Citation
Lankesteriana

Material Information

Title:
Lankesteriana la revista científica del Jardín Botánico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica
Creator:
Jardín Botánico Lankester
Place of Publication:
Cartago Costa Rica
Cartago, Costa Rica
Publisher:
Jardi´n Bota´nico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica
Jardín Botánico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica
Publication Date:
Frequency:
Three times a year[2002-]
Irregular[ FORMER 2001]
three times a year
regular
Language:
English
Physical Description:
v. : ill. (some col.) ; 25 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Botany -- Periodicals -- Costa Rica ( lcsh )
Epiphytes -- Periodicals -- Costa Rica ( lcsh )
Orchids -- Periodicals -- Costa Rica ( lcsh )
Plantkunde ( gtt )
Botanische tuinen ( gtt )
Genre:
periodical ( marcgt )
serial ( sobekcm )
Spatial Coverage:
Costa Rica

Notes

Language:
In English and Spanish.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
No. 1 (mayo 2001)-
Numbering Peculiarities:
Issues for May 2001-Oct. 2003 designated no.1-8; issues for Apr. 2004- designated vol. 4, no. 1-
General Note:
Latest issue consulted: Vol. 4, no. 1 (abr. 2004).
General Note:
International journal on orchidology.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Jardín Botánico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
48491453 ( OCLC )
2001240973 ( LCCN )
1409-3871 ( ISSN )
Classification:
QK217 .L36 ( lcc )
584.405 ( ddc )

UFDC Membership

Aggregations:
University of Florida

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

00003-2007_Page_411.txt

00003-2007_Page_096.txt

00003-2007_Page_356.txt

00003-2007_Page_158.txt

00003-2007_Page_195.txt

00003-2007_Page_362.txt

00003-2007_Page_068.txt

00003-2007_Page_152.txt

00003-2007_Page_250.txt

00003-2007_Page_341.txt

00003-2007_Page_246.txt

00003-2007_Page_343.txt

00003-2007_Page_012.txt

00003-2007_Page_079.txt

00003-2007_Page_048.txt

00003-2007_Page_107.txt

00003-2007_Page_208.txt

00003-2007_Page_214.txt

00003-2007_pdf.txt

00003-2007_Page_064.txt

00003-2007_Page_043.txt

00003-2007_Page_230.txt

00003-2007_Page_421.txt

00003-2007_Page_262.txt

00003-2007_Page_235.txt

00003-2007_Page_429.txt

00003-2007_Page_210.txt

00003-2007_Page_140.txt

00003-2007_Page_069.txt

00003-2007_Page_005.txt

00003-2007_Page_307.txt

00003-2007_Page_414.txt

00003-2007_Page_399.txt

00003-2007_Page_291.txt

00003-2007_Page_046.txt

00003-2007_Page_196.txt

00003-2007_Page_319.txt

00003-2007_Page_261.txt

00003-2007_Page_143.txt

00003-2007_Page_009.txt

00003-2007_Page_206.txt

00003-2007_Page_394.txt

00003-2007_Page_011.txt

00003-2007_Page_049.txt

00003-2007_Page_062.txt

00003-2007_Page_344.txt

00003-2007_Page_327.txt

00003-2007_Page_145.txt

00003-2007_Page_312.txt

00003-2007_Page_351.txt

00003-2007_Page_084.txt

00003-2007_Page_067.txt

00003-2007_Page_280.txt

00003-2007_Page_121.txt

00003-2007_Page_315.txt

00003-2007_Page_159.txt

00003-2007_Page_259.txt

00003-2007_Page_317.txt

00003-2007_Page_130.txt

00003-2007_Page_294.txt

00003-2007_Page_245.txt

00003-2007_Page_275.txt

00003-2007_Page_345.txt

00003-2007_Page_053.txt

00003-2007_Page_192.txt

00003-2007_Page_415.txt

00003-2007_Page_265.txt

00003-2007_Page_334.txt

00003-2007_Page_366.txt

00003-2007_Page_144.txt

00003-2007_Page_122.txt

00003-2007_Page_252.txt

00003-2007_Page_228.txt

00003-2007_Page_354.txt

00003-2007_Page_198.txt

00003-2007_Page_348.txt

00003-2007_Page_287.txt

00003-2007_Page_416.txt

00003-2007_Page_113.txt

00003-2007_Page_377.txt

00003-2007_Page_160.txt

00003-2007_Page_178.txt

00003-2007_Page_361.txt

00003-2007_Page_111.txt

00003-2007_Page_163.txt

00003-2007_Page_232.txt

00003-2007_Page_217.txt

00003-2007_Page_114.txt

00003-2007_Page_335.txt

00003-2007_Page_434.txt

00003-2007_Page_403.txt

00003-2007_Page_066.txt

00003-2007_Page_269.txt

00003-2007_Page_233.txt

00003-2007_Page_338.txt

00003-2007_Page_013.txt

00003-2007_Page_153.txt

00003-2007_Page_243.txt

00003-2007_Page_426.txt

00003-2007_Page_419.txt

00003-2007_Page_124.txt

00003-2007_Page_388.txt

00003-2007_Page_305.txt

00003-2007_Page_104.txt

00003-2007_Page_108.txt

00003-2007_Page_073.txt

00003-2007_Page_094.txt

00003-2007_Page_036.txt

00003-2007_Page_234.txt

00003-2007_Page_150.txt

00003-2007_Page_171.txt

00003-2007_Page_179.txt

00003-2007_Page_134.txt

00003-2007_Page_200.txt

00003-2007_Page_408.txt

00003-2007_Page_431.txt

00003-2007_Page_357.txt

00003-2007_Page_329.txt

00003-2007_Page_326.txt

00003-2007_Page_223.txt

00003-2007_Page_400.txt

00003-2007_Page_325.txt

00003-2007_Page_205.txt

00003-2007_Page_281.txt

00003-2007_Page_127.txt

00003-2007_Page_040.txt

00003-2007_Page_392.txt

00003-2007_Page_030.txt

00003-2007_Page_131.txt

00003-2007_Page_328.txt

00003-2007_Page_295.txt

00003-2007_Page_086.txt

00003-2007_Page_098.txt

00003-2007_Page_268.txt

00003-2007_Page_355.txt

00003-2007_Page_061.txt

00003-2007_Page_128.txt

00003-2007_Page_369.txt

00003-2007_Page_352.txt

00003-2007_Page_336.txt

00003-2007_Page_300.txt

00003-2007_Page_191.txt

00003-2007_Page_201.txt

00003-2007_Page_378.txt

00003-2007_Page_197.txt

00003-2007_Page_194.txt

00003-2007_Page_382.txt

00003-2007_Page_420.txt

00003-2007_Page_423.txt

00003-2007_Page_267.txt

00003-2007_Page_340.txt

00003-2007_Page_025.txt

00003-2007_Page_058.txt

00003-2007_Page_063.txt

00003-2007_Page_401.txt

00003-2007_Page_368.txt

00003-2007_Page_358.txt

00003-2007_Page_412.txt

00003-2007_Page_118.txt

00003-2007_Page_117.txt

00003-2007_Page_202.txt

00003-2007_Page_166.txt

00003-2007_Page_008.txt

00003-2007_Page_109.txt

00003-2007_Page_407.txt

00003-2007_Page_072.txt

00003-2007_Page_035.txt

00003-2007_Page_364.txt

00003-2007_Page_203.txt

00003-2007_Page_029.txt

00003-2007_Page_285.txt

00003-2007_Page_257.txt

00003-2007_Page_260.txt

00003-2007_Page_089.txt

00003-2007_Page_350.txt

00003-2007_Page_432.txt

00003-2007_Page_071.txt

00003-2007_Page_331.txt

00003-2007_Page_404.txt

00003-2007_Page_077.txt

00003-2007_Page_148.txt

00003-2007_Page_123.txt

00003-2007_Page_044.txt

00003-2007_Page_085.txt

00003-2007_Page_056.txt

00003-2007_Page_441.txt

00003-2007_Page_427.txt

00003-2007_Page_387.txt

00003-2007_Page_154.txt

00003-2007_Page_129.txt

00003-2007_Page_052.txt

00003-2007_Page_299.txt

00003-2007_Page_187.txt

00003-2007_Page_007.txt

00003-2007_Page_215.txt

00003-2007_Page_190.txt

00003-2007_Page_010.txt

00003-2007_Page_270.txt

00003-2007_Page_054.txt

00003-2007_Page_119.txt

00003-2007_Page_402.txt

00003-2007_Page_309.txt

00003-2007_Page_436.txt

00003-2007_Page_100.txt

00003-2007_Page_227.txt

00003-2007_Page_172.txt

00003-2007_Page_059.txt

00003-2007_Page_075.txt

00003-2007_Page_106.txt

00003-2007_Page_240.txt

00003-2007_Page_226.txt

00003-2007_Page_322.txt

00003-2007_Page_266.txt

00003-2007_Page_051.txt

00003-2007_Page_147.txt

00003-2007_Page_110.txt

00003-2007_Page_342.txt

00003-2007_Page_363.txt

00003-2007_Page_373.txt

00003-2007_Page_149.txt

00003-2007_Page_095.txt

00003-2007_Page_283.txt

00003-2007_Page_177.txt

00003-2007_Page_065.txt

00003-2007_Page_296.txt

00003-2007_Page_332.txt

00003-2007_Page_186.txt

00003-2007_Page_396.txt

00003-2007_Page_138.txt

00003-2007_Page_167.txt

00003-2007_Page_045.txt

00003-2007_Page_292.txt

00003-2007_Page_433.txt

00003-2007_Page_303.txt

00003-2007_Page_231.txt

00003-2007_Page_099.txt

00003-2007_Page_185.txt

00003-2007_Page_213.txt

00003-2007_Page_306.txt

00003-2007_Page_032.txt

00003-2007_Page_256.txt

00003-2007_Page_379.txt

00003-2007_Page_222.txt

00003-2007_Page_137.txt

00003-2007_Page_041.txt

00003-2007_Page_384.txt

00003-2007_Page_120.txt

00003-2007_Page_324.txt

00003-2007_Page_391.txt

00003-2007_Page_311.txt

00003-2007_Page_236.txt

00003-2007_Page_157.txt

00003-2007_Page_015.txt

00003-2007_Page_141.txt

00003-2007_Page_139.txt

00003-2007_Page_212.txt

00003-2007_Page_156.txt

00003-2007_Page_182.txt

00003-2007_Page_023.txt

00003-2007_Page_274.txt

00003-2007_Page_021.txt

00003-2007_Page_241.txt

00003-2007_Page_162.txt

00003-2007_Page_248.txt

00003-2007_Page_165.txt

00003-2007_Page_026.txt

00003-2007_Page_083.txt

00003-2007_Page_398.txt

00003-2007_Page_389.txt

00003-2007_Page_082.txt

00003-2007_Page_251.txt

00003-2007_Page_164.txt

00003-2007_Page_033.txt

00003-2007_Page_080.txt

00003-2007_Page_304.txt

00003-2007_Page_207.txt

00003-2007_Page_425.txt

00003-2007_Page_286.txt

00003-2007_Page_376.txt

00003-2007_Page_380.txt

00003-2007_Page_102.txt

00003-2007_Page_180.txt

00003-2007_Page_112.txt

00003-2007_Page_238.txt

00003-2007_Page_290.txt

00003-2007_Page_278.txt

00003-2007_Page_133.txt

00003-2007_Page_271.txt

00003-2007_Page_406.txt

00003-2007_Page_060.txt

00003-2007_Page_219.txt

00003-2007_Page_170.txt

00003-2007_Page_034.txt

00003-2007_Page_439.txt

00003-2007_Page_310.txt

00003-2007_Page_039.txt

00003-2007_Page_050.txt

00003-2007_Page_247.txt

00003-2007_Page_424.txt

00003-2007_Page_353.txt

00003-2007_Page_321.txt

00003-2007_Page_428.txt

00003-2007_Page_397.txt

00003-2007_Page_383.txt

00003-2007_Page_087.txt

00003-2007_Page_242.txt

00003-2007_Page_006.txt

00003-2007_Page_367.txt

00003-2007_Page_014.txt

00003-2007_Page_037.txt

00003-2007_Page_239.txt

00003-2007_Page_372.txt

00003-2007_Page_249.txt

00003-2007_Page_316.txt

00003-2007_Page_418.txt

00003-2007_Page_017.txt

00003-2007_Page_301.txt

00003-2007_Page_022.txt

00003-2007_Page_188.txt

00003-2007_Page_042.txt

00003-2007_Page_135.txt

00003-2007_Page_211.txt

00003-2007_Page_390.txt

00003-2007_Page_224.txt

00003-2007_Page_288.txt

00003-2007_Page_027.txt

00003-2007_Page_323.txt

00003-2007_Page_435.txt

00003-2007_Page_405.txt

00003-2007_Page_276.txt

00003-2007_Page_055.txt

00003-2007_Page_125.txt

00003-2007_Page_175.txt

00003-2007_Page_091.txt

00003-2007_Page_028.txt

00003-2007_Page_216.txt

00003-2007_Page_430.txt

00003-2007_Page_385.txt

00003-2007_Page_410.txt

00003-2007_Page_057.txt

00003-2007_Page_347.txt

00003-2007_Page_263.txt

00003-2007_Page_298.txt

ERNFVK9F1_PZD2SF_xml.txt

00003-2007_Page_417.txt

00003-2007_Page_020.txt

00003-2007_Page_126.txt

00003-2007_Page_209.txt

00003-2007_Page_393.txt

00003-2007_Page_199.txt

00003-2007_Page_365.txt

00003-2007_Page_339.txt

00003-2007_Page_258.txt

00003-2007_Page_370.txt

00003-2007_Page_184.txt

00003-2007_Page_409.txt

00003-2007_Page_018.txt

00003-2007_Page_333.txt

00003-2007_Page_237.txt

00003-2007_Page_174.txt

00003-2007_Page_293.txt

00003-2007_Page_438.txt

00003-2007_Page_024.txt

00003-2007_Page_337.txt

00003-2007_Page_092.txt

00003-2007_Page_320.txt

00003-2007_Page_097.txt

00003-2007_Page_173.txt

00003-2007_Page_330.txt

00003-2007_Page_115.txt

00003-2007_Page_101.txt

00003-2007_Page_078.txt

00003-2007_Page_076.txt

00003-2007_Page_031.txt

00003-2007_Page_255.txt

00003-2007_Page_386.txt

00003-2007_Page_221.txt

00003-2007_Page_440.txt

00003-2007_Page_161.txt

00003-2007_Page_168.txt

00003-2007_Page_142.txt

00003-2007_Page_254.txt

00003-2007_Page_308.txt

00003-2007_Page_004.txt

00003-2007_Page_002.txt

00003-2007_Page_038.txt

00003-2007_Page_395.txt

00003-2007_Page_116.txt

00003-2007_Page_218.txt

00003-2007_Page_093.txt

00003-2007_Page_090.txt

00003-2007_Page_297.txt

00003-2007_Page_204.txt

00003-2007_Page_105.txt

00003-2007_Page_279.txt

00003-2007_Page_176.txt

00003-2007_Page_284.txt

00003-2007_Page_413.txt

00003-2007_Page_189.txt

00003-2007_Page_422.txt

00003-2007_Page_088.txt

00003-2007_Page_264.txt

00003-2007_Page_081.txt

00003-2007_Page_047.txt

00003-2007_Page_289.txt

00003-2007_Page_318.txt

00003-2007_Page_346.txt

00003-2007_Page_183.txt

00003-2007_Page_146.txt

00003-2007_Page_001.txt

00003-2007_Page_229.txt

00003-2007_Page_244.txt

00003-2007_Page_313.txt

00003-2007_Page_282.txt

00003-2007_Page_359.txt

00003-2007_Page_253.txt

00003-2007_Page_273.txt

00003-2007_Page_302.txt

00003-2007_Page_103.txt

00003-2007_Page_181.txt

00003-2007_Page_437.txt

00003-2007_Page_381.txt

00003-2007_Page_220.txt

00003-2007_Page_132.txt

00003-2007_Page_360.txt

00003-2007_Page_070.txt

00003-2007_Page_225.txt

00003-2007_Page_272.txt

00003-2007_Page_169.txt

00003-2007_Page_277.txt

00003-2007_Page_375.txt

00003-2007_Page_349.txt

00003-2007_Page_074.txt

00003-2007_Page_003.txt

00003-2007_Page_314.txt

00003-2007_Page_193.txt

00003-2007.pdf

00003-2007_Page_155.txt

00003-2007_Page_371.txt

00003-2007_Page_151.txt

00003-2007_Page_374.txt

00003-2007_Page_016.txt

00003-2007_Page_136.txt


Full Text









41 R














Esta 1, . . ha sido , i 1.
gracias a�l ' 11i patrocinio de

This . * has been
thank to the kind sponsorship by


RECTORIA












LANKESTERIANA
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON ORCHIDOLOGY






Copyright C 2007 Jardin Botanico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica
Fecha efectiva de publicaci6n / Effective publication date: 17 de marzo del 2007


Diagramaci6n: Jardin Botanico Lankester
Imprenta: Litografia Ediciones Sanabria S.A.
Tiraje: 500 copias


Impreso en Costa Rica / Printed in Costa Rica


R Lankesteriana / An international journal on orchidology,
Universidad de Costa Rica. No. 1 (2001) -- . -
San Jos6, Costa Rica: Editorial Universidad de Costa
Rica, 2001--
V.

ISSN-1409-3871

1. Botinica - Publicaciones peri6dicas, 2. Publicaciones
peri6dicas costarricenses


O




ISSN 1409-3871



LANKESTERIANA

VOL. 7, No. 1-2 MARZO 2007

3rd International Orchid Conservation Congress (IOCC)
2nd International Conference on Neotropical Orchidology (ICNO)

PROCEEDINGS


ARE OUR ORCHIDS SAFE?
The orchid conservation challenge
KINGSLEY DIXON & RYAN D. PHILLIPS 11
Orchid conservation: where do we go from here?
PHILIP T. SEATON 13

GEOGRAPHY OF CONSERVATION
Invasive orchids: weeds we hate to love?
JAMES D. ACKERMAN 19
Morphological and molecular characterization of species of Tulasnella (Homobasidiomycetes)
associated with Neotropical plants of Laeliinae (Orchidaceae) occurring in Brazil
PAULO RICARDO M. ALMEIDA, CASSIO VAN DEN BERG & ARISTOTELES GOES-NETO 22
Are our orchids safe down under? A national assessment of threatened orchids in Australia
GARY N. BACKHOUSE 28
Understanding the distribution of three species of epiphytic orchids in temperate
Australian rainforest by investigation of their host and fungal associates
KELLI M. GOWLAND, ULRIKE MATHESIUS, MARK A. CLEMENTS & ADRIENNE B. NICOTRA 44
Rare plant restoration on Long Pine Key
BRUCE HOLST & STIG DALSTROM 47
The status of orchid conservation in China
JIA JIANSHENG 48
Epiphyte orchid diversity in a Yungas montane forest in the Cotapata National Park and
Integrated Management Natural Area, La Paz - Bolivia
IVAN V. JIMENEZ & FABRICIO MIRANDA A. 49
Geological processes and orchid biogeography with applications to southeast Central America
STEPHEN H. KIRBY 53


AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON ORCHIDOLOGY








3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


Diversidad de Orquideas en el "Parque Nacional Iztaccihuatl-Popocat6petl" (M6xico)
y sus Areas de influencia
BARBARA S. LUNA-ROSALES, AMADEO BARBA-ALVAREZ, RODRIGO ROMERO-TIRADO,
ERIC PtREZ-TOLEDANO, OLGA PEREA-MORALES, SUSANA PADRON-HERNANDEZ,
HUGO SIERRA-JIMENEZ, ROSA DE LA CRUZ & DIANA JARDON-SANCHEZ 56
An orchid inventory and conservation project at Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve, upper
Rio Toro Valley, Alajuela, Costa Rica
MELANIA MUNOZ & STEPHEN H. KIRBY 60
Distribuci6n de poblaciones silvestres y descripci6n del hAbitat de Phragmipedium en Costa Rica
MELANIA MUrOZ & JORGE WARNER 66
Orchids of a regenerated tropical dry forest in the Cali river watershed, Municipality
of Cali, Colombia
JORGE E. OREJUELA 71

Hotspots of narrow endemisms: adequate focal points for conservation in Dendrochilum
(Orchidaceae)
HENRIK /E. PEDERSEN 83
Orchid biogeography and rarity in a biodiversity hotspot: the Southwest Australian
floristic region
RYAN D. PHILLIPS, ANDREW P. BROWN, KINGSLEY W. DIXON & STEPHEN D. HOPPER 93
Genetic and morphological variation in the Bulbophyllum exaltatum (Orchidaceae)
complex occurring in the Brazilian "Campos Rupestres": implications for taxonomy
and biogeography
PATRICIA Luz RIBEIRO, EDUARDO L. BORBA, ERIC C. SMIDT, S.M. LAMBERT,
A. SELBACH-SCHNADELBACH & CASSIO VAN DER BERG 97
Spatial structure of Pleurothallis, Masdevallia, Lepanthes and Epidendrum epiphytic orchids
in a fragment of montane cloud forest in South Ecuador
LORENA RIOFRiO, CARLOS NARANJO, JOSE M. IRIONDO & ELENA TORRES 102
Richness, distribution and important areas to preserve Bulbophyllum in the Neotropics
ERIC C. SMIDT, VIVIANE SILVA-PEREIRA, EDUARDO L. BORBA & CASSIO VAN DEN BERG 107
Risk of extinction and patterns of diversity loss in Mexican orchids
MIGUEL A. SOTO ARENAS, RODOLFO SOLANO GOMEZ & ERIC HAGSATER 114
Inventory of the orchids in the humid tropical premontane forest on Uchumachi Mountain,
nor Yungas region of La Paz, Bolivia
CARLOS A. VERGARA CASSAS 122



CONSERVATION POLICIES AND BOTANICAL GARDENS

Ex situ conservation of tropical orchids in Ukraine
TETIANA M. CHEREVCHENKO, LYUDMYLA I. BUYUN, LYUDMYLA A. KOVALSKA & Vu NGOC LONG 129
El sistema Lankester
ROBERT L. DRESSLER 134


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








Index


How does hybridization influence the decision making process in conservation? The genus
Orchis (Orchidaceae) as a case history
MICHAEL F. FAY, R. J. SMITH, K. ZUIDERDUIN, E. HOOPER, R. SAMUEL, R. M. BATEMAN
& M. W. CHASE 135

Tropical orchids in the North, Montr6al Botanical Garden, Qu6bec, Canada
LISE GOBEILLE 138

The conservation dilemma
WESLEY E. HIGGINS & GEORGE D. GANN 141

In vitro propagation of Cattleya Lindl. and Laelia Lindl. species
ALLA M. LAVRENTYEVA & ROMAN V. IVANNIKOV 147

The role of CITES Rescue Centers in orchid conservation: concerns and questions
raised by the collaboration on an endangered slipper orchid (Paphiopedilum vietnamense
0. Gruss & Perner)
THOMAS MIRENDA, KYLE WALLICK & ROBERT R. GABEL 150

Molecular identification and genetic studies in Peruvian Phragmipediums
ISAIAS ROLANDO, M. RODRIGUEZ, M. DAMIAN, J. BENAVIDES, A. MANRIQUE & J. ESPINOZA 152

Working together for orchid conservation - The National Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin
and Belize Botanic Gardens
BRENDAN SAYERS, HEATHER DUPLOOY & BRETT ADAMS 153

The important role that the Botanical Garden of the National Autonomous University of
Mexico plays in the conservation of mexican orchids
AIDA TELLEZ VELASCO 156

Establishing an Orchid Conservation Alliance
PETER S. TOBIAS, MARIA DO ROSARIO DE ALMEIDA BRAGA, STEVEN BECKENDORF
& RONALD KAUFMANN 161

Not a single orchid...
HARRY ZELENKO 164



CONSERVATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES

What is BIBLIORCHIDEA?
RUDOLF JENNY 169

A form and checklist for the description of orchids in the field and laboratory work
STEPHEN H. KIRBY & MELANIA MUNOZ 175

EPIDENDRA, the taxonomic databases by Jardin Botinico Lankester
FRANCO PUPULIN 178

Effect of knowledge gain on species conservation status
DAVID L. ROBERTS 181


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONSERVATION AND DNA BARCODING

Allotetraploid evolution in Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae)
MARK W. CHASE, MICHAEL F. FAY, RICHARD BATEMAN, MIKAEL HEDREN & YOHAN PILLON 187
Sequencing re-defines Spiranthes relationships, with implications for rare and
endangered taxa
LucY A. DUECK & KENNETH M. CAMERON 190
Molecular genetic diagnosis of the taxonomicallyy difficult' Australian endangered orchid,
Microtis angusii: an evaluation of the utility of DNA barcoding
NICOLA S. FLANAGAN, ROD PEAKALL, MARK A. CLEMENTS & J. TUPAC OTERO 196
Molecular tools and DNA barcoding for conservation
GUILLAUME GIGOT 199
Finding a suitable DNA barcode for Mesoamerican orchids
GUILLAUME GIGOT, JONATHAN VAN ALPHEN-STAHL, DIEGO BOGARIN, JORGE WARNER,
MARK W. CHASE & VINCENT SAVOLAINEN 200
Re-evaluation of lifespan in a Neotropical orchid: an eleven years survey
EDDIE A. ROSA-FUENTES & RAYMOND L. TREMBLAY 204

The species-area-energy relationship in orchids
IVA SCHODELBAUEROVA, PAVEL KINDLMANN & DAVID ROBERTS 209
Mycorrhizal diversity of an endemic terrestrial orchid
JYOTSNA SHARMA, MARIA L. ISHIDA & VERNAL L. YADON 215
Does integrated conservation of terrestrial orchids work?
NIGEL D. SWARTS, ANDREW L. BATTY, STEPHEN HOPPER & KINGSLEY W. DIXON 219
Evolution in small populations: evidence from the literature and experimental results
RAYMOMD L. TREMBLAY & JAMES D. ACKERMAN 223
Density induced rates of pollinaria removal and deposition in the Purple Enamel-orchid,
Elythranthera brunonis (Endl.) A.S. George
RAYMOND L. TREMBLAY, RICHARD M. BATEMAN, ANDREW P. BROWN, MARC HACHADOURIAN,
MICHAEL J. HUTCHINGS, SHELAGH KELL, HAROLD KOOPOWITZ, CARLOS LEHNEBACH
& DENNIS WIGHAM 229



PRACTICAL ORCHID CONSERVATION: INTEGRATED APPROACHES

Rescuing Cattleya granulosa Lindley in the wild
CLEMENTINO CAMARA-NETO, IUNA CHAVES-CAMARA, SEVERINO CARVALHO DE MEDEIROS
& MARIA DO ROSARIO DE ALMEIDA BRAGA 243
Efecto del Aicido indolbutirico (IBA) y 6-bencilaminopurina (BAP) en el desarrollo in vitro
de yemas axilares de Encyclia microtos (Rchb.f.) Hoehne (Orchidaceae)
CARLOS E. CONDEMARIN-MONTEALEGRE, JULIO CHICO-Ruiz & CLAUDIA VARGAS-ARTAEGA 247
The conservation of Madagascar's orchids. A model for an integrated conservation project
PHILLIP CRIBB & JOHAN HERMANS 255


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








Index


Community involvement in orchid conservation
ANDREW W. DILLEY 262

Integrated approaches to orchid conservation in Guatemala: past, present and future,
opportunities and challenges
MICHAEL W. Dix & MARGARET A. Dix 266

Investigation of processes leading to the decline of South Australia's Caladenia species
RENATE FAAST & JosE M. FACELLI 269

Are some life-history strategies more vulnerable to the genetic consequences of
habitat fragmentation? A case study using South Australian Caladenia R. Br.
(Orchidaceae) species
LACHLAN W. FARRINGTON, JOSE M. FACELLI, STEPHEN C. DONNELLAN & ANDY D. AUSTIN 270
Vanda tricolor Lindl. conservation in Java, Indonesia: genetic and geographic structure
and history
LAUREN M. GARDINER 272
Area recovery and characteristic orchids conservation "in situ" at San Angel stony terrain,
Mexico, D. F: reservoir area and ecological pathway at South Sciences and Humanities
Educational Center (SSHEC) within the National Autonomous University of Mexico
CECILIA GARDUrO, SONIA Y. GARCIA, MARICELA RAMOS & M.A. AIDA TELLEZ 281
Conservation of the group Piperia (Orchidaceae) and associated plant communities
ROBERT K. LAURI 287
Effects of trampling on a terrestrial orchid environment
MARILYN H.S. LIGHT & MICHAEL MACCONAILL 294

Orchids' micropropagation for to the sustainable management of native species from
Parque Nacional y Area Natural de Manejo Integrado Cotapata (PN-ANMI Cotapata),
La Paz-Bolivia
CRISTINA LOPEZ ROBERTS, GABRIELA VILLEGAS ALVARADO, BEATRIZ MAMANI SANCHEZ,
JUAN BERMEJO FRANCO, MILENKA AGUILAR LLANOS & JORGE QUEZADA PORTUGAL 299
An expanded role for in vitro symbiotic seed germination as a conservation tool:
two case studies in North America (PlarwintIerut leucophaea and Epidendrum nocturnum)
EMILY E. MASSEY & LAWRENCE W. ZETTLER 303
SEM and PCR study of mycorrhizal fungi isolated from the Australian terrestrial orchid:
Prasophyllum
EMILY MCQUALTER, ROB CROSS, CASSANDRA B. MCLEAN & PAULINE Y. LADIGES 309
Desarrollo de cApsulas y germinaci6n in vitro de Phragmipedium humboldtii,
P. longifolium y P. pearcei
MELANIA MUrOZ & VICTOR M. JIMENEZ 310
Ecology of orchids in urban bushland reserves - can orchids be used as indicators
of vegetation condition?
BELINDA J. NEWMAN, PHIL LADD, ANDREW BATTY & KINGSLEY DIXON 313
Cores Project - Conservation of endangered orchids: an action plan for conservation
of Brazilian orchids
CLAUDIO NICOLETTI FRAGA, ROSA M. MURRIETA FRANCA, JORGE EDUARDO S. PAES, MELISSA


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


BOCAYUVA, PEDRO DE ARAUJO CONSTANTINO, ANDRE P. FONTANA, SIMONE L. MACHADO,
EDUARDO M. SADDI, IVONNE SAN MARTIN-GAJARDO, MARCELO SIMONELLI, FABIO BERNABE,
ANDERSON LANUSSE & BERNARD HARDMAN 316

Fungus-assisted reintroduction and long-term survival of two Mexican terrestrial
orchids in the natural habitat
M. PILAR ORTEGA-LARROCEA & MONICA RANGEL-VILLAFRANCO 317
Estudio de bacteria asociadas orquideas (Orchidaceae)
EMILIA RAMOS ZAMBRANO, TERESITA JIMENEZ SALGADO & ARMANDO TAPIA HERNANDEZ 322
Efforts to conserve endangered terrestrial orchids in situ and ex situ at two natural
reserves within Central Mexico
MONICA RANGEL-VILLAFRANCO & M. PILAR ORTEGA-LARROCEA 326

Trophic relationships in orchid mycorrhiza - diversity and implications for conservation
HANNE. N. RASMUSSEN & FINN N. RASMUSSEN 334

Genetic and morphological variation in the Bulbophyllum exaltatum (Orchidaceae)
Complex occurring in the Brazilian "Campos Rupestres": implications for taxonomy
and biogeography
PATRICIA Luz RIBEIRO, E.L. BORBA, E.C. SMIDT, S.M. LAMBERT, A. SELBACH-SCHNADELBACH
& C. VAN DER BERG 342

Problems fitosanitarios que amenazan la conservaci6n de las orquideas de Costa Rica
GERMAN RIVERA-COTO & GILBERTO CORRALES-MOREIRA 347

Uso de complejos comerciales como sustitutos de components del medio de cultivo
en la propagaci6n in vitro de Laelia anceps
RODRIGO ROMERO-TIRADO & BARBARA S. LUNA ROSALES 353

The effect of the light environment on population size of the epiphytic herb,
Lepanthes rupestris (Orchidaceae)
FRANCHESKA RUIZ-CANINO, DENNY S. FERNANDEZ, ELVIA J. MELENDEZ-ACKERMAN
& RAYMOND L. TREMBLAY 357

Comparaci6n de los problems fitosanitarios en orquideas de poblaciones silvestres
y de cultivo, como evaluaci6n de riesgos de plagas o epidemias
WILLY SALAZAR-CASASA, GERMAN RIVERA-COTO & GILBERTO CORRALES-MOREIRA 362

Traditional use and conservation of the "calaverita" Laelia anceps subsp. dawsonii
f. chilapensis Soto-Arenas at Chilapa, Guerrero, M6xico
VICTOR M. SALAZAR-ROJAS, B. EDGAR HERRERA-CABRERA, ALEJANDRO FLORES-PALACIOS
& IGNACIO OCAMPO-FLETES 368

Establishing a global network of orchid seed banks
PHILIP T. SEATON 371
Production of Cypripedium montanum seedlings for commercial value and reintroduction
into restoration projects: phase II
ROGER H. SMITH, JANE A. SMITH & SCOTT LIEBLER 376

Experimental reintroduction of the threatened terrestrial orchid Diurisfragrantissima
ZOE F. SMITH, ELIZABETH A. JAMES & CASSANDRA B. MCLEAN 377


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








Index


Finding a mycorrhizal fungus for reintroductions of the threatened terrestrial orchid
Diuris fragrantissima
ZOE F. SMITH, ELIZABETH A. JAMES & CASSANDRA B. MCLEAN 381
Orchid conservation in the Americas - lessons learned in Florida
SCOTT L. STEWART & MICHAEL E. KANE 382
Propagaci6n in vitro y aclimatizaci6n de Euchile mariae (Ames) Withner (Orchidaceae)
IRIS SUAREZ-QUIJADA, MABEL HERNANDEZ-ALTAMIRANO, VICTOR M. CHAVEZ-AVILA
& ESTELA SANDOVAL-ZAPOTITLA 388
Determinaci6n histol6gica de regenerantes de Euchile mariae (Ames) Withner,
(Orchidaceae), obtenidos a partir de protocormos cultivados in vitro
IRIS SUAREZ-QUIJADA, ESTELA SANDOVAL-ZAPOTITLA, MABEL HERNANDEZ-ALTAMIRANO
& VICTOR M. CHAVEZ-AVILA 394

Young adventures in orchid conservation
CALLUM SWIFT 398
Adquisici6n de competencia para la micropagaci6n de Stanhopea tigrina, Laelia anceps,
Epidendrum veroscriptum y Cattleya x Esbetts (Orchidaceae)
MARIO SINAi TINOCO JUAREZ & MARTIN MATA ROSAS 404
Biosystematic studies in the Brazilian endemic genus Hoffmannseggella H. G. Jones
(Orchidaceae: Laeliinae): a multiple approach applied to conservation
CHRISTIANO FRANCO VEROLA, JoAo SEMIR, ALEXANDRE ANTONELLI& INGRID KOCH 419
Micro-environment conditions, mycorrhizal symbiosis, and seed germination in
Cypripedium candidum: strategies for conservation
CAROL M.F. WAKE 423
Harvesting mycorrhizal fungi: does it put Caladenia plants in peril?
MAGALI WRIGHT, ROB CROSS, ROGER COUSENS & CASSANDRA B. MCLEAN 427
Site amelioration for direct seeding of Caladenia tentaculata improves seedling
recruitment and survival in natural habitat
MAGALI WRIGHT, GARRY FRENCH, ROB CROSS, ROGER COUSENS, SASCHA ANDRUSIAK
& CASSANDRA B. MCLEAN 430
Symbiotic germination of threatened Australian terrestrial orchids and the effect
of nursery potting media on seedling survivals
MAGALI WRIGHT, ZOE SMITH, RICHARD THOMSON & ROB CROSS 433
The orchid recovery program at Illinois College - a successful blend of teaching,
research and undergraduate student participation to benefit orchid conservation
LAWRENCE W. ZETTLER 436


2" INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NEOTROPICAL ORCHIDOLOGY

The Orchidaceae of "Parque Municipal de MucugP", Bahia, Brazil
CECILIA O. DE AZEVEDO & CASSIO VAN DEN BERG 443
Las orquideas del Parque Nacional Barra Honda, Guanacaste, Costa Rica
DIEGO BOGARIN & FRANCO PUPULIN 446


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


Pollination analogies between Orchidaceae, Ficus (Moraceae) and Asclepiadaceae
WILLIAM RAMIREZ-B. 450
Oncidium surprises with deoxyribonucleic acid
HARRY ZELENKO 458


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.






Pages
Missing
or
Unavailable








LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2): 11-12. 2007.


THE ORCHID CONSERVATION CHALLENGE

KINGSLEY DIXON' & RYAN D. PHILLIPS

Kings Park and Botanic Garden, West Perth, 6005 Western Australia
School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia
'Author for correspondence: 1 Ji ..ii....i, i- I wa.gov.au


In the six years since the first International Orchid
Conservation Congress in 2001 has the conservation of
orchids progressed? Certainly orchid science has
grown from less than 100 published works in the 20
year period from 1900-1920 to over 3200 for 2000-
2005. With knowledge of orchids spanning an aston-
ishing array of disciplines it is therefore surprising that
there remains a significant gap between orchid science
and orchid conservation practice. This is no more
telling than in the resolutions of the plenary session of
the first IOCC to adopt for orchids four targets of the 16
targets from the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
(see htto://www.bgci.or/worldwide/gspc/) - that by
2010 (just three years away....!) -90% of threatened
orchids are secure in ex situ conservation collections;
50% of these threatened orchids are in active recovery
programs; no orchids are threatened by unsustainable
harvesting; and, every child aware of plant diversity
(including orchids). How have we tracked on deliver-
ing these four targets? Besides a growth in botanic
gardens to almost 2500 worldwide, the proportion of
orchids in ex situ conservation collections, particularly
rare and threatened taxa, has barely changed in six
years yet the science and technology to achieve this
target is well established. Equally the pace of the
development of orchid recovery plans is outstripped by
the annual increase in orchid taxa being listed as rare.
Indeed the most basic of information is often lacking in
orchid conservation projects from knowledge of the
causal factors of orchid rarity to whether research out-
comes and management plans are being converted to
successes in the field? An important criterion for
recovery projects should be ' will it be possible to
implement the results of the research -is the funding
available and what are my cost-effective alternatives?'
Some areas such as defining sustainability for the wild
harvesting of orchids remains a complex and difficult
issue often tied to local economy and cultural identity.


The slow maturation of orchids means that any wild
exploitation, unless carefully managed on scientific
grounds, is bound to lead to a decline in the orchid.
Finally, though the final target falls outside of the
expertise of conservation scientists is in the long term,
it is perhaps the most critical of all conservation
actions for the long term conservation of orchids. It is
much easier/ preferable/more fun to do research, write
and field trip than to ensure that k-12 educational needs
include sound (and fun!) conservation messages.
Ultimately our ability to deliver effective conservation
is controlled by funding bound to political processes
that in themselves rely on awareness and education
from an early age.
With the long term goal of greater community
awareness and funding of conservation, as researchers
we can maximize our conservation outcomes in the
short term through the approach we take to research
and the questions we ask. When attempting to conserve
a particular species, establishing which aspect of the
life cycle or human interaction is driving species rarity
is a critical step. A key to success in orchid reintroduc-
tion is the need for integration of knowledge gaps
how many orchid reintroductions adopt a multidiscipli-
nary approach? The majority of published works in
orchid introductions rely on single principles as the
basis for the reintroduction, often with a heavy empha-
sis on propagation/establishment techniques. However,
pollination biology, mycorrhizal ecology, habitat
requirements, changing habitat condition, habitat clear-
ing and wild collecting are all potential causes of rarity
that need to be considered for developing a multi-disci-
plinary and more sustainable conservation outcome for
orchids.
An obvious division within orchid conservation
biology is between the terrestrial and epiphytic life
forms and the practical implications for conservation
programs. For example, most terrestrial taxa have often








3 IOCC PROCEEDINGS


intricate and biologically sensitive interactions with
mycorrhiza. The evidence for such relationships in epi-
phytes is less convincing -take for example the bil-
lions of orchid plants produced commercially each
year in the vast production houses of Europe and
south-east Asia all without specific fungal endophytes.
Interestingly there are far fewer epiphytic orchid rein-
troduction programs compared with terrestrial orchids
-possibly linked to the affluence of countries (mostly
temperate climates that support only terrestrial orchid
floras) and their ability to support reintroduction pro-
grams.
Beyond endophyte specificity/requirements, epi-
phytic and terrestrial orchids share much in common in
their requirements for devising an effective conserva-
tion reintroduction or preservation program. Keystone
knowledge needs to reflect the ability of the reintro-
duced or remaining populations of the plant to com-
plete its life cycle successfully including self-perpetu-
ating populations. Knowledge gaps that are critical for
meeting this performance indicator include: under-
standing pollination syndromes, biology of the pollina-
tor, substrate, successional requirements (successional
vs climax vegetation), seed germination and seedlings
establishment requirements and importantly the capaci-
ty of the species and the reintroduction to cope with
climate change. The latter is one of the most significant
challenges facing orchid conservation programs.
Evidence is continuing to mount that for terrestrial
orchids, range contractions or expansions may be a fact
of life for many species just as the paleoecological data
indicates such changes have occurred over the millenia
for other plant groups.


Given the diversity of potential drivers of orchid rar-
ity, future conservation programs will require
researchers to draw information across a wide spec-
trum of scientific disciplines. However, this is impor-
tant in integrating conservation of orchid species with
the societies in which they occur. As one of the more
sensitive components of the flora to environmental
change, orchids can be justified as flagship species for
plant conservation, both scientifically and through their
widespread recognition in the wider community.
As some of the most charismatic of species for plant
conservation, failure to deliver effective conservation
of orchids, even using the simple approach of the
GSPC orchid targets, represents a dire scenario for
conservation of all plant species. Can we as orchid
conservation professionals accept the challenge of
delivering a more effective orchid conservation mes-
sage to the wider world? Orchids continue to be the
plants that captivate and enthrall. Movies are made
about them ('Adaptation' with Nic Cage and Meryl
Streep), we eat them (vanilla), they remain as symbols
of love and devotion and they are the most recognized
of plant families. As David Attenborough stated
'Orchids surely are the most glamorous of plants...'.
The challenge therefore is to conclude the third IOCC
with a renewed sense of purpose and direction melding
as never before, science with orchid conservation prac-
tice. And by securing orchid conservation there is a
very real opportunity for collateral conservation of a
considerably larger biodiversity as orchids unlike most
plant groups depend for their existence upon a host of
other plants and animals. What better reason for con-
serving these remarkable plants.


Dr Kingsley Dixon has over 20 years experience in researching the ecology and physiology of Australian native plants
and ecosystems. He leads a science group comprising botanical and restoration sciences and, as Director of Science at
the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority (BGPA), has developed a strong multi-disciplinary approach to conservation
and restoration of native plant biodiversity and degraded landscapes. The research team of over 40 research staff and
postgraduate students specialise in seed ecology and biology, propagation science, germplasm storage, conservation
genetics and restoration ecology with a strong emphasis on orchid biology and conservation. This research group has
contributed significantly to seed science in Australia, with major advances in understanding seed dormancy (pioneer-
ing work in smoke technology) as well as orchid seed conservation.
Ryan Phillips is a PhD student at Kings Park and Botanic Garden and the University of Western Australia working on
the role of mycorrhiza and pollinators in controlling rarity and speciation in Drakaea. Interests include the causes of
orchid diversification and rarity and the co-evolution of orchids and their pollinators.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.






Pages
Missing
or
Unavailable








LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2): 19-21. 2007.


INVASIVE ORCHIDS: WEEDS WE HATE TO LOVE?

JAMES D. ACKERMAN

Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico
PO Box 23360
San Juan PR 00931-3360, U.S.A.
jdackerman@uprrp.edu


Rare species that show habitat specificity and an
aversion to habitat disturbance may be common in
the Orchidaceae (Tremblay et al. 1998; Bergman et
al. 2006). Nonetheless, most orchids may not be in
such a critical state and many are, quite frankly,
weedy. We may learn much about rare species by
asking what makes other orchids common and
resilient or actually dependent on change. Most
orchids do occur in ephemeral or frequently dis-
turbed habitats (Ackerman 1983; Catling 1996)
whether they are pastures, roadsides, citrus groves,
coffee and tea farms, or simply as epiphytes whose
substrates, by definition, are temporary and run the
gamut from durable tree trunks to short-lived twigs
(Johansson 1974).
Effective dispersal capabilities are essential for
occupying ephemeral habitats. Certainly orchid
seed morphology lends itself to the possibility of
distance dispersal (Arditti & Ghani 2000; Murren &
Ellison 1998). In the West Indies, nearly 60% of
the orchid species occur on more than one island
and a floristic affinity analysis has indicated that
geographical distance for these species is generally
not a barrier to dispersal (Trejo-Torres & Ackerman
2001).
The combination of mobility and widespread
preference for ephemeral habitats appears to have
given orchid populations a degree of resiliency that
is generally underappreciated. We all know that
deforestation, or habitat destruction is a common
problem not only in the tropics but elsewhere
throughout the world. A prime example is Puerto
Rico where 95% of the forest cover was cut by the
early 1940's (Brash 1987; Lugo et al. 1993 cited by
Figueroa Col6n 1996), yet the number of orchid
species lost from the flora has been less than 5%.
Since then, forest recovery has been substantial and


some orchid species have responded positively to
the re-growth, a few becoming quite abundant in
secondary habitats (Ackerman & Galarza-P&rez
1991).
Orchids with rapidly expanding populations
include natives, but non-natives everywhere are
making their appearance (Table 1). In fact, the
global compendium of weeds (www.hear.org/gcw/
index.html) lists over 90 orchid weeds! In Puerto
Rico, a number of non-native orchids have persisted
for a long time, but only recently have they become
aggressive taking on weed-like characteristics.
Such a demographic pattern is very typical of inva-
sive species.
What makes an orchid weedy and invasive?
Many plants that are classified as weeds have a
suite of characteristics associated with colonization
capabilities, and some of these features characterize
orchids in general: abundant seed production
(although in orchids effective population sizes may
be w!i. !!i. distance dispersal, and weak competitive
capabilities. Rapid development, autogamy and
apomixis are also common features of weeds, but
these are certainly not common features of orchids.
From a sample of weedy orchids, we find a com-
plete spectrum of breeding systems (e.g., Sun
1997), from apomictic or autogamous to outcross-
ing, and plants of the latter may be either self-com-
patible or -incompatible.
It is difficult to find a common thread among the
invasive orchids. Some are understory plants; per-
haps most prefer grassy roadsides, while a few others
are epiphytes. Some are autogamous but others
attract local pollinators with nectar rewards or by
deceit, with pollination systems not unlike that of
local species. Answers may rest not only with the
distribution of appropriate habitat, but also with the









3 IOCC PROCEEDINGS


TABLE 1. Orchid species naturalized in Puerto Rico.


Species


Native


Non-native


Breeding system


Habitat


Arundina graminifolia India, Nepal, China, SE Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Outcrossing Open disturbed
Asia to Indonesia Guadeloupe Deception

Dendrobium crumenatum India, Bangladesh, Puerto Rico, Outcrossing reward Open
China, Burma, Thailand, Guadeloupe
Vietnam, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines,
Australia

Epidendrum radicans Mexico, Central Cuba, Puerto Rico Outcrossing Open disturbed
America, Colombia deception

Oeceoclades maculata Africa South America, Autogamous Shady
Central America,
West Indies, Florida

Phaius tancarvilleae India, Nepal, China, SE Hawaii, Cuba, Outcrossing? Open to shady disturbed
Asia to Phillipines, South Jamaica, Puerto Rico Deception
Pacific Islands

Spathoglottis plicata India, SE Asia New Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Autogamous Open, disturbed ground
Guinea, New Caledonia Rico, Virgin Islands,
to Phillipines Lesser Antilles

Vanilla planifolia Mexico, Central Puerto Rico, West Outcrossing deception* Forest disturbed habitats
America? Indies, Central &
South America

Vanilla pompona Mexico, Central Puerto Rico, Lesser Outcrossing deception* Forest disturbed habitats
America, South America Antilles?

Zeuxine strautematica Sri Lanka, India, SE Southern USA, Apomictic Open disturbed
Asia, Java, Phillipines, Bahamas, Cuba,
Taiwan, Japan Jamaica, Puerto Rico

*The two vanillas may be reward plants at least for the male euglossine bee pollinators in Central America.

players in the orchids' symbiotic relationships: polli- ma: can non-native, marquee taxa be so bad? Do


nators and mycorrhizal fungi. Widespread species
either specialize on widespread "partners" or are
catholic with whom they play or exploit (cf.
Bascompte et al. 2003; VAzquez & Aizen 2004). The
asymmetrical relationship between plants and their
pollinators is well documented, but the relationship
between orchids and their mycorrhizal symbionts is
only just beginning to be revealed (e.g., Otero et al.
2002, 2004; Taylor et al 2003). What do rare species
do? Again, we do not know this entirely but we can
predict that constraints of specificity may have a role,
whether it is the habitat, the pollinators, their mycor-
rhizal associations, or some combination of the three
remains to be seen.
Finally, we are faced with an orchidaceous dilem-

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


they exclude native taxa or disrupt natural ecosys-
tems or are they benign? Do we encourage, tolerate
or fight such intrusions to our sovereign soil?


LITERATURE CITED
Ackerman, J.D. 1983. On the evidence for a primitively
epiphytic habit in orchids. Syst. Bot. 8: 474-477.
Ackerman, J.D., J.C. Trejo Torres & Y. Crespo Chuy.
In press. Orchids of the West Indies: predictability of
diversity and endemism. J. Biogeography.
Ackerman, J.D. & M. Galarza-Perez. 1991. Patterns and
maintenance of extraordinary variation in the
Caribbean orchid, Tolumnia (Oncidium) variegata.
Syst. Bot. 16: 182-194.
Arditti, J. & A.K.A. Ghani. 2000. Numerical and physi-
cal properties of orchid seeds and their biological









ACKERMAN - Invasive orchids


implications. New Phytol. 145: 367-421.
Bascompte, J., P. Jordano, C.J. Melian & J.M. Olesen.
2003. The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic
networks. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc. (USA) 100: 9383-
9387.
Bergman, E., J.D. Ackerman, J. Thompson & J.K.
Zimmerman. 2006. Land use history affects the dis-
tribution of the saprophytic orchid II i//ll il,.a ,, lia
calcarata in Puerto Rico. Biotropica 38: 492-499.
Brash, A. 1987. The history of avian extinction and forest
conversion on Puerto Rico. Biol. Conserv. 39: 97-111.
Catling, P.M. 1996. Conservation strategy. Pages 11-23
in: IUCN/SSC Orchid Specialist Group, Orchids
status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Figueroa Col6n, J.C. 1996. Phytogeographical trends, centers
of high species richness and endemism, and the question
of extinctions in the native flora of Puerto Rico. Ann. New
York Acad. Sc. 776: 89-102.
Johansson, D. 1974. Ecology of West African epiphytes.
Acta Phytogeog. Suec. 59: 1-129.
IUCN/SSC Orchid Specialist Group. 1996. Orchids
status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Lugo, A., J. Parrotta & S. Brown. 1993. Loss in species
caused by deforestation and their recovery through
management. Ambio 22(2-3): 106-109.
Murren, J.C. & A.M. Ellison. 1998. Seed dispersal char-


acteristics of Brassavola nodosa (Orchidaceae).
Amer. J. Bot. 85: 675-680.
Otero J.T., J.D. Ackerman& P. Bayman. 2002.
Diversity and host specificity of endophytic
Rhizoctonia-like fungi from tropical orchids. Amer. J.
Bot. 89: 1852-1858.
Otero J.T., J. D. Ackerman & P. Bayman. 2004.
Differences in mycorrhizal preferences between two
tropical orchids. Molec. Ecol. 13: 2393-2404.
Sun, M. 1997. Genetic diversity in three colonizing
orchids with contrasting mating systems. Amer. J.
Bot. 84: 224-232.
Taylor, D.L., T.D. Bruns, T.M. Szaro & S.A. Hodges.
2003. Divergence in mycorrhizal specialization within
Hexalectris spicata (Orchidaceae), a nonphotosynthet-
ic desert orchid. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1168-1179.
Trejo-Torres, J.C. & J.D. Ackerman. 2001.
Biogeographic affinities of Caribbean Orchidaceae
based on parsimony analyses of shared species. J.
Biogeogr. 28: 775-794.
Tremblay, R.L., J.K. Zimmerman, L. Lebr6n, P.
Bayman, I. Sastre, F. Axelrod & J. Alers-Garcia.
1998. Host specificity and low reproductive success
in the rare endemic Puerto Rican orchid Lepanthes
caritensis (Orchidaceae). Biol. Conserv. 85: 297-304.
Vazquez, D.P. & M.A. Aizen. 2004. Asymmetric spe-
cialization: a pervasive feature of plant-pollinator
interactions. Ecology 85: 1251-1257.


James D. Ackerman is Professor of the University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras. He is a biologist with broad interests,
but focuses on the ecology, systematics and evolution of Orchidaceae. His present interests include studies on the rela-
tionship between land use history and orchid distributions, orchid biogeography, invasive orchids, and their mycor-
rhizal relationships.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








LANKESTERIANA7(1-2): 22-27. 2007.


MORPHOLOGICAL AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF
SPECIES OF TULASNELLA (HOMOBASIDIOMYCETES) ASSOCIATED
WITH NEOTROPICAL PLANTS OF LAELIINAE (ORCHIDACEAE)
OCCURRING IN BRAZIL


PAULO RICARDO M. ALMEIDA1'4, CASSIO VAN DEN BERG2 & ARISTOTELES GOES-NETO3

'Programa de P6s - Graduacio em Botfnica, Departamento de Ciencias Biol6gicas, Universidade Estadual de
Feira de Santana (UEFS), Rodovia Br 116, Km 03, Feira de Santana - Bahia - Brazil. CEP: 44031-460
2Laborat6rio de Sistemitica Molecular de Plantas, Departamento de Ciencias Biol6gicas, M6dulo 1, F J 1. i ..
LABIO, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Rodovia Br 116, Km 03, Feira de Santana - Bahia -
Brazil. CEP: 44031-460
'Laborat6rio de Pesquisa em Microbiologia, Departamento de Ciencias Biol6gicas, M6dulo 1, EF J ... ..
LABIO, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Rodovia Br 116, Km 03, Feira de Santana - Bahia -
Brazil. CEP: 44031-460
4Author for correspondence: pauloricardoma@yahoo.com.br

KEY WORDs:Laeliinae, Tulasnella, orchid mycorrhiza, conservation


Introduction

Tullasnella spp. have been found forming
mycorhizal associations with plants of all
Orchidaceae subfamilies, and they are one of the
main symbionts in partially micoheterotrophic plants
(Taylor et al. 2002). Little is known about mycorhizal
fungi of Neotropical Orchidaceae, especially in
Laeliinae that occur in distinct environments such as
"Restingas", Seasonal Forests and "Campos
Rupestres" (Cruz et al. 2003, Britto et al. 1993,
Franqa et al. 1997, Withner 2000).
Some few studies in completely mycoheterotrophic
Epidendroideae have been shown that these plants
form mycorrhizal associations mainly with fungi of
the genera Russula, Thelephora, Sebacina, as well as
other ectomycorrhizal Basidiomycetes in trees
(Taylor and Bruns, 1999, 1997, Taylor et al. 2003,
Selosse et al. 2002, Girlanda et al. 2006). There are
other studies indicating a preferential association
between basidiomycetous fungi and Orchidaceae
plants as in Oncidiinae with Ceratobasidium and
Cypripedium with Tulasnella (Otero et al. 2002,
2004, Shefferson et al. 2005). These works suggest a
putative specificity and recruiting of these plants in
the environment where they occur.
Laeliinae plants have been intensively and indiscrimi-
nately collected in Brazil, leading to a significant reduc-


tion in their natural populations. In order to establish con-
servation strategies to these threatened plants as there is
an indication in literature showing a preferential associa-
tion between some specific fungi and Orchidaceae, the
identity of symbiont fungi forming mycorrhizal associa-
tions in Brazilian Laeliineae was studied, aiming to an
efficient in situ and ex situ conservation.

Methodology

COLLECTION SITES AND ISOLATION OF FUNGI
Orchidaceae plants were collected from natural
populations that occur in two distinct Brazilian States.
A total of 20 natural populations, including plants of
Laeliinae and Pleurothallidinae were sampled. From
each population, one or two individual plants were
collected and their roots were sampled in a period of
one to two weeks since collection date. The individu-
als were selected from distinct environments
(Tropical Rain Forest, "Restinga", and "Campo
Rupestre") and the isolation of associated fungi was
carried out according to Warcup and Talbot (1967).

MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF FUNGAL
COLONIES
Fungal colonies were incubated for 30 days in PDA
(potato-dextrose agar) and OA (3% oat meal agar) to
induce the formation of monilioid cells, and they








ALMEIDA et al. - Morphological and molecular characterization of Tulasnella


were further analysed to determine the form, number
and array of the cells. Macroscopic and microscopic
somatic features of the colonies were also described.
In order to analyse the nuclear condition, hyphal
nuclei were stained according to Sneh et al. (1991).

MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF FUNGAL ISOLATES
All the isolates were first cultivated in BDA for 15
days at 28 �C , including an Epulorhiza epiphytica
Pereira, Rollemberg et Kasuya isolate, gently sent by
Mycorrhizal Association Lab of the Federal
University of Viqosa, Brazil. DNA extraction was
carried out according to CTAB protocol (Doyle &
Doyle, 1987). Double-stranded symmetric PCR reac-
tions were carried out in 0.2-mL tubes in 50 pL reac-
tion volume, using the primers ITS5 and ITS4 that
amplify the Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS region)
of nuclear ribosomal DNA (White et al., 1990). PCR
products were purified using EXOSAP and were
sequenced in an automatic DNA sequencer (SCE
2410, Spectrumedix LLC). Chromatograms were
edited using GAP4 software in Staden (Staden,
1996). Resulting sequences were submitted to a simi-
larity search using BLASTn software of NCBI and
aligned with Clustal X (Thompson et al. 1997).
Phylogenetic parsimony analyses (heuristic search,
TBR algorithm) were conducted in PAUP 4.0
(Swofford, 1998). Clade robustness was assessed
using bootstrap proportions (1000 replications)
(Felsenstein, 1985).

Results and discussion

IDENTIFICATION OF ISOLATES FROM LAELIINAE
According to morphological characterization, the
isolates belong to the genus Tulasnella
(Basidiomycetes) (Rasmussen 1995, Currah and
Zelmer 1992, Currah et al. 1997b), but the somatic
characters were not stable enough to differentiate the
groups. All the colonies presented an entire sub-
mersed margin and binucleate hyphae (Fig.1). In all
the isolates monilioid cells showed a very high mor-
phological plasticity with cell chains ranging from 3
to 15 cells with or without ramification. Andersen
(1990) pointed out that somatic features were not reli-
able, since there is not even one character that could
be taken as a parameter in intraspecific level. The


three isolates showed a growing pattern typical of rhi-
zoctonoid fungi, but they did not produce monilioid
cells even when they were submitted to distinct cul-
ture media.
All the sequences were compared to NCBI data-
base, revealing that the isolates belonged to different
lineages of Tulasnella including T. violea and T.
calospora. Some sequences were considerably diffi-
cult to align and they were initially excluded from the
phylogeny. In the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 2) some of
the isolates represented lineages of Tulasnella
calospora and others were lineages of Epulorhiza
,.;/ i i ;. ., both of them significantly supported by
bootstrap analysis. E. epiphytica is the only species
described for Brazil and it was isolated from host
plants that naturally occur in the State of Minas
Gerais (Pereira et al. 2003). These results suggest that
all the isolates are distinct lineages of Tulasnella, and
that this possibly reflects the different environments
where host plants occur.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAELIINAE AND
TULASNELACEAE
In accordance to the results, although host plants
live in completely different environments where the
research availability is distinct, one can observe the
strong trend of studied plants to form mycorrhizal
associations with fungi of the genus Tulasnella
(Almeida 2006). Studies on Australian orchids
revealed that Diurideae plants has a strict specificity
relationship with the fungi Sebacina vermifera and
some lineages of Tulasnella, including Tulasnella
calospora, which has been considered as a universal
species (Rasmussen, 1995, Warcup, 1981, 1988,
1971). Inside Diurideae, all the studied species that
belong to Drakaeinae and Diuridinae associate to
Tulasnella, and all the studied species (except for
those from genera Lyperanthus and Bumettia) that
belong to Caladeniinae present a strict relationship
with Sebacina (Warcup, 1981, Dressier, 1993). As all
the isolates were obtained from pelotons, they are
mycorrizal fungi.
Despite of the great advances obtained with the
direct identification of fungi by molecular techniques
such as PCR and sequencing, the morphological
study of the isolates is still very important, mainly for
the establishing of true biological entities or species.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


FIGURE 1. Any isolates of plants of Laeliinae. A. Isolate of Acianthera hamosa. B. Cattleya elongata. C. Brassavola
tuberculata. D. Dimerandra emarginata. Scale bar is 1 cm. Any monilioid cells of other isolates. E. Isolate of
Sophronitis flavasulina. F. Sophronitis pabstii. Scale bar is 3 ?m, G. Epidendrum orchidiflorum and H. Cattleya
tenuis. Scale bar 5 ?m.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









ALMEIDA et al - Morphological and molecular characterization of Tulasnella


7 Tulasnella da icta AY373297
4 Islado BA10 E. oHc *iflorum) -4-
S 4 96% asnela calospcra AY643804
95 4 12 Tulasnella calosporaAY643804
4 Tuasneilasp. 169Td AY373301
60 0% . Tulasnela irfrons AY373290
20 60%57% Tasneifasp.101G AY373266
S95% Tulse.43Jp AY373271
4 I- -soao r . R9ae)
277% u - lado MG3 (P. Mmae)
52 solado MG4 E. secandatmr
4 1 Tulasnellasp. 179Gp AY373275
I Ttlasnellasp. 230Gp AY373268
if 7Tulasnellasp. 213Td AY373311
1 Tulasne~lasp. 248Gp AY373278
4f Tl-asnel/asp.186Td AY373307
0 Tulasneilasp.219Td AY373313
2 - Tulasenelasp. 247Gp AY373277
2 2 Thansnellasp. 109Gp AY373263
1 -Tulasnellasp. 141Gp AY373264
2 T-lasnellasp. 144Gp AY373265
1 Tuiasnellasp. 239Gp AY373269
7 2 r Tulasnellasp. 145Gp AY373276
-_j I Tulasnellasp. 148Gp AY373267
f 2 fTtlasnellasp. 241 Gp AY373270
0r T uasnellasp. 149Gp AY373273
6 Tulasnellasp. 146Gp AY373274
5 T~uasnel/asp. 253Td AY373314
S Orcis mono XII-1 AJ549127
31 8 Tulasnellasp. 234LI AY373286
S Tulasnellasp. 238LI AY373288
51% -W % fn-cultivado Emppactis antea AY634122
irl 1 -- Wfasnd/R YL

o Tu/asnel/asp.1 66LI 373280
67% --Tulasnellasp. 258LI AY373289
67% 1 -Tulasnel/asp. 191Td AY373299
Tulasnelfasp. 120LI AY310910
8 Tulasnellasp. 1 96LI AY373284
__p-u/o epip.iyca
66% 39 64'b 1"- dorhizasp. S J313438
S /forpzas.V. Van44 AJ313443
571 1 solado BAS (.teamls)
61% - Isolado BA8 iD. emana~r a)
5 sladl BA4 C( a~eo )
22 90% solado BA2 A. hamosa)
16 --~u/orAhzasp. Onv4 AJ313447
7- 10 idWoriMzasp. Am8 AJ313442
56% 14 58 -ui/orizasp. Am9 AJ313444
5 4 uorhizasp. Sp1aAJ313437
1 |-- Isolado BA7 (Q.,(auaimensis) *
Sl orhizasp. S1 AJ313439
2 13 Worhizasp. Fa5a AJ313453
5 lorhizasp. FB1 a AJ313452
SWoriza sp. Onv4.3 AJ313449
S865 orNiza s. Onv4.2 AJ313448
7 100% wormzasp. Ag3a AJ313435
SNor zasp. Ea3a AJ313451
8186% 9 Nforhizasp. ED2b AJ313455
100% .Worizasp. ED3b AJ313454
. iorWzasp. Eb3c AJ313450
I 64% /orhizasp. Eb3c AJ313450
8 f Liparns ioeseti 036 AJ549129
404 Mf Ljpa~ts oesei' 0318 AJ549128
J orMzasp. B1 AJ313445
64% 80% vorzasp. B4 AJ313441
S53%, lorhizasp. D7 AJ313440
Slorhizasp. Nq AJ313446
t DactVforhfza ncarnta 019 AJ549130
78% B0 0 Mf Otchis/Ai#ora 02 AJ549133
, ., ,.o z 4,#M n5 5aMaR8 49132
Sn Mf Dacorza incernate 066 AJ549131
S Mf Orhis aizffra VIIf5 AJ549126
Mf OAhis gaiffwa VI-l Ob AJ549125
85% M Mf Lipanis oeseifX-9a AJ549124






FIGURE 2. Fungal internal transcribed spacer phylogeny suggesting that the isolates of Laeliinae form mycorrhizal associ-
ations with fungi of the genus Tulasnella. The arrows show where the isolates of Laeliinae are.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


Currently these studies have been decreasing, which
reflects, for instance, the insignificant number of
anamorphic fungi of described Epulorhiza species
(Currah and Zelmer, 1992, Zelmer and Currah, 1995,
Currah et al 1997a, Pereira et al 2003), as well as
the high number of sequences deposited in GenBank
without any definition in the specific level
(McCormick et al 2004, Shefferson et al 2005).
It is not known if this putative preference could be
extended to all genera inside Laeliinae. Some studies
has already pointed out this possible preferential rela-
tionship in the mycorrhizal association in some few
species of Laeliinae (Curtis, 1939, Nogueira et al.
2005, Pereira et al 2001, 2003, Zettler et al 1999).
Future investigations will be carried out in order to
verify the pattern of mycorrhizal association in
Laeliinae genera for the development of a future pro-
gram of symbiotic propagation of threatened
Brazilian species.



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I would like to thank all the logis-
tics from the Research Lab in Microbiology (LAPEM),
coordinated by Prof Dr. Arist6teles G6es-Neto and from
the Plant Molecular Systematics Lab (LAMOL), coordi-
nated by Prof. Dr. Cassio van den Berg. I would also like
to thank CNPq, FAPESB and the Mycorrhizal association
Lab (Federal University of Vigosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil)
by giving me a clone of E. epiphytica to be included in the
phylogenetic analysis.


LITERATURE CITED
Almeida, P.R.M.de 2006. Associa9go micorrizica na sub-
tribo Laeliinae (Orchidaceae). Monograph. State
University de Feira de Santana, 56 p.
Andersen, T.F. 1990. A study of hyfal morphology in the
form genus Rhizoctonia. Mycotaxon 37: 25-46.
Britto, I.C., L.P. Queiroz, M.L.S. Guedes, N.C. Oliveira &
L.B. Silva. 1993. Flora Fanerogdmica das dunas e
lagoas do Abaet&, Salvador, Bahia. Sitientibus 11: 31-
46.
Cruz, D.T. da, E.L. Borba & C. van Den Berg. 2003. O
genero Cattleya Lindl. (Orchidaceae) no estado da
Bahia, Brasil. Stientibus 3 (1/2): 26-34.
Currah, R.S. & C.D.A. Zelmer. 1992. Key and Notes for
the Genera of Fungi with Orchids and a new Species in
the Genus Epulorhiza. Rep. Tottori Mycol. Inst. 30: 43-
59.
Currah, R.S., L.W. Zettler & T.M. Mclnnis. 1997a.
Epulorhiza inquilina sp. nov. from Platanthera

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


(Orchidaceae) and a Key to Epulorhiza Species.
Mycotaxon 61: 338-342.
Currah, R.S., C.D. Zelmer, S. Hambleton, & K.A. Richardson.
1997b. Fungi from orchid mycorrhizas. In: Arditti, J. &
Pridgeon, A. M. Orchid Biology. Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1997, 117-170.
Curtis, J.T. 1939. The relation of specificity of orchid
mycorrhizal fungi to the problem of symbiosis. Am. J.
Bot. 26: 390-398.
Doyle, J.J. & J.L. Doyle. 1987. A rapid isolation procedure
for small quantities of fresh tissue. Phytochemical
Bulletin, 19: 11-15.
Dressier, R.L. 1993. Phylogeny and classification of the
orchid family. Dioscorides Press, Portland.
Franga, F., E. Mello & C.C. Santos. 1997. Flora de
I.. . . . da regiao de Milagres, Bahia, Brasil: I.
Caracteriza9go da vegetagio e lista de esp&cies de dois
1 .. -... Sitientibus 17: 163-184.
Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an
approach using the bootstrap. Evol. 39: 783-91.
McCormick, M.K., D.F. Whigham & J. O'Neill. 2004.
Mycorrhizal diversity in photosynthetic terrestrial
orchids. New Phytol. 163: 425-438.
Nogueira, R.E., O.L. Pereira, C.M. Kasuya, M.C. Lanna da
S. & M.P. Mendonga. 2005. Fungos micorrizicos asso-
ciados a orquideas em campos rupestres na regiao do
Quadrilatero Ferrifero, MG, Brasil. Acta Bot. Bras.
v.19, 3: 417-424.
Otero, J.T., J.D. Ackerman & P. Bayman. 2002. Diversity
and Host Specificity of Endophytic Rhizoctonia -like
Fungi from Tropical Orchids. Am. J. Bot. v. 89, 11:
1852-1858.
Otero, J.T., J.D. Ackerman & P. Bayman. 2004.
Differences in mycorrhizal preferences between two
tropical orchids. Mol. Ecol. 13: 2393-2404.
Pereira, L.O. 2001. Caracterizagio morfol6gica e
molecular de fungos micorrizicos de sete esp&cies de
orquideas neotropicais. 47 pg. Dissertagio (Mestrado
em Microbiologia do Solo), Universidade Federal de
Vigosa, UFV, Minas Gerais.
Pereira, L.O., C.L. Rollemberg, A.C. Borges, K. Matsouka
& M.C.M. Kasuya. 2003. Epulorhiza epiphytica sp.
nov. isolada from mycorrhizal roots of epiphytic orchids
in Brazil. Mycoscience, 44: 153-155.
Rasmussen, H.H. 1995. Terrestrial Orchids from seed to
Mycotrophic plant. Cambridge University Press.
Swofford, D.L. 1998. PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using
parsimony and other methods, version 4.0 b6.
Sunderland: Sinquer.
Shefferson, R.P., M. Weib, T. Kull & L. Taylor. 2005.
High specificity generally characterizes mycorrhizal
association in rare Lady's Slipper orchids, genus
Cypripedium. Mol. Ecol. 14: 613-626.









ALMEIDA et al - Morphological and molecular characterization of Tulasnella


Sneh, B., L. Burpee, A. Ogoshi. 1991. Identification of
Rhizoctonia species. APS Press, The American
Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Taylor D.L., T.D. Bruns. 1997. Independent, specialized
invasions of ectomycorrhizal mutualism by two nonpho-
tosynthetic orchids. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 94:
4510-4515.
Taylor, D.L. & T.D. Bruns. 1999. Population, habitat and
genetic correlates of mycorrhizal specialization in the
'cheating' orchids Corallorhiza maculata and C.
mertensiana. Mol. Ecol. 8: 1719 1732.
Taylor, D.L., T.D. Bruns, J.R. Leake & D.J. Read. 2002.
Mycorrhizal specificity and function in mycoheterotrop-
hic plants. In: van der Heijden, M. C. A., Sanders I, eds.
Mycorrhizal Ecology. Berlin, Germany: Springer
Verlag, p. 375-413.
Thompson, J.D., T.J. Gibson, F. Plewniak, F. Jeanmougin
& D.G. Higgins. 1997. The clustral -Windows inter-
face: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alingn-
ment aided by quality analysis tool. Nucl. Acids Res.
24: 4876-4882.
Wacurp, J. H. & P.H.B. Talbot. 1967. Perfect states ofrhizoc-
tonias associated with orchids. New Phytol. 66: 631-641.


Wacurp, J.H. & P.H.B. Talbot. 1971. Perfect states ofrhi-
zoctonias associated with orchids - II. New Phytol. 70:
35-40.
Wacurp, J.H. 1981. The mycorrhizal relationship of
Australian orchids. New Phytol. 87: 371-381.
Wacurp, J.H. 1988. Mycorrhizal associations of isolates of
Sebacina vermifera. New Phytol. 110: 227-231.
Withner, C.L. 2000. The Cattleyas and their relatives. Vol.
VI. The South American Encyclia Species. Timber
Press, Portland, 153 p.
White, T.J., T.D. Bruns, S. Lee & J.W. Taylor. 1990.
Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal riboso-
mal RNA genes for phylogenetics. Pp. 315-322 in: G.
Maidh, J.J. Sninsky & T.J. White (eds.), PCR Protocols:
A guide to methods and applications. New York:
Academic Press.
Zelmer, C.D. & R.S. Currah. 1995. Ceratorhiza pernacate-
na and Epulorhiza caledulina spp. nov.: mycorrhizal
fungi of terrestrial orchids. Can. J. Bot. 73: 1981-1985.
Zettler, L.W., Burkhead, J.C., Marshall, J.A. 1999. Use of
a mycorrhizal fungus from Epidendrum conopseum to
germinate seed of Encyclia tampesis in vitro.
Lindleyana 14: 102-105.


Paulo Ricardo Almeida is CNPq Scholarship/ graduate student -Msc. student in Botany from State University of Feira
de Santana. The first work was developed during the undergraduation course focusing on the mycorrhizal association
in subtribe Laeliinae. These work culminated in the Bachelor's monograph, "Mycorrhizal association in subtribe
Laeliinae (Orchidaceae)". Currently, he is working with populations of two species of Encyclia from distinct
environments that occur in the state of Bahia, Brazil. The following questions are being addressed in this study: (i) if
there is a putative preference in this association and (ii) if both plant species have distinct symbionts, and aiming to an
efficient in situ and ex situ conservation of these plants.

Cassio van den Berg is graduated in Agriculture at Universidade de SioPaulo, Brazil, has a master degree in Ecology at
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil, and a PhD in Botany from the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew and
University of Reading, UK. Currently he is full professor at Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Brazil, with
research focus on orchid systematics, plant molecular systematics and plant population genetics.

Arist6teles G6es-Neto is graduated in B.Sc. in Biology, Federal University of Bahia (I ! 1 % i Brazil (1994) and Ph.D. in
Botany, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil (2001). Currently, he is titular professor of the
Dept. of Biology, State University of Feira de Santana (UEFS), Brazil, coordinator of Research Laboratory in
Microbiology (LAPEM), and coordinator of Graduate Program in Biotechnology (M.Sc. and Ph.D. levels) at the same
University. He is also member of the Scientific and Technical Chamber of Biological Sciences and Environment of the
Science Foundation of the State of Bahia, Brazil (FAPESB). His research lines include Diversity and Evolution,
Genomics/Proteomics, and Biotechnology of Fungi with emphasis on Basidiomycota.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2): 28-43. 2007.


ARE OUR ORCHIDS SAFE DOWN UNDER? A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT
OF THREATENED ORCHIDS IN AUSTRALIA

GARY N. BACKHOUSE

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment
8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002 Australia
Gary.Backhouse@dse.vic.gov.au


KEY WORDs:threatened orchids Australia conservation status


Introduction

Australia has about 1700 species of orchids, com-
prising about 1300 named species in about 190 gen-
era, plus at least 400 undescribed species (Jones
2006, pers. comm.). About 1400 species (82%) are
geophytes, almost all deciduous, seasonal species,
while 300 species (18%) are evergreen epiphytes
and/or lithophytes. At least 95% of this orchid flora is
endemic to Australia. While the tropical and subtropi-
cal epiphytic/lithophytic orchid flora is low by world
standards, the temperate terrestrial orchid flora is
amongst the richest and most diverse of any compara-
ble region in the world.
Like many places on our planet, biodiversity and
natural habitats in Australia have suffered substantial
declines and range in abundance through agricultural,
industrial and urban development. The Australian
Government Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) cur-
rently lists 106 species of flora and fauna as extinct,
and a further 1582 species as threatened, in Australia.


Many orchid species are included in this list. This
paper examines the listing process for threatened
orchids in Australia, compares regional and national
lists of threatened orchids, and provides recommen-
dations for improving the process of listing regionally
and nationally threatened orchids.

Methods

The national government of Australia and each of
the six Australian state and two territory governments
have processes for listing threatened species under
biodiversity conservation legislation within each
jurisdiction (Table 1). To establish the number of
threatened orchids included in these lists, the sched-
ules of each Act were checked and listed orchids
identified (Appendix 1). The State of Victoria also
maintains a published 'advisory' (non-legislative) list
of rare or threatened flora. This list was also checked
for numbers of threatened orchids and compared
against the state legislative list. Comprehensive
reviews of the conservation status of orchids at the


TABLE 1. National and state/territory legislation listing extinct, rare or threatened orchids in Australia.

Jurisdiction Legislation

Australia Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1998
Australian Capital Territory Nature Conservation Act 1980
New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
Northern Territory Parks & Wildlife Conservation Act 2000
Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992
South Australia National Parks & Wildlife Act 1972
Tasmania Threatened Species Protection Act 1995


Victoria
Western Australia


Flora & Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
Wildlife Conservation Act 1950








BACKHOUSE - Assessment of threatened orchids Australia


state level, for South Australia (Bates 2006), and
Victoria (Backhouse & Cameron 2005, DSE 2005),
were checked and compared to official legislative
lists for those states.
Scientific names were generally left as they were
on the lists, despite many names no longer being
valid due to changes in taxonomy. For instance, all
Australian species of Bulbophyllum Thouars and all
but one Australian Dendrobium Sw. species have
been assigned to new genera (Jones 2006). However,
in a few cases, species were listed under different
names on different lists eg. the current name
Corunatylis tecta (D.L. Jones) D.L. Jones & M.A.
Clem. is listed under the EPBC Act, while the former
name Genoplesium tectum D.L. Jones is still listed
under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992.
In these cases, the currently accepted scientific name
has been used.
Definitions -Any examination of different systems
for describing the conservation status of threatened
species immediately runs into the issue of varying
classification systems and definitions. The nine
state/territory and national legislative systems collec-
tively use eight terms to describe conservation status
(Table 2). In this paper, the following definitions are
used:
* Threatened includes 'critically endangered',
'endangered' and 'vulnerable' species (sensu
IUCN 2001). Note that 'rare' is not generally
included in the definition of 'threatened'.
* Conservation Concern includes all 'extinct',
'threatened', 'rare', 'insufficiently known' or 'data
deficient' species (sensu Backhouse & Cameron
2005).
* Listing is used to describe the formal process of
adding a species to a threatened species list (usual-
ly called a Schedule) in biodiversity conservation
legislation (Act).

Results

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT -A total of 424 orchid species
are listed as extinct, threatened or rare in Australia
(Appendix 1, summarised in Table 2). This total
includes 195 species (about 12% of the Australian
orchid flora) listed as extinct or threatened nationally,
plus an additional 238 species (about 14% of the


TABLE 2. Number of extinct, threatened and rare orchid
species in Australia by jurisdiction.


Shaded boxes indicate where the conservation status category is not
used in the national/state/territory legislation
Abbreviations
Rows are conservation status categories: EX - extinct; EW - extinct
in the Wild; CR - critically endangered; EN - endangered; VU - vul-
nerable; RA - rare; TH - threatened; CD - conservation cependent
Columns are jurisdictions: NAT - National; NT - Northern
Territory; Qld - Queensland; NSW - New South Wales; ACT -
Australian Capital Territory; Vic - Victoria; Tas - Tasmania; SA -
South Australia; WA - Western Australia.

Australian orchid flora) listed as extinct, threatened or
rare at the regional (ie. state or territory) level. State
and territory threatened species lists include another
52 species that are listed as extinct or threatened
within their jurisdiction (Appendix 2), that would also
qualify as threatened nationally, but are not yet
included on the national threatened species list. An
additional 54 species are listed under the category of
'rare' within the relevant jurisdiction (Appendix 3),
that would also have this status nationally, but are not
on the national threatened species list. There are
seven species of orchids included on the national
EPBC Act threatened species lists that are not includ-
ed in the relevant state/territory threatened species list
(Appendix 4). An additional two threatened orchids
on the national list, Dendrobium brachypus (Endl.)
H.G. Reichb. and Phreatia paleata H.G. Reichb.,
occur on Australia's island territories not under
state/territory jurisdiction.

REGIONAL ASSESSMENTS -For South Australia, the
assessment by Bates (2006) indicated 146 orchids of
'Conservation Concern', compared with 104 listed
under state legislation (Table 3). For Victoria, the two
assessments indicated a total of 240 (Backhouse &
Cameron 2005) and 257 orchids (DSE 2005) of


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa









3 IOCC PROCEEDINGS


TABLE 3. Assessments of the numbers of orchids of 'con-
servation concern' in South Australia.
Category NPWA Bates (2006)

extinct 0 14
endangered 45 51
vulnerable 31 20
threatened 76 71
rare 28 48
data deficient 0 13
Total conservation concern 104 146

NPWA - National Parks & Wildlife Act 1972, South Australia.


'Conservation Concern', compared with just 75
orchids listed under state legislation (Table 4).


Discussion

The national EPBC Act includes 195 orchid species
listed as extinct or threatened nationally (Table 2),
which is about 12% of the Australian orchid flora.
The state and territory regional threatened species
lists include another 52 species that are listed as
extinct or threatened within their jurisdiction, that
would also qualify as threatened nationally, but are
not yet included on the national threatened species
list. If these species are added, the total national
extinct/threatened orchid count is 15% of the nation's
orchids. An additional 54 species are listed under the
category of 'rare' within the relevant jurisdiction that
would have this status at the national level. Therefore,
there is a total of 301 species of orchids of conserva-
tion concern (= extinct, threatened or rare) at the
national level, that are currently listed on national and
regional biodiversity conservation legislation. This is
18% of the Australian orchid flora. Based solely on a
comparison of the official national and state/territory
legislative threatened species lists, it appears that the
official national list underestimates the real number
of threatened orchids by at least 50 species, and per-
haps as many as 100 or more species.
The comparisons of the comprehensive reviews of
the conservation status of the orchid flora of South
Australia (Bates 2006) and Victoria (Backhouse &
Cameron 2005, DSE 2005) with listed threatened
orchids in those states provides further evidence that
official lists are a substantial underestimate of the

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


TABLE 4. Assessments of the numbers of orchids of 'con-
servation concern' in Victoria.


Category

extinct

critically endangered

endangered

venerable

threatened

near threatened

data deficient

insufficiently known

rare

Total conservation concern


FFGA B&C 2005

11

79

26

92

75 197


28
24


DSE 2005

11


95

49

144


59

240 257


Shaded boxes indicate where the conservation status category is not
used in the assessment system
FFGA - Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, Victoria.
B&C 2005 - Backhouse & Cameron 2005.

actual number of threatened orchids. In South
Australia, the number listed under the NPW Act may
be an underestimate of the actual number of extinct,
threatened or rare orchids by at least 42 species,
based on Bates (2006) (Table 3). There is good evi-
dence to suggest that at least 14 (and perhaps as many
as 20) orchid species have become extinct in that
state (Bates 2006), yet no orchid is currently listed as
extinct under the NPW Act. In Victoria, there appears
to be a much larger discrepancy between the official
and actual number of threatened orchids. There are at
least 150 extinct or threatened orchid species (DSE
2005), and perhaps over 200 (Backhouse & Cameron
2005), compared with only 75 species listed as threat-
ened under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee
Act 1988.
These figures also do not take account of recent
taxonomic advances. For example, 90 new species of
orchids for Australia were described in late 2006
(Jones 2006b, 2006c, Jones & Clements 2006, Jones
& Rouse 2006, Jones et. al 2006), of which at least
one was considered extinct and 53 considered threat-
ened. Most of these species have yet to be included
on n, .ili.1lc.icid species list.
This review and assessments strongly suggests that
official lists of threatened orchids at both the national
and state/territory level are a substantial underesti-








BACKHOUSE - Assessment of threatened orchids Australia


mate of the actual numbers of threatened orchids in
Australia. There are several possible reasons for this
large discrepancy.

LISTING PROCESS -The process to officially list a
species as threatened can take a considerable period
of time. Several jurisdictions have a similar listing
process that includes the following steps:
* a species is nominated for listing;
* the nomination is assessed by a scientific reference
committee;
* the committee makes a recommendation to list (or
not list) to the relevant government minister;
* the recommendation is advertised for public com-
ment;
* the committee makes a final recommendation to
list (or not list);
* the government makes the listing.
In Victoria, under the FFG Act, the process takes a
minimum of nine months in straightforward cases,
and can take well over a year in complicated or con-
tentious cases. Therefore, the listing process can lag
well behind an initial assessment of threat. It is likely
to be some years yet before the national threatened
species list includes most or all orchids currently con-
sidered threatened.

TAXONOMY -There are many known but undescribed
orchid species considered threatened (eg. Backhouse
& Cameron 2005, DSE 2005, Bates 2006) that are not
yet listed. If a species is not formally named, there is
an understandable reluctance to list an essentially
unknown entity. However, several jurisdictions have
provision for listing known but undescribed species,
and some undescribed orchids are listed at the state
and national level (see Appendix 1). The recent
description of over 50 new species considered threat-
ened nationally (Jones 2006b, 2006c, Jones &
Clements 2006, Jones & Rouse 2006, Jones et. al
2006) will greatly assist the prospects for these
species being eventually listed.

DIFFERING THREAT ASSESSMENTS -Differing assess-
ments of conservation status under different jurisdic-
tions, and the use of different assessment systems,
may also be hindering the listing of nationally threat-
ened orchids. While there may be some commonality


between terminology used in most lists (eg. extinct,
endangered, vulnerable), definitions do vary. Several
state/territory lists still use 'rare', which is not regard-
ed as a category of threat, and at least 54 species are
rare at the national level. At least some of these
species listed may well qualify for listing as threat-
ened under national legislation. For instance, an
assessment of the 45 orchid species considered rare in
Victoria (DSE 2005) against IUCN 2001 categories
found that 32 (71%) of these species were threatened,
with 30 being assessed as vulnerable (Backhouse &
Cameron 2005). The Queensland Government is
phasing out the term 'rare' from its legislative list and
current rare species will be reassessed to determine if
any are threatened, although this won't happen until
2010. Even some publications use inconsistent stan-
dards when describing conservation status. For
instance, Riley and Banks (2002) often use 'rare' in
combination with a threat category (eg. rare and
endangered; rare and vulnerable) when describing
conservation status. Jones (2006b) uses IUCN 2001
for some conservation status assessments of threat-
ened orchids, and a system known as AROTs
(Australian Rare or Threatened Species, sensu Briggs
& Leigh 1996) for other assessments, with several
potentially threatened orchids being assessed as rare.

Recommendations

This review and assessment of national and state/ter-
ritory lists of threatened orchids in Australia has high-
lighted several deficiencies in the multiplicity of sys-
tems adopted by the different jurisdictions. Following
are five recommendations proposed to improve the
system for listing threatened orchids in Australia:

1. Undertake a comprehensive national review of the
conservation status ofAustralia's orchids.
A comprehensive national review and assessment
of the conservation status of Australian orchids is
highly desirable, as the most suitable and rapid way
to bring national and regional threatened species lists
up to date. This review should be undertaken using a
single assessment system, preferably the IUCN Red
List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2001). This
national review could easily be adapted for state/terri-
tory jurisdictions through the use of the IUCN region-
al assessment guidelines (IUCN 2003) in undertaking

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


the conservation status assessments. The national
conservation status assessment could be modelled in
the form of similar assessments in the national
'Action Plan' series undertaken for Australia's verte-
brate fauna (eg. Wager & Jackson 1993, Bannister et
al. 1996, Garnett & Crowley 2000) and butterflies
(Sands & New 2003). This review can form the basis
of a concerted approach to formally listing the large
number of threatened orchids not currently on official
legislative lists.

2. Adopt a common set of categories and criteria for
describing the conservation status of Australian
orchids at both the national and regional (state/terri-
tory) level.
Currently the state, territory and national govern-
ments use different systems for describing conserva-
tion status, which can make for vague, confusing or
conflicting definitions, and comparisons between lists
difficult. Even in some recent publications, conserva-
tion status assessments can be confusing. The IUCN
Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2001) are the
current international standard, and have been adapted
for use in the national EPBC Act. This is the most
logical system to use for assessing conservation sta-
tus, especially with the guidelines for application at
the regional level (IUCN 2003). This would provide a
common language at the regional and national level
in communicating conservation status of threatened
orchids.

3. Streamline administrative processes to facilitate
cross listings of threatened orchids.
Threatened orchids listed under state/territory legis-
lation currently have to go through a separate process
for listing under national legislation. There are at
least 50 orchid species listed under state/territory leg-
islation that would qualify for listing under national
legislation, and at least another 50 species listed as
rare that would possibly qualify for national listing.
At the current rate of listing, it will take several years
for these species to be assessed and listed at the
national level. It is highly desirable that, in situations
where a threatened species is listed in a state or terri-
tory, and is endemic to that state/territory, there is a
simple administrative process to quickly list these
species under national legislation.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


4. Streamline administrative processes to accommo-
date changes in taxonomy.
There have been many taxonomic changes affect-
ing Australian orchids, especially changes to genus
names, in recent years, and further changes are likely.
At least 50 threatened orchid species are currently
listed under an invalid scientific name, with some of
these names having changed several years ago.
Current systems for listing threatened species under
biodiversity conservation legislation at both the
state/territory and national level do not adequately
deal with taxonomic changes. For threatened species
that have had a name change since listing, this effec-
tively requires a nomination to delist under the old
name and then nomination for relisting under the new
name. A process is clearly required to rapidly update
the legislative threatened species lists to accommo-
date advances in science and taxonomy. A mecha-
nism for linking listed species names with official
taxonomic checklists maintained by state/territory
and national herbaria would provide an efficient way
for dealing with taxonomic changes.

5. Prepare national and regional (state/territory)
advisory lists of threatened orchids.
The preparation of non-legislative 'advisory' lists of
threatened orchids is a useful way of fairly quickly
accommodating changes in taxonomy, information
and conservation status. These are peer-reviewed, and
can be updated much more rapidly than is the case
with legislative lists. For instance, the Victorian
threatened species advisory lists (DSE 2003, 2005)
are revised every 2-3 years. While these advisory
lists have no formal legislative standing, they are very
useful as guides to the categories and number of
threatened species, and can be used to highlight those
species requiring formal listing under legislation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. My thanks to Mr Adrian
Moorrees and Dr Michael Duncan (department of
Sustainability and Environment, Victoria). Mr David Jones
(Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, Canberra) provid-
ed information on the number of undescribed orchid
species in Australia.


LITERATURE CITED
Backhouse, G. and Cameron, D. 2005. Application of
IUCN Red List categories in determining the conserva-









BACKHOUSE - Assessment of threatened orchids Australia


tion status of the native orchids in Victoria, Australia.
Selbyana 26(1,2) : 58-74.
Bannister, J.L., Kemper, C.M. and Warneke, R.M. 1996.
The action plan for Australian cetaceans. Environment
Australia, Canberra.
Bates, R. 2006 (editor). South Australian native orchids.
Native Orchid Society of South Australia Inc.
Electronic version.
Briggs, J.D and Leigh, J.H. 1996. Rare or threatened
Australian Plants, revised edition. CSIRO and
Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.
DSE 2003. Advisory list of threatened vertebrate fauna in
Victoria -2003. Department of Sustainability and
Environment, Victoria.
DSE 2005. Advisory list of rare or threatened plants in
Victoria -2005. Department of Sustainability and
Environment, Victoria.
Garnett, S. T. and Crowley, G.M. 2000. The action plan
for Australian birds. Environment Australia, Canberra.
IUCN 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria:
Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission.
IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.
IUCN 2003. Guidleines of Application of IUCN Red List
Criteria at Regional Levels. Version 3.0. IUCN Species


Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.
Jones, D.L. 2006a. Native orchids of Australia. Reed New
Holland, Frenchs Forest.
Jones, D.L. 2006b. Miscellaneous new species of
Australian Orchidaceae. Aust. Orchid Res. 5 : 45-111.
Jones, D.L. 2006c. Towards a revision of Bunochilus
D.L.Jones & M.A.Clem. Aust. Orchid Res. 5: 112-142.
Jones, D.L. and Clements, M.A. 2006. Fourteen new taxa
of Orchidaceae from northern and eastern Australia and
two new combinations from New Guinea. Aust. Orchid
Res. 5 : 2-33.
Jones, D.L. and Rouse, D.T. 2006. Fourteen new species
of Prasophyllum from eastern Australia. Aust. Orchid
Res. 5 : 143-168.
Jones, D.L., Clements, M.A. and Sharma, Ish. 2006.
Towards a revision of the Thelychiton speciosus group.
Aust. OrchidRes. 5 : 34-44.
Riley, J. and Banks, D.P. 2002. Orchids of Australia.
University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.
Sands, D.P.A. and New, T.R. 2002. The action plan for
Australian butterflies. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Wager, R. and Jackson, P. 1993. The action plan for
Australian freshwater fishes. Environment Australia,
Canberra.


Gary Backhouse is a senior policy officer with the Department of Sustainability and Environment in Victoria, Australia,
where he works on threatened species recovery programs. He has co-authored two books on orchids of Victoria, and
has published numerous articles in the scientific and popular literature on threatened species and orchids. He is a keen
traveller and photographer, and has a library of over 3000 species of orchids photographed in the wild from Australia,
Africa, South-East Asia, New Guinea, New Zealand and the Americas.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


APPENDIX 1. Australian orchids listed as extinct, threatened or rare under national and state/territory biodiversity conser-
vation legislation.


N Species


NAT


NSW ACT IVic ITas SA


1 Acianthus amplexicaulis RA
2 Acianthus collins TH
3 Acianthus ledwardii EX EX
4 Acianthus sublestis RA
5 Acriopsisjavanica VU
6 Aphyllorchis anomala RA
7 Aphyllorchis queenslandica RA
8 Bulbophyllum argyropus RA
9 Bulbophyllum blumei EN
10 Bulbophyllum boonjee RA
11 Bulbophyllum globuliforme VU RA VU
12 Bulbophyllum gracillimum VU VU
13 Bulbophyllum grandimesense RA
14 Bulbophyllum longiflorum VU VU
15 Bulbophyllum weinthalii VU
16 Bulbophyllum windsorense RA
17 Bulbophyllum wolfei RA
18 Cadetia collinsii RA
19 Cadetia wariana RA
20 Caladenia actensis CR EN
21 Caladenia amoena EN TH
22 Caladenia anthracina CR CR
23 Caladenia arenaria EN EN
24 Caladenia argocalla EN EN
25 Caladenia atroclavia EN EN
26 Caladenia audasii EN TH EN
27 Caladenia aurantiaca EN
28 Caladenia australis EN
29 Caladenia barbarella VU RA
30 Caladenia behrii EN EN
31 Caladenia bicalliata RA
32 Caladenia brachyscapa EX TH EN
33 Caladenia brumalis VU VU
34 Caladenia bryceana subsp. bryceana EN RA
35 Caladenia bryceana subsp. cracens VU RA
36 Caladenia busselliana EN RA
37 Caladenia caesarea subsp. maritima EN RA
38 Caladenia calcicola VU TH VU
39 Caladenia campbellii CR CR
40 Caladenia cardiochila EX
41 Caladenia caudata VU RA
42 Caladenia christineae VU RA
43 Caladenia clavigera EN
44 Caladenia cleistogama VU
45 Caladenia colorata EN EN
46 Caladenia concolor VU EN TH
47 Caladenia conferta EN
48 Caladenia congesta EN RA
49 Caladenia cruciformis TH
50 Caladenia cucullata RA


WA


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


51 Caladenia dienema









BACKHOUSE - Assessment of threatened orchids Australia


NT Qld NSW ACTI Vic


Tas SA WA


52 Caladenia dorrienii EN RA
53 Caladenia drakeoides EN_ RA
54 Caladenia elegans EN RA
55 Caladenia excelsa EN RA
56 Caladeniafilamentosa RA
57 Caladeniaformosa VU TH VU
58 Caladeniafragrantissima TH RA
59 Caladeniafulva EN TH
60 Caladenia gladiolata EN EN
61 Caladenia gracilis EN
62 Caladenia graniticola RA
63 Caladenia harringtoniae VU RA
64 Caladenia hastata EN TH
65 Caladenia hoffmanii EN RA
66 Caladenia huegelii EN _RA
67 Caladenia insularis VU TH
68 Caladenia lindleyana CR EN
69 Caladenia lowanensis EN TH
70 Caladenia macroclavia EN EN
71 Caladenia magnifica TH
72 Caladenia melanema RA
73 Caladenia minor RA
74 Caladenia necrophylla RA
75 Caladenia ornata VU
76 Caladenia orientalis EN TH
77 Caladenia ovata VU VU
78 Caladenia pallida CR EN
79 Caladenia parva EN
80 Caladenia patersonii VU
81 Caladenia pilotensis TH
82 Caladeniaporphyrea EN
83 Caladenia procera RA
84 Caladeniaprolata EN
85 Caladeniapumila EX TH
86 Caladenia pusilla RA _
87 Caladenia richardsiorum EN EN
88 Caladenia rigida EN EN
89 Caladenia robinsonii EN TH
90 Caladenia rosella EN TH
91 Caladenia saggicola CR EN
92 Caladenia subulata EN TH
93 Caladenia sylvicola CR EN
94 Caladenia tensa EN
95 Caladenia tessellate VU EN
96 Caladenia thysanochila EN TH
97 Caladenia tonellii CR EN
98 Caladenia toxochila TH
99 Caladenia valida TH RA
100 Caladenia venusta VU
101 Caladenia versicolor VU TH VU
102 Caladenia viridescens EN RA
103 Caladenia vulgaris RA
104 Caladenia wanosa VU _RA
105 Caladenia williamsiae RA


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


N Species


NAT









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


NATI NT Qld NSW ACTI Vic


SA I WA


106 Caladenia winfieldii EN _RA
107 Caladenia woolcockiorum VU VU
108 Caladenia xanthochila EN TH EN
109 Caladenia xantholeuca EN EN
110 Caladenia species 'Bordertown' EN
111 Caladenia colorata TH
112 Caladenia species 'Finniss' EN
113 Caladenia species aff.fragrantissima TH
114 Caladenia species 'Jarrah forest' VU
115 Caladenia species 'Koolunga' EN
116 Caladenia species aff. rosella TH
117 Caladenia species aff. venusta CR TH
118 Caleana major VU
119 Calochilus caeruleus VU
120 Calochilus campestris RA
121 Calochilus cupreus EN
122 Calochilus paludosus VU
123 Calochilus psednus EN EN
124 Calochilus richiae EN TH
125 Chiloglottis anaticeps EN
126 Chiloglottis cornuta EN
127 Chiloglottis longiclavata _RA
128 Chiglglottis platyptera VU
129 Chiloglottis seminuda TH
130 Chiloglottis sphyrnoides VU
131 Chiloglottis trapeziformis EN
132 Corunastylis brachystachya EN EN
133 Corunastylis ectopa CR EN
134 Corunastylis firthii CR EN
135 Corunastylis morrisii EN EN
136 Corunastylis nuda RA
137 Corunastylis nudiscapa EX
138 Corybas abellianus RA
139 Corybas dentatus VU EN
140 Corybas despectans TH
141 Corybasfordhamii EN EN
142 Corybas montanus VU VU
143 Corybas neocaledonicus RA
144 Corybas unguiculatus_ RA
145 Corybas species aff. diemenicus (coastal) TH
146 Corybas species 'Finniss' EN EN
147 Cryptostylis erecta TH
148 Cryptostylis hunteriana VU VU TH
149 Cryptostylis leptochila EN
150 Cryptostylis subulata VU
151 Cyrtostylis robusta RA
152 Dendrobium antennatum EN EN
153 Dendrobium bigibbum VU VU
154 Dendrobium brachypus EN
155 Dendrobium callitrophilum VU VU
156 Dendrobium carronii VU VU
157 Dendrobiumfellowsii _RA
158 Dendrobiumjohannis VU VU
159 Dendrobium lithocola EN EN


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


N Species









BACKHOUSE - Assessment of threatened orchids Australia


NSW ACT Vic I Tas SA WA


160 Dendrobium malbrownii RA
161 Dendrobium melaleucaphilum EN
162 Dendrobium mirbelianum EN EN
163 Dendrobium nindii EN EN
164 Dendrobium phalaenopsis VU VU
165 Dendrobium schneiderae var. schneiderae RA
166 Dendrobium speciosum TH
167 Dendrobium superbiens VU VU
168 Didymoplexis pallens _RA
169 Diplocaulobium masonii EX EX
170 Dipodium campanulatum VU
171 Dipodium hamiltonianum TH
172 Dipodiumpardalinum VU
173 Dipodium pictum EN EN
174 Dipodium pulchellum _ _RA
175 Diuris aequalis VU EN
176 Diuris arenaria EN
177 Diuris behrii RA
178 Diuris bracteata EX EN
179 Diuris brevifolia RA
180 Diuris chryseopsis EN
181 Diuris dendrobioides TH
182 Diuris disposita EN
183 Diuris drummondii VU _RA
184 Diuris flavescens EN
185 Diurisfragrantissima EN TH
186 Diuris lanceolata EN EN
187 Diuris micrantha VU_ RA
188 Diuris ochroma VU EN TH
189 Diuris oporina _RA
190 Diuris palustris TH EN
191 Diuris parvipetala RA
192 Diuris pedunculata EN EN
193 Diuris praecox VU VU
194 Diuris punctata var. punctata TH EN
195 Diurispurdiei EN _RA
196 Diuris sheaffiana VU
197 Diuris sulphurea RA
198 Diuris tricolor VU TH
199 Diuris venosa VU VU
200 Diuris species aff. lanceolata EN TH
201 Diuris species aff. chrysantha 'Byron EN
202 Bay' EN
203 Diuris species 'Oaklands' RA
204 Dockrillia wassellii VU
205 Drakaea concolor EN RA
206 Drakaea confluens EN RA
207 Drakaea elastica EN RA
208 Drakaea isolata VU _RA
209 Drakaea micrantha EN RA
210 Epiblema grandiflorum var. cyaneum RA RA
211 Eria dischorensis RA
212 Eria irukandjiana RA
213 Eulophia bicallosa RA


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


N Species









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


NATI NT


NSW ACTI Vic I Tas


SA WA


214 Eulophia zollingeri RA
215 Gastrodia crebrifolia RA
216 Gastrodia queenslandica RA
217 Gastrodia urceolata RA
218 Gastrodia sesamoides VU
219 Gastrodia vescula RA
220 Genoplesium alticolum VU
221 Genoplesium baueri EN
222 Genoplesium ciliatum VU
223 Genoplesium despectans EN
224 Genoplesium insignis RA
225 Genoplesiumpedersonii EN EN
226 Genoplesium plumosum EN EN
227 Genoplesium rhyoliticum _ _RA
228 Genoplesium sigmoideum EN
229 Genoplesium superbum VU VU
230 Genoplesium vernale EN EN
231 Genoplesium tectum RA
232 Genoplesium validum EN
233 Geodor U . - f. - VU VU
234 Grastidium tozerense RA
235 Habenaria divaricata EN
236 Habenaria harroldii RA
237 Habenaria hymenophylla EN EN
238 Habenaria macraithii EN
239 Habenaria rumphii _RA
240 Habenaria xanthantha RA
241 Hydrorchis orbicularis RA _
242 Liparis condvlobulbon RA _
243 Liparis simmondsii VU
244 Luisia teretifolia VU
245 Malaxis latifolia VU
246 Malaxis marsupichila _ _ RA RA
247 Microtidium atratum EN EN
248 Microtis angusii
249 Microtis globula RA RA
250 Microtis orbicularis RA
251 Microtis rara RA
252 Nervilia crociformis EN
253 Nerviliaplicata EX EX
254 Oberonia attenuata RA
255 Oberonia carnosa EN
256 Oberonia complanata VU
257 Oberonia titania RA
258 Pachystoma pubescens RA
259 Papillilabium beckleri TH EN
260 Paracaleana sp. aff. nigrita EN
261 Paracaleana dixonii VU RA
262 Paracaleana minor RA VU
263 Peristeranthus hillii RA
264 Peristylus banfieldii EN EN EN
265 Phaius australis EN EN
266 Phaius bernaysii VU VU
267 Phaius pictus EN EN EN


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


N Species









BACKHOUSE - Assessment of threatened orchids Australia


NAT


NT Old


NSW ACTI Vic


SA WA


268 Phaius tancarvilleae EN EN
269 Phalaenopsis rosenstromii EN
270 Phreatiapaleata VU VU
271 Pomatocalpa marsupiale EN EN
272 Prasophyllum affine EN EN
273 Prasophyllum amoenum EN EN
274 Prasophyllum apoxychilum RA
275 Prasophyllum australe EN
276 Prasophyllum bagoensis VU
277 Prasophyllum calcicola RA
278 Prasophyllum campestre CR EN
279 Prasophyllum castaneum EN TH
280 Prasophyllum chasmogamum VU
281 Prasophyllum colemaniae RA
282 Prasophyllum constrictum EN TH
283 Prasophyllum diversiflorum RA
284 Prasophyllum exilis CR EN
285 Prasophyllum favonium RA
286 Prasophyllum fecundum TH
287 Prasophyllum fitzgeraldii TH
288 Prasophyllumfosteri EN TH EN
289 Prasophyllumfrenchii VU VU
290 Prasophyllumfuscum __RA
291 Prasophyllum goldsackii EN
292 Prasophyllum incorrectum RA
293 Prasophyllum incompositum TH
294 Prasophyllum litorale CR EN
295 Prasophyllum milfordense EN
296 Prasophvllum montanum VU TH
297 Prasophyllum morganii TH
298 Prasophyllum niphopedium RA
299 Prasophyllum occultans CR EN
300 Prasophyllum olidum VU VU
301 Prasophyllumpallidum CR EN
302 Prasophyllumperangustum EN EN
303 Prasophyllum petilum VU
304 Prasophyllumpruinosum CR EN EN
305 Prasophyllum pulchellum EN
306 Prasophyllum pyriforme VU
307 Prasophyllum retroflexum CR EN
308 Prasophyllum robustum EN VU
309 Prasophyllum secutum VU EN
310 Prasophyllum spicatum CR EN
311 Prasophyllum stellatum EN TH
312 Prasophyllum suaveolens EN TH
313 Prasophyllum subbisectu TH
314 Prasophyllum suttonii RA
315 Prasophyllum tadgellianum EN
316 Prasophyllum taphanyx EN EN
317 Prasophyllum tunbridgense EN EN
318 Prasophyllum uroglossum VU VU
319 Prasophyllum validum VU VU
320 Prasophyllum wallum EN
321 Prasophyllum species 'Majors Creek' TH


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


N Species









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


N IPrasophvllum species 'Nagambie'


NAT


NT Old NSW ACTI Vic


SA I WA


322 Pterostylis aenigma EN TH
323 Pterostylis arenicola VU VU
324 Pterostylis atriola EN EN
325 Pterostylis baptistii TH
326 Pterostylis basaltica EN TH
327 Pterostylis bicornis VU VU
328 Pterostylis bryophila EN
329 Pterostylis chaetophora EN
330 Pterostylis cheraphila VU TH
331 Pterostylis chlorogramma VU
332 Pterostylis cobarensis VU VU
333 Pterostylis commutata CR EN
334 Pterostylis concinna EN
335 Pterostylis cucullata VU VU TH EN VU
336 Pterostylis curta RA
337 Pterostylis cycnocephala EN
338 Pterostylis despectans EN TH
339 Pterostylis elegans VU
340 Pterostylis falcata RA
341 Pterostylis foliata RA
342 Pterostylisfurcata EN
343 Pterostylis gibbosa EN EN
344 Pterostylis grandiflora RA
345 Pterostylis longicurva _RA
346 Pterostylis metcalfei EN
347 Pterostylis nigricans RA VU
348 Pterostylis pratensis VU
349 Pterostylis pulchella VU VU
350 Pterostylis rubenachii EN EN
351 Pterostylis sanguine RA
352 Pterostylis saxicola EN EN
353 Pterostylis setifera RA EN
354 Pterostylis squamata RA
355 Pterostylis tasmanica VU
356 Pterostylis tenuissima VU VU
357 Pterostylis truncata TH
358 Pterostylis tunstallii EN
359 Pterostylis uliginosa EN
360 Pterostylis valida EX TH
361 Pterostylis wapstrarum CR EN
362 Pterostylis woollsii RA _TH
363 Pterostylis xerophila VU TH VU
364 Pterostylis ziegeleri EN EN
365 Pterostylis species 'Gundiah' _RA
366 Pterostylis species aff. boormanii TH
367 Pterostylis species 'Botany Bay' EN EN
368 Pterostylis species 'Broughton Gorge' EN
369 Pterostylis species 'Eyre Peninsula' VU VU
370 Pterostylis species 'Halbury' EN EN
371 Pterostylis species 'Hale' EN EN
372 Pterostylis species 'Mt Bryan' EN
373 Pterostylis species 'Mt Olinthus' EN
374 Pterostylis species 'Mt VictoriaUrnium Mine' VU
375 Pterostylis species 'Northampton' EN RA


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









BACKHOUSE - Assessment of threatened orchids Australia


NATI NT


NSW ACT Vic I Tas SA WA


376 Pterostylis species 'Oratan Rock' VU
377 Pterostylis species aff.parviflora VU
378 Pterostylis species 'Sandy Creek' VU
379 Rhinerrhiza moorei VU VU
380 Rhizanthella slater RA VU
381 Robiquetia wasselii RA
382 Sarcochilus dilatatus EN
383 Sarcochilusfalcatus TH
384 Sarcochilusfitzgeraldii VU EN VU
385 Sarcochilus hartmannii VU VU VU
386 Sarcochilus hirticalcar VU VU
387 Sarcochilus roseus VU VU
388 Sarcochilus weinthalii VU EN VU
389 Schoenorchis sarcophylla RA
390 Spathoglottis paulinea RA
391 Spathoglottisplicata VU VU
392 Spiranthes australis RA
393 Taeniophyllum confertum RA
394 Taeniophyllum lobatum RA
395 Taeniophyllum muelleri VU
396 Thelasis carinata RA
397 Thelymitra antennifera EN
398 Thelymitra benthamiana EN
399 Thelymitra bracteata EN
400 Thelymitra carnea RA
401 Thelymitra circumsepta EN
402 Thelymitra deadmaniarum EN RA
403 Thelymitra epipactoides EN TH EN
404 Thelymitra flexuosa RA
405 Thelymitra gregaria TH
406 Thelymitra hiemalis TH
407 Thelymitra holmesii RA VU
408 Thelymitrajonesii EN
409 Thelymitra mackibbinii VU TH
410 Thelymitra malvina EN EN
411 Thelymitra matthewsii VU TH EN
412 Thelymitra merraniae TH
413 Thelymitra mucida RA RA
414 Thelymitrapsammophila VU RA
415 Thelymitra stellata EN RA
416 Thelymitra venosa EN
417 Thrixspermum congestum VU
418 Thynninorchis huntiana EN
419 Thynninorchis nothofagicola CR EN
420 Trichoglottis australiensis VU VU
421 Vanda hindsii VU VU
422 Vrydagzyneapaludosa EN EN
423 Zeuxine oblonga VU
424 Zeuxinepolygonoides VU VU


107 54 3


NAT - National; NT - Northern Territory; Qld - Queensland; NSW - New South Wales; ACT - Australian Capital Territory; Vic - Victoria; Tas
- Tasmania; SA - South Australia; WA - Western Australia.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


N Species


Totals









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


APPENDIX 2. Nationally threatened orchids listed at the state/territory level but not at the national level.


N Species


NSW


1 Acriopsisjavanica VU
2 Caladenia conferta EN
3 Caladenia cruciformis TH
4 Caladeniafragrantissima TH RA
5 Caladenia magnifica TH
6 Caladeniapatersonii VU
7 Caladeniapilotensis TH
8 Caladeniaporphyrea EN
9 Caladenia valida TH RA
10 Caladenia species 'Bordertown' EN
11 Caladenia species 'Finniss' EN
12 Caladenia species aff.fragrantissima TH
13 Caladenia species 'Koolunga' EN
14 Caladenia species aff. rosella TH
15 Chiloglottis anaticeps EN
16 Chiloglottis platyptera VU
17 Genoplesium insignis EN
18 Genoplesium superbum EN
19 Diuris arenaria EN
20 Diuris species aff. chrysantha 'Byron Bay' EN
21 Diuris species 'Oaklands' EN
22 Gastrodia vescula VU
23 Genoplesium baueri VU
24 Habenaria harroldii EN
25 Peristeranthus hillii RA VU
26 Prasophyllum bagoensis EN
27 Prasophyllumfosteri TH
28 Prasophyllum incorrectum EN
29 Prasophyllum litorale TH
30 Prasophyllum niphopedium TH
31 Prasophyllum pruinosum VU
32 Prasophyllum retroflexum VU
33 Prasophyllum suttonii TH
34 Prasophyllum taphanyx EN
35 Prasophyllum species 'Majors Creek' EN
36 Prasophyllum species 'Nagambie' TH
37 Pterostylis bryophila EN
38 Pterostylis elegans VU
39 Pterostylis metcalfei EN
40 Pterostylis nigricans RA VU
41 Pterostylis species 'Broughton Gorge' EN
42 Pterostylis species 'Mt Bryan' EN
43 Pterostylis species 'Mt Olinthus' EN
44 Pterostylis species 'Mt Victoria Uranium Mine' VU
45 Pterostylis species 'Oratan Rock' VU
46 Pterostylis species aff. parviflora VU
47 Pterostylis species 'Sandy Creek' VU
48 Rhizanthella slater RA VU
49 Thelymitra gregaria TH
50 Thelymitra hiemalis TH
51 Thelymitrajonesii EN
52 Thelymitra merraniae TH


Qld - Queensland; NSW - New South Wales; Vic - Victoria; Tas - Tasmania; SA - South Australia.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









BACKHOUSE - Assessment of threatened orchids Australia


APPENDIX 3. Nationally rare orchids listed at the state/territory level but not at the national level.


N Species Qld SA WA
1 Acianthus amplexicaulis RA
2 Acianthus sublestis RA
3 Aphyllorchis anomala RA
4 Aphyllorchis queenslandica RA
5 Bulbophyllum blumei EN
6 Bulbophyllum boonjee RA
7 Bulbophyllum grandimesense RA
8 Bulbophyllum windsorense RA
9 Bulbophyllum wolfei RA
10 Cadetia collinsii RA
11 Cadetia wariana RA
12 Caladenia graniticola RA
13 Caladenia melanema RA
14 Caladenia minor RA
15 Caladenia necrophylla RA
16 Caladeniaprocera RA
17 Chiloglottis longiclavata RA
18 Corybas abellianus RA
19 Corybas neocaledonicus RA
20 Dendrobium fellowsii RA
21 Dendrobium malbrownii RA
22 Diuris oporina RA
23 Diuris parvipetala RA
24 Dockrillia wassellii RA
25 Eria dischorensis RA
26 Eria irukandjiana RA
27 Eulophia zollingeri RA
28 Gastrodia crebrifolia RA
29 Gastrodia queenslandica RA
30 Gastrodia urceolata RA
31 Genoplesium alticolum RA
32 Genoplesiumpedersonii RA
33 Genoplesium sigmoideum RA
34 Genoplesium validum RA
35 Habenaria divaricata RA
36 Habenaria xanthantha RA
37 Liparis condylobulbon RA
38 Liparis simmondsii RA
39 Microtis globula RA
40 Nervilia crociformis RA
41 Oberonia carnosa RA
42 Peristylus banfieldii RA
43 Prasophyllum constrictum RA
44 Prasophyllumfecundum RA
45 Prasophyllum goldsackii RA
46 Prasophyllum incompositum RA
47 Prasophyllum occultans RA
48 Pterostylis species 'Gundiah' RA
49 Robiquetia wasselii RA
50 Schoenorchis sarcophylla RA
51 Spathoglottis paulinea RA
52 Taeniophyllum confertum RA
53 Taeniophyllum lobatum RA
54 Thelasis carinata RA


Qld - Queensland; SA - South Australia; WA - Western Australia


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








LANKESTERIANA7(1-2): 44-46. 2007.


UNDERSTANDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THREE SPECIES OF
EPIPHYTIC ORCHIDS IN TEMPERATE AUSTRALIAN RAINFOREST BY
INVESTIGATION OF THEIR HOST AND FUNGAL ASSOCIATES


KELLI M. GOWLAND1'3'4, ULRIKE MATHESIUS2, MARK A. CLEMENTS3
& ADRIENNE B. NICOTRA'

'School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Bldg 116 Daley Road,
Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia
2School of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Australian National University, Bldg 41 Linnaeus Way,
Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia
3Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, Australian National Herbarium, CSIRO Division of Plant Industry,
GPO Box 1600, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia
4Author for correspondence: kelli.gowland@anu.edu.au


KEY WORDS: epiphyte, Aeridinae, orchid mycorrhizal fungi, Ceratobasidium, chemotropism


Introduction

Understanding the environmental constraints that
affect species distributions are critical to the mainte-
nance of biodiversity. The abundance of epiphytic
organisms, those that grow on another substrate, such
as a tree or rock, is a direct consequence of the avail-
ability and distribution of these substrates (Ackerman
et al. 1989). In the case of epiphytic orchids it is also
due to the presence of orchid mycorrhizal fungi
(OMF). For an orchid, crucial to its germination and
establishment, is its association with an OMF. The
OMF provides a carbon source to the developing
orchid embryo .R.imn.,i 1995). Although recipro-
cal carbon transfer has been demonstrated in mature
plants of a green, terrestrial, orchid species, Goodyera
repens (Cameron et al. 2006), it is generally believed
that OMF receive no immediate benefit from their
association with orchids. Therefore, it would appear
intuitive that orchids would associate with all OMF
available within their local environment and that they
would actively seek this association.
In this investigation we sought to ascertain the
nature of the relationship between three closely relat-
ed, co-occurring species of epiphytic, Aeridinae (=
Sarcanthinae) orchids, their OMF, and their phoro-
phytes (host trees). The orchid study species:
Sarcochilus hillii, Sarcochilus parviflorus and
Plectorrhiza tridentata are all small, monopodial epi-


phytes found on trees and shrubs in temperate rainfor-
est gullies. The null hypothesis that we are testing is
that these three orchid species are randomly distrib-
uted throughout their forest habitat.
More specifically we are addressing the following
questions:
* Do these three epiphytic orchid species exhibit a
random distribution across the woody plants of the
forest?
* Do these three orchid species associate with all
OMF within their local environment?
* Do the OMF of these orchid species differ in their
ability to stimulate germination amongst these
species?
* Are these OMF actively attracted towards the seed
of these three orchid species?

Methods

To address these questions we surveyed four sites
where these three orchid species co-occur in temper-
ate south-eastern Australia. The woody plant compo-
sition of the forests and the associations of these three
orchid species with their phorophytes were deter-
mined using a maximum likelihood model.
Generalised Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs) were
used to detect preferences for physical features of the
phorophyte and local environment of these orchid
species.








GOWLAND et al. - Distribution of epiphytic orchids


To ensure adequate sampling of the OMF of each
orchid species, ten members of each species were sur-
veyed from two sites. To investigate the diversity of
OMF on the preferred phorophyte, five orchids that
were sampled of each species were on the most com-
mon host. Earlier research indicated that other mem-
bers of these orchid genera associated with the
Ceratobasidiaceae within the form-genus Rhizoctonia
(Warcup 1981). We also targeted Rhizoctonia-like
fungi when we isolated OMF from the roots of these
orchids. Verification that the isolated fungi were
capable of stimulating orchid germination (and there-
fore, were indeed OMF) was determined by germina-
tion trials. Genetic identification of the fungal associ-
ates was conducted by sequencing the nuclear riboso-
mal internal transcribed spacer (Gardes & Bruns
1993) and the mitochondrial large subunit (White et
al. 1990), and through the amplification of dispersed
repetitive DNA sequences (Versalovic et al. 1991).
Finally, to determine if the fungi were actively
attracted towards orchid seed, chemotropism trials
were conducted and the amount of fungal growth
towards test and control aliquots (of seed and water
respectively) was compared using Paired t-tests.

Results and discussion

Backhousia myrtifolia was the most common tree
at most sites and was the dominant phorophyte
species for all three orchid species, significantly so
for S. parviflorus and P. tridentata. All three orchid
species preferred a phorophyte with moderate to high
moss cover. Despite these similarities, distinct differ-
ences in the distribution patterns were detected for
each species of orchid.
These three orchid species differed in the composi-
tion of their phorophyte flora: S. hillii's distribution
approximated a random distribution which reflected
that of the rainforests' tree species composition; P.
tridentata exhibited a strong bias towards B. myrtifo-
lia, although was otherwise on the broadest range of
phorophyte species; and S. parviflorus had the nar-
rowest range of phorophytes, exhibiting clear prefer-
ences for and against particular woody plant species.
However, the 'species' of phorophyte was not the
only correlate with orchid presence, each orchid
species exhibited non-random patterns in their prox-


imity to moss and location on their phorophytes.
Characteristics of the phorophyte that had the greatest
effect on the size and reproductive potential of the
orchids, as measured by the size and number of
leaves and number of inflorescences, were indepen-
dent of the species of the phorophyte.
We expected that these distributional differences
would reflect distinct OMF associations with each
orchid species; however, whilst different OMF were
found in association with these orchids it has not
explained the difference in phorophyte species asso-
ciation. All OMF isolated from these three orchid
species belonged to two distinct clades, groups,
within the genus Ceratobasidium, recognized as
clade L and clade K. All three orchid species associ-
ated with clade K, but only S. hillii was found with
clade L. This did not, however, explain the random
distribution of S. hillii, as members of both fungal
clades were isolated from orchids on the common
phorophyte, B. myrtifolia. Additionally, germination
trials revealed that even though both groups of fungi
were not naturally found in association with S. parv-
iflorus and P. tridentata, members of each OMF
clade could stimulate germination in all three orchid
species ex situ.
Furthermore, the chemotropism experiment
revealed that members of both OMF clades were
attracted towards viable orchid seed. This is the first
experiment, that we know of, that has demonstrated
that orchid mycorrhizal fungi is actively attracted to
orchid seed.

Conclusion

Each orchid species clearly demonstrated charac-
teristic preferences for phorophyte species or features,
indicative of specific ecological niches. They did not
exhibit a random distribution throughout the forest.
Furthermore, despite exposure to multiple potential
OMF, S. parviflorus and P. tridentata were only
found in association with a restricted subset of those
available in their local environment. This is despite ex
situ results indicating that there is no inherent physio-
logical reason why they do not associate with both
groups of OMF, and the fact that both clades of fungi
are actively attracted to orchid seed.
These results typify the intrigue around this family

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


of plants. For example, why would S. parviflorus and
P. tridentata attract, but not utilise all OMF within
their ecosystem? Possible explanations and ideas for
further study will be discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We gratefully acknowledge the
financial support of the American Orchid Society, the
Australian National University and the CSIRO in funding
this research, and the Australian Orchid Foundation and
the Australian Biological Resources Study in their assis-
tance with attending this conference. We would also like to
thank: J. Wood for his assistance with the analysis of the
ecological data; M. van der Merwe, C. Linde, B. Pfeil, T.
Otero and R. Bayer for their advice in deciphering the
identity of these OMF; and to S. Refshauge and the
CSIRO microscopy unit for technical advice on the
microscopy and chemotropism experiments.



LITERATURE CITED
Ackerman, J.D., A.M. Montalvo & A.M. Vera. 1989.
Epiphyte host specificity of Encyclia - ... a Puerto
Rican endemic orchid. Lindleyana 4: 74-77.


Cameron, D.D., J.R. Leake & D.J. Read. 2006.
Mutualistic mycorrhiza in orchids: evidence from
plant-fungus carbon and nitrogen transfers in the
green-leaved terrestrial orchid Goodyera repens. New
Phytol. 171: 405-416.
Gardes, M. & T.D. Bruns. 1993. ITS primers with
enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes - application to
the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Mol. Ecol.
2: 113-118.
Rasmussen, H.N. 1995. Terrestrial Orchids from seed to
mycotrophic plant. Melbourne, Australia, Cambridge
University Press.
Versalovic, J., T. Koeuth & J.R. Lupski. 1991. Distribution
of repetitive DNA sequences in eubacteria and applica-
tion to fingerprinting of bacterial genomes. Nucl. Acids
Res. 19: 6823-6831.
Warcup, J.H. 1981. The mycorrhizal relationships of
Australian orchids. New Phytol. 87: 371-381.
White, T.J., T. Bruns, S. Lee & J. Taylor. 1990.
Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal riboso-
mal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: M.A. Innis, D.H.
Gelfand, J.J. Sninsky & T.J. White (eds.), PCR
Protocols: A guide to methods and applications. San
Diego, Academic Press.


Kelli Gowland is a PhD candidate at the Australian National University, and CSIRO -Plant Industry in Canberra,
Australia. Kelli's main interest is in evolutionary ecology and has had field experience in South Africa, Cape York and
the Kimberleys as well as throughout southeastern Australia. Kelli conducted her honours research on the ecological
factors maintaining species boundaries in two species of hybridising alpine Ranunculus and has had field experience in
South Africa, Cape York and the Kimberleys. Kelli's current research is into the ecological distribution of three epi-
phytic orchids in Australia and she has uncovered some valuable clues that may aid in understanding the evolution of
the relationship between orchids and their mycorrhizal fungi.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2): 47. 2007.


RARE PLANT RESTORATION ON LONG PINE KEY


BRUCE HOLST' & STIG DALSTROM

Center for Tropical Plant Science & Conservation
Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, 811 South Palm Avenue, Sarasota, FL 34236, U.S.A.
'Author for correspondence: bholst@selby.org


The Long Pine Key area of Everglades National
Park (Florida) is critical habitat for a large number of
rare plant species including two candidates for federal
listing and several dozen listed as endangered or
threatened by the state of Florida. In addition, there
are nineteen species present in the Long Pine Key
area that are critically imperiled in South Florida and
six species historically documented from the area that
may be extinct in the continental United States (Gann
et al., 2002).
Most of the critically imperiled species have been
poorly studied, their distributions in Everglades
National Park are not adequately documented, and
their growth requirements are little known.
Historically, water flow through Long Pine Key was
concentrated in a series of short hydro-periods that
traversed prairies the area in a north-south direction.
Artificial drainage is believed to have affected Long


Pine Key habitats by increasing the frequency and
intensity of fires which damage hammocks, and by
increasing exposures to freezing temperatures
through the lowering of water levels and the opening
up of hammock canopies. Marie Selby Botanical
Gardens is assisting with the reintroduction and aug-
mentation of epiphytes and lithophytic ferns.
Presently MSBG is propagating three ferns and two
orchids: Pecluma plumula (Humb. & Bonpl. ex
Willd.) M.G. Price, the plumed rockcap fern,
Adiantum melanoleucum Willd., the fragrant maiden-
hair fern, Thelypteris reticulata (L.) Proctor, the lat-
tice-vein fern, two orchids Brassia caudata Lindl.,
the Spider orchid, and Oncidium ensatum Lindl.,
Florida dancing-lady orchid. Augmentation trials will
be initiated, using measures of plant community
habitat and environmental variables to help identify
favorable reintroduction sites.








LANKESTERIANA7(1-2): 48. 2007.


THE STATUS OF ORCHID CONSERVATION IN CHINA


JIA JIANSHENG

Deputy Director
Department of Wildlife Conservation, State Forestry Adminstration
18 Hepingli Dongjie, Beijing 100714, P. R. China
1i u, i ,i -,.-, t',,, -rt i , n .gov.cn



KEY WORDS: ecosystem types, endemic group, conservation, natural reserves, orchid flora, biological
characters.


Orchids are a flag group in plant conservation.
China has not a rich orchid flora, with only about
1200 specie in about 170 genera, but it is distin-
guished by having a wider range of broad ecosystem
types. On orchid vegetative morphology, a feature
reflecting environmental conditions, China has equal
numbers of terrestrial and epiphytic (including litho-
phytic) genera. This feature is quite different from the
tropical zone where epiphytic orchids are majority
and from the temperate regions where terrestrial
orchids predominate, and is unique in the world
orchids flora. Of the Chinese orchid flora, there are
502 species in 98 genera being endemic to China, and
26 genera in which have more than half of the total
species being endemic to China. Moreover, there are
some world famous ornamental or medicinal orchids
in China, such as Paphiopedilum, Cypripedium,
C, 1, 7-ii;..; . Pleione, Holcoglossum and Dendrobium.
And the Chinese Cymbidiums are among the best of
the favorable ornamental orchids in China. Some
Cymbidium plantations, as well as much more private
yards, have been set up in China mainland, Taiwan
and Hong Kong. Many species of C, ,,i..;i... thus,
have become seriously endangered or quite rare or
even extinct in some areas.
Recently years, Chinese Government has paid great
attention to orchid conservation. General policies have


been carried out and some efforts have been made to
improve the situation. A long term project launched
by Chinese government has carried out to protect the
wildlife, orchids are one of the key species in the pro-
ject. on in situ conservation, the natural reserves of
varies kinds have be increased to 2349, covering 150
million hectares of area, more than 15 per cent of the
total territory. Moreover, those natural reserves will
cover almost the upper reaches of China's major rivers
and areas featuring intact bio-diversity and the richest
orchid flora. Particularly, one special orchids nature
reserve was set up in Guangxi Province in 2005.
About ex situ conservation, the State Forestry
Administration of China has set up one ex situ conser-
vation center in Shengzheng, Guangdong Province.
Also as one important part of the China's southwest
wild biological germplasm resource bank, the orchids
seed bank project has been started in 2004. Morover, a
reintroduction project of Doritis pulcherrima Lindl.
was carrying out in Hainan Island. However, the con-
servation of the orchids is in fact a complicated prob-
lem, not only depending on education and economic
development, but also to a large extent on the biologi-
cal characters of the orchids themselves. It needs a
comprehensive study of ecology, population biology,
pollination biology, breeding biology and other bio-
logical branches.








LANKESTERIANA7(1-2): 49-52. 2007.


EPIPHYTE ORCHID DIVERSITY IN A YUNGAS MONTANE FOREST IN
THE COTAPATA NATIONAL PARK AND INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT
NATURAL AREA, LA PAZ - BOLIVIA

IVAN V. JIMENEZ & FABRICIO MIRANDA A.

Herbario Nacional de Bolivia (LPB), Instituto de Ecologia, Campus Universitario Calle 27 Cota Cota, La Paz -
Bolivia, P.O. Box 10077


KEY WORDS: epiphyte orchids, diversity, Yungas montane forest, Cotapata, Bolivia


Introduction


In Bolivia the works focused on the study of the
epiphyte vegetation are few and recent. This lack of
knowledge is being filled by investigations like those
of Ibisch (1996) about the flora and epiphyte vegeta-
tion; Acebey & Kr6mer (2001), Acebey et al. (2003),
Altamirano & Fernandez (2003) and Miranda (2005),
who worked in the diversity and ecology of vascular
and not vascular epiphytes.
In Bolivia a total of 20.000 species of angiosperms
has calculated (Beck 1998), Vasquez et al. (2003) esti-
mates between 2000 to 3000 of these plants are
orchids, a.ii.,ll: 11. 1. is a list with approximately 1500
species, of which near 1200 have been identified
(Vasquez et al. 2003). Sixty percent of the species and
80% of the endemic orchids are concentrated in the
region of the Yungas that does not occupy more than
4% of the surface of the country (Vasquez et al. 2003).
The area of the Yungas in La Paz is one of the most
explored places of Bolivia (Beck 1993). A continuous
work has contributed to a great, but non total knowl-
edge of the flora, for example, a study of epiphytes in
the montane forests of the Cotapata National Park and
Integrated Management Natural Area (PN-ANMI)
has a total of 292 species in an inventory of three
parcels of 0,32 ha. each one, of which the orchids
with a 44% represent the most important family
(Kr6mer & Gradstein 2003).
Since May of 2005 is developed the project: "Study
of the potential of sustainable use of epiphytes in the
PN-ANMI Cotapata", with the initial objective of
know more on the diversity of epiphytes orchids in
the montane forests of Yungas of this protected area.
This work presents the preliminary results of the
inventories developed in this project.


Study area

The Cotapata PN-ANMI (fig. 1) is located in the
provinces Murillo and Nor Yungas of the department
of La Paz, with a surface of 40.000 ha and goes from
the 1100 to 5600 m of altitude (Ribera 1995). This
wide altitudinal gradient originates a great variety of
climates and types of vegetation in an area of het-
erogenous topography; also affected from old times
by human activities. The principal forest formations
are the cloudy forest (2400-3400 m) characterized by
a cool and very humid climate and the humid forest
of Yungas (2400-1200 m) which has a conspicuous
dry time (Ribera 1995). Bach et al. (2003) report
3000 mm and 10,1 �C for the cloudy forest and 2550
mm and 13-17,2 �C for the humid forest of Yungas.
In the south sector of the protected area starts two
pre-Columbian paths; these are constructed across the
core of both forests:
* Chojllapata, which mostly crosses the crest of the
mountains (3400-1300 m) until arriving at the
locality of El Chairo;
* Sillutinkara, which crosses in its beginning the val-
ley of the Coscapa river (3400-2000 m) and meet-
the the path of El Choro, in the proximities of
Sandillani.
Bajo Homuni (1800 m), located at the bottom of
the Homuni hill, in front of Sandillani, this is covered
by a humid montane forest of Yungas.

Methods

The field work was conducted from July 2005 to May
2006, in zones of non- disturbed forest. For the inven-
tory of epiphyte orchids of understory and canopy, 3
to 5 non-permanent plots of 20 x 20 m was installed
each 100 altitudinal meters (modified of Kr6mer








3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


Senda Sandillani - Chairo (PNANMI Cotapata)
eleco *100 ozoos 621000 622000


Ubica ion












1:25.000
^,!w v ^^ ^ ! ~ ^ M' ll;


FIGURE 1. Ubication map of the sampling zones inside Cotapata Nacional Park.


2003) and a representative tree for each altitudinal
range of 100 m, inside or near to a plot, which was
evaluated using the techniques described by Perry
(1978). Fertile and sterile orchids were collected and
used for the analysis. Sterile individuals or with fruits
were marked with marking tapes and respective code
of collection. These plants were transplanted to a sin-
gle trunk (called: storing zones) inside or close the
surveyed plot, with the purpose of maintaining alive
collections and obtaining fertile material that helps
its identification. To complete the floristic inventory,
general collections were made throughout the pre-
Columbian paths. In addition orchid flowers were
collected and preserved in small bottles with a solu-
tion of 70% of alcohol. All the samples are deposited
in the Herbario Nacional of Bolivia (LPB).

Results and discussion

From the evaluation of 47 non permanent plots,
13 phorophyts and general collections we registered
255 species of epiphyte orchids. The most represen-
tative genera are Stelis Sw. (19%), Pleurothallis
R.Br. (15%), Epidendrum L. (14%), and Maxillaria

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


Ruiz & Pav. (13%) (Fig. 2). Acebey & Kr6mer
(2001) in foodmontane forests of Bolivia and
Nowicki (2001), in a cloudy forest of Ecuador,
found similar proportions. On the other hand
Vasquez et al. (2004) indicates that in Bolivia the
genera Pleurothallis and Epidendrum constitutes the
most diverse taxa.


III ....


F-N sp.


( a 2
.0 E = M E 0 W
0 0
.92 S M g j
OLU 2 .-

FIGURE 2. Diversity of the most important genera in the
study zone.


161
Z2lm8880I hh








JIMENEZ & MIRANDA-AVILES - Epiphyte Orchid diversity in Yungas montane forest Bolivia


From our results is clear to point out that in the
genera Epidendrum and Maxillaria there are a great
proportion of unidentified species; the same happens
in the preliminary list of orchids of Bolivia (Vasquez
et al. 2003), this unidentified orchids could represent
new species or new registries for Bolivia.
In addition, new records at local and regional level
stand out, for example Odontoglossum vierlingii
Senghas, considered endemic to the department of
Cochabamba, was found in the study area. Similarly,
Prostechea pulchra Dodson & W.E. Higgins, found
in dispersed populations, until now has been only
recorded in the humid montane forests of Ecuador
and Peru (Higgins & Dodson 2001); now we found it
in our study zone, in a moderately disturbated mon-
tane forest, on the edge of the Silluntinkara path, at
2100 m approximately. In the genus: Epidendrum L.,
Maxillaria Ruiz & Pav., Cyrtochilum Kunth, Stelis
Sw. and Masdevallia Ruiz & Pav. we found many
unidentified specimens, therefore is highly probable
that exist new species (Vasquez R., pers. comm.
2006). With more sampling we hope to find new reg-
istries for the zone and new species for science.
Our results show a great diversity in a relatively
wide gradient. For example Kr6mer et al. (2005) in a
altitudinal range of 350 to 4000 m above sea level,
registered 314 species of orchids. Also compared
with the study of Kr6mer (2003) for the region, we
registered the double of species but in a wide altitudi-
nal range. These highlight the importance of the zone
for the diversity of orchids. The high diversity of the
study zone could be explained for the interaction
between heterogeneous topography and the wide alti-
tudinal gradient, both generating a variety of climates
and different habitats able for support diverse vegeta-
tion. Still more, the deforestation originated for the
continuous use of this forest from pre-Columbian
time to recent times has a negative impact on the
diversity of orchids (Kr6mer 2003); although this
large diversity is an indicator for the high resilience
of the forest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank the Instituto de Biologia
Molecular y Biotecnologia, Herbario Nacional de Bolivia,
and the Albergue Ecoturistico Comunitario "Urpuma" for
logistic support. For working and collecting permits. We
thank the Servicio Nacional de Areas Protegidas (SER-


NAP). For field work assistance, we thank all biology stu-
dents from Majot University of Saint Andrews.This project
was made possible thanks to the financial support of the
Flemish Fund for Tropical Forests. This Fund is administe-
red by the Division of Forests and Green Areas (AMINAL,
Ministry of the Flemish Community), and supervised by
Groenhart vzw. The opinions presented here do not neces-
sarily reflect the position of the Ministry of the Flemish
Community or that of Groenhart vzw.


LITERATURE CITED
Acebey, A. & T. Kr6mer. 2001. Diversidad y distribucidn
vertical de epifitas en los alrededores del campamento rio
Eslab6n y de la laguna Chalalan, Parque Nacional Madidi,
Depto. La Paz, Bolivia. Rev. Soc. Boliv. Bot. 3: 104-123.
Acebey, A., S.R Gradstein & T. Kr6mer. 2003. Species
richness and habitat diversification of bryophytes in
submontane rain forest and fallows of Bolivia. J. Trop.
Ecol. 19: 9-18.
Altamirano, S. & E. Fernandez. 2003. Diversidad y distri-
buci6n vertical de epifitas en bosques amaz6nicos de
tierra firme del TIPNIS (Territorio Indigena y Parque
Nacional Isiboro Secure) Cochabamba, Bolivia. Rev.
Bol. Ecol. 14: 67-80.
Bach, K., M. Schawe, S. Beck, G. Gerold, S.R. Gradstein
& M. Moraes. 2003. Vegetaci6n, suelos y clima en los
diferentes pisos altitudinales de un bosque montano de
Yungas, Bolivia: Primeros resultados. Ecologia en
Bolivia 38(1): 3-14.
Beck, S. G., T. J. Killeen & E. Garcia. 1993. Vegetacidn
de Bolivia. Pp. 6-23 in: T.J. Killeen, E. Garcia & S.G.
Beck (eds.). Guia de arboles de Bolivia. La Paz,
Herbario Nacional de Bolivia-Missouri Botanical
Garden, Quipus S.R.L., La Paz.
Beck, S.G. 1998. Floristic inventory of Bolivia - An indis-
pensable contribution to sustainable development? Pp.
243-268 in: W. Barthlott & M. Winiger (eds.).
Biodiversity -A challenge for development research
and policy. Springer -Verlag, Berlin.
Higgins, W.E. & C.H.Dodson. 2001. Prostechea pulchra:
A New Name for an Andean Orchid. Selbyana 22(2):
128-130.
Ibisch, P. 1996. Neotropische epiphytendiversitit-das Beispiel
Bolivien, Martina Galunder-Verlag, Wiehl, 357 p.
Kr6mer, T. 2003. Diversitit und Okologie der vaskularen
Epiphyten in primiren und sekundiren Bergwildern
Boliviens. Cuvillier Verlarg, G6ttingen.
Kr6mer, T. & R. Gradstein. 2003. Species richness of vas-
cular epiphytes in two primary forests and fallows in the
Bolivian Andes. Selbyana 24(2): 195-195.
Kr6mer T., M. Kessler, S.R. Gradstein & A Acebey. 2005.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


Local-scale diversity patterns of vascular epiphytes
along an elevational gradient in the Andes. Journal of
Biogeography 32(10): 1799-1809.
Miranda, F. 2005. Diversidad alfa, beta y distribuci6n ver-
tical de epifitas vasculares en dos ranges altitudinales de
un bosque yunguefio pluvial submontano en el ANMI
Apolobamba, La Paz - Bolivia. Tesis de grado, Carrera
de Biologia, UMSA, La Paz, 55 p.
Nowicki, C. 2001. Epifitas vasculares de la Reserva
Otonga. Pp. 115-155 in: J. Nieder& W. Barthlott (eds.).
Canopo plants and animals of the Otonga Reserve
(Ecuador). Results of a joint research project Bonn-
Quito, funded by the Volkswagen Foundation.
Perry, D.R. 1978. A method of access into the crowns of
emergent and canopy trees. Biotropica 10 (2) : 155-157.
Ribera, M. 1995. Aspectos ecol6gicos, del uso de la tierra
y conservaci6n en el Parque Nacional y Area Natural de


Manejo Integrado Cotapata. Pp. 1-84 in: C. Morales
(ed.). Caminos de Cotapata. Institute de Ecologia /
FUND-ECO / FONAMA-EIA, La Paz.
Vasquez, R., P.L. Ibisch & B. Gerkmann. 2003. Diversity
of Bolivian Orchidaceae -a challenge for taxonomic,
floristic and conservation research. Organisms,
Diversity and Evolution 3 (2) : 93-102. Electr. Suppl.:
Appendix 1 (preliminary list of Bolivian orchid species,
http://www.senckenberg.uni-frankfurt.de/odes/03-
4.pdf).
Vasquez, R., P.L. Ibisch, A. Ley & C. Nowicki. 2004. Los
generos y species de las Laeliinae. Pp: 80-335 in: R.
Vasquez & P.L. Ibisch (eds.). Orquideas de Bolivia.
Diversidad y estado de conservaci6n. Vol II Laeliinae,
Polystachyinae, Sobraliinae con actualizaci6n y comple-
mentaci6n de Pleurothallidinae. Editorial FAN, Santa
Cruz-Bolivia.


Ivan Jimenez obtained the title of graduate in Biology of the Greater university of San Andres, La Paz-Bolivia. He stud-
ied mainly select groups of plants in montane forests, nevertheless, from 2005 has focused to study epiphyte species of
the families: Orchidaceae, Araceae and Bromeliaceae, in the montane forests of the PN-ANMI Cotapata.

Fabricio Miranda Avilks is a young bolivian biologist. He Works as a associated researcher in the National Herbarium
of Bolivia LPB, where he works mainly in epiphyte plants, in special with taxonomy, and pollination of native
Orchids. He also work in a project with local communities for sustainable use of orchids in a National Park.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2): 53-55. 2007.


GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND ORCHID BIOGEOGRAPHY WITH
APPLICATIONS TO SOUTHEAST CENTRAL AMERICA


STEPHEN H. KIRBY

U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025, U.S.A. * skirby@usgs.gov


KEY WORDS: geological processes, orchid biogeography, speciation, volcanic activity, subduction, tectonic
plates


Introduction

This contribution owes its origins to a paper and
presentation by Dr. Calloway H. Dodson at the
Second International Conference on Neotropical
Orchidology held in San Jos&, Costa Rica in May of
2003 (Dodson 2003). Dr. Dodson outlined some of
the reasons to suspect that regional geological fac-
tors may play important roles in orchid speciation
and biogeography and gave examples from the
northwestern South America. He also suggested that
evolutionary change in orchid might occur over fair-
ly short time periods, perhaps even as short as
decades, centuries or millennia (Dodson 2003, SHK
lecture notes).
These ideas stimulated the author, a professional
earth scientist, to begin thinking about how these
exciting ideas could begin to be tested in Costa Rica
neighboring and Central American countries, an
area that has drawn him to return frequently over the
last decade. The present contribution is a proposal
for integrating geological observations, such as the
chronology of arc volcanic activity in Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, and Panama, in hypothesis forming and
testing of the geographic distribution of orchids (and
possibly other biota). I initially focus on compar-
isons between orchid inventories on the windward
slopes of mountainous regions (elevation > 1000 m)
with high rainfall (> 1-2 m) in tropical regions, the
so-called tropical cloud forests. These regions repre-
sent the tropical pre-montane rain forest to lower
montane tropical rain forest life zones of Holdridge
(1967) and the montane vegetation zone applied to
Costa Rica and Panama by Dressler (1993). An
important message of this paper is that such tropical
mountainous regions are not necessarily static, but
may change in elevation over geologic time due to


active tectonic deformation and uplift and that the
presence of active volcanism in a mountain range
may also introduce additional chemical factors, such
as volcanic gases, acid rain, and volcanic soils, and
also physical factors, such as interruption of gene
flow by explosive eruptions and coverage by their
air fall products such as ash (tephra), lava flows, and
lahars (volcanic mudflows). Thus over a given geo-
logical time interval, forests may be slowly increas-
ing in elevation by tectonic uplift or by the accumu-
lation of volcanic products such as steep-sided stra-
tovolcanoes (built from both lavas and tephra), or by
down-slope accumulations of lava flows or lahars.
Mountains may also lose elevation by erosion or by
tectonic subsidence. As we shall see, tropical
Central America shows an extraordinarily high level
of tectonic and volcanic history that has changed its
geography and, by implication, climate, life zones,
and likely orchid distribution. My working hypothe-
sis put forward for testing is that orchid adaptations
to these changes may have led to the development of
new species and endemism in this region.

Geological Background

The region of southeast Central America
(Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama) and NW
Colombia is a center of profound geological changes
during the late Cenozoic (Pliocene to present, 0-5
million years ago) (see excellent summaries in
Denyer and Kussmaul 2000, Denyer et al. 2003). It is
one of the most active tectonic regions of the world,
being at the nexus of four major moving tectonic
plates, the Cocos, Nazca, Caribbean, and South
America, and three smaller microplates: the Coiba,
Panama, and North Andean. As such, it abounds in
geologically young mountain belts from Nicaragua to








3 IOCC PROCEEDINGS


the northern Andes, active volcanic chains, and
earthquakes and earthquake belts related to the
motions of these plates.
Subduction of the Cocos plate under Central
America is marked by the Middle America Trench
off the Pacific coast that results from the down
bending of the Cocos plate that subsequently
descends at various angles under Central America
from Mexico to western Panama. This descent pro-
duces an inclined zone of earthquakes that represent
earthquake slip between the sinking Cocos Plate and
the plates above (the North American and Caribbean
plates) as well as internal seismic deformation in the
Cocos plate. Subduction has also built a nearly con-
tinuous chain of active arc volcanoes from Mexico
to SE Costa Rica that is thought to represent the
effects of water released from the Cocos plate as it
heats up during descent into hot mantle and induces
melting in the hot mantle above the sinking plate
(often termed a "slab").
In addition to the first-order deformation pattern
associated with subduction, SE Central America dis-
plays clear evidence for internal deformation in the
plates above the Cocos slab (Caribbean and
Panama), deformation that builds tectonic mountains
and has affected the history of seaways that seg-
mented Central America in the recent geologic past.
Finally, the Cocos plate is decorated by volcanic
islands, seamounts, and the Cocos Volcanic Ridge
that have been produced by the Galapagos Volcanic
Hot Spot that also built the Galopagos Islands. The
hot-spot islands, ridges, and plateaus built on the
Cocos plate have been moving toward the Middle
America Trench with time. These have collided or
are colliding with the Central American Isthmus in
Costa Rica and western Panama and some of these
structures have accreted to the Isthmus (e.g., the
Nicoya and Osa Peninsulas). Thus the geographic
positions and elevation ranges of mountain belts
have rapidly changed in this region over the last 5-
10 million years and these changes undoubtedly
have led to important changes in rainfall distribu-
tions and temperature and in the continuity of life
zones. I now discuss the following potential implica-
tions of these regional plate-tectonic processes for
the biogeography of SE Central America.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


Geological Events Possibly Relevant to Orchid
Science in the Region

Chief among important geological events that have
accompanied these processes are:
1. The well known early Pliocene closing of the
Panama Seaway and the subsequent rise of the
Panamanian Cordillera from the seafloor and their
effects on ocean circulation, weather, and faunal
exchange across the Isthmus.
2. Less well known is the Holocene (since 10,000
years ago) opening and partial closing of the
Nicaraguan Seaway, represented presently by the
lowland from the Gulf of Fonseca, to Lakes
Managua and Nicaragua and the San Juan River
Valley. This lowland is thought by Costa Rican
consulting geologist Roberto Protti (personal com-
munication 2007) to have represented subsidence
in a graben (a valley created by a fault-bounded
down-dropped block) that was flooded by the sea.
3. The geologically recent migration toward the
Middle American Trench of offshore volcanic
islands (e.g., Cocos Island), flat-topped seamounts
(former islands, such as the Fisher Seamount), and
the Cocos volcanic ridge associated with volcanic
processes at the Galapagos Hot Spot. Island specia-
tion from continental forebears like that which has
occurred the Galapagos Islands could possibly lead
to reverse gene flow to continents as plate motion
brings oceanic island crust close to the Middle
America Trench. Subsequent collision of such ter-
rains with Costa Rica (Caribbean plate) probably
produced stresses and deformation in Costa Rica
that raised tectonic mountain belts, such as the
Talamanca cordillera.
4. The late Cenozoic rise of the Central Volcanic
Range (CVR) in Costa Rica, one of the youngest
arc volcanic mountain ranges in the world (largely
in the Pleistocene to the present, 1.64 million years
to the present) and hence its geologically recent
effects on topography, rainfall distribution, air
quality (from volcanic gases), and soil chemistries.
5. The late Tertiary (about 5 million years ago) cessa-
tion of volcanism in older, presently non-volcanic
cordillera, such as the Talamanca, SW of the CVR
and the Tilaran Cordillera, SE of the CVR.
6. The ongoing uplift of the Coast Ranges south of









KIRBY - Geological processes and orchid biogeography


the Talamanca and the non-volcanic Matama
cordillera east of the CVR.

The above changes not only are potentially impor-
tant in orchid gene flow, but also may influence
through volcanic chemistry such processes as orchid
mutagenesis, pollination, and germination. As such,
their understanding may lead to useful hypotheses
concerning orchid biogeography and to purposeful
orchid surveys to test them.

The majority of the pristine forests of Costa Rica
and Nicaragua have disappeared largely through
deforestation. Conservation of the remaining orchid
ecosystems is a critical requirement in order for
such investigations of the origins of orchid bio-
geography to be successful. Orchid surveys directed
to this particular end therefore should be purpose-
ful. The ongoing multi-year survey of orchids at the
Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve began in June of
2004 (See Kirby 2003, Mufioz and Kirby this vol-
ume). It is believed to be the first attempt at con-
ducting a comprehensive survey of orchid species
in the active Central Volcanic Range in Costa Rica
above 1500 m elevation. I compare the identified
species in the genera from this Survey that I feel are
likely nearly complete after 2.6 years of monthly
collection, description, and identification with those
from Carpentera, Tapanti, San Ram6n, and Monte
Verde, all pre-montane to montane rain forest envi-
ronments in Costa Rica.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I wish to thank the Gonzalez family
(Federico Gonzalez-Pinto, his wife Vanessa and their son,
Federico Gonzalez-Sotela) for their enthusiastic support of
the Orchid Garden and the Orchid Survey Project at the
Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve and the encouragement
given to the present authors. Carlos Ossenbach provided to


us a pre-publication copy of his monumental co-authored
compilation of orchid species in Central America
(Ossenbach, Pupulin and Dressier, 2007) as well as orchid
checklists and catalogues for individual Central American
countries and biological reserves, for which I am very
grateful.

LITERATURE CITED
Denyer, P. & S. Kussmaul (eds). 2000. Geologia de Costa
Rica. ISBN 9977-66-118-9. Editorial Technologica de
Costa Rica. 515 p.
Denyer, P., W. Montero & G.E. Alvarado. 2003. Atlas
Tect6nico de Costa Rica. Universidad de Costa Rica,
San Jos&, CR. Serie Reportes t&cnicos. 81 p.
Dodson, C.H. 2003. Why are there so many orchid
species?. I" Congreso International de Orquideologia
Neotropical, 20-25 Mayo, 2003, Proceedings Issue in
Lankesteriana 7: 99-103.
Dressier, R.L. 1993. Field Guide to the Orchids of Costa
Rica and Panama. Comell University. New York. 374 p.
Holdridge, L. 1967. Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science
Center, Costa Rica. 89 p.
Kirby, S.H. 2003. Neotropical orchid ecotourism:
Educational experience of an orchid neophyte at the
Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve, Central Volcanic
Range, Costa Rica, I" Congreso International de
Orquideologia Neotropical, 20-25 Mayo, 2003,
Proceedings Issue in Lankesteriana 7: 121-124.
Mufioz, M. & S. H. Kirby. 2007. An orchid inventory and
conservation project at Bosque de Paz Biological
Reserve, Upper Rio Toro Valley, Alajuela, Costa Rica,
Proceedings of the 3'd International Orchid Conservation
Conference in Lankesteriana (this issue)
Ossenbach, C., F. Pupulin & R.L. Dressier. 2007. Orchids
of the Central American Isthmus: Checklist and conser-
vation status. Unpublished.
Protti, R. 2007. Possible interrupci6n parcial del paso
terrestre en Centroamerica durante la transgresi6n
Flandriense (Holoceno medio). Personal communica-
tion.


Stephen H. Kirby was awarded a Ph.D. in Geology in 1975 from the University of California at Los Angeles. He has
been employed by the U.S. Geological Survey since 1968 and is currently a Research Geophysicist and Senior
Scientist in the Earthquake Hazard Team in Menlo Park, California. He is a Fellow of the American Geophysical
Union and the Mineralogical Society of America. He is an author of more than 160 peer-reviewed papers and book
chapters and has worked as a volunteer at the Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve since 2002.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








LANKESTERIANA7(1-2): 56-59. 2007.


DIVERSIDAD DE ORQUIDEAS
EN EL "PARQUE NATIONAL IZTACCIHUATL-POPOCATEPETL"
(MEXICO) Y SUS AREAS DE INFLUENCIA


BARBARA S. LUNA-ROSALES1'2, AMADEO BARBA-ALVAREZ, RODRIGO ROMERO-TIRADO,
ERIC PtREZ-TOLEDANO, OLGA PEREA-MORALES, SUSANA PADRON-HERNANDEZ,
HUGO SIERRA-JIMtNEZ, ROSA DE LA CRUZ & DIANA JARDON-SANCHEZ

'Unidad de Investigaci6n en Biologia Vegetal-L 301, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Zaragoza Campo II,
Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico, AP 0920,M6xico, D.F., CP 09230, Mexico.
2Autor para correspondencia: barbaral@servidor.unam.mx

ABSTRACT. Iztaccihuatl and Popocat6petl National Park is 25,679 ha in size and it comprises the
Transmexican Neo-volcanic strip. The floristic wealth of the Park approximately represents 4% of the flora of
the country and the Orchidaceae is one of the families of this flora. Mexico has 1400 orchid species including
in 159 genera; the importance at a world-wide level of this flora increases when around 900 species exist only
in Mexico. In 1996, 25 orchid species were reported for the Park without a field register. These species and
their populations can drastically have varied and in some cases disappeared due to the alterations of the habi-
tat and to the extraction of the plants of the last decades. In June of 2001 we started the present project which
the main objective has been to obtain by means of work in field, the updated listing of the orchid flora of this
Park at itt !t ci seasons of the year, as well as to determine the diversity of species, plant development stage,
their altitudinal distribution and abundance. After 5 years of work 39 species have been located, 25 species
are new registers to the Park and there were confirm only 14 species of the 1996 listing.
KEY WORDs: diversidad, orquideoflora, Parque Nacional, list de orquideas, Mexico, hibito de crecimiento,
Iztaccihuatl, Popocat6petl


Introducci6n

En M&xico la riqueza orquideol6gica se manifiesta
con mis de 1200 species (Hagsater et al 2005), el por-
centaje de endemismos es alto, aproximadamente 35%
de species y 8% de g6neros (Soto 1988) y generalmen-
te se delimita a cadenas montafiosas o a zonas de exten-
si6n reducida. Soto et al (2001) mencionan que no
existe informaci6n precisa del numero que integran
dentro del Sistema Nacional de Areas Naturales
Protegidas (CONANP 2004), mis sin embargo, &ste
puede ser del 80%. Dentro de la gran diversidad de la
flora que se puede encontrar dentro del Parque Nacional
Iztaccihuatl-Popocat6petl (PNIP) y su zona de influen-
cia, estin los integrantes de la familiar Orchidaceae, que
son un recurso natural, un patrimonio de nuestro pais y
deben utilizarse racionalmente para su mantenimiento y
conservaci6n (Soto & Hagsater 1990). ChAvez y Trigo
(1996) reportaron para el Parque 14 g6neros y 24 espe-
cies de orquideas, de las cuales seis son end6micas de
M6xico, cuatro son de distribuci6n exclusive del centro,


sur de M6xico y dos del Eje Neovolcinico Transversal.
Se puede afirmar que ain no se han registrado el total
de las species para la zona, probablemente la presencia
de las species y de sus poblaciones pudieron haber dis-
minuido drasticamente y en algunos casos haber desa-
parecido a causa de alteraciones o destrucci6n de sus
hAbitats en las iltimas d6cadas, mAs que por la sobreco-
lecta de las plants, como generalmente se cree (Soto &
Hagsater 1990). Debido a la falta de un inventario
actualizado y complete sobre la diversidad orquideol6-
gica del Parque, se plantearon como objetivos del pre-
sente trabajo actualizar el listado de species, determi-
nar estacional y altitudinalmente las species localiza-
das, asi como su distribuci6n y abundancia.

Metodologia

UBICACION GEOGRAFICA. El Area de studio se ubica en
los limits de tres entidades federativas del pais:
Mexico, Morelos y Puebla, dentro de la zona templado-
subhiimeda del pais, que comprende los principles sis-









LUNA et al. - Diversidad de orquideas en el Parque Nacional Izta-Popo


temas montafiosos de Mexico como el Eje
Neovolcinico Transmexicano, region donde se encuen-
tran los volcanes Iztaccihuatl y Popocat6petl. Se situa
entire las coordenadas geogrificas 18o59' y 19o16'25"
de latitud N y 98o34'54" y 98o16'25" de longitud W,
cuenta con una superficie de 25,679 ha (Vargas 1997).
Las comunidades vegetables relevantes que predominan
son el Bosque de Pino, Pino-Encino, Oyamel, Paramo
de altura y Zacatonal. Por su ubicaci6n y por el marca-
do gradiente altitudinal que present, posee una gran
diversidad de habitats lo que refleja su riqueza floristica
que represent aproximadamente el 4% de la flora del
pais (25,000 taxas de plants vasculares).

SITIOS DE PROSPECCION Y REGISTRY. En junio del
2001 al 2006 se realizaron salidas mensuales a campo
para efectuar recorridos aleatorios en diversos sitios
del PNIP y sus areas de influencia en un rango altitu-
dinal desde los 1500 m hasta los 4000 m sobre el
nivel del mar. Se utilizaron cartas topogrificas escala
1:50 000 del Instituto Nacional de Estadistica
Geogrifica e Informatica (INEGI 1998), correspon-
dientes a los municipios de los tres estados para ubi-
car los sitios de prospecci6n de orquideas. En cada
zona donde se localizaron orquideas se registry la
ubicaci6n georeferenciada, altitude y tipo de vegeta-
ci6n. Se determine el hibito de crecimiento, distribu-
ci6n y estado fenol6gico de las orquideas. En algunos
casos la identificaci6n de las species se llev6 a cabo
por el personal del Herbario de la Asociaci6n
Mexicana de Orquideologia (AMO).

Resultados

COMPOSITION Y DIVERSIDAD. Se localizaron y determi-
naron 39 species de orquideas en el area de studio,
incluidas en 20 g6neros, el numero de species vari6 en
cada uno y fue mayor para Malaxis Sol. ex Sw., Bletia
Ruiz & Pav., Corallorhiza Gagnebin y Schiedeella
Schltr. (Tabla 1). Se localizaron 10 g6neros y 14
species de las orquideas reportados por Chavez y Trigo
en 1996 para el Parque, y se aportaron 25 species como
nuevos registros al listado: Bletia macristhmochila
Greenm., B. neglecta Sosa, B. purpurata A.Rich. et
Galeotti, B. purpurea (Lam) DC., Corallorhiza bulbosa
A.Rich. et Galeotti, C. wisteriana Conrad, Deiregyne
pyramidalis (Lindl.) Bums-Bal., Epidendrum magnoliae
Muhl., Erycina hyalinobulbon (Lex.) N.H.Williams et


TABLA 1. Abundancia de species de orquideas en el PNI-
P y areas de influencia.


G6nero

Bletia Ruiz & Pay.
Corallorhiza Chdtel.
Deiregyne Schltr.
Dichromanthus Garay
Epidendrum L.
Erycina Lindl.
Funkiella Schltr.
Govenia Lindl.
Habenaria Willd.
Laelia Lindl.
Malaxis Sol. ex Sw.
Mesadenus Schltr.
Microthelys Garay
Platanthera Rich.
Prescottia Lindl.
Prosthechea Knowles & Westc.
Sarcoglottis C.Presl
Schiedeella Schltr.
Stelis Sw.
Stenorhynchos Rich. ex Spreng.


Cantidad

4
4
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
1


M.W.Chase, Govenia capitata Lindl., Habenaria crassi-
cornis Lindl., H. jaliscana S.Watson, H. novemfida
Lindl., Laelia autumnalis (Lex.) Lindl., Malaxis
brachyrrhynchos (Rchb.f.) Ames, M. salazari Catling,
Mesadenus tenuissimus (L.O.Williams) Garay,
Microthelys nutantiflora (Schltr.) Garay, Platanthera
brevifolia (Greene) Senghas, Prosthechea linkiana
(Klotzsch) W.E.Higgins, P. varicosa (Bateman ex
Lindl.) W.E.Higgins, Schiedeella albovaginata (C.
Schweinf.) Bums-Bal., S. confusa (Garay) Espejo et
L6pez-Ferr., S. llaveana (Lindl.) Schltr. y Stelis retusa
(Lex.) Pridgeon & M.W.Chase,

DISTRIBUTION Y ABUNDANCIA DE ORQUIDEAS. La dis-
tribuci6n de orquideas por Entidad Federativa en el
PNIP y areas de influencia (Fig. 1) se ubica con una
cantidad de g6neros y species particulares, en
Morelos se localiz6 la mayor cantidad; sin embargo,
el menor nuimero de species fue en el estado de
Mexico. Las comunidades vegetables donde habitan
preferentemente la mayoria de orquideas son la de
Pino-Encino y Pino (Fig. 2) y se sitfian entire los 2450
y 2750 m de elevaci6n sobre el nivel del mar (Fig. 3).

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.










3 IOCC PROCEEDINGS


0 Generous U spp


Abeto

Encino

Pino

Encino-Pino

Pino-Encino


* Generos U spp




i


0 2 4 6 8 10 12


Puebla Morelos Mexico

Estado

FIGURA 1. Distribuci6n de orquideas por entidad federativa
en el PNIP y Areas de influencia.


[ Generous U species



^_- -


14


0 2 4 6 8 10 12


FIGURA 3. Abundancia de orquideas por gradiente
nal en el PNIP y Areas de influencia.


U Saprofitas U Terrestres 0 Epifitas


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

No de species
FIGURA 5. Abundancia de hibitos de crecimiento de orquide-
as por rango altitudinal en el PNIP y Areas de influencia.


FORMAS DE VIDA Y FLORACION. Los habitos de creci-
miento saprofito, terrestre y epifito, estin representa-
dos en las orquideas localizadas en el Parque. Las de
hibito terrestre son el tipo predominante en la zona
de studio con un 72% del total de species y se dis-
tribuyen principalmente en Bosque de Pino-Encino y


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


El.


14 16 18 20 2:


No.
FIGURA 2. Abundancia de orquideas por comunidad vege-
tal en el PNIP y Areas de influencia.


Abeto

Pino

Encino

Encino-Pino

Pmo-Encino


* Saprofitas 0 Terrestres U Epifitas


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
No de species
FIGURA 4. Abundancia de hibitos de crecimiento de orqui-
16 18 deas por comunidad vegetal en el PNIP y Areas de
No. influencia.
altitudi- Generos U species


Primavera


Verano

Otofio

Inviemo


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
No
FIGURA 6. tpoca de floraci6n de las orquideas en el PNIP
y Areas de influencia.


Pino (Fig. 4). De acuerdo a los gradientes altitudina-
les registrados se localizaron orquideas terrestres
desde los 1550 m hasta los 3350 m sobre el nivel del
mar, las species epifitas hasta cotas mAs bajas desde
los 1550 a los 3050 m y las saprofitas en mAs altas,
desde los 2450 hasta los 3650 (Fig. 5). De acuerdo a
lo registrado, durante la realizaci6n del present estu-
dio, se localizaron species terrestres principalmente
en 4poca de primavera y verano, todas ellas en flora-
ci6n, mientras que las epifitas fueron localizadas en


msnm
3350-3650
3050-3350

2750-3050
2450-2750
2150-2450

1850-2150
1550-1850


msnm

3350-3650

3050-3350

2750-3050

2450-2750

2150-2450

1850-2150

1550-1850








LUNA et al. - Diversidad de orquideas en el Parque Nacional Izta-Popo


primavera otofio e inviemo aun cuando no presenta-
ron floraci6n. Durante el inviemo no se ha localizado
ninguna especie en floraci6n (Fig. 6).

Discusi6n
De la diversidad de orquideas reportada por Chavez y
Trigo en 1996, para el PNI-P y su area de influencia,
solo cuatro g6neros y 10 species no se confirmaron.
Despues de 10 afios de esa publicaci6n y de cinco afios
de prospecci6n en la zona de studio se registraron 25
species como nuevos registros, de las cuales dos son
de hibito saprofito, 17 terrestre y seis epifito. En el
estado de Puebla, que incluye las laderas del Este de los
volcanes, se localizaron 16 species de las cuales 8 son
nuevos registros y concuerda con lo reportado por
Chimal (1996) acerca de que faltaban species por
registrar en esta zona. La zona fisiogrifica del PNIP y
sus areas de influencia permit que se establezca gran
diversidad de species terrestres, epifita y micotr6ficas;
ya que de acuerdo con Hagsater et al. (2005), la zona
present caracteristicas tanto de las serranias del note
de Mexico, cuya flora de orquideas es poco diverse con
species terrestres y micotr6ficas, asi como de las altas
montafias del sur del pais que permiten la existencia de
una variada flora de orquideas, donde las species epifi-
tas son tan numerosas como las terrestres. La
Orchidaceae registrada en este studio habitat principal-
mente en Bosque de Encinos y Bosque de Coniferas,
comunidades caracteristicos de Bosques Templados
Subhiumedos (Rzedowski 1978, Chavez y Trigo 1996,
Hagsater et al. 2005). Mantener la diversidad de espe-
cies de orquideas registradas en el Parque significa una
gran responsabilidad, la alteraci6n continue del li.ilbi.ii
es un factor limitante para su localizaci6n, ya que diver-
sos problems ambientales y sociales amenazan seria-
mente esta riqueza natural. De aqui que se deba mante-
ner la conservaci6n de los sitios donde se encuentren la
species nativas y tambien la conservaci6n ex situ.


Conclusiones
Se actualiz6 e increment el listado de orquideas del
PNIP y areas de influencia con 39 species incluidas en 20
g6neros. Veinticinco species y ocho g6neros son nuevos
registros. Las species encontradas se distribuyen altitudi-
nalmente desde los 1789 hasta los 3650 m. Predominan las
orquideas de habito terrestre y se distribuyen preferente-
mente en los bosques de pino o pino-encino.

LITERATURE CITADA
Chavez, C.J.M. & B.N.Trigo (coords.). 1996. Program de
manejo para el Parque Nacional Iztaccihuatl-
Popocatepetl. UAM-Xochimilco, Mexico, D.F.
Departamento del Hombre y su Ambiente. Area de
Ecologia y Planeaci6n de Recursos Naturales. 273 pp.
Chimal-Hernndez, A., 1996. Vegetaci6n. Pp. 77-87 in:
C.J.M. Chavez & B.N. Trigo (coords.), Programa de
manejo para el Parque Nacional Iztaccihuatl-
Popocatepetl. UAM-Xochimilco, Mexico, D.F.
Departamento del Hombre y su Ambiente. Area de
Ecologia y Planeaci6n de Recursos Naturales.
CONANP, 2004. http://www.conanp.gob.mx/sinap/
(Consultada 21 de enero del 2007).
Hagsater E., M.Soto, G.Salazar, R.Jimenez, M.L6pez &
R.L. Dressier, 2005. Las Orquideas de Mexico. Institute
Chinoin, Mexico.
Rzedowski, J., 1978. La Vegetaci6n de Mexico. Editorial
Limusa. Mexico.
Soto, M.A., 1988. Updated list of the orchids of Mexico.
Orquidea (M6x.) 11: 273-276.
Soto, M.A. & E.Hagsater, 1990. Algunas ideas acerca de
la conservaci6n de las orquideas mexicanas y un listado
preliminary de los taxa amenazados. In: Areas Naturales
Protegidas en Mexico y Especies en extinci6n.
J.L.Camarillo & F.Rivera (Eds.) Unidad de
Investigaci6n ICSE, ENEP-Iztacala, UNAM.
Soto, M. A., E.Hagsater & G.A.Salazar, 2001. La
Conservaci6n de las Orquideas de Mexico. XV
Congress Mexicano de Botanica. Qro., Qro. Mexico.
Vargas-Marquez, F., 1997. Parques Nacionales de Mexico.
Institute Nacional de Ecologia (INE), Secretaria de
Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca
(SEMARNAP). D.F. Mexico.


Barbara Susana Luna Rosales es profesora en la Facultad de Estudios Superiores Zaragoza de la Universidad Nacional
Aut6noma de Mexico, en la carrera de Biologia. Su especialidad es la morfogenesis vegetal, principalmente de la
orquideoflora, asi como el studio y establecimiento de metodologias para la germinaci6n, propagaci6n, reimplanta-
ci6n y rescate de diversas species de orquideas mexicanas. Ha realizado diversas publicaciones con temas relaciona-
dos con las t&cnicas de cultivo de tejidos vegetables y la micropropagaci6n de plants, entire ellas las orquideas.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2): 60-65. 2007.


AN ORCHID INVENTORY AND CONSERVATION PROJECT AT BOSQUE
DE PAZ BIOLOGICAL RESERVE, UPPER RIO TORO VALLEY,
ALAJUELA, COSTA RICA


MELANIA MUTOZ1'3 & STEPHEN H. KIRBY2

'Jardin Botanico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica, P.O. Box 1031-7050, Cartago, Costa Rica.
2U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025, U.S.A.
'Author for correspondence: melaniamunozg@yahoo.com

RESUMEN. El Jardin de Orquideas de la reserve fue creado en el afio 2000. Alli, las orquideas caidas de los
arboles del bosque son rescatadas, reubicadas y conservadas en arboles vivos (principalmente gilitite, jaul y
por6). Los objetivos del proyecto son: aumentar el conocimiento de la diversidad de orquideas de la Cuenca
del Rio Toro mediante un inventario, respaldado por fotografias y material de herbario seco y en liquid, de
las orquideas rescatadas del bosque y cultivadas en el Jardin de la reserve y dar a conocer dicha reserve como
ejemplo de ecoturismo educativo y sitio de gran importancia para la investigaci6n orquideol6gica. El inventa-
rio se ha llevado a cabo desde junio del 2004. Se han identificado 47 g6neros y 163 species; 12 de 6stas son
end6micas de Costa Rica. En promedio, se observan 40 species en floraci6n cada mes. El hecho de que el
Jardin de Orquideas esta situado junto a una reserve de vegetaci6n natural, es una ventaja que puede aprove-
charse para investigar sobre taxonomia y ecologia de orquideas de la region. Ademas de las opciones de
investigaci6n, Bosque de Paz realize una important labor en educaci6n ambiental. Este inventario y la colec-
ci6n de herbario resultante son herramientas importantes para la investigaci6n en orquideologia. Consultar
una colecci6n de este tipo es de much utilidad tanto para studios taxon6micos como ecol6gicos, en vista de
que pocas veces se cuenta, como en este caso, con observaciones de plants vivas, datos fenol6gicos, fotogra-
fias y material preservado, al mismo tiempo.


Orchids are among of the best-known and beloved
plants, not only by scientists, but also by amateurs,
and have a high commercial demand thanks to their
beautiful, diverse and interesting flowers (Herrera
1998). It is the largest family of flowering plants in
the world, with around 20,000 species (Dressler
1993). In Costa Rica there are around 1,400 regis-
tered species of orchids, but the knowledge of this
family has grown a lot in recent years. Since 1993,
around 20 new species have been described each
year, and their classification is constantly changing
because of molecular studies (Dressler 2003).
On the other hand, orchids are one of the most
threatened groups of plants. Many species are consid-
ered endangered (Salazar 1996, Morales 2000). Most
of the Orchidaceae family is included in the
Appendices of the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES), which main objective is to regulate interna-
tional trade to prevent species extinction because of
this trade (or their overexploitation) (von Arx 1996).


Human activities have been causing, directly or
indirectly, a decrease in orchid population sizes. The
habitat alteration, including total destruction, modifi-
cation and fragmentation, is the main problem for the
conservation of the diversity. Most of the tropical
orchids grow in primary forests. Some species are
probably more tolerant to forest fragmentation than
others; hence those less tolerant populations will
decline more rapidly when habitats are altered.
Another important threat is the illegal exploitation. A
lot of plants are illegally collected from nature and
sold (Salazar 1996, Morales 2000).
The main requirement for orchid conservation is
therefore the maintenance of natural habitats (Light
2000, Catling 1996). The objective of in situ conser-
vation is to allow species to be in the habitat where
they belong and in the environment to which they are
adapted (BGCI 1989). Ex situ conservation is the
maintenance of organisms out of their natural habitat,
for example in botanical gardens, field collections,
and others, and its objective is to ensure the conserva-








Musoz & KIRBY - An orchid inventory and conservation project at Bosque de Paz Reserve


tion of endangered species. Ex situ conservation is
justifiable only when it is part of an integral conser-
vation strategy (BGCI 1989).
The establishment of small natural reserves, sus-
tained by private institutions, is an important strategy
that complements the effort of the State to create and
maintain the National Park System. In this way, a
coordinated effort is made to conserve the Costa
Rican natural and cultural patrimony (Fournier and
Herrera 1979). Bosque de Paz is a private biological
reserve located in the Central Volcanic Range. It has
both primary and secondary forests, as well as graz-
ing and in various states of reforestation (Kirby
2003). The Reserve was created with the objective of
protecting the flora and fauna of the zone, and to cre-
ate public awareness of the importance of conserva-
tion. The idea to relocate orchids for public viewing
and scientific study began in the mid-90's. After
major storms with high winds and heavy rain occur,
large number of branches and trees, full of epiphytic
plants, fell across 20 km of trails in the Reserve.
These orchids would die eventually due to low light
and high humidity conditions. Fallen plants were sub-
sequently rescued, and some of the orchid diversity of
the area is now made accessible to visitors (Kirby
2003). In 1996 the Reserve had orchids relocated at
eye level on trees along a 75 meter-long trail. In
2000, the Orchid Garden was created, at an elevation
of about 1,550 meters above sea level, at 10012.425'
N latitude and 84�19.140' W longitude. The orchids
are located on trees and live trunks.
To preserve orchid diversity, it is necessary to
know which species exist, where they are located and
basic aspects about their ecology and frequency in
nature (Dressler 1996). Ideally, live plants in collec-
tions should be studied, but not every grower knows
where their plants come from. In practice, one of the
most common ways to obtain this kind of information
is by visiting museums and herbariums, where dry
material, sometimes complemented with flowers pre-
served in alcohol, can be found (Dressler 1996).
Moreover, more elaborate surveys that give diversity,
endemism, density and blooming data of the orchids
present in a specific area, are even more valuable
because they increase the knowledge of the distribu-
tion and ecology of the species, especially the rare
ones (Soto 1996).


Surveys of plants present in National Parks, botani-
cal gardens, as well as that of the biological preserves
and private collections, are essential for the use of
these places in conservation and research. Because of
this, it is important to perform both taxonomic studies
as sources of information about the species diversity
in different places of the country, and ecological stud-
ies to know the habitat and the environmental condi-
tions where the native orchids grow, as well as
obtaining fundamental information on orchid bio-
geography (Kirby this volume). This study is believed
to be the first comprehensive, multi-year collection,
description and identification of orchids in the
Central Volcanic Range in Costa Rica. The objective
of this paper is to provide a species inventory of
native orchids from the Rio Toro Valley, Valverde
Vega, Alajuela, as a baseline for conservation and
starting point for orchid research in this region.

Methodology

An orchid survey at Bosque de Paz Biological
Reserve has been in progress since June of 2004.
Monthly field trips to the Reserve were made in order
to sample blooming species. A herbarium collection
was created and is currently maintained at the
Reserve. Flowers were collected and preserved in liq-
uid (55% alcohol, 5% glycerin and 40% water) as
well. Every species was photographed and described
using the checklist described by Kirby and Mufioz
(this volume). Nomenclature follows that used by
Dressler (2003). The blooming dates of every species
were recorded and the identified plants were all
labeled in the Orchid Garden.

Results

In the study period, 163 orchid species were observed
in bloom and described, of which 12 species are
endemics to Costa Rica. These were distributed into 47
genera. The genera with greatest number of species in
the garden are: Epidendrum (24 spp.), Pleurothallis (23
spp.), Maxillaria (22 spp.) Stelis (10 spp.), Lepanthes (8
spp.), Masdevallia (7 spp.), Prosthechea (6 spp.),
Elleanthus (5spp.), Platystele (4 spp.) and \. .,, , , 7 .;i;"
(4 spp.) (Table 1). On average, 40 (�11) species were
observed in bloom each month. The months with more
species in bloom were October, November and

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


TABLE 1. Orchid list of Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve.


Name


Field number


Name


Acineta densa
Ada chloropsa
Barbosella dolichorhizaa
Brassia arcuigera
( .. . . , .. . pictaa
Cryptocentrum calcaratum
Dichaea glaucaa
Dichaea schlechteri E
Dichaea trichocarpa
Dracula carlueri
Elleanthus (2spp.)
Elleanthus cynarocephalus
Elleanthus glaucophyllus
Elleanthus .. .
Encyclia ceratistes
Epidendrum (8 spp)



Epidendrum firmum
Epidendrum lacustre
Epidendrum lancilabium
Epidendrum laucheanum
Epidendrum myodes
Epidendrum palmense E
Epidendrum parkinsonianum
Epidendrum piliferum
Epidendrum platystigma E
Epidendrum radicans
Epidendrum sancti-ramonia
Epidendrum subnutansa E
Epidendrum summerhayesii
Epidendrum wercklei
Erythrodes killipii
Eurysyles standleyi E
Gongora horichiana
Govenia quadriplicata
Houlletia tigrina
Leochilus tricuspidatus
Lepanthes (7spp.)



Lepanthes crossota
Lockhartia hercodonta
Lockhartia oerstedii
Lockhartia oerstediia
Lycaste macrophylla


04 98 (97)
04 105
04 126
05 174
04 100
04 104
04 147
04 128
04 75
05 175
06 220/06 238
04 77
05 173
05 180
04 82
04 115a/04 156/05 177/
05-187/06 210/06 216/
06 221/06 236/
04 136
b
05 204
04 93
05-184
05 162
04 157
04 91
05-181
04 154
05 161
04 137(155)
05-186
b
06 215
07 243
04 112
06 224
06 231
04 130
05 158/05 164/05 190/
06 207/06 214/06 217/
06 219/
04 114
06 241
04 102
05 178
04 99


Masdevallia sp.
Masdevallia calura E
Masdevallia chontalensis
Masdevallia nidifica
Masdevallia picturata
Masdevalliapygmaea
Masdevallia striatellaa
Maxillaria (5 spp.)


Maxillaria angustisegmentaa
Maxillaria biolleyi
Maxillaria bradeorum
Maxillaria brevilabia
Maxillaria cucullata
Maxillaria dendrobioidesa
Maxillariaflava
Maxillaria fulgens
Maxillaria inaudita
Maxillaria .. . , . . E
Maxillaria nasuta
Maxillaria porrecta
Maxillaria pseudoneglectaa
Maxillaria ringens
Maxillaria sigmoidea
Maxillaria umbratilis
Maxillaria wercklei E
Miltoniopsis warscewiczii
Oerstedella endresii
Oerstedella exasperata
Oerstedella intermixta E
Oncidium
Oncidium bracteatum
Oncidium klotzschianum
Oncidium .
Osmoglossum egertonii
Otoglossum chiriquense
Phragmipedium .. .
Platystele compact
Platystele lancilabrisa E
Platystele . .
Platystele propinquaa E
Pleurothallis (10 spp.)




Pleurothallis amparoanaa


06 240
04 80
05 205
06 212
06 234
06 228
04 131
04 96a/05 189/06 213/
06 227/06 237/
04 110
04 146
05 163
04 148
04 140
04 141
06 235
04 74
04 145
05 176
04 123
04 125
04 127
04 124
06 239
06 208
05 192
04 132
04 143
04 70
04 107
04 152
04 81(83)
04 129
04 85
04 134
06 232
04 92
04 89
05 166
04 103
04 113
04 101a/04_116a/
04 120/04 139/04 153/
05-188/06 211/06 218/
06 230/06 242/
05 171


E = Endemic species to Costa Rica. a = Samples with duplicates in the Herbarium of the University of Costa Rica. b = Not collected plants, just
identified in the Orchid Garden.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


Field number









Musoz & KIRBY - An orchid inventory and conservation project at Bosque de Paz Reserve


TABLE 1 (continuation). Orchid list of Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve.


Name


Field number


Name


Pleurothallis cardiothallisa
Pleurothallis costaricensisa
Pleurothallis dentipetala
Pleurothallis eumecocaulon
Pleurothallis johnsonii
Pleurothallis palliolata
Pleurothallis, -., . .
Pleurothallis pompalisa
Pleurothallis ramonensis E
Pleurothallis ruscifolia
Pleurothallis tonduziia
Prosthechea sp.
Prosthechea brassavolaea
Prosthechea, .
Prosthechea ionocentra
Prosthechea pseudopygmaea
Prosthechea vespa
Restrepia .. ..
Restrepia trichoglossa
Rossioglossum schlieperianum
Salpistele brunnea
Scaphosepalum anchoriferum
Scaphyglottis densaa

E - Endemic species to Costa Rica. a
identified in the Orchid Garden.


04 108
05 165
05 203
04 133
04 117
05 202
04 118
04 88
04 87
04 72
04 95
06 206
04 106
05 168
04 94
04 138
05 193
04 135
04 121
05 179
05 191
04 79
05 169


Scaphyglottis, . ,.
Scaphyglottis pulchella
Scaphyglottis sigmoideaa
Sigmatostalixpicta
Sobralia amabilis
Sobralia leucoxantha
Solenocentrum costaricense
Stanhopea costaricensis
Stelis (8 spp).



Stelis gracilisa
Stelis ovatilabia
Systeloglossum costaricense
Telipogon biolleyi
Trichopilia marginata
Trichopilia suavis
Trichosalpinx sp.
Trichosalpinx memory
Trichosalpinx memory
Warszewiczella discolor
Xylobium elongatum
Xylobium sulfurinum


04 149
04 84
04 86
04 90
06 233
06 225
04 76
06 226
04 142/04 144/05 167a/
05 170/05 174/05-182/
05-183/05-185
04 109
04 119
06 229
04 71
06 209
04 122
06 216
05 159
05 160
04 150
04 111
04 73


Samples with duplicates in the Herbarium of the University of Costa Rica. b = Not collected plants, just


December (Fig. 1). Dried herbarium sheets were pre-
pared from plants and flowers of 149 species and flow-
ers from 139 species were preserved by pickling.
Duplicates of 36 species were deposited in the
Herbarium of the University of Costa Rica (USJ).

Discussion

Having more than 160 species registered so far,
with at least 12 being endemic, Bosque de Paz can
now be recognized as a key site for in situ conserva-
tion of orchids in Costa Rica. With an area of 2000
hectares and with elevations ranging between 1,300
and 2,450 meters, the Reserve brings a big, little frag-
mented area, with modest human impact and with
several microhabitats that support the existence,
reproduction and other natural biological processes of
an important number of orchids.
Bosque de Paz is a natural reserve, which has had
success in the conservation of a group of plants as vul-


nerable as orchids. This also reflects success in the
conservation of other plant families present in the zone.
Moreover, the Orchid Garden could be considered a
potential bank of germoplasm in the field (BGCI
1989). Field collections like this are better than con-
ventional ones, because they have very similar charac-
teristics to the natural habitat. The relocated plants
have similar elevation, rainfall, temperature and polli-
nators where they were found. According to BGCI
(1989) such collections should be the main ex situ con-
servation strategy. The Garden is located just next to
an important natural forest, which is an advantage that
could be further exploited for the taxonomic, ecologic
and biogeografic studies of the region. Since it is the
first multi-year orchid survey in the Central Volcanic
Range, it is a starting point for comparisons with other
montane cloud-forest environments in Costa Rica and
elsewhere in Latin America (see Kirby, this volume).
Furthermore, one of the most important roles of

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


Field number








3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


3-n 39


70 -


60 -


� 50 -
0

.- 40


S30


Z 20


tS 3g S3

< &)


n 1 . I.n I n tr,1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1


month'year
Figure 1. Number of species observed in bloom from July 2004 to January 2007 in the Orchid Garden of Bosque de Paz
Reserve. *Data not collected.


cu .
�mi m21 ii N
oooooo
a, I


'l fl V) v O t^ t^ ^ c '0 v O '0 '0 O Le '.0 a r-
C S- c C 0 a a 0 C C C a' c C C C C
? C ,7 I
0, LI) c ulo
boas 0 w


natural preserves is to educate the people who visit
them (Head and Lauer 1996). The creation of an
orchid garden is therefore important for environmen-
tal education of both national and foreign tourists,
because thanks to it, there is a great number and
diversity of blooming orchid species that can be easi-
ly seen in the garden throughout the year, and are dif-
ficult to observe in their natural habitat. This educa-
tional opportunity helps to create consciousness about
Costa Rica's natural richness, the enormous orchid
diversity, the problems that make their conservation
difficult, and that everybody can do something for
their protection, such as the simple action of not tak-
ing them from their natural habitats.
Orchid surveys such this one are also valuable tools
for orchid scientists. High-resolution digital and prin-
ted photographs, high quality herbarium samples,
both dry and pickled specimens, with duplicates in
the Herbarium of the University of Costa Rica (USJ)
are provided. Access to a collection like this one
could be very useful to researchers for taxonomic stu-
dies, for which there is limited preserved material,

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


especially for those less conspicuous and rare species.
Accurate species identifications also will be useful
for population studies and orchid biogeography.
To conclude, Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve
reflects the great orchid diversity of the area.
Moreover, the reserve's Orchid Garden is a very
important place for conservation, research and envi-
ronmental education in several fields, with an obvious
emphasis in orchideology.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The authors wish to thank Carlos
O. Morales and Robert Dressler for their generous help in
the identification of some species. To Piero Protti for his
help in the field collection, preparation of the herbarium
material, and in the elaboration and advice for this paper.
To Vinicio Porras for his help in the field and the Orchid
Garden maintenance. This project is made possible by the
support of Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve.

LITERATURE CITED
BGCI (Botanical Gardens Conservation International).
1989. La estrategia de los Jardines Botanicos para la
Conservaci6n. BGCI, WWR y UICN. Suiza. 51 p.


331
n


44


33 H


5759


4242









Musoz & KIRBY - An orchid inventory and conservation project at Bosque de Paz Reserve


Catling, P.M. 1996. Conservation i..1ii. - In situ conser-
vation. Pp. 15-23. In: E. Hagsater & V. Dumont (eds.).
Orchids -Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan.
IUCN. Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Dressier, R.L. 1993. Phylogeny and Classification of the
Orchid Family. Dioscorides Press. Hong Kong. 314 p.
Dressier, R.L. 1996. The problems associated with botani-
cal sampling and study. P. 34 in: E. Hagsater & V.
Dumont (eds.). Orchids- Status Survey and Conservation
Action Plan. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK.
Dressier, R.L. 2003. Orchidaceae. In: Hammel, B. E.,
Grayum, M. H., Herrera, C. & Zamora, N. (eds.). Manual
de Plantas de Costa Rica, vol III: Monocotiled6neas
(Orchidaceae-Zingiberaceae). Missouri Bot. Gard. INBio.
Museo Nacional de Costa Rica. Pp. 1-595.
Foumier, L.A. & M.E. Herrera. 1979. Importancia cientifi-
ca, econ6mica y cultural de un sistema de pequefias reser-
vas naturales en Costa Rica. Agron. Costarr. 3(1): 53-55.
Head, C. & A. Lauer. 1996. Conservation ,'I..1.._-
Education. Pp. 46-47 in: E. Hagsater & V. Dumont
(eds.). Orchids -Status Survey and Conservation Action
Plan. IUCN. Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Herrera, A. 1998. Factibilidad tecnica y financiera para la
producci6n in vitro de orquideas (Masdevallia calura y
Masdevallia reichenbachiana) en Monteverde,
Puntarenas. Tesis de Licenciatura en Economia Agricola,
Universidad de Costa Rica, San Jose. 149 p.
Kirby, S.H. 2003. Neotropical orchid eco-tourism: educa-


tional experience of an orchid neophyte at The Bosque de
Paz Biological Preserve, Central Volcanic Range, Costa
Rica. Lankesteriana 7: 121-124.
Kirby, S.H. 2007. Geological Processes and Orchid
Biogeography with Applications to Southeast Central
America. Proceedings of the 3'd International Orchid
Conservation Congress in Lankesteriana, this volume.
Kirby, S.H. & M. Mufioz. 2007. A form and checklist for
the description of orchids in the field and laboratory
work. Costa Rica. Proceedings of the 3'd International
Orchid Conservation Congress in Lankesteriana, this
volume.
Light, M.H.S. 2000. In situ orchid conservation: challenge
and opportunity. Orchid Conserv. News 3: 4-5.
Morales, J.F. 2000. Orquideas, cactus y bromelias del bos-
que seco. INBio. Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica.
162 p.
Salazar, G.A. 1996. Conservation Threats. Pp. 6-10 in: E.
Hagsater & V. Dumont (eds.). Orchids- Status Survey
and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK.
Soto, M. 1996. Conservation i.I..i, The importance of
research. Pp. 33-38. In: E. Hagsater & V. Dumont (eds.).
Orchids -Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan.
IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
von Arx, B. 1996. Conservation i.I..i._- International
Protection. Pp. 11-14. In: E. Hagsater & V. Dumont
(eds.). Orchids -Status Survey and Conservation Action
Plan. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.


Melania Muiioz earned her B.S. in Biology at the University of Costa Rica in 2003. She is currently working on her
Master's degree in Biotechnology at the same University. Her research involves both population genetics and in vitro
culture of orchids. She is also a research assistant at the Lankester Botanical Garden. She has been the biologist in
charge of the inventory of the Orchid Garden and the preparation and maintenance of the herbarium material at Bosque
de Paz Biological Reserve since 2004.

Stephen H. Kirby was awarded a Ph.D. in Geology in 1975 from the University of California at Los Angeles. He has
been employed by the U.S. Geological Survey since 1968 and is currently a Research Geophysicist and Senior
Scientist in the Earthquake Hazard Team in Menlo Park, California. He is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union
and the Mineralogical Society of America. He is an author of more than 160 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters
and has worked as a volunteer at the Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve since 2002.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2): 66-70. 2007.


DISTRIBUTION DE POBLACIONES SILVESTRES Y DESCRIPTION
DEL HABITAT DE PHRAGMIPEDIUM EN COSTA RICA


MELANIA MUrTOZ'2 & JORGE WARNER'

'Jardin Botanico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica, Apdo. 1031-7050, Cartago, Costa Rica.
2Autor para correspondencia: melaniamunozg@yahoo.com


PALABRAS CLAVE: Phragmipedium, slipper orchids, poblaciones silvestres, distribuci6n, descripci6n de habi-
tat, orquideas terrestres, Costa Rica


Las orquideas de g6nero Phragmipedium (Pfitz.)
Rolfe pertenecen a la subfamilia Cypripedioideae y
son comunmente llamadas zapatillas o "slipper
orchids" (Atwood 1984). Segin Dressier (2003), en
Costa Rica se encuentran dos species: P. humboldtii
(Warsz. ex Rchb.f) J.T. Atwood & Dressier, la cual
se encuentra tambi6n en Mexico, Guatemala,
Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama y Perui (UNEP-
WCMC 2004); y P. longifolium (Warsz. & Rchb.f)
Rolfe, que se distribuye en Costa Rica, Panama,
Colombia y Ecuador (UNEP-WCMC 2004).
El valor econ6mico de estas plants se debe a su
gran belleza, la cual es el origen de su alta extracci6n
illegal en la naturaleza, reduciendo cada vez mis el
tamafio de sus poblaciones y llevindolas a peligro de
extinci6n. Las dos species reportadas para Costa
Rica se encuentran en la lista roja de species en peli-
gro de extinci6n de la UICN (Uni6n Internacional
para la Conservaci6n de la Naturaleza) (Pupulin
2003). Ademis, este g6nero esta incluido en el
Ap6ndice I de CITES (Convention on Internacional
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora) (von Arx 1996).
La disponibilidad de informaci6n detallada es nece-
saria para poder tomar decisions adecuadas sobre el
manejo de las species (Olson et al. 2005). Para saber
el estado real de Phragmipedium en Costa Rica, es
necesario conocer la distribuci6n y las caracteristicas
de sus poblaciones silvestres. En este trabajo se pre-
sentan los resultados de una bfisqueda sistemitica de
poblaciones de Phragmipedium en Costa Rica. Los
objetivos del trabajo son establecer una distribuci6n
general de Phragmipedium longifolium y P. humbold-
tii en Costa Rica, basado en datos de herbario y de
campo, y describir el habitat donde se encuentran.


Metodologia

Se obtuvieron datos de recolecta de ejemplares de
P. longifolium y P. humboldtii depositados en el
Herbario de la Universidad de Costa Rica (USJ),
Herbario Nacional (CR) e Instituto Nacional de
Biodiversidad (INBio) como base para iniciar la buis-
queda de localidades conocidas de esta especie de
orquidea en Costa Rica. Por otro lado, se contactaron
bi6logos, naturalistas, guardaparques, aficionados y
coleccionistas que tuvieran conocimiento de localida-
des donde crecen las plants. Se realizaron visits a
las localidades donde las plants habian sido recolec-
tadas u observadas. Las giras se realizaron durante
2005 y 2006. En cada sitio se recolect6 material testi-
go que luego se deposit en la colecci6n viva del
Jardin Botinico Lankester. En cada poblaci6n se
tomaron las coordenadas geogrificas con un GPS
Garmin Map 76S. Se utiliz6 el program ArcView
GIS 3.3 para localizar en un mapa de Costa Rica las
poblaciones reportadas en bases de datos de herbarios
y las visitadas durante el studio.
La descripci6n del habitat se hizo segin Zhan-Huo
et al. (1999), se anot6 la elevaci6n, area aproximada
que ocupa la poblaci6n, cercania a rios, impact de la
actividad humana y presencia de brotes nuevos, flores
y frutos en las plants.

Resultados

EJEMPLARES DE HERBARIO.Del Herbario de la
Universidad de Costa Rica (USJ) se obtuvieron datos
de plants de P. longifolium y P. humboldtii cultiva-
das en el Jardin Botinico Lankester, pero sin datos de
procedencia. En dicho herbario, se obtuvo otro dato
de P. longifolium cultivado en "La Finca el Trebol,








MUroz & WARNER - Poblaciones silvestres de Phragmipedium


La Palma" pero sin coordenadas geogrificas. En el
Herbario Nacional se encuentran muestras de dos
plants de P. humboldtii de la zona sur del pais. La
primera, recolectada por Estrada A. et al. (2001) en
cultivo en el Jardin Botinico Wilson, proveniente de
Sabalito, San Vito de Coto Brus y la segunda recolec-
tada cerca de la frontera con Panama en 1923.
Ademis, cinco ejemplares de P. longifolium prove-
nientes de La Fortuna de San Carlos, San Ram6n,
Paraiso y Sarapiqui (cuadro 1). En el Herbario del
INBio estin registradas cinco muestras de P. longifo-
lium, de las cuales dos son duplicados de las muestras
del Herbario Nacional (cuadro 1). En el INBio no
existen ejemplares de P. humboldtii.

GIRAS DE CAMPO. En total se visitaron 10 poblaciones
de P. longifolium localizadas en las zonas de Venecia
de San Carlos, Tilarin, Grecia, Paraiso y Sarapiqui
(cuadro 1, figure 1). Los c6digos del material testigo
de cada poblaci6n depositados en el Jardin Botinico
Lankester se muestran en el cuadro 1. Durante el
period de studio no fue possible localizar alguna
poblaci6n de P. humboldtii.

DESCRIPCION DEL HABITAT. La mayoria de las pobla-
ciones visitadas se encuentran entire 950 y 1255
msnm, except las de La Virgen de Sarapiqui,
Reserva Gavilin Blanco y Reserva Rara Avis que se
encuentran en zonas mis bajas (cuadro 1). Seguin las
zonas de vida establecidas por Holdridge (1967)
todas las poblaciones, tanto las localizadas en el
campo como los registros de herbario, se encontraron
en el bosque muy huimedo tropical transici6n a pre-
montano y bosque pluvial premontano, con excepci6n
de las poblaciones de La Virgen, que se encontr6 en
bosque muy huimedo tropical, y de Tilarin I, que se
localiz6 en bosque muy huimedo premontano transi-
ci6n a pluvial figurea 1).
Todas las poblaciones se encontraron formando
parches pequefios de 9-2500 m2, solamente las pobla-
ciones del Proyecto Hidroelkctrico Toro II del
Institute Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE), Tilarin
II y Rio Cuarto poseian areas mis grandes (cuadro 1).
Los parches de plants mis pequefios, localizados en
La Virgen y en la Reserva Gavilin Blanco, constaban
de uinicamente 4-6 plants cada una, sin embargo,
&stas se encontraban en buen estado, con brotes nue-
vos, flores e incluso cipsulas.


Poblaciones de P. longifolium
* Datos de campo
* Datos de Herbario
Zonas de Vida
SBOSQUE MUY HUMEDO PREMONTANO TRANSITION A PLUVIAL
BOSQUE MUY HUMEDO TROPICAL
M BOSQUE MUY HUMEDO TROPICAL TRANSITION A PREMONTANO
a BOSQUE PLUVIAL PREMONTANO

FIGURA 1. Mapa de distribuci6n de P. .-.. '. .... en Costa
Rica segfin las zonas de vida establecidas por Holdridge
(1967).


Las plants de Phragmipedium de la Reserva Gavilan
Blanco, Rara Avis, Aguas Silvestres y La Virgen se
encontraron creciendo en zonas de poca cobertura vege-
tal, sobre rocas grandes dentro de rios de poco caudal
en estaci6n seca entiree 5 y 15 m de ancho y alrededor
de 1-1.5 m de profundidad), ubicadas al lado contrario
de la corriente de agua, o en rocas a la orilla de los mis-
mos. Otras plants crecen en paredones ubicados a la
orilla de caminos, tal es el caso de las poblaciones
encontradas en Venecia, Tilarin I y Rio Cuarto. En las
dos uiltimas los paredones estaban adyacentes a cauces
de rios pequefios o quebradas. Por otro lado, en Toro II
y Paraiso, los paredones estin continues a cataratas y el
acceso es limitado para el hombre. La poblaci6n mis
grande encontrada fue la de Tilarin II (cuadro 1), en la
cual las plants crecen en un potrero sin sombra y a la
orilla de una carretera. Las poblaciones de Tilarin son
las dos inicas donde las plants no se encontraron en
parches adyacentes a alguna quebrada o rio. Las plants
de todas las poblaciones encontradas poseian flores y
brotes nuevos y no presentaban signos visible de enfer-
medades causadas por hongos o bacteria. No se encon-
traron plants de P. longifolium epifitas.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.











3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


V
Ca
o
o�

0"


lu


E
�i
1a

en

-3


S0
s-














ll
%a





7o
0"
^ T

c" 1-


00$
I)
I)Fl


I)


0 d
~- ' '
a - -


a


S xx x x x x x
a

o















(71 00 10 r-- (71 (71 C� C ^0� �
N


CQ o\ o m o\ Vo I t
-, ii i i un \0 r- in 0 I I I N-
o C r l C l r r


















NC7
cpS m C7
'X: u uC7 5



td
-d u u











OZ 'CZ N O CCC
-i -s - - l Cl C Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl C3 Cl









cr;* CO ON O C C O
- o \ a\ ch ch ch oo o o o o o o o o o o






m", C I I to CC C
C ON C ^H CH C C H N - N Cl ON C








1~~~~~c - - - - s s ,s "^


- I c i SII IIi i I C.
l (2(2(t i ia z 2
hQ r i ii Qi ^ ^ r r r r r - - O Q-
'C& o,, bi m ^ ^^^


'C

C


I) )
-o -o c
1)1)0
;: -


I) -
cZ -sb

0 Cd
o E
Ct'
0

I) I


I)




I)


0I
t


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








MuNoz & WARNER - Poblaciones silvestres de Phragmipedium


Discusi6n
Las colecciones de herbario son una fuente impor-
tante de datos de distribuci6n de las species de plan-
tas (Jones et al. 1997). Los datos obtenidos de los her-
barios consultados fueron una base muy important
para el inicio de la bfusqueda de las poblaciones silves-
tres de Phragmipedium en Costa Rica. Se encontraron
poblaciones cercanas a sitios de recolecta reportados
en los herbarios, como es el caso de la region de
Sarapiqui, y alrededores de Monteverde I(T.ii.Li San
Ram6n, La Fortuna de San Carlos) y Paraiso. AdemAs,
se hallaron poblaciones en zonas que no estaban
reportadas anteriormente en los registros de herbario
(Venecia, Toro II y Rio Cuarto), lo cual es una contri-
buci6n important al conocimiento de la distribuci6n
geogrifica de este g6nero en Costa Rica. Por otro
lado, los tipos de sustrato reportados en los herbarios
concuerdan con los encontrados en el campo.
Es important notar que la mayoria de las poblacio-
nes de P. longifolium se encontraron creciendo en
zonas generalmente asociadas a fuentes de agua o
expuestas a much humedad, con escasa o ninguna
cobertura vegetal y con diferentes niveles de altera-
ci6n humana o natural, como derrumbes o crecidas de
rios. Las caracteristicas de las poblaciones observadas
indican que las plants de P. longifolium son capaces
de colonizar ambientes alterados, expuestos a la luz y
la humedad, donde las semillas dispersadas por el
viento encuentran las condiciones necesarias para
germinar y desarrollarse. El caso mAs notorio de plan-
tas creciendo en una zona con alto impact human
es la de TilarAn II, donde las plants crecen en un
potrero, sin sombra y a la orilla de un camino asfalta-
do, y sin embargo, fue la poblaci6n con mayor canti-
dad de plants y Area ocupada.
El hecho de que las poblaciones esten conformadas
por pequefios parches, donde las plants estAn muy
cercanas unas de otras, y que se encuentren en lugares
alterados, con fAcil acceso human, hacen muy vulne-
rables a estas poblaciones silvestres. Por otro lado,
algunas poblaciones se encuentran en Areas protegi-
das, como las reserves privadas Aguas Silvestres,
GavilAn Blanco y Rara Avis y en sitios como la
Planta HidroelCctrica Toro II del ICE, done el acce-
so a particulares es limitado, lo cual brinda mayor
protecci6n a esta orquidea en la zona.
El present trabajo brinda informaci6n general de


las caracteristicas del hAbitat y de la distribuci6n geo-
grAfica de P. longifolium en Costa Rica. Aunque se
visitaron todas las localidades donde se conoce la pre-
sencia de plants de este g6nero, la bfusqueda no fue
exhaustive por lo que seguramente existen otras
poblaciones viviendo en condiciones similares a las
descritas anteriormente. Por otro lado, la informaci6n
disponible acerca P. humboldtii es muy escasa y la
ubicaci6n de poblaciones en la zona sur de Costa
Rica result dificil. En el future se pueden utilizar
bases de datos geo-referenciados y programs de
Sistemas de Informaci6n GeogrAfica para elaboraci6n
de mapas que permitan identificar y limitar nuevas
Areas de bfisqueda de estas species.

AGRADECIMIENTOS.Se agradece al Instituto Costarricense
de Electricidad, a Luis Diego G6mez, Orlando Vargas,
Amos Bien, Eladio Cruz, Alvaro Salazar, Ernesto Carman
y Vinicio Porras por su valiosa ayuda en la localizaci6n y
acceso a las poblaciones silvestres de P. -... '- '..... visita-
das durante este studio, asi como al Ministerio de
Ambiente y Energia por los permisos para recolectar mate-
rial. Este trabajo fue financiado parcialmente por la
Vicerrectoria de Investigaci6n de la Universidad de Costa
Rica, en el marco del proyecto: "Evaluaci6n de la variabi-
lidad genetica de poblaciones silvestres y cultivo in vitro
de Phragmipedium (Orchidaceae) en Costa Rica" (814-
A6-107).


LITERATURE CITADA
Atwood, J.T. 1984. The relationship of the slipper orchids
(Subfamily Cipripedioide, Orchidaceae). Selbyana 7:
129-229.
Dressier, R.L. 2003. Orchidaceae. In: Hammel, B. E.,
Grayum, M. H., Herrera, C. & Zamora, N. (eds.). Manual
de Plantas de Costa Rica, vol III: Monocotiled6neas
(Orchidaceae-Zingiberaceae). Missouri Bot. Gard. INBio.
Museo Nacional de Costa Rica. Pp. 1-595.
Holdridge, L. 1967. Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science
Center, Costa Rica. 89 p.
Jones, P.G., S.E. Beebe & J. Tohme. 1997. The use of geo-
graphical information systems in biodiversity explo-
ration and conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation
6: 974-958.
Olson, M.E., J.A. Lomeli & N.V. Cacho. 2005. Extinction
thread in the Pedilanthus clade (Euphorbia,
Euphorbiaceae), with special reference to the recently
rediscovered E. conzattii (P. pulchellus). Am. J. Bot.
92(4): 43-49.
Pupulin, F. 2003. Orchidaceae de Costa Rica. Jardin
Botanico Lankester. Universidad de Costa Rica. Costa

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


Rica. 28 pp.
UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme
- World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2004.
UNEP-WCMC Species Database: CITES-Listed
Species. (consultada el 30 de setiembre 2004,
http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/isdb/CITES/Taxonomy/tax-
species-result.cfm?Genus=Phragmipedium
von Arx, B. 1996. Conservation Mii.o. _- Internacional


Protection, ppll-14. In: E. Hagsater & V. Dumont
(eds.). Orchids - Status Survey and Conservation Action
Plan. IUCN. Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Zhan-Huo, T., L. Yi-Bo, P.J. Criba, N. McGough, G. Siu,
& L. Chau. 1999. A preliminary report on the popula-
tion size, ecology, and conservation status of some
Paphiopedilum species (Orchidaceae) in southwest
China. Lindleyana 14(1): 12-23.


Melania Muiioz obtuvo el titulo de Bachiller en Biologia de la Universidad de Costa Rica en el afio 2003. Actualmente
realize sus studios de Postgrado en Biotecnologia en la misma universidad. Su proyecto de tesis esta enfocado en la
genetica de poblaciones y reproducci6n in vitro de orquideas. Es asistente de investigaci6n en el Jardin Botanico
Lankester. Desde el 2004 trabaja en la Reserva Biol6gica Bosque de Paz, donde realize el inventario del Jardin de
Orquideas y es la encargada del montaje y mantenimiento del herbario.

Jorge Warner es biblogo con studios de posgrado en la Universidad de Costa Rica. Trabaja con el Jardin Botanico
Lankester desde 1991. Sus areas de trabajo son cultivo in vitro de plants en peligro de extinci6n y conservaci6n in situ.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2): 71-82. 2007.


ORCHIDS OF A REGENERATED TROPICAL DRY FOREST IN THE CALI
RIVER WATERSHED, MUNICIPALITY OF CALI, COLOMBIA

JORGE E. OREJUELA

'Universidad Aut6noma de Occidente
Environmental Studies Group for Sustainable Development- GEADES
and Director Cali Botanical Garden, Cali, Colombia
jeorejuela@uao.edu.co * jardinbocali@hotmail.com


RESUMEN: El bosque seco tropical regenerado en la cuenca media del Rio Cali forma un corredor biol6gico
de cerca de 100 hectareas que conecta la ciudad de Cali con el Parque Natural Farallones de Cali. El Jardin
Botanico de Cali, un espacio natural de bosque seco tropical regenerado de 12 hectareas, forma parte de este
corredor y su vegetaci6n muestra una dominancia de species pioneras de sucesi6n ecol6gica secundaria.
Las species que predominan son: i i I. 1,, ' (Myrcia popayanensis), Laurel Jigua (Cynammomum tripliner-
ve), Sangregao (Crot6n .... . .. .''..-,. I Guacimo (Guazuma ,.~,... ..- Chiminango (Pithecellobium dulce) y
Chagualo (Clusia sp). Un analisis preliminary de las orquideas presents en este corredor incluye species
que crecen bien en terrenos abiertos como Cyrtopodium paniculatum y Catasetum ochraceum y en aflora-
mientos rocosos como Epidendrum xanthinum, Schomburgkia y Sobralia. Las species epifitas del JB inclu-
yen Dimerandra emarginata, Catasetum tabulare, Encyclia ceratistes, Encyclia sp), Bulbophyllum meriden-
se, Cladobium, Epidendrum (3 spp), Maxillaria (2 spp), Lepanthes y Oncidium cartaginensis. Hay dos
species de vainillas que son propiamente species trepadoras. Las species tipicamente terrestres incluyen
los siguientes g6neros: (Oeceoclades, Cleistes, Galeandra, Pelexia y Spiranthes. En un bosque seco tropi-
cal de condiciones similares en la cuenca del Rio Claro se encontr6 una especie de Coryanthes posiblemente
nueva. La vegetaci6n present en el corredor biol6gico y el JBC es una regeneraci6n de los filtimos 70 afios.
El area habia sido impactada severamente por process de agriculture extensive, ganaderia, proyectos viales
y por incendios forestales. Las species nativas de arboles asi como las orquideas presents actualmente
conforman un banco de germoplasma de gran valor particularmente desde la 6ptica de la restauraci6n ecol6-
gica del bosque seco tropical en laderas andinas. Esta flora de orquideas es precisamente, la misma que
alguna vez existia en los bosques donde hoy la ciudad de Cali se extiende y por tanto represent una ventana
del pasado y un enorme potential educativo para las generaciones presents.
KEY WORDS: orchids, restoration, conservation, systematics


Introduction


The Tropical dry Forest (Bs-T) is a vegetal forma-
tion with continuous forest cover between 0-1,000 m
in altitude and temperatures above 24 C and average
annual rainfall between 700 and 2,000mm, with one
or two dry periods per year (Espinal 1985; Murphy &
Lugo 1986, InstitutoAlexander von Humboldt 1998).
The Tropical dry Forest represents about 50% of the
forested areas of Central America and 22% of South
America (Murphy and Lugo, 1986). In Colombia this
formation is found in the Caribbean region and in the
interandean valleys of the rivers Magdalena and


8,146,000 hectares (Espinal and Montenegro, 1977).

The Tropical dry Forest is one of the most threatened
ecosystems of the Neotropics (Janzen, 1987). In
Colombia it is one of the most degraded and fragment-
ed, with estimates of present total cover of less than
1.5% of the original cover (Etter, 1993). Of this total
the greatest proportion is found in the arid peri-
caribbean belt with more than 6 million hectares and
the NorAndean -Choc6-Magdalena province with
about one million hectares (HernAndez et al. 1992,
Espinal and Montenegro 1977). The dry forest of the
upper Cauca river valley, the main tributary of the


Cauca in an area which presumably covered about Magdalena river, originally covered about 300,000








3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


hectares in the Department of Valle del Cauca.
Presently, the dry forest of this region has practically
disappeared to the advance of sugarcane cultivation,
the major economic crop of the State. It is estimated
that the cover of this formation in the Cauca Valley is
less than 3,000 hectares with documented reductions of
66% between 1957 and 1986 (CVC 1994). Only a few
forest relicts remain in the flat portion of the Cauca
river valley, all below 12 hectares each. The situation
is only slightly less dramatic along the piedmont areas
of the Central and Western Andean ranges where a few
remnants and regenerated forests exist. The lower and
middle portion of the Cali river presents a sizeable
sample of the tropical dry forest formation.
The regenerated forest of the middle portion of the
Cali River still guards some orchid treasures and is
important for conservation purposes (Orejuela 2005,
2006). Without a previous study of the orchids of this
watershed, it seemed appropriate to look at the orchids
present today after some 70 years of advance of the
regeneration process and to attempt to discover the
original orchid flora of the local piedmont area in the
municipality of Cali. This study presents a composite
picture of the orchids of the lower Eastern Andean
slopes as the Andes merges with the Cauca river valley.
The orchids of this region are typically species of eco-
logical succession. As the forest matures the orchid
flora will increase in number of species and possibly
also in terms of density of individuals. For now, it is of
interest to see a diversified array of species.

General objective

To determine the composition and growth mode of
the orchids present in the regenerated tropical dry for-
est formation along the middle portion of the Cali
river basin with the purpose of conserving the species
present, to reintroduce those species which were pos-
sibly present in the watershed and to enrich the orchid
species collection at the Cali Botanical Garden.

Specific Objectives

To determine the species composition and the
growth mode of the orchid species found in the
regenerated tropical dry forest formation in the bio-
logical corridor of the middle portion of the Cali river
basin. To enrich the vegetation and area of the CBG

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


with species of orchids found in the surrounding areas
of the garden and in the "sister" watersheds of the
Cali river basin.
To determine the potential of the forest remnant of
the Cali Botanic Garden to serve as a source of
germplasm to undertake restoration processes along
the middle sector of the Cali river basin and in the
city of Cali.
To design a community conservation education
strategy about the orchids (and the associated animal
species) of the Cali river watershed and of the
Botanical Garden.

Methods

COLLECTION, IDENTIFICATION AND TABULATION OF THE
ORCHID SPECIES. The characterization of the vegeta-
tion was developed in three stages: The collection of
plants, the identification and the tabulation of the
species found. The area inventoried covered approxi-
mately 45 hectares of forest including the totality of
the area of the botanical garden and a forest of 35
hectares under protection by the Utilities Company
EPSA. In addition, selected visits were made to simi-
lar regenerated and relictual forests of several "sister"
watersheds like Rio Claro, Jamundi and Pance. These
watersheds originate in the high Andean mountain of
the Farallones National Park and descend rapidly to
tribute waters into the Cauca river. The orchids col-
lected were assigned to the following growth catego-
ry: Terrestrial, lithophitic, climber and epiphyte.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ORCHID FLORA OF THE
VARIOUS WATERSHED to establish the breath of species
present along the Andean piedmont area adjacent to
the Cauca river valley. The "mother" list of potential
species which is generated serves as a germplasm
bank which could be used for reintroduction purposes
in the Cali river basin and in the entire piedmont area
of the Municipality.

REINTRODUCTION OF SELECTED SPECIES. A protocol
was designed to establish the species most suited for
reintroduction in the regenerated forest. A species
photographic catalogue was made of the species of
the watershed.

A CONSERVATION EDUCATION PROGRAM was developed
to use orchids as indicator species of the benefits of









OREJUELA - Orchids of a regenerated tropical dry forest in Cali


FIGURE 1. A - State of the habitat in the hillsides surrounding the first power plant of Cali, 1910. B - Location of the Cali
Botanical garden and the biological corridor of the Cali river.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


FIGURE 2. A - Cali River. B - Botanic Garden. C - Cali River and Tropical dry Forest. The totality of the flora of the
botanical garden constitutes a germplasm bank of native pioneering species ideal to advance reforestation processes in
the interandean river valleys. About 20-25 tree species were identified as promissory for ecological restoration and
enrichment processes along Andean hillsides.


an assisted regeneration process. The elements of the
strategy include: viewing of prepared video of the
orchids of the Cali area; Jinkana observation games to
spot and identify the orchids which enrich the Botanic
Garden orchid collection; student visits to the
Garden's orchidarium, and to the orchid stand along
the interpretive nature trail; preparation of orchid
herbaria by students of the local schools.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


Results

HISTORY OF THE REGENERATION PROCESS. By 1910, the
inauguration date of the first hydroelectrical power
plant of Cali, the native vegetation had been totally
eliminated. A combination of reason explain this for-
est conversion: large demand of wood charcoal by
the 25,000 inhabitants of Cali; removal of native veg-









OREJUELA - Orchids of a regenerated tropical dry forest in Cali


FIGURE 1. Species of open terrains and rocky outcrops. A -Cyrtopodium punctatum. B -Sobralia sp. C -Epidendrum
xanthnium. D. Schomburgkia sp.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








3 IOCC PROCEEDINGS


FIGURE 2. Terrestrial (A-E) and climbing (F-G) species: A -Cleistes sp. B - Oeceoclades maculata. C -Galeandra beiri-
chii. D -Spiranthes sp. E - Pelexia sp. F -Vanilla pompona. G- Vanilla odorata.


station during the construction of the water conduc-
tion channels to the power plants; use of round logs
for construction of roads; use of hardwoods for the
construction of railroad ties; use of fires to clear land
for agriculture and cattle ranching; and dry season
natural forest fires. Between 1910 and 1930 the
regeneration process was rather slow, even though the
water channel and the river provided complete protec-
tion from forest fires generated outside and above the
water channels to the vegetation undergoing regener-
ation within the forest. The most vigorous regenera-
tion occurred in the last fifty years, when most homes
were using electricity instead of charcoal for cooking
purposes. The vegetation we see today includes

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


mature trees of 20 meters! The photographic evi-
dence of the watershed also provides evidence that
the forest of the Garden is not a recent relict but a
vigorous regeneration favored by the water channels
and the river which isolated two forest fragments one
of 11.5 hectares (now the Botanical Garden) and a 26
hectare plot just a couple of kilometers west of the
Garden. Thus, the forest cover found today in the
CBG (and in various places in the basin) is the conse-
quence of vigorous regeneration processes. A contin-
uous secondary succession process has taken place
which started in an opened field dominated by grasses
with little arboreal vegetation and rather distant
sources of plants for colonization more than four kilo-










OREJUELA - Orchids of a regenerated tropical dry forest in Cali


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


AdMir








3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


meters and at least 300 meters of altitudinal differ-
ence to the nearest continuous forest patch.

THE TROPICAL DRY FOREST. The Tropical dry Forest
(Bs-T) is a vegetation formation with continuous forest
cover between 0-1,000 m in altitude and temperatures
above 24� C and average annual rainfall between 700
and 2,000mm, with one or two dry periods per year
(Espinal 1985; Murphy & Lugo 1986; Institute von
Humboldt 1997). The Bs-T represents about 50% of
the forested areas of Central America and 22% of
South America (Murphy & Lugo 1986). In Colombia
this formation is found in the Caribbean region and in
the interandean valleys of the rivers Magdalena and
Cauca in an area which presumably covered about
8,146,000 hectares (Espinal & Montenegro 1977).
The Tropical dry Forest is one of the most threatened
ecosystems of the Neotropics (Janzen 1987). In
Colombia it is one of the most degraded and fragment-
ed, with estimates of present total cover of less than
1.5% of the original cover (Etter 1993). Of this total
the greatest proportion is found in the arid peri-
caribbean belt with more than 6 million hectares and
the NorAndean -Choc6-Magdalena province with
about one million hectares (Espinal and Montenegro
1977;Hernindez et al. 1992). The dry forest of the
upper Cauca river valley, the main tributary of the
Magdalena river, originally covered about 300,000
hectares in the Department of Valle del Cauca.
Presently, the dry forest has practically disappeared to
the advance of sugarcane cultivation, the major eco-
nomic crop of the State. It is estimated that the cover
of this formation in the Cauca Valley is less than 3,000
hectares with documented reductions of 66% between
1957 and 1986 (CVC 1994). Only a few forest relicts
remain, all below 16 hectares each. The situation is
only slightly less dramatic along the piedmont areas of
the Central and Western Andean ranges where a few
remnants and regenerated forests exist


FIGURE 3. Epiphytic species. A- Catasetum tabulare. B-
Dimerandra sp. C - Cladobium violaceum. D
Epidendrum sp. E - Epidendrum sp. F
Campylocentrum sp. G. Trizeuxis falcata. H
Epidendrum sp. I -Stelis sp. J Encyclia ceratistes. K
Epidendrum cf.flexuosum. L -Bulbophyllum meridense.
M -Dimerandra emeraginata. N -Oncidiun carthage-
nense. 0 -Maxillaria sp. P. Coryanthes sp.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


THE TROPICAL DRY FOREST OF THE MIDDLE CALI RIVER
WATERSHED. The species found at the CBG and middle
Cali river comprise an arrangement of secondary suc-
cession species, with a level of species richness com-
parable to those of other dry forests formations in the
Cauca River valley (Gonzalez and Devia 1995,
Orejuela 2006). The total number of 49 tree species is
lower than the average number of 58.1, n= 8 sites)
found by Gentry (1995). The forest of the Garden
shows a notorious dominance of six tree species which
in terms of numbers are ranked as follows: Arrayin
(Myrcia popayanensis), Laurel Jigua (Cynammomum
triplinerve), Sangregao (Crot6n gossypifolius),
Guicimo (Guazuma ulmifolia), Chiminango
(Pithecellobium dulce) y Chagualo (Clusia sp). The
vegetation of the lower stratum is heavily dominated
by Cordoncillo Piper sp and Anamui (Petiveria alli-
acea) Phytolaccaceae family, Croton and individual
plants of the dominant middle and upper strata.
Associated to the forest there is a profusion of climbing
and liana species. Among these species the
Aristolochia (two species), Passiflora (four species)
and Cucurbitaceae are noteworthy. The species of
medium levels are: Sangregao (Croton two species),
Arrayin i l/Ih. ... two species), Guava (Psidum guaja-
va), Verraquillo (Trema micrantha), Carbonero
(Calliandra ; -ii;, ' ; Jigua (Cynammomum), Guicimo
(Guazuma), Leucaena, Chagualo (Clusia), Solanum
and Miconia spp (Orejuela 2006b).

THE CBG FOREST COMPARED WITH MATURE RELICT
FORESTS. In comparisons with other forests found in the
Andean piedmont areas of similar size and level of con-
nectivity with other forest fragments the CBG registers
slightly lower species richness and the species composi-
tion differs in several key species. For example, in the
municipality of Jamundi just south of Cali, the
Ecological Reserve of Miravalle, in the Calichal river
(afflue nt of the Jamundi river), and the piedmont
forests along the Rio Claro (Hacienda La Novillera) the
dominant species are Cascarillo (Laderbergia magni-
folia), Tumbamaco (Didimopanax morototoni),
Niguitos (Miconia spp), Balso (Ochroma lagopus),
Ceiba (Ceiba pentandra), Caracoli (Anacardium excel-
sum), Algarrobo (Hymenaea courbaril), Madroho
(Garcinia madruno), Dinde (Maclura tinctoria),
(C .,Ki i'l I., (Cassia .. ."'.-.'I Cedro (Cedrella odora-









OREJUELA - Orchids of a regenerated tropical dry forest in Cali


TABLE 1. Orchid species present and growth mode presented in the Cali river basin.


Growth mode


Species


1. Open terrain and rocky outcrop Cyrtopodiumpaniculatum
Sobralia
Epidendrum xanthinum
Schomburgkia cf. superba

2. Terrestrial Cleistes rosea
Galeandra beyrichii
Oceoclades maculata
Pelexia sp.
Spiranthes sp. (?)
Catasetum ochraceum

3. Climbers Vanilla odorata
Vanilla pompona


4. Epiphytic


Catasetum tabulare
Dimerandra emarginata (stenopetala)
Epidendrum spp
Maxillaria spp
Cladobium
Lepanthes
Ornithocephalus
Stelis
Trixeusis falcata
Enciclia ceratistes
Epidendrum cf flexuosum
Bulbophyllum meridense
Oncidium carthagenense
Campylocentrum micranthum
Coryanthes sp.


ta), Samin (Albizzia saman), Catasetum tabulare,
Orejero (Enterolobium cyclocarpum ), Azulito (Petrea
rugosa), Siete Cueros (Machaerium capote), Guaimaro
(Brosimum alicastrum), Caimo (Chrysophyllum argen-
teum), Guicano (Oxandra espintana), Cambulo
(Erythrina glauca and E. poeppigiana), Cachimbo or
Pizamo JT' ,li;,;,l Palma cuesco (Attalea (Scheelea)
butyraceae), Rose and Yellow Guayacanes (Tabebuia
rosea and T. i .. i,,1;,, Totocal (Achatocarpus nigri-
cans). Although this zone is slightly wetter (1.300 a
1.400 mm) than the Cali river basin (900-1,000mm),


the difference in species composition is notorious in the
presence of mature tropical dry forest species. The
relict forest of the valley floor and the piedmont areas
showed a vegetation typical of late stages of the ecolog-
ical succession.

Discussion

The age of continuous regeneration processes is
an important factor in the species composition of a
secondary forest. The early pioneering species
have special competitive and reproductive abilities.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


Their capacity to establish themselves in harsh con-
ditions is remarkable. This was evidenced in the
site where the Cali Botanical Garden is located
today. In addition to being good dispersers and col-
onizers, they are tolerant to difficult climatic and
edaphic conditions like solar exposure, scarcity of
nutrients, compacted soils. Many species are also
tolerant of forest fires or they are opportunistic to
take advantage of the bursts of nutrients following
the fire events. Additionally, it is the experience of
the authors that these species recuperate rapidly
after the foraging voracity of Harvester Ants (Atta
cephalotes). This relative tolerance or resistance
confers them short and medium term advantages
over competing plant species. When the species of
plants establish themselves in the plot, they benefit
directly from the soil improvement the ants bring to
the sites. It is noteworthy that the six dominant
species in the Garden are also among the species
most readily consumed by the ants!
Should there be more orchid species in the Cali
river watershed? In the absence of previous
inventories of species one would have to say that
since the forest was completely cleared late in the
IXX century and early in the XX the number of
orchid species would have depended on the kind
of regeneration process which took place since
that period. After the major disturbance of the for-
est to establish the water conduction channel for
the hydroelectric power plant, the cleared area was
left alone. The initial forest received the benefit
of passive protection year after year, during a peri-
od that is evident today. The forested area
enclosed between the Cali river and the water
channel formed a solid fire break and the forest
regeneration process advanced unchecked. The
result is a regenerated forest with trees which
reach 20m The fact that the forests of this part of
the watershed are loosely interconnected with pre-
montane (subtropical) and lower montane forests
provide a biological corridor where many plant
and animal species move. The possibilities for
establishment of orchids is favored by the wind
currents which move up and down the corridor on
a daily basis with seasons was moderate to strong
winds. Therefore, there has been opportunities for
species enhancement during nearly one century.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


A likely answer to the question could be that
there are relatively few orchid species present in the
watershed. Without doubt this is true for the regen-
erated forest compared with a similar sized relictual
forest. Such relictual forest still exist in the Rio
Claro, Jamundi and Pance rivers. In these three
forests, the number of species is considerably high-
er than in the Cali river at any given altitudinal
range. However, if one considers forest regenera-
tions of the same age, it is almost sure that the pro-
tected forest of the Cali river corridor would have
not only more tree species but also many more
orchid species. With all certainty the presence of a
diversified vegetation in different growth forms
(canopy trees, understory trees and shrubs, ground
vegetation, lianas and climbers and epiphytes and
hemiepiphytes) would have the potential to host a
greater richness of orchids as well. The higher
humidity and the greater amount of shade favored
by mature forests also favors the presence of
orchids, particularly the epiphytic kinds. The effect
of the prolonged deforestation, with a relatively
long period before the succesional process could
gain momentum, slowed down the orchid species
packing process. This early period of the secondary
succession was also characterized by a temporary
loss of orchid pollinator species.

Conclusions and recommendations

It is clear that under suitable protective conditions
even a highly degraded forest will develop toward a
reasonably diversified state. Along with the forest
regeneration process, the orchid species will also
profit, both in terms of the species numbers and den-
sity of individual populations. But additionally,
should there be a variety of ecosystem types in the
watershed characterized by forests of various stages
of maturity, gallery and riparian vegetation, presence
of microwatershed systems with opened areas, with
grasslands and rocky outcrops, one would have a situ-
ation which would favour a solid accumulation of
species. From this consideration, the following rec-
ommendations are offered:
* To use the identified pioneer species of the tropical
dry forest as ideal germplasm of native species to
promote vegetation enrichment and restorative








OREJUELA - Orchids of a regenerated tropical dry forest in Cali


processes in degraded interandean valley floors and
hillsides. Only in the Cauca River valley these
areas cover in excess of 200,000 hectares.
* To enrich the forest of the Cali Botanical garden
and surrounding areas along the biological corridor
of the Cali river with species (including the
orchids) found in nearby relicts of mature tropical
dry forest. These enrichments would in a sense
mimic advanced stages of secondary regeneration.
Nursery trials with these species would be of para-
mount importance.
* To promote the conservation of regenerated forests
in all altitudinal levels in the interandean river val-
leys, particularly where the vegetation cover has
been most severely affected by human activities,
like in the piedmont areas (1.000-1.300m, coffee
belt region (1,300-1,700m) and in the sugar cane
zone (1,000m). The connexion of these two areas
through biological corridors would generate great
environmental and socio-economic benefits.
* To favor forest regeneration processes where
extensive cattle ranching is presently being con-
ducted. There are important sustainable silvopas-
toral alternatives available which would intensify
the cattle production with significant reductions in
the area devoted to pastures.
* To use the native orchids of the tropical dry forest
as key elements of an environmental interpretation
program in the Cali Botanical Garden. Similar
orchid gardens could be established as school pro-
jects in the city.
* To develop and maintain an intensive effort to
reduce forest fires in the watershed.
* To prevent the excessive clearing of road banks
which frequently become festooned with orchids
species.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. I wish to thank the workers of
the Cali Botanical Garden Fredy Ramos and Fermin
Masagualli for their companionship in the field trips
during the Project and for their keen observations of the
orchids of the region. Without their help a good num-
ber of species would not have been found. Dr Philip
Silverstone brought orchids from tropical dry forest
remnants of the Cauca river valley in Cartago and
Cerritos municipalities por orquideas terrestres de
Cerrito y Cartago. Carlos Hernando Molina permitted


the autor to experience the nativce forest of the El
Hatico Nature Reserve in the central parto f the Cauca
valley in Palmira. Javier Garces allowed me to collect
orchids in his state in the watershed of the Jamundi
river in the municipality of Jamundi just south of Cali.
Gabriel C6rdoba of Chorro de Plata state assisted the
autor with the identification of the species of the Pance
river.m Emilio Constantino and Eduardo Calder6n sha-
red much information about the endangered species of
orchids of Cali and Cauca Valley.



LITERATURE CITED
CVC. 1994. Informe 90-7. Comparaci6n de la cobertura
de bosques y Humedales entire 1957 y 1986 con delimi-
taci6n de las comunidades naturales critics del valle
geografico del Rio Cauca. Cali, Documento interno.
CVC.
Espinal, L.S. 1985. Geografia ecol6gica del departamento
de Antioquia Revista de la Facultad Nacional de
Agronomia, 38 (1): 24-39.
Espinal, L.S. & E. Montenegro. 1977. Formaciones vege-
tales de Colombia. Institute Geografico Agustin
Codazzi, Bogota, pp 201 .
Etter, A. 1993. Diversidad ecosistemica en Colombia
hoy. Pp 43-61 in Nuestra diversidad bi6tica. CEREC
& Fundaci6n Alejandro Angel Escobar.
Gentry, A.H. 1995. Diversity and floristic composition of
neotropical dry forest. Pp. 116-194. in: Tropical decidu-
ous Forest Ecosystem. S. Bullock, E. Medina & H.A.
Mooney (eds). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Gonzalez, S. & W. Devia. 1995. Caracterizaci6n fisiono-
mica de la flora de un bosque seco secundario en el
corregimiento de Mateguadua, Tulua, Valle.
Cespedesia Vol 20 No 66: 35-63.
Hernandez, C., T. Walschburger, R. Ortiz & A. Hurtado,
1992. Sobre origen y distribuci6n de la biota surameri-
cana y colombiana. Pp. 55-104 in: Diversidad biol6gica
en Iberoamerica, G. Halffter (compiler). Program
Iberoamericano de Ciencia y Tecnologia para el
Desarrollo, Instituto de Ecologia, Secretaria de
Desarrollo, Mexico, D.F., Mexico.
Institute Alexander von Humboldt (Programa de
Inventario de la Biodiversidad, Grupo de Exploraciones
y Monitoreo Ambiental GEMA). 1997. El Bosque seco
Tropical (Bs-T) en Colombia.
Janzen, D.H. 1987. Insect diversity of a Costa Rican dry
forest: Why keep it. Biol. Journal Linn. Soc. 30: 343-
356.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


Murphy, P.G. & A.E. Lugo. 1986. Ecology of tropical dry Congress, Sarasota, Florida, USA. Selbyana 26 1-(2):32-
forest. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17 : 67-68 . 45.
Orejuela, J. 2005. An integrated approach to orchid con- Orejuela, J.E. 2006. The Cali Botanical Garden and the
servation in Colombia: what do orchids, hummingbirds, Conservation of Ecosystems in the Cali River basin,
bears, potable water, and indigenous land rights have in Cali, Colombia. Lyonia March, 2006.
common? 2nd International Orchid Conservation WWW.lyonia.org/view Article.php?articlelD=472.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








LANKESTERIANA7(1-2): 83-92. 2007.


HOTSPOTS OF NARROW ENDEMISM: ADEQUATE FOCAL POINTS
FOR CONSERVATION IN DENDROCHILUM (ORCHIDACEAE)

HENRIK IE. PEDERSEN

Botanical Garden & Museum, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen,
Gothersgade 130, DK-1123 Copenhagen K, Denmark * henrikp@snm.ku.dk


KEY WORDS: area-selection, biodiversity, biogeography, complementarity, Malesia, orchids


The general aim of conservation is to ensure persi-
stence of biodiversity value. Given certain measures
(financial, logistic, etc.) the specific goal must be to
maximize the amount of biodiversity value to be
secured by these means. Several area selection met-
hods are available for such purpose, and they repres-
ent very different conservation philosophies
(Williams et al. 1996; Humphries 2006). Two funda-
mentally different approaches exist: (1) locating hot-
spots of species richness or narrow endemism, and
(2) designating conservation areas according to com-
plementarity methods.
Some authors define hotspots as areas with excepti-
onal species richness or concentrations of endemic
species and experiencing exceptional loss of habitat
(e.g. Myers 1988; Myers et al. 2000). Frequently,
however, the last criterion is disregarded (e.g.
Prendergast et al. 1993; Williams et al. 1996) -a pra-
ctice that I have chosen to adopt in the present study.
Selecting hotspots of (species) richness has been a
popular method, and with appropriate qualification
hotspots can be used for high-scoring areas on any
value scale and on any spatial scale (Humphries
2006). One advantage of the hotspot approach is that
it deals with species occurrence data with apparent
quantitative rigour. Hotspots of narrow endemism
resemble hotspots of richness, but only endemic taxa
are taken into account. As noted by Humphries
(2006) this has the advantage of requiring data for
only a subset of the species, and it is more likely to
select for more highly complementary areas.
Complementarity methods are applied to designate
the smallest selection of areas that in combination repre-
sent the maximum level of diversity (without necessarily
including any hotspots). Complementary areas are gene-
rally more efficient than hotspots of either richness or


rarity (Humphries 2006). The drawback of complemen-
tarity methods is that they either demand exhaustive
searches using linear programming algorithms, or
depend on heuristic algorithms that may not find optimal
solutions (Csuti et al. 1997).
Taxonomic diversity (usually at species level) is by
far the most commonly used measure of biodiversity.
However, taxic diversity (Vane-Wright et al. 1991)
and phylogentic diversity (Faith 1992; Mace et al.
2003; Pillon et al. 2006) are interesting alternatives.
These measures are hardly sensitive to taxonomic
inflation, and they add another dimension to the eval-
uation of conservation priorities.
The orchid genus Dendrochilum Blume has an
Indo-Malesian distribution, ranging from Myanmar in
the northwest across peninsular Thailand, Malaysia,
Indonesia and the Philippines to southernmost
Taiwan in the north and to Papua New Guinea in the
southeast. The far majority of species are restricted to
cool, humid, and often exposed conditions of monta-
ne forests. The genus contains an unusually high
share of narrow endemics, and pronounced centres of
species diversity are found in the high mountains of
the Philippines (Pedersen 1997a), Borneo (Wood
2001), and Sumatra (Comber 2001). Surprisingly,
only one Dendrochilum species is known from the
mountain-rich island of New Guinea. The latest glo-
bal taxonomic survey of Dendrochilum was that of
Pedersen et al. (1997). Based on this checklist and
subsequent changes, 268 species are currently accept-
ed (Pedersen, unpubl. data).
No species of Dendrochilum are included in
IUCN's latest red data list based on the global conser-
vation status of individual species (http://www.red-
list.org). However, among the 18 Dendrochilum taxa
considered endemic to Sarawak in Borneo, Beaman et








3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


al. (2001) classified four species as vulnerable (VU),
seven species and one variety as endangered (EN),
and four species and one variety as critically endan-
gered (CR). Only D. globigerum (Ridl.) J.J.Sm. was
not regarded as threatened with extinction in the wild!
Taking into account historical and current deforestati-
on rates throughout most of Malesia and their esti-
mated impact on orchid populations (Koopowitz
2001; Koopowitz et al. 2003) there is every reason to
believe that corresponding analyses elsewhere would
give a similarly gloomy result.
Evidently, active measures are urgently needed to
protect representative taxonomic and phylogenetic
diversity in Dendrochilum. Due to the unusually high
share of narrow endemics in the genus, it is tempting to
focus on hotspots of narrow endemism when setting
the geographic conservation priorities. In the present
study the conservational adequacy of focal points sele-
cted as hotspots of narrow endemism will be assessed
by parallel evaluation of complementarity and of the
overall level of diversity covered by this method.

Methods

The study was based on 22 semi-natural range units
(Table 1). Among the 268 accepted species of
Dendrochilum, the following had to be excluded from
the analysis due to insufficient, unconfirmed, or enti-
rely lacking distribution data: D. barbifrons
(Kraenzl.) Pfitzer, D. coccineum H.A. Pedersen &
Gravend., D. croceum H.A. Pedersen, D. exalatum
J.J.Sm., D. panduratum Schltr., D. warrenii H.A.
Pedersen & Gravend. For all species included, distri-
bution data were extracted from the following sour-
ces: Smith (1933), Pedersen (1997a, 1997b, 2001),
Pedersen et al. (1997, 2004), Beaman et al. (2001),
Comber (2001), Wood (2001). Records explicitly
based on uncertain identifications were disregarded.
Infrageneric taxa above species level were designated
according to Pedersen et al. (1997).
All range units were sorted in ascending order by
their individual numbers of endemics, and the cumu-
lative percent of endemics was plotted against that of
the range units to form a Lorenz curve (Weiner &
Solbrig 1984; Calvo 1990). Hotspots of narrow ende-
mism were then designated as the range units defi-
ning the steep part (dy>dx) of the curve.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


TABLE 1. Survey and definitions of the 22 range units that
were applied in the analyses of overall diversity patterns
of Dendrochilum.

1 Myanmar
2 Thailand
3 Taiwan
4 N Philippines (Babuyan Islands, Batan Islands,
Catanduanes, Luzon, Marinduque, Mindoro, Polillo
Islands)
5 W Philippines (Balabac, Calamian Group, Palawan)
6 S Philippines (Basilan, Camiguin, Dinagat, Mindanao,
Siargao, Sulu Archipelago)
7 C Philippines (remaining Philippine Islands)
8 N Borneo (Sabah)
9 NW Borneo (Brunei, Sarawak)
10 W Borneo (Bunguran, Kalimantan Barat)
11 S Borneo (Kalimantan Selatan, Kalimantan Tengah)
12 E Borneo (Kalimantan Timur)
13 Peninsular Malaysia/Singapore
14 N Sumatra (Aceh, Sumatera Utara)
15 E Sumatra (Bangka, Jambi, Lampung, Riau, Sumatera
Selatan)
16 SW Sumatra (Bengkulu, Sumatera Barat)
17 Java
18 Lesser Sunda Islands
19 Sulawesi
20 Maluku
21 Irian Jaya
22 Papua New Guinea


To compare regional exploration histories and evalua-
te the reliability of current interpretations of distribution
patterns in Dendrochilum, a cumulative graph of narrow
endemics as function of time was prepared for each hot-
spot. A cumulative graph of non-endemics in the entire
geographic range was included for comparison.
Obviously, designation of hotspots of narrow ende-
mism automatically secures a high degree of comple-
mentarity among the areas selected as focal points for
conservation in a genus dominated by narrow ende-
mics. However, this method does not necessarily
ensure significant complementarity with regard to the
representation of non-endemic species. To evaluate
this problem, cluster analysis and ordination of all
range units were performed on data for non-endemics
only. Prior to the analyses, each non-endemic species
was scored as present (1) or absent (0) in each range
unit. All statistic operations were performed using the
program NTSYSpc 2.0 (Rohlf 1998).
In the cluster analysis, floristic similarity was cal-
culated for each pair of range units by the DICE algo-








PEDERSEN - Focal points for conservation in Dendrochilum


rithm (Dice 1945). The resulting distance matrix was
used to construct a dendrogram describing the flori-
stic similarity among all range units. The dendrogram
was constructed by means of the UPGMA (unweight-
ed pair-group method using arithmetic averages)
algorithm (Legendre & Legendre 1983). UPGMA is a
polythetic agglomerative technique that appears to
maximize the cophenetic correlation, and its use is
recommended when there is no specific reason for
choosing some other clustering technique (Sneath &
Sokal 1973).
Ordination was performed as principal components
analysis (PCA; Sneath & Sokal 1973). PCA is suited
for the first iteration of analyses, because each chara-
cter is given the same a priori weight, whereas inter-
group distances are not taken into account. This met-
hod was originally developed for quantitative chara-
cters, but can also be used on binary characters
(Gower 1966; Dunn & Everitt 1982).
The extent to which hotspots of narrow endemism are
identical with areas representing high levels of overall
taxonomic diversity was assessed by direct comparison
facilitated by parallel ranking of range units according to
their relative individual richness at species, section, and
subgenus level, respectively. For each taxonomic level
the maximum taxon score was set at 100%, and the
lower scores were converted to percentages accordingly.
In this way, relative taxonomic richness could be com-
pared directly across taxonomic levels.
To obtain an estimate of the extent to which hot-
spots of narrow endemism ensure complementarity at
higher taxonomic level, geographic affinities of regi-
onal Dendrochilum floras, characterized by diversity
at section level, were summarized by ordination
(PCA, see above). Two analyses were performed
one in which each section (or subgenus, if not subdi-
vided further) was scored as present (1) or absent (0)
in each range unit; and one based on the number of
species representing each section in each range unit.
In the latter analysis, all characters (sections) were
standardized prior to analysis (Gower 1971).

Results

The relative distribution of narrow endemics
among range units can be seen from the Lorenz curve
(Fig. 1). Seven range units define the steep part


. 80 -
E
S70- SW Sumatra

S 60-
N Borneo �
SN Borneo

.N Sumatra
4 0 3 -,
o 3 NW Borneo
E Sulawesi

10 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cumulative percent of range units

FIGURE 1. Lorenz curve demonstrating the markedly hete-
rogenous distribution of narrowly endemic
Dendrochilum species among the 22 range units. Seven
range units make up the steep part of the curve (dy>dx)
and are designated as hotspots of narrow endemism.

(dy>dx) of the curve and can accordingly be desig-
nated as hotspots of narrow endemism: N Philippines
(56 endemics), SW Sumatra (29), N Borneo (25), N
Sumatra (18), NW Borneo (17), Sulawesi (14), S
Philippines (12).
The regional exploration histories of the seven hot-
spots of narrow endemism are illustrated in Fig. 2.
Two distinct periods of exploration exist, that is
approximately 1900-1940 and 1985-2000. This pat-
tern is clearly reflected also by the general graph for
non-endemic species, although a higher share of the
non-endemics were described prior to 1900.
According to both the cluster analysis (Fig. 3) and
the PCA (Fig. 4), performed on data for non-endemic
species only, four groups of hotspots of narrow ende-
mism are highly complementary: N/SW Sumatra,
Sulawesi, N/NW Borneo, N/S Philippines. In the
PCA (Fig. 4), Sulawesi groups together with all rema-
ining range units except C Philippines, but this is not
obvious from the cluster analysis (Fig. 3). Indeed, the
cluster analysis suggests higher complementarity and
more pronounced geographic grouping among the
non-hotspots than is evident from the PCA (Fig. 4).
In Table 2 all range units are ranked according to
relative taxonomic richness at species, section and

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


- Non-endemics
- - - -N Sumatra


.-...-- . N Philippines
-- --- NW Borneo


SW Sumatra
- - - Sulawesi


--- -N Borneo
- S Philippines


80


70


60

U
03 50
In
|so




30
'13
U
w 40
Q.
4-
S30

E
Z 20


10


0 -1
1825


._j --': ]~ I .. .. _ .-;= .......-_ .. "=-.T---....-"F"-
------------ ---- -
135 1845 1855 1865 1875 885 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
1835 1845 1855 1865 1875 1885 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005


Year

FIGURE 2. Cumulative graphs illustrating the exploration histories of regional endemic Dendrochilum floras. For all
recognized hotspots of narrow endemism, a cumulative graph of endemics described from 1825 to 2005 is given. A
cumulative graph based on all non-endemics is included for comparison.

Myanmar
Thailand
Peninsular Malaysia
Java
Lesser Sunda Islands
E Sumatra
N Sumatra
SW Sumatra
Sulawesi
Maluku
Irian 3aya
Papua New Guinea
N Borneo
NW Borneo
E Borneo
I W Borneo
S Borneo
N Philippines
C Philippines
S Philippines
W Philippines
Taiwan
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Similarity (DICE)
FIGURE 3. Dendrogram showing the similarities of regional Dendrochilum floras (non-endemic species only).


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









PEDERSEN - Focal points for conservation in Dendrochilum


-1


-5-1 .5

-2.5 -2 -1.5


-1 -0.5 0 0.5


1 -0.5


0.5 1.5
PC 1


FIGURE 4. Mutual affinities of regional Dendrochilum flor-
as. Plot from the first two principal components from
the PCA performed on distribution data for non-ende-
mic species only. Filled symbols represent hotspots of
narrow endemism. The variation was 36.1% along PC
axis 1 and 18.9% along PC axis 2.


subgenus level, respectively, and in each column the
hotspots of narrow endemism are highlighted to facili-
tate comparison.
According to both PCAs performed using sections as
characters, N Philippines and N/NW Boreo appear hig-
hly complementary to each other and to all remaining
range units (Figs 5-). Within the latter group, the two
analyses gave diverging results. Thus, according to the
analysis based on presence/absence data (Fig. 5) Sulawesi
groups together with N and SW Sumatra. In the plot from
the analysis based on frequency data, on the other hand,
Sulawesi is situated much closer to S Philippines (Fig. 6).


Discussion

NARROWLY ENDEMIC SPECIES. It appears directly from the
Lorenz curve (Fig. 1) that the seven hotspots, though
constituting less than 30% of the range units, hold nearly
90% of the narrow endemics. Consequently, using hot-
spots of narrow endemism as focal points for conservati-
on is a very qualified method for securing a high share
of this species group in Dendrochilum. Furthermore, it
should be remembered that narrowly endemic species
make up 71% of the genus.


FIGURE 5. Mutual affinities of regional Dendrochilum flor-
as. Plot from the first two principal components from
the PCA performed on presence/absence data for secti-
ons. Filled symbols represent hotspots of narrow ende-
mism. The variation was 38.5% along PC axis 1 and
21.1% along PC axis 2.

3-


0o.5

0-


2.5 3.5


FIGURE 6. Mutual affinities of regional Dendrochilum flor-
as. Plot from the first two principal components from
the PCA performed on frequency data for sections.
Filled symbols represent hotspots of narrow endemism.
The variation was 43.2% along PC axis 1 and 26.1%
along PC axis 2.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


N Sumatra

SW Sumatra -e

Sulawesi c$'
NW Borneo 0
Io o o
* *
N Borneo

S Philippines -0

N Philippines'


N Borneo
NW Borneo


o S Philippines

SSW Sumatra
o N Sumatra
O' N Philippines
00 Sulawesi


2.5 3.5


,,NW Borneo

* - N Borneo



SW Sumatra N Philippines
<- N Sumatra 0
4y- S Philippines
I Sulawesi


-oas -

-1 ,
-0.5 0.5 1.5
PC 1


-1. e .








3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


Obviously, the credibility of the above finding
depends on the reliability of current interpretation of
geographic diversity patterns. After all, the steady
rate at which new orchid species have been described
over the past 25 years seems to continue (Cribb &
Govaerts 2005), and this might continuously change
apparent geographic diversity patterns in several
genera, including Dendrochilum. However,
notwithstanding the heterogenous rate of exploration
of each hotspot recognized in the present study, the
hotspots constituting top-four (and their relative mut-
ual importance) have remained unchanged for more
than 60 years (Fig. 2). It should be noted that the
graphs do not reflect historical perceptions of diversi-
ty patterns. They simply summarize the exploration
histories of regional Dendrochilum floras according
to current taxonomic and geographic interpretation.
The observed constancy in diversity patterns over
time indicates that current designation and ranking of
most-important hotspots of narrow endemism can be
considered sufficiently reliable.

Non-endemic species. -Three important observations
can be made from Table 2: (1) the six range units with
highest general species richness are identical with six
hotspots of narrow endemism; (2) N Philippines, N and
NW Borneo constitute top-three at both species and
section level, and (3) the maximum subgenus score is
shared among N and NW Borneo, N and S Philippines
(and the non-hotspot C Philippines). Generally spea-
king, the most prominent hotspots of local endemism
largely coincide with the range units showing the gre-
atest taxonomic diversity in general and the greatest
species richness in particular.
In order to maximize the level of complementarity
(considering non-endemic species only), the areas of
highest conservation priority should be selected
among (rather than within) the four groups of hot-
spots that can be recognized in Figs 3-4 (viz. N/S
Philippines, N/NW Borneo, N/SW Sumatra, and
Sulawesi). With proper consideration, the use of hot-
spots of narrow endemism as focal points for conser-
vation will also ensure a high level of complementari-
ty with regard to non-endemic species.

Taxonomic versus ;p: .',. .... i;. diversity. -In the
Philippine Dendrochilum flora, a clear correlation

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


exists between the degrees of endemism and restrict-
edness to higher altitudes. If compared with distribu-
tion patterns expected for species having evolved
before or after the Pleistocene, respectively, this cor-
relation suggests that the majority of living (sub)mon-
tane species of Dendrochilum (including the far
majority of narrow endemics in the Philippines) have
evolved after the Pleistocene (Pedersen 1997a).
Based on corresponding distribution data, Wood
(2001) proposed a similar scenario for Borneo. The
hypothesis that narrow endemics in Dendrochilum are
largely (or universally) neoendemics resulting from
local evolutionary radiation at high altitudes is consi-
stent with preliminary molecular data (Barkman &
Simpson 2001).
The evolutionary hypothesis outlined above accen-
tuates the importance of hotspots of narrow ende-
mism in Dendrochilum, as conservation of "cradles of
diversity" is now often considered a priority (Mace et
al. 2003). At the same time, however, the hypothesis
implies that using hotspots of narrow endemism as
focal points for conservation in Dendrochilum, thou-
gh ensuring a high species diversity, does not neces-
sarily ensure a high phylogenetic diversity. In princi-
ple, the high species richness encountered in each
hotspot of narrow endemism might represent recent
prolific radiation at the end of just one major lineage
-and not all such lineages might be secured if con-
servation efforts are directed to a few selected areas
only. A marked discrepancy between geographic pat-
terns of species diversity and estimated phylogenetic
diversity, though on a different background, was
recently demonstrated in the orchid genus
Dactylorhiza (Pillon et al. 2006), and this potential
complication for setting geographic conservation pri-
orities should be considered for Dendrochilum as
well.
No major cladistic analysis of Dendrochilum is yet
available, so the geographic patterns of phylogenetic
diversity cannot be estimated properly. However, the
latest infrageneric classification of Dendrochilum
(Pedersen et al. 1997), though not based on cladistic
analysis, was hypothesized by the authors to reflect
overall phylogenetic relationships in the genus.
Tentatively accepting this hypothesis, geographic pat-
terns of taxonomic diversity above species level can









PEDERSEN - Focal points for conservation in Dendrochilum


TABLE 2. Geographic diversity in Dendrochilum -parallel ranking of range units according to their relative individual
richness at species, section, and subgenus level, respectively. For each taxonomic level the maximum score has been
set at 100% and the lower scores converted accordingly. Hotspots of narrow endemism are given in bold. Range units
with identical scores are listed alphabetically in each column. 100% scores correspond to 71 species, 8 sections, and 3
subgenera, respectively.


SPECIES


SECTIONS


SUBGENERA


N Philippines
N Borneo
NW Borneo
SW Sumatra
N Sumatra
S Philippines
E Borneo
Sulawesi
C Philippines
Java
E Sumatra
Peninsular Malaysia
W Borneo
Lesser Sunda Islands
S Borneo
Myanmar
W Philippines
Irian Jaya
Maluku
Papua New Guinea
Taiwan
Thailand


N Philippines
N Borneo
NW Borneo
E Borneo
S Philippines
C Philippines
N Sumatra
E Sumatra
Java
Lesser Sunda Islands
Peninsular Malyasia
SW Sumatra
W Borneo
Myanmar
S Borneo
Sulawesi
W Philippines
Irian Jaya
Maluku
Papua New Guinea
Taiwan
Thailand


C Philippines
N Borneo
N Philippines
NW Borneo
S Philippines
E Borneo
E Sumatra
Java
Lesser Sunda Islands
Myanmar
Peninsular Malaysia
N Sumatra
S Borneo
SW Sumatra
W Borneo
Irian Jaya
Maluku
Papua New Guinea
Sulawesi
Taiwan
Thailand
W Philippines


be used as rough indirect indicators of phylogenetic
diversity patterns in the genus.
It appears from Table 2 that N Philippines, N and
NW Borneo constitute top-three at both species and
section level, and that the maximum subgenus score
is shared among N and NW Borneo, N and S
Philippines (and the non-hotspot C Philippines).
Consequently, the most prominent hotspots of narrow
endemism at species level largely coincide with the
range units showing the greatest relative taxonomic
diversity at both species, section, and subgenus level.
The immediate impression from Table 2 might be a
marked negative correlation between this tendency
and the taxonomic level, but it should be noticed that
scores are less differentiated at section level, and even
less so at subgenus level where only three different
scores exist (Table 2).
In order to maximize the level of complementarity


at sectional level, the areas of highest conservation
priority should be selected among (rather than within)
the three groups of hotspots that can be recognized in
Figs 5-6 (viz. N Philippines, N/NW Borneo, and a
group containing the remaining hotspots). With pro-
per consideration, the use of hotspots of narrow ende-
mism as focal points for conservation will also secure
a high level of complementarity with regard to secti-
ons. The discrepancy between patterns obtained by
analyses performed on presence/absence data (Fig. 5)
and frequency data (Fig. 6), respectively, are small
and should hardly affect selection of top-priority
focal points when criteria concerning narrowly ende-
mic species and non-endemic species are also taken
into account (see above).
Does the hierarchical infrageneric classification of
Pedersen et al. (1997) really reflect phylogenetic rela-
tionships in Dendrochilum? This question is obvi-


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


ously of critical importance. Recent cladistic analyses
based on ITS sequence data have questioned the phy-
logenetic consistency of our generic subdivision
(Barkman 2001; Barkman & Simpson 2001).
However, the molecular phylogenetic analyses per-
formed on Dendrochilum so far (Barkman 2001;
Barkman & Simpson 2001, 2002; Pedersen et al.
2004) cover only a minor part of the geographic
range and proposed infrageneric taxa in the genus. At
present, it is evident that our infrageneric classificati-
on (Pedersen et al. 1997) is not completely consistent
with phylogentic relationships in Dendrochilum, but
the magnitude of inconsistency remains to be settled.

CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES. Current interpretati-
on of diversity patterns in Dendrochilum appears reli-
able, and the most important aspects of diversity in
this genus can be adequately preserved by conservati-
on efforts focused on hotspots of narrow endemism.
Indeed, the top-three hotspots of narrow endemism
(N Philippines, SW Sumatra, N Borneo) also provide
near-maximum levels of complementarity (assessed
for sections and non-endemic species) as well as high
taxonomic richness at both species, section, and
subgenus level.
Based on world-wide distribution data for vascular
plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians,
combined with regional degrees of threat through
habitat loss, Myers et al. (2000) recognized 25 "bio-
diversity hotspots" -defined as areas where exceptio-
nal concentrations of endemic species are undergoing
exceptional loss of habitat. The 25 biodiversity hot-
spots contain the remaining habitats of 44% of all
vascular plant species, but their cover of primary
vegetation has been reduced by 88% and now consti-
tutes only 1.4% of the Earth's land surface.
According to Myers et al. (2000) the 25 biodiversity
hotspots exhibit a 68% overlap with Birdlife
International's Endemic Bird Areas, 82% with
IUCN/WWF International's Centres of Plant
Diversity and Endemism, and 92% with the most cri-
tical and endangered eco-regions of WWF/US's
Global 200 List.
Among the biodiversity hotspots recognized by
Myers et al. (2000), Sundaland, the Philippines, and
Wallacea in combination accommodate all known
species of Dendrochilum, and only D. longifolium

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


Rchb.f, D. pallidiflavens Blume, and D. uncatum
Rchb.f. extend to neighboring regions. Thus, all
important diversity in Dendrochilum is confined to
areas that are undergoing exceptional loss of natural
habitats, but also to areas of the highest conservation
priority in general. However, Dendrochilum is not
equally represented throughout the above biodiversity
hotspots. On the contrary, distinct hotspots of narrow
endemism are found on a regional scale within both
Wallacea (Sulawesi), the Philippines (N and S
Philippines), and Wallacea (N and NW Borneo, N
and SW Sumatra).
The example of Dendrochilum highlights the need
to assess biodiversity patterns on various geographic
scales. Indeed, also assessments on a subregional
scale would be needed to pinpoint exact conservation
needs in Dendrochilum. Distinct local concentrations
of species within the hotspots of narrow endemism
recognized in the present study have been clearly
demonstrated for N and S Philippines (Pedersen
1997a), as well as for N and NW Borneo (Wood
2001). Some of these small areas can even be chara-
cterized as centres of local endemism. Obviously,
ample knowledge of such spatial substructures of
diversity should be procured, preferably for a broad
selection of organisms, and utilized in the process of
area selection for conservation.
The analyses in the present study have not taken
into account possible discrepancies between current
and historical species occurrences, and they tell not-
hing about the present state of habitat fragmentation
or other ecological conditions of potential conservati-
on areas. Obviously, historical and ecological factors
should be integrated in the area selection process in
order to optimize the actual conservation effect
(Tilman et al. 1994; Crisci et al. 2006).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I am indebted to Ingeborg Nielsen
for technical assistance with the illustrations.


LITERATURE CITED
Barkman, T.J. 2001. Evolution of vegetative morpholo-
gy in Mount Kinabalu high-elevation endemics:
insights from the orchid genus Dendrochilum. Sabah
Parks Nature J. 4: 9-24.
Barkman, T.J. & B.B Simpson. 2001. Origin of high-
elevation Dendrochilum species (Orchidaceae) ende-









PEDERSEN - Focal points for conservation in Dendrochilum


mic to Mount Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. Syst. Bot.
26: 658-659.
Barkman, T.J. & B.B. Simpson. 2002. Hybrid origin
and parentage of Dendrochilum acuiferum
(Orchidaceae) inferred in a phylogenetic context
using nuclear and plastid DNA sequence data. Syst.
Bot. 27: 209-220.
Beaman, T.E., J.J. Wood, R.S. Beaman & J.H. Beaman.
2001. Orchids of Sarawak. Natural History
Publications (Borneo), Kota Kinabalu & Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Calvo, R.N. 1990. Inflorescence size and fruit distribu-
tion among individuals in three orchid species.
Amer. J. Bot. 77: 1378-1381.
Comber, J.B. 2001. Orchids of Sumatra. Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew.
Cribb, P. & R. Govaerts. 2005. Just how many orchids
are there? In: A. Raynal-Roques & A. Roguenant
(eds), Actes du 18e congress mondial et exposition
d'orchidees, 11-20 Mars 2005, Dijon -France.
Naturalia Publications, Turriers, pp. 161-172.
Crisci, J.V., O.E. Sala, L. Katinas & P. Posadas. 2006.
Bridging historical and ecological approaches in bio-
geography. -Aust. Syst. Bot. 19: 1-10.
Csuti, B., S. Polasky, P.H. Williams, R.L. Pressey, J.D.
Camm, M. Kershaw, A.R. Kiester, B. Downs, R.
Hamilton, M. Huso, M. & K. Sahr. 1997. A compari-
son of reserve selection algorithms using data on ter-
restrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol. Cons. 80: 83-97.
Dice, L.R. 1945. Measures of the amount of ecologic
association between species. Ecology 26: 297-302.
Dunn, G. & B.S. Everitt. 1982. An introduction to
mathematical taxonomy. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Faith, D.P. 1992. Conservation evaluation and phyloge-
netic diversity. Biol. Cons. 61: 1-10.
Gower, J.C. 1966. Some distance properties of latent
root and vector methods used in multivariate analys-
is. Biometrika 53: 325-338.
Gower, J.C. 1971. A general coefficient of similarity
and some of its properties. Biometrics 27: 857-871.
Humphries, C.J. 2006. Measuring diversity. In: E.
Leadley & S. Jury (eds), Taxonomy and plant con-
servation: the cornerstone of the conservation and
the sustainable use of plants. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 141-161.
Koopowitz, H. 2001. Orchids and their conservation.
B.T. Batsford Ltd, London.
Koopowitz, H., P.S. Lavarack & K.W. Dixon. 2003.
The nature of threats to orchid conservation. In:
K.W. Dixon, S.P. Kell, R.L. Barrett, & P.J. Cribb


(eds), Orchid conservation. Natural History
Publications (Borneo), Kota Kinabalu, pp. 25-42.
Legendre, L. & P. Legendre. 1983. Numerical ecology.
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
Amsterdam.
Mace, G.M., J.L. Gittleman & A. Purvis. 2003.
Preserving the tree of life. Science 300: 1707-1709.
Myers, N. 1988. Threatened biotas: "hot spots" in tro-
pical forests. Environmentalist 8: 187-208.
Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B.
da Fonseca & J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots
for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.
Pedersen, H.A. 1997a. The genus Dendrochilum
(Orchidaceae) in the Philippines -a taxonomic revi-
sion. Opera Bot. 131: 1-205.
Pedersen, H.Ai. 1997b. Dendrochilum cootesii, a new
protandrous species from the Philippines. Lindleyana
12:205-207.
Pedersen, H.A. 2001. One new and one rediscovered
species of Dendrochilum (Orchidaceae) from the
Philippines. Lindleyana 16: 231-234.
Pedersen, H.A., B. Gravendeel & D. Mudiana. 2004.
Three new species of Dendrochilum (Orchidaceae)
and their phylogenetic positions according to plastid
and nuclear ribosomal ITS sequences. Blumea 49:
351-360.
Pedersen, H.A., J.J. Wood & J.B. Comber. 1997. A
revised subdivision and bibliographical survey of
Dendrochilum (Orchidaceae). Opera Bot. 130: 1-85.
Pillon, Y., M.F. Fay, A.B. Shipunov & M.W. Chase.
2006. Species diversity versus phylogenetic diversi-
ty: a practical study in the taxonomically difficult
genus Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae). Biol. Cons. 129:
4-13.
Prendergast, J.R., R.M. Quinn, J.H. Lawton, B.C.
Eversham & D.W. Gibbons. 1993. Rare species, the
coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation
strategies. Nature 365: 335-337.
Rohlf, F.J. 1998. NTSYSpc. Numerical Taxonomy and
Multivariate Analysis System. Version 2.0. User
guide. Exeter Software, New York.
Smith, J.J. 1933. Enumeration of the Orchidaceae of
Sumatra and neighboring islands. Repert. Spec.
Nov. Regni Veg. XXXII: 129-386.
Sneath, P.H.A. & R.R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical taxono-
my. The principles and practice of numerical classi-
fication. W.H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco.
Tilman, D., R.M. May, C.L. Lehman & M.A. Nowak.
1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt.
Nature 371:65-66.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


Vane-Wright, R.I., C.J. Humphries & P.H. Williams,
P.H. 1991. What to protect? -Systematics and the
agony of choice. Biol. Cons. 55: 235-254.
Weiner, J. & O.T. Solbrig. 1984. The meaning and
measurement of size hierarchies in plant populations.
Oecologia 61: 334-336.
Williams, P., D. Gibbons, C. Margules, A. Rebelo, C.


Humphries & R. Pressey. 1996. A comparison of
richness hotspots, rarity hotspots and complementary
areas for conserving diversity of British birds. Cons.
Biol. 10: 155-174.
Wood, J.J. 2001. Dendrochilum of Borneo. Natural
History Publications (Borneo), Kota Kinabalu &
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.


Henrik IE. Pedersen is an associate professor at the University of Copenhagen, where he acts as curator at the Botanical
Garden & Museum, Natural History Museum of Denmark. His research on the systematics, biogeography, ecology,
and conservation biology of orchids is focused on Europe, the Mediterranean, and tropical Asia. He has a special inter-
est in the orchid flora of Thailand and in the genera Dactylorhiza, Dendrochilum, Epipactis, and Ophrys.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








LANKESTERIANA7(1-2): 93-96. 2007.


ORCHID BIOGEOGRAPHY AND RARITY IN A BIODIVERSITY
HOTSPOT: THE SOUTHWEST AUSTRALIAN FLORISTIC REGION


RYAN D. PHILLIPS1'2 5, ANDREW P. BROWN3, KINGSLEY W. DIXON1,2
& STEPHEN D. HOPPER2,4

"Kings Park and Botanic Garden, The Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority, West Perth, 6005, Western Australia
2School of Plant Biology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, 6009, Western Australia
'Department of Environment and Conservation, Species and Communities Branch, Locked Bag 104, Bentley
Delivery Centre, 6983, Western Australia
4Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, UK
5Author for correspondence: ph i ; .iiii -i I.. , ., ,iv.au'

KEY WORDS: pollinators, mycorrhiza, rarity, conservation, edaphic


Introduction

Understanding the drivers of orchid diversification
and rarity may prove crucial to their conservation.
The Orchidaceae is characterized by the presence of
mycorrhizal endophytes and a diversity of pollination
syndromes ItR.i.mu"ci 1995, Jersakova et al. 2006).
The prevalence of pollination by deceit and the spe-
cialised mycorrhizal relationships in some taxa have
been implicated in the diversification of the family
(Cozzolino & Widmer 2005, Otero & Flanagan
2006). Furthermore, interactions with habitat speciali-
sation may act in concert with these attributes to play
a critical role in orchid diversification (Gravendeel et
al. 2004). The influence of these factors in determin-
ing intrinsic rarity in orchids remains poorly known.
Delineation of biogeographic provinces and centres
of species rarity give an indication of the broad-scale
features responsible for restricting distributions and
speciation events in plants (Stebbins & Major 1965,
Kessler 2002, Hopper & Goia 2004). Analysis of the
factors associated with rarity such as edaphic envi-
ronment, pollination syndrome and site of mycor-
rhizal infection could reveal if any strategy has a pre-
disposition to rarity and is limiting distribution at a
more local scale. Coupling these two approaches has
the potential to provide initial clues into the features
influencing orchid speciation and rarity. The
Orchidaceae of the South West Australian Floristic
Region (SWAFR) are an ideal flora to adopt this
approach because of its diversity of pollination syn-
dromes (Hoffman & Brown 1998), diverse mycor-


rhizal infection patterns I R.ii.:, et al. 1986), intrin-
sically rare species (Brown et al. 1998) and high lev-
els of endemism (Hopper & Goia 2004).
Working within the SWAFR, we tested the follow-
ing hypotheses (i) the pattern of orchid species rich-
ness and endemism is the same as those of the flora in
general (ii) biogeographic provinces correspond to
climatic and edaphic variation (iii) the incidence of
rarity of species varies with site of fungal infection,
pollination syndrome and habitat type. The results of
this study may act as a guide to future studies of pop-
ulation genetics, speciation and the factors contribut-
ing to rarity in the Orchidaceae of the SWAFR.

Method

The distribution of 407 orchid taxa from southern
Western Australia was mapped as presence/absence
data on a grid of quarter-degree cells using the 13,267
records from the Western Australian Herbarium
(PERTH) as of June 2006. Species richness for all
quarter-degree grid squares was plotted on a map of
southern Western Australia. A similar map of the
flora of the SWAFR is presented in Hopper & Gioa
(2004). A map of the number of rare taxa per cell was
also produced. UPGMA cluster analysis was used to
delineate biogeographic provinces for orchids.
Presence/absence of taxa at the degree grid square
level was used to establish large-scale patterns, while
finer resolution was achieved by repeating the analy-
sis at the half-degree scale. Subsequently, the number
of taxa endemic to each province was calculated.








3 IOCC PROCEEDINGS


All taxa where classified by site of fungal infection,
habitat preference and, where possible, pollination
syndrome. Categories of fungal infection sites follow
those of Ramsay et al. (1986). Species were cate-
gorised by pollination syndrome based on the pub-
lished literature and field observations (A.P. Brown,
unpublished data). We recognized three pollination
syndromes: food reward, food deception, and sexual
deception. Species that self- pollinate but also utilise
one of these pollination syndromes were included
within these categories. The mechanism of attraction
in Corybas, Pterostylis and Rhizanthella remain unre-
solved so these genera were omitted from the analysis
of rarity an pollination syndrome. Taxa were classi-
fied as occurring in the following habitat types: near-
coastal, granite rocks, salt lake margins, swamps,
woodlands and variable. Forest, woodland and heath-
land species were classified together under the wood-
land category because these habitats usually represent
a continuum caused by rainfall and are generally con-
tinuous, relatively unfragmented habitats.
We tested if site of fungal infection, pollination
syndrome or habitat are associated with restricted dis-
tributions, low abundance or a high incidence of rare
taxa. Using genera as replicates, Kruskal-Wallis tests
were used to test for differences between pollination
syndromes and sites of mycorrhizal infection in (i)
the mean number of herbarium records (ii) the mean
number of occupied grid squares per genus and (iii)
the mean proportion of rare taxa. In Caladenia, which
contains sexual and food deception, means were cal-
culated separately for each subgenus because of mul-
tiple evolution of sexual deception (Kores et al.
2001).

Results

Species richness was highest in the High Rainfall
Province, followed by the South-east Coastal
Province, the Transitional Rainfall Province and the
Arid Zone (nomenclature of regions follows Hopper
& Goia (2004)). Nodes of exceptionally high species
richness were high rainfall coastal areas with a diver-
sity of habitats including forests, swamps and coastal
woodlands and granite outcrops.
Using degree blocks, broad scale biogeographic
provinces corresponded closely to those presented in

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


Hopper & Goia (2004), with the exception of the
Brookton province which is only evident in the
Orchidaceae. The high rainfall regions and the semi-
arid Kalbarri sandplain had the highest level of
endemism. While the high rainfall province generally
contained a relatively high proportion of rare taxa, the
Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge and parts of the south-
coast had a particularly high proportion of rare
species. The Kalbarri region also had an exceptional-
ly high proportion of rare taxa.
The site of mycorrhizal infection showed no signif-
icant relationship with incidence of rarity, abundance
or distributional extent. Pollination syndrome showed
no significant relationship with abundance or distrib-
utional extent. However, there was significant varia-
tion in the incidence of rare taxa between pollination
syndromes (sex average rank = 20.61, food = 15.27,
reward = 10.13, F-stat = 4.20, P = 0.03). Using a
Mann-Whitney U-test, the significant variation lied
between the sexual deception and food reward polli-
nation syndromes (U = 57.0, d.f. 9,8, p = 0.046).
Species with variable habitat requirements had the
lowest incidence of rarity (0.01%), woodland (18%)
and coastal (25%) areas were intermediate, granite
(46%) and swamp (40%) had high incidence and salt
lakes (83%) had extremely high incidence of rarity.
Woodland and species of variable habitat require-
ments were more abundant and widely distributed
than species occupying the remaining habitats.

Discussion

The Orchidaceae of the SWAFR shows a markedly
different pattern of species richness to the flora in
general. While the total flora is most diverse in the
transitional rainfall province, the orchids have their
highest diversity in coastal and lower south-west
areas of the high rainfall province. Despite a different
pattern of richness, orchids exhibit similar biogeo-
graphic provinces to those of the entire flora (Hopper
& Goia 2004) with boundaries delineated by rainfall
and soil type. There are also clear differences in the
regions of endemism. This demonstrates that while
broad scale features effect species turnover of orchids
in a similar way to the rest of the flora, different local
process have been responsible for the accumulation
of orchid species and patterns of endemism.








PHILLIPS et al. - Orchid biogeography and rarity


Geographic region and habitat type both influence
rarity in orchids of the SWAFR. Rarity was most
prevalent in geographic regions with high species
richness but particularly so in regions with unique
edaphic environments. The naturally fragmented
habitats of salt lakes, granites and swamps were most
strongly associated with rare species. The prevalence
of rare species from these habitats is from rarity of
suitable habitat and low colonisation possibilities
rather than radiation of taxa through isolation. These
results demonstrate the underlying importance of
edaphic environment in determining orchid rarity.
While there was no evidence from this study that
site of mycorrhizal infection is linked to rarity, sexu-
ally deceptive genera showed a higher incidence of
rarity than rewarding genera. This could be driven
either through the greater fruit set by the provision of
a reward (Neiland & Wilcock, 1998, Jersakova &
Johnson 2006), or the specialisation associated with
sexual deception leaving the orchid vulnerable to a
decline in its specific pollinator. The majority of the
sexually deceptive genera in the SWAFR are pollinat-
ed by parasitoid thynnine wasps (Ridsdill-Smith
1970, Stoutamire 1983), which leaves them further
susceptible to changes in the abundance of the polli-
nator's host (Tschartke & Brandl 2004).
In this study we have found that there is poor con-
gruence between areas of high species richness and
endemism for orchids and angiosperms in general.
Thus, in the design of conservation estate, it cannot
be assumed that regions important for the flora in
general will satisfy the needs of orchid conservation
in terms of preserving high species richness and
localised endemics. Naturally fragmented habitats are
of particular importance. While granite outcrops are
reasonably well protected, the other habitats remain
under threat. Salt-lakes are a vulnerable habitat due to
the narrow band around the lake in which orchids
occur and the rising water tables resulting from the
removal of over 90% of the original vegetation in the
Western Australian wheatbelt (Anon. 2006).
Alternatively, swamplands in the SWAFR are gener-
ally well protected in the state forests in southern
Western Australia, however, the orchid rich swamps
of the Swan Coastal Plain have been mostly cleared
for agriculture and housing. The effects of a pro-
nounced reduction in rainfall over recent decades (Li
et al. 2005) remains to be seen.


In deciding management priorities for orchids,
researchers should take into account the propensity
towards rarity in sexually deceptive species. Due to
the specificity of the plant-pollinator relationship,
particular attention should be paid to the biology and
requirements of the pollinator. In particular, if there
are ample sites for recruitment, a direct increase in
the abundance of the pollinator may lead to an
increase in orchid recruitment. In the longer term,
changes in the abundance of a pollinator may precede
those of the orchid.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. Funding was provided by an
Australian Postgraduate Award to RP and a grant from the
Australian Orchid Foundation to RP.

LITERATURE CITED
Anonymous. 2006. State of the Environment Western
Australia -Land -Theme 3. http://portal.environ-
ment.wa.gov.au/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/ADMIN SOE/A
DMIN CONTENT/THEMES/3 LAND.PDF
Brown, A.P., C. Thomson-Dans & N. Marchant. 1998.
Western Australia's Threatened Flora. Department of
Conservation and Land Management, Perth.
Cozzolino, S. & A. Widmer. 2005. Orchid diversity: an
evolutionary consequence of deception? Trends Ecol.
Evol. 20 : 487-494.
Gravendeel, B., A. Smithson, F.J.W. Slik & A.
Schuiteman. 2004. Epiphytism and pollinator specialisa-
tion: drivers for orchid diversity. Philos. Trans. Royal
Soc. LondonB 359 : 1523-1535.
Hopper, S.D. & P. Gioia. 2004. The southwest Australian
floristic region: Evolution and conservation of a global
diversity hotspot Annual Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35 : 623-50.
Jersakova, J. & S.D. Johnson. 2006. Lack of floral nectar
reduces self-pollination in a fly pollinated orchid.
Oecologia 147 : 60-68.
Jersakova, J., S.D. Johnson & P. Kindlmann. 2006.
Mechanisms and evolution of deceptive pollination in
orchids. Biol. Rev. 81 : 219-235.
Kessler, M. 2002. The elevational gradient of Andean
plant endemism: varying influences of taxon-specific
traits and topography at different taxonomic levels. J.
Biogeogr29: 1159-1165.
Kores, P.J., M. Molvray, P.H. Weston, S.D. Hopper, A.P.
Brown, K.M. Cameron & M.W. Chase. 2001. A phylo-
genetic analysis of Diuridae (Orchidaceae) based on
plastid DNA sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 88 : 1903-
1914.
Li, Y., W.J. Cai & E.P. Campbell. 2005. Statistical model-
ling of extreme rainfall in Southwest Western Australia.
J. Clim. 18 : 852-863.

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









3 IOCC PROCEEDINGS


Neiland, M.R.M. & C.C. Wilcock. 1998. Fruit set, nectar
reward, and rarity in the Orchidaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 85 :
1657-1671.
Otero, J.T. & N.S. Flanagan. 2006. Orchid diversity
beyond deception. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21 : 64-65.
Ramsey, R.R., K.W. Dixon & K. Sivasithamparam. 1986.
Patterns of infection and endophytes associated with
Western Australian orchids. Lindleyana 1 : 203-214.
Rasmussen, H.N. 1995. Terrestrial orchids from seed to
mycotrophic plant. Cambridge University Press,
Melbourne.


Ridsdill Smith, J. 1970. The biology of Hemithynnus hyali-
natus (Hymenoptera: Tiphiidae), a parasite on scarabaeid
larvae. J. Austral. Entomol. Soc. 9 : 183-195.
Stebbins, G.L. & J. Major. 1965. Endemism and speciation
in the Californian flora. Ecol. Monongr. 35 : 1-35.
Stoutamire, W.P. 1983. Wasp-pollinated species of
Caladenia (Orchidaceae) in South-western Australia.
Austral. J. Bot. 31 : 383-94.
Tschartke, T. & R. Brandl. 2004. Plant-insect interactions in
fragmented landscapes. Annual Rev. Entomol. 49 : 405-
430.


Ryan Phillips is a Phd student at Kings Park and Botanic Garden and the University of Western Australia working
on the role of mycorrhiza and pollinators in controlling rarity and speciation in Drakaea. Interests include the
causes of orchid diversification and the co-evolution of orchids and their pollinators.
Andrew Brown is an officer in the Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation's Species
and Communities Branch. He as conducted 30 years research into the taxonomy, pollination biology and genet-
ics of the Western Australian Orchidaceae and has authored and co-authored over 70 papers, recovery plans,
articles, book chapters and books on the Western Australian Orchidaceae. Current research includes the moni-
toring of rare orchid populations for the development of recovery prescriptions for the species.
Dr Kingsley Dixon has over 20 years experience in researching the ecology and physiology of Australian native
plants and ecosystems. He leads a science group comprising botanical and restoration sciences and, as Director
of Science at the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority (BGPA), has developed a strong multi-disciplinary
approach to conservation and restoration of native plant biodiversity and degraded landscapes. This research
group has contributed i.; , iF ; i .l:. to seed science in Australia, with major advances in understanding seed dor-
mancy as well as orchid seed conservation.
Stephen Hopper is director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. He has worked on Australian orchid systematics
and conservation since 1973. Current interests include generic classification of Australian orchids, and the evo-
lution of southwest Australian orchids.


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.






Pages
Missing
or
Unavailable








LANKESTERIANA7(1-2): 102-106. 2007


SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF PLEUROTHALLIS, MASDEVALLIA,
LEPANTHES AND EPIDENDRUM EPIPHYTIC ORCHIDS IN A FRAGMENT
OF MONTANE CLOUD FOREST IN SOUTH ECUADOR


LORENA RIOFRIO1'3, CARLOS NARANJO', JOSi M. IRIONDO2 & ELENA TORRES2

'Universidad T&cnica Particular de Loja, San Cayetano Alto s/n, Loja, Ecuador
2Universidad Polit&cnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, E-28040 - Madrid, Spain
3Author for correspondence: mlriofrio@utpl.edu.ec


KEY WORDS: altitudinal range, colonization, phorophyte specificity, phorophyte trunk diameter, seed disper-
sal, spatial patterns


Orchids are the most diverse family of vascular
plants in Ecuador with 228 genera and nearly 4000
species. More than 60% of these species are epi-
phytes, being Pleurothallis R.Br., Epidendrum L.,
Lepanthes Sw. and Masdevallia Ruiz & Pav., with
472, 358, 314 and 226 species respectively, some of
the genera with greater number of epiphytic orchids
(Dodson 1994-2003).
Although Ecuador is among those countries with the
highest orchid biodiversity in the world, it also has one
of the highest rates of deforestation: 1.2% of the coun-
try's forests are lost each year (FAO 2005). Extensive
deforestation practices currently taking place pose a
major threat for the survival of these orchids as they
are greatly dependent on the environmental conditions
of the forests that sustain them, and the host trees
(phorophytes) on which they grow. Thus, understand-
ing of orchid-phorophyte interactions, as well as the
patterns of spatial distribution and colonization in sec-
ondary succession forests regenerated after deforesta-
tion, is essential for the in situ conservation.
Nevertheless, few studies have been conducted in this
field, and scientific basis supporting population rein-
forcement or reintroduction actions is scarce.
The purpose of this study is to assess the spatial
distribution of epiphytic orchids of the above-men-
tioned genera in an Ecuadorian fragment of secondary
montane cloud forest to infer patterns of seed disper-
sal and colonization. In addition, the effects of phoro-
phyte identity and size on orchid establishment are
analyzed. Specifically the questions posed are: Do the
distributions of Pleurothallis, Epidendrum,
Lepanthes, and Masdevallia plants vary in the altitu-


dinal range of the fragment studied? Are there specif-
ic patterns in their spatial distribution resulting from
seed dispersal characteristics? Do plants of these
orchids exhibit any preference over the trees where
they grow? Does phorophyte trunk diameter affect
the establishment of these orchids? The results pre-
sented, although preliminary, provide useful informa-
tion for orchid management plans.
The study was carried out in a fragment of regener-
ated forest located on the Loja-Zamora Chinchipe road,
on the border of Podocarpus National Park (southern
Ecuador). The age of the forest is about 30 years old,
and it is characterized by a steep slope (51%), with
trees 5-8 m high and lianas that are over 10 m long.
Mean annual precipitation is 2700 mm, and annual
mean temperature is 15.5 o C (14.4 - 17.5 o C).
A total of nine 10 x 10 m plots were established at
2200, 2230 and 2250 m a.s.1. (three plots in each alti-
tude). All trees (including fern trees), shrubs and lianas
of diameter at breast height (DBH) over 1 cm were
determined at the genus level, measured and mapped.
The census included 1025 vascular plants belonging to
more than 70 different genera. Miconia Ruiz & Pav.
(148 trees), Nectandra Rol. ex Rottb. (65 trees), Clusia
L. (59 trees), Elaeagia Wedd. (59 trees) and Psammisia
Klotzsch (56) were the most frequent genera.
Presence and abundance of all orchids occurring in
the first 3 m height were also recorded. In this zone,
which corresponds to zone 1 of Johansson's scheme,
the microclimatic conditions are relatively constant
(Johansson 1974). In total 2798 orchids belonging to
12 genera were identified. Although it is difficult to
make comparisons between different researches









RIOFRO et al. - Spatial structure of epiphytic orchids


TABLE 1. Distribution of Epidendrum, Pleurothallis, Lepanthes or Masdevallia orchids on their respective host trees in a
secondary montane cloud forest in South Ecuador. For each orchid genus, frequency of host trees (first column) and
frequency of orchid individuals on the different host tree genera (second column) are shown.


Host genus


Epidendrum


Pleurothallis


Lepanthes


Masdevallia


n� of trees n� of orchids n� of trees n� of orchids n� of trees n� of orchids n� of trees n� of orchids

Abuta Aubl. 1 3
Alchornea Sw. - - 1 18
Alzatea Ruiz & Pav. - 1 1
Aniba Aubl. -- 1 2
Anthurium Schott 1 7
Ardisia Gaertn. 2 10 1 5 - - -
Axinaea Ruiz & Pav. - - 2 2 - -1 2
Calyptranthes Sw. 1 1 3 16
Cinchona L. 1 7
Clethra L. - - 1 1 - - -
Clusia L. 8 28 2 2 3 4 1 2
Cyathea Sm. 2 2 1 21 - - -
Endlichera C. Presl 1 18
Elaeagia Wedd. 4 12 5 10 5 6 3 8
Eugenia L. - - - - 3 5 1 1
Faramea Aubl. 1 3 -
Ficus L. - - - - 2 2
Graffenrieda DC. 2 2 2 2 2 8
Guarea F. Allam. ex L. - - 1 1
Hedyosmum Sw. 1 36 - - - - -
Helicostylis Tr6cul 2 14 6 28 3 8 2 3
Hydrangea L. 1 3 - - - - -
Hyeronima Allem. 2 6 1 1 1 1
Mabea Aubl. 1 5
Markea Rich. - - 1 2 - -
Maytenus Molina - -1 1 - - 1 2
Miconia Ruiz & Pav. 3 8 7 7 12 25 3 4
Mikania Willd. 1 2 - - 1 5
Myrsine L. 2 16 1 6 3 8 2 3
Nectandra Rol. ex Rottb. 1 5 3 7 3 8 3 4
Ocotea Aubl. -- 1 1 - - 1 1
Palicourea Aubl. 2 19 2 2 - - 2 8
Persea Mill. - - 1 1
Piper L. 1 2 - - 1 3
Psammisia Klotzsch 2 4 5 22 3 4 6 7
Psychotria L. 2 3 - - 3 4
Ruagea H. Karst. - - 1 1 - -
Turpinia Vent. - - 1 1 -
Fallen tree 3 6 3 13 4 8 1 4
Unidentified liana 1 4 2 5 2 5
Unidentified tree 1 13 - - - - 2 3

Total 50 239 57 179 51 104 29 52


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








3' IOCC PROCEEDINGS


(mainly because the degree of forest disturbance
varies), the high number of orchids that we found on
the base of the tree trunks contrasts with other stud-
ies, which have reported no orchids or low abundance
on this zone (Mehltreter et al. 2005). One explanation
for our results could be that the lower canopy density
of young trees, especially in early succession stages,
allows a greater passage of light to the lower areas,
providing better conditions for the establishment of
orchids. According to this hypothesis, light intensity
may affect tree colonization by orchids. In any case,
the lower section of the tree trunks seems to have a
great relevance for orchids in this regenerating forest.
The most abundant orchid genus was Stelis Sw.
(73.8%), followed by Epidendrum (8.5%),
Pleurothallis (6.4%), Lepanthes (3.7%), Hexisea
Lindl. (2.5%) and Masdevallia (1.9%). Orchids were
not uniformly distributed in the altitudinal range stud-
ied. Epidendrum and Lepanthes were more frequent
and abundant in lower zone of the fragment. Near
60% of the Epidendrum and Lepanthes plants were
observed at 2200 m. On the other hand, the presence
of Pleurothallis and Masdevallia was similar in all
the altitudinal range, although their abundance was
greater in the higher zone. Thus, the 66.5% of
Pleurothallis plants and the 48.1% of Masdevallia
plants were found at 2250 m. Altitude-related micro-
climatic factors may be partially responsible for this
occurrence pattern, although other environmental fac-
tors independent of altitude may also play a role.
Epiphytic orchids were found on 325 of the 1025
recorded trees, shrubs and lianas. The most frequent
trees in the fragment were also the ones that had the
greatest richness and number of orchids. Of the four
genera studied, Pleurothallis occupied the greatest
number of trees (57), while Masdevallia was present
in only 29 (see Table 1). The average number of indi-
viduals per phorophyte was small in all of them
(ranging from 4.8 in Epidendrum to 1.8 in
Masdevallia), but the variance was large especially in
Epidendrum (�34.8) and Pleurothallis (�16.3) (Table
2). In order to know how the individuals are distrib-
uted among phorophytes, Morisita's index (IM)
(Hurlbert 1990) was calculated considering the
phorophyte as sampling unit. According to this aggre-
gation index (Table 2), two different patterns were

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. O Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.


A

AMe
AA

A . A A . A.
* A A




0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91
Meters


9
' '---.9.5. .,.5 _ 4. 5.
8 .

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5


Distance r (m)
FIGURE 1. A. Spatial distribution of trees in plot 1 located
at 2250 m. Triangles indicate trees with Pleurothallis
orchids. B. Bivariate point pattern analysis plotting the
L12 function across distance. Dotted lines represent the
confidence interval of random labelling null hypothesis.

detected: Epidendrum and Pleurothallis plants tended
to be clumped (IM values were significantly different
from 1), while Lepanthes and Masdevallia plants
were randomly distributed. Differences in seed dis-
persal process may explain this result. Thus, the
aggregated pattern observed in Epidendrum and
Pleurothallis may be due to limited dispersal ability
of their seeds. If this were the case, there would be a
higher probability of finding a plant of its same genus
in a near-by tree than in a more distant tree. To test
this hypothesis, a bivariate point pattern analysis was
performed in those plots where the number of phoro-








RIOFRIO et al. - Spatial structure of epiphytic orchids


TABLE 2. Average number of individuals per host tree
(mean � variance) and Morisita's index (IM) for
Epidendrum, Pleurothallis, Lepanthes or Masdevallia
orchids in a secondary montane cloud forest in South
Ecuador. Values in parentheses are minimum and max-
imun. ***: P<0.001.


Orchid genus


Individuals per host tree


Epidendrum 4.8 � 34.8 2.32***
(1-36)
Pleurothallis 3.1 � 16.3 2.34***
(1-21)
Lepanthes 2.0 � 2.4 1.10
(1-7)


Masdevallia


1.8� 1.3


(1-5)

phytes was greater than eight (Diggle 1983, Wiegand
& Moloney 2004). For Pleurothallis, the values of
K21(r)-K22(r) were inside the confidence interval of
the null hypothesis of random labelling for the range
of distances 0-5 m (Figure 1), which means that pres-
ence of these orchids is at random. Similar results
were obtained for Epidendrum. Thus, since there is
no contagious distribution between one phorophyte
and nearby trees, seed dispersal in Epidendrum and
Pleurothallis is not limited to short distances. This
conclusion is also supported by mean distance
between phorophytes (4.0 - 5.6 m for Epidendrum
and 4.5 - 6.8 m for Pleurothallis), which is not sig-
nificantly different than the mean distance between
all trees in the plots (4.7 - 2.5 m), and maximum dis-
tance to the nearest neighbour (13.2 m for
Epidendrum and 6.9 m for Pleurothallis). Other rea-
sons, such as differences in life cycle or reproductive
biology could explain the presence of these two dis-
tribution patterns.
No phorophyte specificity was observed for any of
the epiphytic orchids included in the study.
Epidendrum and Pleurothallis grew on more than 20
different genera, and Lepanthes and Masdevallia on
more than 10 (see Table 1). Nevertheless,
Epidendrum was more frequent on Clusia,
Pleurothallis and Lepanthes on Miconia, and
Masdevallia on Psammisia. Preference patterns in
orchids have also been reported by other authors
(Migenis & Ackerman 1993, Diaz-Santos 2000, and
Trapnell & Hamrick 2006), although the reasons why


orchids occur on particular species remain unclear.
The possible effect of phorophyte size on orchid
establishment was explored calculating the
Spearman's correlation coefficient (rS) between DBH
and orchid abundance for each of these four genera.
No relationship was found in any of them (rS= -0.12
P=0.42 for Epidendrum, rS=0.15, P=0.27 for
Pleurothallis, rS=0.09 P=0.52 for Lepanthes, and
rS=0.17 P=0.37 for Masdevallia), which means
phorophyte trunk diameter does not seem to be a cru-
cial factor for orchid colonization. At present, other
phorophyte physical characteristics such as bark sta-
bility and roughness, and substrate moisture condi-
tions are being investigated.
In conclusion, this study shows the existence of
different patterns of presence and abundance depen-
ding on each orchid genus. Anyhow, colonization of
new trees does not seem to be constrained by limited
seed dispersal. Light conditions may be a more
important factor for epiphytic orchid establishment
than phorophyte identity and size. The abundance of
orchids in the lower section of the tree trunks in this
regenerating forest is in clear contrast with previous
reports made on primary or non-disturbed forests.
This outlines the importance of taking into account
the different succession states of the forest in which
the orchids occur. Finally, although pattern analysis
can be helpful in identifying the causes of present
spatial structure, additional experimental studies are
needed to determine the underlying processes origina-
ting these distributions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We thank to Fani Tinitana
Imaicela for her help in species identification, and the stu-
dents Diana Cecilia Guaman and Elizabeth Alexandra
Pauta for their field assistance. This work was partially
funded by the Universidad Tecnica Particular de Loja.

LITERATURE CITED
Diaz-Santos, F. 2000. Orchid preference for host tree gen-
era in a Nicaraguan tropical rain forest. Selbyana
21(1,2): 25-29.
Diggle, P.J. 1983. Statistical analysis of spatial point pat-
terns. Academic Press, London.
Dodson, C.H. 1994-2003. Native Ecuadorian orchids. 4 v.
Colina, Quito.
FAO. 2005. State of the world's forests. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Roma.
Goreaud, F. & R. Pelissier. 2003. Avoiding misinterpreta-
tion of biotic interactions with the intertype K12-func-

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.









3" IOCC PROCEEDINGS


tion: population independence vs. random labelling
hypotheses. J. Veg. Sci. 14: 681-692.
Hurlbert, S.H. 1990. Spatial distribution of the montane
unicorn. Oikos 58: 257-271.
Johansson, D. 1974. Ecology of vascular epiphytes in West
African rain forest. Acta Phytogeogr. Suec. 59: 1-136.
Mehltreter, K., A. Flores-Palacios & J.G. Garcia-Franco.
2005. Host preference of low-trunk vascular epiphytes


in a cloud forest of Veracruz, Mexico. J. Trop. Ecol. 21:
651-660.
Migenis, L.E. & J.D. Ackerman. 1993. Orchid-phorophyte
relationships in a forest watershed in Puerto Rico. J.
Trop. Ecol. 9: 231-240.
Trapnell, D.W. & J.L. Hamrick. 2006. Variety of phoro-
phyte species colonized by the neotropical epiphyte,
Laelia rubescens (Orchidaceae). Selbyana 27(1): 60-64.


Lorena Riofrio and Carlos Naranjo have a teaching position at the Universidad Tecnica Particular de Loja, and are
presently carrying out their Ph.D. studies in a Conservation Biology program. They are interested in epiphytic orchids
of the subtribe Pleurothallidinae, specifically in understanding the spatial genetic structure and the factors that deter-
mine their distribution. These studies are oriented to support orchid conservation.
Jose Maria Iriondo and Elena Torres are associate professors of Plant Production and Botany, respectively, at the
Universidad Polit&cnica de Madrid. Their main experience lies on demographic and genetic approaches to plant con-
servation. In addition to their research on spatial patterns of epiphytic orchids and on the orchid-phorophyte relation-
ships, they participate in a project for the reintroduction of Cypripedium calceolus at the Ordesa and Monte Perdido
National Park (Spain).


LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2), marzo 2007. � Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007.








LANKESTERIANA7(1-2): 107-113. 2007


RICHNESS, DISTRIBUTION AND IMPORTANT AREAS TO PRESERVE
BULBOPHYLLUMIN THE NEOTROPICS

ERIC C. SMIDT1'3, VIVIANE SILVA-PEREIRA', EDUARDO L. BORBA2
& CAssIO VAN DEN BERG'

'Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Departamento de Ciencias Biol6gicas, Laboratory of Plant Molecular
Systematics (LAMOL), BR 116, Km 03, Feira de Santana, Bahia, 44130-460, Brazil.
2Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Ciencias Biol6gicas, Departamento de Botinica,
Av. Antonio Carlos, 6627, Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, 31270-110, Brazil.
'Author for correspondence: ecsmidt@yahoo.com.br

KEY WORDS: iB, ... ,in ,.- Neotropics, richness, complementarity analysis, PAE, orchid


Introduction

Bulbophyllum is probably one of the largest genera
in the orchids with Pantropical occurence, but the dis-
tribution is not homogeneous across the world. The
Paleotropics is the richest area and there are hundreds
of species in Asia (Vermeulen 1991). The genus was
described by Thouars in 1822, and the first
Neotropical species was described only in 1838 (B.
setigerum Lindl.) from a plant collected in Guayana
by George Loddiges and sent to John Lindley. Until
today, one hundred and ten species names were pub-
lished for the Neotropics, however only ca. 70 species
could be recognized in five sections supported by phy-
logenetic studies based on nuclear and chloroplast
genome sequence data (Smidt unpubl. data).
Richness is a fundamental measurement of communi-
ty and regional diversity, and underlays many ecologi-
cal models and conservation strategies (Magurran
1988). Due to the vast area of the Neotropical region,
we know that the sample effort is not consistent
throughout the range. Some areas could be richer than
others because they are near cities and others could be
considered poor in number of species because they are
rarely or never sampled. Keeping this in mind, we can
use richness estimation to infer the richness from
incomplete collections and projecting the probable
number of species to be found. The literature about esti-
mation of species richness is extensive (e.g. Colwell &
Coddington 1994, Walther & Morand 1998, Hellmann
& Fowler 1999, Gotelli & Colwell 2001), and have
been used to evaluate global richness of different organ-
isms (e.g. Jarvis et al. 2002, Meier & Dikow 2004).


In this study, the richness patterns, relationships of
the Neotropical biomes and complementarity analy-
ses of the genus were accomplished by using a GIS
framework, considering the proposed phytogeograph-
ical areas for the American Continent (Atlantic Rain
Forest, Cerrado, Semi-arid, Andean region, Amazon,
Highlands Guayana, Mesoamerica, Caribbean and
Mexico).

Methodology

SAMPLE DATA - The specimen database was generated
during the taxonomic review of Neotropical
Bulbophyllum species and the information was
obtained from ca. 1400 specimens deposited in 65
herbaria in Brazil, Europe and other American coun-
tries. All analyses of this study was undertaken using
free DIVA-GIS software v. 5.4 (Hijmans et al. 2000,
2001) and Arcview GIS 3.3 (ESRI 1999) using the
Americas Base Map for Flora Neotropica.

RICHNESS - This study explored the species richness
of Neotropical Bulbophyllum, by the number of taxa
occurring in cells with 1� x 1� size in a grid map. This
approach permits us to evaluate where are and the
range size of this areas to employ conservation deci-
sions about this taxa. We applied five non-parametric
species richness estimators (Chao 1, Chao 2,
Jackknife 1, Jackknife 2 and ACE, see Colwell &
Coddington (1994) for explanation of these estima-
tors), to know how many species of Bulbophyllum are
probable to be discovered in the Neotropical region,
and which biomes are potentially richer. Each estima-
tor used here presents different assumptions and bias,




Full Text

PAGE 2

Esta publicaci—n ha sido posible gracias al gentil patrocinio de This publication has been possible thank to the kind sponsorship b y RECTORA

PAGE 3

LANKESTERIANA AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON ORCHIDOLOGYCopyright 2007 Jard’n Botnico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica Fecha efectiva de publicaci—n / Effective publication date: 17 de marzo del 2007 Diagramaci—n: Jard’n Botnico Lankester Imprenta: Litograf’a Ediciones Sanabria S.A.Tiraje: 500 copias Impreso en Costa Rica / Printed in Costa Rica Lankesteriana / An international journal on orchidology, Universidad de Costa Rica. No. 1 (2001San Jos, Costa Rica: Editorial Universidad de CostaRica, 2001-v. ISSN-1409-3871 1. Botnica Publicaciones peri—dicas, 2.Publicaciones peri—dicas costarricenses R

PAGE 4

AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON ORCHIDOLOGY VOL. 7, NO.1-2MARZO2007 ISSN 1409-3871 3rdInternational Orchid Conservation Congress (IOCC 2ndInternational Conference on Neotropical Orchidology (ICNO PROCEEDINGS AREOURORCHIDSSAFE? The orchid conservation challenge KINGSLEYDIXON& RYAND. PHILLIPS11 Orchid conservation: where do we go from here? PHILIPT. SEATON13 GEOGRAPHYOFCONSERVATION Invasive orchids: weeds we hate to love? JAMESD. ACKERMAN19 Morphological and molecular characterization of species of Tulasnella (Homobasidiomycetes associated with Neotropical plants of Laeliinae (Orchidaceae PAULORICARDOM. ALMEIDA, CASSIOVANDENBERG& ARISTOTELESGOES-NETO22 Are our orchids safe down under? A national assessment of threatened orchids in Australia GARYN. BACKHOUSE28 Understanding the distribution of three species of epiphytic orchids in temperate Australian rainforest by investigation of their host and fungal associates KELLIM. GOWLAND, ULRIKEMATHESIUS, MARKA. CLEMENTS& ADRIENNEB. NICOTRA44 Rare plant restoration on Long Pine Key BRUCEHOLST& STIGDALSTRM47 The status of orchid conservation in China JIAJIANSHENG48 Epiphyte orchid diversity in a Yungas montane forest in the Cotapata National Park and Integrated Management Natural Area, La Paz – Bolivia IVANV. JIMNEZ& FABRICIOMIRANDAA. 49 Geological processes and orchid biogeography with applications to southeast Central America STEPHENH. KIRBY53

PAGE 5

Diversidad de Orqu’deas en el “Parque Nacional Iztacc’huatl-Popocatpetl” (Mxico y sus reas de influencia BRBARAS. LUNA-ROSALES, AMADEOBARBA-ALVAREZ, RODRIGOROMERO-TIRADO, ERICPREZ-TOLEDANO, OLGAPEREA-MORALES,SUSANAPADRN-HERNNDEZ, HUGOSIERRA-JIMNEZ, ROSADELACRUZ& DIANAJARDN-SNCHEZ56 An orchid inventory and conservation project at Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve, upper R’o Toro Valley, Alajuela, Costa Rica MELANIAMUOZ& STEPHENH. KIRBY60 Distribuci—n de poblaciones silvestres y descripci—n del hbitat de Phragmipedium en Costa Rica MELANIAMUOZ& JORGEWARNER66 Orchids of a regenerated tropical dry forest in the Cali river watershed, Municipality of Cali, Colombia JORGEE. OREJUELA71 Hotspots of narrow endemisms: adequate focal points for conservation in Dendrochilum (Orchidaceae HENRIK. PEDERSEN83 Orchid biogeography and rarity in a biodiversity hotspot: the Southwest Australian floristic region RYAND. PHILLIPS,ANDREWP. BROWN, KINGSLEYW. DIXON& STEPHEND. HOPPER93 Genetic and morphological variation in the Bulbophyllum exaltatum (Orchidaceae complex occurring in the Brazilian “Campos Rupestres”: implications for taxonomy and biogeography PATRICIALUZRIBEIRO, EDUARDOL. BORBA, ERICC. SMIDT, S.M. LAMBERT, A. SELBACH-SCHNADELBACH& CSSIOVANDERBERG97 Spatial structure of Pleurothallis , Masdevallia,Lepanthes and Epidendrum epiphytic orchids in a fragment of montane cloud forest in South Ecuador LORENARIOFRO, CARLOSNARANJO, JOSM. IRIONDO& ELENATORRES102 Richness, distribution and important areas to preserve Bulbophyllum in the Neotropics ERICC. SMIDT, VIVIANESILVA-PEREIRA, EDUARDOL. BORBA& CSSIOVANDENBERG107 Risk of extinction and patterns of diversity loss in Mexican orchids MIGUELA. SOTOARENAS, RODOLFOSOLANOGMEZ& ERICHGSATER114 Inventory of the orchids in the humid tropical premontane forest on Uchumachi Mountain, nor Yungas region of La Paz, Bolivia CARLOSA. VERGARACASSAS122 CONSERVATIONPOLICIESANDBOTANICALGARDENS Exsitu conservation of tropical orchids in Ukraine TETIANAM. CHEREVCHENKO, LYUDMYLAI. BUYUN, LYUDMYLAA. KOVALSKA& VUNGOCLONG129 El sistema Lankester ROBERTL. DRESSLER134 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 2 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 6

How does hybridization influence the decision making process in conservation? The genus Orchis (Orchidaceae MICHAELF. FAY, R. J. SMITH, K. ZUIDERDUIN, E. HOOPER, R. SAMUEL, R. M. BATEMAN& M. W. CHASE135 Tropical orchids in the North, Montral Botanical Garden, Qubec, Canada LISEGOBEILLE138 The conservation dilemma WESLEYE. HIGGINS& GEORGED. GANN141 In vitro propagation of Cattleya Lindl. and Laelia Lindl. species ALLAM. LAVRENTYEVA& ROMANV. IVANNIKOV147 The role of CITES Rescue Centers in orchid conservation: concerns and questions raised by the collaboration on an endangered slipper orchid ( Paphiopedilum vietnamense O. Gruss & Perner) THOMASMIRENDA, KYLEWALLICK& ROBERTR. GABEL150 Molecular identification and genetic studies in Peruvian Phragmipediums ISAIASROLANDO, M. RODRGUEZ, M. DAMIAN, J. BENAVIDES, A. MANRIQUE& J. ESPINOZA152 Working together for orchid conservation – The National Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin and Belize Botanic Gardens BRENDANSAYERS, HEATHERDUPLOOY& BRETTADAMS153 The important role that the Botanical Garden of the National Autonomous University of Mexico plays in the conservation of mexican orchids ADATLLEZVELASCO156 Establishing an Orchid Conservation Alliance PETERS. TOBIAS, MARIADOROSARIODEALMEIDABRAGA, STEVENBECKENDORF& RONALDKAUFMANN161 Not a single orchid... HARRYZELENKO164 CONSERVATIONANDINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGIES What is BIBLIORCHIDEA? RUDOLFJENNY169 A form and checklist for the description of orchids in the field and laboratory work STEPHENH. KIRBY& MELANIAMUOZ175 EPIDENDRA, the taxonomic databases by Jard’n Botnico Lankester FRANCOPUPULIN178 Effect of knowledge gain on species conservation status DAVIDL. ROBERTS181 Index 3 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 7

NEWTECHNOLOGIESFORCONSERVATIONANDDNABARCODING Allotetraploid evolution in Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae MARKW. CHASE, MICHAELF. FAY, RICHARDBATEMAN, MIKAELHEDRN& YOHANPILLON187 Sequencing re-defines Spiranthes relationships, with implications for rare and endangered taxa LUCYA. DUECK& KENNETHM. CAMERON190 Molecular genetic diagnosis of the ‘taxonomically difficult’ Australian endangered orchid, Microtis angusii : an evaluation of the utility of DNA barcoding NICOLAS. FLANAGAN, RODPEAKALL, MARKA. CLEMENTS& J. TUPACOTERO196 Molecular tools and DNA barcoding for conservation GUILLAUMEGIGOT199 Finding a suitable DNA barcode for Mesoamerican orchids GUILLAUMEGIGOT, JONATHANVANALPHEN-STAHL, DIEGOBOGARN, JORGEWARNER, MARKW. CHASE& VINCENTSAVOLAINEN200 Re-evaluation of lifespan in a Neotropical orchid: an eleven years survey EDDIEA. ROSA-FUENTES& RAYMONDL. TREMBLAY204 The species-area-energy relationship in orchids IVASCHDELBAUEROV, PAVELKINDLMANN& DAVIDROBERTS209 Mycorrhizal diversity of an endemic terrestrial orchid JYOTSNASHARMA, MARIAL. ISHIDA& VERNALL. YADON215 Does integrated conservation of terrestrial orchids work? NIGELD. SWARTS, ANDREWL. BATTY, STEPHENHOPPER& KINGSLEYW. DIXON219 Evolution in small populations: evidence from the literature and experimental results RAYMOMDL. TREMBLAY& JAMESD. ACKERMAN223 Density induced rates of pollinaria removal and deposition in the Purple Enamel-orchid, Elythranthera brunonis (Endl. RAYMONDL. TREMBLAY, RICHARDM. BATEMAN, ANDREWP. BROWN, MARCHACHADOURIAN, MICHAELJ. HUTCHINGS, SHELAGHKELL, HAROLDKOOPOWITZ, CARLOSLEHNEBACH& DENNISWIGHAM229 PRACTICALORCHIDCONSERVATION:INTEGRATEDAPPROACHES Rescuing Cattleya granulosa Lindley in the wild CLEMENTINOCAMARA-NETO, IUNACHAVES-CAMARA, SEVERINOCARVALHODEMEDEIROS& MARIADOROSARIODEALMEIDABRAGA243 Efecto del cido indolbut’rico (IBA(BAP) en el desarrollo in vitro de yemas axilares de Encyclia microtos (Rchb.f.Orchidaceae CARLOSE. CONDEMARN-MONTEALEGRE, JULIOCHICO-RZ&CLAUDIAVARGAS-ARTAEGA247 The conservation of Madagascar’s orchids . A model for an integrated conservation project PHILLIPCRIBB& JOHANHERMANS255 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 4 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 8

Community involvment in orchid conservation ANDREWW. DILLEY262 Integrated approaches to orchid conservation in Guatemala:past, present and future, opportunities and challenges MICHAELW. DIX& MARGARETA. DIX266 Investigation of processes leading to the decline of South Australia’s Caladenia species RENATEFAAST& JOSM. FACELLI269 Are some life-history strategies more vulnerable to the genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation? A case study using South Australian Caladenia R. Br. (Orchidaceaespecies LACHLANW. FARRINGTON, JOSEM. FACELLI, STEPHENC. DONNELLAN& ANDYD. AUSTIN270 Vanda tricolor Lindl. conservation in Java, Indonesia: genetic and geographic structure and history LAURENM. GARDINER272 Area recovery and characteristic orchids conservation “ in situ ” at San Angel stony terrain, Mexico, D. F: reservoir area and ecological pathway at South Sciences and HumanitiesEducational Center (SSHEC CECILIAGARDUO, SONIAY. GARCIA, MARICELARAMOS& M.A. AIDATLLEZ281 Conservation of the group Piperia (Orchidaceae ROBERTK. LAURI287 Effects of trampling on a terrestrial orchid environment MARILYNH.S. LIGHT& MICHAELMACCONAILL294 Orchids’ micropropagation for to the sustainable management of native species from Parque Nacional y rea Natural de Manejo Integrado Cotapata (PN-ANMI CotapataLa Paz-Bolivia CRISTINALPEZROBERTS, GABRIELAVILLEGASALVARADO, BEATRIZMAMANISNCHEZ, JUANBERMEJOFRANCO, MILENKAAGUILARLLANOS& JORGEQUEZADAPORTUGAL299 An expanded role for in vitro symbiotic seed germination as a conservation tool: two case studies in North America ( Platantheraleucophaea and Epidendrumnocturnum ) EMILYE. MASSEY& LAWRENCEW. ZETTLER303 SEM and PCR study of mycorrhizal fungi isolated from the Australian terrestrial orchid: Prasophyllum EMILYMCQUALTER, ROBCROSS, CASSANDRAB. MCLEAN& PAULINEY. LADIGES309 Desarrollo de cpsulas y germinaci—n in vitro de Phragmipedium humboldtii, P. longifolium y P. pearcei MELANIAMUOZ& VCTORM. JIMNEZ310 Ecology of orchids in urban bushland reserves – can orchids be used as indicators of vegetation condition? BELINDAJ. NEWMAN, PHILLADD, ANDREWBATTY& KINGSLEYDIXON313 Cores Project Conservation of endangered orchids: an action plan for conservation of Brazilian orchids CLAUDIONICOLETTIFRAGA, ROSAM. MURRIETAFRANA, JORGEEDUARDOS. PAES, MELISSA Index 5 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 9

BOCAYUVA, PEDRODEARAUJOCONSTANTINO, ANDRP. FONTANA, SIMONEL. MACHADO, EDUARDOM. SADDI, IVONNESANMARTIN-GAJARDO, MARCELOSIMONELLI, FABIOBERNABE, ANDERSONLANUSSE& BERNARDHARDMAN316 Fungus-assisted reintroduction and long-term survival of two Mexican terrestrial orchids in the natural habitat M. PILARORTEGA-LARROCEA& MONICARANGEL-VILLAFRANCO317 Estudio de bacterias asociadas orqu’deas (Orchidaceae EMILIARAMOSZAMBRANO, TERESITAJIMNEZSALGADO& ARMANDOTAPIAHERNNDEZ322 Efforts to conserve endangered terrestrial orchids in situ and ex situ at two natural reserves within Central Mexico MNICARANGEL-VILLAFRANCO& M. PILARORTEGA-LARROCEA326 Trophic relationships in orchid mycorrhiza – diversity and implications for conservation HANNE. N. RASMUSSEN& FINNN. RASMUSSEN334 Genetic and morphological variation in the Bulbophyllum exaltatum (Orchidaceae Complex occurring in the Brazilian “Campos Rupestres”: implications for taxonomy and biogeography PATRICIALUZRIBEIRO, E.L. BORBA, E.C. SMIDT, S.M. LAMBERT, A. SELBACH-SCHNADELBACH& C. VANDERBERG342 Problemas fitosanitarios que amenazan la conservaci—n de las orqu’deas de Costa Rica GERMANRIVERA-COTO& GILBERTOCORRALES-MOREIRA347 Uso de complejos comerciales como sustitutos de componentes del medio de cultivo en la propagaci—n in vitro de Laelia ancep s RODRIGOROMERO-TIRADO& BRBARAS. LUNAROSALES353 The effect of the light environment on population size of the epiphytic herb, Lepanthes rupestris (Orchidaceae FRANCHESKARUIZ-CANINO, DENNYS. FERNANDEZ, ELVIAJ. MELENDEZ-ACKERMAN& RAYMONDL. TREMBLAY357 Comparaci—n de los problemas fitosanitarios en orqu’deas de poblaciones silvestres y de cultivo, como evaluaci—n de riesgos de plagas o epidemias WILLYSALAZAR-CASASA, GERMANRIVERA-COTO& GILBERTOCORRALES-MOREIRA362 Traditional use and conservation of the “calaverita” Laelia anceps subsp. dawsonii f. c hilapensis Soto-Arenasat Chilapa, Guerrero, Mxico VCTORM. SALAZAR-ROJAS, B. EDGARHERRERA-CABRERA, ALEJANDROFLORES-PALACIOS&IGNACIOOCAMPO-FLETES368 Establishing a global network of orchid seed banks PHILIPT. SEATON371 Production of Cypripedium montanum seedlings for commercial value and reintroduction into restoration projects: phase II ROGERH. SMITH, JANEA. SMITH& SCOTTLIEBLER376 Experimental reintroduction of the threatened terrestrial orchid Diuris fragrantissima ZOEF. SMITH, ELIZABETHA. JAMES& CASSANDRAB. MCLEAN377 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 6 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 10

Finding a mycorrhizal fungus for reintroductions of the threatened terrestrial orchid Diuris fragrantissima ZOEF. SMITH, ELIZABETHA. JAMES& CASSANDRAB. MCLEAN381 Orchid conservation in the Americas lessons learned in Florida SCOTTL. STEWART& MICHAELE. KANE382 Propagaci—n in vitro y aclimatizaci—n de Euchile mariae (AmesOrchidaceae IRISSUREZ-QUIJADA, MABELHERNNDEZ-ALTAMIRANO, VCTORM. CHVEZVILA& ESTELASANDOVAL-ZAPOTITLA388 Determinaci—n histol—gica de regenerantes de Euchile mariae (Ames (Orchidaceae), obtenidos a partir de protocormos cultivados in vitro IRISSUREZ-QUIJADA, ESTELASANDOVAL-ZAPOTITLA, MABELHERNNDEZ-ALTAMIRANO& VCTORM. CHVEZVILA394 Young adventures in orchid conservation CALLUMSWIFT398 Adquisici—n de competencia para la micropagaci—n de Stanhopea tigrina, Laelia anceps, Epidendrum veroscriptum y Cattleya x Esbetts(Orchidaceae MARIOSINATINOCOJUREZ& MARTNMATAROSAS404 Biosystematic studies in the Brazilian endemic genus Hoffmannseggella H. G. Jones (Orchidaceae: Laeliinae CHRISTIANOFRANCOVEROLA, JOOSEMIR, ALEXANDREANTONELLI& INGRIDKOCH419 Micro-environment conditions, mycorrhizal symbiosis, and seed germination in Cypripedium candidum : strategies for conservation CAROLM.F. WAKE423 Harvesting mycorrhizal fungi: does it put Caladenia plants in peril? MAGALIWRIGHT, ROBCROSS, ROGERCOUSENS& CASSANDRAB. MCLEAN427 Site amelioration for direct seeding of Caladenia tentaculata improves seedling recruitment and survival in natural habitat MAGALIWRIGHT, GARRYFRENCH, ROBCROSS, ROGERCOUSENS, SASCHAANDRUSIAK& CASSANDRAB. MCLEAN430 Symbiotic germination of threatened Australian terrestrial orchids and the effect of nursery potting media on seedling survivals MAGALIWRIGHT, ZOESMITH, RICHARDTHOMSON& ROBCROSS433 The orchid recovery program at Illinois College – a successful blend of teaching, research and undergraduate student participation to benefit orchid conservation LAWRENCEW. ZETTLER436 2NDINTERNATIONALCONFERENCEONNEOTROPICALORCHIDOLOGY The Orchidaceae of “Parque Municipal de Mucug”, Bahia, Brazil CECILIAO. DEAZEVEDO& CASSIOVANDENBERG443 Las orqu’deas del Parque Nacional Barra Honda, Guanacaste, Costa Rica DIEGOBOGARN& FRANCOPUPULIN446 Index 7 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 11

Pollination analogies between Orchidaceae, Ficus (Moraceae WILLIAMRAMREZ-B.450 Oncidium surprises with deoxyribonucleic acid HARRYZELENKO458 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 8 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 12

In the six years since the first International Orchid Conservation Congress in 2001 has the conservation oforchids progressed? Certainly orchid science hasgrown from less than 100 published works in the 20year period from 1900-1920 to over 3200 for 20002005. With knowledge of orchids spanning an aston-ishing array of disciplines it is therefore surprising thatthere remains a significant gap between orchid scienceand orchid conservation practice. This is no moretelling than in the resolutions of the plenary session ofthe first IOCC to adopt for orchids four targets of the 16targets from the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (see http://www.bgci.org/ worldwide/gspc/) – that by 2010 (just three years away.!orchids are secure in ex situ conservation collections;50% of these threatened orchids are in active recoveryprograms; no orchids are threatened by unsustainableharvesting; and, every child aware of plant diversity (including orchids-ing these four targets? Besides a growth in botanicgardens to almost 2500 worldwide, the proportion oforchids in ex situ conservation collections, particularlyrare and threatened taxa, has barely changed in sixyears yet the science and technology to achieve thistarget is well established. Equally the pace of thedevelopment of orchid recovery plans is outstripped bythe annual increase in orchid taxa being listed as rare.Indeed the most basic of information is often lacking inorchid conservation projects from knowledge of the causal factors of orchid rarity to whether research out-comes and management plans are being converted tosuccesses in the field? An important criterion forrecovery projects should be ‘ will it be possible toimplement the results of the research – is the fundingavailable and what are my cost-effective alternatives?’Some areas such as defining sustainability for the wildharvesting of orchids remains a complex and difficultissue often tied to local economy and cultural identity. The slow maturation of orchids means that any wild exploitation, unless carefully managed on scientificgrounds, is bound to lead to a decline in the orchid.Finally, though the final target falls outside of theexpertise of conservation scientists is in the long term,it is perhaps the most critical of all conservationactions for the long term conservation of orchids. It ismuch easier/ preferable/more fun to do research, writeand field trip than to ensure that k-12 educational needsinclude sound (and fun!Ultimately our ability to deliver effective conservationis controlled by funding bound to political processesthat in themselves rely on awareness and educationfrom an early age. With the long term goal of greater community awareness and funding of conservation, as researcherswe can maximize our conservation outcomes in theshort term through the approach we take to researchand the questions we ask. When attempting to conservea particular species, establishing which aspect of thelife cycle or human interaction is driving species rarity is a critical step. A key to success in orchid reintroduc-tion is the need for integration of knowledge gaps – how many orchid reintroductions adopt a multidiscipli-nary approach? The majority of published works inorchid introductions rely on single principles as the basis for the reintroduction, often with a heavy empha-sis on propagation/establishment techniques. However,pollination biology, mycorrhizal ecology, habitat requirements, changing habitat condition, habitat clear-ing and wild collecting are all potential causes of rarity that need to be considered for developing a multi-disci-plinary and more sustainable conservation outcome fororchids. An obvious division within orchid conservation biology is between the terrestrial and epiphytic lifeforms and the practical implications for conservationprograms. For example, most terrestrial taxa have often LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 THE ORCHID CONSERVATION CHALLENGE KINGSLEYDIXON1& RYAND. PHILLIPS Kings Park and Botanic Garden, West Perth, 6005 Western Australia School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia1Author for correspondence: kdixon@bgpa.wa.gov.au

PAGE 13

intricate and biologically sensitive interactions with mycorrhiza. The evidence for such relationships in epiphytes is less convincing – take for example the bil-lions of orchid plants produced commercially eachyear in the vast production houses of Europe andsouth-east Asia all without specific fungal endophytes. Interestingly there are far fewer epiphytic orchid rein-troduction programs compared with terrestrial orchids– possibly linked to the affluence of countries (mostlytemperate climates that support only terrestrial orchid floras) and their ability to support reintroduction pro-grams. Beyond endophyte specificity/requirements, epiphytic and terrestrial orchids share much in common in their requirements for devising an effective conserva-tion reintroduction or preservation program. Keystone knowledge needs to reflect the ability of the reintroduced or remaining populations of the plant to complete its life cycle successfully including self-perpetu-ating populations. Knowledge gaps that are critical for meeting this performance indicator include: understanding pollination syndromes, biology of the pollina-tor, substrate, successional requirements (successionalvs climax vegetation), seed germination and seedlings establishment requirements and importantly the capaci-ty of the species and the reintroduction to cope withclimate change. The latter is one of the most significantchallenges facing orchid conservation programs.Evidence is continuing to mount that for terrestrialorchids, range contractions or expansions may be a factof life for many species just as the paleoecological dataindicates such changes have occurred over the milleniafor other plant groups. Given the diversity of potential drivers of orchid rarity, future conservation programs will require researchers to draw information across a wide spectrum of scientific disciplines. However, this is impor-tant in integrating conservation of orchid species withthe societies in which they occur. As one of the moresensitive components of the flora to environmentalchange, orchids can be justified as flagship species forplant conservation, both scientifically and through theirwidespread recognition in the wider community. As some of the most charismatic of species for plant conservation, failure to deliver effective conservationof orchids, even using the simple approach of theGSPC orchid targets, represents a dire scenario forconservation of all plant species. Can we as orchidconservation professionals accept the challenge of delivering a more effective orchid conservation mes-sage to the wider world? Orchids continue to be theplants that captivate and enthrall. Movies are madeabout them (‘Adaptation’ with Nic Cage and MerylStreep), we eat them (vanilla), they remain as symbolsof love and devotion and they are the most recognisedof plant families. As David Attenborough stated‘Orchids surely are the most glamorous of plants’.The challenge therefore is to conclude the third IOCCwith a renewed sense of purpose and direction melding as never before, science with orchid conservation prac-tice. And by securing orchid conservation there is avery real opportunity for collateral conservation of aconsiderably larger biodiversity as orchids unlike mostplant groups depend for their existence upon a host of other plants and animals. What better reason for con-serving these remarkable plants. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 12 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .Dr Kingsley Dixon has over 20 years experience in researching the ecology and physiology of Australian native plants and ecosystems. He leads a science group comprising botanical and restoration sciences and, as Director of Science atthe Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority (BGPAand restoration of native plant biodiversity and degraded landscapes. The research team of over 40 research staff andpostgraduate students specialise in seed ecology and biology, propagation science, germplasm storage, conservationgenetics and restoration ecology with a strong emphasis on orchid biology and conservation. This research group has contributed significantly to seed science in Australia, with major advances in understanding seed dormancy (pioneer-ing work in smoke technology) as well as orchid seed conservation. Ryan Phillips is a PhD student at Kings Park and Botanic Garden and the University of Western Australia working on the role of mycorrhiza and pollinators in controlling rarity and speciation in Drakaea . Interests include the causes of orchid diversification and rarity and the co-evolution of orchids and their pollinators.

PAGE 15

Rare species that show habitat specificity and an aversion to habitat disturbance may be common inthe Orchidaceae (Tremblay et al. 1998; Bergman etal. 2006). Nonetheless, most orchids may not be insuch a critical state and many are, quite frankly,weedy. We may learn much about rare species byasking what makes other orchids common andresilient or actually dependent on change. Most orchids do occur in ephemeral or frequently dis-turbed habitats (Ackerman 1983; Catling 1996whether they are pastures, roadsides, citrus groves,coffee and tea farms, or simply as epiphytes whosesubstrates, by definition, are temporary and run thegamut from durable tree trunks to short-lived twigs(Johansson 1974 Effective dispersal capabilities are essential for occupying ephemeral habitats. Certainly orchidseed morphology lends itself to the possibility ofdistance dispersal (Arditti & Ghani 2000; Murren &Ellison 1998). In the West Indies, nearly 60% ofthe orchid species occur on more than one islandand a floristic affinity analysis has indicated thatgeographical distance for these species is generallynot a barrier to dispersal (Trejo-Torres & Ackerman2001). The combination of mobility and widespread preference for ephemeral habitats appears to havegiven orchid populations a degree of resiliency thatis generally underappreciated. We all know thatdeforestation, or habitat destruction is a commonproblem not only in the tropics but elsewherethroughout the world. A prime example is PuertoRico where 95% of the forest cover was cut by theearly 1940’s (Brash 1987; Lugo et al. 1993 cited byFigueroa Col—n 1996), yet the number of orchidspecies lost from the flora has been less than 5%.Since then, forest recovery has been substantial and some orchid species have responded positively to the re-growth, a few becoming quite abundant insecondary habitats (Ackerman & Galarza-Prez1991). Orchids with rapidly expanding populations include natives, but non-natives everywhere aremaking their appearance (Table 1global compendium of weeds (www.hear.org/gcw/index.html) lists over 90 orchid weeds! In PuertoRico, a number of non-native orchids have persistedfor a long time, but only recently have they becomeaggressive taking on weed-like characteristics. Such a demographic pattern is very typical of inva-sive species. What makes an orchid weedy and invasive? Many plants that are classified as weeds have asuite of characteristics associated with colonizationcapabilities, and some of these features characterizeorchids in general: abundant seed production(although in orchids effective population sizes maybe small), distance dispersal, and weak competitivecapabilities. Rapid development, autogamy andapomixis are also common features of weeds, butthese are certainly not common features of orchids. From a sample of weedy orchids, we find a com-plete spectrum of breeding systems (e.g., Sun 1997), from apomictic or autogamous to outcrossing, and plants of the latter may be either self-com-patible or -incompatible. It is difficult to find a common thread among the invasive orchids. Some are understory plants; per-haps most prefer grassy roadsides, while a few othersare epiphytes. Some are autogamous but othersattract local pollinators with nectar rewards or bydeceit, with pollination systems not unlike that oflocal species. Answers may rest not only with thedistribution of appropriate habitat, but also with the LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 INVASIVE ORCHIDS: WEEDS WE HATE TO LOVE? JAMESD. ACKERMAN Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico PO Box 23360 San Juan PR 00931-3360, U.S.A. jdackerman@uprrp.edu

PAGE 16

players in the orchids’ symbiotic relationships: pollinators and mycorrhizal fungi. Widespread specieseither specialize on widespread “partners” or arecatholic with whom they play or exploit (cf.Bascompte et al. 2003; Vzquez & Aizen 2004). Theasymmetrical relationship between plants and theirpollinators is well documented, but the relationshipbetween orchids and their mycorrhizal symbionts isonly just beginning to be revealed (e.g., Otero et al. 2002, 2004; Taylor et al. 2003). What do rare species do? Again, we do not know this entirely but we canpredict that constraints of specificity may have a role, whether it is the habitat, the pollinators, their mycor-rhizal associations, or some combination of the threeremains to be seen. Finally, we are faced with an orchidaceous dilemma: can non-native, marquee taxa be so bad? Do they exclude native taxa or disrupt natural ecosys-tems or are they benign? Do we encourage, tolerateor fight such intrusions to our sovereign soil?LITERATURECITEDAckerman, J.D . 1983. On the evidence for a primitively epiphytic habit in orchids. Syst. Bot. 8: 474-477. Ackerman, J.D., J.C. Trejo Torres & Y. Crespo Chuy. In press. Orchids of the West Indies: predictability ofdiversity and endemism. J. Biogeography. Ackerman, J.D. & M. Galarza-Prez. 1991. Patterns and maintenance of extraordinary variation in theCaribbean orchid, Tolumnia ( Oncidium ) variegata. Syst. Bot. 16: 182-194. Arditti, J. & A.K.A. Ghani. 2000. Numerical and physical properties of orchid seeds and their biological Species Arundina graminifolia Dendrobium crumenatum Epidendrum radicans Oeceoclades maculata Phaius tancarvilleaeSpathoglottis plicataVanilla planifoliaVanilla pompona Zeuxine strautematica Native India, Nepal, China, SE Asia to Indonesia India, Bangladesh, China, Burma, Thailand,Vietnam, Indonesia,Malaysia, Philippines,Australia Mexico, Central America, Colombia Africa India, Nepal, China, SE Asia to Phillipines, SouthPacific Islands India, SE Asia New Guinea, New Caledoniato Phillipines Mexico, Central America? Mexico, Central America, South America Sri Lanka, India, SE Asia, Java, Phillipines,Taiwan, Japan Non-native Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guadeloupe Puerto Rico, Guadeloupe Cuba, Puerto Rico South America, Central America,West Indies, Florida Hawaii, Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands,Lesser Antilles Puerto Rico, West Indies, Central &South America Puerto Rico, Lesser Antilles? Southern USA, Bahamas, Cuba,Jamaica, Puerto Rico Breeding system Outcrossing Deception Outcrossing reward Outcrossing deception Autogamous Outcrossing? Deception Autogamous Outcrossing deception*Outcrossing deception* Apomictic Habitat Open disturbed Open Open disturbed Shady Open to shady disturbedOpen, disturbed groundForest disturbed habitatsForest disturbed habitats Open disturbed *The two vanillas may be reward plants at least for the male euglossine bee pollinators in Central America.TABLE1. Orchid species naturalized in Puerto Rico. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 20 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 17

implications. New Phytol. 145: 367-421. Bascompte, J., P. Jordano, C.J. Melin & J.M. Olesen. 2003. The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualisticnetworks. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc. (USA9387. Bergman, E., J.D. Ackerman, J. Thompson & J.K. Zimmerman. 2006. Land use history affects the dis-tribution of the saprophytic orchid Wullschlaegelia calcarata in Puerto Rico. Biotropica 38: 492-499. Brash, A. 1987. The history of avian extinction and forest conversion on Puerto Rico. Biol. Conserv. 39: 97-111. Catling, P.M. 1996. Conservation strategy. Pages 11-23 in : IUCN/SSC Orchid Specialist Group, Orchids status survey and conservation action plan. IUCNGland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Figueroa Col—n, J.C. 1996. Phytogeographical trends, centers of high species richness and endemism, and the questionof extinctions in the native flora of Puerto Rico. Ann. NewYork Acad. Sc. 776: 89-102. Johansson, D. 1974. Ecology of West African epiphytes. Acta Phytogeog. Suec. 59: 1-129. IUCN/SSC Orchid Specialist Group. 1996. Orchids status survey and conservation action plan. IUCNGland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Lugo, A., J. Parrotta & S. Brown. 1993. Loss in species caused by deforestation and their recovery throughmanagement. Ambio 22(2-3 Murren, J.C. & A.M. Ellison. 1998. Seed dispersal characteristics of Brassavola nodosa (Orchidaceae Amer. J. Bot. 85: 675-680. Otero J.T., J.D. Ackerman& P. Bayman. 2002. Diversity and host specificity of endophytic Rhizoctonia -like fungi from tropical orchids. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1852-1858. Otero J.T., J. D. Ackerman & P. Bayman. 2004. Differences in mycorrhizal preferences between twotropical orchids. Molec. Ecol. 13: 2393 . Sun, M. 1997. Genetic diversity in three colonizing orchids with contrasting mating systems. Amer. J.Bot. 84: 224-232. Taylor, D.L., T.D. Bruns, T.M. Szaro & S.A. Hodges. 2003. Divergence in mycorrhizal specialization within Hexalectris spicata (Orchidaceaeic desert orchid. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1168-1179. Trejo-Torres, J.C. & J.D. Ackerman. 2001. Biogeographic affinities of Caribbean Orchidaceaebased on parsimony analyses of shared species. J.Biogeogr. 28: 775-794. Tremblay, R.L., J.K. Zimmerman, L. Lebr—n, P. Bayman, I. Sastre, F. Axelrod & J. Alers-Garc’a.1998. Host specificity and low reproductive successin the rare endemic Puerto Rican orchid Lepanthes caritensis (Orchidaceae Vzquez, D.P. & M.A. Aizen. 2004. Asymmetric specialization: a pervasive feature of plant-pollinatorinteractions. Ecology 85: 1251-1257. ACKERMANInvasive orchids 21 James D. Ackerman is Professor of the University of Puerto Rico at R’o Piedras. He is a biologist with broad interests, but focuses on the ecology, systematics and evolution of Orchidaceae. His present interests include studies on the relationship between land use history and orchid distributions, orchid biogeography, invasive orchids, and their mycor-rhizal relationships. LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 18

Introduction Tullasnella spp. have been found forming mycorhizal associations with plants of allOrchidaceae subfamilies, and they are one of themain symbionts in partially micoheterotrophic plants(Taylor et al. 2002). Little is known about mycorhizal fungi of Neotropical Orchidaceae, especially inLaeliinae that occur in distinct environments such as“Restingas”, Seasonal Forests and “CamposRupestres” (Cruz et al. 2003, Britto et al. 1993, Frana et al. 1997, Withner 2000). Some few studies in completely mycoheterotrophic Epidendroideae have been shown that these plantsform mycorrhizal associations mainly with fungi ofthe genera Russula , Thelephora , Sebacina , as well as other ectomycorrhizal Basidiomycetes in trees(Taylor and Bruns, 1999, 1997, Taylor et al. 2003, Selosse et al . 2002, Girlanda et al. 2006). There are other studies indicating a preferential associationbetween basidiomycetous fungi and Orchidaceaeplants as in Oncidiinae with Ceratobasidium and Cypripedium with Tulasnella (Otero et al. 2002, 2004, Shefferson et al. 2005). These works suggest a putative specificity and recruiting of these plants inthe environment where they occur. Laeliinae plants have been intensively and indiscriminately collected in Brazil, leading to a significant reduction in their natural populations. In order to establish conservation strategies to these threatened plants as there is an indication in literature showing a preferential associa-tion between some specific fungi and Orchidaceae, the identity of symbiont fungi forming mycorrhizal associa-tions in Brazilian Laeliineae was studied, aiming to anefficient in situ and ex situ conservation. Methodology COLLECTIONSITESANDISOLATIONOFFUNGIOrchidaceae plants were collected from natural populations that occur in two distinct Brazilian States.A total of 20 natural populations, including plants ofLaeliinae and Pleurothallidinae were sampled. Fromeach population, one or two individual plants werecollected and their roots were sampled in a period of one to two weeks since collection date. The individu-als were selected from distinct environments(Tropical Rain Forest, “Restinga”, and “CampoRupestre”) and the isolation of associated fungi wascarried out according to Warcup and Talbot (1967 MORPHOLOGICALCHARACTERIZATIONOFFUNGAL COLONIESFungal colonies were incubated for 30 days in PDA (potato-dextrose agar3% oat meal agarinduce the formation of monilioid cells, and they LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 MORPHOLOGICAL AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF SPECIES OF TULASNELLA (HOMOBASIDIOMYCETESTED WITH NEOTROPICAL PLANTS OF LAELIINAE (ORCHIDACEAE OCCURING IN BRAZIL PAULORICARDOM. ALMEIDA1,4, CASSIOVANDENBERG2& ARISTOTELESGOES-NETO31Programa deP—s – Graduao em Botnica, Departamento de Cincias Biol—gicas, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana (UEFS2Laborat—rio de Sistemtica Molecular de Plantas, Departamento de Cincias Biol—gicas, M—dulo 1, Edif’cio LABIO, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Rodovia Br 116, Km 03, Feira de Santana – Bahia – Brazil. CEP: 44031-4603Laborat—rio de Pesquisa em Microbiologia, Departamento de Cincias Biol—gicas, M—dulo 1, Edif’cio LABIO, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Rodovia Br 116, Km 03, Feira de Santana – Bahia – Brazil. CEP: 44031-460 4Author for correspondence : pauloricardoma@yahoo.com.br KEYWORDS : Laeliinae, Tulasnella , orchid mycorrhiza, conservation

PAGE 19

ALMEIDA et al. Morphological and molecular characterization of Tulasnella 23 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .were further analysed to determine the form, number and array of the cells. Macroscopic and microscopicsomatic features of the colonies were also described.In order to analyse the nuclear condition, hyphalnuclei were stained according to Sneh et al. (1991 MOLECULARCHARACTERIZATIONOFFUNGALISOLATESAll the isolates were first cultivated in BDA for 15 days at 28 C , including an Epulorhiza epiphytica Pereira, Rollemberg et Kasuya isolate, gently sent by Mycorrhizal Association Lab of the FederalUniversity of Viosa, Brazil. DNA extraction wascarried out according to CTAB protocol (Doyle & Doyle, 1987). Double-stranded symmetric PCR reac-tions were carried out in 0.2-mL tubes in 50 m L reaction volume, using the primers ITS5 and ITS4 thatamplify the Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS regionof nuclear ribosomal DNA (White et al ., 1990). PCR products were purified using EXOSAP and weresequenced in an automatic DNA sequencer (SCE2410, Spectrumedix LLC). Chromatograms wereedited using GAP4 software in Staden (Staden, 1996). Resulting sequences were submitted to a simi-larity search using BLASTn software of NCBI andaligned with Clustal X (Thompson et al. 1997). Phylogenetic parsimony analyses (heuristic search,TBR algorithm) were conducted in PAUP 4.0(Swofford, 1998using bootstrap proportions (1000 replications(Felsenstein, 1985 Results and discussion IDENTIFICATIONOFISOLATESFROMLAELIINAEAccording to morphological characterization, the isolates belong to the genus Tulasnella (Basidiomycetes) (Rasmussen 1995, Currah and Zelmer 1992, Currah et al. 1997b), but the somatic characters were not stable enough to differentiate the groups. All the colonies presented an entire sub-mersed margin and binucleate hyphae (Fig.1 the isolates monilioid cells showed a very high mor-phological plasticity with cell chains ranging from 3to 15 cells with or without ramification. Andersen (1990-able, since there is not even one character that couldbe taken as a parameter in intraspecific level. The three isolates showed a growing pattern typical of rhizoctonoid fungi, but they did not produce monilioid cells even when they were submitted to distinct cul-ture media. All the sequences were compared to NCBI database, revealing that the isolates belonged to differentlineages of Tulasnella including T. violea and T. calospora . Some sequences were considerably difficult to align and they were initially excluded from thephylogeny. In the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 2the isolates represented lineages of Tulasnella calospora and others were lineages of Epulorhiza epiphytica , both of them significantly supported by bootstrap analysis. E. epiphytica is the only species described for Brazil and it was isolated from hostplants that naturally occur in the State of MinasGerais (Pereira et al. 2003). These results suggest that all the isolates are distinct lineages of Tulasnella , and that this possibly reflects the different environmentswhere host plants occur. RELATIONSHIPSBETWEENLAELIINAEANDTULASNELACEAEIn accordance to the results, although host plants live in completely different environments where theresearch availability is distinct, one can observe thestrong trend of studied plants to form mycorrhizalassociations with fungi of the genus Tulasnella (Almeida 2006 revealed that Diurideae plants has a strict specificityrelationship with the fungi Sebacina vermifera and some lineages of Tulasnella , including Tulasnella calospora , which has been considered as a universal species (Rasmussen, 1995, Warcup, 1981, 1988,1971). Inside Diurideae, all the studied species thatbelong to Drakaeinae and Diuridinae associate to Tulasnella , and all the studied species (except for those from genera Lyperanthus and Bumettia ) that belong to Caladeniinae present a strict relationshipwith Sebacina (Warcup, 1981, Dressler, 1993 the isolates were obtained from pelotons , they are mycorrizal fungi. Despite of the great advances obtained with the direct identification of fungi by molecular techniquessuch as PCR and sequencing, the morphologicalstudy of the isolates is still very important, mainly forthe establishing of true biological entities or species.

PAGE 20

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 24 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . FIGURE1 . Any isolates of plants of Laeliinae. A. Isolate of Acianthera hamosa . B. Cattleya elongata . C. Brassavola tuberculata . D. Dimerandra emarginata . Scale bar is 1 cm. Any monilioid cells of other isolates. E. Isolate of Sophronitis flavasulina . F. Sophronitis pabstii . Scale bar is 3 ?m, G. Epidendrum orchidiflorum and H . Cattleya tenuis. Scale bar 5 ?m.

PAGE 21

FIGURE2 . Fungal internal transcribed spacer phylogeny suggesting that the isolates of Laeliinae form mycorrhizal associations with fungi of the genus Tulasnella . The arrows show where the isolates of Laeliinae are. ALMEIDA et al. Morphological and molecular characterization of Tulasnella 25 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 22

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 26 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .Currently these studies have been decreasing, which reflects, for instance, the insignificant number ofanamorphic fungi of described Epulorhiza species (Currah and Zelmer, 1992, Zelmer and Currah, 1995,Currah et al. 1997a, Pereira et al. 2003), as well as the high number of sequences deposited in GenBankwithout any definition in the specific level(McCormick et al. 2004, Shefferson et al. 2005). It is not known if this putative preference could be extended to all genera inside Laeliinae. Some studies has already pointed out this possible preferential rela-tionship in the mycorrhizal association in some fewspecies of Laeliinae (Curtis, 1939, Nogueira et al. 2005, Pereira et al. 2001, 2003, Zettler et al. 1999). Future investigations will be carried out in order toverify the pattern of mycorrhizal association in Laeliinae genera for the development of a future pro-gram of symbiotic propagation of threatenedBrazilian species.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . I would like to thank all the logistics from the Research Lab in Microbiology (LAPEMcoordinated by Prof. Dr. Arist—teles G—es-Neto and from the Plant Molecular Systematics Lab (LAMOL-nated by Prof. Dr. Cssio van den Berg. I would also liketo thank CNPq, FAPESB and the Mycorrhizal associationLab (Federal University of Viosa, Minas Gerais, Brazilby giving me a clone of E.epiphytica to be included in the phylogenetic analysis.LITERATURECITEDAlmeida, P.R.M.de 2006. Associao micorr’zica na subtribo Laeliinae (OrchidaceaeUniversity de Feira de Santana, 56 p. Andersen, T.F. 1990. A study of hyfal morphology in the form genus Rhizoctonia . Mycotaxon 37: 25-46. Britto, I.C., L.P. Queiroz, M.L.S. Guedes, N.C. Oliveira & L.B. Silva. 1993. Flora Fanerogmica das dunas elagoas do Abaet, Salvador, Bahia. Sitientibus 11: 31-46. Cruz, D.T. da, E.L. Borba & C. van Den Berg. 2003. O gnero Cattleya Lindl. (Orchidaceae Bahia, Brasil. Stientibus 3 (1/2 Currah, R.S. &C.D.A. Zelmer. 1992. Key and Notes for the Genera of Fungi with Orchids and a new Species inthe Genus Epulorhiza . Rep. Tottori Mycol. Inst. 30: 4359. Currah, R.S., L.W. Zettler &T.M. McInnis. 1997a. Epulorhiza inquilina sp. nov. from Platanthera (Orchidaceae Epulorhiza Species. Mycotaxon 61: 338-342. Currah, R.S., C.D. Zelmer, S. Hambleton, &K.A. Richardson. 1997b. Fungi from orchid mycorrhizas. In: Arditti, J. &Pridgeon, A. M. Orchid Biology. Kluwer AcademicPublishers. Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1997, 117-170. Curtis, J.T. 1939. The relation of specificity of orchid mycorrhizal fungi to the problem of symbiosis. Am. J.Bot. 26: 390-398. Doyle, J.J. &J.L. Doyle. 1987. A rapid isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh tissue. PhytochemicalBulletin, 19: 11-15. Dressler, R.L. 1993. Phylogeny and classification of the orchid family. Dioscorides Press, Portland. Frana, F., E. Mello &C.C. Santos. 1997. Flora de Inselbergs da regio de Milagres, Bahia, Brasil: I. Caracterizao da vegetao e lista de espcies de dois Inselbergs . Sitientibus 17: 163-184. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evol. 39: 783-91. McCormick, M.K., D.F. Whigham &J. O’Neill. 2004. Mycorrhizal diversity in photosynthetic terrestrialorchids. New Phytol. 163: 425-438. Nogueira, R.E., O.L. Pereira, C.M. Kasuya, M.C. Lanna da S. &M.P. Mendona. 2005. Fungos micorr’zicos asso-ciados a orqu’deas em campos rupestres na regio doQuadriltero Ferr’fero, MG, Brasil. Acta Bot. Bras.v.19, 3: 417-424. Otero, J.T., J.D. Ackerman &P. Bayman. 2002. Diversity and Host Specificity of Endophytic Rhizoctonia – like Fungi from Tropical Orchids. Am. J. Bot. v. 89, 11:1852-1858. Otero, J.T., J.D. Ackerman &P. Bayman. 2004. Differences in mycorrhizal preferences between twotropical orchids. Mol. Ecol. 13: 2393-2404. Pereira, L.O. 2001. Caracterizao morfol—gica e molecular de fungos micorr’zicos de sete espcies deorqu’deas neotropicais. 47 pg. Dissertao (Mestradoem Microbiologia do Solo), Universidade Federal deViosa, UFV, Minas Gerais. Pereira, L.O., C.L. Rollemberg, A.C. Borges, K. Matsouka & M.C.M. Kasuya. 2003. Epulorhiza epiphytica sp. nov. isolada from mycorrhizal roots of epiphytic orchidsin Brazil. Mycoscience, 44: 153-155. Rasmussen, H.H. 1995. Terrestrial Orchids from seed to Mycotrophic plant. Cambridge University Press. Swofford, D.L. 1998. PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and other methods, version 4.0 b6.Sunderland: Sinquer. Shefferson, R.P., M. Weib, T. Kull & L. Taylor. 2005. High specificity generally characterizes mycorrhizalassociation in rare Lady’s Slipper orchids, genus Cypripedium . Mol. Ecol. 14: 613-626.

PAGE 23

Paulo Ricardo Almeida is CNPq Scholarship/ graduate student – Msc. student in Botany from State University of Feira de Santana. The first work was developed during the undergraduation course focusing on the mycorrhizal associationin subtribe Laeliinae. These work culminated in the Bachelor’s monograph, “Mycorrhizal association in subtribeLaeliinae (Orchidaceae Encyclia from distinct environments that occur in the state of Bahia, Brazil. The following questions are being addressed in this study: (ithere is a putative preference in this association and (iiefficient in situ and ex situ conservation of these plants. Cassio van den Berg is graduated in Agriculture at Universidade de SoPaulo, Brazil, has a master degree in Ecology at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil, and a PhD in Botany from the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew andUniversity of Reading, UK. Currently he is full professor at Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Brazil, withresearch focus on orchid systematics, plant molecular systematics and plant population genetics. Arist—teles G—es-Neto is graduated in B.Sc. in Biology, Federal University of Bahia (UFBA1994 Botany, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS2001Dept. of Biology, State University of Feira de Santana (UEFSMicrobiology (LAPEMM.Sc. and Ph.D. levelsUniversity. He is also member of the Scientific and Technical Chamber of Biological Sciences and Environment of theScience Foundation of the State of Bahia, Brazil (FAPESBGenomics/Proteomics, and Biotechnology of Fungi with emphasis on Basidiomycota. Sneh, B., L. Burpee, A. Ogoshi. 1991. Identification of Rhizoctonia species. APS Press, The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Taylor D.L., T.D. Bruns. 1997. Independent, specialized invasions of ectomycorrhizal mutualism by two nonpho-tosynthetic orchids. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 94:4510-4515. Taylor, D.L. & T.D. Bruns. 1999. Population, habitat and genetic correlates of mycorrhizal specialization in the‘cheating’ orchids Corallorhiza maculata and C. mertensiana . Mol. Ecol. 8: 1719 – 1732. Taylor, D.L., T.D. Bruns, J.R. Leake &D.J. Read. 2002. Mycorrhizal specificity and function in mycoheterotrop-hic plants. In: van der Heijden, M. C. A., Sanders I, eds.Mycorrhizal Ecology. Berlin, Germany: Springer –Verlag, p. 375-413. Thompson, J.D., T.J. Gibson, F. Plewniak, F. Jeanmougin &D.G. Higgins. 1997. The clustral – Windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alingn-ment aided by quality analysis tool. Nucl. Acids Res.24: 4876-4882. Wacurp, J. H. &P.H.B. Talbot. 1967. Perfect states of rhizoctonias associated with orchids. New Phytol. 66: 631-641. Wacurp, J.H. &P.H.B. Talbot. 1971. Perfect states of rhizoctonias associated with orchids II. New Phytol. 70:35-40. Wacurp, J.H. 1981. The mycorrhizal relationship of Australian orchids. New Phytol. 87: 371-381. Wacurp, J.H. 1988. Mycorrhizal associations of isolates of Sebacina vermifera . New Phytol. 110: 227-231. Withner, C.L. 2000. The Cattleyas and their relatives. Vol. VI. The South American Encyclia Species. Timber Press, Portland, 153 p. White, T.J., T.D. Bruns, S. Lee &J.W. Taylor. 1990. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal riboso-mal RNA genes for phylogenetics. Pp. 315-322 in : G. Maidh, J.J. Sninsky &T.J. White (eds.A guide to methods and applications. New York:Academic Press. Zelmer, C.D. &R.S. Currah. 1995. Ceratorhiza pernacatena and Epulorhiza caledulina spp. nov.: mycorrhizalfungi of terrestrial orchids. Can. J. Bot. 73: 1981-1985. Zettler, L.W., Burkhead, J.C., Marshall, J.A. 1999. Use of a mycorrhizal fungus from Epidendrum conopseum to germinate seed of Encyclia tampesis in vitro . Lindleyana 14: 102-105. ALMEIDA et al. Morphological and molecular characterization of Tulasnella 27 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 24

Introduction Australia has about 1700 species of orchids, comprising about 1300 named species in about 190 gen-era, plus at least 400 undescribed species (Jones2006, pers. comm.). About 1400 species (82%) aregeophytes, almost all deciduous, seasonal species,while 300 species (18%and/or lithophytes. At least 95% of this orchid flora is endemic to Australia. While the tropical and subtropi-cal epiphytic/lithophytic orchid flora is low by worldstandards, the temperate terrestrial orchid flora is amongst the richest and most diverse of any compara-ble region in the world. Like many places on our planet, biodiversity and natural habitats in Australia have suffered substantialdeclines and range in abundance through agricultural,industrial and urban development. The AustralianGovernment Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act-rently lists 106 species of flora and fauna as extinct,and a further 1582 species as threatened, in Australia. Many orchid species are included in this list. This paper examines the listing process for threatenedorchids in Australia, compares regional and national lists of threatened orchids, and provides recommen-dations for improving the process of listing regionallyand nationally threatened orchids. Methods The national government of Australia and each of the six Australian state and two territory governmentshave processes for listing threatened species underbiodiversity conservation legislation within eachjurisdiction (Table 1 threatened orchids included in these lists, the sched-ules of each Act were checked and listed orchidsidentified (Appendix 1maintains a published ‘advisory’ (non-legislativeof rare or threatened flora. This list was also checkedfor numbers of threatened orchids and comparedagainst the state legislative list. Comprehensivereviews of the conservation status of orchids at the LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 ARE OUR ORCHIDS SAFE DOWN UNDER? A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THREATENED ORCHIDS IN AUSTRALIA GARYN. BACKHOUSE Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002 Australia Gary.Backhouse@dse.vic.gov.au KEYWORDS : threatened orchids Australia conservation status Jurisdiction Australia Australian Capital TerritoryNew South WalesNorthern TerritoryQueenslandSouth AustraliaTasmaniaVictoriaWestern Australia Legislation Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1998 Nature Conservation Act 1980Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995Parks & Wildlife Conservation Act 2000Nature Conservation Act 1992National Parks & Wildlife Act 1972Threatened Species Protection Act 1995Flora & Fauna Guarantee Act 1988Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 TABLE1. National and state/territory legislation listing extinct, rare or threatened orchids in Australia.

PAGE 25

state level, for South Australia (Bates 2006 Victoria (Backhouse & Cameron 2005, DSE 2005were checked and compared to official legislativelists for those states. Scientific names were generally left as they were on the lists, despite many names no longer beingvalid due to changes in taxonomy. For instance, allAustralian species of Bulbophyllum Thouars and all but one Australian Dendrobium Sw. species have been assigned to new genera (Jones 2006in a few cases, species were listed under differentnames on different lists eg. the current name Corunatylis tecta (D.L. Jones Clem. is listed under the EPBC Act, while the formername Genoplesium tectum D.L. Jones is still listed under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992. In these cases, the currently accepted scientific namehas been used. Definitions – Any examination of different systems for describing the conservation status of threatenedspecies immediately runs into the issue of varyingclassification systems and definitions. The nine state/territory and national legislative systems collec-tively use eight terms to describe conservation status(Table 2used: Threatened includes ‘critically endangered’, ‘endangered’ and ‘vulnerable’ species ( sensu IUCN 2001). Note that ‘rare’ is not generally included in the definition of ‘threatened’. Conservation Concern includes all ‘extinct’, ‘threatened’, ‘rare’, ‘insufficiently known’ or ‘datadeficient’ species ( sensu Backhouse & Cameron 2005). Listing is used to describe the formal process of adding a species to a threatened species list (usual-ly called a Schedule) in biodiversity conservationlegislation (Act Results NATIONALASSESSMENT A total of 424 orchid species are listed as extinct, threatened or rare in Australia(Appendix 1, summarised in Table 2includes 195 species (about 12% of the Australianorchid flora) listed as extinct or threatened nationally,plus an additional 238 species (about 14% of the Australian orchid flora) listed as extinct, threatened or rare at the regional (ie. state or territoryand territory threatened species lists include another52 species that are listed as extinct or threatenedwithin their jurisdiction (Appendix 2qualify as threatened nationally, but are not yetincluded on the national threatened species list. Anadditional 54 species are listed under the category of‘rare’ within the relevant jurisdiction (Appendix 3that would also have this status nationally, but are noton the national threatened species list. There areseven species of orchids included on the national EPBC Act threatened species lists that are not includ-ed in the relevant state/territory threatened species list(Appendix 4on the national list, Dendrobium brachypus (Endl. H.G. Reichb. and Phreatia paleata H.G. Reichb., occur on Australia’s island territories not understate/territory jurisdiction. REGIONALASSESSMENTS For South Australia, the assessment by Bates (2006‘Conservation Concern’, compared with 104 listedunder state legislation (Table 3assessments indicated a total of 240 (Backhouse &Cameron 2005) and 257 orchids (DSE 2005) of TABLE2. Number of extinct, threatened and rare orchid species in Australia by jurisdiction. Shaded boxes indicate where the conservation status category is not used in the national/state/territory legislation Abbreviations Rows are conservation status categories: EX = extinct; EW = extinct in the Wild; CR = critically endangered; EN = endangered; VU = vul-nerable; RA = rare; TH = threatened; CD = conservation cependent Columns are jurisdictions: NAT = National; NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; NSW = New South Wales; ACT =Australian Capital Territory; Vic = Victoria; Tas = Tasmania; SA = South Australia; WA = Western Australia. BACKHOUSEAssessment of threatened orchids Australia LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 29

PAGE 26

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 30 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . ‘Conservation Concern’, compared with just 75 orchids listed under state legislation (Table 4 Discussion The national EPBC Act includes 195 orchid species listed as extinct or threatened nationally (Table 2which is about 12% of the Australian orchid flora.The state and territory regional threatened specieslists include another 52 species that are listed asextinct or threatened within their jurisdiction, thatwould also qualify as threatened nationally, but arenot yet included on the national threatened specieslist. If these species are added, the total nationalextinct/threatened orchid count is 15% of the nation’sorchids. An additional 54 species are listed under thecategory of ‘rare’ within the relevant jurisdiction thatwould have this status at the national level. Therefore, there is a total of 301 species of orchids of conserva-tion concern (= extinct, threatened or rarenational level, that are currently listed on national andregional biodiversity conservation legislation. This is18% of the Australian orchid flora. Based solely on acomparison of the official national and state/territorylegislative threatened species lists, it appears that theofficial national list underestimates the real number of threatened orchids by at least 50 species, and per-haps as many as 100 or more species. The comparisons of the comprehensive reviews of the conservation status of the orchid flora of SouthAustralia (Bates 2006) and Victoria (Backhouse &Cameron 2005, DSE 2005) with listed threatenedorchids in those states provides further evidence thatofficial lists are a substantial underestimate of the actual number of threatened orchids. In South Australia, the number listed under the NPW Act maybe an underestimate of the actual number of extinct,threatened or rare orchids by at least 42 species, based on Bates (2006Table 3-dence to suggest that at least 14 (and perhaps as manyas 20) orchid species have become extinct in thatstate (Bates 2006extinct under the NPW Act. In Victoria, there appearsto be a much larger discrepancy between the officialand actual number of threatened orchids. There are atleast 150 extinct or threatened orchid species (DSE2005), and perhaps over 200 (Backhouse & Cameron 2005), compared with only 75 species listed as threat-ened under the Victorian Flora and Fauna GuaranteeAct 1988. These figures also do not take account of recent taxonomic advances. For example, 90 new species oforchids for Australia were described in late 2006(Jones 2006b, 2006c, Jones & Clements 2006, Jones& Rouse 2006, Jones et. al 2006), of which at least one was considered extinct and 53 considered threat-ened. Most of these species have yet to be includedon any threatened species list. This review and assessments strongly suggests that official lists of threatened orchids at both the national and state/territory level are a substantial underestiCategory extinct endangeredvulnerable threatened rare data deficient Total conservation concern NPWA 0 45317628 0 104 Bates (2006 14 5120714813 146 TABLE3. Assessments of the numbers of orchids of ‘conservation concern’ in South Australia. NPWA = National Parks & Wildlife Act 1972, South Australia. TABLE4. Assessments of the numbers of orchids of ‘conservation concern’ in Victoria.Shaded boxes indicate where the conservation status category is not used in the assessment systemFFGA = Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, Victoria.B&C 2005 = Backhouse & Cameron 2005.

PAGE 27

mate of the actual numbers of threatened orchids in Australia. There are several possible reasons for thislarge discrepancy. LISTINGPROCESS– The process to officially list a species as threatened can take a considerable periodof time. Several jurisdictions have a similar listingprocess that includes the following steps: a species is nominated for listing; the nomination is assessed by a scientific reference committee; the committee makes a recommendation to list (or not list) to the relevant government minister; the recommendation is advertised for public comment; the committee makes a final recommendation to list (or not list the government makes the listing. In Victoria, under the FFG Act, the process takes a minimum of nine months in straightforward cases, and can take well over a year in complicated or con-tentious cases. Therefore, the listing process can lagwell behind an initial assessment of threat. It is likelyto be some years yet before the national threatened species list includes most or all orchids currently con-sidered threatened. TAXONOMY– There are many known but undescribed orchid species considered threatened (eg. Backhouse& Cameron 2005, DSE 2005, Bates 2006) that are notyet listed. If a species is not formally named, there isan understandable reluctance to list an essentiallyunknown entity. However, several jurisdictions haveprovision for listing known but undescribed species,and some undescribed orchids are listed at the stateand national level (see Appendix 1 description of over 50 new species considered threat-ened nationally (Jones 2006b, 2006c, Jones &Clements 2006, Jones & Rouse 2006, Jones et. al 2006) will greatly assist the prospects for these species being eventually listed. DIFFERINGTHREATASSESSMENTS– Differing assessments of conservation status under different jurisdic-tions, and the use of different assessment systems, may also be hindering the listing of nationally threat-ened orchids. While there may be some commonality between terminology used in most lists (eg. extinct, endangered, vulnerable), definitions do vary. Several state/territory lists still use ‘rare’, which is not regard-ed as a category of threat, and at least 54 species arerare at the national level. At least some of these species listed may well qualify for listing as threat-ened under national legislation. For instance, anassessment of the 45 orchid species considered rare inVictoria (DSE 2005found that 32 (71%with 30 being assessed as vulnerable (Backhouse &Cameron 2005). The Queensland Government isphasing out the term ‘rare’ from its legislative list andcurrent rare species will be reassessed to determine ifany are threatened, although this won’t happen until 2010. Even some publications use inconsistent stan-dards when describing conservation status. Forinstance, Riley and Banks (2002combination with a threat category (eg. rare andendangered; rare and vulnerable) when describingconservation status. Jones (2006b for some conservation status assessments of threat-ened orchids, and a system known as AROTs(Australian Rare or Threatened Species, sensu Briggs & Leigh 1996) for other assessments, with severalpotentially threatened orchids being assessed as rare. Recommendations This review and assessment of national and state/territory lists of threatened orchids in Australia has highlighted several deficiencies in the multiplicity of sys-tems adopted by the different jurisdictions. Followingare five recommendations proposed to improve thesystem for listing threatened orchids in Australia: 1. Undertake a comprehensive national review of the conservation status of Australia’s orchids. A comprehensive national review and assessment of the conservation status of Australian orchids ishighly desirable, as the most suitable and rapid wayto bring national and regional threatened species listsup to date. This review should be undertaken using asingle assessment system, preferably the IUCN RedList Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2001 national review could easily be adapted for state/territory jurisdictions through the use of the IUCN region-al assessment guidelines (IUCN 2003 BACKHOUSEAssessment of threatened orchids Australia LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .31

PAGE 28

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 32 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . the conservation status assessments. The national conservation status assessment could be modelled inthe form of similar assessments in the national ‘Action Plan’ series undertaken for Australia’s verte-brate fauna (eg. Wager & Jackson 1993, Bannister et al. 1996, Garnett & Crowley 2000) and butterflies (Sands & New 2003of a concerted approach to formally listing the largenumber of threatened orchids not currently on officiallegislative lists. 2. Adopt a common set of categories and criteria for describing the conservation status of Australian orchids at both the national and regional (state/terri-tory) level. Currently the state, territory and national governments use different systems for describing conserva-tion status, which can make for vague, confusing orconflicting definitions, and comparisons between lists difficult. Even in some recent publications, conserva-tion status assessments can be confusing. The IUCNRed List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2001current international standard, and have been adaptedfor use in the national EPBC Act. This is the most logical system to use for assessing conservation sta-tus, especially with the guidelines for application atthe regional level (IUCN 2003common language at the regional and national levelin communicating conservation status of threatenedorchids. 3. Streamline administrative processes to facilitate cross listings of threatened orchids. Threatened orchids listed under state/territory legislation currently have to go through a separate processfor listing under national legislation. There are at least 50 orchid species listed under state/territory leg-islation that would qualify for listing under nationallegislation, and at least another 50 species listed asrare that would possibly qualify for national listing.At the current rate of listing, it will take several yearsfor these species to be assessed and listed at thenational level. It is highly desirable that, in situations where a threatened species is listed in a state or terri-tory, and is endemic to that state/territory, there is asimple administrative process to quickly list thesespecies under national legislation. 4. Streamline administrative processes to accommodate changes in taxonomy. There have been many taxonomic changes affecting Australian orchids, especially changes to genusnames, in recent years, and further changes are likely.At least 50 threatened orchid species are currentlylisted under an invalid scientific name, with some ofthese names having changed several years ago.Current systems for listing threatened species underbiodiversity conservation legislation at both thestate/territory and national level do not adequatelydeal with taxonomic changes. For threatened species that have had a name change since listing, this effec-tively requires a nomination to delist under the oldname and then nomination for relisting under the newname. A process is clearly required to rapidly update the legislative threatened species lists to accommodate advances in science and taxonomy. A mecha-nism for linking listed species names with officialtaxonomic checklists maintained by state/territoryand national herbaria would provide an efficient wayfor dealing with taxonomic changes. 5. Prepare national and regional (state/territory advisory lists of threatened orchids. The preparation of non-legislative ‘advisory’ lists of threatened orchids is a useful way of fairly quicklyaccommodating changes in taxonomy, informationand conservation status. These are peer-reviewed, andcan be updated much more rapidly than is the casewith legislative lists. For instance, the Victorianthreatened species advisory lists (DSE 2003, 2005are revised every 2 years. While these advisorylists have no formal legislative standing, they are veryuseful as guides to the categories and number ofthreatened species, and can be used to highlight thosespecies requiring formal listing under legislation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.My thanks to Mr Adrian Moorrees and Dr Michael Duncan (department ofSustainability and Environment, Victoria). Mr David Jones (Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, Canberra-ed information on the number of undescribed orchidspecies in Australia.LITERATURECITEDBackhouse, G. and Cameron, D. 2005. Application of IUCN Red List categories in determining the conserva

PAGE 29

tion status of the native orchids in Victoria, Australia. Selbyana 26(1,2 Bannister, J.L., Kemper, C.M. and Warneke, R.M. 1996. The action plan for Australian cetaceans. EnvironmentAustralia, Canberra. Bates, R. 2006 (editor Native Orchid Society of South Australia Inc.Electronic version. Briggs, J.D and Leigh, J.H. 1996. Rare or threatened Australian Plants, revised edition. CSIRO andAustralian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. DSE 2003. Advisory list of threatened vertebrate fauna in Victoria – 2003. Department of Sustainability andEnvironment, Victoria. DSE 2005. Advisory list of rare or threatened plants in Victoria – 2005. Department of Sustainability andEnvironment, Victoria. Garnett, S. T. and Crowley, G.M. 2000. The action plan for Australian birds. Environment Australia, Canberra. IUCN 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission.IUCN, Gland and Cambridge. IUCN 2003. Guidleines of Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels. Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge. Jones, D.L. 2006a. Native orchids of Australia. Reed New Holland, Frenchs Forest. Jones, D.L. 2006b. Miscellaneous new species of Australian Orchidaceae. Aust. Orchid Res. 5 : 45. Jones, D.L. 2006c. Towards a revision of Bunochilus D.L.Jones & M.A.Clem. Aust. Orchid Res. 5 : 112. Jones, D.L. and Clements, M.A. 2006. Fourteen new taxa of Orchidaceae from northern and eastern Australia andtwo new combinations from New Guinea. Aust. Orchid Res. 5 : 2. Jones, D.L. and Rouse, D.T. 2006. Fourteen new species of Prasophyllum from eastern Australia. Aust. Orchid Res. 5 : 143. Jones, D.L., Clements, M.A. and Sharma, Ish. 2006. Towards a revision of the Thelychiton speciosus group. Aust. Orchid Res. 5 : 34. Riley, J. and Banks, D.P. 2002. Orchids of Australia. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Sands, D.P.A. and New, T.R. 2002. The action plan for Australian butterflies. Environment Australia, Canberra. Wager, R. and Jackson, P. 1993. The action plan for Australian freshwater fishes. Environment Australia,Canberra. Gary Backhouse is a senior policy officer with the Department of Sustainability and Environment in Victoria, Australia, where he works on threatened species recovery programs. He has co-authored two books on orchids of Victoria, andhas published numerous articles in the scientific and popular literature on threatened species and orchids. He is a keentraveller and photographer, and has a library of over 3000 species of orchids photographed in the wild from Australia,Africa, South-East Asia, New Guinea, New Zealand and the Americas. BACKHOUSEAssessment of threatened orchids Australia LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .33

PAGE 30

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 34 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . N 1 23456789 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051 Species Acianthus amplexicaulis Acianthus collinusAcianthus ledwardiiAcianthus sublestisAcriopsis javanicaAphyllorchis anomalaAphyllorchis queenslandicaBulbophyllum argyropusBulbophyllum blumeiBulbophyllum boonjeeBulbophyllum globuliformeBulbophyllum gracillimumBulbophyllum grandimesenseBulbophyllum longiflorumBulbophyllum weinthaliiBulbophyllum windsorenseBulbophyllum wolfeiCadetia collinsiiCadetia warianaCaladenia actensisCaladenia amoenaCaladenia anthracinaCaladenia arenariaCaladenia argocallaCaladenia atroclaviaCaladenia audasiiCaladenia aurantiacaCaladenia australisCaladenia barbarellaCaladenia behriiCaladenia bicalliataCaladenia brachyscapaCaladenia brumalisCaladenia bryceana subsp. bryceana Caladenia bryceana subsp. cracens Caladenia bussellianaCaladenia caesarea subsp. maritima Caladenia calcicolaCaladenia campbelliiCaladenia cardiochilaCaladenia caudataCaladenia christineaeCaladenia clavigeraCaladenia cleistogamaCaladenia colorataCaladenia concolorCaladenia confertaCaladenia congestaCaladenia cruciformisCaladenia cucullataCaladenia dienema NAT EX VU VU VU CR ENCRENENENEN VU EN EX VUENVUENENVUCR VU VU EN VU CR NTQld RA EX RAVURARARAENRARAVURAVUVURARARARA EN NSW VU EN EN ACT EN Vic TH TH TH THTH TH TH Tas CR EN EN EN CR EXRA EN VU SA EN EN EN RA VU VUEN VUEN EN RA RA WA RA RA RARARA RA WA APPENDIX1. Australian orchids listed as extinct, threatened or rare under national and state/territory biodiversity conservation legislation.

PAGE 31

N 52 5354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899 100101102103104105 Species Caladenia dorrienii Caladenia drakeoidesCaladenia elegansCaladenia excelsaCaladenia filamentosaCaladenia formosaCaladenia fragrantissimaCaladenia fulvaCaladenia gladiolataCaladenia gracilisCaladenia graniticolaCaladenia harringtoniaeCaladenia hastataCaladenia hoffmaniiCaladenia huegeliiCaladenia insularisCaladenia lindleyanaCaladenia lowanensisCaladenia macroclaviaCaladenia magnificaCaladenia melanemaCaladenia minorCaladenia necrophyllaCaladenia ornataCaladenia orientalisCaladenia ovataCaladenia pallidaCaladenia parvaCaladenia patersoniiCaladenia pilotensisCaladenia porphyreaCaladenia proceraCaladenia prolataCaladenia pumilaCaladenia pusillaCaladenia richardsiorumCaladenia rigidaCaladenia robinsoniiCaladenia rosellaCaladenia saggicola CaladeniasubulataCaladenia sylvicolaCaladenia tensaCaladenia tessellateCaladenia thysanochilaCaladenia tonelliiCaladenia toxochilaCaladenia validaCaladenia venustaCaladenia versicolorCaladenia viridescensCaladenia vulgarisCaladenia wanosaCaladenia williamsiae NAT EN ENENEN VUEN EN VU ENENENVUCRENEN VU ENVUCR EX EN ENENENCRENCRENVUENCR VU EN VU NTQldNSW EN EN ACTVic TH THTH TH TH THTH THTH THTH TH TH TH TH TH TH Tas RA EN EN VU EN RA EN EN EN SA VU RA EN EN EN RA RA VU EN EN EN RA VUVU RA WA RA RARARA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA BACKHOUSEAssessment of threatened orchids Australia LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .35

PAGE 32

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 36 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . N 106 107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159 Species Caladenia winfieldii Caladenia woolcockiorumCaladenia xanthochilaCaladenia xantholeucaCaladenia species ‘Bordertown’ Caladeniacolorata Caladenia species ‘Finniss’ Caladenia species aff. fragrantissima Caladenia species ‘Jarrah forest’ Caladenia species‘Koolunga’ Caladenia species aff. rosella Caladenia species aff. venusta Caleana majorCalochilus caeruleusCalochilus campestrisCalochilus cupreusCalochilus paludosusCalochilus psednusCalochilus richiaeChiloglottis anaticepsChiloglottis cornutaChiloglottis longiclavataChiloglottis platypteraChiloglottis seminudaChiloglottis sphyrnoidesChiloglottis trapeziformisCorunastylis brachystachyaCorunastylis ectopaCorunastylis firthiiCorunastylis morrisiiCorunastylis nudaCorunastylis nudiscapaCorybas abellianusCorybas dentatusCorybas despectansCorybas fordhamiiCorybas montanusCorybas neocaledonicusCorybas unguiculatusCorybas species aff. diemenicus (coastal Corybas species ‘Finniss’ Cryptostylis erecta Cryptostylis hunterianaCryptostylis leptochilaCryptostylis subulataCyrtostylis robustaDendrobium antennatumDendrobium bigibbumDendrobium brachypusDendrobium callitrophilumDendrobium carroniiDendrobium fellowsiiDendrobium johannisDendrobium lithocola NAT EN VUENEN VU CR EN EN EN CRCR VU VU EN VU EN VUENVUVU VU EN NT VU Qld EN RA VU RA VU RA EN VU VU VURAVUEN NSW EN VU VU ACT EN Vic TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH Tas EN EN ENRAEX EN EN RA SA VU ENENEN EN ENVU RA ENVU EN EN ENEN EN RA EN VU WA RA

PAGE 33

N 160 161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213 Species Dendrobium malbrownii Dendrobium melaleucaphilumDendrobium mirbelianumDendrobium nindiiDendrobium phalaenopsisDendrobium schneiderae var. schneiderae Dendrobium speciosumDendrobium superbiensDidymoplexis pallensDiplocaulobium masoniiDipodium campanulatumDipodium hamiltonianumDipodium pardalinumDipodium pictumDipodium pulchellumDiuris aequalisDiuris arenariaDiuris behriiDiuris bracteataDiuris brevifoliaDiuris chryseopsisDiuris dendrobioidesDiuris dispositaDiuris drummondiiDiuris flavescensDiuris fragrantissimaDiuris lanceolataDiuris micranthaDiuris ochromaDiuris oporinaDiuris palustrisDiuris parvipetalaDiuris pedunculataDiuris praecoxDiuris punctata var. punctata Diuris purdieiDiuris sheaffianaDiuris sulphureaDiuris tricolorDiuris venosaDiuris species aff. lanceolata Diuris species aff. chrysantha ‘Byron Bay’ Diuris species ‘Oaklands’ Dockrillia wassellii Drakaea concolorDrakaea confluensDrakaea elasticaDrakaea isolataDrakaea micranthaEpiblema grandiflorum var. cyaneum Eria dischorensisEria irukandjianaEulophia bicallosa NAT EN ENVU VU EX EN VU EX VU EN ENVUVU EN VU EN VU VU EN VU ENENENVUEN NTQld RA EN ENVURA VU RAEX EN RA RA RA RA RA RARARA NSW EN EN EN EN EN EN ENEN VU VU VU EN EN ACTVic TH TH TH TH TH TH THTH TH Tas EN EN SA VU VU RA RA EN EN RA WA RA RA RA RA RARARARARA BACKHOUSEAssessment of threatened orchids Australia LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .37

PAGE 34

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 38 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . N 214 215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267 Species Eulophia zollingeri Gastrodia crebrifoliaGastrodia queenslandicaGastrodia urceolataGastrodia sesamoidesGastrodia vesculaGenoplesium alticolumGenoplesium baueriGenoplesium ciliatumGenoplesium despectansGenoplesium insignisGenoplesium pedersoniiGenoplesium plumosumGenoplesium rhyoliticumGenoplesium sigmoideumGenoplesium superbumGenoplesium vernaleGenoplesium tectumGenoplesium validumGeodorum densiflorumGrastidium tozerenseHabenaria divaricataHabenaria harroldiiHabenaria hymenophyllaHabenaria macraithiiHabenaria rumphiiHabenaria xanthanthaHydrorchis orbicularisLiparis condylobulbonLiparis simmondsiiLuisia teretifoliaMalaxis latifoliaMalaxis marsupichilaMicrotidium atratumMicrotis angusiiMicrotis globulaMicrotis orbicularisMicrotis raraNervilia crociformisNervilia plicataOberonia attenuataOberonia carnosaOberonia complanataOberonia titaniaPachystoma pubescensPapillilabium beckleriParacaleana sp. aff. nigrita Paracaleana dixoniiParacaleana minorPeristeranthus hilliiPeristylus banfieldiiPhaius australisPhaius bernaysiiPhaius pictus NAT EN EN VU EN VU EN EN EX EN EN ENVUEN NT EN VU VUVU EN Qld RA RARA RA RA RAEN RA VU RAENRAEN RARA RA RA EX RA RA RA RA RAENENVUEN NSW VU EN EN EN EN VU EN EN EN VU VU EN EN ACTVic TH Tas RA RA SA RA VU EN VU RA RA RA EN VU WA RA RA

PAGE 35

N 268 269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321 Species Phaius tancarvilleae Phalaenopsis rosenstromiiPhreatia paleataPomatocalpa marsupialePrasophyllum affinePrasophyllum amoenumPrasophyllum apoxychilumPrasophyllum australePrasophyllum bagoensisPrasophyllum calcicolaPrasophyllum campestrePrasophyllum castaneumPrasophyllum chasmogamumPrasophyllum colemaniaePrasophyllum constrictumPrasophyllum diversiflorumPrasophyllum exilisPrasophyllum favoniumPrasophyllum fecundum PrasophyllumfitzgeraldiiPrasophyllum fosteriPrasophyllum frenchiiPrasophyllum fuscumPrasophyllum goldsackiiPrasophyllum incorrectumPrasophyllum incompositumPrasophyllum litoralePrasophyllum milfordensePrasophyllum montanumPrasophyllum morganiiPrasophyllum niphopediumPrasophyllum occultansPrasophyllum olidumPrasophyllum pallidumPrasophyllum perangustumPrasophyllum petilumPrasophyllum pruinosumPrasophyllum pulchellumPrasophyllum pyriformePrasophyllum retroflexumPrasophyllum robustumPrasophyllum secutumPrasophyllum spicatumPrasophyllum stellatumPrasophyllum suaveolensPrasophyllum subbisectu PrasophyllumsuttoniiPrasophyllum tadgellianumPrasophyllum taphanyxPrasophyllum tunbridgensePrasophyllum uroglossumPrasophyllum validumPrasophyllum wallumPrasophyllum species ‘Majors Creek’ NAT EN ENVUENENEN CR ENVU ENCR EN VU CR VU CR VUCREN CR CR ENVUCRENEN EN ENVUVU NTQld EN VU RA RA RA VU NSW EN EN VU EN VU EN EN ACT EN Vic TH TH TH THTH TH TH TH TH THTH TH Tas EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN VU EN RA ENEN SA RA VU RA RA EN RA RA VU VU EN VU WA BACKHOUSEAssessment of threatened orchids Australia LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .39

PAGE 36

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 40 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . N 322 323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375 Prasophyllum species ‘Nagambie’ Pterostylis aenigma Pterostylis arenicolaPterostylis atriolaPterostylis baptistiiPterostylis basalticaPterostylis bicornisPterostylis bryophilaPterostylis chaetophoraPterostylis cheraphilaPterostylis chlorogrammaPterostylis cobarensisPterostylis commutataPterostylis concinnaPterostylis cucullataPterostylis curtaPterostylis cycnocephalaPterostylis despectansPterostylis elegansPterostylis falcataPterostylis foliataPterostylis furcataPterostylis gibbosaPterostylis grandifloraPterostylis longicurvaPterostylis metcalfeiPterostylis nigricansPterostylis pratensisPterostylis pulchellaPterostylis rubenachiiPterostylis sanguineaPterostylis saxicolaPterostylis setiferaPterostylis squamataPterostylis tasmanicaPterostylis tenuissimaPterostylis truncataPterostylis tunstalliiPterostylis uliginosaPterostylis validaPterostylis wapstrarumPterostylis woollsiiPterostylis xerophilaPterostylis ziegeleriPterostylis species ‘Gundiah’ Pterostylis species aff. boormanii Pterostylis species ‘Botany Bay’ Pterostylis species ‘Broughton Gorge’ Pterostylis species ‘Eyre Peninsula’ Pterostylis species ‘Halbury’ Pterostylis species ‘Hale’ Pterostylis species ‘Mt Bryan’ Pterostylis species ‘Mt Olinthus’ Pterostylis species ‘Mt Victoria Uranium Mine’ Pterostylis species ‘Northampton’ NAT EN VUEN EN VU VU VUVUCR VU EN ENVU VUEN EN VUEX CR VU EN EN VU ENEN EN NTQld VU EN RA RA RA RA RA NSW VU VU VUEN EN VU VU EN EN ACTVic TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH TH Tas EN EN ENEN RA RA EN RA RA EN ENEN SA VU EN EN VURA RA EN EN VU VU EN VU EN VUENENENENVU WA RA

PAGE 37

N 376 377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424 Species Pterostylis species ‘Oratan Rock’ Pterostylis species aff. parviflora Pterostylis species ‘Sandy Creek’ Rhinerrhiza moorei Rhizanthella slateriRobiquetia wasseliiSarcochilus dilatatusSarcochilus falcatusSarcochilus fitzgeraldiiSarcochilus hartmanniiSarcochilus hirticalcarSarcochilus roseusSarcochilus weinthaliiSchoenorchis sarcophyllaSpathoglottis paulineaSpathoglottis plicataSpiranthes australisTaeniophyllum confertumTaeniophyllum lobatumTaeniophyllum muelleriThelasis carinataThelymitra antenniferaThelymitra benthamianaThelymitra bracteataThelymitra carneaThelymitra circumseptaThelymitra deadmaniarumThelymitra epipactoidesThelymitra flexuosaThelymitra gregariaThelymitra hiemalisThelymitra holmesiiThelymitra jonesiiThelymitra mackibbiniiThelymitra malvinaThelymitra matthewsiiThelymitra merraniaeThelymitra mucidaThelymitra psammophilaThelymitra stellataThelymitra venosaThrixspermum congestumThynninorchis huntianaThynninorchis nothofagicolaTrichoglottis australiensisVanda hindsiiVrydagzynea paludosaZeuxine oblongaZeuxine polygonoides Totals NAT VU VU VUVUVUVU VU VU EN EN VU VU VU EN CR VUVUEN VU 195 NT VU VU 8 Qld VU RARA EN VUVUVUENRARAVU RA RA RA VU VUEN VU 107 NSW VU ENVU VU VU 54 ACT 3 Vic TH TH TH TH TH TH TH 75 Tas EN ENEN RA EN EN RA EN EN 69 SA VU VUVU RA RA EN EN RA VUEN EN RA EN 104 WA RA RA RA NAT = National; NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; NSW = New South Wales; ACT = Australian Capital Territory; Vic = Victoria; Tas = Tasmania; SA = South Australia; WA = Western Australia. BACKHOUSEAssessment of threatened orchids Australia LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .41

PAGE 38

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 42 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . APPENDIX2. Nationally threatened orchids listed at the state/territory level but not at the national level. N 1 23456789 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950 5152 Species Acriopsis javanica Caladenia confertaCaladenia cruciformisCaladenia fragrantissimaCaladenia magnificaCaladenia patersonii Caladenia pilotensisCaladenia porphyreaCaladenia valida Caladenia species ‘Bordertown’ Caladenia species ‘Finniss’ Caladenia species aff. fragrantissima Caladenia species‘Koolunga’ Caladenia species aff. rosella Chiloglottis anaticepsChiloglottis platypteraGenoplesium insignisGenoplesium superbumDiuris arenariaDiuris species aff. chrysantha ‘Byron Bay’ Diuris species ‘Oaklands’ Gastrodia vescula Genoplesium baueriHabenaria harroldiiPeristeranthus hilliiPrasophyllum bagoensisPrasophyllum fosteriPrasophyllum incorrectumPrasophyllum litoralePrasophyllum niphopediumPrasophyllum pruinosumPrasophyllum retroflexumPrasophyllum suttoniiPrasophyllum taphanyxPrasophyllum species ‘Majors Creek’ Prasophyllum species ‘Nagambie’ Pterostylis bryophila Pterostylis elegansPterostylis metcalfeiPterostylis nigricansPterostylis species ‘Broughton Gorge’ Pterostylis species ‘Mt Bryan’ Pterostylis species ‘Mt Olinthus’ Pterostylis species ‘Mt Victoria Uranium Mine’ Pterostylis species ‘Oratan Rock’ Pterostylis species aff. parviflora Pterostylis species ‘Sandy Creek’ Rhizanthella slateri Thelymitra gregariaThelymitra hiemalis Thelymitra jonesiiThelymitra merraniae SA EN RA RA ENEN EN VUVU EN EN ENENVUVUVUVUQld = Queensland; NSW = New South Wales; Vic = Victoria; Tas = Tasmania; SA = South Australia. Tas VU EN EN EN NSW EN EN VUENENENENEN VUVU EN VU ENVU ENVU VU Qld VU EN RA RA RA Vic TH THTH THTH TH TH TH TH TH THTH TH TH TH

PAGE 39

APPENDIX3. Nationally rare orchids listed at the state/territory level but not at the national level. N 1 23456789 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354 Species Acianthus amplexicaulis Acianthus sublestisAphyllorchis anomalaAphyllorchis queenslandicaBulbophyllum blumeiBulbophyllum boonjeeBulbophyllum grandimesenseBulbophyllum windsorenseBulbophyllum wolfeiCadetia collinsiiCadetia warianaCaladenia graniticolaCaladenia melanemaCaladenia minorCaladenia necrophyllaCaladenia proceraChiloglottis longiclavataCorybas abellianusCorybas neocaledonicusDendrobium fellowsiiDendrobium malbrowniiDiuris oporinaDiuris parvipetalaDockrillia wasselliiEria dischorensisEria irukandjianaEulophia zollingeriGastrodia crebrifoliaGastrodia queenslandicaGastrodia urceolataGenoplesium alticolumGenoplesium pedersoniiGenoplesium sigmoideumGenoplesium validumHabenaria divaricataHabenaria xanthanthaLiparis condylobulbonLiparis simmondsiiMicrotis globulaNervilia crociformisOberonia carnosaPeristylus banfieldiiPrasophyllum constrictumPrasophyllum fecundumPrasophyllum goldsackiiPrasophyllum incompositumPrasophyllum occultansPterostylis species ‘Gundiah’ Robiquetia wasselii Schoenorchis sarcophyllaSpathoglottis paulineaTaeniophyllum confertumTaeniophyllum lobatumThelasis carinata Qld RA RARARAENRARARARARARA RA RARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARA RA RARA RA RA RARARARARARAQld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; WA = Western Australia WA RA RA RA RA SA RA RA RA RARA RA BACKHOUSEAssessment of threatened orchids Australia LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .43

PAGE 40

Introduction Understanding the environmental constraints that affect species distributions are critical to the mainte-nance of biodiversity. The abundance of epiphyticorganisms, those that grow on another substrate, such as a tree or rock, is a direct consequence of the avail-ability and distribution of these substrates (Ackerman et al. 1989). In the case of epiphytic orchids it is also due to the presence of orchid mycorrhizal fungi(OMFestablishment, is its association with an OMF. TheOMF provides a carbon source to the developing orchid embryo (Rasmussen 1995-cal carbon transfer has been demonstrated in matureplants of a green, terrestrial, orchid species, Goodyera repens (Cameron et al. 2006), it is generally believed that OMF receive no immediate benefit from theirassociation with orchids. Therefore, it would appearintuitive that orchids would associate with all OMFavailable within their local environment and that theywould actively seek this association. In this investigation we sought to ascertain the nature of the relationship between three closely relat-ed, co-occurring species of epiphytic, Aeridinae (= Sarcanthinae) orchids, their OMF, and their phoro-phytes (host trees Sarcochilus hillii , Sarcochilus parviflorus and Plectorrhiza tridentata are all small, monopodial epiphytes found on trees and shrubs in temperate rainforest gullies. The null hypothesis that we are testing is that these three orchid species are randomly distrib-uted throughout their forest habitat. More specifically we are addressing the following questions: Do these three epiphytic orchid species exhibit a random distribution across the woody plants of theforest? Do these three orchid species associate with all OMF within their local environment? Do the OMF of these orchid species differ in their ability to stimulate germination amongst thesespecies? Are these OMF actively attracted towards the seed of these three orchid species? Methods To address these questions we surveyed four sites where these three orchid species co-occur in temperate south-eastern Australia. The woody plant compo-sition of the forests and the associations of these three orchid species with their phorophytes were deter-mined using a maximum likelihood model.Generalised Linear Mixed Models (GLMMsused to detect preferences for physical features of thephorophyte and local environment of these orchidspecies. LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 UNDERSTANDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THREE SPECIES OF EPIPHYTIC ORCHIDS IN TEMPERATE AUSTRALIAN RAINFOREST BY INVESTIGATION OF THEIR HOST AND FUNGAL ASSOCIATES KELLIM. GOWLAND1,3,4, ULRIKEMATHESIUS2, MARKA. CLEMENTS3& ADRIENNEB. NICOTRA11School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Bldg 116 Daley Road, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia2School of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Australian National University, Bldg 41 Linnaeus Way, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia3Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, Australian National Herbarium, CSIRO Division of Plant Industry, GPO Box 1600, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia4Author for correspondence: kelli.gowland@anu.edu.au KEYWORDS:epiphyte, Aeridinae, orchid mycorrhizal fungi, Ceratobasidium , chemotropism

PAGE 41

To ensure adequate sampling of the OMF of each orchid species, ten members of each species were sur-veyed from two sites. To investigate the diversity ofOMF on the preferred phorophyte, five orchids that were sampled of each species were on the most common host. Earlier research indicated that other mem-bers of these orchid genera associated with theCeratobasidiaceae within the form-genus Rhizoctonia (Warcup 1981 Rhizoctonia -like fungi when we isolated OMF from the roots of theseorchids. Verification that the isolated fungi were capable of stimulating orchid germination (and therefore, were indeed OMF) was determined by germination trials. Genetic identification of the fungal associates was conducted by sequencing the nuclear riboso-mal internal transcribed spacer (Gardes & Bruns1993) and the mitochondrial large subunit (White et al. 1990), and through the amplification of dispersed repetitive DNA sequences (Versalovic et al. 1991). Finally, to determine if the fungi were activelyattracted towards orchid seed, chemotropism trialswere conducted and the amount of fungal growthtowards test and control aliquots (of seed and waterrespectively) was compared using Paired t-tests. Results and discussion Backhousia myrtifolia was the most common tree at most sites and was the dominant phorophytespecies for all three orchid species, significantly sofor S. parviflorus and P. tridentata . All three orchid species preferred a phorophyte with moderate to high moss cover. Despite these similarities, distinct differ-ences in the distribution patterns were detected foreach species of orchid. These three orchid species differed in the composition of their phorophyte flora: S. hillii’s distribution approximated a random distribution which reflectedthat of the rainforests’ tree species composition; P. tridentata exhibited a strong bias towards B. myrtifolia , although was otherwise on the broadest range of phorophyte species; and S. parviflorus had the narrowest range of phorophytes, exhibiting clear prefer-ences for and against particular woody plant species.However, the ‘species’ of phorophyte was not theonly correlate with orchid presence, each orchid species exhibited non-random patterns in their proximity to moss and location on their phorophytes. Characteristics of the phorophyte that had the greatesteffect on the size and reproductive potential of theorchids, as measured by the size and number of leaves and number of inflorescences, were indepen-dent of the species of the phorophyte. We expected that these distributional differences would reflect distinct OMF associations with eachorchid species; however, whilst different OMF werefound in association with these orchids it has not explained the difference in phorophyte species asso-ciation. All OMF isolated from these three orchidspecies belonged to two distinct clades, groups,within the genus Ceratobasidium, recognised as clade L and clade K. All three orchid species associ-ated with clade K, but only S. hillii was found with clade L. This did not, however, explain the randomdistribution of S. hillii , as members of both fungal clades were isolated from orchids on the commonphorophyte, B. myrtifolia . Additionally, germination trials revealed that even though both groups of fungiwere not naturally found in association with S. parviflorus and P. tridentata , members of each OMF clade could stimulate germination in all three orchidspecies ex situ . Furthermore, the chemotropism experiment revealed that members of both OMF clades wereattracted towards viable orchid seed. This is the firstexperiment, that we know of, that has demonstratedthat orchid mycorrhizal fungi is actively attracted toorchid seed. Conclusion Each orchid species clearly demonstrated characteristic preferences for phorophyte species or features,indicative of specific ecological niches. They did notexhibit a random distribution throughout the forest.Furthermore, despite exposure to multiple potentialOMF, S. parviflorus and P. tridentata were only found in association with a restricted subset of thoseavailable in their local environment. This is despite ex situ results indicating that there is no inherent physiological reason why they do not associate with bothgroups of OMF, and the fact that both clades of fungiare actively attracted to orchid seed. These results typify the intrigue around this family GOWLAND et al. Distribution of epiphytic orchids 45 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 42

of plants. For example, why would S. parviflorus and P. tridentata attract, butnot utilise all OMF within their ecosystem? Possible explanations and ideas forfurther study will be discussed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the American Orchid Society, theAustralian National University and the CSIRO in fundingthis research, and the Australian Orchid Foundation and the Australian Biological Resources Study in their assis-tance with attending this conference. We would also like tothank: J. Wood for his assistance with the analysis of theecological data; M. van der Merwe, C. Linde, B. Pfeil, T.Otero and R. Bayer for their advice in deciphering theidentity of these OMF; and to S. Refshauge and theCSIRO microscopy unit for technical advice on themicroscopy and chemotropism experiments. LITERATURECITEDAckerman, J.D., A.M. Montalvo & A.M. Vera. 1989. Epiphyte host specificity of Encyclia krugii , a Puerto Rican endemic orchid. Lindleyana 4 : 74-77. Cameron, D.D., J.R. Leake & D.J. Read. 2006. Mutualistic mycorrhiza in orchids: evidence fromplant-fungus carbon and nitrogen transfers in thegreen-leaved terrestrial orchid Goodyera repens . New Phytol. 171 : 405-416. Gardes, M. & T.D. Bruns. 1993. ITS primers with enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes application tothe identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Mol. Ecol.2 : 113-118. Rasmussen, H.N. 1995. Terrestrial Orchids from seed to mycotrophic plant.Melbourne, Australia, CambridgeUniversity Press. Versalovic, J., T. Koeuth & J.R. Lupski. 1991. Distribution of repetitive DNA sequences in eubacteria and applica-tion to fingerprinting of bacterial genomes. Nucl. AcidsRes. 19 : 6823-6831. Warcup, J.H. 1981. The mycorrhizal relationships of Australian orchids. New Phytol. 87 : 371-381. White, T.J., T. Bruns, S. Lee & J. Taylor. 1990. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal riboso-mal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In : M.A. Innis, D.H. Gelfand, J.J. Sninsky & T.J. White (eds.Protocols: A guide to methods and applications. SanDiego, Academic Press. Kelli Gowland is a PhD candidate at the Australian National University, and CSIRO – Plant Industry in Canberra, Australia. Kelli’s main interest is in evolutionary ecology and has had field experience in South Africa, Cape York andthe Kimberleys as well as throughout southeastern Australia. Kelli conducted her honours research on the ecologicalfactors maintaining species boundaries in two species of hybridising alpine Ranunculus and has had field experience in South Africa, Cape York and the Kimberleys. Kelli’s current research is into the ecological distribution of three epi-phytic orchids in Australia and she has uncovered some valuable clues that may aid in understanding the evolution ofthe relationship between orchids and their mycorrhizal fungi. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 46 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 43

The Long Pine Key area of Everglades National Park (Floridarare plant species including two candidates for federallisting and several dozen listed as endangered orthreatened by the state of Florida. In addition, thereare nineteen species present in the Long Pine Keyarea that are critically imperiled in South Florida andsix species historically documented from the area thatmay be extinct in the continental United States (Gannet al., 2002). Most of the critically imperiled species have been poorly studied, their distributions in EvergladesNational Park are not adequately documented, andtheir growth requirements are little known.Historically, water flow through Long Pine Key wasconcentrated in a series of short hydro-periods thattraversed prairies the area in a north-south direction.Artificial drainage is believed to have affected Long Pine Key habitats by increasing the frequency and intensity of fires which damage hammocks, and byincreasing exposures to freezing temperaturesthrough the lowering of water levels and the openingup of hammock canopies. Marie Selby Botanical Gardens is assisting with the reintroduction and aug-mentation of epiphytes and lithophytic ferns. Presently MSBG is propagating three ferns and two orchids: Pecluma plumula (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) M.G. Price, the plumed rockcap fern, Adiantum melanoleucum Willd., the fragrant maidenhair fern, Thelypteris reticulata (L.tice-vein fern, two orchids Brassia caudata Lindl., the Spider orchid, and Oncidium ensatum Lindl., Florida dancing-lady orchid. Augmentation trials willbe initiated, using measures of plant communityhabitat and environmental variables to help identifyfavorable reintroduction sites. LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 RARE PLANT RESTORATION ON LONG PINE KEY BRUCEHOLST1& STIGDALSTRM Center for Tropical Plant Science & Conservation Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, 811 South Palm Avenue, Sarasota, FL 34236, U.S.A.1Author for correspondence: bholst@selby.org

PAGE 44

Orchids are a flag group in plant conservation. China has not a rich orchid flora, with only about 1200 specie in about 170 genera, but it is distin-guished by having a wider range of broad ecosystemtypes. On orchid vegetative morphology, a featurereflecting environmental conditions, China has equal numbers of terrestrial and epiphytic (including litho-phytic) genera. This feature is quite different from thetropical zone where epiphytic orchids are majorityand from the temperate regions where terrestrialorchids predominate, and is unique in the worldorchids flora. Of the Chinese orchid flora, there are502 species in 98 genera being endemic to China, and26 genera in which have more than half of the totalspecies being endemic to China. Moreover, there aresome world famous ornamental or medicinal orchidsin China, such as Paphiopedilum , Cypripedium , Cymbidium , Pleione , Holcoglossum and Dendrobium . And the Chinese Cymbidium s are among the best of the favorable ornamental orchids in China. Some Cymbidium plantations, as well as much more private yards, have been set up in China mainland, Taiwanand Hong Kong. Many species of Cymbidium , thus, have become seriously endangered or quite rare oreven extinct in some areas. Recently years, Chinese Government has paid great attention to orchid conservation. General policies have been carried out and some efforts have been made to improve the situation. A long term project launchedby Chinese government has carried out to protect the wildlife, orchids are one of the key species in the pro-ject. on in situ conservation, the natural reserves of varies kinds have be increased to 2349, covering 150million hectares of area, more than 15 per cent of thetotal territory. Moreover, those natural reserves willcover almost the upper reaches of China’s major riversand areas featuring intact bio-diversity and the richestorchid flora. Particularly, one special orchids naturereserve was set up in Guangxi Province in 2005.About ex situ conservation, the State Forestry Administration of China has set up one ex situ conservation center in Shengzheng, Guangdong Province.Also as one important part of the China’s southwestwild biological germplasm resource bank, the orchidsseed bank project has been started in 2004. Morover, areintroduction project of Doritis pulcherrima Lindl. was carrying out in Hainan Island. However, the conservation of the orchids is in fact a complicated prob-lem, not only depending on education and economic development, but also to a large extent on the biologi-cal characters of the orchids themselves. It needs acomprehensive study of ecology, population biology, pollination biology, breeding biology and other bio-logical branches. LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 THE STATUS OF ORCHID CONSERVATION IN CHINA JIAJIANSHENG Deputy Director Department of Wildlife Conservation, State Forestry Adminstration 18 Hepingli Dongjie, Beijing 100714, P. R. China jiajiansheng@forestry.gov.cn KEYWORDS : ecosystem types, endemic group, conservation, natural reserves, orchid flora, biological characters.

PAGE 45

Introduction In Bolivia the works focused on the study of the epiphyte vegetation are few and recent. This lack ofknowledge is being filled by investigations like those of Ibisch (1996-tion; Acebey & Krmer (2001 et al. (2003 Altamirano & Fernandez (20032005who worked in the diversity and ecology of vascularand not vascular epiphytes. In Bolivia a total of 20.000 species of angiosperms has calculated (Beck 1998 et al. (2003 mates between 2000 to 3000 of these plants areorchids, actually there is a list with approximately 1500species, of which near 1200 have been identified(Vsquez et al. 2003). Sixty percent of the species and 80% of the endemic orchids are concentrated in theregion of the Yungas that does not occupy more than4% of the surface of the country (Vsquez et al . 2003). The area of the Yungas in La Paz is one of the most explored places of Bolivia (Beck 1993 work has contributed to a great, but non total knowl-edge of the flora, for example, a study of epiphytes inthe montane forests of the Cotapata National Park andIntegrated Management Natural Area (PN-ANMIhas a total of 292 species in an inventory of threeparcels of 0,32 ha. each one, of which the orchidswith a 44% represent the most important family(Krmer & Gradstein 2003 Since May of 2005 is developed the project: “Study of the potential of sustainable use of epiphytes in thePN-ANMI Cotapata”, with the initial objective ofknow more on the diversity of epiphytes orchids inthe montane forests of Yungas of this protected area.This work presents the preliminary results of theinventories developed in this project. Study area The Cotapata PN-ANMI (fig. 1 provinces Murillo and Nor Yungas of the departmentof La Paz, with a surface of 40.000 ha and goes fromthe 1100 to 5600 m of altitude (Ribera 1995wide altitudinal gradient originates a great variety of climates and types of vegetation in an area of het-erogenous topography; also affected from old timesby human activities. The principal forest formationsare the cloudy forest (2400-3400 ma cool and very humid climate and the humid forestof Yungas (2400-1200 mdry time (Ribera 1995 et al . (2003 3000 mm and 10,1 C for the cloudy forest and 2550mm and 13-17,2 C for the humid forest of Yungas.In the south sector of the protected area starts twopre-Columbian paths; these are constructed across thecore of both forests: Chojllapata, which mostly crosses the crest of the mountains (3400-1300 mlocality of El Chairo; Sillutinkara, which crosses in its beginning the valley of the Coscapa river (3400-2000 m-the the path of El Choro, in the proximities ofSandillani. Bajo Hornuni (1800 m the Hornuni hill, in front of Sandillani, this is coveredby a humid montane forest of Yungas. Methods The field work was conducted from July 2005 to May 2006, in zones of nondisturbed forest. For the inven-tory of epiphyte orchids of understory and canopy, 3to 5 non-permanent plots of 20 x 20 m was installedeach 100 altitudinal meters (modified of Krmer LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 EPIPHYTE ORCHID DIVERSITY IN A YUNGAS MONTANE FOREST IN THE COTAPATA NATIONAL PARK AND INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT NATURAL AREA, LA PAZ – BOLIVIA IVANV. JIMNEZ& FABRICIOMIRANDAA.Herbario Nacional de Bolivia (LPB Bolivia, P.O. Box 10077 KEYWORDS : epiphyte orchids, diversity, Yungas montane forest, Cotapata, Bolivia

PAGE 46

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 50 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .2003) and a representative tree for each altitudinal range of 100 m, inside or near to a plot, which wasevaluated using the techniques described by Perry(1978used for the analysis. Sterile individuals or with fruitswere marked with marking tapes and respective code of collection. These plants were transplanted to a sin-gle trunk (called: storing zonessurveyed plot, with the purpose of maintaining alivecollections and obtaining fertile material that helpsits identification. To complete the floristic inventory,general collections were made throughout the pre-Columbian paths. In addition orchid flowers were collected and preserved in small bottles with a solu-tion of 70% of alcohol. All the samples are depositedin the Herbario Nacional of Bolivia (LPB Results and discussion From the evaluation of 47 non permanent plots, 13 phorophyts and generalcollections we registered 255 species of epiphyte orchids. The most represen-tative genera are Stelis Sw. (19% Pleurothallis R.Br. (15% Epidendrum L. (14% Maxillaria Ruiz & Pav. (13%Fig. 2 (2001Nowicki (2001found similar proportions. On the other handVasquez e t al. (2004 genera Pleurothallis and Epidendrum constitutes the most diverse taxa. FIGURE1. Ubication map of the sampling zones inside Cotapata Nacional Park. FIGURE2. Diversity of the most important genera in the study zone.

PAGE 47

From our results is clear to point out that in the genera Epidendrum and Maxillaria there are a great proportion of unidentified species; the same happensin the preliminary list of orchids of Bolivia (Vasquez et al. 2003), this unidentified orchids could represent new species or new registries for Bolivia. In addition, new records at local and regional level stand out, for example Odontoglossum vierlingii Senghas, considered endemic to the department of Cochabamba, was found in the study area. Similarly, Prostechea pulchra Dodson & W.E. Higgins, found in dispersed populations, until now has been onlyrecorded in the humid montane forests of Ecuadorand Peru (Higgins & Dodson 2001 in our study zone, in a moderately disturbated mon-tane forest, on the edge of the Silluntinkara path, at2100 m approximately. In the genus: Epidendrum L., Maxillaria Ruiz & Pav., Cyrtochilum Kunth, Stelis Sw. and Masdevallia Ruiz & Pav. we found many unidentified specimens, therefore is highly probablethat exist new species (Vsquez R., pers. comm. 2006). With more sampling we hope to find new reg-istries for the zone and new species for science. Our results show a great diversity in a relatively wide gradient. For example Krmer et al. (2005 altitudinal range of 350 to 4000 m above sea level,registered 314 species of orchids. Also comparedwith the study of Krmer (2003 registered the double of species but in a wide altitudi-nal range. These highlight the importance of the zonefor the diversity of orchids. The high diversity of thestudy zone could be explained for the interaction between heterogeneous topography and the wide alti-tudinal gradient, both generating a variety of climates and different habitats able for support diverse vegeta-tion. Still more, the deforestation originated for thecontinuous use of this forest from pre-Columbiantime to recent times has a negative impact on thediversity of orchids (Krmer 2003large diversity is an indicator for the high resilienceof the forest.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.We thank the Instituto de Biolog’a Molecular y Biotecnolog’a, Herbario Nacional de Bolivia, and the Albergue Ecoturistico Comunitario “Urpuma” forlogistic support. For working and collecting permits. We thank the Servicio Nacional de Areas Protegidas (SERNAP). For field work assistance, we thank all biology students from Majot University of Saint Andrews.This projectwas made possible thanks to the financial support of the Flemish Fund for Tropical Forests. This Fund is administe-red by the Division of Forests and Green Areas (AMINAL,Ministry of the Flemish Community), and supervised by Groenhart vzw. The opinions presented here do not neces-sarily reflect the position of the Ministry of the FlemishCommunity or that of Groenhart vzw. LITERATURECITEDAcebey, A. & T. Krmer.2001. Diversidad y distribuci—n vertical de ep’fitas en los alrededores del campamento r’oEslab—n y de la laguna Chalaln, Parque Nacional Madidi,Depto. La Paz, Bolivia. Rev. Soc. Boliv. Bot. 3: 104-123. Acebey, A., S.R Gradstein & T. Krmer. 2003.Species richness and habitat diversification of bryophytes insubmontane rain forest and fallows of Bolivia. J. Trop.Ecol. 19: 9-18. Altamirano, S. & E. Fernndez. 2003. Diversidad y distribuci—n vertical de ep’fitas en bosques amaz—nicos detierra firme del TIPNIS (Territorio Ind’gena y ParqueNacional Isiboro Scure) Cochabamba, Bolivia. Rev.Bol. Ecol. 14: 67-80. Bach, K., M. Schawe, S. Beck, G. Gerold, S.R. Gradstein & M. Moraes. 2003. Vegetaci—n, suelos y clima en losdiferentes pisos altitudinales de un bosque montano deYungas, Bolivia: Primeros resultados. Ecolog’a enBolivia 38(1 Beck, S. G., T. J. Killeen & E. Garc’a. 1993. Vegetaci—n de Bolivia. Pp. 6-23 in : T.J. Killeen, E. Garc’a & S.G. Beck (eds.Herbario Nacional de Bolivia-Missouri BotanicalGarden, Quipus S.R.L., La Paz. Beck, S.G. 1998. Floristic inventory of Bolivia An indispensable contribution to sustainable development? Pp.243-268 in : W. Barthlott & M. Winiger (eds. Biodiversity – A challenge for development researchand policy. Springer – Verlag, Berlin. Higgins, W.E. & C.H.Dodson. 2001. Prostechea pulchra : A New Name for an Andean Orchid. Selbyana 22(2128-130. Ibisch, P. 1996. Neotropische epiphytendiversitt-das Beispiel Bolivien, Martina Galunder-Verlag, Wiehl, 357 p. Krmer, T. 2003. Diversitt und kologie der vaskulren Epiphyten in primren und sekundren BergwldernBoliviens. Cuvillier Verlarg, Gttingen. Krmer, T. & R. Gradstein. 2003. Species richness of vascular epiphytes in two primary forests and fallows in theBolivian Andes. Selbyana 24(2 Krmer T., M. Kessler, S.R. Gradstein & A Acebey. 2005. JIMNEZ& MIRANDA-AVILSEpiphyte Orchid diversity in Yungas montane forest Bolivia 51 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 48

Local-scale diversity patterns of vascular epiphytes along an elevational gradient in the Andes. Journal ofBiogeography 32(10 Miranda, F. 2005. Diversidad alfa, beta y distribuci—n vertical de ep’fitas vasculares en dos rangos altitudinales deun bosque yungue–o pluvial submontano en el ANMIApolobamba, La Paz – Bolivia. Tesis de grado, Carrerade Biolog’a, UMSA, La Paz, 55 p. Nowicki, C. 2001. Ep’fitas vasculares de la Reserva Otonga. Pp. 115-155 in : J. Nieder& W. Barthlott (eds. Canopo plants and animals of the Otonga Reserve(EcuadorQuito, funded by the Volkswagen Foundation. Perry, D.R. 1978. A method of access into the crowns of emergent and canopy trees. Biotropica 10 (2 Ribera, M. 1995. Aspectos ecol—gicos, del uso de la tierra y conservaci—n en el Parque Nacional y rea Natural de Manejo Integrado Cotapata. Pp. 1-84 in : C. Morales (ed.FUND-ECO / FONAMA-EIA, La Paz. Vasquez, R., P.L. Ibisch & B. Gerkmann. 2003. Diversity of Bolivian Orchidaceae – a challenge for taxonomic,floristic and conservation research. Organisms,Diversity and Evolution 3 (2Appendix 1 (preliminary list of Bolivian orchid species,http://www.senckenberg.uni-frankfurt.de/odes/03-4.pdf). Vsquez, R., P.L. Ibisch, A. Ley & C. Nowicki. 2004. Los gneros y especies de las Laeliinae. Pp: 80-335 in : R. Vsquez & P.L. Ibisch (eds.Diversidad y estado de conservaci—n. Vol II Laeliinae, Polystachyinae, Sobraliinae con actualizaci—n y comple-mentaci—n de Pleurothallidinae. Editorial FAN, SantaCruz-Bolivia. Ivn Jimnez obtained the title of graduate in Biology of the Greater university of San Andrs, La Paz-Bolivia. He studied mainly select groups of plants in montane forests, nevertheless, from 2005 has focused to study epiphyte species ofthe families: Orchidaceae, Araceae and Bromeliaceae, in the montane forests of the PN-ANMI Cotapata. Fabricio Miranda Avils is a young bolivian biologist. He Works as a associated researcher in the National Herbarium of Bolivia LPB, where he works mainly in epiphyte plants, in special with taxonomy, and pollination of nativeOrchids. He also work in a project with local communities for sustainable use of orchids in a National Park. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 52 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 49

Introduction This contribution owes its origins to a paper and presentation by Dr. Calloway H. Dodson at theSecond International Conference on NeotropicalOrchidology held in San Jos, Costa Rica in May of2003 (Dodson 2003 the reasons to suspect that regional geological fac-tors may play important roles in orchid speciationand biogeography and gave examples from thenorthwestern South America. He also suggested that evolutionary change in orchid might occur over fair-ly short time periods, perhaps even as short asdecades, centuries or millennia (Dodson 2003, SHKlecture notes). These ideas stimulated the author, a professional earth scientist, to begin thinking about how theseexciting ideas could begin to be tested in Costa Ricaneighboring and Central American countries, anarea that has drawn him to return frequently over thelast decade. The present contribution is a proposalfor integrating geological observations, such as thechronology of arc volcanic activity in Nicaragua,Costa Rica, and Panama, in hypothesis forming andtesting of the geographic distribution of orchids (and possibly other biota). I initially focus on compar-isons between orchid inventories on the windwardslopes of mountainous regions (elevation > 1000 mwith high rainfall (> 1-2 m so-called tropical cloud forests. These regions repre-sent the tropicalpre-montane rain forest to lower montane tropicalrain forest life zones of Holdridge (1967 montane vegetation zone applied to Costa Rica and Panama by Dressler (1993important message of this paper is that such tropicalmountainous regions are not necessarily static, butmay change in elevation over geologic time due to active tectonic deformation and uplift and that the presence of active volcanism in a mountain rangemay also introduce additional chemical factors, suchas volcanic gases, acid rain, and volcanic soils, andalso physical factors, such as interruption of geneflow by explosive eruptions and coverage by theirair fall products such as ash (tephra lahars (volcanic mudflowslogical time interval, forests may be slowly increasing in elevation by tectonic uplift or by the accumulation of volcanic products such as steep-sided stra-tovolcanoes (built from both lavas and tephradown-slope accumulations of lava flows or lahars.Mountains may also lose elevation by erosion or bytectonic subsidence. As we shall see, tropicalCentral America shows an extraordinarily high levelof tectonic and volcanic history that has changed itsgeography and, by implication, climate, life zones, and likely orchid distribution. My working hypothe-sis put forward for testing is that orchid adaptationsto these changes may have led to the development ofnew species and endemism in this region. Geological Background The region of southeast Central America (Nicaragua, Costa Rica and PanamaColombia is a center of profound geological changesduring the late Cenozoic (Pliocene to present, 0-5million years ago) (see excellent summaries inDenyer and Kussmaul 2000, Denyer et al. 2003). It is one of the most active tectonic regions of the world,being at the nexus of four major moving tectonicplates, the Cocos, Nazca, Caribbean, and SouthAmerica, and three smaller microplates: the Coiba,Panama, and North Andean. As such, it abounds in geologically young mountainbelts from Nicaragua to LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND ORCHID BIOGEOGRAPHY WITH APPLICATIONS TO SOUTHEAST CENTRAL AMERICA STEPHENH. KIRBY U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025, U.S.A. skirby@usgs.gov KEYWORDS: geological processes, orchid biogeography, speciation, volcanic activity, subduction, tectonic plates

PAGE 50

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 54 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .the northern Andes, active volcanic chains, and earthquakes and earthquake belts related to themotions of these plates. Subduction of the Cocos plate under Central America is marked by the Middle America Trenchoff the Pacific coast that results from the downbending of the Cocos plate that subsequentlydescends at various angles under Central America from Mexico to western Panama. This descent pro-duces an inclined zone of earthquakes that representearthquake slip between the sinking Cocos Plate andthe plates above (the North American and Caribbeanplates) as well as internal seismic deformation in the Cocos plate. Subduction has also built a nearly con-tinuous chain of active arc volcanoes from Mexicoto SE Costa Rica that is thought to represent theeffects of water released from the Cocos plate as itheats up during descent into hot mantle and inducesmelting in the hot mantle above the sinking plate(often termed a “slab” In addition to the first-order deformation pattern associated with subduction, SE Central America dis-plays clear evidence for internal deformation in theplates above the Cocos slab (Caribbean andPanama), deformation that builds tectonic mountains and has affected the history of seaways that seg-mented Central America in the recent geologic past.Finally, the Cocos plate is decorated by volcanicislands, seamounts, and the Cocos Volcanic Ridgethat have been produced by the Galapagos VolcanicHot Spot that also built the Galopagos Islands. Thehot-spot islands, ridges, and plateaus built on theCocos plate have been moving toward the MiddleAmerica Trench with time. These have collided orare colliding with the Central American Isthmus inCosta Rica and western Panama and some of thesestructures have accreted to the Isthmus (e.g., theNicoya and Osa Peninsulas). Thus the geographicpositions and elevation ranges of mountain beltshave rapidly changed in this region over the last 5-10 million years and these changes undoubtedly have led to important changes in rainfall distribu-tions and temperature and in the continuity of life zones. I now discuss the following potential implica-tions of these regional plate-tectonic processes forthe biogeography of SE Central America. Geological Events Possibly Relevant to Orchid Science in the Region Chief among important geological events that have accompanied these processes are: 1.The well known early Pliocene closing of the Panama Seaway and the subsequent rise of thePanamanian Cordillera from the seafloor and theireffects on ocean circulation, weather, and faunalexchange across the Isthmus. 2.Less well known is the Holocene (since 10,000 years ago) opening and partial closing of theNicaraguan Seaway, represented presently by thelowland from the Gulf of Fonseca, to LakesManagua and Nicaragua and the San Juan RiverValley. This lowland is thought by Costa Rican consulting geologist Roberto Protti (personal com-munication 2007) to have represented subsidencein a graben (a valley created by a fault-boundeddown-dropped block) that was flooded by the sea. 3.The geologically recent migration toward the Middle American Trench of offshore volcanicislands (e.g., Cocos Island(former islands, such as the Fisher Seamountthe Cocos volcanic ridge associated with volcanic processes at the Galapagos Hot Spot. Island specia-tion from continental forebears like that which hasoccurred the Galapagos Islands could possibly leadto reverse gene flow to continents as plate motionbrings oceanic island crust close to the Middle America Trench. Subsequent collision of such ter-rains with Costa Rica (Caribbean plateproduced stresses and deformation in Costa Ricathat raised tectonic mountain belts, such as theTalamanca cordillera. 4.The late Cenozoic rise of the Central Volcanic Range (CVRarc volcanic mountain ranges in the world (largelyin the Pleistocene to the present, 1.64 million yearsto the present) and hence its geologically recenteffects on topography, rainfall distribution, airquality (from volcanic gases 5.The late Tertiary (about 5 million years agotion of volcanism in older, presently non-volcaniccordillera, such as the Talamanca, SW of the CVRand the Tilaran Cordillera, SE of the CVR. 6.The ongoing uplift of the Coast Ranges south of

PAGE 51

the Talamanca and the non-volcanic Matama cordillera east of the CVR. The above changes not only are potentially important in orchid gene flow, but also may influencethrough volcanic chemistry such processes as orchidmutagenesis, pollination, and germination. As such,their understanding may lead to useful hypothesesconcerning orchid biogeography and to purposefulorchid surveys to test them. The majority of the pristine forests of Costa Rica and Nicaragua have disappeared largely throughdeforestation. Conservation of the remaining orchidecosystems is a critical requirement in order for such investigations of the origins of orchid bio-geography to be successful. Orchid surveys directed to this particular end therefore should be purpose-ful. The ongoing multi-year survey of orchids at theBosque de Paz Biological Reserve began in June of 2004 (See Kirby 2003, Mu–oz and Kirby this volume). It is believed to be the first attempt at con-ducting a comprehensive survey of orchid speciesin the active Central Volcanic Range in Costa Ricaabove 1500 m elevation. I compare the identifiedspecies in the genera from this Survey that I feel arelikely nearly complete after 2.6 years of monthlycollection, description, and identification with thosefrom Carpentera, Tapanti, San Ram—n, and Monte Verde, all pre-montane to montane rain forest envi-ronments in Costa Rica. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.I wish to thank the Gonzlez family (Federico Gonzlez-Pinto, his wife Vanessa and their son,Federico Gonzlez-Sotela) for their enthusiastic support ofthe Orchid Garden and the Orchid Survey Project at theBosque de Paz Biological Reserve and the encouragementgiven to the present authors. Carlos Ossenbach provided to us a pre-publication copy of his monumental co-authored compilation of orchid species in Central America(Ossenbach, Pupulin and Dressler, 2007checklists and catalogues for individual Central Americancountries and biological reserves, for which I am verygrateful.LITERATURECITEDDenyer, P. & S. Kussmaul (eds Rica. ISBN 9977-66-118-9. Editorial Technologica deCosta Rica. 515 p. Denyer, P., W. Montero & G.E. Alvarado. 2003. Atlas Tect—nico de Costa Rica. Universidad de Costa Rica,San Jos, CR. Serie Reportes tcnicos. 81 p. Dodson, C.H. 2003. Why are there so many orchid species?. IerCongreso International de Orquideolog’a Neotropical, 20-25 Mayo, 2003, Proceedings Issue inLankesteriana 7: 99-103. Dressler, R.L. 1993. Field Guide to the Orchids of Costa Rica and Panama. Cornell University. New York. 374 p. Holdridge, L. 1967. Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science Center, Costa Rica. 89 p. Kirby, S.H. 2003. Neotropical orchid ecotourism: Educational experience of an orchid neophyte at theBosque de Paz Biological Reserve, Central VolcanicRange, Costa Rica, IerCongreso International de Orquideolog’a Neotropical, 20-25 Mayo, 2003,Proceedings Issue in Lankesteriana 7: 121-124. Mu–oz, M. & S. H. Kirby. 2007. An orchid inventory and conservation project at Bosque de Paz BiologicalReserve, Upper Rio Toro Valley, Alajuela, Costa Rica,Proceedings of the 3rdInternational Orchid Conservation Conference in Lankesteriana (this issue Ossenbach, C., F. Pupulin & R.L. Dressler. 2007. Orchids of the Central American Isthmus: Checklist and conser-vation status. Unpublished. Protti, R. 2007. Posible interrupci—n parcial del paso terrestre en Centroamrica durante la transgresi—n Flandriense (Holoceno medio-tion. Stephen H. Kirby was awarded a Ph.D. in Geology in 1975 from the University of California at Los Angeles. He has been employed by the U.S. Geological Survey since 1968 and is currently a Research Geophysicist and SeniorScientist in the Earthquake Hazard Team in Menlo Park, California. He is a Fellow of the American GeophysicalUnion and the Mineralogical Society of America. He is an author of more than 160 peer-reviewed papers and bookchapters and has worked as a volunteer at the Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve since 2002. KIRBYGeological processes and orchid biogeography 55 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 52

Introducci—n En Mxico la riqueza orquideol—gica se manifiesta con ms de 1200 especies (Hgsater et al. 2005), el porcentaje de endemismos es alto, aproximadamente 35% de especies y 8% de gneros (Soto 1988te se delimita a cadenas monta–osas o a zonas de exten-si—n reducida. Soto et al. (2001 existe informaci—n precisa del nmero que integrandentro del Sistema Nacional de reas NaturalesProtegidas (CONANP 2004puede ser del 80%. Dentro de la gran diversidad de laflora que se puede encontrar dentro del Parque Nacional Iztacc’huatl-Popocatpetl (PNIP-cia, estn los integrantes de la familia Orchidaceae, queson un recurso natural, un patrimonio de nuestro pa’s ydeben utilizarse racionalmente para su mantenimiento yconservaci—n (Soto & Hagsater 1990 (1996-cies de orqu’deas, de las cuales seis son endmicas deMxico, cuatro son de distribuci—n exclusiva del centro, sur de Mxico y dos del Eje Neovolcnico Transversal. Se puede afirmar que an no se han registrado el totalde las especies para la zona, probablemente la presencia de las especies y de sus poblaciones pudieron haber disminuido drsticamente y en algunos casos haber desa-parecido a causa de alteraciones o destrucci—n de sus hbitats en las ltimas dcadas, ms que por la sobreco-lecta de las plantas, como generalmente se cree (Soto &Hagsater 1990). Debido a la falta de un inventario actualizado y completo sobre la diversidad orquideol—gica del Parque, se plantearon como objetivos del presente trabajo actualizar el listado de especies, determinar estacional y altitudinalmente las especies localiza-das, as’ como su distribuci—n y abundancia. Metodolog’a UBICACIONGEOGRAFICA. El rea de estudio se ubica en los l’mites de tres entidades federativas del pa’s:Mxico, Morelos y Puebla, dentro de la zona templadosubhmeda del pa’s, que comprende los principales sisLANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 DIVERSIDAD DE ORQUIDEAS EN EL “PARQUE NACIONAL IZTACCIHUATL-POPOCATPETL” (MXICO BRBARAS. LUNA-ROSALES1,2, AMADEOBARBA-ALVAREZ, RODRIGOROMERO-TIRADO, ERICPREZ-TOLEDANO, OLGAPEREA-MORALES,SUSANAPADRN-HERNNDEZ, HUGOSIERRA-JIMNEZ, ROSADELACRUZ& DIANAJARDN-SNCHEZ1Unidad de Investigaci—n en Biolog’a Vegetal-L 301, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Zaragoza Campo II, Universidad Nacional Aut—noma de Mxico, AP 0920,Mxico, D.F., CP 09230, Mxico.2Autor para correspondencia: barbaral@servidor.unam.mx ABSTRACT. Iztacc’huatl and Popocatpetl National Park is 25,679 ha in size and it comprises the Transmexican Neo-volcanic strip. The floristic wealth of the Park approximately represents 4% of the flora ofthe country and the Orchidaceae is one of the families of this flora. Mexico has 1400 orchid species includingin 159 genera; the importance at a world-wide level of this flora increases when around 900 species exist onlyin Mexico. In 1996, 25 orchid species were reported for the Park without a field register. These species and their populations can drastically have varied and in some cases disappeared due to the alterations of the habi-tat and to the extraction of the plants of the last decades. In June of 2001 we started the present project whichthe main objective has been to obtain by means of work in field, the updated listing of the orchid flora of thisPark at different seasons of the year, as well as to determine the diversity of species, plant development stage,their altitudinal distribution and abundance. After 5 years of work 39 species have been located, 25 speciesare new registers to the Park and there were confirm only 14 species of the 1996 listing. KEYWORDS : diversidad, orquideoflora, Parque Nacional, lista de orqu’deas, Mxico, hbito de crecimiento, Iztacc’huatl, Popocatpetl

PAGE 53

temas monta–osos de Mxico como el Eje Neovolcnico Transmexicano, regi—n donde se encuen-tran los volcanes Iztacc’huatl y Popocatpetl. Se sitaentre las coordenadas geogrficas 18’ y 19”de latitud N y 98” y 98” de longitud W,cuenta con una superficie de 25,679 ha (Vargas 1997Las comunidades vegetales relevantes que predominanson el Bosque de Pino, Pino-Encino, Oyamel, Pramo de altura y Zacatonal. Por su ubicaci—n y por el marca-do gradiente altitudinal que presenta, posee una grandiversidad de hbitats lo que refleja su riqueza flor’sticaque representa aproximadamente el 4% de la flora delpa’s (25,000 taxas de plantas vasculares SITIOSDEPROSPECCIONYREGISTRO. En junio del 2001 al 2006 se realizaron salidas mensuales a campopara efectuar recorridos aleatorios en diversos sitios del PNIP y sus reas de influencia en un rango altitu-dinal desde los 1500 m hasta los 4000 m sobre elnivel del mar. Se utilizaron cartas topogrficas escala1:50 000 del Instituto Nacional de Estad’stica Geogrfica e Informtica (INEGI 1998dientes a los municipios de los tres estados para ubi-car los sitios de prospecci—n de orqu’deas. En cadazona donde se localizaron orqu’deas se registr— la ubicaci—n georeferenciada, altitud y tipo de vegetaci—n. Se determin— el hbito de crecimiento, distribu-ci—n y estado fenol—gico de las orqu’deas. En algunoscasos la identificaci—n de las especies se llev— a cabopor el personal del Herbario de la Asociaci—nMexicana de Orquideolog’a (AMO Resultados COMPOSICIONYDIVERSIDAD. Se localizaron y determinaron 39 especies de orqu’deas en el rea de estudio,incluidas en 20 gneros, el nmero de especies vari— encada uno y fue mayor para Malaxis Sol. ex Sw., Bletia Ruiz & Pav., Corallorhiza Gagnebin y Schiedeella Schltr. (Tabla 1 especies de las orqu’deas reportados por Chvez y Trigoen 1996 para el Parque, y se aportaron 25 especies comonuevos registros al listado: Bletia macristhmochila Greenm. , B. neglecta Sosa , B. purpurata A.Rich. et Galeotti , B. purpurea (Lam , Corallorhiza bulbosa A.Rich. et Galeotti , C. wisteriana Conrad , Deiregyne pyramidalis (Lindl. , Epidendrum magnoliae Muhl. , Erycina hyalinobulbon (Lex. M.W.Chase , Govenia capitata Lindl., Habenaria crassicornis Lindl. , H. jaliscana S.Watson , H. novemfida Lindl. , Laelia autumnalis (Lex. , Malaxis brachyrrhynchos (Rchb.f. , M. salazari Catling , Mesadenus tenuissimus (L.O.Williams , Microthelys nutantiflora (Schltr. , Platanthera brevifolia (Greene , Prosthechea linkiana (Klotzsch , P. varicosa (Bateman ex Lindl.) W.E.Higgins , Schiedeella albovaginata (C. Schweinf.) Burns-Bal., S. confusa (Garay L—pez-Ferr. , S. llaveana (Lindl. Stelis retusa (Lex. , DISTRIBUCIONYABUNDANCIADEORQUIDEAS. La distribuci—n de orqu’deas por Entidad Federativa en elPNIP y reas de influencia (Fig. 1cantidad de gneros y especies particulares, enMorelos se localiz— la mayor cantidad; sin embargo,el menor nmero de especies fue en el estado deMxico. Las comunidades vegetales donde habitanpreferentemente la mayor’a de orqu’deas son la dePino-Encino y Pino (Fig. 2y 2750 m de elevaci—n sobre el nivel del mar (Fig. 3 GneroCantidad Bletia Ruiz & Pav.4 Corallorhiza Chtel.4 Deiregyne Schltr.1 Dichromanthus Garay 2 Epidendrum L.2 Erycina Lindl.1 Funkiella Schltr.1 Govenia Lindl.2 Habenaria Willd.3 Laelia Lindl.1 Malaxis Sol. ex Sw.5 Mesadenus Schltr.1 Microthelys Garay1 Platanthera Rich.1 Prescottia Lindl.1 Prosthechea Knowles & Westc.2 Sarcoglottis C.Presl1 Schiedeella Schltr.4 Stelis Sw.1 Stenorhynchos Rich. ex Spreng.1 TABLA1. Abundancia de especies de orqu’deas en el PNIP y reas de influencia. LUNA et al. Diversidad de orqu’deas en el Parque Nacional Izta-Popo 57 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 54

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 58 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . FORMASDEVIDAYFLORACION . Los hbitos de crecimiento saprofito, terrestre y ep’fito, estn representa-dos en las orqu’deas localizadas en el Parque. Las dehbito terrestre son el tipo predominante en la zona de estudio con un 72% del total de especies y se dis-tribuyen principalmente en Bosque de Pino-Encino y Pino (Fig. 4les registrados se localizaron orqu’deas terrestresdesde los 1550 m hasta los 3350 m sobre el nivel delmar, las especies epifitas hasta cotas ms bajas desdelos 1550 a los 3050 m y las saprofitas en ms altas,desde los 2450 hasta los 3650 (Fig. 5 lo registrado, durante la realizaci—n del presente estu-dio, se localizaron especies terrestres principalmente en poca de primavera y verano, todas ellas en flora-ci—n, mientras que las ep’fitas fueron localizadas en FIGURA6. poca de floraci—n de las orqu’deas en el PNIP y reas de influencia. FIGURA1. Distribuci—n de orqu’deas por entidad federativa en el PNIP y reas de influencia. FIGURA2. Abundancia de orqu’deas por comunidad vegetal en el PNIP y reas de influencia. FIGURA3. Abundancia de orqu’deas por gradiente altitudinal en el PNIP y reas de influencia. FIGURA4. Abundancia de hbitos de crecimiento de orqu’deas por comunidad vegetal en el PNIP y reas deinfluencia. FIGURA5. Abundancia de hbitos de crecimiento de orqu’deas por rango altitudinal en el PNIP y reas de influencia.

PAGE 55

primavera oto–o e invierno an cuando no presentaron floraci—n. Durante el invierno no se ha localizadoninguna especie en floraci—n (Fig. 6 Discusi—n De la diversidad de orqu’deas reportada por Chvez y Trigo en 1996, para el PNI-P y su rea de influencia,solo cuatro gneros y 10 especies no se confirmaron.Despus de 10 a–os de esa publicaci—n y de cinco a–osde prospecci—n en la zona de estudio se registraron 25especies como nuevos registros, de las cuales dos sonde hbito saprofito, 17 terrestre y seis ep’fito. En elestado de Puebla, que incluye las laderas del Este de losvolcanes, se localizaron 16 especies de las cuales 8 sonnuevos registros y concuerda con lo reportado porChimal (1996registrar en esta zona. La zona fisiogrfica del PNIP ysus reas de influencia permite que se establezca grandiversidad de especies terrestres, ep’fita y micotr—ficas;ya que de acuerdo con Hagsater et al. (2005 presenta caracter’sticas tanto de las serran’as del nortede Mxico, cuya flora de orqu’deas es poco diversa conespecies terrestres y micotr—ficas, as’ como de las altasmonta–as del sur del pa’s que permiten la existencia de una variada flora de orqu’deas, donde las especies ep’fi-tas son tan numerosas como las terrestres. La Orchidaceae registrada en este estudio habita principal-mente en Bosque de Encinos y Bosque de Con’feras,comunidades caracter’sticos de Bosques TempladosSubhmedos (Rzedowski 1978, Chvez y Trigo 1996,Hagsater et al. 2005). Mantener la diversidad de especies de orqu’deas registradas en el Parque significa unagran responsabilidad, la alteraci—n continua del hbitat, es un factor limitante para su localizaci—n, ya que diversos problemas ambientales y sociales amenazan seriamente esta riqueza natural. De aqu’ que se deba mante-ner la conservaci—n de los sitios donde se encuentren laespecies nativas y tambin la conservaci—n ex situ . Conclusiones Se actualiz— e increment— el listado de orqu’deas del PNIP y reas de influencia con 39 especies incluidas en 20gneros. Veinticinco especies y ocho gneros son nuevos registros. Las especies encontradas se distribuyen altitudi-nalmente desde los 1789 hasta los 3650 m. Predominan las orqu’deas de habito terrestre y se distribuyen preferente-mente en los bosques de pino o pino-encino. LITERATURACITADAChvez, C.J.M. & B.N.Trigo (coords. manejo para el Parque Nacional Iztacc’huatl-Popocatpetl. UAM-Xochimilco, Mxico, D.F.Departamento del Hombre y su Ambiente. rea deEcolog’a y Planeaci—n de Recursos Naturales. 273 pp. Chimal-Hernndez, A., 1996. Vegetaci—n. Pp. 77-87 in : C.J.M. Chvez & B.N. Trigo (coords.manejo para el Parque Nacional Iztacc’huatl-Popocatpetl. UAM-Xochimilco, Mxico, D.F.Departamento del Hombre y su Ambiente. rea deEcolog’a y Planeaci—n de Recursos Naturales. CONANP, 2004. http://www.conanp.gob.mx/sinap/ (Consultada 21 de enero del 2007 Hagsater E., M.Soto, G.Salazar, R.Jimenez, M.L—pez & R.L. Dressler, 2005. Las Orqu’deas de Mxico. InstitutoChinoin, Mxico. Rzedowski, J., 1978. La Vegetaci—n de Mxico. Editorial Limusa. Mxico. Soto, M.A., 1988. Updated list of the orchids of Mexico. Orqu’dea (Mx. Soto, M.A. & E.Hagsater, 1990. Algunas ideas acerca de la conservaci—n de las orqu’deas mexicanas y un listadopreliminar de los taxa amenazados. In : reas Naturales Protegidas en Mxico y Especies en extinci—n.J.L.Camarillo & F.Rivera (Eds.Investigaci—n ICSE, ENEP-Iztacala, UNAM. Soto, M. A., E.Hagsater & G.A.Salazar, 2001. La Conservaci—n de las Orqu’deas de Mxico. XVCongreso Mexicano de Botnica. Qro., Qro. Mxico. Vargas-Mrquez, F., 1997. Parques Nacionales de Mxico. Instituto Nacional de Ecolog’a (INEMedio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca(SEMARNAP Brbara Susana Luna Rosales es profesora en la Facultad de Estudios Superiores Zaragoza de la Universidad Nacional Aut—noma de Mxico, en la carrera de Biolog’a. Su especialidad es la morfognesis vegetal, principalmente de la orquideoflora, as’ como el estudio y establecimiento de metodolog’as para la germinaci—n, propagaci—n, reimplantaci—n y rescate de diversas especies de orqu’deas mexicanas. Ha realizado diversas publicaciones con temas relaciona-dos con las tcnicas de cultivo de tejidos vegetales y la micropropagaci—n de plantas, entre ellas las orqu’deas. LUNA et al. Diversidad de orqu’deas en el Parque Nacional Izta-Popo 59 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 56

Orchids are among of the best-known and beloved plants, not only by scientists, but also by amateurs,and have a high commercial demand thanks to theirbeautiful, diverse and interesting flowers (Herrera1998). It is the largest family of flowering plants inthe world, with around 20,000 species (Dressler 1993). In Costa Rica there are around 1,400 regis-tered species of orchids, but the knowledge of thisfamily has grown a lot in recent years. Since 1993,around 20 new species have been described eachyear, and their classification is constantly changingbecause of molecular studies (Dressler 2003 On the other hand, orchids are one of the most threatened groups of plants. Many species are consid-ered endangered (Salazar 1996, Morales 2000of the Orchidaceae family is included in theAppendices of the Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES-tional trade to prevent species extinction because ofthis trade (or their overexploitation) (von Arx 1996 ). Human activities have been causing, directly or indirectly, a decrease in orchid population sizes. The habitat alteration, including total destruction, modifi-cation and fragmentation, is the main problem for theconservation of the diversity. Most of the tropicalorchids grow in primary forests. Some species areprobably more tolerant to forest fragmentation thanothers; hence those less tolerant populations willdecline more rapidly when habitats are altered.Another important threat is the illegal exploitation. Alot of plants are illegally collected from nature andsold (Salazar 1996, Morales 2000 The main requirement for orchid conservation is therefore the maintenance of natural habitats (Light2000, Catling 1996). The objective of in situ conservation is to allow species to be in the habitat wherethey belong and in the environment to which they areadapted (BGCI 1989 Ex situ conservation is the maintenance of organisms out of their natural habitat,for example in botanical gardens, field collections, and others, and its objective is to ensure the conservaLANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 AN ORCHID INVENTORY AND CONSERVATION PROJECT AT BOSQUE DE PAZ BIOLOGICAL RESERVE, UPPER RIO TORO VALLEY, ALAJUELA, COSTA RICA MELANIAMUOZ1,3& STEPHENH. KIRBY21Jard’n Botnico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica, P.O. Box 1031-7050, Cartago, Costa Rica.2U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025, U.S.A.3Author for correspondence: melaniamunozg@yahoo.com RESUMEN. El Jard’n de Orqu’deas de la reserva fue creado en el a–o 2000. All’, las orqu’deas ca’das de los rboles del bosque son rescatadas, reubicadas y conservadas en rboles vivos (principalmente gitite, jaul ypor—). Los objetivos del proyecto son: aumentar el conocimiento de la diversidad de orqu’deas de la Cuencadel R’o Toro mediante un inventario, respaldado por fotograf’as y material de herbario seco y en l’quido, delas orqu’deas rescatadas del bosque y cultivadas en el Jard’n de la reserva y dar a conocer dicha reserva como ejemplo de ecoturismo educativo y sitio de gran importancia para la investigaci—n orquideol—gica. El inventa-rio se ha llevado a cabo desde junio del 2004. Se han identificado 47 gneros y 163 especies; 12 de stas sonendmicas de Costa Rica. En promedio, se observan 40 especies en floraci—n cada mes. El hecho de que el Jard’n de Orqu’deas est situado junto a una reserva de vegetaci—n natural, es una ventaja que puede aprove-charse para investigar sobre taxonom’a y ecolog’a de orqu’deas de la regi—n. Adems de las opciones de investigaci—n, Bosque de Paz realiza una importante labor en educaci—n ambiental. Este inventario y la colec-ci—n de herbario resultante son herramientas importantes para la investigaci—n en orquideolog’a. Consultaruna colecci—n de este tipo es de mucha utilidad tanto para estudios taxon—micos como ecol—gicos, en vista de que pocas veces se cuenta, como en este caso, con observaciones de plantas vivas, datos fenol—gicos, fotogra-f’as y material preservado, al mismo tiempo.

PAGE 57

tion of endangered species. Ex situ conservation is justifiable only when it is part of an integral conser-vation strategy (BGCI 1989 The establishment of small natural reserves, sustained by private institutions, is an important strategythat complements the effort of the State to create andmaintain the National Park System. In this way, acoordinated effort is made to conserve the CostaRican natural and cultural patrimony (Fournier andHerrera 1979). Bosque de Paz is a private biologicalreserve located in the Central Volcanic Range. It has both primary and secondary forests, as well as graz-ing and in various states of reforestation (Kirby2003). The Reserve was created with the objective of protecting the flora and fauna of the zone, and to create public awareness of the importance of conserva-tion. The idea to relocate orchids for public viewingand scientific study began in the mid-90s. Aftermajor storms with high winds and heavy rain occur,large number of branches and trees, full of epiphyticplants, fell across 20 km of trails in the Reserve.These orchids would die eventually due to low light and high humidity conditions. Fallen plants were sub-sequently rescued, and some of the orchid diversity ofthe area is now made accessible to visitors (Kirby2003). In 1996 the Reserve had orchids relocated ateye level on trees along a 75 meter-long trail. In2000, the Orchid Garden was created, at an elevationof about 1,550 meters above sea level, at 10 12.425’ N latitude and 84 19.140’ W longitude. The orchids are located on trees and live trunks. To preserve orchid diversity, it is necessary to know which species exist, where they are located andbasic aspects about their ecology and frequency in nature (Dressler 1996-tions should be studied, but not every grower knowswhere their plants come from. In practice, one of themost common ways to obtain this kind of informationis by visiting museums and herbariums, where dry material, sometimes complemented with flowers pre-served in alcohol, can be found (Dressler 1996Moreover, more elaborate surveys that give diversity,endemism, density and blooming data of the orchidspresent in a specific area, are even more valuable because they increase the knowledge of the distribu-tion and ecology of the species, especially the rareones (Soto 1996 Surveys of plants present in National Parks, botanical gardens, as well as that of the biological preservesand private collections, are essential for the use ofthese places in conservation and research. Because ofthis, it is important to perform both taxonomic studiesas sources of information about the species diversity in different places of the country, and ecological studies to know the habitat and the environmental condi-tions where the native orchids grow, as well as obtaining fundamental information on orchid bio-geography (Kirby this volumeto be the first comprehensive, multi-year collection,description and identification of orchids in theCentral Volcanic Range in Costa Rica. The objectiveof this paper is to provide a species inventory ofnative orchids from the R’o Toro Valley, ValverdeVega, Alajuela, as a baseline for conservation andstarting point for orchid research in this region. Methodology An orchid survey at Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve has been in progress since June of 2004.Monthly field trips to the Reserve were made in orderto sample blooming species. A herbarium collectionwas created and is currently maintained at the Reserve. Flowers were collected and preserved in liq-uid (55% alcohol, 5% glycerin and 40% waterwell. Every species was photographed and describedusing the checklist described by Kirby and Mu–oz(this volumeDressler (2003were recorded and the identified plants were alllabeled in the Orchid Garden. Results In the study period, 163 orchid species were observed in bloom and described, of which 12 species areendemics to Costa Rica. These were distributed into 47genera. The genera with greatest number of species inthe garden are: Epidendrum (24 spp. Pleurothallis (23 spp.), Maxillaria (22 spp. Stelis (10 spp. Lepanthes (8 spp.), Masdevallia (7 spp. Prosthechea (6 spp. Elleanthus (5spp. Platystele (4 spp. Scaphyglottis (4 spp.) (Table 1). On average, 40 ( 11) species were observed in bloom each month. The months with morespecies in bloom were October, November and MUOZ& KIRBYAn orchid inventory and conservation project at Bosque de Paz Reserve 61 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 58

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 62 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . NameField number Acineta densa 04_98 (97 Ada chlorops a 04_105 Barbosella dolichorhiza a 04_126 Brassia arcuigera 05_174 Chondrorhyncha picta a 04_100 Cryptocentrum calcaratum 04_104 Dichaea glauca a 04_147 Dichaea schlechteri E04_128 Dichaea trichocarpa 04_75 Dracula carlueri 05_175 Elleanthus (2spp.06_220/ 06_238 Elleanthus cynarocephalus 04_77 Elleanthus glaucophyllus 05_173 Elleanthus lancifolius a 05_180 Encyclia ceratistes 04_82 Epidendrum (8 spp04_115 a / 04_156/ 05_177/ 05-187/ 06_210/ 06_216/ 06_221/ 06_236/ Epidendrum firmum 04_136 Epidendrum lacustre b Epidendrum lancilabium 05_204 Epidendrum laucheanum 04_93 Epidendrum myodes 05-184 Epidendrum palmense E05_162 Epidendrum parkinsonianum 04_157 Epidendrum piliferum 04_91 Epidendrum platystigma E05-181 Epidendrum radicans 04_154 Epidendrum sancti-ramoni a 05_161 Epidendrum subnutans a E04_137(155 Epidendrum summerhayesii 05-186 Epidendrum wercklei b Erythrodes killipii 06_215 Eurysyles standleyi E07_243 Gongora horichiana 04_112 Govenia quadriplicata 06_224 Houlletia tigrina 06_231 Leochilus tricuspidatus 04_130 Lepanthes (7spp.05_158/ 05_164/ 05_190/ 06_207/ 06_214/ 06_217/ 06_219/ Lepanthes crossota 04_114 Lockhartia hercodonta 06_241 Lockhartia oerstedii 04_102 Lockhartia oerstedii a 05_178 Lycaste macrophylla 04_99 NameField number Masdevallia sp.06_240 Masdevallia calura E04_80 Masdevallia chontalensis 05_205 Masdevallia nidifica 06_212 Masdevallia picturata 06_234 Masdevallia pygmaea 06_228 Masdevallia striatella a 04_131 Maxillaria (5 spp.04_96 a / 05_189/ 06_213/ 06_227/ 06_237/ Maxillaria angustisegmenta a 04_110 Maxillaria biolleyi 04_146 Maxillaria bradeorum 05_163 Maxillaria brevilabia 04_148 Maxillaria cucullata 04_140 Maxillaria dendrobioides a 04_141 Maxillaria flava 06_235 Maxillaria fulgens 04_74 Maxillaria inaudita 04_145 Maxillaria microphyton a E05_176 Maxillaria nasuta 04_123 Maxillaria porrecta 04_125 Maxillaria pseudoneglecta a 04_127 Maxillaria ringens 04_124 Maxillaria sigmoidea 06_239 Maxillaria umbratilis 06_208 Maxillaria wercklei E05_192 Miltoniopsis warscewiczii 04_132 Oerstedella endresii 04_143 Oerstedella exasperata 04_70 Oerstedella intermixta E04_107 Oncidium 04_152 Oncidium bracteatum 04_81 (83 Oncidium klotzschianum 04_129 Oncidium panduriforme a 04_85 Osmoglossum egertonii 04_134 Otoglossum chiriquense 06_232 Phragmipedium longifolium a 04_92 Platystele compacta 04_89 Platystele lancilabris a E05_166 Platystele oxyglossa a 04_103 Platystele propinqua a E04_113 Pleurothallis (10 spp.04_101 a /04_116 a / 04_120/ 04_139/ 04_153/ 05-188/ 06_211/ 06_218/ 06_230/ 06_242/ Pleurothallis amparoana a 05_171 TABLE1. Orchid list of Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve. E = Endemic species to Costa Rica. a = Samples with duplicates in the Herbarium of the University of Costa Rica. b = Not collected plants, just identified in the Orchid Garden.

PAGE 59

December (Fig. 1pared from plants and flowers of 149 species and flow-ers from 139 species were preserved by pickling.Duplicates of 36 species were deposited in theHerbarium of the University of Costa Rica (USJ Discussion Having more than 160 species registered so far, with at least 12 being endemic, Bosque de Paz cannow be recognized as a key site for in situ conservation of orchids in Costa Rica. With an area of 2000hectares and with elevations ranging between 1,300 and 2,450 meters, the Reserve brings a big, little frag-mented area, with modest human impact and withseveral microhabitats that support the existence,reproduction and other natural biological processes ofan important number of orchids. Bosque de Paz is a natural reserve, which has had success in the conservation of a group of plants as vulnerable as orchids. This also reflects success in the conservation of other plant families present in the zone.Moreover, the Orchid Garden could be considered apotential bank of germoplasm in the field (BGCI 1989). Field collections like this are better than conventional ones, because they have very similar charac-teristics to the natural habitat. The relocated plants have similar elevation, rainfall, temperature and polli-nators where they were found. According to BGCI(1989 ex situ conservation strategy. The Garden is located just next to an important natural forest, which is an advantage thatcould be further exploited for the taxonomic, ecologicand biogeografic studies of the region. Since it is thefirst multi-year orchid survey in the Central VolcanicRange, it is a starting point for comparisons with othermontane cloud-forest environments in Costa Rica andelsewhere in Latin America (see Kirby, this volume Furthermore, one of the most important roles of NameField number Pleurothallis cardiothallis a 04_108 Pleurothallis costaricensis a 05_165 Pleurothallis dentipetala 05_203 Pleurothallis eumecocaulon 04_133 Pleurothallis johnsonii 04_117 Pleurothallis palliolata 05_202 Pleurothallis phyllocardioides a 04_118 Pleurothallis pompalis a 04_88 Pleurothallis ramonensis E04_87 Pleurothallis ruscifolia 04_72 Pleurothallis tonduzii a 04_95 Prosthechea sp.06_206 Prosthechea brassavolae a 04_106 Prosthechea campylostalix a 05_168 Prosthechea ionocentra 04_94 Prosthechea pseudopygmaea 04_138 Prosthechea vespa 05_193 Restrepia muscifera a 04_135 Restrepia trichoglossa 04_121 Rossioglossum schlieperianum 05_179 Salpistele brunnea 05_191 Scaphosepalum anchoriferum 04_79 Scaphyglottis densa a 05_169 NameField number Scaphyglottis pachybulbon a 04_149 Scaphyglottis pulchella 04_84 Scaphyglottis sigmoidea a 04_86 Sigmatostalix picta 04_90 Sobralia amabilis 06_233 Sobralia leucoxantha 06_225 Solenocentrum costaricense 04_76 Stanhopea costaricensis 06_226 Stelis (8 spp04_142/ 04_144/ 05_167 a / 05_170/ 05_174/ 05-182/ 05-183/ 05-185 Stelis gracilis a 04_109 Stelis ovatilabia 04_119 Systeloglossum costaricense 06_229 Telipogon biolleyi 04_71 Trichopilia marginata 06_209 Trichopilia suavis 04_122 Trichosalpinx sp.06_216 Trichosalpinx memor 05_159 Trichosalpinx memor 05_160 Warszewiczella discolor 04_150 Xylobium elongatum 04_111 Xylobium sulfurinum 04_73 TABLE1 (continuation E = Endemic species to Costa Rica. a = Samples with duplicates in the Herbarium of the University of Costa Rica. b = Not collected plants, just identified in the Orchid Garden. MUOZ& KIRBYAn orchid inventory and conservation project at Bosque de Paz Reserve 63 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 60

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 64 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . natural preserves is to educate the people who visit them (Head and Lauer 1996 orchid garden is therefore important for environmen-tal education of both national and foreign tourists,because thanks to it, there is a great number and diversity of blooming orchid species that can be easily seen in the garden throughout the year, and are difficult to observe in their natural habitat. This educa-tional opportunity helps to create consciousness aboutCosta Rica’s natural richness, the enormous orchiddiversity, the problems that make their conservation difficult, and that everybody can do something for their protection, such as the simple action of not tak-ing them from their natural habitats. Orchid surveys such this one are also valuable tools for orchid scientists. High-resolution digital and prin-ted photographs, high quality herbarium samples,both dry and pickled specimens, with duplicates inthe Herbarium of the University of Costa Rica (USJare provided. Access to a collection like this one could be very useful to researchers for taxonomic stu-dies, for which there is limited preserved material, especially for those less conspicuous and rare species. Accurate species identifications also will be usefulfor population studies and orchid biogeography. To conclude, Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve reflects the great orchid diversity of the area.Moreover, the reserve’s Orchid Garden is a very important place for conservation, research and envi-ronmental education in several fields, with an obviousemphasis in orchideology. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.The authors wish to thank Carlos O. Morales and Robert Dressler for their generous help inthe identification of some species. To Piero Protti for hishelp in the field collection, preparation of the herbariummaterial, and in the elaboration and advice for this paper.To Vinicio Porras for his help in the field and the OrchidGarden maintenance. This project is made possible by thesupport of Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve.LITERATURECITEDBGCI (Botanical Gardens Conservation International 1989. La estrategia de los Jardines Botnicos para laConservaci—n. BGCI, WWR y UICN. Suiza. 51 p. Figure 1. Number of species observed in bloom from July 2004 to January 2007 in the Orchid Garden of Bosque de Paz Reserve. * Data not collected.

PAGE 61

Catling, P.M. 1996. Conservation Strategy: In situ conservation. Pp. 15-23. In: E. Hgsater & V. Dumont (eds. Orchids – Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan.IUCN. Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Dressler, R.L. 1993. Phylogeny and Classification of the Orchid Family. Dioscorides Press. Hong Kong. 314 p. Dressler, R.L. 1996. The problems associated with botanical sampling and study. P. 34 in: E. Hgsater & V. Dumont (eds.OrchidsStatus Survey and ConservationAction Plan. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,UK. Dressler, R.L. 2003. Orchidaceae. In : Hammel, B. E., Grayum, M. H., Herrera, C. & Zamora, N. (eds.de Plantas de Costa Rica, vol III: Monocotiled—neas(Orchidaceae-ZingiberaceaeMuseo Nacional de Costa Rica. Pp. 1-595. Fournier, L.A. & M.E. Herrera. 1979. Importancia cient’fica, econ—mica y cultural de un sistema de peque–as reser-vas naturales en Costa Rica. Agron. Costarr. 3(1 Head, C. & A. Lauer. 1996. Conservation Strategy: Education. Pp. 46-47 in: E. Hgsater & V. Dumont (eds.Plan. IUCN. Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Herrera, A. 1998. Factibilidad tcnica y financiera para la producci—n in vitro de orqu’deas ( Masdevallia calura y Masdevallia reichenbachiana ) en Monteverde, Puntarenas. Tesis de Licenciatura en Econom’a Agr’cola,Universidad de Costa Rica, San Jos. 149 p. Kirby, S.H. 2003. Neotropical orchid eco-tourism: educational experience of an orchid neophyte at The Bosque de Paz Biological Preserve, Central Volcanic Range, CostaRica. Lankesteriana 7: 121-124. Kirby, S.H. 2007. Geological Processes and Orchid Biogeography with Applications to Southeast CentralAmerica. Proceedings of the 3rdInternational Orchid Conservation Congress in Lankesteriana, this volume. Kirby, S.H. &M. Mu–oz. 2007. A form and checklist for the description of orchids in the field and laboratorywork. Costa Rica. Proceedings of the 3rdInternational Orchid Conservation Congress in Lankesteriana, this volume. Light, M.H.S. 2000. In situ orchid conservation: challenge and opportunity. Orchid Conserv. News 3: 4-5. Morales, J.F. 2000. Orqu’deas, cactus y bromelias del bosque seco. INBio. Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica.162 p. Salazar, G.A. 1996. Conservation Threats. Pp. 6-10 in: E. Hgsater & V. Dumont (eds.OrchidsStatus Surveyand Conservation Action Plan. IUCN. Gland, Switzerlandand Cambridge, UK. Soto, M. 1996. Conservation Strategy: The importance of research. Pp. 33-38. In: E. Hgsater & V. Dumont (eds. Orchids – Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan.IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. von Arx, B. 1996. Conservation Strategy: International Protection. Pp. 11-14. In: E. Hgsater & V. Dumont (eds.Plan. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Melania Mu–oz earned her B.S. in Biology at the University of Costa Rica in 2003. She is currently working on her Master’s degree in Biotechnology at the same University. Her research involves both population genetics and in vitro culture of orchids. She is also a research assistant at the Lankester Botanical Garden. She has been the biologist in charge of the inventory of the Orchid Garden and the preparation and maintenance of the herbarium material at Bosquede Paz Biological Reserve since 2004. Stephen H. Kirby was awarded a Ph.D. in Geology in 1975 from the University of California at Los Angeles. He has been employed by the U.S. Geological Survey since 1968 and is currently a Research Geophysicist and SeniorScientist in the Earthquake Hazard Team in Menlo Park, California. He is a fellow of the American Geophysical Unionand the Mineralogical Society of America. He is an author of more than 160 peer-reviewed papers and book chaptersand has worked as a volunteer at the Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve since 2002. MUOZ& KIRBYAn orchid inventory and conservation project at Bosque de Paz Reserve 65 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 62

Las orqu’deas de gnero Phragmipedium (Pfitz. Rolfe pertenecen a la subfamilia Cypripedioideae yson comnmente llamadas zapatillas o “slipperorchids” (Atwood 19842003Costa Rica se encuentran dos especies: P. humboldtii (Warsz. ex Rchb.f.) J.T. Atwood & Dressler, la cual se encuentra tambin en Mxico, Guatemala,Honduras, Nicaragua, Panam y Per (UNEP-WCMC 2004); y P. longifolium (Warsz. & Rchb.f. Rolfe, que se distribuye en Costa Rica, Panam,Colombia y Ecuador (UNEP-WCMC 2004 El valor econ—mico de estas plantas se debe a su gran belleza, la cual es el origen de su alta extracci—nilegal en la naturaleza, reduciendo cada vez ms eltama–o de sus poblaciones y llevndolas a peligro deextinci—n. Las dos especies reportadas para Costa Rica se encuentran en la lista roja de especies en peli-gro de extinci—n de la UICN (Uni—n Internacionalpara la Conservaci—n de la Naturaleza) (Pupulin2003). Adems, este gnero est incluido en elApndice I de CITES (Convention on InternacionalTrade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora) (von Arx 1996). La disponibilidad de informaci—n detallada es necesaria para poder tomar decisiones adecuadas sobre elmanejo de las especies (Olson et al. 2005).Para saber el estado real de Phragmipedium en Costa Rica, es necesario conocer la distribuci—n y las caracter’sticas de sus poblaciones silvestres. En este trabajo se pre-sentan los resultados de una bsqueda sistemtica depoblaciones de Phragmipedium en Costa Rica. Los objetivos del trabajo son establecer una distribuci—ngeneral de Phragmipedium longifolium y P. humboldtii en Costa Rica, basado en datos de herbario y de campo, y describir el hbitat donde se encuentran. Metodolog’a Se obtuvieron datos de recolecta de ejemplares de P. longifolium y P. humboldtii depositados en el Herbario de la Universidad de Costa Rica (USJHerbario Nacional (CR Biodiversidad (INBio-queda de localidades conocidas de esta especie deorqu’dea en Costa Rica. Por otro lado, se contactaronbi—logos, naturalistas, guardaparques, aficionados y coleccionistas que tuvieran conocimiento de localida-des donde crecen las plantas. Se realizaron visitas a las localidades donde las plantas hab’an sido recolec-tadas u observadas. Las giras se realizaron durante 2005 y 2006. En cada sitio se recolect— material testi-go que luego se deposit— en la colecci—n viva delJard’n Botnico Lankester. En cada poblaci—n setomaron las coordenadas geogrficas con un GPSGarmin Map 76S. Se utiliz— el programa ArcViewGIS 3.3 para localizar en un mapa de Costa Rica laspoblaciones reportadas en bases de datos de herbariosy las visitadas durante el estudio. La descripci—n del hbitat se hizo segn Zhan-Huo et al. (1999 que ocupa la poblaci—n, cercan’a a r’os, impacto de laactividad humana y presencia de brotes nuevos, floresy frutos en las plantas. Resultados EJEMPLARESDEHERBARIO . Del Herbario de la Universidad de Costa Rica (USJde plantas de P. longifolium y P. humboldtii cultivadas en el Jard’n Botnico Lankester, pero sin datos deprocedencia. En dicho herbario, se obtuvo otro datode P. longifolium cultivado en “La Finca el Trbol, LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 DISTRIBUCIN DE POBLACIONES SILVESTRES Y DESCRIPCIN DEL HBITAT DE PHRAGMIPEDIUM EN COSTA RICA MELANIAMUOZ1,2& JORGEWARNER11Jard’n Botnico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica, Apdo. 1031-7050, Cartago, Costa Rica. 2Autor para correspondencia: melaniamunozg@yahoo.com PALABRASCLAVE: Phragmipedium , slipper orchids, poblaciones silvestres, distribuci—n, descripci—n de hbitat, orqu’deas terrestres, Costa Rica

PAGE 63

La Palma” pero sin coordenadas geogrficas. En el Herbario Nacional se encuentran muestras de dosplantas de P. humboldtii de la zona sur del pa’s. La primera, recolectada por Estrada A. et al. (2001 cultivo en el Jard’n Botnico Wilson, proveniente de Sabalito, San Vito de Coto Brus y la segunda recolec-tada cerca de la frontera con Panam en 1923.Adems, cinco ejemplares de P. longifolium provenientes de La Fortuna de San Carlos, San Ram—n,Para’so y Sarapiqu’ (cuadro 1INBio estn registradas cinco muestras de P. longifolium, de las cuales dos son duplicados de las muestras del Herbario Nacional (cuadro 1existen ejemplares de P. humboldtii. GIRASDECAMPO . En total se visitaron 10 poblaciones de P. longifolium localizadas en las zonas de Venecia de San Carlos, Tilarn, Grecia, Para’so y Sarapiqu’(cuadro 1, figura 1de cada poblaci—n depositados en el Jard’n BotnicoLankester se muestran en el cuadro 1. Durante elperiodo de estudio no fue posible localizar algunapoblaci—n de P. humboldtii . DESCRIPCINDELHABITAT . La mayor’a de las poblaciones visitadas se encuentran entre 950 y 1255msnm, excepto las de La Virgen de Sarapiqu’,Reserva Gaviln Blanco y Reserva Rara Avis que seencuentran en zonas ms bajas (cuadro 1zonas de vida establecidas por Holdridge (1967todas las poblaciones, tanto las localizadas en elcampo como los registros de herbario, se encontraron en el bosque muy hmedo tropical transici—n a pre-montano y bosque pluvial premontano, con excepci—nde las poblaciones de La Virgen, que se encontr— enbosque muy hmedo tropical, y de Tilarn I, que se localiz— en bosque muy hmedo premontano transi-ci—n a pluvial (figura 1 Todas las poblaciones se encontraron formando parches peque–os de 9-2500 m2, solamente las poblaciones del Proyecto Hidroelctrico Toro II delInstituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICEII y R’o Cuarto pose’an reas ms grandes (cuadro 1Los parches de plantas ms peque–os, localizados enLa Virgen y en la Reserva Gaviln Blanco, constabande nicamente 4-6 plantas cada una, sin embargo, stas se encontraban en buen estado, con brotes nue-vos, flores e incluso cpsulas. Las plantas de Phragmipedium de la Reserva Gaviln Blanco, Rara Avis, Aguas Silvestres y La Virgen se encontraron creciendo en zonas de poca cobertura vege-tal, sobre rocas grandes dentro de r’os de poco caudalen estaci—n seca (entre 5 y 15 m de ancho y alrededorde 1-1.5 m de profundidad), ubicadas al lado contrario de la corriente de agua, o en rocas a la orilla de los mis-mos. Otras plantas crecen en paredones ubicados a laorilla de caminos, tal es el caso de las poblacionesencontradas en Venecia, Tilarn I y R’o Cuarto. En lasdos ltimas los paredones estaban adyacentes a caucesde r’os peque–os o quebradas. Por otro lado, en Toro IIy Para’so, los paredones estn continuos a cataratas y elacceso es limitado para el hombre. La poblaci—n msgrande encontrada fue la de Tilarn II (cuadro 1cual las plantas crecen en un potrero sin sombra y a laorilla de una carretera. Las poblaciones de Tilarn sonlas dos nicas donde las plantas no se encontraron enparches adyacentes a alguna quebrada o r’o. Las plantasde todas las poblaciones encontradas pose’an flores y brotes nuevos y no presentaban signos visibles de enfermedades causadas por hongos o bacterias. No se encon-traron plantas de P. longifolium ep’fitas. FIGURA1. Mapa de distribuci—n de P. longifolium en Costa Rica segn las zonas de vida establecidas por Holdridge(1967MUOZ& WARNERPoblaciones silvestres de Phragmipedium 67 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 64

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 68 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . Poblaci—n Ubicaci—n Altitud rea Fecha Recolector Herbario N JBL Zona protegida Lugar donde crecen (msnm (m2 recolecta (n de recolecta Monteverde San Ram—n 800 1990 Bello 1987 CR / INB X Roca de r’o Monteverde San Ram—n 900 1987 Haber 7165 y 7886 CR X Roca de r’o Braulio Carrillo Sarapiqu’ 500-600 Zumbado 15 CR / INB Borde de bosque Cach’ Para’so 1450 1969 sin datos recolecta CR Sin dato La Fortuna San Carlos 1025 1978 Hamel s. n. CR Sin dato Arenal San Carlos 500-600 1994 Lepiz et al. 119 INB Terrestre en sotobosque Monteverde San Ram—n 850 1897 Haber 7886 INB X Roca de r’o La Virgen Sarapiqu’ 283 50 2004 Roca de r’o Venecia San Carlos 1084 500 2005 Warner 9 11599 Pared—n Proyecto Hidroelctrico Toro II San Carlos 1081 10000 2005 Warner 5 11606 X Pared—n Centro Biol—gico Aguas Silvestres Sarapiqu’ 1081 1600 2005 Warner 16 11737 X Roca de r’o Reserva Biol—gica Gaviln Blanco Sarapiqu’ 670 9 2005 Warner 22 11597 X Roca de r’o Reserva Rara Avis Sarapiqu’ 724 1500 2005 Warner 42 12064 X Roca de r’o Tilarn I Tilarn 1255 2500 2006 Warner 84 Pared—n Tilarn II Tilarn 951 60000 2006 Warner 85 Potrero Rio Cuarto Grecia 1099 60000 2006 Pared—n Para’so Para’so 2400 2005 Warner 78 12746 Pared—n CUADRO1. Datos de recolecta de P. longifolium de las muestras depositadas en el Herbario Nacional e INBio y de las muestras testigo, de las poblaciones visitadas, depositadas en el Jard’n Botnico Lankester (JBL

PAGE 65

Discusi—n Las colecciones de herbario son una fuente importante de datos de distribuci—n de las especies de plan-tas (Jones et al. 1997). Los datos obtenidos de los herbarios consultados fueron una base muy importante para el inicio de la bsqueda de las poblaciones silves-tres de Phragmipedium en Costa Rica. Se encontraron poblaciones cercanas a sitios de recolecta reportadosen los herbarios, como es el caso de la regi—n deSarapiqu’, y alrededores de Monteverde (Tilarn, SanRam—n, La Fortuna de San Carlos) y Para’so. Adems,se hallaron poblaciones en zonas que no estabanreportadas anteriormente en los registros de herbario (Venecia, Toro II y R’o Cuarto-buci—n importante al conocimiento de la distribuci—ngeogrfica de este gnero en Costa Rica. Por otrolado, los tipos de sustrato reportados en los herbariosconcuerdan con los encontrados en el campo. Es importante notar que la mayor’a de las poblaciones de P. longifolium se encontraron creciendo en zonas generalmente asociadas a fuentes de agua oexpuestas a mucha humedad, con escasa o ninguna cobertura vegetal y con diferentes niveles de altera-ci—n humana o natural, como derrumbes o crecidas der’os. Las caracter’sticas de las poblaciones observadasindican que las plantas de P. longifolium son capaces de colonizar ambientes alterados, expuestos a la luz yla humedad, donde las semillas dispersadas por elviento encuentran las condiciones necesarias para germinar y desarrollarse. El caso ms notorio de plan-tas creciendo en una zona con alto impacto humanoes la de Tilarn II, donde las plantas crecen en un potrero, sin sombra y a la orilla de un camino asfaltado, y sin embargo, fue la poblaci—n con mayor canti-dad de plantas y rea ocupada. El hecho de que las poblaciones estn conformadas por peque–os parches, donde las plantas estn muycercanas unas de otras, y que se encuentren en lugares alterados, con fcil acceso humano, hacen muy vulne-rables a estas poblaciones silvestres. Por otro lado, algunas poblaciones se encuentran en reas protegi-das, como las reservas privadas Aguas Silvestres,Gaviln Blanco y Rara Avis y en sitios como la Planta Hidroelctrica Toro II del ICE, donde el acce-so a particulares es limitado, lo cual brinda mayorprotecci—n a esta orqu’dea en la zona. El presente trabajo brinda informaci—n general de las caracter’sticas del hbitat y de la distribuci—n geogrfica de P. longifolium en Costa Rica. Aunque se visitaron todas las localidades donde se conoce la pre-sencia de plantas de este gnero, la bsqueda no fueexhaustiva por lo que seguramente existen otraspoblaciones viviendo en condiciones similares a lasdescritas anteriormente. Por otro lado, la informaci—ndisponible acerca P. humboldtii es muy escasa y la ubicaci—n de poblaciones en la zona sur de CostaRica resulta dif’cil. En el futuro se pueden utilizarbases de datos geo-referenciados y programas deSistemas de Informaci—n Geogrfica para elaboraci—nde mapas que permitan identificar y limitar nuevasreas de bsqueda de estas especies. AGRADECIMIENTOS.Se agradece al Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, a Luis Diego G—mez, Orlando Vargas,Amos Bien, Eladio Cruz, lvaro Salazar, Ernesto Carmany Vinicio Porras por su valiosa ayuda en la localizaci—n yacceso a las poblaciones silvestres de P. longifolium visitadas durante este estudio, as’ como al Ministerio de Ambiente y Energ’a por los permisos para recolectar mate-rial. Este trabajo fue financiado parcialmente por laVicerrector’a de Investigaci—n de la Universidad de Costa Rica, en el marco del proyecto: “Evaluaci—n de la variabi-lidad gentica de poblaciones silvestres y cultivo in vitro de Phragmipedium (Orchidaceae) en Costa Rica” (814A6-107).LITERATURACITADAAtwood, J.T. 1984. The relationship of the slipper orchids (Subfamily Cipripedioide, Orchidaceae129-229. Dressler, R.L. 2003. Orchidaceae. In : Hammel, B. E., Grayum, M. H., Herrera, C. & Zamora, N. (eds.de Plantas de Costa Rica, vol III: Monocotiled—neas(Orchidaceae-ZingiberaceaeMuseo Nacional de Costa Rica. Pp. 1-595. Holdridge, L. 1967. Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science Center, Costa Rica. 89 p. Jones, P.G., S.E. Beebe & J. Tohme. 1997. The use of geographical information systems in biodiversity explo-ration and conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation6: 974-958. Olson, M.E., J.A. Lomeli & N.V. Cacho. 2005. Extinction thread in the Pedilanthus clade ( Euphorbia, Euphorbiaceae), with special reference to the recently rediscovered E. conzattii ( P. pulchellus ). Am. J. Bot. 92(4 Pupulin, F. 2003. Orchidaceae de Costa Rica. Jard’n Botnico Lankester. Universidad de Costa Rica. CostaMUOZ& WARNERPoblaciones silvestres de Phragmipedium 69 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 66

Rica. 28 pp. UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2004.UNEP-WCMC Species Database: CITES-ListedSpecies. (consultada el 30 de setiembre 2004,http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/isdb/CITES/Taxonomy/tax-species-result.cfm?Genus=Phragmipedium von Arx, B. 1996. Conservation Strategy: Internacional Protection, pp11-14. In: E. Hgsater & V. Dumont (eds.Plan. IUCN. Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Zhan-Huo, T., L. Yi-Bo, P.J. Criba, N. McGough, G. Siu, & L. Chau. 1999. A preliminary report on the popula-tion size, ecology, and conservation status of some Paphiopedilum species (Orchidaceae China. Lindleyana 14(1 Melania Mu–oz obtuvo el t’tulo de Bachiller en Biolog’a de la Universidad de Costa Rica en el a–o 2003. Actualmente realiza sus estudios de Postgrado en Biotecnolog’a en la misma universidad. Su proyecto de tesis est enfocado en lagentica de poblaciones y reproducci—n in vitro de orqu’deas. Es asistente de investigaci—n en el Jard’n Botnico Lankester. Desde el 2004 trabaja en la Reserva Biol—gica Bosque de Paz, donde realiza el inventario del Jard’n deOrqu’deas y es la encargada del montaje y mantenimiento del herbario. Jorge Warner es bi—logo con estudios de posgrado en la Universidad de Costa Rica. Trabaja con el Jard’n Botnico Lankester desde 1991. Sus reas de trabajo son cultivo in vitro de plantas en peligro de extinci—n y conservaci—n in situ . 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 70 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 67

Introduction The Tropical dry Forest (Bs-Ttion with continuous forest cover between 0-1,000 min altitude and temperatures above 24 C and averageannual rainfall between 700 and 2,000mm, with oneor two dry periods per year (Espinal 1985; Murphy &Lugo 1986, InstitutoAlexander von Humboldt 1998).The Tropical dry Forest represents about 50% of theforested areas of Central America and 22% of SouthAmerica (Murphy and Lugo, 1986formation is found in the Caribbean region and in theinterandean valleys of the rivers Magdalena andCauca in an area which presumably covered about 8,146,000 hectares (Espinal and Montenegro, 1977 The Tropical dry Forest is one of the most threatened ecosystems of the Neotropics (Janzen, 1987 Colombia it is one of the most degraded and fragment-ed, with estimates of present total cover of less than1.5% of the original cover (Etter, 1993 the greatest proportion is found in the arid peri-caribbean belt with more than 6 million hectares andthe NorAndean -Choc—-Magdalena province withabout one million hectares (Hernndez et al. 1992,Espinal and Montenegro 1977). The dry forest of theupper Cauca river valley, the main tributary of theMagdalena river, originally covered about 300,000 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 ORCHIDS OF A REGENERATED TROPICAL DRY FOREST IN THE CALI RIVER WATERSHED, MUNICIPALITY OF CALI, COLOMBIA JORGEE. OREJUELA1Universidad Aut—noma de Occidente Environmental Studies Group for Sustainable DevelopmentGEADES and Director Cali Botanical Garden, Cali, Colombia jeorejuela@uao.edu.co jardinbocali@hotmail.com RESUMEN: El bosque seco tropical regenerado en la cuenca media del R’o Cali forma un corredor biol—gico de cerca de 100 hectreas que conecta la ciudad de Cali con el Parque Natural Farallones de Cali. El Jard’nBotnico de Cali, un espacio natural de bosque seco tropical regenerado de 12 hectreas, forma parte de estecorredor y su vegetaci—n muestra una dominancia de especies pioneras de sucesi—n ecol—gica secundaria.Las especies que predominan son: “arrayn” ( Myrcia popayanensis ), Laurel Jigua ( Cynammomum triplinerve ), Sangregao ( Crot—n gossypifolius ), Gucimo ( Guazuma ulmifolia ), Chiminango ( Pithecellobium dulce ) y Chagualo ( Clusia sp ). Un anlisis preliminar de las orqu’deas presentes en este corredor incluye especies que crecen bien en terrenos abiertos como Cyrtopodium paniculatum y Catasetum ochraceum y en afloramientos rocosos como Epidendrum xanthinum , Schomburgkia y Sobralia. Las especies ep’fitas del JB incluyen Dimerandra emarginata , Catasetum tabulare , Encyclia ceratistes , Encyclia sp ), Bulbophyllum meridense , Cladobium, Epidendrum (3 spp Maxillaria (2 spp Lepanthes y Oncidium cartaginensis . Hay dos especies de vainillas que son propiamente especies trepadoras. Las especies t’picamente terrestres incluyenlos siguientes gneros: ( Oeceoclades, Cleistes, Galeandra, Pelexia y Spiranthes. En un bosque seco tropical de condiciones similares en la cuenca del R’o Claro se encontr— una especie de Coryanthes posiblemente nueva. La vegetaci—n presente en el corredor biol—gico y el JBC es una regeneraci—n de los ltimos 70 a–os.El rea hab’a sido impactada severamente por procesos de agricultura extensiva, ganader’a, proyectos vialesy por incendios forestales. Las especies nativas de rboles as’ como las orqu’deas presentes actualmente conforman un banco de germoplasma de gran valor particularmente desde la —ptica de la restauraci—n ecol—-gica del bosque seco tropical en laderas andinas. Esta flora de orqu’deas es precisamente, la misma quealguna vez exist’a en los bosques donde hoy la ciudad de Cali se extiende y por tanto representa una ventanadel pasado y un enorme potencial educativo para las generaciones presentes. KEYWORDS: orchids, restoration, conservation, systematics

PAGE 68

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 72 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .hectares in the Department of Valle del Cauca. Presently, the dry forest of this region has practicallydisappeared to the advance of sugarcane cultivation,the major economic crop of the State. It is estimatedthat the cover of this formation in the Cauca Valley isless than 3,000 hectares with documented reductions of66% between 1957 and 1986 (CVC 1994forest relicts remain in the flat portion of the Caucariver valley, all below 12 hectares each. The situationis only slightly less dramatic along the piedmont areasof the Central and Western Andean ranges where a fewremnants and regenerated forests exist. The lower andmiddle portion of the Cali river presents a sizeablesample of the tropical dry forest formation. The regenerated forest of the middle portion of the Cali River still guards some orchid treasures and isimportant for conservation purposes (Orejuela 2005,2006). Without a previous study of the orchids of thiswatershed, it seemed appropriate to look at the orchidspresent today after some 70 years of advance of theregeneration process and to attempt to discover theoriginal orchid flora of the local piedmont area in themunicipality of Cali. This study presents a compositepicture of the orchids of the lower Eastern Andeanslopes as the Andes merges with the Cauca river valley. The orchids of this region are typically species of eco-logical succession. As the forest matures the orchidflora will increase in number of species and possiblyalso in terms of density of individuals. For now, it is ofinterest to see a diversified array of species. General obiective To determine the composition and growth mode of the orchids present in the regenerated tropical dry for-est formation along the middle portion of the Caliriver basin with the purpose of conserving the species present, to reintroduce those species which were pos-sibly present in the watershed and to enrich the orchidspecies collection at the Cali Botanical Garden. Specific Objectives To determine the species composition and the growth mode of the orchid species found in the regenerated tropical dry forest formation in the bio-logical corridor of the middle portion of the Cali riverbasin. To enrich the vegetation and area of the CBG with species of orchids found in the surrounding areas of the garden and in the “sister” watersheds of theCali river basin. To determine the potential of the forest remnant of the Cali Botanic Garden to serve as a source ofgermplasm to undertake restoration processes alongthe middle sector of the Cali river basin and in thecity of Cali. To design a community conservation education strategy about the orchids (and the associated animalspecies) of the Cali river watershed and of theBotanical Garden. Methods COLLECTION, IDENTIFICATIONANDTABULATIONOFTHE ORCHIDSPECIES.The characterization of the vegetation was developed in three stages: The collection ofplants, the identification and the tabulation of the species found. The area inventoried covered approxi-mately 45 hectares of forest including the totality ofthe area of the botanical garden and a forest of 35hectares under protection by the Utilities Company EPSA. In addition, selected visits were made to simi-lar regenerated and relictual forests of several “sister”watersheds like Rio Claro, Jamund’ and Pance. Thesewatersheds originate in the high Andean mountain ofthe Farallones National Park and descend rapidly to tribute waters into the Cauca river. The orchids collected were assigned to the following growth catego-ry: Terrestrial, lithophitic, climber and epiphyte. COMPARATIVEANALYSISOFTHEORCHIDFLORAOFTHE VARIOUSWATERSHEDto establish the breath of species present along the Andean piedmont area adjacent tothe Cauca river valley. The “mother” list of potentialspecies which is generated serves as a germplasmbank which could be used for reintroduction purposesin the Cali river basin and in the entire piedmont areaof the Municipality. REINTRODUCTIONOFSELECTEDSPECIES.A protocol was designed to establish the species most suited forreintroduction in the regenerated forest. A speciesphotographic catalogue was made of the species ofthe watershed. A CONSERVATIONEDUCATIONPROGRAMwas developed to use orchids as indicator species of the benefits of

PAGE 69

FIGURE1. A State of the habitat in the hillsides surrounding the first power plant of Cali, 1910. B Location of the Cali Botanical garden and the biological corridor of the Cali river. OREJUELAOrchids of a regenerated tropical dry forest in Cali 73 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 70

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .an assisted regeneration process. The elements of the strategy include: viewing of prepared video of theorchids of the Cali area; Jinkana observation games tospot and identify the orchids which enrich the BotanicGarden orchid collection; student visits to theGardens orchidarium, and to the orchid stand alongthe interpretive nature trail; preparation of orchidherbaria by students of the local schools. Results HISTORYOFTHEREGENERATIONPROCESS . By 1910, the inauguration date of the first hydroelectrical powerplant of Cali, the native vegetation had been totally eliminated. A combination of reason explain this for-est conversion: large demand of wood charcoal by the 25,000 inhabitants of Cali; removal of native veg3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 74 FIGURE2. A Cali River. B Botanic Garden. C Cali River and Tropical dry Forest. The totality of the flora of the botanical garden constitutes a germplasm bank of native pioneering species ideal to advance reforestation processes inthe interandean river valleys. About 20-25 tree species were identified as promissory for ecological restoration andenrichment processes along Andean hillsides.

PAGE 71

FIGURE1. Species of open terrains and rocky outcrops. A – Cyrtopodium punctatum . B – Sobralia sp. C – Epidendrum xanthnium . D. Schomburgkia sp. OREJUELAOrchids of a regenerated tropical dry forest in Cali 75 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 72

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 76 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .etation during the construction of the water conduction channels to the power plants; use of round logsfor construction of roads; use of hardwoods for theconstruction of railroad ties; use of fires to clear landfor agriculture and cattle ranching; and dry seasonnatural forest fires. Between 1910 and 1930 theregeneration process was rather slow, even though the water channel and the river provided complete protec-tion from forest fires generated outside and above the water channels to the vegetation undergoing regeneration within the forest. The most vigorous regenera-tion occurred in the last fifty years, when most homeswere using electricity instead of charcoal for cookingpurposes. The vegetation we see today includes mature trees of 20 meters! The photographic evidence of the watershed also provides evidence thatthe forest of the Garden is not a recent relict but avigorous regeneration favored by the water channelsand the river which isolated two forest fragments oneof 11.5 hectares (now the Botanical Gardenhectare plot just a couple of kilometers west of theGarden. Thus, the forest cover found today in the CBG (and in various places in the basinquence of vigorous regeneration processes. A contin-uous secondary succession process has taken placewhich started in an opened field dominated by grasseswith little arboreal vegetation and rather distant sources of plants for colonization more than four kiloFIGURE2. Terrestrial (A-EF-G Cleistes sp. B – Oeceoclades maculata . C – Galeandra beirichii . D – Spiranthes sp. E – Pelexia sp. F – Vanilla pompona . GVanilla odorata .

PAGE 73

OREJUELAOrchids of a regenerated tropical dry forest in Cali 77 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 74

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 78 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .meters and at least 300 meters of altitudinal difference to the nearest continuous forest patch. THETROPICALDRYFOREST.The Tropical dry Forest (Bs-Tcover between 0-1,000 m in altitude and temperaturesabove 24 C and average annual rainfall between 700and 2,000mm, with one or two dry periods per year(Espinal 1985; Murphy & Lugo 1986; Institute vonHumboldt 1997). The Bs-T represents about 50% ofthe forested areas of Central America and 22% ofSouth America (Murphy & Lugo 1986this formation is found in the Caribbean region and inthe interandean valleys of the rivers Magdalena andCauca in an area which presumably covered about8,146,000 hectares (Espinal & Montenegro 1977The Tropical dry Forest is one of the most threatenedecosystems of the Neotropics (Janzen 1987 Colombia it is one of the most degraded and fragment-ed, with estimates of present total cover of less than1.5% of the original cover (Etter 1993 the greatest proportion is found in the arid peri-caribbean belt with more than 6 million hectares andthe NorAndean -Choc—-Magdalena province withabout one million hectares (Espinal and Montenegro1977;Hernndez et al. 1992). The dry forest of theupper Cauca river valley, the main tributary of theMagdalena river, originally covered about 300,000hectares in the Department of Valle del Cauca.Presently, the dry forest has practically disappeared to the advance of sugarcane cultivation, the major eco-nomic crop of the State. It is estimated that the coverof this formation in the Cauca Valley is less than 3,000hectares with documented reductions of 66% between1957 and 1986 (CVC 1994remain, all below 16 hectares each. The situation isonly slightly less dramatic along the piedmont areas ofthe Central and Western Andean ranges where a fewremnants and regenerated forests exist THETROPICALDRYFORESTOFTHEMIDDLECALIRIVER WATERSHED.The species found at the CBG and middle Cali river comprise an arrangement of secondary succession species, with a level of species richness com-parable to those of other dry forests formations in theCauca River valley (Gonzalez and Devia 1995,Orejuela 2006). The total number of 49 tree species islower than the average number of 58.1, n= 8 sites)found by Gentry (1995shows a notorious dominance of six tree species whichin terms of numbers are ranked as follows: Arrayn( Myrcia popayanensis ), Laurel Jigua ( Cynammomum triplinerve ), Sangregao ( Crot—n gossypifolius ), Gucimo ( Guazuma ulmifolia ), Chiminango ( Pithecellobium dulce ) y Chagualo ( Clusia sp ). The vegetation of the lower stratum is heavily dominatedby Cordoncillo Piper sp and Anam ( Petiveria alliacea ) Phytolaccaceae family, Croton and individual plants of the dominant middle and upper strata.Associated to the forest there is a profusion of climbingand liana species. Among these species theAristolochia (two speciesfour speciesand Cucurbitaceae are noteworthy. The species ofmedium levels are: Sangregao ( Croton two species), Arrayn ( Myrcia , two species), Guava ( Psidum guajava ), Verraquillo ( Trema micrantha ), Carbonero ( Calliandra pittieri ), Jigua ( Cynammomum ), Gucimo ( Guazuma ), Leucaena , Chagualo ( Clusia ), Solanum and Miconia spp (Orejuela 2006b THECBG FORESTCOMPAREDWITHMATURERELICT FORESTS. In comparisons with other forests found in the Andean piedmont areas of similar size and level of con-nectivity with other forest fragments the CBG registers slightly lower species richness and the species composi-tion differs in several key species. For example, in themunicipality of Jamundi just south of Cali, theEcological Reserve of Miravalle, in the Calichal river(afflue nt of the Jamund’ riverforests along the Rio Claro (Hacienda La Novilleradominant species are Cascarillo ( Laderbergia magnifolia ), Tumbamaco ( Didimopanax morototoni ), Niguitos ( Miconia spp ), Balso ( Ochromalagopus ), Ceiba ( Ceiba pentandra ), Caracol’ ( Anacardium excelsum ), Algarrobo ( Hymenaea courbaril ), Madro–o (Garcinia madruno), Dinde (Maclura tinctoria), Ca–af’stula ( Cassia grandis ), Cedro ( Cedrella odoraFIGURE3. Epiphytic species. ACatasetum tabulare. BDimerandra sp. C Cladobium violaceum . D – Epidendrum sp. E – Epidendrum sp. F – Campylocentrum sp. G. Trizeuxis falcata . H– Epidendrum sp. I – Stelis sp. J – Encyclia ceratistes . K – Epidendrum cf. flexuosum . L – Bulbophyllum meridense . M – Dimerandra emeraginata . N – Oncidiun carthagenense . O – Maxillaria sp. P. Coryanthes sp.

PAGE 75

ta ), Samn ( Albizzia saman ), Catasetum tabulare , Orejero ( Enterolobium cyclocarpum ), Azulito ( Petrea rugosa ), Siete Cueros (Machaerium capote Guimaro ( Brosimum alicastrum ), Caimo ( Chrysophyllum argenteum) ,Gucano ( Oxandra espintana ), Cmbulo ( Erythrina glauca and E. poeppigiana ), Cachimbo or P’zamo ( Erythina ), Palma cuesco ( Attalea ( Scheelea) butyraceae ), Rose and Yellow Guayacanes ( Tabebuia rosea and T. chrysantha ), Totocal ( Achatocarpus nigricans ). Although this zone is slightly wetter (1.300 a 1.400 mm) than the Cali river basin (900-1,000mm), the difference in species composition is notorious in the presence of mature tropical dry forest species. Therelict forest of the valley floor and the piedmont areas showed a vegetation typical of late stages of the ecolog-ical succession. Discussion The age of continuous regeneration processes is an important factor in the species composition of asecondary forest. The early pioneering specieshave special competitive and reproductive abilities. TABLE1. Orchid species present and growth mode presented in the Cali river basin. Species Cyrtopodium paniculatum SobraliaEpidendrum xanthinumSchomburgkia cf. superba Cleistes rosea Galeandra beyrichiiOceoclades maculataPelexia sp. Spiranthes sp. (? Catasetum ochraceum Vanilla odorata Vanilla pompona Catasetum tabulare Dimerandra emarginata (stenopetalaEpidendrum sppMaxillaria sppCladobiumLepanthesOrnithocephalusStelisTrixeusis falcataEnciclia ceratistesEpidendrum cf . flexuosum Bulbophyllum meridenseOncidium carthagenenseCampylocentrum micranthum Coryanthes sp . Growth mode 1. Open terrain and rocky outcrop 2. Terrestrial 3. Climbers 4. Epiphytic OREJUELAOrchids of a regenerated tropical dry forest in Cali 79 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 76

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 80 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .Their capacity to establish themselves in harsh conditions is remarkable. This was evidenced in thesite where the Cali Botanical Garden is located today. In addition to being good dispersers and col-onizers, they are tolerant to difficult climatic andedaphic conditions like solar exposure, scarcity ofnutrients, compacted soils. Many species are alsotolerant of forest fires or they are opportunistic totake advantage of the bursts of nutrients followingthe fire events. Additionally, it is the experience ofthe authors that these species recuperate rapidlyafter the foraging voracity of Harvester Ants ( Atta cephalotes ). This relative tolerance or resistance confers them short and medium term advantagesover competing plant species. When the species ofplants establish themselves in the plot, they benefitdirectly from the soil improvement the ants bring tothe sites. It is noteworthy that the six dominantspecies in the Garden are also among the speciesmost readily consumed by the ants! Should there be more orchid species in the Cali river watershed? In the absence of previousinventories of species one would have to say thatsince the forest was completely cleared late in theIXX century and early in the XX the number oforchid species would have depended on the kindof regeneration process which took place since that period. After the major disturbance of the for-est to establish the water conduction channel forthe hydroelectric power plant, the cleared area wasleft alone. The initial forest received the benefit of passive protection year after year, during a peri-od that is evident today. The forested areaenclosed between the Cali river and the waterchannel formed a solid fire break and the forestregeneration process advanced unchecked. Theresult is a regenerated forest with trees whichreach 20m The fact that the forests of this part of the watershed are loosely interconnected with pre-montane (subtropicalprovide a biological corridor where many plantand animal species move. The possibilities forestablishment of orchids is favored by the windcurrents which move up and down the corridor ona daily basis with seasons was moderate to strongwinds. Therefore, there has been opportunities forspecies enhancement during nearly one century. A likely answer to the question could be that there are relatively few orchid species present in the watershed. Without doubt this is true for the regen-erated forest compared with a similar sized relictualforest. Such relictual forest still exist in the RioClaro, Jamund’ and Pance rivers. In these three forests, the number of species is considerably high-er than in the Cali river at any given altitudinal range. However, if one considers forest regenerations of the same age, it is almost sure that the pro-tected forest of the Cali river corridor would havenot only more tree species but also many moreorchid species. With all certainty the presence of adiversified vegetation in different growth forms(canopy trees, understory trees and shrubs, groundvegetation, lianas and climbers and epiphytes andhemiepiphytes) would have the potential to host agreater richness of orchids as well. The higherhumidity and the greater amount of shade favoredby mature forests also favors the presence oforchids, particularly the epiphytic kinds. The effectof the prolongued deforestation, with a relativelylong period before the succesional process couldgain momentum, slowed down the orchid speciespacking process. This early period of the secondarysuccession was also characterized by a temporaryloss of orchid pollinator species. Conclusions and recommendations It is clear that under suitable protective conditions even a highly degraded forest will develop toward areasonably diversified state. Along with the forestregeneration process, the orchid species will also profit, both in terms of the species numbers and den-sity of individual populations. But additionally,should there be a variety of ecosystem types in thewatershed characterized by forests of various stagesof maturity, gallery and riparian vegetation, presenceof microwatershed systems with opened areas, with grasslands and rocky outcrops, one would have a situ-ation which would favour a solid accumulation of species. From this consideration, the following rec-ommendations are offered: To use the identified pioneer species of the tropical dry forest as ideal germplasm of native species topromote vegetation enrichment and restorative

PAGE 77

processes in degraded interandean valley floors and hillsides. Only in the Cauca River valley theseareas cover in excess of 200,000 hectares. To enrich the forest of the Cali Botanical garden and surrounding areas along the biological corridorof the Cali river with species (including theorchids) found in nearby relicts of mature tropicaldry forest. These enrichments would in a sensemimic advanced stages of secondary regeneration. Nursery trials with these species would be of para-mount importance. To promote the conservation of regenerated forests in all altitudinal levels in the interandean river val-leys, particularly where the vegetation cover hasbeen most severely affected by human activities,like in the piedmont areas (1.000-1.300m, coffeebelt region (1,300-1,700mzone (1,000mthrough biological corridors would generate greatenvironmental and socio-economic benefits. To favor forest regeneration processes where extensive cattle ranching is presently being conducted. There are important sustainable silvopas-toral alternatives available which would intensifythe cattle production with significant reductions inthe area devoted to pastures. To use the native orchids of the tropical dry forest as key elements of an environmental interpretationprogram in the Cali Botanical Garden. Similar orchid gardens could be established as school pro-jects in the city. To develop and maintain an intensive effort to reduce forest fires in the watershed. To prevent the excessive clearing of road banks which frequently become festooned with orchidsspecies.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.I wish to thank the workers of the Cali Botanical Garden Fredy Ramos and Ferm’n Masaguall’ for their companionship in the field tripsduring the Project and for their keen observations of the orchids of the region. Without their help a good num-ber of species would not have been found. Dr PhilipSilverstone brought orchids from tropical dry forestremnants of the Cauca river valley in Cartago andCerritos municipalities por orqu’deas terrestres deCerrito y Cartago. Carlos Hernando Molina permitted the autor to experience the nativce forest of the El Hatico Nature Reserve in the central parto f the Caucavalley in Palmira. Javier Garcs allowed me to collectorchids in his state in the watershed of the Jamund’river in the municipality of Jamundi just south of Cali.Gabriel C—rdoba of Chorro de Plata state assisted theautor with the identification of the species of the Pance river.m Emilio Constantino and Eduardo Calder—n sha-red much information about the endangered species oforchids of Cali and Cauca Valley. LITERATURECITEDCVC. 1994. Informe 90-7. Comparaci—n de la cobertura de bosques y Humedales entre 1957 y 1986 con delimi-taci—n de las comunidades naturales cr’ticas del vallegeogrfico del R’o Cauca. Cali, Documento interno.CVC. Espinal, L.S. 1985. Geograf’a ecol—gica del departamento de Antioquia Revista de la Facultad Nacional deAgronom’a, 38 (1 Espinal, L.S. & E. Montenegro. 1977 . Formaciones vegetales de Colombia. Instituto Geogrfico Agust’nCodazzi, Bogot, pp 201 . Etter, A. 1993. Diversidad ecosistmica en Colombia hoy. Pp 43-61 in Nuestra diversidad bi—tica. CEREC & Fundaci—n Alejandro Angel Escobar. Gentry, A.H. 1995. Diversity and floristic composition of neotropical dry forest. Pp. 116-194. in: Tropical decidu-ous Forest Ecosystem. S. Bullock, E. Medina & H.A.Mooney (eds Gonzlez, S. & W. Devia. 1995. Caracterizaci—n fision—mica de la flora de un bosque seco secundario en elcorregimiento de Mateguadua, Tulu, Valle. Cespedesia Vol 20 No 66: 35-63. Hernandez, C., T. Walschburger, R. Ortiz & A. Hurtado, 1992. Sobre origen y distribuci—n de la biota surameri-cana y colombiana. Pp. 55-104 in: Diversidad biol—gicaen Iberoamerica, G. Halffter (compilerIberoamericano de Ciencia y Tecnolog’a para elDesarrollo, Instituto de Ecolog’a, Secretar’a deDesarrollo, Mexico, D.F., Mexico. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt (Programa de Inventario de la Biodiversidad, Grupo de Exploracionesy Monitoreo Ambiental GEMA). 1997. El Bosque secoTropical (Bs-T Janzen, D.H. 1987. Insect diversity of a Costa Rican dry forest: Why keep it. Biol. Journal Linn. Soc. 30: 343-356. OREJUELAOrchids of a regenerated tropical dry forest in Cali 81 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 78

Murphy, P.G. & A.E. Lugo. 1986.Ecology of tropical dry forest. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17 : 67-68 . Orejuela, J. 2005. An integrated approach to orchid conservation inColombia: what do orchids, hummingbirds,bears, potable water, and indigenous land rights have incommon? 2ndInternational Orchid Conservation Congress, Sarasota, Florida, USA. Selbyana 26 1-(2 45. Orejuela, J.E. 2006. The Cali Botanical Garden and the Conservation of Ecosystems in the Cali River basin,Cali, Colombia. Lyonia March, 2006.WWW.lyonia.org/view Article.php?articleID=472. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 82 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 79

The general aim of conservation is to ensure persistence of biodiversity value. Given certain measures(financial, logistic, etc.maximize the amount of biodiversity value to be secured by these means. Several area selection methods are available for such purpose, and they repres-ent very different conservation philosophies(Williams et al. 1996; Humphries 2006). Two fundamentally different approaches exist: (1-spots of species richness or narrow endemism, and (2-plementarity methods. Some authors define hotspots as areas with exceptional species richness or concentrations of endemicspecies and experiencing exceptional loss of habitat(e.g. Myers 1988; Myers et al. 2000). Frequently, however, the last criterion is disregarded (e.g.Prendergast et al. 1993; Williams et al. 1996) – a practice that I have chosen to adopt in the present study.Selecting hotspots of (speciespopular method, and with appropriate qualificationhotspots can be used for high-scoring areas on anyvalue scale and on any spatial scale (Humphries2006). One advantage of the hotspot approach is thatit deals with species occurrence data with apparentquantitative rigour. Hotspots of narrow endemismresemble hotspots of richness, but only endemic taxaare taken into account. As noted by Humphries(2006only a subset of the species, and it is more likely toselect for more highly complementary areas. Complementarity methods are applied to designate the smallest selection of areas that in combination repre-sent the maximum level of diversity (without necessarily including any hotspots). Complementary areas are gene-rally more efficient than hotspots of either richness or rarity (Humphries 2006tarity methods is that they either demand exhaustivesearches using linear programming algorithms, ordepend on heuristic algorithms that may not find optimalsolutions (Csuti et al. 1997). Taxonomic diversity (usually at species level far the most commonly used measure of biodiversity.However, taxic diversity (Vane-Wright et al. 1991) and phylogentic diversity (Faith 1992; Mace et al. 2003; Pillon et al. 2006) are interesting alternatives. These measures are hardly sensitive to taxonomic inflation, and they add another dimension to the eval-uation of conservation priorities. The orchid genus Dendrochilum Blume has an Indo-Malesian distribution, ranging from Myanmar inthe northwest across peninsular Thailand, Malaysia,Indonesia and the Philippines to southernmostTaiwan in the north and to Papua New Guinea in thesoutheast. The far majority of species are restricted to cool, humid, and often exposed conditions of monta-ne forests. The genus contains an unusually highshare of narrow endemics, and pronounced centres ofspecies diversity are found in the high mountains ofthe Philippines (Pedersen 1997a), Borneo (Wood2001), and Sumatra (Comber 2001). Surprisingly,only one Dendrochilum species is known from the mountain-rich island of New Guinea. The latest glo-bal taxonomic survey of Dendrochilum was that of Pedersen et al. (1997 subsequent changes, 268 species are currently accept-ed (Pedersen, unpubl. data No species of Dendrochilum are included in IUCN’s latest red data list based on the global conservation status of individual species (http://www.red-list.org). However, among the 18 Dendrochilum taxa considered endemic to Sarawak in Borneo, Beaman et LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 HOTSPOTS OF NARROW ENDEMISM: ADEQUATE FOCAL POINTS FOR CONSERVATION IN DENDROCHILUM (ORCHIDACEAE HENRIK. PEDERSEN Botanical Garden & Museum, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Gothersgade 130, DK-1123 Copenhagen K, Denmark henrikp@snm.ku.dk KEYWORDS : area-selection, biodiversity, biogeography, complementarity, Malesia, orchids

PAGE 80

al. (2001VU seven species and one variety as endangered (EN and four species and one variety as critically endan-gered (CR D. globigerum (Ridl. not regarded as threatened with extinction in the wild! Taking into account historical and current deforestation rates throughout most of Malesia and their esti-mated impact on orchid populations (Koopowitz2001; Koopowitz et al. 2003) there is every reason to believe that corresponding analyses elsewhere wouldgive a similarly gloomy result. Evidently, active measures are urgently needed to protect representative taxonomic and phylogeneticdiversity in Dendrochilum . Due to the unusually high share of narrow endemics in the genus, it is tempting tofocus on hotspots of narrow endemism when settingthe geographic conservation priorities. In the present study the conservational adequacy of focal points sele-cted as hotspots of narrow endemism will be assessedby parallel evaluation of complementarity and of theoverall level of diversity covered by this method. Methods The study was based on 22 semi-natural range units (Table 1 Dendrochilum , the following had to be excluded from the analysis due to insufficient, unconfirmed, or enti-rely lacking distribution data: D. barbifrons (Kraenzl. D. coccineum H.A. Pedersen & Gravend., D. croceum H.A. Pedersen, D. exalatum J.J.Sm., D. panduratum Schltr., D. warrenii H.A. Pedersen & Gravend. For all species included, distribution data were extracted from the following sour-ces: Smith (19331997a, 1997b, 2001Pedersen et al. (1997, 2004 et al. (2001 Comber (20012001based on uncertain identifications were disregarded.Infrageneric taxa above species level were designatedaccording to Pedersen et al. (1997 All range units were sorted in ascending order by their individual numbers of endemics, and the cumu-lative percent of endemics was plotted against that ofthe range units to form a Lorenz curve (Weiner & Solbrig 1984; Calvo 1990). Hotspots of narrow endemism were then designated as the range units defi-ning the steep part (dy>dx To compare regional exploration histories and evaluate the reliability of current interpretations of distributionpatterns in Dendrochilum , a cumulative graph of narrow endemics as function of time was prepared for each hot-spot. A cumulative graph of non-endemics in the entiregeographic range was included for comparison. Obviously, designation of hotspots of narrow endemism automatically secures a high degree of comple-mentarity among the areas selected as focal points for conservation in a genus dominated by narrow ende-mics. However, this method does not necessarilyensure significant complementarity with regard to therepresentation of non-endemic species. To evaluatethis problem, cluster analysis and ordination of allrange units were performed on data for non-endemicsonly. Prior to the analyses, each non-endemic specieswas scored as present (10unit. All statistic operations were performed using theprogram NTSYSpc 2.0 (Rohlf 1998 In the cluster analysis, floristic similarity was calculated for each pair of range units by the DICE algo3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 84 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . 1Myanmar 2Thailand 3Taiwan 4N Philippines (Babuyan Islands, Batan Islands, Catanduanes, Luzon, Marinduque, Mindoro, PolilloIslands) 5W Philippines (Balabac, Calamian Group, Palawan 6S Philippines (Basilan, Camiguin, Dinagat, Mindanao, Siargao, Sulu Archipelago) 7C Philippines (remaining Philippine Islands 8N Borneo (Sabah 9NW Borneo (Brunei, Sarawak 10W Borneo (Bunguran, Kalimantan Barat 11S Borneo (Kalimantan Selatan, Kalimantan Tengah 12E Borneo (Kalimantan Timur 13Peninsular Malaysia/Singapore 14N Sumatra (Aceh, Sumatera Utara 15E Sumatra (Bangka, Jambi, Lampung, Riau, Sumatera Selatan) 16SW Sumatra (Bengkulu, Sumatera Barat 17Java 18Lesser Sunda Islands 19Sulawesi 20Maluku 21Irian Jaya 22Papua New Guinea TABLE1. Survey and definitions of the 22 range units that were applied in the analyses of overall diversity patternsof Dendrochilum .

PAGE 81

rithm (Dice 1945 used to construct a dendrogram describing the flori-stic similarity among all range units. The dendrogram was constructed by means of the UPGMA (unweight-ed pair-group method using arithmetic averages)algorithm (Legendre & Legendre 1983polythetic agglomerative technique that appears tomaximize the cophenetic correlation, and its use isrecommended when there is no specific reason forchoosing some other clustering technique (Sneath &Sokal 1973). Ordination was performed as principal components analysis (PCA; Sneath & Sokal 1973 for the first iteration of analyses, because each chara-cter is given the same a priori weight, whereas intergroup distances are not taken into account. This method was originally developed for quantitative chara-cters, but can also be used on binary characters(Gower 1966; Dunn & Everitt 1982 The extent to which hotspots of narrow endemism are identical with areas representing high levels of overalltaxonomic diversity was assessed by direct comparisonfacilitated by parallel ranking of range units according totheir relative individual richness at species, section, andsubgenus level, respectively. For each taxonomic levelthe maximum taxon score was set at 100%, and thelower scores were converted to percentages accordingly. In this way, relative taxonomic richness could be com-pared directly across taxonomic levels. To obtain an estimate of the extent to which hotspots of narrow endemism ensure complementarity at higher taxonomic level, geographic affinities of regi-onal Dendrochilum floras, characterized by diversity at section level, were summarized by ordination(PCA, see above one in which each section (or subgenus, if not subdi-vided further) was scored as present (1) or absent (0)in each range unit; and one based on the number ofspecies representing each section in each range unit.In the latter analysis, all characters (sectionsstandardized prior to analysis (Gower 1971 Results The relative distribution of narrow endemics among range units can be seen from the Lorenz curve(Fig. 1 (dy>dxnated as hotspots of narrow endemism: N Philippines(56 endemics2925Sumatra (181714Philippines (12 The regional exploration histories of the seven hotspots of narrow endemism are illustrated in Fig. 2.Two distinct periods of exploration exist, that is approximately 1900 and 1985. This pat-tern is clearly reflected also by the general graph fornon-endemic species, although a higher share of thenon-endemics were described prior to 1900. According to both the cluster analysis (Fig. 3 the PCA (Fig. 4 species only, four groups of hotspots of narrow ende-mism are highly complementary: N/SW Sumatra,Sulawesi, N/NW Borneo, N/S Philippines. In the PCA (Fig. 4-ining range units except C Philippines, but this is notobvious from the cluster analysis (Fig. 3cluster analysis suggests higher complementarity andmore pronounced geographic grouping among thenon-hotspots than is evident from the PCA (Fig. 4 In Table 2 all range units are ranked according to relative taxonomic richness at species, section and PEDERSEN– Focal points for conservation in Dendrochilum 85 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . FIGURE1. Lorenz curve demonstrating the markedly heterogenous distribution of narrowly endemic Dendrochilum species among the 22 range units. Seven range units make up the steep part of the curve (dy>dxand are designated as hotspots of narrow endemism.

PAGE 82

FIGURE2. Cumulative graphs illustrating the exploration histories of regional endemic Dendrochilum floras. For all recognized hotspots of narrow endemism, a cumulative graph of endemics described from 1825 to 2005 is given. Acumulative graph based on all non-endemics is included for comparison. FIGURE3. Dendrogram showing the similarities of regional Dendrochilum floras (non-endemic species only 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 86 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 83

subgenus level, respectively, and in each column the hotspots of narrow endemism are highlighted to facili-tate comparison. According to both PCAs performed using sections as characters, N Philippines and N/NW Borneo appear hig-hly complementary to each other and to all remainingrange units (Figs 5analyses gave diverging results. Thus, according to theanalysis based on presence/absence data (Fig. 5groups together with N and SW Sumatra. In the plot fromthe analysis based on frequency data, on the other hand,Sulawesi is situated much closer to S Philippines (Fig. 6 Discussion NARROWLYENDEMICSPECIES . It appears directly from the Lorenz curve (Fig. 1constituting less than 30% of the range units, hold nearly 90% of the narrow endemics. Consequently, using hotspots of narrow endemism as focal points for conservati-on is a very qualified method for securing a high shareof this species group in Dendrochilum . Furthermore, it should be remembered that narrowly endemic speciesmake up 71% of the genus. PEDERSEN– Focal points for conservation in Dendrochilum 87 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . FIGURE4. Mutual affinities of regional Dendrochilum floras. Plot from the first two principal components from the PCA performed on distribution data for non-ende-mic species only. Filled symbols represent hotspots ofnarrow endemism. The variation was 36.1% along PCaxis 1 and 18.9% along PC axis 2. FIGURE5. Mutual affinities of regional Dendrochilum floras. Plot from the first two principal components from the PCA performed on presence/absence data for sections. Filled symbols represent hotspots of narrow ende-mism. The variation was 38.5% along PC axis 1 and21.1% along PC axis 2. FIGURE6. Mutual affinities of regional Dendrochilum floras. Plot from the first two principal components fromthe PCA performed on frequency data for sections.Filled symbols represent hotspots of narrow endemism.The variation was 43.2% along PC axis 1 and 26.1%along PC axis 2.

PAGE 84

Obviously, the credibility of the above finding depends on the reliability of current interpretation ofgeographic diversity patterns. After all, the steadyrate at which new orchid species have been describedover the past 25 years seems to continue (Cribb &Govaerts 2005), and this might continuously changeapparent geographic diversity patterns in severalgenera, including Dendrochilum . However, notwithstanding the heterogenous rate of explorationof each hotspot recognized in the present study, the hotspots constituting top-four (and their relative mut-ual importance) have remained unchanged for morethan 60 years (Fig. 2 graphs do not reflect historical perceptions of diversi-ty patterns. They simply summarize the explorationhistories of regional Dendrochilum floras according to current taxonomic and geographic interpretation.The observed constancy in diversity patterns overtime indicates that current designation and ranking ofmost-important hotspots of narrow endemism can beconsidered sufficiently reliable. Non-endemic species. – Three important observations can be made from Table 2: (1highest general species richness are identical with sixhotspots of narrow endemism; (2NW Borneo constitute top-three at both species andsection level, and (3shared among N and NW Borneo, N and S Philippines (and the non-hotspot C Philippines-king, the most prominent hotspots of local endemism largely coincide with the range units showing the gre-atest taxonomic diversity in general and the greatestspecies richness in particular. In order to maximize the level of complementarity (considering non-endemic species onlyhighest conservation priority should be selected among (rather than within-spots that can be recognized in Figs 3 (viz. N/SPhilippines, N/NW Borneo, N/SW Sumatra, and Sulawesi). With proper consideration, the use of hotspots of narrow endemism as focal points for conservation will also ensure a high level of complementari-ty with regard to non-endemic species. Taxonomic versus phylogenetic diversity. – In the Philippine Dendrochilum flora, a clear correlation exists between the degrees of endemism and restrictedness to higher altitudes. If compared with distribu-tion patterns expected for species having evolved before or after the Pleistocene, respectively, this correlation suggests that the majority of living (sub-tane species of Dendrochilum (including the far majority of narrow endemics in the Philippines) haveevolved after the Pleistocene (Pedersen 1997aBased on corresponding distribution data, Wood(2001hypothesis that narrow endemics in Dendrochilum are largely (or universally local evolutionary radiation at high altitudes is consi-stent with preliminary molecular data (Barkman &Simpson 2001). The evolutionary hypothesis outlined above accentuates the importance of hotspots of narrow ende-mism in Dendrochilum , as conservation of “cradles of diversity” is now often considered a priority (Mace et al. 2003). At the same time, however, the hypothesis implies that using hotspots of narrow endemism asfocal points for conservation in Dendrochilum , though ensuring a high species diversity, does not necessarily ensure a high phylogenetic diversity. In princi-ple, the high species richness encountered in eachhotspot of narrow endemism might represent recentprolific radiation at the end of just one major lineage – and not all such lineages might be secured if con-servation efforts are directed to a few selected areas only. A marked discrepancy between geographic pat-terns of species diversity and estimated phylogeneticdiversity, though on a different background, wasrecently demonstrated in the orchid genus Dactylorhiza (Pillon et al. 2006), and this potential complication for setting geographic conservation pri-orities should be considered for Dendrochilum as well. No major cladistic analysis of Dendrochilum is yet available, so the geographic patterns of phylogeneticdiversity cannot be estimated properly. However, thelatest infrageneric classification of Dendrochilum (Pedersen et al. 1997), though not based on cladistic analysis, was hypothesized by the authors to reflectoverall phylogenetic relationships in the genus. Tentatively accepting this hypothesis, geographic pat-terns of taxonomic diversity above species level can 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 88 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 85

be used as rough indirect indicators of phylogenetic diversity patterns in the genus. It appears from Table 2 that N Philippines, N and NW Borneo constitute top-three at both species andsection level, and that the maximum subgenus scoreis shared among N and NW Borneo, N and SPhilippines (and the non-hotspot C PhilippinesConsequently, the most prominent hotspots of narrowendemism at species level largely coincide with therange units showing the greatest relative taxonomicdiversity at both species, section, and subgenus level.The immediate impression from Table 2 might be amarked negative correlation between this tendencyand the taxonomic level, but it should be noticed thatscores are less differentiated at section level, and evenless so at subgenus level where only three differentscores exist (Table 2 In order to maximize the level of complementarity at sectional level, the areas of highest conservation priority should be selected among (rather than withinthe three groups of hotspots that can be recognized inFigs 5 (viz. N Philippines, N/NW Borneo, and a group containing the remaining hotspots). With proper consideration, the use of hotspots of narrow ende-mism as focal points for conservation will also secure a high level of complementarity with regard to secti-ons. The discrepancy between patterns obtained byanalyses performed on presence/absence data (Fig. 5and frequency data (Fig. 6and should hardly affect selection of top-priority focal points when criteria concerning narrowly ende-mic species and non-endemic species are also takeninto account (see above Does the hierarchical infrageneric classification of Pedersen et al. (1997tionships in Dendrochilum ? This question is obviPEDERSEN– Focal points for conservation in Dendrochilum 89 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . SPECIESSECTIONSSUBGENERAN Philippines 100 N Philippines 100C Philippines100 N Borneo 79 N Borneo 86 N Borneo 100 NW Borneo 76 NW Borneo 86 N Philippines 100 SW Sumatra 59E Borneo57 NW Borneo 100 N Sumatra 49 S Philippines 57 S Philippines 100 S Philippines 36C Philippines43E Borneo50 E Borneo24 N Sumatra 43E Sumatra50 Sulawesi 21E Sumatra29Java50 C Philippines20Java29Lesser Sunda Islands50 Java17Lesser Sunda Islands29Myanmar50 E Sumatra14Peninsular Malyasia29Peninsular Malaysia50 Peninsular Malaysia14 SW Sumatra 29 N Sumatra 50 W Borneo11W Borneo29S Borneo50 Lesser Sunda Islands6Myanmar14 SW Sumatra 50 S Borneo6S Borneo14W Borneo50 Myanmar1 Sulawesi 14Irian Jaya0 W Philippines1W Philippines14Maluku0 Irian Jaya0Irian Jaya0Papua New Guinea0 Maluku0Maluku0 Sulawesi 0 Papua New Guinea0Papua New Guinea0Taiwan0 Taiwan0Taiwan0Thailand0 Thailand0Thailand0W Philippines0 TABLE2. Geographic diversity in Dendrochilum – parallel ranking of range units according to their relative individual richness at species, section, and subgenus level, respectively. For each taxonomic level the maximum score has beenset at 100% and the lower scores converted accordingly. Hotspots of narrow endemism are given in bold. Range unitswith identical scores are listed alphabetically in each column. 100% scores correspond to 71 species, 8 sections, and 3subgenera, respectively.

PAGE 86

ously of critical importance. Recent cladistic analyses based on ITS sequence data have questioned the phy-logenetic consistency of our generic subdivision(Barkman 2001; Barkman & Simpson 2001 However, the molecular phylogenetic analyses per-formed on Dendrochilum so far (Barkman 2001; Barkman & Simpson 2001, 2002; Pedersen et al. 2004) cover only a minor part of the geographic range and proposed infrageneric taxa in the genus. At present, it is evident that our infrageneric classificati-on (Pedersen et al. 1997) is not completely consistent with phylogentic relationships in Dendrochilum , but the magnitude of inconsistency remains to be settled. CONCLUSIONSANDPERSPECTIVES . Current interpretation of diversity patterns in Dendrochilum appears reliable, and the most important aspects of diversity in this genus can be adequately preserved by conservati-on efforts focused on hotspots of narrow endemism.Indeed, the top-three hotspots of narrow endemism(N Philippines, SW Sumatra, N Borneonear-maximum levels of complementarity (assessedfor sections and non-endemic species) as well as hightaxonomic richness at both species, section, andsubgenus level. Based on world-wide distribution data for vascular plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians,combined with regional degrees of threat throughhabitat loss, Myers et al. (2000diversity hotspots” – defined as areas where exceptio-nal concentrations of endemic species are undergoing exceptional loss of habitat. The 25 biodiversity hot-spots contain the remaining habitats of 44% of allvascular plant species, but their cover of primary vegetation has been reduced by 88% and now consti-tutes only 1.4% of the Earth’s land surface.According to Myers et al. (2000 hotspots exhibit a 68% overlap with BirdlifeInternational’s Endemic Bird Areas, 82% withIUCN/WWF International’s Centres of Plant Diversity and Endemism, and 92% with the most cri-tical and endangered eco-regions of WWF/US’sGlobal 200 List. Among the biodiversity hotspots recognized by Myers et al. (2000 Wallacea in combination accommodate all knownspecies of Dendrochilum , and only D. longifolium Rchb.f., D. pallidiflavens Blume, and D. uncatum Rchb.f. extend to neighbouring regions. Thus, all important diversity in Dendrochilum is confined to areas that are undergoing exceptional loss of naturalhabitats, but also to areas of the highest conservationpriority in general. However, Dendrochilum is not equally represented throughout the above biodiversityhotspots. On the contrary, distinct hotspots of narrowendemism are found on a regional scale within bothWallacea (Sulawesi), the Philippines (N and SPhilippines), and Wallacea (N and NW Borneo, Nand SW Sumatra). The example of Dendrochilum highlights the need to assess biodiversity patterns on various geographicscales. Indeed, also assessments on a subregionalscale would be needed to pinpoint exact conservationneeds in Dendrochilum . Distinct local concentrations of species within the hotspots of narrow endemismrecognized in the present study have been clearlydemonstrated for N and S Philippines (Pedersen1997a), as well as for N and NW Borneo (Wood 2001). Some of these small areas can even be chara-cterized as centres of local endemism. Obviously,ample knowledge of such spatial substructures ofdiversity should be procured, preferably for a broadselection of organisms, and utilized in the process ofarea selection for conservation. The analyses in the present study have not taken into account possible discrepancies between current and historical species occurrences, and they tell not-hing about the present state of habitat fragmentation or other ecological conditions of potential conservati-on areas. Obviously, historical and ecological factorsshould be integrated in the area selection process inorder to optimize the actual conservation effect(Tilman et al. 1994; Crisci et al. 2006).ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I am indebted to Ingeborg Nielsen for technical assistance with the illustrations.LITERATURECITEDBarkman, T.J. 2001. Evolution of vegetative morphology in Mount Kinabalu high-elevation endemics:insights from the orchid genus Dendrochilum . Sabah Parks Nature J. 4: 9. Barkman, T.J. & B.B Simpson. 2001. Origin of highelevation Dendrochilum species (Orchidaceae3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 90 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 87

mic to Mount Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. Syst. Bot. 26: 658. Barkman, T.J. & B.B. Simpson. 2002. Hybrid origin and parentage of Dendrochilum acuiferum (Orchidaceae using nuclear and plastid DNA sequence data. Syst.Bot. 27: 209. Beaman, T.E., J.J. Wood, R.S. Beaman & J.H. Beaman. 2001. Orchids of Sarawak. Natural HistoryPublications (BorneoBotanic Gardens, Kew. Calvo, R.N. 1990. Inflorescence size and fruit distribution among individuals in three orchid species.Amer. J. Bot. 77: 1378. Comber, J.B. 2001. Orchids of Sumatra. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Cribb, P. & R. Govaerts. 2005. Just how many orchids are there? In : A. Raynal-Roques & A. Roguenant (eds e congrs mondial et exposition d’orchides, 11-20 Mars 2005, Dijon – France.Naturalia Publications, Turriers, pp. 161. Crisci, J.V., O.E. Sala, L. Katinas & P. Posadas. 2006. Bridging historical and ecological approaches in bio-geography. – Aust. Syst. Bot. 19: 1. Csuti, B., S. Polasky, P.H. Williams, R.L. Pressey, J.D. Camm, M. Kershaw, A.R. Kiester, B. Downs, R. Hamilton, M. Huso, M. & K. Sahr. 1997. A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on ter-restrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol. Cons. 80: 83. Dice, L.R. 1945. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26: 297. Dunn, G. & B.S. Everitt. 1982. An introduction to mathematical taxonomy. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge. Faith, D.P. 1992. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Cons. 61: 1. Gower, J.C. 1966. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analys-is. Biometrika 53: 325. Gower, J.C. 1971. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27: 857. Humphries, C.J. 2006. Measuring diversity. In : E. Leadley & S. Jury (eds-servation: the cornerstone of the conservation andthe sustainable use of plants. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, pp. 141. Koopowitz, H. 2001. Orchids and their conservation. B.T. Batsford Ltd, London. Koopowitz, H., P.S. Lavarack & K.W. Dixon. 2003. The nature of threats to orchid conservation. In : K.W. Dixon, S.P. Kell, R.L. Barrett, & P.J. Cribb (eds Publications (Borneo Legendre, L. & P. Legendre. 1983. Numerical ecology. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,Amsterdam. Mace, G.M., J.L. Gittleman & A. Purvis. 2003. Preserving the tree of life. Science 300: 1707. Myers, N. 1988. Threatened biotas: “hot spots” in tropical forests. Environmentalist 8: 187. Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca & J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspotsfor conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853. Pedersen, H.. 1997a. The genus Dendrochilum (Orchidaceaesion. Opera Bot. 131: 1. Pedersen, H.. 1997b. Dendrochilum cootesii , a new protandrous species from the Philippines. Lindleyana12: 205. Pedersen, H.. 2001. One new and one rediscovered species of Dendrochilum (Orchidaceae Philippines. Lindleyana 16: 231. Pedersen, H.., B. Gravendeel & D. Mudiana. 2004. Three new species of Dendrochilum (Orchidaceae and their phylogenetic positions according to plastidand nuclear ribosomal ITS sequences. Blumea 49:351. Pedersen, H.., J.J. Wood & J.B. Comber. 1997. A revised subdivision and bibliographical survey of Dendrochilum (Orchidaceae Pillon, Y., M.F. Fay, A.B. Shipunov & M.W. Chase. 2006. Species diversity versus phylogenetic diversi-ty: a practical study in the taxonomically difficultgenus Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae 4. Prendergast, J.R., R.M. Quinn, J.H. Lawton, B.C. Eversham & D.W. Gibbons. 1993. Rare species, thecoincidence of diversity hotspots and conservationstrategies. Nature 365: 335. Rohlf, F.J. 1998. NTSYSpc. Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System. Version 2.0. Userguide. Exeter Software, New York. Smith, J.J. 1933. Enumeration of the Orchidaceae of Sumatra and neighbouring islands. Repert. Spec.Nov. Regni Veg. XXXII: 129. Sneath, P.H.A. & R.R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. The principles and practice of numerical classi-fication. W.H. Freeman and Company, SanFrancisco. Tilman, D., R.M. May, C.L. Lehman & M.A. Nowak. 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt.Nature 371: 65. PEDERSEN– Focal points for conservation in Dendrochilum 91 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 88

Vane-Wright, R.I., C.J. Humphries & P.H. Williams, P.H. 1991. What to protect? – Systematics and theagony of choice. Biol. Cons. 55: 235. Weiner, J. & O.T. Solbrig. 1984. The meaning and measurement of size hierarchies in plant populations.Oecologia 61: 334. Williams, P., D. Gibbons, C. Margules, A. Rebelo, C. Humphries & R. Pressey. 1996. A comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots and complementaryareas for conserving diversity of British birds. Cons.Biol. 10: 155. Wood, J.J. 2001. Dendrochilum of Borneo. Natural History Publications (BorneoRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Henrik . Pedersen is an associate professor at the University of Copenhagen, where he acts as curator at the Botanical Garden & Museum, Natural History Museum of Denmark. His research on the systematics, biogeography, ecology, and conservation biology of orchids is focused on Europe, the Mediterranean, and tropical Asia. He has a special inter-est in the orchid flora of Thailand and in the genera Dactylorhiza , Dendrochilum , Epipactis , and Ophrys . 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 92 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 89

Introduction Understanding the drivers of orchid diversification and rarity may prove crucial to their conservation.The Orchidaceae is characterised by the presence ofmycorrhizal endophytes and a diversity of pollinationsyndromes (Rasmussen 1995, Jersakova et al . 2006). The prevalence of pollination by deceit and the spe-cialised mycorrhizal relationships in some taxa havebeen implicated in the diversification of the family(Cozzolino & Widmer 2005, Otero & Flanagan 2006). Furthermore, interactions with habitat speciali-sation may act in concert with these attributes to playa critical role in orchid diversification (Gravendeel et al . 2004). The influence of these factors in determining intrinsic rarity in orchids remains poorly known. Delineation of biogeographic provinces and centres of species rarity give an indication of the broad-scalefeatures responsible for restricting distributions andspeciation events in plants (Stebbins & Major 1965,Kessler 2002, Hopper & Goia 2004). Analysis of the factors associated with rarity such as edaphic environment, pollination syndrome and site of mycorrhizal infection could reveal if any strategy has a pre-disposition to rarity and is limiting distribution at amore local scale. Coupling these two approaches hasthe potential to provide initial clues into the featuresinfluencing orchid speciation and rarity. TheOrchidaceae of the South West Australian FloristicRegion (SWAFR approach because of its diversity of pollination syndromes (Hoffman & Brown 1998rhizal infection patterns (Ramsay et al . 1986), intrinsically rare species (Brown et al . 1998) and high levels of endemism (Hopper & Goia 2004 Working within the SWAFR, we tested the following hypotheses (i-ness and endemism is the same as those of the flora ingeneral (iiclimatic and edaphic variation (iii rarity of species varieswith site of fungal infection,pollination syndrome and habitat type. The results of this study may act as a guide to future studies of population genetics, speciation and the factors contribut-ing to rarity in the Orchidaceae of the SWAFR. Method The distribution of 407 orchid taxa from southern Western Australia was mapped as presence/absencedata on a grid of quarter-degree cells using the 13,267records from the Western Australian Herbarium(PERTHquarter-degree grid squares was plotted on a map ofsouthern Western Australia. A similar map of theflora of the SWAFR is presented in Hopper & Gioa(2004also produced. UPGMA cluster analysis was used todelineate biogeographic provinces for orchids.Presence/absence of taxa at the degree grid squarelevel was used to establish large-scale patterns, while finer resolution was achieved by repeating the analy-sis at the half-degree scale. Subsequently, the numberof taxa endemic to each province was calculated. LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 ORCHID BIOGEOGRAPHY AND RARITY IN A BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT: THE SOUTHWEST AUSTRALIAN FLORISTIC REGION RYAND. PHILLIPS1,2,5,ANDREWP. BROWN3, KINGSLEYW. DIXON1,2& STEPHEND. HOPPER2,4 11Kings Park and Botanic Garden, The Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority, West Perth, 6005, Western Australia2School of Plant Biology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, 6009, Western Australia3Department of Environment and Conservation, Species and Communities Branch, Locked Bag 104, Bentley Delivery Centre, 6983, Western Australia4Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, UK5Author for correspondence: rphillips@bgpa.wa.gov.au1 KEYWORDS: pollinators, mycorrhiza, rarity, conservation, edaphic

PAGE 90

All taxa where classified by site of fungal infection, habitat preference and, where possible, pollinationsyndrome. Categories of fungal infection sites followthose of Ramsay et al . (1986gorised by pollination syndrome based on the pub-lished literature and field observations (A.P. Brown,unpublished data). We recognised three pollinationsyndromes: food reward, food deception, and sexualdeception. Species that selfpollinate but also utiliseone of these pollination syndromes were includedwithin these categories. The mechanism of attractionin Corybas , Pterostylis and Rhizanthella remain unresolved so these genera were omitted from the analysis of rarity an pollination syndrome. Taxa were classi-fied as occurring in the following habitat types: near-coastal, granite rocks, salt lake margins, swamps, woodlands and variable. Forest, woodland and heathland species were classified together under the wood-land category because these habitats usually represent a continuum caused by rainfall and are generally con-tinuous, relatively unfragmented habitats. We tested if site of fungal infection, pollination syndrome or habitat are associated with restricted dis-tributions, low abundance or a high incidence of raretaxa. Using genera as replicates, Kruskal-Wallis testswere used to test for differences between pollinationsyndromes and sites of mycorrhizal infection in (ithe mean number of herbarium records (iinumber of occupied grid squares per genus and (iiithe mean proportion of rare taxa. In Caladenia , which contains sexual and food deception, means were calculated separately for each subgenus because of mul-tiple evolution of sexual deception (Kores et al . 2001). Results Species richness was highest in the High Rainfall Province, followed by the South-east CoastalProvince, the Transitional Rainfall Province and theArid Zone (nomenclature of regions follows Hopper& Goia (2004)). Nodes of exceptionally high species richness were high rainfall coastal areas with a diver-sity of habitats including forests, swamps and coastalwoodlands and granite outcrops. Using degree blocks, broad scale biogeographic provinces corresponded closely to those presented in Hopper & Goia (2004 Brookton province which is only evident in theOrchidaceae. The high rainfall regions and the semi-arid Kalbarri sandplain had the highest level ofendemism. While the high rainfall province generallycontained a relatively high proportion of rare taxa, theLeeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge and parts of the south-coast had a particularly high proportion of rare species. The Kalbarri region also had an exceptional-ly high proportion of rare taxa. The site of mycorrhizal infection showed no significant relationship with incidence of rarity, abundanceor distributional extent. Pollination syndrome showed no significant relationship with abundance or distributional extent. However, there was significant varia-tion in the incidence of rare taxa between pollinationsyndromes (sex average rank = 20.61, food = 15.27,reward = 10.13, F-stat = 4.20, P = 0.03). Using aMann-Whitney U-test, the significant variation lied between the sexual deception and food reward polli-nation syndromes (U = 57.0, d.f. 9,8, p = 0.046 Species with variable habitat requirements had the lowest incidence of rarity (0.01%18%and coastal (25%(46%40%lakes (83% Woodland and species of variable habitat require-ments were more abundant and widely distributedthan species occupying the remaining habitats. Discussion The Orchidaceae of the SWAFR shows a markedly different pattern of species richness to the flora ingeneral. While the total flora is most diverse in thetransitional rainfall province, the orchids have theirhighest diversity in coastal and lower south-westareas of the high rainfall province. Despite a different pattern of richness, orchids exhibit similar biogeo-graphic provinces to those of the entire flora (Hopper& Goia 2004) with boundaries delineated by rainfalland soil type. There are also clear differences in theregions of endemism. This demonstrates that whilebroad scale features effect species turnover of orchidsin a similar way to the rest of the flora, different localprocess have been responsible for the accumulationof orchid species and patterns of endemism. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 94 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 91

Geographic region and habitat type both influence rarity in orchids of the SWAFR. Rarity was mostprevalent in geographic regions with high speciesrichness but particularly so in regions with uniqueedaphic environments. The naturally fragmentedhabitats of salt lakes, granites and swamps were moststrongly associated with rare species. The prevalenceof rare species from these habitats is from rarity ofsuitable habitat and low colonisation possibilitiesrather than radiation of taxa through isolation. Theseresults demonstrate the underlying importance ofedaphic environment in determining orchid rarity. While there was no evidence from this study that site of mycorrhizal infection is linked to rarity, sexu-ally deceptive genera showed a higher incidence ofrarity than rewarding genera. This could be driveneither through the greater fruit set by the provision ofa reward (Neiland & Wilcock, 1998, Jersakova &Johnson 2006), or the specialisation associated withsexual deception leaving the orchid vulnerable to adecline in its specific pollinator. The majority of the sexually deceptive genera in the SWAFR are pollinat-ed by parasitoid thynnine wasps (Ridsdill-Smith1970, Stoutamire 1983), which leaves them further susceptible to changes in the abundance of the polli-nator’s host (Tscharntke & Brandl 2004 In this study we have found that there is poor congruence between areas of high species richness andendemism for orchids and angiosperms in general.Thus, in the design of conservation estate, it cannotbe assumed that regions important for the flora ingeneral will satisfy the needs of orchid conservationin terms of preserving high species richness andlocalised endemics. Naturally fragmented habitats areof particular importance. While granite outcrops arereasonably well protected, the other habitats remainunder threat. Salt-lakes are a vulnerable habitat due tothe narrow band around the lake in which orchidsoccur and the rising water tables resulting from theremoval of over 90% of the original vegetation in theWestern Australian wheatbelt (Anon. 2006 Alternatively, swamplands in the SWAFR are gener-ally well protected in the state forests in southernWestern Australia, however, the orchid rich swampsof the Swan Coastal Plain have been mostly cleared for agriculture and housing. The effects of a pro-nounced reduction in rainfall over recent decades (Li et al . 2005) remains to be seen. In deciding management priorities for orchids, researchers should take into account the propensitytowards rarity in sexually deceptive species. Due tothe specificity of the plant-pollinator relationship,particular attention should be paid to the biology andrequirements of the pollinator. In particular, if thereare ample sites for recruitment, a direct increase inthe abundance of the pollinator may lead to anincrease in orchid recruitment. In the longer term,changes in the abundance of a pollinator may precedethose of the orchid. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. Funding was provided by an Australian Postgraduate Award to RP and a grant from theAustralian Orchid Foundation to RP.LITERATURECITEDAnonymous. 2006. State of the Environment Western Australia – Land – Theme 3. http://portal.environ-ment.wa.gov.au/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/ADMIN_SOE/ADMIN_CONTENT/THEMES/3_LAND.PDF Brown, A.P., C. Thomson-Dans & N. Marchant. 1998. Western Australia’s Threatened Flora. Department ofConservation and Land Management, Perth. Cozzolino, S. & A. Widmer. 2005. Orchid diversity: an evolutionary consequence of deception? Trends Ecol. Evol.20 : 487-494. Gravendeel, B., A. Smithson, F.J.W. Slik & A. Schuiteman. 2004. Epiphytism and pollinator specialisa-tion: drivers for orchid diversity. Philos. Trans. RoyalSoc. London B 359 : 1523-1535. Hopper, S.D. & P. Gioia. 2004. The southwest Australian floristic region: Evolution and conservation of a globaldiversity hotspot . Annual Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35 : 623-50. Jersakova, J. & S.D. Johnson. 2006. Lack of floral nectar reduces self-pollination in a fly pollinated orchid.Oecologia 147 : 60-68. Jersakova, J., S.D. Johnson & P. Kindlmann. 2006. Mechanisms and evolution of deceptive pollination in orchids. Biol. Rev.81 : 219-235. Kessler, M. 2002. The elevational gradient of Andean plant endemism: varying influences of taxon-specifictraits and topography at different taxonomic levels. J.Biogeogr 29 : 1159-1165. Kores, P.J., M. Molvray, P.H. Weston, S.D. Hopper, A.P. Brown, K.M. Cameron & M.W. Chase. 2001. A phylo-genetic analysis of Diuridae (Orchidaceaeplastid DNA sequence data. Amer. J. Bot. 88 : 1903-1914. Li, Y., W.J. Cai & E.P. Campbell. 2005. Statistical modelling of extreme rainfall in Southwest Western Australia.J. Clim. 18 : 852-863. PHILLIPS et al . Orchid biogeography and rarity 95 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 92

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 96 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . Ryan Phillips is a Phd student at Kings Park and Botanic Garden and the University of Western Australia working on the role of mycorrhiza and pollinators in controlling rarity and speciation in Drakaea . Interests include the causes of orchid diversification and the co-evolution of orchids and their pollinators. Andrew Brown is an officer in the Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation’s Species and Communities Branch. He as conducted 30 years research into the taxonomy, pollination biology and genet-ics of the Western Australian Orchidaceae and has authored and co-authored over 70 papers, recovery plans, articles, book chapters and books on the Western Australian Orchidaceae. Current research includes the moni-toring of rare orchid populations for the development of recovery prescriptions for the species. Dr Kingsley Dixon has over 20 years experience in researching the ecology and physiology of Australian native plants and ecosystems. He leads a science group comprising botanical and restoration sciences and, as Directorof Science at the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority (BGPAapproach to conservation and restoration of native plant biodiversity and degraded landscapes. This research group has contributed significantly to seed science in Australia, with major advances in understanding seed dor-mancy as well as orchid seed conservation. Stephen Hopper is director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. He has worked on Australian orchid systematics and conservation since 1973. Current interests include generic classification of Australian orchids, and the evo-lution of southwest Australian orchids. Neiland, M.R.M. & C.C. Wilcock. 1998. Fruit set, nectar reward, and rarity in the Orchidaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 85 :1657-1671. Otero, J.T. & N.S. Flanagan. 2006. Orchid diversity – beyond deception. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21 : 64-65. Ramsey, R.R., K.W. Dixon & K. Sivasithamparam. 1986. Patterns of infection and endophytes associated withWestern Australian orchids. Lindleyana 1 : 203-214. Rasmussen, H.N. 1995. Terrestrial orchids from seed to mycotrophic plant. Cambridge University Press,Melbourne. Ridsdill Smith, J. 1970. The biology of Hemithynnus hyalinatus (Hymenoptera: Tiphiidae larvae. J. Austral. Entomol. Soc. 9 : 183-195. Stebbins, G.L. & J. Major. 1965. Endemism and speciation in the Californian flora. Ecol. Monongr.35 : 1-35. Stoutamire, W.P. 1983. Wasp-pollinated species of Caladenia (Orchidaceae Austral. J. Bot.31 : 383-94. Tscharntke, T. & R. Brandl. 2004. Plant-insect interactions in fragmented landscapes. Annual Rev. Entomol.49 : 405-430.

PAGE 93

Orchids are the most diverse family of vascular plants in Ecuador with 228 genera and nearly 4000 species. More than 60% of these species are epi-phytes, being Pleurothallis R.Br., Epidendrum L., Lepanthes Sw. and Masdevallia Ruiz & Pav., with 472, 358, 314 and 226 species respectively,some ofthe genera with greater number of epiphytic orchids(Dodson 1994-2003 Although Ecuador is among those countries with the highest orchid biodiversity in the world, it also has one of the highest rates of deforestation: 1.2% of the coun-try’s forests are lost each year (FAO 2005deforestation practices currently taking place pose amajor threat for the survival of these orchids as theyare greatly dependent on the environmental conditionsof the forests that sustain them, and the host trees (phorophytesing of orchid-phorophyte interactions, as well as the patterns of spatial distribution and colonization in secondary succession forests regenerated after deforesta-tion, is essential for the in situ conservation. Nevertheless, few studies have been conducted in this field, and scientific basis supporting population rein-forcement or reintroduction actions is scarce. The purpose of this study is to assess the spatial distribution of epiphytic orchids of the above-men-tioned genera in an Ecuadorian fragment of secondary montane cloud forest to infer patterns of seed dispersal and colonization. In addition, the effects of phoro-phyte identity and size on orchid establishment areanalyzed. Specifically the questions posed are: Do thedistributions of Pleurothallis , Epidendrum , Lepanthes ,and Masdevallia plants vary in the altitudinal range of the fragment studied? Are there specific patterns in their spatial distribution resulting fromseed dispersal characteristics? Do plants of theseorchids exhibit any preference over the trees wherethey grow? Does phorophyte trunk diameter affect the establishment of these orchids? The results presented, although preliminary, provide useful informa-tion for orchid management plans. The study was carried out in a fragment of regenerated forest located on the Loja-Zamora Chinchipe road,on the border of Podocarpus National Park (southernEcuador). The age of the forest is about 30 years old,and it is characterized by a steep slope (51%trees 5-8 m high and lianas that are over 10 m long.Mean annual precipitation is 2700 mm, and annualmean temperature is 15.5 C (14.4 17.5 C A total of nine 10 x 10 m plots were established at 2200, 2230 and 2250 m a.s.l. (three plots in each alti-tude). All trees (including fern trees), shrubs and lianasof diameter at breast height (DBHdetermined at the genus level, measured and mapped.The census included 1025 vascular plants belonging tomore than 70 different genera. Miconia Ruiz & Pav. (148 trees Nectandra Rol. ex Rottb. (65 trees Clusia L. (59 trees Elaeagia Wedd. (59 trees Psammisia Klotzsch (56 Presence and abundance of all orchids occurring in the first 3 m height were also recorded. In this zone,which corresponds to zone 1 of Johansson’s scheme,the microclimatic conditions are relatively constant(Johansson 197412 genera were identified. Although it is difficult tomake comparisons between different researches LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF PLEUROTHALLIS , MASDEVALLIA, LEPANTHES AND EPIDENDRUM EPIPHYTIC ORCHIDS IN A FRAGMENT OF MONTANE CLOUD FOREST IN SOUTH ECUADOR LORENARIOFRO1,3, CARLOSNARANJO1, JOSM. IRIONDO2& ELENATORRES21Universidad Tcnica Particular de Loja, San Cayetano Alto s/n, Loja, Ecuador2Universidad Politcnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, E-28040 Madrid, Spain3Author for correspondence: mlriofrio@utpl.edu.ec KEYWORDS:altitudinal range, colonization, phorophyte specificity, phorophyte trunk diameter, seed dispersal, spatial patterns

PAGE 94

TABLE1. Distribution of Epidendrum , Pleurothallis , Lepanthes or Masdevallia orchids on their respectives host trees in a secondary montane cloud forest in South Ecuador. For each orchid genus, frequency of host trees (first columnfrequency of orchid individuals on the different host tree genera (second column RIOFRO et al. – Spatial structure of epiphytic orchids 103 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 95

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 104 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . (mainly because the degree of forest disturbance varies), the high number of orchids that we found on the base of the tree trunks contrasts with other stud-ies, which have reported no orchids or low abundanceon this zone (Mehltreter et al. 2005). One explanation for our results could be that the lower canopy densityof young trees, especially in early succession stages,allows a greater passage of light to the lower areas,providing better conditions for the establishment oforchids. According to this hypothesis, light intensitymay affect tree colonization by orchids. In any case,the lower section of the tree trunks seems to have agreat relevance for orchids in this regenerating forest. The most abundant orchid genus was Stelis Sw. (73.8% Epidendrum (8.5% Pleurothallis (6.4% Lepanthes (3.7% Hexisea Lindl. (2.5% Masdevallia (1.9% . Orchids were not uniformly distributed in the altitudinal range stud-ied. Epidendrum and Lepanthes were more frequent and abundant in lower zone of the fragment. Near60% of the Epidendrum and Lepanthes plants were observed at 2200 m. On the other hand, the presenceof Pleurothallis and Masdevallia was similar in all the altitudinal range, although their abundance wasgreater in the higher zone. Thus, the 66.5% of Pleurothallis plants and the 48.1% of Masdevallia plants were found at 2250 m. Altitude-related microclimatic factors may be partially responsible for this occurrence pattern, although other environmental fac-tors independent of altitude may also play a role. Epiphytic orchids were found on 325 of the 1025 recorded trees, shrubs and lianas. The most frequenttrees in the fragment were also the ones that had thegreatest richness and number of orchids. Of the fourgenera studied, Pleurothallis occupied the greatest number of trees (57 Masdevallia was present in only 29 (see Table 1-viduals per phorophyte was small in all of them(ranging from 4.8 in Epidendrum to 1.8 in Masdevallia ), but the variance was large especially in Epidendrum (.8 Pleurothallis (.3) (Table 2). In order to know how the individuals are distrib-uted among phorophytes, Morisita’s index (I M ) (Hurlbert 1990 phorophyte as sampling unit. According to this aggre-gation index (Table 2 detected: Epidendrum and Pleurothallis plants tended to be clumped (I M values were significantly different from 1), while Lepanthes and Masdevallia plants were randomly distributed. Differences in seed dis-persal process may explain this result. Thus, theaggregated pattern observed in Epidendrum and Pleurothallis may be due to limited dispersal ability of their seeds. If this were the case, there would be ahigher probability of finding a plant of its same genusin a near-by tree than in a more distant tree. To testthis hypothesis, a bivariate point pattern analysis was performed in those plots where the number of phoroFIGURE1. A. Spatial distribution of trees in plot 1 located at 2250 m. Triangles indicate trees with Pleurothallis orchids. B. Bivariate point pattern analysis plotting the L 12 function across distance. Dotted lines represent the confidence interval of random labelling null hypothesis.

PAGE 96

phytes was greater than eight (Diggle 1983, Wiegand & Moloney 2004). For Pleurothallis , the values of K 21 ( r )-K 22 ( r ) were inside the confidence interval of the null hypothesis of random labelling for the range of distances 0-5 m (Figure 1-ence of these orchids is at random. Similar resultswere obtained for Epidendrum . Thus, since there is no contagious distribution between one phorophyteand nearby trees, seed dispersal in Epidendrum and Pleurothallis is not limited to short distances. This conclusion is also supported by mean distancebetween phorophytes (4.0 5.6 m for Epidendrum and 4.5 6.8 m for Pleurothallis ), which is not significantly different than the mean distance between all trees in the plots (4.7 2.5 m-tance to the nearest neighbour (13.2 m for Epidendrum and 6.9 m for Pleurothallis ). Other reasons, such as differences in life cycle or reproductive biology could explain the presence of these two dis-tribution patterns. No phorophyte specificity was observed for any of the epiphytic orchids included in the study. Epidendrum and Pleurothallis grew on more than 20 different genera, and Lepanthes and Masdevallia on more than 10 (see Table 1 Epidendrum was more frequent on Clusia , Pleurothallis and Lepanthes on Miconia , and Masdevallia on Psammisia . Preference patterns in orchids have also been reported by other authors(Migenis & Ackerman 1993, D’az-Santos 2000, andTrapnell & Hamrick 2006), although the reasons why orchids occur on particular species remain unclear. The possible effect of phorophyte size on orchid establishment was explored calculating theSpearman’s correlation coefficient ( r S ) between DBH and orchid abundance for each of these four genera.No relationship was found in any of them ( r S = -0.12 P=0.42 for Epidendrum , r S =0.15, P=0.27 for Pleurothallis , r S =0.09 P=0.52 for Lepanthes , and r S =0.17 P=0.37 for Masdevallia ), which means phorophyte trunk diameter does not seem to be a cru-cial factor for orchid colonization. At present, other phorophyte physical characteristics such as bark stability and roughness, and substrate moisture condi-tions are being investigated. In conclusion, this study shows the existence of different patterns of presence and abundance depen-ding on each orchid genus. Anyhow, colonization ofnew trees does not seem to be constrained by limitedseed dispersal. Light conditions may be a moreimportant factor for epiphytic orchid establishmentthan phorophyte identity and size. The abundance oforchids in the lower section of the tree trunks in thisregenerating forest is in clear contrast with previousreports made on primary or non-disturbed forests.This outlines the importance of taking into accountthe different succession states of the forest in whichthe orchids occur. Finally, although pattern analysiscan be helpful in identifying the causes of presentspatial structure, additional experimental studies are needed to determine the underlying processes origina-ting these distributions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.We thank to Fani Tinitana Imaicela for her help in species identification, and the stu-dents Diana Cecilia Guamn and Elizabeth AlexandraPauta for their field assistance. This work was partiallyfunded by the Universidad Tcnica Particular de Loja.LITERATURECITEDD’az-Santos, F. 2000. Orchid preference for host tree genera in a Nicaraguan tropical rain forest. Selbyana21(1,2 Diggle, P.J. 1983. Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns. Academic Press, London. Dodson, C.H. 1994-2003. Native Ecuadorian orchids. 4 v. Colina, Quito. FAO. 2005. State of the world’s forests. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Roma. Goreaud, F. & R. Plissier. 2003. Avoiding misinterpretation of biotic interactions with the intertype K 12 -funcTABLE2. Average number of individuals per host tree (mean variance) and Morisitas index (I M ) for Epidendrum , Pleurothallis , Lepanthes or Masdevallia orchids in a secondary montane cloud forest in South Ecuador. Values in parentheses are minimum and max-imun. ***: P<0.001. RIOFRO et al. – Spatial structure of epiphytic orchids 105 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 97

tion: population independence vs. random labelling hypotheses. J. Veg. Sci. 14: 681-692. Hurlbert, S.H. 1990. Spatial distribution of the montane unicorn. Oikos 58: 257-271. Johansson, D. 1974. Ecology of vascular epiphytes in West African rain forest. Acta Phytogeogr. Suec. 59: 1-136. Mehltreter, K., A. Flores-Palacios & J.G. Garc’a-Franco. 2005. Host preference of low-trunk vascular epiphytes in a cloud forest of Veracruz, Mexico. J. Trop. Ecol. 21: 651-660. Migenis, L.E. & J.D. Ackerman. 1993. Orchid-phorophyte relationships in a forest watershed in Puerto Rico. J.Trop. Ecol. 9: 231-240. Trapnell, D.W. & J.L. Hamrick. 2006. Variety of phorophyte species colonized by the neotropical epiphyte, Laelia rubescens (Orchidaceae1 Lorena Riofr’o and Carlos Naranjo have a teaching position at the Universidad Tcnica Particular de Loja, and are presently carrying out their Ph.D. studies in a Conservation Biology program. They are interested in epiphytic orchids of the subtribe Pleurothallidinae, specifically in understanding the spatial genetic structure and the factors that deter-mine their distribution. These studies are oriented to support orchid conservation. Jos Mar’a Iriondo and Elena Torres are associate profesors of Plant Production and Botany, respectively, at the Universidad Politcnica de Madrid. Their main experience lies on demographic and genetic approaches to plant conservation. In addition to their research on spatial patterns of epiphytic orchids and on the orchid-phorophyte relation-ships, they participate in a project for the reintroduction of Cypripedium calceolus at the Ordesa and Monte Perdido National Park (Spain 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 106 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 98

Introduction Bulbophyllum is probably one of the largest genera in the orchids with Pantropical occurence, but the dis-tribution is not homogeneous across the world. ThePaleotropics is the richest area and there are hundredsof species in Asia (Vermeulen 1991described by Thouars in 1822, and the firstNeotropical species was described only in 1838 ( B. setigerum Lindl.) from a plant collected in Guayana by George Loddiges and sent to John Lindley. Until today, one hundred and ten species names were pub-lished for the Neotropics, however only ca. 70 species could be recognized in five sections supported by phy-logenetic studies based on nuclear and chloroplastgenome sequence data (Smidt unpubl. data Richness is a fundamental measurement of community and regional diversity, and underlays many ecologi-cal models and conservation strategies (Magurran1988). Due to the vast area of the Neotropical region,we know that the sample effort is not consistentthroughout the range. Some areas could be richer thanothers because they are near cities and others could beconsidered poor in number of species because they arerarely or never sampled. Keeping this in mind, we canuse richness estimation to infer the richness fromincomplete collections and projecting the probable number of species to be found. The literature about esti-mation of species richness is extensive (e.g. Colwell &Coddington 1994, Walther & Morand 1998, Hellmann& Fowler 1999, Gotelli & Colwell 2001), and have been used to evaluate global richness of different organ-isms (e.g. Jarvis et al. 2002, Meier & Dikow 2004). In this study, the richness patterns, relationships of the Neotropical biomes and complementarity analy-ses of the genus were accomplished by using a GIS framework, considering the proposed phytogeograph-ical areas for the American Continent (Atlantic RainForest, Cerrado, Semi-arid, Andean region, Amazon,Highlands Guayana, Mesoamerica, Caribbean andMexico). Methodology SAMPLEDATA The specimen database was generated during the taxonomic review of Neotropical Bulbophyllum species and the information was obtained from ca. 1400 specimens deposited in 65 herbaria in Brazil, Europe and other American coun-tries. All analyses of this study was undertaken usingfree DIVA-GIS software v. 5.4 (Hijmans et al. 2000, 2001) and Arcview GIS 3.3 (ESRI 1999) using theAmericas Base Map for Flora Neotropica. RICHNESS This study explored the species richness of Neotropical Bulbophyllum , by the number of taxa occurring in cells with 1 x 1 size in a grid map. Thisapproach permits us to evaluate where are and the range size of this areas to employ conservation deci-sions about this taxa. We applied five non-parametricspecies richness estimators (Chao 1, Chao 2,Jackknife 1, Jackknife 2 and ACE, see Colwell & Coddington (1994-tors), to know how many species of Bulbophyllum are probable to be discovered in the Neotropical region, and which biomes are potentially richer. Each estima-tor used here presents different assumptions and bias, LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 RICHNESS, DISTRIBUTION AND IMPORTANT AREAS TO PRESERVE BULBOPHYLLUM IN THE NEOTROPICS ERICC. SMIDT1,3, VIVIANESILVA-PEREIRA1, EDUARDOL. BORBA2& CSSIOVANDENBERG11Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Departamento de Cincias Biol—gicas, Laboratory of Plant Molecular Systematics (LAMOL2Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Cincias Biol—gicas, Departamento de Botnica, Av. Antnio Carlos, 6627, Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, 31270-110, Brazil.3Author for correspondence: ecsmidt@yahoo.com.br KEYWORDS: Bulbophyllum , Neotropics, richness, complementarity analysis, PAE, orchid

PAGE 99

but the overall difference between them is how it works with species collected one time (singletonsand two times (doubletonsstudies with simulation or empiric data have showedthat the behavior of these estimators is influenced bythe data set, but are of great utility to compare the estimates between different groups in the same envi-ronment or compare different environment for thesame taxa, e.g. Colwell & Coddington (1994& Dikow (2004 COMPLEMENTARITYANALYSIS In order to determine optimal locations for in situ reserves to conserve maximum species diversity, a study based on speciescomplementarity was carried out using the algorithmdescribed by Rebelo (1994(1992size, which complement each other in terms of species composition. The process is iterative, where-by the first cell is the richest in number of species.The second iteration locates a grid cell that is richest in species not already represented in the first itera-tion. This iterative process continues until all specieshave been represented. We computed the minimumnumber of grid cells needed to capture all 71Neotropical Bulbophyllum species. PAE ANALYSIS The parsimony analysis represents a direct tool for searching the most parsimoniousarrangement of shared species among areas, aiming toreveal the biogeographical affinities in a hierarchicalpattern (Rosen & Smith 1988, Trejjo-Torres &Ackerman 2001, Garcia-Barros et al. 2002). This approach was originally called parsimony analysis ofendemicity (PAE(1988Caribbean islands (Trejjo-Torres & Ackerman 2001 The units of comparison that have usually been applied are sites, quadrants or sections of regions,biogeographical areas, or natural geographical areas. In this work, we used well accepted phytogeographi-cal areas, as those discussed by Gentry (1982Neotropics. Among them, nine areas or Biomes(Atlantic Rain Forest, Cerrado, Semi-arid, Andean,Amazon and Guayana Highlands, Mesoamerica,Caribbean Islands and Mxico) were considered. A presence/absence matrix of the 71 Bulbophyllum species (including varieties Nexus Editor Software (Page 2001 was indicated with a `1’ and absence with a `0’.Using this program, areas were entered in the place of taxa, while taxa were entered in the place of charac-ters. Once we constructed the matrix, the analyses ofparsimony were done using PAUP 4.10 (Swofford2000). A hypothetical outgroup area with all 0s (nospecies) was used in the analyses in order to root thetrees. Exhaustive search was carried out to look forthe most parsimonious trees, which indicate thefloristic affinities among studied areas. We obtained a Majority Rule Consensus Trees for equally parsimo-nious trees founded and assessed the clade robustnessusing bootstrap proportions with 1000 replicates(Felsenstein 1985 Results and Discussion GENERALDISTRIBUTION Although there are ca. 1400 specimens available from different herbaria, only ca.900 could be geographically referenced based onspecimen labels, due to the uncertainty or lack of thelocality indications. Some species were plotted on map only from type specimens or protologue infor-mation because of absence of field sample. The generic distribution of Bulbophyllum in the Neotropics is limited at the South by Rio Grande doSul (Brazillimited by Pernambuco, Brazil and West by Cordova,Mexico. The historical record of North limit of thegenus in Everglades, Florida (Luer 1972confirmed by herbarium specimens. RICHNESS The “global” richness through the Neotropics is obviously different from richness of any political boundaries, and the richness of a partic-ular country needs to be evaluated in another scalewith smaller grids than those used in this work.According to our results, the highest number ofNeotropical Bulbophyllum species can be found in Southeast Brazil (22 S 42 Wthe contact areas between Cerrado and Atlantic Rainforest (fig. 1-graphical regions considered, the greatest richnesswere reported for South American Cerrado biome (35spp) followed by Atlantic Rainforest (31 spp), and Andean region (17 spptab. 1-ness, three species are endemic to Mexico, while the 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 108 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 100

Central America and Caribbean Islands did not present any endemic species. Considering the estimation of global richness in the Neotropics, the indexes applied indicate that, untiltoday, 50-90% of Bulbophyllum species were collected (tab. 1 obtained among the biomes, once the richness estima-tors seem to be sensible to poorly sampled areas andpositive biased with highly collected areas, some regional richness patterns for different phytogeo-graphical regions can be explained. In general, according to the richness estimation analysis, the Cerrado and the Atlantic Forest have thelargest number of species and also great amount ofcollections too, probably being the best sampledareas. In this context, the Andean region is supposedto be one of the richest areas rather than other siteswith more samples and species collected. Althoughonly 17 species have been registered, the quantitativeestimators Chao1 and Chao2 indicate more than 40species to be discovered in that region, probably dueto the effect of few collections (and consequentlymore single and doubletons) for the estimations. A pattern that emerges from the Bulbophyllum diversity seems to be the affinities of this genus with outcropping mountain habitats. The Brazilian south-east mountain area presents half of the collectedspecies for the Neotropics, constituting the richestvegetation in species of Bulbophyllum for the American continent. The conglomerate of mountainsconsidered in this work extends from Rio de Janeiroto Bahia State and do not present a unique geologicalorigin, being usually divided in three blocks: 1theadjacent mountains of the National Park of Itatiaia onthe south portion, 2mountains adjacent to Serra doCip— in the central area, in Minas Gerais State and 3-Chapada Diamantina in Bahia State in the north. Each of these portions of mountains is in contact with dif-ferent biomes, especially Cerrado and Atlantic Forest. The low richness found in other ecosystems can be explained by different reasons. In the Amazon fewcollections have been carried out, except around Manaus Belm area. In fact, lots of mountain forma-tions in this phytogeographical area have never been explored for plant collection, being this place proba-bly the most suitable to find Bulbophyllum species. SMIDT et al. Bulbophyllum in Neotropics 109 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . FIGURE1. Species richness of Bulbophyllum data set plotted into grid cells of equal area (ca. 12,000 Km 2 , the 1 x 1 Flora Neotropica grid). Values are represented by the number of species present in each cell and the phytogeographi-cal areas by the follow letters: A. Atlantic Rain Forest, B. Semi-arid, C. Cerrado, D. Amazon, E. Guayana Highlands,F. Caribbean Islands, G. Andean, H. Mesoamerica, I. Mexico.

PAGE 101

Other poor region for richness of this group is the Semi-arid, one of the less adequate biomes forOrchidaceae, due to low air humidity and rainfall. Inaccordance to the dataset the relative high observedand estimated richness in this biome is due to speciessampled in interior mountain formations with humidforest growing around high altitude places. A low richness was detected in Northern South America to Mesoamerica and in Caribbean islands,where mainly species of section Bulbophyllaria Rchb.f. (bifoliated plants with thickened inflorescence, known as “rat-tail orchid”) are present.Finally, Mexico presents low richness but a relativelyhigh number of endemic species growing especiallyin Oak forest and in high altitude places too. PAE ANALYSIS The parsimony analysis of endemicity, with the nine phytogeographical regions consid-ered for the Neotropics using shared Bulbophyllum species, produced seven equally most parsimonious trees (fig. 2(CIRIstrong floristic relationship was detected between: (1Cerrado, Atlantic Rain Florest, Semi-arid and Andeanbiomes and (2Mesoamerica, Caribbean and Mexico. The otherNeotropical biomes do not have any Bulbophyllum species or are considered within the broader concepts used here to avoid small areas with few collections.COMPLEMENTARITYANALYSIS According to our results thirty five main areas were identified using complementarity analysis and considered as priori-taire for the conservation of total diversity of Bulbophyllum in the Neotropics (Fig. 3 The eight most important areas in the map encompass 54% of the 71 species considered in this study. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 110 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . EstimatorRichness (SObservationChao-1Chao-2Jackknife-1Jackknife-2ACE Neotropics 718881371229311573 Cerrado 343164139425135 Atlantic Rain Forest 322404743435333 Mountains of Southeastern Brazilian 303024037394732 Andes 17696440263519 Semi-arid 10901412131612 Guayana Highlands 9352115131716 Mexico 739879108 Amazon 4965567 Caribbean Islands 43244455 Mesoamerica 2502222-1 TABLE1. Species richness estimation for Bulbophyllum using five estimator indexes for different phytogeographical areas in the Neotropics. FIGURE2. Relationship between Neotropical phytogeographical areas using Parsimony Analysis ofEndemicity of Bulbophyllum species. The value above the branch is the Majority-Rule Consensus index of theseven most parsimonious trees and bootstrap support is below the branches. Nodes with less than 50% of boot-strap support are indicated with arrows.

PAGE 102

As expected, four of eight grids coincide with areas of high species richness identified in fig. 1, whichindicates that each of the high diversity areas has adistinct species composition. Some of these areas arelocated in previously proposed Hotspots for otherplant and animal groups in the American continent(Meyers et al. 2000). Conclusion One of the central theoretical tasks of conservation biology is to prioritize places on the basis of their bio-diversity value and to devise management strategiesto conserve biodiversity in these places (Meyers et al. 2000). This study shows how some tools can be useful for the fast identification of priority areas.However, we have to be aware of some problems when we accomplish studies of this nature: 1. under-estimation of the richness, once we know there arevery few collections in herbaria; 2. use of onlyherbarium material (data of literature and personalcommunications are very useful information, butuncertain and non reproductible); 3. there is not aconsensus about which estimator should be used andsometimes the results among them are conflictingand; 4 the most important: we do not know if the collected places are still preserved. For those reasons, a program for conservation in situ based exclusively in this type of data set could be a critical point and need to be observed in futurepolitical decisions concerning protected areas. Wecan exemplify practical situation based on fieldobservation during this investigation: 1.Well collected places but actually strongly disturbed such as inland forests in Jaguaria’va, ParanState, a historical site for plant collections. Thiswas an important area in the complementarityanalysis with several taxa and some endemicspecies in a grid cell. Nowadays the advance of Pinus forests for wood exploration seems to have been causing strong disturbance on original vegeta-tion, bringing a large number of species to becomeseriously vulnerable. 2.Rare and endemics species. There are lots of species considered rare, but this is due to lack ofknowledge. For example, an outcropping rockmountain area in Bahia State, known as ChapadaDiamantina was recently investigated about Bulbophyllum occurrence (Ribeiro et al. 2005 increasing the number of species from five totwelve in two years of study. SMIDT et al. Bulbophyllum in Neotropics 111 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . FIGURE3. The minimum set of areas for the conservation of all Neotropical Bulbophyllum species included in the data set according to Complementarity analysis. The values represent an order of importance between the areas.

PAGE 103

In this sense, another topic that should be pointed is the importance of distinguishing the regional definition(endemismrange restriction(Peterson & Watson 1998 Bulbophyllum manarae Foldats is an example of species described for Venezuela and is recently found in Northeast Brazil. In richness analyses of Brazilian species it might be con-sidered endemic of an area as well as for analyses forVenezuela. Considering the whole of the Neotropicalrange it will be a widely distributed species showingthe relationship among the mountains chain ofSoutheast Brazil and the Andean mountains. The occurrence and richness patterns described here for the Bulbophyllum records were very similar to those for other organisms (e.g. butterflies, Brown1987) and was described for many plant groupsbefore (e.g. Prance 1987, Giulietti & Pirani 1988, Knapp 2002), but it is still little explored and dis-cussed in Orchidaceae. To understand the diversity patterns of the orchid family in the Neotropical region is necessary to carryout investigations with similar approach exploring different taxa. Once the orchids are clearly a mono-phyletic family, the study of groups with differentbiological and ecological features, such as preference of habit and habitats, dispersive potential and pollina-tion strategies could bring new insights about thediversification of orchid family in the AmericanContinent. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . We thank to American Orchid Society and FAPESB for financing the first author’s study,to the Pos-Graduate Program in Botany of the Feira deSantana State University (UEFSScientific and Technological development (CNPqDouglas C. Daly (NYBGAmericas Base Map.LITERATURECITEDBrown, K.S. 1987. Biogeography and evolution of Neotropical butterflies. In: Withmore, T.C. and Prance,G.T. Biogeography and Quaternary history in tropicalAmerica. Clarendon Press. Oxford. p. 66-99. Colwell, R.K. & J.A. Coddington. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philos. Trans. R.Soc. Lond. B. 345: 101. ESRI. 1999. ArcViewGIS 3.2a. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. New York. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evol. 39: 783-791. Garcia-Barros, E., P. Gurrea, M.J. Lucianez, J.M. Cano, M.L. Munguira, J.C. Moreno, H. Sainz, M.J. Sanz &J.C.Sim—n. 2002. Parsimony analysis of endemicity and its application to animal and plant geographical distribu-tions in the Ibero-Balearic region (westernMediterranean). J. Biogeogr. 29: 109-124. Gentry, A.H. 1982. Neotropical floristic diversity: phytogeographical connections between Central and SouthAmerica, Pleistocene climatic flutuations, or an accientof the Andean orogeny? Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 69(3 Giulietti, A.M. &J.R. Pirani. 1988. Patterns of geographic distribution of some plant species from Espinhao range,Minas Gerais and Bahia, Brazil. In : P.E. Vanzolini& W.R. Heyer (eds.Neotropical distribution patterns. Academia Brasileira deCincias, Rio de Janeiro. Gotelli, N.J. &R.K. Colwell. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement andcomparison of species richness. Ecol. Letters 4: 379-391. Hellmann, J.J. & G.W. Fowler. 1999. Bias, precision, and accuracy of four measures of species richness. Ecol.Applic. 993: 824-834. Hijmans, R.J., L. Guarino, M. Cruz &E. Rojas. 2000. Computers tools for spatial analysis of plant geneticresources data: 1. DIVA-GIS. Plant Genet. Res. Newsl.127: 15. Hijmans, R.J., M. Cruz, E. Rojas & L. Guarino. 2001. DIVA-GIS, Version 1.4. A geographic information sys-tem for the management and analysis of geneticresources data. Manual. International Potato Center,(CIP5 October 2006; Jarvis, A., M.E. Ferguson,D.E. Williams, L. Guarino, P.G. Jones, H.T. Stalker, J.F.M. Valls, R.N. Pittman, C.E. Simpson &P. Bramel. 2002. Biogeography of wild Arachis : assessing conservation status and setting future priorities. Crop Sc. 43(3 Knapp, S. 2002. Assessing patterns of plant endemism in Neotropical uplands. Botan. Rev. 68 (1 Luer, C.A. 1972. The native orchids of Florida . The New York Botanical Garden. W.S. Cowell Ltd, Butter Market,Ipswich, England. Magurran, A.E., 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, U.S.A. Meier, R. &T. Dikow. 2004. Significance of specimen dataset from taxonomic revision for estimating and mapping the global species diversity of invertebrates and repa-tring reliable specimen data. Conserv. Biol. 18 (2 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 112 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 104

Meyers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittemeier, G.A.B. Fonseca &J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for con-servation priorities. Nature 403: 863-858. Page, R.D.M. 2001. NEXUS data editor, v. 0.5.0. (http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/NDE/nde.html -Accessed September 2006) Peterson, A.T. &D.M. Watson. 1998. Problems with areal definitions of endemism: the effects of spatial scaling.Diversity and Distributions 4: 189-194. Prance, G.T. 1987. Biogeography of Neotropical plants. In: Withmore, T.C. and Prance, G.T. Biogeography andQuaternary history in tropical America. Clarendon Press.Oxford. p.46-65. Rebelo, A.G. 1994. Iterative selection procedures: Centers of endemism and optimal placement of reserves.Strelitzia 1: 231. Rebelo, A.G. &W.R. Sigfried. 1992. Where should nature reserves be located in the Cape Floristic Region, SouthAfrica? Models for the spatial configuration of a reservenetwork aimed at maximizing the protection of diversity.Conserv. Biol. 6: 243. Ribeiro, P.L., E.L. Borba &A.L.V. Toscano-de-Brito, 2005. O gnero Bulbophyllum Thouars (Orchidaceae Chapada Diamantina, Bahia, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Bot. 28(3 Rosen, B.R. &A.B. Smith. 1988. Tectonics from fossils? Analysis of reef-coral and sea-urchin distributions fromlate Cretaceous to Recent, using a new method. In : M.G. Audley-Charles &A. Hallman (eds.Tethys. Special Publication of the Geological Society ofLondon 37: 275. Swofford, D.L. 2000. PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parcimony and others methods, version 4.10.Sunderland: Sinquer. Trejjo-Torres, J.C. & J.D. Ackerman. 2001. Biogeography of the Antilles based on a parsimony analysis of orchiddistributions. J.Biogeogr. 28: 775-794. Walther, B.A., Morand, S. 1998. Compare performance of species richness estimation methods. Parasitilogy 116: 395-405. Vermeulen, J.J. 1991. Orchids of Borneo vol. 2 Bulbophyllum . Toihaan Publishing Company. Sabah. Malaysia. 342p. SMIDT et al. Bulbophyllum in Neotropics 113 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . Eric Smidt initiated his studies in Orchidaceae in 1996, during his undergraduation, working in several orchid projects, such as “Phanerogamic flora of So Paulo State – Orchidaceae”, and “The Orchidaceae of the Anchieta Island StateReserve”, a rain forest park. His MSc. Degree in Botany was entitled “The subtribe Spiranthinae in the ChapadaDiamantina, Bahia, Brazil”. Since then, he has been involved with some projects regarding reproductive biology,genetics and conservation of Brazilian orchids. At the moment, he is doing his PhD thesis at Feira de Santana StateUniversity, Bahia, Brazil, working with “Taxonomic revision and phylogeny of Neotropical species of Bulbophyllum under supervision of Dr. Eduardo L. Borba and Dr. Cssio van den Berg. Viviane Silva-Pereira is graduated in Biology at Universidade Estadual Paulista, Brazil, has a master degree in Botany at Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Brazil. Currently she is doing her PhD at the same University, withresearch focus on plant reproductive biology and plant population genetics associated with GIS framework. Eduardo Leite Borba is graduated in Biology at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil, has a master degree and a PhD in Botany both at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil. Currently he is associate professor atUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil, with research focus on orchid systematics, plant reproductive biologyand plant population genetics. Cassio van den Berg is graduated in Agriculture at Universidade de So Paulo, Brazil, has a master degree in Ecology at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil, and a PhD in Botany from the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew andUniversity of Reading, UK. Currently he is full professor at Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Brazil, withresearch focus on orchid systematics, plant molecular systematics and plant population genetics.

PAGE 105

The orchid family comprises in Mexico some 1254 species and 21 subspecific taxa (Soto Arenas et al. 2007). Notable facts of the Mexican orchid flora are the very uneven distribution of the species in the ter-ritory, since about a half of the country is too dry topermit the existence of a single orchid species, andnearly 60% of the species are found in the cloudforests which occupy only about 1-2% of the area ofthe country (Soto Arenas 1996conservation actions in Mexico can be found inHgsater and Soto Arenas (1998 Like in other parts of the world, in Mexico the orchid diversity is being lost. Orchids have intrinsicbiological traits that make them vulnerable and thehuman impact on their populations and habitats is avery important threat that is causing extinctions andsignificant losses of the species’ genetic variation. The Mexican Official Standard NOM-059-ECOL2001 lists 183 orchid species in a risk category (none extinct, 16 endangered, 61 threatened, and 106 under special protection). The official list is based on infor-mation gathered during the decade of 1980-1990(Soto Arenas and Hgsater 1990; Soto Arenas 1994nowadays the conservation status of some taxa haschanged, even some taxa have become extinct. Basedon the official list, and considering 15 additional taxathat have been reported as extinct or severely in riskin the last years, we constructed a data base thatincludes the most relevant information in order toplan the conservation strategies of the taxa at risk.The information will be soon available in BIOTICA,the data base of CONABIO, Mexico. In this work we discuss three different aspects of the information derived from the orchids at risk database: 1) Evaluation of the importance of current andproposed areas for conservation; 2) determination of LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 RISK OF EXTINCTION AND PATTERNS OF DIVERSITY LOSS IN MEXICAN ORCHIDS MIGUELA. SOTOARENAS1,3, RODOLFOSOLANOGMEZ2& ERICHGSATER1Herbario AMO, Apdo. Postal 53-123, 11320 Mxico D.F. MEXICO2Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigaci—n para el Desarrollo Integral Regional, Unidad Oaxaca, Instituto Politcnico Nacional. Hornos 1003, Santa Cruz Xoxocotln, 71230, Oaxaca, Mexico.3Author for correspondence: msotoarenas@prodigy.net.mx RESUMEN. La norma oficial mexicana (NOM-059-ECOL-2001 alguna categor’a de riesgo (Extintas, En Peligro de Extinci—n, Amenazadas y Sujetas a Protecci—n Especial Construimos una base de datos que incluye la informaci—n ms relevante para planear las estrategias de con-servaci—n de estos taxa (nomenclatura, descripciones e ilustraciones para identificaci—n, datos geogrficos de todas las poblaciones conocidas, clima, hbitat, refugios, historia natural y ecolog’a, caracter’sticas poblacio-nales, factores de riesgo, etc.). La informaci—n estar disponible travs de la Comisi—n Nacional para elConocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Mxico (CONABIO informaci—n geogrfica se detectaron las reas de concentraci—n de orqu’deas en riesgo y como stas se rela-cionan con las reas Naturales Protegidas y las reas Terrestres Prioritarias para la conservaci—n. Se discutendistintos patrones de riesgo, de amenazas y de prdida de diversidad. Es evidente que los efectos del cambio climtico, combinados con el mal manejo de los sistemas en hbitats nicos, constituyen las mayores amenazas. La erradicaci—n de poblaciones de orqu’deas en amplias zonas densamente pobladas y afectadas, espe-cialmente en Veracruz y Puebla, pueden representar una prdida importante de la diversidad gentica total delas especies. Se hizo un esfuerzo especial por determinar las tasas de extinci—n de orqu’deas en Mxico.Finalmente, y de manera conjunta con otros bi—logos de la conservaci—n se desarroll— un mtodo para evaluarel riesgo de extinci—n en plantas que est siendo adoptado por las autoridades del pa’s y su uso pretende serobligatorio en el futuro para la inclusi—n en las distintas categor’as de riesgo. KEYWORDS: Mexico, extinction rates, species at risk, threats, in situ conservation, natural protected areas

PAGE 106

the main risk factors, and 3) estimation of the extinction rates of a rich orchid flora that it is rather well-known compared with many other tropical countries. This will permit us to suggest guidelines and conser-vation strategies with sound bases. Materials and methods DATABASE. We obtained updated information for the nearly 200 Mexican orchids at risk, including nomen-clature, distribution, climate, habitat, natural history, uses, ecology, risk factors, refuges, and possible con-servation strategies (e.g. opportunities for in situ conservation, presence/absence in natural protected or pri-oritary regions, the maintenance feasibility outside ofthe habitat, etc.). This includes a review of literature, herbarium collections, field work, and experience culti-vating and propagating the species. The informationwas captured in a data base using the Biotica 4.0Information System (CONABIO bibliographic revision and a list of every known locali-ty, georeferenced, was recorded. This information willbe available to the public from CONABIO, except forthe precise location of sought-after taxa, subject to intense selective collection. Botanical illustrations, dis-tribution maps, and photos were also included. POPULATIONSATRISKANDNATURALPROTECTED AREAS . The whole of georeferenced populations of all the species at risk was superposed with a digital mapof Mexico with its political division in states andshowing the official Natural Protected Areas(CONANP, 2006Regions of Mexico (Arriaga et al. 2000). This was done using the program ArcView GIS 3.2. RISKFACTORS. The two most important risk factors for every species of the 200 analyzed were assigned toone of the following categories: habitat conversion/destruction by agriculture, livestock graz-ing, due to effects of unpredictable climatic events(hurricanes, forest fires, unusual frostsurbanization, touristic developments, forestry, andcharcoal production; habitat degradation by acidic rain, urban warming, by changes in the local hydrolo-gy; intrinsic biological factors, selective extractionfor the local market, gathering for the international(often past A method (MER, SEMARNAT 2002 the risk status was applied to each taxon, since it isnow mandatory by the Mexican regulation in order tohave an objective assigment of the taxa in the differentrisk categories. We detected several problems of the method that systematically overestimated the extinc-tion risk. Therefore, with the empirical information inthe data base, and together with other conservationbiologists, we designed and tested a more objectivemethod to determine more precisely the risk categories.This new method considers a rarity index based in thecriteria of Rawinowitz et al. (distributional traits, habitat characteristics, intrinsic biological vulnerability;1986) and an anthropogenic impact index. The methodwill be available soon from the Mexican Ministry ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (SEMARNATand will be mandatory to include any plant species inthe Mexican official regulation. EXTINCTION. It is very difficult to determine if a taxon is really extinct into an area or not. We critically exam-ined every case of Mexican orchid that qualifies asextinct. Two different estimations were done. The firstwas done visiting all the known previous and verified stations, with searching specifically directed at the par-ticular taxon, and corroborating its later extirpation;this approach gives us a high confidence in saying that a species is extinct. The second approach is lessexhaustive, since verifying the extirpation of everyknown population was impossible to do, but there is circumstantial evidence that a particular taxon has dis-appeared, for example, very little suitable habitatremains, the habitat has been visited and surveyed byour team or other botanists with unsuccessful results,and/or there is an old date of last observation; thisapproach gives us an indication that the taxon is probably extinct . For example, Plectrophora alata (Rolfe Garay was collected in Finca Hamburgo, near Huixtla,Chiapas, in 1935 and it has never been located again inthe country. Documented populations exist in similarhabitats in Suchitepquez and Sacatepquez,Guatemala, some 120 km eastward. Finca Hamburgohas been visited and little suitable habitat remains and P. alata has not been located by us or any other botanists that have visited the region. Since the regionof the Soconusco, where the plantation is located hassuffered extensive clearings and most land has been SOTOARENAS et al . Risk of extinction and patterns of diversity loss in Mexican orchids 115 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 107

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 116 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . converted into coffee plantations it is highly probable that P. alata is extinct in Mexico, as suggested by its last record 72 years ago. We did not consider extinct those species that are very rare, little known, and in which no field workspecifically directed to evaluate its populations andhabitat has been conducted. For example, Malaxis lyonnetii Salazar is known only from one collection near Cuernavaca (Salazar 1997nearby locality in Ocuilan (the type of M. andersoniana R.Gonzlez, Gonzlez Tamayo 2002). It is evidently very scarce, since this area has been well-botanized in the last years, but a rare, inconspicuousplant like this requires a specifically designed search,and this has not been conducted. Additionally, there are yet extensive tracts of suitable habitat that may har-bor populations of M. lyonnetii . In other probable but excluded cases a single record exists, supposedly col-lected in Mexico, of a taxon that is very likely notnative to the country, and otherwise well-known fromother geographic areas (e.g. Eulophia filicaulis Lindl. –previously known as E. ramifera Summerh. from Africa, see Salazar and Cribb, in press; or Maxillaria aurantiaca A. Rich. & Galeotti, a supposedly Mexican taxon based on a cultivated plant, referable to theBrazilian Bifrenaria aureofulva (Hook.) Lindl.). Results and discussion Besides the topics discussed in this work, the data base is a source of important information to planningthe conservation of the Mexican orchids at risk. For example, it records the regional declining and extirpa-tion of most orchid populations at risk in the denselypopulated areas of Veracruz and Puebla, and how thesame taxa may have healthy populations in Oaxaca.The data base is also an important tool because itgives precise and specific guidelines for ex situ conservation programs. It indicates which species arealready propagated, which need urgent actions, whichpresent particular difficulties for propagation, which may be traded in the international and national mar-ket, among other issues. POPULATIONSATRISKANDNATURALPROTECTED AREAS. Only 120 of the nearly 200 Mexican orchids at risk have populations located inside the System of Natural Protected Areas (SINANP; fig. 1 FIGURE1. Localities of the Mexican orchids at risk (dotsin graytected by the Mexican government (CONANP, 2006), but only 43 of them comprise orchid species at risk (15 bios-phere reserves, 19 national parks, four natural monuments, and five areas of protection of flora and fauna). Only 120orchid species at risk (from the 183 included in the NOM-059-ECOL-2001at least onethe protected areas. It is evident in the figure that most populations of orchids at risk are found outside of the protectedareas, and that regions with a large number of populations of species at risk, as Veracruz, Guerrero, Oaxaca, andChiapas, are almost devoid of protected areas.

PAGE 108

tem is insufficient to fulfill the strategy of conservation in situ . Mexican orchid alpha diversity (the diversity into the sites) is rather high in some areas,but at national scale beta diversity (the diversity between sites) is much more important. The biologi-cal diversity is widely distributed and it is beingmaintained by the high environmental heterogeneity,that is, well-defined endemism areas and high betadiversity, as recently stressed in an orchid diversityanalysis of the State of Oaxaca (Soto Arenas &Salazar 2004). This means that in order to maintainthe biodiversity of the country, the System of NaturalProtected Areas must encompass different habitats indifferent biotic provinces. It is evident that natural protected areas are absent, or almost, in cloud forest-ed regions and in some biotic provinces, like theSierra Madre del Sur, which has the higher proportionof endemics. The idea that the present natural protected areas are not sufficient to maintain the biodiversity of the coun-try is not new. In consequence, government agencies and conservationist groups recognized priority terrestrial regions, somewhat equivalent to “hotspots” (regions that harbor biodiversity of global signifi-cance, but which are highly threatened). The priorityareas attempt to serve the SINANP as a frameworkwhen considering the incorporation of new areas, butlittle effort have been done to date to convert priorityregions in protected areas. As 171 orchid species atrisk (more than 90% of the wholeinside the priority regions (fig. 2these areas were properly selected and it must be animportant task to guarantee that they can maintaintheir biodiversity. Certainly, the maintenance oforchid species in protected areas is not secured withan official decree, and much work has to be done toprovide natural protected areas with managementplans and surveillance; however, their official decreeis an important first step. RISKFACTORS. We determined for each one of the 183 orchid species in the NOM-059-ECOL-2001 the twomain risk factors (for three species no risk factors are known, for 11 species only a single risk factor is evi-dent). This can be summarized as follow: In 111 FIGURE2. Localities of the Mexican orchids at risk (squares) and terrestrial prioritary regions for conservation (dark gray; Arriaga et al ., 2000). There are 152 prioritary regions but only in 49 have populations of orchids at risk, most of them in the southern part of the country. Of the 183 species at risk included in the NOM-059-ECOL-2001, 171 have popula-tions in the prioritary regions; which indicates that these regions were appropriately selected. SOTOARENAS et al . Risk of extinction and patterns of diversity loss in Mexican orchids 117 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 109

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 118 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . species the intrinsic biological factors make then very vulnerable (high habitat specificity, hyperdispersedpopulations, particular life history, etc.). In 108species one of their two major risks is the habitat destruction due to agricultural activities, coffee cul-ture being by far the most important. In 49 species thecattle ranching as one of their major risks, with onlyone case due to goats grazing. In 32 species theirhabitat have been lost due to forest fires linked toextreme climatic conditions thought to be result of theclimatic change. The collection of specimens for thelocal market is a major risk for 28 species and 21species have it or had in the past, the collection ofspecimens for the international horticultural market.Forestry is a threat for 17 species. Four species are atrisk due to urban or touristic developments. In three taxa the habitat conversion is the result of the activi-ties to produce charcoal. Two species are at risk dueto the industrial, extractive activities and mining.Two species are at risk due to degradation of theirhabitat because it is located too close to cities withacid rain and urban warming. In two species theplants have suffered severe defoliation and tissuedamage by unusual, extremely severe frosts thoughtto be a result of the climatic change. In one speciesthe habitat has been transformed by the change in thelocal hydrology of the station. It is evident that intrinsic factors that make orchid species potentially vulnerable interact with anthro-pogenic factors that combined put them at risk. The most important is agriculture, cattle raising, and surprisingly the forest fires thought to be result of cli-matic change, since fires in communities like the mountain rainforest were very unlikely under previous conditions. These threats are followed by the col-lection to supply the demand of orchids as adornmentor for horticulture. Although international trade withwild specimens is probably insignificant nowadays, itwas important in the past and was the major threat fortaxa like Laelia anceps subsp. dawsonii (J.Anderson Rolfe, Phragmipedium exstaminodium Casta–o, Hgsater & E.Aguirre, or Rossioglossum grande (Lindl. present endangered status. Collection of wild orchidsto be sold in the local Mexican markets has beenstressed as a very important threat for species like L. speciosa (Kunth Barkeria scandens (La Llave & Lex.) Dressler & Halb., Oncidium tigrinum La Llave & Lex., Prosthechea karwinskii (Mart. Soto Arenas & Salazar, P. vitellina (Lindl. W.E.Higgins, and many others (Hgsater et al . 2005). Extinction . Table 1 enlist 22 orchid species (no infraspecific taxa were considered) which we can say with certainty that are extinct in the wild in the country. Three of them, Anathallis oblanceolata (L.O.Williams Laelia gouldiana Rchb.f., and Lepanthes nigriscapa R.E.Schult. & G.W.Dillon are endemic to Mexico; therefore they Anathallis oblanceolata (L.O.Williams Solano & Soto Arenas1987 *Cochleanthes flabelliformis (Sw. Schultes & Garay1977 *Dracula pusilla (Rolfe1998 *Dichaea tuerckheimii Schltr.1998 *Epidendrum culmiforme Schltr.1998 *Epidendrum pansamalae Schltr.1981 *Epidendrum tziscaoense Hgsater1998 *Eriopsis wercklei Schltr.1975 *Jacquiniella gigantea Dressler, Salazar & Garc’a Cruz1998 Laelia gouldiana Rchb.f.before 1888 *Lepanthes guatemalensis Schltr.1998 *Lepanthes minima Salazar & Soto Arenas1998 Lepanthes nigriscapa R.E.Schult. & G.W. Dillon1936 *Lepanthes stenophylla Schltr.1998 *Lepanthes yunckeri Amex ex Yunck.1998 *Lycaste dowiana Endres & Rchb.f.1998 *Lycaste lassioglossa Rchb.f.1985 *Platystele caudatisepala (C.Schweinf.1998 Rossioglossum williamsianum (Rchb.f. Garay & G.C.Kennedy1998 *Sigmatostalix guatemalensis Schltr.1998 *Specklinia samacensis (Ames & M.W.Chase1998 *Trichosalpinx trachystoma (Schltr.1973 TABLE1. Orchids extinct in Mexico. The following list includes those orchid species whose all known wildpopulations have been extirpated and that extinction hasbeen verified by field work. Those species marked with an asterisk* were found only in the elfin forest-moun-tain rainforest of the region of Montebello, Chiapas.The year on the column of the right is the last date inwhich a wild specimen was seen or alternatively, whenthe last patch of suitable habitat disappeared.

PAGE 110

are extinct on a global scale. Table 2 enlist 12 additional orchid species which are probably extinct in the country, also three of them, Epidendrum incomptoides Ames, Maxillaria oestlundiana L.O.Williams, and Mormodes porphyrophlebia Salazar are endemic. The present extinction rate of Mexican orchids is1.75% but rises up to 2.71% if the species consideredas probably extinct are included. On a global scaleMexico may have contributed with three (or sixalready extinct endemic orchid species. From a singlespecies thought to be extinct in 1900, the numberincreased to about eight species in 1970, and sincethen it has had an exponential rising, that acceleratedin 1998, to reach the present estimate of 34 species. Greuter (1995 Mediterranean higher plants was of 0.15% at thespecies level, while a rate of 0.14% is derived fromthe 1997 IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants. Whilethe extinction rates in Mexican orchids are difficult tocompare with these global estimates because manyspecies range beyond the Mexican boundaries,0.24%-0.48% of the endemic Mexican orchids areextinct or probably extinct. Extinction rate inMexican orchids seems to be comparatively high,especially if we consider that no orchid species arethought to be extinct in areas like the West Indies and Guyanas, and only one is probably extinct in the Paleartic region. The present orchid extinction rate inMexico is higher that those estimated a decade agofor Southern Africa (0.21%0.625%although lower than the 3.6% calculated for theIndian subcontinent (data derived from the regionalaccounts, IUCN/SSC Orchid Specialist Group 1996). The extinct species share some common traits, especially distributional and habitat preferences. Ofthe 34 (certainly and probablyorchids, 28 are species restricted to the mountainrainforest of Chiapas, 22 of them previously foundonly in the region of Montebello. Four additionalspecies were narrow endemics previously found inthe lower mountain rainforest of little extent in thePacific slope of Oaxaca and Guerrero (the PlumaHidalgo area and the base of the Teotepec system).Only two taxa have unique distributional traits. Laelia gouldiana is a taxon whose specific status is questionable. It has never been found in the wild, its origi-nal range is unknown, and recent molecular data(Soto Arenas and Mrquez, unpubl. datait is a hybrid between L. autumnalis (La Llave & Lex.) Lindl. and L. anceps Lindl., two taxa which are not sympatric at present. It is probable that Laelia gouldiana is the result of an ancient hybridization event. The other particular case is that of Lyroglossa pubicaulis (L.O.Williams known from a tropical area of quarzic, acidic sands insouthern Veracruz. This habitat is uncommon in thecountry and it has been subject to severe humanimpact due to oil extraction, mining, and livestockraising. The 32 (certainly and probably orchids whose habitat was the mountain rainforestshare some things in common. They were strict in habitat preferences, for example found only in primary, particularly humid spots of the forest; all were epi-phytes that usually had an extralimital distribution inMexico, most with only one or two populations in thecountry which may be termed peripherical stations.However, there is a large variation in other traits, some were common plants, others with hyperdis-persed populations, some are showy species subjectto collection and trade, others are inconspicuousminiatures unknown in cultivation, etc. In most casesthe habitat was also severely impacted by agricultural Epidendrum incomptoides Ames1925 Erycina pumilio (Rchb.f. & M.W.Chase1971 *Habenaria wercklei Schltr.1998 Hapalorchis lineatus (Lindl.1981 Houlletia tigrina Linden ex Lindl. & Paxton1989 Lyroglossa pubicaulis (L.O.Williams1910 Maxillaria oestlundiana L.O.Williams1984 *Maxillaria praestans Rchb.f.2002 Mormodes porphyrophlebia Salazar1976 Oncidium exauriculatum (Hamer & Garay R.Jimnez1989 Oncidium wentworthianum Bateman ex Lindl.1969 Plectrophora alata (Rolfe1935 TABLE2. Orchid species that are probably extinct in Mexico. Those species marked with an asterisk* werefound only in the elfin forest-mountain rainforest of theregion of Montebello, Chiapas. The year on the columnof the right is the last date in which a wild specimen was seen or alternatively, when the last patch of suit-able habitat disappeared. SOTOARENAS et al . Risk of extinction and patterns of diversity loss in Mexican orchids 119 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 111

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 120 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . activities, coffee culture being the very important threat in each and every case. In the case of the 22species restricted to the mountain rainforest of theMontebello region, their extirpation was due to forestfires that completely destroyed the habitat. Crownforest fires were previously unknown in such a wethabitat and they were conditioned by the vegetationdamage during the severe frosts of the winter of1997-1998, the extreme drought in the spring of 1998, and the use of fire in the management of agricultural and cattle grazing areas. The extreme climat-ic conditions dried the epiphytic loads to convertthem in a suitable fuel for the crown fires. Extinction was therefore a gregarious event important in marginal (or of little extension-tats which were sensitive to the effects of the climatic change, and where bad management practices pre-vailed. It is therefore prioritary to recognize whichhabitats are the most vulnerable in order to foreseethese gregarious losses. For example, the patches ofmoist coniferous forest in Coahuila and Nuevo Le—n,surrounded by arid regions could be very sensitive toextreme climatic conditions (wildfires alreadydestroyed large tracts in 1975, near San Antonio delas Alazanas, Coahuila). The relictual lower mountainrainforests of southern Oaxaca and Guerrero havebeen already listed as very threatened habitats (SotoArenas 1996). The ravines with evergreen tropicalforest near El Tuito, Jalisco, which harbor the onlypopulations of rainforest plants in western Mexico,could be also very vulnerable. Habitat condition is intuitively less adequate in peripherical populations than in the middle of thespecies’ distribution (Olson et al. 2005). Climatic change should cause dramatic reduction in the ranges of many species by eliminating the peripherical, out-lying populations. Extinction of the orchids of the mountain rainforest of Chiapas means clearly a con-traction of the species’ ranges. Although researches have stressed that animal species’ responses to cli-mate change are individualistic (Team species 2003plant communities are assemblages in which somecomponents share a high fidelity to the habitat, andtherefore plant species’ responses may be similar. In this work we show data, if circumstantial, that climate change is an orchid threat, perhaps much more dangerous and imminent that previously realized. The social and economic problems that provoke a bad management of the environment combine in abad way with climatic change to be together, by far,the most important extinction threats in Mexico.Collecting evidence on this combined threats andquantifying its effects are a prioritary task for orchidconservation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.We thank CONABIO the financial support through the Projects R225 (Diversidad deOrqu’deas en la Regi—n El Mom—n-Las Margaritas-Montebello, Chiapas, Mxico) and W029 (Informaci—nactualizada sobre las especies de orqu’deas en el Proy-NOM-059-ECOL-2000). We thank Elleli Huerta Ocampo,SEMARNAT, for comments to a previous draft.LITERATURECITEDArriaga, L., J. M. Espinoza, C. Aguilar, E. Mart’nez, L. G—mez & E. Loa (coordinators . Regiones terrestres prioritarias de Mxico. Comisi—n Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. Mxico. CONANP. 2006. Areas naturales protegidas federales de Mxico. Comisi—n Nacional de Areas NaturalesProtegidas. Morelia, Mxico. Gonzlez Tamayo, R. 2002. Malaxis (Orchidaceae discusion de los rasgos espec’ficos y dos taxonesnuevos mexicanos. Ibugana 10(1-2 Greuter, W. 1995. Extinctions in Mediterranean areas. In : J. Lawton & R. May (eds. . Oxford University Press. Hgsater, E. & M.A. Soto Arenas. 1998. Orchid conservation in Mexico. Selbyana 19(1 Hgsater, E., M.A. Soto Arenas, G.A. Salazar Chvez, R. Jimnez Machorro, M.A. L—pez Rosas & R.L. Dressler.2005. Las orqu’deas de Mxico. Instituto Chino’n,Mxico, 304 pp. IUCN/SSC Orchid Specialist Group, 1996. Orchids Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Olson, M.E., J.A. Lomel’ & N.I. Cacho. 2005. Extinction threat in the Pedilanthus clade ( Euphorbia , Euphorbiaceae), with special reference to the recentlyrediscovered E. conzattii ( P. pulchellus ). Am. J. Bot. 92(4 Rawinowitz, D., S. Cairns & T. Dillon. 1986. Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of the BritishIsles. Pp. 182-204 in : M.E. Soul (ed. biology, the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer,Sunderland, Mass. Salazar Chvez, G.A. 1997. A new species of Malaxis

PAGE 112

(Orchidaceae 449-451. Salazar Chvez, G.A. & P.J. Cribb (in pressty of Eulophia filicaulis Lindl. (Orchidaceae Soto Arenas, M.A. 1994. Population studies in Mexican orchids. Pp. 153-160 in : A. Pridgeon (ed. of the 14 th World orchid conference. HMSO, Edimburgh. Soto Arenas, M. 1996. Regional Accounts: Mexico. Pp. 53-58 in IUCN/SSC Orchid Specialist Group. Orchids -Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN,Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Soto Arenas, M.A. & E. Hgsater. 1990. Algunas ideas acerca de la conservaci—n de las orqu’deas mexicanas yun listado preliminar de los taxa amenazados. Pp. 155-172 in : J.L. Camarillo & F. Rivera (eds.rales protegidas y especies en extinci—n. UniversidadNacional Aut—noma de Mxico, Mexico City. Soto Arenas, M.A., E. Hgsater, R. Jimnez Machorro, G. Salazar Chvez, R. Solano G—mez & R. Flores. 2007.Las orqu’deas de Mxico. catlogo digital. InstitutoChino’n, A.C., Mexico City. DVD. Soto Arenas, M.A & G.A. Salazar Chvez. 2004. Orqu’deas. Pp. 271-295 in : A.J. Garc’a-Mendoza, M.J. Ordo–ez & M. Briones-Salas (eds.Oaxaca. Instituto de Biolog’a, UNAM-FondoOaxaque–o para la Conservaci—n de la Naturaleza-World Wildlife Fund, Mxico City. SEMARNAT. 2002. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059ECOL-2001, Protecci—n ambiental-Especies de flora yfauna silvestres de Mxico-Categor’as de riesgo yespecificaciones para su inclusi—n, exclusi—n oexclusi—n-Lista de especies en riesgo. Diario Oficial dela Federaci— n , 6 de marzo de 2002. Mxico. Team species. 2003. Climate changes species survival. Species 39: 8. Miguel ngel Soto Arenas is a research associate with the Herbario AMO, Mexico City, since 1984; he has been executive editor of the journal Orqu’dea (Mexico City and editor of the last fascicles of “ Orchids of Mexico ”. He is particularly interested in the systematics of Vanilla , Epidendrum, and the floristics, origin, and conservation of the Mexican orchid flora. Rodolfo Solano G—mez is a professor at the Instituto Politcnico Nacional in Oaxaca, Mexico. He received his doctorate at the Universidad Nacional Aut—noma de Mxico. His interests in orchids are focused in the systematics of the sub-tribe Pleurothallidinae and during the last decade he has been contributing with taxonomic treatments of this group. Atpresent he is working with the orchids of Oaxaca and maintains collaboration with the Herbario AMO. Eric Hgsater has been Director of the Herbario AMO since 1976; he is a recognized specialist in the genus Epidendrum , with more than 130 publications on the topic, as well as on the taxonomy and conservation of Neotropical orchids. He hasbeen editor of Orqu’dea (Mexico City and Icones Orchidacearum , and Chair, IUCN/SSC Orchid Specialist Group, from 1984 to 1997. Since 1994 he is member of the technical committee of Remib (Biodiversity Information World Netinterinstitutional network formed by the research centers which host scientific collections. SOTOARENAS et al . Risk of extinction and patterns of diversity loss in Mexican orchids 121 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 113

Introduction A greater of understanding of orchids in unstudied areas contributes to conservation, tourism and ecolo-gy in general. To understand the diversity of orchidsin the premontane humid tropical forest area ofBolivia, an orchid inventory was conducted over 8 months (February to September 2006-est in northwestern Bolivia. Description of Study Area The geography of the region is formed from the eastern slopes of the Andes. The eco-region, calledyungas, is characterized by mountain chains with wide slopes and long valleys formed from sedimenta-ry and metamorphic rock. Altitudes range from 400to 2800 meters above sea level (Morales, 2004 The study area was comprised of primary and secondary forest. A small house was included in the sec-ondary forest area, with a small plot of maize ( Zea mays ). Secondary forest had a great diversity of species, including tree ferns ( Cyathea amaz—nica ), “sikilis” ( Inga sp), walnut ( Juglans boliviana ), “ambaibos” (C ecropia angustifolia ), and diversity of ferns, mosses and palms. Secondary forest was characterized by a dense understory; there was also evidence of selective logging. The transition between secondary and primary forest is evidenced by the presence of taller, high-er-diameter trees, and a reduced understory due toa reduction of light to the forest floor. Evidence of human activity is also much reduced. This for-est is dominated by tree ferns ( Cyathea amaz—nica ), individuals from the Lauraceae family, “espeke” ( Clusia haughtii ), “leche leche” ( Sapium aereum ), and “mata palo” ( Ficus obtusifolia ), that can reach diameters of over 100 cm and account for a large part of the basal area. Otherspecies such as “jaluti” ( Macrounea guianensis ), “gironda” ( Siparuna gesneroiodes ), wild papaya ( Oreopanax sp) and “suti suti” ( Miconia minutiflora ) are found at densities of one or less per hectare, indicators that they may be under thethreat of extinction (Endara, 2001 The forest soils are variable, with a 0 to 20 cm layer of organic matter. The soil closest to the sur-face is generally loamy with a predominance of silt(39%37%21%structure is subangular blocky, friable when moist,with a relatively high organic matter content (6.9% LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 INVENTORY OF THE ORCHIDS IN THE HUMID TROPICAL PREMONTANE FOREST ON UCHUMACHI MOUNTAIN, NOR YUNGAS REGION OF LA PAZ, BOLIVIA CARLOS A. VERGARA CASSAS Universidad Cat—lica Boliviana, Unidad Acadmica Campesina de Carmen Pampa, Coroico Nor Yungas, La Paz, Bolivia betroven@googlemail.com RESUMEN. Para conocer la diversidad e importancia de las orqu’deas en el bosque hmedo tropical premontano del Cerro Uchumachi (Nor Yungas, La Paz, Boliviameses (febrero a septiembre de 2006la principal en el camino carretero comprendido entre dos comunidades. Se establecieron 95 parcelas de 20 m x 20 m, en las que se efectuaron la recolecci—n, herborizaci—n, descripci—n botnica y taxonom’a de las mis-mas. La bsqueda y recolecci—n de orqu’deas en las transectas dieron como resultado valores de: densidadabsoluta, densidad relativa, y frecuencia. Se encontraron un total de 2159 orqu’deas de 16 gneros y 31especies, pero se crea que existen ms que no han sido identificados por la falta de floraci—n durante el tiempodel estudio. La especie de mayor densidad fue Epidendrum funckii con una densidad relativa de 33.72%. Asimismo la especie que se present— con ms frecuencia en las parcelas fue Pleurothallis xantochlora con 22.11%. KEY WORDS: inventory, humid tropical premontane forest, cloud forest, Bolivia

PAGE 114

Permeability is medium to high. Soil pH is very low (3.84 in CaCl 2 ), and low cation exchange capacity (7.4 cmol/kgVillca, 2001 Ten year average data from an on-site weather station show high average temperatures in January(above 19C(15C and lows of 15C. Total annual precipitation is regis-tered as 2390 mm, with maximum precipitation in themonths of December through April (200 to 300 mmper month) and no months with less than 80 mm permonth. Relative humidity is 100% at night, and fallsas low as 50% during the day. Methodology The study covered approximately 80 hectares (ha Uchumachi Mountain using linear transects extendingout from the principal road between the communitiesof Carmen Pampa and Chovacollo in the municipalityof Coroico, province of Nor Yungas, department of LaPaz. Carmen Pampa is located at 16” South and67” West; the study plots ranged in altitude from1880 to 2975 meters above sea level. Orchids in 95 evenly spaced plots measuring 20 m by 20 m were collected, preserved and described.The transect plots, representing 4.75% of the 80 ha, yielded values for absolute densities, relative densities and frequencies for this site. Species identifica-tion was verified at the Herbario Nacional de Bolivia. Orchid Density A total of 2159 individual identifiable orchids from 16 genera and 31 species were found, and the pres-ence of more species is suspected but not identifieddue to lack of flowers over the collection time (Table 1). This count yields an absolute density of approxi-mately 568 orchids/ha. The species Epidendrum funckii was the most abundant with 728 individuals and a density of 192 individu-als/ha, and a relative density of 33.72%. The next group, those with densities between 30 and 100 individ-uals/ha (and relative densities between 5 and 15% Sobralia yauaperyensis, Sobralia fimbriata, Pleurothallis xanthochlora, and Restrepia antenifera. The remaining 26 species (Bletia catenulata, Elleanthus hookerianus, Epidendrum carpophorum, Epidendrum incisum, Epidendrum incisum, Epidendrum jajense, Epidendrum Secundum, Estelis sp1 , Estelis sp2 , Habenaria sartor, Koellenstenia boliviensis, Maxilariaaggregata, Maxilaria longicaulis, Maxillaria aurea,Notylia boliviensis, Oncidium tigratum, Oncidium mentigerum, Pleurothallis cordata, Pleurothallis heli-conioides, Pleurothallis linguifera, Polystachiaboliviensis, Scelochilus larae, Sobralia dichotoma,Sobralia dorbigniana, Sobralia sp , Sobralia suavolens and Zygopetalum intermedium) had densities of less than 20 individuals/ha, representing 630 of the 2159individuals identified. The presence of Epidendrum funckii insuch great numbers implies that the environmental conditionsare greatly favorable for its propagation, especially on road borders where it is adapted to the soil. In addi-tion, the brush along roadsides is cleared twice peryear, leaving the ground open to expansion, reducingcompetition from other plant species, and favoringaccess to sunlight. The species’ sympodial growthcharacter also favors its dispersion. Orchid Frequency The most frequent species in the plots was Pleurothallis xantochlora with 22.11%, found in 21 of the 117 plots (Table 2ence for moist forest areas, a characteristic of the pri-mary and old-growth secondary forest in this study.It also has many flowers per plant which increases thechance of fecundation. It is also found in a variety ofhabitats, both high in the canopy and on fallen androtting trunks. Eight species fall into the intermediate category of frequencies of 5 16%: Epidendrum funkii, Estelis sp1 , Epidendrum secundum, Sobralia fimbriata, Sobralia yauaperyensis, Maxillaria aurea, Sobraliadichotoma and Estelis sp2. Two species, E. funckii and E. secundum, are always found in the same places, possibly due to their soil preferences; theother six species were all found along the roadsidewith the characteristics described above. The remaining 22 species exhibited frequencies below 5%. The least frequent were Elleanthus hookerianus, Epidendrum carpophorum, Maxilaria aggregata,Maxilaria longicaulis, Notylia boliviensis, Oncidiummentigerum, Pleurothallis heliconioides and Scelochilus larae with a frequency of 1.05% each. VERGARAC. Orchid inventory in Bolivian cloud forest 123 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 115

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 124 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . Conclusion Information about density, frequency, habitat and flowering times is useful for planning for tourismactivities, which are growing in importance in this area of Bolivia. This information can be used to cre-ate eco-tourist paths through the cloud forest forobservation and education. Inventory data is alsouseful to justify conservation activities as slash andburn agriculture encroaches more and more into theseenvironments. Inventories also increase the potential for preservation of orchid germplasm, and tissue culture can be considered to raise and sell the more marketable species found without creating an imbalance in the ecosystem from which the species originate. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. I would like to extend my thanks to my advisor Dr. Carol Wake at South Dakota StateUniversity, the Belgian Embassy/CTB for economicsupport, the Director of the Unidad AcadmicaCampesina de Carmen Pampa Sr. Damon Nolan,Director of the Agronomy Department Jos LuisBeltrn, Dr. Hugh Smeltekop, Dr. Paul Johnson(SDSUthe Director of the Herbario Nacional de Bolivia Dr.Stephan Beck and Fabricio Miranda and other membersof the Herbario, and my mother Carolina Cassas Navia.

PAGE 116

Carlos Alberto Vergara Cassas was born in La Paz, Bolivia, and received his B.S. at the Unidad Acadmica Campesina de Carmen Pampa, a rural campus of the Catholic University of Bolivia in the yungas region of La Paz. His thesis wasan inventory of orchids in the cloud forest near the university. He has participated in courses and workshops aboutorchid conservation in Bolivia, and has worked with orchids in Bolivia’s Cotapata National Park. LITERATURECITEDEndara, A.R. 2001. Inventario de las especies forestales del bosque hmedo tropical premontano delCerro Uchumachi sector Carmen Pampa. Tesis DeGrado. Universidad Cat—lica Boliviana UnidadAcadmica Campesina de Carmen Pampa. La Paz,Bolivia. Morales, C. B. 2004. Manual de ecolog’a. 2 Edici—n. Editorial Instituto de Ecolog’a, Universidad Mayor de San Andrs. La Paz, Bolivia. Villca H., R. 2001. Evaluaci—n de la erosi—n h’drica en un sistema agroforestal caf ( Coffea arabica ) con sikili ( Inga adenophylla ) bajo dos mtodos de control de maleza con chonta y machete en Carmen Pampa. Tesisde grado. Universidad Cat—lica Boliviana UnidadAcadmica Campesina de Carmen Pampa. La Paz,Bolivia. VERGARAC. Orchid inventory in Bolivian cloud forest 125 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 117

The problem of biodiversity conservation of tropical floras having the global ecological, economical andsocial importance, has already exceeded the boundariesof individual countries. Successful conservation actionsrequire joint efforts of scientists on the local, national,regional, and international levels (Wyse Jackson &Sutherland, 2000, Grodzynsky et al. , 2001). The National Botanical Garden (NBG National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine plays theleading role in ex situ conservation and propagation of tropical plants in Ukraine. Diverse studies aimed atprotection of rare species of various families ofangiosperms, particularly tropical orchids, were carriedout at this institution for more than 30 years. Since many representatives of the orchid family are under threat of extinction in their native habitats in thetropics, these investigations are viewed among the highest priorities of our research agenda. The main fac-tors threatening the natural populations of tropicalorchids include (1for commercial purposes as ornamental or medicinal plants, and (2-ural habitats. These changes are caused by human activities, such as agricultural development of territories for crop cultures, industrial development, road construction, mining, recreation, timber harvesting (espe-cially clear-cutting of forests). These activities result into deforestation, habitat fragmentation, forest fires,invasions of alien species, and other adverse processes(Averyanov et al. , 2000, Cribb et al. , 2005, Dunkan et al. , 2005). Taking into account the disastrous rate of degradation of virgin or even semi-natural tropical forests (which are natural habitats of many species biological peculiarities of orchids (mycosymbiotrophicinteractions, prolonged and complicated life cycles, pollination limitation), it often happens that the mea-sures taken to protect orchids in their natural habitats,such as monitoring of population, establishment andmanagement of protected areas, are not sufficient forensuring their survival in nature. Because of that, ex situ conservation of tropical plants shall be viewed, along with in situ protection, as an efficient alternative way of biodiversity conservation. It is especially truefor tropical orchids, especially those species which arethreatened with extinction within their native ranges. The main activities of NBG in the field of conservation of tropical orchid species ex situ include maintenance of living collections, propagation of these plantsthrough in vitro asymbiotic seed germination and tissue culture techniques,and creation of the orchid exhibitiongreenhouse, Orchidarium (fig. 1 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 EXSITU CONSERVATION OF TROPICAL ORCHIDS IN UKRAINE TETIANAM. CHEREVCHENKO1, LYUDMYLAI. BUYUN1,3, LYUDMYLAA. KOVALSKA1& VUNGOCLONG21Tropical and Subtropical Plants Department, National Botanic Garden, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 1, Tymyriazevska Str., Kyiv, 01014, Ukraine2Center for Biodiversity and Development, Institute of Tropical Biology, National Centre for Natural Sciences and Technology of Vietnam, 85 Tran Quoc Toan, Dist. 3, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam3Author for correspondence: lbuyun@i.com.ua KEYWORDS: Orchidaceae, ex situ conservation, living collection , in vitro propagation, orchid exhibition greenhouseFIGURE1. Fragment of the orchid display Orchidarium.

PAGE 118

At present the NBG living collection of tropical orchids contains about 4500 plants representingapproximately 170 genera and 450 natural species (notcounting artificial hybrids and cultivars). Most ofspecies of the collection (more than 70%South-East Asia, whereas the remaining 30 % areorchids from South America and Central America, witha few genera from Africa (including MadagascarSince 1999 the whole NBG collection of tropical plants(including orchidsCollection of Ukraine. The list of National Heritageunits, including the most important science and artscollections, is designated by relevant ministries andagencies and approved by the Cabinet of Ministers ofUkraine. The NBG collection is taxonomically representative; it includes the taxa belonging to four out of five cur-rently recognized subfamilies (Chase 2005, Pridgeon et al . 2005) of Orchidaceae (Cypripedioideae, Vanilloideae, Orchidoideae, and Epidendroideae). The major part of the plant collection was accumulated by NBG researchers during the 1980-1990s throughfield trips and collecting activities in the wild in variousfloristic regions of Paleotropis and Neotropis, usuallyin close cooperation with local botanists. In addition tothat, samples of plants were received as gifts frombotanical gardens throughout the world (Caracas,Venezuela; Beijing, China; Warsaw, Poland; Moscow& St. Petersburg, Russia), donated by private persons,as well as purchased from well-known floriculturalcommercial companies (Mandai Orchids, Singapore;Vacherot & Lecoufle, France; Floriana, Brazil;Winkler’s Orchids, Argentine; Saigon Orchids,Vietnam, and others). The most valuable part of the orchid collection is represented by orchid species of the flora of Vietnam. This collection, comprising about 1/5 of the total num-ber of species in the orchid flora of Vietnam, wasdeveloped due to scientific collaboration between NBGand the Center for Biodiversity and Development of theInstitute of Tropical Biology of Vietnam. Within theframework of partnership between these institutions,five expeditions have been carried out, which resultedin new accessions to the living orchid collection. During the recent years the orchid collection is replenished and managed taking into consideration the international priorities in the Garden’s policy of collection development, as outlined in the InternationalAgenda for Botanic Garden in Conservation (WyseJackson & Sutherland, 2000), CITES Orchid Checklists(Roberts et al. , 1995, 1997, 2001) and Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (2002tropical orchids was registered at the AdministrativeOrgan of CITES in Ukraine (Ministry of Environment,registration No. 6939/19/1-10 of 23 June 2004). While creating the collection, the strategic goal was to represent most widely the floristic, ecological andmorphological diversity of Orchidaceae, with anemphasis on rare and vulnerable orchid species. Botanical gardens maintaining the collections of tropical plants are responsible for their long-term per-sistence and sustainability, which is extremely topicalat present, when there are strict limitations of CITESconcerning sampling plants from natural habitats. To achieve successful acclimatization of orchid plants col-lected in the wild (commonly on fallen trunks andbranches of dead trees), ecological requirements ofeach species must be met under glasshouse conditions. Though the orchid family as a whole occupies a huge range of diverse habitats, individual species commonly demonstrate restricted distribution patterns with specif-ic habitat preferences (Cribb, 1998, Vu Ngoc Long,2002, Averyanov & Averyanova, 2003, Averyanov et al. , 2003, Pridgeon et al. , 2005). Precise data on ecological requirements of many tropical orchid species remain surprisingly poorlyknown, and it is especially alarming if we consider anincredible rate of degradation of primary tropicalforests. Thus, the best way to fill the gap in informationon ecological requirements of tropical orchids is fieldobservations in the wild. Long-term maintenance and reproduction of live plants under glasshouse conditions with the aim of ex situ biodiversity conservation and subsequent repatriation are possible only on the basis of investigations oftheir ecological requirements, developmental biologyboth in situ and under glasshouse conditions, vegetative architecture, and anatomical and ecophysiologicalpeculiarities. Understanding of these peculiarities of orchids determines the adaptability of orchid plants of different eco-logical groups (terrestrials, epiphytes, and lithophytes 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 130 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 119

under glasshouse conditions. On the other hand, studying of this subject is the prerequisite for development of techniques and procedures for propagation and culti-vation.The collection of orchids at the National BotanicalGardens consists of more than 450 species, all of whichcannot be studied in detail, considering availableresources and reasonable time limits. Because of that,for in-depth studies we identified priority groups,including such genera as Angraecum Bory, Calanthe R.Br., Cattleya Lindl., Coelogyne Lindl., Cymbidium Sw., Dendrobium Sw., Laelia Lindl., Paphiopedilum Pfitz. While selecting the taxa, the following features were taken into account: frequency of occurrence in natural habitats, number of taxa per genus in the NBG collec-tion, economic value (ornamental and medicinalplants), vegetative architecture, and conservation status. The preference was given to genera most widely repre-sented in our collection, with special reference to rareorchid species of South-East Asia and South America. Mass-propagation of orchid plants is a critical component of any long-term ex situ conservation program. Application of in vitro propagation techniques to rare tropical orchid species is, undoubtedly, a powerful toolfor ex situ biodiversity conservation. Until recently, many tropical native orchids species from SouthAmerica ( Cattleya spp., Laelia spp., Oncidium spp.), South-East Asia ( Calanthe spp., Coelogyne spp., Dendrobium spp., Paphiopedilum spp.), Africa and Madagascar ( Angraecum eburneum Bory, A. sesquipedale Thouars) were propagated at the NBG through a range of asymbiotic seed germination techniques and tissue culture procedures aimed at preserv-ing a number of individuals under artificial conditionsin glasshouses of the temperate zone, and in protectingin such way these species from extinction(Cherevchenko, 1984, Buyun et al. , 2004, Lavrentyeva et al. , 2005). Development of propagation methods for numerous species of tropical orchids in the NBG was preceded bylong-term observations and dedicated studies in theirreproductive biology (duration of anthesis, terms of pollination of flowers, and duration of fruit matura-tion). Under glasshouse conditions, where specific pollinators are absent, artificial pollination of flowers is the only way to obtain fruits with viable seeds. For this reason, hundreds combinations of pollinations of flow-ers belonging to different species have been carried out in NBG greenhouses, depending on the breeding sys-tems and quantity of samples of the species studied. Asa result of these experiments, we obtained seeds ofmore than 100 species. The list of natural species of Paphiopedilum propagated in NBG in in vitro culture includes up to 10 species ( P. appletonianum (Gower P. callosum (Rchb.f. P. delenatii Guillaum., P. insigne (Wall. ex Lindl. P. lawrenceanum (Rchb. f Pfitz., P. villosum (Lindl. P. wardii Summerh.). The urgency of protection of these species both in situ and ex situ is dictated not only by increasing demand for these plants in the world but also by their developmental biology and habitat preferences and peculiari-ties. Many Paphiopedilum species are obligate lithophytes; therefore, after the fires their populations arenot restored at all (Averyanov, et al. , 2000). The plants propagated in vitro meet the huge demand for these plants, thus reducing the pressure on natural popula-tions. Paphiopedilum delenatii isan excellent object to illustrate how a rare plant can be saved and propagatedin cultivation for a long time (Cribb, 1998 Undoubtedly, the use of glasshouse collections of living plants grown under artificial climate conditionsin the temperate zone cannot ensure conservation of the whole genetic diversity of orchids. This way of conser-vation of tropical plants can be viewed rather as urgentmeasures because when rare species are poorly sampled only a miserable portion of their actual genetic diversi-ty is preserved. In addition, the plant samples are often borrowed from living collections of other botanical gardens after long-term cultivation under glasshouse con-ditions. Taking into account all mentioned above, the main trends of the use of fund collections for conservation oforchid diversity is to satisfy the increasing demand forplants of the natural orchid species through usingseedlings and plantlets propagated in vitro , as well as creation of orchid exhibits. At present the protection of biodiversity of rare tropical orchid species ex situ should not be limited by listing the specimens of rare and vulnerable species mainCHEREVCHENKO ETAL. Ex situ orchid conservation in Ukraine 131 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 120

tained in greenhouses of botanic gardens of the temperate zone climate. It requires fundamental understandingof factors controlling orchid plant development and acclimatization/adaptation in artificially created condi-tions using different experimental methods. Thesemethods should be specifically designed for solvingnumerous theoretical and practical issues of adaptation of orchid species cultivated under glasshouse condi-tions. The availability of the collections of orchidspecies belonging to different ecological types openswide prospects for investigating different types of lifestrategies, which provide survival in a wide range ofecological conditions, both in nature and in glasshouse.Finally, this will contribute to development of the most appropriate propagation methods and cultivation tech-niques under glasshouse conditions. The original results of studies of seed coat patterns is an example of such investigations undertaken in NBG forelucidating structural morphological adaptations oforchids to different ecological niches. Seed testa sculpture patterns of more than 140 tropical orchid species belonging to 70 genera were investigated in NBG using scan-ning electron microscope (SEMBuyun, 2006Actuality of this investigation can be explained by thefact that seed coat sculpture, as well as external surface sculpture of any plant organ directly exposed to the envi-ronment, can bring important information reflecting thepathways of morphological adaptation of orchid plants tospecific environmental conditions (Kurzweil, 1993,Thompson et al. , 2001). Thus, ecological considerations of differences between seed coat sculpture of studied orchids (epiphytes, terrestrials, and lithophytes-ed by SEM are useful both for enhancing in vitro seed culture as a means of promoting conservation of tropicalorchids ex situ and for elaborating appropriate techniques for their cultivation under glasshouse conditions. To summarize, the main aspects of tropical orchid investigations in the NBG cover the following fields:(1 glasshouse conditions (with special reference to repro-ductive biology of epiphytes and lithophytes as themost vulnerable groups); (2) investigation of structuraladaptations of orchids to survival under a wide range ofdifferent habitats; (3 in vitro orchid propagation methods and cultivation techniques. Beside this, the exhibition greenhouse Orchidarium , which was opened for public in 2005, can be considered as a source of material for scientific investigations,a wide range of educational programs, as well as an efficient tool in raising public awareness in issues related to conservation of rare tropical orchid species suffer-ing from over-collecting and continuous loss of theirnatural habitats. Two international conferences on biology and conservation of tropical and native orchids were held atNBG in 1983 and 1999, which emphasize the role ofNBG as a leading Ukrainian center of exsitu conservation of tropical orchids. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. The authors are grateful to Sergei L. Mosyakin for providing comments on the manuscript andimproving the style of the English text.LITERATURECITEDAveryanov, L.V., Nguyen Tien Hiep, Phan Ke Loc &A.L. Averyanova. 2000. Preliminary orchid checklist of CaoBang Province. Lindleyana. 15 (3 Averyanov, L.V. &A.L. Averyanova. 2003. Update checklist of the orchids of Vietnam. Hanoi: VietnamNational University Publishing House. 102 p. Averyanov, L., P. Cribb, Phan Ke Lock & Nguyen Tien Hiep. 2003. Slipper Orchids of Vietnam. Portland,Oregon: Timber Press. 308 p. Buyun, L.I. 2006. Seed coatfeatures of tropical orchids ( Orchidaceae Juss.). Proceedings of the 12thCongress of Ukrainian Botanical Society. 408 (in Ukrainian Buyun, L., A. Lavrentyeva, L. Kovalska & R. Ivannikov. 2004. In vitro germination of some rare tropical orchids. Acta Universitatis Latviensis. Biologia. 676: 159-162. Chase, M.W. 2005. Classification of Orchidaceae in the age of DNA data. Curtis’s Botanical Magazine. 22 (12. Cherevchenko, T.M. 1984. Tropical orchids. Morphological study and cultivation under greenhouseconditions. Abstract of Doctoral Thesis. Kiev. 44 p (inRussian). Cribb, P. 1998. The genus Paphiopedilum . Kota Kinabalu: Natural History Publications. 1998. 427 p. Cribb, P, D. Roberts &J. Hermans. 2005. Distribution, ecology, and threat to selected Madagascan Orchids.Selbyana. 26 (1, 2 Dunkan, M., A. Pritchard &F. Coates. 2005. Major threats to endangered orchids of Victoria, Australia. Selbyana.26 (1,2 Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. 2002. Approved in Decision VI/9 of the Conference of the Parties (COP 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 132 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 121

the Convention on the Biological Diversity, on 19 April. The Hague. Grodzynsky, D.M., Sheliag-Sosonko, R. Yu., T.M. Cherevchenko, G. Yemelyanov, V.G. Sobko &A.P. Lebeda. 2001.Problems of conservation and renewal ofbiodiversity in Ukraine. Kyiv: Academperiodyka. 106 p.(in Ukrainian Kurzweil, H. 1993. Seed morphology in southern African Orchidoideae (Orchidaceae247. Lavrentyeva, A.M., L.I. Buyun &L.A. Kovalska. 2005. Seed propagation of Dendrobium draconis Rchb.f. ( Orchidaceae Juss.) in vitro culture. Bulletin of Kyiv National University. 9: 36-37 (in Ukrainian Pridgeon, A.M., P.J. Cribb, M.W. Chase &F. Rasmussen (eds.Epidendroideae (Part 1Oxford. 672 p. Roberts J.A., C.R. Beale, J.C. Benseler, H.N. McGough & D.C. Zappi. 1995. CITES Orchid Checklist. Vol. 1. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 136 p. Roberts J.A., C.R. Allman, C.R. Beale, R.W. Butter, K.R. Crook &H.N. McGough. 1997. CITES OrchidChecklist. Vol. 2. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 300 p. Roberts J.A., S. Anuku. J. Burdon. P. Mathew, H.N. McGough & A.D. Newman. 2001. CITES OrchidChecklist. Vol. 3. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 232 p. Thompson, D. E., T.J. Edwards &J. van Staden. 2001. In vitro germination of several South African summer rain-fall Disa (Orchidaceae function of habitat and a determinant of germinability?Syst. Geogr. Pl. 71: 597-606. Vu Ngoc Long. 2002. Genus Eria Lindl (Orchidaceae Juss.) in the flora of Vietnam:morphological evolutionand taxonomy. Abstract of PhD Thesis. Kiev. 22 p. Wyse Jackson, P.S. &L.A. Sutherland. 2000. International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation. BotanicGardens Conservation International, U.K. 56 p. Tetiana M. Cherevchenko was educated at Kyiv National University. She has been growing tropical plants, with special interests in orchids, for more than 40 years. She received her doctorate in biology from the N.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany, Kiev, in 1984. Her doctoral work was the first comprehensive study in the former Soviet Union of develop-mental biology of tropical orchids under greenhouse conditions. At present she serves as Honorary Director of theNational Botanic Garden and Editor of Plant Introduction journal. Tetiana is the Member of the American Orchid Society and the European Orchid Council. Lyudmyla I. Buyun graduated from Kyiv National University in 1982. She received her PhD degree in biology from the National Botanic Garden, Kiev, in 1987, for a study of developmental biology of deciduous Calanthe species under greenhouse conditions. At present Lyudmyla is Senior Researcher and the orchid collection curator at the NationalBotanical Garden. She is particularly interested in reproductive biology as well as structural adaptations of orchids ofdifferent ecological groups. Lyudmyla A. Kovalska graduated from Kyiv National University. She has been growing orchids for more than 30 years. She received her PhD degree in biology in 1993 for a study of developmental biology and in vitro propagation of Dendrobium phalaenopsis as a horticulturally valuable plants. At present she is the orchid collection curator; her particular interests are vegetative architecture and morphogenesis of orchids. Lyudmyla is also a curator of the fern col-lection. Vu Ngoc Long graduated from Hanoi University in 1978. He completed his postgraduate course at the V.L.Komarov Botanical Institute (St. Petersburg, Russiaof the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. He is particularly interested in taxonomy and morphologicalevolution of the genus Eria Lindl. in the flora of Vietnam. At present he serves as Director of the Center for Biodiversity and Development and Vice-Director of the Institute of Tropical Biology in Vietnam. He is also involvedin several conservational projects in South-East Asia. CHEREVCHENKO et al. Ex situ orchid conservation in Ukraine 133 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 122

En muchas de las charlas, el ponente presenta su charla en ingls para favorecer a los visitantes extran-jeros. En este caso, creo que el material que quieropresentar es de ms inters para los visitantes deAmrica Tropical que para los de habla inglesa. Enmi experiencia, todos los jardines botnicos, tal vezcon excepci—n de Longwood, hallan que no tienen losrecursos suficientes para para hacer lo que debenhacer. En la realidad, la mayor’a de los jardinesbotnicos en los Estados Unidos y Europa tienen msapoyo y ms recursos que la mayor’a de los jardinesbotnicos en los tr—picos. Para que un jard’n sea unjard’n botnico, creo que el elemento ms cr’tico esun sistema de datos. En el Jard’n Botnico Lankester(JBLplata, y creo que les puede ser de inters.Normalmente, lo llamamos “el sistema Lankester,”pero igualmente lo podr’amos llamar el sistemaPupulin. En muchos de los jardines botnicos de zonas templadas, hay una oficina de “adquisici—n.” Todaslas plantas que entran al jard’n tienen que recibirun nmero en esta oficina, lo cual implica al menosuna persona a tiempo completo. En nuestro caso,tenemos pocas personas a tiempo completo, pero s’tenemos una serie de estudiantes que trabajan unashoras cada semana. Tenemos la intenci—n de dar unnmero, ms bien de “acceso” que de adquisici—n, a cada planta que se cultiva en nuestros inver-naderos. Para que este sistema funcione, usamostambin nmeros de colecta de cada estudiante yempleado que colecte plantas, para que haya un sistema que asocie cada planta con sus datos de origen, hasta que la planta tenga su nmero deacceso del jard’n. En el caso de material conservado, el material prensado en el campo recibe su nmero de colecta delcolector, an cuando una parte de la misma plantapuede ser cultivada en el invernadero (con el mismonmero). Por ahora, no mantenemos una colecci—npermanente de material prensado, pues bajo nuestras condiciones de humedad, ninguna colecci—n de mate-rial prensado puede ser permanente. Normalmentedepositamos material en el Herbario de laUniversidad de Costa Rica (USJNacional (CRcolecci—n de material en alcohol, y en el JBL mante-nemos una colecci—n muy til de material en alcohol.A mi modo de ver, lo ideal ser’a agrupar el materialen un orden sistemtico o filogenetico, pero en laprctica usamos un sistema por tama–o de frasco -peque–o, mediano, grande o largo, y hay una base dedatos, por lo cual uno puede accesar por gnero oespecie. Ahora usamos unas etiquetas en las cuales uno puede marcar si hemos prensado material, si haymaterial en l’quido, o si hay material para ADN (ensilica), si hay foto o dibujo de la planta. Franco ha inventado un sistema en que se escanea la planta, la flor, o partes de la flor, y uno puede hacerun buen dibujo de estos escaneos. Por cierto, hay que tener cuidado de no perder a algunos detalles superfi-ciales, que pueden desaparecer o disminuir cuando seaplastan las partes florales. LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 EL SISTEMA LANKESTER ROBERTL. DRESSLER Jard’n Botnico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica P.O. Box 1031-7050 Cartago, Costa Rica, CA rdressle@cariari.ucr.ac.cr Robert L. Dressler obtuvo su doctorado en la Universidad de Harvard y labor— con el Jard’n Botnico de Missouri y el Instituto Smithsoniano para la Investigaci—n Tropical. Es investigador asociado al Herbario de la Universidad deFlorida, el Jard’n Botnico de Missouri y el Jard’n Botnico Mary Selby. Es autor de centenares de art’culos cient’ficosy de reconocidos libros sobre historia natural, filogenia y clasificaci—n de las orqu’deas. Su principal inters se centraen la fiologenia y taxonom’a de la subtribu Sobralinae. Actualmente labora para el Jard’n Botnico Lankester de laUniversidad de Costa Rica donde se desempe–a como Coordinador de Investigaci—n.

PAGE 123

Hybridization is a fundamental process in biology and can lead to new evolutionary lineages. However, if the parental taxa involved are rare, difficult decisi-ons may have to be made regarding the conservationof the biological process versus the conservation ofthe parental taxa. The genus Orchis in Europe is a good example of a group of species in which thesetypes of questions arise as several of the specieshybridize where they co-occur. The example usedhere relates to O. militaris , O. purpurea and O. simia in the anthropomorphic group (so called because the labellum has lobes thought to resemble arms andlegs). All three species are widespread in Europe, al-though they are rare in large parts of their ranges, andthey have substantial areas of overlap in distribution.All three are rare in Britain, occurring predominantlyin south east England. Orchis militaris and O. simia and are only known from two and three natural sites in England, respectively. Orchis purpurea is less rare, but is still geographically localized. Morphological inspection of plants provides convincing evidence of widespread hybridization in dif-ferent parts of the range of these species. In addition,preliminary genetic data indicate that there is someintrogression of genetic markers in populations thatappear on a morphological basis to be representativesof one species rather than hybrids (Fay & Krauss,2003). Finally, we know of a number of populations in which hybridization is currently occurring, inclu-ding one in England where O. purpurea has recently appeared at one O. simia site. The first hybrids flowered in 2006. To investigate patterns of hybridization and introgression in these species further, we compiled datasets for three types of markers: sequences of thenuclear ribosomal spacer regions (nrITS microsatellites, and amplified fragment length poly-morphisms (AFLP applied to samples from populations of all three spe-cies and some putative hybrids, and we are currentlyexpanding our sample size to include individualsfrom a wider geographical range. The new ITS sequences were added to a subset of those in the matrix of Pridgeon et al . (1997 logenetic analyses were carried out. The plastidmicrosatellite markers were developed for use with arange of Orchis spp., including the anthropomorphic group and their relative O. mascula . Five regions showing length variation within and between specieswere identified (as described in Fay and Krauss, 2003), and primers were designed to allow the ampli-fication of short fragments (90-230 base pairscontained the length-variable regions. Then differences between individuals were detected by assess-ing the length of the amplified fragments using anautomated sequencer. Together the alleles for thesefive regions provide a haplotype for each individualand a minimum spanning tree was constructed from the haplotypes. AFLP were carried out using a modi-fied version of the protocol of Vos et al . (1995 resulting 0/1 matrix was analysed using principalcoordinates analysis and neighbor joining. All three data types can provide information relating to hybridization. Plastid DNA provide informaLANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 HOW DOES HYBRIDIZATION INFLUENCE THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS IN CONSERVATION? THE GENUS ORCHIS (ORCHIDACEAE AS A CASE HISTORY MICHAELF. FAY1,3, R. J. SMITH1, K. ZUIDERDUIN1, E. HOOPER1, R. SAMUEL2, R. M. BATEMAN1& M. W. CHASE11Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3DS, U.K.2Department of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Rennweg 14, 1030 Vienna, Austria3Author for correspondence: m.fay@kew.org KEYWORDS : AFLP, hybridization, introgression, ITS rDNA, Orchis , plastid microsatellites

PAGE 124

tion relating to the maternal parent of any hybrids. ITS rDNA is part of the nuclear genome and it is inherited biparentally, but hybrids soon begin a pro-cess of gene conversion and lose one of the twoparental copies that they initially possessed. For fairly recently synthesized hybrids, both parental ITS alle-les are present, but for older hybrids only one of thesealleles (often that from the maternal parentremains. AFLP have been widely used in studies of hybridization, because hybrids show additivity bet-ween the profiles found in the parental species and the hybrids consequently fall in an intermediate posi-tion between the parents in ordination plots (e.g., Fay et al ., 2003). Four different ITS sequence types (each with minor variants) were identified, one each for O. militaris and O. simia and two for O. purpurea . In addition, some individuals of O. purpurea and O. simia had the ITS copy type of O. militaris . Individuals of intermediate morphology (presumed recent hybrids copies from both putative parents. Plastid microsatel-lites did not provide such a clear division, but there were two major clusters identified with these mar-kers, consisting predominantly of O. militaris and O. simia , respectively, but each also containing some individuals of O. purpurea . Most hybrids and some individuals of O. simia fell in the O. militaris cluster. AFLP identified distinct clusters for the three species,and the cluster for O. purpurea was divided into two subclusters. Hybrids fell in intermediate positionswith AFLP as expected. These data indicate that O. militaris and O. simia are good species that sometimes hybridize, leading to occasional plastid and ITS capture. In all individuals showing evidence of introgression and hybrids stu-died, plastid DNA indicated that O. militaris was the female parent. While our data set is still somewhat limited, it thus appears that hybridization occurs pre-dominantly in one direction in these species. Thesituation with O. purpurea was not, however, so clear. With ITS and with AFLP, there is a suggestionthat this species as currently circumscribed includes two genetic entities. In contrast, we have still to iden-tify a plastid type characteristic of this species, if oneexists. Many English populations always believed tobe O. purpurea contain individuals with the ITS type normally associated with O. militaris , and there is a possibility that this is the situation elsewhere inEurope. The situation is clearly complicated, and toresolve the status of O. purpurea , we will need to improve our sample size for both molecular and mor-phological studies. How does all this relate to conservation? Hybridization between species in this group is clearly part of an ongoing process, and the species invol-ved appear to be able to maintain pure populationsdespite this process. At the edge of the speciesrange, however, there is a risk that the peripheralpopulations of pure individuals may be lost due tohybridization. In England, O. purpurea has expanded its range in recent years, possibly due the war-mer summers, and it has now formed a populationsympatric with one of the two remaining naturalpopulations for O. simia . To the dismay of the managers of the nature reserve, several plants flowe-ring for the first time in 2006 were morphologicallyintermediate and genetic evidence has shown themto be hybrids with O. purpurea as the female parent. As both species are rare in England, this situation has received widespread attention, and we are cur-rently discussing the situation with the managers ofthe site and with the national conservation agency,Natural England. Various suggestions have beenmade, ranging from letting nature take its course todigging up the hybrids and the individuals of O. purpurea to protect the remaining pure individuals of O. simia . No decision has yet been made, but this should be done before the plants flower again in the2007 season. This and other examples of hybridization in European orchids will be used to illustrate the decisi-on-making processes involved and the relative merits of conservation of named species versus the conser-vation of process. LITERATURECITEDFay, M.F., R.S. Cowan & D.A. Simpson. 2003. Hybridisation between Schoenoplectustabernaemontani and S.triqueter (Cyperaceae the British Isles. Watsonia 24 : 433-442. Fay, M.F. & S.L. Krauss. 2003. Orchid conservation genetics in the molecular age. Pp. 91-112 in : K.W. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 136 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 125

Dixon, S.P. Kell, R.L. Barrett & P.J. Cribb (eds. Orchid conservation. Natural History Publications,Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Pridgeon, A.M., R.M. Bateman, A.V. Cox, J.R. Hapeman & M.W. Chase. 1997. Phylogenetics ofsubtribe Orchidinae (Orchidoideae, Orchidaceaebased on nuclear ITS sequences. 1. Intergeneric relationships and polyphyly of Orchis sensu lata . Lindleyana 12 : 89-109. Vos, P., R. Hogers, M. Bleeker, M. Rijans, T. Van de Lee, M. Hornes, A. Frijters, J. Pot, M. Kuiper &M. Zabeau. 1995. AFLP: a new technique for DNAfingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Research 23 : 4407-4414. FAY et al. – Hybridization and conservation in Orchis 137 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . Mike Fay received his undergraduate degree in Genetics and Plant Breeding from the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. His graduate studies were on Trifolium , and he received his Ph.D. from the University of Wales in 1989. He joined the staff of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in 1986 as Head of Micropropagation, giving him the opportu-nity to become involved professionally with orchids. In 1995, he established a conservation genetics program at Kew,and since 2002 he has been Head of Genetics. Many projects past and present are on orchids. He recently becameChair of the Orchid Specialist Group of IUCN.

PAGE 126

The Montral Botanical Garden was founded, in 1931, by the remarkable botanist and scientist,catholic brother Marie Victorin. Since its foundation the garden has three missions: conservation, educa-tion and research. Certainly 76 years old is still youngfor a botanical garden, but it has accomplished amaturity and dynamism that is admired by many. Thetropical collections are presented to the public byfamily and theme in ten public greenhouses. Behind the scene, more than 40 greenhouses serve for conser-vation of our collections, for production and for research. Situated on 75 hectares, 27 thematic gardens present the different collections while three gar-dens have a cultural vocation: the Chinese Garden,the Japanese Garden and the American IndianGarden. A total of 22,000 taxons are presented in ourcollections. Considering its size, the richness of its collections, the number of employees and the number of visitors(1,000,000/ yearranks as one of the five largest in the world. Henry Teuscher, co-founder of the Montral Botanical Garden, designed the garden and super-vised its construction. He was appointed as curator in1942, a position he occupied until his retirement in1962. During this 20 year period he established the basis of the collections, particularly the orchid collection, for which he had a real passion. He wrote hun-dreds of articles for the American Orchid Society Bulletin under the title of ‘Collector’s Item’, articles which were very much appreciated by collectors of species. Mr. Teuscher became more and more inter-ested in taxonomy and collaborated with Leslie A.Garay, taxonomist botanist at Oakes AmesHerbarium at Harvard University in Boston, MA(U.S.A samples from the Botanical Garden collection and he named the genus Teuscheria in honour of Mr. Teuscher. Mr. Teuscher’s contribution to the knowl-edge of orchids was the first and the most importantin Eastern Canada. Early in his career, in the years of 1940-1950, Mr. Teuscher established contacts with different botanicalgardens recognized for their orchid collections and hesolicited donations and exchanges. As a result of hisefforts, the New York Botanical Gardens (Bronx,NYC, U.S.A), the Palmentengarten of Frankfort(GermanyDublin (Irelandthe formation of the nucleus of our orchid collection.From 1945 to 1975 the development of our collectionfocused on South American species sent by twoorchid hunters, J. Strobel of Cuenca, Ecuador andC.K. Horich of San Jose, Costa Rica. The specimens were often identified only by genus, sometimes sim-ply as ‘orchid number’. However, they includedinformation concerning habitat, altitude, color of flowers, collection site etc. This information facilitat-ed both cultivation and identification of plants. Pierre Bourque, director of the garden from 19801994, gave new life to the development of the collection and promoted its visibility by giving the collec-tion its own public greenhouse. He was fascinated byorchids, their capacity to adapt and by their power of attraction. During his many overseas trips: CostaRica, Ecuador, Hong Kong etc, he always had the orchid collection in mind and he brought back numer-ous species. Also, we have had and continue to receive occasional donations from collectors who wish to assurethe perpetuity of their collections by leaving theirorchids to the Montral Botanical Garden. These LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 TROPICAL ORCHIDS IN THE NORTH, MONTRAL BOTANICAL GARDEN, QUBEC, CANADA LISEGOBEILLE1Curator Orchid Collection, 4101 Sherbrooke East, Montral, Qubec, H1X 2B2, Canada lisegobeille@ville.montreal.qc.ca KEYWORDS: orchid collection, history, conservation, Botanical Garden

PAGE 127

donations as well as exchanges with other institutions and with private collectors allow us to continue to enrich our collection. However, presently the majori-ty of our acquisitions are plants we purchase fromspecialized producers who now offer a large varietyof species. For all of these reasons, our collection currently consists of 60% South American species, 30% Asiatic species and 10% African species. The Montral col-lection contains 270 genus, 1,440 species and 1,998 taxons, for a grand total of approximately 5,000 spec-imens (because we keep a minimum of two plants pertaxon). We wish to maintain our historical emphasis on South America and to continue to add to the num-ber of South American species in our collection. To manage our collection, we use a data base named BGbase (Botanical Garden base-mits us to keep information on each plant collectionsite, geographic distribution, synonym, changes of nomenclature, etc. enabling us to follow the evolu-tion of each plant in our collection. With this data wecan compile various detailed reports of the number ofgenus, number of species, number of IUCN plants,etc. This information is quickly and easily availableto all horticultural personnel of the Botanical Garden. Our orchids are cultivated in three computer con-trolled greenhouses. The parameters of temperature, relative humidity, light levels and ventilation are precisely controlled, resulting in the exact climate neces-sary for their growth. The collection is maintained infour greenhouses, one of which is our 217 squaremeter public greenhouse where our visitors canappreciate orchids in flower 12 months of the yearwith new plants added each week. Visitors have the choice of guided tours, where they can learn the basics of the orchid family, or theymay visit the collection on their own. The floweringis particularly abundant between January and June. The three other greenhouses are production green-houses. We have a 285 square meter hot greenhouse,a 354 square meter intermediate greenhouse, and asmaller 112 square meter cold greenhouse. Duringthe last several years, we have experimented withmixtures of various materials : peat moss, sphagnummoss, rock wool, clay pellets, coconut bark, and thesynthetic material epiweb. We test these various materials on different genus with the goal of finding the best mixtures which will perform well for ourentire collection. We evaluate our mixtures over atwo to three year period. During this time, weobserve plant growth, measure pH and salinity levelsand analyse soil and leaf samples. We also improved our fertilization methods. We work with ferti-irrigation of 100-150 ppm, using low phosphorous fertilizers, we use mainly nitrates, and we also add magne-sium in the form of Epsom salt at each watering.Finally, one time per month, we add calcium andiron. We have observed an improvement in thegrowth and flowering of our plants and the number of CCM and CCE awarded for our plants in the past sev-eral years attest to this success. The Garden also hasa laboratory where we practice in vitro propagation ofrare, difficult or virus infected plants and the followup of plants received in flasks. At the Montreal Botanical Garden, we play an important de-facto role in conservation, considering the fact we have a collection of more than 5000 speci-mens, mainly species, many of which appear on theIUCN Red List. We plan to continue acquiring rare,vulnerable, or endangered species. We continue ourmission of educating and raising public awarenessthrough guided tours of our public orchid greenhouse, courses at the Botanical Garden school, and confer-ences offered to various horticultural groups.In the future we would like to directly participate inex-situ and/or in-situ conservation projects. We believe we have the knowledge, experience and facilities necessary to be valuable partners in orchid con-servation efforts. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. I would like to thank the Montral Botanical Garden, who sent me here to present our orchid collection, thanks to the organizers who accepted my lec-ture and a special thanks to my husband Leo who translated my text from French to English. FURTHERREADINGSArgo, B. 2003. Understanding pH management and plant nutrition. J. Intern. Phalaenopsis Alliance 12(41-3 Bouchard, A. 1998. Le Jardin botanique de Montral: esquisse d’une histoire. Edition Fides, 111p. Bulletin de la socit d’animation du Jardin et de l’Institut botaniques 10(4 GOBEILE Orchids at Montral Botanic Garden 139 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 128

Quatre-Temps. 2006. Le Jardin botanique fte ses 75 ans! Quatre-Temps, La revue du Jardin botanique deMontral 30(2-3 Quatre-Temps. 1993. Les orchides. Quatre-Temps, La revue du Jardin botanique de Montral 17(1 Stewart, J. 1995. Manual of orchids. Timber Press, Portland, 388 p. Teuscher, H. 1940. Programme d’un jardin botanique idal. Jardin botanique de Montral, Montral, 33 p. Yin-Tang W. & L.G. Lori. 1994. Medium and fertilizer affect the performance of Phalaenopsis orchids during two flowering cycles, HortScience 29(4271. Yin-Tung W. 1995. Medium and fertilization affect performance of potted Dendrobium and Phalaenopsis . Hort Techn. JulySeptember. Lise Gobeille has been in charge of the Orchid Collection at the Montral Botanical Garden for the last 20 years. She has a degree from a Horticultural Technological Institute in La Pocatire, Qubec. Regularly, she has been an invitedspeaker at various orchid societies. She also was on the editorial board of the ‘Quatre-Temps’, the magazine publishedby the Botanical Garden for five years and for two years, she wrote the quarterly ‘Chronique Horticole’ as well asnumerous full length articles on orchids. Lise had attended numerous orchid conferences in Canada, U.S.A, Europeand Ecuador. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 140 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 129

Introduction The historic Everglades are a vast wetlands of international significance. South Florida is one of themost biologically diverse regions in North America,harboring over 1,400 species of native plants.Everglades National Park, the largest subtropicalwilderness in the United States, constitutes a single,biotic engine that drives the systems that support alllife in South Florida. The area boasts many rare andendangered species. The commingling of tropical and temperate plants, alligators and crocodiles, fresh-water and saltwater swamps is found nowhere else onEarth. It has been designated an InternationalBiosphere Reserve, a World Heritage Site, and aWetland of International Importance, in recognitionof its significance to all the people of the world. Assuch, this unique ecosystem has been the focus of the largest hydrologic restoration program ever attempt-ed. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan(CERPFlorida ecosystem. With the implementation of theplan, improvements will be made by restoring naturalflows of water, water quality and hydroperiods, improving the health of the south Florida ecosystem including the Everglades and Biscayne National Park,improving hydrologic conditions which will result inLake Okeechobee once again becoming a healthylake, and improving health of native flora and faunapopulations including the threatened and endangeredspecies. HISTORY . Water is the lifeblood of the South Florida ecosystem. The Central and Southern Florida (C&SFProject was first authorized by Congress in 1948 as a multi-purpose project intended to provide flood control; water supply for municipal, industrial, and agri-cultural uses; prevention of saltwater intrusion; a watersupply for Everglades National Park; and protection of fish and wildlife resources. The primary system includ-ed about 1,000 miles of levees, 720 miles of canals,and almost 200 water control structures. Although theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers had good intentions, the results have been disastrous. Not only does approximately 70 percent less water flows through the ecosys-tem today as compared to the historic Everglades, butthe quality of the water that does enter the ecosystem has been seriously degraded. It does not follow the timLANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 THE CONSERVATION DILEMMA WESLEYE. HIGGINS1,3& GEORGED. GANN21Center for Tropical Plant Science & Conservation Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, 811 South Palm Avenue, Sarasota, FL 34236, U.S.A.2The Institute for Regional Conservation 22601 S.W. 152 Ave., Miami, Florida 33170 , U.S.A.3Author for correspondence: whiggins@selby.org RESUMEN: Aunque el Estado de Florida (Estados Unidos la aplicaci—n de los criterios de conservaci—n relacionados a su fauna, existe un vac’o en trminos de queciertas especies pueden ser protegidas a pesar de no encontrarse en la lista de especies amenazadas y recibiralgn nivel de protecci—n. El Parque Nacional Everglades (Floridaespecies raras y otras varias docenas enlistadas como En Peligro o Amenazadas. Sin embargo, un dilema esla interacci—n entre especies. En este caso, la mosca endmica Melanagromyza miamensis oviposita sus huevos en la inflorescencia de la orqu’dea Trichocentrum undulatum. En ella, las larvas se desarrollan generalmente matando al tallo. Este es un ejemplo de la interacci—n entre dos especies, una ampliamente dis-tribuida pero localmente incluida bajo la categor’a de Cr’ticamente Amenazada (CR) ( T. undulatum) y la especie endmica ( M. miamensis ). De esta manera, se utiliza este ejemplo para demostrar la complejidad en el desarrollo de un plan de manejo. KEYWORDS: conservation, Everglades National Park, Melanagromyza miamensis, Trichocentrum undulatum

PAGE 130

ing and duration of the historical Everglades, nor can water move freely throughout the entire system. Thewhole South Florida ecosystem has suffered. The health of Lake Okeechobee, the second largest freshwater lake wholly in the United States, and an impor-tant home to fish and wildlife, is seriously threatened.A number of plants and animals that live in SouthFlorida and the Everglades are in danger of becomingextinct because their habitat has been damaged,reduced, or eliminated. Clean water is not available tothe estuaries and bays that are critical nurseries andhomes to many fish and wildlife. Nor is there enoughwater for the humans. Water shortages and waterrestrictions are now a way of life in South Florida. THEDILEMMA.Conflicting goals of habitat restoration, flood control, water storage, and transportationcompete with prioritization of resource allocation.Within habitat restoration, priorities must be set todetermine which species need intervention and whatactions should be taken. The U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, in partnership with the South FloridaWater Management District, has developed aComprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERPto save the Everglades. Two aspects of the plan areconsidered here: waterflow and habitat restoration. From a conservation standpoint restoring the southward flow of water is simply a matter of removing theobstacles to southward waterflow (dikes and roads and plugging east-west diversions (canals and waterways). However, the dikes retain water for agricultur-al and municipal storage in the dry season and floodcontrol in the wet season. The agricultural muck areassouth of Lake Okeechobee were historically subject tosheet flow in the rainy season. Two major east-westroads in South Florida impede waterflow: I-75 andUS-41. Numerous canals in developed areas of SouthFlorida drain residential areas by cutting through thecoastal ridge, diverting waterflow into the ocean. TheOkeechobee Waterway connects the east and westcoasts of Florida by connecting Lake Okeechobee tothe Caloosahatchee River and the St. Lucie Canal,which connects Stuart, Florida, to Lake Okeechobee.The effects of these man-made changes have causedsignificant alterations in the timing (excess wet seasonflows, insufficient dry season flows), distribution, quality, and volume of freshwater entering the estuaries. Excess water during rainy seasons produces low salinity levels that are unable to support marineaquatic life, while severe low flows during the dryseason causes salinity levels to spike. The goal ofCERP is to redirect fresh water to areas that need itmost. Saving the Everglades The Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC based in Miami, Florida, is dedicated to the protection, restoration, and long-term management of biodi-versity on a regional basis. Their work is premised on an innovative idea of conservation that seeks to pro-tect and restore viable populations of all plant and animal species within a region. Unfortunately, habitat destruction, collecting, hydrological modifica-tions, fire suppression, and other human activitieshave heavily disturbed, if not critically imperiled,many of South Florida’s ecosystems, thus threateningmany native plant species. There is an alarming lossof species. Over 100 species of native plants (8%apparently extirpated in the region. Another 244species (17%Heritage Program criteria. Epiphytes, including rare tropical orchids, ferns, and bromeliads, are more likely to be extirpated or critically imperiled than terres-trial plants. Most apparent extirpations have occurredin the last fifty years, which coincides with the C&SFProject. Fortunately, only one endemic South Floridaspecies, the Narrowleaf Hoarypea ( Tephrosia angustissima Shuttlew. ex Chapm. var. angustissima [Gann et al. 2002]), is presumed to be extinct. INITIALMANAGEMENTPLAN . Conservation management plans are regional strategies that provide anoverview of conservation issues and give directionfor the management of public conservation land andwaters, as well as of species that are threatened. Thestrategies are a guide for both conservation managersand the public, indicating what managers intend todo, how priorities will be set, and how managers canrespond to requests to use the natural resources they manage: in other words, how to reconcile conserva-tion of biological resources with their sustainable use. The IRC is dedicated to long-term management of biodiversity throughout South Florida. Their plan isbased on the following methods: collecting baseline 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 142 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 131

scientific data; assessing, planning and providing technical support for conservation; designing andimplementing ecological restoration projects andlong-term management programs; monitoring theeffects of conservation projects on rare species and ecosystems and assessing needs for adaptive manage-ment; providing public education and publishing the results of their work online and in technical and pop-ular journals; and nurturing a conservation awarecommunity. The specific activities include conducting floristic inventories on conservation lands without plant data, conducting plant surveys on accessible private lands, mapping and monitoring rare plants, acquiring sites with populations of critically imperiled plants, developing conservation agreements with private landowners, stopping avoidable losses of rare plant populations in conservation areas, preventing poaching, controlling exotic pest plants and feral animals, restoring key habitats for rare plants in South Florida, restoring viable populations of critically imperiled plants, improving funding for rare plant conservation and restoration, developing and managing off-site collections of rare plants, educating the public and policy makers about the importance of native plants and rare plant conservation. Marie Selby Botanical Gardens’Collaboration The involvement of the scientists at Marie Selby Botanical Gardens(MSBG restoration includessurveying populations, develop-ing and managing ex situ collections of critically imperiled plants, and propagating germplasm forreintroduction. Presently, MSBG is propagating threeimperiled ferns: Pecluma plumula (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) M.G.Price, the plumed rockcap fern; Adiantum melanoleucum Willd., the fragrant maidenhair fern; Thelypterisreticulata (L.tice-vein fern; and two orchids: Brassia caudata (L Lindl., the Spider orchid (a Jamaican plant Oncidium ensatum Lindl., the Florida dancing-lady orchid. The fern spores and orchid seed have germinated. The fern spores were sown in pasteurized potting mix and the orchid seeds were germinated asym-biotically in-vitro. The main concern about the reintroduction of a plant that has been extirpated from South Florida is the source of genetic material to be used for restora-tion. If the plant is a tropical species at the northernlimit of its range, this can be a major problem. This isthe case for many tropical ferns and orchids that havebeen extirpated from South Florida. These tropicalspecies almost certainly arrived in South Florida fromthe Bahamas and Cuba; thus Bahamian or Cuban germplasm would have to be considered as appropri-ate sources of propagules. The Brassia caudata , being propagated by MSBG is a plant of Jamaican origin that has the same characteristics as the extirpat-ed Florida species. DATADEFICIENTSPECIES . In the 1920s, G. Moznette collected a specimen of an unknown fly in DadeCounty, Florida. The specimen was deposited atNational Museum of Natural History (USNMWashington DC. Moznette labeled the specimen“orchid larva destroys bloom.” The specimenremained unidentified until 1973 when Spencerdescribed it as a new species of Agromyzidae.Externally the fly closely resembles Melanagromyza HIGGINS& GANNConservation Dilemma 143 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . FIGURE1. Distinct male genitalia (aedeagus Melanagromyzamiamensis (Spencer 1973 A . side view. B . ventral view.

PAGE 132

floridensis Spencer; however, the male genitalia are entirely distinct (Fig. 1fly was a seed feeder and may feed on other epiphyticorchids in South Florida. The fly, possibly endemic tothe Flamingo area of Everglades National Park, is notlisted in USFWS Threatened and Endangered SpeciesSystem (TESSdata deficient. CRITICALLYIMPERILEDSPECIES . This Critically Imperiled species selected for ex situ propagation is Trichocentrum undulatum (Sw. M.W.Chase. Only one known population occurs inEverglades National Park near Flamingo. This habitatis a coastal berm forest of Conocarpus erectus L. (Buttonwood T. undulatum grows epiphytically. Historically, this species was also found inrockland hammocks further to the north. Trichocentrum undulatum is native to South Florida and the West Indies. Perhaps fewer than 500 plantsexist in Everglades National Park today (R. Hammerin Gann et al ., 2002). The major threats are habitat destruction (exotic pest plant invasions & sea-levelrise), reproduction interruption, and poaching. IRChas proposed to reestablish a viable population of T. undulatum in the Long Pine Key area, where it historically occurred, in case that the Flamingo populationis lost due to sea-level rise. FORESTDECLINE . Although Buttonwood is salt tolerant and thrives in soils that are acidic to alkaline,clayey to sandy, and dry to wet, there is generalizedforest decline in the coastal berm site where Trichocentrum undulatum occurs. The area is converting to a saltwort marsh of Batis maritima L. as the trees die (Fig. 2combination of increased salinity due to a disruptionof fresh water flow and sea level rise. A site surveyreveals that as the buttonwood trees lose their canopy,the orchids are exposed to excessive sunlight and die. SPECIESINTERACTION . Another factor threatening the Trichocentrum undulatum population is disruption of the orchid reproduction cycle by an insect. Rick and Jean Seavey,naturalists from Miami-Dade County,have reported an interesting fly/orchid association(2006 Melanagromyza miamensis Spencer, oviposites its eggs into the stalk (Fig. 33RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 144 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . FIGURE2. Dying buttonwood ( Conocarpus erectus) forest converting to a saltwort marsh ( Batis maritima ). Photo by Wesley Higgins. FIGURE3. Site where Melanagromyza miamensis oviposited its eggs into the Trichocentrum undulatum stalk. Photo by Bruce Holst. FIGURE4. When ovipositing occurs below the 5 th node, it usually kills the Trichocentrum undulatum inflorescence. Photo by Wesley Higgins.

PAGE 133

vae develop, later to emerge as adult flies. If ovipositing occurs below the 5 th node, it usually kills the inflorescence (Fig. 4 th node, the plant generally develops side branches (Fig. 5which are also attacked by the fly. This leads to eitherno flowers or an emaciated inflorescence. In 1998, only two plants flowered of 200 the Seaveys moni-tored. In 2006 the Trichocentrum undulatum population was surveyed and only one seed capsule (Fig. 6 the result of hand pollination, was found in the popula-tion. Despite the negative factors, recruits (seedlingsand young plants) can be found in the healthy areas ofthe buttonwood forest (Fig. 7 M. miamensis Spencer were collected in Everglades National Park, near Homestead (Dade County; E97-000732; Ron Clouse, park employee; 28 February1997). These specimens are deposited in the FloridaState Collection of Arthropods (Fig. 8very rare as this is only the second reported collection.The fly is possibly endemic to the Flamingo area ofEverglades National Park. POACHING . Public education is the primary effort to stop poaching, but enforcement is limited by available resources. Access to the conservation areas is controlled in visitor areas by park rangers; however, back-country access by sportsmen is generally unmonitored.National Park officers sporadically inspect sportsmen at recreation access gates but have inadequate person-nel to provide full time monitoring for a park with 137mi (220 km) of coastline; 484,200 acres (196,000hectares) in Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico; 572,200 acres (231,500 hectares HIGGINS& GANNConservation Dilemma 145 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .FIGURE8. This specimen of Melanagromyza miamensis is deposited in the Florida State Collection of Arthropods.Photo by Gary Steck. FIGURE5. Trichocentrum undulatum plant generally develops side branches which are also attacked by thefly. Photo by Bruce Holst. FIGURE6. Only seed capsule in the extant Trichocentrum undulatum population in 2006. Photo by Wesley Higgins. FIGURE7. Trichocentrum undulatum recruits (seedlings and young plants) in the healthy areas of buttonwoodforest. Photo by Wesley Higgins.

PAGE 134

ter marsh; 230,100 acres (93,100 hectaresgrove forest; and 220,000 acres (89,000 hectarescoastal areas (Cape Sable, river headwaters HABITATRESTORATION . Although the state of Florida (USAconservation criteria for animals, plants are regulatedby the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS-ened, or commercially exploited. For instance,although the buttonwood forests in EvergladesNational Park are in decline, the species, Conocarpus erectus, is not listed by FDACS; but is listed as Secure in South Florida by IRC since it occurs inmost coastal counties of peninsular Florida. Theorchid, Trichocentrum undulatum, is listed as Critically Imperiled by IRC and Endangered by theState of Florida; and the fly Melanagromyza miamensis is considered Data Deficient by authors. Presumably, if hydrological restoration is successful,ground water levels will be raised, wet season flows returned to transverse the everglades and fire intensi-ties decreased, all to a degree that improves growingconditions for native species. The interactionbetween species is critical in habitat restoration. The fly reproduces in the orchid, which grows in the for-est. Thus the Federal and State governments havemade hydrological restoration a priority. FUTUREINTERVENTION . The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan calls for restoration of hydroperiods as the initial step in habitat restoration. The inter-dependency of species, limits which interventions are appro-priate (tree – orchid – flya systemic insecticide may be beneficial to the orchidreproduction but detrimental to the fly. Researchers areproposing both in-situ and ex-situ intervention: handpollination and reintroduction. Researchers can hand pollinate orchid flowers to increase fruit set, which may increase the availability of seed, depending on thedegree of reproduction interruption by the fly. Ex-situpropagation of orchid seed to produce propagules forpopulation augmentation may increase population ifforest decline can be reversed. MSBG and IRC areinvestigating symbiotic germination of orchid seed using myrrchoizza fungi. Having the symbioant pre-sent may increase reintroduction success. Although thefly is data deficient, increasing the orchid population may also assist fly reproduction. This example of interaction between two species, one with widespread distri-bution but Critically Imperiled locally ( T. undulatum), and a possibly endemic species ( M. miamensis ), is used to demonstrate the complexity of developing a manage-ment plan. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.The IRC project, Rare Plant Monitoring and Restoration on Long Pine Key, EvergladesNational Park (ENPCritical Ecosystems Study Initiative. We thank TomArmentano, retired from ENP, and ENP botanist CraigSmith for their collaboration, Lorena Endara for theSpanish translation of the abstract and Gary Steck for thephotos of the Melanagromyza miamensis specimen.LITERATURECITEDGann, G. D., K. A. Bradley & S. W. Woodmansee. 2002. Rare plants of South Florida: Their history, conservation,and restoration. Institute for Regional Conservation.Miami, Florida. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP http://www.evergladesplan.org/. Accessed: May 2006. Seavey, R. & J. Seavey. 2006. Mule ear orchid new fly association . http://www.seaveyfieldguides.com/. Accessed: May 2006. Spencer, K. A. 1973. Agromyzidae of Florida 7:43, in Arthropods of Florida. Florida Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville,Florida. Wesley E. Higgins is the Head of Systematics at Marie Selby Botanical Gardens and the editor of Selbyana. His taxonomic interest is the systematics of Laeliinae based on holomorphology. He is best known for his taxonomic workwith Prosthechea , Encyclia , Oestlundia , Dinema , and Microepidendrum . Wesley is also interested in orchid conservation and serves on the IUCN Orchid Specialist Group. George D. Gann is the Executive Director and co-founder of The Institute for Regional Conservation. He currently serves on the board of the Tropical Audubon Society and as Vice Chair of the Board of the Society for EcologicalRestoration International (SERAward from The Nature Conservancy, as well as the John Rieger Award for service and the Golden Trowel Award forspecial service to the Board of Directors from SER. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 146 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 135

Nowadays many wild species of South American’s orchidsare under threat of extinction from over-col-lection and habitat destruction. Many tropical nativeorchid species were propagated in the NationalBotanical Garden of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine through a range of asymbiotic seed germi-nation techniques and tissue culture procedures aimedto preserve a number of individuals under artificialconditions in glasshouses in the temperate zone, with the aim to protect these species from complete extinc-tion. Our orchid collection includes plants of Cattleya and Laelia species. Some of these species are rare in the wild. To protect them from extinction the meth-ods of propagation should be developed. Thus the objective of this study was to elaborate a methods for mass rapid seed and clonal propagation in vitro of five Cattleya species ( C. aclandiae Lindl., C. bowringiana Veitch. , C. granulosa Lindl. , C. intermedia Graham. ex Hooker ., C. percivaliana O’Brien.), and seven Laelia species ( L. anceps Lindl., L. lobata (Lindl. L. lundii Rchb. f. et Warm ., L. mantiqueirae Pabst., L. purpurata Lindl., L. rubescens Lindl., L. sincorana Schltr.), to study the development of protocorms and seedlings in vitroa, b. To obtain seeds, flowers of the studied species were self-pollinated by hand under glasshouse condi-tions in the National Botanical Garden. The seeds of L. rubescens were received from the Main Botanical Garden (Moscow, Russia liminary results showed that the capsules of orchid studied usually, ripened about 9-10 months after pollination, but seeds from unripe capsules can germi-nate in vitro much more earlier. Therefore the seeds from immature capsules about halfway of maturationwere used for sowing on Knudson medium modifiedby addition of 2 mg/l peptone, 50 mg/l potassiumhummate, 1 mg/l activated charcoal. Seeds from dehisced capsules were sterilized in 10% Clorox for 15 to 20 min, in 15% H 2 O 2 for 10 min, and then rinsed two times with sterile distilledwater. Undehisced immature capsules were surface-sterilized as follows: rinsed with tap water for fiveminutes, then flamed after spraying with 96%ethanol. Capsules were cut open and seeds weretransferred to cultivation media. The cultures were incubated in 250-ml Erlenmeyer glass flasks in the laboratory at 25-26 0 C, photoperiod 16h and relative moisture of air 70%. After sowing ofseeds, flasks were inspected for seed germination andpathogen infection every seven days. Seed germination of Cattleya and Laelia species on average began after 2 or 4 weeks of culture (tab. 1Developing embryo exceeded initial size of embryoin 2 or 4 times, forming protocorms which shape isspecies-specific. The protocorms were formed by undifferentiated highly vacuolated parenchyma cells, which are surrounded by a single layer of epidermal cells. For proliferation of protocorms the MS medium supplement-ed by the addition of 5 mg/1 BAP and 2 mg/1 NAAwas used. Process of protocorm formation with manymeristematic apices was highly influenced by the LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 IN VITRO PROPAGATION OF CATTLEYA LINDL. AND LAELIA LINDL. SPECIES ALLAM. LAVRENTYEVA1& ROMANV. IVANNIKOV1,21Tropical and Subtropical Plants Department, National Botanical Garden of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 1,Timiryazevska St., Kiev, 01014, Ukraine2Author for correspondence: ivannikov_roman@rambler.ru KEYWORDS: micropropagation, Laelia , Cattleya , protocorm, in vitro a NBG’s collection of tropical orchids was registered in Administrative organ CITES in Ukraine (notification ?6939/19/1-10 from 23.06.2004).bThe name of species are given according to C. Withner 1990, 1991.

PAGE 136

level and distribution of exogenic hormones in cultural media. Later, in apical zone of protocorms the for-mation of apex and leaf primordia of shoot was observed. This was accompanied by the differentia-tion of procambial and conducting bundles. Seedling formation, in average, took about 700 days (tab. 1glasshouse culture conditions. More over, seedling(and plantletsexplants to enlarge the coefficient of propagation. It should be noted that the process of ontogenesis of Laelia and Cattleya seedlings are quite similar. The differences are only in terms and details of devel-opment. The development of individuals in juvenilepopulation of seedlings is not similar in vitro. Theinvestigation has shown, that the seedlings have somepathways of ontogenesis in vitro. It was established, that atthe initial stages of seedlings ontogenesis invitro go through two basic patterns of development. For majority of species studied formation of secondary protocorms on primary protocorms are typi-cal. The number of the seedlings, which have beendeveloping through each of patterns, depends not only on abiotic factors complex. It is defined by inter-action: a genotype a nutrient medium composition. Different methods of clonal plant micropropagation of Cattleya and Laelia cultivars genotypes were developed in vitro culture. For propagation young growing shoots of 10-15 cm in height were selected. Apical and lateral shoots were used as initialexplants. The buds of basal part of shoot had thehighest morphogenetic potencies. Buds of somespecies after 6 months of cultivation on nutrient medium formed about 70 protocorms, while the middle part of shoot formed not more than 10-15 proto-corms. So, we determined that apical meristems ofyoung shoots of all genotypes studied are inert undercultivation in vitro. It doesn’t develop later. Explantsability to regenerate depends on phase of plant-donor development. Buds found in May-June form proto-corms more intensively and quickly, that is provokedby increasing of phytohormonal complex activity ofplants in this period. We used different modificationsof nutrient media for cultivation of Cattleya’s andLaelia`s explants. Optimal medium for protocormproliferation was MS with 5 mg/1 BAP, 2 mg/1NAA, 100 mg/1 peptone, 15% coconut milk, 1.5 g/1activated charcoal. More intensively protocorms were formed in darkness. The most active zones of proto-corm formation are bases of leaf primordiums andbud squamules. As a rule 4-5 meristematic centerswith lots of protocorms form simultaneously, theycan be divided and cultivated. Our research was carried out to examine the suitability of the basal and lateral buds of young shootsas explants for mass rapid clonal propagation of 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 148 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . SpeciesStart germination Seedlings formationEx vitro transplantation days 1 Cattleya acladiae Lindl . 86 260 350 2 Cattleya bowringiana Veitch16 134 300 3 Cattleya granulosa Lindl. 10 120 400 4 Cattleya intermedia Graham ex Hook 97 323 871 5 Cattleya percivaliana O’Brien40260539 6 Laelia anceps Lindl.952871458 7 Laelia lobata (Lindl.Veitch112401080 8 Laelia lundii Rchb.f. &Warm.60 135 300 9 Laelia mantiqueirae Pabst 5-7 90 915 10 Laelia purpurata Lind. 27 191 394 11 Laelia rubescens Lindl.17270930 12 Laelia sincorana Schltr.80-90270400 TABLE1. The terms of seeds germination and seedlings propagation of Cattleya and Laelia species.

PAGE 137

species studied. The size of these explants did not exceed 0,5-1,0 cm. It was established that basal budsof shoot have the highest morphogenetic potencies. Thus, combining some methods of seed and micropropagation in vitro we can get planting material ofthese beautiful ornamental plants. Effective methodof Cattleya and Laelia plants micropropagation is induction of protocorm formations on leaves of plantlets and seedlings. Leaves were carefully sepa-rated from stem and cultivated on MS with 2 mg/1BAP, 0.3 mg/1 NAA, 15% coconut milk. After onemonth at the base of leaves, at first from epidermaltissues form numerous of protocorms, followed byshoots formation. LAVRENTYEVA& IVANNIKOVPropagation of Laelia and Cattleya 149 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . Alla Lavrentyeva was educated at the National Agrarian University in Kiev, Ukraine. Since 1975 she works in M.M. Grishko National Botanical Garden of NASU as a senior researcher at the seed and micropropagation lab, where shereceived her PhD degree in biology on Optimization of microclonal propagation of Cymbidium hybr. in vitro. Shepublished more than 100 articles and some books on this topics. Roman Ivannikov was born in 1974 in Romni, Ukraine. Then he was educated at the Tarasa Shewscenka National University of Kiev, Ukraine. Now he works at M.M. Grishko National Botanical Garden of NASU as a seniorresearcher at the seed and micropropagation lab, where he received his PhD degree in biology on Biology ofdevelopment of the species of genus Laelia Lindl. (Orchidaceae Juss.He interesting in Reproductive Biology and Conservation of some tropical genus of Orchidaceae in vitro. He publishedmore than 30 articles on these topics.

PAGE 138

The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES treatycurrently adopted by 169 member countries toregulate international trade in over 30,000 species ofanimal and plants. Plants that are not transported in accordance with CITES requirementsmay be eitherdenied entry, and sometimes abandoned, or subject to seizure by enforcement officials in importingcountries. Instead of being destroyed, abandoned orcon-fiscated plants may be returned to the range countries orsent to CITES Rescue Centers, which are publicmuseums or botanical gardens in member countrieswhere the plants are cared for and cultivated. The role of these rescue centers has traditionally been educa-tional, with the CITES plants used and/or displayedto the public in an exhibition or show aimed at raising public consciousness about orchids and their conservation issues. In many cases, the plants placed inres-cue centers are unusual, extremely rare or even newspecies, and may consist of multiple wild-collectedplants exhibiting natural population variability.These ex-situ ‘populations’ are often sufficientlydiverse to maintain a vibrant and vigorous gene poolwithin a captive breeding scenario. Increasingly, ashabitats are disturbed or destroyed, it has become apparent to many well meaning staff of botanic gar-dens and arboreta, particularly CITES rescue centers,to do more than provide care and display thesespecies. Rescue centers should give consideration tothe value of the genetic material entrusted to them,which over time and with the participation of multiplecenters will become progressively more and more important for establishing co-operative ex situ breeding groups and might eventually serve as a source of plants to repopulate degraded habitats and reduce col-lection pressure. Propagation of these plants ofteninvolves resources, such as laboratories, related equipment and expertise unavailable at public gardens and could provide an opportunity forcollaboration withcommercial growers and private citizensthat can easily provide these facilities and expertise.Particularly for showy, commercially desirableplants, such collaborators are often anxious to offertheir services. An example of this type of collaborationwasthe legal propagation and distribution of Paphiopedilum vietnamense from nine plants that arrived at the U.S. Botanic Garden in 1999 (thesame year the species description was published).These plants were part of a larger seizure at the portof Seattle by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initially con-tacted the government of Vietnam which declinedto repatriate the orchids. As a result, the orchidsremained at the U.S. Botanic Garden under the solejurisdiction of the U.S. Government. Subsequently,The Fish and Wildlife Service permitted a privateorchid growing facility access to the P. vietnamense housed at U. S. Botanic Garden. Sibling crosses were made from the surprisingly genetically variedcollection. The seeds were subsequently grown in vitro at the New York laboratory and flasks offered for sale with the condition that plants be offered toother botanical institutions. The benign intent of LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 THE ROLE OF CITES RESCUE CENTERS IN ORCHID CONSERVATION: CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COLLABORATION ON AN ENDANGERED SLIPPER ORCHID ( PAPHIOPEDILUM VIETNAMENSE O. GRUSS & PERNER) THOMASMIRENDA1,4, KYLEWALLICK2& ROBERTR. GABEL31 Smithsonian Institution Horticulture Services Division, Washington, DC 20013 USA2 US Botanic Garden, Washington, DC 20032 USA3 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA 22203 USA4 Author for correspondence: mirendat@opp.si.edu KEYWORDS:CITES, Paphiopedilum vietnamense , Vietnam

PAGE 139

this collaboration was to offer legal plants in quantities that would serve toreducecollecting pressure on wild populations. Unfortunately, despite suc-cessful cultivation of the seedlings and the best ofintentions, these propagated plants have still notbeen distributed to their intended recipients. This isattributable more to the vicissitudes of life than toanyone’s greed or bad intent, but is indicative of theneed for accountability when such collaborationsare undertaken. Beyond this however, certain legal and ethical concerns are generated when such part-nerships are entered into. Activities involvingCITES Appendix-I plants need to be approachedwith the utmost consideration of the implicationsfor the species’ conservation . There are three major conservation concerns that must be considered when making progeny of seizedplants available commercially. First, the potentialexists for unscrupulous collectors to continue toimport illegally in order to obtain plants once they areintroduced into commerce. The plants may actuallybe smuggled purposely to get legal plants in the trade.If not closely regulated, the legal plants are merely a smokescreen for continued pillaging of wild popula-tions that threaten the species ultimate survival in itsnatural habitat. Second, regardless of whether thecountry of origin declines the return of the plants,they may still be opposed to the commercialization oftheir native species for profit, particularly profit thatyields no benefit to the native country. Third, whilethe propagation and release of plants to commerce may reduce collection pressure, it does not eliminate all illegal trade if demand is high. Thus, the burdenon law enforcement increases or becomes impossibleas it becomes more difficult to separate legally and illegally received plants. If no legal plants are avail-able, identification of the illegal is greatly simplifiedand law enforcement can be administered in anunclouded atmosphere. This leads us to the question of what CITES rescue centers should do when they receive such desir-able plants. The successes and concerns raised by this collaborative effort can serve as a guide for cre-ating a protocol for conservation and propagationprograms for any endangered orchid species thatmight be received by rescue centers in the future. Inthe meantime, the most significant role for PlantRescue Centers continues to be the use of plants for display aimed at public education about conservation issues as well as the provision of the best possible horticultural maintenance and in-house propa-gation of the plants under their care, especially thosetaxa that are rare and endangered. Ideally, future conservation projects will involve in situ coopera-tion with the range country. Such efforts support thecontinued survival of these species in the habitatswhere they evolved and belong. And the efforts ofCITES Rescue centers, instead of inadvertently contributing to wild extirpation can be more constructive, potentially reintroducing artificially propa-gated but genetically viable plants in protected areaswhen appropriate. Thomas Mirenda holds a BS in Marine Biology from Occidental College but has been a lifelong horticulturist and orchidist, currently working as the Orchid Collection Specialist at the Smithsonian Institution. Kyle Wallick received his MS in botany from the University of Oklahoma. He is currently Botanist at the U.S. Botanic Garden. Robert R. Gabel has worked in the U.S. CITES Scientific Authority since1991, and has been Chief of the office since 2001. He has been employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 27 years, primarily working on endangeredspecies research and captive propagation, and international wildlife trade (including plantsIUCN Orchid Specialist Group, the Conservation Committee of the American Orchid Society, and currently is theNorth American Regional Representative on the CITES Plants Committee. MIRENDA et al. The role of CITESrescue centers 151 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 140

Peru has inherited one of the greatest biodiversities of the planet. The orchid genus Phragmipedium has several representatives in the country. They are listedin Appendix 1 of CITES, restricted from internationaltrade. Molecular analyses can be used as database for legal and forensic determinations. Phylogeneticanalyses distinguish species in the genus Phragmipedium with low sequence divergence within sections. DNA markers of Phragmipedium besseae, P. besseae var flavum, P. boisserianum, P. caricinum, P. caudatum, P. kovachii, P. longifoli-um, P. pearcei, P. schlimii and P. wallisii were studied. As expected, the individual and combined analyses demonstrate the distinctiveness of the molecular sequence data of Phragmipedium kovachii . An elucidation of the systematic in sections Micropetalum and Schluckebieria is presented. Our results also propose a close phylogenetic relationship of Phragmipedium boisserianum to section Himantopetalum . Dendograms with AFLP (nuclear ADN and ITS (internal transcribed spacer of nuclear ribo-some) techniques can contribute to establish thetaxonomy of Phragmipedium kovachii related to other species. A well vouchered database of species and hybrids of Phragmipediums is under construction to deter-mine the illegal origin of plant material by usingDNA sequence data. LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 MOLECULAR IDENTIFICATION AND GENETIC STUDIES IN PERUVIAN PHRAGMIPEDIUMS ISAIASROLANDO1,3, M. RODRGUEZ1, M. DAMIAN2, J. BENAVIDES1, A. MANRIQUE2& J. ESPINOZA11Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Av. Honorio Delgado 430, Lima 31, Peru2Centro de Jardiner’a Manrique y Universidad Nacional Agraria3Author for correspondence: orchid@upch.edu.pe KEYWORDS: Phragmipedium, DNA markers, ITS sequences, AFLP sequences, Phragmipedium kovachii, Phragmipedium boisserianum

PAGE 141

Introduction The National Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin (NBGG and the Belize Botanic Gardens (BBGinvolved in Belizean orchid research since 1997. Staff from NBGG had travelled to Belize on two prior occa-sions with the purpose of collecting living specimensof orchids, bromeliads and cacti, along with seed of other plants to add to the existing glasshouse collec-tions at the Gardens. During the expedition of 1996 the Glasnevin team met Ken duPlooy who had gath-ered a substantial orchid collection for what was tobecome Belize Botanic Gardens the following year.The 10 years of collaboration between the two gardenshas substantially increased the knowledge of Belize’sorchid flora and improved the capacity of BBG toidentify and cultivate the country’s native orchids. Knowledge of the orchid flora The knowledge of the orchid flora of Belize has been amassed from many expeditions by various institutions, both native and foreign, over the last century. The most comprehensive documents on the sub-ject include Orchids of Guatemala (Ames & Correll 1952), Supplement to Orchids of Guatemala and British Honduras (Correll 1963 A new species and new records of Orchidaceae for Belize (Adams & Cribb 1985), An annotated list of orchids of Belize (Catling & Catling 1988 Native orchids of Belize (Adams et al. 1995 orchids that occur in Belize is a Checklist of the vascular plants of Belize (Balick et al. 2000). This and the Native orchids of Belize differ little in the species listed other than the former publication includes Cattleya skinneri Bateman and Oeceoclades maculata (Lindl. Pleurothallis barbulata Lindl. and some nomenclature changes. Otherwise by 2000 the list of species included for Belize totalled279 species. For the purpose of this paper and various statistics within, the authors accept that 279 is the fig-ure of the orchid flora in 2000. Further nomenclaturewill follow the World Checklist of Monocotyledonsand any exceptions will be noted. Additional knowledge of the orchid flora In 2001 the results of the almost yearly joint expeditions had accumulated and were published in Additions to the orchid flora of Belize, Central America (Sayers & duPlooy 2001 orchid species recorded to 298. The additions includ-ed a recently described Pleurothallis , Pleurothallis duplooyi Luer & Sayers from a collection in the Toledo District (Luer 2001 The joint garden expeditions have concentrated on this area as over 65% of Belize’s orchid species can be found in this southernmost district. Not surprising-ly, the majority of the new records have occurred inthe Toledo district, especially around the not easilyaccessed Little Quartz Ridge. Toledo’s orchid richforests are home to most of the recently publishedrecords like Cochleanthes flabelliformis (Sw. Schult., Cranichis muscosa Sw., Lepanthopsis floripecten (Rchb.f. Maxillaria cobanensis Schltr., Macroclinium paniculatum (Ames & C. Schweinf.) Dodson, Platystele ovatilabia (Ames & C. LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 WORKING TOGETHER FOR ORCHID CONSERVATION – – THE NATIONAL BOTANIC GARDENS, GLASNEVIN AND BELIZE BOTANIC GARDENS BRENDANSAYERS1,3, HEATHERDUPLOOY2& BRETTADAMS21National Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland 2Belize Botanic Gardens, San Ignacio, Cayo, Belize, Central America3Author for correspondence: brendan.sayers@opw.ie KEYWORDS: Belize, collaboration, capacity building

PAGE 142

Schweinf.) Garay, Pleurothallis deregularis (Barb. Rodr.) Luer and Specklinia spectrilinugis (Rchb.f. Pridgeon & M.W. Chase (Sayers & duPlooy 2003Recently we have verified Platystele pedicellaris (Schltr. Scaphosepalum microdactylum Rolfe, both collected in the Columbia River Forest Reserve of Toledo. Platystele pedicellaris (Schltr. 9 (2 Pleurothallis pedicellaris Schltr. Columbia River Forest Reserve, Toledo District;epiphytic in wet broadleaf forest, 24/1/2004, B. Sayers 04/1241. Scaphosepalum microdactylum Rolfe, Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew. 1893: 335. Pueblo Viejo, Toledo District, epiphytic in wetriverine forest, 16/4/1998, B. Sayers 98/590 . No less fascinating are the high altitude, quasi-mist forests of Mount Margaret in the Cayo District,which, over the years has been the location for manyof the new records such as Acianthera johnsonii (Ames Dresslerella powellii (Ames Kegeliella atropilosa L.O. Williams and A.H. Heller (Sayers & duPlooy 2003 On the same small mountaintop we have recently col-lected Dichaea trulla Rchb.f. and Stelis convallaria (Schltr. Dichaea trulla Rchb.f., Beitr. Orch. Centr.-Am. 104. 1866. Epithecia trulla Schltr., Dichaeopsis trulla Schltr. Mount Margaret, Cayo District, epiphytic in quasi-mist forest, 2/2/2004, B. Sayers 04/1250 . Stelis convallaria (Schltr. Lindleyana 16(4 Pleurothallis convallaria Schltr. Mount Margaret, Cayo District; epiphytic in quasi-mist forest, 1/2/2004, B. Sayers 04/1244 . Herbarium specimens of orchids collected in Belize are an additional source of information. Indeed whenwe first encountered the leafless Campylocentrum poeppigii (Rchb.f.men collected by William A. Schipp (Schipp 339housed in Missouri existed. This specimen hadescaped the attention of documenters of the orchidflora for many decades. Robert Dressler’s work on Sobralia has revealed a specimen of the S. amparoana/bradeorum/warscewiczii complex collected in the Stann Creek District. Two other taxa worth a mention are a species of Pelexia and Scaphyglottis . The Pelexia was first encountered in 1997, on the first visit to the LittleQuartz Ridge area of the Southern Toledo District.The rosette of deep purple leaves was collected but itfailed to adapt easily to cultivation and did not thrive.It was not until 2004 that the plant was successfullyflowered and photographs and a specimen taken. Twonames have been suggested, Pelexia callifera (C. Schweinf.) Garay and Pelexia gutturosa (Rchb.f. Garay. The former has a distribution of northernSouth America whilst the latter is Central American.The specimen has yet to be deposited in a suitableherbarium but we expect that the latter is the correctname for the taxon. The other confusing species is the Scaphyglottis . Tentative efforts at identification have placed it close to Scaphyglottis tenella L.O. Williams, a species recorded from Guatemala, Costa Rica,Nicaragua and Panama. Again the specimen has yetto be examined by someone with a familiarity for thegenus, and it could possibly be undescribed (R.Dressler, pers comm.). Distribution and conservation information Even though the distribution of Pelexia is taken into account for the tentative determination of theunnamed specimen, Belize has a element of it’s florathat does not occurr in neighbouring countries. Native orchids of Belize points to two species, Maxillaria discolor (Lodd. ex Lindl. Koellensteinia tricolor (Lindl. Belize in Nicaragua, French Guyana, Guyana,Suriname, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru and Brazil whilstthe latter in Guyana, Peru and Brazil. Certain of thenew records show this disjunctive distribution.Outside of Belize, Dresslerella powellii (Ames is only known to occur in Panama and Phloeophila peperomioides (Ames in Costa Rica. It may be the case that further investigations in neighbouring countries will reveal the pres-ence of these species. Similarly, exploration in Belize has proven wider 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 154 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 143

distributions of some orchids currently known to occur in only certain districts. Upon each successiveexpedition to the northern districts of Corozal andOrange Walk, orchids previously not recorded forthese districts are found indicating a need for furtherresearch. The NBGG and BBG have expanded theknowledge of the Belizean orchid flora, not alone innumbers but in quantity and location also. To be effective, conservation efforts need to have an information base – we need to know what needs tobe conserved before we can make suitable efforts to do so. The two gardens are dedicated to the conserva-tion of Belize’s orchid flora not only in filling this need but plans are also being put in place to propa-gate sensitive species from seed. At first glance it would seem that Belize’s orchids would scarcely need protection. A huge portion of thecountry, 44% (1.2 million hectaresare under protective status. Belize is also party toInternational conservation conventions such as theUnited Nations Convention on Biological Diversityand the Convention for International Trade inEndangered Species of Fauna and Flora. Howeverthere are significant threats ranging from individuals involved in exporting wild collected orchids to private collectors, to lack of enforcement of laws pro-tecting orchids, to the ever growing threat of climatechange. Even the protected status of the country is also a dubious comfort as recently 500 acres of Cayo’s SanAntonio National Park was de-reserved, in SstannCreek, Mayflower Bocawina National Park was de-reserved by 400 acres and in Toledo an InternationalOil Company has been given permission to begin seismic testing and subsequent oil drilling in the Sarstoon/Temash National Park. The two Gardens, in their commitment to orchid conservation will continue their field research inBelize. To assist in promoting the orchid flora among native Belizeans and the substantial amount of visi-tors to the country, they are producing a small formatguide to some of the more notable species of orchids. Recent developments at NBGG has seen the estab-lishment of an orchid propagation laboratory where seedlings will be germinated to bulk up ex situ collec-tions and act as a source of material for the future. LITERATURECITED:Ames, O. & D.S. Correll. 1952. Orchids of Guatemala and Belize . Dover Publications, New York. Adams, B.R. & P.J. Cribb. 1985. A new species and new records of Orchidaceae for Belize.Kew Bull.40 (3635-642. Catling, P.M. & V.R. Catling. 1988. An annotated list of orchids of Belize. Orqu’dea (Mx Luer, C.A. 2001. Miscellaneous new species in the Pleurothallidinae Rev. Soc. Bol. Bot. 3 (1/2Cruz Sayers, B. & H. duPlooy. 2003. Additions to the orchid flora of Belize, Central America. Lankesteriana8: 1-3 Balick, M.J., M.H. Nee & D.E. Atha. 2000. Checklist of the vascular plants of Belize with common names anduses. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 85. McLeish, I., N.R. Pearce & B.R. Adams. 1995. Native orchids of Belize. AA Balkema Publ., Rotterdam and Brookfield. World Checklist of Monocotyledons (2006 Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Publishedon the Internet, http://www.kew.org/wcsp/monocots,accessed October 30, 2006.SAYERS et al. Working together for orchid conservation 155 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . Brendan Sayers oversees the glasshouse collections at the National Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, Dublin, Ireland. He is particularly interested in the study of orchids, especially those of Belize and Ireland. Heather duPlooy is the Curator of Belize Botanic Gardens. Heather took over management of the gardens, from her father, garden founder, Ken duPlooy in 2000. Her major achievements since that time have been the development ofpublic and youth education programs in sustainable and organic horticulture and conservation awareness run by thegardens. She is actively involved in developing the organic industry of Belize through her work with the BelizeOrganic Producers Association and is dedicated to continuing her father’s vision of making the Belize BotanicGardens a useful resource for the country. Brett Adams has been working at Belize Botanic Gardens since 2002. He is currently one of two Foremen that oversee horticulture and collections at the Garden. He also developed and manages the Garden’s information system for plantrecords.

PAGE 144

Mexico is located in the southernmost part of North America (14 32’ 27”; 32 43’ 06” north latitude and 86 42’ 36”; 118 22’ 00” west latitude).The country has an area of 1,964,375 km 2 ( INEGI 2006) and is divided by the Tropic of Cancer into two halves. The northern region is mostly arid, temperate, with its climate strongly influ-enced by North American continentality. In contrast,southern Mexico is humid and tropical due to itslower latitude and the maritime influence, and has amore rugged topography (Challenger 1998is situated where two biogeographic regions meet,neartic and neotropical. It has complex topographyas a result of its intricate geological history. Thesetwo facts are the cause of such enormous diversity in Mexico (Neyra y Durand 1998-sity in Mexico is one of the highest in the world (4mega diverse country) and contributes, with other 12countries to around 60 to 70%, of global diversity(Alvarado 2000Fig. 1 The conservation of the biodiversity is an integral system of activities to assure the existence and natural reproduction of the populations in their natural habi-tat ( in situ ) and out of their habitat ( ex situ ) as Botanical Gardens do. The Botanical Garden of the Biological Institute of National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM 19 20’ 23” and 19 13’ 45” north latitude and the meridians 99 08’ 26” and 99 ’ 37” east long. It isto the South of Mexico City in the area known as ThePedregal of San Angel, a volcanic site formed 2500years ago by the Xitle volcano complex (Fig. 2 This Botanical Garden has the intention to maintain collections of representative living plants of the vege-tal diversity of Mexico. These collections, serve assupport for research, conservation, education andspreading of the botanical diversity. The Garden has LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 THE IMPORTANT ROLE THAT THE BOTANICAL GARDEN OF THE NATIONAL AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITY OF MEXICO PLAYS IN THE CONSERVATION OF MEXICAN ORCHIDS AIDA-TLLEZVELASCO Jard’n Botnico del Instituto de Biolog’a, UNAM. 3er. Circuito Exterior. Cd. Universitaria. Apdo. Postal 70-614 Mxico, D.F., C.P. 04510. Mxico atellez@ibiologia.unam.mx RESUMEN. El Jard’n Botnico del Instituto de Biolog’a de la Universidad Nacional Aut—noma de Mxico ubicado en la Ciudad de Mxico, Mxico; asentado en terrenos de origen volcnico en un matorral xer—fito;tiene el prop—sito de mantener colecciones de plantas vivas representativas de la diversidad vegetal deMxico, que sirven de apoyo a la investigaci—n, conservaci—n, educaci—n y Divulgaci—n de la diversidadbotnica. El Jard’n posee una colecci—n Viva de Orqu’deas, tanto ep’fitas como terrestres, en la que se hanllevado a cabo diferentes actividades. Con este trabajo se enfatiza el papel que juega el Jard’n Botnico de laUNAM, en la conservaci—n de la familia Orchidaceae de Mxico. KEYWORDS: Mexico, Botanic Garden, Orchidaceae, conservation, endemic, ex situ FIGURE1. Location of Mexico in the world. Ilustration J. Saldivar.

PAGE 145

plants of arid, tempered and warm-humid zones. From these last two zones, there is a living orchidcollection, including epiphytes and terrestrial species(Fig. 3then, different activities related to the conservation ofbiodiversity have been carried out, such as: 1. – There are 1,200 species of Mexican orchids (Hagsater et al . 2005).One of the most outstanding features of the Mexican orchid flora is the high pro-portion of endemic species. There are 444 endemicspecies o subspecies corresponding to about 40 % ofthe total recorded flora taxonomy of this country. This feature makes the Mexican orchid flora propor-tionally one of the richest in endemism among nontropical mainland countries, perhaps surpassed onlyby Brazil (Soto 1996 The Botanic Garden shelter and protect under cultivation 71 genera and 176 species in 1216 specimens of Mexican species that have biological, ecological( Epidendrum magnificun ), artisan ( Myrmecophila tibicinis ), flower industry ( Cattleya aurantiaca ), medicinal ( Cyrtopedium puntatum ), adhesive ( Govenia superba ), flavoring ( Vanilla planifolia ), comestible ( Epidendrum rigidum ), ornamentals ( Oncidium sphacelatum ), narcotic ( Prosthechea radiata) importance. Each of the orchid pollination syndromes is represented with specimens: bee ( Lycaste aromatica ), fly ( Restrepiella ophiocephala ), moths ( Epidendrum parkinsonianum ), butterfly ( Epidendrum radicans ), and hummingbirds ( Elleanthus capitatus ). There are specimens belonging to the four subfamilies reported by Chase et al (2003): Vanilloideae ( Vanilla ), Cypripedioideae ( Paphiopedilum ), Orchidoideae ( Shiedeela ) and Epidendroideae ( Pleurothallis ). Mexican endemic species of orchids are safeguarded and kept, in addition to those species given the sta-tus of Probably extinct (E ), In danger of extinction (PA(PR“NOM-059-ECOL-2001” SEMARNAT (2002this document 181 species are registered of which 72are endemic and 109 not endemic. The BotanicalGarden protects species of the category from A:[ Encyclia adenocaula (endemic Bletia urbana (endemic Chysis bractensis ] and in the category of PR: [( Vanilla planifolia (endemic Prosthechea vitellina,Euchile citrina (endemic Laelia speciosa (endemicFig. 4 FIGURE2. A look of the Botanical Garden, UNAM. Ilustration J. Saldivar. FIGURE3. Living orchid collection of the Botanical Garden, UNAM. Ilustration A. Tllez. TLLEZOrchid conservation in a Botanic Garden 157 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 146

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 158 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . The objective of this exsitu conservation is to assure the protection the species, while mantening thevariability of these. The Garden has responsibility onthese plants like deposit takers perhaps of the onlygermoplasma surplus of threatened species. For thatreason, they are subject of special attention regarding their maintenance, horticultural and curatorial activi-ties and propagation. 2. Accomplishment of diverse studies of in vitro propagation, of some species with conservation problems, including the formation of somatic embryosfrom apex of protocorms ( Euchile maria, Trichocentrum carthagenenese); multiple sprouting of knots, obtaining direct and indirect organogenesisfrom leaves (Vanilla planifolia ; regeneration of plants from callus, by seed ( Bletia urbana y Stanhopea tigrina ); by leave section ( Laelia speciosa ), symbiotic and asymbiotic germination ( Bletia campanulata, Dichromanthus aurantiacus y Dichromanthus cinnabarinus). With these propagation methodologies that do not damage wild populations, parts or complete seedlings are obtained that represent a heritage or bank of ger-moplasm in vitro and ex vitro as well as ex situ . The reintroduction of some terrestrial orchids to its habitat( Bletia urbana and Dichromanthus aurantiacus ), is another activity directed to re-establish not only the vegetal structure, but also the operation of the ecosys-tems (Fig. 5 3. Observation and in situ monitoring of endemic species or species with conservation problems, in pro-tected natural areas like “Ecological Reserve of thePedregal de San Angel” located within the grounds ofthe UNAM, for studies of distribution, ecology andphenology of terrestrial orchids, registering oneendemic species, (Bletia urbana ) (Tellez 2002). The Botanical Garden has in shelter 86% of the registeredterrestrial species for the Reserve (Fig. 6 In the Reserve of the Biosphere, Barranca de Metztitln, in Hidalgo, Mexico, species as Laelia gouldiana , endemic of the area and Laelia speciosa , endemic of Mexico, among others species, are beingmonitored (Fig. 7 4. During recent years the Mexican natural habitat has been transformed by heavy logging, agriculture,cattle raising, chemical pollution, wood fires and FIGURE4. Laelia speciosa , endemic species of Mexico and subject to special protection. Ilustration A. Tllez. FIGURE5. In vitro propagation of Euchile citrina . Ilustration A. Tllez. FIGURE6. Bletia urbana endemic species of Mexico and under special protection. Ilustration A. Tllez.

PAGE 147

urban expansion – all these in addition to the extraction of species of commercial value. For this reason,the Botanical Garden have to rescue plants in zonesthat have been altered by urbanism, as is the case of Distrito Federal (inside UNAM campus terrestrial orchids have been rescued (among whichare Sarcoglottis schaffneri, Dichromanthus aurantiacus, Habenaria novemfida ) and in Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico, where Bletias are being rescued in placeswhere highways are being expanded or rocks arebeing mined (Fig. 8 5. The collections of the botanical Garden and their biodiversity are means so that the people form an ideaof the problematic and importance of conservation.An educative relation with its users must exist;because the collections by themselves do not worklike tools of environmental education if they do notcount on information that allows to interpret them; as labels, calendars, guided visits, preparation of materi-als like news bulletins, guides of routes, exhibitions,conferences, talks, courses and workshops. Activities like workshops, courses and exhibitions that support the environmental education of people,from children to adults, having the objective to spreadknowledge and to create environmental awareness.As an example of workshops there are those directedto cultivators, plant dealers, and public in general onthe cultivation and propagation of orchids and onedirected for children named “An orchid calledVanilla” (Fig. 9 Finally, this work emphasises the importance and the role that the Botanic Gardens of the UNAM plays,in the conservation of the Orchidaceae family ofMexico. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.To Jorge Saldivar.for the images in fig. 1 and 2.To Armando Roa for helping in the translation.. LITERATURECITEDAlvarado, Z. A. 2000. Campamento biofilia. La biodiversidad. SOMEDICIT-SEMARNAP, Mxico, D.F. 91 p. Challenger, A. 1998. Utilizaci—n y conservaci—n de los ecosistemas terrestres de Mxico, Pasado, presente yfuturo. CONABIO.Mxico, D.F.847 p. Chase M.W., K.M. Cameron, R.L. Barrett y J.V. Freudenstein. 2003. DNA data and Orchidaceae system-atics: A new phylogenetic classification. Pp. 9-89 in K.W. Dixon, S.P. Kell, R.L. Barrett & P.J.Cribb (eds. Orchid conservation. Natural History Publications(Borneo FIGURE7. Laelia gouldiana , extinct and endemic species of Barranca de Metztitlan, Hidalgo.Mexico. IlustrationA. Tllez. FIGURE8. Rescue of orchids in Santa Marta, Veracruz, Mexico. Ilustration A. Tllez. FIGURE9. Workshop of orchid growing and propagation in Mexico City. Ilustration A. Tllez. TLLEZOrchid conservation in a Botanic Garden 159 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 148

Hagsater, E., M. Soto Arenas, G.A. Salazar Chavz, R. Jimnez Machorro, M. A. L—pez Rosales & R.L.Dressler. 2005. Las orqu’deas de Mxico. InstitutoChino’n, Mxico, 304 p. INEGI(2006. http://mapserver.inegi.gob.mx/geografia/ espanol/datosgeogra/extterri/frontera.cfm?c=154 Neyra G. & L. Durand S. 1998. Biodiversidad. Pp. 61-102 in : Conabio (comp. Estudio de pa’s. CONABIO. Mxico, D.F. Rzedowski, J. 1978. Vegetac—n de Mxico. LIMUSA. Mxico, D.F.432 p. SEMARNAT. 2002. Norma Oficial Mexicana. Proy. NOM.059-ECOL-2001. Diario Oficial de la Federaci—n,marzo. Mxico, D.F. Soto A.M. 1996. Mexico. Pp. 53-58 in : E. Hgsater& V. Dumont (eds. Tellez-Velasco, A. 2002. The Pedregal of San Angel and its orchids.Orchid Rev. 110 (1242 A’da Tllez Velasco studied Biology at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM Science in the same University. She is currently the curator of the living orchid collection at the Botanical Garden inthe UNAM. She has worked in various fields related to orchids carrying out curatorial and horticultural activities and in vitro research as well as the management of greenhouses. She also gives workshops and courses and has published several papers in books and journals.She has been Chairman of the Board and Editor of the Journal of the MexicanAssociation of Botanical Gardens. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 160 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 149

Introduction Almost every orchid society and orchid grower realizes that orchids in the wild are in danger of disappearing. The simple growth of the human popula-tion dictates that spaces that once were subject onlyto the vagaries of nature are now impacted by thehuman need for space to live and grow food. Asorchid lovers, what can we do ? The San Diego County Orchid Society About 15 years ago some of the members of the San Diego County Orchid Society (SDCOSthat we should support orchid conservation in someconcrete way. At that time the Nature Conservancy aswell as the Massachusetts Audubon Society in theUnited States were assisting with establishment of aconservation area in Belize known as the Rio BravoConservation and Management Area. The purchase ofthe land had incurred a significant debt by the NatureConservancy and we decided to assist with retiringthat debt and thereby ensuring the establishment ofthe conservation area. We decided to sell our excessplants to raise the money and asked the SDCOS togrant us a free sales booth at its spring orchid show and sale. To our pleased surprise we raised approximately US$4600 at our first sale in 1991. We repeat-ed this activity for two more years, raising a total ofabout US$14,000 that was donated to the program forBelize. Subsequently we continued our fund raising efforts but we decided to support some other organi-zations. In 1996 we realized that our knowledge of projects worthy of support was limited and we decided to advertise for proposals. Since then we have sup-ported between 3 and 8 projects per year. We havenow expanded our sales to twice yearly and earnabout $10,000 per year. Donations of quality plantsfor sale have been very generous. In most cases these are simply extra plants grown by members of the SDCOS. We do receive some donations from localprofessional growers, from nurseries going out ofbusiness, and also occasionally from the estates of deceased members. Quite a few members of the soci-ety help with the work of repotting, caring for donatedplants before the sales, and staffing the sales boothtwice yearly. The annual and running total of fundsdonated for conservation projects by the SDCOS areshown in figure 1. A listing of projects supported canbe found at the SDCOS web site www.sdorchids.com.The SDCOS continues to solicit applications forfunding. Potential applicants are encouraged to look at the list of projects already funded to see what sorts of projectsthe SDCOS does support and to contact Ron Kaufmann,Chairman of the SDCOS Conservation Committee atkaufmann@sandiego.com for more information. The Orchid Conservation Alliance Two of the authors (PST and RK associated with the San Diego County Orchid LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 ESTABLISHING AN ORCHID CONSERVATION ALLIANCE PETERS. TOBIAS1, MARIADOROSARIODEALMEIDABRAGA, STEVENBECKENDORF& RONALDKAUFMANN The Orchid Conservation Alliance, 564 Arden Drive, Encinitas, California, 92024, U.S.A.1Author for correspondence: peter@orchidconservationalliance.orgFIGURE1. Annual and running total of funds donated for conservation projects by the SDCOS.

PAGE 150

Society for many years. As we participated in the SDCOS conservation program we realized that iforchid growers in San Diego were so generous intheir support of conservation that probably therewere other growers outside San Diego who wouldbe generous also. The question was how to reachthem ? We considered reproducing the sales ofdonated orchids in other areas but the logistics ofdoing that from San Diego seemed insurmountable,given that we both had, and needed, jobs to supportus and our orchid collections. Of course, we hopethat orchid societies in other locales will be able toduplicate the success of the SDCOS program, butwe could not do that ourselves. Thus we conceived the idea of establishing a new membership organization of orchid lovers devoted to orchid conserva-tion. There are societies devoted to conservation oforangutans, whales, birds, plants, etcetera, andnature in general, but none that seemed to have aspecial focus on orchid conservation. Given that the circulation of the American Orchid Society’s jour-nal “Orchids” is above 22,000, it seemed that therewas a significant pool of potential members. And sowe decided on a name, the Orchid ConservationAlliance or OCA, gathered some directors and ascientific advisory board, defined an initial project,applied for incorporation in the state of California, and applied for tax exempt status from the US gov-ernment. We decided that our primary purpose wasthe preservation of orchids in their native habitats.We realize that there are many aspects to orchidconservation, but it seemed to us that the root of the problem was the loss of habitat. Furthermore, pre-serving habitat preserves orchids not yet identified. Clearly, preserving habitat is not simple and defin-ing which pieces of habitat to preserve with themeans available can be difficult, but, frankly, thereis no time to lose. We have defined three criteria that must be met for a parcel of land to be targeted for preserva-tion. These criteria refer to biodiversity, localinvolvement, and legal status. An appropriateorchid biodiversity must be present. We do not deny the conservation value of deserts and glaciers, but we are an orchid conservation organization. There must be demonstrable local involvement for protection of a parcel of land. Most of the orchid habitat we are likely to consider forprotection is in the tropics and we are in NorthAmerica. We are unlikely to be able to overseethe management of an area in a foreign country. Thus we seek local organizations to take owner-ship of any parcel of land we might support forpreservation. And finally, there must be somelegal mechanism for long term protection of theland. With these thoughts in mind the first projectwe undertook was to set aside land in Ecuador.Ecuador is well known for its astonishing orchidbiodiversity. Ecuador has laid the legal basis forprotecting against development because it has themeans to establish conservation easements. Andwe were aware of the activities of Lou Jost inBa–os. Lou and his associates have establishedthe Ecominga Foundation for the express purposeof protecting local habitat. Thus we set as our firstgoal the raising of $10,000 to enable purchase of100 hectares of land near Ba–os, Ecuador, by theEcominga Foundation. As noted above, we had decided that the Orchid Conservation Alliance should be a membershiporganization. We hope that we will be able to do agood enough job such that OCA members will be willing to donate money for more than one pro-ject. We started soliciting members by speaking atindividual societies. Although this was successfulin generating a small and enthusiastic initialmembership, it was clear that we needed a moreefficient means of contacting people. EnterHarold Koopowitz. As most people will knowHarold Koopowitz is certainly committed toorchid conservation and he is also the Editor-in-Chief of the Orchid Digest. Through Harold andhis associates at the Orchid Digest, especiallyCynthia Hill and Steve Gollis on the publication committee, we were able to undertake a very suc-cessful membership campaign via the pages of theOrchid Digest. We now have over 120 individualmembers, more than 8 member societies, more than $13,000 in the bank, and successful comple-tion of our first fund raising campaign. Mostrecently we earned an endorsement from theAmerican Orchid Society. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 162 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 151

As this article is being written we are considering where to focus our energies for a second project.There seem to be many opportunities. At present weare focusing on possible projects in Ecuador andBrasil. And we are planning our next fund raising campaign. There is certainly no lack of orchid biodiversity left to be protected. Individuals from any country interested in joining the OCA are urged to visit our web site at www.orchidconservational-liance.org or to contact Peter Tobias by email atpeter@orchidconservationalliance.org. TOBIAS et al. Orchid Conservation Alliance 163 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . Peter S. Tobias , Ph.D. Director and OCA President. First chair of the San Diego County Orchid Society Conservation Committee. Associate Professor of Immunology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California. Maria do Rosario de Almeida Braga , M.S. Director. President, Rio de Janeiro Orchid Society, OrquidaRio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Steven Beckendorf , Ph.D. Director. President of the Odontoglossum Alliance and Member, American Orchid Society Conservation Committee. Professor of Genetics and Development, University of California, Berkeley. Ronald Kaufmann , Ph.D. Director and OCA Secretary. Chair, San Diego County Orchid Society Conservation Committee. Associate Professor of Marine and Environmental Studies, University of San Diego, San Diego,California.

PAGE 152

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 Introduction Literature is still playing a major role in science and research, on one side because it is a documenta-tion of research already done and a demonstration ofthe results. On the other hand it is also a record aboutrecent research. At least for the time being, literaturesearch is a part of any scientific work or project.Whoever has done literature search knows about thedifficulties to reach an overview of the literature inconnection with a project in an acceptable time andwith acceptable effort. Computer technology todayprovides us with a large selection of very helpfultools to limit time and effort for literature search. As explained above, literature still plays a very important role in science. In this context the term lit-erature should not be defined too narrow, we have to accept a very broad collection of publications as liter-ature. In botany – and in orchideology as a division ofbotany – we find: Scientific periodicals, occasionally with articles about orchids Scientific periodicals in the botanical field, occasionally with articles about orchids Orchid periodicals, with at least partially scientific content Society publications (Orchid Societies Dissertations General floras or orchid floras Proceedings, abstracts and reports of congresses and symposiums Catalogues of all kind Travel and expedition reports Textbooks and basic research publications Bibliographies and Biographies Correspondence and letters Botany as an independent scientific discipline is not very old. For centuries, botany was together with othernatural sciences like zoology or geology always a part of medicine or part of a general study in natural sciences. The oldest European botanical literature was always very closely connected with medicine and phar-macology. In this time orchids were treated as a merecuriosity of nature and, in a limited number as part ofpharmacological publications like herbals. Only a fewpublications devoted to orchids alone are known before 1800, after this time we see a fast increase in the num-ber of publications devoted only to orchids. Today wehave more publications about orchids than about anyother plant family. Because of the more and more interdisciplinary connection of botany with other natural sciences like chemistry, biology or zoology the con-tent of publications about or in connection with orchids has also become much broader. Like in many other sci-ences also in botany the pure generalist does not existanymore. One result of the ongoing specialization inbotany is the fact that the term botanist is no longer asynonym for classification, systematics or taxonomy.With this the existing literature becomes less and less manageable, and it is almost impossible to avoid repe-titions in publication and research. For a good part, this is the result of the fact that today it is almost impossible to keep track of the enormous numbers of publica-tions, in spite of the fact that we have tools like theinternet at hand. One should think that based on the available data processing technology it should be pos-sible to solve this problem in a simple way by buildingup databases or computerized bibliographies. This is not the case and the reason can be found in the philosophy and structure of such a database. We have to consider first the enormous variability concerning the con-tent of orchid literature: Classification, systematics and taxonomy Nomenclature Genetics, molecular biology, DNA-analysis, enzymatics Anatomy and morphology Phytogeography, distribution, mapping WHAT IS BIBLIORCHIDEA? RUDOLFJENNY Moosweg 9, 3112 Allmendingen, Switzerland RJe@io3s.com

PAGE 153

Evolution, speciation, population dynamics Interactions plant animal, pollination ecology Symbiosis, mycorrhiza Phytochemistry, fragrance, pigmentation, pharmacology Vegetation biology, habitat, ecology Physiology History Hybridization, breeding, commercial aspects Culture Propagation, micropropagation, tissue-culture Protection and conservation Naturally this list is not complete by any means, but it shows the very complex interdisciplinary con-nections in orchideology and the enormous spectrumof contents of publications about orchids.An electronic library or literature database mayinclude a very wide selection of publications from allthe above mentioned fields, not only about orchidsbut about botany in general. To use a metaphor: sucha database would be very broad but not deep, it wouldbe a rather flat disc with a large diameter. The lowestlevel in such a database would be the family Orchidaceae . Such a database would produce a large number of general information, but it would be veryinefficient for an orchid specialist because a search for a combination of keywords like molecular biolo-gy“ or Orchidaceae would end up in a vast and confusing number of citations. The search for the combi-nation molecular biology“ and Orchidaceae on the other side would end up in a small but incompletenumber of citations. The contrary of such a general“-database is a special“-database, in this case also it would contain publications from all the above men-tioned fields but only such documents in connectionwith Orchidaceae . To use the same metaphor: this database would be like a cylinder, very deep but witha limited diameter. Such a database is build especiallyfor users interested in Orchidaceae , for other users the result of a search would be to specific. The structure of a computer-based bibliography is variable in detail but the overall principle is always thesame: the possibility to search for literature based ondifferent criterions. The question whether the entirepublication, the summary of a particular publication or simply the citation together with keywords are available in a database, depends only on the availability of the literature itself and the situation concerning copy-rights. Older literature is already in the public domain, the question is whether the effort to scan such publica-tions is proportional to number of accesses by theusers of the database. To scan a very old book will bedifficult by any means and the effort is high, it wouldnot make sense to spend time and money for a veryfew interested users only. The size of a computerbased database is basically a function of two parame-ters: first the human resources – time and financialsupport – of the institution which is maintaining thedatabase, and second the availability of publicationsfitting in the frame-work of the database. Especiallythe financial point is the limiting factor for size and completeness of an electronic database. The more spe-cialized this database should be and therefore the lesspotential users one may expect, the more difficultiesan institution will have to obtain the financialresources. This criterion is at least for the time beingindependent from the available technology. Thequestion about the completeness of a computer-basedliterature database in science is therefore easy toanswer: the narrower the definition of the content thehigher the degree of completeness, the broader the definition, the less complete the database will be. Another criterion to judge the quality of a database is the strict neutrality concerning the importance andquality of the included publications or documents. Itis a common place that those who are maintaining adatabase will have almost certainly their own ideas about importance and quality of the content of publi-cations they include. This idea is also almost certaindifferent from the opinion of the users. It is thereforeparamount to avoid any valuation of publications, ifsuch documents fit in the definition of the database,they have to be included. It is strictly up to the user tomake an own selection and judgment of the content of a given document. A third criterion is the consis-tency of a given database, it is important that theinternal organization of a database is consistent andthat also the procedure of adding new documents guarantees consistency. In other words, a given docu-ment should have the same keywords and the sameform, independent when the entry was included in thedatabase and by whom. In order to understand what system and philosophy 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 170 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 154

a database should follow, we need to understand the needs and wishes of the user. Everybody who wassometime or other in the position to do literatureresearch for an own project or publication, knowsexactly how time consuming and often expensive thistask can be. Such a process can be divided in twovery clearly separated phases. The first step is the providing of a list of publications or citations in connection with the target of the planned work, the sec-ond step is to obtain the important publications in fullinsofar as they are really needed. The first phase often is extremely time-consuming because such information has to be compiled fromdifferent physical sources or electronic databases.With exception of BIBLIORCHIDEA there is no other comprehensive database or bibliography of lit-erature exclusively about or in connection withorchids in all aspects existing. An example: the IndexKewensis covers all taxonomic first descriptions ofplants including the members of the orchid family, but there is no information about available mono-graphs or revisions of a given orchid genus.Dissertations are covered by specialized databases oftheir own, and information about publications frominterdisciplinary areas like molecular biology are notor only in parts included in databases about botany.The search for literature will therefore end up in a more or less long excursion through different com-puter based databases or printed sources. Unfortunately most of those databases will have a dif-ferent system, a different user interface and differentsearch engines. The second phase, the acquisition of the real“ literature based on several lists of citations, is also oftenrather difficult and time consuming. Usually publiclibraries or university libraries are delivering onrequest exactly what the customer is ordering, nothingmore and nothing less. If the citation is wrong orincomplete the customer will get wrong or incompleteresponse, occasionally the library will ask for moredetailed information. The mere number of definitelywrong literature citations in publications is amazingand frightening; the range spreads from invalid orincomplete abbreviations to wrong volumes, wrongauthors and wrong page numbers. Obviously theprocess of search for literature has become so timeconsuming and expensive that in order to save time authors are copying citations from other sources without ever have seen the literature itself. It is an openquestion whether this is a scientifically acceptable way to work, but the example shows the problem for a scientist to collect the necessary literature for a given project in acceptable time. Even if a good literature collec-tion is at hand, the problem is not solved, the search forcertain things and without clear citations in availableliterature is time consuming too. It seems to be clearthat today no library can employ an orchidist in orderto handle orders for orchid literature, and there are many other plant families with exactly the same prob-lem. It is also clear that library staff cannot spend timeto check in detail all unclear or incomplete orders from customers, there is but limited time available, if it can-not be spent the order goes back to the customer with arespective remark. There is one consequence out of allthese facts: search for literature in an acceptable timeand with acceptable effort can be done only by using aspecialized database with a library in the background in which we find physically all the documents or publi-cations included in the database and with a staff who isspecialized in this area. The combination of library,database and specialized staff is paramount. For the people maintaining the database it is important to know what the potential user needs. Also inthis case the spectrum is very broad, from a simplesearch for the correct spelling of a certain epithet to a search for literature as basis for a monograph or dis-sertation almost everything is possible. The structureof the database should ensure that questions from allover this area can be answered. Because no database is complete, it cannot be expected to get a com-plete list of publications about a certain issue, but thelist has to be complete enough for a start. BIBLIORCHIDEA Based on the fact, that the time available for literature search is limited, the project BIBLIORCHIDEAhas been developed over a period of about 18 years. The inner structure of this computer based bibliogra-phy and the story of its development is a good exampleto show how a special“ database is build up. At the beginning it was a very simple structured list of avail-able books and periodicals in an already rather largeprivate orchid library, the main target was to ensurethat the same book was not purchased or ordered twice. JENNY– What is BIBLIORCHIDEA? 171 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 155

There was no connection of the entries by selected keywords, the target was only to get fast informationwhether a certain publication was available or not. In a second step, this list was integrated in professional and special software for library management.At this time the used software LIDOS was one of themost sophisticated and powerful tools available inthis area. Very soon it became clear that the capacityof the used software would allow a much better andfiner definition of the integrated entries or documents, and with this a much deeper and further usewould bepossible. It would result in much more than just a listof publications available from a library. So all the necessary information to order or to find a given pub-lication has been added as well as information aboutauthor, co-author, year of publication, title, editor andpublisher. Another point was the selection of the usedstandards on which citations would be based. For plant names Index Kewensis is the standard, for sin-gle publications (booksLiterature, for periodicals and journals it is BPH andBPH-supplement and for everything in connectionwith herbariums it is Index Herbariorum. In a next step a keyword catalogue was build up, this collection of keywords would allow a search for literature after its content. Right from the beginning a hier-archically organized structure was chosen, whichwould make it possible to select the appropriate degreeof selectivity for each search. The difference between asearch for all publications about orchids in Europe, ororchids in Switzerland or orchids in the area of Zuerichis quite obvious. For Europe as keyword we would endup with virtually thousands of documents, for Switzerland still with hundreds and for Zuerich probabely only with some twenty documents. This hierarchi-cal structure allows the user a very specific search with a manageable and clear number of answers or documents. Today there are six different levels in the key-word catalogue, an example will show this:1 th level (main keywordGeography 2 th levelNorth America 3 th levelUSA 4 th levelFlorida 5 th levelEvergladesVery soon it became clear that with this structure it would not be possible to integrate periodicals or journals. Hence in a next step all entries concerning periodicals have been removed and replaced by the article in the periodical itself. In order to integrate the cor-rect citation of a particular article a new submenu orfield in the entry menu had to be created and the titleof the periodical was consequently integrated in thekeyword catalogue. With this a search for a particulararticle and the search for all articles in a particularjournal has become possible. This step of integratingarticles was connected with enormous effort . Between 1841 and 1902 the well-known journal Gardeners‘ Chronicle alone contained not less thansome 12 articles about or in connection withorchids, the reports about the sessions of the OrchidCommittee of the Royal Horticultural Society notincluded. Today BBIBLIORCHIDEA contains about120 articles from about 1 different journalsand periodicals. Some of these journals are integratedcompletely, that means from volume one up to therecent number or volume with all articles (e.g. Orquidea (Mex) and Orquidologia), of others all arti-cles in connection with orchids are integrated (e.g.Selbyana, Botanical Leaflets Harvard University) andof some only the known articles about orchids areintegrated (e.g. American Journal of Botany main problem here was access to the primary litera-ture, some of these journals are rather difficult toobtain because they are old or because they are notvery widely circulated in libraries. Together with thetitles of the journals the keyword catalogue increasedto a number of some 25 keywords. In the same time another submenu or field in the entry menu was introduced, in the field species andbelow“ we find an alphabetical list of all new taxa below generic level described in the particular publication or document. This part is in fact something similar to the Index Kewensis but the information is neu-tralized. That means the information is not whether acertain new taxa is valid or not according to the rulesof botanical nomenclature or whether it is a synonymof something else, the information just states that theparticular author had described this particular taxa inthis particular publication. Again, it is up to the user toevaluate the information. Right from the beginningalso varieties, formae and subspecies have beenincluded; these names are not included in the oldervolumes of the Index Kewensis. In the meantime 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 172 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 156

about 65 taxa below generic level are included in Bilbiorchidea, with this an estimated rate of about 80% of all described taxa below generic level in theorchid family is already accessible. Naturally also alltaxonomic first descriptions of entities betweenspecies level and subfamily (e.g. genus, subtribe, tribe, hybrid genus) are included in the database, these enti-ties are integrated in the field above species“. The fast growing keyword catalogue showed that in some cases an explanation of the keyword was necces-sary. Especially in some categories of keywords liketitles of periodicals or individual personal names, anexplanation of the keyword becomes important. The reason for this lie in the fact that by definition key-words have to be short and clear no sentences andthat, wherever abbreviations are used, the complete,not an abbreviated form has to be available also. Theexample of the BACKHOUSE dynasty in Englandshows very clear why such explanations are important.The names of all three members of the BACKHOUSEdynasty are included as keywords, all three have thename James BACKHOUSE, the only difference is the date of birth and death. To avoid mistakes, the com-mentary to those three keywords explain exactly whichJames BACKHOUSE was father, son or grandson. These commentaries are accessible through the keyword catalogue. Especially important are the commen-taries in the categories hybrid genera (parents and validRHS-abbreviations), individuals (personal data), bookseries and periodicals (abbreviations after BPH andinformation about changed titles). The commentary ofthe title of a given periodical contains the full title of the journal, the official abbreviation after BPH, infor-mation about the time and extent, and informationabout a possible succeeding and preceding title of the journal, again with full changed title, BPH-abbrevia-tion and extent. With this information a journal is defined in a very clear way, which is important consid-ering the fact that rather often titles of journals arequite similar (e.g. Orchids (AOS), Orchids (SouthAfrica) and Orchids (Australia)). Another change was the decision to integrate iconographies like the Lindenia or Icones PlantarumTropicarum not as a complete and single document, butby plates, that means every single plate was treated as a document of its own. With this decision again the number of entries or documents was increasing dramatically, the second edition of the field guide of the Orchids of Venezuela, published in 2000, alone added some1 new documents to the bibliography. Togetherwith this increase also the content of informationincreased, it was now possible to search at the level ofsingle species and to find very fast an illustration of a particular plant. The plate by plate introduction of com-plex publications like the above mentioned Orchids ofVenezuela and Icones Platarum Tropicarum, or likeFlora Brasilica, Flora Brasiliensis, Venezuelan OrchidsIllustrated and many others, was completed after aboutone year. The result of this task is the possibility to gainmuch more detailed literature citations. The very fast development in computer technology and also the availability of better and more sophisticated software in connection with the fast growing importance of the internet were responsible for another decision about the future of BIBLIORCHIDEA. The exist-ing database in its original DOS-based interface wasavailable for interested users for several years under the name LITBUL. In order to keep BIB-LIORCHIDEA up to date concerning the large number of new publications and because the structure especial-ly of the keyword catalogue was changed and enlargedfrom time to time, a simple upgrade for the user wasnot possible. The only solution was a complete renewalof BIBLIORCHIDEA at least once a year. With thisinterval the database was in the worst case about oneyear behind. The process of creating renewals wasexpensive and not very efficient. Since the value ofsuch a database is measured also on its being up-to-date, it was very important to find a way to maintain itin “real-time” via internet. Beside this, the used DOSbased software was old, it was not possible to get print-outs of a search result in an easy way without data-transfers into word processing programs and it was not possible to use the mouse. This overall unsatisfying sit-uation could be changed only by a fundamental change of the software environment. Consequently the decision was taken to extract all the data from the old software and to put them in a totally new software environ-ment and, consequently make the new form accessiblethrough the internet. Today new entries, corrections orchanges in the data are done directly via internet, as aresult of this on-time maintenance, BIBLIORCHIDEAis up-to-date all the time. Naturally also BIBLIORCHIDEA is not complete JENNY– What is BIBLIORCHIDEA? 173 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 157

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 174 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . Rudolf Jenny is chemist by training and director of a company active in the industrial application of ozone. He is interested in the taxonomy, pollination ecology and history of orchids, especially in the subtribes Catasetinae, Huntleyinaeand Stanhopeinae. He is author of treatments of several genera in those subtribes, especially Stanhopea and Gongora. He owns one of the most complete orchid libraries iiin private hands and maintains the literature database BIBLI-ORCHIDEA. Beside this he is regularly publishing about orchids in different periodicals. and there is much doubt whether it ever will reach completeness, but it will grow continuously. Someorchid journals like Orchid Review or American Orchid Society Bulletin are not yet completely inte-grated and from other periodicals we still are looking for missing volumes. On the other hand, many peri-odicals are already in the library but not yet includedin BIBLIORCHIDEA. The limiting factor is not onlythe time, it is also the availability of the literature; inorder to add new entries or documents, we need aphysical copy of the original publication, without thiswe would copy old mistakes and we could not definethe keywords. For the next five years we will haveabout 10 new documents per year, of these about2 will be new publications and about 7 oldpublications which have become available in themeantime. With about 150 entries we will reacha platform, the increase per year will then be reducedto about 2 new publications and about 500 oldones. Probably we will then have the time toreprocess some documents with the goal of an further and finer classification. Especially some of the funda-mental works about orchids, like SCHLECHTER’spublications in Feddes Repertorium, we would like todivide in smaller parts. Today BIBLIORCHIDEAcontains about 140 documents, included in thisnumber are articles from all kind of periodicals, books or single publications“, catalogues, disserta-tions, checklists, manuscripts and iconographies. Allthese documents, as far as they have been published,are included in a form with enough information toorder them through a public or scientific library. Allof them are also represented in our library as physicalcopies. One of the hopes for the future is that authorsall around the world would realize that the best wayto make their own publications known would be to send us a copy in order to add it to BIB-LIORCHIDEA as fast as possible. This is especially important for publications which are not widely distributed, like dissertations. The actual form of BIBLIORCHIDEA as it is accessible through internet (www.Bibliorchidea.orgwill allow the user different kinds of search or alsothe connection of different search methods. These are Direct search for author and co-author Direct search for the year of publication (selection direct or in a time-window) Search with text-input in the fields Title, Literature quotation, Editor, Publisher, Above species andSpecies and below (free-text search Direct search for new descriptions in the respective fields Above species and Species and below Search for keywords by direct selection from the keyword catalogue as single keyword or in connec-tion with other keywords by using the connectingterms and / or (Boolean connections Enlarge the result by using one of the above mentioned methods. Restrict (decrease above mentioned methods (decrease to andDecrease by – functions) Besides the search mechanisms, the software naturally allows the sorting of results by different criterions and the printout as list of documents or as single docu-ment with all the detailed information. The importantaddition is the fact that all documents the user can findin BIBLIORCHIDEA are also available as physicalcopy, hence a very fast access is guaranteed. According to the very fast technological development especially in the information technology, it is extremely difficult to guess what development a data-base like BIBLIORCHIDEA will see in the nextyears. Certainly BIBLIORCHIDEA will remain amost important tool for everybody who need orchidliterature for profession or hobby.

PAGE 158

Just as amateur bird watchers often provide useful information to professional ornithologists, amateurorchid enthusiasts can make valuable descriptions oforchid plants and flowers observed in the field or inprivate collections. These observations, with the aid of glossaries, keys, field guides, photographs, illustra-tions, and herbarium material, could eventually leadto a positive identification of the plants down to thespecies level. Observations of this kind can play akey role in fulfilling the need for careful inventoriesof orchids in natural forests. These inventories canform a baseline for research regarding the effects ofinformal, i.e. ,illegal, collections from the wild, the impact caused by habitat loss, and as supplementalmaterial for biogeography studies and other researchapplications in orchid ecology. However, such detailed information about a species is seldom available for most plant preserved inherbaria around the world. Herbarium labels doinclude a short description of the plant, but thesedescriptions are, more often than not, vague andambiguous, and may refer more to the conditions of the site where the plant was collected, rather than spe-cific the morphological and anatomical characteristicsof the plant itself. More detailed descriptions of plantparts can be found in the field or laboratory notes ofthe scientists who handle the specimens, but as is thecase with the herbarium labels, these descriptions areusually unavailable to the general public. Therefore,the terminology associated with orchid taxonomy, and even more, the structures that give the most information about a particular species, may be poorlyknown to the untrained enthusiast, and this can makeorchid identification and appreciation hard for thebeginners, and even harder for the experts who makean effort to identify and categorize all the informalinformation provided by the amateurs. TThe process of becoming familiar with botanical terms, and particularly the vocabulary regardingorchid taxonomy, can be a daunting task for amateurswho lack any background formation and training inbotany, or even in general biology. This will often cause them to overlook basic plant and flower struc-tures when observing orchids in the field. Furthermore, omissions of this kind can later dimin-ish the chance for positive identification of the plants down to the species level, because they create ambiguities and misinterpretations of the somewhat tech-nical identification keys. In an attempt to reduceinconsistencies, a simple fill-out-form to record thesefeatures has been developed. This form is intended tohave a clear and intuitive structure, which allows foran easy search of specific features, and includes listsof many of the taxonomic terms that are used todescribe each of the particular characters presented. Given that these lists are not meant to be comprehen-sive, i.e., are included as a vocabulary aid for theinexperienced user, previous study of the technicalterminology used for orchid identification is advised.Any book or glossary of general botanical terms can LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 A FORM AND CHECKLIST FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF ORCHIDS IN THE FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK STEPHENH. KIRBY1,3& MELANIAMUOZ21U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA.2 Lankester Botanical Garden, University of Costa Rica, Cartago, Costa Rica.3 Author for correspondence: skirby@usgs.gov RESUMEN. Se cre— un formulario para la toma de datos durante la descripci—n de orqu’deas en el campo y en el laboratorio. ste contempla las caracteristicas ms importantes que deben ser anotadas para una posterior identificaci—n de las especies con el uso de claves dicot—micas. Adems, incluye listas de los tminos botnicos ms comunes utilizados en la descripci—n de plantas y flores. Su utilidad es muy grande, tanto para afi-sionados como profesionales, para facilitar la toma de datos y para asegurar que sta sea lo ms completa ysistemtica posible. El formulario est disponible en formato pdf en www.bosquedepaz.com. KEYWORDS:orchid description, data collection, field notes, form, descriptive terms, Bosque de Paz.

PAGE 159

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 176 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . FIGURE1. The English version of the form for recording field and laboratory data describing orchids.

PAGE 160

prove useful, but more specific orchid references such as Hudgson et al. (1991 et al. (1992 Sheehan & Sheehan (19941995 highly recommended. Measurements of the dimen-sions of most of these structures may be recorded in the appropriate blank spaces when considered neces-sary. Space is also provided for some detaileddescriptive notes, and wide margins allow extra spacefor sketches or illustrations, if required. This form was initially used for the recording and description of more than 160 orchid species collectedat Bosque de Paz Biological Preserve (Alajuela, CostaRica) in June 2004 (Mu–oz and Kirby, this volume). Since then, both the form and checklist have been con-tinuously improved from experience with use, andhave also been translated into Spanish. The collecteddata have been used for formal plant identification lateron, down to the species level when possible. This isthe reason why the authors consider that it could alsobe useful to other researchers and orchid enthusiasts,not only for field collection, but also for laboratorydescriptions, because it can facilitate data collection, and ensure that it is as complete and systematic as pos-sible. Furthermore, that information can be filed in amore organized manner than how it is currently doneas field notes and/or herbarium labels. It can also beconverted to an electronic format and be used with aPDA (Personal Digital AssistantInformation could be recorded and immediately storedelectronically in the field, a laboratory, or at home. The form has been designed to fit on both sides of a single U.S. letter sized sheet of paper (8? in. x 11 in.but may easily be adapted to A4 or other larger papersizes. A pdf file of this form is available free ofcharge both in English and in Spanish, as an attachedfile at www.bosquedepaz.com. It can also be e-mailedupon request of the authors. The English version ofthe form is showed in figure 1.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.We wish to thank Piero Protti for his valuable comments and suggestions throughout theproject. We also thank the Gonzalez family, owners ofBosque de Paz Biological Reserve for their encouragementand support of the Orchid Project that led to this Checklistand Form.LITERATURECITEDBechtel, H., P. Cribb, & E. Launert. 1992. The Manual of Cultivated Orchid Species. 3rdEdition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. p. 568-572, 585 p. Hodgson, M., R. Paine, & N. Anderson. 1991. Letts Guide to Orchids of the World. Letts Publishing, p. 2-14 and p.229-232, 236 p. Mu–oz, M. & S.H. Kirby. 2007. An orchid inventory and conservation project at Bosque de Paz BiologicalReserve, Upper R’o Toro Valley, Alajuela, Costa Rica.Proceedings of the 3 rd International Orchid Conservation Congress in Lankesteriana, this volume. Sheehan, T. & M. Sheehan. 1994. An Illustrated Survey of Orchid Genera. Timber Press, p. 381-412, 421 p. Stewart, J. & M. Griffiths (eds. 388 p. Royal Horticultural Society, Timber Press, p.xxxv-liii. KIRBY& MUOZForm for the description of orchids 177 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . Stephen H. Kirby was awarded a Ph.D. in Geology in 1975 from the University of California at Los Angeles. He has been employed by the U.S. Geological Survey since 1968 and is currently a Research Geophysicist and Senior Scientistin the Earthquake Hazard Team in Menlo Park, California. He is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and theMineralogical Society of America. He is an author of more than 160 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters and hasworked as a volunteer at the Bosque de Paz Biological Reserve since 2002. Melania Mu–oz earned her B.S. in Biology at the University of Costa Rica in 2003. She is currently working on her Master’s degree in Biotechnology at the same University. Her research involves both population genetics and in vitro culture of orchids. She is also a research assistant at the Lankester Botanical Garden. She has been the biologist in charge of the inventory of the Orchid Garden and the preparation and maintenance of the herbarium material at Bosquede Paz Biological Reserve since 2004.

PAGE 161

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 Introduction It may seem somehow out of line to present a new system of botanical databases in the context of a meeting on orchid conservation, for two main rea-sons. Even though botanists have been rather slow inupgrading to the use of electronic databases (withsome early controversy regarding the desirability ofthe application of electronic data processing methodsto taxonomic problems as a whole, see i.e. Shetler 1974), the dissemination of plant information via theweb has grown steadily in recent years. So, why another system for electronic retrieval of botanical information? On the other hand, the role of naturalhistory collections data is perhaps better definedtoday as for its two-fold relevance in research andeducation than with respect to the practicality ofinformation in conservation efforts. Can a system forelectronic interchange of plant information be of realuse as a conservation tool? I hope that trying to answer these two questions may explain the reasons for creating EPIDENDRA, the botanical databases system of Jard’n BotnicoLankester (JBLwell as illustrate some useful characteristics of thisproject. Access to the sources For centuries, scientists have amassed information on plant life, describing and naming more than a quarter million of species on the planet. When orga-nized in the format of floras, information includedrelevant data not only about morphology, but also ondistribution and other aspects of plant biology. It istrue that from the personal computer in his office, inany part of the world, a botanist may instantly linktoday to a number of powerful electronic databases,avoiding the time to correspond and to travel to botanical libraries and herbaria in order to gather the requested information, an activity that only a fewdecades ago would have taken months (Allen 1993However, it may be useful to understand which kindof information is mostly available in actual databases,and how we can improve information access. If one accesses today the TROPICOS database, launched in 1983 by the Missouri Botanical Garden (which has been a leading institution in computeriz-ing plant information), he can find a system dealingwith tens of thousand of plant names from around the world, in many cases cross-referenced with distribu-tion maps and other non-taxonomic information. Thesystem is designed to provide references to plantnames, basionyms and synonyms, nomenclaturaltypes, and lists of exsiccata for selected regions, allowing botanists to gain ready access to the authors of names, the titles of key publications and, indirect-ly, to the location of type specimens. This system ofreferences has shown its relevance in floristic projectsas the Flora of North America, the Floras of Panamaand Mesoamerica, the Flora of Peru and the Flora ofChina, and it provides daily information forresearchers working with tropical floras around theworld, including the staff of JBL. To restrict the field to orchids, the database BIBLIORCHIDEA, now hosted by the Swiss Orchid Foundation and operating under patronage of the University of Basel, represents the largest orchid lit-erature database worldwide, containing most of theexisting journal articles, books and preprints onorchids with over 140,000 entries. The databaseoffers a nearly complete system of references to thetitles of publications, extending the coverage notonly to the original protologues but also to differenttypes of literature quotations (for more details, see Jenny 2007). Numerous, less “institutional” databas-es, mainly aimed to quick orchid identification via EPIDENDRA, THE BOTANICAL DATABASES OF JARDN BOTNICO LANKESTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COSTA RICA FRANCOPUPULIN Jard’n Botnico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica. P.O. Box 1031-7050 Cartago, Costa Rica, CA. fpupulin@cariari.ucr.ac.cr

PAGE 162

electronic images, exist on the web, but the quality of the provided information is often not totally reliable,and they will not be considered for the purpose ofthis work. One common character of the available tools for electronic retrieval of botanical information is thatthey provide a system of references, which supposessome facility in the direct access to the sourcesthrough libraries and herbaria services. This is oftennot the case in tropical countries, where facilities are insufficient, if not absent, and where the lack of his-torical libraries and the relatively “modern” herbariarepresent a major obstacle for botanic research when concerned with the retrieval of historical informa-tion (G—mez-Pompa & Nevling 1988, Pupulin &Warner 2005). Some steps in this direction have been made in recent years, through the digitalization of type specimens in several institutions. Noteworthy is the recently complet-ed project of digitalization of the Oakes Ames OrchidHerbarium types at Harvard University. However, it isperhaps interesting to note that the first actions of thisproject were done in the framework of a cooperativeeffort between the Harvard University Herbaria and theUniversity of Costa Rica, originally aimed to the digitalimaging documentation of the types of Costa RicanOrchidaceae (Pupulin & Romero 2003 One of the more crucial points to be resolved in order to achieve the goal of an open system for theretrieval of biological sources is the sociological impediment to data interchange, through the protection of copyrights and intellectual property, concern-ing ownership and ultimate usage of the information. Most of the valuable documents relative to the tropi-cal flora are stored in institutions of the developedcountries, sometimes jealous of the historical value ofthe owned sources. It is curious to note, as Conn(2003debated when the source collections are presented ina digital format, but not when available as physicalcollections per se . However, the recent agreements signed by the University of Costa Rica with theHarvard University Herbaria and with the Herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, to digitally docu-ment the specimens and the associated data of theorchids from the Mesoamerican region, are anunquestionable step in the right direction. Conservation data Natural history collections have always contained a large amount of data providing biogeographic, eco-logical and biographical information through thelabels affixed to the specimens, and they have beenconsidered an indispensable resource for conservationpolicies, documenting what we do and do not knowabout the biota (Lane 1996 threatened tropical biota is the major biological con-cerns of today’s humankind, and the need for floristicresearch in the tropics is greater that in any other time in modern history, most of the global important col-lections are stored in developed countries. This has been an impediment to a vaster documentation of biological variation, which is required for a full under-standing of living diversity, ecosystem dynamics and their conservation. Our question should be if the actu-al documentation of tropical biodiversity (or orchid biodiversity, to restrict to our concerned topic) is sufficient to help the conservation “movement”, transforming floristic research into an actor in the conservation play. The actual figures point toward a nega-tive answer. In a short review of the available recordskept in six major herbaria relatively to 350 CostaRican orchid species, Dressler (1996 of the taxa were represented by less than 6 collections. Of those, 20% were based on a single collec-tion, and for 74 species (21%herbarium specimen in the herbaria sampled. Theobvious incongruity is that we do not know the floraof the tropics enough to really orient conservationpolicies, mainly if we consider that only at most 15 percent of the life diversity on Earth has been appre-hended by science, and new species are turning up constantly from the scattered expeditions to rich trop-ical areas. The possibility to rapidly document the presence of some species in a given area via the access to reliableelectronic data may be essential in influencing decision makers at any level, but once more the quality and effi-ciency of this documentation is directly associated tothe amount of the available information. This quality must be increased not only by a continuous update-ment of distribution records, but also providing moreefficient identification and “emotive” aids, like visualdatabases of specimens, slides, drawings, etc., helpingto match the specimen with known taxa. According to 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 179 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 163

Flecker (2000 University granted 12 million dollars to the UniversityLibrary for a 5-year project aimed to build a digitallibrary infrastructure. However, this is often not thecase where funds for research and documentation are limited (as in developing countriestion of scientific activity through the provision of ser-vices to the general public is probably critical. EPIDENDRA The past debate on biological databases has mainly focused on the best model to be used in organizing thetaxonomic data from literature and other sources toavoid over-simplification and to reflect the elasticity oftaxonomy as well as alternative taxonomies (see, i.e.,Berendsohn 1997, Conn 2003). Even though the“unofficial” adoption of one or more of the alternative taxonomies can not be avoided in the daily work, taxo-nomic information may become outdated very rapidly in the tropics, and this perhaps tends to reduce taxo-nomic decisions in the database system to a minimum.The only alternative would be to build a system and atrained staff which avoid mistakes in the capturing andmanagement of the information, but this would greatlyincrease the cost of the effort. The main constraints to the creation and maintenance of biological databases in tropical countries havebeen reviewed by G—mez-Pompa and Nevling (1988and I refer to their paper for a critical analysis. It is unfortunate to say that, with the exception of comput-ing technology, most of these constraints have notfound positive solutions. However, botanists workingin tropical areas have an immense opportunity toimprove our knowledge of life diversity and to providea bridge between systematic research and the generalpublic, incorporating to their source-based systemsother data which are not accessible to their colleagues in the first world. They include field observations on species frequency and natural variation, susceptiblehabitats, pollination biology, relationships with otherorganisms, etc. But, foremost, tropical botanists havethe still unachieved chance to “portray” biodiversityfor the use of the public through in studio work, mainly based on digital imaging. Knowing something alwaysmakes it more valuable, and only what it is valued willultimately be saved.LITERATURECITEDAllen, W.H. 1993. The rise of the botanical database. Biosc. 43: 274-279. Berendsohn, W.G. 1997. A taxonomic information model for botanical databases: the IOPI Model. Taxon 46:283-309. Conn, B.J. 2003. Information standards in botanical databases – the limits to data interchange. Telopea 10: 5360. Dressler, R.L. 1996. Costa Rica and its orchid diversity. Proc. World Orchid Conf., Rio de Janeiro: 321-331. Flecker, D. 2000. Building a first generation digital library infrastructure. D-Lib Mag. 6, consulted at http://hul.har-vard.edu/ldi/. G—mez-Pompa, A. & L.I. Nevling Jr. 1998. Some reflections on floristic databases. Taxon 37: 764-775. Jenny, R. 2007. What is BIBLIORCHIDEA? Proceedings of the 3rd International Orchid Conservation Congress in Lankesteriana, this volume. Lane, M.A. 1996. Roles of natural history collections. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 83: 536-545. Pupulin, F. & G.A. Romero. 2003. Costa Rican Orchidaceae types (Crotypes-tation at AMES, Harvard University. Lankesteriana no.7: 11-16. Pupulin, F. & J. Warner. Know your orchids. A botanical garden rich in information serving a country rich inflora. Orch. Res. Newsletter 6: 5-8. Shetler, S.G. 1974. Demythologizing biological data banking. Taxon 23: 71-100. PUPULIN– EPIDENDRA, the botanical databases of Jard’n Botnico Lankester 180 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . Franco Pupulin is a Senior Research Professor at the University of Costa Rica, where he works with the Jard’n Botnico Lankester. He is particularly interested in the systematics and evolution of advanced orchid groups in subtribesOncidiinae and Zygopetalinae. Franco is actually working at several monographic and floristic projects onMesoamerican orchid flora. He is a research Associate of the Oakes Ames Orchid Herbarium at Harvard Universityand the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens.

PAGE 164

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 Introduction Following the 2002 World Summit in Johannesburg, the Convention of Biological Diversity(CBDloss by 2010 (www.biodiv.org/2010-targetHowever, a 2003 UK Royal Society report on“Measuring Biodiversity for Conservation” discussedthe lack of satisfactory measures of biodiversity, and the difficulty in accurately reporting the loss of biodi-versity by 2010. Even more pressing is the need toobtain reliable measures of extinction risk in order toprioritise proposals to reduce the rate of biodiversityloss. The World Conservation Union (IUCNa set of categories for conservation status supported by decision rules for assigning species to these categories (IUCN 2001-national acceptance and have become one of the most important set of tools for making decisions in conser-vation biology. However, assigning species to one ofthese categories often requires large amounts of dataand extensive fieldwork. For most species these dataare not available, and are not easily obtained; oftenthe only available data are a “handful” of sighting records, both from the field and as records in speci-men-based collections (Solow & Roberts 2003is related to the level of uncertainty involved andapplies to the prediction of future events, to physicalmeasurements already made, or to the unknown. It is estimated that there are around 2.5 billion specimens in biological collections. However, thepotential contribution of natural history collections has gone largely unnoticed by the public and poli-cymakers (Suarez & Tsutsui 2004provide information on the distribution of taxa through time and space, and represent primary, verifiable observations. The value of this information is growing with the demand for rapid and inexpen-sive conservation assessments (Shaffer et al . 1998, Willis et al . 2003). In addition, demand is also growing for the data to be provided over the inter-net (e.g. www.gbif.orgof open access and benefit sharing. There is therefore a need for the development of statistically rigorous methods for the production of conservation assessments from limited data, partic-ularly those found in biological collections. Severalmethods have been developed which provide aprobabilistic basis for an extinction hypothesisbased on such sighting records (Solow 1993a,1993b, Roberts & Solow 2003, Solow & Roberts2003, 2006; McInerny et al . 2006, Solow 2006, Solow et al . 2006a, 2006b). These methods depend on sighting records of a species arranged as anorder statistic ( t 1 < t 2 < < t n ) within some time period, T . To make use of these methods it is necessary to have an understanding of the collection process itself. Therefore, any attempt to use biolog-ical collections to draw inferences about species conservation needs an understanding of the collec-tion process itself (McInerny et al . 2006, Solow & Roberts 2006, Roberts & Solow submitted). Care must therefore be taken to avoid bias due to sam-pling effects when inferring the conservation statusof a species. This bias can vary considerablybetween taxa and geographical regions, one suchform of bias is through access to specimensbecause of CITES (Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species). For example, tomeet the 2010 target conservation assessments arerequired, one possible method is to assess thosespecies that collectively best represent global EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE GAIN ON SPECIES CONSERVATION STATUS DAVIDL. ROBERTS Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, U.K. d.roberts@kew.org KEYWORDS: conservation assessment, data accumulation, knowledge, prioritisation, species discovery

PAGE 165

diversity patterns. The family pairing of the Orchidaceae and Gramineae has been show to havethe highest correlation coefficient with globalgenetic diversity ( r s = 0.973) (Nic Lughahda et al . 2005). However, given the bias, resulting from CITES regulations, on the accumulation and move-ment of Orchidaceae specimens (Roberts & Solowsubmitted), this may not be possible. Although CITES has enjoyed undeniable success, a long-standing concern in scientific circles, which has now been confirmed (see Roberts & Solow submit-ted), has been that CITES impedes the cross-bordermovement of scientific specimens. This concern is heightened as other international efforts to con-serve biological diversity move forward i.e. Convention on Biological Diversity’s and its impli-cations for access and benefit sharing. Another form of sampling bias can occur when comparing the distributions of two or more speciesbased on collections containing different numbersof individuals. The relative paucity of specimens ofsome taxa may be related to the lag between the time of discovery and the time it takes for speci-mens to accumulate in collections. If samplingeffort is consistently lower for recently identifiedtaxa, there will be a tendency to underestimate keyconservation parameters such as size ranges (Solow& Roberts 2006). An Example Solow and Roberts (2006 locations two species of Phragmipedium from Ecuador are found at based on herbarium specimens. P . longifolium (Warsz. ex Rchb.f. distribution with 8 localities compared to P . hirtzii Dodson with 6. However, the distributions are based on a total of 18 specimens for P . longifolium whereas only 10 for P . hirtzii . This difference may be related to the fact that P . longifolium was described in 1852, 136 years before P . hirtzii which was only described in 1988. This means that there has been 136 moreyears to accumulate data on P . longifolium , such as the distribution, or rather a 136 year difference insampling effort. If the sampling effort were the same,the expected number of locations for P . longifolium would be around 5.3 rather than 8. Discussion These considerations beg the larger questions as to why taxa are discovered when they are? And whetherconservation and biodiversity prioritisation reflect a level of conspicuousness and accumulation of knowledge? Perhaps even more importantly for conserva-tion biology is whether what we are recording is evenrepresentative of the underlying biodiversity? Forinstance do human tend to find large species more frequent than small species? Or do we see red-flowered species then say white? Answering these ques-tions is particularly important given the time andmoney currently being spent on ‘rapid biodiversity assessment’. Apart from a few papers on conspicu-ousness (Gaston & Blackburn 1994, Gaston et al . 1995a, 1995b, Allsop 1997, Collen et al . 2004), there has been very little work in these areas, and even less on the link between this area of research and conser-vation assessments. LITERATURECITEDAllsop, P.G. 1997. Probability of describing an Australian Scarab beetle: influence of body size and distribution. J.Biogeogr . 24: 717-724. Collen, B., A. Purvis & J.L. Gittleman. 2004. Biological correlates of description date in carnivores and pri-mates. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 13: 459-467. Gaston, K.J. & T.M. Blackburn. 1994. Are newly described bird species small bodied? Biodiversity Letter2: 16-20. Gaston, K.J., T.M. Blackburn &N. Loder. 1995a. Which species are described first? The case of North Americanbutterflies. Biodivers. Conserv. 4: 119-127. Gaston, K.J., M.J. Scobe & A. Crook. 1995b. Patterns in species are description: a case study using theGeometridae (Lepidoptera225-237. IUCN (2001 IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland,Switzerland. McInerny, G.J., D.L. Roberts, A.J. Davy & P.J. Cribb. 2006. Significance of sighting rate when inferringextinction and threat. Conserv. Biol. 20: 562-567. Nic Lughadha, E. et al . 2005. Measuring the fate of plant diversity: towards a foundation for future monitoringand opportunities for urgent action. Philos. T. Roy. Soc.B 360: 359-372. Roberts, D.L. & A.R. Solow. 2003. When did the Dodo become extinct? Nature 426: 245. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 182 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 166

Roberts, D.L. & A.R. Solow (submitted CITES on scientific collections. Biol. Conserv. Royal Society. 2003. Measuring Biodiversity for Conservation. Policy Document 11/03(www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?tip=1&id=1365 Shaffer, H.B., R.N. Fisher &C. Davidson. 1998. The role of natural history collections in documenting speciesdecline. Trends Ecol. Evol . 13: 27-30. Solow, A.R. 1993a. Inferring extinction from sighting data. Ecology 74: 962-964. Solow, A.R. 1993b. Inferring extinction in a declining population. J. Math. Biol . 32: 79-82. Solow, A.R. 2005. Inferring extinction from a sighting record. Math. Biosc. 195: 47-55 Solow, A.R., A.J. Kitchener, D.L. Roberts & J.D.S. Birks. 2006. Rediscovery of the Scottish polecat, Mustela putorius : Survival or reintroduction? Biol. Conserv . 128: 574-575. Solow, A.R. & D.L. Roberts. 2003. A nonparametric test for extinction based on a sighting record. Ecology 84:1329-1332. Solow, A.R. & D.L. Roberts. 2006. Museum collections, species distribution, and rarefaction. Divers. Distrib. 12:423-424. Solow, A.R., D.L. Roberts & K.M. Robbirt. 2006. On the Pleistocene extinctions of Alaskan mammoths and hors-es. P. Natl. Acad. USA 103: 7351-7353. Suarez, A.V. & N.D. Tsutsui. 2004. The value of museum collections for research and society. Bioscience 54: 66-74. Willis, F., J. Moat & A. Paton. 2003. Defining a role for herbarium data in Red List assessments: a case study of Plectranthus from eastern and southern tropical Africa. Biodiver. Conserv. 12: 1537-1552. ROBERTS: Knowledge gain & species conservation 183 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . David Roberts was educated at the Universities of Aberystwyth, Wales and Aberdeen, Scotland, where he received his doctoral on the “Reproductive Biology and Conservation of the Orchids of Mauritius”. He is cur-rently a senior scientific officer at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, where he works on the orchids of WestAfrica, the western Indian and alternative uses of herbarium data, particularly relating to conservation. He willsoon move to Harvard to take up the Sarah & Daniel Hrdy Fellowship in Conservation Biology, where he willbe conducting research into the subject of this paper and lecturing.

PAGE 167

One of the most perplexing problems in Western European terrestrial orchid taxonomy has been howto deal with the large numbers of taxa that have beendescribed for the allopolyploid taxa, which are theproducts of hybridization between taxa in the Dactylorhiza maculata (L. D. incarnata (L.Table 1 hybrids are lumped under the category of D. majalis (Rchb.Table 1ing their ecology into account, it is clear that off-spring from putatively the same parental taxa have different ecological preferences and been given taxo-nomic recognition as species by many authors. It has also been clear that within each of the parental complexes several distinct entities exist, again differing in their ecologies and morphology. Many of the namedallotetraploid taxa are highly restricted, and thereforethere are conservation implications if such taxa arefoci of efforts to prevent them from disappearing. It is therefore appropriate to study such taxa, both on evo-lutionary and conservation bases. To study these problems, we employed a genetic approach using two sets of markers, the nuclear ribosomal spacer regions (nrITS-lites. These were first sequenced to determine if there were differences in length that could be used as char-acters, which was discovered to be the case. We thendesigned primers to amplify short fragments (140-200 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 ALLOTETRAPLOID EVOLUTION IN DACTYLORHIZA (ORCHIDACEAE MARKW. CHASE1,3, MICHAELF. FAY1, RICHARDBATEMAN1, MIKAELHEDRN2& YOHANPILLON11Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3DS, U.K.2Department of Ecology, Plant Ecology and Systematics, University of Lund, Slvegatan 37, SE-223 62 Lund, Sweden.3Corresponding author: E-mail: m.chase@kew.org KEYWORDS: Dactylorhiza , allopolyploidy, hybridization, ITS rDNA, gene conversion, plastid microsatellitesTABLE1. General taxonomy and distribution of Western European species of Dactylorhiza .

PAGE 168

base pairs) that contained the length-variable regions, and then these differences could be assessed by thelength of the amplified fragments. This made the process quick. The short length of the amplified frag-ments also meant that it was possible to use DNAextracted from herbarium specimens; DNA from suchsources was typically found to be highly degraded.Plastid DNA can demonstrate which of the parentaltaxa is the maternal parent of the hybrids. ITS rDNAis part of the nuclear genome and inheritedbiparentally, but hybrids soon begin a process of geneconversion and lose one of the two parental copies that they initially possessed. For fairly recently synthesized hybrids, both parental ITS alleles are pre-sent, but for older hybrids only one of these allelesremains. We have used these two sets of markers to dissect the complex patterns of morphology and ecol-ogy; the process of gene conversion in nrITS providesa relative timescale for the ages of the various groupsof allopolyploids (Pillon et al. 2007). It was relatively easy in western Europe to find genetic differences between the two most commonspecies of spotted orchids, D. fuchsii (Druce and D. maculata . These species and the D. incarnata complex are also easily distinguished by both sets of markers. These are also ecologically and morpho-logically easily separated, but in eastern Europe D. fuchsii and D. maculata are difficult to distinguish on morphological grounds. All material labelled as D . maculata from Austria and Germany that we examined are recent hybrids; they exhibit nearly equal amounts of the two ITS alleles found in west-ern Europe in D. fuchsii and D. maculata . We do not know the ploidy of these plants, but we suspect thatthey will turn out to be allotetraploids, as Shipunov et al. (2004 Russia. These plants grow in acid sites, which inwestern Europe would contain D. maculata , and the morphology of these plants is intermediate betweenthose of the two parents. We do not consider that D. maculata occurs in central and eastern part of Europe. Allotetraploids that originated from crosses between D. fuchsii and D. maculata and members of the D. incarnata group are some of the most common and conspicuous orchids in Europe, and these too exhibit morphological and ecological differences. In addition to D. incarnata (almost always the paternal parent), one set of these was parented by an unknowndiploid species, most likely found in southern Europeand similar to D. foliosa (Rchb.f. and D. maculata . The correct name for these allotetraploids is D. elata (Poir. allotetraploids, and they almost always contained justthe D. maculata allele without any remaining copies of D. incarnata . In Ireland, we found another allotetraploid, D. occidentalis (Pugsley had exactly this same parentage, but these accessionscontained both parental alleles, sometimes exhibitingconversion toward the D. incarnata allele. This, then, is a more recently formed allotetraploid than D. elata . Another set of allotetraploids was formed from aspecies similar to extant D. fuchsii , with older, D. majalis s.s., and younger, D . traunsteineri (Saut. ex Rchb.) So—, forms. Many authors consider D. maculata and D. fuchsii to be subspecies (of D. maculata s.l.), but nearly all authors agree that D. foliosa is distinct from D . maculata s.l. on morphological and ecological grounds. Although it is true that numerous hybrids occurbetween these two throughout their ranges (and ineastern and central portions of Europe this not pure D. maculata ), this appears to be a recent phenomenon. None of the allotetraploids we examined exhibit-ed mixtures of the D. maculata and D. fuchsii ITS alleles. These two entities are easily distinguishedmorphologically, and D. fuchsii is a calcicole whereas D. maculata is a calcifuge. Our results do not distinguish genetically between D. foliosa and D. maculata , so if authors wish to consider D. maculata and D. fuchsii as subspecies, then D. foliosa must also be considered as a subspecies of D. maculata s.l. Results from analysis of nuclear, low-copy chalconesynthase (L. Inda and M. Chase, unpubl.that the entity that gave rise to D. elata was closer to extant D. foliosa than to D. maculata . This finding points again to the fact that there must have been (orperhaps still is) a diploid species of the D. maculata/foliosa type somewhere in southern Europe and that D. maculata s.s. is not a parent of the D. elata allotetraploids that populate modern Europe. We have not yet examined the parentage of D. occi3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 188 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 169

dentalis in the same detail as for D. elata , but this is underway. We present (Table 2-my for Western European Dactylorhiza , based on the results of this and other studies. All across Europe, there are many sites where these species, diploids and tetraploids coexist, and in manycases researchers have been tempted to think that thehybrids arose locally. However, all of our evidenceindicates that the hybrids arose elsewhere, furthersouth in Europe, and migrated along with the diploid progenitors to their current localities. There is no con-text for studying any of these species on a regionalscale to understand better their origins – they must bestudied broadly. Their conservation also calls for a unique strategy. Again, since they did not arise where they now growand they arose repeatedly from the same parentaltaxa, the process should be the focus of conservation efforts. Rather than conserving taxa, in Dactylorhiza it seems more appropriate to preserve the habitats where hybridization has been occurring, but knowing that few hybrids are currently being formed in north-ern Europe means that more attention must befocused on appropriate sites in southern Europewhere in general conservation efforts have not beenas successful in the past. LITERATURECITEDPillon, Y., M.F. Fay, M. Hedrn, D.S. Devey, A. Shipunov, M. van der Bank, R.M. Bateman & M.W. Chase. 2007. Insights into the evolution and biogeogra-phy of western European species complexes in Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae Shipunov, A.B., M.F. Fay, Y. Pillon, R.M. Bateman & M.W. Chase. 2004. Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae European Russia: combined molecular and morphologi-cal analysis. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1419-1426. CHASE et al. – Allotetraploid evolution in Dactylorhiza 189 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . TABLE2. Recommended framework classification of European members of the D. incarnata and D.maculata groups and their derived polyploid complex. The plastid haplotype and ITS allele(staxon. This summary focuses on well-established species, incorporating regional endemics but excluding many localendemics. Mark Chase received his undergraduate degree from Albion College, Michigan and his Ph.D. was from the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor Leochilus (Orchidaceae research in molecular biology with Jeff Palmer at the University of Michigan. He then moved to the University of NorthCarolina and then after four year to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, where he set up the program in molecularsystematics. He became a member of the Royal Society in 2003 and Keeper (Director

PAGE 170

LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 Introduction Species delimitation in the genus Spiranthes L.C. Richard (Spiranthinae, Cranichideae, Orchidoideae has long been problematic, due mainly to morphologicalpolymorphism confounded by hybridization andpolyploidy, particularly in the S. cernua (L. species complex (Correll 1950, Luer 1975, Sheviak1982). Official records indicate that 462 taxa nameshave been used for Spiranthes historically (RBG-Kew 2006), but less than a tenth of those are recognized today, and there is still concern about the species sta-tus of some. Although Spiranthes is considered to have a worldwide distribution, only eight of theseoccur outside of temperate North America. All 26 currently recognized Spiranthes taxa in the Flora of North America (Sheviak & Brown 2002have some form of conservation listing in a U.S. state(except S. casei var. novascotiae Catling, found only in Canada), due mainly to tenuous occurrence at the edge of their range in those locations. The less-seri-ous listing denominations include: ExploitativelyVulnerable, Rare, Sensitive, and Special Concern.Two unrecognized taxa are other exceptions – S. amesiana (either extirpated or a synonym for S. torta [Thunb.] Garay & H.R.Sweet) is Proposed Endangered by Florida due to endemicity and rarity,and newly described S. sylvatica P.M.Brown (Brown 2001a) has not been listed by any state. Most of these Spiranthes taxa are also federally or state-listed as Threatened, Proposed Endangered, orEndangered (Table 1 those endemic to or now limited to one or few loca-tions, should be targeted for special protection. Theseinclude: S. brevilabris Lindl. , S. delitescens Sheviak , S. eatonii Ames ex P.M.Br. , S. floridana (Wherry Cory , S. infernalis Sheviak , S. parksii Correll , and S. torta. Federally threatened S. diluvialis Sheviak is not endemic to one area, but rare throughout its range and unusual as an allopolyploid. Other taxa that can alsobe identified as genetically important as well as rareshould be targeted for maintenance of biodiversity. Molecular genetic techniques can provide a suite of markers from which to choose the scale of taxonomicdiscrimination required (Soltis & Soltis 1998, Soltis& Gitzendanner 1998, Avise 2004). Nucleotide sequencing, particularly of several genes in combination, is successfully used to address issues of phylogenetics and species delimitation, critical when conservation resources to protect threatened and endan-gered taxa must be focused. It is thus our goal indetermining phylogenetic relationships among Spiranthes through sequence analysis to help identify these unique taxa and verify the taxonomic status ofthe endemic group members. Circumscribing thegenetic individuality of these species of concern is a basic foundation on which to build further conserva-tion efforts. Methods As part of a larger Spiranthes phylogeny project, all 27 taxa found in temperate North America havenow been sampled except S. casei var. novascotiae and S. ovalis var. ovalis . Voucher specimens, when available, were deposited in the Clemson (SCUniversity herbarium (CLEMS Spiranthes found in Europe and Asia ( S. aestivalis [Poir.] Rich., S. sinensis [Pers.] Ames, S. spiralis [L.] Chevall.), as well as an outgroup taxon ( Sacoila lanceolata var. lanceolata [Aubl.] Garay), were also included in the analyses. DNA was extracted from the plant tissue, and four genes/regions representing all three genomes weresequenced according to protocols outlined in Duecket al. (2005 SEQUENCING RE-DEFINES SPIRANTHES RELATIONSHIPS, WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR RARE AND ENDANGERED TAXA LUCYA. DUECK1,3& KENNETHM. CAMERON21UGA/Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Drawer E, Aiken, SC 29802 USA;2The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 USA3Author for correspondece: dueck@srel.edu KEYWORDS: conservation genetics, endangered species, polyploidy, sequencing, Spiranthes

PAGE 171

DUECK& CAMERON– Sequencing Spiranthes for T&E taxa identification 191 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 . TABLE1. Critical conservation listings for Spiranthes in the U.S.

PAGE 172

3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 192 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .two plastid regions – a non-coding section of trnS-fM and the trn L intron, one non-coding region in mitochondrial gene NAD7, and the nuclear ribosomal ITS region including ITS 1, 5.8S, and 2. Resulting elec-tropherograms were contiged and edited, and the fourmatrices of consensus sequences were aligned. These data sets were then analyzed using the parsimony cri-terion in PAUP*, and support values for relationshipswere calculated by performing jackknife analyses of5000 replicates. Since the separate gene trees wereconcordant, data were also combined and analyzedtogether, but only samples complete for all four geneswere included. Because the main project is still in progress, however, the four-gene cladogram shown here (from June2006) does not include many samples subsequentlycollected. These later samples have been sequenced,but their analyses not rigorously tested yet, so theirresults will be discussed as preliminary findings only. Results Of the 123 total samples analyzed by June 2006, 99 samples were complete with all four gene sequencesand thus were used to produce the figure included.Two taxa subsequently sampled ( S. porrifolia Lindl. , S. torta ) were not included in this analysis, but their placement is discussed below in light of more recent analyses. Other taxa not included due to unavailabili-ty are S. casei var. novascotiae , S. lacera var . lacera (Raf. S. ovalis var. ovalis Lindl. Over 3500 base pairs (bpand statistically the ITS 1-2 segment had the mostvariable (26%18%However, the trnS-fM segment had the best-resolved topology for a single-gene tree (not shown A strict consensus cladogram of the Spiranthes phylogeny based on the four-gene combined analysis is shown in Figure 1, with jackknife support valuesadded above branches. There is strong support (99%for a division of the genus into two major groups withsome strong species clades within each. The lowergroup, a paraphyletic grade of taxa, contains distinctspecies S. infernalis and S. lucida (H.H.Eaton and a weakly supported S. romanzoffiana Cham. clade in which strongly supported S. delitescens and unsupported but separate S. diluvialis reside. In single trees from maternally inherited plastid and mitochon-drial genes, S. diluvialis was within the same clade as S . romanzoffiana , but in the tree based on nuclear ITS sequences, it was within the clade containing S. magnicamporum Sheviak (not shownported division (81%grade separates the latter five species from strongclades of combined S. praecox (Walter and S.sylvatica (no distinction between them shown from this analysis), all three Old World species, and S. tuberosa Raf. The upper group contains a moderately supported clade of closely related species, with S. brevilabris and S. floridana as distinct, but with S. eatonii and S. lacera as indistinguishable from each other. S. vernalis Engelm. & A.Gray, S. laciniata (Small S. longilabris Lindl. are monophyletic and thus strongly supported species. S. ovalis var. erostellata appears as a strongly supported subclade within a broad unsupported S. magnicamporum S. odorata (Nutt. S. odorata is polyphyletic, appearing within no fewer than threedifferent clades. The two remaining derived cladesconsist of moderately strong support (86% S. cernua S. parksii clade in which S. parksii is indistinguishable, and an unsupported clade with S. casei Catling & Cruise and S. ochroleuca (Rydb. separate but also unsupported. No distinct identity for S. cernua was supported from these samples and analysis. Preliminary results from “work-in-progress” analyses (not shownspecies of interest to conservation biologists.Differentiation of S. eatonii from S. lacera was not resolved by additional S. lacera samples. S. porrifolia is very closely related to S. infernalis and in fact may be hybridizing in the southwestern limits of its range,but the clade containing both species are distinct fromand sister to S. romanzoffiana . Our samples of S. torta are sister to S. laciniata (and both to S. brevilabris ) in the maternal genomes, but to S. floridana when the nuclear genome is included. And although inclusion of more samples of S. cernua is providing a better species identity for it along a northeasternAppalachian swath, S. parksii remains imbedded within the clade of southern S. cernua . Discussion For the first time, our phylogeny of Spiranthes , based on molecular data from all three genomes, is revealingthe relationships among taxa found in the United Statesand abroad. Whereas several other aspects of the study are interesting, our goal here is to focus on known tar-get species (endemic/endangeredspecies (unique/rare

PAGE 173

FIGURE1 . Strict consensus cladogram for taxa in Spiranthes genus, based on combined analysis of four genes/regions, from 489 trees (June 2006 bold . Two species subsequently sampled and analyzed but not included here are S. porrifolia and S. torta , both also of conservation concern. Sample identification numbers and U.S. state of collection shown at branch tips. DUECK& CAMERON– Sequencing Spiranthes for T&E taxa identification 193 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 174

Most importantly, federally listed S. parksii , endangered and endemic to east-central Texas, may simplybe an aberrant form of the more widespread S. cernua , contrary to accepted taxonomy. Cladograms from more than 3500 characters show that individualsof southern S. cernua form a monophyletic clade that includes S. parksii within it. Thus, based on our data and the phylogenetic species concept, S. parksii may not warrant species status, and its protection may bequestioned. The tetraploid chromosome number(2n=60 S. parksii and inclusion firmly within the S. cernua complex (Sheviak & Brown 2002 that polyploidy may play a role in its ambiguity. In contrast, species status was supported by our data for the two other federally listed species, S. diluvialis (threatened S. delitescens (endangered S. romanzoffiana clade. The previously documented allopolyploid origin of S. diluvialis was confirmed by these data, with S. magnicamporum verifiedas itspaternal ancestor. Allopolyploidy has also been suggested for S. delitescens by Sheviak & Brown (2002 the same chromosome number configuration (2n=74but affinity with other than S. romanzoffiana was not confirmed by our data. The genetic identity of all other state-listed Spiranthes species in the endemic/endangered group except one was confirmed. Although Wherry separat-ed S. floridana from S. brevilabris in 1931 (as Ibidium floridanum , later changed to S. floridana by Cory and emended by Brown [2001b]), the epithet S. brevilabris var. floridana has persisted. Our study shows these rare taxa to be distinct species, each wor-thy of separate recovery plans. However, from thefew samples of S. eatonii sequenced, we were not able to distinguish it genetically from S. lacera . Extremely rare S. torta does appear to be a distinct species but closely related to the above four taxa,although there is some evidence for its hybridizationwith S. laciniata , which could be confirmed by further studies. Three taxa have also been identified as genetically isolated by our study. Extremely rare S. infernalis , also a member of the endemic/endangered group, is adistinct subclade within a broader S. porrifolia complex near the ancestral root of the topology. While S. porrifolia ’s range covers the West coast states, its occurrence is sporadic, so linkage with rarer S. infernalis enables more concern for its conservation, also. And S. lucida , listed by eight states, is perhaps the most unique taxon genetically as sister to all other Spiranthes in our recent preliminary work, and thus worthy of concerted conservation effort. We thereforesuggest consideration of S. infernalis and S. lucida for federal listing status based on their basal position inthe Spiranthes phylogeny, genetic uniqueness within the genus, and rarity. These data demonstrate that molecular technologies have the power to elucidate genetic identity, focusingfunding eligibility and conservation efforts such as ex situ propagation on the most appropriate subjects for maintenance of biodiversity. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe are grateful for the assistance of: Travis Glenn, Cris Hagen, many volunteer collectors (especially R.Bischof, P. Brown, J. Foster, A. Hicks, C. Walters),U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, University of IdahoHerbarium, South Carolina Department of NaturalResources, and Royal Botanical Gardens – Kew. Thisresearch was supported mainly by the EnvironmentalRemediation Sciences Division of the Office ofBiological and Environmental Research, U.S.Department of Energy, through Financial AssistanceAward #DE-FC09-96-SR18546 to the University ofGeorgia Research Foundation, and partially by aresearch grant from the American Orchid Society for2004-2005.LITERATURECITEDAvise, J.C. 2004. Molecular Markers, Natural History, and Evolution. Second Edition. Sinauer Associates,Sunderland, MA. Brown, P.M. 2001a. Recent taxonomic and distributional notes from Florida 11: Spiranthes sylvatica P.M. Brown, a new species of ladies’-tresses from the southeasternUnited States. North Amer. Native Orch. J. 7 : 193-201. Brown, P.M. 2001b. Recent taxonomic and distributional notes from Florida 9. North Amer. Native Orch. J. 7(1:91-98. Correll, D.S. 1950. Native Orchids of North America North of Mexico. Chronica Botanica Co. Dueck, L.A, J.A. Fowler, C.S. Hagen & T.C. Glenn. 2005. Genetic discrimination of Spiranthes cernua species complex in South Carolina. Selbyana 26 (1,2 Luer, C.A. 1975. The Native Orchids of the United States and Canada excluding Florida. New York BotanicalGarden, NY. Sheviak, C.J. 1982. Biosystematic study of the Spiranthes cernua complex. Bulletin #448, New York State Museum. University of the State of New York, The StateEducation Department, Albany, NY. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 194 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 175

Sheviak, C.J &P.M. Brown. 2002. Orchidaceae, Vol. 26, Spiranthes . Flora of North America. Published on the Internet at: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=131021. Soltis, P.S &M.A. Gitzendanner. 1998. Molecular systematics and the conservation of rare species. Conserv. Biol.13 : 471-483. Soltis, D.E. &P.S. Soltis. 1998. Choosing an approach and an appropriate gene for phylogenetic analysis. In D.E. Soltis, P.S. Soltis & J.J. Doyle (eds. Systematics of Plants II: DNA Sequencing. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp. 1-42 . Walters, C. 2005. Genetic relationships among Spiranthes parksii and congeneric species. M.Sc. thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. 2006. The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.Published on the Internet at: http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/wcsp/home.do, accessed 10/26/06. Lucy Dueck , M.Sc., has been a Research Professional in molecular ecology at SREL, a field outpost for the University of Georgia, for over seven years. Her interest in Spiranthes phylogeny developed from producing a booklet on the wild orchids of South Carolina for outreach purposes. She obtained a grant from the AOS to pursue a thorough phylogeneticsurvey after completing a pilot study on selected Spiranthes in South Carolina. Ken Cameron , Ph.D., is Director of the Lewis B. and Dorothy Cullman Program for Molecular Systematic Studies and an Associate Curator at The New York Botanical Garden. He has published extensively on the molecular systematicsof various plant families, but maintains a primary research focus on orchids. In particular, he has applied DNAsequencing to questions of phylogeny for Vanilla and its relatives, as well as studies of Orchidaceae as a whole. DUECK& CAMERON– Sequencing Spiranthes for T&E taxa identification 195 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 176

As species are the common currency for conservation efforts, their accurate description is essential forefficient preservation of biological diversity. The useof DNA Barcodes, short DNA sequences that evolve fast enough to differentiate species, has been pro-posed both for the discovery of new species and theidentification of previously described species. Thefirst objective remains controversial, with a strongargument that species discovery be based on‘Integrated Barcodes’, including multiple sources ofdata (see Rubinoff 2006ahas been described, including for molecular sequencedata at barcoding loci, the use of a DNA barcode mayfacilitate the identification of the species, particularlyin cases where recognition based on easily-visualisedcharacters is problematic. Nonetheless, the use of the DNA Barcoding approach for species diagnosis pre-supposes a compre-hensive understanding of the circumscription of thespecies under study. In reality this is very rarely true,as it requires the combination of multiple lines of investigation, which, in the case of orchids include pol-linator observations and manual cross pollination, inaddition to morphological and molecular characteranalysis (Peakall 2007use of DNA Barcoding should be limited to speciesdiagnosis, in practice it may often yield further data tobe set against the working hypothesis of species status,thus contributing to species delineation and discovery. We present a study of the application of barcoding to the endangered Australian orchid, Microtis angusii (Flanagan et al. 2006) . This species was recently described from a singlelocation in New SouthWales, Australia, consisting of approximately 100plants (Jones 1996 Microtis species commonly exhibit clonal growth (Peakall & Beattie 1989, 1991and it was highly likely that the plants present at thetype location represented a small number of clones.Additionally, the site had been subject to variousthreatening processes such as road improvements andencroachment by invasive plants. Microtis angusii was listed as a nationally endangered species on Schedule 1 of the Australian Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 in 1997. The genus Microtis has been relatively neglected taxonomically, possibly because of their inconspic-uous small, green, often ant-pollinated flowers. Microtis angusii is morphologically very similar to more common, widespread relatives, and easilyconfused, even by experienced field biologists. Inaccordance with the New South Wales ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act, a recovery plan for the species was prepared in order to ensure self-sustaining populations in the wild. For this, the identifica-tion of further populations of M. angusii was highly desirable, but hindered by difficulties in speciesrecognition. Conservation practitioners identified six potential populations of M. angusii , and requested a genetic study to provide confirmation of their con-specific staLANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 MOLECULAR GENETIC DIAGNOSIS OF THE ‘TAXONOMICALLY DIFFICULT’ AUSTRALIAN ENDANGERED ORCHID, MICROTIS ANGUSII : AN EVALUATION OF THE UTILITY OF DNA BARCODING. NICOLAS. FLANAGAN1,3,5, RODPEAKALL1, MARKA. CLEMENTS2& J. TUPACOTERO2, 41School of Botany and Zoology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.2Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, GPO Box 1600 Canberra ACT 2601, Australia.3Genetics & Biotechnology, University College Cork, Ireland4 Dept. de Ciencias Agricolas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Palmira, Valle, Colombia5Author for correspondence: nicflanagan@fastmail.fm KEYWORDS:Species diagnosis, barcoding, practical outcomes, clonality, Internal Transcribed Sequences (ITSSNPs

PAGE 177

tus for the recovery plan. We investigated patterns of molecular genetic variation in both Amplified FragmentLength Polymorphisms (AFLPs (rDNA ITS-tion and known examples of potentially confounding,congeneric species. The type population was invariable across 122 AFLP markers. Of the six potential popula-tions only two were identified unambiguously as M. angusii , having identical ITS sequences and highly similar AFLP profiles. Three populations collected showeda high genetic affinity to the related species M. parviflora , including identical ITS sequences, while a fourth population was diagnosed, on the basis of the moleculardata, to be M. rara . A subset of samples from one of the populations was most similar to, but not identical to M. angusii across the genetic loci. This genetically-distinct clade may represent an additional previously-unknown species. Alternatively, given the clonalnature of the Microtis genus, this geographically distant population may represent a highly differentiated conspecific population. Clonality, in combination with high selfing rates due to restricted ant pol-lination (Peakall & Beattie 1989, 1991that will act to reduce effective population size,thereby enhancing the effects of genetic drift and sopromoting higher levels of genetic differentiationbetween isolated populations than expected in apredominantly outbreeding species. Whilst barcoding based on complete DNA sequence data is preferred in order to identify rare, differentiated haplotypes, extensive sequencing pro-jects are expensive and beyond the financial capacity of many conservation programmes. In order to provide an economical alternative to full sequence characterization, we designeda rapid, PCR-based assayfor the effective identification of M. angusii from single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPin the study of sequence variation at the ITS locus(Flanagan et al. 2007) . The assay was designed to be easily visualized on a standard agarose gel, avoidingthe use of expensive restriction enzymes and DNAsequencing reagents and equipment. An important aspect of this assay was its validation through the application of a ‘blind trial’. Here theassay was applied to samples of disguised identity, including all ITS haplotypes identified in the original genetic survey, and samples from a previouslyuncharacterized population. Microtis angusii samples were successfully discriminated from amongst theseveral congeners, and the further, previouslyunknown, population was diagnosed as M. angusii . Sequencing of the ITS locus for these individualsconfirmed this PCR diagnosis. While these studies demonstrate the application of DNA Barcoding for species diagnosis of theendangered M. angusii , it must be emphasized that further morphological and ecological studies of thegenus Microtis are sorely needed in order to unambiguously define the species boundaries in thegenus. As has been recognized by Rubinoff(2006b DNA sequence data at one, or a few loci, may mislead conservation efforts, either by making deci-sions on species status based on characters that arenot species-specific, or by diverting resources frombroader studies that are ultimately more capable ofproviding robust species circumscriptions. It isimperative that, in the reality of limited funds forconservation research, priority must be given to studies that will have direct practical outcome in conservation management. A recent review sug-gested that genetic studies of clonal plants, plants with uncertain taxonomic status, and plants target-ed for translocation were most likely to result inpractical outcomes (Hogbin et al. 2000). Nonetheless, as the case of Microtis angusii shows, even in these scenarios a genetic study is not necessarily sufficient by itself. LITERATURECITEDF lanagan, N.S., R. Peakall, M.A. Clements & J.T. Otero. 2006. Conservation of taxonomically difficult species:the case of the Australian orchid, Microtis angusii . Conservation Genetics 7: 847-859. Flanagan, N.S., R. Peakall, M.A. Clements & J.T. Otero. 2007. Identification of the endangered Australian orchid, Microtis angusii using an allele-specific PCR assay. Conservation Genetics. Online First. Hogbin, P.M., R. Peakall & M.A. Sydes. 2000. Achieving practical outcomes from genetic studies of rare plants.Australian Journal of Botan y 48: 375-382. Jones, D.L. 1996. Microtis angusii , a new species of FLANAGAN et al. Conservation genetics of Microtis angusii. 197 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 178

Orchidaceae from Australia. The Orchadian 12: 10-12. Peakall, R. 2007. Speciation in the Orchidaceae – confronting the challenges. Molecular Ecology. In press. Peakall, R. &A.J. Beattie. 1989. Pollination of the orchid Microtis parviflora R.Br. by flightless worker ants. Functional Ecology 3: 515-522. Peakall, R. & A.J Beattie. 1991. The genetic consequences of worker ant pollination on a self-compatible, clonal orchid. Evolution 45: 1837-1848. Rubinoff, D. 2006a. DNA Barcoding Evolves into the Familiar. Conservation Biology 20: 1548-1549. Rubinoff, D. 2006b. Utility of Mitochondrial DNA Barcodes in Species Conservation. ConservationBiology 20: 1026-1033. Nicola Flanagan has a broad experience of evolutionary studies in the Orchidaceae, including species boundaries in the sexually-deceptive Chiloglottis orchids, orchid mycorrhizal specificity in the tropical Ionopsis utriculariodes , and patterns of genetic variation in Vanilla species. Rod Peakall has interests spanning the fields of plant reproductive biology, population genetics, evolutionary biology and conservation biology and has worked on a range of plant and animals species. His current research is focused onthe evolution of sexually deceptive orchids. Mark Clements has extensively studied the taxonomy and evolutionary relationships of Australian native orchids. Tupac Otero has interests in orchid biology and interactions, including reproductive biology, mycorrhizal interactions, evolutionary biology and conservation biology. 3RDIOCCPROCEEDINGS 198 LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2 . Universidad de Costa Rica, 2007 .

PAGE 179

The Darwin Initiative (DI Species promotes biodiversity conservation andsustainable use of resources around the world(http://www.darwin.gov.ukDI is to assist countries rich in biodiversity but poor in resources with the conservation of biologi-cal diversity and implementation of theBiodiversity Convention. Projects funded under the DI are collaborative, involving either local institutions or communities in the host country in collab-oration with a British insti