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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

calculated percent netting success (PNS) for comparisons among sites. We calculated PNS as the number of animals caught divided by effort (total length of net coverage multiplied by amount of time nets were open multiplied by 100). We do not attempt to present percent netting success as a measure of relative abundance because netting bats is somewhat a function of chance; many more individuals and species can be present in an area than are caught. Large and Medium Mammals Saguaro National Park initiated a medium and large mammal inventory in 1999, prior to the initiation of the UA inventory effort. In addition to support from the NPS, this inventory effort has been funded by several small grants to the park, and reports have been generated for each of these projects (Aslan 2000, Wolf and Swann 2002, Swann et al. 2003a, Swann 2003). This report combines data presented in these previous reports with new data not previously reported. Spatial Sampling Design We used infrared-triggered cameras to detect medium and large mammals at a combination of random and non-random sites from January 1999 to June 2005 (Figs. 6.5, 6.6). We located nonrandom sites (Fig. 6.5) primarily at known water sources and animal trails. We chose the location of these sites to be in areas that we believed would have the highest species richness. The location of random sites was primarily based on the random coordinates chosen as focal points for the plant and animal inventories (see Chapter 1), though many of these focal points were not surveyed for the other taxonomic groups. To avoid interference with other inventory activities at sites where there was other inventory work and to maintain consistency among all focal points, we offset all camera locations from the focal point by using the same coordinates but with the NAD 27 map datum instead of NAD 83; this moved the focal points approximately 200 m from the original location. We also generated additional random camera locations to increase sampling in some areas that were not represented by focal points, particularly at high elevations and on the east slope of the Rincon Mountains. When 74 possible, we placed three camera units at each location focal point using the following criteria (Fig. 6.7): (1) within 50 m of the random point (2) at a random drainage point nearby (selected either randomly within a 1-km area; Aslan 2000) or at a random point located at the nearest measured point in a mapped drainage (Wolf and Swann 2002, Swann et al. 2003a), and (3) at a non-random point chosen by the field technician, usually located between 80 and 500 m from the random point. Temporal design We generally returned to each camera one week after initial setup to check that it was functioning properly and to make repairs and change film, if necessary. We then left the camera in place for approximately two weeks, though the length of time varied, especially in remote areas that required long days of hiking to reach the camera. Field methods We primarily used the Trailmaster camera system at focal points. The system (model 1500, Goodson and Associates, Inc., Lenaxa, KS; Kucera and Barrett 1993) consists of a transmitter that emits an infrared beam, a receiver that detects the beam, and a camera that is connected to the receiver with a cable (Fig. 6.8). The receiver triggers the camera to take a picture when an animal breaks the beam. At all nonrandom sites, and occasionally at focal points, we also used the DeerCam (model DC-100, Nontypical, Inc., Park Falls, WI) and the Trailmaster 500 and 1550 models. Because they have identical functions, we do not further differentiate equipment we used. We baited each focal-point camera using a fish-based canned catfood and a commercial trapping lure that attracted predators. Generally, we baited with catfood the first week, then the trapping lure the second week, but for high- elevation surveys in 1999 we randomly selected only one bait and used it for two weeks. We occasionally baited non-random sites. For visitor safety reasons, we did not locate baited stations within 200 m of a trail.
Figure 6.5. Locations of non-random infrared-triggered cameras, Saguaro National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2000-2005. Effort We placed cameras at 74 non-random and 40 random sites throughout the district (Appendix K; Figs. 6.5, 6.6). At focal points we had 24 points with three cameras, 13 points with two cameras, and three points with one camera (Appendix K; see Spatial Sampling Design section above for more information). Considering both types of camera locations (random and non-random), we placed most cameras in the low-elevation stratum (54%; Table 6.2). Twenty eight percent of the cameras were in the middle-elevation stratum, and 18% were in the high-elevation stratum. The total number of camera nights at all sites 75 was 3,895 and the percent of camera nights, by elevation stratum, was higher in the low-elevation stratum and lower in the other strata: 69%, 18%, and 13% in the low-, middle-, and high-elevation strata, respectively (Table 6.2). Analysis We analyzed all photos and identified the animal(s) present. We excluded from analysis all non-mammals (birds, reptiles, and blank pictures), unknowns that could not be identified to genus, humans, horses with riders, and nocturnal rodents (mostly woodrats). A few species pairs (black-tailed and antelope jackrabbits, hooded and striped skunks, and
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 and 88: Chapter 6: Mammal Inventory Don E.
Page 89 and 90: Figure 6.3. Locations of random (fo
Page 91: calculated relative abundance by pl
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 142 and 143:
124 Family Scientific name Common n
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?