DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Devils Postpile National Monument

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Devils Postpile National Monument National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Devils Postpile National Monument Natural Resource Report NPS/DEPO/NRR—2014/889 ON THE COVER Soda Springs Meadow Photograph courtesy of Devils Postpile National Monument Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Devils Postpile National Monument Natural Resource Report NPS/DEPO/NRR—2014/889 Bill Kuhn National Park Service Yosemite National Park PO Box 700 El Portal, CA 95318 Terressa Whitaker National Park Service Yosemite National Park PO Box 700 El Portal, CA 95318 December 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal and formal peer review by administrative staff and subject-matter experts, some of whom were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on a par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information. In many cases, peer reviewers included subject matter experts who were directly involved in the research included in this report. Data in this report were collected and analyzed using methods based on established peer-reviewed protocols and were analyzed and interpreted within the guidelines of the protocols. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available from the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). To receive this report in a format optimized for screen readers, please email [email protected]. Please cite this publication as: Kuhn, B. A., and T. Whitaker. 2014. Natural resource condition assessment for Devils Postpile National Monument. Natural Resource Report NPS/DEPO/NRR—2014/889. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 120/127376, December 2014 ii Contents Page Figures ................................................................................................................................................... ix Tables .................................................................................................................................................... xi Appendices ..........................................................................................................................................xiii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................xiii Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................. xvii Prologue ............................................................................................................................................. xvii Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... xix CHAPTER 1. Natural Resource Condition Assessment Background ................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2. Resources Setting ............................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Park and Landscape Setting ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Park Resource Setting – the Sierra Nevada ..................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Park Setting and Important Resources ........................................................................... 11 Fundamental Resources and Values ................................................................................ 13 2.2 Resource Stewardship Context ............................................................................................... 16 2.2.1 Enabling Legislation ...................................................................................................... 18 2.2.2 Resource Stewardship Planning ..................................................................................... 19 2.2.3 Resource Stewardship Science ....................................................................................... 21 2.3 Park Resource Management Issues ........................................................................................ 22 2.3.1 Ecological Inventory and Monitoring ............................................................................ 23 2.3.2 Hydrologic Resources and Processes ............................................................................ 23 2.3.3 Physical Processes ......................................................................................................... 24 2.3.4 Wetland Habitats ............................................................................................................ 24 2.3.5 Climate Change and Local Effects ................................................................................. 24 iii Contents (continued) Page 2.3.6 Nonnative and Invasive Species ..................................................................................... 25 2.3.7 Natural Soundscapes and Nightsky ................................................................................ 25 2.3.8 Geologic Resources ........................................................................................................ 25 2.3.9 Fire Regimes ................................................................................................................... 26 2.3.10 Air Pollution ................................................................................................................. 26 2.3.11 Direct & Indirect Human Impacts ................................................................................ 26 CHAPTER 3. Study Approach ............................................................................................................ 27 3.1 Preliminary Scoping ............................................................................................................... 27 3.1.1 Park Input ....................................................................................................................... 27 3.1.2 Other NPS Input ............................................................................................................. 27 3.2 Reporting Areas ...................................................................................................................... 27 3.2.1 Ecological Reporting Units ............................................................................................ 27 3.2.2 Management / Thematic Overlays .................................................................................. 28 3.3 Resources and Indicators ........................................................................................................ 28 3.3.1 Assessment Frameworks Used in the Study .................................................................... 28 3.3.2 Candidate Study Resources and Indicators .................................................................... 28 3.4 Reference Conditions/Reference Values Used in this Study .................................................. 30 3.5 Study Methodologies .............................................................................................................. 30 CHAPTER 4. Natural Resource Conditions ........................................................................................ 33 4.1 Regional Landscape Context .................................................................................................. 33 4.2 Threats and Stressors .............................................................................................................. 33 4.2.1 Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 35 4.2.2 Altered Fire Regimes ...................................................................................................... 38 iv Contents (continued) Page 4.2.3 Nonnative Invasive Species ............................................................................................ 40 Plants ................................................................................................................................ 40
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Calochortus Flexuosus S. Watson (Winding Mariposa Lily): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Calochortus flexuosus S. Watson (winding mariposa lily): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project July 24, 2006 Susan Spackman Panjabi and David G. Anderson Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO Peer Review Administered by Center for Plant Conservation Panjabi, S.S. and D.G. Anderson. (2006, July 24). Calochortus flexuosus S. Watson (winding mariposa lily): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/calochortusflexuosus.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was facilitated by the helpfulness and generosity of many experts, particularly Leslie Stewart, Peggy Fiedler, Marilyn Colyer, Peggy Lyon, Lynn Moore, and William Jennings. Their interest in the project and time spent answering questions were extremely valuable, and their insights into the distribution, habitat, and ecology of Calochortus flexuosus were crucial to this project. Thanks also to Greg Hayward, Gary Patton, Jim Maxwell, Andy Kratz, and Joy Bartlett for assisting with questions and project management. Thanks to Kimberly Nguyen for her work on the layout and for bringing this assessment to Web publication. Jane Nusbaum and Barbara Brayfield provided crucial financial oversight. Peggy Lyon and Marilyn Colyer provided valuable insights based on their experiences with C. flexuosus. Leslie Stewart provided information specific to the San Juan Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management, including the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. Annette Miller provided information on C. flexuosusseed storage status. Drs. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson provided access to specimens of C.
    [Show full text]
  • Tejon Ranch Botanical Survey Report
    David Magney Environmental Consulting FLORA OF THE TEJON RANCH CONSERVANCY ACQUISITION AREAS, TEJON RANCH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: TEJON RANCH CONSERVANCY July 2010 DMEC Mission Statement: To provide quality environmental consulting services, with integrity, that protect and enhance the human and natural environment. David Magney Environmental Consulting Flora of the Tejon Ranch Conservancy Acquisition Areas, Tejon Ranch, California Prepared for: Tejon Ranch Conservancy P.O. Box 216 Frazier Park, California 93225 Contact: Michael White Phone: 661/-248-2400 ext 2 Prepared by: David Magney Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 1346 Ojai, California 93024-1346 Phone: 805/646-6045 23 July 2010 DMEC Mission Statement: To provide quality environmental consulting services, with integrity, that protect and enhance the human and natural environment. This document should be cited as: David Magney Environmental Consulting. 2010. Flora of the Tejon Ranch Conservancy Acquisition Areas, Tejon Ranch, California. 23 July2010. (PN 09-0001.) Ojai, California. Prepared for Tejon Ranch Conservancy, Frazier Park, California. Tejon Ranch Conservancy – Flora of Tejon Ranch Acquisition Areas Project No. 09-0001 DMEC July 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................. 1 SECTION 2. METHODS ........................................................................................ 3 Field Survey Methods ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Botany Biological Evaluation
    APPENDIX I Botany Biological Evaluation Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi Page 1 of 35 for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project November 2009 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – FOREST SERVICE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project El Dorado County, CA Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi PREPARED BY: ENTRIX, Inc. DATE: November 2009 APPROVED BY: DATE: _____________ Name, Forest Botanist, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATION AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR REQUIREMENTS One population of a special-status bryophyte, three-ranked hump-moss (Meesia triquetra), was observed in the survey area during surveys on June 30, 2008 and August 28, 2008. The proposed action will not affect the moss because the population is located outside the project area where no action is planned. The following species of invasive or noxious weeds were identified during surveys of the Project area: cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum); bullthistle (Cirsium vulgare); Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum); oxe-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare); and common mullein (Verbascum Thapsus). The threat posed by these weed populations would not increase if the proposed action is implemented. An inventory and assessment of invasive and noxious weeds in the survey area is presented in the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project (ENTRIX 2009). Based on the description of the proposed action and the evaluation contained herein, we have determined the following: There would be no significant effect to plant species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), administered by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 January Scree
    the SCREE Mountaineering Club of Alaska January 2020 Volume 63, Number 1 Contents Mount Anno Domini Peak 2330 and Far Out Peak Devils Paw North Taku Tower Randoism via Rosie’s Roost "The greatest danger for Berlin Wall most of us is not that our aim is too high and we Katmai and the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes miss it, but that it is too Peak of the Month: Old Snowy low and we reach it." – Michelangelo JANUARY MEETING: Wednesday, January 8, at 6:30 p.m. Luc Mehl will give the presentation. The Mountaineering Club of Alaska www.mtnclubak.org "To maintain, promote, and perpetuate the association of persons who are interested in promoting, sponsoring, im- proving, stimulating, and contributing to the exercise of skill and safety in the Art and Science of Mountaineering." This issue brought to you by: Editor—Steve Gruhn assisted by Dawn Munroe Hut Needs and Notes Cover Photo If you are headed to one of the MCA huts, please consult the Hut Gabe Hayden high on Devils Paw. Inventory and Needs on the website (http://www.mtnclubak.org/ Photo by Brette Harrington index.cfm/Huts/Hut-Inventory-and-Needs) or Greg Bragiel, MCA Huts Committee Chairman, at either [email protected] or (907) 350-5146 to see what needs to be taken to the huts or repaired. All JANUARY MEETING huts have tools and materials so that anyone can make basic re- Wednesday, January 8, at 6:30 p.m. at the BP Energy Center at pairs. Hutmeisters are needed for each hut: If you have a favorite 1014 Energy Court in Anchorage.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    Alaska Outer Continental Shelf OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-081 ION Geophysical 2012 Seismic Survey Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea, Alaska ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Prepared By: Office of Environment Alaska OCS Region Cover Illustrations provided by ION Geophysical for ION G&G Permit Application #12-01 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management October 2012 Alaska OCS Region This Page Intentionally Left Blank 2012 ION Seismic Survey Environmental Assessment Acronyms and Abbreviations ~ ....................................Approximately AAC ..............................Alaska Administrative Code ACIA .............................Arctic Climate Impact Assessment ACP ...............................Arctic Coastal Plain ADEC ............................Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G .........................Alaska Department of Fish and Game AEWC ...........................Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission AFMP ............................Arctic Fishery Management Plan AO .................................Arctic Oscillation AQCR ............................Air Quality Control Regions bbl ..................................Barrel/Barrels BOEM ...........................Bureau of Ocean Energy Management BOEMRE ......................Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement CAA ..............................Clean Air Act or Conflict Avoidance Agreement CEQ ...............................Council on Environmental Quality CFR ...............................Code of Federal Regulations CO .................................carbon
    [Show full text]
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Plant List Douglas County by Scientific Name
    The NatureMapping Program Washington Plant List Revised: 9/15/2011 Douglas County by Scientific Name (1) Non- native, (2) ID Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Invasive √ 763 Acer glabrum Douglas maple Aceraceae 800 Alisma graminium Narrowleaf waterplantain Alismataceae 19 Alisma plantago-aquatica American waterplantain Alismataceae 1087 Rhus glabra Sumac Anacardiaceae 650 Rhus radicans Poison ivy Anacardiaceae 29 Angelica arguta Sharp-tooth angelica Apiaceae 809 Angelica canbyi Canby's angelica Apiaceae 915 Cymopteris terebinthinus Turpentine spring-parsley Apiaceae 167 Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip Apiaceae 991 Ligusticum grayi Gray's lovage Apiaceae 709 Lomatium ambiguum Swale desert-parsley Apiaceae 997 Lomatium canbyi Canby's desert-parsley Apiaceae 573 Lomatium dissectum Fern-leaf biscuit-root Apiaceae 582 Lomatium geyeri Geyer's desert-parsley Apiaceae 586 Lomatium gormanii Gorman's desert-parsley Apiaceae 998 Lomatium grayi Gray's desert-parsley Apiaceae 999 Lomatium hambleniae Hamblen's desert-parsley Apiaceae 609 Lomatium macrocarpum Large-fruited lomatium Apiaceae 1000 Lomatium nudicaule Pestle parsnip Apiaceae 634 Lomatium triternatum Nine-leaf lomatium Apiaceae 474 Osmorhiza chilensis Sweet-cicely Apiaceae 264 Osmorhiza occidentalis Western sweet-cicely Apiaceae 1044 Osmorhiza purpurea Purple sweet-cicely Apiaceae 492 Sanicula graveolens Northern Sierra) sanicle Apiaceae 699 Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane Apocynaceae 813 Apocynum cannabinum Hemp dogbane Apocynaceae 681 Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed Asclepiadaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Okanogan County Plant List by Scientific Name
    The NatureMapping Program Washington Plant List Revised: 9/15/2011 Okanogan County by Scientific Name (1) Non- native, (2) ID Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Invasive √ 763 Acer glabrum Douglas maple Aceraceae 3 Acer macrophyllum Big-leaf maple Aceraceae 800 Alisma graminium Narrowleaf waterplantain Alismataceae 19 Alisma plantago-aquatica American waterplantain Alismataceae 1155 Amaranthus blitoides Prostrate pigweed Amaranthaceae 1087 Rhus glabra Sumac Anacardiaceae 650 Rhus radicans Poison ivy Anacardiaceae 1230 Berula erecta Cutleaf water-parsnip Apiaceae 774 Cicuta douglasii Water-hemlock Apiaceae 915 Cymopteris terebinthinus Turpentine spring-parsley Apiaceae 167 Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip Apiaceae 1471 Ligusticum canbyi Canby's lovage Apiaceae 991 Ligusticum grayi Gray's lovage Apiaceae 709 Lomatium ambiguum Swale desert-parsley Apiaceae 1475 Lomatium brandegei Brandegee's lomatium Apiaceae 573 Lomatium dissectum Fern-leaf biscuit-root Apiaceae Coeur d'Alene desert- Lomatium farinosum Apiaceae 548 parsley 582 Lomatium geyeri Geyer's desert-parsley Apiaceae 586 Lomatium gormanii Gorman's desert-parsley Apiaceae 998 Lomatium grayi Gray's desert-parsley Apiaceae 999 Lomatium hambleniae Hamblen's desert-parsley Apiaceae 609 Lomatium macrocarpum Large-fruited lomatium Apiaceae 1476 Lomatium martindalei Few-flowered lomatium Apiaceae 1000 Lomatium nudicaule Pestle parsnip Apiaceae 1477 Lomatium piperi Piper's bisciut-root Apiaceae 634 Lomatium triternatum Nine-leaf lomatium Apiaceae 1528 Osmorhiza berteroi Berter's sweet-cicely
    [Show full text]
  • National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 1996
    National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary Indicator by Region and Subregion Scientific Name/ North North Central South Inter- National Subregion Northeast Southeast Central Plains Plains Plains Southwest mountain Northwest California Alaska Caribbean Hawaii Indicator Range Abies amabilis (Dougl. ex Loud.) Dougl. ex Forbes FACU FACU UPL UPL,FACU Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill. FAC FACW FAC,FACW Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. NI NI NI NI NI UPL UPL Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poir. FACU FACU FACU Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl. FACU-* NI FACU-* Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. NI NI FACU+ FACU- FACU FAC UPL UPL,FAC Abies magnifica A. Murr. NI UPL NI FACU UPL,FACU Abildgaardia ovata (Burm. f.) Kral FACW+ FAC+ FAC+,FACW+ Abutilon theophrasti Medik. UPL FACU- FACU- UPL UPL UPL UPL UPL NI NI UPL,FACU- Acacia choriophylla Benth. FAC* FAC* Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. FACU NI NI* NI NI FACU Acacia greggii Gray UPL UPL FACU FACU UPL,FACU Acacia macracantha Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. NI FAC FAC Acacia minuta ssp. minuta (M.E. Jones) Beauchamp FACU FACU Acaena exigua Gray OBL OBL Acalypha bisetosa Bertol. ex Spreng. FACW FACW Acalypha virginica L. FACU- FACU- FAC- FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acalypha virginica var. rhomboidea (Raf.) Cooperrider FACU- FAC- FACU FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acanthocereus tetragonus (L.) Humm. FAC* NI NI FAC* Acanthomintha ilicifolia (Gray) Gray FAC* FAC* Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl OBL OBL Acer circinatum Pursh FAC- FAC NI FAC-,FAC Acer glabrum Torr. FAC FAC FAC FACU FACU* FAC FACU FACU*,FAC Acer grandidentatum Nutt.
    [Show full text]
  • Terr–3 Special-Status Plant Populations
    TERR–3 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT POPULATIONS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During 2001 and 2002, the review of existing information, agency consultation, vegetation community mapping, and focused special-status plant surveys were completed. Based on California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001a), CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2003), USDA-FS Regional Forester’s List of Sensitive Plant and Animal Species for Region 5 (USDA-FS 1998), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species List (USFWS 2003), and Sierra National Forest (SNF) Sensitive Plant List (Clines 2002), there were 100 special-status plant species initially identified as potentially occurring within the Study Area. Known occurrences of these species were mapped. Vegetation communities were evaluated to locate areas that could potentially support special-status plant species. Each community was determined to have the potential to support at least one special-status plant species. During the spring and summer of 2002, special-status plant surveys were conducted. For each special-status plant species or population identified, a CNDDB form was completed, and photographs were taken. The locations were mapped and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. Vascular plant species observed during surveys were recorded. No state or federally listed special-status plant species were identified during special- status plant surveys. Seven special-status plant species, totaling 60 populations, were identified during surveys. There were 22 populations of Mono Hot Springs evening-primrose (Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola) identified. Two populations are located near Mammoth Pool, one at Bear Forebay, and the rest are in the Florence Lake area.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F.7
    APPENDIX F.7 Biological Evaluation Appendix F.7 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project Biological Evaluation March 2019 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Reviewed and Approved by: USDA Forest Service BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION This page intentionally left blank BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 1 PRE-FIELD REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 4 RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEYS ...................................................................................... 4 SPECIES IMPACT DETERMINATION SUMMARY .......................................................... 5 DETAILED EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON SPECIES CONSIDERED ............ 25 6.1 Global Discussion ........................................................................................................ 25 6.1.1 Analysis Areas and Current Environment ............................................................. 25 6.1.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................. 33 6.1.3 Conservation Measures and Mitigation ................................................................. 62 6.2 Species Accounts and Analysis of Impacts ................................................................. 63 6.2.1 Mammals ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gymnaconitum, a New Genus of Ranunculaceae Endemic to the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau
    TAXON 62 (4) • August 2013: 713–722 Wang & al. • Gymnaconitum, a new genus of Ranunculaceae Gymnaconitum, a new genus of Ranunculaceae endemic to the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau Wei Wang,1 Yang Liu,2 Sheng-Xiang Yu,1 Tian-Gang Gao1 & Zhi-Duan Chen1 1 State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, P.R. China 2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-3043, U.S.A. Author for correspondence: Wei Wang, [email protected] Abstract The monophyly of traditional Aconitum remains unresolved, owing to the controversial systematic position and taxonomic treatment of the monotypic, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau endemic A. subg. Gymnaconitum. In this study, we analyzed two datasets using maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference methods: (1) two markers (ITS, trnL-F) of 285 Delphinieae species, and (2) six markers (ITS, trnL-F, trnH-psbA, trnK-matK, trnS-trnG, rbcL) of 32 Delphinieae species. All our analyses show that traditional Aconitum is not monophyletic and that subgenus Gymnaconitum and a broadly defined Delphinium form a clade. The SOWH tests also reject the inclusion of subgenus Gymnaconitum in traditional Aconitum. Subgenus Gymnaconitum markedly differs from other species of Aconitum and other genera of tribe Delphinieae in many non-molecular characters. By integrating lines of evidence from molecular phylogeny, divergence times, morphology, and karyology, we raise the mono- typic A. subg. Gymnaconitum to generic status. Keywords Aconitum; Delphinieae; Gymnaconitum; monophyly; phylogeny; Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau; Ranunculaceae; SOWH test Supplementary Material The Electronic Supplement (Figs. S1–S8; Appendices S1, S2) and the alignment files are available in the Supplementary Data section of the online version of this article (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax).
    [Show full text]