Download Species Summary - Ephedra antisyphilitica

LC
Ephedra antisyphilitica
Taxonomic Authority:
Berland. ex C.A.Mey.


Global Assessment
Regional Assessment
Region:
Global
Synonyms
Common Names
Ephedra antisyphilitic Torr. ex Stapf.
Ephedra antisyphilitic Cory
CLIPWEED
DRUG-PIMA
English
English
Ephedra occidentalis Torr. ex Parl.
MORMON TEA
English
Ephedra texana

Endemic to region

Plant Hybrid
E.L. Reed
Upper Level Taxonomy
Kingdom:
PLANTAE
Phylum:
TRACHEOPHYTA
Class:
GNETOPSIDA
Order:
EPHEDRALES
Family:
EPHEDRACEAE
Lower Level Taxonomy
Rank:
Infra- rank name:
Subpopulation:
Authority:
General Information
Distribution
USA including Oklahoma and Texas, south to north-east Mexico.
Range Size
Elevation
Biogeographic Realm
Area of Occupancy:
Upper limit:
1400
Extent of Occurrence:
Lower limit:
40
Map Status:
Depth
Upper limit:
Lower limit:
Depth Zones


Shallow photic
Photic


Bathyl
Abyssal

Hadal








Afrotropical
Antarctic
Australasian
Neotropical
Oceanian
Palearctic
Indomalayan
Nearctic
Population
Known to range from less than ten plants to more than 100 at a site. Plants are generally scattered and seldom dominant in a
community (NatureServe 2009). It has been recorded as common, although exact population size is not known. Mexican
populations of E. antisyphilitica are disjunct from those in Texas.
Total Population Size
Minimum Population Size:
Maximum Population Size:
Habitat and Ecology
Erect shrub growing on rocky hills often in calcareous (limestone) soil that is sandy or clayey. Also reported from canyons and
dry river plains, rocky slopes, arid areas such as scrubland, scrub woodland or waste ground growing alongside plant species
such as Opuntia, Berberia, Yucca, Condalia, Mesquite, Zanthoxylum, Celtis, Zizyphus, Acacia, Leucophyllum and grasses. Flowers
and fruits from March to early May and the cone bracts of this species are succulent and eaten by birds. Coning March - April.
System

Movement pattern
Terrestrial


Freshwater
Marine


Nomadic
Migratory


Crop Wild Relative
Congregatory/Dispersive

Is the species a wild relative of a crop?
Altitudinally migrant
Growth From
Definition
Shrub - large
Perennial shrub (>1m), also termed a Phanerophyte (>1m)
Threats
Main threats include harvesting for local use (e.g. various medicinal uses, but also for landscaping), grazing (thought to be
palatable to livestock and deer) and wildfire, although these are all minor threats at present.
Past

13 None
Present Future


Conservation Measures
Global threat status was rated by NatureServe (2009) as G3 Vulnerable, which is equivalent to an IUCN rating of Near
Threatened. Seed is not known to have been collected as an ex situ conservation measure although it is known to occur in four
botanic gardens. Although collections have not been reported specifically from protected areas, it is likely that the scattered
populations overlap with the existing protected area network. Further surveys and monitoring are suggested to better
understand population status and trends.
In Place Needed









3 Research actions
3.2 Population numbers and range
3.4 Habitat status
3.5 Threats
3.6 Uses and harvest levels
3.9 Trends/Monitoring
5 Species-based actions
5.7 Ex situ conservation actions
5.7.2 Genome resource bank









Countries of Occurrence
Mexico
Coahuila
Nuevo León
Tamaulipas
United States
Oklahoma
Texas
PRESENCE
ORIGIN
Year Breeding
Non- Passage Possibly Extinct Presence
Round Season breeding migrant extinct
uncertain
only season only
Native Introduced Re- Vagrant Origin
Introduced
uncertain





















General Habitats
3 Shrubland
3.5 Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry










































Score Description





















Major
Importance
2
Marginal
Not applicable
2
Marginal
Not applicable
8 Desert
8.1 Desert - Hot
1
Suitable
Not applicable
1
Suitable
Not applicable
Ecosystem Services


Insufficient Information available
Species provides no ecosystem services
Species Utilisation

Species is not utilised at all
Purpose / Type of Use
Subsistence



13. Pets/display animals, horticulture
3. Medicine - human and veterinary
5. Manufacturing chemicals
National



International



The stems of most members of this genus contain the alkaloid ephedrine and are valuable in the treatment of asthma and many
other complaints of the respiratory system (Plants for a Future 2010). The tannins from the stem are used for dyeing material.
There are a number of medicinal uses for this plant by humans. The stems were used for genito-urinary system disorders in
Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California such as syphilis (historical use which has subsequently been proven
unsuccessful) and gonorrhoea (it is a well-known remedy for this among many Indians and Mexicans). It is either cultivated or
wild harvested for this purpose. The leaves and stem are chewed or a decoction is prepared as an anti-diarrheal (this is not the
only species which is used for this purpose). The stems are often used to treat kidney infections. The areal parts of the plant are
used as animal food. It is difficult to determine the economic importance of this species due to lack of data. In the early 1990’s
estimates of annual quantities in trade of North American species ranged from 2000 - 5000 pounds/year of mixed Ephedra
species but due to overlapping counts from various suppliers this may be overestimated and it is likely that it is primarily E.
viridis (NatureServe 2009) .
Trend in the level of wild offtake/harvest in relation to total wild population numbers over the last five years:
Unknown
Trend in the amount of offtake/harvest produced through domestication/cultivation over the last five years:
Unknown
CITES status: Not listed
Livelihood Value
Primary Product
Scale of Assessment:
Local
Name of Location/Country/Region:
Southwestern United States
Description of product (eg. skin, meat, horn, fibre, etc.):
Date:
Animal food, Extract for dye and medicine
When Part of a Multi-species Harvest for this Product:
For Single Species Harvest
Estimated annual harvest of the product:
Not Known
Estimated annual multi-species harvest:
Units: Number of Indivi
Units:
The species contribution to the total harvest (%):
Amount of this species within multi-species harvest:
Users
Primary level of human reliance on the product:
Not known
Who are the primary harvesters of this resource?
By gender/age? Not known
By socio-economic group? Not known
Specify other:
Value to Livelihoods
Proportion (%) of total population benefiting from this product:
Not known
Proportion (%) of household consumption (if dietary as a % of protein/carbohydrate) for this product:
Proportion (as a %) of household income for this product:
Not known
Not known
Value to Economy Annual cash income from this product - gross (in US$): Not known
IUCN Red Listing
Red List Assessment: (using 2001 IUCN system)
Least Concern (LC)
Red List Criteria:
Date Last Seen (only for EX, EW or Possibly EX species):
Is the species Possibly Extinct?

Possibly Extinct Candidate?

Rationale for the Red List Assessment
The range does not meet the threshold for a threatened category and there are a large number of occurrences, indicating the
population is stable at present. Of concern is the threat from collecting for local medicinal use or landscaping, although this is
not thought to be extensive at present. Additional threats such as grazing should be monitored, but at present the species is not
threatened and is rated as Least Concern.
Reason(s) for Change in Red List Category from the Previous Assessment:
 Genuine Change
 Genuine (recent)
 Genuine (since first assessment)
 Nongenuine Change
 No Change
 New information
 Knowledge of Criteria
 Incorrect data used
previously
 Taxonomy
 Criteria Revisio
 Other
 Same category
and criteria
 Same category but
change in criteria
Current Population Trend: Stable
Date of Assessment:
18/08/2010
Name(s) of the Assessor(s): A.Bell & S.Bachman
Evaluator(s):
Notes:
% population decline in the past:
Time period over which the past decline has been measured for
applying Criterion A or C1 (in years or generations):
% population decline in the future:
Time period over which the future decline has been measured for
applying Criterion A or C1 (in years or generations):
Number of Locations:
Severely Fragmented:
Number of Mature Individuals:
Bibliography
Bartram E., 1992, Midwinter Botanizing in Southern Arizona., Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club8, 237-250, ,
Cutler H., 1939, Monograph of the North American Species of the Genus Ephedra, Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden4, 373428, ,
Hollander J. L., Wall, Stephen B. Vander, 2009, Dispersal syndromes in North American Ephedra., International Journal of Plant
Sciences3, 323-330, ,
Missouri Botanical Garden, 2009, Tropicos.org, , Missouri Botanical Garden, http://www.tropicos.org
NatureServe, 2009, An Online Encyclopedia of Life, , Published online at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/,
New York Botanical Gardens, 2009, New York Botanical Garden, Virtual Herbarium, , Published online at
http://sciweb.nybg.org/science2/VirtualHerbarium.asp,
Palmer E., 1878, Plants used by the Indians of the United States, The American Society of Naturalists10, 646-655, ,
Plants for a Future, 1996-2010, Plants For A Future, Earth, Plants, People., , ,
RBG Kew, 2009, World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, , Published on the Internet; http://www.kew.org/wcsp/,
Rusby H., 1882, Notes on the Trees of the South-West, Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club6, 78-80, ,
Schmid R., 1998, Book Review of Native American Ethnobotany by Moerman D., Taxon4, 980-981, ,
SEPASAL, 2009, Survey of Economic Plants for Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (SEPASAL), , SEPASAL, Jodrell Laboratory, Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, UK, www.kew.org/ceb/sepasal,