Quino checkerspot butterfly
Photo Credit: USFWS: John Martin
Goal: Protect, enhance, and restore Quino checkerspot occupied habitat and historically occupied habitat and the landscape connections between them to create resilient, self-sustaining populations that provide for persistence over the long-term (>100 years).
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
In 2017-2018, develop habitat suitability models for Quino checkerspot, host plants, and nectaring plants under current and future climate change scenarios, and conduct fire risk modeling with different management scenarios to identify potential climate and fire refugia. The results of this modeling will be used to inform development of monitoring and management plans.
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEV-1 | Submit project metadata, modeling datasets, results and report to the MSP Web Portal. | In progress |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| Quino Checkerspot Current and Future Climate Habitat Models and Report Completed in 2017 | 2021 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Climate change | CLICHN |
| Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
| Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
| Loss of ecological integrity | ECOINT |
| Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
Beginning in 2017, prepare a long-term Quino checkerspot metapopulation monitoring plan to track population distribution, abundance, and phenology, and to assess habitats and threats at checkerspot occurrences (see occurrence table), historically occupied and unoccupied high suitability sites across Conserved Lands in the MSPA. The monitoring plan should build upon previous surveys, habitat assessments and modeling to include specific monitoring questions, the sampling frame within the MSPA, monitoring methods, a statistically valid sampling design, sampling locations, timeline, and standardized protocols for determining the status and abundance of larval and adult butterflies and for assessing habitat and threats at each sampling site to determine management needs. The plan should stipulate that for each survey year, a report be prepared with site-specific management recommendations. The monitoring plan will be piloted with field surveys in 2018 to determine if adjustments need to be made and will be finalized in 2019 and then added to the final management plan in 2021 to create a comprehensive Quino Checkerspot Management and Monitoring Plan.
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRP-1 | Work with the Butterfly Working Group consisting of species experts, scientists, wildlife agencies, land managers and other stakeholders to develop the monitoring plan. | in progress | |
| PRP-2 | Include fire risk and climate change modeling results to provide management recommendations in relation to fire and climate refugia and to reduce fire risk at occurrences. | in progress | |
| PRP-3 | Submit project metadata, datasets and Quino Checkerspot Monitoring Plan to the MSP Web Portal. | in progress |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| Quino Checkerspot Metapopulation Monitoring Plan Completed in 2019 | 2019 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Climate change | CLICHN |
| Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
| Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
| Loss of ecological integrity | ECOINT |
| Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
In 2018 conduct pilot monitoring to evaluate monitoring methodology and sampling design and locations, and prepare recommendations for any adjustments to the monitoring plan. From 2019 to 2021, implement monitoring annually and submit data with management recommendations.
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMP-1 | Submit project metadata, monitoring datasets and management recommendations to the MSP Web Portal. | waiting for precedent action |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| Monitoring Implemented and Data with Recommendations Submitted Annually | 2021 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Climate change | CLICHN |
| Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
| Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
| Loss of ecological integrity | ECOINT |
| Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
In 2017-2018, develop a section for Quino checkerpot nectaring forbs and host plants in the MSP Seed Collection, Banking and Bulking Plan to enhance and restore habitat for the butterfly. The plan should incorporate best science and management practices (e.g., Wall 2009; KEW 2016) to provide guidelines for collecting and providing a source of seeds for management purposes. The plan should include recommendations for: collecting and storing seeds to provide source material with consideration of potential genetic consequences; for management oriented research; seed bulking; and out-planting to augment extant occurrences or establish new occurrences of Quino checkerspot.
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRP-1 | Consult the San Diego County Rare Plant Working Group made up of plant ecologists, geneticists, rare plant experts, land managers, restoration practitioners, seed banking and bulking practitioners, wildlife agencies, and other stakeholders to provide input and recommendations for the Quino checkerspot section in the MSP Seed Collection, Banking and Bulking Plan. | on hold | |
| PRP-2 | Design a seed collection plan to collect seeds over multiple years, collect seeds several times within a season, accumulate seeds across populations, and to sample among habitats and ecological niches. Include guidelines for collecting and storing seeds along maternal lines from small occurrences (<1,000 plants) and to provide propagules to be used in management experiments, enhancement of existing occurrences, and establishment of new occurrences. | waiting for precedent action | |
| PRP-3 | The seed collection plan should include guidelines for collecting seeds from occurrences of sufficient size to accommodate harvest and based on genetic studies as available. Include provisions for collecting seed from unconserved populations planned for development. | waiting for precedent action | |
| PRP-4 | Include protocols and guidelines for collecting voucher specimens and submitting to the San Diego Natural History Museum (McEachern et al. 2007). | waiting for precedent action | |
| PRP-5 | Include guidelines for testing seeds for viability and to obtain information on dormancy and germination rates. | waiting for precedent action | |
| PRP-6 | Submit project metadata and MSP Seed Collection, Banking and Bulking Plan to the MSP Web Portal. | waiting for precedent action |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| By end 2017, Completed Quino Checkerspot Section in MSP Seed Collection, Banking and Bulking Plan | 2021 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Climate change | CLICHN |
| Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
| Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
| Loss of ecological integrity | ECOINT |
| Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
In 2018, begin implementing the MSP Seed Collection, Banking and Bulking Plan for Quino checkerspot to collect and store seeds to provide propagules as needed for management oriented research, existing population enhancement and establishment of new butterfly occurrences.
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMP-1 | Bulk seed at a qualified facility for butterfly habitat enhancement, expansion, and restoration projects using seed from genetically appropriate donor accessions in the propagation seed bank collection. | waiting for precedent action | |
| IMP-2 | Maintain records for collected seed to document donor and receptor sites, collection dates and amounts. Submit seed collection, storage and bulking data to the MSP Web Portal. | waiting for precedent action |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| By 2021, =1 Highest Priority Action Implemented for Quino checkerspot from the MSP Seed Collection, Banking, and Bulking Plan | 2021 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Climate change | CLICHN |
| Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
| Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
| Loss of ecological integrity | ECOINT |
| Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
In 2017, begin developing an interim 5 year Quino Checkerspot Management Plan that focuses on habitat enhancement and restoration and fire management, and includes the information from the MSP Seed Collection, Banking and Bulking Plan for Quino checkerspot, at known occupied and historically occupied sites. In 2021, update and finalize the management plan with results from the captive rearing and translocation projects and combine with the monitoring plan to create a comprehensive Quino Checkerspot Management and Monitoring Plan.
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRP-1 | Work with the Butterfly Working Group consisting of species experts, scientists, wildlife agencies, land managers and other stakeholders to develop prioritized management actions. | waiting for precedent action | |
| PRP-2 | Include fire risk and climate change modeling results to provide management recommendations in relation to fire and climate refugia and to reduce fire risk at occurrences. | waiting for precedent action | |
| PRP-3 | Submit project metadata and management and monitoring plan to the MSP Web Portal. | waiting for precedent action |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| Quino Checkerspot Management and Monitoring Plan Completed in 2021 | 2021 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Climate change | CLICHN |
| Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
| Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
| Loss of ecological integrity | ECOINT |
| Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
Beginning in 2018, implement highest priority management actions for Quino checkerspot on Conserved Lands.
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMP-1 | Management actions to be determined by the Quino Checkerspot Management Plan. | waiting for precedent action | Quino Habitat Restoration |
| IMP-2 | Submit project metadata and management data to MSP web portal | waiting for precedent action | Quino Habitat Restoration |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| =1 Management actions implemented for Quino checkerspot by 2021 | 2021 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Climate change | CLICHN |
| Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
| Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
| Loss of ecological integrity | ECOINT |
| Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
From 2018 to 2021, monitor the effectiveness of management actions implemented for Quino checkerspot on Conserved Lands
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMP-1 | Submit metadata, monitoring data and reports to MSP web portal | waiting for precedent action |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| Effectiveness Monitoring Completed within 1 Year of Management Actions | 2021 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Climate change | CLICHN |
| Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
| Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
| Loss of ecological integrity | ECOINT |
| Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
From 2017 to 2021, support existing efforts by the wildlife agencies to collect eggs and captive rear larvae to use in reestablishing and augmenting wild Quino checkerspot populations. Use results to finalize the Quino Checkerspot Management and Monitoring Plan.
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMP-1 | Support the Butterfly Working Group consisting of species experts, scientists, wildlife agencies, land managers, San Diego Zoo Global and other stakeholders to implement the captive rearing. | in progress | |
| IMP-2 | Submit project metadata and management data to MSP web portal. | in progress |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| Captive Rearing Implemented and Report Submitted by 2021 | 2021 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Climate change | CLICHN |
| Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
| Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
| Loss of ecological integrity | ECOINT |
| Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
From 2017 to 2021, support existing efforts by the wildlife agenices to translocate captive bred Quino checkerspot larvae to historically occupied habitat.
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMP-1 | Support the Butterfly Working Group consisting of species experts, scientists, wildlife agencies, land managers, San Diego Zoo Global and other stakeholders to implement the translocation project. | in progress | |
| IMP-1 | Support the Butterfly Working Group consisting of species experts, scientists, wildlife agencies, land managers, San Diego Zoo Global and other stakeholders to implement the translocation project. | in progress | |
| IMP-2 | Submit project metadata and management data to MSP web portal. | in progress |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| Translocation Implemented by 2020 | 2021 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Climate change | CLICHN |
| Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
| Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
| Loss of ecological integrity | ECOINT |
| Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
From 2017 to 2021, support efforts by the wildlife agencies to monitor the effectivenss of translocated captive bred Quinoo checkerspot larvae. Use results to finalize the Quino Checkerspot Management and Monitoring Plan.
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMP-1 | Submit project metadata, monitoring data and reportto MSP web portal | in progress |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| Translocation Monitoring Completed and Report Submitted by 2021 | 2021 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Climate change | CLICHN |
| Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
| Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
| Loss of ecological integrity | ECOINT |
| Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
From 2017 to 2021, implement invasive plant control and other post-fire management actions as needed to ensure the recovery of Quino checkerspot at sites occupied within the last 10 years to facilitate habitat recovery, particularly forbs and host plants after wildfire events.
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMP-1 | Implement needed management actions as determined through BAER or other post fire surveys. | available for implementation |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| Post fire management actions implemented following wildfire events | 2021 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
Management units: 3, 4, 6, 9
From 2017 to 2021, for at least the first 3 years following a wildfire, monitor recovery of Quino checkerspot occurrences and habitat affected by fire. Use a standardized postfire protocol to document the butterfly's distribution and abundance over time and to characterize habitat recovery and threats following a wildfire. Postfire monitoring should encompass occupied Quino checkerspot sites and unoccupied sites that are important for enhancing connectivity or for future population expansion. The postfire monitoring should identify and prioritize management actions to assist in recovery of Quino checkerspot populations and important habitat patches.
| Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMP-1 | Prepare and implement a postfire habitat monitoring protocol and sampling design to determine the status of Quino checkerspot occurrences and characterize host plant recovery following wildfire. Use the monitoring results to identify management actions to ensure postfire recovery of high quality habitat as identified in the Quino Checkerspot Management and Monitoring Plan. | On hold | |
| IMP-2 | Submit project metadata, Quino checkerspot postfire survey and habitat monitoring data, annual reports with management recommendations, and a final report documenting project methods and results to the MSP Web Portal. | On hold |
| Criteria | Deadline year |
|---|---|
| At Least 3 Years of Postfire Monitoring of Quino Checkerspot and Habitats with Annual Management Recommendations | 2021 |
| Threat Name | Threat Code |
|---|---|
| Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
| Invasive plants | INVPLA |
|
Proctor Valley Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Barrier
Installation of the original Proctor Valley off-road barrier segments began in the southwest section of the valley in 2009 on City of San Diego, Public Utilities’ property and was partially funded by a Land Management Grant (#5001137). Subsequent project proposals submitted to SANDAG EMP, as well as other funding sources, resulted in additional OHV barrier sections installed on CDFW property (2010-2011; #5001327), followed in 2014, via a submission by Chaparral Lands Conservancy (and partners) for a project intended to complete the barrier along the remaining open space stretches of Proctor Valley Road (LMG #5001971). This last section included privately owned lands and CDFW’s RJER Proctor Valley East unit. The section of barrier fence included in this project was originally planned for installation in 2014, as part of the EMP funded ‘Proctor Valley Vehicle Barriers Project’ (Chaparral Lands Conservancy). However, that project ran out of funds following unexpected steep increases in the price of steel.
Implementation of the CDFW project (#5004941) is consistent with the implementation of the Fire and Wildlife Action Plan (FWA) assigned to golden eagle, Quino checkerspot butterfly and Hermes copper butterfly via the limitation of access to OHV activities, thus reducing wildfire risk (and preventing other impacts) to their habitats. This project will also maintain large (>300 acres) open areas within golden eagle territories to meet foraging habitat conditions preferred by eagles. This project was intended to reduce/prevent wildfires and other impacts from unauthorized activities on conserved lands in Proctor Valley. There is an urgent need to control access and prevent impacts before such pressures lead to increased unauthorized access.With the installation of the new OHV barrier section, CDFW staff can focus limited resources on management actions necessary to prevent unauthorized vehicle intrusion from adjacent private lands, now that direct access from Proctor Valley Road has been eliminated.
|
|
Quino Checkerspot Implementation Plan
Using existing data, prepare an implementation plan for the management and monitoring of Quino checkerspot.
|
|
Quino Habitat Restoration
The County of San Diego proposes to reduce a threat to the Quino checkerspot butterfly by increasing and improving habitat on a County-owned site that had previously supported a hundred or more butterflies. The Quino is threatened by development pressure, invasion by non-native grasslands (NNG) and forbs, and, likely, changes to climate and long-term drought. It is considered an MSP Category SL (species at risk of loss). The County intends to significantly enhance improve Quino habitat conditions and connectivity by: 1) identifying and closing roads/portions of road on the site to vehicular activity; 2) preventing off-road vehicle activity that may be bifurcating and destroying Quino habitat; 3) fencing and signing these areas to be restored; 4) controlling and removing invasive NNG that compete with plantago erecta, the primary Quino habitat and food source seeding areas with primarily native plant species required for Quino survival; 5) documenting site condition improvements as well as any beneficial effect for Quino,
|
|
Quino Herbicide Study
This project was designed to test for any effects of the commercially available taxon-specific herbicides Fusilade II, Transline, and application surfactant on Quino checkerspot butterfly larval development, survival, and pupal weights. The experimental design tested for direct and indirect effects on the proportion of larvae that pupate as well as the weights of the pupa. Part of this project was completed as Task 2 under LAG agreement #P0982020 in place of Triolored blackbird task.
|
|
Regional Grazing Monitoring Plan
This project evaluates using grazing as a management tool for degraded grasslands and coastal sage scrub habitat. Pilot projects will be conducted to look at the efficacy of grazing as management tool and necessary monitoring techniques.
|
|
South San Diego County Grassland Project
The purpose of the project was to to develop landscape-scale, collaborative strategies for managing target grassland species in the South County MSCP. Phase I involved grasslands assessments, target selection, and experimental design while Phase II was the experimental design implementation. Develop BMPs for restoring native grassland and forbland habitat for Otay tarplant and Quino checkerspot. The native grassland habitat restoration experiment compared the effectiveness of seeding full extent vs. Desimone strip seeding method, determined whether recent fall burn impacts success of two seeding approaches, and evaluated whether hand weed control and seeding methods are as effective as mechanized methods. The research goal for forblands was to assess the effectiveness of two mechanized site preparation techniques that limit soil disturbance while reducing weed cover in sites with good access and low native forb cover.The research goal for Quino checkerspot butterfly was to assess the effectiveness of two seeding techniques in establishing Plantago erecta and other QCB forb species on difficult to reach sites and sites with sensitive soil crusts. The research goals for Otay tarplant were to evaluate the effectiveness of establishing OTP populations using hand broadcast seeding or two-way drill seeding and to determine if calcareous soils are limiting the establishment of OTP populations.
|
|
SR 94 Wildlife Infrastructure Plan
Proposed road improvements to SR 94 provide an opportunity to mitigate the potential barrier effects of the highway. This project identifies where improvements to existing infrastructure on SR-94 could improve connectivity across the South County preserves, using Best Management Practices from the scientific literature; recommends wildlife movement monitoring to identify where new crossings are needed; and identifies where additional conservation would enhance the integrity of South County linkages. The review prioritizes infrastructure improvements of 35 existing undercrossings inspected by wildlife experts in the field along 14.6 miles of SR-94 where the highway bisects conserved lands. The majority of the recommendations for infrastructure improvement focus on increasing the diameter, and thus the openness ratio (cross-sectional area divided by length), of the undercrossing itself, removing vegetation and debris blocking the undercrossing, restoring habitat in the approach to the undercrossing, and installing fencing to both (1) keep animals off the highway and (2) funnel wildlife to the undercrossings.
|
Once considered the most widespread and abundant butterfly in southern California [1]. Has declined precipitously since the 1920s and is currently persisting only from several areas in southwestern Riverside County, southern San Diego County, and north-central Baja California [1;2]. In coastal San Diego county, the distribution of the QCB is determined by its primary larval hosts plant, dot-seed plantain [3].
Occurrences found in Cleveland National Forest, McAlmond Canyon, SDGE Sunrise Powerlink Parcels Long Potrero, Bureau of land management, Barrett Reservoir open Space, Anza Borrego Desert State Park, Jacumba Mountain, San Vicente Highlands open Space Preserve, West Sycamore Canyon, Sycamore Canyon and Goodan Ranch Preserves, Canada de San Vicente, Mission Trails Regional Park, Hodges Reservoir Open Space, 4-S Ranch, KYDDLF and RDLFGFT NO 1 LLC, Otay Ranch Preserve, Otay Lakes Cornerstone Lands, Hollenbeck Canyon Wildlife Area, O'Neal Canyon, Johnson Canyon, Lonestar Ridge West, Marron Valley, Rancho Jamul Ecological Reserve, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Lawrence and Barbara Daley Preserve, Marron Valley Mitigation Bank, Otay Mountain Wilderness Area, Otay Corporate Center South, Otay Mountain Ecological Reserve, Rolling Hills Ranch, Wright's Field, South Crest Properties, Odom, Vista Irrigation District, and Razooky Riadh Z.
FE
Habitat preference for "scrublands," described as patchy scrub or small tree landscapes with openings of several meters between large plants or a landscape of open swales alternating with dense patches of shrubs [1]. Have been observed at the bases of hills sunning themselves and flying through disturbed areas to sites possessing larval food plants and/or nectar sources [4]. Appear to be associated with open spaces within several community types from scrub on coastal bluffs, through coastal sage scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, to desert pinyon-juniper woodland [1].
One of more than 20 subspecies of Euphydryas editha [5]. The most southwesterly subspecies [1]. Parapatric with three other subspecies: E. e. editha, E. e. augustina, and E. e. ehrlichii [6], where they are differentiated by temporal or elevational segregation or by larval food plant differences [1]. Genetic analysis and research supports the integrity of the subspecies as a coherent genetic entity within the species. It indicates populations that are geographically closest to each other are also genetically closest to each other [7]. More closely related to E. editha than the other three subspecies [1;8].
Adult single flight season typically occurs from late February into April, with variability dependent on climactic conditions [1;9; both cited from 2]. Early in the season, larvae and adults most likely detected on warm south-facing slopes and, as the flight season progresses, detections mostl likely seen on cool north-facing slopes [4].
Females mate once and lay approximately 20–180 eggs in a single egg mass; Eggs hatch in 7–10 days [1;2;10]. Larvae begin feeding on the host plant immediately and enter diapause (which corresponds with food plant senescence) after two or three molts [2]. Diapause terminates with late fall or winter rains, where larvae begin feeding and eventually enter the pupal stage (or re-enter diapause) [10]. Adults balance their time between searching for mates, feeding on nectar, defending territories, and searching for host plants on which to oviposit [11]. Will only deposit eggs on species they recognize as host plants: Plantago erecta, Plantago patagonica, Anterrhinum coulterianum, and Collinsia concolor [12].
Larvae feed primarily on host plant Plantago erecta, Antirrhinum coulterianum, Castilleja exserta, and Plantago ovata. Prediapuase and postdiapause larvae in a race to develop before host plants senesce. Drought and very wet years can reduce larval survivorship [2]. Adults will nectar on a variety of wildflower species, including (but not limited to): goldfields (Lasthenia spp.) and other members of Asteraceae, popcorn flower (Cryptantha and Plagiobothrys spp.), ground-pink (Linanthus dianthiflorus), chia (Salvia columbariae), wild onion (Allium spp.), goldenstar (Muilla spp.), rancher’s fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) [11;13; both cited from 3].
Dispersal behavior and capabilites remain unknown [2]. Long-distance dispersal in this species is rare. Populations considered demographically isolated when separated by more than 2 miles [1].
Threats include restricted range with loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat with loss of landscape connectivity leading to localized distribution with small populations, which increases vulnerability to prolonged drought, fire events, invasion by nonnative plants, and climate change effects. Also adversely affected by off-road vehicle activity, grazing, enhanced soil nitrogen, and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration [7;12].
[1] Mattoni, R., G. F. Pratt, T. R. Longcore, J. F. Emmel, and J. N. George. 1997. The endangered quino checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha quino(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 34, no.1: 99-118.
[2] Preston K. and M. Allen. 2008. Review of butterfly dispersal capabilities and metapopulation dynamics with reference to Quino Checkerspot populations in Western Riverside County's Multiple Spceies Habitat Conservation Plan. Draft report prepared for Center for Conservation Biology, 23 pgs.
[3] City of Chula Vista. 2012 (May). Otay Ranch Preserve-Northern San Ysidro, McMillin, and Little Cedar Canyon Parcels: 2012 Quino Checkersport Butterfly Presence/Absences Survey Report. Chula Vista, CA. Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc., San Diego, CA.
[4] Weiss, S. B., D. D. Murphy, and R.R. White. 1988. Sun, slope, and butterflies: topographic determinants of habitat quality for Euphydryas editha. Ecology 69, no. 5: 1486-1496.
[5] Miller, L. D. and B. F. Martin. 1981. A catalogue/checklist of the butterflies of America, north of Mexico [USA; Canada].
[6] Baughman, J.F. and D.D. Murphy. In press. Differentiation in a widely distributed polytypic butterfly genus: five new subspecies of California Euphydryas (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Pp. 397–406 in T.C. EMMEL, ed. Systematics of western North American butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida.
[7] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California, USA.
[8] Baughman, J. F., P. F. Brussard, P. R. Ehrlich, and D. D. Murphy. 1990. History, selection, drift, and gene flow: complex differentiation in checkerspot butterflies. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68, no. 9: 1967-1975.
[9] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Quino checkerspot and host plant seasonal phenology data. www.fws.gov/carlsbad
[10] Murphy, D. D., A. E. Launer, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1983. The role of adult feeding in egg production and population dynamics of the checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha. Oecologia 56, no. 2-3: 257-263.
[11] Federal Register. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino); Final Rule. Federal Register 67(72):18355-18395, April 15 2002
[12] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). Portland, Oregon.
[13] Faulkner, D. and Klein. 2008. San Diego’s Sensitive Butterflies: A workshop Focusing on Nine Local Species.