Dominant group/Botany

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a traditional cultural association between Maize, squash and beans, called Milpa in the region. Credit: Isabelle Fragniere.

Botany is the scientific study of plants, including their physiology, structure, genetics, ecology, distribution, classification, and economic importance.

"Traditionally, botany included the study of fungi, algae and viruses. Botany covers a wide range of scientific disciplines including structure, growth, reproduction, metabolism, development, diseases, chemical properties, and evolutionary relationships among taxonomic groups. Botany began with early human efforts to identify edible, medicinal and poisonous plants, making it one of the oldest branches of science. Today botanists study about 400,000 species of living organisms."[1]

Dominant group[edit]

Examples from primary sources are to be used to prove or disprove each hypothesis. These can be collected per subject or in general.

  1. Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
  2. Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
  3. Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
  4. Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
  5. Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
  6. Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  7. Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
  8. Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
  9. Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
  10. Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
  11. Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
  12. Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
  13. Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
  14. Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
  15. Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  16. Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
  17. Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
  18. Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a synonym for dominant group.
  19. Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
  20. Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
  21. Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  22. Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Plants[edit]

Def. "[a]n organism of the kingdom Plantae; now specifically, a living organism of the Embryophyta (land plants) or of the Chlorophyta (green algae), a eukaryote that includes double-membraned chloroplasts in its cells containing chlorophyll a and b, or any organism closely related to such an organism"[2] is called a plant.

Def. " a multicellular eukaryote that includes chloroplasts in its cells, which have a cell wall"[2] is called a plant.

"Statistical analyses indicate that the Phanerozoic history of vascular land plants (tracheophytes) may be interpreted in terms of the successive radiations of four major plant groups, each characterized by a common morphological and/or reproductive grade. Following initial invasion of the land, the diversification of each group coincides with a decline in species numbers of the previously dominant group."[3]

Botany[edit]

Def. "[t]he scientific study of plants, ... [t]ypically those disciplines that involve the whole plant"[4] is called botany.

Usage notes:

"The scientific definition of what organisms should be considered plants changed dramatically during the 20th century. Bacteria, algae, and fungi are no longer considered plants by those who study them. Many textbooks do not reflect the most current thinking on classification."[2]

Dominant species:

"[I]n any limited country, the species which is most common, that is abound most in individuals, and the species which are most widely diffused within their country (and this is a different consideration from wide range, and to a certain extent from commonness), often give rise to varieties sufficiently well-marked to have been recorded in botanical works. Hence it is the most flourishing, or as they may be called, the dominant species -- those which range widely over the world, are the most diffused in their own country, and are the most numerous in individuals, -- which oftenest produce well-marked varieties, or, as I consider them, incipient species."[5]

Entities[edit]

"In other words, those with significant cultural capital – intellectuals, artists, professors, etc. - were part of the field of power and exercised some level of domination within society (by controlling the processes of cultural reproduction and its contents), but they were, within the dominant group, dominated by those with more economic capital."[6]

Agronomy[edit]

Def. "[t]he science of utilizing plants, animals and soils for food, fuel, feed, and fiber and more"[7] is called agronomy.

Def. "[t]he art or science of cultivating the ground, including the harvesting of crops, and the rearing and management of livestock; tillage; husbandry; farming"[8] is called agriculture.

"Annual broadleaf weeds (17 species) were clearly the dominant group under all tillage treatments, compared with the perennials (6 species) and annual grassy (4 species) weeds."[9]

"Regardless of year or treatment combination, values for each parameter (except ASIp) were nearly always lower for the dominated relative to intermediate and dominant plant group(s). For all parameters but ASIp, the application of either 165 or 330 kg N ha-1 often decreased the dominant group/dominanted group mean ratio in both years for either plant density."[10]

"In all, 75.6% of the trees fall into the dominant group which has only 12 species, far more than that of park and institutional forests (Table 2)."[11]

Angiosperms[edit]

"Flowering plants, or angiosperms, are presently the most dominant group of terrestrial autotrophs."[12]

From 1880 is the following: “The Plant life of this Period was of a very varied and luxuriant character, and the Angiosperms had now become the dominant group.”[13]

"Today, with approximately 300,000 species distributed worldwide, the angiosperms are the dominant group of vascular plants in terrestrial ecosystems."[14]

Bryology[edit]

Def. "[t]he study of bryophytes (non-vascular plants including mosses and liverworts)"[15] is called bryology.

