State Rank Reason
Nama occurs in Montana on the northeastern edge of its range. It has been found at a single location on the south side of the Pryor Mountains in 1991, occupying less than one acre of habitat.
General Description
Nama is a small annual with several prostrate, branched stems that are up to 10 cm long and radiating from the central taproot. The alternate leaves are narrowly oblong and up to 4 cm long. The foliage is covered with short hair. Flowers are solitary in the axils of the crowded upper leaves. The white to pale, lavendar corollas have a 2-5 mm long tube and 5 rounded lobes. The 5 stamens are inside the tube. The 5-lobed calyx is covered with stiff, long hairs. Globose capsules contain numerous seeds.
Phenology
Flowers are produced in early June.
Diagnostic Characteristics
Species of Phlox have opposite leaves. NEMOPHILA and ELLISIA are also prostrate annuals, but they have divided leaves.
General Distribution
Summary of Observations Submitted for Montana
Number of Occurrences: 1
(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version)
Map Help and Descriptions
Relative Density
Recency
(Records associated with a range of dates are excluded from time charts)
Distribution Comments
In Colorado, occurs in Moffatt County (Weber, 1996). In Utah, occurs in eleven counties (Welsh, 1996). In California, occurs in the northwestern portion of the state, in the Cascade Ranges, and in the northern and central high Sierra Nevada (Hickman, 1993). Through the western half of Nevada, extending east to the Toiyabe Range in Lander County (Kartesz, 1988).
Habitat
Nama grows very locally along the southern base of the Pryor Mountains in sandy soil weathered from outcrops of calcareous sandstone and dominated by Artemisia tridenata and Stipa comata (Lesica and Achuff 1992). Other associates include Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus, Phacelia ivesiana, Gilia inconspicua, Gilia leptomeria, and Streptanthelia longirostris.
Ecological Systems Associated with this Species
- Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations
How Associations Were Made
We associated the use and habitat quality (high, medium, or low) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for
vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by:
- Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Foresman 2001, Adams 2003, and Werner et al. 2004);
- Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species’ range and habitat requirements;
- Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point database associated with each ecological system;
- Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of “observations versus availability of habitat”.
Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use.
In general, species were associated as using an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system.
However, species were not associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system,
even if point observations were associated with that system.
High, medium, and low habitat quality was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species in the literature.
The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignments of habitat quality.
If you have any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, please contact Bryce Maxell at
bmaxell@mt.gov or (406) 444-3655.
Suggested Uses and Limitations
Species associations with ecological systems should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning.
These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species (this information can be requested at:
http://mtnhp.org/requests/default.asp) or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a local site level by trained biologists.
Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales.
Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade.
Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections).
Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular ecological system within its known geographic range, portions of that ecological system may occur outside of the species’ known geographic range.
Literature Cited
- Adams, R.A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 289 p.
- Dobkin, D. S. 1992. Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34. Missoula, MT.
- Foresman, K.R. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. Special Publication No. 12. Lawrence, KS: The American Society of Mammalogists. 278 p.
- Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998. Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 1302 p.
- Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young. 1999. Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32. 72 p.
- Maxell, B.A. 2000. Management of Montana’s amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species. Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1. Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana. 161 p.
- Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.
Ecology
Nama is an annual, suggesting that population sizes may vary greatly between years and may respond positively to moderate levels of disturbance. No plants could be found at the site of its discovery two years later, however seeds of annual species may remain dormant in drought years.
Cronquist et al. (1984) consider N. densum as a small-flowered, autogamous close relative of the larger-flowered, presumably outcrossing, N. aretioides. This suggests that pollinators are not needed for seed set.
Management
The single known Montana population of Nama densum is subject to cattle grazing. However, this low annual is probably favored by moderate levels of disturbance that create open ground for seedling establishment and decrease competition from larger perennial species. This population also lies near primitive roads used for vehicular travel.
References
- Additional ReferencesLegend:
View WorldCat Record 
View Online Publication
Do you know of a citation we're missing?
Cronquist, A., A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and P.K. Holmgren. 1984. Intermountain Flora: Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 4, Subclass Asteridae (except Asteraceae). New York Botanical Garden, Bronx. 573 pp.- Lesica, P. and P. F. Stickney. 1994. Noteworthy collections: Montana. Madrono 41:228-231.
- Lesica, P. and P. L. Achuff. 1992. Distribution of vascular plant species of special concern and limited distribution in the Pryor Mountain desert, Carbon County, Montana. Unpublished report to the Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 105 pp.
- Web Search Engines for Articles on "Nama"
