Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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,