DOCSLIB.ORG

Eremalche Kernensis: Malvaceae) Field, Laboratory, and Greenhouse Work in March 1992 - June 1993 I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eremalche Kernensis: Malvaceae) Field, Laboratory, and Greenhouse Work in March 1992 - June 1993 I | . ,;-,ANGEREDPLANTPROGRAM i I i Final Report to the I State of California Depa,:tt_ent ofFish andGame Contract# FG 1460 I I Demography and Reproductive Biology of I Kern Mallow (Eremalche kemensis: Malvaceae) Field, Laboratory, and Greenhouse Work in March 1992 - June 1993 I Report prepared by: Dr. Susan J: Mazer I Gretchen l._Buhn • Daniel E. Meade l_pattment of Biological Sciences I SantUniva Barbaersirtya,CofalCalififorniaornia93106 Telephone: (805) 893-8011 I FAX: (805)-893-4724 July 31, 1993 I I I I I | I | | Final Report to the State of California Depa_'m_entof Fish and Game I Contract#FG1460 I DemographyandReproductiveBiologyof I Kern Mallow (Eremalche kernensis: Malvaceae) Field, Laboratory, and Greenhouse Work in March 1992 - June 1993 I I Report prepared by: Dr. Susan J. Mazer I Gretchen LeBuhn • Daniel E. Meade Department of Biological Sciences SantaUniversityBarbara, ofCaliforniaCaliforni93106a Telephone: (805) 893-8011 FAX: (805)-893-4724 July 31, 1993 I I I ! i m i I TableofContents I Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... ............... 1 i Chapter 1. Project Outline: Questions Addressed ........................................................ 2 Natural History and Life History of Eremalche kernensis: Brief Overview ...... 3 I Chapter 2. betweenSources ofieldf variatipopulationson in reprofoduEremalchective succekernensss withiis n.....................................and 8 i Overview .................................................... :....._........................................................ 8 2.1. Field Methods: 1992and 1993 .................................................................. 10 Population 1............................................................................................ 10 I Population 2............................................................................................ 13 2.2. Greenhouse and Laboratory Methods ........................................................ 16 I Results ...................................................................................................................... 17 i 2.1. Variaticombinedon betweendata fromindividuals,both populationsgenders,......................................................flower colors and dates: 17 2.2. Differences between the two populations .................................................. 30 I 2.3. Effects of date, gender and flower color in each population: three-way analyses of variance .................................................................. 41 I 2.4. Variation within populations: each date evaluated separately .................. 54 2.5. Does E. kernensis require insect visitors for seed set?: I results of bagging experiment .................................................................. 106 2.6. Seed weight and abortion: I effects of seed number per fruit, gender, and flower color ...................... 109 2.7. Vegetative data: branch number predicts reproductive output ................. 125 I 2.8. Interspecific competition: effects of removing competitors ..................... 131 2.9. Intraspecific competition: effects of local population density .................. 137 I 2.10. Effects of grazing on growth ..................................................................... 142 i 2.11. Emergence of E. kernensis seedlings from seed bank ............................... 147 Chapter 3. Sources of variation in reproductive components in the greenhouse .......... 153 I Questions addressed ........................................................................................... 153 I Methods and experimental design ..................................................................... 155 I ii I Results ...................................................................................................................... 157 I 3.1. Effects of gender on seed traits ................................................................. 157 3.2. The effect of pollen donor and recipient on reproductive components .... 165 I 3.3. crossesEffects onof sseedelfingnumberand within-populand seed massation.....................................................vs. between-population 252 I 3.4. Reproductive compatibility of Eremalche kernensis and E. parryi .......... 269 Chapter 4. Summary and Recommendations..: ......... .................................................... 295 Literature Cited ...................................... .i..._........... _......_,.............................................. 299 Appendix A" Raw data from field populations .............................................................. 301 I Appendix B: Raw data from greenhouse populations ................................................... 418 ! I I | | i I I ! ! | ! | 1 I Acknowledgements | | We would like to thank the California Department of Fish & Game for supporting this I research. I Bseedeth bankHenderistudiescksontocobserveontributedseedlingher skillemergences in the fieinldtheandgreenhouse.greenhouse; she conducted the I ThelasonbrPrice.eeding experiments reported in Chapter 3 were conducted in the greenhouse by i Gwen Bell and Thek Moua provided assistance weighing and counting seeds. ! I | ! ! I I ! I I I ! 2 I Chapter 1 I Project Outline I In March of 1992 we proposed to the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) to study the demography and reproductive biology of the federally listed I candidateendangeredforplantlistingspecies,by theKernCDFG.MallowThis(Ereportremalchcoverse kerntheenslabois; rMatory,alvaceagreenhouse,e). This plantand is a field work conducted in the summer and fall of 1992, and the spring and summer of 1993. I Previous reports have covered field data collection (June 30, 1992), and laboratory and greenhouse work (November 1, 1992) conducted in 1992. This report summarizes all greenhouse and field work conducted between February 1992 - June 1993. I General questions addressed in this study are: I Whatof Eremalcheare sourceskernensisof variation? in reproductive success in field populations i Spe1. cHowifically,doeswetheaskedphenotypic: variation in flower color and gender influence components of reproduction? Do white-flowered and pink-fiowered morphs differ with repect to ovule I withand seedrespectproductionto these petraits?r floweIsrthis? Dovariationhermaphroditicconsistentandacrossmale-sterilepopulatimons?orphs differ 2. HowEremalchemuch pkernensishenotypiconvaria particularation is theredate?amWhichong rancomponentsdomly sampledof fitnesflowserams anmostd fruits of variable and which are most consistent ? Do individual plants vary with respect to trait means? Do gender and flower color influence components of reproductive success? 3. Do components of reproduction change across the season? Within a population of Eremalche kernensis sampled on a specific date, how much phenotypie variation is i theremost variableamong rananddomlywhichsamamplmosted flowersconsistentand fruits?over theWhicoursech compof oneonentsgrowingof fitnesseason?s are Do individual plants change significantly over time with respect to trait means? I 4. Dperoesfruit,the nuthembernumberof viableor proportionseeds peroffruitabortacecuratelyd seeds,predictand themeantotal individseed weightual seeperd wfruit?eight Is there any trade-off between seed number per fruit and mean individual seed weight? I Does this relationship differ between field and greenhouse populations? 5. Does the number of reproductive branches accurately predict the number of flowers, i buds, fruits, or potential fruits produced by an individual? 6. How do populations differ in density? Does population density influence lifetime fruit production? I 7. What is the effect of interspecific competition on survivorship, growth or reproduction in Eremalche kernensis ? | | ! 3 I 8. What is the effect of grazing on average branch length, branch number and plant size? Does sheep grazing influence survivorship, density, or plant reproductive success? ! and ! What are sources of varia•tion in reproductive components in the greenhouse? I Specifically, we asked: I 1. Whatother arewords,the effectssince Eremalcheof gender onkernensisseed numberis gynodiecous,per fruit andwhatindividualdifferencesseed inmasfemales? In reproduction are observed between hermaphroditic plants and male-sterile plants? I 2. Whatviableisseedsthe effectproduced,of pollenmeandonorsindividualand ofseedindividualweight, recipienttotal seedplantsweighton perthe flower,number of number of aborted seeds per flower, and the proportion of aborted seeds per flower? I 3. What is the effect of selfing, and within-population vs. between population crosses on seed number per fruit and seed mass? I 4. Are Eremalche kernensis and E. parryi reproductively incompatible? I Natural History and Life History: Brief Overview | Study sites i The two field study sites for the 1992-1993 season were located in Kern County approximately 6.1 miles north of McKittrick, California. Population 1 is located 50 meters south of Ix)kern Road approximately 1.6 miles east of State Highway 33. Population 2 is I oflocatedthe trianearngletheformedintersectionby theseof StwotateroadsHighwanday an33oilandpipelineIx)kernroad.RoadThenearterrthezinsouthernis mostlyendfiat with scattered drainage depressions 1 to 2 meters deep. Vegetation is a combination of saltbush scrub (Atripex spp.) and mixed grassland. These sites are described in greater I detailinChapter 2. Sheep grazing is practiced in this area in the spring following seasonal rains. I years.PopulationSheep2
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3-Web WB Plant List
    Wild Plants of Waterbird Regional Preserve Grouped by Growth Form Alphabetical by Scientific Name September 5, 2003 Wild Plants of Waterbird Regional Preserve Grouped by Growth Form Alphabetical by Scientific Name This document contains a comprehensive list of the wild plants reported to be found in Waterbird Regional Preserve. The plants are grouped according to their growth form for easy accessibility. These four groups are: Ferns & Horsetails, Grasses & Grasslike, Herbaceous, and Woody. The plants within each group are listed alphabetically by scientific name. Other information on each plant includes the common name, family, whether the plant is native or introduced, and its longevity. For quick reference, the upper left corner of each page displays both the group name (based on growth form) and the genus of the first scientific name. The abbreviations used: Checklist column for marking off the plants you observe Scientific Name According to The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California, 1993 Common Name According to Jepson and other references (highly variable) Family The scientific plant family name according to Jepson L Longevity: Annual (a), Biennial (b), Perennial (p), or a combination N/I Native (n) or Introduced (i) according to Jepson The listing of plants included in this document is by no means complete. The intent is to maintain an ongoing inventory to which additional plants can be added over time. Readers are encouraged to report any corrections or additions to this list by emailing the District Botanist (Wilde Legard, [email protected]). This welcomed assistance will help facilitate improved management of the Park District’s natural resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Cover, Table of Contents, Figures and Tables, and Preface
    Southern California United States Mountains and Foothills Department of Agriculture Forest Service Assessment Pacific Southwest Research Station http://www.fs.fed.us/ Habitat and Species Conservation Issues Pacific Southwest Region Angeles National Forest Cleveland National Forest Los Padres National Forest San Bernardino National Forest General Technical Report PSW-GTR-172 Publisher: Pacific Southwest Research Station Albany, California Forest Service mailing address: U.S. Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 245 Berkeley, CA 94701-0245 (510) 559-6300 http://www.psw.fs.fed.us December 1999 Abstract Stephenson, John R.; Calcarone, Gena M. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report GTR-PSW-175. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 402 p. The Southern California Mountains and Foothills Assessment: Habitat and Species Conservation Issues provides detailed information about current conditions and trends for ecological systems and species in the region. This information can be used by land managers to develop broad land management goals and priorities and provides the context for decisions specific to smaller geographic areas. The assessment area covers 6.1 million acres, of which 56 percent are national forest system lands. Over eighteen million people live in the coastal basin bordering the assessment area. As compared to historic conditions, mountain and foothill ecosystems in this region have undergone dramatic changes. Forested landscapes are more susceptible to stand-replacing fires. Invasive non-native species have become widely established, causing a decline in habitat capability for many native plants and animals. An extensive network of dams and diversions has altered aquatic systems.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on Eremalche Parryi Janean Lukes
    A study on Eremalche parryi Janean Lukes Common name: Parry's Mallow Other names: Eremalche parryi ssp. parryi Eremalche parryi (Greene) Greene parryi Photo credit: randomtruth / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA Geographic Distribution Found in North America Endemic to California Found in Sierra Nevada Foothills, the San Joaquin Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Western Transverse Ranges and both the Inner and Outer South Coast Ranges Has been documented in 13 counties in California: Galaveras, San Joaquin, Alameda, Stanislaus, Merced, San Benito, Fresno, Monterey, Kings, Tulare, San Luis Obispo, Illustration courtesy Calphotos. Kern and Ventura Native Habitat Found on south facing slopes and occasionally found on tops of sand dunes. Reports show it growing in well drained soil Indicates quick growing root system capable of foraging for nutrients in less than ideal soil conditions. Taxonomic Morphology Ascending basal branches, sometimes turning red. Tips of stems often hairy. Leaves generally 2-5cm wide and deeply lobed to dissected, with 3-5 lobes per leaf. No identified underground storage organs. Taxonomic Morphology Perfect flowers, but sometimes pistillate. Colors of the corolla can vary from mauve, purple or rose-pink and occasionally, but rarely, white or lavender petals Petals are 5-19 mm long with a 5-10 mm abruptly acuminate sepals behind the petals(Jepson, 2001) Flowers are often held in loose terminal cymes(Munz, 1959) Taxonomic Morphology Ovary is superior Contains between 8-24 carpels Produce a wheel like fruit when fertilized Produces a wedge shaped seed Flowers and fruits mature Photo courtesy Keir indeterminately Morse Photo courtesy Borders, 2006 Propagation Methods Propagated by seed Germinates in ideal conditions(mist house at 21C) in about a week.
    [Show full text]
  • GENERAL RARE PLANT SURVEY GUIDELINES Ellen A. Cypher
    GENERAL RARE PLANT SURVEY GUIDELINES Ellen A. Cypher California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program P.O. Box 9622, Bakersfield, CA 93389-9622 [email protected] Revised July 2002 All surveys for rare plants should be conducted in accordance with the standardized guidelines issued by the regulatory agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996, California Department of Fish and Game 2000) and the California Native Plant Society (2001). Some of the requirements specified in the standardized guidelines are that surveys must be conducted during the appropriate season and be floristic in nature. Thus, surveys should not target a single species but should aim to identify any and all rare species and rare plant communities in the area. The guidelines also provide information on selecting a qualified botanist and providing appropriate documentation of surveys. Additional considerations for conducting rare plant surveys are described by Nelson (1987). Permission of the landowner or land-management agency is required for both site access and plant collection. In addition, federal and/or state permits are necessary to collect specimens of plants listed as endangered, threatened, or rare. The species-specific methods presented below are intended as a supplement to the basic guidelines. They describe the conditions under which the potential for discovering each listed plant species in the survey area will be maximized. Multiple visits to a site may be necessary to ensure that survey conditions have been appropriate for all potentially-occurring rare plant species. Certain methods are common to all of the following species-specific survey guidelines; similar methods may be employed for species not covered herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Status Species Not Covered by the Habitat Conservation Plan
    SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES NOT COVERED BY THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN MARICOPA SUN SOLAR PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 2014 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES NOT COVERED BY THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Maricopa Sun Solar Project, Kern County, California Prepared for: Maricopa Sun, LLC 1396 W. Herndon Avenue #101 Fresno, California 93711 Contact Person: Jeff Roberts Phone: 559-436-0900 Fax: 559-436-1659 Prepared by: 5110 W. Cypress Ave. Visalia, Ca. 93277 (559) 733-0440 November 2014 © Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc. Unauthorized use prohibited. 090160 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Title No. 1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 2.0 Special Status Species Not Covered .....................................................................................1 2.1 Kern Mallow (Eremalche kernensis) .......................................................................2 2.2 San Joaquin Woollythreads (Monolopia congdonii) ...............................................5 2.3 Giant Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys ingens) ................................................................6 2.4 Buena Vista Lake Shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) ...................................................9 3.0 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................10 4.0 References ..........................................................................................................................11
    [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]
  • The San Joaquin Desert of California: Ecologically Misunderstood and Overlooked
    Natural Areas Journal . to advance the preservation of natural diversity A publication of the Natural Areas Association - www.naturalarea.org © Natural Areas Association The San Joaquin Desert of California: Ecologically Misunderstood and Overlooked David J. Germano1,6 1Department of Biology California State University Bakersfield, California, 93311-1022 Galen B. Rathbun2 Lawrence R. Saslaw3 Brian L. Cypher4 Ellen A. Cypher4 Larry M. Vredenburgh5 2Department of Ornithology and Mammalogy California Academy of Sciences Golden Gate Park, San Francisco c/o P.O. Box 202 Cambria, California 93428 3U.S. Bureau of Land Management Bakersfield, California 93308 4Endangered Species Recovery Program California State University-Stanislaus P.O. Box 9622 Bakersfield, CA 93389 5U. S. Bureau of Land Management Bakersfield, California 93308 6 Corresponding author: [email protected]; 661-654-2471 Natural Areas Journal 31:138–147 R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E ABSTRACT: The vegetation community of the San Joaquin Valley of California has been formally classified as a perennial grassland based largely on assumptions of past climax state. However, histori- cal records suggest that the region might be more accurately classified as a desert. The distinction is important in determining the appropriate management strategies for this ecosystem, particularly for the • many rare and endemic taxa that reside there. Abiotic and biotic factors–including low precipitation, arid soils, and desert-adapted plants and vertebrate–are consistent with conditions typical of desert ar- eas. We examined the distributions of these factors to define the extent of the San Joaquin Desert. We conclude that the San Joaquin Desert historically encompassed 28,493 km2 including the western and The San Joaquin southern two thirds of the San Joaquin Valley, and the Carrizo Plain and Cuyama Valley to the south- west.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Rare Plant Conservation Program Projects
    Santa Barbara Botanic Garden Rare Plant Conservation Program Projects Active and ongoing projects ● A comprehensive, collaborative project to recover 14 listed plants on the Channel Islands ○ Focal taxa: Arctostaphylos confertiflora, Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis, Boechera ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ hoffmanii, Castilleja mollis, Crocanthemum greenei, Dithyrea maritima, Dudleya nesiotica, Dudleya traskiae, Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii, Malacothrix indecora, ​ ​ Malacothrix squalida, Pentachaeta lyonii, Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis, ​ ​ Thysanocarpus conchuliferus ● Recovery action for listed plants of Channel Islands National Park ○ Focal taxa: Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis, Boechera hoffmanii, Castilleja mollis, ​ ​ ​ Dudleya nesiotica, Dudleya traskiae, Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii, Malacothrix ​ ​ indecora, Malacothrix squalida, Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis, Sibara filifolia ​ ​ Thysanocarpus conchuliferus ● Protecting rare plants from invasive plants: risk assessment and habitat enhancement for federally-listed plants in the Central Coast region of California ○ Focal taxa: Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata, Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum, ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa ​ ​ ● Saving for the future: conservation seed banking in the Bureau of Land Management’s Central California District ● Inventory and monitoring for priority sensitive plant species in the Bureau of Land Management's Bishop Field Office ● Understanding & conserving the endangered Kern mallow (Eremalche parryi ssp. kernensis) ​ ​ ​ ​ ○ Status
    [Show full text]
  • Eremalche Parryi Janean Lukes Taxonomy- Eremalche Parryi Is A
    Eremalche parryi Janean Lukes Taxonomy- Eremalche parryi is a herbaceous annual from the Malvaceae family. It is also known by the common name of Parry's Mallow. Recently, the taxonomic naming has come under some confusion with a close relative, Kern Mallow, a plant on the endangered species list. The naming convention of Eremalche parryi ssp. parryi is also used to indicate Parry's Mallow (Cypher, 2002). Kern Mallow is identified as Eremalche parryi ssp. kernensis. Geographic Distribution- Parry's mallow is native to North America, specifically the United States. The plant is endemic to California where it can be found in the Sierra Nevada Foothills, the San Joaquin Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Western Transverse Ranges and both the Inner and Outer South Coast Ranges (Andreason & Bates, 2012). This includes 13 counties in California (USDA Plants Database, 2013). E. parryi is found roughly between 35 and 45 North latitude but there is no published data on this information. Many reports show E. parryi growing on south facing slopes and on tops of sand dunes. Most reports show it growing in soil such as decomposed granite, sand or gravel, indicating that this plant grows best in a drier, well-drained soil. This may indicate that the plant is quick to produce a fibrous root system to anchor itself into unstable soil that other plants may not be able to grow in and may demonstrate the root system is able to scavenge for resources in less than fertile soil conditions. Some reports show the plant growing between 4-5 feet tall, even in less than ideal soil conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Name (Heading 1)
    BOTANICAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT For The SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NATIONAL FORESTS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT ~FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT~ Prepared by: /s/ David A. Austin______________Date_09/05/2013________ David A. Austin, Forest Biologist, San Bernardino National Forest Input Provided by: Deveree Kopp, Robin Eliason, Scott Eliason - San Bernardino National Forest Kirsten Winter - Cleveland National Forest Janet Nickerman - Angeles National Forest Lloyd Simpson, Kevin Cooper - Los Padres National Forest SUMMARY This biological assessment addresses the potential effects of threatened and endangered plant species that are known to occur in the Inventory Roadless Areas affected by the proposed action. The Forest Service proposes to amend the 2006 Land Management Plans (LMPs) in a limited in scope to address the terms of a settlement agreement between the Forest Service, State of California, and other settlement parties. The proposed action is to modify the existing land use zones in 37 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) to include more Back Country Non-Motorized (BCNM) and Recommended Wilderness (RW) areas on the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests. The analysis addresses three alternatives (Alternatives 2, 2a and 3) to amend LMP land use zone allocations for the 37 IRAs in addition to taking no action (Alternative 1). Additionally, the analysis addresses two alternatives (Alternatives B and C) to amend LMP monitoring and evaluation protocols, in addition to making no changes (Alternative A). The biological reports in the Project Record for the Final EIS for the LMP (USDA Forest Service 2006) provide the basis for this evaluation and they are incorporated here by reference. The analyses in those 2006 biological reports relative to the effects expected to botanical resources from the selected alternative are the same as Alternative 1 (No Action) for this proposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Plants of Santa Barbara County
    Rare Plants of Santa Barbara County Central Coast Center for Plant Conservation Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (SBBG) 1212 Mission Canyon Rd, Santa Barbara 93105 The purpose of this list is to bring attention to those vascular plant taxa with a limited distribution in Santa Barbara County, irrespective of their status, whether they are common elsewhere or whether they are considered imperiled, threatened, or endangered by resource management agencies. This list was prepared from records maintained as part of a specimen-based database at the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. It includes plants from the mainland and four California Channel Islands (Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel). Records were primarily acquired from verified herbarium specimens deposited at several herbaria, including the University of California at Berkeley (JEPS, UC), the California Academy of Sciences (CAS, DS), the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB), and the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (SBBG). Additional records were acquired from peer-reviewed publications and professional reports that refer to specimens at other herbaria or verified observations (e.g., California Natural Diversity Database). Nomenclature follows The Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al., 2012), except for addenda published on the Jepson Herbarium Online Interchange (ucjeps.berkeley.edu/jepson_flora_project.html) and recent scientific publications (e.g., Flora of North America, 1999-2007, Oxford University Press). Additional information, including nomenclature and distributional records based on documented specimens, can be accessed on the Jepson Herbarium Online Interchange. Occurrences. Any two documented locations that were estimated to be more than 1 km apart are considered to represent separate “occurrences”. Only those species, subspecies, and varieties represented by 1-8 documented natural occurrences in Santa Barbara County are listed here.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinnacles Vascular Plant List
    Pinnacles Vascular Plant List nomenclature follows Baldwin et al, 2012 Pinnacles Vascular Plant List Lycophytes SELAGINELLACEAE Selaginella bigelovii Spike Moss Native Ferns AZOLLACEAE Azolla filiculoides Mosquito Fern Native BLECHNACEAE Woodwardia fimbriata Western Chain Fern Native DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens Bracken Fern Native DRYOPTERIDACEAE Dryopteris arguta Coastal Wood Fern Native Polystichum imbricans ssp. curtum Sword Fern Native EQUISETACEAE Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii Giant Horsetail Native POLYPODIACEAE Polypodium californicum California Polypody Native Polypodium calirhiza Licorice Fern Native PTERIDACEAE Adiantum jordanii California Maidenhair Fern Native Aspidotis californica California Lace Fern Native Cheilanthes covillei Coville's Lipfern Native Cheilanthes intertexta Coast Lip Fern Native Pellaea andromedifolia Coffee Fern Native Pellaea mucronata var. mucronata Bird's-foot Fern Native Pentagramma pallida Silverback Fern Native Pentagramma triangularis ssp. triangularis Goldback Fern Native WOODSIACEAE Cystopteris fragilis Fragile Fern Native Gymnosperms CUPRESSACEAE Juniperus californica California Juniper Native PINACEAE Pinus sabiniana Gray Pine Native Magnoliids LAURACEAE Umbellularia californica California Bay Native Eudicots ADOXACEAE Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea Blue Elderberry Native Page 1 of 18 Pinnacles Vascular Plant List Eudicots AMARANTHACEAE Amaranthus albus Tumbleweed Alien Amaranthus blitoides Prostrate Amaranth Native Amaranthus californicus California Amaranth Native Amaranthus
    [Show full text]