Introductory
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Gymnogyps californianus | California Condor 



ABBREVIATION : 
GYCA

COMMON NAMES : 
   California condor
   condor


TAXONOMY : 
The currently accepted scientific name of the California condor is
Gymnogyps californianus (Shaw).  It is in the family Cathartidae.  There
are no recognized subspecies or races [1].


ORDER : 
Falconiformes

CLASS : 
Bird

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : 
Endangered

OTHER STATUS : 
California condors are listed as endangered by the state of California [39].


COMPILED BY AND DATE : 
Julie L. Tesky, July 1994


LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : 
NO-ENTRY


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : 
Tesky, Julie L. 1994. Gymnogyps californianus. In: Remainder of Citation

WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Gymnogyps californianus | California Condor 




GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : 
Former range - California condors once ranged over much of western North
America, from British Columbia to northern Baja California and east to
Florida.  California condors nested in western Texas, Arizona, and New
Mexico until about 2,000 years ago.  Populations persisted in the
Pacific Coast region, especially in the Columbia Gorge area, until the
1800's, and in northern Baja California until the early 1930's [27].
Until 1985, when the last wild California condor was taken into
captivity, they were found in the Coastal Ranges of California from
Monterey and San Benito counties south to Ventura County, ranging, at
least occasionally, north to Santa Clara and San Mateo counties and east
to the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada and the Tehachapi Mountains.
Breeding sites were confined to the Los Padres National Forest in Santa
Barbara, Ventura, and extreme northern Los Angeles counties [3].

Current range - Currently all California condors that have been
reintroduced into the wild from the captive breeding program are located
in Santa Barbara County on the Los Padres National Forest [37]
and in and around Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.


ECOSYSTEMS : 
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES42 Annual grasslands


STATES : 


    
AZ
    
CA
    




BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 
    3  Southern Pacific Border


KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : 
   K005  Mixed conifer forest
   K030  California oakwoods
   K033  Chaparral
   K035  Coastal sagebrush
   K048  California steppe


SAF COVER TYPES : 
   243  Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
   245  Pacific ponderosa pine
   249  Canyon live oak
   250  Blue oak - foothills pine
   255  California coast live oak


SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 
NO-ENTRY


PLANT COMMUNITIES : 
Most nest sites known to be active since 1979 have been in a narrow belt
of chaparral and coniferous forests.  Two nests were located in giant
sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) trees in mixed-conifer stands in the
Sierra Nevada [15,27].  Typical foraging sites are in grasslands or
oak savannah [27].

The principal plant species in nesting areas include several types of
ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.), live oaks (Quercus spp.), chamise
(Adenostoma fasciculatum), silktassel (Garrya spp.), and poison-oak
(Toxicodendron diversilobum).  Interspersed with the brush are small
groves of bigcone Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa) and small
openings dominated by annual grasses [34].

In the recent past, California condor foraging areas in the Coast
Ranges, the Tehachapi Mountains, and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada
included vast areas of open grassland dominated by introduced annual
grasses, particularly wild oats (Avena fatua) and cheatgrass (Bromus
tectorum) [34,40].  Some stretches were almost treeless; others had
scatterings of oaks and southern California walnut (Juglans californica)
[34].  Nonbreeding California condors also occupied mixed conifer stands
in the higher portions of the Transverse Ranges.  In the Sierra Nevada,
sites above 6,000 feet (1,800 m) were used for summer roosting [34].


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Gymnogyps californianus | California Condor 



TIMING OF MAJOR LIFE HISTORY EVENTS : 
Age at sexual maturity - California condors do not breed until they are
at least 6 years old and often not until they are 8 years old [27].

Breeding season - California condor pairs begin mating and selecting
nesting sites in December, although many pairs wait until late spring
[13,27].  The egg is laid between January and early April and is
incubated by both parents [27].  The time required to complete a single
nesting cycle may be more than 12 months, so some pairs nest every other
year [19,27].  This pattern varies, however, depending on the abundance
of food and the time of year that the nestling fledges [13].

Clutch size and incubation - California condors lay only one egg [27].
The egg is incubated for 56 to 58 days [13,19,27].  California condor
will sometimes lay a second egg to replace an egg that is lost or broken
[13,27].

Fledging - California condors fledge at about 5 or 6 months of age but
do not become fully independent until they are at least 1 year old.  The
parents sometimes continue to feed the chick even after it has begun its
own flights to foraging areas [13].

Longevity - The average life span of California condors is 15.5 years
[30].  However, they may live to be 30 to 45 years old [27].  A captive
California condor at the National Zoological Park in Washington D. C.
lived for 45 years [14].


PREFERRED HABITAT : 
California condors inhabit rugged canyons, gorges, and forested
mountains mainly between 985 and 8,860 feet (300-2,700 m) and nest
primarily between 2,000 and 4,500 feet (610-1,372 m) [3].

Nesting habitat - Nesting sites are characterized by extremely steep,
rugged terrain, with dense brush surrounding high sandstone cliffs [34].
Nests are often located in caves, crevices, potholes, and on ledges
located on rock escarpments.  Occasionally, they occur in natural
cavities in the upper portions of large, living giant sequoia [13,19].
Contrary to previous assumptions, Snyder and others [25] found that
California condors modify their nest site by constructing substrates of
coarse gravel on which to rest the egg.

The main physical requirements for a condor nesting site are:  location
in sheltered site, suitable roosting perches nearby, fairly easy
approach from the air, space enough to hold two full-grown California
condors, level area where walls are about 2 feet (0.6 m) apart, and
perches nearby for the young bird when it leaves the nest [10].  Most
nest caves face either northeast or southwest [30].  California condors
do not defend a large nesting territory.  Active nests have been located
within 1 mile (1.6 km) of one another [34].

California condor pairs generally change nest sites in successive
reproductive attempts.  Nevertheless, the majority of nest sites have
been used repeatedly, and California condors rarely appear to pioneer
use of new sites [25].

Roosting areas - California condors require roost sites throughout their
range for resting and for protection during periods of inclement weather
[14].  They often have traditional roosting sites located near important
foraging grounds and breeding areas [27].  Roosts located in breeding
areas are often on cliffs or trees, especially snags or bigcone
Douglas-fir.  Roosts in the vicinity of foraging areas are usually found
on tall, open-branched trees rather than on cliffs [20].  California
condors commonly perch until mid-morning and return to the roost site in
the late afternoon after foraging [13].  However, it is not uncommon for
a California condor to stay perched throughout the day [27].

Foraging habitat - California condors require fairly open terrain for
foraging because they need a long runway for easy takeoff and approach
and so they can locate prey [27].  Atmospheric conditions suitable for
soaring generally limit California condor foraging activity to warmer
periods of the day [30].  Most foraging habitat is at lower elevations
than breeding habitat, although there is considerable overlap.  Although
most known breeding sites are 20 miles (30 km) or more from principal
foraging grounds, the birds cover such distances quickly [20].  Flights
between foraging and breeding areas characteristically follow major
ridgelines or proceed from one mountaintop to another.  California
condors formerly foraged along coastal shorelines and rivers, apparently
using more varied habitats than they do presently.  Current foraging
areas are almost entirely on private land used principally for ranching
[19].

Water requirements - California condors regularly drink from and bathe
in freshwater pools.  Suitable pools must provide easy access and
takeoff, and be situated within a convenient distance of foraging areas
[10].

Winter habitat - Winter habitat for California condors is the same as
the habitat used throughout the rest of the year [20].


COVER REQUIREMENTS : 
California condor nest sites are located in areas that provide
protection from storms, wind, and direct sun [34].  California condors
prefer to forage on ridges and in open areas with short vegetation so
they can easily locate prey and to ensure easy takeoff and approach
[13,30].  Carcasses under brush are hard for California condors to see.
They apparently cannot locate food by odor [27].


FOOD HABITS : 
California condors do not kill their own prey.  They feed on the
carcasses of a variety of animals.  Ninety-five percent of their food is
derived from domestic cattle, sheep, horses, and from ground squirrels
(Spermophilus spp.) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus).  They show a
preference for deer and calves [10].  They also eat a variety of small
mammals including jackrabbits (Lepus spp.) and cottontails (Sylvilagus
spp.)  [20].  Small mammal bones are an important source of calcium for
California condors.  Normally, the calcium necessary for egg production
comes from the bones of small animal carcasses [36].

Domestic cattle carcasses are a primary food source for California
condors and have become increasingly important as other prey species
have declined throughout the California condor's range [13,27,22].  In
the absence of supplemental feeding, changes in ranch management
practices which reduce or eliminate carcasses on open rangeland may
reduce the survival of the released California condor population [22].


PREDATORS : 
California condors have no known natural enemies besides humans [27].
However, potential predators include black bears (Ursus americanus),
coyotes (Canis latrans), and ravens (Corvus spp.) [25].


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
California condor populations have declined sharply since the early
1900's.  The estimated population between 1966 and 1971 was 50 to 60
birds.  The population dropped to nine after some six to eight birds
died during the winter of 1984-1985, including members of four of the
remaining breeding pairs.  As a result of this loss the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of California Department of Fish
and Game, the Los Angeles Zoo, and the Zoological Society of San Diego
agreed that the remaining population should be placed in captivity until
better protection could be afforded to wild birds.  The last wild
California condor was captured on April 19, 1987 [26].

Many factors have contributed to the decline in California condor
numbers since the turn of the century.  These include:  (1) direct
mortality through shooting, capture, egg collecting, and poisoning; (2)
impairment of reproduction through pesticides, disturbance, and food
scarcity; and (3) declining habitat caused by urbanization, agricultural
development, changed ranching practices, and fire control [16].

Contaminants such as lead, organochlorides, organophosphates,
predacides, and rodenticides present a continual hazard to California
condor populations [21,22].  California condors ingest any poisons
present in the carcasses they feed upon.  Even if concentrations of
poisons are not fatal to adults, they may kill chicks and immature birds
[13].

California condor reaction to human disturbance varies with the duration
and intensity of the disturbance and whether condors are nesting,
roosting, or foraging [27].  Human disturbance normally will not cause
California condors to abandon their nests, but it may discourage them
from nesting in otherwise suitable habitat and may cause nest failure
due to frequent long absences.  Nests are often found closer to lightly
used roads and intermittently used foot trails than to regularly
travelled routes or oil well operations [27].  Roosting California
condors are readily disturbed by either noise or movement.  Disturbance
late in the day may prevent roosting in that area that night.
Occasional major disturbances do not cause California condors to abandon
regularly used roosts, and they may adapt to general low-level
disturbances.  California condors usually feed in relatively isolated
areas and usually leave if approached within 1,000 feet (300 m).  They
seldom feed on animals killed on highways or in areas of regular
disturbance [34].

Habitat loss continues to pose a major long-term problem for California
condors.  Conversion of rangelands to agriculture, home sites, gas and
oil developments, and other urban and industrial uses results in less
available suitable habitat [22].

The future of the California condor now depends on the success of the
captive breeding program and reintroduction of birds into the wild
[22,32].  The current recovery plan calls for the reestablishment of two
geographically distinct, self-sustaining wild populations, each
numbering 100 individuals [26,27].  As of summer, 1994, there were four
1-year-old captive-bred California condors living in the wild in the Los
Padres National Forest [37].

Possible future release sites include northern California, the Grand
Canyon, and Baja California [2,23].  According to Rea [23] the most
promising area for restoration of captive-bred California condors
appears to be the Grand Canyon.  This prime habitat contains extensive
rugged terrain with open areas and strong updrafts.  The inner gorge of
the canyon has relatively limited human disturbance [23].


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

FIRE EFFECTS AND USE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Gymnogyps californianus | California Condor 



DIRECT FIRE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS : 
Fire may directly reduce California condor reproductive success if
chicks or eggs are lost due to burning, smoke inhalation, or stress.
For these reasons, fall burning near nest sites could have adverse
effects on newly hatched California condors [17].  Fire suppression
activities could cause impacts such as nest abandonment, egg breakage by
a disturbed adult, or increased disturbance from road construction and
brush elimination [27].


HABITAT RELATED FIRE EFFECTS : 
Fire may enhance California condor habitat by creating snags for future
roost sites and improving foraging habitat.  California condors occur in
or have recently occupied the following five major fire-dependent plant
associations in the western United States:  grasslands, chaparral,
ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and
giant sequoia [12].  In all of these communities, fire exclusion reduces
openings and increases shrub or tree cover.  Fire exclusion also allows
fuels to accumulate which increases the potential for large, severe
fires.  Large, severe fires may destroy roost trees [4].
 
Periodic fire is instrumental in maintaining a relatively open
grass-shrub structure in chaparral communities [4], which enhances
California condor access to carcasses.  Additionally, fire may improve
habitat for small mammals, which are essential in California condor
diets.  Many small mammals decline when ground cover is not periodically
reduced by fire, so California condors must feed on the carcasses of
larger animals.  Since they cannot swallow the larger bones, they may
not be able to obtain sufficient calcium in their diets [5].  Occasional
fire in chaparral can maintain a mixture of edge and grasslands,
improving habitat for small mammals several fold [36].  Fire has
contributed to the maintenance of some grasslands by reducing woody
vegetation, while the exclusion of fire has resulted in encroachment of
trees and shrubs in those ecosystems [12].  Additionally, fire is an
important factor in maintaining the openness of oak savannahs [38].


FIRE USE : 
Prescribed burning may be used to improve condor foraging habitat and
reduce the chance of large, severe fires [27].  Burning should be
deferred until nesting is completed in areas where impact to breeding
California condors may occur [4].


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

REFERENCES
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Gymnogyps californianus | California Condor 



REFERENCES : 

 .  American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North American birds.
       6th ed. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, Inc. 877 p.  [21234]

 .  Cohn, Jeffrey P. 1993. The flight of the California condor. Bioscience.
       43(4): 206-209.  [21066]

 .  DeGraaf, Richard M.; Scott, Virgil E.; Hamre, R. H.; [and others]. 1991.
       Forest and rangeland birds of the United States: Natural history and
       habitat use. Agric. Handb. 688. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
       Agriculture, Forest Service. 625 p.  [15856]

 .  Dodd, Norris L. 1988. Fire management and southwestern raptors. In:
       Gliski, R. L.; Pendleton, Beth Giron; Moss, Mary Beth; [and others],
       eds. Proceedings of the southwest raptor symposium and workshop; 1986
       May 21-24; Tucson, AZ. NWF Scientific and Technology Series No. 11.
       Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation: 341-347.  [22648]

 .  Eastman, John. 1976. Lure of the burn. National Wildlife. 14(5): 10-11. 
       [15745]

 .  Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
       Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.  [905]

 .  Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
       1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
       ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
       Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p.  [998]

 .  Goodloe, Robin B. 1984. Recent advances in the California condor
       research and recovery program. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin.
       9(12): 8-10.  [23111]

 .  Greeley, Maureen L. 1988. Molloko: helping condors soar into the next
       century. Zoonooz. 61(7): 12-14.  [23109]

.  Koford, Carl B. 1953. The California condor. Nation Audubon Society
       Research Report 4. New York: Dover Publishing. 154 p. [Reprinted 1966]. 
       [23117]

.  Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
       of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
       American Geographical Society. 77 p.  [1384]

.  Lehman, Robert N.; Allendorf, John W. 1989. The effects of fire, fire
       exclusion and fire management on raptor habitats in the western United
       States. In: Proceedings of the western raptor management symposium and
       workshop; 1987 October 26-28; Boise, ID. Scientific and Technical Series
       No. 12. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation: 236-244.  [22324]

.  Lowe, David W.; Matthews, John R.; Moseley, C. J., eds. 1990. The
       official World Wildlife Fund guide to endangered species of North
       America. Washington, DC: Beacham Publishing, Inc. 3 vol.  [23096]

.  Mallete, R. D. 1970. Special wildlife investigation: operation
       management plan for the California condor. Project No. CAL W-054-R-02.
       Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 60 p.  [23118]

.  Meretsky, Vicky J.; Snyder, Noel F. R. 1992. Range use and movements of
       California condors. Condor. 94(2): 313-335.  [23098]

.  National Audubon Society, Advisory Panel on the California condor. 1978.
       The california condor. Audubon Conservation Report No. 6. Washington,
       DC: National Audubon Society. 27 p. [Ricklefs, R. E., ed.].  [23103]

.  Nichols, R.; Menke, J. 1984. Effects of chaparral shrubland fire on
       terrestrial wildlife. In: DeVries, Johannes J., ed. Shrublands in
       California: literature review and research needed for management.
       Contribution No. 191. Davis, CA: University of California, Water
       Resources Center: 74-97.  [5706]

.  Ogden, John C. 1983. The California condor recovery program: an
       overview. Bird Conservation. 1: 87-102.  [23101]

.  Ogden, John. 1985. The California condor. In: Audubon wildlife report:
       388-399.  [23110]

.  Palmer, Ralph S., editor. 1988. Handbook of North American birds. Volume
       5. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 463 p.  [22303]

.  Pattee, Oliver H.; Bloom, Peter H.; Scott, J. Michael; Smith, Milton R.
       1990. Lead hazards within the range of the California condor. Condor.
       92(4): 931-937.  [23114]

.  Pattee, Oliver H.; Wilbur, Sanford R. 1989. Turkey vulture and
       California condor. In: Proceedings of the western raptor management
       symposium and workshop; 1987 October 26-28; Boise, ID. Scientific and
       Technical Series No. 12. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation:
       61-65.  [23097]

.  Rea, Amadeo M. 1981. California condor captive breeding: a recovery
       proposal. Environment Southwest. 492: 8-12.  [23113]

.  Snyder, Noel F. R. 1986. California condor recovery program. Raptor
       Research Reports. 5: 56-71.  [23099]

.  Snyder, Noel F. R.; Ramey, Rob R.; Sibley, Fred C. 1986. Nest-site
       biology of the California condor. Condor. 88(2): 228-241.  [23100]

.  Toone, William D.; Risser, Arthur C., Jr. 1988. Captive management of
       the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus). International Zoo
       Yearbook. 27: 50-58.  [23102]

.  U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, California
       Condor Recovery Team. 1984. California condor recovery plan. [Revised].
       Portland, OR: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
       Service. 110 p. [+ appendices].  [23095]

.  Ronco, Frank. 1970. Engelmann spruce seed dispersal and seedling
       establishment in clearcut forest openings in Colorado--a progress
       report. Res. Note RM-168. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
       Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
       Station. 7 p.  [16496]

.  U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992.
       Landmark legislation. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin. 17(12):
       2-3.  [21323]

.  Verner, Jared. 1978. California condors: status of the recovery effort.
       Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-28. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
       Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
       30 p.  [20666]

.  Verner, Jared; Boss, Allan S., tech. coords. 1980. California wildlife
       and their habitats: western Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-37.
       Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
       Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 439 p.  [10237]

.  Wallace, Michael. 1991. Methods and strategies for the release of
       California condors to the wild. In: AAZPA [American Association of
       Zoological Parks and Aquariums], annual conference proceedings: 121-128.
       On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
       Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 
       [23112]

.  Wiemeyer, Stanley N.; Scott, J. Michael; Anderson, Marilyn P.; [and
       others]. 1988. Environmental contaminants in California condors. Journal
       of Wildlife Management. 52(2): 238-247.  [23115]

.  Wilbur, Sanford R. 1978. The California condor, 1966-76: a look at its
       past and future. North American Fauna No. 72. Washington, DC: U.S.
       Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 56 p.  [23094]

.  Wilcove, David S.; May, Robert M. 1986. The fate of the California
       condor. Nature. 319(6048): 16.  [23116]

.  Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States
       and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p.  [2620]

.  Mefta, R. 1994 [pers. comm.]

.  Griffin, James R. 1977. Oak woodland. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Malor,
       Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley
       and Sons: 383-415.  [7217]

.  California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. State and federal
       endangered and threatened animals of California. Sacramento, CA:
       California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Protection Division and
       Wildlife Management Division. 13 p.  [18827]

.  Heady, Harold F. 1977. Valley grassland. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major,
       Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley
       and Sons: 491-514.  [7215]

Related categories for Wildlife Species: Gymnogyps californianus | California Condor