December 2012 Number 1 - Utah Native Plant Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Utah Native Plant Society assistance with field work. Cullen Hanks reviewed the status of Physaria populations and the map, and Alan Pepper, Karen Clary, Jackie Poole, and Martin Terry reviewed the manuscript. Their comments have greatly improved this work. LITERATURE CITED Al-Shehbaz, I.A. and S.L. O’Kane Jr. 2002. Lesquerella is united with Physaria (Brassicaceae). Novon 12:319-329. Bezanson, D. 2000. Natural vegetation types of Texas and their representation in conservation areas. M.A. thesis, University of Texas, Austin. [Online]. Available: http://abisw.org/bezanson/ [June 1, 2009]. Bureau of Economic Geology. 1976. Geologic atlas of Texas, McAllen-Brownsville sheet. University of Texas, Austin, TX. Dumble, E.T. 1902. Geology of southwestern Texas. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers 33:913-987. Fowler, N.L., C.F. Best, D.M. Price, and A.L. Hempel. 2011. Ecological requirements of the Zapata bladderpod Physaria thamnophila, an endangered Tamaulipan thornscrub plant. Southwestern Naturalist 56(3):341-352. Grime, J. P. 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. American Naturalist 111:1169-1194. Grime, J. P. 2001. Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 456 p. Hanski, I., and O. Ovaskainen. 2002. Extinction debt at extinction thresholds. Conservation Biology 16:666- 673. Ideker, J. 1999. Wherry mimosa and black mangrove: Natives. Native Plant Society of Texas News 17 (5):8 [Online]. Available: http://www.npsot.org/ NPSOTNews/ [June 8, 2009]. Jahrsdoerfer, S. E. & D. M. Leslie. 1988. Tamaulipan brushland of the Rio Grande Valley of south Texas: Description, human impacts, and management options. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 88(36), xiii + 63 p. McLendon, T. 1991. Preliminary description of the vegetation of south Texas exclusive of coastal saline zones. Texas Journal of Science 43:13-32. Moore, M. J. and R. K. Jansen. 2007. Origins and biogeography of gypsophily in the Chihuahuan Desert plant group Tiquilia subg. Eddya (Boraginaceae). Systematic Botany 32(2): 392–414. NatureServe. 2002. NatureServe Element Occurrence data standard. Version published February 6, 2002 [Online]. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/ prodServices/eodata.jsp [June 5, 2009]. NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature serve.org/explorer [June 5, 2009]. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC [Online]. Available: http://www.ncdc.noaa. gov/oa/ncdc.html [June 5, 2009]. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) Soil Survey Staff. 2009. United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. [Online]. Available: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ [April 30, 2009]. Poole, J. M. 1989. Status report on Lesquerella thamnophila. Report prepared for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Albuquerque. 21p. + figs. Poole, J. M., W. R. Carr, D. M. Price, and J. R. Singhurst. 2007. Rare Plants of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas. 640p. Preston, R.D. 2009. The Yegua-Jackson aquifer. Chapter 3, p. 51-59 in: Mace, R.E. et al., eds. Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas. Texas Water Development Board Report 365, Austin, Texas. [Online]. Available: http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/ GroundWaterReports/GWReports/GWreports.asp [June 9, 2009]. Rollins, R.C. and E.A. Shaw. 1973. The genus Lesquerella (Cruciferae) in North America. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Sands, J. P., L. A Brennan, F. Hernández, W. P. Kuvlesky, J. F. Gallagher, D. C. Ruthven, and J.E. Pittman. 2009. Impacts of buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) on a forb community in South Texas. Invasive Plant Science and Management, 2(2):130-140. Sternberg, M. A. 2005. Zapata bladderpod (Lesquerella thamnophila Roll. & Shaw): its status and association with other plants. Texas Journal of Science 57(1):75-86. Thompson, C.M., R.R. Sanders, and D. Williams. 1972. Soil survey of Starr County, Texas. Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 88pp. + figs. USDA NRCS. 2012. The PLANTS Database (http:// plants.usda.gov, 21 February 2012). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Zapata Bladderpod (Lesquerella thamnophila) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-vii + 30 pp., Appendices A-B. [Online]. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/ speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q13L [May 27, 2009]. Wu, X.B. and F.E. Smeins. 1999. Multiple-Scale Habitat Models of Rare Plants: Model Development and Evaluation. Report Submitted to Texas Department of Transportation, Pharr and Austin, TX. 188
Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 Intraspecific Cytotype Variation and Conservation: An Example from Phlox (Polemoniaceae) Shannon D. Fehlberg Desert Botanical Garden, Phoenix, AZ and Carolyn J. Ferguson, Herbarium and Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS Abstract. Information on genetic structure in rare plants, such as patterns of genetic diversity, differentiation and gene flow, is useful when planning management strategies for conservation. However, few studies of genetic structure in rare plants include an investigation of intraspecific cytotype variation. A number of reviews have suggested that cytotype variation, or variation in chromosome structure or number, may be more widespread in natural populations than previously thought. A recent review of federally listed plant species found that 75% of species belonged to genera exhibiting both interspecific and intraspecific cytotype variation. Cytotype variation among populations of rare plants raises intriguing questions about the origin(s), extent, evolutionary relationships, and ecological differentiation of various cytotypes. While traditional cytological methods may not be feasible for population level sampling, advances in the accuracy and cost of flow cytometry now make examination of intraspecific cytotype variation possible. We initiated an investigation of cytotype variation in the genus Phlox (Polemoniaceae) using flow cytometry. Phlox comprises ca. 65 species in North America and includes many poorly studied endemic taxa in the western United States. Our results indicate noteworthy variation in chromosome numbers (ploidy level) across a subset of western taxa. A detailed study of two endemic species of conservation concern, P. amabilis and P. woodhousei, revealed that these species are made up of diploid, tetraploid and hexaploid populations. Ongoing analyses suggest that these populations are spatially, ecologically, and genetically differentiated. These results caution against the common assumption of homoploidy of species based on limited data and indicate the value of incorporating an understanding of cytotype variation into conservation biology studies. The interdisciplinary field of conservation biology aims to provide the knowledge and tools necessary for the long-term preservation of biodiversity. Studies of population genetics are one important source of information for conservation biology. These studies can provide basic information about populations of rare plants such as levels of genetic variation, the distribution of genetic variation within and among populations, the degree of population fragmentation and isolation, the patterns of historical and contemporary gene flow, the levels of inbreeding, the effective population size, the presence of taxonomic distinctiveness, and the occurrence of hybridization (Booy et al. 2000; Ellis and Burke 2007; Murray and Young 2001). Ultimately, this basic information can be combined with other sources of data to form more effective conservation strategies. One component of genetic variation that is often overlooked in studies of rare plants is intraspecific cytotype variation (De Lange et al. 2008; Severns and Liston 2008). Intraspecific cytotype variation ranges from chromosomal inversions and translocations to variation in the number of whole genomes present (polyploidy). Recent reviews have suggested that intraspecific cytotype variation may be more widespread in natural plant populations than previously thought (Soltis et al. 2007; Suda et al. 2007). It may also be widespread in populations of rare, threatened and endangered plants. A survey of cytotype variation in 416 US federally listed plant taxa found that cytotype data were available for only 182 of these taxa (44%). Of these 182 taxa, 158 belonged to genera with interspecific cytotype variation (87%; New World congeners with aneuploidy or polyploidy), and 121 belonged to genera with at least one taxon showing intraspecific cytotype variation (66%; Severns and Liston 2008). Intraspecific cytotype variation can be important when planning conservation strategies because it has the potential to affect patterns of genetic diversity and gene flow. Knowledge of such variation may also be important for clarifying taxonomy, identifying unique evolutionary lineages (perhaps accompanied by ecological differentiation), and determining appropriate populations for reintroduction or augmentation (De Lange et al. 2008; Murray and Young 2001; Severns and Liston 2008). Recent advances in the application of flow cytometry to evolutionary and population biology studies now make the assessment of cytotype variation across large taxonomic and spatial scales possible (Kron et al. 2007). 189
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:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138: Calochortiana December 2012 Number
Page 139 and 140: A. lentiginosus var. ursinus (publi
Page 187: Calochortiana December 2012 Number
Page 209 and 210: Pot Score Min Score Trend Threat In
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?