Beta vulgaris Rapacea Group

Data on the presence of leaves on the plant, their metamorphoses and reductions are based on the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010) and the Key to the Flora of the Czech Republic (Kubát et al. 2002).

Categories

• leaves present, not modified
• leaves modified to spines
• leaves modified to tendrils
• leaves modified to phyllodes
• leaves modified to pitchers
• leaves reduced to collars
• leaves reduced to sheaths
• leaves reduced to scales
• leaves absent

Data source and citation

Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Kubát K., Hrouda L., Chrtek J. Jr., Kaplan Z., Kirschner J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2002) Klíč ke květeně České republiky [Key to the flora of the Czech Republic]. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.

Leaf petiole can be present or absent. In some plants, it can be present in some leaves but absent in others. The data were extracted from the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010), the Key to the Flora of the Czech Republic (Kubát et al. 2002), the New Hungarian Herbal (Király et al. 2011) and the Excursion Flora of Germany (Jäger & Werner 2000).

Categories

• present
• mainly present
• both present and absent
• mainly absent
• absent

Data source and citation

Prokešová H. & Grulich V. (2017) Petiole. – www.pladias.cz.

Further references

Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Jäger E. J. & Werner K. (eds) (2000) Rothmaler, Exkursionsflora von Deutschland. Band 3. Gefäßpflanzen: Atlasband. Ed. 10. – Spectrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg & Berlin.
Király G., Virók V. & Molnár V. (eds) (2011) Új Magyar füvészkönyv. Magyarország hajtásos növényei: ábrák [New Hungarian Herbal. The vascular plants of Hungary: Figures]. – Aggteleki Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, Jósvafő.
Kubát K., Hrouda L., Chrtek J. Jr., Kaplan Z., Kirschner J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2002) Klíč ke květeně České republiky [Key to the flora of the Czech Republic]. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.

Flower colour is reported for nearly all angiosperms except duckweeds (Araceae p. p.) and some hybrids for which data on flower colour were not available.

If a species has more than one flower colour, all colours are reported irrespective of their frequency. This approach is used both for species that regularly form populations with different flower colours (e.g. Corydalis cava and Iris pumila) and for species with occasional occurrence of deviating flower colour (e.g. albinism in Salvia pratensis or pink flowers in Ajuga reptans). However, the whole range of variation is not fully reported in cultivated plants, for which some cultivars of different colour may be ignored (e.g. Gladiolus hortulanus and Callistephus chinensis). In plants with flowers of two colours (e.g. Cypripedium calceolus), both colours are reported. In plants with multi-coloured flowers (e.g. the variegated lip in Ophrys apifera) the predominant colour is reported.

If the flower has a well-developed perianth, the reported flower colour relates to the corolla or the tepals of the homochlamydeous perianth. If such a flower has bracts of a contrasting colour (e.g. Melampyrum nemorosum), their colour is not considered. If the corolla or the homochlamydeous perianth is not developed, the flower colour is based on the calyx (e.g. Daphne mezereum), bracts (e.g. Aristolochia clematitis), the system of bracts and bracteoles in the inflorescence (Euphorbia) or the involucre on secondary peduncles (Bupleurum longifolium). In species of Araceae with spadix and spathe of contrasting colours (e.g. Calla palustris) both colours are reported. The colour of the whole inflorescence is reported for some plants with reduced flowers (e.g. Betula, Salix, some Cyperaceae and Typhaceae). Spikelets in Poaceae are reported as green disregarding a possible violet tint; exceptions include the Melica ciliata agg. and Cortaderia that are reported as white. Also in other, rare cases, the inflorescence colour is reported as flower colour (e.g. green in Ficus carica). In Asteraceae, the colours of the disk flowers and ray flowers are reported separately if the ray flowers are developed and have a contrasting colour (e.g. Bellis perennis). The colour of the involucrum is reported for species with tiny flower heads and indistinct flowers (e.g. Artemisia campestris and Xanthium) and for “immortelles” (e.g. Helichrysum and Xeranthemum).

Information on flower colour is partly based on the field knowledge, partly obtained from various photographs and descriptions in the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010). In the taxa that are not reported in the Flora of the Czech Republic, as well as in unclear cases (especially in alien species), other sources were used, especially the Flora of North America (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993), the Flora of China (Wu et al. 1994) and the Flora of Pakistan (http://www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan).

Categories

• white (including grey and silvery, and rare cases of individuals with white colour) – e.g. ray flowers of Leucanthemum vulgare, albinotic plants of Glechoma hederacea, catkins of Salix caprea
• yellow-white (including white-yellow and cream) – e.g. Scabiosa ochroleuca
• green-white (including white-green and greenish) – e.g. Orthilia secunda
• green – e.g. Poa pratensis (the colour relates to the glumes and lemmas)
• yellow-green (including green-yellow) – e.g. Acer pseudoplatanus, Rhamnus cathartica
• yellow – e.g. Taraxacum
• orange – e.g. Pilosella aurantiaca
• pink (including white-pink, pink-white and dark pink) – e.g. Malva alcea, Rosa canina
• pink-violet – e.g. Allium schoenoprasum
• red – e.g. Papaver rhoeas
• red-violet (includes all the hues of purple, pink-red and violet-red) – e.g. Astragalus onobrychis, Cirsium palustre
• violet (including dark violet and black-violet) – e.g. Bartsia alpina, Salvia verticillata
• blue – e.g. Centaurea cyanus
• blue-violet – e.g. Aconitum plicatum
• brown (including yellow-brown, brown-yellow, beige and brown-violet) – e.g. Euonymus verrucosus, Neottia nidus-avis
• red-brown – e.g. Asarum europaeum, Scrophularia nodosa
• black – e.g. Carex acuta (the colour relates to the colour of bracts)

Categories

• white
• yellow-white
• green-white
• green
• yellow-green
• yellow
• orange
• pink
• pink-violet
• red
• red-violet
• violet
• blue
• blue-violet
• brown
• red-brown
• black

Data source and citation

Štěpánková P. & Grulich V. (2019) Flower colour. – www.pladias.cz.

Further references

Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds) (1993) Flora of North America North of Mexico. – Oxford University Press, New York.
Flora of Pakistan. – http://www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan
Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.
Wu Z., Raven P. H. & Huang D. (eds) (1994) Flora of China. – Science Press, Beijing & Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis.

Perianth (perigon), i.e. the non-reproductive part of the angiosperm flower, can be classified into heterochlamydeous and homochlamydeous. Heterochlamydeous flowers are divided into calyx and corolla. In homochlamydeous flowers, calyx and corolla are indistinguishable. Perianth or some of its parts can be reduced or absent; flowers with no perianth are called achlamydeous.

In Apiaceae, the presence of the calyx teeth is assessed as a reduced calyx; if these teeth are not visible, the calyx is considered as absent. In Asteraceae, the presence of a pappus, scales or a collar-like structure is considered as a reduced calyx; if no such structures are present, the calyx is considered as absent. In Cyperaceae, the presence of perianth bristles is assessed as a reduced perianth. All members of the Poaceae family are considered as plants with a reduced perianth. The perianth in the genus Basella is arbitrarily classified as a reduced calyx though it is also often considered as a reduced homochlamydeous perianth. The character states “homochlamydeous, sometimes absent” and “homochlamydeous, reduced or absent” mean that in one plant some flowers may have a well-developed or reduced perianth, while other flowers may be achlamydeous (e.g. Atriplex).

The information was extracted mainly from the descriptions in the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010). For the taxa not treated in that flora or if uncertainties occurred, mainly concerning some alien taxa, the descriptions in the Flora of North America (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993), the Flora of China (Wu et al. 1994) and the Flora of Pakistan (www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan) were consulted.

Categories

• homochlamydeous
• homochlamydeous, sometimes reduced
• homochlamydeous, sometimes reduced or absent
• homochlamydeous, sometimes absent
• homochlamydeous, reduced or absent
• calyx and corolla
• calyx and corolla, corolla reduced or absent
• calyx and corolla, corolla sometimes absent
• calyx present, corolla sometimes reduced
• calyx present, corolla reduced
• calyx present, corolla reduced or absent
• calyx present, corolla sometimes absent
• calyx present, corolla absent
• calyx reduced, corolla present
• calyx sometimes absent, corolla present
• calyx absent, corolla present
• calyx absent, corolla sometimes present
• reduced
• reduced or absent
• flower achlamydeous

Data source and citation

Grulich V., Prokešová H. & Štěpánková P. (2017) Perianth type. – www.pladias.cz.

Further references

Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds) (1993) Flora of North America North of Mexico. – Oxford University Press, New York.
Flora of Pakistan. – http://www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan
Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.
Wu Z., Raven P. H. & Huang D. (eds) (1994) Flora of China. – Science Press, Beijing & Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis.

Inflorescence types follow the morphological system used in the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010). As the Czech terminology used for inflorescences does not match the English terminology, we use Latin terms in the English version of the Pladias Database. The exact identification of the inflorescence type is often equivocal because of varying interpretations of the same object. In species with unisexual flowers, male and female flowers can occur in different inflorescence types. In other cases, it is not possible to identify the inflorescence without detailed knowledge of evolutionary morphology, e.g. umbella vs pseudumbella in the genus Butomus. There are also compound inflorescences, in some cases with very different structure of their parts, especially in Asteraceae, which can have even triple inflorescences (e.g. Echinops sphaerocephalus often has an anthella ex capitulis anthodiorum composita).

The information was extracted mainly from the descriptions in the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010). For the taxa not treated in that flora or if some uncertainties occurred, mainly concerning some alien taxa, information was taken from the descriptions in the Flora of North America (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993), the Flora of China (Wu et al. 1994) and the Flora of Pakistan (www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan). In critical groups (e.g. Rubus), especially in recently described species, inflorescence type was taken from the original descriptions.

Categories

• pseudumbella e cyathiis composita
• capitulum
• capitulum e floribus masculis compositum
• capitulum e spiculis compositum
• capitulum e verticillastris compositum
• capitulum e floribus femineis compositum
• capitulum ex anthodiis compositum
• racemus
• racemus e capitulis compositus
• racemus ex corymbis anthodiorum compositus
• racemus e spiculis compositus
• racemus e verticillastris compositus
• racemus ex umbellis compositus
• racemus e floribus masculis compositus
• racemus e floribus femineis compositus
• racemus e fasciculis compositus
• racemus ex anthodiis compositus
• racemus ex anthodiis masculis compositus
• racemus e cincinnis compositus
• corymbothyrsus
• corymbothyrsus e fasciculis compositus
• corymbothyrsus ex fasciculis anthodiorum compositus
• corymbothyrsus ex anthodiis compositus
• corymbus
• corymbus ex anthodiis compositus
• amentum
• amentum e floribus masculis
• amentum e floribus femineis
• spica
• spica e spiculis composita
• spica e floribus masculis composita
• spica e floribus femineis composita
• spicula
• anthella
• anthella ex capitulis anthodiorum composita
• anthella e spiculis composita
• anthella e floribus masculis composita
• anthella ex anthodiis composita
• flores solitarii
• flores solitarii masculi
• flores solitarii feminei
• panicula
• panicula e capitulis composita
• panicula ex capitulis anthodiorum composita
• panicula e corymbis composita
• panicula e spiculis composita
• panicula e spiculis masculis composita
• panicula e pseudospicis composita
• panicula e floribus masculis composita
• panicula e fasciculis composita
• panicula e bostrychibus composita
• panicula ex anthodiis composita
• panicula e dichasiis composita
• panicula e cincinnis composita
• pseudospica
• pseudospica e capitulis composita
• pseudospica e spiculis composita
• pseudospica e verticillastris composita
• pseudospica e floribus masculis composita
• pseudospica ex anthodiis composita
• pseudumbella
• pseudumbella ex anthodiis composita
• verticillastrum
• pseudoracemus
• umbella
• umbella e spicis spicularum composita
• spadix
• spadix e floribus femineis compositus
• umbella composita
• fasciculus
• fasciculus e floribus masculis compositus
• fasciculus e floribus femineis compositus
• fasciculus ex anthodiis femineis compositus
• syconium
• strobilus
• bostryx
• anthodium
• anthodium solitarium
• rhipidium
• dichasium
• dichasium e floribus femineis compositum
• dichasium ex anthodiis compositum
• cincinnus

Data source and citation

Grulich V. & Štěpánková P. (2019) Inflorescence type. – www.pladias.cz.

Further references

Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds) (1993) Flora of North America North of Mexico. – Oxford University Press, New York.
Flora of Pakistan. – http://www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan
Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.
Wu Z., Raven P. H. & Huang D. (eds) (1994) Flora of China. – Science Press, Beijing & Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis.

Data on fruit colour according to the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010) and the Key to the Flora of the Czech Republic (Kubát et al. 2002). Fruit colours are standardized into ten colours. A single dominant colour of ripe fruit is reported for each taxon.

Categories

• white
• green
• yellow
• orange
• violet
• red
• blue
• brown
• grey
• black

Data source and citation

Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Kubát K., Hrouda L., Chrtek J. Jr., Kaplan Z., Kirschner J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2002) Klíč ke květeně České republiky [Key to the flora of the Czech Republic]. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.

Plant parasitism is based on either of two mechanisms. The first group of parasitic plants involves those parasitizing directly on another plant. These plants are called haustorial parasites. They take resources from the host’s vascular bundles using a specialized organ, the haustorium. The second group comprises mycoheterotrophic plants, which parasitize fungi via mycorrhizal interaction and gain organic carbon from them.

Plants in both groups display variable dependence on their host organism. The haustorial parasites include two distinct functional groups: green hemiparasites and holoparasites. Green hemiparasites are partial parasites that retain photosynthetic ability but obtain all mineral resources and a part of the organic carbon from the host. Holoparasites are non-green full parasites unable to photosynthesize. Location of the haustorial attachment to the host (root or stem) is another essential functional trait. The distinction between partial and full parasitism in haustorial parasites may not be straightforward. In the Czech flora, it is nevertheless possible to distinguish between stem hemi- and holoparasites, which are difficult to separate on the global scale (Těšitel 2016). Consequently, we use a traditional classification here and classify as holoparasites those plants that are in adulthood mostly without chlorophyll, even though some of them might have some chlorophyll and perform residual photosynthesis (e.g. Cuscuta).

In mycoheterotrophic plants, there is a continuum from initial mycoheterotrophs through partial mycoheterotrophs to full mycoheterotrophs. In the initial mycoheterotrophs, only initial stages, i.e. gametophytes or seedlings, are dependent on the fungus, whereas adult plants are autotrophic, while still depending on mycorrhizal symbiosis as a source of water and mineral nutrients. In the partial mycoheterotrophs, photosynthesizing adults obtain from their mycorrhizal fungi not only water and mineral nutrients but also different amounts of organic carbon. The full mycoheterotrophs lost their chlorophyll and are thus fully parasitic. In some partial mycoheterotrophs (e.g. the genus Cephalanthera), chlorotic individuals can be found, which lack chlorophyll and fully depend on their hosts.

Classification of haustorial parasites follows Těšitel (2016) with a further distinction of stem hemi- and holoparasites, and identification of mycoheterotrophs follows Merckx (2012).

Categories

• autotrophic
• root hemiparasite
• stem hemiparasite
• root holoparasite
• stem holoparasite
• partial or initial mycoheterotroph
• full mycoheterotroph

Data source and citation

Těšitel J., Těšitelová T., Blažek P. & Lepš J. (2016) Parasitism and mycoheterotrophy. – www.pladias.cz.

Further references

Těšitel J. (2016) Functional biology of parasitic plants: a review. – Plant Ecology and Evolution 149: 5–20.
Merckx V. S. F. T. (2012) Mycoheterotrophy: the biology of plants living on fungi. – Springer, Berlin.

Carnivorous plants attract, trap and kill their prey, animals (mainly insects and small crustaceans) and protozoans, and subsequently absorb the nutrients from their dead bodies.

Categories

• carnivorous
• non-carnivorous

Data source and citation

Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.

Plants are classified into those without symbiotic nitrogen fixers and those that form a symbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria. The latter are further divided into those forming a symbiosis with rhizobia (e.g. Allorhizobium, Bradyrhizobium, Mesorhizobium, Rhizobium and Sinorhizobium) and those forming the actinorhizal symbiosis with the genus Frankia, the latter called actinorhizal plants (Bond 1983, Pawlowski & Sprent 2007, Sprent 2008, Benson 2016).

In the Czech flora, the rhizobial group is represented by virtually all legumes (family Fabaceae). Exceptions are three non-native cultivated woody species (Cercis siliquastrum, Gleditsia triacanthos, Gymnocladus dioicus) that do not nodulate (Tedersoo et al. 2018), which is generally considered as evidence for the absence of symbiosis. However, some studies suggest that functional nitrogen-fixing symbiosis may exist even without visible nodules (Bryan et al. 1996). Roots of Gleditsia triacanthos were recorded to contain bacterial structures similar to those in nodules with rhizobia, as well as the presence of nitrogenase (Faria et al. 2002). These genera also contain genes probably related to nodule formation, although their exact function is unclear (Graves et al. 1999). Because convincing evidence of nitrogen fixation in these species is missing, we consider them non-nitrogen-fixing for the time being.

Symbiosis with rhizobia was found in several other families (Tedersoo et al. 2018). Of these, the Czech flora includes only casually introduced Tribulus terrestris (Zygophyllaceae), in which a parallel infection with cyanobacteria was described (Sabet 1946, Mahmood & Athar 1998).

The actinorhizal group is represented in the Czech flora mainly by alder species (Alnus spp.) and also by cultivated species in the family Elaeagnaceae – Elaeagnus spp. and Hippophaë rhamnoides (Bond 1983, Benson 2016).

Categories

• symbiosis with rhizobia
• symbiosis with Frankia
• no nitrogen-fixing symbionts

Data source and citation

Blažek P. & Lepš J. (2016) Symbiotic nitrogen fixation. – www.pladias.cz.

Further references

Benson D. R. (2016) Frankia & actinorhizal plants. – https://frankia.mcb.uconn.edu/ (accessed on 1 Feb 2021).
Bond G. (1983) Taxonomy and distribution of non-legume nitrogen-fixing systems. – In: Gordon J. C. & Wheeler C. T. (eds), Biological nitrogen fixation in forests: foundations and applications, p. 55–87, Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publ., The Hague.
Bryan J. A., Berlyn G. P. & Gordon J. C. (1996) Toward a new concept of the evolution of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in the Leguminosae. – Plant and Soil 186: 151–159.
de Faria S. M., Olivares F. L. & Xavier R. P. (2002) Nodule-structure in the roots of Gleditsia spp. a non-nodulating legume genus. – In: Pedrosa F. O., Hungria M., Yates G. & Newton W. E. (eds), Nitrogen fixation: from molecules to crop productivity. Current plant science and biotechnology in agriculture, vol 38. Springer, Dordrecht, p. 337.
Graves W. R., Foster C. M., Rosin F. M. & Schrader J. A. (1999) Two early nodulation genes are not markers for the capacity of leguminous nursery crops to form root nodules. – Journal of Environmental Horticulture 17: 126–129.
Mahmood A. & Athar M. (1998) Cyanobacterial root nodules in Tribulus terrestris L. (Zygophyllaceae). – In: Malik K. A. & Sajjad Mirza M. & Ladha J. K. (eds), Nitrogen fixation with non-legumes, Springer, Dordrecht, p. 345–350.
Pawlowski K. & Sprent J. I. (2007) Comparison between actinorhizal and legume symbioses. – In: Pawlowski K. & Newton W. E. (eds), Nitrogen-fixing actinorhizal symbioses, Springer, Dordrecht, p. 261–288.
Sabet Y. S. (1946) Bacterial root nodules in the Zygophyllaceae. – Nature 157: 656–657.
Sprent J. I. (2008) Evolution and diversity of legume symbiosis. – In: Dilworth M. J., James E. K., Sprent J. I. & Newton W. E. (eds), Nitrogen-fixing leguminous symbioses, Springer, Dordrecht, p. 1–21.
Tedersoo L., Laanisto L., Rahimlou S., Toussaint A., Hallikma T. & Pärtel M. (2018) Global database of plants with root-symbiotic nitrogen fixation: NodDB. – Journal of Vegetation Science 29: 560–568.

Chromosome number is the somatic number of chromosomes in the zygotic stage, i.e. without possible endopolyploidy of somatic tissues. If different chromosome numbers are known for a taxon, the database contains primarily the number reported from the Czech Republic or the number that is the most common in this country or can be expected to be the most common based on the data from neighbouring countries. Other existing and less common chromosome numbers are reported in brackets. The survey does not take into account odd chromosome numbers of individual, aneuploid, euploid, haploid or autopolyploid plants, which may rarely originate in natural or experimental populations. It also disregards the numbers reported in early studies or from geographically distant areas for which the taxonomic identity with Czech plants is unclear.

The data compilation is based mainly on the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010) and the Chromosome Count Database (Rice et al. 2015; http://ccdb.tau.ac.il/). If only information about ploidy level is available from flow cytometry measurements, but no chromosome number is known, the number typical of the given ploidy in closely related taxa is indicated.

Data source and citation

Šmarda P. (2018) Chromosome number (2n). – www.pladias.cz.

Further references

Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Rice A., Glick L., Abadi S., Einhorn M., Kopelman N. M., Salman-Minkov A., Mayzel J., Chay O. & Mayrose I. (2015) The chromosome counts database (CCDB): a community resource of plant chromosome numbers. – New Phytologist 206: 19–26.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.

Ploidy level is the number of somatic chromosomal sets in the zygotic stage, i.e. without the possible endopolyploidy of somatic tissues. Ploidy level determines the minimum copy number of most genes, influences minimal cell size and other morphological and ecological properties of the taxon (Stebbins 1950, Levin 2002, Tate et al. 2005). The data presented here are based on the traits Chromosome number and 2C genome size, and to a lesser extent also on a literature search of flow cytometry studies related to the area of the Czech Republic. The reported values are especially those reported from the Czech Republic or those ploidy levels that are most frequent in this country or at least are assumed to be the most frequent based on the data from neighbouring countries. The other existing (minor) ploidy levels (cytotypes) that are documented from the Czech Republic or that may be expected to occur here based on the records from neighbouring countries are indicated in brackets. The survey does not take into account the observations of individual haploid or autopolyploid plants which may rarely originate in natural or experimental populations. It also disregards the ploidy levels derived from the numbers of chromosomes reported in early studies or from geographically distant areas, where taxonomic identity with Czech plants is uncertain.

The size of one chromosomal set (x) or the “base chromosome number” for calculating the ploidy level is derived here from the lowest chromosome number known in the given genus or the group of closely related genera (e.g. Raven 1975). This minimum chromosome number is generally considered to correspond to diploids (i.e., two chromosomal sets). A taxon is considered as polyploid whenever its chromosome number and genome size are jointly ± doubled (or otherwise multiplied) compared to the diploid taxa of related genera. It may therefore sometimes happen that no diploid taxa are known in some genera. The absence of diploids in a given genus may result from (i) the lack of karyological data, (ii) the extinction of the diploid relative(s), or (iii) a polyploidy event that predated the origin of the whole genus, with the current genomes still showing little signs of backward “diploidization”. The joint usage of the chromosome number and genome size enables estimation of ploidy levels also for the taxa with holocentric chromosomes (Cyperaceae, Drosera, Juncaceae, Cuscuta sect. Cuscuta and C. sect. Gramica). In these taxa, the chromosome number does not need to be positively correlated with the ploidy level due to possible chromosomal fissions and fusions (agmatoploidy and symploidy, respectively; Bureš et al. 2013). To handle the chromosomal fusions in Luzula, chromosome size categories as defined by Nordeskiöld (1951) were further considered to estimate the actual ploidy level. Ploidy level estimates in highly polyploid genomes of Viola follow Marcussen et al. (2015).

Data source and citation

Šmarda P. (2018) Ploidy level (x). – www.pladias.cz.

Further references

Bureš P., Zedek F. & Marková M. (2013) Holocentric chromosomes. – In: Leitch I. J., Greilhuber J., Wendel J. & Wendel J. (eds), Plant genome diversity. Vol. 2. Physical structure, behaviour and evolution of plant genomes, p. 187–208, Springer, Wien.
Dar T.-U.-H. & Rehman R.-U. (2017) Polyploidy: recent trends and future perspectives. – Springer, New Delhi.
Levin D. A. (2002) The role of chromosomal change in plant evolution. – Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Nordenskiöld H. (1951) Cytotaxonomical studies in the genus Luzula. – Hereditas 37: 325–355.
Raven P. H. (1975) The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: cytology. – Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 62: 724–764.
Stebbins G. L. (1950) Variation and evolution in plants. – Columbia University Press, New York.
Tate J. A., Soltis D. E. & Soltis P. S. (2005) Polyploidy in plants. – In: Gregory R. T. (ed.), The evolution of the genome, p. 371–426, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

2C genome size is the somatic nuclear DNA content in a zygotic cell measured in megabase pairs (Mbp). This measure can vary among taxa due to both polyploidy and the variability in the content of non-coding DNA (Leitch & Greilhuber 2013). Genome size influences minimum cell size, duration of the cell cycle and cell division, and nutrient requirements. Therefore, it may have a considerable influence on ecological strategies of plants (Bennett 1987, Veselý et al. 2012, Greilhuber & Leitch 2013). Most values were measured in plants collected in the Czech Republic (Šmarda et al. 2019). The data always refer to the dominant chromosome number and the dominant ploidy level of the given taxon.

Data source and citation

Šmarda P., Knápek O., Březinová A., Horová L., Grulich V., Danihelka J., Veselý P., Šmerda J., Rotreklová O. & Bureš P. (2019) Genome sizes and genomic guanine+cytosine (GC) contents of the Czech vascular flora with new estimates for 1700 species. – Preslia 91: 117–142.

Further references

Bennett M. D. (1987) Variation in genomic form in plants and its ecological implications. – New Phytologist 106 (Suppl.): 177–200.
Greilhuber J. & Leitch I. J. (2013) Genome size and the phenotype. – In: Leitch I. J., Greilhuber J., Doležel J. & Wendel J. (eds), Plant genome diversity. Vol. 2. Physical structure, behaviour and evolution of plant genomes, p. 323–344, Springer, Wien.
Leitch I. J. & Greilhuber J. (2013) Genome size diversity and evolution in land plants. – In: Leitch I. J., Greilhuber J., Doležel J. & Wendel J. (eds), Plant genome diversity. Vol. 2. Physical structure, behaviour and evolution of plant genomes, p. 307–322, Springer, Wien.
Veselý P., Bureš P., Šmarda P. & Pavlíček T. (2012) Genome size and DNA base composition of geophytes: the mirror of phenology and ecology? – Annals of Botany 109: 65–75.

1Cx monoploid genome size is the amount of DNA contained in one set of chromosomes measured in megabase pairs (Mbp). The values were obtained for each taxon by dividing its 2C genome size by the respective ploidy level (Greilhuber et al. 2005). Differences in 1Cx values among taxa are therefore virtually free of the polyploidy effect (i.e. only due to amplification of non-coding DNA). However, the 1Cx values in polyploids are usually slightly smaller due to the increased tendency to eliminate the duplicated, redundant DNA (Leitch & Bennett 2004). Because the 1Cx values tend to be similar in related taxa, they can be used to roughly estimate the 2C genome size in related taxa for which only the ploidy level is known so far. Conversely, they can be used to estimate the ploidy levels based on the known 2C genome size. The data were taken from Šmarda et al. (2019).

Data source and citation

Šmarda P., Knápek O., Březinová A., Horová L., Grulich V., Danihelka J., Veselý P., Šmerda J., Rotreklová O. & Bureš P. (2019) Genome sizes and genomic guanine+cytosine (GC) contents of the Czech vascular flora with new estimates for 1700 species. – Preslia 91: 117–142.

Further references

Greilhuber J., Doležel J., Lysák M. A. & Bennett M. D. (2005) The origin, evolution and proposed stabilization of the terms ‘genome size’ and ‘C-value’ to describe nuclear DNA content. – Annals of Botany 95: 255–260.
Leitch I. J. & Bennett M. D. (2004) Genome downsizing in polyploid plants. – Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 82: 651–663.

