Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of 

Coronado National Memorial
This page left intentionally blank.
In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources 

Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of

Coronado National Memorial

Edited by Cecilia A. Schmidt , Brian F. Powell, Don E. Swann, and William L. Halvorson

Open-File Report 2007-1393

U.S. Geological Survey 

Southwest Biological Science Center

Sonoran Desert Research Station

University of Arizona

School of Natural Resources

125 Biological Sciences East

Tucson, Arizona 85721

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

National Park Service
ii

U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Suggested Citation

Schmidt, C.A., Powell, B.F., Swann, D.E. and Halvorson, W.L., 2007, Vascular plant and vertebrate

inventory of Coronado National Memorial: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1393, 114 p.

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007-1393]. 

Cover photo: National Park Service 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by

the U.S. Government.
iii

Editors 

Brian F. Powell and Cecilia A. Schmidt Don E. Swann

School of Natural Resources Saguaro National Park

125 Biological Sciences East, Building 43 3693 South Old Spanish Trail

The University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85730

Tucson, AZ 85721

William L. Halvorson

USGS SBSC Sonoran Desert Research Station

125 Biological Sciences East, Building 43

The University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ 85721

U.S. Geological Survey SBSC Sonoran Desert Research Station Personnel 

Charles van Riper III, Station Leader

William L. Halvorson, Research Ecologist

Cecil R. Schwalbe, Ecologist

Michael R. Kunzmann, Ecologist (Emeritus)

Kathryn Thomas, Ecologist

Pamela Nagler, Physical Scientist

Phil Rosen, Ecologist

Program and Expertise Areas of USGS and UA Personnel

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

USGS Southwest Biological Science Center, Sonoran Desert Research Station http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/sdrs

Fire Management

Dennis Suhre

Cori Dolan

Bill Halvorson

Invasive Species Research

Patricia Guertin

Jim Malusa

Phil Rosen

Cecil Schwalbe

Dennis Suhre

Kathryn Thomas

Inventory & Monitoring

Patricia Guertin

Bill Halvorson

Pamela Nagler

Brian Powell

Cecilia Schmidt

Vegetation Mapping & Ecology

Patricia Guertin

Bill Halvorson

Kathryn Thomas

Administration & Outreach

Laura Opalka

Wendy Parrish

Emily Sherbrooke

Charles van Riper III

Avian Ecology

Claire Crow

Glenn Johnson

Chris O’Brien

Brian Powell

Charles van Riper III

Data Management 

Brent Sigafus

Ecology of Amphibians & Reptiles

Kevin Baker

Cristina Jones

Dave Prival

Phil Rosen

Cecil Schwalbe

Brent Sigafus
iv
v

Table of Contents

List of Tables............................................................................................................................................vi

List of Figures .........................................................................................................................................vii

List of Appendicess.................................................................................................................................viii

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................xi

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Biological Inventories at Cor onado National Monument...........................1

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

Report Format and Data Organization ...................................................................................................1

Chapter 2: Memorial Overview .................................................................................................................3

Memorial Area and History ..................................................................................................................3

Natural Resources Overview ................................................................................................................3

Natural Resource Management Issues...................................................................................................5

Chapter 3: Plant Inventory ........................................................................................................................9

Data Used to Create Plant Species List..................................................................................................9

Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................................9

Inventory Completeness.....................................................................................................................10

Chapter 4: Reptile and Amphibian Inventory ..........................................................................................11

Methods............................................................................................................................................11

Analyses...........................................................................................................................................14

Results..............................................................................................................................................15

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

Discussion ........................................................................................................................................21

Monitoring........................................................................................................................................23

Chapter 5: Bird Inventory .......................................................................................................................27

Goals................................................................................................................................................27

Technical Concepts............................................................................................................................27

Data Organization..............................................................................................................................28

Methods............................................................................................................................................29

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

Inventory Completeness.....................................................................................................................40

Discussion ........................................................................................................................................43

Monitoring........................................................................................................................................45

Chapter 6: Mammal Inventory ................................................................................................................47

Objectives.........................................................................................................................................47

Methods............................................................................................................................................47

Results..............................................................................................................................................47

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

Discussion ........................................................................................................................................54

Monitoring........................................................................................................................................55

Chapter 7: Literature Cited.....................................................................................................................57
vi

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of vascular plant and vertebrate inventories at Coronado NM.........................................xviii

Table 1.1. Museums that were queried, in 1998, for vertebrate voucher specimens with “Arizona” and

“Coronado National Memorial” in the collection location.....................................................................2

Table 2.1. Average monthly climate data for Coronado NM, 1960–2004. ...........................................................5

Table 4.1. Methods used during visual encounter surveys at Coronado NM, 1997–1998. ..................................12

Table 4.2. Species of amphibians confirmed at Coronado NM, and number of observations of adults during

1997–1998 on general visual encounter surveys (VES), monitoring plots (Plots), road transects

(Roads), the Lowe-Johnson transect (Transect), and incidental observations (Other).........................15

Table 4.3. Species of reptiles confirmed at Coronado NM, and number of observations during 1997–1998

on general visual encounter surveys (VES), monitoring plots (Plots), road transects (Roads), the

Lowe-Johnson transect (Trans), and incidental observations (Other). ................................................16

Table 4.4. Summary of visual encounter survey data at Coronado NM, 1997–1998. ..........................................18

Table 4.5. Summary of surveys on monitoring plots at Coronado NM, 1998. .....................................................18

Table 4.6. Comparison of relative abundance of lizards in each vegetation community at Coronado NM

based on transect data from Johnson and Lowe (1979) and our study. ...............................................19

Table 4.7. Summary of road transect survey data at Coronado NM, 1997–1998.................................................20

Table 4.8. Numbers of species and species densities of native reptiles at the four inventoried parks in

southern Arizona, arranged by decreasing size. ...................................................................................21

Table 4.9. Species of amphibians and reptiles confirmed for Coronado NM that were not confirmed or

observed by Johnson and Lowe (1979). ...............................................................................................22

Table 5.1. Mean density of the most common tree species at each station along the two repeat-visit VCP

transects, Coronado NM, 2004. ............................................................................................................31

Table 5.2. Summary of bird survey effort by UA inventory personnel, Coronado NM, 2002–2004. ..................32

Table 5.3. Bird survey effort by Coronado NM volunteers, 2002–2004...............................................................35

Table 5.4. Sum (number of observations) and relative abundance (mean + SE) of birds observed during

breeding-season surveys along the Wash transect, Coronado NM, 2003 and 2004.............................38

Table 5.5. Sum (number of observations) and relative abundance (mean + SE) of birds observed during

breeding-season surveys along the Riparian transect, Coronado NM, 2003 and 2004........................39

Table 5.6. Mean relative abundance of birds observed during reconnaissance VCP surveys, Coronado NM,

2002–2004.............................................................................................................................................41

Table 5.7. Relative abundance of birds observed during line-transect surveys by UA inventory personnel,

Coronado NM, 2002–2003. ..................................................................................................................42
vii

Table 5.8. Sum (total number of observations) and relative abundance (mean + SE) of birds detected

during nocturnal surveys, Coronado NM, 2003. ..................................................................................42

Table 5.9. Number of observations for each breeding behavior for birds, Coronado NM, 2003 and 2004. ........43

Table 6.1. Number of nocturnal rodents trapped per 100 trap-nights in selected vegetation types at

Coronado NM. ......................................................................................................................................52

Table 6.2. Number of species of native terrestrial mammals on species lists at four parks in southern

Arizona, and density in number of species per 100 ha.........................................................................54

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Location of Coronado National Memorial, Arizona......................................................................4

Figure 2.2. Boundary and major features, Coronado NM...............................................................................5

Figure 2.3. Trails and roads made by border crossers into Coronado NM. ......................................................6

Figure 4.1. Coronado NM, indicating locations of monitoring plots established during this study...................13

Figure 4.2. Species accumulation curve for reptiles and amphibians combined at Coronado NM,

1997–1998. .............................................................................................................................17

Figure 5.1. Photographs of bird stations along both repeat-visit VCP transects: Wash (A and B) and

Riparian (C and D). .................................................................................................................30

Figure 5.2. Location of VCP survey stations, Coronado NM, 2001 and 2002. ..............................................31

Figure 5.3. Locations of non-breeding season (“winter”) transect sections and nocturnal survey stations

for birds, Coronado NM, 2002 and 2003. ..................................................................................33

Figure 5.4. Species accumulation curves for the UA inventory effort (2002–2004) and data from the visitor

center log book (1991–2003), Coronado NM. ...........................................................................44

Figure 6.1. Map of Coronado NM, showing locations of trapping grids. ......................................................50

Figure 6.2. Number of individuals trapped (captures – recaptures) of nocturnal rodent species captured

at Coronado NM, 1996–1997. .................................................................................................51

Figure 6.3. Map of Coronado NM, showing locations of infrared-triggered photograph stations.....................53

Figure 6.4. Number of individual photographs of 18 mammal species taken by infrared-triggered

photography at Coronado NM, 1996–1997. ..............................................................................53
viii

List of Appendices

Appendix A Plant species observed at Coronado NM during our vegetation sampling at breeding-season

bird stations in 2004. ...........................................................................................................64

Appendix B. Species list of amphibians and reptiles for Coronado NM. .....................................................84

Appendix C. Number of observations, by bird species and detection type, at Coronado NM by University

of Arizona (UA) Inventory personnel, 2002–2004. ................................................................85

Appendix D. Mammal species observed or collected at Coronado NM based on 1977-1978 study

(Petryszyn and Cockrum 1979), this study, and wildlife sightings database compiled by

memorial staff. ....................................................................................................................91

Appendix E. Species of reptiles and amphibians not reported for NM (CORO) that could occur based on

geographic and elevational range...........................................................................................93

Appendix F. Mammal species that might occur at Coronado NM including those believed to be possible

by Petryszyn and Cockrum (1979).........................................................................................96

Appendix G. Incidental reptile and mammal observations collected during bird inventory, Coronado NM

2003–2004...........................................................................................................................97

Appendix H. List of voucher specimens collected from Coronado NM and located in various collections. .....98

Appendix I. Total number of observations, by transect and VCP survey type, Coronado NM,

2002–2004. .......................................................................................................................100

Appendix J. Summary of vegetation characteristics measured at bird survey stations, Coronado NM,

2004..................................................................................................................................102

Appendix K. Total number of observations and mean relative abundance (RA) from reconnaissance VCP

surveys, Coronado NM, 2002–2004. ...................................................................................106

Appendix L. Total number of observations (sum) and mean relative abundance (RA) of birds observed

during the non-breeding season (August–March) by Coronado NM volunteers, 2002–2004. ...108

Appendix M. Total number of observations (sum) and mean relative abundance (RA) of birds observed

during the breeding season (April–July) by Coronado NM volunteers, 2002–2004..................109

Appendix N. Most common species at each transect and season based on data published in Russell and

Danforth (1979) and mean relative abundance (RA) data from Tables 5.3 and 5.4. .................111

Appendix O. Species of terrestrial mammals (exclusive of nocturnal rodents) confirmed at Coronado NM

and number of documented observations, including photographs by infrared-triggered

photography, approximate number of observations during road transects and time-area

constrained search, and number of observations recorded in CORO sightings database,

1972–1997.........................................................................................................................113

Appendix P. Total number of animals captured during trapping on the Joe’s Canyon grid at Coronado NM,

November 1997–2003. .......................................................................................................114

Appendix Q. Total number of animals captured during trapping at the Grassland grid, Coronado NM,

November 1997–2003. .......................................................................................................114
ix
x
xi

Acknowldgements

Thanks to Kym Hall, current superintendent, as well as Barbara Alberti, and all former superintendents,

and all the staff at Coronado National Memorial (NM) for their support of our program. This project

resulted from the collaboration of many people from the University of Arizona (UA) and the National Park

Service (NPS), and was facilitated by the Desert Southwest and Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystem

Studies Units (CESUs). The Southern Arizona Office of NPS facilitated development of the original study

plan that led directly to initiation of this project. Andy Hubbard, at the Sonoran Desert Network (SDN)

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

role of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)/UA Inventory program in the I&M program. Kathy Davis,

superintendent at Tuzigoot and Montezuma Castle national monuments played an instrumental role in this

project by providing important early initiative. Larry Norris at the Desert Southwest CESU has provided

strong support for our program and spent considerable time and effort providing clear and timely

administrative assistance. Matt Goode and Dale Turner provided much of the early planning for this

project; we are indebted to their vision and work. Eric Albrecht was an outstanding spokesperson and

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

Special thanks to Pam Anning, Lisa Carder, and Kathleen Docherty for their years of hard work on all

aspects of the project. 

For work on the bird project we thank Eric Albrecht, Gabe Martinez, and Janine McCabe who

collected a wealth of data on the birds at Coronado NM. Memorial volunteers Harry Bergtholdt, Alan

Blixt, Mike Guest, and Pete Mekkelson contributed line transect data for this report, and Mike Guest

deserves much credit for his maintenance of the bird database at the memorial. We are appreciative of the

following people, many of whom never ventured into the field, but whose work in the office made the field

effort more successful: Debbie Angell, Jennifer Brodsky, Brian Cornelius, Taylor Edwards, Carianne

Funicelli, Marina Hernandez, Colleen McClain, Heather McClaren, Lindsay Norpel, Ryan Reese, Jill

Rubio, Brent Sigafus, Taffy Sterpka, Jenny Treiber, and Alesha Williams. 

For work on the mammal project we would like to thank Paul Funk, Alicia Gutzman, Heather

Guest, Michael Guest, Sherry Mann, Phi Pham, Vicki Powers, Mary Helen Surovik, Will Sergent, Pete Van

Cleve, Sandy Wolf, Dan Bell, and Matt Goode. Henry Ruiz, David Chavez, Michael Hardin, Fred

Moosman, Scott Sticha, William Smith, and Kenneth Thompson provided rides, protection, specimens, and

logistical support. In addition, we are indebted to a great deal of “behind the scenes” support. Bonnie

Rainer and Mary Megill spent many hours entering data. Dave Rainer coordinated GPS and GIS aspects

of the project and organized a huge amount of geographic information. Yar Petryzyn provided small

mammal identification and shared his significant knowledge of Coronado and its mammals. Patty Guertin

identified plants, particularly grasses. Kathy Hiett, Joan Ford, Brenda Carbajal, Carol Wakely, Mary

Greene, Mike Kunzmann, Dale Linder, Nancy Wilcox, and Sue Benson provided technical and

administrative support for this research, and Dan Bell and Dale Lindner shared their photographs. 

For work on the reptile and amphibian project we would like to thank Bonnie Rainer and Mary

Helen Surovik for data entry and Dave Ranier for GIS assistance. Henry Ruiz and David Chavez

contributed their substantial knowledge of the memorial and its herpetofauna throughout the project.

Nancy Wilcox provided administrative support, and Cori Dolan assisted in the field. We also thank rangers

Fred Moosman, Bret Morris, Mike Hardin, and Scott Sticha for help with transportation and protection,

and for collecting voucher specimens. We received experienced assistance in the field from Taylor

Edwards and from Dan Bell, who also contributed greatly with his photographic talents. Thanks also to

Caren Goldberg, Trevor Hare, Dave Prival, and Chris Scott. In addition, we are indebted to “behind the

scenes” technical and administrative support from the University of Arizona and the U.S. Geological

Survey, Sonoran Desert Research Station, including Brenda Carbajal, Sandy Mosolf, Carol Wakely, Gloria

Maender, and Kathy Hiett. Special thanks to Pam Anning and Kristen Beaupre for help with the database

and maps. The Herpetology Collection at the University of Arizona assisted with difficult identifications,
xii

specimens, and other questions. Thanks in particular to George Bradley for specimen records. A number

of other museums and university collections provided data on herpetological specimens collected in

Arizona to the Sonoran Desert Field Station, including Brigham Young University, Chicago Academy of

Sciences, and Harvard University. Thank you also to Terry Johnson, Arizona Game and Fish Department,

for providing copies of his field notes from his study. 

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

Research Station as well as Terri Rice, Andy Honaman, Jenny Ferry, and especially Cecily Westphal of the

School of Natural Resources at the UA. Thanks to Sharon Megdal and Peter Wierenga, the current and

former director, respectively, of the UA Water Resources Research Center, and all their staff. 

Earlier drafts of this report were reviewed by: Barbara Alberti, Mike Guest, Andy Hubbard, Larry

Laing, Sherry Mann, Theresa Mau-Crimmons, and Larry Norris. 
xiii

We conducted inventories for amphibians and

reptiles, birds, and mammals; and summarized

past inventories for vascular plants at Coronado

National Memorial (NM) in Arizona. We used our

data as well as data from previous research to

compile species lists for the memorial, assess

inventory completeness, and make suggestions on

future monitoring efforts.

There have been 940 species of plants and

vertebrates recorded at Coronado NM (Table 1),

of which 46 (5%) are non-native. The species

richness of the memorial is one of the highest in

the Sonoran Desert Network of park units, third

only to park units that are two and one-half

(Chiricahua National Monument), 19 (Saguaro

National Park) and 70 (Organ Pipe Cactus

National Monument) times larger in area. The

high species diversities are due to the large

elevational gradient, overlap of bigeographical

regions, wide range of geology and soils, and

diverse vegetation communities present at the

memorial.

Changes in species composition have

occurred at the memorial over the last 20 years in

all major taxonomic groups. These changes are

likely due to increases in grassy plant species (both

native and non-native) at the lower elevations of

the memorial. We suspect that grassy plant cover

has increased because of changes in grazing

intensity, introduction of some non-native species,

and a recent fire. All recent vertebrate inventories

have yielded grassland obligate species not

previously recorded at the memorial. 

Based on the review of past studies, we

believe the inventory for most taxa, except bats, is

nearly complete, though some rare or elusive

species will likely be added with additional survey

effort. 

Table 1. Summary of vascular plant and vertebrate inventories at Coronado NM.

Taxonomic group Number of species recorded Number of non-native species

Plants 649 41

Amphibians and Reptiles 43 0

Birds 196 2

Mammals 52 3

Totals 940 46

Executive Summary
xiv
1

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 park units, 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 most park units. In fact, as of

1994, more than 80% of national park units 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

the cornerstone for 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 assist in testing sampling

strategies, field methods, and data collection

protocols, and can provide estimates of variation

that are essential in prospective power analysis. 

Report Format

This report is intended to be useful for internal

planning, outreach, and education. We report only

common names in the text unless we reference a

species that is not listed later in an appendix; in this

case we present both common and scientific names.

For each taxonomic group we include an appendix

of all species that have been recorded in the

memorial (Appendices A–D), and species whose

presence is possible (except for plants and birds;

Appendices E and F). Species lists are in

phylogenetic sequence and include taxonomic order,

family, genus, species, subspecies or variety (if

applicable), and common name. Units of

measurement are presented in accordance with the

International System of Units. 

Species Conservation Designations

We indicate species conservation designations by

the following agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (responsible for administering the

Endangered Species Act), Bureau of Land

Management, USDA Forest Service, Arizona Game

and Fish Department, and Partners in Flight (a

partnership of federal, state and local governments,

non-governmental organizations, and private

industry). 

Voucher Specimens

Voucher specimens are an indisputable form of

evidence of a species occurrence. For plants, we

electronically searched the Herbaria at Arizona State

University, Desert Botanical Gardens, Northern

Arizona University, and the University of Arizona

for existing specimens from Coronado NM (see

Appendix A for results). We searched for existing

vertebrate vouchers in records from 28 natural

history museums (Table 1.1; see Appendix H for

results). 

Chapter 1: Introduction to Biological Inventories At Coronado National Memorial

Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt, and William L. Halvorson
Table 1.1. Museums that were queried, in 1998, for vertebrate voucher specimens with “Arizona” and “Coronado

National Memorial” in the collection location. Collections in bold-faced type had specimens from the memorial.

Collection Collection cont.

Brigham Young University Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman

Chicago Academy of Sciences Peabody Museum, Yale University

Cincinnati Museum of Natural History & Science Saguaro National Park

Cornell Vertebrate Collections, Cornell University Strecker Museum, Baylor University, Waco

George Mason University (Fairfax, VA) Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection

Marjorie Barrick Museum, University of Nevada-Las Vegas University of Arizona

Michigan State University Museum (East Lansing) University of Colorado Museum

Milwaukee Public Museum University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University University of Kansas, Natural History Museum

Museum of Texas Tech University University of Michigan

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology , University of California, Berkeley University of Texas, Arlington

Museum of Life Sciences, Louisiana State University, Shreveport Walnut Canyon National Monument, Arizona

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, Tucson

North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences Wupatki National Memorial, Flagstaff

2
3

Memorial Area and History

Coronado National Memorial is located in

southeastern Arizona approximately 30 km south

of the city of Sierra Vista (Figs 2.1, 2.2). The

memorial is bounded by the U.S./Mexico border to

the south, private and Arizona State Trust land to

the east, and USDA Forest Service land to the west

and north (NPS 1998). Nearby Sierra Vista, one of

the fastest growing cities in Arizona, has an

estimated population of 40,000 (NPS 1998). Other

small towns, such as Hereford and Palominas on

the U.S. side of the border, and Ejido Jose Maria

Morales on the Mexican side of the border, are

within 20 km of the memorial.

Coronado NM was established in 1941 as

an international memorial, then changed status in

1952 to a national memorial. The memorial was

created to commemorate the 15th century

explorations of Francisco Vasquez de Coronado,

the first Spanish explorer of southern Arizona

(NPS 1998). When originally founded, the

memorial encompassed approximately 1,165 ha. In

1978, the memorial was expanded by 744 ha to

include the entire Montezuma Canyon Watershed

(Fig 2.2; NPS 1998, NPS 2004a). Currently, the

memorial encompasses 1,922 ha (NPS 1998).

Annual visitation to the memorial averages 90,000

(NPS 2004b).

Natural Resources Overview

Physiography, Geology, and Soils

Within the Basin and Range Physiographic

Province, the memorial is located at the southern

end of the Huachuca Mountains, one of the

region’s “sky island” mountain ranges. Topography

in most parts of the memorial is steep, climbing

from 1,400 m in the grassland plain of the

memorial’s southeast corner, to 2,350 m at

Montezuma Peak, located along the memorial’s

northern border. 

The geology of the area is complex, with

high-angle reverse faults juxtaposing sedimentary,

igneous, and metamorphic rock. At least nine

caves, most notably Coronado Cave, have been

discovered at the memorial (NPS 1998). The

memorial is dominated by rock outcrop and

alluvium. Deep soils (up to 1.5 m) predominate on

the lower slopes and are especially notable in the

southeastern portion of the memorial. However,

shallow soil associations (from 25–50 cm) with

high rock-fragment content are typical of the

steeper slopes and are the most extensive

(Richardson et al. 1979). For a complete soil

survey, see Denny and Peacock (1996).

Hydrology 

The deep soils in alluvium typically have low

permeability and widely varying water-holding

capacity, while the shallow soil associations, with

their high rock fragment content, have low waterholding capacity (Richardson et al. 1979). Intense

precipitation generates flash floods and it is not

uncommon for especially heavy storms to reshape

drainages. The main drainage, the eastsoutheast/west-northwest trending Montezuma

Canyon, bisects the memorial. Main drainages in

the mountainous terrain channel the flow to

Montezuma Canyon, while the numerous drainages

within the grasslands flow to the San Pedro River

(east of the memorial). Springs present at the

memorial, such as Yaqui Springs, trickle rather

than flow, and permanent surface waters are not

present. 

Climate

Coronado NM experiences an annual bimodal

pattern of precipitation which is characterized by

heavy summer (monsoon) storms brought about by

moisture coming from the Gulf of Mexico and less

intense frontal systems coming from the Pacific

Ocean in the winter. On average, approximately

one-half of the annual precipitation falls from July

through September (Table 2.1; WRCC 2004). The

area’s hot season occurs from April through

October; maximum temperatures in July can

exceed 35°C. Winter temperatures dip below

freezing and snow is occasional. 

Vegetation

According to NPS (1998) and Ruffner and Johnson

(1991), the memorial contains four vegetation

Chapter 2: Memorial Overview

Cecilia A. Schmidt, Brian F. Powell, and William L. Halvorson
4

Figure 2.1. Location of Coronado National Memorial, Arizona.
5

types: Oak-Mexican Pinyon Pine-Juniper

Woodland (evergreen woodland community), the

most extensive community, occurs mainly on the

north and southwest facing slopes of the memorial;

Grama Grass-Mixed Grass-Mixed Shrub Grassland

(Chihuahuan semi-desert grassland community)

occurs on the easternmost part of the memorial;

Velvet Mesquite-Mixed Short Tree Woodland

(Desert Riparian Forest community) is found in the

easternmost part of the memorial along low

elevation ephemeral drainages; and Arizona

Sycamore-Arizona Walnut-Oak Riparian Forest

(mixed broadleaf forest community)is found along

Montezuma Canyon.

Natural Resource Management Issues

Border Crossings

The most pressing management issue for Coronado

NM is the trespass of drug smugglers and

undocumented immigrants (border crossers) across

the U.S./Mexico border. It is estimated that 150

undocumented immigrants enter the U.S. through

the memorial each day (NPS 2003a) and

approximately 75,000 to 100,000 pounds of drugs

are brought through the memorial each year (NPS

2003b). 

In addition to the obvious safety concerns,

border crossers impact the natural resources of the

memorial. Border crossers have created a network

Table 2.1. Average monthly climate data for Coronado NM, 1960–2004. Data from WRCC (2004). 

Month 

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

Maximum temperature (oC) 14.7 16.7 19.6 23.8 28.2 33.0 32.2 30.6 29.2 24.8 19.1 14.8 23.9

Minimum temperature (oC) 0.3 1.2 2.9 6.2 10.4 15.0 16.7 15.8 13.9 9.2 3.8 0.5 8.0

Precipitation (cm) 4.3 3.7 2.9 1.1 0.6 1.4 11.5 10.2 5.0 3.9 2.5 5.3 4.3

Figure 2.2. Boundary and major features, Coronado NM. 
6

of trails and roads in the memorial, particularly in

the semi-desert grasslands on the southeast side of

the memorial (see Fig. 2.3). They have also

damaged vegetation, eroded and compacted soil,

and left large amounts of trash behind (Hubbard

2002, Hubbard et al. 2003, NPS 2003a). These

impacts may affect water quality and wildlife

movement patterns, though the extent of these

impacts has not been established. Border crossers

often shelter in caves and old mine shafts that

provide roosting habitat for bats, including the

endangered lesser long-nosed bat, which has been

documented at the memorial (Hubbard 2002,

Hubbard et al. 2003, NPS 2003a). Border crossers

light fires (using trees or wood from historic

structures on the memorial), some of which may

burn out of control and spread through the

memorial (NPS 2003a, Hubbard et al. 2003). In

response to growing threats of undocumented

immigrants and drug smugglers to memorial

resources, the NPS built a vehicle barrier through

the southeastern portion of the memorial, however

the remainder of the memorial boundary with

Mexico is lined with only barbed-wire fence (NPS

2003b). 

Fire

Before the 1900s, fire occurred regularly in the

area, but since the early 1900s fires have been

actively suppressed on the memorial (Ruffner and

Johnson 1991). Fire suppression leads to an

increase in woody plant species, eventually

increasing the intensity of fires, such as the Peak

Fire of 1988, which burned most of the memorial

(Ruffner and Johnson 1991). The fire varied from

moderate to severe in intensity, in many places

killing trees; it also appears to have led to an

increase in grasses (Ruffner and Johnson 1991).

Fires can also cause air quality and soil erosion

problems and result in the loss or alteration of

habitat for wildlife. Fire management is made

difficult because of the memorial’s proximity to

Mexican ejido (communal) lands, where there is no

fire management plan and few resources for

fighting fires. Coronado NM is part of the

Huachuca Fire Partners group, which works with

local, state, and federal agencies, as well as private

landowners, to manage fires on a landscape scale,

regardless of political boundaries (Barbara Alberti,

pers. com.). 

Non-Native Species

The most pressing non-native species issue at the

memorial is the spread of Lehmann lovegrass and

other non-native grasses. Lehmann lovegrass has

become the dominant grass on the southeast side of

the memorial where it has replaced many native

grasses. This change in species composition can

alter the fire regime of the area by supporting

higher fire frequencies, thereby leading to other

Figure 2.3. Trails and roads made by border crossers into Coronado NM. Photo by Mike Hardin.
7

changes in vegetation composition and structure

(Anable et al. 1992). However, abundance and

species richness of some taxa, such as small

mammals, may be higher in areas with Lehmann’s

lovegrass.

Grazing

Livestock grazing has degraded an estimated 80%

of streams and riparian ecosystems in the western

United States through loss of vegetation, streambank erosion, soil compaction, flooding, and water

pollution (BLM 1994). 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). 

Cattle have been grazed on the memorial

since the 16th century. At the time of the

memorial’s establishment, it had four grazing

allotments managed by the USDA Forest Service

(NPS 1998). In 1992, two of those allotments were

retired and the management of the remaining

allotments was turned over to the NPS (NPS 1998).

The memorial still manages two cattle allotments,

consisting of approximately 1,390 ha. or 37% of

the memorial, which the staff would like to retire

(NPS 1998, NPS 2004a). In the surrounding areas,

especially on the Mexico side of the boundary,

cattle are still being grazed today (See Fig. 2.2) and

trespass of cattle from Mexico onto the memorial is

common (Hubbard 2002). At the memorial, cattle

spend more time in the Montezuma Wash because

of an abundance of shade and palatable forage

there (NPS 2004a), which is consistent with their

habitat-use patterns (Kauffman and Krueger 1984). 

Development of Adjacent Lands

Housing developments east of the memorial are

beginning to encroach on the memorial’s boundary

(NPS 1998, Hubbard et al. 2003). Potential impacts

of development include an increase in the number

and extent of non-native plants, disruption of

animal movement patterns, and increased

harassment and mortality of native animals by pets

and feral animals (NPS 1998, Tigas et al. 2002,

Hubbard et al. 2003). Development will also likely

increase groundwater withdrawal (Hubbard et al.

2003). Because of the small size of the memorial,

the memorial itself can not support the home

ranges of many large mammals, such as bears,

mountain lions, and jaguars. In order for these

species to survive, areas surrounding the memorial

must also be protected from development.

Caves and Abandoned Mines 

The memorial is home to 62 abandoned mines and

several caves (NPS 1998). Mining for lead and

zinc began on the memorial in the late 1800s and

continued through 1947, thereby leaving

contaminated tailings that are polluting water at the

memorial (NPS 1998). These mines can pose

safety threats to visitors but also provide habitat for

many species of wildlife, especially bats. 

Aircraft Noise

Low-flying military aircraft from Fort Huachuca,

law enforcement aircraft from the U.S. Border

Patrol, and private aircraft pass over the memorial

often (NPS 1998, Hubbard et al. 2003). Both

vibrations and noise generated by these aircraft

affect the natural quiet of the memorial and may

also affect wildlife in the area (NPS 1994). Aircraft

overflights can produce changes in the physiology

and behavior of some wildlife species (Luz and

Smith 1976, Craig and Craig 1984, Ellis and Ellis

1991, Weisenberger et al. 1996). 

Wildlife Poaching

There have been some incidents of wildlife

poaching at the memorial in the recent past and

there may still be some poaching occurring. At

least one arrest was made in a reptile poaching

incident during the past decade (Barbara Alberti,

pers. comm.). Swann et al. (1999) documented

evidence of illegal collecting of snakes, although

they did not feel that this was a major management

concern at the time. The presence of certain highlyprized species has the potential to make illegal

collecting a management issue in the future.
8
9

There have been several studies on the vegetation

at Coronado National Memorial. The memorial has

kept a list of all plant species identified within its

boundaries. Ruffner and Johnson (1991) mapped

the vegetation of the memorial, as well as created a

plant list based on the memorial’s vegetation list

and species found on their monitoring plots. Parfitt

and Christy (1992) also created a species list based

on the memorial’s list and specimens previously

accessioned into herbaria at Arizona State

University and the University of Arizona. Ruyle

(2002) established vegetation monitoring plots on

one of the grazing allotments (Joe’s Spring

Allotment) and monitored them from 1998 to 2001.

Halvorson and Guertin (2003) mapped common

non-native species found at 11 national park units,

including Coronado NM. The NPS Sonoran Desert

Network (SDN) Inventory and Monitoring

Program (unpublished data) conducted vegetation

sampling on 33 plots throughout the memorial in

2002. Finally, vegetation sampling at diurnal

breeding-season bird stations was conducted in

2004 (see Chapter 5). 

Data Used to Create Plant Species List

The plant species list for the memorial (Appendix

A) is based on Ruffner and Johnson (1991), Parfitt

and Christy (1992), Ruyle (2002), Halvorson and

Guertin (2003), the NPS SDN Inventory and

Monitoring Program data (unpublished), and

vegetation sampling data from breeding-season

bird stations. Taken together, these sources provide

a comprehensive list of plants occurring at the

memorial.

Nomenclature

Scientific and common names used in this report

are current according to the Integrated Taxonomic

Information System (ITIS 2004) and the PLANTS

database (USDA 2004).

Results and Discussion

There have been 649 plant species documented at

Coronado NM (Appendix A), 41 (6%) of which are

non-native. Ruyle (2002) lists horehound (Ballota

species) as being found on one of his plots in the

memorial. However, this species is not found in the

southwestern United States and therefore we

omitted it from the species list (Appendix A).

Coronado NM, surprisingly, has one of the lowest

percentages of non-native plant species in the

Sonoran Desert Network of park units, second only

to nearby Fort Bowie National Historic Site. This

is surprising because of the history of disturbance

to the memorial, most notably cattle grazing that

continues to occur today. Although Coronado NM

does boast one of the lowest number of non-native

plant species, the spatial coverage of a few species

is wide-ranging. Lehmann lovegrass, in particular,

covers most of the eastern portion of the memorial

and was found to have the highest frequency and

coverage on several of Ruffner and Johnson’s

(1991) monitoring plots. It was also found on

almost every one of Ruyle’s (2002) monitoring

plots and often in high frequencies. Halvorson and

Guertin (2003) also found this species to be

widespread at the memorial. Ruffner and Johnson

(1991) found that native species that are more

tolerant to trampling (by cattle and humans), such

as blue grama, may be more common under the

current conditions than were historically present.

These species may have replaced other grasses

such as big sacaton, historically common in

southern Arizona, and now rare at the memorial. 

Two species of concern under the

Endangered Species Act, the Huachuca Mountain

milkvetch and netted globecherry, have also been

documented at the memorial (Ruffner and Johnson

1991, HDMS 2003). Ruffner and Johnson (1991)

mention that woody species, such as mesquite, may

be increasing in the grassland areas of the park.

Encroachment of woody vegetation into grasslands,

with the subsequent loss of these grasslands and

the species that depend on them, is a major natural

resource issue in southern Arizona (NPS 2000,

Taylor 2004). Ruffner and Johnson (1991) suggest

that periodic fires, which kill off woody species’

seedlings and saplings, are important to reducing

encroachment and therefore restoring the semidesert grasslands. 

Chapter 3: Plant Inventory

Cecilia A. Schmidt
10

Peak Fire

The Peak Fire occurred during Ruffner and

Johnson’s (1991) study. This allowed them the

unique opportunity to observe the effects of the fire

and the subsequent flash flood events on vegetation

at the memorial. Overall, they found that the fire

had little effect on the long-term species

composition and densities (Ruffner and Johnson

1991). Only individuals from two species,

rabbitbrush (Ericameria species) and hedgehog

cactus (Echincereus species), were killed by the

fire and had not returned within the year (Ruffner

and Johnson 1991). However, there were shortterm changes: species whose germination is

encouraged by fire or disturbance such as morning

glory (Ipomoea species), Sonoita nightshade, and

Orcutt’s threeawn, increased quickly after the fire,

but a year after the fire were found in low numbers

or not at all (Ruffner and Johnson 1991). Shortterm effects on trees were minimal; within a year

many had sprouted back (Ruffner and Johnson

1991). 

Subsequent flash flood events after the

Peak Fire altered wash and stream characteristics

and washed away many individual plants. 

Inventory Completeness

With each additional study conducted at the

memorial the number of species identified has

increased. Ruyle (2002) added 16 species to the

lists by Ruffner and Johnson (1991) and Parfitt and

Christy (1992). The Inventory and Monitoring

(NPS, unpublished data) study conducted only one

year after Ruyle’s study added an additional 13

species. Based on the number of studies and

collections, we believe the plant inventory is near

90% complete. However, new species will continue

to be found and increasing development around the

memorial may result in more non-native species

being established at the memorial in the future.
11

Although specimens of amphibians and reptiles

have been collected in Montezuma Canyon

sporadically throughout the latter half of the

twentieth century, the first formal survey of

herpetofauna at the memorial was by University of

Arizona researchers during 1978. Based on

generalized searches, Johnson and Lowe (1979)

confirmed 16 species of reptiles and six species of

amphibians, and believed that at least another 13

species of reptiles and one species of amphibian

occurred on site. However, the Lowe-Johnson

study was of short duration and the boundaries of

the memorial have changed significantly since

1978. Other studies of herpetofauna at Coronado

NM have included barking frogs (Goldberg and

Schwalbe 2000) and montane rattlesnakes (Swann

et al. 1999). 

The main purpose of the present study was

to conduct field surveys for reptiles and

amphibians at Coronado NM and to combine this

information with historic data to produce a baseline

inventory. In addition, we proposed to develop a

repeatable study design for monitoring species

diversity of herpetofauna. We used a variety of

techniques to confirm as many of the memorial’s

reptiles and amphibians as possible. We recorded

all individual reptiles and amphibians observed

during 1997–1998 and determined the approximate

location of each observation; we also continued to

collect species presence data opportunistically

through 2001. Specific objectives were: 

1. Survey reptiles and amphibians using

techniques that have minimal impact on the

animals and the environment; 

2. Take voucher photographs and collect

voucher specimens to document which

species are present on the memorial; 

3. Gather historic information on

herpetofauna at Coronado NM from

published sources, museum collections,

and historic reports;

4. Document abundance of selected species in

different vegetation communities at the

memorial;

5. Provide information for the basis of longterm monitoring; and

6. Provide this information to the memorial in

a format useful for making management

decisions and interpretation.

Several products are provided in the

appendices of this report. Additionally, a separate

report (Swann and Schwalbe 2002) provides

detailed species accounts and distribution maps for

all species. Printed and electronic copies of data

sheets, data tables, Global Positioning Systems

(GPS) files, field notes, and voucher photos and

other photos, have been sent separately to the

memorial. 

Methods

Fieldwork on this study began in April 1997 and

was completed in October 1998. However,

observations on reptiles were also made during a

study of mammals at the memorial starting in

October 1996 (Chapter 6). Additionally, this report

includes specimens collected by park staff and the

authors through May 2001. Because reptiles and

amphibians are very diverse in their habits and

habitats, we used many different methods to detect

species. Methods included visual encounter surveys

on large and small plots; visual surveys on

transects established by Johnson and Lowe (1979);

road transects (“road cruising”) with an

automobile; historic and museum records; and

sightings by staff and visitors. Due to the

sensitivity of cultural resources on the memorial,

which required archaeological approval, and then

illness of the major field investigator (DES) during

a period in the summer of 1998, we only

established one pitfall array, which had very low

trap success. We employed extensive cover-turning,

particularly turning of debris at the Montezuma

Ranch, to observe and capture reptiles and

amphibians. However, we were careful to return all

cover to its natural place and appearance (most of

this cover was removed during a cleanup of

Montezuma Ranch at the end of the field season in

1998). 

Chapter 4: Reptiles and Amphibians Inventory

Don E. Swann and Cecil R. Schwalbe
12

As an extension of this study, we

established a study area to search for and estimate

abundance of banded rock rattlesnakes and

Sonoran mountain kingsnakes, and did focused

searches for two other species of montane

rattlesnakes — twin-spotted rattlesnake and

ridgenose rattlesnake. Results of these searches are

reported here, but significantly greater detail is

available in a separate report, “Ecology of Banded

Rock Rattlesnakes and Sonoran Mountain

Kingsnakes at Coronado National Memorial,”

(Swann et al. 1999) funded by and submitted to

Southwest Parks and Monuments Association

(SPMA). 

Visual Encounter Surveys

The visual encounter survey (Crump and Scott

1994) is a standard method for inventory and

monitoring of reptiles and amphibians that are

difficult to capture in traps. The method utilizes

systematic, timed searches in a defined habitat or

area. During visual encounter surveys a variety of

specific techniques are used to detect animals on

the ground surface, above the ground in trees and

other vegetation, within rock cracks and other

geological features, and below ground under

inorganic and organic debris (Table 4.1). 

In 1997, we systematically and repeatedly

searched the entire land area of the memorial using

visual encounter surveys within broad (5–10 ha)

areas based on different vegetation communities.

We made an effort to alternate searches in different

vegetation communities so that on every field trip

we spent time searching in each community. In

1998, we continued these searches, but also

established smaller plots for monitoring purposes

(see monitoring plots in Figure 4.1). 

Visual encounter surveys were generally

conducted during morning and early evening hours.

During each survey, we recorded the start and end

time, the researcher, the area searched, and the

percentage of time spent on each type of search

activity. For each individual amphibian, reptile, and

mammal observed, we recorded the date and time

of the observation, the location, the method used,

and habitat characteristics such as vegetation

community and substrate. 

Monitoring Plots

The monitoring phase of this study was conducted

during April-October 1998. Coronado NM was

divided into six sections based on vegetation

communities and elevation, and 25 plots were

randomly located within each section (Figure 4.1).

Ten plots were in oak woodland, five below 1,800

m and five above this elevation. Four plots were in

semi-desert grassland, two below 1,500 m and two

above this elevation. Nine plots were located

within Montezuma Canyon and its tributaries: two

in mesquite riparian, two in oak riparian below

1,500 m, three in oak riparian between 1,500 m

and 1,800 m, and two in oak riparian above 1,800

m. Two plots were located at perennial seeps (the

“blue waterfall” near the residence area and the

“fern grotto” below Bob Thompson Peak). All

plots were 0.5 ha except for the four grassland

plots, which were increased in size to 1 ha due to

very low numbers of observations. Grassland plots

were 100 m by 100 m, while other plots were

rectangles with sides of 50 m and 100 m. All plots

Table 4.1. Methods used during visual encounter surveys at Coronado NM, 1997–1998. 

Method Description

Visual search on ground Observer walks slowly while observing ground or rock surfaces, using eyes and ears to observe surfaceactive animals

Visual search in trees Observer inspects tree trunk, branches, leaves, and bark to observe tree-dwelling animals

Binocular search Observer uses binoculars to scan rock surfaces, exposed tree trunks and branches, etc., to observe basking

animals

Search in rock cracks Observer uses mirror to reflect sunlight or shines flashlight into rock cracks, caliche caves, burrows, etc., 

to observe crack-dwelling animals

Cover-turning Observer turns over (and carefully replaces) rocks, logs, leaf litter, etc., to observe animals hidden

underneath

Search in water Observer uses visual search, or dip-nets, to find aquatic adults, larvae, and eggs

Listen for calls Observer listens for calling amphibians, usually during summer rain events
13

were aligned with the major axis east/west (except

for riparian plots, which were aligned to follow the

major stream channel) and the southeast corner was

located using a Trimble GeoExplorer GPS unit.

Each plot was sampled a minimum of eight times

during the study, four times during spring (Mayearly July), and four times during summer (late

July-September). Plots were sampled for 30

minutes each time. To evaluate the effects of

temporal variability within morning surveys, plots

were usually sampled two times each per sampling

day. To evaluate observer effect, different observers

usually conducted surveys on any given day. Thus

on a typical morning, two observers would sample

four plots for 30 minutes each, and each plot would

be sampled two times, once by each observer. 

To better understand temporal variability

within plots, we selected a subset of four plots (one

each in woodland, oak riparian, mesquite riparian,

and seep) for repeated samples. These plots were

sampled 12–16 times throughout the study. 

During each 30-minute survey, the entire

plot was systematically searched. The major goals

of each survey were to achieve complete

(geographic) coverage of the plot, to observe as

many species as possible (without guessing at the

identity of species), and to observe as many

individuals of each species as possible. All

observers were herpetologists with >2 years

experience in finding reptiles and amphibians in

Arizona under different weather conditions, in

different habitats, and using different techniques.

Each observer was asked to use his experience to

choose the appropriate survey technique for the

conditions on the plot. 

During each survey we recorded a number

of variables, including shaded temperature at 1.5

m, 0.5 cm, and ground surface at the start of the

sampling period. We did not attempt to sample

reptiles if air temperatures were below 25°C. For

each reptile and amphibian observed (and for most

mammals), we recorded the time, technique used,

vegetation community, and substrate. We also

made notes on substrate, and located the individual

on a hand-drawn map of the plot. 

Figure 4.1. Coronado NM, indicating locations of monitoring plots established during this study . 
14

Historic Transect

To compare potential changes in relative

abundance of herpetofauna at Coronado NM

between the study by Johnson and Lowe (1979)

and our study, we relocated five, 1-km transects

established by Johnson and Lowe in 1978 and

resurveyed them. During each survey we recorded,

as they did, all individuals of each species

encountered. Unfortunately, it is not possible to

determine from Johnson and Lowe’s report when

or how often they surveyed the transects, or which

data used in relative abundance estimates were

from the transect and which were obtained from

road riding and “additional careful search of the

habitats on site and directly off site.” Their original

data appears to be lost and the field notes provided

by Terry Johnson (pers. comm.) were incomplete.

To provide the best coverage possible, we sampled

each transect at least twice during each spring and

summer season of our two-year study. We also

recorded the time, approximate location, and

habitat characteristics of each observation using the

same methods as on our plots. 

Road Transects

We searched for reptiles at all times while driving

on East Montezuma Canyon road within the

memorial boundary. These included trips

(particularly at night) specifically to search for

amphibians and reptiles, as well as any time we

drove on the roads, such as travel to and from

monitoring grids. During each trip we recorded the

start and end times and start and end locations. If

the trip ended within the memorial and did not

involve any turns or returns (for example, if we

drove from Montezuma Ranch to the visitor

center), we simply recorded the start and end

information for that “segment”. If the trip included

a return (for example, if we drove from the visitor

center to Montezuma Pass and returned), we ended

the segment at the turn-around point, then started a

new segment for the return trip. If the trip took us

outside the memorial boundary, we began and

ended segments at the memorial boundary (we did

search outside the boundary for specimens, but do

not include these data in the road transect results).

For each amphibian, reptile, and mammal observed

on road segments, we recorded the time, odometer

location, and species identification. Odometer

locations were translated to GPS coordinates in the

database for species mapping.

Historic Records

We obtained historic records of reptiles and

amphibians at Coronado NM from a variety of

sources, including Johnson and Lowe (1979),

museum specimens, and historic records located at

the memorial. Additionally, we obtained museum

records from natural history collections throughout

the United States, including 17 university

museums, the American Museum of Natural

History in New York City, and the Smithsonian

Institute in Washington, D.C. A large number of

records were obtained from the University of

Arizona herpetological collection (UAZ). We

compiled historic records in a database with all

available information for each record, such as

collecting date, collector, and other data on the

specimen tag itself. 

Additional Methods

During this study we recorded all individuals of all

amphibians and reptiles observed, including

individuals observed when we were in transit

between plots or occupied in other activities.

Throughout most of the study we recorded all

observations of mammals (summarized in Chapter

6). We also collected reports of sightings,

photographs, and road-killed specimens of

amphibians and reptiles from staff and visitors. For

uncommon species, we evaluated the reliability of

different observations for species accounts. We did

not record all individual amphibians and reptiles

observed off-site, but collected data on individuals

of species that were uncommon or were of

unknown status within the boundaries of the

memorial; we sometimes collected voucher

specimens from off-site. 

Analyses

All observations of reptiles and amphibians made

during the study were entered in a Microsoft

Access database. Separate tables were created for

both effort and results of visual encounter surveys,

historic transects, road transects, monitoring plots,

and incidental sightings. For each observation not

on a mapped plot, we determined a general (+ 200

m) location using a grid overlay on a large detailed
15

topographic map of Coronado NM (undated NPS

map, datum NAD 27 CONUS). Observations were

assigned to points to generate distribution maps for

each species in the GIS software program ArcView

3.2. 

Summary statistics for monitoring plots

were generated using the software programs

Microsoft Excel and JMP-IN (SAS Institute, Inc.).

Temporal and observer variability were evaluated

using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA; Zar 1996).

Results were considered significant if P < 0.05.

Species richness (the number of species present at

the site) was estimated using the mark-recapture

methods of Program CAPTURE for closed

populations (Otis et al. 1978). This program can

estimate species richness based on patterns of

observations in the field; that is, whether each

species is either observed (“captured”) or not

observed (“not captured”) during successive fielddays (Swann 1999). In our analysis, species

richness was estimated based on seven periods of

20 sequential field person-days. 

Species List

Development of a species list of vertebrates for any

park or land area is complicated because some

species are transitory and the occasional

observation of an individual of a particular species

does not necessarily indicate the species is resident

on site. In addition, some species look alike and

can be confused with one another. Even trained

herpetologists have difficulty distinguishing among

species of whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus spp.)

without detailed observations and measurements

that can only be made on captured individuals or

preserved specimens. During this study, a species

was considered “Confirmed Present” at the

memorial only if a voucher specimen or

unambiguous voucher photograph was obtained

during this study or had been previously obtained

by Johnson and Lowe (1979). 

In general we collected only species that

had not been collected in previous studies or that

we found dead (usually on roads). We used

voucher photographs whenever possible. Records

of all voucher specimens can be found in Appendix

H. All specimens have been deposited in the

University of Arizona herpetology collection. 

Nomenclature

Due to rapidly improving genetic technology and

other tools, taxonomists are continuously updating

the classification of amphibians and reptiles.

Unfortunately, this activity often leads to changes

of long-familiar names, and in recent years the rate

of name changes has exceeded the ability of field

guide authors to keep pace. In this paper, we use

the standard names of Collins (1997), which are

different in many cases from the names used in the

current Peterson field guide (Stebbins 1985) and

the most recent list published by the Society for the

Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (Crother 2000). 

Results

Overall

We made 396 individual observations of six

species of amphibians (not including larvae; Table

Table 4.2. Species of amphibians confirmed at Coronado NM, and number of observations of adults during 1997–1998 on

general visual encounter surveys (VES), monitoring plots (Plots), road transects (Roads), the Lowe-Johnson transect

(Transect), and incidental observations (Other). HR refers to historic records: C = confirmed by specimen during previous

study; SO = historic sight observation.

Species HR VES Plots Roads Trans Other Total

barred tiger salamander SO 62 0 0 0 0 62

Great Plains toad C 0 0 1 0 0 1

red-spotted toad C 137 1 48 3 0 189

Woodhouse’s toad C 0 0 0 0 0

a 0

barking frog SO 21b 0 0 0 122

canyon treefrog SO 12 4 0 0 0 16

New Mexico spadefoot C 91 0 15 0 0 106

Total amphibians 323 5 64 0 1 396

a Woodhouse toads (15 individuals) were observed by B. N. Alberti in 2000. 

b

Minimum estimate of barking frogs based mainly on number of calling individuals; does not include frogs collected during study. 
16

4.2) and 1,896 observations of 33 species of

reptiles (Table 4.3) at Coronado NM during this

study. This total includes all observations made

during 1997 and 1998, but does not include

observations made by the co-authors and memorial

staff during 1996 and after 1998. Four species not

observed during our study have been confirmed at

the memorial between 1998 and 2001:

Woodhouse’s toad, Gila monster, western coral

snake, and western hooknose snake. We observed

all of the species observed at the memorial by

Johnson and Lowe (1979) and confirmed 22

species that they had not confirmed or observed.

However, several of these species had been sighted

at the memorial by staff or visitors or had been

collected on lands that are probably now part of the

memorial. 

Estimates of Species Richness

Figure 4.2 indicates the rates at which new species

were encountered during the approximately 150

field person-days of our study. At the end of the

1997 season 30 species had been observed, and we

encountered an additional nine species for the first

time in 1998. Estimates of species richness

(number of species present) at Coronado NM were

obtained using Program CAPTURE. The Program

chose Model (bh) (and the estimator generalized

removal) as the most appropriate model for the

data, suggesting that species observability varied

both among species and that field researchers

varied their search effort in response to finding

species. Program CAPTURE estimated the species

richness of amphibians and reptiles at the memorial

to be 39 (SE = 1.132, CI = 39–46), which is

identical to the number of species detected during

our study but is an underestimate since at least 43

species are known to occur on site. 

Visual Encounter Surveys

Visual encounter surveys, including observations

made while we moved between plots, accounted

Table 4.3. Species of reptiles confirmed at Coronado NM, and number of observations during 1997–1998 on general

visual encounter surveys (VES), monitoring plots (Plots), road transects (Roads), the Lowe-Johnson transect (T rans), and

incidental observations (Other). HR refers to historic records: C = confirmed by specimen during previous study; SO = previous

sight observation; NR = no known records from memorial. Potential records from Montezuma Canyon are labeled with an asterisk

(*). Identification of whiptail lizards, which are difficult to identify without handling, are based on recognizable field features. 

Species HR VES Plots Roads Trans Other Total

Lizards

Sonoran spotted whiptail C 257 172 23 75 5 532

desert grassland whiptail C 141 87 2 15 7 252

unidentified whiptails

(Cnemidophorus spp.) — 199 31 15 11 9 265

eastern collared lizard NR* 100001

Madrean alligator lizard C 9 0 0 0 1 10

mountain skink SO 600006

Great Plains skink NR* 11 0 0 0 112

Gila monster SO 0 0 0 00a 0

lesser earless lizard C 25 5 2 4 137

short-horned lizard C 201126

Clark’s spiny lizard C 79 45 42 12 16 194

Yarrow’s spiny lizard C 158 15 4 23 9 209

bunch grass lizard NR 800019

prairie lizard NR* 13 3 4 0 020

tree lizard C 84 82 2 12 15 195

Subtotal (lizards) 993 440 95 153 67 1748

Turtles and Tortoises

ornate box turtle NR 100001 a

Individuals of Gila monsters, western hognose snakes, and western coral snakes were collected after 1998. 
17

for 57% of all observations of reptiles and

amphibians during the study. In total, we spent 606

hours on visual encounter surveys (Table 4.4).

Because of the great variability and overlap of

vegetation communities it was not possible to

precisely quantify the amount of sampling

conducted in each vegetation community.

However, based on the dominant vegetation in each

area sampled, we estimate that time spent was

approximately 26% in oak woodland, 17% in semidesert grassland, 46% in riparian woodland, 7% in

mesquite riparian, and 3% at perennial seeps

(Coronado NM consists of approximately 72% oak

woodland, 20% semi-desert grassland, and 8%

riparian woodland, mesquite riparian, and seeps).

The exaggerated amount of time in riparian

woodland was due to intensive searching of this

vegetation community during the rock

rattlesnake/Sonoran mountain kingsnake study,

which was included in our visual encounter survey

time. 

A total of 1,073 individual reptiles and 323

individual amphibians (not including larvae) were

observed on visual encounter surveys. Mean

number of observations/hour of reptiles (Table 4.4)

exhibited temporal variability. During months with

>20 sampling hours (May-October),

observations/hour ranged from a low of 1.1 in

October to a high of 2.4 in July. Observation rates

varied among researchers as well; for the three

observers with >50 sampling hours,

observations/hour ranged from 2.23 (DES) to 1.25

(TE) observations per hour. However, the low rate

for Taylor Edwards is probably the result of many

hours spent searching for rock rattlesnakes and

Sonoran mountain kingsnakes in a vegetation

community (higher-elevation oak woodland) with

lower relative abundance of reptiles than other

communities. Rates of encounter of species

followed similar patterns as rates of encounters of

individuals, with a few exceptions (Table 4.4). The

number of species observed per hour was highest

Figure 4.2. Species accumulation curve for reptiles and amphibians combined at Coronado NM,

1997–1998. Each symbol represents the total number of species observed (y-axis) after a certain

number of field person-days (x-axis); thus, eight species had been observed by the tenth person-day of

the study, and 30 species had been observed by the 50th day. 
18

Table 4.4. Summary of visual encounter survey data at Coronado NM, 1997–1998. Includes all reptile

observations on site; amphibians are excluded because of the extreme variability of observations.

“Other/Combined” refers to results by short-term field researchers or where two or more researchers were

combined on data sheets. 

Number of Number of Number of 

Person Number of observations species species observed 

Month/Personnel hours individuals observed per hour observed per hour

Month

April 4.8 6 1.30 3.0 0.63

May 129.2 398 3.10 15.0 0.12

June 53.5 79 1.50 11.0 0.21

July 60.0 142 2.40 14.0 0.23

August 173.2 207 1.20 19.0 0.11

September 137.1 187 1.40 21.0 0.15

October 48.2 54 1.10 14.0 0.29

Totals 606.0 1073 1.80 29.0 0.05

Personnel

Swann 221.5 493 2.23 20.0 0.09

Bell 104.7 206 1.97 18.0 0.17

Edwards 232.9 289 1.25 18.0 0.08

Other/Combined 46.9 85 1.81 8.0 0.17

Totals 606.0 1073 1.78 29.0 0.05

Table 4.5. Summary of surveys on monitoring plots at Coronado NM, 1998. Includes all reptile observations;

only five amphibians were observed. 

Number of Number of Number of 

Month/Personnel Person Number of observations species species observed 

Vegetative Community hours individuals observed per hour observed per hour

Month

May 35.0 179 5.1 10 0.29

June 12.5 55 4.4 5 0.40

July 9.0 83 9.2 5 0.56

August 30.0 34 1.1 7 0.23

September 24.0 73 3.0 6 0.25

October 3.5 24 6.9 5 1.43

Total 114.0 448 3.9 29 0.25

Personnel

Swann 48.5 225 4.6 11 0.22

Bell 32.5 107 3.3 5 0.15

Edwards 26.5 95 3.7 8 0.30

Hare 6.5 21 3.2 5 0.77

Total 114.0 448 3.9 29 0.25

Vegetation Community

Riparian Woodland High 8.0 11 1.4 4 0.50

Riparian Woodland Mid 18.0 62 3.4 4 0.22

Oak Woodland High 20.0 57 2.9 4 0.20

Oak Woodland Low 24.0 54 2.3 4 0.17

Mesquite Riparian 18.0 186 21.5 8 1.00

Semi-desert Grassland 16.0 49 3.1 6 0.38

Perennial Seeps 10.0 29 2.9 4 0.40

Total 114.0 448 3.9 29 0.25
19

in October and lowest in August (excluding the

small April sample).

Monitoring Plots

We sampled on 25 regular monitoring plots for a

total of 114 hours during 1998, and five

observations of two amphibian species (excluding

larvae) and 448 observations of 13 species of

reptiles were made (Table 4.5). Mean number of

reptiles observed during 30-minute surveys was

1.96 (SE = 0.176). Mean number of

observations/hour varied by month, with the

highest number of observations in July and

October (Table 4.5). There was no significant

difference among the three primary researchers in

number of individuals observed per survey (MS =

4.7774, F = 0.6462, p = 0.525). As with a study at

Fort Bowie National Historic Site using nearly

identical methods (Swann et al. 2001), encounter

rates on monitoring plots for all researchers

exceeded encounter rates on generalized visual

encounter surveys. 

Numbers of reptiles observed on surveys

did vary greatly among different vegetation

communities (MS = 75.6859, F = 15.0473, p <

0.0001). More reptiles per hour were observed in

the mesquite riparian vegetation community, found

at lower elevations in Montezuma Canyon, than in

other communities sampled (Table 4.5). 

Historic Transects

The five transects established by Johnson and

Lowe (1979) were sampled a minimum of four

times, including at least once each during summer

1997, spring 1998, and summer 1998. Mean

number of reptiles varied greatly among transects,

with highest abundance of reptiles (7.57

individuals/transect) on transect 3 in Oak

Woodland along lower Joe’s Canyon Trail and the

lowest abundance (1.33 individuals/transect) on

transect 5 in Pine-Oak Woodland. 

Table 4.6 provides a summary of 1978 and

1997–1998 results. It is difficult to compare the

two datasets because the original data from

Johnson and Lowe (1979) have been lost and it is

not known what their sampling effort was. Johnson

and Lowe (1979) state that “Relative abundance

categories are based on, and indicate, what an

observer might expect to see during an activity

peak for a particular species of lizard.” They do not

provide any information on the length of their

surveys, but we might assume that they are for the

entire period of peak activity on a given day.

Because we surveyed both within and outside

“activity peaks”, our data in Table 4.6 are

presented as peak values only, or the highest

number of that species observed on any transect

survey. In general, our peak numbers are lower

than those presented by Johnson and Lowe (1979),

possibly because our surveys were of shorter

duration. It is also interesting that the numbers of

lesser earless lizards observed by Johnson and

Lowe (1979) greatly exceed the number that we

observed. In contrast, they observed very few

Sonoran whiptails in semi-desert grassland

community, while this species was very abundant

on our transect surveys. 

Table 4.6. Comparison of relative abundance of lizards in each vegetation community at Coronado NM based on

transect data from Johnson and Lowe (1979) and our study . The 1978 column represents the range of seasonal (peak

value) abundance for each species in the each community, while the 1997–1998 column represents peak values observed on

transects sampled during our study.

Semi-desert grassland Oak woodland Pine-oak woodland Riparian habitat

 (Transect 1) (Transect 3) (Transects 4-5) (Transect 2) 

Species 1978 1997–1998 1978 1997–1998 1978 1997–1998 1978 1997–1998

lesser earless lizard 5–25 0 5–15 0 1–5 1 5–15 1

Yarrow’s spiny lizard 0 0 5->25 1 1–15 4 0 0

Clark’s spiny lizard 1–5 0 5->25 2 1–5 1 5->25 2

tree lizard >25 0 5–15 3 1–5 3 5->25 1

short-horned lizard 1–5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Sonoran spotted whiptail 0 2 5->25 24 0–5 6 1–25 6

grassland whiptail 1–25 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Madrean alligator lizard 0 0 0–5 0 0 0 0–5 0
20

Road Transects

A total of 146.5 hours on 113 days and/or evenings

was spent searching on roads for reptiles and

amphibians during this study (Table 4.7). A total of

2,941 km were driven on East Montezuma Canyon

Road or smaller roads within the boundaries of the

memorial; we also drove outside of the boundary,

but do not include these data in Table 4.7. We

made 64 observations of three species of

amphibians and 132 observations of 20 species of

reptiles. 

Observational trends on roads varied by

time of year. Amphibians were only observed in

July and August, coincident with summer rains.

More reptiles were seen per sampling unit in July

and August than in other months (Table 4.7).

Trends for the two years, 1997 and 1998, were

very similar for reptiles, but more amphibians were

observed during 1998. The road transects detected

one amphibian (Great Plains toad) and one reptile

(longnose snake) that were not detected using other

methods. However, three species of amphibians

and 13 species of reptiles (including eight snakes)

that were observed during this study were never

observed on roads, nor were three of the four

species confirmed during 1999–2000 after the

study ended.

Historic Records

In addition to Johnson and Lowe (1979), we

located several important sources of information on

herpetofauna at Coronado NM. A total of 37

museum specimens of reptiles and amphibians

were found at four museum collections (University

of Arizona, Chicago Academy of Sciences,

Brigham Young University, and Harvard

University). Most specimens from the memorial

are located at the University of Arizona and were

collected by Terry Johnson in 1978. Two

additional specimen records were found in

published sources (Gloyd 1937, Fowlie 1965). A

few of the older specimens were collected in

Montezuma Canyon prior to the inclusion of the

entire U.S. portion of this canyon within the

boundaries of the memorial. Information (location,

collection numbers, collector, and date) for all

specimens known to be collected at the memorial

is provided in Appendix H. 

Additional Records

Additional records of reptiles and amphibians on,

and in, the vicinity of the memorial were obtained

from a variety of published and unpublished

sources, as well as by incidental observations and

road riding during our study. In addition to species

observed on monitoring plots, transects, and

during visual encounter surveys, nine species of

reptiles and one species of amphibian were

observed on site during our study; these records

are recorded in the study database and summarized

in the “Other” column in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. In

addition to reptiles and amphibians, we recorded

all observations of mammals during our study.

Mammal observations are summarized in Chapter

Table 4.7. Summary of road transect survey data at Coronado NM, 1997–1998. Includes all reptile and amphibian

observations on and off site. Total distances rounded to nearest mile or kilometer. 

Total distance Number Number Total Amphibians Reptiles Amphibians Reptiles

in kilometers amphibians reptiles hours per kilometer per kilometer per hour per hour

Month

April 21 0 0 0.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

May 400 0 18 20.3 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.89

June 162 0 11 8.5 0.00 0.07 0.00 1.29

July 520 40 47 33.2 0.08 0.09 1.20 1.42

August 1010 24 29 47.2 0.02 0.29 0.51 0.61

September 502 0 16 23.8 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.67

October 326 0 11 13.1 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.84

Totals 2941 64 132 146.5 0.02 0.04 0.44 0.90

Year

1997 1258 24 60 64.8 0.02 0.05 0.37 0.93

1998 1683 40 72 81.7 0.02 0.04 0.49 0.88
21

6 and in the COROWILD database kept at the

memorial. 

Inventory Completeness

Based on the species accumulation curve, and

considering the previous inventory effort (Johnson

and Lowe 1979) we believe that our inventory was

fairly complete. With one exception, we observed

all of the species observed at the memorial by

Johnson and Lowe (1979). The species

accumulation curve (Figure 4.2) indicates that we

continued to detect new species throughout

1997–1998, but we further benefited by the

continuing active presence of Barbara Alberti at the

memorial following completion of fieldwork, as

four species not observed during our study were

later confirmed. Program CAPTURE estimated the

species richness of amphibians and reptiles at the

memorial to be 39 (SE = 1.132, CI = 39-46), which

is identical to the number of species detected

during our study but is an underestimate of the

total count of 43 species for the site. 

Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the

Huachuca Mountains and adjacent valleys contain

approximately seven amphibian and 26 reptile

species not observed by us (see Appendix E).

However, many of these species require more

surface water than is present at the memorial, and

others are species associated with valley

bottomland habitats that do not occur at the

memorial. The two montane rattlesnake species

that occur close by but were not found by us are

probably absent, or occur in very low numbers, due

to the lack or scarcity of key habitat components.

Discussion

Reptile and Amphibian Community

Our results indicate that Coronado NM supports a

moderately diverse herpetofauna of seven

amphibian and 36 reptile species. Reptiles at the

memorial rank second in species richness (number

of species) and third in species density

(species/1,000 ha) among the four national parks

and monuments in southern Arizona that have been

intensively inventoried (Table 4.8). Obviously, both

species richness and density are important in

determining relative biodiversity of each park unit.

The smallest two parks inventoried, Tonto NM and

Fort Bowie National Historic Site, have species

densities 3–4 times that of third smallest, Coronado

NM, and about 200 times that of Organ Pipe

Cactus NM, the largest of the parks by far. Primary

reasons for this variation lie in the relative amounts

of the various biomes comprising the respective

parks, with some biomes being much more diverse

in reptile species than others. 

The memorial’s diversity results from

several factors, including its fairly large elevation

range and location in the overlap zones among the

Chihuahuan and Sonoran Deserts, the Rocky

Mountains, the Sierra Madre Occidental, and the

Great Plains. The upper elevations of the memorial

contain many of the taxa with restricted U.S.

ranges associated with the sky islands, including

the mountain skink, Yarrow’s spiny lizard, bunch

grass lizard, banded rock rattlesnake, Madrean

alligator lizard, and Chihuahuan blackhead snake.

The unique limestone areas provide rare habitat for

barking frogs.

Lower elevations include Great Plains

species that are near the western limits of their

range, such as the western hognose snake, the

Texas blind snake, and the ornate box turtle, as

well as a few Sonoran Desert species that are close

to the eastern limit or their ranges such as the Gila

monster and Sonoran spotted whiptail. 

Comparisons with Johnson-Lowe Study

As noted previously, it is difficult to compare our

study directly to Johnson and Lowe (1979) because

Table 4.8. Numbers of species and species densities of native reptiles at the four inventoried

parks in southern Arizona, arranged by decreasing size. Original data from Rosen and Lowe (1996)

for Organ Pipe, Swann et al. (1996) for Tonto, and Swann et al. (2001) for Fort Bowie. 

Park name Area in ha Number reptile species Species density (spp/1000 ha)

Organ Pipe NM 133,830 43 0.32

Coronado NM 1,900 36 18.90

Tonto NM 461 33 71.60

Fort Bowie NHS 405 25 61.70
22

of a lack of information on their methodology and

changes in the memorial boundaries since that

study. However, their report contains a wealth of

information on relative abundances of different

species in different vegetative communities,

information that allows us to make some general

observations. Amphibians such as the New Mexico

spadefoot and red-spotted toad were observed

frequently in both studies, and Johnson and Lowe

(1979) were the first to note the presence of

barking frogs. Two species that they listed as

uncommon were either very rare or absent during

our study; we observed only one Great Plains toad

within the memorial boundaries, and no

Woodhouse’s toads were observed during

1997–1998. Likewise, we found two species

(canyon treefrog and barred tiger salamander) that

they did not observe. However, canyon treefrogs

are very restricted in their distribution on the

memorial and barred tiger salamanders were

possibly introduced only recently. We are not

certain that these possible changes in the

amphibian species composition are real,

particularly since Woodhouse’s toads were

regularly observed at the memorial in 2000. 

However, we believe that our confirming

20 species of reptiles (Table 4.9) not found by

Johnson and Lowe indicates a real change in

species composition since the 1970s, and is not

simply the reflection of our larger sampling effort

or observer differences between the two studies.

Terry Johnson and Charles Lowe are both

accomplished herpetologists. Lowe is considered

the dean of Southwestern herpetologists,

conducting numerous studies and surveys

throughout Arizona and northern Mexico from the

early 1950s into the 1990s. Johnson, now at the

Arizona Game and Fish Department, specialized in

inventories during and after graduate school at the

University of Arizona. 

Inspection of the lists of species of

amphibians and reptiles (Table 4.9) and mammals

(see Chapter 6) confirmed recently at the memorial

for the first time leads us to believe that the recent

Table 4.9. Species of amphibians and reptiles confirmed for Coronado NM

that were not confirmed or observed by Johnson and Lowe (1979). 

Taxon Common Name

Amphibians barred tiger salamander

canyon treefrog

Reptiles – Lizards eastern collared lizard

mountain skink

Great Plains skink

Gila monster

bunch grass lizard

prairie lizard

Reptiles – Turtles and Tortoises ornate box turtle

Reptiles – Snakes western diamondback rattlesnake

rock rattlesnake

Mojave rattlesnake

western hooknose snake

western hognose snake

night snake

common kingsnake

Texas blind snake

western coral snake

Big Bend patchnose snake

mountain patchnose snake

Chihuahuan blackhead snake

Blackneck garter snake
23

appearance of some of these species is likely

related to habitat changes both within and outside

the memorial since the 1970s. At least seven reptile

species in Table 4.9 (Great Plains skink, bunch

grass lizard, prairie lizard, ornate box turtle,

Mojave rattlesnake, western hooknose snake and

western hognose snake) show close affinities to

grassland habitats. It is noteworthy that nine

species of rodents, mostly grassland obligates, that

were trapped in grasslands in 1996–1999 (see

Chapter 6) were similarly never captured in those

same areas in 1978 (Petryszyn and Cockrum 1979). 

Within the memorial, there has also been a

reduction of grazing extent and intensity since the

1970s. Photographs in Johnson and Lowe (1979)

document extensive bare ground in the southwest

corner of the memorial in an area now heavily

vegetated with non-native and native grasses. We

speculate that release from grazing likely caused

the observed recent increases in grassland species.

That hypothesis could also account for the greater

number of coachwhips reported by Johnson and

Lowe (their second most common snake)

compared to our two observations. Coachwhips are

fast-moving hunters usually found in open habitats,

where they can see their prey as well as potential

predators. 

The relative numbers of lesser earless

lizards and Sonoran whiptails at the memorial have

clearly changed since the 1970s. Johnson and

Lowe considered earless lizards to be “common” in

most vegetative communities in 1978 and they did

not see any Sonoran whiptails in semi-desert

grassland habitat. We observed only 37 lesser

earless lizards during the entire study, and found

Sonoran whiptails to be the most common lizard on

grassland plots, constituting 35% of all lizards

seen. This dramatic shift in the proportions of the

two species does not appear to follow simply from

the release-from-grazing hypothesis. We speculate

that the Sonoran whiptail, being larger, may have

some competitive advantage over the earless lizard

in areas where more grass is present. Lesser earless

lizards are adapted to terrain with low-lying

vegetative cover and loose, friable soils

(Degenhardt et al. 1996), while Sonoran spotted

whiptails are well-known for running quickly into

vegetation when alarmed. 

Another surprising change was the total

absence of western diamondbacks, rock

rattlesnakes, and Mojave rattlesnakes from the

Johnson and Lowe (1979) study. In our study, rock

rattlesnakes (26 observations) and diamondbacks

(23 observations) were the second and third most

common snakes observed. It is possible that the

population of rock rattlesnakes has increased at the

memorial, but it is difficult to separate the

difference between our results and those of

Johnson and Lowe (1979) because our search

efforts for this species were so intensive during our

SPMA study in 1998 (Swann et al. 1999); it is

worth noting that we observed only three rock

rattlesnakes during 1997, before our focused study

of them began. However, the failure of Johnson

and Lowe (1979) to find the other two species is of

great interest. Since cattle co-occur with western

diamondbacks and Mojave rattlesnakes throughout

both snake’s range, we can only speculate as to

why none were found in the earlier study. A

potential explanation is that these rattlesnakes are

both nocturnal hunters who feed primarily on

rodents, and that they have responded positively to

the increase in rodent abundance that has

accompanied the relaxation from grazing pressure. 

