Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 473–488 | Cite as

Urban and wildland herpetofauna communities and riparian microhabitats along the Salt River, Arizona

Article

Abstract

Metropolitan areas are continually expanding, resulting in increasing impacts on ecosystems. Worldwide, riverine floodplains are among the most endangered landscapes and are often the focus of restoration activities. Amphibians and reptiles have valuable ecological roles in ecosystems, and promoting their abundance and diversity when rehabilitating riparian systems can contribute to reestablishing degraded ecosystem functions. We evaluated the herpetofauna community by measuring abundance, richness, diversity, and species-habitat relations along three reaches (wildland, urban rehabilitated, and urban disturbed reaches) varying in degree of urbanization and rehabilitation along the Salt River in central Arizona. We performed visual surveys for herpetofauna and quantified riparian microhabitat along eight transects per reach. The wildland reach had the greatest herpetofauna species richness and diversity, and had similar abundance compared to the urban rehabilitated reach. The urban disturbed reach had the lowest herpetofauna abundance and species richness, and had a similar diversity compared to the urban rehabilitated reach. Principal Component Analysis reduced 21 microhabitat variables to five factors which described habitat differences among reaches. Vegetation structural complexity, vegetation species richness, densities of Prosopis (mesquite), Salix (willow), Populus (cottonwood), and animal burrow density had a positive correlation with at least one herpetofauna community parameter, and had a positive correlation with abundance of at least one lizard species. Rehabilitation activities positively influenced herpetofauna abundance and species richness; whereas, urbanization negatively influenced herpetofauna diversity. Based on herpetofauna-microhabitat associations, we recommend urban natural resource managers increase vegetation structural complexity and woody debris to improve herpetofauna habitat when rehabilitating degraded riparian systems.

Keywords

Herpetofauna Microhabitat Riparian Rehabilitation Urban Wildland 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Nick Vandehei for his tremendous help collecting field data and Yun Ouyang for his help to create the study area map. We thank the city of Phoenix, city of Tempe, and the Tonto National Forest Mesa Ranger District for granting permission to perform this study on their land. We thank Ward Brady and Juliet Stromberg for their assistance on study design, techniques, analyses, and for providing comments on earlier manuscript drafts. We thank Kelly Steele and Elizabeth Makings for help identifying plant species. Partial support for MJB was provided by the National Science Foundation (no. BCS-1026865 via Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research) and Arizona State University Department of Applied Sciences and Mathematics.

References

  1. Anderies JM, Katti M, Shochat E (2007) Living in the city: resource availability, predation, and bird population dynamics in urban areas. J Theor Biol 247:36–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.01.030 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson E, Nilsson C, Johansson ME (2000) Effects of river fragmentation on plant dispersal and riparian flora. Regul Rivers: Res Manag 16:83–89. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1646(200001/02)16:1<83::AID-RRR567>3.0.CO;2-T CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attum O, Eason P, Cobbs G, El Din MB (2006) Response of a desert lizard community to habitat degradation: do ideas about habitat specialists/generalists hold? Biol Conserv 133:52–62. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.05.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbault R, Maury M-E (1981) Ecological organization of a Chihuahuan desert lizard community. Oecologia 51:335–342. doi: 10.1007/BF00540903 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman HL, Paxton E (2010) Chapter 4: Saltcedar and Russian olive interactions with wildlife. In: Shafroth PB, Brown CA, Merritt DM (eds) Saltcedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act Science Assessment. U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5247, Reston, VA, pp 49–63Google Scholar
  6. Bateman HL, Chung-MacCoubrey A, Snell HL (2008) Impact of non-native plant removal on lizards in riparian habitats in the Southwestern United States. Restor Ecol 16:180–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00361.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bayley PB (1995) Understanding large river: floodplain ecosystems. BioScience 45:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benke A (1990) A perspective on America’s vanishing streams. J N Am Bentholl Soc 9:77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E (2005) Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637. doi: 10.1126/science.1109769 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolund P, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ 29:293–301. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brennan TC, Holycross AT (2009) A field guide to amphibians and reptiles in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, PhoenixGoogle Scholar
  12. Burton TM, Likens GE (1975) Salamander populations and biomass in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Copeia 1975:541–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crother BI (ed) (2008) Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding, 6th edn. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR), Herpetological Circular 37, Salt Lake City, UTGoogle Scholar
  14. Daubenmire R (1959) A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Sci 33:43–64Google Scholar
  15. Doan TM (2003) Which methods are most effective for surveying rain forest herpetofauna? J Herpetol 37:72–81. doi: 10.1670/0022-1511(2003)037[0072:WMAMEF]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dynesius M, Nilsson C (1994) Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science 266:753–762. doi: 10.1126/science.266.5186.753 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Follstad Shah JJ, Dahm CN, Gloss SP, Bernhardt ES (2007) River and riparian restoration in the southwest: results of the national river restoration science synthesis project. Restor Ecol 15:550–562. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00250.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. French SS, Fokidis HB, Moore MC (2009) Variation in stress and innate immunity in the tree lizard (Urosaurus ornatus) across an urban–rural gradient. J Comp Physiol Biol 178:997–1005. doi: 10.1007/s00360-008-0290-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garden JG, McAlpine CA, Possingham HP, Jones DN (2007) Habitat structure is more important than vegetation composition for local-level management of native terrestrial reptile and small mammal species living in urban remnants: a case study from Brisbane, Australia. Austral Ecol 32:669–685. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2007.01750.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Germaine SS, Wakeling BF (2001) Lizard species distributions and habitat occupation along an urban gradient in Tucson, Arizona, USA. Biol Conserv 97:229–237. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00115-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Germano DJ, Lawhead DN (1986) Species diversity and habitat complexity: Does vegetation organize vertebrate communities in the Great Basin? Great Basin Nat 46:711–720Google Scholar
  22. Gibbons JW (1988) The management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America: The need for an environmental attitude adjustment. In: Szaro RC, Severson KE, Patton DR (eds) Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of a symposium. July 19–21, 1988; Flagstaff, AZ. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-166, pp 4–10Google Scholar
  23. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760. doi: 10.1126/science.1150195 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gurevitch J, Scheiner SM, Fox GA (2002) Ecology of Plants. Sinauer Associates, Inc, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen AJ, Knight RL, Marzluff JM, Powell S, Brown K, Gude PH, Jones K (2005) Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: Patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecol Appl 15:1893–1905. doi: 10.1890/05-5221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hawlena D, Bouskila A (2006) Land management practices for combating desertification cause species replacement of desert lizards. J Appl Ecol 43:701–709. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01177.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaeger RG (1994) Transect sampling. In: Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek L-AC, Foster MS (eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity, standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London, pp 103–107Google Scholar
  28. Jakle MD, Gatz TA (1985) Herpetofaunal use of four habitats of the middle Gila River drainage, Arizona. In: Johnson RR, Ziebell CD, Patton DR, Ffolliott PF, Hamre RH (tech coords) Riparian ecosystems and their management: Reconciling conflicting uses. April 16–18, 1985; Tucson, AZ. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-120, pp 355–358Google Scholar
  29. Jones KB (1981) Effects of grazing on lizard abundance and diversity in Western Arizona. Southwest Nat 26:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones KB, Kepner LP, Martin TE (1985) Species of reptiles occupying habitat islands in Western Arizona: a deterministic assemblage. Oecologia 66:595–601. doi: 10.1007/BF00379354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Larson EK, Grimm NB, Gober P, Redman CL (2005) The paradoxical ecology and management of water in the Phoenix, USA metropolitan area. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 5:287–296Google Scholar
  32. Lowe CH (1989) The riparianness of a desert herpetofauna. In: Abell DL (tech coord) Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference: protection, management, and restoration for the 1990s. September 22–24, 1988; Davis, CA. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-110, pp 143–148Google Scholar
  33. McGarigal K, Cushman S, Stafford S (2000) Multivariate statistics for wildlife and ecology research. Springer Science and Business Media, Inc., New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176. doi: 10.1007/s11252-007-0045-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Menninger HL, Palmer MA (2006) Restoring ecological communities: from theory to practice. In: Falk DA, Palmer MA, Zedler J (eds) Foundations of restoration ecology. Island Press, Washington, pp 88–112Google Scholar
  36. Merritt DM, Poff NL (2010) Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along gradients of flow alteration in western North American rivers. Ecol Appl 20:135–152. doi: 10.1890/08-2251.1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mitchell JC, Jung Brown RE (2008) Urban Herpetology: global overview, synthesis, and future directions. In: Mitchell JC, Jung Brown RE, Bartholomew B (eds) Urban Herpetology. Herpetological Conservation vol. 3, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Salt Lake City, UT, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  38. Naiman RJ, Decamps H (1997) The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:621–658. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nilsson C, Berggren K (2000) Alterations of riparian ecosystems caused by river regulation. BioScience 50:783–792. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0783:AORECB]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pianka ER (1966) Convexity, desert lizards, and spatial heterogeneity. Ecology 47:1055–1059. doi: 10.2307/1935656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pianka ER (1967) On lizard species diversity: North American flatland deserts. Ecology 48:332–351. doi: 10.2307/1932670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pillsbury FC, Miller JR (2008) Habitat and landscape characteristics underlying anuran community structure along an urban–rural gradient. Ecol Appl 18:1107–1118. doi: 10.1890/07-1899.1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rodda GH, Tyrrell CL (2008) Introduced species that invade and species that thrive in town: Are these two groups cut from the same cloth? In: Mitchell JC, Jung Brown RE, Bartholomew B (eds) Urban Herpetology. Herpetological Conservation vol. 3, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Salt Lake City, UT, pp 327–341Google Scholar
  44. Rosen PC (2009) Chapter 9: reptiles and amphibians. In: Stromberg JC, Tellman B (eds) Ecology and conservation of the San Pedro River. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 175–191Google Scholar
  45. Savard JL, Clergeau P, Mennechez G (2000) Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landsc Urban Plan 48:131–142. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00037-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seaby RM, Henderson PA (2006) Species diversity and richness, Version 4. Pisces Conservation Ltd., LymingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. Small C, Cohen JE (2004) Continental physiography, climate and the global distribution of human population. Curr Anthropol 45:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stebbins RC (2003) Peterson field guides: Western reptiles and amphibians, 3rd edn. Houghton Mifflin Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Stromberg JC, Lite SJ, Marler R, Paradzick C, Shafroth PB, Shorrock D, White JM, White MS (2007) Altered stream-flow regimes and invasive plant species: the Tamarix case. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:381–393. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00297.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Szaro RC, Belfit SC (1986) Herpetofaunal use of a desert riparian island and its adjacent scrub habitat. J Wildl Manag 50:752–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tilman D, Downing JA (1994) Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367:363–365. doi: 10.1038/367363a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tockner K, Stanford JA (2002) Riverine floodplains: present state and future trends. Environ Conserv 29:308–330. doi: 10.1017/S037689290200022X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tothmeresz B (1995) Comparison of different methods for diversity ordering. J Veg Sci 6:283–290. doi: 10.2307/3236223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turner MG, Carpenter SR, Gustafson EJ, Naiman RJ, Pearson SM (1998) Land use. In: Mac MJ, Opler PA, Doran P, Haecker C (eds) Status and trends of our nation’s biological resources. Volume 1, vol 1. National Biological Service, Washington, pp 37–61Google Scholar
  55. Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kazmierczak A, Niemela J, James P (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc Urban Plan 81:167–178. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. United Nations (2008) World urbanization prospects: The 2007 revision population database. United Nations, Population Division, New York, NY. http://esa.un.org/unup. Accessed March 2011
  57. USDA NRCS (2011) The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed multiple times in 2010
  58. Vitt LJ, van Loben Sels RC, Ohmart RD (1981) Ecological relationship among arboreal desert lizards. Ecology 62:398–410. doi: 10.2307/1936714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Welsh HH, Hodgson GR (1997) A hierarchical strategy for sampling herpetofaunal assemblages along small streams in the western U.S., with an example from Northern California. Trans West Sect Wildl Soc 33:56–66Google Scholar
  60. Wenninger EJ, Fagan WF (2000) Effect of river flow manipulation on wolf spider assemblages at three desert riparian sites. J Arachnol 28:115–122. doi: 10.1636/0161-8202(2000)028[0115:EORFMO]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Sciences and MathematicsArizona State University at the Polytechnic campusMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations