Grass Pollens

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Grass Pollens Grass pollens Allergy – Which allergens? Authors: Dr Harris Steinman and Dr Sarah Ruden, Allergy Resources International, P O Box 565, Milnerton 7435, South Africa, [email protected] All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without the written consent of Phadia AB. ©Phadia AB, 2004, 2007 Design: RAK Design AB, 2004, 2007 Printed by: X-O Graf Tryckeri AB, Uppsala, Sweden ISBN 91-973440-3-6 Contents Introduction ............................................................ 5 g17 Bahia grass .................................................. 9 g201 Barley ........................................................ 11 g2 Bermuda grass ............................................ 13 g11 Brome grass ............................................... 19 g71 Canary grass ............................................... 21 g3 Cocksfoot ................................................... 25 g7 Common reed ............................................. 31 g14 Cultivated oat ............................................. 33 g12 Cultivated rye ............................................. 35 g15 Cultivated wheat ......................................... 39 g204 False oat-grass ............................................ 41 g10 Johnson grass ............................................. 43 g202 Maize, Corn ................................................ 47 g4 Meadow fescue ........................................... 51 g16 Meadow foxtail ........................................... 55 g8 Meadow grass, Kentucky blue ...................... 57 g9 Redtop, Bentgrass ....................................... 63 g5 Rye grass ................................................... 65 g203 Salt grass ................................................... 73 g1 Sweet vernal grass ...................................... 75 g6 Timothy grass ............................................. 79 g13 Velvet grass ................................................ 87 g70 Wild rye grass ............................................. 91 Mixes: gx1 ................................................................. 93 gx2 ................................................................. 93 gx3 ................................................................. 93 gx4 ................................................................. 93 gx6 ................................................................. 93 3 4 Grass Pollen Allergens Familiar features of the grasses, or Poaceae on atmospheric conditions and the type of (also known as Gramineae), include small, pollen, may have consequences even for inconspicuous flowers, linear, sheathing people outside the immediate areas where leaves, and tufts or spikes. The grasses the crops and pastures grow. (Maize pollen constitute a huge family, with around 8,000 is unusually dense and can be expected to species. Grasses are also very widespread, be found in lower concentrations in the probably covering about 20% of the world's atmosphere, but many other crops produce surface. They made a major contribution to pollen that travels far more efficiently). the development of human culture, as they Among the major allergenic offenders were certainly some of the first plants in among grasses are Rye grass, Timothy grass, cultivation, helping in the transition from Bermuda grass and Cocksfoot. But the hunting and gathering to agriculture about epidemiological patterns are of course 10,000 years ago. Triticum (Wheat) and dependent not only on such factors as the Hordeum (Barley) were prominent in the size and weight of the pollen grains, the Middle Eastern Fertile Crescent, the “cradle potency of the allergens and the distribution of civilisation”, from earliest recorded times. of plants, but also on the history of Grasses of far more types than the few whose sensitisation in particular populations seed is edible for humans served as forage – including such diverse influences as cross- and fodder for livestock and as tools for land reactivity and migration. Clinical studies, alteration and reclamation. Property despite much progess, will still have much ownership and trade, and along with them to reveal in the future about grass pollen the state, art, technology and so on, would allergy. probably not have developed without the value grasses added to land. Cross-reactivity Figure 1 is an illustration of one probable Allergen exposure set of relationships of the relevant grasses Today, much of the grass pollen that to each other. Though it is far from humans are exposed to has ornamental or universally agreed on, this schema can be incidental sources: lawns, parks, gardens and useful in beginning a discussion of cross- wasteland. The push for “green space” in reactivity. cities and the spread of suburbs have been Cross-reactivity can be expected to forces working against the distancing of roughly follow botanical relationships, but people from grass exposure, distancing that some unevenness in the patterns should be would otherwise be