Biology 20C - Fall 1998
ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Lecture 23: California Condor
CALIFORNIA CONDOR - Gymnogyps californianus
Evolutionary History: (ya = years ago)
2 Mya |
About 7 species ranging all over North America |
|
100 Kya |
2 species: Florida - Mexico - British Columbia |
|
10 Kya |
1 species: mainly west of Rocky Mts: NW Mexico - British Columbia |
|
500 ya |
Abundant southwest deserts, Baja California, coastal CA, OR, WA, BC |
|
100 ya |
Scarce and restricted to AZ, UT, CA, southern OR, northern Baja |
|
50 ya |
Rare in coastal ranges from Monterey to San Diego |
Census History:
Date |
Total |
Wild |
Captive |
||
1940s |
+\- 100 |
+\- 100 |
|||
1960 |
50-60 |
50-60 |
|||
1980 |
25-30 |
25-30 |
|||
(1982) |
Egg and chick capture begins |
||||
1982 |
24-27 |
21-24 |
3 |
||
1984 |
15 |
||||
1985 |
9 |
||||
|
Six dead of lead poisoning |
||||
(1987) |
Last adults captured |
||||
1987 |
27 |
0 |
27 |
||
(1988) |
First captive breeding |
||||
1988 |
0 |
||||
1989 |
0 |
||||
1990 |
40 |
0 |
40 |
||
1991 |
52 |
0 |
52 |
||
(1992) |
First successful release |
||||
1992 |
65 |
7 |
56 |
||
1993 |
75 |
9 |
66 |
||
1994 |
88 |
3 |
85 |
||
1995 |
103 |
13 |
90 |
||
1996 |
120 |
28 |
92 |
||
1997 |
133 |
33 |
100 |
||
30 Oct |
1998 |
150 |
46 |
104 |
|
3 wild populations: 2 Arizona; 1 California |
|||||
3 zoo populations: San Diego, Los Angeles, Boise ID |
Condor - Biological notes:
Life History Characteristics:
Physiology |
|
Homeostatic |
Body size |
|
Large (12.5 kg) |
|
|
|
Survival |
Egg |
Poor |
|
Nestling |
Poor |
|
Fledgling |
High |
|
Adult |
High |
|
|
|
Survivorship |
Egg-nestling |
Type III |
|
Fledgling-adult |
Type I - II |
|
Longevity |
> 40 years |
|
|
|
Fecundity |
First reproduction |
> 7 years |
|
Last reproduction |
> 40 years ? |
|
Fecundity curve |
Iteroparous, discrete, synchronized |
|
Clutch size |
Small: 1 egg per 2 years (1 female egg per 4 years) |
|
Egg size |
Large (280-300 g) |
|
|
|
Parental care |
Pair bonding |
Strong - but will re-pair if one dies |
|
Egg /nestling |
Little; by one adult; abandon if disturbed |
|
Fledgling/juvenile |
Intensive; both parents aggressively defend chick |
|
Duration |
18 -24 months |
|
|
|
Sociality |
|
Well developed, interactive groups |
Causes of Decline (long-term):
Causes of Decline (since European contact):
Discussion of Condor Life History:
1. Complex sets of LHC, with close juxtaposition of extreme "r-selected" and extreme "K-selected" traits simultaneously, sequentially, or alternating at different time in the life cycle.
2. Such combinations cannot be explained by r- and K-selection models
3. A rarely stated assumption of r- and K-selection models is that natural selection shapes LHC during times of positive or zero population growth under favorable conditions. either when the population is growing rapidly at r, or when it is maintaining its maximum density at K.
4. This assumption cannot be true for the California Condor, which has probably experienced negative growth for much of the last 2 Ma, and has certainly experienced increasing population declines over the last 10Ka. Within the last 500 y, rates of decline have accelerated.
5. One plausible explanation of the Condor's LHC is that they have evolved primarily during negative population growth in response to natural selection by unfavorable conditions, and that such selection has increased in intensity as the population approaches extinction.
6. Natural selection favors traits of the individuals who leave relatively more descendants in future generations. This remains true even in declining populations where, on average, individuals do not even replace themselves (< 1 descendent in next generation).
7. In declining populations, an individual leaves more genes in a population through an extended lifespan that keeps its own genes in the population and provide repeated opportunities for reproduction (that are more likely to fail than succeed), than it will if it maximizes reproductive output during a short life-time. Repeated reproductive attempts increase the probability that at least one will be under sufficiently "favorable" conditions that the progeny reaches maturity
8. Viewing the condor's life history as evolutionary responses that slow the rate of population decline and delay extinction eliminate many apparent contradictions:
Captive Breeding vs. Habitat Protection:
The california condor almost went extinct because legal and philosophical battles between advocates of two very different approaches to conservation of endangered species prevented establishment of the captive breeding program for many years, until only 27 birds remained alive. It was feared they could not live and breed in captivity. But after capturing it was discovered:
California Condor WWW Sites:
http://www.cerf.net/lazoo/ctime.html |
|
|
L.A. Zoo; general biology |
|
|
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wmd/condor.html |
|
|
CA Dept Fish & Game; general description |
|
|
http://www.amnh.org/Exhibition/Expedition/Endangered/condor/condor.html |
|
|
Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. NY; general notes |
|
|
http://www.cerf.net/lazoo/ctime.html |
|
|
L.A. Zoo; timeline for condor decline and recovery |
|
|
http://www.cerf.net/lazoo/cstats.htm |
|
|
L.A. Zoo; Current condor census data |
|
|
http://www.perigrinefund.org/vermil.html |
|
|
Perigrine Fund; condors in Grand Canyon area (detailed notes since 5 November 1996) |
|
|
http://www.perigrinefund.org/CACondor.html |
|
|
Perigrine Fund; condor restoration program |
|
|
http://www.perigrinefund.org/map.html |
|
|
Perigrine Fund; map of Arizona release sites |
|
|
http://www.fws.gov/r9extaff/biologues/bio_cond.html |
|
|
US Fish & Wildlife Service; notes on captive breeding & release program |