Download Final Report 10/10/2012 Key West Botanical Garden EPAC grant

Final Report
10/10/2012
Key West Botanical Garden EPAC grant:
An Integrated Plan for the Conservation of Endangered Plant Species
In the Florida Keys
Yucatan Flymallow (Cienfuegosia yucatanensis). Photo by S. Hodges
Submitted by:
The Key West Botanical Garden
and
Stephen Hodges, contract botanist
Submitted to:
Bryan Benson,
Endangered Plant Advisory Council (EPAC) Division of Plant Industry Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services
th
1911 S.W. 34 Street Gainesville, FL 32614-7100
Key West Garden EPAC grant: An Integrated Plan for the Conservation of
Endangered Plant Species in the Florida Keys
Introduction
This document serves as the final report for the 2011-2012 period of the EPAC grant
awarded to the Key West Botanical Garden Society (KWBGS). Since the beginning of
this funding cycle, concrete achievements have been made within the conservation
program of the KWBG. In November of this 2011, an agreement was reached to
contract Stephen Hodges, former resident botanist of KWBG, to coordinate and
implement the remaining goals of the conservation program for this funding cycle.
These activities were conducted under the supervision of the conservation committee of
the KWBG, which is headed by Mary Chandler, current president of the board of the
KWBGS.
Early on it was decided that a strategic planning session was needed to provide
direction for the conservation program and to assess the methodology and goals of the
EPAC and FDACS programs.
We met on November 21, 2011 to discuss and plan, members present were:
Stephen Hodges, contract botanist, Mary Chandler, Treasurer (now President) of the
Society, Rick Harty, President (now Treasurer) of the Society, Susie Reutling, Nursery
Manager, Beryn Harty, Collection committee and Misha McRae, General Manager.
As a result of this planning session, criteria were adopted to confine our target species
to a narrower scope. As a result, we assessed our list of target species, and deemphasized those taxa as follows:
1) Taxa such as Pilosocereus robinii, that are currently being studied by other
institutions. Although we continue to be interested in establishing accessions of
some of these species at the garden, we will not be pursuing any active research
with taxa currently involved in active research programs at other institutions. If
our assistance is requested by those institutions we would be most happy to
participate. .
2) Species that:
a.) we deemed to be very difficult to cultivate
b.) that were critically rare in the wild and where collection of propagation
material might have detrimental effects
c.) we viewed to have limited value in our ex-situ collection.
A number of the species originally on our target list were included because they
were state or federally listed within the Florida Keys. Although we recognize the
importance of continued study of these species, in these cases we felt that we
were not currently in a position to provide a meaningful basis and/or required
resources for their inclusion in our conservation cultivation program. Examples
of taxa that fell into this category are members of the Chamaesyce genus that
are listed in the Florida Keys. There is little information on propagating these
species, many are diminutive and potentially easily confused with common
weeds by volunteers, and are of questionable value in demonstration plantings at
KWBG or in out-plantings within their natural habitats. Other small pine rockland
herbs were also removed as immediate targets for inclusion based on this
criteria. Once again, we will not currently be actively pursuing propagation of
these species, although we remain open to potentially meaningful partnerships if
those situations arise within a broader multi-institutional framework.
3) An overall de-emphasis of those plant taxa whose primary or sole occurrence
is on Big Pine Key. This category includes many listed plant taxa, some of which
remain potentially meaningful for us to cultivate. However, we recognize that
many fiscal and research resources are currently focused on this location, along
with the pine rockland habitat within the Florida Keys. In some cases, such as
monitoring surveys for Linum arenicola in the Key Deer Refuge on Upper
Sugarloaf Key, KWBG still has a valuable role to play. The conservation
committee will consider inclusion of taxa that may occur on Big Pine Key on a
case by case basis.
Simply stated, KWBG is trying not to duplicate other efforts, especially those that may
be able to be conducted more thoroughly by other research programs with greater fiscal
resources and institutional capacity than KWBG. More importantly, we are seeking to
work with taxa that may not be currently focused on by other institutions and that fit our
current capacity.
As a result of this assessment the conservation committee of KWBG prioritized the
following:
1) Continued curating of endangered and threatened plant taxa already within the
conservation program, regardless of the above considerations.
2) Collection of seed, propagation and curating of appropriate germplasm of
threatened and endangered plant taxa not yet included in the program,
particularly those occurring in the Keys cactus barren habitat of the Florida Keys.
An additional aspect of this is conducting further research into this poorly
understood ecosystem, and assisting with monitoring, mapping and broad
conservation support of listed taxa that may occur within these sites.
3) Monitoring of other rare plant populations in the Florida Keys not currently being
worked on by other institutions.
4) Establishing new partnerships with other institutions that further KWBG’s
capacity to conduct meaningful conservation of rare plant taxa in the Florida
Keys, particularly those that further the above goals or address the potential
impacts of sea level rise in the Florida Keys and that do not conflict with the
above considerations.
At the conclusion of this process a plan was drawn up for discrete goals in the above
focus areas for the remainder of the funding cycle. Concrete achievements have now
been made in all of the above areas, and these are detailed in this report. Given that a
greater emphasis was given to endangered plant taxa that occur in Florida Keys cactus
barren habitat, a description of this habitat is included below.
Keys Cactus Barren Habitat
Keys cactus barren is a poorly understood and highly endangered habitat that occurs in
the Florida Keys. According to FNAI “Keys cactus barren is an open, primarily
herbaceous community with scattered shrubs on rocky areas of Key Largo limestone
with little soil or leaf litter. It occupies larger areas several acres in extent, or may occur
as small, scattered patches within the thorn scrub variant of rockland hammock.” FNAI
states the following about the range of this habitat “Keys cactus barren is confined to
the Florida Keys on limestone bedrock (Key Largo limestone) and is known from only
six sites, four on the Upper Keys and two from the southern arm of Big Pine Key which
is composed of Key Largo limestone (unlike the rest of Big Pine Key and the other
Lower Keys, which are composed of Miami oolite).” (FNAI, 2010) Because of the
paucity of sites in which it occurs, Keys cactus barren is likely the most endangered
habitat in the Florida Keys. Furthermore, due to the lack of attention it has received over
the years, in addition to the small and elusive nature of some of the cactus barren sites,
certain parcels have gone unnoticed and only recently been acquired for conservation.
The cactus barren habitat lacks a firm ecological description. In reality, these sites are
defined by the rare plant taxa that can potentially occur within them. Beyond habitat
descriptions by FNAI and IRC there seems to be no published data on underlying
ecological drivers that allow this particular species assemblage to occur, or the natural
disturbance events that maintain them. Of particular note, is the disparity in species
distribution among cactus barren sites. Other rockland habitats are driven by a
particular fire regime or the lack of fire. Cactus barren is a habitat that does not
experience fire, but is probably maintained by flood events, either in the event of storm
surge or periodic inundation by rain water. There are a number of important questions
needing research into the underlying drivers of this habitat.
Based on field observations by K. Bradley and S. Hodges, these habitats seem to occur
in two different locations. The first of these are barrens that occur in small areas along
ecotones between buttonwood dominated forests with salt tolerant herbs and rockland
hammock occurring at slightly higher elevations. These ecotones are usually long,
winding locations that are typically quite narrow in breadth. Frequently the elevational
gradient can be seen at these sites, amounting to a gradual ledge of sorts, and the bare
rock area along the ecotone harbors a unique species assemblage, including some
cacti, particularly Opuntia stricta. Importantly, only very specific locations within these
ecotones harbor the actual endangered cactus barren species assemblage. These are
typically quite small in relation to the overall size of the ecotone, and may be driven by a
more gradual elevational gradient. The Keys cactus barren sites on Lignumvitae Key
and at Snake Creek Hammock are good examples of this type of Keys cactus barren.
The other type of cactus barren occurs in flat areas, ranging in size from several acres
to a couple of meters across. They may, and frequently do, have areas of small trees
interspersed through them, along the sides of which some rare taxa, such as the federal
candidate species propagated at KWBG, Chromolaena frustrata, seem to find their
preferred habitat. The Valhalla cactus barren, the Long Key sites and the FDOT Lower
Matecumbe parcel are all good examples of this type. Examples of these differences
are shown in the figures below.
Although ecotone sites seem to offer appropriate habitat for many of the rare taxa that
might occur in this habitat, frequently, only a few listed species occur in the majority of
eco-tone sites. For example, the Fat Deer Key harbors none of the truly endangered
species that are in abundance at the Valhalla site, just slightly to the east. On the other
hand, Indigofera mucronata var. keyensis, found in abundance at the Valhalla site is
also found immediately to the north of U.S. 1 in somewhat disturbed conditions , as well
as at potentially two small sites on Long Point Key. One was located by Ross and Ruiz
in the late nineties (Ross and Ruiz 1996), and the other by Hodges and Fleites in 2005
(Hodges and Bradley, 2006). Similarly, on Lignumvitae Key, particularly rare taxa, such
as I. mucronata var. keyensis are only found in a small area (highlighted with a yellow
polygon in the figure) at the very western edge of the ecotone, and seem to be only
rarely present, perhaps triggered by storm events.
Figure 1: Eco-tone Cactus Rock Barren on Lignumvitae Key
Figure 2: Flat Keys cactus barren on Crawl Key, Valhalla Coastal Rock Barren Site,
Curry Hammock State Park
Figure 3: Ecotonal Rock Barren on Fat Deer Key, Curry Hammock State Park, this
ecotone seems to harbor very few of the taxa that might occur in the Keys Cactus
Barren habitat.
Figure 4: Flat cactus barren site on Lower Matecumbe, FDOT parcel
There are obviously dynamics at work underpinning the unique species assemblage
that can occur at these sites that are not currently understood. There may be very
specific elevations at some of these locations, or other factors not recognized as of yet.
In addition, there appear to be other differences between Keys cactus barren sites.
Although it seems that the open nature of these locations is apparently driven by
occasional flooding by sea water during extreme high tides, the site on the FDOT parcel
located on Lower Matecumbe was observed this year inundated after a period of heavy
rain. There may be a freshwater wetland affinity to some of these locations. See the
photo below. Additionally, there is greater soil and litter buildup at the FDOT site. This
particular location represents a very special opportunity to actually improve a cactus
barren, along with offering unique research opportunities. To help support this process,
the KWBG has entered into a license agreement with FDOT to allow us access to
conduct research and support cleanup, restoration and monitoring of the site.
Conservation of endangered plant taxa and additional ecological research of this habitat
is greatly needed. Results of recent conservation efforts within the KWBG conservation
program at propagating and monitoring some of these rare taxa are described within the
remainder of the report.
&KdƐŝƚĞĚƵƌŝŶŐƉĞƌŝŽĚŽĨĨƌĞƐŚǁĂƚĞƌŝŶƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂĨƚĞƌƌĂŝŶ͕ƉůĂŶƚƐǁŝƚŚLJĞůůŽǁĨůŽǁĞƌƐŝŶĨƌŽŶƚĂƌĞ
zƵĐĂƚĂŶ&ůLJŵĂůůŽǁ
ĂĐƚƵƐĂƌƌĞŶ,ĂďŝƚĂƚ͕ZŽĐŬƐƵďƐƚƌĂƚĞĐůŽƐĞƵƉ͕sĂůŚĂůůĂĂĐƚƵƐĂƌƌĞŶ^ŝƚĞ
ĂĐƚƵƐĂƌƌĞŶ,ĂďŝƚĂƚƐŚŽǁŝŶŐzƵĐĐĂĂůŽŝĨŽůŝĂ͕KƉƵŶƚŝĂƐƚƌŝĐƚĂ͕ĂŶĚĞdžƉŽƐĞĚƌŽĐŬƐƵďƐƚƌĂƚĞ͕ǁŝƚŚ
ŚĂŵŵŽĐŬĞĚŐĞ͕ƌĂǁů<ĞLJ͕ƵƌƌLJ,ĂŵŵŽĐŬ^ƚĂƚĞWĂƌŬ
Research Methodology
All plant surveys, wild collection of seed, vouchering of specimens, mapping and
monitoring of wild occurring plant populations, monitoring of Keys cactus barren habitat
and reporting on the results of these efforts were conducted by S. Hodges between
November 2011 and July 2012. Field notes were taken on each trip, along with photos
or other supporting documentation. GPS positions were taken on a Garmin GPS unit
for plants or seed collected or that were deemed of value in establishing population
distributions in targeted areas. These points were imported into Google Earth to
generate maps presented here. Voucher specimens were collected for plants where
germplasm was collected for propagation. These will be deposited at the Fairchild
Tropical Botanic Garden herbarium (FTG). Permits were acquired from the different
relevant land managers, and all research or collections were discussed with relevant
parties when activities were going to take place.
It should be noted that all species collected from Keys cactus barren sites were
originally surveyed by S. Hodges while conducting research for the Institute for Regional
Conservation (IRC), under a grant funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) (Hodges and Bradley, 2006). Work presented here is informed and
supported by those surveys, and IRC’s Floristic Inventory of South Florida (FISF) online
database was a valuable resource while conducting this work.
All propagation was conducted by Susie Reutling at the KWBG plant nursery with
consultation from S. Hodges. Soil initially used was a Fafard Larson custom mix.
Currently the garden has shifted to using Jungle mix and 50/50 mix from Mama’s
Landscaping for propagation. The Jungle mix is used for seed and cuttings, a mix of
Jungle mix and 50/50 (equal parts) for transplants, 50/50 for potting and planting. The
switch occurred on 7.1.2012, and so minimally impacts results reported here, but will be
relevant to future propagation efforts. Seeds were initially planted in 1 gallon pots, with
multiple seeds planted into communal pots. Experience has shown that seedlings are
less likely to dry out when using communal pots rather than small individual containers
in flats. Endangered plant species propagated or maintained by KWBG and covered by
EPAC funding are now located within in screened storage units, approximately 5X5X5,
with screen similar to mosquito netting. This is to prevent potential herbivory by
iguanas. Results
Five taxa were successfully collected and propagated at KWBG during the last grant
period. These are Cienfuegosia mucronata, Evolvulus convolvuloides, Hibiscus
poepiggii, Indigofera mucronata var. keyensis and Trema lamarckianum. Also
conducted were surveys of populations of Caesalpinnia pauciflora and Linum arenicola
in naturally occurring populations outside of Big Pine Key. KWBG also maintains
endangered plant taxa that have been covered under prior EPAC funding cycles.
These include Ageratum littoralis, Argythamnia blodgettii, Caesalpinnia pauciflora,
Chromolaena frustrata and Cyperus floridanus. We have continued to attempt to
propagate Strumpfia maritima but have had limited success with this species. All
results are detailed in Attachment B. New results achieved within the last year of
funding are detailed within the report below.
Cienfuegosia yucatanensis
Scientific Name: Cienfuegosia yucatanensis (Millsp.)
Common Names: Yucatan Flymallow
Family: Malvaceae
Synonyms: No synonyms exist for this species
State Status: Endangered
Discussion
C. yucatanensis was first collected in 1693 by C.F. Millspaugh in Yucatan, Mexico on
stony arid soil (Tropicos 2012). It is known from the West Indies, Florida and Mexico in
the Yucatan. Yucatan flymallow was first collected in the Florida Keys between 1838
and 1853 by John Loomis Blodgett on Lignumvitae Key. Subsequently it was collected
over the years from Windley Key south to Key West, where it is currently extirpated. As
of 2002 it was known from three conservation areas and two non-conservation areas
(Gann, Bradley and Woodmansee, 2002).
Several events have affected populations of Yucatan flymallow since 2002. Hurricane
Wilma had a major impact on coastal cactus barren sites in the Upper and Middle Keys,
where storm surge deposited large amounts of sediment into some of these sensitive
habitats. A full assessment of the long term impacts on the distribution and population
of this species in the Florida Keys is yet to be conducted. Development of the
Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park support facility on Lower Matecumbe also had a
detrimental effect on the population of Yucatan flymallow present there. In 2005, while
conducting surveys for USFWS with IRC, Hodges observed a population and remnant
coastal rock barren on DOT property across from the Lignumvitae Key site. The
population there is estimated to be in excess of 500 plants, making it potentially the
largest remaining population and an important location for this taxon.
Currently, the FDOT is removing exotics on this parcel in preparation for transfer into a
conservation site. This will be used as a mitigation parcel. Restoration at the site has
the potential to greatly enhance coastal rock barren habitat there. Hodges has
observed this population of C. yucatanensis several times in 2012. The species was
also vouchered here (Hodges #192). Figure 1 shows the current population distribution
at this site, and the photo below the figure shows Yucatan flymallow in habitat.
Seed was collected in January and again in April of 2012. A total of approximately 148
seeds were collected from the DOT site. The initial collection in January was of
approximately 30 seeds approximately 20 plants and another 118 from approximately
70 plants were collected in April. Seeds seemed to be molding in the dehisced seed
pods, and so were dried prior to propagation. Germination was poor. 6 seeds were
germinated from the initial collection and another 12 from the subsequent collection.
Yucatan Flymallow propagated in the KWBG nursery
Propagation and ex-situ curating of this taxon serves several benefits. The plant has
been extirpated from several islands where it has been observed over the last 150
years. Thus, out-planting this species where appropriate may re-establish long lost
populations. Key West being among these locations, KWBG is an ideal site to reestablish this species. Furthermore, because other populations of this species have
been heavily impacted in recent years, population augmentation may prove to be
valuable after further study.
Figure 5: Population distribution of C. yucatanensis on Lower Matecumbe Key, FDOT parcel C. yucatanensis in habitat, Lower Matecumbe Key, FDOT parcel
Evolvulus convolvuloides
Scientific name: Evolvulus convolvuloides (Willd. ex Schult.) Stearn
Common names:Bindweed dwarf morningglory, Dwarf bindweed
Family: Convolulaceae
Synonyms͗Evolvulus glaber, Evolvulus glabriusculus, Evolvulus mucronatus, Nama
convolvuloides
State Status: Not listed in Florida
Discussion
E. convolvuloides is considered imperiled by IRC and is an important, defining
component of the rare Keys cactus barren habitat. Therefore, although not listed by the
state of Florida, it warranted inclusion in our conservation program. Furthermore,
because several other members of the genus Evolvulus are state listed in Florida,
including some with narrow distributions in the Florida Keys, it is a good surrogate for
other taxa that may be candidates for cultivation in the future. It is known from Florida,
the Caribbean Basin, Central America, Mexico and South America. To our knowledge,
it had not been cultivated prior to current propagation at KWBG. Bindweed dwarf
morningglory is known from 8 conservation areas in the Florida Keys. It has also been
recorded in Miami-Dade county and mainland Monroe County. It is known from Keys
cactus barren, coastal berm and disturbed upland sites (Gann Bradley and
Woodmansee, 2002).
A total of 29 seeds were collected from 20 plants at the FDOT site on Lower
Matecumbe in January 2012. Total population is estimated to between 500 and 1000
plants at the site. A voucher specimen was also collected by S. Hodges at this time
(Hodges 193). Ten seeds were initially planted in January with a 40% germination rate.
Germination took approximately 1 month. Additional seed was planted in May, from
which only one plant germinated. To prevent iguana predation, plants were moved into
a small screened in enclosure. E. convolvuloides shares the same population
distribution as C. yucatanensis at the FDOT site on Lower Matecumbe.
Hibiscus poeppigii
Photo by R. Hammer
Scientific name: Hibiscus poeppigii (Spreng.) Garcke
Common names: Poeppig’s rosemallow
Plant Family: Malvaceae
State Status: Endangered
Synonyms: Achania floridana, Achania poeppigii, Hibiscus floridanus, Malache
poeppigii, Malvaviscus floridanus
Discussion
H. poeppigii is known from Florida, Cuba, Jamaica, Mexico and Guatemala. It is
considered imperiled by IRC. In Florida it has been recorded in Collier, Miami-Dade,
Monroe county mainland and the Florida Keys. It has been recorded in Keys cactus
barren and rockland hammock (Gann, Bradley and Woodmansee, 2006). It is included
here as a further component of the Keys cactus barren. S. Hodges observed this
species at Snake Creek Hammock on Plantation Key in January 7, 2012. At this time,
approximately 20 seeds were collected from 3 plants with a total of 3 dehisced fruit
collected. It was also vouchered at this time (Hodges 191). It was found occurring with
I. mucronata var. keyensis, where the two taxa were actually observed twining around
each other on several occasions.
It seems to prefer slightly shaded or sunny areas in small gaps along the ecotone edge.
Cordia globosa was also observed at the site. This species, although common in
cultivation, is rare in the wild. The majority of plants were observed growing under
buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) or along the rockland hammock edge. Seeds were
sown with little success, however after approximately 3 months, three seedlings finally
germinated. These continue to grow and are now housed in a screened enclosure to
prevent predation by iguanas. Figure 6 shows the population distribution and collection
points of H. poeppigii along with I. mucronata var. keyensis at Snake Creek Hammock.
Poeppig’s Rosemallow propagated in the KWBG nursery
Figure 6: H. poeppigii locations, along with I. mucronata var. keyensis and Cordia
globosa
Indigofera mucronata var. keyensis
Scientific name: Indigofera mucronata Spreng. ex DC. var. keyensis (Small) Isley
Common names: Florida Keys Indigo
Family: Fabaceae
Synonyms: Indigofera jamaicensis, Indigofera keyensis, Indigofera mucronata,
Indigofera trita L.f. subsp. scabra
State Listing: Endangered
Discussion
Up until recently considered an endemic federal candidate species, I. mucronata var.
keyensis is now treated as a synonym of I. trita subsp. scabra by Wunderlin and
Hansen (Wunderlin and Hansen, 2003). The study published by de Kort and Thijsse in
1984 placed this as a synonym of I. trita which seems to have an exceptionally broad
and unusual distribution including Madagascar, Africa including South Africa and New
Guinea (de Kort and Thijsee 1984). As such, and considering its rare and restricted
range in the Florida Keys, we have continued to treat this under its former name and
have included it in our conservation program. It is possible that genetic analysis of
material may be warranted in this case to help supply a definitive answer. Either way,
the species remains a rare component of our flora.
Florida Keys indigo was collected by A.W. Chapman (s.n. US) probably on Marco Island
in the 1800’s, it was also collected by A.P. Garber (s.n. US) in 1877 at “Miami”. These
are the only known collections outside of the Florida Keys. There it was apparently first
collected on Lignumvitae Key by John Loomis Blodgett sometime between 1838 and
1853. This was the only known observation of the taxa on Lignumvitae Key despite
repeated surveys by numerous botanists until it was found and vouchered by Hodges in
2005, some 150 years later. It is currently known from 11 locations in the Florida Keys,
some of which are on the same islands. For a more thorough discussion of the history
and locations in 2005 see Hodges and Bradley 2006.
Indigofera mucronata var. keyensis fruit detail showing curved tip.
Florida Keys Indigo was observed in two locations for this study. In January of 2012
seed was collected by S. Hodges in cactus barren habitat in Snake Creek Hammock on
Plantation Key. Figure 7 shows the current population distribution at Snake Creek
Hammock. At this time 25 seeds were collected from approximately 15 plants. Seed
was propagated shortly after, with a germination rate of 50%. On the same date,
Florida Keys Indigo was observed, and collected at the FDOT site on Lower Matecumbe
Key where another 25 seeds were collected. Seed was planted with a germination rate
of 50%. A total of 30 plants were germinated from these two sites.
da
Florida Key’s Indigo propagated in the KWBG nursery
A voucher specimen was also collected by S. Hodges (Hodges 194) at the FDOT site at
this time. To our knowledge, this species has not been cultivated prior to this effort. A
further visit to the FDOT site mapped the population at the FDOT site which is shown in
Figure 8.
&ŝŐƵƌĞϳ͗ŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨ/͘ŵƵĐƌŽŶĂƚĂǀĂƌ͘ŬĞLJĞŶƐŝƐĂƚ^ŶĂŬĞƌĞĞŬ,ĂŵŵŽĐŬƐ͕WůĂŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ<ĞLJ
&ŝŐƵƌĞϴ͗ŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨ/͘ŵƵĐƌŽŶĂƚĂǀĂƌ͘ŬĞLJĞŶƐŝƐŽŶ>ŽǁĞƌDĂƚĞĐƵŵďĞ͕&KdƐŝƚĞ
Trema lamarckianum
WŚŽƚŽďLJ^͘ĞŶƚŽŶ
Scientific Name: Trema lamarckianum (Schult.) Blume
Common Names: West Indian trema, Pain-in-the-back
Family: Ulmaceae
Synonyms: Celtis lamarckiana, Celtis lima, Sponia lamarckiana
State Listing: Endangered
Discussion
T. lamarckianum occurs in S. Florida and the West Indies. In Florida it is known from
Collier, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. It is included here for two primary reasons.
First is that KWBG maintains an excellent and substantial collection of the native trees
of the Florida Keys. This being one that was not present in the collection, it represented
an ideal candidate for inclusion in the program. In addition and more importantly from a
conservation standpoint, T. lamarckianum seemed to represent a species that might
prove resistant to the spiraling white fly invasion that has occurred in the Florida Keys.
Based on personal observation, the Lower Keys seemed to be the hardest hit of the
areas in Florida where this pest has arisen. KWBG was impacted by a large infestation
that seemed to include virtually every native tree present. Because of the importance of
this site for migrating birds, we hoped that this species might provide a much needed
added food source for migrating birds. Due to the rapid growth rate and successional
nature of Trema species in Florida, we surmised that it might be a relatively rapid
replacement for trees that might be potentially lost due to whitefly impact. Finally, the
species seems highly salt tolerant, which makes it a further good candidate for the
Lower Keys.
This species was collected in November by S. Hodges on Florida Power and Light
property near Turkey Point. Approximately 100 seeds were collected from 2 trees.
Based on a literature search of research done in Africa, where another species of
Trema is cultivated for firewood, we soaked seed in a gibberellin acid solution. Seed
that had been soaked for 5 hours yielded a 50% germination rate as opposed to those
without the treatment where only 1 germinated. This species has been a success in
cultivation and numerous individuals are now growing in the KWBG nursery.
tĞƐƚ/ŶĚŝĂŶdƌĞŵĂŝŶƚŚĞ<t'ŐĂƌĚĞŶ
Linum arenicola
Photo by K. Bradley
Scientific Name: Linum arenicola (Small) Winkl.
Common Names: Sand Flax
Family: Linaceae
Synonyms: Cathartolinum arenicola
State Status: Endangered
Federal Status: Candidate
Discussion
L. arenicola is endemic to S. Florida in Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. It has a
poorly understood life history, and given its diminutive size, can be difficult to spot in the
field. Populations in the Florida Keys are known currently known from 3 islands. These
are Big Pine Key, Upper Sugarloaf Key at the Key Deer Refuge and Lower Sugarloaf
Key adjacent to a Florida Keys Environmental Lands parcel. Formerly, two other
populations were known on Middle Torch and Big Torch Keys. These were seen by
Hodges as recently as 2005, however despite repeated surveys in the intervening
years, have not been relocated.
The Upper Sugarloaf Key population was discovered by Steve Woodmansee in (2009).
It was originally mapped by S. Hodges for a separate grant awarded by the Florida
Native Plant Society in 2010. The Big Pine Key population continues to be surveyed by
K. Bradley of IRC among others, and therefore we have not attempted to map this
occurrence. Additionally, the Big Pine Key population requires extensive surveys using
a grid plot system that covers the substantial potential habitat on Big Pine Key. The
other two extant populations are not currently being surveyed by any other institutions,
and are therefore included here. Data presented here represents a survey and
population estimate for two of the three remaining Florida Keys populations.
Both of these occur on road sides adjacent to natural areas. The Lower Sugarloaf Key
is by far the largest, with an estimated population of around 1000 plants. The diminutive
size, and grass like appearance of L. arenicola make actual counts extremely difficult,
and it can frequently be almost impossible to locate if not in flower. The photo below,
facing north, shows the habitat of sand flax on Lower Sugarloaf Key. Figures 8 and 9
show the distribution of these populations. The population on Upper Sugarloaf Key,
Figures 6 and 7, is much smaller, representing approximately 200 individuals.
,ĂďŝƚĂƚŽĨ>͘ĂƌĞŶŝĐŽůĂŽŶ>ŽǁĞƌ^ƵŐĂƌůŽĂĨ<ĞLJ
&ŝŐƵƌĞϵ͗^ƵƌǀĞLJƐĨŽƌ>͘ĂƌĞŶŝĐŽůĂŽŶhƉƉĞƌ^ƵŐĂƌůŽĂĨ<ĞLJ͕EĂƚŝŽŶĂů<ĞLJĞĞƌZĞĨƵŐĞ
&ŝŐƵƌĞϭϬ͗DĂƉƉĞĚƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨ>͘ĂƌĞŶŝĐŽůĂŽŶhƉƉĞƌ^ƵŐĂƌůŽĂĨ<ĞLJ
&ŝŐƵƌĞϭϭ͗^ƵƌǀĞLJƐŽĨ>͘ĂƌĞŶŝĐŽůĂŽŶ>ŽǁĞƌ^ƵŐĂƌůŽĂĨ<ĞLJ͕&ůŽƌŝĚĂ<ĞLJƐŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů>ĂŶĚƐ
&ŝŐƵƌĞϭϮ͗DĂƉƉĞĚƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨ>͘ĂƌĞŶŝĐŽůĂŽŶ>ŽǁĞƌ^ƵŐĂƌůŽĂĨ<ĞLJ
Caesalpinnia pauciflora
Scientific Name: Caesalpinia pauciflora (Griseb.) C. Wright
Common Names: Fewflower holdback
Family: Fabaceae
Synonyms: Libidibia pauciflora, Poinciana pauciflora
State Listing: Endangered
Discussion
C. pauciflora is native to S. Florida and the West Indies (Gann, Bradley and
Woodmansee, 2002). In Florida it is known only from the Lower Keys, where the
primary population occurs on Big Pine Key. Seed was collected from plants near
Watson Hammock on Big Pine Key during October, 2010 of the prior funding cycle
awarded by EPAC. KWBG maintains 7 individuals, which have shown considerable
growth during the prior year. Trials are now underway using a variety of methods to
assess the viability of cuttings from this rare Florida Keys species. Additionally, surveys
were conducted on Cudjoe Key at the National Key Deer Refuge in May 26, 2012 to
assess the population of C. pauciflora present there.
The species seems to primarily occur on cleared fire breaks in this portion of the Key
Deer preserve, probably because of an affinity for more open areas which would be
generated during fire events. The population on Cudjoe is estimated to be in excess of
500 individuals. Figure 9 represents the distribution along fire breaks in the Cudjoe Key
area of the National Key Deer Refuge. It is entirely possible that this species is in other
areas of this pineland, however the dense nature of the area, along with the heavy
prevalence of poisonwood (Metopium toxiferum) make extensive surveys in this area
difficult.
Figure 13: C. pauciflora population distribution on Cudjoe Key, National Key Deer
Refuge
Fewflower Holdback in propagation at the KWBG nursery
Conclusions
The Key West Botanical Garden has administered a cohesive and productive
conservation program over the prior grant funding cycle. Numerous future possibilities
exist for further contribution, particularly with regards to the support of the conservation
and research of the highly endangered Keys cactus barren habitat and the numerous
listed plant taxa within it. To further this goal, the KWBGS has entered into a license
agreement with the FDOT to support their efforts at restoring and ultimately transferring
an important Keys cactus barren site into conservation status. KWBG has begun to
mobilize volunteers to help with trash pickup, monitoring of rare plant populations at the
site, and to donate endangered plant taxa currently in cultivation at KWBG that may
either not be present at the site or may be in need of population augmentation. These
activities will continue to occur over the next year, despite the lack of EPAC funding.
In addition to this, KWBG has maintained a robust conservation program focused on
plant taxa not currently being addressed by other institutions. We are providing an
important contribution on a number of fronts that aid in the monitoring, research,
propagation, public education and curating of endangered plant taxa in the Florida
Keys. We are also highly cognizant of the impending potential effects of sea level rise
in the Florida Keys. In order to help address potentially devastating impacts, we have
recently entered into conversations with members of Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden
to begin collaborative widespread and comprehensive collection of endangered Florida
Keys plant germplasm.
The intention is to deposit this germplasm at the National Germplasm facility in
Colorado. This would involve a widespread, grassroots based effort that is ideally
supported by KWBG. Although small, the KWBG has a robust volunteer base and is
ideally located in the Lower Keys, and as such we are in the perfect position to support
an effort to begin broad scale preservation of the unique plant germplasm of the Florida
Keys. Finally, our numerous successes in the propagation, curating, education and
research of the rare plants of the Florida Keys points to the fact that this important
conservation program will only continue to grow with continued future support.
Bibliography
De Kort, I., and G. Thijsse. 1984. A revision of the genus Indigofera (LeguminosaePapilionideae) in Southeast Asia. Blumea 30:89-151
Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources. FNAI
and FDNR. 1990. Guide to the natural communities of Florida. Florida Natural
Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee,
Florida.
Available at: http://www.fnai.org/PDF/Natural_Communities_Guide.pdf
Gann, G.D., K.A. Bradley and S. W. Woodmansee. 2002. The Rare Plants of South
Florida: Their History, conservation and Restoration. Miami: The Institute for
Regional Conservation.
Gann, G.D., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2012. The Floristic Inventory of
South Florida Database. Online.
http://www.regionalconservation.org/ircs/database/Database.asp. The Institute
for Regional Conservation, Miami, FL.
Hodges, S.R. and K.A. Bradley. The Distribution and Population Size of Five Candidate
Plant Taxa in the Florida Key. Report Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 2006.
Ross, M. and P. Ruiz. 1996. A Study of the Distribution of Several South Florida
Endemic Plants in the Florida Keys. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Miami: Southeastern Environmental Research Program,
Florida International University.
Tropicos.org. Missouri Botanical Garden. 6 Oct 2012 http://www.tropicos.org ©
2012 Missouri Botanical Garden.
Wunderlin, R.P. 1998 Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida. Second Edition.
University Press of Florida; Gainesville, FL.
W ƌŐLJƚŚĂŵŶŝĂ
ůŽĚŐĞƚƚΖƐtŝůĚ ďůŽĚŐĞƚƚŝ
DĞƌĐƵƌLJ
W
ĂĞƐĂůƉŝŶŝĂ
&ĞǁĨůŽǁĞƌ
ƉĂƵĐŝĨůŽƌĂͲ
ŚŽůĚďĂĐŬ
W
ϭϬ͘Ϯϴ͘ϭϬ
ϮƉŽƚƐŝŶ
ŶƵƌƐĞƌLJͬϭ
ĚŝĞĚͲ
ŵŽůĚ
ϱ͘Ϯϲ͘ϭϮǭ
ƌĞĐĚ
ϳ͘ϳ͘ϭϮ
W
ŐĞƌĂƚƵŵ
<ĞLJƐŐĞƌĂƚƵŵ ůŝƚƚŽƌĂůĞͲW
W ƌŐLJƚŚĂŵŶŝĂ
ůŽĚŐĞƚƚΖƐtŝůĚ ďůŽĚŐĞƚƚŝ
DĞƌĐƵƌLJ
ϭ͘ϭϰ͘ϭϮ
ŐĞƌĂƚƵŵ
W
<ĞLJƐŐĞƌĂƚƵŵ ůŝƚƚŽƌĂůĞͲW
ƵƚƚŝŶŐƐ
<t'
EƵƌƐĞƌLJ
<t'
EƵƌƐĞƌLJ
<t'
EƵƌƐĞƌLJ
ϮϬϭϬ
ϭϮ͘ϭϳ͘ϭϭ
ŐĞƌĂƚƵŵ
W
<ĞLJƐŐĞƌĂƚƵŵ ůŝƚƚŽƌĂůĞͲW
ƵƚƚŝŶŐƐ
W
ŐĞƌĂƚƵŵ
<ĞLJƐŐĞƌĂƚƵŵ
ůŝƚƚŽƌĂůĞͲW
W
ŐĞƌĂƚƵŵ
<ĞLJƐŐĞƌĂƚƵŵ ůŝƚƚŽƌĂůĞͲW
ŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ
>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ
ͬWƌĞƉ
ĂƚĞ
ϮϬϭϬ
ŽŵŵŽŶEĂŵĞ ^ĐŝĞŶƚŝĨŝĐEĂŵĞ ŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ
ϭĐŽŵ
ƉŽƚ
Ϯϴ
ĐƵƚƚŝŶŐƐ
ϭϰ
ĐƵƚƚŝŶŐƐ
^͘ZĞƵƚůŝŶŐ ĐƵƚƚŝŶŐƐ
͘,ĂƌƚLJ
^ƵƐŝĞ
ZĞƵƚůŝŶŐ
^ƵƐŝĞ
ZĞƵƚůŝŶŐ
ŽůůĞĐƚĞĚ η^ĞĞĚ͕
ďLJ
ĐƵƚƚŝŶŐƐ
E
E
ϭϮ͘ϭ͘ϭϬ
ĂƚĞ
^ĞĞĚ
^ŽǁŶ
ϭϬ͘ϭ͘ϭϬ
ϯϯ
ƚƌĂŶƐƉůĂŶƚĞĚ
ϭϬ͘ϲ͘ϭϮ
ƚƌĞĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚ
ĨƵŶŐŝĐŝĚĞͲ
ƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐƉůĂŶƚ
ŚĞĂůƚŚLJ
ĂƚĞ
йĂŐĞ
ĂƚĞ
dƌĂŶƐƉůĂŶƚ
'ĞƌŵŝŶĂƚĞĚ
dƌĂŶƐƉůĂŶƚĞĚ͕ >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶͬĂƚĞΘ
ŝǀŝĚĞĚ
EŽƚĞƐ
ϱ͘ϭ͘ϭϭ
ϮϭƉŽƚƚĞĚ
^ĞƚŽƵƚŝŶ
ϴ͘Ϯϵ͘ϭϭ
&ůƵƚƚĞƌďLJ&ŝĞůĚ
ϳ͘ϭ͘ϭϭ
ϯϲƉŽƚƚĞĚ
^ĞƚŽƵƚŝŶ
ϭϭ͘ϳ͘ϭϭ
ŽŶĐĞƌƚ
ŽƌŶĞƌͬ^ŽůĚͲ
'ĂƌĚĞŶ&ĞƐƚ
E
ϲϰй
ϵƉŽƚƚĞĚ
'ŝǀĞŶƚŽ<t
Ϯ͘Ϯϱ͘ϭϮ
'ĂƌĚĞŶůƵď
ĂŶĚƚŽ<t,ŝŐŚ
^ĐŚŽŽů
E
ϵϯй
ϮϬƉŽƚƚĞĚ
ϱ͘ϵ͘ϭϮϮƉŽƚƐ
ǁŝƚŚϯĞĂĐŚ͕
ŵŽƌĞϳ͘ϭϭ͘ϭϮ
WŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚWƌŽƉĂŐĂƚŝŽŶ>ŽŐϭϬ͘ϭϯ͘ϭϮ
͘,ĂƌƚLJ
ǀŽůǀƵƵƐ
ĐŽŶǀŽůǀƵůŽŝĚĞƐ
ͲW
W^ůĞŶĚĞƌ
ǁĂƌĨDŽƌŶŝŶŐ
'ůŽƌLJ
W
,ŝďŝƐĐƵƐ
WŽĞƉƉŝŐŝŝ
ƉŽĞƉƉŝŐŝŝͲ
ZŽƐĞŵĂůůŽǁ
W
ǀŽůǀƵƵƐ
ĐŽŶǀŽůǀƵůŽŝĚĞƐ
ͲW
W^ůĞŶĚĞƌ
ǁĂƌĨDŽƌŶŝŶŐ
'ůŽƌLJ
ϭ͘ϲ͘ϭϮ
ϭ͘ϲ͘ϭϮ
ĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚ
ϮϵƐĞĞĚ
ϭ͘ϲ͘ϭϮ
ĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚ
ϮϵƐĞĞĚ
^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ
,ŽĚŐĞƐ
^ŶĂŬĞ
ƌĞĞŬ
,ĂŵŵŽĐŬ
>ŽǁĞƌ
^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ
DĂƚĞĐƵŵďĞ ,ŽĚŐĞƐ
Kd
>ŽǁĞƌ
^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ
DĂƚĞĐƵŵďĞ ,ŽĚŐĞƐ
Kd
>ŽǁĞƌ
DĂƚĞĐƵŵďĞ
Kd
ϭ͘ϲ͘ϭϮ
ĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚ
ϯϬƐĞĞĚ
ŵŽůĚLJ
ϳͬϭͬϭϵϬϱ
W
ŚƌŽŵŽůĂĞŶĂ
ĨƌƵƐƚƌĂƚĂͲW
ĂƉĞ^ĂďůĞ
dŚŽƌŽƵŐŚǁŽƌƚ
ϭϬ
ĐƵƚƚŝŶŐƐ
ϭϱ
ƐĞĞĚƐ
ϭϵ
ƐĞĞĚƐ
ϭϬ
ƐĞĞĚƐ
ϯϬ
ƐĞĞĚƐ
;ŵŽůĚͲ
ĚƌŝĞĚͿ
ϭϭϴ
ƐĞĞĚƐ
^͘ZĞƵƚůŝŶŐ ϭĐŽŵŵ
ƉŽƚǁϰ
ĐƵƚƚŝŶŐƐ
W
ŝĞŶĨƵŐŽƐŝĂ
zƵĐĂƚĂŶ
LJƵĐĂƚĞŶƐŝĂͲ
&ůLJŵĂůůŽǁ
W
W
ĂĞƐĂůƉŝŶŝĂ
&ĞǁĨůŽǁĞƌ
ƉĂƵĐŝĨůŽƌĂͲ
ŚŽůĚďĂĐŬ
W
EƵƌƐĞƌLJ
^͘
ZĞƵƚůŝŶŐ
ϰ͘ϭϯ͘ϭϮ >ŽǁĞƌ
^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ
ϰ͘ϭϰ͘ϭϮ DĂƚĞĐƵŵďĞ ,ŽĚŐĞƐ
Kd
ĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚ
ϭϭϴƐĞĞĚ
ϳ͘Ϯϱ͘ϭϮ
W
ĂĞƐĂůƉŝŶŝĂ
&ĞǁĨůŽǁĞƌ
ƉĂƵĐŝĨůŽƌĂͲ
ŚŽůĚďĂĐŬ
W
EƵƌƐĞƌLJ
W
ŝĞŶĨƵŐŽƐŝĂ
LJƵĐĂƚĞŶƐŝĂ
zƵĐĂƚĂŶ
&ůLJŵĂůůŽǁ
ϰ͘Ϯϱ͘ϭϮ
W
ĂĞƐĂůƉŝŶŝĂ
&ĞǁĨůŽǁĞƌ
ƉĂƵĐŝĨůŽƌĂͲ
ŚŽůĚďĂĐŬ
W
ϭ͘ϭϭ͘ϭϮ
ϱ͘ϭϲ͘ϭϮ
ϭ͘ϭϭ͘ϭϮ
ϰ͘ϰ͘ϭϮ
ϱ͘ϭϱ͘ϭϮ
ϳ͘ϭ͘ϭϬ
E
ϳ͘Ϯϱ͘ϭϮ
Ϯ͘Ϯϱ͘ϭϮ;ϰͿ
ϲ͘ϭϲ͘ϭϮ
ϲ͘ϭϲ͘ϭϮ
E
ϱ
ŽŶůLJ
ϰϬй
ϮϬй
&Ăŝů
ϭƉŽƚ
ϭƉŽƚ
WŽƚƚĞĚϯ
ϵ͘ϭϵ͘ϭϮͬĂůƐŽ
ϭĐŽŵŵƉŽƚƐ
ǁŝƚŚϱ
ƐĞĞĚůŝŶŐƐ
WŽƚƚĞĚϲ
ϵ͘ϭϵ͘ϭϮͬĂůƐŽ
ϭĐŽŵŵƉŽƚƐ
ǁŝƚŚϰ
ƐĞĞĚůŝŶŐƐ
ϰϰƉŽƚƚĞĚ
ϲ͘ϭϭ͘ϭϭ
ϯϭŐĂůƉŽƚƐ
ϭƐƵƌǀŝǀŝŶŐ
ϳ͘ϵ͘ϭϭϯƉůĂŶƚĞĚ
ŽƵƚŝŶ
&&ͬϴ͘ϭϯ͘ϭϭϭϴ
ŽƵƚŝŶ&&Ͳ
ǀĂƌŝŽƵƐ
ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ
^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ
,ŽĚŐĞƐ
^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ
,ŽĚŐĞƐ
ϰ͘ϭϰ͘ϭϮ
>ŽǁĞƌ
W
/ŶĚŝŐŽƉŚĞƌĂ
ϱϳƐĞĞĚƐ DĂƚĞĐƵŵďĞ
&ůŽƌŝĚĂ<ĞLJƐ
DƵĐƌŽŶĂƚĂ
ǀĂƌ͘ŬĞLJĞŶƐĞͲ
Kd
/ŶĚŝŐŽ
W
ϭϭ͘ϭϵ͘ϭϭ
ϮϬϬнƐĞĞĚ
ϭϭ͘ϭϵ͘ϭϭ
ϮϬϬнƐĞĞĚ
ϭϭ͘ϭϵ͘ϭϭ
ϮϬϬнƐĞĞĚ
W dƌĞŵĂ
tĞƐƚ/ŶĚŝĞƐ
ůĂŵĂƌŬŝĂŶĂͲ
dƌĞŵĂ
W
dƌĞŵĂ
W
tĞƐƚ/ŶĚŝĞƐ
ůĂŵĂƌŬŝĂŶĂͲ
dƌĞŵĂ
W
W
dƌĞŵĂ
tĞƐƚ/ŶĚŝĞƐ
ůĂŵĂƌŬŝĂŶĂͲ
dƌĞŵĂ
W
dƵƌŬĞLJ
WŽŝŶƚ
dƵƌŬĞLJ
WŽŝŶƚ
^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ
,ŽĚŐĞƐ
^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ
,ŽĚŐĞƐ
^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ
,ŽĚŐĞƐ
dƵƌŬĞLJ
WŽŝŶƚ
ϭϮ
ƐĞĞĚƐ
ϭϬϬн
ϱϬн
ϭϬϬн
Ϯϱ
ƐĞĞĚƐ
ϯϲ
ƐĞĞĚƐ
Ϯϱ
ƐĞĞĚƐ
^͘ZĞƵƚůŝŶŐ ĐƵƚƚŝŶŐƐ
W
ϭ͘ϲ͘ϭϮ
^ŶĂŬĞ
/ŶĚŝŐŽƉŚĞƌĂ
ĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚ
ƌĞĞŬ
&ůŽƌŝĚĂ<ĞLJƐ
DƵĐƌŽŶĂƚĂ
ǀĂƌ͘ŬĞLJĞŶƐĞͲ
ϳϮƐĞĞĚ
,ĂŵŵŽĐŬ
/ŶĚŝŐŽ
W
EƵƌƐĞƌLJ
^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ
,ŽĚŐĞƐ
ϳ͘Ϯϱ͘ϭϮ
W
,ŝďŝƐĐƵƐ
WŽĞƉƉŝŐŝŝ
ƉŽĞƉƉŝŐŝŝͲ
ZŽƐĞŵĂůůŽǁ
W
^ŶĂŬĞ
ƌĞĞŬ
,ĂŵŵŽĐŬ
W
/ŶĚŝŐŽƉŚĞƌĂ
ϭ͘ϲ͘ϭϮ
^ŶĂŬĞ
&ůŽƌŝĚĂ<ĞLJƐ
DƵĐƌŽŶĂƚĂ
ĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚ
ƌĞĞŬ
/ŶĚŝŐŽ
ǀĂƌ͘ŬĞLJĞŶƐĞͲ
ϳϮƐĞĞĚ
,ĂŵŵŽĐŬ
W
ϭ͘ϲ͘ϭϮ
W
,ŝďŝƐĐƵƐ
WŽĞƉƉŝŐŝŝ
ƉŽĞƉƉŝŐŝŝͲ
ZŽƐĞŵĂůůŽǁ
W
ϯϯй
Ϯ͘ϮϮ͘ϭϮ
'ŝďĞƌĞůůŝĐ
ĐŝĚƐŽĂŬ
ϱŚŽƵƌƐ
ϭ͘ϰ͘ϭϭ
'ŝďĞƌĞůůŝĐ
ĐŝĚƐŽĂŬ
ϭŚƌ
ϳϱͲ
ϭϭ͘Ϯϯ͘ϭϭ
ϱ͘ϭϲ͘ϭϮ
ϰƉŽƚƐ
ϲ͘ϮϬ͘ϭϮ
Ϯ͘ϭϱ͘ϭϮ
ϭ͘ϭϯ͘ϭϮ
ϭĐŽŵŵƉŽƚ
ǁŝƚŚϮϬн
ƐĞĞĚůŝŶŐƐ
ϰ
ŽŶůLJ
ϯ
ŽŶůLJ
ϯϴƉŽƚƚĞĚ
ϵ͘ϭϮ͘ϭϮϭϮ
ƉŽƚƐǁŝƚŚϮĞĂͲ
ϮϰƚŽƚĂůсϲϮ
ϰ
ƚƌĂŶƐƉůĂŶƚĞĚ
Ϯ͘Ϯϱ͘ϭϮ
ϯ
ƚƌƌĂŶƐƉůĂŶƚĞĚ
Ϯ͘ϭϱ͘ϭϮ
ϱϬй
ϭϲ
ϭϯ
ƚƌĂŶƐƉůĂŶƚĞĚ
ŐĞƌŵŝŶĂƚĞĚ
ϳ͘ϭϭ͘ϭϮ
ϲ͘ϭϲ͘ϭϮ
ϭĐŽŵŵƉŽƚ
ϱ͘ϭϲ͘ϭϮ
ǁŝƚŚϮϬн
ƐĞĞĚůŝŶŐƐ
ϭ͘ϭϭ͘ϭϮ
Ϯ͘ϮϮ͘ϭϮ