Bryophytes of Uganda : 6., new and additional records, 3.

12 hepatics and 32 mosses are reported new to Uganda, 1 moss being also new to Africa, and 1 liverwort new to mainland Africa. Ectropothecium plumigerum (Broth.) Hedenäs is a new combination (basionym: Isopterygium plumigerum Broth.) with a new synonym Taxicaulis plumirameus Müll.Hal. nom. nud., and Taxiphyllum maniae (Renauld & Paris) M. Fleisch. is a new synonym of Taxiphyllum taxirameum (Mitt.) M.Fleisch. Three mosses are removed from the Uganda list

Evolution of the Neckeraceae (Bryophyta): resolving the backbone phylogeny

Earlier phylogenetic studies, including species belonging to the Neckeraceae, have indicated that this pleurocarpous moss family shares a strongly supported sister group relationship with the Lembophyllaceae, but the family delimitation of the former needs adjustment. To test the monophyly of the Neckeraceae, as well as to redefine the family circumscription and to pinpoint its phylogenetic position in a larger context, a phylogenetic study based on molecular data was carried out. Sequence data were compiled, combining data from all three genomes: nuclear ITS1 and 2, plastid trnS-rps4-trnT-trnL-trnF and rpl16, and mitochondrial nad5 intron. The Neckeraceae have sometimes been divided into the two families, Neckeraceae and Thamnobryaceae, a division rejected here. Both parsimony and Bayesian analyses of molecular data revealed that the family concept of the Neckeraceae needs several further adjustments, such as the exclusion of some individual species and smaller genera as well as the inclusion of the Leptodontaceae. Within the family three well-supported clades (A, B and C) can be distinguished. Members of clade A are mainly non-Asiatic and nontropical. Most species have a weak costa and immersed capsules with reduced peristomes (mainly Neckera spp.) and the teeth at the leaf margins are usually unicellular. Clade B members are also mainly non-Asiatic. They are typically fairly robust, distinctly stipilate, having a single, at least relatively strong costa, long setae (capsules exserted), and the peristomes are well developed or only somewhat reduced. Members of clade C are essentially Asiatic and tropical. The species of this clade usually have a strong costa and a long seta, the seta often being mammillose in its upper part. The peristome types in this clade are mixed, since both reduced and unreduced types are found. Several neckeraceous genera that were recognised on a morphological basis are polyphyletic (e.g. Neckera, Homalia, Thamnobryum, Porotrichum). Ancestral state reconstructions revealed that currently used diagnostic traits, such as the leaf asymmetry and costa strength are highly homoplastic. Similarly, the reconstructions revealed that the 'reduced' sporophyte features have evolved independently in each of the three clades.Earlier phylogenetic studies, including species belonging to the Neckeraceae, have indicated that this pleurocarpous moss family shares a strongly supported sister group relationship with the Lembophyllaceae, but the family delimitation of the former needs adjustment. To test the monophyly of the Neckeraceae, as well as to redefine the family circumscription and to pinpoint its phylogenetic position in a larger context, a phylogenetic study based on molecular data was carried out. Sequence data were compiled, combining data from all three genomes: nuclear ITS1 and 2, plastid trnS-rps4-trnT-trnL-trnF and rpl16, and mitochondrial nad5 intron. The Neckeraceae have sometimes been divided into the two families, Neckeraceae and Thamnobryaceae, a division rejected here. Both parsimony and Bayesian analyses of molecular data revealed that the family concept of the Neckeraceae needs several further adjustments, such as the exclusion of some individual species and smaller genera as well as the inclusion of the Leptodontaceae. Within the family three well-supported clades (A, B and C) can be distinguished. Members of clade A are mainly non-Asiatic and nontropical. Most species have a weak costa and immersed capsules with reduced peristomes (mainly Neckera spp.) and the teeth at the leaf margins are usually unicellular. Clade B members are also mainly non-Asiatic. They are typically fairly robust, distinctly stipilate, having a single, at least relatively strong costa, long setae (capsules exserted), and the peristomes are well developed or only somewhat reduced. Members of clade C are essentially Asiatic and tropical. The species of this clade usually have a strong costa and a long seta, the seta often being mammillose in its upper part. The peristome types in this clade are mixed, since both reduced and unreduced types are found. Several neckeraceous genera that were recognised on a morphological basis are polyphyletic (e.g. Neckera, Homalia, Thamnobryum, Porotrichum). Ancestral state reconstructions revealed that currently used diagnostic traits, such as the leaf asymmetry and costa strength are highly homoplastic. Similarly, the reconstructions revealed that the 'reduced' sporophyte features have evolved independently in each of the three clades.Earlier phylogenetic studies, including species belonging to the Neckeraceae, have indicated that this pleurocarpous moss family shares a strongly supported sister group relationship with the Lembophyllaceae, but the family delimitation of the former needs adjustment. To test the monophyly of the Neckeraceae, as well as to redefine the family circumscription and to pinpoint its phylogenetic position in a larger context, a phylogenetic study based on molecular data was carried out. Sequence data were compiled, combining data from all three genomes: nuclear ITS1 and 2, plastid trnS-rps4-trnT-trnL-trnF and rpl16, and mitochondrial nad5 intron. The Neckeraceae have sometimes been divided into the two families, Neckeraceae and Thamnobryaceae, a division rejected here. Both parsimony and Bayesian analyses of molecular data revealed that the family concept of the Neckeraceae needs several further adjustments, such as the exclusion of some individual species and smaller genera as well as the inclusion of the Leptodontaceae. Within the family three well-supported clades (A, B and C) can be distinguished. Members of clade A are mainly non-Asiatic and nontropical. Most species have a weak costa and immersed capsules with reduced peristomes (mainly Neckera spp.) and the teeth at the leaf margins are usually unicellular. Clade B members are also mainly non-Asiatic. They are typically fairly robust, distinctly stipilate, having a single, at least relatively strong costa, long setae (capsules exserted), and the peristomes are well developed or only somewhat reduced. Members of clade C are essentially Asiatic and tropical. The species of this clade usually have a strong costa and a long seta, the seta often being mammillose in its upper part. The peristome types in this clade are mixed, since both reduced and unreduced types are found. Several neckeraceous genera that were recognised on a morphological basis are polyphyletic (e.g. Neckera, Homalia, Thamnobryum, Porotrichum). Ancestral state reconstructions revealed that currently used diagnostic traits, such as the leaf asymmetry and costa strength are highly homoplastic. Similarly, the reconstructions revealed that the 'reduced' sporophyte features have evolved independently in each of the three clades.Peer reviewe

An annotated checklist of bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus

Introduction. Following on from work on the European bryophyte Red List, the taxonomically and nomenclaturally updated spreadsheets used for that project have been expanded into a new checklist for the bryophytes of Europe. Methods. A steering group of ten European bryologists was convened, and over the course of a year, the spreadsheets were compared with previous European checklists, and all changes noted. Recent literature was searched extensively. A taxonomic system was agreed, and the advice and expertise of many European bryologists sought. Key results. A new European checklist of bryophytes, comprising hornworts, liverworts and mosses, is presented. Fifteen new combinations are proposed. Conclusions. This checklist provides a snapshot of the current European bryophyte flora in 2019. It will already be out-of-date on publication, and further research, particularly molecular work, can be expected to result in many more changes over the next few years.Peer reviewe

Isotopic analysis of cyanobacterial nitrogen fixation associated with subarctic lichen and bryophyte species.

Dinitrogen fixation by cyanobacteria is of particular importance for the nutrient economy of cold biomes, constituting the main pathway for new N supplies to tundra ecosystems. It is prevalent in cyanobacterial colonies on bryophytes and in obligate associations within cyanolichens. Recent studies, applying interspecific variation in plant functional traits to upscale species effects on ecosystems, have all but neglected cryptogams and their association with cyanobacteria. Here we looked for species-specific patterns that determine cryptogam-mediated rates of N-2 fixation in the Subarctic. We hypothesised a contrast in N-2 fixation rates (1) between the structurally and physiologically different lichens and bryophytes, and (2) within bryophytes based on their respective plant functional types. Throughout the survey we supplied N-15-labelled N-2 gas to quantify fixation rates for monospecific moss, liverwort and lichen turfs. We sampled fifteen species in a design that captures spatial and temporal variations during the growing season in Abisko region, Sweden. We measured N-2 fixation potential of each turf in a common environment and in its field sampling site, in order to embrace both comparativeness and realism. Cyanolichens and bryophytes differed significantly in their cyanobacterial N-2 fixation capacity, which was not driven by microhabitat characteristics, but rather by morphology and physiology. Cyanolichens were much more prominent fixers than bryophytes per unit dry weight, but not per unit area due to their low specific thallus weight. Mosses did not exhibit consistent differences in N-2 fixation rates across species and functional types. Liverworts did not fix detectable amounts of N-2. Despite the very high rates of N-2 fixation associated with cyanolichens, large cover of mosses per unit area at the landscape scale compensates for their lower fixation rates, thereby probably making them the primary regional atmospheric nitrogen sink

New national and regional bryophyte records, 49

Peer reviewe

A miniature world in decline: European Red List of Mosses, Liverworts and Hornworts

AimThis Red List is a summary of the conservation status of the European species of mosses, liverworts and hornworts, collectively known as bryophytes, evaluated according to IUCN’s Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Level. It provides the first comprehensive, region-wide assessment of bryophytes and it identifies those species that are threatened with extinction at a European level, so that appropriate policy measures and conservation actions, based on the best available evidence, can be taken to improve their status.ScopeAll bryophytes native to or naturalised in Europe (a total of 1,817 species), have been included in this Red List. In Europe, 1,796 species were assessed, with the remaining 21 species considered Not Applicable (NA). For the EU 28, 1,728 species were assessed, with a remaining 20 species considered NA and 69 species considered Not Evaluated (NE). The geographical scope is continentwide, extending from Iceland in the west to the Urals in the east, and from Franz Josef Land in the north to theCanary Islands in the south. The Caucasus region is not included. Red List assessments were made at two regional levels: for geographical Europe and for the 28 Member States of the European Union.ResultsOverall, 22.5% of European bryophyte species assessed in this study are considered threatened in Europe, with two species classified as Extinct and six assessed as Regionally Extinct (RE). A further 9.6% (173 species) are considered Near Threatened and 63.5% (1,140 species) are assessed as Least Concern. For 93 species (5.3%), there was insufficient information available to be able to evaluate their risk of extinction and thus they were classified as Data Deficient (DD). The main threats identified were natural system modifications (i.e., dam construction, increases in fire frequency/intensity, and water management/use), climate change (mainly increasing frequency of droughts and temperature extremes), agriculture (including pollution from agricultural effluents) and aquaculture.RecommendationsPolicy measures• Use the European Red List as the scientific basis to inform regional/national lists of rare and threatened species and to identify priorities for conservation action in addition to the requirements of the Habitats Directive, thereby highlighting the conservation status of bryophytes at the regional/local level.• Use the European Red List to support the integration of conservation policy with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and other national and international policies. For example, CAP Strategic Plans should include biodiversity recovery commitments that could anticipate, among others, the creation of Important Bryophyte Areas. An increased involvement of national environmental agencies in the preparation of these strategic plans, and more broadly in ongoing discussions on the Future CAP Green Architecture, would likely also ensure the design of conservation measures better tailored to conserve bryophytes in agricultural landscapes.• Update the European Red List every decade to ensure that the data remains current and relevant.• Develop Key Biodiversity Areas for bryophytes in Europe with a view to ensuring adequate site-based protection for bryophytes.Research and monitoring• Use the European Red List as a basis for future targeted fieldwork on possibly extinct and understudied species.• Establish a monitoring programme for targeted species (for example, threatened species and/or arable bryophytes).• Use the European Red List to obtain funding for research into the biology and ecology of key targeted species.Action on the ground• Use the European Red List as evidence to support multi-scale conservation initiatives, including designation of protected areas, reform of agricultural practices and land management, habitat restoration and rewilding, and pollution reduction measures.• Use the European Red List as a tool to target species that would benefit the most from the widespread implementation of the solutions offered by the 1991 Nitrates Directive (Council Directive 91/676/EEC), including the application of correct amounts of nutrients for each crop, only in periods of crop growth under suitable climatic conditions and never during periods of heavy rainfall or on frozen ground, and the creation of buffer zones to protect waters from run-off from the application of fertilizers.Ex situ conservation• Undertake ex situ conservation of species of conservation concern in botanic gardens and spore and gene banks, with a view to reintroduction where appropriate.</p