(DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
TAXONOMY
NAME - CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
OTHER COMMON NAMES - CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE; CONEFLOWER, PURPLE; CONEFLOWER, TENNESSEE; FLOWER, COMB; HEAD, INDIAN; HEDGEHOG; ROOT, SCURVY; SAMPSON, BLACK; SUNFLOWER and RED
ELEMENT CODE -
CATEGORY - Angiosperm
PHYLUM AND SUBPHYLUM - MAGNOLIOPHYTA,
CLASS AND SUBCLASS - MAGNOLIOPSIDA,
ORDER AND SUBORDER - ASTERALES,
FAMILY AND SUBFAMILY - ASTERACEAE,
GENUS AND SUBGENUS - ECHINACEA,
SPECIES AND SSP - TENNESSEENSIS,
SCIENTIFIC NAME - ECHINACEA TENNESSEENSIS
AUTHORITY -
TAXONOMY REFERENCES -
COMMENTS ON TAXONOMY -
Tennessee Purple Coneflower
Echinacea tennesseensis (Beadle) Small
KINGDOM: Plant GROUP: Angiosperm
DIVISION: Magnoliophyta CLASS: Magnoliopsida
ORDER: Asterales FAMILY: Asteraceae
Echinacea tennesseensis (Beadle) Small, the Tennessee purple
coneflower, is a perennial herb with one to many erect simple or
rarely branched shoots from a stout fibrous rootstock. The roughly
hairy stems are up to about 4 dm tall in their natural glade habitat,
each terminated with a large (up to 7 cm broad) showy composite-type
flower head comprised of a deep purple, conical disc portion (up to 3
cm high) with a prickly apperance created by the chaffs and 8 to 14
pinkish-purple ray flowers. The narrow alternate leaves are mainly
basal, getting progressively smaller up to the stem; blades on the
basal leaves are linear-elliptic or linear-lanceolate and triple-
nerved. More detailed descriptions are given by Kral (15) and
McGregor (16).
As is often the case with taxonomy, there are various opinions
about the status that should be assigned to E. tennesseensis.
McGregor (16) said that "it is morphologically similar to E.
Taxonomy - 1 (DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
angustifolia (DC.) var. angustifolia but is smaller in all respects.
The pubescence is softer, pollen grains smaller (18.5 vs. 21 microns
on the average) and stem more leafy." In his key he distinguished E.
tennesseensis from its nearest ally, E. angustifolia by the "softly
hirsute" leaves in the former and "tuberculate-hirsute" ones in the
latter. Some botanists, prior to his research, had either placed it
in synonomy with E. angustifolia (11) or made it a variety of it (06,
23). McGregor's treatment did not discourage Cronquist (09) from
placing it under E. pallida var. angustifolia (DC.) Cronq. to which he
considers it an eastern outlier (08) that became isolated "with the
return of cooler, more pluvial conditions following the hypsithermal
period several thousand years ago..." McGregor (17) states, however,
that "my field and experimental garden studies have convinced me that
Echinacea tennesseensis is a good species". After growing the two in
a experimental garden, he concluded that they were "distinct in every
way". Regarding hybridization, he states that "all species of
Echinacea can be crossed experimentally, but the hybrids are highly
sterile, and this is true of hybrids between E. angustifolia and E.
tennesseensis".
Also in the history of the taxonomy, the species has been
classified as Brauneria tennesseensis Beadle (05) and E. angustifolia
var. tennesseensis (Beadle) Blake (06). The type specimen; H.G.
Eggert, 19 August 1879; holotype US; isotype GH, MO.
Common names for this species include: purple coneflower,
Tennessee coneflower, comb flower, indian head, hedgehog, scurvy root,
black sampson, and red sunflower.
Taxonomy - 2 (DRAFT) - Status
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
STATUS
Coded Status
Tennessee; Federal Endangered
Tennessee; State Listed
E: Federal Endangered
Commercial
Non-consumptive recreational
Ornamental
Medicinal
COMMENTS ON STATUS -
U.S. STATUSES AND LAWS:
The Tennessee purple coneflower (Echinacea tennesseensis) has
been designated an Endangered species pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (50 CFR 17.12; P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884; 16
U.S.C. 1531-1540), as amended. The species has this status wherever
found including the State of Tennessee.
Removal and reduction to possession of any Federally listed plant
from an area under Federal jurisdiction is unlawful (50 CFR 17.61 and
17.71).
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCIES:
USFWS -Responsible for the management/recovery, listing, and
law enforcement/protection of this species.
DOD -Responsible for the law enforcement/protection of this
species with applicable State and Federal laws on
public land under their control. Also responsible for
management/recovery on Department of Defense lands.
NPS -Responsible for the law enforcement/protection of this
species with applicable State and Federal laws on
public lands under their control. Also responsible
for conservation (Nat. Park System Organic Act - 16
U.S.C. 1, 2-3)/management/recovery on National Park
Service lands. Taking, possessing, or disturbing of
Federally listed species is prohibited on NPS lands
(36 CFR 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3).
All Federal agencies have responsibility to ensure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of Critical Habitat (50 CFR 402),
and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of the species.
STATE STATUSES AND LAWS:
STATE: Tennessee
DESIGNATED STATUS: Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: Tennessee Department of Conservation
Status - 1 (DRAFT) - Status
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
STATE STATUTES: The Rare Plant Protection and Conservation Act
of 1985, Tennesse Code Annotated Sec
11-26-201-214
INTERNATIONAL STATUSES, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS:
None.
ECONOMIC STATUSES:
The Tennessee purple coneflower is an attractive, easily
cultivated member of the aster family. Several Tennessee nurseries
currently offer plants produced from seed for sale in interstate
commerce. This species also has a positive recreational value to
wildflower enthusists. The species has purported medicinal value.
75/07/01:40 FR 27825/27924 - Notice of review
76/06/16:41 FR 24524/24572 - Proposed as Endangered
79/06/06:44 FR 32604/32605 - Listing as Endangered
85/07/22:50 FR 29901/29909 - Five year review
Status - 2 HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS
HABITAT - TERRESTRIAL
TERRESTRIAL
LAND USE -
Residential
Industrial
Transportation, communications, and Util
Cropland and Pasture
Bare Exposed Rock
COMMENTS ON HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS -
Echinacea tennesseenis is only found on open cedar glade
communities. These are areas where Lebanon limestone, of middle
Tennessee, outcrops in flat or gently sloping exposures (20). The
physical substrates of these communities are gravel, flagstone,
bedrock, and soil in various combinations (19). Soil is frequently
less abundant than the rock components and where measurable is usually
not deep, thus creating an environment too harsh for most species more
typical of the region. Although the glades are a very xeric summer
and fall environment, they are very wet places in the winter and
spring (20). Mosses, mainly Pleurochaete squarrosa, lichens (Cladonia
spp. and others) and Nostoc algal masses are common organic substrates
which thrive on glades during moister times (19).
The woody vegetation is limited to scattered red cedars and a few
depauperate hardwoods such as hackberry and winged elm (20). Shrub
taxa are mainly fragrant sumac (Rhus aromatica) and glade privet
(Forestiera ligustrina).
The flora of the cedar glades has been well documented by Baskin,
Quarterman and Caudle (04), and Baskin and Baskin (01). The community
itself has been characterized by Freeman (13), Quarterman (21,22),
Baskin and Baskin (02), and recently Smith et al. (24) and Pearsall
et al. (19). Two of the most common plants from the standpoint of
frequency and cover are poverty-grass (Sporobolus vaginiflorus) and
prairie-clover (Dalea gattingeri) (24,19). These two are dominant
species on four of the five glades where coneflowers occur. On the
fifth, newly discovered site, little bluestem (Andropogon scoparius),
is a dominant plant. This type of cedar glades community is further
described by Baskin and Baskin (02). The Tennessee coneflowers are
often localized on a portion of a glade site, but they tend to be
relatively dense (averaging about 15 percent cover on 2 colonies
examined) within the colonies (25). The factors that affect its
presence or absence on the glades are not all known, but some general
facts have resulted from observations and research.
Hemmerly (14) measured soil depths at 2 coneflower sites. At the
Davidson County site the mean soil depth for quadrats containing E.
tennesseensis varied from 7.4-12.4 cm. At the Wilson County site they
varied from 4.8-7.4 cm. Many roots, however, were found to reach
depths up to 15 or 20 cm.
Research by Hemmerly (14) showed an intolerance to shade. He
also conducted seed germination studies which demonstrated the
adaptation by E. tennesseensis to an extended winter cold period
(stratification required) and a diurnal thermoperiod. He concluded
that the poverty-grass, as an associate, is beneficial because its
litter helps protect the seeds from sub-freezing temperatures. In the
lab he demonstrated some allelopathic effects by prairie-clover and
Pleurochaete moss on E. tennesseensis, but he was unable to
demonstrate similar effects in the field.
Coneflower colonies are located on or adjacent to land uses such
Habitat Associations - 1 as: residential land; industrial land; grazed/pasture land; farmland
(including crops such as; corn, sorghum, soybeans, cotton, and
tabacco); gravelly roadsides; and fences adjacent to roadsides.
Habitat Associations - 2 (DRAFT) - Food Habits
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
FOOD HABITS
TROPHIC LEVEL -
AUTOTROPH
Food Habits - 1 (DRAFT) - Environment Associations
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G = General A = Adult
LIM = Limiting RA = Resting Adult
J = Juvenile FA = Feeding Adult
RJ = Resting Juvenile BA = Breeding Adult
FJ = Feeding Juvenile P = Pupae
L = Larvae E = Egg
RL = Resting Larvae
FL = Feeding Larvae
LIFESTAGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G Terrestrial Features: Rock outcrops
G Availability of fence rows: roadside ditches and grassy
G
G
Environment Associations - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
LIFE HISTORY
HABIT:
Herb (16).
LIFE CYCLE:
Perennial (16,17).
TYPE OF REPRODUCTION:
Sexual (14).
REPRODUCTIVE PHENOLOGY:
Germination begins in early March and is numerous by late March.
Leafing begins within the first 6 or 7 weeks after germination.
Budding occurs from late April onward. Anthesis begins in mid-May,
peaks in June and July, and blooms as late as early October. Fruiting
dates are from late July onward. Seed/fruit dispersal occurs from
mid-September until December (14).
SEX OR SPORE STATUS:
Monoclinous (14).
POLLINATION, SPORE AND SEED DISSEMINATION:
The pollen dissemination agents include several species of the
genus Bombus, Apis, and Pieris (bees and butterflies). The seed
dissemination agents are water and insects (14,27).
The pollinators are not specific to coneflowers. How vulnerable
these pollinators are to disturbance, habitat modification or
predation is open to conjecture.
Hemmerly (14) was unable to find any evidence of achene predation
by animals. On a highly disturbed site Somers and Smith (26) found a
cache of seed harvested by some small animal or insect stored in a two
inch high space between two wooden planks. Almost every seed had
been mined out on one face, possibly by some kind of insect.
SEED BIOLOGY:
Hemmerly (14) looked at seed production and germination at three
times (early, mid and late). From a sample of ten plants for each
season he found that the mid-season heads produced the greatest number
of achenes (mean =71.5), but the highest germination percentages (56
percent) were from the late season achenes. The latter was not
significanftly different from the mid-season percent germination,
only the early one. Hemmerly obtained his highest in vitro
germination (67 percent) following sixteen weeks of stratification at
15 to 25 degrees Celsius in the light. The maximum percentage for
non-stratified seed was 28 percent. Filled seeds in all weight
categories were 80-100 percent viable. Longevity has been tested for
up to sixty months; i.e. 41 percent as compared to a high of 54
percent achieved after 20 months of storage followed by stratification
for ten weeks. Moisture levels were also tested in vitro. Optimum
germination for E. tennesseensis was when 10-15 ml of water was
provided per petri dish as opposed to 2.5, 5.0 ml or 100 ml. When
subjected to short periods of sub-freezing temperature germination was
Life History - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
considerably reduced (14).
POPULATION BIOLOGY:
The limiting factors for Echinacea tennesseensis are not
known. Hemmerly (14) looked for evidence of factors influencing
survival through field experiments. Seed were sown into 24 quadrats
at each of three sites during November 1970 and survival percentages
were determined at intervals between April 1971 and August 1972. The
highest survival percentage (10.7 percent) for all quadrats together
came in May 1971, and when the last count was made in August 1972, it
had declined to 7.3 percent. Research on longer term mortality does
not exist. Hemmerly (14) noted a positive correlation between
survival and three soil depth classes in the above research, but that
these differences were not statistically significant when comparing
results of any of the sample dates.
Naturally, population density and stability vary among and within
sites. In preparation for the Recovery Plan (25), which recomends
as a mimimal size for recovery a "15 percent cover of coneflowers over
2500 square feet"; Somers and Smith crudely measured the colonies at
two of the best sites and used these as standards for recovery. The
potential for recovery is good if recommended actions are implemented.
ECOLOGICAL/EDAPHIC FACTORS:
Cedar glades of the Central Basin occur only on Lebanon
limestone, of the Stones River Series, a dolomitic rock of Ordovician
age (22). The soil association in the vicinity of known Echinacea
tennesseensis populations are described as "rock outcrop-Talbott"
(10). Rock outcrop areas, where cedar glades occur, are described as
places with half the ground surface being covered by rocks. In these
places soil between the rocks is dark-colored, contains numerous small
limestone fragments, and is moderately or mildly alkaline. This soil
series is called Rendoll or Gladeville (10). Elevations for glades
were the species occurs are approximately 500-600 feet above sea level
(18).
Light relationships need to be studied further in the species,
but Hemmerly (14) observed that it seldom is seen growing in habitat
with more than 50 percent shade. Whether or not this is due primarily
to shading is yet to be shown. Temperatures on three cedar glades
containing coneflowers were compared by Hemmerly (14) to those at
nearby NOAA stations. Glade temperatures were as much as 31 degrees F
higher on one exceptionally hot day (129 degrees vs. 98 degrees). Air
temperature minima, on the other hand, usually did not differ much
between the glades and the NOAA stations. Soil moisture at various
depths was measured by Hemmerly (14) during a five month period which
included a dry month (October, 1971). Bouyoucos soil moisture blocks
planted at 6 or 7 inches at one site gave 100 percent readings. Thus
available moisture at these depths may be more than expected. This
needs further study. Hemmerly (14) observed that the growth of
seedling roots is very rapid in the spring, coinciding with the
availability of surface moisture on the glades.
TROPHIC STATUS:
E. tennesseensis is phototrophic (14). Hemmerly (14) examined
Life History - 2 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
the leaf anatomy of E. tennesseensis and concluded that the absence of
tissue showing the Krantz arrangement was presumptive evidence that
the species possesses the C3 type of photosynthesis.
CHARACTERISTIC DOMINANCE:
E. tennesseensis is a component species (19,24). Analysis of the
vegetation on ten cedar glades in middle Tennessee, including three
containing E. tennesseensis (19,24), demonstrated the sparsity of this
species even in its habitat. It was only encountered in 9 of the 313
plots sampled, and represented less than one percent of the overall
vegetative cover encountered in these plots.
COMMUNITY ECOLOGY:
Echinacea tennesseensis is associated with open cedar glade plant
communities. These communities are normally very stable ecosystems
because of the xeric environment, because there are a limited number
of taxa (01,04) that are sufficiently adapted to survive in this
environment, and most potential competitors are excluded. Quarterman
(20,21,22) describes in some detail the typical successional trend in
open gravel glade, grass glade, glade shrub and cedar-hardwood forest
sub-communities. The sub-communities of the open glades are further
subdivided in Pearsall et al. (19). Pearsall's research indicates
the species occurs in 4 of the 7 community types recognized. These
communities are described by their dominant taxa as follows:
1) Nostoc, annuals, prairie-clover, bluet, onion community.
2) Prairie-clover, poverty grass, false-pennyroyal community.
3) Poverty-grass, prairie-clover, ruellia community.
4) Glade moss, panic-grass, ruellia community.
Two other community types were more xeric with shallower soils
while another was a more mesic edge community with deeper soils.
SPECIES INTERRELATIONSHIPS:
Hemmerly (14) conducted field experiments to test survival.
He found that the mean number of seedlings present in plots dominated
by Sporobolus vaginiflorus (12 percent) or a mix of S. vaginiflorus
and Dalea gattingeri (11 percent), taken together as a data set, were
significantly greater than in plots containing only D. gattingeri (4
percent) or essentially bare ground (3 percent). Differences within
each of the two pairs of values, however, were insignificant. In
vitro experiments showed that seed germination of E. tennesseensis was
significantly inhibited by D. gattingeri when present during
stratification, but not when present only during incubation (01).
Extracts of red cedar also were found to significantly inhibit
germination of the species in vitro. Conversely, extracts from E.
tennesseensis were found to significantly reduce germination in three
common associates: D. gattingeri, Aristida longespica, and Ruellia
humilis.
Hemmerly (14) conducted competition experiments with E.
tennesseensis biomass when it is grown in competition with Sporobolus
and available moisture is limited to either 1/4 or 1/2 of field
capacity.
Life History - 3 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
The parasitic dodder (Cuscuta sp.) has been observed by Somers
(26) on E. tennesseensis at one site with a lot of disturbance.
OTHER LIFE HISTORY DESCRIPTORS:
Research by Baskin and Baskin (03) has demonstrated that
vernalization is not required for flowering and that E. tennessensis
is a "long day plant."
Life History - 4 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Off-Road Vehicles
Beneficial Maintaining undisturbed/undeveloped areas
Beneficial Restricting/regulating human use of habitats
Beneficial Land Acquisition
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Herbicide Use
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Agricultural Practice
Beneficial Prescribed/controlled burning of habitat
Beneficial Maintaining Early Stages of Succession
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Nonnative Vegetation
Beneficial Stocking captive-reared wild-strain animals
Beneficial Transplanting Wild Eggs/Wild Seeds
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Noncommercial Harvest
Beneficial Regulating commercial harvest levels
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Domestic Animals
Adverse Off Road Vehicles
Existing Off Road Vehicles
Adverse Climate Alteration
Existing Climate Alteration
Adverse Inherent Reproductive Characteristics
Existing Inherent Reproductive Characteristics
Adverse Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Existing Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Adverse Soil compaction by heavy equipment in mine areas
Existing Soil compaction by heavy equipment in mine areas
Adverse Reservoirs
Existing Reservoirs
Adverse Competition
Existing Competition
Adverse Grazing
Existing Grazing
Adverse Vegetation Composition Changes
Existing Vegetation Composition Changes
COMMENTS ON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -
Inherant reproductive, morphological and physiological
characteristics have acted to restrict the range of the species and
make it more vulnerable to threats. E. tennesseensis may be an
example of a K-selected taxon, i.e., one that invests it's reserve
energy in competitive strategies rather than reproduction. It
produces a limited number of relatively large seeds (achenes) not
easily dispersed by common vectors (i.e., wind and water), and seeds
lack appendages allowing adherence to animal fur. Hemmerly (15)
found that the viable seeds are in larger size classes (2-8 mg) and
are seldom dispersed by wind, at least more than one meter beyond the
parent plant. No evidence of seed predation by animals was observed
(15).
The number of flower heads per plant is limited. Usually a
single head terminates each branch. Older plants may have many
Management Practices - 1 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
branches arising from the root base. While seed number per plant is
limited, Hemmerly (15) found that a relatively high percentage (67
percent) are capable of germination under optimum laboratory
conditions. He also demonstrated that dry storage for up to 60 months
resulted in only moderate loss of viability.
The specialized morphological and physiological characteristics
that make E. tennesseensis so well adapted to glade environment might
be inhibiting its spread into other habitats. For example, the
coneflowers stout fibrous taproots, have forfeited the ability to
spread vegetatively by surficial rhizomes, stolons or other asexual
means. Also the slow growing, short, woody stalk, makes it poorly
evolved for competing with tall, fast growing taxa that can shade or
crowd them. It is conceivable that the narrow hairy leaves or
stomatal arrangements could be ill-suited for adequate photosynthetic
productivity under shadier or moister regimes.
E. tennesseensis utilizes the C3 photosynthetic pathway instead
of the more efficient C4 route (15). The C4 pathway requires less
water, therefore a C3 plant in a xeric environment might represent a
disadvantage.
All of the known coneflower localities have been affected by
man's activities to some degree. The impact from some of the
agricultural practices such as grazing and bush-hogging is not
documented beyond casual observations. It is apparent, however, that
they can survive limited use of these practices. If not too
intensive, such land manipulations may prove to be advantageous
because they arrest succession. The effects may vary with the types
of livestock used. Likewise, the effects of fire on coneflowers has
not been studied. It might prove to be another useful tool for
restoring coneflower habitat in glades being encroached upon by
competitive vegetation.
Echinacea tennesseensis was apparently a rare plant at the time
of its discovery. There are very few documented sites, either extant
of historical (25). Cronquist (08), who considers it to be an outlier
of E. pallida var. angustifolia (DC.) Cronq., postulates that during
the hypsithermal period, several thousand years ago, the species
ranged eastward from the Great Plains to the cedar barrens of central
Tennessee and "with the return of cooler, more pluvial conditions" it
was excluded from most of its eastern range. The populations on the
cedar glades today, which others believe are distinct from the
midwestern relatives, face threats mainly from man. A couple of
colonies have been destroyed by housing development (25) and it is
very conceivable that others, never discovered, were lost when Percy
Priest Reservoir bisected its very small range.
The population on one site is threatened with encroachment of
fescue and bull-thistle as well as dumping of trash and debris. Other
sites are threatened with grazing; off-road vehicle use; and continued
development for housing; industrial expansion; and road building.
Encroachment from vegetational succession is a long term threat.
The main future threat is continued development at an
accelerating rate in the Nashville area. There is also the
possibility that the species will be exploited either because of its
beauty, rarity or purported medicinal values. Foster (12) reviews
some reasons why the genus is valued, and Culbine (07) reports on
Management Practices - 2 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
exploitation of roadside populations of E. angustifolia in Missouri.
APPROVED PLAN:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Tennessee Coneflower Recovery
Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 42 pp.
The primary objective of the Tennessee Coneflower Recovery Plan
is to secure at least five populations of the species, each with at
least three self-sustaining colonies. To accomplish this goal, the
plan outlines the following steps:
1) Search for additional populations in cedar glades in Davidson,
Rutherford and Wilson counties, TN.
2) Protect habitat and populations by entering into protection
agreements with landowners and developing managment plans for each
population; place zoning restrictions/special management
designations on state managed sites; establish state regulations
prohibiting take from state owned land; and restrict ORV and
livestock access to sites, as well as development. In addition,
restrictions of pesticide use and agricultural practices may be
necessary if found to be adverse to the species based on research
results.
3) Establish nursery stock representative of natural colonies to help
establish new colonies.
4) Conduct baseline ecological and population biology studies for
future monitoring and management activities.
5) Manage protected populations via: controlled burns, grazing, and/
or mechanical removal of vegetation based on research results to
maintain successional stages.
Casual searches for new populations of this species have been
conducted at irregular intervals over the past few years. In FY 1985
a large significant population of this species was discovered.
Discovery of this new population requires that the Recovery Plan be
revised. This task will be accomplished in FY 1986. The Tennessee
Department of Conservation has contacted the owners of all of the
previously known sites. Three sites occur on lands owned and managed
by the State of Tennessee and are protected. The remaining sites are
on privately owned property. These owners are sympathetic to
protecting the species but have not entered into any long-term formal
agreement for their protection. Baseline studies of the species will
be initiated in FY 1986.
Management Practices - 3 (DRAFT) - References
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
References
***** REFERENCES FOR ALL NARRATIVES EXCEPT N-OCCURRENCE *****
01 Baskin, J.M. and C.C. Baskin. 1975. Additions to the herbaceous
flora of the Middle Tennessee cedar glades. Jour. Tenn. Acad. Sci.
50(1):25-26.
02 Baskin, J.M. and C.C. Baskin. 1977. An undescribed cedar glade
community in middle Tennessee. Castanea 42:140-145.
03 Baskin, J.M. and C.C. Baskin. 1982. Effects of vernalization and
photoperiod on flowering Echinacea tennesseensis, an Endangered
species. Jour. Tenn. Acad. 57(2):53-56.
04 Baskin, J.M., E. Quarterman and C. Caudle. 1968. Preliminary
check-list of the herbaceous flora of the vascular plants of cedar
glades. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci. 43:65-71.
05 Beadle, C.D. 1898. Notes on the botany of the southeastern
states. II. Bot. Gaz. 25:359-375.
06 Blake, S.F. 1929. New Asteraceae of the United States, Mexico and
Hoduras. Jour. Wash. Acad. Sci. 19:273-288.
07 Clubine, S. 1982. The pillage goes on. Missouriensis 4(2):48-49.
08 Cronquist, A. New York Botanical Gardens, Bronx. Pers. comm.,
November 1, 1978.
09 Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular flora of the Southeastern United
States. Vol. I, Asteraceae. Univ. N. Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
261 pp.
10 Edwards, M.J., J.A. Elder and M.E. Springer. 1974. The soils of
the Nashville Basin. USDA/SCS and Univ. of Tennessee Agricult.
Expt. Stat. Bull. 499. 125 pp.
11 Fernald, M.L. 1900. Notes on Echinacea. Rhodra 2: 84-87
12 Foster, S. 1984. Echinacea exalted, the botany, culture, history,
and medicinal uses of the purple coneflowers. New Life Farm, Inc.
Durry, MO. 31 pp.
13 Freeman, C.P. 1933. Ecology of cedar glade vegetation near
Nashville, TN. Jour. Tenn. Acad. Sci. 8:143-228.
14 Hemmerly, T.E. 1976. Life cycle strategy of a higly endemic cedar
glade species: Echinacea tennesseensis (Compositae). PhD.
diss., Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN. 187 pp.
15 Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, Threatened or Endangered
forest related vascular plants of the south, Vol. II. USDA/USFS
Tech. Publ. R8-Tp2. 1305 pp.
16 McGregor, R.L. 1968. The taxonomy of the genus Echinacea
(Compositae). Univ. of Kansas Sci. Bull. 48: 113-142.
17 McGregor, R.L. March 12, 1979. [Letter to LaVerne Smith, USFWS].
State Biological Survey, The University of Kansas, Lawerence, KS.
18 Nashville, TN.; KY 1:250,000 scale map. 1969. Revision of 1956
map by USGS, Reston, VA.
19 Pearsall, S., E. Bridges, D. Eager, D. Durham, P. Hammel, L. Smith,
and P. Somers. 1985. Developing a community based natural area
survey technique in the Central Basin of Tennessee. Unplb. Rept.
for Contract No. 47-00510, between NPS and TN. Dept. of Conser.
82 pp. and appendix.
20 Quarterman, E. 1948. Plant communities on cedar glades in middle
Tennessee. PhD. diss., Duke Univ., Durham, NC. 118 pp.
References - 1 (DRAFT) - References
Species CONEFLOWER, PURPLE, TENNESSEE
Species Id ESIS704006
Date 13 MAR 96
21 Quarterman, E. 1950a. Ecology of cedar glades in Tennessee.
Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 77(1):1-9.
22 Quarterman, E. 1950b. Major plant communities of Tennessee cedar
glades. Ecology 31(2):234-254.
23 Sharp, W.M. 1935. A critical study of certain epappose genera of
the Heliantheae-Verbesinae of the normal family Compositae. Ann.
Mo. Bot. Gard. 22:51-152.
24 Smith, L., P. Somers, E.L. Bridges, and P.B. Hamel. 1985.
Preliminary analysis of seasonal change in Middle Tennessee cedar
glade plant communities. Abst. ASB Bull. 32:57.
25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Tennessee Coneflower
Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
42 pp.
26 Somers, P. and L. Smith. Personal observations on June 16, 1985.
Ecological Services Division, Tennessee Department of Conservation,
701 Broadway, Nashville, TN 37219-5237.
27 Somers, P. 1983. Recovery planning for a cedar glade endemic, the
Tennessee coneflower, Echinacea tennesseensis (Asteraceae) Natural
Areas Jour. 3(4):56-58.
***** REFERENCES FOR N-OCCURRENCE NARRATIVE ONLY *****
01 Baskin, J.M. and C.C. Baskin. 1977. An undescribed cedar glade
community in middle Tennessee. Castanea 42:140-145.
02 Baskin, J.M., E. Quarterman and C. Caudle. 1968. Preliminary
check-list of the herbaceous flora of the vascular plants of cedar
glades. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci. 43:65-71.
03 Hemmerly, T.E. 1976. Life cycle strategy of a higly endemic cedar
glade species: Echinacea tennesseensis (Compositae). PhD.
diss., Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN. 187 pp.
04 Kral, R. 08/29/78. Pers. comm. Department of Biology, Vanderbilt
Univ., Nashville, TN.
05 McGregor, R.L. 1968. The taxonomy of the genus Echinacea
(Compositae). Univ. of Kansas Sci. Bull. 48: 113-142.
06 McMillan, R. August 1985. Pers. comm. Route 2, Box 141,
Lascascas, TN.
07 Quarterman, E. and T.E. Hemmerly. 1971. Rediscovery of Echinacea
tennesseensis (Beadle) Small. Rhodora 73:304-305.
08 Reeves, R. 1984. Pers. comm. Longhunter State Park, Rt. 1,
Hobson Pike, Hermitage, TN.
09 Smith, L., P. Somers, E.L. Bridges, and P.B. Hamel. 1985.
Preliminary analysis of seasonal change in middle Tennessee cedar
glade plant communities. Abst. ASB Bull. 32:57.
10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Tennessee Coneflower
Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
42 pp.
11 Wurdack, J. September 1980. Pers. comm. Dept. of Botany,
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
12 Wurdack, J., Loc. cit. (Written comm., October 8, 1980).
References - 2