vol. 37, no. 3 • july 2009 fremontia - cnps

F R E M O N T I AV O L U M E 3 7 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 9

JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

$5.00 (Free to Members)

VOL. 37, NO. 3 • JULY 2009

FREMONTIA

FIRE ON GUADALUPE ISLAND:

OLD WOUNDS, NEW

OPPORTUNITY

A MANUAL OF CALIFORNIA

VEGETATION, 2ND EDITION

CONTEST WINNERS: CNPS

2009 CONSERVATION

CONFERENCE

ROLAND PITSCHEL: 1942–2009

FIRE ON GUADALUPE ISLAND:

OLD WOUNDS, NEW

OPPORTUNITY

A MANUAL OF CALIFORNIA

VEGETATION, 2ND EDITION

CONTEST WINNERS: CNPS

2009 CONSERVATION

CONFERENCE

ROLAND PITSCHEL: 1942–2009

F R E M O N T I A V O L U M E 3 7 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 9

STAFF ( SACRAMENTO)Executive Director . . . . . Tara HansenFinance & Administration Manager .

Cari PorterMembership & Development Coor-

dinator . . . . . . Stacey FlowerdewConservation Program Director . . . . .

Greg SubaRare Plant Botanist . . . . Nick JensenVegetation Program Director . . . Julie

EvensVegetation Ecologists . Jennifer Buck,

Kendra SikesEducation Program Director . . . Josie

CrawfordAdministrative Assistant . . . . . Marcy

Millett

STAFF (AT LARGE)Fremontia Editor . . . . . . . Bob HassCNPS Bulletin Editor . . . . . Bob HassLegislative Consultant .Vern GoehringEast Bay Conservation Analyst . . . . .

Lech NaumovichWebsite Coordinator . . Mark Naftzger

PROGRAM ADVISORSRare Plant Program Senior Advisor . . .

Jim AndreVegetation Program Senior Advisor . .

Todd Keeler-WolfHorticulture Committee Cochair . . . . .

Brett HallCNPS Press Co-Directors . . . . . Holly

Forbes, Dore BrownPoster Program . . . Bertha McKinley,

Wilma Follette

BOARD OF DIRECTORSBrett Hall (President); Carol Witham(Vice President); Brad Jenkins (Trea-surer); Sarah Jayne (Secretary); AtLarge: Lauren Brown, Laura Camp,Ellen Dean, Jane Hicks, Arvind Kumar,Brian LeNeve, Vince Scheidt, AlisonShilling

MATERIALS FOR PUBLICATIONCNPS members and others are wel-come to contribute materials for publi-cation in Fremontia. See the inside backcover for submission instructions.

CHAPTER COUNCILKevin Bryant (Chair); Larry Levine(Vice Chair); Marty Foltyn (Secretary);Board of Directors Representatives:Lauren Brown, Brian LeNeve

Alta Peak (Tulare) . . . . Joan StewartBristlecone (Inyo-Mono) . . . . . . . . .

Steve McLaughlinChannel Islands . . . . David MagneyDorothy King Young (Mendocino/

Sonoma Coast) . . . . . Lori HubbartEast Bay . . . . . . . . . . Delia TaylorEl Dorado . . . . . . . Cindy PodsiadloKern County . . . . . . Laura StocktonLos Angeles/Santa Monica Mtns . . . .

Betsey LandisMarin County . . Carolyn LongstrethMilo Baker (Sonoma County) . . . . .

Liz ParsonsMojave Desert . . . . . . Tim ThomasMonterey Bay . . . . Rosemary FosterMount Lassen . . . . . . . Catie BishopNapa Valley . . . . . . . . . . John PittNorth Coast . . . . . . . Larry LevineNorth San Joaquin . . . . Alan MillerOrange County . . . . . Nancy HeulerRedbud (Grass Valley/Auburn) . . . .

Brad CarterRiverside/San Bernardino counties . .

Katie BarrowsSacramento Valley . . . Hazel Gordon,

Kristie HayduSan Diego . . . . . . . . Marty FoltynSan Gabriel Mtns . . . Gabi McLeanSan Luis Obispo . . . Lauren BrownSanhedrin (Ukiah) . . . . . . . . Geri

Hulse-StephensSanta Clara Valley . . . Kevin BryantSanta Cruz County . . . . Brett HallSequoia (Fresno) . . . . Paul MitchellShasta . . . . . Susan Libonati-BarnesSierra Foothills (Tuolumne, Cala- veras, Mariposa) . . Robert W. BrownSouth Coast (Palos Verdes) . . . . . .

Barbara Sattler, David SundstromTahoe . . . . . . . . . . Michael HoganWillis L. Jepson (Solano) . . . . . . . .

Mary Frances Kelly PohYerba Buena (San Francisco) . . . . .

Linda J. Shaffer

Staff and board listings are as of April 2010.Printed by Premier Graphics: www.premiergraphics.biz

The California Native Plant Society(CNPS) is a statewide nonprofit organi-zation dedicated to increasing theunderstanding and appreciation ofCalifornia’s native plants, and to pre-serving them and their natural habitatsfor future generations.

CNPS carries out its mission throughscience, conservation advocacy, educa-tion, and horticulture at the local, state,and federal levels. It monitors rare andendangered plants and habitats; acts tosave endangered areas through public-ity, persuasion, and on occasion, legalaction; provides expert testimony togovernment bodies; supports the estab-lishment of native plant preserves; spon-sors workdays to remove invasive plants;and offers a range of educational activi-ties including speaker programs, fieldtrips, native plant sales, horticulturalworkshops, and demonstration gardens.

Since its founding in 1965, the tradi-tional strength of CNPS has been itsdedicated volunteers. CNPS activitiesare organized at the local chapter levelwhere members’ varied interests influ-ence what is done. Volunteers from the33 CNPS chapters annually contributein excess of 97,000 hours (equivalentto 46.5 full-time employees).

CNPS membership is open to all.Members receive the quarterly journal,Fremontia, the quarterly statewide Bul-letin, and newsletters from their localCNPS chapter.

VOL. 37, NO. 3, JULY 2009

F R E M O N T I A

Copyright © 2009

California Native Plant Society

Disclaimer:

The views expressed by authors publishedin this journal do not necessarily reflectestablished policy or procedure of CNPS,and their publication in this journal shouldnot be interpreted as an organizationalendorsement—in part or in whole—of theirideas, statements, or opinions.

CALIFORNIA NATIVEPLANT SOCIETY

Dedicated to the Preservation ofthe California Native Flora

Bob Hass, Editor

Beth Hansen-Winter, Designer

Brad Jenkins and Jake Sigg,Proofreaders

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

MEMBERSHIPMembership form located on inside back cover;

dues include subscriptions to Fremontia and the CNPS Bulletin

Mariposa Lily . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,500Benefactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $600Patron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $300

Plant Lover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100

Family or Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75International or Library . . . . . . . $75Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $45

Student/Retired/Limited Income . $25

CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1; Sacramento, CA 95816-5113Phone: (916) 447-CNPS (2677) Fax: (916) 447-2727

Web site: www.cnps.org Email: [email protected]

10+ Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,5007-10 Employees . . . . . . . . . . . $1,000

4-6 Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5001-3 Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . $150

CORPORATE/ORGANIZATIONAL

F R E M O N T I A 1V O L U M E 3 7 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 9

CONTENTS

THE COVER: The critically endangered Guadalupe cypress (Hesperocyparis guadalupensis) was restricted to three groves onGuadalupe Island before the removal of feral goats in 2006. Since then the cypress have been regenerating and over 10,000seedlings and young trees are now in evidence. Photograph by Thomas Oberbauer.

EDITORIAL: WHAT IS NATIVE? by Jake Sigg ...........................................................................................2

FIRE ON GUADALUPE ISLAND REVEALS SOME OLD WOUNDS, AND NEWOPPORTUNITY by Thomas A. Oberbauer, Luciana Luna Mendoza, Nadia CitlaliOlivares, Lucía Barbosa Deveze, Isabel Granillo Duarte, and Scott A. Morrison ..... 3

Guadalupe Island continues to exhibit a remarkable recovery of native vegetationfollowing the removal of feral goats. A recent fire in the remnant groves of endangeredGuadalupe cypress caused unexpectedly high mortality of adult trees. What enabledthat relatively low intensity fire to kill the large trees was that the trees had been scarred by goat browsingand that damage to the trunk allowed the fire to kill the tree. Fortunately, the fire also triggered a tremen-dous dispersal of cypress seeds and the likely rejuvenation of the forest.

A DYNAMIC TOOL FOR SOUND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT:INTRODUCING THE SECOND EDITION, A MANUAL OF CALIFORNIAVEGETATION by Todd Keeler-Wolf and Julie M. Evens.................................. 12

Since the first edition of A Manual of California Vegetation was published 15 years ago,significant changes have occurred. Thousands of new field samples have been col-lected and analyzed, and the classification of vegetation types has been refined andexpanded. The second edition includes detailed information on life history and

ecology of the State’s vegetation, and is expected to contribute significantly to better management of Cali-fornia’s natural landscapes.

AWARD WINNERS OF THE PHOTOGRAPHY AND BOTANICAL ARTCONTESTS FROM THE CNPS 2009 CONSERVATION CONFERENCE

by Josie Crawford ............................................................ 19

In discussing the science connected to conservation issues, it iseasy to lose sight of why we are so engaged in these discussions.This is precisely why planners of the CNPS 2009 ConservationConference decided to sponsor two contests, one for photography and the other forbotanical art. The images that follow eloquently express an appreciation for California’snative flora.

ROLAND PITSCHEL: 1942–2009 by Jake Sigg and Barbara Pitschel .................................................. 24

BOOK REVIEW: California Mosses by Bill Malcolm et al., Reviewed by David Wagner................. 25

BOOK REVIEW: A Rare Botanical Legacy: The Contributions of Ruby and Arthur Van Deventerby Rick Bennett, Susan Calla, and David Wallace, Reviewed by Richard G. Beidleman .................. 25

2 F R E M O N T I A V O L U M E 3 7 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 9

EDITORIAL: WHAT IS NATIVE?

USEFUL WEBSITES ANDCONTACTINFORMATION

California Native PlantSociety (CNPS):www.cnps.org with links toconservation issues, chapters,publications, policies, etc.

For updates on conservationissues:Audubon Societywww.audubon.org

Center for Biological Diversitywww.sw-center.org

Native Plant ConservationCampaignwww.plantsocieties.org

Natural Resources DefenseCouncilwww.nrdc.org

Sierra Clubwww.sierraclub.org

Wilderness Societywww.wilderness.org

uch ink has been spilled, andnumerous discussions—not to

mention arguments—have happenedover the definition of what constitutesa native plant. Why does the questioneven matter? The word is used a lot,and it even occurs in policy or legaldocuments, so we need at least a work-ing definition.

About 20 years ago I was explain-ing to a landscape architect practicingin San Francisco, where we both live,that a certain plant was not native,that it was native down the Californiacoast south of San Francisco. His looksand his words added up to “My, aren’twe precious?” I replied, “What ifMexico still owned Monterey, wouldits plants still be called native in SanFrancisco?” He got the point—Cali-fornia is a political designation, not abiological one.

For example, Joshua trees (Yuccabrevifolia) grow in the harsh and de-manding Mojave Desert, along withthe critically important yucca moth(Tegeticula maculata). Would theseorganisms be considered native inFresno, Tahoe, Eureka, or San Diego?If you live in Barstow and wanted anative tree, would you plant a coastredwood? In thinking about natives,we need to look at the biological rela-tionships, the plant and animal associ-ates, the weather, the soil. The YerbaBuena Chapter has always had a policyto offer at its annual plant sale onlyplants propagated from material origi-nally obtained from our restrictedchapter area. The primary reason forthis was that we were urging people toplant natives in their gardens, but thosenatives were unavailable.

The term native plant means na-tive to the site; it has no other mean-ing. Native plants of a given site inter-act with each other and with localwildlife—the birds, the bees, butter-flies and other insects, the soil micro-fauna and flora—even the local patho-gens. These organisms are all intri-cately woven into the living fabric wecall an ecosystem. Ecosystems havesorted out these relationships over theeons, and they are finely tuned.

Absent these relationships and theplant you just planted may be merelyanother exotic plant; it may have comefrom another part of California but itmay just as well have come from theother side of the ocean, since it leftcomponents of its ecosystem behind.Further, because it lacks these interac-tions, some of the introductions mayeven spread out of control and dis-place other plants and animals thathave been there for thousands of years.

What might be some of the conse-quences of introducing a plant fromanother part of California that has lo-cal congeners here? Three examplesimmediately come to mind:

1) As landscaping along Highway 1,Caltrans planted a coastal buckwheat(Eriogonum parvifolium) which occursnaturally from Monterey County to SanDiego County. In its new home, it self-sowed readily and invaded PacificaState Beach at Linda Mar, displacingthe native coast buckwheat (Eriogonumlatifolium). (Fortunately, local volun-teers have been eradicating the invaderat this site and replanting the native.)

2) A long time ago, someone intro-duced to San Francisco’s coastal stranda subspecies of beach evening prim-rose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia) fromSouthern California, and it rapidly dis-placed the local subspecies, which nolonger exists here. The mere fact thatthis plant and the buckwheat displacedtheir native relatives is an indicationthat they are not supporting or fullyinteracting with the local wildlife andother organisms.

3) As part of the San Bruno MountainHabitat Conservation Plan, a red-flow-ered form of bush monkey flower(Mimulus aurantiacus) from SouthernCalifornia was introduced on the moun-tain, genetically contaminating the lo-cal stock. It hybridized with the localapricot-colored indigenous plants, pro-ducing muddy-orange intermediate-colored flowers in its offspring.

What are the consequences of theseill-advised introductions? Without de-tailed study most consequences are

unknown. The mere fact that they bearthe same name does not mean they areequivalent. Plants have chemical com-pounds that help them defend them-selves and adapt to their local circum-stances. Changing their genetic consti-tution may impair this ability in un-seen ways—for example, the changedflower color may not be readily seen bythe pollinating organisms that it haspreviously relied on. Or the chemicalcompounds that had deterred a South-ern California caterpillar from chew-ing the leaves of the monkey flower—acaterpillar that doesn’t exist here—won’t deter another caterpillar that ishere. However, it may deter the feder-ally listed endangered Bay checkerspotbutterfly, which uses the native mon-key flower, from ovipositing.

All this argues for a conservativepolicy, one that our CNPS chapter ob-serves. — Jake Sigg

Jake Sigg, 338 Ortega Street, San Fran-cisco, CA 94122, [email protected]

M


FIRE ON GUADALUPE ISLAND REVEALS SOMEOLD WOUNDS, AND NEW OPPORTUNITYby Thomas A. Oberbauer, Luciana Luna Mendoza, Nadia Citlali Olivares,

Lucía Barbosa Deveze, Isabel Granillo Duarte, and Scott A. Morrison

Mars are now beginning to providea glimpse into what the island mayhave looked like in the past.

The critically endangered Guada-lupe cypress (Hesperocyparis guada-lupensis) has also shown promisingregeneration. Its distribution beforethe goat eradication was restrictedto three groves, consisting of ap-proximately 4,000 trees, coveringroughly 100 hectares (RodriguezMalagón et al. 2006). Following theremoval of goats, seedlings were atlong last able to establish, and to-day, only a few years later, tens ofthousands of seedlings and young

trees up to four meters in height arefound in numerous locations aroundthe groves. Older individual treesperiodically continue to fall fromthe lack of soils due to erosion orother goat-caused damage, but it isnot uncommon to see those woodenskeletons surrounded by a flush ofyoung trees.

On September 15, 2008 a firebegan that spread over a three-dayperiod into the two large grovesand one smaller cluster of trees.Attempts to quickly extinguish thefire were frustrated by strong winds,low humidity, and insufficient fire-

uadalupe Island’s recov-ery from more than 175years of destruction byferal goats has been phe-

nomenal (e.g., Luna et al. 2007).Following the eradication of goats,completed in 2006, shrubs thoughtto be extirpated for more than acentury have reappeared. Guadalupepines (Pinus radiata binata) have re-generated in considerable numbersin the vicinity of the few remainingparent trees—and with little appar-ent mortality despite recent dryyears. Portions of the island that notlong ago resembled the surface of

Dead cypress with seedling offspring. All photogtaphs by Thomas Oberbauer unless otherwise noted.

G


fighting equipment and personnelon the island. Water is limited dueto reliance upon one perennialspring located elsewhere on the is-land. The initial suppression teamconsisted of a few on-island staff ofthe island conservation organiza-tion Conservación de Islas, person-nel of the Mexican Navy (Secretaríade Marina-Armada de México), vis-iting researchers, and local fisher-men, armed with three small trucks,rakes, and shovels. The NationalForest Commission (CONAFOR)and the National Commission ofProtected Natural Areas (CONANP)augmented that effort, and ulti-mately, a force of nearly 80 indi-viduals participated in extinguish-ing the fire.

Approximately 60% of the cy-press forest was affected and around600 hectares (1,500 acres) of grass-land burned. Some on the islandduring the fire described hearingcypress trees crashing down as thefire burned (D. Rogers [UC Davis]pers. comm.). The fire reportedlychanged direction frequently, butgenerally spread southward andnorthward aided by the winds. Be-cause of the winds, the little vegeta-tion that existed on the island,mostly introduced grasses, was able

to carry the flames between and farbeyond the groves.

POST-FIRE ASSESSMENT

On October 5, 6, and 7, 2008 weconducted an initial reconnaissanceof the burn (a more thorough as-sessment continued during the fol-lowing weeks under the coordina-tion of Conservación de Islas, andthe collaboration of the MexicanNavy and CONANP). Although thefire burned through a significant areaof the cypress groves, many of thetrees remained standing. (A numberof them have since fallen, however,due to strong Santa Ana winds.) Al-though about a quarter of the largenorthern grove burned in a crownfire that consumed entire trees, themajority of the southern grove wasnot burned. For the most part, itappears that the fire kept close tothe ground. In some places outsidethe groves, among the low growingforbs, a narrow jeep trail served as afire break. In other places, the firewas able to cross the trail and spread.The prevailing winds would havepushed the fire to the south andthey did so through the two majorcypress groves. However, we ob-served that the fire also burned far

to the north through low and sparseherbaceous vegetation.

In many locations we found soilthat was bright pink, outlining ghosttrees where once a trunk lay. Theheat of the burning log removed allorganic matter, leaving clean, iron-

ABOVE: Moonscape-like surface of the island in 1988, the result of vegetative destructionby vast herds of feral goats. • RIGHT: Bare slopes with a lone pine tree, 1988.


rich volcanic soil. In unburned lo-cations of the forest, the surface ofthe soil appeared as a pulverizedmix of cypress leaf scales and bits ofwood chips, created by the pound-ing and mixing effects of decades ofgoat hooves. Within the burn areas,

fire entered into that soil, consum-ing the organic material. The resultwas a fluffy texture of soil-ash pow-der that in some places was 20-30centimeters deep, and resembledmoon dust or dry quick sand.

Guadalupe cypress is a tree with

serotinous cones that remain closedand sealed with sap until exposed tofire or heat. And therein lies somegood news: the plates on the roundfire-blackened cypress cones did in-deed open, revealing and releasingthousands of orange cypress seeds.


In the burned area, the ground waspeppered with millions of seeds. Onisland and coastal locations wherefire is probably irregular, serotinouscones may also open readily with-out fire (McMaster and Zedler 1981;Barbour 2007). We did indeed ob-serve cones on branches that wereno longer living that had split andreleased seeds, even though thecones were not burned or affectedby the heat of the fire.

The fire improved the conditionsfor seed germination by removingorganic material on the soil surface.Young seedlings need exposure tomineral soil to ensure that roots con-tact stable substrate; that contact withmineral soil can also help protectseedlings from desiccation. Interest-ingly, fog swept through the grovesthe night before we arrived on theisland. Even leafless burned treescondensed enough moisture so thatthe ground beneath the branches was

wet. Seeds that fall on such locationswill surely benefit from moisture gen-erated by this process.

SURPRISES

There were some disturbing ob-servations, however. Although thefire appeared to have burned at verylow intensity through much of theforest—perhaps only a few decime-ters high—many adult trees werenevertheless killed. Many of thosetrees had a common characteristic:they burned from the base, wherefire entered into and hollowed outthe trunk. Some trees were con-sumed while standing. Others ap-parently collapsed once the fire hol-lowed out a section of the trunk. Anumber of really large trees—somea meter and a half in diameter—collapsed, breaking approximatelyhalf of a meter above the ground sothat the fallen canopy radiated out

from the stump. In a number of thosecases the fire consumed the rest ofthe tree once it lay on the ground,and as its crown burned it ignited anadjacent tree, exacerbating the fire’sspread and intensity much like fall-ing dominos.

Why were trees exposed to rela-tively low levels of fire collapsingfrom the base? While cypress areknown to have relatively thin bark,these trees burned out and collapsedfrom fires that should not have killedhealthy individuals. When we ex-amined the trees that were burnedand those that were unburned, thecause became evident. All of thetrees—burned or unburned—exhib-ited severe scarring near their base.The majority of them had been par-tially girdled and damaged to thepoint that dead heart wood was ex-posed at the surface.

The cause of this damage wasfairly obvious. In 2000, researchers

A goat-scarred tree trunk. Over 175 years, goats consumed almost everything within their reach on the island, including tree bark (especiallyduring periods of drought). This often resulted in leaving heartwood exposed, making the trees more vulnerable to fire, rot, and disease.


on the San Diego Natural HistoryMuseum-sponsored expedition tothe island noted tooth marks on thecypress bark, caused by goats gnaw-ing the trees mostly during periodsof drought. This scarring and ex-posed heartwood was prevalentthroughout the forest, all at levelswithin reach of the goats. Over 175years, tens of thousands of goatsconsuming everything within theirreach has clearly left a lasting effecton the forest. Not only did the goatscause major erosion issues withinthe forests, but the surviving treeswere heavily scarred. And thosewounds enabled an otherwise lowintensity fire to kill the trees.

Even a low intensity fire wouldeasily ignite the exposed wood andburn out the base of the tree fromthe inside. If a piece of this cypresswood is subjected to the flame of abutane lighter, within moments thewood ignites and burns on its own.If the bark were intact with a livecambium layer, the flame wouldlikely not have been able to ignitethe bark or wood. Everytree—including those notaffected by the fire—dis-played the scars. Eventrees that have healed overso that no wood is ex-posed exhibit scars thatcreate a ribbed surfacenear the base. The groovesbetween the fluted ribscontain oozing sap, andprovide another avenuefor heat and flame to en-ter the heartwood of thetree.

Interestingly, even inthe absence of fire, manyof the very old large treeshave been hollowed by rotting whereheartwood was exposed. As we ob-served in the unburned forest, it isonly a matter of time before theycollapse. We found numerous speci-mens of older unburned trees thatcollapsed along the scars where theytoo were weakened, which is basi-cally the height of a goat’s head.

Cones on these broken trees werealso observed to open and releaseseeds, although not to the extentthat burned ones did.

In contrast to the situation onGuadalupe Island, low fires withingroves of Tecate cypress (Cupressusforbesii) in San Diego County, a closerelative of the Guadalupe cypress,have been observed in some cases tobe relatively hot and burn the or-ganic duff and understory, withoutcausing tree mortality (P. Scully[CAL FIRE] and A. Shreve [U.S. For-est Service], pers. comm.).

PERSPECTIVE

While at first blush this fire couldappear to be tragic, we suggest it isnot, and that it will have a numberof interesting benefits. Overall thefire has caused what can be—withproper management—a renewaland expansion of the cypress forest.New healthy seedlings will replacethe old scarred and damaged trees,many of which would continue to

die even though the goats havebeen removed. Even prior to thefire, within openings of the forest, anumber of unique species of plantshad already appeared with the re-duction in numbers of goats, amongthem the annual monkey flower(Mimulus latifolius), island night-shade (Solanum wallacei), and na-tive tobacco (Nicotiana attenuata).

Elsewhere, vegetation recoveryappears to be accelerating. Thespread of some of the plants seemsalmost miraculous considering theirreappearance on the island just afew short years ago. While they havenot quite yet formed a mature veg-etation community, in the last fewyears the Guadalupe white sage (Sen-ecio palmeri) and Guadalupe perityle(Perityle incana) have spread froma very few isolated cliffs to be quitecommon over the upper parts ofthe island. Island endemics like thebeautiful prostrate Guadalupe tar-plant (Deinandra frutescens), Guada-lupe phacelia (Phacelia phylloma-nica), and native Island hazardia

(Hazardia cana) arespreading in flats near thecypress forest limits. Theunusual silver-stemmedGuadalupe stephanome-ria (Stephanomeria gua-dalupensis) that was pre-viously known from thesouthern islets and nearlyextinct on the main islandcan now be found grow-ing on the slope of MountAugusta, the highest pointon the island.

The reappearance offelt-leaf ceanothus (Cea-nothus arboreus, alsoknown from the Califor-

nia Channel Islands, e.g., Junak 1995and Junak et al. 2007) and one whichappears to be related to cupleafceanothus (C. greggii var. perplexans,known commonly from the main-land chaparral to the north) is espe-cially noteworthy, especially consid-ering that adult ceanothus shrubsnormally live less than 60 years

BELOW, TOP: The heat from the fire resulted in the release of millionsof cypress seeds, many of which germinated and began a cycle ofpassive revegetation. • BOTTOM: Cypress seeds and cone.


Severe scarring of tree trunks caused by the large number of goats on the island made the cypress extremely vulnerable to fire. This treewith its hollowed trunk is typical of the damage that resulted.


(Keeley and Davis 2007) and thatmature individuals had not beenobserved on the island for over 100years. Historic references indicatethat ceanothus was once quitecommon within the cypress forest(Franceschi 1893).

Young ceanothus are again ap-pearing in a number of locations.Prior to the removal of goats, anyindividual plants that germinatedwould have been consumed. Withthe goats removed, these plants sur-vive—the product of delayed germi-nation of a very old, diminishing,and fortunately not yet exhaustedseed bank. With this staggered ger-mination strategy, it is likely thatnew ceanothus plants will continueto germinate for some time. It willbe of great interest to observe thegermination of plants such as cea-nothus that may have been stimu-lated by the fire.

THE IMPERATIVE OFMANAGEMENT

When this fire occurred, a StateFire Management CollaborationGroup planning effort was under-way for Guadalupe Island. This fire

ypress growth rings are sometimes difficult to see, but after thewood has been weathered they are more easily counted. We

estimated the age of trees by counting growth rings of a few cutsections of cypress that fell a number of years ago. Small- to medium-sized cypress trees roughly 50 centimeters in diameter seemed to beroughly 150 to 160 years of age. The large trees with trunks morethan 1.2-1.4 meters on the outlying edge of the forest and on thesouthwestern portion of the southern grove are likely to be 350-500years old.

These large trees appear to be remnants of a more widespreadforest where younger trees have died out. Based on old accounts andcut trees, dead tree trunks appear to decay at a rate of approximately30 to 50 years. Dead tree trunks exist in the open land between thetwo major groves, indicating that relatively recently the two groveswere united into one large grove. Furthermore, within the lastcentury, cypress trees grew near the major island spring far fromexisting groves, which indicates the much greater extent of thisforest type.

HOW OLD ARE THE CYPRESS GROVES?

C

event highlights the urgency of com-pleting that effort. If the rejuvenat-ing benefits of this fire are to en-dure, it will be essential there be nosubsequent fire in the area in theseveral decades ahead. Tecate cy-press has been found to reproducebest if fire intervals are longer than30-50 years (Zedler 1981; Barbour2007). If a fire occurs more fre-quently than that, the trees will beunable to produce enough seed fortheir replacement and numbers arelikely to diminish, thereby reducingthe size of the grove or forest. There-fore, even though these trees areadapted to periodic fire on the is-land, due to their precarious condi-tion, no fire can be allowed to re-turn until the new trees are at least30 years old.

This fire also reminds us of howprecarious these and other islandresources are. The Guadalupe junco(Junco hyemalis insularis) tends tobe associated with forest cover, so itwill be important to evaluate its re-sponse to the fire. There are otherspecies in great peril of extinctionon the island including Californiajuniper (Juniperus californica), whichat one time grew in an open forest,

Island oak (Quercus tomentella), Is-land redberry (Rhamnus pirifolia),toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia var.macrocarpa), and even Californiasagebrush (Artemisia californica), toname a few. Managers need to iden-tify ways of augmenting those popu-lations, so as to reduce the risk of acatastrophic impact that could comewith a single fire event.

Some management may be need-ed within the burn area, although itdoes not appear at this time thatactive reforestation of cypress is re-quired, given the massive release ofseeds and the impact that mechani-cal revegetation may have on theseedlings that have already estab-lished. In effect, the fire has causeda rejuvenation of the forest becausethis new crop of trees may replacethe adult trees killed by the fire. Butseed collection would nonethelessbe prudent in the event of wide-spread seedling mortality (e.g., dueto drought), or more immediately,for broadcast dispersal into burnedareas outside the footprint of thecurrent groves. Seed collection wasalready underway while we were onthe island.

There is also a great amount

In just a couple of years following the fire,the endemic Guadalupe white sage (Seneciopalmeri) has spread and become quitecommon in certain parts of the island.Photograph by J.A. Soriano/Conservaciónde Islas.

1 0 F R E M O N T I A V O L U M E 3 7 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 9

of downed wood (or soon to bedowned, i.e., standing trees that werekilled but not consumed by the fire).Eventually the old logs will decay.But in the meantime, it must be de-

eral goats were likely to have been introduced in the early 1800s atthe time of the first seal and otter hunters. Conservación de Islas

and its partners, including the Mexican government, worked forseven years to remove the goats (Luna et al. 2007). The goat removalwas completed in 2006. However, a few collared goats, referred to asJudas goats, have remained on the island from 2007-2010. They act asdecoys to attract any other goats that could have hidden in the deepcanyons or caves, and serve as a means to confirm the eradication.The Judas goats will be removed at some point during 2010.

While they existed on the island, the goats consumed all vegeta-tion within reach and though they did not feed on the trees directly,they caused erosion of the soil that supports trees, causing many todie. The groves that remain are mere remnants of what were oncemuch larger stands of trees. Much of the island resembled a moon-scape while the goats persisted. The vegetation is now graduallymaking a comeback.

HOW LONG HAVE THE GOATS BEEN PRESENTON THE ISLAND?

F

cided if they pose an additional firehazard. Since the goats removed thestabilizing vegetation many yearsago, and the fire burned off addi-tional soil vegetation and organicmatter, erosion is a problem thathas been exacerbated in the burnareas. Perhaps the newly lying deadlogs may be able to serve as soil-stabilizing devices in some areas.

Monitoring will be important andshould prove very interesting overthe coming years. Plant species mayemerge within the burn area thatwill surprise all. However, it will alsobe important to monitor for invasiveweeds that may interfere with theestablishment of native species andprovide flashy fuels for future fires.Again, it will be important to re-double efforts to reduce the risk offire igniting and spreading on theisland, perhaps with strategic firebreaks and removal of dry grassesaround the forest and other sensitiveresources. Some of the new roadscut to suppress this recent fire mayneed rehabilitation.

The recovery of the vegetationon Guadalupe Island remains on apositive trajectory. More than any-thing, this fire reminds us of howfragile—but also how resilient—these island ecosystems can be, andthat there is still much to be done toundo the damage of the era of feralanimals on the island. Above all, theisland remains an inspiring story ofrestoration and the conservation suc-cess that can be achieved throughvision, dedication, and collaboration.Clearly, with severely damaged eco-systems like this one, the removal ofa destructive introduced species isnot enough to ensure resilience. At-tentive and ongoing conservationmanagement is imperative.

REFERENCES

Barbour, M.G. 2007. Closed-cone pineand cypress forest, pp. 296–312. InTerrestrial Vegetation of California,3rd edition, ed. Barbour, M.G., T.Keeler-Wolf, and A. Schoenherr. Uni-

LEFT AND BELOW LEFT: Guadalupe cypress (Cu-pressus guadalupensis ssp. guadalupensis)seedlings in 2010, over two years after theGuadalupe Island fire, which burned ap-proximately 60% of the existing cypressforest covering more than 150 hectares.Photographs by J.A. Soriano/Conservaciónde Islas. • BELOW: Map of Guadalupe Islandshowing the three cypress areas (upper left)impacted by the 2008 fire.

F R E M O N T I A 1 1V O L U M E 3 7 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 9

versity of California Press, Berkeley,CA.

Franceschi, F. 1893. Notes on the floraof Guadalupe Island. Zoe 4:130-139.

Junak, S., T. Ayers, R. Scott, D. Wilken,and D. Young. 1995. A Flora of SantaCruz Island. Santa Barbara BotanicGarden and California Native PlantSociety, Santa Barbara, CA.

Junak, S., D.A. Knapp, J.R. Haller, R.Philbrick, A. Schoenherr, and T.Keeler-Wolf. 2007. The CaliforniaChannel Islands, pp. 229–252. InTerrestrial Vegetation of California, 3rdedition, ed. Barbour, M.G., T. Keeler-Wolf, and A. Schoenherr. Universityof California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Keeley, J.E., and F. Davis. 2007. Chap-arral, pp. 339–366. In Terrestrial Veg-etation of California, 3rd edition, ed.Barbour, M.G., T. Keeler-Wolf, and A.Schoenherr. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, CA.

Klinger, R.C., M.L. Brooks, and J.M.

Randall. 2006. Fire and invasive plantspecies, pp. 499–519. In Fire in Cal-ifornia’s Ecosystems, ed. Sugihara,N.G., J.W. van Wagtendonk, K.E.Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman, and A.E.Thode. University of California Press,Berkeley, CA.

Luna Mendoza, L., A. Aguirre Muñoz,B. Keitt, S. Junak, and B. Henry. 2007.The restoration of Guadalupe Island,revisited. Fremontia 35: 14-17.

McMaster, G.S., and P.H. Zedler. 1981.Delayed seed dispersal in Pinustorreyana (Torrey pine). Oecologia51: 62-66.

Rogers, D.L. 2002. In situ genetic con-servation of Monterey pine (Pinus ra-diata D. Don): Information and rec-ommendations. Report No. 26. Divi-sion of Agriculture and Natural Re-sources, Genetic Resources Conser-vation Program, University of Cali-fornia, Davis, CA.

Rodríguez-Malagón, M., A. Hinojosa-

Corona, A. Aguirre-Muñoz, andC. García-Gutiérrez. 2006. The Gua-dalupe Island Cypress Forest: Onthe Recovery Track, ESRI Proceed-ings. 10 pages. gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc07/papers/papers/pap_1960.pdf

Zedler, P.H. 1981. Vegetation change inchaparral and desert communities inSan Diego County, California, pp.406–430. In Forest Succession: Con-cepts and Application, ed. West, D.C.,H.H. Shugart, D.B. Botkin. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Thomas Oberbauer, Department of Plan-ning and Land Use, County of San Diego,5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B-5, San Diego,CA 92123, [email protected]; LucianaLuna Mendoza, Conservación de Islas,Avenida López Mateos 1590-3, Ensenada,Baja California, México 22880, [email protected]

The reappearance of ceanothus on Guadalupe Island prior to the 2008 fire is likely due to the final removal of all the feral goats in 2006,and not to the fire event itself. The goats had been on the island for 175 years, which is the most likely theory as to why ceanothus hadnot been observed there for over 100 years.


A DYNAMIC TOOL FOR SOUND LANDSCAPEMANAGEMENT: INTRODUCING THE SECOND EDITION,

A MANUAL OF CALIFORNIA VEGETATIONby Todd Keeler-Wolf and Julie M. Evens

he past 15 years have beenvery productive for vegeta-tion science in California.CNPS and affiliated organi-

zations have been advancing stan-dard approaches to categorize anddefine vegetation using thousandsof recently collected and analyzedfield samples. Simultaneously, wehave been increasing public aware-ness and knowledge through classi-fication and mapping work. Detaileddescriptions and maps of vegetationhave recently been created for mil-lions of acres. This information leadsto better protection and managementof large portions of the biologicallandscape in California.

Our current state of knowledgeis summarized in the second editionof A Manual of California Vegetation(Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens)published in October 2009. Whilethe first edition of the book waspublished as an introduction to anew way of defining and describingvegetation, the second edition pre-sents a refined tool that distinguishesall of the currently known vegeta-tion types in California. Just as im-portantly, it also uses the descrip-tions as a means to describe dynamicprocesses such as fire, flood, andclimate change that shape the state’sbiotic landscape.

In many ways the new book is

part of the story of how vegetationdescription is contributing to con-servation and sound managementof California’s natural landscape. Inthis article we want to show thereader what information lies withinthe book, and also what related ac-tivities are underway to provide in-tegrated information on Californiavegetation.

STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK

The main body of the book in-cludes 482 individualized descrip-tions of vegetation types. These arearranged simply in three main cat-egories—by trees, by shrubs, and by

A mosaic of vegetation occurs in California based on geomorphology, fire history, hydrology, and elevation, such as pictured at Big Surin Monterey County. Photograph by J. Evens.

T


herbaceous vegetation. Leading offthese three sections are keys to as-sist the unfamiliar reader in identi-fying a particular “stand” of vegeta-tion or related type. Within each ofthe three sections are several differ-ent types of descriptions.

The majority of them (about320) are descriptions of alliances.We describe alliances if we have suf-ficient quantitative data to substan-tiate them as distinctive floristic andecological units. Many alliances arewell known throughout the Califor-nia botanical community, and havebeen understood as plant commu-nities for many years. Some examplesare Coast Redwood (Sequoia sem-pervirens), Chamise (Adenostomafasciculatum), and Purple Needle-grass (Nassella pulchra) Alliances.In other cases, some alliances havebeen described only recently throughvegetation sampling and quantita-tive analysis. Examples include Is-land Scrub Oak (Quercus pacifica),Sierra Juniper (Juniperus grandis),Wright’s Buckwheat (Eriogonumwrightii), and Vernal Pool Goldfields(Lasthenia glaberrima) Alliances.

Each alliance description has aprescribed format, starting off witha diagnostic list of plant species thatcharacterize or may commonly befound within stands of them. Com-pletely new in this edition are tablesand descriptions for both life his-tory and fire ecology or other natu-ral processes influencing the veg-etation. An expanded section on geo-graphic distribution makes use of arange map and a discussion of eachvegetation type’s distribution withinthe State’s ecoregions.

A new section on managementimplications interprets the particu-lar vegetation alliance in light of

significant human managementissues. This is followed by a list ofall the specific plant associationsthat have been defined for each alli-ance. The plant association is thefinest unit of classifying vegetation,and at least one association is de-fined for each alliance. Similar tothe concept of biologically relatedspecies placed within a genus, a setof floristically and ecologically re-lated plant associations can be ag-gregated into an alliance. Followingthe associations is an expanded setof references. These new sectionsprovide ecologists, botanists, andmany others with better informa-tion to identify and protect, as wellas maintain and restore, our state’sbiodiversity.

TOP: Stands of bigberry manzanita (Arctostaphylos glauca) occur intermixed with otherchaparral and woodland vegetation from Central to Southern California, often on upperslopes and ridges. The manzanita is particularly notable on serpentine substrates wherefires are less frequent. • BOTTOM: Water primrose (Ludwigia peploides) is represented by bothnative and non-native populations in California. Monotypic stands are very common in thelower Sacramento and San Joaquin river drainages. Since this vegetation has not been ex-tensively sampled and ecological relationships to other closely related vegetation have notbeen worked out, it is considered as a Provisional Alliance. Photographs by T. Keeler-Wolf.


Besides the standard alliance de-scriptions are three other catego-ries, also newly defined in this sec-ond edition. One is semi-naturalstands. Semi-natural stands are verystrongly dominated and defined bynon-native species, almost to theexclusion of native species. For ex-ample, although many grasslandstands in California have yellowstar-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis)or Maltese star-thistle (Centaureamelitensis) as a component, only

those stands that are entirely domi-nated by yellow or Maltese star-thistle with an extremely low pro-portion of native species can beconsidered members of the yellowstar-thistle semi-natural stands. Thislevel of detail enables us to targetand manage areas with stronglydominant non-native vegetation andto restore and reestablish character-istic native species. A couple of otherwidespread semi-natural stands areperennial pepperweed (Lepidium

LEFT: Popcornflower (Plagiobothrys nothofulvus) is a native annual herb that brightensthousands of acres of “annual grasslands” in the foothills surrounding the Central Valley.It is characteristic of a different soil texture (loamy, well-drained, often riddled withanimal burrows) than other similar herbaceous vegetation. Photograph by T. Keeler-Wolf.• BELOW: The Yellow Bush Lupine (Lupinus arboreus) Alliance of the California coast ischaracterized by short-term dominance of this species, followed by die-back and alternatingtemporary dominance by grasses and native herbs. It is represented by native and non-native stands in Central California, but all stands north of Sonoma County are non-native.Photograph by T. Keeler-Wolf. • OPPOSITE, TOP AND BOTTOM: The Herbaceous White-TippedClover (Trifolium varigatum) Alliance is one of several new native annual herb alliancesthat have recently been described in loamy to clayey soils that are mesic to wet in lowerelevations of the California floristic province. Photographs by J. Evens.


latifolium) and ryegrass (Loliumperenne).

Another category is what we callspecial stands. Theoretically theseare different than alliances, becausethey do not occur as regularly acrossa landscape. Instead they are rareand local, often dominated by geo-graphically restricted endemic spe-cies such as a rare species of manza-nita (Arctostaphylos) or Californialilac (Ceanothus), or a restrictedendemic tree such as Torrey pine(Pinus torreyana) or island oak(Quercus tomentella). Their standsmay be related to more widespreadalliances, but are so strongly domi-nated or characterized by an en-

demic local species that they tendto be found only in a handful oflocales.

The final category of plant de-scriptions is for provisional alli-ances. These are not given full alli-ance status in the book because theyare not well sampled and described.However, we expect their status tobe resolved when sufficient samplingand assessment of them is done, andwe expect that most of them willreach full alliance status. These threeadditional categories are describedin less detail in the book than theothers, lack a detailed map of distri-bution, and contain less informa-tion on fire regime and life history.

NATURAL PROCESSES ANDLIFE HISTORYINFORMATION

We include many new details inthe book to enrich readers’ abilitiesto gauge the ecological status (i.e.,the natural condition and transitions)of vegetation, and to better protectand manage California’s varied land-scapes. Because fire influences themajority of vegetation in the state,and because it is often of primaryconcern to land stewards and man-agers, fire ecology is featured promi-nently in the book. With the helpof professional fire ecologists, wepresent individualized text descrip-

ABOVE AND OPPOSITE: These two desert stands—the left on a steep rocky slope, and the right on a sandy alluvial fan—both have tall spinyocotillo (Fouquieria splendens) and several members of the cactus family highly conspicuous. However, through analysis of hundreds ofvegetation samples in the California desert, we have learned that the most diagnostic species for distinguishing different environmentsare not necessarily the most conspicuous. On the left, the low-growing, grayish-green brittlebush (Encelia farinosa) is most significantand most abundant, making that stand a member of the Brittlebush Alliance, while the many low gray shrubs of burrobush (Ambrosiadumosa) and the scattered dark green shrubs of creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) make that stand a member of the Creosote Bush-Burrobush Alliance. Photograph above by J. Evens. Photograph opposite by T. Keeler-Wolf.


tions and tables denoting fire charac-teristics such as return intervals (i.e.,the number of years between twosuccessive major fires), intensity, se-verity, and other effects of fire on allmajor vegetation types. Along withthis information, we present moregeneral descriptions of the life his-tory strategies of the characteristicplant species that form each alliance.

Combined life history and fireinformation can assist the reader ininterpreting what is the normal rangeof variability for a given vegetationtype. For example, if we see a denseand healthy stand of Big Berry Man-zanita (Arctostaphylos glauca) Alli-ance in the California Central CoastRanges, we now recognize that itlikely has had a medium durationfire return interval (20-100+ years).It usually burns in late summer tofall in medium to large-size fires thatmay spread into other adjacent veg-

etation. In addition, the fires can becharacterized as crown fires of highintensity, high severity, or moderateto low complexity.

A main reason that we cansurmise this is because big berrymanzanita is an evergreen, nonre-sprouting shrub producing long-lived, animal-dispersed seeds thatbuild up in a soil seed bank. Theseseeds require chemical treatment andheat to germinate, and adult plantscan produce viable seeds from plantsranging from 10 to over 100 years.Descriptions of these terms may befound in appendices in the bookand further explanation may befound in the book Fire in CaliforniaEcosystems (Sugihara et al. 2006).

It is possible to understand thenatural state and dynamics of Cali-fornia vegetation more completelybecause we now have descriptionsfor a greater array of vegetation, even

those that persist for short periods.For example, the Bush Poppy (Den-dromecon rigida), Black-Stem orMojave Rabbitbrush (Ericameriapaniculata), Deer-Weed (Lotus sco-parius), Silver Bush Lupine (Lupinusalbifrons), Bush Mallow (Malaco-thamnus fasciculatus), and Fiddle-necks (Amsinckia [menziesii, tessel-lata]) Alliances occur in landscapeswith rapid turnover cycles of fire,floods, and other natural disturbanceprocesses.

The book also provides a signifi-cant number of other new alliancedescriptions for entire suites of plantcommunities or habitats, includingmontane coniferous forests, desertscrublands and washes, maritimechaparral, serpentine vegetationtypes, alpine habitats, montane tosubalpine meadows, willow scrubs,coastal and inland marshes, vernalpools, and California grasslands. For


example, we now refer to 15 annualherbaceous types to describe Cali-fornia annual grassland habitat, in-cluding many containing nativebiodiversity such as the Goldfields–Plantain–Annual Fescue (Lastheniacalifornica–Plantago erecta–Vulpiamicrostachys) Alliance. These newdescriptions have come directly fromfocused vegetation inventory andmapping conducted through the co-operative efforts of CNPS, Depart-ment of Fish and Game, Nationaland State Parks, U.S. Forest Service,and many other agencies and orga-nizations.

BEYOND THE SECONDEDITION

Through workshops and re-gional projects, we have begun toeducate the public agencies about

using our refined vegetation classi-fication as the standard in theirlocal environmental projects. Animportant next step will be to con-tinue to work with county, openspace district, land conservancy, andconsulting biology staff to incorpo-rate this level of detailed vegetationclassification when making land-planning and land-managementdecisions.

While all of this information isincorporated into the new edition ofA Manual of California Vegetation,our knowledge continues to grow,and we recognize that further addi-tions and modifications to the clas-sification and description of Cali-fornia vegetation will come fordecades. Because vegetation classi-fication is also growing and chang-ing nationwide and internationally,this will also influence the ways weinterpret vegetation in California.

In preparation for these inevita-bilities, we have begun entering thebook’s content into a database, andhope to produce an online versionwith yearly updates. This also willenable users to produce customizedqueries, including lists of types basedon common or scientific names, geo-graphic location, and other features.We are actively working on manyaspects of the database and portionsof the website, especially to displaygood diagnostic photographs of allthe vegetation types described in thebook. We also are planning to pub-lish a photographic guidebook as acompanion to the manual.

We hope that this book will pro-vide a broad context for anyone whois interested in “reading” the natu-ral landscapes of California. By us-ing the information in the book, thenatural history of any part of thestate can be understood in a richerway. To those simply curious aboutnature, we believe it will providemore satisfying answers to questionslike “Why do the plants grow sosparsely here?” or “How has thisforest changed in the past 50 years?”To a land steward or manager, it canhelp answer the question, “How canwe restore this landscape to a natu-rally functioning ecosystem?” Andconservationists will likely find thebook invaluable in answering ques-tions such as “Which site should weacquire to preserve a diverse mosaicof vegetation types?”

REFERENCES

Sugihara, N.G., J.W. van Wagtendonk,K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman, andA.E. Thode, eds. 2006. Fire in Cal-ifornia’s Ecosystems. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, CA.

Todd Keeler-Wolf, Biogeographic DataBranch, California Department of Fishand Game, 1807 13th Street, Room 202,Sacramento, CA 95811, [email protected]; Julie Evens, California NativePlant Society, 2707 K Street, Suite 1, Sac-ramento, CA 95816, [email protected]

Stands of desert agave (Agave deserti) occur along rocky uplands and washes in and nearAnza-Borrego State Park. The Desert Agave Alliance is one of a number of newly describedalliances in the updated Manual. Photograph by J. Evens.


he artists and photographersdisplayed on the followingpages have waited patientlyfor this moment to arrive. It

has been more than a year since thephotography and botanical art con-tests were held at the CNPS 2009Conservation Conference: Strategiesand Solutions, held January 17-19,2009 at the Sacramento ConventionCenter. In this article we present thetop winners of those contests.

Art is one way of expressing ap-preciation of our flora and naturallandscapes (part of the mission ofCNPS). We wanted art and photog-raphy as counterpoint to the sciencein the conference and to remind usof why we are involved in conserva-tion science in the first place. Wedid not wholly expect to receive thehigh quality of art that flowed intoour office. Many attendees said theart and photography were the high-light of the conference for them.

Each contest was judged by aseparate panel of three judges ofpeers and professionals. Both con-

tests also awarded a ConferenceChoice award based on the votes ofconference attendees. With such aconcentration of talent, it was ex-tremely difficult to choose “the best.”In this issue we feature the First,Second, and Third Place winners,and the Conference Choice awards.Runners-Up and Honorable Men-tion awards are also listed.

For the photography contest,entries had to be taken in Califor-nia and feature plants native to thestate. The images could be speciesspecific macro shots, wide anglelandscape photos, or pictures ofpeople or animals interacting withthe natural environment of Cali-fornia. Photos could be of, but werenot limited to, rare or commonplants, flowers, trees, shrubs, vines,grasses, or bryophytes. The judgesof the photography contest includedphotographers Ree Slocum, SallyMack, and Nick Jensen. StaceyFlowerdew organized and chairedthe contest. There were 105 photoentries by 37 artists.

AWARD WINNERS OF THE PHOTOGRAPHY ANDBOTANICAL ART CONTESTS FROM THE CNPS 2009

CONSERVATION CONFERENCEby Josie Crawford

For the botanical art contest,entries could be original artwork inany two-dimensional medium. Theyhad to reflect the beauty and unique-ness of California flora, and adhereto high standards of botanical accu-racy. Judges of the botanical art con-test included botanical illustratorsKristin Jakob, Lee McCaffree, andGeri Hulse-Stephens. The commit-tee responsible for organizing theshow was comprised of Geri Hulse-Stephens and Judy McCrary, co-chairs, and Susan Blazell. Thanksalso go to Kristin Jakob and LeeMcCaffree, who provided invalu-able support. There were 53 botani-cal art entries by 31 artists.

The next CNPS conference willbe held in mid-January 2012. Checkthe state website in 2011 for detailsof the next conference photo and artcontests. There may also be a cat-egory for landscape art in 2012.

Josie Crawford, Education Program Di-rector, CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1, Sac-ramento, CA 95816, [email protected]

PHOTO CONTESTWINNERS

First Place: Bruce Barnett,“Vernal Pools”

Second Place: Paul Johnson,“Family Values”

Third Place: Dylan Neubauer,“Limnanthes douglasii &Syrphid Fly”

Conference Choice: RenyParker, “Coast Buckwheat”

RUNNERS-UP

Judy Kramer, “Garden Among theJoshua Trees”

Brian Wright, “Moonlit Bristle-cone”

Toni Rizzo, “Coast Indian Paint-brush”

HONORABLE MENTIONS

Dylan Neubauer, “Agoserisgrandiflora”

Michael Kauffmann, “SiskiyouSunrise”

Judy Kramer, “Pennyroyal Bud”Paul Johnson, “Pinyon Beauty”Paul Johnson, “Buttonwillow”Paul Hankamp, “Camissonia

claviformis”Spring Strahm, “Calochortus

catalinae”Linda Donnelly, “Jackass

Meadow, Sierra Nevada”

T


Dr. Bruce Barnett is a Ph.D. biologist living in Davis. He hasbeen an environmental consultant for over 25 years andworked throughout California and the western U.S., Mexico,Central and South America, Europe, Africa, and India. Dr.Barnett combines his ecological knowledge with a keeninterest in aerial photography to provide a unique perspec-tive on the diversity and beauty of California’s natural andmanmade landscapes.

“As an avid powered paraglider pilot, I spend many hoursexploring and photographing the region’s diverse naturaland agricultural landscapes from the air. I regularly visit theimpressive vernal pool landscape at the Glide Tule Ranch,approximately 10 miles south of Davis, as much to recordyearly variations in flowering patterns and extent as toadmire its sheer beauty. Though these large pools, or playas,are beautiful anytime, they are most striking in earlymorning or late afternoon light, which emphasizes texturesand infuses a distinct richness to the colors. Though I maysometimes make minor adjustments to my photos to re-move haze, increase sharpness, or adjust contrast, my goalis for the viewer to see what I see from my aerial perch.Why fix what doesn’t need fixing?”

www.flickr.com/photos/bioflyer

DR. BRUCE BARNETTFIRST PLACE PHOTOGRAPH“VERNAL POOLS”

PAUL G. JOHNSONSECOND PLACE PHOTOGRAPH“FAMILY VALUES”

Paul Johnson is a wildlife biologist who spendsmuch of his spare time studying and photographinginsects in their natural surroundings. He uses hiscamera to immerse himself in nature and to sharethe beauty he finds there. His winning entries in theCNPS photo contest (he also received two honor-able mentions) were all taken during insect expedi-tions.

This photo depicts a “family that delights in one ofthe finest wildflower shows in California held atShell Creek in San Luis Obispo County.”

[email protected]


DYLAN NEUBAUERTHIRD PLACE PHOTOGRAPH“LIMNANTHES DOUGLASII & SYRPHID FLY”

Brian Wright“Moonlit Bristlecone”

Equipped with medium format filmcameras and using only moonlightfor illumination, Brian Wrightspends countless hours every sum-mer trying to capture the nighttimebeauty within the groves of the An-cient Bristlecone Pine Forest nearBishop.

“This five-hour exposure reveals thehidden detail and color of one re-mote tree beneath the majestic nightsky.”

brianwrightphoto.com

Dylan Neubauer is an amateur botanist and photogra-pher who really enjoys combining the two pursuits.

“Every now and then, through some miracle, an amaz-ing moment is captured by the eye of the camera. That’swhat happened with the shot of the syrphid fly—it wasone of my very first pictures.”

[email protected]/photos/28585246@N00/

RUNNERS-UP PHOTOGRAPHS (not pictured)

RENY PARKERCONFERENCE CHOICE PHOTOGRAPH“COAST BUCKWHEAT”

Reny Parker is author/photographer of the photographicfield guide, Wildflowers of Northern California’s WineCountry & North Coast Ranges. She is past president ofthe Milo Baker Chapter and lives off the grid in northernSonoma County.

“This coast buckwheat was in a perfect setting at PointReyes to make a ‘winning’ photograph.”

www.renyswildflowers.com/

Toni Rizzo“Coast Indian Paintbrush”

Toni Rizzo lives near Fort Braggon the Mendocino Coast, whereshe makes a living as a freelancewriter specializing in medical,science, nature, and outdoor top-ics. She loves hiking and photo-graphing native plants, especiallymacro photography of flowers.

“This photo of Mendocino CoastIndian paintbrush (Castilleja men-docinensis) was taken on thebluffs of Glass Beach in FortBragg.”

Judy Kramer“Garden Among the JoshuaTrees”

Judy Kramer is a past presidentof the Palo Alto Camera Club,and her photographs are used byseveral local environmental or-ganizations. She captured thisimage in April 2008 heading toWalker Pass in Kern Countyalong California Route 178.

“The carpet of spring color be-neath the Joshua trees caughtmy eye, and the high cloudsadded drama to the scene.”

www.earthwitnessphoto.com


BOTANICAL ART WINNERS

First Place: Maria Freeman, “Santa Cruz Cypress”Second Place: Peggy Irvine, “Golden Iris”Third Place: Peg Steunenberg, “Mt. Diablo

Buckwheat”

CONFERENCE CHOICE WINNER

Maria Freeman, “Santa Cruz Cypress”

HONORABLE MENTIONS

Eliza Jewett, “Toyon”Jade Paget-Seekins, “Black Morel”Lesley Randall, “Eremalche rotundifolia”

MARIA CECILIA FREEMANFIRST PLACE AND CONFERENCE CHOICEBOTANICAL ART“CUPRESSUS ABRAMSIANA”

Maria Cecilia Freeman, a CNPS member for 25 years, isa botanical artist based in Santa Cruz. Her work includesscientific illustration and botanically accurate fine artthat serves the goals of education and conservation. Sheportrays native plant species with a view to their preser-vation. “Cupressus abramsiana” is watercolor and col-ored pencil on paper 18" x 24". It is included in theAmerican Society of Botanical Artists’ exhibition, “Los-ing Paradise? Endangered Plants Here and Around theWorld,” currently traveling in the U.S.

“I live ten minutes from two of the five remaining popu-lations of Santa Cruz cypress (Cupressus abramsiana).When I set out to study the cypress, I consulted StephenMcCabe, CNPS Conservation Committee chair for theSanta Cruz Chapter, and coordinator of research at theUniversity of California’s Santa Cruz Arboretum. Stevehelped me identify the distinctive characteristics of thiscypress species, showed me specimen plants at the Arbo-retum, and gave me small cuttings with cones to studyand draw in detail. I visited the trees repeatedly to studytheir branching habit, bark, leaves, and cones as theseasons changed. After a wildfire in June 2008, I visitedthe Bonny Doon Ecological Preserve and photographedthe blackened remains of the cypresses there. In thespring of 2009 I returned and found the ground coveredwith tiny seedlings of the species .”

www.mcf-art.com; 831-457-2365


Peg Steunenberg creates visual educational images forpublications and product lines. The focus of her work isthe preservation of California’s flora and fauna. She hasexhibited in a number of shows, including the PicturingNatural History exhibit at the National Museum of Natu-ral History, the Smithsonian Institution, New York StateMuseum, and the St. Louis Botanic Garden. She receivedthe Gold Medal 2000 award from the San FranciscoSociety of Illustrators.

“With the help of Michael Park, Seth Adams, and theJepson Herbarium, I was able to render the painting ofMt. Diablo Buckwheat (Eriogonum truncatum). Live speci-mens, museum mounts, and photography provided thenecessary reference material.”

www.pegsteunenberg.com/

PEG STEUNENBERGTHIRD PLACE BOTANICAL ART“MT. DIABLO BUCKWHEAT”

PEGGY IRVINESECOND PLACE BOTANICAL ART“GOLDEN IRIS”

Peggy Irvine began working at botanical illustration in2004.

“The subject of my illustration, Del Norte County iris(Iris innominata), is from my garden. It’s an interestingsubject for painting, as its bud, mature flower, and seedpod can all be present at the same time. In addition, thislittle native California iris grows so vigorously that onecan dig up a specimen for illustration, with roots at-tached, and still have most of the plant left to admire inthe garden.”

[email protected]


ROLAND PITSCHEL:1942–2009

by Jake Sigg and Barbara Pitschel

oland Pitschel, CNPS Fellow,long-time Yerba Buena ChapterBoard member, and active na-tive plant and grassland restora-

tion activist, died on August 1, 2009,two weeks before his 67th birthday,after bravely contending for sevenmonths with aggressive cancer.

Born in Germany in 1942, Rolandimmigrated to Chicago with his motherand sister in 1950. The environmentalwisdom and comfort with camping andstudying wild areas that followed himthroughout his life were fostered byhis youthful experiences as an EagleScout in the Lake Michigan area.

After high school, Roland workedat the bindery of the University of Chi-cago, where his sister was a graduatestudent. During this period, the Chi-cago Review declined to publish somecontemporary writing it deemed ob-scene, prompting Roland and his sis-ter to work with many notable literaryheroes to create Big Table Magazine,thus ensuring publication of WilliamBurroughs Naked Lunch and other im-portant literature.

Roland produced beautiful silkscreen prints and posters. This periodwas the first public revelation of thebrilliant woodworking, metalworking,graphic arts, book arts, mechanical,artistic, creative, and problem-solvingskills (and also intelligence and hu-mor) that defined his entire life.

In Chicago, Roland worked as stagemanager and lighting coordinator atthe Gate of Horn, noted folk club ofthe 1950s and 1960s, which featuredluminaries including Josh White,Odetta, and Lenny Bruce. He and hisfuture wife Barbara both worked assupport staff at Second City, the leg-endary leader in the tradition of im-provisational theater, when it wasfounded in Chicago just 50 years ago,on December 16, 1959.

Roland and Barbara moved to SanFrancisco in 1963, where they weremarried in City Hall. Daughter Justinewas born in 1965. In early San Fran-cisco years, both worked as support

staff for The Committee, Alan Myer-son’s successor to Second City andanother leader in the improvisationaltheater movement. Because of Roland’samazing stage construction and cre-ative carpentry work, The PitschelPlayers, a successor group, adoptedhis name.

Roland worked for many years as afreelance carpenter, cabinet maker, andcreator of artistic wood carvings, jew-elry, bird calls, bookbinding equip-ment, furniture, and much more. “Hewas a craftsman in wood, metal, andceramics,” said Ted Kipping, arborist,who was Roland’s friend for 25 years.“He was a master at anything he did.”

In 1966, the Pitschels settled onBernal Heights, an urban island thatstill harbored many of San Francisco’snative plant species. Early on, theyhelped protect the hilltop from devel-opment by working to ensure its trans-fer from the Department of PublicWorks to the Recreation and ParksDepartment. Roland continued to bean environmental leader in conserva-tion of San Francisco natural areas forthe rest of his life. He spent thousandsof volunteer hours working to restorethe slopes of Bernal Hill to its nativebunchgrass-wildflower ecosystem. ThePitschels were key members of a groupof neighborhood people who worked

to preserve what was left of the origi-nal landscape of the city. Much of thegroup’s work involved rooting out in-vasive nonnative species.

Roland served in myriad capaci-ties for the Yerba Buena Chapter, in-cluding vice-president from 1992 to2009. Through his decades of sup-port, he could always be counted on toserve and to contribute his skills inwhatever capacity was needed.

In 1983, Roland joined the Facili-ties Department of Oakland’s Califor-nia College of the Arts where he con-tinued to work until two weeks beforehis death. He was respected and be-loved by his colleagues. His amazingskills provided great forward impetusto the work of the college; his non-confrontational personality helpedmove initiatives forward. He is oneof the few people we know who hadno enemies! His coworkers haveplanted a native plant garden and casta plaque in his memory, bearing hisepitaph: “ ‘Sometimes the magic works;sometimes it doesn’t.’ —Little Big Man,1970.”

“He was a quiet man, very lowkey,” said Jake Sigg, a longtime friend.“He gave new meaning to the termself-effacing.”

“Roland lived well and he died well,surrounded by his family,” said Bar-bara. In addition to his wife of 45years, Roland is survived by one daugh-ter, two granddaughters, one great-grandson, one sister, and two neph-ews and their families.

Roland bequeathed his body to theUCSF whole body donation programfor scientific research. The family didnot plan a formal memorial service atthe time of his death, but still hopes tocelebrate Roland’s life and work with ajoyful party in the future.

Jake Sigg, 338 Ortega Street, San Fran-cisco, CA 94122. jakesigg@ earthlink.net;Barbara Pitschel, 99 Ellsworth Street,San Francisco, CA 94110. [email protected]

R

Roland Ritschel. Photograph by MargoBors.


California Mosses by Bill Malcolm,Nancy Malcolm, Jim Shevock, and DanNorris. Micro-Optics Press, Nelson,New Zealand, 2009. 430 pages. $68hardcover. ISBN 0-9582224-5-2.

California Mosses is a stunningdemonstration of the capabilities ofmodern publishing, a full-color pho-tographic guide. This collaboration be-tween a pair of photomicroscopists anda pair of field bryologists has resultedin a near magical fusion of effort. Thisbook was heralded by the previouswork of the Malcolms, Mosses andOther Bryophytes, An Illustrated Glos-sary (second edition, 2006), wheretheir beautiful images of moss leafstructure first received wide attention.

The heart of this book is the as-semblage of 290 pages of color pic-tures. The images are grouped by“plates.” Each plate focuses on onespecies and contains seven to nine pic-tures, typically consisting of 1) a dry,vegetative shoot, slightly magnified,2) a fertile shoot or a capsule, slightlymagnified, 3) a single leaf magnifiedabout ten times, and 4) cells of the leafapex, leaf margin, middle of leaf, andbasal corner of the leaf, magnifiedabout 100 times. It is the latter groupof photomicrographs that makes thebook so useful, in addition to being sospectacularly beautiful.

Every genus in the California mossflora is included, with almost half ofthe 600+ species of California mossesgiven a full plate. Each page also in-cludes a brief discussion of the species’growth form, habitat, and a descrip-tion of leaf and capsule characteristics.Comments mention the geographicrange of the species, whether it is rareor of concern, and notable distinguish-ing characteristics.

The photomicrographs (photostaken through a microscope) are dra-matic for two reasons. First, the Mal-colms treat all specimens with potas-sium hydroxide (KOH) before makingmicroscope preparations. This clearsthe cells of contents so that the cellwalls stand out. Second, they photo-graph with differential interferenceoptics, an elaborate technique that

BOOK REVIEWS

exaggerates the depth of field and con-trast of the cell walls.

This combination of techniques,rarely used by American bryologists,gives the images a somewhat unnatu-ral appearance. The KOH tends to colorthe cell walls yellow to orange to red,so the images do not look green likefresh leaves in a traditional wet mount.Their optical system enhances the in-ternal structure of cell walls and im-parts a syrupy 3-D effect to cell wallsthat are nearly transparent under ordi-nary microscope optics. It is impor-tant to remember these artificial ef-fects when comparing fresh specimenswith the plates.

The authors intend that this bookwill help people identify mosses with-out having to use a hand lens. This canbe accomplished by matching leaves toillustrations in the book, and then read-ing the text. To assist in this matchingprocess is an 80-page section that con-tains close to a thousand leaf diagrams(called thumbnails). The thumbnailsection is itself divided into two parts,the first with leaves sorted into 26 dis-tinctive leaf types and the second partwith the species arranged by genus.

Although identification using pic-ture matching based on hand lens ex-amination of whole leaves will workwith many mosses, most people desir-ing to identify mosses will need a com-pound microscope in order to see thecellular details depicted in the plates.They can use this book in conjunctionwith the keys to California Mosses byNorris and Shevock (2004, Madroño51:2). I have student-tested the bookin an advanced bryology workshop andfound it enormously useful. Studentskey out a moss, and then turn to Cali-fornia Mosses to see if the specimenmatches the illustration of what itkeyed out to. California Mosses is alsohelpful when a student has a hunch asto the identity of a specimen, becausethe student can go directly to an illus-tration in the book to see if that hunchmight be correct, or at least close. Theillustrations are just as useful for rul-ing out possibilities as they are to verifyproposed names.

The sequence of species follows

a taxonomic ar-rangement not fa-miliar to manymoss students, sothat users willfind the guide onpages 22-23 to bea valuable supple-ment to the indexin the back of thebook.

The authorsnote that in theyears since publi-cation of the 2004Norris and Shevock keys, 48 specieshave been added to the state’s mosschecklist and 29 have been removed.New species remain to be formallynamed. As with any flora, updates areinevitable. This guide will serve usadmirably in the near future; the not-so-distant future will incorporate cor-rections and additions into a revised,bigger, better second edition. The rea-sonable price for this volume shouldafford it a place on the bookshelf ofanyone interested in California mosses.

David WagnerNorthwest Botanical Institute

A Rare Botanical Legacy: The Con-tributions of Ruby and Arthur VanDeventer. Rick Bennett, Susan Calla,and David Wallace. Heyday Books,2009. 154 pages, illustrated.

A Rare Botanical Legacy proves tobe much more than an oversized cof-fee table book with floral paintingsand a striking dust jacket watercolorof a menacing cobra lily. The legacybelongs to Ruby Steele Van Deventer,long-time school teacher and amateurplant collector, and her husbandArthur, forest ranger, rancher, andamateur artist.

Ruby grew up in a cabin alongSmith River in California’s isolated DelNorte County, Arthur on a ranch inSouthern California. They both at-tended UC Berkeley, she a languagemajor, he in engineering, but first metduring the spring of 1915 in Brookings,Oregon, a lumber village started by


Walter Brookings andArthur. It was love atfirst sight, and theyeloped from a Fourthof July dance and weremarried on July 6 inEureka. They firstlived near SiskiyouNational Forest whereArthur worked. In1923 they moved withthree-year-old daugh-ter Dwayne to Ruby’shomestead near Cres-cent City.

Interested in the local flora, Rubybegan her plant collections, and herhusband, who had dabbled with artsince childhood, began to sketch andpaint her specimens. After Ruby’s re-jection of his first attempt—a wiltedsaxifrage portrayed as wilted—his art-istry improved immensely. Meanwhile,during the 1920s, Ruby’s entries fromDel Norte County at San Franciscoflower shows won so many prizes thatshe was finally told not to enter any-more.

In San Francisco Ruby had becomeacquainted with Alice Eastwood of theCalifornia Academy of Sciences, whoinvited her to coauthor a flora. Rubydeclined, feeling unqualified. But hervisit with University of California bota-nist Dr. Willis Jepson on August 24,1936 resulted in her becoming in-volved in the flora nevertheless. Jepsonwas working on his monumental Floraof California, and here was Ruby, aplant collector from Del Norte, whoinformed him she already had a col-lection of some 1,500 plants from this

botanically uniqueregion and could sendhim a fresh specimenof Indian Pipe (Mono-tropa uniflora), notknown from Cali-fornia.

In early Septem-ber Jepson receivedher Indian Pipe speci-mens. He quickly re-plied that this firstofficial Californiarecord for uniflorawould be in the next

section of his Flora, soon on its way tothe printer. Congratulating Ruby, hewrote “You will be duly and appropri-ately immortalized in the Flora of Cali-fornia”(3:32). In Ruby’s 1937 letter toJepson she asked if there were anyspecial specimens that Jepson wouldlike, mentioning common butterwort(Pinguicula vulgaris) (not in The JepsonManual!), and included an ink sketchof pipsissewa (Chimaphila umbellata)by Arthur. Thus began a long lastingand productive friendship.

Jepson would pay a visit to theVan Deventers in late July of 1937,their field excursion to Poker Flatabruptly ending with his breaking anankle, two weeks in a hospital, andprolonged recovery. But Ruby wouldbecome Jepson’s floral source for theunique Del Norte County, eventuallycontributing more than 400 specimensto the Jepson Herbarium. And the VanDeventers soon became his valued cor-respondents for the following decadeuntil Jepson’s death, with some 74letters going back and forth.

Professor Jepson’s encouragementto Ruby that she should write a bookon her county’s flora is most likelyresponsible for spurring her great pro-ductivity. When the Van Deventersdied in the early 1970s, there remainedRuby’s legacy of 1,100 pages of manu-script and 4,000 plant descriptions,plus Arthur’s 400 paintings and draw-ings . . . but all unpublished!

It was increasing northwestern Cali-fornia community interest that broughtthe Van Deventer dream to fruition.Legacy’s two coeditors, Rick Bennettand Susan Calla, aware of the unpub-lished manuscript and paintings, to-gether with the Del Norte County His-torical Society, proposed and subse-

Telos Rare Bulbs

Telos Rare BulbsP.O. Box 1067

Ferndale, CA 95536www.telosrarebulbs.com

The most complete offering of bulbs

native to the western USA available

anywhere, our stock is propagated at the

nursery, with seed and plants from

legitimate sources only.


quently received a major grant fromthe U.S. Forest Service for The VanDeventer Botanical Legacy Project. Withthe encouragement of publisher Mal-colm Margolin of the Heyday Insti-tute—which was devoted to publica-tions of significant California import—A Rare Botanical Legacy was printed byHeyday Books. Meanwhile, in 2008, 600people attended the Ruby Van DeventerWildflower Show, attesting to the gen-eral public interest in their work.

In Legacy, the 116 large plates ofbeautiful, realistic floral watercolorsby Arthur dominate. Each plate con-tains an informative caption that in-cludes the scientific and commonname, along with descriptive, histori-cal, and anecdotal information (e.g.,“The Marsh Pea: Ruby collected herspecimen at Bower’s Swamp and sentit to Jepson in 1938.”) There is noindex for the plates, but readers famil-iar with plant families will soon realizethe arrangement is alphabetically byfamilies, with monocots listed last.Following the plates is an appendixthat elucidates how the Tolowa andYurok Indians used many of the plants.Preceding the watercolors are 13 pagesof text by the coeditors, who wroteseparate prefaces from quite differentvantage points, and a biographicalsketch of the Van Deventers by notednature writer David Wallace.

How the book’s coeditors becameinvolved in the project is a story initself. Coeditor Rick Bennett first be-came acquainted with Ruby when thetwo of them were teaching at CrescentCity High school years earlier. In 2004,driving past the Van Deventer’s oldSmith River homestead, Rick discov-ered that their grandson’s widow,Marilyn Heye, still lived there and“had some of Ruby’s stuff,” includinga lengthy book manuscript and hun-dreds of her husband’s flower paint-ings. Rick became entranced. Coedi-tor Susan Calla had moved to theKlamath-Siskiyou region in the late1970s, some time after the Van De-venters had passed away. She, too, gotto know Marilyn, and was impressedwith tales of the spunky Ruby, as wellas the couple’s past contributions tothe community and to botany. The twocoeditors viewed a possible VanDeventer book as “a marriage of sci-ence and art, of pioneer history and

community.” (In Calla’s preface appearmaps of the northwest coast region.)

Following Rick’s and Susan’s per-sonal reminiscences, biographer DavidWallace provides a readable portrait ofthe Van Deventer lives. Accompanyingit is a delightful variety of illustrations,from Van’s flower paintings to familyand landscape photographs, reproduc-

A POTENTIAL FELLOW INYOUR MIDST

CNPS strives to recognize anymember who has made an outstand-ing contribution to our organization.One way to accomplish this is throughthe Fellows program. The nominationof a CNPS member to become a Fel-low can be made at any time by anyCNPS member, chapter, board, com-mittee, or officer. The successful can-didate is a member who has made asignificant contribution to the successof the Society and furthering the ap-preciation and conservation of Cali-fornia’s native flora. The Fellows Com-mittee knows there are potentialcandidates that have made a differ-ence in your chapter or on the state-

wide level. Help us to make their rec-ognition possible.

For more information about thenomination process, go to www.cnps.org/cnps/support/pdf/fellow_nomination.pdf or email [email protected].

To view a list of members whohave been designated as Fellows, go towww.cnps.org/cnps/support/fellows.php.

CORRECTION

On page 10 of the last issue ofFremontia (Vol. 37, No. 2), in the chart“Additions to the Flora of SonomaCounty From the Cedars,” the speciesMoehringia latifolia should have beenlisted as Moehringia macrophylla. Theauthor regrets making this error.

NOTES AND COMMENTS

tions of Jepson field diary entries, andrelevant correspondence. Wallace con-cludes with Ruby’s speech for the 1967dedication of the Van Deventer ForestPark, where she planted a redwoodseedling from the old Van Deventerhomestead nearby.

Richard G. BeidlemanUniversity and Jepson Herbaria

F R E M O N T I AV O L U M E 3 7 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 9

� Enclosed is a check made payable to CNPS Membership gift:

� Charge my gift to � Mastercard � Visa Added donation of:

Card Number TOTAL ENCLOSED:

Exp. date

Signature

Phone

Email

Join Today!

Please make your check payable to “CNPS” and send to: California Native Plant Society, 2707 K Street, Suite 1, Sacra-mento, CA 95816-5113. Phone: (916) 447-2677; Fax: (916) 447-2727; Web site: www.cnps.org.; Email: [email protected]

� Enclosed is a matching gift form provided by my employer

� I would like information on planned giving

CNPS member gifts allow us to promote and protect California’s native plants andtheir habitats. Gifts are tax-deductible minus the $12 of the total gift which goestoward publication of Fremontia.

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

� $1,500 Mariposa Lily � $600 Benefactor � $300 Patron � $100 Plant Lover

� $75 Family or Group � $75 International or Library � $45 Individual � $25 Limited Income

MATERIALS FORPUBLICATION

Members and others are invitedto submit material for publica-tion in Fremontia. Instructionsfor contributors can be foundon the CNPS website, www.cnps.org, or can be requested fromFremontia Editor Bob Hass [email protected].

Fremontia Editorial AdvisoryBoard

Susan D’Alcamo, Ellen Dean,Phyllis M. Faber, Holly Forbes,Brett Hall, Tara Hansen, ToddKeeler-Wolf, David Keil, PamMuick, Dylan Neubauer, BartO’Brien, Roger Raiche, John Saw-yer, Teresa Sholars, Nevin Smith,Greg Suba, Dick Turner, MikeVasey, Carol Witham

CONTRIBUTORS (continued from back cover)

Luciana Luna Mendoza is a biologist with Conservación de Islas, where she hasworked since 2003, and directs the Guadalupe Island Conservation and Restora-tion Project. Her primary responsibilities have been in overseeing the eradicationof feral goats on the island, and in monitoring vegetation recovery.

Scott Morrison is Director of Conservation Science for The Nature Conservancyof California.

Thomas Oberbauer is Chief Land Use Planner for the San Diego County Depart-ment of Planning and Land Use. Tom has contributed articles to Fremontia ontopics including plant diversity, the California and Baja California islands, andthe effects of fire.

Nadia Citlali Olivares is Director of the Reserva de la Biosfera Isla Guadalupe, ofCONANP.

Barbara Pitschel has been librarian at San Francisco Botanical Garden’s horticul-ture library for 29 years, served as Yerba Buena Chapter newsletter editor andprogram cochair for about 15 years, and with Roland, coordinated the BernalHilltop Restoration Project since the 1980s.

Jake Sigg is a CNPS Fellow and a past president of the Society. He has served onthe Yerba Buena Chapter board since 1988 as conservation chair, and for eightyears as president. He has worked with the Pitschels on many chapter projects,including the monthly restoration work parties on Bernal Hill.

David Wagner is a botanist specializing in ferns and bryophytes. Formerly direc-tor of the University of Oregon Herbarium, he now operates the Northwest Bo-tanical Institute, focused on research and education.

CORPORATE /ORGANIZATIONAL

� $2,500 10+ Employees � $1,000 7-10 Employees � $500 4 -6 Employees � $150 1-3 Employees

F R E M O N T I A V O L U M E 3 7 : 3 , J U L Y 2 0 0 9

CONTRIBUTORS

Richard G. Beidleman is an ecologist and has been a re-search associate for the past 17 years with the UniversityHerbarium and the Jepson Herbarium. He is a professoremeritus at The Colorado College in Colorado Springs. Mostrecently he authored California’s Frontier Naturalists by theUniversity of California Press.

Josie Crawford is Director of the Education Program for theCalifornia Native Plant Society, where she develops programsfor students of all ages, including the Plant Science work-shops, the CNPS Conservation Conferences, the Rare PlantTreasure Hunt, and nature education for children. She getsjoy from people, color, landforms, vegetables and otherplants, and playing bass guitar.

Lucía Barbosa Deveze is Technician of the Reserva de laBiosfera Isla Guadalupe, of CONANP.

Isabel Granillo Duarte is Baja California Program Managerfor The Nature Conservancy.

Julie M. Evens is the Vegetation Program Director for theCalifornia Native Plant Society, where she manages projectsto sample, describe, and map vegetation statewide. Julie en-joys capturing the landscape through maps as well as photo-graphs and artwork, and she treasures taking botanical hikesaround the state with her one-year-old son.

Todd Keeler-Wolf is Senior Vegetation Ecologist at the Cali-fornia Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic DataBranch, where he leads the Vegetation Classification andMapping Program. He is also technical program advisor tothe California Native Plant Society’s Vegetation Program. Inaddition to the Manual of California Vegetation, he has coau-thored several books and publications, including the revisedUC Press California Plant Life Natural History guide, and therecently published third edition of the Terrestrial Vegetationof California.

California Native Plant Society2707 K Street, Suite 1Sacramento, CA 95816-5113

Address Service Requested

Nonprofit Org.

U.S. PostagePAID

A.M.S.

FROM THE EDITOR

t is both sad and alarming to see the extent to which peopletoday have become disconnected from nature. Examplesof this disconnect pervade our society and include our

willingness to produce and use substances (knowingly ornot) that are toxic to ourselves, our air, waterways, soil,wildlife, and to the native plants and plant communities wecare so deeply about.

I believe the reason we are leading an unsustainablelifestyle is due, in considerable part, to how little contactmost of us have anymore with nature. It becomes muchmore difficult to ignore or rationalize the damage we arecausing to our ecosystem when one gets out in nature andexperiences its incredible gifts. A majestic mountain rangecan inspire awe, a crystal-clear blue lake tranquility andpeace, a wildflower-carpeted valley delight, and a sun-drenched beach comfort and freedom. To those who haveexperienced these things, the possibility of losing themseems unthinkable.

Global warming is the latest, and perhaps the mostdevastating consequence yet, of this disconnect to nature.Yet scientists, conservationists, some policymakers, and na-ture lovers of all kinds are hoping for two things to turn thissituation around. One is that we humans will take decisiveaction to significantly reduce our impacts on the environ-ment. The other is the knowledge that, in the past, naturehas proven to be extremely resilient and able to recover frommajor destructive events, whether caused by man or nature.

The lead article in this issue of Fremontia detailingGuadalupe Island’s beginning signs of recovery from yearsof destruction caused by feral goats and then a devastatingfire, reminds us once again of nature’s ability to restore itselfif given sufficient time. It’s also the sort of story that offershope to all of us.

—Bob Hass

I

(continued on inside back cover)

vol. 37, no. 3 • july 2009 fremontia - cnps

Documents