DOCSLIB.ORG

Nova Scotia Provincial Status Report Spotted Pondweed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Nova Scotia Provincial Status Report on Spotted Pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher Tuckerm.) prepared for Nova Scotia Species at Risk Working Group by David Mazerolle and Sean Blaney Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre P.O. Box 6416, Sackville, NB E4L 1C6 DRAFT Funding provided by Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources Submitted December 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................i WILDLIFE SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANCE...........................................1 Name and Classification............................................................................................1 Morphological Description ........................................................................................2 Field identification......................................................................................................3 Designatable Units .....................................................................................................4 Special Significance...................................................................................................5 DISTRIBUTION ...............................................................................................................7 Global Range ..............................................................................................................7 Canadian Range .........................................................................................................8 Search Effort.............................................................................................................15 HABITAT .......................................................................................................................17 Habitat Requirements ..............................................................................................17 Habitat Trends ..........................................................................................................18 BIOLOGY ......................................................................................................................18 Life Cycle and Reproduction...................................................................................19 Physiology and Adaptability ...................................................................................20 Dispersal and Migration...........................................................................................21 Interspecific Interactions.........................................................................................21 POPULATION SIZES AND TRENDS............................................................................22 Abundance................................................................................................................22 Fluctuations and Trends..........................................................................................24 Rescue Effect............................................................................................................25 THREATS AND LIMITING FACTORS ..........................................................................25 PROTECTION, STATUS, AND RANKS........................................................................27 Legal Protection and Status....................................................................................27 Non-Legal Status and Ranks...................................................................................27 Habitat Protection and Ownership..........................................................................28 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND AUTHORITIES CONTACTED ....................................28 INFORMATION SOURCES...........................................................................................28 BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF REPORT WRITER(S) ..............................................34 COLLECTIONS EXAMINED .........................................................................................34 ii List of tables Table 1. Location, observer and survey date for all confirmed Spotted Pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher) populations, with notes on abundance and habitat. List of figures Figure 1. Spotted Pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher) with prominent floating leaves growing in its natural habitat in association with Purple bladderwort (Utricularia purpurea) and Greater bladderwort (Utricularia macrorhiza). Figure 2. Line drawing of Spotted Pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher) showing spotted stem, floating leaf shape, submersed leaf shape, inflorescence and fruit shape (source: Holmgren 1998). Figure 3. Global distribution of Spotted Pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher). Range outlined in the United States is based on state-level