DOCSLIB.ORG

Summary Report of Peer Review on Draft Technical Guidance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FINAL SUMMARY REPORT Peer Review of Technical Guidance on Selecting Species for Landscape Scale Conservation REGION 6 OFFICE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE June 20, 2014 Prepared for: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Headquarters 4401 North Fairfax Drive Arlington, Virginia 22203 Prepared by: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 1819 Denver West Drive Suite 100 Golden, CO 80401 USFWS Order No. F13PB00113 AMEC Project No. 32106C003 Summary Report of Peer Review of Technical Guidance on Selecting Species This Page Intentionally Left Blank Summary Report of Peer Review of Technical Guidance on Selecting Species TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Background .......................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Peer Reviewers .................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Summary of Peer Reviewer Responses ............................................................... 4 Question 1 ............................................................................................................ 5 Question 2 ............................................................................................................ 6 Question 3 ............................................................................................................ 7 Question 4 ............................................................................................................ 8 Question 5 ............................................................................................................ 9 Question 6 .......................................................................................................... 10 Question 7 .......................................................................................................... 11 Question 8 .......................................................................................................... 15 Other Comments ................................................................................................ 16 4.0 Overall Summary for Each Reviewer .................................................................. 17 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................... 18 Appendix A: Complete Individual Responses, including Line Comments Summary and Comment Matrix Summarizing Responses to USFWS Requests for Clarification Appendix B: Reviewer’s Resumes Page i Summary Report of Peer Review of Technical Guidance on Selecting Species This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page ii Summary Report of Peer Review of Technical Guidance on Selecting Species Executive Summary In 2012, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) committed to using Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) as an approach to address the challenges of the 21st century. As part of implementing that commitment, the Service distributed a version of the draft Technical Guidance on Selecting Species for Design of Landscape Scale Conservation (Technical Guidance) as a practical step in the biological planning component of the SHC approach. Five external peer reviewers have completed a formal, independent, external scientific peer review of the latest draft Technical Guidance. The panel was tasked specifically to review the scientific information in the Technical Guidance and its practical application to conservation management. The external peer reviewers generally agreed that the Technical Guidance is missing key elements and does a poor job of providing scientific support for many of the statements made within it, although one reviewer was not as critical as the others. Generally, all reviewers recommended additional, more detailed discussion of the different types of surrogates (species and otherwise) and their uses, along with associated discussion of their advantages and disadvantages, evidence for success, and associated monitoring requirements. There was disagreement among the reviewers about whether or not climate change was well-integrated within the document. Every reviewer included specific recommendations and they were all generally along the same lines, although some reviewers recommended more significant revisions than other reviewers. The overall message from the external peer reviewers was that the document needs significant revision, including better organization, more focus, and better discussion and inclusion of the scientific literature. Page 1 of 18 Summary Report of Peer Review of Technical Guidance on Selecting Species This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 2 of 18 Summary Report of Peer Review of Technical Guidance on Selecting Species 1.0 Background In July 2012, the Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) sent a message to all employees discussing the Service’s commitment to Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) as an approach to address the challenges of the 21st century. In concert with that message, the Service distributed a version of the draft Technical Guidance on Selecting Species for Design of Landscape Scale Conservation (Technical Guidance) as a practical step in the biological planning component of the SHC approach. All employees were encouraged to submit comments on the Technical Guidance and attend discussion sessions throughout each region. There was a significant response and additional information and suggestions improved the draft Technical Guidance. States, tribes, and non-government organizations were also provided the draft Technical Guidance and their comments and suggestions were considered in subsequent revisions. Comments were received through March 2013, followed by further revisions to the draft Technical Guidance by a team composed of state fish and wildlife agency and Service representatives. Given the long-term conservation implications of the Technical Guidance, and its influential information, it required a formal, external, independent scientific peer review before implementation. If the Technical Guidance does not include the best science and analyses, any decisions or conservation actions based on this Technical Guidance may be less effective in the long-term conservation of fish, wildlife and plants at a landscape-scale. The purpose of this review is to provide a formal, independent, external scientific peer review of the Service’s draft Technical Guidance as part of the biological planning component of SHC. 2.0 Peer Reviewers Peer reviewers were tasked to review the scientific information in the Technical Guidance and its practical application to conservation management. The peer reviewers reviewed the scientific integrity of the recommended guidance, the validity of the arguments made for its application, the interpretation of the science cited in the guidance in support of using surrogate species, and its ability to enhance the design and success of landscape-scale conservation. The review was limited to the information and analysis in the Technical Guidance only, and did not include a review of the SHC policy, but did consider the Technical Guidance’s application within the framework of SHC. Additionally, the reviewers evaluated whether the surrogate species concepts described by the guidance document are supported by the scientific literature and are likely to provide the landscape-scale conservation objectives described. The selection of peer reviewers followed the guidance provided in the Office of Management and Budget’s Final Information Quality Bulletin on Peer Review (OMB Bulletin; December 16, 2004) to ensure scientific integrity of the peer review. Appropriate expertise and an appropriate balance of that expertise was identified for this peer review panel during the process of identifying potential reviewers. Panelists with expertise in large-scale conservation planning and landscape ecology were essential for this peer review. Additional expertise in zoology, botany, Page 3 of 18 Summary Report of Peer Review of Technical Guidance on Selecting Species aquatic systems, community ecology, paleoecology and/or evolutionary biology was also appropriate. All peer reviewers were provided the language from the OMB Bulletin (2004) with regard to independence and conflicts of interest and any potential issues were identified and evaluated during the selection of the panelists, both with respect to both the Service and the report under peer review. To maintain the independence and objectivity of the peer review, a number was randomly assigned to each peer reviewer and all references in this report are to that number. The five peer reviewers all have experience with large-scale conservation planning and/or landscape ecology and with peer reviews of scientific publications. The reviewers are all independent of the Service, have not taken an advocacy position with respect to this topic, and have no conflicts of interest. The resumes for the peer reviewers are presented in Appendix B and the reviewers consist of: . Stephanie Januchowski-Hartley, PhD from University of Wisconsin at Madison; . Joshua Lawler, PhD from University of Washington (Seattle); . Dennis Murphy, PhD from University of Nevada at Reno; . Maile Neel, PhD from University of Maryland; and . James Thorne, PhD from University of California at Davis. 3.0 Summary of Peer Reviewer Responses The peer reviewers considered and responded to the Charge to the Panel, a total of eight questions, provided by the Service. The following section summarizes
Recommended publications
  • (Erigeron Parishii, Asteraceae) in Joshua Tree National Park

    (Erigeron Parishii, Asteraceae) in Joshua Tree National Park

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Conservation Assessment for Parish’s Daisy (Erigeron parishii, Asteraceae) in Joshua Tree National Park Natural Resource Report NPS/JOTR/NRR—2014/887 ON THE COVER Parish’s daisy in full flower on April 26, 2006, Long Canyon, on the western edge of Joshua Tree National Park, San Bernardino County, California. Photograph by: Tasha La Doux, Joshua Tree National Park Conservation Assessment for Parish’s Daisy (Erigeron parishii, Asteraceae) in Joshua Tree National Park Natural Resource Report NPS/JOTR/NRR—2014/887 Naomi S. Fraga, Linda Prince Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 1500 N. College Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-3157 Tasha La Doux, Mitzi Harding, and Josh Hoines Joshua Tree National Park 74485 National Park Drive Twentynine Palms, CA 92277 November 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations

    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations

    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
  • Special Status Species List

    Special Status Species List

    APPENDIX J SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST APPENDIX J SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST Common Name Scientific Name State Class Status1 A Caddisfly Farula constricta OR Insect BS Adder’s-tongue Ophioglossum pusillum OR Plant BS Agave, Arizona Agave arizonica AZ Plant FE Agave, Murphey Agave murpheyi AZ Plant BS Agave, Santa Cruz Striped Agave parviflora AZ Plant BS Agoseris, Pink Agoseris lackschewitzii ID Plant BS Albatross, Short-tailed Phoebastris albatrus AK, CA Bird FE Alkaligrass, Howell’s Puccinellia howelli CA Plant BS Alkaligrass, Lemon’s Puccinellia lemmonii CA Plant BS Alkaligrass, Parish’s Puccinellia parishii CA, MT Plant BS Alpine-aster, Tall Oreostemma elatum CA Plant BS Alpine-parsley, Trotter’s Oreoxis trotteri UT Plant BS Alumroot, Duran’s Heuchera duranii CA Plant BS Amaranth, California Amaranthus californicus MT Plant BS Ambersnail, Kanab Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis AZ, UT Snail FE Ambrosia, San Diego Ambrosia pumila CA Plant FE Chlorogalum purpureum var. Amole, Purple CA Plant FT purpureum Amphipod, Malheur Cave Stygobromus hubbsi OR Crustacean BS Amphipod, Noel’s Gammarus desperatus NM Crustacean PE Angelica, King’s Angelica kingii ID Plant BS Angelica, Rough Angelica scabrida NV Plant BS Apachebush Apacheria chircahuensis NM Plant BS Apple, Indian Peraphyllum ramosissimum ID Plant BS Arrowhead, Sanford’s Sagittaria sanfordii CA Plant BS Aster, Gorman’s Eucephalus gormanii OR Plant BS Aster, Pygmy Eurybia pygmaea AK Plant BS Aster, Red Rock Canyon Ionactis caelestis NV Plant BS Avens, Mountain Senecio moresbiensis AK Plant BS Baccharis, Encinitis Baccharis vanessae CA Plant FT Balloonvine Cardiospermum corindum AZ Plant BS Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. Balsamroot, Big-scale CA Plant BS macrolepis Balsamroot, Large-leaved Balsamorhiza macrophylla MT Plant BS Balsamroot, Silky Balsamorhiza sericea CA Plant BS Balsamroot, Woolly Balsamorhiza hookeri var.
  • National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 1996

    National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 1996

    National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary Indicator by Region and Subregion Scientific Name/ North North Central South Inter- National Subregion Northeast Southeast Central Plains Plains Plains Southwest mountain Northwest California Alaska Caribbean Hawaii Indicator Range Abies amabilis (Dougl. ex Loud.) Dougl. ex Forbes FACU FACU UPL UPL,FACU Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill. FAC FACW FAC,FACW Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. NI NI NI NI NI UPL UPL Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poir. FACU FACU FACU Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl. FACU-* NI FACU-* Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. NI NI FACU+ FACU- FACU FAC UPL UPL,FAC Abies magnifica A. Murr. NI UPL NI FACU UPL,FACU Abildgaardia ovata (Burm. f.) Kral FACW+ FAC+ FAC+,FACW+ Abutilon theophrasti Medik. UPL FACU- FACU- UPL UPL UPL UPL UPL NI NI UPL,FACU- Acacia choriophylla Benth. FAC* FAC* Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. FACU NI NI* NI NI FACU Acacia greggii Gray UPL UPL FACU FACU UPL,FACU Acacia macracantha Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. NI FAC FAC Acacia minuta ssp. minuta (M.E. Jones) Beauchamp FACU FACU Acaena exigua Gray OBL OBL Acalypha bisetosa Bertol. ex Spreng. FACW FACW Acalypha virginica L. FACU- FACU- FAC- FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acalypha virginica var. rhomboidea (Raf.) Cooperrider FACU- FAC- FACU FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acanthocereus tetragonus (L.) Humm. FAC* NI NI FAC* Acanthomintha ilicifolia (Gray) Gray FAC* FAC* Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl OBL OBL Acer circinatum Pursh FAC- FAC NI FAC-,FAC Acer glabrum Torr. FAC FAC FAC FACU FACU* FAC FACU FACU*,FAC Acer grandidentatum Nutt.
  • References and Appendices

    References and Appendices

    References Ainley, D.G., S.G. Allen, and L.B. Spear. 1995. Off- Arnold, R.A. 1983. Ecological studies on six endan- shore occurrence patterns of marbled murrelets gered butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): in central California. In: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt island biogeography, patch dynamics, and the Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, technical edi- design of habitat preserves. University of Cali- tors. Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled fornia Publications in Entomology 99: 1–161. Murrelet. USDA Forest Service, General Techni- Atwood, J.L. 1993. California gnatcatchers and coastal cal Report PSW-152; 361–369. sage scrub: the biological basis for endangered Allen, C.R., R.S. Lutz, S. Demairais. 1995. Red im- species listing. In: J.E. Keeley, editor. Interface ported fire ant impacts on Northern Bobwhite between ecology and land development in Cali- populations. Ecological Applications 5: 632-638. fornia. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Allen, E.B., P.E. Padgett, A. Bytnerowicz, and R.A. Los Angeles; 149–169. Minnich. 1999. Nitrogen deposition effects on Atwood, J.L., P. Bloom, D. Murphy, R. Fisher, T. Scott, coastal sage vegetation of southern California. In T. Smith, R. Wills, P. Zedler. 1996. Principles of A. Bytnerowicz, M.J. Arbaugh, and S. Schilling, reserve design and species conservation for the tech. coords. Proceedings of the international sym- southern Orange County NCCP (Draft of Oc- posium on air pollution and climate change effects tober 21, 1996). Unpublished manuscript. on forest ecosystems, February 5–9, 1996, River- Austin, M. 1903. The Land of Little Rain. University side, CA.
  • Current Tracking List

    Current Tracking List

    Nevada Division of Natural Heritage Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 5002, Carson City, Nevada 89701-5245 voice: (775) 684-2900 | fax: (775) 684-2909 | web: heritage.nv.gov At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List July 2021 The Nevada Division of Natural Heritage (NDNH) A separate list, the Plant and Animal Watch List, systematically curates information on Nevada's contains taxa that could become at-risk in the future. endangered, threatened, sensitive, rare, and at-risk plants and animals providing the most comprehensive Taxa on the At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List are source of information on Nevada’s imperiled organized by taxonomic group, and presented biodiversity. alphabetically by scientific name within each group. Currently, there are 639 Tracking List taxa: 285 plants, Nevada's health and economic well-being depend 209 invertebrates, 65 fishes, 9 amphibians, 7 reptiles, upon its biodiversity and wise land stewardship. This 27 birds, and 37 mammals. challenge increases as population and land-use pressures continue to grow. Nevada is among the top Documentation of population status, locations, or 10 states for both the diversity and the vulnerability of other updates or corrections for any of the taxa on its living heritage. With early planning and responsible this list are always welcome. Literature citations with development, economic growth and our biological taxonomic revisions and descriptions of new taxa are resources can coexist. NDNH is a central source for also appreciated. The Nevada Native Species Site information critical to achieving this balance. Survey Report form is available on our website under Management priorities for the state’s imperiled the Submit Data tab and is the preferred format for biodiversity are continually assessed, providing submitting information to NDNH.
  • Natural Resources of Concern

    Natural Resources of Concern

    APPENDIX D BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Resources of Concern This resource list is to be used for planning purposes only Ð it is not an of®cial species list. Endangered Species Act species list information for your project is available online and listed below for the following FWS Field Of®ces: CARLSBAD FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 101 CARLSBAD, CA 92011 (760) 431-9440 http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/ VENTURA FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE 2493 PORTOLA ROAD, SUITE B VENTURA, CA 93003 (805) 644-1766 Project Name: OMYA White Knob Mine 07/30/2013 Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPAC) Page 1 of 5 Version 1.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Resources of Concern Project Location Map: Project Counties: San Bernardino, CA Geographic coordinates (Open Geospatial Consortium Well-Known Text, NAD83): MULTIPOLYGON (((-116.943255 34.3824195, -116.943255 34.3804361, -116.9827372 34.3801528, -116.9882303 34.3781693, -116.9904619 34.3780276, -116.9928652 34.3793027, -116.9956118 34.379161, -116.9983583 34.3778859, -117.0016199 34.3780276, -117.0043751 34.3770359, -117.0057398 34.3744856, -117.0035168 34.3710851, -117.0043665 34.3560648, -117.0280643 34.3566316, -117.0273777 34.3733521, -117.0067783 34.3723603, -117.0076281 34.3744856, -117.0052334 34.3784527, -117.0019718 34.3795861, -116.9945904 34.3808611, -116.9908138 34.3805778, -116.9894405 34.3794444, -116.9875523 34.3800111, -116.9832607 34.3814278, -116.9434353 34.3822778, -116.943255 34.3824195))) 07/30/2013 Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPAC) Page 2 of 5 Version 1.4 U.S.
  • Specimen Records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895

    Specimen Records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895

    Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 2019 Vol 3(2) Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895 Jon H. Shepard Paul C. Hammond Christopher J. Marshall Oregon State Arthropod Collection, Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR 97331 Cite this work, including the attached dataset, as: Shepard, J. S, P. C. Hammond, C. J. Marshall. 2019. Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895. Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 3(2). (beta version). http://dx.doi.org/10.5399/osu/cat_osac.3.2.4594 Introduction These records were generated using funds from the LepNet project (Seltmann) - a national effort to create digital records for North American Lepidoptera. The dataset published herein contains the label data for all North American specimens of Lycaenidae and Riodinidae residing at the Oregon State Arthropod Collection as of March 2019. A beta version of these data records will be made available on the OSAC server (http://osac.oregonstate.edu/IPT) at the time of this publication. The beta version will be replaced in the near future with an official release (version 1.0), which will be archived as a supplemental file to this paper. Methods Basic digitization protocols and metadata standards can be found in (Shepard et al. 2018). Identifications were confirmed by Jon Shepard and Paul Hammond prior to digitization. Nomenclature follows that of (Pelham 2008). Results The holdings in these two families are extensive. Combined, they make up 25,743 specimens (24,598 Lycanidae and 1145 Riodinidae).
  • Biological Resources Study for the Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services Yucca Valley Facility

    Biological Resources Study for the Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services Yucca Valley Facility

    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE BURRTEC WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES YUCCA VALLEY FACILITY YUCCA VALLEY, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared By: Hernandez Environmental Services 29376 North Lake Drive Lake Elsinore, California 92530 (909) 772-9009 Prepared for: Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services Waste & Recycling Services 9890 Cherry Avenue Fontana, CA 92235 July 2015 Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services Yucca Valley Facility Biological Resources Study TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................2 1.1 Project Location......................................................................................................................2 1.2 Project Description..................................................................................................................2 1.3 Purpose of Biological Resources Study......................................................................................2 2.0 METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................3 2.1 Biological Resources Study Scope of Work............................................................................3
  • Ts Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports

    Ts Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports

    DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE REPORTS DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE REPORTS DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE & SCIENCE OF NATURE DENVER MUSEUM NUMBER 16, OCTOBER 11, 2019 SCIENCE.DMNS.ORG/MUSEUM-PUBLICATIONS Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports 2001 Colorado Boulevard (Print) ISSN 2374-7730 Denver, CO 80205, U.S.A. Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports (Online) ISSN 2374-7749 REPORTS • NUMBER 16 • OCTOBER 11, 2019 • NUMBER 16 OCTOBER Cover photo: Oreas Anglewing (Polygonia oreas nigrozephyrus Scott, 1984), Gregory Canyon, Boulder County, Colorado, USA, 2 October 1973, leg. Michael G. Pogue. Photo: Bob Livingston. The Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports (ISSN Frank Krell, PhD, Editor and Production 2374-7730 [print], ISSN 2374-7749 [online]) is an open- access, non peer-reviewed scientifi c journal publishing papers about DMNS research, collections, or other Program and Abstracts Museum related topics, generally authored or co-authored 30th Annual Meeting by Museum staff or associates. Peer review will only be arranged on request of the authors. of the High Country Lepidopterists October 11–12, 2019 The journal is available online at science.dmns.org/ Museum-Publications free of charge. Paper copies Denver Museum of Nature & Science are available for purchase from our print-on-demand publisher Lulu (www.lulu.com). DMNS owns the copyright of the works published in the Reports, which are Frank-Thorsten Krell (Ed.) published under the Creative Commons Attribution Non- Commercial license. For commercial use of published
  • Diversidad Genética Y Relaciones Filogenéticas De Orthopterygium Huaucui (A

    Diversidad Genética Y Relaciones Filogenéticas De Orthopterygium Huaucui (A

    UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS BIOLÓGICAS E.A.P. DE CIENCIAS BIOLÓGICAS Diversidad genética y relaciones filogenéticas de Orthopterygium Huaucui (A. Gray) Hemsley, una Anacardiaceae endémica de la vertiente occidental de la Cordillera de los Andes TESIS Para optar el Título Profesional de Biólogo con mención en Botánica AUTOR Víctor Alberto Jiménez Vásquez Lima – Perú 2014 UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS (Universidad del Perú, Decana de América) FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS BIOLÓGICAS ESCUELA ACADEMICO PROFESIONAL DE CIENCIAS BIOLOGICAS DIVERSIDAD GENÉTICA Y RELACIONES FILOGENÉTICAS DE ORTHOPTERYGIUM HUAUCUI (A. GRAY) HEMSLEY, UNA ANACARDIACEAE ENDÉMICA DE LA VERTIENTE OCCIDENTAL DE LA CORDILLERA DE LOS ANDES Tesis para optar al título profesional de Biólogo con mención en Botánica Bach. VICTOR ALBERTO JIMÉNEZ VÁSQUEZ Asesor: Dra. RINA LASTENIA RAMIREZ MESÍAS Lima – Perú 2014 … La batalla de la vida no siempre la gana el hombre más fuerte o el más ligero, porque tarde o temprano el hombre que gana es aquél que cree poder hacerlo. Christian Barnard (Médico sudafricano, realizó el primer transplante de corazón) Agradecimientos Para María Julia y Alberto, mis principales guías y amigos en esta travesía de más de 25 años, pasando por legos desgastados, lápices rotos, microscopios de juguete y análisis de ADN. Gracias por ayudarme a ver el camino. Para mis hermanos Verónica y Jesús, por conformar este inquebrantable equipo, muchas gracias. Seguiremos creciendo juntos. A mi asesora, Dra. Rina Ramírez, mi guía académica imprescindible en el desarrollo de esta investigación, gracias por sus lecciones, críticas y paciencia durante estos últimos cuatro años. A la Dra. Blanca León, gestora de la maravillosa idea de estudiar a las plantas endémicas del Perú y conocer los orígenes de la biodiversidad vegetal peruana.
  • A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California

    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 .