-
Title
-
Eng
USING RARITY AND EVOLUTIONARY DISTINCTIVENESS TO PRIORITIZE PROTECTION OF ANGIOSPERMS IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
-
Date
-
Eng
2021
-
Creator
-
Eng
Olson, Claire
-
Identifier
-
Eng
Thesis_MES_2021_OlsonC
-
extracted text
-
USING RARITY AND EVOLUTIONARY DISTINCTIVENESS TO PRIORITIZE
PROTECTION OF ANGIOSPERMS IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
by
Claire N. B. Olson
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of the Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2021
©2021 by Claire N.B. Olson. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Claire N.B. Olson
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
John Withey, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
June 4, 2021
ABSTRACT
Using Rarity and Evolutionary Distinctiveness to Prioritize Protection of Angiosperms in
Olympic National Park
Claire N.B. Olson
Climate change and the nature of conservation work make it increasingly unlikely that
each species in need of preservation will receive the attention required to prevent its extinction.
Conservationists instead must begin to carefully prioritize the allocation of aid to different
species. One way to conserve the greatest share of biodiversity is to prioritize species that
represent the greatest share of evolutionary history. While this idea has yet to gain much traction
in the Pacific Northwest, studies using phylogenetically informed conservation are growing in
number outside the United States. In Washington State, the diversity and abundance of habitats
across the state has resulted in an overwhelming number of plant species in potential need of
conservation. By providing a baseline set of evolutionary distinctiveness scores for the
angiosperms of Olympic National Park, a former refugium, this study aims to highlight the utility
of phylogenetic information when making conservation decisions between related taxa. Due to
the park’s potential to act as a refugium again in response to warming, it is imperative we
understand the scope of this genetic “ark”. By calculating evolutionary distinctiveness and using
the RED-E (Regional Evolutionary Distinctiveness and Endangerment) metric, this study aims to
1) quantify the value of currently secure species in terms of their contribution to phylogenetic
diversity, 2) examine whether conservation of rare species also conserves a sufficient share of
evolutionary history, and 3) make recommendations for species to be prioritized for conservation
within the park based on their evolutionary distinctiveness. The findings of this study indicate
rarity is a poor proxy for phylogenetic diversity, and that the RED-E metric loses its power when
used below the state scale. The findings also show Olympic National Park is host to a diverse
array of angiosperm lineages, and that the bulk of that evolutionary history lies within the parks’
lowlands. These results provide support for incorporating phylogenetic information into
conservation plans and prioritization decisions within Olympic National Park and the Olympic
Peninsula and highlight the need for taxonomic inventories and regional studies of phylogenetic
diversity.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 4
Studies of Floral Communities on the Olympic Peninsula...................................................... 4
Conservation and the Value of Floral Communities ............................................................... 6
Methods......................................................................................................................................... 12
Data Collection and Preparation ............................................................................................ 12
Calculating Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED) and Regional Endangerment (RE) ............. 13
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 16
ED and RED-E Scores ........................................................................................................... 16
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Angiosperm Diversity in Olympic National Park ................................................................. 19
Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 76
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 78
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 79
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1. Diagram of a model refugium……………………………………………………..……5
Figure 2. Hypothetical phylogeny from Isaac et al. (2007) showing the results and components of
an ED calculation…………………………………………………………………….……9
Figure 3. Histogram of the distribution of ED scores of angiosperms found within Olympic
National Park…………………………………………………………………………….16
Figure 4. Histogram of ED scores for angiosperms found within Olympic National Park…...…17
Figure 5. Histogram of RED-E scores for 40 taxa found within Olympic National Park and the
Special Plants List 2019………………………………………………………………….18
Figure 6. Skunk Cabbage (Lysichiton americanus) at Millersylvania State Park, Olympia WA..20
Figure 7. Species of the genus Carex found within Olympic National Park…………………….22
Figure 8. Carex pauciflora………………………………………………………….……………23
Figure 9. Trientalis arctica and Dodecatheon austrofrigidum………………………………………24
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Conversion of state NatureServe ranks into Regional Endangerment (RE) scores……15
vi
Acknowledgements
Thesis projects are like most research: dull, isolating, tasks punctuated by periods of
crushing tedium. Losing all the small, spontaneous interactions with faculty, classmates, friends,
and loved ones to social distancing exacerbated these traits and threatened to make completing a
thesis during the pandemic a particularly lonely affair. Instead, the upwelling of support and
kindness I received from my family, friends, and reader made things feel (almost) normal.
Without them, this project would have been much, much, more difficult to complete, and might
have not been completed at all.
First I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my thesis reader, John Withey, for his
patience, support, and advice throughout this process. Though I did not conduct field work, his
faith in my ability to complete this project, and his detailed, considered, answers to my questions
were an essential anchor while I did my research. Instead of flailing in the dark, I flailed with a
flashlight. I would like to thank Barry Wendling, Mike Williams, and Eric DeChaine of the
Pacific Northwest Herbarium at Western Washington University for introducing me to
systematic botany, field work, and the state of botanical research on the Olympic Peninsula. The
depth and breadth of this education provided the skills I needed to conceive of and complete this
thesis project, and without it I would likely have done something very different. I am grateful,
too, to a few individuals whom I have never met: Cam Webb and the creators of Phylocom.
Collectively, their commitment to providing free, high-quality, and easily accessible software,
phylogenies, and user guides allowed me to complete this project at no cost. I would like to
thank my aunt, Thea LaCross, for her willingness to provide editorial feedback on my thesis and
sheltering me when I had nowhere else to go. I am grateful to my friends and family, for their
support and love during this very strange time. I am in Sarah Larson’s debt — I am so glad to
have met her during MES and could not have completed this thesis without her. I would like to
thank my grandparents for pushing me to pursue an education and enabling me to do so despite a
pandemic, homelessness, and many, many, crises. While they did not all survive to see me
complete this work, I know they would have been proud.
vii
Introduction
Operating under the assumption that all species are inherently special (and therefore have
a right to exist in habitat best suited to their needs), conservationists expend enormous amounts
of time, energy, and money in their attempts to arrest species’ freefall into extinction… unless
those species happen to be plants (Leopold, 1949). Though plants comprise nearly 57% of all
species listed under the Endangered Species Act, they receive less than 5% of all recovery
funding from state and federal agencies (Negrón-Ortiz, 2014; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2013). These figures are concerning, given the positive relationship between increased spending
on recovery plans and their likelihood of success (Miller et al., 2002). While plant species
currently go extinct in the United States at a pace of one species every seven years, climate
change threatens to dramatically increase that rate in coming decades (Antonelli et al., 2020;
Knapp et al., 2020). Due to the intensive nature of conservation programs and the fiscal and
physical reality of the organisms, budgets, and people involved in them, implementing an
appropriate recovery plan for every species that needs one will not be possible (Isaac et al., 2007;
Myers et al., 2000). Instead, conservationists must carefully prioritize the allocation of aid to
species so as to provide the greatest conservation value (Withey et al., 2012; Isaac et al., 2007).
To avoid neglecting species without cultural, agricultural, or ornamental importance, and
counter the human tendency to ignore plants, it is essential that the metric by which species are
prioritized for protection is independent of cultural importance (Balding and Williams, 2016;
Hartmann and Andre, 2013; Isaac et al., 2007). A growing consensus suggests evolutionary
history (or phylogenetic diversity) is this independent metric, as the traits and features species
accrue during their existences comprise an irreplaceable stockpile of the raw materials for
1
speciation, ecosystem services, and other unanticipated benefits of biodiversity (Faith 1992;
Isaac et al., 2007; Veron et al., 2015). These unanticipated benefits or “option values,” will be
increasingly important as the effects of climate change become more pronounced and present
greater challenges to species’ survival (Faith, 1992). Although we cannot know in all cases what
those challenges will be, focusing conservation efforts on preserving the greatest share of
evolutionary history is our best shot at ensuring the raw material for adapting to those obstacles
persists throughout the landscape (Faith, 1992; Veron et al., 2015).
One focus of climate-conscious conservation in specific landscapes has been historical
and potential future climatic refugia (Ashcroft, 2010; Morelli et al., 2016; Sedell et al., 1990).
Refugia are regions where combination of habitats or environmental factors lessen the impacts of
disturbance when combined with the morphological, life history, and behavioral traits of the
organisms that live there (Holderegger and Thiel-Egenter, 2009; Morelli et al., 2016; Sedell et
al., 1990). During the last glacial maximum, refugia acted as a sort of network of arks, harboring
species until the next interglacial period (Holderegger and Thiel-Egenter, 2009; Morelli et al.,
2016).
Due to its status as a refugium during the last glacial maximum, and its’ potential to act
as one again during our current period of warming, the Olympic Peninsula is of particular
interest to scientists looking to understand species’ past responses to warming, the conditions
inside the Olympic refugium during the last glacial maximum, and to conservationists looking to
prevent the extinctions of temperature-sensitive species (Myers et al.., 2000; Shafer et al., 2010;
Wershow and DeChaine, 2018). To help quantify the evolutionary history contained in a former
glacial refugium and identify potential candidates for conservation within the region, I used the
2
fair proportion method to calculate evolutionary distinctiveness scores for the angiosperms of
Olympic National Park (Isaac et al., 2007; Wershow and Dechaine, 2018).
3
Literature Review
Studies of Floral Communities on the Olympic Peninsula
Due to its status as a refugium during the last glacial maximum the Olympic Peninsula
has high rates of endemism and species richness for its latitude (Figure 1; Morelli et al., 2016;
Sedell et al., 1990; Wershow and DeChaine, 2018). Often used as a proxy for conditions inside
the Olympic refugium, and imperiled by the temperature shifts of our current period of warming,
the floral communities of the Olympic highlands receive the greatest share of scientific attention
(Holderegger and Thiel-Egenter, 2009; Wershow and DeChaine, 2018). In response to warming
at the end of the last glacial period, the species that now populate the peninsula’s highlands
retreated with the snowpack to ever higher elevations (Holderegger and Thiel-Egenter, 2009;
Lütz, 2012; Wershow and DeChaine, 2018). While this past makes these species of great interest
to those studying species’ historical responses to warming, the adaptations that allow these taxa
to thrive above the tree line have also made them incredibly sensitive to increases in temperature
(Lütz, 2012; Wershow and DeChaine, 2018). The imminent loss of alpine species to climate
change makes studying these species a particularly urgent priority for scientists working to
estimate species’ future responses to warming, conditions inside the Olympic refugium during
the last glacial maximum, and to conservationists looking to prevent their extinctions
(Holderegger and Thiel-Egenter, 2009; Lyons and Kozak, 2019; Shafer et al., 2010; Wershow
and DeChaine, 2018).
In contrast, the floral communities of the Olympic lowlands have received little scientific
attention since the late 1970s (Bodine and Capaldi, 2016; Consortium of Pacific Northwest
Herbaria, available from: https://pnwherbaria.org/data/search.php; Fonda, 1974). Logging,
4
Figure 1. Diagram of a model refugium. A refugium is a combination of habitats or environmental
factors that lessen the impact of disturbance when combined with the morphological, life history, and
behavioral traits of organisms in a particular area. Adapted from Morelli et al. (2016).
budgetary constraints, the endangered status of the Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis carina), and
difficult terrain have resulted in a paucity of research on the contemporary distribution,
abundance, or composition of organisms and habitats without commercial importance (Bodine
and Capaldi, 2016; Buckingham, 1995; Fonda, 1974; Hitchcock and Cronquist, 2018). Beyond
museum collections and documents like Flora of the Olympic Peninsula (Buckingham, 1995) or
Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist, 2018), research into the composition
or distribution of the flora of the Olympic lowlands published after 1970 focuses almost
exclusively on floodplain management or the habitat requirements of Spotted Owls (Bodine and
Capaldi, 2016; Fonda, 1974). Though understandable, the focus on the needs of human
settlements and those of a small number of animal species means there is a significant gap in the
5
literature as to the composition, distribution, and quality of plant and non-owl animal
communities in the Olympic lowlands.
Conservation and the Value of Floral Communities
In a discipline whose practitioners work tirelessly to preserve life, it may seem
antithetical that so much of conservation involves ending life. Operating on the idea that all
species are inherently special, and therefore have a right to exist in habitat best suited to their
needs (Leopold, 1949), conservationists apply a “your rights end where mine begin” approach to
preservation. Using culls, herbicide, and other efforts to enforce a definition of ‘habitat best
suited to their needs’ as habitat free of threats to the survival or genetic purity of the subject of
the conservation effort, like close relatives (as with Castilleja levisecta, also known as Golden
Paintbrush) or novel competitors from other continents (Beggs et al., 2019; Bodine and Capaldi,
2017; Kaye and Blakeley-Smith, 2008; Kechler and Zedler, 2004).
Combined with the work of early conservationists like John Muir (whose Preservation
Ethic popularized the idea that, as God’s creation, nature has inherent value and so should be
protected from human activities), Aldo Leopold’s notion that all species are special spurred the
creation of many of our country’s habitat protection programs (DeMiller, 1993). Nationally, a
patchwork of lands is protected from development to varying degrees by a network of public and
private organizations. Some lands, like those designated by the Area of Critical Environmental
Concern used by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management’s or
Washington’s Natural Resource Conservation Areas are protected from any kind of development
indefinitely, or allow some degree of low-density infrastructure (DeMiller, 1993; Washington
Department of Natural Resources, 2020). Private lands experience similar protections,
6
administered by organizations like the Center for Natural Lands Management, with or without
some kind of internal designation (Center for Natural Lands Management, 2020; The Nature
Conservancy, 2020). Whatever their status, conservation organizations generally purchase lands
on the assumption that those lands deserve protection because they are high quality examples of
a particular habitat for a particular organism (DeMiller, 1993; Washington Department of
Natural Resources, 2020). In response to the complexity of natural systems and sometimes
dramatic differences in habitat requirements between species, conservationists have struggled to
create a uniform means of quantifying habitat quality (McCune and Grace, 2002). Plants’
relatively static nature and their often-reciprocal relationship with animals has led to ‘habitat
quality’ being largely defined by how well the ecosystem services offered by a habitat’s
vegetative community meets the needs of the humans or animals that use it (McCune and Grace,
2002; Swink and Wilhelm, 1979). Over time, the linkage between plants, animals, and
environmental conditions led to the development of three primary metrics for quantifying the
value of floral communities: 1) number and type of ecosystem services and the degree to which
they are provisioned, 2) nativity and endemism, and 3) species richness in terms of native species
(Isaac et al., 2007; McCune and Grace, 2007; Swink and Wilhelm, 1979).
Ecosystem services and the ratio of native taxa to non-native taxa first came to popularity
in the late 1970s and resulted in the development of the Floral Quality Analysis or FQA (Swink
and Wilhelm, 1979). By combining a floral inventory and an index score (the Floral Quality
Index, or FQI) based on the characteristics of an ecosystem’s idealized plant community, the
FQA allowed for quick site comparisons, spurring adoption as a national standard by the 1980s
(Rocchio and Crawford, 2013; Swink and Wilhelm, 1979). Due to national variation in habitat
types, and the FQA’s core assumption (that each plant species has evolved a unique degree of
7
tolerance to disturbance, environmental distress, or reliance on a specific degree of habitat
integrity), each state has a unique FQI calculator (Rocchio and Crawford, 2013; Swink and
Wilhelm, 1979). However, because all FQI scores (also called C- values for “Coefficient of
Conservatism”) are calculated the same way, index scores can be compared to each other
regardless of habitat type or location (Rocchio and Crawford, 2013; Swink and Wilhelm, 1979).
The FQA can consume large amounts of time and resources; as a result, organizations
sometimes use straight measures of species richness or nativity to estimate habitat quality (Swink
and Wilhelm, 1979). This practice relies on the assumption that high quality habitats (generally
defined as habitats that provide full ecosystem services and intact plant and animal communities)
have greater species diversity, or richness, than low quality habitat (Swink and Wilhelm, 1979).
Localities boasting both a diverse community of species and a high rate of endemism, often
called ‘hotspots’, have long been prioritized for conservation under this assumption (Cadotte and
Davies, 2010). However, as genetic analysis and genome sequencing have become more and
more affordable, and extinction rates tick ever higher, some conservationists are calling for a
shift toward prioritizing instead regions with high rates of phylogenetic diversity instead, arguing
that prioritizing evolutionary history captures a greater share of biodiversity than prioritizing
regions with an abundance of species but having overall a low diversity of evolutionary lineages
(Buchholz, Hanning, and Schirmel, 2013; Cadotte and Davies, 2010; Faith, 1992; Hansen et al.,
2008; Isaac et al., 2007).
Most commonly, phylogenetic information is incorporated into studies through the
EDGE (evolutionary distinctiveness and global endangerment) approach, which quantifies
species’ unrelatedness, or evolutionary distinctiveness (ED) and then weights that number by the
8
species’ global risk of extinction (GE), the species’ status on the IUCN Red list (Isaac et al.,
2007; IUCN, 2017). Prior to the development of ED, evolutionary history was primarily
quantified through Faith’s (1992) PD (phylogenetic diversity), a summed measure of the
evolutionary history contained by groups of species. By dividing PD across all members of a
group, Isaac et al. (2007) created a value that allowed for the examination and comparison of
individual species’ contribution to evolutionary history (Isaac et al., 2007). In the years since its
derivation, ED has quickly become the most common means of measuring evolutionary history
(Figure 2; Buchholz, Hanning, and Schirmel, 2013; Hansen et al., 2008; Isaac et al., 2007; Isaac
et al., 2012).
Figure 2. Hypothetical phylogeny from Isaac et al. (2007) showing the results and components of an ED calculation.
A-G represent species, numbers below the branches represent branch length, numbers above the branches represent
number of descendants, and ED scores for each species are listed to the right. Branch length is represented in
millions of years before the present (MYBP). F and G have the highest ED scores and so, under this method, would
be prioritized for conservation has the most evolutionarily distinct species within their group.
9
Thanks to the increasing affordability of genetic sequencing, the advent of the timecalibrated phylogenies necessary for accurate ED calculations has enabled the application of
EDGE to a wide variety of taxonomic groups. Corals (Curnick et al., 2015; Huang, Davies, and
Gittleman, 2012), Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes; Stein et al., 2018), amphibians (Isaac et
al., 2012), reptiles (Gumbs et al., 2018), and birds (Jetz et al., 2014) all have been provided with
a comprehensive set of EDGE rankings. Notably, plants are absent from this growing body of
work, despite increasingly accurate, time-calibrated phylogenies for angiosperms (Gastaur and
Meira-Neto, 2015; The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, 2016; Zanne et al., 2014).
I was unable to find an explicit rationale for the lack of interest in EDGE among the
botanical community, but suspect a lack of familiarity with the calculation, and the
overwhelming variety of plant taxa are likely causes. Prioritizing taxa based on their
phylogenetic contribution to biodiversity is, after all, a fairly sharp ideological departure from
the dominant plant conservation paradigms of 1) applying equal resources to every species, and
2) subscribing to the Leopoldian idea that all species are inherently special, and therefore
deserving of habitat that best meets their needs (Leopold, 1949; DeMiller, 1993; Dunwiddie et
al. 2014). Sometimes, though, this line of thinking can unintentionally mimic conservation
efforts underpinned by phylogenetic information. For example, local efforts to restore the
prairies of the southern Puget Sound are stymied by a lack of pre-colonization reference sites,
and so have little data to inform the composition of the plantings at their restoration sites
(Dunwiddie et al., 2014). To overcome this obstacle, researchers turned to historical occurrence
data and museum collections to model reference communities to guide their plantings, hoping
maximizing the species diversity present throughout replanted prairies will give them the best
odds of finding a community composition that is adaptable to climate change (Dunwiddie et al.,
10
2014; Reed et al., 2019; Mauger et al, 2015). Conducting some sort of analysis, such as EDGE,
ED, or PD, for the taxa in their model community of Puget Sound prairie plants would have
allowed this group to maximize the number of ‘option values’ for adaptation present in their
master list of species by identifying the species that provided the greatest contribution to
phylogenetic diversity within their groups (Faith, 1993; Isaac et al., 2007).
Incorporating evolutionary distinctiveness and other metrics of evolutionary history into
conservation programs like the one that exists for Washington’s prairies will help
conservationists build floral communities with the greatest chance of resilience to climate
change. Where single species, rather than whole ecosystems, are at risk of extinction, prioritizing
taxa based on their phylogenetic contribution to biodiversity will allow conservationists to
perform ecological triage and do the most good with what money, manpower, and political will
exists.
11
Methods
Data Collection and Preparation
I combined an existing Olympic National Park species list (available from:
https://irma.nps.gov/Portal) with the results of a 2005 inventory of the park's coastal wetlands
(Acker and Olson, 2009) and data from occurrence records in the Consortium of Pacific
Northwest Herbaria database (available from: https://pnwherbaria.org/data/search.php ) to create
a comprehensive list of vascular plants within the park (Appendix A). Because calculating
evolutionary distinctiveness requires time-calibrated, well-supported phylogenies for accuracy, I
removed bryophytes, pteridophytes, and gymnosperms from my list because their phylogenetic
relationships are poorly understood relative to angiosperms (APG IV; Cornwell et al., 2014;
Gastaur and Meira-Neto, 2013; Isaac et al., 2007; Shaw, Szovenyi, and Shaw, 2011; Webb and
Donoghue, 2005; Zanne et al., 2014). I also removed all non-native taxa from my final species
list because they are not generally subject to positive attention from conservation programs.
Phylogeny Selection and Preparation
To generate the most accurate ED scores possible, I chose to use a time-calibrated
phylogeny created to examine the evolution of woody tissue in northern hemisphere angiosperms
(Zanne et al., 2014). By using mutation rates to determine divergence times, the Zanne et al.
(2014) tree provides a more accurate estimate of the evolutionary time, or branch length between
taxa, than phylogenies reliant on a secondary branch length adjustment function (Phylocom's
BLADJ function is a popular option) to fit the tree to a series of nodes with pre-determined ages
(Webb, Ackerly, and Kembel, 2008; Wikstrom, Savolainen, and Chase, 2001). Because Zanne et
12
al. (2014) chose to include nearly 22,000 taxa in their phylogeny, using this tree maximized the
likelihood that species within my study area would be included within the tree and therefore
available for the ED calculation (2014).
To avoid erroneously dropping tips due to differences in nomenclature (this phylogeny
was built prior to the release of APG IV), I cross-referenced each name in my species list with
those used by Zanne et al. (The Plant List, available from: http://www.theplantlist.org and the
Angiosperm Phylogeny Website, available from: http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/
Apweb/) before proceeding to trim their tree to just the taxa within my study area (Gastaur and
Meira-Neto, 2015; The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, 2016; Web and Donoghue, 2005; Zanne
et al., 2014). After updating the names of each taxon in my species list, I used the web-based
version of Phylocom (the Phylomatic, available from: http://phylodiversity.net/phylomatic/) to
access the super tree and drop all species not found within Olympic National Park (Webb and
Donoghue, 2005; Zanne et al., 2014).
Calculating Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED) and Regional Endangerment (RE)
I calculated ED scores for each species with the R package ‘picante’ and the fair
proportion ED calculation (Appendix A; Isaac et al., 2007; Kembel et al., 2010; R Core Team,
2021; Webb, Ackerly, and Kembel, 2008). I chose the fair proportion calculation over equal
splits and other alternatives because this approach ensures each unit of evolutionary time (1 MY)
is weighted equally (Gastaur and Meira-Neto, 2014; Isaac et al, 2007; Redding and Mooers,
2006; Webb, Ackerly, and Kembel, 2008). For those taxa considered species of concern by the
Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program (2019), I took the
13
additional step of calculating Regional Evolutionary Distinctiveness-Endangerment (RED-E)
scores by creating a function in R to weight their ED scores by their Washington state
Natureserve threat rank (Appendix B; Brantner, 2015). I used the following equation to calculate
RED-E in R (adapted from the EDGE equation first published by Isaac et al., 2007 by Brantner,
2015):
RED-E = ln (1+ED) + RE * ln(2)
EDGE = ln (1+ED) + GE * ln(2)
Natureserve is a national science advisory charity that works with states and governments
(Washington’s rankings were developed in partnership with the Natural Heritage Program) to
create a system for ranking taxa by their risk of extirpation within their borders (FaberLangendoen et al., 2012; Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2019). Under this
system, species with verified occurrence records are ranked from secure (S5) to critically
imperiled (S1), while species presumed extirpated, known only from historical records, or those
that otherwise cannot be ranked receive designations such as X, H, and U respectively (FaberLangendoen et al., 2012; Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2019). Taxa with an
unresolved conservation status receive an intermediate ranking (S1S2, for example) or a question
mark (S3?) if their status is less uncertain (Faber-Langendoen et al., 2012; Washington
Department of Natural Resources, 2019). Following Thompson (2020) I converted each state
threat ranking into an integer (a Regional Endangerment Score) for use in the RED-E calculation
(see Table 1). Under this method, RE scores range from 0 (S5) to 4(S1), and intermediate values
are represented by taking the average of their two ranks (S1S2 becomes 1.5; Thompson, 2020).
Because question marks represent less uncertainty than intermediate rankings, I chose to
14
disregard question marks entirely and treat those rankings as if the mark was not present (For
example, S1? and S1 would both receive an RE score of 4).
Table 1. Conversion of state NatureServe ranks into Regional Endangerment (RE) scores. No
species with a threat ranking below S3 existed in this dataset, though one taxon (Arenaria
paludicola) is presumed extirpated and therefore no RED-E score was calculated for it. Adapted
from Thompson (2020).
Threat Level
Critically Imperiled
Imperiled
Vulnerable
Apparently Secure
Secure
NatureServe Ranking
S1
S1S2
S2
S2S3
S3
S3S4
S4
S4S5
S5
15
RE Score
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Results
ED and RED-E Scores
Olympic National Park is home to 32 orders, 78 families, 363 genera, and 872 species of
flowering plants (Appendix A; Figure 4). Of these, ED scores were calculated for 871 species
and ranged from 2.91 MY (Carex phaeocephala and Carex praticola) to 180.93 MY (Asarum
caudatum) with a median value of 32.14 MY, a standard deviation of 25.24 MY and a geometric
mean of 25.99 MY (Figure 5). No score was generated for Myriophyllum quitense because it was
not included (by this name or any synonyms) in the Zanne et al. (2014) phylogeny.
Figure 3. The angiosperms of Olympic National Park. Species are not distributed evenly across the branches of the
tree of life. Phylogeny constructed using a tree originally built by Zanne et al. (2014).
16
Figure 4. Histogram of the distribution of ED scores of angiosperms (n = 871) found within Olympic National Park.
A species list with calculated ED scores is provided in Appendix A.
RED-E scores were calculated for the 40 taxa found within the park and on the Special
Plants List 2019 (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2019). Scores ranged from 3.79
(Carex obtusata) to 7.45 (Arcteranthis cooleyae) with a median value of 5.9, a standard
deviation of 0.87 and a geometric mean of 5.67 (Appendix B). The RED-E rankings were
relatively homogenous across all 40 species of concern, which was likely the result of most of
those species being fairly high priority (S2 rank) taxa (Washington Department of Natural
Resources, 2019).
17
Figure 5. Histogram of RED-E scores for n = 40 taxa found within Olympic National Park and the Special Plants
List 2019 (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2019). A species list with calculated RED-E scores, and
ED scores, is provided in Appendix B.
18
Discussion
Angiosperm Diversity in Olympic National Park
Given its proximity to a former glacial refugium, it is not particularly surprising that
Olympic National Park is home to such a diverse array of angiosperm lineages (Wershow and
DeChaine, 2018; Appendix A). While the ages and distribution of species across genera,
families, and orders is, overall, consistent with what’s known about angiosperm radiations from
the fossil record, calculating ED revealed a few surprises (Cantino et al., 2007; Linkies et al.,
2010). First, Asarum caudatum, a somewhat uncommon component of Washington’s lowland
forests, diverged from its closest relative on the peninsula 180.93 MYA, during the Jurassic
period and relatively soon after angiosperms first diverged from gymnosperms (Walker et al.,
2013; Cantino et al., 2007; Appendix A). Other species familiar from roadsides and parks, like
Skunk Cabbage (Lysichiton americanus, ED = 131.11 MY), water-lilies (Nuphar polysepala, ED
= 153.23), and nearly 100 other species within the park have ED scores above 65 MYA, when
the K-Pg extinction event wiped out nearly 57% of North American terrestrial plants (Appendix
A; Labandeira, Johnson, and Wilf, 2002). Nearly half of the Park’s angiosperms, 408 species,
arose before or during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (56 MYA to 33.9 MYA), the
warmest period in earth’s history (Culver and Rawson, 2000; Labandeira, Johnson, and Wilf,
2002; Walker et al., 2013). While this history is no guarantee of survival during our current
period of warming, it’s encouraging to think that a majority of the Park’s angiosperms have
already survived some of the worst climate change has to offer and could do so again.
19
Figure 6. Skunk Cabbage (Lysichiton americanus) at Millersylvania State Park, Olympia WA. Common weeds like
Skunk Cabbage provide critical winter forage for animals like Deer. Image by Claire Olson.
With the exception of Skunk Cabbage, many of these species are not flashy, notable, or
particularly valuable to humans. Who would have ever thought Duck Weed (Lemna minor, ED =
103.17) or Oregon Grape (Berberis nervosa, ED = 119.42), to be irreplaceable examples of
biodiversity? Perhaps counterintuitively, roadside weeds, greenbelt oddities, and smelly spring
flowers contain the lion’s share of evolutionary history.
RED-E, ED, and the Special Plants List
Boring vegetation is the future of speciation, and we should do more to keep tabs on it.
Of the species in my dataset, just 40 were listed by the Washington Natural Heritage Program as
species of concern (taxa prioritized for monitoring) (Washington Department of Natural
Resources, 2019). Of the 40 listed species, just 2 had ED scores within the top 50 highest ED
20
scores (Appendix A; Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2019). Overall, the species
prioritized for monitoring by the Special Plants List that occur within Olympic National Park are
no more or less distinctive than other species within the park (average ED score of 38.59 MY),
with a tendency to come from large families (Appendix B; Appendix A).
The Cyperaceae (sedges), for example, is particularly well represented in this list, with
five of the 23 members of Carex up for monitoring: C. anthoxanthea (4.72 MY), C. circinnata
(20.22 MY), C. obtusata (4.53 MY), C. pauciflora (4.66 MY), and C. stylosa (20.21 MY).
Sedges are, on the whole, an old lineage of angiosperms, arising around 83 MYA (Cantino et al.,
2007). However, unlike some of the Park’s other old lineages (Araceae, 130 MY), the
Cyperaceae have experienced some relatively recent radiations, with many members (especially
Carex) diverging between 6 and 2 MYA (Figure 7, Appendix A).
From the perspective of preserving phylogenetic diversity, the Special Plants List does
not serve the Cyperaceae particularly well, instead prioritizing visually-distinctive sedges
(members of this family are notoriously difficult to identify) like C. pauciflora (Figure 8) and
neglecting the other genera of sedges (Dulichium, Eleocharis, Eriophorum, Rhynchospora,
Schoenoplectus, and Scirpus) entirely. From the perspective of prioritizing species based on their
contribution to evolutionary history, the two species within the genus Schoenoplectus (each with
an ED score of 28.53 MY) would receive priority, followed by older members of Carex such as
C. stylosa, and single-species genera like Rhynchospora (ED score of 16.83 MY) that diverged
around the same time as some Carex, but represent a distinct branch of the sedge family tree. For
the Cyperaceae, rarity alone is a poor proxy for phylogenetic diversity
21
Figure 7. Species of the genus Carex found within Olympic National Park. Species within the polytomy diverged
around 4.5 million years ago, and are indistinct from a phylogenetic perspective. Phylogeny adapted from a super
tree generated by Zanne et al (2014).
Many of the other families of the special plants list fare the same way upon examination,
containing one visually-distinct listed member that has a relatively low ED score, but then also
contains numerous older, more phylogenetically important members that are less readily
noticeable and hence left without a ranking (Washington Department of Natural Heritage, 2019;
Appendix A; Appendix B). For example, a member of the Primulaceae, Dodecatheon
22
austrofrigidum (RED-E score of 6.39, ED score of 36.37 MY) is prioritized by the Special Plants
List but diverged at roughly the same time (36.37 MY) as the other four species of Dodecatheon
found within the park (Appendix A). Other genera of the Primulaceae represent much more
distinctive lineages, such as Trientalis (58 MY) or Androsace (45 MY), but are much less
visually striking or distinctive (Figure 9).
Figure 8. Carex pauciflora is not distinctive or valuable from a
phylogenetic perspective but is one of the few sedges that can be easily
identified without training. Image © 2021 Donald Cameron.
23
Figure 9. Trientalis arctica (Left, © Michael Kesl), which is much less conspicuous than Dodecatheon
austrofrigidum (Right, © Wilbur Bluhm), but is far more important phylogenetically.
Unfortunately, a species’ absence from the Special Plants List does not mean it is not
equally at risk of extirpation, especially if you take climate change into consideration. A lack of
contemporary range and distribution information for many species (even a quick look at records
in the database compiled by the Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria will show a steep
decline in collections after 1970) means range and abundance estimates are based off decadesold information that may no longer reflect a species’ reality. Without a reference point, it will be
nearly impossible to identify declines in species’ before (and sometimes even when) they
become at risk of extirpation. Without knowing species’ starting point, we cannot quantify the
impacts of climate change. Shifting monitoring priorities to those species with a high degree of
phylogenetic importance, rather than solely monitoring those with small populations, will go the
farthest toward preventing a landscape-scale loss of biodiversity, especially when those efforts
are focused in potential refugia like Olympic National Park.
As the progenitors of climate change, we have a moral obligation to do our best to ensure
that most species have the best shot at persisting through the end of the century, even if they are
24
unattractive, ‘useless’, or have a particularly unpleasant smell. We have a duty to go and look for
species that are not attractive, that are difficult to identify, and that occur in inconvenient places,
even if it is not particularly cheap to do so, because not looking means risking the disappearance
of millions of years of evolutionary history without ever even realizing what could be lost.
25
Conclusion
Although immediate conservation action is necessary to counteract this century’s everaccelerating rates of extinction, the number of species in need of preservation is all but
guaranteed to overwhelm the ability of agencies and organizations to provide aid. Therefore,
conservation programs must work to prioritize the allocation of funding to those species who
represent the most urgent need and the greatest share of evolutionary history. However,
insufficient data on the relative endangerment of plant species at the regional and local levels
impedes attempts to determine which taxa are in fact secure, hampering conservationists’ ability
to make informed decisions. Climate change and urbanization mean we can no longer assume
taxa are secure, even when decades-old records indicate a sufficient range and population size.
Without clear, contemporary range and abundance information, we cannot know species’ threat
status. Equally unreasonable is the expectation that up-to-date range and abundance information
for all species exists as well as the expectation that vulnerable species will all be provided with
sufficient conservation efforts. Centering monitoring efforts on phylogenetically important
species makes relevant data collection and support much more feasible. This study provides a
basis for prioritizing species for monitoring (and, potentially, conservation) built on their
contribution to the phylogenetic diversity of Olympic National Park and the Olympic Peninsula,
a study that highlights the diversity of lineages found within the park, and both the need for and
value of increased assessments of the threat to and phylogenetic relationships among plants
throughout Washington State.
26
References
Acker, S.A., Olson, R.W. (2009). Vascular Plant Inventory of Coastal Bogs, Wetlands, and
Lakeshores, Olympic National Park (2005): Natural Resource Technical Report
NPS/NCCN/NRTR-2009/174. Retrieved from: http://olympicnationalparkvisitor.info/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02Plant_Inventory.pdf on 3/4/2021.
Antonelli, A., Fry, C., Smith, R., Simmonds, M., Kersey, P., Pritchard, H., Abbo, M., Acedo, C.,
Adams, J., Ainsworth, A., Allkin, B., Annecke, W., Bachman, S., Bacon, K., Bárrios, S.,
Barstow, C., Battison, A., Bell, E., Bensusan, K., Zhang, B. (2020). State of the World's
Plants and Fungi 2020. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. doi: 10.34885/172.
Ashcroft, M.B. (2010). Identifying refugia from climate change. Journal of Biogeography, 37:
1407-1413.
Balding, M., Williams, K.J.H. (2016). Plant blindness and the implications for plant
conservation. Conservation Biology 30(6): 1192-1199. doi:10.1111/cobi.12738.
Beggs, R., Pierson, J., Tulloch, A., Blanchard, W., Westgate, M., Lindenmayer, D. (2019). An
empirical test of the mechanistic underpinnings of interference competition. Oikos,
129(1), 93-105.
Bodine, E.N. and Capaldi, A. (2016). Can Culling Barred Owls Save a Declining Northern
Spotted Owl Population? Natural Resource Modeling, 30(3). DOI: 10.111/nrm.12131
27
Brantner, E.K. (2015). Regional Evolutionary Distinctiveness and Endangerment as a means of
Prioritizing Protection of Endangered Species. M.S. Thesis, Florida International
University.
Buchholz, S., Hanning, K., Schirmel, J. (2013). Losing uniqueness – shifts in carabid species
composition during dry grassland and heathland succession. Animal Conservation, 16(6),
661-670.
Curnick, D.J., Head, C.E.I., Huang, D., Crabb, M., Gollock, B.W., Hoeksema, K., Johnson, G.,
et al. (2015). Setting Evolutionary-Based Conservation Priorities for a Phylogenetically
Data-Poor Taxonomic Group (Scleractinia). Animal Conservation, 18(4): 303-12.
doi:10.1111/acv.12185
Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria. Specimen Database. [Vascular Plant Records found
within Olympic National Park]. Available from: https://pnwherbaria.org /data/search.php
Cadotte, M.W., Davies, J.T. (2010). Rarest of the rare: advances in combining
evolutionary distinctiveness and scarcity to inform conservation at biogeographical
scales. Diversity & Distributions, 16(3), 376-385.
Center for Natural Lands Management. (2020). About Center for Natural Lands Management.
Retrieved from: https://www.cnlm.org/about-cnlm/mission/
28
Cornwell, W.K. et al. (2014). Functional distinctiveness of major plant lineages. Journal of
Ecology, 102(2): 345-356. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12208
DeMiller, R. (1993). History of the Environmental Movement and Environmental
Conservation, Environmental Conservation, 20(2), 176-177.
Faber-Langendoen, D., Nichols, J., Master, L., Snow, K., Tomaino, A., Bittman, R.,
Hammerson, G. (2012). “Natureserve Conservation Status Assessment Methodology
for Assigning Ranks”. NatureServe, June.
Faith, D.P. (1992). Conservation Evaluation and Phylogenetic Diversity.
Biological Conservation, 61(1): 1-10. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(92)91201-3.
Gastaur, M., Meira-Neto, J.A.A. (2013). Avoiding inaccuracies in tree calibration
and phylogenetic community analysis using Phylocom 4.2. Ecological Informatics (15):
85-90.
Gumbs, R., Gray, C.L., Wearn, O.R., Owen, N.R. (2018). Tetrapods on the EDGE: Overcoming
Data Limitations to Identify Phylogenetic Conservation Priorities. PLOS ONE, 13(4):
e0194680. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194680.
Hansen, M.M., Fraser, D.J., Als, T.D., Mensberg, K.D. (2008). Reproductive isolation,
29
evolutionary distinctiveness and setting conservation priorities: the case of European
lake whitefish and the endangered North Sea houting (Coregonus spp.). BMC
Evolutionary Biology, 8(1), 137.
Hartmann, K., André, J. (2013). Should Evolutionary History Guide Conservation? Biodiversity
& Conservation, 22(2): 449-458. doi:10.1007/s10531-012-0422-z.
Holderegger, R., Thiel-Egenter, C. (2009). A discussion of different types of glacial refugia used
in mountain biogeography and phylogeography. Journal of Biogeography, 36: 476-480.
Huang, S.T., Davies, J., Gittleman, J.L. (2012). How Global Exinctions Impact Regional
Biodiversity in Mammals. Biology Letters, 8(2): 222-25. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0752
Isaac, N.J.B., Turvey, S.T., Collen, B., Waterman, C., Baillie, J.E.M. (2007). Mammals on the
EDGE: conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS ONE, 2(296).
Isaac, N.J.B., Redding, D.W., Meredith, H.M., Safi, K. (2012). Phylogenetically-Informed
Priorities for Amphibian Conservation. PloS ONE, 7(8): 1-8.
IUCN. (2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Strategic Plan 2017-2020. IUCN Red
List Committee. https://nc.iucnredlist.org/redlist/resources/files/1531922193-49
_Red_List_Strategic_Plan_2017_2020_final.pdf.
Jetz, W., Thomas, G.H., Joy, J.B., Hartmann, K., Mooers, A.O. (2012). The Global Biodiversity
30
of Birds in Space and Time. Nature 491(2454): 4444-48. doi:10.1038/nature11631
Kaye, T.N and Blakeley-Smith, M. for the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
(2008). An Evaluation of the Potential for Hybridization Between Castilleja levisecta and
C. hispida. Retrieved from:
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_cale_hybrid.pdf
Kechler, S.M. and Zedler, J.B. (2004). Multiple Disturbances Accelerate Invasion of Reed
Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) in a Mesocosm Study. Oecologia, 138(3), 455-64.
Kembel, S., Cowan, P., Helmus, M., Cornwell, W., Morlon, H., Ackerly, D., Blomberg, S.,
Webb, C. (2010). “Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology.”
Bioinformatics, 26: 1463–1464.
Knapp, W.M., Frances, A., Noss, R., Naczi, R.F.C., Weakley, A., Gann, G.D., Baldwin, B.G.,
Miller, J., McIntyre, P., Mishler, B.D., Moore, G., Olmstead, R.G., Strong, A.,
Kennedy, K., Heidel, B., Gluesenkamp, D. (2020). Vascular plant extinction in the
continental United States and Canada. Conservation Biology, 35(1): 360-368. doi:
10.1111/cobi.13621
Labandeira, C.C., Johnson, K.R., Wilf, P. (2002). Impact of the terminal Cretaceous event on
plant-insect associations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 99(4): 2061-6.
31
Leopold, Aldo. (1949). A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Linkies, A., Graeber, K., Knight, C., Leubner-Metzger, G. (2010). The evolution of seeds. New
Phytologist, 186: 817-831.
Lyons, M.P., Kozak, K.H. (2019). Vanishing islands in the sky? A comparison of correlationand mechanism-based forecasts of range dynamics for montane salamanders under
climate change. Ecography, 43: 481-493.
McCune, B. P, and J. Grace with a contribution from D. Urban. 2002. Analysis of Ecological
Communities. MJM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.
Mauger, G.S., J.H. Casola, H.A. Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, B. Curry, T.M. Busch Isaksen,
L. Whitely Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Snover. 2015. State of Knowledge: Climate
Change in Puget Sound. Report prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climate Impacts Group,
University of Washington, Seattle. doi:10.7915/CIG93777D
Morelli, T.L., Daly, C., Dobrowski, S.Z., Dulen, D.M., Ebersole, J.L., Jackson, S.T., Lundquist,
J.D., Millar, C.I., Maher, S.P., Monahan, W.B., Nydick, K.R., Redmond, K.T., Sawyer,
S.C., Stock, S., Beissinger, S.R. (2016). Managing Climate Change Refugia for Climate
Adaptation. PLOS ONE, 12(1): e0169725.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169725
32
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Kent, J. (2000).
Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities. Nature 403(6772): 853-58.
doi:10.1038/35002501.
Negrón-Ortiz, V. (2014). Pattern of expenditures for plant conservation under the Endangered
Species Act. Biological Conservation, (171): 36-43. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.018
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation
for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/
Reed, P.B., Pfeifer-Meister, L.E., Roy, B.A., Johnson, B.R., Bailes, G.T., Nelson, A.A., Boulay,
M.C., Hamman, S.T., Bridgham, S.D. (2019). Prairie plant phenology driven more by
temperature than moisture in climate manipulations across a latitudinal gradient in the
Pacific Northwest, USA.
Redding, D.W. and Mooers, A.O. (2006). Incorporating evolutionary measures into
conservation prioritisation. Conservation Biology, 20: 1670-1678.
Rocchio, F.J., and R.C. Crawford. (2013). Floristic Quality Assessment for Washington
Vegetation. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA, USA.
Shafer, A.B.A., Cullingham, C.I., Cóté, S.D., Coltman, D.W. (2010). Of glaciers and refugia: a
decade of study sheds new light on the phylogeography of northwestern North America.
33
Molecular Ecology, 19: 4589-4621.
Seddell, J.R., Reeves, G.H., Hauer, R.F., Stanford, J.A., Hawkins, C.P. (1990). Role of Refugia
in Recovery from Disturbances: Modern Fragmented and Disconnected River Systems.
Environmental Management, 14(5): 711-724. doi:10.1007/BF02394720
Stein, R. William, Christopher G. Mull, Tyler S. Kuhn, Neil C. Aschliman, Lindsay N. K.
Davidson, Jeffrey B. Joy, Gordon J. Smith, Nicholas K. Dulvy, and Arne O. Mooers.
(2018). Global Priorities for Conserving the Evolutionary History of Sharks, Rays and
Chimaeras. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2 (2): 288–98. https://doi.org/10.1038
/s41559-017-0448-4.
Shaw, A.J., Szovenyi, P., Shaw, B. (2011). Bryophyte diversity and evolution: Windows into the
early evolution of land plants. American Journal of Botany, 98(3): 352-369.
Swink, F. and G. S. Wilhelm. (1979). Plants of the Chicago Region, 3rd ed. Morton Arboretum,
Lisle, IL. 922 pp.
The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. Byng, J., Chase, M., Christenhuuz, M., Fay, M., Judd, W.,
Mabberly, D., Sennikov, A., Soltis, D., Soltis, P., Stevens, P. (2016). An update of the
Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering
plants: APG IV. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 181: 1-20. doi:
10.1111/boj.12385.
34
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship
and Science Directorate. IRMA: the Integrated Resource Management Applications
Portal. [Vascular Plant Species List for Olympic National Park]. Available from:
https://irma.nps.gov/Portal/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013). Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS):
FWS-Listed U.S. Species by Taxonomic Group. Available from: https://ecos.fws.gov
/ecp/report/species-listings-by-tax-group-totals
Veron, S.T., Davies, J., Cadotte, M.W., Clergeau, P., Pavoine, S. (2015). Predicting Loss of
Evolutionary History: Where Are We? Biological Reviews, 92(1): 271-91.
doi:10.1111/brv.12228.
Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program. (2019). 2019
Washington Vascular Plant Species of Special Concern, Washington Natural Heritage
Program Report Number: 2019-04. Available from: https://dnr.wa.gov/publications
/amp_nh_vascular_ets.pdf
Walker, J.D., Geissman, J.W., Bowring, S.A., Babcock, L.E. (2013). The Geological Society of
America Geologic Time Scale. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 125(3/4): 359272.
Wikstrom, N., Savolainen, V., Chase, M.W. (2001). Evolution of Angiosperms: Calibrating the
Family Tree. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B (268): 2211-2220.
35
Withey, J.C., Lawler, J.J., Polasky, S., Plantinga, A.J., Nelson, E.J., Kareiva, P., Wilsey, C.B., et
al. (2012). Maximising Return on Conservation Investment in the Conterminous USA.
Edited by James Sanchirico. Ecology Letters, 15(11): 1249-56.
doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01847.x.
Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D. & Kembel, S. W. (2008) Phylocom: software for the analysis of
phylogenetic community structure and trait evolution. Bioinformatics, 24: 2098-2100.
Webb, C.O., Donoghue, M.J. (2005). Phylomatic: tree assembly for applied phylogenetics.
Molecular Ecology Notes, (5):181-183. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00829.x
Zanne, A.E., et al. (2014). Three keys to the radiation of angiosperms into freezing
environments. Nature (506): 89-92. doi:10.1038/nature12872.
36
Appendices
Appendix A
Angiosperms found within Olympic National Park, ranked by ED score. ED scores are rounded
to two decimal places, and differences in ranks represent differences in ED scores. Species
marked with an asterisk (*) represent recognized infraspecies present in the park that were not
included in the Zanne et al. (2014) phylogeny. Synonyms, where applicable, are listed in
parentheses.
Rank
Order
Family
Scientific Name
1
Piperales
Aristolochiaceae
Asarum caudatum
180.93
2
Nymphaeales
Cabombaceae
Brasenia schreberi
156.36
3
Nymphaeales
Nymphaeaceae
Nymphaea odorata
153.23
4
Nymphaeales
Nymphaeaceae
Nuphar polysepala
153.23
5
Alismatales
Tofieldiaceae
Triantha occidentalis
142.99
6
Alismatales
Araceae
Lysichiton americanus
131.11
7
Ranunculales
Papaveraceae
Dicentra formosa
120.09
8
Ranunculales
Berberidaceae
Berberis nervosa
119.42
9
Ranunculales
Berberidaceae
Achlys californica
119.42
10
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Epipactus gigantea
113.05
11
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Cephalanthera austiniae
113.05
12
Oxalidales
Oxalidaceae
Oxalis oregana
111.90
13
Ceratophyllales Ceratophyllaceae
Ceratophyllum echinatum
111.89
14
Ceratophyllales Ceratophyllaceae
Ceratophyllum demersum
111.89
15
Liliales
Liliaceae
Prosartes smithii
108.55
16
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Coptis asplenifolia
106.80
17
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Caltha leptosepala
106.80
37
ED Score
18
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Arcteranthis cooleyae
106.80
19
Alismatales
Araceae
Spirodela polyrhiza
103.17
20
Alismatales
Araceae
Lemna minor
103.17
21
Malphigiales
Elatinaceae
Elatine triandra
101.57
22
Malvales
Malvaceae
Sidalcea hendersonii
101.45
23
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Coptis laciniata
99.38
24
Ranunculales
Berberidaceae
Berberis aquifolium
99.37
25
Ranunculales
Papaveraceae
Corydalis scouleri
91.85
26
Ranunculales
Papaveraceae
Corydalis aurea
91.85
27
Ranunculales
Berberidaceae
Vancouveria hexandra
87.68
28
Ranunculales
Berberidaceae
Achlys triphylla
87.68
29
Geraniales
Geraniaceae
Geranium carolinianum
87.39
30
Caryophyllales
Droseraceae
Drosera rotundifolia
86.79
31
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Neottia convallarioides
85.19
32
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Neottia banksiana
85.19
33
Rosales
Rosaceae
Spiraea splendens
83.29
34
Rosales
Rosaceae
Sorbus sitchensis
83.29
35
Rosales
Rosaceae
Petrophytum hendersonii
83.29
36
Rosales
Rosaceae
Geum triflorum
83.29
37
Rosales
Rosaceae
Aruncus doicus
83.29
38
Rosales
Rosaceae
Dryas drummondii
82.49
39
Dipsacales
Adoxaceae
Viburnum edule
81.61
40
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Ranunculus grayi
80.44
38
41
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Ranunculus glaberrimus
80.44
42
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Delphinium nuttallii
80.44
43
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Delphinium glareosum
80.44
44
Rosales
Rhamnaceae
Ceanothus velutinus
80.09
45
Sapindales
Anacardiaceae
Rhus diversiloba
79.27
46
Apiales
Araliaceae
Oplopanax horridus
77.86
47
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Neottia cordata
76.88
48
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Chrysosplenium
76.65
glechomifolium
49
Celastrales
Celastraceae
Paxistima myrsinites
76.47
50
Rosales
Rhamnaceae
Frangula purshiana
75.23
51
Rosales
Rhamnaceae
Ceanothus sanguineus
75.23
52
Saxifragales
Crassulaceae
Crassula aquatica
75.07
53
Asparagales
Asparagaceae
Camassia quamash
74.93
54
Asparagales
Amaryllidaceae
Allium cernuum
74.26
55
Rosales
Urticaceae
Urtica dioica
74.18
56
Rosales
Elaeagnaceae
Shepherdia canadensis
74.18
57
Solanales
Convolvulaceae
Calystegia soldanella
73.64
58
Alismatales
Juncaginaceae
Triglochin maritima
73.09
59
Apiales
Apiaceae
Yabea microcarpa
72.94
60
Apiales
Apiaceae
Lilaeopsis occidentalis
72.94
61
Apiales
Apiaceae
Ligusticum apiifolium
72.94
62
Apiales
Apiaceae
Heracleum lanatum
72.94
39
63
Apiales
Apiaceae
Daucus pusillus
72.94
64
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Trollius laxus
72.58
65
Liliales
Melanthiaceae
Toxicoscordion venenosum
72.33
66
Liliales
Melanthiaceae
Anticlea occidentalis
72.33
67
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Aquilegia formosa
71.61
68
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Thalictrum occidentale
71.61
69
Fabales
Fabaceae
Thermopsis gracilis
70.84
70
Fabales
Fabaceae
Syrmatium decumbens
70.84
71
Fabales
Fabaceae
Oxytropis viscida
70.84
72
Fabales
Fabaceae
Lathyrus polyphyllus
70.84
73
Fabales
Fabaceae
Hedysarum occidentale
70.84
74
Ericales
Polemoniaceae
Linanthus bicolor
70.47
75
Ericales
Polemoniaceae
Collomia debilis
70.47
76
Fagales
Fagaceae
Chrysolepis chrysophylla
70.11
77
Dipsacales
Caprifoliaceae
Valeriana scouleri
69.08
78
Dipsacales
Caprifoliaceae
Linnea borealis
69.08
79
Geraniales
Geraniaceae
Geranium viscosissimum
68.95
80
Geraniales
Geraniaceae
Geranium bicknellii
68.95
81
Alismatales
Alismataceae
Sagittaria cuneata
68.51
82
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Platanthera unalascensis
68.47
83
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Platanthera stricta
68.47
84
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Platanthera elongata
68.47
85
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Platanthera elegans
68.47
40
86
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Platanthera dilatata
68.47
87
Cornales
Cornaceae
Cornus sericea
68.13
88
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Platanthera hyperborea
67.51
89
Cornales
Cornaceae
Cornus canadensis
67.27
90
Cornales
Cornaceae
Cornus nuttallii
67.27
91
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Anemone oregana
67.26
92
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Anemone lithophila
67.26
93
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Anemone grayii
67.26
94
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Anemone deltoidea
67.26
95
Asterales
Menyanthaceae
Nephrophyllidium crista-galli
67.04
96
Asterales
Menyanthaceae
Menyanthes trifoliata
67.04
97
Alismatales
Hydrocharitaceae
Elodea canadensis
66.11
98
Asparagales
Asparagaceae
Triteleia hyacinthina
65.82
99
Malphigiales
Hydrocharitaceae
Hypericum scouleri
65.79
100
Malphigiales
Hydrocharitaceae
Hypericum anagalloides
65.79
101
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Ludwigia palustris
65.74
102
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Oenothera villosa
65.74
103
Cornales
Hydrangeaceae
Whipplea modesta
64.99
104
Cornales
Hydrangeaceae
Philadelphus lewisii
64.99
105
Liliales
Liliaceae
Streptopus streptopoides
64.54
106
Liliales
Liliaceae
Prosartes hookeri
64.54
107
Liliales
Liliaceae
Gagea serotina
64.54
108
Ericales
Ericaceae
Pleuricospora fimbriolata
63.39
41
109
Ericales
Ericaceae
Phyllodoce intermedia
63.39
110
Ericales
Ericaceae
Monotropa hyopitys
63.39
111
Ericales
Ericaceae
Ledum palustre
63.39
112
Ericales
Ericaceae
Hemitomes congestum
63.39
113
Ericales
Ericaceae
Allotropa virgata
63.39
114
Rosales
Rosaceae
Sanguisorba procumbens
62.71
115
Rosales
Rosaceae
Sanguisorba menziesii
62.71
116
Rosales
Rosaceae
Potentilla glandulosa
62.71
117
Rosales
Rosaceae
Potentilla flabellifolia
62.71
118
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Cochlearia groenlandica
62.63
119
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Boechera holbellii
62.63
120
Caryophyllales
Plumbaginaceae
Armeria maritima
62.26
121
Santales
Santalaceae
Arceuthobium tsugense
61.52
122
Santales
Santalaceae
Arceuthobium
61.52
campylopodium
123
Alismatales
Alismataceae
Sagittaria latifolia
60.73
124
Alismatales
Alismataceae
Alisma triviale
60.73
125
Dipsacales
Adoxaceae
Sambucus cerulea
60.37
126
Dipsacales
Adoxaceae
Sambucus racemosa
60.37
127
Rosales
Rosaceae
Geum macrophyllum
60.30
128
Fagales
Fagaceae
Myrica gale
59.77
129
Asterales
Campanulaceae
Lobelia dortmanna
59.76
130
Gentianales
Rubiaceae
Galium oreganum
59.17
42
131
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Calypso bulbosa
59.16
132
Rosales
Rosaceae
Sanguisorba canadensis
58.47
133
Ericales
Primulaceae
Trientalis arctica
57.99
134
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Plagiobothrys scouleri
57.86
135
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Phacelia leptosepala
57.86
136
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Mertensia platyphylla
57.86
137
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Hydrophyllum fendleri
57.86
138
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Cryptantha intermedia
57.86
139
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Amsinckia menziesii
57.86
140
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Lithophragma parviflorum
57.84
141
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Lithophragma glabrum
57.84
142
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Heuchera glabra
57.84
143
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Heuchera chlorantha
57.84
144
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Persicaria amphibia
57.60
145
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Eriogonum ovalifolium
57.60
146
Asparagales
Amaryllidaceae
Allium crenulatum
57.39
147
Asparagales
Amaryllidaceae
Allium acuminatum
57.39
148
Lamiales
Oleaceae
Fraxinus latifolia
57.34
149
Liliales
Melanthiaceae
Xerophyllum tenax
56.96
150
Liliales
Melanthiaceae
Trillium ovatum
56.96
151
Gentianales
Apocynaceae
Apocynum androsaemifolium
55.41
152
Apiales
Apiaceae
Osmorhiza purpurea
55.08
153
Apiales
Apiaceae
Osmorhiza occidentalis
55.08
43
154
Apiales
Apiaceae
Lomatium utriculatum
55.08
155
Apiales
Apiaceae
Lomatium martindalei
55.08
156
Apiales
Apiaceae
Angelica hendersonii
55.08
157
Apiales
Apiaceae
Angelica genuflexa
55.08
158
Ericales
Polemoniaceae
Phlox hendersonii
53.32
159
Ericales
Polemoniaceae
Phlox diffusa
53.32
160
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Spiranthes romanzoffiana
52.82
161
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Goodyera oblongifolia
52.82
162
Dipsacales
Caprifoliaceae
Lonicera utahensis
52.68
163
Dipsacales
Caprifoliaceae
Lonicera ciliosa
52.68
164
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Sagina maxima
52.38
165
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Moehringia macrophylla
52.38
166
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Eremogone capillaris
52.38
167
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Cerastium beeringianum
52.38
168
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Cardionema ramosissimum
52.38
169
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Arenaria paludicola
52.38
170
Asparagales
Asparagaceae
Dichelostemma congestum
52.38
171
Asparagales
Asparagaceae
Brodiaea coronaria
52.38
172
Celastrales
Celastraceae
Parnassia palustris
52.09
173
Celastrales
Celastraceae
Parnassia fimbriata
52.09
174
Poales
Typhaceae
Typha latifolia
51.65
175
Liliales
Melanthiaceae
Anticlea elegans
51.04
176
Saxifragales
Haloragraceae
Myriophyllum verticillatum
50.94
44
177
Saxifragales
Haloragraceae
Myriophyllum sibiricum
50.94
178
Sapindales
Sapindaceae
Acer circinatum
50.94
179
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Clarkia purpurea
50.11
180
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Clarkia amoena
50.11
181
Poales
Poaceae
Trisetum cernuum
49.07
182
Poales
Poaceae
Puccinellia nutkaensis
49.07
183
Poales
Poaceae
Pleuropogon refractus
49.07
184
Poales
Poaceae
Panicum acuminatum
49.07
185
Poales
Poaceae
Hierochloe odorata
49.07
186
Poales
Poaceae
Helictotrichon canescens
49.07
187
Poales
Poaceae
Glyceria leptostachya
49.07
188
Poales
Poaceae
Deschampsia atropurpurea
49.07
189
Alismatales
Hydrocharitaceae
Vallisneria americana
48.55
190
Alismatales
Hydrocharitaceae
Najas flexilis
48.55
191
Ericales
Ericaceae
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
47.87
192
Ericales
Ericaceae
Arctostaphylos media
47.87
193
Fabales
Fabaceae
Trifolium wormsskjoldii
47.79
194
Fabales
Fabaceae
Trifolium wildenovii
47.79
195
Fabales
Fabaceae
Trifolium microdon
47.79
196
Fabales
Fabaceae
Lupinus lyallii
47.79
197
Fabales
Fabaceae
Lupinus littoralis
47.79
198
Fabales
Fabaceae
Lupinus albicaulis
47.79
199
Fabales
Fabaceae
Astragalus microcystus
47.79
45
200
Fabales
Fabaceae
Astragalus lentiginosus
47.79
201
Fabales
Fabaceae
Astragalus cottonii
47.79
202
Liliales
Liliaceae
Clintonia uniflora
47.69
203
Dipsacales
Caprifoliaceae
Valeriana sitchensis
47.52
204
Dipsacales
Caprifoliaceae
Valeriana samolifolia
47.52
205
Alismatales
Potamogetonaceae Stuckenia filiformis
47.47
206
Caryophyllales
Nyctaginaceae
Abronia latifolia
47.39
207
Caryophyllales
Nyctaginaceae
Abronia umbellata
47.39
208
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rubus spectabilis
47.28
209
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rubus praecox
47.28
210
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rubus pedatus
47.28
211
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rubus parviflorus
47.28
212
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rubus nivalis
47.28
213
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rubus leucodermis
47.28
214
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rubus lasiococcus
47.28
215
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rubus laciniatus
47.28
216
Rosales
Rosaceae
Potentilla anserina
47.09
217
Asterales
Asteraceae
Tonestus lyallii
46.86
218
Asterales
Asteraceae
Symphyotrichum chilense
46.86
219
Asterales
Asteraceae
Saussurea americana
46.86
220
Asterales
Asteraceae
Pseudognaphalium canescens
46.86
221
Asterales
Asteraceae
Pentacalia amplexicaulis
46.86
222
Asterales
Asteraceae
Oreostemma alpigenum
46.86
46
223
Asterales
Asteraceae
Nabalus alatus
46.86
224
Asterales
Asteraceae
Luina hypoleuca
46.86
225
Asterales
Asteraceae
Lasthenia maritima
46.86
226
Asterales
Asteraceae
Hemizonella minima
46.86
227
Asterales
Asteraceae
Grindelia hirsutula
46.86
228
Asterales
Asteraceae
Eurybia merita
46.86
229
Asterales
Asteraceae
Eucephalus paucicapitatus
46.86
230
Asterales
Asteraceae
Crepis occidentalis
46.86
231
Asterales
Asteraceae
Cirsium edule
46.86
232
Asterales
Asteraceae
Askellia pygmaea
46.86
233
Asterales
Asteraceae
Anisocarpus madioides
46.86
234
Asterales
Asteraceae
Ambrosia chamissonis
46.86
235
Asterales
Asteraceae
