December 2012 Number 1 - Utah Native Plant Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Utah Native Plant Society Figure 4. Astragalus rusbyi is located at the positive end of the ‘leaf economic spectrum’ because of its high specific leaf area and tissue nitrogen concentration. This scatterplot illustrates the results of a principal components analysis of 133 plant species and 10 functional traits (adapted from Laughlin 2009) that occur in southwestern USA ponderosa pine forests. Species symbols are coded by plant functional types. A few species names are highlighted: ARPU = Aristida purpurea, BLTR = Blepharoneuron tricholepis, CAGE = Carex geophila, HECO = Hesperostipa comata, IRMI = Iris missouriensis, LUAR = Lupinus argenteus, MUMO = Muhlenbergia montana, OXLA = Oxytropis lambertii, PIPO = Pinus ponderosa, QUGA = Quercus gambelii. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Wally Covington, Margaret Moore, Pete Fulé, Marta Fisher, Julie Korb, Mark Daniels, Jon Bakker, and Cheryl Casey and the staff and students of the Northern Arizona University Ecological Restoration Institute and School of Forestry who assisted with data collection. We would also like to thank Martin Wojciechowski and Jill Craig for their reviews of the paper and the U.S. Forest Service for providing funding to carry out the majority of the research described in this paper. REFERENCES Allphin, L., N. Brian and T. Matheson. 2005. Reproductive success and genetic divergence among varieties of the rare and endangered Astragalus cremnophylax (Fabaceae) from Arizona, USA. Conservation Genetics. 6: 803-821. Anderson, D.G. 2004. Populations Status Survey of Schmoll’s Milkvetch (Astragalus schmolliae C.L. Porter). Prepared for National Park Service Mesa Verde National Park. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Fort Collins, CO. 81 pp. Barneby, R.C. 1964. Atlas of North American Astragalus. Memoirs of The New York Botanical Garden. 13:1–1188. 162
Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 Barneby, R.C. 1989. Fabales. Intermountain Flora, vol. 3, part B. A. Cronquist et al. (editors). The New York Botanical Garden, New York. Breinholt, J.W., R.Van Buren, O.R. Kopp, and C.L. Stephen. 2009. Population genetic structure of an endangered Utah endemic, Astragalus ampullarioides (Fabaceae). American Journal of Botany. 96(3):661-667. Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa pine forest structure: changes since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry. 92: 39- 47. Fisher, M.A. and P.Z. Fulé. 2004. Changes in forest vegetation and arbuscular mycorrhizae along a steep elevation gradient in Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management. 200: 293–311. Fulé, P.Z, W. W. Covington and M.M. Moore. 1997. Determining reference conditions for ecosystem management of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Applications.7: 895-908. Gamon, J.G. 1995. Report on the status of Astragalus sinuatus Piper. Olympia, WA: Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources. Greene, H.L. 1884. New plants of the Pacific Coast. Bulletin of the California Academy of Sciences. 1(1 – Feb. 1884): 8. Gremer, J.R., E.E. Crone, and P. Lesica. 2012. Are dormant plants hedging their bets? Demographic consequences of prolonged dormancy in variable environments. The American Naturalist 179(3):315-327. Heidel, B.L. and J. Vanderhorst. 1996. Sensitive plant surveys in Beaverhead and Madison counties, MT. Unpublished report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena. 85 pp. plus appendices. Hodgson, J.G., P.J. Wilson, R. Hunt, J.P. Grime, and K. Thompson. 1999. Allocating C-S-R plant functional types: a soft approach to a hard problem. Oikos. 85:282- 294. Horvath, J. 2002. Factsheet Astragalus cicer (Cicer milkvetch). University of Saskatchewan, Rangeland Ecosystems and Plants, PL EC 434.3. Karron, J.D., Y.B. Linhart, C.A. Chaulk, and C.A. Robertson. 1988. Genetic structure of populations of geographically restricted and widespread species of Astragalus (Fabaceae). American Journal of Botany. 75 (8): 1114-1119. Ladyman, J.A.R. 2003. Astragalus ripleyi Barneby (Ripley’s milkvetch): A technical conservation assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. 48 pp. Laughlin, D.C., J.D. Bakker, M.L. Daniels, M.M. Moore, C.A. Casey, J.D. Springer. 2008. Restoring plant species diversity and community composition in a ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Plant Ecology. 197:139-151. Lesica, P. 1995. Demography of Astragalus scaphoides and effects of herbivory on population growth. Great Basin Naturalist. 55(2): 142-150. Lesica, P. and B.M. Steele. 1994. Prolonged dormancy in vascular plants and implications for monitoring studies. Natural Areas Journal. 14(3): 209-212. Lesica, P., R. Yurkewycz, and E.E. Crone. 2006. Rare plants are common where you find them. American Journal of Botany. 93(3): 454-459. Miller, M.E., R.K. Mann and J.D. Yount. 2007. Ecological Investigations of the Federally Endangered Shivwits Milk-Vetch (Astragalus ampullarioides) – 2006 Annual Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service, Zion National Park. Open-File Report 2007-1050. 34 pp. NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http:// www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: May 27, 2009 ). Sanderson, M.J. 1991. Phylogenetic Relationships within North American Astragalus L. (Fabaceae). Systematic Botany. 16(3): 414-430. Spellenberg, R. 1974. Chromosome number as an indication of relationships of Astragalus, section Strigulosi (Leguminosae), with descriptive notes on A. altus. The Southwestern Naturalist. 18(4): 393-396. Spellenberg, R. 1976. Chromosome numbers and their cytotaxonomic significance for North American Astragalus (Fabaceae). Taxon. 25(4): 463-476. Welsh, S.L. 2007. North American Species of Astragalus Linnaeus (Leguminosae): A Taxonomic Revision. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. 932 pp. Wojciechowski, M.F. 2005. Astragalus (Fabaceae): A molecular phylogenetic perspective. Brittonia. 57(4): 382-396. 163
Page 1 and 2:
Calochortiana December 2012 Number
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Species # Training Samples Calochor
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
case of the former lake beds a duri
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112: Calochortiana December 2012 Number
Page 139 and 140: A. lentiginosus var. ursinus (publi
Page 161: Calochortiana December 2012 Number
Page 209 and 210: Pot Score Min Score Trend Threat In
Page 211 and 212: Pot Score Min Score Trend Threat In
Page 213 and 214:
Pot Score Min Score Trend Threat In
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
show all

December 2012 Number 1 - Utah Native Plant Society

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?