Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Saguaro ... - USGS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

focal point marks” appeared to last for the duration of the sampling period. For each animal we recorded species, sex, age class (adult, subadult, or juvenile), reproductive condition, weight, and measurements for right-hind foot, tail, ear, head, and body. For males we recorded reproductive condition as either scrotal or non-reproductive; for females we recorded reproductive condition as one or more of the following: non-reproducing, open pubis, closed pubis, enlarged nipples, small or non-present nipples, lactating, post-lactating, or non-lactating. Spatial Sampling Design The majority of our trapping effort in 2001 was at focal-point transects set throughout the district (Fig. 6.3; see Chapter 1). We trapped at a subset of nine random transects that were surveyed for other taxonomic groups (two, four, and three transects in the low-, medium-, and high-elevation strata, respectively). We visited 1000 m Figure 6.1. Layout of small-mammal trapping grids along focal-point transects, Saguaro National Park, 2001. See Fig. 6.2 for more details. Figure 6.2. Detailed layout of small-mammal trapping grids at Saguaro National Park, 2001 and 2002. We used 3x7 trap grids in 50x100 m plots (A) from mid‑April through mid‑June and 5x5 trap grids in 50x50 m plots (B) from mid‑June through October. 70 seven of these transects twice in 2001; repeat visits were two to four months apart (Appendix I). In 2002 we trapped only at non-random sites in areas that we believed would have high species richness: two sites along Rincon Creek and one site each at Juniper Basin and Douglas Springs (Fig. 6.4). We did not revisit non-random sites. Along each focal-point transect we established three grids (Fig. 6.1) with either a 3x7 or a 5x5 trap configuration (Fig. 6.2). Traps set in a 3x7 arrangement had 16.7 m spacing among traps and traps in a 5x5 arrangement had 12.5 m spacing among traps. Occasionally we also placed traps “preferentially,” meaning that we set traps in locations that the field crews felt contained areas with high species richness rather than in grids. Typically these “preferential” sites were near the random grids; the crew set out 5 to 70 additional traps after setting up the random grids (Figs. 6.3, 6.4). At non-random sites the layout of traps was variable, but typically 50 m 50 m
Figure 6.3. Locations of random (focal-point transect) small-mammal trapping sites, pitfall traps for shrews, and bat-trapping stations, Saguaro National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 and 2002. was in a 5x5 or a 2x10 configuration. The 2x10 configuration was usually along both edges of a wash because we believed that these areas would host more animals. Temporal Sampling Design The total number of nights that we trapped each grid was variable, but was typically two or three nights per visit (see Appendix I). Occasionally we trapped for as many as four nights or as few as one night. Because our goal was to maximize the number of individuals and species trapped, we varied the number of nights trapped based on the trapping results in the first few nights of trapping; if we were catching few animals, we moved to a different location. We always trapped at multiple plots on the same night to maximize efficiency. At focal points we always trapped all the grids 71 along the transect on the same nights and typically trapped other, nearby non-random areas. In some non-random areas (e.g., Douglas Spring) we trapped on multiple grids. In this report we summarize results by “plot group” which is the collection of trapping grids that represent an area. Effort We trapped for 4,589 trap-nights (Table 6.1). We had the most trapping effort in the middleelevation stratum (2,195 trap nights), less in the high-elevation stratum (1,390 trap nights), and the least in the low-elevation stratum (1,004 trap nights). In non-random areas, the percentage of the total number of trap nights was 36%, 50%, and 37% for the low-, middle-, and high-elevation strata, respectively (Table 6.1).
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 and 14:
Report Dedication Eric Wells Albrec
Page 15 and 16:
Acknowledgements Thanks to Saguaro
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 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 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: Chapter 6: Mammal Inventory Don E.
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 138 and 139:
120 Family Scientific name Common n
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
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:
Page 154 and 155:
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
show all

Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Saguaro ... - USGS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?