ELEMENT STEWARDSHIP ABSTRACT
For
MICHIGAN MONKEY-FLOWER
To the User:
Element Stewardship Abstracts (ESNS) are prepared to provide The Nature Conservancy's Stewardship staff and other land managers with current management related information on those species and communities that are most important to protect, or most important to control. The abstracts organize and summarize data from numerous sources including literature and researchers and managers actively working with the species or community.
We hope, by providing this abstract free of charge, to encourage users to contribute their information to the abstracts. This sharing of information will benefit all land managers by ensuring the availability of an abstract that contains up-to-date information on management techniques and knowledgeable contacts. Contributors of information will be acknowledged within the abstract and receive updated editions.
For ease of update and retrievability, the abstracts are stored on computer at the national office of The Nature Conservancy. Each abstract has a Nature Conservancy office or program responsible for its updating and maintenance. The address and telephone number of the office is recorded on the first page of the abstract. Anyone with comments, questions, or information on current or past monitoring, research, or management programs for the species or community described in an abstract should contact the Land Steward in the office responsible for that abstract.
This abstract is a compilation of available information and is not an endorsement--of particular practices or products.
Please do not remove this cover statement from the attached abstract.
PDSCRlBlA3
>== 0012 STEW-ABS-RESP
MRO
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
MIDWEST REGIONAL OFFICE
1313 5TH STREET SE, BOX 78
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414
612/379-2207
>== 0016 PREPARER
WAYNE R. OSTLIE (1990)
>== 0020 NAME
MIMULUS GLABRATUS VAR. MICHIGANENSIS
>== 0050 COMMON-NAME
MICHIGAN MONKEY-FLOWER
>== 0100 DESCRIPTION
Pennell (1935) originally described the taxon, Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis, as follows:
Fassett (1939) and Bliss (1986), however, in contrast to the description published by Pennell (1935), reported the presence of numerous spots on the lower lip and tube of the corolla in all specimens of Michigan monkey-flower.
More recently, Harrison (1990) described the Michigan monkey-flower as follows:
Botanists have (in the past) reported considerable overlap in the diagnostic characters that were being used to differentiate between Michigan monkeyflower and the closely related M. glabratus var. fremontii (Minc 1989). As a result , there has been confusion through the years over whether M. glabratus var. michiganensis was actually a distinct taxon. Bliss (1986), in a study initiated to solve the taxonomic questions, reported that all floral characters (calyx length, calyx width, corolla length, corolla width, pistil length, style length, ovary length) were found to be significantly larger in Michigan monkey-flower than in Fremont's monkey-flower. For a comparison of these characters, see Bliss (1986). Subsequent work by Minc (1989) found Michigan monkey-flower to be readily distinguishable from var. fremontii based on the differences in pistil and style length.
>== 1000 HABITAT
Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis is a taxon restricted to five counties within the Mackinac Straits and Grand Traverse regions of Michigan: Cheboygan, Emmet, Mackinac, Benzie and Leelanau (USFWS 1990, Crispin and Penskar 1989). In the summer of 1990, the Michigan monkey-flower was listed as a federally endangered species (USFWS 1990).
Michigan monkey-flower is a highly localized taxon found almost exclusively on muck-covered sand in flowing water (Beadle 1989). The species is found in waters with summer temperatures ranging from 8.7 to 16.6 degrees Celsius and Ph varying between 7.66 and 8.21. Aquatic habitats along forest edges and small openings along streams and lakeshores provide the needed combination of cold temperatures and full sunlight thought to be necessary for the species (Beadle 1989). Associates include Thuja occidentalis, Impatiens biflora, Myosotis scorpioides, Nasturtium officinale, Mentha arvensis, Conocephalum conicum, Mitella nuda, Caltha palustris, Cystopteris bulbifera, Eupatorium maculatum, Equisetum arvensis and Thuidium delicatulum (MI NFI 1990, Crispin and Penskar 1989).
>== 2000 BIOLOGY-ECOLOGY
According to Crispin and Penskar (1989), M. glabratus var. michiganensis appears to have evolved since the recession of the Wisconsinian glaciation.
Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis typically flowers from mid-June to mid-July, with some flowers appearing occasionally into late July and early August (Crispin and Penskar 1989). Seed production within M. glabratus var. michiganensis is apparently low. This judgement is based upon a study by Bliss (1986), in which viable pollen (2.8% vs. 75%) and seed set (33% vs. 75%) levels were found to be significantly lower in M. glabratus var. michiganensis than in M. glabratus var. fremontii, respectively (Minc 1989). It is thought that Michigan monkey-flower possesses a limited capability for dispersal and establishment due to its apparently low degree of sexual reproduction (Crispin and Penskar 1989).
A germination test on 75 seeds collected from a population was conducted through the placement of the seeds in a bowl of tap water (Beadle 1989). After a period of two days, the first sprouts were observed; After 38 days, nearly half (31) had germinated. Sprouts were observed to form the first set of leaves and roots, then float to the water surface where growth was continued. Young plants placed in saturated soil at this stage did not survive, while those left in water continued to grow (Beadle 1989).
Populations of Michigan monkey-flower tend to form dense colonies, with hundreds of stems forming a dominant or co-dominant ground cover (Crispin and Penskar 1989). These colonies are thought to be largely clonal, consisting of one or a few genetically distinct individuals that have dispersed vegetatively.
>== 2500 EO-QUAL-DET
This field is designed to help the field worker determine the overall quality (A=excellent, B=good, C=marginal, D=poor) of an occurrence of this element. These ranks (A-D) are based on size and productivity of the population,
vitality and vigor of individuals within the population, and size and quality of the habitat in which the element occurs. Headings (Habitat, Population Size and Vigor) should be considered separately in determining the overall quality of the element occurrence.
Population Size and vigor: A population consisting of 50 or more clumps. Populations of this rank must show sufficient recruitment (vegetative or sexual) to sustain or enhance existing numbers. At present there is one known population of this rank.
B) Habitat: Habitats of flowing springs, swamps or streams that have been slightly impacted in the present or past, but have not completely restored. Buffer lands sufficiently protect habitats of this rank from outside influences. Hydrologies within habitat of this rank are intact and have not been altered. Continued protection of habitats of this rank may result in a completely restored habitat over time.
Population Size and Vigor: A population of 20-49 clumps. Populations of this rank show sufficient recruitment (vegetative or sexual) to sustain or enhance existing numbers.
C) Habitat: Spring, swamp or stream habitats of flowing water that have been moderately degraded through grazing, removal or alteration of upland communities or other means. Buffer lands are largely intact although portions may have been destroyed. Habitats of this rank possess intact hydrologies, but moderate physical disturbance of the habitat may have occurred. Habitat of this rank may naturally restore if disturbances are eliminated.
Population Size and Vigor: A population of 10-19 clumps, with sufficient recruitment (vegetative or sexual) to sustain population numbers at current levels; OR, larger populations that have shown continued declines over a period of several years.
D) Habitat: Degraded swamps and streams possessing altered hydrologies; OR, habitats that have been subjected to extensive unnatural disturbances such as grazing; OR, spring habitats that have been degraded through seepage of pesticides. Habitats that possess no effective buffer lands are of this rank.
Population Size and Vigor: A population of 1-9 clumps; OR, populations less than 20 clumps that have shown declines over a period of several years.
>== 3000 THREATS
Due to the relatively low numbers of individuals at many of the extant sites and the taxon's limited reproductive capabilities, Michigan monkey-flower is particularly vulnerable to isolated disturbance events.
Natural lake level fluctuations pose another threat to existing populations. In 1986, record high lake levels coupled with the effects of a strong winter storm, greatly disturbed the Great Lakes shorelines, redirecting seepage springs and falling cedars onto monkey-flower habitat (Crispin and Penskar 1989).
Disturbances within the cold water supply within which the species grows could also have a major effect on existing populations (Harrison 1990). Upstream water flow may be impacted by roads and other factors which may divert water from drainages that support existing populations. Excessive pumping of groundwater may lessen spring outflow, posing another threat to populations (Harrison 1990).
Due to its aquatic/semi-aquatic habitat requirements, Michigan monk6y-flower is extremely vulnerable to residential and recreational development (Crispin and Penskar 1989). Habitat destruction, modification and degradation are the primary risks to existing occurrences (Harrison 1990, Crispin and Penskar 1989).
If Michigan monkey-flower is a clonal species, its low genetic diversity may render populations susceptible to changes in the environment in which they live (Crispin and Penskar 1989).
>== 3500 LAND-PROT-SPECS
In order to adequately protect a given M. glabratus var. michiganensis population, protection must center on the habitat in which the species lives. The quality of the flowing waters of springs, streams and associated swamps must be protected through sufficient buffer lands. The integrity of the hydrology maintaining the habitat must be protected from outside influences such as road construction, development and other disturbance activities. Natural disturbances (e.g., high lake levels), although potentially damaging to populations, should not be altered. At present, it is not known what effect these natural situations have on habitat development and sustenance. Sufficient protection of habitat for potential pollinators (although sexual reproduction is thought to be minimal) should also be considered in the protection of any site.
>== 4000 RECOVERY-POT
The recovery potential of this species is largely unknown. Sexual reproduction is thought to be low, rendering dispersal and gene flow between populations difficult. Vegetative reproduction, however, is apparently common in the species, lending optimism that transplantation could be relatively easy to accomplish. If population destruction has occurred to a large number of populations, transplantation may serve to restore population numbers. In other situations, artificial crossing attempts to produce seeds may be attempted to enhance genetic vigor.
>== 5000 BIOL-MONIT-NEEDS
A fundamental monitoring need is to track the fate and extent of the 12 known extant occurrences of the taxon (Penskar pets. comm.). Reproductive success (flower production, seed set, dispersal, germination and growth) should be monitored. Pollinator abundance should also be monitored. Tracking of habitat parameters may also be considered.
>== 5200 BIOL-MONIT-PROCS
Individual counts should be made at all 12 occurrences of the taxon regardless of population size. Notes with respect to flowers per plant, seed production and age structure within the population should also be made.
Plants should be observed during peak inflorescence in order to observe pollinators, determine the approximate pollinator population size and identify pollinator species.
>== 5400 BIOL-MONIT-PROGS
At present, no monitoring programs are in place for Michigan monkey-flower.
>== 6010 RSRCH-NEEDS-COMM
Additional research needs should include that pertaining to the natural history and microhabitat requirements of the species (Penskar pers. comm.). A study of the floral biology of Michigan monkey-f lower is needed in order to adequately understand the breeding system of the taxon. Information pertaining to all aspects of life history within the species should be sought.
Research pertaining to the systematics of the taxon is also needed in order to adequately determine its taxonomic standing (Penskar pers. comm.). Chloroplast DNA research should aid in determining whether Michigan monkeyflower warrants specific standing, or be retained as a subspecies.
Searches and surveys in available habitat for additional colonies is also a research need (Penskar pers. comm.).
>== 6410 RSRCH-PROGS-COMM
Dr. R. James Hickey and Mike Penskar are cooperating on a project to determine the origin of M. glabratus var. michiganensis. Isozyme analyses will be conducted on samples of M. glabratus var. michiganensis and its potential originators. M. glabratus var. fremontii and, M. guttatus. Research will be initiated in 1991. Contact: Mike Penskar, Botanist, Michigan
48909. Telephone (517) 373-1552; OR, Dr. R. James Hickey, Department of
Botany, Miami University, Oxford, OH.
>== 7010 MGNT-NEEDS-COMM
Penskar (pers. comm.) stated that it is not known if anyone has determined the management needs for M. glabratus var. michiganensis. It is known, however, that excessive disturbance (particularly that of a hydrological nature) is detrimental to the taxon. Habitat needs for the potential pollinators of Michigan monkey-flower also need to be assessed.
>== 7400 MGMT-PROCS
Determination of the management requirements of Michigan monkey-flower is a pre-requisite to the setting of guidelines to initiate management. At present, very little is known regarding the management needs of the species.
Maintenance of the habitat (mucky sand in flowing waters) and its hydrology is the primary need for this species. Sufficient buffer should be obtained around extant populations to adequately protect extant populations from outside influences and hydrological impacts.
>== 7710 MGMT-PROGS-COMM
At present, no management programs are in place for Michigan monkey-flower.
>== 8000 SUM-STEW-NEEDS
Monitoring needs include tracking the fate of occurrences through reproductive success. Pollinator abundance and life history events should also be monitored. Research needs include a study of the natural history of the taxon and its microhabitat requirements. The floral biology as it relates to the breeding system, and life history also should be researched adequately. The systematics of the taxon should be addressed in order to determine its taxonomic standing. Additional surveys of potential habitat should be made. Management requirements include the maintenance of habitats with sufficient buffer to protect against outside influences and hydrological impacts.
>== 9000 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beadle, S. J. 1989. A study of ecological and physiological requirements affecting the distribution of Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis, the Michigan monkey flower. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Nongame Wildlife Fund, Lansing. 54 pp.
Bliss, M. 1986. The morphology, fertility and chromosomes of Mimulus
glabratus var. michiganensis and M. glabratus var. fremontii
(Scrophulariaceae). Am. Midl. Nat. 116(l): 125-131.
Crispin, S. R. and M. R. Penskar. 1989. Rangewide status survey of Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis (Pennell) Fass6tt, the Michigan monkey-flower. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing. 13 pp.
Fassett, N. C. 1939. Notes from the herbarium of the University of Wisconsin-XVII. Rhodora 41: 524-529.
Harrison, W. F. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Determination of endangered status for Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis (Michigan monkey-flower). Federal Register 55(120): 25596-25599.
Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MI NFI) . 1990. Element occurrence records for Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis. 16 pp.
Minc, L. b. 1989. A morphometric comparison of Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis, M. glabratus var. fremontii, and M. guttatus based on floral characters. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing. 19 pp.
Pennell, F. W. 1935. The scrophulariaceae of eastern temperate North America. Acad. Nat Sci. Phil. Mono. 1. 650 pp.
Penskar, M. R. 1990. Botanist, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Personal communication: ESA questionnaire for Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis. 4 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Listing action completed for spotted owl and five other species. Endangered Species Tech. Bull. 15(7): 1, 4-6.
>== 9900 UPDATE [YY-MM-DD]
90-11-05
>== 9999 END