"The Lejeuneaceae, with about 1000 species in about 90 genera, is the largest family of liverworts (Marchantiophyta) (Wilson et al., 2007) and the most dominant group of the epiphyllous flora (Gradstein, 1997; Zhu & So, 2001)."[16]

"Liverworts were the dominant group in all localities and habitats, accounting for about two-thirds of the species."[17]

"Yet it is these leafy members which make up the dominant group of the Hepaticae, since they comprise more than 85 per cent of the total (8500 species)."[18]

Dendrology[edit]

Notation: let the symbol ECG stand for ecological-coenotic groups.

"We have suggested assigning a dominant group in ground vegetation according to the regional probabilistic tables of correspondence between forest site index and dominant ECG (constructed for different dominant tree species)."[19]

"In terms of trophism index the dominant group are plants of rich soils (279 species)."[20]

Dominant classification[edit]

Scientific classification in botany is a method by which botanists group and categorize organisms by biological type, such as genus or species. Biological classification is a form of scientific taxonomy. Modern taxonomy is rooted in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have since been revised to improve consistency with the Darwinian principle of common descent. While scientists do not always agree on how to classify organisms, molecular phylogenetics, which uses DNA sequences as data, has driven many recent revisions along more efficient, evolutionary lines and is likely to continue to do so. Botanical classification belongs to the science of plant systematics. The dominant classification system is called the Linnaean taxonomy. It includes ranks and binomial nomenclature. The classification, taxonomy, and nomenclature of botanical organisms is administered by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN).[21][22] Bold added.

Economic botany[edit]

"We recognized three types of crusts based on texture and the dominant group of organism."[23]

"The farmers consisted of four ethnic groups, and among the herders the Fulani people were the dominant group[.]"[24]

Ethnobotany[edit]

"Our results showed that: (1) Dai people of Xishuangbanna used a wide range of wetland plants, including 46 families and 102 species, of which hygrophytes (helophytes) are the dominant group."[25]

"Ethnocide is when a dominant political group attempts to purposely put an end to a people’s traditional way of life. Linguicide (linguistic genocide) is when such a dominant group tries to extinguish the language of a minority group, say by punishing anyone caught speaking it."[26] "What about the “science” of these tiny undiscovered endangered languages? Does that kind of “primitive” ethnoscience have anything to teach us? The main examples that are quoted in the responses to this question have to do with ethnobotany and ethnomedicine."[26]

"The coconut family is the dominant group of palms in South America, with specialized tribal and generic characters, and hundreds of wild species, but is not represented in the Old World tropics."[27]

Forestry[edit]

"Gap-opportunistic species were the dominant ecological group in low forest, bamboo forest, and high forest, while shade tolerant canopy species formed the dominant group in mature forest."[28]

"Hydrophobic acids, which constitute the dominant group of dissolved organic compounds in the humic layer, are effectively retained as water percolates through E and B horizons of podzol profiles (Easthouse et al., 1992)."[29]

"The opportunist functional group is the dominant group at low disturbance treatments and its relative abundance becomes suppressed as disturbance increases."[30]

Horticulture[edit]

"The results reveal that a dominant group I rDNA lineage appears in these three provinces."[31]

"Thus the NZ industry is one of the dominant group of apple exporters, which includes the EU, the USA, Chile, South Africa and Argentina."[32]

"Alcohols, however, were the dominant group of volatiles present in each sample, and linalool was highest within each profile."[33]

Lichenology[edit]

"Although free-living cyanobacteria are the dominant group in biological crusts covering the inselbergs, the number of cyanobacterial lichens is relatively high and their distribution is homogenous over long distances and macro-climatic gradients."[34]

"Alectorioid lichens are the dominant group of epiphytic lichens in boreal forests."[35]

"The dominant group of lichens in tropical rain forests are crustose microlichens, a highly diverse assemblage that lacks detailed taxonomic and ecological studies, among them the families Graphidaceae and Thelotremataceae (Wirth and Hale 1963, 1978; Hale 1974, 1978"[36]

Paleobotany[edit]

"The groups could then be arranged from the dominant group (first rank) to the least common group (fifth rank)."[37]

"The dominant group in the Palaeozoic microplankton is the Acritarcha."[38]

"Pteridophyta is the second dominant group."[39]

"The angiosperms are both the dominant group of land plants and by far the most important plants for human use."[40]