Packera flettii
46.86
236
Malphigiales
Salicaceae
Salix sitchensis
46.85
237
Malphigiales
Salicaceae
Salix sessilifolia
46.85
238
Malphigiales
Salicaceae
Salix scouleriana
46.85
239
Malphigiales
Salicaceae
Salix lasiandra
46.85
240
Malphigiales
Salicaceae
Salix hookeriana
46.85
241
Malphigiales
Salicaceae
Salix commutata
46.85
242
Malphigiales
Salicaceae
Salix brachycarpa
46.85
243
Malphigiales
Salicaceae
Salix barclayi
46.85
244
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Mitella trifida
46.55
245
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Mitella pentandra
46.55
47
246
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Mitella ovalis
46.55
247
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Mitella caulescens
46.55
248
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Mitella breweri
46.55
249
Asterales
Campanulaceae
Campanula piperi
46.52
250
Asterales
Campanulaceae
Campanula parryi
46.52
251
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rubus occidentalis
46.20
252
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rubus ursinus
46.20
253
Saxifragales
Crassulaceae
Sedum stenopetalum
45.79
254
Saxifragales
Crassulaceae
Sedum spathulifolium
45.79
255
Saxifragales
Crassulaceae
Sedum rupicola
45.79
256
Saxifragales
Crassulaceae
Sedum oreganum
45.79
257
Saxifragales
Crassulaceae
Sedum lanceolatum
45.79
258
Saxifragales
Crassulaceae
Sedum divergens
45.79
259
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Suksdorfia ranunculifolia
45.39
260
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Boykinia occidentalis
45.39
261
Caryophyllales
Amaranthaceae
Chenopodium
44.63
chenopodioides
262
Caryophyllales
Amaranthaceae
Atriplex gmelinii
44.63
263
Ericales
Ericaceae
Arctostaphylos columbiana
44.59
264
Ericales
Ericaceae
Arbutus menziesii
44.59
265
Ericales
Primulaceae
Androsace nivalis
44.48
266
Ericales
Primulaceae
Androsace laevigata
44.48
267
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Romanzoffia tracyi
43.91
48
268
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Romanzoffia sitchensis
43.91
269
Rosales
Rosaceae
Physocarpus capitatus
43.89
270
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga tolmiei
43.73
271
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga tischii
43.73
272
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga rufidula
43.73
273
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga odontoloma
43.73
274
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga nelsoniana
43.73
275
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga integrifolia
43.73
276
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga ferruginea
43.73
277
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga austromontana
43.73
278
Rosales
Rosaceae
Sibbaldia procumbens
43.70
279
Sapindales
Sapindaceae
Acer macrophyllum
43.05
280
Sapindales
Sapindaceae
Acer glabrum
43.05
281
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Corallorhiza maculata
42.99
282
Ericales
Ericaceae
Vaccinium oxycoccos
42.70
283
Ericales
Ericaceae
Vaccinium cespitosum
42.70
284
Ericales
Ericaceae
Vaccinium alaskaense
42.70
285
Asparagales
Iridaceae
Olsynium douglasii
42.54
286
Lamiales
Scrophulariaceae
Scrophularia californica
42.50
287
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Cardamine occidentalis
42.38
288
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Cardamine nuttallii
42.38
289
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Cardamine angulata
42.38
290
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Arabis furcata
42.38
49
291
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Arabis eschscholtziana
42.38
292
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Arabis divaricarpa
42.38
293
Rosales
Rosaceae
Aphanes arvensis
42.26
294
Rosales
Rosaceae
Comarum palustre
42.26
295
Lamiales
Lentibulariaceae
Pinguicula macroceras
41.89
296
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Corallorhiza striata
41.85
297
Asparagales
Orchidaceae
Corallorhiza mertensiana
41.85
298
Ericales
Ericaceae
Pterospora andromedea
41.79
299
Ericales
Ericaceae
Monotropa uniflora
41.79
300
Malphigiales
Violaceae
Viola sempervirens
41.33
301
Malphigiales
Violaceae
Viola orbiculata
41.33
302
Malphigiales
Violaceae
Viola langsdorfii
41.33
303
Malphigiales
Violaceae
Viola howellii
41.33
304
Malphigiales
Violaceae
Viola flettii
41.33
305
Ericales
Primulaceae
Lysimachia maritima
41.17
306
Ericales
Primulaceae
Trientalis borealis
41.17
307
Poales
Typhaceae
Sparganium natans
40.89
308
Poales
Typhaceae
Sparganium fluctuans
40.89
309
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga mertensiana
40.88
310
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga cespitosa
40.88
311
Fagales
Betulaceae
Betula glandulosa
40.74
312
Fagales
Betulaceae
Corylus cornuta
40.74
313
Caryophyllales
Amaranthaceae
Salicornia virginica
40.26
50
314
Caryophyllales
Amaranthaceae
Atriplex patula
40.26
315
Liliales
Melanthiaceae
Veratrum viride
40.17
316
Liliales
Melanthiaceae
Veratrum californicum
40.17
317
Fagales
Betulaceae
Alnus rubra
39.90
318
Fagales
Betulaceae
Alnus alnobetula
39.90
319
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Draba stenoloba
39.85
320
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Draba paysonii
39.85
321
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Draba lonchocarpa
39.85
322
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Draba juvenilis
39.85
323
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Minuartia rossii
39.73
324
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Minuartia obtusiloba
39.73
325
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Polygonum douglasii
39.69
326
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Oxyria digyna
39.69
327
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Rumex salicifolius
39.59
328
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Rumex occidentalis
39.59
329
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Rumex maritimus
39.59
330
Malphigiales
Salicaceae
Populus tremuloides
39.32
331
Malphigiales
Salicaceae
Populus trichocarpa
39.32
332
Saxifragales
Grossulariaceae
Ribes lacustre
39.26
333
Saxifragales
Grossulariaceae
Ribes howellii
39.26
334
Ericales
Polemoniaceae
Microsteris gracilis
38.42
335
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium oregonense
38.38
336
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium mirabile
38.38
51
337
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium luteum
38.38
338
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium lanatum
38.38
339
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium halleanum
38.38
340
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium glaberrimum
38.38
341
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium clavatum
38.38
342
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium angustifolium
38.38
343
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Circaea alpina
38.38
344
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Myosotis laxa
38.36
345
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Mertensia paniculata
38.36
346
Rosales
Rosaceae
Spiraea douglasii
38.00
347
Poales
Cyperaceae
Scirpus atrocinctus
37.60
348
Poales
Cyperaceae
Bolboschoenus fluviatilis
37.60
349
Asterales
Asteraceae
Sisyrinchium littorale
37.37
350
Asterales
Asteraceae
Sisyrinchium idahoense
37.37
351
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Orthocarpus imbricatus
37.36
352
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Actaea rubra
37.21
353
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Actaea elata
37.21
354
Poales
Poaceae
Stipa nelsonii
37.13
355
Poales
Poaceae
Stipa lemmonii
37.13
356
Alismatales
Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton amplifolius
36.98
357
Liliales
Melanthiaceae
Maianthemum dilatatum
36.84
358
Liliales
Melanthiaceae
Streptopus lanceolatus
36.77
359
Liliales
Melanthiaceae
Streptopus amplexifolius
36.77
52
360
Alismatales
Zosteraceae
Phyllospadix serrulatus
36.69
361
Saxifragales
Grossulariaceae
Ribes bracteosum
36.67
362
Saxifragales
Grossulariaceae
Ribes triste
36.67
363
Ericales
Primulaceae
Dodecatheon pulchellum
36.37
364
Ericales
Primulaceae
Dodecatheon jeffreyi
36.37
365
Ericales
Primulaceae
Dodecatheon hendersonii
36.37
366
Ericales
Primulaceae
Dodecatheon dentatum
36.37
367
Ericales
Primulaceae
Dodecatheon austrofrigidum
36.37
368
Ericales
Ericaceae
Chimaphila umbellata
36.26
369
Rosales
Rosaceae
Oemleria cerasiformis
36.21
370
Liliales
Melanthiaceae
Maianthemum stellatum
36.04
371
Liliales
Melanthiaceae
Maianthemum racemosum
36.04
372
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Polygonum nuttallii
35.99
373
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Polygonum newberryi
35.99
374
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Polygonum minimum
35.99
375
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Polygonum hydropiper
35.99
376
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Polygonum bistortoides
35.99
377
Rosales
Rosaceae
Luetkea pectinata
35.98
378
Rosales
Rosaceae
Holodiscus discolor
35.98
379
Ericales
Ericaceae
Cassiope mertensiana
35.79
380
Alismatales
Zosteraceae
Zostera marina
35.71
381
Rosales
Rosaceae
Potentilla drummondii
35.63
382
Rosales
Rosaceae
Dasiphora fruticosa
35.63
53
383
Lamiales
Lamiaceae
Stachys mexicana
35.50
384
Lamiales
Lamiaceae
Micromeria douglasii
35.50
385
Asterales
Asteraceae
Taraxacum olympicum
35.42
386
Asterales
Asteraceae
Taraxacum campylodes
35.42
387
Asterales
Asteraceae
Madia gracilis
35.42
388
Asterales
Asteraceae
Madia exigua
35.42
389
Asterales
Asteraceae
Hieracium scouleri
35.42
390
Asterales
Asteraceae
Hieracium froelichianum
35.42
391
Asterales
Asteraceae
Gnaphalium purpureum
35.42
392
Asterales
Asteraceae
Gnaphalium palustre
35.42
393
Asterales
Asteraceae
Artemisia suksdorfii
35.42
394
Asterales
Asteraceae
Artemisia furcata
35.42
395
Asterales
Asteraceae
Agoseris monticola
35.42
396
Asterales
Asteraceae
Agoseris glauca
35.42
397
Malphigiales
Violaceae
Viola adunca
35.27
398
Saxifragales
Grossulariaceae
Ribes sanguineum
34.56
399
Saxifragales
Grossulariaceae
Ribes laxiflorum
34.56
400
Malphigiales
Violaceae
Viola palustris
34.25
401
Malphigiales
Violaceae
Viola glabella
34.25
402
Asterales
Campanulaceae
Campanula scouleri
34.17
403
Asterales
Campanulaceae
Campanula rotundifolia
34.17
404
Malphigiales
Salicaceae
Salix reticulata
34.03
405
Malphigiales
Salicaceae
Salix arctica
34.03
54
406
Liliales
Liliaceae
Lilium columbianum
33.86
407
Liliales
Liliaceae
Fritillaria affinis
33.86
408
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Leptarrhena pyrolifolia
33.58
409
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Tonella tenantha
33.48
410
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Synthyris schizantha
33.48
411
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Plantago macrocarpa
33.48
412
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Penstemon procerus
33.48
413
Apiales
Apiaceae
Sanicula graveolens
33.23
414
Apiales
Apiaceae
Sanicula crassicaulis
33.23
415
Poales
Poaceae
Melica subulata
33.15
416
Poales
Poaceae
Melica smithii
33.15
417
Poales
Poaceae
Melica harfordii
33.15
418
Poales
Poaceae
Festuca subuliflora
33.15
419
Poales
Poaceae
Festuca subulata
33.15
420
Poales
Poaceae
Festuca saximontana
33.15
421
Poales
Poaceae
Elymus trachycaulis
33.15
422
Poales
Poaceae
Elymus occidentalis
33.15
423
Poales
Poaceae
Elymus hirsutus
33.15
424
Poales
Poaceae
Bromus vulgaris
33.15
425
Poales
Poaceae
Bromus sitchensis
33.15
426
Poales
Poaceae
Bromus pacificus
33.15
427
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Anemone occidentalis
32.76
428
Poales
Typhaceae
Sparganium eurycarpum
32.65
55
429
Dipsacales
Caprifoliaceae
Lonicera involucrata
32.58
430
Dipsacales
Caprifoliaceae
Lonicera hispidula
32.58
431
Saxifragales
Grossulariaceae
Ribes lobbii
32.25
432
Saxifragales
Grossulariaceae
Ribes divaricatum
32.25
433
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Stellaria obtusa
32.14
434
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Stellaria nitens
32.14
435
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Stellaria humifusa
32.14
436
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Stellaria crispa
32.14
437
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Stellaria calycantha
32.14
438
Ericales
Ericaceae
Moneses uniflora
32.12
439
Ericales
Ericaceae
Chimaphila menziesii
32.12
440
Poales
Juncaceae
Luzula multiflora
32.00
441
Asterales
Asteraceae
Erigeron peregrinus
31.61
442
Asterales
Asteraceae
Erigeron flettii
31.61
443
Asterales
Asteraceae
Erigeron aliceae
31.61
444
Fagales
Fabaceae
Oxytropis campestris
31.42
445
Rosales
Rosaceae
Prunus emarginata
31.17
446
Rosales
Rosaceae
Prunus virginiana
31.17
447
Poales
Poaceae
Calamagrostis sesquiflora
31.16
448
Poales
Poaceae
Calamagrostis nutkaensis
31.16
449
Poales
Poaceae
Calamagrostis inexpansa
31.16
450
Poales
Poaceae
Calamagrostis crassiglumis
31.16
451
Poales
Poaceae
Agrostis variabilis
31.16
56
452
Poales
Poaceae
Agrostis oregonensis
31.16
453
Poales
Poaceae
Agrostis humilis
31.16
454
Poales
Poaceae
Agrostis aequivalvis
31.16
455
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Orobanche fasciculata
30.67
456
Ericales
Ericaceae
Orthilia secunda
30.18
457
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga bronchialis
29.83
458
Asterales
Asteraceae
Senecio neowebsteri
29.71
459
Asterales
Asteraceae
Senecio multiradiata
29.71
460
Asterales
Asteraceae
Senecio lugens
29.71
461
Asterales
Asteraceae
Senecio fremontii
29.71
462
Asterales
Asteraceae
Arnica rydbergii
29.71
463
Asterales
Asteraceae
Arnica parryi
29.71
464
Asterales
Asteraceae
Arnica ovata
29.71
465
Asterales
Asteraceae
Arnica nevadensis
29.71
466
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Boschniakia hookeri
28.82
467
Rosales
Rosaceae
Potentilla gracilis
28.71
468
Rosales
Rosaceae
Potentilla villosa
28.71
469
Poales
Typhaceae
Sparganium emersum
28.68
470
Poales
Typhaceae
Sparganium angustifolium
28.68
471
Poales
Cyperaceae
Schoenoplectus subterminalis
28.53
472
Poales
Cyperaceae
Schoenoplectus acutus
28.53
473
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Pedicularis contorta
28.48
474
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Pedicularis bracteosa
28.48
57
475
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Orobanche pinorum
28.48
476
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Orobance unflora
28.48
477
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Castilleja parviflora
28.48
478
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Castilleja hispida
28.48
479
Poales
Poaceae
Poa wheeleri
28.17
480
Poales
Poaceae
Poa suksdorfii
28.17
481
Poales
Poaceae
Poa stenantha
28.17
482
Poales
Poaceae
Poa rupicola
28.17
483
Poales
Poaceae
Poa pacispicula
28.17
484
Poales
Poaceae
Poa marcida
28.17
485
Poales
Poaceae
Poa laxiflora
28.17
486
Poales
Poaceae
Poa confinis
28.17
487
Asterales
Asteraceae
Antennaria umbrinella
27.80
488
Asterales
Asteraceae
Antennaria racemosa
27.80
489
Asterales
Asteraceae
Antennaria neglecta
27.80
490
Asterales
Asteraceae
Antennaria media
27.80
491
Asterales
Asteraceae
Antennaria lanata
27.80
492
Asterales
Asteraceae
Antennaria howellii
27.80
493
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Myosurus minimus
27.74
494
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Trautvetteria caroliniensis
27.63
495
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Halerpestes cymbalaria
27.63
496
Alismatales
Zosteraceae
Phyllospadix torreyi
27.57
497
Alismatales
Zosteraceae
Phyllospadix scouleri
27.57
58
498
Gentianales
Gentianaceae
Gentiana sceptrum
27.50
499
Gentianales
Gentianaceae
Gentiana douglasiana
27.50
500
Gentianales
Gentianaceae
Gentiana calycosa
27.50
501
Gentianales
Gentianaceae
Gentiana amarella
27.50
502
Asterales
Asteraceae
Hieracium albiflorum
27.32
503
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga oppositifolia
27.28
504
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Saxifraga rivularis
27.28
505
Asterales
Asteraceae
Lactuca biennis
27.10
506
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Delphinium menziesii
26.98
507
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Delphinium glaucum
26.98
508
Poales
Juncaceae
Luzula piperi
26.19
509
Poales
Juncaceae
Luzula hitchcockii
26.19
510
Caryophyllales
Polygonaceae
Potamogeton natans
26.17
511
Apiales
Apiaceae
Cicuta douglasii
26.16
512
Apiales
Apiaceae
Oenanthe sarmentosa
25.96
513
Apiales
Apiaceae
Perideridia gairdneri
25.96
514
Ericales
Polemoniaceae
Polemonium carneum
25.91
515
Ericales
Polemoniaceae
Collomia heterophylla
25.82
516
Dipsacales
Caprifoliaceae
Symphoricarpos mollis
25.59
517
Dipsacales
Caprifoliaceae
Symphoricarpos albus
25.59
518
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Veronica cusickii
25.55
519
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Veronica americana
25.55
520
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Synthyris reniformis
25.55
59
521
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Synthyris pinnatifida
25.55
522
Caryophyllales
Montiaceae
Lewisia columbiana
25.44
523
Ericales
Ericaceae
Empetrum nigrum
25.39
524
Rosales
Rosaceae
Fragaria vesca
24.94
525
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus filiformis
24.68
526
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Spergularia marina
24.19
527
Alismatales
Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton epihydrus
23.85
528
Lamiales
Phrymaceae
Mimulus tilingii
23.70
529
Lamiales
Phrymaceae
Mimulus dentatus
23.70
530
Rosales
Rosaceae
Fragaria virginiana
23.11
531
Rosales
Rosaceae
Fragaria chiloensis
23.11
532
Ericales
Ericaceae
Pyrola asarifolia
23.07
533
Ericales
Ericaceae
Pyrola minor
23.07
534
Poales
Juncaceae
Luzula parviflora
23.05
535
Gentianales
Rubiaceae
Kelloggia galioides
23.04
536
Alismatales
Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton compressus
22.57
537
Alismatales
Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton berchtoldii
22.57
538
Ericales
Ericaceae
Pyrola picta
22.56
539
Ericales
Ericaceae
Pyrola chlorantha
22.56
540
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Anemone parviflora
22.23
541
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Anemone multifida
22.23
542
Ericales
Polemoniaceae
Collomia linearis
22.22
543
Ericales
Polemoniaceae
Collomia grandiflora
22.22
60
544
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rosa nutkana
22.20
545
Asterales
Asteraceae
Petasites frigidus
22.13
546
Asterales
Asteraceae
Crocidium multicaule
22.13
547
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rosa pisocarpa
21.79
548
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rosa gymnocarpa
21.79
549
Asterales
Asteraceae
Anaphalis margaritacea
21.68
550
Alismatales
Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton gramineus
21.60
551
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus supiniformis
21.31
552
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus saximontanus
21.31
553
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus orthophyllus
21.31
554
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus mertensianus
21.31
555
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus acuminatus
21.31
556
Ericales
Polemoniaceae
Polemonium pulcherrimum
21.05
557
Ericales
Polemoniaceae
Polemonium californicum
21.05
558
Alismatales
Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton robbinsii
20.80
559
Alismatales
Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton richardsonii
20.80
560
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium ciliatum
20.52
561
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium minutum
20.40
562
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex utriculata
20.22
563
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex stylosa
20.22
564
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex spectabilis
20.22
565
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex scirpiformis
20.22
566
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex preslii
20.22
61
567
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex pluriflora
20.22
568
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex petasata
20.22
569
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex obnupta
20.22
570
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex nigricans
20.22
571
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex neurophora
20.22
572
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex multimoda
20.22
573
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex lenticularis
20.22
574
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex interrupta
20.22
575
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex inops
20.22
576
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex hendersonii
20.22
577
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex exsiccata
20.22
578
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex engelmanii
20.22
579
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex circinnata
20.22
580
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex californica
20.22
581
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex athrostachya
20.22
582
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex arctiformis
20.22
583
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex aperta
20.22
584
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex albonigra
20.22
585
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex ablata
20.22
586
Caryophyllales
Montiaceae
Claytonia exigua
20.09
587
Caryophyllales
Montiaceae
Claytonia cordifolia
20.09
588
Liliales
Liliaceae
Erythronium montanum
19.92
589
Liliales
Liliaceae
Erythronium grandiflorum
19.92
62
590
Liliales
Liliaceae
Erythronium revolutum
19.91
591
Liliales
Liliaceae
Erythronium oregonum
19.91
592
Asterales
Asteraceae
Cirsium arvense
19.79
593
Lamiales
Lentibulariaceae
Utricularia minor
19.53
594
Rosales
Rosaceae
Sorbus scopulina
19.24
595
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Nemophila parviflora
19.08
596
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Hydrophyllum tenuipes
19.08
597
Apiales
Apiaceae
Osmorhiza depauperata
19.07
598
Apiales
Apiaceae
Osmorhiza berteroi
19.07
599
Ericales
Ericaceae
Gaultheria shallon
18.94
600
Ericales
Ericaceae
Gaultheria ovatifolia
18.94
601
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Phacelia nemoralis
18.81
602
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium anagallidifolium
18.74
603
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Ranunculus uncinatus
18.52
604
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Ranunculus flammula
18.52
605
Asterales
Asteraceae
Adenocaulon bicolor
18.31
606
Lamiales
Lentibulariaceae
Utricularia vulgaris
18.16
607
Lamiales
Lentibulariaceae
Utricularia intermedia
18.16
608
Gentianales
Rubiaceae
Galium trifidum
18.10
609
Ericales
Ericaceae
Vaccinium uliginosum
17.89
610
Rosales
Rosaceae
Malus fusca
17.69
611
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Tolmiea menziesii
17.57
612
Lamiales
Lamiaceae
Stachys chamissonis
17.49
63
613
Lamiales
Lamiaceae
Marrubium vulgare
17.49
614
Ericales
Ericaceae
Vaccinium ovatum
17.49
615
Fabales
Fabaceae
Acmispon denticulatus
17.48
616
Caryophyllales
Montiaceae
Montia parvifolia
17.41
617
Caryophyllales
Montiaceae
Montia howellii
17.41
618
Caryophyllales
Montiaceae
Montia diffusa
17.41
619
Caryophyllales
Montiaceae
Montia dichotoma
17.41
620
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Phacelia sericea
17.38
621
Boraginales
Boraginaceae
Phacelia linearis
17.38
622
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium lactiflorum
17.20
623
Myrtales
Onagraceae
Epilobium hornemannii
17.20
624
Rosales
Rosaceae
Amelanchier alnifolia
17.17
625
Poales
Cyperaceae
Rhynchospora alba
16.98
626
Asterales
Asteraceae
Taraxacum officinale
16.92
627
Asterales
Asteraceae
Agoseris elata
16.92
628
Fabales
Fabaceae
Vicia nigricans
16.77
629
Fabales
Fabaceae
Vicia americana
16.77
630
Fabales
Fabaceae
Acmispon parviflorus
16.70
631
Fabales
Fabaceae
Acmispon americanus
16.70
632
Gentianales
Rubiaceae
Galium aparine
16.68
633
Gentianales
Rubiaceae
Galium triflorum
16.68
634
Lamiales
Phrymaceae
Mimulus alsinoides
16.60
635
Ericales
Ericaceae
Rhododendron macrophyllum
16.49
64
636
Poales
Juncaceae
Luzula spicata
16.34
637
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus parryi
16.16
638
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus drummondii
16.16
639
Lamiales
Lamiaceae
Mentha arvensis
16.14
640
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Castilleja miniata
15.85
641
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Triphysaria pusilla
15.85
642
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Honckenya peploides
15.83
643
Lamiales
Phrymaceae
Mimulus moschatus
15.47
644
Lamiales
Phrymaceae
Mimulus guttatus
15.47
645
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Ranunculus eschscholtzii
15.40
646
Ericales
Ericaceae
Menziesia ferruginea
15.38
647
Ericales
Ericaceae
Rhododendron albiflorum
15.38
648
Gentianales
Rubiaceae
Galium boreale
15.35
649
Gentianales
Rubiaceae
Galium bifolium
15.35
650
Apiales
Apiaceae
Conioselinum vaginatum
15.14
651
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Cerastium glomeratum
15.13
652
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Pedicularis racemosa
15.08
653
Lamiales
Orobanchaceae
Pedicularis groenlandica
15.08
654
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Ranunculus trichophyllus
15.05
655
Ranunculales
Ranunculaceae
Ranunculus aquatilis
15.05
656
Lamiales
Lamiaceae
Lycopus uniflorus
15.02
657
Lamiales
Lamiaceae
Prunella vulgaris
15.02
658
Poales
Poaceae
Phragmites australis
15.02
65
659
Lamiales
Phrymaceae
Mimulus primuloides
14.94
660
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Boykinia intermedia
14.59
661
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Subularia aquatica
14.52
662
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Hippuris vulgaris
14.49
663
Rosales
Rosaceae
Crataegus suksdorfii
14.28
664
Rosales
Rosaceae
Crataegus douglasii
14.28
665
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Tiarella trifoliata
14.26
666
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Elmera racemosa
14.26
667
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus canadensis
14.16
668
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus bolanderi
14.16
669
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus tenuis
14.16
670
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus bufonius
14.16
671
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Minuartia rubella
14.09
672
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Tellima grandiflora
14.02
673
Saxifragales
Saxifragaceae
Heuchera micrantha
14.02
674
Poales
Cyperaceae
Dulichium arundinaceum
13.78
675
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Smelowskia calycina
13.65
676
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Rorippa curvisiliqua
13.65
677
Ericales
Ericaceae
Elliottia pyroliflora
13.54
678
Lamiales
Phrymaceae
Mimulus breweri
13.49
679
Lamiales
Phrymaceae
Mimulus lewisii
13.49
680
Poales
Poaceae
Panicum capillare
13.47
681
Fabales
Fabaceae
Lupinus arcticus
13.40
66
682
Fabales
Fabaceae
Lupinus rivularis
13.35
683
Fabales
Fabaceae
Lupinus lepidus
13.32
684
Fabales
Fabaceae
Lupinus polyphyllus
13.27
685
Fabales
Fabaceae
Lupinus latifolius
13.27
686
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus effusus
13.23
687
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus conglomeratus
13.23
688
Poales
Juncaceae
Luzula congesta
12.96
689
Poales
Juncaceae
Luzula campestris
12.96
690
Caryophyllales
Portulacaceae
Calandrinia ciliata
12.85
691
Poales
Cyperaceae
Schoenoplectus
12.54
tabernaemontani
692
Poales
Cyperaceae
Isolepis cernua
12.54
693
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus articulatus
12.50
694
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Stellaria longipes
12.34
695
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Stellaria borealis
12.34
696
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Barbarea orthoceras
12.33
697
Apiales
Apiaceae
Angelica lucida
12.10
698
Poales
Cyperaceae
Trichophorum cespitosum
12.05
699
Fabales
Fabaceae
Lathyrus palustris
11.89
700
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Collinsia parviflora
11.83
701
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Collinsia grandiflora
11.83
702
Caryophyllales
Montiaceae
Lewisia pygmaea
11.72
703
Fabales
Fabaceae
Lathyrus nevadensis
11.63
67
704
Fabales
Fabaceae
Lathyrus japonicus
11.63
705
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Sagina saginoides
11.56
706
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Sagina decumbens
11.56
707
Fabales
Fabaceae
Trifolium longipes
11.56
708
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Cerastium semidecandrum
11.41
709
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Cerastium arvense
11.41
710
Apiales
Apiaceae
Glehnia littoralis
11.41
711
Apiales
Apiaceae
Angelica arguta
11.41
712
Asterales
Asteraceae
Eriophyllum lanatum
11.26
713
Asterales
Asteraceae
Microseris borealis
11.14
714
Ericales
Ericaceae
Vaccinium parvifolium
11.10
715
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Plantago maritima
11.09
716
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Digitalis purpurea
11.09
717
Fabales
Fabaceae
Trifolium cyathiferum
11.03
718
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Cardamine pensylvanica
11.00
719
Fabales
Fabaceae
Trifolium oliganthum
11.00
720
Fabales
Fabaceae
Trifolium microcephalum
11.00
721
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Silene antirrhina
10.98
722
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Silene acaulis
10.98
723
Ericales
Ericaceae
Vaccinium ovalifolium
10.97
724
Ericales
Ericaceae
Kalmia polifolia
10.97
725
Ericales
Ericaceae
Kalmia microphylla
10.97
726
Apiales
Apiaceae
Lomatium dissectum
10.94
68
727
Apiales
Apiaceae
Lomatium nudicaule
10.94
728
Ericales
Ericaceae
Phyllodoce glanduliflora
10.90
729
Ericales
Ericaceae
Phyllodoce empetriformis
10.90
730
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Nothochelone nemorosa
10.86
731
Ericales
Ericaceae
Vaccinium membranaceum
10.73
732
Ericales
Ericaceae
Vaccinium deliciosum
10.73
733
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Callitriche palustris
10.70
734
Poales
Poaceae
Distichlis spicata
10.46
735
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Athysanus pusillus
10.39
736
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Arabis hirsuta
10.39
737
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Callitriche stagnalis
10.24
738
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus covillei
10.19
739
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus balticus
10.19
740
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Callitriche heterophylla
10.13
741
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Callitriche hermaphroditica
10.13
742
Asterales
Asteraceae
Arnica longifolia
10.12
743
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Silene scouleri
10.03
744
Asterales
Asteraceae
Madia sativa
9.95
745
Asterales
Asteraceae
Arnica mollis
9.95
746
Asterales
Asteraceae
Arnica cordifolia
9.87
747
Asterales
Asteraceae
Arnica latifolia
9.87
748
Asterales
Asteraceae
Achillea millefolium
9.81
749
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus nevadensis
9.80
69
750
Poales
Juncaceae
Juncus ensifolius
9.80
751
Poales
Poaceae
Glyceria striata
9.71
752
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Silene parryi
9.64
753
Caryophyllales
Caryophyllaceae
Silene douglasii
9.64
754
Asterales
Asteraceae
Agoseris aurantiaca
9.63
755
Lamiales
Montiaceae
Claytonia lanceolata
9.61
756
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Cardamine oligosperma
9.56
757
Asterales
Asteraceae
Agoseris heterophylla
9.54
758
Asterales
Asteraceae
Agoseris grandiflora
9.54
759
Lamiales
Lamiaceae
Claytonia sibirica
9.43
760
Lamiales
Lamiaceae
Claytonia perfoliata
9.43
761
Caryophyllales
Montiaceae
Montia linearis
9.25
762
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Turritis glabra
9.25
763
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Penstemon davidsonii
9.01
764
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Veronica serpyllifolia
8.73
765
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Veronica peregrina
8.73
766
Caryophyllales
Montiaceae
Montia fontana
8.70
767
Caryophyllales
Montiaceae
Montia chamissoi
8.70
768
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Cardamine breweri
8.68
769
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Penstemon ovatus
8.62
770
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Penstemon serrulatus
8.62
771
Poales
Cyperaceae
Eleocharis acicularis
8.59
772
Asterales
Asteraceae
Artemisia arctica
8.50
70
773
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Veronica wormskjoldii
8.47
774
Lamiales
Plantaginaceae
Veronica scutellata
8.47
775
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Cardamine bellidifolia
8.40
776
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Rorippa palustris
8.40
777
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Thysanocarpus curvipes
8.19
778
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex aquatilis
8.02
779
Poales
Cyperaceae
Eleocharis palustris
7.95
780
Poales
Cyperaceae
Eleocharis ovata
7.95
781
Asterales
Asteraceae
Tanacetum bipinnatum
7.69
782
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Thlaspi montanum
7.56
783
Asterales
Asteraceae
Artemisia ludoviciana
7.54
784
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Erysimum capitatum
7.38
785
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Erysimum asperum
7.38
786
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Boechera stricta
7.36
787
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Boechera lyallii
7.36
788
Asterales
Asteraceae
Artemisia tilesii
7.20
789
Asterales
Asteraceae
Artemisia campestris
7.20
790
Poales
Poaceae
Danthonia intermedia
7.13
791
Poales
Poaceae
Danthonia spicata
6.88
792
Poales
Poaceae
Danthonia californica
6.88
793
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex rossii
6.85
794
Poales
Cyperaceae
Scirpus microcarpus
6.82
795
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex raynoldsii
6.55
71
796
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex buxbaumii
6.55
797
Asterales
Asteraceae
Eurybia radulina
6.54
798
Asterales
Asteraceae
Canadanthus modestus
6.47
799
Poales
Cyperaceae
Eriophorum chamissonis
6.31
800
Poales
Cyperaceae
Eriophorum angustifolium
6.31
801
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex viridula
6.24
802
Poales
Poaceae
Bromus carinatus
6.19
803
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Draba nemorosa
5.99
804
Poales
Poaceae
Elymus glaucus
5.84
805
Poales
Poaceae
Hordeum brachyantherum
5.84
806
Poales
Poaceae
Leymus mollis
5.81
807
Poales
Poaceae
Elymus elymoides
5.81
808
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Draba cana
5.79
809
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Draba crassifolia
5.75
810
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Draba albertina
5.75
811
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Draba praealta
5.73
812
Brassicales
Brassicaceae
Draba incerta
5.73
813
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex amplifolia
5.71
814
Asterales
Asteraceae
Erigeron compositus
5.62
815
Asterales
Asteraceae
Symphyotrichum foliaceum
5.61
816
Asterales
Asteraceae
Symphyotrichum subspicatum
5.61
817
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex macrocephala
5.24
818
Asterales
Asteraceae
Erigeron philadelphicus
5.24
72
819
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex livida
5.21
820
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex aurea
5.21
821
Asterales
Asteraceae
Erigeron acris
5.10
822
Asterales
Asteraceae
Erigeron subtrinervis
5.06
823
Asterales
Asteraceae
Erigeron speciosus
5.06
824
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex mertensii
4.91
825
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex lyngbyei
4.91
826
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex anthoxanthea
4.73
827
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex pyrenaica
4.66
828
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex pauciflora
4.66
829
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex obtusata
4.53
830
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex nardina
4.48
831
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex leptalea
4.48
832
Poales
Poaceae
Phleum alpinum
4.41
833
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex deweyana
4.31
834
Poales
Poaceae
Cinna latifolia
4.29
835
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex vesicaria
4.16
836
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex saxatilis
4.16
837
Poales
Poaceae
Trisetum spicatum
4.12
838
Poales
Poaceae
Torreyochloa pallida
4.01
839
Poales
Poaceae
Anthoxanthum odoratum
3.98
840
Poales
Poaceae
Deschampsia elongata
3.93
841
Poales
Poaceae
Poa cusickii
3.91
73
842
Poales
Poaceae
Poa arctica
3.91
843
Poales
Poaceae
Alopecurus geniculatus
3.73
844
Poales
Poaceae
Alopecurus aequalis
3.73
845
Poales
Poaceae
Deschampsia danthonioides
3.67
846
Poales
Poaceae
Deschampsia cespitosa
3.67
847
Poales
Poaceae
Vulpia microstachys
3.62
848
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex disperma
3.58
849
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex stipata
3.56
850
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex illota
3.48
851
Poales
Poaceae
Festuca occidentalis
3.43
852
Poales
Poaceae
Festuca idahoensis
3.43
853
Poales
Poaceae
Vulpia bromoides
3.43
854
Poales
Poaceae
Festuca rubra
3.43
855
Poales
Poaceae
Carex leporina
3.43
856
Poales
Poaceae
Calamagrostis purpurascens
3.42
857
Poales
Poaceae
Calamagrostis canadensis
3.42
858
Poales
Poaceae
Agrostis exarata
3.33
859
Poales
Poaceae
Agrostis scabra
3.30
860
Poales
Poaceae
Agrostis capillaris
3.30
861
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex tumulicola
3.26
862
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex hoodii
3.26
863
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex laeviculmis
3.24
864
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex arcta
3.24
74
865
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex pansa
3.19
866
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex cusickii
3.19
867
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex interior
3.17
868
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex echinata
3.17
869
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex microptera
2.98
870
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex praticola
2.91
871
Poales
Cyperaceae
Carex phaeocephala
2.91
75
Appendix B
Angiosperms found within Olympic National Park and the Special Plants List (2019) ranked by
RED-E score (Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program, 2019).
RED-E scores are rounded to two decimal places, and differences in ranks represent actual
differences in RED-E scores.
Rank Scientific Name
NatureServe
Rank
ED
Score
RED-E
Score
1
Arcteranthis cooleyae (Ranunculus
cooleyae)
S1
106.79
7.45
2
Whipplea modesta
S1
64.98
6.96
3
Coptis aspleniifolia
S2
106.79
6.76
4
Oxytropis borealis var. viscida
S1S2
70.84
6.70
5
Abronia umbellata var. acutalata
(Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora)
S1
47.39
6.65
6
Cochlearia groenlandica
S1S2
62.6
6.58
7
Micranthes tischii (Saxifraga
tischii)
S1?
43.73
6.57
8
Sparganium fluctuans
S1
40.89
6.51
9
Dryas drummondii var. drummondii
S2
82.49
6.50
10
Epilobium mirabile (E. glandulosum
var. macounii)
S1
38.38
6.44
11
Dodecatheon austrofrigidum
S1
36.37
6.39
12
Potentilla breweri (P. drummondii
ssp. b)
S1
35.62
6.37
13
Hedysarum occidentale
S2
70.84
6.35
14
Chrysolepis chrysophylla var.
chrysophylla
S2
70.11
6.34
15
Synthyris schizantha
S1
33.48
6.31
16
Sanguisorba menziesii
S2
62.71
6.23
17
Parnassia palustris
S2
52.08
6.05
18
Astragalus microcystis
S2
47.79
5.96
19
Astragalus australis var. cottonii
S2
47.79
5.96
20
Eurybia merita
S2
46.86
5.95
76
21
Arabis olympica (A. furcata var.
olympica)
S2
42.38
5.85
22
Carex circinnata
S1
20.22
5.83
23
Plantago macrocarpa
S2
33.48
5.62
24
Oxytropis campestris var. gracilis
(O. monticola)
S2
31.42
5.56
25
Erigeron peregrinus var.
thompsonii
S2
31.61
5.56
26
Erigeron aliceae
S2
31.61
5.56
27
Gentiana douglasiana
S2
27.50
5.43
28
Polemonium carneum
S2
25.91
5.37
29
Montia diffusa
S1S2
17.41
5.34
30
Claytonia multiscapa var. pacifica
(Claytonia lanceolata var.
multiscapa)
S1
9.61
5.13
31
Carex stylosa
S2
20.22
5.13
32
Actaea elata var. elata (Cimicifuga
elata)
S3
37.21
5.03
33
Draba cana
S1
5.79
4.69
34
Utricularia intermedia
S2S3
18.16
4.68
35
Synthyris lanuginosa
S3?
25.55
4.66
36
Microseris borealis
S2
11.14
4.57
37
Carex anthoxanthea
S1
4.73
4.52
38
Erythronium revolutum
S3
19.91
4.42
39
Carex pauciflora
S2
4.66
3.81
40
Carex obstusata
S2
4.53
3.79
77
Appendix C
Code used to calculate ED scores in R.
#Load R packages
>library(picante)
#Load phylogeny
>olymztree <- read.tree(file= “olymzanne.txt”)
#Calculate ED for Olympic National Park angiosperms
>olymzed <- evol.distinct(olymztree, type =c(“fair.proportion”),
scale = FALSE, use.branch.lengths = TRUE)
#Print to .csv file
write.csv(olymzed, ‘olymzed.csv’)
78
Appendix D
Code used to calculate RED-E scores in R.
#Load ED scores and RE scores into R
>edspecial<-read.csv(“edspecial.csv”, header=TRUE)
#Create a function to calculate RED-E scores
>rede <-function(x,y){return((log(1+x))+(y*(log(2))))}
#Name variables and run function
>x<-edspecial$EDScore
>y<-edspecial$REScore
>redespecial <-rede(x,y)
#Print to .csv file
>write.csv(redespecial, “redespecial.csv”)
79