DOCSLIB.ORG

Coyote – Ironwood – Tucson Linkage Design

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coyote – Ironwood – Tucson Linkage Design August 2012 Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages Coyote – Ironwood – Tucson Linkage Design Looking towards Ironwood Forest National Monument from Tucson Mountain Park Arizona Game and Fish Department Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County Coyote – Ironwood - Tucson Linkage Design Recommended Citation Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2012. Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages. Coyote – Ironwood – Tucson Linkage Design. Report to the Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County. i Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages Coyote – Ironwood – Tucson Linkage Design Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We would like to thank the following: CorridorDesign Team at Northern Arizona University: Paul Beier, Emily Garding, Jeff Jenness, and Dan Majka (CorridorDesign Team) for authoring the Arizona Missing Linkages. Content from the Arizona Missing Linkages (Beier et al 2006a, Beier et al 2006b), is used directly throughout this report with permission. Models in this report were created using methods developed by Majka et al. (2007). Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup: Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Game and Fish Department, AZTEC Engineering, Bureau of Land Management, Defenders of Wildlife, Northern Arizona University, Sky Island Alliance, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service City of Tucson: The City of Tucson provided generous access to properties managed by the Tucson Water Department which we visited during field observations. Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Workgroup: Arizona Game and Fish Department, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, Defenders of Wildlife, Pima County, Sky Island Alliance, Town of Marana, Tucson Audubon Society, University of Arizona, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County: The Regional Transportation Authority of Pima County for funding the Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment project, which this report is part of. Tohono O’odham Nation: Karen Howe with the Tohono O’odham Nation Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Vegetation Management Program, for providing initial input of wildlife linkages in this area. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD): Dean Pokrajac, primary author, GIS analyst, and field investigator for this project. Julie Mikolajczyk and Ray Schweinsburg for providing project development and administration. Dennis Abbate, Scott Blackman, Jeff Gagnon, David Grandmaison, Shawn Lowery, and Scott Sprague for wildlife connectivity and road mitigation expertise from AGFD’s Wildlife Contracts Branch. Kirby Bristow for species information from AGFD’s Research Branch. AGFD wildlife managers Brad Fulk, Mark Frieberg, and Karen Klima, for providing on the ground support. Jim Heffelfinger, Kristin Terpening, and John Windes for additional species information and project support from AGFD’s Region V. Jessica Gist, Bill Knowles, Shea Meyer, Mark Ogonowski, Dana Warnecke, and Kelly Wolff-Krauter for providing technical support and report review. Cristina Jones, Angela McIntire, Amber Munig, and Johnathan O’Dell for reviewing and updating species background information authored by the CorridorDesign Team at Northern Arizona University. George Andrejko, Randy Babb, and Audrey Owens for providing many of the photographs used throughout this report. ii Pima County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Detailed Linkages Coyote – Ironwood – Tucson Linkage Design Table of Contents LINKAGE DESIGN ......................................................................................................................................................................... I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................. II LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES............................................................................................................................................. V TERMINOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................................................... IX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... XI INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 NATURE NEEDS ROOM TO MOVE ...................................................................................................................................... 1 BENEFITS OF WILDLIFE LINKAGE PLANNING ......................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL PLANNING EFFORTS THAT ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSERVING WILDLIFE LINKAGES .............. 3 LINKAGE PLANNING IN ARIZONA: A STATEWIDE-TO-LOCAL APPROACH ..................................................................................... 5 OVERVIEW OF THE PIMA COUNTY WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................. 6 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND EXISTING CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS OF THE COYOTE – IRONWOOD – TUCSON LINKAGE PLANNING AREA ........................................................................................................ 