Effects of an exotic herbaceous
perennial, Cynara cardunculus,
ll l d bi don small mammals and songbirds
CALIFORNIA
O C t C lif iOrange County California
St R hStarr Ranch
Total ppt (cm)
Starr Ranch Annual & Monthly Precipitation (cm) 1997-981998 99
7420 1998-99
1999-002000-01
202837
2001-022002-032003-04
164940
2004-0586
Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug.
Habitat TypesOak Woodland
Starr Ranch VegetationOak Woodland
C t l S S b
Starr Ranch Vegetation
Oak Woodland
Coastal Sage Scrub
Riparian Woodland
Grassland
Chaparral
Riparian Woodland
Coastal Sage Scrub
GrasslandChaparral
derally Threatened under the Endangered Species Act
CA State Species of Special Concern
Starr Ranch Upland ISC&R Teamager Pete DeSimone Field Crew Leaders: Matt Lechmaier, Jenny McCabe, Brent Bachelder,
ld Assistants
drey Albrecht Ben HenshawSara Kaiser
John Dvorak, Greg Parks, Justin Valliere
Restoration Assistant, Debbie GleyJon O’BrienJeff RauAndy Reeder
Ornithologists
Gail Hall Farmer
m Archer
slie Boby
ris Boever
Sara KaiserSergey Khomenko
Sasha Keyel
Dave Kimble
Andy ReederMelissa Riedel-Lehrke
William Rodriguez
Lindsey SchollGail Hall Farmer
Becky Stewart
Stephan Lorenz
Kaia Colestock
n Breen
ala Cummings
nessa Cunningham
k D id
Rich LaPaix
Scott Lillie
Belinda Lo
Jessica Schulte
Daniel Secundy
Stacy SmithKaia Colestock
Jessica Griffiths
Megan Garfinkel
ke Davidson
trick Duggan
ss Hammersley
Doug Manning
Erynn Maynard
Thad Miller
Graham Tuttle
Kim Whorral
Erin Yost
unteers who hoed thistle resprouts, collected, counted, and processed many, many seeds.
Margot Griswold, Earthworks Construction & Design
Fish & Wildlife Service for “Partners for Wildlife” and “Private Land Stewardship” funding
Terp & Samantha Marcum, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Research-Based Land Management
Active & Passive Adaptive Management”
decisions modified as we learn about the system we are managing”y g g
Shea et al. 2002 Ecol. App. 12
erview - Artichoke thistle control & CSS restoration
ects of thistle control on small mammals and songbirds
Challenges
Spot mapping
Point counts
Small mammal trapping
Overview of Artichoke Thistle Control and Subsequent q
Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration at Starr Ranch
Cynara cardunculus
Artichoke Thistle
700 acres
ects of Habitat Restoration on Wildlife
Challenges:
1. Though thistle control reduces cover by 95% per site in one season, restoration success highly variable
2. Socal habitat mosaics – small habitat patch size
3. Extreme fragility of CSS
Effects of artichoke thistle control & CSS restoration on songbirds
1. Spot mapping
2. Point counts
Songbirds
seful indicators of weed control & restoration successeasily detectedreadily distinguished to species levelreadily distinguished to species level
ovide useful information about ecosystem function fairly specific habitat requirementsfairly specific habitat requirementshigh levels energy expenditurehigh on the food chain
dely comparable data due to standardized field methods
ttrespond to the environment at multiple spatial and temporal scalesthus may be strongly influenced by factors outside any one study area
m citations in Golet, G. H. et al. 2008. Wildlife response to riparian restoration on the
Species Richness by Site and TreatmentSpecies Richness In Matched Sitesp y
5
Invaded
5
0 Restoration
Pristine
5
0
0
0
5
One Five Four Three Two0 2 4 5 6
SiteBlue bars = sites of increasing restoration ageti h k thi tl d i t d
2004
2005
n = 40 one sq meter quadsn = 40 one sq meter quads
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
n = 40
0
0
0ARTCALSALAPIAll natives
0
0
0 All natives
0
0
0
0
0
2006 2007 2008 2009
P i t C t S i Ri h PristinePoint Counts: Species Richness Pristine
Restoration
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
aseline
Artichoke histle-
Dominated
Restoration begins
Effects of Thistle Control & CSS Restoration
on Small Mammals:
Small Mammal Trappingpp g
In matched pair sites – long term study
Over a weed control & restoration chronosequence
Small mammals can exert strong influence on vegetation patterns in southern CAvegetation patterns in southern CA
DeSimone and Zedler 1999
Small mammal abundances are highly variableSmall mammal abundances are highly variable
Anderson et al. 2000
8RestorationPristine
6
7
Pristine
6
5 5
3 3 3
4 4
3
4 4 4
2
1 1
2
0 0 0
mmer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Winter Summer Winter2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 2009
Trapping Season
Restoration
30 30
35Pristine
26 26
2019
20
13
1514 14
6
9
5
8
0 0
2
01
32
mmer2004
Winter2004
Summer2005
Winter2005
Summer2006
Winter2006
Summer2007
Winter2007
Winter2008
Summer2009
Winter20092004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 2009
Trapping Season
Percent of total captures
Pristine Pre-treatment Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
p
treatment
h Mousecus boylii
s Mousecus eremicus
- - - - - -
28.6 -
-
- - - 50.011.7 -
20.0cus eremicus
rnia Mousecus californicus
Mousecus maniculatus
rnia Pocket Mouse
30.9
50.00.4 - - - - -
25.0
-
- - - ---
rnia Pocket Mousepus californicus
ern Harvest Mouseontomys megalotis
rnia Vole 73.7- - - 7.14.3 100.0
- -
-
50.050.0
3.5
3.5
5.3
21.157.150.0
-- 25.0 7.1- -
californicus
rt Woodratlepida
y-footed Woodratfuscipes
13.9
11.7
-- - - - - -
73.7
-- - - - - -
7.14.3 100.0
r 1 CSS Restoration End Year 3 CSS Restoration
Native Shrub Cover
0
0n = 40
0
0
0
0
0
01 3 4 8
Native Shrub Height0n = 40
0
0n = 40
0
0
01 3 4 8
Restoration Chronosequence
*
Pre-Treatment
Restoration 1 Restoration 2 Restoration 3 Restoration 4 Pristine 1 Pristine 2Yr. 1 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 8
Restoration Age
oration 4 grid was only open one night
C
0
Restoration Chronosequence
5
0
5
5
0
5
0
5
0
*0
Pre-Treatment
Restoration1
Restoration2
Restoration3
Restoration4
Pristine 1 Pristine 2
Restoration Age
Yr. 1 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 8
P R t ti R t ti R t ti R t ti P i ti P i ti
Percent of total captures
Pre-Treatment
Restoration 1
Restoration 2
Restoration 3
Restoration 4
Pristine 1
Pristine 2
Mousecus boylii
M
--- 33.3% - 25.0% 5.7%
*Yr. 1 Yr. 3 Yr. 8 *Yr. 4
Mousecus eremicusnia Mousecus californicusnia Pocket Mouse
- -
-
-
- -
--
-
17.1% 21.9%
25.0% 60.0% 59.4%
5 3% 2 9%nia Pocket Mousepus californicusrn Harvest Mousentomys megalotisnia vole
-- --
-
5.3% 2.9%
100.0% 33.3% 33.3% 21.1% 2.9%
-
- 6.3%
33.3% 66.7% -33.3% 5.7% -alifornicusWoodratlepidafooted Woodratfuscipes
-
-
- -
- - -
-
-
-
33.3% 66.7% 33.3% 5.7%
2.9%
2.9% 12.5%fuscipeswn Woodratspp.
- -- - 50.0%
nt of total captures
ration 4 grid was only open one night
Restoration Standards
• Plant structural data from 54 stands of CSS at Starr Ranch
• Small mammal and bird sampling - spring & summer, 2004
Semiarid ecosystems:
hi h t l i bilit i bi ti f thigh temporal variability in abiotic factors
restoration may be more effective during wet years
Bakker et al. 2003. Ecological Applications 13
Cox and Allen. 2008. Journal of Applied Ecology 45
2001-022002-03
RestorationInitiated
5.9719.66
Annual ppt
(inches)
2002-032003-042004-052005-06
10.1334.33
12.354 632006-07
2007-082008-092009-10
10.404.63
11.50
13 282009 10 13.28
2 3 5 16 17 142 3 5 16 17 14
Baseline cover CYNCAR: 40 – 90%
Site Numbers
Baseline cover CYNCAR: 40 90%
Baseline native cover: 0 – 5%
Gr. 5 ARTCAL End Season Planted Plug HeightGr. 5 ARTCAL End Season Planted Plug Height
80
60
40
20
02003 2004
n = 20 n = 20Survivorship = 100% Survivorship = 60%