Echinacea sanguinea

Nutt.

Sanguine Coneflower

G3Vulnerable Found in 2 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G3VulnerableGlobal Rank
HighThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.155284
Element CodePDAST38070
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVascular Plant
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomPlantae
PhylumAnthophyta
ClassDicotyledoneae
OrderAsterales
FamilyAsteraceae
GenusEchinacea
Other Common Names
sanguine purple coneflower (EN) Sanguine Purple Coneflower (EN)
Concept Reference
Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Taxonomic Comments
Some taxonomists restrict E. sanguinea to locations south of the Red River (McKeown 1999).
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2024-02-08
Change Date2024-02-08
Edition Date2024-02-13
Edition AuthorsSE Ranking Workshop (2024)
Threat ImpactHigh
Range Extent20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 - 300
Rank Reasons
Echinacea sanguinea is a tap rooted perennial herb of the southeastern to south central United States in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. Although still abundant in some areas, this species has suffered from large scale habitat loss and degradation. The conversion of its native prairie to pastures or developed lands and logging of woodland habitat, highway maintenance practices and fire suppression have contributed to a slow decline in the species. As a species of highly fragmented habitats, inbreeding depression and low reproductive success are issues to monitor moving forward, in addition to direct loss of occurrences.
Range Extent Comments
Echinacea sanguinea occurs in the southeastern to south central USA in eastern Texas and western Louisiana, southeastern Oklahoma and southwestern Arkansas in Miller County. Range extent was estimated using herbarium specimens, photo-based observations, and NatureServe Network occurrence data collected between 1983 and 2024 (iNaturalist 2024, NatureServe 2024, SEINet 2024).
Occurrences Comments
Historically, this species was common in eastern Texas and western Louisiana. It is uncommon in southeastern Oklahoma and Miller County, Arkansas. By applying a 1 km separation distance to herbarium records and photo-based observations documented between 1983 and 2024, it is estimated that there are over 145 occurrences rangewide (iNaturalist 2024, NatureServe 2024, SEINet 2024).
Threat Impact Comments
This species is threatened by fire suppression resulting in habitat succession, mowing and herbicide use to control noxious weeds or roadside vegetation, logging, development, competitive non-native species, and wild harvest for the medicinal herb trade. Habitat destruction by logging is possibly the biggest threat and especially evident in areas where logging is prevalent in western Louisiana. Where open pine woods have not been clear cut, encroachment is occurring. Urbanization in Houston and the Dallas-Fort Worth areas in addition to widespread habitat conversion in eastern Texas are resulting in loss of habitat (Singhurst, pers. comm., 2024). Populations in powerline rights-of-way are declining but secure in Arkansas due to the use of herbicides (Witsell, pers. comm., 2024).

Excessive commercial harvest for medicinal purposes is a potential future threat depending on the demand of the market, local economics, and the standing of cultivated sources. While E. angustifolia is typically targeted, any Echinacea spp. could be impacted. This species has a deep taproot similar to Echinacea angustifolia. A study of the species response to harvesting found that when roots of E. angustifolia are shallowly harvested with less root length removed, plants can resprout; one study found 50% of plants resprouted at harvest sites. This research suggests that the species is capable of recovering after severe harvest if the plants are given time to recover (Kindscher et al. 2008). Castle et al. (2014) assessed the risk of overharvest as moderate for this species based on life history, effects of harvest, populations size, habitat, and demand including the consideration availability of cultivated resources. Castle et al. (2014) assessed the risk of overharvest as moderate for the closely related E. angustifolia, which would have a similar assessment as E. purpurea. This risk is based on life history, effects of harvest, populations size, habitat, and demand including the consideration availability of cultivated resources.
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

This species grows in sandy acidic soils in partial sun in open pine woodlands (longleaf and shortleaf pinelands) and sandy prairies and roadsides within remnant prairie flora.
Terrestrial Habitats
Forest/WoodlandWoodland - ConiferSavanna
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN3
ProvinceRankNative
TexasSNRYes
ArkansasS2Yes
OklahomaS1Yes
LouisianaSNRYes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentRestricted (11-30%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4 - Transportation & service corridorsSmall (1-10%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4.1 - Roads & railroadsSmall (1-10%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource useRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5.3 - Logging & wood harvestingRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7 - Natural system modificationsRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.1 - Fire & fire suppressionRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.1.2 - Suppression in fire frequency/intensityRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1.1 - Unspecified speciesRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

Plant Characteristics
DurationPERENNIAL
Economic Value (Genus)No
Roadless Areas (2)
Louisiana (1)
AreaForestAcres
Saline Bayou W & S River CorridorKisatchie National Forest5,355
Texas (1)
AreaForestAcres
Little Lake CreekNational Forests in Texas596
References (17)
  1. Beck, J., A. Waananen, and S. Wagenius. 2023. Habitat fragmentation decouples fire-stimulated flowering from plant reproductive fitness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(39):e2306967120.
  2. Buthod, Amy K. Personal communication. Botanist. Oklahoma Biological Survey, Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory, Robert Bebb Herbarium, Norman, OK.
  3. Castle, L.M., S. Leopold, R. Craft, and K. Kindscher. 2014. Ranking Tool Created for Medicinal plants at Risk of Being Overharvested in the Wild. Ethnobiology Letters 5:77–88.
  4. Doffitt, Chris. Personal communication. Botanist. Wildlife Diversity Program, LA Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Pineville, Louisiana.
  5. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (FNA). 2006c. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 21. Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, part 8: Asteraceae, part 3. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxii + 616 pp.
  6. iNaturalist. 2024. Online. Available: https://www.inaturalist.org (accessed 2024).
  7. Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
  8. Kindscher, K., editor. 2006. The Conservation Status of Echinacea Species. Report to the U.S. Forest Service. Onl 247 pp.
  9. Kittelson, P.M., S. Wagenius, R. Nielsen, S. Qazi, M. Howe, G. Kiefer, and R.G. Shaw. 2015. How functional traits, herbivory, and genetic diversity interact in <i>Echinacea</i>: implications for fragmented populations. Ecology 96(7):1877-86.
  10. McGregor, R.L. 1968. The taxonomy of the genus Echinacea (Compositae). University of Kansas Science Bulletin 48(4): 113-142.
  11. McKeown, K.A. 1999. A review of the taxonomy of the genus <i>Echinacea</i>. Pages 482-489 in: J. Janick (ed.). Perspectives on new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA.
  12. McKinney, L. Botanist, Kentucky Heritage Program.
  13. NatureServe. 2024. NatureServe Network Biodiversity Location Data. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
  14. Richardson, L.K, M.K. Gallagher, T. E. Hayes, A.S. Gallinat, G. Kiefer, K. Manion, M. Jenkins, G. Diersen, and S. Wagenius. 2020. Competition for pollination and isolation from mates differentially impact four stages of pollination in a model grassland perennial. Journal of Ecology 109:1356–1369.
  15. Singhurst, Jason. Personal communication. Botanist, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX.
  16. Southwest Environmental Information Network (SEINet). 2024. Collections Databases. Online. Available: https://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/collections/index.php (accessed 2024).
  17. Witsell, Theo. Personal communication. Chief Conservation Officer. Southeastern Grasslands Institute. Little Rock, AR.