Euphorbia esula subsp. esula

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.

Four basic types of leaf arrangement are distinguished: alternate, opposite, verticillate (whorled) and rosulate (in the basal rosette). The character is assessed in well-developed plants, i.e. not in individuals re-sprouting after damage by mowing or grazing or those with teratological modifications. More than one character state may occur (e.g. Hylotelephium jullianum and Salix purpurea) in some taxa: all character states are recorded in such cases.

In some plants, the arrangement of frondose bracts in the inflorescence is assessed separately (e.g. true leaves in Veronica persica and V. polita are opposite, while bracts are alternate). Leaves with interpetiolar stipules found in the Rubiaceae family are considered as whorled. The leaves in Rhamnus cathartica are considered as opposite, although in most cases they are sub-opposite.

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). In cases of uncertainties, mainly for alien taxa, additional sources were consulted, including 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).

Categories

• alternate
• opposite
• verticillate
• rosulate

Data source and citation

Grulich V., Holubová D., Štěpánková P. & Řezníčková M. (2017) Leaf arrangement. – 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.

The primary distinction is made between simple and compound leaves. The simple leaves are categorized based on the leaf blade division associated with venation into palmately divided (e.g. Alchemilla), pinnately divided (e.g. Achillea millefolium), forked (e.g. Batrachium, Ceratophyllum and Utricularia) and pedate (e.g. Helleborus). The categorization is based on well-developed leaves. In many taxa, transitions occur between simple leaves with a dentate or serrate margin, and simple divided (pinnately or palmately lobed) leaves. Only the leaves with the lamina divided to at least one-quarter of their width are considered as divided. Many taxa with varying leaf division are assigned to more than one character state.

The compound leaves are divided into palmate and pinnate. The taxa that have both ternate and pinnate leaves, the latter with two pairs of leaflets (e.g. Aegopodium podagraria and some other species of the Apiaceae family), are assigned to both character states. The degree of division in pinnately compound leaves indicated here relates to well-developed leaves, especially to the basal part of the lamina. Taxa with multiple pinnately compound leaves are assigned to two or more character states based on the level of division, but very small leaves, which may correspond to simple leaves, are not considered.

In many cases, there are transitions between simple and compound leaves, especially between pinnatisect and pinnate leaves. Leaves with linear or filiform segments, including the bi-, tri- or even more-pinnatisect or palmatisect leaves (e.g. stem leaves in Batrachium fluitans, Cardamine pratensis and the genus Seseli) are classified as simple (dissected) leaves. In contrast, leaves with broader segments attached to the rachis by a distinct constriction or a petiolule (e.g. stem leaves in Cardamine dentata or ground leaves in Pimpinella saxifraga) are classified as compound.

In heterophyllous taxa, all types of leaves are assessed, and the taxon is assigned to two or more character states. However, less divided leaves found in juvenile plants of some taxa are not considered heterophyllous. The parasitic plants with rudimentary (vestigial) leaves (e.g. Cuscuta) or the plants with phylloclades replacing the vestigial leaves (e.g. Asparagus) are assigned the character state “reduced”.

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). In uncertain cases, mainly for alien taxa, additional sources were consulted, including 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).

Categories

• simple – entire
• simple – palmately divided
• simple – pinnately divided
• simple – forked
• simple – pedate
• compound – ternate
• compound – palmate (5-foliate)
• compound – palmate (7-foliate)
• compound – palmate (8- and more-foliate)
• compound – imparipinnate
• compound – paripinnate
• compound – interruptedly pinnate
• compound – bipinnate
• compound – tripinnate
• compound – quadripinate
• reduced

Data source and citation

Grulich V., Holubová D., Štěpánková P. & Řezníčková M. (2017) Leaf shape. – 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.

Stipules, i.e. paired leaflike appendages at the base of the petiole or sessile leaf blade, can be present or absent. Caducous stipules, i.e. those disappearing soon after the leaf blade has developed (e.g. Prunus), are considered as present. The interpetiolar stipules, morphologically indistinguishable from true leaves and together forming whorls (e.g. Rubiaceae), are considered as true stipules. In contrast, stipules modified into glands (e.g. Lotus) or hairs (e.g. Portulacaceae) are not considered as stipules here.

Information about the presence of stipules was extracted 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). In cases of uncertainties, mainly concerning alien taxa, 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

• present
• absent

Data source and citation

Grulich V., Holubová D., Štěpánková P. & Řezníčková M. (2017) Stipules. – 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.

