0^. fc_
Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit
ARIZONA
SPECIAL REPORT NO. 10 ASSESSMENT OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND ACTIVITIES AT ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT BIOSPHERE RESERVE
Peter S. Bennett, R. Roy Johnson and Michael M. McCarthy
University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721
Western Region
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
San Francisco, Ca. 94102
COOPERATIVE NATIONAL PARK RESOURCES STUDIES UNIT University of Arizona/Tucson - National Park Service
The Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit/University of Arizona (CPSU/UA) was established August 16, 1973. The unit is funded by the National Park Service and reports to the Western Regional Office, San Francisco; it is located on the campus of the University of Arizona and reports also to the Office of the Vice-President for Research. Administrative assistance is provided by the Western Arche- ological and Conservation Center, the School of Renewable Natural Resources, and the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. The unit's professional personnel hold adjunct faculty and/or research associate appointments with the University. The Materials and Ecological Testing Laboratory is maintained at the Western Archeological and Conservation Center, 1415 N. 6th Ave., Tucson, Arizona 85705.
The CPSU/UA provides a multidisciplinary approach to studies in the natural and cultural sciences. Funded projects identified by park management are investigated by National Park Service and university researchers under the coordination of the Unit Leader. Unit members also cooperate with researchers involved in projects funded by non-National Park Service sources in order to obtain scientific information on Park Service lands.
NOTICE: This document contains information of a preliminary nature and was prepared primarily for internal use in the National Park Service. This information is NOT intended for use in open literature prior to publication by the investigators' names unless permission is obtained in writing from the investigators named and from the Unit Leader.
Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit
School of Renewable Natural Resources
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
SPECIAL REPORT NO. 10 ASSESSMENT OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND ACTIVITIES AT ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT BIOSPHERE RESERVE
Peter S. Bennett, R. Roy Johnson and Michael M. McCarthy
July 1990
UNIT PERSONNEL
Dennis B. Fenn, Unit Leader
R. Roy Johnson, Senior Research Ecologist
Peter S. Bennett, Research Ecologist
Michael R. Kunzmann, Research Management Specialist
Katherine L. Hiett, Biological Technician
Joan M. Ford, Administrative Clerk
Gloria J. Maender, Clerk Typist
(602) 670-6885 FTS 762-6885
Note to the Reader:
This document was originally written and compiled in 1984 with support from the NPS - Man and the Biosphere Program. This report contains valuable reference material and is published in its original form because of its significant archival value. Much of what was recommended by this report is currently underway or has recently been completed.
CONTRIBUTORS
PART I: INTRODUCTION
and
PART II: RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS
Coordinators
R. Roy Johnson Michael M. McCarthy Michael R. Kunzmann Lupe P. Hendrickson Kevin F. Noon
Peter S. Bennett Kenneth J. Kingsley Michael H. Hoffman Kathleen Kelly
Contributors
Janice E. Bowers George M. Bradt Bryan T. Brown William H. Buskirk E. L. Cockrum Gerald A. Cole Miguel Equihua Exequiel Ezcurra Alberto Gonzales Wilford Hoy R. Roy Johnson
Charles H. Lowe
Eric Mellink
Robert R. Miller
Gary Nabhan
Kevin F. Noon
Arthur M. Phillips III
Donald F. Post
Karen Reichardt
Thomas R. Van Devender
Peter L. Warren
William Werrill
PART III: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
and
PART IV: SELECTED CITATIONS WITH ABSTRACTS
Technical Editors
Coordinators
Peter S. Bennett Michelle Kaney Kenneth J. Kingsley Michael R. Kunzmann
Bryan T. Brown Lorry Grume t
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/assessmentofscieOObenn
ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT
BIOSPHERE RESERVE:
ASSESSMENT OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND ACTIVITIES
Editors:
Peter S. Bennett and R. Roy Johnson
Principal Investigator:
Michael M. McCarthy, Chairman
Division of Landscape Resources
School of Renewable Natural Resources
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
CONTRIBUTORS
PART I: INTRODUCTION
and
PART II: RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS
Coordinators
R. Roy Johnson Michael M. McCarthy Michael R. Kunzmann Lupe P. Hendrickson Kevin F. Noon
Peter S. Bennett Kenneth J. Kingsley Michael H. Hoffman Kathleen Kelly
Contributors
Janice E. Bowers George M. Bradt Bryan T. Brown William H. Buskirk E. L. Cockrum Gerald A. Cole Miguel Eguihua Exeguiel Ezcurra Alberto Gonzales Wilford Hoy R. Roy Johnson
Charles H. Lowe
Eric Mellink
Robert R. Miller
Gary Nabhan
Kevin F. Noon
Arthur M. Phillips III
Donald F. Post
Karen Reichardt
Thomas R. Van Devender
Peter L. Warren
William Werrill
PART III: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
and
PART IV: SELECTED CITATIONS WITH ABSTRACTS
Technical Editors
Coordinators
Peter S. Bennett Michelle Kaney Kenneth J. Kingsley Michael R. Kunzmann
Bryan T. Brown Lorry Grumet
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page PART I: INTRODUCTION Introduction 3
Quitobaquito Country Chronology, by George M. Bradt .... 11
Chronological Summary of the History of the Area
Now Known as Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
by Peter Warren and Bill Hoy 23
Evaluation of Information, Policies, Monitoring, and
Research Required to Complete Our Understanding of
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
by Michael M. McCarthy 29
PART II: RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS
Aquatic Systems
Quitobaquito - The Springs and the Pool,
by Gerald A. Cole 37
Ethnobiology
Status of Ethnobiological Research in
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
by Gary Nabhan, Karen Reichhardt, and Eric Mellink 43
Fauna
Some Comments Concerning Recent Mammals of
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
by E. L. Cockrum 49
The Birds of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument:
A Summary of Current Knowledge and Research,
by R. Roy Johnson and Bryan T. Brown 57
A 50 Year Summary for the Herpetofauna of Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument, Arizona (1932-1982) ,
by Charles H. Lowe 63
Status of the Classification of the Quitobaquito Pupfish
by Robert R. Miller 75
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
Flora
Research Summary: Flora of Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument,
by Janice E. Bowers 81
Research Summary: Vegetation Change at Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument,
by Janice E. Bowers 83
Vegetation Change at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
by Janice E. Bowers 8 5
Status of the Acuna Cactus (Neolloydia erectocentra var.
acunensis) and the Ajo Rock-daisy (Perityle ajoensis)
in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona,
by Arthur M. Phillips III and William H. Buskirk 133
Geology
Summary of the Status of Geology and Hydrology Research
at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
by William Werrell 137
Paleoecology
The Vegetation and Climate of Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument: The View from the Ice Age,
by Thomas R. Van Devender 14 3
Soils
Summary of Soils Information Available at Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument and Discussion of Future Research Needs,
by Donald F. Post 153
The Arizona-Sonora Connection at ORPI
El Pinacate, Sonora, Mexico: Organ Pipe Cactus' Natural
Counterpart,
by Exequiel Ezcurra, Alberto Gonzalez,
and Miguel Equihua 157
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page PART III: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Selected Bibliography 167
Short Form Citations Stratified by Subject 169
General Works of Interest 169
Climate 169
Geology and Soils 170
Geology 170
Soils 171
Flora 171
History 171
Human Impacts 172
Field Studies 172
Flora Checklists 173
Perennial Species 174
Cacti, General 174
Saguaro 175
Organ Pipe 175
Other Species of Cacti 176
Annual Species 176
Miscellaneous 177
Terrestrial Fauna 177
General Works 177
Invertebrates 178
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
Mollusks 178
Arachnids 178
Insects 178
Ants 178
Bees 178
Butterflies 179
Other Insects 179
Vertebrates 179
Reptiles and Amphibians 179
Birds 179
Mammals 181
Aquatic Systems 182
General Works 182
Ground Water 183
Surface Water 183
Quitobaquito 184
History 186
General Works on History 186
Indians 186
Cattle Grazing 187
Mining 187
Other Disturbances 188
Management Documents 18 8
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page PART IV: SELECTED CITATIONS WITH ABSTRACTS
List of Key Words Used in Abstracts 193
Abstracts 195
Appendix: Participants and Contributors1 Addresses .... 289 Author Index 297
IX
PART I
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
R. Roy Johnson and Peter S. Bennett
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument comprises an area of 517 square miles (330,779 acres) near the geographic center of the Sonoran Desert. Located immediately adjacent to the Mexican Boundary and the state of Sonora, Mexico, the monument provides an international setting, attracting laymen and professionals interested in the cultural and natural history of this fascinating region (see Figure 1) . Providing a unique ecotone between three natural subdivisions of the Sonoran Desert (Steenbergh and Warren 1977) , the monument was established by presidential proclamation in 1937 to preserve the cultural and ecological integrity of its diverse resources. Although Shreve and Wiggins (1964) separate the area into two Sonoran Desert subdivisions (Lower Colorado Valley and Arizona Upland) , relict populations from the Central Gulf Coast subdivision of Mexico can also be found in the monument.
As the monument name indicates, one of the main attractions of the area is the Organ Pipe Cactus (Cereus thurberi). Although found in several states of northwestern Mexico, the only region of the United States where this interesting cactus occurs is in southwestern Arizona (Hastings et al. 1972). In addition to the Organ Pipe Cactus, 28 other species and varieties of cactus occur within monument boundaries, including the only United States population of the Senita Cactus (Cereus schottii) and the rare (and proposed by some as endangered) Acuna Cactus (see chapter in this report by Phillips and Buskirk) . Other plants of interest include the Ajo Rock-Daisy (Perityle ajoensis) , known only from the monument, and several other species whose location in the United States is limited to the monument or, as with the Organ Pipe Cactus, to the monument and adjacent southwestern Arizona (Bowers 1980) .
The monument was proclaimed as the United States Biosphere Reserve for the Sonoran Desert in 1976. Biosphere Reserves are established under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) program as outstanding representatives of selected ecosystems. In 1978, increased protection was provided for the ecological communities in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument when 312,000 acres (95%) of the park were granted wilderness status.
This project was designed to produce a state-of-the-art document providing an up-to-date reference to published and unpublished information regarding the natural resources of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Directed by Michael M. McCarthy and R. Roy Johnson, the project has been aided by a large group of
z O
<
z
O
t— <
z
CO
Z5
I—
u <
u
LU
a.
CL
<
o
C
o
•H
D>
Q) U
C •H
C D O kl
(0
c
-p
c
c o
s
rH <0
c o
•H 4J
(0
z
W
p
â– P U <0 U
0)
a
•H
c
tP O
c
•H
:*
o
x:
W
a
Q)
5- P
•H
cooperators throughout the United States and Mexico. Project products have been divided into four sections:
Part I : introductory material
Part II: an assessment of ORPI natural resources
Part III: a selected bibliography of published scientific references and unpublished manuscripts, reports, etc. , broken down by subject matter
Part IV: an alphabetical list of citations with abstracts.
These documents have been formulated to provide analysis, suggestions, and alternatives to National Park Service researchers and managers, as well as provide information for scientists and laymen who are interested in the cultural and natural history of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.
The Sonoran Desert is the most studied of all the deserts on earth. Thus, considerable effort was necessary to gather as complete a compendium of scientific activities at the monument as possible. This was aided by a large number of cooperators in addition to those who provided scientific papers for the assessment. In addition to co-authoring the "Chronology", Bill Hoy provided much of the historical information for George Bradt â– s lead paper on Quitobaquito. Hal Coss, another former monument staff member, provided valuable information regarding geographic locations and other natural resource information. Former Regional Chief Scientist Dennis Fenn and Gerald Witucki, former Chief of the Division of Water Resources, provided aid from the Western Regional Office in San Francisco. Locally, NPS Research Scientist, A. Heaton Underhill, made valuable suggestions throughout the project. Superintendent Harold Smith, Resource Management specialists Bob Hall (now at Saguaro National Monument) and Bill Mikus, and Ranger Paul Thompson provided assistance from the monument. All helped to make this one of the most enjoyable park projects in which we have been involved.
One of the wildest, most fascinating regions of North America is located in Mexico immediately south of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (directly west of the monument) . The region is comprised of two distinct sections, El Pinacate and El Gran Desierto (see Figure 2) . Because of the similarities, between much of the natural history of Organ Pipe and these Mexican volcanic (Pinacate) and dune (Gran Desierto) areas, we felt that a cooperative effort with our Mexican counterparts was in order. The assistance from our Mexican friends was extremely valuable. Fernando Lizarraga, Superintendent, and Veronica Cos De Lizarraga, El Parque Pinacate, aided with deliberations regarding research and management strategies. Maria Pia Gallina, Direccion General de
VD
Reservas y Areas de Recreacion, Mexico City, and staff members of the Instituto de Ecologia met with us to discuss mutual problems of management and research in natural areas in the Sonoran Desert. Particularly helpful was Exequiel Ezcurra, Assistant Director at that time of the Instituto de Ecologia, Mexico City, senior author of the outstanding chapter on El Pinacate, Sonora Mexico in this report.
Most of the scientific reports written for this project were by scientists who are outstanding, both professionally and academically. Several of these authorities deserve special mention. E. L. Cockrum (retired) , former Head of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona, is the author of several books, including a nationally used mammalogy text. Gerald Cole, also an author of a nationally recognized textbook, on limnology, is Professor Emeritus, Arizona State University. Charles Lowe, the dean of Arizona ecologists, is the originator of the widely used Brown, Lowe, and Pase vegetation classification system. Robert Miller is the recognized authority on pupfish (Cyprinodon) as well as other North American desert fishes. We mention these four scientists especially, not because their chapters are necessarily more or less significant than many of the other chapters in this volume, but because of their long-term commitment to and outstanding interest in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. These scientists are all nationally recognized, even internationally recognized, and yet they contributed days of their time helping project coordinators better understand the monument and the importance of its natural resources. Most of them had worked in the monument for the past four decades. In addition to providing great insight into ecological processes at work in this section of the Sonoran Desert, they also had some very helpful suggestions regarding management alternatives aimed at protecting natural resources and providing a better experience for the monument visitor. Others providing helpful information included scientists such as Wendell Minckley, Arizona State University, an outstanding expert on desert fishes, and W. F. "Scotti" Steenberg, National Park Service research ecologist (retired) , an internationally recognized expert on columnar cacti, especially the Saguaro. William Gregg, MAB coordinator for the National Park Service and a Director of the MAB-8 (Biosphere Reserves) program for the United States, deserves much of the credit for this assessment. He served as the Washington liaison throughout the project, providing funding and helpful suggestions. Gregg, like so many of the rest of us, considers Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument a truly unique spot on the planet earth.
This volume contains references and abstracts which provide the necessary information to allow managers, administrators, researchers, other professionals, park visitors, and laymen to develop a clearer understanding and greater appreciation primarily of the natural resources contained within Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument, and secondarily of adjacent geographic areas with similar floras, faunas, and other natural characteristics. Thus, in preparation of this bibliography we reviewed the literature for an area of approximately 14,000 square miles (35,000 sq. km.), or an area approximately the size of Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island combined. This area, which we termed the "Organ Pipe Region", is located in southwestern Arizona and is bounded on the west by the Lower Colorado River Valley, on the south by the international boundary with Mexico, and on the north by the Gila River at the latitude of its confluence with the Colorado River near Yuma. Further, because of the similarity of northwestern Sonora, Mexico to the region (geology, climate, plants, and animals do not recognize political boundaries) , a large portion of it, encompassing the Pinacate volcanic region and the eastern portion of El Gran Desierto dunes, was also included. These combined areas include portions of the Lower Colorado Valley and Arizona Upland subdivisions of the Sonoran Desert as well as remnant populations of the Gulf Coast subdivision of Shreve and Wiggins (1964), and the Lower Colorado River and Arizona Upland subdivisions of Brown and Lowe's Desertscrub (1980).
The bibliography (Parts III and IV of this report) has been specially designed for quick reference. We have listed the authors alphabetically under more than 40 categories in the first section (the citations under subject headings in this section are incomplete to save space) . Although this approach may be unconventional, it quickly provides needed information (author, paper title, and date published) to aid in the location of abstracts which are listed alphabetically by author in Part IV. Certain references have been excluded from the bibliography even though they contain pertinent records (see Selected Bibliography) . While a few references for 1982 are included in most categories, our references are generally through 1981 only. Additionally, we have generated an author index.
A standard procedure was followed in selecting papers, manuscripts, reports, etc., to be included in the bibliography. Computerized and manual searches were conducted using subject and geographic key words addressing the study area. The computerized searches, conducted by the Cooperative Park Resources Studies Unit staff at the University of Arizona (CPSU/UA) were under the direction of NPS Research Scientist Peter S. Bennett. These efforts resulted in the compilation of a list containing several thousand references to the natural history of the Sonoran Desert. These were prioritized into three categories: Category 1 - specifically referring to the monument; Category 2 - important papers on some feature found in the monument but referring to the monument only peripherally, if at all; and Category 3 - minor papers referring to features found in the monument area or major papers on an aspect of the Sonoran Desert seemingly of no particular consequence to the monument area and therefore not
8
selected for the bibliography. In addition to the computerized search, physical searches were made of the monument library and files, as well as other libraries including that of the Interior Department in Washington, D.C.
After paring the list from the thousands of entries to several hundred titles, the most pertinent works were chosen (Category 1 and selected Category 2 papers) for abstracting. Originals or photocopies of all books, published papers, unpublished reports, etc. were obtained and are on file at the CPSU/UA. The monumental task of perusing several hundred publications, then reading and abstracting the pertinent ones fell to Kenneth Kingsley with minor support from Bryan Brown and Roy Johnson. If you the reader know of a pertinent reference which has been overlooked, please notify us. Be sure to include sufficient information to locate it, as we are continuously updating this bibliography.
The monument has an unusual "personality", fascinating laymen and scientists alike. Most of us who have worked at Organ Pipe have become "victims" of the desert beauty of the Ajo Mountains, Quitobaquito, and the rest of what makes Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument so unique. The high regard held for the monument's unique qualities was perhaps the single most important factor leading to the success of the project. We offer our sincerest gratitude to all who helped to make this assessment a reality.
QUITOBAQUITO COUNTRY CHRONOLOGY George M. Bradt
Quitobaquito1, Quito for short, is a tiny, green oasis in the Arizona desert. Its ancient springs are still today, as in the distant past, a liquid lodestone in a land of drought, luring men and animals to its precious moisture. It lies just north of the international boundary in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and can be easily reached by car from Arizona State Highway 85 running between Lukeville to the south and Ajo to the north.
Think what man has seen from the hill above Quitobaquito: mammoths and jaguars, giant sloths and tapirs roaming long extinct savannas; the ecology changing from moist, cool grassland to hot, dry desert; bighorn and javelina, rattlesnakes and horned toads, hawks and owls and eagles, and the songbirds of today; all the marvelous phenomena of nature from violent volcanic eruptions, fearful lightning storms and cloudbursts to the silent sightings of meteors, comets, eclipses, and rainbows; and the momentous comings and goings of countless men and women for ten thousand vanished years.
Climb the hill at Quitobaquito. Climb over its boulders of weathered granite studded with shining feldspar, through organ pipe and cholla cactus, around brittlebush, mesquite, creosote, and palo verde to its 300 foot summit. There, high above the changing present, contemplate the enduring past -- the enthralling chronology of Quitobaquito Country.
Look to the northeast. There, deep in the Papago Indian Reservation, fifty miles from Quitobaquito, is a great rock overhang that has sheltered human beings for double the duration of all recorded history. It is called Ventana Cave and the story of Ventana is substantially the story of prehistoric Quitobaquito.
Ventana' s first recorded visitors were not men, however, but dire wolves, four-pronged antelope, horses, tapirs, and bison. When the cave was excavated under the direction of Dr. Emil W. Haury their fossilized bones were found in the lowest and oldest deposit, a pinkish conglomerate at least ten thousand years old. Since no definite evidence of man's presence was found in this layer, Ventana Cave, and possibly all of Quitobaquito Country,
1For the etymology of Quitobaquito, see Hoy, Wilton E. 1969. A Quest for the Meaning of Quitobaquito. The Kiva 34(4) : 213-218.
11
must have been the exclusive domain of these and other strange beasts of the late Pleistocene (Haury 1950) .
But the area was not to be theirs forever. Stone knives, projectile points, hammerstones, and scrapers found in association with the bones of extinct mammals in Ventana's second oldest deposit, the volcanic debris layer, show that men had arrived in Quitobaquito Country by 8000 B.C. These were stone age mammoth hunters, the first men to climb Quitobaquito' s hill and look out upon the world as we are doing now.
For the next 2,500 years — a period longer than the difference between Pericles' era to the present, twice the elapsed time between Augustus and the Magna Carta, five times the duration of the Roman Empire, and thirteen times longer than that of Lexington and Concord to Apollo 11 — small bands of these people hunted game and gathered edible plants in the grasslands and along the stream banks of Quitobaquito Country. These people were members of the Llano Culture Complex who occupied the region from 8000 to 5500 B.C.
But even twenty-five centuries must one day end. And the end may have come with what Malcolm Rogers, the archaeologist of the San Dieguitoans living to the west, called the "Long Drought" (Rogers 1966) . This protracted period lasted from 5500 to 2500 B.C. and perhaps saw the complete abandonment of Quitobaquito Country by the large mammals that could not survive such arid times and by the men who could not survive without the animals.
With the end of the Long Drought and the return of a more salubrious climate, men reappeared in Quitobaquito Country. They were members of the Desert Culture Complex and their artifacts were found in Ventana's red sand layer and in the lower portion of the cave's midden deposit. For the next two and one-half thousand years these people continued the basic life pattern they had obtained from the past — hunting the ancestors of modern animals (late Pleistocene mammals having become extinct in Llano times) , gathering wild seeds and berries, making and using stone tools and projectile points, and existing without pottery, houses, agriculture, or any of the other things we consider to be essential today.
Finally, with the advent of years, Anno Domini and the approach of our own era, Quitobaquito Country chronology became somewhat more tangible. The Roman Empire, with its five hundred years of conquest, intrigue, and grandeur, rose and fell. Quitobaquito' s inhabitants began making pottery and later decorating it. Teutons, Huns, Visigoths, Vandals, Bergundians, and Ostrogoths took turns ravaging western Europe. Quitobaquito' s dead were buried in shallow pits covered with piles of rocks. In Europe, Castles and walled cities appeared as the feudal system spread. Quitobaquito 's people built oval, dome-shaped houses a mere nine
12
feet across. Vikings sailed westward, Crusaders marched east. The Hohokam, of puzzling provenance and distinctive culture, appeared on the Gila and their artifacts were soon found at Ventana. The 13 00's arrived, the Hohokam mysteriously vanished, and Quitobaquito Country again belonged to its own, its native population. For a short two centuries the desert became the undisputed home of the descendants of the Llano hunters, the ancestors of the modern Papago (Tohono O'odham) .
Elsewhere, however, cataclysmic events were taking place — events which would soon have profound consequences for Quitobaquito and its environs. Cortez landed on Mexico's east coast in 1519. Within two years the Aztecs had been conquered and within twenty the Spaniards were in control of northwestern Mexico. History had come to Quitobaquito Country.
Now look south from Quitobaquito' s hill. Below is the barbed wire fence and white pylon No. 172 marking the boundary between Mexico and the United States. The paved highway runs 125 miles from Sonoyta to San Luis on the Colorado and then to Mexicali and the coast. Beyond the highway is the usually dry bed of the Sonoyta River, overgrown with tamarisk and arrow-weed. Rising above the river is the Sierra de Los Tanques. To the southeast is the Mexican town of Sonoyta, twelve miles distant. Five miles southwest is a second permanent source of water called El Carrizal or Agua Dulce, more frequently visited by travellers east and west than Quitobaquito itself. This is Quitobaquito Country. Around its rare waterholes lived the pagan Papagos. To it came padres, Jesuit and Franciscan, in search of souls to save. For its minerals and land came Spaniards, Mexicans, and Anglos. And through it passed some of the most memorable and colorful protagonists of southwestern history.
Among the first was Melchior Diaz, one of the notable captains of the Coronado Expedition, who marched westward from Sonoyta in September 1540. He was accompanied by twenty-five Spanish horsemen and a number of Indian guides. His orders, given to him personally by Coronado while both were at Hawikuh in August, were to find Alarcon and his three supply ships somewhere on the coast of Baja. Diaz and his men crossed Quitobaquito Country to the Colorado River where, buried at the base of a blazed tree, they found letters from Alarcon telling of his return to the south. While exploring the area south of modern Mexicali and Calexico, Diaz, who had survived the long, hard trip to Cibola and the fierce fighting for the Zuni pueblos, was wounded accidentally by his own lance. For twenty days his men carried him back the way they had come before he died on January 18, 1541 and was buried in an unknown grave somewhere south of Sonoyta (Bolton 1949, Ives 1959) .
Eusebio Francisco Kino, Father Kino to Arizonans, Jesuit priest, missionary, pioneer, explorer, and map maker, stopped at
13
Quitobaquito, or San Serguio as it was called by the Spaniards, on October 8, 1698. He was on the first of his eight trips through Quitobaquito Country between 1698 and 1706. On different occasions he was accompanied by Captains Manje and Carrasco and by Fathers Salvatierra and Gilg. These expeditions, all but the first via El Carrizal, took him into the lava flows of the Pinacates, across the glaring dunes of the Gulf coast, along the waterless wastes of the border, and to the long-sought confluence of the rivers Gila and Colorado. Among the results of this monumental peregrination was the conversion of over four thousand Indians, proof that Baja was a peninsula and not an island, and the discovery of the vital land passage to California. In 1711, however, Father Kino, age sixty-six, twenty-four years a missionary to the Indians, died and was buried in Magdalena, Sonora, one hundred fifty miles southeast of Quitobaquito (Bolton 1960, Manje 1954) .
Jacobo Sedelmayr, Jesuit priest at Tubutama, traversed Quitobaquito Country late in 1750 on his way to find the Gila and the Colorado. Born in Bavaria in 1703, Sedelmayr entered the Society of Jesus in 1722, arrived in Vera Cruz in 1736, and then went to spend the next sixteen years at his mission at Tubutama in Sonora. When the Jesuits were expelled from Mexico in 1767 by order of Charles III, Sedelmayr was taken to Spain and died there in 1779 (Sedelmayr 1955) .
The quasi peace of Spanish occupation prevailed in Quitobaquito Country until 1751. Then, in late November, the Pimas under their captain general, Luis Cacpicagigua, began a relentless campaign against their conquerors. Missionaries and settlers, even Indian converts, were brutally murdered and their missions and homes looted and burned all the way from Saric to San Xavier. Their depredations even reached remote Sonoyta. On November 22, at Kino's old mission of San Marcelo a dozen miles from Quitobaquito, its thirty-three year old priest, Heinrich Ruhen, was clubbed to death and the mission buildings destroyed. The Pima Uprising was finally crushed, Luis was pardoned, and the Pimas' allegations were presented to the governor. Their complaints, two hundred and twenty years later, have a familiar sound — misuse of their tribal lands, unfair treatment at the hands of their masters, and the employment of non-Indian overseers (Ewing 1945, Ives 1955) .
Padre Francisco Garces, called "the Kino of the Franciscans" by historian Bancroft, crossed Quitobaquito Country to the Gila and back during August and September 1771. In January 1774, Garces and Father Juan Diaz accompanied Juan Bautista de Anza via Sonoyta and El Carrizal to the junction of the Gila and Colorado. Five years later Garces and three other priests were at their missions of Concepcion, across from present day Yuma, and San Pedro y San Pablo, twelve miles down river. There, on July 17, 1781, the Yumas revolted, killed fifty settlers and soldiers,
14
made captives of the women and children, and murdered Padres Diaz, Moreno, Barraneche, and Garces (Bancroft 1962) .
Col. Juan Bautista de Anza, Father Pedro Font, and the Yuma chieftain Salvador Palma traveled through Quitobaquito Country via Sonoyta on their way to Mexico City late in May 1776. Chief Palma spent four months in the capital, had a meeting with Viceroy Bucareli, was baptized in the cathedral, and returned to his home on the Colorado early in 1777. De Anza, after establishing the presidio of San Francisco in 1776, became the governor of New Mexico and died in 1788 (Bolton 1962) .
Lt. Col. Pedro Fages crossed Quitobaquito Country three times in 1781. In October, commanding some two hundred soldiers and Indian allies, he marched from Hermosillo via Gila Bend to the Colorado with orders to rescue the Spaniards held captive by the Yumas after their uprising, to recover the bodies of the four murdered priests, and to punish Chief Palma and his accomplices. Fages ransomed forty-eight women and children and conducted them by way of El Carrizal to Sonoyta. Three weeks later he returned to the Colorado and ransomed the remaining captives. He also located the bodies of the martyred padres. Garces and Barraneche were found buried side by side. Their bodies, along with the bones of Diaz and Moreno, were place in two large chests. Fages again passed along the border through El Carrizal and Quitobaquito Country to Sonoyta where the captives were sent on to freedom in Altar and the chests to Tubutama for burial. In 1793 the remains of the four priests, still in the chests, were sent to Queretaro where they remain to this day (Ives 1966, 1968) .
General Jose Castro, of Mexico's California cavalry, passed through Quitobaquito Country in late August 1846. He and twenty others were on their way to Sonora, having left Los Angeles on August 10th just three days before Commodore Stockton and General Fremont raised the American flag over that city. After the war, Castro returned to California and lived there until his death in 1860 (Bancroft 1886) .
Two other prominent Mexican Generals, Flores and Castro (a cousin of Jose's) crossed Quitobaquito Country out of California and into Sonora in January, 1847 during the final stages of the War with Mexico (Bancroft 1886) .
Members of a band of Indians called Arenenos or Sand Papagos (Hia C-ed O'odham) settled at Quitobaquito about 1850. The entire band probably never numbered more than two hundred. Their territory included the sand dunes of the gulf, the lavas and craters of the Pinacates, and the waterholes along the border. Their depredations against gold seekers bound for California in the 1850' s resulted in the death, capture, or dispersal by Mexicans of most of them. Among the Arenenos who settled at
15
Quitobaquito, however, was Louis Orosco whose descendants have figured prominently in Quitobaquito Country history down to the present. Louis' son, Jose Juan Orosco, lived until 1946. His grandson, Jim Orosco, ran cattle on the Monument until 1957. At that time he was paid $13,000 by the government for its condemnation of his grazing, farming, and squatter's rights (Childs 1954 and n.d., Hoy 1969).
A. B. Gray, in charge of the survey for a possible railroad route along the 32nd Parallel, visited Quitobaquito in May, 1854. Gray was seeking a direct route between the Santa Cruz Valley and Ft. Yuma or at least a shortcut to avoid the great bend of the Gila. With Gray was an ex-Texas Ranger, Peter R. Brady, whose reminiscences add detail and color to Gray's official report. Brady tells of the visit to the Papago village of Quitobaquito on the way to Agua Dulce, the Pinacates, Adair Bay, and the trip to Fort Yuma to complete the reconnaissance.
At the outbreak of the Civil War, Gray was commissioned a captain in the Confederacy but died on April 16, 1862 when his steamer exploded on the Mississippi (Gray 1963) .
Lt. Nathaniel Michler and Don Francisco Jimenez of the American and Mexican boundary survey camped at Quitobaquito in mid-summer, 1855. One year earlier the Gadsden Treaty, which qave the United States all of present-day Arizona south of the Gila, had been proclaimed in effect by Presidents Pierce and Santa Anna. By its terms a joint boundary commission headed by Major W. H. Emory for the United States and Sr. Jose Salazar y Larregui for Mexico was given the responsibility of surveying the border from El Paso to the Colorado River. Lt. Michler and Capt. Jimenez were in charge of the western section of which Quitobaquito was the mid-point. There, "a few feet south of the springs...," they erected Monument No. VIII (the 8th from the initial point on the Colorado) and from which point artist Arthur Schott sketched views of the country east and west along the line. Michler became a brigadier general during the Civil War and lived until 1881 (Emory 1857) .
Louis J. F. Jaeger, ferryman at the Yuma crossing of the Colorado from 1850 to 1877, spent the night of September 29, 1856 at Quitobaquito. He was on his way from Sonora to Yuma with a wagon load of supplies for the fort. Part of an unsigned diary, undoubtedly Jaeger's, describes this trip and another one made the same year into Sonora via Quitobaquito Country for flour, cornmeal, parched corn, raw sugar, and cheeses for the thousands of hungry residents, permanent and transient, of the Yuma crossing. For twenty-seven years Louis Jaeger, or Don Diego as he was known to his contemporaries, ran his ferry service, his store at Yuma, and his wagon trains into California and Sonora. However, when the railroad came and the bridge was built across his river, Don Diego departed the scene he had made his own for
16
so long. He died in Washington, D. C. , in 1892 (Beattie 1928/30, Martin 1954) .
Henry Alexander Crabb and sixty-nine fellow f ilibusterers crossed Quitobaquito Country late in March, 1857, from California on their way to conquer the Mexican state of Sonora. Crabb had plotted with Ignacio Pesqueira to oust Manuel Gandara, governor of Sonora, but Pesqueira managed to defeat Gandara without Crabb' s help and immediately repudiated his former ally. But Crabb and his 69 followers marched on to Caborca where they were attacked by Mexican citizens and soldiers on April 6th and forced to surrender. All but one sixteen year old boy were summarily executed. Twenty other members of the expedition were found and killed. A rescue party of twenty-six from Tucson barely escaped with a loss of four (Forbes 1952) .
Charles Debrille Poston, known as the "Father of Arizona," and Raphael Pumpelly, Harvard professor and mining engineer, traversed Quitobaquito Country together in August, 1861. The two men had been forced to abandon their mines in the Santa Cruz valley by Apaches and Mexicans who felt free to raid and murder with the withdrawal of Union troops at the outbreak of the Civil War. Poston and Pumpelly traveled to Caborca, then north through Santo Domingo "to the last watering place before entering upon the desert" (Quitobaquito?), and on to Yuma and Los Angeles. Poston went to Washington, worked successfully to achieve territorial status for Arizona, but died almost forgotten in Phoenix in 1902. Pumpelly explored Japan, China, and Siberia, revisited Arizona in 1915, drove the old trail he had taken along the border 54 years earlier, and lived until 1934 (Pumpelly 1870, Pumpelly 1918, Wallace 1965).
Various Americans and Mexicans occupied Quitobaquito from the 1860's. The first was Andrew Dorsey. He built the pond and dug the ditches leading from the springs. In the 1870' s Steinfeld and Watterman had a mill and store there. A Lopez family raised goats in the area in the 80* s. Others came and went leaving little evidence of their existence. But to this day, below the pond, hidden by the dense mesquites lining the road to Rincon Springs, old pomegranate and fig trees still grow, flower, and bear fruit to remind the living of Quitobaquito' s long-dead settlers (Hoy 1969) .
Jefferson Davis Milton, son of the Civil War governor of Florida, Texas Ranger at 18, El Paso's one-time Chief of Police, Deputy U.S. Marshall, Wells Fargo messenger, and mounted Customs Inspector, was at Quitobaquito in 1887. His district was the area between Sasabe and Yuma — Sonoyta, Quitobaquito, and the old Caborca-Yuma Trail sometimes called the Camino del Diablo. Twenty years later, in 1907, Milton had a base camp at Quitobaquito while patrolling the border in search of Chinese being smuggled into the United States. In 1930 he was once again
17
at Quitobaquito, but this time in an automobile, an innovation which almost cost him his life when it became stuck in the sand, something his horse had never done. Jeff Milton continued working for the Immigration Service until he was 72. He died in 1947 at the age of 85 (Haley 1948) .
Members of the United States' section of the Second Boundary Commission, surveying the border between 1891 and 1896, erected Monument No. 172 "at the old village of Quitobaquito, and near and south of the valuable springs of that name" in June 1893. They found no traces of Michler's 1855 Monuments VII or VIII. The surveyors did find, however, a camel skeleton not far west of Quitobaquito, and recorded temperatures in the sun at 9:00 a.m. as high as 140 degrees Fahrenheit (Boundary Commission 1898) .
W. J. McGee, noted geologist and anthropologist, author of The Seri Indians, and leader of an ethnologic expedition into northern Sonora, visited Quitobaquito on November 16, 1900. With him was Professor R. H. Forbes, author of Crabb's Filibustering Expedition into Sonora, 1857. At Quitobaquito, "a Papago village with five centuries behind it, and a half dozen native huts within it" they found the entire white population to be Mr. M. G. Levy, "merchant, mine-owner, justice of the peace, and deputy sheriff." Also in evidence were the wheel and mule tracks, tent pegs, half-rusted cans, and empty pickle bottles left by the boundary commission surveyors seven years before (McGee 1901) .
Tom Childs, Jr. , Arizona pioneer, miner, and rancher, was at Quitobaquito in 1904. He had married a Sand Papago woman, Martha Lopez, two years earlier. They eventually had fifteen children. Martha's grandmother, Carmen, is buried at Quitobaquito, and a cousin, Manuela Benito, was born there on October 20, 1898. Tom Childs died on February 5, 1951 at the age of 81 and is buried at his Ten Mile Ranch north of Ajo (VanValkenburgh 1954, Bryant 1970) .
Dr. William T. Hornaday and his expedition to the Pinacates passed through Quitobaquito on November 10, 1907. He found eight houses at the pond, four of them occupied. Tom Childs was living in one and Rube Daniels in another. Both men were married to Sand Papago women. Daniels died in 1926 and is buried in the Ajo Cemetery. The Sand Papago Jose Juan Orosco and his family were also living there at that time. With Hornaday were Dr. D. T. MacDougal, Director of the Carnegie Institution's department of plant research (including the Desert Botanical Laboratory in Tucson) , Godfrey Sykes, also of the Desert Lab and who, as the expedition's geographer, mapped the Pinacate area for the first time, and Jeff Milton, U.S. Inspector of Immigration (Hornaday 1908) .
Carl Lumholtz, noted Norwegian explorer among the primitive tribes of Australia in the 1880 's and among the Indians of
18
Mexico's Sierra Madres in the 90 's, visited Quitobaquito on the day after Christmas, 1909, and twice early in 1910. His notes on the Papago of sixty years ago are to be found in his New Trails in Mexico. Although Lumholtz died in 1922, his guide to Quitobaquito and the desert, Alberto Celaya, lived on in Sonoyta, providing hospitality and help to countless scientists, writers, and friends until his death in 1962.
Quitobaquito' s past ends with Lumholtz. Its chronology since 1910 pertains to the present. Pumpelly did return in 1915 to retrace his 1861 route along the border (Pumpelly 1870) . Kirk Bryan surveyed routes to desert watering places in 1917 (Ezell 1954) . Godfrey Sykes revisited the area in 1925 (Bryan 1925) . Bolton sought out Kino's trail in the 1930 's. Ronald Ives has explored and published on Quitobaquito Country and the Pinacates for four decades. Paul Ezell and Julian Hayden are still concerned with the archaeology of the monument and the Pinacates respectively (Ezell 1954, 1955, Hayden 1967, 1970, 1976). Scientists, naturalists, and tourists innumerable visit Quitobaquito to study the lineal descendants of animals and plants of pre-Kino days. But all this is not yet history. Perhaps, someday it will be. In the meantime, climb the little hill above the ancient springs at Quitobaquito and from its stony summit look down upon ten thousand years of Quitobaquito Country Chronology.
LITERATURE CITED
Bancroft, H. H. 1886. History of California. Vol. V, 1846-1848. San Francisco.
Bancroft, H. H. 1962. History of Arizona and New Mexico. Albuquerque.
Beattie, G. W. , ed. 1928/30. Diary of a ferryman and trader at Fort Yuma, 1855-1857. Annual Publication: Historical Society of Southern California.
Bolton, H. E. 1930. Anza's California expeditions. Vol. 1, An outpost of empire. Berkeley.
Bolton, H. E. 1949. Coronado, knight of pueblos and plains. Albuquerque.
Bolton, H. E. 1960. Rim of Christendom. New York.
Bryan, K. 1925. The Papago country, Arizona. Water Supply Paper No. 449. USGS. Washington, D. C.
Bryant, Dolores Childs. (Mrs. Walter Bryant, Ajo, Arizona) . 1970. Personal Communication. August.
19
Childs, T. 1954. Sketch of the Sand Indians. The Kiva.
Vol. 19, Nos. 2-4. Tucson (as written to Henry F. Dobyns) . Spring.
Childs, T. N.d. History of Quitobaquito. In reference library, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.
Emory, W. H. 1857. Report of the United States and Mexican boundary survey. Vol. I. Washington.
Ewing, R. C. 1945. The Pima uprising of 1751. Greater America, essays in honor of Herbert E. Bolton. Berkeley.
Ezell, P. H. 1954. An archaeological survey of northwestern Papagueria. The Kiva. Vol. 19, Numbers 2-4. Spring.
Ezell, P. H. 1955. The archaeological delineation of a cultural boundary in Papagueria. American Antiquity. Vol 20, No. 4, Part 1. April.
Forbes, R. H. 1952. Crabb's filibustering expedition into Sonora, 1857. Tucson.
Gray, A. B. 1963. The A. B. Gray report, 1854. Edited by L. R. Bailey and including the reminiscences of Peter R. Brady. Los Angeles.
Haley, J. E. 1948. Jeff Milton, a good man with a gun. Norman, Oklahoma.
Haury, E. W. 1950. The stratigraphy and archaeology of Ventana Cave. Tucson.
Hayden, J. D. 1967. A summary prehistory and history of the Sierra Pinacate, Sonora. American Antiquity. Vol. 32, No. 3.
Hayden, J. D. 1970. Of Hohokam origins and other matters. American Antiquity. Vol. 35, No. 1.
Hayden, J. D. 1976. Pre-altithermal archaeology in the Sierra
Pinacate, Sonora, Mexico. American Antiquity. Vol. 41, No. 3.
Hornaday, W. T. 1908. Camp-fires on desert and lava. New York.
Hoy, B. 1969. A chronological history of Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument and its environs. Monument Headquarters. August.
20
Ives, R. L. 1955. Mission San Marcelo del Sonoydag. The Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia. Vol. LXVI, No. 4. December.
Ives, R. L. 1966. Retracing the route of the Fages expedition
of 1781. Arizona and the West. Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring, 1966 and Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer. Tucson.
Ives, R. L. 1968. From Petic to San Gabriel in 1782: the
journal of Don Pedro Fages. The Journal of Arizona History. Vol. 9, No. 4. Tucson. Winter.
Ives, R. L. 1959. The grave of Melchior Diaz: a problem in
historical sleuthing. The Kiva. Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 31-40.
Lumholtz, C. 1912. New trails in Mexico. New York.
Manje, J. M. 1954. Luz de Tierra Incognita. Translated by Harry J. Karnes. Tucson.
Martin, D. D. 1954. Yuma crossing. Albuquerque.
McGee, W. J. 1901. The old Yuma trail. The National Geographic Magazine. March and April.
Pumpelly, R. 1870. Across America and Asia. New York.
Pumpelly, R. 1918. My reminiscences. New York.
Report of the Boundary Commission upon the survey and re-marking of the boundary between the United States and Mexico west of the Rio Grande, 1891-1896. Washington.
Rogers, M. J. 1966. Ancient hunters of the Far West. San Diego.
Sedelmayr, J. 1955. Four original manuscript narratives.
Translated and annotated by Peter Marsden Dunne. Tucson.
Sykes, G. 1927. The Camino del Diablo: with notes on a journey in 1925. The Geographical Review. Vol. XVII.
VanValkenburgh. 1954. Tom Childs of Ten Mile Wash. Desert Magazine. December.
Wallace, A. 1965. Pumpelly' s Arizona. Tucson.
21
CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF THE AREA NOW KNOWN AS ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT
Peter L. Warren and Bill Hoy
9000-1- b.p. Nomadic Indians of the San Dieguito complex roamed here from the coastal areas to the west and south, leaving stone sleeping circles and implements.
9000 b.p. A period of apparent drought lasted from 9000 to 5500 b.p. , during which time very little evidence of human occupation exists.
5500 b.p. Indians of the Amargosa culture moved into the area from the northwest and were probably antecedents of the Arenenos (Sand Papagos) and Papagos. Evidence of agriculture indicates they were relatively sedentary people, like the Papagos.
300 BC Hohokam people from the Gila River traversed the region periodically until 1450 A.D. en route to the Gulf of California for shells and salt.
600 A.D. Ceramic pottery made by Yuman tribes came into use 700 A.D. in the area as a result of trade.
1540 Spaniard Melchior Diaz led the first Caucasians in a
military party through the area to the Colorado River. At that time Arenenos lived primarily to the south and west of the Puerto Blanco and Bates Mountains and the Papagos lived to the east of the Ajo Mountains.
1698 Father Eusebio Francisco Kino, a Jesuit, visited the area and described "good pastures. .. .with their irrigation ditches" along the Sonoyta and Quitobaquito, both of which were important water sources at that time.
1699 Kino visited again en route to the Gila River and brought 36 head of cattle, which increased to 80 in two years, and some goats. At this time the route later known as the "Camino del Diablo" was first used to Yuma.
1700 Kino wrote of more than 1,000 people inhabiting the Sonoyta area at the time that Mission San Marcelo del Sonoydag was established, just east of the present location of Sonoyta.
1706 Kino's last visit to Sonoyta, at which time the mission was prospering with a successful cattle herd.
23
1743 Father Jacob Sedelmayer visited the mission, which had fallen into disrepair by this time.
1751 The mission was burned and Father Ruhen, under whom the mission had prospered, was killed during an uprising of the Pimas and Papagos.
1755 Efforts to re-establish the mission were ruined by a second uprising.
1767 King Charles III expelled Jesuits from Spanish lands.
1771 Fray Francisco Garces, a Franciscan missionary from
San Xavier del Bac, visited Sonoyta, which at the time was an important way-station on the road to California.
1776 Juan Bautista de Anza passed through the area leading immigrants to California where he founded San Francisco, then returned via the Camino del Diablo.
1781 Spanish influence in the area declined rapidly after an expedition led by Lieutenant Colonel Pedro Pages to rescue refugees from a revolt by the Yuma Indians.
1821 Mexico declared its independence from Spain, at which time more prospectors and ranchers began to settle in the area.
1840-43 Relations between Papagos and Mexicans were strained as a result of incursions by ranchers and miners onto Papago lands.
1849 Hundreds of travellers began using the Yuma road en route to the California gold fields. Use of the route reached a peak in the mid-1850s. Sand Papagos harassed and robbed travelers until many of the tribe were killed in an organized campaign.
1850 At this time about 250 acres were under cultivation in the Sonoyta Valley and cattle grazing prospered.
1853 With the Gadsen Purchase, the United States bought land south of the Gila River to the present boundary, including what is now Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.
1854 A. B. Gray conducted a survey for a railroad route through the area; this was the first organized Anglo-American group in the area south of the Gila.
1855 The first U.S. Boundary Survey explored the region; E. E. Dunbar, the first Caucasian settler on monument land, established a trading post at what would later be called Dowling Well.
24
1857 H. A. Crabb, a California senator, undertook an independent campaign of political intervention (filibustering) in Sonora in hopes of acquiring land near the border. He and all but one of his group were killed in Caborca and Sonoyta.
1860 Andrew Dorsey built dams and ditches at Quitobaquito around this time.
1860-65 Settlement of the region halted during the Civil War when Apache raids became more frequent. Settlement by American ranchers and miners accelerated after the war when troops became available for protection. The "Arizona Sentinel" of Yuma launched a publicity campaign in the 1870s for settlement south of the Gila River.
1870 The Victoria Mine, originally named La Americana, was established by Cipriano Ortega.
1879 The "Santo Domingo Mining District," probably including the Lost Cabin, Baker, Milton, Victoria, and Martinez mines, was active, with milling activities likely at Quitobaquito.
1887 The Orosco family, who were Sand Papagos, settle at Quitobaquito.
1891 Heavy rains eroded the Sonoyta Creek streambed causing problems with irrigation. Many families left Sonoyta at that time to settle a few miles west at Santo Domingo. Santo Domingo rivalled Sonoyta in size and importance and was ruled by Cipriano Ortega, who cultivated 300 acres.
1892-94 The border was resurveyed, at which time much
information was gathered about the area, including photographs.
1900 W. J. McGee led an ethnographic and geographical expedition through the area and along the Camino del Diablo. By this time all surviving Sand Papagos had settled at either Sonoyta, Quitobaquito, or Ajo.
1904 Cipriano Ortega died. The Mexican custom office moved from Santo Domingo to Sonoyta; subsequently Santo Domingo declined rapidly in importance.
1907 D. T. McDougal and W. T. Hornaday traveled from Tucson to the Sierra Pinacate, accumulating natural history notes and photographs .
1909 C. Lumholtz, a Norwegian geographer, explored the region seeking information about the Papagos.
25
1910 Activity peaked in the Growler Mining District in the Bates and Growler Mountains. This was the most productive district in the monument area, its accumulated production totalling about 1 million dollars.
1915 Lon Blankenship consolidated water rights in the area and began cattle ranching at Blankenship Well with about 100 head. Followers of Pancho Villa crossed the border to seek refuge in the Ajo Mountains from Mexican authorities. Some Mexican livestock was driven across the border to prevent its confiscation. U.S. troops patrolled west of the Ajos Mountains to prevent these incursions.
1916 Gachado Well was developed.
1917 Kirk Bryan conducted a survey of ground water conditions and geology of the region for the U.S.G.S. Villistas attacked and briefly held Sonoyta. U.S. troops patrolled the Ajos and camped at Alamo Canyon and Quitobaguito.
1918 By this time cattle ranching was widespread in the monument area; Blankenship ran 100 head at Dos Lomitas, W. G. Miller had 600 head at Wall's Well, and Reuben Daniels had 800 head of cattle and a few horses at Bates Well.
1919 Robert Louis Gray, Sr. purchased Blankenship â– s holdings and moved from Benson with four sons, Henry, Jack, Ralph and R. L. , Jr. (Bobby) . They ran 800 head of cattle and a few horses at that time.
1923 President Coolidge declared 40 acres around Quitobaguito to be Public Water Reserve No. 88.
1925 Henry Gray moved into the house in Alamo Canyon.
1929 Two hundred Mexican troops were stationed at Sonoyta during a period of unrest to guard against insurgents. U.S. Army troops camped temporarily at Dowling Well.
1930 Hocker and Bonita wells were developed. President Hoover withdrew a tract of land from the public domain for a U.S. Customs and Immigration Reserve at the site which is now Lukeville.
1931 Idea for Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument first expressed in a letter by Grand Canyon Park naturalist E. D. McKee.
1932 Superintendent R. W. Toll of Yellowstone Park reconnoitered the area for a prospective monument.
26
1935 The Grays acquired rights to Bate's and Daniel's wells, and Henry Gray moved to Bate's Well, where he lived until his death in 1976.
1937 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument was created by presidential proclamation to preserve "...various objects of historic and scientific interest..."
1938 Jose Juan Orosco received permission to graze 100 head of cattle near Quitobaquito, where he had 15 acres under cultivation. Abraham Armenta received patent on a 320-acre homestead where he had made improvements since 1930.
1939 Senator Carl Hayden arranged for Grays to receive $10 per year grazing permit for 550 cows, 25 bulls and 9 horses.
1940 U.S. National Park Service gave permission to the Papagos to run cattle in the southeast corner of the monument east of the Santa Rosa Mountains. U.S. customs station erected at site of Lukeville.
1941 Bill S-260 passed Congress, permitting mining and prospecting in the monument.
1942 Henry Gray acquired grazing privileges for 500 more cows for a fee of $.60 per head, bring the total livestock permitted for the Grays to 1,050 head on the monument. An estimated 1,446 head were on the monument after 227 were sold.
1944 Paving of Highway 85 was completed from Ajo to the border.
1945 Jose Juan Orosco died, survived by his son Jim who stayed at Quitobaquito.
1949 Lukeville was officially named after Frank Luke who bought 69 acres there in 1938 when the post office was established.
1954 Construction of the campground began with additions from time to time for the next nine years. No livestock records were available from 1944-1954.
1957 U.S. Government bought rights to Quitobaquito from Jim Orosco and rights to all patented mining claims in the monument. Ajo Mountain Drive was completed.
1959 New visitor center was dedicated and seven houses were completed in the employee's residence area.
1960-61 Orosco buildings at Quitobaquito and structures at
Growler Mine were destroyed by the National Park Service. The cement bridge across Alamo Wash was built.
27
1962 Robert Louis Gray, Sr. died. The pond at Quitobaquito was drained and excavated. Approximately 1,100 head of livestock were estimated to be on the monument.
1964 Approximately 1,400 to 1,600 cattle were estimated to be on the monument.
1965 Seven hundred and seventy seven cattle were sold from the monument; 1,375 head were estimated to be present.
1969 State Game and Fish Department drained Quitobaquito and removed exotic golden shiners.
1970 Secretary of Interior Udall ended the Grays' grazing rights but they continued to graze in trespass. Through land exchanges the Park Service acquired lands previously owned by A. Armenta at Amenta's Well and Mrs. B. D. Miller near Wall's Well.
1973 Approximately 90 percent of the monument was proposed for wilderness designation.
1976 The 1941 mining law was repealed and mining was, with more strict regulation, permitted. Henry and Bobby Gray died, ending cattle grazing on the monument.
1978 Last of the livestock removed from the monument totalling about 1,800 head of cattle and 50 burros.
28
EVALUATION OF INFORMATION, POLICIES, MONITORING, AND
RESEARCH REQUIRED TO COMPLETE OUR UNDERSTANDING
OF ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT
Michael M. McCarthy
INTRODUCTION
Of the many objectives in this Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (ORPI) Study, perhaps the most important was to evaluate and establish priorities for activities necessary to complete our understanding of the monument. The question was, could knowledgeable scientists, managers, and administrators be brought together to discuss information and activities required to aid monument management and programming, and reach a consensus. It was hypothesized that this consensus would provide different information than that available from individual reports previously prepared by recognized experts. This paper presents the results of the consensus reaching process employed here, a five iteration, modified Delphi analysis.
The agreement between the sampled groups by the fifth iteration was nearly unanimous, and the recommendations produced deserve very serious consideration by managers and program developers at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. It is suggested that this assessment might also serve as a useful set of priorities for other arid/semi-arid areas, if not for a wider range of geographical regions.
The recommendations are presented within the following categories:
1. General Policy.
2. Required Research.
3. Long Term Monitoring Policy.
4. Data Which Should be Collected as Part of a Monitoring Project.
Within each subcategory, specific recommendations are listed in rank order with number 1 being the highest ranking. Methods utilized to reach the recommendations are discussed later in this report.
GENERAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Expand the present Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Biosphere Reserve to include all appropriate adjacent lands. Investigate the applicability of this concept on both sides of the U.S. - Mexican border, particularly for lands contained
29
within the following areas: Luke Air Force Range, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Papago Indian Reservation, the Pinacate-Gran Desierto region in Sonora, and others. Develop a proposal for an International Sonoran Desert Biosphere Reserve.
2. Increase efforts in developing cross-cultural, parallel research activities on both sides of border. Promote bilateral work with Mexico on problems or issues of common interest. Develop institutional and governmental arrangements that facilitate desired bilateral, cooperative research. Where applicable, have all final reports produced in bilingual editions.
3. To improve the flow of information within and between the scientific and managerial communities involved, develop within the proposed expanded OPCNM Biosphere Reserve, a data management system for educational and research-related information. The system should be a bilingual, bicultural, natural resource archival arrangement that serves as a reference point for desert land studies. System flexibility should be sufficient to store a variety of formats including data and photographic records, maps and other geographic information, remote sensing data, etc. Require final reports from all new studies to be done on compatible systems which allow replication and or companion studies by other scientists and managers. Information should be standardized to enable studies of changes over time and cross-cultural monitoring.
4. To provide input on changing priorities for and perspectives of OPCNM and its expanded biosphere reserve, hold, on a regularly scheduled basis (e.g. 5 years), interdisciplinary, international workshops open to all social and natural scientists and managers concerned with the monument and adjacent, related areas. These workshops would serve to review and evaluate current and recent studies, and attempts at implementing recommendations .
5. Establish an interdisciplinary, international advisory council to provide regular assistance to management of the expanded OPCNM Biosphere Reserve. Investigate possibilities of cooperative research with other arid countries, especially collaborative, long-term monitoring of cultural and natural resources in existing biosphere reserves.
RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Identify and evaluate ground water resources in and around the monument, including those of the Sonoyta Valley across the border in Sonora. Determine if land use activities in adjacent areas are affecting water quantity and quality, water table
30
depth, and flow rates at springs within the expanded biosphere reserve.
2. Develop zoned use concepts for the expanded OPCNM biosphere reserve area. Conduct studies to determine zone carrying capacities and identify zones or monument areas that should receive special protection.
3. Identify and evaluate the status of rare and endangered floral and faunal species occurring on the monument. Include ecological, ethnobotanical , and zoological assessments.
4. Determine the historical nature of the monument and of surrounding areas that would be part of the expanded biosphere reserve. A historical baseline, covering the last 10,000 years, should be developed for areas which would be part of the expanded biosphere reserve. A separate chronology, emphasizing the period since technological man, is needed within the monument. This baseline should be a complete time line of cultural and natural resource factors.
5. Determine the rate of change in air quality for the monument region. Included in this assessment would be the presence and impacts of toxic materials, pesticides, trace elements, and acid rain. Visual quality as well as standard measures for point and non-point sources of pollution would also be assessed.
6. Examine the relationship of local Mexican agricultural practices to floral and faunal populations in the entire biosphere reserve. Examine other adjacent land uses to determine their effects on desertification and the relative health of in-place ecosystems.
7. Determine the effects of artificial water sources on wildlife, especially in comparison with natural sources, recognizing the historical record.
8. Assess the recovery of monument lands/ecosystems since the cessation of cattle-dominated grazing. Use the assessment as a planning prototype for other arid regions with historical livestock grazing.
LONG-TERM MONITORING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Develop the institutional arrangements to allow a sustained commitment of 10 to 25 years. Establish permanent monitoring stations and monitoring studies within the monument and outside the park in the expanded biosphere reserve area. Develop bi-national agreements for long term research studies.
31
2. Develop standardized index measures for each of the primary variables to be measured over time. Emphasize only the most important generic variable and the specific indices that offer repeatability, ease of data collection, and economic reality.
3. Prepare annual, short-reports on monitoring studies and incorporate into the overall Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument/Biosphere Reserve information data management system. (See no. 3 under General Policy Recommendations) .
MONITORING PROGRAM DATA NEEDS
A. Atmospheric
1. air quality - primary (carbon monoxides, sulfuroxides, nitrogen dioxides, particulates, oxidants)
2. air quality - secondary (e.g. trace elements, toxic materials, visual quality)
3. precipitation
4 . temperature
B. Cultural
1. intensity of human activity
2. types of human activity
3. land use patterns, activities/agriculture, etc.
4. land use policy of different groups (anglos, Indians, Mexicans, etc.)
C. Fauna
1. rare and endangered species
2. habitats and change over time
3. species composition
4. species diversity
D. Flora
1. community succession and vegetation changes over time
2. rare and endangered species
3. species composition
4. species diversity
32
E. Geology/Geomorphology/Soils
1. depth of surface material
2. slope
3. erosion and erosion rates
4. soil nutrients
F. Water Resources
1. surface and ground water quantity and rates of flow
2. depth to ground water table
3. surface and ground water quality
4. riparian and floodplain delineation
DISCUSSION
The recommendations presented here were derived from a modified Delphi analysis. This technique was first developed by researchers at the RAND corporation for the purpose of achieving a consensus of opinion from informed 'experts1, through multiple iterations of anonymous "voting" on the issues of interest and their rank order. After each iteration, it is possible to calculate percentages of agreement and amount of deviance from the group norm. These results are then presented to the participants to enable them to follow the consensus being developed. The feature of participant anonymity prevents domination of sample groups by strong leaders. Over the past twenty years, Delphi techniques have had repeated success in a variety of applications. It remains one of the best methods for eliciting consensus from knowledgeable participants.
Five different questionnaires were given to experts on Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in three different situations. On May 19, 1982, during a workshop held in Tucson, Arizona, forty-five scientists, managers, and administrators were given three successive questionnaires which increased in the specificity required. The questionnaires were open ended and attempted to note consensus on: (1) the adequacy of information, (2) known and suspected resource problems, (3) activities that should be encouraged or discouraged, and (4) requirements for long term monitoring. After each iteration, the results were summarized and presented verbally to the assembled participants.
A number of researchers have suggested that three iterations produce adequate consensus to draw conclusions from. Our subject matter was so broad however, that it was decided to continue with additional phases of questionnaires.
On August 9, 1982, a letter and questionnaire were mailed to all the participants of the earlier workshop. The letter included preliminary recommendations and conclusions derived from the
33
assessment of the previous questionnaires. This fourth questionnaire divided the recommendations into categories similar to those used in this paper. Participants were asked to agree or disagree with the concepts and priorities given. The response rate was close to 90%.
A second workshop was held on October 26, 1982 with a small, select group of experts to assist in developing the final recommendations. The meeting was begun with the distribution of a page of instructions on the Delphi method and the results from the mailed questionnaire. Recommendations were listed in rank order within categories and information was included on: (a) the percentage of those surveyed who agreed with the ranking, (b) the percentage of individuals who felt the rankings should be lower, and (c) the percentage who felt the rankings should be higher. The second workshop produced no major changes in the conclusions arrived at in previous iterations.
SUMMARY
On the day of the last workshop it was recognized that while a few minor changes were made in the recommendations, the methods used had produced a consensus that few could disagree with. There is no doubt that the interdisciplinary method of assessment used here produced results different from those representing a single disciplinary perspective. Priorities are given for information, policies, monitoring, and research required to complete our understanding of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument .
The fourth conclusion under "General Policy Recommendations" suggests regular workshops of natural and cultural scientists, managers, etc. on a five-year basis to provide input on new priorities/perspectives for the monument. It will be interesting to see how many of the recommendations advanced in this paper have been accomplished, have changed priority or are superceded by different concerns.
34
PART II
RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS
QUITOBAQUITO -- THE SPRINGS AND THE POOL
Gerald A. Cole
The desert oasis called Quitobaquito Spring is a unique part of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Although it has undergone both natural and anthropogenic modification, it deserves further protection and close monitoring for many reasons. It reflects the ground water situation in the region; it is a focal point where animal wanderers and those expanding their geographic ranges can be found; introduced species are easily detected there; and there is a high degree of plant and animal endemism in the system. The biota of the pool and adjacent areas are characteristic of oligohaline waters, and the spring source-pool relationships are almost classic examples of desert-water chemical dynamics. It is a natural classroom for supervised groups, and many problems and opportunities await the more advanced researcher.
The total flow from the various seeps that comprise the source of the impounded Quitobaquito pool seems to fluctuate, but there has been no careful and regular monitoring of it. This may have begun to change with Anderson and Laney ■s 1978 report. Gould's (1938) calculation of 163 liters/minute was almost 32 times the estimate of Cole and Whiteside (1965) for May 1964. The flow in June 1963 was about 19 liters a minute, Gould's early estimate being only about eight times greater. Some of these discrepancies may not be real. It is difficult to determine the exact place selected as a source by various workers, and comparative data, therefore, may not always be valid. This applies also to other physical and chemical data. The temperatures recorded for June 1963 and May 1964 differed by almost 4°C; this may be a reflection of different sampling sites. Water samples taken from the "main source" by A. E. Dammann in late June of 1963 revealed only two thirds the chemical concentration of the late May 1964 collections made by Cole and Whiteside, who analyzed both samples. The latter were forced to collect from a stagnant pool below a seep that might have been Damman's source; the effects of reduced flow and evaporation were obvious in the 1964 water. A standard place for collecting would be very desirable. Anderson and Laney (1978) may have set the stage for this.
Cole and Whiteside (1965) tested the Quitobaquito waters for seven major ions, silica, a few plant nutrients, and some trace minerals. Since then the concentrations of ten other elements have been measured, with the arsenic level being especially noteworthy, (more than 3 mg/liter) . Based on milliequivalents, the waters are the Na-Cl-C03 type, although the more dilute source water has nearly equal amounts of the chloride and
37
carbonate ions. Typical freshwater is the Ca-C03 type. The pool waters at Quitobaquito fall in the same category as those of Pyramid Lake, Nevada (Galat et al. 1981). The deep waters of this large, terminal lake are four times as concentrated and closer to the "typical" Na-Cl type of saline water found in many desert basins. For example, sodium is 161 times the calcium in Pyramid Lake, and chloride is 3.4 times the carbonate ion. In the Quitobaquito pool, sodium is 11 times the calcium, and chloride is only 1.6 times the carbonate (-HC03' converted to C03") . The comparisons between the pool and the source waters are typical. There is evidence for the precipitation of calcite and a halving of the Ca/Mg ratio from source to pool. There are relative enrichments of magnesium (1.5 X), sodium (1.8 X), and chloride (2.6 X). A remarkable feature is the unusually high nitrite-nitrate nitrogen in the source and its 95-99% decrease from the springs to the pool. The reason for this must be associated with plant activity in the influent ditches and/or in the impoundment. Recently the ditches have been replaced in part by a metal pipe. What effect this change will have on nitrogen uptake is not known, but there could be some undesirable results.
In 1964, the shallow ditches leading from the seeps to the pond contained a rich algal and cyanobacterial community, two interesting ostracod crustaceans belonging to the genera Candocypria and Limnocythere , and some physid snails. On a subsequent visit to Quitobaquito, Dwight W. Taylor found a unique hydrobiid snail in the ditches. This is the tiny snail referred to as Father Kino's Tryonia, Tryonia n. sp. , by Landye (1981) in a report to the Office of Endangered Species. The shallow open ditches were a unique part of the Quitobaquito system, and it is hoped that they have not been destroyed completely.
The aquatic macrophytes surrounding the pool have a puzzling history. Hensley (1954) reported a fine stand of Cyperus laevigatus surrounding the pool and stated that Mearns had reported the same during the days of the International Boundary Survey. Cole and Whiteside (1965) found only the halophytic rush, Scirpus olneyi , abundant and saw no Cyperus. Since then, Cyperus (and Typha) have appeared on lists from the spring (Bowers, 1980) . The discrepancies could be due to seasonal variation or man-made modifications of the pool. Monument personnel had dredged the pond and removed much of the emergent aquatic vegetation sometime before the Cole-Whiteside reconnaissance of 1964. Certainly a detailed vegetation map of the pool and spring area should be made to serve as a base for future studies. Perhaps the vegetation outline profile prepared by Stoiber (1972) is adequate for such a base.
Endemism in the flora of Quitobaquito and its environs may be greater than generally suspected. A new variety of the alga Cosmarium garrolense (Kidd and Wade 1965) and a new composite
38
species, Machaer anther a arizonica (Jackson and Johnson 1967) are two such examples.
The vertebrate animals at the margins of the pool are worthy of note. Cole and Whiteside (1965) found the Great-tailed Grackle, Quiscalus mexicanus , at the pool in 1964. It had not been seen during the period 1948-49, when Hensley (1954) studied the birds of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and so the 1964 sighting represented a point in the spread of the species. Furthermore, I saw a lone Heermann's Gull (Larus heermanni) over the pond one day during the late 1970's (reported to monument personnel). That sighting might represent one of no more than three or four documented occurrences of the bird in Arizona.
There is a good population of the Mojave Rattlesnake, Crotalus scutulatus , around the Quitobaquito pool. Surprisingly, they sometimes move through the marginal emergent rushes just above the pool surface, and at other times coil up in the ditch which leads into the pond, most of their bodies submerged.
Within the pond the unique population of Cyprinodon macularius has been studied intensively. Another vertebrate pond inhabitant is the turtle Kinosternon flavescens (Iverson 1978) . Both of these native species have had to contend with introduced competitors; the case of the exotic minnow Notemigonus crysoleucas is well documented, and I have seen a painted turtle, Chrysemys picta, in the pool with the Kinosternon. Incidentally, I once heard a visitor at Quitobaquito pond say, "What a good place to stock bullheads!" The threat remains.
Most of the microcrustaceans of the pool and ditch were determined to species by Cole and Whiteside (1965) . Now, with hindsight's clear vision, it can be stated that the situation was oversimplified. The prevailing view in 1965 was that cosmopolitanism was characteristic of most aquatic microcrustaceans. This has been challenged recently and former ubiquitous species have been divided into many new species (Frey 1982) . The two chydorid cladocerans Cole and Whiteside identified as Alona diaphana King and A. pulchella King actually could be new species; both were described originally from Australian material! The ostracods referable to the genera Candocypria, Cypridopsis, Herpetocypris and Limnocythere invite further study by some expert (as do all the Arizona Ostracoda) ; endemic forms may be in the pool and its influent ditch. The same may be said for the halophilic rotifer, Hexarthra, found in the plankton of the pool.
The bottom fauna of chironomid larvae and tubificids collected in May 1964 seemed to be unusually sparse (Cole and Whiteside, 1965). The standing stock amounted to about 0.624 g/m2 (wet weight) , an extremely low standing stock. The annual benthic production, however, is not known. The gross primary production
39
in the open water of the pond, derived largely from the phytoplankton, was in late May 1964, equivalent to the fixation of one gram of C/m per day. This is low for desert waters, but the marginal emergent macrophytes may contribute most of the primary productivity in the pool.
There seem to be other riddles in the Quitobaquito system. Why are there no calanoid copepods or daphnid cladocerans in the plankton of the pool? Are there really more predaceous insects and their immature stages at the pool margins than should be expected . . or are there fewer herbivores and detritivores than there should be? (Or has the sampling been inadequate?) Whatever the case, the Quitobaquito system is ripe for future biologic, chemical, and physical studies. It is a unique system worthy of study and protection.
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, T. W. and R. L. Laney. 1978. Reconnaissance of ground water conditions in the Quitobaquito Spring and La Abra Plain area, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. USGS Administr. Rep. 20 p.
Bowers, J. E. 1980. Flora of Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument. Jour. Arizona-Nevada Acad. Sci. 15:1-11, 33-47.
Cole, G. A. and M. C. Whiteside. 1965. An ecological
reconnaissance of Quitobaquito Spring, Arizona. Jour. Arizona Acad. Sci. 3:159-163.
Frey, D. G. 1982. Questions concerning cosmopolitanism in Cladocera. Arch. Hydrobiol. 93:484-502.
Galat, D. L. , E. L. Lider, S. Vigg, and S. R. Robertson. 1981. Limnology of a large, deep, North American terminal lake, Pyramid Lake, Nevada. Hydrobiologia 82:281-317.
Gould, C. N. 1938. Geology of Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument. Southwestern Monuments Rep. 4 55. Suppl. for June. Santa Fe, N. M.
Hensley, H. M. 1954. Ecological relations of the breeding bird population of the desert biome of Arizona. Ecol . Monogr. 24:185-207.
Iverson, J. B. 1978. Distributional problems of the genus Kinosternon in the American Southwest. Copeia No. 3:476-479.
Jackson, R. C. and R. R. Johnson. 1967. A new species of Machaeranthera section Psilactis. Rhodora 69:476-480.
40
Kidd, D. E. and W. E. Wade. 1965. Algae of Quitobaquito: a spring fed impoundment in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Southwest. Nat. 10:227-233.
Landye, J. J. 1981. Current status of endangered, threatened and/or rare mollusks of New Mexico and Arizona. Contract Rep., Off. Endangered Species. 3 5 p.
Stoiber, P. E. 1972. Vegetation associated with streams and springs in the Sonoran Desert. Student Rep., Adv. Phys. Geogr. class, Univ. Arizona. 11 p.
41
STATUS OF ETHNOBIOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT
Gary Nabhan, Karen Reichhardt, and Eric Mellink
From brief, surface archaeological surveys in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (ORPI) and of adjacent land toward the Sonoyta River to the south, it is known that native Americans have been using the resources of the Organ Pipe vicinity since prehistoric times (Ezell 1954; Teague 1977). Because the National Park Service mandate includes conservation and education regarding both the natural and cultural heritage of this national monument, it is fitting to consider the status of the area's ethnobiology — where natural resources and their cultural uses intersect.
Ethnobiological data are not merely of interest to anthropologists and environmental educators working in the monument — they may also be pertinent to ecological studies and resource management plans. Since humans have long influenced water resources at monument locations such as Quitobaquito, and have introduced many plants to the monument including figs (Ficus) , pomegranates (Punica) , and dates (Phoenix) , they have indirectly influenced the distribution of other wild plants and animals as well. Additionally, ethnobiological reconnaissance has documented the prescience of certain plants and animals that "pure" biological surveys failed to notice, for example, the presence of both Prosopis velutina and P. glandulosa at Quitobaquito. With these general considerations in mind, let us review documents and published articles which either provide insight into the cultural use of Organ Pipe's biotic resources or open up problem areas requiring further study.
To our knowledge, there have been no archaeobotanical or zooarchaeological analyses of prehistoric or historic site materials excavated from ORPI, other than identification of wooden elements from the historic Quitobaquito Cemetery (Dean, in Bell et al. 1980) . We urge that any future archaeological investigations within the monument include archeobiological analyses (flotation, etc.) in the research plan.
Ethnohistoric documents may provide an abundance of ethnobiological data pertinent to ORPI, if properly interpreted. From the first visit of Padre Eusebio Kino to the Papago camp of San Serguio (Quitobaquito) in October 1698, until the Fages expedition in the 1780 's, there are Spanish journals that describe visits to the area and sporadically comment on wild and cultivated plants used by Papagos in the vicinity of the monument. For Spanish journal passages pertinent to this area, see reviews by Hackenberg (1964), Hoy (1969, 1970), Fontana (1974), Burrus (1971) and Barnes et al. (1981). Many of the
43
primary documents mentioned in these reviews can be viewed on microfiche at the Documentary Relations of the Southwest Project in the Arizona State Museum. These usually provide Spanish or O'odham names for plants and animals which can then be compared and verified with those associated with voucher specimens collected within the last century.
Questions left unanswered by the available documentation include:
(1) Did early Papago improve the springs and farm at Quitobaquito prior to 1800?
(2) Since Kino blessed palm fronds for Palm Sunday, 1701 soon after leaving Quitovac, Sonoyta, and Quitobaquito (Burrus 1971; Ives 1966), could these have been Washingtonia palms taken from one of these sites?
(3) What aquatic and terrestrial animal resources were utilized?
(4) On Kino and Manje's return trip through the area in 1700, they noted at Sonoyta the persistence of cattle that had been given to the indigenous people on a prior trip. Did these livestock continue to graze the area in the decades immediately to follow? Were they tended, or "hunted," as early historic livestock were by Papago elsewhere?
Beginning with the Gold Rush era, Anglo travelers journeying the Camino del Diablo or surveying the border provide us with some detailed accounts of an "improved" Quitobaquito, with a pond, dam, orchard, fields (extending across the present day border) , and a village of varying population. These documents, again, are reviewed by Hackenberg (1964), Hoy (1970) and Bell et al. (1980). Interpretations vary regarding the origin of the improved, dammed pond; some people attribute its construction, as well as the planting of orchards, to Andrew Dorsey in the 1860 's; others attribute it to Papago Jose Juan Orosco around 1890 (Ives 1966) .
Also, certain transient observers assume the subsistence activities of the Sand Papago (Hia Oed O'odham) , well described by Gray (1856), Michler (1854), and Lumholtz (1912), were essentially the same as those of the Papago dwelling at Quitobaquito. It is now clear that at certain times in history, the Sand Papago of the Pinacate lava flows and adjacent dunes (Gran Desierto area) were culturally, linguistically, and ethnobiologically distinct from those at Quitobaquito (Ali Waipia O'odham) who ranged from the Rio Sonoyta and Pinacate region edge to the Gila River; they were also distinct from those at Quitovac, who are related to the Ali Jek, Cuwi Gesk, and Pi' a Oik Tohono O'odham (Dobyns 1954; Thomas 1953). After an 1851
44
epidemic, however, surviving Sand Papago joined other Papago at Quitobaquito, Ajo, Dome, Quitovac, and Caborca.
Lumholtz (1912) provides details of western Papago plant and animal use, as well as a good environmental description of Quitobaquito. Lumholtz (1912) noted that the Hia C-ed O'odham (and other Ali Waipa O'odham?) used to come to Quitobaquito and Santo Domingo to gather mesquite pods and columnar cactus fruit; it is clear that ORPI resources were used by others in addition to permanent residents.
It is the contributions of Thomas Childs, Jr. (1870-1953) from which we learn the most regarding western Papago hunting and fishing techniques, plant uses and names (Dobyns 1954) , Quitobaquito* s resident history (Childs n.d.), and other matters (VanValkenburgh 194 5) . Because he began associating with the Hia C-ed O'odham in the 1880 's, and lived at Quitobaquito with a Papago wife after 1903, his reminiscences are of a quality above those of any passerby.
General surveys of Papago ethnobiology and agriculture have included only minor notes on the presence of Papago fields in the Organ Pipe vicinity (Clotts 1915; Bryan 1925) . They do, however, give detailed accounts of plant and animal uses that were widespread among Papagos, and surely apply to Papagos in Organ Pipe as well (Castetter and Underhill 1935; Castetter and Bell 1942) . In recent years, Papago language surveys have added to our knowledge of the native names for plants and animals that are found in ORPI, (Mathiot 1973; Saxton and Saxton 1969; and in press) , although there frequently are in existence other names or dialect variants that western Papago use which haven't been included in these works.
Although the last Papago habitation of Quitobaquito ended in 1957, grazing in ORPI by Papago livestock continued until the late 1970' s, and Papago harvesting of columnar cactus fruit continues there today. To our knowledge, no one has documented this activity to any extent, nor studied the gathering of other plants (chiltepines, acorns, etc.) in the Ajo Mountains by nearby Papagos .
Recent research sponsored by the Man and the Biosphere program (Consortium for the Study of Man's Relationship with the Global Environment) has focused on comparing present day Quitobaquito with the closest, most analogous spring-fed oasis where Papago ethnobiology can still be studied: Quitovac, Sonora. Through this comparison, historic Papago influences on habitat and biotic diversity have been clarified (Nabhan et al. in press); the respective floras have been compared and descriptions of medicinal, food, and ceremonial uses of plants present at both oases have been made (Nabhan et al. in prep.); a general discussion of the natural history of Northern Piman oases is also
45
being prepared (Rea et al. in prep.)* These discussions, as well as a related essay written prior to the MAB study, (Nabhan 1982) suggest that Papago habitat management encourages plant and bird diversity at oases, and is an important historical environmental factor without which Quitobaquito cannot be understood ecologically. Such studies will hopefully have an influence on future management and interpretation at Quitobaquito, a site of great significance to the western Papago (Bell et al. 1980).
LITERATURE CITED
Barnes, T. C. , T. H. Naylor, and C. W. Polzer. 1981. Nor. New Spain: a research guide. Univ. Ariz. Press. Tucson.
Bell, F. , K. M. Anderson, and Y. G. Stewart. 1980. The
Quitobaquito cemetery and its history. Western
Archaeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service, Tucson, AZ .
Bryan, K. 1925. The Papago country, Arizona. U.S. Geol . Surv. , Water Supply Pap. 499 p.
Burrus, E. 1971. Kino and Manje. Jesuit Historical Institute, St. Louis.
Castetter, E. F. and W. H. Bell. 1942. Pima and Papago agriculture. Univ. New Mex. Press, Albuquerque.
Castetter, E. F. and R. M. Underhill. 1935. The ethnobiology of the Papago Indians. Univ. New Mex. Bull. 275, Biol. Ser. 4.
Childs, T. N.d. A history of Quitobaquito. Unpublished memo, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument file.
Clotts, H. V. 1915. Nomadic Papago surveys and investigations. Manuscript on file, Department of Interior, Los Angeles, and Arizona State Museum, Tucson.
Dobyns, H. F. 1954. A sketch of the Sand Indians (from T. Childs' letters). The Kiva 19 (2-4) : 27-39.
Ezell, P. 1954. An archaeological survey of northwestern Papagueria. The Kiva 19(24)1-26.
Fontana, B. F. 1974. Man in arid lands: the Piman Indians of the Sonoran Desert. In: G. W. Brown, ed., Desert Biology 2:489-528. Academic Press, New York.
Gray, A. B. 1856. Report of Colonel Gray to the Texas Western Railroad Company. Wrighton and Co. Cincinnati.
46
Hackenberg, R. 1964. Aboriginal land use and occupancy of the Papago Indians. Manuscript on file, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.
Hoy, W. E. 1969. A quest for the meaning of Quitobaguito. The Kiva 34(4) :213-218.
Hoy, W. E. 1970. Early settlements on the Sonoyta River: the First Sonoyta, Santo Domingo and Quitobaguito. Manuscript on file, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.
Ives, R. 1966. Kino's exploration at Pinacate. J. Ariz. History 7(2) :59-75.
Lumholtz, C. 1912. New trails in Mexico. Republished 1971 by Rio Grande Press, Glorieta.
Mathiot, M. 1973. A dictionary of Papago usage. Language
Series Monographs 8:2. Indiana University, Bloomington.
Michler, L. 1854. Report of the boundary survey between U.S. and Mexico.
Nabhan, G. P. 1982. The desert smells like rain: a naturalist in Papago Indian country. North Point Press, San Francisco.
Nabhan, G. P., A. M. Rea, K. L. Reichhardt, E. Mellink, and C. F. Hutchinson. In Press. Papago influences on habitat and biotic diversity: Quitovac oasis ethnoecology. Journal of Ethnobiology.
Nabhan, G. P., K. L. Reichhardt and A. M. Rea. In prep. Flora and ethnobotany of Quitovac, Sonora, with reference to Quitobaguito .
Rea, A. M. , G. P. Nabhan, E. Mellink and K. Reichhardt. In prep. Desert oases and northern Piman subsistence (Tentative title) . Environment Southwest.
Saxton, D. F. and L. Saxton. 1969. Dictionary: Papago and Pima to English, English to Papago and Pima. Univ. Ariz. Press, Tucson.
Saxton, D. F. and L. Saxton. In Press. Dictionary: Papago and Pima to English, English to Papago and Pima. Univ. Ariz. Press, Tucson. (Will include many Papago names for plants and animals that we have obtained.)
Teague, L. 1977. Letter report re: archaeological survey and
mapping, Quitobaguito Springs, Organ Pipe National Monument. Manuscript on file, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.
47
Thomas, R. K. 1953. Papago land use west of the Papago Indian reservation, south of the Gila River, and the problem of Sand Papago identity. Manuscript on file, American Indian Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson.
VanValkenburgh, R. F. 1945. Notes on the Sand Papago, as related by Tom Childs. Manuscript on file, Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona.
48
SOME COMMENTS CONCERNING RECENT MAMMALS OF ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT
E. L. Cockrum
As used here, recent probably includes at least the past 10,000 years. However, most of the data that I will present has been accumulated in the past 85 years. As some of the people interested in vegetation will emphasize, this period is two or three centuries after grazing by introduced domestic animals had begun to modify native vegetation.
American Indians visited and lived in the area now known as Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (ORPI) . However, few archaeological studies reporting kitchen midden materials have been made. Thus there is not available any insight as to the larger mammals present.
1540 was the date of the first of several Spanish military (and religious) visits to the general area. A close examination of diaries and other records documenting these visits might provide information on mammals during this period, but this has not yet been done.
Some formal samples of area mammals have been made and are preserved in museums. The earliest appear to have been the 1894 collections of Holzner and Mearns made near the Mexican towns of Sonoyta and Santo Domingo, and in the vicinity of Quitobaquito. These were published in part by Mearns in 1907.
In 1934, collections were made by persons from the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley. In 1937, a few specimens were taken by the U.S. Biological Survey.
In 1939, Lawrence M. Huey of the San Diego Society of Natural History carried out field work that resulted in the first formal attempt to evaluate the vertebrate fauna of ORPI (Huey 194 2) . In his study, Huey listed 31 species and subspecies of mammals occurring within the monument. Since that time some detailed studies have been made of a few species, especially the Mountain Sheep (Coss 1964; Carrico 1969; Douglas 1970), the White-tailed Deer (Henry and Sowls 1980) , the White-throated Wood Rat (Olsen 1970), and the bats (Howell 1980; Cockrum 1981). Some detailed estimates of rodent populations have been done as well (Steenbergh and Warren 1977) .
Table 1 summarizes the history of knowledge of mammal species occurring within the monument.
49
Table 1. History of knowledge of mammal species occurring within Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. The first number represents the number of species actually collected or observed. The second number ( ) represents the "probable" list
SAMPLE SOURCE
ORDER
Huey ORPI
(1942) Checklist (1978)
Cockrum (here in)
Insectivora
Chiroptera Lagomorpha Rodentia Carnivora
15
6+ (3) = 9
15+ (2) =
5+(8) =
17
= 13
13+(7) = 20
16+(8) = 10+(7) =
24
17
Artiodactyla TOTALS
4 31
35+(13) = 48
5
48+(22)
= 70
My students and I are currently trying to provide documentation for species with inadequate records. Our current working list is presented below.
PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST
The following list utilizes the common and scientific names found in the 1979 Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico (Occasional Paper No. 62, The Museum, Texas Tech Univ.).
Order Insectivora: Family Soricidae
1. Desert Shrew: Notiosorex crawfordi
50
Order Chiroptera: Family Phyllostomatidae
2. California Leaf-nosed Bat: Macrotus californicus
3. Long-tongued Bat: Choeronycteris mexicana
4. Sanborn's Long-nosed Bat: Leptonycteris sanborni
Order Chiroptera: Family Vespertilionidae
5. Yuma Myotis: Myotis yumanensis
6. Cave Myotis: Myotis velifer
7. Fringed Myotis: Myotis thysanodes
8. California Myotis: Myotis californicus
9. Small-footed Myotis: Myotis leibii
10. Western Pipistrelle: Pipistrellus hesperus
11. Big Brown Bat: Eptesicus fuscus
12. Red Bat: Lasiurus borealis
13. Hoary Bat: Lasiurus cinereus
14. Southern Yellow Bat: Lasiurus ega
15. Townsend's Big-eared Bat: Plecotus townsendii
16. Pallid Bat: Antrozous pallidus
Order Chiroptera: Family Molossidae
17. Brazilian Free-tailed Bat: Tadarida brasiliensis
18. Pocketed Free-tailed Bat: Tadarida femorosacca
19. Big Free-tailed Bat: Tadarida macrotis
20. Western Mastiff Bat: Eumops perotis
21. Underwood's Mastiff Bat: Eumops underwoodi
Order Lagomorpha: Family Leporidae
22. Desert Cottontail: Sylvilagus andubonii
23. Antelope Jack Rabbit: Lepus alleni
24. Black-tailed Jack Rabbit: Lepus californicus
Order Rodentia: Family Sciuridae
25. Harris' Antelope Squirrel: Ammospermophilus harrisii
26. Rock Squirrel: Spermophilus varieqatus
27. Round-tailed Ground Squirrel: Spermophilus tereticaudus
Order Rodentia: Family Geomyidae
28. Botta's Pocket Gopher: Thomomys bottae
51
Order Rodentia: Family Heteromyidae
29. Little Pocket Mouse: Perognathus longimembris
30. Arizona Pocket Mouse: Perognathus amplus
31. Bailey's Pocket Mouse: Perognathus baileyi
32. Desert Pocket Mouse: Perognathus penicillatus
33. Rock Pocket Mouse: Perognathus intermedius
34. Banner-tailed Kangaroo Rat: Dipodomys spectahilis
35. Desert Kangaroo Rat: Dipodomys deserti
36. Merriam's Kangaroo Rat: Dipodomys merriami
Order Rodentia: Family Cricetidae
37. Western Harvest Mouse: Reithrodontomys megalotis
38. Fulvous Harvest Mouse: Reithrodontomys fulvescens
39. Cactus Mouse: Peromyscus eremicus
40. Merriam's Mouse: Peromyscus merriami
41. Canyon Mouse: Peromyscus crinitus
42. Deer Mouse: Peromyscus maniculatus
43. Brush Mouse: Peromyscus boy Hi
44. Southern Grasshopper Mouse: Onychomys torridus
45. White-throated Woodrat: Neotoma albigula
46. Desert Woodrat: Neotoma lepida
Order Rodentia: Family Muridae
47. House Mouse: Mus musculus
Order Rodentia: Family Erethi zontidae
48. Porcupine: Erethizon dorsatum
Order Carnivora: Family Canidae
49. Coyote: Canis latrans
50. Gray Wolf: Canis lupus
51. Kit Fox: Vulpes macrotis
52. Gray Fox: Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Order Carnivora: Family Ursidae
53. Black Bear: Ursus americanus
54. Grizzly Bear: Ursus arctos
52
Order Carnivora: Family Procyonidae
55. Raccoon: Procyon lotor
56. Ringtail: Bassariscus astutus
57. Coati: Nasua nasua
Order Carnivora: Family Nusteldae
58. Badger: Taxidea taxus
59. Western Spotted Skunk: Spilogale gracilus
60. Striped Skunk: Mephitis mephitis
61. Hooded Skunk: Mephitis macroura
62. Hog-nosed Skunk: Conepatus mesoleucus
Order Carnivora: Family Felidae
63. Mountain Lion: Felis concolor
64. Jaguar: Felis onca
65. Bobcat: Felis rufus
Order Artiodactyla: Family Tayassuidae
66. Collared Peccary: Dicotyles tajacu
Order Artiodactyla: Family Cervidae
67. Mule Deer: Odocoileus hemionus
68. White-tailed Deer: Odocoileus virginianus
Order Artiodactyla: Family Antilocapridae
69. Pronghorn: Antilocapra americana
Order Artiodactyla: Family Bovidae
70. Mountain Sheep: Ovis canadensis
Species listed above for which additional information (e.g. history, status, numbers, distribution) is desirable are as follows:
1. Desert Shrew. One ORPI record. (Barn owl pellets would
yield more data.) 3. Long-tongued Bat. One sight record. 5. Yuma Myotis. No record. W, N, E. Open water feeder.
53
7. Fringed Myotis. No record. Higher elevations.
9. Small-footed Myotis. No record. Higher elevations.
12. Red Bat. No record. N, E, S, W. Tree bat.
14. Southern Yellow Bat. No record. N, E, S, W. Palm trees.
15. Townsend â– s Big-eared Bat. One ORPI record.
19. Big Free-tailed Bat. No record. N, E, S, W. Crevice
roost.
29. Little Pocket Mouse. No record. W, N. Sandy soils.
37. Western Harvest Mouse. No record. N, S, E, W. Grass areas.
38. Fulvous Harvest Mouse. No record. E, S. Riparian.
40. Merriam's Mouse. One USNM record. Quitobaquito.
41. Canyon Mouse. No record. W. Rocks.
42. Deer Mouse. No record. N, S, E, W. Grass.
43. Brush Mouse. No record. N , E. Higher elevations.
47. House Mouse. No record. N, E, S, W.
48. Porcupine. No record. N, E, S, W. 50. Gray Wolf. Ever present?
53. Black Bear. Ever present?
54. Grizzly Bear. Ever present?
55. Raccoon. Two sight records.
60. Striped Skunk. One sight record.
61. Hooded Skunk. No record. E. 64. Jaguar. Ever present?
As far as mammals are concerned, two interrelated management problems exist: (1) Is evolution to continue, along with changing land use, or, should an attempt be made to stop time; and (2) If time is to be "stopped" in the wilderness area, what should the baseline be, pre-cattlegrazing, pre-monument establishment or today? Such decisions will help determine whether mine tunnels (important bat roosts) should be filled and whether man-made water sources should be maintained.
LITERATURE CITED
Carrico, J. W. 1969. Bighorn status at Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions.
Cockrum, E. L. 1981. Bat populations and habitats at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Arizona. Tech. Rpt. No. 7, August. 31 p.
Coss, H. T. 1964. Status of the bighorn sheep in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 8:117-121.
54
Douglas, C. L. N.d. A preliminary census of Desert Bighorn
Sheep in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas. Contrib. No. 8.
Henry, R. S. and L. K. Sowls. 1980. White-tailed Deer of the
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Arizona. Tech. Rpt. No. 6. 85 p.
Howell, D. J. 1980. Adaptive variation in diets of desert bats has implications for evolution of feeding strategies. J. Mamm. 61 (4) : 730-733 . November.
Huey, L. M. 1942. A vertebrate faunal survey of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Trans. San Diego Soc. Natural History 9 (37) : 353-376.
Olsen, R. W. 1970. Secondary habitat selection in the White- throated Woodrat (Neotoma albigula) . Ph.D. Diss. Univ. of Wisconsin.
Steenberg, W. F. and P. L. Warren. 1977. Preliminary ecological investigation of natural community status at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Arizona. Tech. Rpt. No. 3. March. 152 p.
55
THE BIRDS OF ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT: A SUMMARY OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH
R. Roy Johnson and Bryan T. Brown
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument contains one of the highest concentrations of avian species in the Sonoran Desert for an area of its size. Approximately 260 species of birds have been recorded within the 515 mi of the monument. This diversity is due to a combination of factors, including: a relatively large number of habitat types available in the monument; the presence of open, standing water sources which attract migrants; and the monument's proximity to a major migratory route along the Gulf of California, which accounts for the large number of vagrant species recorded.
The composition of the approximately 260 recorded bird species constantly changes on an annual basis, as only 36 species are present year around (permanent residents) . The remaining species are either migratory, occur in winter or summer only, or are vagrant birds. In addition to the permanent residents, the 22 summer residents may breed as well, for a total of 58 probable breeders within monument boundaries. Although it is assumed that the species staying through the summer are breeding, nests for some of these have not been found in the monument. Over 60 species occur as spring and fall migrants, being present for only short periods of time. Another 50 species are vagrants, or those that are far from their normal range and have been seen fewer than five times. The remainder are winter visitors which may also occur during migration.
Our knowledge of the birds of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument has benefited from a number of major ornithological investigations since the monument was established in 1937. The first were by Laurence Huey (1942) . He prepared an annotated checklist of the 145 species encountered during his survey of the vertebrates of the monument, in addition to presenting information on the distribution and ecology of selected birds. Allan Phillips and Warren Pulich (1948) visited the Ajo Range and, with the help of A. J. Van Rossem, reported on the breeding birds. A comprehensive analysis of the breeding birds of the monument, their ecology and general habitat relationships, was provided by Max Hensley (1954) . This major paper outlined in detail the avian communities present in each major habitat type. Data was presented on relative population density, breeding density, species composition, and the availability of food resources. Hensley (1959) later published information on the breeding biology of 16 species, information collected during his field work for the 1954 paper.
57
For 4 5 years, from the establishment of the monument to the present, resident park naturalists and rangers have recorded bird observations which are maintained in a permanent file at monument headquarters. This file provides the majority of information concerning avian occurrence and distribution.
Ornithological investigations since the work of Hensley are limited to notes on distribution and ecology (Cole and Whiteside 1965, Beck et al. 1973, Inouye et al. 1981). An important source of information in the last two decades regarding monument birds is Audubon Field Notes, now published under the title of American Birds. These articles on seasonal bird occurrence, especially in the late 1960*s and early 1970' s, contain many references to the monument, largely due to the efforts of Richard Cunningham, monument naturalist. The annual Audubon Christmas Bird Count reports are also contained in Audubon Field Notes and American Birds. The Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Lukeville Christmas Bird Counts have been conducted every year since 1965. A third, the "Ajo Mountains" count, was conducted only twice and then dropped. These Christmas Counts provide valuable comparative indices on an annual basis for the relative densities of birds wintering at the monument.
The Birds of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (Wilt 1976) is an annotated checklist written for laymen, compiled from ornithological investigations, bird observations, and Audubon Field Notes or American Birds references. Also included was a short description of generalized habitats available to birds and hints on where to find certain birds within the monument. The current field checklist available at the monument is a Checklist of Birds, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 1978) .
The National Breeding Bird Survey, sponsored by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, compares annual breeding bird densities and diversities in a study area along the road between Lukeville and Quitobaquito. Scott Mills performed the survey from 1975 to 1980, with the Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit at the University of Arizona (CPSU/UA) carrying out the survey since 1981.
Current ornithological investigations at the monument are concerned primarily with avian ecology and water sources. Gary Nabhan and others with the Office of Arid Lands Studies (OALS) at the University of Arizona, and Amadeo Rea, San Diego Natural History Museum, have compared the density and diversity of birds at Quitobaquito Springs to that of Quitovac, a sister desert oasis some 30 miles to the south in Sonora, Mexico (Nabhan et al. 1982). Differences in avian use between the areas are compared to different cultural histories and management objectives of each site. The overall use of water sources by birds is the subject of a preliminary study by CPSU/UA scientists. The occurrence,
58
distribution, and ecology of birds at both natural and artificial water sources are being compared in such a way as to indicate the relative importance of each. This information will provide better management alternatives in relation to monument planning and development.
The diversity of habitat types at the monument contributes to the diversity of its birdlife. From almost 5,000 feet at the top of the Ajo Range to approximately 1,000 feet near Hooker Well in the extreme southwest corner of the monument, the variety of landforms includes rugged desert mountain ranges, lush and shaded mountain canyons, gentle bajadas, flat alluvial plains, rolling rocky hills, and large dry stream courses. Vegetation types develop in response to these elevational and topographic changes. A recent vegetation map, produced by Warren et al. (1981) of OALS, indicates the vegetative associations which are available to birds. These vegetation associations have been combined and simplified below to reflect the general habitats controlling the diversity of birdlife.
Ajo Range Woodland-Mixed Shrub: Occurring only in the Ajo Range, this relatively mesic woodland-mixed shrub type is composed of several distinct associations, including: juniper-mixed shrub, oak-mixed shrub, chaparral, and Si mjnondsi a -mixed shrub.
Riparian and Marsh Habitats: Riparian habitat in the monument occurs primarily along dry desert arroyos which support woodlands of mesquite, acacia, and palo verde. Marsh habitats exist in those areas where free standing water is available to support highly water dependent plants, such as cattail and saltgrass. The edge of Quitobaquito pond is the best example of the marsh type, while the woodland of mesquite and cottonwood surrounding the pond is riparian. Riparian areas along dry stream courses may transect all other habitat types and increase their diversity. This is the most productive, yet the most limited in extent, of all the habitats available in the monument.
Creosotebush Type: Restricted primarily to flat alluvial plains, habitats dominated by creosotebush may be monotypic shrublands or mixed creosotebush types interspersed with mesquite, palo verde, and columnar cacti.
Bursage-Palo Verde Type: This is a low shrub habitat intermixed with scattered palo verde, occasional mixed shrubs, and columnar cacti. This and the preceding habitat type comprise approximately three-fourths of the area of the monument.
Brittlebush-Mixed Shrub Types: Bajadas and broken rock outcrops exhibit this vegetation type, a low shrub community with mixed shrubs and columnar cacti.
59
Palo Verde and Organ Pipe Cactus: Resembling an open woodland type, this habitat occurs in rolling hills. Palo verde in open stands is interspersed with organ pipe cactus, other columnar cacti, and mixed shrubs.
Saltbush Type: Characterized by monotypic stands of desert saltbush, this habitat occurs on low, saline, alluvial flats at the southern boundary of the monument.
Low saltbushy shrublands are occasionally interspersed with riparian vegetation along dry arroyos.
The birds of the monument are representative of avian populations in a relatively undisturbed natural area. Nevertheless, natural area status has not insulated the bird community from change, both from within and without. Two exotic species, the starling and house sparrow, have invaded the monument within this century and have begun to breed in areas disturbed by man's activities. The native great-tailed grackle and red-eyed cowbird have expanded their range as well, and now breed in or near the monument. The California condor, formerly a visitor of uncertain status to the region and probably to the monument (although positive documentation is lacking), no longer occurs in Arizona. The establishment of artificial water sources throughout and adjacent to the monument may be affecting the local abundance, ecology, and movement of water dependent desert birds. These primarily include Gambel's quail, mourning and white-winged doves, and house finch. Other birds may be influenced by these artificial water sources as well. Migratory shorebirds that formerly frequented the shore of Quitobaquito pond during migration are no longer present due to management practices which have reduced the extent of open, pond-fringe habitat (G. Nabhan pers. com. , Nabhan et al. 1982).
Monument birds have been relatively well studied for a natural area of its size, but subjects in need of investigation remain. Information on avian distribution and seasonal occurrence is fairly complete and what is needed at present are studies on breeding status, ecology, and habitat relationships, especially those habitats which are highly productive and/or limited in extent. The breeding status of several summer residents and visitors is unknown and documentation of possible breeding is necessary. The excellent works by Hensley (1954) and Wilt (1976) do not provide this information. The ecology of birds within the monument, particularly the ecology and use of water sources and the potential accumulation of pesticide residues from agricultural sources in adjacent Mexico by resident birds, needs to be explored. Knowledge of the extent to which certain key habitats are used by a species or an entire community is an important element in assessing the local dynamics of monument birds as a whole. Studies of these habitats should include primarily: the dry riparian areas along ephemeral stream courses
60
and how these productive habitats may affect the dynamics of adjacent terrestrial avian communities, and the limited area of relatively mesic woodland and chaparral habitats found in the Ajo Range and how breeding and wintering birds utilize them.
In addition, a need exists to incorporate and synthesize all currently available information on birds into satisfactory outlines that are useful to both research scientists and the lay public. The popular account of monument birds by Wilt (1976) needs to be revised or else complemented by a scientific monograph that provides essential academic information and references. The present field checklist of birds (Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 1978) likewise needs to be revised and updated to present a more complete range of information on bird abundance, status, and habitat relationships which would be useful to the lay and scientific communities alike.
LITERATURE CITED
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. 1978. Checklist of birds, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Southwest Parks and Monuments Assn., Globe, Arizona. 4 p.
Beck, B. B. , C. W. Engen, and P. W. Gelfand. 1973. Behavior and activity cycles of Gambel's Quail and raptorial birds at a Sonoran Desert waterhole. Condor 75:466-470.
Cole, G. A., and M. C. Whiteside. 1965. An ecological
reconnaissance of Quitobaquito Spring, AZ . J. Ariz. Acad. Sci. 3:159-163.
Hensley, M. M. 1954. Ecological relations of the breeding bird population of the desert biome in Arizona. Ecol. Monogr. 24:185-207.
Hensley, M. M. 1959. Notes on the nesting of selected species of birds of the Sonoran Desert. Wilson Bull. 71:86-92.
Huey, L. M. 1942. A vertebrate faunal survey of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 9(32) :353-376.
Inouye, R. S., N. J. Huntly, and D. W. Inouye. 1981. Non-random orientation of Gila Woodpecker nest entrances in Saguaro cacti. Condor 83:88-89.
Monson, G. , and A. R. Phillips. 1981. Annotated checklist of
the birds of Arizona. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson. 240 p.
61
Nabhan, G. P., A. M. Rea, K. L. Reichhardt, E. Mellink, and C. F. Hutchinson. 1982. Papago influences on habitat and biotic diversity: Quitovac oasis ethnoecology. J. Ethnobiology 2:124-143.
Phillips, A. R. , and W. M. Pulich. 1948. Nesting birds of the Ajo Mountains Region, Arizona. Condor 50:271-272.
Warren, Peter L. , B. K. Mortenson, B. Dean Treadwell, J. E.
Bowers, and Karen L. Reichhardt. 1981. Vegetation of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Coop. National Park Resources Studies Unit/Univ. Arizona. Tech. Rpt. No. 8, Tucson. 79 p.
Wilt, R. A. 1976. Birds of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Popular Series No. 18. Southwest Parks and Mon. Assn., Globe, Arizona. 82 p.
62
A 50 YEAR SUMMARY FOR THE HERPETOFAUNA OF ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA (1932 - 1982)2
Charles H. Lowe
THE VOUCHERS
The species of amphibians and reptiles in the known herpetofauna of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (ORPI) are currently documented with voucher depositions at the University of Arizona, and at ORPI where a small preserved collection of amphibians and reptiles is maintained. Other materials for several of the species, collected on-site, are deposited in other collections throughout the country. The road-accessed ORPI area has long been a target for hit-and-run collectors as well as a Southwest area for several serious field studies from before establishment of the monument to the present time. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument was established by Presidential Proclamation on April 13, 1937. 3
The monument collection of specimen vouchers for the amphibian and reptilian species occurring on-site was originally initiated in 1940 by Superintendent William R. Supernaugh, and has been augmented at various times since 1954 by others. The University Herpetological Collection at Tucson was established in the Department of Zoology (now Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) in 1950 by C. H. Lowe.
THE CHECKLIST
Table 1 provides an historical accounting for the 5 amphibian and 41 reptilian species known to occur on the monument, beginning with Gloyd's (1932, 1937) early work. The on-site herpetofauna of the monument, as known in 1982, contains no native salamander, 5 toads, 2 turtles, 15 lizards, and 24 snakes, for a total of 46 native species. In Table 1, I have updated the nomenclature for the ORPI herpetofauna as of December 1982.
20rgan Pipe Cactus National Monument Resource Assessment, at National Park Service Western Archeological and Conservation Center, Tucson, Arizona, May 19, 1982. Report prepared at the request of R. Roy Johnson, Unit Leader, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Arizona.
3The monument was without a resident superintendent for the first two years. On October 3, 1939, William R. Supernaugh became the first resident superintendent at Organ Pipe. In those days, southwest monument superintendents were called "Custodians". Except for wartime furlough, Supernaugh was Superintendent until July 30, 1954.
63
Table 1. Checklist of the native amphibians and reptiles that are known to occur on-site at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona.
Lowe and ORPI ORPI Species verified on- Gloyd Huey Hensley Supernaugh Staff Staff site at ORPI, Lowe 1982 1937 1942 1950 " 1953 ' 1966 1978
|
Amphibians (5) |
(1) |
(4) |
(0) |
(4) |
(5) |
(5) |
|
FROGS AND TOADS (5) |
(1) |
(4) |
(0) |
(4) |
(5) |
(5) |
|
Bufo alvarius Bufo cognatus Bufo punctatus Bufo retiformis Scaphiopus couchi |
X |
X X X X |
X X X X |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
|
|
Reptiles (41) Turtles (2) |
(0) |
CD |
(0) |
(2) |
(2) |
(2) |
|
Gopherus agassizi Kinosternon sonoriense |
X |
X X |
X X |
X X |
||
|
LIZARDS (15) |
(8) |
(12) |
(0) |
(15) |
(15) |
(15) |
|
Call isaurus draconoides Coleonyx variegatus Cnemidophorus burti Cnemidophorus tigris Crotaphytus collaris |
X X X |
X X X |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
|
|
Dipsosaurus dorsalis Gambelia wislizeni Heloderma suspectum Phrynosoma platyrhinos Phrynosoma sol are |
X X |
X X X X |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
|
|
Sauromalus obesus Sceloporus clarki Sceloporus magister Urosaurus ornatus Uta stansburiana |
X X X |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
|
|
SNAKES (24) |
(4) |
(7) |
(20) |
(24) |
(24) |
(24) |
|
Arizona elegans Chilomeniscus cinctus Chionactis palarostris Crotalus atrox Crotalus cerastes |
X |
X X |
X X X X |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
X X X X X |
64
Table l(con't.)
Species verified on- Gloyd Huey Hensley site at ORPI, Lowe 1982 1937 1942 1950
Lowe and Supernaugh 1953 '
ORPI ORPI Staff Staff 1966 1978
Crotalus molossus Crotalus scutulatus Crotalus tigris Hypsiglena torquata Lampropeltis getulus
Leptotyphlops humilis Lichanura trivirgata Masticophis bilineatus Masticophis flagellum Micruroides euryxanthus
Phyllorynchus browni Phyllorynchus decurtatus Pituophis melanoleucus Rhinocheilus lecontei Salvador a hexalepis
Sonora semiannulata Tantilla hobartsmithi Thamnophis eques Trimorphodon biscutatus
Species not verified on-site at ORPI
Listed >
Reptiles:
Kinosternon flavescens Chi on act is occipital is Crotalus mitchelli Thamnophis ma re i anus
(0)
(0) (0)
(0)
(4) (2)
*Huey's (1942) two "species" Coluber flagellum and C. piceus, are one species: Masticophis flagellum.
**Hensley's (1950) two "species" Rhinocheilus antonii and R. lecontei are one
species : Rhinocheilus lecontei. His two "subspecies" of Chionactis are
two species, Chionactis occipitalis and C. palarostris; only the latter species is yet known in the monument.
65
THE HISTORY
The first modern investigator of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (ORPI) area was herpetologist Howard K. Gloyd (1932, 1937)4. During the summers of 1930 and 1931 he traveled to Arizona from the University of Michigan for the purpose of a herpetological survey of the southern part of Arizona; In 1930, young herpetologist Hobart M. Smith was a member of the field party.
The species of amphibians and reptiles collected and reported by Gloyd (1937) for Bates Well and vicinity and/or Ajo and vicinity are given in Table 1. All of these species are in the Organ Pipe Monument later established, as is Bates Well; Ajo is 12 miles north of the monument boundary. Gloyd' s taxon vouchers were deposited at the Chicago Academy of Sciences, Chicago, Illinois. In retrospect, Gloyd and his field associates, who worked only in the northwestern corner of what is now the monument, could not know that in the year of the publication of their work (1937) Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument would be born.
Prior to Gloyd' s work in the ORPI area first briefly reported in 1932, the few other extensive reconnaissance and field collecting studies in Arizona that were directed importantly or wholly toward amphibians and reptiles were, other than the Mexican boundary survey, conducted primarily in the northern and southeastern sectors of the state. Most of that early work was conducted shortly before and after the turn of the century by workers coming directly or eventually to Arizona primarily from the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards.
In 1939, mammalogist Laurence Huey of the San Diego Society of Natural History was invited by NPS to make a vertebrate faunal survey of ORPI. In his summary Huey (1942:355) noted that "it is evident that much remains to be done. This is particularly true of both mammals and reptiles." Most unfortunately his three field trips to the monument for field study missed the period June-October and thus the summer monsoon. He reported on specimens collected of 4 anurans, the desert tortoise, 12 lizards and 7 snakes, for a total of 24 species (Table 1). Huey's specimen vouchers were identified by herpetologist Laurence M. Klauber at the San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego, California. Part of Huey's material was deposited at the San Diego Natural History Museum, and part in Supernaugh's original collection at ORPI.
4Dr. Howard Kay Gloyd (1902-1978), doctoral graduate of the University of Michigan (1936), was Director of the Chicago Academy of Sciences from 1936 to 1958 and Professor in the Department of Zoology, University of Arizona from September 1, 1958 to his retirement as Professor Emeritus on June 30, 1974.
66
Ten years later, during the spring and summer of 1949, Max Hensley, then a graduate student ornithologist, collected a series of snakes on the monument, primarily by road collecting on the Ajo-Sonoyta highway (see Table 1). Hensley's taxon vouchers were deposited in the University of Illinois Museum of Natural History, Urbana, Illinois. Included in Hensley's (1950) report is the description of a color race of the Sonoran whipsnake (Masticophis bilineatus lineolatus) based on a series from Snake Trap, a natural tinaja in the North Fork of Alamo Canyon in the Ajo Mountains. This well-known snake trap tinaja is the same locality later incorrectly referred to as a "snakepit" by Fowlie (1972) . The appropriate place name Snake Trap was given by W. R. Supernaugh in 1940.
I met William Supernaugh in 1950 on the first of my many field trips to Organ Pipe. We began a joint on-site field effort directed toward developing a checklist for the amphibians and reptiles at ORPI (Lowe and Supernaugh 1953) . My wife Arlene and I camped out over much of the monument, studying and collecting vouchers of amphibians and reptiles and recording the plant communities and specific habitats in which they live.
The 1950 's were among the last of the good years for Arizona's desertlands. When Supernaugh left ORPI in 1954 he had been superintendent ("Custodian") for nearly 15 years, and knew and understood the natural resources of the monument better than anyone before or since. He was a keen student of the desert and mountain life of the monument and understandably considered it a privilege to live there, in spite of what today in NPS would be properly considered difficult living conditions and modest monument facilities. Bill Supernaugh was truly a superintendent's superintendent in the Park Service's old school tradition and I cannot say that I ever met a finer man.
The 8-9 year period from the autumn of 1954 to the winter of 1962 is not as well understood as the previous 15 years. The earlier strong attention to the renewable natural resources at ORPI seems to have been lessened. The immediate urgency for resource assessment that had faced the new monument's personnel was past. During the immediate post-Supernaugh years, some of the preserved specimens of amphibians and reptiles in the original collection at ORPI apparently dried up (as they are prone to do without close attention) and were thrown away. In addition to loss of some of the earlier specimens of amphibians and reptiles, some of the earlier records also are no longer available at ORPI. In 1963, one of the several monument checklists was prepared by Steenbergh and Hoy (1963, type-draft). The 1963 type list and
5Fowlie, J. A. 1972. The snakepit of Alamo Canyon, Ajo Mountains, Arizona. ORPI Mimeo, 2 p.
67
format became the 1966 mimeo edition of the ORPI Staff list (from which the 1978 printed list was prepared) ; it contained a few errors, some of which are retained in the later editions. One of the editions of Steenbergh and Hoy (1963) is referred to as "McCoy and Stebbins (1965)" by Smith (1969). 6
During the 1960's and 1970' s several persons contributed typed lists and other information for the ORPI species of amphibians and reptiles. These include, ORPI staff members Warren Steenbergh and Wilton Hoy during the 1960's and Terry Peters during the 1970' s, Kathleen Beargie of the University of Colorado, Otis Bronson of Tucson, John Cross of the University of Arizona, Merrit Keasey of the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, H. F. Lunsford of Simi, California, C. J. McCoy of the Carnegie Museum, and Richard Vogt of the University of Wisconsin. (It is recorded parenthetically that several persons, including ORPI Staff and visiting herpetologists, have questioned both the Lunsford checklist (1976) and certain "ORPI Species" that he "donated" as monument specimens for the park collection. The checklist and specimens were accompanied by a donation letter of transmittal to ORPI dated December 13, 1976, signed by "Dr. H. F. Lunsford").
A word about salamanders and frogs at ORPI. These are the amphibians, which are lesser-known animals in the Southwest than are the reptiles.
Salamanders: It was reported in the 1950* s that tiger salamanders for fish-bait (salamander larvae and adults) were widely planted in dirt-tanks and other artificial ponds throughout the Southwest (Lowe 1955) . Some plantings were and are in areas where the Tiger Salamander does not naturally occur today. That new difficulty for the analysis of geographic variation in Ambystoma tigrinum now requires special study for each case of occurrence reported. At ORPI there is one recorded observation of the Tiger Salamander, at Pozo Nuevo (Jose Juan Well) on February 15, 1971 by E. Gordon and K. Patrick: "About 50 larvae (10 inches in length) , dark green in color, surfacing in central pond" (ORPI Field Observation File) .
Tiger salamanders live underground when surface conditions are not favorably wet. While the probability is not high for an established (naturalized) population of the Tiger Salamander at ORPI, the on-site situation can and should be resolved. These animals occur today at several other localities in the Sonoran
fyhy Steenbergh and Hoy (1963) was modified to "McCoy and Stebbins (1965)" is a small mystery. R. C. Stebbins (pers. comm. 1982) knows nothing about it. A prepubl ication draft of his field guide (Stebbins 1966) was in circulation among some herpetologists in 1965 and earlier.
68
Desert, where for example at Tucson a tiger salamander is found occasionally in a street or yard during the summer monsoon.