Monitoring

Establishing long-term monitoring programs in

national park units such as Coronado NM is critical

for long-term management. In addition, because

parks are less likely than other areas to be degraded

by human activities in the future, monitoring of

park resources can provide great insight into

environmental changes that may be taking place on

a larger scale. If unlimited funds were available, it

would be ideal to monitor the absolute abundance,

distribution, and important life history parameters

of every species of amphibian and reptile present in

the memorial. Unfortunately, funds are always

limited and there are many other important

resource management, visitor, and interpretive

priorities. A further problem in monitoring

amphibians and reptiles is that many species are

difficult to locate and identify compared to other

taxonomic groups, and natural variability in

abundance is high for most species. Gathering

meaningful data on this taxonomic group can thus

be fairly expensive and usually involves at least

oversight by well-trained personnel. 

In general, we have found that if

monitoring programs in small parks focus first on

comprehensive, repeatable inventories, they can be
24

funded over a longer cycle than is typical for most

monitoring programs. We believe the greatest

monitoring need is for information on changes in

species diversity over time. The National Park

Service is committed institutionally to preservation

of biological diversity in national parks (NPS

1992), but local extinction of species has occurred

in many parks in the past century (see Newmark

1995, Swann 1999). The potential loss of species at

Coronado NM in future decades should be

considered a real possibility as the memorial (and

particularly the lower-elevation riparian areas)

becomes isolated due to land development outside

of the boundaries. Therefore, we suggest that

species diversity of reptiles and amphibians be

monitored periodically (every 10–20 years) by

conducting site-wide surveys using a repeatable

study design, as described in this report.

A second priority is focused monitoring of

species of management concern. We did not

observe any threatened and endangered species

during our study. However, the barking frog is the

obvious candidate for continued monitoring

(Goldberg and Schwalbe 2004), and the Sonoran

mountain kingsnake, banded rock rattlesnake,

mountain skink, and bunch grass lizard are other

potential candidates. 

A third priority is specific studies of the

impact of land-use changes on herpetofaunal

communities. The greatest changes that may be

expected at the memorial during the next decades

will probably result from changes in grazing

regimes and in the frequency of natural and

prescribed fire. These three management

implications are discussed in more detail below.

Monitoring Species Diversity Using Site-Wide

Surveys

Management would be assisted by conducting sitewide surveys at Coronado NM periodically using a

repeatable study design. “Periodically” would

ideally be once every five years, but intervals of

once every 10–20 years may be more realistic. In

part, that is, because site-wide surveys should

always include at least two years of spring and

summer surveys to account for dry years when

some species may not be active. A repeatable study

design is one that can be repeated by future

researchers. We believe that if the data, methods,

and time-frame outlined in this final report can be

accessed by future researchers, it will be possible

to repeat our 1997–98 survey and directly compare

results of future surveys with ours. However, we

assume that there will be improvements in survey

and analytical methodology in the years ahead so

that our approach can be refined and improved

upon. More specific information useful for longterm monitoring at the memorial is in Swann and

Schwalbe (2002).

For evaluating changes in species richness

(the number of species in an area), capturerecapture methodology (of species) could be used

(see discussion earlier in this report). However,

specific analytical methods are constantly being

refined, and better methods for estimating species

richness may become available. Loss of native

species richness appears to accompany many types

of human-caused environmental impacts (such as

deforestation for agriculture, overgrazing, and land

development; Rosenzweig 1995). 

When species richness does decrease,

species with very specific habitat needs are most

likely to be extirpated first. Thus, the repeat

surveys should take special note of individual

species that appear to have declined in relative

abundance or distribution at the site, which may

then be singled out for more intensive study. 

Single Species Monitoring

Species that are intensively studied could be those

identified by NPS and other agencies (such as

Arizona Game and Fish Department or the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service) as being of special

concern. For species of special concern it is often

possible to fund studies that can help identify

important life habitat characteristics, habitat needs,

and threats. For example, Saguaro National Park is

currently studying desert tortoises because of their

special status.

Currently, the species most deserving of

intensive study at the memorial is the barking frog

(Goldberg and Schwalbe 2000). Protocols for

monitoring this species are being developed based

on experiences gained during monitoring over the

past decade. Even more than most amphibians,

barking frogs are extremely difficult to locate and

capture. Because of the habitat specificity of this

species, the most cost-effective approach for longterm monitoring may be to look at changes in the

distribution of calling males (C. Goldberg, pers.
25

comm.). Current demographic studies should be

continued as long as sufficient staff and external

resources are available. Because this unique

species is so rare in the United States, the relatively

large population at the memorial deserves special

management and continued study. 

For banded rock rattlesnakes and Sonoran

mountain kingsnakes, we delineated a 0.5 km2

study area where these species are most abundant

(Swann et al. 1999). In 1998, we estimated

population size using mark-recapture techniques

and measured habitat variables (such as vegetative

cover, distance to ant mounds, etc.) associated with

these two species. Because of the rarity of Sonoran

mountain kingsnakes and because of the difficulty

of in-house monitoring of a venomous reptile,

monitoring of these species has serious

management implications. Both snakes are species

of management concern because they are highly

prized by collectors. One option, assuming funding

is available, would be to use radio telemetry to

develop a deeper understanding of the habitat, life

history needs, and absolute abundances of banded

rock rattlesnakes and Sonoran mountain

kingsnakes. 

Another option, if only limited funds are

available, would be the monitoring of the

abundance of these two species using the methods

detailed in Swann et al. (1999). Monitoring could

be funded through relatively small grants from

NPS sources or the Southwest Parks and

Monuments Association. 

The fourth and fifth candidates for longterm monitoring are the mountain skink, which

occurs in riparian woodland in the United States,

and the bunch grass lizard, which occurs in

grassland areas associated with pine-oak

woodlands. Both are limited in their distribution in

the United States and are of concern to the Arizona

Game and Fish Department (AGFD 1996). Very

little is known about the mountain skink

(Degenhardt et al. 1996), and monitoring should

include a more focused study of their life history

and habitat requirements. Recent studies have

shown that bunch grass lizards are very sensitive to

habitat changes associated with grazing; they have

declined dramatically in some areas of southeastern

Arizona (Bock et al. 1990). For both species, a

need is the designation of study areas based on

range maps in Swann and Schwalbe (2002)

Appendix C and mark-recapture studies conducted

annually over a period of 3–5 years to determine

abundance, recruitment, and survival. Following

these initial studies, monitoring can probably be

based on periodic surveys using distance sampling

line transects (Buckland et al. 1993) or a similar

methodology. 

Land-Use Change Studies

Efforts to restore damaged habitats, such as the

restoration of the grassland community at the

memorial, have greatly increased on America’s

public lands in recent years. Accompanying these

restoration efforts have been improvements in

research methodology, particularly the BeforeAfter-Control-Impact (BACI) study design

(Underwood 1994) to measure and evaluate how

restoration affects ecosystem components and

processes. Fire, changes in the grazing regime, and

other management activities at the memorial will

affect reptiles and amphibians as well as

communities of plants, invertebrates, small

mammals, and birds. Measuring changes in these

communities could be an important aspect of

evaluating the success of restoration and natural

processes. Although our proposed 10–20 year

monitoring of species richness of herpetofauna at

the memorial will provide data on general trends in

restored areas, changes in the reptile and

amphibian community changes will be better

evaluated through focused studies conducted of

specific organisms at a smaller scale. Usually,

changes in population size of common species are

studied because it is easier to obtain sample sizes

that are large enough to detect a significant trend. 

At Coronado NM, common high-elevation

species most likely to be affected by fire are bunch

grass lizards, Sonoran spotted whiptails, tree

lizards, and Yarrow’s spiny lizards. Bunchgrass

lizards favor areas with higher grass cover, while

Sonoran spotted whiptails favor areas with more

woody cover. Tree lizards are strongly associated

with trees in oak woodland areas, and Yarrow’s

spiny lizards are strongly associated with rocks in

areas where the tree canopy is relatively open.

Except for the bunch grass lizard, all of these

species are common at the memorial and accurate

abundance estimates with confidence intervals can

be obtained through mark-recapture studies.

However, if mark-recapture methods are used

simultaneously with a non-capture method such as
26

among-year variability in population size, with less

frequent sampling over a longer time frame. 

Long-term monitoring of natural resources

is essential in public land management, particularly

in national parks that are to be managed in

perpetuity. However, it is important to keep in

mind that monitoring and research in parks have

historically been difficult to sustain because of

fluctuating financial resources, shifting agency

priorities, and staff turnover. Systems for managing

data, including geographic data, should be

established in advance and resources should be

dedicated to data entry and maintaining archives.

More importantly, we believe that the most

successful long-term programs require relatively

simple but repeatable methods where sampling

does not have to occur every year. These efforts

can then be supplemented by short-term research

on specific species and management activities as

outlined above. 

line-transect distance sampling (Buckland et al.

1993), it may be possible to calibrate the latter

method with the former so that marking may not be

required after the first or second season. Whiptails

are difficult to capture using lizard nooses, and

pitfall traps may not be appropriate because of

concerns about cultural resources, but methods that

have been successful with other species in this

genus include use of hollow cover tubes (Strong et

al. 1993), funnel traps with drift fences (Karns

1986), and baited (hookless) fishing line (Strong et

al. 1993). 

Consistent with the BACI study design for

restoration monitoring, use of multiple plots

approximately 1 ha in size, which can be in the

same location as plots used for small mammal,

bird, or vegetation monitoring would help. Plots

should be established in both restoration areas and

non-restored control sites. The need is for annual

sampling for several years to determine natural
27

Goals

The purpose of this study was to complete an

inventory for birds at Coronado NM. This effort

was part of a larger biological inventory of eight

NPS units in southern Arizona and southwestern

New Mexico (Davis and Halvorson 2000, Powell

et al. 2002, 2003, 2005a, 2006 Schmidt et al.

2006). This report supersedes Powell et al.

(2005b). The goals of our inventory of Coronado

NM were to: 

1. Conduct field surveys with the goal of

documenting at least 90% of the bird

species expected to occur at the memorial. 

2. Use repeatable sampling designs and

survey methods (when appropriate) that

allow estimation of parameters of interest

(e.g., relative abundance) with associated

estimates of precision.

3. Gather historic occurrence data from past

studies and voucher specimens.

The bulk of our effort addressed goals

number 1 and 2. To maximize efficiency (i.e., the

number of species recorded by effort) we used field

techniques designed to detect multiple species. We

did not undertake single-species surveys for

threatened or endangered species. 

Technical Concepts 

This section introduces some technical concepts

and considerations related to our inventory at

Coronado NM. 

Sampling Design

Sampling design is the process of selecting sample

units from a population or area of interest (for a

review, see Thompson [1992]). Unbiased random

samples allow inference to the larger population

from which those samples were drawn, and

estimate the true value of a parameter. The

precision of these estimates, based on sample

variance, increases with the number of samples

taken. Theoretically, random samples can be taken

until all possible samples have been selected and

The first comprehensive inventory of birds was

conducted in 1977 and 1978 by Russell and

Danforth (1979) who surveyed five transect routes

multiple times in all seasons. They reported

relative abundance based on the number of

observations per hour of surveys. Although no

original data exist from this effort (Steve Russell,

pers. comm.), the transect routes were similar to

those used by our survey crews and we therefore

make gross comparisons between these two

studies. Mike Guest, a volunteer at the memorial

and an excellent birder, has maintained a birdsightings database of records collected since 1991.

Although most of the sightings in the database are

from near the visitor center, the database

nevertheless contains a wealth of information for

completing the species list and evaluating the

completeness of the inventory. From 1997 to 2003,

personnel from the Southern Arizona Bird

Observatory (Walraven and Wood 2002) banded

birds as a part of the Monitoring Avian

Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program

(DeSante and O’Grady 2000). MAPS banding data

from 1997 to 2001 were summarized by Martinez

and Hubbard (2003) and data from all banding

years were entered into the visitor center database

that Mike Guest maintains. Susan Wethington and

others banded hummingbirds at the memorial and

other areas in the southwest in 2003 and 2004 as

part of the Hummingbird Monitoring Network

(Wethington 2004). Park personnel conduct annual

surveys for Mexican spotted owls. We trained

memorial volunteers in the use of the line transect

method (described below), which they used for

breeding-season and non-breeding season surveys

from the fall of 2002 to the spring of 2004.

Mendez and Desmond (2004) planned to study

resource use by over-wintering grassland birds at

the memorial. Since our surveys, the NPS in 2005

collected data for their landbird monitoring

program (B. Powell, unpublished data). Finally, we

located some records of specimens collected from

the memorial (Appendix H). During both our study

and the monitoring study, incidental observations

of reptiles and amphibians, and mammals were

collected (Appendix G).

Chapter 5: Bird Inventory

Brian F. Powell
28

precision is exact; in this case a census has been

taken and the true value is known. Non-random

samples are less likely to be representative of the

entire population because the sample may

(intentionally or not) be biased toward a particular

characteristic, perhaps of interest or convenience. 

Our survey stations were not randomly

located because we were more interested in

detecting the maximum number of species than in

providing inference to a larger area. Thus,

abundance estimates (relative abundance, useful as

an index to true abundance) detailed in this report

may be biased because we surveyed in areas likely

to have high species richness; however, the nature

or extent of that bias is difficult to characterize or

quantify. If population estimates were a higher

priority, avoiding this potential bias would have

greater importance. 

Estimates of Abundance

Estimating population size is a common goal of

biologists, generally motivated by the desire to

reduce (e.g., pest species), increase (e.g.,

endangered species), maintain (e.g., game species)

or monitor (e.g., indicator species) population size.

Our surveys at Coronado NM were generally

focused on detecting species rather than estimating

population size. In many cases, however, we

present estimates of “relative abundance” by

species, which is an index to population size; we

calculate it as the number of individuals of a

species recorded, scaled by survey effort. 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 based on abundance

relative to other species present. If we completed

multiple surveys in comparable areas (e.g.,

anywhere within Coronado NM), we included a

measure of precision (usually standard error) with

the mean of those survey results.

Indices of abundance are presumed to

correlate with true population size but do not

typically attempt to account for variation in

detectability among different species or groups of

species under different circumstances. Metrics

(rather than indices) of abundance do consider

variation in detection probability, and these include

density (number of individuals per unit area; e.g.,

two crissal thrashers per km2

), and absolute

abundance (population size; e.g., 10 crissal

thrashers at Coronado NM). These latter techniques

are beyond the scope of our research. While it is

true that indices to abundance have often been

criticized (and with good reason, c.f. Anderson

2001), the abundance information that we present

in this report is used to characterize the

commonness of different species rather than to

quantify changes in abundance through space (e.g.,

habitat-use studies) or time (e.g., monitoring). As

such, relative-abundance estimates are more useful

than (1) detectability-adjusted estimates of density

for only a few species or (2) raw count data for all

species without scaling counts by search effort. For

a review of methods used to estimate abundance,

see Lancia et al. (1996).

Data Organization

Spatial Data

Most spatial data are geographically referenced to

facilitate mapping of study stations. Coordinate

storage is the Universal Transverse Mercator

(UTM) projection, using North American datum

1983 (NAD 83), Zone 12. We recorded UTM

coordinates using hand-held Garmin eMap®

Global Positioning System (GPS) units (Garmin

International Incorporated, Olathe, KS; horizontal

accuracy is about 10–30 m) because of their

convenience and relative simplicity. 

Inventory Databases and Data Archiving

We entered field data into 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 database, printouts, and other data such as GIS

layers will be distributed to memorial staff and to

the University of Arizona, Special Collections,

Main Library; Tucson, Arizona. Original datasheets

will be given to the NPS Sonoran Desert Network

(SDN) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) program

office in Tucson and may be archived at 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
29

filling out the datasheets. This information, in

conjunction with the text of this report, should

enable future researchers to repeat our work.

Methods

We surveyed for birds at Coronado NM from 2002

to 2004. The majority of our inventory work took

place in the spring of 2003 and 2004. We used four

field methods: variable circular-plot (VCP) counts

for diurnal breeding birds, nocturnal surveys for

owls and nightjars, line transects for winter (i.e.,

non-breeding season) birds, and incidental

observations for all birds in all seasons. Although

winter bird surveys were not included in the

original study proposal (Davis and Halvorson

2000), we felt they were important in our effort to

inventory birds at the memorial because many

species that use the area during the fall and winter

may not be present during spring and summer

(breeding season) surveys. We concentrated our

primary survey effort on the breeding season

because bird distribution is relatively uniform at

that time due to territoriality among most landbird

species (Bibby et al. 2002), and this uniformity

increased our precision in estimating relative

abundance and also 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

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

2002). 

In most cases we do not report

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

“unknown woodpeckers”). Ravens are an

exception. Both Chihuahuan and common ravens

occur at the memorial and they are difficult to

differentiate unless viewed at 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.” 

General Vegetation Characteristics at Repeat-Visit

VCP Stations

We subjectively placed the two repeat-visit VCP

transects (described below) in areas that we

believed would have the highest species richness.

The Wash transect incorporated elements of the

semi-desert grassland and xeroriparian washes and

it had considerably less overstory vegetation than

the Riparian transect; three stations of the Wash

transect were mostly semi-desert grassland with

some areas containing no large trees but with

velvet mesquite and Emory oak in the wash (Fig.

5.1; see also Fig. 5.2). The upper reaches of the

Wash transect were more typical of an oak

savannah, with increasing density of trees at

stations numbers 7 and 8 (Table 5.1). The Riparian

transect contained dense stands of oaks and

alligator juniper in the canyon bottom with some

Arizona sycamore along Montezuma Wash. The

understory in the riparian area is more dense than

upland areas with wait-a-minute bush, Mearn’s

sumac, and Arizona baccheris dominating. The

south-facing upland areas have a lower density of

overstory trees and scattered shrubs in the

understory such as Scott’s yucca. The north-facing

slopes are oak woodland (Fig 5.1; see also Fig. 5.2

for aerial view). 

Spatial Sampling Designs

We subjectively located all survey stations and

transect sections (Figs. 5.2, 5.3) to encounter as

many species as possible. Most repeat-visit VCP

survey stations and line transects corresponded

approximately to those used by Russell and

Danforth (1979). Because of the inaccessibility of

most areas of the memorial, we conducted

reconnaissance VCP and nocturnal surveys along

trails and old roads (Figs. 5.2, 5.3). 

VCP Surveys 

Field Methods: Repeat-visit Transects

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. 2001). 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 (i.e., station) and

records all birds seen or heard and the distance to

each bird or group of birds.
30

We established two transects in 2003 that

we surveyed repeatedly in both 2003 and 2004.

Each transect consisted of eight stations, each

located a minimum of 250 m apart to maintain

independence of observations at each station. We

surveyed each year from mid April through early

July, the period of peak breeding activity for most

species in the area. 

Each year we visited the Riparian and

Wash transects five times and four times,

respectively. On each visit we alternated the order

in which we surveyed stations (along a transect) to

minimize bias by observer, time of day, and

direction of travel. We did not survey when wind

exceeded 15 km/h or when precipitation exceeded

an intermittent drizzle. In 2003, we began bird

surveys approximately 30 minutes before sunrise

and concluded no later than three hours after

sunrise. However, in 2004 we began surveys after

0700 hrs because of safety concerns. 

We recorded a number of environmental

variables at the beginning of each transect: wind

speed (Beaufort scale), presence and severity of

rain (qualitative assessment), air temperature (oF),

relative humidity (%), and cloud cover (%). After

arriving at a station, we waited 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 distance in

meters from the observer (measured with laser

range finder when possible), time of detection

(measured in one-minute 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 flying

overhead nor did we use techniques to attract birds

(e.g., “pishing”). We made an effort to avoid

double-counting individuals. If we observed a

species during the “passive” count period (between

the eight-minute counts) that had not been recorded

Figure 5.1. Photographs of bird stations along both repeat-visit VCP transects: Wash (A and B) and Riparian (C and D).

Photo A is looking north from Wash station number 2; B is looking west from Wash station number 8; C is looking west from

Riparian station number 3; and D is looking east from Riparian station number 8. See Fig. 5.2 for location of stations. 
31

Figure 5.2. Location of VCP survey stations, Coronado NM, 2001 and 2002. See Appendix H for UTM coordinates.

Table 5.1. Mean density of the most common tree species at each station along the two repeat-visit VCP transects,

Coronado NM, 2004. Data summarized from Appendix J. Density derived from data collected in the “tree” and “potential cavitynesting” categories from point-quarter sampling (see text for description of field methods). Only species with >5 individuals per

station are included in this summary. See Appendix A for scientific names.

Tree Species

Arizona desert alligator Mexican Arizona velvet All oak 

Transect Station madrone willow juniper pinyon sycamore mesquite species

Riparian 1 7.0 3.5 4.4 51.4

2 4.7 4.7 69.3

3 6.8 81.5

4 3.0 110.1

5 5.4 9.7 2.1 86.2

6 14.6 125.4

7 3.2 7.9 3.3 45.8

8 6.0 18.1 14.8 32.6

Wash 1 8.1 10.8 7.8

2 0.3 2.8 1.6

3 2.1 1.8 2.4

4 2.0 1.8

5 2.1 4.9

6 2.1 4.4

7 1.7 14.0

8 5.9 33.3
32

previously at a station on that visit, we recorded its

distance to the nearest station.

Effort: Repeat-visit Transects

We visited the Riparian transect five times and the

Wash transect four times each, in both 2003 and

2004 (Table 5.1). We visited each station for eight

minutes.

Field Method: Reconnaissance Transects

Most of our effort was focused on the two repeatvisit transects, but this left most of the memorial

unsurveyed. Therefore, to get better spatial

coverage of the memorial and still be able to make

comparisons among transects, we established an

additional six transects, located throughout the

memorial (Fig. 5.2). For data collection, we

followed the same protocol as for repeat-visit

VCPs except that we spent five minutes at each

station (instead of eight) and the distance between

stations was generally >300 m. In 2004, we did not

begin field work until after 0700 hrs, as with

repeat-visit surveys. 

Effort: Reconnaissance Transects

The number of survey stations along each transect

ranged from three to seven and each transect was

surveyed once except the Crest Trail transect,

which we surveyed once in both 2003 and 2004

(Table 5.2). We visited each station for five

minutes.

Analyses: All VCP Methods 

We calculated relative abundance of each species

along each transect as the number of detections at

all stations and visits (including zero values),

divided by effort (total number of visits divided by

total number of stations). We reduced our full

collection of observations for each repeat-visit

VCP station (N = 1,338: 790 and 548 for Riparian

and Wash transects, respectively) to a subset of

data (n = 770: 487 and 283 for Riparian and Wash

transects, respectively) that was more appropriate

for estimating relative abundance. We used only

those detections that occurred ≤ 75 m from count

stations (thereby excluding 164 and 163

observations, respectively) because detectability is

influenced by conspicuousness of birds (i.e., loud,

large, or colorful species are more detectable than

others) and environmental conditions (dense

vegetation can reduce likelihood of some

detections). Truncating detections may reduce the

influence of these factors (Verner and Ritter 1983;

for a review of factors influencing detectability see

Anderson 2001, Farnsworth et al. 2002). We also

excluded observations of birds that were flying

over the station (90 and 77 observations,

Table 5.2. Summary of bird survey effort by UA inventory personnel, Coronado NM, 2002–2004. Sample size was used in

calculating relative abundance for each transect and each year. 

Transect type (group) Transect name Year surveyed Number of survey stations Number of visits Sample size

Nocturnal Survey Owl 2003 variable variable 15

Repeat-visit VCP Riparian 2003 8 5 37a

2004 8 5 40

Wash 2003 8 4 26a

2004 8 4 32

Reconnaissance VCP

(high elevation) Coronado Peak 2002 3 1 3

Crest Trail 2003 5 1 5

2004 5 1 5

Ridge 2004 7 1 7

(semi-desert 

grasslands) Level 2004 5 1 5

Ranch 2004 5 1 5

Uplands 2004 5 1 5

Winter transect Riparian 2002/2003 6 3 18

Wash 2002/2003 6 2 12

a Survey effort was reduced on one survey because of wind.
33

respectively), birds observed outside of the eightminute count period (72 and 41 observations,

respectively), and unknown species (25 and 17

observations, respectively). Some observations met

more than one of these criteria for exclusion from

analysis.

For reconnaissance VCP transects, we

calculated relative abundance in the same way as

the repeat-visit VCP transects. We do not make

comparisons between reconnaissance and repeatvisit transects because of the differences in the

amount of survey time. Finally, we make

comparisons of parameters and communities

between years based on qualitative assessment of

relative abundance and do not employ statistics,

such as t-tests, to establish statistical differences

between years, in part because of differences in

methods of data collection. 

Line-transect Surveys 

Field Methods

We used a modified line-transect method (Bibby et

al. 2002) to survey for birds from November 2002

to February 2003. Line transects differ from station

transects (used in our VCP surveys) in that an

observer records birds seen or heard while the

observer is walking a line, rather than 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 more

difficult to detect (Bibby et al. 2002). 

We established two transects at the

memorial (Fig. 5.3). The transects were broken into

sections, with the start and finish locations

corresponding to repeat-visit VCP stations. Each

section was approximately 250 m in length. As

with other survey methods, we alternated 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 we completed the transect. 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. 

Figure 5.3. Locations of non-breeding season (“winter”) transect sections and nocturnal survey stations for birds,

Coronado NM, 2002 and 2003. 
34

We timed our travel so that we traversed

each section in ten minutes, during which time we

assigned all birds seen and/or heard into one of the

following distance categories: ≤ 100 m, > 100 m,

or “flyover.” When possible, we noted the 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 surveyed all six sections of the Riparian and

Wash transects three and two times, respectively, in

the fall/winter of 2002/2003. We attempted to

complete additional surveys, but strong winds

precluded effective surveys.

Analysis

Due to the low number of observations (n = 146)

within 100 m of the transect lines, we used all

observations (N = 162; except unknown species) to

estimate relative frequencies of detections (see

Methods section of VCP surveys for more details). 

Nocturnal Surveys

Field Methods

To survey for owls we broadcast commercially

available vocalizations (Colver et al. 1999), using a

compact disc player and broadcaster (Bibby et al.

2002), and recorded other nocturnal species

(nighthawks and poorwills) when detected. We

established one nocturnal survey transect along the

Montezuma Pass Road (Fig. 5.3). The transect had

six stations that were a minimum of 500 m apart.

As with other survey methods, we attempted to

reduce sampling biases by varying direction of

travel along transects and by not surveying during

periods of excessive rain or wind. We began

surveys approximately 45 minutes after sunset. We

conducted nocturnal surveys in 2003 only and did

not survey in 2004 because of border-related safety

concerns. 

We began surveys at each station with a

three-minute “passive” listening period during

which time we broadcast no calls. We then

broadcast vocalizations for a series of two-minute

“active” periods and used vocalizations of species

that we suspected, based on habitat and range

information, might be present: elf, flammulated,

northern pygmy, northern saw-whet, western

screech, and whiskered screech owls. We excluded

the great horned owl from the broadcast sequence

because of its aggressive behavior toward other

owls, and we did not survey for Mexican spotted

owls because that effort would have required a

different protocol and because memorial staff

survey annually for this species. 

We broadcast recordings of owls in

sequence of species size, 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 broadcast owl vocalizations for

30 seconds followed by a 30-second listening

period. This pattern was repeated two times for

each species. During the count period we used a

flashlight to scan nearby vegetation and structures

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 a bird was

observed 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 double-counting individuals recorded at

previous stations. We also used multiple observers,

alternated direction of travel along transects, and

did not survey during inclement weather. 

Effort

We surveyed each of the six stations at least once

(Table 5.1), but the number of visits to each station

varied because strong winds consistently

interrupted surveys.

Analysis

We calculated relative abundance as per VCP

surveys. 

Line-transect Surveys: Memorial Volunteers 

We trained Coronado NM volunteers in the linetransect survey method, which they used from

October 2002 to April 2004. They used the same

method during the breeding and non-breeding

season because the method relies less on auditory

detection and more on visual detection of birds,

which was the most accurate method of detection

for the volunteers. The datasheets and methods of

data collection were similar between our two

studies except that volunteers typically used

multiple observers because it was safer and more
35

enjoyable for them. The location of survey stations

was similar to ours. 

To summarize data from the memorial

volunteers, we classified surveys completed from

August through March as non-breeding season and

surveys completed from April through July as

breeding season surveys. We summarized data for

only the transects that were visited on multiple

occasions (Table 5.3). To calculate mean relative

abundance, we used all detections including

flyovers and species observed at distances >100 m.

Incidental and Breeding Observations 

Field Methods

When we were not performing formal surveys and

encountered a rare species, a species in an unusual

location, or an individual engaged in breeding

behavior, we recorded UTM coordinates, time of

detection, and (if known) the sex and age class of

the bird. We recorded all breeding observations

using the standardized classification system

developed by the North American Ornithological

Atlas Committee (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. We made breeding observations during

standardized and incidental surveys. 

Analysis

We report frequency counts of incidental and

breeding observations; we could not calculate

relative abundance because we did not standardize

effort for this survey type.

Vegetation Sampling at Diurnal Breeding-Season

Stations

In 2004, we sampled vegetation associated with

each of the breeding-season stations along the

Riparian and Wash transects. We sampled

Table 5.3. Bird survey effort by Coronado NM volunteers, 2002–2004.

Survey season Transect name Year Month Number of sections surveyed

Non-breeding Grassland 2002 October 5

2002 December 6

2003 January 6

2003 February 6

2003 September 6

2003 December 6

2004 January 6

Ranch 2002 November 6

2002 December 4

2003 January 5

2003 February 8

2003 August 6

2003 September 4

2004 January 4

Breeding Grassland 2003 April 4

2004 April 6

Ranch 2003 April 20

2003 May 6

2003 June 6

2003 July 10

2004 April 4

Upland 2003 April 5

2003 June 4

2004 March 4
36

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 one

size category: potential cavity-bearing vegetation

(> 20 cm diameter at breast height), and three

height categories: sub-shrubs (0.5–1.0 m), shrubs

(> 1.0–2.0 m), trees (> 2.0 m). 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 the plant was in;

no plant was recorded in more than one quadrant.

Standing dead vegetation was only recorded in the

“potential cavity-bearing 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 percent ground

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

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

Using point-quarter data, we calculated mean

density (number of stems/ha) for all species in each

of the four height/size categories. We used the

computer program Krebs to calculate density

(Krebs 1998). We collected these data to

characterize gross vegetation characteristics around

survey stations. In the event that future bird

surveys detect marked changes in species or

communities, the vegetation data reported in

Appendix I will provide potential explanatory

variables for changes in bird populations. 

Nomenclature

Scientific and common names used current

according to American Ornithologists’ Union

(AOU 1998, 2003).

Assessing Inventory Completeness

Inventory completeness can most easily be

assessed by (1) examining the rate at which new

species were recorded in successive surveys (i.e.,

species accumulation curves; Hayek and Buzas

1997) 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.

For the bird species accumulation curve, 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. We used the

computer program Species Richness and Diversity

III (Pisces Conservation Ltd., IRC House,

Pennington, Lymington, UK) to calculate the

species accumulation curve where the order of

samples is shuffled >10 times and the average is

plotted, thereby smoothing the curve. 

Results

We recorded 129 species during surveys from 2002

to 2004 (Appendix C). We recorded 84 species

during VCP surveys, 31 species during nonbreeding season surveys, seven species during

nocturnal surveys, and 113 species with incidental

observations (Appendix C). We found five new

species for the memorial: wild turkey, rock pigeon,

yellow-billed cuckoo, Botteri’s sparrow, and

northern cardinal. Of the 129 species that we

found, a number have important conservation

designations including the yellow-billed cuckoo,

peregrine falcon, loggerhead shrike, and elegant

trogon (Appendix C).

During the breeding season, the most

widespread species (based on their occurrence at

both repeat-visit and reconnaissance VCP

transects) were the ash-throated flycatcher and

Bewick’s wren, which we found at all eight

transects (Appendix I). The mourning dove, rufouscrowned sparrow, Scott’s oriole, and house finch

were also widespread and occurred at seven of the

eight transects.
37

VCP Surveys: Repeat-visit Transects

We recorded 84 species during breeding-season

surveys to repeat-visit VCP transects (Appendix I).

Species richness was similar between the Riparian

and Wash transects, but composition of each

community was quite different; we found 24

species on the Wash transect that we did not find

on the Riparian transect and 29 species on the

Riparian transect that we did not find on the Wash

transect (Appendix I). Differences in community

composition were not restricted to rare species;

some of the most abundant species on each transect

were not represented on the other transect. For

example, the sulphur-bellied flycatcher and

Hutton’s vireo were found on the Riparian transect

but not the Wash transect, whereas the verdin,

cactus wren, Botteri’s and Cassin’s sparrow, and

eastern meadowlark were found on the Wash

transect but not on the Riparian transect (Appendix

I; Tables 5.4, 5.5). 

A difference in bird communities between

these two transects is also evident in relative

abundance estimates (Tables 5.4, 5.5). On the

Riparian transect, the dusky-capped flycatcher,

Mexican jay, black-throated gray warbler, spotted

towhee, and black-headed grosbeak were all far

more abundant than on the Wash transect.

Conversely, the mourning dove and blue grosbeak

were more abundant on the Wash transect than the

Riparian transect. We found similarities in relative

abundance between the two transects for the whitewinged dove, bushtit, rufous-crowned sparrow, and

house finch. 

There were some striking inter-year

differences in species richness and relative

abundance estimates for each transect, yet caution

should be exercised in making comparisons

between 2003 and 2004 because of differences in

sampling protocols (see Methods section). On the

Wash transect, the Cassin’s sparrow and blue

grosbeak were two of the most common species in

2004 but were not abundant enough to estimate

relative abundance in 2003 (Table 5.4). The ashthroated flycatcher and Mexican jay were far more

abundant in 2004 than 2003, while the mourning

dove had the opposite trend. The Bewick’s wren

and verdin had similar relative abundance scores in

both years. On the Riparian transect, we found six

greater roadrunners in 2003 but none in 2004

(Table 5.5). Relative abundance scores were

considerably higher in 2004 than in 2003 for the

dusky-capped flycatcher, Mexican jay, and brownheaded cowbird. Relative abundance was similar

between years for the bridled titmouse, Bewick’s

wren, black-throated gray warbler, spotted towhee,

rufous-crowned sparrow, and Scott’s oriole (Table

5.4).

VCP Surveys: Reconnaissance Transects

We recorded 45 species at six reconnaissance VCP

transects (Table 5.6). Species richness among sites

ranged from 16 to 24 species, though the transect

with the most species (Crest Trail) was surveyed

only twice. The mourning dove, ash-throated

flycatcher, and Bewick’s wren were the most

widespread species. Species with the highest

relative abundance scores were the bushtit and

Bewick’s wren on the Level transect and the

bushtit on the Ranch transect (Table 5.6). 

Line-transect Surveys 

We found 31 species along two transects during

non-breeding season surveys (Table 5.7, Appendix

C). We found nine species that were not recorded

during breeding-season surveys including the

western bluebird, which was abundant during linetransect surveys (Table 5.7). We found 22 and 23

species along the Riparian and Wash transects,

respectively, though the mean number of detections

was much higher on the Riparian transect (7.2 +

3.4 SE) than on the Wash (2.0 + 1.2 SE) transect. 

The Mexican jay and bushtit were the most

abundant species along the Riparian transect and

the bushtit and ruby-crowned kinglet were the most

abundant species along the Wash transect (Table

5.7). The western bluebird and dark-eyed junco

were very abundant on the Riparian transect but

were not found on the Wash transect, and we found

verdin along the Wash transect but not on the

Riparian transect. Bushtit and ruby-crowned

kinglet had similar relative abundance estimates for

both transects. For other species, there were

marked differences between transects, most notably

for the Mexican jay, Bewick’s wren, and spotted

towhee, which were much more abundant on the

Riparian than on the Wash transect.

Nocturnal Surveys

We recorded five species of owls and two species

of nightjars during nocturnal surveys in 2003
38

Table 5.4. Sum (number of observations) and relative abundance (mean + SE) of birds observed during

breeding-season surveys along the Wash transect, Coronado NM, 2003 and 2004. Relative abundance

estimates exclude birds observed > 75 m from stations, flyovers, and observations made outside of the eightminute count period. See Methods section for additional details on estimation of relative abundance and effort used

in those calculations. See Appendix C for scientific names and Appendix I for complete list of species observed.

2003 (n =26) 2004 (n =32) 2003-2004

Species Sum Mean SE Sum Mean SE Mean

white-winged dove 4 0.15 0.091 0.08

mourning dove 10 0.38 0.125 3 0.09 0.052 0.24

greater roadrunner 1 0.04 0.038 0.02

black-chinned hummingbird 1 0.04 0.038 2 0.06 0.063 0.05

ladder-backed woodpecker 4 0.13 0.059 0.06

Arizona woodpecker 2 0.08 0.053 0.04

western wood-pewee 1 0.03 0.031 0.02

Hammond’s flycatcher 4 0.15 0.091 0.08

gray flycatcher 1 0.04 0.038 0.02

ash-throated flycatcher 7 0.27 0.105 22 0.69 0.130 0.48

Cassin’s kingbird 3 0.12 0.064 0.06

western kingbird 2 0.06 0.043 0.03

Bell’s vireo 1 0.04 0.038 0.02

plumbeous vireo 1 0.04 0.038 0.02

crissal thrasher 1 0.04 0.038 0.02

Mexican jay 2 0.08 0.053 22 0.69 0.263 0.38

bridled titmouse 1 0.04 0.038 10 0.31 0.176 0.18

verdin 7 0.27 0.089 8 0.25 0.078 0.26

bushtit 5 0.19 0.136 5 0.16 0.156 0.17

cactus wren 2 0.06 0.063 0.03

Bewick’s wren 24 0.92 0.156 23 0.72 0.136 0.82

house wren 1 0.04 0.038 0.02

ruby-crowned kinglet 9 0.35 0.123 0.17

phainopepla 2 0.06 0.063 0.03

orange-crowned warbler 1 0.04 0.038 0.02

Lucy’s warbler 3 0.12 0.064 10 0.31 0.138 0.21

black-throated gray warbler 1 0.04 0.038 0.02

Townsend’s warbler 1 0.03 0.031 0.02

hepatic tanager 1 0.04 0.038 0.02

western tanager 1 0.03 0.031 0.02

green-tailed towhee 2 0.08 0.053 1 0.03 0.031 0.05

spotted towhee 1 0.04 0.038 0.02

canyon towhee 5 0.19 0.096 9 0.28 0.112 0.24

Cassin’s sparrow 12 0.38 0.125 0.19

Botteri’s sparrow 8 0.31 0.133 18 0.56 0.127 0.44

rufous-crowned sparrow 7 0.27 0.105 9 0.28 0.112 0.28

chipping sparrow 10 0.38 0.385 0.19

lark sparrow 2 0.08 0.077 2 0.06 0.063 0.07

black-headed grosbeak 1 0.03 0.031 0.02

blue grosbeak 13 0.41 0.126 0.2

eastern meadowlark 1 0.04 0.038 6 0.19 0.070 0.11

brown-headed cowbird 1 0.04 0.038 1 0.03 0.031 0.03

Scott’s oriole 1 0.04 0.038 1 0.03 0.031 0.03

house finch 2 0.08 0.077 8 0.25 0.100 0.16
39

Table 5.5. Sum (number of observations) and relative abundance (mean + SE) of birds observed during

breeding-season surveys along the Riparian transect, Coronado NM, 2003 and 2004. Relative abundance

estimates exclude birds observed > 75 m from stations, flyovers, and observations made outside of the eight-minute

count period. See Methods section for additional details on estimation of relative abundance and effort used in those

calculations. See Appendix C for scientific names and Appendix I for complete list of species observed.

2003 (n =37) 2004 (n =40) 2003-2004

Species Sum Mean SE Sum Mean SE Mean

turkey vulture 1 0.03 0.027 0.01

Cooper’s hawk 3 0.08 0.045 1 0.03 0.025 0.05

white-winged dove 7 0.19 0.076 0.09

mourning dove 3 0.08 0.060 0.04

yellow-billed cuckoo 1 0.03 0.025 0.01

greater roadrunner 6 0.16 0.061 0.08

black-chinned hummingbird 1 0.03 0.027 2 0.05 0.035 0.04

Anna’s hummingbird 3 0.08 0.042 0.04

broad-tailed hummingbird 4 0.10 0.048 0.05

acorn woodpecker 1 0.03 0.027 0.01

ladder-backed woodpecker 1 0.03 0.025 0.01

Arizona woodpecker 3 0.08 0.045 4 0.10 0.048 0.09

northern flicker 9 0.24 0.090 2 0.05 0.050 0.15

western wood-pewee 2 0.05 0.038 0.03

Hammond’s flycatcher 3 0.08 0.060 2 0.05 0.035 0.07

gray flycatcher 1 0.03 0.025 0.01

western flycatchera 2 0.05 0.038 0.03

cordilleran flycatcher 1 0.03 0.025 0.01

dusky-capped flycatcher 8 0.22 0.069 27 0.68 0.145 0.45

ash-throated flycatcher 11 0.30 0.085 6 0.15 0.067 0.22

sulphur-bellied flycatcher 6 0.16 0.082 4 0.10 0.060 0.13

Cassin’s kingbird 2 0.05 0.054 1 0.03 0.025 0.04

plumbeous vireo 3 0.08 0.045 0.04

Hutton’s vireo 5 0.14 0.057 14 0.35 0.111 0.24

crissal thrasher 1 0.03 0.027 0.01

western scrub-jay 1 0.03 0.025 0.01

Mexican jay 21 0.57 0.244 47 1.18 0.214 0.87

bridled titmouse 15 0.41 0.152 17 0.43 0.160 0.42

bushtit 11 0.30 0.122 5 0.13 0.064 0.21

white-breasted nuthatch 1 0.03 0.025 0.01

canyon wren 4 0.11 0.052 0.05

Bewick’s wren 38 1.03 0.137 59 1.48 0.152 1.25

ruby-crowned kinglet 7 0.19 0.076 2 0.05 0.050 0.12

blue-gray gnatcatcher 1 0.03 0.027 0.01

hermit thrush 1 0.03 0.027 0.01

Lucy’s warbler 4 0.10 0.070 0.05

yellow-rumped warbler 3 0.08 0.042 0.04

black-throated gray warbler 17 0.46 0.100 17 0.43 0.138 0.44

Townsend’s warbler 1 0.03 0.025 0.01

Wilson’s warbler 1 0.03 0.027 2 0.05 0.035 0.04

painted redstart 1 0.03 0.025 0.01

hepatic tanager 2 0.05 0.038 7 0.18 0.061 0.11

western tanager 3 0.08 0.055 0.04

spotted towhee 14 0.38 0.112 15 0.38 0.085 0.38
40

canyon towhee 1 0.03 0.027 3 0.08 0.042 0.05

rufous-crowned sparrow 9 0.24 0.105 12 0.30 0.096 0.27

chipping sparrow 1 0.03 0.025 0.01

black-throated sparrow 4 0.10 0.060 0.05

dark-eyed junco 1 0.03 0.027 0.01

black-headed grosbeak 6 0.16 0.073 5 0.13 0.053 0.14

blue grosbeak 1 0.03 0.025 0.01

brown-headed cowbird 2 0.05 0.038 12 0.30 0.073 0.18

hooded oriole 1 0.03 0.025 0.01

Scott’s oriole 11 0.30 0.128 16 0.40 0.086 0.35

house finch 1 0.03 0.027 4 0.10 0.060 0.06 a Cordilleran or Pacific-slope flycatcher.

2003 (n =37) 2004 (n =40) 2003-2004

Species Sum Mean SE Sum Mean SE Mean

(Table 5.8). The most abundant species were the elf

and whiskered screech owls.

Incidental and Breeding Observations

We recorded observations of 113 species outside of

other formal bird surveys (Appendix C). Of these

species, 29 were not recorded by any other method

and included: wild turkey, peregrine falcon, rock

pigeon, elegant trogon, and northern cardinal. We

made 32 observations that confirmed breeding for

19 species (Table 5.9). The most breeding

observations were for the Cooper’s hawk and

Mexican jay (four breeding observations each). We

made 12 observations of nest contents or adults

feeding juvenile birds and we did not observe any

brown-headed cowbird eggs, nestlings, or

fledglings. 

Line-transect Surveys: Volunteer Data 

Volunteers surveyed three transects during the

breeding season and two transects during the nonbreeding season and found 51 and 43 species,

respectively, during those surveys (Appendices L,

M). Of the 71 species recorded on the Ranch and

Grassland transects, 21 were observed during the

breeding season but not during the non-breeding

season, and 27 species were observed during the

non-breeding season but not during the breeding

season. During the breeding season, the majority of

survey effort was along the Ranch transect, where

47 species were observed. This was far more than

on the Grassland (22 species) or the Upland (16

species) transects (Appendices L, M). The chipping

sparrow had the highest relative abundance on any

transect during the breeding season. Though it was

found in large flocks and early in the season, it was

not found to breed at the memorial. Other abundant

species were the Mexican jay, mourning dove, and

house finch. During the non-breeding season, the

eastern meadowlark and vesper sparrow had the

highest relative abundance on the Grassland

transect and the northern flicker had the highest

relative abundance on the Ranch transect

(Appendix L).

Inventory Completeness 

Based on our surveys and a review of past studies

and current projects, we believe that the inventory

of birds that regularly use the memorial is

complete. A look at the species accumulation curve

for our work indicates that our effort alone was not

sufficient to document all of the species that occur

on the memorial because the cumulative number of

new species was not approaching an asymptote

(Fig. 5.4). 

Based on the species list from the visitor

center database, the number of new species being

added to the list did not begin to reach an

asymptote until year eight or nine (Fig. 5.4). We

found six new species for the memorial, but most

of the new species that we found were located in

the semi-desert grassland area, which is rarely

visited by birders because of safety concerns and

the lack of trails in that area. 

Because birds are highly mobile animals, it

is difficult to compile a truly complete list,

especially for a place like the Huachuca

Mountains, which is well-known for the occurrence

of species that have their northern-most
41

Table 5.6. Mean relative abundance of birds observed during reconnaissance VCP surveys, Coronado NM, 2002–2004.

See Appendix K for additional information. See Appendix C for scientific names. 

Group

 High elevation Grassland 

 Ridge Coronado Peak Crest trail Level Upland Ranch 

Species 2004 2002 2004 2003 2004 2004 2004

white-winged dove 0.2 

mourning dove 0.3 0.2 0.4

black-chinned hummingbird 0.4

ladder-backed woodpecker 0.1 0.2 0.2

western wood-pewee 0.3 0.2

Say’s phoebe 0.1 0.2 0.4

dusky-capped flycatcher 0.3

ash-throated flycatcher 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Cassin’s kingbird 0.3

western kingbird 0.2 0.8

curve-billed thrasher 0.3

crissal thrasher 0.2

western scrub-jay 0.6 0.8 1.0

Mexican jay 0.1 0.8 1.6

bridled titmouse 0.4 0.2

verdin 0.6

bushtit 0.8 0.2 5.0 1.4

white-breasted nuthatch 0.2

cactus wren 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.4

canyon wren 0.1

Bewick’s wren 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.8 1.2 0.2

blue-gray gnatcatcher 0.4

Lucy’s warbler 0.2

hepatic tanager 0.3 0.3

western tanager 0.4

spotted towhee 0.4 0.2 0.8

canyon towhee 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2

rufous-crowned sparrow 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4

lark sparrow 0.2

black-throated sparrow 0.2 0.2

blue grosbeak 0.4

eastern meadowlark 0.6

brown-headed cowbird 0.1 0.2 0.2

hooded oriole 0.2

Scott’s oriole 0.6 0.4 0.2

house finch 0.1 0.8
42

Table 5.7. Relative abundance of birds observed during line-transect surveys by UA

inventory personnel, Coronado NM, 2002–2003. See Appendix C for scientific names. 

 Riparian (n = 18) Wash (n = 12) 

Species Sum Mean SE Sum Mean SE

Montezuma quail 1 0.06 0.056

northern harrier 1 0.06 0.056 1 0.08 0.083

sharp-shinned hawk 1 0.08 0.083

red-naped sapsucker 1 0.06 0.056

ladder-backed woodpecker 1 0.08 0.083

northern flicker 3 0.17 0.121 2 0.17 0.112

Say’s phoebe 2 0.17 0.112

Hutton’s vireo 2 0.11 0.076 1 0.08 0.083

crissal thrasher 1 0.08 0.083

Mexican jay 42 2.33 0.796 4 0.33 0.333

common raven 1 0.06 0.056 2 0.17 0.112

bridled titmouse 7 0.39 0.293 1 0.08 0.083

verdin 5 0.42 0.149

bushtit 24 1.33 0.840 29 2.42 2.006

white-breasted nuthatch 3 0.17 0.121 2 0.17 0.167

canyon wren 1 0.06 0.056

Bewick’s wren 11 0.61 0.200 3 0.25 0.131

house wren 1 0.08 0.083

ruby-crowned kinglet 16 0.89 0.196 14 1.17 0.297

western bluebird 12 0.67 0.370

mountain bluebird 2 0.17 0.167

hermit thrush 3 0.17 0.121

phainopepla 1 0.06 0.056 1 0.08 0.083

yellow-rumped warbler 2 0.17 0.112

spotted towhee 14 0.78 0.222 1 0.08 0.083

rufous-crowned sparrow 2 0.11 0.076 3 0.25 0.179

chipping sparrow 13 0.72 0.434

vesper sparrow 1 0.08 0.083

white-crowned sparrow 1 0.06 0.056

dark-eyed junco 12 0.67 0.370

lesser goldfinch 2 0.11 0.076 1 0.08 0.083

Table 5.8. Sum (total number of observations) and relative abundance

(mean + SE) of birds detected during nocturnal surveys, Coronado NM,

2003. Sample size for calculation of relative abundance was 15. 

Species Sum Mean SE

western screech owl 6 0.40 0.190

whiskered screech owl 10 0.67 0.252

great horned owl 2 0.13 0.091

northern pygmy-owl 2 0.13 0.133

elf owl 13 0.87 0.192

common poorwill 6 0.40 0.163

whip-poor-will 3 0.20 0.107
43

distribution in southern Arizona. Because of the

variety of vegetation communities at the memorial,

its location at the south end of the Huachuca

Mountains, and the active birding community in

the area, we believe that rare bird species will be

added to the list for many years to come.

Discussion

Results of our research and that of others indicate

that Coronado NM has a very species-rich bird

community. Collectively, there have been 196 bird

species observed at the memorial, 2 (1%) of which

are non-native. This richness results from two main

factors. First, the location of the memorial at the

south end of the Huachuca Mountains ensures that

many regionally rare or unique species such as the

Lucifer’s, white-eared, and violet-crowned

hummingbirds, elegant trogon, and streak-backed

oriole are not uncommon. However, the memorial

has no major drainages or springs, which precludes

the establishment of a large riparian area (as in

nearby Carr or Ramsey canyons) and therefore

fewer individuals of riparian-obligate birds are

likely to stay at the memorial for long periods of

time. 

Second, the diversity of vegetation

communities on the memorial, ranging from semidesert grassland to oak savannah and woodland

support a high diversity of birds. Although many

environmental factors influence bird communities,

vegetation characteristics are one of the most

important predictors of avian community structure

(James 1971). Important vegetation characteristics

include vertical structure (MacArthur and

MacArthur 1961, Cody 1981), horizontal

patchiness (Roth 1976, Kotliar and Weins 1990),

and floristics (Rice et al. 1984, Strong and Bock

1990). The changes in these resources at the

memorial are exemplified in the gradient from the

open semi-desert grassland with scattered trees in

the Wash transect to dense vegetation along

Table 5.9. Number of observations for each breeding behavior for birds, Coronado NM, 2003 and 2004. Breeding

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

 Nest Adults carrying 

Feeding

recently Recently

With With Nesting Distraction fledged fledged

Common name Building eggs young Occupied Food material displays young young Totals

Cooper’s hawk 1 1 1 1 4

red-tailed hawk 1 1

Anna’s hummingbird 1 1

broad-tailed hummingbird 1 1

northern flicker 1 1

Say’s phoebe 1 1

dusky-capped flycatcher 1 1

sulphur-bellied flycatcher 1 1 1 3

western kingbird 1 1

Hutton’s vireo 1 1 1 3

Mexican jay 1 1 1 1 4

cactus wren 1 1

Bewick’s wren 2 2

curve-billed thrasher 1 1

crissal thrasher 1 1

hepatic tanager 1 1

rufous-crowned sparrow 1 1 1 3

eastern meadowlark 1 1

house finch 1 1

Totals 3 3 3 6 4 3 2 6 2 32
44

Figure 5.4. Species accumulation curves for the UA inventory effort (2002–2004) and data from the visitor center log

book (1991–2003), Coronado NM. Species accumulation data for UA effort include all observations from all survey types. Each

sample period for UA inventory represents a randomized ordering of 103 observations (N = 1,952; a completely randomized

combination of the four survey types). Each sample period for the memorial’s visitor center log book represents one year. 

Montezuma Wash along the Riparian transect (see

Fig. 5.1). The differences in bird community

composition and relative abundance of the most

common bird species (Tables 5.3, 5.4) between the

Wash and Riparian transects (Appendix I) are

pronounced but not surprising because of the

differences in the vegetation characteristics

between the two transects (Table 5.2, Appendix J).

There were also significant within-transect changes

in the bird communities between breeding and nonbreeding seasons (Tables 5.5, 5.6). 

The impact on the bird community from

the conversion of the memorial’s semi-desert

grasslands from native species to one dominated by

Lehmann lovegrass has not been established, but

the loss of native grassland has been identified as a

primary factor in population declines of grassland

birds as a group (Herkert 1994, Knopf 1994,

Peterjohn and Sauer 1999), including species of

management concern such as the Botteri’s and

Cassin’s sparrows. Since its introduction in the

1930s, Lehmann lovegrass has spread to occupy

>400,000 ha in southern Arizona with little

indication that its spread is complete (E. L. Geiger,

unpublished data). We found the Cassin’s sparrow

and Botteri’s sparrow to be two of the most

abundant species during breeding-season surveys

along the Wash transect (Table 5.4). Unfortunately

we were not able to establish whether these species

nested at the memorial. Russell and Danforth

(1979) considered the Cassin’s sparrow common in

Montezuma Wash, but Botteri’s sparrow was not

observed during their study. Initial studies indicate

that relative abundance of birds and other taxa in

these grasslands is lower in areas dominated by

nonnative grasses (Bock et al. 1986). However, on

the Fort Huachuca Military Reservation, north of

Coronado NM, Albrecht and Steidl (In prep) found

the density of Botteri’s sparrow nests to be greater

on plots dominated by Lehmann lovegrass than on

native grassland plots, though nest success

appeared to be lower on plots dominated by

Lehmann lovegrass. 

The native velvet mesquite has also

increased in density and distribution in SE Arizona

since the late 1800s, primarily due to disruption of

historical fire regimes and grazing (Humphrey

1974, Brown 1994, Van Auken 2000). This

encroachment has taken place at the memorial and

has likely changed the bird community. Even in the
45

last 25 years, shrub-associated species, such as

verdin and rufous-crowned sparrow, were some of

the most abundant species in the memorial but

were not found on the Wash transect in the late

1970s (Russell and Danforth 1979). Also, we

observed the first record of northern cardinal at the

memorial, a species that has presumably expanded

its range due the increasing availability of dense

vegetation in the shrub layer. 

Sycamore trees line Montezuma Wash west

of the visitor center. We found a nest of sulphurbellied flycatchers in a sycamore tree there. Other

species that prefer sycamore trees for nesting, and

that we found along the Riparian transect, included

the western wood pewee, painted redstart, and

hooded oriole. These species were not common

and we did not determine whether they nested in

the memorial. Nevertheless, research in the

southwestern U.S. has consistently shown that

areas with riparian trees have bird communities

that are more diverse than adjacent sites (Carothers

et al. 1974, Szaro and Jakle 1985, Strong and Bock

1990), which is due, in part, to the variety of

microhabitats that riparian vegetation provides for

nesting, cover, and foraging (Powell and Steidl

2002). Riparian trees provide an abundance of nest

substrates for primary- (i.e., mainly woodpeckers)

and secondary-cavity-nesting species (e.g., elegant

trogon, Lucy’s warbler, and Bewick’s wren). In

addition to sycamore trees, the riparian area west

of the visitor center also has a high density of oak

trees. In this area, we observed nesting Cooper’s

hawks in 2003 and 2004, four wild turkeys, and a

yellow-billed cuckoo.

Comparison to Russell and Danforth (1979)

The research by Russell and Danforth (1979) was

the first comprehensive bird survey of the

memorial and provides a valuable baseline for

evaluating gross changes in the memorial’s bird

community. Because we did not use the same

survey methods, and because the original data from

that effort is lost, we are limited in our

comparisons. Yet some important patterns emerged.

As mentioned earlier, we found the Botteri’s

sparrow to be among the most abundant species on

the Wash transect, but it was not recorded by

Russell and Danforth (1979). A look at the relative

abundance rankings between our two studies also

shows some interesting patterns. For the Riparian

transect, most of the common species from each

study were similarly common (Appendix N). For

the Wash transect, however, most of the common

species from each study were not found to be

common by the other study. These comparisons

may reflect actual changes in the bird community,

be an artifact of different sampling intensities, or

could simply be due to chance. However, Botteri’s

sparrow and other species recorded on the Wash

transect that were not recorded by Russell and

Danforth (1979), such as western bluebird and

dark-eyed junco, are considered grassland species.

The decrease in grazing in 1991 and the subsequent

increase in grassy plant species may be the reason

for these differences.

Monitoring

The bird inventory of Coronado NM is close to

completion, though new species will likely

continue to be found. We applaud the effort by

memorial volunteers to maintain the observation

database and suggest that they continue their effort.

Perhaps the most important research-related

activity that the park can undertake is to monitor

the distribution, abundance, and species richness of

birds in the memorial. To this end it appears that

the Sonoran Desert Network will include landbirds

in the core “vital signs” monitoring program

(Powell et al. 2006). This program will provide

managers with information on the changes to the

bird community, and because other parameters will

be monitored (e.g., vegetation and climate) this

information may provide information about

potential causes to the changes observed in the bird

community. 
46
47

There have been few past studies of mammals at

Coronado NM, though one notable exception is the

study of coatis described in the popular book Chulo

by Bill Gilbert (1973). Prior to 2000, most

knowledge of mammals was compiled during a

study by University of Arizona researchers in

1977–1978. Using trapping for nocturnal rodents,

mist-netting for bats, and observations, Petryszyn

and Cockrum (1979) confirmed 26 species of

mammals (including 12 bat species) at the

memorial. However, they were unable to confirm

an additional 31 mammals (including 17 bat

species) that they believed were probably present

based on range maps and historic records.

Petryszyn and Cockrum (1979) believed that the

most significant gaps in knowledge of mammals at

the memorial were of grassland species of

nocturnal rodents, and most of the larger species

they observed were not confirmed with voucher

specimens or photographs. They also noted nine

species that may have been present in the past but

appeared to be at least locally extirpated, including

such federally-listed species as the Mexican gray

wolf, black-tailed prairie dog, jaguarundi, ocelot,

and jaguar. 

Objectives

The purpose of the present study was to fill in gaps

in our knowledge of terrestrial mammals at

Coronado NM, particularly in grassland habitats,

and to combine this information with historic data

to produce a baseline inventory. Our primary goal

was to use a variety of techniques to confirm as

many of the memorial’s terrestrial mammal species

as possible. Our secondary goal was to fit these

data into a geographic context, and produce range

maps for the current distribution of mammals at the

memorial. Although monitoring population

abundances was not a goal of this study, we did

measure relative abundance of nocturnal rodents.

Specific objectives were: 

1. To survey terrestrial mammals using

techniques that have minimal impact on

animals and the environment;

2. To use voucher photographs as a method of

confirming easily identified species present

on the memorial, and to collect as voucher

specimens animals found dead or species

difficult to identify from photographs;

3. To gather historic information on mammals

at Coronado NM from published sources,

museum collections, and historic reports;

4. To document relative abundance of

selected species in different vegetation

communities in the memorial;

5. To provide this information to the

memorial in a format useful for

management decisions and interpretation.

Two products are provided in the

appendices of this report. Appendix D is a table of

all species confirmed during this study and the

Petryszyn and Cockrum (1979) study. Appendix F

is a table of species that may be found at the

memorial. For accounts of all confirmed and

potential species, including historic information

and current range maps see Swann et al. (2000)

appendices C and D. Copies of field data sheets,

database files, Global Positioning Systems (GPS)

files, Trailmaster photographs, field notes, and

voucher photographs were given to Coronado NM. 

Methods

Detecting presence and absence of mammals can

be difficult due to their diverse lifestyles, including

nocturnal and underground habits. In addition,

small mammals may be very specific in their

microhabitat requirements, while larger species,

especially carnivores, may occur naturally at very

low population densities. To detect as many species

that occur in the memorial as possible, we used a

wide variety of techniques as outlined below. 

Historic Records

To gather information about the present and

historic distribution of mammals at the memorial,

we surveyed sources inside and outside the NPS

system. For all mammal species of possible

occurrence, we reviewed published records,

Chapter 6: Mammal Inventory

Don E. Swann, Cecil R. Schwalbe, Amy J. Kuenzi, Melanie Bucci, and Barbara N. Alberti 
48

particularly Hoffmeister (1986), the primary source

of such data for Arizona, and unpublished sources,

particularly Petryszyn and Cockrum (1979). We

also reviewed records from the University of

Arizona mammal museum and other major U.S.

museums. Records from wildlife observation cards

at Coronado NM through November 2000 were

summarized by volunteers from the memorial and

Southern Arizona Office (SOAR). Additional

historic records were provided by the memorial,

the NPS Western Archaeological Conservation

Center in Tucson, and the Heritage Database of the

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD 1996). 

Small Mammal Trapping

To verify species of nocturnal rodents and to

determine species distribution and relative

abundance, we trapped nocturnal rodents using

“extra large” Sherman and Tomahawk brand live

traps for small mammals (7.5 X 9 X 23.5 cm).

Traps were baited with oatmeal mixed with a small

amount of peanut butter (approximately one tbsp.

peanut butter per 0.5 kg of oatmeal). All traps were

covered by vegetation and/or soil for insulation,

and a handful of polyester batting was placed

inside for bedding. Traps were baited in late

afternoon and checked early the following

morning. Traps were usually closed during the day,

except during cool weather in thick grassland and

riparian areas. 

Standard inventory grids consisted of 25

traps placed ten meters apart, usually arranged in a

square grid of five rows (A–E) running north/south

and five rows (1–5) running east/west; grids in

riparian areas were arranged to conform to the

riparian corridor. A few smaller arrays of five-ten

traps were also set in special microhabitats and

human-use areas. Each trap station was marked

with surveyor’s tape. All traps were removed from

grids at the end of each trapping session of one to

four nights, and the southeast trap station (A–1)

was flagged for later relocation for vegetation

analysis and UTMs. We did not attempt to

randomly locate grids, but located them in areas

that represented the geographic, topographic, and

vegetative diversity of the memorial. These

included burned and unburned oak woodland areas,

wet seeps, cattle tanks, riparian corridors, high- and

low-elevation grasslands, grazed and ungrazed

semi-desert grassland areas, and areas altered by

human activity. 

Each captured animal was identified to

species, age, sex, and reproductive condition, and

the following measurements were taken: weight in

grams; right hindfoot length, ear length, tail length,

and body length in millimeters. Individuals were

batch-marked with a colored permanent marker,

with each color representing a unique day. Where

animals were difficult to identify to species, we

noted special characteristics (such as foot tubercle

color in pocket mice, tail stripe width in harvest

mice, etc.). Specimens or photographs of difficultto-identify mammals were brought to the

University of Arizona Mammal Collection and

confirmed by Dr. Yar Petryszyn, Assistant Curator.

All trapping data were entered into a database

(Microsoft Access 97), and brought into the

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in Program

ArcView (version 3.0) to generate range maps for

each species. 

Infrared-Triggered Photography

Infrared-triggered photographs of large- and

medium-sized mammals were obtained using the

model 1500 Trailmaster camera system (Goodson

and Associates, Inc., Lenaxa, KS), where a single

infrared beam is emitted by a transmitter and

detected by a receiver; a photograph is taken when

this beam is broken by an animal. Three units were

operated continuously from October 1996 through

December 1997. We did not randomly locate

camera units, but placed them in vegetated areas

that represented the geographic diversity of the

memorial and were protected from direct sunlight

and observation by visitors. Cameras were set out

for intervals of two weeks or more at a natural

water source, or baited with sardines, cat or other

carnivore lure, a visual lure, or some combination

of these. We recorded all changes of film and bait

used, and map coordinates were obtained using

GPS. We also recorded slope, aspect, and

vegetation at each site. Animals in each photograph

were identified to species if possible, and times and

dates recorded; data were entered into a Microsoft

Access database as for nocturnal rodents. 

Observations

To supplement records of mammal distribution and

relative abundance, we recorded all mammals

observed during this study, and during field trips

associated with a study of reptiles and amphibians
49

which was initiated at the memorial in spring 1997.

We looked for mammals while driving on a road

transect between the east and west boundaries;

while conducting trapping and habitat analysis; and

under boards and other materials while searching

for reptiles. We recorded date, time, species, and

location associated with each animal observed.

Observations and specimens were also collected by

memorial staff through 2003.

Voucher Specimens and Photographs

One specimen of each small mammal species not

previously captured at the memorial, and all trap

mortalities, were taken as vouchers. Live

specimens were euthanized with carbon dioxide

gas according to University of Arizona animal

handling protocols (Institutional Animal Care and

Use Committee (IACUC), Control #94–067).

Voucher specimens of medium and large mammals

usually were animals killed by cars on East

Montezuma Canyon Road, but occasionally parts

of animals (e.g., skulls or carcasses) found dead

were also collected. All specimens were deposited

in the University of Arizona mammal collection. In

addition to photographs taken by infrared-triggered

cameras, we also voucher-photographed live

individuals of rodents and a desert shrew. 

Monitoring Grids

As a supplement to the small mammal inventory,

two grids of 100 traps each were selected as test

grids for monitoring abundance. The purpose of

this monitoring was to evaluate the sample size and

cost necessary for monitoring nocturnal rodents at

the memorial. One grid (9A18) was randomly

located in semi-desert grassland below 1,524 m; a

second grid (2A6) was randomly located on a

south-facing slope in oak savannah above 1,921 m,

within 1.6 km of a road. Methods were the same as

described for inventory, except individual animals

were uniquely marked using permanent color pens

in order to develop a capture history for each.

Grids were trapped for 4–6 nights each year from

1997–2003 during October, November, or early

December.

Determining Relative Abundance

Data from small mammal trapping was used to

provide an index of abundance for each species

listed in Appendix P and Q. Comparing the

abundance of one species relative to another is

problematic, because the number of individuals

observed reflects not only the numbers of animals

present, but also how easily they can be captured.

For example, pocket gophers are certainly very

common at the memorial, but are rarely observed

directly because they spend so much of their time

underground and are difficult to trap alive.

Abundance comparisons should ideally be based

on estimates of absolute abundance or density

(number of individuals per unit area), obtained

through unbiased methods, such as mark-recapture

studies. However, these methods are extremely

time-consuming, and usually cannot be obtained

without intensive, species-specific study. 

Nomenclature and Field Schedule

In this report we follow the standard English and

scientific nomenclature of Jones et al. (1997). Field

work for this study began in September 1996 and

continued through February 1998; however, with

activities taking place in every month, but

primarily in spring and fall. Monitoring of rodents

continued each fall through 2003 (Swann et al.

2002). C. R. Schwalbe was the principle

investigator. D. E. Swann conducted the majority

of fieldwork, with primary assistance from A. J.

Kuenzi, B. N. Alberti, M. Bucci, S. Wolf, and a

number of volunteers. 

Results

Twenty-nine species of native terrestrial mammals

were confirmed during this study by voucher

specimens; an additional nine species not

confirmed by specimens were confirmed by

unambiguous voucher photographs. We did not

collect specimens of three additional species that

had previously been collected by Petryszyn and

Cockrum (1979); however, except for one species

of pocket gopher and all bats, we observed all of

the species confirmed by Petryszyn and Cockrum

(1979). An additional three species of mammals

(black-tailed jackrabbit, feral cat, and mule deer)

were confirmed by reliable sightings by us or

memorial staff. The total number of mammal

species confirmed for Coronado NM is 52

(Appendix D). Not included in this total are

domestic cattle, but we do include two non-native

species (feral dog and feral cat) that exist in the

wild but probably would not survive without

human assistance, and one non-native (house
50

mouse) that is probably established in the wild.

Sightings were considered reliable only for species

that are difficult to misidentify (e.g., black-tailed

jackrabbit) and that were observed within their

expected range and habitat. We also do not include

eastern cottontail because a voucher specimen is

needed to unambiguously identify this species;

however, we are fairly certain that we observed and

photographed this species and believe it will

eventually be verified.

Of the 43 confirmed species, at least 12

may be considered “new”, because to our

knowledge no voucher specimens or photographs

had been taken in the past, and the species does not

appear on previous species lists. For all but 12

species observed or captured during our study,

voucher photographs were obtained. Slides of these

species have been deposited in archives at

Coronado NM and copies retained by CRS and

DES. 

Small Mammal Trapping

We trapped nocturnal rodents on inventory grids

from September 1996 through December 1997 for

a total of 5,424 trap-nights. Locations of trapping

grids are shown in Figure 6.1, and vegetation type

and elevation for each grid are summarized in

Swann et al. (2000) Appendix B. Photographs of

each grid and data sheets with vegetation data have

been provided to Coronado NM. 

A total of 672 captures of 17 species were

made, for a mean trap success of 12.4%. A total of

498 individuals were captured. The most common

species captured (Figure 6.2) were the brush

mouse, yellow-nosed cotton rat, white-throated

woodrat, and Sonoran Desert pocket mouse. 

A few species were very limited in their

distribution in the memorial. The deer mouse was

only captured at the “blue waterfall” seep north of

the residences and two other locations. Merriam’s

kangaroo rat and banner-tailed kangaroo rat were

only captured near the east boundary fence

approximately 2.0 km south of East Montezuma

Canyon Road, and Ord’s kangaroo rat was only

trapped at one location in the orchard area of

Montezuma Ranch. The rock pocket mouse was

captured rarely in rocky areas only. The tawnybellied cotton rat and southern grasshopper mouse

Figure 6.1. Map of Coronado NM, showing locations of trapping grids. Roads are represented by lines. Monitoring grids are

9A18 and 2A6. 
51

were only captured in semi-desert grasslands below

1,509 m. During monitoring from 1997-2003, we

did slightly increase the number of locations for

several species (Figure 6.1 and Appendix C). 

Six species that were largely confined to

grassy areas occurred in both lower-elevation semidesert grassland as well as upper-elevation (above

1,982 m) oak savannah where grasses were

abundant. These species included the Sonoran

Desert pocket mouse, yellow-nosed cotton rat,

Arizona cotton rat, fulvous harvest mouse, western

harvest mouse, and northern pygmy mouse. Three

species were nearly ubiquitous: the white-footed

mouse was found at all elevations and vegetation

associations except semi-desert grassland, and the

brush mouse and white-throated woodrat were

found in every vegetation association. Table 6.1

lists the number of each species captured in each of

the four major vegetation communities plus

residential areas and seeps, with additional

categories of grazed vs. ungrazed, and tree cover >

grass cover vs. tree cover < grass cover. 

Monitoring Grids

On the 100-trap oak savannah grid near Coronado

Peak, 405 individuals of 11 species were captured

during 1997–2003. On the lower grassland grid just

north of Montezuma Canyon near the east

boundary, 470 individuals of 14 species were

captured. The number of individuals and species

trapped on the two grids varied greatly among

years (Appendices P, Q). For example, on the

grassland grid the number of captured individuals

ranged from a low of 27 in 1997 to a high of 119

in 2001. Appendices P and Q are summaries of raw

capture data on the monitoring grids. Over seven

years of effort we confirmed three species that had

not been previously confirmed at the memorial

(spotted ground squirrel, silky pocket mouse, and

house mouse). In addition, we made additional

captures of species in areas where they had not

been previously trapped, including capture of

several “grassland” species (such as pygmy mouse)

on the oak savannah grid.

Infrared-Triggered Photography 

Between September 1996 and December 1997,

three Trailmaster cameras were used for

approximately 1,142 nights at 25 locations (Figure

6.3). Cameras were often not operational because a

roll of film had been completely exposed or an

equipment malfunction had occurred; we estimate

Figure 6.2. Number of individuals trapped (captures – recaptures) of nocturnal rodent species captured at Coronado

NM, 1996–1997. Based on 5,424 trap-nights. Acronyms are based on scientific names: first two letters of genus name, followed

by first two letters of species name. See Appendix D for scientific names. 

PEBO

SIOC

NEAL

CHPE

BATA

PELE

SIAR

REFU

ONTO

REME

SIFU

PEME

DIME

CHIN

DIOR

DISP
52

Table 6.1. Number of nocturnal rodents trapped per 100 trap-nights in selected vegetation types at Coronado NM.

