Implications of Commons Act 2006 for the registration of land as a town or village green

This paper describes the main changes of Commons Act 2006 for the registration of land as a town or village green. The purpose of the Commons Act 2006 is to protect common land and promote sustainable farming, public access to the countryside and the interests of wildlife. The changes under s15 of the Commons Act 2006 include the additional 2-year grace period for application, discounting statutory period of closure, correction of mistakes in registers, disallowing severance of rights, voluntary registration, replacement of land in exchange and some other provisions. The transitional provision contained in s15(4) Commons Act 2006 is particularly a cause for controversy as DEFRA has indicated buildings will have to be taken down where development has gone ahead and a subsequent application to register the land as a green is successful, obliging the developer to return the land to a condition consistent with the exercise by locals of recreational rights, which sums up that it would be harder in future to develop land which has the potential to be registered as a town or village green.

Selection of candidate coding DNA barcoding regions for use on land plants

An in silico screen of 41 of the 81 coding regions of the Nicotiana plastid genome generated a shortlist of 12 candidates as DNA barcoding loci for land plants. These loci were evaluated for amplification and sequence variation against a reference set of 98 land plant taxa. The deployment of multiple primers and a modified multiplexed tandem polymerase chain reaction yielded 85–94% amplification across taxa, and mean sequence differences between sister taxa of 6.1 from 156 bases of accD to 22 from 493 bases of matK. We conclude that loci should be combined for effective diagnosis, and recommend further investigation of the following six loci: matK, rpoB, rpoC1, ndhJ, ycf5 and accD.

Impact of land cover changes on the South African climate

The Joint UK Land Environmental Simulator (JULES) was run offline to investigate the sensitivity of land surface type changes over South Africa. Sensitivity tests were made in idealised experiments where the actual land surface cover is replaced by a single homogeneous surface type. The vegetation surface types on which some of the experiments were made are static. Experimental tests were evaluated against the control. The model results show among others that the change of the surface cover results in changes of other variables such as soil moisture, albedo, net radiation and etc. These changes are also visible in the spin up process. The model shows different surfaces spinning up at different cycles. Because JULES is the land surface model of Unified Model, the results could be more physically meaningful if it is coupled to the Unified Model.

Land plants and DNA barcodes: short-term and long-term goals

Land plants have had the reputation of being problematic for DNA barcoding for two general reasons: (i) the standard DNA regions used in algae, animals and fungi have exceedingly low levels of variability and (ii) the typically used land plant plastid phylogenetic markers (e.g. rbcL, trnL-F, etc.) appear to have too little variation. However, no one has assessed how well current phylogenetic resources might work in the context of identification (versus phylogeny reconstruction). In this paper, we make such an assessment, particularly with two of the markers commonly sequenced in land plant phylogenetic studies, plastid rbcL and internal transcribed spacers of the large subunits of nuclear ribosomal DNA (ITS), and find that both of these DNA regions perform well even though the data currently available in GenBank/EBI were not produced to be used as barcodes and BLAST searches are not an ideal tool for this purpose. These results bode well for the use of even more variable regions of plastid DNA (such as, for example, psbA-trnH) as barcodes, once they have been widely sequenced. In the short term, efforts to bring land plant barcoding up to the standards being used now in other organisms should make swift progress. There are two categories of DNA barcode users, scientists in fields other than taxonomy and taxonomists. For the former, the use of mitochondrial and plastid DNA, the two most easily assessed genomes, is at least in the short term a useful tool that permits them to get on with their studies, which depend on knowing roughly which species or species groups they are dealing with, but these same DNA regions have important drawbacks for use in taxonomic studies (i.e. studies designed to elucidate species limits). For these purposes, DNA markers from uniparentally (usually maternally) inherited genomes can only provide half of the story required to improve taxonomic standards being used in DNA barcoding. In the long term, we will need to develop more sophisticated barcoding tools, which would be multiple, low-copy nuclear markers with sufficient genetic variability and PCR-reliability; these would permit the detection of hybrids and permit researchers to identify the 'genetic gaps' that are useful in assessing species limits.