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.

The primary classification of fruit types is into dry and fleshy. Within each of these two groups, fruit types are further classified based on the scheme outlined in the first volume of the Flora of the Czech Republic (Slavíková 1988), which consistently uses the typological method. This means that fruits are classified based purely on their morphology following the formal definitions of the fruit type, regardless of the fruit type found in closely related species or genera.

One-seeded fruits in Brassicaceae (e.g. Crambe) are classified as achenes, not siliculas. Indehiscent two- and more-seeded fruits in the same family, breaking mainly in constrictions (e.g. in Bunias and Raphanus), are consistently classified as a loment, even if the fruit breaks into two distinct parts, of which one is one-seeded and the other, of strikingly different shape, two- or more-seeded and dehiscent, such as in Rapistrum rugosum. A similar approach is used for the classification of fruits in Fabaceae. Dehiscent fruits of most taxa are classified as legumes, while indehiscent two- and more-seeded fruits breaking into single-seeded parts (e.g. in Hippocrepis and Securigera) are classified as loments. One-seeded indehiscent fruits (e.g. in Onobrychis and Trifolium) are classified as achenes. Two- or more-seeded indehiscent fruits (e.g. in Sophora japonica and Vicia faba) are also classified as legumes. The fruits of all Euphorbia species are classified as capsules, although in some cases the seeds are not released. Fleshy false fruits of the genera Basella, Ficus, Maclura, Morus, Nuphar and Nymphaea are merged into a separate category.

The information about fruit type 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 in case of uncertainties, especially regarding alien taxa, descriptions in the Flora of North America (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993), the Flora of China (Wu et al. 1994), the Flora of Pakistan (www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan), and Flora Iberica (Castroviejo et al. 1986; mainly for the Fabaceae family) were consulted.

Categories

• dry fruit – disciform breaking into mericarps
• dry fruit – pair of nutlets
• dry fruit – cremocarp
• dry fruit – double samara
• dry fruit – legume
• dry fruit – follicle
• dry fruit – achene/cypsela/samara
• dry fruit – nut enclosed in an utricle
• dry fruit – caryopsis
• dry fruit – nut
• dry fruit – schizocarp
• dry fruit – cluster of follicles
• dry fruit – head of achenes
• dry fruit – lomentum/transversely dehiscent siliqua
• dry fruit – siliqua
• dry fruit – silicula
• dry fruit – capsule
• dry fruit – cluster of four one-seeded nutlets
• dry fruit – dry schizocarp with an apical beak
• fleshy fruit – berry
• fleshy fruit – pome
• fleshy fruit – drupe
• fleshy fruit – head of one-seeded drupes
• fleshy fruit – hip
• fleshy fruit – special type

Data source and citation

Grulich V., Holubová D., Štěpánková P. & Řezníčková M. (2017) Fruit type. – www.pladias.cz.

Further references

Castroviejo S., Laínz M., López González G., Montserrat P., Muńoz Garmendia F., Paiva J. & Villar L. (eds) (1986) Flora Iberica. Plantas vasculares de la Península Ibérica e Islas Baleares. – Real Jardín Botánico, Madrid.
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.
Slavíková Z. (1988) Terminologický slovník [Terminological dictionary]. – In: Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds), Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic] 1: 130–153, 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.

Diaspore, also called dispersule or propagule, is a generative or vegetative part of the plant body that is dispersed from the parental plant and can produce a new individual. Generative diaspores include spores, seeds and fruits or similar dispersal units (e.g. aggregate fruits in Fragaria, multiple fruits in Morus, gymnosperm cones, epimatium-bearing seed in Taxus, spikelets or their various fragments in Poaceae). If the seed is released from dehiscent fruit or decaying ripe fleshy fruit, both seed and fruit can be considered as diaspores. In plants with indehiscent fruits, only the fruit is considered as a diaspore. A specific category of generative diaspore is tumbleweeds, i.e. mature plant parts including stem branches and large inflorescence (e.g. Crambe tataria and Falcaria vulgaris).

Vegetative diaspores are viable and movable parts of plants that originate above ground or in water and disconnect from the parent plant before sprouting. We did not consider as vegetative diaspores clonal organs connected with the maternal plant until the new plant becomes independent (e.g. stolons in Fragaria) and various types of below-ground organs or shoot bases embedded in soil (e.g. tubers of Helianthus tuberosus or grass tillers). Vegetative diaspores include (i) turions (e.g. Myriophyllum and Utricularia) and similar overwintering structures (detachable buds in Elodea and Groenlandia and shortened shoots of some pondweeds produced by rhizome or stolon, e.g. Potamogeton alpinus); (ii) bulbils and tubers of stem origin (e.g. Allium oleraceum and Dentaria bulbifera) or root origin (Ficaria only); (iii) plantlets born by pseudovivipary (e.g. Poa alpina); (iv) plantlets born from buds on leaves (e.g. Cardamine pratensis); (v) plantlets born on free ends of stolons, detachable before establishing (e.g. Hydrocharis and Jovibarba); (vi) unspecialized fragments of the shoot (e.g. Sedum album and many aquatic plants), shoot tips (e.g. Ceratophyllum demersum) or detachable offsprings born from axillary buds (e.g. Agrostis canina, Arabidopsis halleri and Rorippa amphibia); (vii) budding plants (Lemnaceae only); and (viii) gemmae produced by gametophytes (Trichomanes speciosum only).

Categories

• spore
• seed
• fruit, infrutescence or its part
• tumbleweed
• turion
• bulbil or tuber
• pseudovivipary
• leaf-born plantlet
• stolon-born plantlet
• shoot fragment
• budding
• gametophyte-gemma

Data source and citation

Sádlo J., Chytrý M., Pergl J. & Pyšek P. (2018) Plant dispersal strategies: a new classification based on themultiple dispersal modes of individual species. – Preslia 90: 1–22.

Plants use different dispersal modes, also called dispersal syndromes, depending on different dispersal vectors. For example, anemochory is the dispersal by wind, hydrochory by water, epizoochory by attachment to an animal body and endozoochory by animals via ingestion. However, single plant species usually use a combination of several dispersal modes rather than a single mode. Distinct combinations of dispersal modes repeatedly occurring in different plant taxa are called dispersal strategies. Sádlo et al. (2018) distinguished nine dispersal strategies named for the genus names of typical representatives. Taxa of the Czech flora are assigned to individual strategies based on this source.

Categories

• Allium type – mainly autochory, less frequently anemochory, endozoochory and epizoochory. This is the most common dispersal strategy, including about 56% taxa of the Czech flora. About half of the included taxa are dispersal generalists lacking a clear morphological indication of anemochory or zoochory. Most myrmecochorous or probably myrmecochorous species are also assigned to this category.
• Bidens type – mainly autochory and epizoochory, less frequently endozoochory. This dispersal strategy is characterized by two essential dispersal modes, of which autochory is the more important, despite the presence of morphological structures indicating epizoochory.
• Cornus type – mainly autochory and endozoochory. Herbaceous plants, shrubs and small trees with fleshy fruit, often of the Rosaceae family, typically have this strategy. Furthermore, tall trees bearing large, heavy and nutrient-rich seeds are also included.
• Epilobium type – mainly anemochory and autochory, less frequently endozoochory and epizoochory. This dispersal strategy is typical of taxa growing in mesic and dry habitats.
• Lycopodium type – mainly anemochory, less frequently autochory, endozoochory, epizoochory and hydrochory. This dispersal strategy relies on light, very small spores and seeds that are dispersed, besides wind, by a wide range of vectors. Compared to other strategies, the role of autochory is small.
• Phragmites type – mainly anemochory and hydrochory, less frequently autochory, endozoochory and epizoochory. Wetland taxa with light diaspores (both seeds and fruits) equipped with a hairy flying apparatus. Most of the taxa with this dispersal strategy lack vegetative diaspores. Woody plants, stout clonal graminoids and herbaceous plants are typical growth forms associated with this dispersal strategy.
• Sparganium type – mainly autochory and hydrochory, less frequently endozoochory and epizoochory. This dispersal strategy is a wetland analogue of the Wolffia type, assigned to aquatic plants. It applies mainly to monocotyledonous taxa producing achenes with good buoyancy and with vegetative diaspores having an important role.
• Wolffia type – mainly hydrochory, less frequently endozoochory and epizoochory. This dispersal strategy is typical of aquatic macrophytes spread by fruit, seed or spores. However, vegetative reproduction dominates in most cases, including stem fragmentation, the formation of stolons or, in Lemnaceae, budding colonies.
• Zea type. Taxa with this dispersal strategy rarely or never disperse by generative diaspores and do not form vegetative aboveground diaspores.

