Information

Species ID from Hungary

Species ID from Hungary


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I found it on the wall, it was calm for 15 minutes. Central Europe, Hungary. Never seen anything like this. I have two more pictures.


This appears to be a Gastropacha Quercifolia, the Lappet Moth.

It is found in Europe and Northern and Eastern Asia.

The wingspan is 50-90 mm. The females are larger than the males. The moth flies from June to July depending on the location. Source


Subspecies

In biological classification, the term subspecies refers to one of two or more populations of a species living in different subdivisions of the species' range and varying from one another by morphological characteristics. [2] [3] A single subspecies cannot be recognized independently: a species is either recognized as having no subspecies at all or at least two, including any that are extinct. The term may be abbreviated to subsp. or ssp. The plural is the same as the singular: subspecies.

In zoology, under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the subspecies is the only taxonomic rank below that of species that can receive a name. In botany and mycology, under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, other infraspecific ranks, such as variety, may be named. In bacteriology and virology, under standard bacterial nomenclature and virus nomenclature, there are recommendations but not strict requirements for recognizing other important infraspecific ranks.

A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies. A common criterion for recognizing two distinct populations as subspecies rather than full species is the ability of them to interbreed even if some male offspring may be sterile. [4] In the wild, subspecies do not interbreed due to geographic isolation or sexual selection. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species.


The Plant List &mdash A working list for all plant species

Enter a Genus (eg Ocimum) or genus and species (eg Ocimum basilicum).

? will match a single character. * will match any number of characters. Use at least three letters in the genus name if you include a ? or * .

The Plant List (TPL) was a working list of all known plant species produced by the botanical community in response to Target 1 of the 2002-2010 Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC). TPL has been static since 2013, but was used as the starting point for the Taxonomic Backbone of the World Flora Online (WFO) , and updated information can be found at www.worldfloraonline.org.

WFO is being developed by a consortium of leading botanical institutions worldwide in response to the 2011-2020 GSPC’s updated Target 1: to achieve an online Flora of all known plants by 2020. WFO welcomes feedback from users for improvements to its Taxonomic Backbone which is curated by a growing community of WFO Taxonomic Expert Networks (TENs).

The Plant List is a working list of all known plant species. It aims to be comprehensive for species of Vascular plant (flowering plants, conifers, ferns and their allies) and of Bryophytes (mosses and liverworts).

Collaboration between the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Missouri Botanical Garden enabled the creation of The Plant List by combining multiple checklist data sets held by these institutions and other collaborators.

Version 1.1 (September 2013) replaces Version 1.0 which remains accessible here. Version 1.1 includes new data sets, updated versions of the original data sets and improved algorithms to resolve logical conflicts between those data sets. The differences between versions are summarised here.

The Plant List provides the Accepted Latin name for most species, with links to all Synonyms by which that species has been known. Around 20% of names are unresolved indicating that the data sources included provided no evidence or view as to whether the name should be treated as accepted or not, or there were conflicting opinions that could not be readily resolved.

The Plant List is not perfect and represents work in progress. Our aims remain to produce a ‘best effort’ list, to demonstrate progress and to stimulate further work. Important limitations are summarised here.

Summary Statistics

The Plant List includes 1,064,035 scientific plant names of species rank. Of these 350,699 are accepted species names.

The Plant List contains 642 plant families and 17,020 plant genera.

The status of the 1,064,035 species names, are as follows:

Status Total
Accepted 350,699 33.0%
Synonym 470,624 44.2%
Unresolved 242,712 22.8%

Browse

Click on the major plant group of interest to explore the taxonomic hierarchy embedded within The Plant List .

Work down the taxonomic hierarchy from Major Group (to find out which Families belong to each), to Family (to discover the Genera belonging to each) and finally Genus (to list the Species in each).


Biology Answers

1. A: All organisms begin life as a single cell.
2. B: Scientists suggest that evolution has occurred through a process called natural selection.
3. D: The two types of measurement important in science are quantitative (when a numerical result is used) and qualitative (when descriptions or qualities are reported).
4. C: A normal sperm must contain one of each of the human chromosome pairs. There are 23 chromosome pairs in all. Of these, 22 are autosomal chromosomes, which do not play a role in determining gender. The remaining pair consists of either two X chromosomes in the case of a female or of an X and a Y chromosome in the case of a male. Therefore, a normal sperm cell will contain 22 autosomal chromosomes and either an X or a Y chromosome, but not both.
5. E: All living organisms on Earth utilize the same triplet genetic code in which a three-nucleotide sequence called a codon provides information corresponding to a particular amino acid to be added to a protein. In contrast, many organisms, especially certain types of bacteria, do not use oxygen. These organisms live in oxygen-poor environments and may produce energy through fermentation. Other organisms may live in dark environments, such as in caves or deep underground. Many organisms reproduce asexually by budding or self-fertilization, and only the most evolutionarily advanced organisms make use of neurotransmitters in their nervous systems.
6. B: Sexual reproduction allows the genetic information from two parents to mix. Recombination events between the two parental copies of individual genes may occur, creating new genes. The production of new genes and of new gene combinations leads to an increase in diversity within the population, which is an advantage in terms of adapting to changes in the environment.
7. A: The second part of an organism’s scientific name is its species. The system of naming species is called binomial nomenclature. The first name is the genus, and the second name is the species. In binomial nomenclature, species is the most specific designation. This system enables the same name to be used globally so that scientists can communicate with one another. Genus and species are just two of the categories in biological classification, otherwise known as taxonomy. The levels of classification, from most general to most specific, are kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. As shown, binomial nomenclature includes only the two most specific categories.
8. D: Fission is the process of a bacterial cell splitting into two new cells. Fission is a form of asexual reproduction in which an organism divides into two components each of these two parts will develop into a distinct organism. The two cells, known as daughter cells, are identical. Mitosis, on the other hand, is the part of eukaryotic cell division in which the cell nucleus divides. In meiosis, the homologous chromosomes in a diploid cell separate, reducing the number of chromosomes in each cell by half. In replication, a cell creates duplicate copies of DNA.
9. A: Bacterial cells do not contain mitochondria. Bacteria are prokaryotes composed of single cells their cell walls contain peptidoglycans, and the functions normally performed in the mitochondria are performed in the cell membrane of the bacterial cell. DNA is the nucleic acid that holds the genetic information of the organism. It is shaped as a double helix. DNA can reproduce itself and can synthesize RNA. A vesicle is a small cavity containing fluid. A ribosome is a tiny particle composed of RNA and protein in which polypeptides are constructed.


Plant Species Biology

In the range of Magnolia stellata, a native rare subtree species, Magnolia kobus, an invasive planted/escaped tree species, can also be found. In order to examine possible natural hybridization between the two species, a reciprocal cross-pollination experiment was conducted. The results suggest that there are no reproductive barriers between the two species and planted/escaped M. kobus near the natural habitat of M. stellata presents a threat through hybridization.

Modular growth and functional heterophylly of the phreatophyte Ziziphus lotus: A trait�sed study

Abstract

Through a trait-based approach, we identified the modular growth pattern and morpho-functionally distinct leaves (i.e., heterophylly) in the phreatophytic shrub Ziziphus lotus (Rhamnaceae), which promoted a functional differentiation between vegetative and reproductive structures. Both characteristics might contribute to prioritizing the investment of resources of this species, either for growth or reproduction, and could improve the efficiency in uptake and conservation of resources in drylands.

Combined effect of temperature and water stress on seed germination of four Leptocereus spp. (Cactaceae) from Cuban dry forests

Abstract

Germination of Leptocereus spp. was only obtained at 25°C and germinability and seedling mass were drastically affected by the reduction from 0 MPa to −0.2 MPa. Seeds showed thermoinhibition at 35°C at all water potentials. Low seed recovery occurred at all combined treatments for three species.

Fire damage on seeds of Calliandra parviflora Benth. (Fabaceae), a facultative seeder in a Brazilian flooding savanna

Abstract

Fire during fruiting or pre-dispersion decreases seed germination from 22 to 3%, but it does not hurt vegetative regeneration or resprout capacity of Calliandra parviflora, which is a facultative seeder. In addition to fire, the sexual C. parviflora reproduction is under another ecological filter, infestation by seed predators larvae. These ecological filters helps to decrease dissemination of C. parviflora, considering its apparent degree of rusticity. These traits enable its potential for post-fire restoration in floodable open grassy savannas, in the ecotone between Cerrado and Pantanal, where C. parviflora may sprout quickly after first post-fire rains.

Confirmation of clonal reproduction of Fagus crenata Blume from Sado Island, Niigata Prefecture

Abstract

We aimed to confirm using nuclear microsatellite markers whether clonal growth occurs in the Japanese endemic species Fagus crenata by investigating the origin of multi-stemmed clumps found within a high-elevation dwarf beech forest on Sado Island, Niigata Prefecture. We found that all stems collected from three separate clumps belonged to the same clump-specific multi-locus genotypes forming clones up to 3–4 m in diameter. The species capacity for clonal growth is likely to underlie its ability to persist at high-elevation exposed sites at the limits of its ecological range.

The following is a list of the most cited articles based on citations published in the last three years, according to CrossRef.

Taxonomy, anatomy and evolution of physical dormancy in seeds

Effects of salinity and nitrate on production and germination of dimorphic seeds applied both through the mother plant and exogenously during germination in Suaeda salsa

Abstract

1. Producing more brown seeds and heavy black or brown seeds appears to be an adaptation of Suaeda salsa to saline environments.

2. Producing more black seeds, which tend to remain dormant, should reduce competition for nitrogen and appears to be an adaptation to nitrogen-limited environments for Suaeda salsa.

3. Nitrate provided exogenously or by mother plants to black seeds may act as a signal molecule that enhances the germination of black Suaeda salsa seeds.

The role of the seed coat in adaptation of dimorphic seeds of the euhalophyte Suaeda salsa to salinity

Abstract

1. A black seed coat may be more protective than a brown seed coat, probably by shielding the embryo from ion toxicity, because of its higher content of waxes.

2. Black seeds can better maintain seed viability than brown seeds for extended periods of times during exposure to hypersaline conditions. This trait of dimorphic seeds can help S. salsa to build up its population in variable saline environments.


4. Previous genomic applications to study Trichinella

Until recently the approach taken to study T. spiralis involved mainly characterization of individual genes of interest. In 2003, a genomic approach was initiated as an antecedent to more complete nuclear genome sequencing (Wylie et al., 2004). The approach involves use of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) obtained from sampling 3 cDNA libraries generated from three life stages of T. spiralis : adult worm (AD), mature muscle larvae (ML) and immature L1 larvae (immL1, also known as newborn larvae). The analysis of the 10,130 ESTs identified a conservative estimate of 3,262 unique genes. Based on genomic information from C. elegans (The C. elegans Sequencing Consortium, 1998), this number represents 17% (3,262/19,552) of all T. spiralis genes. The GC content for protein coding exons was 39% versus 43% for C. elegans . According to this study, 56% of the T. spiralis EST clusters had homology to proteins from other species, while 44% were placed in the category of ‘novel’ proteins. Furthermore, 82% of the clusters with homology (1592/1942) had homology to C. elegans (or 46% of all clusters). The most recent meta-analysis of the transcriptome of the Phylum Nematoda (Parkinson et al., 2004) reported similar results (45%), and expanding the analysis to species beyond nematodes, identified a similar portion of the ESTs sharing homology with the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster . Hence, ESTs common to T. spiralis and C. elegans are not necessarily specific to nematodes but may be conserved among diverse taxonomic groups of invertebrates. C. elegans is often thought of, and therefore used as, a protopypical nematode because of its usefulness to serve as a model to study biological processes. However, the results from the more extensive single-species analysis (Mitreva et al., 2004) and more broad Phylum-related analysis (Parkinson et al., 2004) highlight the great phylogenetic distance of T. spiralis from other nematodes, which makes the extrapolation from the biology of C. elegans to T. spiralis challenging. However, comparative genomic approaches using both nematodes may be useful to identify molecular features shared between these two widely disparate species that reflect ancestral features found in many nematodes. Furthermore, the authors segregated the identified genes in multiple biological dimensions including functional, developmental and phylogenetic categories. Nematode genes can now be cross-referenced to gain insight on higher order associations. Observations agreed with and extended information on previously described genes and gene families, providing expectations that information on newly discovered T. spiralis genes will have similar value. The T. spiralis data identified sets of predicted proteins which may define differences in metabolism and molecular interactions that exist among the T. spiralis stages investigated. Evidence of substantial gene families in relation to previously identified antigen genes was especially instructive, as was elucidation of numerous and diverse predicted proteinase genes. The dataset is potentially very useful for proteomics methods (as described in section 3.3) to identify parasite proteins that occur in specific compartments, such as host muscle nuclei and parasite excretory-secretory products and the external cuticular surface. The observations made provide strong rationale to gain a more complete assessment of genes expressed among T. spiralis stages. From a phylogenetic perspective, adenophorean orders that comprise clade I, such as the Trichocephalida ( Trichinella, Trichuris, Capillaria ), Mermithida, Dorylaimida, and Mononchida, remain largely unexplored territory for genomic studies. This initial analysis of expressed genes in T. spiralis confirms an ancient divergence of clade I nematodes from those of other clades and provides an entry point toward a deep understanding of the phylum Nematoda at the molecular level. These findings have stimulated a nuclear genome sequencing project for T. spiralis with this goal in mind, discussed in section 5.

