July 22, 2013 Franklin County, WA Courthouse DNA Analysis Determination of Whether the White Bluff’s Bladderpod (Phasaria douglasii spp tuplashensis) is genetically a separate species or a local population of the common Douglas’s Bladderpod (Phasaria douglasii) In early June of 2013, landowners and other interested parties concerned about the potential impact and costs associated with the proposed USF&W ESA listing of a plant they called the White Bluffs Bladderpod, retained the expert services of Stuart A. Turner, Certified Professional Agronomist, Certified Crop Advisor. Mr. Turner was asked to find a lab with extensive experience and the high tech equipment necessary to conduct DNA analysis on samples of the plants designated by USF&W as the separate species White Bluffs Bladderpod, as well as samples of the common and widespread Douglas’s Bladderpod. Within a week Mr. Turner had identified a research group at the University of Idaho headed up by Dr. Court Anderson, and internationally known expert on DNA analysis of rare and common plants and animals. Together they developed a sampling protocol, and after several weeks of delay, USF&W granted a Special Collection Permit allowing Mr. Turner 7 days access for his sampling program on lands they administer. By July 5 these samples (3 from USF&W lands with mapped tuplashensis populations, and 4 samples from nearby, but mapped douglasii populations) were submitted to Dr. Anderson’s lab at the U of I, and an additional 8 samples provided by Dr. Anderson from the Universities Stillinger Herbarium, some dating back to 1938 were added to the study. These additional 8 samples came from Chelan, Yakima, Grant, Kittitas and Asotin Counties of Washington and one sample each from Nez Perce County Idaho, and Wasco County, Oregon. Dr. Anderson utilized Polymer Chain Reaction (PRC) amplification, and focused in on four separate specific areas (loci) of the DNA in these samples, and examined and identified over 2,500 base pairs of each sample. These were sequenced in the computer following extraction, and compared with each of the other samples, looking for any sign of genetic deviation which might indicate the designated tuplashensis or White Bluff’s Bladderpod was in any way genetically different and distinct from the common or douglasii Douglas’s Bladderpod. After careful comparison of these individual genes at key loci, it was determined that there were zero deviations; in other words, the exact gene sequences occurred and were mapped on each of the 15 samples from the 3 state sampling area. These results indicate clearly that there is nothing genetically unique about the sampled White Bluff’s Bladderpod; it shares the same exact genome as the common Douglas’s Bladderpod. Using best available science, this work strongly suggests USF&W has no scientific and therefore legal basis to press forward with a listing at this time.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:25:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015