Categories

• Allium (mainly autochory)
• Bidens (mainly autochory and epizoochory)
• Cornus (mainly autochory and endozoochory)
• Epilobium (mainly anemochory and autochory)
• Lycopodium (mainly anemochory)
• Phragmites (mainly anemochory and hydrochory)
• Sparganium (mainly autochory and hydrochory)
• Wolffia (mainly hydrochory)
• Zea (no dispersal)

Data source and citation

Sádlo J., Chytrý M., Pergl J. & Pyšek P. (2018) Plant dispersal strategies: a new classification based on themultiple dispersal modes of individual species. – Preslia 90: 1–22.

Myrmecochorous plants, i.e. taxa dispersed by ants, possess an elaiosome, a nutrient-rich fleshy appendage of seed or fruit. However, in many taxa, the morphological indication or direct evidence of myrmecochory is equivocal. Removal experiments (seeds with and without elaiosome offered to ants) or chemical analysis (different nutrient content between seed and elaiosome; Konečná et al. 2018) would be needed to decide whether the appendage is elaiosome or not. Therefore, more categories than a simple binary distinction between myrmecochorous and non-myrmecochorous are recognized here:

• myrmecochorous – an elaiosome (a conspicuous fleshy appendage of seed or fruit) is present
• probably myrmecochorous – a fleshy structure resembling an elaiosome is present, but the appendage:seed size ratio is very small so that the possible advantage of seed transport for the ants would be small
• probably non-myrmecochorous – seed or fruit bears a structure not similar to elaiosome, e.g. a non-fleshy appendage or rim
• non-myrmecochorous (a) – an elaiosome is not present although the taxon is reported as myrmecochorous in the literature or is a close relative of taxa considered as myrmecochorous
• non-myrmecochorous (b) – elaiosome is not present, and the taxon does not belong to a family reported as containing myrmecochorous species in the literature

Plant taxa that are often carried by ants to the nest although having no elaiosome (e.g. cheaters in this plant-ant mutualism or plant parts used as a building material for ant hills) are classified as non-myrmecochorous.

The data are based on the literature search and examination of seed samples of the taxa that are reported as myrmecochorous and their closely related congenerics. The list of these taxa with seed images is available at http://botanika.prf.jcu.cz/myrmekochorie/. These taxa were selected from the families represented in the Czech flora that contain at least one taxon reported as myrmecochorous in the literature (Sernander 1906, Hejný et al. 1988 onwards, Fitter & Peat 1994, Klotz et al. 2002, Grime et al. 2007, Kleyer et al. 2008, Servigne 2008, Lengyel et al. 2010, Študent 2012). Such taxa were found in 37 families including Amaryllidaceae, Apiaceae, Apocynaceae, Aristolochiaceae, Asparagaceae, Asteraceae, Boraginaceae, Campanulaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Celastraceae, Colchicaceae, Crassulaceae, Cyperaceae, Dipsacaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Iridaceae, Juncaceae, Lamiaceae, Liliaceae, Linaceae, Montiaceae, Orobanchaceae, Oxalidaceae, Papaveraceae, Plantaginaceae, Poaceae, Polygalaceae, Polygonaceae, Portulacaceae, Primulaceae, Ranunculaceae, Resedaceae, Rosaceae, Santalaceae, Urticaceae and Violaceae. All the taxa not belonging to these families were classified as non-myrmecochorous (b).

For each of the five categories, a subcategory nv (= non vidimus, i.e. not seen) is used in the taxa for which we found neither information in the literature nor a photograph of a seed, and failed to collect seeds from living plants, but the assignment to the category is likely based on the traits of closely related taxa. For example, we have no data for Centaurea bruguiereana but we classify it as myrmecochorous nv, because all the taxa of Centaurea for which we have data possess an elaiosome.

Categories

• myrmecochorous
• myrmecochorous nv
• probably myrmecochorous
• probably myrmecochorous nv
• probably non-myrmecochorous
• probably non-myrmecochorous nv
• non-myrmecochorous (a)
• non-myrmecochorous (a) nv
• non-myrmecochorous (b)
• non-myrmecochorous (b) nv

Data source and citation

Konečná M., Štech M. & Lepš J. (2018) Myrmecochory. – www.pladias.cz.

Further references

Fitter A. H. & Peat H. J. (1994) The Ecological Flora Database. – Journal of Ecology 82: 415–425.
Grime J. P., Hodgson J. G. & Hunt R. (eds) (2007) Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach to common British species. 2nd edition. – Castlepoint Press, Colvend, Dalbeattie.
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.
Kleyer M., Bekker R. M., Knevel I. C., Bakker J. P., Thompson K., Sonnenschein M., Poschlod P., van Groenendael J. M., Klimeš L., Klimešová J., Klotz S., Rusch G. M., Hermy M., Adriaens D., Boedeltje G., Bossuyt B., Dannemann A., Endels P., Götzenberger L., Hodgson J. G., Jackel A. K., Kühn I., Kunzmann D., Ozinga W. A., Romermann C., Stadler M., Schlegelmilch J., Steendam H. J., Tackenberg O., Wilmann B., Cornelissen J. H. C., Eriksson O., Garnier E. & Peco B. (2008) The LEDA Traitbase: a database of life-history traits of the Northwest European flora. – Journal of Ecology 96: 1266–1274.
Klotz S., Kühn I. & Durka W. (eds) (2002) BIOLFLOR: eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland. – Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 38: 1–334.
Konečná M., Moos M., Zahradníčková H., Šimek P. & Lepš J. (2018) Tasty rewards for ants: differences in elaiosome and seed metabolite profiles are consistent across species and reflect taxonomic relatedness. – Oecologia 188: 753–764.
Sernander R. (1906) Entwurf einer Monographie der europäischen Myrmekochoren. – Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 41: 1–410.
Servigne P. (2008) Etude expérimentale et comparative de la myrmécochorie: le cas des fourmis dispersatrices Lasius niger et Myrmica rubra. – PhD thesis, Université libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles.
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.
Študent V. (2012) Společné funkční vlastnosti myrmekochorních druhů rostlin České republiky a sezónní a denní dynamika odnosu diaspor všivce lesního (Pedicularis sylvatica) mravenci [Traits of myrmecochorous plants of the Czech Republic and a seasonal and daily seed’s removal dynamics of lousewort (Pedicularis sylvatica) by ants]. – Master thesis, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice.

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.

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.

National Red List categories were taken from the 2017 edition of the Red List of Vascular Plants of the Czech Republic (Grulich 2017). These categories, introduced in the previous editions of the Czech Red List, are different from the IUCN Red List categories. The main category “A” includes extinct or missing taxa, while the main category “C” includes endangered, near threatened and data deficient taxa.

Categories

• A1 – extinct taxon
• A2 – missing taxon
• A3 – extinct or missing taxon (uncertain case)
• C1r – critically threatened taxon, rare
• C1t – critically threatened taxon, declining
• C1b – critically threatened taxon, rare and declining
• C2r – endangered taxon, rare
• C2t – endangered taxon, declining
• C2b – endangered taxon, rare and declining
• C3 – vulnerable taxon
• C4a – near threatened taxon
• C4b – data deficient taxon
• taxon is not on the Red List

Data source and citation

Grulich V. (2017) Červený seznam cévnatých rostlin ČR [The Red List of vascular plants of the Czech Republic]. – Příroda 35: 75–132.

International Red List categories defined by the IUCN were taken from the 2017 edition of the Red List of Vascular Plants of the Czech Republic (Grulich 2017). Taxon assignments to these categories follow the internationally accepted rules (IUCN 2012, 2014). To some extent, the definitions of these categories differ from the national categories used in the previous Czech Red Lists. The national Red List included only threatened or possibly threatened taxa, implying that the non-included taxa are not threatened. Therefore, the non-included taxa are classified here as LC(NA) – least concern (taxon is not on the Red List).

Categories

• EX – extinct
• RE – regionally extinct
• CR – critically endangered
• EN – endangered
• VU – vulnerable
• NT – near threatened
• LC – least concern
• LC(NA) – least concern (taxon is not on the Red List)
• DD – data deficient
• NA – not applicable
• NE – not evaluated

Data source and citation

Grulich V. (2017) Červený seznam cévnatých rostlin ČR [The Red List of vascular plants of the Czech Republic]. – Příroda 35: 75–132.

Further references

IUCN (2012) Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional and national levels. Version 4.0. – IUCN, Gland.
IUCN (2014) Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 11. – IUCN, Gland.

Legal protection in the Czech Republic concerns the specifically protected species, i.e. rare taxa, threatened taxa and taxa significant from a cultural or scientific point of view that are listed in Annex II of the Decree of the Ministry of the Environment no. 395/1992. They comprise 487 taxa of vascular plants divided into three categories according to their vulnerability: critically threatened, endangered and vulnerable.

Categories

• critically threatened taxon
• endangered taxon
• vulnerable taxon
• not protected by law

Data source and citation

Decree no. 395/1992 of the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic.