Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2009 Modeling Species Distributions of Three Endemic Florida Panhandle Mints under Climate Change: Comparing Plant and Pollinator Distribution Shifts under Future Conditions Amanda J. Kubes Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES MODELING SPECIES DISTRIBUTIONS OF THREE ENDEMIC FLORIDA PANHANDLE MINTS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE: COMPARING PLANT AND POLLINATOR DISTRIBUTION SHIFTS UNDER FUTURE CONDITIONS By AMANDA J. KUBES A Thesis submitted to the Department of Biological Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2009 The members of the committee approve the thesis of Amanda J. Kubes defended on June 23, 2009. Austin Mast Professor Directing Thesis Alice A. Winn Committee Member Brian Inouye Committee Member Approved: P. Bryant Chase, Chair, Department of Biological Science The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ―I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.‖ -Albert Einstein This has been one of the most rewarding (and challenging) decisions in my life, and I made it through this everything in no small part thanks to the support of everyone who has taken steps with me along the way. Thank you so much-first, to my family: my loving husband, who doesn‘t know exactly what I do but is behind me every step of the way, my parents who are proud of me no matter what I do, and all of my aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents who have given me their encouragement and support. Thanks to all of my closest friends, both old and those I have met here along the way for being there and offering support and suggestions. Thank you to my advisor, Dr. Austin Mast, who helped me along with never-ending patience, guidance, and strong support even when I thought I might not be able to push myself. I want to thank the members of my graduate committee, Drs. Alice Winn and Brian Inouye, who were always ready and willing to give me their time, help, encouragement, and suggestions whenever I needed it. Thank you to Gil Nelson and Loran Anderson for all of the help with plant identification, localities, and ready willingness to help me at all times. Thank you to everyone in the herbarium (past and present), for all of your technical and moral support; especially to Sarah Braun, who gave me ideas and wonderful support to get me through my first year. Funding for my fieldwork came from the Robert K. Godfrey Endowment Award from the Florida State University, for which I am very grateful. Last but not least, I want to thank the following people and organizations for their moral and technical support: Amy Jenkins, Lindsay Horton, and the entire staff at Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Dean Jue, Ken Womble, Louise Kirn, Theresa Pitts-Singer, and Vivian Ortez-Negron. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................v List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... vi Abstract ...............................................................................................................................................x INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1 1. POLLINATOR OBSERVATIONS, EXCLUSION MANIPULATIONS, AND SEED SET OF THREE ENDEMIC FLORIDA PANHANDLE MINTS ................................................3 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................3 METHODS ...........................................................................................................................14 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................19 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................31 2. MODELING THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF THREE ENDEMIC FLORIDA PANHANDLE MINTS AND THEIR POLLINATORS UNDER CURRENT AND FUTURE CLIMATE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................36 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................36 METHODS ...........................................................................................................................43 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................49 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................77 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................82 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................83 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................................94 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Flowering times for three mint species as reported by FNAI and PanFlora.....................14 Table 1.2 Number of potential pollinators observed over 13 hours total for populations of Conradina glabra (2008 and 2009), Physostegia godfreyi, and Stachydeoma graveolens (2008 only for these species) .........................................................................19 Table 1.3 Composition of the three most observed potential pollinators for Conradina glabra. Shows the total number of each insect type observed, the percent of the total insect observations for Conradina glabra, and the rate of visitation for each insect type shown ...............................................................................................................................23 Table 1.4 Composition of the three most observed potential pollinators for Stachydeoma graveolens. Shows the total number of each insect type observed, the percent of the total insect observations for Stachydeoma graveolens, and the rate of visitation for each insect type shown .....................................................................................................27 Table 1.5 Composition of the three most observed potential pollinators for Physostegia godfreyi. Shows the total number of each insect type observed, the percent of the total insect observations for Physostegia godfreyi, and the rate of visitation for each insect type shown ...............................................................................................................................27 Table 1.6 Total number of seeds produced in both open-pollinated and pollinator-excluded flowers for plants in both populations of Conradina glabra (2008 and 2009) and Physostegia godfreyi (2009) .............................................................................................29 Table 1.7 Final generalized linear model (GLM) for Conradina glabra. The variable treatment is responsible for the majority of the deviance in seed set ..................................................30 Table 1.8 Final generalized linear model (GLM) for Physostegia godfreyi. The variable treatment is responsible for the majority of the deviance in seed set, although population appears to be slightly significant as well ........................................................30 Table 2.1 Number of occurrence records used for each taxon in modeling ....................................44 Table 2.2 Environmental layers used in Maxent modeling .............................................................49 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Known distribution and occurrences of Conradina glabra, Physostegia godfreyi, and Stachydeoma graveolens ...................................................................................................6 Figure 1.2 Images of Conradina glabra habitat and morphology .....................................................9 Figure 1.3 Images of Stachydeoma graveolens habitat and morphology ........................................11 Figure 1.4 Images of Physostegia godfreyi habitat and morphology ..............................................13 Figure 1.5 Time of day observations of potential pollinators for Conradina glabra for all four days over two populations in 2008 and 2009 ..................................................................21 Figure 1.6 Time of day observations of potential pollinators for Stachydeoma graveolens for all four days over two populations in 2008 ..........................................................................22 Figure 1.7 Time of day observations of potential pollinators for Physostegia godfreyi for all four days over two populations in 2008 .................................................................................22 Figure 1.8 Images of carpenter bees (Xylocopa micans) observed in Conradina glabra population in 2009, robbing nectar from flowers ...........................................................24 Figure 1.9 Images of Bombylius major