Advertisement

Replacing Endangered Species Habitat: The Acid Test of Wetland Ecology

  • Joy Zedler
Chapter

Abstract

Biodiversity is of special interest in California, a state with a great number of species, a large proportion of endemics, and many taxa in jeopardy. Because major developments have occurred along the Pacific Ocean, coastal habitats have been particularly affected. It is no surprise, therefore, that ten of California’s 94 endangered and threatened animal species are ones with coastal wetland affinities (Dept. of Fish and Game 1989); in southern California, these include the light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), the California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), and Belding’s Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi). Of the 298 coastal species considered rare by the California Native Plant Society, 17 (6%) occur in coastal wetlands.

Keywords

Home Range Salt Marsh High Marsh Natural Marsh Wetland Ecology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Boyer, K.E. and J.B. Zedler. 1996. Cordgrass damage by scale insects in a constructed salt marsh: Effects of nitrogen additions. Estuaries 19:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradshaw, A. 1987. Restoration: An acid test for ecology. In Restoration ecology: A synthetic approach to ecological research, eds. W.R. Jordan III, M.E. Gilpin, and J.D. Aber, 23–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. California State Coastal Conservancy. 1989. The coastal wetlands of San Diego County. Oakland: State Coastal Conservancy.Google Scholar
  4. Callaway, J. and J.B. Zedler. In preparation. Competitive interactions between a salt marsh native perennial (Salicornia virginica) and an exotic annual (Polypogon monspeliensis) under varied salinity and hydroperiod.Google Scholar
  5. Chuang, T. and L.R. Heckard. 1971. Observations on root-parasitism in Cordylanthus (Scrophulariaceae). American Journal of Botany 58:218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Covin, J.D. and J.B. Zedler. 1988. Nitrogen effects on Spartina foliosa and Salicornia virginica in the salt marsh at Tijuana Estuary, California. Wetlands 8:51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox, G.W. and J.B. Zedler. 1986. The influence of mima mounds on vegetation patterns in the Tijuana Estuary salt marsh, San Diego County, California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 85:158–172.Google Scholar
  8. Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, F.W., P.A. Stine, D.M. Stoms, M.I. Borchert, and A. Hollander. 1995. Gap analysis of the actual vegetation of California, 1. The southwestern region. Madroño 41:40–78.Google Scholar
  10. Department of Fish and Game. 1989. 1988 Annual report on the status of California’s State listed threatened and endangered plants and animals. Sacramento: California Resources Agency.Google Scholar
  11. Entrix, Inc., PERL, and PWA, Ltd. 1991. Tijuana Estuary tidal restoration program. Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. California Coastal Conservancy (SCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lead Agencies. SCC, Oakland. Vol. I–III.Google Scholar
  12. Falk, D.A., C.I. Millar, and M. Olwell, eds. 1996. Restoring diversity: Strategies for reintroduction of endangered plants. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fink, B.H. and J.B. Zedler. 1990. Endangered plant recovery: Experimental approaches with Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus. In Proceedings, first annual meeting of the society of ecological restoration and management, eds. H.G. Hughes and T.M. Bonnicksen, 460–468. Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  14. Flick, R.E. and D.R. Cayan. 1984. Extreme sea levels on the coast of California. In 19th coastal engineering conference proceedings, September 3–78, 886–898. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  15. Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hymanson, Z.P. and H. Kingma-Rymek. 1995. Procedural guidance for evaluating wetland mitigation projects in California’s coastal zone. San Francisco: California Coastal Commission.Google Scholar
  17. International Boundary and Water Commission. 1950–1993. Western water bulletin. Flow of the Colorado River and other western boundary streams and related data. El Paso: IBWC.Google Scholar
  18. Kelly, J.P. and G. Fletcher. 1995. Habitat correlates and distribution of Cordylanthus maritimus (Scrophulariaceae) on Tomales Bay, California. Madroño 41:316–327.Google Scholar
  19. Kuhn, N.L. 1995. The effects of salinity and soil saturation on plants in the high intertidal marsh. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  20. Kuhn, N.L. and J.B. Zedler. In review. Differential effects of salinity and soil saturation on native and exotic plants of a coastal salt marsh. Estuaries.Google Scholar
  21. Langis, R., M. Zalejko, and J.B. Zedler. 1991. Nitrogen assessments in a constructed and a natural salt marsh of San Diego Bay, California. Ecological Applications 1:40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lincoln, P.G. 1985. Pollinator effectiveness and ecology of seed set in Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus at Point Mugu, California. Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Office, Sacramento, California.Google Scholar
  23. Massey, B.W., R.L. Zembal, and P.D. Jorgensen. 1984. Nesting habitat of the Light-footed clapper rail in Southern California. Journal of Field Ornithology 53:67–80.Google Scholar
  24. NRC (National Research Council Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy). 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory (PERL). 1994. Sweetwater Marsh wetland complex ecosystem assessment. Final Report for 1994. San Diego: California Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
  26. Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory (PERL). 1995. Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge: ecosystem assessment for mitigation compliance. Final Report for 1995. San Diego: California Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
  27. Parsons, L.S. 1994. Re-establishment of salt marsh Bird’s-beak at Sweetwater Marsh: Factors affecting reproductive success. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  28. Parsons, L.S. and J.B. Zedler. In press. Factors affecting reestablishment of an endangered annual plant at a California salt marsh. Ecological Applications.Google Scholar
  29. Scatolini, S.R. and J.B. Zedler. 1996. Epibenthic invertebrates of natural and constructed marshes of San Diego Bay. Wetlands 16:24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Swift, K.L. 1988. Salt marsh restoration: Assessing a southern California example. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS). 1988. Biological Opinion 1–1-78-F-14-R2, The combined Sweetwater River flood control and highway project, San Diego County, California. Letter from Wally Steuke, Acting Regional Director, US FWS, Portland, Oregon, to Colonel Tadahiko Ono, District Engineer, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers, Mar. 30, 1988.Google Scholar
  32. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1971–1950 (in separate volumes). Water resources data for California, Water Years 1971–1950. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Service.Google Scholar
  33. White, A.N. 1986. Effects of habitat type and human disturbance on an endangered wetland bird: Belding’s Savannah sparrow. M.S. Thesis, San Diego State University.Google Scholar
  34. Wyant, J.G., R.A. Meganck, and S.H. Ham. 1995. The need for an environmental restoration decision framework. Ecological Engineering 5:417–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zalejko, M.K. 1989. Nitrogen fixation in a natural and a constructed southern California salt marsh. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  36. Zedler, J.B. 1986. Catastrophic flooding and distributional patterns of Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa Trin.). Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 85:74–86.Google Scholar
  37. Zedler, J.B. 1993. Canopy architecture of natural and planted cordgrass marshes: Selecting habitat evaluation criteria. Ecological Applications 3:123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zedler, J.B. 1996a. Coastal mitigation in southern California: The need for a regional restoration strategy. Ecological Applications 6:84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zedler, J.B., principal author. 1996b. Tidal wetland restoration: A scientific perspective and a Southern California focus. California Sea Grant College, La Jolla. Technical Report, in press.Google Scholar
  40. Zedler, J.B., C.S. Nordby, and B.E. Kus. 1992. The ecology of Tijuana Estuary: A National Estuarine Research Reserve. Washington, D.C.: NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division.Google Scholar
  41. Zembal, R., B.W. Massey, and J.M. Fancher. 1989. Movements and activity patterns of the Lightfooted clapper rail. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:39–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joy Zedler

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations