Fire Effects on Tinajas and Frog Habitat at Saguaro National

Fire Effects on Tinajas and Frog Habitat at Saguaro National

Fire effects on tinajas and amphibian
habitat at Saguaro National Park
Don Swann, Kara O’Brien, and Chuck Perger
Saguaro National Park, Tucson, Arizona
Thanks to:
Mike Sredl (Arizona Game and Fish)
Ann Youberg (Arizona Geological Survey)
Adam Springer (Chiricahua National Monument)
Eric Wallace, Erin Zylstra, Kris Ratzlaff (UA)
Cecil Schwalbe, John Parker (USGS)
Dennis Caldwell (Tucson Herpetological Society)
Josh Taiz, Tom Skinner (USNFS)
Mike Ward, Perry Grissom (Saguaro National Park)
Outline
Saguaro National Park – east and west
Saguaro National Park – east –
Rincon Mountain District
Saguaro NP – Rincon Mountain District
Sky Island ecological zones
Fire in Rincon Mountains
and other Sky Islands
• Historic fire return interval ~ 10
years
• Periodic fire stimulates
regeneration, promotes nutrient
recycling, protects forests from
catastrophic fire
Ponderosa pine (7000-8700 feet)
• Increase in very large wildfires
during past few decades
Mixed Conifer (7500-9500 feet)
Surface water - intermittent streams
Springs and
tanks
Tinajas – “earthenware jar” in Spanish
Major source of water in Rincons during dry season
Value for people, past and present
Essential for wildlife
Canyon treefrog
Bobcats
Dragonfly
Single-celled algae
Gary Slaten photo
Mallard
Lowland leopard frog
(Lithobates [Rana] yavapaiensis)
tadpoles ~ 9 months in water
webbed feet
Jumps!
Declining amphibians – globally and locally
Tarahumara frog (extirpated in US)
Local declines of the lowland leopard frog
Major
known
populations
of Lowland
Leopard
Frogs
extirpated
since 1940s
near Tucson
Crayfish (non-native)
American bullfrog (non-native)
Disease
Habitat loss
Lowland leopard frog habitat in Saguaro National Park
Saguaro National Park
Arizona
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
LeopardFollow-Up
frog monitoring
Tamarisk:
Surveysin Saguaro, 1996-present
^
_
^_
^
_
^_^_^_^_
^_ ^_ ^_
^_
Wildhorse
^_
^_
^_
Rock Spring
^_
L. Verde South
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^^_
_
^_
^_
^_
Lower Rincon
Features
Drainages Surveyed
Drainages
5000ft elevation
6000ft elevation
State Trust Land
Park-wide, biannual surveys
Private Inholding
RMD Boundary
Forest Service Land
Private Land
^_
Madrona
Rincon North
Chimenea
Box
Undergoing Treatment
Turkey
^
_
^^_^_ ^_
_
^_
!@
^_
^_
^^_^_
_
Loma Verde
^_
Legend
Tanque
^_ Verde/Joaquin
^
_
^_
²
^_ ^_
^
_
^_
^_
^_
^_ ^_ ^_ ^_Rincon
^_
^_
0
0.5
1
2
3
4
Miles
Visual encounter surveys for leopard frogs and other aquatic
species
Photograph and record water status of each tinaja (>240)
25
20
Spring 96
Fall 96
Spring 97
Fall 97
Spring 98
Fall 98
Spring 99
Fall 99
Spring 00
Fall 00
Spring 01
Fall 01
Spring 02
Fall 02
Spring 03
Fall 03
Spring 04
Fall 04
Spring 05
Fall 05
Spring 06
Fall 06
Spring 07
Fall 07
Spring 08
Fall 08
Spring 09
Fall 09
Spring 10
Fall 10
Spring 11
Fall 11
Average # Lowland Leopard Frogs
Per Survey
Results 1996-2011 (Zylstra et al. 2015)
40
35
30
Adults
15
10
5
0
Mean frog counts per biannual survey, 1996-2012
Pools where frogs observed, 1996-2011 (green); pools where frogs always observed (red)
More water = more frogs
Figure 1. Predicted number of recruits (a)
and monthly survival (b) of adult lowland
leopard frogs (with 95% confidence
intervals) as a function of surface water
availability, with other model variables
held constant. Zylstra et al. 2015.
Juveniles surviving
Adults surviving
Water available to frogs in tinajas is related to rain, but not
always
Before 1999 Box Canyon fire
2001 – Post Fire
Example: Box Canyon Fire - 6,500 acres June 16 1999
NPS photo
NPS photos
Large areas of moderatehigh severity
March 12 1997 – Loma Verde Pool 10, below fire perimeter
July 7 1997 – ash in water, water temps 35-360 C (95-970 F), tadpole mortality
October 14 1999 (filled after rain of 1.2 - 2.7” on July 15 1999)
July 12 1999
Nov. 30 1999
March 15 2001
Pool 1 (about 1 mile downstream of Pool 10) filled with ash on July 12,
1999 but did not receive sediment until winter rains of 2000.
June 2002 – all pools in Loma Verde dry due to 1-2
meters of sediment – last leopard frogs died
Number of frogs observed, Loma Verde Canyon,
1996-2013
Loma Verde Lowland Leopard Frog Survey Data: 1996-2013
450
400
350
Box Canyon Fire
July 1999
300
Total
250
Adults
Juveniles
200
Tadpoles
150
100
All pools dry;
Frogs disappear
Spring 2002
Frogs re-appear fall 2007
Disappear early 2012
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Example: 2003 Helen’s 2 Fire – 3,600 acres
NPS photo
2003 Helen’s 2 Fire – Joaquin Canyon
Parker 2006
Course, poorly-sorted overbank deposits, Joaquin
Canyon
Erosion pillars created by
sheetwash
From Parker (2006)
Repeat photos – Joaquin Canyon (2003 Helen’s 2 Fire)
July 4 2003
July 19 2003
November 2, 2005
Number of adult and juvenile frogs observed on surveys in
Joaquin Canyon following 2003 Helen’s 2 Fire
12
10
Helen’s 2 Fire,
June 2003
8
2007-2009; frogs returned,
then disappeared again
Summer 2005, no
frogs detected
6
4
2
0
01-Sep-02
14-Jan-04
28-May-05
10-Oct-06
22-Feb-08
06-Jul-09
18-Nov-10
01-Apr-12
14-Aug-13
How long does sediment persist in tinajas?
Sediment surveys at SNP, 2005-present
Sediment surveys
Bedrock contours, Madrona #2
Sediment surveys
42%
Bedrock contours, Madrona #2
Sediment contours 2005
79%
Sediment contours 2007
33%
Sediment contours 2010
How long does sediment persist?
Shorter duration – high energy areas, larger watersheds
2001
2006
2008
Repeat photos – Loma Verde Canyon (1999 fire)
2013
Longer duration – pools in smaller, less steep watersheds
2001
2006
2008
2011
Repeat photos – Loma Verde Canyon (1999 fire)
Longer duration – pools in low energy areas
1988
2007
2012
Repeat photos –Wildhorse Canyon
(1989 Chiva Fire)
Mean sediment volume/pool by stream, 2005-2013
1.00
0.90
0.80
Loma Verde – 68% burned (1999 fire)
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
Rincon – 73% (1994 fire)
0.30
Wildhorse – 31% 1989 fire)
0.20
0.10
Chimenea – 11.8% (misc. small fires)
0.00
2005/2006
2007
2010
2013
Changes in tinaja sediment volume, all combined 2005-2013
Percent Sediment Volume Average for All Pools
(+/- one standard error)
50
45
41.0
Percent Sediment Volume (%)
40
35
36.9
34.8
30
28.3
25
20
15
10
5
0
2005-2006
2007
2010
Year of Survey
2013
Fire, floods, and sediment good for frogs – issue of scale
Fire effects on other frogs in Arizona
Chiricahua leopard frog - threatened
Photo by J. Rorabaugh
Tarahumara frog – extirpated/reintroduced
AGFD photo.
Management – what can we do as land, fire,
and wildlife managers?
a. Measures to prevent post-fire erosion
Staw bale erosion barrier
**Wood strand mulch
Robichaud (2009)
Robichaud et al. (2012)
Log erosion barrier
b. Habitat restoration
Miller Canyon frog habitat restoration (AGFD photo).
b. Habitat restoration
Pool 1 being excavated partially (left) and fully (right) in 2005
Pool 1 on July 8, 2006
Pool 1 – dry on June 6, 2013
Lowland Leopard Frog in Loma Verde on October 15, 2006
c. Salvage and re-introduction
Chiricahua leopard frog salvage and release, Miller Canyon.
Glendale Community College photos.
Backyard pond project near Saguaro National Park
d. Pre-fire actions
Letting natural fires burn
Deer Head Fire, 2014
General concepts for conservation/management
How great is the risk?
How important is the population?
Consider the “no-action” alternative where
ever possible
Erik Enderson photo
Long-term view – ecological change and “management”
• Time’s circle: What are the natural patterns over time?
• Time’s arrow: What are the long-term trends?
– Potential threats
– When to respond
Time’s arrow, time’s circle
Healthy forests, healthy frogs
“Stand on Tanque Verde Ridge in Saguaro National Park and see, in one
compelling panorama, all that makes fire management in the western U.S.
problematic…Saguaro will have to be lucky as well as good.”
--Steve Pyne, A Fire History of America (2012)