DOCSLIB.ORG

An Investigation Into the Presence, Prevalence, and Functions of Metaphor in Scientific Journal Articles Susan Lee Booker Iowa State University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1995 Two ideas for one: an investigation into the presence, prevalence, and functions of metaphor in scientific journal articles Susan Lee Booker Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the English Language and Literature Commons, and the Rhetoric and Composition Commons Recommended Citation Booker, Susan Lee, "Two ideas for one: an investigation into the presence, prevalence, and functions of metaphor in scientific ourj nal articles" (1995). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 7077. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/7077 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Two ideas for one: An investigation into the presence, prevalence, and functions of metaphor in scientific journal articles hy Susan Lee Booker A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department: English Major; English (Rhetoric and Composition) Signatures have been redacted for privacy Signatures have been redacted for privacy Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 1995 11 Table ofContents Acknowledgments v Abstract vi Chapter One/Introductionand Review ofliterature l Explanation of the Project 2 Research question posed by this project 5 What this study offers 7 Factors complicating this study 8 A Review of the Literature 11 What metaphor is and what it does 13 Metaphor's place in scientific writing 20 The social nature of the scientific community and its influence over convention 26 The role of audience in uses of metaphor 31 Assumptions Underlying this Project 37 Preview of Remaining Chapters 39 ChapterTwo/Methods ofInvestigatingMetaphor IN SOENTinC ARITCLES 40 Selecting Scientist-authors and Language Experts 44 Selecting Scientific Articles with Metaphor 46 Designing Training Materials for Metaphor Identification 48 Desigiung a Process for Metaphor Identification 57 Creating a process for training 57 Conducting pilot tests 58 Considering general results of pilot tests 59 Revising based on pilot tests 60 Conducting Metaphor Identification Sessions 61 Conducting practice sessions with participants 62 Events preceding practice sessions 62 Events during practice sessions 63 Events following practice sessions 63 Ill Reconsidering the study's emphasis 64 Conducting follow-up interviews 65 ChapterThree/Results OF InvestigatingMetaphor IN SciENTinc Articles 68 Results ofData Collected 69 Unanticipated results 69 Participants' comments about the project 70 Numeric results of metaphor identification 74 Scientist-authors' results 74 Language experts' results 76 Descriptive results of metaphor identification 78 Functions of metaphor identified by participants 79 Metaphors that clarify or describe 79 Metaphors that ornament 87 Metaphors that emphasize 89 Metaphors that persuade 90 Preview of Remaining Chapter 92 Chapter Four/Discussionand Implicationsfor FurtherResearch 93 Complicating Factors 93 Metaphors that Qarifyor Describe 95 How definitions of metaphor influence metaphors that clarify or describe 97 How disciplinary conventions affect metaphors that clarify or describe 98 How the role of audience influences metaphors that clarify or describe 99 Metaphors that Ornament 100 How definitions of metaphor influence metaphors that ornament 101 How disciplinary conventions affect metaphors that ornament 102 Metaphors that Emphasize 103 How definitions of metaphor influence metaphors that emphasize 104 How the role of audience influences metaphors that emphasize 105 IV Metaphors that Persuade 105 How definitions of metaphor influence metaphors that persuade 106 Responses to the Studjr's Research Question 108 As related to complicating factors in metaphor identification 109 As related to metaphor's definition and place in scientific writing 109 As related to disciplinary influences on metaphor's use 110 As related to audience's role in metaphor use 110 As related to metaphor's functions in scientific texts 110 Implications for Further Research Ill Varying the number and type of participants 112 Focusing on pedagogical applications 113 Concentrating on complicating factors 113 Concluding Remarks 114 WORKS Qted 115 Appendix A/Articlefor Review/Practice Sessions 119 Appendix B/Articles for Review/Metaphor IdentificationTask 125 Appendix C/Training document. 151 Appendix DAVorksheet 158 Appendix e/Guidelinesfor Marking Metaphors 158 Appendix F/Interview Instruments 160 acknowledgments Many thanks go to the members of this thesis committeefDr. Michael Mendelson, Professor Fern Kupfer, and Dr. Elwood Hart. The greatest thanks go to Dr. Rebecca E. Burnett who served as thesis director, advisor—and much more. Without Dr. Bumetfs support both professionally ^d personally, this thesis would be much delayed and far less thorough. I am forever in your debt Scientist-authors, language experts, and pilot testers practiced patience and commitment to this project beyond what could ever have been expected of volunteer participants. Special thanks, too, to family and friends in Iowa and Virginia—and points in between and beyond—^for tender and loving care doled out in enormous amounts. Gatherings and cotmtless phone calls among members of the Thesis Support Group—^Kate Molitor, Janet Renze, Carla Weiner, and especially Christianna White—^renewed me always. VI Abstract In response to this study's guiding research question. Why are writers of scientific texts using metaphor?, botanists and language experts searched scientific journal articles to identify instances of metaphoric language. This examination of metaphor's nature and function focused on four areas; 1) factors that complicate metaphor identification; 2) perceptions about definitions of metaphor and its functions in scientific texts; 3) the social character of the scientific community as a disciplinary influence; and 4) the role of audience in the scientist-authors' perception and use of metaphor. Conclusions I drew represented each of those four areas. First, participants' identification of metaphors was complicated by factors such as connotations, synonyms, and references to human characteristics. Second, participants struggled to agree about what a metaphor is and does regardless of how well acquainted they were with definitions of metaphor and or how well trained to recognize metaphor. Participants' mental images or "senses" about metaphor worked as effectively in the task as exposure to examples and classifications of metaphor's characteristics. Third, participants' place in the discipline seemed to influence ability to identify metaphors because disciplinary conventions seemed to erase metaphoricity. Finally, scientist-authors said they use more metaphors when communicating with less technically aware audiences, although they also used metaphors when writing for professional colleagues. According to participants, metaphors appeared to function in the scientific journal articles in the following ways: clarifying or describing, ornamenting, emphasizing, and persuading. Chapter One iNTRODUCnON AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE The words of Samuel Johnson title this document because they reflect what I believe is an essential characteristic and benefit of metaphor: an unparalleled combination of concision, clarity, and inventiveness. Johnson said, "As to metaphorical expression, that is a great excellence in style, when it is used with propriety, for it gives you two ideas for one" ("Metaphor/' Princeton 491). Johnson broached several important caveats in that statement. First, metaphor is (or is perceived to be) a matter of style. Next, metaphor must be managed with care. And, finally, if care is given, understanding comes in the form of two ideas instead of just one. That temptation to mine metaphor for more, as posed by Johnson, is curbed by a complication raised by a contemporary researcher and technical editor. Joseph Harmon examined metaphor in scientific citations and discovered the difficulty of coimting metaphors in context. His words reflect different—^but equally compelling—considerations about metaphor: ". metaphor (as well as simile and analogy) is easy to define but not always easy to recognize when you see it" (181). Harmon's assertion that knowing a definition and being able to apply it in context embraces the two distinctive (and difficult) tasks that I revisit in the following pages. Those tasks, knowing what metaphor is and recognizing its presence, enrich what this document maintains as fundamental principles about metaphor. According to Johnson and Harmon, those principles offer that metaphor may benefit those who read it and write it and that those who use metaphor may not even be aware of its presence or realize the deeds it accomplishes in their work. The figure's attraction to scholars of not only rhetoric and professional communication but alsoof psychology, linguistics, and philosophy appears to be substantial. The sentiments of Samuel Johnson are echoed with only slight variation by Harmon and many others. Correspondingly, the histories of metaphor are shaped by perceptions of the natureand functions of the figure. This document reveals that those histories
Recommended publications
  • The Fungi of Slapton Ley National Nature Reserve and Environs

    The Fungi of Slapton Ley National Nature Reserve and Environs

    THE FUNGI OF SLAPTON LEY NATIONAL NATURE RESERVE AND ENVIRONS APRIL 2019 Image © Visit South Devon ASCOMYCOTA Order Family Name Abrothallales Abrothallaceae Abrothallus microspermus CY (IMI 164972 p.p., 296950), DM (IMI 279667, 279668, 362458), N4 (IMI 251260), Wood (IMI 400386), on thalli of Parmelia caperata and P. perlata. Mainly as the anamorph <it Abrothallus parmeliarum C, CY (IMI 164972), DM (IMI 159809, 159865), F1 (IMI 159892), 2, G2, H, I1 (IMI 188770), J2, N4 (IMI 166730), SV, on thalli of Parmelia carporrhizans, P Abrothallus parmotrematis DM, on Parmelia perlata, 1990, D.L. Hawksworth (IMI 400397, as Vouauxiomyces sp.) Abrothallus suecicus DM (IMI 194098); on apothecia of Ramalina fustigiata with st. conid. Phoma ranalinae Nordin; rare. (L2) Abrothallus usneae (as A. parmeliarum p.p.; L2) Acarosporales Acarosporaceae Acarospora fuscata H, on siliceous slabs (L1); CH, 1996, T. Chester. Polysporina simplex CH, 1996, T. Chester. Sarcogyne regularis CH, 1996, T. Chester; N4, on concrete posts; very rare (L1). Trimmatothelopsis B (IMI 152818), on granite memorial (L1) [EXTINCT] smaragdula Acrospermales Acrospermaceae Acrospermum compressum DM (IMI 194111), I1, S (IMI 18286a), on dead Urtica stems (L2); CY, on Urtica dioica stem, 1995, JLT. Acrospermum graminum I1, on Phragmites debris, 1990, M. Marsden (K). Amphisphaeriales Amphisphaeriaceae Beltraniella pirozynskii D1 (IMI 362071a), on Quercus ilex. Ceratosporium fuscescens I1 (IMI 188771c); J1 (IMI 362085), on dead Ulex stems. (L2) Ceriophora palustris F2 (IMI 186857); on dead Carex puniculata leaves. (L2) Lepteutypa cupressi SV (IMI 184280); on dying Thuja leaves. (L2) Monographella cucumerina (IMI 362759), on Myriophyllum spicatum; DM (IMI 192452); isol. ex vole dung. (L2); (IMI 360147, 360148, 361543, 361544, 361546).
  • INCIDENCE and CHARACTERIZATION of MAJOR FUNGAL PATHOGENS of STRAWBERRY DISEASES NASIR MEHMOOD 06-Arid-109

    INCIDENCE and CHARACTERIZATION of MAJOR FUNGAL PATHOGENS of STRAWBERRY DISEASES NASIR MEHMOOD 06-Arid-109

    INCIDENCE AND CHARACTERIZATION OF MAJOR FUNGAL PATHOGENS OF STRAWBERRY DISEASES NASIR MEHMOOD 06-arid-109 Department of Plant Pathology Faculty of Crop and Food Sciences Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi Pakistan 2018 INCIDENCE AND CHARACTERIZATION OF MAJOR FUNGAL PATHOGENS OF STRAWBERRY DISEASES by NASIR MEHMOOD (06-arid-109) A thesis submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Plant Pathology Department of Plant Pathology Faculty of Crop and Food Sciences Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi Pakistan 2018 ivi v vi vii viiiii “IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST BENEFICENT AND MERCIFUL” DEDICATION This Humble Effort Is Dedicated To “My Affectionate and Loving Parents” Who always Sacrifice For Me In Every Moment Of Their Life My Loving & Friendly “Brothers, Sister, Nephews and Nieces” Who Are Always A Source Of Happiness, Supports And Backup For Me to achieve my goals. “May Their Hands Ever Praying for Me These Hands may never fall down” iv CONTENTS List of Tables v List of Figures vi List of Abbreviations viii Acknowledgements x ABSTRACT 1 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10 2.1 STRAWBERRY HISTROY AND IMPORTANCE 10 2.2 MAJOR STRAWBERRY FUNGAL PATHOGENS 11 2.3 Botrytis cinerea (BOTRYTIS FRUIT ROT) 11 2.4 Colletotrichum acutatum AND C. gloeosporioides 15 (ANTHRACNOSE FRUIT ROT) 2.5 Alternaria alternata (ALTERNARIA LEAF SPOT) 19 2.6 Fusarium solani (FUSARIUM FRUIT ROT) 22 2.7 MOLECULAR TOOLS 25 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 28 3.1 DISEASE SURVEY
  • Future Fungal Distributions COMPLETE

