DOCSLIB.ORG

Accuracy Assessment of Satellite Remote Sensing for Delineation Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Accuracy Assessment of Satellite Remote Sensing for Delineation Of THE EFFECTS OF A PARASITIC PLANT (CUSCUTA HOWELLIANA) ON VERNAL POOL PLANT DIVERSITY A Thesis Presented to the faculty of the Department of Biological Sciences California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Biological Sciences (Ecology, Evolution and Conservation) by Andrea Graffis FALL 2013 THE EFFECTS OF A PARASITIC PLANT (CUSCUTA HOWELLIANA) ON VERNAL POOL PLANT DIVERSITY A Thesis by Andrea Graffis Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Jamie Kneitel, Ph.D. __________________________________, Second Reader Patrick Foley, Ph.D. __________________________________, Third Reader Shannon Datwyler, Ph.D. ________________________Date ii Student: Andrea Graffis I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. _________________________, Graduate Coordinator _________________ Jamie Kneitel, Ph.D. Date Department of Biological Sciences iii Abstract of THE EFFECTS OF A PARASITIC PLANT (CUSCUTA HOWELLIANA) ON VERNAL POOL PLANT DIVERSITY by Andrea Graffis Through the past 150 years over 90% of California’s vernal pool wetland habitat has been lost to agriculture and urbanization. Knowledge of the factors that drive species diversity in California’s vernal pools is required to enable proper management and restoration of these habitats in the future. While many factors have been identified as contributors to maintenance of species diversity in vernal pools, the system is far from being fully understood. One factor that has not been investigated is the effect of parasitic plants. Cuscuta howelliana is an abundant endemic parasitic plant that inhabits California vernal pools. The hypothesis tested in this research was that C. howelliana would act as a keystone predator and increase plant species diversity in vernal pools. This study took place at Beale Air Force Base in the northeastern Sacramento Valley where there are ~1,000 vernal pools. In 15 vernal pools, experimental manipulation of the presence versus absence of C. howelliana was conducted. An additional five vernal pools where C. howelliana was not naturally present were also monitored. Eryngium castrense and Navarretia leucocephala were found to be the preferred host plant species of C. howelliana. Vernal pools without C. howelliana naturally present had lower plant species iv richness compared to pools where C. howelliana does occur naturally. Plots in vernal pools where C. howelliana was manually removed also had lower plant species richness compared to plots where C. howelliana was present. There was no single plant species that showed a significant trend towards being absent in C. howelliana removal plots. Eryngium castrense, one of the preferred host plants, had lower percent cover in plots where C. howelliana was present, which may have explained differences in species richness. However, most plant species on average showed a higher percent cover in C. howelliana present plots, but this did not become significant until all plant species were considered on one model. Grazing regime differences among vernal pools with C. howelliana naturally present and naturally absent may have also contributed to the observed difference in plant species richness. In conclusion, C. howelliana presence was related to increases in species richness, consistent with what is expected from the effects of a keystone predator. Interactions among species, including parasitic plants, needs to be considered in restoration and management of California vernal pools. ___________________________, Committee Chair Jamie Kneitel, Ph.D. ___________________________ Date v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to the staff at Beale Air Force Base for allowing me the use of their facilities, the California Native Plant Society for providing funding, Jamie Kneitel, Patrick Foley, Shannon Datwyler and James Baxter for providing guidance and Alison Wagner for providing field assistance. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ......................................................................................................................x Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................7 Study Site .................................................................................................................7 Vernal Pool Zones....................................................................................................7 Host Plant Preference .............................................................................................10 C. howelliana’s Effect on Plant Diversity .............................................................13 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................16 Density and Host Preference ..................................................................................16 C. howelliana’s Effect on Plant Diversity .............................................................24 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................42 Host Preference ......................................................................................................42 C. howelliana Removal Plots .................................................................................45 Vernal Pools without C. howelliana Present .........................................................48 Other Parasitic Plants and Management Implications ...........................................49 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................51 Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................52 vii LIST OF TABLES Tables Page Table 1. Prevalence of plant species parasitized by C. howelliana in 2012 (n = 16). ......................................................................................................18 Table 2. Characteristics of plant species that were not parasitized by C. howelliana in 2012 (n = 16). ...............................................................................20 Table 3. Within-Subject effects of repeated measures general linear model for a dependent variable of plant species richness.. ............................................27 Table 4. Within-Subject effects of repeated measures general linear model for a dependent variable of total plant percent cover.. ........................................29 Table 5. All plant species (n = 29) found during the 2013 sampling and the type of vernal pool inhabited by each species. .. ...........................................30 Table 6. Tests of fixed effects from the linear multilevel mixed model with plant species richness as the dependent variable.. ......................................33 Table 7. Tests of fixed effects from the linear multilevel mixed model with total plant cover as the dependent variable.. ...............................................34 Table 8. Within-Subject effects of repeated measures general linear model for a dependent variable of E. castrense percent cover.. ....................................36 Table 9. Tests of fixed effects from the linear multilevel mixed model with E. castrense percent cover as the dependent variable.. ...............................38 viii LIST OF TABLES Tables Page Table 10. Within-Subject effects of repeated measures general linear model for a dependent variable of N. leucocephala percent cover.. ..................................................................................................................39 Table 11. Tests of fixed effects from the linear multilevel mixed model with N. leucocephala percent cover as the dependent variable.. ........................41 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page Figure 1. Vernal pool depicting edge, transition, and center zones .....................................9 Figure 2. Map of study site at Beale Air Force Base .........................................................12 Figure 3. Percent cover of C. howelliana by location with the vernal pools .....................17 Figure 4. E. castrense covered by C. howelliana when E. castrense cover is normalized for total plant cover ......................................................................22 Figure 5. N. leucocephala covered by C. howelliana when N. leucocephala cover is normalized for total plant cover ......................................23 Figure 6.Effect of the presence or absence of C. howelliana and C. howelliana removal in a vernal pool on plant species richness ..........................28 Figure 7. Effect of the presence or absence of C. howelliana and C. howelliana removal in a vernal pool on total plant percent cover ......................35 Figure 8. Effect of the presence or absence of C. howelliana in a vernal pool on E. castrense
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Maine Coefficient of Conservatism
    Coefficient of Coefficient of Scientific Name Common Name Nativity Conservatism Wetness Abies balsamea balsam fir native 3 0 Abies concolor white fir non‐native 0 Abutilon theophrasti velvetleaf non‐native 0 3 Acalypha rhomboidea common threeseed mercury native 2 3 Acer ginnala Amur maple non‐native 0 Acer negundo boxelder non‐native 0 0 Acer pensylvanicum striped maple native 5 3 Acer platanoides Norway maple non‐native 0 5 Acer pseudoplatanus sycamore maple non‐native 0 Acer rubrum red maple native 2 0 Acer saccharinum silver maple native 6 ‐3 Acer saccharum sugar maple native 5 3 Acer spicatum mountain maple native 6 3 Acer x freemanii red maple x silver maple native 2 0 Achillea millefolium common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. borealis common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. millefolium common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis common yarrow non‐native 0 3 Achillea ptarmica sneezeweed non‐native 0 3 Acinos arvensis basil thyme non‐native 0 Aconitum napellus Venus' chariot non‐native 0 Acorus americanus sweetflag native 6 ‐5 Acorus calamus calamus native 6 ‐5 Actaea pachypoda white baneberry native 7 5 Actaea racemosa black baneberry non‐native 0 Actaea rubra red baneberry native 7 3 Actinidia arguta tara vine non‐native 0 Adiantum aleuticum Aleutian maidenhair native 9 3 Adiantum pedatum northern maidenhair native 8 3 Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine native 7 Aegopodium podagraria bishop's goutweed non‐native 0 0 Coefficient of Coefficient of Scientific Name Common Name Nativity
    [Show full text]
  • Infestation of Field Dodder (Cuscuta Campestris Yunck.)
    plants Article Infestation of Field Dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yunck.) Promotes Changes in Host Dry Weight and Essential Oil Production in Two Aromatic Plants, Peppermint and Chamomile Marija Sari´c-Krsmanovi´c 1,*, Ana Dragumilo 2, Jelena Gaji´cUmiljendi´c 1, Ljiljana Radivojevi´c 1, Ljiljana Šantri´c 1 and Rada Ðurovi´c-Pejˇcev 1 1 Institute of Pesticides and Environmental Protection, Banatska 31b, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia; [email protected] (J.G.U.); [email protected] (L.R.); [email protected] (L.Š.); [email protected] (R.Ð.-P.) 2 Institute for Medicinal Plant Research “Dr. Josif Panˇci´c”,Tadeuša Koš´cuška1, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +38-111-3076-133 Received: 13 July 2020; Accepted: 23 September 2020; Published: 29 September 2020 Abstract: Peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) and chamomile (Chamomilla recutita (L.) Rausch.) are aromatic plants with considerable economic value. These plants and their essential oils are used in medicine, cosmetics, and the food industry. One of the main limiting factors in peppermint and chamomile commercial cultivation is weed competition since weeds are able to decrease both oil amount and biomass yield. The purpose of the present study was to determine the effect of parasitism by field dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yunck.) on peppermint and chamomile dry weight and their essential oil yield and composition. Essential oils from both noninfested and infested peppermint and chamomile plants were obtained by hydrodistillation and characterized chemically by gas chromatography (GC) coupled with mass spectrometry (MS). The amount of dry matter accumulated by peppermint and chamomile plants infested by field dodder was lower (25% and 63%, respectively) compared to noninfested plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecography ECOG-05013
    Ecography ECOG-05013 Aikio, S., Ramula, S., Muola, A. and von Numers, M. 2020. Island properties dominate species traits in determining plant colonizations in an archipelago system. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.05013 Supplementary material Supplementary material Appendix 1 Fig. A1. Pairwise relationships and correlation coefficients of the island variables in the AIC- simplified model. 1 Fig. A2. Pairwise relationships and correlation coefficients of the plant traits in the AIC- simplified model. 2 Dispersal_vector [wind_water] Dispersal_vector [endozoochor] Dispersal_vector [unspecialised] Historical_total_log Pollen_vector [abiotic_insect] Life_form [herb] Dispersal_vector [myrmerochor] Dispersal_vector [epizoochor] Area_log Plant_height_log Limestone [Yes] Convolution Buffer_2_km_log Life_cycle [short] Seed_mass_log Veg_repr [Yes] North_limit Seed_bank [transient] Ellenberg_Nitrogen Ellenberg_Moisture Residents_per_area_log Ellenberg_Temperature Ellenberg_Reaction Shannon_habitats Shore_meadow Deciduous_forest Mixed_forest Marsh Buffer_5_km_log Buildings Euref_X Meadow_or_pasture Euref_Y Eklund_culture SLA Ellenberg_Light Coniferous_forest Sand Open_rock_or_bare_ground Seed_bank [unknown] Apomictic [Yes] Life_form [woody] Pollen_vector [insect] Pollen_vector [abiotic_self] Dist_to_historical_log Pollen_vector [self] Pollen_vector [insect_self] 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 Odds Ratio Fig. A3. Odds ratios (i.e., exp[parameter estimate]) and 95% confidence intervals for the fixed effects of the colonization model (full model of all 587 species with
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Choice in Cuscuta Europaea (Plant Dlstbn/Nduar Autonomy/Donal Plants/Parsl Plants/Bost Dhice) COLLEEN K
    Proc. Natd. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 89, pp. 12194-12197, December 1992 Ecology Resource choice in Cuscuta europaea (plant dlstbn/nduar autonomy/donal plants/parsl plants/bost dhice) COLLEEN K. KELLY* Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom Communicated by Robert M. May, September 4, 1992 (receivedfor review June 30, 1992) ABSTRACT Individual stems with growing tps of dodder METHODS AND MATERIALS (Cuscuta europaea) were rnsplanted onto host plants (haw- thorn) of varying nt l statu. The p ite was more Dodder (Convolvulaceae) has no roots, only vestigial leaves, likely to coil on ("accept") hosts ofhih nutritional status and and does not photosynthesize. A stem of dodder infests its grow away from ("reject") hosts of poor qual. Dodder hosts by forming one or more loops about the host stem or leaf (a coiling bout), after which it sends pegs of absorptive exhibits this acc rejection respome befm taking up tissue (haustoria) into the host vascular system. Dodder any food from the host, so it is possible to dsole active possesses responses that may be used to effect rejection (Fig. choice from the passive effects of growth and m it. 1) and acceptance of resources. These responses are com- Probability of acceptance is gauged to expected reward. plete prior to any resource uptake and thus cannot be confused with the passive results of uptake (16). Higher plants vary in size and shape through variation in Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) is a native host of this number or morphology ofthe repeating subunits (modules) of dodder in Great Britain (26).
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of the Naturalisation and Geographic Distribution of the Non-Indigenous Seed Plant Species Of
    Ecology of the naturalisation and geographic distribution of the non-indigenous seed plant species of New Zealand. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Lincoln University by Hazel A. W. Gatehouse Lincoln University 2008 Appendix 7.1 List of wild non-indigenous seed plant species recorded by the year 2000 in New Zealand. The list is annotated with the naming authority, family, reference, status (N = fully naturalised, C = casual), environmental weed status (Y = Yes, N = No) (Howell, 2008), year of discovery and whether year is from a collection (c) or published list (l) (Max.), and latest year of absence assumed from published species lists (Min.) References that the numbers in the reference column refer are presented at the end of this Appendix. Species Authority Family Ref Weed Status Max Min Abelia x grandiflora (Andre) Rehder Caprifoliaceae 1, 5, 8 N C 1975 c 1957 Abies grandis (Douglas ex D.Don) Lindl. Pinaceae 5, 7 N N 1990 c 1989 Abies nordmanniana (Steven) Spach Pinaceae 1, 4, 8 N N 1985 c 1981 Abutilon darwinii x Abutilon pictum Hook.f. & (Hook. & Arn.) Walp. Malvaceae 1, 4 Y N 1977 c 1957 Abutilon grandifolium (Willd.) Sweet Malvaceae 1 N N 1970 c 1957 Abutilon megapotamicum A.St.-Hil. & Naudin Malvaceae 6, 7 N N 1994 c 1993 Abutilon megapotamicum x Abutilon pictum A. St.-Hil. & Naudin & (Hook. & Arn.) Walp. Malvaceae 1, 4 N C 1985 l 1981 Abutilon theophrasti Medik. Malvaceae 1, 4 N N 1978 c 1957 Acacia baileyana F.Muell.
    [Show full text]
  • 544 Vizintin Et Al.Vp
    ActaBot.Croat.71(2),215–227,2012 CODEN:ABCRA25 ISSN 0365–0588 eISSN 1847-8476 Host range and host choice of Cuscuta species in Hungary KORNÉL BARÁTH*, JÁNOS CSIKY Department of Plant Systematics and Geobotany, Institute of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pécs, Ifjuság str. 6, Hungary Abstract – Extensive field studies were carried out in Hungary to get a picture of the host range and host choice of the Cuscuta species under natural conditions. We examined both parasitised and unparasitised plant species and found some aspects in which they are different. Compiling the host spectra of the various Cuscuta species based on herbaria, literature and our own observations, we can say that dodders infest at least 26% of the vascular flora of the country. In our study, the Hungarian Cuscuta species parasitised all plants that had a coverage of more than 25% in the sampling sites. We prepared a list of the most frequent host species for the parasites and revealed the importance of exclusive hosts. The results suggest that the habitat differences of the Cuscuta species can be responsible for the different host ranges. Furthermore, it was found that the reason why dodders parasitise plants from various life-forms in different proportions is not (only) the active host choice, but the characteristic features of the habitats. Key words: Cuscuta, parasitic plant, host, habitat Introduction Approximately 3900 parasitic plant species are known in the world, which is more than 1% of flowering plants (NICKRENT 2002). The genus Cuscuta (dodders) comprises appro- ximately 170 parasitic plant species widely distributed in tropical, subtropical and tempe- rate regions (DAWSON et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural and Immunological Characterization of the Cuscuta Pentagona L
    Plant Cell Physiol. 40(6): 592-603 (1999) JSPP 01999 Structural and Immunological Characterization of the Cuscuta pentagona L. Chloroplast Timothy D. Sherman I, William T. pettigrew and Kevin C. Vaughn ' Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688, U.S.A. Crop Genetics and Production Unit, USDA-ARS, P.O. Box 345, Stoneville, MS 38776, U.S.A. ' Southern Weed Science Research Unit, USDA-ARS, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776, U.S.A. Structural and immunochemical studies were used little or no need to conduct photosynthesis on their own to determine the photosynthetic potential of the dodder and, although still possessing plastids, have greatly reduced (Cuscuta pentagona) chloroplast. Ultrastructural studies or non-existent photosynthetic capacity. Only a few differ- revealed that thylakoid membranes of pre-parasitic phase ent groups have been examined extensively at the physio- Cuscuta pentagona are almost all organized into long, logical and genetic levels. Parasitic angiosperms have come overlapping grana stacks of mainly two to five thylakoids from four plant families: the Orobanchaceae (Epiphagus with little space between adjacent stacks. Immunoblots virginiana, Conopholis americana, and Orobanche spp.), reveal chloroplast proteins associated with PSI and 11, as the Scrophulariaceae (Lathraea clandestina L.) (Dela- well as cytochrome f and plastocyanin. Stromal extracts vault et al. 1996), the Raflesiaceae (Cytinus hypocistis L.) contained immmunologically-detectable RuBisCO and phos- (Thalouarn et al. 1986), and the Cuscutaceae (a few Cus- phoribulokinase. Cytochemical localizations of the oxidiz- cuta species). Of these, only the Cuscutaceae have been ing side of PSI showed product localization on the lumen shown to possess the plastidic genes necessary to conduct side of the thylakoid.
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina
    INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina Cherri Smith N.C. Department of Transportation • 2012 Contents INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................5 CHAPTER 1: Threat to Habitat and Natural Areas . Trees........................................................................................................12 . Shrubs......................................................................................................20 . Herbaceous.Plants....................................................................................28 . Vines........................................................................................................44 . Aquatic.Plants..........................................................................................52 CHAPTER 2: Moderate Threat to Habitat and Natural Areas . Trees........................................................................................................60 . Shrubs......................................................................................................64 . Herbaceous.Plants....................................................................................78 . Vines........................................................................................................84 . Aquatic.Plants..........................................................................................96 CHAPTER 3: Watch List . Trees......................................................................................................104
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Management of Cuscuta in Crops W.T. Lanini1 and M. Kogan2
    LITERATURE REVIEW Biology and Management of Cuscuta in Crops W.T. Lanini1 and M. Kogan2 1Department of Plant Science University of California, Davis One Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616 2Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Casilla 306-22, Santiago, Chile Abstract W.T. Lanini and M. Kogan. Biology and management of Cuscuta in crops. Cuscuta is a stem and leaf parasite that infects many broadleaf crops, ornamentals and weeds and a few monocot crops. It lives entirely on the host plant, thus reducing the growth and yield of the host. Preventing infestations by planting crop seed free of Cuscuta seed, rotating to non-host crops, delaying crop planting until fall for sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris), use of resistant varieties or large transplants, and preemergence herbicides have all been shown to be successful in certain crops. Once Cuscuta attaches to a crop, some yield loss will occur, regardless of the method of control, and selective control becomes very difficult. Post attachment control often requires killing or severely injuring the host plant to avoid spread of Cuscuta to surrounding plants. However, several herbicides have been shown to selectively suppress attached Cuscuta, but complete control is rarely obtained. Cuscuta attached to genetically modified, herbicide resistant crops, have not been successfully killed by treatment with herbicide in all cases, indicating that these crops will only be a partial solution to the problem. Cuscuta control will require an integrated approach conducted over a period of many years. Key Words: Cuscuta, dodder, parasitic plant, resistance, weed management. Cien. Inv. Agr. 32(3): 127-141.
    [Show full text]
  • A Phylogenetically Based Infrageneric Classification of the Parasitic Plant Genus Cuscuta (Dodders, Convolvulaceae)
    Systematic Botany (2015), 40(1): pp. 269–285 © Copyright 2015 by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists DOI 10.1600/036364415X686567 Date of publication February 12, 2015 A Phylogenetically Based Infrageneric Classification of the Parasitic Plant Genus Cuscuta (Dodders, Convolvulaceae) Mihai Costea,1,3 Miguel A. Garcı´a,2 and Sasˇa Stefanovic´2 1Department of Biology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario N2L3C5, Canada. 2Department of Biology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario L5L 1C6, Canada. 3Author for correspondence ([email protected]) Communicating Editor: Jennifer A. Tate Abstract—Cuscuta (dodders, Convolvulaceae) is one of the largest and most economically important lineages of parasitic plants. The genus has a sub-cosmopolitan distribution with more than 75% of the species diversifying in the New World. The last monograph, published by Truman George Yuncker in 1932, provided a solid species-level taxonomic foundation. However, as revealed by recent phylogenetic studies, its infrageneric classification has been in great need of a taxonomic reappraisal, mainly because the morphological characters used in the previous classifications have been greatly affected by convergent evolution. Several recent phylogenetic and character evolution studies with broad sampling, as well as species-level revisions, have illustrated the deficiencies of previous classifications and provided an explicit and robust phylogenetic framework. Here we propose a new phylogenetic classification that places all 194 currently accepted species of Cuscuta into four subgenera and 18 sections. Sections have a strong morphological and biogeographical predictive value and include from one to 31 species. Thirteen section names are new or applied for the first time at the sectional rank: Babylonicae (Yunck.) M.
    [Show full text]
  • Parasitic Plants in Agriculture: Chemical Ecology of Germination and Host-Plant Location As Targets for Sustainable Control: a Review
    Parasitic Plants in Agriculture: Chemical Ecology of Germination and Host-Plant Location as Targets for Sustainable Control: A Review Justin B. Runyon, John F. Tooker, Mark C. Mescher and Consuelo M. De Moraes Abstract Parasitic plants are among the most problematic pests of agricultural crops worldwide. Effective means of control are generally lacking, in part because of the close physiological connection between the established parasite and host plant hindering efficient control using traditional methods. Seed germination and host location are critical early-growth stages that occur prior to host attachment, and provide promising targets for ecologically sound management of parasitic weeds. Knowledge of parasite-host interactions, particularly chemical cues that induce par- asite seed germination and mediate host location, should facilitate the development of novel management approaches. In parasitic plants that attach to host roots—e.g., Striga and Orobanche spp.—seed germination is known to occur only in the pres- ence of chemical stimulants released from plant roots. The recent finding that these same chemicals promote the colonization of beneficial fungi has potentially impor- tant implications for the control of parasitic plants. Far less is known about the early stages of parasitic plants that attach above-ground to host shoots—e.g., Cuscuta spp. Seeds of these parasites lack germination stimulants, and it was only recently shown that foraging C. pentagona seedlings use airborne cues to locate and select among hosts. We review research on seed germination and host location by the major parasitic weeds that attack agricultural crops, and discuss the implications of recent findings for the development of sustainable and effective management strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • NISIMS Fields and Domains Guide 2019
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science NISIMS Fields and Domains Guide 2019 Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Point Reyes National Seashore. NPS photo. Contents Page 1. Introduction to NISIMS ..................................................................................................................... 1 2. Input Fields ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Weed Survey Data .................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Weed Infestation Data .............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Proposed Treatment Data ......................................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Proposed Biological Treatment .................................................................................... 10 2.3.2 Proposed Chemical Treatment ..................................................................................... 10 2.3.3 Proposed Other Treatment ........................................................................................... 12 2.4 Treatment Data ....................................................................................................................... 12 2.4.1 Biological Component ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]