distribution data (Natureserve 2010). Range in Canada is identified by points corresponding to known occurrences. Figure 4. Distribution of Spotted Pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher) in Nova Scotia. Numbers refer to those used in Table 1. The twelve confirmed populations are: 1) Rhodenizer Lake, 2) Maitland Pond, 3) Hirtle Lake, 4) Charleston, 5) Mill Village, 6) Buggy Hole Brook, 7) Shingle Lake, 8) Carrigan Lake, 9) Placides Lake, 10) Raynards Lake, 11) Salmon Lake and 12) Upper Musquodoboit. Figure 5. Distribution of Spotted Pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher) in Queens County and Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia. Numbers refer to those used in Table 1. The eight confirmed populations in this region of occurrence are: 1) Rhodenizer Lake, 2) Maitland Pond, 3) Hirtle Lake, 4) Charleston, 5) Mill Village, 6) Buggy Hole Brook, 7) Shingle Lake and 8) Carrigan Lake. Figure 6. Distribution of Spotted Pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher) in Yarmouth County and Digby County, Nova Scotia. Numbers refer to those used in Table 1. The three confirmed populations in this region of occurrence are: 9) Placides Lake, 10) Raynards Lake and 11) Salmon Lake. Figure 7. Distribution of Spotted Pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher) in Halifax County, Nova Scotia. Number refers to that used in Table 1. The only confirmed population in this region of occurrence is at Upper Musquodoboit (12). Figure 8. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre rare plant survey sites visited in Queens, Lunenburg and Annapolis counties from 2007 to 2010. Stars indicate survey sites where previously unknown Spotted Pondweed (P. pulcher) populations were discovered. iii WILDLIFE SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANCE Name and Classification Scientific Name: Potamogeton pulcher Original Description: Tuckerman, 1843 Synonyms: Potamogeton amplifolius var. ovalifolius Morong ex Benn., 1904 Potamogeton amplifolius f. amphibius Benn., 1904 Potamogeton amplifolius var. amphibius (Benn.) Graebn., 1907 Spirillus pulcher (Tuckerman) Nieuwl., 1913 Potamogeton pulcher f. amphibius Hagstr., 1916 English vernacular name: Spotted Pondweed, Heartleaf pondweed French vernacular name: Potamot gracieux Genus: Potamogeton L. (Pondweed) Family: Potamogetonaceae (Pondweed family) Order: Najadales Subclass: Alismatidae Class: Liliopsida (Monocotyledons) Major plant group: Magnoliophyta (Angiosperms) Spotted or Heartleaf pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher) was described by American botanist Edward Tuckerman in 1843 from specimens collected in Massachusetts. He must have been quite taken by the species, assigning it a specific epithet that translates to “beautiful” or “handsome”. During the early 20th century, taxonomic revisions of the pondweed family and difficulties in defining taxa in a group prone to hybridization and morphological variation resulted in P. pulcher being given several other names. Three of these involved the relegation of this species to a variety or form of Large-leaf Pondweed (Potamogeton amplifolius), the species which Spotted Pondweed most closely resembles. Recent treatments of Potamogeton have upheld the taxon as a distinct species (BONAP 2010, Haynes and Hellquist 2000, Natureserve 2010). The pondweed family (Potamogetonaceae) is one of the most common and widespread groups of aquatic vascular plants on the planet (Pip 1987). The pondweed genus (Potamogeton) includes approximately 100 species (Haynes and Hellquist 2000, Wiegleb 1988), 33 of which are found in North America (Haynes and Hellquist 2000). Most are of the northern hemisphere and the highest specific densities are found in eastern North America, Western Europe, Siberia and Japan (Wiegleb 1988), where numerous species may co-occur within a site (Pip 1987, see also BONAP 2010, Haynes and Hellquist 2000). Pondweeds are a major source of food and shelter for animals, and are among 1 the most important vascular plants in aquatic ecosystems (Barrat-Segretain 1996, Newman 1991, Wiegleb et al. 1991). The significant range of environmental variation displayed by pondweeds and the fact that plants often remain infertile (thus lacking fundamental diagnostic features), have made understanding of this group difficult (Ogden 1943). Species are also known to hybridize frequently and hybrids comprise an important part of pondweed diversity (Kaplan and Fehrer 2006, Ogden 1943, Wiegleb and Kaplan 1998). In addition to the ca. 100 species in the genus, Wiegleb and Kaplan (1998) recognize 50 hybrids as being well established and distinguishable from the parent species, while noting that many other hybrids proposed in the literature require further investigation. Although the genus has been divided into several sections and subsections, these have not been retained in the most recent North American taxonomic treatment (Haynes and Hellquist 2000).
Recommended publications
  • Red Names=Invasive Species Green Names=Native Species

    Red Names=Invasive Species Green Names=Native Species

    CURLY-LEAF PONDWEED EURASIAN WATERMIL- FANWORT CHARA (Potamogeton crispus) FOIL (Cabomba caroliniana) (Chara spp.) This undesirable exotic, also known (Myriophyllum spicatum) This submerged exotic Chara is typically found growing in species is not common as Crisp Pondweed, bears a waxy An aggressive plant, this exotic clear, hard water. Lacking true but management tools are cuticle on its upper leaves making milfoil can grow nearly 10 feet stems and leaves, Chara is actually a limited. Very similar to them stiff and somewhat brittle. in length forming dense mats form of algae. It’s stems are hollow aquarium species. Leaves The leaves have been described as at the waters surface. Grow- with leaf-like structures in a whorled are divided into fine resembling lasagna noodles, but ing in muck, sand, or rock, it pattern. It may be found growing branches in a fan-like ap- upon close inspection a row of has become a nuisance plant with tiny, orange fruiting bodies on pearance, opposite struc- “teeth” can be seen to line the mar- in many lakes and ponds by the branches called akinetes. Thick ture, spanning 2 inches. gins. Growing in dense mats near quickly outcompeting native masses of Chara can form in some Floating leaves are small, the water’s surface, it outcompetes species. Identifying features areas. Often confused with Starry diamond shape with a native plants for sun and space very include a pattern of 4 leaves stonewort, Coontail or Milfoils, it emergent white/pinkish early in spring. By midsummer, whorled around a hollow can be identified by a gritty texture flower.
  • The Evolutionary Significance of Body Size in Burying Beetles

    The Evolutionary Significance of Body Size in Burying Beetles

    Brigham Young University Masthead Logo BYU ScholarsArchive All Theses and Dissertations 2018-04-01 The volutE ionary Significance of Body Size in Burying Beetles Ashlee Nichole Momcilovich Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Momcilovich, Ashlee Nichole, "The vE olutionary Significance of Body Size in Burying Beetles" (2018). All Theses and Dissertations. 7327. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/7327 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. The Evolutionary Significance of Body Size in Burying Beetles Ashlee Nichole Momcilovich A dissertation submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Mark C. Belk, Chair Seth M. Bybee Jerald B. Johnson Steven L. Peck G. Bruce Schaalje Department of Biology Brigham Young University Copyright © 2018 Ashlee Nichole Momcilovich All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT The Evolutionary Significance of Body Size in Burying Beetles Ashlee Nichole Momcilovich Department of Biology, BYU Doctor of Philosophy Body size is one of the most commonly studied traits of an organism, which is largely due to its direct correlation with fitness, life history strategy, and physiology of the organism. Patterns of body size distribution are also often studied. The distribution of body size within species is looked at for suggestions of differential mating strategies or niche variation among ontogenetic development. Patterns are also examined among species to determine the effects of competition, environmental factors, and phylogenetic inertia.
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska

    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 Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps

    Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps

    Appendix 11.5.1: Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps These distribution maps are for 116 aquatic vascular macrophyte species (Table 1). Aquatic designation follows habitat descriptions in Haines and Vining (1998), and includes submergent, floating and some emergent species. See Appendix 11.4 for list of species. Also included in Appendix 11.4 is the number of HUC-10 watersheds from which each taxon has been recorded, and the county-level distributions. Data are from nine sources, as compiled in the MABP database (plus a few additional records derived from ancilliary information contained in reports from two fisheries surveys in the Upper St. John basin organized by The Nature Conservancy). With the exception of the University of Maine herbarium records, most locations represent point samples (coordinates were provided in data sources or derived by MABP from site descriptions in data sources). The herbarium data are identified only to township. In the species distribution maps, town-level records are indicated by center-points (centroids). Figure 1 on this page shows as polygons the towns where taxon records are identified only at the town level. Data Sources: MABP ID MABP DataSet Name Provider 7 Rare taxa from MNAP lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 8 Lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 35 Acadia National Park plant survey C. Greene et al. 63 Lake plant surveys A. Dieffenbacher-Krall 71 Natural Heritage Database (rare plants) MNAP 91 University of Maine herbarium database C. Campbell 183 Natural Heritage Database (delisted species) MNAP 194 Rapid bioassessment surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 207 Invasive aquatic plant records MDEP Maps are in alphabetical order by species name.
  • Download the Full Report Pdf, 2.9 MB

    Download the Full Report Pdf, 2.9 MB

    VKM Report 2016:50 Assessment of the risks to Norwegian biodiversity from the import and keeping of aquarium and garden pond plants Opinion of the Panel on Alien Organisms and Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety Report from the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) 2016:50 Assessment of the risks to Norwegian biodiversity from the import and keeping of aquarium and garden pond plants Opinion of the Panel on Alien Organisms and Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety 01.11.2016 ISBN: 00000-00000 Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) Po 4404 Nydalen N – 0403 Oslo Norway Phone: +47 21 62 28 00 Email: [email protected] www.vkm.no www.english.vkm.no Suggested citation: VKM (2016). Assessment of the risks to Norwegian biodiversity from the import and keeping of aquarium and garden pond plants. Scientific Opinion on the on Alien Organisms and Trade in Endangered species of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety ISBN: 978-82-8259-240-6, Oslo, Norway. VKM Report 2016:50 Title: Assessment of the risks to Norwegian biodiversity from the import and keeping of aquarium and garden pond plants Authors preparing the draft opinion Hugo de Boer (chair), Maria G. Asmyhr (VKM staff), Hanne H. Grundt, Inga Kjersti Sjøtun, Hans K. Stenøien, Iris Stiers. Assessed and approved The opinion has been assessed and approved by Panel on Alien organisms and Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Members of the panel are: Vigdis Vandvik (chair), Hugo de Boer, Jan Ove Gjershaug, Kjetil Hindar, Lawrence Kirkendall, Nina Elisabeth Nagy, Anders Nielsen, Eli K.
  • Southern Maine Invasive Aquatic Plants (2006)

    Southern Maine Invasive Aquatic Plants (2006)

    2006 YORK COUNTY INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES PROJECT Final Report (Updated/Modified March 2007) Association members participating in a York County Invasive Aquatic Species Project aquatic plant survey on Bauneg Beg Pond, September 9, 2006 with biologist, Laurie Callahan (center, paddle extended). (Photo by Mike Cannon) Project Sponsored by York County Soil & Water Conservation District Funding Provided by Davis Conservation Foundation Report Prepared By Laurie G. Callahan, Project Coordinator & Aquatic Biologist Updated/Modified March 2007 (Original - December 2006) 2006 YORK COUNTY INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES PROJECT Final Report Updated/Modified March 2007 (Original - December 2006) Contents I. Introduction II. How Project Goals Were Accomplished III. Other Project Activities & Information IV. Future Plans & Directions Appendices A. List of aquatic plant species that are on Maine’s list of “Banned Invasive Aquatic Plants” and invasive plant species found in York County waterbodies B. List of Maine Waterbodies Screened for Invasive Aquatic Plants (York County listing from that document) produced by Maine Center for Invasive Aquatic Plants (MCIAP) in 2006 C. 3 YCIASP (2006) Workshop Agendas D. Maine invasive aquatic species information resources & contacts list E. Results of the 2006 YCIASP “pre-project” questionnaire & responses and summarized responses to the 3 workshops evaluation forms (The spreadsheet documents are not available in these Appendices if looking at an electronic document, but are available from the YCSWCD office or from Laurie Callahan.) F. Field Survey Data Sheets for 2006 YCIASP 10 IAP Screening Surveys Performed (Copies of the Field Survey Data Sheets are not available in these Appendices if looking at an electronic document, but are available from the YCSWCD office or from Laurie Callahan) G.
  • Maine's Endangered and Threatened Plants

    Maine's Endangered and Threatened Plants

    University of Southern Maine USM Digital Commons Maine Collection 1990 Maine's Endangered and Threatened Plants Maine State Planning Office Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/me_collection Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Botany Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Forest Biology Commons, Forest Management Commons, Other Forestry and Forest Sciences Commons, Plant Biology Commons, and the Weed Science Commons Recommended Citation Maine State Planning Office, "Maine's Endangered and Threatened Plants" (1990). Maine Collection. 49. https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/me_collection/49 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by USM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Collection by an authorized administrator of USM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BACKGROUND and PURPOSE In an effort to encourage the protection of native Maine plants that are naturally reduced or low in number, the State Planning Office has compiled a list of endangered and threatened plants. Of Maine's approximately 1500 native vascular plant species, 155, or about 10%, are included on the Official List of Maine's Plants that are Endangered or Threatened. Of the species on the list, three are also listed at the federal level. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. has des·ignated the Furbish's Lousewort (Pedicularis furbishiae) and Small Whorled Pogonia (lsotria medeoloides) as Endangered species and the Prairie White-fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) as Threatened. Listing rare plants of a particular state or region is a process rather than an isolated and finite event.
  • Aquatic Invasive Plants Information and Identification Tips

    Aquatic Invasive Plants Information and Identification Tips

    AQUATIC INVASIVE PLANTS INFORMATION AND IDENTIFICATION TIPS Alberta Lake Management Society PO Box 4283, Edmonton AB T6E 4T3 www.alms.ca INTRODUCTION This document is intended to provide an identification resource for aquatic invasive plants and encourage Alberta lake-users to watch for these species. The importance and issues associated with all aquatic plants are outlined and the implications of infestations of invasive species are discussed. We highlight four invasive aquatic plant species of concern for Alberta lakes: • Hydrilla • Curly-leafed Pondweed • Eurasian Water milfoil • Flowering Rush Detailed information on the plant is included for each species as well as a comparison between the invasive species and a similar species native to Alberta. Major distinguishing characteristics are in blue font while glossary words are underlined. If you believe you have found an invasive aquatic plant in your lake please contact us via www.alms.ca. AQUATIC VEGETATION: BENEFITS AND ISSUES What do aquatic plants do for the lake? Aquatic vegetation has many important functions within an aquatic ecosystem. Many aquatic plants provide food for fish or aquatic invertebrates, and are a key member in the food chain for these ecosystems. Many small aquatic invertebrates feed from and lay their eggs on macrophytes. In addition to food sources, aquatic plants provide shelter for young and small fish from larger predators. They are also used as spawning areas for fish and amphibians. Emergent aquatic plant such as cattails, sedges and rushes improve shoreline stability and reduce shoreline erosion. The presence of these emergent plants as well as submerged varieties, aid improving water clarity due to the binding of roots with the lake’s substrate.
  • NJ Native Plants - USDA

    NJ Native Plants - USDA

    NJ Native Plants - USDA Scientific Name Common Name N/I Family Category National Wetland Indicator Status Thermopsis villosa Aaron's rod N Fabaceae Dicot Rubus depavitus Aberdeen dewberry N Rosaceae Dicot Artemisia absinthium absinthium I Asteraceae Dicot Aplectrum hyemale Adam and Eve N Orchidaceae Monocot FAC-, FACW Yucca filamentosa Adam's needle N Agavaceae Monocot Gentianella quinquefolia agueweed N Gentianaceae Dicot FAC, FACW- Rhamnus alnifolia alderleaf buckthorn N Rhamnaceae Dicot FACU, OBL Medicago sativa alfalfa I Fabaceae Dicot Ranunculus cymbalaria alkali buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot OBL Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny blackberry N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, FACW Hieracium paniculatum Allegheny hawkweed N Asteraceae Dicot Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkeyflower N Scrophulariaceae Dicot OBL Ranunculus allegheniensis Allegheny Mountain buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot FACU, FAC Prunus alleghaniensis Allegheny plum N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, NI Amelanchier laevis Allegheny serviceberry N Rosaceae Dicot Hylotelephium telephioides Allegheny stonecrop N Crassulaceae Dicot Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine N Fumariaceae Dicot Centaurea transalpina alpine knapweed N Asteraceae Dicot Potamogeton alpinus alpine pondweed N Potamogetonaceae Monocot OBL Viola labradorica alpine violet N Violaceae Dicot FAC Trifolium hybridum alsike clover I Fabaceae Dicot FACU-, FAC Cornus alternifolia alternateleaf dogwood N Cornaceae Dicot Strophostyles helvola amberique-bean N Fabaceae Dicot Puccinellia americana American alkaligrass N Poaceae Monocot Heuchera americana
  • 2018 Aquatic Plant Guide

