Historical Changes to Culturally-Impo

Riparian Plants along the Colorado R

a progress report on a pilot study integrating 

and traditional ecological knowledge

Helen Fairley, Sociocultural Program Manager, GC

2016 Annual Reporting Meeting 

Phoenix, Arizona 

January 26, 2016
Linking TEK and western scienc

Project seeks to link traditional ecological knowledge with western science through documenting changes to the abundance and distribution of culturally-important riparian plants of mutual interest to multiple tribes and scientists 
Desired Future Conditions 

 GCDAMP stakeholders have expressed desir

 Native riparian systems that are diverse, healthy, p

self sustaining, and ecologically appropriate 

 Native, self-sustaining riverine wetlands  Riparian vegetation and habitat with appropriate m Habitat for sensitive species  Habitat for neotropical migratory birds, waterfowl,  Healthy, self-sustaining populations of native ripar

(both resident and migratory) 

 A river corridor landscape that matches natural con

closely as possible 

 Attributes of Traditional Cultural Properties and the

culturally appropriate conditions are maintained 
Why this study? 

 Plants have cultural value –- as food, tradition

medicine, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, etc. 

(all are culturally-determined values)

 Dams change riparian plant communities by a

the hydrology, nutrient supply, sediment suppdisturbance regime of the natural system 

 Many existing studies discuss effects of dams 

vegetation but few examine effects to culturallimportant plants (or to TCPs and cultural lands
Why this study? (continued): 

 Cultural values influence why we care about p

and also why and how we study plants 

 Plants contribute value to Traditional Cultural 

so changes in plant communities can affect Talter cultural/historical significance 

 GCMRC vegetation monitoring data driven pri

by biological science questions, not cultural c

 Tribal ethnobotanical inventories and monitor

not well integrated with other GCDAMP studie
Many drivers of vegetation chan

 Regional climate change 

(e.g., drought, frosts) 

 Specific weather events 

(e.g., debris flows) 

 Diseases, pathogens  Non-native invasions  Direct human impacts (e.g., 

trampling, selective removal) 

 Human alteration of natural 

disturbance regime (e.g., fire, 

grazing, dam operations) 
Project Goals: Link TEK (ethnobotan

with western science to answer the following questions: 

 Question 1: How have attributes* 

of culturally-valued riparian plants changed since closure of Glen Canyon Dam? 

• Abundance, distribution, density, diversity, size  Question 2: Have changes in the 

abundance and distribution of culturally-valued plants affected TCPs / cultural values important to GCDAMP Tribes? If so, how? 

RB Stanton Ph

RH Webb Pho
Project 12 Plan 

 Element 12.1 – Data Compilation 

 Workshop to review information sources and 

identify focal species for pilot study 

 Historical imagery analysis  Literature reviews, analyze existing data  Identify changes associated with specific 

culturally-important areas for individual tribes 

 Element 12.2 – Tribal monitoring 

 Second workshop to review Year 1 results; 

discuss applications for tribal monitoring 

 Pilot use of historical photographs & data to 

elicit tribal perspectives on landscape changes 
First Step: Identify subset of pl

for the pilot study (February 201

 Identify valued species 

common to multiple tribes (compare existing ethnobotanical 

inventories

)

 Focus on riparian and 

“beach zone” plants

 Identify species with 

restoration potential
Pilot Study Focal Species 

 Goodding willow (Salix gooddingii)  Cottonwood (Populus fremonti)  Netleaf Hackberry (Celtis reticulata)  Honey Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa)  Coyote willow (Salix exigua)  Seep willow (Baccharis emoryi, B.salicifolia)  Apache plume (Fallugia paradoxa)  Arrow weed (Pluchea sericea)  Common reed (Phragmites australis)  Cattail (Typha sp.)  Horsetail (Equisetum sp.)  Dropseed (Sporobolus sp.)  Indian Rice Grass (Achnatherum hymenoids) 

Tre

S

GrGrPl

 Also Prince’s plume (Stanleya pinnata), Globemallow (Sphaera

and Canyon Grape (Vitis arizonica) 
Potential Sources of Informat

 Published articles and reports (botani

archaeological, etc.) 

 Vegetation monitoring program data  Historical photography: photo matche

RH Webb and others (Stanton -1889/9Birdseye-1923, Weeden-1973, etc.) 

 Historical journals (Clover, Nevills, etc Oral traditions 

Photo Matching 

1. Relocate historical view2. Relocate exact position 

of original photographer 

3. Replicate the view 4. Compare identical views 

at different time periods 

5. Record plant differences 

between the two images 

6. Document differences 

across multiple images 

7. Summarize changes 

throughout river corridor 

Top Image: RB StantoBottom Image: RH We
Limitations of historical image matc

 quality of imagery  ability to identify species  seasonal differences  representativeness obtaining high-quality 

photo matches requires large time investment 

 methods for quantifying 

change difficult to apply (except for large distinctive species, e.g., barrel cactus)

Stanton Photo, 1890 

RH Webb Photo, 201
Progress report 

 128 of 456 existing Stanton images examined  Total of 256 matched pairs analyzed (1889/18

1990s and 1990s with 2010/2011) 

 Base of Glen Canyon Dam to Little Colorado 

(~77 miles = approximately 32% of river corrid

 Noticeable increases in riparian vegetation in 

of matches (1890-1990s and1990s-2010/11) 

 Where riparian change can be reliably seen (n=116

only 7 matches (6%) did not show increase from 1890and only 5 matches (4%) did show increase from 1990

Preliminary Results – Please Do Not Cite
Example of riparian veg increas

1890 199

2011 

River Mile 22 
1890 1992 

2011 

River Mile 96.1 (Schist Camp) 
2011 

1890 19

River Mile Crash Ca
Mile 222 Upstream 

(1890) 
Mile 222 Upstream 

(1991) 
Mile 222 Upstream 

(2010) 
Example: Celtis reticulata 

 Netleaf Hackberry: Traditional food sou

(berries); wood used for utilitarian item

 Appears in 16 of 128 analyzed views (1

 6 photos from 1889/1890 (4.6%)  16 photos from 2010-2011; = 0%  16 photos from 1990-1992; = +7.9% 

 1990s to 2010s: Existing trees continue

grow bigger but few new individuals re

Preliminary Results – Please Do Not Cite 
1889 1

2011 

-12.2 Mile Glen Canyon 
1889 

1992 
Example: Falugia paradoxa 

 Apache Plume: used in some basket-m

also used in cradleboard construction 

 Appears in 21 of 128 analyzed views (1 In 11-13 photos from 1889/1890 (8.5-10 In 18 photos from 1990-1992; 14.1%,  In 21 photos from 2010-2011; = 2.3%  1990s to 2010s: 12 images show no ch

3 show noticeable decrease, 4 show ngrowth (downslope), 2 uncertain. 

 Preliminary Results – Please Do Not Cite 
1889 1991 

River Mile 2.9 2010Cathedral Wash 
Baccharis sp. & Salix exigua 

increase noticeably 1990s-2010s 

1890 

1993 

River Mile 29.1 (Shinumo Wash) 
Journal entries complement pho

“Black willows are beginning to appear along the banks of the afford shade which is very welcome now that there are not higclose to the river to answer the purpose.” Elwyn Blake, Sept. Journal entries and photos from 1923-1940 document at least unrecorded locations of Goodding willow trees between RM ~
Next steps: 

Elicit Cultural Meaning of Chang

Possible methods:  Choice experiments using 

photo comparisons 

 “Which of the paired photos 

do you prefer and why?”

 Semi-structured 

interviews 

 Structured “opinion 

surveys” 

 Focus group discussions Other methods? 
Questions?