CPC National Collection Plant Profile

Echinacea tennesseensis

Photographer:
Casey Galvin

Heading for profile page
CPC Home Join now
About CPC
CPC National Collection
Conservation Directory Resources
Invasive Plant Species Plant News
Plant Links Participating Institutions
Contribute
Search CPC
Search    Alphabetical List    Reference Finder    CPC Home


CPC National Collection Plant Profile

Echinacea tennesseensis


Family: 
Asteraceae  
Common Names: 
Tennessee coneflower, Tennessee purple coneflower
Author: 
(Beadle) Small
Growth Habit: 
Forb/herb
CPC Number: 
1542

Distribution
Protection
Conservation
References


Profile Links
 ITIS
 Tropicos
 PLANTS
 Fish & WildLife

Echinacea tennesseensisenlarge
Photographer: Casey Galvin

Echinacea tennesseensisenlarge
Photographer: Jack Jennings


Echinacea tennesseensis is Fully Sponsored
Primary custodian for this plant in the CPC National Collection of Endangered Plants is: 
Kimberlie McCue, Ph.D. contributed to this Plant Profile.

 
Echinacea tennesseensis


The Tennessee coneflower is one of the nation's rarest wildflowers (Clark 2000). Known only from five populations within a 14 mile radius in Middle Tennessee, it was the second plant listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in June 1979 (USFWS 1989).
First listed in the Flora of Tennessee in 1906, the plant was thought to be extinct for half a century until it was rediscovered in 1968 in LaVergne (near Nashville) (USFWS 1989). This site was destroyed by the construction of a trailer park in the 1970's. Two other colonies, discovered in 1972, were destroyed prior to 1975 by housing developments (Shea 1997).
The story above illustrates the major threat to E. tennesseensis; Nashville and the surrounding area is undergoing rapid development, encroaching on the coneflower's habitat. Recently, one site was destroyed by the development of the Nashville Superspeedway that opened in 2001.

Distribution & Occurrence

State Range
  Tennessee
State Range of  Echinacea tennesseensis
Habitat
  Cedar glades dominated by red cedar and where the limestone bedrock is either exposed or covered by a thin layer of soil (USFWS 1989).

E. tennesseensis is often found with Juniperus virginiana, Petalostemon gattingeri, and Sporobolus vaginiflorus (USFWS 1989).

Distribution
  Populations are distributed among three counties in
Tennessee (USFWS 1989, Kartesz 1996).

Number Left
  Five populations, individuals can range from 2,000 to 100,000 plants (USFWS 1989).

Protection

Global Rank:  
G2
 
2/27/2000
Guide to Global Ranks
Federal Status:  
LE
 
6/6/1979
Guide to Federal Status
Recovery Plan:  
Yes
 
11/14/1989

State/Area Protection
  State/Area Rank Status Date  
  Tennessee S2 E 5/1/1998  

Conservation, Ecology & Research

Ecological Relationships
  The rocky soil of cedar glades is too shallow to support woody vegetation, so they appear as openings in naturally forested regions. Plants in these glade habitats must be adapted to the changing stresses imposed by their habitat during the year, with soil conditions typically very wet in late winter and early spring but extremely dry in late summer. (Baskauf 2002)

Threats
  Threats include commercial and residential development, use of off-road vehicles, livestock grazing, hybridization with other Echinacea species and fire suppression (USFWS 1989).

Current Research Summary
  Past and current research has been completed in the areas of:
Determination of competitive ability and growth characteristics (Hemmely 1976, Baskauf and Eickmeier 1994, Snyder et al. 1994).
Comparing traits of E. tennesseensis with other members of the genus that are widespread (McGregor 1968, McKeown 1999)
Methods of propagation

Current Management Summary
  Establishing new populations in protected areas of existing cedar glade habitat.
Attempts to purchase privately-owned land where the species is present.
There are 3 colonies on state-owned land, and are managed by the State Divisions of Forestry and Ecological Services. These populations are zoned as restricted areas where no timber management is supposed to occur. The involved state divisions have also indicated willingness to assist with any habitat maintenance or experimental manipulations.

Research Management Needs
  Research and management needs include analyzing the role light and water have on population dynamics, reproductive biology and ecology and the affects of intra- and inter-specific competition.

Ex Situ Needs
  Seed harvesting and storage

References

Books (Single Authors)

Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 261p.

Small, J.K. 1903. Flora of the Southeastern United States. New York: Published by the Author on a press of The New Era Printing Company, Lancaster, PA.

Small, J.K. 1933. Manual of the southeastern flora. New York, NY: Hafner Publishing Company. 1505p.

Books (Sections)

Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the U.S., Canada, and Greenland. In: Kartesz, J.T.; Meacham, C.A., editors. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden. Chapel Hill, NC.

Electronic Sources

(2002). New York Botanical Garden--The Virtual Herbarium. [Searchable Web site] New York Botanical Garden. Fordham Road Bronx, New York. http://scisun.nybg.org:8890/searchdb/owa/wwwspecimen.searchform. Accessed: 2002.

Baskauf, C.J. (2002). Research interests: Comparative population genetics and ecophysiology of rare and widespread species. Austin Peay State University--Department of Biology. http://www.apsu.edu/baskaufc/. Accessed: 2002.

CPC. (2002). Notable Natives. The Center for Plant Conservation. http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/peril/peril11.html. Accessed: 2002.

USFWS. (1990). Endangered and Threatened Species Accounts. [Web page] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species. http://ecos.fws.gov/servlet/TESSSpeciesQuery. Accessed: 2002.

USGS. (2002). Status of Listed Species and Recovery Plan Development. [Web site] USGS: Norther Prairie Wildlife Research Center. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/recoprog/plant.htm. Accessed: 2002.

Journal Articles

Baskauf, C.J.; Eickmeier, W.G. 1994. Comparative Ecophysiology of a Rare and a Widespread species of Echinacea (Asteraceae). American Journal of Botany. 81, 8: 958-964.

Baskauf, C.J.; McCauley, D.E.; Eickmeier, W.G. 1994. Genetic analysis of a rare and a widespread species of Echinacea (Asteraceae). Evolution. 48: 180-188.

Baskauf, Carol J. 2001. Examining rarity through comparisons with widespread congeners: A genetic and ecophysiological example from limestone glade endemics. Castanea. 66, 1-2: 126-133.

Baskin, J.M.; Snyder, K.M.; Baskin, C.C. 1993. Nomenclatural history and taxonomic status of Echinacea angustifolia, E. pallida, and E. tennesseensis (Asteraceae). Sida Contributions to Botany. 15, 4: 597-604.

Baskin, J.M.; Snyder, K.M.; Walck, J.L.; Baskin, C.C. 1997. The comparative autecology of endemic, globally-rare, and geographically-widespread, common plant species: Three case studies. Southwestern Naturalist. 42, 4: 384-399.

Clarke, K. 2000. Tennessee's treasured coneflower. American Gardener. 79, 4: 14-15.

Drew, M.B.; Clebsch, E.E.C. 1995. Studies on the endangered Echinacea tennesseensis (Asteraceae): plant community and demographic analysis. Castanea. 60, 1: 60-69.

Falk, D.; Thibodeau, F.R. 1986. Saving the Rarest. Arnoldia. 46, 3: 2-17.

Hemmerly, T.E. 1986. Life history strategy of the highly endemic cedar glade species Echinacea-Tennesseensis. ASB Bulletin. 33, 4: 193-199.

Hurlburt, D. 1999. Endangered Echinacea--What Threat, Which Species, and Where?. United Plant Savers Newsletter (UpS Newsletter). 2, 1: 4-5.

McGregor, R.L. 1968. The taxonomy of the genus Echinacea (Compositae). University of Kansas Science Bulletin. 48, 4: 113-142.

Shea, A. 1997. Protecting the Endangered Tennessee Coneflower. Tennessee National Heritage Quarterly. 2, 4: 1,3.

Snyder, K.M.; Baskin, J.M.; Baskin, C.C. 1994. Comparative Ecology of the Narrow Endemic Echinacea Tennesseensis and 2 Geographically Widespread Cogeners - Relative Competitive Ability and Growth-Characteristics. International Journal of Plant Sciences. 155, 1: 57-65.

Snyder, K.M.; Baskin, J.M.; Baskin, C.C. 1994. Comparative ecology of the narrow endemic Echinacea tennesseensis and two geographically widespread congeners - Relative competitive ability and growth characteristics. International Journal Of Plant Sciences. 155, 1: 57-65.

Suzuki, Kazuo. 1993. Disruptive selection in flowering time of Wyethia amplexicaulis (Asteraceae). Plant Species Biology. 8, 1: 51-59.

USFWS. 1976. Proposed Endangered Status for 1700 U.S. Plants. Federal Register. 41: 24523-24572.

USFWS. 1983. Recovery planning for a cedar glade endemic, the Tennessee Coneflower, Echinacea tennesseensis (Asteraceae). Natural Areas Journal. 3, 4: 56-58.

Magazine Articles

Rogers, G. 1988. Native Plants. Missouri Native Plant Society: 5. 1. 1-2.

Reports

Pyne, M.; Gay, M.; Shea, A. 1995. Guide to rare plants - Tennessee Division of Forestry District 5. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry.

USFWS. 1989. Tennessee coneflower recovery plan. Asheville, North Carolina: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. p.30.

Theses

Baskauf, Carol Jean. 1993. Comparative population genetics and ecophysiology of a rare and a widespread species of Echinacea (Asteraceae). [Ph.D. Thesis]: Vanderbilt University. 188p.

Hemmerly, Thomas Ellsworth. 1976. Life cycle strategy of a highly endemic cedar glade species: Echinacea tennesseensis (Compositae). [Ph.D. Thesis]: Vanderbilt University. 196p.


  This profile was updated on 3/4/2010
California
Oregon
Washington
Idaho
Nevada
Arizona
Utah
Montana
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
Arkansas
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Illinois
Michigan
Michigan
Indiana
Ohio
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
North Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
New York
New York
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii