DOCSLIB.ORG

Houghton's Goldenrod Ontario Recovery Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Photo: Michael Patrikeev Houghton’s Goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii) in Ontario Ontario Recovery Strategy Series Recovery strategy prepared under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 2015 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry About the Ontario Recovery Strategy Series This series presents the collection of recovery strategies that are prepared or adopted as advice to the Province of Ontario on the recommended approach to recover species at risk. The Province ensures the preparation of recovery strategies to meet its commitments to recover species at risk under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. What is recovery? What’s next? Recovery of species at risk is the process by which the Nine months after the completion of a recovery decline of an endangered, threatened, or extirpated strategy a government response statement will be species is arrested or reversed, and threats are published which summarizes the actions that the removed or reduced to improve the likelihood of a Government of Ontario intends to take in response to species’ persistence in the wild. the strategy. The implementation of recovery strategies depends on the continued cooperation and What is a recovery strategy? actions of government agencies, individuals, communities, land users, and conservationists. Under the ESA a recovery strategy provides the best available scientific knowledge on what is required to For more information achieve recovery of a species. A recovery strategy outlines the habitat needs and the threats to the To learn more about species at risk recovery in survival and recovery of the species. It also makes Ontario, please visit the Ministry of Natural Resources recommendations on the objectives for protection and and Forestry Species at Risk webpage at: recovery, the approaches to achieve those objectives, www.ontario.ca/speciesatrisk and the area that should be considered in the development of a habitat regulation. Sections 11 to 15 of the ESA outline the required content and timelines for developing recovery strategies published in this series. Recovery strategies are required to be prepared for endangered and threatened species within one or two years respectively of the species being added to the Species at Risk in Ontario list. There was a transition period of five years (until June 30, 2013) to develop recovery strategies for those species listed as endangered or threatened in the schedules of the ESA. Recovery strategies are required to be prepared for extirpated species only if reintroduction is considered feasible. RECOMMENDED CITATION Jones, J.A. 2015. Recovery strategy for the Houghton's Goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, Ontario. vi + 31 pp. Cover illustration: Houghton's Goldenrod on the Bruce Peninsula by Michael Patrikeev. This photo may not be reproduced separately from this document without permission of the photographer. © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015 ISBN 978-1-4606-5718-8 Content (excluding the cover illustration) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. i AUTHORS Judith Jones, Winter Spider Eco-Consulting, Sheguiandah, Ontario ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Previous versions of some of the material in this document were prepared by Judith Jones, Jarmo Jalava, and Holly Bickerton under the direction of the Bruce-Manitoulin Alvar Recovery Team and Parks Canada Agency. The author gratefully acknowledges the following people and agencies for sharing information: Theodore Flamand (Wikwemikong Department of Lands and Natural Resources), G'mewin Migwans (United Chiefs and Councils of M'nidoo M'nising), Will Kershaw (Ontario Parks). Thanks to Michael Patrikeev for the use of his photo for the cover. ii DECLARATION The recovery strategy for the Houghton's Goldenrod was developed in accordance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). This recovery strategy has been prepared as advice to the Government of Ontario, other responsible jurisdictions and the many different constituencies that may be involved in recovering the species. The recovery strategy does not necessarily represent the views of all of the individuals who provided advice or contributed to its preparation, or the official positions of the organizations with which the individuals are associated. The goals, objectives and recovery approaches identified in the strategy are based on the best available knowledge and are subject to revision as new information becomes available. Implementation of this strategy is subject to appropriations, priorities and budgetary constraints of the participating jurisdictions and organizations. Success in the recovery of this species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies that will be involved in implementing the directions set out in this strategy. RESPONSIBLE JURISDICTIONS Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Environment Canada – Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Houghton’s Goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii) is listed as threatened under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007. It is listed as special concern on Schedule 1 of the Federal Species at Risk Act. It has a global and subnational (Ontario) conservation rank of G3S2. Houghton’s Goldenrod is a perennial plant in the Aster Family that has a cluster of narrow, strap-shaped, smooth-margined leaves growing on the ground. It produces an upright flowering stalk with leaves that become smaller toward the top. Flower heads with rough stalks are arranged in a flat-topped cluster. Flowering occurs in late August through September. Houghton's Goldenrod is very similar to the Ohio Goldenrod (Solidago ohioensis) which may grow in the same habitat. There are 33 populations of Houghton’s Goldenrod in Canada, all in Ontario in the Manitoulin Island region, with one occurrence on the Bruce Peninsula. Many populations are on lands belonging to or claimed by First Nations, and roughly one third of populations are on corporately-owned land. There is no information on population trends because most sites have had only one observation. Houghton's Goldenrod is primarily found in alvars, on bedrock shorelines, and in a few degraded alvars that resemble old fields, except on Cockburn Island where the species occurs on low sand dunes. Suitable habitat may be part of at least eight different vegetation community types. Moisture is an important feature of suitable microhabitat. Knowledge gaps for Houghton's Goldenrod include the status of populations, trends, population viability levels, the effects of current threats, and techniques for reintroductions. As well, genetic work is needed to know whether the Cockburn Island population may be a separate species. Other gaps pertain to habitat requirements and dynamics and potentially the effects of climate change. Threats to Houghton's Goldenrod include development and construction, logging and industrial activities, quarrying and aggregates extraction, off-road vehicle use, grazing and browsing, invasion by exotic species, damage to alvars as a result of a lack of public awareness and the use of herbicides and mowing. The recovery goal for Houghton's Goldenrod is to maintain the current abundance and distribution of all populations of Houghton's Goldenrod in Ontario by maintaining and protecting habitat, reducing other threats, and augmenting populations if necessary. Protection and recovery objectives include: 1. assess threats and undertake actions for mitigation and reduction; 2. use policy tools, where appropriate, to protect and maintain Houghton's Goldenrod habitat and plants; 3. raise awareness about Houghton's Goldenrod and its sensitive habitats; and 4. fill knowledge gaps. iv A number of approaches to recovery are presented in the text. The area recommended to be considered for a habitat regulation for Houghton's Goldenrod includes: 1. all areas where Houghton's Goldenrod is present and any new areas that are discovered; 2. on sand: the entire Ecological Land Classification (ELC) dune or beach vegetation community type polygon; 3. on bedrock beach: the portion of the ELC bedrock beach vegetation community type polygon in which Houghton's Goldenrod is present, bounded on the inland side as per the ELC, but bounded at the ends at 50 m beyond the presence of Houghton's Goldenrod plants; 4. on alvar: the entire ELC alvar vegetation community type polygon; 5. in degraded, old field habitat and where the vegetation is predominantly non- native plant species: all of the continuous area around Houghton's Goldenrod plants in which there are patches of vegetation shorter than the flowering stalks of Houghton's Goldenrod (approximately 60 cm tall); 6. in all situations above: all of the area within a minimum radial distance of 50 m from the plants, including suitable and unsuitable habitat, so that if individuals occur at the edge of a polygon, there will be sufficient distance from activities in adjacent areas to prevent the risk of impacts. It is recommended that existing infrastructure not be prescribed as habitat. v TABLE OF CONTENTS RECOMMENDED CITATION ........................................................................................... i AUTHORS ........................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................ii
Recommended publications
  • Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants

    Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants

    The Importance of Competition in the Isolation and Establishment of Helianthus Paradoxus (Asteraceae) 1 OSCAR W. VAN AUKEN AND JANIS. K. BUSH Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249 1Author for correspondence and reprints. FAX 210-458-5658; E-mail [email protected] ABSTRACT: Helianthus paradoxus (the Pecos or puzzle sunflower) is a threatened, federally listed annual species that is found in a few locations in west Texas and New Mexico. Two greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate the ability of H. paradoxus to compete with its progenitors and a with potential ecosystem competitor, Distichlis spicata (saltgrass) in simulated salt marsh and non-salt marsh environments. The results were usually dependent on soil salinity. Helianthus paradoxus was the better competitor in high saline soil and its progenitor H. annuus (common sunflower) was the better competitor in low saline soil. However, H. paradoxus was the better competitor in both high and low saline soils when compared to it progenitor H. petiolaris (plains sunflower) and to D. spicata, an ecosystem competitor. The ability of H. paradoxus to tolerate higher saline conditions, and perhaps even restrict the more geographically widespread H. annuus in saline soils may have allowed H. paradoxus to establish, become genetically isolated and survive as a species in inland salt marshes. Data presented here indicate that while H. paradoxus can grow in low saline soil, interference from H. annuus in low saline soils could restrict H. paradoxus to saline environments within salt marshes. The ability of H. paradoxus to out-compete D.
  • Literature Cited

    Literature Cited

    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
  • Nontraditional Agricultural Exports Regulatory Guide for Latin America and the Caribbean

    Nontraditional Agricultural Exports Regulatory Guide for Latin America and the Caribbean

    ` NONTRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS REGULATORY GUIDE FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean U.S. Agency for International Development Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. U.S.A. Nontraditional Agricultural Exports Regulatory Guide for Latin America and the Caribbean Acknowledgements Several branches and many individuals of the U.S. Government contributed to the preparation and review of this guide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extends special recognition to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Technical Services Project (LACTECH II) of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which planned the document, managed its development, and provided overall technical direction. EPA wishes to thank Robert Kahn and Robert Bailey, LACTECH II Project Officers, who designed, promoted, and disseminated the contents of this guide; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for special assistance and collaboration; and all the U.S. Government branches cited herein. Initial funding for the preparation of this guide was provided by the Bureau for Latin America NTAE Regulatory Guide for LAC Countries iii and the Caribbean, USAID, to the LACTECH II Project. Additional funding for the editing, Spanish translation, and dissemination was provided by the AID/EPA Central American Project and the AID/EPA Mexico Project, both based at EPA. iv NTAE Regulatory Guide for LAC Countries Contents Page
  • New York and New York and Long Island Field Offices Strategic Plan

    New York and New York and Long Island Field Offices Strategic Plan

    New York and Long Island Field Offices Strategic Plan FY2012 Table of Contents Page Strategic Plan Introduction 6 New York Focal Area Map 8 ALLEGHENY FOCAL AREA 9 Allegheny Focal Area Map 10 Bald Eagle Species Action Plan 11 Broad-winged Hawk Species Action Plan 19 Brook Trout Species Action Plan 27 Cerulean Warbler Species Action Plan 35 Clubshell Species Action Plan 43 Eastern Hellbender Species Action Plan 51 Rayed Bean Species Action Plan 63 Spotted Darter Species Action Plan 70 FINGER LAKES ONONDAGA FOCAL AREA 78 Finger Lakes/Onondaga Focal Area Map 79 American Hart’s-tongue Fern Species Action Plan 80 American Black Duck Species Action Plan 86 Bog Turtle Species Action Plan 95 Brook Trout Species Action Plan 103 Cerulean Warbler Species Action Plan 113 Chittenango Ovate Amber Snail Species Action Plan 122 Indiana Bat Species Action Plan 129 Lake Sturgeon Species Action Plan 139 Leedy’s Roseroot Species Action Plan 148 Massasauga Rattlesnake Species Action Plan 154 GREAT LAKES FOCAL AREA 160 Great Lakes Focal Area Map 162 American Woodcock Species Action Plan 163 ii Bald Eagle Species Action Plan 173 American Black Duck Species Action Plan 182 Bobolink Species Action Plan 192 Bog Turtle Species Action Plan 199 Broad-winged Hawk Species Action Plan 205 Brook Trout Species Action Plan 212 Cerulean Warbler Species Action Plan 221 Common Tern Species Action Plan 229 Houghton’s Goldenrod Species Action Plan 237 Indiana Bat Species Action Plan 244 Lake Sturgeon Species Action Plan 253 Massasauga Rattlesnake Species Action Plan 262 Piping
  • Relative Competitive Abilities and Growth Characteristics of a Narrowly Endemic and a Geographically Widespread Solidago Species (Asteraceae)

    Relative Competitive Abilities and Growth Characteristics of a Narrowly Endemic and a Geographically Widespread Solidago Species (Asteraceae)

