Dodder taxa in Turkey and their impacts

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, bir holoparazitik cins olan Cuscuta cinsinin Türkiye'deki mevcut taksonlarının ve dağılımlarının belirlenmesi ve bu taksonların çevresel ve sosyoekonomik etkilerinin tespiti amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla Türkiye'de Cuscuta taksonlarını içeren çalışmalardan ve Türkiye'deki herbaryum kayıtlarından kanıtlar elde edilmiştir. Ayrıca taksonların etki türleri incelenmiş ve bu taksonların bölgesel dağılımı Türkiye kareleme sistemine göre tespit edilmiştir. Tüm kayıtlar, özellikle sinonim kullanımı, Uluslararası Bitki Adı Endeksi (IPNI), Global Biyoçeşitlilik Bilgi Servisi (GBIF) ve Bitki Listesi (PL) dikkate alınarak düzenlenmiştir. Mevcut yeni tespitler ve kayıtlarda yapılan düzenlemeler dikkate alındığında; Türkiye'de Cuscuta cinsine bağlı 23 taksonunun varlığı tespit edilmiştir. Etki değerlendirmelerinde, tüm taksonların sahip olduğu "parazitizm" dışında, taksonlara göre değişen, toplam altı farklı etki tipi belirlenmiştir. Bu etki tipleri sırasıyla; toksik (6 takson), ürün kalitesi (5), vektör (3) ve birer taksonla yapısal, allelopatik ve etnobotanik etki olarak sıralanmıştır. Türkiye'de mevcut Cuscuta taksonlarına ait bilgilerin güncellenmesi ve etkilerin tespiti ile elde edilen sonuçlar; özellikle parazit bitkilerin istila potansiyelleri de dikkate alındığında, taksonların olumsuz etkilerini azaltmak ve biyolojik çeşitliliği korumak amacıyla gerekli önlem ve kontrol programlarını geliştirmek için kullanılabilir. Ayrıca Türkiye'de ilk kez tüm etki yönleriyle incelenen Cuscuta taksonlarından elde edilen bu veriler, farkındalık çalışmaları da dâhil, yapılabilecek yeni çalışmalara yön verilebilir ve kaynak sağlayabilir. ABSTRACT This study aimed to fill data gaps (determination of available taxa and distribution) of the Cuscuta taxa, a holoparasitic genus, and are intended to define the environmental and socioeconomic impacts in Turkey. For this, the evidence of Cuscuta taxa were obtained from studies, conducted on this genus in Turkey, and herbarium records of Turkey. Moreover, the impact types of taxa were examined, and the regional distribution of these taxa were detected based on grid system in Turkey. In addition, all records, in particular synonymous use, have been regulated taking into account the International Plant Name Index (IPNI), the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and The Plant List (PL). Considering the current arrangements and the newly identified records the presence of 23 Cuscuta taxa were identified in Turkey. In the impact assessments, apart from the parasitism in of all taxa, a total of six different impacts types have been detected that vary by taxa. These impact types are respectively as toxic (6 taxa), product quality (5), vector (3), structural (1), allelopathic (1) and ethnobotanic (1) impacts. The results can be used to mitigate the negative effects of Cuscuta taxa, and to develop the necessary precaution and control programs to preserve biodiversity, especially considering the infestation potential of parasitic plants. Moreover, the data obtained from this study, whi...

Do non-native and dominant native species carry a similar risk of invasiveness? A case study for plants in Turkey

“…Cuscuta campestris, P. americana and S. angulatus are naturalised non-native plants in Turkey that appear to occupy more than one habitat (Table 2). A parasitic plant with a wide host range, C. campestris, which is one of the species with the highest impacts worldwide (Yazlık et al 2017), exerts major negative impacts by infecting cultivated plants in agricultural habitats, affecting rail ballast in railways, increasing fire risk, and being toxic to humans and animals (Yazlık and Albayrak 2020). Finally, non-native P. americana and S. angulatus are found in agricultural habitats that are generally considered to pose serious problems to agricultural production (Terzioglu and Ansin 1999;Korkmaz et al 2016;Sezer and Kolören 2019).…”

“…Özarslandan and Elekçioğlu 2010). Conversely, in terms of host or vector status of disease agents, C. campestris is a vector for virus and phytoplasma diseases (Yazlık and Albayrak 2020), whereas S. angulatus poses a high risk by being host to the watermelon mosaic virus (WMV-2: Korkmaz et al 2016). Another example of a host is for R. pseudoacacia, which has the host status of Viscum album -a most problematic weed for many orchards in Turkey (Üstüner et al 2015).…”

“…material 1: Table S1). Furthermore, transportation via road corridors can be an important channel for plant invasions (Lemke et al 2021), as in the case of C. campestris (Yazlık and Albayrak 2020). Moreover, cultivation of R. pseudoacacia, which started 70 years ago in Turkey, is supported on the basis that it provides important socioeconomic benefits, such as erosion control, honey production with increased nectar provision, and timber use (BOEP 2013;Onur and Acar 2017).…”

“…To this end, the species' life-history, biological, morphological and physiological traits were evaluated and the following were considered: adaptation to different habitats, soil type, pH range, competitive abilities, presence of below-and above-ground structures, and high generative and/or vegetative capacity. Lastly, species were selected that have high environmental and socioeconomic impacts, such as negative effects on natural vegetation, allelochemical contents, and toxic and/or injurious to humans and animals (Yazlık et al 2017;Yazlık et al 2018;Yazlık and Albayrak 2020;Aksan and Yazlık 2021). Conducting a risk analysis on nonnative species and determining their invasiveness status was suggested in previous studies for Turkey (Uludağ et al 2017;Yazlık et al 2018;Yazlık 2022).…”

“…For this reason, the first step in the identification of potentially high-risk invasive species is to find out their native or non-native status in the regions where they are found (e.g. Uludağ et al 2017) and then determine their potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts (Hawkins et al 2015;Bacher et al 2018;Pauchard et al 2018;Tanner and Fried 2020;Yazlık and Albayrak 2020;EPPO 2021). This provides for an opportunity to select those species more likely to be selected for risk analysis (Hawkins et al 2015;Nentwig et al 2016;Rumlerová et al 2016;Bacher et al 2018;Yazlık et al 2018).…”