Outline of Quino Recovery Plan - The Xerces Society
Outline of Quino Recovery Plan - The Xerces Society
Outline of Quino Recovery Plan - The Xerces Society
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
females and males at the end <strong>of</strong> the adult flight season is recommended, and<br />
should not significantly affect metapopulation persistence (Cushman et al.<br />
1994). Captured females that have already deposited most <strong>of</strong> their eggs can be<br />
induced to produce and deposit more eggs than would naturally occur (G. Pratt,<br />
pers. comm.). Captive augmentation facilities should also include butterfly<br />
ranches within the distribution <strong>of</strong> extant metapopulations. Butterfly ranches<br />
would consist <strong>of</strong> semi-natural areas designed and managed to produce high<br />
density populations that could disperse naturally or be manually distributed to<br />
augment extant metapopulations (B. Toon, pers. comm.).<br />
6. Multiple Species Reserves and the <strong>Quino</strong> Checkerspot<br />
For invertebrates, including the vast number <strong>of</strong> poorly described or undescribed<br />
species that are undoubtedly also endangered but not listed (Redak 2000), the<br />
quality <strong>of</strong> habitat preserved is more crucial than the extent (Ehrlich 1992). Thus<br />
mitigation ratios based solely on acreage are not likely to be valid. However,<br />
losses <strong>of</strong> lower quality <strong>Quino</strong> checkerspot habitat may threaten the preservation<br />
<strong>of</strong> other species, even if butterfly populations are not likely to be jeopardized.<br />
Euphydryas editha butterflies are good indicators <strong>of</strong> biodiversity and habitat<br />
quality because they are closely tied to the taxonomic diversity <strong>of</strong> vegetation<br />
(Launer and Murphy 1994); more so than, for example, birds (Ehrlich 1992).<br />
Euphydryas editha is probably sensitive to pesticides and responsive to various<br />
other general aspects <strong>of</strong> habitat quality that are not always apparent (Ehrlich<br />
1992). Launer and Murphy (1994) found that if only sites supporting the largest<br />
Euphydryas editha populations were preserved, or if portions <strong>of</strong> a site classified<br />
as “marginal” butterfly habitat were lost, the proportion <strong>of</strong> protected plant<br />
species dropped substantially. Also, although it is true that insect populations<br />
typically require smaller habitat areas than populations <strong>of</strong> large vertebrates<br />
(Ehrlich 1992), Euphydryas editha requires relatively large areas <strong>of</strong> conserved<br />
landscape connectivity. That is, maintenance <strong>of</strong> dispersal corridors linking a<br />
network <strong>of</strong> habitat patches over a large area will be required to conserve <strong>Quino</strong><br />
checkerspot metapopulations.<br />
Undeveloped wildlands adjacent to and among <strong>Quino</strong> checkerspot<br />
metapopulation distributions (or habitat complexes if metapopulation<br />
distributions are not described) should be maintained because they contain<br />
landscape connectivity essential to other species that are part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Quino</strong><br />
49