|
Scientific Name | Leucadendron galpinii E.Phillips & Hutch. |
Higher Classification | Dicotyledons |
Family | PROTEACEAE |
Common Names | Hairless Conebush (e) |
National Status |
Status and Criteria | Endangered A2ce |
Assessment Date | 2020/07/16 |
Assessor(s) | A.G. Rebelo, H. Mtshali, A.L. Schutte-Vlok, I. Ebrahim & D. Raimondo |
Justification | Leucadendron galpinii is a range-restricted species with an extent of occurrence (EOO) of 2723 km², occurring in habitats that are targeted for destructive thatch harvesting. The majority of the remaining subpopulations are fragmented and continue to decline due to ongoing habitat loss and degradation. Land cover data indicate that 21% of its habitat is transformed, but it underestimates areas that are severely degraded as a result of invasive alien plant infestations, and management practices such as brush cutting aimed at encouraging dense restio growth for thatch harvesting. It is suspected that a population reduction of at least 50% has taken place over the past three generations (60 years). Recent field surveys have noted a decline in the number and size of subpopulations. This species therefore qualifies for listing as Endangered under criterion A. |
Distribution |
Endemism | South African endemic |
Provincial distribution | Western Cape |
Range | It has a restricted distribution in coastal areas of the Western Cape Province of South Africa, where it occurs from De Hoop to Mossel Bay. |
Habitat and Ecology |
Major system | Terrestrial |
Major habitats | Canca Limestone Fynbos, De Hoop Limestone Fynbos, Albertinia Sand Fynbos, Agulhas Sand Fynbos, Swellendam Silcrete Fynbos, Hartenbos Dune Thicket |
Description | It occurs in low-lying areas between limestone hills on deeper, neutral soils. Mature individuals are killed by fires, and only seeds survive. Wind-dispersed seeds are stored in fire-resistant inflorescences, and released after fires. It is dioecious, with insect-pollinated male and female flowers occurring on separate plants. |
Threats |
| About 21% of this species' habitat is already transformed, predominantly for crop cultivation. However, a much larger proportion is likely to be severely degraded due to vegetation management practices to promote the growth of thatching reed, and which are particularly detrimental to tall reseeders which are removed from the vegetation. The degree of habitat that has been lost is difficult to quantify using spatial land cover mapping, an urgent survey of the degree of land transformation for thatching is needed. In addition, remaining fragments of natural vegetation are infested with alien invasive plants (acacias and australian myrtle) and are often heavily overgrazed due to overstocking. It also threatened by too frequent fires and increased molerat activity associated with disturbance. |
Population |
This species was likely once common in bottom-land sandly habitats throughout its 130 km range, as survey records show that this species occurs commonly along road verges. However, the majority of subpopulations surveyed do not extend beyond the road verges into the vegetation on farms, either because the vegetation has been ploughed up or else bush cut to encourage thatching reed. Some 36% of records are from road verge situations. Although the transformed habitat layer records only 21% habitat transformation within its range, this layer under-represents loss. A further 30-40% of its habitat has likely been lost over the past 60 years as a result of vegetation modification to promote restios for thatch harvesting and due to dense infestation of invasive alien plants. Protea Atlas data collected between 1991-2001 indicates that 78% of sites were invaded (primarily by acacias), with 31% of sites having alien densitities that were abundant to impenetrable. With dwindling resources to manage the spread of invasive species the proportion of this species habitat that is densely invaded has likely increased significantly. Overall a population decline of over 50% is suspected to have taken place over the past three generations (60 years).
|
Population trend | Decreasing |
Conservation |
| Two subpopulations are conserved, one within the De Hoop Nature Reserve and another at Reins Nature Reserve. Surveys are urgently needed to determine the extent of the impact of thatch harvesting on the habitat of this species. |
Assessment History |
Taxon assessed |
Status and Criteria |
Citation/Red List version | | Leucadendron galpinii E.Phillips & Hutch. | VU A4c | Raimondo et al. (2009) | | Leucadendron galpinii E.Phillips & Hutch. | Vulnerable | Hilton-Taylor (1996) | | Leucadendron galpinii E.Phillips & Hutch. | Rare | Hall et al. (1980) | |
Bibliography |
Goldblatt, P. and Manning, J.C. 2000. Cape Plants: A conspectus of the Cape Flora of South Africa. Strelitzia 9. National Botanical Institute, Cape Town.
Hall, A.V., De Winter, M., De Winter, B. and Van Oosterhout, S.A.M. 1980. Threatened plants of southern Africa. South African National Scienctific Programmes Report 45. CSIR, Pretoria.
Hilton-Taylor, C. 1996. Red data list of southern African plants. Strelitzia 4. South African National Botanical Institute, Pretoria.
Manning, J. 2002. South Africa's jewels of the desert: a reappraisal of the genus Daubenya (Hyacinthaceae). Herbertia 56:61-66.
Raimondo, D., von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C., Kamundi, D.A. and Manyama, P.A. 2009. Red List of South African Plants. Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Rebelo, T. 2001. Sasol Proteas: A field guide to the proteas of southern Africa. (2nd ed.). Fernwood Press, Vlaeberg, Cape Town.
|
Citation |
| Rebelo, A.G., Mtshali, H., Schutte-Vlok, A.L., Ebrahim, I. & Raimondo, D. 2020. Leucadendron galpinii E.Phillips & Hutch. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version . Accessed on 2025/04/30 |
Comment on this assessment
