986 2 flowering plant Hieracium virgultorum a hawkweed 1989 1989 1 flowering plant Hieracium vulgatum Pale-headed Hawkweed 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Hypochaeris radicata Cat's-ear 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Lapsana communis Nipplewort 1984 2004 3 flowering plant Leontodon autumnalis Autumn Hawkbit 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye Daisy 1985 2009 2 flowering plant Matricaria discoidea Pineappleweed 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Senecio jacobaea Common Ragwort 1984 2010 4 flowering plant Senecio viscosus Sticky Groundsel 1984 2004 3 flowering plant Senecio vulgaris Groundsel 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Sonchus asper Prickly Sow-thistle 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Sonchus oleraceus Smooth Sow-thistle 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Tanacetum parthenium Feverfew 1986 1986 1 flowering plant Tanacetum vulgare Tansy 1984 2004 2 flowering plant Festuca rubra Red Fescue 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Tripleurospermum inodorum Scentless Mayweed 2009 2009 1 flowering plant Tripleurospermum maritimum Sea Mayweed 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Tussilago farfara Colt's-foot 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Alnus glutinosa Alder 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Betula pendula Silver Birch 1985 2006 3 flowering plant Betula pubescens Downy Birch 1985 2006 2 flowering plant Corylus colurna Turkish Hazel 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Myosotis arvensis Field Forget-me-not 1985 1985 1 flowering plant Symphytum officinale x asperum = S. x uplandicum Russian Comfrey 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard 2004 2012 4 flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana Thale Cress 1985 2005 3 flowering plant Barbarea vulgaris Winter-cress 1985 1985 1 flowering plant Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's-purse 1985 2004 3 flowering plant Cardamine flexuosa Wavy Bitter-cress 1985 2004 2 flowering plant Rorippa palustris Marsh Yellow-cress 1985 1985 1 flowering plant Sinapis arvensis Charlock 1984 1986 2 flowering plant Sisymbrium officinale Hedge Mustard 1984 2004 3 flowering plant Sisymbrium orientale Eastern Rocket 1984 1984 1 flowering plant Buddleja davidii Butterfly-bush 2004 2007 8 flowering plant Sambucus nigra Elder 1984 2006 4 flowering plant Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Cerastium glomeratum Sticky Mouse-ear 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Sagina apetala Annual Pearlwort 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Sagina apetala subsp. erecta Fringed Pearlwort 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Sagina procumbens Procumbent Pearlwort 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Sagina subulata Heath Pearlwort 1976 1986 4 flowering plant Saponaria officinalis Soapwort 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Stellaria graminea Lesser Stitchwort 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Stellaria media Common Chickweed 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Atriplex patula Common Orache 1984 2004 3 flowering plant Calystegia sepium Hedge Bindweed 1984 2004 2 flowering plant Calystegia silvatica Large Bindweed 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Dipsacus fullonum Wild Teasel 2010 2010 2 flowering plant Calluna vulgaris Heather 1986 1986 1 flowering plant Cytisus scoparius Broom 1984 2005 5 flowering plant Laburnum alpinum Scottish Laburnum 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Laburnum anagyroides Laburnum 1985 2006 3 flowering plant Lotus corniculatus Common Bird's-foot-trefoil 1985 2004 3 flowering plant Trifolium dubium Lesser Trefoil 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Trifolium hybridum Alsike Clover 1986 1986 1 flowering plant Trifolium pratense Red Clover 1985 1985 1 flowering plant Trifolium repens White Clover 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Vicia hirsuta Hairy Tare 1985 2004 2 flowering plant Vicia sativa subsp. nigra Narrow-leaved Vetch 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Quercus petraea x robur = Q. x rosacea Hybrid Oak 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Geranium robertianum Herb-Robert 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Aesculus carnea Red Horse-chestnut 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Aesculus hippocastanum Horse-chestnut 2006 2006 1 flowering plant Galeopsis tetrahit Common Hemp-nettle 1984 1986 2 flowering plant Lamium amplexicaule Henbit Dead-nettle 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Lamium purpureum Red Dead-nettle 1985 1985 1 flowering plant Prunella vulgaris Selfheal 1985 2004 2 flowering plant Stachys sylvatica Hedge Woundwort 1984 1984 1 flowering plant Fraxinus excelsior Ash 1984 2006 3 flowering plant Chamerion angustifolium Rosebay Willowherb 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Epilobium montanum Broad-leaved Willowherb 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Epilobium obscurum Short-fruited Willowherb 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Papaver rhoeas Common Poppy 2009 2009 1 flowering plant Papaver somniferum Opium Poppy 1984 1984 1 flowering plant Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain 2004 2004 1 flowering plant Plantago major Greater Plantain 1986 2004 2 flowering plant Fallopia japonica Japanese Knotweed 1984 2004 3 flowering
Recommended publications
  • Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

    Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

    Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Forest Health & Biosecurity Working Papers OVERVIEW OF FOREST PESTS ROMANIA January 2007 Forest Resources Development Service Working Paper FBS/28E Forest Management Division FAO, Rome, Italy Forestry Department DISCLAIMER The aim of this document is to give an overview of the forest pest1 situation in Romania. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. © FAO 2007 1 Pest: Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products (FAO, 2004). Overview of forest pests - Romania TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 Forest pests and diseases................................................................................................. 1 Naturally regenerating forests..................................................................................... 1 Insects ..................................................................................................................... 1 Diseases................................................................................................................
  • The Potential of Restored Landfill Sites to Support Pollinating Insects

    The Potential of Restored Landfill Sites to Support Pollinating Insects

    The potential of restored landfill sites to support pollinating insects Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Northampton 2009 Sam Tarrant UNIVERSITY OF NORTHAMPTON /\V £ I f c bARY i D V V 1 ACC. No. 10*54-^ CLASS N O j)gSS C1657<(o TftQ Abstract Habitat restoration is an important tool in reducing the current decline in biodiversity. To determine the success of restoration, ecologists have previously focused on species richness or on the presence of rare species; little is known of species interactions. This study examines both the potential of restored landfill sites to support pollinating insects and how flower-insect interactions can be used in determining successful restoration. These are important attributes of ecosystem function. Standard belt transects were used to record flowering insect pollinated plants and flower-visiting insects on nine paired restored landfill and reference nature sites, in the broader Northamptonshire region (UK). Over the duration of this study, an area of 25,000m2 was surveyed for floral characteristics and approximately 138,000 floral units were counted from c)8 plant species. A total of 201 flower visitor surveys were performed, with 942 flower-visiting insect samples taken. Flowering plant species richness and abundance of floral resources on restored landfill sites were not found to be significantly different from those on reference sites and the flower-visiting insect assemblages were similar in terms of species-richness and abundance. Interaction structures were examined and whilst the plant-insect assemblages had few species in common, both showed similar levels of nestedness and connectance.
  • Species List

    Species List

    1 of 16 Claypits 20/09/2021 species list Group Taxon Common Name Earliest Latest Records acarine Aceria macrorhyncha 2012 2012 1 acarine Aceria nalepai 2018 2018 1 amphibian Bufo bufo Common Toad 2001 2018 6 amphibian Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt 2001 2018 5 amphibian Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt 2001 2001 1 annelid Hirudinea Leech 2011 2011 1 bird Acanthis cabaret Lesser Redpoll 2013 2013 1 bird Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Sedge Warbler 2001 2011 2 bird Aegithalos caudatus Long-tailed Tit 2011 2014 2 bird Alcedo atthis Kingfisher 2020 2020 1 bird Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 2013 2018 4 bird Anser Goose 2011 2011 1 bird Ardea cinerea Grey Heron 2013 2013 1 bird Aythya fuligula Tufted Duck 2013 2014 1 bird Buteo buteo Buzzard 2013 2014 2 bird Carduelis carduelis Goldfinch 2011 2014 5 bird Chloris chloris Greenfinch 2011 2014 6 bird Chroicocephalus ridibundus Black-headed Gull 2014 2014 1 bird Coloeus monedula Jackdaw 2011 2013 2 bird Columba livia Feral Pigeon 2014 2014 1 bird Columba palumbus Woodpigeon 2011 2018 8 bird Corvus corax Raven 2020 2020 1 bird Corvus corone Carrion Crow 2011 2014 5 bird Curruca communis Whitethroat 2011 2014 4 bird Cyanistes caeruleus Blue Tit 2011 2014 6 bird Cygnus olor Mute Swan 2013 2014 4 bird Delichon urbicum House Martin 2011 2011 1 bird Emberiza schoeniclus Reed Bunting 2013 2014 2 bird Erithacus rubecula Robin 2011 2014 7 bird Falco peregrinus Peregrine 2013 2013 1 bird Falco tinnunculus Kestrel 2010 2020 3 bird Fringilla coelebs Chaffinch 2011 2014 7 bird Gallinula chloropus Moorhen 2013
  • Phytophthora Ramorum Sudden Oak Death Pathogen

    Phytophthora Ramorum Sudden Oak Death Pathogen

    NAME OF SPECIES: Phytophthora ramorum Sudden Oak Death pathogen Synonyms: Common Name: Sudden Oak Death pathogen A. CURRENT STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION I. In Wisconsin? 1. YES NO X 2. Abundance: 3. Geographic Range: 4. Habitat Invaded: 5. Historical Status and Rate of Spread in Wisconsin: 6. Proportion of potential range occupied: II. Invasive in Similar Climate YES NO X Zones United States: In 14 coastal California Counties and in Curry County, Oregon. In nursery in Washington. Canada: Nursery in British Columbia. Europe: Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Poland, Spain, France, Belgium, and Sweden. III. Invasive in Similar Habitat YES X NO Types IV. Habitat Affected 1. Habitat affected: this disease thrives in cool, wet climates including areas in coastal California within the fog belt or in low- lying forested areas along stream beds and other bodies of water. Oaks associated with understory species that are susceptible to foliar infections are at higher risk of becoming infected. 2. Host plants: Forty-five hosts are regulated for this disease. These hosts have been found naturally infected by P. ramorum and have had Koch’s postulates completed, reviewed and accepted. Approximately fifty-nine species are associated with Phytophthora ramorum. These species are found naturally infected; P. ramorum has been cultured or detected with PCR but Koch’s postulates have not been completed or documented and reviewed. Northern red oak (Quercus rubra) is considered an associated host. See end of document for complete list of plant hosts. National Risk Model and Map shows susceptible forest types in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States.
  • Dipterists Digest

    Dipterists Digest

    Dipterists Digest 2019 Vol. 26 No. 1 Cover illustration: Eliozeta pellucens (Fallén, 1820), male (Tachinidae) . PORTUGAL: Póvoa Dão, Silgueiros, Viseu, N 40º 32' 59.81" / W 7º 56' 39.00", 10 June 2011, leg. Jorge Almeida (photo by Chris Raper). The first British record of this species is reported in the article by Ivan Perry (pp. 61-62). Dipterists Digest Vol. 26 No. 1 Second Series 2019 th Published 28 June 2019 Published by ISSN 0953-7260 Dipterists Digest Editor Peter J. Chandler, 606B Berryfield Lane, Melksham, Wilts SN12 6EL (E-mail: [email protected]) Editorial Panel Graham Rotheray Keith Snow Alan Stubbs Derek Whiteley Phil Withers Dipterists Digest is the journal of the Dipterists Forum . It is intended for amateur, semi- professional and professional field dipterists with interests in British and European flies. All notes and papers submitted to Dipterists Digest are refereed. Articles and notes for publication should be sent to the Editor at the above address, and should be submitted with a current postal and/or e-mail address, which the author agrees will be published with their paper. Articles must not have been accepted for publication elsewhere and should be written in clear and concise English. Contributions should be supplied either as E-mail attachments or on CD in Word or compatible formats. The scope of Dipterists Digest is: - the behaviour, ecology and natural history of flies; - new and improved techniques (e.g. collecting, rearing etc.); - the conservation of flies; - reports from the Diptera Recording Schemes, including maps; - records and assessments of rare or scarce species and those new to regions, countries etc.; - local faunal accounts and field meeting results, especially if accompanied by ecological or natural history interpretation; - descriptions of species new to science; - notes on identification and deletions or amendments to standard key works and checklists.
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts

    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts

    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
  • Aqueous and Ethanolic Plant Extracts As Bio-Insecticides—Establishing a Bridge Between Raw Scientific Data and Practical Reality

    Aqueous and Ethanolic Plant Extracts As Bio-Insecticides—Establishing a Bridge Between Raw Scientific Data and Practical Reality

    plants Review Aqueous and Ethanolic Plant Extracts as Bio-Insecticides—Establishing a Bridge between Raw Scientific Data and Practical Reality Wilson R. Tavares 1 , Maria do Carmo Barreto 1,* and Ana M. L. Seca 1,2,* 1 cE3c—Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes/Azorean Biodiversity Group & Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Azores, Rua Mãe de Deus, 9501-321 Ponta Delgada, Portugal; [email protected] 2 LAQV-REQUIMTE, Department of Chemistry, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal * Correspondence: [email protected] (M.d.C.B.); [email protected] (A.M.L.S.); Tel.: +351-296-650-184 (M.d.C.B.); +351-296-650-172 (A.M.L.S.) Abstract: Global demand for food production is causing pressure to produce faster and bigger crop yields, leading to a rampant use of synthetical pesticides. To combat the nefarious consequences of its uses, a search for effective alternatives began in the last decades and is currently ongoing. Nature is seen as the main source of answers to crop protection problems, supported by several examples of plants/extracts used for this purpose in traditional agriculture. The literature reviewed allowed the identification of 95 plants whose extracts exhibit insecticide activity and can be used as bio-pesticides contributing to sustainable agriculture. The option for ethanol and/or water extracts is more environmentally friendly and resorts to easily accessible solvents, which can be reproduced by farmers themselves. This enables a bridge to be established between raw scientific data and Citation: Tavares, W.R.; Barreto, a more practical reality.
  • Diptera: Syrphidae)

    Diptera: Syrphidae)

    Eur. J. Entomol. 110(4): 649–656, 2013 http://www.eje.cz/pdfs/110/4/649 ISSN 1210-5759 (print), 1802-8829 (online) Patterns in diurnal co-occurrence in an assemblage of hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) 1, 2 2 1, 2 2 MANUELA D’AMEN *, DANIELE BIRTELE , LIVIA ZAPPONI and SÖNKE HARDERSEN 1 National Research Council, IBAF Department, Monterotondo Scalo, Rome, Italy; e-mails: [email protected]; [email protected] 2 Corpo Forestale dello Stato, Centro Nazionale Biodiversità Forestale “Bosco Fontana”, Verona, Italy; e-mails: [email protected]; [email protected] Key words. Diptera, Syrphidae, hoverflies, temporal structure, interspecific relations, null models Abstract. In this study we analyzed the inter-specific relationships in assemblages of syrphids at a site in northern Italy in order to determine whether there are patterns in diurnal co-occurrence. We adopted a null model approach and calculated two co-occurrence metrics, the C-score and variance ratio (V-ratio), both for the total catch and of the morning (8:00–13:00) and afternoon (13:00–18:00) catches separately, and for males and females. We recorded discordant species richness, abundance and co-occurrence patterns in the samples collected. Higher species richness and abundance were recorded in the morning, when the assemblage had an aggregated structure, which agrees with previous findings on communities of invertebrate primary consumers. A segregated pattern of co-occurrence was recorded in the afternoon, when fewer species and individuals were collected. The pattern recorded is likely to be caused by a number of factors, such as a greater availability of food in the morning, prevalence of hot and dry conditions in the early afternoon, which are unfavourable for hoverflies, and possibly competition with other pollinators.
  • Untangling Phylogenetic Patterns and Taxonomic Confusion in Tribe Caryophylleae (Caryophyllaceae) with Special Focus on Generic

    Untangling Phylogenetic Patterns and Taxonomic Confusion in Tribe Caryophylleae (Caryophyllaceae) with Special Focus on Generic

    TAXON 67 (1) • February 2018: 83–112 Madhani & al. • Phylogeny and taxonomy of Caryophylleae (Caryophyllaceae) Untangling phylogenetic patterns and taxonomic confusion in tribe Caryophylleae (Caryophyllaceae) with special focus on generic boundaries Hossein Madhani,1 Richard Rabeler,2 Atefeh Pirani,3 Bengt Oxelman,4 Guenther Heubl5 & Shahin Zarre1 1 Department of Plant Science, Center of Excellence in Phylogeny of Living Organisms, School of Biology, College of Science, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 14155-6455, Tehran, Iran 2 University of Michigan Herbarium-EEB, 3600 Varsity Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108-2228, U.S.A. 3 Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, P.O. Box 91775-1436, Mashhad, Iran 4 Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Box 461, 40530 Göteborg, Sweden 5 Biodiversity Research – Systematic Botany, Department of Biology I, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Menzinger Str. 67, 80638 München, Germany; and GeoBio Center LMU Author for correspondence: Shahin Zarre, [email protected] DOI https://doi.org/10.12705/671.6 Abstract Assigning correct names to taxa is a challenging goal in the taxonomy of many groups within the Caryophyllaceae. This challenge is most serious in tribe Caryophylleae since the supposed genera seem to be highly artificial, and the available morphological evidence cannot effectively be used for delimitation and exact determination of taxa. The main goal of the present study was to re-assess the monophyly of the genera currently recognized in this tribe using molecular phylogenetic data. We used the sequences of nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) and the chloroplast gene rps16 for 135 and 94 accessions, respectively, representing all 16 genera currently recognized in the tribe Caryophylleae, with a rich sampling of Gypsophila as one of the most heterogeneous groups in the tribe.
  • University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Bucking the trend The diversity of Anthropocene 'winners' among British moths Boyes, Douglas H.; Fox, Richard; Shortall, Chris R.; Whittaker, Robert J. Published in: Frontiers of Biogeography DOI: 10.21425/F5FBG43862 Publication date: 2019 Document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Document license: CC BY Citation for published version (APA): Boyes, D. H., Fox, R., Shortall, C. R., & Whittaker, R. J. (2019). Bucking the trend: The diversity of Anthropocene 'winners' among British moths. Frontiers of Biogeography, 11(3), 1-15. [3862]. https://doi.org/10.21425/F5FBG43862 Download date: 28. sep.. 2021 UC Merced Frontiers of Biogeography Title Bucking the trend: the diversity of Anthropocene ‘winners’ among British moths Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6hz0x33v Journal Frontiers of Biogeography, 11(3) Authors Boyes, Douglas H. Fox, Richard Shortall, Chris R. et al. Publication Date 2019 DOI 10.21425/F5FBG43862 Supplemental Material https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6hz0x33v#supplemental License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California a Frontiers of Biogeography 2019, 11.3, e43862 Frontiers of Biogeography RESEARCH ARTICLE the scientific journal of the International Biogeography Society Bucking the trend: the diversity of Anthropocene ‘winners’ among British moths Douglas H. Boyes1,*, Richard Fox2, Chris R. Shortall3 and Robert J. Whittaker1,4 1 School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK; 2 Butterfly Conservation, Manor Yard, East Lulworth, Dorset, BH20 5QP, UK; 3 Rothamsted Insect Survey, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden AL5 2JQ, UK and 4 Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, GLOBE Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Generative Reproduction of Antarctic Grasses, the Native Species Deschampsia Antarctica Desv

    Generative Reproduction of Antarctic Grasses, the Native Species Deschampsia Antarctica Desv

    vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 261–279, 2015 doi: 10.1515/popore−2015−0016 Generative reproduction of Antarctic grasses, the native species Deschampsia antarctica Desv. and the alien species Poa annua L. Irena GIEŁWANOWSKA1,2* and Wioleta KELLMANN−SOPYŁA1 1Katedra Fizjologii, Genetyki i Biotechnologii Roślin, Wydział Biologii i Biotechnologii, Uniwersytet Warmińsko−Mazurski w Olsztynie, ul. Oczapowskiego 1A, 10−719 Olsztyn, Poland 2 Instytut Biochemii i Biofizyki PAN, Zakład Biologii Antarktyki i Polska Stacja Antarktyczna “H. Arctowski”, ul. Ustrzycka 10/12, 02−141 Warszawa, Poland * corresponding author <[email protected]> Abstract: The embryology of two species, Deschampsia antarctica, a native species, and Poa annua, an alien species in the Antarctic we studied. Flowering buds of plants growing in their natural habitats on King George Island and generative tissues of both plant species grown in a greenhouse were analyzed. Adaptations to autogamy and anemogamy were ob− served in the flower anatomy of both species. The microsporangia of the evaluated grasses produce a small number of three−celled pollen grains. Numerous pollen grains do not leave the microsporangium and germinate in the thecae. Deschampsia antarctica and P. annua plants harvested in Antarctica developed a particularly small number of microspores in pol− len chambers. In D. antarctica, male gametophytes were produced at a faster rate: genera− tive cells in pollen did not become detached from the wall of the pollen grain, they were not embedded in the cytoplasm of vegetative cells, and they divided into two sperm cells situ− ated close to the wall. The monosporous Polygonum type of embryo sac development was observed in the studied species.
  • Breeding System Diversification and Evolution in American Poa Supersect. Homalopoa (Poaceae: Poeae: Poinae)

    Breeding System Diversification and Evolution in American Poa Supersect. Homalopoa (Poaceae: Poeae: Poinae)

    Annals of Botany Page 1 of 23 doi:10.1093/aob/mcw108, available online at www.aob.oxfordjournals.org Breeding system diversification and evolution in American Poa supersect. Homalopoa (Poaceae: Poeae: Poinae) Liliana M. Giussani1,*, Lynn J. Gillespie2, M. Amalia Scataglini1,Marıa A. Negritto3, Ana M. Anton4 and Robert J. Soreng5 1Instituto de Botanica Darwinion, San Isidro, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2Research and Collections Division, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 3Universidad de Magdalena, Santa Marta, Colombia, 4Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biologıa Vegetal (IMBIV), CONICET-UNC, Cordoba, Argentina and 5Department of Botany, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA *For correspondence. E-mail [email protected] Received: 11 December 2015 Returned for revision: 18 February 2016 Accepted: 18 March 2016 Downloaded from Background and Aims Poa subgenus Poa supersect. Homalopoa has diversified extensively in the Americas. Over half of the species in the supersection are diclinous; most of these are from the New World, while a few are from South-East Asia. Diclinism in Homalopoa can be divided into three main types: gynomonoecism, gynodioe- cism and dioecism. Here the sampling of species of New World Homalopoa is expanded to date its origin and diver- sification in North and South America and examine the evolution and origin of the breeding system diversity. Methods A total of 124 specimens were included in the matrix, of which 89 are species of Poa supersect. http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/ Homalopoa sections Acutifoliae, Anthochloa, Brizoides, Dasypoa, Dioicopoa, Dissanthelium, Homalopoa sensu lato (s.l.), Madropoa and Tovarochloa, and the informal Punapoa group. Bayesian and parsimony analyses were conducted on the data sets based on four markers: the nuclear ribosomal internal tanscribed spacer (ITS) and exter- nal transcribed spacer (ETS), and plastid trnT-L and trnL-F.