    Relative Competitive Abilities and Growth Characteristics of a Narrowly Endemic and a Geographically Widespread Solidago Species (Asteraceae) Jeffrey L. Walck; Jerry M. Baskin; Carol C. Baskin American Journal of Botany, Vol. 86, No. 6. (Jun., 1999), pp. 820-828. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9122%28199906%2986%3A6%3C820%3ARCAAGC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X American Journal of Botany is currently published by Botanical Society of America. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/botsam.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
  • Floristic Quality Assessment Report

    Floristic Quality Assessment Report

    FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN INDIANA: THE CONCEPT, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSERVATISM Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) the State tree of Indiana June 2004 Final Report for ARN A305-4-53 EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01 Prepared by: Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Upland, IN 46989-1001 Introduction Since the early nineteenth century the Indiana landscape has undergone a massive transformation (Jackson 1997). In the pre-settlement period, Indiana was an almost unbroken blanket of forests, prairies, and wetlands. Much of the land was cleared, plowed, or drained for lumber, the raising of crops, and a range of urban and industrial activities. Indiana’s native biota is now restricted to relatively small and often isolated tracts across the State. This fragmentation and reduction of the State’s biological diversity has challenged Hoosiers to look carefully at how to monitor further changes within our remnant natural communities and how to effectively conserve and even restore many of these valuable places within our State. To meet this monitoring, conservation, and restoration challenge, one needs to develop a variety of appropriate analytical tools. Ideally these techniques should be simple to learn and apply, give consistent results between different observers, and be repeatable. Floristic Assessment, which includes metrics such as the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean C values, has gained wide acceptance among environmental scientists and decision-makers, land stewards, and restoration ecologists in Indiana’s neighboring states and regions: Illinois (Taft et al. 1997), Michigan (Herman et al. 1996), Missouri (Ladd 1996), and Wisconsin (Bernthal 2003) as well as northern Ohio (Andreas 1993) and southern Ontario (Oldham et al.
  • Ours to Save: the Distribution, Status & Conservation Needs of Canada's Endemic Species

    Ours to Save: the Distribution, Status & Conservation Needs of Canada's Endemic Species

    Ours to Save The distribution, status & conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species June 4, 2020 Version 1.0 Ours to Save: The distribution, status & conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species Additional information and updates to the report can be found at the project website: natureconservancy.ca/ourstosave Suggested citation: Enns, Amie, Dan Kraus and Andrea Hebb. 2020. Ours to save: the distribution, status and conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species. NatureServe Canada and Nature Conservancy of Canada. Report prepared by Amie Enns (NatureServe Canada) and Dan Kraus (Nature Conservancy of Canada). Mapping and analysis by Andrea Hebb (Nature Conservancy of Canada). Cover photo credits (l-r): Wood Bison, canadianosprey, iNaturalist; Yukon Draba, Sean Blaney, iNaturalist; Salt Marsh Copper, Colin Jones, iNaturalist About NatureServe Canada A registered Canadian charity, NatureServe Canada and its network of Canadian Conservation Data Centres (CDCs) work together and with other government and non-government organizations to develop, manage, and distribute authoritative knowledge regarding Canada’s plants, animals, and ecosystems. NatureServe Canada and the Canadian CDCs are members of the international NatureServe Network, spanning over 80 CDCs in the Americas. NatureServe Canada is the Canadian affiliate of NatureServe, based in Arlington, Virginia, which provides scientific and technical support to the international network. About the Nature Conservancy of Canada The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) works to protect our country’s most precious natural places. Proudly Canadian, we empower people to safeguard the lands and waters that sustain life. Since 1962, NCC and its partners have helped to protect 14 million hectares (35 million acres), coast to coast to coast.
  • The Success of Reproductive Mechanisms in Solidago Speciosa Var

    The Success of Reproductive Mechanisms in Solidago Speciosa Var

    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Internship Program Reports Education and Visitor Experience 6-2008 The Success of Reproductive Mechanisms in Solidago speciosa var. speciosa, A Threatened Pennsylvania Plant Lorae T. Simpson Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/morrisarboretum_internreports Recommended Citation Simpson, Lorae T., "The Success of Reproductive Mechanisms in Solidago speciosa var. speciosa, A Threatened Pennsylvania Plant" (2008). Internship Program Reports. 103. https://repository.upenn.edu/morrisarboretum_internreports/103 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/morrisarboretum_internreports/103 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Success of Reproductive Mechanisms in Solidago speciosa var. speciosa, A Threatened Pennsylvania Plant This report is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/morrisarboretum_internreports/103 Title: The Success of Reproductive Mechanisms in Solidago speciosa var. speciosa, A Threatened Pennsylvania Plant Author: Loraé T. Simpson The Eli Kirk Price Endowed Flora of Pennsylvania Intern Date: June 2008 Anstract: Solidago speciosa var. speciosa or “showy goldenrod” is a threatened Pennsylvania plant with only a handful of known populations. Little is known about the mechanisms this species employs to perpetuate a population. To understand the role that reproductive modes play in the limited distribution of this goldenrod and the relative importance of sexual reproduction and clonal growth, the genetic diversity, clonal structure and pollinator abundance of three Solidago speciosa var. speciosa populations from Montgomery County were investigated. To test the hypothesis that S. speciosa var. speciosa, like other goldenrods, is capable of clonal growth Inter- Simple Sequence Repeats were used. Ten primers have supported the importance of clonal growth in the FCL and FCU populations while a more complex reproductive history is needed to explain the BS population.
  • Plant Conservation Rare

    Plant Conservation Rare

    CENTER FOR CONSERVAT ION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVEOPMENT PLANT CONSERVATION RARE 2014 2014 : A YEAR IN REV IEW The Center for Conservation and CONTENT OVERVIEW: Sustainable Development (CCSD) at the Missouri Botanical Garden SEED - BANKING 1 - 2 (MBG) works to conserve global biodiversity. Within the US, we take SEED SCIENCE 2 an integrated approach to rare plant conservation, combining both ex-situ (seed-banking, germination experi- RESTORATION 3 ments) and in-situ (monitoring, habi- tat restoration) methods. The arrival RARE PLANT 3 of the new year presents an oppor- POPULATIONS tune time to share the highlights of The ruggedly scenic Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas and Oklahoma host many our work from 2014. This past year endemic plant taxa, including Ouachita mountain goldenrod (Solidago ouachitensis). CONSERVATION 3 GENETICS was marked by both a continuation of established projects and the development of new research projects and collaborations. 2014 was very CLIMATE CHANGE 4 productive for seed-banking, including species not previously secured in any seed bank. We also have new developments from our germination research, demographic monitoring, and reintroduction of Pyne’s PRESENTATIONS 4 Ground Plum (Astragalus bibullatus). It’s been a successful year for sharing the results of our work via AND OUTREACH conferences, publications, and public outreach. Thank you to all of our many partners, without whom none of this would be possible. We hope that this annual newsletter will provide an informative synopsis of US PUBLICATIONS 5 plant conservation work at MBG for a broad audience and facilitate collaborations with new partners in this important conservation effort. HIGHLIGHTS SEED - BANKING IMPERIL ED PLANTS OF THE SOUTHEAST Eleven rare plants of the The Center for Plant Conservation (CPC) is a consortium of botanical institutions working to safeguard SE US secured in MBG imperiled species from extinction.
  • Chapter 4 Native Plants for Landscape Use in Kentucky

    Chapter 4 Native Plants for Landscape Use in Kentucky

    Chapter 4 Native Plants for Landscape Use In Kentucky A publication of the Louisville Water Company Wellhead Protection Plan, Phase III Source Reduction Grant # X9-96479407-0 Chapter 4 Native Plants for Landscape Use in Kentucky Native Wildflowers and Ferns The U. S. Department of Transportation, (US DOT), has developed a listing of native plants, (ferns, annuals, perennials, shrubs, and trees), that may be used in landscaping in the State of Kentucky. Other agencies have also developed listings of native plants, which have been integrated into the list within this guidebook. While this list is, by no means, a complete report of the native species that may be found in Kentucky, it offers a starting point for additional research, should the homeowner wish to find additional KY native plants for use in a landscape design, or to check if a plant is native to the State. A reference book titled Wildflowers and Ferns of Kentucky, which was recommended by personnel at the Salato Wildlife Center as an excellent reference for native plants, was also used to develop the list. (A full bibliography is listed at the end of this chapter.) While many horticultural and botanical experts may dispute the inclusion of specific plants on the listing, or wish to add more plants, the list represents the latest information available for research, by the amateur, at the time. The information listed within the list was taken at face value, and no judgment calls were made about the suitability of plants for the list. The author makes no claims as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of this list.
  • Houghton's Goldenrod

    Houghton's Goldenrod

    U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service RECOVERY PLAN FOR HOUGHTON’S GOLDENROD (SOLIDAGO HOUGHTONII A. GRAY) Prepared by Michael R. Penskar Michigan Natural Features Inventory 8th Floor Mason Bldg., P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7944 for Region 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ft. Snelling, Minnesota Approved: e onal irector, U.S. Fish an ildlife Service c~ Ii-lY\-~ Date: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Current Status: Solidago houghtonji (Houghton’s goldenrod), classified as threatened, is endemic primarily to the northernmost regions of Lakes Huron and Michigan in Michigan and Ontario. Of 58 known occurrences in the United States, at least portions of 32 are on public land and four are within private nature preserves. At least 33 of the U.S. occurrences are considered to be of good quality and highly viable. Several historic sites need to be surveyed to determine if populations there are still extant and intact. Habitat Reuuirements and Limitin2 Factors: This species is generally restricted to narrow bands of open, calcareous, lakeshore habitat. The species’ primary limiting factor is its restricted habitat, which requires the natural dynamics of the Great Lakes system to maintain a suitable environment. Preliminary findings from breeding system studies indicate that this species is self- incompatible, and requires outcrossing and insect pollen vectors to successfully set seed. The conservation of this species requires the maintenance of mature adult plants and their habitat, as well as the critical processes that maintain habitat. The current major threats to Solidago houghtonii are development and its ancillary activities, and the overuse of shoreline areas for recreational activities, particularly off-road-vehicles.
  • Verge D'or De Houghton (Solidago Houghtonii)

    Verge D'or De Houghton (Solidago Houghtonii)

    PROPOSITION Loi sur les espèces en péril Série de Plans de gestion Plan de gestion de la verge d’or de Houghton (Solidago houghtonii) au Canada Verge d’or de Houghton 2014 Référence recommandée : Service canadien de la faune. 2014. Plan de gestion de la verge d’or de Houghton (Solidago houghtonii) au Canada [Proposition], Série de Plans de gestion de la Loi sur les espèces en péril, Environnement Canada, Ottawa, v + 26 p. Pour télécharger le présent plan de gestion ou pour obtenir un complément d’information sur les espèces en péril, incluant les rapports de situation du COSEPAC, les descriptions de la résidence, les plans d’action et d’autres documents connexes sur le rétablissement, veuillez consulter le Registre public des espèces en péril1. Illustration de la couverture : Verge d’or de Houghton, photographiée par Michael Patrikeev/Wild Nature Images. Cette photo ne peut pas être reproduite séparément du présent document sans la permission du photographe. Also available in English under the title “Management Plan for the Houghton's Goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii) in Canada [Proposed]” © Sa Majesté la Reine du chef du Canada, représentée par la ministre de l’Environnement, 2014. Tous droits réservés. ISBN No de catalogue Le contenu du présent document (à l’exception des illustrations) peut être utilisé sans permission, mais en prenant soin d’indiquer la source. 1 http://sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=24F7211B-1 Plan de gestion de la verge d’or de Houghton 2014 Préface En vertu de l’Accord pour la protection des espèces en péril (1996)2, les gouvernements fédéral, provinciaux et territoriaux signataires ont convenu d’établir une législation et des programmes complémentaires qui assureront la protection efficace des espèces en péril partout au Canada.