Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Biological Sciences Theses & Dissertations Biological Sciences Spring 2010 Ecological and Genetic Status of the Purple Pitcher Plant, Sarracenia purpurea L., in Maryland and Virginia Philip M. Sheridan Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/biology_etds Part of the Botany Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, and the Plant Biology Commons Recommended Citation Sheridan, Philip M.. "Ecological and Genetic Status of the Purple Pitcher Plant, Sarracenia purpurea L., in Maryland and Virginia" (2010). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), dissertation, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/wmzf-ca05 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/biology_etds/78 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ECOLOGICAL AND GENETIC STATUS OF THE PURPLE PITCHER PLANT, SARRACENIA PURPUREA L., IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA by Philip M. Sheridan B.S. Biology, May 1994, Virginia Commonwealth University M.S. Biology, August 1996, Virginia Commonwealth University A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ECOLOGICAL SCIENCES OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY May 2010 Dr. Frame Day (Director Dr. Kneeland Nesius (Member) Dr. LyTEon Musselman (Member) ABSTRACT ECOLOGICAL AND GENETIC STATUS OF THE PURPLE PITCHER PLANT, SARRACENIA PURPUREA L., IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA Philip M. Sheridan Old Dominion University, 2010 Director: Dr. Frank Day Sarraceniapurpurea is a rare wetland plant in Virginia and a threatened species in Maryland, with two potential subspecies in the region. I utilized restriction fragments from the intron of the chalcone synthase gene to compare S. purpurea populations and determine whether the subspecies concept was supported. I performed a census of existing populations, compiled all known historical data on the species, and investigated the reasons for the species demise and predicted dates of extinction. Bloom phenology was examined to see if climate change may have influenced bloom period. Soil, vegetation, and climatic information was obtained to determine if taxonomic differences correlated with environmental variables. I found no genetic difference in the intron of the chalcone synthase gene in mid-Atlantic S. purpurea populations while I did find differences with other Sarracenia species and S. purpurea varieties. These results suggest that a single taxon of S. purpurea occurs in Maryland and Virginia. Only 31% (4 of 13)of the sites are extant on the western shore of Maryland and District of Columbia while 33% (14 of 42) of the sites remain in Virginia with respective populations of 46 and 513 clumps. Causes of regional extirpation include beaver flooding, succession, and development. Predicted pitcher plant population extinction dates, based on trend line froml30 years of data, are 2015 (Maryland) and 2055 (Virginia). Disturbance, especially natural fire, played an essential role in maintaining purple pitcher plant historically in Maryland and Virginia. Sarracenia purpurea blooms May 8 - June 12 in Maryland and Virginia with a peak May 18-20. Peak bloom period of S. purpurea may have shifted as much as a week from historical dates, perhaps due to climate change. Purple pitcher plant soils in Maryland and Virginia met expected conditions of low pH (3.5^4.9) and were low in almost all macro- and micro-nutrients. Perturbed or polluted sites exhibited elevated levels of exchangeable cations magnesium, calcium, and sodium. Climatic data disclosed that southern Virginia purple pitcher plant sites are both warmer and wetter than those in Maryland. Maryland pitcher plant bogs had greater species richness than Virginia bogs but the latter had more state rare plants. V This dissertation is dedicated to Margie Sheridan. "Indeed, it has been quite a pleasure to have experienced and studied these [cedar swamps and bogs] ecologically significant sites. Local and State governments should immediately institute a truly effective effort, perhaps acquisition, including appropriate buffer areas, to preserve their natural integrity. Indeed, I am convinced that society should demand it." Bill Sipple, Days Afield. VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Drs. Peter and Genevieve Sheridan for all their help and to my loving wife Margie Sheridan. My committee has also provided the support and encouragement to see this project through and I thank them for their assistance. I would also especially like to thank the USD A, Dr. Robert Griesbach, and USDA staff for help, supplies, and equipment to complete the molecular work in the lab in Beltsville, Maryland. I would like to thank the landowners who gave me permission to access their property for field surveys and to those individuals who helped procure samples ofSarracenia flowers from distant locations including Louise Kern (US Forest Service Florida), Adam Knatkovich (West Virginia and Pennsylvania), Dave Evans (New Jersey), Matt Opel (Connecticut), Jamie Dozier (South Carolina). Additional thanks are due to the following: Jim Solomon