Mecca Aster
Xylorhiza cognata
USFWS: No official
status
CDFG: No official status
Background
Distribution, Abundance and
Trends. Mecca Aster is endemic to the Indio Hills and the
Mecca Hills. It typically occurs in these fluvial mud hills in
washes and along the lower slopes. It is known to occur from
Macomber Palms and Biskra Palms on the Coachella Valley Preserve
east along the base of the Indio Hills. The easternmost location
in the Indio Hills is in the vicinity of Curtis Palms, east of
the Granite Construction facility. In the Mecca Hills, it occurs
in Painted Canyon, in Box Canyon along Hwy 195, and in Hidden
Spring Canyon. Most of the known occurrences are along roads or
well-traveled hiking routes; it is likely that the species has a
scattered distribution throughout the Mecca Hills (Stewart
1991). Information on population size and density is not
available. The following table summarized the number of plants
observed at 17 occurrences reported by the California Natural
Diversity Data Base (CDFG 1997).
TABLE 2.23 SUMMARY OF
OBSERVATIONS OF MECCA ASTER1
|
LOCATION
|
NUMBER
OF PLANTS
|
|
PRE-1976
|
1976
|
1984
|
1985
|
1986
|
1995-1997
|
| INDIO HILLS
- MACOMBER PALMS |
|
|
660
|
|
|
|
| INDIO HILLS
- BISKRA PALMS: several sites from 3.2 mi. to just SE of
Biskra Palms |
|
|
200/
7/
250
|
7
3.2 mi. SE
|
|
|
| MECCA HILLS
- PAINTED CANYON |
Collected
in '38
|
25
1 mi. up
|
|
|
|
|
| MECCA HILLS
- HIDDEN SPRING: from 1mi. SE to 2.8 mi. SSE of Hidden
Spring |
COllected
in '27, '30, '32, '46
|
|
|
|
<10/
<10/
50
|
|
| MECCA HILLS
- 1.4 mi. S of SHEEP HOLE OASIS |
|
|
|
|
50-100
|
|
| MECCA HILLS
- SOUTH OF SHAVERS WELL: from |
Collected
in '36
|
|
|
520/
2.5 mi. SW
49
1.1 mi. S
|
100-1000+
4.2 mi.SW
|
|
| MECCA HILLS
- THERMAL MINE AREA 1 mi. S of Thermal Canyon |
|
|
|
|
|
17/
1341
|
| 1
Numbers of plants given are as reported to the Natural
Diversity Data Base by various observers including J.
Stewart, T. Bennett, A. Sanders, M.D. Clary, W. Follett,
R. Ferris, and by Lilburn Corp (1995). In some areas
(e.g. Hidden Spring area) more than one occurrence is
reported, with numbers of plants separated by a slash. |
Jon Stewart, a botanist
familiar with the species, has suggested that it may be
associated with two intergraded geologic formations found in
these hills, the Palm Springs formation and the Canebrake
formation (Stewart 1991). These formations are similar in age
and are both fluvial deposits; the Palm Springs formation is
composed of sandstones and clays while the Canebrake formation
includes granitic conglomerates of larger materials. Stewart
noted a strong correlation between the known occurrences of this
species and the Palm Springs and Canebrake geologic formations.
It should be noted that these two formations are not restricted
to the Coachella Valley.
It may be that the observation
of this species in proximity to major roads has given the false
impression that the plants are very common. While the species
may be numerous in places, its limited geographic distribution
and restricted soil preferences suggest that it is only very
locally common.
Threats and Limiting Factors.
Threats to this species include cumulative habitat loss and
degradation of the existing habitat from off road vehicle
activity, illegal dumping, sand and gravel mining (J. Dice pers.
comm.) and edge effects. Off-road vehicle activity that formerly
threatened populations in the Mecca Hills has been eliminated
with the designation of this area as wilderness. Off-road
vehicle activity in the Indio Hills may threaten several
populations and may increase as other areas become unavailable
through development or protection. For example plants in the
vicinity of Macomber Palms occur in a wash where they are
vulnerable to off-road vehicles. Isolation of the two
significant populations in the Indio Hills and Mecca Hills may
reduce genetic diversity.
Special Considerations.
This species is thought to be associated with soils of the Palm
Springs and Canebrake formations, which are limited in
distribution within the Plan area. However, current maps of
these formations do not exactly correspond with the distribution
of this plant (see model parameter summaries.
|