Notes on Harper’s Beauty, Harperocallis fl ava (Tofieldiaceae), in Bay County, Florida Lisa A. Keppner1,* and Loran C. Anderson2 Abstract - Long known only from three populations along a 32-kilometer stretch of SR 65 in Franklin and Liberty counties, FL, a new population of Harperocallis fl ava (Harper’s beauty) has been discovered in Bay County, FL. Observations on some aspects of its natural history are included. On May 16, 2003, a population of Harperocallis fl ava McDaniel (Harper’s beauty) was observed blooming adjacent to a seepage slope in Bay County, FL. Prior to this discovery, there were only a few known populations of this species, all east of the Apalachicola River approximately 64 km (40 mi) away in the Apalachicola National Forest in Liberty and Franklin counties, FL. McDaniel (1968) discovered this previously undescribed genus of the Liliaceae in May 1965. The genus was subsequently placed in the family Amaryllidaceae (ca 2002) then Tofieldeaceae (ca 2003). Harper’s beauty was found in an open bog at the type locality, but was more frequent in an adjacent, slightly drier area inhabited by Cliftonia monophylla Lam. (black titi) and Myrica inodora Bartr. (odorless bayberry) (McDaniel 1968). The description of the type locality for this species is nearly identical to that of the new locality in Bay County. The US Fish and Wildlife Service listed Harper’s beauty as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1979. At that time, the total number of known Harper’s beauty was around 100 plants and two populations: the type locality in Franklin County and a site in Liberty County north of Wilma from which a student collected a specimen in 1975 and that has never been relocated (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1983). Acting on reports of a substantial population of Harper’s beauty occurring along SR 65 near the type locality, Leonard and Baker (1983) performed a survey to estimate the population and the extent of occurrence of the species. Their survey began by visiting each of the three major assemblages at the type locality referred to as Population 1; Colonies 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (1983). An estimated 200 plants were found in Population 1 at that time (Leonard and Baker 1983). The survey continued north on SR 65 to Telogia in an unsuccessful attempt to find the population “north of Wilma” and included forays down many Forest Service roads and CR 379. The result was the discovery of a new population of Harper’s beauty consisting of approximately 5620 plants along a 15-km stretch of SR 65 between the type locality and Wilma (Leonard and Baker 1983). Because Harper’s beauty is a rhizomatous plant and it is assumed that the plants were left intact for the survey, it is further assumed that the above estimates were made by counting individual fl owering stems also known as ramets. Even though Leonard and Baker’s survey added a new population of Harper’s beauty and greatly increased the number of plants known to occur, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (1983) determined that the species should remain classified as endangered. They cited the following reasons for their decision: 1) there were believed to be only two extant populations; 2) both populations occurred along the roadside making them vulnerable to collecting, vandalism, or vehicle damage; 3) there were no healthy populations or colonies occurring in natural habitat; and 4) no plants had been found outside the historic 32- km range (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1983). Habitat management and intensified surveys within the Apalachicola National Forest since the 1990s have resulted in the finding of additional off-road sites supporting Harper’s beauty (Walker and Silletti Notes of the Southeastern Nat u ral ist, Issue 7/1, 2008 180 2008 Southeastern Naturalist Notes 181 2005; Louise Kirn, USDA, Apalachicola National Forest, pers. comm.). It is believed that the discovery of this small, isolated population in Bay County will provide an opportunity to learn more about the distribution and genetic diversity of this species. Because this population is on private property, measures need to be taken to secure the site to protect this population from extirpation. Securing this population would be an important step toward recovery of this species. The new area of occurrence is approximately 0.41 ha (1 acre) in size and is located on privately owned property in the southwest quarter of Bay County, FL, in Township 4 South, Range 13 West. The coordinates of the site were determined with a hand-held Garmin Etrex Legend GPS receiver, but are not being published at the request of the landowner to protect the site. A voucher specimen of Harper’s beauty was collected and deposited in the Robert K. Godfrey Herbarium at Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. An additional 5 ha (12 acres) of property adjacent to the area that supports Harper’s beauty contains similar habitat, but repeated attempts to find the species there have been unsuccessful. The Bay County site has been visited numerous times since its discovery to empirically monitor its condition and list the various plant associates. In order to accomplish this evaluation, the site was partitioned into four different areas with fl agging to surround the four main groupings of Harper’s beauty. Table 1 shows the results along with the approximate size of each area and the number of ramets found in 2006 and 2007. Ramets found outside the four main groupings were also included in row 0 of Table 1. Numbers in parentheses in Table 1 are additional Harper’s beauty plants that were identified by the presence of a dried ramet from the previous year. All but one of these plants had green basal leaves, but did not produce a fl ower in 2007. One hundred fifteen (115) fresh ramets of Harper’s beauty were counted on May 12, 2006, and 70 fresh ramets were observed the following year on May 18, 2007. If one includes the live plants that did not produce a fl ower in 2007, that would still be a decline of 23% in the population. The reasons for the decline are not known, but could be attributed to drought (precipitation during the spring months of 2007 was the lowest on record for the Florida panhandle), overgrowth of surrounding vegetation, human error in surveying, or some unknown factor. Strata coverage and dominance for each area was determined in May 2007 (Table 2). The dominant overstory species in all four areas is Pinus elliottii Engelm. (slash pine), but its canopy provides only about 0 to 10 percent cover. The midstory ranges from about 30 to 40 percent cover Table 1. Number of Harper’s beauty ramets observed. Area No. Size (ha) 12 May 06 18 May 07 0 n/a 2 3 (0) 1 0.024 45 44 (3) 2 0.005 33 6 (5) 3 0.009 8 2 (0) 4 0.022 27 15 (11) Total 0.060 115 70 (19) Table 2. Estimated percent cover of each area by strata. Strata Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Overstory 0–10% 0–10% 0–10% 0–10% Midstory 40–50% 30–40% 50–60% 70–80% Ground cover 85–95% 85–95% 85–95% 85–95% 182 Southeastern Naturalist Notes Vol. 7, No. 1 in area 2 to about 70 to 80 percent in area 4 and is dominated by black titi. Gaylussacia mosieri Small (woolly huckleberry), Lyonia lucida (Lam.) Koch (fetterbush), Myrica caroliniensis Mill. (evergreen bayberry), and Serenoa repens (Bartr.) Small (saw palmetto) are other common midstory species at the site. The ground surface is about 85 to 95 percent covered with a variety of sedges, herbs, grasses, and moderate leaf litter. Appendix 1 provides a complete list of plant associates and shows in which of the four groupings each species is found. In observing the plants at this site over the past 5 years, it was learned that the best time to survey this site is in mid-May when the majority of the plants are in bloom. Even careful observation just prior to anthesis and post anthesis may result in an under-estimate of ramets present. To illustrate this phenomenon, a ramet count performed in area 1 on May 8, 2007 yielded 35 ramets with about 5 fl owers in bloom. Ten days later when more fl owers were in bloom, 44 ramets were observed by the same observer using the same survey technique. This disparity is presumably due to the difficulty in seeing the greenish buds and capsules that blend in with their surroundings in the dappled sunlight. The bright yellow tepals visible at full anthesis, however, are difficult to miss. Anderson found that most fl owers along SR 65 had more than the standard three carpels (Utech and Anderson 2002), but all fl owers observed in the national forest away from the highway and at the new Bay County site had the typical tricarpellate fl owers. On May 18, 2007, the senior author observed and photographed a small bee collecting pollen from a Harper’s beauty fl ower. The photos taken were used to independently identify the bee as a Halictidae or sweat bee by Jim Crane of the USDA-ARS Bee Biology and Systematics Lab and Sam Droege of the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Pollination of Harper’s beauty by this species of sweat bee is consistent with the findings of Pitts-Singer et al. (2002) during their study of pollinators at a Franklin County, FL location. Acknowledgments. The authors wish to thank the property owner for allowing them access to the site and permission to perform the surveys. Thanks to Dr. Edwin Keppner for his support and for reviewing the manuscript. We also wish to thank Patty Kelly of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Jim Crane of the USDA-ARS Bee Biology and Systematics Lab, and Sam Droege of the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center for their assistance in identifying the pollinator. Literature Cited Leonard, S.W., and W.W. Baker. 1983. Additional populations of Harperocallis fl ava McDaniel (Liliaceae). Castanea. 48(2):151–152. McDaniel, S. 1968. Harperocallis, a new genus of the Liliaceae from Florida. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 49(1):35–40. Pitt-Singer, T.L., J.L. Hanula, and Joan L. Walker. 2002. Insect pollinators of three rare plants in a Florida longleaf pine forest. Florida Entomologist 85(2):308–316 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Harper’s beauty recovery plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 32 pp. Utech, F., and L.C. Anderson. 2002. The genus Harperocallis (Liliaceae). Flora of North America 26:58. Walker, J.L., and A. M. Silletti. 2005. A three-year demographic study of Harper’s beauty (Harperocallis fl ava McDaniel), an endangered Florida endemic. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 132(4):551–560. 14406 Garrison Road, Panama City, FL 32404. 2Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4370. *Corresponding author - lkeppner@bellsouth.net. 2008 Southeastern Naturalist Notes 183 Appendix 1. Plants found in association with Harper’s beauty on the Bay County, FL site. The numbers indicate the area in the site; an “x” indicates presence within the area. Family Species Common name 1 2 3 4 Poaceae Aristida purpurescens var. virgata (Trin.) Allred Arrowfeather threeawn x Poaceae A. stricta Michx. Wiregrass x x x x Asteraceae Bigelowia nudata (Michx.) DC Pineland rayless goldenrod x Orchidaceae Calopogon pallidus Chapm. Pale grasspink x x x Asteraceae Carphephorus pseudoliatris Cass. Bristleleaf chaffhead x Asteraceae Chaptalia tomentosa Vent. Pineland daisy x x x Orchidaceae Pogonia divaricata (L.) R. Br. Rosebud orchid x Cyrillaceae Cliftonia monophylla (Lam.) Sarg. Black titi x x x x Poaceae Ctenium aromaticum (Walt.) Wood Toothachegrass x x x x Poaceae Dichanthelium nudicaule (Vasey) H. & W. Naked-stemmed panic grass x Poaceae D. ensifolium var. unciphyllum (Trin.) H. & W. No common name x x x x Droseraceae Drosera capillaris Poir. Pink sundew x x x x Droseraceae D. tracyii MacFarland Tracy’s sundew x x x x Eriocaulaceae Eriocaulon compressum Lam. Flattened pipewort x x x x Eriocaulaceae E. nigrobracteatum Bridges & Orzell No common name x Eriocaulaceae E. texense Korn. Texas pipewort x x x Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia inundata Torr. ex Chapm. Florida pineland spurge x Ericaceae Gaylucassia mosieri Small Woolly huckleberry x x x x Clusiaceae Hypericum brachyphyllum (Spach.) Steud. Coastalplain St. John’s-wort x x x x Clusiaceae H. fasciculatum Lam. Sandweed x Haemodoraceae Lachnanthes caroliniana (Lam.) Dandy Carolina redroot x x x Eriocaulaceae Lachnocaulon anceps (Walt.) Morong Whitehead bogbutton x x x Haemodoraceae Lophiola aurea Ker Gawl. Goldencrest x x x x Lycopodiaceae Lycopodiella alopecuroides (L.) Cranfill Foxtail clubmoss x x x Lycopodiaceae L. caroliniana (L.) Pic. Serm. Slender clubmoss x x x x 184 Southeastern Naturalist Notes Vol. 7, No. 1 Family Species Common name 1 2 3 4 Ericaceae Lyonia lucida (Lam.) K. Koch Fetterbush x x x x Magnoliaceae Magnolia virginiana L. Sweetbay x Myricaceae Myrica caroliniensis Mill. Evergreen bayberry x Myricaceae M. inodora Bartr. Odorless bayberry x Lentibulariaceae Pinguicula sp. Butterwort x Pinaceae Pinus elliottii Engelm. Slash pine x x x x Tofieldaceae Pleea tenuifolia Michx. Rush featherling x x x x Polygalaceae Polygala cruciata L. Drumheads x x x Polygalaceae P. lutea L. Orange milkwort x x x Melastomataceae Rhexia alifanus Walt. Savannah meadowbeauty x x Melastomataceae R. lutea Walt. Meadowbeauty x x x Cyperaceae Rhynchospora baldwinii Gray Baldwin’s beaksedge x x Cyperaceae R. brachychaeta Wright ex Sauv. Wright’s beaksedge x Cyperaceae R. chapmanii Curtis Chapman’s beaksedge x Cyperaceae R. ciliaris (Michx.) C. Mohr Fringed beaksedge x Cyperaceae R. fascicularis (Michx.) Vahl Fascicled beaksedge x x Cyperaceae R. gracilenta Gray Slender beaksedge x x Sarraceniaceae Sarracenia fl ava L. Yellow pitcherplant x x x x Sarraceniaceae S. psittacina Michx. Parrot pitcherplant x x x x Poaceae Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash Little bluestem x Arecaceae Serenoa repens (Bartr.) Small Saw palmetto x x Scrophulariacea Seymeria cassioides (Gmel.) Blake Yaupon blacksenna x Poaceae Sporobolus fl oridanus Chapm. Florida dropseed x x Eriocaulaceae Syngonanthus fl avidulus (Michx.) Ruhl. In Engler Yellow hatpins x x x x Xyridaceae Xyris ambigua Beyr. ex Kunth Coastalplain yelloweyed grass x x Xyridaceae X. baldwiniana Schult. Baldwin’s yelloweyed grass x x x x Xyridaceae X. drummondii Malme Drummond’s yelloweyed grass x