Ontologia

Nolina interrata

Gentry

VULR Monde (IUCN)
Pays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome

Pas d'interactions documentées pour cette espèce.

Liste rouge IUCN

VU · Vulnérablecritères B1ab(iii,v)+2ab(iii,v)?Inconnue
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2025 · v3.1
Altitude
200700 m
Profondeur
m
État de la populationExpert
This is a very rare species, restricted to only 10 known, extant subpopulations. Three of these are situated in Mexico, near Ensenada, La Mission and a more recently discovered site close to the USA border. Each of these subpopulations are very small and are estimated to have fewer than 25 plants. The Mexican population is therefore not thought to consist of more than 75 individuals (CITES 2007).

In the USA, this species is known from seven extant subpopulations, all falling within a small area of around 15.6 km2 in the foothills of San Diego County. Here, the total population was estimated in 1995 to be around 9,000 individuals (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). However, this is a dioecious species whose main reproductive mechanism is asexual and therefore the number of plants which have originated from seed is unknown and likely to be considerably lower (CITES 2007). For example, a population of 2,000 rosettes was observed flowering in 1985 and 1986 following a wildfire in 1984, though no seeds were produced as all flowers were female. Electrophoretic studies indicated that 50+ distinct clusters of rosettes were genetically identical at 15 loci, suggesting that what appeared to be a subpopulation of over 50 individuals may actually have been a large clone of a single female plant (Bauder 1993). However, for the purposes of this assessment in terms of considering the number of mature individuals, it is assumed here that all clones are capable of asexual reproduction and are therefore here considered as mature individuals. 

Three of the USA subpopulations are considered to be large (>1,000 individuals) and these are situated at Sycuan Peak Ecological Preserve (over 1,000 individuals), McGinty Mountain Ecological Reserve (3,900 to 4,570 individuals) and Dehesa Mountain South Crest Preserve (1,680 individuals). The most recent survey of these subpopulations was carried out in 2014. The remainder of the subpopulations are considered to be small (<1,000 individuals) with 52 individuals at one site and over 120 individuals at a second site. This latter subpopulation is located only 0.3 miles away from the larger subpopulation in the reserve and the two may functionally exist as a single subpopulation (Conservation Biology Institute 2015). During the 2014 survey, only five of the seven known extant Californian subpopulations were successfully surveyed as the remaining two subpopulations are situated on private land and were not accessible at the time. However, they appeared to be small and previous surveys in 1980 and 1977 gave estimates of 5 to 10 individuals and 50 individuals for these sites (Conservation Biology Institute 2015). A further two subpopulations were also surveyed based on existing records or information which indicated their presence. Neither subpopulation could be located during the survey, indicating that they have either been extirpated or were mistaken observations of the morphologically similar chaparral yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei). Development and habitat loss around the site may have been a factor in the possible loss of this species (Conservation Biology Institute 2015).

The current population trend of this species is unknown, but it is likely to be vulnerable to declines due to stochastic events such as wildfires, which are projected to cause a future continuing decline. The likelihood of threats other than fire impacting this species should be partly mitigated by current legislation and conservation actions in place for it. Though two-thirds of the USA population is being conserved on protected land, these subpopulations are still vulnerable to severe fires which are likely to cause declines. For example, the 2003 Cedar Fire resulted in a population reduction from 4,647 individuals in 2002 to 1,680 individuals in 2014, representing a reduction of almost 64% within this subpopulation (Conservation Biology Institute 2015). The subsequent invasion of its habitat by non-native species may prevent the full re-establishment of this species post-fire. However, there is potential for it to potentially re-populate historically occupied areas if a natural fire regime can be restored. Though more precise estimates of population size are needed from the two subpopulations on private lands and also from Sycuan Peak Ecological Reserve, the overall population size of this species is estimated to be between 9,000 and 10,000 mature individuals as a maximum.

Menaces identifiées(8 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 1_1
    Housing & urban areas
    Rapid DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 5_2_1
    Intentional use (species is the target)
    UnknownUnknownUnknown
  • 6_1
    Recreational activities
    UnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 8_1_1
    Unspecified species
    UnknownUnknownOngoing
  • 8_1_2
    Named species
    UnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 4_1
    Roads & railroads
    Slow, Significant DeclinesMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 7_1_1
    Increase in fire frequency/intensity
    Slow, Significant DeclinesMajority (50-90%)Ongoing
  • 7_1_2
    Supression in fire frequency/intensity
    Slow, Significant DeclinesWhole (>90%)Ongoing
Description complète des menacesExpert
Several direct threats to this species have been identified. One of the most significant of these comes from human interventions in the natural fire regime, which threatens the long-term viability of this species through the active suppression of fires in the region. In the absence of regular fires, high fuel loads of woody plant material build up, resulting in more intense, hot, and slow burning fires when one eventually occurs (CITES 2007). For example, in 2003, approximately 15 to 20% of the subpopulation located in the Dehesa Mountain South Crest Preserve was lost to the Cedar Fire disaster which burnt most of the preserve (Conservation Biology Institute 2015). Further, though this species is dependent on periodic fires to induce mass flowering, the unnaturally severe fires that take place as a result of a high fuel load build up may result in the death of the plant or have an adverse instead of advantageous impact on its reproductive success. A lack of mass flowering events due to the loss of the natural fire regime may eventually result in a loss of genetic diversity, as only asexual reproduction will be taking place. Sexual reproduction requires mass flowering events to take place in adjacent subpopulations and therefore those subpopulations which are particularly isolated may suffer from a decline in genetic diversity over time. Further, unbalanced sex ratios in some subpopulations will also have significant implications for recruitment and their long term viability (Bauder 1993). 

Urbanization, habitat loss and habitat fragmentation may be impacting some subpopulations. One subpopulation in Mexico located near a major road was reported in 1998 to be seriously threatened by plans to widen the road. It is currently unclear if this road construction did take place and if so, how it impacted the subpopulation here (CITES 2007). Otherwise, two-thirds of subpopulations in the USA are conserved within protected areas and therefore protected from habitat loss. However, the two known subpopulations which occur on private lands are challenging to access and study and could potentially be impacted by residential development. It should be noted, though, that these subpopulations are considerably smaller and likely to be much less significant than the larger subpopulations found on conserved lands. 

A third identified threat to this species comes from habitat invasion from non-native plants, particularly Purple False-broom (Brachypodium distachyon) which invades the clay and gabboric soils in the grasslands in which this species grows. In the Dehesa Mountains South Crest Preserve, this species invades grasslands following fires and may out-compete and replace this species following die-off. Other threats include the impact of recreational activities, the creation of roads and trails through the preserve and grazing by deer and feral pigs (Conservation Biology Institute 2015). 

Though there is no evidence of the wild collections of plants and seeds, this is still considered a potential threat to this species due to its rarity. 

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 3_5Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
This species is listed under the California Endangered Species Act which protects the species from collection and sale, though collection of this species is not known to be a current threat. It is also listed as Endangered in California under the Native Plant Protection Act. It was also proposed for listing as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 1995, but the proposal was withdrawn due to the management plans put in place for the species which should significantly reduce the threats to the known subpopulations. It is also listed in CITES Appendix II. Additionally, there are 13 ex situ collections of this species held by botanic gardens worldwide (BGCI 2022).

In the USA, two-thirds of all subpopulations (representing 90-100% of the largest and most significant subpopulations) are located on protected lands and are managed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the Nature Conservancy. The habitat in these areas is considered to be stable and the protections in place should greatly reduce further loss of habitat. For those subpopulations situated on private lands, this species is protected under the San Diego County's Biological Mitigation Ordinance that requires that any encroachment into occupied habitat should be limited to 20% of the population on sites where the impacts to plants cannot be avoided.

Periodic monitoring of the Californian subpopulations is carried out, but monitoring of the subpopulations situated on private lands as well as the Mexican subpopulations is needed to give a comprehensive view of the current status of this species. A management plan is also in place for this species (Conservation Biology Institute 2015).
Actions de conservation (4)Expert
  • 1_1Site/area protection
  • 1_2Resource & habitat protection
  • 2_2Invasive/problematic species control
  • 2_3Habitat & natural process restoration
Stress écologiques (32)Expert
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_3Indirect ecosystem effects
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_6Skewed sex ratios
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
  • 2_3_7Reduced reproductive success
Priorités de recherche (4)Expert
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 1_3Life history & ecology
  • 3_1Population trends
  • 3_4Habitat trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Nearctic

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial

Formes de croissance

Forb or HerbSucculent - form unknown
Références bibliographiques (8)Expert
  1. IUCN. 2025. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2025-2. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 10 October 2025).
  2. NatureServe. 2024. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: <a href="https://explorer.natureserve.org/Search">https://explorer.natureserve.org/Search</a>.
  3. BGCI. 2022. Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) - PlantSearch. Available at: <a href="https://tools.bgci.org/plant_search.php">https://tools.bgci.org/plant_search.php</a>. (Accessed: 2022).
  4. Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., Burgess, N.D., Wikramanayake, E., Hahn, N., Palminteri, S., Hedao, P., Noss, R., Hansen, M., Locke, H., Ellis, E.C., Jones, B., Barber, C.V., Hayes, R., Kormos, C., Martin, V., Crist, E., Sechrest, W., Price, L., Baillie, J.E.M., Weeden, D., Suckling, K., Davis, C., Sizer, N., Moore, R., Thau, D., Birch, T., Potapov, P., Turubanova, S., Tyukavina, A., Souza, N., Pintea, L., Brito, J.C., Llewellyn, O.A., Miller, A.G., Patzelt, A., Ghazanfar, S.A., Timberlake, J., Klöser, H., Shennan-Farpón, Y., Kindt, R., Lillesø, J.-P.B., Breugel, P., Graudal, L., Voge, M., Al-Shammari, K.F. and Saleem, M. 2017. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. <i>BioScience</i> bix014.
  5. Conservation Biology Institute. 2015. Conservation Vision and Management Strategy Dehesa Nolina (<i>Nolina interrata</i>) San Diego County, California. Prepared for San Diego Association of Governments Environmental Mitigation Program Grant 5001763.
  6. CITES. 2007. CoP14 Prop. 23 <i>Nolina interrata</i>. Consideration of proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II. Fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The Hague (Netherlands).
  7. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. ETWP; Proposed Endangered and Threatened Status for Four Chaparral Plants From Southwestern California and Northwestern Baja California Mexico.
  8. Bauder, E.T. 1993. <i>Genetic Diversity: Esoteric or Essential? Interface between ecology and land development in California</i>. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (3)Expert
assessor
Barker, A.
evaluator
Eberly, A. & Bittman, R.
institutions
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Barker, A. 2025. Nolina interrata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2025: e.T214335948A214336013. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Répartition mondiale

Aucune observation géoréférencée avec précision suffisante (<10 km) dans GBIF pour cette espèce.

Consulter sur les bases externes

Observations & statuts

Bibliographie