United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-58

August 2000

Faunal Characteristics of the

Southern Rocky Mountains of

New Mexico: Implications for

Biodiversity Analysis and

Assessment

Rosamonde R. Cook, Curtis H. Flather, and Kenneth R. Wilson
Abstract

Authors

Rosamonde R. Cook is with the Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State

University, Fort Collins, CO 80523

Curtis H. Flather is with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO

80526

Kenneth R. Wilson is with the Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University,

Fort Collins, CO 80523

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 Agriculture, 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. This pattern may be caused by a high degree of habitat specificity among

montane butterflies or incomplete field surveys. Because some species groups show high degrees of

faunal differentiation, maintaining the uniqueness of these faunas across the region will require a

broad geographic focus and cooperative management among various agencies and groups.

Keywords: faunal differentiation, faunal similarity, Southwest biodiversity, Jemez Mountains, regional

biodiversity patterns, species diversity, beta diversity, vertebrates, butterflies

Cover photographs: Silver-bordered fritillary—Paul Opler; Jemez Mountains salamander—Cindy

Ramotnik; Townsend’s big-eared bat—Alice Chung-MacCoubrey; Collared lizard—Cindy Ramotnik;

Three-toed woodpecker—Brad Bergstrom; Southern redbelly dace—Garold Sneegas
Introduction .................................................................................................... 1

Hypotheses ....................................................................................... 2

Methods ......................................................................................................... 5

Compiling Faunal Lists ...................................................................... 5

Classifying Species to Habitat Affinity Groups .................................. 10

Measuring Faunal Differentiation ...................................................... 11

Potential Sources of Error ................................................................. 11

Results .......................................................................................................... 12

Patterns of Species Richness ........................................................... 13

Patterns of Faunal Differentiation...................................................... 14

Discussion ...................................................................................................... 15

Predicted Versus Reported Species Occurrence.............................. 15

Patterns of Species Richness ........................................................... 16

Patterns of Faunal Differentiation...................................................... 16

Implications for Biodiversity Assessment and Management ............. 17

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................... 18

Literature Cited............................................................................................... 19

Appendix A—Predicted and Reported Status of Species .............................. 21

Appendix B—Presence/Absence Matrices .................................................... 34

Appendix C—Species Habitat Associations................................................... 46

Contents

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending

your mailing information in label form through one of the following

media. Please specify the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2098

Faunal Characteristics of the Southern Rocky

Mountains of New Mexico: Implications for

Biodiversity Analysis and Assessment

Rosamonde R. Cook, Curtis H. Flather, and Kenneth R. Wilson

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 1

Introduction

The preservation of biological diversity is a principal

goal of ecosystem management (Grumbine 1997),

which can only be realized through empirical studies

of community structure. In general, little is known

about the diversity of species and the structure of

communities within any given region. However, it is

clear that most habitats and populations are patchily

distributed (Wiens 1976), and it is this patchiness that

defines the spatial pattern of a region’s faunal diversity. Critical to conserving biodiversity at the local

level is understanding how diversity varies over regional scales, as processes operating at these scales

influence local diversity patterns (Schluter and Ricklefs

1993; Edwards and others 1994).

The regional focus of this study is the Southern

Rocky Mountains of New Mexico (SRMNM) (figure 1),

an area encompassing 3 major mountain ranges: the

San Juan and Sangre de Cristo Mountains, which

extend well into southern Colorado, and the Jemez

Mountains, which lie completely inside New Mexico

to the south of the San Juans. Although they are technically considered a secondary range of the San Juan

Mountains, the Jemez Mountains are characterized by

a discrete geological history and a marked degree of

topographic isolation (Self and others 1996). The

SRMNM form the southern boundary of the Rocky

Mountain Biotic Province and are bordered by the

Chihuahuan Province to the south and the Southwest

Interior Province to the west (Reichenbacher and Brown

1994). Three aquatic provinces are also represented in

the SRMNM: the Southern Plains, Pecos, and Rio Bravo

(Maxwell and others 1995, modified by Ricketts and

Figure 1—Mountain ranges of the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico. Boundaries represent the 2200 m contour

from the U.S. Geological Survey’s 1:100,000 scale digital elevation model for New Mexico.

N

Sangre de Cristo

Mountains

San Juan

Mountains

Jemez

Mountains

10 0 10 20 Kilometers

Elevation in meters

3500 - 4100

3100 - 3499

2500 - 3099

2200 - 2499
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

others 1999). Portions of 4 major river basins including

the Chama, Rio Grande, Pecos, and Canadian drain the

region (figure 2). The geographic convergence of

these terrestrial and aquatic provinces undoubtedly

accounts for the large diversity of plant and animal

species present in this region.

A large proportion of forest land in the SRMNM is

administered by the Carson and Santa Fe National

Forests (figure 3). At the regional level, conservation of

biological diversity will likely require the cooperation

of different landowners and local jurisdictions as geography and species distributions rarely coincide with

human boundaries. Ecosystem management within

and among national forests must account for faunal

differences that may exist within similar habitat types

and structures. Thus, knowledge of faunal diversity

within and among mountain ranges will help establish

the faunistic context for management of forest lands

within the SRMNM. The goals of this study were to:

1) document the diversity of the native vertebrate

and butterfly faunas within the SRMNM;

2) quantify patterns of faunal diversity in this region;

3) test hypotheses related to the origin and maintenance of species diversity patterns;

4) assess the use of faunal similarity/differentiation

indices as a basis for biodiversity management

decisions in general; and

5) propose considerations for management of this

diversity.

A comprehensive assessment of biodiversity would

include genetic, species, community, and landscape

components. In this study, we focused on patterns of

diversity at the species and community levels. Although abundance patterns are important to understanding biodiversity within a region, our analysis

was restricted to distributional (i.e., presence/absence)

data, which were widely available for the taxa examined. These included all terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates, and 2 superfamilies of butterflies, the

Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea. From a bioregional

perspective, this analysis would have been more complete if it included Colorado portions of the San Juan

and Sangre de Cristo Mountains. However, at the time

of our study sufficient species distributional data were

unavailable for such an analysis.

Hypotheses

At a regional level, species diversity is determined

by 2 components: 1) the number of species that occur

at a local level within habitat patches (referred to as

alpha diversity) and 2) differences in faunal composition that occur among patches (referred to as beta

diversity) (Whittaker1960). We define the local level as

that of a mountain range. Elevational range is an

important determinant of species richness within

mountain systems (Bowers and McLaughlin 1982)

because of its influence on local climatic conditions.

Figure 2—Streams and 8-digit hydrologic units in the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico. Adapted

from the U.S. Geological Survey’s 1:100,000-scale digital line graphcoverages for New Mexico.

N

Streams and Rivers

Hydrologic units

Canadian River

Pecos River

Rio Grande

Chama River
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 3

Extreme elevational variation, particularly in the Sangre

de Cristo and Jemez Mountains, produces strong

patterns of vertical zonation of vegetation and

faunal communities over relatively short distances

(e.g., Lowe 1964; Whittaker and Niering 1965). Typically, zonation proceeds from arid grassland and

desert scrub in the valleys and lowlands, to open

juniper (Juniperus spp.) grasslands, pinyon (Pinus spp.)

-juniper woodland, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)

forest, mixed conifer and aspen (Populus tremuloides),

and subalpine conifer forest. Alpine tundra is present

to a very limited extent only on the highest peaks in the

Sangre de Cristo Mountains. At a landscape level,

vertical zonation produces patchiness in the distributions of major vegetation types (figure 4), and their

associated faunas.

Over sufficiently large spatial scales, faunal differentiation results from an absence of suitable habitats within patches and a lack of dispersal among

patches containing suitable habitat. Factors such as

interspecific interactions, temperature tolerances, and

soil conditions also influence species distributions and

patterns of habitat occupancy, although probably at

smaller scales. Frequency of dispersal is influenced by

biological characteristics of species, such as mobility

and tolerance to stress, and the interaction of these

characteristics with features of the landscape, such as

distance between suitable habitats and the ability of

the intervening environment to act as a barrier to

dispersal. Because similar habitat types are present in

all mountain ranges, except alpine tundra, and most

species occupy a variety of habitats (see below), we

suspect that dispersal ability and isolation of habitats

are the most important determinants of faunal differentiation in the SRMNM.

The taxa we examine in this report probably differ

significantly in dispersal ability. Birds and bats are

undoubtedly better dispersers than non-volant species, although some bird species may not fly far through

unsuitable habitat (Desrochers and Hannon 1997).

Figure 3—National forest boundaries in the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico. Adapted from the landownership digital line coverage developed by the New Mexico Gap Analysis Project (Thompson and others 1996). Bold

boundaries delineate the 3 mountain ranges shown in figure 1.

N

Carson National Forest

Santa Fe National Forest
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Terrestrial mammals are probably more mobile than

reptiles as a group, and in general, reptiles and mammals are more tolerant of arid environments than

amphibians. Therefore, with respect to ability to disperse over land, we might assume that taxa would

tend to order as: birds and bats > mammals > reptiles

> amphibians. It is difficult to compare butterflies as a

single group because some species are very sedentary

while others migrate over large distances (Cary and

Holland unpublished report). We do not try to distinguish among species in dispersal characteristics in this

report.

Montane habitats in general exhibit the highest

degrees of habitat fragmentation at the landscape

level in the SRMNM (figure 4). For species restricted

to these habitats (species we define below as montane

specialists), the presence of unsuitable (woodland

and lowland) habitat in the middle and lower elevations can pose a significant barrier to dispersal between mountain ranges (Patterson 1984; Wilcox and

others 1986; DeBano and others 1995). Only 3 taxa—

birds, non-volant mammals, and butterflies—have

more than 2 representatives of montane specialist

species in the SRMNM. Patterson (1984) and Patterson

and Atmar (1986) have suggested very low rates of

dispersal by montane mammals among mountain

ranges in the Southwest, over a region that encompasses the SRMNM.

Montane species that also use woodland and lowland habitats (species defined as habitat generalists

Figure 4—Major vegetation types of the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico. Adapted from the 1:100,000-scale

land cover map of New Mexico developed by the New Mexico Gap Analysis Project (Thompson and others 1996). Bold

boundaries delineate the 3 mountain ranges shown in figure 1.

N

Foothill and Valley Grassland

Short-grass Steppe

Mid-grass Prairie

Great Basin Foothill-Piedmont Grassland

Great Basin Lowland/Swale Grassland

Chihuahuan Desert Grassland

Southwest and Plains Forest/Shrub Wetland

Urban and Irrigated Agriculture

Riverine/Lacustrine Desert Scrub Basin/Playa Great Basin Microphyllous Desert Scrub

Great Basin Broadleaf Deciduous Desert Scrub

Foothill and Madrean Woodland

Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Closed Conifer Woodland

Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Open Conifer Woodland

Madrean Open Oak Woodland

Montane Woodland, Grassland, Scrub

Upper Montane Open Conifer Woodland

Rocky Mountain Montane Deciduous Scrub

Rocky Mountain Subalpine and Montane Grassland

Montane Coniferous Forest

Rocky Mtn. Lower Montane Conifer Forest

Rocky Mtn. Upper Montane Conifer Forest

Subalpine Broadleaf Forest (Aspen)

Subalpine Coniferous Forest

Alpine Tundra

Rocky Mountain Alpine Graminoid Tundra

Rocky Mountain Alpine Forb Tundra
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 5

below) face fewer restrictions on movement, although

large rivers such as the Chama and Rio Grande can

pose a significant barrier to dispersal for many nonvolant terrestrial species. Among habitat generalists,

patterns of differentiation may be influenced mainly

by the innate dispersal abilities of the species in a

taxonomic group, and to a lesser degree by the distribution of habitats in the region.

Conversely, dispersal by aquatic species should be

strongly favored by the interconnection of habitat,

especially within the Chama and Rio Grande River

basins (figure 2), which link aquatic habitats of all 3

mountain ranges in the SRMNM. Although dams and

diversions can interfere with dispersal and migratory

movement of fishes, they are less likely to influence the

distributions of amphibians and aquatic mammals

and reptiles. The distributions of aquatic birds should

be influenced only by the presence or absence of suitable habitat.

From the discussion above, we can make several

predictions related to patterns of biodiversity in the

SRMNM. Within a taxon, we predict the highest degrees of faunal differentiation to occur among montane specialists, the lowest among aquatic specialists,

and intermediate levels among habitat generalists.

Within habitat associations groups, we predict a negative relationship between dispersal ability and degree

of differentiation. We can formalize these predictions

as 3 testable hypotheses:

1) Within taxa (e.g., mammals), differentiation of

montane specialists is high compared to aquatic

specialists and habitat generalists.

2) Within taxa, differentiation of aquatic specialists

is low compared to montane specialists and habitat generalists.

3) Across taxa, differentiation is negatively correlated with dispersal ability, (i.e., differentiation of

amphibians > reptiles > mammals > birds and

bats).

Methods

Compiling Faunal Lists

Two types of species distributional data were available for this study: maps of predicted occurrence, and

site-specific accounts of known or reported occurrences. Appendix A1 through A6 lists all vertebrate

and butterfly species predicted and reported from the

study area using the following methods.

Predicted Occurrence

Digital maps of predicted occurrence were obtained

from the New Mexico Gap Analysis database (Thompson and others 1996). Gap Analysis uses geographic

information systems (GIS) to model the predicted occurrence of terrestrial vertebrates using land cover

maps of vegetation developed from Landsat Thematic

Mapper imagery, along with species-habitat associations that are defined by the vegetation types represented on the maps (Scott and others 1993). The vegetation classification system used by the New Mexico Gap

Analysis Project was developed by Muldavin and

others (1996) for the New Mexico Natural Heritage

Program following the UNESCO framework (Driscoll

and others 1984). The classification is hierarchical,

with 7 levels. Species associations were defined mostly

at the fourth level, which corresponds with series

groups (i.e., sets of morphological, environmental, or

floristically related cover types). Vegetation series

groups mapped for the study area are described in

table 1. Vegetation classes mapped in figure 4 are

second and third levels in the hierarchy.

Maps of predicted occurrence (e.g., figure 5A) were

created by intersecting each species’ geographic range,

defined by the boundaries of U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) 8-digit hydrologic units (Seaber and others

1987), with the distribution of its associated habitat

types (series group vegetation classes). Elevational

range and aquatic features were also used if these were

important predictors of occurrence. We generated species lists for each mountain range by overlaying these

maps with the boundaries of the 3 mountain ranges

(figure 1) using ArcView 3.1 GIS software (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 1996) and tabulating presence/absence in each range (appendix B).

Reported Occurrence

Species lists were generated from reported occurrences as noted in the sources listed in table 2. The

majority of data on mammals (Findley and others

1975), amphibians and reptiles (Degenhardt and others 1996), fishes (Sublette and others 1990), and butterflies (Toliver and others 1994) were compiled by the

listed authors from specimen collections held in U.S.

museums and private collections. We supplemented

these data with a small number of field accounts from

biologists familiar with species distributions in the

region, and with reports from scientific journals compiled after a keyword search of several major bibliographic indices including Biological Abstracts, Zoological Review, and Wildlife Worldwide.

We plotted all records of occurrence for birds, mammals, fishes, and butterflies in ArcView using USGS
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 Table 1—Description and major cover types of vegetation present in the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico (Muldavin and others 1996). Vegetation classes are roughly equivalent to groups of series-level descriptors developed by Driscoll and others (1984). Accuracy represents percent agreement (

± SE)

between mapped vegetation type and vegetation observed on the ground, whether observed vegetation is primary, secondary, or adjacent to the mapped

vegetation type (Thompson and others 1996).

Habitat Code Class Elevation (m) Major cover types Description Accuracy(%)

Montane 1111 Rocky Mountain >3500 Rock sedge (Carex rupestris) and Alpine Tundra vegetation dominated by grass-like 52%

± 7.9%

Alpine Graminoid sedge (Kobresia myosuroides) species. Occurs at the highest elevations in

Tundra the Sangre de Cristo Mountains

1112 Rocky Mountain >3500 Alpine avens (Geum rossii), Sierra Blanca Tundra vegetation dominated by forb 42% 

± 7.8%

Alpine Forb cinquefoil (Potentilla Sierra-blancae) and species. Occurs at the highest elevations

Tundra Nailwort (Paronychia pulvinata) in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains

2111 Subalpine Conifer 2900-3600 Engelman spruce (Picea engelmanii) Closed canopied forest dominated by 23% 

± 7.1%

Forest and Subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) evergreen needle-leaved, conical-crowned

conifers

2112 Subalpine 2750-3600 Aspen (Populus tremuloides) Closed canopied forests dominated by 64% 

± 7.8%

Broadleaf Forest cold deciduous, broadleaf trees

2121 Rocky Mountain 2400-3000 Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Forests dominated by conical crowned 62% 

± 7.0%

Upper Montane White fir (Abies concolor), and Blue spruce conifers which generally form closed

Conifer Forest (Picea pungens) canopies

2122 Rocky Mountain 2000-2750 Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) Forests dominated by rounded crown 64% 

± 6.3%

Lower Montane conifers which form open to closed canopies

Conifer Forest

3111 Upper Montane 2600-3200 Bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata) and Woodlands dominated by rounded crowned 0% 

± 0.0%

Open Conifer Limber pine (P. flexilis). Engelman spruce conifers which form open to very open canopies.

Woodland and Douglas-fir can also occur as canopy Only mapped at the highest elevations of the

co-dominants northern Sangre de Cristo Mountains

4111 Rocky Mountain 1800-2750 Mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus Shrublands of mid to lower elevations of 39% 

± 5.7%

Montane montanus),Gambel oak (Quercus mountainous and hilly regions. Common

Deciduous gambelii), andWavyleaf oak on sites that have been burned

Scrub (Q. undulatus)

5110 Rocky Mountain usually> Mixed sedge (Carex spp.) and Thurber Grasslands distributed among the highest 17% 

± 4.9%

Subalpine and 3000 fescue (Festuca thurberi) or Arizona mountain tops in the state

Montane Grassland fescue (F. arizonica) and Mountain

muhly (Muhlenbergia montana)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 7 Table 1 Cont’d. Habitat Code Class Elevation (m) Major cover types Description Accuracy(%) Wood- 3121 Rocky 1600-2600 Pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) Woodlands dominated by rounded crown, 31% 

± 5.8%

lands Mountain/Great low-statured conifers that form moderately

Basin Closed closed to moderately open canopies (>60%

Conifer Woodland canopy cover)

3122 Rocky 1600-2300 Oneseed juniper (Juniperus Woodlands dominated by rounded crown, 31% 

± 6.0%

Mountain/Great monosperma) low-statured conifers that form moderately

Basin Open open to very open canopies (25% to 50%

Conifer Woodland canopy cover)

(Savanna)

3222 Madrean Open Oak 1400-2300 Gray oak (Quercus grisea), Arizona Woodlands dominated by rounded crown, 19% 

± 6.6%

Woodland white oak (Q. arizonica), and Emory broadleaf evergreen oaks that form

(Encinal) oak (Q. emoryi) moderately open to very open canopies

(25-50% canopy cover). Within the study

area, this class occurs only in the southern

Jemez Mountains

Grass- 4211 Great Basin 1750-2400 Big sage (Artemisia tridentata) with Shrublands dominated by microphyllous 34% 

± 6.2%

lands/ Microphyllous Black sage (A. nova) and Bigelow sage drought and cold tolerant shrubs

Desert Desert Scrub (A. begelovii)

Scrub

4212 Great Basin 1200-2400 Fourwing saltbrush (Atriplex canescens) Shrublands dominated by drought and cold- 35% 

± 6.0%

Broadleaf and Rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus tolerant broadleaf deciduous shrubs

Deciduous Desert nauseosus)

Scrub

5121 Short Grass Steppe 1300-2300 Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and Grasslands dominated by grasses usually 31% 

± 6.5%

Hairy grama (B. hirsuta) less than a half meter tall

5122 Mid-grass Prairie 1300-2600 Sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipenula), Grasslands dominated by grasses between 16% 

± 4.8%

New Mexico needlegrass (Stipa one half and one meter tall but in most of the

neomexicanus), Western wheatgrass study area, these are grazed much lower

Pascopyrun smithii ( ), Little bluestem

Schizachyrium scoparium ( ) and Sand

dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus)

5211 Great Basin 1500-2400 Galleta (Hilaria jamesii) and Indian Grasslands of mountain foothills, mesa tops 18% 

± 4.6%

Foothill-Piedmont ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) and piedmont slopes

Grassland

5212 Great Basin 1200-2400 Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) Grasses of swales and mesa bottoms 29% 

± 6.4%

Lowland/Swale
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 Table 1 Cont’d. Habitat Code Class Elevation (m) Major cover types Description Accuracy(%) Grassland 5221 Chihuahuan 1300-1700 Black grama (Bouteloua eripoda) and Grasslands of mountain foothills, mesa tops 33% ± 7.6% Desert Grassland Mesa dropseed (Sporobolus flexuosus) and piedmont slopes. Occurs only south of the Jemez Mountains within the study area Aquatic 6120 Southwest and 900-2100 Forested Wetland: Fremont cottonwood Vegetation dominated by woody species 31% ± 5.3% Plains Forested/ Populus fremontii ( ), Plains cottonwood primarily associated with the interior Shrub Wetland (P. sargentii), Arizona walnut (Juglans Southwest and Plains biogeographic major), Neatleaf hackberry (Celtis provinces reticulata), and Arizona sycamore Platanus wrightii ( ). Shrub Wetland: Coyote willow (Salix exigua) and Seepwillow (Baccharis glutinosa) with Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) as major exotic cover types 9120 Irrigated — — May contain inclusions of native riparian — Agriculture vegetation in river valleys, or plowed fields classified as barren 9410 Riverine/Lacustrine — — Rivers, stream, and lakes. Streams and 45% ± 5.0% rivers less then about 90 feet in width may not be identified 9420 Basin/Playa — — Drainage basins, playas, stock tanks. 42% ± 10.3% Mapped only on the east side of Sangre de Cristo Mountains in the study area
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 9

Figure 5—Predicted (a) and reported (b) distribution maps for the little brown bat (Myotis

lucifugus) in the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico. Predicted distribution from the New

Mexico Gap Analysis Project (Thompson and others 1996). Reported locations from Findley and

others (1975). Bold boundaries delineate the 3 mountain ranges shown in figure 1.
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

topographic maps at a 1:100,000 scale. This procedure

produced maps of georeferenced point occurrences

for each species (e.g., figure 5B), which we combined to

produce distributional coverages for whole taxonomic

groups. Point maps for amphibians and reptiles were

provided by Thompson and others (1996) based on

data from Degenhardt and others (1996). If available,

each record of occurrence (corresponding with a point

in the coverage) contains county of occurrence, site

description, date of collection or observation, collector/observer identification, data source, and location

of voucher specimens. Species’ presence/absence by

mountain range (appendix B) was generated from the

point coverages using spatial query operations in

ArcView.

A total of 263 birds, 97 mammals, 49 reptiles, 13

amphibians, 12 fish, and 182 species of butterflies were

predicted or reported to occur in the SRMNM (appendix A1-A-6). Additional species of fish have been

reported from the primary reaches of the Rio Grande

and Chama Rivers (Sublette and others 1990) but are

excluded from our species list and analysis because

these rivers do not enter the mountains.

Predicted and reported occurrences of species are

not completely independent. Species’ geographic

ranges, used to model predicted occurrence, were

defined initially by the point data contained in some of

the references listed in table 2 (Thompson and others

1996). Hydrologic units were included as part of a

Table 2—Sources of reported species distributional data used in the analysis of faunal

differentiation in the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico study area.

Taxon Sources

Birds North American Breeding Bird Survey (unpublished data)

North American Bird Banding Laboratory (unpublished data)

Museum of Southwestern Biology, Division of Birds (unpublished data)

New Mexico Natural Heritage Program (unpublished data)

Travis (1992)

Pat Kennedy (unpublished data)

Mammals Findley and others (1975)

Hall (1981)

Bogan and others (1996)

Joan Morrison (unpublished data)

Amphibians and Reptiles Degenhardt and others (1997)

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (1998)

Fishes Sublette and others (1990)

Butterflies Holland and Carey (1996)

Swengel and Opler (1997)

Toliver and others (1994)

species’ range if the species had been reported anywhere within the unit, except where accounts of reported occurrence were made only at the edge of a

unit. The range maps that resulted from this initial

effort were modified (sometimes greatly) for many

species following review by wildlife biologists with

extensive knowledge of the New Mexican fauna (Thompson and others 1996).

Classifying Species to Habitat Affinity

Groups

To test the hypotheses outlined above, we assigned

species to 1 of 3 habitat affinity groups: montane

specialist, habitat generalist, and aquatic specialist.

We assigned vertebrates to these groups using information on species’ associations with vegetation types

from the New Mexico Gap Analysis Project (Thompson and others 1996) (appendix C). Butterflies were

assigned to groups using information provided by

Cary and Holland (unpublished report). Within the

study area, species only showed notable specialization

at the level of major physiognomic classes (e.g., forest,

woodland, grassland, and desert scrub) and the majority of species are broad generalists over these. Only the

American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), American

dipper (Cinclus mexicanus), Sora (Porzana carolina), water

shrew (Sorex palustris), mink (Mustela vison), slider
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 11

(Trachemys scripta), canyon treefrog (Hyla arenicolor),

and western toad (Bufo boreas) are associated with a

single mapped habitat type. Montane specialists were

defined as species restricted to one or more montane

habitats, defined as any vegetation type occurring

above the pinyon-juniper woodland zone, beginning

at about 2500 m in the SRMNM (Peet 1988) (see appendix C). Habitat generalists were defined as species that

use some combination of montane, woodland, and

lowland habitat types. These species may also use

aquatic habitats, but are not restricted to them. Aquatic

specialists are defined as species associated entirely, or

nearly entirely, with open water, riparian forest, or

wetland habitats.

Measuring Faunal Differentiation

The measurement of faunal differentiation often

involves using indices to numerically capture the differences among the faunas of 2 or more habitat patches

in a region (e.g., Whittaker 1960; Harrison and others

1992). Understanding the physical and biological

mechanisms that generate differentiation patterns involves analysis of potential geo-spatial or ecological

covariates. For example, degree of differentiation has

been shown in some cases to be correlated with distance between sampling sites (e.g., Flessa 1981; Stork

1987; Harrison and others 1992).

Numerous indices of similarity and differentiation

have been applied to studies of biological association,

especially where large numbers of species are involved

(see Wolda 1981; Shmida and Wilson 1984; and

Magurran 1988 for reviews). Indices that use information on presence/absence (i.e., data that can be displayed in matrix form with 1s representing presence

and 0s absence [e.g., appendix B]) differ in that some

emphasize similarities among faunas, while others

emphasize differences. Indices of faunal differentiation are generally more useful in testing hypotheses

about controls on species distributions and are best

used where potential causal factors may be isolated

(Schaeffer and Perry 1986). Since we were interested in

faunal differentiation and potential biological

covariates of variation in differentiation among taxa,

we used an index (Nc) developed by Wright and Reeves

(1992) that maximizes faunal differences between

mountain ranges:

 

N XX c ij mj

j

S

m i

K

i

K

=

= = + =

−

∑ ∑ ∑

1 1 1

1

(1)

where K is the number of sites being compared and

S the total number of species among all sites. The Xs

are equal to 1 for presence or 0 for absence of species

j at sites i and m. Thus, Nc is equal to the sum of the

number of species shared across all pairs of sites.

Note that a pair of sites only contributes to the sum

when 1 or more species is present in both sites (i.e.,

when Xij and Xmj both equal 1). Nc can be converted

to a standardized metric (D) to permit comparisons

among suites of species varying in richness or in

number of sites:

 

D N EN

Max N E N

c c

c c

= − −

−





 

 100 100 ( )

() () (2)

where E(Nc) is the expected value of Nc if species were

randomly distributed among sites, and Max(Nc) is the

maximum value that Nc can take. Dis 0 when all faunas

are equivalent in species composition or when smaller

faunas always comprise subsets of larger faunas. D is

a positive value only when 1 or more pairs of sites each

contain species not present in the other site. D normally varies between 0 and 100, however it can exceed

100 when species’ distributions are hyper-dispersed

(i.e., where faunas at sites are more unique than expected under random distributions). Unlike many indices of similarity or differentiation, which are only

suitable for measuring differences between pairs of

sites (e.g., Jaccard’s Index) (Magurran 1988), D can be

applied to any number of sites.

Potential Sources of Error

Delineating species’ geographic ranges or quantifying patterns of habitat occupancy across a landscape is

controversial and imprecise (Rapoport 1982). This

imprecision is caused, in part, by the kinds of data and

procedures used to estimate species distributions.

Museum collections or observation records provide

precise information on the location of any given sighting. However, these types of data can bias estimates of

species presence or absence because of unequal sampling effort or because of errors in specimen or site

identification. Furthermore, these data are composed

of historic accounts of occurrence and can introduce

error if species distributions have changed over time.

Predicting species distributional patterns based on

knowledge of habitat requirements can help extrapolate occurrence into unsampled areas. However, while

a species distribution can be predicted across its range

regardless of the reporting frequency, we may lose

some accuracy due to errors in mapping vegetation

and to limitations in our knowledge of the factors

determining a species’ distribution (e.g., Verner and

others 1986; VanHorne and Wiens 1991). Error rates

associated with the vegetation map used by the New
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Mexico Gap Analysis Project vary substantially among

vegetation types, with agreement between mapped

vegetation types and vegetation observed on the

ground ranging from 0% to 64% for vegetation types in

the study area (table 1). Species-habitat relationships

have not been determined for many obscure taxa (e.g.,

amphibians, bats, insectivorous mammals, and invertebrates). Even for well-studied groups, strong patterns of habitat affinity can be clouded by numerous

ecological factors (e.g., interspecific interactions, spatial arrangement of habitat, and temporal dynamics)

that are unrelated to vegetation characteristics. Furthermore, vegetation may be less important to many

species of small mammals and reptiles than are physical features such as slope, substrate type, or soil

structure.

Given the uncertainty in both types of data, it is

difficult to determine which more accurately represents current species distributions. To a large degree,

accuracy will depend on the spatial scale at which the

data are analyzed (Thompson and others 1996). We are

unaware of any studies that have attempted to validate

the predictions made by the New Mexico Gap Analysis models at any scale. However, Edwards and others

(1996) compared predicted occurrence from the Utah

Gap Analysis Project with long-term species lists from

8 national parks in Utah. Their results suggest that

errors of commission (predicting a false occurrence of

a species) outnumbered errors of omission (failing to

predict a true occurrence) for all 4 terrestrial vertebrate

classes, and that total number of errors decreased with

increasing park size. Likewise, we suspect that, at the

scale of our study, errors of commission will outnumber errors of omission in faunal lists from maps of

predicted occurrence. This is because the spatial units

used to define species geographic ranges (8-digit

USGS hydrologic units) are large enough to encompass 2 or more mountain ranges, although a species

may actually have been reported from fewer ranges.

Errors of omission are likely to outnumber errors of

commission in lists of reported occurrence because the

greatest source of uncertainty in these data probably

arises from incomplete sampling of mountain ranges

(e.g., see Grayson and Livingston 1993; Lawlor 1998)

In general, errors of omission will reduce estimates

of local species richness and increase estimates of

faunal differentiation if different species are omitted

from lists in different mountain ranges. Figure 5 illustrates this point for the little brown bat. Alternatively,

errors of commission increase estimates of local species richness but may decrease estimates of faunal

differentiation if many species are predicted to occur

in more ranges than they actually do. We present

measures of faunal differentiation for both types of

data under the assumption that they bound actual

levels of faunal differentiation among the 3 mountain

ranges.

Results

For most taxa, the majority of species predicted to

occur within the study area have also been reported as

occurring there (table 3). Only 8 species, including 7

birds and 1 reptile, have been reported but are not

predicted to occur in the SRMNM. Of these, the yellow

mud turtle (Kinosternon flavescens) has only one record

of occurrence in the region (in the Jemez Mountains)

and this appears well outside of its normal distribution

in the state (Degenhardt and others 1996). Most likely,

this occurrence is the result of accidental or intentional

introduction. Similarly, 4 of the 7 bird species, the

black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis), clay-colored sparrow (Spizella pallida), Bonaparte’s gull (Larus

philadelphia), and the eastern meadowlark (Sturnella

magna) have only been reported once in the study area,

which suggests that these are unusual or accidental

occurrences in this region although not in the state.

Table 3—Comparison of predicted and reported numbers of species by taxonomic group for the Southern Rocky

Mountains of New Mexico. “ND” indicates no data were available on predicted occurrence.

Number of species Birds Mammals Reptiles Amphibians Fishes Butterflies

Reported and predicted 219 89 36 13 ND ND

(83%) (94%) (73%) (100%)

Reported not predicted 7 0 1 0 ND ND

(2%) (0%) (2%) 0%

Predicted not reported 37 8 12 0 ND ND

(15%) (6%) (24%) (0%)

Total 263 97 49 13 12 182
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 13

By contrast, 57 species (37 birds, 8 mammals, and 12

reptiles) were predicted to occur in the SRMNM but

have not been reported, according to the data sources

reviewed in this study. All 8 mammals, and 9 of the 12

reptiles have mapped distributions that are only marginal to the SRMNM. Five species, the desert shrew

(Notiosorex crawfordi), Merriam’s kangaroo rat

(Dipodomys merriami), rock pocket mouse (Chaetodipus

intermedius), massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus), and the

longnose snake (Rhinocheilus lecontei), reach the northern limits of their New Mexico distributions in this

region. By contrast, only 5 of the 37 bird species, Baird’s

sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii), Chihuahuan raven (Corvus cryptoleucus), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus

savannarum), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes

erythrocephalus), and upland sandpiper (Bartramia

longicauda), are marginal to the SRMNM. The others

are predicted to occur widely throughout the region.

As we suspected, use of predicted occurrences resulted in higher species richness estimates (table 4) and

lower faunal differentiation estimates (table 5) when

compared to reported occurrence. Differences between

values of D for predicted and reported occurrence

range from 0 to 118, with an average difference of 56.

Patterns of Species Richness

Overall, the Sangre de Cristo Mountains supported

the largest number of terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates

and butterflies combined (table 4). However, patterns of

species richness across mountain ranges varies among

taxonomic groups, and to some degree between the two

types of distributional data. Predicted numbers of birds

and mammals were highest in the Sangre de Cristo

Mountains, while the largest numbers of reptiles and

amphibians were predicted for the Jemez Mountains.

Reported numbers of birds were highest in the Jemez

Mountains, as were reptiles and amphibians, while the

largest numbers of mammals, fish, and butterflies were

reported from the Sangre de Cristo Mountains.

Table 4—Numbers of predicted and reported species by habitat affinity group in the Southern Rocky Mountains of New

Mexico. Italic numbers indicate the largest value within each group by each data type. “ND” indicates that no data were

available.

Predicted Reported

Sangre de Sangre de

Taxon Habitat group Jemez San Juan Cristo Jemez San Juan Cristo

Birds All species 240 230 243 169 160 161

Montane specialists 4 4 5 3 3 5

Habitat generalists 157 148 159 136 116 127

Aquatic specialists 79 78 79 30 41 29

Mammals All species 84 82 88 61 63 68

Montane specialists 9 11 11 7 10 11

Habitat generalists 70 67 71 52 50 54

Aquatic specialists 5 4 6 3 3 4

Reptiles All species 44 32 41 29 19 23

Montane specialists 0 0 0 0 0 0

Habitat generalists 39 29 34 25 17 20

Aquatic specialists 5 3 7 4 2 3

Amphibians All species 12 8 9 11 7 8

Montane specialists 1 1 0 1 1 0

Habitat generalists 7 5 6 7 4 5

Aquatic specialists 4 2 3 3 2 3

Fishes All species ND ND ND 7 8 12

Butterflies All species ND ND ND 147 100 157

Montane specialists ND ND ND 14 18 29

Habitat generalists ND ND ND 113 72 108

Aquatic specialists ND ND ND 6 4 8

All Taxa All species 405 326 412 428 360 436

Montane specialists 14 17 17 25 30 43

Habitat generalists 272 224 265 290 257 313

Aquatic specialists 94 87 132 58 50 66
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Within habitat association groups, patterns of species richness are similar to those of whole faunas

except for the reported occurrence of montane and

aquatic birds, aquatic reptiles, and generalist butterflies. The maximum diversities of these groups occurred in mountain ranges other than those of all

species combined.

Patterns of Faunal Differentiation

Montane Specialists

Contrary to our hypothesis, predicted and reported

occurrence of montane specialists indicated a complete lack of faunal differentiation with D = 0 for birds

and mammals (table 5). The small number of montane

amphibians (2 species), and the absence of montane

reptiles in the SRMNM precluded involvement of

these taxa in the comparison. For birds and mammals,

Jemez species comprised a subset of the larger San

Juan and Sangre de Cristo faunas. That is, the San

Juan and Sangre de Cristo Mountains contained all

species of montane birds and mammals present in the

Jemez Mountains plus additional species not present

in the Jemez Mountains. These relationships are evident by examining the distributions of these taxa in

appendix B. For predicted occurrence, montane mammal faunas of the San Juan and Sangre de Cristo

Mountains were equivalent, while 2 species present in

these ranges, the heather vole (Phenacomys intermedius)

and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), were absent

from the Jemez Mountains. These 2 species were also

absent from our records of reported occurrence for the

Jemez Mountains, along with the American marten

(Martes americana) and the meadow vole (Microtus

pennsylvanicus), the latter of which was also not reported from the San Juan Mountains. All 5 montane

specialist bird species were predicted and reported to

occur in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. The whitetailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus) was absent in predicted occurrence from the San Juan and Jemez Mountains due to lack of suitable alpine habitat. The boreal

owl (Aegolius funereus) was reported only from the

Sangre de Cristo Mountains, although it was predicted

to occur in all 3 ranges.

Contrary to our results for birds and mammals,

montane butterfly faunas exhibited a high degree of

faunal differentiation (D = 85). Most of this is attributable to differences between the Jemez and San

Juan faunas. Six species reported from the Jemez Mountains were not reported from the San Juan Mountains,

and 7 species reported from the San Juans were not

Table 5—Measures of faunal differentiation for predicted and reported species presence/absence data for the

Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico. S = number of species in each comparison. D = faunal differentiation

(Eq. 2). Delta ( ∆) is the difference in predicted and reported D. D was not calculated for fewer than 3 species

(indicated by “—”). “ND” indicates that no data were available.

Predicted Reported

Taxon Habitat group SDSD ∆

Birds Montane specialists 50500

Habitat generalists 161 27 153 69 42

Aquatic specialists 80 0 59 118 118

Mammals Montane specialists 11 0 11 0 0

Non-volant habitat generalists 58 42 52 87 45

Bats (all generalists) 16 0 15 78 78

Aquatic specialists 6 0 5 84 84

Reptiles Montane specialists 0 — 0 — —

Habitat generalists 40 34 30 93 59

Aquatic specialists 8 47 7 122 75

Amphibians Montane specialists 2 — 2 — —

Habitat generalists 70700

Aquatic specialists 4 0 4 114 114

Fishes All species ND ND 12 0

Butterflies Montane specialists ND ND 31 85

Habitat generalists ND ND 125 81

Aquatic specialists ND ND 9 61
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 15

reported from the Jemez Mountains. One species, the

silver-bordered fritillary (Boloria selene), was reported

only from the Jemez Mountains.

Aquatic Specialists

A lack of faunal differentiation was observed in

predicted occurrence of birds, mammals, and amphibians and in reported occurrence of fish (table 5). For

predicted occurrence, differentiation is lower in aquatic

birds and mammals than habitat generalists of these

taxa but equal to amphibians because generalist amphibians also lack differentiation. These results support in part, our second hypothesis, however differentiation of aquatic birds and mammals are equal, not

less than, those of montane specialists, which also

exhibited a lack of differentiation.

By contrast, differentiation among aquatic specialists in reported occurrence is higher than all other

habitat affinity groups for all taxonomic groups except

butterflies and non-volant mammals. For all taxonomic groups (except fishes and butterflies), aquatic

specialists exhibited the largest differences in faunal

differentiation between predicted and reported occurrence, which suggests either a large number of unreported occurrences or substantial errors of commission in predicted occurrence.

Habitat Generalists

Among habitat generalists, D varies from 0 (predicted and reported occurrence of amphibians) to 93

(reported occurrence of reptiles) (table 5), and the

relationship between faunal differentiation and dispersal ability generally agrees with our hypothesized

pattern. For both predicted and reported occurrence

data sets, birds and bats exhibited a lower degree of

differentiation than reptiles and non-volant mammals.

For reported occurrence, differentiation among mammals was less than that of reptiles, although the reverse

was true for predicted occurrence. Contrary to prediction, amphibians exhibited a lack of differentiation in

both predicted and reported occurrence.

Bats also exhibited a lack of differentiation in predicted occurrence, owing to the fact that 15 of the 16

species were predicted in all 3 mountain ranges.

However, differentiation was high (D = 78) for reported occurrence. Although 14 of the 15 species

reported in the SRMNM occurred in the Jemez Mountains, only 8 and 10 of these species have been reported from the San Juan and Sangre de Cristo Mountains, respectively, and these tend to be different

species (appendix B).

Discussion

Predicted Versus Reported Species

Occurrence

Extrapolating species occurrence into unsampled

areas based on models of habitat association have the

potential to overestimate species richness and underestimate faunal differences between sites. By contrast,

under-sampling populations where they actually occur, is likely to underestimate species richness and

overestimate faunal differences between sites. Two

lines of evidence suggest that both types of error

influenced the data sets we examined. First, estimates

of species richness were higher and measures of faunal

differentiation (Eq. 2) were lower using data on predicted versus reported species occurrence. Secondly,

we predicted that errors of commission (false predictions in species occurrence) would be greater than

errors of omission (failing to predict actual occurrences) in species lists derived from predicted species

distributions. Errors of commission appear to be the

cause for most discrepancies in species lists of mammals and reptiles because the predicted distributions

of most unreported species were only marginal to the

study area. Species tend to become rare at the limits of

their ranges, making predictions of occurrence more

susceptible to error. However, for most of the 37 unreported bird species, discrepancies between predicted

and reported occurrence were probably due to undersampling. This was suggested by the widespread predicted distribution of most of these species in the

SRMNM and by the fact that much of our locational

data for this taxon originated from surveys of breeding

birds, while only 9 of the unreported species are

known to breed in the region (Thompson and others

1996).

It is important to remember that species lists are

based on historic and current information. Species

ranges do not remain static; a fact that is underscored

by the many changes that have occurred in the Southwest over the last 100 years (Brown and Davis 1995).

Within a species’ range, local populations are often in

temporal flux between extinction and recolonization.

The temporal and spatial scales over which these processes operate are generally not well understood. Furthermore, various forms of human disturbance, such

as fire suppression, habitat alteration, livestock grazing, predator removal, and other factors (Foxx 1981;
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Allen 1989; Wolters 1996), have recently influenced the

composition of natural communities in the SRMNM.

The extirpations of species, including the black-footed

ferret (Mustela nigripes), gray wolf (Canus lupus), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), wolverine (Gulo gulo), and river

otter (Lutra canadensis), are well documented (USDA

Forest Service 1986). Another possible example of a

recent extirpation is the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys

ludovicianus), which was last formally reported in the

SRMNM in 1916 (Findley and others 1975).

These factors, along with errors in the vegetation

map and incomplete knowledge of species associations with different vegetation types, can lead to errors

in predicted occurrence. Furthermore, factors such as

substrate and soil type may be stronger determinants

of distribution for many small mammals and reptiles

than vegetation. Small scale delineation of species

habitats and improved models for predicting species

distributions will be important for protecting the habitats of many species.

Resolving discrepancies between predicted and reported occurrence and validating prediction models

can be best accomplished with further field surveys,

although additional information may be obtained from

recent museum collections and literary sources not

included in our analysis. Special effort is needed to

acquire distributional information on species with no

recent records of occurrence and on species at the edge

of their distribution in the study area. The magnitude

of differences in measures of faunal differentiation

between predicted and reported occurrence could be

used to identify groups of species to target in future

field surveys. For example, in our analysis, we found

that the largest discrepancies between these measures

existed among bats and aquatic specialists of all taxa.

The latter group represents a large portion of the

regional fauna. Another approach might focus on

smaller groups of species whose distributions and

habitat associations are poorly understood (e.g., insectivorous mammals, some of the butterflies).

Patterns of Species Richness

Recently, conservationists have focused on a search

for indicator taxa—species whose distributions can be

used as a surrogate for species whose distributions are

less well-known (see Flather and others 1997 for a

review of indicator taxa in biodiversity conservation).

Birds, butterflies, and mammals are used most often as

indicators of species distributions in other taxa (Scott

and others 1993; Sisk and others 1994; Long and others

1996). However, results from our analysis suggest

that patterns of species richness observed for any one

taxonomic group do not generally indicate similar

patterns for other taxa. For example, patterns of species richness in reported occurrence for amphibians

and reptiles were similar to birds, but those of butterflies were similar to mammals. Furthermore, patterns

of species’ distributions within habitat types may

also differ from overall patterns. For example, we

found the diversity of habitat generalist butterflies

(the largest component of the regional butterfly fauna)

to be highest in the Jemez Mountains, while total

butterfly diversity was highest in the Sangre de Cristo

Mountains.

Patterns of Faunal Differentiation

For terrestrial vertebrates, comparisons among taxa

suggest that variation in faunal differentiation in the

SRMNM was associated more strongly with differences

in dispersal ability than with potential differences in

habitat composition among mountain ranges. Errors in

the vegetation map and limitations in our knowledge of

species-habitat associations might have affected the

validity of these conclusions. However, the scale of this

analysis, the occurrence of most vegetation types in all

3 mountain ranges, and the fact that most terrestrial

vertebrate species in the SRMNM are broad habitat

generalists, minimized the potential influence of these

problems. The only species whose distribution is clearly

limited by its requirement for habitat not present

throughout the region is the white-tailed ptarmigan,

which is restricted to alpine tundra habitats present

only in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains.

Relationships between faunal differentiation and

dispersal ability were consistent with 2 out of the 3

hypotheses we tested. These included a negative relationship between dispersal ability and differentiation

among habitat generalists and a lack of faunal differentiation among aquatic specialists (in predicted but not

reported occurrence).

The inverse relationship between dispersal ability

and faunal differentiation among habitat generalists

suggest that limitations to dispersal are experienced

by some species, despite a relatively high degree of

connectivity among woodland habitats in the landscape. Although we presumed amphibians as a group

to be the poorest dispersers among habitat generalists, we observed a complete lack of differentiation in

this group, as we did in fishes and the predicted

occurrence of aquatic specialists of most taxa. One

plausible explanation for the lack of differentiation in

the generalist amphibian faunas and aquatic specialists is dispersal through the region’s highly connected riverine systems.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 17

The high degrees of differentiation measured in

reported occurrence of aquatic specialists (not including fish) (average D = 99.8) were unexpected and

deviated sharply from values obtained for predicted

occurrence (average D = 11.8). It is possible that the

distributions of aquatic specialists as a whole, have

been less well documented than those of the other

habitat associations groups.

Also contrary to what we hypothesized, was a lack of

differentiation among montane birds and mammals.

These results might be better understood if we consider the changes that have occurred in the distribution of montane forests of the Southwest in recent

geologic time. During the last glacial episode, prior to

the end of the Pleistocene 10,000 to 12,000 years ago,

subalpine conifer forests were broadly and continuously distributed across most of north-central New

Mexico, and mixed conifer forests occupied most of the

middle and lower elevations (Van Devender and others 1987). Dispersal by montane species between mountain ranges would have been relatively unimpeded at

that time and it is very likely that all 3 mountain ranges

in the SRMNM contained the same faunal contingent.

However, as climates became warmer, forests became

restricted to the higher elevations. Woodland and

lowland vegetation invaded from the south, filling in

the low and middle elevations to produce the landscape patterns we see today (Van Devender and

Spaulding 1979). Stochastic extinctions of forest-dependent species likely followed forest fragmentation

and isolation of montane habitats, causing mountain

ranges like the Jemez to lose a portion of their former

faunas (Patterson 1984; Patterson and Atmar 1986).

Thus, differences in faunal composition are likely to be

influenced more by local extinctions than a failure to

colonize mountain ranges. Because extinction risk is

correlated with habitat area (as reviewed by Diamond

1984), a smaller, more isolated mountain range like the

Jemez would be expected to lose more species than the

San Juan and Sangre de Cristo Mountains, which are

larger and more closely connected to Rocky Mountain

montane habitats to the north. Although montane

mammals of the San Juan Mountains appeared to

contain fewer species than the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, this was probably an artifact of incomplete sampling due to limiting our analysis to the New Mexican

portion of these mountain ranges. In their analysis,

which included the whole of the Southern Rocky Mountains along with the smaller ranges to the south of the

SRMNM, Patterson and Atmar (1986) report fewer

species of montane mammals in the Sangre de Cristo

Mountains than the San Juan Mountains, which contain a complete Southern Rocky Mountain montane

fauna.

Differences in habitat composition and disturbance

history may be more important determinants of butterfly distributions and patterns of differentiation in

the SRMNM than for terrestrial vertebrates. Butterflies

differed greatly from vertebrates in patterns of differentiation. Most notably, montane butterflies of the

Jemez Mountains are not subsets of the San Juan or

Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Although they are of

Rocky Mountain origin (Cary and Holland, unpublished report), 15 species have been reported from the

Jemez Mountains but nowhere else in the SRMNM.

For this reason, montane butterflies exhibited a higher

degree of differentiation than either habitat generalists

or aquatic specialists. However, we do note that in the

absence of variance estimates on D, the significance of

such differences in differentiation can not be judged.

There are several possible explanations for the relatively high levels of differentiation observed among

montane butterflies. First, our species lists for the San

Juan and Sangre de Cristos were incomplete. We only

document occurrence of species in New Mexico, while

a large portion of these mountain ranges lie in southern Colorado. Second, habitat specificity (i.e., dependence on particular larval host plants) is generally

higher among butterflies than vertebrates (Wilcox and

others 1986). Thus, the distributions of butterfly species may be influenced as much by differences in

habitat availability among mountain ranges as by dispersal ability. Third, the ranges of many butterfly

species may be comparatively more restricted than

those of vertebrates in general, making them more

susceptible to local forms of disturbance. For example,

the Nokomis fritillary (Speyeria nokomis), a New Mexico

State Species of Concern, is restricted to scarce montane wetland habitats that are vulnerable to adverse

changes such as drainage for cultivation or excessive

livestock grazing (Holland and Cary 1996). Finally, the

persistence of undisturbed habitats in Los Alamos

County in the Jemez Mountains might explain the

unique occurrence of many butterfly species reported

in the Jemez Mountains. Due to the restrictions placed

on land use since the middle of World War II, it is

possible that this area is a de facto refuge for species

whose populations have declined or disappeared elsewhere (Holland and Cary 1996).

Implications for Biodiversity

Assessment and Management

Variation in faunal differentiation and the patterns

that emerge from it have important implications for

biodiversity assessments in general, and for management of biodiversity in the SRMNM in particular.
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Because some species groups (as defined by taxonomy

and habitat affinity) show high degrees of faunal differentiation (table 5), maintaining the uniqueness of

these faunas across the region will require a broad

geographic focus and cooperative management

among national forests, forest districts, and other

landownerships.

A common strategy for regional biodiversity assessment and management is to judiciously select a species

or group of species as an indicator for all other taxa

(Flather and others 1997; Reid 1998). The indicator

concept is generally applied to patterns of species

richness, not to differences in faunal composition. The

identity of a suitable indicator taxon for monitoring

changes in species richness is not suggested by comparisons among the vertebrate and invertebrate taxa

examined in this study. Patterns of species richness

among both reported and predicted occurrence suggest that no single taxonomic group is an indicator of

all other taxa (table 4).

However, relationships among taxa, with respect to

patterns of faunal differentiation, may allow us to

identify groups of species that are especially vulnerable to regional extirpation as a result of habitat fragmentation. For example, among forest species able to

use habitats at middle and lower elevations (habitat

generalists), combinations of relatively poor dispersal

ability and high degree of faunal differentiation, such

as we see in reptiles and mammals (table 5), may be

good indicators of local and regional extinction risk.

This is because immigration rates are relatively low for

poorer dispersers and sources of immigrants are generally few compared with faunal groups possessing

stronger dispersal abilities and lower levels of differentiation. Therefore, changes in faunal differentiation

within groups such as these may be early warnings for

other taxa of the effects that habitat fragmentation may

have on the compositional patterns of regional biodiversity, particularly as these changes affect the distribution of habitat corridors both within and between

mountain ranges.

The distribution of mammalian montane specialists

from the Jemez Mountains (appendix B) may be the

result of extinctions over the last 10,000 to 12,000 years,

following fragmentation of forest habitats in the Southern Rocky Mountains as climates became warmer and

drier (Patterson 1984; Patterson and Atmar 1986). The

absence of species, such as the heather vole and snowshoe hare from the Jemez Mountains, which occur

today in the Sangre de Cristo and San Juan Mountains,

supports the theory that the frequency of successful

colonization of the Jemez Mountains by montane specialist mammals is low (Patterson 1984; Patterson and

Atmar 1986). This suggests that further extinctions of

mammalian montane specialists in the Jemez Mountains are unlikely to be reversed by immigration from

nearby mountain ranges except over very long periods

of time (Patterson and Atmar 1986). Preservation of

habitat in sufficient quantity and quality will be necessary to preserve viable populations of these species

over the long run.

The high degree of differentiation among montane

butterfly species (table 5) suggests that their distributions are more tightly correlated with those of finergrained resources than are montane birds and mammals (Wilcox and others 1986). If this is true, then

butterfly occurrence may be less predictable in time

and space and more susceptible to disturbance by

factors such as livestock grazing (Holland and Cary

1996). For this reason, it may be important to preserve

habitat for these species even if there is no current

occupancy (Smallidge and Leopold 1997). However,

implementation of this recommendation will require a

more comprehensive understanding of butterfly life

histories and habitat requirements than presented in

this report.

Finally, efforts should be made to improve the species database and to complete verification studies for

questionable species occurrences in the field. Overall,

there are large differences between measures of differentiation in predicted and reported occurrence

(table 5), the average being equal to 56. These differences call for properly planned field surveys to better

document species distributions, and for further

studies of species-habitat relationships for species

whose habitat requirements are not well known so that

species-habitat prediction models may be improved.

Discrepancies between predicted and reported occurrence could be used to indicate where future survey

efforts are needed. For example, results of this analysis

indicate that greater information is needed on the

distribution of bat species in particular (D = 78) and

aquatic vertebrates in general (average D = 98).

Acknowledgments

For their contributions to this study, we gratefully

acknowledge Bruce Thompson, Jon Klingel, Dave

Johnson, Gary White, Pat Kennedy, Pat Mehlhop,

Marilyn Altenbach, Patricia Snider, Joan Morrison,

Steve Fettig, Mike Bogan, Laura Ellison, Tom O’Shea,

Keith Pardieck, Kathy Klimkiewicz, Brett Hoover, and

Robert Dickerman. For data sets, we thank the USGS

New Mexico Gap Analysis Project, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, New Mexico Natural
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 19

Heritage Program, USGS North American Bird Banding Laboratory, USGS North American Breeding Bird

Survey Program, and the Museum of Southwestern

Biology Division of Birds at the University of New

Mexico. We are grateful to Douglas (Sandy) Boyce,

Cathy Dahms, John Peterson, and the U.S. Forest Service Region 3 for financial support of this project; to

Dan Neubaum, Gordon Mullen, and Samantha Beckers

for data entry; and to Douglas (Sandy) Boyce, Reggie

Fletcher, Bruce Patterson, Pat Mehlhop, and Rudy

King for critical reviews of the manuscript.

Literature Cited

Allen, C.D. 1989. Changes in the landscapes of the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico. Berkeley, CA: University of California. 349 p.

Dissertation.

American Ornithologists’ Union, Committee on Classification and

Nomenclature. 1998. Check-list of North American birds: the

species of birds of North America from the Arctic to Panama,

including the West Indies and Hawaiian Islands. 7th edition.

Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 828 p.

Bogan, M.A.; O’Shea, T.J.; Cryan, P.M.; Ditto, A.M.; Schaedla,

W.H.; Valdez, E.W.; Castle, K.T.; Ellison, L. 1997. A study of bat

populations at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Bandelier

National Monument, Jemez Mountains, New Mexico. FY95-97

report to: Los Alamos National Laboratory and Bandelier National Monument. 96 p.

Bowers, J.E.; McLaughlin, S.P. 1982. Plant species diversity in Arizona. Madroño. 29: 227-233.

Brown, D.E.; Davis, R. 1995. One hundred years of vicissitude:

terrestrial bird and mammal distribution changes in the American Southwest, 1890-1990. In: DeBano, L.F.; Ffolliott, P.F.; OrtegaRubio, A.; Gottfried, G.J.; Hamre, R.H.; Edminster, C.B., tech.

coords. Biodiversity and management of the madrean archipelago: the sky islands of southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-264. Fort Collins, CO: USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station: 231-244.

Cary, J.S.; Holland, R. Unpublished report. Butterflies of New Mexico.

Report available from J.S. Cary; Energy, Minerals, and Natural

Resources Department; New Mexico State Parks Division, Santa

Fe, NM.

DeBano, L.F.; Ffolliott, P.F.; Ortega-Rubio, A.; Gottfried, G.J.; Hamre,

R.H.; Edminster, C.B., tech. coords. 1995. Biodiversity and management of the madrean archipelago: the sky islands of southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM264. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 669 p.

Degenhardt, W.G.; Painter, C.W.; Price, A.H. 1996. Amphibians and

reptiles of New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: University of New

Mexico Press. 431 p.

Desrochers, A.; Hannon, S.J. 1997. Gap crossing decisions by forest

songbirds during the post-fledging period. Conservation Biology. 11: 1204-1210.

Diamond, J.M. 1984. “Normal” extinctions of isolated populations.

In: Nitecki, M.H., ed. Extinctions. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press: 191-246.

Driscoll, R.S.; Merkel, D.L.; Radloff, D.L.; Snyder, D.E.; Hagihara,

J.S. 1984. An ecological land classification for the United States.

Misc. Pub. 1439. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 56 p.

Edwards, P.J.; May, R.M.; Webb, N.R., eds. 1994. Large-scale ecology

and conservation biology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 375 p.

Edwards, T.C.; Deshler, E.T.; Foster, D.; Moisen, G.G. 1996. Adequacy of wildlife habitat relation models for estimating spatial

distributions of terrestrial vertebrates. Conservation Biology. 10:

263-270.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 1996. ArcView GIS:

the geographic information system for everyone. Redlands, CA:

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.

Findley, J.S.; Harris, A.H.; Wilson, D.E.; Jones, C. 1975. Mammals of

New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico

Press. 360 p.

Flather, C.H.; Wilson, K.R.; Dean, D.J.; McComb, W.C. 1997. Identifying gaps in conservation networks: of indicators and uncertainty in geographic-based analysis. Ecological Applications. 7:

531-542.

Flessa, K.W. 1981. The regulation of mammalian faunal similarity

among the continents. Journal of Biogeography. 8: 427-437.

Foxx, T.S. 1981. La Mesa fire symposium. In: Foxx, T.S., compil.

Proceedings of the La Mesa Fire Symposium; 1981 October 6-7;

Los Alamos. Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory:

1-10.

Grayson, D.K.; Livingston, S.D. 1993. Missing mammals on Great

Basin mountains: holocene extinctions and inadequate knowledge. Conservation Biology. 7: 527-532.

Grumbine, R.E. 1997. Reflections on “what is ecosystem management?” Conservation Biology. 11: 41-47.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Second edition.

New York: John Wiley and Sons. 2 vol.

Harrison, S.; Ross, S.J.; Lawton, J.H. 1992. Beta diversity on

geographic gradients in Britain. Journal of Animal Ecology. 61:

141-148.

Holland, R.; Cary, J.S. 1996. Butterflies of the Jemez Mountains of

northern New Mexico. Journal of the Lepidopteran Society. 50:

61-79.

Lawlor, T.E. 1998. Biogeography of Great Basin mammals: paradigm lost? Journal of Mammology. 79: 1111-1130.

Long, A.J.; Crosby, M.J.; Stattersfield, A.J.; Wedge, D.C. 1996. Towards a global map of biodiversity: patterns in the distribution of

range-restricted birds. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters.

5: 281-304.

Lowe, C.H. 1964. Arizona’s natural environment. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 136 p.

Maxwell, J.R.; Edwards, C.J.; Jensen, M.E.; Paustian, S.J.; Parrott, H.;

Hill, D.M. 1995. A hierarchical framework of aquatic ecological

units in North America (Nearctic Zone). Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-176.

St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 72 p.

Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 179 p.

Muldavin, E.M.; Crist, P.J.; Thompson, B.C.; Peters, A.J.; Eve, M.;

Middleton, B.; Eggerton, J.; Garber, D.L. 1996. A vegetation classification and land cover legend for application to New Mexico

Gap Analysis. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico Cooperative Fish

and Wildlife Research Unit.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 1998. Biota Information

System of New Mexico (BISON-M). Version 2.9. Santa Fe, NM:

Conservation Service Division.

Opler, P.A.; Pavulaan, H.; Stanford, R.E., coords. 1995. Butterflies of

North America. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/lepid/bflyusa/bflyusa.htm (version 16 March 2000).

Patterson, B.D. 1984. Mammalian extinction and biogeography in

the southern Rocky Mountains. In: Nitecki, M., ed. Extinction.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press: 247-293.

Patterson, B.D.; Atmar, W. 1986. Nested subsets and the structure of

insular mammalian faunas and archipelagos. Biological Journal

of the Linnean Society. 28: 65-82.

Peet, R.K. 1988. Forests of the Rocky Mountains. In: Barbour, M.G.;

Billings, W.D., eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 63-101.

Rapoport, E.H. 1982. Areography: geographical strategies of species. New York: Pergamon Press. 269 p.

Reichenbacher, F.W.; Brown, D.E. 1994. Biotic Communities of

North America, map (1:10,000,000). Las Vegas, NV: Environmental Protection Agency.
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Reid, W.V. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots. Trends in Ecology and

Evolution. 13: 275-280.

Ricketts, T.H.; Dinerstein, E.; Olson, D.M.; Loucks, C.J.; Eichbaum,

W.; DellaSala, D.; Kavanagh, K.; Hedao, P.; Hurley, P.; Carney,

K.M.; Abell, R.; Walters, S. 1999. Terrestrial ecoregions of North

America: a conservation assessment. Washington, DC: Island

Press. 485 p.

Schaeffer, D.J.; Perry, J.A. 1986. Gradients in the distribution of

riverine benthos. Freshwater Biology. 16: 745-757.

Schluter, D.; Ricklefs, R.E. 1993. Species diversity: an introduction to

the problem. In: Ricklefs, R.E.; Schluter, D., eds. Species diversity

in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press: 1-10.

Scott, J.M.; Davis, F.; Csuti, B.; Noss, R.; Butterfield, B.; Caicco, S.;

Groves, C.; Edwards, T.C.; Ulliman, J.; Andersen, H.; D’Erchia, F.;

Wright, R.G. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123.

Seaber, P.R.; Kapinos, F.P.; Knapp, G.L. 1987. Hydrologic unit maps.

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294. Reston, VA:

USDI, Geological Survey. 63 p.

Self, S.; Heiken, G.; Sykes, M.L.; Wohletz, K.; Fisher, R.V.; Dethier, D.

1996. Field excursions to the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico. New

Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Bulletin 134. 72 p.

Shmida, A.; Wilson, M. 1984. Measuring beta diversity with presence-absence data. Journal of Ecology. 72: 1055-1064.

Sisk,T.D.; Launer, A.E.; Switky, K.R.; Ehrlich, P.R. 1994. Identifying

extinction threats: Global analysis of the distribution of biodiversity and the expansion of the human enterprise. BioScience. 44:

592-604.

Smallidge, P.; Leopold, D. 1997. Vegetation management for the

maintenance and conservation of butterfly habitats in temperate

human-dominated landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning.

38: 259-280.

Stork, N.E. 1987. Arthropod faunal similarity of Bornean rain forest

trees. Ecological Entomology. 12: 219-226.

Sublette, J.E.; Hatch, M.D.; Sublette, M. 1990. The fishes of New

Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

393 p.

Swengel, A.B.; Opler, P.A. 1997. North American butterfly association fourth of July counts, 1996 report. Morristown, NJ: North

American Butterfly Association, Inc. 70 p.

Thompson, B.C.; Crist, P.J.; Prior-Magee, J.S.; Deitner, R.A.; Garber,

D.L.; Hughes, M.A. 1996. Gap analysis of biological diversity

conservation in New Mexico using geographic information systems. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.

Toliver, M.E.; Holland, R.; Cary, J.S. 1994. Distribution of butterflies

in New Mexico (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea),

Second edition. Albuquerque, NM. 420 p.

Travis, J.R. 1992. Atlas of the breeding birds of Los Alamos County,

New Mexico: Pajarito Ornithological Survey. Los Alamos, NM:

Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory. 281 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986. Revised draft

environmental impact statement, Santa Fe National Forest plan.

USDA, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 257 p.

Van Devender, T.R.; Spaulding, W.G. 1979. Development of vegetation and climate in the southwestern United States. Science. 204:

701-710.

Van Devender, T.R.; Thompson, R.S.; Betancourt, J.L. 1987. Vegetation history of the deserts of southwestern North America:

the nature and timing of the late Wisconsin-Holocene transition. In: Ruddiman, W.F.; Wright, H.E., eds. North America

and adjacent oceans during the last glaciation: The Geology of

North America. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America.

Volume K-3.

VanHorne, B.; Wiens, J.A. 1991. Forest bird habitat suitability models and the development of general habitat models. Fish and

Wildlife Research 8. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. 31 p.

Verner, J.; Morrison, M.L.; Ralph, C.J., eds. 1986. Wildlife 2000:

modeling habitat relations of terrestrial vertebrates. Madison, WI:

The University of Wisconsin Press. 470 p.

Whittaker, R.H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon

and California. Ecological Monographs. 30: 279-338.

Whittaker, R.H.; Niering, W.A. 1965. Vegetation of the Santa Catalina

Mountains, Arizona: a gradient analysis of the south slope. Ecology. 46: 429-452.

Wiens, J.A. 1976. Population responses to patchy environments.

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 7: 81-120.

Wilcox, B.A.; Murphy, D.D.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Austin, G.T. 1986. Insular

biogeography of the montane butterfly faunas in the Great Basin:

comparison with birds and mammals. Oecologia. 69: 188-194.

Wolda, H. 1981. Similarity indices, sample size and diversity.

Oecologia. 50: 296-302.

Wolters, G.L. 1996. Elk effects on Bandelier National Monument

meadows and grasslands. In: Proceedings of the second La

Mesa fire symposium; 1994 March 29-31; Los Alamos, NM.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-286. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station:

196-205.

Wright, D.H.; Reeves, J.H. 1992. On the meaning and measurement

of nestedness of species assemblages. Oecologia. 92: 416-428.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 21

Appendix A1. Birds of the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico by predicted and reported occurrence. FE:

Federally Endangered; FT: Federally Threatened; FC: Federal Candidate; SE: State Endangered; ST: State Threatened;

SOC: New Mexico Species of Concern; Sen: Forest Service Region 3 Sensitive (New Mexico Department of Game and

Fish 1998). Common and scientific names follow the American Ornithologists’ Union, Committee on Classification and

Nomenclature (1998).

 Common Name Scientific Name Status Predicted Reported

Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus Y Y

American avocet Recurvirostra americana Y Y

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Sen Y

American coot Fulica americana Y Y

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Y Y

American dipper Cinclus mexicanus Y Y

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis Y Y

American kestrel Falco sparverius Y Y

American pipit Anthus rubescens Y Y

American robin Turdus migratorius Y Y

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea Y Y

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Y

American wigeon Anas americana Y Y

Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Y Y

Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii Y Y

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii Y

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT, ST, Sen Y Y

Band-tailed pigeon Columba fasciata Y Y

Bank swallow Riparia riparia Y Y

Barn owl Tyto alba Y Y

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Y Y

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Sen Y Y

Bendire’s thrasher Toxostoma bendirei Y

Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii Y Y

Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Y

Black swift Cypseloides niger Y Y

Black tern Chlidonias niger SOC Y

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola Y

Black-billed magpie Pica pica Y Y

Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus Y Y

Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Y Y

Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis Y

Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax Sen Y Y

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Y Y

Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus Sen Y Y

Black-throated gray warbler Dendroica nigrescens Y Y

Black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Y

Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea Y Y

Blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus Y Y

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Y Y

Blue-winged teal Anas discors Y Y

Bonaparte’s gull Larus philadelphia Y

Boreal owl Aegolius funereus Y Y

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Y Y

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri Y Y

Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus Y Y

Brown creeper Certhia americana Y Y

Brown-capped rosy-finch Leucosticte australis Y

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Y Y

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Y Y

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SOC Y

Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Y Y
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope Y Y

Canada goose Branta canadensis Y Y

Canvasback Aythya valisineria Y Y

Canyon towhee Pipilo fuscus Y Y

Canyon wren Catherpes mexicanus Y Y

Cassin’s finch Carpodacus cassinii Y Y

Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Y Y

Cassin’s sparrow Aimophila cassinii Y Y

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Y Y

Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Y Y

Chihuahuan raven Corvus cryptoleucus Y

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Y Y

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera Y Y

Clark’s nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Y Y

Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida Y

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Y Y

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Y Y

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula Y Y

Common loon Gavia immer Y Y

Common merganser Mergus merganser Y Y

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Y Y

Common poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttalli Y Y

Common raven Corvus corax Y Y

Common snipe Gallinago gallinago Y Y

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Y Y

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii Y Y

Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis Y Y

Curve-billed thrasher Toxostoma curvirostre Y

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Y Y

Dickcissel Spiza americana Y Y

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Y Y

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Y Y

Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri Y Y

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis Y Y

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis Y Y

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Y

Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna Y

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Y Y

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Sen, SOC Y Y

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla Y Y

Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Sen Y Y

Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri Y Y

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca Y

Franklin’s gull Larus pipixcan Y Y

Gadwall Anas strepera Y Y

Gambel’s quail Callipepla gambelii Y

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Y Y

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Y Y

Grace’s warbler Dendroica graciae Y Y

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Y Y

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis Sen Y Y

Gray flycatcher Empidonax wrightii Y Y

Gray jay Perisoreus canadensis Y Y

Gray vireo Vireo vicinior ST, Sen Y Y

Great blue heron Ardea herodias Y Y

Great egret Ardea alba Sen Y

Appendix A1. (Cont’d.)

 Common Name Scientific Name Status Predicted Reported
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 23

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Y Y

Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus Y

Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons Y Y

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Y

Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus mexicanus Y Y

Green heron Butorides virescens Y

Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus Y Y

Green-winged teal Anas crecca Y Y

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Y Y

Hammond’s flycatcher Empidonax hammondii Y Y

Hepatic tanager Piranga flava Y Y

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus Y Y

Herring gull Larus argentatus Y Y

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Y

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris Y Y

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Y Y

House wren Troglodytes aedon Y Y

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea Y Y

Juniper titmouse Baeolophus griseus Y Y

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Y Y

Ladder-backed woodpecker Picoides scalaris Y Y

Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Y

Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Y Y

Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena Y Y

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla Y Y

Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria Y Y

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis Y Y

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Y Y

Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Y Y

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Y Y

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SOC Y Y

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Sen Y Y

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Y Y

Long-eared owl Asio otus Y Y

MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei Y Y

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Y Y

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa Y Y

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris Y Y

McCown’s longspur Calcarius mccownii Sen Y

Merlin Falco columbarius Y Y

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides Y Y

Mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli Y Y

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus FC, Sen Y Y

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Y Y

Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Y

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus Y

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Y Y

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Sen, SOC Y Y

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Y Y

Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Y Y

Northern oriolea Icterus galbula Y Y

Northern pintail Anas acuta Y Y

Northern pygmy owl Glaucidium gnoma Y Y

Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Y Y

Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus Y Y

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata Y

Appendix A1. (Cont’d.)

 Common Name Scientific Name Status Predicted Reported
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Northern shrike Lanius excubitor Y Y

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis Y Y

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Y Y

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata Y Y

Osprey Pandion haliaetus Y

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus SE, Sen Y Y

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Y Y

Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Y Y

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus Y Y

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Y Y

Plumbeous vireo Vireo plumbeus Y Y

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Y Y

Purple martin Progne subis Y Y

Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pigmaea Y Y

Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra Y Y

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator Y

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis Y Y

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus Y Y

Redhead Aythya americana Y Y

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Y

Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis Y Y

Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Y

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Y Y

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Y Y

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis Y Y

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris Y Y

Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus Y Y

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Y Y

Ross’s goose Chen rossii Y

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus Y Y

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Y Y

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis Y Y

Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Y Y

Rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps Y Y

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli Y Y

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Y Y

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis Y Y

Savannah sparrow Passaculus sandwichensis Y Y

Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya Y Y

Scaled quail Callipepla squamata Y Y

Scott’s oriole Icterus parisorum Y Y

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus Y Y

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus Y Y

Snow goose Chen caerulescens Y

Snowy egret Egretta thula Sen Y

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria Y Y

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Y Y

Sora Porzana carolina Sen Y Y

Spotted owl Strix occidentalis FT, Sen Y Y

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia Y Y

Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus Y Y

Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri Y Y

Stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus Y Y

Summer tanager Piranga rubra Y

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Sen Y Y

Appendix A1. (Cont’d.)

 Common Name Scientific Name Status Predicted Reported
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 25

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus Y Y

Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana Y

Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina Y

Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus Y Y

Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi Y Y

Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi Y Y

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Y Y

Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus Y

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Y Y

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Y

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Y Y

Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina Y Y

Virginia rail Rallus limicola Y Y

Virginia’s warbler Vermivora virginiae Y Y

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Y Y

Western bluebird Sialia mexicana Y Y

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis ST, Sen, SOC Y Y

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Y Y

Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Y Y

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri Y Y

Western screech-owl Otus kennicottii Y Y

Western scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica Y Y

Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana Y Y

Western wood pewee Contopus sordidulus Y Y

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus Y

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Y Y

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Y Y

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Sen, SOC Y Y

White-tailed ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus SE, Sen Y Y

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Y Y

White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis Y Y

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Y Y

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Y

Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus Y Y

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii FE, SE, Sen Y Y

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Y Y

Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla Y Y

Wood duck Aix sponsa Y

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Y Y

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Sen Y Y

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens Y Y

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Y Y

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Y Y

Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus Sen Y Y

a

Includes both Baltimore oriole (Icterus galbula) and Bullock’s oriole (I. bullockii).

Appendix A1. (Cont’d.)

 Common Name Scientific Name Status Predicted Reported
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Appendix A2. Mammals of the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico by predicted and reported occurrence. FC:

Federal Candidate; ST: State Threatened; SOC: New Mexico Species of Concern; Sen: Forest Service Region 3

Sensitive (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 1998). Common and scientific names follow the American Society

of Mammologists (http://asm.wku.edu/committees/pubed/statelists/default.html).

 Common Name Scientific Name Status Predicted Reported

Abert’s squirrel Sciurus aberti Y Y

American marten Martes americana ST, Sen Y Y

Badger Taxidea taxus Y Y

Banner-tailed kangaroo rat Dipodomys spectabilis Y Y

Beaver Castor canadensis Y Y

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Y Y

Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis SOC Y Y

Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis Sen Y Y

Black bear Ursus americanus Y Y

Black-tailed jack rabbit Lepus californicus Y Y

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Y Y

Bobcat Lynx rufus Y Y

Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Y Y

Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis Y Y

Brush mouse Peromyscus boylii Y Y

Bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea Y Y

California myotis Myotis californicus Y Y

Colorado chipmunk Tamias quadrivittatus Y Y

Common raccoon Procyon lotor Y Y

Coyote Canis latrans Y Y

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Y Y

Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Y Y

Desert shrew Notiosorex crawfordi Y

Dwarf shrew Sorex nanus Y Y

Elk Cervus elaphus Y Y

Ermine Mustela erminea Y Y

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes SOC Y Y

Golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis Y Y

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Y Y

Gunnison’s prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni Y Y

Heather vole Phenacomys intermedius Y Y

Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus Y

Hispid pocket mouse Chaetodipus hispidus Y

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Y Y

Kit/Swift fox Vulpes velox Y

Least chipmunk Tamias minimus Y Y

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus SOC, Sen Y Y

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis SOC Y Y

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans SOC Y Y

Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus Y Y

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Y Y

Masked shrew Sorex cinereus Y Y

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius Sen, SOC Y Y

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Y Y

Merriam’s kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami Y

Mexican woodrat Neotoma mexicana Y Y

Mink Mustela vison Y Y

Montane shrew Sorex monticolus Y Y

Montane vole Microtus montanus Y Y

Mountain lion Felis concolor Y Y

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Y Y

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Y Y
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 27

Northern grasshopper mouse Onychomys leucogaster Y Y

Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides Y Y

Northern rock mouse Peromyscus nasutus Y Y

Nuttall’s cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii Y Y

Ord’s kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordii Y Y

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Y Y

Pika Ochotona princeps Y Y

Pinon mouse Peromyscus truei Y Y

Plains harvest mouse Reithrodontomys montanus Y Y

Plains pocket gopher Geomys bursarius SOC Y Y

Plains pocket mouse Perognathus flavescens Y Y

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Y Y

Prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster Y Y

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana Sen Y Y

Red fox Vulpes vulpes Y Y

Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Y Y

Ringtail Bassariscus astutus Sen Y Y

Rock pocket mouse Chaetodipus intermedius Y

Rock squirrel Spermophilus variegatus Y Y

Silky pocket mouse Perognathus flavus Y Y

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Y Y

Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum SOC Y Y

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus Y Y

Southern plains woodrat Neotoma micropus Y Y

Southern red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi Y Y

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum ST, SOC, Sen Y Y

Spotted ground squirrel Spermophilus spilosoma Y Y

Stephen’s woodrat Neotoma stephensi Y Y

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Y Y

Tawny-bellied cotton rat Sigmodon fulviventer Y Y

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus Y Y

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SOC, Sen Y Y

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana Y

Water shrew Sorex palustris Y Y

Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis Y Y

Western jumping mouse Zapus princeps Y Y

Western pipistrelle Pipistrellus hesperus Y Y

Western spotted skunk Spilogale gracilis Y Y

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus Y Y

White-tailed antelope squirrel Ammospermophilus leucurus Y Y

White-tailed jack rabbit Lepus townsendii Y Y

White-throated woodrat Neotoma albigula Y Y

Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris Y Y

Yellow-faced pocket gopher Cratogeomys castanops Y

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis SOC Y Y

Appendix A2. (Cont’d.)

 Common Name Scientific Name Status Predicted Reported
28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Appendix A3. Reptiles of the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico by predicted and reported

occurrence. Common and scientific names follow Degenhardt and others (1996).

 Common Name Scientific Name Predicted Reported

Blackneck garter snake Thamnophis cyrtopsis Y Y

Blacktail rattlesnake Crotalus molossus Y

Checkered garter snake Thamnophis marcianus Y Y

Checkered whiptail Cnemidophorus grahamii Y Y

Chihuahuan spotted whiptail Cnemidophorus exsanguis Y Y

Coachwhip Masticophis flagellum Y Y

Collared lizard Crotaphytus collaris Y Y

Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis Y Y

Common kingsnake Lampropeltis getula Y

Corn snake Elaphe guttata Y Y

Desert spiny lizard Sceloporus magister Y

Glossy snake Arizona elegans Y Y

Gopher snake Pituophis melanoleucus Y Y

Great plains skink Eumeces obsoletus Y Y

Greater earless lizard Cophosaurus texanus Y Y

Leopard lizard Gambelia wislizenii Y Y

Lesser earless lizard Holbrookia maculata Y Y

Lined snake Tropidoclonion lineatum Y

Little striped whiptail Cnemidophorus inornatus Y Y

Longnose snake Rhinocheilus lecontei Y

Many-lined skink Eumeces multivirgatus Y Y

Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus Y

Milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum Y

Mountain patchnose snake Salvadora grahamiae Y

New Mexico whiptail Cnemidophorus neomexicanus Y Y

Night snake Hypsiglena torquata Y Y

Ornate box turtle Terrapene ornata Y

Painted turtle Chrysemys picta Y Y

Plains black-headed snake Tantilla nigriceps Y

Plains garter snake Thamnophis radix Y Y

Plateau striped whiptail Cnemidophorus velox Y Y

Prairie lizard Sceloporus undulatus Y Y

Ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus Y Y

Roundtail horned lizard Phrynosoma modestum Y Y

Sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus Y Y

Short-horned lizard Phrynosoma douglasii Y Y

Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana Y Y

Slider Trachemys scripta Y

Smooth green snake Liochlorophis vernalis Y Y

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina Y Y

Spiny softshell Trionyx spiniferus Y

Striped whipsnake Masticophis taeniatus Y Y

Texas blind snake Leptotyphlops dulcis Y Y

Tree lizard Urosaurus ornatus Y Y

Western diamondback rattlesnake Crotalus atrox Y Y

Western hognose snake Heterodon nasicus Y Y

Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis Y Y

Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans Y Y

Yellow mud turtle Kinosternon flavescens Y
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 29

Appendix A4. Amphibians of the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico by predicted and reported occurrence.

FC: Federal Candidate; SE: State Endangered; ST: State Threatened; Sen: Forest Service Region 3 Sensitive (New

Mexico Department of Game and Fish 1998). Common and scientific names follow Degenhardt and others (1996).

 Common Name Scientific Name Status Predicted Reported

Canyon treefrog Hyla arenicolor Y Y

Couch’s spadefoot Scaphiopus couchii Y Y

Great Plains toad Bufo cognatus Y Y

Jemez Mountains salamander Plethodon neomexicanus ST, Sen Y Y

New Mexico spadefoot Spea multiplicata Y Y

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Sen Y Y

Plains leopard frog Rana blairi Y Y

Plains spadefoot Spea bombifrons Y Y

Red-spotted toad Bufo punctatus Y Y

Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Y Y

Western chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata Y Y

Western toad Bufo boreas FC, SE, Sen Y Y

Woodhouse’s toad Bufo woodhouseii Y Y

Appendix A5. Native Fishes of the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico by

reported occurrence. SE: State Endangered; ST: State Threatened; SOC: New

Mexico Species of Concern; Sen: Forest Service Region 3 Sensitive (New Mexico

Department of Game and Fish 1998). Common and scientific names follow Sublette

and others (1990).

 Common Name Scientific Name Status

Brook sticklebacka Culaea inconstans ST

Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki Sen

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas

Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis SOC

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae

Rio Grande chub Gila pandora

Rio Grande sucker Catostomus plebeius Sen

Southern redbelly dace Phoxinus erythrogaster SE, Sen

White sucker Catostomus commersoni

a

There is some question as to whether this species is native to New Mexico (Sublette and others

1990).
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Appendix A6. Butterflies of the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico by

reported occurrence. SOC: New Mexico Species of Concern (New Mexico

Department of Game and Fish 1998). Common and scientific names follow Opler

and others (1995).

 Common Name Scientific Name Status

Afranius duskywing Erynnis afranius

American lady Vanessa virginiensis

American snout Libytheana carinenta

Ancilla blue Euphilotes ancilla

Anise swallowtail Papilio zelicaon

Apache skipper Hesperia woodgatei

Aphrodite fritillary Speyeria aphrodite

Arctic blue Agriades aquilo

Arrowhead blue Glaucopsyche piasus

Banded hairstreak Satyrium calanus

Behr’s hairstreak Satyrium behrii

Black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes

Blue copper Lycaena heteronea

Boisduval’s blue Icaricia icaroides

Bordered patch Chlosyne lacinia

Bronze roadside-skipper Amblyscirtes aenus

Brown elfin Callophrys augustinus

Cabbage white Pieris rapae

California sister Adelpha bredowii

California tortoiseshell Nymphalis californica

Canyonland satyr Cyllopsis pertepida

Cassius blue Leptotes cassius

Cassus roadside-skipper Amblyscirtes cassus

Ceraunus blue Hemiargus ceraunus

Checkered white Pontia protodice

Chryxus arctic Oeneis chryxus

Clouded sulphur Colias philodice

Cloudless sulphur Phoebis sennae

Colorado hairstreak Hypaurotis crysalus

Colorado skipper Hesperia colorado

Common alpine Erebia epipsodea

Common buckeye Junonia coenia

Common checkered skipper Pyrgus communis

Common ringlet Coenonympha tullia

Common roadside-skipper Amblyscirtes vialis

Common sootywing Pholisora catullus

Common wood-nymph Cercyonis pegala

Coral hairstreak Satyrium titus

Dainty sulphur Nathalis iole

Dark buckeye Junonia genoveva

Desert elfin Callophrys fotis

Desert marble Euchloe lotta

Dotted checkerspot Poladryas minuta

Dotted roadside-skipper Amblyscirtes eos

Draco skipper Polites draco

Dreamy duskywing Erynnis icelus

Dun skipper Euphyes vestris

Dusted skipper Atrytonopsis hianna

Edwards’ fritillary Speyeria edwardsii

Edwards’ skipperling Oarisma edwardsii

Field crescent Phyciodes pratensis

Freija fritillary Boloria freija

Frosted elfin Callophrys polios
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 31

Fulvia checkerspot Thessalia fulvia

Funereal duskywing Erynnis funeralis

Garita skipperling Oarisma garita

Goatweed leafwing Anaea andria

Gorgone checkerspot Chlosyne gorgone

Gray hairstreak Strymon melinus

Great purple hairstreak Atlides halesus

Great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele

Green comma Polygonia faunus

Green skipper Hesperia viridis

Greenish blue Plebejus saepiolus

Grizzled skipper Pyrgus centaureae

Gulf fritillary Agraulis vanillae

Hedge-row hairstreak Satyrium saepium

Helena fritillary Clossiana titania

Hoary comma Polygonia gracilis

Horace’s duskywing Erynnis horatius

Indra swallowtail Papilio indra

Juba skipper Hesperia juba

Juniper hairstreak Callophrys gryneus

Large marble Euchloe ausonides

Leda ministreak Ministrymon leda

Little yellow Eurema lisa

Lupine blue Icaricia lupini

Lustrous copper Lycaena cupreus

Lyside sulphur Kricogonia lyside

Magdalena alpine Erebia magdalena

Margined white Pieris marginata

Marine blue Leptotes marina

Mead’s sulphur Colias meadii

Mead’s wood nymph Cercyonis meadii

Melissa arctic Oeneis melissa

Melissa blue Lycaeides melissa

Meridian duskywing Erynnis meridianus

Mexican cloudywing Thorybes mexicana

Mexican sootywing Pholisora mejicana

Mexican yellow Eurema mexicana

Milbert’s tortoiseshell Nymphalis milberti

Monarch Danaus plexippus

Mormon fritillary Speyeria mormonia

Mormon metalmark Apodemia mormo

Morrison’s skipper Stinga morrisoni

Mottled duskywing Erynnis martialis

Mountain checkered-skipper Pyrgus xanthus

Mourning cloak Nymphalis antiopa

Mylitta crescent Phyciodes mylitta

Nais metalmark Apodemia nais

Nevada skipper Hesperia nevada

Nokomis fritillary Speyeria nokomis SOC

Northern cloudywing Thorybes pylades

Northern white-skipper Heliopetes ericetorum

Northwestern fritillary Speyeria hesperis

Old World swallowtail Papilio machaon

Orange sulphur Colias eurytheme

Orange-headed roadside-skipper Amblyscirtes phylace

Oslar’s roadside-skipper Amblyscirtes oslari

Appendix A6. (Cont’d.)

 Common Name Scientific Name Status
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Pacuvius duskywing Erynnis pacuvius

Pahaska skipper Hesperia pahaska

Painted crescent Phyciodes picta

Painted lady Vanessa cardui

Pale swallowtail Papilio eurymedon

Pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos

Pearly checkerspot Charidryas acastus SOC

Pine white Neophasia menapia

Pipevine swallowtail Battus philenor

Polixenes arctic Oeneis polixenes

Purplish copper Lycaena helloides

Python skipper Atrytonopsis python

Queen Danaus gilippus

Queen Alexandra’s sulphur Colias alexandra

Question mark Polygonia interrogationis

Reakirt’s blue Hemiargus isola

Red admiral Vanessa atalanta

Rhesus skipper Polites rhesus

Riding’s satyr Neominois ridingsii

Rita dotted-blue Euphilotes rita

Rocky Mountain duskywing Erynnis telemachus

Rocky Mountain parnassius Parnassius smintheus

Ruddy copper Lycaena rubidus

Russet skipperling Piruna pirus

Sachem Atalopedes campestris

Saltbush sootywing Hesperopsis alpheus

Sandhill skipper Polites sabuleti

Sandia hairstreak Callophrys mcfarlandi

Satyr comma Polygonia satyrus

Scudder’s sulphur Colias scudderi

Short-tailed skipper Zestusa dorus

Silver-bordered fritillary Boloria selene

Silver-spotted skipper Eparygyreus clarus

Silvery blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus

Silvery checkerspot Chlosyne nycteis

Simius roadside-skipper Amblyscirtes simius

Sleepy duskywing Erynnis brizo

Sleepy orange Eurema nicippe

Small checkered-skipper Pyrgus scriptura

Small wood nymph Cercyonis oetus

Snow’s skipper Paratrytone snowi

Southern dog face Zerene cesonia

Southwestern orangetip Anthocharis thoosa

Spalding’s dotted-blue Euphilotes spaldingi

Spring azure Celastrina ladon

Spring white Pontia sisymbrii

Strecker’s giant-skipper Megathymus streckeri

Sylvan hairstreak Satyrium sylvinus

Tailed copper Lycaena arota

Tailed orange Eurema proterpia

Tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles

Taxiles skipper Poanes taxiles

Thicket hairstreak Callophrys spinetorum

Two-tailed swallowtail Papilio multicaudatus

Uhler’s arctic Oeneis uhleri

Uncas skipper Hesperia uncas

Appendix A6. (Cont’d.)

 Common Name Scientific Name Status
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 33

Variable checkerspot Euphydryas anicia

Variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia

Viceroy Limenitis archippus

Viereck’s skipper Atrytonopsis vierecki

Weidemeyer’s admiral Limenitis weidemeyerii

West Coast lady Vanessa annabella

Western green-hairstreak Callophrys affinis

Western pigmy-blue Brephidium exile

Western pine elfin Callophrys eryphon

Western square-dotted blue Euphilotes battoides

Western tailed-blue Everes amyntula

Western tiger swallowtail Papilio rutulus

Western white Pontia occidentalis

White-angled sulphur Anteos clorinde

Woodland skipper Ochlodes sylvanoides

Yucca giant-skipper Megathymus yuccae

Yuma skipper Ochlodes yuma

Appendix A6. (Cont’d.)

 Common Name Scientific Name Status
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Appendix B. Presence/absence matrices for predicted and reported occurrence of terrestrial vertebrates and

butterflies in the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico (1 denotes presence, 0 denotes absence).

Jemez San Juan Sangre de Cristo

Predicted Reported Predicted Reported Predicted Reported

Taxon: Birds

Montane Specialists

Boreal owl 101011

Gray jay 111111

Pine grosbeak 111111

Three-toed woodpecker 111111

White-tailed ptarmigan 000011

Habitat Generalists

Acorn woodpecker 110010

American crow 111111

American goldfinch 101110

American kestrel 111111

American pipit 111011

American robin 111111

American tree sparrow 101011

Ash-throated flycatcher 111111

Baird’s sparrow 101010

Bald eagle 111011

Band-tailed pigeon 111111

Barn owl 111010

Barn swallow 111111

Bendire’s thrasher 101010

Bewick’s wren 111111

Black swift 101110

Black-billed magpie 111111

Black-capped chickadee 111111

Black-chinned hummingbird 111111

Black-chinned sparrow 010000

Black-headed grosbeak 111111

Black-throated gray warbler 111111

Blue grosbeak 111111

Blue grouse 111111

Blue-gray gnatcatcher 111111

Brewer’s blackbird 111111

Brewer’s sparrow 111110

Broad-tailed hummingbird 111111

Brown creeper 111111

Brown-capped rosy-finch 101010

Brown-headed cowbird 111111

Burrowing owl 100010

Bushtit 111111

Calliope hummingbird 110010

Canyon towhee 111011

Canyon wren 111011

Cassin’s finch 111111

Cassin’s kingbird 111111

Cedar waxwing 111010

Chestnut-collared longspur 101011

Chihuahuan raven 000010

Chipping sparrow 111111

Clark’s nutcracker 111111

Cliff swallow 111111
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 35

Appendix B. (Cont’d.)

Jemez San Juan Sangre de Cristo

Predicted Reported Predicted Reported Predicted Reported

Taxon: Birds

Habitat Generalists

Common nighthawk 111111

Common poorwill 111111

Common raven 111111

Cooper’s hawk 111111

Cordilleran flycatcher 111111

Curve-billed thrasher 101010

Dark-eyed junco 111111

Downy woodpecker 111111

Dusky flycatcher 111111

Eastern meadowlark 000001

Evening grosbeak 111111

Ferruginous hawk 111011

Flammulated owl 111011

Gambel’s quail 111010

Golden eagle 111110

Golden-crowned kinglet 111111

Grace’s warbler 111111

Grasshopper sparrow 101011

Gray catbird 111111

Gray flycatcher 111011

Gray vireo 100001

Great horned owl 111111

Greater roadrunner 101010

Green-tailed towhee 111111

Hairy woodpecker 111111

Hammond’s flycatcher 111111

Hepatic tanager 111011

Hermit thrush 111111

Horned lark 101111

House finch 111111

House wren 111111

Indigo bunting 111111

Juniper titmouse 111111

Killdeer 111111

Ladder-backed woodpecker 111011

Lark bunting 101010

Lark sparrow 111111

Lazuli bunting 111111

Lesser goldfinch 111111

Lewis’s woodpecker 111111

Lincoln’s sparrow 111111

Loggerhead shrike 111011

Long-eared owl 111111

MacGillivray’s warbler 111111

Marsh wren 111111

McCown’s longspur 101010

Merlin 101011

Mountain bluebird 111111

Mountain chickadee 111111

Mourning dove 111111

Nashville warbler 101010
36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Appendix B. (Cont’d.)

Jemez San Juan Sangre de Cristo

Predicted Reported Predicted Reported Predicted Reported

Taxon: Birds

Habitat Generalists

Northern bobwhite 000010

Northern flicker 111010

Northern goshawk 111111

Northern harrier 101011

Northern mockingbird 111111

Northern oriole 111111

Northern pygmy owl 111111

Northern saw-whet owl 110111

Northern shrike 101111

Olive-sided flycatcher 111111

Orange-crowned warbler 111111

Peregrine falcon 111110

Pine grosbeak 101010

Pine siskin 111111

Pinyon jay 111111

Plumbeous vireo 111111

Prairie falcon 111111

Purple martin 101111

Pygmy nuthatch 111111

Red crossbill 111111

Red-breasted nuthatch 111111

Red-eyed vireo 111110

Red-headed woodpecker 010111

Red-naped sapsucker 111111

Red-tailed hawk 111111

Rock wren 111010

Rose-breasted grosbeak 101011

Rough-legged hawk 111111

Ruby-crowned kinglet 111010

Rufous hummingbird 111010

Rufous-crowned sparrow 110010

Sage thrasher 111110

Sandhill crane 101110

Savannah sparrow 111110

Say’s phoebe 111111

Scaled quail 111011

Scott’s oriole 110100

Sharp-shinned hawk 111111

Song sparrow 111111

Spotted owl 110010

Spotted towhee 111010

Steller’s jay 111111

Swainson’s hawk 101011

Swainson’s thrush 111011

Townsend’s solitaire 111111

Townsend’s warbler 111010

Tree swallow 101111

Turkey vulture 111111

Upland sandpiper 000010

Vesper sparrow 111111

Violet-green swallow 111111
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 37

Appendix B. (Cont’d.)

Jemez San Juan Sangre de Cristo

Predicted Reported Predicted Reported Predicted Reported

Taxon: Birds

Habitat Generalists

Virginia’s warbler 110111

Warbling vireo 111111

Western bluebird 111111

Western kingbird 111111

Western meadowlark 111111

Western screech-owl 111110

Western scrub-jay 111111

Western tanager 111111

Western wood pewee 111111

Whip-poor-will 010000

White-breasted nuthatch 111111

White-crowned sparrow 111111

White-throated swift 111111

Wild turkey 111011

Williamson’s sapsucker 111111

Wilson’s warbler 111111

Yellow warbler 111111

Yellow-breasted chat 111111

Yellow-rumped warbler 111111

Zone-tailed hawk 111010

Aquatic Specialists

American avocet 101110

American bittern 101010

American coot 101110

American dipper 111011

American white pelican 101010

American wigeon 101110

Baird’s sandpiper 101011

Bank swallow 101011

Belted kingfisher 111111

Black phoebe 010001

Black tern 101010

Black-bellied plover 101010

Black-crowned night-heron 111110

Black-necked stilt 101110

Blue-winged teal 101111

Bonaparte’s gull 000100

Bufflehead 101110

Canada goose 111111

Canvasback 101011

Cinnamon teal 111010

Common goldeneye 101111

Common loon 101110

Common merganser 111110

Common snipe 101110

Common yellowthroat 111111

Double-crested cormorant 101110

Eared grebe 101110

Eastern bluebird 100011

Eastern kingbird 101010

Forster’s tern 101110
38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Taxon: Birds

Aquatic Specialists

Franklin’s gull 101111

Gadwall 111111

Great blue heron 111011

Great egret 101010

Greater white-fronted goose 101011

Greater yellowlegs 101010

Green heron 101010

Green-winged teal 111111

Herring gull 111110

Hooded merganser 101010

Least sandpiper 101011

Lesser scaup 111010

Lesser yellowlegs 101110

Long-billed dowitcher 111110

Mallard 111111

Marbled godwit 101011

Northern pintail 111111

Northern rough-winged swallow 111111

Northern shoveler 101010

Northern waterthrush 111010

Osprey 111110

Pied-billed grebe 101010

Red-breasted merganser 101010

Redhead 111111

Red-necked phalarope 101010

Red-winged blackbird 111111

Ring-billed gull 111110

Ring-necked duck 101110

Ross’s goose 111110

Ruddy duck 101011

Semipalmated plover 101010

Snow goose 101010

Snowy egret 101010

Solitary sandpiper 101011

Sora 111010

Spotted sandpiper 111111

Stilt sandpiper 101110

Summer tanager 101010

Swamp sparrow 101010

Tennessee warbler 101010

Tundra swan 101010

Virginia rail 111011

Western grebe 101111

Western sandpiper 101110

White-faced ibis 101110

White-throated sparrow 111010

Willet 101010

Willow flycatcher 111111

Wilson’s phalarope 111110

Wood duck 101010

Yellow-billed cuckoo 111110

Appendix B. (Cont’d.)

Jemez San Juan Sangre de Cristo

Predicted Reported Predicted Reported Predicted Reported
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 39

Appendix B. (Cont’d.)

Jemez San Juan Sangre de Cristo

Predicted Reported Predicted Reported Predicted Reported

Taxon: Mammals

Montane Specialists

American marten 101111

Dwarf shrew 111111

Heather vole 001111

Meadow jumping mouse 111010

Meadow vole 101011

Montane shrew 111111

Northern pocket gopher 111111

Pika 111111

Red squirrel 111111

Snowshoe hare 001111

Southern red-backed vole 111111

Water shrew 111111

Habitat Generalists

Abert’s squirrel 111111

Badger 101111

Big brown bat 111111

Big free-tailed bat 010000

Bighorn sheep 010011

Black bear 111111

Black-tailed jack rabbit 111110

Black-tailed prairie dog 000011

Bobcat 111111

Botta’s pocket gopher 111111

Brazilian free-tailed bat 111010

Brush mouse 111111

Bushy-tailed woodrat 111111

California myotis 111110

Colorado chipmunk 111111

Coyote 111111

Deer mouse 111111

Desert cottontail 111111

Desert shrew 100000

Elk 111111

Ermine 111011

Fringed myotis 111011

Golden-mantled ground squirrel 111111

Gray fox 111111

Gunnison’s prairie dog 111111

Hispid cotton rat 000010

Hispid pocket mouse 101010

Hoary bat 111111

Kit/Swift fox 101010

Least chipmunk 111111

Little brown myotis 101011

Long-eared myotis 111111

Long-legged myotis 111111

Long-tailed vole 111111

Long-tailed weasel 111111

Masked shrew 101111

Merriam’s kangaroo rat 101010

Mexican woodrat 111111
40 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Taxon: Mammals

Habitat Generalists

Montane vole 111110

Mountain lion 111111

Mule deer 111111

Northern grasshopper mouse 111111

Northern rock mouse 101011

Nuttall’s cottontail 111111

Ord’s kangaroo rat 101111

Pallid bat 111010

Pinon mouse 111111

Plains harvest mouse 110010

Plains pocket mouse 101111

Porcupine 111111

Red fox 101111

Ringtail 101011

Rock pocket mouse 100000

Rock squirrel 111111

Silky pocket mouse 111111

Silver-haired bat 111111

Small-footed myotis 111111

Southern plains woodrat 101011

Spotted bat 111110

Striped skunk 101111

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel 101111

Townsend’s big-eared bat 111011

Western harvest mouse 111111

Western jumping mouse 111111

Western pipistrelle 111010

Western spotted skunk 101110

White-footed mouse 111110

White-tailed antelope squirrel 111010

White-tailed jack rabbit 101111

White-throated woodrat 111111

Yellow-bellied marmot 001111

Yellow-faced pocket gopher 101010

Yuma myotis 111011

Aquatic Specialists

Beaver 111111

Meadow jumping mouse 111010

Mink 101011

Muskrat 101111

Water shrew 111111

Taxon: Reptiles

Habitat Generalists

Blacktail rattlesnake 100010

Checkered whiptail 111010

Chihuahuan spotted whiptail 111110

Coachwhip 111111

Collared lizard 111111

Common kingsnake 111010

Appendix B. (Cont’d.)

Jemez San Juan Sangre de Cristo

Predicted Reported Predicted Reported Predicted Reported
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 41

Appendix B. (Cont’d.)

Jemez San Juan Sangre de Cristo

Predicted Reported Predicted Reported Predicted Reported

Taxon: Reptiles

Habitat Generalists

Corn snake 111011

Desert spiny lizard 100000

Glossy snake 110000

Gopher snake 111111

Great plains skink 111011

Greater earless lizard 000010

Leopard lizard 100001

Lesser earless lizard 111111

Lined snake 100010

Little striped whiptail 110011

Longnose snake 101010

Many-lined skink 110111

Massasauga 100000

Milk snake 101010

Mountain patchnose snake 101010

New Mexico whiptail 101110

Night snake 111011

Ornate box turtle 101010

Plains black-headed snake 101010

Plateau striped whiptail 111111

Prairie lizard 111111

Ringneck snake 111011

Roundtail horned lizard 110001

Sagebrush lizard 101100

Short-horned lizard 111111

Side-blotched lizard 110010

Smooth green snake 111111

Striped whipsnake 111110

Texas blind snake 101011

Tree lizard 111110

Western diamondback rattlesnake 111110

Western hognose snake 101011

Western rattlesnake 111111

Western terrestrial garter snake 111111

Aquatic Specialists

Blackneck garter snake 111111

Checkered garter snake 100011

Common garter snake 101110

Painted turtle 111010

Plains garter snake 000011

Slider 000010

Snapping turtle 010010

Spiny softshell 110000

Yellow mud turtle 010000

Taxon: Amphibians

Montane Specialists

Jemez Mountains salamander 110000

Western toad 001100
42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Taxon: Amphibians

Habitat Generalists

Great Plains toad 110000

New Mexico spadefoot 111011

Plains spadefoot 111111

Red-spotted toad 110010

Tiger salamander 111111

Western chorus frog 111111

Woodhouse’s toad 111111

Aquatic Specialists

Canyon treefrog 110011

Couch’s spadefoot 110000

Northern leopard frog 111111

Plains leopard frog 101111

Taxon: Fish

Taxon

Brook stickleback 0 0 1

Central stoneroller 0 0 1

Creek chub 0 0 1

Cutthroat trout 1 1 1

Fathead minnow 1 1 1

Flathead chub 1 1 1

Largemouth bass 0 1 1

Longnose dace 1 1 1

Rio Grande chub 1 1 1

Rio Grande sucker 1 1 1

Southern redbelly dace 0 0 1

White sucker 1 1 1

Taxon: Butterflies

Montane Specialists

Anise swallowtail 1 0 1

Arctic blue 1 1 1

Blue copper 0 1 1

Chryxus arctic 1 1 1

Colorado skipper 1 1 1

Common alpine 0 1 1

Draco skipper 1 1 1

Dreamy duskywing 1 1 1

Freija fritillary 0 1 0

Garita skipperling 1 1 1

Silvery checkerspot 1 0 1

Great spangled fritillary 1 1 1

Greenish blue 1 1 1

Grizzled skipper 0 0 1

Helena fritillary 1 0 1

Large marble 0 1 1

Lustrous copper 0 0 1

Magdalena alpine 0 0 1

Mead’s sulphur 0 0 1

Melissa arctic 0 1 1

Mexican cloudywing 1 1 1

Appendix B. (Cont’d.)

Jemez San Juan Sangre de Cristo

Predicted Reported Predicted Reported Predicted Reported
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 43

Mormon fritillary 1 1 1

Nevada skipper 1 0 1

Northwestern fritillary 1 1 1

Polixenes arctic 0 1 1

Rocky Mountain parnassius 0 0 1

Scudder’s sulphur 0 0 1

Silver-bordered fritillary 1 0 0

Uhler’s arctic 0 1 1

Western tiger swallowtail 1 0 1

Western white 0 0 1

Habitat Generalists

Afranius duskywing 1 1 1

American lady 1 1 1

Ancilla blue 1 0 1

Taxon: Butterflies

Habitat Generalists

Apache skipper 1 0 1

Aphrodite fritillary 1 0 1

Arrowhead blue 1 0 0

Banded hairstreak 1 1 1

Behr’s hairstreak 1 1 1

Black swallowtail 1 1 1

Boisduval’s blue 1 1 1

Bronze roadside-skipper 1 0 1

Brown elfin 1 0 0

Cabbage white 1 0 1

California sister 1 1 1

California tortoiseshell 1 0 1

Canyonland satyr 1 1 1

Gorgone checkerspot 1 0 1

Cassus roadside-skipper 1 0 1

Ceraunus blue 0 0 1

Checkered white 1 1 1

Clouded sulphur 1 1 1

Colorado hairstreak 1 1 1

Common checkered skipper 1 1 1

Common ringlet 1 1 1

Common roadside-skipper 1 1 1

Common sootywing 1 0 1

Common wood-nymph 1 1 1

Coral hairstreak 1 1 1

Dainty sulphur 1 1 1

Desert elfin 1 0 0

Desert marble 0 1 1

Dotted checkerspot 1 1 1

Dotted roadside-skipper 1 0 0

Dun skipper 1 1 1

Dusted skipper 1 0 0

Edwards’ fritillary 1 1 1

Edwards’ skipperling 1 1 1

Field crescent 1 1 1

Frosted elfin 1 0 0

Fulvia checkerspot 1 1 1

Funereal duskywing 1 0 1

Appendix B. (Cont’d.)

Jemez San Juan Sangre de Cristo

Reported Reported Reported
44 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000

Goatweed leafwing 1 0 1

Gray hairstreak 1 1 1

Great purple hairstreak 1 0 1

Green comma 1 0 1

Green skipper 1 1 1

Hedge-row hairstreak 1 0 0

Hoary comma 1 1 1

Horace’s duskywing 1 0 1

Juba skipper 1 0 0

Juniper hairstreak 0 1 1

Leda ministreak 0 1 1

Lupine blue 1 1 1

Margined white 1 1 1

Marine blue 1 1 1

Taxon: Butterflies

Habitat Generalists

Mead’s wood nymph 1 1 1

Melissa blue 1 1 1

Meridian duskywing 1 0 0

Mexican sootywing 0 0 1

Mexican yellow 1 0 1

Milbert’s tortoiseshell 1 0 1

Monarch 1 0 1

Mormon metalmark 0 1 1

Morrison’s skipper 1 1 1

Mountain checkered-skipper 1 0 1

Mourning cloak 1 0 1

Mylitta crescent 1 1 1

Nais metalmark 1 1 1

Nokomis fritillary 0 0 1

Northern cloudywing 1 1 1

Northern white-skipper 0 1 0

Old World swallowtail 1 0 1

Orange sulphur 1 1 1

Orange-headed roadside-skipper 1 1 1

Oslar’s roadside-skipper 1 1 1

Pacuvius duskywing 1 1 1

Pahaska skipper 1 1 1

Painted crescent 1 0 1

Painted lady 1 1 1

Pale swallowtail 1 0 1

Pearly checkerspot 1 1 1

Pine white 1 1 1

Pipevine swallowtail 0 0 1

Purplish copper 1 1 1

Python skipper 1 0 0

Queen 1 1 1

Queen Alexandra’s sulphur 1 1 1

Question mark 0 0 1

Reakirt’s blue 1 1 1

Red admiral 1 1 1

Rhesus skipper 1 0 1

Riding’s satyr 1 0 1

Rita dotted-blue 1 0 0

Appendix B. (Cont’d.)

Jemez San Juan Sangre de Cristo

Reported Reported Reported
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 45

Rocky Mountain duskywing 1 1 1

Ruddy copper 0 1 1

Russet skipperling 1 1 1

Sachem 1 0 1

Saltbush sootywing 1 1 0

Sandia hairstreak 1 0 0

Satyr comma 1 0 1

Short-tailed skipper 1 1 1

Silver-spotted skipper 1 0 1

Silvery blue 1 1 1

Simius roadside-skipper 1 0 1

Sleepy duskywing 1 1 1

Small checkered-skipper 1 0 1

Taxon: Butterflies

Habitat Generalists

Small wood nymph 1 1 1

Snow’s skipper 1 0 1

Southern dog face 1 1 1

Southwestern orangetip 1 0 1

Spalding’s dotted-blue 1 1 0

Spring azure 1 0 1

Strecker’s giant-skipper 1 1 0

Sylvan hairstreak 1 0 1

Tailed copper 1 1 1

Taxiles skipper 1 1 1

Thicket hairstreak 1 0 1

Two-tailed swallowtail 1 0 1

Uncas skipper 1 1 1

Variable checkerspot 0 1 1

Variegated fritillary 1 1 1

Viereck’s skipper 1 0 0

Weidemeyer’s admiral 1 1 1

West Coast lady 1 1 1

Western green-hairstreak 1 1 1

Western pine elfin 1 1 1

Western square-dotted blue 1 1 1

Western tailed-blue 1 1 1

Aquatic Specialists

American snout 1 1 1

Common buckeye 1 0 0

Dark buckeye 0 0 1

Pearl crescent 1 1 1

Sandhill skipper 0 0 1

Tawny-edged skipper 1 1 1

Viceroy 1 0 1

Woodland skipper 1 1 1

Yuma skipper 0 0 1

Appendix B. (Cont’d.)

Jemez San Juan Sangre de Cristo

Reported Reported Reported
46 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 Appendix C. Species-habitat associations for terrestrial vertebrates in the Southern Rocky Mountains of New Mexico. Numbers represent vegetation types present in the region (see table 1 for a description of vegetation types and appendix A1-A6 for species scientific names). Montane habitats Woodland Grassland/desert scrub Aquatic 1111 1112 2111 2112 2121 2122 3111 4111 5110 3121 3122 3222 4211 4212 5121 5122 5211 5212 5221 6120 9120 9410 9420 Birds Acorn woodpecker YYYY Y YYY YY American avocet YYY American bittern Y American coot Y YY American crow Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y American dipper Y American goldfinch YY YY YYYY YYY American kestrel YYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYY American pipit Y Y YYYY American robin Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y American tree sparrow YY YYY Y American white pelican Y Y American wigeon YYY Ash-throated flycatcher Y Y YYY Y Y YYY Baird’s sandpiper YYY Baird’s sparrow Y Y Bald eagle YY Y YYYYYY YY Band-tailed pigeon YYYYYY YYYYY Bank swallow Y YY Barn owl Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Barn swallow Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Belted kingfisher Y Y Bendire’s thrasher Y YY Bewick’s wren Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Black phoebe YYY Black swift Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Black tern Y Y Black-bellied plover YYY Black-billed magpie Y YYY Y Y Black-capped chickadee YYYYY YYY YY YYY Black-chinned hummingbird Y YY YYYYYY YYY Black-chinned sparrow Y YY YY Black-crowned night-heron Y YY Black-headed grosbeak YYYY Y YYYYY YYY Black-necked stilt YYY Black-throated gray warbler Y Y YYY Y Black-throated sparrow YYY Y Blue grosbeak YY Y Y YYYY Blue grouse Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Blue-gray gnatcatcher Y Y YYYYY Y Blue-winged teal YYY Bonaparte’s gull YYY Boreal owl Y Y Y Brewer’s blackbird Y YY YYY Brewer’s sparrow Y YYY YYYY
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 47 Birds Broad-tailed hummingbird YYYY YYYY YYYY YY Brown creeper Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Brown-capped rosy-finch YYYYYY YY YYY Brown-headed cowbird YY YYY Y YYYYYYYYY Bufflehead Y Y Burrowing owl YYY YYYYYYYYY Bushtit Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Calliope hummingbird YYYYY Y Y Canada goose YYY Canvasback Y Y Canyon towhee Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Canyon wren Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cassin’s finch Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cassin’s kingbird Y Y YY YY Y Y Cassin’s sparrow YYYYY Cedar waxwing Y Y Y Y Y Chestnut-collared longspur Y YY YYY Y Chihuahuan raven YY YY YYY Chipping sparrow YYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYY Cinnamon teal YYY Clark’s nutcracker YYYYY YYY Y Y Clay-colored sparrow YY YY Cliff swallow Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Common goldeneye Y Y Common grackle Y YYY Common loon Y Y Common merganser Y Y Common nighthawk Y YYYY Y YYYYYYY YY Common poorwill Y Y YY Y YYY YY Common raven Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Common snipe Y YYY Common yellowthroat YYY Cooper’s hawk Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cordilleran flycatcher YYYY Y YY Y Y Curve-billed thrasher Y YY YY YY Dark-eyed junco Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Dickcissel YYY YY Double-crested cormorant Y YY Downy woodpecker YYYY Y Y Dusky flycatcher Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Eared grebe Y YY Eastern bluebird Y Y Eastern kingbird YYY Eastern meadowlark YY YY YY Y Evening grosbeak YYYY Y YY YY Y Ferruginous hawk Y YY Y YYYYYYYY Appendix C. (Cont’d.) Montane habitats Woodland Grassland/desert scrub Aquatic 1111 1112 2111 2112 2121 2122 3111 4111 5110 3121 3122 3222 4211 4212 5121 5122 5211 5212 5221 6120 9120 9410 9420
48 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 Birds Field sparrow Y Y Flammulated owl YYYYY YY YYY YY Forster’s tern Y Y Fox sparrow YY Y Franklin’s gull YYY Gadwall YYYY Gambel’s quail Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Golden eagle Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Golden-crowned kinglet YYYYY Y Grace’s warbler Y Y Y Grasshopper sparrow Y YY YYYY Gray catbird Y Y YY Gray flycatcher Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Gray jay Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Gray vireo Y YY Y Great blue heron YYYY Great egret Y Y Great horned owl YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Greater roadrunner Y YY YY YYYYY Greater white-fronted goose YYY Greater yellowlegs YYY Great-tailed grackle Y Y YYY Green heron Y Y Green-tailed towhee YYYY YYYYYYYY Y Y Y Green-winged teal YYY Hairy woodpecker YYYYYY YY Y Hammond’s flycatcher YYYYYY YYY Y Hepatic tanager Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Hermit thrush Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Herring gull YYY Hooded merganser Y Y Horned lark Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y House finch Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y House wren Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Indigo bunting Y YYYY Y YY Juniper titmouse Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Killdeer Y Y YYYYYYYYYY Ladder-backed woodpecker Y YY YY YY Lark bunting Y YY YYY Lark sparrow Y Y YYYYYYYYYY Lazuli bunting Y Y Y Y Y Least sandpiper YYY Lesser goldfinch Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Lesser scaup Y Y Lesser yellowlegs YYY Lewis’s woodpecker YY YY YY YY Appendix C. (Cont’d.) Montane habitats Woodland Grassland/desert scrub Aquatic 1111 1112 2111 2112 2121 2122 3111 4111 5110 3121 3122 3222 4211 4212 5121 5122 5211 5212 5221 6120 9120 9410 9420
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 49 Birds Lincoln’s sparrow Y Y Y Loggerhead shrike Y YY YYYYYYYY Long-billed curlew YY Y Long-billed dowitcher YYY Long-eared owl Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y MacGillivray’s warbler YYYY Y YY YY Y Y Mallard YYY Marbled godwit YYY Marsh wren Y YY Y Y McCown’s longspur Y YY YYYYY Merlin Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Mountain bluebird YYYYYYYYYYY YYY Y Y Mountain chickadee YYYYY YYY YYY YY Mountain plover YYYYY Y Mourning dove Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Nashville warbler YY Y Y Northern bobwhite Y Y YYY Northern flicker Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Northern goshawk YYYY YYYY YY Y Northern harrier YYY YYYYYYYYYY Northern mockingbird Y Y YY YYY YYYY Northern oriole Y Y YYYY Northern pintail YYY Northern pygmy owl YYYY Y YY YY Northern rough-winged swallow Y YYY Northern saw-whet owl YYYY Y YY Y Northern shoveler Y YYY Northern shrike YY YYYY YY Y Northern waterthrush YYYY Olive-sided flycatcher YYYYY YYY Y Orange-crowned warbler YYYY Y YY YY Y Y Osprey Y YY Peregrine falcon YYYYYY YYYYYYY YYYYY Pied-billed grebe Y Y Pine grosbeak Y Y Y Y Pine siskin Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Pinyon jay Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Plumbeous vireo YYYY Y YY Y Prairie falcon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Purple martin Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Pygmy nuthatch Y Y Y Y Y Red crossbill Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Red-breasted merganser Y Y Red-breasted nuthatch YYYY YY Y Red-eyed vireo Y Y Y Y Redhead Y Y Appendix C. (Cont’d.) Montane habitats Woodland Grassland/desert scrub Aquatic 1111 1112 2111 2112 2121 2122 3111 4111 5110 3121 3122 3222 4211 4212 5121 5122 5211 5212 5221 6120 9120 9410 9420
50 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 Appendix C. (Cont’d.) Montane habitats Woodland Grassland/desert scrub Aquatic 1111 1112 2111 2112 2121 2122 3111 4111 5110 3121 3122 3222 4211 4212 5121 5122 5211 5212 5221 6120 9120 9410 9420 Birds Red-headed woodpecker Y Y YYY Red-naped sapsucker YYYYYY Y Y Y Red-necked phalarope Y YY Red-tailed hawk Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Red-winged blackbird YYY Ring-billed gull YYY Ring-necked duck Y Y Rock wren Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rose-breasted grosbeak YY YY Y Ross’s goose YYY Rough-legged hawk YYY YYYYYYYY Ruby-crowned kinglet YYYYYY YY Y Ruddy duck Y Y Rufous hummingbird YYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYY Rufous-crowned sparrow Y YY Sage sparrow YYY YYY Sage thrasher YY YYY YYYY Sandhill crane Y YY YYY Savannah sparrow Y Y YYYYYY YY Say’s phoebe Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Scaled quail Y Y YY YYYY Scott’s oriole Y Y YYYY Y Semipalmated plover YYY Sharp-shinned hawk YYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYY Snow goose YYY Snowy egret Y Y Solitary sandpiper Y Y Song sparrow Y Y Y Y Y Sora Y Spotted owl Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Spotted sandpiper Y YY Spotted towhee Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Steller’s jay Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Stilt sandpiper YYY Summer tanager Y Y Swainson’s hawk Y YYY Y YYYYYYY Swainson’s thrush YYYY YY Y Swamp sparrow Y YY Tennessee warbler Y Y Three-toed woodpecker YYYY Townsend’s solitaire YYYYYYYYY Y YY Townsend’s warbler YYYY YY Y Y Tree swallow Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Tundra swan YYY Turkey vulture Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Upland sandpiper Y YY YYY
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 51 Birds Vesper sparrow Y Y YYY YYYY Violet-green swallow Y YYYYYYYY YYY YY Y Virginia rail Y Virginia’s warbler Y Y Y Y YY YYY YY Warbling vireo Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Western bluebird Y YYY Y YYYYY YY Y Western grebe Y Y Western kingbird Y Y YY YYY YYYY Western meadowlark Y Y YYYYY YY Y Western sandpiper YYY Western screech-owl YY Y YYYYY YY Western scrub-jay YY Y YYYYY Y Western tanager Y Y Y Y Y YY YY Y Western wood pewee YY Y YYYYY YY Whip-poor-will Y Y Y Y Y White-breasted nuthatch Y YYYYY YY Y Y White-crowned sparrow YY YYYY YYYYYYYYY White-faced ibis YYY White-tailed ptarmigan YY YY Y White-throated sparrow Y Y White-throated swift YYYY YYY YYY YY Y Wild turkey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Willet YYY Williamson’s sapsucker Y YYY YY Y Willow flycatcher Y Y Wilson’s phalarope Y YY Wilson’s warbler Y YYYYYYYYYYY Y Wood duck Y YYY Yellow warbler Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Yellow-billed cuckoo Y Y Yellow-breasted chat YY YYY Y Y Yellow-headed blackbird YYY YY Yellow-rumped warbler Y YYY YYYY YY Y Y Zone-tailed hawk Y Y Y YYY YY Y Mammals Abert’s squirrel Y Y Y American marten YYY YYY Y Badger Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Banner-tailed kangaroo rat YYY YYY Beaver Y Y Big brown bat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Big free-tailed bat YY YYY YYY YY Y Bighorn sheep Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Black bear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Black-tailed jack rabbit YY Y YYYYYYYYYYYY Appendix C. (Cont’d.) Montane habitats Woodland Grassland/desert scrub Aquatic 1111 1112 2111 2112 2121 2122 3111 4111 5110 3121 3122 3222 4211 4212 5121 5122 5211 5212 5221 6120 9120 9410 9420
52 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 Appendix C. (Cont’d.) Montane habitats Woodland Grassland/desert scrub Aquatic 1111 1112 2111 2112 2121 2122 3111 4111 5110 3121 3122 3222 4211 4212 5121 5122 5211 5212 5221 6120 9120 9410 9420 Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog YY YYYY YY Bobcat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Botta’s pocket gopher YY YYYYY YYYYYYYYY Brazilian free-tailed bat YY Y YYYYYY YYY Y Brush mouse YYYYY Bushy-tailed woodrat Y YYYY Y YY California myotis Y Y Y YY YYY YYYY Colorado chipmunk YYYY YY YY Common raccoon Y YYY Coyote Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Deer mouse Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Desert cottontail Y YY YYYY YYYYY Desert shrew Y YY YYYY YY Dwarf shrew Y Y Y Elk Y Y Y YYYY YYY YYYY Y Ermine Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Fringed myotis Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Golden-mantled ground squirrel Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Gray fox Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Gunnison’s prairie dog YYY YYYYY Heather vole Y Y Y Y Hispid cotton rat YY Y YYYY Hispid pocket mouse YYYYY YYY Hoary bat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Kit/Swift fox YY YYYYYYY Least chipmunk Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Little brown myotis Y YYY YY Y Y YYYY Long-eared myotis Y YY YY Y Long-legged myotis Y YY YYYYYYYY YY Y Long-tailed vole Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Long-tailed weasel Y YYYY YYY Y YYY Masked shrew Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Meadow jumping mouse Y Y Meadow vole Y Y Merriam’s kangaroo rat YYYY YY Mexican woodrat Y Y Y YYY Y Mink Y Montane shrew Y Y Y Y Y Montane vole Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Mountain lion Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Mule deer Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Muskrat Y Y Northern grasshopper mouse Y YY YYY Y YYYYY Northern pocket gopher YYYYYY Y Northern rock mouse Y Y Y YY Y Y Y
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 53 Mammals Nuttall’s cottontail Y YYYYY YY YY Y Ord’s kangaroo rat YY YYYY YYY Y Pallid bat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Pika Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Pinon mouse Y YY YYY Plains harvest mouse Y Y YY Y Y Plains pocket gopher Y Y YY Plains pocket mouse YY YYYY Y Porcupine Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Prairie vole Y Y Pronghorn YYYYY YY Red fox Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Red squirrel Y Y Y Ringtail Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rock pocket mouse Y YY Y Rock squirrel Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Silky pocket mouse Y YYYYYYYYY Silver-haired bat Y YY YYYYYYYYY Y Y Y Small-footed myotis Y YY Y YYY YY YY Y Snowshoe hare Y Y Y Y Y Southern plains woodrat YY YYY Y Southern red-backed vole Y YYY Y Spotted bat Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Spotted ground squirrel YYYYYY Stephen’s woodrat Y Y Striped skunk Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Tawny-bellied cotton rat YY Y Y Y Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Y YY YYY YY Y Y Townsend’s big-eared bat YYYY YY YYY Y YY Virginia opossum Y Y Water shrew Y Western harvest mouse YY YYYYYYY Y YYYYY Western jumping mouse Y Y Y Western pipistrelle Y YYYY Y YYYYY Western spotted skunk Y YY YYYY YYY Y White-footed mouse Y YY Y YYY White-tailed antelope squirrel YYY YYY Y Y White-tailed jack rabbit YYYYYYY YYY YYYY Y White-throated woodrat Y YY YYYY YYY Y Yellow-bellied marmot YYYYYYY YYY Yellow-faced pocket gopher YY YYYY YYYY Yuma myotis YY YYY YYYYY Appendix C. (Cont’d.) Montane habitats Woodland Grassland/desert scrub Aquatic 1111 1112 2111 2112 2121 2122 3111 4111 5110 3121 3122 3222 4211 4212 5121 5122 5211 5212 5221 6120 9120 9410 9420
54 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 Appendix C. (Cont’d.) Montane habitats Woodland Grassland/desert scrub Aquatic 1111 1112 2111 2112 2121 2122 3111 4111 5110 3121 3122 3222 4211 4212 5121 5122 5211 5212 5221 6120 9120 9410 9420 Reptiles Blackneck garter snake Y Y Blacktail rattlesnake YY Y YYYYY YY Checkered garter snake YYY Checkered whiptail YYY Y Y YY Chihuahuan spotted whiptail Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Coachwhip Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Collared lizard Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Common garter snake YYY Common kingsnake YYYY Y YY Corn snake Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Desert spiny lizard YYYYY Y YY Y Glossy snake Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Gopher snake Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Great plains skink YY YYYYYY Y YY YY Greater earless lizard Y YY YYYYY YY Leopard lizard YYYYYY Y YY Lesser earless lizard YYYYYYYY YY Lined snake YY Y Y Little striped whiptail YYYYYY Y YY Longnose snake YYY YYY YYY Many-lined skink Y Y Y Y YY YYY Y YY YY Massasauga Y YY YY Milk snake Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Mountain patchnose snake Y YY YYY Y New Mexico whiptail YYYYY YYY YY Night snake Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ornate box turtle Y YYY Y YY Painted turtle YYY Plains black-headed snake Y YY YYYY YY Plains garter snake Y YY Plateau striped whiptail Y YYY Y YYYY Y Prairie lizard Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ringneck snake Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Roundtail horned lizard YYYY YY Sagebrush lizard YYY Y YY YY Y Short-horned lizard YYYYYY YYYYYYYYYY Y Side-blotched lizard YY Y YYYYYY YYYY Y Slider Y Smooth green snake Y YYY YYY YY Snapping turtle Y Y Spiny softshell Y Y Striped whipsnake YYYY YYY YY Y YY Texas blind snake YYYYYY Y Tree lizard Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Western diamondback rattlesnake Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-58. 2000 55 Reptiles Western hognose snake Y YYYYYYY YYY Western rattlesnake YYYY YYYYYYYYYY YY Western terrestrial garter snake Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Yellow mud turtle YYYY Amphibians Canyon treefrog Y Couch’s spadefoot YYY Y YYYY Great Plains toad YY YYY YY YY Jemez Mountains salamander Y Y Y Y New Mexico spadefoot YY YY YYY YYY Y Y Northern leopard frog YYYY Plains leopard frog Y Y Plains spadefoot Y YYY YYY Y Red-spotted toad YY YY YYY YY Y Tiger salamander YYYYYYY YYY YYY YYYYY Western chorus frog YYYY YYY YY YYYY Western toad Y Woodhouse’s toad YY YYY YYYYY Appendix C. (Cont’d.) Montane habitats Woodland Grassland/desert scrub Aquatic 1111 1112 2111 2112 2121 2122 3111 4111 5110 3121 3122 3222 4211 4212 5121 5122 5211 5212 5221 6120 9120 9410 9420
Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

RMRS

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of

the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs

of National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems,

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology,

multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects

and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications

may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center,

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526