Perdeblom

Taxonomy
Scientific Name
Hesperantha vaginata (Sweet) Goldblatt
Higher Classification
Monocotyledons
Family
IRIDACEAE
Synonyms
Geissorhiza vaginata Sweet, Hesperantha inflexa in sense of R.C.Foster, not of (D.Delaroche) R.C.Foster (misapplied name), Hesperantha metelerkampiae L.Bolus, Hesperantha stanfordiae L.Bolus
Common Names
Perdeblom (a)
National Status
Status and Criteria
Near Threatened D2
Assessment Date
2009/07/30
Assessor(s)
P. Goldblatt, D. Raimondo & E. Marinus
Justification
Eight to 10 locations are potentially threatened by agriculture and climate change.
Distribution
Endemism
South African endemic
Provincial distribution
Northern Cape
Range
Bokkeveld Escarpment and Calvinia.
Habitat and Ecology
Major system
Terrestrial
Major habitats
Fynbos, Succulent Karoo
Description
Dolerite clays on vertisol soils.
Threats
The species is restricted in the Nieuwoudtville area to Dolerite Vertisols on the central plain this is an area of 38.8 km. Thirteen percent of this habitat has been lost in the past to ploughing. Hesperantha vaginata does occur on large flat areas that could easily be ploughed on the farms Oorlogskloof and Brakke Rivier (Todd 2003). P. Goldblatt (pers. comm.) says that this species seems fairly secure from threats, but a change in farming practice on the rich red clay soils on which it grows, could conceivably rapidly reduce the present large populations to near extinction. The yellow form, which is now very rare, if not extinct, grew immediately around Nieuwoudtville and has been the most impacted by agricultural activities. There is threat from agricultural (P. Goldblatt 2005). Climate change is likely to affect this species it only flowers after good rains and has only flowered three times in the past six years due to drought (D. Raimondo 2006). The degree of impact of this threat is currently unknown and monitoring is required to determine if populations are already declining.
Population

At least eight or nine populations. These may have all been continuous, but have since become separated as a result of agricultural activities. Locally very common. Some populations have declined, especially those of the yellow-flowered form.


Population trend
Stable
Assessment History
Taxon assessed
Status and Criteria
Citation/Red List version
Hesperantha vaginata (Sweet) GoldblattNT D2Raimondo et al. (2009)
Hesperantha vaginata (Sweet) GoldblattRare Hilton-Taylor (1996)
Bibliography

Goldblatt, P. and Manning, J.C. 2000. Cape Plants: A conspectus of the Cape Flora of South Africa. Strelitzia 9. National Botanical Institute, Cape Town.


Hilton-Taylor, C. 1996. Red data list of southern African plants. Strelitzia 4. South African National Botanical Institute, Pretoria.


Manning, J., Goldblatt, P. and Snijman, D. 2002. The color encyclopedia of Cape bulbs. Timber Press, Portland/Cambridge.


Raimondo, D., von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C., Kamundi, D.A. and Manyama, P.A. 2009. Red List of South African Plants. Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.


Todd, S. 2003. Current and potential future levels of vegetation transformation on the Bokkeveld plateau, a hotspot of plant diversity and endemism. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town.


Citation
Goldblatt, P., Raimondo, D. & Marinus, E. 2009. Hesperantha vaginata (Sweet) Goldblatt. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2022/09/26

Comment on this assessment Comment on this assessment
Distribution map

© D. van der Colff

© N.A. Helme

© C. Paterson-Jones


Search for images of Hesperantha vaginata on iNaturalist