xii
Acknowledgements Thanks to Saguaro National Park Superintendent Sarah Craighead, Chief <strong>of</strong> Science and Resource Management Meg Weesner, and biologists Natasha Kline and Don Swann for providing leadership and administrative support for this project. Other park staff who assisted our project included Matt Daniels, Mark Holden, Bob Lineback, Todd Nelson, Kathy Schon, Mike Ward, and Jim Williams. This project was funded by the National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring program (I&M) and resulted from the collaboration <strong>of</strong> many people at the <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Arizona</strong> (UA), NPS, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Administration <strong>of</strong> the project was facilitated by the Desert Southwest and Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESUs). The Southern <strong>Arizona</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> the NPS assisted with the development <strong>of</strong> the original study plan that led directly to initiation <strong>of</strong> this project. Additional support (monetary and inkind) for infrared-triggered photography was provided by the Western National Parks Association, Friends <strong>of</strong> Saguaro National Park, and the UA Undergraduate Biology Internship Program. Andy Hubbard at the Sonoran Desert Network I&M program has been a great advocate <strong>of</strong> our program. He also provided funds for Don Swann to work on this report. Kathy Davis, Superintendent <strong>of</strong> Tuzigoot and Montezuma Castle national monuments played an instrumental role in this project by providing important early initiative. Larry Norris at the Desert Southwest CESU has provided strong support for our program and spent considerable time and effort providing clear and timely administrative assistance. Matt Goode, Don Swann, and Dale Turner provided much <strong>of</strong> the early planning for this project; we are indebted to their vision and work. Eric Albrecht, to whom this report is dedicated, was an outstanding spokesperson and leader <strong>of</strong> the program; he was an invaluable member <strong>of</strong> the team and his contributions are sorely missed. We thank a core group <strong>of</strong> dedicated field biologists who collected a wealth <strong>of</strong> data at Saguaro National Park: Greta Anderson, Theresa DeKoker, Sky Jacobs, Shawn Lowery, Meg Quinn, Rene Tanner, Dale Turner, and Emily Willard (plants); Dan Bell, Kevin Bonine, James Borgmeyer, Matt Goode, Dave Prival, and Mike Wall (amphibians and reptiles); Eric Albrecht, Gavin Beiber, Aaron Flesch, Chris Kirkpatrick, and Gabe Martinez (birds); Clare Austin, Eric Albrecht, Mike Chehoski, Ryan Gann, Michael Olker, Neil Perry, Jason Schmidt, Ronnie Sidner, Mike Sotak, Albi von Dach, Michael Ward, and Sandy Wolf (mammals). We are appreciative <strong>of</strong> the following people, many <strong>of</strong> whom never ventured into the field, but whose work in the <strong>of</strong>fice made the field effort successful: Debbie Angell, Jennifer Brodsky, Chuck Conrad, Louise Conrad, Brian Cornelius, Taylor Edwards, Carianne Funicelli, Marina Hernandez, Colleen McClain, Heather McClaren, Lindsay Norpel, Ryan Reese, Jill Rubio, Brent Sigafus, Taffy Sterpka, Jenny Treiber, Zuleika Valdez, Alesha Williams, and Erin Zylstra. Pam Anning, Kristen Beaupre, and Matthew Daniels assisted with database design. Pam Anning also provided the maps for this report. Additional administrative support was provided by Valery Catt, Jenny Ferry, Andy Honaman, Terri Rice, and especially Cecily Westphal <strong>of</strong> the School <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources at the UA. Special thanks to Pam Anning, Lisa Carder, and Kathleen Docherty for their years <strong>of</strong> hard work on all aspects <strong>of</strong> the project. Technical support was graciously provided by the following experts: Dan Austin, Michael Chamberland, Phil Jenkins, and Charlotte and John Reeder at the UA Herbarium; Tom Huels <strong>of</strong> the UA ornithology collection; George Bradley <strong>of</strong> the UA herpetology collection; and Yar Petryszyn and Melanie Bucci <strong>of</strong> the UA mammal collection. Thanks to Sharon Megdal and Peter Wierenga, the current and former directors, respectively, <strong>of</strong> the UA Water Resources Research Center, and all their staff. Thanks to Mau-Crimmins et al. (2005) and Sprouse et al. (2002) for use <strong>of</strong> their background information on the park and Aaron Flesch (Flesch 2001) for use <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> his discussion in the mammal chapter. We received helpful reviews <strong>of</strong> earlier versions <strong>of</strong> this report from Danielle Foster, Natasha Kline, Jeff Lovich, Theressa Mau- Crimmins, Larry Norris, Cecil Schwalbe, Don Swann, and Meg Wessner. xiii
- Page 1: Powell, Halvorson, Schmidt Vascular
- Page 4 and 5: U.S. Department of the Interior DIR
- Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Report Dedication
- Page 9 and 10: Table 5.8. Number of breeding behav
- Page 11 and 12: Figure 6.5. Locations of non-random
- Page 13: Report Dedication Eric Wells Albrec
- Page 17 and 18: Executive Summary This report summa
- Page 19 and 20: Chapter 1: Introduction to the Inve
- Page 21 and 22: them out. This information, in conj
- Page 23 and 24: communities and is especially usefu
- Page 25 and 26: Chapter 2: Park Overview Brian F. P
- Page 27 and 28: Figure 2.2. Aerial photograph showi
- Page 29 and 30: Figure 2.4. Diagram of the major ve
- Page 31: Non-native Species and Changes to V
- Page 34 and 35: General Botanizing Methods We colle
- Page 36 and 37: Figure 3.3. Locations of modified-W
- Page 38 and 39: Focal-points: General Patterns We f
- Page 40 and 41: Percent 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Plant
- Page 42 and 43: well (Swantek et al. 1999). The mos
- Page 45 and 46: Chapter 4: Amphibian and Reptile In
- Page 47 and 48: Figure 4.2. Locations of intensive
- Page 49 and 50: features. We based extensive survey
- Page 51 and 52: B). Reptilian species included two
- Page 53 and 54: Table 4.6. Relative abundance (mean
- Page 55 and 56: Table 4.8. Relative abundance (mean
- Page 57 and 58: Cumulative number of species 50 40
- Page 59 and 60: elevation range of the district all
- Page 61: in recent years due to sedimentatio
- Page 64 and 65:
Spatial Sampling Designs We establi
- Page 66 and 67:
Figure 5.2. Location of section bre
- Page 68 and 69:
the relative abundance by repeat-vi
- Page 70 and 71:
Analysis We report relative abundan
- Page 72 and 73:
with some pine trees, mostly pinyon
- Page 74 and 75:
Riparian Sonoran Desertscrub Oak Pi
- Page 76 and 77:
Table 5.5. Mean relative abundance
- Page 78 and 79:
Table 5.6. Relative abundance (mean
- Page 80 and 81:
Nest Adults carrying objects Other
- Page 82 and 83:
Cumulative number of species Cumula
- Page 84 and 85:
can impact other native plant and v
- Page 87 and 88:
Chapter 6: Mammal Inventory Don E.
- Page 89 and 90:
Figure 6.3. Locations of random (fo
- Page 91 and 92:
calculated relative abundance by pl
- Page 93 and 94:
Figure 6.5. Locations of non-random
- Page 95 and 96:
(2) Receiver triggers camera to tak
- Page 97 and 98:
Excluding the results for the white
- Page 99 and 100:
Table 6.5. Number of photographs of
- Page 101 and 102:
Cumulative number of species Cumula
- Page 103 and 104:
point out that the pond at Manning
- Page 105 and 106:
There is some suggestion that popul
- Page 107 and 108:
Chapter 7: Literature Cited Albrech
- Page 109 and 110:
Davis, R., and C. Dunford. 1987. An
- Page 111 and 112:
Kirkpatrick, C., C. J. Conway, and
- Page 113 and 114:
Rice, J., B. W. Anderson, and R. D.
- Page 115:
orderlands. Pp. 15-16. In effects o
- Page 118 and 119:
100 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 120 and 121:
102 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 122 and 123:
104 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 124 and 125:
106 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 126 and 127:
108 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 128 and 129:
110 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 130 and 131:
112 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 132 and 133:
114 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 134 and 135:
116 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 136 and 137:
118 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 138 and 139:
120 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 140 and 141:
122 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 142 and 143:
124 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 144 and 145:
126 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 146 and 147:
128 Family Scientific name Common n
- Page 148 and 149:
130 Order Voucher Specimen (S), Fam
- Page 150 and 151:
132 UA survey type Survey or specie
- Page 152 and 153:
134 UA survey type Survey or specie
- Page 154 and 155:
136 UA survey type Survey or specie
- Page 156 and 157:
138 Survey type Documentation type
- Page 158 and 159:
Voucher Collection type Taxon Speci
- Page 160 and 161:
Appendix F. List of existing vouche
- Page 162 and 163:
Taxon Common name Collectiona Colle
- Page 164 and 165:
Appendix G. Mean frequency of detec
- Page 166 and 167:
Species Total transects observed Lo
- Page 168 and 169:
Oak Savannah Pine-oak Woodland Coni
- Page 170 and 171:
Appendix I. Details of small-mammal
- Page 172 and 173:
Random or Camera Number of Number o
- Page 174:
156