Rare Plant Demography: Lessons from the Mariposa Lilies (Calochortus: Liliaceae)

  • Peggy L. Fiedler
  • B. E. Knapp
  • Nancy Fredricks


Rare plants have been intensively studied and described in the past two decades (e.g., Falk and Holsinger 1991; Given 1994; Frankel, Brown, and Burdon 1995; Falk, Millar, and Olwell 1996), in part due to the recovery mandates under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. The great majority of past work on rare plants has been genetic in nature (Fiedler unpublished), with demographic studies only recently becoming central to rare plant conservation. Indeed, an understanding of population dynamics along with general life history characteristics is accepted as fundamental to rare plant protection efforts, including restoration (Schemske et al. 1994; Falk, Millar, and Olwell 1996). For example, Pavlik (1994, 1995, 1996; chapter 5) has argued repeatedly that rare plant reintroduction efforts must be demographically-based, so that consequent variation in births, deaths, and fecundity can be understood in the context of individual life histories.


Rare Species Population Growth Rate Population Biology Transition Matrice Vital Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Aplet, G.H., R.D. Laven, and R.B. Shaw. 1994. Application of transition matrix models to the recovery of the rare shrub, Tetramolopium arenarium (Asteraceae). Natural Areas Journal 14:99–106.Google Scholar
  2. Bierzychudek, P. 1982. The demography of jack-in-the-pulpit, a forest perennial that changes sex. Ecological Monographs 52:335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caswell, H. 1989. Matrix population models. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Charron, D. and D. Gagnon. 1991. The demography of northern populations of Panax quinquefolium. Journal of Ecology 79:431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cipollini, M.L., D.A. Wallace-Senft, and D.F. Whigham. 1994. A model of patch dynamics, seed dispersal, and sex ratio in the dioecious shrub Lindera benzoin (Lauraceae). Journal of Ecology 82:621–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. deKroon, H., A. Plaisier, J. van Groenendael, and H. Caswell. 1986. Elasticity: The relative contribution of demographic parameters to population growth rate. Ecology 67:1427–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Falk, D.A. and K.E. Holsinger, eds. 1991. Genetics and conservation of rare plants. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Falk, D.A., C.I. Millar, and M. Olwell, eds. 1996. Restoring diversity. Strategies for reintroduction of endangered plants. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ferson, S. 1991. RAMAS/stage: Generalized stage-based modeling for population dynamics. Seatuket, NY: Applied B iomathematic s.Google Scholar
  10. Fiedler, P.L. 1987. Life history and population dynamics of rare and common mariposa lilies. Journal of Ecology 75:977–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiedler, P.L. and R.K. Zebell. 1997. Calochortus. Treatment for Volume 11, Flora of North America. N. Morin, convening editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fisher, R.A. 1930. The genetical nature of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Frankel, O.H., A.H.D. Brown, and J.J. Burdon. 1995. The conservation of plant diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fredricks, N.A. 1992. Population biology of rare mariposa lilies (Calochortus: Liliaceae) endemic to serpentine soils in southwestern Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.Google Scholar
  15. Given, D.R. 1994. Principles and practice of plant conservation. Portland: Timber Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hanzawa, F.M. and S. Kalisz. 1993. The relationship between age, size and reproduction in Trillium grandiflorum (Liliaceae). American Journal of Botany 80:405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harper, J.L. 1977. Population biology of plants. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Horvitz, C.C. and D.W. Schemske. 1995. Spatiotemporal variation in demographic transitions of a tropical understory herb: Projection matrix analysis. Ecological Monographs 65:155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keyfitz, N. 1977. Index to the mathematics of populations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Knapp, B.E. 1996. Natural history and population dynamics of Calochortus westonii. M.A. thesis, San Francisco State University, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  21. Law, R. 1983. A model for the dynamics of a plant population containing individuals classified by age and size. Ecology 64: 224–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lefkovitch, L.P. 1965. The study of population growth in organisms grouped by stages. Biometrics 1:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leslie, P.H. 1945. On the use of matrices in certain population mathematics. Biometrika 32: 183–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Menges, E.S. 1992. Stochastic modeling of extinction in plant populations. In Conservation biology: The theory and practice of nature conservation, preservation, and management, eds. P.L. Fiedler and S.K. Jain, 253–275. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Moloney, K.A. 1986. A generalized algorithm for determining category size. Oecologia 69:176–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ownbey, M. 1940. A monograph of the genus Calochortus. Annuals of the Missouri Botanic Garden 27:371–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oostermeijer, J.G., M.L. Brugman, E.R. De Boer, and H.C.M. Den Nijs. 1996. Temporal and spatial variation in the demography of Gentiana pneumonanthe, a rare perennial herb. Journal of Ecology 84:153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pavlik, B.M. 1994. Demographic monitoring and the recovery of endangered plants. In Recovery and restoration of endangered species, eds. M. Bowles and C.J. Whelan, 322–350. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pavlik, B.M. 1995. The recovery of an endangered plant II. A three-phased approach to restoring populations. In Restoration ecology in Europe, eds. K.M. Urbanska and K. Grodzinska, 49–69. Zurich, Switzerland: Geobotanical Institute SFIT.Google Scholar
  30. Pavlik, B.M. 1996. Conserving plant species diversity: The challenge of recovery. In Biodiversity in managed landscapes theory and practice, eds. R.C. Szaro and D.W. Szaro, 359–376. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Patterson, T.B., T.J. Givnish, and K.J. Sytsma. 1996. Preliminary molecular phylogeny for Calochortus (Liliaceae s.l.) based on cpDNA spacer sequences. American Journal of Botany Suppl. 83:185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schemske, D.W., B.C. Husband, M.H. Ruckelshaus, C. Goodwillie, I.M. Parker, and J.G. Bishop. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75:584–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Silvertown, J., M. Franco, and K. McConway. 1992. A demographic interpretation of Grime’s triangle. Functional Ecology 6:130–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Silvertown, J., M. Franco, and E. Menges. 1996. Interpretation of elasticity matrices as an aid to the management of plant populations for conservation. Conservation Biology 10:591–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Silvertown, J., M. Franco, I. Pisanty, and A. Mendoza. 1993. Comparative plant demography relative importance of life-cycle components to the finite rate of increase in woody and herbaceous perennials. Journal of Ecology 81:465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vandermeer, J. 1982. To be rare is to be chaotic. Ecology 63:1167–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Waterloo Maple Software. 1995. Maple V, Release 3, Student Edition. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  38. Werner, P.A. and H. Caswell. 1977. Population growth rates and age versus stage-distribution models for teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.). Ecology 58:1103–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Young, T.P. 1984. Comparative demography of semelparous Lobelia telekii and iteroparous Lobelia keniensis on Mount Kenya. Journal of Ecology 72:637–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Young, T.P. 1985. Lobelia telekii herbivory, mortality, and size a reproduction: Variation with growth rate. Ecology 66:1879–1883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peggy L. Fiedler
  • B. E. Knapp
  • Nancy Fredricks

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations