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%