Vegetation types: 1 = in and around buildings, 2 = semi-desert grassland (grazed), 3 = mesquite riparian, 4 = oak riparian with

less than 50% tree cover, 5 = oak riparian with more than 50% tree cover, 6 = oak woodland with less than 50% tree cover, 7 =

oak woodland with more than 50% tree cover, 8 = seeps with permanent water or moisture, 9 = semi-desert grassland (ungrazed).

Vegetation Type

Species 123456789

Sonoran Desert pocket mouse 1.6 1.5 3.5 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.5

rock pocket mouse 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.1

hispid pocket mouse 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

banner-tailed kangaroo rat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Ord’s kangaroo rat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Merriam’s kangaroo rat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

western harvest mouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6

fulvous harvest mouse 1.6 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.5

deer mouse 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0

white-footed mouse 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.9 1.4 0.7 2.3 0.0

brush mouse 1.6 0.5 0.8 1.9 0.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 0.1

northern pygmy mouse 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2

southern grasshopper mouse 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

white-throated woodrat 4.2 0.2 1.1 1.9 1.3 2.0 0.7 2.8 0.0

tawny-bellied cotton rat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

yellow-nosed cotton rat 1.6 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.0 2.6 0.1 0.6 1.1

Arizona cotton rat 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.3 1.1

the cameras were operational for a total of

approximately 640 nights. During this period, 379

photographs of 18 native mammal species (and one

photograph of a feral dog) were obtained (Figure

6.4). For the majority of species, these photographs

were the first voucher photographs obtained for the

memorial. In addition, we obtained photographs of

great horned owls, red-tailed hawks, and greater

roadrunners. Summary data for Trailmaster

cameras is contained in Appendix O.

Inventory Completeness

We believe that our inventory was fairly complete,

given the large amount of time we spent using

infrared-triggered cameras and trapping small

mammals. We recorded 46 species of terrestrial

mammals for the memorial, and strongly suspect

that eastern cottontail occurs, even though we

could not confirm this species. We included on the

list the only species of terrestrial mammal

confirmed by Petryszyn and Cockrum (1979) that

we did not see, the Southern pocket gopher,

because we did record pocket gopher sign in

appropriate habitat for this common species. In

addition to confirmed native and non-native

species, an additional 17 native species either occur

or have occurred historically within the Huachuca

Mountains (Hoffmeister 1986) or nearby valleys

(Appendix F). These include a few species that

have been sighted or confirmed very close to the

memorial and are likely to occur (e.g., common

porcupine); species that occur nearby but are

unlikely due to lack of suitable habitat (e.g., roundtailed ground squirrel and Bailey’s pocket mouse);

species that are certainly not resident but range

widely and may pass through the memorial from

time to time (jaguar and ocelot); and a few species

that are now certainly extirpated in the area (gray

wolf and grizzly bear). Detailed species accounts

for all known and potential species, including

summaries of historic and museum records, are

provided in Appendix C of Swann et al. (2000). 

Discussion

Species Diversity

Results of our inventory indicate that Coronado

NM has a great diversity of terrestrial mammal
53

Figure 6.3. Map of Coronado NM, showing locations of infrared-triggered photograph stations. 

Figure 6.4. Number of individual photographs of 18 mammal species taken by infrared-triggered photography at

Coronado NM, 1996–1997. Based on approximately 1,142 camera-nights. Acronyms are based on genus and species names, as

in Appendix D.
54

species for its size compared to other parks in

southern Arizona (although not as many as Tonto

National Monument; Table 6.2). This is probably

due to a number of factors, including the presence

of thick grassland vegetation in ungrazed areas,

which supports many species of rodents; the

memorial’s location in the Huachuca Mountains,

which is itself very diverse for biogeographic

reasons; and the memorial’s connectivity to other

natural areas nearby, including Coronado National

Forest, the San Pedro River, and undeveloped areas

in Mexico. In addition, small parks such as

Coronado NM and Tonto NM may have higher

diversity per unit area because their mammalian

fauna include most of the habitat generalists (e.g.,

species like desert cottontail, mountain lion, and

white-throated woodrat) that occur in larger parks.

Preserving this diversity at the memorial is

important, and some effort should be made to

better understand why it occurs. 

It is significant that this study confirmed a

number of rodent species not confirmed by

Petryszyn and Cockrum (1979) (Appendix D).

Their study was shorter in duration than ours and

involved far fewer trap-nights; we trapped a

number of species in areas where they did not

detect them. Indeed, the yellow-nosed cotton rat,

currently the most abundant rodent in both higherand lower-elevation grasslands, was not trapped by

Petryszyn and Cockrum (1979). 

The most plausible explanation for the

difference between our results and those of the

previous study is that grasses in the low-elevation

grasslands south of East Montezuma Canyon Road,

which were very robust during our study, were

sparse in 1977–78. Much of this area was bare

ground at that time (Y. Petryszyn, pers. comm.),

probably due to the combined results of heavy

cattle grazing and low rainfall. The beginning of

our study coincided with the end of a very wet

summer monsoon season, and no grazing had

occurred in this area for over eight years (E. Lopez,

pers. comm.). 

The other major change that has occurred

at the memorial since 1978 has been the loss of

trees (particularly conifers) and the resultant

growth of high-elevation grasses since the severe

Peak Fire of June 1988 (Ruffner and Johnson

1991). This vegetative change may also be related

to the cessation of grazing at higher elevations. The

resulting increase in grass seed crop has clearly

been favorable to small rodents. It will be

interesting to track changes in the species diversity

of these oak savannahs if they become revegetated

with oaks and pinyon pine. 

As a small but significant block of

protected land at the south end of the Huachuca

Mountains, the memorial undoubtedly plays an

important role as a refugium for many mammals,

including not only grassland species, but also

hunted animals such as deer (Odocoileus spp.) and

predators such as mountain lions. Because of this,

the memorial may also play a significant role in

any return of species that are presently extirpated

from the area. Black-tailed prairie dogs, which

probably occurred in or nearby the memorial

earlier in this century, apparently continue to

persist over the border in Mexico less than 4.8 km

south of the Huachuca Mountains (Ecological

Center of Sonora 1994). It is not impossible that

this species could naturally recolonize protected

grassland areas of the memorial at some time in the

future; there was recently an unconfirmed sighting

of this species by a visiting ranger (Barbara

Alberti, pers. comm.). Some scientists and ranchers

now believe that prairie dogs are beneficial for

cattle because of their role in suppressing mesquite

(Weltzin 1997). 

In addition, the memorial provides a

potential refugium for jaguars, ocelots, and gray

wolves moving northward, should these species

increase in number. However, for most large

Table 6.2. Number of species of native terrestrial mammals on species lists at four

parks in southern Arizona, and density in number of species per 100 ha. 

Park unit Area (Ha) Number of mammals Density

Organ Pipe Cactus NM 133,830 50 0.037

Saguaro NP 36,531 49 0.134

Coronado NM 1,900 43 2.263

Tonto NM 461 30 6.508
55

mammals, the memorial does not contain sufficient

area to contain the entire home range for even a

small population. If development and loss of

habitat in the San Pedro Valley continues, it is very

possible that more species will disappear from the

memorial, as has been documented for other

western national parks (Newmark 1995). Species

with relatively large home ranges at the memorial

include black bear, mountain lion, bobcat, whitenosed coati, and others. 

Monitoring

Monitoring vertebrate animals in national parks is

essential if the NPS is to fulfill the important

mission of preserving biodiversity on its lands that

is presently mandated by the agency (NPS 

1992); however, monitoring of vertebrates can be

time-consuming and expensive. Many mammal

species are difficult to observe and count, and their

populations often fluctuate greatly due to natural

causes. Monitoring is particularly difficult in small

park areas where human and financial resources

may be even more limited than in larger parks. 

Although a number of monitoring

programs for mammals have been developed in

national parks in recent years (e.g., at Channel

Islands National Park and Organ Pipe Cactus

National Monument), such programs may be

unrealistic for small park areas such as Coronado

NM because of the cost involved (Swann 1999). In

addition, many small park monitoring programs

emphasize estimating population size of either

threatened species such as Florida panthers, or

common species such as deer mice, but are not

concerned with monitoring other species. We

believe that knowledge of changes in abundance of

selected species must be coupled with knowledge

of the presence and distribution of all species using

the park. Loss of species from national parks and

other natural areas due to human impacts is a major

concern, yet one that few monitoring programs are

designed to measure. In addition to tracking

potential changes in abundance of common

species, monitoring must provide information on

species that may be in danger of extirpation

because of their rarity or loss of specialized habitat. 

For this reason, we provide information for

conducting a multi-level approach to monitoring

mammals at Coronado NM and suggest that it is in

the best interest of management that park-wide

inventories of mammal species be conducted every

five to ten years. Such inventories should take a

systematic approach to sampling all species that

occur in the memorial, and include trapping and

use of infrared-triggered cameras or similar

technology in all vegetation communities. By

providing documentation of locations and effort

associated with our study, we envision that all or

portions of this effort could be replicated in future

surveys. 

Secondly, if additional monitoring

activities can be scheduled, important information

can be gained by small mammal trapping that is

conducted on monitoring grids randomly located in

selected habitat types. We established one grid each

in oak savannah and in semi-desert grassland areas;

additional grids could be established in Montezuma

Canyon and in other areas. To understand the

natural variability associated with different rodent

species, which can be extreme, these grids should

be trapped several times each year for four to eight

nights each, for at least several years; later, it may

be possible to reduce the frequency of trapping

occasions. Program MONITOR (Gibbs 1995)

enables researchers to determine, based on

measured means and variances, the number of trap

grids and trapping occasions necessary to detect a

predetermined change in abundance (such as 3%

annually) over a period of time. Although our study

of two years was not adequate to determine the

natural variation in abundance of rodent species,

results from other southern Arizona studies (e.g.,

Petryszyn 1982) suggest variance may be extreme.

For example, the estimated abundance of cotton

rats on monitoring Grid 2A6 has ranged from 21

individuals in 1997 to five in 1999 (Bucci et al.

1999). High natural variability increases the

number of grids that must be sampled in order to

detect significant levels of change. 

Our estimated costs for annual monitoring

of large grids ($800) should be considered a

minimum estimate. Monitoring these grids in 1998

and 1999 was more expensive (Bucci et al. 1999)

because we trapped for a longer period. The greater

number of trap-nights provided more accurate

population estimates, and the higher costs were at

least partly off-set by a large volunteer effort. 

Further valuable information is to be

gained by monitoring selected mammal species

intensively, measuring abundance as well as

parameters such as reproduction and survival.
56

Determining which species are studied will depend

upon financial resources and researcher interest.

Long-term studies of species such as ringtails,

skunks, or pygmy mice are extremely rare, and

would benefit not only Coronado NM but also

other wildlife conservation agencies. Species such

as coatis and mountain lions are studied more

frequently, but are of interest because of their

elusiveness, limited distribution, and public appeal.

Long-term studies of single species (e.g., Turner

1991) have given tremendous insight into their

natural history and endangerment factors. Any such

studies at the memorial would significantly

improve our ability to preserve the mammalian

diversity of the memorial for the future. 
57

Albrecht, E. W., and R. J. Steidl. In prep.

Influence of nonnative grass on habitat

selection and reproductive characteristics of

avian communities in semi-desert grasslands.

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. 

Anable, M. E., M. P. McClaren, and G. B. Rule.

1992. Spread of introduced Lehmann’s

lovegrass Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees in

southern Arizona, USA. Biological

Conservation 61:181–188.

Anderson, D. R. 2001. The need to get the basics

right in wildlife field studies. Wildlife Society

Bulletin 29:1294–1297.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD).

1996. Unpublished element occurrence

notebook for reptiles and amphibians.

Phoenix, Arizona. 

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,

editors. 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.

Bibby, C. J., N. D. Burgess, and D. A. Hill. 2002.

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. National

Geographic Research 2:456–463. 

Bock, C. E., H. M. Smith, and J. H. Bock. 1990.

The effect of livestock grazing upon

abundance of the lizard, Sceloporus scalaris,

in southeastern Arizona. Journal of

Herpetology 24:445-446.

Brown, D. E. 1994. Biotic communities:

southwestern United States and northwestern

Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake

City, UT.

Bucci, M., C. Dolan, D. Swann, and B. Alberti.

1999. Results of 1998 nocturnal rodent

trapping at Coronado National Memorial.

Unpublished report for Coronado National

Memorial, Hereford, AZ.

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

and J. L. Laake. 1993. Distance sampling:

estimating abundance of biological

populations. Chapman and Hall, London,

United Kingdom.

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

L. Laake, D. L. Borchers, and L. Thomas.

2001. Introduction to distance sampling:

estimating abundance of biological

populations. Oxford University Press,

London, England.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1994.

Rangeland reform 1994. Draft environmental

impact statement. U. S. Department of the

Interior, Washington, D.C.

Carothers, S.W., R. R. Johnson, and S.W.

Atchinson. 1974. Population structure and

social organization of southwestern riparian

birds. American Zoologist 14:97–108.

Cody, M. L. 1981. Habitat selection in birds: the

roles of vegetation structure, competitors, and

productivity. Bioscience 31:107–113.

Collins, J. T. 1997. Standard common and current

scientific names for North American

amphibians and reptiles. Society for the Study

of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological

Circular 25.

Chapter 7: Literature Cited
58

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

Stokes field guide to bird songs. Time Warner

Trade, New York, NY.

Craig, T. H., and E. H. Craig. 1984. Results of a

helicopter survey of cliff nesting raptors in a

deep canyon in southern Idaho. Raptor

Research 18:20–25.

Crother, B. I., Chair. 2000. Scientific and

Standard English names of amphibians and

reptiles of North America north of Mexico,

with comments regarding confidence in our

understanding. Society for the study of

Amphibians and Reptiles. Herptelogical

Circular 29. 

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

encounter surveys. Pages 84-92. In Heyer,

W. R., M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L.

C. Haye, and M. S. Foster (editors).

Measuring and monitoring biological

diversity: standard methods for amphibians.

Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C.

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

plan to inventory vascular plants and

vertebrates: Sonoran Desert Network.

Southern Arizona Office, National Park

Service, Phoenix AZ. 

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

1996. Amphibians and reptiles of New

Mexico. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Denny, D. W., and C. R. Peacock. 1996. Soil

survey of Coronado National Memorial.

Unpublished report to the National Park

Service. U.S.D.A., Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Arizona State Office,

Phoenix, AZ. 

DeSante, D. F., and D. R. O’Grady. 2000. The

monitoring avian productivity and

survivorship (MAPS) program: 1997 and 1998

report. Bird Populations 5:49–101.

Ellis, D. H., and C. H. Ellis. 1991. Raptor

response to low-level jet aircraft and sonic

booms. Environmental Pollution 74:53–83.

Farnsworth, G. L., K. H. Pollack, J. D. Nichols, T.

R. Simons, J. E. Hines, and J. R. Sauer. 2002.

A removal model for estimating detection

probabilities from point-count surveys. Auk

119:414–425. 

Fleischner, T. L. 1994. Ecological costs of

livestock grazing in western North America.

Conservation Biology 8:629–644.

Fowlie, J.A. 1965. The snakes of Arizona. Azul

Quinta Press, Fallbrook, California.

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, editors. Raptor management

techniques manual. National Wildlife

Federation, Washington, D.C. 

Gibbs, J. P. 1995. Program MONITOR.

Unpublished software program for monitoring

wildlife populations.

Gilbert, B. 1973. Chulo. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf. 

Gloyd, H. K. 1937. A herpetological consideration

of faunal areas in southern Arizona. Bulletin

of the Chicago Academy of Sciences 5:79-

136.

Goldberg, C. S., and C. R. Schwalbe. 2000.

Population ecology of the barking frog. Final

report to AGFD Heritage Fund IIPAM Project

No. I98014, Phoenix, Arizona.

Goldberg, C. S., and C. R. Schwalbe. 2004.

Habitat use and spatial structure of a barking

frog (Eleutherodactylus augusti) population in

southeastern Arizona. Journal of Herpetology

38:305–312.

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. 

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

natural populations. Columbia University

Press, New York, NY.

Heritage Data Management System (HDMS).

2003. Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Accessed 5 March from:

http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/hdms_

species_lists.shtml.
59

Heritage Data Management System (HDMS).

2004. Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Accessed 5 March from: http://www.azgfd.gov

/w_c/edits/hdms_species_lists.shtml.

Herkert, J. R. 1994. Breeding bird communities of

midwestern prairie fragments – the effects of

prescribed burning and habitat-area. Natural

Areas Journal 14:128–135.

Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona.

The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

Hubbard, J. A. 2002. National Park Service

Sonoran Desert monitoring plan: Phase I.

Sonoran Desert Network, Tucson, AZ.

Hubbard, J. A., T. M. Mau-Crimmins, B. F. Powell,

E. W. Albrecht, N. Chambers, and L. Carder.

2003. National Park Service Sonoran Desert

Network monitoring plan: Phase II. Sonoran

Desert Network, Tucson, AZ. 

Humphrey, R. R. 1974. Fire in the deserts and

desert grasslands of North America. Pages

365-400. In T. T. Kozlowski and C. E.

Algren, editors. Fire and ecosystems.

Academic Press, London, England.

Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS).

2004. Accessed 20 March 2004.

http://www.itis.gov/. 

James, F. C. 1971. Ordinations of habitat

relationships among breeding birds. Wilson

Bulletin 83:215–236.

Johnson, T. B., and C. H. Lowe. 1979. A survey

of the amphibians and reptiles of Coronado

National Memorial. In Survey of the

vertebrate fauna Coronado National Memorial.

Technical Report No. 5. Cooperative National

Park Resources Studies Unit, University of

Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffmann, D. W. Rice, C.

Jones, R. J. Barker, M. D. Engstrom, R. D.

Bradley, D. J. Schmidly, C. A. Jones, and R. J.

Barker. 1997. Revised checklist of North

American mammals north of Mexico.

Occasional papers of the Museum of Texas

Tech University No. 173:1-19.

Karns, D. R. 1986. Field herpetology: methods for

the study of amphibians and reptiles in

Minnesota. James Ford Bell Museum of

Natural History, University of Minnesota

Occasional Paper 18: 1-87. 

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. 

Knopf, F. L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered

grasslands. Studies in avian biology

15:247–257.

Kotliar, N. B., and J. A. Weins. 1990. Multiple

scales of patchiness and patch structure: a

hierarchical framework for the study of

heterogeneity. Oikos 59:253–260.

Krebs, C. J. 1998. Ecological Methodology.

Second Edition. Addison-Wesley Educational,

Menlo Park, CA.

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.

Luz, G. A., and J. B. Smith. 1976. Reactions of

pronghorn antelope to helicopter overflight.

Journal of Acoustical Society of America

59:1514–1515.

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

bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594–598.

Martinez, G., and A. Hubbard. 2003. Monitoring

avian productivity: analysis of MAPS data

from Sonoran Desert Parks. Unpublished

report to the National Park Service. 

Mendez, C., and M. Desmond. 2004. Influence of

food resource on winter avian abundance,

diversity, and community dynamics in desert

grasslands. Preliminary results 2002–2004.

Unpublished report presented to Coronado

National Memorial. 
60

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

Natural resources inventory and monitoring

guidelines. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1994. Report on

effects of aircraft overflights on the National

Park system. Report to Congress. Prepared

pursuant to Public Law 100-91, The National

Parks Overflights Act of 1987. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1998. Natural and

cultural resources management plan.

Coronado National Memorial. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2000. Natural and

cultural resources management plan. Fort

Bowie National Historic Site, AZ.

National Park Service (NPS). 2003a. Resource

issues in southern U.S. border parks from drug

trafficking and undocumented alien activity.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Southern

Arizona Office, Phoenix, AZ.

National Park Service (NPS). 2003b. Proposed

vehicle barrier environmental assessment.

Organ Pipe Cactus National

Monument/Coronado National Memorial. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2004a. Final

general management plan/environmental

impact statement. Coronado National

Memorial. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2004b. NPS

visitation database reports. Accessed

December 22: http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/.

Newmark, W. D. 1995. Extinction of mammal

populations in Western North American

national parks. Conservation Biology 9:512-

526. 

North American Ornithological Atlas Committee

(NAOAC). 1990. Handbook for atlasing

North American breeding birds. C. Smith,

editor. Accessed 13 July 2001 from:

http://www.bsc_eod.org/norac/atlascont.htm.

Otis, D. L., K. P. Burnham, G. C. White, and D. R.

Anderson. 1978. Statistical inference from

capture data on closed animal populations.

Wildlife Monograms No. 62.

Parfitt, B. D., and C. M. Christy. 1992. Coronado

National Memorial plant checklist – A

synonymized list of the vascular plants.

Report to National Park Service, Southern

Arizona Office, Phoenix, AZ.

Peterjohn, B. G., and J. R. Sauer. 1999.

Population status of North American grassland

birds from the North American Breeding Bird

Survey, 1966-1996. Studies in Avian Biology:

19:27-44.

Petryszyn, Y. 1982. Population dynamics of

nocturnal desert rodents: a nine year study.

Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona,

Tucson. 

Petryszyn, Y., and E. L. Cockrum. 1979. A survey

of the mammals of Coronado National

Memorial. In Survey of the vertebrate fauna

Coronado National Memorial. Technical

Report No. 5. Cooperative National Park

Resources Studies Unit. University of

Arizona, 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 Field Station and

School of Natural Resources, University of

Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

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

A. Schmidt, P. Anning, and K. Docherty.

2005a. Vascular plant and vertebrate

inventory of Tumacácori National Historical

Park. USGS Open-File Report 2005–1142.

U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological

Science Center, Sonoran Desert Research

Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

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

A. Schmidt, P. Anning, and K. Docherty.

2006. Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory

of Casa Grande Ruins National Monument.

USGS Open-File Report 2005–1185. U.S.
61

Geological Survey, Southwest Biological

Science Center, Sonoran Desert Research

Station, 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 Field

Station and School of Natural Resources,

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

Powell, B. F., A. D. Flesch, T. Mau-Crimmons, D.

Angell, K. Beaupre, and W. L. Halvorson.

2006. Landbird monitoring plan for the

Sonoran Desert Network. Unpublished

protocol to the National Park Service, Sonoran

Desert Inventory and Monitoring Network,

Tucson, AZ.

Powell, B. F., C. A. Schmidt, W. L. Halvorson, P.

Anning. 2005b. Bird inventory of Coronado

National Memorial. Final report to National

Park Service, Sonoran Desert Inventory and

Monitoring Network, Tucson, AZ. 

Powell, B. F., and R. J. Steidl. 2002. Habitat

selection by riparian songbirds breeding in

southern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife

Management 66:1096–1103. 

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

editors. 1995. Monitoring bird populations

by point counts. General Technical Report

PSW-GTR-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. 

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

1980. A variable circular-plot 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.

Richardson, M. L., S. D. Clemmons, and J. C.

Walker, editors. 1979. Soil survey of Santa

Cruz and parts of Cochise and Pima Counties,

Arizona. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service

and U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 

Rosen, P. C., and C. H. Lowe. 1996. Ecology of

the amphibians and reptiles at Organ Pipe

Cactus National Monument, Arizona.

Technical Report No. 53, Cooperative Park

Studies Unit, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Rosenzweig, M. L. 1995. Species diversity in

space and time. Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge, Great Britain. 436 pp.

Roth, R. L. 1976. Spatial heterogeneity and bird

species diversity. Ecology 57:773–782.

Ruffner, G. A., and R. A. Johnson. 1991. Plant

ecology and vegetation mapping at Coronado

National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona.

Technical Report No. 41. Cooperative

National Park Resources Studies Unit,

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

Russell, S. M., and D. Danforth. 1979. A survey

of the birds of Coronado National Memorial.

In Survey of the vertebrate fauna Coronado

National Memorial. Technical Report No. 5.

Cooperative National Park Resources Studies

Unit, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

Ruyle, G. 2002. Rangeland monitoring on the

Coronado National Memorial and monitoring

data for 1998-2001. Report to the National

Park Service, Sonoran Desert Inventory and

Monitoring Office, Tucson, AZ.

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, editors. Ecology

and management of neotropical migratory

birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues.

Oxford University Press, London, England.

Schmidt, C. A., C. A. Drost, and W. L. Halvorson.

2006. Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory

of Montezuma Castle National Monument.

USGS Open-File Report 2006–1163. U.S.

Geological Survey, Southwest Biological

Science Center, Sonoran Desert Research

Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

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

S. Waggoner. 1995. Status of biotic
62

inventories in U.S. national parks. Biological

Conservation 71:97–106.

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

distribution patterns in riparian habitats in

southeastern Arizona. Condor 92:511–519.

Strong, D., B. Leatherman, and B.H. Brattstrom.

1993. Two new simple methods for catching

small fast lizards. Herpetological Review

24:22-23. 

Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field guide to western

reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin

Company, New York.

Swann, D. E. 1999. Evaluating approaches for

monitoring terrestrial vertebrates in US 

national parks: an example from Tonto

National Monument, Arizona. Master’s thesis,

School of Renewable Natural Resources,

University of Arizona, Tucson.

Swann, D., M. Bucci, S. Wolf, and B. Alberti.

2003. Results of 2002 nocturnal rodent

trapping at Coronado National Memorial.

Unpublished report to Coronado National

Memorial, AZ.

Swann, D. E., T. Edwards, and C. R. Schwalbe.

1999. Ecology of banded rock rattlesnakes

and Sonoran mountain kingsnakes at

Coronado National Memorial, Arizona. Final

report to the Southwest Parks and Monument

Association, Tucson, AZ, and Coronado

National Memorial, Hereford, AZ.

Swann, D. E., M. J. Goode, and C. R. Schwalbe.

2001. Inventory and recommendations for

monitoring of amphibians and reptiles at Fort

Bowie Historic Site. Final report to National

Park Service, Southern Arizona Parks,

Phoenix, Arizona. 

Swann, D. E., R. C. Murray, C. R. Schwalbe, and

W. W. Shaw. 1996. An inventory of the

terrestrial vertebrates of Tonto National

Monument. Final report to National Park

Service, Southern Arizona Office. Tucson,

Arizona.

Swann, D. E., and C. R. Schwalbe. 2002.

Inventory and recommendations for long-term

monitoring of reptiles and amphibians at

Coronado National Memorial, Arizona.

Unpublished report to National Park Service,

Southern Arizona Office, Phoenix, AZ.

Swann, D. E., C. R. Schwalbe, A. J. Kuenzi, and B.

N. Alberti. 2000. Inventory of the terrestrial

mammals of Coronado National Memorial,

Cochise County, Arizona. Unpublished report

to National Park Service, Southern Arizona

Office, Phoenix, AZ.

Szaro, R. C., and M. D. Jakle. 1985. Avian use of

a desert riparian island and its adjacent scrub

habitat. Condor 87:511–519.

Taylor, A. H. 2004. Vegetation change in

Chiricahua National Monument, Arizona

Phase II. Final Report to the National Park

Service, Chiricahua National Monument,

Wilcox, AZ.

Tigas, L. A., D. H. Van Vuren, and R. M. Sauvajot.

2002. Behavioral responses of bobcats and

coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors

in an urban environment. Biological

Conservation 108:299–306.

Thompson, S. K. 1992. Sampling. John Wiley

and Sons, New York, NY.

Turner, R. 1991. Long-term saguaro population

studies at Saguaro National Park. Pp. 3-11. In

C. P. Stone and E. S. Bellantoni, editors.

Proceedings of the symposium on research at

Saguaro National Monument. Tucson, AZ.

Underwood, A. J. 1994. On beyond BACI:

sampling designs that might reliably detect

environmental disturbances. Ecological

Applications 4:3-15.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5

(http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data

Center, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Baton Rouge, LA.

Van Auken, O. W. 2000. Shrub invasions of North

American semiarid grasslands. Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics

31:197–215.

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

transects and point counts in oak-pine

woodlands of California. Condor 87:47–68.
63

Walraven, L. K., and T. Wood. 2002. The 2002

MAPS (Monitoring Avian Productivity and

Survivorship) season at Coronado National

Memorial, AZ. Final Report to Coronado

National Memorial. 

Weisenberger, M. E., P. R. Krausman, M. C.

Wallace, D. W. DeYoung, and O. E. Maughan.

1996. Effects of simulated jet aircraft noise

on heart rate and behavior of desert ungulates.

Journal of Wildlife Management 60:52–61. 

Weltzin, J. F., S. Archer, and R. K. Heitschmidt.

1997. Small-mammal regulation of vegetation

structure in a temperate savanna. Ecology

78:751-763.

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2004.

Arizona climate summaries for Coronado

National Memorial. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/

summary/climsmaz.html.

Wethington, S. 2004. Hummingbird Monitoring

Network website:

http://www.thegeorgewalkerhouse.com

/id55.htm. 

Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis, 3rd

edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey. 662 pp.
64

Appendix A. Plant species observed at Coronado NM during our vegetation sampling at breeding-season bird stations in

2004. Species observed or collected at Coronado NM based on: Ruffner and Johnson (R&J; 1991), Parfitt and Christy (P&C;

1992), Halvorson and Guertin (H&G; 2003), Ruyle (Ruy; 2002), NPS (unpublished data), and specimens in herbaria at Arizona

State University (ASU), Desert Botanical Gardens (DBG), Northern Arizona University (NAU) and the University of Arizona (UA).

Species in bold-faced type are non-native.

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA

Acanthaceae

Dyschoriste decumbens (Gray) Kuntze spreading snakeherb X X

Agavaceae

Agave palmeri Engelm. Palmer’s century plant X X X X X X

Agave parryi Engelm. var. parryi Parry’s agave X X

Agave schottii Engelm. var. schottii Schott’s century plant X X

Yucca schottii Engelm. Schott’s yucca X X X X X

Amaranthaceae

Amaranthus albus L. prostrate pigweed X

Amaranthus arenicola I.M. Johnston sandhill amaranth X X

Amaranthus hybridus L. slim amaranth X X

Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. carelessweed X

Amaranthus powellii S. Wats. Powell’s amaranth X

Froelichia arizonica Thornb. ex Standl. Arizona snakecotton X X

Gomphrena caespitosa Torr. tufted globe amaranth X X X

Gomphrena nitida Rothrock pearly globe amaranth X X

Gomphrena sonorae Torr. Sonoran globe amaranth X X

Guilleminea densa (Humb. & Bonpl. 

ex Willd.) Moq. small matweed X X

Iresine heterophylla Standl. Standley’s bloodleaf X

Anacardiaceae

Rhus aromatica Ait. fragrant sumac X

Rhus glabra L. smooth sumac X X

Rhus trilobata Nutt. skunkbush sumac X X X

Rhus trilobata var. racemulosa 

(Greene) Barkl. skunkbush sumac X X

Rhus virens Lindheimer ex Gray evergreen sumac X

Rhus virens var. choriophylla 

(Woot. & Standl.) L. Benson evergreen sumac X X X X X X

Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze eastern poison ivy X X

Toxicodendron radicans ssp. radicans 

(L.) Kuntze eastern poison ivy X

Apiaceae

Spermolepis echinata (Nutt. ex DC.) 

Heller bristly scaleseed X X X

Yabea microcarpa (Hook. & Arn.) K.-Pol. false carrot X

Apocynaceae

Macrosiphonia brachysiphon Huachuca Mountain 

(Torr.) Gray rocktrumpet X X

Araliaceae

Aralia humilis Cav. Arizona spikenard X

Asclepiadaceae

Asclepias asperula (Dcne.) Woods. 

ssp. asperula spider milkweed X X
65

Asclepiadaceae

Asclepias engelmanniana Woods. Engelmann’s milkweed X X

Asclepias glaucescens Kunth nodding milkweed X X

Asclepias linaria Cav. pineneedle milkweed X

Asclepias macrotis Torr. longhood milkweed X X

Asclepias nummularia Torr. tufted milkweed X

Asclepias nyctaginifolia Gray Mojave milkweed X X

Funastrum crispum (Benth.) Schlechter wavyleaf twinevine X X

Funastrum cynanchoides ssp. heterophyllum 

(Vail) Kartesz, comb. nov. ined. Hartweg’s twinevine X X X

Asteraceae

Acourtia thurberi (Gray) Reveal & King Thurber’s desertpeony X X X

Ageratina herbacea (Gray) King & 

H.E. Robins. fragrant snakeroot X X X X

Ageratina paupercula (Gray) King & 

H.E. Robins. Santa Rita snakeroot X

Ambrosia confertiflora DC. weakleaf burr ragweed X X X

Ambrosia psilostachya DC. Cuman ragweed X X

Artemisia ludoviciana Nutt. white sagebrush X X

Baccharis bigelovii Gray Bigelow’s false willow X X

Baccharis neglecta Britt. Rooseveltweed X X

Baccharis pteronioides DC. yerba de pasmo X X X X X

Baccharis salicifolia (Ruiz & Pavón) Pers. mule’s fat X X

Baccharis sarothroides Gray desertbroom X X X X

Baccharis thesioides Kunth Arizona baccharis X X X

Bahia absinthifolia Benth. hairyseed bahia X X X

Bahia dissecta (Gray) Britt. ragleaf bahia X

Baileya multiradiata Harvey & Gray ex Gray desert marigold X X

Bidens aurea (Ait.) Sherff Arizona beggarticks X

Bidens bigelovii Gray Bigelow’s beggarticks X X

Bidens leptocephala Sherff fewflower beggarticks X

Brickellia baccharidea Gray resinleaf brickellbush X X

Brickellia betonicifolia Gray betonyleaf brickellbush X X

Brickellia californica (Torr. & Gray) Gray California brickellbush X X X

Brickellia californica (Torr. & Gray) Gray 

var. californica California brickellbush X X

Brickellia eupatorioides var. chlorolepis

(Woot. & Standl.) B.L. Turner false boneset X X X X

Brickellia eupatorioides (L.) Shinners 

var. eupatorioides false boneset X

Brickellia grandiflora (Hook.) Nutt. tasselflower brickellbush X X

Brickellia lemmonii Gray Lemmon’s brickellbush X X

Brickellia simplex Gray Sonoran brickellbush X X

Brickellia venosa (Woot. & Standl.) 

B.L. Robins. veiny brickellbush X X X

Carminatia tenuiflora DC. plumeweed X X X

Carphochaete bigelovii Gray Bigelow’s bristlehead X X

Chaetopappa ericoides (Torr.) Nesom rose heath X X X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
66

Asteraceae

Cirsium arizonicum (Gray) Petrak Arizona thistle X X X

Cirsium neomexicanum Gray New Mexico thistle X X

Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Canadian horseweed X X X

Cosmos parviflorus (Jacq.) Pers. southwestern cosmos X X X X

Ericameria laricifolia (Gray) Shinners turpentine bush X X X

Ericameria nauseosa (Pallas ex Pursh) 

Nesom & Baird rubber rabbitbrush X

Ericameria nauseosa var. nauseosa 

(Pallas ex Pursh) Nesom & Baird rubber rabbitbrush X X X

Erigeron concinnus (Hook. & Arn.) 

Torr. & Gray Navajo fleabane X

Erigeron divergens Torr. & Gray spreading fleabane X X X X

Erigeron flagellaris Gray trailing fleabane X

Erigeron neomexicanus Gray New Mexico fleabane X X X

Erigeron oreophilus Greenm. chaparral fleabane X

Filago californica Nutt. California cottonrose X X X

Fleischmannia pycnocephala (Less.) 

King & H.E. Robins. lavender thoroughwort X

Gamochaeta purpurea (L.) Cabrera spoonleaf purple everlasting X

Gnaphalium L. cudweed X X

Guardiola platyphylla Gray Apache plant X X X X

Gutierrezia microcephala (DC.) Gray threadleaf snakeweed X X X

Gutierrezia sarothrae (Pursh) 

Britt. & Rusby broom snakeweed X X X

Gutierrezia wrightii Gray Wright’s snakeweed X X

Gymnosperma glutinosum (Spreng.) Less. gumhead X X X

Helianthus annuus L. common sunflower X X

Helianthus petiolaris ssp. fallax Heiser prairie sunflower X X

Heliomeris longifolia var. annua 

(M.E. Jones) Yates longleaf false goldeneye X X X X

Heliomeris longifolia var. longifolia 

(Robins. & Greenm.) Cockerell longleaf false goldeneye X

Heliomeris multiflora var. multiflora Nutt. showy goldeneye X

Heliopsis parvifolia Gray mountain oxeye X X

Heterosperma pinnatum Cav. wingpetal X X X X

Heterotheca subaxillaris (Lam.) 