a result of large-scale noted. Group 4 allergens, for example, may urbanisation. Ironically, some asthmatics be a source of especially strong cross-reactivity who moved to arid regions like Arizona in within the Pooideae subfamily (1-3), but this the United States quickly found their appearance may, on the other hand, be a environment becoming grass-filled again, function of the importance of this subfamily from irrigation-fed proliferation of lawns. in allergy, which perhaps causes it to be more Moreover, the human population's recent intensively studied. Also outstandingly dramatic growth has naturally been notable is the role of Group 1 and Group 5 accompanied by increased demand for allergens, with some of the studies pointing cheap, relatively easily produced food: to the potential for strong cross-reactivity grasses play a starring role in keeping the not only between tribes but sometimes even planet fed. The “green revolution” has between subfamilies (4-9). resulted in higher-yield crops, with more grain produced per hectare; and also in deforestation, as more land has been brought under cultivation and converted into pasturage. All of this has placed more grass pollen in the air, a change which, depending 5 As might be expected, there is potential professionals and patients alike have for cross-reactivity between the pollen of a fatalistically accepted almost constant particular grass and its edible grain, or even discomfort during the “allergy season”. another grain. This has been supported by, (This is approximately May to July in for instance, immunological similarity not temperate climates of the Northern only between Rye pollen and Rye flour, but Hemisphere, and as long as March to also between Rye pollen and Wheat flour (10). November in the north's tropical and sub- tropical climates. In the Southern The existence of panallergens such as Hemisphere the pollen seasons are of course profilin allow for much broader cross- roughly reversed along with the seasons. In reactivity, in this case extending to tree some grass-rich areas of southern Africa, the pollen, weed pollen and plant-derived foods pollen season is 10 months long. A strategy of distantly related species. Among the almost as unsatisfactory as no treatment is pollens, Olive tree, Birch, Mugwort, Wall chronic medication applied in a “shot-gun” pellitory, Plaintain and Ragweed are fashion to deaden a group of symptoms: red, prominent in studies of cross-reactivity with swollen, itchy, and/or watery eyes grass pollen; among foods and other (conjunctivitis), sneezing, congenstion, substances, Apple, Celery, Melon, Carrot, runny nose, and/or nasal itching (rhinitis), Kiwi and Latex are significant in the same and asthma. The classic term “hay fever” connection (11-20). Oral Allergy Syndrome used to cover the syndrome invokes the may be involved (21). picture of a mild and transitory problem, and the popular media have generally Clinical experience depicted grass pollens as causing something Clinically as well as epidemiologically, grass approximating “the sniffles” – a minor pollen allergy is one of the more nebulous personal and social irritation. But the role and frustrating types of allergic disease. grass pollens commonly play in allergic Without routine identification of the specific asthma and their importance in cross- allergens affecting patients, to allow for reactivity show that they should be taken avoidance strategies, many health seriously and individually identified. Family Subfamilies Tribes Genera (species ex.) Paniceae Paspalum (Bahia grass) Panicoideae Andropongoneae Zea (Maize) Sorghum (Johnson grass) Triticeae Elymus (Wild rye grass) Triticum (Cultivated wheat) Hordeum (Barley) Aveneae Holcus (Velvet grass) Pooideae Arrhenatherum (False oat-grass) Anthoxanthum (Sweet vernal grass) Avena (Cultivated oat) Phalaris (Canary grass) Poaceae() Gramineae Agrostideae Phleum (Timothy) Alopecurus (Meadow foxtail) Agrostis (Redtop) Poeae Distichlis (Salt grass) Lolium (Rye grass) Dactylis (Cocksfoot) Poa (Meadow grass) Festuca (Meadow fescue) Hordeae Secale (Cultivated rye) Bromeae Bromus (Brome grass) Arundinoideae Arundineae Phragmites (Common reed) Chloridoideae Chlorideae Cynodon (Bermuda grass) Figure 1. Grasses and their botanical relations, adapted from L Yman (24). 6 ImmunoCAP™ grass allergens available for IgE antibody testing g17 Bahia grass Paspalum notatum g201 Barley Hordeum vulgare Allergen components – Recombinant / g2 Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon purified native g11 Brome grass Bromus
Recommended publications
  • Knowledge Document on the Impact of Priority Wetland Weeds
    Knowledge document on the impact of priority wetland weeds Step 2 – Impacts of priority wetland weeds Client Report for DELWP, Integrated Water and Catchments Division Arthur Ryah Institute for Environmental Research Acknowledgements This project has been undertaken with funding from Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) Water and Catchments Group. Pam Clunie (Arthur Rylah Institute; DELWP) and Doug Frood (Pathways Bushland & Environment) provided valuable assistance in determining the scope of the project and filtering the wetland weed list. Phil Papas and Di Crowther (Arthur Rylah Institute; DELWP) are thanked for reviewing the draft. Author Weiss, J. and Dugdale, T. 2017. Knowledge document of the impact of priority wetland weeds: Step 2 – Impacts of priority wetland weeds. Report prepared for Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) Water and Catchments Group by Agriculture Victoria. Photo credit Sagittaria platyphylla, Sagittaria, Delta Arrowhead (Anonymous, Agriculture Victoria, DEDJTR) © The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2017 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN 978-1-76047-452-2 (print) ISBN 978-1-76047-453-9 (pdf) Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Euonymus Alatus
    Euonymus alatus INTRODUCTORY DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS FIRE EFFECTS AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX: FIRE REGIME TABLE REFERENCES INTRODUCTORY AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION FEIS ABBREVIATION NRCS PLANT CODE COMMON NAMES TAXONOMY SYNONYMS LIFE FORM FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS OTHER STATUS AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION: Fryer, Janet L. 2009. Euonymus alatus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2010, February 5]. FEIS ABBREVIATION: EUOALA NRCS PLANT CODE [46]: EUAL13 COMMON NAMES: winged burning bush winged spindletree winged euonymous winged wahoo burningbush TAXONOMY: The scientific name of winged burning bush is Euonymus alatus (Thunb.) Sieb. (Celastraceae) [4,15,16,19,27,42]. Worldwide, 5 poorly differentiated varieties are recognized by various systematists based on leaf color and relative hairiness (review by [4]). These varieties occur in North America [46,51]: Euonymus alatus (Thunb.) Sieb. var. alatus Euonymus alatus (Thunb.) Sieb. var. apterus Regel SYNONYMS: Euonymus alata (Thub.) Sieb. [34,49] LIFE FORM: Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS: None OTHER STATUS: Information on state-level noxious weed status of plants in the United States is available at Plants Database. DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE SPECIES: Euonymus alatus GENERAL DISTRIBUTION HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES GENERAL DISTRIBUTION: North America: Winged burning bush is nonnative in North America, where it occurs from Ontario south to Missouri, Kentucky, and South Carolina and east to New Hampshire [27]. Booth and Wright [5] noted its presence in west-central Montana in 1962, but it was not listed in a 1991 flora of the same area [28].
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants at Fort Ross State Historic Park
    19005 Coast Highway One, Jenner, CA 95450 ■ 707.847.3437 ■ [email protected] ■ www.fortross.org Title: Vascular Plants at Fort Ross State Historic Park Author(s): Dorothy Scherer Published by: California Native Plant Society i Source: Fort Ross Conservancy Library URL: www.fortross.org Fort Ross Conservancy (FRC) asks that you acknowledge FRC as the source of the content; if you use material from FRC online, we request that you link directly to the URL provided. If you use the content offline, we ask that you credit the source as follows: “Courtesy of Fort Ross Conservancy, www.fortross.org.” Fort Ross Conservancy, a 501(c)(3) and California State Park cooperating association, connects people to the history and beauty of Fort Ross and Salt Point State Parks. © Fort Ross Conservancy, 19005 Coast Highway One, Jenner, CA 95450, 707-847-3437 .~ ) VASCULAR PLANTS of FORT ROSS STATE HISTORIC PARK SONOMA COUNTY A PLANT COMMUNITIES PROJECT DOROTHY KING YOUNG CHAPTER CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY DOROTHY SCHERER, CHAIRPERSON DECEMBER 30, 1999 ) Vascular Plants of Fort Ross State Historic Park August 18, 2000 Family Botanical Name Common Name Plant Habitat Listed/ Community Comments Ferns & Fern Allies: Azollaceae/Mosquito Fern Azo/la filiculoides Mosquito Fern wp Blechnaceae/Deer Fern Blechnum spicant Deer Fern RV mp,sp Woodwardia fimbriata Giant Chain Fern RV wp Oennstaedtiaceae/Bracken Fern Pleridium aquilinum var. pubescens Bracken, Brake CG,CC,CF mh T Oryopteridaceae/Wood Fern Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Western lady Fern RV sp,wp Dryopteris arguta Coastal Wood Fern OS op,st Dryopteris expansa Spreading Wood Fern RV sp,wp Polystichum munitum Western Sword Fern CF mh,mp Equisetaceae/Horsetail Equisetum arvense Common Horsetail RV ds,mp Equisetum hyemale ssp.affine Common Scouring Rush RV mp,sg Equisetum laevigatum Smooth Scouring Rush mp,sg Equisetum telmateia ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Timothy Management and Productivity in the Northeast
