Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss (Seligeria acutifolia): COSEWIC assessment and status report 2018

Official title: COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss (Seligeria acutifolia) in Canada 2018

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)
Endangered 2018

COSEWIC assessment summary

Assessment summary – April 2018

Common name: Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss

Scientific name: Seligeria acutifolia

Status: Endangered

Reason for designation: This minute, habitat-specific moss has a very restricted distribution in Canada, where it is known from only two sites on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. It is confined to limestone outcrops near sea level beneath a high, coniferous forest canopy in hypermaritime climatic regions near the coast. Primary threats include impacts to habitat from quarrying, logging, and roads. The site near Kennedy Lake is currently not expected to be harvested. However, plans to quarry the marble deposit at the site near Wood Cove, where two-thirds of the known Canadian population occurs, imminently threaten this subpopulation.

Occurrence: British Columbia

Status history: COSEWIC: Designated Endangered in April 2018.

COSEWIC executive summary

Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss
Seligeria acutifolia

Wildlife species description and significance

Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss (Seligeria acutifolia) is a minute, upright, light-green-coloured moss that forms sparse colonies on vertical surfaces of limestone bedrock. Characters distinguishing it from closely related species include the highly differentiated specialized leaves (known as perichaetial leaves) surrounding the female reproductive organ, and the short, stout stalks (setae) supporting the spore-bearing capsules.

The species is known from Europe, eastern Asia, and northwestern North America. Phylogeographic relationships among the various populations have not been studied but are of interest owing to the large gaps between the occurrences.

Distribution

Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is known from only three sites in North America: two on western Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and one in southeastern Alaska. The distance between the sites in British Columbia is around 173 km, and the site in Alaska is located approximately 870 km north of the northernmost Canadian site.

Habitat

Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is a narrow habitat specialist. In coastal British Columbia it has only been found on moist vertical surfaces of slightly granular limestone outcrops beneath a high canopy of conifers near sea-level. Both sites are located within the ‘Southern variant’ of the Very Wet Hypermaritime subzone of the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone (CWHvh1); this variant is confined to the west coast of Vancouver Island and a small strip of low-lying land on the adjacent mainland coast near the northern tip of Vancouver Island. The climate of the CWHvh1 is characterized by cool temperatures, high rainfall, and fog throughout much of the year.

The limestone bedrock is characterized as ‘pure’ to ‘highly pure’ and is associated with undifferentiated Parson Bay and Quatsino formations and possibly an undifferentiated Buttle Lake Group Formation. These formations do not occur further north and differ in geological history and composition from most substrates on the mainland coast and Haida Gwaii.

Biology

The reproductive biology of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is poorly known. The moss is monoicous, meaning both male and female reproductive structures occur on the same shoots. Although spore-containing capsules were observed at both sites on Vancouver Island in 2016, they were not abundant, and it is not known whether the spores were viable. However, it is thought that Seligeria must reproduce relatively frequently for the colony to persist in its habitat. The species has an estimated generation time of 5 to 8 years.

Dispersal via wind to suitable habitat beyond the immediate vicinity of the sites where the species occurs in British Columbia is unlikely because the thin-walled, delicate spores of Seligeria have poor survivability and the places where Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss occurs are sheltered by coniferous forest and rugged topography.

The species does not produce specialized structures to facilitate asexual reproduction, unlike some mosses including Seligeria carniolica. Vegetative reproduction by means of fragmentation has not been observed and the gametophytes (i.e., shoots) are firmly attached to the rock surface, limiting potential long-distance dispersal by birds.

The adaptability of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is unknown but is thought to be highly limited by its small size, which reduces its competitiveness on wetter and drier rock surfaces, and its close affinity to sheltered moist, vertical calcareous rock substrates of a particular chemical composition and texture.

Population size and trends

The population of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Mossin Canada consists of at least three colonies comprised of an estimated 800 to 1500 shoots. Two of the colonies are found near Wood Cove in Kashutl Inlet on northwestern Vancouver Island, and the third is located near Kennedy Lake, to the south. The subpopulations have not been monitored; therefore, population trends are unknown. However, based on herbarium specimens it is known that both subpopulations have persisted for at least 45 years.

Threats and limiting factors

Acuteleaf Small Limestone Mossoccupies an uncommon niche on the hypermaritime coast of British Columbia. Calcareous rock outcrops occur sporadically in sheltered sites at low elevation, and despite targeted surveys for this report and extensive surveys by numerous experienced bryologists throughout the coast in the past decades, the species has only been found twice.

The primary threats to the Canadian population are quarrying, roads, and logging. Most imminent is quarrying; the northern subpopulation (Wood Cove) is associated with a commercially valuable marble deposit within an active mineral claim. Logging is a threat to both subpopulations; if the canopy of mature conifers was to be removed, the species would likely be extirpated. Although there are no roads near the remote Wood Cove site, the Kennedy Lake subpopulation could be impacted by road maintenance activities such as rock blasting and grading.

Rescue from the subpopulation in Alaska, which is approximately 870 km to the north, is extremely unlikely. Dispersal is severely limited by biological and environmental factors and by the sparseness of potentially suitable habitat.

Protection, status, and ranks

Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss has no legal protection or status. Its global conservation rank is ‘Apparently Secure’, rounded from a “range-rank” of ‘Vulnerable’ to ‘Secure’ (reflecting uncertainty). In Canada, it has been assessed as ‘Critically Imperiled’ at both the national and provincial levels.

In the United States Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is not ranked, but in Europe it is assessed as ‘Vulnerable’ in several countries. However, in a recent assessment of the conservation status of European bryophytes the species was not included in the candidate list, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) currently places it in the category of ‘Least Concern’.

Technical summary

Scientific name: Seligeria acutifolia

English name: Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss

French name: Séligérie à feuilles aiguës

Range of occurrence in Canada: British Columbia

Demographic information

Generation time (usually average age of parents in the population):

Unknown, but estimated to be 5 to 8 years.

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of mature individuals?

Yes, if the quarry is mined in the future. If so, there would be loss of 50% of subpopulations or about ~62 to 66% of known individuals.

Estimated percent of continuing decline in total number of mature individuals within [5 years or 2 generations]:

Unknown

[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the last [10 years, or 3 generations]:

Unknown

[Projected or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the next [10 years, or 3 generations]:

Unknown

[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over any [10 years, or 3 generations] period, over a time period including both the past and the future:

Unknown

Are the causes of the decline a) clearly reversible and b) understood and c) ceased?

Not applicable

Are there extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals?

Unknown

Extent and occupancy information

Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO):

8 km²

Index of area of occupancy (IAO) (Always report 2x2 grid value):

8 km²

Is the population “severely fragmented” i.e., is >50% of its total area of occupancy is in habitat patches that are (a) smaller than would be required to support a viable population, and (b) separated from other habitat patches by a distance larger than the species can be expected to disperse?:

No. Both known habitats appear to be large enough to support a viable population, but the distance between the two subpopulations is greater than the species is expected to disperse.

Number of “locations”^* (use plausible range to reflect uncertainty if appropriate):

Two. Imminent threats are highly localized and independent: quarrying is likely at Wood Cove but not at Kennedy Lake.

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in extent of occurrence?

Yes. Planned quarrying is inferred to reduce the extent of occurrence.

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in index of area of occupancy?

Yes. Planned quarrying is inferred to reduce the index of area of occupancy.

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in number of subpopulations?

Yes. Planned quarrying is inferred to cause a decline in the number of subpopulations.

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in number of “locations”*?

Yes. Planned quarrying is inferred to cause a decline in the number of locations.

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in [area, extent and/or quality] of habitat?

Yes. Planned quarrying is inferred to cause a decline in the area, extent, and quality of habitat.

Are there extreme fluctuations in number of subpopulations?

No

Are there extreme fluctuations in number of “locations”?

No

Are there extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence?

No

Are there extreme fluctuations in index of area of occupancy?

No

^* See Definitions and Abbreviations on COSEWIC website and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Feb 2014) for more information on this term.

Quantitative analysis

Probability of extinction in the wild is at least [20% within 20 years or 5 generations, or 10% within 100 years]: Not calculated

Threats (actual or imminent, to populations or habitats, from highest impact to least)

Was a threats calculator completed for this species? Yes

The following list summarizes the threats identified for Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss in approximate descending order of importance based on the completed Threats Assessment (Appendix 2).

3 Energy Production and Mining
3.2 Mining and quarrying: quarrying at Wood Cove subpopulation

4 Transportation and Service Corridors
4.1 Roads and railroads: road development at Kennedy Lake sites

5 Biological Resource Use
5.3 Logging and wood harvesting: logging at both the Kennedy Lake and Wood Cove sites

11 Climate Change and Severe Weather
11.2 Droughts: drought at both the Kennedy Lake and Wood Cove sites

9 Pollution
9.5 Air-borne pollutants: dust deposition from haul road at Kennedy Lake sites

6 Human Intrusions and Disturbance
6.3 Work and other activities: research activities at both the Kennedy Lake and Wood Cove sites

The main biological and environmental factors thought to be limiting Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss are dispersal and habitat. Its spores are thin-walled and delicate, and its habitat in Canada—moist, shaded limestone outcrops beneath a high canopy of coniferous forest at low elevation—is uncommon and scattered. The mountainous terrain separating sites where the species occurs is an additional factor limiting its dispersal.

Rescue effect (immigration from outside Canada)

Status of outside population(s) most likely to provide immigrants to Canada.:

Unknown. Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss was found at Saginaw Bay, in southeastern Alaska by I.A. Worley and W.B. Schofield in 1968. The site is located approximately 870 km north of the northern-most subpopulation in Canada, and its current status is unknown.

Is immigration known or possible?

Unknown, but biological and environmental limitations to dispersal make immigration unlikely.

Would immigrants be adapted to survive in Canada?

Unknown

Is there sufficient habitat for immigrants in Canada?

Unknown

Are conditions deteriorating in Canada?⁺

No

Are conditions for the source population deteriorating?⁺

Unknown. A “source population” has not been identified.

Is the Canadian population considered to be a sink?⁺

No

Is rescue from outside populations likely?

No. Biological and environmental factors limit long-distance dispersal.

⁺ See Table 3 (Guidelines for modifying status assessment based on rescue effect).

Data-sensitive species

Is this a data sensitive species? No

Status history

COSEWIC: Designated Endangered in April 2018

Status and reasons for designation:

Status: Endangered

Alpha-numeric codes: B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v)

Reasons for designation: This minute, habitat-specific moss has a very restricted distribution in Canada, where it is known from only two sites on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. It is confined to limestone outcrops near sea level beneath a high, coniferous forest canopy in hypermaritime climatic regions near the coast. Primary threats include impacts to habitat from quarrying, logging, and roads. The site near Kennedy Lake is currently not expected to be harvested. However, plans to quarry the marble deposit at the site near Wood Cove, where two-thirds of the known Canadian population occurs, imminently threaten this subpopulation.

Applicability of criteria

Criterion A: May meet Endangered, A3c, based on an inferred 2/3 decline in the number of known individuals when quarrying of marble substrates at the Wood Cove site proceeds. However, there is some chance that very few additional locations may be discovered.

Criterion B: Meets Endangered, B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v), because the IAO is less than 500 km²; the species is known from fewer than 5 locations (2); and there is an inferred decline in (i) extent of occurrence, (ii) index of area of occupancy, (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat, (iv) number of locations or subpopulations, and (v) number of mature individuals.

Criterion C: Not applicable. There is no documented continuing decline in the total number of mature individuals.

Criterion D: Not applicable. Meets Threatened, D2, because the IAO of the known subpopulations is less than 20 km² (8 km²) and there are fewer than 5 locations (2). Does not meet D1 because the number of mature individuals (shoots) is greater than 1000 (1500).

Criterion E: Not applicable. Quantitative analysis not performed

Preface

COSEWIC history

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) was created in 1977 as a result of a recommendation at the Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference held in 1976. It arose from the need for a single, official, scientifically sound, national listing of wildlife species at risk. In 1978, COSEWIC designated its first species and produced its first list of Canadian species at risk. Species designated at meetings of the full committee are added to the list. On June 5, 2003, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) was proclaimed. SARA establishes COSEWIC as an advisory body ensuring that species will continue to be assessed under a rigorous and independent scientific process.

COSEWIC mandate

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species, subspecies, varieties, or other designatable units that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Designations are made on native species for the following taxonomic groups: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, arthropods, molluscs, vascular plants, mosses, and lichens.

COSEWIC membership

COSEWIC comprises members from each provincial and territorial government wildlife agency, four federal entities (Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Federal Biodiversity Information Partnership, chaired by the Canadian Museum of Nature), three non-government science members and the co-chairs of the species specialist subcommittees and the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge subcommittee. The Committee meets to consider status reports on candidate species.

Definitions (2018)

Wildlife species

A species, subspecies, variety, or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and is either native to Canada or has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years.

Extinct (X)

A wildlife species that no longer exists.

Extirpated (XT)

A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere.

Endangered (E)

A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.

Threatened (T)

A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.

Special concern (SC)
(Note: Formerly described as “Vulnerable” from 1990 to 1999, or “Rare” prior to 1990.)

A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.

Not at risk (NAR)
(Note: Formerly described as “Not In Any Category”, or “No Designation Required.”)

A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.

Data deficient (DD)
(Note: Formerly described as “Indeterminate” from 1994 to 1999 or “ISIBD” [insufficient scientific information on which to base a designation] prior to 1994. Definition of the [DD] category revised in 2006.)

A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a species’ eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the species’ risk of extinction.

The Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada, provides full administrative and financial support to the COSEWIC Secretariat.

Wildlife species description and significance

Name and classification

Common Name (English): Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss

Common Name (French): Séligérie à feuilles aiguës

Scientific name: Seligeria acutifolia Lindb. in C. Hartman

Synonyms: Seligeria acutifolia var. longiseta Lindb. Seligeria pusilla var. longiseta (Lindb.) Dixon

Family: Seligeriaceae

There are approximately 20 species of Seligeria worldwide, including 13 in North America (Vitt 2007). Seven are known from British Columbia: Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss, S. campylopoda, S. careyana, S. donniana, S. recurvata, S. subimmersa, and S. tristichoides (Vitt 2007). Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss was first reported from North America by D.H. Vitt in 1976 based on a specimen collected west of Kennedy Lake, on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, by W.B. Schofield in 1965.

Morphological description

Seligeria acutifolia, like other species in the genus,is minute. The delicate, light-green plants are typically less than 3 mm in height (Vitt 1976) (Figure 1). The vegetative leaves are <1 mm in length, and are stiffly erect, broadly linear to lanceolate, and shortly subulate (awl-shaped, tapering from a broad base to a fine point) (Vitt 1976, 2007). The costa (midrib) of each leaf is percurrent, meaning it extends to the leaf apex but not beyond. The leaf margins are entire (not toothed). The length-to-width ratio of the leaf cells is approximately 3:1 (Vitt 2007). The long, clasping perichaetial leaves (i.e., the specialized leaves surrounding the archegonium—the female reproductive organ) are at least twice as long as the vegetative leaves (Vitt 1976).

The straight, stout setae (stalks supporting the spore-filled capsules) vary in length from 1–1.5 mm (Smith 1978; Vitt 2007). The cells on the surface of the setae are quadrate-rectangular, and typically <25 µm long (Smith 1978). The shape of the capsules varies from hemispheric to broadly ovate, with a conspicuous neck. The capsules are about equal in length and width and are widest at the mouth (Vitt 2007; Smith 1978). The peristome (ring of teeth inside the mouth of the capsule) consists of 16 well-developed smooth, red, triangular to trapezoidal teeth (Vitt 1976, 2007). The spherical, brownish spores range from 12–14 µm in diameter (Vitt 2007).

Sporophytes are essential for identifying species in the Seligeraceae (Vitt 2007). Characters which unmistakably distinguish Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss from other species in the genusinclude the sharply differentiated perichaetial leaves, the short, stout setae, and the position of the capsules which are usually shortly exserted or sometimes emergent relative to the perichaetial leaves (Vitt 2007).

Population spatial structure and variability

The spatial structure and variability of the Canadian population of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss have not been studied.

Designatable units

The two known subpopulations in Canada occur entirely within COSEWIC’s Pacific National Ecological Area and are assessed as a single designatable unit. There are no genetic data to suggest evolutionary differentiation between the two subpopulations.

Special significance

Like several species of Seligeria, the distribution of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss in North America is highly restricted. For example, S. calcarea is restricted to the eastern part of the continent, S. polaris is confined to Arctic-High Alpine regions, and S. careyana is endemic to Haida Gwaii (Vitt 2007). It has been suggested that populations of Seligeria are relictual (Vitt 1972); therefore studies of phylogeographic relationships among populations of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss at the centre of the species’ distribution in Europe and disjunct populations in eastern Asia and western North America are of great interest.

Distribution

Global range

Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is known from North America, Europe, and Asia (Vitt 2007). It has also been reported from North Africa (Jiménez et al. 2002). In North America ithas been collected from British Columbia and Alaska (Vitt 2007). In Europe it is found in Ireland, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, the former Yugoslavia (Dia and Hallingbäck 2005), Croatia (Papp et al. 2013), and Portugal (Hodgetts 2015). In Asia it has been reported from Turkey (Kürschner and Erdag 2005), Georgia (Fedosov et al. 2011), Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan (Gos and Ochyra 1994), the Anabar Plateau of Siberia (Fedosov et al. 2011), and Japan (Iwatsuki and Noguchi 1973) (Figure 2).

Although Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is found in many countries, the occurrences are widely scattered, and its pattern of distribution is thought to be highly stable (Vitt 1972).

Canadian range

Acuteleaf Small Limestone Mossis known from two sites (each considered a subpopulation in Canada). Recently it was estimated that the Canadian population accounts for less than 5% of the global population (CESCC 2016). The species was first collected in North America by W.B. Schofield in 1965 near Kennedy Lake on western Vancouver Island. It was subsequently collected on northwestern Vancouver Island from a site north of Wood Cove in Kashutl Inlet by R. Halbert in 1971. Specimen data are summarized in Table 1; precise site data were not recorded, as was typical at the time.

The two known subpopulations in Canada occur within the ‘Southern variant’ of the Coastal Western Hemlock Very Wet Hypermaritime biogeoclimatic Subzone (CWHvh1) (see Pojar et al. 1991). The CWHvh1 is confined to a narrow strip of land reaching a maximum of 200 metres elevation in hypermaritime areas on the outer west coast of Vancouver Island and a small portion of the mainland coast adjacent to the north tip of Vancouver Island. The climate is moderated by the Pacific Ocean and is generally cool. Winters are mild, with very little precipitation falling as snow. Fog is common throughout the year (Pojar et al. 1991).

Extent of occurrence and area of occupancy

The estimated extent of occurrence of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss in Canada is 8 km², based on IAO of the two known sites. The index of area of occupancy (IAO) is 8 km², based on a 2 x 2 km grid.

Search effort

Coastal British Columbia has been extensively surveyed by numerous prominent bryologists since the late 1800s. W.B. Schofield collected mosses and liverworts from throughout the coast, targeting habitats like limestone outcrops that were known to harbour rare or otherwise interesting taxa. Between the early 1960s and mid-1980s, Schofield collected and deposited thousands of specimens from hundreds of sites in coastal British Columbia, including more than 280 sites on Haida Gwaii (UBC 2018), an area with a relatively high abundance of limestone (BCGS 2017). The sites collected by Schofield and other bryologists in British Columbia are illustrated in Figures 3a and 3b. Many of these collecting sites are in areas of potential habitat for Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss (see section “Habitat Requirements”, and compare Figures 3a & 5b, and Figures 3b & 5a). Most of these sites were reached by modes of transportation other than by road. Of particular note is that several species of Seligeria have been found in Haida Gwaii (Figure 5a) but Small Acuteleaf Limestone Moss is noticeably absent.

Many sources were consulted to identify potential habitat in advance of targeted searches in support of this report, including Eastwood (1968), Muller (1977), Fischl (1992), Heyman (1995), Kikauka (2000, 2006, 2012), Vincencio and Kikauka (2004), Heath and Wilkin (2003), Massey et al. (2005), Nixon and Orr (2007), and Flower (2014). The top priority was to relocate the sites where the species had been collected in 1965 and 1971.

Targeted searches for Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss (Table 2) by Karen Golinski, Richard Caners, Judith Harpel, and Olivia Lee in 2015 and 2016 focused on areas where calcareous bedrock is known to occur on northern and western Vancouver Island. During searches in 2015, sporophytes were observed on very few species of mosses, likely reflecting the long drought associated with the 2015 El Niño event. Sporophytes are needed to identify Seligeria species (Vitt 2007); therefore, search efforts in 2015 were curtailed until 2016. In May 2016 some of the previously searched sites and 11 new sites were visited. Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss was successfully relocated at both the Wood Cove and Kennedy Lake sites.

In 2017, additional sites with calcareous bedrock were searched on Haida Gwaii by Karen Golinski and Spencer Goyette, but none of the specimens of Seligeria collected from Haida Gwaii were identified as Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss.

In general, species in the genus Seligeria are neither particularly widespread in North America (Figure 4), nor common. In coastal British Columbia, S. campylopoda, S. careyana, S. donniana, and S. tristichoides are each known from fewer than 20 sites despite extensive collecting of bryophytes.

Habitat

Habitat requirements

As noted in the section on Canadian Range, Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is a narrow habitat specialist that in Canada is restricted to sheltered, moist (but not wet or dry) vertical surfaces of slightly granular limestone outcrops. In British Columbia it has been found exclusively on ‘pure’ to ‘highly pure’ limestone, particularly bedrock that appears to be associated with undifferentiated Parson Bay and Quatsino formations and possibly an undifferentiated Buttle Lake Group Formation (BCGS 2017). In Europe, it is known to occur on soft calcareous sandstone bedrock and in caves (e.g., Smith 1978; Dia and Hallingback 2005; Ellis et al. 2011). Evidently, it is shade-tolerant.

The occurrence of limestone is patchy and sparse in hypermaritime regions of coastal British Columbia, where bedrock is typically acidic. The sparseness of potential habitat of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is illustrated by the limited area of moderate to highly pure calcareous bedrock overlapping the three variants of the Very Wet Hypermaritime subzone of the Coastal Western Hemlock zone (Figures 5a and 5b).

Without doubt, the potential habitat illustrated in Figures 5a and 5b over-represents the true extent of potential habitat because 1) the data on which the polygons are based includes a high degree of uncertainty, 2) the figure includes some types of rock of unsuitable chemical composition and texture for the moss, 3) a large proportion of the bedrock is not exposed at the surface and is thus not available for colonization, and 4) only a very small fraction of each polygon would be vertical and sheltered by a high canopy of coniferous forest.

The depiction of the limited quantity of calcareous bedrock on the mainland coast, and in particular the CWHvh2 is supported by field observations made by biologists with extensive experience on the mid-coast (J. Pojar; P. Williston; and S. Haeussler, pers. comm., 2017).

Habitat trends

The habitat of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is geographically restricted. It is limited by multiple factors including climate and topography. Sheltered, moist limestone outcrops of high chemical purity are very patchily distributed within the hypermaritime climatic envelope. Although the hypermaritime central coast of British Columbia has been less extensively surveyed than areas with similar climate on Vancouver Island and Haida Gwaii (Figures 3a and 3b), it is not expected that targetted searches would reveal a substantial number of additional subpopulations.

As the effects of climate change continue, the area of potential habitat will only decrease. In as little as 40 years it is predicted that the climate of the CWHvh1 will be generally warmer. The number of frost-free days, currently ~310, is predicted to increase by 20–30. Annual precipitation, currently ~3660 mm, is predicted to increase by ~10%, but much less precipitation is expected to fall as snow during winter, and precipitation during summer is predicted to remain the same or decrease by ~10% (based on modelling in ClimateBC; Wang et al. 2012).

Increased rainfall during the spring and autumn would likely cause the rock substrate where Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss grows to become wet for longer periods of time, perhaps in excess of the range of moisture tolerance limits for the species (see Habitat Requirements). Conversely, reduced rainfall in summer could cause the limestone to be excessively dry or remain dry for longer periods of time than the species can tolerate. As described elsewhere in this report, Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is a poor competitor and changes to the local moisture regime would likely give other species a competitive advantage.

As described elsewhere in this report, Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss has not been observed to colonize mechanically disturbed rock surfaces. As industrial development that causes disturbance to limestone bedrock proceeds, habitat can only decrease

Biology

Little is known of the biology of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss beyond what is included in Vitt’s (1976) revision of the North American Seligeria.

Life cycle and reproduction

Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is monoicous, meaning both male and female gametangia occur on the same gametophyte (i.e., shoot). Monoicous species have high potential for self-fertilization, but Longton (1992) determined that rare bryophytes are most often either monoicous and commonly produce sporophytes, or dioicous and seldom produce sporophytes. Although sporophytes were observed at both sites on Vancouver Island in 2016, they were not abundant, and their viability was not tested. However, it is thought that Seligeria must reproduce relatively frequently for a colony to persist, and therefore the estimated generation time is between 5–8 years.

The species is not known to produce asexual propagules such as protonemal gemmae, which are found on Seligeria carniolica in England (Porley 2013), and vegetative reproduction by fragmentation has never been observed on Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss.

Physiology and adaptability

The physiology and adaptability of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss are largely unknown. Based on previous collection data and a strong overall search effort, in Canada the species appears confined to areas with hypermaritime climate. Throughout its global range, it occurs on calcareous rock. Evidently it thrives in cool, shaded microsites on moist, but not wet or dry, vertical surfaces. During field studies associated with this report, Seligeria acutifolia was observed to be absent from unshaded calcareous rock or on rock that is too wet, whereas other bryophytes thrive in these situations. The adaptability of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is unknown, but is expected to be very limited.

Dispersal and migration

Dispersal of bryophyte spores via wind has been suggested as an effective means of colonizing vertical surfaces (Glime 2014). Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss occurs on rock faces and often produces sporophytes, but like all species of Seligeria, its spores are thin-walled and delicate (Vitt 1976) thereby limiting the period of viability. The sheltered position of the rock outcrops beneath a canopy of coniferous forest within a matrix of steep coastal topography makes long-distance dispersal by wind unlikely.

Dispersal by birds is similarly unlikely (Vitt 1976) because 1) the species is not known to produce asexual reproductive structures such as protonemal gemmae as described in the section of this report on Life Cycle and Reproduction; 2) the minute gametophytes are firmly attached to their substrate; and 3) the habitat is not commonly frequented by birds.

As summarized by Vitt (1976), multiple factors limit dispersal and migration of Seligeria:

“Due to the small size of the plants and the restricted microhabitats in which these species are found, it is likely that dispersal occurs slowly. The spores of Seligeria species are thin-walled and delicate, and none of the taxa produce asexual propagules or fragment to any extent. The plants, themselves, are firmly affixed to rock faces and do not become detached easily. In addition, the species are found in sheltered microhabitats, usually not subjected to strong winds or inhabited by birds. Therefore, long-distance dispersal of these highly specialized taxa is, in my opinion, unlikely. As a result, the patterns of distribution present today, in a large part, may reflect areas in which Seligeria has occurred for long periods of time and in which the species were present during glaciation.”

It is not uncommon for hypermaritime coastal sites to support unique species with long in situ histories (Schofield and Crum 1972; Hebda 2007), and it appears that Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss follows this pattern.

Interspecific interactions

There are no published reports of interspecific interactions involving Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss. Where the species was observed in the field in 2016, it occurred in sparse colonies on bare rock. The fern Asplenium trichomanes (Maidenhair Spleenwort) was present at both sites, as was the moss Fissidens adianthoides (Maidenhair Pocket Moss). Observations suggest that Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is a poor competitor on both drier and wetter rock surfaces.

Population sizes and trends

Sampling effort and methods

At sites where Seligeria acutifolia was found, the number of gametophytes (i.e., shoots) was estimated, rather than counted, owing to the miniscule size of the individual shoots. The number of individuals comprising each colony, or patch, was determined by measuring the full extent of the colony, estimating the number of gametophytes within a limited number of representative 10 x 10 cm2 squares, and extrapolating the total number of individuals based on the number of gametophytes counted in heavily and sparsely colonized areas. The accuracy of the counts was limited by the size and density of the gametophytes, which in some parts of the colony made counting gametophytes as challenging as counting whiskers on a closely shaved face. At each site a minimum of two hours was spent compiling abundance data and taking photographs.

Abundance

The population of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Mossin Canada consists of three colonies, containing a total of approximately 800–1500 individuals (i.e., shoots). The two colonies at the Wood Cove site represent about 2/3 of the Canadian population. One colony was approximately 0.5 m2 in area and the other around 1.0 m2, and together they contained between 500–1000 shoots. The single colony at Kennedy Lake accounts for the remaining 1/3 of the Canadian population and was composed of an estimated 300–500 shoots.

Fluctuations and trends

Information on the abundance of the two subpopulations of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Mossin British Columbia prior to 2016 is scant. According to the original specimen label for the subpopulation west of Kennedy Lake,it was “abundant”. Abundance was not noted on the herbarium labels affixed to the two specimens collected from Wood Cove in 1971. Although these data were not recorded, both subpopulations have persisted at the sites for more than 45 years.

Rescue effect

It is unlikely that individuals or propagules of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Mossfrom Saginaw Bay, Alaska, located approximately 870 km north of Wood Cove, would successfully migrate to Canada if the Alaskan population persists. Multiple biological and environmental factors limit long-distance dispersal of reproductive propagules including delicate, minute spores, limited potential habitat, and separation of sites by mountainous terrain and unsuitable rock. Migration from Asia or Europe is even less likely.

Many bryophyte species of conservation interest are currently maintained as in vitro collections across Europe, including Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss, which was selected for cryopreservation in Norway (Rowntree et al. 2011). Molecular population biology studies should be conducted to determine relationships among global populations of the species.

Threats and limiting factors

Threats

Acuteleaf Small Limestone Mossis closely associated with limestone bedrock that may be commercially valuable and is vulnerable to physical damage and other forms of degradation (Harding and Ford 1993; Holt 2007; Stokes et al. 2010).

The overall threat impact assigned to Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss as calculated by the Threats Assessment is Very High (Appendix 2).

Key threats to the Canadian subpopulations are summarized below in approximate descending order of importance based on the completed Threats Assessment (Appendix 2). The possibility that the subpopulations might be threatened by inundation if a tsunami were to hit the west coast of Vancouver Island was considered, but after reviewing the available literature (e.g., Clague et al. 2003) it is concluded that inundation is highly unlikely because the colonies are located many metres above sea level.

Quarrying

Quarrying is the most imminent threat to the Wood Cove subpopulation of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss. Recent interest in this site is supported by survey flags and signs, as well as significant expenditures by the proponent ($25K in 2018, R. Pope, pers. comm. 2018). The species is situated amongst “high calcium limestone beds”, which are encompassed by two contiguous, active mineral claims (#504873 and #501945). The claims were transferred to W.E. Pfaffenberger of Fundamental Resource Corporation in November 2011 and will expire on June 18, 2024 (R. Pope, pers. comm. 2018). Clearly, if the limestone deposit at the Wood Cove site is quarried, the subpopulation will be directly or indirectly damaged or destroyed. Alteration of the surrounding ecosystem will affect microclimate and water movement through the site to the detriment of the species. Globally, there are no reports of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Mosscolonizing rock surfaces that have been recently exposed. Species in the genus Seligeria were not found on quarried rock during searches for the species, and specimens have not been collected from cut rock surfaces. Therefore, it is concluded that Seligeria is unlikely to colonize such substrates.

The marble deposit at Wood Cove has long been known to prospectors. It was first examined by D.D. Campbell in 1958 and 1962. In the early 1970s, Sicamous Resources Ltd. (British Columbia Pyrophyllite Co. Ltd.) held a lease on the deposit. The area was prospected by D.A. Heyman in 1995 and again by A. Kikauka from 2000–2012 (Flower 2014). According to Kikauka (2012), demand for pure high calcium limestone with low content of iron and aluminum is based on its use as “ballast, aggregate, agricultural, chemical, and metallurgical applications, as well as fillers, extenders, whiting material, acid-water treatment, and dimension stone.” Geological mapping and geochemical sampling indicate that the marble deposit at Wood Cove contains several million tonnes of readily accessible material in close proximity to the ocean shore (Kikauka 2012).

There are no known mineral claims near the Kennedy Lake site.

Roads

The subpopulation of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Mossat Kennedy Lakeis located less than 30 metres from the edge of West Road, a busy gravel logging road. Road maintenance activities, including rock blasting and grading, would be expected to adversely affect the subpopulation of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss. There are currently no roads, including logging roads, near Wood Cove. Additional impacts of logging roads are discussed in the section on Pollution, below.

Logging

The vulnerability of the Kennedy Lake subpopulation of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Mossto forest harvesting activities has long been recognized (see Ryan 1996). In addition to direct impacts such as mechanical / physical damage to the rock outcrop supporting the species, it is expected the plant community in the vicinity of harvested forest would change as a result of increased light and decreased moisture as was observed on calcareous rock outcrops in logged areas in the vicinity. Exposed rock outcrops in these areas were characterized by an abundance of mosses and liverworts.

The Kennedy Lake subpopulation is located approximately 30 metres from West Road, an active gravel haul road. A forest cut block that was produced between March 31 and June 11, 2012 (Google Earth Pro imagery) is situated less than 50 metres from the subpopulation (Appendix 1). The potential influence of the cut block on the Kennedy Lake subpopulation is unknown; however, a study of harvested forests in the Very Dry Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic subzone on Vancouver Island demonstrated that edge effects caused by harvesting can extend more than 45 metres into adjacent unharvested forest (Baldwin and Bradfield 2005).

Trees with flagging tape marked “cutline boundary” were observed at the base of the rock outcrops extending horizontally a few hundred metres from the subpopulation of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss near Kennedy Lake, and trees had been cut to the base of other outcrops on the same road. Many outcrops near the Kennedy Lake subpopulation were examined, and it was observed that exposed outcrops were “overgrown” by multiple species of mosses, liverworts, and ferns. Edge effects caused by forest harvesting might facilitate the colonization of outcrops by more competitive species. Although there were no immediate plans by industry to remove trees near the Kennedy Lake subpopulation (Dave Fraser, pers. comm., 2016), the threat of future logging is not eliminated, and the influence of the nearby haul road and cut blocks may adversely affect the subpopulation.

Limestone outcrops are particularly vulnerable to physical and environmental disturbance caused by logging. Shock from blasting and from the weight of heavy machinery can cause sinkholes, subsurface water systems, and caves to collapse; this alters water flow. Erosion of fine-textured soils leads to sedimentation and blockages of associated water systems (Holt 2007). When examining the effects of logging on karst ecosystems in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone of northern Vancouver Island, Harding and Ford (1993) found that logging on karst, especially on steep slopes or when debris was burned, causes severe losses of soil, moss, and litter. It is estimated that it would take centuries for forests to become re-established.

In 1999, the coniferous forest surrounding the marble beds at Wood Cove was logged by helicopter (Kikauka 2012; Leo Jack, pers. comm., 2015). It is not clear whether logging indirectly affected the subpopulation of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss or not. However, the stream at the base of the waterfall disappears below-ground, which could have been caused by the increased quantity of waterflow.

Drought

Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is confined to hypermaritime sites in coastal western North America (Vitt 2007). The sites in British Columbia and Alaska are situated near large bodies of water. Therefore, it seems likely that these subpopulations would be threatened by prolonged drought. Altered precipitation regimes in the CWHvh1 as forecast by ClimateBC (Wang et al. 2012) including an overall increase in annual precipitation but less rainfall during summer and less precipitation falling as snow could subject the subpopulations to climatic conditions that are outside its tolerance levels (refer to Habitat Trends). In particular, increased rainfall during spring and autumn could cause the rock substrate where the species grows to become wet for longer periods of time, while reduced rainfall in summer could cause the rock substrate to become drier for longer periods at a time when the species’ rock habitat is typically moist.

Pollution

The Kennedy Lake subpopulation of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is located less than 30 metres from West Road, an active logging road. Heavy vehicle travel along the haul road could subject the subpopulation to dust deposition. Dust has been shown to have adverse effects on vascular plants, including decreased photosynthetic activity, reduced growth, increased leaf necrosis, and promotion of leaf senescence (Farmer 1993). In a different study, soils adjacent to a gravel road had altered temperature, moisture, chemistry, and physical structure (Auerbach et al. 1997). The potential effects of dust on Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss are unknown but may include many of the impacts observed in other studies, including decreased photosynthetic activity, nutrient enrichment, and warmer surface temperatures in winter with dust-induced changes in surface albedo.

Work and Other Activities

Future research and monitoring activities may occur at both subpopulations, particularly to determine generation time and population dynamics, and to assess the above threats. However, no incidental collecting of the species for research purposes is anticipated.

Limiting factors

With only three known sites in North America, long-distance dispersal of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is clearly limited and appears to be hampered by both biological and physical factors. It appears that both moist, sheltered calcareous bedrock and cool, very wet climate are required for the species’ persistence. Although calcareous bedrock is present in several areas of coastal British Columbia (Figures 5a and 5b), occurrences of sheltered, moist limestone outcrops near sea level within hypermaritime regions of coastal British Columbia are sparsely and widely scattered, and in large part contribute to the species’ rarity.

Number of locations

There are two known locations of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss in Canada. Imminent threats are highly localized and independent of one another. Quarrying is likely at Wood Cove but not at Kennedy Lake. Conversely, it was thought that logging was the most likely threat to the Kennedy Lake subpopulation in 2016 but later that year it was suggested that there were no imminent plans to log the area (Dave Fraser, pers. comm., 2016). It is doubtful, but not impossible, that forests at both Kennedy Lake and Wood Cove could be logged simultaneously.

Protection, status and ranks

Legal protection and status

Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss has no legal protection or status in Canada or the United States.

Non-legal status and ranks

The global rank of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss is G3G5, which indicates a range of uncertainty between G3 (Vulnerable) and G5 (Secure); this range is rounded to G4 (Apparently Secure) (NatureServe 2018). In Canada, it is ranked N1 (Critically Imperiled) at the national level (CESCC 2016) and S1 in British Columbia (British Columbia CDC 2018). The species is not ranked at the state or national level in the United States (NatureServe 2018).

In Europe, it is ranked “Vulnerable” in several countries including Bulgaria (Natcheva et al. 2006), Czech Republic (Kucera et al. 2012), Norway, and Slovakia (Hodgetts 2015). However, it was not included in the candidate list in a recent assessment of the conservation status of European bryophytes and is currently placed in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) category of “Least Concern” (Hodgetts 2015, p. 10).

Habitat protection and ownership

Both subpopulations of Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss in British Columbia are on Crown land and are unprotected. The site near Wood Cove is encompassed by two contiguous active mineral claims (#504873 and #501945) on “high calcium limestone beds” owned by W.E. Pfaffenberger (Kikauka 2012). Both sites in British Columbia are situated within “First Nations Consultation Areas” (FrontCounter British Columbia 2018), meaning the provincial government must consult First Nations on land use and resource decisions that could impact the Aboriginal interests.

Acknowledgements and authorities contacted

The following individuals generously contributed to the preparation of this report:

René Belland, Co-chair, Mosses and Lichens SSC, COSEWIC and Faculty Service Officer, Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta

Brent Blackmun, British Columbia Parks, Area Supervisor (Nootka), Black Creek, British Columbia

Adolf and Oluna Ceska, Botanists, Victoria, British Columbia

Brenda Costanzo, Senior Vegetation Specialist, Conservation Science Section, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, British Columbia

Darwyn Coxson, Professor, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia

Angèle Cyr, Scientific Project Officer, COSEWIC Secretariat, Gatineau, Québec

Marta Donovan, Botanist, British Columbia Conservation Data Centre, Victoria, British Columbia

Alain Filion, Scientific and GIS Project Officer, COSEWIC Science Support, Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, Québec

Monique Goit, Scientific Project Officer, COSEWIC Secretariat, Gatineau, Québec

Spencer Goyette, Graduate Student (Lichenology), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta

Maxwell Hamlett, Jr Field Assistant, Washington, DC

Judith Harpel, Curator of Bryophytes, Beaty Biodiversity Museum Herbarium, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia

Neil Jones, ATK Coordinator, COSEWIC Secretariat, Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada, Gatineau, Québec

Steve Joya, Bryologist, Vancouver, British Columbia

Olivia Lee, Collections Manager, Bryophytes, Fungi, and Lichens, UBC Herbarium, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia

Will Mackenzie, Provincial Research Ecologist, Smithers, British Columbia

Terry McIntosh, Bryologist, Vancouver, British Columbia

Jenifer Penny, Program Botanist, British Columbia Conservation Data Centre, Victoria, British Columbia

Julie Perrault, Scientific Project Officer, COSEWIC Secretariat, Gatineau, Québec

David Richardson, Professor, Dean Emeritus, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Blanka Shaw, Data Manager, Bryophytes, Duke University herbarium, Durham, North Carolina

A. Jonathan Shaw, Professor of Biology and Curator of Bryophytes, Duke University herbarium, Durham, North Carolina

Sorena Sorensen, Geologist and Curator-in-Charge, Rocks and Ore Collection, Department of Mineral Science, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, District of Columbia

Byron Woods, GIS Analyst, Ecosystem Information Section, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, British Columbia

Jenny Wu, Scientific Project Officer, COSEWIC Secretariat, Gatineau, Québec

Stanley Yankowski, Research and Collections Support, Department of Botany, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, District of Columbia

Information sources

Auerbach, N. A., M. D. Walker, and D. A. Walker. 1997. Effects of roadside disturbance on substrate and vegetation properties in Arctic tundra. Ecological Applications 7: 281–235.

Baldwin, L.K. and G.E. Bradfield. 2005. Bryophyte community differences between edge and interior environments in temperate rain-forest fragments of coastal British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35(3): 580–592.

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (British Columbia CDC). 2018. British Columbia Species and Ecosystems Explorer. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, British Columbia. Web site: (accessed February 2018).

British Columbia Geological Survey (BCGS). 2017. Reconnaissance Karst Potential Mapping. Web site: (accessed February 2018).

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development - Forest Analysis and Inventory (FLNR). 2018. Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) map. Web site: (accessed February 2018).

Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2016. Wild Species 2015: The General Status of Species in Canada. National General Status Working Group (PDF). Web site: (accessed February 2018)

Clague, J.J., A. Munro, and T. Murty. 2003. Tsunami hazard and risk in Canada. Natural Hazards 28: 433–461.

Consortium of North American Bryophyte Herbaria (CNABH). 2018. Consortium of North American Bryophyte Herbaria. Web site: (accessed February 2018.

Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria (CPNWH). 2018. Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria. URL: (accessed February 2018.

Dia, M.G., and T. Hallingbäck. 2005. Seligeria acutifolia (Seligeriaceae) new to Sicily. Flora Mediterranea 15(27): 611–614.

Eastwood, G.E.P. 1968. Geology of the Kennedy Lake area, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Bulletin No. 55, British Columbia Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, Victoria, British Columbia.

Farmer, A. M. 1993. The effects of dust on vegetation—a review. Environmental Pollution 79: 63–75.

Ellis, L.T., and 22 additional authors. 2011. New national and regional bryophyte records, 26. Journal of Bryology 33(1): 66–73.

Fedosov, V.E., E.A. Ignatova, M.S. Ignatov, and A.I. Maksimov. 2011. Rare species and preliminary list of mosses of the Anabar Plateau (Subarctic Siberia). Arctoa 20(1): 153–174.

Fischl, P.S. 1992. Limestone and dolomite resources in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines, Open File 1992-18. British Columbia Geological Survey, Victoria, British Columbia.

Flower, K.A. 2014. MINFILE (Mineral Inventory Report) No. 092L-187, British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines and Responsible for Core Review, Victoria, British Columbia.

Fraser, D. pers. comm. 2016. Email correspondence with Karen Golinski. Unit Head, Species Conservation Science, Conservation Science Section, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, British Columbia.

FrontCounter British Columbia. 2018. Single window service for clients of provincial natural resource ministries and agencies. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Natural Lands and Resource Operations, Victoria, British Columbia. Web site: (accessed February 2018).

Glime, J.M. 2014. Bryophyte Ecology, Volume 1. Ebook sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. (Web site: (accessed February 2018).

Gos, L., and R. Ochyra. 1994. New or otherwise interesting distributional data for species of Seligeria (Musci, Seligeriaceae) for Eurasia. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica 39(2): 383–389.

Harding, K.A., and D.C. Ford. 1993. Impacts of primary deforestation upon limestone slopes in northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Environmental Geology 21(3): 137–143.

Heath, D., and N. Wilkin. 2003. White Ridge Provincial Park, Purpose statement and zoning plan. Government of British Columbia, Environmental Stewardship Division, Victoria, British Columbia.

Hebda, R. 2007. Biodiversity and Geological History in British Columbia (PDF). Report written for the Biodiversity British Columbia Technical Subcommittee. Web site: (accessed February 2018).

Heyman, D.A. 1995. Prospecting & geochemical work report of the Wood Cove Claim Group Kashutl Inlet Alberni Mining Division latitude 50° 09’ 56” / longitude 127° 18’ 56”. British Columbia Geological Survey Branch Assessment Report No. 24,034.

Hodgetts, N.G. 2015. Checklist and country status of European bryophytes—towards a new Red List for Europe. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 84. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Ireland.

Holt, R.F. 2007. Special Elements of Biodiversity in British Columbia. Report prepared for the Conservation Planning Tools Committee, Victoria, British Columbia.

Jack, L.,. pers. comm 2015. . Verbal correspondence with Karen Golinski. Operator of VoyaFgenger Water Taxi, Kyuquot, British Columbia.

Sybille Haeussler, Forester and Research Scientist, Bulkley Valley Research Centre, Smithers, British Columbia, and Adjunct Professor, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia.

Iwatsuki, Z., and A. Noguchi. 1973. Index Muscorum Japonicarum. Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 37: 299–418.

Jiménez, J.A., R.M. Ros, M.J. Cano, and J. Guerra. 2002. Contribution to the bryophyte flora of Morocco: terricolous and saxicolous bryophytes of the Jbel Bouhalla. Journal of Bryology 24(3): 243–250.

Kikauka, A. 2000. Geological and geochemical report on the KASH 1-2 claims, Kashutl Inlet, Kyuquot Sound, British Columbia. British Columbia Geological Survey Branch Assessment Report No. 26,389.

Kikauka, A. 2006. Geological and geochemical report on Mineral Tenures 501873 and 501945, Wood Cove marble deposit, Kashutl Inlet, Kyuquot Sound, British Columbia. British Columbia Geological Survey Branch Assessment Report No. 28,761.

Kikauka, A. 2012. Geological and geochemical report on Mineral Tenures 501873 and 501945, Wood Cove marble deposit, Kashutl Inlet, Kyuquot Sound, British Columbia. British Columbia Geological Survey Branch Assessment Report No. 33,183.

Kučera, J., J. Váňa, and Z. Hradílek. 2012. Bryophyte flora of the Czech Republic: updated checklist and Red List. Preslia 84(3): 813–850.

Kürschner, H., and A. Erdag. 2005. Bryophytes of Turkey: An annotated reference list of the species with synonyms from the recent literature and an annotated list of Turkish bryological literature. Turkish Journal of Botany 29(2): 95–154.

L.E. Anderson Bryophyte Herbarium, Duke University (DUKE). 2015. Bryophyte Database. Web site: (accessed February 2018).

Longton, R.E. 1992. Reproduction and rarity in British Mosses. Biological Conservation 59: 89-98.

Massey, N.W.D., D.G. MacIntyre, P.J. Desjardins, and R.T. Cooney. 2005. Digital Map of British Columbia: Whole Province, British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines, GeoFile 2005-1.

Muller, J.E. 1977. Geological Association of Canada, and Minerological Association of Canada, Joint annual Meeting, 1977, Vancouver, British Columbia. Geology of Vancouver Island. (Unpublished guidebook, Field Trip 7, April 21–24, 1977).

Natcheva, R., A. Ganeva, and G. Spiridonov. 2006. Red List of the bryophytes in Bulgaria. Phytologia Balcanica 12(1): 55–62.

NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Web site: (accessed February 2018).

Nixon, G.T., and A.J. Orr. 2007. Recent Revisions to the Early Mesozoic Stratigraphy of Northern Vancouver Island (NTS 102I; 092L) and Metallogenic Implications, British Columbia. Geoscience British Columbia Report 2007-1: 163–178.

Papp, B., A. Alegro, V. Šegota, I. Šapić, and J. Vukelić. 2013. Contributions to the bryophyte flora of Croatia II. The Northern Velebit. Studia Botanica Hungarica 44: 213–228.

Pojar, J. 2002. Rare Ecosystems (of the CWHvh2) (PDF). Web site: (accessed February 2018).

Pojar, J., pers. comm. 2017. Email correspondence with Karen Golinski . Ecologist, Smithers, British Columbia

Pojar, J., K. Klinka, and D.V. Meidinger. 1987. Biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification in British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management 22: 119–154.

Pojar, J., K. Klinka, and D.A. Demarchi. 1991. Chapter 6: Coastal Western Hemlock Zone. Pp. 95–111. In: D. Meidinger and J. Pojar (eds.). Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special Report Series 6. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia.

Pope, R., pers. comm. 2018. Email correspondence with Karen Golinski, April 2018. Authorization Administrator, British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Pers. comm., 2018

Porley, R.D. 2013. England’s Rare Mosses and Liverworts: Their History, Ecology, and Conservation. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Rowntree, J.K., S. Pressl, M.M. Ramsay, A. Sabovljevic, and M. Sabovljevic. 2011. In vitro conservation of European bryophytes. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology – Plant 47(1): 55–64.

Ryan, M.W. 1996. Bryophytes of British Columbia: rare species and priorities for inventory. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests Research Program, Victoria, British Columbia.

Schofield, W.B., and H.A. Crum. 1972. Disjunctions in bryophytes. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 59(2): 174-202.

Smith, A.J.E. 1978. The Moss Flora of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Stokes, T., P. Griffiths, and C. Ramsey. 2010. Karst Geomorphology, Hydrology, and Management. Pp. 373–400. In: R.G. Pike, T.E. Redding, R.D. Moore, R.D. Winker, and K.D. Bladon (eds.). Compendium of Forest Hydrology and Geomorphology in British Columbia. Land Management Handbook 66. British Columbia Forest Science Program / FORREX, Victoria, British Columbia.

Thiers, B. 2018. Index herbariorum: a global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. New York Botanical Garden's Virtual Herbarium. (accessed February 2018).

University of British Columbia Herbarium (UBC). 2018. Bryophyte Database. (accessed February 2018).

Vincencio, R., and A. Kikauka. 2004. Wood Cove marble. Pp. 317 in G.J. Simandl, W.J. McMillan, and N.D. Robinson (eds.). 37th Annual Forum on Industrial Minerals Proceedings, Industrial Minerals with emphasis on Western North America, May 23–25, 2001, Victoria, British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines, Geological Survey Branch.

Vitt, D.H. 1976. The genus Seligeria in North America. Lindbergia 3(3/4): 241–275.

Vitt, D.H. 2007. Seligeriaceae. Pp. 320–328. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds.). Flora of North America North of Mexico, Vol. 27, Bryophyta, Part 1. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Wang, T., A. Hamann, D. Spittlehouse, and T.N. Murdock. 2012. ClimateWNA: High-resolution spatial climate data for western North America. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 51(1): 16–29.

Williston, P. pers. comm. 2017. Email correspondence with Karen Golinski. Biologist, LNG Authorizations, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Smithers, British Columbia

Worley, I.A. 1972. The Bryo-geography of Southeastern Alaska. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, NC.

Biographical summary of report writers

G. Karen Golinski is a Research Associate in the Department of Botany at the Smithsonian Institute and an Honorary Research Associate in the Department of Botany at the University of British Columbia. Her research focuses on the biodiversity and conservation of bryophytes. Karen received her PhD from the University of Victoria in 2004 and was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Center for Conservation and Sustainability at the Smithsonian Institution from 2014–2016. She has been a member of the British Columbia Bryophyte Recovery Team since 2005 and a member of the Mosses and Lichens Species Specialist Subcommittee of COSEWIC since 2012.

Richard Caners is Curator of Botany at the Royal Alberta Museum and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Renewable Resources at the University of Alberta where he teaches and conducts collaborative research on bryophytes. He completed his PhD in bryology at the University of Alberta as a Killam Scholar and subsequently held a Postdoctoral Research Fellowship for two years in peatland ecology. He has been a member of the Alberta Porsild’s Bryum Recovery Team since 2013 and a member of the Mosses and Lichens Species Specialist Subcommittee of COSEWIC since 2011. His research interests include rare species conservation, ecosystem restoration, and phytogeography.

Collections examined

Collection data for North American specimens of Seligeria acutifolia collected in the 1960s and 1970s are summarized in Table 1. The specimens were determined by D.H. Vitt. The specimen from Kennedy Lake (W.B.S. 26616 / DUKE 120797) was determined on November 11, 1975 and is marked “New to North America” (L.E. Anderson Bryophyte Herbarium at Duke University 2015). The Wood Cove, Kashutl Inlet specimens (R.L.H. 7222, 7239 / UBC B44830, B44831) and the Saginaw Bay specimen (I.A.W. 8942 / UBC B44847) were determined in 1996. For the purposes of this report the specimen held at DUKE was further examined by B. Shaw and the specimens at UBC were examined by S. Joya and G.K. Golinski. Specimens collected in 2016 were examined by R. Caners and G.K. Golinski.

Appendix 2. Threats calculator for Seligeria acutifolia

Threats assessment worksheet

Species or ecosystem scientific name:

Seligeria acutifolia Acuteleaf Small Limestone Moss

Element ID:

Not applicable

Elcode:

Not applicable

Date:

16/06/2016, revised 13/02/2017

Assessor(s):

Karen Golinski, Richard Caners (authors and SSC members), René Belland (M&L co-chair), Dwayne Lepitzki (moderator and Molluscs co-chair), Darwyn Coxson (SSC member), Jennifer Doubt (SSC member and COSEWIC member for Museum of Nature), Dave Fraser (COSEWIC member for British Columbia), Joe Carney (Molluscs SSC co-chair) and Angèle Cyr (Secretariat).

References:

draft provided with draft COSEWIC status report; telecon 16 June 2016

Assigned overall threat impact:

A = Very High

Impact adjustment reasons:

Not applicable

Overall threat comments:

Generation time is estimated to be 5–8 years, so the timing for severity is 15–24 years.