Gilia caespitosa - Gray
Wonderland Alice-flower
Other English Common Names: Rabbit Valley Gilia, Rabbit Valley Gily-flower
Other Common Names: Rabbit Valley gilia
Synonym(s): Aliciella caespitosa (A. Gray) J.M. Porter
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Gilia caespitosa Gray (TSN 31104)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.156590
Element Code: PDPLM04070
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Phlox Family
Image 12090

Public Domain

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Solanales Polemoniaceae Gilia
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: 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.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Gilia caespitosa
Taxonomic Comments: The species widely known as Gilia caespitosa was reclassified in Aliciella by Porter (Aliso 17:34. 1998).The spelling used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the June 13, 2002 Candidate Notice of Review is "Alicelia caespitosa". The spelling was changed in the May 4, 2004 CNOR to "Alicellia caespitosa". However, in some USFWS lists it is spelled "Aliciella cespitosa". In the 2006 Candidate Notice of Review (USFWS 2006), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that listing of this species was not warranted and removed it from the candidate list.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 21Jun2016
Global Status Last Changed: 28Feb2001
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Narrow endemic of Wayne County, Utah. Occurs at about 40 scattered locations in six population areas, with sites have from one to a few thousand individuals. Some locations have only a limited amount of suitable habitat and therefore little potential for populations to increase. Collecting for rock-garden use remains a broad but low-level threat.
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 Utah (S2)

Other Statuses

Comments on USESA: Gilia caespitosa was moved to Aliciella by Porter (Aliso 17:34. 1998). The spelling used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the June 13, 2002 Candidate Notice of Review is "Alicelia caespitosa". The spelling was changed in the May 4, 2004 CNOR to "Alicellia caespitosa". However, in some USFWS lists it is spelled "Aliciella cespitosa". In the 2006 Candidate Notice of Review (USFWS 2006), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that listing of this species was not warranted and removed it from the candidate list. Reasons for this action (condensed from the CNOR) were: (1) This species occurs in more sites and is much more abundant than was initially thought. In 1996 we knew of 6 population areas with an estimated total of 5,000 plants. However, increased surveys from 2000 to 2003 identified 50 known sites at the 6 population areas, with an estimated 25,350 individual plants. (2) We had identified potential collection of plants and seeds as a significant threat, but we have no evidence that present or potential future collection is impacting or will impact the overall status of the species. (3) Although some other threats (impacts associated with recreational trails, off-road vehicle use, livestock trampling, and low natural recruitment) are ongoing, they are localized, and appear to have little impact (USFWS 2006).

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Endemic to Wayne County, Utah.

Area of Occupancy: 6-25 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Six population areas, with about 40 subpopulations (USFWS 2004), all in a single county of Utah.

Population Size Comments: Several thousand plants at some of the sites, with about 25,000 plants altogether (USFWS, 2004).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few (1-3)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Three of the population areas have about 5,000 or more plants each, with land-manager awareness and a formal interagency Conservation Agreement and Strategy implemented in 1996 (USFWS, 2004).

Overall Threat Impact: Unknown
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Collection of plants and seeds by rock garden enthusiasts is a significant threat (USFWS 2004), especially because the plants produce few seeds and international trade is not controlled by CITES; however, many of the subpopulations are in relatively inaccessible places where collecting is unlikely (USFWS, 2004). Potential highway widening may affect some areas (USFWS, 2004). Former threats from sand mining and sandstone quarrying would now be inconsistent with the species' interagency Conservation Agreement and Strategy.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Apparently relatively stable, with additional subpopulations discovered during intensive inventories in recent years; one subpopulation was lost due to a flash flood in the 1990's (USFWS, 2004).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: Apparently relatively stable (USFWS, 2004). No historically known population areas have been extirpated.

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Produces few seeds, with establishment of new plants difficult due to harsh micro-environment (sandstone crevices and similar places).

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: known primarily from Navajo Sandstone, growing in sand-filled crevices and in sand pockets.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Endemic to Wayne County, Utah.

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 UT

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
UT Wayne (49055)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
14 Fremont (14070003)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A perennial herb with sparsely leafy flowering stems, 3-8.5 cm tall, arising from a densely leafy base. Flowers (June-July) are scarlet red, occasionally fading to maroon or purple. This plant was first collected in 1875 and was not seen again for almost 90 years.
Duration: PERENNIAL, Long-lived
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Bare rock/talus/scree, Forest/Woodland, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer
Habitat Comments: On Navajo and Wingate sandstone in crevices, Carmel Limestone formations, detrital slopes, and (infrequently) in sandy wash bottoms. Found within open pinyon-juniper communities, often mixed with mountain brush, sagebrush, or ponderosa pine, at 1554 to 2743 m elevation.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A natural occurrence of one or more plants.
Separation Barriers: EOs are separated by either: 1 kilometer or more across unsuitable habitat or altered and unsuitable areas; or 2 kilometers or more across apparently suitable habitat not known to be occupied.
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: 07Jun2002
Author: Ben Franklin
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
Excellent Viability: SIZE: 500 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 edaphic requirements of this species, i.e., in crevices and on talus of Navajo Sandstone.
Good Viability: SIZE: 200 to 499 individuals (based on available EOR data). CONDITION: 200 to 499 individuals (based on available EOR data). LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: 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.
Fair Viability: SIZE: The surrounding landscape should contain the ecological processes needed to sustain the occurrence but may be fragmented and/or impacted by humans. CONDITION: 20 to 199 individuals (based on available EOR data). LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: 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).
Poor Viability: SIZE: There may be significant human disturbance, but the ecological processes needed to sustain the species are still intact. CONDITION: Less than 20 individuals (based on available EOR data). LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: 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.
Justification: SIZE: Large populations in high quality sites 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. EOs not meeting "C"-rank criteria are likely to have a very high probability of inbreeding depression and extirpation due to natural stochastic processes and/or occur in degraded habitat with low long-term potential for survival. CONDITION: Large populations in high quality sites 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. EOs not meeting "C"-rank criteria are likely to have a very high probability of inbreeding depression and extirpation due to natural stochastic processes and/or occur in degraded habitat with low long-term potential for survival. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: Large populations in high quality sites 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. EOs not meeting "C"-rank criteria are likely to have a very high probability of inbreeding depression and extirpation due to natural stochastic processes and/or occur in degraded habitat with low long-term potential for survival.
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: 21Jun2016
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: K. Maybury (2003), rev. L. Morse (2005), rev. Treher (2016)

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
  • 100th Congress. 1988. Endangered Species Act of 1973, appropriations authorization for fiscal years 1988-1992. Public Law 100-478-October 7, 1988 102 STAT.2307-102 STAT.2323.

  • Anderson, K. 1992. Report on the Awapa Plateau['s] threatened, endangered and sensitive plants. Submitted to [USDI] Bureau of Land Management[, Richfield District Office, Richfield, UT]. 9 pp. + maps.

  • Anderson, K. 1992. Report to the BLM for work done from 16 June to 19 June 1992.

  • Clark, D. 1997. Progress report-July 1997: "Expedition Into The Parks" rare plant survey at Capitol Reef National Park.

  • Clark, D.J. 1997. Survey results for Rabbit Valley Gilia (Gilia caespitosa).

  • Clark, Tom. 1995. Fax of September 01, 1997 to Lori Armstrong of the Bureau of Land Management.

  • Cronquist, A., A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and P.K. Holmgren. 1984. Intermountain Flora: Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 4, Subclass Asteridae (except Asteraceae). New York Botanical Garden, Bronx. 573 pp.

  • Dawson, Carol. 1995. Letter of February 28, 1995 to David Whittekiend.

  • England, L. 2002. Candidate and listing priority assignment form: Alicellia caespitosa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, Utah.

  • Gray, A. 1876. - - - - . Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 12: 80.

  • Heil, K. 1989. Endangered, threatened, rare and other plants of concern at Capitol Reef National Park, Utah.

  • Heil, K. D. 1987. A vegetation study of Capitol Reef National Park, conducted for the National Park Service. Final progress report for 1986. San Juan College, Farmington, New Mexico. 9 pp.

  • Heil, K. D. 1995. Field forms (3) for GILIA CAESPITOSA completed in 1993.

  • Heil, K. D., J. M. Porter, R. Fleming, and W. H. Romme. 1993. Vascular flora and vegetation of Capitol Reef National Park. Technical report NPS/NAUCARE/NRTR-93/01. 82 pp.

  • Holmgren. 1977. Faculty Honor Lecture - Utah State University.

  • 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.

  • Porter, J. M. 1998. Aliciella, a recircumscribed genus of Polemoniaceae. Aliso 17(1): 23-46.

  • Porter, J. M., and K. D. Heil. 1994. Status of Gilia caespitosa A. Gray. Prepared for USDI Bureau of Land Management, Richfield District Office. 42 pp. + appendices.

  • Porter, J.M. 1998. Aliciella, a recircumscribed genus of Polemoniaceae. Aliso 17(1):23-46.

  • Shultz, L. M., and J. S. Shultz. 1984. Status Report recommendations for Gilia caespitosa.

  • Thompson, B. 1991. Information on sensitive species of the Manti La-Sal National Forest and elsewhere.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form. Aliciella caespitosa. 12 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 71: 53756-53835.

  • U.S. Forest Service (Intermountain Region), Bureau of Land Management (Utah State Office), National Park Service (Intermountain Field Office), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Mountain Prairie Region). 1996. Gilia caespitosa (Wonderland Alice-flower) draft conservation agreement and strategy. 13 pp.

  • Welsh, S. L. 1978. Endangered and threatened plants of Utah: a reevaluation. Great Basin Naturalist 38(1): 1-18.

  • Welsh, S. L. 1978. Status report: Gilia caespitosa. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (updated April 1980 by Katy Woodbury).

  • Welsh, S.L. 1979. Illustrated manual of proposed endangered and threatened plants of Utah. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT. 318 pp.

  • Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins (eds.) 1993. A Utah flora. 2nd edition. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, Utah. 986 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.