Search

Made available in DSpace on 2022-04-28T19:52:06Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2022-03-18 Urbanization transforms environments in ways that alter biological evolution. We examined whether urban environmental change drives parallel evolution by sampling 110,019 white clover plants from 6169 populations in 160 cities globally. Plants were assayed for a Mendelian antiherbivore defense that also affects tolerance to abiotic stressors. Urban-rural gradients were associated with the evolution of clines in defense in 47% of cities throughout the world. Variation in the strength of clines was explained by environmental changes in drought stress and vegetation cover that varied among cities. Sequencing 2074 genomes from 26 cities revealed that the evolution of urban-rural clines was best explained by adaptive evolution, but the degree of parallel adaptation varied among cities. Our results demonstrate that urbanization leads to adaptation at a global scale. Department of Biology University of Toronto Mississauga ON Centre for Urban Environments University of Toronto Mississauga ON Department of Biology University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Department of Biology University of Louisiana LA Department of Biology Queen's University ON Department of Biology Concordia University QC Department of Biological Sciences DePaul University Department of Biology DePauw University IN Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ Department of Genetics University of Georgia Department of Ecology and Genetics Evolutionary Biology Centre Uppsala University Field Science Center for Northern Biosphere Hokkaido University Natural History Museum Zoology University of New England NSW Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geografia da UFMT campus de Rondonópolis Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research Centre University of British Columbia Graduate Program in Genome Sciences and Technology Genome Sciences Centre University of British Columbia Department of Microbiology and Immunology University of British Columbia Red de Biología Evolutiva Instituto de Ecología A. C. School of the Environment Yale University CT Departamento de Ciencias Ecológicas Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad Universidad de Chile Department of Biology Mount Allison University Red de Ecoetología Instituto de Ecología A. C. Department of Biology University of Ottawa ON Department of Zoology University of Cambridge Department of Biology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA Department of Biology University of Miami FL Centro de Investigación en Recursos Naturales y Sustentabilidad (CIRENYS) Universidad Bernardo O'Higgins Department of Biology, University of La Verne, La Verne, CA, USA Département des sciences du bois et de la forêt Université Laval QC Evolution & Ecology Research Centre School of Biological Earth and Environmental Sciences UNSW Sydney NSW Department of Biology Ghent University Department of Biology Monmouth University West Long Branch Centre for Ecology Evolution and Environmental Changes Faculdade de Ciências Universidade de Lisboa Lisboa Department of Biology KU Leuven School of Agriculture and Environment Wildlife and Ecology group Massey University, Palmerston North Department of Biological Sciences University of Cape Town Institute of Landscape Ecology University of Münster Gosnell School of Life Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USA Department of Biological Sciences University of Alberta AB Louis Calder Center and Department of Biological Sciences, Fordham University, Armonk, NY, USA Departamento de Ecología Tropical, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán, México School of Life Sciences University of Sussex Department of Ecology Environment and Plant Sciences Stockholm University iBIOTROP Instituto de Biodiversidad Tropical Universidad San Francisco de Quito Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA Unidad de Recursos Naturales, Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán AC, Mérida, Yucatán, México School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences East China Normal University Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Sustainable Plant Innovation Centre for Ecosystem Science School of Biological Earth and Environmental Sciences UNSW Sydney NSW Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Michigan MI Department of Biosciences Rice University TX IFEVA Universidad de Buenos Aires Facultad de Agronomía, CONICET Biology Department Saint Mary's University NS Department of Biological Sciences, Universidad de los Andes Department of Biology and Biochemistry University of Houston TX Université de Rennes Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre University of British Columbia Department of Environmental Studies Dordt University Sioux Center IA Department of Biology Minneapolis Community and Technical College MN Department of Natural Sciences Ecology and Environment Research Centre Manchester Metropolitan University Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad UNAM Department of Botany School of Biology Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Faculty of Biological and Environmental Science Organismal & Evolutionary Biology Research Programme University of Helsinki Institute of Biodiversity Animal Health and Comparative Medicine University of Glasgow Department of Biology Hendrix College Department of Ecological Science Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja Departamento de Biologia Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM) Department of Plant Sciences School of Biology College of Science University of Tehran NTNU University Museum Norwegian University of Science and Technology Red de Estudios Moleculares Avanzados Instituto de Ecología A. C. School of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights Park, Reading, Berkshire, UK Department of Biology Northern Arizona University AZ Department of Biological Sciences MacEwan University AB Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research Departamento de Ecología Evolutiva Instituto de Ecología Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology Potsdam-Golm BIO5 Institute University of Arizona AZ Alaska Center for Conservation Science University of Alaska Anchorage Tropical Diversity, Royal Botanical Garden of Edinburgh Département de biologie Université de Moncton Department of Biological Sciences University of Manitoba MB Departments of Microbiology & Statistics University of Manitoba MB Department of Biology University of New Brunswick Department of Biology Kalamazoo College MI BioProtection Research Centre Lincoln University Departamento de Ciencias Facultad de Artes Liberales Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Department of Ecology Evolution Behaviour University of Minnesota MN Department of Biological Sciences Brock University Department of Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA ICB - University of Talca School of Molecular and Life Science Curtin University College of Science Health Engineering and Education Murdoch University, Murdoch School of Life and Environmental Sciences University of Sydney NSW School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Department of Biological Sciences Wayne State University MI Department of Biology Western Oregon University, OR School of Natural Resources and the Environment University of Arizona AZ Departamento de Ecología Humana, Cinvestav Mérida Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas y Departamento de Ecología y Biodiversidad Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad Andrés Bello Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity (IEB) Department of Biology Lund University Department of Biology Norwegian University of Science and Technology Escuela Superiro de Desarrollo Sustentable Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero -CONACYT Clarkson Secondary School Peel District School Board ON Homelands Sr. Public School Peel District School Board ON Department of Biological Sciences University of Illinois at Chicago Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, St. James Catholic Global Learning Centre Department of Biosciences University of Calgary AB Ecological Processes Branch U.S. Army ERDC-CERL Department of Biology, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH, USA Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad Morelia UNAM Institute of Evolution and Ecology University of Tübingen Tübingen Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse Urban Wildlife Institute Department of Conservation and Science, Lincoln Park Zoo Departamento de Ecología Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción Department of Biological Sciences University of Denver CO Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi State University MS Department of Biology Center for Computational & Integrative Biology Rutgers University-Camden Kunming Institute of Botany Chinese Academy of Sciences Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry Laurentian University ON Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering College of Life Sciences Beijing Normal University School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA Department of Biology University of New Mexico NM Department of Biology University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire Agriculture Institute Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology (IROST) Department of Biology Colby College ME Instituto de Biología Universidad de Antioquia Department of Biology University of Massachusetts Boston MA Agricultural Biology Colorado State University CO Departamento de Biología Vegetal y Ecología Facultad de Biología Universidad de Sevilla, Av. Reina Mercedes s/n Facultad de Estudios Interdisciplinarios Centro GEMA- Genómica Universidad Mayor Evolutionary Ecology Group Naturalis Biodiversity Center Department of Biology and Chemistry Nipissing University ON, North Bay Center for Ecological Research Kyoto University Bonanza Creek Long Term Ecological Research Program University of Alaska Fairbanks Department of Botany and Molecular Evolution Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt Departamento de Biodiversidade Instituto de Biociências Univ Estadual Paulista - UNESP Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies University of Wisconsin-Madison WI Department of Biology, California State University, Northridge, Los Angeles, CA, USA Department of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Facultad de Ciencias y Biotecnologia Universidad CES Department of Biology Hofstra University Faculty of Biosciences and Aquaculture Nord University, Bodø Division of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA Department of Biology University of Richmond VA Estación de Biodiversidad Tiputini Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ Department of Biological Sciences Institute of Environment Florida International University FL Agronomy Department University of Almería Department of Biological Sciences and Center for Urban Ecology and Sustainability Butler University IN Department of Biological Sciences Louisiana State University LA Faculty of Biological Sciences, Goethe University Frankfurt Institute of Biology Leiden Leiden University Department of Biological and Environmental Science University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä Department of Biology University of Louisville KY Organization for Programs on Environmental Science University of Tokyo CNRS AgroParisTech Ecologie Systématique et Evolution, Université Paris-Saclay Department of Biology, Providence College, Providence, RI, USA General Zoology Institute for Biology Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg International Arctic Research Center University of Alaska Fairbanks Science, Technology and Society Department, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USA SLU Swedish Species Information Centre Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Department of Biology Westfield State University MA Centre of New Technologies University of Warsaw Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA Plant Biology Department Michigan State University MI Biology Department Davidson College College of Horticulture and Forestry Sciences/ Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center for Forestry Information Huazhong Agricultural University School of Life Sciences Technical University of Munich School of Life Sciences Lanzhou University Institute of Ecology and Evolution University of Bern Department of Evolution Ecology and Behaviour University of Liverpool Departamento de Biodiversidade Instituto de Biociências Univ Estadual Paulista - UNESP

Neotropical black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) is expanding poleward into temperate salt marsh along Atlantic Florida, USA, with field evidence of trait shifts consistent with greater cold tolerance within range margin populations. However, whether these shifts have a genetic basis remains unanswered. To address this gap, we measured multiple phenotypic traits of twenty A. germinans maternal cohorts from areas in both the Atlantic Florida range core and margin in a 2-year greenhouse common garden with annual temperatures analogous to range margin conditions. Compared to those from the range core, range margin cohorts survived in greater numbers, established (i.e., produced first true leaves) more quickly, and were less stressed under winter temperatures. Range margin cohorts were not taller, but invested more into lateral growth and biomass accumulation that presumably reflects adaptation to their colder and open-canopy environment. Range margin cohorts also exhibited leaf traits consistent with greater resource acquisition that may compensate for a shorter growing season and reduced light quality at higher latitude. Our results suggest that genetically based phenotypic differences better enable these range margin mangroves to thrive within their stressful environment and may facilitate further poleward expansion. An improved understanding of adaptive trait variation within ecologically important mangrove foundation species should also help inform coastal restoration initiatives.

Background: As agriculture has intensified, many once-common wildflowers have declined in arable landscapes, which has wide-spread implications for associated ecosystem services. Incorporation of sustainable practices, for example, growing living mulches (in-field, non-crop plant ground cover, maintained during the target crop growing season), can boost arable biodiversity, but few wildflower species have been utilised in this context. Aims: Our aim was to determine the suitability of arable wildflower species, once considered weeds, for use as living mulches. Methods: We first screened a number of arable wildflower species for germination when growing with a common cereal, barley (Hordeum vulgare). We then grew two (Centaurea cyanus and Scandix pecten-veneris) in pots in a glasshouse with and without barley, and grew barley alone to test the impact of the wildflowers on barley growth and biomass. Results: Neither of the wildflowers significantly negatively impacted barley biomass. Barley initially facilitated germination in S. pecten-veneris, but ultimately suppressed the above-ground biomass of both wildflowers. However, both wildflower species were able to coexist alongside barley. Conclusions: Our experiment provides evidence that wildflowers that were considered weeds in traditional agriculture have the potential to be grown alongside barley and could be incorporated as part of a living mulch.

Amongst the global decline of coral reefs, hope spots such as Cordelia Bank in Honduras, have been identified. This site contains dense, remnant thickets of the endangered species Acropora cervicornis, which local managers and conservation organizations view as a potential source population for coral restoration projects. The aim of this study was to determine the genetic diversity of colonies across three banks within the protected area. We identified low genetic diversity (FST = 0.02) across the three banks, and genetic similarity of colonies ranged from 91.3 to 95.8% between the banks. Clonality rates were approximately 30% across the three banks, however, each genotype identified was unique to each bank. Despite the low genetic diversity, subtle genetic differences within and among banks were demonstrated, and these dense thickets were shown not to be comprised of a single or a few genotypes. The presence of multiple genotypes suggests A. cervicornis colonies from these banks could be used to maintain and enhance genetic diversity in restoration projects. Management of hope spots, such as Cordelia Bank, and the incorporation of genetic information into restoration projects to ensure genetic diversity within out-planted populations, will be critical in the ongoing challenge of conserving and preserving coral reefs.

Tree pathogens are a major threat to forest ecosystems. Conservation management strategies can exploit natural mechanisms of resistance, such as tree genotype and host‐associated microbial communities. However, fungal and bacterial communities are rarely looked at in the same framework, particularly in conjunction with host genotype. Here, we explore these relationships and their influence on ash dieback disease, caused by the pathogen Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, in European common ash trees.\ud \ud We collected leaves from UK ash trees and used microsatellite markers to genotype trees, qPCR to quantify H. fraxineus infection load, and ITS and 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing to identify fungal and bacterial communities, respectively.\ud \ud There was a significant association between H. fraxineus infection intensity and ash leaf fungal and bacterial community composition. Higher infection levels were positively correlated with fungal community alpha diversity, and a number of fungal and bacterial genera were significantly associated with infection presence and intensity. Under higher infection loads, leaf microbial networks were characterised by stronger associations between fewer members than those associated with lower infection levels. Together these results suggest that H. fraxineus disrupts stable endophyte communities after a particular infection threshold is reached, and may enable proliferation of opportunistic microbes. We identified three microbial genera associated with an absence of infection, potentially indicating an antagonistic relationship with H. fraxineus that could be utilised in the development of anti‐pathogen treatments.\ud \ud Host genotype did not directly affect infection, but did significantly affect leaf fungal community composition. Thus, host genotype could have the potential to indirectly affect disease susceptibility through genotype x microbiome interactions, and should be considered when selectively breeding trees.\ud \ud Synthesis. We show the diversity, composition and network structure of ash leaf microbial communities are associated with the severity of infection from ash dieback disease, with evidence of disease‐induced dysbiosis. We also show that host genotype influences leaf fungal community composition, but does not directly influence tree infection. These findings help to elucidate relationships between host genetics, the microbiome, and a tree pathogen, highlighting potential resistance mechanisms and possible co‐infection concerns that could inform ash tree management.

Temporal dynamism of plant resource capture, and its impacts on plant–plant interactions, can have important regulatory roles in multispecies communities. For example, by modifying resource acquisition timing, plants might reduce competition and promote their coexistence. However, despite the potential wide ecological relevance of this topic, short-term (within growing season) temporal dynamism has been overlooked. This is partially a consequence of historic reliance on measures made at single points in time. We propose that with current technological advances this is a golden opportunity to study within growing season temporal dynamism of resource capture by plants in highly informative ways. We set out here an agenda for future developments in this research field, and explore how new technologies can deliver this agenda.

1. The exploitation of shared resources by diverse organisms underpins the structure of ecological communities. Hemiparasitic plants and the insect herbivores feeding on them both rely, directly and indirectly, on the resources supplied by the parasite's host plant. Therefore, the identity and number of host plant species providing these resources is likely to be critical for parasite and herbivore performance.\ud \ud 2. We tested the effect of single and multiple host species on the biomass of the generalist parasitic plant Rhinanthus minor and the abundance of its aphid (Aphis gossypii) herbivores.\ud \ud 3. Parasite biomass was proportional to the number of haustorial connections to host roots and was determined by host species identity rather than host functional group. Host species identity was also an important influence on aphid population size, and parasites attached to Lotus corniculatus experienced a considerable reduction in aphid herbivory.\ud \ud 4. The effects on the parasite attaching to multiple hosts depended on the combination of species present. However, host mixtures generally benefitted aphids by diluting the negative effects of particular host species.\ud \ud 5. Our findings suggest that the specificity of host attachment alters the impact of this keystone parasitic plant on its own herbivores and, potentially, on the wider plant and herbivore community.

Wildflower mixes are often planted around field margins to provide forage for pollinators. Although seed for these mixtures is often wild-sourced, for species where agricultural cultivars are available, for example red clover (Trifolium pratense), cultivars can also be included. Previous evidence suggests that plant genetic background can have a strong influence on plant-arthropod interactions and therefore the provenance and genetic background of the plants included in wildflower mixes could impact plant-pollinator interactions. We tested the performance of five individual T. pratense cultivars against two commercially available wild-sourced T. pratense populations in terms of their ability to attract potential pollinator species (focusing on bumblebees) and their floral traits using greenhouse and garden experiments. The main bumblebee observed interacting with T. pratense was Bombus pascuorum and we found no difference in the absolute number of B. pascuorum visiting the cultivars or wild populations. However, we found variation among cultivars and between wild populations in their ability to attract bumblebees, which seems to be related to their relative investment in different floral traits. There was a positive relationship between biomass and number of inflorescences produced by the wild populations of T. pratense, which was not apparent for the cultivars. This suggests that artificial selection on the cultivars has changed the G-matrix of correlated traits. We show that agricultural cultivars of T. pratense can be as effective as wild populations at attracting pollinators such as bumblebees, but that the genetic background of both cultivars and wild populations can have a significant impact on the attractiveness of the plant to pollinators. We also show divergence in the correlated traits of T. pratense cultivars and wild populations that could lead to outbreeding depression if the plants interbreed.

Community genetics is a synthesis of community ecology and evolutionary biology. It examines how genetic variation within a species affects interactions among species to change ecological community structure and diversity. The use of community genetics approaches has greatly expanded in recent years and the evidence for ecological effects of genetic diversity is growing. The goal of current community genetics research is to determine the circumstances in which, and the mechanisms by which community genetic effects occur and is the focus of the papers in this special issue. We bring a new group of researchers into the community genetics fold. Using a mixture of empirical research, literature reviews and theoretical development, we introduce novel concepts and methods that we hope will enable us to develop community genetics into the future.

Soil nutrients, and factors which influence their concentrations and bioavailability, form a basic component of bottom-up control of ecosystem processes, including plant-herbivore interactions. Increased nutrient levels are linked, through plant defence theory, with increased levels of herbivore susceptibility. The focal point of many ecological experiments examining this link is at the species level, where the response of single species is the average of many different genotypes. Here, we focus on the genetic basis of indirect ecological interactions. We investigated the effects of nutrient concentration on the population growth of an aphid herbivore across multiple genotypes of barley in relation to plant growth rate. In general, both aphid population size and plant growth rate increased with nutrient concentration. However, they were both dependent on the interaction between nutrient concentration and barley genotype. Our data raise the testable possibility of differential defense responses between genotypes of barley, for example divergent, fixed and inducible defences against aphids. We provide evidence that the indirect effects of soil nutrients on aphid population size are mediated by the genetics of the host plant.

Background and Aims Successful cryopreservation of bryophytes is linked to intrinsic desiccation tolerance and survival can be enhanced by pre-treatment with abscisic acid (ABA) and sucrose. The pioneer moss Ditrichum plumbicola is naturally subjected to desiccation in the field but showed unexpectedly low survival of cryopreservation, as well as a poor response to pre-treatment. The effects of the cryopreservation protocol on protonemata of D. plumbicola were investigated in order to explore possible relationships between the production in vitro of cryopreservation-tolerant asexual propagules and the reproductive biology of D. plumbicola in nature. Methods Protonemata were prepared for cryopreservation using a four-step protocol involving encapsulation in sodium alginate, pre-treatment for 2 weeks with ABA and sucrose, desiccation for 6 h and rapid freezing in liquid nitrogen. After each stage, protonemata were prepared for light and electron microscopy and growth on standard medium was monitored. Further samples were prepared for light and electron microscopy at intervals over a 24-h period following removal from liquid nitrogen and re-hydration. Key Results Pre-treatment with ABA and sucrose caused dramatic changes to the protonemata. Growth was arrested and propagules induced with pronounced morphological and cytological changes. Most cells died, but those that survived were characterized by thick, deeply pigmented walls, numerous small vacuoles and lipid droplets in their cytoplasm. Desiccation and cryopreservation elicited no dramatic cytological changes. Cells returned to their pre-dehydration and cryopreservation state within 2 h of re-hydration and/or removal from liquid nitrogen. Regeneration was normal once the ABA/sucrose stimulus was removed. Conclusions The ABA/sucrose pre-treatment induced the formation of highly desiccation- and cryopreservation-tolerant propagules from the protonemata of D. plumbicola. This parallels behaviour in the wild, where highly desiccation-tolerant rhizoids function as perennating organs allowing the moss to endure extreme environmental conditions. An involvement of endogenous ABA in the desiccation tolerance of D. plumbicola is suggested.

The value of ex situ plant collections for conservation is increasingly recognised. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (RGB, Kew) has been pioneering methods for the development of such collections with the establishment of the Millennium Seed Bank and a project for the ex situ conservation of threatened UK bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, hornworts). A broad range of bryophytes are currently held in a tissue culture collection at RBG, Kew on sucrose-free ¼ or ½ Murashige & Skoog or Knops minimal medium. The efficacy of the novel sterilising agent Sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC) was tested on a range of taxa, utilising a variety of bryophytic initiation material. Concentrations of 1% (w/v) for 3 min and 0.5% (w/v) for 2 min, without the addition of detergent, were found to be successful in initiating cultures from sporophytes and leafy gametophores respectively. Initiation of cultures from wild-collected sporophytes was more successful than from wild-collected gametophores. However, pre-culturing of gametophore material was found to enhance success rate of procedures. Transferring visibly clean material away from contamination post-initiation was also determined to increase protocol success rate. The ability of the biocide Plant Preservative MixtureTM (PPMTM) to control fungal and bacterial contamination in bryophyte protonemal cultures was also tested, but not found to be suitable. However, results obtained indicated that contamination may confer resistance on the moss against the phytotoxic effects of the biocide. Methods developed have wider applicability for the establishment of in vitro collections of other threatened plants.

In vitro techniques have found increasing use in the conservation of threatened plants in recent years and this trend is likely to continue as more species face risk of extinction. The Micropropagation Unit at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK (RBG Kew) has an extensive collection of in vitro plants including many threatened species from throughout the world. The long history of the unit and the range of plants cultured have enabled considerable expertise to be amassed in identifying the problems and developing experimental strategies for propagation and conservation of threatened plants. While a large body of knowledge is available on the in vitro culture of plants, there are limited publications relating to threatened plant conservation. This review highlights the progress in in vitro culture and conservation of threatened plants in the past decade (1995–2005) and suggests future research directions. Works on non-threatened plants are also included wherever methods have applications in rare plant conservation. Recalcitrant plant materials collected from the wild or ex situ collections are difficult to grow in culture. Different methods of sterilization and other treatments to establish clean material for culture initiation are reviewed. Application of different culture methods for multiplication, and use of unconventional materials for rooting and transplantation are reviewed. As the available plant material for culture initiation is scarce and in many cases associated with inherent problems such as low viability and endogenous contamination, reliable protocols on multiplication, rooting, and storage methods are very important. In this context, photoautotrophic micropropagation has the potential for development as a routine method for the in vitro conservation of endangered plants. Long-term storage of material in culture is challenging and the potential applications of cryopreservation are significant in this area. Future conservation biotechnology research and its applications must be aimed at conserving highly threatened, mainly endemic, plants from conservation hotspots.

The systemic herbicide asulam is used extensively to control the weedy fern bracken ( Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn). Other ferns were thought to be highly sensitive to asulam exposure, but there has been a dearth of experimental evidence. Eight fern species were exposed to asulam spray at three different application rates or a control of water. Asulam was applied at the recommended field application rate for bracken clearance, and at two further rates corresponding to 10 and 50 m downwind of an aerial spray event. Damage was assessed over two seasons. All ferns tested were severely damaged by exposure to the highest application rate, but sensitivity varied between species. Maximum damage occurred 1 year after spraying, and limited signs of recovery could be seen by the second season. The effects of adding the adjuvant Agral® to applications of asulam were tested on the threatened pteridophyte Pilularia globulifera L. No damage additional to that caused by exposure to asulam was observed. This work supports the view that 50 m buffer zones are sufficient to protect sensitive ferns from the effects of aerial spraying with asulam, provided that drift-reducing nozzles are used and the manufacturer’s application guidelines are observed.

Asulox is a herbicide used to control bracken. Its effects on mosses were investigated to ascertain whether exposure proved as detrimental as found in parallel studies on pteridophytes. Mature gametophytes of 18 mosses were exposed to a range of concentrations of Asulox under standard conditions and the effects on growth monitored. Plants were cut to a standard length, exposed to Asulox solution for 24 h, grown for 3 weeks and total elongation (main stem and branches) measured. EC50 values were calculated and species ranked according to sensitivity. The effects of exposure on total elongation were compared with those on main stem elongation alone. Under the conditions tested, the total elongation of all species was inhibited after exposure to Asulox. The amount of elongation observed after exposure was different for different species and inhibition of elongation occurred at different exposure concentrations. A single regression equation was not adequate to describe the dose response curves of all species tested. An ability to produce secondary branches may confer increased tolerance to Asulox exposure. It is concluded that mosses suffer detrimental effects after exposure to Asulox at concentrations similar to those that affect fern gametophytes such as bracken.

Our last review, of the first edition, was broadly favourable, but made several suggestions that have not been taken up. Doubtless the editors had many conflicts to resolve, but while this compilation may prove enormously frustrating for the non-expert, it certainly does fit the back cover description‘..an authoritative treatment of bryophyte biology, with rich citation of the current literature, suitable for advanced students and researchers’. There remain no references to being ‘accessible and well illustrated’ (in the first edition), so the editors have obviously decided to pitch to the cognoscenti. The book achieves its aims – providing the reader has an understanding of the meaning of terms such as ‘prosenchymatous’, ‘anacrogynous’, ‘Bauplan’, ‘superincumbent’ and ‘nematodontous’ or access to a good bryological dictionary, there is a huge amount of useful information to be had. Illustrations are sparse and exclusively black and white, but typographical errors are very few (e.g. achegoniate) and mismatch of message the same (please let's agree on substrate/substratum!), so the reader is faced with an exceptionally rich and well-edited resource. The editors have collected many of the major bryological players and generated a tome of enormous merit. We take exception to the concept of the bryophyte life cycle being ‘peculiar’ (p. 394) as we are comfortable that it is the master plan, with all subsequent life cycles being mere derivatives, but have few other constitutional disagreements. Once again, the book starts with morphology and classification – not for the faint hearted, and laden with jargon, but bang up to date and richly referenced. We especially liked the idea of ‘papillae as snorkels emerging from the water surface’ and were intrigued to learn that leafy shoots remain viable after passage through bats. The going gets easier with the chapter on ‘mosses as model organisms … ’ by Andrew Cuming, a refreshing non-‘Arabidocentric’ view of the plant kingdom that makes recent research extremely accessible to the non-expert. Michael Proctor continues the tone – we especially liked the explanation of desiccation tolerance as the reversible biological equivalent of good electron microscopy fixation! Jeff Bates shows a particularly keen awareness of recent developments in his account of mineral nutrition and substratum ecology, and his section on internal recycling is an incredibly useful compilation. Alain Vanderpoorten and Tomas Hallingback's chapter on conservation is as information-dense as the rest of the book. All of the chapters require a careful read, and re-read with a dictionary at hand, but the attention is richly repaid. To anyone embarking on conservation projects involving bryophytes – read this chapter first! This is a comprehensive review of why bryophytes need conserving – but serves to highlight how little we actually know. Places of conservation interest for bryophytes only partially overlap areas of interest for angiosperms and animals. This suggests that bryophytes are not good indicators of overall diversity but follow different rules. It is a pity that the authors have missed recent papers showing that desiccation-intolerant species can be cryopreserved, but this is a minor complaint. We end with an unapologetic self-plagiarized quote from the review of the first edition – this ‘should be an essential purchase for budding bryologists with plenty of background literature to hand, to all established bryological researchers [we defy you not to learn something new!] and to all libraries’.