PDF《Davis's Green Pitaya》

green pitaya cactus habitat. 23. Protect occupied suitable habitat presently in private ownership. 3. Initiate and support studies on the population biology and ecology of Davis'

green pitaya cactus. 31. Survey for new populations on other outcrops of the Caballos Novaculite Formation. 32. Determine all mechanisms involved in seed dispersal. 33. Determine what microhabitat factors are involved in seedling establishment ecology. 34. Determine the germination percentage rate of seeds and the taxon'

s overall reproductive potential and actual success in its natural habitat. 35. Determine what insects and/or other invertebrates are involved in the pollination of E. viridiflorus var. davisii. 4. Develop a comprehensive, trade management plan for all cacti. 41. Develop a trade study. 42. Develop a monitoring study to determine the impact of collecting. 43. Determine the feasibility of reducing the collecting pressure on the wild populations by promoting a commercial, artificial propagation program. 44. Establish Fish and Wildlife Service policy on the cactus trade problem. 5. Develop public awareness, appreciation, and support for the preservation of Davis'

green pitaya cactus. Since the current recovery plans for these cactus species lack recovery criteria, the plans should be revised to conform to the standards of the interim endangered and threatened species recovery planning guidance (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007;

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010a). The USFWS received a response to the Agency Draft of the recovery plans, recommending that E. v. davisii and E. minima recovery plans be combined (Fielding, in. litt. 1984). Considering that both species are narrowly endemic to the same unique mineral outcrop, and that they were listed together and share the same threats, this recommendation is appropriate.

6 Recovery Team Neither of these cactus species has a recovery team. Section

7 Consultations Neither of these species has been considered in any formal consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA for actions not initiated by USFWS. A single formal intra-service consultation (no. 2-12-85-F-89) in

1989 determined that a proposed project to protect habitat for E. v. davisii and E. minima in Brewster County was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species, but would promote their conservation. This proposed project, which was never implemented, sought to protect

25 to

50 acres (ac) of habitat on privately owned land through easement or other management agreement. Section 6-funded Gr........