Grassland structure and function pp 201-211

Part of the Tasks for vegetation science book series (TAVS, volume 20)

Conservation Biology of California’s Remnant Native Grasslands

  • Dennis D. Murphy
  • Paul R. Ehrlich

Abstract

From alpine meadows ravaged by sheep grazing a century ago to desert flats impacted by off road vehicles during the past two decades. California bears heavy scars from its relatively short history since the first Europeans arrived. But none of California’s landscape has been so irreparably altered as its grasslands. These grasslands have undergone habitat conversion including cultivation, grazing, suburbanization and industrialization. They have been subjected, in addition, to a somewhat more subtle change that has reduced the natural California grassland vegetation to but a fraction of its original extent. Here we discuss this change, the near complete replacement of California’s grassland flora with European annual grasses and forbs. We then assess the biogeography and pertinent ecology of the few remaining fragments of habitat on serpentine soils that maintain some of the original flora, and discuss how those remnants might best be conserved.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burcham LT (1957) California range land. Sacramento, California Forestry.Google Scholar
  2. Cheatham NH (1976) Conservation of vernal pools, Institute of Ecology Pub. 9, U.C. Davis, pp 87–89.Google Scholar
  3. Ehrlich PR and Murphy DD (1987) Monitoring populations on remnants of native vegetation. In Saunders, DA, Arnold GW, Burbidge AA, and Hopkins AJM, eds. Nature Conservation: The Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation, pp 201–210. Surrey Beatty and Sons Pty Limited in association with CSIRO and CALM.Google Scholar
  4. Ehrlich PR, Murphy DD, Singer MC, White RR, Brown IL, and Sherwood C (1980) Extinction, reduction, stability, and increase: the responses of checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas) populations to the California drought, Oecologia 46, 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gulmon SL (1979) Competition and coexistence: Three annual grass species, The Am. Midland Nat. 101 (2), 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gulmon SL, Chiariello NR, Mooney HA, and Chu, CC (1983) Phenology and resource use in three co-occurring grassland annuals, Oecologia 58, 33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heady HF (1977) Valley grassland. In Barbour M and Major J, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California, pp. 491–514. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Jain S, ed. (1976) Vernal pools, their ecology and conservation. Institute of Ecology, Pub. 9, U.C. DavisGoogle Scholar
  9. Kruckeberg, AR (1984) California serpentines: flora, vegetation, geology, soils, and management problems. Berkeley, Univ. Calif. Press.Google Scholar
  10. MacArthur RH and Wilson EO (1967) The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  11. Murphy DD (1984) Butterflies and their nectar plants: the role of the checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha as a pollen vector, Oikos 43, 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Murphy DD and Ehrlich PR (1980) Two California checkerspot butterfly subspecies: One new, one on the verge of extinction, J. Lepid. Soc. 34, 316–320.Google Scholar
  13. Murphy DD and White RR (1984) Rainfall, resources and dispersal in southern populations of Euphydryas editha (Lepidoptera:Nympbalidac), Pan-Pac. Ent. 60, 350–354.Google Scholar
  14. Murphy DD and Wilcox BA (1986) Butterfly diversity in natural forest fragments: a test of the validity of vertebrate-based management. In Verner J. Morrison ML, and Ralph J, eds. Wildlife 2000: Modelling Wildlife Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. Madison, Wisconsin, University of Wiscons in Press.Google Scholar
  15. Powell JA (1969) A synopsis of nearctic adelid moths, with descriptions of new species (Incurvariidae), J. Lepid. Soc. 23, 211–240.Google Scholar
  16. Prescott-Allen R and Prescott-Allen C (1983) Genes From the Wild. London, Int. Inst. Environ. Am. Development.Google Scholar
  17. Riebesell JF (1982) Arctic-alpine plants on mountaintops: agreement with island biogeographic theory. Amer. Nat. 119, 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmitt J (1983) Density-dependent pollinator foraging, flowering phenology, and temporal pollen dispersal patterns in Linanthus bicolor, Evolution 37, 1247–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Singer MC (1971) Ecological studies on the butterfly (Euphydryas editha). Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University..Google Scholar
  20. Singer MC and Ehrlich PR (1979) Population dynamics of the checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha, Fortsch. Zool. 225, 53–60.Google Scholar
  21. Terborgh J (1974) Preservation of natural diversity: the problem of extinction prone species, Bioscience 24, 715–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wells PV (1983) Paleobiogeography of montane islands in the Great Basin since the last glaciopluvial, Ecol. Monogr. 53, 341–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilcox BA (1980) Insular ecology and conservation. In Soule ME and Wilcox BA, eds. Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sunderland, Mass., Sinauer.Google Scholar
  24. Wilcox BA and Murphy DD (1985) Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction, Amer. Nat. 125, 879–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis D. Murphy
    • 1
  • Paul R. Ehrlich
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations