The Southern Rocky Mountains and adja-cent prairies of Colorado (EPA Level III Eco -regions; Chapman et al. 2006) are character-ized by a mosaic of environments typical ofmany montane portions of North America,particularly western North America (Will-Wolfet al. 2006). Boulder County alone ranges in
elevation from under 1524 m (5000 ft) to over4267 m (14,000 ft), traversing mixed grassprairies (with tallgrass relicts), submontaneforested foothills, and alpine environmentsabove treeline. Among these dominant vegeta-tion zones are patches of much rarer habitattypes, such as outcroppings of sandstone or
Western North American Naturalist 75(3), © 2015, pp. 301–310
LICHEN INVENTORY OF WHITE ROCKS OPEN SPACE (CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO)
Erin A. Tripp1
ABSTRACT.—A lichen inventory of White Rocks Open Space (City of Boulder, CO), a unique outcropping of exposedunstable sandstones, is presented. White Rocks is an ecologically important, ~40.5-ha (100-acre) protected area whosebiological significance is in part attributable to geological and climatological history as well as degree of preservation,but also because it represents a biodiversity reservoir in a sea of agriculture and urban development. This inventoryresulted in documentation of 56 species, including 1 new record to the United States, 1 new record to Colorado,2 species new to science, and 2 additional species potentially new to science pending further study. Several species,though common at White Rocks, are locally rare within Boulder County and the Front Range Mountains of Coloradoowing to a paucity of exposed sandstone. Such species instead have affinities to habitats more typical of eastern and farwestern Colorado, such as the state’s high plains and sage-juniper scrub. A checklist of the 56 species is presented alongwith an assessment of taxon abundance and preliminary delimitation of 5 lichen communities. General discussion ofecology and management recommendations is provided. The present study is intended to begin the process of morefully documenting the lichen biota of Boulder City, Boulder County, and surrounding areas. Data herein also contributenew knowledge to the North American lichen biota as a whole via a comprehensive inventory of a sandstone formation,of which there exist relatively few. The inventory highlights the ecological significance of Open Space programs nation-wide, particularly those in densely populated areas such as the Denver–Boulder–Longmont urban triangle. The discov-eries reported here were made within a 10-min drive of the University of Colorado, demonstrating the potential forfurther discovery in Colorado lichenology.
RESUMEN.—Presentamos un inventario de líquenes de White Rocks Open Space (Ciudad de Boulder, Colorado), unafloramiento único de areniscas blandas expuestas. White Rocks es una área ecológica protegida importante de 40.5 ha(100 acres) de extensión, cuya importancia biológica es atribuible, en parte, a su historia geológica y climatológica, así comoa su nivel de preservación, y a que representa una reserva de biodiversidad en un océano de agricultura y desarrollourbano. Este inventario resultó en la documentación de 56 especies, incluyendo 1 nuevo registro en Estados Unidos,1 nuevo registro en Colorado, 2 nuevas especies para la ciencia y, a la espera de nuevos estudios, 2 especies adicionalespotencialmente nuevas para la ciencia. Varias especies, aunque habituales en White Rocks, raramente se localizan en elCondado de Boulder y en las Montañas Front Range de Colorado debido a la escasez de piedra arenisca expuesta. Dehecho, estas especies tienen afinidad con hábitats más típicos del este y el lejano oeste de Colorado, como las llanuras ylas arboladas de salvia y enebros del estado. Presentamos un listado de las 56 especies, junto con una evaluación de laabundancia del taxón y la delimitación preliminar de 5 comunidades de líquenes. Se proporciona una discusión generalsobre la ecología y proporcionamos recomendaciones para su manejo. El presente estudio tiene como objetivo iniciar elproceso de documentación de la biota de líquenes de Boulder City, el condado y sus alrededores de forma más com-pleta. Los datos que presentamos también contribuyen al nuevo conocimiento de la biota de líquenes de América delNorte a través del inventario completo de una formación de piedra arenisca, sobre las cuales existen relativamente pocosinventarios. El inventario que se describe aquí destaca la importancia ecológica de los programas de Open Space (Espa-cio Abierto) a lo largo del país, sobre todo aquellos llevados a cabo en zonas densamente pobladas, como el triángulourbano Denver–Boulder–Longmont. Los descubrimientos aquí documentados se realizaron a una distancia de 10 minu-tos en automóvil de la Universidad de Colorado, lo que demuestra el potencial de futuros descubrimientos sobreliquenología en Colorado.
1University of Colorado, Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology and Museum of Natural History, UCB 350, Boulder, CO 80309. E-mail:[email protected]
301
shale, eastern woodland relict forests, andfens. Given this biological mosaic and thegeneral ecological significance of Colorado’snative habitats, the lichen biota of the state isexpected to be particularly rich and represen-tative of numerous other ecosystems of west-ern North America. Yet, a comprehensiveaccount of lichens in Colorado is lacking.Instead, most literature on the biota exists astaxon-specific reports of occurrences. Shushanand Anderson (1969) provided the only at -tempt at a full checklist of the state’s lichens(448 species treated), but this work was basedentirely on literature reports rather than veri-fication of specimens held in herbaria. Beyondthis, there have been a limited number ofregional inventory efforts (Anderson 1962,Dakota Sandstone; Egan 1970, Mt. Audubonalpine; Hale 1982, Flat Tops Wilderness Area;McCune et al. 1998, macrolichens associatedwith the USFS’s Forest Health MonitoringProram; Shrestha and St. Clair 2009, SanJuan–Rio Grand National Forest; see additional
references listed in Shushan and Anderson1969, as well as a review of lichenologicalinventory work in Colorado presented inShrestha and St. Clair 2009). The present con-tribution adds to the list of local or regionalinventories in the state and serves as initialsteps toward a revision of the lichen biota ofBoulder County and surrounding areas.
White Rocks Open Space
White Rocks Open Space (Fig. 1) representsan ~40.5-ha (100-acre) ecologically importantprotected area, situated within and proximalto the eastern limits of the City of Boulder,Colorado. Its biological significance is in partattributable to its geological history, climato-logical history, and degree of preservation(MacPhail et al. 1970), but also because it rep-resents an important biodiversity reservoirin a sea of agriculture and urban development(i.e., the Boulder–Denver–Longmont urbantriangle). White Rocks is a rare and fragileoutcropping of sandstone that rises directly
302 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 75
Fig. 1. Western end of sandstone outcropping at White Rocks Open Space, showing depressions and rises typical oflarge, upper rock shelf. The iconic “Flatiron” mountains of the City of Boulder toward the west are seen in background.
above the northern margin of Boulder Creek.The outcropping itself consists of a large 1- to2-tiered sandstone shelf, with both horizontaland vertical exposed surfaces, and is ~1000 min length oriented east–west. This prominentoutcropping is flanked by a slightly moreminor adjacent sandstone exposure directly tothe east, which is some ~800 m in length. Theoutcrops belong to the Fox Hills Sandstone ofthe Laramie Formation, dating to ~67 millionyears (MacPhail et al. 1970, Weimer 1973,Hirschfeld 2013a, 2013b). The sandstone atWhite Rocks is, as the name implies, verywhite in color and composed primarily ofquartz with minor amounts of montmorilliniteclay. The White Rocks outcropping is knownin particular for its peculiar jointed polygonsor “turtlebacks” that characterize horizontalsurfaces of the exposed rock (Fig. 2). Thesepolygons are thought to be derived from fluc-tuating levels of moisture content in the mon-tomorillinite clay, which combine with otherenvironmental factors to induce stresses andcracks, culminating in polygons (Netoff 1971).The sandstone itself is extremely fragile andsusceptible to weathering by foot travel ornatural phenomena such as strong rains or highwinds, but its erosion is slowed substantiallyby characteristic “case hardening” of thesuperficial-most surfaces of the turtlebacks,which derives from hardened clay strength-ened by a biotic crust—primarily lichens.
Despite the small geographic size of WhiteRocks, the preserve is known to harbor severalrare vascular plants as well as invertebrates,likely because of microhabitat diversity thereinrepresented (Byars 1936, Weber 1949, 1970,Clark et al. 2001). Microhabitat differentiationat White Rocks is attributable to small-scalevariation in relative humidity and water availa -bility, exposure to wind and sun, mineralcontent, aspect and steepness of slopes (Mac -Phail et al. 1970), and the biotic environmentitself. Examples of microhabitats representedat White Rocks include (1) large sandstonesurfaces exposed to high radiation and windsintermixed with (2) shaded, deep to shallowcrevices, (3) steep walls and ledges with over-hangs that border riparian forests below, (4)large bowl-shaped depressions and smallerdepressions (including turtlebacks) that be -come short-term catchments for water, (5)regions of sandstone with naturally higherclay content (and thus higher water-holding
capacity), (6) regions of sandstone with greatercase hardening attributable to evaporativeprocesses, clay content, and biotic crusts thatleave behind a substrate that is more resistantto weathering, (7) bands of separation betweenFox Hill Sandstone formations interrupted byexposed Pierre shales, and finally (8) mineralinclusions (chert or calcareous material) thatform concretions and are intermixed amongsandstones. Based on this diversity of micro-habitats, the existing knowledge of the biota ofWhite Rocks, and research elsewhere that hasdocumented rich and unique lichen biotas oncomparable sandstone formations (Fink 1904,Gilbert 1980, Showman 1987, Clark et al. 2001),White Rocks is hypothesized to host a uniquecommunity of lichens that is unrepresented orunderrepresented in Boulder County, as wellas across the state. Indeed, other sandstoneoutcrops in North America host rare or un -usual species of lichens such as Dibaeis absolutaand Ramalina petrina (Skorepa 1973, Showman1987).
Despite a history of research and generalinterest in the White Rocks Open Space, noinventory or assessment of lichens of thisunique outcropping has been conducted. Themost relevant prior works regarding the lichenbiota of the immediate area (Colorado’s “FrontRange”) are those of Anderson (1962) andWeber (in Hogan 1993). Anderson (1962) sur-veyed lichens of the Dakota sandstone ofnorth central Colorado but excluded manycrustose species from that work. Weber (inHogan 1993) provided a synoptic list of thelichens of Boulder’s Mountain Parks, but thislist lacks numerous species (especially crus-tose taxa) and taxonomy therein is outdated.Thus, the objective of the present investiga-tion was to conduct an inventory of lichensof White Rocks Open Space. This inventorybuilds baseline information about the biodi-versity of this important preserve, enableslong-term conservation planning and resourcemanagement in a data-driven manner, facili-tates future lichen taxonomic and ecologicalresearch in the area, and improves our capacityto educate the broader public about the im -portance of lichens in urban environments.
METHODS
Between June and September 2014, a licheninventory of White Rocks Open Space (City of
2015] LICHENS OF WHITE ROCKS, BOULDER, CO 303
304 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 75
Fig. 2. Turtlebacks (polygons) characteristic of horizontal surfaces at White Rocks, derived from fluctuating levels ofmoisture content in the montomorillinite clay, which combine with other environmental factors to induce stresses and cracks.
Fig. 3. Approximate boundaries of the White Rocks lichen inventory (red outline), which closely mirrors the areadelimited by Boulder as the White Rocks Conservation Target.
Boulder, CO) was conducted over the courseof 6 site visits. The area covered by this surveywas ~40.5 ha (100 acres) (Fig. 3). The inven-tory was conducted primarily via new fieldcollections rather than existing museum speci-mens, given the lack of adequate representa-tion of this site among lichen herbaria (www.lichenportal.com), including the University ofColorado Herbarium (COLO). Occasionalhistorical specimens from White Rocks housedat COLO were additionally studied as part ofthis work but yielded no additional speciesbeyond those discovered during fieldwork(see Results).
Lichens were sampled using standard fieldcollection techniques employed in previousstudies (e.g., Lendemer and Tripp 2008,Lendemer et al. 2013). All accessible habitatsand substrates contained within the ~40.5-ha(100-acre) preserve were targeted (i.e., theupper and lower flat rock outcrops, the imme-diately adjacent accessible portions of verticalrock faces, the lower floodplain zone that isdensely vegetated and has few exposed rocks,and the adjacent prairie habitats includingsoil and plant substrates). To capture totaldiversity as best as possible, terricolous (soil),saxicolous (rock), corticolous (bark), and ligni-colous (decaying wood) substrates were sam-pled. However, given the fragile nature of rocksurfaces and the relatively small size of thepreserve, care was taken to (1) remove smallamounts of material for vouchers and to do soaway from a pathway that is used by staffmembers for tours and monitoring, and (2)make only the minimal number of voucherspecimens needed to produce a completeinventory (i.e., a given species was sampledonly once unless additional collections wereneeded to confirm identifications, as in thecase for several crustose species). Care wasalso taken to avoid the general area of a long-term Bald Eagle nest atop a large snag on thenorthern margin of Boulder Creek. Locality,habitat, substrate, and ecological data wererecorded for all vouchers. Additionally, I esti-mated taxon abundance on a quantitative toqualitative scale with 5 rankings: rare, infre-quent, occasional, common, and abundant. Aspecies that was seen only once was consid-ered rare, whereas a species that was seen 2–4times was considered infrequent. Rankings ofoccasional, common, and abundant were as -sessed qualitatively rather than based on the
precise number of thalli seen. All collectionswere photographed in the field using a NikonD7100 digital SLR with a 105-mm 1:1 macro -lens and ring flash, in preparation for a fieldguide (Tripp in press). One to 2 vouchers percollection were made, and the primary set ofspecimens is deposited at the University ofColorado Herbarium, Museum of NaturalHistory. Taxonomy and nomenclature followEsslinger (2014) for the most part.
Chemistry was studied using standard spottest reagents as outlined in Brodo et al. (2001).Thin Layer Chromatography was conductedusing Solvent C as outlined by Culberson andKristinsson (1970). Measurements and micro-graphs of macroscopic and microscope struc-tures were made as needed for identificationsusing an Olympus SZX10 stereomicroscopeand an Olympus BX51 compound epifluores-cence microscope equipped with a Retiga2000R imaging system. Thin sections of thalliand ascomata were made by hand using arazor blade then mounted in water or iodine.
RESULTS
A total of 82 collections were made andphotographed in the field, and the collectionsyielded 56 species of lichens (Table 1). Thetotal number of species on a given substratewas as follows: 50 saxicolous, 4 corticolous,and 2 terricolous. Of the 56 species, 40 werecrustose, 11 were foliose, 4 were squamulose,and 1 was fruticose. On an abundance scalewith 5 rankings, the number of species perranking was as follows: 9 abundant, 9 com-mon, 19 occasional, 12 infrequent, and 7 rare(Table 1). These 82 collections also yielded 2species new to science (Tripp and Lendemer2015), 2 additional species putatively new toscience (currently under further investiga-tion), 1 new report to the United States, and 1new report to Colorado (Table 1).
DISCUSSION
The present study serves as the first docu-mentation of the lichen biota of a rare sand-stone formation in Boulder County, Colorado.Somewhat remarkably, there have been veryfew lichen inventories of sandstone formationsin North America. By far the most relevant tothe present study was that of Anderson (1962),who inventoried the Dakota sandstone forma-tion of northern Colorado. He documented
2015] LICHENS OF WHITE ROCKS, BOULDER, CO 305
306 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 75T
AB
LE
1.C
heck
list
of t
he l
iche
ns o
f W
hite
Roc
ks O
pen
Spac
e, C
ity
of B
ould
er, C
olor
ado.
Col
lect
ion
num
bers
ref
er t
o E
. Tri
pp n
umbe
rs, h
ouse
d at
the
Uni
vers
ity
of C
olor
ado
Her
bari
um (
CO
LO
). Ta
xon
abun
danc
e w
as m
easu
red
on a
sca
le w
ith
5 ra
nkin
gs:
rare
, in
freq
uent
, oc
casi
onal
, co
mm
on,
and
abun
dant
(se
e te
xt f
or f
urth
er c
lari
fica
tion
). N
otes
spec
ific
to a
taxo
n re
port
are
giv
en fo
llow
ing
the
chec
klis
t.
Taxo
nC
olle
ctio
n nu
mbe
r(s)
Abu
ndan
ce s
cale
Not
es
Aca
rosp
ora
obpa
llens
(Nyl
. ex
Has
se) Z
ahlb
r.E
. Tri
pp &
D. C
lark
481
7;E
. Tri
pp e
t al.
4830
occa
sion
alA
caro
spor
a so
cial
is H
. Mag
n.E
. Tri
pp 4
806
occa
sion
alA
caro
spor
a sp
. nov
.E
. Tri
pp 4
820
rare
1A
caro
spor
a st
riga
ta (N
yl.)
Jatt
aE
. Tri
pp e
t al.
4559
; E. T
ripp
480
8, 4
868
abun
dant
Asp
icili
a ci
nere
a (L
.) K
örbe
rE
. Tri
pp &
V. D
íaz
4880
occa
sion
alC
alop
laca
atr
ofla
va(T
urne
r) M
ong.
E. T
ripp
& D
. Cla
rk 4
824
abun
dant
2C
alop
laca
dec
ipie
ns (A
rnol
d) B
lom
b. &
For
ss.
E. T
ripp
et a
l. 48
45oc
casi
onal
Cal
opla
ca p
rate
nsis
Wet
mor
eE
. Tri
pp e
t al.
4836
; E. T
ripp
487
3oc
casi
onal
Cal
opla
ca s
axic
ola
(Hof
fm.)
Nor
din
E. T
ripp
et a
l. 48
38co
mm
onC
alop
laca
sid
eriti
s (T
uck.
) Zah
lbr.
E. T
ripp
et a
l. 48
35in
freq
uent
Cal
opla
ca s
ubso
luta
(Nyl
.) Z
ahlb
r.E
. Tri
pp e
t al.
4832
occa
sion
alC
alop
laca
trac
hyph
ylla
(Tuc
k.) Z
ahlb
r.E
. Tri
pp 4
812
abun
dant
Can
dela
riel
la c
lark
ii E
. Tri
pp &
Len
dem
erE
. Tri
pp &
V. D
íaz
4876
rare
3C
ande
lari
ella
ros
ulan
s (M
üll.
Arg
.) Z
ahlb
r.E
. Tri
pp 4
809,
4811
; E. T
ripp
& V
. Día
z 48
77ab
unda
ntC
olle
ma
tena
x (S
w.)
Ach
.E
. Tri
pp &
V. D
íaz
4878
infr
eque
ntD
erm
atoc
arpo
n am
eric
anum
Vai
n.E
. Tri
pp e
t al.
4844
infr
eque
ntD
erm
atoc
arpo
n m
oulin
sii (
Mon
t.) Z
ahlb
r.E
. Tri
pp e
t al.
4828
rare
Dip
losc
hist
es s
crup
osus
(Sch
rebe
r) N
orm
anE
. Tri
pp &
D. C
lark
485
7,48
59; E
. Tri
pp 4
867
occa
sion
alD
iplo
tom
ma
venu
sta
(Kör
b.) K
örb.
E. T
ripp
et a
l. 48
49oc
casi
onal
End
ocar
pon
palli
dulu
m (N
yl.)
Nyl
.E
. Tri
pp e
t al.
4829
; E. T
ripp
& D
. Cla
rk 4
850,
486
0,
occa
sion
alE
. Tri
pp 4
862
Lec
anor
a ar
goph
olis
(Ach
.) A
ch.
E. T
ripp
& D
. Cla
rk 4
819,
482
3co
mm
onL
ecan
ora
garo
vagl
ii(K
örb.
) Zah
lbr.
E. T
ripp
481
3; E
. Tri
pp e
t al.
4833
;co
mm
onE
. Tri
pp &
D. C
lark
485
2L
ecan
ora
mur
alis
(Sch
rebe
r) R
aben
h.E
. Tri
pp &
D. C
lark
482
2co
mm
onL
ecan
ora
sp. n
ov.
E. T
ripp
& D
. Cla
rk 4
823
rare
4L
ecid
ea h
ogan
iiE
. Tri
pp &
Len
dem
erE
. Tri
pp 4
801,
480
5in
freq
uent
3L
ecid
ea s
p.E
. Tri
pp &
V. D
íaz
4881
infr
eque
nt5
Lec
idea
tess
ella
ta F
lörk
eE
. Tri
pp &
D. C
lark
481
8, 4
856
infr
eque
nt6
Lec
idel
la c
arpa
thic
a K
örb.
E. T
ripp
& V
. Día
z 48
76in
freq
uent
Lec
idel
la p
atav
ina
(A. M
assa
l.) K
noph
& L
euck
ert
E. T
ripp
486
9, 4
870
abun
dant
Lec
idel
la s
tigm
atea
(Ach
.) H
erte
l & L
euck
ert
E. T
ripp
et a
l. 48
46in
freq
uent
2015] LICHENS OF WHITE ROCKS, BOULDER, CO 307T
AB
LE
1. C
onti
nued
Taxo
nC
olle
ctio
n nu
mbe
r(s)
Abu
ndan
ce s
cale
Not
es
Mon
tane
lia to
min
ii(O
xner
) Div
akar
E. T
ripp
et a
l. 48
42oc
casi
onal
Phae
ophy
scia
nig
rica
ns(F
lörk
e) M
ober
gE
. Tri
pp 4
865
rare
Phys
ciel
la m
elan
chra
(Hue
) Ess
l. E
. Tri
pp &
D. C
lark
485
4; E
. Tri
pp 4
871
abun
dant
Plac
idiu
m s
quam
ulos
um(A
ch.)
Bre
uss.
E. T
ripp
& V
. Día
z 48
82oc
casi
onal
Poly
spor
ina
sim
plex
(Tay
lor)
Vez
daE
. Tri
pp e
t al.
4841
com
mon
Psor
a tu
cker
man
ii R
.A. A
nder
son
ex T
imda
lE
. Tri
pp 4
804,
E. T
ripp
& V
. Día
z 48
79oc
casi
onal
Rhi
zoca
rpon
dis
poru
m(N
ägel
i ex
Hep
p) M
üll.
Arg
.E
. Tri
pp &
D. C
lark
486
1oc
casi
onal
Rhi
zopl
aca
chry
sole
uca
(Sm
.) Z
opf
E. T
ripp
& D
. Cla
rk 4
816
com
mon
Rin
odin
a py
rina
(Ach
.) A
rnol
dE
. Tri
pp 4
872
com
mon
Rin
odin
a st
raus
siiJ
. Ste
iner
E. T
ripp
481
4oc
casi
onal
Rin
odin
a ve
nost
ana
Bus
char
dt. &
H. M
ayrh
ofer
E. T
ripp
& D
. Cla
rk 4
858
rare
7St
auro
thel
e ar
eola
ta(A
ch.)
Let
tau
E. T
ripp
480
2, 4
803,
486
3ab
unda
ntVe
rruc
aria
bel
tram
inia
na(A
. Mas
sal.)
Tre
vis.
E
. Tri
pp 4
810
com
mon
8Ve
rruc
aria
furf
urac
ea(B
. de
Les
d.) B
reus
sE
. Tri
pp e
t al.
4831
infr
eque
ntVe
rruc
aria
gla
ucov
iren
sG
rum
man
nE
. Tri
pp 4
851
infr
eque
ntX
anth
omen
doza
falla
x(H
epp
ex A
rnol
d) S
øcht
ing,
E
. Tri
pp &
D. C
lark
485
3ab
unda
ntK
ärne
felt
& S
.Y. K
ondr
.X
anth
omen
doza
gal
eric
ulat
a L
. Lin
dblo
mE
. Tri
pp e
t al.
4827
abun
dant
Xan
thop
arm
elia
col
orad
oëns
is (G
yeln
ik) H
ale
E. T
ripp
et a
l. 48
40; E
. Tri
pp &
D. C
lark
485
5oc
casi
onal
Xan
thop
arm
elia
lavi
cola
(Gye
lnik
) Hal
eE
. Tri
pp e
t al.
4839
, E. T
ripp
& V
. Día
z 48
74oc
casi
onal
Xan
thor
ia e
lega
ns(L
ink)
Th.
Fr.
E. T
ripp
et a
l. 48
43oc
casi
onal
Not
es
1. A
n un
desc
ribe
d ta
xon
that
is s
till u
nder
inve
stig
atio
n; a
man
uscr
ipt r
epor
ting
this
spe
cies
is fo
rthc
omin
g.
2. M
ost m
ater
ial r
esem
blin
g th
is ta
xon
(i.e.
, red
apo
thec
ia, i
ncon
spic
uous
thal
li) w
ithin
Nor
th A
mer
ican
her
bari
a is
iden
tifie
d as
Cal
opla
ca a
rena
ria
(Per
s.) M
üll.
Arg
. The
col
lect
ion
from
Whi
te R
ocks
has
a d
efin
itive
, alb
eit t
hin,
gra
y th
allu
s th
atre
acts
K+
pur
ple
in w
ater
mou
nt a
nd d
oes
not a
ppea
r to
be
obvi
ousl
y pa
rasi
tic o
n ot
her
liche
ns. A
s su
ch, t
he n
ame
Cal
opla
ca a
trof
lava
is h
ere
appl
ied
to th
is c
olle
ctio
n, in
stea
d of
C. a
rena
ria
or C
. epi
thal
lina.
3. T
he m
anus
crip
t rep
ortin
g th
ese
2 ne
w s
peci
es in
clud
es m
olec
ular
exp
lora
tion
of e
volu
tiona
ry r
elat
ions
hips
to c
lose
rel
ativ
es (T
ripp
and
Len
dem
er 2
015)
.
4. T
his
is a
n us
nic-
acid
con
tain
ing
spec
ies
that
is n
ot r
eadi
ly a
scri
babl
e to
any
thin
g in
Śliw
a’s
mon
ogra
ph (2
007)
of t
he L
ecan
ora
disp
ersa
com
plex
. S
5. S
imila
r to
Lec
idea
hog
anii,
thi
s co
llect
ion
has
a hy
men
ium
var
iabl
y st
aine
d w
ith a
pin
k pi
gmen
t; it
how
ever
diff
ers
from
L. h
ogan
ii by
its
turq
uois
e ep
ihym
eniu
m, I
- m
edul
la, a
nd m
uch
thin
ner
thal
lus.
Mor
e co
llect
ions
of
the
Lec
idea
and
Lec
idel
la c
omm
unity
are
nee
ded
to g
auge
the
com
mon
ness
of t
his
taxo
n. I
t is
incl
uded
in th
e ab
ove
chec
klis
t bec
ause
it r
epre
sent
s a
diffe
rent
ent
ity fr
om c
onge
ners
pre
sent
at W
hite
Roc
ks.
6. T
he n
ame
Lec
idea
tes
sella
ta is
uns
atis
fact
ory
for
this
tax
on; f
or e
xam
ple,
col
lect
ions
from
Whi
te R
ocks
hav
e an
I-
med
ulla
, a d
ark
gray
tha
llus,
and
lack
a b
lack
pro
thal
lus.
How
ever
, unt
il th
e ge
nus
or t
his
spec
ies
is fu
lly r
evis
ed in
wes
tern
Nor
th A
mer
ica
and
the
man
y en
titie
s co
ntai
ned
with
in L
. tes
sella
ta a
re s
epar
ated
out
, thi
s is
the
mos
t sui
tabl
e na
me
for
Whi
te R
ocks
mat
eria
l.
7. R
inod
ina
veno
stan
a w
as r
ecen
tly r
epor
ted
as n
ew to
Nor
th A
mer
ica,
from
a s
ands
tone
form
atio
n in
Sas
katc
hew
an (F
reeb
ury
2014
). T
his
colle
ctio
n re
port
ed h
ere
serv
es a
s th
e fir
st d
ocum
enta
tion
of R
. ven
osta
na in
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es, a
lthou
ghth
ere
is s
ome
poss
ibili
ty th
at e
vent
ually
, it m
ight
be
sepa
rate
d ou
t as
a ta
xon
new
to s
cien
ce (J
. She
ard,
per
sona
l com
mun
icat
ion)
.
8. T
his
reco
rd r
epre
sent
s th
e fir
st c
onfir
med
rep
ort o
f thi
s sp
ecie
s fo
r C
olor
ado.
130 species over a stretch of ~105 km (65 mi),ranging from Boulder northwards along theFront Range of the Rocky Mountains (seeadditional reports of psammophilous speciesadded by Anderson and Carmer 1974). BeyondAnderson’s study, Hale (1982) studied thelichens of Flat Tops Wilderness Area in Routtand White River National Forests, Colorado,but only a portion of the survey area containsexposed sandstone. Fink (1904) studied thelichen composition of sandstone riprap habitatin Iowa, an artificial habitat some 30 years oldat the time of Fink’s work. Showman (1987)studied the macrolichens of Crane Hollow inOhio, but that site was mostly forested andcontained only very small outcroppings ofsandstone. Finally, Rushforth et al. (1982)studied the lichens of Zion National Park andfound that species diversity was highest onsandstone boulders, but that study was eco-logical rather than taxonomic and no checklistwas presented. Thus, the present contributionfills a niche among modern lichen checklistswithin North America.
Lichen Communities of White Rocks
A preliminary circumscription of lichencommunities present at White Rocks is pre-sented below. These communities are notbased on quantitative composition data (e.g.,see Will-Wolf et al. 2006), nor are they inter-preted in light of environmental variables andvariation present at White Rocks. Rather, it isintended that the discussion below serves as afirst pass at understanding general communitytypes, which can then be used by ecologistsduring furture attempts to more quantitativelydefine lichen communities at the site. Thesepreliminary community circumscriptions canalso be used by Open Space management staffin conservation or other ecological studies ofthe White Rocks lichen biota.
Five lichen communities present at WhiteRocks are described below; the first 3 are rela-tively common, whereas the last 2 are minor.Conspicuously absent from White Rocks werecommon species of the lower montane foothillsof Boulder County with affinity to moisterenvironments (e.g., north-facing slopes) such asNephroma parile, Parmelia saxatilis, Peltigeracanina, Physconia enteroxantha, Physconiamuscigena, and Protoparmelia badia.
HORIZONTAL, LOOSE SANDSTONE (HLS).—This was by far the most commonly available
surface and also represents the most diverselichen community at White Rocks. The fragilenature of this community suggests that severalof the constituent lichens could be thought ofas biotic soil crusts with important ecologicalroles in slowing erosion. The following speciesare common constituents of HLS: Aspiciliacinerea, Acarospora strigata, Caloplaca atro -flava, Caloplaca pratensis, Candelariella rosu-lans, Lecanora argopholis, Lecanora garovaglii,Lecanora muralis, Lecidea patavina, Xantho -parmelia coloradoënsis, Xanthoparmelia lavi-cola. This community is dominated by Cande-lariella rosulans and Lecidea patavina.
TILTED, HARD SANDSTONE (THS).—Bouldersof varying sizes and consisting of sandstonethat is conspicuously harder in texture thanHLS dominate portions of the upper shelf atWhite Rocks. Lichens within this communityoccur on tilted to vertical surfaces, or on thetops of these boulders. The following speciesare common constituents of THS: Acarosporaobpallens, Acarospora socialis, Caloplaca saxi-cola, Caloplaca trachyphylla, Dermatocarponamericanum (usually in rock crevices), Diplo -schistes scruposus, Diplotomma venustum,Lecanora flowersiana, Lichinella stipatula,Montanelia tominii, Polysporina simplex, Psoratuckermanii (always in rock crevices), Rhizo-carpon disporum, Rhizoplaca chrysoleuca,Rinodina straussii, Staurothele areolata, andXanthomendoza trachyphylla. This communityis dominated by the small but pervasivecrustose species Staurothele areolata.
SHADED ROCK OVERHANG (SRO).—Thishabitat is limited in both size and lichendiversity at White Rocks. The only species thatis dominant in large, shaded rock overhangsis Lepraria finkii.
SOIL CRUST (SC).—At White Rocks, there isa conspicuous community of lichens that onlyinhabit the junction where sandstone and vege -tation meet. These species also extend ontoterricolous substrates of vegetated soils. Thiscommunity represents biotic soil crusts in thestrict sense of the phrase, but note that numer-ous species of the HLS community also fallunder the scope of biotic soil crust communi-ties given the extremely loose and fragilenature of those horizontal sandstone surfaces.The SC community consists primarily of Endo -carpon pallidulum and Placidium squamulosum.
CORTICOLOUS SURFACE (CS).—The corti-colous biota at White Rocks was, together
308 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 75
with SROs, the most species-poor of all 5communities (corticolous substrates were simi -larly poor in McCune et al. 1998). Celtisreticulata, Oligosporus filifolius, and Rhustrilobata were the most important vascularplant substrates. The following 4 species domi -nate the CS community: Physciella melanchra,Rinodina pyrina, Xanthomendoza fallax, andXanthomendoza galericulata.
Rare and Unusual Lichens at White Rocks
Although many species found at WhiteRocks are relatively common in similar habi-tats of western North America, sandstone out-croppings are unusual in the Front RangeMountains of Colorado. Given this, speciessuch as Acarospora obpallens, Endocarponpallidulum, Lecidella carpathica, Lecidellastigmatea, Lichenella nigritella, Lichenella sti-patula, Phaeophyscia nigricans, and Verrucariafurfuracea are relatively uncommon elementsof the local lichen biota and can be foundmore commonly in more arid portions of thestate, such as prairies and sagebrush orjuniper scrub.
Four species at White Rocks represent taxaunknown to science or putatively unknown toscience. Two of these, Candelariella clarkiiand Lecidea hoganii, were treated in detailin Tripp and Lendemer (2015). Two others(Acarospora sp. and Lecanora sp.) are underfurther investigation and will be treated in afuture manuscript. Both the new Candelariellaand the new Lecidea are extremely rare atWhite Rocks: the former was found only onceand the latter only twice. Extensive searchesthrough suitable named and unnamed ma -terial in the COLO Herbarium failed to pro-duce further specimens that can be attributedto these species. As such, it is likely that bothspecies are rare locally and globally, and wehave recommended that both be consideredCritically Endangered under current IUCNconservation assessment guidelines (Tripp andLendemer 2015). Recent work at other ex -posed sandstone sites of the Fox Hills Forma-tion has similarly yielded new, rare species(Westberg et al. 2011). Finally, Rinodina venos-tana represents the first report of this taxonfrom the United States, and Verrucaria bel-traminiana represents the first confirmedreport of this species for Colorado (see Table 1).
This inventory demonstrates that sand-stone habitats in the Southern Rockies are
underexplored lichenologically yet host di -verse and unique communities. Moreover,these discoveries were made within a 10-mindrive of the University of Colorado, whoseherbarium hosts one of the largest and mostactive collections of lichens in western NorthAmerica. This demonstrates the potential fordiscovery that remains in Colorado, evenwithin or near dense urban areas.
CONCLUSIONS
The present study represents one of themost comprehensive, modern lichen invento-ries of a site within or around the SouthernRocky Mountain ecoregion. The primary pur-pose of this research was to provide a check-list of the lichens of this unusual habitat thatcan be used by the City of Boulder’s OpenSpace and Mountain Parks research andadministrative staff in managing, protecting,and continuing to learn from our local biologi-cal resources. It is anticipated that this studywill open additional avenues of lichen re -search and conservation at White Rocks. Witha baseline now in place, these data will forexample enable a study of lichen succession inan area with already higher-than-average ratesof erosion. Additionally, as comprehensiveinventories of additional sites are made andbecome available, these data will contributeto future calculations of biodiversity statisticsacross the state (e.g., levels of alpha and betadiversity and impacts of ecological and clima-tological gradients on lichen biodiversity).
White Rocks hosts a rich and, withinBoulder County, unique lichen community.Sandstone formations are particularly sensi-tive landscapes. Excessive foot traffic, thinsoils, and high rates of erosion create a rela-tively unstable environment and one withpotentially slower rates of regeneration. Givenrecent development and continued habitatdestruction throughout North America, thelichen inventory described herein is particu-larly timely and highlights the ecological sig-nificance of Open Space programs nation-wide, particularly those in densely populatedareas such as the Denver–Boulder–Longmonturban triangle.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank first and foremost the City of Boul-der’s Open Space and Mountain Parks Program
2015] LICHENS OF WHITE ROCKS, BOULDER, CO 309
for their years of dedication and funding towardsthe preservation of native habitats in Boulder,Colorado. In particular, Lynn Riedel was instru-mental in facilitating this inventory. MeganBowes provided further support for buildingknowledge of the local lichen biota. Dina Clark,Vanessa Díaz, and James Lendemer are thankedfor their field contributions. Sue Hirschfeldprovided helpful geological information. I amindebted to James Lendemer, Kerry Knudsen,Ted Esslinger, John Sheard, and Othmar Breussfor contributing some of the identifications.Finally, I thank Caleb Morse and RichardHarris for discussion on several species. Thisresearch was funded by a grant from Boulder’sOpen Space and Mountain Parks Program.
LITERATURE CITED
ANDERSON, R.A. 1962. The lichen flora of the Dakota Sand-stone in north-central Colorado. Bryologist 65:242–261.
ANDERSON, R.A., AND M.B. CARMER. 1974. Additions tothe lichen flora of Colorado. Bryologist 77:216–223.
BRODO, I.M., S.D. SHARNOFF, AND S. SHARNOFF. 2001.Lichens of North America. Yale University Press, NewHaven, CT.
BYARS, L.F. 1936. An ecological study of the ants of BoulderCounty, Colorado. Master’s thesis, Department ofBiology, University of Colorado.
