DOCSLIB.ORG

The Ecology and Distribution Patterns of a Rare

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Ecology and Distribution Patterns of a Rare THE ECOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS OF A RARE SERPENTINE ENDEMIC, PACKERA LAYNEAE ____________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Botany ____________ by Melanie Suzanne Williams Summer 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Colleen Hatfield, Dr. Kathy Gray, and Lawrence Janeway for their guidance, insight, and critique, and for providing motivation when it was most needed. Thank you to Erin Gottschalk Fisher, Tim Hanson, and Matt Simenc for their assistance in the field as well as their friendship and support. I would like to thank Melanie Gogol-Prokurat at California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Graciela Hinshaw at the Bureau of Land Management, and Kyle Merriam and Chris Christofferson at the National Forest Service, for sharing their experience with this species. A special thank you to Rob Schlising, Linnea Hanson, and Barb Castro for their interest and enthusiasm regarding this work. I would also like to thank my mom for instilling in me love and awe of the natural world, my dad for his persistent belief in me, and my sister for reminding me when I need it, what life is really about. Thank you to all of my family and friends for their love and encouragement. The greatest thank you to D.J., whose support has been above and beyond. This research was supported by the Jim Jokerst Field Botany Award, the Friends of the Chico State Herbarium, and by the Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Acknowledgements.................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................. vi List of Figures............................................................................................................ vii Abstract...................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER I. Introduction................................................................................................. 1 II. Background................................................................................................. 30 Biodiversity Hotspots......................................................................... 14 Study Species..................................................................................... 15 Study Sites ......................................................................................... 17 III. Methods....................................................................................................... 22 Habitat Characterization .................................................................... 22 Plant Growth ...................................................................................... 23 Seed Dispersal.................................................................................... 23 Seed Viability..................................................................................... 25 Modeling............................................................................................ 30 Data Analysis..................................................................................... 34 IV. Results......................................................................................................... 59 Habitat Characterization .................................................................... 35 Plant Growth ...................................................................................... 38 Seed Dispersal.................................................................................... 41 Seed Viability..................................................................................... 41 Modeling............................................................................................ 43 V. Discussion................................................................................................... 45 iv PAGE Literature Cited .......................................................................................................... 57 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. The Possible Combinations for Defining the Seven Types of Rarity ............. 2 2. Seed Germination Treatments and Replicates................................................. 30 3. P-values for each of the Analyzed Habitat Variables ..................................... 38 4. Plant Community Associated with P. layneae within Study Area Plots......... 39 5. Dispersal Distance and % of Total Seeds Recovered for each Category of Dispersal Distance in Dispersal Array Traps. ........................................... 41 6. Percent of P. layneae Seeds that Germinated and Persisted in Various Substrates................................................................................................... 42 vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Packera layneae populations and the distribution of serpentine and gabbro substrate in California ................................................................... 10 2. Packera layneae locations (Consortium of California Herbaria 2014) with Pine Hill complex and the distribution of serpentine and gabbro soils throughout the range of Packera layneae ............................. 12 3. Packera layneae inflorescences ...................................................................... 16 4. Location of the study sites: Upper and Lower Woodleaf, and Brownsville ............................................................................................... 18 5. Study Sites: Upper Woodleaf, Lower Woodleaf, and Brownsville ................ 20 6. Example of a seed dispersal array in field....................................................... 25 7. Average (±SE) percent canopy cover for P. layneae plots at each of the three study locations as well as on-patch (P. layneae present) vs. off-patch (P. layneae absent) at Upper Woodleaf.................. 36 8. Average (±SE) duff depth for P. layneae plots at each of the three study locations as well as on-patch (P. layneae present) vs. off-patch (P. layneae absent) at Upper Woodleaf..................................... 36 9. Average (±SE) slope for P. layneae plots at each of the three study locations as well as on-patch (P. layneae present) vs. off-patch (P. layneae absent) at Upper Woodleaf..................................... 37 10. Average plant sizes comparing an early (possibly first) year’s size to the sequential year’s size, for young P. layneae plants ................. 40 11. Maxent output based on background layers of annual precipitation and maximum temperature, restricted to serpentine and gabbro soils in Yuba County ................................................................................. 44 12. Packera layneae stalks bending toward the ground, further reducing seed dispersal range.................................................................... 49 vii ABSTRACT THE ECOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS OF A RARE SERPENTINE ENDEMIC, PACKERA LAYNEAE by Melanie Suzanne Williams Master of Science in Botany California State University, Chico Summer 2014 Many rare and threatened California plant species are endemic to ultramafic serpentine soils. Understanding what specifically makes these species rare is of high value to conservation and management efforts statewide. While there is no one definition of what makes a plant rare, there are many characteristics that are thought to contribute to a species’ rarity. My study focuses on environmental and reproductive attributes of a rare serpentine endemic species to evaluate their contribution to the plant’s rarity. Packera layneae, or Layne’s Butterweed, is a federally threatened and state listed rare species occurring in small, fragmented populations on gabbro and serpentine soils in the northern California Sierra Nevada. I evaluated environmental factors that potentially define its restrictive habitat, including elevation, light availability, duff depth, and slope. I found the studied populations to occur between 2140 and 2920 feet in elevation, and to have established in a variety of habitats where the evaluated environmental factors were moderate, including presence viii beneath intermediate canopy cover (40-60% of available light), widely variable duff depth (0.25 to nearly 6cm), and generally lower slopes (5 to 16%). I also conducted an experiment to evaluate the role of dispersal limitation as a contributing factor to this species’ limited distribution, and found that this species disperses the majority of its seeds very close to the parent plant. I also conducted an experiment to determine the specific germination requirements for P. layneae, and found that its seeds will germinate in a variety of soil types, but only following a period of light exclusion. Using the modeling program Maxent, a species distribution model was constructed using presence locations in conjunction with environmental variables in an attempt to yield a predictive map of potential habitat occupied by this species. Unfortunately, the very small number of known populations available for input into the model, in combination with high environmental variability across presence locations, resulted in a model with reduced predictive function. Determining why this species is so patchily distributed and understanding its unique habitat and physiological requirements will be vital to its conservation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eldorado National Forest Placerville Ranger District Biological Assessment / Evaluation for Botanical Species
    ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST PLACERVILLE RANGER DISTRICT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT / EVALUATION FOR BOTANICAL SPECIES: PILLIKEN FOREST HEALTH PROJECT 2016 Prepared By: /s/ Matt Brown Date: 4/13/2016 . Matt Brown Botanist Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3 II. CONSULTATION TO DATE ....................................................................................... 6 III. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ............................................................... 6 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 7 V. EXISTING SPECIES AND HABITAT CONDITION ................................................. 7 VI. EFFECTS .................................................................................................................... 16 VII. OTHER MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ..................... 16 VIII. MITIGATIONS AND MONITORING ................................................................... 19 IX. DETERMINATION ................................................................................................... 19 X. REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 20 APPENDIX A: BOTANY REPORT FOR SPECIAL INTEREST PLANTS .................. 21 APPENDIX B: NOXIOUS WEED RISK ASSESSMENT .............................................. 27 APPENDIX C: NOXIOUS/INVASIVE WEEDS OF CONCERN .................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation Sensitive Plants and Fungi Tahoe National Forest American River Ranger District Big Hope Fire Salvage and Restoration Project
    BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION SENSITIVE PLANTS AND FUNGI TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST AMERICAN RIVER RANGER DISTRICT BIG HOPE FIRE SALVAGE AND RESTORATION PROJECT Prepared by: KATHY VAN ZUUK Plant Ecologist/Botanist TNF Nonnative Invasive Plant Coordinator February 27, 2014 A Portion of the American Wildfire Area along Foresthill Divide Road 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Topic Page Executive Summary 4 Introduction 6 Consultation to Date 6 Current Management Direction 8 Alternative Descriptions 9 Existing Environment 11 Description of Affected Sensitive Species Habitat Effects Analysis and 20 Determinations Reasonably Foreseeable Actions/Time Frames for the Analysis/ List of 20 Assumptions Effects to Species without potential habitat in the Project Area 22 • Lemmon’s milk-vetch, Astragalus lemmonii 22 • Modoc Plateau milk-vetch, Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis 22 • Sierra Valley Ivesia, Ivesia aperta var. aperta 22 • Dog Valley Ivesia, Ivesia aperta var. canina 23 • Plumas Ivesia, Ivesia sericoleuca 23 • Webber’s Ivesia, Ivesia webberi 23 • Wet-cliff Lewisia, Lewisia cantelovii 24 • Long-petaled Lewisia, Lewisia longipetala 24 • Follett’s mint, Monardella follettii 24 • Layne’s butterweed, Packera layneae 24 • White bark pine, Pinus albicaulis 25 • Sticky Pyrrocoma, Pyrrocoma lucida 25 Effects to Species with potential habitat in the Project Area 26 • Webber’s Milkvetch, Astragalus webberi 26 • Carson Range rock cress, Boechera rigidissima var. demota 27 • Triangle-lobe moonwort, Botrychium ascendens 27 • Scalloped moonwort, Botrychium crenulatum 27 • Common moonwort, Botrychium lunaria 27 • Mingan moonwort, Botrychium minganense 27 • Mountain moonwort, Botrychium montanum 28 • Bolander’s candle moss, Bruchia bolanderi 29 • Clustered Lady’s Slipper Orchid, Cypripedium fasciculatum 29 • Mountain Lady’s Slipper Orchid, Cypripedium montanum 30 • Starved Daisy, Erigeron miser 31 • Donner Pass Buckwheat, Eriogonum umbellatum var.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to the Conservation Lecture Series
    Welcome to the Conservation Lecture Series https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Lectures Questions? Contact [email protected] Predicting current and future distributions of rare plants: Lessons From the Intersections of Science, Policy, and Management Melanie Gogol-Prokurat Patrick McIntyre [email protected] [email protected] Biogeographic Data Branch Rare plants in California • Biodiversity hotspot • > 6,500 plants (~30% found only in CA) • >1,600 considered rare (CNPS Inventory) Today: Distribution modeling & rare plants I. Present (basic modeling) II. Future (specific examples) Introduction to methods Scenarios of climate change Issues to watch for Rare plant biology Species distribution modeling + statistical global model change Species locations Predictor variables Estimated Future (or past) (and absences) distribution distribution -Temperature -Museum specimens -Precipitation -Focused surveys -Elevation -Citizen science Species distribution modeling Complex methods with simple output: Thousands of scientific papers in last 15 years Areas of application • Global health • Agriculture • Biological Conservation and Management -Predict current habitat -Assess climate change Vector born diseases ZikaCDC virus James . & vector 2016 CDC James . 2050 Source: Carlson et al. 2016 BioRxiv Climatic suitability for wine production in 2050 Up to 70% losses in key regions $300 billion industry Gained Retained Lost Source: Hannah et al. PNAS 2013 Projecting into the past to understand extinction
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 3-2020 A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California" (2020). Botanical Studies. 42. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/42 This Flora of California is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A LIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS ENDEMIC TO CALIFORNIA Compiled By James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University Arcata, California 13 February 2020 CONTENTS Willis Jepson (1923-1925) recognized that the assemblage of plants that characterized our flora excludes the desert province of southwest California Introduction. 1 and extends beyond its political boundaries to include An Overview. 2 southwestern Oregon, a small portion of western Endemic Genera . 2 Nevada, and the northern portion of Baja California, Almost Endemic Genera . 3 Mexico. This expanded region became known as the California Floristic Province (CFP). Keep in mind that List of Endemic Plants . 4 not all plants endemic to California lie within the CFP Plants Endemic to a Single County or Island 24 and others that are endemic to the CFP are not County and Channel Island Abbreviations .
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Recovery Plan Revision for Gabbro Soil Plants of the Central Sierra
    Recovery Plan Revision for Gabbro Soil Plants of the Central Sierra Nevada Foothills: El Dorado bedstraw (Galium californicum ssp. sierrae) and Pine Hill flannelbush (Fremontodendron californicum ssp. decumbens) Original Approved: August 2002 Original Prepared by: Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office DRAFT AMENDMENT 1 We have identified best available information that indicates the need to amend recovery criteria for this species since the Recovery Plan for Gabbro Soil Plants of the Central Sierra Nevada Foothills (recovery plan) was completed. In this recovery plan modification, we synthesize the adequacy of the existing recovery criteria, show amended recovery criteria, and describe the rationale supporting the proposed recovery plan modification. The proposed criteria amendments are shown as an appendix that supplements the recovery plan, pages III-2 through III-37 of the recovery plan that applies to El Dorado bedstraw and Pine Hill flannelbush. For U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region Sacramento, California December 2018 Approved: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region, Region 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1 METHODOLOGY USED TO COMPLETE THE RECOVERY PLAN AMENDMENT This draft amendment was prepared by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (SFWO) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and will be peer reviewed in accordance with the OMB Peer Review Bulletin following the publication of the Notice of Availability. We used information from our files, survey information and monitoring reports spanning various localities of the species, and communication with species experts. Communication with species experts was our primary source to update the species status and threats, and was instrumental in developing amended recovery criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • 5. Affected Environment
    1 5. Affected Environment 2 5.1 Introduction 3 This chapter is a description of the biological, physical, and socioeconomic 4 characteristics, including human uses that could be affected by implementing the action 5 alternatives for this RMP/EIS (see Chapter 3). Where possible, the information and 6 direction for Reclamation resources has been further broken down into fine-scale 7 assessments and information. Specific aspects of each resource discussed in this section 8 were raised during the public and agency scoping process. The level of information 9 presented in this chapter is commensurate with and sufficient to assess potential effects 10 of the action alternatives in Chapter 6. 11 5.2 Resources 12 This section contains a description of the biological and physical resources of the New 13 Melones Lake Area and generally follows the order of topics addressed in Chapter 3, as 14 follows: 15 • Air quality; 30 • Fire management; 16 • Noise; 31 • Cultural resources; 17 • Climate; 32 • Indian Trust Assets; 18 • Geology; 33 • Socioeconomic and 19 • Topography; 34 environmental justice; 20 • Hydrology/water quality; 35 • General recreation; 21 • Visual Resources; 36 • Facilities, land use, and 22 • Vegetation; 37 management areas; 23 • Fish and wildlife; 38 • Aquatic recreation; 24 • Special status species; 39 • Land-based recreation; 25 • General land management; 40 • Interpretive services and 26 • Access and transportation; 41 visitor information; and 27 • Public health and safety; 42 • Utilities. 28 • Invasive species control; 29 October 2009 New Melones Lake Area Draft RMP/EIS Reclamation 5-1 1 5.2.1 Air Quality 2 The New Melones Lake Area’s location in Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties places it in 3 the Mountain Counties Air Basin in the central Sierra Nevada foothills.
    [Show full text]
  • Docoileus Hemionus) Range
    Appendix D BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT Study Area Figure 1 PROJECT VICINITY 0 105 Moore Biological Blue Mountain Minerals Miles . Consultants Tuolumne County, CA Legend Base map: Columbia, CA, USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle Existing Permit Area Sections: 2 & 3 Township: 02N Revised Fill Area Range: 14E Figure 2 PROJECT LOCATION 0 1,000 2,000 Moore Biological Blue Mountain Minerals Feet . Consultants Tuolumne County, CA agricultural fill area will reach an elevation of 2,135 feet. Maximum slopes of the revised fill area will not exceed natural slopes on adjacent hillsides, and will be less steep than the currently approved fill design. A 3:1 slope ratio will be followed around the perimeter and the final upper surface of the revised fill area will be nearly flat. The Agricultural Fill Area will be revegetated in blue oak- digger pine woodland (BOP), valley oak woodland (VOW), and annual grassland (AGS) habitats. Regulatory Requirements: Clean Water Act: The Clean Water Act (CWA) 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Section 404 of the CWA established a permit program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (including wetlands). Implementing regulations by ACOE are found at 33 CFR Parts 320-330. Guidelines for implementation are referred to as the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines and were developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction with ACOE (40 CFR Parts 230).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment Newtown Road at South Fork Weber Creek Bridge Replacement Project El Dorado County, CA District 3—El Dorado County—Newtown Road
    Newtown Road Bridge (25C0033) at South Fork Weber Creek Replacement Project BA Biological Assessment Newtown Road at South Fork Weber Creek Bridge Replacement Project El Dorado County, CA District 3—El Dorado County—Newtown Road BRLS 5925 (086) FWS File #08ESMF00-2017-E-01693 February 2018 [This page intentionally blank] [This page intentionally blank] BRLS 5925 (086) Newtown Road Bridge at South Fork Weber Creek BA 2/26/2018 iv Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. v List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................v Acronym List vii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 1.1. Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action ............................................................. 1 1.2. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Threatened or Proposed Endangered Species, Critical Habitat .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • All BLM CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS
    All BLM CALIFORNIA SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:00:38 AM CA RARE PLANT RANK RECOVERY PLAN? PALM SPRINGS MOTHER LODE GLOBAL RANK NNPS STATUSNNPS BAKERSFIELD BLM STATUS RIDGECREST STATE RANK FED STATUS EAGLE LAKE NV STATUS EL CENTRO CA STATUS HOLLISTER TYPE BARSTOW SURPRISE REDDING ALTURAS NEEDLES ARCATA OF DATE BISHOP SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PLANT FAMILY UPDATED COMMENTS UKIAH Abronia umbellata var. pink sand-verbena VASC Nyctaginaceae BLMS 1B.1 G4G5T2 S1 No 29-Apr-13 Formerly subsp. breviflora (Standl.) K breviflora Munz. Abronia villosa var. aurita chaparral sand-verbena VASC Nyctaginaceae BLMS 1B.1 G5T3T4 S2 No 06-Aug-13 CNDDB occurrences 2 and 91 are on S K BLM lands in the Palm Springs Field Office. Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Diego thornmint VASC Lamiaceae FT SE 1B.1 G1 S2 No 12-Mar-15 Status changed from "K" to "S" on S 8/6/2013. Naomi Fraga was unable to find the species on BLM lands when trying to collect seeds in 2012. Although there are several CNDDB occurences close to BLM lands, none of these actually intersect with BLM lands. Acanthoscyphus parishii Cushenberry oxytheca VASC Polygonaceae FE 1B.1 G4?T1 S1 No 06-Aug-13 Formerly Oxytheca parishii var. K var. goodmaniana goodmaniana. Name change based on Reveal, J.L. 2004. Nomenclatural summary of Polygonaceae subfamily Eriogonoideae. Harvard Papers in Botany 9(1):144. A draft Recovery Plan was issued in 1997 but as of 8/6/2013 was not final. Some of the recovery actions in the draft plan have been started and partially implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Sugar Project Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Big Sugar Project Environmental Assessment American River Ranger District, Tahoe National Forest, Placer County, California June 2019 For More Information Contact: District Trails Officer, Matt Brownlee American River Ranger District 22830 Foresthill Road Foresthill, CA 95631 Phone: (530) 478-6254 Responsible Official, Eli Ilano Tahoe National Forest 631 Coyote Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Phone: (530) 265-4531 Cover photo: mechanized new trail construction. Credit: Devin Erickson, 2017. In accordance with federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
    [Show full text]
  • List of the Federal and State-Listed Rare, Endangered, & Threatened
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 1-21-2020 List of the Federal and State-listed Rare, Endangered, & Threatened Plants of California James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "List of the Federal and State-listed Rare, Endangered, & Threatened Plants of California" (2020). Botanical Studies. 92. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/92 This Flora of California is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CALIFORNIA'S FEDERAL AND STATE-LISTED RARE, ENDANGERED, & THREATENED PLANTS Compiled by James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University Arcata, California 21 January 2020 used the names used by the California Natural DEFINITIONS AND NAMES Diversity Database. Federally-listed Plants CONIFERS Under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, a plant is endangered if it is “in danger of extinction Cupressaceae throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Hesperocyparis abramsiana var. abramsiana • FT - SE A species is threatened if it is “likely to become an Hesperocyparis abramsiana var. butanoensis • FT - SE endangered species within the foreseeable future Hesperocyparis goveniana • FT throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” FLOWERING PLANTS FE Federally-listed as endangered FT Federally-listed as threatened Amaranthaceae State-listed Plants Atriplex coronata var.
    [Show full text]
  • G. CNDDB, USFWS and CNPS Queries
    G. CNDDB, USFWS and CNPS Queries California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Selected Elements by Scientific Name - Portrait Auburn, Gold Hill, Rocklin, Pilot Hill Quads CDFG or Scientific Name/Common Name Element Code Federal Status State Status GRank SRank CNPS 1 Actinemys marmorata ARAAD02030 G3G4 S3 SC western pond turtle 2 Actinemys marmorata marmorata ARAAD02031 G3G4T3 S3 SC northwestern pond turtle 3 Agelaius tricolor ABPBXB0020 G2G3 S2 SC tricolored blackbird 4 Allium jepsonii PMLIL022V0 G1 S1.2 1B.2 Jepson's onion 5 Ammonitella yatesii IMGASB0010 G1 S1 tight coin (=Yates' snail) 6 Andrena subapasta IIHYM35050 G1G3 S1S3 A vernal pool andrenid bee 7 Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis PDAST11061 G3G4T2 S2.2 1B.2 big-scale balsamroot 8 Banksula californica ILARA14020 GH SH A cave-obligate harvestman 9 Banksula galilei ILARA14040 G1 S1 Galile's cave harvestman 10 Branchinecta lynchi ICBRA03030 Threatened G3 S2S3 vernal pool fairy shrimp 11 Calystegia stebbinsii PDCON040H0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1.1 1B.1 Stebbins' morning-glory 12 Ceanothus roderickii PDRHA04190 Endangered Rare G2 S2.1 1B.2 Pine Hill ceanothus 13 Chlorogalum grandiflorum PMLIL0G020 G2 S2.2 1B.2 Red Hills soaproot 14 Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeeae PDONA05053 G4G5T2 S2.2 1B.2 Brandegee's clarkia 15 Corynorhinus townsendii AMACC08010 G4 S2S3 SC Townsend's big-eared bat 16 Desmocerus californicus dimorphus IICOL48011 Threatened G3T2 S2 valley elderberry longhorn beetle 17 Elanus leucurus ABNKC06010 G5 S3 white-tailed kite 18 Fritillaria eastwoodiae
    [Show full text]