    Future Fungal Distributions COMPLETE

    Chaloner et al. Crop disease burdens Supplementary Material Supplementary Figures (Fig. S1 – S15) Supplementary Tables (Table S1 – S6) 1 Chaloner et al. Crop disease burdens Maize Rice 3 4 2 1 2 0 0 −1 −2 −2 −4 −3 Soybean Wheat 4 3 2 2 1 0 0 −1 −2 −2 −3 −4 Cassava Millet 1.5 2 1.0 1 0.5 0 0.0 −1 −0.5 −2 −1.0 −1.5 Peanut Pea 4 1.5 1.0 2 0.5 0 0.0 −0.5 −2 −1.0 −4 −1.5 Rapeseed Sugarbeet 1.5 6 1.0 4 0.5 2 0.0 0 −0.5 −2 −4 −1.0 −6 −1.5 Sugarcane Sunflower 10 1.5 1.0 5 0.5 0 0.0 −0.5 −5 −1.0 −10 −1.5 Fig. S1. Projected yield differences (2020 – 2070), LPJmL crop model. Values are difference between 2061 – 2080 mean and 2011 – 2030 mean (t ha-1), averaged over four climate models (GFDL-ESM2M, HADGEM2- ES, IPSL-CM5A-LR, MIROC5). 2 Chaloner et al. Crop disease burdens Maize Rice 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 −0.5 −0.5 −1.0 −1.0 −1.5 Soybean Wheat 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 −0.2 −0.5 −0.4 −0.6 −1.0 Fig. S2. Projected yield differences (2020 – 2070), GEPIC crop model. Values are difference between 2061 – 2080 mean and 2011 – 2030 mean (t ha-1), averaged over four climate models (GFDL-ESM2M, HADGEM2- ES, IPSL-CM5A-LR, MIROC5).
  • Minnesota's Top 124 Terrestrial Invasive Plants and Pests

    Minnesota's Top 124 Terrestrial Invasive Plants and Pests

    Photo by RichardhdWebbWebb 0LQQHVRWD V7RS 7HUUHVWULDO,QYDVLYH 3ODQWVDQG3HVWV 3ULRULWLHVIRU5HVHDUFK Sciencebased solutions to protect Minnesota’s prairies, forests, wetlands, and agricultural resources Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. Prioritization Panel members ....................................................................................................... 4 III. Seventeen criteria, and their relative importance, to assess the threat a terrestrial invasive species poses to Minnesota ...................................................................................................................... 5 IV. Prioritized list of terrestrial invasive insects ................................................................................. 6 V. Prioritized list of terrestrial invasive plant pathogens .................................................................. 7 VI. Prioritized list of plants (weeds) ................................................................................................... 8 VII. Terrestrial invasive insects (alphabetically by common name): criteria ratings to determine threat to Minnesota. .................................................................................................................................... 9 VIII. Terrestrial invasive pathogens (alphabetically by disease among bacteria, fungi, nematodes, oomycetes, parasitic plants, and viruses): criteria ratings
  • Prediction of Disease Damage, Determination of Pathogen

    Prediction of Disease Damage, Determination of Pathogen

    PREDICTION OF DISEASE DAMAGE, DETERMINATION OF PATHOGEN SURVIVAL REGIONS, AND CHARACTERIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIONS OF WHEAT STRIPE RUST By DIPAK SHARMA-POUDYAL A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Plant Pathology MAY 2012 To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of DIPAK SHARMA-POUDYAL find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. Xianming Chen, Ph.D., Chair Dennis A. Johnson, Ph.D. Kulvinder Gill, Ph.D. Timothy D. Murray, Ph.D. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Xianming Chen for his invaluable guidance, moral support, and encouragement throughout the course of the study. I would like to thank Drs. Dennis A. Johnson, Kulvinder Gill, and Timothy D. Murray for serving in my committee and their valuable suggestions for my project. I also like to thank Dr. Mark Evans, Department of Statistics, for his statistical advice on model development and selection. I am grateful to Dr. Richard A. Rupp, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, for his expert advice on using GIS techniques. I am thankful to many wheat scientists throughout the world for providing stripe rust samples. Thanks are also extended to Drs. Anmin Wan, Kent Evans, and Meinan Wang for their kind help in the stripe rust experiments. Special thanks to Dr. Deven See for allowing me to use the genotyping facilities in his lab. Suggestions on data analyses by Dr. Tobin Peever are highly appreciated. I also like to thank my fellow graduate students, especially Jeremiah Dung, Ebrahiem Babiker, Jinita Sthapit, Lydia Tymon, Renuka Attanayake, and Shyam Kandel for their help in many ways.
  • Ohio Plant Disease Index

    Ohio Plant Disease Index

    Special Circular 128 December 1989 Ohio Plant Disease Index The Ohio State University Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Wooster, Ohio This page intentionally blank. Special Circular 128 December 1989 Ohio Plant Disease Index C. Wayne Ellett Department of Plant Pathology The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio T · H · E OHIO ISJATE ! UNIVERSITY OARilL Kirklyn M. Kerr Director The Ohio State University Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Wooster, Ohio All publications of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center are available to all potential dientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, sex, age, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status. 12-89-750 This page intentionally blank. Foreword The Ohio Plant Disease Index is the first step in develop­ Prof. Ellett has had considerable experience in the ing an authoritative and comprehensive compilation of plant diagnosis of Ohio plant diseases, and his scholarly approach diseases known to occur in the state of Ohia Prof. C. Wayne in preparing the index received the acclaim and support .of Ellett had worked diligently on the preparation of the first the plant pathology faculty at The Ohio State University. edition of the Ohio Plant Disease Index since his retirement This first edition stands as a remarkable ad substantial con­ as Professor Emeritus in 1981. The magnitude of the task tribution by Prof. Ellett. The index will serve us well as the is illustrated by the cataloguing of more than 3,600 entries complete reference for Ohio for many years to come. of recorded diseases on approximately 1,230 host or plant species in 124 families.
  • Dermea Piceina (Dermateaceae): an Unrecorded Endophytic Fungus of Isolated from Abies Koreana

    Dermea Piceina (Dermateaceae): an Unrecorded Endophytic Fungus of Isolated from Abies Koreana

    The Korean Journal of Mycology www.kjmycology.or.kr RESEARCH NOTE Dermea piceina (Dermateaceae): An Unrecorded Endophytic Fungus of Isolated from Abies koreana 1,* 1 2 Ju-Kyeong Eo , Eunsu Park , and Han-Na Choe 1 Division of Climate and Ecology, Bureau of Conservation & Assessment Research, National Institute of Ecology, Seocheon 33657, Korea 2 Biological Resource Center, Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Jeongeup 56212, Korea * Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT We found an unrecorded endophytic fungus, Dermea piceina J.W. Groves, isolated from alpine conifer Abies koreana. Until now only one Dermea species, D. cerasi, has been reported in Korea. In this study, we compared morphological characteristics and DNA sequences, including internal transcribed spacer and 28S ribosomal DNA, of D. piceina isolated from A. koreana with those of related species. Here, we present morphological and molecular characters of this fungus for the first time in Korea. Key word: Abies koreana, Dermea piceina, Endophytic fungi, Korea The genus Dermea Fr. contains 24 species worldwide [1]. Until now only one species, D. cerasi, had been discovered in Korea on fallen branches in the national park of Byeonsanbando [2]. Since then, there was no additional record of Dermea species therein. The apothecium of Dermea is very hard, leathery, dark brown OPEN ACCESS pISSN : 0253-651X to black in color and has a clavate ascus with eight ascospores. In the asexual stage, the macroconidium is eISSN : 2383-5249 sickle-shaped or filiform with 0-3 septa, and the microconidium is rod or filiform without septa [3]. Kor. J. Mycol. 2020 December, 48(4): 485-489 Alpine conifers are vulnerable to climate change [4].
  • Project Pest Management Plan

    Project Pest Management Plan

    E2227 VOL.3 REPUBLIC OF RWANDA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL RESOURCES Public Disclosure Authorized Land-husbandry, Water-harvesting and Hillside-irrigation (LWH) project Public Disclosure Authorized Pest Management Plan (PMP) and Arrangement for LWH FINAL DRAFT REPORT Public Disclosure Authorized THE GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA P.O. Box 6961, Kigali, Rwanda Tel: ; Fax: ; E-Mail: I Public Disclosure Authorized Rukazambuga Ntirushwa Daniel,National University of Rwanda Consultant Report, July 2009 ilPage Table of Contents Table ofContents.................................................................................................................................. ii LISTE OF ACRONYM ............................................................................................................................ 1 List oftables ..........................................................................................................................................3 List of figures.........................................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................4 1.0 Background...................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Rwanda's Hillside Irrigation Agriculture ....................................................................................5 2.0
  • DISEASES Strawberry Diseases No

    DISEASES Strawberry Diseases No

    G A R D E N I N G S E R I E S DISEASES Strawberry Diseases no. 2.931 by C.E. Swift 1 Many diseases attack strawberries. Disease-causing organisms may be on plants when they are purchased or in the soil where plants are set. Disease spores also may be carried into strawberry fields by wind, birds, insects and farm implements. In most areas, losses may be reduced by: Quick Facts... • using proper cultural methods to include crop rotation, • selecting varieties adapted for the area, • selecting disease resistant varieties, and Winter damage and poor cultural • planting disease-free plants. management predispose For more information on site selection, soil preparation, planting and strawberry plants to diseases. cultural methods, see fact sheet 7.000, Strawberries for the Home Garden. Red stele, black root rot, powdery Prevent Stress mildew, botrytis, fruit rot, leaf Strawberry plants are most susceptible to disease-causing organisms spot, and leaf scorch are the most when stressed. Stress results from planting in the wrong type of soil, incorrect important strawberry fungus planting depth, too much or too little water, too much shade, winter drying diseases in Colorado. and frost heaving. Mulching may prevent winter damage and frost heaving. Mulch Strawberry plants are most sus- after the ground freezes (approximately December 1) to reduce excessive ceptible to disease-causing dehydration, soil temperature fluctuations, and winter damage and frost organisms when subjected to heaving. Frost heaving tears roots and severely damages the crown. Plants stress. damaged but not killed by frost heaving are more susceptible to diseases the following growing season.
  • Production Guide for Texas-Grown Strawberries