CHAPMAN, S.S., G.E. GRIFFITH, J.M. OMERNIK, A.B. PRICE,J. FREEOUF, AND D.L. SCHRUPP. 2006. Ecoregions ofColorado [map scale 1:1,200,000]. U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Reston, VA.
CLARK, D.A., C. CRAWFORD, AND W.F. JENNINGS. 2001.Draft baseline plant survey of White Rocks and sur-rounding area in eastern Boulder County. Unpub-lished report prepared for the City of Boulder OpenSpace and Mountain Parks Department.
CULBERSON, C.F., AND H.D. KRISTINSSON. 1970. A stan-dardized method for the identification of lichenproducts. Journal of Chromatography 46:85–93.
EGAN, R.S. 1970. Alpine lichens from Mt. Audubon, BoulderCounty, Colorado. Bryologist 73:385–389.
ESSLINGER, T.L. 2014. A cumulative checklist for the lichen-forming, lichenicolous and allied fungi of the continen-tal United States and Canada. North Dakota State Uni-versity, Fargo, ND; [accessed 23 March 2014]. http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~esslinge/chcklst/chcklst.htm
FINK, B. 1904. A lichen society of a sandstone riprap.Botanical Gazette 38:265–284.
FREEBURY, C.E. 2014. Lichens and lichenicolous fungiof Grasslands National Park (Saskatchewan, Canada).Opuscula Philolichenum 13:102–121.
GILBERT, O.I. 1980. A lichen flora of Northumberland.Lichenologist 12:325–395.
HALE, M.E. 1982. Lichens as bioindicators and monitorsof air pollution in the Flat Tops Wilderness Area,Colorado. Final Report, U.S. Forest Service ContractNo. OM RFP R2-81-SP35. 22 November 1982.
HIRSCHFELD, S. 2013a. Unique geology of White Rocks.Information report to City of Boulder, Open Spaceand Mountain Parks.
HIRSCHFELD, S. 2013b. Unique geology and biota of theNiwot/Somerset White Rocks on Boulder CountyParks and Open Space. Information report to City ofBoulder, Open Space and Mountain Parks.
HOGAN, T. 1993. A floristic survey of the Boulder MountainPark, Boulder, Colorado. Natural History Inventory ofColorado 13, University of Colorado Museum. 63 pp.
LENDEMER, J.C., R.C. HARRIS, AND E.A. TRIPP. 2013. Thelichens and allied fungi of Great Smoky MountainsNational Park. The New York Botanical Garden Press,Bronx, NY. 260 pp.
LENDEMER, J.C., AND E.A. TRIPP. 2008. Contributions to thelichen flora of North Carolina: a preliminary check-list of the lichens of Gorges State Park. Bryologist 111:57–67.
MACPHAIL, D.D., H.L. YOUNG, AND D.I. NETOFF. 1970.White Rocks Natural Area Study. Unpublished manu-script, Department of Geography, University of Colo -rado, Boulder, CO.
MCCUNE, B., P. ROGERS, A. RUCHTY, AND B. RYAN. 1998.Lichen communities for forest health monitoring inColorado, USA. Report to the USDA Forest Serve/Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, Ogden, UT.
NETOFF, D.I. 1971. Polygonal jointing in sandstone nearBoulder, Colorado. Mountain Geologist 8:17–24.
RUSHFORTH, S.R., L.L. ST. CLAIR, J.D. BROTHERSON, AND
G.T. NEBEKER. 1982. Lichen community structure inZion National Park. Bryologist 85:185–192.
SHOWMAN, R.E. 1987. Macrolichen flora of Crane Hollow,Hocking County, Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 87:27–29.
SHRESTHA, G., AND L.L. ST. CLAIR. 2009. The lichen floraof southwestern Colorado. Evansia 26:102–123.
SHUSHAN, S., AND R.A. ANDERSON. 1969. Catalog of thelichens of Colorado. Bryologist 72:451–483.
SKOREPA, A.C. 1973. Taxonomic and ecological studies onthe lichens of southern Illinois. Doctoral dissertation,University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 248 pp.
ŚLIWA, L. 2007. A revision of the Lecanora dispersa complexin North America. Polish Botanical Journal 52:1–70.
TRIPP, E.A. In press. Field guide to the lichens of WhiteRocks, Boulder, Colorado. University Press ofColorado.
TRIPP, E.A., AND J.C. LENDEMER. 2015. Candelariellaclarkii and Lecidea hoganii: two lichen species newto science from White Rocks Open Space, City ofBoulder, Colorado. Bryologist 118:154–163.
WEBER, W.A. 1949. The flora of Boulder County, Colo -rado. Unpublished report, University of ColoradoMuseum, Boulder, CO.
WEBER, W.A. 1970. Letter distributed to Boulder CountyLong-Range Planning Commission.
WEIMER, R.J. 1973. A guide to the uppermost Cretaceousstratigraphy, central Front Range, Colorado: deltaicsedimentation, growth faulting and early Laramidecrustal movement. Mountain Geologist 10:53–97.
WESTBERG, M., C.A. MORSE, AND M. WEDIN. 2011. Twonew species of Candelariella and a key to the Cande-larieales (lichenized Ascomycetes) in North America.Bryologist 114:325–334.
WILL-WOLF, S., L.H. GEISER, P. NEITLICH, AND A.H. REIS.2006. Forest lichen communities and environment—how consistent are relationships across scales? Journalof Vegetation Science 17:171–184.
Received 5 March 2015Accepted 23 May 2015
310 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 75