    Bulletin 570T June 1968 MANAGEMENT and PRODUCTIVITY of PERENNIAL GRASSES in the NORTHEAST IV. TIMOTHY West Virginia University Agricultural Experiment Station Northeast Regional Research Publication Management and Productivity of Perennial Grasses in the Northeast: IV. Timothy C. S. Brown, G. A. Jung, K. E. Varney, R. C. Wakefield, and J. B. Washko REGIONAL FORAGE CROP MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE <NE-29) M. A. Farrell* . (Pennsylvania) Administrative Advisor D. D. Wolf, B. A. Brown, and D. W. Allinson* .............................. Storrs, Connecticut W. H. Mitchell* .............................................................. Delaware C. S. Brown* . Maine A. M. Decker* . Maryland W. G. Colby* . Massachusetts J. R. Mitchell* . New Hampshire M. A. Sprague* . New Jersey M. J. Wright* . New York J. B. Washko* . Pennsylvania R. C. Wakefield* . Rhode Island K. E. Varney* . Vermont G. A. Jung* .............................................................. West Virginia V. G. Sprague* .................... U.S.D.A. Research Service, U.S. Regional Pasture Research Lab. G. E. Carlson*, D. E. McCloud, & H. 0. Graumann .. U.S.D.A. Research Service, Crops Research Division H. J. Hodgson*, T. S. Ronningen, & N. F. Farris .. U.S.D.A. Cooperative State Experiment Station Service •Current official representatives. West Virginia University Agricultural Experiment Station A. H. Vanlandingham, Director MORGANTOWN Contents Preface . 3 Summary . 4 Introduction . 5 Literature Review . 5 Growth Habit and Food Reserves . 6 Harvest Management Effects on Yield and Persistence 6 Nitrogen Ferti Iization Effects on Yield and Persistence 7 Nutritive Value . 7 Materials and Methods . 9 Stage at First Harvest . 10 Aftermath Management . 1 0 Nitrogen Ferti Iization . 1 0 Experimental Results . 11 First Harvest Yields . 11 Total Seasonal Yields . 12 Aftermath Yields . 16 Regrowth Potential .
    [Show full text]
  • Weed Risk Assessment for Phalaris Paradoxa L. (Poaceae)
    Weed Risk Assessment for Phalaris United States paradoxa L. (Poaceae) – Awned Department of canary-grass Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service September 27, 2016 Version 1 Photos of Phalaris paradoxa from Rignanese (2007). Agency Contact: Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Weed Risk Assessment for Phalaris paradoxa Introduction Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) regulates noxious weeds under the authority of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000) and the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. § 1581-1610, 1939). A noxious weed is defined as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment” (7 U.S.C. § 7701- 7786, 2000). We use the PPQ weed risk assessment (WRA) process (PPQ, 2015) to evaluate the risk potential of plants, including those newly detected in the United States, those proposed for import, and those emerging as weeds elsewhere in the world. The PPQ WRA process includes three analytical components that together describe the risk profile of a plant species (risk potential, uncertainty, and geographic potential; PPQ, 2015). At the core of the process is the predictive risk model that evaluates the baseline invasive/weed potential of a plant species using information related to its ability to establish, spread, and cause harm in natural, anthropogenic, and production systems (Koop et al., 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Sorghum Halepense</I>
    ISPM 27 27 ANNEX 19 ENG DP 19: Sorghum halepense INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES PHYTOSANITARY FOR STANDARD INTERNATIONAL DIAGNOSTIC PROTOCOLS Produced by the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) This page is intentionally left blank This diagnostic protocol was adopted by the Standards Committee on behalf of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures in January 2017. The annex is a prescriptive part of ISPM 27. ISPM 27 Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests DP 19: Sorghum halepense Adopted 2017; published 2017 CONTENTS 1. Pest Information ............................................................................................................................... 2 2. Taxonomic Information .................................................................................................................... 2 3. Detection ........................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Preparation of samples for laboratory analysis ................................................................. 2 3.2 Sieve detection .................................................................................................................. 3 4. Identification ..................................................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Morphological identification of seeds ............................................................................... 3 4.1.1
    [Show full text]
  • Theo Witsell Botanical Report on Lake Atalanta Park November 2013
    A Rapid Terrestrial Ecological Assessment of Lake Atalanta Park, City of Rogers, Benton County, Arkansas Prairie grasses including big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), and side‐oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) thrive in a southwest‐facing limestone glade overlooking Lake Atalanta. This area, on a steep hillside east of the Lake Atalanta dam, contains some of the highest quality natural communities remaining in the park. By Theo Witsell Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission November 30, 2013 CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Background and History ................................................................................................................................ 3 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................. 4 General Description .................................................................................................................................. 4 Karst Features ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Ecological Significance .............................................................................................................................. 5 Plant Communities ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cytogenetic Studies in Some Representatives of the Subfamily Pooideae (Poaceae) in South Africa
    Bothalia 26,1: 63-67(1996) Cytogenetic studies in some representatives of the subfamily Pooideae (Poaceae) in South Africa. 2. The tribe Aveneae, subtribes Phalaridinae and Alopecurinae J.J. SPIES*, S.K. SPIES*, S.M.C. VAN WYK*, A.F. MALAN*t and E.J.L. LIEBENBERG** Keywords: Aveneae, chromosomes, meiosis, Poaceae, polyploidy, Pooideae ABSTRACT This is a report on chromosome numbers for the subtribes Phalaridinae and Alopecurinae (tribe Aveneae) which are. to a large extent, naturalized in South Africa. Chromosome numbers of 34 specimens, representing nine species and four genera, are presented. These numbers include the first report on Agrostis avenacea Gmel. (n = 4x = 28). New ploidv levels are reported for Phalaris aquatica L. (n = x = 7), Agrostis barbuligera Stapf var. barbuligera (n = 2x = 14 and n = 4x = 28) and A. lachnantha Nees var. lachnantha (n = 3x = 21). INTRODUCTION terial used and the collecting localities are listed in Table 1. Voucher specimens are housed in the Geo Potts Her­ The first paper in this series on chromosome num­ barium, Department of Botany and Genetics, University bers of representatives of the tribe Aveneae in South Af­ of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein (BLFU) or the rica, indicated the importance of determining the ploidy National Herbarium, Pretoria (PRE). levels and basic chromosome numbers of naturalized and endemic flora in South Africa (Spies et al. 19%). This Anthers were squashed in aceto-carmine and meioti- second paper in the series is restricted to the subtribes cally analysed (Spies et al. 1996). Chromosome numbers Phalaridinae and Alopecurinae. are presented as haploid chromosome numbers to conform to previous papers on chromosome numbers in this journal The subtribe Phalaridinae Rchb.
    [Show full text]
  • Mistaken Identity? Invasive Plants and Their Native Look-Alikes: an Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic
    Mistaken Identity ? Invasive Plants and their Native Look-alikes an Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic Matthew Sarver Amanda Treher Lenny Wilson Robert Naczi Faith B. Kuehn www.nrcs.usda.gov http://dda.delaware.gov www.dsu.edu www.dehort.org www.delawareinvasives.net Published by: Delaware Department Agriculture • November 2008 In collaboration with: Claude E. Phillips Herbarium at Delaware State University • Delaware Center for Horticulture Funded by: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Cover Photos: Front: Aralia elata leaf (Inset, l-r: Aralia elata habit; Aralia spinosa infloresence, Aralia elata stem) Back: Aralia spinosa habit TABLE OF CONTENTS About this Guide ............................1 Introduction What Exactly is an Invasive Plant? ..................................................................................................................2 What Impacts do Invasives Have? ..................................................................................................................2 The Mid-Atlantic Invasive Flora......................................................................................................................3 Identification of Invasives ..............................................................................................................................4 You Can Make a Difference..............................................................................................................................5 Plant Profiles Trees Norway Maple vs. Sugar
    [Show full text]
  • Meadow Foxtail Alopecurus Pratensis L
    meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis L. Synonyms: Alopecurus alpinus Smith var. songaricus Schrenk ex Fischer & Meyen, A. laxiflorus Ovcz., A. songaricus (Schrenk ex Fischer & Meyen) V. Petrov. Other common names: field meadow-foxtail Family: Poaceae Invasiveness Rank: 52 The invasiveness rank is calculated based on a species’ ecological impacts, biological attributes, distribution, and response to control measures. The ranks are scaled from 0 to 100, with 0 representing a plant that poses no threat to native ecosystems and 100 representing a plant that poses a major threat to native ecosystems. Description Meadow foxtail is a tufted, perennial grass with short rhizomes. Stems are erect and 30 to 100 cm tall with three to five nodes. Leaf sheaths are open, smooth, and slightly inflated. Ligules on the lower leaves are entire and 1.5 to 2 mm long, while ligules on the upper leaves are finely jagged and up to 6 mm long. Leaf blades are 3 to 10 mm wide, 2.5 to 30 cm long, and scabrous on both surfaces. Panicles are gray-green, cylindrical, Panicle of Alopecurus pratensis L. dense, 3 to 10 cm long, and 6 to 10 mm wide. Spikelets are 4 to 6 mm long. Glumes are pubescent on the nerves Similar species: Meadow foxtail is similar to the non- and keels, and each have three distinctive veins. Lemmas are awned from near the base. Awns are bent native timothy (Phleum pratense). Timothy can be distinguished from meadow foxtail by the presence of and 2 to 5 mm longer than lemmas (Hultén 1968, Cody awns on the glumes rather than on the lower portion of 1996, DiTomaso and Healy 2007, eFloras 2008, the lemma (Cody 1996, eFloras 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of Montgomeryshire (VC47)
    January 2021 Butterflies of Montgomeryshire (VC47) This document outlines the butterfly species recorded in Montgomeryshire, focusing on the county status of each species and their basic biology, rather than their identification. Use the links below (in blue) to navigate the document. Introduction and organisations Recording butterflies Species monitoring Vice-county 47 map Records contributing to this atlas Under-recorded areas Resident and common migratory species thought to occur in the county: -Dingy Skipper -Grizzled Skipper -Essex Skipper -Small Skipper -Large Skipper -Orange-tip -Large White -Small White -Green-veined White -Clouded Yellow -Brimstone -Wall -Speckled Wood -Small Heath -Ringlet -Meadow Brown -Gatekeeper (Hedge Brown) -Marbled White -Grayling -Pearl Bordered Fritillary -Small Pearl-bordered Fritillary -Silver-washed Fritillary -Dark Green Fritillary -Red Admiral -Painted Lady -Peacock -Small Tortoiseshell -Comma -Small Copper -Purple Hairstreak -Green Hairstreak -White-letter Hairstreak -Holly Blue -Common Blue Species that have bred in the county but are now presumed extinct: -Large Heath -High Brown Fritillary -Marsh Fritillary -Brown Hairstreak -Brown Argus Vagrants , releases, and unconfirmed records: -Scarce Swallowtail -Monarch (The Milkweed) -Purple Emperor -Camberwell Beauty Species not recorded but could be found in the county in the near future: -Wood White Introduction Montgomeryshire (vice-county 47) is relatively under-recorded in terms of butterflies, and as a result, the data used to produce this summary are unlikely to fully reflect a species' distribution. This document is by no means comprehensive, nor is it a field guide. It has been produced to allow people to ascertain the county status of each species. All butterfly records from around VC47 are very welcome (see recording butterflies section) and should be sent to the county butterfly recorder, Douglas Boyes: [email protected] Please feel free to use this email for any identification queries, further information, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Cloning the Self-Incompatibility Genes from Phalaris Coerulescens Iii
    Towards Cloning the Self-Incompatibility Genes from Phalaris coerulescens by Xue-Yu Bian A thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences at Adelaide University Department of Plant Science Adelaide University October 2001 Bian, X.-Y. 2001, Ph. D Thesis, The University of Adelaide. ii A confocal picture showing the interaction between Phalaris pollen and stigma Towards cloning the self-incompatibility genes from Phalaris coerulescens iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract vii Declaration viii Acknowledgements ix List of abbreviations xi Chapter 1 Literature review 1 1.1 Self-incompatibility 3 1.2 Molecular advances in sporophytic self-incompatibility 5 1.3 Molecular advances in gametophytic self-incompatibility 7 1.3.1 S-RNase self-incompatibility system 8 1.3.2 Self-incompatibility in Papaveraceae 9 1.4 Self-incompatibility in Poaceae 10 1.4.1 A unique S-Z self-incompatibility system 11 1.4.2 Self-incompatibility reaction of the grasses 14 1.5 Strategies adopted to clone self-incompatibility genes 16 1.6 P. coerulescens as a model system for study of self-incompatibility in grasses 18 1.7 Aims 20 Chapter 2 General materials and methods 21 2.1 Materials 22 2.1.1 Plant materials 22 2.1.2 Reagents 22 2.2 Methods 23 Bian, X.-Y. 2001, Ph. D Thesis, The University of Adelaide. iv 2.2.1 General molecular methods 23 2.2.2 Genomic DNA protocols 24 2.2.3 RNA protocols 26 2.2.4 Plasmid protocols 27 Chapter 3 Characterisation of a putative Phalaris S gene (Bm2) 31 3.1 Introduction 32 3.2
    [Show full text]