For many nematode genes, trans-splicing of a short leader sequence to the 5 ′ end of the mRNA is a feature of transcript maturation. The most common trans-splice leader is SL1, the sequence of which is highly conserved across the phylum (Blaxter and Liu, 1996 Conrad et al., 1991 Krause and Hirsh, 1987). It is estimated that 80% of Ascaris suum transcripts (Nilsen, 1993), 70% of C. elegans transcripts (Blumenthal and Steward, 1997), and 60% of Globodera rostochiensis transcripts are SL1 trans-spliced (Ling Qin, personal communication). While the extent to which each nematode species uses SL1 is unknown, the Parasitic Nematode Sequencing group at the Washington University Genome Sequencing Center has made SL1-PCR libraries from 18 nematode species to date (www.nematode.net Wylie et al., 2004). While these libraries are inclusive of one for T. spiralis , difficulties were encountered in making this library. For instance, utilizing the standard protocol for generating SL1-based libraries, the T. spiralis SL1-based library produced a much lower passing rate than other species. This can imply that either the SL1 sequence is more divergent in T. spiralis than in other nematodes, making capture of SL1-modified mRNAs difficult, or very few genes (if any) are preceded by the most common nematode SL1 sequence. Currently, there is no direct evidence for splice leader addition to mRNAs from T. spiralis or other clade I nematodes. Genome sequencing may provide information to distinguish these possibilities. Because spliced leader addition is also associated with the organization and expression of C. elegans genes in operons (Blumenthal and Gleason, 2003), the status of spliced leader additions in T. spiralis and other clade I nematodes should be clarified.

Mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) vary extensively in size and gene content across diverse eukaryotic groups, while those of animals (Metazoa), however are relatively more uniform (Lang et al., 1999). As of May 2006, there are 13 nematode mtDNA sequences in the GenBank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Genome &cmd=Search&dopt=DocSum&term=txid6231[Organism:exp]. Although nematode mitochondrial genome sequence data available thus far conforms more or less with current generalizations concerning metazoan mtDNAs, the genomes do contain some unique features and common characteristics. These include 12 protein-coding genes (lacking the atp8 gene, except for Trichinella spiralis in which it is also encoded), the lack of either a DHU or T Ψ C arm in the tRNA secondary structure and apparent unidirectional transcription, where all genes occur on the same strand (see Hu et al., 2003 for details), with the exception of T. spiralis (Lavrov and Brown, 2001) and Xiphinema americanum (He et al., unpublished) where some genes would be transcribed from the opposite strand. Convergent evolution (not derived from a common ancestry) of gene rearrangement is generally known to be rare (Lavrov et al., 2004). Therefore, comparative analysis of the mitochondrial genome information (e.g., gene arrangement, nucleotide and amino acid sequences) has often been used as a reliable tool for resolving the phylogenetic relationships in a large number of diverse animal groups with ancient evolutionary origins (Boore and Brown, 2000 Smith et al., 1993 Larget et al., 2005). The mitochondrial genome of T. spiralis revealed that its organization more closely resembles that of the coelomate metazoans than that of its presumed closest relatives, the secernentean nematodes (Lavrov and Brown, 2001). Furthermore, T. spiralis is the only nematode species known in which mtDNA includes a putative atp8 gene (as discussed above), bringing the total of recognized T. spiralis mtDNA genes to 37 genes, which is typical of most metazoan mtDNA (Lavrov and Brown, 2001).


Seation A Biology and Biodiversity

Chapter 1. Biodiversity of the Genus Hypocrea/Trichoderma in Different Habitats

Methodology of Studying Trichoderma Biodiversity

Trichoderma Diversity in Different Habitats

Chapter 2. Ecophysiology of Trichoderma in Genomic Perspective

Trichoderma in Its Ecological Niche

From Diversity to Genomics

Mycotrophy of Trichoderma

Saprotrophy of Trichoderma on Dead Wood

Trichoderma Growth in Soil

Rhizosphere Competence of Trichoderma

Trichoderma versus Mycorrhizae

Facultative Endophytism of Trichoderma

Animal Nourishment of Trichoderma

Most of the Famous Trichoderma Species are Environmental Opportunists

Versatile Carbon Utilization Patterns Reflect Ecological Specialization of Trichoderma spp.

Chapter 3. DNA Barcode for Species Identification in Trichoderma

Application of DNA Barcoding in Species-Level Identification of Trichoderma

Identification of Industrial Trichoderma Strains

Identification of Biocontrol Trichoderma Strains

Identification of Trichoderma Isolates with Clinical Relevance

Identification of Mushroom Pathogenic Trichoderma Strains

Chapter 4. Understanding the Diversity and Versatility of Trichoderma by Next-Generation Sequencing

Access to Fungal and Trichoderma Diversity—Taxonomic Profiling

Plants Life under Control of Trichoderma—Functional Profiling

Chapter 5. Molecular Evolution of Trichoderma Chitinases

Phylogeny and Evolution of the GH Family 18 Gene Family in Trichoderma

Section B Secretion and Protein Production

Chapter 6. Protein Production—Quality Control and Secretion Stress Responses in Trichoderma reesei

Introduction—Milestones of Trichoderma reesei

Protein Secretome of T. reesei

ER Quality Control and Secretion Stress Responses

Chapter 7. Heterologous Expression of Proteins in Trichoderma

Secretion Stress in the Frame

Mass Production of Heterologous Protein by Fermentation

N-glycosylation of Heterologous Proteins Produced in T. reesei

Chapter 8. Trichoderma Secretome: An Overview

Proteomic Analysis of Secretory Proteins

Extraction of Extracellular Proteins for Proteomic Analysis

Extracellular Protein Secretion by T. reesei

Polysaccharide Degradation Machinery of T. reesei

New Candidates in Cellulose Degradation

Hemicellulose Hydrolyzing Enzymes

Lignin Degradation by T. reesei

Industrial Applications of T. reesei Cellulolytic Enzymes

Chapter 9. The Secretory Pathway in the Filamentous Fungus Trichoderma

Post Translational Translocation

Protein Modifications in the ER

Vesicle Transport from ER to Golgi Complex and Trafficking within the Golgi Cisternae

Transport after Trafficking within the Golgi Complex

Secreted Proteins in Trichoderma

Section C Secondary Metabolism

Chapter 10. Secondary Metabolism and Antimicrobial Metabolites of Trichoderma

Concluding Remarks and Future Directions

Chapter 11. Recent Advancements on the Role and Analysis of Volatile Compounds (VOCs) from Trichoderma

Detection Techniques of VOCs

Types of Volatiles Compounds

Application of VOCs in Agriculture

Chapter 12. Molecular Tools for Strain Improvement of Trichoderma spp.

Genetic Transformation Techniques

Auxotrophic and Dominant Selection Markers

Marker Recycling Strategies and Marker Free Strains

Advanced Methods for Gene Targeting

RNA Mediated Gene Silencing

Promoters for Recombinant Protein Expression and Targeting

Chapter 13. Genetic Transformation and Engineering of Trichoderma reesei for Enhanced Enzyme Production

Engineering Cellulase and Hemicellulase Regulation

Homologous and Heterologous Gene Expression and Gene Disruption

Chapter 14. Applications of RNA Interference for Enhanced Cellulase Production in Trichoderma

RNA Interference in Fungus

Transcriptional Regulation of Cellulase Gene Expression

Application of Gene Downregulation Strategy for Enhanced Cellulase Production

Combination of RNAi and Overexpression of the Regulating Genes

Conclusions and Prospects

Chapter 15. RNAi-Mediated Gene Silencing in Trichoderma: Principles and Applications

Advantages and Disadvantages of Using RNAi-Mediated Gene Silencing as a Genetic Manipulation Tool in Filamentous Fungi

Strategies of Applying RNAi for Gene Silencing in Trichoderma and Other Filamentous Fungi

Chapter 16. Cellulase Systems in Trichoderma: An Overview

Degradation of Cellulose by Cellulase Systems

History of the Trichoderma Cellulase Research

Structural and Functional Diversity of Trichoderma Cellulases

Cellulase Systems and Complexes

Chapter 17. Use of Cellulases from Trichoderma reesei in the Twenty-First Century—Part I: Current Industrial Uses and Future Applications in the Production of Second Ethanol Generation

Overview of the Global Enzyme Market

Application of Trichoderma Cellulases in the Bioethanol Industry

Chapter 18. Use of Cellulases from Trichoderma reesei in the Twenty-First Century—Part II: Optimization of Cellulolytic Cocktails for Saccharification of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks

Genetics of Industrial Trichoderma reesei Strains

The T. reesei Enzyme Cocktail

Limitations in Lignocellulose Hydrolysis

Improvement of Enzyme Cocktails by Optimization of Enzyme Ratios

Improvement by Supplementation of T. reesei Enzyme Cocktails

Adapting Cellulose Cocktails to Process Conditions

Conclusions and Perspectives

Chapter 19. Beta-Glucosidase from Trichoderma to Improve the Activity of Cellulase Cocktails

Trichoderma reesei Cellulases

BGLs from Aspergillus oryzae

Synergism between Cellulases

Heterologous Expression of Cellulases

Yarrowia lipolytica Expression Platforms

Pichia pastoris Expression Platforms

β-Glucosidase from Trichoderma to Improve the Activity of Cellulase Cocktails

Chapter 20. Regulation of Glycoside Hydrolase Expression in Trichoderma

Regulation by Environmental Parameters

Chapter 21. Trichoderma Proteins with Disruption Activity on Cellulosic Substrates

Structure and Occurrence of Cellulose in Nature

General Aspects of Cellulose Degradation

Cellulose Degradation by T. reesei

Cellulolytic Enzymes in Other Trichoderma Species

Chapter 22. Molecular Mechanism of Cellulase Production Systems in Trichoderma

Cellulase System of T. reesei

Induction Mechanism of Cellulase Production

Promoter Involved in Cellulase Production

Molecular Mechanism of Cellulase Production

Approaches for Refining the Cellulases Production System in T. reesei

Chapter 23. Trichoderma in Bioenergy Research: An Overview

Fungal Enzyme Systems and Trichoderma Technology

Industrial Applications of Trichoderma

Trichoderma Enzyme Systems in Bioenergy Research

Section F Industrial Applications

Chapter 24. Trichoderma Enzymes for Food Industries

Fungus of Industrial Interest

Trichoderma Enzymes for Industries

Perspectives for Biotechnological Production of Enzymes by Trichoderma

Chapter 25. Trichoderma: A Dual Function Fungi and Their Use in the Wine and Beer Industries

Application in the Wine and Beer Industries

Chapter 26. Trichoderma Enzymes for Textile Industries

Trichoderma Enzymes in Textile Finishing Processes

Trichoderma as a Production Host for Textile Enzymes

Chapter 27. Metabolic Diversity of Trichoderma

Carbohydrate Metabolism and Glycoside Hydrolases

Metabolism and Transporters

Chapter 28. Sequence Analysis of Industrially Important Genes from Trichoderma

Gene Sequence Analysis Fundamentals

Genome Analysis of Trichoderma

Industrially Genes from Trichoderma

Sequence Analysis of Industrially Genes from Trichoderma

Chapter 29. Biosynthesis of Silver Nano-Particles by Trichoderma and Its Medical Applications

Chapter 30. Role of Trichoderma Species in Bioremediation Process: Biosorption Studies on Hexavalent Chromium

Hexavalent Chromium Bioremediation will be Discussed Here with a Case Study Representing Chromium Biosorption by Trichoderma Species

Section G Biocontrol and Plant Growth Promotion

Chapter 31. Applications of Trichoderma in Plant Growth Promotion

Trichoderma as a Plant Growth Promoter

Consistency of Growth Promotion

Mechanisms of Growth Promotion

Chapter 32. Molecular Mechanisms of Biocontrol in Trichoderma spp. and Their Applications in Agriculture

Roll of Cell Wall Degrading Enzymes

Signal Transduction in Mycoparasitism

Antibiosis (Secondary Metabolites Involved in Biocontrol)

Mycotoxins Produced by Trichoderma spp.

Synergism between Enzymes and Antibiotics

Competition for Nutrients

Plant Growth Promotion by Trichoderma

Induction of Systemic Resistance to Plants by Trichoderma spp.

Signal Transduction Pathways that Mediate Trichoderma-Plant Communication

Trichoderma Elicitor of Systemic Resistance in Plants

Signal Transduction during Plant–Trichoderma Interaction in Trichoderma

Transgenic Plants Expressing Trichoderma Genes

Chapter 33. Genome-Wide Approaches toward Understanding Mycotrophic Trichoderma Species

Lessons from the Genome Sequence

The Functional Genomics View of Mycoparasitism

High-Throughput Analysis of the Trichoderma-Plant Interaction

Chapter 34. Insights into Signaling Pathways of Antagonistic Trichoderma Species

Effector Pathways of G Protein Signaling in Fungi

Signaling Pathways and Characterized Components in Trichoderma Species

Signal Transduction Components and Pathways Affecting Vegetative Growth and Conidiation

The Role of Signaling in Trichoderma Mycoparasitism and Biocontrol

Chapter 35. Enhanced Resistance of Plants to Disease Using Trichoderma spp.

Induced Disease Resistance in Plants

Induced Resistance by Trichoderma spp.

Signaling Pathways of Trichoderma-Induced Resistance

Trichoderma spp.-Secreted Elicitors of Plant Resistance

Engineering Plants for Disease Resistance Using Trichoderma Genes

Combination of Trichoderma with Other Beneficial Microorganisms

Other Effects of Trichoderma spp. Inoculation to the Plant

Chapter 36. Enhanced Plant Immunity Using Trichoderma

Mechanisms of Plant Protection by Microbes

Plant Protection Conferred by Trichoderma

Chapter 37. Genes from Trichoderma as a Source for Improving Plant Resistance to Fungal Pathogen

Trichoderma Inducing Resistance in Plants

Transgenic Plants Expressing Trichoderma Genes Develop Increased Resistance to Fungal Pathogens

Trichoderma Genes Involved in Elicitation of ISR

Chapter 38. Trichoderma Species as Abiotic Stress Relievers in Plants

Microbes for the Management of Abiotic Stresses

Alleviation of Abiotic Stress in Plants by Trichoderma

Alleviation of Drought Stress in Plants by Trichoderma

Alleviation of Salinity Stress in Plants by Trichoderma

Alleviation of Heat Stress in Plants by Trichoderma

Trichoderma Genes for Abiotic Stress Tolerance

Mechanism of Abiotic Stress Tolerance Using Trichoderma

Host Gene: Stress Tolerant Varieties

Chapter 39. Advances in Formulation of Trichoderma for Biocontrol

Enhancement of Shelf Life and Application Efficiency

Compatibility with Other Biological Systems

Conclusion and Future Prospects

Chapter 40. Trichoderma: A Silent Worker of Plant Rhizosphere

Diverseness Amongst Trichoderma

Trichoderma as Inducer of Plant Defense Response

Trichoderma as a Biofertilizer and Plant Growth Promoter

Trichoderma Genes Responsible for Playing “Big Games”


Species ID from Hungary - Biology

Kentucky Ornithological Society


Distinguishing Ross's and Snow Geese and Their Hybrids

Ross's Goose (Chen rossii) is a regularly occurring and often overlooked migrant and winter resident in Kentucky in small numbers and is usually found in the company of Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens). Identification of these species is relatively straightforward based primarily on structural differences, particularly those of head and bill shape. Hybrids of these species are sometimes encountered and are intermediate in structure between the two.

Although Ross's Goose is usually smaller than Snow Goose, size in itself is not diagnostic. It is a good clue, however, and noticeably small birds in a flock should be looked at closely when searching for Ross's. Primary structural differences of Ross's Goose as compared to Snow Goose include:

  • Shorter and rounder body most evident in flight
  • Proportionately shorter neck
  • Rounder and less elongated head
  • More vertical line of feathering at the base of bill
  • Shorter and stubbier bill with less degree of bevelling along tomia
  • Grayish/bluish base of upper mandible with caruncles developing with age

In the Identification Guide to North American Birds Part 2, Pyle states the range in size of the gap along tomia in Lesser Snow Goose as 7-12 mm wide and in hybrids as 4-9 mm wide. The gap between mandibles in Ross's Goose is narrower forming no or a thinner dusky stripe along tomia. Many Ross's Geese show a slight gap between the mandibles.

The plumage of Ross's Goose is typically very white and rarely attains the rusty staining which Snow Goose often does, particularly about the head and neck.

Hybrids are best identified by intermediate head and bill characters such as bill size and shape, line of feathering at bill base, degree of bevelling or gap along tomia, and varying amounts of grayish at bill base which Snow Goose lacks.

Images depicting comparisons of and differences between the species and hybrids are shown below and all were obtained in Kentucky. Flight images were obtained on 2 February 2007 in Fulton County, and the remainder were obtained in Warren County between 2003 and 2009.


Image A shows a first cycle light morph Snow Goose retaining some dusky juvenal plumage.
Note the elongated head and bill with wide bevelled gap between mandibles.


Image B shows a Ross's Goose. Note the rounded and less elongated head and more vertical feathering at the base of the bill.
The bill is short and stubby with almost no gap between the mandibles. Note also the grayish base to the upper mandible.


Image C shows a Ross' x Snow Goose hybrid. Note the intermediate head and bill characters including gap
between mandibles and grayish base to the upper mandible.


Image D is a digiscoped shot showing 3 Ross's Geese followed by a Snow Goose along with Canada Geese. Differences in
size and structure between the Ross's Geese and Snow are very apparent in this image. Note the dark line before the eye
in the rear pair of Ross's which is retained juvenal plumage. Juvenile Ross's Geese typically show far less duskiness to
their plumage than juvenile Snows, and a dark line before the eye is the most consistent plumage character suggesting
immaturity in Ross's Goose and can be seen at a surprising distance even in flying birds.


Image E is of a dark morph Snow Goose showing head and bill detail. Note the width of the bevelled gap between the mandibles.


Image F is of a first cycle light morph Snow Goose showing head and bill detail.


Image G is of a Ross's Goose showing head and bill detail. Note the rounded and less elongated head as compared to
Snow Goose along with the more vertical feathering at the bill base. Also the stubbier bill with dark grayish base to
the upper mandible and narrow gap between the mandibles which almost totally lack bevelling.


Image H is of a Ross' x Snow Goose hybrid showing intermediate head and bill characters. Note the reduced bevelled gap
between the mandibles as compared to Snow Goose and the darkish area at the base of the upper mandible from Ross's Goose.
The bill is longer than that of Ross's and the feathering at the base of the bill is intermediate between parent species.


Image I is of a flock of Snow Geese as they might appear overhead. A closer look reveals 3 Ross's Geese and a hybrid in this flock.


Image J is a crop of the 5 birds center-right in the image above, or in the front of the flock. This image approximates the
look that one might have through the binocular or scope. The group is comprised of 3 Snow Geese and 2 Ross's Geese (birds
banked without shadows on their bellies). Difference in size between the species is not apparent here but structural differences
are very much so. Note the shorter necks and more rounded, less elongated heads of the Ross's. The more vertical line of feathering
at the base of the smaller and stubbier bills of the Ross's gives the appearance of having the face cut off at the front. From a distance
in flight, the bill of Ross's often virtually disappears and the vertical line at the front of the face is very apparent.


Image K is also a crop of the same image showing birds in the lower left or at the rear of the flock. This group is comprised
of 4 Snow Geese, a Ross's (bottom center) and a hybrid (second bird from top left). Note the short neck, rounded head with
vertical line of feathering at the bill base and short stubby bill of the Ross's. This bird is also smaller than the others in this
group. The hybrid shows a shorter, rounder body and shorter neck as well as a less elongated head than the Snows, but the
feathering at the bill base is convex lacking the vertically cut off look of Ross's and is intermediate between the species. If
one looks closely, there appears to be a relatively wide and dark gap between the mandibles which would not be as apparent at this
distance in Ross's.


Image L is closer crop of the hybrid and trailing Snow Goose showing differences in structure. The body and neck of the hybrid
suggest Ross's Goose but the head and bill are clearly intermediate between the species. The dark gap between the mandibles can
be seen better in this crop.


Image M shows a Ross's and two Snow Geese. There is a noticeable size difference between this Ross's and the Snows and the
structural differences are very apparent. As pertaining to the Ross's Goose, note the shorter, rounder body, shorter neck, less
elongated head with vertical feathering at the bill base, and short stubby bill with no apparent dark gap between the mandibles.


Image N is a closer crop for comparison of the structural differences between Snow and Ross's Geese which are apparent in flight.


Of course, it is not practical to believe that one would have time to scrutinize or identify every bird in every flock flying overhead, but with practice and good views, some Ross's Geese and hybrids can be identified in flight based on structural characters.


Species ID from Hungary - Biology

Written & designed by Adam Britton | Hosted by the Crocodile Specialist Group


DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE CROCODILIANS ARE FOUND IN THE WORLD?

DISTRIBUTION MAPS

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW CROCS ARE CLASSIFIED?

CROC TAXONOMY

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW CROCODILES TALK TO EACH OTHER?

COMMUNICATION

DO YOU WANT TO LEARN WHAT MAKES A CROCODILE TICK?

BIOLOGY DATABASE

ARE YOU LOOKING FOR RECOMMENDED CROC WEB SITES?

INTERNET LINKS

DO YOU THINK THAT A CROCODILE MIGHT MAKE A GOOD PET?

CAPTIVE CARE

HELP PREVENT THE EXTINCTION

CHINESE ALLIGATOR FUND

DON'T MISS THE MONTHLY CROC SHOTS!

PIC OF THE MONTH


Wineberry

Wineberry (Rubus phoenicolasius) is an invasive shrub in the same genus as raspberries and blackberries. Wineberry creates spiny, inpenetrable thickets that reduce an area’s value for wildlife habitat and recreation. It was introduced to North America in the 1890s as breeding stock for raspberries. It was found invading natural areas by the 1970s, and it is currently recorded in most states east of the Mississippi River and in Alabama (USDA PLANTS Database). Wineberry replaces native vegetation, including native edible berry shrubs. It is differentiated from other berry-producing canes by the reddish appearance of its stems (caused by a dense coat of red hairs), silvery underleaf surfaces, and bright red berries. Management can be obtained through mechanical, chemical, or combination of control methods.

Biology and Habitat

Wineberry is a close relative of other raspberries and blackberries. It grows in long shoots called canes up to six feet long, which can re-root at the tips when they touch the ground. Wineberry canes grow in two stages in the first year they form a vegetative cane, and in the second year the cane becomes woody and produces lateral branches, flowers, and fruit (technically drupes, an aggregation of single seeded drupelets, but for clarity the term fruit will be used). Wineberries are perennial while the canes each live two years, the plant produces new canes every year. Leaves are produced in April, flowers in May, and fruit from late June to August leaves drop in late November. Wineberry does not need pollen from another individual to set seed, and therefore may reproduce more easily than natives like saw-toothed blackberry (Foss 2005).

Wineberry has a wide range of tolerance for light, soil type, and moisture level, and is hardy to USDA Zone 5 (annual minimum temperatures to -20F). While it is most productive in edge and wasteland habitats, it can be found in most habitats that exist in New York (Innes 2009), including forested habitats. Wineberry seeds are spread by animals, and seeds dropped on the forest floor can germinate when falling trees provide light to the forest floor. Once established, wineberry can persist indefinitely and reproduce once further disturbance occurs (Innis, 2005).

Wineberry canes. (Photo: Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut, Bugwood.org)

Identification

Wineberry is related to other raspberries and blackberries, and shares characteristics of both. Like raspberries, wineberry has silvery underleaves, a fruit core that remains on the stem when the ripe fruit is picked, and thorns. It is differentiated from other raspberry species by the fine red hairs that grow densely on its stems (and flowers) causing a reddish hue to the plant. Wineberry fruit is vibrantly red when ripe, which helps differentiate it from native black raspberries and blackberries it also has three leaflets per leaf rather than five, which separates it from many blackberry species. Unique to wineberry is its small, greenish, hairy flowers with white petals and the way its fruit remain covered by sepals (greenish petal-like structures) until almost ripe.

Wineberry stem hairs. (Photo: Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut, Bugwood.org) Top and bottom of wineberry leaves. (Photo: Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut. Bugwood.org) Wineberry hairs. (Photo: Ansel Oomen, Bugwood.org)

There is quite a range of native and introduced Rubus species in New York the wikibook Flora of New York has an excellent, easy to navigate identification website which includes wineberry. The more common species easily confused with wineberry are shown below. For a more complete look at the Rubus genus, the Flora of Michigan has an excellent online key.

Similar Species

Rubus odoratus (purple-flowering raspberry or thimbleberry) has maple-shaped leaves that are soft and hairy leaves not silvery flowers pinkish-purple. Fruit is flatter and fuzzier than a raspberry, forming more of a cup shape.

Black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis) has whitish underleaves, but flowers hold their white petals out from the center of the flower, and fruit are usually purple-black (occasionally golden). Stems are green with a bluish cast that rubs off and have sparse, fairly robust thorns. Canes tip-root.

Red raspberries (Rubus idaeus, Rubus strigosus and many hybrids) have whitish underleaves and white petals, with red fruit, like wineberries. Stems are not covered in red hairs, are more lightly armed than black raspberry, and lack the bluish-white cast on their stems. Flowers might have a few hairs, but are not densely hairy like those of wineberry.

New York has several species of native blackberries, all of which have green rather than silvery underleaves and solid-cored fruit (mostly black when ripe). Some have five to seven leaflets. Identification to species can be difficult. While the skin on some species is reddish or purplish, none are covered in reddish hairs like wineberry, and many are heavily armored with thorns.

Black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis) leaves and canes. (Photo: D. Cameron, from Go Botany website: https://gobotony.newenglandwild.org)

Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) is an invasive blackberry. It has highly dissected leaves and black fruit with a solid core.

Evergreen blackberry canes and leaves. (Photo: Joseph M. DiTomaso, UC Davis. Bugwood.org) Evergreen blackberry leaves and unripened fruit. (Photo by Joseph M. DiTomaso, University of California – Davis, Bugwood.org)

Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) is also an invasive blackberry. It has stout, heavily armed but not hairy stems that grow up to 20 feet, tip roots like wineberry does, and produced large, sweet, dark-purple to black solid-cored fruit. It is the only blackberry with a whitish or grey-green underleaf, but usually has five leaflets instead of three, which along with its pinkish-white flowers and black fruit differentiate it from wineberry.

Himalayan Blackberry canes. (Photo: Joeph M. DiTomaso, UC Davis. Bugwood.org)

Ecological Impacts

Wineberry can form dense, impenetrable thickets in natural areas, making the habitat unusable for some species and creating hiding places for others. It is more aggressive than many of the native raspberry and blackberry species, and has a wider range of tolerance for light, soil type, and moisture. Its establishment in forest understories as disturbance occurs can lead to its spread even in mature forests. There has been no study to date documenting its specific impact on native species.

Wineberry plants choking understory of second growth forest. (Photo: John M. Randall, The Nature Conservancy. Bugwood.org)

Control

Wineberry control is more straightforward than control of many other invasive plants in New York. While any root fragments may start a new plant, wineberry does not have a vigorous underground storage structure this makes it easier to control than, for instance, Japanese knotweed or lesser celandine. It is also susceptible to common pesticides.

For any invasive species control project, it is important to have a plan for the location before control begins. Disturbance without replanting often results in the return of either the same invasive species or other invasives to the site have a restoration plan in place before starting invasive species removal.

Mechanical control

Hand pulling wineberry or digging with a spading fork can be a successful strategy in small patches or where repeat visits are not costly, particularly if native species are planted where the ground has been disturbed. Return visits for a few years will be necessary to remove new plants that sprout from root fragments. As wineberry is armed with thorns and hairs, minimizing exposed skin during mechanical control is advisable.

Chemical control

Wineberry can be controlled using systemic herbicides such as glyphosate or triclopyr (Bargeron et. al., 2003). When using pesticides, be aware that many pesticides are prohibited within 100’ of water, as they are toxic to aquatic life and/or fail to break down in water. Some formulations of glyphosate-based herbicides are permitted for use near water, but the most common formulation (Roundup) is not permitted for use near water due to an adjuvant (chemical that helps the glyphosate stick to plant surfaces) that is toxic in aquatic habitats. Triclopyr also has both aquatic-permitted and prohibited formulations choose carefully based on the characteristics of your treatment area. Always follow instructions on the label of any pesticide, and remember that New York has its own regulations for pesticides, both for the entire state and for specific regions like Long Island that have special environmental considerations. For New York State regulations, visit the DEC website: http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/8527.html.

Foliar application and cut-stump application are both recommended in various fact sheets (Massachusetts Audubon, Innes 2009, bugwoodwiki), but no experiments have been published on the relative efficacy of pesticides or application methods on wineberry (2015).

New York Distribution Map

This map shows confirmed observations (green points) submitted to the NYS Invasive Species Database. Absence of data does not necessarily mean absence of the species at that site, but that it has not been reported there. For more information, please visit iMapInvasives.


Biodiversity Differences between Managed and Unmanaged Forests: Meta-Analysis of Species Richness in Europe

Cemagref, UR EFNO, Domaine des Barres, F-45290 Nogent-sur-Vernisson, France

Cemagref, UR EMGR, 2 rue de la Papeterie BP 76, F-38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères, France

Cemagref, UR EFNO, Domaine des Barres, F-45290 Nogent-sur-Vernisson, France

Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden

Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology, Eötvös University, Pázmány P. stny. 1/C., H-1117 Budapest, Hungary

Cemagref, UR EFNO, Domaine des Barres, F-45290 Nogent-sur-Vernisson, France

Department Silviculture and Forest Ecology of the Temperate Zones, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Büsgenweg 1, D-37077 Göttingen, Germany

Alterra Wageningen UR, Centre for Ecosystem Studies, P.O. Box 47, NL-6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands

Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Kliniekstraat 25, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium

Evolutionary Ecology, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerpen, Belgium

Cemagref, UR EMGR, 2 rue de la Papeterie BP 76, F-38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères, France

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Box 7050, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden

Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Stefanikova Street 3, SK-814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Box 7050, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden

Cemagref, UR EMGR, 2 rue de la Papeterie BP 76, F-38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères, France

Hortobágy National Park Directorate, P.O. Box 216, H-4002 Debrecen, Hungary

Instituto de Recursos Naturales, CSIC IRN-CCMA-CSIC, Serrano 115, E-28006 Madrid, Spain

Department of Botany, University of Debrecen, P.O. Box 71, H-4010 Debrecen, Hungary

Forest Technology Centre of Catalonia, Pujada del Seminari s/n, E-25280 Solsona, Spain

Agronomical Engineering School, University of Lleida, Av. Rovira Roure 191, E-25198 Lleida, Spain

Department Silviculture and Forest Ecology of the Temperate Zones, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Büsgenweg 1, D-37077 Göttingen, Germany

Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology, Eötvös University, Pázmány P. stny. 1/C., H-1117 Budapest, Hungary

Ecological Institute, Debrecen University, P.O. Box 71, H-4010 Debrecen, Hungary

Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu, P.O. Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland

Instituto de Recursos Naturales, CSIC IRN-CCMA-CSIC, Serrano 115, E-28006 Madrid, Spain

Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Lai Street, 40 Tartu EE-51005, Estonia

Department of Biology, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 3000, FIN-90014 Oulu, Finland

Cemagref, UR EFNO, Domaine des Barres, F-45290 Nogent-sur-Vernisson, France

Cemagref, UR EMGR, 2 rue de la Papeterie BP 76, F-38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères, France

Cemagref, UR EFNO, Domaine des Barres, F-45290 Nogent-sur-Vernisson, France

Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden

Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology, Eötvös University, Pázmány P. stny. 1/C., H-1117 Budapest, Hungary

Cemagref, UR EFNO, Domaine des Barres, F-45290 Nogent-sur-Vernisson, France

Department Silviculture and Forest Ecology of the Temperate Zones, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Büsgenweg 1, D-37077 Göttingen, Germany

Alterra Wageningen UR, Centre for Ecosystem Studies, P.O. Box 47, NL-6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands

Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Kliniekstraat 25, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium

Evolutionary Ecology, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerpen, Belgium

Cemagref, UR EMGR, 2 rue de la Papeterie BP 76, F-38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères, France

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Box 7050, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden

Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Stefanikova Street 3, SK-814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Box 7050, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden

Cemagref, UR EMGR, 2 rue de la Papeterie BP 76, F-38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères, France

Hortobágy National Park Directorate, P.O. Box 216, H-4002 Debrecen, Hungary

Instituto de Recursos Naturales, CSIC IRN-CCMA-CSIC, Serrano 115, E-28006 Madrid, Spain

Department of Botany, University of Debrecen, P.O. Box 71, H-4010 Debrecen, Hungary

Forest Technology Centre of Catalonia, Pujada del Seminari s/n, E-25280 Solsona, Spain

Agronomical Engineering School, University of Lleida, Av. Rovira Roure 191, E-25198 Lleida, Spain

Department Silviculture and Forest Ecology of the Temperate Zones, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Büsgenweg 1, D-37077 Göttingen, Germany

Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology, Eötvös University, Pázmány P. stny. 1/C., H-1117 Budapest, Hungary

Ecological Institute, Debrecen University, P.O. Box 71, H-4010 Debrecen, Hungary

Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu, P.O. Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland

Instituto de Recursos Naturales, CSIC IRN-CCMA-CSIC, Serrano 115, E-28006 Madrid, Spain

Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Lai Street, 40 Tartu EE-51005, Estonia


Watch the video: Driving in Hungary (November 2022).