December 2012 Number 1 - Utah Native Plant Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Utah Native Plant Society Figure 1. Utah Counties with three-letter codes used in Table 3 and Appendix 1-4. Figure 2. TNC Ecoregions of Utah, used in Table 3, as defined by Stein et al. (2000). Table 3. Summary of UNPS Rare Plant List, 2009-2012 See text for explanation and scoring of each of the ranking categories. Counties are depicted in Figure 1. Ecoregions are defined as geographic regions with similar climate, topography, and vegetation, as defined by The Nature Conservancy (Stein et al. 2000) and are shown in Figure 2. State/County/TNC Ecoregion Extremely High 202 High Watch Need Data Medium State Utah Statewide 31 119 264 115 329 858 County Beaver County (Bvr) 0 8 13 8 24 53 Box Elder County (Box) 1 2 10 6 28 47 Cache County (Cch) 0 3 7 4 28 42 Carbon County (Crb) 1 1 9 5 3 19 Daggett County (Dag) 1 2 13 3 16 35 Davis County (Dav) 0 0 2 2 6 10 Duchesne County (Dch) 4 14 28 9 24 79 Emery County (Emr) 5 8 24 17 23 77 Garfield County (Grf) 1 17 49 17 49 133 Grand County (Grn) 1 12 26 17 29 85 Iron County (Irn) 0 5 18 7 23 53 Juab County (Jub) 1 6 13 12 17 49 Kane County (Kan) 3 25 52 12 67 159 Millard County (Mil) 0 6 21 17 21 65 Total
Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 Table 3. Continued County TNC Ecoregion State/County/TNC Ecoregion Extremely High High Watch Need Data Medium Morgan County (Mor) 0 0 2 0 1 3 Piute County (Piu) 0 9 13 3 14 39 Rich County (Rch) 0 1 4 5 9 19 Salt Lake County (Slt) 0 8 12 2 20 42 San Juan County (Snj) 2 13 39 15 63 132 Sanpete County (Snp) 2 7 12 4 8 33 Sevier County (Sev) 3 13 18 6 21 61 Summit County (Sum) 0 1 5 3 15 24 Tooele County (Toe) 1 3 13 5 13 35 Uintah County (Uin) 6 15 36 10 23 90 Utah County (Uta) 1 9 14 12 14 50 Wasatch County (Was) 0 3 8 4 8 23 Washington County (Wsh) 6 18 76 17 115 232 Wayne County (Way) 6 12 13 11 22 64 Weber County (Web) 0 3 6 4 9 22 Colorado Plateau (CP) 13 47 98 41 124 323 Columbia River Basin (CRB) 1 1 2 2 19 25 Great Basin (GB) 2 16 43 28 63 152 Mohave Desert (MD) 4 11 44 12 67 138 Utah High Plateaus (UHP) 9 36 69 28 63 205 Utah-Wyoming Rocky Mtns (UWRM) Total 0 17 50 16 65 148 Wyoming Basins (WyB) 7 12 21 11 19 70 in the literature with ambiguous supporting data. The majority of taxa in this category need additional information on trend, threats, and abundance. At least 15 of these species are designated as BLM or Forest Service Sensitive. Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesii is a candidate for potential listing under the ESA, although a recent monograph questions the veracity of Utah reports (Reveal in Holmgren et al. 2012). Low Priority The remaining 2302 native plant taxa of Utah are presently scored as Low conservation priority (72.8% of the total native flora). These species are usually widespread rangewide and within Utah, have numerous populations in the state, low habitat specificity and intrinsic rarity, stable to increasing trends, and few threats. These species are still important for the sake of conserving overall biodiversity, but rarely warrant individualized attention. All told, 858 of Utah’s 3160 native plant taxa (27.2%) have been identified as Extremely High, High, Watch, or Medium priority, or are on the UNPS need data list using the Wyoming protocol system. The distribution of these species across the state is not random. With 232 taxa of conservation concern (27% of the state total), Washington County has the highest number of species of conservation concern of any county in Utah (Figure 1, Table 3). This high richness can be explained in part by Washington County’s location at the confluence of four major floristic regions: the Mojave Desert, 203
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:
Page 151 and 152: Calochortiana December 2012 Number
Page 201: 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?