U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

National Park Service

Southwest Biological Science Center

Open-File Report 2005-1142 

July 2005

In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources

Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Tumacácori National Historical Park Powell, Albrecht, Halvorson, Schmidt, Anning, & Docherty Open-File Report 2005-1142

 

In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources 

Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of 

Tumacácori National Historic Park 

By Brian F. Powell, Eric W. Albrecht, William L. Halvorson, Cecilia A. Schmidt, Pamela Anning, and Kathleen 

Docherty 

Open-File Report 2005-1142 

July 2005

 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

National Park Service 

USGS Southwest Biological Science Center 

Sonoran Desert Research Station 

University of Arizona 

School of Natural Resources 

125 Biological Sciences East 

Tucson, Arizona 85721
ii

U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 

Note: This document contains information of a preliminary nature and was prepared primarily 

for internal use in the U.S. Geological Survey. This information is NOT intended for use in open 

literature prior to publication by the investigators named unless permission is obtained in writing 

from the investigators named and from the Station Leader.

Suggested Citation 

Powell, B.F., E.W. Albrecht, W.L. Halvorson, C.A. Schmidt, P. Anning, K. Docherty. 2005. 

Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Tumacácori National Historic Park. USGS Open-File 

Report 2005-1142. U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Sonoran 

Desert Research Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

This report supersedes Powell et al. (2002, 2003, and 2004). 

Cover photo: Ed Wittenberg, Tumacácori National Historic Park
iii

Authors 

Brian Powell, Eric Albrecht, Cecilia Schmidt, Pamela Anning, and Kathleen Docherty 

125 Biological Sciences East Building 

School of Natural Resources 

The University of Arizona 

Tucson, AZ 85721 

William L. Halvorson 

USGS Sonoran Desert Research Station 

125 Biological Sciences East Building 

The University of Arizona 

Tucson, AZ 85721 

U.S. Geological Survey Sonoran Desert Research Station Personnel 

Charles van Riper III, Station Leader 

Steve P. Gloss, Ecologist 

William L. Halvorson, Research Ecologist 

Cecil R. Schwalbe, Ecologist 

Michael R. Kunzmann, Ecologist

Program and Expertise Areas of USGS and UA Personnel 

Administration & Outreach 

Cori Dolan 

Wendy Parrish 

Charles van Riper III

Avian Ecology 

Claire Crow 

Glenn Johnson 

Mike Kunzmann 

Chris O’Brien 

Brian Powell 

Charles van Riper III 

Data Management 

Mike Kunzmann 

Brent Sigafus 

Ecology of Amphibians & Reptiles 

Kevin Baker 

Cristina Jones 

Dave Prival 

Phil Rosen 

Cecil Schwalbe 

Brent Sigafus 

Eric Stitt 

Fire Management 

Cori Dolan 

James Feldmann 

Bill Halvorson 

Invasive Species Research 

Patricia Guertin 

Jim Malusa 

Phil Rosen 

Cecil Schwalbe 

Brent Sigafus 

Dennis Suhre 

Inventory & Monitoring 

Patricia Guertin 

Bill Halvorson 

Brian Powell 

Cecilia Schmidt 

Vegetation Mapping & Ecology 

Patricia Guertin 

Bill Halvorson 

Jim Malusa

Dennis Suhre

USGS Southwest Biological Science Center http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov
iv

Table of Contents 

Report Dedication ................................................................................................................................ viii

Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................ix

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................xi

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Biological Inventories at Tumacácori NHP.............................................1

Project Overview ................................................................................................................................1

Report Format and Data Organization................................................................................................2

Verification and Assessment of Results .............................................................................................3

Technical Concepts.............................................................................................................................3

Chapter 2: Park Overview........................................................................................................................7

Park Area and History ........................................................................................................................7

Natural Resources Overview ..............................................................................................................7

Natural Resource Management Issues..............................................................................................11

Chapter 3: Plant Inventory .....................................................................................................................17

Previous Research.............................................................................................................................17

Methods ............................................................................................................................................17

Results ..............................................................................................................................................20

Inventory Completeness ...................................................................................................................21

Discussion.........................................................................................................................................22

Chapter 4: Fish Inventory ......................................................................................................................25

Previous Research.............................................................................................................................25

Methods ............................................................................................................................................25

Results ..............................................................................................................................................26

Inventory Completeness ...................................................................................................................26

Discussion.........................................................................................................................................29

Chapter 5: Amphibian and Reptile Inventory ........................................................................................31

Previous Research.............................................................................................................................31

Methods ............................................................................................................................................31

Results ..............................................................................................................................................36

Inventory Completeness ...................................................................................................................38

Discussion.........................................................................................................................................40

Chapter 6: Bird Inventory ......................................................................................................................43

Previous Research.............................................................................................................................43

Methods ............................................................................................................................................43

Results ..............................................................................................................................................50

Inventory Completeness ...................................................................................................................52

Discussion.........................................................................................................................................52

Chapter 7: Mammal Inventory...............................................................................................................59

Previous Research.............................................................................................................................59

Methods ............................................................................................................................................59

Results ..............................................................................................................................................63

Inventory Completeness ...................................................................................................................64

Discussion.........................................................................................................................................65

Chapter 8: Management Implications....................................................................................................67
v

Chapter 9: Additional Inventories..........................................................................................................69

Chapter 10: Glossary .............................................................................................................................71

Chapter 11: Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................73

List of Tables 

Table E.S.1. Summary results of vascular plant and vertebrate inventories at Tumacácori 

NHP, 2000–2003. .................................................................................................................xi

Table 2.1. Average monthly climate data for Tumacácori NHP, 1948–2003 (data from WRCC 

2004)....................................................................................................................................11

Table 4.1. Number of fish caught during four sampling periods at Tumacácori NHP, 2001–

2002.....................................................................................................................................26

Table 5.1. Amphibian and reptile survey effort by method, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002................31

Table 5.2. Relative abundance of reptilesa recorded during intensive surveys, by community 

type and park unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. .............................................................36

Table 5.3. Number of amphibians and reptiles recorded per 10 hours of extensive surveys, 

and number of incidental observations for additional species, by park unit, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. ............................................................................................37

Table 5.4. Number of animals captured per 100 hours of pitfall trap operation, Tumacácori 

unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002.....................................................................................38

Table 6.1. Bird survey effort by method and community type, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2003...........46

Table 6.2. Relative abundance of birds recorded during VCP surveys, all units, Tumacácori 

NHP, 2001–2002. ...............................................................................................................51

Table 6.3. Relative abundance of birds recorded during line-transect surveys, all units, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2002–2003. ............................................................................................53

Table 6.4. Observations of breeding behavior by birds, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. 

Breeding codes follow standards set by NAOAC (1990)....................................................54

Table 7.1. Total number of small mammals trapped (n) and relative abundance (RA), 

excluding recaptures, by park unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2000–2001.....................................64

Table 7.2. Results from infrared-triggered cameras, Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP, 

2000–2001...........................................................................................................................64

List of Figures 

Figure 2.1. Locations of the three units of Tumacácori NHP in southern Arizona. ...............................8

Figure 2.2. Aerial photograph of the study area and park boundary, Tumacácori unit, 

Tumacácori NHP..................................................................................................................9

Figure 2.3. Aerial photographs of the Calabazas and Guevavi units, Tumacácori NHP......................10

Figure 2.4. Comparison of monthly weather data during the time of the inventory (2000–

2002) compared to the mean (1948–2004; thick solid line in both figures), 

Tumacácori NHP (data from WRCC 2004).......................................................................12

Figure 2.5. Trash accumulation along the Santa Cruz River, Tumacácori NHP, August 2002............15

Figure 3.1. Locations of modular plots for plants, Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2002. 

See Appendix J for plot coordinates. .................................................................................18

Figure 3.2. Typical modular plot layout of four 10 x 10 m modules, eight 1 x 1 m quadrats, 

and four 10-m point-intercept transects, Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2002. ........20
vi

Figure 3.3. Species accumulation curve for cumulative number of new plant species collected 

as a function of the number of sample days, general botanizing and modular plot 

surveys, all units, Tumacácori NHP, 2000–2003. ..............................................................22

Figure 3.4. Cumulative (A) and number of new plant species (B) recorded as a function of the 

number of modular plots surveyed, Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2002.................23

Figure 4.1. Total catch and species richness of fish, by sampling period, Tumacácori NHP, 

2001–2002..........................................................................................................................27

Figure 4.2. Percent total catch, by sampling period, for the three most common species of 

fishes at both sampling sites, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. ............................................28

Figure 4.3. Crayfish, Tumacácori NHP, November 2002.....................................................................30

Figure 5.1. Locations of intensive survey plots and pitfall trap array for amphibians and 

reptiles, Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002..................................................33

Figure 5.2. Locations of intensive survey plots for amphibians and reptiles, Calabazas and 

Guevavi units, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002....................................................................34

Figure 5.3. Species accumulation curves for intensive and extensive amphibian and reptile 

surveys, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002..............................................................................39

Figure 5.4. American bullfrog, Tumacácori NHP.................................................................................42

Figure 6.1. Locations of VCP survey stations and line-transect breaks (winter) for birds, 

Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2003................................................................44

Figure 6.2. Locations of VCP survey stations and line-transect breaks (winter) for birds, 

Calabazas and Guevavi units, Tumacácori NHP, 2002–2003............................................45

Figure 6.3. Species accumulation curves for number of bird species by sample event (i.e., 

survey days) for VCP and line-transect surveys, all units, Tumacácori NHP, 

2001–2003..........................................................................................................................55

Figure 7.1. Locations of small mammal trapping plots and infrared-triggered cameras, 

Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2000–2001................................................................60

Figure 7.2. Locations of small mammal trapping plots, Calabazas and Guevavi units, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2000–2001............................................................................................61

Figure 7.3. Diagram of infrared-triggered camera set-up. ....................................................................62

Figure 7.4. Species accumulation curve for small mammal trapping, all park units, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2000–2001............................................................................................65

List of Appendices 

Appendix A. List of plant species that were observed (O) or documented (D) at Tumacácori 

NHP by University of Arizona Inventory personnel, 2000–2003...................................83

Appendix B. Fish species recorded in the Santa Cruz River and Tumacácori Channel by 

University of Arizona Inventory personnel, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002...................91

Appendix C. Amphibian and reptile species that were observed (O), documented with photo 

voucher (P), or documented with specimen voucher (S) by University of 

Arizona Inventory personnel, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002.........................................92

Appendix D. Bird species recorded at Tumacácori NHP by University of Arizona Inventory 

personnel, 2001–2003, and by personnel working for the Monitoring Avian 

Productivity and Survivorship Program (MAPS), 1997–2003. ......................................93

Appendix E. Mammal species observed or documented by University of Arizona Inventory 

personnel or were found in museum collections (Appendix O), Tumacácori 

NHP, 2001–2002.............................................................................................................97
vii

Appendix F. Plant species recorded at the Tumacácori unit by previous researchers but not 

recorded by University of Arizona Inventory personnel, Tumacácori NHP. .................98

Appendix G. Amphibian and reptile species that were not recorded by University of Arizona 

Inventory personnel but that may occur at Tumacácori NHP based on 

documentation in the area by other researchers, or based on published range 

maps................................................................................................................................99

Appendix H. Bird species that were not recorded by University of Arizona Inventory 

personnel but that may occur at Tumacácori NHP. ......................................................101

Appendix I. Mammal species that were not recorded by University of Arizona Inventory 

personnel or were found in museum collections (Appendix O), but that may 

occur at Tumacácori NHP.............................................................................................103

Appendix J. UTM coordinates (NAD 83) of vegetation (modular) survey plots at the 

Tumacácori Unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2002. ..................................................................104

Appendix K. UTM coordinates (NAD 83) for intensive plots for amphibian and reptile 

surveys, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. .......................................................................105

Appendix L. UTM coordinates (NAD 83) for bird survey stations and transect sections, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2003. .....................................................................................106

Appendix M. UTM coordinates (NAD 83) of small mammal trapping plots, Tumacácori 

NHP, 2000-2001...........................................................................................................107

Appendix N. Museums that were queried in 1998 for vertebrate voucher specimens with 

“Arizona” and “Tumacácori National Historical Park” in the collection location. ......108

Appendix O. Voucher specimens from Tumacácori NHP that were not collected by 

University of Arizona Inventory personnel. .................................................................109

Appendix P. Vertebrate voucher specimens collected at Tumacácori NHP by University of 

Arizona Inventory personnel, 2000–2002.....................................................................110

Appendix Q. Summary of plant data from modular plots, Tumacácori NHP, 2002...........................112

Appendix R. Plant species recorded in 10 x 10 m modular plots (P), point-intercept transects 

within modular plots (TR) or in both modular plots and point-intercept transects 

(B), Tumacácori NHP, 2002.........................................................................................119

Appendix S. Results of fish surveys at Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. These data are 

summarized in Table 5.1...............................................................................................122

Appendix T. Total number of birds detected during incidental observations and VCP surveys 

for the time period of the most intensive surveys, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. ......123

Appendix U. Summary of vegetation characteristics measured at VCP survey stations, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2002. ...............................................................................................126
viii

Report Dedication 

 

Eric Wells Albrecht 

1970-2004 

This report is dedicated to Eric’s life and work; he was an extraordinary ecologist, community 

member, father, partner, and friend. Eric was co-coordinator of the University of Arizona (UA) 

biological inventory and monitoring program from 2002 until his sudden and unexpected death on 

September 20, 2004. Eric was near completion of his MS degree in Wildlife Conservation from the 

UA, which was awarded posthumously in November 2004. In his last year, Eric spearheaded projects 

to investigate the efficiency of current monitoring programs; he was passionate about using the best 

available information to guide vertebrate monitoring efforts in the region. He is survived by his 

partner, Kathy Moore, and their two young children, Elizabeth and Zachary. We hope that the lives of 

his children will be enriched by Eric’s hard work on behalf of the national parks in the Sonoran Desert 

Network. 
ix

Acknowledgements 

Thanks to Park Superintendent Ann Rasor, Roy Simpson, and the staff at Tumacácori National 

Historical Park (NHP) for their strong support of the Inventory Program. We are very pleased that 

data from our studies played a role in the legislated and actual expansion of the park boundary. Ms. 

Rasor deserves much of the credit for applying scientific data to management action; we recognize and 

applaud her vision. 

This project resulted from the collaboration of many people at the United State Geological Survey 

(USGS), the University of Arizona (UA) and the National Park Service (NPS) and was facilitated by 

the Southern Arizona Office of the National Park Service, and Desert Southwest and Colorado Plateau 

Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESUs). Andy Hubbard at the Sonoran Desert Network (SDN) 

Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) program has been a strong and convincing advocate for continuing 

and expanding the role of the USGS/UA Inventory in the I&M program. Kathy Davis at Tuzigoot and 

Montezuma Castle national monuments was instrumental for her initiative early in this project. Larry 

Norris at the Desert Southwest CESU provided strong support for our program and spent considerable 

time and effort providing clear and timely administrative assistance. Matt Goode, Don Swann, and 

Dale Turner provided much of the early planning for this project; we are indebted to their vision and 

work. Eric Albrecht, to whom this report is dedicated, was an outstanding spokesperson and leader of 

the program; he was an invaluable member of the team and his contributions are sorely missed. We 

are grateful to George Binney, Roy Ross, and Hank Cosper for allowing us access to their lands. 

We thank a core group of dedicated field biologists who persevered, day in and day out, to collect a 

wealth of data at Tumacácori NHP: Patty Guertin, Sky Jacobs, James MacAdam, Jeff McGovern, 

Katie Nasser, and Meg Quinn (plants); Miguel Lerma, Michael Olker, Andy Schultz, and Thomas 

Walker (fish); Dan Bell, Kevin Bonine, James Borgmeyer, Dave Prival, and Mike Wall (amphibians 

and reptiles); Gavin Beiber, Aaron Flesch, Chris Kirkpatrick, and Gabe Martinez (birds); Melanie 

Bucci, Ryan Gann, Ed Kuklinski, Neil Perry, Jason Schmidt, and Ronnie Sidner (mammals). We are 

appreciative of the following people, many of whom never ventured into the field, but whose office 

tasks made the field effort possible: Debbie Angell, Jennifer Brodsky, Brian Cornelius, Carianne 

Funicelli, Taylor Edwards, Colleen McClain, Heather McClaren, Lindsay Norpel, Jill Rubio, Brent 

Sigafus, Taffy Sterpka, Patina Thompson, Jenny Treiber, and Alesha Williams. Special thanks to Lisa 

Carder for her years of hard work on all aspects of the project. 

Additional administrative support was provided by Valery Catt at the USGS Sonoran Desert Research 

Station and Terri Rice, Andy Honaman, Jenny Ferry, and especially Cecily Westphal of the School of 

Natural Resources at the UA. Technical support was graciously given by the following experts: Dan 

Austin, Michael Chamberland, Phil Jenkins, and Charlette and John Reeder of the UA herbarium; 

George Bradley of the UA herpetology collection; Peter Reinthal of the UA fish collection; Tom 

Huels of the UA ornithology collection; and Yar Petryszyn and Melanie Bucci of the UA mammal 

collection. Thanks to Sharon Megdal, Peter Wierenga, and all the staff at the UA Water Resources 

Research Center, especially Terry Sprouse and colleagues (Sprouse et al. 2002) for use of background 

information on Tumacácori NHP contained in this report. 

We received helpful comments on earlier drafts of this report from Debbie Angell, Kevin Bonine, 

James Feldmann, Denny Fenn, Andy Hubbard, Brooke Gebow, Larry Laing, Theresa Mau-Crimmins, 

Larry Norris, Ann Rasor, Phil Rosen, and Don Swann. All mistakes and omissions are the 

responsibility of the authors. 
x
xi 

Executive Summary 

This report summarizes the results of the first 

comprehensive biological inventory of 

Tumacácori National Historical Park (NHP) in 

southern Arizona. These surveys were part of 

a larger effort to inventory vascular plants and 

vertebrates in eight National Park Service units 

in Arizona and New Mexico. 

From 2000 to 2003 we surveyed for vascular 

plants and vertebrates (fish, amphibians, 

reptiles, birds, and mammals) at Tumacácori 

NHP to document presence of species within 

the administrative boundaries of the park’s 

three units. Because we used repeatable study 

designs and standardized field techniques, 

these inventories can serve as the first step in a 

long-term monitoring program. 

We recorded 591 species at Tumacácori NHP, 

significantly increasing the number of known 

species for the park (Table 1). Species of note 

in each taxonomic group include: 

• Plants: second record in Arizona of 

muster John Henry, a non-native 

species that is ranked a “Class A 

noxious weed” in California; 

• Amphibian: Great Plains narrowmouthed toad; 

• Reptiles: eastern fence lizard and 

Sonoran mud turtle; 

• Birds: yellow-billed cuckoo, green 

kingfisher, and one observation of the 

endangered southwestern willow 

flycatcher; 

• Fishes: four native species including 

an important population of the 

endangered Gila topminnow in the 

Tumacácori Channel; 

• Mammals: black bear and all four 

species of skunk known to occur in 

Arizona. 

We recorded 79 non-native species (Table E.S. 

1), many of which are of management concern, 

including: Bermudagrass, tamarisk, western 

mosquitofish, largemouth bass, bluegill, 

sunfish, American bullfrog, feral cats and 

dogs, and cattle. We also noted an abundance 

of crayfish (a non-native invertebrate). We 

review some of the important non-native 

species and make recommendations to remove 

them or to minimize their impacts on the 

native biota of the park. 

Based on the observed species richness, 

Tumacácori NHP possesses high biological 

diversity of plants, fish, and birds for a park of 

its size. This richness is due in part to the 

ecotone between ecological provinces 

(Madrean and Sonoran), the geographic 

distribution of the three units (23 km separates 

the most distant units), and their close 

proximity to the Santa Cruz River. The mesic 

life zone along the river, including rare 

cottonwood/willow forests and adjacent 

mesquite bosque at the Tumacácori unit, is 

representative of areas that have been 

destroyed or degraded in many other locations 

in the region. Additional elements such as the 

semi-desert grassland vegetation community 

are also related to high species richness for 

some taxonomic groups. 

Table E.S.1. Summary results of vascular plant 

and vertebrate inventories at Tumacácori NHP, 

2000–2003. 

Taxon group 

Number of 

species 

recorded 

Number of 

non-native 

species 

Number of new 

species added to 

park lista

Plants 378 67 168 

Fish 8 4 3 

Amphibians 

and Reptiles 24 1 22 

Birds 146 3 40 

Mammals 35 4 33 

Totals 591 79 266 

a Species that had not been observed or documented by 

previous studies. 

This report includes lists of species recorded 

by us (or likely to be recorded with additional 

effort) and maps of study sites. We also 

suggest management implications and ways to 

maintain or enhance the unique biological 

resources of Tumacácori NHP: limit 

development adjacent to the park, exclude 
xii 

cattle and off-road vehicles, develop an 

eradication plan for non-native species, and 

hire a natural resource specialist. These 

recommendations are intended to assist park 

staff with addressing many of the goals set out 

in their most recent natural resources 

management plan. 

 

This study is the first step in a long-term 

process of compiling information on the 

biological resources of Tumacácori NHP and 

its surrounding areas, and our findings should 

not be viewed as the final authority on the 

plants and animals of the park. Therefore, we 

also recommend additional inventory and 

monitoring studies and identify components of 

our effort that could be improved upon, either 

through the application of new techniques 

(e.g., use of genetic markers) or by extending 

the temporal and/or spatial scope of our 

research. 
1 

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Biological Inventories at Tumacácori NHP 

The unnamed is the heaven and earth’s origin; 

Naming is mother of ten thousand things.

Lao Tzu

Project Overview 

Inventory: A point-in-time effort to document 

the resources present in an area. 

In the early 1990s, responding to criticism that 

it lacked basic knowledge of natural resources 

within parks, the National Park Service (NPS) 

initiated the Inventory and Monitoring 

Program (NPS 1992). The purpose of the 

program is to increase scientific research in 

NPS units and to detect long-term changes in 

biological resources (NPS 1992). At the time 

of the program’s inception, basic biological 

information, including lists of plants and 

animals, were absent or incomplete for many 

parks. In fact, as of 1994, more than 80% of 

national parks did not have complete 

inventories of major taxonomic groups 

(Stohlgren et al. 1995). 

Species inventories have both direct and 

indirect value for management of natural areas. 

Species lists facilitate resource interpretation 

and visitor appreciation of natural resources. 

Knowledge of which species are present, 

particularly sensitive species, and where they 

occur is critical for making management 

decisions (e.g., locating new facilities). 

Inventories are also a cornerstone of long-term 

monitoring. Thorough biological inventories 

provide a basis for choosing parameters to 

monitor and can provide initial data (i.e., a 

baseline) for monitoring ecological 

populations and communities. Inventories can 

also test sampling strategies, field methods, 

and data collection protocols, and provide 

estimates of variation that are essential in 

prospective power analyses. 

Goals 

The purpose of this study was to complete 

basic inventories for vascular plants and 

vertebrates at Tumacácori NHP. This effort 

was part of a larger biological inventory of 

eight NPS units in southern Arizona and 

southwestern New Mexico (Davis and 

Halvorson 2000). The goals of our biological 

inventory of Tumacácori NHP were to: 

1. Conduct field surveys with the goal of 

documenting at least 90% of all species of 

vascular plants and vertebrates estimated 

to occur at the park. 

2. Use repeatable sampling designs and 

survey methods (when appropriate) that 

allow estimation of parameters of interest 

(e.g., species richness and relative 

abundance by taxonomic group) with 

associated estimates of precision. 

3. Compile historical occurrence data, for all 

species of vascular plants and vertebrates, 

from three sources: museum records 

(voucher specimens), previous studies, and 

park records. 

4. Create resources that are useful to park 

managers, including detailed species lists, 

maps of study sites, and high-quality 

digital images for use in resource 

interpretation and education. 

The bulk of our effort addressed goal numbers 

1 and 2. To maximize efficiency of realizing 

these goals (i.e., the number of species 

recorded by effort) we used field techniques 

designed to detect multiple species. We did 

not undertake single-species survey for 

threatened or endangered species. 

Administrative History 

The inventory project at Tumacácori NHP is 

the first of eight park inventories to be 

completed by our group. Funding for this 

project was obligated by the NPS in federal 

fiscal year 2000 (through work order No. 5 

under cooperative agreement number 
2 

1443CA860197006), and administered through 

the Southern Arizona Office of NPS. 

Additional effort for biological inventories at 

Tumacácori NHP was funded through the 

Desert Southwest CESU UAZ-57 under 

cooperative agreement 1248-00-002 in federal 

fiscal year 2002. The methodology used for 

the vegetation surveys in the riparian area was 

changed to be compatible with that used by 

other researchers completing surveys in other 

Sonoran Desert Network parks. This report 

integrates findings from these two projects and 

thus serves as the product for each. 

Report Format and Data Organization 

This report includes summaries and analyses 

of data related to vascular plants and 

vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, 

mammals) collected from 2000 to 2003 at 

Tumacácori NHP. This report is intended for 

use by park managers, and as such we strive to 

make it relevant, easy to read, and well 

organized. Our intention is for this document 

to be used in internal planning processes and 

outreach and education. We report only 

common names (listed in phylogenetic 

sequence) unless we reference a species that is 

not listed later in an appendix, in which case 

we use both common and scientific names. 

For each taxon group we include an appendix 

of all species that we recorded in the park 

(Appendices A–E) or which we suspect may 

be recorded with additional survey effort 

(Appendices F–I). Species lists are in 

phylogenetic sequence and include taxonomic 

order, family, genus, species, subspecies (if 

applicable) and common name. Scientific and 

common names used throughout this document 

are current according to accepted authorities 

for each taxon: Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS 2004) and the 

PLANTS database (USDA 2004) for plants; 

Robins (1991) for fish; Stebbins (2003) for 

amphibians and reptiles; American 

Ornithologist Union (AOU 1998, 2003) for 

birds; and Baker et al. (2003) for mammals. In 

this document we subscribe to the International 

System of Units (SI). 

Spatial Data 

Most spatial data associated with this project 

are geographically referenced to facilitate 

mapping study plots and locations of plants or 

animals. Coordinate storage is the Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection with 

North American datum 1983 (NAD 83), Zone 

12. We recorded most UTM coordinates using 

hand-held Garmin E-Map® Global Positioning 

System (GPS) units (Garmin International 

Incorporated, Olathe, KS) (horizontal accuracy 

about 10–30 m) because of their ease of use. 

We obtained some plot or station locations by 

using more accurate Trimble Pathfinder® GPS 

units (Trimble Navigation Limited, Sunnyvale, 

CA; horizontal accuracy about 1 m). Unless 

otherwise noted, we used E-Map units. Not all 

reported UTM coordinates are accurate 

representations of the plant or animal location. 

For example, UTM coordinates for plot-based 

detections are for the plot corners (Appendices 

J–M). Bird sightings are an exception; the 

UTM coordinates were typically within 150 m 

of the station or transect line, but in rare cases 

were as far as 300 m away. 

We map the location of all plots or stations 

using Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quads 

(DOQQ; produced by the U.S. Geological 

Survey) as background images when 

projecting features of interest (Figs 1.2, 1.3, 

3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2). Images of the 

Tumacácori unit are from the Tubac DOQQ 

(1996) and images of the Calabazas and 

Guevavi units are from the Rio Rico DOQQ 

(1994). 

Species Conservation Designations 

In this report we indicate species conservation 

designations by agencies, including U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (responsible for 

administering the Endangered Species Act), 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest 

Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

and Arizona Partners in Flight (a partnership of 

dozens of federal, state and local governments, 

non-governmental organizations). 
3 

Databases and Data Archiving 

We entered field data into taxon-specific 

databases (Microsoft Access version 97) and 

checked all data for transcription errors. From 

these databases we reproduced copies of the 

original field datasheets using the “Report” 

function in Access. The output looks similar 

to the original datasheets but all data are easier 

to read. The databases, printouts, and other 

data such as digital photographs and GIS 

layers will be distributed to monument staff, 

associated cooperators, and to the following 

data repositories: 

 Southern Arizona Office, National Park 

Service; Phoenix, Arizona 

 University of Arizona, Special Collections, 

Main Library; Tucson, Arizona 

Original copies of all datasheets will be given 

to the NPS SDN I&M program office in 

Tucson and may be archived at an another 

location. This redundancy in data archiving is 

to ensure that these valuable data are never 

lost. Along with the archived data we will 

include copies of the original datasheets and a 

guide to filling out the datasheets. This 

information, in conjunction with the text of 

this report, should enable future researchers to 

repeat our work. 

Verification and Assessment of Results 

Photo Vouchers 

Whenever possible we documented vertebrate 

species with analog color photographs. Many 

of these photos show detail on coloration or 

other characteristics of visual appearance, and 

they may serve as educational tools for the 

monument staff and visitors. Photographs will 

be archived with other data as described above. 

Voucher Specimens 

In many cases we collected voucher specimens 

to verify identifications and document species 

presence. Before taking vertebrate voucher 

specimens, we checked for existing vouchers 

in a database of 36 natural history museums 

(Appendix N) for records from Tumacácori 

NHP (see Appendix O for results). For plants, 

we searched the University of Arizona 

herbarium (see Appendices A and F for 

results). We collected herbarium specimens 

whenever flowers or fruit were present. All 

specimens were accessioned into the 

University of Arizona herbarium. Plant 

voucher specimens from this project are listed 

in Appendix A. 

For vertebrate specimens we preferred to use 

individuals that were killed incidentally (e.g., 

by cars), but occasionally we euthanized 

animals, particularly when identification was 

difficult or uncertain. For example, many 

small mammal species exhibit subtle variations 

in pelage color patterns within species and 

overlapping external measurements among 

species). The University of Arizona’s 

Institution for Animal Care and Use approved 

all field protocols for euthanizing animals 

(Protocol Control Number 03-177). We 

prepared all specimens according to 

standardized techniques and accessioned them 

into the appropriate University of Arizona 

vertebrate collection (vertebrate vouchers are 

listed in Appendix P). 

Assessing Inventory Completeness 

Assessing inventory completeness can most 

easily be accomplished by (1) examining the 

rate at which new species were recorded in 

successive surveys (i.e., species accumulation 

curves; Hayek and Buzas 1997: 314) and (2) 

by comparing the list of species we recorded 

with a list of species likely to be present based 

on previous research and/or expert opinion. 

We used different strategies tailored to each 

taxonomic group; for instance, it is not realistic 

to construct a list of potential plant species and 

so we used species accumulation curves. For 

all species accumulation curves, we 

randomized the order of the sampling periods 

to break up clusters of new detections that 

resulted from temporal conditions (e.g., 

monsoon initiation) independent of cumulative 

effort. 

Technical Concepts 

This section introduces some technical 

concepts and considerations related to our 

research at Tumacácori NHP. We also include 
4 

a glossary (Chapter 10) in which we define 

common terms used in this document. 

Habitat 

Habitat is a species-specific term referring to 

an area with resources and environmental 

conditions promoting occupancy, survival, and 

reproduction of that species (Morrison et al. 

1998). Thus, referring to an area as 

“cottonwood habitat” indicates that the area 

supports this tree species, not that it supports a 

host of other species that may be (or in some 

times/locations may not be) associated with 

cottonwoods (e.g., yellow warblers). This also 

precludes general use of the term “riparian 

habitat”, a common usage that may result from 

confusion with the similar concept of “habitat 

type,” a term introduced by Daubenmire 

(1976) and defined as “land units having 

approximately the same capacity to produce 

vegetation.” 

In this report we refer to “community types” as 

a means of comparing vertebrate communities 

in areas with different vegetation and other 

environmental associations. Community types 

are identified differently in relation to 

amphibians and reptiles (Chapter 5) and birds 

(Chapter 6). A preferred approach to 

classifying community types would involve 

use of an objective source such as a vegetation 

map, which had not been developed for the 

park at the time of writing. 

Sampling Design 

Sampling design is the process of selecting 

sample units from a population or area of 

interest. Unbiased random samples allow 

inference to the larger population from which 

those samples were drawn. The precision of 

estimates, based on these samples, increases 

with the number of samples taken; 

theoretically, random samples can be taken 

until all possible samples have been selected 

and precision is exact – a census has been 

taken that approaches the true value. Nonrandom samples are less likely to be 

representative of the entire population, because 

the sample may be intentionally biased toward 

a characteristic of interest or convenience. 

We briefly address sampling design in each 

chapter. In general our survey plots were not 

randomly located because we were more 

interested in detecting the maximum number 

of species than in maintaining inference to a 

larger area. Thus, abundance estimates 

(relative abundance) detailed in this report may 

be biased because we surveyed in areas likely 

to have high species richness; however the 

nature of that bias is difficult to characterize or 

quantify. If population estimates were a higher 

priority, avoiding this potential bias would 

have had greater importance. For a thorough 

review of issues related to sampling design, 

see Thompson (1992). 

Estimates of Abundance 

Estimating population size is a common goal 

of biologists, generally motivated by the desire 

to reduce (pest species), increase (endangered 

species), maintain (game species) or monitor 

(indicator species) populations. Use of 

abundance estimates as an indication of habitat 

quality has been soundly criticized (Van Horne 

1983). Our surveys at Tumacácori NHP were 

generally focused on detecting species rather 

than estimating population size. In many 

cases, however, we present estimates of 

“relative abundance” by species, to give a 

general sense of species abundance among 

community types, and provide information on 

areas in which species might be more or less 

common. Relative abundance is an index to 

population size that we calculate as the number 

of individuals of a species recorded, scaled by 

the amount of effort used to record that 

number. Some researchers (particularly plant, 

marine, and invertebrate ecologists) prefer to 

scale such frequency counts by the number of 

observations of other species, which provides a 

measure of community dominance; abundance 

relative to other species present. 

Indices of abundance correlate with population 

size but do not attempt to account for variation 

in detectability among different species or 

groups of species under different 

circumstances. Metrics of abundance that 

consider variation in detection probability 

include density (number of individuals per unit 
5 

area; e.g., two northern cardinals per hectare of 

mesquite bosque), and absolute abundance 

(population size; e.g., 48 northern cardinals at 

Tumacácori NHP). These latter techniques are 

beyond the scope of our research. For a 

review of methods used to estimate abundance, 

see Lancia et al. (1996). 
6 
7 

Chapter 2: Park Overview 

Park Area and History 

Park History 

Tumacácori NHP preserves the remnants of 

three Spanish colonial missions located along 

the upper Santa Cruz River in southern 

Arizona. Originally established in 1908 as a 

monument under the Antiquities Act, the park 

protected the San Jose de Tumacácori 

(Tumacácori unit), a Spanish mission founded 

in 1691. In 1990, the area was designated a 

National Historical Park with the inclusion of 

Los Santos Angeles de Guevavi mission 

(Guevavi unit; founded in 1691) and San 

Cayetano de Calabazas mission (Calabazas 

unit; founded in 1756). 

Park Boundaries 

Tumacácori NHP contains three units: 

Calabazas, Guevavi and Tumacácori. 

Tumacácori is the main administrative unit. 

The Calabazas and Guevavi units are 15 km 

and 23 km SSE of the Tumacácori unit, 

respectively (Figs. 2.1–2.3). The park contains 

two perennial stretches of the Santa Cruz River 

(in the Tumacácori and Guevavi units; Figs. 

2.2, 2.3). In the summer of 2002, the U.S. 

Congress legislated expansion and (later) 

allocated money for the acquisition of an 

additional 125 ha located adjacent to the 

Tumacácori unit along the Santa Cruz River 

(Fig. 2.2). Unless otherwise noted, the 

“Tumacácori unit” collectively refers to the 

legislated boundary (Fig. 2.2) and a few areas 

just outside of the boundary. 

Natural Resources Overview 

The three units of Tumacácori NHP are 

associated with distinct pockets of reliable 

water, resulting from basin-fill sediments over 

relatively shallow aquifers that fill quickly 

after precipitation (Sprouse et al. 2002). 

Perennial flow at the Tumacácori unit is 

augmented by treated wastewater discharges 

from the Nogales International Wastewater 

Treatment Plant. The perennial water supports 

a cottonwood-willow gallery forest at the 

Tumacácori unit. Mesquite bosque (forest), 

xeroriparian scrubland, and semi-desert 

grassland bound these mesic forests. The 

riparian area is habitat for a number of rare or 

federally listed animals such as the Gila 

topminnow (Chapter 4) and yellow-billed 

cuckoo (Chapter 6, Powell 2000). 

Physiography and Geology 

The Upper Santa Cruz River Valley is located 

in the southern Basin and Range Province of 

southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora. 

This terrain of alternating fault-bounded linear 

mountain ranges and sediment-filled basins 

began to form in southeastern Arizona as the 

result of dominantly east-northeast/westsouthwest directed crustal extension. 

The mountain ranges (Santa Rita, San 

Cayetano, and Patagonia) to the east of the 

park consist of a variety of rocks, including 

igneous, metamorphic, volcanic, and 

sedimentary, ranging in age from Precambrian 

to Miocene. The Tumacácori and Atascosa 

Mountains west of the park are composed 

chiefly of Tertiary volcanic rocks with the 

exception of a Jurassic granitic pluton south of 

Sopori Wash at the northern end of the 

Tumacácori Mountains. The Pajarito 

Mountains at the southern end of the valley, 

west of Nogales, are composed of Cretaceous 

volcanics. 

 Hydrology and Soils 

Basin-fill sediments along the Santa Cruz 

River, north of the City of Nogales to Amado, 

form three aquifer units: Nogales Formation, 

Older Alluvium, and Younger Alluvium 

(ADWR 1999). The floodplain alluvium of 

the Santa Cruz River increases in width from 

about 1.3 to 1.9 km between the Nogales 

International Wastewater Treatment Plant and 

the Tumacácori unit (including the Guevavi 

unit) and averages about 2.4 km wide between 

Josephine Canyon and Amado (including the 

Tumacácori unit) (ADWR 1999). In the 

vicinity of all the park units the soils are 
8 

Figure 2.1. Locations of the three units of Tumacácori NHP in southern Arizona. 
9 

Figure 2.2. Aerial photograph of the study area and park boundary, Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP. 
10 

Figure 2.3. Aerial photographs of the Calabazas and Guevavi units, Tumacácori NHP. 
11 

typical of floodplains, alluvial fans, and valley 

slopes of this semi-desert region; they are deep 

and well drained, with a high water-holding 

capacity (NPS 1996). 

Climate 

Tumacácori NHP is located within the semidesert climatic zone of southern Arizona, 

which is characterized by heavy summer 

(monsoon) storms brought about by moisture 

coming from the Gulf of Mexico and less 

intense, frontal storms from the Pacific Ocean 

in the winter. Approximately half of the 

annual precipitation falls from July to 

September (Table 2.1) (WRCC 2004). The 

area’s hot season occurs from April through 

October; maximum temperatures in July often 

exceed 40 °C. Intense surface heating during 

the day and active radiant cooling at night can 

result in daily temperature ranges of 17° to 22°

C. Winter temperatures are mild. Prevailing 

winds tend to follow the Santa Cruz Valley, 

blowing downslope (from the south) during the 

night and early morning, and upslope (from the 

north) during the day. 

Weather during the three years of this study 

was highly variable and atypical (Fig. 2.4). 

Annual total precipitation ranged from slightly 

greater than average in 2000 (48.8 cm) and 

2001 (42.2 cm) to one of the driest years on 

record in 2002 (23.6 cm; Fig. 2.4). Annual 

mean temperatures were above the long-term 

mean (17.7 o

C) in 2000 and 2002 (18.0 oC in 

both years) and below it in 2001 (17.4 o

C) 

(WRCC 2004). 

Vegetation 

All three units have vegetation typical of the 

semi-desert grassland association (Brown et al. 

1979, Brown and Lowe 1980). Common 

species include velvet mesquite, foothills palo 

verde and species of acacia, wolfberry, and 

greythorn, annual and perennial grasses, and 

forbs (NPS 1996). At the Tumacácori unit, in 

particular, there are dense stands of mesquite 

bosque and gallery riparian vegetation. Velvet 

mesquite, netleaf hackberry, and Mexican 

elderberry are common in the mesquite bosque 

areas, whereas in the mesic riparian areas, 

Fremont cottonwood, Goodding’s willow, 

tamarisk, and Arizona walnut form dense and 

structurally diverse stands of vegetation, 

particularly adjacent to surface water. 