    2018 Aquatic Plant Guide

    The Borough of Mountain Lakes The Aquatic Plants of Mountain Lakes Created March 2017 Borough of Introduction to Aquatic Plants Mountain Lakes 400 Boulevard Aquatic plants in a lake come in many different sizes, shapes and Mountain Lakes, NJ function. This diversity is similar to the different components of a 07046 forest, having low grasses, understory shrubs, diminutive trees and vines, and canopy forming trees. Different aquatic plants inhabit dif- 973-334-3131 ferent ecological niches depending on a myriad of physical, chemical http://mtnlakes.org and biological conditions. Although many lake recreational users view aquatic plants as nui- sance “weeds”, a balanced native aquatic plant community has sev- eral important ecological functions. These include: Shoreline Buffer Sediment Stabilization Wildlife Habitat Aesthetics In this guide: Nutrient Uptake Red indicates an Aquatic plants fall into the following broad categories. Submersed Invasive species aquatic plants grow along the lake bottom and are entirely sub- merged save perhaps for flowers or seeds. Floating-leaf plants in- Blue indicates a clude duckweeds and lilies, and have leaves on the surface of a lake. Native species Emergent plants have roots in standing water, but the majority of Green indicates an the plant occurs above the water’s surface. Finally, some aquatic Algal species plant growth is actually macro-algae. Below are a list of icons for the aquatic plants in this guide. Call to Action! ICON KEY Please Contact Rich Sheola, Borough Manager [email protected] Submersed Emergent Floating-leaf Macro-algae PAGE 2 THE AQUATIC PLANTS O F MOUNTAIN LAKES CREATED MARCH 2017 Summary of Aquatic Plants at Mt.
  • A Key to Common Vermont Aquatic Plant Species

    A Key to Common Vermont Aquatic Plant Species

    A Key to Common Vermont Aquatic Plant Species Lakes and Ponds Management and Protection Program Table of Contents Page 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 How To Use This Guide ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Field Notes .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Plant Key ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Submersed Plants ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 8-20 Pipewort Eriocaulon aquaticum ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Wild Celery Vallisneria americana ..................................................................................................................................................................
  • Adhesion Performance in the Eggs of the Philippine Leaf Insect Phyllium Philippinicum (Phasmatodea: Phylliidae)

    Adhesion Performance in the Eggs of the Philippine Leaf Insect Phyllium Philippinicum (Phasmatodea: Phylliidae)

    insects Article Adhesion Performance in the Eggs of the Philippine Leaf Insect Phyllium philippinicum (Phasmatodea: Phylliidae) Thies H. Büscher * , Elise Quigley and Stanislav N. Gorb Department of Functional Morphology and Biomechanics, Institute of Zoology, Kiel University, Am Botanischen Garten 9, 24118 Kiel, Germany; [email protected] (E.Q.); [email protected] (S.N.G.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 12 June 2020; Accepted: 25 June 2020; Published: 28 June 2020 Abstract: Leaf insects (Phasmatodea: Phylliidae) exhibit perfect crypsis imitating leaves. Although the special appearance of the eggs of the species Phyllium philippinicum, which imitate plant seeds, has received attention in different taxonomic studies, the attachment capability of the eggs remains rather anecdotical. Weherein elucidate the specialized attachment mechanism of the eggs of this species and provide the first experimental approach to systematically characterize the functional properties of their adhesion by using different microscopy techniques and attachment force measurements on substrates with differing degrees of roughness and surface chemistry, as well as repetitive attachment/detachment cycles while under the influence of water contact. We found that a combination of folded exochorionic structures (pinnae) and a film of adhesive secretion contribute to attachment, which both respond to water. Adhesion is initiated by the glue, which becomes fluid through hydration, enabling adaption to the surface profile. Hierarchically structured pinnae support the spreading of the glue and reinforcement of the film. This combination aids the egg’s surface in adapting to the surface roughness, yet the attachment strength is additionally influenced by the egg’s surface chemistry, favoring hydrophilic substrates.