THE STATUS AND FUTURE OF ORCHID CONSERVATION ...

THE STATUS AND FUTURE OF Gary A. Krupnick,2 Melissa K. McCormick,3

ORCHID CONSERVATION IN Thomas Mirenda,4 and Dennis F. Whigham3

NORTH AMERICA1

ABSTRACT

The status and trends of issues related to the conservation of orchids native to the United States, Canada, and Greenland areconsidered. We focus on nine of the 16 Targets of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC). The first two targets, whichall other targets rely upon, appear to have been adequately achieved, in addition to Target 11. Limited progress has been madeon six other GSPC targets. Three case studies of efforts to conserve the native threatened orchids, Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.)Lindl., Isotria medeoloides (Pursh) Raf., and Tolumnia bahamensis (Nash) Braem, are presented to demonstrate the difficulties aswell as the issues associated with effective conservation. We describe our efforts to establish an international program toconserve all native orchids in the United States and Canada. The North American Orchid Conservation Center (NAOCC) is aninternationally focused effort that is based on public-private partnerships. The goal of NAOCC is to conserve the geneticdiversity of all native orchids through efforts to develop an international collection of seeds and orchid fungi. The NAOCC alsofocuses on the cultivation of all native orchids in an international network of botanic gardens, and they partner with private andpublic landowners to develop techniques to conserve and restore all native orchid species.Key words: Endangered species, Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC), North American Orchid Conservation

Center (NAOCC), Orchidaceae, restoration.

Beautiful, diverse, and often bearing large and the species around them, orchids, highly sensitive toshowy flowers, orchids are an ancient plant family habitat change, are among the first casualties fromthat has evolved an amazing array of bizarre flower environmental degradation. Most orchid generatypes, unique pollination syndromes, and complex contain threatened or endangered species (Swarts &symbiotic interactions with animals and fungi. In the Dixon, 2009). Orchids are found throughout Northplant world, orchids reign supreme as about 10% of America, and many of the approximately 210 speciesall flowering plant species are members of the found north of Mexico are threatened, endangered, orOrchidaceae. No other plant family can match the extirpated in at least part of their ranges because ofpeculiar array of evolutionary features that orchids habitat loss and alteration. Most North Americancollectively possess. Along with the Asteraceae, the orchids are terrestrial. Globally, terrestrial orchidsOrchidaceae has more species, estimated to be make up only one third of orchid species with thebetween 20,000 and 35,000 taxa (Cribb et al., other two thirds being epiphytes and lithophytes.2003), than any other family of flowering plants, However, terrestrial herbaceous perennials are dis-and individual orchid species are often rare in nature, proportionately represented in the extinct plantoccurring in restricted and specific niches and species listed by The World Conservation Unionhabitats. Collectors prize orchids for their seemingly (IUCN, 1999). Consequently, terrestrial orchids areinfinite variety of showy flowers; scientists have long likely subject to a greater extinction risk thanbeen fascinated by the relationships between the epiphytes, particularly in response to current climateplants and their pollinators and other symbionts. changes.Today, orchids have taken on even greater Much of orchids’ sensitivity to habitat change

significance. Due to their interconnectedness with likely can be traced to their dependence on two, often

1 We are thankful to the United States Botanic Garden and the Smithsonian Institution for financial support of the NorthAmerican Orchid Conservation Center (NAOCC) through a Smithsonian Grand Challenges Award grant. Frank Clements,Vickie Dibella, Tony Dove, Barbara Faust, Christine Flanagan, Jim Kaufmann, John Kress, William McLaughlin, RayMims, Jay O’Neill, Holly Shimizu, Teresa Vetick, and Kyle Wallick contributed substantially to discussions about thestructure and development of NAOCC. Intern Jean Linsky assisted in collecting data. Information related to the case studydescription of Isotria medeoloides was obtained during a research project funded by Contract Number H399207001/J370010018 from the National Park Service.

2 Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 166,Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, U.S.A. [email protected].

3 Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, P.O. Box 28, Edgewater, Maryland 21037, U.S.A. [email protected];[email protected].

4 Smithsonian Gardens, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 506, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, [email protected].

doi: 10.3417/2011108

ANN. MISSOURI BOT. GARD. 99: 180–198. PUBLISHED ON 13 DECEMBER 2013.

Volume 99, Number 2 Krupnick et al. 1812013 Status and Future of Orchid Conservation in

North America

very specific, types of symbiotic associations. for and actively participating in efforts to conserveOrchids’ relationships with specific pollinators have native orchids.been a subject of interest since before Darwin, but We begin by identifying successes and major gapsmore recently orchid dependence on mycorrhizal in conservation strategies for North American nativefungi has also received substantial research attention orchids by addressing nine of the 16 targets of the(Waterman & Bidartondo, 2008). Identification of the 2011–2020 Global Strategy for Plant Conservation

fungi on which orchids depend requires DNA (GSPC) in relation to the conservation of orchid

sequencing and analysis, but it is clear at this point species native to the United States, Canada, and

that some orchids are dependent upon fungi that are Greenland. GSPC targets 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 do

free living in the soil, while others associate with not apply directly to native North American orchid

fungi that are also connected to other plants, species. We then propose a centralized NorthAmerican Orchid Conservation Center (NAOCC) thatespecially trees. As habitats change, the fungaladdresses each deficiency.community changes, and orchids may lose fungi

upon which they depend for their survival.GAs popular, and charismatic subjects for LOBAL STRATEGY OF PLANT Cdesirable, ONSERVATION TARGETS

cultivation, orchids face another serious threat. Like TARGET 1, AN ONLINE FLORA OF ALL KNOWN PLANTSprecious gems, the most unique and rare orchids aresought by the most enthusiastic collectors. As word A total of 210 orchid species are native to the

spreads about the location of a rare orchid, more and United States, Canada, and Greenland (see Table 1),including one described as recently as 2007, asmore demand is placed on already fragile popula-Platanthera yosemitensis Colwell, Sheviak & P. E.tions. Unfortunately, without efforts to cultivate theMoore (Colwell et al., 2007). The novel orchid list is asymbiotic fungi, most of these plants are doomed incompilation of species from Kartesz (1994), the Floracultivation. Due to the combination of habitat lossof North America (Romero-Gonzalez et al., 2002),and poaching, many orchid species, which were onceBrown (2009), and NatureServe Explorer (Nature-widespread, are now found in small, ecologicallyServe, 2011), and each name is accepted by Thefragile, fragmented populations. The majority ofPlant List (,http://www.thePlantList.org.) and theorchids are represented globally by tropical epi-World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP,phytes, but temperate zone terrestrials make up a2011). Additionally, 135 orchid species are native to

significant proportion (approximately 28%; Grave-Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (Acevedo-

ndeel et al., 2004) and conservation of terrestrialRodrıguez & Strong, 2007), but of these species only

species has proven to be especially challenging (e.g.,those that extend into the mainland are treated here.

Stewart & Hicks, 2010). No orchid has ever been de-The 210 described species (Table 1) are distrib-

listed, though one, Isotria medeoloides (Pursh) Raf.,uted among 66 genera (Table 2), with 49 genera

was upgraded from endangered to threatened in 1994 (74%) represented by only one or two species and a(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994) after extensive few genera being represented by more than threedirected searching uncovered new populations. A species (e.g., Platanthera Rich. with 35 species,comprehensive holistic approach to species conser- Spiranthes Rich. with 23 species). While there arevation has to be fully realized in conservation and always questions of whether taxa should be split orrestoration plans. lumped and questions about the treatment of hybrids,The orchid flora of North America represents an relationships between most genera in the Orchid-

important scientific challenge for conservation biol- aceae are well established (e.g., Gorniak et al., 2010).ogists. Unlike many other plant species, where Native orchid species are found in all 50 statessignificant efforts are often employed to cultivate within the United States and all 10 provinces andand reintroduce rare plants and to store germplasm, three territories of Canada. On average, there are 40the majority of organizations that identify and protect native species per state, with Hawaii having theorchids on public and private lands rely solely on fewest native species (three) and Florida with thehabitat conservation for management. This conserva- most (106). Other species-rich areas include thetion strategy has largely been dictated by the unique states along the East Coast associated with theaspects of orchid biology that make them not Appalachian Mountains, especially North Carolinaamenable to standard plant conservation techniques. (67 species), Virginia (59 species), and New York (57We propose a model of centralized but integrated species). Of the Canadian provinces, Prince Edwardorchid conservation that can provide one-stop Island and Ontario have an especially diverse orchidshopping for agencies and organizations responsible assemblage (59 and 58 species, respectively). All

situ

ex2011).

holding

gardens

(NatureServe,

botanic

of Explorer

umber

nthe

NatureServe

and

and

protections,

(200

9),

Brown

legal

assessments,

2002

),al.,

etconservation le

z´

(Rom

ero-Gonza

includ

ing

America

Greenland

,North

ofand

Flora

Canada,

the

(199

4),

States,

Kartesz

United

from

the

ofspecies

species

oforchid

compilation

native

ais

210

list

The This

1.Table

collections.

NatureServe

U.S.

U.S.State

Canada’s

Num

berof

conservation

IUCN

2011

End

angered

conservation

SpeciesAt

botanicgardens

Species

status

rank

saRed

Listb

SpeciesAct

clistin

gdRiskAct

ewhere

presentf

Anoectochilu

ssandvicensisLindl.

G3;

S3Vulnerable

1Aplectrum

hyem

ale(M

uhl.ex

Willd.)Nutt.

G5;

SH,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

11ArethusabulbosaL.

G4;

SX,SH

,S1

-S4,

SNR

End

angered

0Basiphylla

eacorallicola

(Small)Ames

G2;

S1End

angered

0Beloglottiscostaricensis(Rchb.

f.)Schltr.

G4;

S1*

End

angered

0Bletia

patula

Hook.

G4;

SH5

Bletia

purpurea

(Lam

.)DC.

G5;

S3Threatened

17Brassia

caudata(L.)Lindl.

G3;

SXEnd

angered

37Bulbophyllum

pachyrachis(A.Rich.)Griseb.

G4;

SX0

Calopogon

barbatus

(Walter)Ames

G4;

S1-S3,

SNR

1Calopogon

multiflorusLindl.

G2;

SH,S1

-S3

End

angered

0Calopogon

oklahomensisD.H.Goldm

anG3;

SH,S1

,S2

,SN

R0

Calopogon

pallidusChapm

.G4;

S1-S5,

SNR

2Calopogon

tuberosus(L.)Britton,

Sterns

&G5;

SX,S1

-S4,

SNR

End

angered

16Poggenb.

Calypso

bulbosa(L.)Oakes

G5;

SH,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

8Cam

aridium

vestitu

m(Sw.)Lindl.

G4;

S1*

5*Cam

pylocentrum

pachyrrhizum

(Rchb.

f.)Rolfe

G4;

S1End

angered

1Cepha

lanthera

austiniae(A.Gray)

A.Heller

G4;

S2,S3

,SN

RThreatened

1Cleistesiopsisbifaria(Fernald)Pansarin&

F.Barros

G4;

S1-S4,

SNR*

3*Cleistesiopsisdivaricata

(L.)Pansarin&

F.Barros

G4;

SX,S1

,S3

,S4

,SN

R*

End

angered*

1Cleistesiopsisoricam

porum

P.M.Br.

GNR;S2

0Corallorhizabentleyi

Freudenst.

G1;

S10

Corallorhizamaculata(Raf.)Raf.

G5;

SH,S1

-S4,

SNR

End

angered

12Corallorhizamertensiana

Bong.

G4;

S2,S3

,S5

,SU

,SN

R1

Corallorhizaodontorhiza(W

illd.)Nutt.

G5;

SH,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

2CorallorhizastriataLindl.

G5;

SH,S1

-S4,

SNR

End

angered

0Corallorhizatrifida

Chatel.

G5;

S1-S5,

SNR

End

angered

2CorallorhizawisterianaConrad

G5;

SX,SH

,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

2Cranichismuscosa

Sw.

G4;

S1End

angered

2Cyclopogoncranichoides

(Griseb.)Schltr.

G4;

SNR*

0Cyclopogonelatus

(Sw.)Schltr.

G4;

SH*

End

angered

4*Cypripedium

acauleAiton

G5;

S1,S3

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

22

182 Annals of theMissouri Botanical Garden

Contin

ued.

1.Table

NatureServe

U.S.

U.S.State

Canada’s

Num

berof

conservation

IUCN

2011

End

angered

conservation

SpeciesAt

botanicgardens

Species

status

rank

saRed

Listb

SpeciesAct

clistin

gdRiskAct

ewhere

presentf

Cypripedium

arietin

umR.Br.

G3;

SH,S1

-S3

End

angered

1Cypripedium

californicum

A.Gray

G3;

S37

Cypripedium

candidum

Muhl.ex

Willd.

G4;

SX,SH

,S1

-S3,

SNR

End

angered

Endangered

10Cypripedium

fasciculatum

Kellogg

exS.

Watson

G4;

S1-S3

2Cypripedium

gutta

tum

Sw.

G5;

S2,SN

R7

Cypripedium

kentuckiense

C.F.Reed

G3;

S1-S3

End

angered

14Cypripedium

montanum

Douglas

exLindl.

G4;

S1-S4,

SNR

3Cypripedium

parviflorum

Salisb.

G5;

SH,S1

-S4,

SNR

End

angered

12Cypripedium

passerinum

Richardson

G4;

S1-S4,

SNR

2Cypripedium

reginaeWalter

G4;

SX,S1

-S4,

SU,SN

R,SN

AEnd

angered

33Cypripedium

yatabeanum

Makino

G4;

SNR*

1Cyrtopodium

punctatum

(L.)Lindl.

G5;

S1End

angered

22Dactylorhizaaristata

(Fisch.ex

Lindl.)Soo

G4;

S40

Dactylorhizaviridis(L.)R.M.Batem

an,Pridgeon

G5;

SX,SH

,S1

-S5,

SNR*

End

angered

11*

&M.W.Chase

Dendrophylaxlin

denii(Lindl.)Benth.ex

Rolfe

G3;

S2*

End

angered

7*Dendrophylaxporrectus(Rchb.

f.)Carlsward&

GU;SN

R*

0Whitten

Dichrom

anthus

cinnabarinus

(LaLlave

&Lex.)

G5;

SNR*

2Garay

Dichrom

anthus

michuacanus

(LaLlave

&Lex.)

G4;

S3,SN

R*

0Salazar&

Soto

Arenas

Eltroplectriscalcarata(Sw.)Garay

&H.R.Sw

eet

G4;

S1End

angered

1Encyclia

tampensis(Lindl.)Sm

all

G4;

SNR

23Epidend

rum

amphistomum

A.Rich.

GNR;S3

End

angered

0Epidend

rum

anceps

Jacq.

10Epidend

rum

blancheanum

Urb.

G4;

SXEnd

angered*

1*Epidend

rum

floridenseHagsater

5Epidend

rum

magnolia

eMuhl.

G4;

S2,S3

,SN

R*

4*Epidend

rum

nocturnum

Jacq.

G4;

S2End

angered

25Epidend

rum

rigidum

Jacq.

G4;

S3End

angered

19Epidend

rum

strobiliferum

Rchb.

f.G4;

S1End

angered

1Epipactisgigantea

Douglas

exHook.

G4;

S1-S3,

SU,SN

RSpecialConcern

37Eulophiaalta

(L.)Faw

c.&

Rendle

G4;

S46

Eulophiaecristata(Fernald)Ames

G2;

S1,S2

*End

angered

0


North America

Contin

ued.

1.Table

NatureServe

U.S.

U.S.State

Canada’s

Num

berof

conservation

IUCN

2011

End

angered

conservation

SpeciesAt

botanicgardens

Species

status

rank

saRed

Listb

SpeciesAct

clistin

gdRiskAct

ewhere

presentf

Galeand

rabeyrichiiRchb.

f.G4;

SNR

0Galeand

rabicarinata

G.A.Rom

ero&

P.M.Br.

G1;

S1End

angered

0Galearisspectabilis

(L.)Raf.

G5;

S1-S5,

SNR

End

angered

4Goodyeraoblongifolia

Raf.

G5;

S1-S5,

SNR

End

angered

9Goodyerapubescens(W

illd.)R.Br.

G5;

S1-S5,

SNR

End

angered

27Goodyerarepens

(L.)R.Br.

G5;

SH,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

14GoodyeratesselataLodd.

G5;

SX,SH

,S1

-S5,

SU,SN

REnd

angered

3Govenia

floridana

P.M.Br.

End

angered

0Habenaria

distansGriseb.

G5;

S1End

angered

1Habenaria

floribundaLindl.

G4;

SNR*

2*Habenaria

quinqueseta(M

ichx.)Sw

.G4;

S1,SN

R1

Habenaria

repens

Nutt.

G5;

S1-S3,

SNR

4Ham

marbyapaludosa

(L.)Kun

tze

G4;

S1-S3,

SNR*

End

angered*

2Heterotaxissessilis(Sw.)F.Barros

G4;

S1*

18*

Hexalectrisgrandiflora

(A.Rich.

&Galeotti)L.O.

G4;

S22

Williams

Hexalectrisnitid

aL.O.Williams

G3;

S1,S3

End

angered

2Hexalectrisrevoluta

Correll

G1;

S1,SN

R0

Hexalectrisspicata(W

alter)Barnh

art

G5;

SH,S1

-S4,

SNR

End

angered

3HexalectriswarnockiiAmes

&Correll

G2;

S1,S2

0Ionopsisutricularioides(Sw.)Lindl.

G4;

S1End

angered

10Isotriamedeoloides

(Pursh)Raf.

G2;

SX,SH

,S1

,S2

Threatened

End

angered

Endangered

1Isotriaverticillata(M

uehl.ex

Willd.)Raf.

G5;

SX,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

Endangered

5Lepanthopsismelanantha(Rchb.

f.)Ames

G3;

SHEnd

angered

1LiparishawaiensisH.Mann

G3;

S33

Liparisliliifolia

(L.)Rich.

exLindl.

G5;

SX,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

Endangered

4Liparisloeselii(L.)Rich.

G5;

SX,SH

,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

8Liparisnervosa(Thunb.)Lindl.

G4;

S2End

angered*

10MacradenialutescensR.Br.

G4;

SHEnd

angered

0MalaxisabieticolaSalazar&

Soto

Arenas

G4;

S1,S3

*0

MalaxisbayardiiFernald

G1;

SH,S1

,SU

End

angered

0Malaxisbrachystachys(Rchb.

f.)Kun

tze

G4;

S3,S4

*0

Malaxismacrostachya(Lex.)Kun

tze

G4;

SNR,SN

A3*

Malaxismonophyllos(L.)Sw

.G4;

SH,S1

-S4,

SNR*

End

angered*

1Malaxisporphyrea(Ridl.)

Kun

tze

G4;

S2,SN

R0


Contin

ued.

1.Table

NatureServe

U.S.

U.S.State

Canada’s

Num

berof

conservation

IUCN

2011

End

angered

conservation

SpeciesAt

botanicgardens

Species

status

rank

saRed

Listb

SpeciesAct

clistin

gdRiskAct

ewhere

presentf

MalaxisspicataSw

.G4;

S1-S3,

SNR

0Malaxisunifolia

Michx.

G5;

S1-S5,

SX,SN

REnd

angered

2MalaxiswendtiiSalazar

G2;

S10

Mesad

enus

lucayanus(Britton)

Schltr.

G4;

S1,S2

*End

angered

1*Microthelys

rubrocallosa

(B.L.Rob.&

Greenm.)

GNR;S1

0Garay

Neottiaauriculata

(Wiegand)Szlach.

G3;

S1-S3,

SNR*

End

angered

0Neottiabanksiana(Lindl.)Rchb.

f.G4;

S1-S4,

SNR*

4*Neottiabifolia

(Raf.)Baumbach

G4;

S1-S4,

SNR*

End

angered*

5*Neottiaborealis(M

orong)

Szlach.

G4;

SH,S1

-S4,

SNR*

0Neottiaconvallarioides(Sw.)Rich.

G5;

S1-S4,

SNR*

0Neottiacordata(L.)Rich.

G5;

SH,S1

-S5,

SNR*

End

angered*

1Neottiasm

allii

(Wiegand)Szlach.

G4;

S1-S4*

End

angered*

0Oncidium

ensatum

Lindl.

GNR;S1

End

angered*

9*Pelexia

adnata

(Sw.)Poit.ex

Rich.

G5;

S1End

angered

1Peristylusholochila

(Hillebr.)N.Halle

G1;

S1*

End

angered*

3*Piperia

candidaRand.

Morgan&

Ackerman

G3;

S2,S3

,SN

R0

Piperia

colemaniiRand.Morgan&

Glic.

G3;

S30

Piperia

cooperi(S.Watson)

Rydb.

G4;

S30

Piperia

dilatata

(Pursh)Szlach.&

Rutk.

G5;

SH,S1

-S5,

SU,SN

R*

5*Piperia

elegans(Lindl.)Rydb.

G4;

S3,S4

,SN

R1

Piperia

elongata

Rydb.

G4;

S3,S4

,SN

R0

Piperia

leptopetalaRydb.

G3;

S30

Piperia

transversa

Suksd.

G4;

S3,S4

,SN

R0

Piperia

unalascensis(Spreng.)Rydb.

G5;

S1-S5,

SNR

0Piperia

yadoniiRand.

Morgan&

Ackerman

G2;

S2End

angered

0Platanthera

aquilonisSheviak

G5;

SX,S1

-S5,

SU,SN

R3

Platanthera

blephariglottis

(Willd.)Lindl.

G4;

S1-S4,

SNR

End

angered

4Platanthera

brevifolia

(Greene)

Senghas

G4;

SNR

0Platanthera

chapmanii(Small)Luer

G2;

S1,SH

,SN

R1

Platanthera

chorisiana

(Cham.)Rchb.

f.G3;

S2-S4

Threatened

2Platanthera

cilia

ris(L.)Lindl.

G5;

SX,SH

,S1

-S4,

SNR

End

angered

5Platanthera

clavellata

(Michx.)Luer

G5;

SH,S1

-S5,

SU,SN

R2

Platanthera

convallariifolia

(Fisch.ex

Lindl.)Lindl.

0


North America

Contin

ued.

1.Table

NatureServe

U.S.

U.S.State

Canada’s

Num

berof

conservation

IUCN

2011

End

angered

conservation

SpeciesAt

botanicgardens

Species

status

rank

saRed

Listb

SpeciesAct

clistin

gdRiskAct

ewhere

presentf

Platanthera

cristata

(Michx.)Lindl.

G5;

S1-S4,

SX,SN

REnd

angered

0Platanthera

flava

(L.)Lindl.

G4;

SX,S1

-S4,

SU,SN

REnd

angered

1Platanthera

grandiflora

(Bigelow

)Lindl.

G5;

SX,S1

-S4,

SNR

End

angered

3Platanthera

hookeri(Torr.)Lindl.

G4;

SX,S1

-S4,

SH,SN

REnd

angered

2Platanthera

huronensisLindl.

G5;

S1-S5,

SU,SN

R*

3Platanthera

hyperborea

(L.)Lindl.

G5;

S4End

angered

5Platanthera

integra(Nutt.)

A.Grayex

L.C.Beck

G3;

S1-S3,

SNR

End

angered

0Platanthera

integrila

bia(Correll)

Luer

G2;

SH,S1

-S3,

SUCandidate

End

angered

1Platanthera

lacera

(Michx.)G.Don

G5;

S1-S5,

SNR

7Platanthera

leucophaea

(Nutt.)

Lindl.

G2;

SX,SH

,S1

,S2

Threatened

End

angered

Endangered

2Platanthera

limosaLindl.

G4;

S4,SN

R0

Platanthera

nivea(Nutt.)

Luer

G5;

SH,S1

-S3,

SNR

End

angered

1Platanthera

obtusata

(Banks

exPursh)Lindl.

G5;

S1-S5,

SNR

Vulnerable

1Platanthera

orbiculata

(Pursh)Lindl.

G5;

SX,SH

,S1

-S4,

SNR

End

angered

1Platanthera

pallida

P.M.Br.

GNA;SU

,SN

A,SN

R*

0Platanthera

peramoena

A.Gray

G5;

SX,S1

-S4,

SNR

End

angered

1Platanthera

praeclaraSheviak&

M.L.Bow

les

G3;

SH,S1

-S3

End

angered

Threatened

End

angered

Endangered

1Platanthera

psycodes

(L.)Lindl.

G5;

SX,SH

,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

2Platanthera

purpurascens

(Rydb.)Sh

eviak&

W.

0F.Jenn.

Platanthera

rotundifolia

(Banks

exPursh)Lindl.

G5;

SX,SH

,S1

-S5,

SNR*

End

angered*

1Platanthera

shriveriP.M.Br.

G1;

S1,SN

R0

Platanthera

sparsiflora

(S.Watson)

Schltr.

G4;

S1,SN

RSensitive

0Platanthera

strictaLindl.

G5;

S1-S5,

SNR

4*Platanthera

tescam

nisSheviak&

W.F.Jenn

.0

Platanthera

tipuloides(L.f.)

Lindl.

G4;

S20

Platanthera

yosemitensisColwell,Sh

eviak&

P.E.

G2;

S20

Moore

Platanthera

zothecina(L.C.Higgins

&S.

L.

G2;

S1,S2

0Welsh)Kartesz

&Gandhi

Platythelys

querceticola(Lindl.)Garay

G4;

S1,SN

R0

Platythelys

sagraeana(A.Rich.)Garay

0Pogonia

ophioglossoides(L.)Ker

Gaw

l.G5;

SX,SU

,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

17Polystachya

concreta

(Jacq.)Garay

&H.R.Sw

eet

G4;

S3End

angered

13Ponthieva

brittoniaeAmes

G3;

S1End

angered

1


Contin

ued.

1.Table

NatureServe

U.S.

U.S.State

Canada’s

Num

berof

conservation

IUCN

2011

End

angered

conservation

SpeciesAt

botanicgardens

Species

status

rank

saRed

Listb

SpeciesAct

clistin

gdRiskAct

ewhere

presentf

Ponthieva

racemosa(W

alter)C.Mohr

G4;

S1-S3,

SNR

End

angered

4Prescottia

oligantha(Sw.)Lindl.

G4;

S11

Prosthechea

boothiana(Lindl.)W.E.Higgins

G4;

S1*

6*Prosthechea

cochleata(L.)W.E.Higgins

G4;

S3*

65*

Prosthechea

pygm

aea(Hook.)W.E.Higgins

G4;

S1*

End

angered

9*Pseud

orchisalbida

(L.)A.Love&

D.Love

G5;

S3,SN

R*

3Sa

coila

lanceolata

(Aubl.)

Garay

G4;

S3*

Threatened*

8*Sa

coila

squamulosa(Kunth)Garay

0Schiedeella

arizonicaP.M.Br.

GNR;S3

,S4

,SN

R0

Schiedeella

confusa(Garay)Espejo&

Lopez-Ferr.

G3;

SNR*

0Spiran

thes

brevila

brisLindl.

G1;

S1,SN

REnd

angered

0Spiran

thes

caseiCatlin

g&

Cruise

G4;

S1-S4,

SNR

End

angered

0Spiran

thes

cernua

(L.)Rich.

G5;

S1-S5,

SU,SN

RVulnerable

28Spiran

thes

delitescens

Sheviak

G1;

S1End

angered

End

angered

1Spiran

thes

diluvialisSheviak

G2;

S1,S2

Threatened

End

angered

5Spiran

thes

eatoniiAmes

exP.M.Br.

G3;

SH,S1

-S3,

SNR

0Spiran

thes

infernalisSheviak

G1;

S10

Spiran

thes

lacera

(Raf.)Raf.

G5;

S1-S5,

SNR

Threatened

5Spiran

thes

laciniata(Small)Ames

G4;

S1-S4,

SU,SN

REnd

angered

0Spiran

thes

longila

brisLindl.

G3;

SH,S1

-S3,

SNR

Threatened

0Spiran

thes

lucida

(H.H.Eaton)Ames

G5;

SX,SH

,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

2Spiran

thes

magnicamporum

Sheviak

G4;

SX,S1

-S4,

SNR

End

angered

2Spiran

thes

ochroleuca

(Rydb.)Rydb.

G4;

SH,S1

-S3,

S5,SN

REnd

angered

2Spiran

thes

odorata(Nutt.)

Lindl.

G5;

SH,S1

-S4,

SU,SN

REnd

angered

15Spiran

thes

ovalisLindl.

G5;

SH,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

3Spiran

thes

parksiiCorrell

G3;

S3End

angered

End

angered

2Spiran

thes

porrifolia

Lindl.

G4;

S1,S2

,S4

,SN

RSensitive

3Spiran

thes

praecox(W

alter)S.

Watson

G5;

SH,S1

-S4,

SU1

Spiran

thes

romanzoffianaCham.

G5;

SH,S1

-S5,

SU,SN

REnd

angered

5Spiran

thes

sylvaticaP.M.Br.

GNR;S1

0Spiran

thes

torta(Thunb.)Garay

&H.R.Sw

eet

G4;

S1*

End

angered

0Spiran

thes

tuberosa

Raf.

G5;

SH,S1

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

4Spiran

thes

vernalisEngelm.&

A.Gray

G5;

S1-S5,

SNR

End

angered

5Stelisgelid

a(Lindl.)Pridgeon&

M.W.Chase

G5;

S1*

End

angered*

3Tipularia

discolor

(Pursh)Nutt.

G4;

S1,S3

-S5,

SNR

End

angered

15


North America

Contin

ued.

1.Table

NatureServe

U.S.

U.S.State

Canada’s

Num

berof

conservation

IUCN

2011

End

angered

conservation

SpeciesAt

botanicgardens

Species

status

rank

saRed

Listb

SpeciesAct

clistin

gdRiskAct

ewhere

presentf

Tolum

niabahamensis(Nashex

Britton&

Millsp.)

G3;

S1End

angered

5Braem

Trichocentrum

undulatum

(Sw.)Ackerman

&M.

G4;

S1*

End

angered*

1W.Chase

Triphoraam

azonicaSchltr.

End

angered

0TriphoracraigheadiiLuer

G1;

S1End

angered

0Triphoragentianoides

(Sw.)Nutt.ex

Ames

&G4;

SNR

0Schltr.

Triphoratrianthophora(Sw.)Rydb.

G3;

SH,S1

-S3,

SNR

End

angered

Endangered

0TriphorayucatanensisAmes

G1;

S10

Tropidiapolystachya(Sw.)Ames

G4;

S1End

angered

1Van

illabarbellata

Rchb.

f.G4;

S2End

angered

7Van

illadillonianaCorrell

G3;

SNR

End

angered

5Van

illainodoraSchiede

1Van

illamexicanaMill.

G3;

S1End

angered

2Van

illaphaeanthaRchb.

f.G4;

S1End

angered

8

*Listedin

original

publicationun

derasynonymousname.

aConservationassessmentsby

NatureServe

correspond

toGlobalthreats:G

1¼CriticallyIm

periled,

G2¼Im

periled,

G3¼Vulnerable,G4¼App

arently

Secure,G

5¼Secure,G

U¼

Unrankable,GNR¼NotYetRanked,

GNA¼NotApp

licable.S

ubnationalthreatsfollowsimilarvalues

(S1toS5

,etc.),

butapp

lyatthestateor

provinciallevels.N

atureServe

rank

ings

areavailablethrough

,http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

.bInternationalUnion

forConservationof

NatureandNatural

Resources

(IUCN),20

11.

cEnd

angeredSp

eciesAct

(ESA

),19

73;U.S.Governm

entPrintingOffice,20

12.

dU.S.Statelistin

gisat

thehighestlevelof

protectionam

ongallstates

listed,

asreported

bytheUSD

APLANTSDatabase(USD

A,NRCS,

2012

).eSp

eciesat

RiskAct

(SARA),20

02.

fThe

numberof

botanicgardenswhere

theorchid

speciesisconservedor

present,accordingto

Botanical

Gardens

ConservationInternational(201

2).


state and provincial species numbers are according tothe NatureServe Explorer (NatureServe, 2011). Threespecies are endemic to California, as Piperiacolemanii Rand. Morgan & Glic., P. yadonii Rand.Morgan & Ackerman, and Platanthera yosemitensis,and three to Hawaii, as Anoectochilus sandvicensisLindl., Liparis hawaiensis H. Mann, and Peristylusholochila (Hillebr.) N. Halle. Two orchid species areendemic to Florida, Govenia floridana P. M. Br. andTriphora craigheadii Luer; one species is endemic,each to three states, with Spiranthes delitescensSheviak in Arizona, S. infernalis Sheviak in Nevada,and S. parksii Correll in Texas.

TARGET 2, AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSERVATION STATUS OF

ALL KNOWN PLANT SPECIES, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, TO GUIDE

CONSERVATION ACTION

Only two North American orchids have beenassessed by the International Union for Conservationof Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and arelisted as threatened on the 2011 IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species (IUCN, 2011): Anoectochilussandvicensis as Vulnerable (or VU), and Platantherapraeclara Sheviak & M. L. Bowles, as Endangered (orEN).The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA; 1973;

U.S. Government Printing Office, 2012) federally liststhe four endangered species Piperia yadonii, Peri-stylus holochila [[ Platanthera holochila (Hillebr.)Kraenzl.], Spiranthes delitescens, and S. parksii, aswell as the four threatened species as Isotriamedeoloides, Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.) Lindl.,P. praeclara, and S. diluvialis Sheviak, and the onecandidate species, Platanthera integrilabia (Correll)Luer. At the state level, 57% (119 species) areprotected as endangered, threatened, vulnerable, orsensitive in at least one state (cf. Table 1).The Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA; 2002)

lists seven endangered orchid species, as Cypripedi-

Table 2. Species distribution among listed orchid genera inTable 1.

Percent ofGenus Species # total species

Platanthera Rich. 35 16.7%

Spiranthes Rich. 23 11.0%

Cypripedium L. 12 5.7%

Piperia Rydb. 10 4.8%

Malaxis Sol. ex Sw. 9 4.3%

Epidendrum L. 8 3.8%

Corallorhiza Gagnebin 7 3.3%

Neottia Guett. 7 3.3%

Calopogon R. Br. 5 2.4%

Hexalectris Raf. 5 2.4%

Triphora Nutt. 5 2.4%

Vanilla Mill. 5 2.4%

Goodyera R. Br. 4 1.9%

Habenaria Willd. 4 1.9%

Liparis Rich. 4 1.9%

Cleistesiopsis Pansarin & F. Barros 3 1.4%

Prosthechea Knowles & Westc. 3 1.4%

Bletia Ruiz & Pav. 2 1%

Cyclopogon C. Presl 2 1%

Dactylorhiza Neck. ex Nevski 2 1%

Dendrophylax Rchb. f. 2 1%

Dichromanthus Garay 2 1%

Eulophia R. Br. ex Lindl. 2 1%

Galeandra Lindl. 2 1%

Isotria Raf. 2 1%

Platythelys Garay 2 1%

Ponthieva R. Br. 2 1%

Sacoila Raf. 2 1%

Schiedeella Schltr. 2 1%

Anoectochilus Blume 1 0.5%

Aplectrum Blume 1 0.5%

Arethusa L. 1 0.5%

Basiphyllaea Schltr. 1 0.5%

Beloglottis Schltr. 1 0.5%

Brassia R. Br. 1 0.5%

Bulbophyllum Thouars 1 0.5%

Calypso Salisb. 1 0.5%

Camaridium Lindl. 1 0.5%

Campylocentrum Benth. 1 0.5%

Cephalanthera Rich. 1 0.5%

Cranichis Sw. 1 0.5%

Cyrtopodium R. Br. 1 0.5%

Eltroplectris Raf. 1 0.5%

Encyclia Hook. 1 0.5%

Epipactis Zinn 1 0.5%

Galearis Raf. 1 0.5%

Govenia Lindl. 1 0.5%

Hammarbya Kuntze 1 0.5%

Heterotaxis Lindl. 1 0.5%

Ionopsis Kunth 1 0.5%

Lepanthopsis Ames 1 0.5%

Macradenia R. Br. 1 0.5%

Mesadenus Schltr. 1 0.5%

Microthelys Garay 1 0.5%

Oncidium Sw. 1 0.5%

Pelexia Poit. ex Lindl. 1 0.5%

Table 2. Continued.

Percent ofGenus Species # total species

Peristylus Blume 1 0.5%

Pogonia Juss. 1 0.5%

Polystachya Hook. 1 0.5%

Prescottia Lindl. 1 0.5%

Pseudorchis Seg. 1 0.5%

Stelis Sw. 1 0.5%

Tipularia Nutt. 1 0.5%

Tolumnia Raf. 1 0.5%

Trichocentrum Poepp. & Endl. 1 0.5%

Tropidia Lindl. 1 0.5%


North America


um candidum Muhl. ex Willd., Isotria medeoloides, I. specialized equipment (Liu et al., 2010; Seaton et al.,verticillata (Muhl. ex Willd.) Raf., Liparis liliifolia 2010; Stewart & Hicks, 2010). However problematic,(L.) Rich. ex Lindl., Platanthera leucophaea, P. this is essential for propagation and establishment ofpraeclara, and Triphora trianthophora (Sw.) Rydb. self-sustaining populations. Few organizations haveFurther, one threatened species, Cephalanthera the capacity to handle these unique aspects of orchidaustiniae (A. Gray) A. Heller, is included, as well biology, placing cultivation and reintroduction beyondas one species that is noted of special concern for the abilities of nearly all conservation agencies.conservation, Epipactis gigantea Douglas ex Hook. Scientific research has made substantial progress in(cf. Table 1). overcoming these difficult aspects of orchid ecology,All but 10 species of the 210 orchid names but additional efforts are needed on all key elements of

included in Table 1 have been assessed by Nature- orchid life histories that must be understood if we areServe (2011), with 24% (50 species) listed as globally to successfully support conservation, reintroduction,threatened. Of these 50 threatened species, 11 were and propagation efforts for native orchids. Theassessed at the global scale as critically imperiled techniques being developed by scientists are still,(G1), 13 are imperiled (G2), and 26 are vulnerable and likely will remain, beyond the capacity of most(G3; cf. Table 1). For subnational assessments by conservation agencies, and there exists no currentNatureServe, 14% (30 species) are presumed to be network for scientific researchers either to supportextirpated from at least one state or province, and an conservation program managers or to communicateoverlapping 23% (48 species) are possibly extirpated with commercial or private growers and gardenfrom at least one state or province. Also at the enthusiasts who would benefit from a more completesubnational level, 84% (176 species) are variably understanding of all aspects of orchid growth,threatened (ranging from S1 or critically imperiled, cultivation, and conservation.S2 or imperiled, or S3 or vulnerable) in at least onestate or province. In all cases, where an orchid had

TARGET 7, AT LEAST 75% OF KNOWN THREATENED PLANTbeen extirpated in one or more states, it was also

SPECIES CONSERVED IN SITUthreatened or endangered in at least one other state.

When considering the proportion of threatenedTARGET 3, INFORMATION, RESEARCH AND ASSOCIATED orchids that are conserved in situ, it is important toOUTPUTS, AND METHODS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE distinguish between species that are consideredSTRATEGY DEVELOPED AND SHARED globally threatened and the majority of orchids that

are threatened within a portion of their ranges.As indicated by Stewart (2008), much of theConserved in situ means ‘‘that biologically viableinformation on conservation and reintroduction ofpopulations of these species occur in at least oneorchids has been published in the ‘‘gray’’ literatureprotected area or the species is effectively managedand obtained from unreplicated efforts that are rarelyoutside the protected area network, e.g., as part of adesigned as scientific studies to obtain statisticallymanagement plan’’ according to a recent GSPC Plantsignificant data. Academic research occasionallyConservation Report (Convention on Biologicaladdresses aspects of orchid biology, but rarelyDiversity [CBD], 2009: 23–24). As previouslyincludes the whole process from basic biology tooutlined (cf. Table 1), of the 50 globally threatenedapplication for conservation or reintroduction (e.g.,(i.e., ranked G1, G2, or G3 by NatureServe) orchidKindlmann et al., 2002; Dixon et al., 2003).species, only eight are protected under the ESA andReplicated assessment of conservation is sorelyone additional species, Triphora trianthophora, underlacking. There are three major areas of orchid biology

that urgently need additional research: (1) identifi- Canada’s SARA. An additional 22 species are

cation of fungi associated with nearly all orchids, (2) protected at the state or province level. Taken

understanding of how those fungi contribute to seed together, a total of 62% (31 of 50 species, cf. Table

germination in situ and in vitro, and (3) how to 1) of native orchid species assessed as threatened are

maximize survival of cultured seedlings or plants. thus conserved in situ (i.e., have legal protection),

Seed banking alone cannot successfully preserve which is far below the goal of Target 7. It isorchids, because using the seeds to eventually noteworthy that six of the 10 globally imperiled orcultivate and restore plants in nature requires that critically imperiled species (G1 or G2) that currentlyappropriate mycorrhizal fungi are present, especially at have no protection at the federal or state level havethe orchid’s protocorm stage. Identifying, maintaining, only recently been described, suggesting that accu-and establishing the symbiotic fungi needed for orchid rate identification and species delimitation haveseed germination is technically difficult and requires hampered attempts at species protection.


North America

Beyond recognition of the need to protect orchid preserve. The reserve’s 17,424 acres are owned andtaxa is the degree to which protection is actually managed by The Nature Conservancy, and itsaccomplished. The level of protection provided by longleaf pine savannas must be periodically subject-state or federal protected status depends on both the ed to prescribed burns to keep the habitat prime fornumber and distribution of plants on protected land the smaller, herbaceous species that would beand also on the knowledge of the species’ biology otherwise crowded out by succession.needed to determine whether protection is adequate. In contrast, other woodland species, such asA number of protected reserves in the United States Cypripedium acaule Aiton, C. fasciculatum Kelloggand Canada focus to some degree on orchids or on ex S. Watson, C. montanum Douglas ex Lindl., andhabitats with disproportionately many orchids. One C. reginae Walter, have ecological strategies andsuch example is the Bruce Peninsula National Park dependencies based both on edaphic constancy andin Ontario, which supports 43 of the orchid species occasional disturbance of their environments. Fornative to Canada that will be threatened as a result of example, even though C. fasciculatum and C.climate change (Suffling & Scott, 2002). The heart of montanum grow sympatrically in old growth forest,the Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve includes there is evidence that C. montanum needs occasionalthe Bruce Peninsula National Park, a Nature disturbances, such as fire or tree-felling and thinning,Conservancy Preserve, and First Nations lands, all to create open, sunnier areas in which they will bloomof which share knowledge about species at risk. The and set seed more freely. Its sympatric relative, C.stated park goal is to maintain viable populations of fasciculatum, conversely seems to be inhibited byall native species in situ, and there is a program burns and other such disturbances. Therefore, itunderway to report on the condition of all SARA becomes increasingly important to investigate thespecies, including trends in populations and the individual ecological complexities of each individualfactors that contribute to their condition. species if comprehensive management plans are to beAttributing population trends to particular factors created.

highlights the importance of in-depth understanding Understanding what factors influence populationof species biology for accomplishing effective con- dynamics is critical for understanding how speciesservation. Most endangered orchids in North America will respond to warming global temperatures. Withhave had at least some investigation of population orchids, this uncertainty may be compounded bygenetic structure, and this has been used to considering the other species on which they depend.understand connectivity between populations and to Some orchids may be limited by the availability ofdetermine the contribution of outlying populations to pollinators. For example, the deceptive orchidspecies integrity. For example, Wallace (2003) found Cyrtopodium punctatum (L.) Lindl. depends on oil-that Platanthera leucophaea was a predominantly gathering Centris bees for pollination. These bees relyoutcrossing species and that inbreeding depression, on other flowering plants, especially Byrsonimaespecially in small populations, suppressed seed lucida (Sw.) DC. (Malpighiaceae), for the oils theyviability. These results suggested that larger, more collect. This led Pemberton and Liu (2008) to suggestdiverse and outcrossing populations were needed to that B. lucida, which is almost completely absentsupport population genetic variability in the current from the areas where the few remaining native orchidfragmented landscape. This white-fringed orchid populations of C. punctatum persist, be planted in thehistorically was distributed from Missouri and Iowa vicinity of orchids to attract and support the bees thatto Ontario with disjunct populations in Maine, New pollinate both taxa. Such activities may also beJersey, and Virginia (Bowles et al., 2005). The needed to support the interaction between orchidscurrent distribution is, however, much reduced and and their pollinators in the face of climate change. Infew populations are self-sustaining. particular, Liu et al. (2010) suggested that warmingAlso important to consider are critical issues of temperatures in southwestern China are differentially

land management. Many terrestrial orchids are affecting pollinator and orchid phenologies such thatpioneer species and cannot compete with overgrown availability of pollinators and orchid flowering may behabitat. One prime example is the Green Swamp increasingly out of synchronization. Effects of climatePreserve of southeastern North Carolina in Brunswick change on orchid mycorrhizal fungi are completelyand Columbus counties. Originally established to unknown, reflecting that very little is known aboutprotect the habitat of the Venus fly trap (Dionaea what factors drive the distribution and abundance ofmuscipula J. Ellis, Droseraceae), a great variety of nearly all fungi. Because of this, conservation of fungiorchids, including species of Calopogon R. Br., must be largely accomplished through habitatPlatanthera, and Cleistes Rich. ex Lindl., exist in the conservation.


TARGET 8, AT LEAST 75% OF THREATENED PLANT SPECIES IN growth. While fungal requirements can sometimesEX SITU COLLECTIONS, PREFERABLY IN THE COUNTRY OF be overcome under specialized conditions in theORIGIN, AND AT LEAST 20% AVAILABLE FOR RECOVERY AND laboratory, there is little question that under naturalRESTORATION PROGRAMS conditions fungi are required for orchid recruitment

and long-term survival of populations. Many orchidsThe Botanical Gardens Conservation Internation-

require specific fungi at all life history stages (e.g.,al’s (BGCI; 2012) Plant Search database shows that

McCormick et al., 2004), while other more generalist66% (139 species) of native North American orchids

orchids use fungi from one or a few families (e.g.,are found in ex situ collections in botanical

Shefferson et al., 2010). As a result, effective ex situinstitutions around the world (Table 1). Each of

conservation of orchids will require not just seedthese species is reported from an average of sixbanking, but also maintenance of required mycor-botanic gardens, but more than 25% (36 species) arerhizal fungi. This goal is still far from beingreported from a single botanic garden only. Theaccomplished. One of the central difficulties hasspecies most prevalent is Prosthechea cochleata (L.)been to simply identify the needed fungi. MostW. E. Higgins [[ Encyclia cochleata (L.) Dressler], aorchid mycorrhizal fungi rarely produce spores andspecies easily propagated (Pugh-Jones, 2009), whichso were known only from the anamorphic stage foris reported from 65 botanic gardens. Only two of 11many years. Now they can be identified largely byspecies ranked G1 by NatureServe are found in anyDNA sequencing. This rarity of spore production,botanic garden collection, being Peristylus holochilacoupled with inconspicuous and morphologicallyat three gardens and Spiranthes delitescens at onedepauperate sporulating bodies, has resulted in ainstitution. Five of 13 species ranked G2 arepoorly defined taxonomy of these cryptic fungi (e.g.,represented in botanic gardens, but only two areSwarts & Dixon, 2009); DNA sequences rarelyreported from more than one garden (two and fivematch the taxonomically described species. Fur-gardens, Platanthera leucophaea and S. diluvialis,thermore, with few spores produced, the fungi thatrespectively). It is highly unlikely that any of these exan orchid needs can rarely be stored as spores andsitu collections represents a genetically representa-so must be maintained as active cultures. However,tive sample of the species.some researchers have been testing methods forThe major method likely to preserve speciesstoring fungal cultures in liquid nitrogen (Batty etgenetic variation is seed banking, as storing manyal., 2001). If these methods prove successful, thengenetically distinct orchid seeds requires very littleconservation of genetically representative collec-space. Accomplishing such genetically representativetions of mycorrhizal fungi may become moreconservation is a major goal of the project Orchidcommon.Seed Stores for Sustainable Use (OSSSU; Seaton et al.,

2010). This project is initially focusing on hotspots of As yet there are relatively few orchid mycorrhizal

orchid diversity but is also beginning to work with fungi in culture. The University of Alberta Mycolog-

groups within North America to organize locations and ical Herbarium’s (UAMH; ,http://www.uamh.

organizations for genetically representative orchid devonian.ualberta.ca.) culture collection currently

seed storage. The Center for Plant Conservation maintains 113 fungal cultures obtained from 37

(CPC; ,http://www.centerforplantconservation.org.) orchid species. The Smithsonian Environmental

maintains seed collections for eight orchid species, Research Center (SERC) currently maintains more

two of which are ranked G1 (Peristylus holochila and than 400 fungal isolates in culture from more than 40

Spiranthes delitescens), three G2 (Isotria medeoloides, native orchid species (D. F. Whigham, M. K.

Platanthera leucophaea, and S. diluvialis), and three McCormick & J. P. O’Neill, pers. comm.). TheG3 (Cypripedium kentuckiense C. F. Reed, Platan- American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) maintainsthera praeclara, and S. parksii). These species are 30 isolates from 13 orchid species (,http://www.atcc.specifically directed to be available for conservation org.). Other scattered fungal cultures exist inand restoration activities, so this would suggest that laboratories around the country where orchid re-seeds of 16% (eight of 50) of threatened North search is conducted, but the maintenance of theseAmerican orchid species are available for conserva- collections is often uncertain. Most of the existingtion and restoration, though the extent to which their collections focus on saprotrophic Tulasnella J.collections are genetically representative is unclear. Schrot. and Ceratobasidium D. P. Rogers fungi, whileOne shortcoming of seed storage for orchids is many orchids rely on fungi that form ectomycorrhizal

that all orchids are dependent on or benefit from associations with other plants. These fungi are oftenmycorrhizal fungi for seed germination and all difficult to culture and many cannot be grown withoutspecies are dependent on fungi for protocorm a photosynthetic host, often a tree, making them very


North America

difficult to establish or maintain in culture. Even or certificates to import, export, or re-export orchidwhen fungi are available in culture, however, their species across international lines. However, therole in facilitating seed germination is far from smuggling of wild orchids remains a problemcertain. (Phelps et al., 2010).Germination requirements for seven of 11 G1-

ranked and five of 13 G2-ranked orchids have yet to TARGET 14, THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANT DIVERSITY AND THE

be studied (Stewart & Hicks, 2010). One threatened NEED FOR ITS CONSERVATION INCORPORATED INTO

orchid (Isotria medeoloides) has so far proven COMMUNICATION, EDUCATION, AND PUBLIC AWARENESScompletely recalcitrant in culture or in the field. Of PROGRAMthe 11 G1- and G2-ranked orchids for which somelevel of germination success has been obtained, two As environmental awareness matures and enters

have had only limited asymbiotic success and only the digital age, several organizations previously

five have been germinated symbiotically. Symbiotic limited to spreading their messages slowly thoughgermination has not been reported for the other six of periodicals and mailings have found much broaderthese 11 species. Symbiotic germination is expected and enthusiastic younger audiences. One example isto be the method that leads to seedlings best able to the Native Orchid Conference (,http://tech.groups.survive reintroduction and also provides a method for yahoo.com/group/nativeorchidconference/.) that hasco-introducing needed fungi and orchids (e.g., become the ‘‘go to’’ place for information about nativeStewart, 2008). orchid species and access to experts, photographs,Few well-documented orchid reintroductions exist. ecology, phenology, and field information to any

Often reintroductions occur in one location at one interested party. It is particularly useful to the public,time and either succeed or fail without providing who may not otherwise have access to or might beinformation about what may have been suboptimal or intimidated by scientific publications.may increase success in the future (Stewart, 2008). Botanical institutions nationwide, such as theTwo examples of reintroductions designed as studies Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Botanic Gardenare outlined by Stewart (2008). Elements of another (USBG), provide a type of outreach through conser-reintroduction are described by Zettler and Piskin vation messages that regularly appear in exhibits,(2011). All three studies were designed to assess particularly annual orchid exhibits, and are viewedeffectiveness of introduction into different habitats, by their many visitors. In addition, speakers frombut only one utilized symbiotic seedlings because these institutions regularly travel around the countryfungi were not available for the other two species. In discussing conservation values to likely interestedtwo of the three studies, survival was highest in sites parties at orchid societies and special events acrossthat already had the target orchid species. In the third

North America. These efforts, however, are notstudy, reintroduction was only attempted in sites with

sufficient. Considerably more could, and should, bethe target species so existing plants could act as

done to raise public awareness about the importancesources for mycorrhizal colonization of the trans-

of North American native orchid species.plants. This suggests that mycorrhizal colonizationmay be critical for reintroduction success. No

15,mention of pollinator availability was made in these TARGET THE NUMBER OF TRAINED PEOPLE WORKING WITH

three studies. APPROPRIATE FACILITIES SUFFICIENT ACCORDING TO NATIONAL

NEEDS, TO ACHIEVE THE TARGETS OF THIS STRATEGY

TARGET 11, NO SPECIES OF WILD FLORA ENDANGERED BY Without a centralized organization focusing onINTERNATIONAL TRADE North American orchids, it is difficult to assess how

many trained individuals work on the in situ and exThe United States and Canada are both parties tositu conservation of orchid species. Kramer et al.The Convention on International Trade in Endan-

gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; (2010) report on a U.S. survey that revealed a major

,http://www.cites.org.), the lead coordinating decline in botanical courses and degree programs at

agency for the implementation, monitoring, and universities and colleges nationwide, as well as a

review of Target 11. All orchid species are listed in deficiency of botanists at U.S. government agencies.

CITES appendix II, thus preventing the endanger- With fewer college graduates entering the botanicalment of North American orchids by over-exploitation workforce and many government botanists retiring incaused by international trade. Artificially propagat- the coming years, it will be difficult to increase theed plants, hybrids, plant parts, products, or number of trained people working on orchidderivatives, with a few exceptions, require permits taxonomy and conservation.

TARGET 16, INSTITUTIONS, NETWORKS, AND PARTNERSHIPS propagation, and the maintenance of evolutionaryFOR PLANT CONSERVATION ESTABLISHED OR STRENGTHENED processes influencing population distribution pat-AT NATIONAL, REGIONAL, AND INTERNATIONAL LEVELS TO terns. In order to do this, conservation must combineACHIEVE THE TARGETS OF THIS STRATEGY detailed experimentation directed at continued

survival of the species both in situ and ex situThe CPC is a successful network of botanic

(Ramsay & Dixon, 2003). The integrated conserva-institutions dedicated to preventing the extinction of

tion strategy emphasizes the study of interactionsU.S. native plants by ensuring that ex situ material isamong land conservation, biological management,available for restoration and recovery efforts. Orchids,research and propagation and reintroduction andhowever, are unique in that effective ex situhabitat restoration (Hopper, 1997).conservation of orchids requires not just seed

banking, but also maintenance of cultures of required1mycorrhizal fungi. A network of partnerships focusing CASE

exclusively on the needs of orchids is necessary. Platanthera leucophaea (Fig. 1A) is currentlylisted as federally threatened, under the ESA, and

THREE CASE STUDIES has declined in the United States by more than 70%from estimates provided by original county records.As described throughout this manuscript, effectiveThis decline has mainly been due to habitat loss.conservation of any orchid species is a complexMost of the remaining 79 populations are small, theseundertaking that includes a wide range of variableswith fewer than 50 plants, and only 28 havefrom long-term storage and maintenance of collec- %adequate protection and management (U.S. Fish andtions of materials (e.g., seeds and mycorrhizal fungi)

that would be required for cultivation and propaga- Wildlife Service, 2007). Investigation of the orchid’s

tion to the establishment and maintenance of habitats genetics indicates that the species is primarily

that support the long-term success of orchid outcrossing and demonstrates significant inbreeding

populations. For many of the reasons described depression particularly prevalent in small popula-

above, we are unaware of any effort that has been tions (Wallace, 2003). Despite the low number of

fully successful in assuring the long-term survival of protected populations, the outlook for conservation of

any native orchid species. There are, however, a few P. leucophaea is relatively good. Well-coordinatedexamples of the efforts that are necessary to build an efforts to recover this species are currently in placeinformation base, which can support further attempts and involve a network of scientists, private landown-to conserve all native orchid species. ers, and volunteers (Zettler & Piskin, 2011). FungiEffective orchid conservation must integrate the needed by P. leucophaea are known, and symbiotic

understanding of existing and future environmental germination is regularly accomplished in laboratorythreats, taxonomic distinctiveness, numbers of indi- cultures, although successful transplantation ofviduals in populations, reproductive biology, ex situ seedlings into natural populations has met with

Figure 1. Three endangered orchid species. —A. Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.) Lindl. (photo by Timothy Bell). —B. Isotriamedeoloides (Pursh) Raf. (photo by Melissa McCormick). —C. Tolumnia bahamensis (Nash) Braem. (photo by Matt Richards).



North America

limited success (Zettler et al., 2005; Zettler & Piskin, population persistence and also the founding of new2011). Genetic surveys have found that even small populations. This suggests that this species, many ofpopulations of P. leucophaea may retain relatively whose extant populations are relatively well protect-high levels of genetic diversity (Holsinger & Wallace, ed, is sufficiently poorly understood and that its2004), potentially resulting in significant seed maintenance in the face of a changing climate is aproduction and recruitment where habitat is avail- serious concern.able. This level of information about the species andthe network of public and private agencies cooper- CASE 3ating toward the orchid’s conservation suggest that P.

An additional case study involved returning aleucophaea has a strong potential for recovery.semiepiphytic species, Tolumnia bahamensis (Nashex Britton & Millsp.) Braem (Fig. 1C), to reasonably

CASE 2pristine habitat, where ostensibly all the other pieces

In contrast to the favorable outlook for Platanthera of the ecological puzzle remain. In this case, suitableleucophaea, Isotria medeoloides (Fig. 1B) is listed by unspoiled, historical habitat in Jonathan DickinsonNatureServe as imperiled (G2) in 14 (78%) of the 18 State Park in southern Florida was assessed and thestates and provinces in which it is still known to few extant plants of T. bahamensis were cross-occur; the orchid is thought to be historical or pollinated and grown ex situ at Atlanta Botanicalextirpated in five states. Nowhere across its distribu- Garden. With most of the host plants and presumablytional range in eastern North America is I. mycorrhizal fungi intact in the orchid’s preferredmedeoloides considered secure or common. The environment, reintroduction has initially been suc-primary threat to its existence is destruction of its cessful. These types of enrichment reintroductionswoodland habitat for development or forestry. The should be attempted whenever suitable protectedmajority of its populations number fewer than 25 habitat is available. This underscores the need for aplants and are thus vulnerable to local extinction holistic approach to orchid conservation in which(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994). Many of the entire habitats and ecosystems are sought to beextant populations, including some of the largest preserved whenever possible (Jonathan Dickinsonpopulations, occur on land protected by federal or State Park, 2011).state agencies or the U.S. military, and on this basisthe plant might be considered well protected (U.S. THE FUTURE OF ORCHID CONSERVATIONFish and Wildlife Service, 1994). Its preferredhabitat conditions have also been identified (Sperdu- International efforts such as CITES have focused

to & Congalton, 1996), and searching these habitat on the illegal trade of orchids and many organizations

types allowed researchers to locate many new have been established to cultivate, market, and enjoy

populations in the late 1990s. However, the plant’s orchids, but there is no one national organization that

biology throughout much of its range is defined by focuses on their conservation and restoration. Neither

many small, ephemeral populations that make it quite is there one entity devoted to educating the public

difficult to target areas to protect. Additionally, long about the evolutionary and ecological importance of

periods of dormancy, common in many terrestrial orchids. Organizations (e.g., federal agencies and theorchids, are characteristic of the lifecycle of this U.S. military) that are mandated to identify andspecies, making it difficult to assess population sizes protect orchids on public lands have been involved inor even plant presence (Mehrhoff, 1989). research on relatively few species (see examplesOngoing management experiments of Isotria me- above), and they rely mostly on habitat conservation

deoloides are beginning to reveal a management for management. While habitat management istechnique, tree thinning, which can benefit local important, ecological attributes of orchids (e.g., thepopulations (e.g., Brumback et al., 2011). The fungi obligatory relationships between orchids and fungi atneeded by this orchid have recently been identified critical life history stages) dictate that habitat(M. K. McCormick, unpubl. data), but they have so management alone will not result in orchid conser-far been resistant to culture in the laboratory. Seed vation or restoration. Every U.S. state lists at least onegermination, either symbiotic or asymbiotic, has orchid species that is rare or threatened and mostnever been accomplished either in the field or in states list multiple orchid species. There is, however,the laboratory, yet based on population demographic little coordination among states and no one organi-studies (Mehrhoff, 1989) and preliminary genetic zation that can provide answers to basic questionsanalyses (M. K. McCormick, unpubl. data), recruit- that would guide effective management plans. Privatement from seed is critically important to both land-management conservation groups (e.g., The


Nature Conservancy) face a similar dilemma. Perhaps roles. NAOCC administration and research are basedmost important, the public has little recognition of the at the SERC, which provides research services todiversity and importance of orchids and there is no private and public organizations, and collaboratescentral organization that focuses on orchids as an with the CPC and other affiliated organizations (e.g.,important aspect of education and outreach to the Kew Gardens and the U.S. Bureau of Landpublic. Management’s Seeds of Success program) to developWe propose a possible solution to the lack of a genetically diverse seed bank for all native orchids.

coordination and the pooling of resources to focus on The seed collection will not only be used to assurethe more than 200 native orchids listed within the the long-term survival of the germplasm of eachUnited States and Canada. The NAOCC (http:// species, but will also serve as a resource for materialnorthamericanorchidcenter.org) is the first interna- to support efforts to grow and cultivate all nativetionally focused public–private effort to support the orchids. SERC is collaborating with the partners ofconservation, cultivation, and restoration of native NAOCC to expand its collection of orchid mycorrhi-orchid species. NAOCC began as a collaborative zal fungi to include fungi from all native orchids.effort between the SERC, Smithsonian Gardens, SERC is also playing a lead role in developing aDepartment of Botany at the National Museum of network of laboratories that provides services for theNatural History (NMNH), Exhibits and Park Man- molecular analysis of orchid fungi. The Smithsonian’sagement Department of the National Zoological Park Department of Botany at the NMNH will focus on the(NZP), and USBG. Other government agencies, development of a well-curated and complete herbar-botanic gardens, and public and private landowners ium-based orchid collection and will develop DNAare joining the collaboration. NAOCC launched in barcodes for all North American orchids. NMNH will

2012 and the network that will support the effort will also develop a digital library of all North American

be developed over approximately 10 years. orchids, including visual images of all species, and

The NAOCC’s mission is to conserve the native will actively partner with SERC and NAOCC to

orchid heritage of the United States and Canada develop web-based technologies to provide up-to-date

through preservation, restoration, and cultivation of public access to orchid information. Smithsonian

native orchids and to convey the importance of Gardens, the Exhibits and Park Management De-

NAOCC to the public through innovative educational partment of the NZP, and the USBG will coordinate

programs. The goals of NAOCC are to: efforts to cultivate all orchids within the Washingtonecoregion into their living collections, and they will

Develop an international seed bank collection, in collaborate with partner-gardens to develop and putcollaboration with the CPC, that will be represen- into effect a plan to cultivate all 210 native orchids intative of the genetic diversity of all North a range of gardens across the United States andAmerican orchid species. Canada. The Smithsonian and the USBG will alsoDevelop an international collection of fungi include exhibits about native orchids in theirrepresentative of the genetic diversity of mycor- biannual orchid show.rhizal fungi required by native orchids.Develop techniques to conserve the genetic CONCLUSION

diversity of all native orchids by cultivating themNative orchids occur in every state in the Unitedin an international network of botanic gardens and

States and every Canadian province, and one or morearboretums.species is listed as endangered or threatened in everyUse seed and mycorrhizal fungal banks to developstate and province. As described above, national andtechniques for restoring, conserving, cultivating,international efforts have provided a degree ofand restoring orchids in native habitats.protection for native orchids, and there have beenSupport efforts to conserve orchid populationsefforts to conserve and restore a small number ofthrough habitat conservation and restoration.species. It is our view that progress toward theDevelop web-based materials that will provide up-effective conservation of the numerous species thatto-date information on the ecology, conservationare listed as threatened or endangered will require astatus, and techniques for the cultivation of Northlarge-scale integrated effort to develop the knowledgeAmerican orchids.base required to develop effective management

An initial goal of the network of botanic gardens is strategies to assure the survival of the more thanto grow and display all native orchids in the United 200 species of native orchids. In establishing theStates and Canada using an ecoregional approach. NAOCC, our goal is to develop the resource base andThe primary partners play different yet integrated integration of public and private organizations


North America

responsible for or interested in native orchids to test2/pdf/Brumback_et_all_2011.pdf., accessed 5

ultimately assure the survival of all native orchid June 2012.Colwell, A. E. L., C. J. Sheviak & P. E. Moore. 2007. A newspecies. The success of NAOCC will require long-

Platanthera (Orchidaceae) from Yosemite National Park,term commitments to obtain the financial support for California. Madrono˜ 54: 86–93.the research, training, and education necessary to Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2009. Report ofreach the organization’s goal of conserving the genetic the third meeting of the liaison group on the Global

diversity of all native orchid species. Strategy for Plant Conservation. UNEP/CBD/LG-GSPC/3/4. Dublin, Ireland. ,http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/pc/

In addition to botanic gardens, research organiza- gspclg-03/official/gspclg-03-04-en.pdf., accessed 5tions, and private and public groups devoted to June 2012.orchid conservation, the success of NAOCC will also Cribb, P. J., S. P. Kell, K. W. Dixon & R. L. Barrett. 2003.require the establishment of a dynamic web site and Orchid conservation: A global perspective. Pp. 1–24 in

K. W. Dixon, S. P. Kell, R. L. Barrett & P. J. Cribbassociated web-based materials that will enlist the(editors), Orchid Conservation. Natural History Publica-

public in the effort. The ultimate success of NAOCC tions, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.and its partner organizations is important for other Dixon, K. W., S. P. Kell, R. L. Barrett & P. J. Cribbreasons. While the orchid family is the most diverse (editors). 2003. Orchid Conservation. Natural History

family of flowering plants on earth, the number of Publications, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.Endangered Species Act (ESA). 1973. Publ. Law 93–205,species in the United States and Canada is relatively

87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S. Code 1531–1544.small, and conserving our native orchids would be a ,http://epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf., accessed 4 Junesuccess that has never been obtained. Orchids are 2012.more than just beautiful flowers. They are an Gorniak, M., O. Paun & M. W. Chase. 2010. Phylogenetic

important component of North America’s ecology, relationships within Orchidaceae based on a low-copynuclear coding gene, Xdh: Congruence with organellarbiological richness, and heritage, and they needand nuclear ribosomal DNA results. Molec. Phylogen.

greater protections than they currently receive. With Evol. 56: 784–795.so many uncertainties in the future due to habitat Gravendeel, B., A. Smithson, F. J. W. Slik & A. Schuite-degradation, urban sprawl, and climate change, it is man. 2004. Epiphytism and pollinator specialization:

incumbent on organizations with the infrastructure Drivers for orchid diversity Philos. Trans., Ser. B, 359:1523–1535.necessary to guide and coordinate the efforts of the

Holsinger, K. E. & L. E. Wallace. 2004. Bayesianmany individuals and organizations that have a stake approaches for the analysis of population geneticin native orchid preservation. NAOCC seeks to be structure: An example from Platanthera leucophaeathis important resource for North American orchid (Orchidaceae). Molec. Ecol. 13: 887–894.

species and ultimately to serve as a model for similar Hopper, S. D. 1997. An Australian perspective on plantconservation biology in practice. Pp. 255–278 in P. L.

conservation organizations in other parts of the world. Fiedler & P. M. Kareiva (editors), Conservation Biologyfor the Coming Decade. Chapman and Hall, New York.

IUCN. 1999. IUCN guidelines for the prevention ofLiterature Cited biodiversity loss due to biological invasion. SpeciesAcevedo-Rodrıguez, P. & M. T. Strong. 2007. Catalogue of [Newsletter of the IUCN Species Survival Commission]

seed plants of the West Indies. ,http://botany.si.edu/ 31–32: 28–42 [ISSN 1016-927X].Antilles/WestIndies/catalog.htm., accessed 16 Novem- IUCN. 2011. IUCN Red List of threatened species. Gland,ber 2011. Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom. ,http://

Batty, A. L., K. W. Dixon, M. Brundrett & K. Sivasitham- www.iucnredlist.org/., accessed 16 November 2011.param. 2001. Long-term storage of mycorrhizal fungi and Jonathan Dickinson State Park. 2011. Jonathan Dickinsonseed as a tool for the conservation of endangered Western State Park Annual Report for Tolumnia bahamensisAustralian terrestrial orchids. Austral. J. Bot. 49: 1–10. Conservation Activities, FDEP Permit # 5-10-56, 4

Botanical Gardens Conservation International (BGCI). March 2011.2012. Plant search database. ,http://www.bgci.org/ Kartesz, J. T. 1994. A Synonymized Checklist of theplant_search.php., accessed 5 June 2012. Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and

Bowles, M., L. Zettler, T. Bell & P. Kelsey. 2005. Greenland. 2nd ed., 2 Vols. Timber Press, Portland.Relationships between soil characteristics, distribution Kindlmann, P., J. H. Willems & D. F. Whigham. 2002.and restoration potential of the federal threatened eastern Trends and Fluctuations and Underlying Mechanisms inprairie fringed orchid, Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.) Terrestrial Orchid Populations. Backhuys Publishers,Lindl. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 154: 273–285. Leiden.

Brown, P. M. 2009. Personal checklist of the wild orchids of Kramer, A. T., B. Zorn-Arnold & K. Havens. 2010.North America, north of Mexico. N. Amer. Native Orchid Assessing botanical capacity to address grand challengesJ., Special Publication No. 4. in the United States. 64 pp., plus appendices. ,http://

Brumback, W. E., S. Cairns, M. B. Sperduto & C. W. Fyler. www.bgci.org/files/UnitedStates/BCAP/bcap_report.pdf.,2011. Response of an Isotria medeoloides population to accessed 5 June 2012.canopy thinning. Northeastern Naturalist 18: 185–196. Liu, H., C.-L. Feng, Y.-B. Luo, B.-S. Chen, Z.-S. Wang &,http://www.fws.gov/northeast/EcologicalServices/es_ H.-Y. Gu. 2010. Potential challenges of climate change


to orchid conservation in a wild orchid hotspot in Stewart, S. L. 2008. Orchid reintroduction in the Unitedsouthwestern China. Bot. Rev. 76: 174–192. States: A mini-review. N. Amer. Native Orchid J. 14: 54–

McCormick, M. K., D. F. Whigham & J. P. O’Neill. 2004. 59.Mycorrhizal diversity in photosynthetic terrestrial or- Stewart, S. L. & A. Hicks. 2010. Propagation andchids. New Phytol. 163: 425–438. conservation status of the native orchids of the United

Mehrhoff, L. A. 1989. Reproductive vigor and environmen- States (including selected possessions), Canada, St.Pierre et Miquelon, and Greenland. N. Amer. Nativetal factors in populations of an endangered NorthOrchid J. 16: 47–66.American orchid, Isotria medeoloides (Pursh) Rafinesque.

Suffling, R. & D. Scott. 2002. Assessment of climate changeBiol. Conservation 47: 281–296.effects on Canada’s National Park System. Environm.NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An onlineMonit. Assess. 74: 117–139.encyclopedia of life, ver. 7.1. ,http://www.natureserve.

Swarts, N. D. & K. W. Dixon. 2009. Terrestrial orchidorg/explorer., accessed 16 November 2011.conservation in the age of extinction. Ann. Bot. 104:

Pemberton, R. W. & H. Liu. 2008. Potential of invasive and 543–556.native solitary specialist bee pollinators to help restore U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered andthe rare cowhorn orchid (Cyrtopodium punctatum) in Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to ReclassifyFlorida. Biol. Conservation 141: 1758–1764. the Plant Isotria medeoloides (Small Whorled Pogonia)

Phelps, J., E. L. Webb, D. Bickford, V. Nijman & N. S. from Endangered to Threatened. Federal Register 59, No.Sodhi. 2010. Boosting CITES. Science 330: 1752–1753. 193 (50 CFR Part 17), 6 October 1994. ,http://www.gpo.

Pugh-Jones, S. 2009. In praise of Prosthechea cochleata. gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1994-10-06/html/94-24713.htm.,Orchid Rev. 117: 28–31. accessed 8 June 2012.

Ramsay, M. M. & K. W. Dixon. 2003. Propagation science, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Eastern Prairierecovery and translocation of terrestrial orchids. Pp. 259– Fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) 5-Year Review:288 in K. W. Dixon, S. P. Kell, R. L. Barrett & P. J. Summary and Evaluation. Federal Register (72 FRCribb (editors), Orchid Conservation. Natural History 41348), 27 July 2007.Publications, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. U.S. Government Printing Office. 2012. Electronic Code of

Romero-Gonzalez, G. A., G. C. Fernandez-Concha, R. L. Federal Regulations. Title 50—Wildlife and Fisheries,Dressler, L. K. Magrath & G. W. Argus. 2002. Orchid- Part 17.12. ,http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?aceae. Pp. 490–651 in Flora of North America Editorial c¼ecfr&tpl¼%2Findex.tpl., accessed 8 June 2012.Committee, (editors), Flora of North America North of USDA, NRCS. 2012. The PLANTS Database. NationalMexico, Vol. 26. Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Plant Data Team, Greensboro, North Carolina. ,http://

plants.usda.gov/java/., accessed 4 June 2012.Orchidales. Oxford University Press, New York.Wallace, L. E. 2003. The cost of inbreeding in PlatantheraSeaton, P. T., H. Hu, H. Perner & H. W. Pritchard. 2010.

leucophaea (Orchidaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 90: 235–242.Ex situ conservation of orchids in a warming world. Bot.Waterman, R. J. & M. I. Bidartondo. 2008. DeceptionRev. 76: 193–203.

above, deception below: Linking pollination and mycor-Shefferson, R. P., C. C. Cowden, M. K. McCormick, T.rhizal biology of orchids. J. Exp. Bot. 59: 1085–1096.Yukawa, Y. Ogura-Tsujita & T. Hashimoto. 2010.

WCSP. 2011. World Checklist of Selected Plant Families.Evolution of host breadth in broad interactions: Mycor- Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. ,http://rhizal specificity in East Asian and North American apps.kew.org/wcsp/home.do., accessed 5 June 2012.rattlesnake plantains (Goodyera spp.) and their fungal Zettler, L. W. & K. A. Piskin. 2011. Mycorrhizal fungi fromhosts. Molec. Ecol. 19: 3008–3017. protocorms, seedlings and mature plants of the eastern

Species at Risk Act (SARA). 2002. Canadian Species at prairie fringed orchid, Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.)Risk Public Registry. ,http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/ Lindley: A comprehensive list to augment conservation.approach/act/sara_e.pdf., accessed 5 June 2012. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 166: 29–39.

Sperduto, M. B. & R. G. Congalton. 1996. Predicting rare Zettler, L. W., K. A. Piskin, S. L. Stewart, J. J. Hartsock, M.orchid (small whorled pogonia) habitat using GIS. L. Bowles & T. J. Bell. 2005. Protocorm mycobionts ofPhotogrammetric Engineering Remote Sensing. 62: the federally threatened eastern prairie fringed orchid,1269–1279. ,http://www.asprs.org/a/publications/pers/ Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.) Lindley, and a technique96journal/november/1996_nov_1269-1279.pdf., ac- to prompt leaf elongation in seedlings. Stud. Mycol. 53:cessed 5 June 2012. 163–171.

THE STATUS AND FUTURE OF ORCHID CONSERVATION ...

Documents

Transcript of THE STATUS AND FUTURE OF ORCHID CONSERVATION ...