Palynology[edit]

"A palynological study on Miocene–Pleistocene sediments exposed at Surai Khola in central Nepal yields new information on vegetation and climate change over the last ∼11.5 Ma. [...] Pollen assemblages from the Surai Khola section suggest complex vegetation changes, of which the shift to C4 grass dominance was only one. [...] Grassland taxa (Gramineae and others) characterize this zone as the dominant group."[41]

The "palynological record from two shallow core holes (6611/09-U-01 and -02) from the Trøndelag Platform offshore mid-Norway [consist] of 750 m of Upper Permian and Lower Triassic sediments. The relatively homogeneous assemblages recovered from the Upper Permian deposits are dominated by gymnosperm pollen, mainly pteridosperms. At the base of the Griesbachian, numerous spore species appear in the record, leading to an increased diversity. The change at this boundary is also marked by the massive reduction of one group of pteridosperm pollen (Vittatina). Together with other typical Permian elements (e.g., Lueckisporites virkkiae), this group is rare but consistently present in the lower part of the Griesbachian, and it gradually disappears in its upper part. The distribution of other groups such as taeniate and non-taeniate bisaccate gymnosperm pollen (pteridosperms and conifers) shows no significant change across the boundary, whereas spores and other gymnosperm pollen increase in diversity and abundance. These changes coincide with the formational change between the Schuchert Dal Formation (Upper Permian) and the Wordie Creek Formation (Griesbachian) equivalents."[42]

"In contrast to the common claim that marine and terrestrial biota both suffered a mass extinction related to the Permian-Triassic boundary event, the studied material from the Norwegian midlatitudinal sites shows no evidence for destruction of plant ecosystems. The presence of diverse microfloras of Griesbachian age supports the idea that the climate in this area allowed most plants to survive the Permian-Triassic boundary event."[42]

"According to the data from mid-Norway as well as the previous records from East Greenland and the Barents Shelf, the widely accepted image of the lowermost Triassic flora, after which herbaceous lycopsids invaded the devastated terrestrial ecosystems and became the globally dominant group, has to be revised."[42]

Plant anatomy[edit]

"To date about 33 species belonging to 17 genera of fossil wood have been recorded from the Jurassic in China (Fig. 3, Table 1). They are mainly preserved as silicified type, which is predominant group of fossil preservation."[43]

"Coniferales: this is the dominant fossil wood group in the Jurassic of China ranging in age from Early to Late Jurassic."[43]

"Growth rings are well developed in these woods with wider early wood and narrow late wood, normally 1-2 tracheids wide and maximum 5-6 tracheids. These anatomical features may imply that the climate in western Liaoning was warm and humid during the Early Jurassic with seasonal variations: long spring and summer seasons and a shorter winter season. The megaplant assemblages in the Beipiao Formation (Zhang and Zheng, 1987) show that ferns are the dominant group in the assemblages, with diverse Cladophlebis foliages of larger fronds. The ferns were growing under the canopy of an arborescent forest dominated by conifers and ginkgoaleans, which are tolerant of a warm and humid climate. The fossil woods in the Beipiao Formation were dominated by conifers, which are the coal-forming plants during the Early Jurassic."[43]

Plant ecology[edit]

"It is no surprise that the data show the grass family (Poaceae) to be the dominant group, with nearly 200 exotic species in the western U.S. and 73 in the Sonoran Desert province. It is notable that species of Mediterranean origin are dominant in biomass in the Sonoran region (even though fewer in species than European or Eurasian weeds)."[44]

Plant genetics[edit]

"The way in which these genes interact with the dominant group 2 genes has yet to be determined."[45]

"From about 41 million ha represented (with a total of about 1,200 cultivars on the official list), about 145 cultivars (12%) belong to the dominant group (occupying at least 50% of the barley acreage)."[46]

"Bacteria are the most dominant group of this diversity which produce a wide range of products of industrial significance."[47]

Plant morphology[edit]

Plant physiology[edit]

Plant systematics[edit]

Botany subdisciplines[edit]

Hypotheses[edit]

  1. A dominant group can exist in botany if only based on numbers of organisms.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. 1.0 1.1 "Botany, In: Wikipedia". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. March 25, 2012. Retrieved 2012-03-25.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 plant. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. August 7, 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-07.
  3. Karl J. Niklas, Brace H. Tiffney, Andrew H. Knoll (16 June 1983). "Patterns in vascular land plant diversification". Nature 303 (5918): 614-6. doi:10.1038/303614a0. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v303/n5918/abs/303614a0.html. Retrieved 2016-02-07. 
  4. "botany, In: Wiktionary". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. July 18, 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-07.
  5. Charles Robert Darwin (1859). On the origin of the species by means of natural selection: or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray. p. 516.
  6. Brigitte Gemme (August 2009). The Outside Within: Heteronomy in the Training of Forest Researchers. Vancouver, British Columbia: The University of British Columbia. pp. 319. https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/11993/ubc_2009_fall_gemme_brigitte.pdf?sequence=1. Retrieved 2012-08-07. 
  7. agronomy. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. February 11, 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-07.
  8. agriculture. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. June 17, 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-07.
  9. E Demjanová, M Macák, I Ðalović (August 25-27, 2009). "Effects of tillage systems and crop rotation on weed density, weed species composition and weed biomass in maize". Agronomy Research 7 (Special Issue I): 183-90. http://agronomy.emu.ee/vol07Spec1/p7sI07.pdf. Retrieved 2012-08-06. 
  10. Christopher R Boomsma and Tony J Vyn (July 7, 2009). "Per-plant eco-physiological responses of maize to varied nitrogen availability at low and high plant densities". The Proceedings of the International Plant Nutrition Colloquium (University of California Davis, Davis, California) XVI: 1-6. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0tb4t3v2. Retrieved 2012-08-06. 
  11. C.Y Jim, H.T Liu (June 2001). "Species diversity of three major urban forest types in Guangzhou City, China". Forest Ecology and Management 146 (1-3): 99-114. http://www.aseanbiodiversity.info/Abstract/51004157.pdf. Retrieved 2012-08-06. 
  12. Scott L. Wing and Lisa D. Boucher (May 1998). "Ecological Aspects of the Cretaceous Flowering Plant Radiation". Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 26 (1): 379-421. doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.26.1.379. http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/10088/8818/1/paleo_Wing__Boucher_1998_AREPS.pdf. Retrieved 2011-09-14. 
  13. Herbert Goss (1880). Herbert Goss, ed. Cainozoic Time [On the Insecta of the Miocene Period, and the animals and plants with which they were correlated.], In: The geological antiquity of insects: Twelve papers on fossil entomology. London: John Van Voorst. pp. 40–46. Retrieved 2011-07-31.
  14. Sergio Archangelsky, Viviana Barreda, Mauro G. Passalia, Maria Gandolfo, Mercedes Prámparo, Edgardo Romero, Rubén Cúneo, Alba Zamuner, Ari Iglesias, Magdalena Llorens, Gabriela G. Puebla, Mirta Quattrocchio, Wolfgang Volkheimer (October 2009). "Early angiosperm diversification: evidence from southern South America". Cretaceous Research 30 (5): 1073-82. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2009.03.001. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667109000342. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  15. bryology. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. February 16, 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-07.
  16. Jian Wang, Rui-Liang Zhu (June 1, 2008). "Lejeunea laii nom. nov. for Lejeunea ramulosa (Herzog) R.M. Schust. (Jungermanniopsida: Lejeuneaceae) from Taiwan". Journal of Bryology 30 (2): 173-4. doi:10.1179/174328208X300624. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/jbr/2008/00000030/00000002/art00012?crawler=true. Retrieved 2012-08-06. 
  17. Nicole A. Mandla, Michael Kessler & S. Robbert Gradstein (December 11, 2009). "Effects of environmental heterogeneity on species diversity and composition of terrestrial bryophyte assemblages in tropical montane forests of southern Ecuador". Plant Ecology & Diversity 2 (3): 313-21. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17550870903341877. Retrieved 2012-08-06. 
  18. Margaret Fulford, Gladys Carroll and Thomas Cobbe (June 1947). "The response of Leucolejeunea clypeata to variations in the nutrient solution". The Bryologist 50 (2): 113-46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3239245. Retrieved 2012-08-06. 
  19. Larisa G. Khanina, Maxim V. Bobrovsky, Alexander S. Komarov & Alexey V. Mikhajlov. Modelling dynamics of ground vegetation diversity in forest ecosystems (PDF). pp. 1–5. Retrieved 2012-08-07.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. Malgorzata Klimko, Dominika Dolata (2005). "Vascular Plants in Selected Sites in the Town of Ostrów Wielkopolski". Roczniki Akademii Roiniczej w Poznaniu 378 (9): 121-47. http://www.au.poznan.pl/steciana/files/9klimdol.pdf. Retrieved 2012-08-07. 
  21. J. McNeill , F. R. Barrie, H. M. Burdet, V. Demoulin (2006). International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code) Adopted by the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress, Vienna, Austria, July 2005 (electronic ed.). Vienna: International Association for Plant Taxonomy. Retrieved March 4, 2012.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. James D. Mauseth (2003). Botany : An Introduction to Plant Biology (3rd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning. ISBN 0763721344.
  23. V Rivera-Aguilar, G Montejano, S. Rodríguez-Zaragoza, A. Durán-Díaz (October 2006). "Distribution and composition of cyanobacteria, mosses and lichens of the biological soil crusts of the Tehuacán Valley, Puebla, México". Journal of Arid Environments 67 (2): 208-25. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.02.013. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196306000760. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  24. Madhav Gadgil and Fikret Berkes (1991). "Traditional Resource Management Systems". Resource Management and Optimization 8 (3-4): 127-41. http://repository.ias.ac.in/64134/1/14_pub.pdf. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  25. L Fang, H Liu, J Cui (2006). "Traditional use of wetland plants in Dai villages in Xishuangbanna, Yun-nan". Biodiversity Science. http://www.biodiversity-science.net/EN/10.1360/biodiv.060012. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  26. 26.0 26.1 Thomas N. Headland (2003). Thirty Endangered Languages in the Philippines, In: Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session (PDF). 47. Toledo-Cebu: Philippine Tourism. p. 12. Retrieved 2012-08-08.
  27. OF Cook (1940). "An endemic palm on Cocos Island near Panama mistaken for the coconut palm". Science 91 (2354): 140-2. http://orton.catie.ac.cr/cgi-bin/wxis.exe/?IsisScript=OET.xis&method=post&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion=mfn=028630. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  28. André Augusto Jacinto Tabanez and Virgilio Mauricio Viana (2000). "Patch Structure within Brazilian Atlantic Forest Fragments and Implications for Conservation". Biotropica 32 (4b): 925-33. doi:10.2307/2663929. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2663929. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  29. Dag Hongve, Gunnhild Riise and Jan F. Kristiansen (2004). "Increased colour and organic acid concentrations in Norwegian forest lakes and drinking water–a result of increased precipitation?". Aquatic Sciences-Research Across 66 (2): 231-8. doi:10.1007/s00027-004-0708-7. http://www.springerlink.com/content/jh00evyrx8e2q6hm/. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  30. S. Sky Stephens and Michael R. Wagner (August 2006). "Using Ground Foraging Ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Functional Groups as Bioindicators of Forest Health in Northern Arizona Ponderosa Pine Forests". Environmental Entomology 35 (4): 934-49. doi:10.1603/0046-225X-35.4.937. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0046-225X-35.4.937. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  31. S. W. Chiu, W. T. Chiu, F. C. Lin, D. Moore (May 15-19, 2000). Griensven, L. J. L. D. van. ed. Diversity of rDNA sequences indicates that China harbours the greatest germplasm resource of the cultivated mushroom Lentinula edodes, In: Science and Cultivation of Edible Fungi. Maastricht, Netherlands: International Congress on the Science and Cultivation of Edible Fungi. pp. 239-43. ISBN 90-5809-144-9. http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20001612886.html. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  32. David J. Hayward & Richard B. Le Heron (2002). "Horticultural reform in the European Union and New Zealand: further developments towards a global fresh fruit and vegetable complex". Australian Geographer 33 (1): 9-27. doi:10.1080/00049180220124980. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049180220124980. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  33. C. A. Ledbetter, Encarna Gómez, L. Burgos & Sherry Peterson (1996). "Evaluation of Fruit Quality of Apricot Cultivars and Selections". Journal of Tree Fruit Production 1 (2): 73-86. doi:10.1300/J072v01n02_06. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J072v01n02_06. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  34. M. Schultz, S. Porembski, B. Büdel (July 2000). "Diversity of Rock‐Inhabiting Cyanobacterial Lichens: Studies on Granite Inselbergs along the Orinoco and in Guyana". Plant Biology 2 (4): 482-95. doi:10.1055/s-2000-5951. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1055/s-2000-5951/abstract. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  35. Catherine Boudreault, Yves Bergeron, and Darwyn Coxson (2009). "Factors controlling epiphytic lichen biomass during postfire succession in black spruce boreal forests". Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39: 2168-79. doi:10.1139/X09-127. http://wetbelt.unbc.ca/docs/Boudreaultetal2009.pdf. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  36. Eimy Rivas Plata, Robert Lücking and H. Thorsten Lumbsch (2008). "When family matters: an analysis of Thelotremataceae (lichenized Ascomycota: Ostropales) as bioindicators of ecological continuity in tropical forests". Biodiversity and Conservation 17 (6): 1319-51. doi:10.1007/s10531-007-9289-9. http://www.springerlink.com/index/HT22736216824165.pdf. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  37. Hermann W. Pfefferkorn and Margaret C. Thomson (December 1982). "Changes in dominance patterns in Upper Carboniferous plant-fossil assemblages". Geology 10 (12): 641-4. doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1982)10<641:CIDPIU>2.0.CO;2. http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/10/12/641.short. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  38. C. Downie (March 1967). "The geological history of the microplankton". Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 1 (1-4): 269-81. doi:10.1016/0034-6667(67)90128-5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0034666767901285. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  39. Duan Shuying (April 1987). "A comparison between the Upper Triassic floras of China and the Rhaeto‐Liassic floras of Europe and East Greenland". Lethaia 20 (2): 177-84. doi:10.1111/j.1502-3931.1987.tb02035.x. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1987.tb02035.x/abstract. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  40. CS Gasser and K robinson-Beers (October 1993). "Pistil development". The Plant Cell 5 (10): 1231-9. PMID 12271024. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC160356/. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  41. Carina Hoorn, Tank Ohja, and Jay Quade (15 November 2000). "Palynological evidence for vegetation development and climatic change in the Sub-Himalayan Zone (Neogene, Central Nepal)". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 163 (3-4): 133-61. doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(00)00149-8. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018200001498. Retrieved 2016-02-07. 
  42. 42.0 42.1 42.2 Peter A. Hochuli, Jorunn Os Vigran, Elke Hermann and Hugo Bucher (30 December 2009). "Multiple climatic changes around the Permian-Triassic boundary event revealed by an expanded palynological record from mid-Norway". Geological Society of America Bulletin 122 (5-6): 884. doi:10.1130/B26551.1. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hugo_Bucher/publication/249526698_Multiple_climatic_changes_around_the_Permian-Triassic_boundary_event_revealed_by_an_expanded_palynological_record_from_mid-Norway/links/53f200510cf2f2c3e7fca550.pdf. Retrieved 2016-02-07. 
  43. 43.0 43.1 43.2 Yongdong Wang, Xiaoju Yang, Wu Zhang, Shaolin Zheng, and Ning Tian (March 2009). "Biodiversity and palaeoclimatic implications of fossil wood from the non-marine Jurassic of China". Episodes 32 (1): 13-20. http://www.episodes.org/index.php/epi/article/download/63970/49966. Retrieved 2016-02-07. 
  44. Webster Grady (2003). Invasive Exotic Species in the Sonoran Region, Tellman, Barnara (ed). Plant Science Bulletin. 49. pp. 99–120. ISBN 0-8165-2178-6. Retrieved 2012-08-08.
  45. A.J. Worland, A. Börner, V. Korzun, W.M. Li, S. Petrovíc and E.J. Sayers (April 1998). "The influence of photoperiod genes on the adaptability of European winter wheats". Euphytica 100 (1-3): 385-94. doi:10.1023/A:1018327700985. http://www.springerlink.com/index/U100512873456714.pdf. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  46. Gerhard Fischbeck (2003). "Diversification through breeding". Developments in Plant Genetics and Breeding 7: 29-52. doi:10.1016/S0168-7972(03)80005-1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168797203800051. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  47. Sadhana Lal and Silvia Tabacchioni (March 2009). "Ecology and biotechnological potential of Paenibacillus polymyxa: a minireview". Indian Journal of Microbiology 49 (1): 2-10. doi:10.1007/s12088-009-0008-y. http://www.springerlink.com/index/0873679335741208.pdf. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 

External links[edit]

{{Phosphate biochemistry}}