Frogs: There are several species of frogs at ORPI, in spite of the fact that we call them toads. For the animals called frogs or toads or other names in various parts of the world are actually all frogs; technically, because of certain structural and functional features they are frogs in the frog Order Anura in the vertebrate Class Amphibia. Therefore, while all of the anurans on the monument and elsewhere in Arizona are actually frogs, like our Mexican neighbors we use two common words for them, frogs and toads (rana = frog; zapo = toad) . Consequently by employing our common name toad, through usage we correctly call all of the known anuran species at ORPI by the label toad. See Table 1, where for the checklist it is the scientific name for each of the toads and other species, rather than their often varied common names (vernaculars) , that forms the proper basis of such a list.
In recent years, beginning in the 1960 's and increasing in the 1970' s, ORPI for better or for worse became well-known as a field location for undergraduate and graduate field studies in ecology that have been conducted out of schools primarily in Arizona and California and including the State Universities of both. Some of the resulting typed reports on aspects of reptilian ecology are on file at monument headquarters.
There are well over 50 published papers that are pertinent in one way or another to the herpetofauna at ORPI. Most are general, wider-area accounts. Among the few herp papers generated at and/or for Organ Pipe itself are some strange ORPI herpetological stories, the following two of which are among some of those that involve living herpetologists.
Clark's Spiny Lizard, Sceloporus clarki. — There is an X for ORPI on the Stebbins 1966 Field Guide distribution map (No. 81, p. 242), for Sceloporus clarki. I placed the X there for Stebbins on his 1966 and earlier book maps, based on early records for the species at the monument as reported by Huey (1942), Lowe and Supernaugh (1953) and Lowe (1964). The monument localities for this species range from the Ajo Mountains on the east side, to the Growler Mountains and Bates Well on the west side. It has been a well known species at ORPI. Huey's (1942:375) specimens, collected from mesquite trees at Bate's Well on the western side of the monument, constitute the westernmost station in the wide Southwest geographic range of this abundant Madrean species.
Strangely, a quarter of a century after Huey (1942), Hobart Smith (1969) reports this species for the monument, telling us that his
69
material somehow represents some kind of a westward range extension for the species. And you may recall that Hobart Smith was a member of Howard Gloyd's original field party at Bates Well. It must be the mysterious organ pipes that cause such strange things to happen to ORPI .
The Red-backed Whiptail, Cnemidophorus burti xanthonotus . — This beautiful animal is one of the vertebrate populations with its type site at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. During the 1950' s my wife and I discovered a new whiptail lizard in the North Fork of Alamo Canyon in the Ajo Mountains at ORPI, which locality became the type locality of the Red-backed Whiptail, Cnemidophorus burti xanthonotus, truly one of the most beautiful lizards in this large genus in North America. I delayed publication long enough to obtain a proper series for statistical analysis of diagnostic characters, illustrations, et al. Unbeknown to me, and I unbeknown to him, William Duellman then at Michigan, obtained the same animal from the same locality, at virtually the same time in 1950, treated the population as the same subspecies, and submitted a manuscript describing it as new to the same press editor, Howard K. Gloyd, a few days ahead of mine. This unlikely sequence became Duellman and Lowe (1953) describing xanthonotus as a new subspecies with type locality at ORPI.
Ten hypothetical species remain for the monument, a substantial number. Should all of them be verified to have an established population on-site, which is unlikely, the number would represent a near 20% increase in the known herpetofauna.
One of the peculiar aspects of the 50-odd years of herpetological work at ORPI is the fact that during all of this time there has not been a single monument-wide survey of its amphibian and reptilian faunal resources conducted by a herpetologist. This may be surprising in view of the fact that this group of vertebrate animals is one of those that contains species that have high visibility and park-user interest as well as being among the most characteristic of all of the animals in the Sonoran Desert.
RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
During 1982-83 I worked with the ORPI Staff on the herpetological records and collections to establish what was currently known and not known for the ORPI herpetofauna. We also evaluated what would be needed to clarify the status of this characteristic Southwest desert resource for incorporation into interpretation
70
functions and natural resource management planning7 for the monument .
1. The species that are not yet verified as present at the monument . — The following 10 species require further field study- to establish their on-site presence and status, or absence:
Amphibians
Amby stoma tigrinum Bufo retiformis Gastrophryne olivacea Pternohyla fodiens
Reptiles
Kinosternon flavescens Holbrookia maculata Urosaurus graciosus Thamnophis marcianus Chionactis occipitalis
Crotalus mitchelli
Tiger Salamander Sonoran Green Toad Narrow-mouthed Toad Casque-headed Frog
Yellow Mud Turtle
Lesser Earless Lizard
Long-tailed Brush Lizard
Checkered Garter Snake
Western Shovel-nosed
Snake
Speckled Rattlesnake
2. The species with verified presence at the monument. — There is a total of 46 native species of amphibians and reptiles now known to occur on-site. Present information on the ORPI distribution and abundance of most of these species is either not yet available or not adequate to be readily incorporated into general interpretive functions and management plans.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is recommended for inclusion in the ORPI Management Program (see ORPI 1982a) .
1. Initiation of a herpetological research program at ORPI for resource assessment, management, and interpretation.
2. Design the research program to correlate its field aspects with details in (i) the current Backcountry Management Plan (ORPI 1982b) and (ii) the current vegetation maps (Warren et al., 1979, 1981).
7Working with Superintendent Harold Smith, Caroline Wilson, William Mikus,and Max Logan, we have up-dated the ORPI amphibian and reptile inventory, including the curatorial aspects of maintaining a long term alcohol -preserved collection for specimen vouchers.
71
3. Design the research program to provide (i) a complete, accurate, documented resource inventory of the species, their habitat distributions and microenvironmental requirements, and (ii) a user-oriented Staff Handbook of the Amphibians and Reptiles of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.
LITERATURE CITED
Duellman, W. E. and C. H. Lowe. 1953. A new lizard of the genus Cnemidophorus from Arizona. Chicago Acad. Sci., Nat. Hist. Misc. No. 120:1-8.
Gloyd, H. K. 1932. A consideration of the faunal areas of
southern Arizona based on the distribution of amphibians and reptiles. Anat. Rec. 54:109-110 (abstract).
Gloyd, H. K. 1937. A herpetological consideration of faunal areas in southern Arizona. Bull. Chicago Acad. Sci. 5:79-139.
Hensley, M. M. 1950. Results of a herpetological reconnaissance in extreme southwestern Arizona and adjacent Sonora, Mexico, with a description of a new subspecies of Sonoran Whipsnake, Masticophis bilineatus . Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 53:270-288.
Huey, L. H. 1942. A vertebrate faunal survey of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 9(32) :353-376.
Lowe, C. H. 1955. The salamanders of Arizona. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 58 (2) : 237-251.
Lowe, C. H. 1964. Amphibians and reptiles of Arizona. In:
C. H. Lowe, ed., The Vertebrates of Arizona, Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson.
Lowe, C. H. , Jr. and W. R. Supernaugh. 1953. Checklist for the Amphibians and Reptiles at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. OPCNM, Thermofax, 2 p.
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. 1966. Amphibians and reptiles. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. OPCNM, Mimeo, 2 p., compiled by the ORPI Interpretation Staff; assistance from C. J. McCoy, and from Stebbins 1966.
72
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. 1978. Checklist of mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, 1st Printing, Anonymous, 4 p.
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. 1982a. Management program, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. U.S. Dept. Interior, National Park Service, OPCNM, revised 1982:1-79.
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. 1982£>. Backcountry use plan (revised; in prep.).
Smith, H. M. 1969. Southwestern range limit of the lizard Sceloporus clarki. Southw. Nat. 14:129.
Stebbins, R. C. 1966. A field guide to western amphibians and reptiles. Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Co. , Boston.
Steenbergh, W. F. and W. E. Hoy. 1963. Checklist of amphibians and reptiles of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. OPCNM, Typedraft, 5 p.
Warren, P. L. , B. K. Mortenson, B. D. Treadwell, J. E. Bowers,
and K. L. Reichardt. 1979. Vegetation of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Map, scale 1:62,500; map, scale 1:24,000. Prepared for the National Park Service by the University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies, Applied Remote Sensing Program, Tucson, Arizona.
Warren, P. L. , B. K. Mortenson, B. D. Treadwell, J. E. Bowers,
and K. L. Reichardt. 1981. Vegetation of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. University of Arizona, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Tech. Rep. No. 8:1-79.
73
STATUS OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE QUITOBAQUITO PUPFISH
Robert R. Miller
The Desert Pupfish, Cyprinodon macular ius , was once common in the lower Gila River basin (including the Santa Cruz and San Pedro rivers) , the lower Colorado River below Yuma (especially in the once vast delta region - see Miller 1981:Fig. 6), the Salton Sea and its surrounding springs and tributaries, and Laguna Salada in Baja California del Norte (southwest of Mexicali) , and in the Rio Sonoyta Basin (including Quitobaquito Springs) in southwestern Arizona and northwestern Sonora, Mexico. Habitat destruction from draining cienegas, mining ground water, overgrazing, real estate development attendant to the exploding populations of man and the introduction of exotic predators and competitors (Miller 1961; Minckley 1973), has eliminated this pupfish from the entire Gila River basin and all of Arizona except Quitobaquito Springs, destroyed most of its habitat in the Colorado Delta region (by preventing the Colorado from reaching the Gulf) , and drastically reduced its populations in the Salton Sea basin (Black 1980) . The species still persists in parts of the Rio Sonoyta, Sonora, Mexico, and at Quitobaquito, as well as in a few places in the lower Colorado and about Salton Sea. (However, at the Desert Fishes Council meeting in November, 1981, Glenn Black reported that the San Felipe Creek stock is the only viable population of three left in California) . Thus Cyprinodon macularius is now regarded as an endangered species (Miller 1979) . Fortunately, while it was still common, large collections of this pupfish were made from over its entire range so that ample material is available for a comparative morphological study.
The pupfish living in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument is one of the many disjunct populations of the desert pupfish. In order to describe it properly and work out its relationships, it needs to be compared with representative samples from throughout the original range of Cyprinodon macularius. Ten such samples have been selected for this comparison, as follows.
1. Rio Sonoyta basin, Sonora - meristics and morphometries done on sample from near Sonoyta collected April 14, 1950. Frozen sample for electrophoresis, taken freshly preserved sample from 11 miles west of Sonoyta plus an additional collection from Agua Salada available for study.
2. Rio San Pedro, Sonora - Sample collected in 1950 has been analyzed and good photo of fish is available. These fish were taken 100 years after the species was first described from the same river just below Benson, Arizona, and represent the second (and last) sample from this drainage.
75
3. Gila River below Dome, Arizona - a 1926 collection of small fish can be utilized for meristic (but perhaps not morphometric) data. A photograph is available (Miller 1943) .
4. Dos Palmas Spring, on east side of Salton Sea basin - an 1888 collection by Orcutt (borrowed from USNM) should provide a good idea of what the pre-Salton Sea pupfish was like.
5. Salton Sea, east side - a large sample taken in May, 1939, is available. Bruce Turner has done the biochemical genetics of a sample from near this site, and of 2 others from the Sea (Turner 1983) .
6. Salton Sea, vicinity of Kane Springs - a sample collected by Cowles (1934) is available.
7. Harper Well Wash (San Felipe Creek), western tributary to Salton Sea - a large sample, taken in June, 1939, is available. This population, too, may represent the pre-Salton Sea stock and has been studied by Turner.
8. Pozo del Tule, Laguna Salada, Baja California del Norte - a large sample has already been studied for meristics and morphometries. Photo available (Miller 1943).
9. Ojo El Doctor, a spring in Sonora on west bank of Santa Clara Slough - a 1940 sample, has been studied for meristics and morphometries. Population now extinct.
10. Santa Clara Slough, Sonora - Minckley has a preserved sample he and I collected that is being sent to UMMZ . Bruce Turner has done electrophoresis on a stock from this locality kept at Boyce Thompson Arboretum in Arizona.
The Quitobaquito Pupfish, Cyprinodon macularius eremus , and its habitat have been the subject of a variety of studies, published and unpublished. These have dealt with behavior and ecology (Cox 1966, unpublished doctoral dissertation), temperature tolerance (Lowe and Heath 1969) , limnology of the springs (Cole and Whiteside 1965) , selection and tolerance of low oxygen (Lowe et al. 1967), food habits (Cox 1972), genetic variation (Turner 1983) , and a popular account including photographs of the fish and its habitat (Leonard 1972) . Nothing has yet been published on the taxonomy and relationships of the Quitobaquito pupfish although several authors have noted that it is an undescribed subspecies (see references in Minckley 1973:190).
I first visited Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and collected and observed the Quitobaquito Pupfish on April 14, 1950. At that time its habitat was greatly different from now. For example,
76
water depth then did not exceed 26 cm in the spring-fed marshy pond that contained the bulk of the population. Subsequently, I took meristic and morphometric data on 30 individuals of the preserved sample from Quitobaquito and concluded that this pupfish deserved recognition as a distinct subspecies. This information was relayed to NPS at various times in succeeding years. Originally, I thought that the pupfish in the nearby (Mexican) Rio Sonoyta represented the same subspecies, but on making a careful comparison using the same meristic and morphometric characters, surprising differences were found on the order of magnitude that I and others have been employing to separate pupfish taxa below the species level.
Recently (1981) Dr. Bruce J. Turner of Virginia Polytechnic Institute began an investigation of genetic variation of various populations of Cyprinodon macular ius , under a contract with the California Department of Fish and Game (Turner 1983) . Examination of about 55 "allozyme" loci by starch gel electrophoresis has resulted in the detection of a significant amount of polymorphism within all the natural populations (five) that were surveyed. At several loci he found fixed differences between the Quitobaquito Pupfish and those from Salton Sea, sufficient to support the proposal that the Quitobaquito Pupfish deserves recognition at the subspecies level (Turner pers. com. , June 1, 1982, and 1983).
Accompanied by Mike Kunzmann and Thomas McMahon, and with NPS support on May 20, 1982, I drove to a collecting site on the Rio Sonoyta (checked a week earlier by McMahon), on Hwy 2, 11 miles west of the town of Sonoyta and about 1 airline mile south. Here the river is permanent for an unknown distance and both pupfish and longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster)* were abundant, as well as introduced mosquitofish (Gambusia at finis) . The pupfish, though outnumbered by the dace, were common enough to yield some 80 preserved and 50 frozen specimens in about one-half hour. We also visited Quitobaquito to photograph in color freshly preserved nuptial males and females of the pupfish for the upcoming description of this subspecies.
A research proposal has been made to the National Park Service to complete the description of the Quitobaquito pupfish, including a comprehensive comparison of this population with others of the desert pupfish as outlined above, utilizing multivariate statistics and computer analyses of the data. When completed, this should give the first complete picture of the systematics of Cyprinodon macularius throughout its range and provide the
8These are the only two fishes native to the Rio Sonoyta, although May (1979:150-151) reported Gambusia affinis and Poeciliopsis occidentalis in this river without comment.
77
comparative data needed for assessing the relationships of the Quitobaquito pupfish and of the species as a whole to those pupfishes living on the other American deserts. I will be joined in this study by Dr. W. L. Minckley of Arizona State University.
DESERT PUPFISH
Cyprinodon macularius Baird and Girard, 1853
Order CYPRIN0DONTIF0RMES Family CYPRINODONTIDAE
Status: Endangered. Extinction of many populations and depletion of others have resulted from irrigation and interference with the water table, introduction of exotic predators and competitors, and damming, diversion, and final elimination in Mexico of the Colorado River.
Distribution: Originally in the Gila River basin of Arizona and extreme northern Sonora, Mexico, the lower Colorado River of southeastern California (Salton Sea and tributaries) and Mexico (Sonora, Baja California del Norte) , and the Rio Sonoyta basin (including Quitobaquito Springs, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona) of Sonora, Mexico. Now extinct in the Gila River system, Arizona-Sonora, severely reduced in the Rio Sonoyta (except at Quitobaquito) and in Salton Sea, and badly depleted in the Colorado River delta (where it soon may be virtually eliminated by water pollution and withdrawal).
Population: Good at Quitobaquito Springs; viable at Harper Well Wash, W side of Salton Sea; incomplete data from elsewhere.
Habitat: Warm to cool springs, marshes (cienegas) , small creeks, and lagunas, in highly alkaline and moderately to strongly saline water, typically in depths of less than 1 m and often associated with abundant aquatic vegetation.
Breeding Rate in Wild: Unknown.
Conservation Measures Taken: A stock of the Salton Sea (California) population is established in a concrete pool refuge on the Anza-Borrego State Park in Borrego Valley, eastern San Diego County, California. A second refugium there is being planned. Another stock from the Colorado River delta is being held at Arizona State University and the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
78
Conservation Measures Proposed: Monitor and protect the population (a distinctive subspecies) at Quitobaquito Springs in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, with particular reference to water supply, prohibition of exotic introductions, and maintenance of suitable habitat. Maintain the refuge at Anza-Borrego State Park and establish the second one there. Maintain stocks in Arizona and attempt to re-establish populations in the Gila River basin.
Number in Captivity: Precise number unknown; approximately 1,000 at Arizona State University and probably more than that number at Anza-Borrego State Park.
Breeding Potential in Captivity: Good (see Creay and Haydock 1971) .
Remarks: Prepared by Robert R. Miller (1982) .
LITERATURE CITED
Black, G. F. 1980. The current status and future management of the desert pupfish, Cyprinodon macularius , within California. Proc. Desert Fishes Council XI (1979) : 47-48.
Cole, G. A., and M. C. Whiteside. 1965. An ecological
reconnaissance of Quitobaquito Spring, Arizona. Jour. Ariz. Acad. Sci. 3(3) :159-163.
Cowles, R. B. 1934. Notes on the ecology and breeding habits of the desert minnow, Cyprinodon macularius Baird and Girard. Copeia 1934 (1) :40-42 .
Cox, T. J. 1966. A behavioral and ecological study of the desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) in Quitobaquito Springs, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Unpubl . Ph.D. Dissert., Univ. of Arizona, 91 p.
Cox, T. J. 1972. The food habits of the desert pupfish
(Cyprinodon macularius) in Quitobaquito Springs, Organ Pipe National Monument, Arizona. J. Ariz. Acad. Sci. 7(l):25-27.
Crear, D. , and I. Haydock. 1971. Laboratory rearing of the desert pupfish, Cyprinodon macularius. U.S. Dept. Comm. Fish. Bull. 69(1) :151-156.
Leonard, P. G. 1972. The pupfish of Quitobaquito. Nat'l Parks and Conserv. Mag. 46 (12) : 24-26, figs. 1-5.
79
Lowe, C. H. , and W. G. Heath. 1969. Behavioral and
physiological responses to temperature in the desert pupfish {Cyprinodon macularius) . Physiol. Zool. 42:53-59.
Lowe, C. H., D. S. Hinds, and E. A. Halpern. 1967. Experimental catastrophic selection and tolerances to low oxygen concentration in native Arizona freshwater fishes. Ecology 48(6) :1013-1017, figs. 1-4.
May, L. A. 1979. Fauna de vertebrados de la region del gran
desierto, Sonora, Mexico. Am. Inst. Biol. Univ. Nat. Auton. Mexico, 47, ser. zool. (2):143-182, figs. 1-13.
Miller, R. R. 1943. The status of Cyprinodon macularius and Cyprinodon nevadensis , two desert fishes of western North America. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 473:1-25.
Miller, R. R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest. Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts, and Letters 46 ( 1960) : 365-404 , 1 fig.
Miller, R. R. 1979. Freshwater fishes. Red Data Book, Vol. 4:Pisces. Rev. Ed. IUCN, Morges, Switzerland, (1977- 1979) :16 p., 194 sheets.
Miller, R. R. 1981. Coevolution of deserts and pupfishes (genus Cyprinodon) in the American Southwest. Pages 39-94, figs. 1-6. in: Fishes in North American Deserts, R. J. Naiman and D. L. Soltz, eds. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.
Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Ariz. Game and Fish Dept. , Phoenix 293 p., illus.
Turner, B. J. 1983. Genetic variation and dif ferentation of remnant natural populations of the desert pupfish. Cyprinodon macularius. Evolution 37 (4 ): 690-700 (Figs. 1-4.)
80
RESEARCH SUMMARY: FLORA OF ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT
Janice E. Bowers
An annotated checklist of vascular plants of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument was compiled through extensive plant collection and examination of herbarium specimens at the monument and the University of Arizona. Eighteen plant collecting trips were made during a two-year period from October 1977 thru August 1979. An effort was made to visit all of the major canyons in the Ajo Mountains as well as most of the larger hills and ranges during every season of the year.
Five hundred twenty-two taxa of plants in 325 genera and 86 families were listed for the monument (Bowers 1980) . Eighty- three species were added to the monument's previous plant list, including two species new to Arizona (Urry 1979) . The 522 taxa of vascular plants in the monument comprise 15% of the flora of Arizona. The geographic affinities of the flora are strongly southwestern with Sonoran and Latin American plants also making an important contribution. These three categories make up nearly 75% of the flora.
Sixty-eight percent of the flora of the monument occurs in the Ajo Mountains, which cover only 9% of the monument's 500 square miles. Twenty percent of the flora is confined to the specialized aquatic and wetland habitats found at Quitobaquito pond, the nearby springs and adjacent saline flats. The Ajo Mountains are diverse in plant species relative to the rest of the monument due to their greater diversity of habitats and to their greater rainfall, particularly summer rainfall.
Introduced plants comprise 5% of the flora, a relatively small contribution due to the isolation of the monument. The major source for weeds in the monument is farmland in Sonora adjacent to the southern boundary.
Additional collection will undoubtedly turn up species of plants which are not on the current plant list. If money were available to fund more plant collecting in the monument, field work should concentrate on the highest elevations, particularly in August and September.
LITERATURE CITED
Bowers, J. E. 1980. Flora of Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 15:1-11, 33-47.
Urry, J. B. 1979. Additions to the Arizona flora. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 14:21.
81
RESEARCH SUMMARY: VEGETATION CHANGE AT ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT
Janice E. Bowers
The study of vegetation change at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument was approached through historical research and repeat photography. For the historical approach , a variety of documents dating from 1857-1977 which were relevant to Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument were read. From these documents, a rough reconstruction of pre-1800 vegetation in the monument was attempted. Apparently there has been little change in the dominant species in the monument over the past 100 years. Rocky bajada slopes still support a diverse mixture of small trees and columnar cacti, finer soil in valleys still supports extensive stands of Larrea tridentata, and valley washes are lined with Prosopis , Cercidium and Olneya.
Although the dominant plants in the landscape have probably not changed over the past 100 years, it is likely that major changes have occurred in herbaceous vegetation, especially perennial grasses. Extrapolation from ecological studies and historical documents suggests that prior to initiation of grazing in the monument, there may have been moderately dense stands of Bouteloua rothrockii on lower bajada slopes from 1600-2400 feet; mixed stands composed of Bouteloua repens var. re pens , Enneapogon desvauxii , Hilaria belangeri and Tridens muticus on rocky slopes between 2,400-3,000 feet; and Muhlenbergia porteri in shrubs and Hilaria rigida in extensive stands on valley floors.
Localized changes in vegetation have occurred in the monument in recent years. Such changes, largely attributable to overgrazing by cattle, include invasion by cacti in the mouths of Grass and Alamo canyons and east of Agua j ita Spring; invasion by Prosopis near Lukeville and Blankenship Well; removal of 85-90% of the Hilaria rigida near Bates Well; and decrease in density of Atriplex near Dos Lomitas.
For the repeat photography approach to analyzing vegetation change at the monument, 15 photos, taken between 1892 and 1975, were matched and re-photographed in 1980. The photos documented several changes in vegetation, including invasion by Prosopis and Opuntia fulgida near the mouth of Alamo Canyon; recovery of Atriplex stands near Dos Lomitas following termination of grazing in the monument in 1978; and rapid influx of aquatic and wetland vegetation around Quitobaquito pond since 1962, when the pond was deepened.
83
Vegetation change at the monument has been poorly documented except for localized changes in recent years. A wealth of old photographs, many from the late 1800s, is stored in the monument files. Repeat photography of large numbers of these photographs would provide additional data on vegetation change in the monument and shed some light on the populations of columnar cacti, particularly Carnegiea and Lemaireocereus .
84
VEGETATION CHANGE AT ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT
Janice E. Bowers
The basic question which must be answered by resource managers who aim to preserve and protect Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument is, "What did this area look like before Europeans and Americans interfered with its natural processes?" This question can be approached by analyzing it as a series of smaller problems, including 1) has this area changed since European contact, 2) if it has changed, what have the changes been, and 3) were these changes the result of human activities or natural processes? Partial answers to the first two problems can often be found in historical records (Bryan 1925, Hastings 1963, and Mason 1963) , but the third problem is not so easy to solve since it involves many phenomena acting together over long periods of time. Changes in geomorphology, vegetation and climate across the arid Southwest will be reviewed in the following sections along with a discussion of these changes at the monument.
ARROYO CUTTING IN THE SOUTHWEST
A conspicuous geomorphological change which has occurred at a sharply increased rate in the Southwest since Anglo-American contact is arroyo cutting. In 1865 streams began eroding deep channels into the flat valley bottoms in many places throughout the Southwest. Erosion continued until 1915, with the 1880' s being especially important in some locations (Cooke and Reeves 197 6) . Arroyo cutting had many consequences for both the natural environment and for the Anglo-American and native peoples in the area. For example, it has been blamed for the drying up of marshes along the San Pedro and Santa Cruz Rivers as the water table dropped and groves of mesquite replacing the sacaton grass and tules (Bryan 1928, Hastings 1959) . In addition, as valley floors became entrenched, floodplains were eroded away, making it difficult to irrigate fields. Marshes which had been valued for grazing in the dry season and during droughts disappeared (Cooke and Reeves 1976) .
The causes of arroyo cutting are complex and have been a matter of controversy for the past 55 years. Many investigators have discussed the factors involved in historic arroyo cutting in the Southwest (Bryan 1925, 1928, Leopold 1951a, Hastings and Turner 1965, Cooke and Reeves 1976) and the following discussion is an attempt to synthesize and summarize their ideas.
The immediate cause of arroyo cutting was increased flow of water which boosted the erosive power of streams and caused them to cut
85
into valley bottoms more deeply than before. Increased stream flow was apparently due to a variety of phenomena which acted together over a relatively short period of time. One of these was removal of vegetative cover and trampling of soil by cattle on overstocked ranges, which reduced rainwater infiltration and increased overland runoff (Bryan 1928) . In addition, the rainfall regime had been changing during the previous half century so that light rains had decreased and heavy rains had increased (Leopold 1951a) . This change in the proportions of heavy and light rains also weakened the vegetative cover. Due to heavier rains, less water filtered into the root zone, and plants began to die off from lack of water. Furthermore, constructions and excavations of various sorts, including roads, embankments, ditches and canals, in and near stream beds had become points where increased stream flow began channel cutting (Cooke and Reeves 1976) .
The overriding factor causing arroyo cutting was probably climatic change. Not only are similar periods of erosion seen in the archeological and geological record long before domestic livestock existed in the Southwest (Bryan 1928) , but in addition, an early cattle boom between 1790 and 1820 did not result in arroyo cutting, presumably because favorable climatic conditions offset the deleterious effects of cattle (Cooke and Reeves 1976) . Although it seems possible that climate alone could have been responsible for arroyo cutting between 1865 and 1915, overgrazing and trampling by domestic livestock contributed to increased runoff, and construction and excavation in stream beds concentrated stream flow and provided a starting place for arroyo cutting.
ARROYO CUTTING AT ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT
During this period arroyo cutting affected the Sonoyta River. Carl Lumholtz, a Scandinavian geographer, visited the town of Sonoyta in 1909 and 1910 and described the damage which occurred along the Sonoyta River:
The river has receded of late and brought about some changes in the landscape. Formerly there existed a series of cienegas (swamps) immediately above the rise of the river, extending back for about three miles... The water filtered through. .. and ran in a narrow channel .. .thus forming the beginnings of the river which flows on after this without embankments. During the night of August 6, 1891, after a heavy rain, the water carried off a hard barrier which had been retaining the swamps, and widened the channel, making it recede about a kilometer. The swamps dried up in
86
three years. . . [and] a forest of mesquite trees sprang up... I found this channel to be about two hundred and fifty feet broad and from eighteen to twenty feet deep. (Lumholtz 1912, p. 178-179).
Members of a government surveying party which traveled along the United States-Mexico border between 1891 and 1896 reported the same story, adding that although much of the Sonoyta valley had been under cultivation in the past, most of the families had moved away, leaving abandoned fields and dying fig trees (U.S. Congress 1898) .
Besides descriptions of channelization in the Sonoyta River, there is little specific information regarding arroyo cutting in the vicinity of the monument. Gully erosion near Dos Lomitas, Armenta Well and other locations in the monument evidently post-dates the flurry of widespread arroyo cutting in the Southwest. Steenbergh and Warren (1977) attribute gully erosion at the monument to intensive grazing and trampling on easily eroded, fine-textured soils.
VEGETATION CHANGE IN THE SOUTHWEST
A second phenomenon which has become apparent in the Southwest in recent years is a number of changes in vegetation. These changes have been illustrated and analyzed by many workers including Bryan (1928), Humphrey (1958), Buffington and Herbel (1965) and Hastings and Turner (1965) . Oaks at the lower edge of the oak woodland have died out and have been replaced by shrubs and small trees such as acacia and mesquite (Hastings and Turner 1965) . Desert grassland has also been invaded by mesquite, acacia and other shrubs to such an extent that millions of acres of former grassland in the Southwest are now dominated by woody plants (Humphrey 1958) . Vegetation changes in the desert include a decline in the numbers of foothill and blue palo verde and mesquite in northern Sonora and an increase in these same species at the more mesic upper limit of their range at various locations in Arizona (Hastings and Turner 1965) . The overall trend has been a tendency for plants to move upwards in elevation along a gradient from drier to moister conditions. Changes which do not fit into this pattern include localized fluctuations in populations of Haplopappus tenuisectus , Opuntia fulgida and many small perennials (Martin and Turner 1977) .
As with arroyo cutting, the causes of vegetation change in southern Arizona over the last 100 years are complex and cannot be assigned to a single factor. Most authors discuss several factors which affect vegetation in the Southwest, including fire suppression, depredation by rodents, over-grazing by domestic
87
livestock and climatic change. Hastings and Turner (1965) analyzed each of these factors. They concluded that while fire suppression, rodent activity and overgrazing have indeed brought about some changes in southwestern vegetation, climatic change was the main cause of vegetation change. Climatic change in the Southwest and its implications for the vegetation of the monument will be discussed in a later section of this chapter.
VEGETATION CHANGE AT ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT
Very little work on vegetation change has been done at the monument. In 1977, Steenbergh and Warren documented the deleterious effects of cattle on biotic communities. A forage inventory at the monument conducted by the Bureau of Land Management in 1966 indicated several vegetation changes, including extensive removal of grasses and invasion of mesquite and cacti (Schultz 1966) . In addition, there is a wealth of old photographs taken at the monument, some of which have been rephotographed. Vegetation changes shown by the photo pairs will be discussed in a later section. Most of the remaining botanical work at the monument has quantified existing vegetation or discussed the ecology of individual species rather than examined historical vegetation change.
To understand how vegetation has changed at the monument over the past 100 years, it would be desirable to reconstruct the original vegetation as closely as possible. Unfortunately, the monument has not been free from grazing since European settlement in southern Arizona. Father Kino introduced the first cattle into the area in 1699, and by 1706, the mission at Sonoyta had a successful herd of cattle (Boulton 1948) . Livestock grazing continued in the monument until 1978, resulting in plant communities which are "artifacts of the original natural communities greatly altered in structure and species composition by the pressure of long continued intensive livestock grazing pressure" (Steenbergh and Warren 1977, p. 124). Due to the long history of grazing in the monument, surveying and military groups which travelled through the area in the first part of the 19th century did not record the pristine vegetation. In spite of this, it is still worthwhile to use these early accounts to reconstruct the original vegetation. In addition, comparisons with relict plant communities in similar areas can be used to supplement the early descriptions.
Some of the most valuable historical records for the monument are the reports made during boundary surveys along the U.S. - Mexico border, although these reports are occasionally contradictory. For example, in 1884, one observer reported that between the Sonoyta Valley and the Colorado River there was "a most utter,
88
horrible, and absolutely hopeless desert... It is uninhabited by man, beast, or bird... There is no permanent water in the whole region... neither is there any feed for animals..." (U.S. Congress 1884, p. 8). Fourteen years later a more realistic appraisal was made of the same area: "Between the Sonoyta Valley and the Colorado River the vegetation consists almost entirely of palo verde, palo fierro, mesquite, greasewood and giant cactus, while the only grass seen is a tall, uninviting-looking species, called 'galleta' by the Mexicans, which mules and horses ate with avidity and which is sufficiently plentiful, when one becomes familiar with the localities where it grows..." (U.S. Congress 1898, p. 24) . Most of the early accounts agree with this latter description of vegetation in what is now the monument. In 18 57, Lieutenant Michler of the Emory expedition describes seeing "the usual growth of palo verde, palo fierro, cacti, etc." at the base of the Sierra de la Union, a desert range east of the Ajo Mountains (Emory 1857, p. 122) . He found the Sonoyta Valley to be "well covered with mesquite timber" with salt grass east of town, but "to the west, as far as the Colorado, scarce a blade is to be seen" (ibid., p. 115). In 1898, the foothills of the Sonoyta Valley were described as supporting forests of giant cactus forty or fifty feet tall as well as pitahaya and "a thick growth of 'cholla' cactus, the needle-like spines of which readily penetrated shoes, leggings and clothing, and caused much pain and annoyance to the working parties" (U.S. Congress 1898, p. 23) . Parry, a botanist on the 1857 boundary survey, stated that mesquite and creosote were conspicuous on desert plains and that cacti, including arborescent chain-fruit chollas, Ferocactus wislizenii and Cereus giganteus , were abundant. He mentioned that hills and mountains bordering desert plains supported Agave, Ambrosia deltoidea and Encelia farinosa. Thus, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, travelers were describing vegetation types which are readily recognizable as palo verde-saguaro associations and creosote associations.
The same vegetation types were recorded by explorers who came through southwestern Arizona in the early part of this century. Carl Lumholtz described the plain east of the Sierra de Santa Rosa in great detail:
We first passed through a forest of saguaro that thrives on gravelly detritus along the bases of the nude sierras. Large clusters of choya were prominent in the landscape, especially the very spiny kind (opuntia fulgida) [sic].... In flat basins or depressions of the cactus region grass was growing. . . . Next we passed into the greasewood region. . . and soon we reached the fertile alluvial plains along the more or less visible rivercourse of the middle valley, where
89
mesquite and palo fierro trees may be seen here and there (Lumholtz 1912, p. 188-189).
In 1907, William Hornaday traveled from Tucson to the Pinacate region, passing through the monument. He reported that on bare and stony slopes of the Ajo Mountains the ocotillo was prominent and the organ pipe cactus was seen at intervals (Hornaday 1909) . In the Valley of the Ajo they grazed their horses for an hour in a "meadow that simply could not be ignored" (ibid., p. 79). D. T. MacDougal, a botanist who accompanied Hornaday, reported that the desert around the Sonoyta River featured organ pipe cacti, saguaro, Opuntia spp. , ocotillo, and sangre-de-drago and that some stretches in the valley had dense stands of galleta grass (MacDougal 1908) .
Apparently there has been little change in the dominant species in the monument over the past 100 years. Rocky bajada slopes still support a diverse mixture of small trees and columnar cacti, including Prosopis velutina , Cercidium microphyllum, Olneya tesota , Cereus giganteus, and C. thurberi. Finer soil in valleys still supports extensive stands of Larrea tridentata and valley washes are lined with Prosopis velutina , Cercidium floridum and Olneya tesota.
Although the dominant plants in the landscape are probably unchanged, it is likely that major changes have occurred in herbaceous vegetation, especially perennial grasses. Because there is little information about perennial grass cover in the monument before 1966, the original condition of perennial grasses must be interpreted using historical records and data from areas with similar rainfall and substrate.
Good information about perennial grass cover during the last century is available from the Tucson area (Thornber 1910, Shreve 1929, Shreve and Hinckley 1937, Ferguson 1950, Gibble 1950). On Black Mesa, an ungrazed hill 12 miles southwest of Tucson, the common perennial grasses on rocky slopes are Bouteloua eriopoda, Tridens muticus , Hilaria mutica, Muhlenbergia porteri , Enneapogon desvauxii and Hilaria belangeri . Perennial grass cover comprises 2% to 3% percent of the total ground cover and the aspect of the vegetation is a grassland with mixed shrubs (Ferguson 1950) . Repeated measurements on plots at Tumamoc Hill on the west side of Tucson showed an increase in grass cover, especially of Hilaria mutica, Muhlenbergia porteri and Bouteloua rothrockii , after 20 years of protection from grazing (Shreve and Hinckley 1937) .
In 1910 J. J. Thornber described the condition of ranges in Arizona in the pioneer days of stock ranching: Muhlenbergia porteri "grew in such abundance among shrubs and mesquite, and to
90
some extent in the open, that with a few minutes work one could gather enough to feed a team of horses overnight" (Thornber 1910, p. 279) . Bouteloua rothrockii was "very abundant, being cut for hay even at low altitudes" (ibid., p. 334) and occasionally grew abundantly in favorable locations on lower mesas as low as 1600 feet.
The implication of these studies is that ungrazed areas or areas which have recovered from grazing have a vegetative cover and composition which resembles vegetation before livestock grazing became common in the Southwest. In recent years, recovery of grass populations was noticed at several locations in the monument. For example, an area that was heavily grazed by cattle before 1978 at the mouth of Estes Canyon now supports sparse stands of Bouteloua rothrockii (personal observation) .
Extrapolation from the Tucson area to the monument along with recent and historical observations suggest that prior to heavy grazing in the monument, there were moderately dense stands of Bouteloua rothrockii on lower bajada slopes from 1600 to 2400 feet, mixed stands composed of Bouteloua repens var. re pens , Enneapogon desvauxii, Hilaria belangeri and Tridens muticus on rocky slopes between 2400 and 3000 feet, and on the valley floors Muhlenbergia porteri was common in shrubs and Hilaria rigida formed extensive stands in many places. Elevations above 3000 feet were largely inaccessible to cattle, and grass cover was presumably about the same as now, with dense stands of perennial grasses in favorable locations and scattered bunch grasses, particularly Muhlenbergia emersleyi, M. rigens and Eragrostis intermedia occurring throughout the Ajo Mountains. Bull Pasture is a special case. Although it is heavily invaded by shrubs and weedy annuals, some grasses are making a comeback, notably Panicum obtusum along the streambed and Bouteloua repens var. repens on rocky slopes. It seems likely that the basin was once a Bouteloua repens grassland in association with other perennial grasses such as Muhlenbergia emersleyi and occasional shrubs such as Calliandra eriophylla.
It is important to remember that adequate rainfall is essential if desert grasslands are to persist. Many perennial grasses, especially Bouteloua repens and B. rothrockii, can tolerate several seasons or even several years of drought (Thornber 1910, Wright and Streetman 1958) , but even populations of these drought-tolerant species can be decimated by prolonged drought. Furthermore, the combined effects of drought and overgrazing are more deleterious to desert grassland than the effects of either one by itself. Although perennial grass cover is expected to increase at the monument now that grazing has ceased, the rate of recovery and the persistence of grass populations depends on a series of favorable seasons or years. A prolonged drought could
91
reduce the amount of grass in the monument, as could a shift in climate to warmer and drier conditions.
Although there has apparently been little change in the dominant plant species in the monument as a whole over the past 100 years, localized changes have been observed by Schultz (1966) and Steenbergh and Warren (1977) . Schultz (1966) mentions the following changes in areas of heavy cattle concentration and suggests that they are partially or wholly due to overgrazing: cacti were invading in the mouths of Grass and Alamo canyons and east of Agua j ita Spring; mesquite appeared to be invading the range in the vicinity of Lukeville and near Blankenship Well; cattle grazed so heavily on Atriplex polycarpa near Blankenship Well that Larrea tridentata had begun to invade the Atriplex; 85-90% of the Hilaria rigida population had been removed from the heavily grazed area near Bates Well; and perennial grasses were very limited in the desert shrub and creosote vegetation types, most of which were grazed by cattle. Steenbergh and Warren (1977) state that the density of Atriplex polycarpa was 20% greater and A. linearis was 300% greater in ungrazed than in grazed plots near Dos Lomitas. Steenbergh and Warren found that damage to plant communities from overgrazing and trampling by cattle was greatest at watering sites and decreased with distance from areas of cattle concentration. This gradient supports the hypothesis that localized vegetation changes observed by Schultz are due to cattle rather than climatic change.
VEGETATION CHANGE AS SEEN IN PHOTO PAIRS
In January and February, 1980, we matched 15 photos which were taken at the monument from 21 to 88 years ago. Analysis of the photo pairs showed several changes in vegetation. One change which has been discussed above is invasion of some species in areas where cattle grazed heavily. Invasion of mesquite can be seen in plate 3; of Opuntia fulgida in plates 1, 3 and 5; and of creosote in plate 11.
A second change revealed in some photo pairs is a decline in the population of saguaros at the monument. For example, plate 4a, taken in 1941, shows 119 saguaros; plate 4b, taken 1980, only 70. This is a 41% decrease. Plate 3 shows a 57% decrease in the saguaro population, from 162 saguaros in the 1941 photo to 69 saguaros in the 1980 photo. Plate 10 shows a 33% decrease in the number of saguaros. The occurrence of at least three catastrophic freezes since 1941 may account for the decline in saguaro populations at these locations. The effects of catastrophic freezes on saguaro have been discussed by Steenbergh and Lowe (1976a, 1976Jb, 1977) . They conclude that catastrophic freezes selectively remove the oldest and youngest saguaros,
92
leaving too few juveniles to maintain the population at a stable level. In addition, cattle grazing at the monument may have contributed to the loss of saguaro seedlings as well as prevented seedling establishment (Niering et al., 1963).
Paradoxically, three of the photo pairs, plates 1, 9 and 13, show no change in the number of saguaros, while three photo pairs, 6, 7 and 12 show an increase in saguaros. Although the increase seen in Plates 6 and 7 may be an artifact, the stability of the saguaro populations in the other pairs is apparently real. It is difficult to reconcile these conflicting trends. Hastings and Turner state that "techniques of repeat photography are ill- suited" to a problem as complex as changes in saguaro populations, and add, "the final answer must await the completion of other studies" (p. 272, 1965).
The photo pairs show that a decline has not occurred in populations of organ pipe cactus. Parker (1977) concluded that organ pipe populations at the monument have been stable for the last 30 years.
Dramatic and rapid vegetation change has occurred since 1959 at Williams Spring and since 1961 at Quitobaquito Pond. Plate 8 shows that after Quitobaquito was deepened in 1962, the density of vegetation around the perimeter of the pond increased dramatically. These mesophytic colonizers included Typha domingensis , Scirpus olneyi and Pluchea purpurascens . An increase in the density in vegetation also occurred at Williams Spring. Plate 9a, taken in 1959, shows a pool of standing water with a few shrubs, probably Baccharis salicifolia and Isocoma acradenia , around the perimeter. Plate 9b, taken in 198 0, shows a thicket of vegetation. Standing water is still present, although it is obscured by the dense growth of Tessaria sericea, Typha domingensis , Isocoma acradenia and Prosopis velutina.
Plate 14 shows recovery of vegetation at the Dos Lomitas exclosure. The 1975 photo shows a severely browsed stand of Atriplex polycarpa outside the exclosure. The 1979 photo demonstrates that after grazing pressure was removed in early 1978, Atriplex plants recovered quickly. Similar recovery after cessation of grazing was seen at Agua j ita Spring (Peter Warren, personal communication) .
Much slower rates of change are shown by plate 7 . These photos of Growler Ranch in 1959 and of the ranch site 21 years later show that recovery of natural vegetation has been slow. Only a few creosote grow on the compacted soil where buildings and corrals once stood.
93
Plate la (1941) . In Alamo Canyon, Ajo Mountains, about 1/8 mile east of campground, facing north-northwest. The visual dominants apparent in the photograph are organ pipe cactus, saguaro, foothill palo verde and triangle leaf bursage.
94
**" 'ififli.v ^<'*&l!
Plate lb (1980) . The populations of organ pipe and saguaro are about the same. Many individuals appear in both pictures; saguaros A and B, for example, and organ pipes C and D.
95
Plate lc (1980) . The original photo station was occupied by a large Opuntia fulgida.
96
97
Plate 2a (1947). In the vicinity of the present-day Visitor Center, from top of old pumphouse, facing north-northeast. The Ajo Mountains are on the skyline at right. The dominant plants are foothill palo verde, creosote, saguaro and jumping cholla.
98
Plate 2b (1980) . The pumphouse has been torn down, and the highest the photographer could get was the top of a pickup truck, This difference in point of view may account for the apparent decline in the numbers of saguaros. Many individuals carry over from the first to the second photo; the palo verde at A, the buck-horn cholla at B, and the saguaro at C, for example. The palo verde at D which is alive in the first picture is represented by a dead trunk and limbs on the ground in the new photo. Apparently the campground caused no irreversible damage to the vegetation.
99
Plate 3a (1941) . Near Alamo Canyon campground, Ajo Mountains, facing north. Low shrubs in the foreground are triangle leaf bursage. Other dominants include foothill palo verde, ironwood, saguaro and jumping cholla.
100
Plate 3b (198 0) . Although the photo station is too far to the left, many individuals appear in both photographs. Saguaros A and B were measured in 1941 and again in 1980. In 1941, saguaro A was 45.7 cm tall and had grown to 1.6 m by 1980. Saguaro B was 61 cm in 1941, 2.2. m in 1980. 9 The saguaro population has decreased 57%. The decline in saguaros is especially noticeable on upper bajada slopes at the base of the mountain.
1941 measurements were supplied by Warren F. Steenbergh
101
Plate 3c (1980). This photo, which is closer to the original photo station than Plate 3b, shows that mesquite is invading the bajada slopes (C and D) . This area was heavily grazed by cattle
102
103
Plate 4a (1941). Scarface Mountain is the large hill on the center skyline. The photo point is located northeast of Bates Well, facing north. Foreground shrubs are triangle leaf bursage and creosote. The hills in the background are dominated by foothill palo verde and saguaro.
104
Plate 4b (1980) . The new photo point is within 2 meters of the old one. Apparently little change has occurred in the foreground vegetation. The population of Opuntia fulgida has aged and is undergoing senescence. There has been a 41% decrease in the saguaro population. Individual plants which can be traced from the 1941 to the 1980 photo include the Opuntia fulgida at A, the saguaro at B, and the cluster of saguaros at C. Notice that one of the saguaros in the cluster on the old photo does not appear on the new photo. Some other saguaros which appear in the 1941 photo but not in the 1980 photo are indicated by arrows.
105
Plate 5a (ca. 1940) . Facing north, looking at Scarface Mountain in the center. Dominant plants in the foreground are ocotillo, creosote, foothill palo verde and triangle leaf bursage. Low hills in the center of the photo have triangle leaf bursage, teddybear cholla, foothill palo verde, ocotillo and saguaro.
106
©
Plate 5b (1980) . Although the number of saguaros in the foreground has decreased, the graininess of the old photo makes it difficult to compare the number of saguaros in each photo. Saguaros present in the old photo but absent in the new photo are indicated by arrows. Many palo verdes and ocotillos appear in both photographs; the ocotillos at A, B, and C, for example, and the palo verdes at D, E, F, G, H, I, and J,. Opuntia fulgida along the road left of center has apparently invaded since the first photo was taken.
107
Plate 6a (ca. 1940). Growler Mountains, about 1 mile west of Bates Well, facing north-northwest. Triangle leaf bursage and creosote are numerically dominant. Saguaro, foothill palo verde, and ocotillo are also important.
108
*V'i-.' "- *r **'* •%.
Plate 6b (1980) . New photo point is a meter or two far forward, but some individuals can still be found in both photographs. The palo verde at A in the earlier photo is a dead snag in the 1980 photos; it served as a nurse plant for 3 saguaros, 2 of which are visible in the photo. Apparently saguaros have increased since the first photo was taken. There are two possible explanations for this increase. First, the brilliant sunlight in the background of the new photo makes the saguaros stand out and the grainy background of the old photo causes the saguaros to disappear. Alternatively, saguaros may be increasing in this part of the monument.
109
Plate 7 a (1959) . Growler Ranch, looking north; Growler Mountains at left of photo, Scarf ace Mountain on horizon at right. Foreground is dominated by creosote and probably both foothill and blue, line
ocotillo. the washes.
Palo verdes,
110
Plate 7b (1980) . There has been a 27% increase in saguaros between 1959 and 1980 at this site. As with Plates 6a and 6b, this may be an apparent rather than a real increase, due to better resolution in the more recent photo. Individuals which appear in both photos include the pair of saguaros at A, teddybear cholla at B, and the groups of ocotillo at C and D. The old ranch site shows little regrowth of woody plants; only few creosote occur where the ranch once stood.
Ill
Plate 8a (1961) . Quitobaquito pond, facing north-northwest. Tall shrubs at right of photo are Baccharis salicifolia; lower shrubs are Isocoma acradenia. Other species growing at the edge of the pond include Prosopis velutina and Populus fremontii .
112
Plate 8b (1980). The pond was deepened in 1962. Since then, a lush growth of riparian herbs and shrubs has occurred around the margin of the pond. Visible in the foreground are Scirpus olneyi and Pluchea purpurascens .
113
Plate 9a (1942) . Williams Spring, facing north-northeast. The shrubs around the pond include Baccharis salicifolia at A and Isocoma acradenia at B. Dominants on the hills in the background are foothill palo verde, organ pipe cactus, saguaro and teddybear cholla.
114
Plate 9b (1980) . The standing pool of water is still present, but is obscured by the dense growth of riparian vegetation, including Isocoma acradenia, Prosopis velutina, Tessaria sericea and Typha domingensis . Although the old photo station could not be located exactly, several individuals appear in both photographs, such as the organ pipe cacti at C and D. The populations of columnar cacti are about the same in both places.
115
Plate 10a (1956). Ajo Mountains, facing north. Dominants are triangle leaf bursage, organ pipe, saguaro, foothill palo verde, jumping cholla and ocotillo.
116
Plate 10b (1980) . Many individuals, including saguaros at A and B and the organ pipe and ocotillo at C appear in both photos. The jumping cholla in the old photo at D is a skeleton on the ground in the recent photo; the cholla population appears to have declined in the 2 4 years between the two photos. The organ pipe at C has grown 16 new arms in 24 years, as well as increasing considerably in size. There has been a 33% decline in the number of saguaros since 1956. The population of organ pipe cacti is about the same in both photos.
117
Plate 11a (ca. 1892) . Along the international boundary ca. 1 mile west of Dos Lomitas, facing west. Mexico is left of Monument 166; Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument is to the right. The shrubs in the center of the photo are mainly Atriplex polycarpa .
118
Plate lib (1980) . Monument 166 is behind the creosote bush at center (see arrow) . The silty flat south (left) of the fence has been converted to farmland. Creosote has invaded along the road north of the fence, as have weedy annual species such as Russian thistle (Salsola paulsenii) and canary grass (Phalaria minor) .
119
Plate 12a (ca. 1892). Along the international boundary ca. 1/8 mile east of Quitobaquito, facing east. Mexico is right of Monument 172; Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument is to the left Species visible in the photo include triangle leaf bursage, foothill palo verde, saguaro, organ pipe, creosote and ocotillo.
120
Plate 12b (1980) . Monument 172 is at the right side of the photograph. Since the old photo was taken, the number of saguaros have increased from 3 to 7 , and the number of organ pipes have increased from 15 to 24.
121
Plate 13a (1941) . Photo point is west of Growler Pass, about 1 1/2 miles northeast of Bates Well, facing north-northeast. The low hill on the skyline is east of Scarface Mountain. The shrubs in the foreground are triangle leaf bursage and creosote. Other dominants include foothill palo verde, saguaro and jumping cholla.
122
Plate 13b (1980) . Little change has occurred in the 39 years since the first photo was taken. The number of saguaros is about the same. The chollas have aged and are beginning senescence. The erosion in the foreground has apparently occurred since 1941.
123
Plate 14a (1975). Dos Lomitas exclosure facing north. The shrubs in the foreground are Atriplex polycarpa. The exclosure was erected in 1963 (Steenbergh and Warren 1977) . The area right of the fence is ungrazed, the area to the left is heavily grazed.
124
Plate 14b (1979) . Recovery since grazing ceased has been rapid. The shrubs have increased in volume and number outside of the exclosure. The difference in cover between the left side and the right side of the fence is much more pronounced than in the 1975 photo. Abundant dead annuals were the result of two consecutive wet winters. Standing dead annuals retard the rate of sheet wash, preventing gully erosion. Before grazing was ended at the monument, dead annuals were present inside the exclosure but absent outside the exclosure (Peter Warren, personal communication) .
125
The photo pairs as a whole show that little change in vegetation types has occurred at the monument over the past 100 years. Changes are occurring now, however, which may result in different plant associations in the future. For example, the increase in mesquite on formerly grazed bajada slopes may become permanent, resulting in shared dominance by Cercidium microphyllum and Prosopis velutina . Continued decline of saguaro populations may mean that typical Arizona Upland vegetation with Cercidium microphyllum and Carnegiea gigantea will be found only on rocky, south-facing slopes where saguaro populations may receive protection from catastrophic freezes.
In summary, vegetation change at the monument has not been well-documented except for recent localized change. Changes which have occurred in the last 100 years include:
1) the invasion of mesquite near Blankenship Well, Lukeville, and Alamo Canyon,
2) an increase in cacti, particularly Opuntia fulgida, along dirt roads and near Grass and Alamo canyons,
3) depletion of grass populations in areas of the monument that were accessible to cattle,
4) a decline in the saguaro population at some locations,
5) rapid influx and growth of mesophytic species around the perimeter of Quitobaquito Pond and Williams Spring,
6) the invasion of creosote in stands of Atriplex polycarpa near Blankenship Well and along the road near Dos Lomitas,
7) deterioration in the vigor of plants and diversity of plant communities in areas accessible to cattle,
8) recent recovery of overgrazed vegetation in some areas.
Many of these changes were due to overgrazing by cattle and were fairly localized. The lush riparian growth at Williams Spring and Quitobaquito Pond is also localized. Climatic change, specifically an increase in the frequency of catastrophic freezes, has probably caused local declines in the saguaro populations. On the whole, however, plant associations have remained stable over the past 100 years. Vegetation changes at the monument form a mosaic with areas of rapid or dramatic change occurring in a more stable matrix in which few changes have occurred during the last century.
126
CLIMATIC CHANGE IN THE SOUTHWEST
There can be little doubt that the Southwest is undergoing a change in climate to warmer and drier conditions. Evidence for this change includes rainfall and temperature records and vegetation changes in areas where human influence is minimal. Using a 10-year running mean for mean seasonal temperature and precipitation records from 18 stations in Arizona and New Mexico, Cooke and Reeves demonstrate that "since the turn of the century there has been a slight decrease in summer precipitation, together with general, slight increases of temperature" (1976, p. 66) . Hastings and Turner (1965) state that the mean annual temperature in Arizona has risen 3 or 3.5°F since the 1870' s, adding that the trend to warmer and drier conditions is of a magnitude sufficient to affect vegetation. Although none of the changes which occurred in precipitation and temperature are statistically significant, it is well-known that weather phenomena in the Southwest are extremely variable, therefore perceptible trends in climatic conditions can be very important.
Additional evidence of climatic change is seen in photographic pairs. For example, in the Pinacate region, photographs taken in 1907 and 1962 show that blue palo verde, foothill palo verde, creosote, mesquite and other species have declined in numbers. Photos from 1903 and 1961 show that an increase in the number of Pachycereus pringlei has occurred on the Islas Melisas in the Gulf of California near Guaymas. These changes have occurred where human influence is minimal and are important evidence of a drying trend over the past 100 years (Hastings and Turner 1965) . Another indication of climatic change is the uniform onset of erosion between 1875 and 1895 over much of the Southwest. Hastings and Turner reason that the timing and scope of arroyo cutting points to overall control by a factor which can operate simultaneously over a large region, and climate is such a factor.
CLIMATIC CHANGE AT ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT
It seems reasonable to assume that Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument has not escaped climatic change in the past 100 years, especially since the monument is near the Pinacate region, an area which has undergone demonstrable changes in climate. The magnitude of climatic change at the monument and its effects on the vegetation remain problematical, since there are no long-term weather records for the monument and since many of the changes in vegetation at the monument can easily be attributed to overgrazing by domestic livestock. Hastings and Turner (1965) point out that the drying trend which has occurred in Arizona over the past 100 years is equal to the environmental change which occurs in an elevational span of 1,000 feet. However, 100
127
years ago, travelers in the area that is now the monument saw and described creosote bush associations and palo verde-saguaro associations at the same elevation in which these types are found today. Evidently climatic change at the monument has not been pronounced enough to change the spatial distribution of these types or of the dominant plants.
CONCLUSION
It is now possible to return to the questions asked at the beginning of Section two and attempt to answer them. Has the area which is now the monument changed since European contact and what have these changes been? The area has changed in several important ways. Gully erosion has disfigured several portions of the monument, including the southern boundary near Dos Lomitas and the northern boundary near Armenta Well. Although the dominant plant species appear to be the same, major changes have occurred in the herbaceous vegetation, notably a decrease in cover and number of species of perennial grasses. In addition, localized changes attributed to overgrazing have occurred in some areas of the monument.
Were these changes the result of human activities or would they have occurred without human interference? Gully erosion, which evidently post-dates arroyo cutting in the Southwest was probably caused by overgrazing (Steenbergh and Warren 1977) . Many localized changes in vegetation, for example, invasion of cacti near Grass and Alamo canyons, mesquite invasion near Blankenship Well and Lukeville, and removal of 85-90% of the Hilaria rigida population near Bates Well, can also be attributed to overgrazing by livestock and thus to human interference. Cattle may be responsible for the change in cover and number of species of perennial grasses over much of the monument, as well. Schultz (1966) found that in the Cipriano Hills, which are not accessible to livestock, Hilaria rigida, Aristida spp. and Muhlenbergia porteri were present in greater density and volume than on the adjacent flats. In addition, recovery of grass stands on some heavily grazed slopes shows that the area can support fairly dense stands of drought-tolerant grasses in the absence of grazing by domestic livestock. Thus, it appears that cattle were instrumental in depleting grass populations at the monument. Apparently, both human activities, particularly livestock ranching, and a shift in climate toward warmer and drier conditions, have caused vegetation change and gully erosion at the monument.
It is difficult to predict whether vegetation will recover completely at the monument. As noted earlier, drought can remove vegetative cover even in the absence of grazing by cattle and a
128
series of dry seasons or years at the monument would delay recovery of perennial grass populations. Leopold (1951b) cautions that the idea of an "originally verdant vegetation" in the Southwest which "deteriorated as a result of man's activities" has led to over optimism about recovery rates of overgrazed rangeland after grazing has ceased or been reduced. He concludes, "We may have allowed ourselves to be deluded by hopes of 'restoring' over large areas a level of vegetation density that was originally attained only in selected localities" (Leopold 1951b, p. 295) .
COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS REFERRED TO HEREIN
mesquite
sacaton grass
tule
cat claw, white thorn
foothill palo verde
blue palo verde
burroweed
jumping cholla
palo fierro
greasewood
giant cactus
galleta
salt grass
pitahaya, organ pipe cactus
cholla or choya
barrel cactus
chain-fruit chollas
century plant
triangle leaf bursage
brittle bush
saguaro
creosote bush
ocotillo
sangre-de-drago
big galleta
sangre-de-drago
bush muhly
three awn
desert saltbush
narrow-leaved saltbush
ironwood
black grama
muticus
tobosa
curly mesquite
bull grass
Prosopis velutina
Sporobolus wright ii
various species in the Cyperaceae
Acacia
Cercidium microphyllum
C. floridum
Haplopappus tenuisectus
Opuntia fulgida
Olneya tesota
Larrea tridentata
Cereus giganteus
Hi 1 aria rig id a
Distichlis spicata
Cereus thurberi
Opuntia spp.
Ferocactus wislizenii
Opuntia fulgida and O. bigelovii
Agave
Ambrosia deltoidea
Encelia farinosa
Cereus giganteus
Larrea tridentata
Fouquieria splendens
Jatropha cuneata
Hilar i a rigida
Jatropha cuneata
Muhlenbergia porter i
Aristida spp.
Atriplex polycarpa
A. linearis
Olneya tesota
Bouteloua eriopoda
Tridens muticus
Hilar ia mutica
H. belangeri
Muhlenbergia emersleyi
129
deer grass m. rigens
Rothrock grama Bouteloua rothrockii
plains lovegrass Eragrostis intermedia
vine mesquite Panicum obtusion
LITERATURE CITED
Boulton, H. E. , trans. 1948. Kino's historical memoirs of Pimera Alta. U. of Cal. Press, Berkeley.
Bryan, K. 1925. The Papago country, Arizona - a geographic, geologic and hydrologic reconnaissance with a guide to desert watering places. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 499.
Bryan, K. 1928. Changes in plant associations by change in ground water level. Ecology 9:474-478.
Buffington, L. C. and C. H. Herbel. 1965. Vegetational changes on a semidesert grassland range from 1858 to 1963. Ecological Monographs 35:139-164.
Cooke, R. U. and R. W. Reeves. 1976. Arroyos and environmental change in the American Southwest. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Emory, W. H. 1857. Report on the United States and Mexican boundary survey, U.S. 34th Congress, 1st session, Senate Executive Document 108.
Ferguson, C. W. 1950. An ecological analysis of lower Sonoran zone relic vegetation in south-central Arizona. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Gibble, W. P. 1950. Nineteen years of vegetational change in a desert habitat. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Hastings, J. R. 1959. Vegetation in southeastern Arizona. J. Ariz. Acad. Sci. 1:60-67.
Hastings, J. R. 1963. Historical changes in the vegetation of a desert region. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Hastings, J. R. and R. M. Turner. 1965. The changing mile. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Hornaday, W. T. 1909. Campfires on desert and lava. Charles Scribners, N.Y.
130
Humphrey, R. R. 1958. The desert grassland. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Leopold, L. B. 1951a. Rainfall frequency: an aspect of climatic variation. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 32:347-357.
Leopold, L. B. 1951b. Vegetation of the southwestern watersheds in the nineteenth century. Geographical Review 41:295-316.
Lumholtz, C. 1912. New trails in Mexico. Scribners, N.Y.
MacDougal, D. T. 1908. Across Papagueria. Plant World 11:93-99, 123-131.
Martin, S. C. and R. M. Turner. 1977. Vegetation changes in the Sonoran desert region, Arizona and Sonora. J. Ariz. Acad. Sci. 12:59-69.
Mason, L. 1963. Using historical records to determine climax vegetation. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 18:190-194.
Niering, W. A., R. H. Whittaker and C. H. Lowe. 1963. The
saguaro: a population in relation to environment. Science 142:15-23.
Parker, K. C. 1977. Site preferences, reproductive
characteristics, and population dynamics of organ pipe cactus (Lemaireocereus thurberi) in southern Arizona. M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 125 p.
Schultz, R. L. 1966. Forage resource inventory of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Narrative report for the National Park Service. U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Shreve, F. 1929. Changes in desert vegetation. Ecology 10:364-373.
Shreve, F. and A. L. Hinckley. 1937. 30 years of change in desert vegetation. Ecology 18:463-478.
Steenbergh, W. F. and C. H. Lowe. 1976a. Ecology of the
saguaro: I. The role of freezing weather in a warm-desert population. Pages 49-92 in: Research in the Parks. National Park Service symposium series No 1. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
131
Steenbergh, W. F. 1976Jb. The saguaro giant cactus: an
ecological perspective. Pages 71-78 in: Proceedings of the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks Vol. I. Transactions and Proceedings Series, National Park Service, No. 5.
Steenbergh, W. F. 1977. Ecology of the saguaro: II.
Reproduction, germination, establishment, growth and survival of the young plant. National Park Service Scientific Monograph Series, No. 8. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Steenbergh, W. F. and P. L. Warren. 1977. Ecological
investigation of natural community status at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. University of Arizona, Tucson, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit Technical Report 3 .
Thornber, J. J. 1910. The grazing ranges of Arizona.
University of Arizona Agric. Exp. Station Bull. 65.
U.S. Congress. 1984. Preliminary reconnaissance of the boundary line between the U.S. and Mexico. U.S. 48th Congress, 1st session, Senate Miscellaneous Document 96.
U.S. Congress. 1898. Report of the Boundary Commission upon the survey and remarking of the boundary between the United States and Mexico west of the Rio Grande, 1891-1896. U.S. 55th Congress, 2nd session, Senate Document 247, Part 2.
Warren, Peter. Personal communication.
Wright, N. and L. J. Streetman. 1958. Past performance and future potential of black grama for southwestern ranges. Journal of Range Management 11:207-214.
132
STATUS OF THE ACUNA CACTUS (Neolloydia erectocentra VAR.
Acunensis) AND THE AJO ROCK-DAISY (Perityle Ajoensis)
IN ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA
Arthur M. Phillips III and William H. Buskirk
INTRODUCTION
Considering the wide variety of habitats present in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, it should come as no surprise that there are a number of rare, endemic, and possibly imperiled plant species found within the park. Some eight species have been proposed as candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act, although none has been listed at this time. Some of these have been dropped from consideration, and others are in need of additional study before their true status can be determined.
This paper will consider the status of two such plant species found within the monument, the Acuna cactus, Neolloydia erectocentra var. acunensis , and the Ajo rock-daisy, Perityle ajoensis .
ACUNA CACTUS
The Acuna cactus was first discovered by Superintendent William Supernaugh in 1948. Although it is known from two or three places outside the monument, by far the largest and best protected population of the plant is within the boundaries of Organ Pipe.
The Acuna cactus in the monument has been studied and monitored by faculty and students of the Southwest Field Studies Program of Earlham College since January, 1977. These studies have included wide searches to determine the distribution of the cactus, periodic censusing of study plots to determine population trends, and periodic measurements of individual plants to establish growth rates and longevity.
Two 0.1 ha plots were established by the Earlham College group in 1977. All of the Acunas have been measured each year within each plot, although they were not mapped so it was not possible to keep track of individual plants. One of these plots ("roadside") is along a road; the other ("off-road") is approximately 170 m from the road in an area less likely to be visited by tourists.
During the period 1977-1981 the total numbers of Acuna cactus in the plots declined by 31%. The decline is even greater (39%) among plants taller than 3.0 cm, which are those censused with
133
greater accuracy. The degree of reduction is similar in the two plots; however, the pattern of decline in the plots differs. The roadside plot decreased steadily, with the greatest loss occurring in 1977-1978. The off-road plot was relatively stable until 1980-1981 when it declined precipitously (Buskirk 1981) .
In January, 1980, 123 individual Acuna plants were mapped, some of them occurring on each of the plots. One year later 42% were found dead or missing. The losses were not significantly different between the two plots (Buskirk 1981) . In January, 1982, 63% of the original 123 were dead or missing.
The reasons for the decline were not clear. There was no overt evidence of collection on the plots in 1981, although two excavations were found nearby which could have been sites where plants were dug. In 1982, three mapped cacti in the roadside area had been lost to collectors, as evidenced by excavations. It now appears that collecting could be a significant cause of loss of Acuna cacti in the monument. Some of the dead cacti are simply missing, but most of the losses are represented either by scattered spine clusters, suggesting small mammal depredation, or by mummified carcasses or shells of interlocking spines, suggesting desiccation without significant above-ground physical damage. The predominance of missing plants represented by scattered spine clusters suggests that small mammals may have been in large part responsible for the large scale losses in 1980-1981 and in 1981-1982.
An independent study by the Museum of Northern Arizona in March, 1981, of plants in the same area as the roadside plot showed that 37% of the plants counted were dead, represented either by spine clusters or by carcasses or shells. The plants were beginning to flower at the time of the study, and 52% of the living plants were reproductive, with an average of 3.6 flowers and/or buds per plant. Seedlings accounted for 8% of the plants counted, while 40% were apparently non-reproductive adults (Phillips et al. 1982a) .
The distribution and ready accessibility of the plants in the monument make the population susceptible to large-scale removal. While recent losses from the population seem to be mainly from natural causes, the vulnerability to human-caused reduction increases as the population declines.
The following management practices and policies by the National Park Service are particularly critical to the protection of the Acuna cactus:
1. Restricted dissemination of information to the public on the distribution (presence) , size, and location of the population.
134
2. Regular and conspicuous patrols of portions of the monument inhabited by the Acuna.
3. Ensuring that visitors know that all plant collecting is prohibited without a permit, to discourage casual collecting.
4. Maintenance of a narrow, unpaved road in the range of Acuna and other vulnerable habitats. Road improvements will directly harm portions of the population by habitat removal as well as allowing ease of access by casual collectors.
5. Limited access by the public within the range of Acuna. Scenic pullouts should be banned if possible within the area, and improved facilities such as picnic tables, latrines, and parking areas should be avoided. Reduction of access to this area by tourists would reduce the likelihood of incidental discovery and/or recognition of the population.
6. Consider encouragement of listing as a Threatened or Endangered species if that would aid in its management by the National Park Service.
AJO ROCK-DAISY
The Ajo rock-daisy was discovered by Thomas K. Todsen of New Mexico State University in 1972 (Todsen 1974) . It is known only from the monument, and has been found in Arch and Estes canyons in the Ajo Mountains. No additional localities