DOCSLIB.ORG

Propagation for the Conservation of Pityopsis Ruthii, an Endangered

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Propagation for the Conservation of Pityopsis Ruthii, an Endangered HORTSCIENCE 49(2):194–200. 2014. species listed under the ESA, has outlined recovery criteria for Ruth’s golden aster that highlight the most critical data gaps and Propagation for the Conservation of research needs [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice (USFWS), 1992]. The most recent re- Pityopsis ruthii, an Endangered Species view of the species status cites a continuing need for better ex situ conservation efforts from the Southeastern United States and additional research focused on restora- tion of Ruth’s golden aster in suitable habitat Phillip A. Wadl1 (USFWS, 2012). Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee, Previous ex situ conservation efforts for 2505 E.J. Chapman Drive, 370 Plant Biotechnology Building, Knoxville, Ruth’s golden aster have been focused en- tirely on long-term seed storage (USFWS, TN 37996 2012). Provided seeds are available and Timothy A. Rinehart germinate readily, seed-based methods are often the most efficient means for ex situ Thad Cochran Southern Horticulture Research Laboratory, U.S. Department conservation (Pence, 2011). However, wild- of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), 810 Highway 26 collected Ruth’s golden aster seeds often West, Poplarville, MS 39470 exhibit poor germination and produce seed- lings with low vigor (Clebsch and Sloan, Adam J. Dattilo 1993; Cruzan, 2001; Farmer, 1977; White, Biological Compliance, Tennessee Valley Authority, West Tower 11C-K, 400 1977). To overcome the limitations of prop- West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37902 agating solely with seed and to provide increased flexibility in ex situ conservation Mark Pistrang efforts, an in vitro propagation protocol was Cherokee National Forest, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, developed (Wadl et al., 2011). Whereas Wadl 2800 North Ocoee Street, Cleveland, TN 37312 et al. (2011) demonstrated the capability to produce plants in vitro, further refinement Lisa M. Vito, Ryan Milstead, and Robert N. Trigiano of current techniques is needed to ensure Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee, reliable propagation. Although propagating Ruth’s golden aster from seed can be prob- 2505 E.J. Chapman Drive, 370 Plant Biotechnology Building, Knoxville, TN lematic, using seed has the advantage of 37996 producing genetically diverse propagules in- Additional index words. bonded fiber matrix, ex situ, in vitro, reintroduction, Ruth’s golden stead of clonal plants, which is essential to minimizing the potential for genetic swamp- aster, seed germination, tissue culture, vegetative propagation ing when producing plants for ex situ con- Abstract. Pityopsis ruthii is an endangered species endemic to the Hiwassee and Ocoee servation and restoration. Rivers in Tennessee. As part of a recovery effort focused on P. ruthii, vegetative Previous efforts to restore Ruth’s golden propagation and in vitro multiplication and seed germination techniques were de- aster in a suitable, unoccupied habitat were veloped. Plants were vegetatively propagated using greenhouse stock plants and wild- unsuccessful. Cruzan and Beaty (1998) per- collected stems. Rooting occurred with and without auxin treatments but was greatest formed several experimental plantings, but when 0.1% indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) talc was applied to the vegetative cuttings; after two growing seasons, almost 100% of rooting was lowest when flowering stems were used. Pro-Mix BX substrate provided the the transplants had died. The reasons for the most consistent rooting. In vitro multiplication was accomplished by the removal of experimental failures were not entirely clear, lateral shoots from in vitro-grown plants that were rooted on Murashige and Skoog but the investigators recognized the potential (MS0) basal medium with 270 clones produced from a single individual after 4 months. for drought stress and soil disturbance to Nineteen clones were transplanted and secured with bonded fiber matrix into their negatively impact reintroduced plants. Al- natural habitat and 14 survived for 1 year. To avoid genetic swamping of native though the relative importance of these two populations with the introduction of large numbers of genetically identical individuals factors in the survival of transplanted Ruth’s through clonal propagation, seed-based propagation efforts were explored. Open- golden aster is unknown, some attempt to pollinated seeds were collected, disinfested and germinated, and seedlings established mitigate for drought stress and soil distur- on MS medium. Seeds were submersed in 70% ethanol for 1 minute and briefly flamed. bance will be integral to restoring the species Seeds were surface-sterilized in a range [10% to 50% (v/v)] CloroxÒ bleach solutions with into a suitable habitat. vigorous shaking for 20 minutes, rinsed three times in sterile water, and germinated on The goal of this study was to refine the MS0. Removal of pappus from seeds was required for successful disinfestations, but the standard seed germination protocol, in vitro bleach concentration was not critical. Successful propagation is a step toward the seed germination methodology, and vegeta- conservation and recovery of P. ruthii and should allow future reintroduction projects. tive propagation