Natural Resource Management Issues 

Because of its location along a river corridor, 

its proximity to the border with Mexico, and its 

diversity of biotic communities, Tumacácori 

NHP has many natural resource management 

issues that deserve attention. Here we review 

some threats to the unique natural resources at 

the park. For a more detailed analysis of some 

species mentioned in this section refer to the 

Discussion section of the appropriate chapter. 

Adjacent Development 

The boundaries of the Tumacácori unit are 

near the town of Tubac (to the north) and the 

Rio Rico development (to the south). The 

population of Rio Rico is expected to increase 

three-fold by 2025 (ADWR 1999) and Tubac 

is rapidly expanding as well. Much of the 

remaining undeveloped land adjacent to the 

park is currently used for irrigated agriculture 

or livestock grazing but additional residential 

development has been proposed (Ann Rasor, 

pers. comm.). Similarly, increased residential 

development is taking place near the Calabazas 

Table 2.1. Average monthly climate data for Tumacácori NHP, 1948–2003 (data from WRCC 2004). 

 Month 

Characteristic Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 

Maximum temperature (°C) 19 21 23 27 32 37 36 34 34 29 23 19 28 

Minimum temperature (°C) 0 1 3 5 9 14 19 18 15 9 3 1 8 

Precipitation (cm) 2.5 2.3 2.3 0.8 0.5 1.3 9.9 9.7 3.8 2.8 1.8 3.3 3.4 
12 

 

Figure 2.4. Comparison of monthly weather data during the time of the inventory (2000–2002) compared 

to the mean (1948–2004; thick solid line in both figures), Tumacácori NHP (data from WRCC 2004). 

unit, which is close to ex-urban sprawl from 

the City of Nogales, Arizona. 

Water Quality 

The following information on water quality is 

summarized from Sprouse et al. (2002) and 

King et al. (1999). Given the park’s location 

along the Santa Cruz River, the quantity and 

quality of surface water are important concerns 

at the park, particularly at the Tumacácori unit, 

which now includes a portion of the river. The 

other two units are influenced by proximity to 

the river (e.g., occurrence of mesic riparian 

vegetation and possible presence of semiaquatic animals in each unit), though neither 

area includes permanent flow. 

Effluent from the Nogales International 

Wastewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP), located 

14 km upstream from the Tumacácori unit and 

across the river from the Calabazas unit, has a 

Month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Centimeters difference from mean

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

2000

2001

2002

Month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Degree Celcius difference from mean

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4 2000

2001

2002

Precipitation

Temperature
13 

significant impact on both water quality and 

quantity at the Tumacácori unit. Treated 

effluent provides perennial surface flow for 

more than 15 km of the Santa Cruz River in an 

area that would otherwise be dry much of the 

year. 

Countering the benefits from the presence of 

the effluent, there are a number of water 

quality problems that affect park resources. 

Water samples from the Calabazas Road 

Bridge (located between the Tumacácori and 

Calabazas units) have included twenty-two 

groups of parameters that exceeded National 

Park Service Water Resources Division 

screening criteria (NPS 2001). In addition, 

dissolved oxygen, pH, chlorine, cyanide, 

cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, 

silver, and zinc exceeded respective U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic 

life (ADEQ 2000, USEPA 2001). Nitrate, 

arsenic, barium, cadmium and chromium 

exceeded USEPA drinking water criteria 

(ADEQ 2000, USEPA 2001), fecal-indicator 

bacteria concentrations (total coliform and 

fecal coliform) exceeded Water Resources 

Division screening limits for freshwater 

bathing, and turbidity measurements exceeded 

Water Resources Division limits deemed safe 

for aquatic life (ADEQ 2000, NPS 2001). The 

ADEQ has categorized the water in the Santa 

Cruz River as “impaired” due to turbidity at 

the Guevavi unit and impaired due to fecalindicator bacteria concentrations along 

stretches adjacent to both the Calabazas and 

Tumacácori units (ADEQ 2000). 

High levels of chromium (metal) and DDE 

(dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene; 

organochlorine compound) were present in 

animals collected from the Santa Cruz River 

during a 1999 study (King et al. 1999). 

Almost half of the invertebrate samples in this 

study contained concentrations of chromium 

that could be harmful to higher-trophic-level 

organisms, and four of eight killdeer carcasses 

contained DDE levels that are associated with 

impaired reproduction and may also pose a 

bio-accumulation risk to predators (King et al. 

1999). Perhaps the issue of greatest concern is 

the presence of toxic levels of un-ionized 

ammonia in sampling locations downstream 

from the treatment plant. High concentrations 

of ammonia were documented by five studies 

between 1995 and 1999, and have been 

identified as responsible for fish mortality 

(summary in King et al. 1999). A high 

proportion of fish collected downstream from 

the treatment plant also possessed physical 

anomalies of unknown cause (King et al. 

1999). 

Although levels of ammonia decreased with 

distance from the treatment plant, the toxicity 

of water upstream of the Tumacácori unit may 

dramatically reduce the likelihood that 

additional native aquatic or semi-aquatic 

animals will colonize that area from upstream 

locations. Indeed, in an earlier study, 

researchers noted that despite presence of five 

species of amphibian upstream from the 

treatment plant, “... no amphibians are found 

along the river from the waste water outfall 

downstream for several kilometers” (Drost 

1998). 

The river is also vulnerable to releases of raw 

sewage from the NIWTP, whether from a 

break in the main sewer line (which occurred 

in 1977; NPS 1993) or from periodic surges in 

the volume of raw sewage coming into the 

plant, thereby overwhelming the facility 

(Sprouse et al. 2002). Increased treatment 

capacity is planned for the plant (which would 

improve its ability to handle surges; Terry 

Sprouse, pers. comm.) and installation of pretreatment equipment would reduce ammonia 

concentrations to non-toxic levels. These 

improvements were initially scheduled for 

completion by March 2002 (King et al. 1999) 

but at the time of this writing (April 2005) they 

had not begun. 

Riparian Vegetation 

Regardless of the concerns regarding 

contamination, the water from NIWTP has 

resulted in the extensive cottonwood-willow 

riparian community at the Tumacácori unit and 

adjacent lands. Loss of those waters due to a 

proposed treatment plant in Nogales, Sonora, 
14 

could result in the degradation of the diverse 

riparian area at the park. 

Riparian plant communities in the 

southwestern United States account for less 

than 1% of the landscape cover (Skagen et al. 

1998), yet it is estimated that greater than 50% 

of southwestern bird species (Knopf and 

Samson 1994) and up to 80% of all wildlife 

species in the southwest are dependent on 

riparian areas (Chaney et al. 1990). Riparian 

areas in arid regions support high bird species 

diversity due their structural and floristic 

diversity as compared to surrounding areas 

(Thomas et al. 1979, Lee et al. 1989, Strong 

and Bock 1990) that translates into abundant 

insects for foraging and large trees for nesting 

(Powell and Steidl 2000). Riparian vegetation, 

such as cottonwoods, willows, and ash have 

been found to decrease levels of heavy metals 

in water and soil in addition to decreasing 

water temperatures, providing a source of 

organic matter, and stabilizing stream banks 

(Karpiscak et al. 2001, Karpiscak et al. 1996, 

Osborne and Kovacic 1993). The Bureau of 

Land Management estimates that less than 

20% of the western United States’ potential 

riparian vegetation remains to perform these 

vital services (BLM 1994). Such loss 

highlights the importance of maintaining these 

rare riparian plant communities along the 

Santa Cruz River. 

Off-road Vehicles 

Park staff and adjacent landowners prohibit 

off-road vehicles in the Santa Cruz River 

floodplain, but trespass is frequent, particularly 

at the Tumacácori unit where flood events 

wash out fencing (Roy Simpson, pers. comm.). 

Off-road vehicles cause soil compaction 

(Wilshire 1983) and erosion by damaging and 

destroying vegetation (Johnson and Smith 

1983). They also affect wildlife through direct 

mortality and habitat destruction (e.g., crushed 

burrows; Wilshire 1983, Brotons and Herrando 

2001). 

Non-native Species 

Awareness of non-native species as a 

management issue has risen dramatically in 

recent years and ecologists have ranked it as 

one of the most significant causes of species 

endangerment (Brooks and Pyke 2001). Nonnative plant species are a significant 

management issue at the park, particularly at 

the Tumacácori unit, where invasives such as 

tamarisk, Bermudagrass, and Russian thistle 

are well established. Non-natives plants are 

known to alter ecosystem function and 

processes (Naeem et al. 1996, D'Antonio and 

Vitousek 1992) and reduce the abundance of 

native species, potentially permanently 

changing diversity and species composition 

(Bock et al. 1986, D'Antonio and Vitousek 

1992, OTA 1993). The Tumacácori unit 

provides habitat for non-native vertebrates as 

well, including western mosquitofish, 

largemouth bass, bluegill, and sunfish (Chapter 

4); American bullfrog (Chapter 5); house 

sparrow and European starling (Chapter 6); 

and cattle, and feral cats and dogs (Chapter 7). 

Impacts from Undocumented Immigrants 

The proximity of the park to the U.S.-Mexico 

border results in a number of unique 

management issues. The Santa Cruz River 

provides a well-known and well-used corridor 

for undocumented immigrants traveling north 

from Mexico, and much of this traffic passes 

through the Tumacácori unit (NPS 2003). 

Although visitor safety concerns have not yet 

become a significant issue, reported impacts to 

the park include erosion, compacted soils, and 

vandalism (NPS 1996). Other national parks 

in the border region have reported fire hazards, 

theft and destruction of historic resources, 

disruption of wildlife movements (including 

reduced access to water sources), reduced 

water quality, and closure of park attractions 

due to safety concerns (NPS 2003). To our 

knowledge only one (recently initiated) study 

is aimed at quantifying the effects of 

immigrants on animal communities in southern 

Arizona (O’Dell 2003; but see McIntyre and 

Weeks 2002). 

Trash Flows 

During heavy flooding events in the Santa 

Cruz River watershed, a large quantity of trash 

washes downstream, primarily from the 
15 

Nogales (Portrero) Wash that originates in 

Sonora, Mexico. This trash often becomes 

trapped in a few locations, leading to large 

accumulations (Figure 2.5). Trash is 

principally of plastics such as water bottles but 

also includes batteries and tires. Park 

personnel and volunteers have done an 

excellent job of cleaning up a number of these 

sites in recent years, but the problem will 

likely continue. 

Figure 2.5. Trash accumulation along the Santa 

Cruz River, Tumacácori NHP, August 2002. 
16 
17 

Chapter 3: Plant Inventory 

Previous Research 

There have been two previous plant 

inventories at the Tumacácori unit. Mouat et 

al. (1977) recorded 130 species during seven 

survey days in the spring and summer of 1977. 

A less complete and poorly documented 

survey was conducted at the Tumacácori unit 

in the 1980s or 1990s (Bennett, year 

unknown). There are also 50 specimens from 

the park at the University of Arizona 

herbarium (Appendices A and F). To our 

knowledge, there were no prior plant 

inventories at either the Calabazas or Guevavi 

units. 

Methods 

Our surveys included both qualitative and 

quantitative methods: qualitative “general 

botanizing” surveys in which we 

opportunistically collected and recorded plants, 

and quantitative plot-based sampling which 

included three complementary methods to 

estimate abundance, percent cover by species, 

and species composition of all plants in a small 

area. 

For this report, statistics such as the number of 

species collected or percentage of non-native 

species exclude records that we could not 

identify to species (n = 10; e.g., Tithonia sp.) 

unless there were no other specimens 

identified to species for that genus (n = 7; e.g., 

Nandina sp.) (Appendix A). We recorded 11 

species with > 2 subspecies and/or varieties 

(Appendix A), and we include all subspecies 

and/or varieties in our summary statistics of 

the number of “species” recorded. Counts 

include ornamental (i.e., planted) species (n = 

10), unless otherwise noted. 

Spatial Sampling Designs 

General botanizing surveys encompassed most 

areas within the park during most visits. For 

modular plots we used a simple random 

sampling design (Thompson 1992) to locate 

the southwest corner of 17 plots. The study 

area, from which we selected random points, 

covered approximately 111 ha (Fig. 3.1, 

Appendix J). When establishing plots on the 

ground we occasionally encountered obstacles 

(e.g., surface water, buildings) that prevented 

us from establishing a plot in the precise 

location specified. In this event we moved the 

plot, in most cases only a few meters from the 

original location and in a random direction. 

We also subjectively placed three plots in 

community types that we felt were not 

represented by one or more of the 17 other 

plots: one each in an agricultural field, in dense 

mesquite bosque, and in dense mesic riparian 

vegetation. 

 

General Botanizing 

Field Methods 

We surveyed for plants from 2000 to 2003 and 

during multiple seasons to ensure that we 

encountered as many species as possible. 

General botanizing surveys during 2000 and 

2001 included only the area within the original 

unit boundaries, but later surveys included the 

expansion area of the Tumacácori unit. 

Whenever possible we collected one 

representative specimen (with reproductive 

structures) for each plant species in each park 

unit. We also maintained a list of species 

observed but not collected within each unit. 

These lists, along with the list of collected 

species, comprise a “flora” for each unit 

(Appendix A). When we collected a specimen, 

we assigned it a collection number and 

recorded the flower color, associated dominant 

vegetation, date, collector names, and UTM 

coordinates. We pressed and processed the 

specimens on site. Specimens remained 

pressed for 2–3 weeks and were later frozen 

for 48 hours or more to prevent infestation by 

insects and pathogens. We accessioned 

mounted specimens into the University of 

Arizona herbarium. 
18 

Figure 3.1. Locations of modular plots for plants, Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2002. See 

Appendix J for plot coordinates. 
19 

Effort

We made 17 general botanizing visits 

(typically one observer for one-half day) 

within the original Tumacácori unit boundary, 

12 visits to the expansion lands (typically two 

observers for one day), and 14 and 15 visits to 

the Calabazas and Guevavi units, respectively 

(typically one observer for one-half day at each 

unit). From August 2000 to October 2001, we 

surveyed approximately monthly within the 

original boundaries of all units. In 2002 

(September and October) and 2003 (April and 

May) we expanded surveys to include areas 

within the expansion lands of the Tumacácori 

unit. Visits were more frequent from April 

through October to maximize opportunities for 

collecting specimens with reproductive 

structures (i.e., flowers or fruits). 

Analysis

We present a variety of summary statistics: 

total number of species found by location and 

day of sampling, and number and percent of 

native and non-native species. To estimate 

inventory completeness we graph the number 

of new species by sampling event, which we 

randomized to account for seasonal differences 

in numbers of new species (e.g., we recorded a 

high number of new species after the summer 

monsoons and a low number of new species 

during the winter months). 

Modular Plots 

We performed modular plot fieldwork in 

cooperation with NPS Sonoran Desert 

Network staff who used the protocol (Peet et 

al. 1998) in multiple NPS units (e.g., Drake et 

al. 2003). The modular plot fieldwork reported 

here is part of that long-term vegetationmonitoring program, and these results may 

serve as a baseline to assess changes in the 

vegetation community at the Tumacácori unit. 

Field Methods

We used a standardized, plot-based approach 

at the Tumacácori unit in November 2002. 

The basic unit was the 10 x 10 m module, two 

or four of which were joined to create a plot, 

measuring either 10 x 20 m or 20 x 20 m (Fig. 

3.2). We used two types of sampling at 

modular plots, each method with different 

objectives: (1) point-intercept transects to 

estimate species frequency and ground cover 

and (2) nested plots (similar to Braun-Blanquet 

plots [Braun-Blanquet 1965]), to estimate 

percent cover for all plants as well as basalarea measurements for large woody plants. 

We sited plots as follows: navigated to the 

northwest corner of each plot using Emap GPS 

units; marked the corner with a permanent 

rebar stake; used a compass and tape measure 

to define remaining module corners; and used 

a Pathfinder GPS unit to obtain accurate UTM 

coordinates for the point. We aligned plot 

boundaries in cardinal directions (e.g., the west 

boundary was along a north-south line). All 

plots were in a 2 x 2 module arrangement (Fig. 

3.2) with the exception of one 1 x 2 module 

arrangement (“Bosque 1”). 

Point-intercept Transects

We bisected each module with a north-south 

transect (Fig. 3.2) that was established using a 

10-m tape measure marked at 10-cm 

increments. In each of three height categories 

(< 0.5 m, 0.5–2 m and > 2 m) we recorded the 

first species to be intercepted by a vertical line 

(created using a laser pointer), at each of 100 

points located every 10 cm along the transect 

line. If no plant was encountered we recorded 

“no plant.” We classified ground cover at each 

point according to the following categories: 

bare soil, loose rock, bedrock, or litter 

(senescent plant material that was detached 

from plants). 

Braun-Blanquet Plots

We used a form of the Braun-Blanquet method 

(Braun-Blanquet 1965) to estimate percent 

cover (area covered by each plant species as 

viewed from above) for each species on all 

modules and quadrats in each of the height 

categories used for point-intercept transects. 

We estimated coverage at two scales: large 

(10 x 10 m; covering the entire module; n = 2 

or 4 per plot) and small (1 x 1 m quadrats; in 

opposite corners of each module; n = 4 or 8 

quadrats per plot) (Fig. 3.2). 

 
20 

Figure 3.2. Typical modular plot layout of four 10 x 10 m modules, eight 1 x 1 m quadrats, and four 10-m 

point-intercept transects, Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2002. 

To estimate percent cover in each height 

category for each plant species, we assigned 

the total coverage by each species to one of six 

cover classes based on visual estimation: 

“trace” (< 1%), “1” (1–5%), “2” (6–25%), “3” 

(26–50%), “4” (51–75%), or “5” (76–100%). 

Because quadrats were nested within modules 

(Fig. 3.2), modules always contained all the 

plant species that were recorded in the 

quadrats. We recorded tree species in each 

module if the majority of the trunk was inside 

the module, and recorded basal diameter if it 

was > 15 cm. For stems < 15 cm basal 

diameter, we counted the number for each 

species but did not record basal diameter. 

Effort

Four observers measured vegetation on 20 

plots at the Tumacácori unit during ten field 

days from 2 to 17 November 2002. Nineteen 

plots had four modules in a 20 x 20 m 

arrangement (Fig. 3.2) and one plot had two 

modules in a 20 x 10 m arrangement (n = 78 

modules). 

Results 

We recorded 378 species during general 

botanizing and modular plot surveys from 

2000 to 2003 (Appendix A). We recorded the 

most species at the Tumacácori unit (n = 293). 

We recorded fewer species at the Calabazas (n

= 175) and Guevavi units (n = 151). The most 

common families were composites 

(Asteraceae), grasses (Poaceae) and legumes 

(Fabaceae). More than 82% of the remaining 

families were represented by three or fewer 

species, a pattern consistent with floras of 

nearby areas (McLaughlin et al. 2001). 

We recorded 67 non-native species in all units 

combined (Appendix A). Excluding 

ornamentals, the percentage of non-native 

species averaged 15% among park units but 

varied considerably: the highest percentage of 

non-native species was at the Tumacácori unit 

(18%; n = 52), a lower percentage at the 

Guevavi unit (11%; n = 17), and the lowest 

percentage at the Calabazas unit (9%; n = 16) 

(Appendix A). Considering all units, the grass 

family (Poaceae) had the highest percentage of 

10 

10 m

Point-intercept 

1 x 1 m 
21 

non-native species (33%; n = 22). Perhaps the 

most notable non-native species we 

documented was the muster John Henry (at the 

Tumacácori unit); this was the second 

documentation of its occurrence in Arizona. 

 

General Botanizing 

Tumacácori Unit

We recorded 191 species (representing 58 

families) in the original Tumacácori unit 

boundaries and an additional 62 species (7 

families) in the expansion area (Appendix A). 

We collected specimens at 139 sites: 102 near 

the Mission and 37 in the expansion area. 

Calabazas Unit

We recorded 175 species and collected 

specimens at 74 sites (Appendix A). 

 

Guevavi Unit

We recorded 151 species and collected 

specimens at 58 sites (Appendix A). 

Modular Plots 

We recorded 93 species in 20 plots at the 

Tumacácori unit (Appendix A, Q, R). The 

mean number of species per plot was 18.4 

(±1.3 SE, range = 8 to 30) (Appendix Q). 

Over one-third of the species 

(n = 33) were found on only one plot, and five 

species (including the non-native 

Bermudagrass) were found on > 75% of the 

plots (Appendix R). Fourteen percent (n = 13) 

of the species were non-native, and of these 

more than half were grasses (Appendix A). 

Comparison of Braun-Blanquet Plots and Pointintercept Transects

For all height classes, only 55% (n = 51) of the 

93 species recorded on Braun-Blanquet plots 

were also recorded on point-intercept transects 

(Appendix R). There were also substantial 

differences in the frequency of species 

detections between the two methods; of the 24 

species recorded in > 1 plot (using both 

methods), all but one were recorded more 

often in Braun-Blanquet plots than on pointintercept transects. We recorded the 13 most 

common species (those recorded on > 40% of 

plots) on a mean of 48% (± 7.5 SE) more plots 

than the same species were recorded along 

transects. Velvet mesquite, the most 

frequently recorded species along transects, 

ranked sixth in percent cover using the BraunBlanquet method while carelessweed (ranked 

first in percent cover Braun-Blanquet plots), 

ranked fourth in frequency along transects. 

The abundance rank of the most common nonnative species changed little based on the 

method used; Bermudagrass was recorded in 

17 of the 20 plots by both methods and ranked 

sixth and seventh in dominance according to 

transects and Braun-Blanquet plots, 

respectively. 

Pima Pineapple Cactus and Huachuca Water 

Umbel 

We searched for two endangered species 

thought to be in the area: Pima pineapple 

cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina) 

and Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis

schaffneriana var. recurva), but did not find 

either. 

Inventory Completeness 

Other researchers listed 46 species at the 

Tumacácori unit that we did not find 

(Appendix F). While these may still be present 

and we missed them, alternative explanations 

include misidentification (many previous 

records were not documented), local 

extirpation, and use of different field methods. 

Judging from the presence of conspicuous 

perennial species at both the Calabazas and 

Guevavi units but not Tumacácori unit (e.g., 

whitethorn acacia), some local extirpation may 

have occurred. Ornamental species that we did 

not find such as myrtle, Japanese privet, 

Chinese firethorn and garden tomato were 

probably used in landscaping around park 

buildings and died or were removed without 

replacement. 

Species accumulation curves for general 

botanizing (Fig. 3.3) and modular plots (Fig. 

3.4) show little sign of reaching asymptotes. 

Yet, taken together the general botanizing and 

modular plot work produced a high number of 

species for the park (see Discussion section). 
22 

We recorded plants over three years and during 

periods of average rainfall, thereby making it 

possible that we recorded 90% of the species. 

However, in order to confirm the completeness 

of our surveys it will be necessary to repeat our 

effort, particularly during spring and postmonsoon periods following above-average 

rainfall. 

Discussion 

Three factors likely contributed to our finding 

twice the number of species reported by 

previous studies (Mouat et al. 1977; Bennett 

year unknown): (1) our field effort was more 

than twice that of previous studies, (2) our 

survey area was larger (111 ha including the 

expansion area versus seven ha at the 

Tumacácori unit), and (3) we likely benefited 

from a winter (2000) that had more 

precipitation than average. This unusual 

weather probably enhanced recruitment of 

winter annuals, resulting in higher species 

richness of annuals during our fieldwork than 

during sampling by Mouat et al. (1977). 

To develop a context for the species richness at 

Tumacácori NHP, we compared our results to 

the nearby flora of the Appleton-Whittell 

Research Ranch near Elgin in the Sonoita 

Valley (McLaughlin et al. 2001). This flora 

was comprised of approximately 345 species 

in an area about 30 times larger than 

Tumacácori NHP, yet species richness (n = 

368 not including ornamental species) in all 

three units of Tumacácori NHP was greater 

than at the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch. 

Figure 3.3. Species accumulation curve for cumulative number of new plant species collected as a 

function of the number of sample days, general botanizing and modular plot surveys, all units, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2000–2003. Order of sampling days was randomized to account for seasonal spikes in new plant 

species (e.g., post-monsoon season).

Sample days

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Cumulative number of species

0

100

200

300

400
23 

Figure 3.4. Cumulative (A) and number of new plant species (B) recorded as a function of the number of 

modular plots surveyed, Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2002. 

Number of plots surveyed

0 5 10 15 20

Cumulative number of species

0

20

40

60

80

100

Number of plots surveyed

0 5 10 15 20

Number of new species

0

5

10

15

20

(A)

(B)
24 

The higher number of recorded species at the 

Tumacácori unit compared to the other units of 

the park may be due not only to the larger 

sample area (about 128 ha), but also to 

differences in environmental conditions. The 

Tumacácori unit contains both xeric and mesic 

riparian areas, mesquite bosque, semi-desert 

grassland and landscaped areas, some of which 

provide habitat for species not recorded at the 

Calabazas or Guevavi units. Typical shrubinvaded semi-desert grassland present at the 

Calabazas and Guevavi units is less species 

rich, but these areas possess a surprising 

number of species for their size. 

One notable difference among the units is that 

Calabazas and Guevavi units currently 

experience less disturbance than the 

Tumacácori unit; they are closed to the general 

public, are less subject to seed dispersal from 

the Santa Cruz river flow, and are less subject 

to ongoing disturbances (e.g., construction, 

grazing, flood events). These factors may 

explain why the floras of these units possess a 

lower percentage of non-native species and 

why they retain species that were historically 

recorded but no longer occur at the 

Tumacácori unit such as Takhoka-daisy, 

whitethorn acacia, and erect dayflower 

(Appendix A). Of the three units, Tumacácori 

appears to be the most highly affected by 

human activity. The unit hosts the park visitor 

center, offices, residential buildings, and 

maintenance compound. It has many 

unsurfaced utility roads and walkways, and 

receives many visitors. Of the 67 non-native 

species we recorded at the Tumacácori unit, 42 

were not recorded by previous researchers 

(Appendix A). Many of these non-native 

species are winter annuals that may not have 

germinated following below-average winter 

rainfall preceding the survey of Mouat et al. 

(1977), though it should be expected that new 

non-native species might have colonized 

Tumacácori unit in the years since that study. 

Excluding ornamental species (though these 

were present in previous surveys as well), the 

percent of non-native species averaged 15% 

among units (Appendix A). The percentage of 

non-native species in floras of southern 

Arizona varies greatly among areas; Felger 

(1990) considers a non-native species richness 

component of 5–10% to be “healthy” though 

other factors must be taken into consideration 

in assessing the impacts of non-native species. 

These factors include whether each species has 

a high potential for increased distribution or 

community dominance; potential for disrupting 

nutrient cycling, fire regimes, or other 

ecological processes; and whether they are 

easily controlled. Notable for our surveys is 

the second verified record in Arizona of the 

muster John Henry. It was found in the 

understory of the cottonwood-willow forest 

east of the Santa Cruz River southeast of the 

mission, but not at the Calabazas or Guevavi 

units. It is considered a noxious weed in 

California (California Department of Food and 

Agriculture 2004). Once well established, a 

number of non-native species pose a 

significant management problem. Prominent 

species include tamarisk, Bermudagrass, 

Lehmann lovegrass, Johnsongrass, Russian 

thistle, London rocket, and yellow sweet 

clover. Bermudagrass, in particular, is difficult 

to control and was recorded in 85% of the 

modular plots (Appendices Q, R). A complete 

description of these non-native species as well 

as their life history, threat to native species, 

and eradication method(s) can be obtained 

from (Halvorson and Guertin 2003). 
25 

Chapter 4: Fish Inventory 

Previous Research 

Arizona Game and Fish Department personnel 

completed periodic surveys of the Santa Cruz 

River, in or near Tumacácori NHP, between 

1998 and 2001, in 2003, and one survey in the 

Tumacácori Channel in 1999 (Voeltz and 

Bettaso 2003). 

Methods 

We surveyed for fish at two sites at the 

Tumacácori unit: the Santa Cruz River and the 

Tumacácori Channel (previously referred to as 

“Cosper Slough” by Powell et al. [2002, 

2003]). The channel is an abandoned meander 

that maintains its downstream connection with 

the Santa Cruz River. Alluvial groundwater 

seeping into the channel forms a short tributary 

stream and may be similar to the original 

“Tumacácori Spring” (Larry Martin, 

hydrologist, National Park Service, Ft. Collins, 

CO). We surveyed the river from 30 m 

downstream of the confluence with the channel 

to about 25 m south of Santa Gertrudis Lane 

(Fig. 2.2). 

Spatial Sampling Design 

For each sampling event (i.e., day) we 

surveyed up to one-half of the channel or river 

in our study area by surveying in a subjectively 

determined length of reach then skipping a 

similar length of reach. One-half of each reach 

was the maximum length that could be 

surveyed in a single sampling event. 

 

Field Methods 

Our field crew captured fish using two 

methods: (1) electrofishing (Dauble and Gray 

1980) with a Smith-Root backpack unit in both 

areas (12-B POW; Smith-Root, Inc., 

Vancouver, WA; set to: DC pulse width of 60 

Hz, frequency of 6 ms, voltage of 300 V); and 

(2) dipnetting (long-handled dip nets with 4 

mm mesh; Dauble and Gray 1980) in shallowwater areas of the channel. We identified 

captured fish to species, classified them as 

juvenile or adult according to relative size, 

sexed them when possible, and returned all 

fish to the same reach from which they were 

captured. 

We randomly chose a bank of the river or 

channel from which to start surveys and 

proceeded upstream, concentrating on areas 

likely to shelter fish (e.g., stream margins and 

in-stream obstructions). We alternated banks 

and reaches of the river, sampling 100 m then 

skipping 150 m (i.e., surveying the east bank, 

skipping 150 m, then surveying the west bank, 

and repeating). For the channel, we surveyed 

alternating 50 m reaches from the confluence 

with the river to the point of its origin (Fig. 

2.2). We used electrofishing for the first 200 

m (downstream) of the channel (which has 

relatively large and deep pools that allow 

shocking) and dip netting for the remainder of 

the channel. 

Effort

Three to four field personnel surveyed the 

channel and river on four sampling periods 

(eight sampling events), once each in the 

spring and fall of 2001 and 2002. We did not 

record sampling effort for individual reaches. 

Analysis 

Because we recorded total catch per sampling 

event (rather than by sampling within reaches), 

we were unable to apply statistical analyses to 

the data (n = 1 for each sampling event). 

Therefore, we report data summaries: total 

catch per day, percent of total catch by species, 

and species richness by site. Because we did 

not subsample or account for detectability of 

each species, we cannot estimate population 

parameters (e.g., size). We do not differentiate 

juveniles and adults in our summaries because 

reliable aging methods are time-intensive (Bill 

Matter, pers. comm.). We compare sex ratios 

in Gila topminnow and western mosquitofish, 

species in which gender is easily determined. 
26 

Results 

Species Richness 

We recorded eight species (four native, four 

non-native) and one hybrid (green 

sunfish/bluegill) at Tumacácori NHP (Table 

4.1, Appendix B). We recorded all eight 

species on the first sampling event in the 

channel and Gila topminnow, longfin dace, 

and western mosquitofish in both sites on all 

sampling events (Table 4.1, Appendix S). 

Species richness in the channel was higher 

than in the river on all but the last sampling 

event (Fig. 4.1). 

Total Catch 

We captured a total of 3,329 individuals 

(Appendix S). Fifty-seven percent of captures 

were from the channel (Table 4.1). Total 

number of individuals caught per sampling 

event was lowest in the river in April 2001 (35 

captures in one day) and highest in the river 

approximately one year later (722 captures in 

one day) (Fig. 4.1). Total number of captures 

at both sites was similar for each sampling 

event except November 2002 when we 

captured 75% fewer individuals in the river 

(Fig. 4.1). 

For all sampling events and both sites, the 

species with the largest total catch were: 

western mosquitofish (45% of the total catch), 

longfin dace (42%), and Gila topminnow 

(11%) (Appendix S). Individuals of the other 

five species each made up < 1% of the total 

catch. There were substantial differences in 

the percentage of total catch by species 

between sites and among sampling events for 

the three most common species (Fig. 4.2). For 

both sites, percentage of total catch of western 

mosquitofish increased throughout the study 

(Fig. 4.2). In the channel, longfin dace showed 

a consistent decrease while Gila topminnow 

remained constant, but in the river the longfin 

dace and Gila topminnow showed inverse 

patterns of percent total catch (Fig. 4.2). 

The proportion of females to males was high 

for both the Gila topminnow (3.2 ± 0.87 SE) 

and western mosquitofish (2.1 ± 0.36 SE) from 

all sites and sampling events (Appendix S). 

We noted breeding coloration only in the 

desert sucker (on 4 April 2001). 

Table 4.1. Number of fish caught during four 

sampling periods at Tumacácori NHP, 2001–

2002. See Appendix B for scientific names and 

Appendix S for number of individuals caught by sampling 

event.

Common name 

Tumacácori 

Channel 

Santa Cruz 

River 

longfin dace 434 979 

Sonora sucker 24 

desert sucker 6 

western mosquitofish 1,243 273 

Gila topminnow 172 182 

green sunfish 1 4 

bluegill sunfish 6 

bluegill/green sunfish hybrid 1 

largemouth bass 3 1 

Total catch 1,890 1,439 

Inventory Completeness 

Based on distribution records (Minckley 1973) 

and expert opinion (Andrew Schultz, 

University of Arizona PhD candidate), we 

believe that we documented all species that are 

thought to occur in the park. It should be 

noted, however, that additional non-native 

species may be present (but undetected) or 

become established in the park. 

Gila Chub and Desert Pupfish 

The Gila chub (Gila intermedia) and desert 

pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius macularius) 

have not been recorded from the vicinity of the 

park but may have occurred historically. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists both 

species as endangered (AZGF 2004). The Gila 

chub is only known to occur in a few sites in 

the Santa Cruz River basin and nowhere near 

Tumacácori NHP (Weedman et al.1996). The 

desert pupfish was extirpated from the Santa 

Cruz River by 1904 (Minckley 1973). 
27 

Figure 4.1. Total catch and species richness of fish, by sampling period, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. 

Apr 2001 Nov 2001 May 2002 Nov 2002

Number of individuals caught

0

200

400

600

800

Tumacácori Channel

Santa Cruz River 

Sampling period

Apr 2001 Nov 2001 May 2002 Nov 2002

Number of species caught

0

2

4

6

8

10

Tumacácori Channel

Santa Cruz River

Total catch

Species richness
28 

Figure 4.2. Percent total catch, by sampling period, for the three most common species of fishes at both 

sampling sites, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. 

Apr 2001 Nov 2001 May 2002 Nov 2002

Percent total catch

0

20

40

60

80

100

longfin dace

western mosquitofish

Gila topminnow

Tumacácori Channel

Sampling period

Apr 2001 Nov 2001 May 2002 Nov 2002

Percent total catch

0

20

40

60

80

100

longfin dace

western mosquitofish

Gila topminnow

Santa Cruz River
29 

Discussion 

Gila Topminnow 

The apparent persistence of the federally 

endangered Gila topminnow in the Tumacácori 

Channel is perhaps the most important finding 

of our inventory effort. We found Gila 

topminnow in all sampling periods (Appendix 

S) and were likely present in the channel 

during the extreme drought of the late 

spring/early summer of 2002 (B. Powell, pers. 

obs.), during which time no surface water was 

present in the river site. Therefore, the channel 

may act as a refugium for the species during 

these extreme drought events. 

The Gila topminnow was once the most 

abundant species in the southwest, but within 

the last 20 years has become restricted to 

approximately 14 isolated populations in the 

greater Gila River watershed (which includes 

the Santa Cruz River) (Meffe et al. 1983, 

Weedman and Young 1987, Weedman 1998, 

Minckley 1999). As with most native fish 

declines, that of the Gila topminnow is thought 

to be the result of habitat destruction due to 

grazing, groundwater pumping, water 

diversion, drought, and the introduction of 

non-native species, especially the western 

mosquitofish and American bullfrog (Miller 

1961, AZGF 1995). Despite the presence of 

western mosquitofish and American bullfrogs 

in the channel, Gila topminnows are persisting 

(Table 4.1). Because our survey effort was not 

designed to estimate abundance, it is not 

possible to infer population size or trends in 

abundance of the Gila topminnow, though the 

14-fold increase in number of individuals 

captured between the first and last sampling 

event in the channel may suggest a population 

increase. The high ratio of female to male Gila 

topminnow is not unusual and is at the low end 

of the 1.5 to 6.3 females per male ratio 

reported in the literature (Schoenher 1974; 

cited in Weedman 1998). 

Desert and Sonora Suckers 

The presence of desert and Sonora suckers for 

the first three sampling events in the 

Tumacácori Channel is significant because 

both species are rare in southern Arizona 

(Recon 2004). There is at least one prior 

sighting of the desert sucker in the channel in 

June 1999 (Voeltz and Bettaso 2003). 

However, we did not find either species during 

our fourth sampling period in fall 2002, which 

was after a period of lower than average 

rainfall for the region (Fig. 2.4). It is possible, 

but not likely, that we missed them on the 

fourth visit. Assuming they were not present, 

the possible loss of these species from the park 

is particularly troubling given that it is thought 

to be sedentary (Bestgen et al. 1987); 

movement back to the park may take 

considerable time or may not happen at all. 

However, it is clear that habitat exists for these 

species in the channel near where it enters the 

river. The breeding coloration of a desert 

sucker in April is consistent with its typical 

breeding period of spring to early summer 

(Recon 2004). Both sucker species are 

designated “Species of Concern” by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (HDMS 2004). 

Western Mosquitofish and Other Non-native 

Fishes 

Once introduced throughout the western U.S. 

to control mosquito populations, the western 

mosquitofish is thought to be one of the major 

reasons for population declines of the Gila 

topminnow (and other small native fishes in 

the southwest) through predation, harassment, 

and competition (Meffe 1985, Courtenay and 

Meffe 1989). One study indicates that Gila 

topminnow cannot exist sympatrically with 

western mosquitofish; within two years of the 

western mosquitofish introduction into 

Arivaipa Creek in Arizona, the topminnow 

disappeared from the creek (Miller 1961). 

Other studies have shown the local extirpation 

of the endangered Sonoran topminnow 

(Poeciliopsis occidentalis) in Arizona after the 

introduction of western mosquitofish (Meffe et 

al. 1983, Meffe 1985, Marsh and Minckley 

1990). Therefore, the persistence of the Gila 

topminnow in presence of western 

mosquitofish is notable. 

In addition to large numbers of western 

mosquitofish, we recorded three other non-
30 

native sport-fish species: largemouth bass, 

bluegill, and green sunfish (Table 4.1). 

Although we recorded these species in low 

numbers (11 individuals total) and 

inconsistently (Appendix S), their impact on 

the native fishes cannot be underestimated; all 

three species are predatory. These aggressive 

fishes have impacts on other fauna as well; 

they have likely contributed to the decline of 

the Chiricahua leopard frog in southeastern 

Arizona (Rosen et al. 1995). 

Crayfish 

During most of our surveys, we observed 

crayfish (Orconectes virilis; Fig. 4.3), an 

important non-native invertebrate, especially in 

the channel. Crayfish are one of the most 

serious threats to native aquatic biota because 

they effectively compete with aquatic 

herbivores, prey on aquatic invertebrates and 

vertebrates, disrupt normal nutrient cycling, 

and decrease aquatic macroinvertebrate 

diversity (Creed 1994, Fernandez and Rosen 

1996). Crayfish are extremely drought 

resistant; they burrow in moist soil during dry 

periods thereby presenting a persistent threat 

(Holdich and Lowery 1988, Fernandez and 

Rosen 1996, Kubly 1997). In addition, their 

extensive burrowing leads to bank erosion, 

increased turbidity, and siltation, all of which 

can restrict reproduction of native fishes 

requiring coarse gravel for egg development 

(Fernandez and Rosen, 1996). Fernandez and 

Rosen (1996) suggest eradication methods that 

include poisoning heavily populated sites, 

trapping more lightly populated regions, 

reintroduction of natural predators such as 

native river otters, and building barriers to 

prevent upstream spread. 

Figure 4.3. Crayfish, Tumacácori NHP, 

November 2002. 
31 

Chapter 5: Amphibian and Reptile Inventory 

Previous Research 

To our knowledge, there has been no inventory 

or research related to amphibians and reptiles 

(“herpetofauna”) at Tumacácori NHP, though 

we located two specimens collected from the 

park (Appendix O). 

Methods 

We surveyed for herpetofauna in 2001 and 

2002 using four methods representing plotbased and more flexible non-plot based 

methods (Table 5.1). The latter approach 

allowed observers to respond to environmental 

conditions, such as temperature and 

precipitation, and adjust search time, intensity, 

and location accordingly. This flexibility was 

important for detecting rare, elusive, or 

ephemeral species most likely missing from 

existing records. We used both diurnal and 

nocturnal surveys in an effort to detect species 

with restricted periods of activity (Ivanyi et al. 

2000). Finally, we considered amphibians and 

reptiles together in this report because we used 

the same search methods for both groups. 

Notes on Species Identifications 

The most challenging reptiles to identify in the 

region are whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus

species; now referred to as Aspidoscelis by 

some sources). Many of these parthenogenetic 

(non-sexually reproducing) whiptail lineage 

classes may have arisen as hybrids more than 

once from the same diploid, sexually 

reproducing parent species (Degenhardt et al. 

1996). Therefore, it is possible that several 

undescribed “parthenospecies” exist in the 

desert southwest, but these questions have not 

yet been resolved by experts. Indeed, 

systematics of the genus Cnemidophorus

remains one of the most challenging problems 

in herpetology (Wright 1993). 

At Tumacácori NHP we saw "classic" Sonoran 

whiptails (adults with six longitudinal dorsal 

stripes, light spots in dark and occasionally 

light dorsal areas; dorsal stripes more yellow 

anteriorly; overall color was brown dorsally 

and unmarked white-cream ventrally; tail was 

more brownish-orange than bluish as seen in 

Table 5.1. Amphibian and reptile survey effort by method, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. 

 2001 2002 

Survey type Park unit Community typea

Survey 

unitsb

Survey 

hours 

 Survey 

units Survey hours

Total survey 

hours 

Intensive - diurnal Calabazas Semi-desert grassland 2 6.0 0 6.0 

 Guevavi Semi-desert grassland 1 3.0 0 3.0 

 Tumacácori Agricultural 2 4.0 0 4.0 

 Bosque 3 8.0 0 8.0 

 Cleared bosque 1 4.0 0 4.0 

 Riparian 6 16.0 0 16.0 

Extensive - diurnal Calabazas all 0 1 3.8 3.8 

 Guevavi all 0 1 2.0 2.0 

 Tumacácori all 11 31.5 9 25.3 56.7 

Extensive - nocturnal Calabazas all 5 8.5 1 1.0 9.5 

 Guevavi all 5 9.0 1 2.0 11.0 

 Tumacácori all 24 69.3 6 15.5 84.8 

Pitfall array Tumacácori Riparian 20 312.2 24 359.9 672.1 

a See text for classification of community types.

b Number of plots for intensive surveys, survey routes for extensive surveys, or trapping sessions for pitfall array. 
32 

the Gila spotted whiptail [C. flagellicaudus]; 

Degenhardt et al. 1996, Phil Rosen pers. obs.) 

and a variation of this classic appearance 

(possibly older individuals) that superficially 

resembled the Gila spotted whiptail. In this 

document we report all of these individuals as 

Sonoran whiptails. 

Spatial Sampling Design 

For all methods except intensive surveys, we 

surveyed for herpetofauna in non-random sites 

because we wanted to detect as many species 

as possible. To determine locations for 

intensive survey plots we used a modified 

simple-random sampling design (Thompson 

1992) whereby we used ArcView GIS 

software to select points (n = 15) at random in 

each park unit to serve as the southwest corner 

of each plot. We then post-stratified plots 

(Thompson 1992) by vegetation type; in lieu of 

a vegetation map for the park we used aerial 

photographs to estimate vegetation types and 

moved the location of some plots that appeared 

to cover more than one vegetation type into the 

type representing the majority of the area. 

Intensive Surveys 

In 2001 we used searches constrained by both 

time and area to provide a standardized survey 

method. These surveys are similar to visual 

encounter surveys (described by Crump and 

Scott [1994]), but were confined to a 1 ha (100 

x 100 m) plot. Due to the heterogeneity of 

vegetation types at the Tumacácori unit, our 

random locations resulted in plots representing 

each of the dominant community types in the 

park: riparian, mesquite bosque, semi-desert 

grassland, and agricultural land (Figs. 5.1, 5.2). 

Riparian plots included a mixture of sandy, 

open floodplain and dense riparian vegetation. 

One of the mesquite bosque plots (referred to 

as “cleared bosque”) was located at the festival 

grounds where grasses were cut regularly, 

most perennial vegetation had been cleared, 

and only scattered large mesquites remained. 

Field Methods

We visited each plot twice in a morning (each 

time with a different observer) to increase the 

probability that a survey occurred during a 

period of peak activity for diurnal lizards, 

because activity levels vary with temperature 

(Rosen 2000). We determined UTM 

coordinates for each of the four plot corners 

using a Trimble GPS unit and marked the 

corners with rubber-capped rebar stake (except 

for the plot located in an agricultural field) 

(Appendix K). We wrote a brief description of 

the vegetation and soil characteristics of the 

area. Before and after each survey we 

recorded weather information: temperature, % 

relative humidity, % cloud cover, wind speed 

[km/h], and an overall description of the 

conditions. We used Garmin Emap GPS units 

to ensure that we stayed within the plot during 

the search. For each animal that we observed, 

we recorded species (using a four letter code) 

and sex and age class (if known). 

Effort

We visited all plots in the spring (24–27 

April), and most plots again in the summer (9–

10 September; Table 5.1) of 2001. We began 

all 35 surveys (one person-hour each) between 

7:30 A.M. and 12:30 P.M. In 2002 we chose not 

to continue intensive surveys because of the 

relatively low number of species and 

individuals recorded and instead focused our 

efforts on other methods. 

Analysis

We estimated relative abundance for each 

species as the mean number of individuals 

recorded per person-hour. We estimated 

species richness by community type using only 

intensive surveys, but estimated species 

richness by park unit using data from both 

intensive and extensive surveys. We combined 

survey types for richness estimates because 

summaries of intensive search data are biased 

toward diurnally active species; we did not 

complete any nocturnal/crepuscular intensive 

surveys. 

Extensive Surveys 

We designed extensive surveys to enable us to 

search areas that, based on our field 

experience, were likely to have high species 

richness or species not previously recorded. 

Extensive surveys, a type of visual-encounter 
33 

Figure 5.1. Locations of intensive survey plots and pitfall trap array for amphibians and reptiles, 

Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. See Appendix K for UTM coordinates. 
34 

Figure 5.2. Locations of intensive survey plots for amphibians and reptiles, Calabazas and Guevavi units, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. See Appendix K for UTM coordinates. 
35 

survey (Crump and Scott 1994), differed from 

intensive surveys in that they were not 

constrained by area or time. In 2002 we used 

this method almost exclusively because of its 

efficiency. In general we focused extensive 

surveys during the cooler morning, evening, 

and nighttime periods to maximize our chances 

of encountering snakes and amphibians, which 

would be active during these times (Ivanyi et 

al. 2000). 

Field Methods

We used the extensive survey method for both 

diurnal and nocturnal surveys. Nocturnal 

surveys were defined as those beginning after 

5 P.M. and lasting more than 1.5 hours, often 

including the crepuscular period. Search times 

varied from approximately one to five hours 

(mean = 2.9 hours) depending on conditions 

and logistical constraints. To increase the odds 

of finding rare animals, we placed 20 “cover 

boards” (0.5 x 0.5 m plywood squares which 

could be used as cover by animals; Fellers and 

Drost 1994) around the festival grounds area at 

the Tumacácori unit, and checked these 

opportunistically by turning the boards. 

Before and after each survey we recorded 

weather information: temperature, % relative 

humidity, % cloud cover, wind speed [km/h], 

and an overall description of the conditions. 

For each amphibian and reptile observed, we 

recorded species and sex and age class (if 

known). We recorded UTM coordinates to 

define the boundaries of our search area or the 

path we followed during our surveys. 

 

Effort

We spent 168 hours on 52 extensive surveys 

between 24 April and 24 September 2001, and 

between 11 July and 25 August 2002 (Table 

5.1). Almost 90% of the surveys (n = 46) were 

initiated during the cooler evening, nighttime, 

or morning hours (5 P.M. to 9 A.M.). It is not 

possible to accurately quantify search effort 

(total number of person-hours of searching) 

because more than one observer participated in 

some searches, and observers were 

occasionally close enough to one another to 

influence findings (i.e., an observer may have 

recorded an animal that was flushed by another 

observer). Also, volunteer observers 

sometimes accompanied crewmembers and 

although they likely increased the number of 

observations, they were not as skilled at 

finding animals as crew members. 

Analysis

We primarily used extensive survey data in 

conjunction with intensive survey data to 

estimate species richness by park unit, and for 

the park as a whole. We report the number of 

individuals recorded per ten hours of search 

time, regardless of the number of observers. 

 

Pitfall Trap Array 

Pitfall traps, a live-trap, passive sampling 

technique, are useful in detecting species that 

may be difficult to observe because of rarity, 

limited activity periods, or inconspicuous 

behavior (Corn 1994). 

Field Methods

We constructed the pitfall trap array by placing 

three 19-L buckets roughly 8 m away and at 

angles of approximately 120 degrees each 

from a central bucket (Gibbons and Semlitsch 

1981). We dug shallow trenches between 

buckets in which we placed drift fences (7.6-m 

long, 0.5-m tall aluminum-flashing that was 

supported with rebar) that connected each of 

the three outside buckets to the central bucket. 

Buckets were buried so that the lip of the 

bucket was at ground level. We placed cover 

boards (50 x 50 cm pieces of plywood) over 

the buckets to: (1) keep the animals cool 

during the day, (2) minimize mortality, and (3) 

attract additional animals (Corn 1994). 

Effort

We established one pitfall trap array (with four 

pitfall traps and six funnel traps) in the 

expansion area adjacent to Tumacácori NHP, 

near the bank of the Santa Cruz River (Fig. 

5.1). We operated the pitfall trap array for a 

total of 672 hours between 11 July and 24 

September 2001, and between 10 July and 26 

September 2002 (Table 5.1). 

Analysis

We report the number of animals captured per 

100 hours of array operation. Results 
36 

primarily contributed to species lists for the 

park. 

Incidental Observations 

When we encountered uncommon amphibians 

and reptiles outside of formal surveys, we 

recorded the species, sex and age class (if 

known), time of observation, UTM 

coordinates, and route we were following. 

Incidental detections recorded by other survey 

crews (e.g., bird crew) were not accompanied 

by route descriptions. We collected incidental 

observations between 25 April and 24 

September 2001, and between 15 May and 25 

August 2002. 

 

Results 

We recorded seven amphibian and 17 reptile 

species at Tumacácori NHP in 2001 and 2002 

(Tables 5.2–5.4, Appendix C). We recorded 

the most species (n = 22) at the Tumacácori 

unit and the fewest (n = 9) at the Guevavi unit 

(Tables 5.2, 5.3; Appendix C). A single 

Woodhouse’s toad was heard calling on 24 

July 2001; otherwise the only amphibians 

heard vocalizing were American bullfrogs. 

We spent 208 hours actively searching for 

amphibians and reptiles at the park (103 hours 

on diurnal surveys, 105 hours on nocturnal 

surveys), and 672 hours sampling passively via 

the pitfall array (Table 5.1). Cumulative active 

search time at the Tumacácori unit (173.5 

hours) was far greater than at the Calabazas 

(19.3 hours) or Guevavi units (16 hours). 

Intensive Surveys 

We recorded the most species (n = 7) in the 

semi-desert grassland community type and the 

fewest (n = 2) in the mesquite bosque 

community type (Table 5.2). Although Clark’s 

spiny lizard was the most widespread species 

(recorded at least once in all park units and 

community types), the Sonoran spotted 

whiptail was the most abundant reptile on plots 

in all community types, except in the mesquite 

bosque where it was not recorded. The 

common lesser earless lizard, Clark’s spiny 

lizard, and regal horned lizard were most 

abundant in the semi-desert grassland 

community type; the eastern fence 

Table 5.2. Relative abundance of reptilesa recorded during intensive surveys, by community type and 

park unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. See Appendix C for scientific names.

Calabazas Guevavi Tumacácori 

Semi-desert 

grassland 

Semi-desert 

grassland Agricultural 

 Mesquite 

bosque 

 Cleared 

bosque Riparian 

Common name n Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE 

common lesser earless lizard 4 0.7 0.67 0.1 0.09 

Clark's spiny lizard 15 0.2 0.17 0.7 0.67 0.3 0.25 0.4 0.26 0.3 0.25 0.4 0.22 

eastern fence lizard 2 0.1 0.09 

ornate tree lizard 20 1.5 0.67 0.7 0.33 0.3 0.25 3.0 1.29 2.1 0.62 

regal horned lizard 1 0.2 0.17 

desert grassland whiptail 42 0.2 0.17 0.8 0.48 0.1 0.13 0.5 0.29 2.2 0.78 

Sonoran spotted whiptail 125 2.5 0.92 1.0 1.00 1.0 0.71 3.3 1.93 5.6 1.64 

gopher snake 2 0.2 0.17 0.3 0.25 

unknown lizard 58 0.2 0.17 0.3 0.33 0.3 0.25 0.5 0.50 0.9 0.28 

Species richness 8 6 4 4 2 5 6 

Total no. detections 29 10 10 4 31 185 

a No amphibians were recorded during these surveys. 
37 

Table 5.3. Number of amphibians and reptiles recorded per 10 hours of extensive surveys, and number 

of incidental observations for additional species, by park unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. See Appendix 

C for scientific names. 

Group 

Number of individuals recorded per 10 

hours of survey Incidental observations 

 Common name 

Total 

number 

recorded Calabazas Guevavi Tumacácori Calabazas Guevavi Tumacácori 

Amphibians 

 Couch's spadefoot 115 1.5 10.8 7.0 

 Mexican spadefoot 3 0.8 0.1 1 

 Colorado River toad 2 0.1 

 Woodhouse's toad 10 0.7 

 American bullfrog 41 2.9 

 Great Plains toad 17 1.2 

 unknown Bufo speciesa 37 2.6 

Reptiles 

 Sonora mud turtle 5 0.4 

 western box turtle 1 1 1 

 common lesser earless lizard 9 0.8 0.6 1 

 Clark's spiny lizard 25 1.5 0.8 1.6 

 eastern fence lizard 18 1.3 

 ornate tree lizard 55 3.0 3.6 

 regal horned lizard 1 < 0.1 

 desert grassland whiptail 70 4.9 

 Sonoran spotted whiptail 242 3.8 9.2 1.6 

 coachwhip 2 0.1 

 western patch-nosed snake 1 0.8 1 

 long-nosed snake 2 0.8 b < 0.1 b

 Southwestern black-headed snake 2 0.1 

 night snake 2 0.1 1 

 Sonoran coralsnake 1 0.8 b

 western diamond-backed rattlesnake 10 1.5 b 2.3 0.4 

Species richness 23 7 7 20 3 2 1 

a These were juvenile Woodhouse’s and Great Plains toads, which are difficult to differentiate. 

b Species was only recorded during nocturnal surveys. 

lizard and the two whiptails were most 

abundant in riparian areas; and the ornate tree 

lizard and gophersnake were most abundant in 

the cleared mesquite bosque area. We 

recorded no amphibians during intensive 

surveys. 

We anticipated that surveys in riparian areas 

would yield more species than surveys in other 

community types. However, results were 

mixed. Relative abundance of all reptiles in 

the riparian community type was > 30% higher 

than in any other community type, yet species 

richness in riparian community type (n = 6 

species) was equal to that of semi-desert 

grassland community type at the Calabazas 

unit and only slightly greater than richness in 

the cleared mesquite bosque community type 

(n = 5 species), where we expended far less 

survey effort. The eastern fence lizard was the 

only species that we found only in one 

community type (riparian) at the Tumacácori 

unit. Similarly, we recorded the regal horned 

lizard only in the semi-desert grassland 

community type in the Calabasas unit. 

Extensive Surveys 

We recorded 21 species during extensive 

surveys, ten of these were not recorded during 

intensive surveys and seven were not recorded 

during either intensive surveys or incidental 

observations (Table 5.3). During nocturnal 
38 

extensive surveys we recorded three reptile 

species that we did not record during diurnal 

surveys (intensive or extensive; Tables 5.2, 

5.3). Nocturnal surveys were essential for 

recording amphibian species; of the seven 

species we recorded, all except one (Great 

Plains narrow-mouthed toad, captured in the 

pitfall array) were recorded on nocturnal 

extensive surveys, whereas only one species 

(American bullfrog) was recorded during 

diurnal surveys (all methods combined; Tables 

5.2–5.4). 

Incidental Observations and Pitfall Array 

We added one new species to the park list by 

using both incidental observations (western 

box turtle; Tables 5.3) and the pitfall array 

(Great Plains narrow-mouthed toad; Table 

5.4). Great Plains narrow-mouthed toads may 

be more common than indicated by our results 

due to its climbing ability (and thus its 

potential to escape from pitfall buckets; Corn 

1994). 

Inventory Completeness 

Species accumulation curves for intensive and 

extensive surveys show the number of new 

species reaching their asymptotes (Fig. 5.3), 

indicating that we recorded most of the species 

likely to be observed with these methods, at 

least under the environmental conditions (e.g., 

lack of precipitation) during our study. A list 

comparing recorded amphibian species 

(Appendix C) with possible species (Appendix 

G) indicates that we recorded all but three 

amphibian species that may be present at 

Tumacácori NHP: canyon tree frog, redspotted toad, and Sonoran green toad. The 

canyon tree frog was reported from the Santa 

Cruz River between Tumacácori and 

Calabazas units by Drost (1998), and was 

collected near the Santa Cruz River in 1978 

(reported by Rosen et al. [2004]); the likely 

collection site was Potrero Cienega (Phil 

Rosen, pers. comm.). Eight red-spotted toads 

were collected between Nogales and Tubac on 

the Santa Cruz River from 1930 to 1991 

(Rosen et al. 2004). The toad was recently 

reported from roughly 80 km downstream 

from the Tumacácori unit on the West Branch 

(Rosen and Mauz 2001). The Sonoran green 

toad was collected in the vicinity of the San 

Xavier Mission on the Santa Cruz River 

(Sullivan et al. 1996; 60 km downstream from 

the Tumacácori unit), and has been recorded 

by other reliable observers (Phil Rosen, pers. 

comm.). The few records of the canyon tree 

frog in the Tumacácori NHP area of the Santa 

Cruz River suggest that the species may not 

regularly occur in this area, and to our 

knowledge the red-spotted toad has not been 

reported in this area within the last ten years. 

Table 5.4. Number of animals captured per 100 hours of pitfall trap operation, Tumacácori unit, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. See Appendix C for scientific names.

Taxon group Common name 

Total 

number 

captured 2001 2002 

Amphibian Couch's spadefoot 11 2.9 0.6 

 Woodhouse's toad 2 0.6 

Great Plains narrow-mouthed toad 1 0.3 

Great Plains toada 11 3.5 

Reptile Clark's spiny lizarda 1 0.3 

 eastern fence lizarda 1 0.3 

 desert grassland whiptaila 5 0.6 0.8 

 Sonoran spotted whiptail 1 0.3 

Mammal small mammal 57 11.2 6.1 

a One or more individuals captured in funnel trap 
39 

Number of surveys

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Cumulative number of species

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of surveys

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Cumulative number of species

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of surveys

1-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71-82

Cumulative number of species

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Calabazas unit Guevavi unit

Tumacácori unit

Figure 5.3. Species accumulation curves for intensive and extensive amphibian and reptile surveys, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. 
40 

The published geographic range of two nonnative species may include the park (Stebbins 

2003) but to our knowledge they have not yet 

been recorded in the area. The African clawed 

frog, which requires permanent water, likely 

would have been recorded during our surveys 

in 2002 because drought reduced the amount 

of surface water to an area that was thoroughly 

searched. The tiger salamander, which is 

large, conspicuously colored, and most active 

during the during monsoon period, was also 

not detected. 

We did not find three frog species that have 

likely been extirpated from the area: lowland 

and Chiricahua leopard frogs and the 

Tarahumara frog. The lowland leopard frog is 

sufficiently rare to be considered as a 

candidate for protection under the Endangered 

Species Act (HDMS 2004) and is unlikely in 

the area due to habitat degradation and 

regional population decline. The Chiricahua 

leopard frog, a species listed as threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act (HDMS 

2004), is also unlikely in the area due to 

habitat degradation and regional population 

decline. Finally, the Tarahumara frog, a 

species that is thought to have been extirpated 

from the area, may be re-introduced (Stebbins 

2003). 

In contrast to our amphibian species list, our 

reptile list for the park is likely far from 

complete. Reliable reports of the ring-necked 

snake from the Tumacácori unit (Dennis Jex, 

pers. comm.) and on Pendleton Drive between 

Calabazas and Guevavi units (Kevin Bonine, 

pers. comm.), and three reports of common 

kingsnakes at the Tumacácori unit in 2002 

alone (by the park maintenance crew) indicate 

these species are present. Drost (1998) 

reported both black-necked and checkered 

garter snakes (one individual of each species) 

between the Tumacácori and Calabazas units. 

Based on consideration of range maps, known 

habitat requirements, historic records, and 

results of a nearby study, an additional 32 

species may be present, may have been 

historically present in the park, or might pass 

through the park in the course of movement 

from nearby areas (Appendix G). Of these 

species, at least the Mexican garter snake is 

likely extirpated from the area, and several 

other species are unlikely (but possible) at 

Tumacácori NHP based on local range and 

habitat association: yellow mud turtle, zebratailed lizard, desert spiny lizard, mountain 

skink, tiger whiptail, and saddled and spotted 

leaf-nosed snakes (Phil Rosen pers. comm.). 

The Baja California spiny-tailed iguana seems 

highly unlikely to occur naturally at 

Tumacácori NHP, but is listed here because 

Rosen et al. (2004) found a museum specimen 

that was collected from the area in 1890 

(specimen number 17178, Smithsonian 

National Museum of Natural History). Two 

non-native turtles, slider (Pseudemys scripta) 

and spiny softshell (Trionyx spiniferus) have 

not, to our knowledge, been reported on the 

Santa Cruz River; however they could be 

illegally released in the area at any time and 

they could thus be observed at the park as they 

have at several other areas in southeast 

Arizona (Phil Rosen, pers. comm.). 

Many of the additional species that may occur 

at the park are uncommonly seen (e.g., 

fossorial species that are active on the soil 

surface for only a small percentage of their 

lifetimes [Ivanyi et al. 2000]) and some may be 

extirpated. Therefore, finding additional 

species at Tumacácori NHP will be a product 

of many factors: additional time in the field 

under favorable conditions (e.g., following 

years with average or above-average 

precipitation), skilled observers, or simple 

luck. Although the Santa Cruz River area may 

provide future source populations for reestablishing additional species at the park, 

potentially toxic chemicals in the water 

downstream of the Nogales International 

Wastewater Treatment Plant may prevent such 

distribution in the short term (see Water 

Quality section in 

Chapter 2). 

Discussion 

Tumacácori NHP has potentially high species 

richness for amphibians and reptiles because of 

its variety of community types and location 

along a borderlands riparian area (Felger and 
41 

Wilson 1995). However, dense vegetation in 

the riparian area and lack of surfaced roads 

make the park a challenging place to find these 

animals. Of the 24 species of amphibians and 

reptiles that we recorded, to our knowledge 

only two had previously been recorded (as 

vouchers) for this location (Appendix O). 

Overall, the species that we recorded in all 

park units indicate an area that, although far 

from pristine, maintains moderate species 

richness both in the presence of human activity 

(Tumacácori unit) and in relative isolation 

from human activity (Calabazas and Guevavi 

units). 

We recorded several species at the Tumacácori 

unit that are associated with riparian areas, 

such as the eastern fence lizard, Clark’s spiny 

lizard, Woodhouse’s toad, American bullfrog, 

box turtle, Sonoran mud turtle and Great Plains 

narrow-mouthed toad (Rosen and Mauz 2001, 

Stebbins 2003). Species richness in the 

riparian area was somewhat low, however, 

compared with historical records (e.g., Arnold 

1940). We did not find many species 

associated with water and riparian vegetation 

(e.g., native frogs and garter snakes; Stebbins 

2003). Two species of garter snakes have been 

recorded on the Santa Cruz River upstream of 

Tumacácori unit (Drost 1998, see Appendix 

G), and these species may have been missed by 

our survey crews or may colonize the 

Tumacácori unit in the future. 

Although we expected that species richness in 

the riparian area would be higher than other 

areas, the number of amphibian and reptile 

species that we recorded during intensive 

surveys in riparian areas 

(n =6) was equal to that recorded in semidesert grasslands at Calabazas unit and similar 

to cleared mesquite bosque (n = 5; Table 5.2). 

This similarity may have been caused by thick 

vegetation in the riparian area (compared to 

other community types) that may reduce 

detectability of animals (Southwell 1996). 

A nearby area (about 80 km north of the 

Tumacácori unit) that has been the subject of 

recent research is the West Branch, a tributary 

of the Santa Cruz River (Rosen and Mauz 

2001). Although the authors did not quantify 

survey effort or size of their study area, the 

geographic proximity and superficial 

ecological similarity of the location to 

Tumacácori NHP make it appropriate to 

compare the two areas. For that study, Rosen 

surveyed for amphibians and reptiles in an area 

within 2 km of the Santa Cruz River in 2001 

(Rosen and Mauz, 2001), and later augmented 

that research with further surveys, which 

documented additional species (Phil Rosen, 

pers. comm.). In total, they recorded the same 

number of native amphibians species (n = 6) 

(but no American bullfrog) and nearly as many 

reptile species (15 compared with our 17 

species) (Rosen and Mauz 2001, Rosen pers. 

comm.) as did our effort. While the proportion 

of lizards to snakes was higher in their study 

and they recorded several species that we did 

not (Appendix G), overall species richness was 

similar between the two areas. Despite the 

moderately high species richness values for the 

West Branch area and Tumacácori NHP, both 

areas host fragments of the herpetofauna 

community that existed in the area prior to 

European settlement (Arnold 1940, Rosen and 

Mauz 2001). 

The small Calabazas and Guevavi units appear 

to possess moderately species-rich 

herpetofaunas, and the number of species 

recorded at each unit is notable given our 

limited search time. A few of these species 

(western box turtle, western patch-nosed 

snake, western diamond-backed rattlesnake) 

have not been recorded by Rosen at his study 

site on the West Branch (Rosen and Mauz 

2001, Phil Rosen pers. comm.), but were 

historically present in that area (Arnold 1940), 

suggesting that they may be sensitive to 

anthropogenic disturbance. Persistence of 

these species at the Calabazas and Guevavi 

units suggests that continuing to limit 

development (and possibly visitation) in these 

areas may ensure their presence. Recent 

surveys by other researchers suggest that 

western box turtle populations may be 

declining in the area of Tumacácori NHP 

(particularly in the region of the Calabazas and 

Guevavi units), possibly due to increased 

residential development and associated vehicle 
42 

traffic (David Hall, unpub. data). Although 

the number of detections was low, the 

occurrence of this species at two park units 

underscores the importance of these 

undeveloped park areas. Sonoran coralsnake 

was the highlight of our findings at the 

Guevavi unit; this species is listed as 

Amenazada (federal status similar to 

Endangered Species Act “Threatened” listing) 

in Mexico (HDMS 2004). 

We recorded American bullfrogs (Fig. 5.4) in 

the Tumacácori Channel during both 

herpetological and fish surveys. The American 

bullfrog is native to eastern North America but 

has been introduced throughout the western 

U.S. for food production and sport (Stebbins 

2003). The American bullfrog is a species of 

management concern at Tumacácori NHP 

because both adults and tadpoles are voracious 

predators (Kiesecker and Blaustein 1997) and 

are thought to be partially responsible for the 

decline of many native fish species (Minckley 

and Deacon 1991), reptiles (Schwalbe and 

Rosen 1988), and amphibians (particularly 

other Ranid frogs; Hayes and Jennings 1986, 

Lawler et al. 1999) in the southwest. 

Notes on Venomous Reptiles 

It should be noted that although we recorded 

two species of poisonous snake at Tumacácori 

NHP, the total of ten western diamond-backed 

rattlesnake observations (likely including 

multiple records of the same individuals) and 

one Sonoran coralsnake were the result of over 

200 hours of searching by trained 

herpetologists; these snakes are sufficiently 

rare to pose a limited threat to visitors. The 

chances of an accidental encounter resulting in 

injury are likely small. Furthermore, the 

majority of reptile bites, reported to Tucson’s 

Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center, 

were provoked by the victim (e.g., harassment 

or attempt to handle; APDIC 2003). Even if a 

bite occurs, chances of death following a 

reptile bite are less than one percent (APDIC 

2003), and no human fatalities have been 

attributed to the seldom-seen Sonoran 

coralsnake (Degenhardt et al.1996). 

 

Figure 5.4. American bullfrog, Tumacácori NHP. 
43 

Chapter 6: Bird Inventory 

Previous Research 

Previous bird research at Tumacácori NHP 

focused on the yellow-billed cuckoo (Powell 

2000) and on mist-netting passerines and 

hummingbirds from 1997 to 2004 (MAPS; 

Turner 2003, Susan Wethington, unpub. data). 

Methods 

We surveyed for birds at the Tumacácori unit 

in 2001 and at all three units in 2002 and 2003. 

We used four field methods: variable circularplot (VCP) counts for diurnal breeding-season 

birds, nocturnal surveys for owls and nightjars 

during the breeding season, line-transects for 

fall and winter-season birds, and incidental 

observations for all birds in all seasons. 

Although surveys in the fall and winter were 

not included in the original study proposal 

(Davis and Halvorson 2000), we nevertheless 

felt they were important because many species 

that use the area during the fall and winter may 

not be present during VCP surveys. We did, 

however, concentrate most of our survey effort 

during the breeding season because bird 

distribution is relatively uniform during the 

breeding season due to territoriality among 

birds (Bibby et al. 2000). This survey timing 

increases our precision in estimating relative 

abundance and enabled us to document 

breeding activity. Our survey period included 

peak spring migration times for most species, 

which added many migratory species to our 

list. 

We also sampled vegetation around VCP 

survey stations. Vegetation structure and plant 

species composition are important predictors 

of bird species richness or the presence of 

particular species (MacArthur and MacArthur 

1961, Rice et al. 1984, Strong and Bock 1990, 

Powell and Steidl 2000). By identifying 

broad-scale vegetation characteristics 

associated with high species richness at the 

park, park managers can guide development 

and other human impacts away from the areas 

that contribute disproportionably to the rich 

bird community. 

In most cases we do not report observations 

that failed to determine the species (e.g., 

“unknown woodpeckers”). Ravens and 

meadowlarks are an exception. Both the 

Chihuahuan and common ravens occur at the 

park and both species are difficult to 

differentiate unless they are viewed at a short 

range under certain conditions or if they are 

seen flying together (Bednarz and Raitt 2002). 

We were not able to positively determine the 

species for any raven sighting and therefore 

report all observations as “unknown raven.” 

For meadowlarks we were unable to determine 

the species of one individual observed during 

line-transect surveys; we report this record as 

“unknown meadowlark.” 

Spatial Sampling Designs 

We subjectively determined the location of all 

survey stations and transect sections as a 

matter of convenience or logistical necessity. 

Because of the small size of all three units we 

almost completely covered the park (Figs. 6.1, 

6.2). We did not visit the Calabazas or 

Guevavi units in 2001 because these units were 

not included in the original study plan (Davis 

and Halvorson 2000); however, we included 

these units in 2002 and 2003 in order to obtain 

a complete inventory. 

We placed VCP stations and line-transect 

sections in sites selected to represent the bird 

communities in each park unit (Table 6.1). 

The relatively low number of stations and 

sections at Calabazas and Guevavi units are 

due to their small size. Although each of these 

smaller units possesses fewer than half the 

stations or transects present at the Tumacácori 

unit, together they comprise the most-sampled 

community type (semi-desert grassland; see 

below for description of community type 

designations). The “developed” community 

type at the Tumacácori unit was represented by 

only one station or transect section, and this 

was proportionate to its small area that 

includes buildings, bird feeders, and 

ornamental vegetation. 
44 

Figure 6.1. Locations of VCP survey stations and line-transect breaks (winter) for birds, Tumacácori unit, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2003. See Appendix L for UTM coordinates.
45 

 Figure 6.2. Locations of VCP survey stations and line-transect breaks (winter) for birds, Calabazas and 

Guevavi units, Tumacácori NHP, 2002–2003. See Appendix L for UTM coordinates.
46 

Table 6.1. Bird survey effort by method and community type, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2003. 

Number of visits 

Survey type Park unit Community type 

Number of stations or 

sections 2001 2002/2003 Efforta

VCP Calabazas Semi-desert grassland 3 0 5 15 

 Guevavi Semi-desert grassland 2 0 5 10 

 Tumacácori Mesquite bosque 3 4–5 7 35 

 Riparian 4 4 6–7 47 

 Developed 1 5 7 12 

Line transect Calabazas Semi-desert grassland 3 0 3–4 10 

 Guevavi Semi-desert grassland 1 0 4 4 

 Tumacácori Mesquite bosque 2 0 4 8 

 Riparian 3 0 3–4 11 

 Developed 1 0 4 4 

Nocturnal Calabazas Semi-desert grassland 1 0 2 2 

 Guevavi Semi-desert grassland 1 0 2 2 

 Tumacácori Mesquite bosque 2 3 2 10 

 Developed 1 3 2 5 

a Number of stations multiplied by number of visits. 

Community Types 

To facilitate interpretation of results, we 

grouped survey stations and sections into bird 

community types. We used Ward’s 

hierarchical cluster sampling (McGarigal et al. 

2000) using the total number of detections of 

all bird species at each station from VCP 

surveys. Clustering is a multivariate 

classification technique useful in grouping 

samples that share similar species assemblages 

(McGarigal et al. 2000). We identified four 

community types: semi-desert grassland, 

mesquite bosque, riparian, and developed. For 

a description of all community types (except 

the developed type) see the Vegetation section 

in Chapter 2. The developed community type 

at the Tumacácori unit was represented by one 

station, centered in the courtyard of the 

Tumacácori Mission; vegetation included 

scattered mesquite, hackberry, and elderberry 

and various ornamental trees and shrubs. This 

was also the only area with bird feeders. 

VCP Surveys 

Field Methods

We used the variable circular-plot (VCP) 

method to survey for diurnally active birds 

during the breeding season (Reynolds et al. 

1980, Buckland et al. 1993). Conceptually, 

these surveys are similar to traditional “point 

counts” (Ralph et. al 1995) during which an 

observer spends a standardized length of time 

at one location and records all birds seen or 

heard and the distance to each bird or group of 

birds. 

We established one transect in 2001 at the 

Tumacácori unit (8 stations) and one transect 

each at the Calabazas (3 stations) and Guevavi 

(2 stations) units in 2002 (Table 6.1; Figs. 6.1, 

6.2). Stations along each transect were a 

minimum of 250 m apart to maintain 

independence among observations at each 

station. Each year we surveyed from April 

through July, the period of peak breeding 

activity for most species in southern Arizona. 

The number of annual visits to each station 

varied slightly in some cases, but we 

maintained a minimum of 10 days between 

surveys. On each visit we alternated observers 

and the order in which we surveyed stations 

(along a transect) to minimize bias by 

observer, time of day, and direction of travel. 

We began bird surveys approximately 30 

minutes before sunrise and concluded no later 

than four hours after sunrise, or when bird 

activity decreased markedly. We did not 

survey when winds exceeding 15 km/h or 

when precipitation exceeded an intermittent 

drizzle. 

We recorded a number of environmental 

variables prior to beginning each transect: 

wind speed category (Beaufort scale), presence 

and severity of rain (qualitative assessment), 
47 

air temperature (oF), relative humidity (%), and 

cloud cover (%). After arriving at a station, we 

waited for one minute before beginning the 

count to allow birds to resume their normal 

activities. We identified (to species) all birds 

seen or heard during an eight-minute “active” 

period. For each detection, we recorded its 

distance in meters from the observer 

(measured with laser range finder when 

possible), time of detection (measured in oneminute intervals beginning at the start of the 

active period), and the sex and/or age class 

(adult or juvenile) if known. We did not 

measure distances to birds that were seen 

flying overhead, nor did we use techniques to 

attract birds (e.g., “pishing”). We made an 

effort to avoid double-counting individuals that 

had been recorded at previous stations. If we 

observed a species during the “passive” count 

period (between the eight-minute counts), and 

which had not been recorded previously at a 

station on that visit, we recorded its distance to 

the nearest station. 

Effort

We visited eight stations at the Tumacácori 

unit from four to seven times each in both 

2001 and 2002 (Table 6.1). We visited the 

stations at the Calabazas and Guevavi units 

(three and two stations, respectively) five times 

each in 2002. We visited each park unit at 

least five times, and visited stations 

representing each community type at least 12 

times over the two-year period. 

Analysis 

We calculated relative abundance of each 

species in each community type as the total 

number of detections at all stations and visits, 

divided by effort (the number of stations 

multiplied by the number of visits) for 53 of 

the most common species. We reduced our 

full collection of observations from the two 

years of the study (n = 2,360) to a subset of 

data (n = 1,282) more appropriate for 

estimating relative abundance. First, we used 

only those detections that occurred < 75 m 

from each count station (thereby excluding 586 

observations) to facilitate comparisons of 

relative abundance of species, both within and 

among community types. We truncated 

observations because the probability of 

detecting an individual is a function of both the 

conspicuousness of the species (ranging from 

loud and highly visible [e.g., the Gila 

woodpecker] to the quiet [e.g., the varied 

bunting]) (Verner and Ritter 1983) and the 

structure of the vegetation. By truncating we 

assume that all individuals within 75 m of all 

stations can be detected with equal probability. 

We excluded additional observations to further 

standardize data for comparative purposes: 

birds flying over stations (255 observations), 

birds observed outside of the eight-minute 

count period (278 observations), unknown 

species except ravens (35 observations), and 

instances when an observer failed to record a 

distance (4 observations). In addition, we 

excluded 38 species that were recorded on 

fewer than two occasions in both years (52 

observations); these species were not reliable 

components of the bird community but are 

included in our species list for the park 

(Appendix D). Some observations met more 

than one of these criteria for exclusion from 

analyses. 

We modified the relative abundance estimates 

for six species that arrived at the park later in 

the breeding season (yellow-billed cuckoo, 

blue grosbeak, and varied bunting) or left early 

(Wilson's warbler, green-tailed towhee, and 

white-crowned sparrow; see Appendix T for 

arrival and departure time periods). For these 

species we used a sample size of one-half of 

that used for the other species to estimate their 

relative abundance in each community type. 

The results for these species (Table 6.2), 

therefore, should be interpreted as relative 

abundance during half of the breeding season, 

and not as the mean across the entire season as 

applies to the other species. 

Line-transect Surveys 

Field Methods

We used a modified line-transect method 

(Bibby et al. 2000) to survey for birds in all 

units from November 2002 to January 2003. 

Line transects differ from station transects 

(such as those used in our VCP surveys) in that 

an observer records birds seen or heard while 
48 

the observer walks an envisioned transect line, 

rather than by standing at a series of stations. 

The transect method is more effective during 

the non-breeding season because bird 

vocalizations are less conspicuous and 

frequent, and therefore birds tend to be less 

visible (Bibby et al. 2000). 

At Tumacácori NHP we established transects 

along trails or in areas that provided relatively 

easy walking; observers needed to focus on 

detecting birds rather than on footing or 

obstacles. We divided transects into sections 

of approximately 250 m in length. Section 

breaks corresponded with VCP station 

locations (Figs. 6.1, 6.2). To account for 

seasonal variation in bird distribution and 

abundance, we visited each transect four times 

with about three weeks between each visit. As 

with other survey methods, we alternated 

observers and direction of travel along 

transects to reduce biases, and did not survey 

during periods of excessive rain or wind (see 

VCP survey methods for details). 

We began surveys about 30 minutes after 

sunrise and continued until all transect sections 

(in all three units) were completed. As with 

VCP surveys, we recorded weather conditions 

at the beginning and end of each survey. Prior 

to beginning a section, we recorded the section 

name (e.g., “A–B”) and the start time. 

For ten minutes we recorded all birds seen 

and/or heard within each section (i.e., we 

timed our travel so that we traversed the 

section in ten minutes) using the following 

distance categories: < 100 m, 

> 100 m, or “flyover.” When possible we 

noted sex and age class of birds. We recorded 

birds observed before or after surveys as 

“incidentals” (see section below), and we did 

not use techniques to attract birds (e.g., 

“pishing”). 

Effort

We visited ten line-transect sections three to 

four times in the fall/winter of 2002–2003 (n = 

37 surveys; Table 6.1). Each unit and 

community type was visited four times. 

Analysis

We used the same community types identified 

for VCP surveys, because the location of 

sections breaks and VCP stations were the 

same. To estimate relative abundance we used 

only detections that occurred within 100 m of 

the transect line in an effort to reduce bias 

associated with varying detectability (see 

details in VCP section). We calculated relative 

abundance using the same method as for VCP 

surveys and report detections in the “ > 100 m” 

and “flyover” categories in Appendix D. 

Nocturnal Surveys 

Field Methods

To survey for owls we broadcasted 

commercially available vocalizations (Colver 

et al. 1999) using a compact disc player and 

broadcaster (Bibby et al. 2000), and recorded 

other nocturnal species (nighthawks and 

poorwills) when heard. We established one 

nocturnal survey transect along a road or trail 

in each park unit (Table 6.1, Figs. 6.1, 6.2). 

The number of stations varied from one to 

three per transect and stations were a minimum 

of 300 m apart. As with other survey methods, 

we varied observers and direction of travel 

along transects and did not survey during 

periods of excessive rain or wind. We began 

surveys approximately 45 minutes after sunset. 

We began surveys at each station with a threeminute “passive” listening period during which 

time we broadcasted no calls. We then 

broadcasted vocalizations for a series of twominute “active” periods. We used 

vocalizations of species we thought, based on 

habitat requirements and range, might be 

present: burrowing owls at Calabazas and 

Guevavi units; elf, western screech, and barn 

owls at all three units. We broadcasted 

recordings of owls in sequence from smallest 

to largest size species so that smaller species 

would not be inhibited by the “presence” of 

larger predators or competitors (Fuller and 

Mosher 1987). During active periods, we 

broadcasted owl vocalizations for 30 seconds 

followed by a 30-second listening period. This 

pattern was repeated two times for each 

species. We excluded great horned owl from 
49 

the broadcast sequence because of their 

aggressive behavior toward other owls. We 

did not specifically survey for any species 

listed as threatened or endangered (e.g., the 

cactus-ferruginous pygmy owl [Glaucidium 

brasilianum cactorum]) because such species 

require specific protocols for surveying. 

During the count period, we used a flashlight 

to scan nearby vegetation for visual detections. 

If we observed a bird during the three-minute 

passive period, we recorded the minute of the 

passive period in which the bird was first 

observed, the type of detection (aural, visual or 

both), and the distance to the bird. If we 

observed a bird during any of the two-minute 

active periods, we recorded in which 

interval(s) it was detected and the type of 

detection (aural, visual or both). As with other 

survey types, we attempted to avoid doublecounting individuals recorded at previous 

stations. We also used multiple observers, 

alternated direction of travel, and did not 

survey during inclement weather. 

Effort

We surveyed at five nocturnal survey stations 

from two to five times in 2001 and 2002 (n = 

19 surveys), and surveyed each unit at least 

twice and each community type (except 

riparian) at least four times (Table 6.1). 

Analysis

We report the total number of detections by 

unit; sample size was inadequate for 

calculating meaningful estimates of relative 

abundance. 

Incidental and Breeding Observations 

Field Methods

When we were not conducting formal surveys 

and we encountered a species of interest, a 

species in an unusual location, or an individual 

displaying breeding behavior, we recorded 

UTM coordinates, time of detection, and (if 

known) the sex and age class of the bird. We 

noted all breeding-behavior observations using 

a standardized classification system (NAOAC 

1990), which characterizes breeding behavior 

into one of nine categories: adult carrying 

nesting material, nest building, adult 

performing distraction display, used nest, 

fledged young, occupied nest, adult carrying 

food, adult feeding young, or adult carrying a 

fecal sac. 

Analysis

We provide frequency counts for species 

observed incidentally but do not calculate 

relative abundance as we did for VCP and linetransect surveys. We report results of 

incidental observations by park unit. For 

breeding behavior observations we summarize 

the number of observations in each category, 

by park unit. 

Vegetation Sampling at VCP Stations 

We sampled vegetation near each VCP survey 

station to characterize vegetation. These data 

could be used to help determine habitat 

associations for specific bird species and 

identify important features of species-rich 

communities at the park. We sampled 

vegetation at five subplots located at a 

modified random direction and distance from 

each station. Each plot was located within a 

72° range of the compass from the station (e.g., 

Plot 3 was located between 145° and 216°) to 

reduce clustering of plots. We randomly 

placed plots within 75 m of the stations to 

correspond with truncation of data used in 

estimating relative abundance. 

At each plot we used the point-quarter method 

(Krebs 1998) to sample vegetation by dividing 

the plot into four quadrants along cardinal 

directions. We applied this method to plants in 

three height categories: sub-shrubs (0.5–1.0 

m), shrubs (> 1.0–2.0 m), trees (> 2.0 m), and 

one size category: potential cavity-bearing 

vegetation (> 20 cm diameter at breast height). 

If there was no vegetation for a given category 

within 25 m of the plot center, we indicated 

this in the species column. For each individual 

plant, we recorded distance from the plot 

center, species, height, and maximum canopy 

diameter (including errant branches). 

Association of a plant to a quadrant was 

determined by the location of its trunk, 

regardless of which quadrant the majority of 
50 

the plant was in; no plant was recorded in more 

than one quadrant. Standing dead vegetation 

was only recorded in the “potential cavitybearing tree” category. On rare occasions 

when plots overlapped we repeated the 

selection process for the second plot. 

 

Within a 5-m radius around the center of each 

plot, we visually estimated (1) percent ground 

cover by type (bare ground, litter, or rock); and 

(2) percent aerial cover of vegetation in each 

quadrant using three height categories: 0–0.5 

m, > 0.5–2.0 m, and > 2.0 m. For both 

estimates we used one of six categories for 

percent cover: “0” (0%), “10” (1–20%), “30” 

(21–40%), “50” (41–60%), “70” (61–80%), 

and “90” (81–100%). 

Analysis

We collected these data to characterize gross 

vegetation characteristics around each survey 

station. In the event that future bird surveys 

detect marked changes in species or 

communities, the vegetation data reported in 

Appendix U will provide potential explanatory 

variables. 

Results 

Species Richness 

We recorded 146 species during the two years 

of the study (considering all detections and 

survey types; Appendix D). Although 

comparisons among units may be biased by 

unequal survey effort, species richness was 

highest at the Tumacácori unit (n = 129), lower 

at the Calabazas unit (n = 80) and lowest at the 

Guevavi unit (n = 74). We recorded 50 species 

at all three units and 59 species at only one of 

the three units (Appendix D). All three nonnative species that we found during this study 

(rock pigeon, European starling, and house 

sparrow) were recorded at the Tumacácori 

unit, whereas only one (European starling) was 

recorded at the Calabazas unit and no nonnatives were recorded at the Guevavi unit. 

Neotropical migrant species made up 71% (n = 

103) of all species recorded (Appendix D). 

VCP Surveys 

We recorded 104 species during VCP surveys 

in 2001 and 2002. Considering all species 

recorded at each station (including those 

observations that we eliminated from 

estimation of relative abundance, as described 

in the methods sections), species richness 

varied little among stations in each community 

type: mesquite bosque (n = 71 species), semidesert grasslands (n = 69 species), riparian (n = 

63 species), and developed (57 species). We 

found 34 species that were unique to a single 

community type while an equal number of 

species were recorded in all community types 

(Appendix D). The number of species unique 

to a community type was highest for semidesert grassland stations (n = 14 species) and 

fewest for the developed station (n = 4 

species). 

Among the stations in each of the four 

community types, house sparrows were most 

abundant and were recorded predominantly in 

the developed community type (Table 6.2). 

Other abundant species at the developed 

station included the vermilion flycatcher and 

phainopepla. At the mesquite bosque stations, 

the yellow-breasted chat, Bell’s vireo, and 

Lucy’s warbler were most abundant; at the 

adjacent riparian stations, the yellow-breasted 

chat, Bewick’s wren, and song sparrow were 

the most abundant. At the Calabazas and 

Guevavi units, representing the semi-desert 

grassland community type, the Lucy’s warbler 

and Bewick’s wren were the most abundant 

(Table 6.2). 

Line-transect Surveys 

We recorded 56 species during line-transect 

surveys in the three park units (Table 6.3). 

Species richness was highest in the semi-desert 

grasslands (23 species) and lower in the other 

community types (21 species each). The most 

abundant species in each community type 

were: the chipping and white-crowned 

sparrows in the mesquite bosque; the European 

starling and white-crowned sparrow in the 

developed; the yellow-rumped warbler and 

chipping sparrow in the riparian; and the 
51 

Table 6.2. Relative abundance of birds recorded during VCP surveys, all units, Tumacácori NHP, 

2001–2002. See Methods section for details on estimation of relative abundance and Table 6.1 for effort per community 

type. See Appendix D for scientific names. 

 Community type

 Developed 

(n = 12) 

Mesquite bosque 

(n = 35) 

Riparian 

(n = 43) 

Semi-desert 

grassland (n = 25)

Common name n Mean SE n Mean SE n Mean SE n Mean SE 

gray hawk 3 < 0.1 0.04 

Gambel's quail 1 < 0.1 0.08 5 0.1 0.08 3 0.1 0.09 

white-winged dove 9 0.8 0.28 14 0.4 0.10 24 0.6 0.11 5 0.2 0.12 

mourning dove 6 0.5 0.23 7 0.2 0.07 15 0.4 0.08 8 0.3 0.11 

Inca dove 3 0.3 0.13 

common ground-dove 4 0.3 0.33 2 < 0.1 0.04 4 0.2 0.09 

yellow-billed cuckoo a 1 0.2 0.17 1 < 0.1 0.06 2 0.1 0.07 1 < 0.1 0.08 

broad-billed hummingbird 16 0.5 0.13 3 < 0.1 0.04 2 < 0.1 0.06 

black-chinned hummingbird 1 < 0.1 0.08 2 < 0.1 0.04 8 0.2 0.06 4 0.2 0.07 

Gila woodpecker 8 0.7 0.26 11 0.3 0.09 35 0.8 0.14 5 0.2 0.10 

ladder-backed woodpecker 2 0.2 0.11 5 0.1 0.06 14 0.3 0.09 4 0.2 0.07 

northern flicker 1 < 0.1 0.08 4 0.1 0.06 

northern beardless-tyrannulet 2 < 0.1 0.04 3 0.1 0.07 

Say's phoebe 11 0.9 0.19 

vermilion flycatcher 19 1.6 0.19 4 0.1 0.07 5 0.1 0.05 2 < 0.1 0.06 

dusky-capped flycatcher 6 0.1 0.05 

ash-throated flycatcher 3 0.3 0.18 2 < 0.1 0.04 6 0.1 0.07 7 0.3 0.09 

brown-crested flycatcher 2 0.2 0.11 6 0.2 0.08 24 0.6 0.12 8 0.3 0.10 

Cassin's kingbird 4 0.3 0.19 1 < 0.1 0.03 10 0.2 0.09 1 < 0.1 0.04 

western kingbird 2 0.2 0.17 3 0.1 0.06 

Bell's vireo 1 < 0.1 0.08 48 1.4 0.12 1 < 0.1 0.02 10 0.4 0.12 

bridled titmouse 18 0.4 0.09 

verdin 5 0.4 0.26 29 0.8 0.13 5 0.2 0.10 

Bewick's wren 12 1.0 0.35 26 0.7 0.12 39 0.9 0.13 18 0.7 0.16 

blue-gray gnatcatcher 1 < 0.1 0.02 2 < 0.1 0.06 

northern mockingbird 1 < 0.1 0.08 2 < 0.1 0.04 1 < 0.1 0.04 

curve-billed thrasher 4 0.3 0.14 5 0.1 0.06 

phainopepla 16 1.3 0.41 26 0.7 0.15 13 0.3 0.09 12 0.5 0.13 

Lucy's warbler 7 0.6 0.23 39 1.1 0.15 16 0.4 0.09 27 1.1 0.18 

yellow warbler 2 < 0.1 0.04 24 0.6 0.11 

common yellowthroat 2 < 0.1 0.04 16 0.4 0.11 

Wilson's warbler a 1 0.2 0.17 4 0.2 0.18 3 0.1 0.08 2 0.2 0.10 

yellow-breasted chat 54 1.5 0.25 51 1.2 0.18 8 0.3 0.11 

summer tanager 1 < 0.1 0.08 8 0.2 0.07 29 0.7 0.12 5 0.2 0.08 

western tanager 1 < 0.1 0.08 2 < 0.1 0.04 3 < 0.1 0.05 

green-tailed towhee a 1 < 0.1 0.08 

canyon towhee 4 0.2 0.07 

Abert's towhee 1 < 0.1 0.08 7 0.2 0.08 3 < 0.1 0.04 

rufous-winged sparrow 1 < 0.1 0.08 6 0.2 0.06 3 0.1 0.07 

rufous-crowned sparrow 4 0.2 0.07 

black-throated sparrow 7 0.3 0.14 

song sparrow 1 < 0.1 0.08 1 < 0.1 0.03 36 0.8 0.14 1 < 0.1 0.04 

white-crowned sparrow a 2 0.3 0.33 

northern cardinal 10 0.8 0.21 34 1.0 0.12 4 0.1 0.04 12 0.5 0.14 

blue grosbeak a 2 0.3 0.21 6 0.3 0.14 2 0.1 0.07 3 0.2 0.17 

varied bunting a 3 0.2 0.09 1 < 0.1 0.05 2 0.2 0.15 

great-tailed grackle 8 0.7 0.19 1 < 0.1 0.03 

brown-headed cowbird 1 0.1 0.08 21 0.6 0.17 19 0.4 0.10 8 0.3 0.10 

hooded oriole 1 0.1 0.08 1 < 0.1 0.03 2 < 0.1 0.05 1 < 0.1 0.04 

Bullock's oriole 1 0.1 0.08 4 0.1 0.07 3 0.1 0.09 

house finch 15 1.3 0.30 7 0.2 0.07 4 0.1 0.04 6 0.2 0.09 

lesser goldfinch 3 0.3 0.13 14 0.4 0.12 15 0.4 0.09 4 0.2 0.07 
52 

 Community type

 Developed 

(n = 12) 

Mesquite bosque 

(n = 35) 

Riparian 

(n = 43) 

Semi-desert 

grassland (n = 25)

Common name n Mean SE n Mean SE n Mean SE n Mean SE 

house sparrow 32 2.7 1.01 1 < 0.1 0.03 a Relative abundance for these species was calculated using a reduced value for effort; see text for details. 

chipping sparrow and mourning dove in the 

semi-desert grassland (Table 6.3). 

Excluding incidental observations and 

nocturnal records from both seasons, we 

recorded 13 species (26%) during line-transect 

surveys that we did not record during the VCP 

surveys. Conversely, we recorded 68 species 

(65%) during VCP surveys that we did not 

record during line-transect surveys. 

Nocturnal Surveys 

We recorded three species of owls and one 

common poorwill at the Guevavi unit, two 

species of owl at the Tumacácori unit and no 

species at the Calabazas unit. All four 

nocturnal species at the Guevavi unit were 

recorded during one survey. We detected the 

barn owl twice at the Tumacácori unit and 

once at the Guevavi unit; the western screech 

owl seven times at the Tumacácori unit and 

twice at the Guevavi unit; and the elf owl and 

the common poorwill once and three times, 

respectively, at the Guevavi unit. 

Incidental and Breeding Observations 

We recorded incidental observations of 121 

species at the park: 60 species at the Calabasas 

unit, 50 species at the Guevavi unit, and 100 

species at the Tumacácori unit. We recorded 

41 species that were not recorded during 

another survey type. 

We confirmed breeding for 32 species based 

on 72 observations of breeding behavior or 

evidence (Table 6.4). The highest number of 

species (n = 27) for which breeding was 

confirmed was at the Tumacácori unit, and the 

most records for an individual species 

(vermilion flycatcher; n = 9) were also at the 

Tumacácori unit. The fewest number of 

species confirmed as breeders (n = 6) were 

recorded at the Guevavi unit, though two of 

these (Inca dove and common ground dove) 

were not recorded as breeding in either of the 

other units (Appendix U). Similarly, we 

observed evidence of breeding in three species 

at the Calabazas unit (lark sparrow, blackthroated sparrow, and blue grosbeak) that were 

not observed in the other two units. We found 

two nests (one each of the Bell’s vireo and 

vermilion flycatcher) where adults were 

feeding brown-headed cowbird young. 

Inventory Completeness 

Based on the species accumulation curve, 

which shows the number of new species 

reaching an asymptote, we believe that we 

have recorded > 90% of the species that breed 

in and around the park or that stopover for a 

significant amount of time during the time of 

the VCP surveys (Fig. 6.3). However, based 

on the high bird species richness and the 

diversity of vegetation components at the park, 

we believe that the bird inventory is not 

complete and is likely missing spring and fall 

migrants and winter residents (Fig. 6.3). There 

are at least 40 species that were not recorded 

by us, MAPS personnel, or other researchers or 

observers, but which are likely to be recorded 

at Tumacácori NHP with additional survey 

effort (Appendix H; see Recommendations 

section for suggestions for completing 

inventories). 

Discussion 

This bird inventory is an important step in 

understanding the valuable role of the park and 

surrounding lands in providing habitat for 

birds. With moderate search effort 

(approximately 20 field days over two years) 

we recorded 146 species, several of which 
53 

Table 6.3. Relative abundance of birds recorded during line-transect surveys, all units, Tumacácori NHP, 

2002–2003. See Methods section for details on estimation of relative abundance and Table 6.1 for effort per community 

type. See Appendix D for scientific names. 

 Community type 

 Developed 

(n = 4) 

Mesquite bosque 

(n = 8) 

Riparian 

(n = 11) 

Semi-desert grassland 

(n = 14) 

Common name n Mean SE n Mean SE n Mean SE n Mean SE 

great egret 1 0.1 0.09 

Cooper's hawk 1 0.1 0.09 

red-tailed hawk 1 0.3 0.25 1 0.1 0.09 2 0.1 0.10 

mourning dove 12 0.9 0.42 

common ground-dove 1 0.1 0.09 

greater roadrunner 1 0.1 0.13 

Gila woodpecker 1 0.3 0.25 7 0.6 0.28 3 0.2 0.11 

ladder-backed woodpecker 1 0.1 0.07 

hairy woodpecker 1 0.1 0.13 

northern flicker 1 0.3 0.25 2 0.3 0.16 3 0.3 0.19 4 0.3 0.22 

gray flycatcher 1 0.1 0.07 

black phoebe 3 0.3 0.14 

Say's phoebe 4 1.0 0.71 2 0.3 0.16 

vermilion flycatcher 1 0.1 0.13 

ash-throated flycatcher 1 0.1 0.13 1 0.1 0.07 

Cassin's kingbird 1 0.3 0.25 

solitary vireo type 1 0.1 0.09 

unknown raven 1 0.1 0.09 6 0.4 0.25 

bridled titmouse 4 0.5 0.33 7 0.6 0.31 

verdin 3 0.8 0.25 9 1.1 0.30 3 0.3 0.14 6 0.4 0.23 

rock wren 1 0.1 0.07 

Bewick's wren 5 1.3 0.48 10 1.3 0.31 8 0.7 0.27 8 0.6 0.20 

house wren 1 0.1 0.13 1 0.1 0.09 

ruby-crowned kinglet 1 0.3 0.25 9 1.1 0.44 7 0.6 0.24 2 0.1 0.10 

blue-gray gnatcatcher 1 0.1 0.07 

black-tailed gnatcatcher 1 0.1 0.07 

hermit thrush 1 0.1 0.09 

American robin 2 0.2 0.12 

northern mockingbird 1 0.1 0.07 

European starling 4 1.0 1.00 

cedar waxwing 3 0.8 0.75 

yellow-rumped warbler 3 0.8 0.75 3 0.4 0.25 9 0.9 0.53 

green-tailed towhee 5 1.3 0.63 1 0.1 0.13 

canyon towhee 7 0.5 0.27 

Abert's towhee 5 0.6 0.32 3 0.3 0.14 1 0.1 0.07 

rufous-winged sparrow 2 0.5 0.29 1 0.1 0.13 9 0.6 0.29 

chipping sparrow 3 0.8 0.75 6 0.8 0.62 2 0.2 0.18 4 0.3 0.29 

lark sparrow 1 0.3 0.25 

black-throated sparrow 7 0.5 0.25 

song sparrow 3 0.3 0.14 1 0.1 0.07 

white-crowned sparrow 13 3.3 1.31 6 0.8 0.62 

dark-eyed junco 1 0.3 0.25 

northern cardinal 3 0.8 0.48 7 0.9 0.40 2 0.1 0.10 

pyrrhuloxia 2 0.5 0.50 2 0.3 0.25 

unknown meadowlark 1 0.1 0.07 

house finch 2 0.5 0.50 2 0.1 0.10 

lesser goldfinch 1 0.1 0.13 2 0.2 0.12 

house sparrow 3 0.8 0.75 
54 

Table 6.4. Observations of breeding behavior by birds, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. Breeding codes 

follow standards set by NAOAC (1990). See Appendix D for scientific names.

 Breeding behavior category 

Park unit Common name 

Adult(s) 

carrying 

food 

Adults 

carrying 

nesting 

material 

Fledged 

young 

Adult 

feeding 

fledged 

young 

Nest 

building 

Nests 

with 

egg(s) 

Nest with 

young 

seen/heard 

Occupied 

nest 

Calabazas Gambel's quail 

 Cassin's kingbird 1 

 verdin 1 

 Lucy's warbler 1 

 Abert's towhee 1 

 lark sparrow 1 

 black-throated sparrow 2 

 blue grosbeak 1 

Guevavi white-winged dove 1 

 Inca dove 1 

 common ground-dove 1 1 

 Cassin's kingbird 1 

 verdin 1 

 Lucy's warbler 1 

Tumacácori Cooper's hawk 1 1 

 gray hawk 1 

 Gambel's quail 

 white-winged dove 2 

 broad-billed hummingbird 2 

 black-chinned hummingbird 1 1 

 Gila woodpecker 1 1 2 

 ladder-backed woodpecker 1 

 Say's phoebe 1 

 vermilion flycatcher 2 1 1 1 4 

 Cassin's kingbird 1 

 Bell's vireo 1 1 

 verdin 1 1 

 Bewick's wren 1 

 northern mockingbird 1 2 

 curve-billed thrasher 1 1 2 2 1 

 European starling 1 

 phainopepla 1 

 Lucy's warbler 1 2 1 

 yellow warbler 1 

 common yellowthroat 1 

 yellow-breasted chat 1 1 1 

 summer tanager 1 

 Abert's towhee 1 

 song sparrow 1 

 northern cardinal 1 1 

 brown-headed cowbird 2 

Total by nesting category 6 1 23 9 5 6 8 14 
55 

Figure 6.3. Species accumulation curves for number of bird species by sample event (i.e., survey days) 

for VCP and line-transect surveys, all units, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2003. 

have narrow habitat requirements in the 

southwest. We do not hesitate to conclude that 

the park possesses valuable and regionally 

unique resources for birds and maintains a 

remarkable avifauna. Seventy percent of the 

species we recorded were Neotropical migrants 

(Appendix D). We recorded a number of 

species of special conservation status (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; HDMS 2004): one 

endangered species (southwestern willow 

flycatcher); one candidate for endangeredspecies status (yellow-billed cuckoo); and 

three species of concern (white-faced ibis, gray 

hawk, and peregrine falcon). The Monitoring 

Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) 

personnel recorded the olive-sided flycatcher 

(Turner 2003), an additional species of 

concern. 

We recorded only 16 individuals during 19 

visits to nocturnal count stations (Table 6.4). 

Nevertheless, we recorded most of the owl and 

nightjar species that regularly inhabit the area, 

except for great horned owl, which was a 

surprising omission. Based on vegetation 

characteristics present in the park units, an 

increased survey effort would likely document 

all three owl species that we recorded at the 

Guevavi unit at the other two units, and the 

great horned owl in all three units. Additional 

species such as long-eared owl and northern 

saw-whet owl are possible at all three units. 

Based on its distribution in southern Arizona 

and adjacent Sonora, Mexico, the endangered 

cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl is unlikely to be 

at the park (Aaron Flesch, pers. comm.). 

 

Cottonwood/Willow Riparian Area 

Tumacácori NHP contains riparian vegetation 

components that are extremely rare in the 

southwest, most notably the 

cottonwood/willow gallery riparian forest 

(Ohmart 1994). Bird species such as the 

yellow-billed cuckoo, yellow warbler, 

common yellowthroat, and song sparrow 

(Table 6.2) are almost completely reliant on 

cottonwood/willow forests for nesting habitat 

in the southwest (Rosenberg et al. 1991). 

Because of the loss and degradation of this 

community type across the region (Russell and 

Monson 1998), the local abundance of these 

species highlights the importance of the park 

and surrounding areas for their conservation. 

Two species in particular are noteworthy: 

yellow-billed cuckoo and southwestern willow 

flycatcher (discussed below). 

Number of sample events

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Cumultive number of species

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

VCP surveys

Line-transect surveys
56 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

The riparian area at the Tumacácori unit has 

one of the highest densities of yellow-billed 

cuckoos in the western U.S. (Powell 2000). 

The yellow-billed cuckoo is currently being 

considered for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act because of an alarming reduction 

in its breeding distribution over the last 50 

years (Laymon and Halterman 1987, Hughes 

1999). We recorded only four yellow-billed 

cuckoos during our VCP surveys. This low 

number is not surprising given the 

inconspicuous behavior of the bird and its late 

arrival on the breeding ground (Hughes 1999), 

but this also highlights that the VCP survey 

method is inappropriate for estimating 

abundance for this species. Based on the 

findings by Powell (2000, 2001 unpub. data), 

more yellow-billed cuckoos were present at the 

Tumacácori unit than we recorded. 

 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

We recorded one confirmed sighting of the 

endangered southwestern willow flycatcher 

along the Santa Cruz River on 25 June 2001. 

The three other willow flycatchers that we 

recorded may have been the southwestern 

subspecies, but this could not be determined. 

Surveys specifically targeted for the species in 

2002 did not locate the southwestern 

subspecies (Brian Powell, unpub. data; 

submitted to the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department). This may have been due to 

increased numbers of cattle in the riparian area 

in 2002 and the subsequent reduction of 

vegetation structure (Brian Powell, pers. obs.). 

The southwestern subspecies prefers dense 

understory vegetation for nest sites (Hatten and 

Paradzick 2003) and it is unclear whether the 

riparian area at the Tumacácori unit provides 

adequate breeding habitat for the species. 

Mesquite Bosque 

The mesquite bosque plant community once 

covered large areas of the valley bottoms such 

as in the Santa Cruz River drainage (Arnold 

1940), but due to woodcutting, groundwater 

pumping, and invasion of tamarisk, this plant 

community is increasingly rare (Bahre 1991). 

Bird species inhabiting this community 

include: the Bell’s vireo, Lucy’s warbler, 

yellow-breasted chat, Abert’s towhee, and 

varied bunting (Rosenberg et al. 1991). 

 

Non-native Species 

The abundance of house sparrows in the 

developed area around the Tumacácori 

Mission can be problematic for both the native 

bird species and cultural resources. House 

sparrows nest in cavities or on ledges (e.g., 

broken limbs, woodpecker cavities, and cracks 

in walls; Erlich et al. 1988), and are known to 

be aggressive toward other cavity-nesting 

species. At Tumacácori NHP these sparrows 

may displace cavity-nesters such as the 

Bewick’s wren and Lucy’s warblers, can 

damage cultural resources by enlarging 

existing cracks, and certainly create a nuisance 

and distraction via excessive nest material and 

defecation. 

Brown-headed Cowbirds 

The brown-headed cowbird is endemic to the 

Great Plains and Great Basin regions of the 

U.S. where it evolved a comensal relationship 

with the bison (Bison bison) and other large 

ungulates (Rothstein 1994). Since the arrival 

of cattle in the southwest, however, brownheaded cowbird populations have thrived 

(Mehlman 1995). During the breeding season, 

brown-headed cowbirds prefer edge 

communities, the abrupt interface of 

agricultural fields and human development 

with areas of dense vegetation, particularly 

along riparian areas (Rothstein 1994) such as 

at Tumacácori NHP. 

Brown-headed cowbirds were abundant at the 

park during the breeding season in all 

community types except the developed area 

(Table 6.2). Brown-headed cowbirds pose a 

threat to many native birds because they are 

brood parasites (i.e., lay their eggs in the nests 

of other species), thereby reducing the 

productivity of host species. Species 

particularly susceptible to brown-headed 

cowbird parasitism include four abundant 

Neotropical migrants at Tumacácori NHP: 

Bell’s vireo, song sparrow, yellow-breasted 

chat, and yellow warbler (see review in 
57 

Schwietzer et al. 1998, Averill-Murray et al. 

1999, Powell and Steidl 2000). In 2000, B. 

Powell (unpub. data) found six yellowbreasted chat nests at the Tumacácori unit that 

contained at least one cowbird egg each. 

Brown-headed cowbirds can be controlled by 

removing habitat (food and foraging sites) and 

by trapping (which has some success at 

increasing host productivity [Smith et al. 

2002]). Habitat removal is not logistically 

possible and trapping is currently beyond the 

limited time and budget of park staff. 

 

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship 

Study 

The Monitoring Avian Productivity and 

Survivorship (MAPS) study at the Tumacácori 

unit provides further evidence of the 

uniqueness of the bird community in this area 

(see DeSante et al. 1995 for more information 

on the program). The MAPS station at the 

park is located in the mesquite bosque and 

cottonwood/willow riparian area and has been 

in operation since 1997. In the seven years of 

station operation, MAPS personnel have 

recorded a total of 128 species, 20 of which are 

not on our species list, including: elegant 

trogon, worm-eating warbler, ovenbird, and 

the northern and Louisiana waterthrushes 

(Turner 2003; Appendix D). Station personnel 

also noted evidence of breeding for 33 species. 
58 
59 

Chapter 7: Mammal Inventory 

Previous Research 

To our knowledge, there has been no previous 

mammal research at Tumacácori NHP, though 

some mammal specimens have been collected 

from the park (Appendix O). 

Methods 

We surveyed for mammals using four field 

methods: trapping for small terrestrial, 

nocturnal mammals (primarily rodents, herein 

referred to as small mammals), infraredtriggered photography for medium and large 

mammals, investigation of roost sites for bats, 

and incidental observations for all mammals. 

 

Spatial Sampling Design 

To assign plot locations for most small 

mammal trapping plots (n = 19) we used a 

simple random design. In addition, we 

subjectively placed three plots each at the 

Calabazas and Guevavi units (C1–C3 and G1–

G3, respectively). We subjectively placed 

infrared-triggered cameras in areas that we 

thought would yield the most results (e.g., 

along animal trails). We searched for bats at 

roost sites at the Tumacácori Mission. 

 

Small Mammals 

Field Methods

We trapped small mammals at all three units in 

2000 and 2001 (Figs. 7.1, 7.2). We used 

Sherman® live traps (large, folding aluminum 

or steel, 3 x 3.5 x 9”; H. B. Sherman, Inc., 

Tallahassee, FL) set in grids (White et al. 

1983), with 10-m spacing among traps 

arranged in configurations of five rows and 

five columns (Calabazas and Guevavi units) or 

10 rows and five columns (Tumacácori unit). 

We opened and baited (one tablespoon; 16 

parts dried oatmeal to one part peanut butter) 

traps in the evening then checked and closed 

traps the following morning. We placed a 

small amount of polyester batting in each trap 

to prevent mortality from the cold. We marked 

each captured animal with a semi-permanent 

marker to facilitate recognition; these “batch 

marks” appeared to last for the duration of the 

sampling period (one to three days). For each 

animal we recorded species, sex, age class 

(adult, subadult, or juvenile), reproductive 

condition, weight, and measurements for 

right-hind foot, tail, ear, and head and body. 

For males, we recorded reproductive condition 

as either scrotal or non-reproductive. For 

females we recorded reproductive condition as 

one or more of the following: non-reproducing, 

open pubis, closed pubis, enlarged nipples, 

small or non-present nipples, lactating, post 

lactating, or not lactating. 

Effort

We typically trapped for sampling periods of 

three nights at all plots (11 at the Tumacácori 

unit, nine at the Calabazas unit, and five at the 

Guevavi unit; Figs. 7.1, 7.2). Because of 

differences in unit size, number of plots, and 

the number of sprung but empty traps, the 

number of trap nights (see below for 

definition) varied by unit: Calabazas = 613; 

Guevavi = 382; Tumacácori = 1,695. 

Analysis

We summarized data for each unit separately. 

We calculated relative abundance for species 

in each unit by dividing the number of captures 

by the number of trap nights (number of traps 

multiplied by number of nights they were 

open) after accounting for sprung traps 

(misfired or occupied; Beauvais and Buskirk 

1999). Sprung traps reduce trap effort because 

they are no longer “available” to capture 

animals; we account for this by multiplying the 

number of sprung traps by 0.5 (lacking specific 

information, we estimate sprung traps were 

available for half of the night) (Nelson and 

Clark 1973). 

Note on Sigmodon Species

During fieldwork we recorded two species of 

cotton rats (Arizona and yellow-nosed) but 

verification of our single voucher specimen for 

the yellow-nosed cotton rat confirmed it as a 

fulvous cotton rat. Given this uncertainty in 
60 

Figure 7.1. Locations of small mammal trapping plots and infrared-triggered cameras, Tumacácori unit, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2000–2001. See Appendix M for plot coordinates.
61 

Figure 7.2. Locations of small mammal trapping plots, Calabazas and Guevavi units, Tumacácori NHP, 

2000–2001. See Appendix M for plot coordinates. 
62 

field identification of cotton rats we present 

trapping results for this genus as “cotton rat 

species.” 

Infrared-triggered Cameras for Medium and 

Large Mammals 

Field Methods

We used infrared-triggered cameras 

(Trailmaster®; model 1500, Goodman and 

Associates, Inc, Lenexa, KS; Kucera and 

Barrett 1993) to record the presence of 

medium and large mammals at the Tumacácori 

unit only (Fig. 7.1). Trailmasters have three 

components: a receiver, transmitter, and 

camera (Fig. 7.3). The transmitter sends an 

infrared beam to the receiver at a specified rate 

(5 times per second for this study). The 

receiver then sends a signal (via cable) to a 

camera mounted on a tripod 6–8 m away. 

When an animal blocks the infrared beam, the 

camera takes a picture. We set the receiver 

and transmitter approximately 20 cm above the 

ground to ensure that medium and large 

mammals were captured on film but smaller 

animals such as rodents and birds were 

avoided. We cleared sufficient vegetation 

from the area so as not to disrupt the infrared 

beam but simultaneously sought to minimize 

disturbance; animals that regularly use an area 

might avoid it if there were too much 

disturbance. We set cameras to take no more 

than one photograph every five minutes to 

reduce the chances of recording the same 

individual more than once (at least on the same 

occasion). We placed cameras in areas that 

would capture the most species and highest 

numbers of animals, typically along trails and 

near water (e.g., Santa Cruz River; Fig. 7.1). 

We baited camera sites with a commercial 

scent lure (ingredients included synthetic catnip oil, bobcat musk, beaver castorium, and 

propylene glycol as a preservative) or canned 

cat food. We checked cameras approximately 

every two weeks to change film and batteries 

and to ensure their proper function. We 

photographed a placard documenting the date 

and camera location on the first exposure of 

every new roll of film. 

Figure 7.3. Diagram of infrared-triggered camera set-up. Image based on Swann et al. (2004).

Receiver Transmitter 

(1) Animal blocks infrared beam 

from getting to receiver 

(2) Receiver 

triggers 

camera to take

picture Infrared beam Camera 
63 

Analysis

Infrared-triggered cameras are the most costeffective method for recording the presence of 

medium and large mammal species (Kucera 

and Barrett 1993, Cutler and Swann 1999). 

However, one drawback to this method is an 

inability to distinguish among most 

individuals, which precludes unbiased 

estimates of abundance (i.e., one must attempt 

to determine if one animal has been 

photographed repeatedly or a new individual is 

in each photo). Notable exceptions are species 

with distinctive markings that can be 

differentiated among individuals, such as 

bobcats (Heilbrun et al. 2003). In some cases, 

size or physical abnormality may differentiate 

individuals of any species, but this was not 

evident frequently enough in our photographs 

to be useful. Therefore, we report the number 

of times a species was photographed. 

Incidental Observations and Sign 

As with other taxa, we recorded UTM 

coordinates of mammal sightings. Observers 

from all field crews (e.g., bird crew as well as 

mammal crew) recorded mammal sightings 

and signs such as identifiable tracks or scat, 

and took photo vouchers when the sign alone 

was definitive. 

Bats 

We visited the Tumacácori unit once, on 2 

October 2001, to search for bats in and around 

the Mission structure. We did not mist net bats 

at the Santa Cruz River because netting is most 

efficient when areas of open water are limited, 

thereby concentrating foraging bats into a 

small area (Ronnie Sidner, pers. comm.). This 

was not the case at Tumacácori NHP. 

Results 

Small Mammals 

Excluding recaptures, we trapped 477 

individuals representing 16 species on a total 

of 2,689 trap nights in 2000 and 2001 

combined (Table 7.1, Appendix E). Species 

richness was highest at the Calabazas unit (n = 

12), slightly less at the Tumacácori unit (n

=11), and lowest at the Guevavi unit (n = 9). 

However, the Guevavi unit had the most 

number of species not recorded at other units 

(n = 3; brush mouse, northern pygmy mouse, 

and northern grasshopper mouse) although just 

one individual represented each of these 

species (Table 7.1). 

The desert pocket mouse was the most 

abundant rodent at both the Calabazas and 

Guevavi units and the second most abundant at 

the Tumacácori unit, where the cactus mouse 

was the most abundant (Table 7.1). The only 

non-native rodent, the house mouse, was 

recorded twice at the Calabazas unit, not at all 

at the Guevavi unit, and 56 times at the 

Tumacácori unit. 

Despite field identification problems for the 

cotton rats, we trapped at least two species 

(based on voucher specimens). Based on our 

field measurements (tail, right-hind foot) it is 

likely that most of the “unknown cotton rats” 

were Arizona cotton rats; all but two adults 

that were originally recorded as “Arizona 

cotton rat” had measurements that are 

consistent with that species (Hoffmeister 

1986). 

Medium and Large Mammals 

We took 70 Trailmaster photographs from 

which we could identify an animal to genus or 

species, and those photographs represented 10 

species (Table 7.2). Eight of 10 species 

photographed are represented by five or fewer 

photographs (Table 7.2). The Virginia 

opossum was the most frequently 

photographed species. We photographed all 

four species of skunks that occur in Arizona. 

Bats 

We recorded one species, the pallid bat, during 

our visit to the Tumacácori unit on 2 October 

2001; we heard its distinctive directive calls in 

the open courtyard on the north side of the 

mission. Upon inspection of the structure we 

found a few minor accumulations of guano 
64 

Table 7.1. Total number of small mammals trapped (n) and relative abundance (RA), excluding 

recaptures, by park unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2000–2001. 

See text for relative abundance formula. See Appendix E for scientific names. 

 Calabazas Guevavi Tumacácori 

Common name n RA n RA n RA 

desert shrew 1 0.2 2 0.1 

desert pocket mouse 56 9.1 41 10.7 47 2.8 

Bailey's pocket mouse 2 0.3 1 0.3 

western harvest mouse 3 0.2 

fulvous harvest mouse 6 1.0 9 2.4 1 0.1 

cactus mouse 17 2.8 8 2.1 76 4.5 

deer mouse 4 0.7 15 0.9 

white-footed mouse 2 0.3 15 0.9 

brush mousea 1 0.3 

northern pygmy mouse 1 0.3 

northern grasshopper mousea 1 0.3 

southern grasshopper mouse 18 2.9 8 2.1 3 0.2 

white-throated woodrat 13 2.1 14 3.7 14 0.8 

unknown cotton-ratb 25 4.1 35 2.1 

house mouse 2 0.3 56 3.3 

Total captures 146 84 247

Species richness 12 9 11 

a Identification uncertain- see Discussion section. 

b We trapped at least two species (Arizona and yellow-nosed) based on identification of voucher 

specimens. See Methods section for more information. 

