Arizona terrestrial vertebrate species richness: An application of Arizona GAP GIS thematic processing Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors McCarthy, Scott Beach 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 01/10/2021 07:57:06 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/278677 INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfihn master. UMI fihns the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter frice, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afifect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell Hdwdl Inforaiation Company 300 Nonh Zedb Road, Ann Aibor MI 48106'1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 ARIZONA TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES RICHNESS: AN APPLICATION OF ARIZONA GAP GIS THEMATIC PROCESSING by Scott Beach McCarthy A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the SCHOOL OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNTVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1998 DM! Nuadser: 1391718 UMI Microform 1391718 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. Tiiis microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48103 2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited 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 to 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 or her judgement the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTORS This thesis has been approved on the date shown below; Dr. William L. Halvorson Date Professor of Renewable Natural Resources, CPSU Unit Leader Dr. William W. Shaw Date Professor of Wildlife and Fisheries Resources, Department Chair « ^ Date GIS Coordinator of the Advanced Resource Technology Group 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis is the cuhnination of several years work. While some of the time has been frustrating and tedious, the overall experience has been thoroughly enjoyable and rewarding. I would like to acknowledge several groups of people that have made this experience all the more rewarding with their support and input. First, I would like to express my appreciation to my family for their strong support of my educational goals. The second group is the friends and mentors that have provided me with support, laughter, and perspectives that I hadn't considered. This includes all of those in the ART Group t^t I annoyed relentlessly while they patiently explained the subtleties of computers and GIS to me over and over again. Within this group I would like to express my appreciation to the Systems Administrator, Cliff Hathaway, for his patient attention to my computer needs. The third group is my committee members. Dr. Bill Halvorson, Dr. Bill Shaw and Professor Craig Wissler, whom I can not thank enough for their support, guidance, patience, friendship and especially for their sense of humor. I owe all of the better parts of this thesis to these people and I take fiill responsibility for the rest. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES 6 LIST OF TABLES 8 ABSTRACT 9 INTRODUCTION 10 Study Objectives 16 METHODS 18 RESULTS 21 Geographic Distributions 21 Landcover 30 Amphibians 30 Reptiles 32 Birds 32 Mammals 37 Land Management 37 Amphibians 37 Reptiles 37 Birds 44 Mammals 44 Biodiversity Indices 44 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued DISCUSSION 53 Geographic Distribution 53 Landcover 53 Land Management 55 Biodiversity Indices 56 Vertebrate Models 56 Distribution Maps 58 Species Richness Maps 59 CONCLUSION 61 Recommendations for Further Analysis 62 The Future 63 APPENDIX A; SPECIES LIST BY RICHNESS INDEX 65 Amphibian Species by Richness Index 66 Reptile Species by Richness Index 67 Bird Species by Richness Index 71 Manmial Species by Richness Index 80 APPENDIX B; SELECTED ARIZONA GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS 85 LITERATURE CITED 86 6 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. GAP Vertebrate Map Examples 17 FIGURE 2. Amphibian Species Richness Area by Richness Index 22 FIGURE 3. Reptile Species Richness Area by Richness Index 23 FIGURE 4. Bird Species Richness Area by Richness Index 24 FIGURE 5. Mammal Species Richness Area by Richness Index 25 FIGURE 6. Arizona Species Richness - Amphibians 26 FIGURE 7. Arizona Species Richness - Reptiles 27 FIGURE 8. Arizona Species Richness - Birds 28 FIGURE 9. Arizona Species Richness - Mammals 29 FIGURE 10. Amphibians RI 8-10 and Landcover 31 FIGURE 11. Amphibians RI 1-2 and Landcover 33 FIGURE 12. Reptiles RI 8-10 and Landcover 34 FIGURE 13. Reptiles RI 1-2 and Landcover 35 FIGURE 14. Birds RI 8-10 and Landcover 36 FIGURE 15. Birds RI 1-2 and Landcover 38 FIGURE 16. Mammals RI 8-10 and Landcover 39 FIGURE 17. Mammals RI 1-2 and Landcover 40 FIGURE 18. Amphibians RI 9-10 and Land Management 41 FIGURE 19. Amphibians RI -2 and Land Management 42 7 LIST OF FIGURES - Continued FIGURE 20. Reptiles RI 9-10 and Land Management 43 FIGURE 21. Reptiles RI 1-2 and Land Management 45 FIGURE 22. Birds RI 9-10 and Land Management 46 FIGURE 23. Birds RI 1-2 and Land Management 47 FIGURE 24. Mammals RJ 9-10 and Land Management 48 FIGURE 25. Mammals RI 1-2 and Land Management 49 s LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Arizona GAP Landcover Types 13 TABLE 2. Arizona GAP Land Management (g2desc) 20 TABLE 3. Arizona GAP Land Management (g2desc) by GAP Biodiversity Index...5I TABLE 4. Arizona Species Richness Index Areas by GAP Biodiversity Indices 52 9 ABSTRACT The National Gap Analysis Program (GAP) is currently developing geographic themes in a Geographic Information System format for statewide analyses of biodiversity issues. This study uses several of the Arizona GAP themes to demonstrate how they might be utilized in resources planning By overlaying the Arizona GAP vertebrate themes, species richness maps were created. The species richness maps were intersected with the Arizona GAP landcover and land management layers to analyze how the richness areas are distributed across the landscape. Areas of high species richness were then analyzed for how well they are represented within existing conservation areas. The development of vertebrate distribution models is also discussed, since their accuracy greatly influences the species richness maps development 10 INTRODUCTION Every day the news media reports more examples of the widening gulf between conservationists and development interests. Endangered species, property rights, business interests and conservation ethics make strange bedfellows and conflicts are the norm. This arena frequently leaves participants feeling frustrated and angry and nurtures a resentment that impedes cooperation. Currently these conflicts seem even more divisive, with stakeholders on all sides becoming increasingly intractable. This has resulted in increasingly polarized groups that feel disenfranchised from the planning and decision­ making process. This is an inefficient process at best, and threatens to alienate rather than encourage public participation when it is needed most. The challenge for today's resource planners is to encourage participation from diverse sources and to incorporate the needs of participants as much as possible. This cannot produce static results, but must be a dynamic and flexible process that is receptive to change as public needs change. When all stakeholders truly feel that they are an integral part of the process, cooperation becomes an attractive alternative to conflict. Resource conflicts frequently arise due to a lack of understanding of the long-term impacts inherent in planning alternatives. Will a development push a species closer to extinction? How wide should wildlife corridors be if they are to be affective? How large do parks need to be to be affective as ecosystem preserves? Are some areas better alternatives for development than others from a resource conservation standpoint? Businesses need to be able to plan for the fiiture and property owners should be able to know what is included in their "bundle of rights", without threatening our rich and diverse natural heritage. There is an inunediate need for planning criteria but a limited understanding of landscape dynamics.