December 2012 Number 1 - Utah Native Plant Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Utah Native Plant Society mum score for P. gibbensii is 6 points, while the potential score is 8. The average of the two scores is 7, earning P. gibbensii a place on the UNPS Extremely High priority list. RESULTS The UNPS Rare Plant Committee met in January 2009 to apply the Wyoming protocol to the entire flora of Utah. Based on the fourth edition of A Utah Flora (Welsh et al. 2008) and other recent literature (such as The Flora of North America and Intermountain Flora) we started with a pool of 4273 taxa* of vascular plants known to be native or introduced in Utah. We immediately removed 1017 cultivated and naturalized (nonnative) taxa, as we deemed these not to be of conservation importance in the state. Of the 3160 species native to Utah, we eliminated another 1421 common and widespread taxa (mostly ranked S4 or S5 by NatureServe) of *Taxa include full species and unique subspecies and varieties, treated here in the phylogenetic sense of Cracraft (1987) as the smallest evolutionary units that are diagnosably distinct. Table 2. Sample Ranking Form Species Date Scored Ranking Factors Evaluators Scores Select one score per ranking factor in either column A or B Column A 1. Geographic Range Local Endemic (2) ____ Regional Endemic, Disjunct, Peripheral, or Sparse (1) ____ Widespread (0) ____ 2. Number of Populations Low (1) ____ Medium to High (0) ____ 3. Abundance Low (1) ____ Medium to High (0) ____ 4. Habitat Specificity High (1) ____ Medium to Low (0) ____ 5. Intrinsic Rarity High (1) ____ Medium to Low (0) ____ 6. Magnitude and Imminence of Threats High (1) Medium to Low (0) ____ ____ 7. Population Trend Downward (1) ____ Stable, Oscillating or Upward (0) ____ TOTALS Conservation Priority* _____________________ Sum of scores in Column A ____ Minimum (based on total score in Column A) ____ Unknown (1) Unknown (1) Unknown (1) Unknown (1) Unknown (1) Unknown (1) Unknown (1) Column B Sum of scores in Column B ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Potential (based on sum of scores in Columns A + B) ____ Comments Sum of scores in Column A + B ____ Averaged (based on average of scores in Columns A + B rounded down) ____ *Conservation Priority is based on the averaged point total: Extremely high priority = total score of 7 or 8 points, High priority = total score of 6 points, Watch list = total score of 5, Medium priority = total score of 4 points, Low priority = total score of 0-3 points. 200
Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 low conservation priority. The remaining 1739 taxa were then ranked by the committee using the Wyoming protocol. At this point another 927 taxa were assigned to the Low Priority list, leaving 812 species among the other categories (Extremely High, High, Watch, Medium, and Need Data). These remaining taxa comprised the first draft of the UNPS rare plant list, presented at the 2009 Southwest Rare Plant Conference. Revisions suggested by the conference attendees and other specialists resulted in changes to the final score for over 100 taxa. These changes were reflected in the final UNPS rare plant list, published in the Society’s membership publication, the Sego Lily, in November 2009 (Fertig 2009). The list has been revised twice since then. Twenty taxa were changed in rank due to new data and 11 newly described or discovered species were added (Fertig 2010, 2012). Extremely High Priority At present, 31 Utah plant taxa are recognized as species of Extremely High conservation priority (Table 3, Appendix 1). This group represents just 1% of the entire flora of the state. To qualify as Extremely High priority, a species must have a limited geographic range, few populations, low number of individuals, high habitat specificity and intrinsic rarity, high threats, and a downward population trend. Nearly half (15 taxa) of these species are presently listed as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA, and another four species are candidates or proposed for listing. Another 14 of these species are designated as Sensitive by the BLM or Forest Service. Just two of the 31 Extremely High priority plant taxa lack any formal designation: Iris pariensis (a species with taxonomic questions that may be extinct) and Viola clauseniana (endemic to Zion National Park and increasingly threatened by competition from exotic plants and possible over-collection; Fertig 2010b). Since the initial UNPS list was published one species has been dropped from the Extremely High priority list (Sclerocactus wetlandicus, changed to High priority) and one species has been added (Carex specuicola, upgraded from the High priority list). High Priority The High priority list presently contains 119 taxa, up from 114 recognized in 2009 (Table 3, Appendix 2). This group consists of only 3.8% of the native flora of Utah. High priority plant species generally have limited geographic ranges, low population size, few known occurrences, and high habitat specificity, but have lower intrinsic rarity, fewer threats, or stable trends (or these factors are unknown) compared to Extremely High priority taxa. Eight of the state’s 24 federally listed Threatened or Endangered species are ranked High priority by UNPS, and two other species from this group are currently candidates for potential listing. Half of the High priority taxa (60 species) are listed as Sensitive by the BLM or Forest Service. The remaining 51 species have no status and consist mostly of species that were once considered for listing under the ESA (41 former Category 2 or 3C taxa), or are recently described (Atwood et al, 1991; Welsh and Atwood 2009). Watch List The UNPS Watch list currently contains 264 taxa (Table 3, Appendix 3), or 8.4% of the native Utah flora. This category contains local or regional endemics with high habitat specificity or intrinsic rarity, but which are either locally abundant or apparently secure at present. If current conditions were to change significantly, however, these species could easily trend downward and become species of greater concern (and be rescored as Extremely High or High priority). At least 115 species in the Watch category were initially considered for potential listing under the ESA (Atwood et al. 1991, Ayensu and DeFilipps 1978; Greenwalt 1975, Welsh 1978, Welsh et al. 1975, Welsh and Chatterley 1985) in the 1970s and 1980s, but were subsequently dropped from consideration after better survey data found them to be less imminently threatened or rare. Astragalus montii is the only species currently listed under the ESA that is categorized on the Watch list (Erigeron maguirei, recently delisted, is also on the Watch list). Another 70 species in the Watch category are presently listed as Sensitive by the BLM or Forest Service. Over one-third of the changes to the UNPS list since 2009 have involved additions or status changes affecting the Watch category. Medium Priority Another 329 plant species in Utah are currently ranked as Medium priority for conservation attention (Table 3)*. Species in this category are usually widespread globally but rare within the state, with few known occurrences, low numbers, or potentially high threats. A small subset of Medium priority species (including 13 listed as Sensitive by the BLM or Forest Service) are locally common regional endemics with stable trends and low threats that might otherwise be treated on the Watch list. Medium priority taxa account for 10.4% of the native flora of Utah. Need Data A total of 115 taxa are presently on the UNPS Need Data list (Table 3, Appendix 4), or 3.6% of the state’s native flora. This is the fastest growing category, as it tends to be the repository for newly described species or those discovered for the first time within Utah. Recent additions include Astragalus kelseyae, Eremogone loisiae, Eriogonum domitum, and Navarretia furnissii, all named as new species since 2009 (Corbin 2011, Grady and Reveal 2011; Holmgren and Holmgren 2011, Johnson et al. 2012). The Need Data list also includes species with unresolved taxonomic questions and those that have been reported for the state *In the interests of space, the Medium priority list is not included in this paper, but is available by request from UNPS. 201
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:
Page 139 and 140:
A. lentiginosus var. ursinus (publi
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150: Calochortiana December 2012 Number
Page 199: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?