Genomic GC content is the percentage of guanine and cytosine bases in nuclear DNA. It influences the thermal stability of DNA, packing of condensed DNA within the nucleus, the energetic cost of DNA synthesis or cell sensitivity to desiccation (Šmarda & Bureš 2012, Šmarda et al. 2014). For the vast majority of taxa, these data were measured in plants collected in the Czech Republic (Šmarda et al. 2019). The data always refer to the dominant chromosome number and dominant ploidy of the given taxon. Differences up to 1% in closely related taxa or up to 2% in unrelated taxa may be considered insignificant because of possible method errors (Šmarda et al. 2012).

Data source and citation

Šmarda P., Knápek O., Březinová A., Horová L., Grulich V., Danihelka J., Veselý P., Šmerda J., Rotreklová O. & Bureš P. (2019) Genome sizes and genomic guanine+cytosine (GC) contents of the Czech vascular flora with new estimates for 1700 species. – Preslia 91: 117–142.

Further references

Šmarda P. & Bureš P. (2012) The variation of base composition in plant genomes. – In: Wendel J., Greilhuber J., Doležel J. & Leitch I. J. (eds), Plant genome diversity. Vol. 1. Plant genomes, their residents, and their evolutionary dynamics, p. 209–235, Springer, Heidelberg.
Šmarda P., Bureš P., Šmerda J. & Horová L. (2012) Measurements of genomic GC content in plant genomes with flow cytometry: a test for reliability. – New Phytologist 193: 513–521.
Šmarda P., Bureš P., Horová L., Leitch I. J., Mucina L., Pacini E., Tichý L., Grulich V. & Rotreklová O. (2014) Ecological and evolutionary significance of genomic GC content diversity in monocots. – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 111: E4096–E4102.

Taxa are classified according to whether they are native or alien to the Czech Republic. Following the definitions used in invasion ecology, native taxa are those that have evolved in the area of the Czech Republic or immigrated there without human assistance from the area where they had evolved. Alien taxa are those whose presence is a result of intentional or unintentional introduction by human activity and can be divided based on their residence time. The alien taxa are divided based on their residence time into archaeophytes and neophytes. Archaeophytes are taxa occurring in the wild that were introduced between the beginning of Neolithic agriculture and the year 1500, i.e. the beginning of intercontinental overseas trade after the discovery of the Americas. Neophytes are taxa occurring in the wild that were introduced after 1500 (see Richardson et al. 2000 for detailed definitions). Some taxa introduced in the Late Middle Ages or Early Modern Period, but with no exact information on the introduction date, were assigned to a joint category of Archaeophyte/neophyte. Additionally, some frequently cultivated taxa that are not known to have escaped from cultivation are listed as a separate category Cultivated. Category Lack of evidence of occurrence in the wild includes taxa for which spontaneous occurrence in the wild is doubtful. Taxa assigned to the category Absent in Czechia are not sufficiently supported by reliable records or occurred just once and disappeared.

The data included in the database follow the third edition of the Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic (Pyšek et al. 2022 and references related to individual taxa therein).

Categories

• native
• archaeophyte
• neophyte
• archaeophyte/neophyte
• cultivated only
• lack of evidence of occurrence in the wild
• absent in Czechia

Data source and citation

Pyšek P., Sádlo J., Chrtek J. Jr., Chytrý M., Kaplan Z., Pergl J., Pokorná A., Axmanová I., Čuda J., Doležal J., Dřevojan P., Hejda M., Kočár P., Kortz A., Lososová Z., Lustyk P., Skálová H., Štajerová K., Večeřa M., Vítková M., Wild J. & Danihelka J. (2022) Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic (3rd edition): species richness, status, distributions, habitats, regional invasion levels, introduction pathways and impacts. – Preslia 94: 447–577.

Further references

Richardson D. M., Pyšek P., Rejmánek M., Barbour M. G., Panetta F. D. & West C. J. (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. – Diversity and Distributions 6: 93–107.