    Production Guide for Texas-Grown Strawberries

    EHT-047 5/14 Production Guide for Texas-Grown Strawberries Production Guide for Texas-Grown Strawberries Russ Wallace and Juan Anciso, Editors Extension Horticulturists, Texas A&M AgriLife Collaborating Authors Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Texas A&M AgriLife Research Juan Anciso Daniel Leskovar Molly Giesbrecht Genhua Niu Mengmeng Gu Alma Solis-Perez Joe Masabni Youping Sun Monte Nesbitt Kevin Ong Prairie View A&M University Marco Palma Justin Duncan Pat Porter Larry Stein Erfan Vafaie Russ Wallace Funding for this project was provided by a grant from the Walmart Foundation and administered by the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability trawberries are popular in Texas and throughout the United States. One cup of strawberries contains only 55 calories, hence their popu- larity with health-conscious consumers. Since 1970, yearly production ofS fresh strawberries in the US has increased 700 percent to 7.4 pounds per capita. This reflects the increasing popularity of strawberries, and suggests there is a viable market for Texas-grown berries. When managed efficiently, strawberry production offers growers the potential for high profits. However, experience shows that strawberries can be difficult to grow, especially in the semi-arid regions of West Texas, the High Plains/Panhandle and Lower Rio Grande Valley. There is signif- icant interest for growing strawberries in Texas and this guide serves as an introduction to strawberry biology, production techniques, variety selec- tion, marketing strategies, high tunnels, pest management, irrigation, soil salinity and pH, fertility, harvesting and storage. This guide is specific to Texas and is intended only as a reference for potential growers.
  • Additions and Amendments to the List of British Smut Fungi

    Additions and Amendments to the List of British Smut Fungi

    mycologist 20 (2006) 90– 96 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mycol Additions and amendments to the list of British smut fungi B. M. SPOONER*, N. W. LEGON Mycology Section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AE, U.K. abstract Keywords: Investigation of material of British smut fungi held in the national collections at kew (k) un- British Isles dertaken during preparation of the new checklist of British and Irish Basidiomycota (Legon New records et al. 2005) identified several species not hitherto known from the British Isles. These in- Smut fungi clude taxa not previously recognised due to earlier, broader species concepts, as well as Urediniomycetes others based on earlier misidentifications or discovered during examination of herbarium Ustilaginomycetes material of their host plants. These taxa are fully reported here. In addition, amendments to nomenclature and taxonomy of other British species which have occurred since the monography by Mordue & Ainsworth (1984) are summarised. ª 2006 The British Mycological Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction taxonomy, to the extent that some taxa have been linked more closely with the rusts (Urediniomycetes). Furthermore, The first monographic treatment of the British smut fungi extensive revisions of some genera, e.g. Cintractia (Pie- (Ustilaginomycetes) was published by Plowright (1889) and in- penbring 2000), have been undertaken, and monographic re- cluded just 51 species. Enormous progress since then with visions of European taxa published by Va´nky (1994) and by regard both to taxonomic concepts and to study of the British Zogg (1985). species has resulted in extensive amendments and additions During preparation of the new Checklist of the British and to the list.
  • Strawberry Leaf Scorch

    Strawberry Leaf Scorch

    Strawberry Leaf Scorch Cathy Heidenreich and Bill Turechek Introduction - Diplocarpon earliana is destructive to numerous cultivars of strawberry in temperate, subtropical and tropical regions, being widely distributed in North and South America, Europe, Central and Southern Africa, the Middle East, Southern and Eastern Asia, and Australia. Leaf scorch is reported to be the most prevalent disease of strawberry in Ontario, Canada, where epidemics normally occur from August to October and can markedly reduce vegetative growth and fruit yield in the subsequent season. Losses range from negligible to severe, depending on numerous factors, including cultivar susceptibility, type of cropping system, and weather conditions. Scorch can severely weaken plants, resulting in sharp growth declines for shoots and roots, and reduced numbers and vigor of crowns. Severely infected plants may die from environmental stresses, such as heat, cold or drought. Symptoms of this fungus are indistinguishable from leaf scorch caused by another member of the species, Marssonina canadensis Bolton, reported in British Columbia. Early pin point leaf scorch lesions on strawberry leaves (Fig. 1). Advanced scorch symptoms on strawberry leaves (Fig. 2). Symptoms Leaves: Leaf spots (lesions) may take 2 forms: pinpoint lesions in large or small numbers, and blotchy type lesions measuring ¼" to ½" in diameter (Fig. 1). Lesions are typically reddish to purple, coalescing to give a burnt appearance to the plants (Fig. 2). They often appear as numerous irregular, purplish to brownish blotches, 1-5 mm in diameter, developing on the leaf surface (laminae). The centers of these lesions do not become white or gray, as with leaf spot (Mycosphaerella fragariae).