7 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COYOTE – IRONWOOD – TUCSON LINKAGE PLANNING AREA ................................................... 7 CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS IN THE COYOTE – IRONWOOD – TUCSON LINKAGE PLANNING AREA ................................................ 8 THE COYOTE – IRONWOOD TUCSON LINKAGE DESIGN ............................................................................................ 13 TWO LINKAGES PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY ACROSS A DIVERSE LANDSCAPE................................................................................. 13 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENTIRE LINKAGE DESIGN ............................................................................................................. 15 REMOVING AND MITIGATING BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT ....................................................................................... 17 IMPACTS OF ROADS ON WILDLIFE .................................................................................................................................... 20 IMPACTS OF BORDER ACTIVITY ON WILDLIFE ..................................................................................................................... 36 IMPACTS OF CANALS ON WILDLIFE ................................................................................................................................... 38 IMPACTS OF FENCES ON WILDLIFE ................................................................................................................................... 45 IMPACTS OF INVASIVE SPECIES ON WILDLIFE ...................................................................................................................... 49 IMPACTS OF STREAM AND RIPARIAN IMPEDIMENTS ON WILDLIFE .......................................................................................... 50 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AS BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT .......................................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX A: LINKAGE DESIGN METHODS .................................................................................................................... 58 FOCAL SPECIES SELECTION ............................................................................................................................................. 58 HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELS ........................................................................................................................................ 59 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BREEDING PATCHES AND POTENTIAL POPULATION CORES ................................................................... 60 IDENTIFYING BIOLOGICALLY BEST CORRIDORS .................................................................................................................... 61 PATCH CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 62 MINIMUM LINKAGE WIDTH ........................................................................................................................................... 63 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 63 APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES MODELING PARAMETERS .............................................................................. 64 APPENDIX C: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 70 BADGER, TAXIDEA TAXUS ............................................................................................................................................... 70 BLACK-TAILED JACKRABBIT, LEPUS CALIFORNIUS ................................................................................................................. 75 BLACK-TAILED RATTLESNAKE, CROTALUS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Coronado Revised Plan
    Coronado National United States Forest Department of Agriculture Forest Draft Land and Service Resource Management August 2011 Plan The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper – Month and Year Draft Land and Resource Management Plan Coronado National Forest Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona Hidalgo County, New Mexico Responsible Official: Regional Forester Southwestern Region 333 Broadway Boulevard SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 842-3292 For more information contact: Forest Planner Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress, FB 42 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 388-8300 TTY 711 [email protected] ii Draft Land and Management Resource Plan Coronado National Forest Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Land and Resource Management Plan ......................................... 1 Overview of the Coronado National Forest .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument
    In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service This page left intentionally blank. In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument By Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt, William L. Halvorson, and Pamela Anning Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station University of Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior School of Natural Resources U.S. Geological Survey 125 Biological Sciences East National Park Service Tucson, Arizona 85721 U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web:http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested Citation Powell, B.F., Schmidt, C.A., Halvorson, W.L., and Anning, Pamela, 2008, Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory of Chiricahua National Monument: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1023, 104 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1023/]. Cover photo: Chiricahua National Monument. Photograph by National Park Service. Note: This report supersedes Schmidt et al. (2005). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Coronado National Forest Draft Land and Resource Management Plan I Contents
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Coronado National Forest Southwestern Region Draft Land and Resource MB-R3-05-7 October 2013 Management Plan Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Front cover photos (clockwise from upper left): Meadow Valley in the Huachuca Ecosystem Management Area; saguaros in the Galiuro Mountains; deer herd; aspen on Mt. Lemmon; Riggs Lake; Dragoon Mountains; Santa Rita Mountains “sky island”; San Rafael grasslands; historic building in Cave Creek Canyon; golden columbine flowers; and camping at Rose Canyon Campground. Printed on recycled paper • October 2013 Draft Land and Resource Management Plan Coronado National Forest Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona Hidalgo County, New Mexico Responsible Official: Regional Forester Southwestern Region 333 Broadway Boulevard, SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 842-3292 For Information Contact: Forest Planner Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress, FB 42 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 388-8300 TTY 711 [email protected] Contents Chapter 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ironwood Forest National Monument Resources Summary
    Natural Resources Summary (5/2017) Ironwood Forest National Monument Geology & Cultural History of Ironwood Forest National Monument-IFNM, Southern Arizona ____________________________________ INFM Parameters • Established 9 June 2000 - Exe. Order President W.J. Clinton • Land Mangement: Bureau of Land Management • Footprint: 188,619 acres (includes 59,922 acres non-federal lands, chiefly State Trust lands, and minor private holdings) • Cultural features: 200+ Hohokam sites; historical mine-related sites • Current Uses: Recreation, cattle grazing, mining on pre-existing mine sites • Threatened Species: Ferruginous pygmy owl, desert bighorn sheep, lesser long-nosed bat, turk’s head cactus Physiographic Features Basin & Range Province, Roskruge Mtns., Samaniego Hills, Sawtooth Mtns., Silver Bell Mtns., Sonoran Desert, Western Silver Bell Mtns. Mining History • Predominantly in the Silver Bell Mtns. • Major Ore Deposit(s) type: porphyry copper • Ore: copper, lead, zinc, molybdenum, gold Map of the Ironwood Forest National Monument (BLM). The IFNM surrounds and partially encompasses the Silver Bell metallic mineral district and either covers parts of or encompasses the Waterman, Magonigal and the Roskruge mineral districts. The most productive area has been the Silver Bell Mining District, where active mining continues to this day, immediately southwest of the monument, and by grandfather clause, on the the monument proper. The Silver Bell Mmining District evolved from a collection of intermittent, poorly financed and managed underground mining operations in the late 1800s to mid-1900s struggling to make a profit from high grade ores; to a small but profitable producer, deploying innovative mining practices and advancements in technology to Mineral Districts of eastern Pima County. Yellow highlighted successfully develop the district’s large, low-grade copper resource districts are incorporated in part or entirely in IFNM (AZGS (D.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Big Tree Registry a List of the Largest Trees in Texas Sponsored by Texas a & M Forest Service
    Texas Big Tree Registry A list of the largest trees in Texas Sponsored by Texas A & M Forest Service Native and Naturalized Species of Texas: 320 ( D indicates species naturalized to Texas) Common Name (also known as) Latin Name Remarks Cir. Threshold acacia, Berlandier (guajillo) Senegalia berlandieri Considered a shrub by B. Simpson 18'' or 1.5 ' acacia, blackbrush Vachellia rigidula Considered a shrub by Simpson 12'' or 1.0 ' acacia, Gregg (catclaw acacia, Gregg catclaw) Senegalia greggii var. greggii Was named A. greggii 55'' or 4.6 ' acacia, Roemer (roundflower catclaw) Senegalia roemeriana 18'' or 1.5 ' acacia, sweet (huisache) Vachellia farnesiana 100'' or 8.3 ' acacia, twisted (huisachillo) Vachellia bravoensis Was named 'A. tortuosa' 9'' or 0.8 ' acacia, Wright (Wright catclaw) Senegalia greggii var. wrightii Was named 'A. wrightii' 70'' or 5.8 ' D ailanthus (tree-of-heaven) Ailanthus altissima 120'' or 10.0 ' alder, hazel Alnus serrulata 18'' or 1.5 ' allthorn (crown-of-thorns) Koeberlinia spinosa Considered a shrub by Simpson 18'' or 1.5 ' anacahuita (anacahuite, Mexican olive) Cordia boissieri 60'' or 5.0 ' anacua (anaqua, knockaway) Ehretia anacua 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Carolina Fraxinus caroliniana 90'' or 7.5 ' ash, Chihuahuan Fraxinus papillosa 12'' or 1.0 ' ash, fragrant Fraxinus cuspidata 18'' or 1.5 ' ash, green Fraxinus pennsylvanica 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Gregg (littleleaf ash) Fraxinus greggii 12'' or 1.0 ' ash, Mexican (Berlandier ash) Fraxinus berlandieriana Was named 'F. berlandierana' 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Texas Fraxinus texensis 60'' or 5.0 ' ash, velvet (Arizona ash) Fraxinus velutina 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, white Fraxinus americana 100'' or 8.3 ' aspen, quaking Populus tremuloides 25'' or 2.1 ' baccharis, eastern (groundseltree) Baccharis halimifolia Considered a shrub by Simpson 12'' or 1.0 ' baldcypress (bald cypress) Taxodium distichum Was named 'T.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A
    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
    [Show full text]
  • The Geology of the El Tiro Hills, West Silver Bell Mountains, Pima County, Arizona
    The geology of the El Tiro Hills, West Silver Bell Mountains, Pima County, Arizona Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); maps Authors Clarke, Craig Winslow, 1938- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 02/10/2021 09:29:50 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/551863 THE GEOLOGY OF THE EL TIRO HILLS, WEST SILVER BELL MOUNTAINS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA by Craig W. Clarke A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1966 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of require­ ments for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is de­ posited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar­ ship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX of MINING PROPERTIES in PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA Bureau
    Index of Mining Properties in Pima County, Arizona Authors Keith, S.B. Citation Keith, S.B., Index of Mining Properties in Pima County, Arizona. Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology Bulletin 189, 161 p. Rights Arizona Geological Survey. All rights reserved. Download date 11/10/2021 11:59:34 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/629555 INDEX OF MINING PROPERTIES IN PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA by Stanton B. Keith Geologist Bulletin 189 1974 Reprinted 1984 Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology Geological Survey Branch The University of Arizona Tucson ARIZONA BUREAU Of GEOLOGY AND MINERAL TECHNOLOGY The Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology was established in 1977 by an act of the State Legislature. Under this act, the Arizona Bureau of Mines, created in 1915, was renamed and reorganized and its mission was redefined and expanded. The Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology, a Division of the University of Arizona administered by the Arizona Board of Regents, is charged by the Legislature to conduct research and provide information about the geologic setting of the State, including its mineral and energy resources, its natural attributes, and its natural hazards and limitations. In order to carry out these functions, the Bureau is organized into two branches: Geological Survey Branch. Staff members conduct research, do geologic mapping, collect data, and provide information about the geologic setting of the State to: a) assist in developing an understanding of the geologic factors that influ ence the locations of metallic, non-metallic, and mineral fuel resources in Arizona, and b) assist in developing an understanding of the geologic materials and pro cesses that control or limit human activities in the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Region 4 Habitat Type Indicators List.Xlsx
    Copy of Region 4 Habitat Type Indicators list.xlsx LF ORIGSCINAME R4_CODE R4_COM_NAME Forest HT Non-For HT TR Abies concolor ABCO white fir X TR Abies grandis ABGR grand fir X TR Abies lasiocarpa ABLA subalpine fir X X TR Abies magnifica ABMA California red fir X TR Acacia greggii ACGR catclaw acacia X TR Acer grandidentatum ACGR3 bigtooth maple X TR Acer negundo ACNE2 boxelder X TR Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia ALINT thinleaf alder X TR Alnus rhombifolia ALRH2 white alder X TR Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata ALSI3 Sitka alder X TR Betula occidentalis BEOC2 water birch X X TR Calocedrus decurrens CADE27 incense cedar X TR Celtis laevigata var. reticulata CERE2 netleaf hackberry X X TR Cercis orbiculata CEOR9 California redbud X X TR Cercocarpus ledifolius CELE3 curl-leaf mountain mahogany X X TR Chilopsis linearis CHLI2 desert willow X X TR Elaeagnus angustifolia ELAN Russian olive X X TR Frangula betulifolia FRBE2 beechleaf frangula X X TR Fraxinus anomala FRAN2 singleleaf ash X X TR Fraxinus velutina FRVE2 velvet ash X X TR Juniperus monosperma JUMO oneseed juniper X TR Juniperus occidentalis JUOC western juniper X TR Juniperus osteosperma JUOS Utah juniper X TR Juniperus scopulorum JUSC2 Rocky Mountain juniper X TR Larix occidentalis LAOC western larch X TR Picea engelmannii PIEN Engelmann spruce X X TR Picea glauca PIGL white spruce X TR Picea pungens PIPU blue spruce X TR Pinus albicaulis PIAL whitebark pine X X TR Pinus aristata PIAR bristlecone pine X TR Pinus contorta PICO lodgepole pine X TR Pinus contorta ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications of Anthropogenic Landscape Change on Inter-Population Movements of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus Agassizii)
    Conservation Genetics 5: 485–499, 2004. 485 Ó 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Implications of anthropogenic landscape change on inter-population movements of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) Taylor Edwards1,*, Cecil R. Schwalbe1,2, Don E. Swann3 & Caren S. Goldberg1 1School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, 125 Biological Sciences East, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; 2U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; 3National Park Service, Saguaro National Park, Tucson, AZ 85730, USA (*Author for correspon- dence: fax: +1-520-670-5001; e-mail: [email protected]) Received 12 June 2003; accepted 6 January 2004 Key words: conservation, desert tortoise, gene flow, Gopherus agassizii, microsatellite Abstract In the Sonoran Desert of North America, populations of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) occur in rocky foothills throughout southwestern Arizona and northwestern Mexico. Although tortoise populations appear to be isolated from each other by low desert valleys, individuals occasionally move long distances between populations. Increasingly, these movements are hindered by habitat fragmentation due to anthropogenic landscape changes. We used molecular techniques and radiotelemetry to examine movement patterns of desert tortoises in southern Arizona. We collected blood samples from 170 individuals in nine mountain ranges and analyzed variability in seven microsatellite loci to determine genetic differentiation among populations. Gene flow estimates between populations indicate that populations exchanged indi- viduals historically at a rate greater than one migrant per generation, and positive correlation between genetic and geographic distance of population pairs suggests that the limiting factor for gene flow among populations is isolation by distance.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeffrey James Keeling Sul Ross State University Box C-64 Alpine, Texas 79832-0001, U.S.A
    AN ANNOTATED VASCULAR FLORA AND FLORISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY DAVIS MOUNTAINS PRESERVE, JEFF DAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, U.S.A. Jeffrey James Keeling Sul Ross State University Box C-64 Alpine, Texas 79832-0001, U.S.A. [email protected] ABSTRACT The Nature Conservancy Davis Mountains Preserve (DMP) is located 24.9 mi (40 km) northwest of Fort Davis, Texas, in the northeastern region of the Chihuahuan Desert and consists of some of the most complex topography of the Davis Mountains, including their summit, Mount Livermore, at 8378 ft (2554 m). The cool, temperate, “sky island” ecosystem caters to the requirements that are needed to accommo- date a wide range of unique diversity, endemism, and vegetation patterns, including desert grasslands and montane savannahs. The current study began in May of 2011 and aimed to catalogue the entire vascular flora of the 18,360 acres of Nature Conservancy property south of Highway 118 and directly surrounding Mount Livermore. Previous botanical investigations are presented, as well as biogeographic relation- ships of the flora. The numbers from herbaria searches and from the recent field collections combine to a total of 2,153 voucher specimens, representing 483 species and infraspecies, 288 genera, and 87 families. The best-represented families are Asteraceae (89 species, 18.4% of the total flora), Poaceae (76 species, 15.7% of the total flora), and Fabaceae (21 species, 4.3% of the total flora). The current study represents a 25.44% increase in vouchered specimens and a 9.7% increase in known species from the study area’s 18,360 acres and describes four en- demic and fourteen non-native species (four invasive) on the property.
    [Show full text]
  • Ironwood Forest National Monument Natural
    Ironwood Forest National Monument Natural History Synopsis Overview The Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) comprises 129,000 acres of prime Sonoran Desert northwest of the Tucson basin. There are eight mountain ranges and two large valleys with elevations ranging from 1550 to 4195 ft. The mountains have complex and variable geological histories, some being entirely volcanic in origin and others having significant intrusions of limestone and other rocks. This variability impacts the kinds of plants and animals that live here. About 45% of IFNM is classified as the Arizona Upland subdivision of the Sonoran Desert and the remainder is considered the Lower Colorado River Valley subdivision. Nearly 600 plant species and 121 vertebrate animal species are found within IFNM. The area is maintained by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). No permits are required to visit the area, but you should consult the BLM leaflet that describes access and gives a map of the monument. There are no facilities so precautions should be taken to avoid excessive heat and lack of water. Temperatures range from below freezing in the winter and up to 110 F in summer. Rain averages about 10 inches per year with a winter rainy season and a monsoon period of July- September. The Sonoran Desert supports a beautifully diverse flora and fauna that rivals most of the world’s deserts. Plants Of the 594 taxa of plants on IFNM, 91 are “sunflowers” (family Asteraceae), 82 are grasses (Poaceae), 43 are cacti (Cactaceae), 36 are bean/pea relatives (Fabaceae), and 61 (about 10%) are exotic (i.e.
    [Show full text]