December 2012 Number 1 - Utah Native Plant Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Utah Native Plant Society Mozingo, H.N. and M. Williams, 1980. Threatened and endangered plants of Nevada. An illustrated manual. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Reno, NV. Otis Bay and Stevens Ecological Consulting. 2006. Ash Meadows geomorphic assessment and biological assessment: final report. Las Vegas: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 149 p. plus appendices. Pavlik, B.M. and A.E. Stanton. 2006. Managing populations of rare plants at Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. I. Demographic Survey and Habitat Quality Assessment to Recover Astragalus phoenix. Draft. San Francisco: BMP Ecosciences. 33 p. including appendices. Reveal, J.L. 1978a. Status report on Nitrophila mohavensis Munz and Roos. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. Reveal, J.L. 1978b. Status report on Astragalus phoenix. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. Reveal, J.L. 1980. Biogeography of the Intermountain Region. A speculative appraisal. Mentzelia 4: 1-92. Sada, D.W. 1990. Recovery Plan for the Endangered and Threatened Species of Ash Meadows, Nevada. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Reno, Nevada. Soil Ecology and Research Group. 2004. Demographics and ecology of the Amargosa niterwort (Nitrophila mohavensis) and Ash Meadows gumplant (Grendelia fraxinopratensis) of the Carson Slough area. 16 pps. Webpage: http://www.serg.sdsu.edu/SERG/ restorationproj/mojave%20desert/deathvalleyfinal.htm [USFWS]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Ash Meadows gumplant (Grindelia fraxinopratensis) five-year review: summary and evaluation. Las Vegas: Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Southern Nevada Field Office. Pp. 5-7. [USFWS]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Amargosa niterwort (Nitrophila mohavensis) five-year review: summary and evaluation. Las Vegas: Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Southern Nevada Field Office. Pp. 5-7. [USFWS]. 2008. Spring loving centaury (Centaurium nomophilum) draft five-year review: summary and evaluation. Las Vegas: Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Southern Nevada field office. Pp. 6-7. [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. Mojave Desert ecosystem program: central Mojave vegetation database. Final report. Flagstaff (AZ): Colorado Plateau Field Station, USGS Southwest Biological Science Center. 251 p. 90
Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change Among the Rarest Plants of Nevada’s Great Basin Steve Caicco, Conservation Planner, Planning Branch, National Wildlife Refuge System, Portland, OR , Abstract. The Great Basin of Nevada provides habitat for many narrowly distributed endemic plant species. To assess the vulnerability of 33 of the rarest of these plants to climate change, I used the elevation range of all reported locations as a surrogate measure of their bioclimatic envelopes. The results show that 14 of these taxa occur on or near the valley floors, nine taxa occur in montane habitats, and 10 taxa occur at high elevations. While the majority of the 33 taxa are restricted to highly specialized edaphic habitats, valley endemics are distributed through a smaller elevation span than montane or high elevation endemics. In addition, valley habitats have less variability in slope and aspect and their highly specialized habitats do not occur above the valley floor. These habitat restrictions are likely to constrain migration in response to climate change. Montane and high elevation habitats are more diverse topographically and, although often specialized, are more common both locally and regionally. This imposes fewer constraints on natural migration and offers more conservation options in the face of climate change. Our inability to accurately predict the actual parameters of climate change and its effects at a scale relevant to rare species will require a comprehensive inventory and monitoring effort to identify those species affected by climate change. An integrated long-term seed storage program will ensure adequate representation for genetic conservation. Pollen, woodrat midden, tree-ring, and lake level data spanning the past 50,000 years has demonstrated that the Great Basin is highly sensitive to climatic change (Wharton et al. 1990). During the 20 th Century, an average annual warming of 0.3 to 0.6 °C occurred and projections for the next century are for an additional rise of 2 to 5 °C (Cubashi et al. 2001; Wagner 2003). Alterations to the precipitation regimes are harder to predict, but seem likely to include a greater proportion falling as rain, decreasing winter snowpack, and earlier arrival of spring conditions, thereby affecting runoff and plant phenology (Mote et al. 2005; Snyder and Sloan 2005). The basin-and-range topography that characterizes the Great Basin of Nevada has generated much interest among biogeographers and numerous seminal works have been published focused on the distribution and relationship of its vascular flora or specific aspects of plant endemism in this region (Billings 1978; Charlet 1996; Harper and Reveal 1978; Holmgren 1972a; Pavlik 1989; Reveal 1979; Shreve 1942; Wells 1983). A published proceedings of a symposium on intermountain geography includes numerous papers on many aspects of biogeography in the Great Basin (Harper and Reveal 1978). Several sources of information are available on the rare plants of Nevada (Morefield 2001; Mozingo and Williams 1980) or parts of Nevada (Anderson et al. 1991; Spahr et al. 1991; Weixelman and Atwood undated). A conservation blueprint for the Great Basin has been prepared that includes general discussions of the ecological systems represented and their associated species conservation targets and identifies a portfolio of 20 priority landscape scale conservation sites; climate change and adaptation options are also discussed but no explicit assessment of species vulnerability was conducted (Nachlinger et al. 2001). Narrowly endemic plants are expected to be at far greater risk of extinction from climate change than are more widespread plants because of their limited range, small populations, and genetic isolation (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources 2008; Peters and Darling 1985). Alpine plants are often identified as at particular risk due to isolation and lack of an “escape route” (Grabherr et al. 1995; Halloy and Mark 2003). Among the observed and predicted effects of climate change on plant species are phenological changes, trophic level disruptions, range shifts and contractions, and extinctions (Parmesan 2006). Documented effects include an accelerated trend in upward shift of alpine plants in the Swiss Alps over the last few decades (Walther et al. 2005), a significant upward shift in optimum elevation of forest plants in Europe in the 20 th century (Lenoir et al. 2008), a decline of arctic-alpine plants from 1989-2002 in Glacier National Park (Lesica and McCune 2004), and an advance in the mean flowering dates of lilac and honeysuckle in the western United States of 2 and 3.8 days per decade, respectively (Cayan et al. 2001). Extinction is predicted for 3–21 percent of the flora in Europe, 38–45 percent in the Cerrado of Brazil, 32– 91
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: Calochortiana December 2012 Number
Page 67 and 68: Species # Training Samples Calochor
Page 89: Calochortiana December 2012 Number
Page 97 and 98: case of the former lake beds a duri
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?