Rare plants in the Golden Gate Estuary (California): the relationship between scale and understanding
Peggy L. Fiedler A E , Megan E. Keever B , Brenda J. Grewell C and Douglas J. Partridge DA Ecosystem Science & Restoration Services, WSP Environmental Strategies LLC, 160 Franklin Street, Suite 300, Oakland, CA 94607, USA.
B Biology Department, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA.
C USDA-ARS Exotic & Invasive Weeds Research Laboratory, Plant Sciences Department, Mail Stop 4, University of California, Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
D Blasland, Bouck & Lee Inc., 2300 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98102, USA.
E Corresponding author. Email: peggy.fiedler@wspgroup.com
Australian Journal of Botany 55(3) 206-220 https://doi.org/10.1071/BT06069
Submitted: 6 April 2006 Accepted: 23 November 2006 Published: 18 May 2007
Abstract
We analysed 10 rare-plant projects conducted from 1982 to 2005 for trends in scientific findings, project costs, effort and efficacy. Our purpose was to determine whether generalisations about these factors can be found, and if so, whether they might be useful for designing and implementing successful future rare-plant endeavours. Analysis results revealed that rare plant species persist despite their restriction to a highly fragmented and degraded urbanised estuary of more than seven million people. Also important were the findings that with sufficient funding, successful rare-plant reintroduction is possible in the short-term at minimum. Habitat considerations, however, are paramount—i.e. habitat requirements of a rare species should be known before reintroduction for the restoration effort to be likely to be successful. Understanding ecosystem functions that support rare species, therefore, remains the highest priority for rare-plant restorationists. Project costs varied significantly, as expected, but a ‘middle ground’ provides necessary and sufficient funding to conduct most rare-plant work for one or a few species. Costs rise, but not linearly, when additional rare taxa are included. Given our experience is applicable elsewhere, taking an ecosystem approach to protection of rare flora is most successful and cost effective.
Acknowledgements
Our research has been funded by a variety of public, private and various consortiums and partnerships. We thank The Nature Conservation (Lynn Lozier); Solano Land Trust (Julian Meisler and Ken Poerner); Solano County Water Agency; Golden Gate National Parks Association (Mark Albert); Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Daisy Lee); Alameda Flood Control District; CalFed; California Department of Fish & Game; and, California Department of Parks & Recreation (Marla Hastings). For field assistance and logistical support, we acknowledge Dr Deanna Rokich (Botanic Garden & Parks Authority), Dr Eliska Rejmankova (University of California, Davis), Leslie Saul, Michele Barlow, Dr Joel Gerwein, and Miles DaPrato. For arthropod identification assistance, we thank Professor Robbin Thorp (University of California, Davis), Dr Steve Giamari and Dr Terry Seeno (California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Pest Diagnostics Center). Last, we thank Dr David Coates for inviting us to participate in this conservation effort.
Affolter JM
(1985) A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Botany Monographs 6, 1–140.
Baker HG
(1955) Self compatibility and establishment of long distance dispersal. Evolution 9, 337–349.
| Crossref |
Bell CR
(1954) The Sanicula crassicaulis complex (Umbelliferae). University of California Publications in Botany 27, 133–230.
Chuang TI, Heckard LR
(1971) Observations of root-parasitism in Cordylanthus (Scrophulariaceae). American Journal of Botany 58, 218–228.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chuang TI, Heckard LR
(1972) Seed coat morphology in Cordylanthus (Scrophulariaceae) and its taxonomic significance. American Journal of Botany 59, 258–265.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chuang TI, Heckard LR
(1973) Taxonomy of Cordylanthus subgenus Hemistegia (Scrophulariaceae) Brittonia [Original Publication] 25, 135–158.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Collins JN,
Collins LM,
Leopold LB, Resh VH
(1986) The influence of mosquito control ditches on the geomorphology of tidal marshes in the San Francisco Bay Area: evolution of salt marsh mosquito habitats. Proceedings of the California Mosquito and Vector Control Association 54, 91–95.
Drury WH
(1974) Rare species. Biological Conservation 6, 162–169.
| Crossref |
Drury WH
(1980) Rare species of plants. Rhodora 82, 3–48.
Fiedler PL
(1986) Concepts of rarity in vascular plant species, with special reference to the genus Calochortus Pursh (Liliaceae). Taxon 35, 502–518.
| Crossref |
Fiedler PL
(1995) Rarity in the California flora: new thoughts on old ideas. Madrono 42, 127–141.
Fiedler PL, Leidy RA
(1987) Plant communities of the Ring Mountain Preserve, Tiburon, California. Madrono 34, 173–196.
Knapp EE, Rice KJ
(1994) Starting from seed: genetic issues in using native grasses for restoration. Restoration and Management Notes 12, 40–45.
Louda SM,
Kendall D,
Connor J, Simberloff D
(1997) Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biocontrol of weeds. Science 277, 1088–1090.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Marvier MA, Smith DL
(1997) Conservation implications of host use for rare parasitic plants. Conservation Biology 11(4), 839–848.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Press MC
(1989) Autotrophy and heterotrophy in root hemiparasites. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 4, 258–263.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Preston FW
(1948) The commonness and rarity of species. Ecology 29, 254–283.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Preston FW
(1962) The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity. Ecology 43, 185–215, 410–432.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rabinowitz D
(1978) Abundance and diaspore weight in rare and common prairie grasses. Oecologia 37, 213–219.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rabinowitz D, Rapp JK
(1981) Dispersal abilities of seven sparse and common grasses from a Missouri prairie. American Journal of Botany 68, 616–624.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rabinowitz D,
Bassett BK, Renfro GE
(1979) Abundance and neighborhood structure for sparse and common prairie grasses in a Missouri prairie. American Journal of Botany 66, 867–869.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rabinowitz D,
Rapp JK, Dillion PM
(1984) Competitive abilities of sparse grass species: means of persistence or cause of abundance? Ecology 65, 1144–1154.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rabinowitz D,
Rapp JK,
Cairns S, Mayer M
(1989) The persistence of rare prairie grasses in Missouri: environmental variation buffered by reproductive output of sparse species. American Naturalist 134, 525–544.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Turner CE,
Pemberton RW, Rosenthal SS
(1987) Host utilization of native Cirsium thistles (Asteraceae) by the introduced weevil Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in California. Environmental Entomology 16(1), 111–115.
US Fish and Wildlife Service
(1997) Determination of endangered status for two tidal marsh plants: Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum (Suisun thistle) and Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis (Soft bird’s-beak) from the San Francisco Bay Area of California. Department of the Interior Federal Register 62, 61916–61925.
Yates CJ,
Ladd PG,
Coates DN, McArthur S
(2007) Hierarchies of cause: understanding rarity in an endemic shrub Verticordia staminosa (Myrtaceae) with a highly restricted distribution. Australian Journal of Botany 55, 194–205.
