Evaluating Threats Posed by Exotic Phytophthora Species to Endangered Coyote Ceanothus and Selected Natural Communities in the Santa Clara NCCP Area Final Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evaluating threats posed by exotic Phytophthora species to endangered Coyote ceanothus and selected natural communities in the Santa Clara NCCP area Final report 1 March 2018 Client Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Funding provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Community Conservation Planning Local Assistance Grant Program Prepared by Tedmund J. Swiecki, Ph.D., Principal / Plant Pathologist Elizabeth Bernhardt, Ph.D., Principal / Plant Pathologist Phytosphere Project 2016-0601 P HYTOSPHERE R ESEARCH 1027 DAVIS STREET, VACAVILLE, CA 95687-5495 [email protected] http://phytosphere.com 707.452.8735 Evaluating threats posed by exotic Phytophthora species Final report – March 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The goals of this project were to: (1) detect Phytophthora species that are either currently impacting or have the potential to seriously degrade populations of covered plants in the Plan Area, and (2) use this information to develop a management strategy to minimize introductions of pathogens and limit/contain impacts in affected areas. We developed a sampling strategy by using GIS data to determine where various priority habitat types with Phytophthora-susceptible vegetation might be exposed to Phytophthora contamination from roads, trails, past restoration plantings, or other known risk pathways. We also considered proximity to lands enrolled or proposed for enrollment in the NCCP reserve system, access, and in-field observations of vegetation symptoms and risk factors to determine sampling locations. We collected 189 samples from Santa Clara County Parks, and Santa Clara County Open Space Authority preserves, and other reserve system areas with high-priority vegetation types. Sixty-eight samples were collected in extant populations of Coyote ceanothus (Ceanothus ferrisiae). An extensive, but still localized, infestation involving multiple Phytophthora species at Anderson Lake poses the greatest threat to any of the Coyote ceanothus populations at this time. Preventing spread of contamination from the infested area on the western Anderson Dam abutment to nearby stands should be a high priority. Additional detections of Phytophthora near the reservoir high-water line pose a long-term concern if the pathogens spread uphill from these areas. Phytophthora was recovered only from seasonal stream water below the Kirby Canyon Coyote ceanothus population and a pond edge adjoining the Llagas population. Phytophthora species detected in stream water and the pond edge differed from those infecting the upland stand of Coyote ceanothus on the Anderson Dam abutment. No Phytophthora species were found in the sampled Coyote ceanothus stands on Coyote Ridge. Twenty Phytophthora taxa were identified across all samples. Phytophthora species were detected in 67% of 21 water samples collected across all sampled locations. These included spring-fed ponds where contamination may have been introduced via grazing livestock. Forty-four root/soil samples were collected from sites that are periodically flooded, and 124 root/soil samples were from uplands or flats and lowlands not subject to inundation. Phytophthora species were recovered from 59% of the periodically flooded sites, and 9% of samples of natural vegetation from drier upland and flat/lowland sites. About half of the upland and flat/lowland Phytophthora detections are associated with the Phytophthora infestation in native vegetation on the western abutment at Anderson Dam. Five samples from transplanted nursery stock (upland or flat/lowland sites) at four reserves yielded two Phytophthora detections. Our baseline sampling indicates that Phytophthora infestations are uncommon in and near reserve system lands and are mostly associated with known risk factors for Phytophthora introduction. Because eradication of Phytophthora species within all but very small infested areas is difficult to impossible, management practices should emphasize prevention. This includes preventing introduction of additional Phytophthora species into habitat areas and preventing spread from existing infestations into additional areas. Best management practices to accomplish these management objectives are discussed in this report. P HYTOSPHERE R ESEARCH Page 2 of 135 Evaluating threats posed by exotic Phytophthora species Final report – March 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank our contract administrator, Terah Donovan, and the staff at the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency (SCVHA), Jill Mross, Denise Rosenberger, and Edmund Sullivan, for their support and help with this project. We thank Santa Clara County Parks and the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority for permission to sample on their lands. We also thank Janell Hillman and Don Arnold from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) for their support and assistance. Janell arranged permission for us to sample part of the Llagas population of Coyote ceanothus on private land and accompanied us there and on our initial trip to the Kirby Canyon population. We thank the land owner who gave us access to part of the Llagas population of Coyote ceanothus. We would also like to thank Suzanne Latham, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and Tyler Bourret, University of California Davis Department of Plant Pathology for their assistance in identifying Phytophthora species. This project was funded by a Natural Community Conservation Planning Local Assistance Grant from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to SCVHA. Cover photo: View across Santa Clara Valley from Sierra Vista Open Space Preserve, 15 January 2018. P HYTOSPHERE R ESEARCH Page 3 of 135 Evaluating threats posed by exotic Phytophthora species Final report – March 2018 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 10 2. METHODS ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1. SAMPLING STRATEGY .............................................................................................................................................. 11 2.2. PHYTOPHTHORA DETECTION AND IDENTIFICATION ....................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1. Use of pears to bait Phytophthora ............................................................................................................ 11 2.2.2. Phytophthora identification using nucleotide sequencing ........................................................................ 12 2.2. WATER SAMPLES ................................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3. ROOT/SOIL SAMPLES .............................................................................................................................................. 14 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 16 3.1. PHYTOPHTHORA DETECTIONS RELATIVE TO SITE MOISTURE REGIME .................................................................................. 16 3.1.1. Water samples .......................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1.2. Root/soil samples from sites with periodic flooding ................................................................................. 17 3.1.3 Dry samples ................................................................................................................................................ 19 3.2. TEST COYOTE CEANOTHUS POPULATIONS FOR PHYTOPHTHORA ....................................................................................... 30 3.2.1. Anderson Lake population ........................................................................................................................ 30 3.2.2. Kirby Canyon population ........................................................................................................................... 44 3.2.3. Llagas population ...................................................................................................................................... 49 3.3. FIELD VISITS AND SAMPLE COLLECTION IN IDENTIFIED HIGH-RISK AREAS ............................................................................. 52 3.3.1. Almaden Quicksilver County Park ............................................................................................................. 52 3.3.2. Calero County Park – north ....................................................................................................................... 53 3.3.3. Calero County Park – south ....................................................................................................................... 58 3.3.4. Coyote Lake/Harvey Bear Ranch County Park .........................................................................................