ELEMENT STEWARDSHIP ABSTRACT FOR COREOPSIS ROSEA November 29, 1990 Stewardship Abstract No.: 006 By Alfred E. Schuyler For: State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy Division of Parks and Forestry Office of Natural Lands Management CN 404 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Element Stewardship Abstract Element Stewardship Abstracts (ESA's) are prepared to provide land managers and other conservation workers with current biological and management related information on those species and natural ecosystems that are most important to protect or for which control is most needed. The abstracts organize and summarize data from numerous sources, including the literature and from researchers and managers actively working with the species or ecosystem. The ESA format was originally developed by The Nature Conservancy as a starting point for the stewardship of the many species and ecosystems, or elements, protected by the Conservancy. The New Jersey Office of Natural Lands Management is developing ESA's for those elements that are of particular importance as components of the biota of the state. This includes globally rare plant species that are also listed on New Jersey's official Endangered Plant Species List. The ESA serves several important functions. It helps to identify information gaps and target future research efforts. It provides a standard format for highlighting specific information about a species or community including its management needs. It also allows information to be readily communicated among various preserves, state offices, regional centers, natural heritage programs and private organizations. The ESA is a dynamic document that is continuously updated as new information becomes available. Users are encouraged to contribute their information to the abstract. This sharing of information will benefit all land managers by ensuring the availability of up-to-date information on management techniques and knowledgeable contacts. Please contact the Office of Natural Lands Management for an ESA publication list. It will contain the date of the latest revision to each ESA. Please refer to the abstract number when ordering ESA's. The abstract is a compilation of available information and is not an endorsement of particular practices or products. Element Name: COREOPSIS ROSEA Nutt. (Asteraceae) Element Code: PDAST2L0T0 Preparer: Alfred E. Schuyler Common Name: Pink Tickseed Description: Habit: perennial rhizomatous herb with erect leafy stems bearing showy heads with rose or white ray flowers. Stem: horizontal rhizomes bearing erect, round or somewhat angled, simple or branched stems up to 0.8 m tall. Leaves: opposite, scarcely connate, simple or occasionally 2-3 parted, linear, up to 3 mm wide. Inflorescence: heads up to 2.5 cm wide at anthesis, outer bracts 6-10, linear to narrowly oblong-ovate, up to 3 mm long. Inner bracts oblong-ovate, connate at base, up to 6 mm long. Flowers: ligules of ray flowers narrowly obtriangular, 3- lobed at apex, up to 13 mm long, deep rose to white. Disc flowers yellow. Style-branches abruptly conic-thickened at tips. Fruits: achenes flat, narrowly elliptic-oblong, wingless, about 2 mm long. Chromosomes: Parker (1972) reported n=13 for plants from Rhode Island. Smith (1975) considers this to be an aneuploid reduction from a base number of x=14. Distinctions from Related Species: Coreopsis rosea is readily distinguishable from other species in the genus. It differs from C. linifolia Nutt. and C. tinctoria Nutt. by having rose to white instead of yellow, orange-yellow, or purple ray flowers. The ray flowers of C. nuduta Nutt. are similar in color to those of C. rosea, but the leaves of this species are alternate and the achenes have wings (Smith, 1976). Habitat: Coreopsis rosea is known from southern Nova Scotia, eastern Massachusetts, Rhode Island, southeastern New York, New Jersey, eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware, eastern Maryland, and South Carolina (Fernald, 1950; Smith, 1976 and 1978). It grows on shores of lakes and ponds, in and around wet depressions, and occasionally on river and stream shores (Fernald, 1950; Keddy and Wisheu, 1989; Rayner, pers. comm., 1990; Sinnott, 1912). The substrate usually is sand, gravel, or peat or mixtures of them. The habitats are pioneer habitats characterized by water level fluctuations, low fertility, low standing crop and litter, and lack of strong competitors (Keddy and Wisheu, 1989). Except for one Piedmont occurrence in Bergen County, all New Jersey localities are on the coastal plain and most of these are in or near the edge of the Pine Barrens (NJNHP, 1989a; Toborowsky, 1968). Among the numerous species listed as habitat associates of C. rosea are: Agalinis purpurea, Cyperus aristatus, Drosera filiformis and intermedia, Eleocharis tuberosa, Eupatorium leucolepis, Gratiola aurea, Hydrocotyle umbellata, Hypericum canadense, Polygala cruciata, Psilocarya scirpoides, Rhexia virginica, Sabatia kennedyana, Solidago tenuifolia, Triadenum virginicum, and Xyris difformis. Biology/Ecology: In order for C. rosea to persist in a pioneer habitat, disturbances that retard succession are essential. Plants dependent on such conditions are considered to be "stress tolerators" that are "adversity selected" (Keddy and Wisheu, 1989) Disturbances that maintain the desired low habitat fertility and unfavorable conditions for strong competitors such as Cladium mariscoides include 1) water level fluctuation; 2) wave action, and 3) fire (Garren, 1943; Keddy and Wisheu, 1989; Little, 1979). Fire probably is a more significant disturbance factor south of the glacial boundary, particularly in the New Jersey Pine Barrens and in the Sand Hills of South Carolina. After disturbances, seed banks probably provide offspring that recolonize newly exposed substrates. In Pennsylvania, C. rosea has not been found since 1866 and in New Jersey its range has become constricted (Moore, pers. comm., 1990). Although known from seven extant occurrences and an additional 31 historic occurrences, many of the latter have not been searched (NJNHP, 1989b). Thus the degree of range constriction remains to be determined. Determination of Element Occurrence (EO) Quality: Stress tolerators such as C. rosea vary in vitality and vigor from season to season because of habitat instability. Variation in population size and vigor of individual plants is an expected and desired condition of C. rosea. If populations of C. rosea are decreasing because of succession, however, the situation is more serious. EO quality of New Jersey populations needs evaluation from the standpoint of the impacts of tolerable disturbances versus those of succession. Threats: Habitat destruction and plant succession are the greatest threats to C. rosea. Habitats outside or near the margins of the Pine Barrens are threatened by development and farming while habitats in more protected areas are threatened by succession. Nutrient enrichment from agricultural runoff will favor competitors of C. rosea. Alterations to the fluctuating water regimes and controlling potentially beneficial fires can also have a negative impact on C. rosea and favor its less stress tolerant competitors. All-terrain-vehicles are threats to established populations and seed banks (Keddy and Wisheu, 1989). Land Protection Specifications: Habitats outside or near the margin of the Pine Barrens need protection from development and farming. All habitats need watershed protection because of the dependence of C. rosea on a fluctuating water regime. Land protection should allow for periodic disturbances, e.g., fire, that are necessary for the survival of C. rosea. Recovery Potential: Recovery rates of pioneer species in severely degraded habitats are low. Growth is slow in nutrient poor conditions and recolonization is a long process. In situations where disturbance is accompanied by nutrient enrichment, recovery would still be low because of competition from more aggressive ruderal species. Species such as C. rosea, which have substantial population gaps and dependence on seed banks for recolonization, will have low recovery rates when substrates are removed or substantially altered. Biological Monitoring: Population sizes and the kinds of competitors present should be monitored. Searches to relocate previously known sites should continue. Biological Monitoring Procedures: Periodically visit all sites and determine population sizes of C. rosea and its competitors. Biological Monitoring Programs: Capable field botanists including Ted Gordon and Gerry Moore presently monitor populations of C. rosea to some extent. Research Needs: The role of fire along with other disturbance factors need evaluation for management purposes. We need to know if human- controlled disturbances can be as beneficial as more natural disturbances. The amount of sexual versus asexual reproduction, the factors enhancing seed germination, and the length of time that seeds are viable need investigation. Management Needs: To reverse the trend of habitat destruction, active management is required to maintain habitats in an early succession stage. Management Procedures: In areas where water regimes have become stabilized, periodic flooding and de-watering need to be implemented. Where feasible, controlled burning should be conducted to remove litter and competitors. If water level manipulation and controlled burning are not feasible, other methods should be applied with careful monitoring of their impacts. These include physical removal of competitors and litter. Owners of all sites should be notified of the presence of C. rosea on their properties. Summary of Stewardship Needs: Coreopsis rosea is a rare plant ranging from Nova Scotia to Maryland, and disjunct to South Carolina. In New Jersey, it is a pioneer species on pond shores and in or around wet depressions where substrates are sand or sand mixed with peat. It is a "stress tolerator" of disturbances caused by water level fluctuation and fire that maintain low habitat fertility and retard strong competitors. Threats include habitat destruction related to development and farming, nutrient enrichment, water regime stabilization, all-terrain-vehicles, and succession. Monitoring should record population size, and the kinds and numbers of competitors. Searches for plants in previously known sites should continue. Because C. rosea grows in nutrient poor habitats, recovery potential is low. Further research is needed to evaluate the roles of disturbance factors, reproductive modes, seed germination requirements, and length of seed viability. To reverse range constriction, active management should focus on maintaining habitats in an early succession stage. Bibliography for Coreopsis rosea Nutt.: Anonymous., 1914. Abstract of the Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club for 1913. Bartonia No. 6: 21-27. Bailey, W.W. 1900. The Old-Time Flora of Providence. Rhodora 2(23): 213-220. Bailey, W.W. 1901. Notes on the Flora of Rhode Island. Rhodora 3(26): 33-34. Blankinship, J.W. 1903. The Plant-formations of Eastern Massachusetts. Rhodora 5(33): 124-137. Collins, F.S. 1909. Notes on the Flora of Lower Cape Cod. Rhodora 11: 125-133. Crawford, D.J. & E.B. Smith. 1983. The Distribution of Anthochlor Floral Pigments in North American Coreopsis (Compositae): Taxonomic and Phyletic Interpretations. Amer. J. Bot. 70(3): 355-366. Enser, R.W. & C.A. Caljouw. 1989. Plant Conservation Concerns in Rhode Island - A Reappraisal. Rhodora 91: 121-130. Fernald, M.L. . 1921-1922. The Gray Herbarium Expedition to Nova Scotia, 1920. Rhodora 23: 89-111, 130-171, 184-195, 223-245, 257-278, 284-300. Fernald, M.L. 1919. Coreopsis rosea Nutt., forma leucantha, n.f. Rhodora 21(249): 171. Fernald, M.L. 1921. The Gray Herbarium Expedition to Nova Scotia, 1920. Rhodora 23: 89-111, 130-152, 153-171, 184-195, 223- 245, 257-278, 284-300. Fernald, M.L. 1922. Notes on the Flora of Western Nova Scotia, 1921. Rhodora 24: 157-164, 165-180, 201-208. Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. 8th ed. American Book Co., New York. lxiv + 1632 pp. Fogg, J.M., Jr. 1930. The Flora of the Elizabeth Islands, Massachusetts. Rhodora 32: 119-132, 147-161, 167-180, 208- 221, 226-258, 263-281. Gleason, H.A. 1952. The New Britton and Brown Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, New York. 3 v. Holland, P.G. 1981. Pleistocene Refuge Areas, and the Revegetation of Nova Scotia, Canada. Progr. Phys. Geogr. 5: Keddy, P.A. 1985. Lakeshores in the Tusket River Valley, Nova Scotia: Distribution and Status of Some Rare Species, including Coreopsis rosea Nutt. and Sabatia Kennedyana Fern. Rhodora 87(851): 309-320. Keddy, P.A. & I.C. Wisheu. 1989. Ecology, Biogeography, and Conservation of Coastal Plain Plants: Some General Principles from the Study of Nova Scotia Wetlands. Rhodora 91(865): 72- 94. Knowlton, C.H. & W. Deane. 1924. Reports on the Flora of the Boston District, -xlv. Rhodora 26(304): 82-88. Little, S. 1979. Fire and Plant Succession in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Pages 297-314 in R.T.T. Forman, ed. Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Academic Press, New York. Maher, R.V., D.J. White & G.W. Argus. 1978. The Rare Vascular Plants of Nova Scotia. Natl. Mus. Canada, Syllogeus No. 18, 37 pp. Moore, G. 1990. Rutgers University, Camden, NJ, personal communication. n. NJNHP, 1989a. Element Occurrence Summaries. New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, Trenton. NJNHP, 1989b. State Ranking Forms. New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, Trenton. Parker, H.M. 1972. In IOPB Chromosome Number Reports XXXV. Taxon 21(1): 163-164. Rayner, D.A. 1990. Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC, personal communication. Roland, A.E. & E.C. Smith. 1969. The Flora of Nova Scotia. Part II. The Dicotyledons. Proc. Nova Scotia Inst. Sci. 26(4): 277-743. Sherff, E.E. 1936. Revision of the Genus Coreopsis. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Bot. Ser. 11(6): 279-475. Scoggan, H.J. 1979. The Flora of Canada, Part 4, Dicotyledoneae (Loasaceae to Compositae). Natl. Mus. Canada Pub. Bot. No. 7(4):1117-1711. Sears, J.H. 1908. A Southern Flora and Fauna of Post- Pleistocene Age in Essex County, Massachusetts. Rhodora 10(111): 42-46. Seymour, F.C. 1969. The Flora of New England. The Charles E. Tuttle Co., Publishers, Rutland. xvi + 596 pp. Sinnott, E.W. 1912. The Pond Flora of Cape Cod. Rhodora 14(158): 25-34. Smith, A.V. 1939. Some Noteworthy Plants Recently Found in the Coastal Plain of Maryland and Delaware. Rhodora 41(483): 111. Smith, E.B. 1975. The Chromosome Numbers of North American Coreopsis with Phyletic Interpretations. Bot. Gaz. 136: 78- 86. Smith, E.B. 1976. A Biosystematic Survey of Coreopsis in Eastern United States and Canada. Sida 6(3): 123-215. Smith, E.B. 1978. Notes on Coreopsis. Sida 7(3): 304-307. Smith, E.B. 1983. Phyletic Trends in Sections Eublepharis and Calliopsis of the Genus Coreopsis (Compositae). Amer. J. Bot. 70(4): 549-554. Toborowsky, P.G. 1968. Geographic Distribution of Fifty-Nine Plant Species of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. M.S. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Williamson, C.S. 1909. Notes on the Flora of Central and Southern Delaware. Torreya 9(8): 160-166.