techniques, including in vitro multiplication of cloned plantlets, to facilitate ex situ conservation and develop- The genus Pityopsis is comprised of seven slopes. The most recent census of Ruth’s ment of a new methodology for restoring perennial species and can be found in the golden aster populations counted 11,150 Ruth’s golden aster into suitable habitat. eastern United States, southeast Mexico, plants; more than 90% occur along the Bahamas, and Central America (Belize, Hiwassee River (Tennessee Valley Author- Materials and Methods Guatemala, and Honduras) (Semple, 2006). ity, unpublished data). Pityopsis ruthii (Ruth’s golden aster) is listed Despite its critically imperiled status, as Plant material. Clones of P. ruthii from under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and evidenced by its small overall population and an individual plant growing at the University occurs only along two small reaches of the narrow geographical range, there has been of Tennessee were regenerated from leaf and Ocoee and Hiwassee Rivers in Polk County, relatively little applied research focused spe- receptacle tissues using the methods of Wadl TN. It grows in crevices on exposed phyllite cifically on species recovery. However, the et al. (2011) and maintained in vitro and in and graywacke rocks that are in and between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is the vivo. Open-pollinated seeds (achenes) were the river channel and the adjacent forested federal agency charged with safeguarding collected from plants growing at the University 194 HORTSCIENCE VOL. 49(2) FEBRUARY 2014 PROPAGATION AND TISSUE CULTURE of Tennessee and the Hiwassee and Ocoee Rivers and dried in paper bags at ambient temperature in the laboratory for 3 d. Filled and unfilled seeds were sorted and separated and filled seeds placed into glass vials or seed envelopes, sealed in zip-loc style bags, and stored at 4 °C until use. Filled seeds are differentiated from unfilled seeds as shown in Figure 1. Seed germination. In one experiment, 100 filled seeds, each from four different sites on the Hiwassee River, were obtained from the North Carolina Botanical Garden’s long-term seed storage and germinated in Feb. 2010. Unfortunately, there are no re- cords for baseline germination rates or treat- ment of seeds before long-term storage. Seeds from three of the sites were collected in 1994; seeds from the fourth site were collected in 1995. In the second experiment, seeds were collected from three sites on the Ocoee River and one site on the Hiwassee River in Oct. 2010 and germinated in Nov. 2010. In both experiments, seeds were germi- nated on moist filter paper in petri dishes in the dark between 16 to 24 °C (Farmer, 1977). Daily observations were made and germinated seeds were established in pots filled with Pro- Mix BX and maintained in a greenhouse. In vitro seed germination. Preliminary experiments were conducted to germinate seeds in vitro. To disinfest the seeds, 50 seeds were submersed into 70% ethanol for 1 min and briefly flamed by passing through an Fig. 1. (A–B) Pityopsis ruthii filled and unfilled seeds (achenes). Filled seeds are distinguished from unfilled seeds by the swollen appearance and contained a mature embryo. ethanol burner. This was done to remove as much pappus as possible from the seeds. Seeds were then placed into 50-mL conical 0.8% (w/v) phytagar (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, placed into a 60 · 60-mm petri plate con- centrifuge tubes containing 40 mL of a 20% CA). The pH of the medium was adjusted taining 10 mL of MS0. Plates were incubated (v/v) CloroxÒ bleach shaken vigorously for to 5.8 before autoclaving at 121 °Cand in the dark between 22 and 25 °C for 3 weeks 20 min and then rinsed three times with 103.5 kPa for 20 min. The plates were in- and checked daily for contamination and sterile water. Individual seeds were placed cubated in the dark between 22 and 25 °C. All germination. Germination was considered into 60 · 60-mm petri plates containing seeds were contaminated with unidentified successful after a radicle emerged. 10 mL of MS basal medium (Murashige and fungal and bacterial growth within 48 h of Vegetative propagation. Open-pollinated Skoog, 1962) supplemented with 2% (w/v) culture. seeds that were collected from four locations sucrose, vitamins (2.0 mg·L–1 L-glycine, We suspected that the major source of on the Hiwassee River were obtained from 0.5 mg·L–1 nicotinic acid, 0.5 mg·L–1 pyro- fungal and bacterial contamination in the the North Carolina Botanical Garden and dixine, and 1.0 mg·L–1 thiamine HCl), preliminary experiments originated from the germinated following the methods of Farmer 100 mg·L–1 myo-inositol, and solidified with remaining pappus that was attached to the (1977) and four plants were maintained as seed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Edition Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist and John Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org Table of Contents LIST FORMAT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 NORTH CAROLINA RARE PLANT LIST ......................................................................................................................... 10 NORTH CAROLINA PLANT WATCH LIST ..................................................................................................................... 71 Watch Category
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas
    ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D.
