Advertisement

Identifying Geographically Based Metapopulations for Development of Plant Materials Indigenous to Rangeland Ecosystems of the Western USA

  • Douglas A. JohnsonEmail author
  • B. Shaun Bushman
  • Thomas A. Jones
  • Kishor Bhattarai
Chapter
Part of the Progress in Botany book series (BOTANY, volume 74)

Abstract

Rangeland ecosystems account for about half of the earth’s land surface. They play an important role in providing forage for livestock and wildlife, and they serve as critical watershed areas. Many of the world’s rangelands have been degraded by overgrazing, marginal crop production, mineral and energy extraction, recreation, and other human-caused disturbances. This degradation has led to invasion by exotic weeds and subsequent increases in fire frequency. This, in combination with uncertainties associated with global climatic change, has resulted in a critical need for plant materials to restore and revegetate rangeland ecosystems. The assessment of genetic variation and its phenotypic expression in important rangeland plant species (especially forbs) is critical in defining population structures (genetically differentiated groups) that could be used in rangeland restoration/revegetation efforts. We used common-garden studies and DNA-based analysis of genetic variation to assess genetic diversity in three rangeland legume species indigenous to rangeland ecosystems of the Great Basin Region of the western USA. Results of these studies are presented as three case studies that describe data collection procedures, analysis, and interpretation used to identify population structures in each species. These data formed the basis for combining plant collections into geographically based metapopulations for these three legume species that are being used to develop plant materials for commercial seed production and subsequent use on rangelands of the Great Basin.

Keywords

Great Basin Snake River Plain Rangeland Manager Rangeland Ecosystem USDA Natural Resource Conservation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Albaladejo RG, Carrillo LF, Aparicio A, Fernández-Manjarrés JF, González-Varo JP (2009) Population genetic structure in Myrtus communis L. in a chronically fragmented landscape in the Mediterranean: can gene flow counteract habitat perturbation? Plant Biol 11:442–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alderson J, Sharp WC (1994) Grass varieties in the United States. Agriculture Handbook No. 170, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, pp 1–296Google Scholar
  3. Allen VG, Batello C, Berretta EJ, Hodgson J, Kothmann M, Li X, McIvor J, Milne J, Morris C, Peeters A, Sanderson M (2011) An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals. Grass Forage Sci 66:2–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aydin I, Uzun F (2005) Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization of rangelands affects yield, forage quality and the botanical composition. Eur J Agron 23:8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barneby RC (1977) Dalea imagines. Mem N Y Bot Gard 27:1–892Google Scholar
  6. Barneby RC (1989) Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. In: Cronquist A, Holmgren AH, Holmgren NH, Reveal JL, Holmgren PK (eds) Intermountain flora. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY, p 78Google Scholar
  7. Barnes RF, Nelson CJ, Moore KJ, Collins M (eds) (2007) Forages: the science of grassland agriculture, 6th edn. Blackwell, London, pp 1–791Google Scholar
  8. Bhattarai K, Johnson DA, Jones TA, Connors KJ, Gardner DR (2008) Physiological and morphological characterization of basalt milkvetch (Astragalus filipes): basis for plant improvement. Rangeland Ecol Manage 61:444–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhattarai K, Bushman BS, Johnson DA, Carman JG (2010) Phenotypic and genetic characterization of western prairie clover collections from the western United States. Rangeland Ecol Manage 63:696–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhattarai K, Bushman BS, Johnson DA, Carman JG (2011) Searls prairie clover (Dalea searlsiae) for rangeland revegetation: phenotypic and genetic evaluations. Crop Sci 51:716–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bohonak AJ (2002) IBD (Isolation by Distance): a program for analyses of isolation by distance. J Hered 93:153–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bower A, St. Clair JB, Erickson VJ (2010) Provisional seed zones for native plants. http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/nativeplantmaterials/rightmaterials.shtml. Cited 11 Aug 2011
  13. Broadhurst LM, Lowe A, Coates DJ, Cunningham AA, McDonald M, Vesk PA, Yates C (2008) Seed supply for broadscale restoration: maximizing evolutionary potential. Evol Appl 1:587–597Google Scholar
  14. Brown RW, Amacher MC (1999) Selecting plant species for ecological restoration: a perspective for land managers. In: Holzworth LK, Brown RW (comps) Revegetation with native species: proceedings, 1997 Society for Ecological Restoration annual meeting, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 12–15 Nov 1997. Proceedings RMRS-P-8, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  15. Bryce SA, Omernik JM, Larsen DP (1999) Ecoregions – a geographic framework to guide risk characterization and ecosystem management. Environ Pract 1:141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bushman BS, Larson SL, Peel MD, Pfrender ME (2007) Population structure and genetic diversity in North American Hedysarum boreale Nutt. Crop Sci 47:1281–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bushman BS, Bhattarai K, Johnson DA (2010) Population structure of Astragalus filipes collections from western North America. Botany 88:565–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Caldwell MM, Richards JH, Johnson DA, Nowak RS, Dzurec RS (1981) Coping with herbivory: photosynthetic capacity and resource allocation in two semiarid Agropyron bunchgrasses. Oecologia 50:14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chambers JC (2008a) Climate change and the Great Basin. In: Chambers JC, Devoe N, Evenden A (eds) Collaborative management and research in the Great Basin – examining the issues and developing a framework for action. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-204. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp 29–32Google Scholar
  20. Chambers JC (2008b) Invasive plant species and the Great Basin. In: Chambers JC, Devoe N, Evenden A (eds) Collaborative management and research in the Great Basin – examining the issues and developing a framework for action. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-204. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp 38–41Google Scholar
  21. Cherney JH, Allen VG (1995) Forages in a livestock system. In: Barnes RF, Miller DA, Nelson CJ (eds) Forages: the science of grassland agriculture, vol 1. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, pp 175–188Google Scholar
  22. Clausen J, Keck DD, Hiesey WM (1940) Experimental studies on the nature of species. I. Effect of varied environments on western North American plants. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 520. Washington, DC, pp 1–452Google Scholar
  23. Clausen J, Keck DD, Hiesey WM (1941) Regional differentiation in plant species. Am Nat 75:231–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Collins S, Stritch LE (2008) Caring for our natural assets: an ecosystem services perspective. In: Deal R (ed) Integrated restoration of forested ecosystems to achieve multiresource benefits. Proceedings of the 2007 National Silviculture Workshop. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  25. Comstock JP, Ehleringer JR (1992) Plant adaptation in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. Great Basin Nat 52:195–215Google Scholar
  26. Crnokrak P, Roff DA (1995) Dominance variance: associations with selection and fitness. Heredity 75:530–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dice LR (1945) Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dinno A (2010) Paran: Horn’s test of principal component/factors. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=paran. Cited 8 Aug 2011
  29. Endler JA (1986) Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 1–358Google Scholar
  30. Enjalbert J, Goldringer I, Paillard S, Brabant P (1999) Molecular markers to study genetic drift and selection in wheat populations. J Exp Bot 50:283–290Google Scholar
  31. Ersts PJ (2009) Geographic distance matrix generator. Available at http://biodiversityinformatics.amnh.org/open_source/gdmg. Cited 8 Aug 2011
  32. Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S (2005) Arlequin (version 3.0): an integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evol Bioinformatics Online 1:47–50Google Scholar
  33. Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2007) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: dominant markers and null alleles. Mol Ecol Notes 7:574–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Felsenstein J (2009) PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) version 3.69. Distributed by Author, Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  35. Franceschinelli EV, Kesseli R (1999) Population structure and gene flow of the Brazilian shrub Helicteres brevispira. Heredity 82:355–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE, Norton D, Ojima D, Richardson DM, Sanderson EW, Valladares F, Vila M, Zamora R, Zobel M (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecol Biogeogr 15:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holechek JL, Pieper RD, Herbel CH (2010) Range management: principles and practices, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 1–444Google Scholar
  38. Horn JL (1965) A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30:179–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hufford KM, Mazer SJ (2003) Plant ecotypes: genetic differentiation in the age of ecological restoration. Trends Ecol Evol 18:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Isely D (1998) Native and naturalized Leguminosae (Fabaceae) of the United States. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, pp 1–1007Google Scholar
  41. Jensen JL, Bohonak AJ, Kelley ST (2005) Isolation by distance, web service. BMC Genet 6:13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jessop BD, Anderson VJ (2007) Cheatgrass invasion in salt desert shrublands: benefits of postfire reclamation. Rangeland Ecol Manage 60:235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson DA, Rumbaugh MD, Asay KH (1981) Plant improvement for semi-arid rangelands: possibilities for drought resistance and nitrogen fixation. Plant Soil 58:279–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Johnson DA, Jones TA, Connors KJ, Bhattarai K, Bushman BS, Jensen KB (2008) Notice of release of NBR-1 germplasm basalt milkvetch. Native Plants J 9:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Johnson R, Stritch L, Olwell P, Lambert S, Horning ME, Cronn R (2010a) What are the best seed sources for ecosystem restoration on BLM and USFS lands? Native Plants J 11:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnson RC, Erickson VJ, Mandel NL, St. Clair JB, Vance-Borland KW (2010b) Mapping genetic variation and seed zones for Bromus carinatus in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon, USA. Botany 88:725–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson DA, Bushman BS, Bhattarai K, Connors KJ (2011) Notice of release of Majestic germplasm and Spectrum germplasm western prairie clover. Native Plants J 12:249–256Google Scholar
  48. Jones TA (2003) The Restoration Gene Pool concept: beyond the native vs non-native debate. Restor Ecol 11:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jones TA, Johnson DA (1998) Invited synthesis paper: integrating genetic concepts into planning rangeland seedings. J Range Manage 51:594–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jones TA, Monaco TA (2007) A restoration practitioner’s guide to the Restoration Gene Pool concept. Ecol Restor 25:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jones TA, Monaco TA (2009) A role for assisted evolution in designing native plant materials for domesticated landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 7:541–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jones TA, Larson SR, Wilson BL (2008) Genetic differentiation and hybridization among Festuca idahoensis, F. roemeri, and F. ovina detected from AFLP, ITS, and chloroplast DNA. Botany 86:422–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kittlein MJ, Gaggiotti OE (2008) Interactions between environmental factors can hide isolation by distance patterns: a case study of Ctenomys rionegrensis in Uruguay. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 275:2633–2638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Landres PB, Morgan P, Swanson FJ (1999) Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecol Appl 9:1179–1188Google Scholar
  55. Larson SR, Jones TA, Jensen KB (2004) Population structure in Pseudoroegneria spicata (Poaceae: Triticeae) modeled by Bayesian clustering of AFLP genotypes. Am J Bot 91:1789–1801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Leonard AC, Franson SE, Hertzberg VS, Smith MK, Toth GP (1999) Hypothesis testing with the similarity index. Mol Ecol 8:2105–2114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lesica P, Allendorf FW (1999) Ecological genetics and the restoration of plant communities: mix or match? Restor Ecol 7:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Liao C, Peng R, Luo Y, Zhou X, Wu X, Fang C, Chen J, Li B (2008) Altered ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles by plant invasion: a meta-analysis. New Phytol 177:706–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Licciardi JM, Clark PU, Brook EJ, Elmore D, Sharma P (2004) Variable responses of western U.S. glaciers during the last deglaciation. Geology 32:81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Madison LA, Robel RJ (2001) Energy characteristics and consumption of several seeds recommended for northern bobwhite food plantings. Wildlife Soc Bull 29:1219–1227Google Scholar
  62. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. McKay JK, Latta G (2002) Adaptive population divergence: markers, QTL and traits. Trends Ecol Evol 17:185–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McKay JK, Christian CE, Harrison SP, Rice KJ (2005) “How local is local?” – a review of practical and conceptual issues in the genetics of restoration. Restor Ecol 1:432–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McMahon G, Gregonis SM, Waltman SW, Omernik JM, Thorson TD, Freeouf JA, Rorick AH, Keys JE (2001) Developing a spatial framework of common ecological regions for the conterminous United States. Environ Manage 28:293–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Merila J, Crnokrak P (2001) Comparison of genetic differentiation at marker loci and quantitative traits. J Evol Biol 14:892–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Meudt HM, Clarke AC (2007) Almost forgotten or latest practice? AFLP applications, analyses and advances. Trends Plant Sci 12:106–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Millar CI, Libby WJ (1989) Disneyland or native ecosystem: genetics and the restorationist. Restor Manage Notes 7:18–24Google Scholar
  69. Miller SA, Bartow A, Gisler M, Ward K, Young AS, Kaye TN (2011) Can an ecoregion serve as a seed transfer zone? Evidence from a common garden study with five native species. Restor Ecol 19:268–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Murphy DD (1989) Conservation and confusion: wrong species, wrong scale, wrong conclusions. Conserv Biol 3:82–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Norton JB, Monaco TA, Norton U (2007) Mediterranean annual grasses in western North America: kids in a candy store. Plant Soil 298:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Henry M, Stevans H, Wagner H (2010) Vegan: community ecology package. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. Cited 8 Aug 2011
  73. Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Omernik JM (1995) Ecoregions: a spatial framework for environmental management. In: Davis WS, Simon TP (eds) Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp 49–62Google Scholar
  75. Omernik JM, Chapman SS, Lillie RA, Dumke RT (2000) Ecoregions of Wisconsin. Trans Wis Acad Sci Arts Lett 88:77–103Google Scholar
  76. Ouborg NJ, Vergeer P, Mix C (2006) The rough edges of the conservation genetics paradigm for plants. J Ecol 94:1233–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Oviatt CG (1997) Lake Bonneville fluctuations and global climate change. Geology 25:155–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pellant M, Abbey B, Karl S (2004) Restoring the Great Basin Desert, U.S.A.: integrating science, management and people. Environ Monit Assess 99:169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Phillips NC, Larson SR, Drost DT (2008) Detection of genetic variation in wild populations of three Allium species using amplified fragment length polymorphisms. HortScience 43:637–643Google Scholar
  80. Pierson FB, Williams CJ, Hardegree SP, Weltz MA, Stone JJ, Clark PE (2011) Fire, plant invasions, and erosion events on western rangelands. Rangeland Ecol Manage 64:439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pokorny ML, Sheley RL, Zabinski CA, Engel RE, Svejcar TJ, Brokowski JJ (2005) Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Restor Ecol 13:448–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Raspe O, Jacquemart AL (1998) Allozyme diversity and genetic structure of European populations of Sorbus aucuparia L. (Rosaceae: Maloideae). Heredity 81:537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ray C (2001) Maintaining genetic diversity despite local extinctions: effects of population scale. Biol Conserv 100:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rice KJ, Emery NC (2003) Managing microevolution: restoration in the face of global change. Front Ecol Environ 1:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Richards RT, Chambers JC, Ross C (1998) Use of native plants on federal lands: policy and practice. J Range Manage 51:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Robins JG, Jensen KB, Jones TA, Waldron BL, Peel M, Rigby CW, Vogel KP, Mitchell R, Palazzo AJ, Cary TJ (2012) Establishment and persistence of perennial cool-season grasses in the Intermountain West and Central and Northern Great Plains. Rangeland Ecol Manage (in press)Google Scholar
  87. Rogers DL, Montalvo AM (2004) Genetically appropriate choices for plant materials to maintain biological diversity. Report to the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/publications/botany/plantgenetics.pdf. Cited 10 Aug 2011
  88. Rohlf FJ (1998) NTSYSpc numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system version 2.0. Exeter Software, Setauket, NY, pp 1–31Google Scholar
  89. Roundy BA, Shaw NL, Booth DT (1997) Using native species on rangeland. In: Roundy BA, Shaw NL (comps) Proceedings: using seeds of native species on rangelands, Rapid City, SD, 16–21 Feb 1997. General Technical Report INT-GTR-372, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  90. Rumbaugh MD (1983) Legumes—their use in wildland plantings. In: Monsen SB, Shaw NL (eds) Managing Intermountain rangelands—improvement of range and wildlife habitats. General Technical Report INT-157, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, pp 115–122Google Scholar
  91. Saetre P, Stark JM (2005) Microbial dynamics and carbon and nitrogen cycling following re-wetting of soils beneath two semi-arid plant species. Oecologia 142:247–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. SAS Institute (2004) SAS/STAT 9.1 user’s guide. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, pp 1–5136Google Scholar
  93. Schlötterer C (2004) The evolution of molecular markers – just a matter of fashion? Nat Rev Genet 5:63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Schneider S, Roessli D, Excoffier L (2000) Arlequin, version 2.0: a software for population genetics analysis. University of Geneva, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  95. Sgrò CM, Lowe AJ, Hofmann AA (2011) Building evolutionary resilience for conserving biodiversity under climate change. Evol Appl 4:326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sheley RL, Carpinelli MF (2005) Creating weed-resistant plant communities using niche-differentiated nonnative species. Rangeland Ecol Manage 58:480–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sheley R, Mangold J, Goodwin K, Marks J (2008) Revegetation guidelines for the Great Basin: considering invasive weeds. ARS-168. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC, pp 1–52Google Scholar
  98. Slatkin M (1993) Isolation by distance in equilibrium and non-equilibrium populations. Evolution 47:264–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Smith SL, Sher AA, Grant TA III (2007) Genetic diversity in restoration materials and the impacts of seed collection in Colorado’s restoration plant production industry. Restor Ecol 15:369–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. St. Clair JB, Mandel NL, Vance-Borland KW (2005) Genecology of Douglas fir in western Oregon and Washington. Ann Bot 96:1199–1214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Stein B, Kutner LS, Adams JS (eds) (2000) Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp 1–399Google Scholar
  102. Stöcklin J, Kuss P, Pluess AR (2009) Genetic diversity, phenotypic variation and local adaptation in the alpine landscape: case studies with alpine plant species. Bot Helv 119:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Level III and IV Ecoregions of the continental United States. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii_iv.htm. Cited 8 Aug 2011
  104. U.S. Geological Survey (2011) The Great Basin and Columbia Plateau. http://www.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt/community/what_is_the_great_basin/619. Cited 16 Aug 2011
  105. USDA Forest Service (2010) Great Basin Native Plant Selection and Increase Project FY2010 Progress Report. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/research/shrub/projects/documents/2010_ProgressReport.pdf. Cited 8 Aug 2011
  106. USDA Forest Service (2011) Seed zone mapper. http://www.fs.fed.us/wwetac/threat_map/SeedZones_Intro.html. Cited 10 Aug 2011
  107. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2009) The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA, http://plants.usda.gov/java/. Cited 8 Aug 2011
  108. USDI Bureau of Land Management (2009) Native Plants Materials Development Program: progress report for FY2001-2007. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/fish__wildlife_and/rare_plants_2.Par.42700.File.dat/NativePlantProgressReport2001-2007.pdf. Cited 31 Aug 2011
  109. Vekemans X, Beauwens T, Lemaire M, Roldan-Ruiz I (2002) Data from amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers show indication of size homoplasy and of a relationship between degree of homoplasy and fragment size. Mol Ecol 11:139–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Vogel KP, Schmer MR, Mitchell RB (2005) Plant adaptation regions: ecological and climatic classification of plant materials. Rangeland Ecol Manage 58:315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M, Reijans M, van de Lee T, Hornes M, Frijters A, Pot J, Peleman J, Kuiper M (1995) AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res 23:4407–4414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Walker SC, Shaw NL (2005) Current and potential use of broadleaf herbs for reestablishing native communities. In: Shaw NL, Pellant M, Monsen SB (comps) Sage-grouse habitat restoration symposium proceedings, 4–7 June 2001, Boise, ID. Proceedings RMRS-P-38, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp 56–61Google Scholar
  113. Ward K, Gisler M, Fiegener R, Young A (2008) The Willamette Valley Seed Increase Program. Nat Plants J 9:334–350Google Scholar
  114. Weeks AR, Sgro CM, Young AG, Frankham R, Mitchell NJ, Miller KA, Byrne M, Coates DJ, Eldridge MDB, Sunnucks P, Breed MF, James EA, Hoffman AA (2011) Assessing the benefits and risks of translocations in changing environments: a genetic perspective. Evol Appl (early view; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00192.x/pdf)
  115. Welsh SL, Atwood ND, Goodrich S, Higgins LC (1993) A Utah flora. Provo, UT, pp 1–912Google Scholar
  116. Whisenant SG (1990) Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: ecological and management implications. In: McArthur ED, Romney EM, Smith SD, Tueller PT (eds) Proceedings- symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management. General Technical Report INT-276, USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT, pp 4–7Google Scholar
  117. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wiken E (1986) Terrestrial ecozones of Canada. Ecological Land Classification Series No. 19. Environment Canada. Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  119. Williams MC (1981) Nitro compounds in foreign species of Astragalus. Weed Sci 29:261–269Google Scholar
  120. Williams MC, James LF (1975) Toxicity of nitro-containing Astragalus to sheep and chicks. J Range Manage 28:260–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Wojciechowski MF, Sanderson MJ, Hu J (1999) Evidence on the monophyly of Astragalus (Fabaceae) and its major subgroups based on nuclear ribosomal DNA ITS and chloroplast DNA trnL intron data. Syst Bot 24:409–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas A. Johnson
    • 1
    Email author
  • B. Shaun Bushman
    • 1
  • Thomas A. Jones
    • 1
  • Kishor Bhattarai
    • 2
  1. 1.USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Forage and Range Research LaboratoryUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Forage Improvement DivisionNoble FoundationArdmoreUSA

Personalised recommendations