Eriogonum pelinophilum - Reveal
Clay-loving Wild Buckwheat
Taxonomic Status: Not accepted
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.157709
Element Code: PDPGN084P0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Buckwheat Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Polygonales Polygonaceae Eriogonum
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2005. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 5. Magnoliophyta: Caryophyllidae: Caryophyllales, Polygonales, and Plumbaginales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. vii + 656 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B05FNA05HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Eriogonum pelinophilum
Taxonomic Comments: Considered distinct by Kartesz in his 1994 checklist, by USFWS (federally listed), and by Colorado Heritage; included in the species Eriogonum clavellatum by Kartesz in his 1999 Floristic Synthesis, following the recommendation of Jim Reveal. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (2005) and USDA PLANTS (2008) recognize E. pelinophilum and E. clavellatum as distinct. Weber states that E. clavellatum is known from the Four Corners area, while E. pelinophilum occurs in the vicinity of Delta, Colorado.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 29Aug2012
Global Status Last Changed: 10Sep1998
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Large numbers of individuals over a small range and restricted to a very specific habitat. Known from 19 occurrences with threats at almost every location; some occurrences are reported to be extirpated (Reveal 2003).
Nation: United States
National Status: N2

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Colorado (S2)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE: Listed endangered (13Jul1984)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R6 - Rocky Mountain

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Known from Delta and Montrose counties, Colorado. Estimated range is 420 square kilometers, calculated in 2008 by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program in GIS by drawing a minimum convex polygon around the known occurrences. Imprecisely reported occurrences are not included.

Area of Occupancy: 1-25 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: The total area occupied by the mapped occurrences is 959 acres (calculated by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program in 2012). Imprecisely reported occurrences are not included.

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 20
Number of Occurrences Comments: There are 19 principal occurrences documented in the Colorado Natural Heritage Program database. Five of the occurrences have not been observed in over 20 years, and one can not be relocated (as of 2012).

Population Size Comments: Approximately 284,000 individuals have been documented within 14 of the 19 occurrences. The remaining occurrences do not report the number of individuals. One large occurrence supports most of the population. Plant numbers at this location were conservatively estimated at 3000 per acre (Ferguson 2007).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Few (4-12)
Viability/Integrity Comments: There are 9 occurrences with an A or B rank.

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Fragmentation of Eriogonum pelinophilum habitat into small units of possibly nonviable population size is the greatest threat at this time (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). Habitats are being destroyed by rapid encroachment of irrigated agricultural land and residential development. Known occurrences are reported to be extirpated or have undergone recent degradation due to residential development (Reveal 2003). Subsequent impacts such as road building and off-road vehicle use are also significant threats. A large portion of the critical habitat type is on public land and is not in danger of being developed. However, due to the close proximity of human development, many of these sites suffer from right-of-way access, off-road vehicle use and overgrazing. These activities not only endanger known populations, but also damage or destroy potential habitat recovery areas. Other threats include gas and oil exploration, pipelines and new irrigation canals, which often skirt the bases of the adobe hills, potentially interfering with E. pelinophilum habitats (Neeley 1985, O'Kane 1985, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Monitoring of a few populations was conducted by TNC, FWS and CNAP beginning in 1980. TNC completed it's monitoring program in 1994. They reported the monitored population at Wacker Ranch to be stable (Carpenter and Schultz 1994). The CNAP monitoring program was designed to monitor the impacts of winter sheep grazing, however, there was no control plot, and the study was abandoned in 1989 (Coles 2003). In 2008 monitoring was reinstated to attempt to repeat the demographic study conducted in 1990-94 by Alan Carpenter and Terri Schultz/TNC. Results show that both the number of individuals and the average size of plants increased significantly between 1990 and 2008 at the monitoring site (Lyon 2008). However, many other occurrences in Montrose County have been extirpated or undergone recent degradation due to residential development (Reveal 2003).

Long-term Trend: Unknown
Long-term Trend Comments: Eriogonum pelinophilum appears to be a long-lived plant, with a calculated half-life of nearly 200 years (Carpenter and Schultz 1994). However, it is facing extreme pressure from residential and agricultural development, and occurrences have been extirpated.

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Appears to be susceptible to impacts from grazing.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Known from Delta and Montrose counties, Colorado. Estimated range is 420 square kilometers, calculated in 2008 by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program in GIS by drawing a minimum convex polygon around the known occurrences. Imprecisely reported occurrences are not included.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CO

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CO Delta (08029), Montrose (08085)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
14 Upper Gunnison (14020002)+*, North Fork Gunnison (14020004)+*, Lower Gunnison (14020005)+, Uncompahange (14020006)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A low, stout, perennial herb, 5-10 cm high, with narrow, inrolled leaves that look like green scrolls. Clusters of white or cream-colored flowers with a rounded greenish-red to brownish-red perianth borne at the ends of the branches. Blooms in June and July.
General Description: Low rounded heavily branched pulvinate subshrubs 5-10 cm high and 8-15 cm across; lower stems light brown, woody, bark exfoliating in long loose strips or wide plates; leafless, upper branches herbaceous, slender, floccose to glabrous; leaves solitary, scattered along entire length of herbaceous stems, except for the last 5-10 mm, somewhat closely placed and congested to widely spaced, leaf blades oblanceolate, 5-12 mm long, 1-1.5 mm wide, densely white-tomentose below, midveins totally obscured by the tomentum, subglabrous to glabrous and green above, margins entire, revolute and completely enclosing the lower surface, apices and bases acute, leaves persistent, petioles 1 mm long, light yellowish-brown to tan and thinly pubescent when young, becoming glabrous; flowering stems slender, 5-10 mm long, floccose to glabrous; inflorescence cymose, +/- compact and congested, 1-2 cm long and wide, trichotomous, rays 2-5 mm long, floccose to glabrous without, thinly tormentose within, connate at base; peduncles, when present, 1-1.5 mm long, floccose to glabrous, erect; involucres solitary, narrowly turbinate, 3-3.5 mm long, 1-1.5 mm wide, floccose to glabrous without, glabrous within, 5 acute lobes 0.3-0.4 mm long, bractlets oblanceolate, 1.8-2.5 mm long, minutely fringed with capitate gland-shaped cells, pedicels 2.5-4.5 mm long, glabrous; flowers white with reddish-brown midribs and brownish-red bases, 3-3.5 mm long, glabrous within and without except for microscopic glands along the midribs within, tepals similar; achenes 3-3.5 mm long (Peterson 1982).
Technical Description: The following is from Peterson (1982):

"Low rounded heavily branched pulvinate subshrubs 5-10 cm high and 8-15 cm across; lower stems light brown, woody, bark exfoliating in long loose strips or wide plates; leafless, upper branches herbaceous, slender, floccose to glabrous; leaves solitary, scattered along entire length of herbaceous stems, except for the last 5-10 mm, somewhat closely placed and congested to widely spaced, leaf blades oblanceolate, 5-12 mm long, 1-1.5 mm wide, densely white-tomentose below, midveins totally obscured by the tomentum, subglabrous to glabrous and green above, margins entire, revolute and completely enclosing the lower surface, apices and bases acute, leaves persistent, petioles 1 mm long, light yellowish-brown to tan and thinly pubescent when young, becoming glabrous; flowering stems slender, 5-10 mm long, floccose to glabrous; inflorescence cymose, +/- compact and congested, 1-2 cm long and wide, trichotomous, rays 2-5 mm long, floccose to glabrous without, thinly tormentose within, connate at base; peduncles, when present, 1-1.5 mm long, floccose to glabrous, erect; involucres solitary, narrowly turbinate, 3-3.5 mm long, 1-1.5 mm wide, floccose to glabrous without, glabrous within, 5 acute lobes 0.3-0.4 mm long, bractlets oblanceolate, 1.8-2.5 mm long, minutely fringed with capitate gland-shaped cells, pedicels 2.5-4.5 mm long, glabrous; flowers white with reddish-brown midribs and brownish-red bases, 3-3.5 mm long, glabrous within and without except for microscopic glands along the midribs within, tepals similar; achenes 3-3.5 mm long."

Diagnostic Characteristics: Eriogonum pelinophilum differs from the similar E. clavellatum in that the latter is larger (10-20 cm vs. 5-10 cm high) and has glabrous stems with involucres 4.0-4.5 mm long vs. floccose to glabrous stems and involucres 3.0-3.5 mm long (Weber 1987).
Duration: PERENNIAL, Long-lived
Reproduction Comments: Flowers are protandrous. Each individual flower is short-lived (about 30-42 hours), but the bloom period at the plant and population level is relatively long: individual plants have open flowers for 3-6 weeks, and one large population near Montrose, Colorado had open flowers from late May through early September (Bowlin et al. 1993).

E. pelinophilum requires an insect pollinator in order to set seed (Bowlin et al. 1993). Experimental study showed that the species is self-compatible (sets viable seed when pollen is transferred between flowers on the same plant); the authors believe that "pollinators moving from male-stage to female-stage flowers on the same plant will occasionally effect pollination" (Bowlin et al. 1993). Pollinators also frequently move between plants, resulting in a mixed breeding system with some pollination from other flowers on the same plant and some from flowers on different plants (Bowlin et al. 1993).

A wide variety of insects visit and probably pollinate the flowers. Over 50 species of insects, about half of them native bees, were recorded foraging on E. pelinophilium in one large population near Montrose, Colorado (Bowlin et al. 1993). 18 species of ants were observed foraging; most were either harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex occidentalis) or aphid-tending ants (Formica spp., most often F. obtusipilosa), with the aphid-tending ants generally carrying pollen more often and further than the harvester ants, especially early in the season (Bowlin et al. 1993). Both ants and flying insects appear to be effective pollinators, with a field experiment showing no significant difference in seed set among flowers visited only by ants, only by flying insects, or by both groups (Bowlin et al. 1993).

Most seed is dispersed locally (Bowlin et al. 1993).

Ecology Comments: Results from the Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP) monitoring program on Eriogonum pelinophilum (1987, 1988) provide previously unknown information about Eriogonum pelinophilum biology and ecology. The program is in its 3rd of 12 years, so data collected thus far may not accurately portray the species' life characteristics over time. Preliminary conclusions are: i) Eriogonum pelinophilum is a long-lived perennial with a probable population turnover rate of approximately 20-50 years, ii) flowering, and therefore reproduction, does not occur until an individual plant reaches a critical size of approximately 100 cm2, iii) plant density does not appear to be limiting the success of Eriogonum pelinophilum (i.e. plants with close neighbors have life characteristics comparable to solitary plants), iv) Eriogonum pelinophilum appears to be distributed randomly among its associated species, v) after 2 years, the average mortality rate per year was 2.7 percent, and the average recruitment rate per year was 4.6 percent.
 
Unless otherwise noted, the following is from O'Kane (1985). Densities of Eriogonum pelinophilum range from 75-500 individuals per acre (180 per acre average). Because the plants prefer swales and lower slopes, those smaller areas have a considerably higher density than the per acre densities calculated above. Pollination agents are not precisely known, though ants have been observed pollinating other Eriogonum species. Flowers are proandrous, with the androecium maturing 1-2 days before the stigma is receptive. Seed dispersal is usually passive, either being consumed or carried by animals, windblown, or moved by gravity or water. Flowering occurs in June-July, fruiting in late June-early August. All Eriogonum species studied thus far have seeds that require a cold period to break dormancy (not necessarily a freeze), and some Eriogonum species have seeds with a 5 year shelf life (Reveal undated, cit. in O'Kane 1985).

Terrestrial Habitat(s): Barrens
Habitat Comments: Eriogonum pelinophilum is found in substrates derived from the Mancos Formation shales. The entire area is typified by rolling adobe (clay) hills and flats. Generally, the plants are found in a sharply defined soil microhabitat with shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), on mid to lower slopes of the hills. The soil types are part of the Billings Series, known for its fine texture and weak and unstable structure. These soils are calcareous throughout and in some places have visible accumulations of calcium carbonate or calcium sulfate (Cline et al. 1967). Steeper barren slopes (badlands) are above, with flatlands below dominated by mat saltbush (A. corrugata) (Cline et al. 1967, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). The change from the lower slope soils to the flatland soils is characterized by a jump in soil sulfate level (from &lt;100 ppm to 1650 ppm) and sodium level (Potter et. al. 1985). Clay soils have a high water holding capacity, but this moisture is not readily available to plants (Barbour et. al. 1980, cit. in O'Kane 1985). Rainfall in the E. pelinophilum habitat averages 7-10 inches annually, further contributing to the low moisture availability (Colorado Climate Center 1984). Eriogonum pelinophilum generally prefers swales and bottoms where useable moisture is more available (O'Kane 1985). Because of the low moisture availability, communities in which E. pelinophilum occur are characterized by low species diversity, low productivity and minimal canopy cover. Eriogonum pelinophilum is codominant with other xerophytic shrubs or subshrubs such as shadscale, the rare Penstemon retrorsus, Castle Valley clover (Atriplex cuneata), mat saltbush, black sagebrush (Artemesia nova) and Xylorhiza venusta (Neely 1985, O'Kane 1985). The communities are apparently stable, climax associations, judging from the lack of invading species capable of dominating the sites. Field observations indicate that the species is most abundant where biological soil crust cover is not extensive (Ferguson 2007).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Elimination of threats from publicly held land containing current or potential E. pelinophilum habitat. Initiate monitoring program at one site and correlate information with Colorado Natural Area Program's monitoring program. Initiate research necessary to determine minimum viable population size and identify viable populations for future protection.
Restoration Potential: Due to the highly fragmented nature of many of the Eriogonum pelinophilum populations, the potential for recovery into viable populations is severely limited. Agricultural and residential developments often occupy potential habitat recovery areas. Some of the larger populations on public land have potential for recovery, provided they are managed to control off-road-vehicle use and overgrazing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has written a recovery plan for E. pelinophilum, but it has not yet been implemented.
Management Requirements: This species requires intensive monitoring and oversight to insure that no more habitat is destroyed. The top priority is protection of remaining large populations. The occurrences on public lands (mainly Bureau of Land Management) should be actively monitored to eliminate off-road vehicle use and overgrazing. Rapid encroachment of residential and agricultural development on private lands makes these public lands even more vital for maintaining viable Eriogonum pelinophilum populations. A public awareness program should be initiated, and any possible viable populations on private land ought to be actively pursued as possible preserve sites.

Eliminate threats of grazing, residential and agricultural development, and recreational use (off-road vehicles). The Bureau of Land Management has allowed grazing to continue on their lands containing E. pelinophilum habitat, and will continue, unless studies determine the plants or their potential habitats are being damaged (Bureau of Land Management 1989). The Nature Conservancy has eliminated all use of a preserve except for the monitoring program.

Monitoring Requirements: Additional research is required before an effective monitoring program can be implemented.

The procedure currently being used to monitor this element by the Colorado Natural Areas Program is outlined as follows: Individuals are mapped within a grid using x-y coordinates, and permanently tagged. The grid size is varied to include approximately 50 E. pelinophilum plants. Aerial cover, reproductive status, and vigor of each plant is recorded at peak anthesis in July. Vigor is determined subjectively by assessing the density of stems, lushness of leaf growth, and degree of insect or disease damage. Density, frequency and dominance is determined using the point quarter method (Mueller-Dumbois and Ellenberg 1974). A complete record of the Colorado Natural Areas Program E. pelinophilum program is on file at the Colorado Field Office.


Management Programs: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released an Eriogonum pelinophilum recovery plan in 1988. It outlines needed scientific research, key threats to the species and proposes measures to eliminate those threats, with the objective of downlisting or delisting the species from the Endangered Species list.

The Bureau of Land Management released its Uncompahgre Basin Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision in July, 1989. This plan completes the designation process for the Fairview RNA/ACEC. The plan prohibits surface occupancy of the RNA for oil, gas or mineral extraction, but not grazing or utility facilities (above ground). Grazing will continue, unless studies determine the E. pelinophilum plants or their potential habitats are being damaged (Bureau of Land Management 1989).

Monitoring Programs: The Colorado Natural Areas Program is currently conducting a 12 year monitoring program in the Bureau of Land Management's Fairview RNA. Performance reports have been written for 1987 and 1988. Following the 1988 survey, the monitoring interval was increased to every three years, based on the slow rate of change in individual plants. The Nature Conservancy will initiate a monitoring program on a preserve in 1990, and will work with the Colorado Natural Areas Program to correlate information from both programs.
Management Research Needs:

Baseline information is needed to determine the conditions necessary for the long-term protection of the species. The Colorado Natural Areas Program initiated a 12 year monitoring program on Eriogonum pelinophilum in 1987. Its objective was to answer the following questions:

1. What is the density, frequency and dominance of associated species in each plot?

2. What are the life history characteristics of E. pelinophilum? (ie. recruitment, mortality, growth rate, reproductive success and population dynamics)

3. What are the micro-habitat requirements? (ie. soil texture, soil chemistry and nearest neighbor distance and composition)

4. Determine the relationship between population and habitat characteristics.

It is important with the current status of this species to determine viable population sizes, so that those populations above the minimum can be the focus of recovery efforts.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's E. pelinophilum recovery plan (1988) also outlines needed scientific research.

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A natural occurrence of one or more plants.
Separation Barriers: Unsuitable habitat or altered areas; or markedly distinct features on the landscape such as ridges, rivers, or roads.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Justification: The rationale for this large a separation distance across suitable but apparently unoccupied habitat is that it is likely additional research will find this habitat to be occupied. It can often be assumed that apparently unconnected occurrences will eventually be found to be more closely connected. No information on mobility of pollen and propagules is available on which to base the separation distance for this species.

Date: 20Aug2003
Author: Jill Handwerk
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
Excellent Viability: Size: 6000 or more individuals (based on available EOR data).
Condition: The occurrence has an excellent likelihood of long-term viability as evidenced by the presence of multiple age classes and evidence of flowering and fruiting, indicating that the reproductive mechanisms are intact. This occurrence should be in a high-quality site with less than 1% cover of exotic plant species and/or no significant anthropogenic disturbance.
Landscape Context: The occurrence is surrounded by an area that is unfragmented and includes the ecological processes needed to sustain this species. This includes the presence of the appropriate, very specific edaphic requirements of this species, i.e. barren soils and flats of gray adobe formed by decomposition of Mancos shale.

Good Viability: Size: 1000-5999 individuals (based on available EOR data).
Condition: The occurrence should have a good likelihood of long-term viability as evidenced by the presence of multiple age classes and evidence of flowering and fruiting, indicating that the reproductive mechanisms are intact. Anthropogenic disturbance within the occurrence is minimal. If exotic species are present, they comprise less than 10% of the total ground cover.
Landscape Context: The surrounding landscape should contain the ecological processes needed to sustain the occurrence but may be fragmented and/or impacted by humans.

Fair Viability: Size: 50-999 individuals (based on available EOR data).
Condition: The occurrence may be less productive than the above situations, but is still viable, with multiple age classes and evidence of flowering and fruiting, indicating that the reproductive mechanisms are intact. The occupied habitat is somewhat degraded; exotic plant species make up between 10-50% of the total ground cover and/or there is a moderate level of anthropogenic disturbance.
Landscape Context: There may be moderate human disturbance, but the ecological processes needed to sustain the species are still intact.

Poor Viability: Size: Less than 50 individuals (based on available EOR data).
Condition: Little or no evidence of successful reproduction is observed (poor seedling recruitment, no flowering or fruiting observed, or poor age class distribution). Exotic plant species make up greater than 50% of the total ground cover, and/or there is a significant level of human disturbance.
Landscape context: The surrounding area is fragmented with many ecological processes no longer intact.

Justification: Large populations in high quality sites ("A", "B" or "C" ranked EOs) are presumed to contain a high degree of genetic variability, to have a low susceptibility to the effects of inbreeding depression, and to be relatively resilient. "D" ranked occurrences have a low probability of long-term persistence due to inbreeding depression, natural stochastic events, and their intrinsic vulnerability to human impacts.
Key for Ranking Species Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (2008).
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 29Aug2012
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Jill Handwerk (2004), rev. Neuhaus, K., J. Handwerk, and S. Panjabi (2006), rev. Handwerk, J. (2009), rev. Handwerk, J. (2012)

Management Information Edition Date: 01Aug1991
Management Information Edition Author: JOHN CARRON
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 20Nov2014
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): rev. SSP (2015)

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Ackerfield, J. 2012. The Flora of Colorado. Colorado State University Herbarium. 433 pp.


  • Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burke, and W.D. Pitts. 1980. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA.

  • Bowlin, W.R.,V.J. Tepedino, and T.L. Griswold. 1993. The reproductive biology of Eriogonum pelinophilum (Polygonaceae). Pages 296-302 in R. Sivinski and K. Lightfoot, editors. Southwestern rare and endangered plants. New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, Forestry and Resources Conservation Division, Miscellaneous Publication Number 2.

  • Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1988. Uncompahgre Basin Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Department of the Interior, Colorado State Office, Montrose District. 195pp.

  • Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1989. Uncompahgre Basin Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. U.S. Department of the Interior, Colorado State Office, Montrose District. 56pp.

  • Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Environmental Assessment Record for Eriogonum pelinophilum.

  • Carpenter, A. and T. Schultz. 1994. Population Dynamics, Growth and Reproduction of the Clay-loving Wild Buckwheat (Eriogonum pelinophilum) at Wacker Ranch in Montrose County, Colorado.

  • Cline, A.J., Spears, F. Mehaffey, E. Kubin, R. Franklin and C. Pachek. 1967. Soil Survey of the Delta-Montrose Area, Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 73pp.

  • Colorado Climate Center. 1984. Colorado Average Annual Precipitation 1951-1980. Colorado State University, Ft. Collins.

  • Colorado Native Plant Society. 1989. Rare plants of Colorado. Rocky Mountain Nature Association, Colorado Native Plant Society, Estes Park, Colorado. 73 pp.

  • Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP). Life History Characterisitics and Habitat Requirements for ERIOGONUM PELINOPHILUM and Protection of Known Populations; 3 reports: i) Program Narrative, Undated ii) Performance Report 1987 iii) Performance Report 1988. All unpublished.

  • Elliott, B. A., S. Spackman Panjabi, B. Kurzel, B. Neely, R. Rondeau, M. Ewing. 2009. Recommended Best Management Practices for Plants of Concern. Practices developed to reduce the impacts of oil and gas development activities to plants of concern. Unpublished report prepared by the Rare Plant Conservation Initiative for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

  • Ferguson, J. 2007. Summer 2007 Clay-Loving Wild Buckwheat (Eriogonum pelinophilum) Field Surveys, Including an Assessment of the Potential Effects of Livestock Grazing on this Species within the Colona LHA.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2005. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 5. Magnoliophyta: Caryophyllidae: Caryophyllales, Polygonales, and Plumbaginales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. vii + 656 pp.

  • Graham, S. 1984 July 18. Delta plant declared endangered. Rocky Mountain News.

  • Kartesz, J. T. 1999. Comments regarding taxa 1-187 [of list supplied by TNC]. Unpublished, Biota of North America Program, North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C., Nov. 25, 1999.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.

  • Lyon, P. 2008. Monitoring of Eriogonum pelinophilum at the Wacker Ranch, Montrose, Colorado.

  • Mueller-Dumbois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. Wiley and Sons, Inc.

  • NatureServe. Unpublished. Concept reference for taxa for which no reference which describes the circumscription has been recorded; to be used as a placeholder until such a citation is identified.

  • Neely, B., S. Panjabi, E. Lane, P. Lewis, C. Dawson, A. Kratz, B. Kurzel, T. Hogan, J. Handwerk, S. Krishnan, J. Neale, and N. Ripley. 2009. Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Strategy, Developed by the Colorado Rare Plant conservation Initiative. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado, 117 pp.

  • Neely, E.E. 1985. Site Conservation Summary for Wacker's Ranch. Unpublished report for the Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado.

  • O'Kane, S. L., Jr. 1985. Endangered Species Information System, Species Biology Workbook for ERIOGONUM PELINOPHILUM. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

  • O'Kane, S.L. 1988. Colorado's rare flora. Great Basin Naturalist 48(4): 434-484.

  • Potter, L. D., R. C. Reynolds, and E. T. Louderbough. 1985b. Mancos shale and plant community relationships: Analysis of shale, soil, and vegetation transects. Journal of Arid Environments 9:147-165.

  • Potter, L.D., R.C. Reynolds Jr., and E.T. Louderbaugh. 1985a. Mancos Shale and plant community relationships: field observations. Journal of Arid Environments 9:137-145.

  • Reveal, J.L. 1973. A new subfruticose Eriogonum (Polygonaceae) from western Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist 33:120-2.

  • Reveal, J.L. 2006. On the Status of Eriogonum pelinophilum Reveal (Polygonaceae Juss.: subf. Eriogonoideae Arn.)

  • Reveal, James L. 1973. A new subfruticose Eriogonum (Polygonaceae) from western Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist. 33:120-2.

  • Rocky Mountain Society of Botanical Artists. 2009. RARE Imperiled Plants of Colorado, a traveling art exhibition. Exhibition catalogue developed by the Denver Botanic Gardens and Steamboat Art Museum.

  • Spinks, J. 1991. Clay loving wild buckwheat recovery plan. Unpublished report prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Clay-loving Wild-buckwheat Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Final rule to determine Eriogonum pelinophilum to be an endangered species. Federal Register 49(136): 28562-28565.

  • USDA, NRCS. 2013. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.

  • Weber, W. A. and R. C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora, Western Slope, A Field Guide to the Vascular Plants, Fourth Edition. Boulder, Colorado. 532 pp.

  • Weber, W.A. 1987. Colorado flora: Western slope. Colorado Associated University Press. Boulder. 530 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.