Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 1397–1407 | Cite as

How well do herbarium data predict the locationof present populations? A test using Echinacea species in Missouri

  • Wendy L. Applequist
  • Daniel J. Mcglinn
  • Michele Miller
  • Quinn G. Long
  • James S. Miller
Article

Abstract

The four native Missouri taxa of Echinacea were used as a model to test the predictive value of herbarium data with regard to present-day distribution. Specimens with label data considered potentially adequate to relocate the population were databased and the sites in question were visited. Most of the historical populations were not relocated, although a greater percentage of those collected post-1980 were found to still exist. Time since collection significantly affected the probability of relocation of E. purpurea and E. pallida var. pallida, the two native taxa commonly harvested for medicinal products. The collection rate for E. pallida var. pallida remained high over time. However, the collection rate for E. purpurea has been much reduced in recent decades. Few of the historical populations were relocated, and located populations on unprotected public land were very small, perhaps indicating that habitat loss or human activity is causing a decline in Missouri populations of E. purpurea.

Keywords

Conservation Echinacea Herbarium specimens Historical populations Missouri 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antonovics J., Hood M.E., Thrall P.H., Abrams J.Y. and Duthie G.M. (2003). Herbarium studies on the distribution of anther-smut fungus (Microbotryum violaceum) and Silene species (Caryophyllaceae) in the eastern United States. Am. J. Bot. 90: 1522–1531 Google Scholar
  2. Binns S.E., Baum B.R. and Arnason J.T. (2002). A taxonomic revision of Echinacea (Asteraceae). Syst. Bot. 27: 610–632 Google Scholar
  3. Burgman M.A., Grimson R.C. and Ferson S. (1995). Inferring threat from scientific collections. Conserv. Biol. 9: 923–928 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Delisle F., Lavoie C., Jean M. and Lachance D. (2003). Reconstructing the spread of invasive plants: taking into account biases associated with herbarium specimens. J. Biogeogr. 30: 1033–1042 Google Scholar
  5. Freckleton R.P. and Watkinson A.R. (2002). Large-scale spatial dynamics of plants: metapopulations, regional ensembles and patchy populations. J. Ecol. 90: 419–434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Funk V.A., Zermoglio M.F. and Nasir N. (1999). Testing the use of specimen collection data and GIS in biodiversity exploration and conservation decision making in Guyana. Biodivers. Conserv. 8: 727–751 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Golding J.S. (2001). Southern African herbaria and Red Data Lists. Taxon 50: 593–602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hedenas L., Bisang I., Tehler A., Hamnede M., Jaederfelt K. and Odelvik G. (2002). A herbarium-based method for estimates of temporal frequency changes: mosses in Sweden. Biol. Conserv. 105: 321–331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heyligers P.C. (1998). Some New South Wales coastal plant distributions: a comparison of herbarium records with transect survey data. Cunninghamia 5: 645–664 Google Scholar
  10. Kimmel V.I. and Probasco G.E. (1980). Change in woody cover on limestone glades between 1938 and 1975. Trans. Mo. Acad. Sci. 14: 69–74 Google Scholar
  11. Koponen H.S., Hellqvist H., Lindqvist-Kreuze H., Bang U. and Valkonen J.P.T. (2000). Occurrence of Peronospora sparsa (P. rubi) on cultivated and wild Rubus species in Finland and Sweden. Ann. Appl. Biol. 137: 107–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kropf M. and Bernhardt K.-G. 2004. The historical distribution of Anthyllis montana subsp. jacquinii (Fabaceae) in Austria: insights from herbarium material. Planta Europaea4th European Conference on the Conservation of Wild Plants, 17–20.09.2004, ValenciaSpain.Available on the World Wide Web at http://www.nerium.net/plantaeuropaea/Download/Procedings/Kropf_Bernhart.pdf [sic; accessed 2 May 2005].Google Scholar
  13. MacDougall A.S., Loo J.A., Clayden S.R., Goltz J.G. and Hinds H.R. (1998). Defining conservation priorities for plant taxa in southeastern New Brunswick, Canada using herbarium records. Biol. Conserv. 86: 325–338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McGregor R.L. (1968). The taxonomy of the genus Echinacea (Compositae). Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 68: 113–142 Google Scholar
  15. Nilsson S.G. and Nilsson I.N. (1983). Are estimated species turnover rates on islands largely sampling errors?. Am. Nat. 121: 595–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parkhurst D.F. (1978). The adaptive significance of stomatal occurrence on one or both surfaces of leaves. J. Ecol. 66: 367–383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Primack D., Imbres C., Primack R.B., Miller-Rushing A.J. and Del Tredici P. (2004). Herbarium specimens demonstrate earlier flowering times in response to warming in Boston. Am. J. Bot. 91: 1260–1264 Google Scholar
  18. Pyšek P. (1991). Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica 26: 439–454 Google Scholar
  19. Quinn G. and Keough M. (2002). Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeUK Google Scholar
  20. (2004). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaAustria Google Scholar
  21. Rich T.C.G. and Woodruff E.R. (1992). Recording bias in botanical surveys. Watsonia 19: 73–95 Google Scholar
  22. Ristaino J.B. (1988). The importance of archival and herbarium materials in understanding the role of oospores in late blight epidemics of the past. Phytopathology 88: 1120–1130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saltonstall K. (2002). Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reedPhragmites australisinto North America. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 2445–2449 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schatz G.E. (2002). Taxonomy and herbaria in service of plant conservation: lessons from Madagascar's endemic families. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 89: 145–152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stuckey R.L. (1980). Distributional history of Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) in North America. Bartonia 47: 3–20 Google Scholar
  26. ter Steege H., Jansen-Jacobs M.J. and Datadin V.K. (2000). Can botanical collections assist in a National Protected Area Strategy in Guyana?. Biodivers. Conserv. 9: 215–240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ungricht S., Rasplus J.-Y. and Kjellberg F. (2005). Extinction threat evaluation of endemic fig trees of New Caledonia: priority assessment for taxonomy and conservation with herbarium collections. Biodivers. Conserv. 14: 205–232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weber E. (1998). The dynamics of plant invasions: a case study of three exotic goldenrod species (Solidago L.) in Europe. J. Biogeogr. 25: 147–154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Willis F., Moat J. and Paton A. (2003). Defining a role for herbarium data in Red List assessments: a case study of Plectranthus from eastern and southern tropical Africa. Biodivers. Conserv. 12: 1537–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy L. Applequist
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Mcglinn
    • 2
  • Michele Miller
    • 3
    • 4
  • Quinn G. Long
    • 3
    • 5
  • James S. Miller
    • 1
  1. 1.William L. Brown Center for Plant Genetic ResourcesMissouri Botanical GardenSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Botany DepartmentOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  3. 3.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of Missouri – ColumbiaColumbiaUSA
  4. 4.Kansas Migrant Education ProgramGardnerUSA
  5. 5.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyThe University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations