survey season

This spring I’ve helped out with a cou­ple plant sur­veys orga­nized by the local CNPS chap­ter. There are plenty of plants in the county and rel­a­tively few peo­ple to sur­vey them, so the chap­ter picks a plant or group of plants for which there’s a com­pelling need to inven­tory them. The theme this year was dune plants. I don’t know this group of plants very well, so it’s been a great learn­ing experience.

Sur­veys in two loca­tions net­ted five or six rare List 1B species. (See the CNPS def­i­n­i­tion of the var­i­ous list­ings [ here ].) I was there for four to five of them.

At the first loca­tion it was hard to miss the rare form of Jun­cus acu­tus, tow­er­ing over my head. Shown here, it’s sur­rounded by the com­mon but won­der­fully perky yel­low beach evening prim­rose (Camis­so­nia cheiran­thi­fo­lia) and the exotic sea rocket, Cak­ile mar­itima.

(A closeup of the dune evening primrose.)

Also nearby, also yel­low, com­mon, and perky: tele­graph weed, Het­eroteca gran­di­flora.

But enough of these com­mon plants. We came here look­ing for rare ones!

Here’s one that was pretty hard to miss: Nuttall’s lotus, Lotus nut­tal­lianus. I hope you like yel­low. The bright flow­ers turn orange-red after they’ve been pol­li­nated, encour­ag­ing the pol­li­na­tors to visit the still-not-deflowered yel­low blooms.

This snowy plover and least tern pre­serve was one of the plants’ favored areas. The word “pre­serve” promised more than was evi­dent here. It was a patch of sand like any other part of the beach, but with just one piece of white string around it. Any dog or small child or group of teens with a cooler could have stepped inside, squash­ing the plants, scram­bling the eggs and nestlings.

We saw sev­eral hun­dred of these, Brand’s phacelia, Phacelia stel­laris. Around the edges of this patch you can see the one of inva­sive species of Erodium.

Another look at the phacelia… Most were about this size, prac­ti­cally belly flow­ers. But occasionally–as in the semi-shade beneath a pic­nic bench–you’d find indi­vid­u­als almost a foot tall.

And the last of the rare plants we sur­veyed the first day, coast wooly-heads, Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata. There were thou­sands at the first site. They weren’t flow­er­ing yet, but the plants were unmis­tak­able with their long accordion-pleated white leaves. In bloom, they’ll have wiry stems float­ing lit­tle creamy balls of bloom over the leaves.

Here’s a final shot, a closeup of the flow­er­ing heads of the Jun­cus acu­tus. ssp. leopoldii.

It’s a stun­ning plant out on the sand. And of all of these, the com­mon form of Jun­cus acu­tus is some­thing you’ll see offered in var­i­ous native plant cat­a­logs. If you need a big, archi­tec­tural, spiky sedge that likes a cer­tain amount of mois­ture, this might be just your plant.

May 03 2011 | Categories: landscapeplant profiles | Tags: | 9 Comments »

21,015 tiny little plants

I now have a new appre­ci­a­tion for the work of field botanists.

A cou­ple week­ends ago I had a chance to work on a rare plant sur­vey on the slopes of Vie­jas Moun­tain in east­ern San Diego County. I enjoy see­ing plants out in their wild habi­tat and the descrip­tion of the task sounded down­right idyl­lic: You go out to trail­less edges of the county, enjoy the scenery, and all the while look for rare plants.

San Diego thorn­mint (Photo: Janet Franklin)

The plant of spe­cial inter­est for this trip was San Diego thorn­mint, Acan­thomintha ili­ci­fo­lia, a plant found only in a smat­ter­ing of places in Cal­i­for­nia and bits of north­ern Baja. And the plant is even more selec­tive than that. It only grows on clay lenses–gently or mod­er­ately sloped areas of clay soil that has washed down from nearby areas. The sur­round­ing chap­ar­ral plants for the most part don’t care for these soil con­di­tions, so they cre­ate open­ings for this rare annual to colonize.

The project was to get a pop­u­la­tion count of thorn­mint from areas where they’d been sighted more than a decade ear­lier. Com­par­ing today’s num­bers against the ear­lier cen­suses would give you an idea of how well the plant is doing in the wilds.

Me, look­ing for thorn­mint, enjoy­ing the scenery around my feet. (Photo: Janet Franklin)

Our assign­ment was pop­u­la­tion 51, a clus­ter of adja­cent stands on the west­ern edge of Cleve­land National For­est, just out­side the city of Alpine. (Look­ing back on the sub­ur­ban sprawl I thought it looked a lit­tle like the pho­tos of Area 51 taken from Free­dom Ridge.)

Most of the spread had burned in one of the recent major wild­fires to go through the county and was in the state of grow­ing back—pretty suc­cess­fully, since travel got to be tough some of the day. When­ever the chap­ar­ral parted and the soil con­di­tions looked right, you scoured the ground for thorn­mints, which at this point in their life­cy­cle were mostly 1–4 inches tall, with most of them not yet in bloom.

No thorn­imint at this one sub-location, but lots of Palmer’s grap­pling hook, Harpagonella palmeri, one of the species that’s com­monly asso­ci­ated with thorn­mint. (Photo: Janet Franklin)

One of the three sub-populations we looked at was com­pletely gone. Nada. Zero plants. Maybe the fire wiped them out. Maybe we weren’t obser­vant enough, though we fine-tooth combed the hillside.

Success–thornmints! (Photo: Janet Franklin)

But the other two pop­u­la­tions gave us an exer­cise in count­ing plants. Lots and lots of plants. Tiny, tiny lit­tle plants.

By the mid­dle of the after­noon we had a count, 21,015 plants. It was six hours of open slopes with no shade spent in deep con­cen­tra­tion look­ing for the lit­tle plants, count­ing all the while.

I’ll con­fess: We did a lit­tle esti­mat­ing when the pop­u­la­tions got really large, and so we didn’t actu­ally phys­i­cally count all 21,015 plants. But 21,015 seemed like a solid estimate.

While it’s good to know that there are more than a hand­ful of plants left in the wild, it’s also a lit­tle unnerv­ing to see that they have such a lim­ited dis­tri­b­u­tion, and more dis­turb­ing that one of the three pop­u­la­tions from ear­lier seemed to have vanished.

Locally com­mon, but in the grand scheme of things, awfully rare, espe­cially with human encroach­ment from Area 51 next door.

Hes­per­oyucca whip­pleii, one of the stun­ning gar­den sub­jects shown here in the wilds, with thron­mint nearby. (Photo: Janet Franklin)

San Diego thorn­mint prob­a­bly won’t turn into one of the great gar­den plants for Cal­i­for­nia native gar­dens. But along the way we saw plenty of species closely related to those used in home native land­scapes: lau­rel sumac (Mal­osma lau­rina), cean­othus (tomen­to­sus and folio­sus), sting­ing lupine (Lupi­nus hir­sutisim­mus), man­zanita (one of the Arc­tostaphy­los glan­du­losa subspecies)…

Blue-eyed grass (Sisy­rinchium bel­lum) grow­ing on a clay lens. (Photo: Janet Franklin)

…and one of my favorite flow­er­ing natives: blue-eyed grass, grow­ing and bloom­ing among the tiny lit­tle thornmints.

Usu­ally my cam­era is the first thing I pack for one of these out­ings, but some­how I for­got it at home this time. My thanks to team-leader Janet for the use of her images from the trip!

May 14 2010 | Categories: landscapeplacesplant profiles | Tags: | 4 Comments »

world’s thorniest rose?

I grew this fiercely thorny rose, Rosa minu­ti­fo­lia, for over a decade. With wild-rose-pink flow­ers barely two inches across, its petals were crin­kled and del­i­cate, but the blooms were never par­tic­u­larly stun­ning when com­pared to the buxom, botoxed blooms of typ­i­cal gar­den roses. The leaves were tiny to the point of almost being non-existent, and I’ve already men­tioned the incred­i­ble num­ber of thorns that made this just about the prick­li­est thing I’ve ever dealt with. (The only sim­i­larly thorny roses I can think of are a few heir­loom moss roses like Alfred de Dal­mas that I grew in my early teen rose-growing years.) So spiny is it that one of its early col­lec­tors pro­posed an alter­nate name for it: Rosa hor­rida. (Check out the fas­ci­nat­ing tale of its dis­cov­ery by Bar­bara Ert­ter here.)

In the end, I think I grew it partly because of its weirdly cool thorni­ness and its inter­est­ing story, but also because of its arti­fi­cial, polit­i­cal rar­ity. In the United States, this rose is found only as a small island pop­u­la­tion along the Mex­i­can bor­der on Otay Mesa, here in San Diego County. This extreme rar­ity has placed it on California’s endan­gered species list. Skip south into Mex­ico a few dozen miles, how­ever, and the plant begins to become a fairly com­mon mem­ber of the chap­ar­ral plant com­mu­nity, form­ing great mounded thick­ets three to four feet high and many feet across. The notion that the plant is par­tic­u­larly rare is an arti­fact of national bound­aries. Erase the US-Mexico bor­der, and Rosa minu­ti­fo­lia becomes a main­stay of part of the pan-Californian ecosystem.

I find that to be a weird lit­tle men­tal game: Is the plant rare or not? What odd things do polit­i­cal bound­aries do to how we under­stand the nat­ural world that those bound­aries are drawn over? Does that mean that it’s crazy to call this an endan­gered plant?

To that last ques­tion, I’ll answer that we really should con­sider it a plant to pro­tect. We need to pre­serve what’s left of the diver­sity that remains in the world. If the plant goes extinct in Cal­i­for­nia, it’s gone from Cal­i­for­nia. Never mind that it has cousins south of the border.

Bor­der­lands, Con­ti­nen­tal Divide pro­duced by The Cor­nell Lab of Ornithol­ogy from iLCP on Vimeo.

And these days the purely con­cep­tual notion of a national bor­der is turn­ing into a phys­i­cal real­ity, as the ginor­mous bor­der fence project turns the United States into a freak­ish zoo exhibit behind bars as this video pro­duced by the Cor­nell Lab of Ornithol­ogy shows. (I also did a brief post related to all this recently, on the destruc­tion of Smuggler’s Gulch.) When the only know U.S. pop­u­la­tion of this plant is fur­ther iso­lated from its south­ern kin, it becomes all the more des­per­ate to pre­serve what lit­tle we have left.

When we were prepar­ing the back yard for a small room addi­tion we needed to move a few plants out of the way. My Rosa minu­ti­fo­lia was one of them. Used to near-desert con­di­tions, the plant shoots down roots far into the ground, maybe even 20 feet deep. I guess I didn’t get enough of the roots, not to men­tion the fact that the trans­plant took place in the high heat of sum­mer. The plant declined and then died over the course of a cou­ple months.

I see the plant here and there. A native plant sale might have a few plants. The Tree of Life Nurs­ery stocks it. Botan­i­cal gar­dens some­times have a lit­tle thicket of it (or a mas­sive thicket of it as is the case at Ran­cho Santa Ana Botan­i­cal Gar­den where “five rooted cut­tings planted…in 1954 had become ‘one large tan­gled mass’ nearly 30 feet across by 1982″ [ source ]). All these pho­tos are from the Huntington’s Desert Gar­den, where the rose grows along­side cac­tus and other things that make its spini­ness look right at home.

I get nos­tal­gic when­ever I see it. My lit­tle plant, which was set in awful, dense, dry soil in a much too shady spot, never grew or flow­ered much. Nip­ping at the dead branches kept it from form­ing a Rosa hor­rida thicket. But I con­tin­ued to cod­dle it for what­ever rea­sons any of us cod­dle inter­est­ing, under-performing plants. And one of these days I wouldn’t be sur­prised if I plant another lit­tle thicket of it.

January 08 2010 | Categories: gardeningmy gardenplacesplant profiles | Tags: | 6 Comments »