[BACK]

ELEMENT STEWARDSHIP ABSTRACT

for

Aconitum noveboracense

(northern monkshood)

To the User:

Element Stewardship Abstracts (ESAS) 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 abstract. 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 last 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.

The sources from which the information in the abstract comes are dependent upon the research and observations of many scientists and individuals. In most cases, this information is not the result of comprehensive site-specific field surveys, and may not be confirmed by Nature Conservancy staff. Many areas of the United States have never been thoroughly surveyed, and new plants and animals are still being discovered. Information in this abstract should never be regarded as a final statement or substituted for on-site surveys required for environmental assessments. Views expressed in the abstract are those of the author and not of The Nature Conservancy. They represent the best assessment of the author in light of the information available.

The information in this abstract is only for the intended use of the individual or organization who requested it. It may not be distributed in any way without the consent of The Nature Conservancy. Please contact the Home Office Stewardship Administrator if you want to disseminate such information.

Please do not remove this cover statement from the attached abstract.

PDRAN01070

>== 12 STEW-ABS-RESP

MRO

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

MIDWEST REGIONAL OFFICE

328 E. HENNEPIN AVENUE

MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414

(612) 379-2134

J.E. EVANS

>== 20 NAME

ACONITUM NOVEBORACENSE

>== 50 COMMON-NAME

NORTHERN MONKSHOOD

>== 100 DESCRIPTION

An erect or reclining, slender leafy plant from a tuberous-thickened root. Leaves are deeply lobed or toothed, 5 to 7 cleft, 6 to 10 cm broad at lower leaves, distinctive helmet (modified upper sepal) and concealed upper two petals, summit transformed into a noctary, lower 3 petals small or absent.

From Britton and Brown (1913), Fernald (1950), and Litzow (1978): erect to reclining, 0.2-1.0 m tall, from a tuberous-thickened root, leafy, simple to paniculately branched, perennial; leaves 5 to 7 lobed, deeply cleft or toothed, glabrous; inflorescence usually simple, racemes, the axis and pedicels pubescent with spreading hairs I mm long; flowers few, blue or white; calyx corolla-like, sepals unequal; the helmet (upper sepal) 1.4-1.7 cm long, upper 2 petals concealed under helmet; nectary, lower 3 petals small or absent; numerous slender stamens; 3-5 short pistils; fruit dehiscent several seeded, scaly.

>== 1000 HABITAT

Found on shaded or partially shaded cliffs and talus slopes in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin, and is found at high-elevation headwaters and in crevices along side streams in New York (Read, 1976; Litzow, 1978; Brynildson, 1982; Read and Hale, 1982). Certain texts have included in this description rich, moist woods (Fernald, 1950; Gleason and Cronquist, 1963) but Read (1977) believes that this is misleading. There are a number of curious aspects to monkshood occurrence. For instance, no particular rock type is favored overall, but often one is favored locally (Read and Hale, 1982). As an example, monkshood is found in Iowa on dolomite, yet is found in Wisconsin on sandstone despite the abundance of dolomitic cliff sites available to it there (Read and Hale, 1982). The critical factor appears to be a cold soil environment. Monkshood sites are usually associated with cold air drainage or cold groundwater flow out of bedrock (Litzow, 1978; Brynildson, 1982; Andreas, 1982; Read and Hale, 1982). As a result of shading, slope aspect, and humidity, these microsites can be 6-8 degrees C cooler than adjacent sites (Litzow, 1978). The year-round soil temperature can be as cold as 6 degrees C, but most range from 11 to 18 degrees C (Read and Hale, 1982).

The most interesting characteristic of soils-at monkshood sites is that available phosphorous levels are one-eight to one-tenth of adjacent sites (Litzow, 1978). Read (1977) believes that tolerance to low soil phosphorous and shade has given monkshood a competitive edge over other species at these sites.

Read and Hale (1982) have noted that about 100 species are found in association with monkshood. Roosa and Eilers (1978), Litzow (1978), and Andreas (1982) have also prepared lists. Some of the characteristic species are as follows. 1) mesic forest component: Acer saccharum, Betula alleghaniensis, Tsuga canadensis, Acer spicatum, Maianthemum candense, Sambucus pubens, Eupatorium rugosum, Laportea canadensis. 2) wetland component: Epilobium colotatum, Impatiens biflora, I.pallida, Pilea pumila, Glyceria striata, Circaea alpina. 3) Fern component: Cystopteris,bulbifera, C. fragilis, Thelypteris phegopteris Gymnocarpium dryopteris, Athyrium felix-femina, Dryopteris spinulosa'. 4) Rare of disjunct component: Adoxa moschatellina, Chrysosplenium iowense, Rhododendron lapponicum, Primula mistassinica, Sullivanti arenifolia.

>== 2000 BIOLOGY-ECOLOGY

A. noveboracense is a perennial, with showy, zygomorphic flower adapted for pollination by bumblebees (Bombus spp.) (Read and Hale, 1982).

Seed propagation is not completely understood. Munx (1945) studied germination in cultivated aconites. Germination is generally slow, with seeds sown in spring lying dormant for a year. MUnz (1945) recommends sowing in pots or flats during fall and keeping these in a cool house over the first winter. The seedlings should be transplanted when about 5 cm. tall.

Read and Hale (1982) discuss a number of unpublished studies on A. noveboracense seed germination. Germination success was less than l-. using standard cold stratification treatment, although use of a second cold dormancy period improved germination to about 50-.. Some recent studies by the Wisconsin DNR (reported in Read and Hale, 1982) indicate that higher germination success may be possible. Tim Kessenrich (R. Read, pers. comm.) has obtained 60'-. germination success in spring, 1982. Read (pers. comm.) suggests that the best germination method is stratifying seeds in moist sand and leaving them outside in a protected place over winter. The seeds should be checked for germination in March. Read (pers. comm.) believes that a second cold treatment is not necessary.

A. noveboracense can also be propagated by root division (Litzow, 1978). Davis (1899) noted that most monkshoods respond well to root division and transplant. Root transplants are best made in fall or very early spring (Read, 1977). There is one instance of monkshood being transplanted and self-seeding to produce surviving progeny. In 1969 two plants were taken from the Kickapoo River Valley population, in Vernon County, Wisconsin, and transplanted on the north side of a house in a nearby town. In 1976 there were 6 plants growing, and in 1982 there were 4 plants still growing (reported in Read and Hale, 1982). In another study, Read transplanted 12 plants to natural habitats in 1976, and by 1980 only 2 were still surviving (reported in Read and Hale, 1982). Read (pers. comm.) has had success transplanting seedlings to a home rock garden that is shaded (nbrth-facing). He reports that fertilizing and other treatments are not necessary.

It appears that artificial propagation for A. noveboracense is still in experimental stages. Seed germination has been low, although recent results suggest that this can be greatly improved (Read, pers. comm.). Transplant efforts have succeeded, but long-term survival of transplants and the production of progeny from these is not promising, even with plants moved into habitats already containing native A. noveboracense (Read and Hale, 1982).

>== 2500 EO-QUAL-DET

<< NO DATA >>

>== 5000 THREATS

Dam construction, overcollection, urbanization, logging, grazing, right-of-way maintenance (Read and Hale, 1982).

Threats to specific populations are discussed in Read and Hale (1982). A general discusion of these follows. (1) Dam and reservoir construction. The LaFarge Reservoir project (Kickapoo River, WI) threatens 13% of the world population of A. noveboracense. Millponds have been a problem elsewhere. Ponds and reservoirs not only threaten to inundate populations, but prevent seed dispersal downstream via flowing water (Read and Hale, 1982). (2) Road construction and maintenance. Threats include widening road (USFWS, 1978), de-icing agents used in winter, and use of herbicides on right-of-ways (Read and Hale, 1982). (3) Powerline corridors. Threats include corridor clearing operations and herbicide drift from maintenance work (Read and Hale, 1982). (4) Logging. Timber felling almost destroyed a site in Ohio (Andreas, 1982). Other threats include trampling from machinery and log skidding, and modifications of shade and drainage. Some areas in Wisconsin and Iowa are threatened by forest clearance to create pasture (Read and Hale, 1982). (5) Quarrying. The association of monkshood with cliffs and talus slopes makes it vulnerable to quarrying operations. This has happened in the past at several sites (Read and Hale, 1982). (6) Grazing. Cattle can destroy populations by trampling, building trails (soil compaction will prevent future colonization), and direct browsing on monkshood, leading to a weakening of the plants by loss of leaves or loss of reproductive potential when flowers and fruits are consumed (Read and Hale, 1982). In some places white-tailed deer are a similar concern. Fencing to reduce cattle and deer access may be a top priority at some sites (Read and Hale, 1982). (7) Urbanization. many populations are threatened by development of trails, recreational use, or vandalism. These include the Ohio sites, located in urban areas, and sites in Wisconsin and New York that are in state-owned land or parks (Read and Hale, 1982). (8) Scientific overcollecting and overuse. This must be reduced through an educative process. In some cases, visits by scientists and interested parties and collecting may actually threaten the survival of populations (Read and Hale, 1982; Bill Pusateri, pers. comm.). (9) Water pollution. Monkshood sites are associated with seeps, springs, and surface water and are characterized by soils depleted in phosphorous (Read, 1977, Litzow, 1978). These sites may be vulnerable to pollution from septic tanks, sewer lines or runoff of farm fields and lawns. This is speculation since since no research has been done yet. (10) Natural catastrophies. Read and Hale (1982) point out that flooding, drought, and Cliff failure are natural phenomena that can threaten monkshood populations. It should be noted, however, that all of these natural processes can be accelerated by human land use within a drainage basin. Draining wetlands can increase flood frequency and magnitude. Farming practices or road construction on uplands can result in accelerated rates of soil slump or rock fall.

>== 3500 LAND-PROT-SPECS

Land protection should take into consideration potential threats such as shade, drainage, and water flow modifications from timbering, quarrying, right-of-way or utility corridor maintenance. Protecting the tops of bluffs is advisable, to reduce threat of shade modification, land clearance, slumps, etc. Protecting entire watershed unit is advisable as seeds are spread by water (Read and Hale, 1982). Fencing to protect from grazing may be necessary (Read and Hale, 1982). Public use should be limited.

>== 4000 RECOVERY-POT

Uncertain at present time. It is uncertain if additionallor new populations will be found. Read and Hale (1982) believe new sites may be found in Iowa but are unlikely to be found in other states. Most known populations face at least potential threats. The status of Ohio and New York populations is precarious. Success with artificial propagation has been low so far, although recent studies may have altered this trend (Read, pers. comm.).

>== 5000 BIOL-MONIT-NEEDS

<< NO DATA >>

>== 5200 BIOL-MONIT-PROCS

<< NO DATA >>

<< NO DATA >>

>== 6000 RSRCH-NEEDS

In approximate order of priority: (1) propagation research, transplant efforts; (2) life history studies; (3) genetic and taxonomic research (Read and Hale, 1982).

>== 6400 RSRCH-PROGS

<< NO DATA >>

>== 7000 MGMT-NEEDS

Management for A. noveboracense emphasizes two factors: securing land protection agreements and reducing other immediate or potential threats. Over 710-. of the world population is on private, unprotected land, and much of the remainder is on city, state, or federal land that is not managed to protect the plant. Read and Hale (1982) point out that most of the private landowners have been approached and many are receptive to helping conserve northern monkshood. Landowner contact efforts should continue as a high priority task, and protection agreements should be pursued.

This last observation is to point out that management for monkshood populations should be based on the design of watershed management. Read and Hale point out that populations in a watershed are probably genetically related, as seed dispersal is by flowing water. Management should similarly be based on finding compatible land use for at least the smallest watershed unit where a population is found.

>== 7400 MGMT-PROCS

Fencing to reduce cattle and deer access may be a top priority at some sites (Read and Hale, 1982). Scientific overcollecting and overuse must be reduced through an educative process.

Priority should be given to reducing human use of these preserves, including management efforts. After land protection is secured, and immediate threats reduced (by fencing, contacts with agencies, utilities, transportation departments, etc.), minimum human disturbance should be the rule.

<< NO DATA >>

>== 8000 SUM-STEW-NEEDS

In order of priority: (1) protect known sites, by acquisition and landowner contacts; (2) minimize threats; including notification to utility and transportation agencies, scientists; fence and secure areas; (3) monitor populations; (4) search for new occurrences; (5) continue propagation efforts and life history research.

>== 9000 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andreas, B.K. (1980). Flora of Portage, Stark, Summit, and Wayne Counties, Ohio. Ph.D. Thesis, Kent State University, Ohio, 664 pp.

Andreas, B.K. (1982). Status report on Aconitum noveboracense in Ohio. Report to Ohio DNR, 4 pp.

Drink, D. (1982). Tuberous Aconitum (Ranunculaceae) of the continental

U.S.: morphological variation, taxonomy, and disjunction. Bull. Torrey

Bot. Club, 109(i):13-23.

Colville, F.V. (1866). Aconitum noveboracense Gray. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 13:190-191.

Cratty, R.I. (1933). The Iowa flora. An annotated list of the ferns, fern allies, and the native and introduced flowering plants represented in the Iowa State College Herbarium. Iowa State Coll, Journal Science, 7:177-252.

Davis, K.C. (1899). A synonymic conspectus of the native and garden Aconitums of North America. Minn. Bot. Studies, 2:345-352.

Fassett, N.C. (1929). Notes from the herbarium of the University of Wisconsin. Rhodora, 31:49-53.

Fernald, M.L. (1950). Gray's Manual of Botany. American Book Co., N.Y., 1632 pp.

Gleason, H.A. and Cronquist, A. (1963). Manual of vascular plants of Northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, N.J., 810 pp.

Hardin, J.W. (1964). Variation in Aconitum of Eastern United States. Brittonia, 16:80-94.

Hartley, T.J. (1959). Flora of the Driftless Area. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Iowa, Ames, Iowa, 932 pp.

Iltis, H.H. (1965). The genus Gentianopsis (Gentianaceae): transfers and phytogeographic comments. Sida 2(2): 129-154.

Litzow, M. (1978). Aconitum noveboracense Gray: a summary of the literature. Univ. of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, unpublished, 4 pp.

Munz, P.A. (1945). The cultivated aconites. Gentes Herbarium, 6:461-506.

Pusateri, W. (1983). Personal communication to J. Evans.

Read, R.H. (1976). Endangered and threatened vascular plants in Wisconsin. Wisconsin DNR Tech. Bull. No. 92, Madison.

Read, R.H. (1977). Final report on inventory and study of certain

Driftless Area flora and cliff communities. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Report No. DACW 37-76-0057; 149 pp.

Read, R.H. (1983). Personal Communication to J. Evans.

Read, R. H. and Hale, J.B. (1981). National recovery plan for northern monkshood (Aconitum noveboracense). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 81

PP.

Roosa, D.M. and Eilers, L.J. (1978). Endangered and threatened Iowa vascular plants. Iowa State Preserves Advisory Board, Spec. Report No. 5, 93 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sevice (1978). Northern wild monkshood.

Endangered species Tec. Bull. 3(5):8.

U.S. Fish and wildlife Service (1979). First plant recovery plan.

Endangered Species Tech. Bull., 4(12):3.

Zimmerman, J.H. and Iltis, H.H. (1961). Conservation of rare_plants and animals. Wisc. Acad. Rev., Winter:7-11.

>== 9900 UPDATE

84-06-29