Sagebrushes that Almost make California

California is far from deprived of sagebrush vegetation, but is deprived of some sagebrushes (Artemisia Subg. Tridentatae).  Several species approach the eastern California region, and should be sought out, either in Modoc County or in the mountains and eastern Mohave desert.  (Schultz 2012) displays a small (thus low resolution) ecological array depicting sagebrush habitat selection pattern (which I reproduce here).  California has species that fill her entire array (green stars); these ‘missing’ species are the red stars (this also discounts a report of A. tripartita from CA)

Artemisia filifolia

“Sand sage” is distributed over much of Arizona, New Mexico, nw Texas, north in the western Great Plains to South Dakota.  Artemisia filifolia is absent from far southern Nevada (Schultz 2009).  It has been collected often within Washington County in far sw Utah, and in adjacent parts of Arizona.  One record from Mohave County, Hualpai Mountains, : R. Darrow s.n., June 1 1942 (ARIZ52484) if correct would be the most proximal to CA, within ca. 50 miles.    Artemisia filifolia was not reported for the Hualpai Mountain flora (Butterwick et al. 1991), nor was the specimen cited by or mapped by (Schultz 2009).  Absent from the Whipple Mountains (DeGrout 2007)

Artemisia papposa

Centered in the Snake River plains of Idaho, occurrences are known from ncNV in Elko County.  There are very few records generally, and there are no PNW Consortium collections from far se Oregon, where Packard 76-165 (UTC154100) was gathered.  Described in the Pocket Sagebrush Guide (Schultz 2012) as occurring in ‘pockets’ of soil in barren (their term, equal to recent?) lava fields, at 1400-2100 meters elevation (the elevation given both in Intermountain Flora and in FNA Vol. 19).  BONAP records an Elko County, Nevada record.  The center of distribution is in the Owyhee Desert bioregion of Intermountain Flora.  The geographic range west of the mapped occurrences in SEINet are poorly collected.   Mansfield (2000) did not report it in the vicinity of the Steens Mountains, Harney County, Oregon.  If A. papposa were disjunct to the Modoc Plateau (ca. 200 km westward) it would be expected only in far northeast Modoc County.  Artemisia papposa is a low subshrub rarely >2 dm tall, and was not treated in Artemisia Subg. Tridentatae by (Schultz 2009); in FNA Vol. 19 she placed it in Sect. Artemisia and remarked it show alliance to Sphaeromeria.

Artemisia pygmaea

Schulz (2009) maps a record in the vicinity of Clark County, Nevada but does not cite the specimen.  No record is reported from the Spring Mountains (Niles & Leary 2007).  In far northern Arizona, where it is a rare plant, there are records on the Grand Canyon north rim, and a redacted record for Mohave County.  The elevation range given is 1500-2000 meters (Schultz 2009) or 1500-1800 meters in FNA Vol. 19.  Reported from ‘barren outcrops’, ‘fine textured clay soils’ or ‘cemented ash’ (Schulz 2012) or gypsum and shale (Schultz 2009). This compact, low, aromatic sage, would not be unexpected, but would be rare if it were to occur in Inyo or northeastern San Bernardino County, California.

Artemisia rigida

In Steens Mountains ‘rare on rocky slopes below 1600 meters Mansfield (2000).  One occurrence in Harney County T. M. Barkley et al. s.n. in 1956 Squaw Butte Experiment Station, on Juniper Ridge north of the Headquarters” is ca. 115 km from Modoc County.  BONAP does not record A. rigida from Klamath County, but does have a record for Douglas County in a cismontane setting (which is suspect...).  Capable of sprouting after fire (Schultz 2009).  Occurs on loams or montmorillonic clays (which characteristically swell in volume when wet), and at 1500-1800 meters (Schultz 2009). 

Literature Cited

BONAP. 2015.  Biota of North America (www.bonap.org)

Butterwick, M, BD Parfitt, D. Hillyard. 1991.  J. Arizona-Nevada Acad. Sci. 24:31-49.

DeGrout, SJ.  2007.  Aliso 24:63-96.

Mansfield, DH 2000.  Flora of Steens Mountain.

Niles, WE and PJ Leary. 2007. Mentzelia Vol. 8

Schulz, LM.  2009. Systematic Botany Monographs Vol. 89

Schulz, LM. 2006.  Artemisia, in Vol. 19, Flora North America.

Schulz, LM.  2012. Pocket Guide to Sagebrush (www.sagestep.org)

Endemic vascular plant genera of the California region

There are on the order of 67 genera endemic to California and the California Floristic Province (‘California region’).  The list below gives my most recent compilation. About half of these are monotypic.  The total number of treated taxa is 155, or about 6% of the endemic flora of the region.

Agavaceae

           Chlorogalum Kunth (8)

Apiaceae

           Oreonana Jeps. (3)

Asteraceae

Achyrachaena Schauer    (1)

Adenothamnus D. D. Keck (1)

Baeriopsis J.T. Howell (1)

Benitoa D. D. Keck (1)

Blepharizonia (A. Gray) Greene (2)

Calycadenia DC. (10)

Constancea B. G. Baldwin (1)

Corethrogyne DC (1)

Eastwoodia Brandegee (1)

Holocarpha Greene (4)

Holozoinia Greene (1)

Jensia B. G. Baldwin (2)

Kyhosia B. G. Baldwin (1)

Hesperevax (A. Gray) A. Gray (3)

Monolopia DC. (5)

Munzothamnus P. H. Raven (1)

Orochaenactis Coville (1)

            Pentachaeta Nutt. (8)

            Phalacroseris A. Gray (2)

            Pseudobahia (A. Gray) Rydb. (3)

            Tracyina S. F. Blake (1)

            Venegasia DC. (1)

Brassicaceae

             Euclisia (Nutt. ex Torr. & A. Gray) Greene (9)*

             Heterodraba Greene (1)

 ‘Kruckeberia’ (10)

             Sibaropsis S. Boyd & T.S. Ross (1)

             Twisselmannia Al-Shebaz (1)        

Cactaceae

               Bergerocactus Britton & Rose (1)

Chenopodiaceae

               Extriplex E. H. Zacharias (2)

Crassulaceae

               Sedella Britton & Rose (30

Cyperaceae

               Calliscripus C.N.Gilmour , J.R.Starr & Naczi (2)

Ericaceae

               Ornithostaphylos Small (2)

Fabaceae

               Pickeringia Nutt. (2)

Hydrophyllaceae

               Draperia Torr. (1)

  Lemmonia A. Gray (1)

Hydrangeaceae

               Carpenteria Torr. (1)

Lamiaceae

               Acanthomintha (A. Gray) A. Gray (5)

  Pogogyne Benth. (8)

Lauraceae

               Umbellularia (Nees) Nutt. (2)

Monotropaceae

               Sacrcodes Torr. (1)

Oleaceae

               Hesperelaea A. Gray (1)

Onagraceae

               Heterogaura Rothr. (1)

Papaveraceae

            Dendromecon Kell. (2)

Ehrendorferia Fukuhara & Lidén (2)

Hesperomecon Greene (1)

Romneya Harv. (2)

Stylomecon G. Taylor (1)

Poaceae

               Neostapfia Burtt-Davy (1)

Polygonaceae

           Acanthoscyphus Small (4)

           Aristocapsa Reveal & Hardham (1)

           Dedeckara Reveal & J. T. Howell (1)

           Gilmania Cov. (1)

Goodmania Reveal & Ertter (1)

           Hollisteria S. Watson (1)

Mucronea Benth. (2)

Sidotheca Reveal. (3)

Systenotheca Reveal & Hardham (1)

Rosaceae

               Chamaebatia Benth. (2)

               Lyanothamnus A. Gray (2)

Saxifragaceae

               Bensoniella C. V. Morton (1)

               Jepsonia Small (3)

Taxodiaceae

               Sequoia Endl. (1)

               Sequoiadendron J. Buchholz (1)

Tecophilaeaceae

               Odontostomum Torr. (1)

Themidaceae

               Bloomeria Kellogg (5)

*genera as indicated in Cacho et al. 2014 (Mol. Phylo. And Evolution 72:71-81), but not yet described

Rubus ulmifolius Santa Cruz County

Both the revised Jepson Manual and Flora North America Vol. 9 treat several non-native blackberries for California which are not fully documented, including R. allegheniensis Porter (p. 35): “...introduced in British Columbia and California, where rare and in at least California, probably no more than a waif.” and Rubus ulmifolius Schott “found primarily in coastal California from the San Francisco Bay region southward.”

Plants that match R. ulmifolius occur in Santa Cruz County, along the upper tidewater reach of Moran Lake.  These plants are unarmed, the canes without any prickles, and would diagnose to R. u. ssp. anoplothyrsus Sudre. (synonym var. inermis).

Diagnosis: stems somewhat pruinose, NO prickles; lower leaf surface not white-pubescent

There are no CCH specimens for Santa Cruz County or Monterey County (these are my #21516, Jan 28 2015).

Overall, based on the distribution given in FNA Vol. 9, there are possibly several other non-native Rubus lurking in California, apomitic microspecies aside.    They are, relative to their invasive potential, understudied here.

Growth Habit

Lower Leaf Surface

Upper Leaf Surface

67% of the California Flora is Endemic

For the California region (state of California plus the California Floristic Province sections of Oregon, Baja California and the Sierra Nevada portion of Nevada), there are 4064 endemic vascular plants by my estimation.   I have counted them from Munz & Keck 1959, Munz 1969, Hickman 1993 and other regional floras.

Raven & Axelrod (1977) tallied 2125 endemics – 47.7% of the total flora

Baldwin et al. (2012) tally 4976 native species and 1315 endemic full species – 26.6% of the total flora endemic. Their estimate is off the mark because endemic infrataxa are omitted.

Adding the 912 treated endemic infrataxa to their 1315, with 6502 native taxa, results in 34.2% endemic

My count includes 147 endemics confined to Baja California, 34 confined to southwest Oregon, and two in the Sierra Nevada portion of Nevada – 183 taxa.

My tally includes 501 taxa not treated in Baldwin et al. (2012) but which were treated in a previous state flora.

My tally includes 2414 endemic taxa treated as full species in Baldwin et al. (2012) - much higher than reported in their Appendix (page 1520-1521)

If we take the Baldwin et al. (2012) tally of 6502 and my estimate of 4064 endemics – the rate is 67% - the highest rate yet reported.

Continued Herbarium Specimen Growth for California in 2014

The Consortium of California Herbaria provides entry into the records attendant to herbarium specimens of the California flora.

One year ago, December 20 2013, there were 1,868,758 records.  Today, December 21, 2014, there are 1,985,750 records.  A nearly 7% increase!!

Over the period, there were 22 posted updates, totaling 116,922 specimens. That works out to an average growth of 338 specimens per day. That is, based on a typical specimen pile, half a herbarium cabinet per day!

The trajectory of increase is strongly suggestive that the catalog of the California flora is as yet incomplete, but getting there...

There is no direct estimate of the number of California specimens in herbaria. Totaling the numbers reported in Fuller & Barbe (1972), 4,229,874 specimens were reported in their canvas of California Herbaria (which I tallied directly). They did not report any breakdown based on geographic origin of the specimens. Let’s however just guess 50% -- or ca. 2.1 million California specimens in 1972 -- were local. Allowing for growth in California collections in the 1970s-2010s -- say of 1 million specimens (too many ??) -- that would yield a rough estimate of about 3 million total specimens from our state.

Accordingly, the close of 2014, records are closing in on a two-thirds rate of data capture.

Reference:

Fuller, T.C. and G.D. Barbe/  1972.  List of California Herbaria and Working Collections.  Botany Labratory, Div. Plant Industry, Dept. Food & Agriculture, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA.

Few California botanists with huge collector experience

Herbarium specimens are important units of biodiversity documentation.  Gathering herbarium specimens consumes the botanist’s time:  large plant presses are heavy, gathering material in the field can be arduous; gathered material requires organizing; blotters need changing; record keeping requires effort; dried material needs to be sorted and stored; material is field id’d;  some specimens often require hours of study to label; labels require data-basing and printing; photos add to processing requirements.  All of this adds up to limit the number of specimens a field botanist can be reasonably be expected to gather(1).

Perhaps 20% o the world flora is undescribed.   For California, my estimate is that that proportion is about 10%.  Herbaria are known to contain specimens of unknown species(2); specimens are often not equally distributed within geographic regions(3).    Description of new species generally requires a minimum number of diagnostic specimens(4).  Even though we have ~2 million vascular specimens records on-line for California, we need more.

Collector prowess develops over several decades of field activity, and is a direct function of the number of encounters a field botanist enjoys with a particular taxonomic group.    In this post, I identify that the number of botanists whom develop extensive prowess with the California flora are very few individuals, and suggest that mechanisms that keep field botanists active will be required to fully document the endemic-rich California flora.

How many plants does a collector see in a lifetime?  Data from the Consortium of California Herbaria (see the figure) suggest that, as experience increases (measured by collection number), the number of encounters decreases in rapid curvilinear fashion.  In these data, very few specimens are contributed by collectors with collection numbers >10,000 (assuming that collection number and prowess/experience are directly related).

The significant feature I want to emphasize here is this:  if detection of rare or unusual species requires extensive experience with a flora, then very few botanists have gained extensive experience with a flora as rich as the California flora.  This pattern is exactly suggested by Bebber et al. “Big hitting collectors make massive and disproportionate contribution to the discovery of plant species”(5). 

A larger fraction of individual botanists exhibit some or moderate experience, but are they as probable to gather specimens of novelties?  For California, there are but a handful – several dozen – botanists whom collection numbers exceed ~20,000.    Going forward, mechanisms that allow botanists to gain field extensive experience will be required to document the last of our endemic flora.

References:

1.  Whitfield, J.  Nature 484:436-438.  2012.

2.  Bebber et. al.  Proc. National Acad. Sci. USA 107(51):22169-22171.  2010.

3.  Taylor, D.W.  Phytoneuron 2014-53:1-6.  2014.

4.  Shevock, JR; Taylor, DW.  pp. 91-98: Conservation & Management of Rare & Endangered Plants, T.S.        Elias (Ed.).  1987.

5.  Bebber et. al.  Proc. Royal Soc. B:279, 2269-2274.  2012.

Methods:

A set of 30 random numbers up to 55,000 was selected, and those numbers queried in the CCH database for number of specimen records.  The number of collectors of those records could not be directly determined because of inconsistent collector names (combinations of collector initials, full names, abbreviations, and collections by committees).   However, the the number of specimens is likely to be a close proxy for the number of collectors.

 

Flora of Yosemite National Park - 2014

The known vascular flora of Yosemite National Park numbers approximately 1,800 species.

That is, exactly 1,790 species or infrataxa of vascular plants, based on the 4 April 2014 updated Consortium of California Herbaria specimen database.  Various unofficial and official NPS publications place the tally of the Yosemite flora at 1375 (1) 1400 (2), 1452(3), 1500 (4), to 1545 species (5).  Other guesstimates are of similar magnitude (6).   In my now somewhat outdated flora for the region (7), 1680 taxon records were reported for Yosemite in 2010, based on 20,445 specimen records.

Presently, I have records for 33,289 herbarium specimens from within the present day boundary of Yosemite National Park. 

The increase in the documented park flora originates from both new database records and from additional collections made in 2010 and afterwards. 

The range of estimates cited above cover 76% to 85% of the known flora – the magnitude of these underestimates bear no correspondence to date: i.e. the most recent formally NPS estimate published in 2011 is at 85%.  Old underestimates of the Yosemite flora are not surprising: by way of example, the Wikipedia article on Yosemite (accessed 5 May 2014) records 130 non-native plants in the Park.  There are specimen records for 226 species: an underestimate by nearly a factor of 2.

The current checklist as posted as a public document to Google Docs as:
Checklist of Vascular Plants Yosemite National Park.xlsx

References:

1.  http://digital-desert.com/yosemite/vegetation.html , accessed 5 May 2014.

2.  Natural Resource Statistics (http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/natural-resource-statistics.htm), accessed 5 May 2014.

3.  Vegetation Species List (http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/vegspecies.htm), accessed 5 May 2014.

4.  http://www.frommers.com/destinations/yosemite-national-park/782413#sthash.R6Sa9Peu.dpbs

5.  Moore, P. and B.E. Johnson.  2011.  Vascular Plant Iventory for Yosemite National Park.  Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SEIN/NRTR-2011/427

6. ‘Yosemite Wildflowers’ 2014.  Barry and Judy Breckling.  High County Apps.

7.  Taylor, D.W.  2010.  Flora of the Yosemite Sierra.  Lulu.com