Ecological restoration of coastal sage scrub and its potential role in habitat conservation plans

Environmental Management

Volumn 26, Issue 1 SUPPL. 1, 2000, Pages

  Bowler, Peter A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b White Mountain Research Station   (United States)

Author keywords

Coastal sage scrub; Ecological restoration; Habitat conservation plan; Mitigation; Plant salvage

Indexed keywords

COASTAL ZONES; CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY; PLANTS (BOTANY); URBAN PLANNING; VEGETATION;

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

COASTAL ZONE; HABITAT CONSERVATION; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; SCRUB;

CONFERENCE PAPER; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; NONHUMAN; PHOTOGRAPHY; PLANT; SPECIES DIFFERENTIATION; TECHNIQUE;

UNITED STATES;

AMPHIBIA; ANIMALIA; AVES; POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA; REPTILIA; RODENTIA; SALVIA; TRACHEOPHYTA;

EID: 0034035672     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s002670010064     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Allen, E. B. 1997. The context of restoration in Mediterranean type ecosystems: what are the limitations to restoration of coastal sage scrub? In P. A. Bowler and P. H. Zedler, MEDECOS Symposium IV. Restoration - what makes for functional ecosystems? October 23, 1997, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
2. Atwood, J. L., D. R. Bontrager, R. Hirsch, D. Kamada, M. Madden, and P. A. Bowler. 1998. Population dynamics, dispersal, and demography of California gnatcatchers in Orange County, California (1998 progress report). Unpublished report, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA, and University of California, Irvine, CA.
3. Beier, P., and S. Loe. 1992. "In my experience . . ." A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:434-440.
4. Beier, P., and R. F. Noss. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology 12(6):1241-1252.
5. Blane, M. 1992. Revegetation implementation monitoring report. CALMAT Co., San Bernardino Plant, Phases A-1 and B-1, final report, unpublished.
6. Bowler, P. A. 1990a. Riparian woodland: an endangered habitat in southern California. Pages 80-97 in A. Schoenherr (ed.), Endangered plant communities of southern California. Southern California Botanists Special Publication, No. 3.
7. Bowler, P. A. 1990b. Coastal sage scrub restoration - I. The challenge of mitigation. Restoration and Management Notes 8(2):78-82.
8. Bowler, P. A. 1999a. New directions in coastal sage scrub restoration: establishing local species richness, ethics and effort in onsite seed collection, GIS applications and a new approach to long-term project design and performance standards. Pages 15-20 in P. A. Bowler and E. Read (eds.), Coastal sage scrub restoration: proceedings of the coastal sage scrub restoration symposium held at the Fifth Annual Conference of the Society for Ecological Restoration. Special Publication no. 1 of the Society for Ecological Restoration, California chapter.
9. Bowler, P. A. 1999b. Species richness and coastal sage scrub restoration. Pages 2-14 in P. A. Bowler and E. Read (eds.), Coastal sage scrub restoration: proceedings of the coastal sage scrub restoration symposium held at the Fifth Annual Conference of the Society for Ecological Restoration. Special Publication no. 1 of the Society for Ecological Restoration, California Chapter.
10. Bowler, P. A., and R. G. Demeijian. 1996. Low-cost, user-friendly computer program provides digitized habitat emulation (California). Restoration and Management Notes 14(2): 186.
11. Bowler, P. A., and R. E. Riefner, Jr. 1999. Prescribed burning impacts on late successional species. In J. E. Keeley (ed.), Second interface between ecology and land use in California. Southern California Academy of Sciences.
12. Bowler, P. A., K. B. Pierce, Jr., V. Beauchamp, and T. Tasbshouri. 1999. Translocation and grafting of adult coastal cholla (Opuntia prolifera) and prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis) as mitigation for cactus wren habitat loss in burned areas. In J. E. Keeley, (ed.), Second interface between ecology and land use in California. Southern California Academy of Sciences.
13. Bowler, P. A., A. Wolf, H. V. Pham, M. A. Archer, A. S. Bak, M. Bedaux, A. Chhun, J. S. Crain, S. Feeney, A. Gloskowski, P. Golcher, C. J. Hodson, M. L. James, R. C. Johnson, M. S. Milane, V. H. Nguyen, R. S. Salaxar, and C. R. Simonds. 1994. Transplanting coastal sage scrub seedlings from natural stands (California). Restoration and Management Notes 12(1):87-88.
14. Davis, C. M. 1999. Successional changes in California shrub communities following mechanical anthropogenic disturbance. Pages 21-22 in P. A. Bowler and E. Read (eds.), Coastal sage scrub restoration: proceedings of the coastal sage scrub restoration symposium held at the Fifth Annual Conference of the Society for Ecological Restoration. Special Publication no. 1 of the Society for Ecological Restoration, California Chapter.
15. DeSimone, S. A, and J. H. Burk. 1992. Local variation in floristics and distribution factors in Californian coastal sage scrub. Madroño 39(3):170-188.
16. DeSouza, J., P. A. Silka, and S. D. Davis. 1986. Comparative physiology of burned and unburned Rhus laurina after chaparral wildfire. Oecologia (Berlin) 71:63-68.
17. Jones and Stokes Associates. 1992. Descriptions of vegetation/habitat and land cover classification for the Irvine Ranch, Orange County. Unpublished report.
18. Kirkpatrick, J. B., and C. F. Hutchinson. 1977. The community composition of Californian coastal sage scrub. Vegetatio 35: 21-33.
19. Kirkpatrick, J. B., and C. F. Hutchinson. 1980. The environmental relationships of Californian coastal sage scrub and some of its component communities and species. Journal of Biogeography 7:23-38.
20. Kummerow, J., D. Krause, and W. Jow. 1977. Root systems of chaparral shrubs. Oecologia 29:163-177.
21. Luoma, J. R. 1998. Habitat conservation plans: compromise or capitulation? Audubon (January-February):36-43.
22. NCCP Core Group. 1997. Research guidance to address the needs of land managers. Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP), NCCP Core Group Report, Draft, March 26, 1997.
23. Read, E. A. 1994. The importance of community classification to mitigation and restoration of coastal sage scrub. Restoration Ecology 2(2):80-86.
24. Saunders, D. A., R. J. Hobbs, and C. R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5(1):18-32.
25. Shilling, F. 1997. Do habitat conservation plans protect endangered species? Science 276:1662-1663.
26. Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea, and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation Environmental Management 24:421-435.
27. Westman, W. E. 1981a. Diversity relations and succession in Californian coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62:170-184.
28. Westman, W. E. 1981b. Factors influencing the distribution of species of Californian coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62:170-184.
29. Westman, W. E. 1981c. Seasonal dimorphism of foliage in Californian coastal sage scrub. Oecologia 51:385-338.
30. Westman, W. E. 1983. Xeric Mediterranean-type shrubland associations of Alta and Baja California and the community/continuum debate. Vegetatio 52:3-19.
31. Westman, W. E. 1985. Air pollution injury to coastal sage scrub in the Santa Monica Mountains, Southern California. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 26:19-41.
32. Westman, W. E. 1987. Implications of ecological theory for rare plant conservation in coastal sage scrub. Pages 133-140 in T. S. Elias (ed.), Conservation and management of rare and endangered plants. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.
33. Zedler, J. B. 1998. Replacing endangered species habitat: the acid test of wetland ecology. Pages 364-379 in P. L. Fiedler and P. M. Karieva (eds.), Conservation biology for the coming age. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.