Volume 24 May 2011 Number 5 t h i s m o n t h s s p e a k e r S H e r p e t o f a u n a o f t h e 1 0 0 - m i l e C i r c l e 42 Greater Earless Lizard, Cophosaurus texanus Troschel, 1852 by Robert L. Bezy a n n u a l r e p o r t Phil Rosen and Dennis Caldwell Restoring Leopard Frogs & Habitat in a Key Sky Island Grassland Landscape 7:15 PM Tuesday, 17 May University of Arizona, BIO5/Keating Building 1657 East Helen Street Phil Rosen has worked actively in research, monitoring, and the design and implementation of control methods for exotic and restoration of native aquatic species in the Southwest for 25 years, including intensive research and monitoring at the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (LCNCA). He has worked closely with involved agencies, especially the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Pima County, The Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. His experience in public-private conservation partnerships include work with the Malpai Group, Altar Valley Conservation Alliance, and Tucson neighborhoods, schools, and residences. Dennis Caldwell has conducted research and management on aquatic species in the Cienega Creek region for over 15 years. For Top, Cienega Creek in the heart of Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. Top right, FROG team meeting with BLM; Jeff Simms, Phil Rosen, David Hall, and Netzin Steklis. Bottom right, Multi-agency field trip to coordinate conservation efforts; Dennis Caldwell, Cat Crawford, and Mike Sredl. Photos by Dennis Caldwell and Netzin Steklis. six years he has held a BLM contract to remove nonnative aquatic species from the LCNCA. He has been actively removing bullfrogs and working on a crayfish eradication effort near the headwaters of Cienega Creek. Dennis has worked closely with ranchers in the watershed to gain trust and engage them in conservation management. He manages a multi-agency backyard frog refugia project in neighborhoods buffering Saguaro National Park near Tucson. Dennis is also a professional graphic designer with 26 years experience communicating conservation issues to the public through printed materials and interpretive signs. See the larger article beginning on page 47. 46 Speakers Bureau Report 2010 l o c a l r e s e a r c h 47 Restoring Leopard Frogs & Habitat in a Key Sky Island Grassland Landscape by Dennis Caldwell, David Hall, Philip Rosen, and Netzin Steklis n e x t m o n t h s S p e a k e r TBA Tuesday, 21 June Tucson Herpetological Society meetings are open to the public and are held on the third Tuesday of each month starting at 7:15 PM SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 41
H e r p e t o f a u n a o f t h e 1 0 0 - m i l e C i r c l e Greater Earless Lizard, Cophosaurus texanus Troschel, 1852 Robert L. Bezy, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County; bezy@comcast.net In 1957, a high school friend and I tried to drive my old 38 Plymouth coupe up the sandy road along the flood plain of the Verde River north of Fort McDowell. We made it to the mouth of Camp Creek, but there the tires began to sink into the sand. The car became bogged down to the axel, bringing our herpetological expedition to an abrupt halt. While digging the vehicle out, I was surprised to see what looked like a Zebra-tailed Lizard (Callisaurus draconoides) perched on a ledge in the canyon. I managed to noose the lizard and observed that it lacked external ear openings. This was my introduction to the animal we now call the Greater Earless Lizard (Cophosaurus texanus; Figure 1). I had not previously encountered the species on my field trips into the Sonoran Desert near Phoenix and became curious about its distribution in the region. Searching rocky habitats, I found it along the slopes of what I then called the peninsular ranges, montane ridges such as the Mazatzal and Bradshaw mountains that extend south from the high country bordering the Mogollon Rim. I also encountered the species in some of the outlying desert ranges of Maricopa Co., such as Black Mountain near Cave Creek, the McDowell and Superstition mountains, and even the Harquahala Mountains. Climbing to the top of these desert ranges, I found relicts of montane vegetation, including scrub oak, silk tassel, and juniper. I theorized that in central Arizona, the Greater Earless Lizard was restricted to riparian areas and mountain ranges that are now, or were in the Pleistocene, connected to the higher elevations by corridors of chaparral or woodland. When I arrived as a freshman at the University of Arizona, Charles Lowe explained to me that this is a well-known biogeographic pattern applicable to many species of our fauna and flora. Eventually, the occurrence of chaparral and woodland vegetation on the peaks of the Arizona desert ranges was summarized by Brown (1978) for the current era and by Van Devender (1990) for the past 40,000 years (based on packrat middens). But the biogeography of Cophosaurus in the state has received little attention. Figure 1. Greater Earless Lizard (Cophosaurus texanus) in a challenge display. Note the ventrally banded tail and the posterior position of the lateral bars. Photo by Erik F. Enderson. Pima Co., Arizona. The Greater Earless Lizard bears a remarkable similarity to the Zebra-tailed Lizard, although it differs in lacking external ear-openings and in having the dark lateral bars located more posteriorly (Figures 1 and 2). The two also share a peculiar behavior, that of arching the tail over the back and wagging it side to side before fleeing. Dial (1986) conducted a field study of tail-wagging behavior in Cophosaurus texanus and compared it with the Keeled Earless Lizard (Holbrookia propinqua). The Greater Earless Lizard occurs in less dense populations, has a tail with conspicuous black and white ventral bands, and, when approached, displayed tailwagging 54% of the time before fleeing. The Keeled Earless Lizard has denser populations, lacks conspicuous tail bands, and did not display tail-wagging before fleeing. Dial (1986) concluded that tail-wagging in Cophosaurus is a signal directed at predators rather than conspecifics, a conclusion reached independently by Hasson et al. (1989) for the behavior in Callisaurus. In enclosures, Greater Earless Lizards displayed tail-wagging less frequently than Zebra-tailed Lizards (Clarke 1965). In the field, Cophosaurus allowed closer approach and fled shorter distances than Callisaurus (Bullova 1994). Besides its use as a signal to predators, the tail functions in locomotion and its loss was found to significantly reduce sprint speed in the species (Punzo 1982). These two tail-wagging species have complementary geographic distributions, Cophosaurus being centered in the Chihuahuan Desert and Callisaurus in the Sonoran, Mohave, and Great Basin Deserts. But they The Greater Earless Lizard bears a remarkable similarity to the Zebra-tailed Lizard, although it differs in lacking external earopenings and in having the dark lateral bars located more posteriorly. The two also share a peculiar behavior, that of arching the tail over the back and wagging it side to side before fleeing. SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 42
Figure 2. Greater Earless Lizard (Cophosaurus texanus). Note the absence of external ear openings. Photo by Erik F. Enderson. Pinal Co. Arizona. occur in close proximity along a zone extending diagonally from southwestern New Mexico to northwestern Arizona. In this area of geographic overlap they are often segregated by habitat, Greater Earless Lizards predominating on rocky bajadas and in riparian areas, Zebra-tailed Lizards on the more sparsely vegetated desert flats and in arroyos. Perhaps the best example of this habitat and micro-geographic separation is in Sabino Canyon (Santa Catalina Mountains, Pima Co.), where the overlap between the two is surprisingly minimal (see Map 10 and discussion in Lazaroff et al. 2006). Smith et al. (1987) compared the ecology of Greater Earless Lizards with that of Zebra-tailed Lizards at Burro Creek (Mohave Co.) and found a high degree of niche overlap in macrohabitat, time of activity, and food habits. Niche overlap was low (0.57) for microhabitat, with Cophosaurus predominating on rocks in riparian areas. The Greater Earless Lizard was found to have a slightly smaller average body size and clutch size than Callisaurus. In the area of San Simon Cienega in extreme western Hidalgo Co., New Mexico, both species were found mainly at sites having little vegetation cover (Baltosser and Best 1990). The mean body temperature of active Greater Earless Lizards at Burro Creek was 38.5 C (101.3 F) and did not differ significantly from that of Callisaurus. Lowe et al. (1971) found the species to have a freezing temperature of -0.65 C (30.8 F) and a supercooling limit of -6.65 C (20 F). Ramsey (1948) found 5 individuals hibernating together under 7.6 cm (3 in) of shale. Reproductive ecology of the Greater Earless Lizard was thoroughly studied near San Angelo, Texas, by Ballinger et al. (1972) and Schrank and Ballinger (1973). The reproductive season extended from early April to mid August. Clutch size was found to be positively correlated with body size and averaged 6.1 eggs. Larger females produced earlier clutches that contained larger eggs and a greater number of eggs. Three or four clutches may be laid in a year, yielding a reproductive potential of ca 18 eggs. Females mature at ca 50 mm (1.97 in) SVL and may breed in their first year. During the reproductive season fat bodies become progressively depleted in both females and males. These authors, together with previous work by Cagle (1950), clearly established that in central and west Texas, the Greater Earless Lizard is an early maturing, short-lived species with a high reproductive effort. Subsequent studies in the Big Bend region of Texas (Howland 1992, Punzo 2000, 2007), in the Chihuahuan Desert of Coahuila (Punzo 2007), and in Arizona (Vitt 1977, Smith et al. 1987) indicate that in these more arid habitats, energy limitations may severely reduce clutch size and reproductive potential. At Burro Creek, Cophosaurus clutches contained fewer eggs and relatively smaller eggs than those of Callisaurus, suggesting the Greater Earless Lizard may be more negatively impacted by arid environments (Smith et al. 1987). Sugg et al. (1995) presented evidence that the smaller body size of female Cophosaurus compared to males may be a result of reproductive energy expenditure rather than sexual selection. Diet is quite broad and varies with season and locality. Among the 12 orders of arthropods consumed, the greatest volume was found to be Orthoptera at Burro Creek (Smith et al. 1987); Lepidoptera larvae in the Bolson de Mapimi (Maury 1995); Orthoptera and Lepidoptera larvae in south central Texas (Durtsche 1997); and Coleoptera and Lepidoptera larvae in Trans-Pecos Texas and the Chihuahuan Desert of Coahuila (Punzo 2007). No significant differences in diet between the sexes or between juveniles and adults were detected (Durtsche 1997). Castañeda et al. (2005) observed a female Cophosaurus texanus eat a small male of the same species and also found limb fragments of Couch s Spiny Lizard (Sceloporus couchii) in the stomach of the lizard. Mata- Silva et al. (2006) observed an individual die after consuming two honey bees (Apis melifera). Perhaps the strangest record is that of Kesson and Ross (2001) who observed a Greater Earless Lizard basking on the Diet is quite broad and varies with season and locality. Among the 12 orders of arthropods consumed, the greatest volume was found to be Orthoptera at Burro Creek; Lepidoptera larvae in the Bolson de Mapimi; Orthoptera and Lepidoptera larvae in south central Texas; and Coleoptera and Lepidoptera larvae in Trans- Pecos Texas and the Chihuahuan Desert of Coahuila. SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 43
carcass of a Domestic Swine (Sus scropha) and eating dermestid larvae. The Greater Earless Lizard has been recorded as a host for 5 species of gastrointestinal helminth parasites (Gambino 1958, Specian and Ubelaker 1974, Goldberg and Bursey 1992). Documented predators include the Sonoran Whipsnake (Coluber bilineatus; Camper and Dixon 2000, Enderson and Bezy 2003), Striped Whipsnake (Coluber taeniatus; Camper and Dixon 2000), Loggerhed Shrike (Laurus ludovicianus; Reid and Fulbright 1981, Clark 2011), Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus; Dial 1986), and the lycosid spider (Arctosa littoralis; Whiting et al. 1991). Population density of the species appears to vary extensively with geography and year, ranging from 107 lizards/ha at Big Bend (Howland 1992, Punzo 2000, 2007) to 20 lizards/ha in wet years and 10 lizards/ ha in dry years at Las Cruces (Whitford and Creusere 1977). Cophosaurus was considered to be most closely related to Callisaurus by Earle (1961) based on anatomy of the middle ear. This is an intriguing hypothesis: the two Southwestern lizard species with banded tails, tailwaging behavior, similar body forms, broadly overlapping ecological niches, and complementary geographic distributions might be nearest relatives (sister species). In this hypothesis the loss of external ear openings may have occurred independently in Cophosaurus and Holbrookia. However, subsequent studies of anatomy (e.g., Cox and Tanner 1977), allozymes (de Queiroz 1992), and mitochondrial DNA sequences (Wilgenbusch and de Queiroz 2000) place Cophosaurus as the nearest relative of Holbrookia, indicating a single loss of the external ear opening within the sand lizards. Troschel (1852) described Cophosaurus texanus from der deutschen Colonie Neubraunfels am der Guadalupe im westlichen Texas [New Braunfels, Guadalupe River, Comal Co., Texas]. The paper is dated 1850 but was not published until 1852. The name Cophosaurus is derived from Greek, meaning deaf lizard, in reference to the lack of external ear openings. Peters (1951) recognized three subspecies, with C. texanus scitulus (Chihuahuan Greater Gearless Lizard; type locality Cañada del Oro, 16 mi N Tucson) occurring in Arizona and western New Mexico. Analyses of DNA sequences demonstrate considerable geographic structure in the species, with the most divergent populations found near Eagle Pass, Texas, and in Mexico (Blaine 2008). The Greater Earless Lizard ranges across northern Mexico from southern Tamaulipas to northeastern Sonora and north into the U. S. to northern Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. In Arizona, the species is widely distributed below the Mogollon Rim, but is absent in the southwestern part of the state (Figure 3). In southeastern Arizona it appears to occur on the bajadas of virtually all the Madrean ranges as well as in the Chihuahuan Desert and along the San Pedro River from near Hereford to its confluence with the Gila River. It may be absent from parts of the Sonoita grasslands (Santa Cruz Co.), Sulphur Springs Valley (Rosen et al. 1996), and southern San Bernardino Valley (Cochise Co.). Its apparent western limits of distribution in the state (Figure 3) extend northwest from the Pajarito Mts. (Peters 1951; Santa Cruz Co.), though the Santa Rita Mts., Rincon Mts., Santa Catalina Mts. (Pima Co.), Tortolita Mts., Black Hills, Tortilla Mts., Gila R. at Cochran, Superstition Mts. (Pinal Co.), McDowell Mts., Cave Creek (Van Denburgh and Slevin 1913), Wickenburg (Gates 1957; Maricopa Co.), Congress (Williams and Chrapliwy 1958), Santa Maria R., Burro Ck. (Smith et al. 1987; Yavapai Co.), Aquarius Cliffs (Duellman 1955), Cottonwood Mts., and Hualapai Mts., to the Cerbat Mts. (Jones et al. 1981; Mohave Co.). An apparently isolated population is found in the Harquahala Mts. (Williams 1960; Maricopa and La Paz Cos.). The species occurs remarkably far north in Arizona, apparently ranging to the Blue River at Alder Creek (Greenlee Co.), Upper Eagle Creek (Graham and Greenlee cos.), the confluence of the Black River and White River (Hulse 1973), Cherry Creek near Young, Verde River N of Payson (Gila Co.), Perkinsville, Santa Maria Mts. (Yavapai Co.), Sedona (Coconino Co.), and Cerbat Mts. (Mohave Co.). Acknowledgments. For assistance with museum records, I thank George Bradley, University of Arizona Museum of Natural History (UAZ); Neftali Camacho, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM); Thomas Dowling, Arizona State University (ASU); and Brad Hollingsworth, San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM). I also thank Erik Enderson for use of his photographs and Kit Bezy and Kathryn Bolles for helpful suggestions on a previous version of this paper. Figure 3. Geographic distribution of the Greater Earless Lizard (Cophosaurus texanus) in Arizona. Documented predators include the Sonoran Whipsnake (Coluber bilineatus), Striped Whipsnake (Coluber taeniatus), Loggerhed Shrike (Laurus ludovicianus), Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus), and the lycosid spider (Arctosa littoralis). SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 44
Literature Cited Ballinger, R. E, E. D. Tyler, and D. W. Tinkle. 1972. Reproductive ecology of a west Texas population of the Greater Earless Lizard (Cophosaurus texanus). American Midland Naturalist 88:419-428. Baltosser, W. H., and T. L. Best. 1990. Seasonal occurrence and habitat utilization by lizards in southwestern New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 35:377-384. Bezy, R. L., and E. F. Enderson. 2003. Field observations of predation by the Sonoran Whipsnake (Masticophis bilineatus). Sonoran Herpetologist 16:16-17. Blaine, R. A. 2008. Biogeography of the North American Southwest sand lizards. Ph.D. Dissertation. Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri. Brown, D. E. 1978. The vegetation and occurrence of chaparral and woodland flora on isolated mountains within the Sonoran and Mojave Desert. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 13:7-12. Bulova, S. J. 1994. Ecological correlates of population and individual variation in antipredator behavior in two species of desert lizards. Copeia 1994:980-992. Cagle, F. R. 1950. Notes on Holbrookia texana in Texas. Copeia. 1950:230. Camper, J. D., and R. R. Dixon. 2000. Food habits of striped whipsnakes, Masticophis (Serpentes: Colubridae). Texas Journal of Science 53:82-93. Castañeda, G., C. Garcia-De La Peña, D. Lazcano, and J. Banda-Leal. 2005. Cophosaurus texanus (Greater Earless Lizard). Saurophagy. Herpetological Review 36:174. Clark, H. O., Jr. 2011. Reptiles and amphibians as Loggerhead Shrike prey. Sonoran Herpetologist 24:20-22. Clarke, R. F. 1965. An ethological study of the iguanid lizard genera Callisaurus, Cophosaurus, and Holbrookia. Emporia State Research Studies 13(4):1-66. Cox, D. C., and W. W. Tanner 1977. Osteology and myology of the head and neck regions of Callisaurus, Holbrookia, and Uma. Great Basin Naturalist 37:35-56. de Queiroz, K. 1992. Phylogenetic relationships and rates of allozyme evolution among the lineages of sceloporine sand lizards. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 45:333-362. Dial, B. E. 1986. Tail display in two species of iguanid lizards: a test of the predator signal hypothesis. American Naturalist 127:103-111. Duellman, W. E. 1951. Notes on reptiles and amphibians from Arizona. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology University of Michigan 569:1-14. Durtsche, R. D., P. J. Gier, M. Fuller, W. I. Lutterschmidt, R. Bradley, C. K. Meier, and S. C. Hardy. 1997. Ontogenetic variation in the autoecology of the Greater Earless Lizard Cophosaurus texanus. Ecography 20:336-346. Earle, A. M. 1961. The middle ear of Holbrookia and Callisaurus. Copeia 1961:405-410. Gambino, J. J. 1958. Cyrtosomum readi n. sp. and Cyrtosomum heynemani n. sp. (Oxyuroidea; Atractidae) two new pinworms of iguanids. Journal of Parasitology 44:439-445. Gates, G. O. 1957. A study of the herpetofauna in the vicinity of Wickenburg, Maricopa County, Arizona. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Sciences 60:403-418. Goldberg, S. R., and C. R. Bursey. 1992. Gastrointestinal helminths of the Southwestern Earless Lizard, Cophosaurus texanus scitulus, and the Speckled Earless Lizard, Holbrookia maculata approximans (Phrynosomatidae). The Journal of the Helminthological Society of Washington 59:230-232. Howland, J. M. 1992. Life history of Cophosaurus texanus (Sauria: Iguanidae): Environmental correlates and interpopulational variation. Copeia 1992:82-93. Hulse, A. C. 1973. Herpetofauna of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, east central Arizona. Journal of Herpetology 7:275-282. Jones, B. K., D. R. Abbas, and T. Bergstedt. 1981. Herpetological records from central and northeastern Arizona. Herpetological Review 12:16. Kasson, R. N., and M. K. Ross. 2001. Natural history note: Cophosuarus texanus (Greater Earless Lizard). Diet and behavior. Herpetological Review 32:40. Lazaroff, D. W., P. C. Rosen, and C. H. Lowe, Jr. 2006. Amphibians, reptiles, and their habitats at Sabino Canyon. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Lowe, C. H., P. J. Lardner, and E. A. Halpern. 1971. Supercooling in reptiles and other vertebrates. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 39A:125-135. Mata-Silva, V., J. D. Johnson, and A. Juarez-Reina. 2006. Cophosaurus texanus (Greater Earless Lizard). Mortality. Herpetological Review 37:464. Maury, M. E. 1995. Diet composition of the Greater Earless Lizards (Cophosaurus texanus) in central Chihuahuan Desert. Journal of Herpetology 29:266-272. Peters, J. A. 1951. Studies on the lizard Holbrookia texana (Troschel) with descriptions of two new subspecies. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology University of Michigan 537:1-20. Punzo, F. 1982. Tail autotomy and running speed in the lizards Cophosaurus texanus and Uma notata. Journal of Herpetology 16:329-331. Punzo, F. 2000. Reproductive growth, survivorship and activity patterns in the Southwestern Earless Lizard (Cophosaurus texanus scitulus) (Phrynosomatidae) from the Big Bend region of Texas. Texas Journal of Science 52:179-194. Punzo, F. 2007. Life history, demography, diet and habitat associations in the Southwestern Earless Lizard, Cophosaurus texanus scitulus from northern and southern limits of its geographical range. Amphibia-Reptilia 28:65-76. Ramsey, L. W. 1948. Hibernation in Holbrookia texana. SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 45
Herpetologica 4:223. Reid, W. H., and H. J. Fulbright. 1981. Impaled prey of the Loggerhead Shrike in the northern Chihuahuan Desert. Southwestern Naturalist 26: 204-205. Rosen, P. C., S. S. Sartorius, C. R. Schwalbe, P. A. Holm, and C. H. Lowe. 1998. Herpetology of the Sulphur Springs Valley, Cochise County, Arizona. Pages 65-80 in: B. Tellman, D. M. Finch, C. Edminster, and R. Hamre (eds.), The Future of Arid Grasslands. RMRS-P-3. USDA Forest Service. Schrank, G. D., and R. E. Ballinger. 1973. Male reproductive cycles in two species of lizards (Cophosaurus texanus and Cnemidophorus gularis). Herpetologica 29:289-293. Smith, D. D., P.A. Medica, and S. R. Sanborn. 1987. Ecological comparisons of sympatric populations of sand lizards (Cophosaurus texanus and Callisaurus draconoides). Great Basin Naturalist 47:175-185. Specian, R. D., and J. E. Ubelaker. 1974. Parathelandos texanus n. sp. (Nematoda: Oxyuridae) from lizards in west Texas. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 93:413-415. Sugg, D. W., L. A. Fitzgerald, and H. L. Snell. 1995. Growth rate, timing of reproduction, and size dimorphism in the Southwestern Earless Lizard (Cophosaurus texanus scitulus). Southwestern Naturalist. 