Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Santa Clara Valley Dudleya and The Bay-Checkerspot Butterfly

Santa Clara Valley Dudleya and The Bay-Checkerspot Butterfly

The Bay-Checkerspot Butterfly
(Courtesy of Flickr)
Ecology:
            Serpentinite rock is a metamorphic member of the ultramafic family of rocks, derived from the earth's mantle, surfacing where oceanic and continental plates collide.”However, it is much more, serpentine creates unique habitats                                                                                                Santa Clara Valley Dudleya
                                                                                                (Courtesy of Flickr)
wherever it is found and is California’s state mineral.  The unique chemical build up is generally toxic to most forms of life and lack of nutrients creates little room for vegetative growth.  However, the less than one percent of California soil that is made up of serpentine rock supports a small but crucial ecosystem of native plants and animals.  One of the unique plants found in Serpentine Soil is the Dudleya setchellii (Santa Clara Valley dudleya) and it supports the life cycle the federally threatened Bay-Checkerspot Butterfly.  While all native serpentine habitats are in danger, I chose to focus on the general area of Coyote Valley, as it is where I call home and the last major habitat of the Bay-Checkerspot Butterfly. 
Photo Showing Coyote Valley (Courtesy of Marry Ellen Hannibal)


Geographic and Population Changes
The species is threatened by development, landfill activities, unauthorized dumping, quarry expansion, and off-road vehicles.  Sixteen of the twenty known occurrences are partially or wholly on private land, and most are subject to various levels of threat from development.  As technology boomed in the Silicon Valley so did the housing market and the technology parks necessary for the growing industries.  As a result a large amount of serpentine soils were built on in noticeable ways.  Some noticeable plots of local Santa Clara Valley Dudleya and Bay-Checkerspot Butterfly habitat lost was that which developed for more than 500 homes, the new Cal Pine Power Plant in Coyote Valley, and the IBM campus adjacent to Tulare Hill. 
Photo Showing Cal Pine Power Plant at Base of Tulare Hill 
(Courtesy of Cal Pine)

Cause of listing and Main Threats
Since the unveiling of the recovery plan however, there have been updates and new discoveries regarding the reasons of degradation in serpentine habitats and of the Santa Clara Valley Dudleya.  A Biologist by the name of Stuart Weiss has discovered that much of the out-dominance of native habitat can be attributed to over nitrification from the Highway 101 corridor that intersects coyote valley and the serpentine habitats.  The nitrogen released from the more than 110,000 cars that pass daily as well as diminishing grazing has allowed for non-native annual grasses to dominate the landscape and shade out the Santa Clara Valley dudleya.  According to Weiss, “You end grazing in the areas and it's bye-bye butterflies."
Photo Showing the addition of two extra lanes of 101 thru Coyote Valley.
(Courtesy of Freeway Brent)

Description of Recovery Plan
            The original endangered species Recovery plan outlined steps of isolating populations of the Santa Clara Valley Dudleya as well as limiting grazing and development.  However, what is interesting, has been watching the new developments in the plans and actions.  Since the original study in 1998, the 101 corridor thru coyote valley has expanded from two to four lanes and the powerplant has been finished and is now in operation.  While both of these lead to further over nitrification, both projects set aside large plots of serpentine habitat for Santa Clara Valley Dudleya as well as the threatened Bay-Checkerspot Butterfly.  These plots of land as well as surrounding areas of Coyote Valley are being grazed again, as grazing is now being encouraged rather than discouraged by government officials in the area.  Grazing has proven to be possibly the largest factor in the survival of the Santa Clara Valley Dudleya and Bay-Checkerspot Butterfly.  By the mid-1990s, the checkerspot's numbers on Coyote Ridge's northern end had dropped from about 50,000 to near extinction. However, in areas that have been well maintained and grazed, the population hovers in the low hundreds of thousands.

Here Cows are seen grazing Coyote Ridge in order to Combat Non-Native Grasses
(Courtesy of Bay Nature)

Listing Date: 9/30/1998

Type Of Listing: Endangered
References:
http://botanicalgarden.berkeley.edu/about_us/images/press/archived_newsletters/Newsletter%201993-2.pdf
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/980930c_v2.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100725_pf.html

Keep the Channel Islands Foxy

by: Mayra Concepcion

Urocyon littoralis
Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) experienced catastrophic declines in the late 1990s, primarily due to golden eagle predation on the northern Channel Islands and canine distemper virus (CDV) outbreak on Santa Catalina Island (Timm et al. 2009).


In 2004, the FWS listed the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and Santa Catalina Island fox as endangered (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004) pursuant to the ESA. The remaining two subspecies, the San Nicolas Island fox (U. l. dickeyi) and San Clemente Island fox (U. l. clementae), weren’t federally listed.

The IUCN (World Conservation Union) listed the entire species as Critically Endangered in 2001 (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald 2004). All six subspecies are listed as threatened by the State of California.
Recovery Plan Link

Island foxes feed on a wide variety of insect prey, native and introduced mice, small mammals, ground-nesting birds, and native plants. The island fox is a habitat generalist and an opportunistic omnivore; so, no critical habitat area was needed.

Although primarily nocturnal, the island fox is more diurnal than the mainland gray fox, possibly a result of historical absence of large predators and freedom from human harassment on the islands (Laughrin 1977).


The golden eagle is four times the size of the island fox and can easily prey on it.

Golden eagle predation has continued to be the primary mortality factor for foxes on the northern Channel Islands. The extirpation of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from the Channel Islands as a result of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) may have facilitated golden eagle colonization. Bald eagles historically bred on the islands and aggression by breeding bald eagles may have discouraged foraging golden eagles from establishing residence.

Successful longterm suppression of golden eagles would likely require removal of the non-native prey base (feral pigs removed from Santa Cruz Island and deer and elk removed from Santa Rosa Island), as well as the successful restoration of bald eagles to the northern Channel Islands (Coonan 2003; Coonan et al. 2005a).

Between November 1999 and July 2006, 44 golden eagles, were removed from Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands (Latta et al. 2005; Coonan et al. 2010). They were trapped and subsequently released in northeastern California. The recent, successful restoration of bald eagles to the Channel Islands may also provide a deterrent to future golden eagle colonization of the islands. Sixty-one bald eagles were releasedon Santa Cruz Island as the result of annual experimental reintroductions of juvenile bald eagles from 2002 to 2006 (Coonan et al. 2010).


Captive breeding was conducted on each island and within 10 years, reproduction in the reintroduced wild populations was outpacing that in captivity.

The fox’s annual survival has remained relatively constant, at above 90 percent for most of period from 2004-2013. In 2013, however, island fox survival declined to about 80 percent, and five of the 11 mortalities that occurred in radio-collared foxes had evidence of a parasite never before recorded in island foxes (Coonan 2014). Necropsy of those foxes revealed acanthocephalans (spiny-headed worms).

Tracking population estimates for the total population (both adults and juveniles) reveals that it has hovered around 550 foxes since 2010, and this may very well represent carrying capacity for the island (Coonan 2014). This is supported by the general decline in reproductive effort as the population has increased.

Sources:
Recovery Plan
Foxy Image
Golden Eagle Image