Rubus canduliger, a new regional species from the Netherlands, with notes on the range structure and dynamics of brambles (Rubus, Rosaceae)

Abstract

Rubus canduliger is described as a new regional bramble species belonging to the seriesDiscolores. It has been recognized in the Netherlands as a distinct species for more than 70 years but identified as the central EuropeanR. grabowskii. The latter, however, differs by its tapering prickles, regular leaves with longer petiolule of the terminal leaflet, broader, often pyramidal inflorescence, and white or pink flowers with carpels hairy at the top.R. canduliger has a well-defined range north of the Rhine river around Arnhem where it occurs in urban and other disturbed habitats. Historical events, e.g. transport of young trees in the 16th century may explain most records south of the Rhine river, 25–50 km outside the main range. The ecology and phytosociology of the new bramble are discussed. Its distribution is compared toR. trichanthus, another regional species with a similar range asR. canduliger, but occurring in more natural habitats.

In pseudogamous European blackberries (Rubus sectionRubus =R. fruticosus agg.), range size is considered to be related to the age of the species. Several widespread species have disjunct distribution ranges that are suggested to be the result of long-distance dispersal by migratory birds but unintentional anthropogenic transport of seeds may be involved as well. We hypothesize that in northwestern Europe fragmentation of continuous ranges of widespread species was caused by ongoing deforestation and subsequent degradation (acidification) of originally base-rich sandy and loamy soils from the Iron Age onward. Many regional species, however, have originated and spread in the resulting man-made landscapes. A classification of range types of brambles differing in size and internal structure is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Beijerink W. (1958): Rubi Neerlandici. Bramen en frambozen in Nederland (Rubi Neerlandici. Brambles and raspberries in the Netherlands).Verh. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch. Afd. Natuurk. 50 (1).

  2. Bijlsma R.J. (2004): Verbraming: oorzaken en ecologische plaats (Bramble dominance: its causes and ecological status).Levende Natuur 105: 138–144.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bonn S. &Poschlod P. (1997):Ausbreitungsbiologie der Pflanzen Mitteleuropas. Quelle & Meyer, Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bouwer K. (2003):Een notabel domein. De geschiedenis van het Nederrijkswald (A notable domain. The history of the Nederrijkswald). Matrijs, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bull A.L. (1997): The role of forestry plantings in the dispersal of bramble (Rubus L.) species.Watsonia 21: 359–361.

    Google Scholar 

  6. de Bakker H. (1978):Major soils and soil regions in the Netherlands. Junk Publishers, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  7. den Ouden J. (2000):The role of bracken (Pteridium aquilinum)in forest dynamics. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wageningen.

  8. Eriksson O. (1996): Regional dynamics of plants: a review of evidence for remnant, source-sink and metapopulations.Oikos 77: 248–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Evans K.J. &Weber H.E. (2003):Rubus anglocandicans (Rosaceae) is the most widespread taxon of European blackberry in Australia.Austral. Syst. Bot. 16: 527–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Focke W.O. (1877):Synopsis Ruborum Germaniae. Die deutschen Brombeerarten ausführlich beschrieben und erläutert. Bremen.

  11. Haeupler H. &Muer T. (2000):Bildatlas der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Haveman R., Schaminée J.H.J. &Weeda E.J. (1999):Lonicero-Rubetea plicati. In:Stortelder A.H.F., J.H.J. Schaminée &Hommel P.W.F.M. (eds.),De Vegetatie van Nederland deel 5, Plantengemeenschappen van ruigten, struwelen en bossen, Opulus Press, Uppsala, pp. 105–120.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Holub J. (1992): A preliminary checklist ofRubus species occurring in the Czech Republic.Preslia 64: 97–132.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Holub J. (1997): Some considerations and thoughts on the pragmatic classification of apomicticRubus taxa.Osnabrück. Naturwiss. Mitt. 23: 147–155.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Karlsson T., Stenberg L. &Tyler T. (2005): Skogs-och hagfibblor i nässjötrakten i attio ars perspektiv (Changes in theHieracium flora in the Nässjö area (Smaland, S Sweden) during the 20th century).Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 99: 187–207.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Leme E.M.C. (2003): Nominal extinction and the taxonomist’s responsibility: the example ofBromeliaceae in Brazil.Taxon 52: 299–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Martensen H.O., Pedersen A. &Weber H.E. (1983): Atlas der Brombeeren von Dänemark, Schleswig-Holstein und dem benachbarten Niedersachsen.Naturschutz & Landschaftspflege Niedersachsen Beih. 5: 1–150.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Matzke-Hajek G. (1993): Die Brombeeren (Rubus fruticosus-Agg.) der Eifel und der Niederrheinische Bucht.Decheniana Beih. 32: 1–212.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Matzke-Hajek G. (1997): Zur Evolution und Ausbreitung apomiktischerRubus-Arten (Rosaceae) in Offenland-Ökosystemen.Bull. Geobot. Inst. ETH 63: 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Newton A. &Randall R.D. (2004):Atlas of British and Irish brambles. A phytogeographical analysis of microspecies of Rubussect. Rubus &sect. Corylifolii. Botanical Society of the British Isles, London.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Newton A. (1980): Progress in BritishRubus studies.Watsonia 13: 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Oredsson A. (1998):Rubus lasiandrus introduced into Sweden with pulpwood from West Germany.Flora 193: 165–171.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Oredsson A. (2004): Tva nya medlemmar av den svenska floran: engelskt björnbär och skugg björnbär (Two new members of the Swedish flora:Rubus echinatus andR. sciocharis).Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 98: 232–237.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rodwell J.S., Schaminée J.H.J., Mucina L., Pignatti S., Dring J. & Moss D. (2002):The Diversity of European Vegetation. An overview of phytosociological alliances and their relationships to EUNIS habitats. EC-LNV report 2002/054, Wageningen.

  25. Schaminée J.H.J., Stortelder A.H.F. &Westhoff V. (1995):De vegetatie van Nederland, deel 1. Inleiding tot de vegetatiekunde — grondslagen, methoden en toepassingen (The vegetation of the Netherlands. Vol. 1. Introduction to phytosociology — fundamentals, methods and applications). Opulus Press, Uppsala.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shigesada N. &Kawasaki K. (2002): Invasion and the range expansion of species: effects of long-distance dispersal. In:Bullock J.M., Kenward R.E. &Hails R.S. (eds.),Dispersal ecology, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 350–373.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Spek T. (2004):Het Drentse esdorpenlandschap. Een historisch-geografische studie (The village landscape of Drenthe. An historic-geographical study). Matrijs, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stortelder A.H.F., Schaminée J.H.J. &Hommel P.W.F.M. (1999):De Vegetatie van Nederland deel 5, Plantengemeenschappen van ruigten, struwelen en bossen (The vegetation of the Netherlands 5, Tall-herb communities, scrub and woodland). Opulus Press, Uppsala.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Trávníček B. &Zázvorka J. (2005): Taxonomy ofRubus ser.Discolores in the Czech Republic and adjacent regions.Preslia 77: 1–88.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tyler T. (2000): Detecting migration routes and barriers by examining the distribution of species in an apomictic species complex.J. Biogeogr. 27: 979–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. van de Beek A. (1974): Die Brombeeren des geldrischen Distriktes innerhalb der Flora der Niederlande.Meded. Bot. Mus. Herb. Rijksuniv. Utrecht 415: 1–195.

    Google Scholar 

  32. van de Beek A. (1978): Bramen om Arnhem (Brambles around Arnhem).Gorteria 9: 137–141.

    Google Scholar 

  33. van den Bosch F., Zadoks J.C. &Metz J.A.J. (1988): Focus expansion in plant disease. I. The constant rate of focus expansion.Phytopathology 78: 54–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. van Dijk P. J. (2003): Ecological and evolutionary opportunities of apomixis: insights fromTaraxacum andChondrilla.Phil. Trans., Ser. B 358: 1113–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. van Soest J.L. (1933): Flora van Arnhem VIII (Flora of Arnhem VIII).Ned. Kruidk. Arch. 43: 259–271.

    Google Scholar 

  36. van Soest J.L. (1926): Het geslachtHieracium in Nederland I (The genusHieracium in the Netherlands I).Ned. Kruidk. Arch. 1925: 138–201.

    Google Scholar 

  37. van Soest J.L. (1927): Het geslachtHieracium in Nederland II (The genusHieracium in the Netherlands II).Ned. Kruidk. Arch. 1926: 163–217.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Weber H.E. &Bull A.L. (1995):Rubus edeesii H.E. Weber & A.L. Bull (Rosaceae), a new bramble species from Britain and Germany.Watsonia 20: 345–349.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Weber H.E. (1973):Die Gattung RubusL. (Rosaceae)im nordwestlichen Europa. J. Cramer, Lehre.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Weber H.E. (1979): Zur Taxonomie und Verbreitung einiger meist verkannterRubus-Arten in Mitteleuropa.Abh. Naturwiss. Vereine Bremen 39: 153–183.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Weber H.E. (1981):Revision der Sektion Corylifolii (Gattung Rubus, Rosaceae)in Skandinavien und im nördlichen Mitteleuropa. Paul Parey, Hamburg.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Weber H.E. (1987): Typen ornithochorer Arealentwicklung, dargestelt an Beispielen der GattungRubus L. (Rosaceae) in Europa.Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 108: 525–535.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Weber H.E. (1995):Rubus L. In:Hegi G. (ed.),Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa IV/2A, Ed. 3, Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 284–595.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Weber H.E. (2002): Entwicklung und Stand derRubus-Forschung in Europa.Ber. Bayer. Bot. Ges. 72: 177–185.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Werlemark G. &Nybom H. (2003): Pollen donor impact on progenies of pseudogamous blackberries (Rubus subgen.Rubus).Euphytica 133: 71–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rienk-Jan Bijlsma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bijlsma, RJ., Haveman, R. Rubus canduliger, a new regional species from the Netherlands, with notes on the range structure and dynamics of brambles (Rubus, Rosaceae). Folia Geobot 42, 315–329 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02806469

Download citation

Keywords

  • Apomixis
  • Hemerochory
  • Long-distance dispersal
  • Pseudogamy
  • Range fragmentation
  • Range structure

Nomenclature

  • Haeupler & Muer (2000) for vascular plants (not includedRubus species are given with the author’s names)
  • Stortelder et al. (1999) for syntaxa