of the Missouri Botanical Garden; Rob Naczi of the New York Botanical Garden; Beth Chambers of William and Mary Herbarium; John Hayden of the University of Richmond; Emily Wood and Carolyn Beans of Harvard University Herbaria; Bill McAvoy of the Delaware Natural Heritage Program; Darren Loomis, Johnny Townsend, and Chris Ludwig of the Virginia Natural Heritage Program; Kathryn McCarthy, Chris Frye, and Jason Harrison of the Maryland Natural Heritage Program; Ron Beck and Charity James of USDA; Dr. Paul Chu of A&L Labs Inc.; Larry Brown of NOAA; Robert Wright; Jim Robinson; Joan Walker. Bill Scholl and his parents, James and Betty Scholl, provided invaluable assistance in my early botanical work looking for Sarracenia in Virginia. Keith and Mary Underwood provided logistical support for Maryland efforts. Permission to quote the Lewis papers was granted by University of Virginia Library, Seward Forest Papers, MSS10026, special Collections. I would also like to thank anyone whom I may have forgotten to mention who helped with this research. Thank you all very much! vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES IX LIST OF FIGURES X INTRODUCTION 1 ECOLOGY 1 TAXONOMY AND GENETICS 3 BIOGEOGRAPHY 5 GOALS 5 STUDY AREAS 7 SITE CHARACTERIZATION-MARYLAND 7 SITE CHARACTERIZATION-VIRGINIA 9 A CENSUS OF PURPLE PITCHER PLANT, SARRACENIA PURPUREA L., IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA 11 INTRODUCTION 11 MATERIALS AND METHODS 12 RESULTS 14 DISCUSSION 20 EXTINCTION WATCH 20 MECHANISMS FOR PURPLE PITCHER PLANT PERSISTENCE IN THE WILD 22 CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECTS AND THE SUBSPECIES QUESTION.25 GENETIC ANALYSIS OF PURPLE PITCHER PLANT, SARRACENIA PURPUREA L., SUBSPECIES UTILIZING THE CHALCONE SYNTHASE INTRON 29 INTRODUCTION 29 MATERIALS AND METHODS 32 PLANT MATERIAL 32 DNA ISOLATION : 33 PCR AMPLIFICATION 33 RESTRICTION ANALYSIS 34 RESULTS 35 COMPARISON OF OUTGROUPS 35 COMPARISON WITHIN S. PURPUREA 40 DISCUSSION 44 SOILS AND VEGETATION OF PURPLE PITCHER PLANT, SARRACENIA PURPUREA L., SITES IN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA 50 INTRODUCTION 50 MATERIALS AND METHODS 52 RESULTS 54 DISCUSSION 72 Vlll SOIL/ PLANT RELATIONS 72 COMPARISON OF SOIL CHARACTERISTICS 73 CHEMICAL FERTILIZATION AND POLLUTION 78 SLOPE, ASPECT, AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA 81 RARE PLANTS AND SPECIES RICHNESS 83 CONCLUSIONS 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY 91 APPENDICES 105 HISTORICAL REVIEW - MARYLAND AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 105 HISTORICAL REVIEW - VIRGINIA 118 HERBARIUM, LITERATURE DATA, AND CREDIBLE REPORTS FOR S. PURPUREA IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WESTERN SHORE OF MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA 158 PLANT CHECKLIST FOR MARYLAND PURPLE PITCHER PLANT BOGS 165 PLANT CHECKLIST FOR VIRGINIA PURPLE PITCHER PLANT BOGS 170 VITA 194 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Census of S. purpurea populations on the western shore of Maryland 15 2. Census of S. purpurea populations in Virginia 15 3. Flower buds of S. purpurea obtained between 2005 and 2006 32 4. Soil parameters for S. purpurea sites in Virginia and Maryland 55 5. Soil parameters for S. purpurea sites in Virginia and Maryland 57 6. Slope and aspect of Maryland and Virginia S. purpurea sites 59 7. Temperature normals 1971-2000 (Degrees Fahrenheit) 61 8. Temperature averages 1971-2000 and 2001-2009 (Degrees Fahrenheit) 62 9. Precipitation normals 1971-2000 (Total in Inches) 64 10. Precipitation averages 1971-2000 and 2001-2009 65 11. Rare, threatened, and endangered plant species 66 12. Species richness and rare plant quality 67 13. Correlation analysis of soil and vegetative characteristics 70 14. Selected soil variables at pitcher plant sites throughout the Southeast 73 X LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Historic and extant sites for S. purpurea 7 2. Current distribution of S. purpurea 15 3. Sarraceniapurpurea L. regional extirpation prediction 17 4. Sarracenia purpurea local population extirpation prediction 18 5. Sarracenia purpurea bloom phenology 18 6. United States distribution of S. purpurea and S. rosea 20 7. Historical S. purpurea distribution in Virginia and fire regimes 24 8. Rsa 1 digestion of the Chs intron from S. rosea and S. purpurea 36 9. PCR products of the Chs intron of S. rosea and S. purpurea 36 10. Alul digestion of the Chs intron from S. rosea and S. purpurea 37 11. Repeated Alu 1 restriction digests of the Chs intron from S. rosea 38 12. Comparison of S. purpurea var. montana and S. jonesii PCR Chs intron products 39 13. Sarracenia jonesii Chs intron digested with Alu 1 40 14. Comparison ofS. purpurea Chs intron PCR product and its Rsa 1 digestion 41 15. New Jersey S. purpurea Chs intron PCR products and their digestion 42 16. Chs intron PCR products and their Alu 1 digestion of S. purpurea 42 17. Chs intron PCR products and Alu 1 digestions of S. purpurea var. montana 43 18. Repeated Alu 1 digestions of S. purpurea Chs intron 43 19. Aerial views of Arden bog from 1943 - 1978 108 20. Arden bog before flooding, 1998 109 21.