December 2012 Number 1 - Utah Native Plant Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Utah Native Plant Society Table 3. continued. Ranking Elements 3-6 Score Explanation 5. Climate Change Vulnerability 6. Number of known populations Estimate the elevational range based on population locality information. Low 0 Climate envelope and/or elevation range wide (>1000 m), apparently secure from climate change for the next 50 yrs Moderate 1 Climate envelope and/or elevation range moderate (>500 m), some vulnerability to climate change with moderate declines expected in next 50 yrs, secure for next 10 yrs High 2 Climate envelope and/or elevation range small (100-500 m), vulnerable to climate change in the next 10 yrs, long-term (>50 yrs) probability of survival moderately low, with major population declines Severe 3 Climate envelope/elevation range very small (50 yrs) very low to none, declines or local extirpation expected within 10 yrs; or elevation range unknown; or an obligate wetland species in American Southwest N0 -- Extinct, at least in wild N1 3 1-5 known populations, endangered (=G1) N2 2 6-20 known populations, threatened (=G2) N3 1 21-100 known populations, vulnerable (=G3) N4 0 101-300 known populations, or relatively widespread and in more or less continuous stands, apparently secure (=G4) N5 0 >300 known populations or widespread and continuous, secure (=G5) For many species the definition of what constitutes a discrete population is difficult. In the case of widespread common species that occur in large continuous stands, the need to define discrete populations is of less importance than for rare species with localized scattered distributions In most cases, G1, G2, and G3 species tend to occur in scattered populations with gaps, where they are absent even in suitable habitat. For many of these species, gene flow and dispersal are likely to be relatively low, thus isolated populations, even if only a few hundreds of meters apart, can be effectively considered discrete and non-interacting populations. In Table 3, those species with larger more continuous species (G4 or G5) can be scored without reference to the number of discrete populations. SCORING SPECIES USING THE SYSTEM For each species, the at-risk score is the sum of the scores for each of the six elements: rarity, biology, declines, anthropogenic threats, climate change vulnerability and N populations (see Tables 1-3), thus: At-risk Score (ARS) = rarity type + biology+ declines + threats + climate change + N score A local sparse habitat specialist with only 1-5 known occurrences would be scored very high. The larger the score, the more potentially at-risk the species should be considered as a first approximation. The overall conservation score can vary from 0 to 18. Examples for selected species are given in Tables 4 and 5 and are discussed below. General information on the status of a species should always be included for conservation planning (see Table 5). Species should be characterized as part of the ranking system by at least some basic characteristics such as life-form, nativity, geographic distribution and protection status. Nativity would include three categories: indigenous (native, widespread), endemic (native, restricted to a subprovince), and paleoendemic (local, may 30
Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 be in one or more subprovinces, phylogenetically and geographically isolated; sensu Stebbins and Major 1965). Geographic distribution is best characterized by the classification of McLaughlin (2007), who has developed the most current and detailed analysis of species distributions and floristic regionalization for the American Southwest. Protection status (land management categories) range from highly protected NGO preserves, many national parks, etc., through general public lands including wilderness, to state lands, and finally private lands. The categorization of Scott et al. (1993) provides a useful approach to categorize species. The percentage of the total number of populations in each of the land management categories should be determined, as it will provide useful additional information to make informed decisions about which species to prioritize for conservation funding. RESULTS If the system is to be useful, it must accurately reflect the status of known at-risk species. Results of scoring and ranking for 20 selected species using the system can be found in Tables 4 and 5. These scores are based primarily on species I have some familiarity with, and in some cases the ranking should be considered tentative. A variety of species were used as examples, ranging from critically endangered endemics such as Artomecon humilis and Ranunculus aestivalis, sparse widespread specialists such as Epipactis gigantea, and common endemics such as Chrysothamnus stylosa, to widespread Table 4. Selected species of the American Southwest tentatively scored with the ranking system. The final at-risk score (ARS) is listed. Scores in parentheses reflect uncertainty or lack of data about some aspect of the scoring. The ARS can vary from 0 (low at-risk) to 18 (critically endangered). Species Rarity Biology Trend Threats 31 Climate Change N ARS Arctomecon humilis 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 Ranunculus aestivalis 3 2 3 3 3 3 17 Ipomopsis sancti-spiritus 3 2 (3) 2 3 3 (16) Astragalus ampullarioides 3 3 2 2 3 3 16 Pediocactus bradyi 3 3 2 2 3 2 15 Puccinellia parishii 2 (3) 2 3 3 2 (15) Actaea arizonica 3 3 2 2 3 2 15 Penstemon albomarginatus 3 2 2 2 2 2 13 Camissonia atwoodii 3 3 1 1 3 1 12 Ostrya knowltonii 2 (3) (3) 1 2 1 (12) Spiranthes diluvialis 2 2 2 1 3 1 11 Cycladenia humilis 2 2 1 1 3 1 10 Epipactus gigantea 2 3 1 2 2 0 10 Carnegiea gigantea 1 3 1 2 2 0 9 Cirsium rydbergii 2 2 1 1 2 1 9 Salix gooddingii 1 2 1 2 3 0 9 Erigeron maguirei 3 2 1 0 1 1 8 Chrysothamnus stylosa 1 1 1 2 1 0 6 Quercus gambelii 0 3 0 1 1 0 5 Pinus ponderosa 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Page 1 and 2: Calochortiana December 2012 Number
Page 29: Calochortiana December 2012 Number
Page 67 and 68: Species # Training Samples Calochor
Page 81 and 82:
Calochortiana December 2012 Number
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:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Pot Score Min Score Trend Threat In
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?