Britt. & Rusby camphorweed XXXX X X

Heterotheca villosa var. minor 

(Hook.) Semple hairy false goldenaster X X

Hymenothrix wislizeni Gray TransPecos thimblehead X X X

Hymenothrix wrightii Gray Wright’s thimblehead X X X

Isocoma tenuisecta Greene burroweed X X X X

Iva ambrosiifolia (Gray) Gray ragged marshelder X X

Lactuca serriola L. lettuce X

Laennecia coulteri (Gray) Nesom conyza X X X

Laennecia sophiifolia (Kunth) Nesom leafy marshtail X X X X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
67

Asteraceae

Lasianthaea podocephala (Gray) 

K. Becker San Pedro daisy X X X X

Machaeranthera canescens (Pursh) 

Gray var. canescens hoary tansyaster X

Machaeranthera gracilis (Nutt.) Shinners slender goldenweed X X X

Machaeranthera parviflora Gray smallflower tansyaster X X

Machaeranthera pinnatifida (Hook.) 

Shinners lacy tansyaster X X X

Machaeranthera tagetina Greene mesa tansyaster X X X

Machaeranthera tanacetifolia 

(Kunth) Nees tanseyleaf tansyaster X X

Malacothrix fendleri Gray Fendler’s desertdandelion X X X X

Melampodium leucanthum Torr. & Gray plains blackfoot X X

Melampodium longicorne Gray Arizona blackfoot X X X

Melampodium strigosum Stuessy shaggy blackfoot X X X X

Packera neomexicana (Gray) 

W.A. Weber & A. Löve New Mexico groundsel X

Packera neomexicana var. neomexicana 

(Gray) W.A. Weber & A. Löve New Mexico groundsel X

Packera neomexicana var. toumeyi 

(Greene) D.K. Trock & T.M. Barkl. Toumey’s groundsel X

Parthenium incanum Kunth mariola X

Pectis filipes var. subnuda Fern. fivebract cinchweed X X X X

Pectis imberbis Gray beardless cinchweed X X X

Pectis longipes Gray longstalk cinchweed X X

Pectis prostrata Cav. spreading cinchweed X

Perityle coronopifolia Gray crowfoot rockdaisy X

Porophyllum ruderale ssp.

macrocephalum (DC.) R.R. Johnson yerba porosa X X X

Pseudognaphalium arizonicum 

(Gray) A. Anderb. Arizona cudweed X X

Pseudognaphalium canescens ssp.

canescens (DC.) W.A. Weber Wright’s cudweed X X

Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum 

(Gray) A. Anderb. white cudweed X

Sanvitalia abertii Gray Albert’s creeping zinnia X X X X

Schkuhria anthemoidea var. wrightii 

(Gray) Heiser Wright’s false threadleaf X

Schkuhria pinnata (Lam.) Kuntze 

ex Thell. pinnate false threadleaf X

Schkuhria pinnata var. wislizeni 

(Gray) B.L. Turner Wislizenus’ false threadleaf X

Senecio flaccidus Less. threadleaf ragwort X

Senecio flaccidus var. flaccidus Less. threadleaf ragwort X X X X

Solidago canadensis L. Canada goldenrod X

Solidago canadensis var. scabra 

Torr. & Gray Canada goldenrod X X

Solidago velutina DC. threenerve goldenrod X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
68

Asteraceae

Solidago wrightii Gray Wright’s goldenrod X X

Sonchus asper (L.) Hill spiny sowthistle X X

Sonchus oleraceus L. common sowthistle X X

Stephanomeria exigua Nutt. small wirelettuce X X

Stephanomeria pauciflora (Torr.) A. Nels. brownplume wirelettuce X X

Stephanomeria thurberi Gray Thurber’s wirelettuce X X

Stevia serrata Cav. sawtooth candyleaf X

Tagetes lemmonii Gray Lemmon’s marigold X X X

Tagetes micrantha Cav. licorice marigold X

Thelesperma longipes Gray longstalk greenthread X

Thelesperma megapotamicum 

(Spreng.) Kuntze Hopi tea greenthread X X

Thymophylla acerosa (DC.) Strother pricklyleaf dogweed X X

Thymophylla pentachaeta (DC.) Small fiveneedle pricklyleaf X

Thymophylla pentachaeta var.

pentachaeta (DC.) Small fiveneedle pricklyleaf X

Trixis californica Kellogg American threefold X X

Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) 

Benth. & Hook. f. ex Gray golden crownbeard X X X

Verbesina longifolia (Gray) Gray longleaf crownbeard X

Verbesina rothrockii Robins. & Greenm. Rothrock’s crownbeard X X

Viguiera cordifolia Gray heartleaf goldeneye X X X

Viguiera dentata (Cav.) Spreng. toothleaf goldeneye X X X

Viguiera dentata (Cav.) Spreng. var.

dentata toothleaf goldeneye X X

Xanthium strumarium L. rough cockleburr X X X

Zinnia acerosa (DC.) Gray desert zinnia X

Zinnia grandiflora Nutt. Rocky Mountain zinnia X X X X

Zinnia peruviana (L.) L. Peruvian zinnia X X

Bignoniaceae

Chilopsis linearis (Cav.) Sweet desert willow X X X X

Boraginaceae

Cryptantha cinerea var. jamesii Cronq. James’ cryptantha X

Cryptantha pusilla (Torr. & Gray) Greene low cryptantha X X X

Lithospermum cobrense Greene smooththroat stoneseed X X

Plagiobothrys arizonicus (Gray) 

Greene ex Gray Arizona popcornflower X X

Brassicaceae

Brassica tournefortii Gouan Asian mustard X

Descurainia pinnata (Walt.) Britt. western tansymustard X X X

Descurainia sophia (L.) Webb 

ex Prantl herb sophia X X X

Draba cuneifolia Nutt. ex Torr. & Gray wedgeleaf draba X

Draba cuneifolia Nutt. ex Torr. & Gray 

var. cuneifolia wedgeleaf draba X

Erysimum capitatum (Dougl. ex Hook.) 

Greene sanddune wallflower X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
69

Brassicaceae

Erysimum capitatum var. capitatum 

(Dougl. ex Hook.) Greene sanddune wallflower X

Lepidium lasiocarpum Nutt. shaggyfruit pepperweed X X

Lepidium oblongum Small veiny pepperweed X

Lepidium thurberi Woot. Thurber’s pepperweed X X

Lesquerella gordonii (Gray) S. Wats. Gordon’s bladderpod X

Lesquerella tenella A. Nels. Moapa bladderpod X

Schoenocrambe linearifolia (Gray) Rollins slimleaf plainsmustard X X X X X

Sisymbrium irio L. London rocket X X X X X

Thysanocarpus curvipes Hook. sand fringepod X X

Cactaceae

Echinocereus coccineus var. arizonicus 

(Rose ex Orcutt) Ferguson Arizona hedgehog cactus X

Echinocereus fendleri (Engelm.) F. Seitz pinkflower hedgehog cactus X

Echinocereus fendleri var. rectispinus 

(Peebles) L. Benson pinkflower hedgehog cactus X X

Echinocereus pectinatus (Scheidw.) 

Engelm. rainbow cactus X X

Echinocereus pectinatus (Scheidw.) 

Engelm. var. pectinatus rainbow cactus X

Echinocereus polyacanthus Engelm. Mojave mound cactus X

Echinocereus rigidissimus (Engelm.) 

Haage f. rainbow hedgehog cactus X X X

Echinocereus triglochidiatus Engelm. kingcup cactus X X

Escobaria vivipara var. bisbeeana 

(Orcutt) D.R. Hunt Bisbee spinystar X X

Escobaria vivipara var. vivipara 

(Nutt.) Buxbaum spinystar X X

Mammillaria heyderi var. macdougalii 

(Rose) L. Benson Macdougal’s nipple cactus X X

Mammillaria wrightii var. wilcoxii 

(Toumey ex K. Schum.) W.T. Marsh. Wilcox’s nipple cactus X X

Opuntia arbuscula Engelm. Arizona pencil cholla X

Opuntia chlorotica Engelm. & Bigelow dollarjoint pricklypear X X X X

Opuntia engelmannii Salm-Dyck cactus apple X X X

Opuntia engelmannii Salm-Dyck 

var. engelmannii cactus apple X X X

Opuntia macrocentra Engelm. purple pricklypear X X

Opuntia macrorhiza Engelm. 

var. macrorhiza twistspine pricklypear X X X

Opuntia phaeacantha Engelm. tulip pricklypear X X

Opuntia spinosior (Engelm.) Toumey walkingstick cactus X X X X X

Opuntia versicolor Engelm. ex Coult. staghorn cholla X

Sclerocactus intertextus var. intertextus 

(Engelm.) N.P. Taylor white fishhook cactus X X

Campanulaceae

Lobelia cardinalis L. cardinalflower X

Triodanis perfoliata (L.) Nieuwl. clasping Venus’ looking-glass X X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
70

Campanulaceae

Triodanis perfoliata var. biflora 

(Ruiz & Pavón) Bradley clasping Venus’ looking-glass X

Caprifoliaceae

Lonicera albiflora Torr. & Gray western white honeysuckle X X X

Sambucus nigra L. European black elderberry X

Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis 

(L.) R. Bolli common elderberry X

Sambucus nigra ssp. cerulea (Raf.) 

R. Bolli blue elderberry X

Caryophyllaceae

Arenaria lanuginosa (Michx.) Rohrb. spreading sandwort X

Arenaria lanuginosa ssp. saxosa 

(Gray) Maguire spreading sandwort X

Cerastium texanum Britt. Texas chickweed X X X

Drymaria molluginea (Lag.) Didr. slimleaf drymary X X X

Silene antirrhina L. sleepy silene X X X

Silene laciniata Cav. cardinal catchfly X

Silene laciniata ssp. greggii (Gray) 

C.L. Hitchc. & Maguire cardinal catchfly X

Chenopodiaceae

Atriplex elegans (Moq.) D. Dietr. 

var. elegans wheelscale saltbush X X

Chenopodium fremontii S. Wats. Fremont’s goosefoot X X X X

Chenopodium graveolens Willd. fetid goosefoot X X X

Chenopodium neomexicanum Standl. New Mexico goosefoot X X

Salsola kali L. Russian thistle X

Salsola tragus L. prickly Russian thistle X X

Commelinaceae

Commelina dianthifolia Delile birdbill dayflower X X X X

Tradescantia pinetorum Greene pinewoods spiderwort X

Convolvulaceae

Calystegia longipes (S. Wats.) Brummitt Paiute false bindweed X

Convolvulus equitans Benth. Texas bindweed X X X

Evolvulus alsinoides (L.) L. slender dwarf morning-glory X X

Evolvulus arizonicus Gray wild dwarf morning-glory X X X X X

Evolvulus nuttallianus J.A. Schultes shaggy dwarf morning-glory X X

Evolvulus sericeus Sw. silver dwarf morning-glory X X X

Ipomoea capillacea (Kunth) G. Don purple morning-glory X X X

Ipomoea coccinea L. redstar X

Ipomoea costellata Torr. crestrib morning-glory X X X X

Ipomoea cristulata Hallier f. Transpecos morning-glory X X

Ipomoea hederacea Jacq. ivyleaf morning-glory X

Ipomoea longifolia Benth. pinkthroat morning-glory X X X X

Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth tall morning-glory X X X X X

Cucurbitaceae

Cucurbita digitata Gray fingerleaf gourd X X

Cucurbita foetidissima Kunth Missouri gourd X X

Cucurbita palmata S. Wats. coyote gourd X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
71

Cucurbitaceae

Sicyos ampelophyllus Woot. & Standl. streamside burr cucumber X X

Cupressaceae

Cupressus arizonica Greene 

ssp. arizonica Arizona cypress X

Juniperus coahuilensis (Martinez) 

Gaussen ex R.P. Adams redberry juniper X X X

Juniperus deppeana Steud. alligator juniper X X X X

Cuscutaceae

Cuscuta applanata Engelm. Gila River dodder X

Cyperaceae

Bulbostylis capillaris (L.) Kunth 

ex C.B. Clarke densetuft hairsedge X X X

Bulbostylis funckii (Steud.) C.B. Clarke Funck’s hairsedge X

Cyperus aggregatus (Willd.) Endl. inflatedscale flatsedge X X

Cyperus dipsaceus Liebamann Wright’s flatsedge X

Cyperus fendlerianus Boeckl. Fendler’s flatsedge X X X X

Cyperus mutisii (Kunth) Griseb. Mutis’ flatsedge X

Cyperus niger Ruiz & Pavón black flatsedge X X

Cyperus pallidicolor (Kükenth.) G. Tucker pallid flatsedge X

Cyperus spectabilis Link spectacular flatsedge X X

Cyperus sphaerolepis Boeckl. Rusby’s flatsedge X X

Cyperus squarrosus L. bearded flatsedge X

Lipocarpha micrantha (Vahl) G. Tucker smallflower halfchaff sedge X

Schoenoplectus acutus var. acutus 

(Muhl. ex Bigelow) A.& D. Löve hardstem bulrush X X

Dryopteridaceae

Woodsia R. Br. cliff fern X

Equisetaceae

Equisetum ×ferrissii Clute (pro sp.) ferris horsetail X X

Equisetum L. horsetail X

Ericaceae

Arbutus arizonica (Gray) Sarg. Arizona madrone X X X X

Arctostaphylos pringlei Parry Pringle manzanita X X

Arctostaphylos pungens Kunth pointleaf manzanita X X X X X X

Euphorbiaceae

Acalypha neomexicana Muell.-Arg. New Mexico copperleaf X X X X

Acalypha ostryifolia Riddell pineland threeseed mercury X X

Chamaesyce dioica (Kunth) Millsp. royal sandmat X X X

Chamaesyce hirta (L.) Millsp. pillpod sandmat X X X

Chamaesyce hyssopifolia (L.) Small hyssopleaf sandmat X X X

Chamaesyce prostrata (Ait.) Small prostrate sandmat X X X

Chamaesyce revoluta (Engelm.) Small threadstem sandmat X X

Chamaesyce serpyllifolia (Pers.) Small thymeleaf sandmat X

Chamaesyce serpyllifolia ssp. serpyllifolia 

(Pers.) Small thymeleaf sandmat X

Croton pottsii (Klotzsch) Muell.-Arg. leatherweed X X X

Croton pottsii var. pottsii (Klotzsch) 

Muell.-Arg. leatherweed X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
72

Euphorbiaceae

Euphorbia bilobata Engelm. blackseed spurge X X X

Euphorbia brachycera Engelm. horned spurge X X X

Euphorbia cyathophora Murr. fire on the mountain X

Euphorbia dentata Michx. toothed spurge X X

Euphorbia exstipulata Engelm. squareseed spurge X X

Euphorbia heterophylla L. Mexican fireplant X X X X

Euphorbia incisa Engelm. Mojave spurge X

Jatropha macrorhiza Benth. ragged nettlespurge X

Jatropha macrorhiza var. septemfida 

Engelm. ragged nettlespurge X X X

Tragia nepetifolia Cav. catnip noseburn X X

Tragia ramosa Torr. branched noseburn X

Fabaceae

Acacia angustissima (P. Mill.) Kuntze prairie acacia X X X X X

Acacia angustissima var. suffrutescens 

(Rose) Isely prairie acacia X

Acacia constricta Benth. whitethorn acacia X X

Acacia greggii Gray catclaw acacia X X

Amorpha fruticosa L. desert false indigo X X X

Astragalus allochrous var. playanus Isely halfmoon milkvetch X X

Astragalus hypoxylus S. Wats. Huachuca Mountain milkvetch X X

Astragalus lentiginosus var. australis 

Barneby freckled milkvetch X X

Astragalus nothoxys Gray sheep milkvetch X X X

Astragalus nuttallianus DC. smallflowered milkvetch X

Astragalus thurberi Gray Thurber’s milkvetch X X

Caesalpinia gilliesii (Hook.) Wallich 

ex D. Dietr. bird-of-paradise shrub X X

Calliandra eriophylla Benth. fairyduster X X X X X

Calliandra humilis var. reticulata 

(Gray) L. Benson dwarf stickpea X

Chamaecrista nictitans (L.) Moench partridge pea X

Chamaecrista nictitans var. leptadenia 

(Greenm.) Gandhi & Hatch partridge pea X

Clitoria mariana L. Atlantic pigeonwings X X

Cologania angustifolia Kunth longleaf cologania X X

Coursetia caribaea var. caribaea 

(Jacq.) Lavin anil falso X X

Crotalaria pumila Ortega low rattlebox X X X

Crotalaria sagittalis L. arrowhead rattlebox X X

Dalea albiflora Gray whiteflower prairie clover X X X X

Dalea brachystachya Gray Fort Bowie prairie clover X X

Dalea exigua Barneby Chihuahuan prairie clover X X X

Dalea filiformis Gray Sonoran prairie clover X

Dalea grayi (Vail) L.O. Williams Gray’s prairie clover X

Dalea nana var. carnescens 

Kearney & Peebles dwarf prairie clover X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
73

Fabaceae

Dalea pogonathera Gray bearded prairie clover X

Dalea pulchra H.C. Gentry Santa Catalina prairie clover X X

Dalea versicolor var. sessilis (Gray) 

Barneby oakwoods prairie clover X X X

Desmanthus cooleyi (Eat.) Trel. Cooley’s bundleflower X X

Desmodium batocaulon Gray San Pedro ticktrefoil X X

Desmodium cinerascens Gray spiked ticktrefoil X X

Desmodium neomexicanum Gray New Mexico ticktrefoil X X

Desmodium retinens Schlecht. Santa Rita Mountain ticktrefoil X X

Desmodium rosei Schub. Rose’s ticktrefoil X X X X

Erythrina flabelliformis Kearney coralbean X X X

Eysenhardtia orthocarpa (Gray) S. Wats. Tahitian kidneywood X X X X X

Galactia wrightii var. mollissima 

Kearney & Peebles X

Galactia wrightii Gray var. wrightii Wright’s milkpea X

Hoffmannseggia glauca (Ortega) Eifert Indian rushpea X

Lathyrus graminifolius (S. Wats.) White grassleaf pea X X

Lotus greenei Ottley 

ex Kearney & Peebles Greene’s bird’s-foot trefoil X X X

Lotus humistratus Greene foothill deervetch X

Lotus plebeius (Brand) Barneby New Mexico bird’s-foot trefoil X X

Lotus wrightii (Gray) Greene Wright’s deervetch X X X

Lupinus concinnus J.G. Agardh scarlet lupine X

Lupinus palmeri S. Wats. bluebonnet lupine X X

Macroptilium gibbosifolium (Ortega) 

A. Delgado variableleaf bushbean X X X X

Medicago lupulina L. black medick X X

Melilotus indicus (L.) All. annual yellow sweetclover X X

Mimosa aculeaticarpa Ortega catclaw mimosa X

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 

(Benth.) Barneby catclaw mimosa X X X X X

Mimosa dysocarpa Benth. velvetpod mimosa X X X

Mimosa grahamii Gray Graham’s mimosa X X X

Nissolia wislizeni (Gray) Gray Arizona yellowhood X

Phaseolus acutifolius var. tenuifolius Gray tepary bean X

Phaseolus maculatus Scheele spotted bean X

Phaseolus ritensis M.E. Jones Santa Rita Mountain bean X X

Prosopis glandulosa Torr. honey mesquite X X

Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC. mesquite X

Prosopis velutina Woot. velvet mesquite X X X

Psoralidium tenuiflorum (Pursh) Rydb. slimflower scurfpea X

Rhynchosia senna var. texana 

(Torr. & Gray) M.C. Johnston Texas snoutbean X

Robinia neomexicana Gray New Mexico locust X X

Senna hirsuta var. glaberrima 

(M.E. Jones) Irwin & Barneby woolly senna X X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
74

Fabaceae

Senna lindheimeriana (Scheele) 

Irwin & Barneby velvet leaf senna X X

Tephrosia tenella Gray red hoarypea X

Tephrosia thurberi (Rydb.) C.E. Wood Thurber’s hoarypea X

Vicia ludoviciana Nutt. Louisiana vetch X X

Fagaceae

Quercus ajoensis C.H. Muller Ajo Mountain scrub oak X

Quercus arizonica Sarg. Arizona white oak X X X

Quercus dunnii Kellogg Palmer oak X X

Quercus emoryi Torr. Emory oak X X X X X X

Quercus gambelii Nutt. Gambel oak X X

Quercus grisea Liebm. gray oak X X X

Quercus hypoleucoides A. Camus silverleaf oak X X X X X

Quercus oblongifolia Torr. Mexican blue oak X X X X X X

Quercus pungens Liebm. pungent oak X X

Quercus rugosa Née netleaf oak X X

Quercus toumeyi Sarg. Toumey oak X X X

Quercus turbinella Greene Sonoran scrub oak X X X

Fouquieriaceae

Fouquieria splendens Engelm. ocotillo X X X

Fumariaceae

Corydalis aurea Willd. scrambled eggs X

Corydalis curvisiliqua ssp. occidentalis 

(Engelm. ex Gray) W.A. Weber curvepod fumewort X

Garryaceae

Garrya flavescens S. Wats. ashy silktassel X

Garrya wrightii Torr. Wright’s silktassel X X X X X

Gentianaceae

Centaurium calycosum (Buckl.) Fern. Arizona centaury X X X

Geraniaceae

Erodium cicutarium (L.) L’Hér. ex Ait. redstem stork’s bill X X X

Geranium caespitosum var. parryi 

(Engelm.) W.A. Weber Parry’s geranium X X

Grossulariaceae

Ribes L. currant X

Hydrangeaceae

Fendlera rupicola Gray cliff fendlerbush X X

Philadelphus microphyllus Gray littleleaf mock orange X X X X X

Hydrophyllaceae

Nama dichotomum (Ruiz & Pavón) 

Choisy wishbone fiddleleaf X X

Phacelia arizonica Gray Arizona phacelia X X

Phacelia caerulea Greene skyblue phacelia X X

Juglandaceae

Juglans major (Torr.) Heller Arizona walnut X X X X

Juncaceae

Juncus bufonius L. toad rush X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
75

Juncaceae

Juncus ensifolius Wikstr. swordleaf rush X

Juncus saximontanus A. Nels. Rocky Mountain rush X X

Juncus tenuis Willd. poverty rush X X

Krameriaceae

Krameria erecta Willd. ex J.A. Schultes littleleaf ratany X X X X

Lamiaceae

Agastache wrightii (Greenm.) 

Woot. & Standl. Sonoran giant hyssop X X

Hedeoma dentata Torr. dentate false pennyroyal X X X X

Hedeoma nana (Torr.) Briq. dwarf false pennyroyal X

Hedeoma nana (Torr.) Briq. ssp. nana dwarf false pennyroyal X

Salvia lemmonii Gray Lemmon’s sage X X X X

Salvia parryi Gray Parry’s sage X X X

Salvia subincisa Benth. sawtooth sage X X X X

Stachys coccinea Ortega scarlet hedgenettle X X

Trichostema arizonicum Gray Arizona bluecurls X X X X

Liliaceae

Allium macropetalum Rydb. largeflower onion X

Asparagus officinalis L. garden asparagus X X

Dasylirion wheeleri S. Wats. common sotol X X X X X X

Dichelostemma capitatum (Benth.) 

Wood ssp. capitatum bluedicks X X X

Dichelostemma capitatum 

ssp. pauciflorum (Torr.) G. Keator bluedicks X X

Echeandia flavescens 

(J.A. & J.H. Schultes) Cruden Torrey’s craglily X X X X

Milla biflora Cav. Mexican star X X X X

Nolina microcarpa S. Wats. sacahuista X X X X X X X

Linaceae

Linum puberulum (Engelm.) Heller plains flax X X X X

Loasaceae

Mentzelia albicaulis (Dougl. ex Hook.) 

Dougl. ex Torr. & Gray whitestem blazingstar X X X

Mentzelia asperula Woot. & Standl. Organ Mountain blazingstar X X

Mentzelia isolata H.C. Gentry isolated blazingstar X

Mentzelia montana (A. Davids.) A. Davids. variegated-bract blazingstar X

Mentzelia multiflora (Nutt.) Gray Adonis blazingstar X X X

Mentzelia texana Urban & Gilg Texas blazingstar X X

Lythraceae

Cuphea wrightii Gray Wright’s waxweed X X X X X

Lythrum californicum Torr. & Gray California loosestrife X

Malpighiaceae

Aspicarpa hirtella L.C. Rich. chaparral asphead X X X

Malvaceae

Abutilon parvulum Gray dwarf Indian mallow X X

Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht. crested anoda X X X X

Malva parviflora L. cheeseweed mallow X X

Sida abutifolia P. Mill. spreading fanpetals X X X X X X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
76

Malvaceae

Sida neomexicana Gray New Mexico fanpetals X X X

Sida spinosa L. prickly fanpetals X X

Sphaeralcea angustifolia (Cav.) G. Don copper globemallow X X

Molluginaceae

Mollugo verticillata L. green carpetweed X X X

Moraceae

Morus microphylla Buckl. Texas mulberry X X

Nyctaginaceae

Allionia incarnata L. trailing windmills X X X

Boerhavia coccinea P. Mill. scarlet spiderling X X X X X

Boerhavia erecta L. erect spiderling X X X X

Boerhavia purpurascens Gray purple spiderling X X X X

Mirabilis albida (Walt.) Heimerl white four o’clock X X

Mirabilis coccinea (Torr.) Benth. & Hook. f. scarlet four o’clock X X X

Mirabilis comata (Small) Standl. hairy-tuft four o’clock X X

Mirabilis linearis (Pursh) Heimerl narrowleaf four o’clock X X X X

Mirabilis longiflora L. sweet four o’clock X X X

Mirabilis pumila (Standl.) Standl. dwarf four o’clock X

Oleaceae

Fraxinus velutina Torr. velvet ash X X X

Onagraceae

Camissonia chamaenerioides 

(Gray) Raven longcapsule suncup X X

Gaura coccinea Nutt. ex Pursh scarlet beeblossom X X

Gaura hexandra ssp. gracilis 

(Woot. & Standl.) Raven & Gregory harlequinbush X

Oenothera albicaulis Pursh whitest evening-primrose X X X X

Oenothera brachycarpa Gray shortfruit evening-primrose X X X

Oenothera caespitosa Nutt. tufted evening-primrose X X

Oenothera primiveris Gray desert evening-primrose X X

Oxalidaceae

Oxalis alpina (Rose) Rose ex R. Knuth alpine woodsorrel X

Oxalis corniculata L. creeping woodsorrel X X

Oxalis decaphylla Kunth tenleaf woodsorrel X X

Papaveraceae

Argemone pleiacantha Greene 

ssp. pleiacantha southwestern pricklypoppy X X X

Pedaliaceae

Proboscidea parviflora (Woot.) 

Woot. & Standl. doubleclaw X

Proboscidea parviflora (Woot.) 

Woot. & Standl. ssp. parviflora doubleclaw X X X

Phytolaccaceae

Phytolacca americana L. American pokeweed X

Phytolacca icosandra L. X

Pinaceae

Pinus cembroides Zucc. Mexican pinyon X X

Pinus discolor D.K. Bailey & Hawksworth border pinyon X X X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
77

Pinaceae

Pinus pinea L. Italian stone pine X

Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco Douglas-fir X

Plantaginaceae

Plantago patagonica Jacq. woolly plantain X X X

Platanaceae

Platanus wrightii S. Wats. Arizona sycamore X X X X

Poaceae

Achnatherum eminens (Cav.) Barkworth southwestern needlegrass X X X

Aristida adscensionis L. sixweeks threeawn X X X X X

Aristida divaricata Humb. & Bonpl. 

ex Willd. poverty threeawn X X X X

Aristida havardii Vasey Havard’s threeawn X

Aristida pansa Woot. & Standl. Wooton’s threeawn X X

Aristida purpurea Nutt. purple threeawn X

Aristida purpurea var. nealleyi 

(Vasey) Allred blue threeawn X X

Aristida schiedeana var. orcuttiana 

(Vasey) Allred & Valdés-Reyna Orcutt’s threeawn X X X X

Aristida ternipes Cav. spidergrass X X X X X

Aristida ternipes var. gentilis (Henr.) Allred spidergrass X X

Aristida ternipes Cav. var. ternipes spidergrass X

Blepharoneuron tricholepis (Torr.) Nash pine dropseed X X

Bothriochloa barbinodis (Lag.) Herter cane bluestem X X X X X

Bouteloua aristidoides (Kunth) Griseb. needle grama X X

Bouteloua barbata Lag. sixweeks grama X X

Bouteloua chondrosioides (Kunth) 

Benth. ex S. Wats. sprucetop grama X X X X X

Bouteloua curtipendula (Michx.) Torr. sideoats grama X X X X X

Bouteloua curtipendula var. caespitosa 

Gould & Kapadia sideoats grama X

Bouteloua eludens Griffiths Santa Rita Mountain grama X X X

Bouteloua eriopoda (Torr.) Torr. black grama X X X X X

Bouteloua gracilis (Willd. ex Kunth) 

Lag. ex Griffiths blue grama X X X X X X

Bouteloua hirsuta Lag. hairy grama X X X X

Bouteloua hirsuta Lag. var. hirsuta hairy grama X

Bouteloua radicosa (Fourn.) Griffiths purple grama X X X X X

Bouteloua repens (Kunth) Scribn. & Merr. slender grama X X X X X

Bouteloua rothrockii Vasey Rothrock’s grama X X X X

Bromus anomalus Rupr. ex Fourn. nodding brome X X X X

Bromus catharticus Vahl rescuegrass X X X X X

Bromus ciliatus L. fringed brome X X X

Cenchrus spinifex Cav. coastal sandbur X X X

Chloris virgata Sw. feather fingergrass X X X X

Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Bermudagrass X X X X

Dasyochloa pulchella (Kunth) 

Willd. ex Rydb. low woollygrass X X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
78

Poaceae

Digitaria californica (Benth.) Henr. Arizona cottontop X X X X

Digitaria cognata (J.A. Schultes) Pilger Carolina crabgrass X

Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. hairy crabgrass X X X X

Echinochloa colona (L.) Link jungle rice X X X

Elionurus barbiculmis Hack. woolyspike balsamscale X

Elymus elymoides (Raf.) Swezey squirreltail X X X X

Elymus elymoides ssp. elymoides 

(Raf.) Swezey squirreltail X X

Elyonurus barbiculmus Hack. X X X X

Enneapogon desvauxii Desv. ex Beauv. nineawn pappusgrass X X

Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) 

Vign. ex Janchen stinkgrass X X X X X

Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees weeping lovegrass X X X X

Eragrostis intermedia A.S. Hitchc. plains lovegrass X X X X X X X

Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees Lehmann lovegrass XXXXX X X

Eragrostis mexicana (Hornem.) Link Mexican lovegrass X X

Eragrostis mexicana ssp. mexicana 

(Hornem.) Link Mexican lovegrass X X X

Eragrostis pectinacea (Michx.) 

Nees ex Steud. tufted lovegrass X

Eragrostis pectinacea var. miserrima 

(Fourn.) J. Reeder desert lovegrass X

Eriochloa acuminata (J. Presl) Kunth tapertip cupgrass X X

Eriochloa acuminata var. acuminata 

(J. Presl) Kunth tapertip cupgrass X X

Eriochloa lemmonii Vasey & Scribn. canyon cupgrass X X

Erioneuron avenaceum (Kunth) Tateoka shortleaf woollygrass X X X

Hackelochloa granularis (L.) Kuntze pitscale grass X

Hesperostipa neomexicana 

(Thurb. ex Coult.) Barkworth New Mexico feathergrass X X

Heteropogon contortus (L.) 

Beauv. ex Roemer & J.A. Schultes tanglehead X X X X X X

Hilaria belangeri (Steud.) Nash curly-mesquite X X X

Hordeum murinum ssp. glaucum 

(Steud.) Tzvelev smooth barley X

Koeleria macrantha (Ledeb.) J.A. Schultes prairie Junegrass X

Leptochloa dubia (Kunth) Nees green sprangletop X X X X X

Lolium perenne L. perennial ryegrass X

Lycurus phleoides Kunth common wolfstail X

Lycurus setosus (Nutt.) C.G. Reeder bristly wolfstail X X X X X

Muhlenbergia arizonica Scribn. Arizona muhly X X X X X

Muhlenbergia emersleyi Vasey bullgrass X X X X X X

Muhlenbergia fragilis Swallen delicate muhly X X

Muhlenbergia glauca (Nees) B.D. Jackson desert muhly X X X

Muhlenbergia longiligula A.S. Hitchc. longtongue muhly X

Muhlenbergia minutissima 

(Steud.) Swallen annual muhly X X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
79

Poaceae

Muhlenbergia montana (Nutt.) A.S. Hitchc. mountain muhly X X X

Muhlenbergia pauciflora Buckl. New Mexico muhly X X

Muhlenbergia porteri Scribn. ex Beal bush muhly X X X

Muhlenbergia repens (J. Presl) 

A.S. Hitchc. creeping muhly X

Muhlenbergia richardsonis (Trin.) Rydb. mat muhly X

Muhlenbergia rigens (Benth.) A.S. Hitchc. deergrass X X X

Muhlenbergia rigida (Kunth) Trin. purple muhly X X X

Muhlenbergia sinuosa Swallen marshland muhly X

Muhlenbergia tenuifolia (Kunth) Trin. slimflower muhly X X X X

Panicum bulbosum Kunth bulb panicgrass X X X X

Panicum capillare L. witchgrass X X

Panicum hallii Vasey Hall’s panicgrass X X X X

Panicum hirticaule J. Presl Mexican panicgrass X X X

Panicum hirticaule var. hirticaule J. Presl Mexican panicgrass X

Panicum obtusum Kunth vine mesquite X X X X X

Pappophorum Schreb. pappusgrass X

Paspalum setaceum Michx. thin paspalum X

Piptochaetium fimbriatum (Kunth) 

A.S. Hitchc. pinyon ricegrass X X X X X

Piptochaetium pringlei (Beal) Parodi Pringle’s speargrass X

Pleuraphis mutica Buckl. tobosagrass X X

Poa fendleriana (Steud.) Vasey muttongrass X X

Poa fendleriana (Steud.) Vasey 

ssp. fendleriana muttongrass X X

Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf annual rabbitsfoot grass X

Schizachyrium cirratum (Hack.) 

Woot. & Standl. Texas bluestem X X X X X X

Schizachyrium sanguineum (Retz.) Alston crimson bluestem X X X

Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) 

Nash var. scoparium little bluestem X X

Scleropogon brevifolius Phil. burrograss X X

Setaria grisebachii Fourn. Grisebach’s bristlegrass X X X X X X

Setaria leucopila (Scribn. & Merr.) 

K. Schum. streambed bristlegrass X X

Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Johnsongrass X X X X

Sporobolus airoides (Torr.) Torr. alkali sacaton X X

Sporobolus cryptandrus (Torr.) Gray sand dropseed X X X

Sporobolus wrightii Munro ex Scribn. big sacaton X X X

Trachypogon spicatus (L.) Kuntze spiked crinkleawn X X X X X

Tridens muticus (Torr.) Nash slim tridens X X

Tridens muticus var. muticus (Torr.) Nash slim tridens X X

Tripsacum lanceolatum Rupr. ex Fourn. Mexican gamagrass X X X X X

Triticum aestivum L. common wheat X X

Urochloa arizonica (Scribn. & Merr.) 

O. Morrone & F. Zuloaga Arizona signalgrass X X X X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
80

Poaceae

Vulpia octoflora var. hirtella (Piper) Henr. sixweeks fescue X X

Vulpia octoflora var. octoflora 

(Walt.) Rydb. sixweeks fescue X X X

Polemoniaceae

Eriastrum diffusum (Gray) Mason miniature woollystar X X

Gilia flavocincta A. Nels. lesser yellowthroat gilia X

Gilia flavocincta ssp. australis 

(A.& V. Grant) Day & V. Grant lesser yellowthroat gilia X

Gilia mexicana A.& V. Grant El Paso gilia X X

Ipomopsis longiflora (Torr.) V. Grant flaxflowered ipomopsis X X

Ipomopsis thurberi (Torr. ex Gray) V. Grant El Paso skyrocket X X X X

Phlox stansburyi (Torr.) Heller 

ssp. stansburyi cold-desert phlox X X

Polygalaceae

Polygala hemipterocarpa Gray winged milkwort X

Polygala obscura Benth. velvetseed milkwort X X

Polygonaceae

Eriogonum abertianum Torr. Abert’s buckwheat X X X

Eriogonum palmerianum Reveal Palmer’s buckwheat X X

Eriogonum polycladon Benth. sorrel buckwheat X

Eriogonum wrightii Torr. ex Benth. bastardsage X X X

Polygonum aviculare L. prostate knotweed X

Portulacaceae

Calandrinia ciliata (Ruiz & Pavón) DC. fringed redmaids X

Cistanthe ambigua (S. Wats.) Hershkovitz desert pussypaws X

Portulaca oleracea L. little hogweed X X

Portulaca pilosa L. kiss me quick X X

Portulaca suffrutescens Engelm. shrubby purslane X X

Portulaca umbraticola Kunth wingpod purslane X X

Talinum aurantiacum Engelm. orange fameflower X X X

Talinum brevicaule S. Wats. dwarf fameflower X

Talinum paniculatum (Jacq.) Gaertn. jewels of Opar X

Talinum parviflorum Nutt. sunbright X X

Pteridaceae

Argyrochosma limitanea (Maxon) 

Windham southwestern false cloak fern X

Argyrochosma limitanea ssp. limitanea 

(Maxon) Windham southwestern false cloakfern X

Astrolepis cochisensis ssp. cochisensis 

(Goodding) Benham & Windham Cochise scaly cloakfern X

Astrolepis integerrima (Hook.) 

Benham & Windham hybrid cloakfern X X

Astrolepis sinuata (Lag. ex Sw.) 

Benham & Windham wavy scaly cloakfern X

Astrolepis sinuata (Lag. ex Sw.)

Benham & Windham ssp. sinuata wavy scaly cloakfern X X

Bommeria hispida (Mett. ex Kuhn) 

Underwood copper fern X X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
81

Pteridaceae

Cheilanthes bonariensis (Willd.) Proctor golden lipfern X X

Cheilanthes eatonii Baker Eaton’s lipfern X X

Cheilanthes fendleri Hook. Fendler’s lipfern X X

Cheilanthes lendigera (Cav.) Sw. nitbearing lipfern X

Cheilanthes lindheimeri Hook. fairyswords X X X

Cheilanthes tomentosa Link woolly lipfern X X

Cheilanthes villosa Davenport ex Maxon villous lipfern X X

Cheilanthes wootonii Maxon beaded lipfern X X X X

Cheilanthes wrightii Hook. Wright’s lipfern X X

Notholaena grayi Davenport Gray’s cloak fern X X

Notholaena standleyi Maxon star cloak fern X X X

Pellaea atropurpurea (L.) Link purple cliffbrake X X

Ranunculaceae

Anemone tuberosa Rydb. tuber anemone X X X

Thalictrum fendleri Engelm. ex Gray Fendler’s meadow-rue X X X X

Rhamnaceae

Ceanothus fendleri Gray Fendler’s ceanothus X X X

Ceanothus greggii Gray desert ceanothus X X

Ziziphus obtusifolia var. canescens 

(Gray) M.C. Johnston lotebush X X

Rosaceae

Cercocarpus montanus Raf. alderleaf mountain mahogany X

Cercocarpus montanus var. glaber 

(S. Wats.) F.L. Martin birchleaf mountain mahogany X X

Cercocarpus montanus var.

paucidentatus (S. Wats.) F.L. Martin hairy mountain mahogany X X X

Prunus armeniaca L. apricot X X X

Prunus serotina Ehrh. black cherry X X

Prunus serotina var. rufula 

(Woot. & Standl.) McVaugh black cherry X

Prunus serotina var. virens 

(Woot. & Standl.) McVaugh black cherry X

Purshia stansburiana (Torr.) Henrickson Stansbury cliffrose X X X

Pyracantha koidzumii (Hayata) Rehd. Formosa firethorn X X X

Vauquelinia californica (Torr.) Sarg. Arizona rosewood X X

Rubiaceae

Bouvardia ternifolia (Cav.) Schlecht. firecrackerbush X X X X X

Crusea diversifolia (Kunth) W.A. Anderson mountain saucerflower X X

Diodia teres Walt. poorjoe X X

Galium aparine L. stickywilly X

Galium mexicanum ssp. asperrimum 

(Gray) Dempster Mexican bedstraw X X

Galium microphyllum Gray bracted bedstraw X X X

Galium wrightii Gray Wright’s bedstraw X X X

Houstonia wrightii Gray pygmy bluet X

Mitracarpus breviflorus Gray white girdlepod X X X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
82

Rutaceae

Ptelea trifoliata ssp. angustifolia 

(Benth.) V. Bailey common hoptree X

Salicaceae

Populus fremontii S. Wats. ssp. fremontii Fremont cottonwood X X

Salix gooddingii Ball Goodding’s willow X X X X

Santalaceae

Comandra umbellata ssp. pallida 

(A. DC.) Piehl pale bastard toadflax X X

Sapindaceae

Sapindus saponaria L. wingleaf soapberry X

Sapindus saponaria var. drummondii 

(Hook. & Arn.) L. Benson western soapberry X X X

Saxifragaceae

Heuchera sanguinea Engelm. coralbells X X X

Scrophulariaceae

Brachystigma wrightii (Gray) Pennell Arizona desert foxglove X X

Castilleja integra Gray wholeleaf Indian paintbrush X X

Castilleja lanata Gray Sierra woolly Indian paintbrush X

Castilleja tenuiflora Benth. Santa Catalina Indian paintbrushX X X

Maurandella antirrhiniflora 

(Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) Rothm. roving sailor X X X

Mimulus guttatus DC. seep monkeyflower X X X

Mimulus rubellus Gray little redstem monkeyflower X X

Nuttallanthus texanus (Scheele) 

D.A. Sutton Texas toadflax X X

Penstemon barbatus (Cav.) Roth beardlip penstemon X X

Penstemon dasyphyllus Gray Cochise beardtongue X X

Penstemon parryi (Gray) Gray Parry’s beardtongue X X X X

Penstemon stenophyllus (Gray) 

T.J. Howell Sonoran beardtongue X X

Penstemon superbus A. Nels. superb beardtongue X

Penstemon virgatus Gray upright blue beardtongue X X

Schistophragma intermedia (Gray) 

Pennell harlequin spiralseed X

Verbascum thapsus L. common mullein X

Veronica peregrina ssp. xalapensis 

(Kunth) Pennell hairy purslane speedwell X X

Simaroubaceae

Ailanthus altissima (P. Mill.) Swingle tree of heaven X X

Solanaceae

Datura quercifolia Kunth Chinese thorn-apple X X

Datura stramonium L. jimsonweed X X

Datura wrightii Regel sacred thorn-apple X X X

Margaranthus solanaceus Schlecht. netted globecherry X X

Nicotiana obtusifolia Mertens & Galeotti desert tobacco X

Nicotiana obtusifolia var. obtusifolia 

Mertens & Galeotti desert tobacco X

Physalis hederifolia var. fendleri 

(Gray) Cronq. Fendler’s groundcherry X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
83

Solanaceae

Physalis longifolia Nutt. var. longifolia longleaf groundcherry X X

Solanum adscendens Sendtner sonoita nightshade X X X

Solanum americanum P. Mill. American black nightshade X X

Solanum douglasii Dunal greenspot nightshade X X

Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav. silverleaf nightshade X X X

Solanum jamesii Torr. wild potato X X

Solanum rostratum Dunal buffalobur nightshade X X

Sterculiaceae

Ayenia compacta Rose California ayenia X X

Ayenia filiformis S. Wats. TransPecos ayenia X X

Ulmaceae

Celtis laevigata var. reticulata (Torr.) 

L. Benson netleaf hackberry X X

Urticaceae

Parietaria hespera Hinton rillita pellitory X X

Valerianaceae

Valeriana arizonica Gray Arizona valerian X X

Valeriana sorbifolia Kunth pineland valerian X X

Verbenaceae

Aloysia wrightii Heller ex Abrams Wright’s beebrush X X X X X

Bouchea prismatica (L.) Kuntze prism bouchea X X X

Glandularia bipinnatifida (Nutt.) Nutt. Dakota mock vervain X

Glandularia bipinnatifida 

var. bipinnatifida (Nutt.) Nutt. Dakota mock vervain X X X

Glandularia bipinnatifida var. ciliata 

(Benth.) B.L. Turner Dakota mock vervain X

Tetraclea coulteri Gray Coulter’s wrinklefruit X X

Verbena bracteata Lag. & Rodr. bigbract verbena X X

Viscaceae

Phoradendron capitellatum Torr. ex Trel. downy mistletoe X X

Phoradendron coryae Trel. Cory’s mistletoe X X X

Phoradendron juniperinum Engelm. 

ex Gray juniper mistletoe X X

Phoradendron villosum (Nutt.) Nutt. Pacific mistletoe X

Vitaceae

Vitis arizonica Engelm. canyon grape X X X

Zygophyllaceae

Kallstroemia parviflora J.B.S. Norton warty caltrop X X

Tribulus terrestris L. puncturevine X X

Family Studies Specimens in herbaria 

Scientific name Common name R&J P&C H&G Ruy NPS UA ASU DBG NAU UA
84

Appendix B. Species list of amphibians and reptiles for Coronado NM. All species listed

have been confirmed present at the memorial either through a voucher specimen or photograph.

Taxon Family Scientific name Common name

Amphibian Ambystomatidae Ambystoma mavortium barred tiger salamander

Leptodactylidae Eleutherodactylus augusti a barking frog

Pelobatidae Spea multiplicata New Mexico spadefoot

Bufonidae Bufo woodhousii Woodhouse’s toad

Bufo punctatus red-spotted toad

Bufo cognatus Great Plains toad

Hylidae Hyla arenicolor canyon treefrog

Reptile Emydidae Terrapene ornata ornate box turtle

Crotaphytidae Crotaphytus collaris eastern collared lizard

Phrynosomatidae Holbrookia maculata lesser earless lizard

Sceloporus slevini bunch grass lizard

Sceloporus jarrovii Yarrow’s spiny lizard

Sceloporus clarkii Clark’s spiny lizard

Sceloporus undulatus prairie lizard

Urosaurus ornatus tree lizard

Phrynosoma douglasii short-horned lizard

Scincidae Eumeces obsoletus Great Plains skink

Eumeces callicephalus mountain skink

Teiidae Cnemidophorus uniparens desert grassland whiptail

Cnemidophorus sonorae Sonoran spotted whiptail

Anguidae Elgaria kingii Madrean alligator lizard

Helodermatidae Heloderma suspectum Gila monster

Leptotyphlopidae Leptotyphlops dulcis Texas blind snake

Colubridae Diadophis punctatus ringneck snake

Heterodon nasicus western hognose snake

Masticophis flagellum coachwhip

Masticophis bilineatus Sonoran whipsnake

Salvadora deserticola Big Bend patchnose snake

Salvadora grahamiae mountain patchnose snake

Pituophis catenifer gopher snake

Lampropeltis getula common kingsnake

Lampropeltis pyromelana Sonoran mountain kingsnake

Rhinocheilus lecontei longnose snake

Thamnophis cyrtopsis blackneck garter snake

Gyalopion canum western hooknose snake

Tantilla wilcoxi Chihuahuan blackhead snake

Trimorphodon biscutatus lyre snake

Hypsiglena torquata night snake

Elapidae Micruroides euryxanthus western coral snake

Viperidae Crotalus atrox western diamondback rattlesnake

Crotalus lepidus rock rattlesnake

Crotalus molossus blacktail rattlesnake

Crotalus scutulatus Mojave rattlesnake a USFS = U.S. Forest Service: Sensitive species; Arizona Game and Fish Department: Wildlife Species of 

Concern (HDMS 2003).
85

Appendix C. Number of observations, by bird species and detection type, at Coronado NM by University of Arizona (UA)

Inventory personnel, 2002–2004. Numbers of individuals recorded are not scaled by search effort and should not to be used for

comparison among species. List also includes species reported to the visitor center log book, those observed by Russell and

Danforth (R&D; 1979) and those observed by NPS Monitoring personnel in 2005 (unpublished data). The species list at the visitor

center includes data from the MAPS effort in the oak woodland (see text for more details). Underlined species are neotropical

migrants (Rappole 1995). Species in bold-faced type are non-native. 

 UA Detection type Other efforts Conservation Designations 

Order NPS

Family Inci- Noc- Visitor Moni- US AZ US

Scientific name Common name VCP Winter dental turnal center R&D toring ESAa FSb G&Fc APFd FWSe

Galliformes

Phasianidae

Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey 4 X

Odontophoridae

Callipepla squamata scaled quail 2 X X

Callipepla gambelii Gambel’s quail 1 X X

Cyrtonyx montezumae Montezuma quail 1 1 6 X X X

Ciconiiformes

Cathartidae

Coragyps atratus black vulture X

Cathartes aura turkey vulture 84 7 X X X

Falconiformes

Accipitridae

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle X LT S WSC

Circus cyaneus northern harrier 22 XX

Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite X

Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk 11 XX S

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk 9 2 XXX

Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk X SC S WSC

Buteogallus anthracinus common black-hawk X S WSC P

Parabuteo unicinctus Harris’s hawk X

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk 1 X

Buteo albonotatus zone-tailed hawk 1 1 X X

Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk 4 2 XXX

Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle 1 X X

Falconidae

Falco sparverius American kestrel 2 XX

Falco columbarius merlin X

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon 1 X SC WSC BCC

Falco mexicanus prairie falcon 4 1 XX

Charadriiformes

Scolopacidae

Gallinago gallinago common snipe X

Columbiformes

Columbidae

Columba livia rock pigeon 1

Patagioenas fasciata band-tailed pigeon XXX

Zenaida asiatica white-winged dove 36 1 X X X

Zenaida macroura mourning dove 37 1 X X X

Columbina inca Inca dove X

Columbina passerina common ground-dove 1 X
86

Cuculiformes

Cuculidae

Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed cuckoo 1 C S WSC P BCC

Geococcyx californianus greater roadrunner 13 1 X X X

Strigiformes

Tytonidae

Tyto alba barn owl X

Strigidae

Otus flammeolus flammulated owl X

Megascops kennicottii western screech-owl 1 1 X X X

Megascops trichopsis whiskered screech-owl 2 1 X X

Bubo virginianus great horned owl 1 1 X X

Glaucidium gnoma northern pygmy-owl 1 X

Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican spotted owl X T S WSC

Micrathene whitneyi elf owl 11XXX BCC

Caprimulgiformes

Caprimulgidae

Chordeiles minor common nighthawk XXX

Phalaenoptilus nuttallii common poorwill 11XXX

Caprimulgus vociferus whip-poor-will 1XXX

Apodiformes

Apodidae

Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift 92 XXX

Trochilidae

Heliomaster constantii plain-capped starthroat X

Cynanthus latirostris broad-billed hummingbird 11X

Hylocharis leucotis white-eared hummingbird X

Lampornis clemenciae blue-throated hummingbird X

Eugenes fulgens magnificent hummingbird 1 XX

Calothorax lucifer Lucifer’s hummingbird 1 XX

Archilochus alexandri black-chinned hummingbird 7 2 XX

Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird 5 1 XXX

Calypte costae Costa’s hummingbird X P

Amazilia violiceps violet-crowned hummingbird X S WSC

Stellula calliope calliope hummingbird 1 X

Selasphorus platycercus broad-tailed hummingbird 6 1 XXX

Selasphorus sasin Allen’s hummingbird X

Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird 2 1 XX

Trogoniformes

Trogonidae

Trogon elegans elegant trogon 1 X X WSC

Piciformes

Picidae

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s woodpecker X

Melanerpes formicivorus acorn woodpecker 1 1 X X X

Melanerpes uropygialis Gila woodpecker 1 X X BCC

Sphyrapicus thyroideus Williamson’s sapsucker X

 UA Detection type Other efforts Conservation Designations 

Order NPS

Family Inci- Noc- Visitor Moni- US AZ US

Scientific name Common name VCP Winter dental turnal center R&D toring ESAa FSb G&Fc APFd FWSe
87

Piciformes

Picidae

Sphyrapicus nuchalis red-naped sapsucker 1 1 X

Sphyrapicus ruber red-breasted sapsucker X

Sphyrpicus varius yellow-bellied sapsucker X X

Picoides scalaris ladder-backed woodpecker 12 1 2 X X

Picoides villosus hairy woodpecker 1

Picoides arizonae Arizona woodpecker 13 1 X X

Colaptes auratus northern flicker 13 5 1 X X X

Colaptes chrysoides gilded flicker X P BCC

Passeriformes

Tyrannidae

Contopus pertinax greater pewee 1 X

Contopus sordidulus western wood-pewee 3 1 XX

Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher X WSC

Empidonax hammondii Hammond’s flycatcher 9 1 XXX

Empidonax wrightii gray flycatcher 3 1 XXX

Empidonax oberholseri dusky flycatcher 1 XX

Empidonax occidentalis 

or difficilis western flycatcher 2 2 XX

Empidonax occidentalis cordilleran flycatcher 1

Sayornis nigricans black phoebe 1 X

Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe 23 XXX

Pyrocephalus rubinus vermilion flycatcher X X

Myiarchus tuberculifer dusky-capped flycatcher 59 2 X X X

Myiarchus cinerascens ash-throated flycatcher 82 1 X X X

Myiarchus tyrannulus brown-crested flycatcher X X

Myiodynastes luteiventris sulphur-bellied flycatcher 14 3 X X X

Tyrannus vociferans Cassin’s kingbird 21 4 X X X

Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird 3 3 XX

Laniidae

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike 1 2 X X SC S

Vireonidae

Vireo bellii Bell’s vireo 1 1 X S BCC

Vireo plumbeus plumbeous vireo 7 1

Vireo cassinii Cassin’s vireo 1

Vireo plumbeus or V. cassini solitary vireo type 1 XX

Vireo huttoni Hutton’s vireo 24 3 2 X X

Vireo gilvus warbling vireo 1 XXX

Corvidae

Cyanocitta stelleri Steller’s jay 1 X X

Aphelocoma californica western scrub-jay 1 X X

Aphelocoma ultramarina Mexican jay 201 46 5 X X X

Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus pinyon Jay 1 X

Corvus sp. unknown raven 39 3 1 X

Corvus cryptoleucus Chihuahuan raven X X

Corvus corax common raven X X

 UA Detection type Other efforts Conservation Designations 

Order NPS

Family Inci- Noc- Visitor Moni- US AZ US

Scientific name Common name VCP Winter dental turnal center R&D toring ESAa FSb G&Fc APFd FWSe
88

Passeriformes

Alaudidae

Eremophila alpestris horned lark X

Hirundinidae

Tachycineta thalassina violet-green swallow 3 X X

Hirundo rustica barn swallow 1 X

Paridae

Baeolophus wollweberi bridled titmouse 56 8 2 X X X

Remizidae

Auriparus flaviceps verdin 18 5 X X X

Aegithalidae

Psaltriparus minimus bushtit 50 53 10 X X X

Sittidae

Sitta carolinensis white-breasted nuthatch 3 5 1 X X X

Certhiidae

Certhia americana brown creeper X

Troglodytidae

Campylorhynchus 

brunneicapillus cactus wren 11 2 X X X

Salpinctes obsoletus rock wren 1 X X X

Catherpes mexicanus canyon wren 11 1 1 X X

Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren 177 14 4 X X X

Troglodytes aedon house wren 111 XX

Regulidae

Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet 19 30 1 X X

Sylviidae

Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher 1 X X

Polioptila melanura black-tailed gnatcatcher X

Turdidae

Sialia sialis eastern bluebird 2 XX

Sialia mexicana western bluebird 12 12 X X

Sialia currucoides mountain bluebird 24 X

Myadestes townsendi Townsend’s solitaire 1 X

Catharus ustulatus Swainson’s thrush X X

Catharus guttatus hermit thrush 332 XX

Ixoreus naevius varied thrush X

Turdus migratorius American robin 1 XX

Mimidae

Dumetella carolinensis gray catbird X WSC

Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird 3 1 X X X

Toxostoma crissale crissal thrasher 3 1 3 X X X BCC

Toxostoma curvirostre curve-billed thrasher 2 X X

Toxostoma bendirei Bendire’s thrasher X

Bombycillidae

Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxwing 15 X X

Ptilogonatidae

Phainopepla nitens phainopepla 3 2 2 X X X

 UA Detection type Other efforts Conservation Designations 

Order NPS

Family Inci- Noc- Visitor Moni- US AZ US

Scientific name Common name VCP Winter dental turnal center R&D toring ESAa FSb G&Fc APFd FWSe
89

Passeriformes

Parulidae

Vermivora celata orange-crowned warbler 1 1 XXX

Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville warbler X X

Vermivora virginiae Virginia’s warbler 1 1 XXX

Vermivora luciae Lucy’s warbler 19 1 X X X P

Dendroica petechia yellow warbler 1 X

Dendroica coronata yellow-rumped warbler 11 2 2 X X

Dendroica nigrescens black-throated gray warbler 44 1 X X X

Dendroica virens black-throated green warbler X

Dendroica townsendi Townsend’s warbler 2 2 XX

Dendroica occidentalis hermit warbler X X

Seiurus aurocapilla ovenbird X

Oporornis tolmiei MacGillivray’s warbler X

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’s warbler 4 3 XXX

Cardellina rubrifrons red-faced warbler X

Myioborus pictus painted redstart 1 X X

Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat X

Thraupidae

Piranga flava hepatic tanager 12 1 X X X

Piranga rubra summer tanager X X

Piranga ludoviciana western tanager 18 2 X X X

Emberizidae

Pipilo chlorurus green-tailed towhee 3 1 XXX

Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee 41 15 1 X X

Pipilo fuscus canyon towhee 26 2 X X X

Pipilo aberti Abert’s towhee X

Aimophila carpalis rufous-winged sparrow X P BCC

Aimophila cassinii Cassin’s sparrow 18 3 X X

Aimophila texana or botterri Botteri’s sparrow 35 X

Aimophila ruficeps rufous-crowned sparrow 55 5 4 X X X

Spizella passerina chipping sparrow 11 13 40 X X X

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow X

Spizella atrogularis black-chinned sparrow X

Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow 1 10 X X

Chondestes grammacus lark sparrow 4 1 XXX

Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow X

Amphispiza bilineata black-throated sparrow 5 2 X X X

Calcarius ornatus chestnut-collared longspur X

Calamospiza melanocorys lark bunting X X

Passerella iliaca fox sparrow X

Melospiza melodia song sparrow X

Ammondramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow X

Melospiza georgiana swamp sparrow X

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s sparrow X

 UA Detection type Other efforts Conservation Designations 

Order NPS

Family Inci- Noc- Visitor Moni- US AZ US

Scientific name Common name VCP Winter dental turnal center R&D toring ESAa FSb G&Fc APFd FWSe
90

Passeriformes

Emberizidae

Zonotrichia albicollis white-throated sparrow X

Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow 11 X

Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco 1 10 2 X X

Junco hyemalis mearnsi pink-sided junco f X

Junco hyemalis dorsalis gray-headed junco f 3 X

Junco hyemalis oreganus Oregon junco f 11 X

Junco phaeonotus yellow-eyed junco X

Cardinalidae

Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal 1

Cardinalis sinuatus pyrrhuloxia 3 X X

Pheucticus ludovicianus rose-breasted grosbeak X

Pheucticus melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak 25 XXX

Passerina caerulea blue grosbeak 23 1 X X X

Passerina amoena lazuli bunting 1 X

Passerina cyanea indigo bunting X

Icteridae

Sturnella magna lilianae eastern meadowlark 18 10 X X

Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark 1 1 XXX

Molothrus aeneus bronzed cowbird X

Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird 27 1 X X X

Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole 22X

Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole XXX

Icterus parisorum Scott’s oriole 57 1 X X X

Icturus pustulatus streak-backed oriole X

Fringillidae

Carpodacus cassinii Cassin’s finch X

Carpodacus mexicanus house finch 31 1 X X X

Carpodacus purpureus purple finch X

Carduelis pinus pine siskin X X X

Carduelis tristis American goldfinch X

Carduelis psaltria lesser goldfinch 231 XXX

Passeridae

Passer domesticus house sparrow X a ESA = Endangered Species Act: T = Threatened, SC = Species of Concern, C = Candidate for listing (HDMS 2004).

b USFS = U.S. Forest Service: Sensitive species (HDMS 2004).

c

AZG&F = Arizona Game and Fish Department: Wildlife Species of Concern (HDMS 2004). 

d APF = Arizona Partners in Flight; Priority species (Latta et al. 1999).

e USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Species of conservation concern (HDMS 2004).

f

We include observations of these subspecies in the appendix because field crew members occasionally made this distinction.

 UA Detection type Other efforts Conservation Designations 

Order NPS

Family Inci- Noc- Visitor Moni- US AZ US

Scientific name Common name VCP Winter dental turnal center R&D toring ESAa FSb G&Fc APFd FWSe
91

Appendix D. Mammal species observed or collected at Coronado National Memorial based on 1977-1978 study

(Petryszyn and Cockrum 1979), this study, and wildlife sightings database compiled by memorial staff.

Order Confirmed Observed Confirmed Observed Observed

Family (specimen) only (specimen) Photo only this CORO

Scientific name Common name 1977–1978 1977–1978 this study this study study database

Didelphimorphia

Didelphidae

Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum Xa X

Insectivora

Soricidae

Notiosorex crawfordi desert shrew X X

Chiroptera

Vespertilionidae

Myotis auriculus southwestern myotis X

Myotis thysanodesc,d fringed myotis X

Myotis californicus California myotis X

Myotis leibii eastern small-footed myotis X

Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat X

Corynorhinus townsendiic Townsend’s big-eared bat X

Carnivora

Ursidae

Ursus americanus black bear X X

Procyonidae

Procyon lotor common raccoon X X

Nasua narica white-nosed coati X X X

Bassariscus astutus ringtail X X X

Mustelidae

Taxidea taxus American badger X

Mephitidae

Spilogale gracilis western spotted skunk X X X

Mephitis mephitis striped skunk X X

Mephitis macroura hooded skunk X X X

Conepatus mesoleucus common hog-nosed skunk X X

Canidae

Canis familiaris feral dog X X

Canis latrans coyote X X X X

Urocyon cinereoargenteus common gray fox X X X

Felidae

Felis catus feral cat X

Puma concolor mountain lion X X

Lynx rufus bobcat X X X

Rodentia

Sciuridae

Spermophilus variegatus rock squirrel X X X X

Spermophilus spilosoma spotted ground squirrel Xb

Sciurus arizonensisc Arizona gray squirrel X Xa X X

Geomyidae

Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher X X

Thomomys umbrinus southern pocket gopher X
92

Rodentia

Heteromyidae

Perognathus flavus silky pocket mouse Xb

Chaetodipus penicillatus Sonoran Desert pocket mouse X X X

Chaetodipus intermediusc rock pocket mouse X X

Chaetodipus hispidus hispid pocket mouse X 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

Muridae

Reithrodontomys megalotisc western harvest mouse X X

Reithrodontomys fulvescens fulvous harvest mouse X X X

Peromyscus maniculatus deer mouse X X

Peromyscus leucopus white-footed mouse X X

Peromyscus boylii brush mouse X X X

Baiomys taylori northern pygmy mouse X X

Onychomys torridus southern grasshopper mouse X X

Neotoma albigula white-throated woodrat X X X

Sigmodon fulviventer tawny-bellied cotton rat X

Sigmodon ochrognathusc yellow-nosed cotton rat X X

Sigmodon arizonae Arizona cotton rat X X

Mus musculus house mouse Xb

Lagomorpha

Leporidae

Lepus californicus black-tailed jackrabbit X X X

Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail X X X

Artiodactyla

Tayassuidae

Pecari tajacu collared peccary X X X X

Cervidae

Odocoileus hemionus mule deer X

Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer X X X X

a Recent photographs exist in Coronado NM photo archives.

b Species confirmed during trapping in long-term monitoring program, 1997-2003. Species in bold-faced type are non-native.

c

ESA = Endangered Species Act: SC = Species of Concern (HDMS 2003).

d

BLM = Bureau of Land Management: Sensitive species (HDMS 2003).

Order Confirmed Observed Confirmed Observed Observed

Family (specimen) only (specimen) Photo only this CORO

Scientific name Common name 1977–1978 1977–1978 this study this study study database
93

Appendix E. Species of reptiles and amphibians not reported for CORO NM that could occur based on geographic and

elevational range. All species listed occur in the Huachuca Mountains or San Pedro River Valley between the U.S./Mexico border

and northern Sierra Vista. Elevation (Elev.) is given in meters. Species in bold-faced type are non-native.

Scientific name Elev. 

Taxon Family Common name (m) Notes ESAd BLMe USFSf

Amphibian Pelobatidae Scaphiopus couchii 900-1800b Confirmed off-site by Johnson and 

Couch’s spadefoot Lowe (1979).

Bufonidae Bufo alvarius 1250-1387b Southern Huachucas included in 

Sonoran Desert toad range map of Stebbins (1985). 

Hylidae Hyla eximia 900-2900b Occurs in Huachucas <16 km 

mountain treefrog (10 mi) to north and west of CORO 

(AGFD 1996).

Ranidae Rana chiricahuensis 1070-2410c Historic records for San Pedro River 

Chiricahua leopard frog just east of CORO (AGFD 1996). 

Little suitable habitat on site. LT X

Rana subaquavocalis 5500-5800 Occurs about 16 km (10 mi) north of 

Ramsey Canyon leopard CORO in Ramsey, Tinker, and Brown 

frogd canyons (AGFD 1996); little suitable 

habitat on-site.

Rana catesbeiana 861-2100b Confirmed 3.5 km (2.2 mi) west of 

bullfrog Montezuma Pass by Johnson and 

Lowe (1979). Little suitable habitat 

at CORO.

Reptile Kinosternidae Kinosternon sonoriense 1200-2000b Specimen in UAZ collected 8 km 

Sonoran mud turtle (5 mi) east of CORO. Little suitable 

habitat occurs on-site, but may eventually 

be found, particularly in Yaqui drainage. 

Testudinidae Gopherus agassizii 224-1606a A single record exists for the east side 

desert tortoise of the Huachucas in Miller Canyon 

(<16 km and 10 mi north of CORO; 

AGFD 1996); very unlikely at CORO. SC

Eublepharidae Coleonyx variegatus 0-1485b CORO included in range map of 

western banded gecko Stebbins (1985). We believe this 

species occurs at CORO.

Crotaphytidae Gambelia wislizenii 2970-6930b CORO included in range map of 

longnose leopard lizard Stebbins (1985). Usually found at lower 

elevations. 

Phrynosomatidae Cophosaurus texanus 250-1545b CORO included in range map of 

greater earless lizard Stebbins (1985). We are not sure 

why this species does not occur at 

CORO, but none were observed 

during our study. 

Callisaurus draconoides 1180-1250b CORO included in range map of 

zebratail lizard Stebbins (1985), but generally found 

at lower elevations.

Phrynosomatidae Sceloporus magister 900-1980b CORO included on Stebbins (1985) 

desert spiny lizard range map, but usually found at lower 

elevations than CORO.

Uta stansburiana 0-2750c CORO included on Stebbins (1985) 

side-blotched lizard range map, but usually found at lower 

elevations than CORO.

Phrynosoma cornutum 0-1387b Confirmed near CORO by Johnson 

Texas horned lizard and Lowe (1979). Fairly common in 

San Pedro grasslands, and may 

occur in low numbers. SC X
94

Reptile Phrynosomatidae Phrynosoma modestum 900-2200b CORO is just on the western edge 

round-tailed horned lizard of the range of this species 

(Stebbins 1985). 

Phrynosoma solare 900-2100b CORO included in Stebbins (1985). 

regal horned lizard Usually found at lower elevations; 

not expected at CORO. 

Teiidae Cnemidophorus burti 1321-1387b CORO included in range map of 

canyon spotted whiptail Stebbins (1985), but distribution in 

southern Arizona is spotty. SC X X

Cnemidophorus tigris 900-1675b Occurs in San Pedro Valley at lower 

western whiptail elevations; unlikely to occur on-site.

(tiger whiptail)

Leptotyphlopidae Leptotyphlops humilis 900-1425b Records exist from local area 

western blind snake (AGFD 1996). Johnson and Lowe 

(1979) listed this species as of 

possible occurrence. We believe it 

may eventually be found on-site at 

lower elevations.

Colubridae Senticolis triaspis 0-2200b This species has not been 

green rat snake documented in the Huachucas. 

Johnson and Lowe (1979) believed 

that green rat snakes occurred at 

CORO based on sight records, but 

we believe these were misidentifications. The nearest records are 

from the Nogales area (AGFD 1996). 

Arizona occidentalis 900-2200b Johnson and Lowe (1979) listed this 

western glossy snake species as of possible occurrence; 

CORO is within the range, but it is 

more often found at lower elevations.

Lampropeltis triangulum 1417-1417a Milk snakes are a very elusive and 

milk snake rare grassland species. The habitat 

is suitable but they have not been 

found in the San Pedro Valley. 

Thamnophis eques 1125-1650b Found in area, but generally prefers 

Mexican garter snake larger water sources than occur at 

CORO. SC X

Thamnophis marcianus 1133-1864a Confirmed near CORO by Johnson 

checkered garter snake and Lowe (1979). Common in San 

Pedro grasslands and may occur 

on-site as occasional or in low 

numbers.

Sonora semiannulata 900-1600b Within the range of Stebbins (1985), 

ground snake but usually found at lower elevations. 

Tantilla hobartsmithi 900-1600b CORO is within range of this species 

southwestern blackhead (Stebbins 1985) but it is more common 

snake at lower eleations. 

Tantilla yaquia 1170-1576a CORO is within range of this species 

Yaqui blackhead snake (Stebbins 1985), but the nearest 

specimens are from approximately 

40 km (25 mi) north.

Scientific name Elev. 

Taxon Family Common name (m) Notes ESAd BLMe USFSf
95

Viperidae Sistrurus catenatus 1239-1535a This species occurred historically in 

massasauga the San Pedro grasslands, but is 

now very rare in Arizona. The AGFD

Heritage Database (AGFD 1996) 

contains a 1975 record from Route 92 

less than 9 km (5 mi) north of CORO. 

Crotalus pricei 2012-2788a Records for this species are from Miller 

twin-spotted rattlesnake Canyon and Carr Peak. Some suitable 

habitat exists at CORO and the species 

may occur in low numbers, but we found 

none despite extensive searches. 

Crotalus willardi 1600-2750b Records for this species are from 

ridgenosed rattlesnake Ramsey Canyon, Carr Peak. Generally 

prefers wet canyons and John Porter, 

a local expert, does not believe they 

occur on-site (J. Porter, personal 

communication). X

a Arizona Game and Fish Department (1996) for Cochise County.

b Degenhardt et al. (1996) for New Mexico.

c Stebbins (1985).

d ESA = Endangered Species Act: LT = Listed Threatened, SC = Species of Concern (HDMS 2003).

e BLM = Bureau of Land Management: Sensitive species (HDMS 2003).

f

USFS = U.S. Forest Service: Sensitive species (HDMS 2003).

Scientific name Elev. 

Taxon Family Common name (m) Notes ESAd BLMe USFSf
96

Appendix F. Mammal species that might occur at Coronado NM including those believed to be possible by Petryszyn

and Cockrum (1979), E = presently extirpated from Arizona; R = very rare in Arizona, occasional sightings only; U =

status unknown, never confirmed in Arizona.

Order Family Scientific name Common name Status ESAa BLMb USFSc AG&Fd

Insectivora Soricidae Sorex arizonae Arizona shrew SC X X

Chiroptera Mormoopidae Mormoops megalophylla ghost-faced bat

Phyllostomidae Choeronycteris mexicana Mexican long-tongued bat SC X X

Leptonycteris curasoae southern long-nosed bat LE X X

Vespertilionidae Myotis velifer cave myotis SC X

Myotis volans long-legged myotis SC X

Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat

Pipistrellus hesperus western pipistrelle

Eptesicus fuscus big brown bat

Euderma maculatum spotted bat SC X X

Lasiurus borealis eastern red bat

Lasiurus ega southern yellow bat X

Idionycteris phyllotis Allen’s big-eared bat SC X

Antrozous pallidus pallid bat

Molossidae Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian free-tailed bat

Nyctinomops femorosaccus pocketed free-tailed bat X

Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat SC X

Eumops perotis western bonneted bat SC

Carnivora Ursidae Ursus arctos grizzly bear E

Canidae Canis lupus baileyi Mexican gray wolf E LE X X

Vulpes macrotis kit fox

Felidae Panthera onca jaguar R LE X X

Leopardus pardalis ocelot R LE X

Herpailurus yaguarondi jaguarundi U LE X

Rodentia Sciuridae Spermophilus tereticaudus round-tailed ground squirrel

Cynomys ludovicianus black-tailed prairie dog E SC X

Heteromyidae Chaetodipus baileyi Bailey’s pocket mouse

Muridae Reithrodontomys montanus Plains harvest mouse

Peromyscus eremicus cactus mouse SC X

Onychomys leucogaster northern grasshopper mouse

Neotoma mexicana Mexican woodrat SC

Erethizontidae Erethizon dorsatum common porcupine

Lagomorpha Leporidae Lepus alleni antelope jackrabbit

Sylvilagus floridanus eastern cottontail a ESA = Endangered Species Act: LE = Listed Endangered, SC = Species of Concern (HDMS 2003).

b BLM = Bureau of Land Management: Sensitive species (HDMS 2003).

c USFS = U.S. Forest Service: Sensitive species (HDMS 2003).

d AZG&F = Arizona Game and Fish Department: Wildlife Species of Concern (HDMS 2003).
97

Appendix G. Incidental reptile and mammal observations collected during bird inventory ,

Coronado NM 2003–2004. 

Taxa Order Family Scientific name Common name

Reptile Squamata Helodermatidae Heloderma suspectum Gila monster

Colubridae Masticophis bilineatus Sonoran whipsnake

Pituophis catenifer gopher snake

Viperidae Crotalus molossus black-tailed rattlesnake

Mammal Didelphimorphia Didelphidae Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum

Carnivora Procyonidae Nasua narica white-nosed coati

Mephitidae Spilogale gracilis western spotted skunk

Canidae Canis latrans coyote

Urocyon cinereoargenteus common gray fox

Rodentia Sciuridae Spermophilus variegatus rock squirrel

Lagomorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail

Artiodactyla Tayassuidae Pecari tajacu collared peccary

Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer
98

Appendix H. List of voucher specimens collected from Coronado NM and located in various collections. See Table 1.1 for

list of collections that were queried for specimens with “Coronado National Memorial” in the location field. See Appendices B, C,

and D for scientific names.

Taxon Scientific name Common name Museuma Collection # Collection date Collector

Amphibian Bufo woodhousii Woodhouse’s toad UK 6084, 6085

NHMLA 88446, 88447

Reptile Crotaphytus collaris eastern collared lizard CAS 16904-11187 10/21/1935 F. N. Blanchard and 

H. K. Gloyd

Holbrookia maculata lesser earless lizard CAS 17128-11407 10/21/1935 F. N. Blanchard and 

H. K. Gloyd

UI 17540 08/23/1950 D. F. Hoffmeister

UM 69785 07/28/1930 H. K. Gloyd

Sceloporus clarkii Clark’s spiny lizard CAS 17167-11446 10/21/1935 F. N. Blanchard and 

H. K. Gloyd

UM 53981 09/01/1919 C. R. Biederman

Sceloporus virgatus striped plateau lizard UM 69911 07/28/1930 H. K. Gloyd

Urosaurus ornatus ornate tree lizard BYU 32441 06/03/1969 J. R. McMorris

UM 69839 07/28/1930 H. K. Gloyd

Eumeces obsoletus Great Plains skink MCZ 29029, 29027

UM 53987 09/01/1919 C. R. Biederman

Elgaria kingii Madrean alligator lizard UM 53988 09/01/1919 C. R. Biederman

Masticophis flagellum coachwhip MCZ 29028

Salvadora hexalepis western patch-nosed snake CAS 8096-12198 10/21/1935 F. N. Blanchard and 

H. K. Gloyd

Crotalus molossus black-tailed rattlesnake UC 40921 07/27/1969 R. L. Holland

Bird Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird UA 12063

Pyrocephalus rubinus vermilion flycatcher UA 17493

Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren UA 17494

Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee UA 17489

UA 17490

Aimophila cassinii Cassin’s sparrow UA 17486

UA 17487

Aimophila ruficeps rufous-crowned sparrow UA 17483

UA 17484

UA 17485

Amphispiza bilineata black-throated sparrow UA 17488

Cardinalis sinuatus pyrrhuloxia UA 17492

Sturnella magna eastern meadowlark UA 17491

Mammal Myotis auriculus southwestern myotis UA 23766, 23767 06/16/1978 Y. Petryszyn

Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis UA 23770 06/16/1978 Y. Petryszyn

Myotis californicus California myotis UA 23768 06/16/1978 Y. Petryszyn

Myotis leibii eastern small-footed myotis UA 23769 06/21/1978 Y. Petryszyn

Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat UA 23756 06/18/1978 Y. Petryszyn

Nasua narica white-nosed coati UA 26614 06/06/1998 T. A. Edwards

Spilogale gracilis western spotted skunk UA 26615 06/06/1998 T. A. Edwards

Conepatus mesoleucus white-backed hog-nosed skunk UA 26616 05/02/1997 D. Swann

Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher UA 23772, 26635 06/18/1978, Y. Petryszyn, D. E. Swann

04/12/1997

Thomomys umbrinus southern pocket gopher UA 23771 06/21/1978 Y. Petryszyn
99

Mammal Chaetodipus penicillatus Sonoran Desert pocket mouse UA 23765 06/16/1978 Y. Petryszyn

Chaetodipus hispidus hispid pocket mouse UA 23755 06/22/1978 Y. Petryszyn

Dipodomys spectabilis banner-tailed kangaroo rat UA 26638 11/10/1996 D. E. Swann

Dipodomys ordii Ord’s kangaroo rat UA 26636 04/11/1997 D. E. Swann

Reithrodontomys megalotis western harvest mouse UA 23760, 26637 06/18/1978, Y. Petryszyn, D. E. Swann

11/25/1997

Reithrodontomys fulvescens fulvous harvest mouse UA 26611 12/16/1996 T. A. Edwards

Peromyscus maniculatus deer mouse UA 23764, 26609, 06/18/1978, M. Courtney, D. Swann

26639 04/17/1997, 

06/18/1977

Peromyscus boylii brush mouse UA 23758, 23759, 06/16/1978, Y. Petryszyn, M. Courtney, 

23761, 23762, 06/18/1978, T. A. Edwards

23763, 26610 12/16/1996

Onychomys torridus southern grasshopper mouse UA 23757 6/22/1978 Y. Petryszyn

Neotoma albigula western white-throated woodrat UA 23773, 23775, 06/16/1978, Y. Petryszyn, 

26613 06/21/1978, T. A. Edwards

10/07/1996

Sigmodon ochrognathus yellow-nosed cotton rat UA 26612 10/06/1996 D. Swann

a BYU = Brigham Young University; CAS = Chicago Academy of Sciences; MCZ = Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University; 

NHMLA = Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County; UA = University of Arizona Collections; UC = University of Colorado Museum; 

UI = University of Illinois, Museum of Natural History; UK = University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History; UM = University of Michigan.

Taxon Scientific name Common name Museuma Collection # Collection date Collector
100

Appendix I. Total number of observations, by transect and VCP survey type, Coronado NM, 2002–2004. Observations

include flyovers and birds seen at unlimited distances from stations. Numbers should not be used as a measure of relative

abundance (see Table 5.3–5.5 for results expressed as relative abundance). See Appendix C for scientific names. 

 Transect type 

 Repeat visit Reconnaissance 

Species Riparian Wash Coronado Peak Crest Trail Level Ranch Ridge Uplands

Gambel’s quail 1

Montezuma quail 1

turkey vulture 49 35 5 4 8 1

Cooper’s hawk 9

zone-tailed hawk 1

red-tailed hawk 3 1

golden eagle 1

American kestrel 1

prairie falcon 2 2 1

white-winged dove 16 20 1 1 1

mourning dove 6 31 1 3 2 2 1

yellow-billed cuckoo 1

greater roadrunner 6 7 2 1 1 1

white-throated swift 76 16 3 6 3

broad-billed hummingbird 1

black-chinned hummingbird 4 3 2

Anna’s hummingbird 4 1

broad-tailed hummingbird 6

rufous hummingbird 2

acorn woodpecker 1

ladder-backed woodpecker 4 8 1 1 1

Arizona woodpecker 10 3

northern flicker 13

western wood-pewee 2 1 1 3

Hammond’s flycatcher 5 4

gray flycatcher 1 2

western flycatcher 2

cordilleran flycatcher 1

black phoebe 1

Say’s phoebe 1 2 1

dusky-capped flycatcher 58 1 1

ash-throated flycatcher 28 54 1 2 1211

sulphur-bellied flycatcher 14

Cassin’s kingbird 10 11 1 2 2

western kingbird 3 5 1

loggerhead shrike 1

Bell’s vireo 1

plumbeous vireo 6 1

Hutton’s vireo 24 1

curve-billed thrasher 2 4

crissal thrasher 1 2 1 2

western scrub-jay 1 1 9 4

Mexican jay 148 53 8 10 4 4

unknown raven 6 19
101

violet-green swallow 3 3 6 15

barn swallow 1

bridled titmouse 42 14 5 3

verdin 18 1 3

bushtit 29 21 5 39 7

white-breasted nuthatch 3 1

cactus wren 11 3 3 2 2

rock wren 1 1

canyon wren 11 2

Bewick’s wren 120 57 1 6 10 2 3 8

house wren 1

ruby-crowned kinglet 10 9

blue-gray gnatcatcher 1 1 2

hermit thrush 3

northern mockingbird 3 2

phainopepla 3

orange-crowned warbler 1

Virginia’s warbler 1

Lucy’s warbler 4 15 1

yellow-rumped warbler 11

black-throated gray warbler 43 1

Townsend’s warbler 1 1

Wilson’s warbler 4

painted redstart 1

hepatic tanager 11 1 1 2

western tanager 5 13 2

green-tailed towhee 3

spotted towhee 39 2 2 7 3

canyon towhee 7 19 2 2 7 5

Cassin’s sparrow 18

Botteri’s sparrow 35

rufous-crowned sparrow 33 22 1 4 2 11 5

chipping sparrow 1 10

lark sparrow 4 1 1

black-throated sparrow 4 1 1 1

dark-eyed junco 1

black-headed grosbeak 24 1 1

blue grosbeak 1 22 2

eastern meadowlark 18 5

western meadowlark 1

brown-headed cowbird 17 10 2 1 1

hooded oriole 2 1

Scott’s oriole 43 14 2 1 4 8 4

house finch 15 16 1 2 1 9 1

lesser goldfinch 2

Number of observations 1011 652 23 70 91 67 79 47

Species richness 64 60 16 24 19 19 22 19

 Transect type 

 Repeat visit Reconnaissance 

Species Riparian Wash Coronado Peak Crest Trail Level Ranch Ridge Uplands
Transect

Station Category Species Mean density

Riparian

1 Subshrub Agave palmeri 32.91

Rhus choriophylla 19.74

Toxicodendron radicans ssp. radicans 6.58

Opuntia engelmannii 6.58

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 19.74

Mimosa grahamii 6.58

Dasylirion wheeleri 32.91

Nolina microcarpa 6.58

Shrub Agave palmeri 70.02

Yucca schottii 35.01

Rhus choriophylla 105.03

Rhus trilobata 17.51

Arctostaphylos pungens 35.01

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 17.51

Dasylirion wheeleri 17.51

Nolina microcarpa 35.01

Pinus cembroides 17.51

Tree Juniperus deppeana 6.95

Quercus arizonica 31.27

Quercus emoryi 24.32

Pinus cembroides 3.48

Platanus wrightii 3.48

Cavity Quercus arizonica 18.38

Quercus emoryi 28.88

Platanus wrightii 5.25

2 Subshrub Agave palmeri 9.61

Yucca schottii 9.61

Rhus choriophylla 38.43

Toxicodendron radicans ssp. radicans 9.61

Baccharis pteronioides 9.61

Baccharis thesioides 9.61

Dalea sp. 9.61

Eysenhardtia orthocarpa 19.22

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 28.82

Mimosa grahamii 9.61

Quercus emoryi 9.61

Dasylirion wheeleri 19.22

Nolina microcarpa 9.61

Shrub Rhus choriophylla 157.09

Baccharis sarothroides 14.28

Arctostaphylos pungens 42.84

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 14.28

Prosopis velutina 14.28

Dasylirion wheeleri 14.28

Nolina microcarpa 14.28

Pinus cembroides 14.28

Tree Juniperus deppeana 4.75

Quercus arizonica 42.74

Quercus emoryi 42.74

Platanus wrightii 4.75

Cavity Quercus arizonica 29.26

Quercus emoryi 23.94

3 Subshrub Agave palmeri 63.66

Baccharis thesioides 63.66

Opuntia spinosior 63.66

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 763.94

Mimosa grahamii 63.66

Dasylirion wheeleri 190.99

Nolina microcarpa 63.66

Shrub Yucca schottii 58.15

Rhus choriophylla 87.23

Rhus trilobata 58.15

Juniperus deppeana 29.08

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 203.54

Quercus emoryi 58.15

Dasylirion wheeleri 58.15

Nolina microcarpa 29.08

Tree Quercus arizonica 27.20

Quercus emoryi 95.19

Quercus oblongifolia 6.80

Pinus cembroides 6.80

Cavity Quercus arizonica 10.15

Quercus emoryi 22.00

Quercus oblongifolia 1.69

4 Subshrub Yucca schottii 22.82

Rhus trilobata 68.47

Baccharis thesioides 159.76

Opuntia spinosior 22.82

Prosopis velutina 22.82

Garrya wrightii 22.82

Dasylirion wheeleri 91.29

Nolina microcarpa 22.82

Pinus cembroides 22.82

Shrub Yucca schottii 72.32

Rhus choriophylla 72.32

Rhus trilobata 72.32

Prosopis velutina 18.08

Quercus arizonica 54.24

Quercus emoryi 36.16

Dasylirion wheeleri 18.08

Nolina microcarpa 18.08

Tree Quercus arizonica 91.38

Quercus emoryi 74.77

102

Appendix J. Summary of vegetation characteristics measured at bird survey stations, Coronado NM, 2004. See Appendix

A for list of common names.

Transect

Station Category Species Mean density
103

Riparian

4 Cavity Juniperus deppeana 3.00

Quercus arizonica 33.01

Quercus emoryi 21.01

Quercus sp. 3.00

5 Subshrub Yucca schottii 15.08

Rhus choriophylla 60.33

Toxicodendron radicans ssp. radicans 30.16

Rhus trilobata 15.08

Baccharis thesioides 15.08

Opuntia spinosior 15.08

Sambucus cerulea 15.08

Juniperus deppeana 15.08

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 75.41

Quercus arizonica 15.08

Dasylirion wheeleri 15.08

Nolina microcarpa 15.08

Shrub Yucca schottii 27.65

Rhus choriophylla 110.59

Rhus trilobata 13.82

Opuntia spinosior 13.82

Arctostaphylos pungens 13.82

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 13.82

Quercus arizonica 13.82

Quercus emoryi 13.82

Dasylirion wheeleri 13.82

Nolina microcarpa 13.82

Pinus cembroides 27.65

Tree Rhus choriophylla 8.68

Juniperus deppeana 17.35

Arbutus arizonica 8.68

Quercus arizonica 78.09

Quercus emoryi 60.74

Cavity Juniperus deppeana 2.09

Arbutus arizonica 2.09

Quercus arizonica 18.83

Quercus emoryi 14.64

Platanus wrightii 2.09

6 Subshrub Yucca schottii 46.29

Rhus choriophylla 30.86

Rhus trilobata 46.29

Baccharis thesioides 15.43

Opuntia spinosior 46.29

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 46.29

Quercus arizonica 15.43

Garrya wrightii 15.43

Dasylirion wheeleri 30.86

Pinus cembroides 15.43

Shrub Rhus choriophylla 170.02

Rhus trilobata 145.73

Opuntia spinosior 24.29

Arctostaphylos pungens 24.29

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 24.29

Quercus arizonica 24.29

Quercus emoryi 24.29

Nolina microcarpa 24.29

Pinus cembroides 24.29

Tree Juniperus deppeana 23.37

Quercus arizonica 151.93

Quercus emoryi 46.75

Quercus hypoleucoides 11.69

Cavity Juniperus deppeana 5.73

Quercus arizonica 17.19

Quercus emoryi 11.46

7 Subshrub Agave palmeri 14.47

Yucca schottii 43.41

Rhus choriophylla 14.47

Baccharis pteronioides 14.47

Opuntia sp. 14.47

Opuntia spinosior 14.47

Arctostaphylos pungens 14.47

Quercus arizonica 43.41

Quercus hypoleucoides 57.88

Dasylirion wheeleri 14.47

Pinus cembroides 43.41

Shrub Yucca schottii 117.44

Rhus choriophylla 88.08

Arctostaphylos pungens 146.79

Quercus emoryi 29.36

Quercus hypoleucoides 58.72

Pinus cembroides 146.79

Tree Juniperus deppeana 9.03

Arbutus arizonica 3.01

Quercus arizonica 24.07

Quercus emoryi 15.04

Quercus hypoleucoides 9.03

Cavity Juniperus deppeana 6.68

Arbutus arizonica 3.34

Quercus arizonica 16.70

Quercus emoryi 16.70

Quercus hypoleucoides 10.02

Pinus cembroides 3.34

8 Subshrub Agave palmeri 11.87

Toxicodendron radicans ssp. radicans 11.87

Rhus trilobata 11.87

Brickellia sp. 59.35

Arctostaphylos pungens 11.87

Transect

Station Category Species Mean density

Transect

Station Category Species Mean density
104

Riparian

8 Subshrub Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 47.48

Quercus arizonica 35.61

Quercus emoryi 11.87

Garrya wrightii 23.74

Dasylirion wheeleri 11.87

Shrub Rhus choriophylla 7.45

Toxicodendron radicans ssp. radicans 7.45

Rhus trilobata 37.24

Brickellia sp. 22.34

Juniperus deppeana 7.45

Arctostaphylos pungens 22.34

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 14.90

Quercus arizonica 7.45

Quercus emoryi 7.45

Juglans major 14.90

Tree Juniperus deppeana 16.18

Arbutus arizonica 5.39

Quercus arizonica 48.53

Juglans major 16.18

Platanus wrightii 16.18

Salix gooddingii 5.39

Cavity Juniperus deppeana 20.03

Arbutus arizonica 6.68

Quercus arizonica 16.69

Quercus sp. 3.34

Juglans major 3.34

Platanus wrightii 13.35

Wash Salix gooddingii 3.34

1 Subshrub Baccharis sarothroides 29.97

Ericameria nauseosa var. nauseosa 2.73

Isocoma tenuisecta 5.45

Opuntia spinosior 2.73

Calliandra eriophylla 2.73

Eysenhardtia orthocarpa 2.73

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 5.45

Sapindus saponaria 2.73

Shrub Agave palmeri 10.14

Baccharis sarothroides 152.08

Ericameria nauseosa var. nauseosa 20.28

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 10.14

Sapindus saponaria 10.14

Tree Chilopsis linearis 8.13

Prosopis velutina 10.83

Quercus emoryi 2.71

Quercus oblongifolia 4.06

Sapindus saponaria 1.35

Cavity Quercus emoryi 4.83

2 Subshrub Agave palmeri 3.20

Baccharis sarothroides 4.27

Opuntia spinosior 3.20

Calliandra eriophylla 7.46

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 2.13

Prosopis velutina 1.07

Shrub Agave palmeri 8.43

Baccharis sarothroides 42.14

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 2.81

Prosopis velutina 2.81

Tree Baccharis sarothroides 0.35

Chilopsis linearis 0.35

Prosopis velutina 2.79

Cavity Quercus arizonica 0.16

Quercus emoryi 1.41

3 Subshrub Agave palmeri 75.13

Baccharis sarothroides 16.10

Calliandra eriophylla 10.73

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 5.37

Shrub Agave palmeri 2.52

Baccharis sarothroides 35.24

Eysenhardtia orthocarpa 10.07

Prosopis velutina 2.52

Tree Chilopsis linearis 2.14

Prosopis velutina 1.84

Quercus emoryi 2.14

Cavity Quercus emoryi 2.72

4 Subshrub Agave palmeri 39.18

Baccharis pteronioides 3.92

Baccharis sarothroides 31.35

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 3.92

Shrub Agave palmeri 7.13

Baccharis sarothroides 60.64

Dasylirion wheeleri 3.57

Tree Prosopis velutina 1.99

Quercus emoryi 1.27

Quercus oblongifolia 0.36

Cavity Quercus emoryi 1.92

Quercus oblongifolia 0.10

5 Subshrub Agave palmeri 122.93

Baccharis pteronioides 49.17

Acacia angustissima 12.29

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 36.88

Quercus emoryi 24.59

Shrub Agave palmeri 45.69

Baccharis sarothroides 57.11

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 11.42

Transect

Station Category Species Mean density

Transect

Station Category Species Mean density
105

Wash

5 Tree Prosopis velutina 2.05

Quercus emoryi 5.33

Quercus oblongifolia 0.82

Cavity Quercus emoryi 2.70

Quercus oblongifolia 0.90

6 Subshrub Agave palmeri 5.53

Baccharis pteronioides 13.83

Baccharis sarothroides 11.06

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 22.12

Prosopis velutina 2.77

Shrub Agave palmeri 2.43

Baccharis sarothroides 26.74

Opuntia spinosior 2.43

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 7.29

Prosopis velutina 7.29

Dasylirion wheeleri 2.43

Tree Prosopis velutina 2.05

Quercus emoryi 5.33

Quercus oblongifolia 0.82

Cavity Quercus emoryi 2.29

Quercus oblongifolia 0.27

7 Subshrub Agave palmeri 2.99

Baccharis sarothroides 3.99

Opuntia spinosior 2.99

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 9.97

Shrub Baccharis sarothroides 4.11

Opuntia spinosior 6.85

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 8.22

Prosopis velutina 1.37

Quercus emoryi 6.85

Tree Prosopis velutina 1.73

Quercus emoryi 14.69

Quercus oblongifolia 0.86

Cavity Quercus emoryi 11.28

Quercus oblongifolia 1.25

8 Subshrub Agave palmeri 4.00

Opuntia spinosior 2.00

Arctostaphylos pungens 8.00

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 16.00

Prosopis velutina 4.00

Quercus emoryi 6.00

Shrub Arctostaphylos pungens 39.78

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera 14.46

Prosopis velutina 7.23

Quercus emoryi 10.85

Tree Rhus choriophylla 2.97

Prosopis velutina 5.93

Quercus emoryi 41.53

Quercus oblongifolia 8.90

Cavity Quercus emoryi 12.98

Quercus oblongifolia 3.25

Transect

Station Category Species Mean density

Transect

Station Category Species Mean density
106

Appendix K. Total number of observations and mean relative abundance (RA) from reconnaissance VCP

surveys, Coronado NM, 2002–2004. Observations included all observations at the stations along the transect; while

the mean relative abundance estimates exclude flyovers and birds observed >75 m from stations. Sample sizes (n)

are the number of stations surveyed. See Appendix C for scientific names.

 Transect-High elevation area 

 Ridge Coronado Peak Crest Trail 

 2004 (n = 7) 2002 (n = 3) 2003 (n = 5) 2004 (n = 5) 

Species Total obs. RA Total obs. RA Total obs. RA RA

turkey vulture 5

American kestrel 1

white-winged dove 1

mourning dove 2 1 0.33 3 0.20

greater roadrunner 1 2 1

white-throated swift 3

ladder-backed woodpecker 1 0.14 1 0.20

western wood-pewee 3 0.29 1 0.20

Say’s phoebe 1 0.14 1 0.20

dusky-capped flycatcher 1 0.33

ash-throated flycatcher 1 1 2 0.20

Cassin’s kingbird 2 1 0.33

Hutton’s vireo 1

curve-billed thrasher 4 0.29 2

crissal thrasher 1

western scrub-jay 4 0.57 1 9 1.00 0.80

Mexican jay 4 0.14

violet-green swallow 15 3 6

bushtit 5 0.20 0.80

cactus wren 2 0.14 3 1.00 3 0.20 0.20

rock wren 1 1

canyon wren 2 0.14

Bewick’s wren 3 0.29 1 0.33 6 0.60

blue-gray gnatcatcher 1

hepatic tanager 2 0.29 1 0.33

western tanager 2 0.40

spotted towhee 3 0.43 2 7 0.80 0.20

canyon towhee 7 0.57 2 0.20

rufous-crowned sparrow 11 1.14 1 0.33 4 0.40 0.40

brown-headed cowbird 1 0.14

Scott’s oriole 8 0.57 2 1

house finch 1 0.14 1 2
107

Appendix K. cont.

 Transect-Grassland area 

 Level Ranch Uplands 

 2004 (n = 5) 2004 (n = 5) 2004 (n = 5) 

Species Total obs. RA Total obs. RA Total obs. RA

turkey vulture 4 8 1

prairie falcon 1

white-winged dove 1 0.20 1

mourning dove 2 0.40 1

greater roadrunner 1

white-throated swift 6 3

black-chinned hummingbird 2 0.40

ladder-backed woodpecker 1 0.20

Say’s phoebe 2 0.40

ash-throated flycatcher 1 0.20 2 0.20 1 0.20

Cassin’s kingbird 2

western kingbird 5 0.80 1 0.20

crissal thrasher 2 0.20

Mexican jay 8 0.80 10 1.60 4

common raven 1

bridled titmouse 5 0.40 3 0.20

verdin 1 3 0.60

bushtit 39 5.00 7 1.40

white-breasted nuthatch 1 0.20

cactus wren 2 0.40

Bewick’s wren 10 1.80 2 0.20 8 1.20

blue-gray gnatcatcher 2 0.40

northern mockingbird 2

Lucy’s warbler 1 0.20

canyon towhee 2 0.20 5 0.20

rufous-crowned sparrow 2 5 0.40

lark sparrow 1 0.20 1

black-throated sparrow 1 0.20 1 0.20

black-headed grosbeak 1

blue grosbeak 2 0.40

eastern meadowlark 5 0.60

brown-headed cowbird 2 0.20 1 0.20

hooded oriole 1 0.20

Scott’s oriole 4 0.40 4 0.20

house finch 1 9 0.80
108

Appendix L. Total number of observations (sum) and mean relative abundance (RA) of birds

observed during the non-breeding season (August–March) by Coronado NM volunteers,

2002–2004. Relative abundance estimates include flyovers and birds observed >100 m from

stations. Sample sizes (n) are the number of stations surveyed. See Appendix C for scientific names. 

 Ranch (n = 25) Grassland (n = 38) 

Species Sum RA Sum RA

Montezuma quail 2 0.05

turkey vulture 1 0.04

northern harrier 3 0.08

red-tailed hawk 4 0.11

American kestrel 1 0.03

prairie falcon 1 0.03

mourning dove 8 0.32 1 0.03

ladder-backed woodpecker 6 0.16

northern flicker 29 1.16 2 0.05

Say’s phoebe 1 0.04 1 0.03

western kingbird 4 0.16

loggerhead shrike 3 0.12 3 0.08

Steller’s jay 1 0.03

curve-billed thrasher 1 0.04 1 0.03

Mexican jay 6 0.24 4 0.11

pinyon Jay 1 0.03

common raven 1 0.04 9 0.24

verdin 5 0.20 1 0.03

bushtit 10 0.26

cactus wren 2 0.08 3 0.08

rock wren 2 0.05

canyon wren

Bewick’s wren 4 0.16 2 0.05

ruby-crowned kinglet 1 0.04

western bluebird 1 0.04

mountain bluebird 2 0.05

American robin 1 0.04

phainopepla 3 0.12

yellow-rumped warbler 1 0.03

green-tailed towhee 1 0.04 1 0.03

canyon towhee 11 0.44 3 0.08

rufous-crowned sparrow 2 0.08 33 0.87

chipping sparrow 9 0.36 8 0.21

Brewer’s sparrow 5 0.20

vesper sparrow 9 0.36 42 1.11

lark sparrow 1 0.04

black-throated sparrow 5 0.13

white-crowned sparrow 1 0.04

pyrrhuloxia 4 0.16

eastern meadowlark 50 1.32

western meadowlark 1 0.04

house finch 17 0.68 1 0.03
109

Appendix M. Total number of observations (sum) and mean relative abundance (RA) of birds

observed during the breeding season (April–July) by Coronado NM volunteers, 2002–2004.

Relative abundance estimates include flyovers and birds observed >75 m from stations. Sample

sizes (n) are the number of stations surveyed. See Appendix C for scientific names. 

 Transect 

 Ranch (n = 50) Upland (n = 13) Grassland (n = 10)

Species Sum RA Sum RA Sum RA

turkey vulture 14 0.28 6 0.60

northern harrier 1 0.02 1 0.10

sharp-shinned hawk 1 0.02

Cooper’s hawk 1 0.02 1 0.10

red-tailed hawk 3 0.06

prairie falcon 1 0.10

white-winged dove 4 0.08 1 0.08

mourning dove 43 0.86 5 0.38 11 1.10

greater roadrunner 1 0.02

common nighthawk 4 0.08

white-throated swift 5 0.10

black-chinned hummingbird 1 0.02

broad-tailed hummingbird 3 0.30

Gila woodpecker 1 0.08

ladder-backed woodpecker 3 0.06 1 0.08

Arizona woodpecker 2 0.04

northern flicker 2 0.04 1 0.10

greater pewee 1 0.02

western wood-pewee 1 0.02

Say’s phoebe 2 0.04 1 0.10

ash-throated flycatcher 13 0.26 3 0.23 2 0.20

brown-crested flycatcher 1 0.02

Cassin’s kingbird 6 0.12 10 0.77

loggerhead shrike 5 0.10

Steller’s jay 1 0.02

curve-billed thrasher 3 0.06

crissal thrasher 1 0.08

Mexican jay 22 0.44 21 1.62 3 0.30

common raven 1 0.02 1 0.10

violet-green swallow 5 0.10

cactus wren 9 0.18 3 0.23 2 0.20

canyon wren 1 0.02 2 0.15

Bewick’s wren 4 0.08 8 0.62 2 0.20

ruby-crowned kinglet 1 0.02 2 0.20

Virginia’s warbler 1 0.02

Wilson’s warbler 1 0.02 1 0.10

green-tailed towhee 1 0.02 1 0.10

spotted towhee 3 0.06

canyon towhee 13 0.26 3 0.30

Cassin’s sparrow 1 0.02
110

rufous-crowned sparrow 9 0.18 5 0.38

chipping sparrow 6 0.12 44 3.38 6 0.60

vesper sparrow 12 0.24 3 0.30

black-throated sparrow 4 0.08 2 0.15 2 0.20

song sparrow 1 0.02

dark-eyed junco 1 0.02

eastern meadowlark 12 0.24 2 0.15 2 0.20

brown-headed cowbird 1 0.02

Scott’s oriole 3 0.06 3 0.23

house finch 27 0.54 7 0.70

lesser goldfinch 1 0.02

 Transect 

 Ranch (n = 50) Upland (n = 13) Grassland (n = 10 

Species Sum RA Sum RA Sum RA
111

Appendix N. Most common species at each transect and season based on data published in Russell and Danforth (1979)

and mean relative abundance (RA) data from Tables 5.3 and 5.4. Relative abundance data from Russell and Danforth was the

number of individuals per transect km. We only summarized data for species that had an average of >1 and >0.6 individuals per

transect km for spring and winter surveys, respectively. For Russell and Danforth’s Riparian transect, we averaged number of

individuals per kilometer of transect for “Lower Wash” and “Woodland” because the two transects run parallel to the riparian area

that we surveyed. Species in bold are those that are not found on the corresponding list of the most common species for that

area. Relative abundance scores cannot be directly compared because of different methods of data collection and analysis. 

 Study 

 Russell and Danforth (1977–1978) UA inventory (2003–2004) 

Transect Season Species RA Species RA

Riparian Breeding Mexican jay 6.2 Bewick’s wren 1.26

Bewick’s wren 4.0 Mexican jay 0.88

bridled titmouse 3.5 dusky-capped flycatcher 0.45

black-throated gray warbler 2.6 black-throated gray warbler 0.45

bushtit 2.6 bridled titmouse 0.42

chipping sparrow 2.4 spotted towhee 0.38

rufous-crowned sparrow 2.1 Scott’s oriole 0.35

ruby-crowned kinglet 2.0 rufous-crowned sparrow 0.27

ash-throated flycatcher 1.5 Hutton’s vireo 0.25

Scott’s oriole 1.5 ash-throated flycatcher 0.23

house finch 1.3 bushtit 0.22

dusky-capped flycatcher 1.3 brown-headed cowbird 0.18

brown-headed cowbird 1.2 black-headed grosbeak 0.15

black-chinned hummingbird 0.6 northern flicker 0.15

acorn woodpecker 0.6 sulphur-bellied flycatcher 0.13

Hammond’s flycatcher 0.6 ruby-crowned kinglet 0.12

Non-breeding chipping sparrow 17.8 Mexican jay 2.33

Mexican jay 4.5 bushtit 1.33

Bewick’s wren 3.7 ruby-crowned kinglet 0.89

dark-eyed junco 3.5 spotted towhee 0.78

bushtit 3.5 chipping sparrow 0.72

ruby-crowned kinglet 3.4 western bluebird 0.67

bridled titmouse 2.6 dark-eyed junco 0.67

eastern bluebird 2.5 Bewick’s wren 0.61

cedar waxwing 0.9 bridled titmouse 0.39

lesser goldfinch 0.5 northern flicker 0.17

rufous-crowned sparrow 0.5 white-breasted nuthatch 0.17

hermit thrush 0.4 hermit thrush 0.17

Hutton’s vireo 0.4 Hutton’s vireo 0.11

spotted towhee 0.4 rufous-crowned sparrow 0.11

Wash Breeding chipping sparrow 5.6 Bewick’s wren 0.82

Mexican jay 5.1 ash-throated flycatcher 0.48

bushtit 3.6 Botteri’s sparrow 0.44

western tanager 3.3 Mexican jay 0.39

ash-throated flycatcher 2.1 rufous-crowned sparrow 0.28

canyon towhee 1.9 verdin 0.26

Bewick’s wren 1.8 canyon towhee 0.24

mourning dove 1.6 mourning dove 0.24

Non-breeding chipping sparrow 75.6 bushtit 2.42

vesper sparrow 5.4 ruby-crowned kinglet 1.17
112

bushtit 5.0 verdin 0.42

canyon towhee 3.8 Mexican jay 0.33

Cassin’s sparrow 2.8 Bewick’s wren 0.25

Mexican jay 2.0 rufous-crowned sparrow 0.25

ruby-crowned kinglet 1.4 northern flicker 0.17

Bewick’s wren 1.1 white-breasted nuthatch 0.17

house finch 1.0 common raven 0.17

pyrrhuloxia 0.8 Say’s phoebe 0.17

 Study 

 Russell and Danforth (1977–1978) UA inventory (2003–2004) 

Transect Season Species RA Species RA
113

Appendix O. Species of terrestrial mammals (exclusive of nocturnal rodents)

confirmed at Coronado NM and number of documented observations, including

photographs by infrared-triggered photography, approximate number of

observations during road transects and time-area constrained search, and number

of observations recorded in CORO sightings database, 1972–1997. 

Number infrared- Number

triggered Number observations, 

Species photographs observations CORO database

desert shrew 0 7

a 0

black bear 27 0 11

common raccoon 4 0 2

white-nosed coati 12 2 357

ringtail 93 0 11

American badger 0 0 1

western spotted skunk 12 1 0

striped skunk 36 4 0

hooded skunk 11 0 3

common hog-nosed skunk 15 1 1

feral dog 1 0 1

coyote 2 3 43

common gray fox 50 12 57

feral cat 0 1 0

mountain lion 5 1 15

bobcat 2 1 20

rock squirrel 8 38 17

Arizona gray squirrel 0 0 10

Botta’s pocket gopher 0 0 0

southern pocket gopher 0 0 0

black-tailed jackrabbit 0 4 43

eastern cottontail 2 0

a 0

desert cottontail 1 81b 25

collared peccary 33 2 84

mule deer 0 0 5

white-tailed deer 0 157 1187

a Includes sightings by staff.

b Some sightings listed as desert cottontail may be eastern cottontail.
Appendix Q. Total number of animals captured during trapping at the Grassland grid, Coronado National Memorial,

November 1997–2003. Species richness is the number of species trapped in a year; accumulated species is the total number of

species trapped since 1997.

Species 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

spotted ground squirrel 1

silky pocket mouse 1 2 1

desert pocket mouse 4 1

hispid pocket mouse 1 4 1421

Ord’s kangaroo rat 9

western harvest mouse 6 7 1 4 10 8 11

fulvous harvest mouse 6 3 8 3283

unknown harvest mouse 2 2

deer mouse 1 3 3 13

unknown deer mouse 1

pygmy mouse 3 3 11 21 19 17 22

southern grasshopper mouse 4 10 10 22 14 6 9

Arizona cotton rat 4 2 8 38 58 10 8

tawny-bellied cotton rat 1521

yellow-nosed cotton rat 3 4 3 7

unknown cotton rat 1 3 2 1

house mouse 1

Total 27 32 45 100 119 68 79

Species Richness 7 6 6 11 10 11 10

Accumulated Species 7 7 7 11 12 13 14

114

Appendix P. Total number of animals captured during trapping on the Joe’ s Canyon grid at Coronado National Memorial,

November 1997–2003. Species richness is the number of species trapped in a year; accumulated species is the total number of

species trapped since 1997. 

Species 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

desert shrew 1

spotted ground squirrel

silky pocket mouse

desert pocket mouse

rock pocket mouse 3 4 3 8 5 8

western harvest mouse 1

fulvous harvest mouse 8 4 10 13 2 11

deer mouse 1 2

white-footed mouse 9 4 25 5323

unknown white-footed mouse 1 2 2 3

brush mouse 6 2 14 23 4 25

pygmy mouse 4 2 3 5 11 1 1

white-throated woodrat 8 9 13 10 12 8 20

yellow-nosed cotton rat 17 3 2 6 8 14

Arizona cotton rat 11 2 3 11

unknown cotton rat 1

Total 52 36 59 53 88 30 87

Species Richness 8 6 9 8977

Accumulated Species 8 10 11 11 12 12 12
This page left intentionally blank.