    [Show full text]
  • Seven Plants in Southern U.S. Proposed for Listing
    December 1984 Vol. IX No. 12 Department of interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Bulletin Endangered Species Program, Washington, D.C. 20240 Seven Plants in Southern U.S. Proposed for Listing Seven plants occurring in the south- ern United States were proposed by the Service during Novennber for listing as Endangered and Threatened species. These plants all face the possibility of extinction, but may benefit from protec- tion authorized by the Endangered Spe- cies Act. Pityopsis ruthii Pityopsis ruthii, a plant endemic to Polk County, Tennessee, was first col- lected In the late 1800s by Albert Ruth, a Knoxville botanist, near the Hlwassee River. Commonly referred to as Ruth's golden aster, this plant is a fibrous- rooted perennial that grows only in the soil-filled cracks of phyllite boulders in and adjacent to the Ocoee and Hlwas- see Rivers. Its stems range from one to three decimeters tall and bear long nar- row leaves covered with silvery hairs. Yellow flowers appear in a paniculate Inflorescence in late August and Sep- tember, and fruits develop a few weeks after the flowers fade. Pityopsis ruthii is being threatened by water quality degradation, toxic chemi- cal spills, and water flow regime manip- ulations. The two known populations of this species occur on short reaches of Pityopsis ruthii (Ruth's golden aster) rivers In which water regimes are con- trolled by upstream dams operated by river result in frequent high flow condi- the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). tions that naturally would occur only a Natural water flows in the Hlwassee few times per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Grasslands
    LONG ISLAND SOUND HABITAT RESTORATION INITIATIVE SECTION 4: COASTAL GRASSLANDS Technical Support for Coastal Habitat Restoration SECTION 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS COASTAL GRASSLANDS ..........................................................4-1 DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 4-1 Maritime Grasses..............................................................................................4-1 Sand Plains ......................................................................................................4-1 Hempstead Plains ............................................................................................4-2 Old Field Grasslands ........................................................................................4-3 VALUES AND FUNCTIONS ........................................................................... 4-3 STATUS AND TRENDS ................................................................................. 4-4 DEGRADED GRASSLANDS AND RESTORATION METHODS.............................. 4-6 SPECIFIC RESTORATION OBJECTIVES ........................................................... 4-7 RESTORATION SUCCESS AND MONITORING................................................. 4-8 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................... 4-9 LIST OF FIGURES SECTION 4 FIGURE 4-1. Newly Seeded Little Bluestem .......................................................4-1 FIGURE 4-2. Farm Field with Common Reed, Shrubs, and Invasive
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species List
    Effective April 15, 2009 - List is subject to revision For a complete list of Tennessee's Rare and Endangered Species, visit the Natural Areas website at http://tennessee.gov/environment/na/ Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Plants and Aquatic Animals with Protected Status State Federal Type Class Order Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Habit Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Berry Cave Salamander T Amphibian Amphibia Anura Gyrinophilus palleucus Tennessee Cave Salamander T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus bouchardi Big South Fork Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus cymatilis A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus deweesae Valley Flame Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus extraneus Chickamauga Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus obeyensis Obey Crayfish T Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus pristinus A Crayfish E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarus williami "Brawley's Fork Crayfish" E Crustacean Malacostraca Decapoda Fallicambarus hortoni Hatchie Burrowing Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes incomptus Tennessee Cave Crayfish E Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes shoupi Nashville Crayfish E LE Crustacean Malocostraca Decapoda Orconectes wrighti A Crayfish E Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Shield Fern T Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Dryopteris cristata Crested Shield-Fern T FACW, OBL, Bogs Fern and Fern Ally Filicopsida Polypodiales Trichomanes boschianum
    [Show full text]
  • New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited By
    New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List May 2004 Edited by: Stephen M. Young and Troy W. Weldy This list is also published at the website: www.nynhp.org For more information, suggestions or comments about this list, please contact: Stephen M. Young, Program Botanist New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 518-402-8951 Fax 518-402-8925 E-mail: [email protected] To report sightings of rare species, contact our office or fill out and mail us the Natural Heritage reporting form provided at the end of this publication. The New York Natural Heritage Program is a partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and by The Nature Conservancy. Major support comes from the NYS Biodiversity Research Institute, the Environmental Protection Fund, and Return a Gift to Wildlife. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... Page ii Why is the list published? What does the list contain? How is the information compiled? How does the list change? Why are plants rare? Why protect rare plants? Explanation of categories.................................................................................................................... Page iv Explanation of Heritage ranks and codes............................................................................................ Page iv Global rank State rank Taxon rank Double ranks Explanation of plant
    [Show full text]
  • Pityopsis) Graminifolia (Asteraceae: Astereae
    Semple, J.C. and F. Jabbour. 2019. Type specimens of Inula (Pityopsis) graminifolia (Asteraceae: Astereae). Phytoneuron 2019-22. 1-9. Published 25 April 2019. ISSN 2153 733X TYPE SPECIMENS OF INULA (PITYOPSIS) GRAMINIFOLIA (ASTERACEAE: ASTEREAE) JOHN C. SEMPLE Department of Biology, University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 [email protected] and FLORIAN JABBOUR Institut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (ISYEB) Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, EPHE, Université des Antilles, 57 rue Cuvier, CP39, 75005 Paris, France ABSTRACT Recent proposed changes to the nomenclature of the goldenaster genus Pityopsis disagreed significantly on the application of the name Inula graminifolia, the basionym of Pityopsis graminifolia. In order to clarify the problem, the three known collections of Inula graminifolia in the Herbarium of the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (P) collected by André Michaux were examined. The holotype collection has small heads with many stipitate glands on the distal portion of the phyllaries and obvious long hairs on the peduncles. This is also the case for the isotype collection. A third collection by Michaux is mixed with a shoot with larger heads and shoots with smaller heads and all with phyllaries with few or no stipitate glands. Thus, the third specimen is not part of the same taxon as the holotype and isotype. The Pityopsis graminifolia (Michx.) Nutt. complex includes goldenasters native to the southeastern USA, southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, western Honduras, and the Bahamas. The complex includes either a single species with multiple varieties (Semple & Bowers 1985; Semple 2006) or the complex might be divided into multiple species with more narrowly defined morphological and ecological limits.
    [Show full text]
  • Pityopsis Oligantha (Chapman Ex Torrey & Gray) Small
    Common Name: FEW-FLOWERED GOLDEN-ASTER Scientific Name: Pityopsis oligantha (Chapman ex Torrey & Gray) Small Other Commonly Used Names: coastal plain golden-aster, few-headed grass-leaved golden-aster Previously Used Scientific Names: Chrysopsis oligantha Chapman ex Torrey & Gray, Heterotheca oligantha (Chapman ex Torrey & Gray) V.L. Harms Family: Asteraceae/Compositae (aster) Rarity Ranks: G3/S1S2 State Legal Status: Special Concern Federal Legal Status: none Federal Wetland Status: FAC Description: Perennial herb with erect stems 8 - 20 inches (20 - 50 cm) tall, the lower stem covered with silky, silvery hairs; the upper stem with dark, knob-tipped, glandular hairs. Lower leaves 3 - 12 inches (8 - 30 cm) long and up to ½ inch (3 - 14 mm) wide, grass-like, silky-hairy. Stem leaves fewer than 7, much reduced in size and scattered along the stem. Flower heads about 1½ inches (4 cm) wide, 1 - 6 per plant, on long stalks. Each flower head composed of 11 - 16 yellow, strap-shaped ray flowers and 25 - 40 yellow disk flowers in a central disk; the base of the head is surrounded by several series of green bracts forming a cup (involucre) around the base, ½ inch (9 - 11 mm) high, covered with knob-tipped, glandular hairs. Fruits less than ¼ inch (4 - 5 mm) long, dry, seed-like, ribbed, and hairy. Similar Species: Grass-leaved golden-aster (Pityopsis graminifolia) is abundant in dry habitats throughout Georgia. It has more than 7 stem leaves per plant and more than 6 flower heads per stem. The upper stem has few or no glandular hairs, and the lower leaves are usually wider than ¾ inch (2 cm).
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Life History Traits of Rare Versus Frequent Plant Taxa of Sandplains: Implications for Research and Management Trials
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 136 (2007) 44– 52 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Plant life history traits of rare versus frequent plant taxa of sandplains: Implications for research and management trials Elizabeth J. Farnsworth* Harvard University, Harvard Forest, 324 North Main Street, P.O. Box 68, Petersham, MA 01366, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: I apply a comparative, functional group approach to coastal sandplain grassland taxa in Received 10 May 2006 order to examine whether rare plant species share certain aspects of rarity and life history Received in revised form characters that are distinct from their more common, co-occurring congeners in these hab- 14 September 2006 itats. I compiled a comparative data set containing 16 variables describing biogeographic Accepted 26 October 2006 distributions, level of imperilment, habitat specialization, vegetative versus sexual repro- Available online 8 December 2006 duction, seed dispersal, and dormancy of 27 closely-related pairs of plant species that con- trast in their abundance (infrequent versus common) in coastal sandplain grasslands. Keywords: Frequent and infrequent species were paired within genera (or closely related genera) Sandplains and thus distributed equivalently across families to control for phylogenetic bias. Paired Plants comparisons revealed that infrequent species were intrinsically rarer range-wide, and Rarity exhibited a narrower range and more habitat specialization than their common relatives. Life history A classification tree distinguished infrequent species from common species on the basis Comparative method of higher habitat specialization, larger seed size, smaller plant height, less reliance less on vegetative (colonial) reproduction, and tendency toward annual or biennial life history.
    [Show full text]