Table 7.2. Results from infrared-triggered cameras, Tumacácori unit, Tumacácori NHP, 2000–2001. 

Common name Number of photographs

Virginia opossum 26 

northern raccoon 4 

western spotted skunk 4 

striped skunk 2 

hooded skunk 5 

white-backed hog-nosed skunk 1 

feral cat 4 

western white-throated woodrat 5 

unknown cottontail 5 

collared peccary 14 

Total photos 70 

along the east side of the interior of the 

Mission structure. 

Voucher Specimens and Photographs 

We collected 31 voucher specimens 

representing 15 species of small mammals 

(Appendix E). With the exception of the 

above-mentioned cotton rats, vouchers for 

each identified species were confirmed by Yar 

Petryszyn (UA mammal collection curator). 

We did not collect specimen vouchers for two 

species: brush mouse and northern grasshopper 

mouse and based on habitat requirements, 

these identifications may be questionable. We 

documented black bears at the park by 

photographing definitive tracks adjacent to the 

Santa Cruz River. 

Inventory Completeness 

We believe that our mammal inventory was 

most successful in documenting presence of 

small mammals. We estimate that we 
65 

documented > 90% of the rodent species likely 

to occur at the park based on the asymptote of 

the species accumulation curve (Fig. 7.4); we 

did not detect any new species in the last 10 

sampling periods. However, for other groups 

of mammals, the picture is quite different. 

Based on a comparison of the species we 

recorded to a list of “possible” species at the 

park (Appendix I), we believe that we recorded 

approximately 41% of the species. Bats make 

up the bulk of the species we did not find; we 

recorded only one species and there are a 

possible 24 additional species (Appendix I). It 

should be noted, however, that not all of the 

mammal species would use the building 

structures or vegetation for any significant 

amount of time. Most may simply fly over 

(bats) or pass through (e.g., jaguar) the park en 

route to habitat elsewhere. Large mammals 

that we would expect to find include: gray fox, 

kit fox, mountain lion, and ringtail 

(Hoffmeister 1986). Hank Cospar, a 

neighboring landowner, reported shooting a 

mountain lion on his property in 2000 (pers. 

comm. to Brian Powell). 

Discussion 

A majority of our research on mammals 

involved trapping small mammals at 25 sites. 

The high species richness of small mammal 

communities at the smaller Calabazas and 

Guevavi units is consistent with known 

patterns of small mammal species richness in 

southern Arizona; true semidesert grasslands 

contain the highest species richness of any 

vegetation community in southern Arizona 

(Price 1978, Stamp and Ohmart 1979, 

Hoffmeister 1986, Sureda and Morrison 1999). 

Although we did not quantify ground cover at 

small mammal plots, our plant surveys 

(particularly modular plot research at the 

Tumacácori unit) documented high structural 

diversity (based on percent cover at three 

height categories), which appears to be 

important for rodents. We observed, but did 

not quantify, similar vegetation characteristics 

at the other two units. 

 

Figure 7.4. Species accumulation curve for small mammal trapping, all park units, Tumacácori NHP, 

2000–2001. One sampling period represents one trapping event (2–3 days) at each plot. 

Sampling period

0 5 10 15 20 25

Number of species

6

8

10

12

14

16

18
66 

Non-native Species 

The only non-native rodent species that we 

recorded was the house mouse. It occurred 

primarily at the Tumacácori unit, not far from 

buildings (with which it is commonly 

associated; Hoffmeister 1986). By using 

Trailmaster photographs and incidental 

sightings, we documented or observed the nonnative domestic cat, domestic dog, and cow. 

Domestic cats can pose a serious problem for 

native vertebrates, especially rodents, reptiles 

and birds, through harassment and predation of 

nests and individuals (Clarke and Pacin 2002). 

 

Cattle

Cattle are prohibited from the riparian area 

around the Tumacácori unit, but trespass 

livestock is a persistent problem. Cattle are 

attracted to riparian areas because of an 

abundance of shade and palatable forage 

(Kauffman and Krueger 1984), and periodic 

flooding complicates construction of effective 

cattle exclosures. Particularly during the 

record-dry summer of 2002 (Fig. 2.4), the 

persistence of livestock in the river bottom 

appears to have contributed to a dramatic 

decline in understory herbaceous vegetation 

volume and total vegetation cover (Brian 

Powell, pers. obs.). 

Livestock grazing has degraded an estimated 

80% of streams and riparian ecosystems in the 

western United States through loss of 

vegetation, stream-bank erosion, soil 

compaction, flooding, and water pollution 

(BLM 1994). Indeed, perhaps no single land 

use activity has affected western riparian 

systems as much as cattle grazing (Bahre 1991, 

Fleischner 1994). Livestock grazing can also 

increase the number and extent of non-native 

plants (Belsky et al. 1999) and can negatively 

affect wildlife through habitat modification 

and competition for resources (Saab et al. 

1995). Nevertheless, it appears that riparian 

vegetation, and the animals that rely on these 

rare components, can recover quickly from 

grazing (Krueper et al. 2003), though recovery 

from soil erosion and compaction may never 

be complete. 

Virginia Opossum 

We documented the Virginia opossum in 37% 

of our infrared photographs at the Tumacácori 

unit. It is likely that opossums are relatively 

new to the area (Hoffmeister 1986) and may 

have several impacts, including predation of 

bird nests (Peterson et al. 2004), competition 

with other medium-sized, omnivorous 

mammals such as the raccoon (Ginger et al. 

2003) and transmission of tuberculosis 

(Mycobacterium bovis) to both wildlife and 

livestock (Fitzgerald et al. 2003). 

Bats 

Our limited field effort (one night) to search 

for bats produced only one species, the pallid 

bat. The buildings at the Tumacácori and 

Calabazas units and persistence of water in the 

Santa Cruz River and presence of adjacent 

vegetation certainly host additional species, 

five of which have been collected from the 

Tumacácori mission building (Appendix O). 

 

Extirpated Species 

It is important to mention four species that 

may have occurred at Tumacácori NHP within 

the last 100 years but which are now 

extirpated: grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), 

Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), and 

bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis); or is 

extremely rare: jaguar (Hoffmeister 1986). 

Among these, the jaguar is the only species 

that has been seen in proximity to the 

Tumacácori unit in the last 50 years. The most 

recent documentation (from a photograph in 

2001) is rumored to have been from the 

Pajarito Mountains (approximately 20 km 

southwest of the Calabasas unit), but no 

location was released to the public. 
67 

Chapter 8: Management Implications 

Based on the data from this study and our 

knowledge of the natural resource issues at the 

park, we point out implications that could 

potentially affect management of the park’s 

natural resources. Coordination with other 

agencies, non-governmental organizations, 

and/or adjacent landowners may prove the best 

route in the future to resolving some of these 

issues. 

 

Development Adjacent to the Park 

The most serious threat to the biological 

diversity of Tumacácori NHP is residential 

development of adjacent and nearby lands. 

The high value of real estate in the area makes 

it likely that many of the larger landholders 

will sell their land to residential real estate 

developers. Potential impacts of residential 

development include an increase in the number 

and extent of non-native plants (see Plant 

chapter for review of associated concerns), 

increased runoff of toxins and sediment, 

disruption of animal movement patterns, 

habitat loss and fragmentation (Mills et al. 

1989, Theobald et al. 1997, Riley et al. 2003), 

and increased harassment and mortality of 

native animals by free roaming pets, and feral 

dogs and cats. Development will also likely 

increase groundwater withdrawal, possibly 

reducing the amount of surface water that 

makes the area biologically rich and valuable. 

Conservation easements on critical land 

surrounding the park, which may be most 

effectively pursued in partnerships with other 

land-management agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, and private landowners, could 

be a valuable tool in helping to maintain the 

biodiversity of the park. 

Natural Resources Staff 

Current staff at Tumacácori NHP includes no 

natural resources professionals. Thus the 

monument lacks an efficient means of meeting 

the inventory, monitoring, assessment, and 

management needs related to maintaining 

biodiversity as described in this report. 

Without new staff the park will likely not 

effectively (1) manage non-native species, (2) 

coordinate monitoring activities with Sonoran 

Desert Network Inventory and Monitoring 

program, (3) work with adjacent landowners to 

establish compatible land-use practices, and 

(4) coordinate research related to other natural 

resources management issues at the park. 

Cattle and Off-road Vehicles 

Cattle and off-road vehicles (ORVs) have a 

negative impact on the soil, water, and plants 

of the sensitive riparian area. These impacts 

can lead to an increase in non-native plant 

species, mortality of fossorial and slowmoving vertebrate species (e.g., ornate box 

turtle), increased erosion, and decreased water 

quality. Cattle and ORVs that are in the 

riparian area are in trespass and the park staff 

is currently maintaining fencing in the riparian 

area. 

Managing Invasive, Non-native Species 

There are many non-native plants and animals 

that pose significant threats to the park’s 

biological and cultural resources. American 

bullfrog, crayfish, and western mosquitofish 

should be of particular concern in the 

Tumacácori channel. A host of terrestrial nonnative species including domestic cats and 

dogs, cattle (mentioned above), and many nonnative plants, including Bermudagrass, 

tamarisk, and Russian thistle, thrive in the 

park. It was beyond the scope of this project to 

investigate specific control techniques for each 

species. Many National Park Service units 

have consulted experts and developed a nonnative species management plan that would 

guide future management decisions (e.g., NPS 

1996). The work by Halvorson and Guertin 

(2003) would provide an excellent foundation 

for this process. 

Impacts from Undocumented Immigrants 

Undocumented immigrants moving through 

the park leave behind trash, cut trails, and 

potentially threaten visitor safety. Border 
68 

Patrol and other law enforcement personnel, in 

pursuit of undocumented immigrants, may 

intensify soil compaction, establishment of 

trails, and other disturbances. Other National 

Park Service units have successfully worked 

with Border Patrol and local law-enforcement 

agencies to maintain visitor safety and 

resource preservation as priorities in their 

resources management programs. 
69 

Chapter 9: Additional Inventories 

No inventory is ever truly complete; species’ 

distributions expand and contract across 

boundaries with time, particularly at small 

parks such as Tumacácori NHP. In general, 

we have balanced our efforts between 

qualitative surveys designed to detect the 

maximum number of species and quantitative, 

repeatable surveys designed to estimate 

relative abundance with an associated measure 

of precision. Additional inventories could 

reach the 90% completion mark for some 

taxonomic groups. 

Future inventory efforts at Tumacácori NHP 

will benefit from highly skilled and 

experienced field personnel, and researchers 

who seek outside expert confirmation of 

species identifications (with photos or, 

preferably, voucher specimens) early in the 

inventory project. We encourage identification 

and a clear presentation of uncertainties when 

they occur and openly acknowledge and 

account for identification problems within 

genera such as Sigmodon, Cnemidophorus, 

Sylvilagus, and Bufo (see mammal and 

amphibian and reptile chapters for details). 

Plants 

Additional general botanizing surveys, carried 

out during wet summers in the expansion area 

of the Tumacácori unit, should increase the 

species list for annual plants. A diligent effort 

to seek out species that have previously been 

reported (Moatt et al. 1977, Bennett, year 

unknown) but not found during our surveys, 

would help confirm possible changes to the 

flora. Additional modular plots, especially in 

the under-sampled mesquite bosque and dense 

cottonwood/willow forests, would be an 

effective tool for long-term monitoring of 

vegetation changes. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Cnemidophorus (whiptail) lizards are difficult 

to identify; John Wright is an expert who could 

confirm the identity of specimens from the 

Tumacácori unit. Confirming whiptails to 

species would require collection of perhaps 20 

individuals to represent various ages and 

variations in appearance. Whiptails are 

notoriously difficult to capture; methods that 

we used with limited success included 

stunning with large rubber bands, noosing, 

trapping in pitfall and funnel traps, and capture 

in blind tubes (PVC pipes capped at one end). 

We were sometimes able to discover and 

capture whiptails by “turning cover” (i.e., 

looking under logs, boards, and debris) during 

cold mornings. A possible strategy might be to 

use a hardware cloth net that is chain-weighted 

along the edges. 

Perhaps the two most effective ways to 

increase the species list for amphibians and 

reptiles are: 1) take high-quality photographs 

of animals as they are seen and 2) collect roadkilled animals, particularly snakes, from along 

the Frontage Road, which borders the 

Tumacácori unit to the west. Other inventory 

efforts in Sonoran Desert Network parks have 

benefited from collection of these indisputable 

forms of evidence by park staff (Don Swann, 

pers. comm.). The Sonoran Desert Network 

staff can facilitate accession of collected 

specimens. 

Birds 

Additional surveys during the winter and late 

summer/early fall migration will add species 

missed by our efforts. It is important to note, 

however, that bird lists are difficult to 

complete, particularly for very rare species in 

the area (e.g., northern parula, gray catbird, 

and worm-eating warbler; Appendix D). Only 

sites that are visited regularly by avid bird 

watchers (e.g., Madera Canyon, Ramsey 

Canyon, and Sonoita Creek Preserve in 

southern Arizona) have bird lists that can be 

considered to be largely “complete.” 

The riparian area at the Tumacácori unit is 

becoming an increasingly popular destination 

for bird watchers. This increased attention is 

due to a number of factors including presence 
70 

of the Monitoring Avian Productivity and 

Survivorship station and the designation of the 

area as an “Important Bird Area” by the 

Tucson Audubon Society. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Surveys

Additional surveys, conducted by trained 

observers in cooperation with Arizona Game 

and Fish Dept, can confirm the status of the 

southwestern willow flycatcher at Tumacácori 

NHP. Such surveys are beyond the ability of 

current park personnel. 

Mammals 

Additional bat surveys would be useful, 

particularly mist-netting along the Santa Cruz 

River and periodic checking of the structures 

for roosting bats because it is possible to 

observe presence of additional species using 

these simple methods. The use of ultrasonic 

detectors to identify bat species is increasing 

and many researchers are refining the field 

techniques and improving the technology (e.g., 

Johnson et al. 2002, Gannon et al. 2003). 

These technologies may become more helpful 

in the coming years with these refinements. 

Additional infrared-triggered camera work can 

document the presence of medium and large 

terrestrial mammals, and a number of species 

will inevitably be documented with further 

surveys (e.g., mountain lion). Care must be 

taken in placing the units because of the 

potential for cameras to be damaged or stolen. 

 

Effects of Water Quality on Wildlife 

Water quality of the Santa Cruz River is 

currently being monitored because most of the 

perennial flow in the river comes from the 

Nogales Wastewater Treatment Plant. Better 

information is needed on the effects that the 

chemicals left in the water following treatment 

have on the vertebrates in the river (King et al. 

1999). Currently, residual pharmaceuticals are 

not being tested for and potentially may be 

affecting river dwelling species in the park. 
71 

Chapter 10: Glossary 

Abundance: Number of individuals (or groups, 

clusters), expressed in relative or 

absolute terms. 

Accuracy: Closeness of a measured value to 

the true value (see precision). 

Community species richness: Number of 

species in a grouping, which may be 

delineated at various scales and 

perspectives (e.g., functional, 

geographic, taxonomic). True richness 

is seldom known and in this report we 

present recorded richness. 

Density: Number of individuals scaled by unit 

of area or volume (e.g., four chipping 

sparrows/hectare). 

Documented: Species was verified by 

evidence: voucher specimen (or parts 

of a specimen) or photograph (see 

observed and recorded). 

Ecological community: A collection of 

populations in a defined (spatial and 

temporal) location (e.g., amphibians at 

Tumacácori NHP). 

Ecological population: A group of individuals 

of the same species in a defined 

location (e.g., cottonwood trees at 

Tumacácori NHP). 

Habitat: A species-specific term that generally 

refers to an area with resources and 

environmental conditions to promote 

occupancy, survival, and reproduction 

of that species (Morrison et al. 1998; 

see Chapter 1). 

n: Sample size; number of sample units. 

Neotropical migrants: bird species that include 

populations breeding north and 

wintering south of the Tropic of 

Cancer (Rappole 1995). 

Observed: Species or individual seen and/or 

heard by a reliable observer (see 

documented and recorded). 

Precision: Closeness of repeated measurement 

to each other (see accuracy). 

Recorded: Species or individual observed 

and/or documented (see observed and 

documented). 

Relative abundance: An index to abundance, 

usually the number of individuals 

(groups, clusters) recorded in a survey, 

scaled by survey effort (e.g., five 

gopher snakes per person-hour) and 

presented as a mean of all surveys, 

with an estimate of precision (e.g., 

standard error) 

Standard error (SE): The standard deviation of 

a mean divided by the square of n; a 

measure of the precision of an estimate 

(e.g., sample mean). 

Standard deviation: The square root of 

variance, which is the average of 

squared deviations from the mean. 

Deviation from mean is the difference 

between individual samples and the 

mean of all samples. 
72 
73 

Chapter 11: Literature Cited 

American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 

1998. Checklist of North American birds, 

seventh edition. American 

Ornithologists’ Union and Allen Press 

Inc., Lawrence, KS. 

American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 

2003. Forty-second supplement to the 

American Ornithologists’ Union checklist 

of North American birds. Auk 117:847–

858. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ). 2000. The status of water 

quality in Arizona Clean Water Act 

section 305(b) Report 2000. EQR–00–03. 

Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona Department of Water Resources 

(ADWR). 1999. Third management plan 

for the Phoenix Active Management Area, 

2000–2010. Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF). 

1995. Poeciliopsis occidentalis 

occidentalis. Unpublished abstract 

compiled and edited by the Heritage Data 

Management System, Arizona Game & 

Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF). 

2004. Accessed 5 March February 2004 

from : 

www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/edits/hdms_status

_definitions.html. 

Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center 

(APDIC). 2003. Accessed 20 February 

2003 from APDIC website: 

http://www.pharmacy.arizona.edu/centers

/apdic/snakes.shtml. 

Arnold, L. W. 1940. An ecological study of 

the vertebrate animals of the mesquite 

forest. MS thesis, University of 

Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

Averill-Murray, A., S. Lynn, and M. L. 

Morrison. 1999. Cowbird parasitism of 

Arizona Bell’s vireos (Vireo bellii 

arizonae) in a desert riparian landscape: 

implications for cowbird management and 

riparian restoration. Studies in Avian 

Biology 18:109–120. 

Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. 

W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. 

Hoffmann, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. 

Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised 

checklist of North American mammals 

north of Mexico, 2003. Occasional 

Papers of the Museum of Texas Tech 

University 229:1–23. 

Beauvais, G. P. and S. W. Buskirk. 1999. 

Modifying estimates of sampling effort to 

account for sprung traps. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 27:39–43. 

Bahre, C. J. 1991. A legacy of change: 

historic human impact on vegetation of 

the Arizona borderlands. University of 

Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Bednarz, J. C. and R. J. Raitt. 2002. 

Chihuahuan raven (Corvus cryptoleucus). 

In The birds of North America, No. 606. 

A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of 

North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 

1999. Survey of livestock influences on 

stream and riparian ecosystems in the 

western United States. Journal of Soil 

and Water Conservation 54:419–431. 

Bennett, P. Year unknown. Reference list. (A 

list of plants of Tumacácori National 

Historic Park; obtained in 1999). 

Unpublished; created while an employee 

of the US Geological Survey, Biological 

Resources Division, Sonoran Desert 

Research Station, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, AZ. 

Bestgen, K. R., D. A. Hendrickson, D. M. 

Kubly, and D. L. Propst. 1987. 

Movement and growth of fishes in the 

Gila River drainage, Arizona and New 

Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 32:351–

356. 

Bibby, C. J., N. D. Burgess, and D. A. Hill. 

2000. Bird census techniques. Academic 

Press, London, England. 

Bock, C. E., J. H. Bock, K. L. Jepson, and J. C. 

Ortega. 1986. Ecological effects of 

planting African lovegrasses in Arizona. 
74 

National Geographic Research 2:456–

463. 

Braun-Blanquet, J. 1965. Plant sociology: the 

study of plant communities. Hafner Inc., 

London, England. 

Brooks, M. L. and D. A. Pyke. 2001. Invasive 

plants and fire in the deserts of North 

America. Tall Timbers Research Station 

Miscellaneous Publication 11:1–14. 

Brotons, L. and S. Herrando. 2001. Reduced 

bird occurrence in pine forest fragments 

associated with road proximity in a 

Mediterranean agricultural area. 

Landscape and Urban Planning 57:77–89. 

Brown, D. E. and C. H. Lowe. 1980. Biotic 

communities of the Southwest: 

supplementary map to biotic 

communities: southwestern United States 

and northwestern Mexico. D. Brown, 

editor. University of Utah Press, Salt 

Lake City, UT. 

Brown, D. E., C. H. Lowe, and C. P. Pase. 

1979. A digitized classification system 

for the biotic communities of North 

America, with community (series) and 

association examples for the southwest. 

Journal of Arizona-Nevada Academy of 

Science 14:1–16. 

Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. 

Burnham, and J. L. Laake. 1993. 

Distance sampling: estimating abundance 

of biological populations. Chapman and 

Hall, New York, NY. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1994. 

Rangeland reform 1994. Draft 

environmental impact statement. U. S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, 

D.C. 

Burt, W. H. and R. P. Grossenheider. 1976. 

The Peterson field guide series: a field 

guide to the mammals of North America 

north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, New 

York, NY. 

California Department of Food and Agriculture 

(CDFA). 2004. Encycloweedia: notes on 

identification, biology, and management 

of plants defined as noxious weeds by 

California law. Accessed 10 February 

2004 from: 

http://pi.cdfa.ca.gov/weedinfo/Index.html. 

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W. S. Platts. 

1990. Livestock grazing on western 

riparian areas. Northwest Resource 

Information Center Inc., Eagle, ID. 

Clarke A. L. and T. Pacin. 2002. Domestic 

cat “colonies” in natural areas: a growing 

exotic species threat. Natural Areas 

Journal 22:154–159. 

Colver, K. J., D. Stokes, and L. Stokes. 1999. 

Stokes field guide to bird songs. Time 

Warner, New York, NY. 

Corn, S. P. 1994. Straight-line drift fences 

and pitfall traps. Pp. 109–117. In W. R. 

Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. 

McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. 

Foster, eds. Measuring and monitoring 

biodiversity: standard methods for 

amphibians. Smithsonian Institution 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

Courtenay, W. R., Jr., and G. K. Meffe. 1989. 

Small fishes in strange places: a review of 

introduced poeciliids. Pp. 319–331. In

G. K. Meffe and F. F. Snelson, Jr., eds. 

Ecology and evolution of livebearing 

fishes (Poeciliidae). Prentice Hall, 

Engelwood Cliffs, NJ. 

Creed, R. P. 1994. Direct and indirect effects 

of crayfish grazing in a stream 

community. Ecology 75:2091–2103. 

Crump, M. L., and N. J. Scott. 1994. Visual 

encounter surveys. Pp. 84–92. In W. R. 

Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. 

McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. 

Foster, eds. Measuring and monitoring 

biodiversity: standard methods for 

amphibians. Smithsonian Institution 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

Cutler, T. L., and D. E. Swann. 1999. Using 

remote photography in wildlife ecology: a 

review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

27:571–581. 

D'Antonio, C. M., and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. 

Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the 

grass fire cycle, and global change. 

Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics 23:63–87. 
75 

Daubenmire, R. 1976. The use of vegetation 

in assessing the productivity of forest 

lands. Botanical Review 42:115–43. 

Dauble, D. D. and R. H. Gray. 1980. 

Comparison of a small seine and a 

backpack electroshocker to evaluate 

nearshore fish population in rivers. The 

Progressive Fish-Culturist 42:93–95. 

Davis, K. and W. L. Halvorson. 2000. A 

study plan to inventory vascular plants 

and vertebrates: Sonoran Desert 

Network. National Park Service, 

Phoenix, AZ. 

Davis, W. A. and S. M. Russell. 1999. 

Finding birds in southeast Arizona. 

Tucson Audubon Society, Tucson, AZ. 

Degenhardt, W. G., C. W. Painter, and A. H. 

Price. 1996. Amphibians and reptiles of 

New Mexico. University of New Mexico 

Press, Albuquerque, NM. 

DeSante, D. F., K. M. Burton, J. F. Saracco, 

and B. L. Walker. 1995. Productivity 

indices and survival rate estimates from 

MAPS, a continent-wide programme of 

constant-effort mist netting in North 

America. Journal of Applied Statistics 

22:935–947. 

Drake, S., H. Rodriquez-Gallegos, A. 

Hubbard, and S. Skirvin. 2003. 

Comparative analysis of remote sensing 

techniques for vegetation mapping and 

monitoring on Sonoran Desert Network 

parks. Report to the Sonoran Desert 

Network Inventory and Monitoring 

program, National Park Service, Tucson, 

AZ. 

Drost, C. A. 1998. Survey of amphibians and 

amphibian habitat on the upper Santa 

Cruz River, Arizona. Unpublished report 

to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 

1988. The birder’s handbook: a field 

guide to the natural history of North 

American birds. Simon and Shuster, New 

York, NY. 

Fellers, G. M. and C. A. Drost. 1994. 

Sampling with artificial cover. Pp. 146–

150. In W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. 

W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. 

Foster, eds. Measuring and monitoring 

biodiversity: standard methods for 

amphibians. Smithsonian Institution 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

Felger, R. S. 1990. Non-native plants of 

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, 

Arizona. Technical Report No. 31. 

Cooperative National Park Resource 

Studies Unit, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, AZ. 

Felger R. S. and M. F. Wilson. 1995. 

Northern Sierra Madre Occidental and its 

Apachian outliers: a neglected center of 

biodiversity. In L. F. Debano, P. F. 

Ffolliott, A. Ortega-Rubio, G. Alfredo, G. 

J. Gottfried, R. H. Hamre, and C. B. 

Edminster, technical coordinators. 1995. 

Biodiversity and management of the 

Madrean Archipelago: the sky islands of 

southwestern United States and 

northwestern Mexico. 19–23 Sept 1994.; 

Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR264. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station, Fort 

Collins, CO. 

Fernandez, P. J. and P. C. Rosen. 1996. Final 

report: effects of the introduced crayfish 

Orconectes virilis on native aquatic 

herpetofauna in Arizona. Submitted to 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Heritage Fund, Phoenix, AZ. 

Fitzgerald, S. D., L. S. Zwick, K. L. Diegel, D. 

E. Berry, S. V. Church, J. G. Sikarskie, J. 

B. Kaneene, and W. M. Reed. 2003. 

Experimental aerosol inoculation of 

Mycobacterium bovis in North American 

opossums (Didelphis virginiana). Journal 

of Wildlife Diseases 39:418–423. 

Fleischner, T. L. 1994. Ecological costs of 

livestock grazing in western North 

America. Conservation Biology 8:629–

644. 

Fuller, M. R. and J. A. Mosher. 1987. Raptor 

survey techniques. Pp. 37–66. In B. A. 

Geron-Pendleton, B. A. Millsap, K. W. 

Cline, and D. M. Bird, eds. Raptor 
76 

management techniques manual. National 

Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. 

Gannon, W. L., R. E. Sherwin, and S. 

Haymond. 2003. On the importance of 

articulating assumptions when conducting 

acoustic studies of habitat use by bats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:45–61. 

Gibbons, J. M. and R. D. Semlitsch. 1981. 

Terrestrial drift fence with pitfall traps: an 

effective technique for quantitative 

sampling of animal populations. 

Brimleyana 7:1–6. 

Ginger, S. M., E. C. Hellgren, M. A. 

Kasparian, L. P. Levesque, D. M. Engle 

and D. M. Leslie. 2003. Niche shift by 

Virginia opossum following reduction of 

a putatice competitor, the raccoon. 

Journal of Mammalogy 84:1279–1291. 

Halvorson, W. L. and P. Guertin. 2003. 

USGS Weeds in the West project: status 

of introduced plants in southern Arizona 

Parks. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Southwest Biological Science Center, 

Sonoran Desert Research Station, 

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

Hatten, J. R. and C. E. Paradzick. 2003. A 

multiscaled model of southwestern willow 

flycatcher breeding habitat. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 67:774–788. 

Hayek, L. C. and M. A. Buzas. 1997. 

Surveying natural populations. Columbia 

University Press, New York, NY. 

Hayes, M. P. and M. R. Jennings. 1986. 

Decline of Ranid frog species in western 

North America: are bullfrogs (Rana 

catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of 

Herpetology 20:490–509. 

Heilbrun, R. D., N. J. Silvy, M. E. Tewes, and 

M. J. Peterson. 2003. Using 

automatically triggered cameras to 

identify individual bobcats. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 31:748–755. 

Heritage Data Management System (HDMS). 

2004. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department. Accessed 5 March from: 

http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/edits/hdms

_species_lists.html. 

Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of 

Arizona. The University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Holdich, D. M. and R. S. Lowery. 1988. 

Freshwater crayfish: biology, 

management, and exploitation. Timber 

Press, Portland, OR. 

Hughes, J. M. 1999. Yellow-billed cuckoo. 

In Birds of North America: Life histories 

for the 21st century. A. Poole and F. Gill, 

eds. The birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Integrated Taxonomic Information System 

(ITIS). 2004. Accessed on 20 March 

2004. 

http://www.itis.usda.gov/index.html. 

Ivanyi, C., J. Perry, T. R. Van Devender, and 

H. Lawler. 2000. Reptile and amphibian 

accounts. Pp. 533-585. In S. J. Phillips 

and P. W. Comus, eds. A natural history 

of the Sonoran Desert. Arizona-Sonora 

Desert Museum Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Johnson, C. W. and J. P. Smith. 1983. Soil 

loss caused by off-road vehicle use on 

steep slopes. Transactions of the 

American Society of Agricultural 

Engineers 26:402–411. 

Johnson, J. B., M. A. Menzel, J. W. Edwards, 

and W. M. Ford. 2002. A comparison of 

2 acoustical bat survey techniques. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:931–936. 

Karpiscak, M. M., C. P. Gerba, P. M. Watt, K. 

E. Foster, and J. A. Falabi. 1996. Multispecies plant systems for wastewater 

quality improvements and habitat 

enhancement. Water Science and 

Technology 33:231–236. 

Karpiscak, M. M., L. R. Whiteaker, J. F. 

Artiola, and K. E. Foster. 2001. Nutrient 

and heavy metal uptake and storage in 

constructed wetland systems in Arizona. 

Water Science and Technology 44:455–

462. 

Kauffman, J. B. and W. C. Krueger. 1984. 

Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems 

and streamside management implications: 

a review. Journal of Range Management 

37:430–438. 
77 

Kiesecker, J. M. and A. R. Blaustein. 1997. 

Population differences in responses of 

red-legged frogs (Rana aurora) to 

introduced bullfrogs. Ecology 78:1752–

1760. 

King, K. A., B. J. Zaun, and A. L. Velasco. 

1999. Contaminants as a limiting factor 

of fish and wildlife populations in the 

Santa Cruz River, Arizona. United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 

Contaminants Program, Phoenix, AZ. 

Knopf, F. L. and F. B. Samson. 1994. Scale 

perspectives on avian diversity in western 

riparian ecosystems. Conservation 

Biology 8:669–676. 

Krebs, C. J. 1998. Ecological Methodology. 

Second Edition. Addison-Welsey 

Educational, Menlo Park, CA. 

Kubly, D. 1997. Introduced crayfish in 

Arizona: a nuisance in our waters. 

Arizona Wildlife Views 40:14–15. 

Kucera, T. E. and R. H. Barrett. 1993. The 

Trailmaster camera system for detecting 

wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:505–508. 

Krueper, D., J. Bart, and T. D. Rich. 2003. 

Response of vegetation and breeding 

birds to the removal of cattle on the San 

Pedro River, Arizona (U.S.A.). 

Conservation Biology 17:607–615. 

Lancia, R. A., J. D. Nichols, and K. H. 

Pollock. 1996. Estimating the number of 

animals in wildlife populations. Pp. 215–

253. In T. A. Bookhout, editor. Research 

and management techniques for wildlife 

and habitats. Fifth edition. The Wildlife 

Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Latta, M. J., C. J. Beardmore, and T. E. 

Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in 

Flight conservation plan. Technical 

Report 142. Nongame and Endangered 

Wildlife Program, Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Lawler, S. P., D. Dritz., T. Strange, and M. 

Holyoak. 1999. Effects of introduced 

mosquitofish and bullfrogs on the 

threatened California red-legged frog. 

Conservation Biology 13:613–622. 

Laymon, S. A. and M. D. Halterman. 1987. 

Can the western subspecies of the yellowbilled cuckoo be saved from extinction? 

Western Birds 18:19–25. 

Lee, L. C., T. A. Muir, and R. R. Johnson. 

1989. Riparian ecosystems as essential 

habitat for raptors in the American West. 

Pp. 15–26. In B. G. Pendleton, editor. 

Western raptor management symposium 

and workshop. National Wildlife 

Federation, Washington, D.C. 

MacArthur, R. H. and J. W. MacArthur. 1961. 

On bird species diversity. Ecology 

42:594–598. 

McIntyre, D. L. and J. R. Weeks. 2002. 

Environmental impacts of illegal 

immigration on the Cleveland National 

Forest in California. The Professional 

Geographer 54:392–405. 

McLaughlin, S. P., E. L. Geiger, and J. E. 

Bowers. 2001. Flora of the AppletonWhittell Research Ranch, Northeastern 

Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Journal of 

the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 

33:113–131. 

McGarigal, K., S. Cushman, and S. Stafford. 

2000. Multivariate statistics for wildlife 

and ecology research. Springer-Verlag, 

New York, NY. 

Marsh, P. C. and W. L. Minckley. 1990. 

Management of endangered Sonoran 

topminnow at Bylas Springs, Arizona: 

description, critique, and 

recommendations. Great Basin Naturalist 

50:265–272. 

Meffe, G. K. 1985. Predation and species 

replacement in southwestern fishes: a case 

study. Southwestern Naturalist 30:173–

187. 

Meffe, G. K., D. A. Hendrickson, W. L. 

Minckley, and J. N. Rinne. 1983. Factors 

resulting in decline of the endangered 

Sonoran topminnow (Antheriniformes: 

Poeciliidae) in the United States. 

Biological Conservation 25:135–159. 

Mehlman. D. W. 1995. Notes on the increase 

of the brown-headed cowbird in New 

Mexico. Western Birds 23:59–63. 
78 

Miller, R. R. 1961. Man and the changing 

fish fauna of the American Southwest. 

Papers of the Michigan Academy of 

Sciences, Arts and Letters 45:365–404. 

Mills, G. S., J. B. Dunning Jr., and J. M. Bates. 

1989. Effects of urbanization of breeding 

bird community structure in southwestern 

desert habitats. Condor 91:416–428. 

Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ. 

Minckley, W. L. 1999. Ecological review and 

management recommendations for 

recovery of the endangered Gila 

topminnow. Great Basin Naturalist 

59:230–244. 

Minckley, W. L. and J. E. Deacon, eds. 1991. 

Battle against extinction: native fish 

management in the American West. 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Morrison, M. L., B. G. Marcot, and R. W. 

Mannan. 1998. Wildlife-habitat 

relationships: concepts and applications. 

Second Edition. University of Wisconsin 

Press, Madison, WI. 

Mouat, D. A., S. J. Walker, and B. D. 

Treadwell. 1977. The Tumacácori 

Mission National Monument floral 

inventory and vegetation map project. 

Office of Arid Lands Studies, Applied 

Remote Sensing Program, University of 

Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

Naeem, S., L. J. Thompson, T. H. Jones, J. H. 

Lawton, S. P. Lawler, and R. M. 

Woodfin. 1996. Changing community 

composition and elevated CO2. Pp. 93–

100. In C. Korner, and F. A. Bazzaz, eds. 

Carbon Dioxide, Populations, and 

Communities. Academic Press, San 

Diego, CA. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1992. NPS-75: 

Natural resources inventory and 

monitoring guidelines. U.S. Dept. of 

Interior, National Park Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1993. Draft 

general management plan and 

environmental impact statement, 

Tumacácori National Historical Park, 

Arizona. U.S. Dept. of Interior, National 

Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1996. General 

management plan and environmental 

impact statement: Tumacácori National 

Historical Park. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 

National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

National Parks Service (NPS). 2001. Baseline 

water quality data inventory and analysis 

(BWQDIA), Tumacácori National 

Historical Park. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 

Water Resources Division and 

Servicewide Inventory and Monitoring 

Program, Fort Collins, CO. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2003. Resource 

issues in southern U.S. border parks from 

drug trafficking and undocumented alien 

activity. Unpublished report, April 2003. 

Southern Arizona Office, National Park 

Service, Phoenix, AZ. 

Nelson, L. and F. W. Clark. 1973. Correction 

for sprung traps in catch/effort 

calculations of trapping results. Journal 

of Mammology 54:295–298. 

North American Ornithological Atlas 

Committee (NAOAC). 1990. Handbook 

for atlasing North American breeding birds. 

C. Smith, editor. Accessed 13 July 2001 

from: 

http://americanbirding.org/norac/atlascont.h

tm. 

O’Dell, D. 2003. Effects of trampling on 

small mammal, bird, and vegetation 

communities. Unpublished M.S. thesis 

proposal. School of Natural Resources, 

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

Ohmart, R. D. 1994. The effects of humaninduced changes on the avifauna of western 

riparian habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 

15:272–285. 

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 

1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in 

the United States. OTA-F-565, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, 

D.C. 

Osborne, L. L. and D. A. Kovacic. 1993. 

Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-
79 

quality restoration and stream 

management. Freshwater Biology 

29:243–258. 

Peet, R. K., T. R. Wentworth, and P. S. White. 

1998. A flexible, multipurpose method 

for recording vegetation composition and 

structure. Castanea 63:262–274. 

Peterson, B. L., B. E. Kus, and D. H. 

Deutschman. 2004. Determining nest 

predators of the least Bell’s vireo through 

point counts, tracking stations and video 

photography. Journal of Field 

Ornithology 75:89–95. 

Powell, B. F. 2000. Results of yellow-billed 

cuckoo surveys adjacent to Tumacácori 

National Historical Park in Arizona: a 

report on the 2000 breeding season. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Sonoran Desert 

Research Station, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, AZ. 

Powell, B. F. and R. J. Steidl. 2000. Nesting 

habitat and reproductive success of 

southwestern riparian birds. Condor 

102:823–831. 

Powell, B. F., E. W. Albrecht, W. L. 

Halvorson, C. A. Schmidt, P. Anning, and 

K. Docherty. 2004. Vascular plant and 

vertebrate inventory of Tumacácori 

National Historical Park. Final report to 

the National Park Service, Sonoran 

Desert Inventory and Monitoring 

Program, Tucson, AZ. 

Powell, B. F., E. W. Albrecht, W. L. 

Halvorson, and K. Docherty. 2003. 

Biological inventory report for the 

Sonoran Desert Network: 2002. Annual 

Report No. 2. Sonoran Desert Network 

Inventory Program. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Sonoran Desert Research Station 

and School of Renewable Natural 

Resources, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, AZ. 

Powell, B. F., K. Docherty, and W. L. 

Halvorson. 2002. Biological inventory 

report for the Sonoran Desert Network: 

2000 and 2001 field seasons. Annual 

Report No. 1. Sonoran Desert Network 

Inventory Program. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Sonoran Desert Research Station 

and School of Renewable Natural 

Resources, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, AZ. 

Price, M. V. 1978. The role of microhabitat in 

structuring desert rodent communities. 

Ecology 59:10–921. 

Ralph, C. J., J. R. Sauer, S. Droege, technical 

eds. 1995. Monitoring bird populations 

by point counts. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-149. Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Albany, CA. 

Rappole, J. H. 1995. The ecology of migrant 

birds: a neotropical perspective. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

Recon. 2004. Advance draft, Pima County 

multiple species conservation plan, Pima 

County, Arizona. Recon report number 

3273B. 

Reynolds, R. T., J. M. Scott, and R. A. 

Nussbaum. 1980. A variable circularplot method for estimating bird numbers. 

Condor 82:309–313. 

Rice, J., B. W. Anderson, and R. D. Ohmart. 

1984. Comparison of the importance of 

different habitat attributes to avian 

community organization. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 48:895–911. 

Riley, S. P. D., R. M. Sauvajot, T. K. Fuller, E. 

C. York, D. A. Kamradt, C. Bromley, and 

R. K. Wayne. 2003. Effects of 

urbanization and habitat fragmentation on 

bobcats and coyotes in southern 

California. Conservation Biology 

17:566–576. 

Robins, C. R. 1991. Common and scientific 

names of fishes from the United States 

and Canada. Fifth edition. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 20. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 

MD. 

Rosen, P. C. 2000. A monitoring study of 

vertebrate community ecology in the 

northern Sonoran Desert, Arizona. 

Unpublished PhD dissertation, 

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary 
80 

Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, 

AZ. 

Rosen, P. C. and K. Mauz. 2001. Biological 

values of the West Branch of the Santa 

Cruz River, with an outline for a potential 

reserve; including a preliminary flora. 

Document for the Sonoran Desert 

Conservation Plan, Pima County Board of 

Supervisors, Tucson, AZ. Accessed 4 

April 2004: 

http://www.co.pima.az.us/cmo/sdcp/sdcp2

/reports/WB/WestBF.htm#_Toc52410838

4 

Rosen, P. C., B. Radke, and D. J. Caldwell. 

2004. Lowland riparian herpetofaunas in 

Southeastern Arizona. In Biodiversity 

and management of the Madrean 

Archipelago II: Connecting mountain 

islands and desert seas. General 

Technical Report. In prep. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Fort Collins, CO. 

Rosen, P. C., C. R. Schwalbe, D. A. Parizek, 

Jr., P. A. Holm, and C. H. Lowe. 1995. 

Introduced aquatic vertebrates in the 

Chiricahua region: effects on declining 

native ranid frogs. Pp. 251–261. In

biodiversity and management of the 

Madrean Archipelago: the sky island of 

the southwestern United States and 

northwestern Mexico. General Technical 

Report RM-GTR-264. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, 

CO. 

Rosenberg, K. V., R. D. Ohmart, W. C. 

Hunter, and B. W. Anderson. 1991. 

Birds of the lower Colorado River Valley. 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Rothstein, S. I. 1994. The cowbird’s invasion 

of the far west: history, causes, and 

consequences experienced by host 

species. Pp. 301–315. In J. R. Jehl, Jr. 

and N. K. Johnson, eds. A century of 

avifaunal change in western North 

America. Studies in Avian Biology No. 

15. 

Russell, S. M. and G. Monson. 1998. The 

birds of Sonora. University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Schwalbe, C. R. and P. C. Rosen. 1988. 

Preliminary report on effects of bullfrogs 

on wetland herpetofauna in southeastern 

Arizona. Pp. 166–173. In R. C. Szaro, K. 

E. Severson, and D. R. Patton, eds. 

Management of amphibians, reptiles, and 

small mammals in North America. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RM-166, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, 

CO. 

Schweitzer, S. H., D. M. Finch, and D. M. 

Leslie, Jr. 1998. The brown-headed 

cowbird and its riparian dependant hosts 

in New Mexico. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-1. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, 

CO. 

Saab, V. A., C. E. Bock, T. D. Rich and D. S. 

Dobkin. 1995. Livestock grazing effects 

in western North America. Pp. 311–353. 

In T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, eds. 

Ecology and management of neotropical 

migratory birds: a synthesis and review of 

critical issues. Oxford University Press, 

London, England. 

Skagen, S. K., C. P. Melcher, W. H. Howe, 

and F. L. Knopf. 1998. Comparative use 

of riparian corridors and oases by 

migrating birds in southeastern Arizona. 

Conservation Biology 12:896–909. 

Smith, J. N. M., M. J. Taitt, and L. Zanette. 

2002. Removing brown-headed cowbirds 

increases seasonal fecundity and 

population growth in song sparrows. 

Ecology 83:3037–3047. 

Southwell, C. 1996. Estimation of population 

size and density when counts are 

incomplete. In D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. 

D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, 

eds. Measuring and monitoring biological 

diversity: standard methods for mammals. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 
81 

Sprouse, T., R. Emanuel, B. Tellman. 2002. 

Final report: Surface water quality 

monitoring overview and assessment for 

the Sonoran Desert Network, National 

Park Service. Unpublished report. Water 

Resources Research Center, University of 

Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

Stamp, N. E. and R. D. Ohmart. 1979. 

Rodents of desert shrub and riparian 

woodland habitats of the Sonoran desert. 

Southwestern Naturalist 24:279–289. 

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A field guide to western 

reptiles and amphibians. Third edition. 

Houghton Mifflin, New York, NY. 

Stohlgren, T. J., J. F. Quinn, M. Ruggiero, and 

G. S. Waggoner. 1995. Status of biotic 

inventories in U.S. national parks. 

Biological Conservation 71:97–106. 

Strong, T. R. and C. E. Bock. 1990. Bird 

species distribution in riparian habitats in 

southeastern Arizona. Condor 92:866–

885. 

Sullivan, B. K., R. W. Bowker, K. B. Malmos, 

and E. W. A. Gergus. 1996. Arizona 

distribution of three Sonoran Desert 

anurans: Bufo retiformis, Gastrophryne 

olivacea, and Pternohyla fodiens. Great 

Basin Naturalist 56:38–47. 

Sureda, M. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. 

Habitat characteristics of small mammals 

in southeastern Utah. Great Basin 

Naturalist 59:323–330. 

Swann, D. E., C. C. Hass, D. C. Dalton, and S. 

A. Wolf. 2004. Infrared-triggered cameras 

for detecting wildlife: an evaluation and 

review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1–9. 

Theobald, D. M., J. R. Miller, and N. T. 

Hobbs. 1997. Estimating the cumulative 

effects of development on wildlife habitat. 

Landscape and Urban Planning 39:25–36. 

Thomas, J. W., C. Maser, and J. E. Rodiek. 

1979. Wildlife habitats in managed 

rangelands, the Great Basin of 

southeastern Oregon: riparian zones. 

General Technical Report PNW-80. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Arcata, CA. 

Thompson, S. K. 1992. Sampling. John 

Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 

Turner, W. 2003. Bird banding at Tumacácori 

National Historical Park, AZ Draft. 

Unpublished report to the National Park 

Service, Phoenix, AZ. 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). 2004. The PLANTS Database, 

Version 3.5 National Plant Data Center, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

Baton Rouge, LA. Accessed 1 February 

2004: (http://plants.usda.gov). 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. 2001. National primary 

drinking water standards. EPA 816-F-01-

007. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). 2002. Birds of conservation 

concern 2002. Division of migratory bird 

management, Arlington, VA. 

VanHorne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading 

indicator of habitat quality. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 47:893–901. 

Voeltz, J. B. and R. H. Bettaso. 2003. 2003 

Status of the Gila topminnow and desert 

pupfish in Arizona. Nongame and 

Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 226. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Verner, J. and L. V. Ritter. 1983. A 

comparison of transects and point counts 

in oak-pine woodlands of California. 

Condor 87:47–68. 

Weedman, D. A. and K. L. Young. 1987. 

Status of the Gila topminnow and desert 

pupfish in Arizona. Nongame and 

Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 118. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Weedman, D. A., A. L. Girmendonk, and K. L. 

Young. 1996. Status review of Gila 

chub, Gila intermedia, in the United 

States and Mexico. Nongame and 

Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 91. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Weedman, D. A. 1998. Gila topminnow, 

Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, 
82 

revised recovery plan. Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Prepared 

for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Albuquerque, NM. 

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 

2004. Arizona Climate Sumaries from 

Tumacácori National Historical Park: 

Accessed 1 March 2004: 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/clims

maz.html. 

White, G. C., K. P. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, 

and D. L. Otis. 1983. Capture-recapture 

and removal methods for sampling closed 

populations. Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM. 

Wilshire, H. G. 1983. Off-road vehicle 

recreation management policy for public 

lands in the United States: a case history. 

Environmental Management 7:489–500. 

Wright, J. W. 1993. Evolution of the lizards 

in the genus Cnemidophorus. Pp. 27–81. 

In P. R. Brown and J. W. Wright, eds. 

Biology of whiptail lizards (genus 

Cnemidophorus). Oklahoma Museum of 

Natural History, Norman, OK. 
83 

Appendix A. List of plant species that were observed (O) or documented (D) at Tumacácori NHP by 

University of Arizona Inventory personnel, 2000–2003. Species in bold-faced type are non-native. Species 

denoted “ornamental” were in the landscaped areas around the visitors’ center. See Appendix F for list of species recorded 

by previous researchers but not by this inventory effort. Species with “**” were not previously recorded at the Tumacácori 

unit (by Mouat et al. 1977, Bennett [year unknown], and/or specimens stored at University of Arizona herbarium). Park units: 

“CAL” = Calabazas; “GUV” = Guevavi; “TUM” = Tumacácori. 

 Park unit 

Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM 

Acanthaceae Anisacanthus thurberi (Torr.) Gray b c Thurber's desert honeysuckle O D D 

Carlowrightia arizonica Gray Arizona wrightwort D 

Dicliptera resupinata (Vahl) Juss. b c ** Arizona foldwing D 

Elytraria imbricata (Vahl) Pers. b ** purple scalystem D 

Ruellia nudiflora (Engelm. & Gray) Urban a c violet wild petunia D 

Tetramerium nervosum Nees a b hairy fournwort O D D 

Agavaceae Yucca elata (Engelm.) Engelm. soaptree yucca D 

Aizoaceae Trianthema portulacastrum L. a desert horsepurslane D D 

Aloeaceae Aloe sp. L. a (ornamental) ** aloe D 

Amaranthaceae Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. a b c carelessweed O D D 

Gomphrena sonorae Torr. a Sonoran globe amaranth D 

Guilleminea densa var. densa (Humb. & Bonpl. ex 

Willd.) Moq. a small matweed O D 

Tidestromia sp. Standl. c ** honeysweet O 

Anacardiaceae Rhus lanceolata (Gray) Britt. a ** prairie sumac D 

Schinus molle L. a (ornamental) American pepper D 

Apiaceae Bowlesia incana Ruiz & Pavón a ** bowlesia O D 

Conium maculatum L. b ** poison hemlock D 

Cyclospermum leptophyllum (Pers.) Sprague ex 

Britt. & Wilson a b ** marsh parsley D 

Daucus pusillus Michx. a ** American wild carrot D O O 

Hydrocotyle verticillata Thunb. b ** whorled marshpennywort D 

Spermolepis echinata (Nutt. ex DC.) Heller a ** bristly scaleseed D O O 

Apocynaceae Nerium oleander L. a (ornamental) ** oleander D 

Vinca major L. a (ornamental) bigleaf periwinkle D 

Aristolochiaceae Aristolochia watsonii Woot. & Standl. a Watson's dutchman's pipe O O D 

Asclepiadaceae Funastrum cynanchoides ssp. cynanchoides (Dcne.) 

Schlechter a c ** fringed twinevine D 

Funastrum cynanchoides ssp. heterophyllum (Vail) 

Kartesz, comb. nov. ined. a Hartweg's twinevine D 

Asteraceae Acourtia nana (Gray) Reveal & King dwarf desertpeony D 

Agoseris heterophylla (Nutt.) Greene a ** annual agoseris D 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. annual ragweed D 

Ambrosia confertiflora DC. a b c weakleaf burr ragweed D D D 

Ambrosia trifida L. a b c ** great ragweed D 

Antheropeas lanosum (Gray) Rydb. white easterbonnets D O 

Artemisia ludoviciana Nutt .b c ** white sagebrush D D 

Baccharis salicifolia (Ruiz & Pavón) Pers. b c ** mule's fat D 

Baccharis sarothroides Gray a b c ** desertbroom O O D 

Baileya multiradiata Harvey & Gray ex Gray a ** desert marigold D O 

Bidens laevis (L.) B.S.P. b smooth beggartick D 

Bidens leptocephala Sherff a c fewflower beggarticks D D D 

Calycoseris wrightii Gray b ** white tackstem D D 

Chaetopappa ericoides (Torr.) Nesom rose heath D 

Cirsium neomexicanum Gray a ** New Mexico thistle D D 

Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronq. a ** asthmaweed D 

Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. a b Canada horseweed D D O 

Erigeron arisolius Nesom arid throne fleabane D 

Erigeron divergens Torr. & Gray a ** spreading fleabane O D D 

Evax verna var. verna Raf. a ** spring pygmycudweed O D O 
84 

 Park unit 

Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM 

Asteraceae Gamochaeta purpurea (L.) Cabrera a ** spoonleaf purple everlasting D 

Gnaphalium palustre Nutt. a ** western marsh cudweed O D D 

Gutierrezia microcephala (DC.) Gray c ** threadleaf snakeweed D O 

Helianthus annuus L. a b c ** common sunflower D D 

Helianthus petiolaris Nutt. c ** prairie sunflower O 

Heliomeris longifolia var. annua (M.E. Jones) Yates c 

** longleaf false goldeneye O 

Heliomeris longifolia var. longifolia (Robins. & 

Greenm.) Cockerell b ** longleaf false goldeneye D D 

Heliomeris multiflora var. multiflora Nutt. b ** showy goldeneye D 

Heterotheca subaxillaris (Lam.) Britt. & Rusby a c ** camphorweed O D O 

Hymenoclea monogyra Torr. & Gray ex Gray b c singlewhorl burrobrush D 

Isocoma tenuisecta Greene c burroweed O 

Lactuca serriola L. a prickly lettuce O D 

Laennecia coulteri (Gray) Nesom a ** conyza D D D 

Laennecia sophiifolia (Kunth) Nesom leafy marshtail D 

Machaeranthera gracilis (Nutt.) Shinners a ** slender goldenweed D D O 

Machaeranthera pinnatifida (Hook.) Shinners c ** lacy tansyaster D O 

Machaeranthera tagetina Greene a ** mesa tansyaster D D 

Machaeranthera tanacetifolia (Kunth) Nees tanseyleaf tansyaster D D 

Malacothrix clevelandii Gray a ** Cleveland's desertdandelion O D 

Malacothrix fendleri Gray a b Fendler's desertdandelion D D D 

Malacothrix glabrata (Gray ex D.C. Eat.) Gray a smooth desertdandelion D 

Melampodium longicorne Gray b ** Arizona blackfoot D D 

Parthenice mollis Gray annual monsterwort D 

Pseudognaphalium canescens ssp. canescens (DC.) 

W.A. Weber a ** Wright's cudweed D D 

Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum (Gray) A. Anderb. a b ** white cudweed D D 

Rafinesquia neomexicana Gray a ** New Mexico plumseed D D 

Senecio flaccidus var. douglasii (DC.) B.L. Turner & 

T.M. Barkl. b ** Douglas' ragwort D 

Senecio flaccidus var. flaccidus Less. c ** threadleaf ragwort O 

Sonchus asper (L.) Hill a c ** spiny sowthistle D 

Tagetes minuta L. b ** muster John Henry D 

Tithonia sp. Desf. ex Juss. c tithonia O 

Tithonia thurberi Gray a Arizona sunflowerweed O D O 

Trixis californica Kellogg a ** American threefold D 

Uropappus lindleyi (DC.) Nutt. a Lindley’s silverpuffs D O O 

Viguiera sp. Kunth c ** goldeneye O 

Xanthium strumarium L. b c ** rough cockleburr D 

Xanthocephalum gymnospermoides (Gray) Benth. & 

Hook. f. San Pedro matchweed D 

Zinnia acerosa (DC.) Gray desert zinnia D 

Berberidaceae Nandina sp. Thunb. a (ornamental) ** nandina D 

Bignoniaceae Chilopsis linearis (Cav.) Sweet b desert willow D 

Bixaceae Amoreuxia palmatifida Moc. & Sessé ex DC. c ** Mexican yellowshow O 

Boraginaceae Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia (Fisch & C.A. 

Mey.) Ganders a common fiddleneck D 

Cryptantha sp. Lehm. ex G. Don c cryptantha D O 

Cryptantha angustifolia (Torr.) Greene a ** Panamint cryptantha O D 

Cryptantha micrantha (Torr.) I.M. Johnston a ** redroot cryptantha D 

Cryptantha nevadensis A. Nels. & Kennedy Nevada cryptantha D 

Cryptantha pterocarya (Torr.) Greene wingnut cryptantha O D 

Cryptantha pusilla (Torr. & Gray) Greene low cryptantha D 

Lappula occidentalis var. occidentalis (S. Wats.) 

Greene a flatspine stickseed D O D 

Pectocarya heterocarpa (I.M. Johnston) I.M. Johnston chuckwalla combseed D 
85 

 Park unit 

Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM 

Boraginaceae Pectocarya recurvata I.M. Johnston a ** curvenut combseed D D O 

Plagiobothrys arizonicus (Gray) Greene ex Gray a ** Arizona popcornflower D O O 

Plagiobothrys pringlei Greene Pringle's speargrass D 

Brassicaceae Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. a ** shepherd's purse D 

Descurainia pinnata (Walt.) Britt. a western tansymustard D O D 

Descurainia sophia (L.) Webb ex Prantl a ** herb sophia O D D 

Draba cuneifolia var. integrifolia S. Wats. wedgeleaf draba D 

Erysimum repandum L. spreading wallflower D 

Lepidium sp. L.a c pepperweed D 

Lepidium lasiocarpum Nutt. a shaggyfruit pepperweed D D 

Lepidium thurberi Woot. a c Thurber's pepperweed O D D 

Lesquerella gordonii (Gray) S. Wats. a gordon bladderpod O O D 

Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum (L.) Hayek b ** watercress D 

Sisymbrium irio L. a London rocket O O D 

Cactaceae Ferocactus wislizeni (Engelm.) Britt. & Rose b candy barrelcactus D O O 

Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) P. Mill. a (ornamental) ** tuna cactus D 

Opuntia leptocaulis DC. Christmas cactus D 

Opuntia macrorhiza Engelm. twistspine pricklypear D 

Opuntia phaeacantha var. laevis (Coult.) L. Benson b tulip pricklypear O D O 

Opuntia santa-rita (Griffiths & Hare) Rose a 

(ornamental) Santa Rita pricklypear D 

Opuntia spinosior (Engelm.) Toumey b c ** walkingstick cactus O D O 

Campanulaceae Nemacladus glanduliferus Jepson glandular threadplant D 

Triodanis perfoliata (L.) Nieuwl. a ** clasping Venus' looking-glass O D 

Caprifoliaceae Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis (L.) R. Bolli a b ** common elderberry O O D 

Sambucus nigra ssp. cerulea (Raf.) R. Bolli c blue elderberry O 

Caryophyllaceae Loeflingia squarrosa Nutt. spreading pygmyleaf D 

Chenopodiaceae Atriplex canescens var. linearis (S. Wats.) Munz a thinleaf fourwing saltbush D 

Atriplex elegans (Moq.) D. Dietr. a b wheelscale saltbush D D D 

Atriplex wrightii S. Wats. a Wright saltbush D 

Chenopodium sp. L. goosefoot D D 

Chenopodium berlandieri Moq. pitseed goosefoot D 

Chenopodium pratericola Rydb. a ** desert goosefoot D 

Chenopodium rubrum L. a ** red goosefoot D 

Salsola kali L. a b c Russian thistle O D D 

Commelinaceae Commelina erecta L. whitemouth dayflower O D 

Convolvulaceae Evolvulus arizonicus Gray a wild dwarf morning-glory O D D 

Ipomoea barbatisepala Gray c ** canyon morning-glory O 

Ipomoea coccinea L. c ** redstar D O 

Ipomoea costellata Torr. c ** crestrib morningglory D O 

Ipomoea hederacea Jacq. a c ivyleaf morningglory O D O 

Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita digitata Gray a fingerleaf gourd O O D 

Cucurbita foetidissima Kunth b c Missouri gourd O D D 

Echinopepon wrightii (Gray) S. Wats. b ** wild balsam apple D D 

Sicyosperma gracile Gray b ** climbing arrowheads D 

Cupressaceae Juniperus coahuilensis (Martinez) Gaussen ex R.P. 

Adams redberry juniper D 

Platycladus orientalis (L.) Franco a (ornamental) ** oriental arborvitae D 

Cuscutaceae Cuscuta umbellata Kunth b flatglobe dodder D 

Cyperaceae Cyperus odoratus L. b ** fragrant flatsedge D 

Eleocharis montevidensis Kunth b ** sand spikerush D 

Equisetaceae Equisetum laevigatum A. Braun b ** smooth horsetail D 

Euphorbiaceae Acalypha neomexicana Muell.-Arg. c New Mexico copperleaf D 

Acalypha ostryifolia Riddell b c pineland threeseed mercury D D 

Argythamnia neomexicana Muell.-Arg. a ** New Mexico silverbush D 

Chamaesyce albomarginata (Torr. & Gray) Small a ** whitemargin sandmat D 

Chamaesyce florida (Engelm.) Millsp. a ** Chiricahua Mountain sandmat D 
86 

 Park unit 

Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM 

Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce hirta (L.) Millsp. b pillpod sandmat D D D 

Chamaesyce hyssopifolia (L.) Small c hyssopleaf sandmat D D O 

Chamaesyce micromera (Boiss. ex Engelm.) Woot. & 

Standl. a ** Sonoran sandmat D 

Chamaesyce pediculifera (Engelm.) Rose & Standl. Carrizo Mountain sandmat D 

Cnidoscolus angustidens Torr. mala mujer D 

Croton pottsii var. pottsii (Klotzsch) Muell.-Arg. leatherweed D O 

Croton texensis (Klotzsch) Muell.-Arg. b ** Texas croton D 

Euphorbia heterophylla L. a c Mexican fireplant D O O 

Tragia nepetifolia Cav. catnip noseburn D 

Fabaceae Acacia constricta Benth. whitethorn acacia D 

Acacia greggii Gray a b c catclaw acacia O O D 

Astragalus allochrous Gray halfmoon milkvetch D O 

Astragalus arizonicus Gray Arizona milkvetch D 

Astragalus nuttallianus DC.a ** smallflowered milkvetch O D O 

Caesalpinia gilliesii (Hook.) Wallich ex D. Dietr. a bird-of-paradise shrub D 

Calliandra eriophylla Benth. fairyduster O 

Cassia leptocarpa Benth. b ** woolly senna D 

Chamaecrista nictitans (L.) Moench b ** partridge pea D 

Chamaecrista nictitans var. leptadenia (Greenm.) 

Gandhi & Hatch partridge pea D 

Crotalaria pumila Ortega b c ** low rattlebox D D 

Desmodium neomexicanum Gray b ** New Mexico ticktrefoil D D 

Hoffmannseggia glauca (Ortega) Eifert a Indian rushpea D 

Lotus humistratus Greene foothill deervetch D O 

Lupinus concinnus J.G. Agardh a ** scarlet lupine D D 

Marina calycosa (Gray) Barneby San Pedro false prairie-clover D 

Medicago polymorpha L. a burclover D 

Melilotus indicus (L.) All. a annual yellow sweetclover D 

Melilotus officinalis (L.) Lam. c ** yellow sweetclover O 

Mimosa aculeaticarpa Ortega catclaw mimosa D 

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera (Benth.) 

Barneby b ** catclaw mimosa D 

Parkinsonia aculeata L. a (ornamental) Jerusalem thorn D 

Parkinsonia florida (Benth. ex Gray) S. Wats. a blue paloverde D 

Phaseolus ritensis M.E. Jones Santa Rita Mountain bean D 

Prosopis velutina Woot. a b c velvet mesquite O O D 

Rhynchosia senna var. texana (Torr. & Gray) M.C. 

Johnston Texas snoutbean D D 

Senna bauhinioides (Gray) Irwin & Barneby twinleaf senna D O 

Fouquieriaceae Fouquieria splendens Engelm. ocotillo D 

Fumariaceae Pseudofumaria lutea (L.) Borkh. a ** rock fumewort O D O 

Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér. ex Ait. a ** redstem stork's bill D 

Erodium texanum Gray Texas stork's bill D 

Hydrophyllaceae Eucrypta micrantha (Torr.) Heller dainty desert hideseed D 

Nama hispidum Gray a bristly nama O O D 

Phacelia sp. Juss. phacelia D 

Phacelia affinis Gray limestone phacelia D 

Phacelia arizonica Gray a Arizona phacelia D O O 

Phacelia crenulata Torr. ex S. Wats. cleftleaf wildheliotrope D 

Phacelia distans Benth. a ** distant phacelia O D 

Juglandaceae Juglans major (Torr.) Heller a c Arizona walnut D 

Krameriaceae Krameria erecta Willd. ex J.A. Schultes littleleaf ratany D 

Lamiaceae Lamium amplexicaule L. a ** henbit deadnettle O D D 

Marrubium vulgare L. a b c horehound O D 

Salvia subincisa Benth. sawtooth sage D 

Liliaceae Calochortus kennedyi Porter desert mariposa lily D O 
87 

 Park unit 

Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM 

Liliaceae Dasylirion wheeleri S. Wats. common sotol D 

Dichelostemma capitatum (Benth.) Wood ssp. 

capitatum bluedicks D O 

Nothoscordum sp. Kunth a ** false garlic D 

Loasaceae Mentzelia albicaulis (Dougl. ex Hook.) Dougl. ex Torr. 

& Gray a b c whitestem blazingstar O D D 

Mentzelia aspera L. b c ** tropical blazingstar D D 

Malvaceae Abutilon sp. P. Mill c ** Indian mallow O 

Abutilon mollicomum (Willd.) Sweet Sonoran Indian mallow O D 

Abutilon parvulum Gray dwarf Indian mallow D 

Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht. c crested anoda D O 

Malva parviflora L. a cheeseweed mallow D 

Malvella leprosa (Ortega) Krapov. alkali mallow D 

Rhynchosida physocalyx (Gray) Fryxell a b c buffpetal O D D 

Sida abutifolia P. Mill. a c spreading fanpetals D D O 

Sida neomexicana Gray New Mexico fanpetals D 

Sida spinosa L. prickly fanpetals D 

Sphaeralcea angustifolia (Cav.) G. Don a copper globemallow D 

Sphaeralcea emoryi Torr. ex Gray Emory's globemallow D 

Meliaceae Melia azedarach L .a (ornamental) Chinaberrytree D 

Menispermaceae Cocculus diversifolius DC. a b c snailseed D 

Molluginaceae Mollugo verticillata L. green carpetweed D 

Moraceae Morus microphylla Buckl. b ** Texas mulberry D 

Nyctaginaceae Allionia incarnata L. a trailing windmills D O D 

Boerhavia coccinea P. Mill. a c scarlet spiderling O O D 

Boerhavia erecta L. erect spiderling D 

Boerhavia purpurascens Gray purple spiderling D 

Boerhavia scandens L. a b c climbing wartclub D O D 

Boerhavia spicata Choisy b ** creeping spiderling D 

Boerhavia watsonii Standl. a ** D 

Mirabilis longiflora L. b c ** sweet four o'clock D 

Oleaceae Fraxinus velutina Torr. a b c ** velvet ash D 

Ligustrum lucidum Ait. f. a (ornamental) ** glossy privet D 

Onagraceae Camissonia californica (Nutt. ex Torr. & Gray) Raven b 

** California suncup D 

Camissonia chamaenerioides (Gray) Raven a ** longcapsule suncup D 

Gaura mollis James a b velvetweed O O D 

Ludwigia repens J.R. Forst. b ** creeping primrose-willow D 

Oenothera primiveris Gray a ** desert evening-primrose D O D 

Oenothera rosea L'Her. ex Ait b ** rose evening-primrose D 

Orobanchaceae Orobanche cooperi (Gray) Heller desert broomrape D 

Oxalidaceae Oxalis sp. L. (species with subterranean bulbs) woodsorrel D 

Oxalis corniculata L. a ** creeping woodsorrel D 

Papaveraceae Argemone pleiacantha Greene b c ** southwestern pricklypoppy D 

Argemone polyanthemos (Fedde) G.B. Ownbey a c crested pricklypoppy D 

Eschscholzia californica ssp. mexicana (Greene) C. 

Clark a California poppy O O D 

Papaver rhoeas L. a ** corn poppy D 

Passifloraceae Passiflora mexicana Juss. a b Mexican passionflower O O D 

Pedaliaceae Proboscidea althaeifolia (Benth.) Dcne. desert unicorn-plant D 

Proboscidea parviflora (Woot.) Woot. & Standl. a b c doubleclaw D 

Phytolaccaceae Rivina humilis L. a b c rougeplant O D D 

Pinaceae Pinus eldarica Medw. b ** Afghan pine D 

Plantaginaceae Plantago major L. b ** common plantain D 

Plantago patagonica Jacq. a ** woolly plantain O D 

Plantago virginica L. Virginia plantain D 

Poaceae Aristida adscensionis L. a c sixweeks threeawn O D D 
88 

 Park unit 

Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM 

Poaceae Aristida purpurea Nutt .c ** purple threeawn O 

Aristida purpurea var. nealleyi (Vasey) Allred a ** blue threeawn O D 

Aristida purpurea var. purpurea Nutt. purple threeawn D 

Aristida schiedeana var. orcuttiana (Vasey) Allred & 

Valdés-Reyna c ** Orcutt's threeawn O 

Aristida ternipes Cav. spidergrass D O 

Aristida ternipes var. gentilis (Henr.) Allred spidergrass D 

Aristida ternipes var. ternipes Cav. a c spidergrass O 

Arundo donax L. c ** giant reed O 

Avena fatua L. a wild oat D 

Bothriochloa barbinodis (Lag.) Herter b ** cane bluestem D D D 

Bouteloua aristidoides (Kunth) Griseb. a c needle grama O D D 

Bouteloua barbata Lag. c sixweeks grama O 

Bouteloua curtipendula (Michx.) Torr. a sideoats grama O D O 

Bouteloua gracilis (Willd. ex Kunth) Lag. ex Griffiths c blue grama O 

Bouteloua radicosa (Fourn.) Griffiths c ** purple grama O 

Bouteloua repens (Kunth) Scribn. & Merr. c ** slender grama D D O 

Bouteloua rothrockii Vasey a b c Rothrock's grama D D D 

Bromus catharticus Vahl a rescuegrass D D 

Cenchrus longispinus (Hack.) Fern. c ** field sandbur O 

Cenchrus spinifex Cav. a b c coastal sandbur O D 

Chloris virgata Sw. a c feather fingergrass O O D 

Cottea pappophoroides Kunth b cotta grass D D 

Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. a b c Bermudagrass O D D 

Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd. a ** Egyptian grass D 

Dasyochloa pulchella (Kunth) Willd. ex Rydb. a ** low woollygrass D O 

Digitaria californica (Benth.) Henr. a Arizona cottontop D 

Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. a b c hairy crabgrass D 

Echinochloa colona (L.) Link c ** jungle rice O 

Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. b ** barnyardgrass D 

Elymus elymoides (Raf.) Swezey a b ** squirreltail O O D 

Eragrostis barrelieri Daveau a ** Mediterranean lovegrass D 

Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Vign. ex Janchen a c stinkgrass O D O 

Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees a c ** weeping lovegrass O D 

Eragrostis intermedia A.S. Hitchc. c ** plains lovegrass O 

Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees a c ** Lehmann lovegrass O D D 

Eriochloa acuminata (J. Presl) Kunth c tapertip cupgrass O 

Eriochloa acuminata var. minor (Vasey) R.B. Shaw tapertip cupgrass D 

Hilaria belangeri (Steud.) Nash a ** curly-mesquite D D 

Hordeum murinum ssp. glaucum (Steud.) Tzvelev a ** smooth barley D 

Hordeum pusillum Nutt. a little wildbarley O O D 

Hordeum vulgare L. a ** common barley D 

Leptochloa dubia (Kunth) Nees a green sprangletop O O D 

Leptochloa panicea ssp. mucronata (Michx.) Nowack a mucronate sprangletop D D 

Muhlenbergia fragilis Swallen c ** delicate muhly O 

Muhlenbergia microsperma (DC.) Trin. a littleseed muhly D 

Panicum hallii Vasey Hall's panicgrass D 

Panicum hirticaule J. Presl Mexican panicgrass D 

Panicum obtusum Kunth a vine mesquite D 

Paspalum dilatatum Poir. b ** dallisgrass D 

Poa bigelovii Vasey & Scribn.a Bigelow's bluegrass D D 

Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. b ** annual rabbitsfoot grass D 

Schismus arabicus Nees a ** Arabian schismus D O 

Schismus barbatus (Loefl. ex L.) Thellung a ** common Mediterranean 

grass D O D 

Setaria grisebachii Fourn. a c Grisebach's bristlegrass O D O 
89 

 Park unit 

Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM 

Poaceae Setaria leucopila (Scribn. & Merr.) K. Schum. b ** streambed bristlegrass D 

Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roemer & J.A. Schultes b ** yellow bristlegrass D 

Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. a ** green bristlegrass D 

Setaria vulpiseta (Lam.) Roemer & J.A. Schultes a plains bristlegrass O D D 

Sorghum bicolor ssp. bicolor (L.) Moench a ** grain sorghum D D 

Sorghum bicolor ssp. drummondii (Nees ex 

Steud.) de Wet & Harlan a ** broom-corn O 

Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. a b c Johnsongrass O D 

Sporobolus airoides (Torr.) Torr. b ** alkali sacaton D 

Sporobolus cryptandrus (Torr.) Gray a b c sand dropseed O D D 

Sporobolus wrightii Munro ex Scribn. big sacaton O D 

Tridens muticus (Torr.) Nash slim tridens D 

Urochloa arizonica (Scribn. & Merr.) O. Morrone & F. 

Zuloaga c Arizona signalgrass D O 

Urochloa fasciculata (Sw.) R. Webster a ** browntop signalgrass D 

Vulpia octoflora (Walt.) Rydb. sixweeks fescue O D O 

Vulpia octoflora var. octoflora (Walt.) Rydb. a ** sixweeks fescue D 

Polemoniaceae Eriastrum diffusum (Gray) Mason a c miniature woollystar O D O 

Gilia mexicana A.& V. Grant a ** El Paso gilia D D D 

Gilia sinuata Dougl. ex Benth. a rosy gilia O 

Ipomopsis longiflora (Torr.) V. Grant flaxflowered ipomopsis D 

Polygalaceae Polygala barbeyana Chod. blue milkwort D 

Polygonaceae Eriogonum abertianum Torr. a Abert's buckwheat D D D 

Eriogonum deflexum Torr. c ** flatcrown buckwheat O 

Eriogonum polycladon Benth. b c ** sorrel buckwheat D 

Polygonum argyrocoleon Steud. ex Kunze b ** silversheath knotweed D 

Polygonum punctatum Ell. b ** dotted smartweed D 

Rumex sp. L. b ** dock D 

Rumex crispus L. b ** curly dock D 

Portulacaceae Calandrinia ciliata (Ruiz & Pavon) DC. a ** fringed redmaids D O O 

Cistanthe parryi var. parryi (Gray) Hershkovitz Parry's pussypaws D 

Portulaca oleracea L. a ** little hogweed D 

Portulaca suffrutescens Engelm. shrubby purslane D 

Talinum aurantiacum Engelm. orange fameflower D O 

Talinum paniculatum (Jacq.) Gaertn. a b jewels of Opar O O D 

Primulaceae Androsace occidentalis Pursh a ** western rockjasmine D O O 

Punicaceae Punica granatum L. a (ornamental) pomegranate D 

Ranunculaceae Clematis drummondii Torr. & Gray c Drummond's clematis O 

Clematis ligusticifolia Nutt. a b western white clematis D 

Delphinium scaposum Greene tall mountain larkspur D 

Myosurus minimus L. tiny mousetail D 

Rhamnaceae Ceanothus greggii Gray c ** desert ceanothus O 

Condalia mexicana Schlecht. a ** Mexican bluewood D 

Ziziphus obtusifolia (Hook. ex Torr. & Gray) Gray a b c lotebush O O D 

Salicaceae Populus fremontii S. Wats. a b c Fremont cottonwood D 

Salix gooddingii Ball b c ** Goodding's willow D 

Salix taxifolia Kunth c ** yewleaf willow O 

Scrophulariaceae Castilleja exserta (Heller) Chuang & Heckard a ** exserted Indian paintbrush D 

Leucophyllum sp. Bonpl. a (ornamental) ** barometerbush D 

Maurandella antirrhiniflora (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) 

Rothm. roving sailor O 

Mimulus guttatus DC. b ** common monkeyflower D D 

Mimulus rubellus Gray little redstem monkeyflower D O 

Nuttallanthus texanus (Scheele) D.A. Sutton a ** Texas toadflax O D 

Penstemon parryi (Gray) Gray Parry's beardtongue D 

Veronica anagallis-aquatica L. b ** water speedwell D 

Veronica peregrina L. a b ** neckweed O D D 
90 

 Park unit 

Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM 

Simaroubaceae Ailanthus altissima (P. Mill.) Swingle b ** tree of heaven D 

Solanaceae Calibrachoa parviflora (Juss.) D'Arcy b ** seaside petunia D 

Chamaesaracha sp. (Gray) Benth. c ** five eyes O 

Datura quercifolia Kunth b ** Chinese thorn-apple D 

Datura wrightii Regel a b c sacred thorn-apple D D 

Lycium andersonii Gray a b water jacket O O D 

Nicotiana glauca Graham b ** tree tobacco D 

Physalis acutifolia (Miers) Sandw. a sharpleaf groundcherry D 

Physalis longifolia Nutt. longleaf groundcherry D 

Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav. a b silverleaf nightshade O D 

Tamaricaceae Tamarix sp. L. c tamarisk O 

Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb. b saltcedar D 

Ulmaceae Celtis laevigata var. reticulata (Torr.) L. Benson a c netleaf hackberry O D O 

Celtis pallida Torr. a b spiny hackberry D 

Urticaceae Parietaria sp. L. c ** pellitory O 

Parietaria pensylvanica Muhl. ex Willd. Pennsylvania pellitory D 

Verbenaceae Glandularia gooddingii (Briq.) Solbrig a ** southwestern mock vervain D D 

Tetraclea coulteri Gray Coulter's wrinklefruit D 

Viscaceae Phoradendron californicum Nutt. a mesquite mistletoe O O D 

Vitaceae Vitis arizonica Engelm. a canyon grape O D 

Zygophyllaceae Kallstroemia grandiflora Torr. ex Gray Arizona poppy D 

Larrea tridentata (Sessé & Moc. ex DC.) Coville a 

(possibly ornamental) creosote bush D 

Tribulus terrestris L. a b puncturevine D D 

a Species recorded during 2000-2001 survey of the original Tumacácori NHP boundary.

b Species recorded during 2002-2003 survey of the Tumacácori expansion area.

c Species recorded on modular plots.
91 

Appendix B. Fish species recorded in the Santa Cruz River and Tumacácori Channel by University of 

Arizona Inventory personnel, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. Species in bold-faced type are non-native. 

Order Family Scientific name Common name ESAa

ESA 

date 

Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Agosia chrysogasterb longfin dace SC 1996 

 Catostomidae Catostomus insignis Sonora sucker SC 1996 

 Catostomus clarkii desert sucker SC 1996 

Cyprinodontiformes Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis western mosquitofish 

 Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis Gila topminnow LE 1967 

Perciformes Centrarchidae Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish 

 Lepomis macrochirus bluegill sunfish 

 Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 

a ESA = Endangered Species Act: LE = “Listed Endangered”, SC = “Species of Concern”; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(HDMS 2004). 

b “Sensitive species”; Bureau of Land Management (HDMS 2004). 
 

92 

Appendix C. Amphibian and reptile species that were observed (O), documented with photo voucher (P), 

or documented with specimen voucher (S) by University of Arizona Inventory personnel, Tumacácori 

NHP, 2001–2002. Species in bold-faced type is non-native. See Appendix L for additional information on voucher 

specimens. Park units: “CAL” = Calabazas; “GUV” = Guevavi; “TUM” = Tumacácori. 

 Park unit 

Order Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM 

Anura Pelobatidae Scaphiopus couchii Couch's spadefoot P P P,S 

Spea multiplicata Mexican spadefoot P P,S P 

Bufonidae Bufo alvarius Colorado River toad P 

Bufo woodhousii Woodhouse's toad P,S 

Bufo cognatus Great Plains toad O 

Ranidae Rana catesbeiana American bullfrog P 

Microhylidae Gastrophryne olivacea Great Plains narrow-mouthed toada O 

Testudines Kinosternidae Kinosternon sonoriense Sonora mud turtle P 

Emydidae Terrapene ornata ornate box turtle O P 

Squamata Phyrnosomatide Holbrookia maculata common lesser earless lizard O O P 

Sceloporus clarkii Clark's spiny lizard O O P,S 

Sceloporus undulatus eastern fence lizard P 

Urosaurus ornatus ornate tree lizard P P 

Phrynosoma solare regal horned lizard P P 

Teiidae Cnemidophorus uniparens desert grassland whiptail O P,S 

Cnemidophorus sonorae Sonoran spotted whiptail O O P,S 

Colubridae Masticophis flagellum coachwhip P 

Salvadora hexalepis western patch-nosed snake P S 

Pituophis catenifer gopher snake O O 

Rhinocheilus lecontei long-nosed snake O P,S 

Tantilla hobartsmithi southwestern black-headed snake P 

Hypsiglena torquata night snake P P 

Elapidae Micruroides euryxanthus Sonoran coral snake P 

Viperidae Crotalus atrox western diamond-backed rattlesnake O P P 

a “Wildlife of Special Concern”; Arizona Game and Fish Department (HDMS 2004).
 

93 

Appendix D. Bird species recorded at Tumacácori NHP by University of Arizona Inventory personnel, 

2001–2003, and by personnel working for the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship Program 

(MAPS), 1997–2003. Numbers of individuals recorded by Inventory personnel are noted in the “Park unit” columns; 

numbers are not scaled by search effort and should not to be used for comparison among species. Species in bold-faced 

type are non-native. Underlining indicates that we obtained a photo voucher. List includes individuals that were observed 

flying over the park. Park units: “CAL” = Calabazas; “GUV” = Guevavi; “TUM” = Tumacácori. 

 Park unita 

Order Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM MAPSb ESAc

ESA 

dated

Anseriformes 

 Anatidae Dendrocygna autumnalis*g black-bellied whistling duck 4 1 1 X 

 Anas platyrhynchos* mallard 1 X 

Galliformes 

 Odontophoridae Callipepla gambelii Gambel's quail 4 10 28 X 

 Cyrtonyx montezumae Montezuma quail X 

Pelicaniformes 

 Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax auritus* double-crested cormorant 1 

Ciconiiformes 

 Ardeidae Ardea herodias* great blue heron 1 9 X 

 Ardea alba* g great egret 2 1 2 

 Egretta thula* g snowy egret 1 

 Nycticorax nycticorax* black-crowned night-heron 1 

 Threskiornithidae Plegadis chihi* f white-faced Ibis 2 X SC 1996 

 Cathartidae Coragyps atratus* black vulture 2 6 X 

 Cathartes aura* turkey vulture 1 25 X 

Falconiformes 

 Accipitridae Accipiter striatus* f sharp-shinned hawk 2 

 Accipiter cooperii* Cooper's hawk 17 X 

 Asturina nitida maxima e,f, g gray hawk 2 7 31 B SC 1996 

 Buteo swainsoni* Swainson's hawk 1 

 Buteo jamaicensis* red-tailed hawk 4 4 X 

 Falconidae Falco sparverius* American kestrel 2 1 

 Falco peregrinus* f, g, i peregrine falcon 1 1 SC 1998 

Charadriiformes 

 Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus* killdeer 4 1 1 X 

 Scolopacidae Actitis macularia* spotted sandpiper 1 

 Gallinago gallinago* common snipe 1 

Columbiformes 

 Columbidae Columba livia rock pigeon 1 X 

 Patagioenas fasciata* band-tailed pigeon 1 X 

 Zenaida asiatica* white-winged dove 7 8 109 B 

 Zenaida macroura* mourning dove 36 18 140 B 

 Columbina inca Inca dove 2 6 X 

 Columbina passerina common ground-dove 6 11 22 B 

Cucluliformes 

Cuculidae Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis* f, g, h, i yellow-billed cuckoo 2 5 20 B C 2002 

 Geococcyx californianus greater roadrunner 4 2 8 X 

Strigiformes 

 Tytonidae Tyto alba barn owl 2 2 

 Strigidae Megascops kennicottii western screech-owl 2 7 B 

 Bubo virginianus great horned owl X 

 Micrathene whitneyi* i elf owl 1 X 

Caprimulgiformes 

 Caprimulgidae Chordeiles acutipennis* lesser nighthawk 2 X 

 Caprimulgidae Phalaenoptilus nuttallii* common poorwill 3 
 

94 

 Park unita 

Order Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM MAPSb ESAc

ESA 

dated

Apodiformes 

 Apodidae Chaetura vauxi* Vaux's swift 1 X 

 Aeronautes saxatalis* white-throated swift X 

 Trochilidae Cynanthus latirostris* broad-billed hummingbird 4 1 58 B 

 Archilochus alexandri* 

black-chinned 

hummingbird 6 1 17 B 

 Calypte anna* Anna's hummingbird 1 X 

 Calypte costae* h Costa's hummingbird 2 

 Selasphorus platycercus* broad-tailed hummingbird 2 1 X 

Trogoniformes 

 Trogonidae Trogon elegans* g elegant trogon X 

Coraciformes 

 Alcedinidae Chloroceryle americana green kingfisher 1 

Piciformes 

 Picidae Melanerpes lewis Lewis's woodpecker 2 

 Melanerpes uropygialis i Gila woodpecker 15 20 167 B 

 Picoides scalaris ladder-backed woodpecker 8 10 33 B 

 Picoides villosus hairy woodpecker 1 

 Colaptes auratus northern flicker 4 19 X 

 Colaptes chrysoides h, i gilded flicker 1 

Passeriformes 

 Tyrannidae Camptostoma imberbe* 

northern beardlesstyrannulet 5 3 11 B 

 Contopus cooperi* olive-sided flycatcher X SC 1996 

 Contopus sordidulus* western wood-pewee 6 X 

 Empidonax flaviventris* yellow-bellied flycatcher X 

 Tyrannidae Empidonax traillii* g willow flycatcher 3 X 

 Empidonax traillii traillii* f, g, h

southwestern willow 

flycatcher 1 LE 1995 

 Empidonax hammondii* Hammond's flycatcher 1 X 

 Empidonax wrightii* gray flycatcher 3 1 

 Empidonax oberholseri* dusky flycatcher X 

 Empidonax difficilis* pacific-slope flycatcher 1 1 X 

 Empidonax occidentalis* cordilleran flycatcher 1 X 

 Sayornis nigricans black phoebe 1 1 6 X 

 Sayornis phoebe* eastern phoebe 1 

 Sayornis saya* Say's phoebe 2 25 

 Pyrocephalus rubinus* vermilion flycatcher 2 4 53 X 

 Myiarchus tuberculifer* dusky-capped flycatcher 4 25 B 

 Myiarchus cinerascens* ash-throated flycatcher 10 7 31 B 

 Myiarchus tyrannulus* brown-crested flycatcher 3 7 48 BX 

 Myiodynastes luteiventris* sulphur-bellied flycatcher 1 X 

 Tyrannus melancholicus g tropical kingbird X 

 Tyrannus vociferans* Cassin's kingbird 6 15 36 X 

 Tyrannus verticalis* western kingbird 3 22 X 

 Pachyramphus aglaiae g rose-throated becard 1 X 

 Vireonidae Vireo bellii* f, i Bell's vireo 14 9 71 B 

 Vireo plumbeus* plumbeous vireo 2 1 1 X 

 Vireo cassinii* Cassin's vireo 1 X 

 Vireo gilvus* warbling vireo 7 X 

 Corvidae Aphelocoma californica western scrub-jay 2 

 Corvus sp. unknown raven 24 5 61 

 Corvus cryptoleucus Chihuahuan raven X 
 

95 

 Park unita 

Order Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM MAPSb ESAc

ESA 

dated

Passeriformes

 Corvidae Corvus corax common raven X 

 Hirundinidae Tachycineta thalassina* violet-green swallow 2 

 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis* northern rough-winged 

swallow 2 5 14 X 

 Riparia riparia* bank swallow 1 

 Petrochelidon pyrrhonota* cliff swallow 3 15 

 Hirundo rustica* barn swallow 4 2 16 X 

 Paridae Baeolophus wollweberi bridled titmouse 58 B 

 Remizidae Auriparus flaviceps verdin 14 6 70 B 

 Aegithalidae Psaltriparus minimus bushtit X 

 Sittidae Sitta carolinensis white-breasted nuthatch 3 X 

 Troglodytidae 

Campylorhynchus 

brunneicapillus cactus wren 1 X 

 Salpinctes obsoletus rock wren 1 1 

 Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren 20 18 137 B 

 Troglodytes aedon* house wren 1 5 X 

 Regulidae Regulus calendula* ruby-crowned kinglet 1 1 17 X 

 Sylviidae Polioptila caerulea* blue-gray gnatcatcher 3 1 2 

 Polioptila melanura black-tailed gnatcatcher 3 1 X 

 Turdidae Sialia currucoides* mountain bluebird 2 

 Myadestes townsendi* Townsend's solitaire 6 

 Catharus ustulatus* Swainson's thrush 1 X 

 Catharus guttatus* hermit thrush 1 X 

 Turdus migratorius* American robin 3 

 Mimidae Dumetella carolinensis* g gray catbird X 

 Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird 2 3 9 X 

 Toxostoma rufum brown thrasher X 

 Toxostoma curvirostre curve-billed thrasher 2 3 25 X 

 Toxostoma crissale i crissal thrasher 1 X 

 Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris European starling 1 20 X 

 Motacillidae Anthus rubescens* American pipit 1 

 Bombycillidae Bombycilla cedrorum* cedar waxwing 1 3 X 

 Ptilogonatidae Phainopepla nitens phainopepla 29 25 115 B 

 Parulidae Vermivora celata* orange-crowned warbler 4 X 

 Vermivora ruficapilla* Nashville warbler 1 X 

 Vermivora virginiae* Virginia's warbler X 

 Vermivora luciae* h Lucy's warbler 28 18 107 B 

 Parula americana* northern parula 1 

 Dendroica petechia* yellow warbler 2 46 B 

 Dendroica coronata* yellow-rumped warbler 1 9 

 Dendroica coronata auduboni* Audubon's warbler 10 X 

 Dendroica nigrescens* black-throated gray warbler 4 X 

 Dendroica townsendi* Townsend’s warbler X 

 Helmitheros vermivorus* worm-eating warbler X

 Parulidae Seiurus aurocapilla* ovenbird X

 Seiurus noveboracensis* northern waterthrush 1 X 

 Seiurus motacilla* Louisiana waterthrush X 

 Oporornis tolmiei* Macgillivray's warbler 2 1 X 

 Geothlypis trichas* common yellowthroat 1 30 B 

 Wilsonia pusilla* Wilson's warbler 3 11 X 

 Parulidae Icteria virens* yellow-breasted chat 13 6 144 B 

 Thraupidae Piranga rubra* summer tanager 4 6 70 B 
 

96 

 Park unita 

Order Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM MAPSb ESAc

ESA 

dated

Passeriformes

 Thraupidae Piranga ludoviciana* western tanager 5 2 13 X 

 Emberizidae Pipilo chlorurus* green-tailed towhee 4 10 X 

 Pipilo fuscus canyon towhee 3 13 X 

 Pipilo aberti Abert's towhee 3 3 30 B 

 Aimophila carpalis* h, i rufous-winged sparrow 8 10 24 B 

 Aimophila cassinii Cassin's sparrow 3 

 Aimophila ruficeps* rufous-crowned sparrow 6 

 Spizella passerina* chipping sparrow 4 37 

 Spizella breweri* Brewer's sparrow 6 2 16 X 

 Chondestes grammacus* lark sparrow 6 1 30 X 

 Amphispiza bilineata black-throated sparrow 24 1 

 Melospiza melodia song sparrow 3 2 75 B 

 Melospiza lincolnii* Lincoln's sparrow 2 X 

 Zonotrichia albicollis white-throated sparrow 1 

 Zonotrichia leucophrys* white-crowned sparrow 2 41 X 

 Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco 2 

 Cardinalidae Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal 20 7 81 B 

 Cardinalis sinuatus pyrrhuloxia 4 4 X 

 Pheucticus melanocephalus* black-headed grosbeak 1 2 6 B 

 Passerina caerulea* blue grosbeak 17 17 B 

 Passerina amoena* lazuli bunting 7 5 6 X 

 Passerina cyanea* indigo bunting 3 X 

 Passerina versicolor* varied bunting 3 1 6 B 

 Passerina ciris* painted bunting 2 X

 Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus* red-winged blackbird 2 1 X 

 

Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus* yellow-headed blackbird X 

 Euphagus cyanocephalus* Brewer's blackbird 1 4 

 Quiscalus mexicanus great-tailed grackle 1 2 40 X 

 Molothrus aeneus* bronzed cowbird 4 X 

 Molothrus ater* brown-headed cowbird 15 8 114 B 

 Icterus cucullatus* hooded oriole 3 9 B 

 Icterus bullockii* Bullock's oriole 5 2 11 X 

 Icterus parisorum* Scott's oriole X 

 Fringillidae Carpodacus mexicanus house finch 11 14 65 B 

 Carduelis psaltria* lesser goldfinch 9 9 122 B 

 Passeridae Passer domesticus house sparrow 110 0 

Species richness 80 74 129 126 

* Neotropical migrant (Rappole 1995). 

a Number of birds recorded by all survey methods. 

b MAPS = Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship mist-netting program: X = detected 1997–2003, B = evidence of breeding in 2003 

(Turner 2003). 

c

 ESA = Endangered Species Act: LE = “Listed Endangered”, C = “Candidate”, SC = “Species of Concern”; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(HDMS 2004). 

d ESA date = year of listing in Endangered Species Act. e “Sensitive species”; Bureau of Land Management (HDMS 2004). 

f

 “Sensitive species”; U.S.D.A. Forest Service (HDMS 2004). 

g “Wildlife of Special Concern”; Arizona Game and Fish Department (HDMS 2004). 

h “Priority species”; Arizona Partners in Flight (Latta et al. 1999). 

i “Species of conservation concern”; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (HDMS 2004). 
 

97 

Appendix E. Mammal species observed or documented by University of Arizona Inventory personnel or 

were found in museum collections (Appendix O), Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. Species in bold-faced type are 

non-native. Park units: “CAL” = Calabazas; “GUV” = Guevavi; “TUM” = Tumacácori.

Park unit 

Order Family Scientific name Common name CAL GUV TUM 

Appendix 

O 

Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Mactrotis californicus California leaf-nosed bat X 

Vespertilionidae Antrozous pallidus pallid bat X X 

Myotis velifer cave myotis X 

Myotis californicus California myotis X 

Molossidae Tadarida brasiensis Brazilian free-tailed bat X 

Didelphimorphia Didelphidae Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum X 

Insectivora Sorcidae Notiosorex sp. unknown desert shrew X X 

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus americanus American black bear X 

Procyonidae Procyon lotor northern raccoon X 

Mephitidae Spilogale gracilis western spotted skunk X 

Mephitis mephitis striped skunk X 

Mephitis macroura hooded skunk X 

Conepatus leuconotus white-backed hog-nosed skunk X 

Canidae Canis familiaris domestic dog X 

Canis latrans coyote X 

Felidae Felis catus domestic cat X 

Lynx rufus bobcat X 

Rodentia Geomyidae Thomomys bottae Botta's pocket gopher X 

Heteromyidae Chaetodipus penicillatus Sonoran desert pocket mouse X X X 

Chaetodipus baileyi Bailey's pocket mouse X X 

Muridae Reithrodontomys megalotis a western harvest mouse X 

Reithrodontomys fulvescens fulvous harvest mouse X X X 

Peromyscus eremicus eremicus a, b cactus mouse X X X 

Peromyscus maniculatus deer mouse X X 

Peromyscus leucopus white-footed mouse X X 

Peromyscus boylii brush mouse X 

Baiomys taylori northern pygmy mouse X 

Onychomys leucogaster northern grasshopper mouse X 

Onychomys torridus southern grasshopper mouse X X X 

Neotoma albigula western white-throated woodrat X X X 

Sigmodon fulviventer tawny-belled cotton rat X 

Sigmodon ochrognathus a yellow-nosed cotton rat X 

Sigmodon arizonae arizonae Arizona cotton rat X X 

Mus musculus house mouse X X 

Lagomorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus species unknown cottontail X X 

Artiodactyla Bovidae Bos taurus domestic cow X 

Tayassuidae Pecari tajacu collard peccary X 

Cervidae Odocoileus species unknown deer X 

Odocoileus hemionus mule deer X 

Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer X X 

a “Species of Concern”; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ESA date for all species: 28 February 1996 (HDMS 2004). b “Sensitive species”; U.S.D.A. Forest Service (HDMS 2004). 
 

98 

Appendix F. Plant species recorded at the Tumacácori unit by previous researchers but not recorded by 

University of Arizona Inventory personnel, Tumacácori NHP. Species in bold-faced type are non-native.

Family Scientific name Common name Moatta Bennettb UAc

Amaranthaceae Alternanthera pungens Kunth creeping chaffweed X 

Amaranthus arenicola I.M. Johnston sandhill amaranth X 

Amaranthus fimbriatus var. denticulatus (Torr.) Uline & 

Bray fringed amaranth X 

Anacardiaceae Rhus trilobata var. anisophylla (Greene) Jepson skunkbush sumac X 

Asteraceae Ambrosia cordifolia (Gray) Payne heartleaf bursage X 

Ambrosia psilostachya DC. Cuman ragweed X X 

Bidens frondosa L. bur marigold X 

Bidens pilosa L. beggar’s tick X 

Dyssodia papposa (Vent.) A.S. Hitchc. dogbane dyssodia X 

Machaeranthera tanacetifolia (Kunth) Nees tanseyleaf aster X 

Sonchus oleraceus L. common sowthistle X 

Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook f. ex Gray golden crownbeard X X X 

Capparaceae Cleome lutea var. jonesii J.F. Macbr. Jones spiderflower X X 

Polanisia dodecandra spp. trachysperma (Torr. & 

Gray) Iltis clammyweed X X 

Caprifoliaceae Lonicera interrupta Benth. chaparral honeysuckle X 

Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium dessicatum A. Nels. arid goosefoot X 

Chenopodium fremontii var. fremontii S. Wats. Fremont goosefoot X 

Chenopodium incanum (S. Wats.) Heller mealy goosefoot X 

Chenopodium leptophyllum (Moq.) Nutt. ex S. Wats. narrowleaf goosefoot X 

Commelinaceae Commelina erecta L. erect dayflower X 

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth common morningglory X X 

Ipomoea ternifolia var. leptotoma (Torr.) J.A. McDonald pink morningglory X 

Cuscutaceae Cuscuta indecora var. indecora Choisy bigseed alfalfa dodder X 

Cyperaceae Cyperus esculentus L. chufa X 

Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce abramsiana (L.C. Wheeler) Koutnik Abram’s spurge X 

Chamaesyce prostrata (Ait.) Small prostrate sandmat X X 

Chamaesyce serpyllifolia ssp. serpyllifolia (Pers.) Small thyme-leaf sandmat X 

Fabaceae Parkinsonia microphylla Torr. littleleaf palo verde X 

Sphinctospermum constrictum (S. Wats.) Rose hourglass peaseed X 

Myrtaceae Myrtus communis L. myrtle X 

Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia coulteri (Hook. f.) S. Wats. Coulter spiderling X X X 

Oleaceae Ligustrum japonicum Thunb. Japanese privet X 

Poaceae Bouteloua chondrosioides (Kunth) Benth. Ex S. Wats. sprucetop grama X 

Bromus tectorum L. cheat grass X 

Eragrostis pectinacae var. pectinacea (Michx.) Nees 

ex Steud. purple love grass X 

Muhlenbergia filiformis (Thurb. ex S. Wats.) Rydb. pullup muhly X 

Muhlenbergia porteri Scribn. ex Beal bush muhly X X X 

Sporobolus contractus A.S. Hitchc. spike dropseed X 

Sporobolus wrightii Munro ex Scribn. big sacaton X 

Portulacaceae Portulaca umbraticola ssp. coronata (Small) Matthews 

& Ketron wingpod purslane X 

Rosaceae Pyracantha fortuneana (Maxim.) Li Chinese firethorn X 

Rubus arizonensis Focke Arizona blackberry X 

Solanaceae Lycium berlandieri Dunal berlandier wolfberry X 

Solanum douglasii Dunal green-spot nightshade X 

Solanum lycopersicum var. lycopersicum L. garden tomato X 

Zygophyllaceae Kallstroemia grandiflora Torr. ex Gray Arizona poppy X X 

a Mouat et al. (1977). 

b Bennett (year unknown). 

c Voucher specimen(s) at the University of Arizona herbarium. 
99 

Appendix G. Amphibian and reptile species that were not recorded by University of Arizona Inventory 

personnel but that may occur at Tumacácori NHP based on documentation in the area by other 

researchers, or based on published range maps. Species in boldface-type are non-native.

Order Family Scientific name Common name 

Habitat/ 

rangea Rosenb Arnoldc Otherd

Rosen 

et al.e

Caudata 

Ambystomatidae Ambystoma tigrinum tiger salamander X 

Anura 

Bufonidae Bufo punctatus red-spotted toad X X 

Bufo retiformis Sonoran green toad X 

Ranidae Rana yavapaiensis lowland leopard frog X X 

 Rana chiricahuensis Chiricahua leopard frog X Xf

 Rana tarahumarae Tarahumara frog X 

 Hyla arenicolor canyon treefrog X 

Pipidae Xenopus laevis African clawed frog X 

Testudines

Kinosternidae Kinosternon flavescens yellow mud turtle X 

Testudinidae Gopherus agassizii desert tortoise X 

Squamata

Eublepharidae Coleonyx variegatus bogerti Tucson banded gecko X X X 

Gekkonidae Hemidactylus turcicus Mediterranean house gecko X 

Crotaphytidae Gambelia wislizenii long-nosed leopard lizard X 

Phrynosomatidae Callisaurus draconoides zebra-tailed lizard X X X 

Sceloporus magister desert spiny lizard X X X 

Uta stansburiana side-blotched lizard X 

Urosaurus ornatus ornate tree lizard X 

Anguidae Elgaria kingii Madrean alligator lizard X 

Scincidae Eumeces obsoletus Great Plains skink X 

Eumeces callicephalus mountain skink X 

Teiidae 

Cnemidophorus burti 

stictogrammus giant spotted whiptail X X 

Cnemidophorus tigris western whiptail X X 

Helodermatidae Heloderma suspectum Gila monster X 

Leptotyphlopidae Leptotyphlops humilis western blind snake X 

Colubridae Diadophis punctatus ring-necked snake X X X 

Phyllorhynchus decurtatus spotted leaf-nosed snake X 

Phyllorhynchus browni saddled leaf-nosed snake X 

Masticophis bilineatus Sonoran whipsnake X 

Senticolis triaspis green rat snake X 

Arizona elegans glossy snake X X 

Lampropeltis getula common kingsnake X X X X 

Thamnophis cyrtopsis black-necked garter snake X X 

Thamnophis eques Mexican garter snake X 

Oxybelis aeneus brown vine snake X 

Thamnophis marcianus checkered garter snake X X X 

Sonora semiannulata western ground snake X 

Tantilla hobartsmithi southwestern black-headed 

snake X 

Tantilla nigriceps plains black-headed snake X 

Tantilla yaquia Yaqui black-headed snake X 

Chilomeniscus cinctus banded sand snake X 

Gyalopion canum Chihuahuan hook-nosed 

snake X 

Gyalopion quadrangulare thornscrub hook-nosed snake X 

Trimorphodon biscutatus lyre snake X 

Viperidae Crotalus molossus black-tailed rattlesnake X 
100 

Order Family Scientific name Common name 

Habitat/ 

rangea Rosenb Arnoldc Otherd

Rosen 

et al.e

SquamataViperidae Crotalus tigris tiger rattlesnake X 

Crotalus scutulatus Mohave rattlesnake X X 

Iguanidae Ctenosaura hemilopha Baja California spiny-tailed 

iguana X 

a Within geographic range, and with habitat associations present as described in Stebbins (2003), listed if not listed by another 

source.

b Recorded by Rosen and Mauz (2000) or by Rosen (pers. comm.). c

 Recorded by Arnold (1940) ~60 km north of Tumacácori NHP.

d Sightings by park personnel or reliable volunteers at Tumacácori NHP, or recorded by Drost (1998).

e Found in the Rosen et al. (2004) survey of museum records from the Nogales area of the Santa Cruz River.

f Possibly Rana chiricahuensis; recorded as Rana pipiens complex. 
 

101 

Appendix H. Bird species that were not recorded by University of Arizona Inventory personnel but that 

may occur at Tumacácori NHP. Data are from Davis and Russell (1999). Observations at the park by other 

researchers/observers are indicated in the “Notes” column. Species on this list are those that are most likely; we do not 

include species that are considered “accidental” (species with few observations in southern Arizona). 

 Habitat/Range 

Scientific name Common name Winter Summer Notes 

Butorides virescens green heron X X Breeds along permanent streams (e.g., Sonoita 

Creek) 

Aix sponsa wood duck X Riparian areas - water 

Anas crecca green-winged teal X Riparian areas- water 

Circus cyaneus northern harrier X Common in agricultural areas 

Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk X Agricultural areas 

Buteo lagopus rough-legged hawk X Agricultural areas 

Buteo albonatatus zone-tailed hawk X X All areas; voucher specimen from the park; see 

Appendix O 

Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle X X Open areas 

Falco columbarius merlin X All communities 

Falco mexicanus prairie falcon X X Open grasslands 

Callipepla squamata scaled quail X X Semidesert grasslands 

Charadrius vociferus killdeer X X Agricultural fields; seen by Larry Norris April 2003 

Charadrius montanus mountain plover X Agricultural fields 

Columbina talpacoti ruddy ground-dove X X Open areas/ mesquite bosque; seen by Larry Norris 

August 2002 

Asio otus long-eared owl X X Summer resident in dense bosque and adjacent 

agricultural fields 

Aegolius acadicus northern saw-whet owl X Riparian areas 

Amazilia violiceps violet-crowned 

hummingbird X Riparian woodlands 

Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird X X All areas; Seen by Susan Wethington in March, July, 

August, September and October 2003 

Ceryle alcyon belted kingfisher X Riparian areas-water 

Sphyrapicus nuchalis red-naped sapsucker X Riparian areas 

Contopus pertinax greater pewee X Riparian area/ mesquite bosque 

Pachyramphus aglaiae rose-throated becard X X Riparian areas; seen by Larry Norris (July 2002) and 

Barry Zimmer (February 2004) 

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike X X Semidesert grasslands; specimen voucher from the 

park; see Appendix O 

Vireo huttoni Hutton's vireo X Riparian areas; seen by Larry Norris June 2001 

Vireo gilvus warbling vireo X Riparian areas; seen by Larry Norris April 2002 

Eremophila alpestris horned lark X X Agricultural fields 

Tachycineta bicolor tree swallow X All areas 

Certhia Americana brown creeper X Riparian areas 

Catherpes mexicanus canyon wren X Semidesert grasslands 

Cistothorus palustris marsh wren X Riparian areas- adjacent to water 

Sialia mexicana western bluebird X Semidesert grasslands 

Ixoreus naevius varied thrush X 

Pipilo maculates spotted towhee X Dense vegetation 

Aimophila botterii Botteri's sparrow X Semidesert grasslands 

Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow X Agricultural fields/ mesquite bosque edge; seen by 

Larry Norris April 2002 

Calamospiza melanocorys lark bunting X Fallow fields 

Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow X Fields 

Passerella iliaca fox sparrow X Riparian woodlands 

Melospiza georgiana swamp sparrow X Riparian woodlands 

Zonotrichia atricapilla golden-crowned sparrow X Semidesert grasslands 

Calcarius ornatus chestnut-collared 

longspur X Open areas 

Sturnella magna eastern meadowlark X X Semidesert grasslands 

Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark X Semidesert grasslands 
 

102 

 Habitat/Range 

Scientific name Common name Winter Summer Notes 

Carpodacus cassinii Cassin's finch X All areas-feeders 

Carduelis pinus pine siskin X All areas-feeders 

Carduelis lawrencei Lawrence's goldfinch X All areas-feeders 

Carduelis tristis American goldfinch X All areas-feeders 
103 

Appendix I. Mammal species that were not recorded by University of Arizona Inventory personnel or 

were found in museum collections (Appendix O), but that may occur at Tumacácori NHP.

 Habitat/Range 

 Family Scientific name Common name 

Burt and 

Grossenheider

(1976) 

Hoffmeister

(1986) 

Insectivora Sorcidae Notiosorex crawfordi Crawford's desert shrew X X 

 Notiosorex cockrumi Cockrum's desert shrew X 

Chiroptera Phyllostomidae Choeronycteris mexicana Mexican long-tongue bat X X 

 Leptonycteris curasoae southern long-nosed bat X X 

 Vespertilionidae Myotis occultus Arizona myotis X 

 Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis X 

 Myotis auriculus southern myotis X 

 Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis X X 

 Myotis volans long-legged myotis X X 

 Myotis cilioabrum western small-footed myotis X X 

 Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat X 

 Pipistrellus hesperus western pipistrelle X X 

 Eptesicus fuscus big brown bat X X 

 Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat X X 

 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat X X 

 Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat X X 

 Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big eared bat X X 

 Molossidae Nyctinomops femorosaccus pocketed free-tailed bat X X 

 Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat X 

 Eumops perotis western bonneted bat X X 

Carnivora Procyonidae Nasua narica white-nosed coati X X 

 Bassariscus astutus ringtail X X 

 Mustelidae Taxidea taxus American badger X 

 Canidae Urocyon cinereoargenteus common gray fox X X 

 Vulpes macrotis kit fox X X 

 Felidae Panthera onca jaguar X X 

 Puma concolor mountain lion X X 

Rodentia Sciuridae Spermophilus variegatus rock squirrel X X 

 Spermophilus spilosoma spotted ground squirrel X X 

 Spermophilus tereticaudus round-tailed ground squirrel X X 

 Ammospermophilus harrisii Harris' antelope squirrel X X 

 Geomyidae Thomomys bottae Botta's pocket gopher X X 

 Heteromyidae Perognathus flavus silky pocket mouse X X 

 Perognathus amplus Arizona pocket mouse X X 

 Chaetodipus intermedius rock pocket mouse X X 

 Chaetodipus hispidus hispid pocket mouse X X 

 Dipodomys spectabilis banner-tailed kangaroo rat X X 

 Dipodomys ordii Ord's kangaroo rat X X 

 Dipodomys merriami Merriam's kangaroo rat X X 

 Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver X 

 Muridae Reithrodontomys megalotis western harvest mouse X X 

 Peromyscus merriami Merriam's mouse X X 

 Sigmodon hispidus hispid cotton rat X X 

 Sigmodon ochrognathus yellow-nosed cotton rat X X 

Lagomorpha Leporidae Lepus alleni antelope jackrabbit X X 

 Lepus californicus black-tailed jackrabbit X X 

 Sylvilagus floridanus eastern cottontail X X 

 Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail X X 
104 

Appendix J. UTM coordinates (NAD 83) of vegetation (modular) survey plots at the Tumacácori Unit, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2002. Accuracy is ± 1 m.

Plot 

name Corner Easting Northing 

1 NE 495298 3493558 

 NW 495276 3493563 

 SE 495292 3493539 

 SW 495272 3493543 

4 NE 495199 3493369 

 NW 495180 3493372 

 SE 495195 3493349 

 SW 495176 3493353 

6 NE 495317 3493717 

 NW 495299 3493718 

 SE 495315 3493696 

 SW 495296 3493699 

8 NE 495700 3492806 

 NW 495678 3492812 

 SE 495690 3492785 

 SW 495675 3492788 

9 NE 495577 3493069 

 NW 495556 3493078 

 SE 495573 3493052 

 SW 495552 3493057 

13 NE 495208 3493049 

 NW 495189 3493051 

 SE 495206 3493029 

 SW 495184 3493033 

16 NE 495350 3493445 

 NW 495333 3493444 

 SE 495349 3493421 

 SW 495326 3493428 

18 NE 495322 3494018 

 NW 495302 3494021 

 SE 495317 3493997 

 SW 495298 3494001 

21A NW 495369 3493592 

24A NE 495608 3491984 

 NW 495586 3491989 

 SE 495606 3491964 

 SW 495588 3491971 

29 NE 495643 3492937 

 NW 495623 3492940 

Plot 

name Corner Easting Northing 

29 SE 495637 3492916 

 SW 495618 3492921 

30A NE 495734 3493032 

 NW 495717 3493034 

 SE 495729 3493012 

 SW 495712 3493018 

31A NE 495263 3494365 

 NW 495247 3494369 

 SE 495259 3494345 

 SW 495237 3494351 

32A NE 495637 3492544 

 NW 495617 3492548 

 SE 495632 3492525 

 SW 495614 3492528 

35 NE 495573 3493566 

 NW 495554 3493567 

 SE 495570 3493546 

 SW 495550 3493545 

37 NE 495623 3493721 

 NW 495601 3493725 

 SE 495620 3493703 

 SW 495600 3493706 

40 NE 495506 3494109 

 NW 495486 3494115 

 SE 495501 3494091 

 SW 495481 3494096 

AG1 NE 495450 3492673 

 NW 495431 3492677 

 SE 495447 3492653 

 SW 495427 3492657 

Bosque1 NE 495492 3492995 

 NW 495474 3492996 

 SE 495491 3492984 

 SW 495473 3492985 

Riparian1 NE 495712 3492781 

 NW 495693 3492783 

 SE 495705 3492761 

 SW 495685 3492765 
 

105 

Appendix K. UTM coordinates (NAD 83) for intensive plots for amphibian and reptile surveys, 

Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. Unless otherwise indicated, accuracy is ± 1 m.

Park unit Plot name Corner Easting Northing 

Calabazas C01a NW 503714 3479918 

 NE 503814 3479917 

 SE 503814 3479817 

 SW 503715 3479817 

 C02 a NW 503838 3479740 

 NE 503938 3479739 

 SE 503938 3479640 

 SW 503838 3479640 

Guevavi G01 a NW 509238 3475113 

 NE 509338 3475113 

 SE 509338 3475013 

 SW 509238 3475013 

Tumacácori M01 NW 495638 3493431 

 NE 495741 3493428 

 SE 495737 3493326 

 SW 495641 3493326 

 M02 SW 495443 3492264 

 M03 SW 495562 3492658 

 M04 SW 495718 3492303 

 M05 SW 495441 3493012 

 SE 495536 3493006 

 NE 495543 3493107 

 NW 495433 3493112 

 M06 NW 495663 3493080 

 NE 495759 3493079 

 SE 495760 3492976 

 SW 495661 3492981 

 M07 SW 495220 3492117 

 M08 SE 495330 3492933 

 SW 495230 3492929 

 NW 495230 3493029 

 NE 495328 3493026 

 M09 NW 495215 3493441 

 NE 495315 3493440 

 SE 495307 3493347 

 SW 495213 3493339 

 M10 NW 495391 3492952 

 NE 495484 3492955 

 SE 495485 3492851 

 SW 495387 3492853 

 M11 SW 495701 3492053 

 M12 NW 495205 3492795 

 NE 495309 3492803 

 SE 495314 3492712 

 SW 495212 3492704 

a Coordinates are the original used for navigating to the plot when it 

was established and therefore accuracy is ± 30m. 
106 

Appendix L. UTM coordinates (NAD 83) for bird survey stations and transect sections, Tumacácori NHP, 

2001–2003. Accuracy is ± 15 m.

Survey type Unit Station Community typea Easting Northing 

VCP Calabazas 1 SD grassland 503969 3479802 

 2 SD grassland 503775 3479906 

 3 SD grassland 503853 3479539 

 Guevavi 1 SD grassland 509363 3474931 

 2 SD grassland 509258 3475135 

 Tumacácori 1 Developed 495222 3492552 

 2 Mesquite bosque 495271 3492780 

3 Mesquite bosque 495540 3492734 

8 Mesquite bosque 495481 3492971 

6 Riparian 495704 3492834 

4 Riparian 495734 3492585 

5 Riparian 495763 3492336 

7 Riparian 495709 3493091 

Line transectb Calabazas A–B SD grassland 504033 3479757 

 B–C SD grassland 503869 3479578 

 C–A SD grassland 503787 3479815 

 Guevavi A–B SD grassland 509412 3474931 

 B–A SD grassland 509232 3475107 

 Tumacácori A–B Developed 495193 3492545 

 B–C Mesquite bosque 495228 3492790 

 C–D Mesquite bosque 495468 3492722 

 D–E Riparian 495479 3492975 

 E–F Riparian 495687 3492835 

F–G Riparian 495735 3492594 

G–F Riparian 495763 3492346 

Nocturnal breeding season Calabazas 1 SD grassland 503817 3479774 

 Guevavi 1 SD grassland 509363 3474931 

 Tumacácori 1 Developed 495248 3492594 

 2 Mesquite bosque 495520 3492715 

3 Mesquite bosque/ 

Riparian 495515 3493009 

a SD grassland = semi-desert grassland. 

b Line transect section breaks. 
 

107 

Appendix M. UTM coordinates (NAD 83) of small mammal trapping plots, Tumacácori NHP, 2000-2001. 

Accuracy is ± 15 m. Park units: “CAL” = Calabazas; “GUV” = Guevavi; “TUM” = Tumacácori.

Park unit Plot name Corner Easting Northing 

CAL 1 A1 503863 3479672 

 A5 503896 3479674 

 E1 503859 3479637 

 E5 503898 3479640 

 2 A1 503948 3479656 

 A5 503930 3479685 

 E1 503968 3479679 

 E5 503959 3479699 

 3 A1 503846 3479547 

 A5 503821 3479561 

 E1 503864 3479565 

 E5 503845 3479580 

 4 A1 503916 3479830 

 A5 503911 3479791 

 E1 503948 3479824 

 E5 503948 3479791 

 5 A1 503783 3479870 

 A5 503779 3479905 

 E1 503754 3479883 

 E5 503757 3479917 

 6 A1 503853 3479905 

 A5 503852 3479939 

 E1 503824 3479908 

 E5 503816 3479940 

 C1 NE 503870 3479868 

 NW 503830 3479868 

 SE 503870 3479828 

 SW 503830 3479828 

 C2 NE 503798 3479827 

 NW 503758 3479827 

 SE 503798 3479787 

 SW 503758 3479787 

 C3 NE 503834 3479696 

 NW 503794 3479696 

 SE 503834 3479656 

 SW 503794 3479656 

GUV 1 A1 509397 3474969 

 A5 509414 3474933 

 E1 509364 3474950 

 E5 509379 3474921 

 2 A1 509228 3475102 

 A5 509226 3475072 

 E1 509256 3475096 

 E5 509255 3475068 

 G1 NE 509305 3475108 

 NW 509265 3475108 

 SE 509305 3475068 

 SW 509265 3475068 

 G2 NE 509329 3475034 

 NW 509289 3475034 

 SE 509329 3474994 

 SW 509289 3474994 

 G3 NE 509400 3475023 

Park unit Plot name Corner Easting Northing 

 NW 509360 3475023 

GUV G3 SE 509400 3474983 

 SW 509360 3474983 

TUM M12 NE 495666 3493383 

 NW 495576 3493383 

 SE 495666 3493343 

 SW 495576 3493343 

 M16 NE 495244 3492921 

 NW 495154 3492921 

 SE 495244 3492881 

 SW 495154 3492881 

 M17 NE 495346 3492782 

 NW 495256 3492782 

 SE 495346 3492742 

 SW 495256 3492742 

 M03 NE 495350 3493401 

 NW 495260 3493401 

 SE 495350 3493361 

 SW 495260 3493361 

 M04 NE 495677 3491978 

 NW 495587 3491978 

 SE 495677 3491938 

 SW 495587 3491938 

 M06 NE 495551 3493272 

 NW 495461 3493272 

 SE 495551 3493232 

 SW 495461 3493232 

 M07 NE 495466 3493077 

 NW 495376 3493077 

 SE 495466 3493037 

 SW 495376 3493037 

 M09 NE 495281 3493095 

 NW 495191 3493095 

 SE 495281 3493055 

 SW 495191 3493055 

 M02 NE 495570 3492805 

 NW 495480 3492805 

 SE 495570 3492765 

 SW 495480 3492765 

 M11 NE 495433 3492600 

 NW 495343 3492600 

 SE 495433 3492560 

 SW 495343 3492560 

 M14 NE 495619 3492611 

 NW 495529 3492611 

 SE 495619 3492571 

 SW 495529 3492571 
 

108 

Appendix N. Museums that were queried in 1998 for vertebrate voucher specimens with “Arizona” and 

“Tumacácori National Historical Park” in the collection location. Collections in bold had specimens from 

Tumacácori NHP. 

Collection Vertebrate group(s) 

Auburn University Reptiles and amphibians 

Chicago Academy of Sciences All 

Cincinnati Museum of Natural History & Science All 

Cornell Vertebrate Collections, Cornell University Birds and mammals 

Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago Mammals 

George Mason University (Fairfax, VA) All 

James Ford Bell Museum of Natural History, University of Minnesota Mammals 

Laboratory for Environmental Biology, Centennial Museum, University of Texas at El 

Paso 

Unknown 

Marjorie Barrick Museum, University of Nevada-Las Vegas Reptiles, amphibians, and birds 

Michigan State University Museum (East Lansing) All 

Milwaukee Public Museum All 

Monte Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University Unknown 

Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University Reptiles and amphibians 

Museum of Texas Tech University All 

Museum of Natural History , University of Kansas Reptiles, amphibians, and mammals 

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology , University of California, Berkeley All 

Museum of Life Sciences, Louisiana State University, Shreveport All 

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Reptiles and amphibians 

New Mexico Museum of Natural History (Albuquerque) Unknown 

North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences Birds and mammals 

Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman All 

Peabody Museum, Yale University All 

Pipe Spring National Memorial, Arizona Mammals 

Saguaro National Park All 

Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona Unknown 

Strecker Museum, Baylor University, Waco All 

Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection All but fish 

Tulane University Museum of Natural History Reptiles and amphibians 

University of Arizona All 

University of Texas, Arlington All 

University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana All 

University of Michigan Reptiles and amphibians 

University of Colorado Museum All 

Walnut Canyon National Monument, Arizona All 

Western Archeological and Conservation Center, Tucson All 

Wupatki National Memorial, Flagstaff All 
 

109 

Appendix O. Voucher specimens from Tumacácori NHP that were not collected by University of Arizona 

Inventory personnel. See appendix N for list of collections that were queried for specimens from “Tumacácori National 

Historical Park”.

Taxon 

group Scientific name Common name Collection Date Collector 

Number of 

specimens 

(if known) 

Reptiles Sceloporus clarkii Clark's spiny lizard Chicago Academy of Science 01/01/1940 J. Y. Beaty 1 

Pituophis catenifer gopher snake University of Arizona 06/28/1962 R.L. Bezy 1 

Birds Callipepla gambelii Gambel's quail University of Arizona NA NA 2 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk University of Arizona NA NA 

Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk University of Arizona NA NA 

Buteo albonotatus zone-tailed hawk University of Arizona NA NA 

Falco sparverius American kestrel University of Arizona NA NA 

Patagioenas fasciata band-tailed pigeon University of Arizona NA NA 

Cynanthus latirostris broad-billed hummingbird University of Arizona NA NA 

Camptostoma imberbe northern beardlesstyrannulet University of Arizona NA NA 

Contopus sordidulus western wood-pewee University of Arizona NA NA 

Pyrocephalus rubinus vermilion flycatcher University of Arizona NA NA 

Myiarchus tuberculifer dusky-capped flycatcher University of Arizona NA NA 

Myiarchus cinerascens ash-throated flycatcher University of Arizona NA NA 2 

Myiarchus tyrannulus brown-crested flycatcher University of Arizona NA NA 

Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird University of Arizona NA NA 2 

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike University of Arizona NA NA 

Vireo gilvus warbling vireo University of Arizona NA NA 

Auriparus flaviceps verdin University of Arizona NA NA 

Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren University of Arizona NA NA 

Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird University of Arizona NA NA 

Toxostoma curvirostre curve-billed thrasher University of Arizona NA NA 2 

Phainopepla nitens phainopepla University of Arizona NA NA 2 

Vermivora luciae Lucy's warbler University of Arizona NA NA 

Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat University of Arizona NA NA 

Piranga flava hepatic tanager University of Arizona NA NA 

Pipilo fuscus canyon towhee University of Arizona NA NA 

Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal University of Arizona NA NA 

Passerina caerulea blue grosbeak University of Arizona NA NA 

Passerina versicolor varied bunting University of Arizona NA NA 

Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird University of Arizona NA NA 3 

Carpodacus mexicanus house finch University of Arizona NA NA 

Mammals Antrozous pallidusa pallid bat Saguaro National Park 1938, 1950 A. G. 

Henson 4 

Macrotus californicusa Calfornia leaf-nosed bat Saguaro National Park 1950 A. G. 

Henson 1 

Myotis californicusa California myotis Saguaro National Park A. G. 

Henson 2 

Myotis velifer cave myotis University of California, Berkeley 1937 W. B. 

Richardson 71 

Myotis velifera cave myotis Saguaro National Park 1950, 1951 A. G. 

Henson 7 

Myotis velifera cave myotis Saguaro National Park 1937 S. Benson 2 

Tadarida brasiliensisa Brazilian free-tailed bat Saguaro National Park 1950 A. G. 

Henson 3 

Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer University of Arizona 11/07/1966 Don Mott 

Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer University of Arizona 10/30/1964 A. Peyron 

a Specimen identification not verified. 
 

110 

Appendix P. Vertebrate voucher specimens collected at Tumacácori NHP by University of Arizona 

Inventory personnel, 2000–2002. All specimens are located in University of Arizona collections. Park units: “CAL” = 

Calabazas; “GUV” = Guevavi; “TUM” = Tumacácori. 

Taxon 

group Park unit Common name Date Collector 

Accession 

number Specimen type 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

 GUV Mexican spadefoot 07/12/01 James Borgmeyer 53512 full 

 western patch-nosed Snake 07/02/01 Dan Bell 53816 full 

 TUM Couch's spadefoot 07/11/01 James Borgmeyer 53513 full 

 Woodhouse's toad 07/10/02 Kevin Bonine full 

 Clark's spiny lizard 07/11/02 Dan Bell full 

 desert grassland whiptail 07/11/02 Kevin Bonine 53989 full 

 Sonoran spotted whiptail 04/25/01 Mike Wall 53648 full 

 Sonoran spotted whiptail 07/11/01 James Borgmeyer 53511 full 

 Sonoran spotted whiptail 07/10/02 Kevin Bonine 53988 full 

 long-nosed snake 04/11/01 Dave Prival 53514 full 

Fish TUM desert sucker 05/15/02 Eric Albrecht full 

 Sonora sucker 05/15/02 Eric Albrecht 346 full 

 longfin dace 05/15/02 Eric Albrecht 345 full 

 western mosquitofish 05/15/02 Eric Albrecht 344 full 

 green sunfish 05/15/02 Eric Albrecht 343 full 

 largemouth bass 05/15/02 Eric Albrecht 341 full 

 bluegill sunfish 05/15/02 Eric Albrecht 342 full 

Mammals CAL unknown desert shrew 09/24/00 Jason Schmidt 26900 skull and 

skeleton 

 Sonoran desert pocket mouse 09/23/00 Jason Schmidt 26862 skull 

 Bailey's pocket mouse 09/23/00 Jason Schmidt 26904 skull 

 fulvous harvest mouse 09/23/00 Neil Perry 26863 skull 

 cactus mouse 09/23/00 Jason Schmidt 26838 skin and skull 

 cactus mouse 06/13/01 Ryan Gann 26832 skin and skull 

 house mouse 06/12/01 Neil Perry 26858 skin and skull 

 deer mouse 09/25/00 Ryan Gann 26907 skull 

 white-footed mouse 09/25/00 Neil Perry submitteda skull 

 southern grasshopper mouse 09/23/00 Neil Perry 26861 skull 

 western white-throated woodrat 09/24/00 Jason Schmidt 26899 skull 

 tawny-belled cotton rat 09/23/00 Jason Schmidt 26929 skull 

 GUV Sonoran desert pocket mouse 09/30/00 Neil Perry 26934 skull 

 Sonoran desert pocket mouse 10/02/00 Jason Schmidt 26933 skull 

 Bailey's pocket mouse 09/30/00 Neil Perry 26908 skull 

 fulvous harvest mouse 10/02/00 Jason Schmidt 26864 skull 

 cactus mouse 09/30/00 Jason Schmidt 26860 skull 

 northern pygmy mouse 06/13/01 Neil Perry 26891 skin and skull 

 southern grasshopper mouse 10/02/00 Jason Schmidt 26931 skull 

 western white-throated woodrat 09/30/00 Neil Perry submitteda skull 

 TUM desert shrew 10/29/00 Neil Perry 26902 skull 

 feral cat 10/18/02 Neil Perry 26766 skull 

 bobcat 02/27/03 Neil Perry submitteda skull 

 Botta’s pocket gopher 11/03/00 Jason Schmidt 27049 skull 

 Sonoran desert pocket mouse 10/29/00 Jason Schmidt 26865 skull 

 Sonoran desert pocket mouse 11/03/00 Jason Schmidt 26923 skull 

 Sonoran desert pocket mouse 11/05/00 Jason Schmidt 26912 skull 

 western harvest mouse 06/05/01 Neil Perry 26859 skin and skull 

 cactus mouse 10/29/00 Jason Schmidt 26909 skull 

 cactus mouse 10/29/00 Jason Schmidt 26905 skull 
 

111 

Taxon 

group Park unit Common name Date Collector 

Accession 

number Specimen type 

Mammals TUM cactus mouse 10/31/00 Jason Schmidt 26924 skull 

 cactus mouse 11/04/00 Jason Schmidt 26914 skull 

 deer mouse 10/31/00 Ryan Gann 26906 skull 

 Arizona cotton rat 10/29/00 Neil Perry submitteda 

a Voucher specimen submitted but has not been accessioned. 
 

112 

Appendix Q. Summary of plant data from modular plots, Tumacácori NHP, 2002. All plots had four modules 

except “Bosque 1”, which had two modules. See Appendix A for scientific names. 

 

Frequency of occurrence in modular quadrata

 Total number of point intercepts 

along transects 

Plot name Common name 10x10 NE NW SE SW 

Number of 

modules and 

plotsc Intercept sumb

1 carelessweed 4 2 2 

 desert broom 3 

 feather fingergrass 1 

 few-flower beggarticks 1 1 

 needle grama 3 2 1 1 

 prickly Russian thistle 3 1 

 stinkgrass 1 

 velvet mesquite 4 1 5 202 

4 bloodberry rougeplant 2 2 13 

 carelessweed 4 4 3 6 80 

 catclaw 6 6 188 

 climbing spiderling 2 

 graythorn 5 3 28 

 needle grama 2 1 

 netleaf hackberry 2 

 ragweed 1 1 

 snailseed 6 3 36 

 velvet mesquite 2 2 23 

6 Bermudagrass 2 1 

 cane cholla 2 

 carelessweed 8 5 6 5 39 

 cheeseweed burrobrush 9 2 4 8 37 

 doubleclaw 1 

 entireleaf morningglory 5 1 4 

 feather fingergrass 4 2 6 

 few-flower beggarticks 1 1 

 flatcrown buckwheat 2 

 gooding willow 2 2 

 miniature woollystar 1 

 mule's fat 3 1 2 

 needle grama 3 1 2 30 

 prickly Russian thistle 5 2 4 7 

 sand dropseed 1 

 sixweeks threeawn 2 

 tapertip cupgrass 1 

 tropical blazingstar 1 1 1 1 

 white blazingstar 2 

8A Arizona black walnut 3 1 2 

 Bermudagrass 5 2 2 1 1 6 

 Fremont cottonwood 12 3 4 3 2 5 126 

 Johnsongrass 3 

 Jungle ricegrass 2 

 New Mexico copperleaf 2 1 9 

 carelessweed 3 2 

 desert broom 3 

 entireleaf morningglory 5 2 

 few-flower beggarticks 4 1 2 1 2 14 

 fringed twinevine 3 1 1 

 gooding willow 12 2 2 3 3 11 302 

 hairy crabgrass 1 

 mule's fat 4 4 20 

 netleaf hackberry 1 
 

113 

 

Frequency of occurrence in modular quadrata

 Total number of point intercepts 

along transects 

Plot name Common name 10x10 NE NW SE SW 

Number of 

modules and 

plotsc Intercept sumb

8A prickly Russian thistle 2 

 ragweed 1 

 sacred thorn-apple 1 

 tapertip cupgrass 1 

 velvet ash 3 

9 Bermudagrass 5 1 1 1 3 18 

 Fremont cottonwood 12 2 55 

 Johnsongrass 4 2 

 Lehmann's lovegrass 1 1 1 8 

 Mexican fireplant 2 1 2 

 New Mexico copperleaf 3 1 1 

 annual goldeneye 2 

 blood ragweed 3 1 1 

 canyon morning-glory 1 1 

 carelessweed 8 1 5 6 2 6 64 

 cocklebur 4 1 

 common sunflower 4 

 cutleaf goldenweed 3 1 

 desert broom 3 

 entireleaf morningglory 5 

 feather fingergrass 8 1 1 3 2 1 3 

 few-flower beggarticks 6 1 2 2 1 3 6 

 gooding willow 6 1 2 77 

 hairy crabgrass 4 1 2 

 hyssop spurge 2 1 

 low rattlebox 2 

 needle grama 5 1 1 2 2 15 

 plains lovegrass 3 2 1 1 

 prickly Russian thistle 1 

 ragweed 7 

 sand dropseed 2 1 1 1 

 stinkgrass 1 

 tapertip cupgrass 6 1 3 2 2 4 11 

 yellow sweet-clover 3 

 yewleaf willow 3 2 28 

13 Arizona signalgrass 2 

 Bermudagrass 1 

 Mexican morningglory 1 2 

 Rothrock's grama 4 

 buff petal 2 1 1 1 

 burrow goldenweed 2 

 carelessweed 5 1 

 climbing spiderling 2 

 crestrib morning-glory 2 1 

 cutleaf goldenweed 3 

 desert broom 8 3 6 

 desert ceanothus 2 2 7 

 feather fingergrass 1 

 fringed twinevine 1 1 3 

 needle grama 4 2 1 1 4 

 prickly Russian thistle 4 1 1 2 1 

 procumbent sida 4 2 2 2 2 

 ragweed 4 1 1 1 

 sand dropseed 4 
 

114 

 

Frequency of occurrence in modular quadrata

 Total number of point intercepts 

along transects 

Plot name Common name 10x10 NE NW SE SW 

Number of 

modules and 

plotsc Intercept sumb

13 sixweeks grama 3 

 slender grama 1 1 

 southwestern prickly poppy 1 

 spidergrass 11 3 17 

 stinkgrass 3 1 

 threadleaf snakeweed 2 

 velvet mesquite 11 4 2 3 12 416 

16 Bermudagrass 2 

 Fremont cottonwood 4 1 2 164 

 Mexican fireplant 3 1 

 Mexican yellowshow 1 

 New Mexico copperleaf 4 

 bloodberry rougeplant 2 1 

 blue elderberry 3 

 buff petal 1 

 catclaw 1 3 14 

 climbing spiderling 2 3 

 desert broom 4 1 2 17 

 entireleaf morningglory 3 1 

 few-flower beggarticks 4 2 2 2 5 

 graythorn 7 

 netleaf hackberry 4 1 1 

 ragweed 1 1 

 snailseed 6 1 1 1 3 

 tapertip cupgrass 1 

 threadleaf groundsel 1 

 tropical blazingstar 4 2 2 

 velvet mesquite 11 3 5 7 283 

18 Bermudagrass 1 

 Lehmann's lovegrass 6 

 carelessweed 8 4 3 2 4 3 13 

 cheeseweed burrobrush 5 1 7 

 desert broom 2 2 

 feather fingergrass 8 2 1 11 

 few-flower beggarticks 2 2 

 needle grama 4 1 1 1 1 3 43 

 prickly Russian thistle 8 2 2 

 sorrel buckwheat 8 2 2 1 1 

 tapertip cupgrass 3 

21A Bermudagrass 5 1 1 3 

 Lehmann's lovegrass 1 

 annual pricklepoppy 2 

 blue grama 1 

 carelessweed 8 4 4 4 4 4 19 

 common sunflower 2 

 feather fingergrass 8 2 3 2 2 4 18 

 few-flower beggarticks 1 1 

 field sandbur 8 

 needle grama 4 1 2 2 1 4 81 

 ragweed 2 1 

 sand dropseed 1 2 

 spidergrass 2 

 stinkgrass 2 

 tapertip cupgrass 4 1 1 1 2 4 20 
 

115 

 

Frequency of occurrence in modular quadrata

 Total number of point intercepts 

along transects 

Plot name Common name 10x10 NE NW SE SW 

Number of 

modules and 

plotsc Intercept sumb

21A threadleaf groundsel 5 28 

 tropical blazingstar 2 2 

 white blazingstar 1 1 2 

24A Bermudagrass 5 2 1 1 4 11 

 Fremont cottonwood 4 1 3 190 

 Grisebach's bristlegrass 2 1 

 Mexican fireplant 4 2 1 2 3 

 New Mexico copperleaf 2 1 1 2 

 blue elderberry 12 1 4 2 1 9 

 carelessweed 7 2 3 3 

 coastal sandbur 3 1 1 3 

 crested anoda 1 

 feather fingergrass 2 1 1 1 

 few-flower beggarticks 5 1 3 2 1 4 11 

 fringed twinevine 9 2 2 2 6 

 graythorn 5 2 12 

 needle grama 2 1 1 

 netleaf hackberry 7 1 3 40 

 prairie sunflower 3 

 prickly Russian thistle 3 1 

 ragweed 5 1 2 2 3 

 sand dropseed 6 1 

 snailseed 12 5 3 3 

 stinkgrass 1 1 

 tapertip cupgrass 5 1 

 velvet mesquite 7 1 

29 Arizona foldwing 1 

 Bermudagrass 4 2 2 1 2 4 59 

 Fremont cottonwood 12 2 1 1 2 62 

 Grisebach's bristlegrass 1 1 

 jungle ricegrass 1 1 

 Lehmann's lovegrass 3 1 1 1 

 Mexican fireplant 1 

 New Mexico copperleaf 4 1 

 carelessweed 8 2 2 2 4 4 32 

 cheeseweed burrobrush 2 

 cocklebur 1 

 feather fingergrass 6 1 2 1 1 2 3 

 few-flower beggarticks 8 2 1 1 1 3 

 fringed twinevine 3 2 1 

 gooding willow 6 2 53 

 longtube four o'clock 2 

 mule's fat 4 1 9 

 netleaf hackberry 3 1 

 ragweed 4 1 1 

 tapertip cupgrass 1 1 

 velvet mesquite 2 

 yellow sweet-clover 1 

30A Lehmann's lovegrass 7 1 2 

 Mexican fireplant 1 1 

 New Mexico copperleaf 1 

 Orcutt's threeawn 2 

 Rothrock's grama 5 2 1 2 

 camphorweed 1 
 

116 

 

Frequency of occurrence in modular quadrata

 Total number of point intercepts 

along transects 

Plot name Common name 10x10 NE NW SE SW 

Number of 

modules and 

plotsc Intercept sumb

30A carelessweed 8 1 1 1 4 12 

 cutleaf goldenweed 2 

 delicate muhly 3 1 1 3 

 doubleclaw 1 

 feather fingergrass 4 1 1 2 8 

 few-flower beggarticks 3 1 1 1 

 field sandbur 1 

 flatcrown buckwheat 6 1 1 

 gooding willow 2 1 

 hairy crabgrass 1 

 low rattlebox 4 1 1 1 1 

 needle grama 4 2 2 1 2 4 95 

 plains lovegrass 2 1 1 

 prickly Russian thistle 2 

 purple grama 1 1 

 ragweed 1 

 sand dropseed 8 2 

 sixweeks threeawn 5 2 1 1 1 4 18 

 tapertip cupgrass 3 1 1 

 velvet mesquite 4 3 26 

 white blazingstar 4 

31A Bermudagrass 5 1 1 1 1 3 10 

 Fremont cottonwood 12 1 1 2 65 

 Johnsongrass 8 1 2 

 Lehmann lovegrass 2 

 Mexican fireplant 1 1 

 New Mexico copperleaf 1 

 carelessweed 8 1 2 2 6 19 

 cocklebur 2 1 

 desert broom 4 

 feather fingergrass 2 

 few-flower beggarticks 7 1 2 1 1 3 14 

 gooding willow 11 2 3 2 3 4 100 

 low rattlebox 2 1 

 mule's fat 5 1 1 15 

 netleaf hackberry 2 

 prairie sunflower 4 

 prickly Russian thistle 4 

 ragweed 2 

 sacred thorn-apple 1 

 tapertip cupgrass 2 1 1 

 velvet mesquite 4 

32A Bermudagrass 4 2 1 2 3 71 

 Rothrock's grama 1 

 Thurber pepperweed 1 

 buff petal 1 

 buffalo gourd 3 1 1 1 

 carelessweed 7 2 1 1 1 3 3 

 catclaw 5 3 1 11 

 desert broom 4 

 feather fingergrass 2 

 fringed twinevine 8 1 1 2 

 graythorn 7 3 1 4 

 horehound 2 1 3 
 

117 

 

Frequency of occurrence in modular quadrata

 Total number of point intercepts 

along transects 

Plot name Common name 10x10 NE NW SE SW 

Number of 

modules and 

plotsc Intercept sumb

32A needle grama 2 1 1 1 

 netleaf hackberry 2 2 

 sand dropseed 6 

 sixweeks threeawn 1 

 snailseed 3 2 

 spidergrass 1 

 stinkgrass 2 1 2 

 velvet mesquite 12 2 4 60 

35 Bermudagrass 2 1 1 2 29 

 Fremont cottonwood 3 

 Grisebach's bristlegrass 1 1 

 Lehmann's lovegrass 3 

 Thurber pepperweed 1 

 carelessweed 8 6 2 2 6 4 75 

 cheeseweed burrobrush 5 1 1 1 

 feather fingergrass 6 2 3 

 few-flower beggarticks 4 

 needle grama 3 1 1 2 26 

 prickly Russian thistle 8 2 

 ragweed 1 

 sand dropseed 4 1 1 

 sorrel buckwheat 2 

37 Bermudagrass 3 1 

 Fremont cottonwood 3 2 1 28 

 Grisebach's bristlegrass 1 

 Lehmann's lovegrass 8 1 

 carelessweed 8 2 4 4 

 feather fingergrass 7 2 2 2 1 3 8 

 few-flower beggarticks 1 1 

 needle grama 4 1 2 3 1 4 66 

 prickly Russian thistle 3 

 ragweed 2 

 sand dropseed 4 1 

 sixweeks grama 1 

 sorrel buckwheat 2 

 tapertip cupgrass 1 1 

 white blazingstar 2 

40 Bermudagrass 2 1 

 Lehmann's lovegrass 3 1 

 carelessweed 8 1 2 2 4 14 

 desert honeysuckle 3 

 feather fingergrass 4 1 1 1 1 3 

 mule's fat 7 7 114 

 needle grama 4 1 3 3 1 4 23 

 prairie sunflower 2 

 prickly Russian thistle 1 2 14 

 ragweed 1 

 white blazingstar 1 

AG1 Bermudagrass 4 1 2 42 

 Purple 3-awn 3 1 2 4 

 camphorweed 3 

 carelessweed 6 1 1 2 5 

 cutleaf goldenweed 1 

 desert broom 2 
 

118 

 

Frequency of occurrence in modular quadrata

 Total number of point intercepts 

along transects 

Plot name Common name 10x10 NE NW SE SW 

Number of 

modules and 

plotsc Intercept sumb

AG1 doubleclaw 1 1 

 feather fingergrass 2 1 1 

 needle grama 3 2 

 prickly Russian thistle 4 1 3 1 2 7 

 procumbent sida 2 

 ragweed 2 1 

 sand dropseed 5 1 2 2 

 sixweeks grama 1 

 slender grama 1 

 spidergrass 3 2 1 

 stinkgrass 2 1 

 velvet mesquite 5 1 1 1 

Bosque 1 Bermudagrass 1 1 

 Drummond's clematis 4 1 5 34 

 New Mexico copperleaf 2 2 2 1 1 

 blue elderberry 6 1 2 3 64 

 few-flower beggarticks 2 1 1 

 fringed twinevine 5 2 

 horehound 1 

 netleaf hackberry 6 1 1 6 29 

 procumbent sida 1 1 

 ragweed 1 

 ruellia 2 1 1 7 

 snailseed 6 2 1 5 14 

 velvet mesquite 6 1 3 6 195 

Rip 1 Arizona foldwing 2 1 1 

 Bermudagrass 5 1 1 3 49 

 Fremont cottonwood 9 2 1 5 203 

 Grisebach's bristlegrass 2 

 Mexican morningglory 4 

 New Mexico copperleaf 2 1 2 9 

 blue elderberry 4 

 carelessweed 6 2 3 15 

 cudweed sagewort 1 

 desert broom 1 

 few-flower beggarticks 4 1 1 1 3 13 

 fringed twinevine 7 1 

 giant reed 2 

 gooding willow 11 3 1 2 7 127 

 hophornbeam copperleaf 2 

 longtube four o'clock 3 

 low rattlebox 1 

 mule's fat 2 2 

 netleaf hackberry 3 1 

 sacred thorn-apple 2 

 scarlet spiderling 2 1 3 

 weeping lovegrass 1 

a Number of times a species was recorded in all quadrats and height categories. For all plots except Bosque 1 (which was half the size of 

the others) the maximum frequency was 12 for 10 x 10 m modules and 6 for each of the four 1 x 1 m quadrats. 

b Number of times a species was recorded along all line transects in each plot. For all plots except Bosque 1, the maximum frequency was 

1200. 

c Number of line transects in which species was recorded. For all plots except Bosque 1, the maximum number was 12. 
119 

Appendix R. Plant species recorded in 10 x 10 m modular plots (P), point-intercept transects within modular plots (TR) or i

point-intercept transects (B), Tumacácori NHP, 2002. Species in boldface-type are non-native. See Appendix A for common names.

Plot name 

Family Genus Species 1 13 16 18 21A 24A 29 30A 31A 32A 35 37 4 40 6 8a 9 AG1 Acanthaceae Anisacanthus thurberi P 

Dicliptera resupinata P Ruellia nudiflora 

Amaranthaceae Amaranthus palmeri P P B B B B B B B B P B B B P B B Asclepiadaceae Funastrum cynanchoides B B P B B Asteraceae Ambrosia confertiflora B P P B B P P P P P P P P P 

Ambrosia trifida P Artemisia ludoviciana Baccharis salicifolia B B B P B Baccharis sarothroides P B B P P P P P P Bidens leptocephala P B P P B B B B P P P B B Gutierrezia microcephala P Helianthus annuus P P Helianthus petiolaris P P P Heliomeris longifolia P Heterotheca subaxillaris P P Hymenoclea monogyra B P B B Isocoma tenuisecta P Machaeranthera pinnatifida P P P P Senecio flaccidus P TR Xanthium strumarium P P P 

Bixaceae Amoreuxia palmatifida P Brassicaceae Lepidium thurberi P P Cactaceae Opuntia spinosior P Caprifoliaceae Sambucus nigra P B Chenopodiaceae Salsola kali P P P P P P P P B B P P B 

Ipomoea barbatisepala P Ipomoea coccinea Ipomoea costellata P Ipomoea hederacea P P P P 

Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita foetidissima B Euphorbiaceae Acalypha neomexicana P B P P P B P 

Acalypha ostryifolia Chamaesyce hyssopifolia P Euphorbia heterophylla P B P P P B 

Fabaceae Acacia greggii B B B 

Crotalaria pumila P P P 
120 

Plot name 

Family Genus Species 1 13 16 18 21A 24A 29 30A 31A 32A 35 37 4 40 6 8a 9 AG1 Fabaceae Melilotus officinalis P P 

Prosopis velutina B B B P P B P B B B 

Juglandaceae Juglans major B Lamiaceae Marrubium vulgare B Loasaceae Mentzelia albicaulis B P P P P 

Mentzelia aspera P P B 

Malvaceae Anoda cristata P 

Rhynchosida physocalyx B P P Sida abutifolia B P 

Menispermaceae Cocculus diversifolius B P P B Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia coccinea 

Boerhavia scandens P B P Mirabilis longiflora P 

Oleaceae Fraxinus velutina P Papaveraceae Argemone pleiacantha P 

Argemone polyanthemos P 

Pedaliaceae Proboscidea parviflora P P P Phytolaccaceae Rivina humilis P B Poaceae Aristida adscensionis B P P Poaceae Aristida purpurea B 

Aristida schiedeana P Aristida ternipes B P P P Arundo donax Bouteloua aristidoides B B B B P B B B B P B B B P Bouteloua barbata P P P Bouteloua gracilis P Bouteloua radicosa P Bouteloua repens P P Bouteloua rothrockii P P P Cenchrus longispinus P P Cenchrus spinifex B Chloris virgata P P B B B B B P P P B B B B B Cynodon dactylon P P P B B B B B B P P P B B B Digitaria sanguinalis P P P Echinochloa colona P P Eragrostis cilianensis P P P TR B P P Eragrostis curvula Eragrostis intermedia P B Eragrostis lehmanniana P P P P P P P P B 
121 

Plot name 

Family Genus Species 1 13 16 18 21A 24A 29 30A 31A 32A 35 37 4 40 6 8a 9 AG1 Poaceae Eriochloa acuminata P P B P P P B P P P B 

Muhlenbergia fragilis B Setaria grisebachii P P P P Sorghum halepense B P P Sporobolus cryptandrus P TR P P P B P P B B Urochloa arizonica P 

Polemoniaceae Eriastrum diffusum P Polygonaceae Eriogonum deflexum B P 

Eriogonum polycladon B P P 

Ranunculaceae Clematis drummondii Rhamnaceae Ceanothus greggii B 

Ziziphus obtusifolia P B B B 

Salicaceae Populus fremontii B B B B P B B B 

Salix gooddingii B P B P B B Salix taxifolia B 

Solanaceae Datura wrightii P P Ulmaceae Celtis laevigata B B P P P P P Number of species 8 25 21 11 18 23 22 27 21 20 14 15 10 11 19 20 30 18 
122 

Appendix S. Detailed results of fish surveys at Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. These data are summarized 

in Table 5.1. See Appendix B for scientific names.

Number of individuals caught 

Site Date Species 

Adult 

female Adult male

Juvenile 

female 

Juvenile 

male 

UNKN 

sex/ age 

Total 

catch 

Tumacácori Channel 4 Apr 2001 longfin dace 32 4 36 

12 Nov 2001 a longfin dace 186 186 

15 May 2002 longfin dace 10 83 109 1 203 

14 Nov 2002 longfin dace 9 9 

4 Apr 2001 Sonora sucker 3 3 

12 Nov 2001 Sonora sucker 6 6 

15 May 2002 Sonora sucker 15 15 

4 Apr 2001 western mosquitofish 8 1 1 10 

12 Nov 2001a western mosquitofish 13 27 102 18 158 318 

15 May 2002 western mosquitofish 129 92 94 32 347 

14 Nov 2002 western mosquitofish 99 116 238 115 568 

15 May 2002 green sunfish 1 1 

4 Apr 2001 green sunfish x 

bluegill sunfish hybrid 1 1 

4 Apr 2001 bluegill sunfish 1 1 2 

12 Nov 2001 bluegill sunfish 2 2 

15 May 2002 bluegill sunfish 2 2 

12 Nov 2001 largemouth bass 2 2 

15 May 2002 largemouth bass 1 1 

4 Apr 2001 desert sucker 3 1 4 

12 Nov 2001 desert sucker 1 1 

15 May 2002 desert sucker 1 1 

4 Apr 2001 Gila topminnow 4 2 6 

12 Nov 2001 a Gila topminnow 5 6 8 16 35 

15 May 2002 Gila topminnow 17 20 8 1 46 

14 Nov 2002 Gila topminnow 12 10 59 4 85 

Santa Cruz River 3 Apr 2001 longfin dace 2 9 11 

11 Nov 2001 longfin dace 432 432 

13 May 2002 longfin dace 59 330 62 74 525 

12 Nov 2002 longfin dace 2 9 11 

3 Apr 2001 western mosquitofish 2 2 

11 Nov 2001 western mosquitofish 18 30 26 2 76 

13 May 2002 western mosquitofish 73 36 8 5 122 

12 Nov 2002 western mosquitofish 23 17 20 13 73 

3 Apr 2001 green sunfish 4 4 

3 Apr 2001 largemouth bass 1 1 

3 Apr 2001 Gila topminnow 6 1 9 1 17 

11 Nov 2001 Gila topminnow 1 3 7 11 

13 May 2002 Gila topminnow 37 32 6 75 

12 Nov 2002 Gila topminnow 37 8 18 16 79 

Totals 1,060 812 814 283 360 3,329 

a Andrew Schultz (survey crew leader) noted that there were too many fish to count and estimated that Gila topminnow and western

mosquitofish numbered in the “hundreds to thousands” and longfin dace numbered in the “hundreds”. 
123 

Appendix T. Total number of birds detected during incidental observations and VCP surveys for the time 

period of the most intensive surveys, Tumacácori NHP, 2001–2002. Numbers should not used as a measure of 

relative abundance because there was not consistent sampling effort across time or between survey types. See Table 6.2 

for relative abundance of the most common species and Appendix D for scientific names.

 Month 

April May June July 

Common name 1–15 16–30 1–15 16–31 1–15 16–30 1–15 16–31 

great blue heron 1 2 1 1 

white-faced Ibis 1 1 

turkey vulture 1 9 1 1 3 

black vulture 1 2 3 

black-bellied whistling duck 1 3 

mallard 1 

sharp-shinned hawk 1 

Cooper's hawk 2 4 1 1 1 3 

gray hawk 6 9 7 4 3 3 4 

Swainson's hawk 1 

red-tailed hawk 1 

American kestrel 1 

peregrine falcon 2 

Gambel's quail 1 11 3 5 4 2 10 

killdeer 1 1 1 

spotted sandpiper 1 

band-tailed pigeon 1 

white-winged dove 14 26 5 21 19 10 3 12 

mourning dove 12 39 6 15 7 5 2 18 

Inca dove 2 1 1 

common ground-dove 7 3 3 4 1 6 

yellow-billed cuckoo 5 4 1 10 

greater roadrunner 2 4 6 

barn owl 1 

lesser nighthawk 1 1 

broad-billed hummingbird 6 16 2 7 3 2 1 13 

black-chinned hummingbird 1 4 2 10 3 2 1 

Costa's hummingbird 2 

broad-tailed hummingbird 3 

green kingfisher 1 

Lewis's woodpecker 2 

Gila woodpecker 21 45 4 26 25 10 7 24 

ladder-backed woodpecker 6 6 2 8 5 4 1 5 

northern flicker 1 4 4 

gilded flicker 1 

rose-throated becard 1 

northern beardless-tyrannulet 3 10 2 1 2 1 

western wood-pewee 2 1 1 2 

willow flycatcher 2 1 1 

gray flycatcher 1 2 

pacific-slope flycatcher 1 

cordilleran flycatcher 1 

black phoebe 1 1 

Say's phoebe 2 7 3 2 1 1 

vermilion flycatcher 5 19 10 6 6 1 6 
124 

 Month 

April May June July 

Common name 1–15 16–30 1–15 16–31 1–15 16–30 1–15 16–31 

dusky-capped flycatcher 4 4 6 4 5 4 

ash-throated flycatcher 3 8 3 7 4 11 

brown-crested flycatcher 7 2 14 15 7 2 6 

sulphur-bellied flycatcher 1 

Cassin's kingbird 3 9 2 7 5 1 3 7 

western kingbird 2 7 1 2 6 

Bell's vireo 9 20 5 14 10 6 3 17 

warbling vireo 1 2 2 1 

plumbeous vireo 1 2 

Cassin's vireo 1 

western scrub-jay 2 

unknown raven 2 4 3 3 2 

violet-green swallow 1 

northern rough-winged swallow 2 4 2 1 1 1 

bank swallow 1 

cliff swallow 2 7 

barn swallow 3 2 2 1 1 3 

bridled titmouse 2 8 7 3 3 1 3 

verdin 3 14 2 7 6 5 3 13 

white-breasted nuthatch 1 1 

cactus wren 1 

Bewick's wren 20 32 6 32 18 6 5 12 

house wren 2 2 

blue-gray gnatcatcher 1 2 1 

black-tailed gnatcatcher 2 

Swainson's thrush 1 

northern mockingbird 1 1 3 3 2 

curve-billed thrasher 2 4 6 1 4 2 7 

crissal thrasher 1 

European starling 5 2 1 

phainopepla 4 6 3 25 22 16 8 25 

northern parula 1 

orange-crowned warbler 2 

Nashville warbler 1 

Lucy's warbler 16 35 8 31 19 2 6 9 

yellow warbler 3 9 11 9 2 3 8 

yellow-rumped warbler 2 

black-throated gray warbler 3 1 

MacGillivray's warbler 1 1 

common yellowthroat 2 6 4 9 4 1 4 

Wilson's warbler 1 11 2 

yellow-breasted chat 5 2 42 30 23 12 35 

summer tanager 1 25 1 17 11 8 2 10 

western tanager 2 1 2 1 7 

green-tailed towhee 5 1 1 1 

canyon towhee 1 1 2 

Abert's towhee 1 9 6 2 2 1 2 

rufous-winged sparrow 8 5 3 1 1 2 3 

rufous-crowned sparrow 1 1 2 1 
125 

 Month 

April May June July 

Common name 1–15 16–30 1–15 16–31 1–15 16–30 1–15 16–31 

chipping sparrow 2 2 

Brewer's sparrow 3 2 

lark sparrow 4 3 1 

black-throated sparrow 1 1 4 2 

song sparrow 4 18 13 13 4 1 12 

Lincoln's sparrow 2 

white-crowned sparrow 4 1 2 

northern cardinal 9 27 1 9 12 9 3 14 

pyrrhuloxia 2 2 

black-headed grosbeak 1 1 3 3 

blue grosbeak 5 2 5 3 4 

lazuli bunting 1 1 3 

indigo bunting 1 1 

varied bunting 2 1 1 3 

red-winged blackbird 1 1 

Brewer's blackbird 1 

great-tailed grackle 11 8 3 1 1 2 

bronzed cowbird 3 

brown-headed cowbird 11 4 28 24 11 4 14 

hooded oriole 1 6 2 1 1 

Bullock's oriole 2 5 4 1 2 1 

house finch 9 21 3 6 9 3 1 8 

lesser goldfinch 11 14 1 10 1 3 4 16 

house sparrow 3 8 3 5 3 8 
126 

Appendix U. Summary of vegetation characteristics measured at VCP survey stations, Tumacácori NHP, 

2002. 

 

Mean vegetation 

volume (%) Coverage (%) 

Park unit Station 0–0.5 m 0.5–2.0 m > 2.0 m Litter 

Bare 

ground Rocks

Calabazas 1 44 25 1 46 51 9 

 2 35 29 28 61 30 10 

 3 45 47 63 90 3 0 

Guevavi 1 24 20 16 39 49 10 

 2 44 32 34 81 12 7 

Tumacácori 1 36 9 27 42 56 0 

 2 38 8 15 52 47 0 

 3 46 37 46 65 33 2 

 4 39 38 55 76 23 0 

 5 46 32 48 74 23 2 

 6 40 38 56 72 28 0 

 7 41 11 15 64 36 1 

 8 57 23 48 89 10 0 

 Frequency (Freq.) and mean height (Ht; m) of dominant tree species at vegetation plotsa

No 

plant 

Acacia 

greggi 

Celtis 

reticulata 

Populus 

fremontii 

Prosopis 

velutina 

Salix 

gooddingii 

Sambucus 

mexicana 

Park unit Station Freq. Freq. Ht Freq. Ht Freq. Ht Freq. Ht Freq. Ht Freq. Ht 

Calabazas 1 20 

 2 9 6 9 4 9 1 6 

 3 6 9 13 8 1 6 

Guevavi 1 4 2 11 5 14 8 8 1 6 

 2 5 7 8 7 7 1 3 

Tumacácori 1 18 8 1 5 

 2 3 1 6 1 8 4 11 11 8 

 3 5 1 7 4 11 5 8 5 7 

 4 1 16 12 3 11 

 5 18 10 2 10 

 6 13 13 7 13 

 7 20 10 

 8 5 5 12 7 7 2 9 1 4 

a Recorded in the “possible cavity-bearing” category.