DOCSLIB.ORG

Management Alternatives for Natural Communities and Imperiled Butterflies at Horsetooth Mountain Park, Larimer County, Colorado

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Management Alternatives for Natural Communities and Imperiled Butterflies at Horsetooth Mountain Park, Larimer County, Colorado Management Alternatives for Natural Communities and Imperiled Butterflies at Horsetooth Mountain Park, Larimer County, Colorado Steve Kettler & Phyllis Pineda Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University College of Natural Resources 254 General Services Building Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523 March, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..........................................................................................................................III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ IV RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... IV INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1 GOALS..............................................................................................................................................................1 NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND IMPERILED BUTTERFLIES PRESENT IN HORSETOOTH MOUNTAIN PARK ......................................................................................................................................2 BUTTERFLY DIVERSITY OF THE COLORADO FRONT RANGE .............................................................................2 MAJOR PLANT COMMUNITIES PRESENT IN HORSETOOTH MOUNTAIN PARK ....................................................3 STRESSES TO THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND IMPERILED BUTTERFLIES IN HORSETOOTH MOUNTAIN PARK.........................................................................................................7 ALTERED ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES..................................................................................................................7 Natural Fire Regimes .................................................................................................................................7 Natural Grazing Regimes ...........................................................................................................................8 INVASION OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES .................................................................................................................9 HABITAT LOSS, EDGE EFFECTS AND FRAGMENTATION..................................................................................12 EFFECTS OF ROADS AND TRAILS ....................................................................................................................13 MANAGING FOR NATURAL ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE DIVERSITY .....................................14 MANAGEMENT TO RESTORE PLANT COMMUNITIES AND IMPERILED BUTTERFLY SPECIES ......................................................................................................................................................16 PRESCRIBED BURNING....................................................................................................................................18 GRAZING ........................................................................................................................................................19 APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES.........................................................................................................................20 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL (INSECTS)...................................................................................................................21 MOWING OR PHYSICAL REMOVAL .................................................................................................................21 PRIORITY MANAGEMENT AREAS......................................................................................................22 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS....................................................................................................................24 PRESCRIBED BURNING AND/OR GRAZING.......................................................................................................24 USE OF HERBICIDES OR PHYSICAL REMOVAL OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES ...........................................................25 THINNING OF PONDEROSA PINE WITHIN GRASSLAND AND SHRUBLAND HABITATS..........................................25 REDUCTION OF SOCIAL TRAILS .......................................................................................................................26 GENERAL .......................................................................................................................................................26 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED..........................................................................................27 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................35 APPENDIX A - BIODIVERSITY AND THE COLORADO NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM.....................................36 Colorado’s Natural Heritage Program ....................................................................................................36 The Natural Heritage Network and Biodiversity ......................................................................................37 What is Biological Diversity?...................................................................................................................37 The Natural Heritage Ranking System .....................................................................................................38 APPENDIX B - SITE PROFILE...........................................................................................................................41 APPENDIX C - INVERTEBRATE CHARACTERIZATION ABSTRACTS ..................................................................47 APPENDIX D - SPECIFIC CONTROL METHODS FOR NON-NATIVE SPECIES ......................................................62 APPENDIX E - COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION ABSTRACTS ......................................................................67 i TABLES TABLE 1. IMPERILED BUTTERFLY AND SKIPPER SPECIES OCCURRING IN HORSETOOTH MOUNTAIN PARK .....3 TABLE 2. POTENTIALLY PROBLEMATIC NON-NATIVE SPECIES PRESENT AT HORSETOOTH MOUNTAIN PARK OR ADJACENT AREAS ...........................................................................................................................10 TABLE 3. IMPERILED BUTTERFLIES KNOWN TO OCCUR WITHIN HORSETOOTH MOUNTAIN PARK AND PLANTS NEEDED FOR SOME PART OF THEIR LIFE CYCLE .....................................................................................16 TABLE 4. DEFINITION OF COLORADO NATURAL HERITAGE IMPERILMENT RANKS .......................................40 FIGURES FIGURE 1. GRASSLAND, SHRUBLAND, AND FOREST HABITATS AT HORSETOOTH MOUNTAIN PARK. ...............5 FIGURE 2. VEGETATION MAP OF HORSETOOTH MOUNTAIN PARK...................................................................6 FIGURE 3. MEADOW DOMINATED BY SMOOTH BROME IN UPPER SPRING CANYON. .......................................11 FIGURE 4. HOPS – A HOST PLANT FOR AN IMPERILED BUTTERFLY AT HORSETOOTH MOUNTAIN PARK. ........17 FIGURE 5. PRIORITY MANAGEMENT AREAS..................................................................................................23 ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would especially like to thank Daryl Burkhard (Larimer County Parks and Open Lands) for her assistance with this project, especially with input on the implementation steps, and for her continued support of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. We would also like to thank the following individuals for their valuable input and support during this project: K-Lynn Cameron and Ken Woods (Larimer County Parks and Open Lands); John Fusaro and Harvey Sprock (Natural Resources Conservation Service); Drs. Paul Opler, Boris Kondratieff, Rick Knight, and Rick Laven (Colorado State University); Andy Warren (Cornell University); Ann Armstrong, Steve Armstead, Matt Clausen, and Brad Skowronski (City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks); Cindy Owsley and Laura Deiter (Boulder County Parks and Open Space). iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Larimer County Parks and Open Lands is currently in the process of revising the management plan for Horsetooth Mountain Park. As part of that management plan, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) was contracted to identify potential management strategies for improving the health of the shrubland and grassland plant communities, and for protecting imperiled butterflies which are known to be closely associated with these communities. This was done by identifying the goals for these plant communities and species, evaluating pertinent ecological information, identifying stresses to these natural resources, and identifying strategies to address these stresses. Obviously, management decisions will need to be made by Larimer County in the context of multiple use as well as financial, social, and practical constraints. By identifying a wide variety of possible management practices the feasibility of implementing these practices can be addressed by the land managers. Implementation of some management strategies may require changes in funding, public education, or partnerships with other agencies or individuals. Recommendations • Use prescribed burning and grazing to reduce the abundance of non-native species (concentrating on cheatgrass and Canada bluegrass) in the grassland and shrublands. • Use application of herbicides or physical removal to reduce the abundance of non- native species
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BULLETIN of the ALLYN MUSEUM 3621 Bayshore Rd
    BULLETIN OF THE ALLYN MUSEUM 3621 Bayshore Rd. Sarasota, Florida 33580 Published By The Florida State Museum University of Florida Gainesville. Florida 32611 Number 107 30 December 1986 A REVIEW OF THE SATYRINE GENUS NEOMINOIS, WITH DESCRIPriONS OF THREE NEW SUBSPECIES George T. Austin Nevada State Museum and Historical Society 700 Twin Lakes Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 In recent years, revisions of several genera of satyrine butterflies have been undertaken (e. g., Miller 1972, 1974, 1976, 19781. To this, I wish to add a revision of the genus Neominois. Neominois Scudder TYPE SPECIES: Satyrus ridingsii W. H. Edwards by original designation (Scudder 1875b, p. 2411 Satyrus W. H. Edwards (1865, p. 2011, Rea.kirt (1866, p. 1451, W. H. Edwards (1872, p. 251, Strecker (1873, p. 291, W. H. Edwards (1874b, p. 261, W. H. Edwards (1874c, p. 5421, Mead (1875, p. 7741, W. H. Edwards (1875, p. 7931, Scudder (1875a, p. 871, Strecker (1878a, p. 1291, Strecker (1878b, p. 1561, Brown (1964, p. 3551 Chionobas W. H. Edwards (1870, p. 1921, W. H. Edwards (1872, p. 271, Elwes and Edwards (1893, p. 4591, W. H. Edwards (1874b, p. 281, Brown (1964, p. 3571 Hipparchia Kirby (1871, p. 891, W. H. Edwards (1877, p. 351, Kirby (1877, p. 7051, Brooklyn Ent. Soc. (1881, p. 31, W. H. Edwards (1884, p. [7)l, Maynard (1891, p. 1151, Cockerell (1893, p. 3541, Elwes and Edwards (1893, p. 4591, Hanham (1900, p. 3661 Neominois Scudder (1875b, p. 2411, Strecker (1876, p. 1181, Scudder (1878, p. 2541, Elwes and Edwards (1893, p. 4591, W.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Critical Biological Resources of Pueblo County, Colorado
    Survey of Critical Biological Resources of Pueblo County, Colorado Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 254 General Services Building 8002 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-8002 Survey of Critical Biological Resources of Pueblo County, Colorado Prepared for: Pueblo County Planning Department Pueblo, Colorado Prepared by: Susan Spackman Panjabi, Botanist John Sovell, Zoologist Georgia Doyle, Wetland Ecologist Denise Culver, Ecologist Lee Grunau, Conservation Planner May 2003 Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 254 General Services Building 8002 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-8002 USER’S GUIDE The Survey of Critical Biological Resources of Pueblo County was conducted one year after the Survey of Critical Wetland and Riparian Areas in El Paso and Pueblo Counties. The projects, both conducted by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, are two distinct projects that are highly integrated with respect to methodology and fieldwork. Both projects utilized the same Natural Heritage methodology that is used throughout the globe, and both searched for and assessed the plants, animals, and plant communities on the Colorado Natural Heritage Program’s list of rare and imperiled elements of biodiversity. Each report prioritizes potential conservation areas based on the relative significance of the biodiversity they support and the urgency for protection of the site. All information explaining Natural Heritage methodology and ranks is repeated in each report, so that each report can stand alone and be used independently of the other. This report, Survey of Critical Biological Resources of Pueblo County, presents all potential conservation areas identified in Pueblo County that support rare and imperiled plants, animals, and significant plant communities, including wetland and riparian areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Regional Mitigation Plan
    Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan: Integrated Regional Mitigation Plan July 2015 CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University 1475 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 (970) 491-7331 Report Prepared for: Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments 15 S. 7th Street Colorado Springs, CO 80905 Recommended Citation: Fink, M., L. Grunau, K. Decker, and P. Crist. 2015. Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan: Integrated Regional Mitigation Plan. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, and NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan: Integrated Regional Mitigation Plan 1 1 1 2 Michelle Fink, Lee Grunau, Karin Decker, and Patrick Crist 1Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 2 NatureServe Arlington, VA July 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the Federal Highways Administration and Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments for their financial support and encouragement of this project. Special recognition goes to Rich Muzzy and Craig Casper for their leadership and efforts to contribute to meaningful conservation of biodiversity in the Pikes Peak region. In addition, recognition and thanks go out to Heather Bergman at Peak Facilitation Group, and the individuals involved the SHRP2 Advisory Committee. The SHRP2 Advisory Committee consisted of representatives from U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Carson Office of Sustainability, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Coordinated Resource Management Plan
    APPLETON-WHITTELL RESEARCH RANCH COORDINATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN The Research Ranch was established in 1968 by the Appleton family as an ecological field station to provide a large scale exclosure by which various land uses and actions in the Southwest could be evaluated. This role, as a control or reference area, creates challenges to land management actions. Each proposed action must be judged not only on the conservation outcome but also on the potential to have adverse impact on the research values for which the field station was established. Effective management for both conservation and research is only possible if all partners are informed and involved. The Research Ranch, approximately 8,000 acres, is a complicated partnership among land owners and federal land administrative agencies: Coronado National Forest (CNF), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Resolution Copper Mining Co. (RCM), The Research Ranch Foundation (TRRF), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and National Audubon Society (NAS or Audubon). NAS manages the facility via contractual agreements with each entity. The Research Ranch is a Center/Sanctuary of NAS, administered through the Audubon Arizona state office in Phoenix. Audubon’s strategic plan is to achieve conservation results on a broad scale by leveraging the NAS network and engaging diverse people; the Research Ranch is evaluated by NAS for its support of the following conservation concerns: Climate Change, Water, Working Lands and Bird Friendly Communities. This Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) constitutes all ownership along with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Arizona Game & Fish Department (AZGF) and US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Planned practices to meet goals listed in this CRMP may not necessarily be implemented on all parcels.
    [Show full text]
  • I =- I - 1-----• 47 Red-Spotted Purple 1 __ 2] -=- ~2 3 ! ~Oy --
    .- A B c 0 E South Total 1 --~.-----=-- _ _S_PE_C_l_ES____ -+- __..North ±-Central -i------- -- 23 7/14/2001 -t- I -- I 4 5 Swallowtails -- -------·- -- 6 Black Swallowta-il - -- ------1--- - -4 -·-- 27 11T 42 7 Eastern Tiger Swallowtail _____.,_; -· - -- 5 7 --- 31 1;4 -·· ·--- 5 : $plcebush Swa_n_owt- ail ___ +:---=:2:===-·-----+--·- 10 Whites -f- _.._ ___ 11 Cabbage W_h_ite_ __________ I 156 _ 90 97 343 12 ,---~-- - 13 Sulphurs ----------- -- ·- 14 CloudedSulphur -- -- I 9 - 10 42 15 Orange Sulphur ·--·. -36 9 115 ~t-1 -- I 16 -- - ~:-_ ----.-----I -l 2 3 5 r- ... I --- - .. -·--- 1 1 26 28 2 4 1-· I I ---·-- 31 Brush-foots - Heliconians/Frltiiiaries ].[ Great ~angled Fritillary_ -_-+-_- =_1 _8__ _ --·~ ~~ Meadow Fritillary___ ___ ·-;E 1 Ts True Brush-to~ - - -- I 36 Pearl Cres~ent - - _ - 1~5 _ _ 86 , 77 37 Baltimore Checkerspot 1 1 Ts OLiestion Mark-- i - 11: 2· -- 3 -·-:rs 39 Eastern Comma -- -- 1 - 2~· 6 - 4 35 40 Mourning Cloak -- I~ - 2 2 1 5 41 Milberfs Tortoiseshell _ ~ -= 12 . ·- ~ 1 r 18 42 American Lady 11 -- 11 _ - 8 30 43 Painted Lady ·-- - 5 2 7 Ts44~ Red- Admiral----- -- -· - 1210 - 394- 103.....~ 1767 ~ ~dmlrals and ReiiiiVOs _ I =- I - 1-----• 47 Red-spotted Purple 1 __ 2] -=- ~2 3 ! ~oy -- - . - . - ·:·=--- ~ I---~ 1---==·_-3..... 50 Satyrs , ;~ ~~=:~r~=~a-rly_-e_v_e ·_ --~ l - r ---_-1-+l; ____=---_- :1+,!--~~---_-_-1 -:~· 53 Appalachian Brown -, _ ~ Little Wood satv-r- -· . .. A B C D E ;~ Common Wood-nymph 2~ -- ~~- 127 181 57 Monarch -----1-- -- + 1- -j- 58 MOilarc_h____ -·1-·- 15j - ~1- 16 1 -- 4 2 ~~ Skippers - S readwing_! r:= ,-- ~ -=r- r - =- 61 Silver-spotted Skipper _____,_ ·- 4 ::::::::_ _!_._ __ _1 1 ---~--- ~- 62 Common Checkered Skipper 1 5 5 ~! Common Sootywin9 ~:.===.+= F-- ~~ _ 2 65 Skippers - Grass Skippers I - t ·-- .
    [Show full text]
  • Sentinels on the Wing: the Status and Conservation of Butterflies in Canada
    Sentinels on the Wing The Status and Conservation of Butterflies in Canada Peter W. Hall Foreword In Canada, our ties to the land are strong and deep. Whether we have viewed the coasts of British Columbia or Cape Breton, experienced the beauty of the Arctic tundra, paddled on rivers through our sweeping boreal forests, heard the wind in the prairies, watched caribou swim the rivers of northern Labrador, or searched for song birds in the hardwood forests of south eastern Canada, we all call Canada our home and native land. Perhaps because Canada’s landscapes are extensive and cover a broad range of diverse natural systems, it is easy for us to assume the health of our important natural spaces and the species they contain. Our country seems so vast compared to the number of Canadians that it is difficult for us to imagine humans could have any lasting effect on nature. Yet emerging science demonstrates that our natural systems and the species they contain are increas- ingly at risk. While the story is by no means complete, key indicator species demonstrate that Canada’s natural legacy is under pressure from a number of sources, such as the conversion of lands for human uses, the release of toxic chemicals, the introduction of new, invasive species or the further spread of natural pests, and a rapidly changing climate. These changes are hitting home and, with the globalization and expansion of human activities, it is clear the pace of change is accelerating. While their flights of fancy may seem insignificant, butterflies are sentinels or early indicators of this change, and can act as important messengers to raise awareness.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status Handbook
    CONSERVATION STATUS HANDBOOK Colorado’s Animals, Plants, and Plant Communities of Special Concern May 1999 Volume 3, No. 2 Colorado Natural Heritage Program Room 254 General Servives Bldg. Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Photographs by Steve Kettler, Gwen Kittel, Renée Rondeau, and Susan Spackman Logo Design by Lee Grunau, computer enhancement by Greg Nelson ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Colorado Natural Heritage Program is grateful to the following who thoughtfully invested their time, energy, and knowledge to ensure the Natural Heritage conservation status list is as up-to-date and accurate as possible: For Animals: The status of Colorado’s fauna cannot be adequately addressed without the volumes of information that are located and maintained in biological museums. The following institutions have been instrumental to our understanding of Coloradan fauna: C. P. Gillete Insect Biodiversity Museum, Ray Stanford Lepidoptera Collection, Denver Museum of Natural History, University of Colorado Museum, University of Northern Colorado Museum, and the U.S.G.S. Biological Resources Division Collection at the Museum of Southwestern Biology at Albequerque, New Mexico. We would also like to thank the following individuals associated with the above institutions for their enthusiasm and support of our efforts: Boris Kondratieff, Paul Opler, Ray Stanford, Cheri Jones, Dave Armstrong, Jim Fitzgerald, Cindy Ramotnik, and Mike Bogan. There were a number of individuals who offered time, energy, expertise, and perspective which helped to shape the development of the list of zoological conservation priorities at CNHP. For agreeing to assist with this effort, we are extremely grateful to the following persons: Dave Armstrong, Kevin Bestgen, Carl Bock, Mike Carter, Ken Giesen, Geoff Hammerson, Hugh Kingery, Fritz Knopf, Ron Lambeth, Lauren Livo, Chuck Loeffler, Carron Meaney, Kirk Navo, Tom Nessler, Chris Pague, Bob Righter, Bruce Rosenlund, Chris Schultz, Gary Skiba, Hobart Smith, Jay Thompson, John Toolen, Lee Upham, Ron West, and Bruce Wunder.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Interim Report of the NABA Names Committee
    Hübner, 1819 (type species Papilio bixae Linnaeus, 1758), Lindsey (1921) erected Second Interim Report of the the genus Apyrrothrix (type species Erycides araxes account of “the difference in habitus and the NABA Names Committee form ofHewitson, the secondaries”. 1867) to Although receive it, Lindsey on has until recently not been widely followed combinationin this separation, Apyrrothrix Mielke araxes (2005a) was able Scientific Names Subcommittee: Michael Braby, Marc Epstein, Jeffrey into separatinglist well over Pyrrhopyge a dozen citations into a number for the of Glassberg (ex officio), Peter W. Hall, Yu-Feng Hsu, Torben Larsen, David genera, formally resurrected Apyrrothrix. Mielke (2002),, with Lohman, Naomi Pierce, Malcolm Scoble, John Tennent, Dick Vane-Wright A. araxes (Hewitson) and A. arizonae (Godman (Chair/Secretary), Angel Viloria, Shen-Horn Yen 27 genera of Pyrrhopygina recognized by & Salvin) as the only included species. Of the treated as monobasic, and another 2 (including English Names Subcommittee: Alana Edwards, Jeffrey Glassberg (Chair/ ApyrrothrixMielke (2002), almost half (13) are currently Secretary), Fred Heath, Jim Springer, Julie West used in combination) have only with 2 species. araxes and arizonae: ErycidesThree Hübner, other generic1819 (type names species have Papiliobeen pigmalion Myscelus Hübner, 1819 (type species Papilio nobilis Eudamus Cramer, 1779), Papilio Cramer, 1777), and This is the second report of the proteus Linnaeus, 1758). Of these, Erycides is Swainson, 1831 (type species reconstituted NABA Names Committee. For more information about the Committee, www.butterfliesofamerica.com/ih02/ currently recognized genus Phocides Hübner, considered to be a subjective synonym of the including aims, principles and procedures, BMNH20120713_DSC8437_i.htm;Myscelus araxes accessed 1819, Myscelus is in use for another recognized please visit www.naba.org/ftp/NABA_ 1868:1.xii.2012] 176.
    [Show full text]
  • Adult Behavior of Tirumala Limniace
    Journal of Insect Science RESEARCH Adult Behavior of Tirumala limniace (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) Chengzhe Li,1,* Fanyan Wang,1,* Xiaoming Chen,1,2 Chengli Zhou,1 and Jun Yao3 1Research Institute of Resources Insects, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Key laboratory of Cultivating and Utilization of Resources Insects of State Forestry Administration, Kunming 650224, Yunnan, China 2Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] 3The Center of Butterfly Research and Development, Research Institute of Resources Insects, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Kunming 650224, Yunnan, China *These authors contributed equally to this work. Subject Editor: Seth Barribeau J. Insect Sci. (2015) 15(1): 76; DOI: 10.1093/jisesa/iev061 ABSTRACT. Tirumala limniace Cramer as an ornamental butterfly is utilized in butterfly garden, in this article we study their adult activi- ties include flight, foraging, courtship, mating, and oviposition. We found that males spent 22.1% of its time flying, 14.1% foraging, 63.8% in courtship and mating. And females spent 30.8% of its time flying, 10.1% foraging, 57.1% in courtship and mating, and 2% ovi- positing. Adults emerged from pupae when temperatures were above 23.5C and eclosion took only 1 min, typically followed by a small amount of flight on the first day. Flight activity peaked from the ninth to the thirteenth day after eclosion, and there were two daily peak flight times: 10:00–13:00 and 15:00–18:00. The peak of flower-visiting activity was from the eighth to the thirteenth day af- ter eclosion, and there were two daily peak foraging times: 11:00–12:00 and 16:00–17:00.
    [Show full text]
  • Faunal Characteristics of the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico: Implications for Biodiversity Analysis and Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Faunal Characteristics of the Forest Service Southern Rocky Mountains of Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical New Mexico: Implications for Report RMRS-GTR-58 August 2000 Biodiversity Analysis and Assessment Rosamonde R. Cook, Curtis H. Flather, and Kenneth R. Wilson Abstract Cook, Rosamonde R.; Flather, Curtis H.; Wilson, Kenneth R. 2000. Faunal characteristics of the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico: implications for biodiversity analysis and assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agricul- ture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 55 p. To define the faunal context within which local and regional resource management decisions are made, conservation of biological diversity requires an understanding of regional species occurrence patterns. Our study focused on the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico and included the San Juan, the Sangre de Cristo, and the Jemez Mountains. Across this region, we quantified patterns of species richness and faunal diversity based on reported and predicted occurrences for birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and butterflies across this region. Specific hypotheses related to the origin and maintenance of observed diversity patterns were tested and interpreted based on their implication for biodiversity assessment and management. Our results suggest that species richness for any one of the taxonomic groups does not indicate species distributions of other taxa. For terrestrial vertebrates, variation in faunal differentiation among mountain ranges was associated more strongly with differences in dispersal ability than with differences in habitat composition. Those butterflies classified as montane specialists exhibited a higher degree of faunal differentiation than did all other montane specialist species.
    [Show full text]
  • Movements of Euchloe Ausonides (Pieridae)
    24 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY MOVEMENTS OF EUCHLOE AUSONIDES (PIERIDAE) JAMES SCOTT Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis, California 95616 Until recently, most butterflies have been thought to be quite seden­ tary, except for a few migratory species, This paper and that of Brussard & Ehrlich (1970) report quite large flights of non-migratory species, showing that, perhaps like most taxa, butterfly species form a continuum from those having sedentary habits to those which are migratory. This paper is part of a broader study on movements of diurnal Lepidoptera (Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea) emphasizing the relationship between adult behavior, especially mate-locating behavior, and movements. Pre­ vious papers showed that mate-locating behavior, mating, movements, feeding, oviposition, and basking affected each other and were adapted to local topographic and climatic conditions (Scott, 1973a, b). Local adaptation was found to promote convergence of magnitude of move­ ments and behavior between two sympatric species (Scott, 1973c). The present paper deals with adult movements of Euchloe ausonides Lucas and the effect of density, mating behavior, feeding, and oviposition on movements. E. ausonides was studied in April, 1969, and during the springs of 1970 through 1972, at near sea level on Point Richmond, Contra Costa County, California (Fig. 1). METHODS The methods used are mainly those of Scott (1974). Butterflies were marked individually using the method of Ehrlich & Davidson (1960), and immediately released at the site of capture. Marking was done throughout the area; numbers (Fig. 1) were used to aid in pinpointing the exact site of each capture. On a map of the movements of each re­ captured individual, various distances were measured (Table 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Schriever Air Force Base Species List*
    Natural Heritage Inventory of Schriever Air Force Base, El Paso County, Colorado Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 254 General Services Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 970-491-1309 July 2000 Natural Heritage Inventory of Schriever Air Force Base, El Paso County, Colorado Prepared for : The Nature Conservancy 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100 Arlington, VA 22203-1606 Prepared by: Kim Fayette, Dave Anderson, Erika Mohr, and Jim Gionfriddo Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 254 General Services Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 970-491-1309 July 2000 Table of Contents OBJECTIVES..............................................................................................................................................................1 METHODS...................................................................................................................................................................1 COLLECT AVAILABLE INFORMATION .........................................................................................................................1 ELEMENT RANKING....................................................................................................................................................1 LEGAL DESIGNATIONS ...............................................................................................................................................3 IDENTIFY RARE OR IMPERILED SPECIES AND SIGNIFICANT PLANT COMMUNITIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR ON SCHRIEVER AFB ........................................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]