40:193-202. Troschel, F. H. 1852 ( 1850 ). Cophosaurus texanus, neue Eidechsengattung aus Texas. Archiv für Naturgeschichte (Berlin) XVI Jargang, 1 Band:388-394. Van Denburgh, J., and J. R. Slevin. 1913. A list of amphibians and reptiles of Arizona, with notes on the species in the collection of the academy. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences (4th series) 3:391-354. Van Devender, T.R. 1990. Late Quaternary vegetation and climate of the Sonoran Desert, United States and Mexico. Pages 134-163 in: J. L. Betancourt, T. R. Van Devender, and P. S. Martin, (eds.), Packrat Middens: the last 40,000 years of biotic change. University of Arizona, Tucson. Vitt, L. J. 1977. Observations on clutch and egg size and evidence for multiple clutches in some lizards of the southwestern United States. Herpetologica 33:333-338. Whitford, W. G. and F. M. Creusere. 1977. Seasonal and yearly fluctuations in Chihuahuan desert lizard communities. Herpetologica. 33:54-65. Whiting, M. J., J. C. Goodwin, and M. K. Coldern. 1991. Natural history notes: Cnemidophorus sexlineatus (Six-lined Racerunner) and Cophosaurus texanus (Texas Earless Lizard). Spider predation. Herpetological Review 22:58. Wilgenbusch, J. C., and K. de Queiroz. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships among phrynosomatid sand lizards inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences generated by heterogeneous evolutionary processes. Systematic Biology 49:592 612. Williams, K. L. 1960. Taxonomic notes on Arizona Herpetozoa. Southwestern Naturalist 5:25-36. Williams, K. L., and P. S. Chrapliwy. 1958. Selected records of amphibians and reptiles from Arizona. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Sciences 61:299-301. A n n u a l r e p o r t Speakers Bureau Report 2010 Ed Moll and Robert Villa, Co-chairs; Tuscon Herpetological Society, cascabel1985@gmail.com In 2010 the Speakers Bureau reached out to the public 28 times either as a presentation or staffed table at a public event. Speakers Bureau activities in total reached approximately 6,077 students, teachers, parents, and other members of the public. The majority of these people were those who stopped by the THS table at the Tucson Reptile and Amphibian Show and Sale during the last weekend of September, which was staffed by Robert Villa as well as Jeff Stensrud, and Patti Mahaney; approximately 1,500 people attended the event. The other large event was Tohono Chul Park After Dark event in which Ed Moll interpreted Sonoran herptiles to around 900 people. For specific numbers and information about volunteering your time to the Speakers Bureau, please contact us at (cascabel1985@gmail.com) or (e.o.moll@ gmail.com). Sinaloan Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum sinaloae) by Young Cage. SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 46
Restoring Leopard Frogs & Habitat in a Key Sky Island Grassland Landscape Dennis Caldwell, Caldwell Design, Tucson, Arizona, USA David Hall, Freelance Biologist, Tucson, Arizona, USA Philip Rosen, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA Netzin Steklis, Cienega Watershed Partnership, Tucson, Arizona, USA Decline and In early 2010 a biological team was awarded a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant for Restoring Leopard Frogs & Habitat in a Key Sky Island Grassland Landscape. They formed a group known as the FROG Conservation Project (Frog and Fish Restoration Outreach Group). The Primary investigators are Netzin Steklis, Cienega Watershed Partnership, and Phil Rosen, University of Arizona. Outreach Coordinator is Dennis Caldwell and the Field Coordinator is David Hall. The project area is 20 miles (32 km) southeast of Tucson and loosely defined as the Upper Cienega Creek frogshed, the area centered within a specific watershed that extends beyond the watershed defined, in part, by the dispersal range of the frogs. The area is roughly bordered by the Canelo Hills to the south, the Rincon Mountains to the north, the Santa Rita Mountains to the west and the Whetstone Mountains to the East. Centered within this area is the core recovery area: the upper perennial reach of Cienega Creek within the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. Decline and loss of native aquatic species represents one of North America s most severe biodiversity crises. Threats are especially marked in the American southwest, where most fishes are recognized as threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TE&S), as are increasing numbers of amphibian and aquatic reptile species. Among the most severely affected ecosystems are the lowland cienegas (which are southwestern wetlands) and cienega-streams of the grasslands of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. These environments supported core populations of the threatened Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis), endangered Gila Topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis), endangered Gila Chub (Gila intermedia), and the candidate species Mexican Gartersnake (Thamnophis eques). Loss of wetland environments together with the proliferation of exotic species underlie the severity of threats to this ecological community. This project is The upper Cienega Creek frogshed is an area bordered by the Canelo Hills to the south, the Rincon Mountains to the north, the Santa Rita Mountains to the west and the Whetstone Mountains to the East. The core recovery area of the perennial reach of Cienega Creek is within the heart of Las Cienegas National Conservation Area and Pima County s Cienega Creek Preserve north of I-10. SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 47 loss of native aquatic species represents one of North America s most severe biodiversity crises. Threats are especially marked in the American Southwest, where most fishes are recognized as TE&S, as are increasing numbers of amphibian and aquatic reptile species.
part of a comprehensive, long-term effort in southeastern Arizona s Cienega Watershed (Empire-Sonoita valley) to protect existing Chiricahua Leopard Frog populations and other threatened animals from exotic species, and to provide new and restored habitat for them in springs and ponds on public and private lands across the watershed. The project has 3 long-term outcomes, each with specific objectives. Outcome 1. New leopard frog breeding populations as part of an intact metapopulation. a) Provide expansion and metapopulation habitats for Chiricahua Leopard Frogs in livestock tanks, wildlife waters, and ornamental water features throughout the watershed. b) Improve population viability for imperiled predator species that depend largely (e.g., Mexican Gartersnake) or partly (e.g., Gila Chub) upon native leopard frogs and tadpoles as prey base. Chiricahua Leopard Frog population numbers have been reduced to a fraction of historic levels. Recovery of this federally endangered species will depend on re-establishment of frogs in both isolated and connected habitats in a number of watersheds across the Sky Islands region. Isolated populations have persisted here despite widespread declines. This project will create new habitats for the frogs that will promote species persistence. We have already identified several existing waters (stock tanks, natural springs, and backyard ponds) that appear to be suitable habitats for the species with little or no modification, and others where management or structures could be adapted to support native frogs. With coordinated management of livestock and wildlife water sources on BLM, County, and private lands, suitable habitats could be abundant enough in this valley to support frog migration between populations. This metapopulation function is key to long term survival of species like Chiricahua Leopard Frogs. Outcome 2. Elimination of exotic aquatics in and around public lands. a) Protect federally imperiled species in Cienega Las Cienegas National Conservation Area with a green ribbon of cottonwoods revealing Cienega Creek in the background as it flows north to Tucson. Photo by Dennis Cadwell. Creek (Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Gila Topminnow, Gila Chub, Huachuca Water Umbel [Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva], and Mexican Gartersnake) from decimation by exotic fish, bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), and crayfish through population control efforts and habitat renovations where needed. b) Maintain benefits that water sources bring to livestock operators, riparian and aquatic wildlife, landowners, and recreationists while decreasing the exotic species hosting and contamination risks. c) Demonstrate feasibility of exotics control and native aquatic species recovery in a previously intractable but critically important regional environment the valley-floor cienega-stream-riparian complex. Exotic species pose the greatest obstacle to Chiricahua Leopard Frog survival and recovery. Unless this threat is reduced, habitats where natives could make a comeback will instead act as contamination vectors for exotics. This valley s large expanses of open space, multi-agency collaboration, and broad community support for combating exotics dramatically increases the chances for successfully controlling bullfrogs, crayfish, and exotic fish. Outcome 3. Active community support for native frog recovery and long-term monitoring. a) Boost public awareness of threats posed to native aquatics to prevent new or renewed introductions of non-native aquatic species into the watershed by conducting outreach, involving local citizens in project work, and stewardship by fostering landowner interest in hosting habitats for native frogs and, potentially, native fishes. b) Refine measurement protocols, train individuals, and share a common information pool with partners (agencies, organizations, community residents) to evaluate changes in habitat quantity and quality, and to track trends in target species distribution and abundance. This project is part of a comprehensive, long-term effort in Southeastern Arizona s Cienega Watershed (Empire-Sonoita valley) to protect existing Chiricahua Leopard Frog populations and other threatened animals from exotic species, and to provide new and restored habitat for them in springs and ponds on public and private lands across the watershed. SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 48
c) Provide outreach to transfer methods and concepts to other groups and agencies involved in conservation, restoration, and management of other lowland aquatic ecosystems in the American southwest. Community support for and participation in aquatic ecosystem conservation and management will be critical for long-term success in achieving outcomes 1 and 2. Community involvement is one of this project s strong points. Project leaders have a long history of working with local residents and developing positive relationships between residents and federal agencies, state departments, and NGO partners. The local community includes many private landowners with a history of active support for local conservation initiatives, as evidenced by broad public support for Pima County s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan; welcome reception for the National Audubon Society s Appleton- Whittall Research Ranch s Rural Living in Santa Cruz County AZ: A guide to resources and regulations for country living; and Cienega Watershed Partnership s successful involvement with community. For the public, frogs provide a clear illustration of a connected landscape; they demonstrate how the actions of individual land owners have an impact on the whole landscape. Threats and/or Opportunities The threat of contamination by exotics from surrounding lands continues to increase due to increased human populations in the region, along with the passage of time during which exotics spread gradually. The five primary aquatic species the project targets for protection are (left column, top to bottom) Gila Chub (Gila intermedia), Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis), and Mexican Gartersnake (Thamnophis eques); (right column, top to bottom) Gila Topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) and Lowland Leopard Frog (Lithobates yavapaiensis). All images by Dennis Caldwell. Surveys of several nearby ponds have already turned up bullfrogs, crayfish, and exotic fish and most waters in the watershed have not been surveyed in a decade, and in some cases not ever. The number of perennial waters in the watershed is increasing rapidly as landowners install more stock ponds and ornamental or wildlife waters. The large number of surface waters is a doubleedged sword. This relatively wet area has many sites that could provide expansion habitat for Chiricahua Leopard Frogs, Gila Topminnow, and a few that could support Gila Chub and the Mexican Gartersnake but only if the threat of contamination by exotics can be reduced, controlled, or eliminated. Any contamination in the head of the watershed has great potential to find its way downstream to Cienega Creek where control efforts could prove impossible. Control of exotic aquatic species in comparable river systems to the West (Santa Cruz River) and to the East (San Pedro River) have so far failed because of the size and complexity of these habitats and the number of sources for recontamination. Several features of the Cienega Watershed combine to create a unique opportunity for a project like this to succeed: This basin currently supports the only remaining native Chiricahua Leopard Frog populations in a lowland cienega setting the former key/core habitat for the species in the region. It also supports the best remaining native population of Gila Topminnow in the nation, one of the most secure populations of Gila Chub (both federally-listed species), and one The threat of contamination by exotics from surrounding lands continues to increase due to increased human populations in the region, along with the passage of time during which exotics spread gradually. Surveys of several nearby ponds have already turned up bullfrogs, crayfish, and exotic fish and most waters in the Watershed have not been surveyed in a decade, and in some cases not ever. SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 49
Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) eradications in the area will reduce predation on many different species. Stomach contents in these images show a 30 g Sonora Mud Turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense) and a rarely observed Chihuahuan Hook-nosed Snake (Gyalopion canum). Photos by Dennis Caldwell. of the few remaining populations of the candidate species Mexican Gartersnake in the nation. So far, this creek and its tributaries have escaped contamination by exotic fish and crayfish, non-natives that have decimated native aquatic wildlife throughout the West. Some locally potential sources have been identified and multi-agency reactionary management on limited budgets has thus far forestalled contamination of Cienega Creek, where exotics elimination could prove impossible. Similarly, bullfrogs have been held to low numbers. Thus, at present, the valley has no intractable sources of perpetual contamination. Progress Update In 2010, the FROG project surveyed almost all known water bodies within the frogshed: 390 site visits to 202 sites. All surveys were preformed as per protocol developed by the Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Plan. Of these surveys, three sites are newly established populations and one site is a previously unknown established breeding population. Four sites contain breeding populations of bullfrogs and six sites have non-native mosqutiofish. The Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Leopard Frog Rearing Facility was designed and built by the FROG team with funding assistance and oversight from BLM who manages the conservation area. In 2010, the FROG project surveyed almost all known water bodies within the frogshed: 390 site visits to 202 sites. All surveys were preformed as per protocol developed by the Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Plan. Of these surveys, three sites are newly established populations of CLFs and one site is a previously unknown established breeding population. This Google Earth image shows the head of Cienega Creek where it drains north out of Sonoita Arizona. Each private pond represents a potential breeding population of aquatic invasive species. With the elimination of invasives, the same ponds could easily become habitat for leopard frogs if the species successfully repopulates the area. Image by Dennis Caldwell. SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 50
The facility is near the last breeding population of Chiricahua Leopard Frogs on the National Conservation Area and is designed as a predator-free enclosure to produce eggs and tadpoles for reintroductions in the FROG Project area. On September 23, ~60 eggs and 14 tadpoles were moved into the facility. The enclosures are along a Heritage Discovery Trail where the visiting public can view it and the interpretive sign designed to bring focus to the natural heritage conservation of the area. A list of livestock ponds on the Conservation Area are being evaluated for enhancements to provide stable habitat for new populations of aquatic species mainly as a tool to help pump dispersing frogs into core habitat in Cienega Creek. The warm temperatures at these ponds can potentially help improve winter survival of frogs from disease. These habitats are designed to support frogs and livestock cooperatively developing a model for other rancher/conservation partnership elsewhere in the southwest. In an effort to outreach the residents of the area the FROG Project has developed an informative web site in addition to an informational handout with an identification guide for species of special concern, both good and bad. Presentations are given to organizations in the target communities of Elgin, Greaterville, Sonoita, and Vail, and interactive booths at major area events are staffed by volunteers. In addition, schools in the target communities are working with the FROG Project team to develop learning opportunities and citizen science projects to get students involved. Community buy-in is the only way this project can succeed the long term objective of keeping these species habitats safe. For more information visit the web site: https://sites.google.com/site/frogspotsprogram/ home, or come see the FROG presentation at the May Tuscon Herpetological Society meeting. If you know of residents in the Elgin, Sonoita, or Greaterville areas that might be interested please help the FROG team to reach them. Public outreach plays an important roll in educating residents in the recovery area. For more information visit the FROG web site: http://sites.google.com/site/frogspotsprogram/home Community buyin is the only way this project can succeed the long term objective of keeping these species habitats safe. If you know of residents in the Elgin, Sonoita, or Greaterville areas that might be interested please help the FROG team to reach them. Numerous meetings and field trips with area land and wildlife managers have taken place to help steer the project and build partnerships. Photo by Dennis Caldwell. The Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Leopard Frog Rearing Facility was built to produce frogs for reintroductions on the Conservation Area. During the construction of the facility, adult frogs from the near-by spring took up residence and laid eggs. Later, more eggs and tadpoles were augmented to this population. Photos by Dennis Caldwell. SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 51
Tucson Herpetological Society Board of Directors Meeting March 29, 2011 Directors Present: Trevor Hare (President), Robert Villa (VP), Heidi Flugstad (Treasurer), Tim Allen (Director), Robin Llewellyn (Director), Dennis Caldwell (Director), Kris Ratzlaff (Director), Rob Nixon (Director), Travis Boswell (Director) Members Present: Ed Moll, Patti Mahaney Absent: Taylor Edwards (Past President), Mike Rochford (volunteer) Meeting called to order by Hare at 7:11 p.m. Minutes: Ratzlaff; Caldwell move to accept minutes, Llewellyn seconds, motion passes. Committee Reports Treasurer s report (Flugstad): Beginning $4625.45 Deposits $930.00 Expenses $208.63 Ending balance $5346.82 Ratzlaff moves to accepts treasurers report, Villa seconds, motion passed Homepage (Caldwell/Tuegel): When we redid our domain registration the hosting server at the U of A had changed, and so the THS website was unavailable for a week. Website is fixed now, speakers are getting put up, BOD updated. Conservation (Caldwell): On March 29, I attended the Southeastern Arizona/Southwestern New Mexico Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Steering Committee Meeting in Tucson. As a steak-holder the THS represents a seat at the table pushing for a speedy recovery of this species. Unfortunately, after close to 12 years of multi-agency and multi-steak-holder meetings, the process has developed piles of papers and a Safe Harbor Agreement that has proved to be unimplementable. Very little has been done on the ground and the species is not much better off than it was 12 years ago. Participating in this process has been a painful insight into the inefficiency of State and Federal wildlife management entities; a culture that stymies even the best-intentioned staff and stands as a serious obstacle to any REAL recovery. In the interest of protecting this species, I will be meeting with concerned members to figure out an appropriate approach to try and reform this process. I will also be assembling comments on a State Sport Fish Consultation as well as a federal ruling to list critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog. If anyone has comments to add to these, please send them to me. Speakers Bureau: Bob Brandner: 58 people at Saguaro National Park East. He speaks every Tuesday and I will try to get reports from him each month. 38 people at Civano Community Center on attracting or not attracting herps to backyards. Moll: 6 March: Represented the THS at Sabino Canyon s Music in the Park Festival. Ed manned a table demonstrating live reptiles and distributing THS literature. Approximately 75 persons visited the table. 11 March: Attended the Academy of Tucson s Science Fun Fest from 8 to 11 a.m. Using snakes and turtles Ed talked about the characteristics and value of our local reptiles to five separate classes for 25 minutes each. A total of 246 children attended. 12 March: presented a reptile program using live snakes and turtles at Martha Cooper Library for 10 children and 3 adults. Villa: 6 March: about 100 kids and parents at UA College Academy for Parents Math and Science Showcase. 12 and 13 March: Tucson Festival of Books Robert Villa, Kris Klewin and Ed Moll demonstrated live reptiles and gave out THS literature to large crowds over the two day period. Possibility of having a table with Larry Jones and his lizard book next year with possible press. Program Report: April: Brian Powell, Julia Fonseca, and Phil Rosen - Tortoises and Lizards at the Urban Fringe: Opportunities for Citizen Science. May: Dennis Caldwell - FROG: Fish and Frog Restoration Outreach Group. August: Jim Dixon - Snakes of the Genus Liophis or an account of a lizard research trip to the islands of the Gulf of California. Sonoran Herpetologist (Clark): Looking for submissions. Still need to contact previous Lowe award recipients for articles and speaking. Blurb about box turtle adoption. Membership (Llewellyn): Blurb in SH about overdue membership was good. Hare will send out email reminder Program (Villa): Through April (T. Jones, John Murphy, Fonseca, Rosen et al.). Dennis May FROG Fish and Frog Restoration Outreach Group. June and July are both open. Jim Dixon is looking for $300 for his trip to Tucson in August maybe ask him to be a plenary speaker at the conference talk to him more about options. C.H. Lowe fund (Hare): Two proposals have been submitted so far. Pushed back to April 1 deadline. Student Chapter of the THS (Hare): Nothing to report Jarchow Conservation Award (Repp): Nothing to report Board of Directors meetings are always on the last Tuesday of each month (except December), at 7:00 PM; University of Arizona, BIO5/ Keating Building, 1657 East Helen Street. SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 52
Current Research on the Herpetofauna of the Sonoran Desert (Hare): Hare, Villa (volunteers), Flugstad (budget), Caldwell, Rochford, Nixon, and Boswell are all willing to help AZGFD people under Tom Jones and Mike Sredl take abstracts, send out for peer review Is the registration under PayPal easy enough to show difference between registration for SW PARC, CRHSD, or both? Committee is going to be meeting in next two weeks Contract with Tucson Marriott o Contract: total about $7000 with a room block of 50 rooms for 2 nights each o Decided to table agreeing to the contract need to look at the numbers more o Banquet price is debatable maybe look into renting out Gentle Ben s upper room or other places around University Mahaney will ask around o Aim to get contract signed by April 8th Old Business Field Trip to Brown Canyon: Villa is setting up a trip with Friends of the Buenos Aries NWR and THS for May14-15, Announcements to come. Motion to adjourn Robin at 823 p.m., Caldwell seconds M e m B E R S H I P u p d a t e As of 11 May 2011 Membership Information Individual $20 Sustaining $30 Family $25 Contributing $50 Student $14 Life $500 The Tucson Herpetological Society would like to thank existing members and new members for renewing their membership. We appreciate your support and are always looking for members to actively participate in THS activities and volunteer opportunities. It is a great way to be involved with Life Members Joe and Donna Hopkins (also new members) New Members Allison Buchanan Galen Schmidt Donald and Carol Eagle G. Donald Kucera Individual Members Andrew Price (need email address) Robert Villa Larry Jones Michael and MaryAnn Smith Howard Clark Family Members Itzchak & Carolyn Gilboa Contributing Members Maxine and Steve Murray Kent Jacobs & Cyndy Wicker Donations THS would like to thank Joe & Donna Hopkins for their $250 donation to the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Fund and to Taylor Edwards for his donation of $500 to the Mexican Desert Tortoise Fund! Time to Renew Your THS membership? This is a friendly reminder for those of you whose membership is due. Please send your check and a membership form (especially if information has changed) to THS, P.O. Box 709, Tucson, AZ, 85702. If you are a new member, please include your email address with your payment to receive monthly newsletter online. Thank you. Memberships Due in March Sandy Anderson Royce Ballinger Bayard Brattstrom Robert Fitak Norma & Abe Lackow Jenna Ramsey Brett Seymoure Paul South IV Memberships Due in April George Coffee Michael & Marlis Douglas Stan & Emily Draper Jerrold & Martin Feldner Heidi Flugstad Richard Funk Jeff Moorbeck & Jennifer O Leary John & Katherine Murphy Donna Zeidel & James Bockowski Memberships Due in May John Craig Pat Lopez Audrey Toepper Lirian Urreiztieta Christopher and Elizabeth Warren Lee Oler Chris Scott Jefferson Stensrud Hanna Strauss Dick van Loben Sels SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 24 (5) 2011 53