Biological and physical survey of the Conservation Garden Pond, Yuma, Arizona

              DISCLAIMER
The findings, opinions, and recommendations in this report are those of the investigators
who have received partial or full funding from the Arizona Game and Fish Department
Heritage Fund. The findings, opinions, and recommendations do not necessarily reflect
those of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission or the Department, or necessarily
represent official Department policy or management practice. For further information,
please contact the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
'-
L
L
L
L
L
,
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Biological and Physical Survey of the
Conservation Garden Pond, Yuma, Arizona
by
Tracy Register, Project Coordinator
Roxanne Walker, Physical and Chemical Survey
Judy Adams, Plant Survey
Leah Hamilton, Terrestrial Vertebrate Survey
Stephen Wingblade, Aquatic Organism Survey
Veronica Garcia, Terrestrial Invertebrate Survey
I
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Abstract
The results of research of the Yuma Conservation Garden
Pond and the immediate area are to be used for the future
development of wildlife habitat and educational programs in
the garden. The study includes all biotic and abiotic
aspects of the ecosystem. The focus was to lay the
groundwork for future, more in-depth, studies.
Recommendations are made concerning all aspects of the
research and future study and monitoring programs are
suggested. Water quality analysis is compared to Colorado
River and groundwater samples. Introduction of additional
vegetation and control of intrusive plant species are
recommended. Problems associated with excessive domestic
fowl population and feral cats are addressed. Educational
activities suggested include a fish and release program,
building of cavity nest boxes, and starting a mounted insect
collection.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Acknowledgements
This study was completed as partial requirements for
Intermediate Environmental Lab, ENV 285 at Arizona Western
College during spring 1994. Professor of Biology, Marie
McGee, was the course instructor. Funding for this study
was provided by the Heritage Fund Urban Wildlife Grant,
under authority of the Arizona Game and Fish. We would like
to thank the Yuma Conservation Garden Board, especially
Valerie Morrill and Jody Waldrip for their assistance in the
organization of this study and for aiding in plant
identification. We would also like to thank the Yuma County
Fair Board for their cooperation. A special thanks to
Professor Fred Croxen, Arizona Western College and Bureau of
Reclamation, who donated his time and talents toward the
physical and chemical survey. The Bureau of Reclamation
provided water analysis. Thanks to Wayne Gunter, Arizona
Game and Fish, and Professor John King, Arizona Western
College, for lending us equipment used in our field work.
L
I
L
i
L
L
L
1
~
I
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Chapter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Physical and Chemical Survey 2
Plant Survey 6
Terrestrial Vertebrate Survey 8
Aquatic Organism Survey 11
Terrestrial Invertebrate Survey 14
Recommendations 16
Literature cited 46
i
~
I ~
L
L
,
L
I L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
List of Tables
Table 1. Water Analysis Comparison of Imperial Dam
and Yuma Conservation Garden 20
Table 2. Chemical Analysis of Water Samples taken
on 3/14/94 21
Table 3. Chemical Analysis of Water Samples taken
on 3/14/94 22
Table 4. Chemical Analysis of Water Samples taken
on 3/14/94 23
Table 5. Chemical Analysis of Water Samples taken
on 4/17/94 24
Table 6. Chemical Analysis of Water Samples taken
on 4/17/94 25
Table 7 • Plant Species List 26
Table 8. Population Counts for Domestic Fowl and
Rock Doves 29
Table 9. Domestic Bird Population 30
Table 10. Bird Species List 31
Table 11. Mammal and Reptile List 33
Table 12. Seining Results 34
Table 13. Microscopic Organisms Found in Pond Sediments
and Surface Scrapings 35
Table 14. Microscopic Organisms Obtained from Plankton
Net Samples 36
,
L
i
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
List of Figures
Topographic Map of the Yuma Conservation
Garden
Relief Map of the Yuma Conservation
Garden
Water Depth Data
Water Temperature Data
Depth Profile of the Pond
Map of Plant Locations
Foliage Height Diversity Map
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendices
Colorado River Chemical Analysis
Colorado River Above Imperial Dam
Water Analysis
44
45
,
~
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
A study was conducted on the Yuma Conservation Garden
pond which is part of the Laguna Natural Resource
Conservation Districts. Located at the corner of Avenue 2E
and 32nd street in Yuma, Arizona, the garden encompasses a
large part of the southwestern corner of the Yuma County
Fairgrounds. A member of the Yuma County Fair Board, Frank
Deason, began a botanical garden on a section of the land in
the early 1950's. With the help of other board members, the
conservation garden soon came into existence.
In 1987, management of the area was assumed by the Yuma
and Laguna Natural Resource Conservation Districts. In 1992
the NRCD was awarded a grant from the Urban Wildlife
Heritage Foundation by authority of the Arizona Game and
Fish Department. The grant is to be used to develop the
garden into a local educational program and protected
wildlife habitat. It is also meant to assist in the High
School Aid Program through the use of the garden for
educational purposes.
Intermediate Environmental Lab, ENV 285, at Arizona
Western College was requested by the Conservation Garden
Board to complete one of the requirements of the urban
Wildlife Grant. This requirement was to conduct a thorough
investigation of the "Duck Pond". The study was conducted
from January to May 1994. It encompassed five main areas of
concentration: physical and chemical, plants, terrestrial
vertebrates, aquatic organisms, and terrestrial
invertebrates. All of the studies were carried out under
the supervision of Professor Marie McGee, course instructor.
Currently, the pond serves two purposes. First, it
serves as part of the ecosystem protected by and used for
education by the Conservation Garden. Secondly, the water
is used by the fairgrounds for irrigation, though only
minimal amounts of water are taken at a time. The pond is
also aerated by an aerating device in the middle of the
pond. This is meant to aid in water circulation and prevent
stagnation.
According to our studies, the overall fitness of the
Yuma Conservation Garden pond seems to be good, with
findings that indicate a somewhat balanced ecosystem. The
domestic fowl are the only exception. Their numbers
continue to grow as more people bring their unwanted fowl to
the pond. Ducks at the pond are fed grain by the
fairgroundS in addition to table scraps provided by
visitors. This study addresses this issue and many more.
Also included in this report is a complete list of
recommendations based on our findings.
L
L
I ~
I ~
i
~
L
I
L
1
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
CHAPTER 2 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL SURVEY
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Site Map
The Global Positioning System (GPS) was used to produce
maps of the Conservation Garden Pond, focusing on the
immediate area around the pond. The instrument consists of
a radio unit and antenna. As the user walks, the "GPS"
sends signals to the satellite every few seconds. This
information is relayed back to the memory and can then be
used to produce a map. When locating specific trees,
bushes, etc., the user must type in the object name and
stand beside it for approximately 180 seconds. Palm trees
and specific flora were mapped around the pond. The
perimeter of the pond was also mapped.
Water Level
To monitor water fluctuatfons, a gauge was placed in
the pond. A 3 foot long, 2x4 was fitted with metal brackets
on one side. A depth gauge was attached to the opposite
side. After rebar was hammered 1.5 feet into the pond
bottom, the boarded-gauge was slipped over the remaining 2.5
feet of rebar where it could rest on the pond bottom. In
determining the gauge location, I took into consideration
ease of reading from the fence (using binoculars) and
avoiding avian and human activity. Water depth reading were
recorded approximately every two weeks.
Water Analysis
Three water samples were taken to provide a baseline
analysis of the pond. A I liter sample was used for the
comprehensive water chemistry. A 250 ml sample was analyzed
for total dissolved solids and electrical conductivity. A
50 ml sample was taken for the heterotrophic plate count.
These samples were analyzed by the Bureau of Reclamation.
All three samples were taken at the same time, date, and
location. Water temperature was measured between March 12
and April 30. No readings were taken April 9. All readings
were taken at 0900 hours.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen readings were taken using a DO meter.
I first calibrated the "red line" and zero readings. On
April 30, after ensuring no bubbles were present in the
probe solution, I made three readings throughout the pond.
These readings were taken at 1200 hours. I also noted the
depth, location, and time of day.
Water Clarity
The vertical visibility was found by using a standard
20 em Secci disc (Cole 1975). From the boat, I lowered the
2
L
L
,
~
L
L
i
L
L
L
L
L
,
~
L
L
L
disk into the water until it was no longer visible. I then
slowly raised the disc and noticed its depth when it
reappeared. Three depth measurements were taken using the
precalibrated line from the water' s surface down to the
disc.
Depth Profile
A depth profile of the pond bottom was determined by
using a sounding line while transecting the pond. I picked
north and south points directly across from each other to
establish points of transection. As an assistant maneuvered
the boat across the pond, I dropped a weighted line
overboard to measure the distance from the water' s surface
to the pond bottom. At each measured location the boat was
held steady minimizing horizontal drag on the line. The
weight was released slowly, not allowing it to sink into the
muddy bottom. The line was precalibrated to ensure
accuracy.
Soil Analysis
Soil samples of the pond bottom were taken to determine
texture and composition. A push tube was forced down into
the soil until it encountered an obstruction, or was
completely full. The soil sample remained in the tube as it
was extracted from the substrate. Three arbitrary samples
were taken.
Trash
During every visit, I walked the
collected trash in and around the pond.
articles were noted, bagged, and disposed of.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Site Map
per imeter and
The various
As shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, the GPS provided a
near exact area of the pond and the location of significant
plants, vegetation, and landmarks. This information will be
beneficial should it become necessary to make physical
changes to the pond.
Water Level
Figure 3 reflects water depth fluctuations between
March 12 and April 30. The fluctuations are attributed to
the addition or use of pond water for irrigation purposes.
Water Analysis
Figure 4 reflects water temperature fluctuations
between March 12 and April 30. The constant temperature
increase is characteristic of seasonal warming trends. The
water analysis, as given in Table 2 through Table 6, reveals
a slight increase in total dissolved solids compared to the
3
,
L
L
L
L
L
i
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
I
L
I ~
L
L
L
incoming canal water. These parameters were compared with
baseline data for groundwater (see Appendix 1) and Colorado
River water (see Appendix 2), both sampled at Imperial Darn.
Selected parameters are compared in Table 1. The increase
in the total dissolved solids is expected due to water
evaporation and accumulation of these components. The low
N03 value suggests the presence of nitrogen-consuming
microorganisms (Reid 1961). The low silica concentration may
also suggest silica-consuming diatoms or an unknown reaction
between the water and the concrete lined canal. This
assumption is based on the fact that the local groundwater
silica content is 19 mg/L and the river concentration is 10
mg/L. After flowing through the unlined canal system, it is
doubtful any silica would be lost, but instead, should be
gained. This decline in silica is not detrimental to the
pond system. No selenium, arsenic, or lead were detected in
the water analysis. These elements can cause deformities in
wildlife.
The heterotrophic plate count revealed bacterial
concentrations of 23,000 per 100ml in the aerated end of the
pond and 3,000 .per 100ml in the west end of the pond.
Because the rlver water at Imperial Dam contains
concentrations of coliform and streptococci bacteria, it is
possible that these are the same bacteria found in the pond
(see Table 1). Fecal matter from ducks and geese may
introduce additional bacteria.
The pH of the pond and canal water are in agreement at
8.0 and 8.3 respectively (see Table 1). These values are
within the acceptable range (Foley 1993).
Dissolved Oxygen
The high DO values reflect an over-saturation of
oxygen. This is probably due to aeration. Oxygen is also
produced through photosynthesis of the algae. High
concentration of algae could explain the low concentrations
of some pond nutrients, as some types of these organisms
take up nutrients during "diatom/algae blooms".
Water Clarity
The vertical visibility value (averaged from 3
readings) was found to be 1.8 feet below the water's
surface. The water visibility may be diffused due to the
relatively high microorganism population and the constant
activity of the waterfowl.
Depth Profile
The depth profile revealed a contoured pond bottom.
The maximum depth was 4 feet (see Fig. 5).
Soil Analysis
Because of the muddy bottom, the push tube soil samples
were only partially successful. The largest sample salvaged
was 9 inches in length. The sample revealed slight soil
4
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
i
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
stratification. The soil is composed of silty clay and
sand. Mica flakes from the weathering granite outcrop can
be seen throughout the soil horizon. The components of the
granite are not believed to adversely affect the pond
system.
Trash
Human trash was consistently collected in and around
the pond. Flat wood grates, a metal folding chair I pop
bottles and cans, cigarette lighters and butts, rubber bands
from bundled vegetables, plastic tubing tied with piece of
nylon twine, and an automobile car seat, complete with its
seat belt, were among the items found.
5
L
L
L
L
L
L
,
i
L
L
L
L
I
L
L
L
L
L
L
CHAPTER 3 PLANT SURVEY
METHODS AND MATERIALS
On 3-12-94, 3-19-94, and 4-9-94, I surveyed the plants
within a 7 meter radius surrounding the pond edge, and the
wash to the northwest of the pond. I listed all plant
species by common name, location, and included miscellaneous
information. I also counted individual plant locations or
group locations. We clipped plant samples and placed them
in plastic trash bags. A 3xS white card was placed in the
bag with the sample listing the name, location, and date it
was collected. The samples were placed in a plant press,
dried for two weeks, and mounted on 16.5xll.5 inch herbarium
paper. I labeled the mounted samples with the plant's
family name, common name, and Latin name. Also included on
the label were comments, plant collectors, plant
denominator, number, date collected, and location collected.
The mounted plants were then laminated for ease of handling.
RESULTS
A map of the Conservation Garden area, Figure 6, shows
plant locations and common names.
Figures 7-a, 7-b, and 7-c are maps showing foliage
diversity in the vertical plane. The vegetation ranges from
less than 2 meters to over 6 meters in height.
A plant species list of the pond and wash area, Table
7, lists plants by common name and Latin name. The species
that were dried and mounted are annotated, and comments are
included. Plant taxonomy follows Hickman (1993).
A Reference Collection Portfolio containing 26 plant
samples were submitted with our survey to the Conservation
Garden Board.
DISCUSSION
Seventeen species of plants are growing within the
perimeter of the pond area. Many other species are growing
in the area to the north and northwest. That area was not
included in our survey. The most numerous plants are date
palms and fan palms. There are 29 fan palm trees, most over
6 meters tall, and 8 date palm trees, two of which are less
than 1 meter tall. Two large canopy forming eucalyptus and
mesquite trees are located on the west end of the pond. A
large thicket of mesquite are located on the north side of
the pond. Most of the mesquite located there are shrub
type, less than 6 meters tall. However, one mesquite in
6
i
L
,
I
L
I
L
L
1
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
this area is over 6 meters tall and should be considered a
tree type. This makes a total of three tall trees, not
including palm and date trees, in the pond area. Tall trees
are very important for providing habitat for birds, insects,
and small mammals (Rosenberg et al 1991).
The remainder of the plants can be divided into three
growth forms: shrub types, succulent types, and herbaceous
types. Two of the plants included in the shrub type could
cause some difficulty. Common reed and the tamarisk, which
are not native plants, tend to encroach on other plants and
take over an area. Tamarisk are usually considered
undesirable in this area since they provide limited food or
nest sites for birds (Rosenberg et al 1991).
Plants in the pond area are stable and dramatic changes
might not be beneficial. Some studies suggest that changing
a stable riparian environment would cause more damage than
good, in terms of plants and animals recovering from the
changes (Anderson & Ohmart, 1988). But small changes would
probably not have adverse effects.
Areas on the south and southeast edge of the pond are
open with little vegetation, allowing morning sunlight to
reach the pond water and fowl. Some open area is beneficial
and should be maintained free of vegetation. The hilly area
to the north and northwest of the pond, not included in the
plant survey, has been planted with numerous, small native
trees and cacti. Mesquite, palo verde, and ironwood are a
few of the small trees found in this area. These are
excellent trees in a desert environment which provide food
and nesting sites for many birds. Mesquite is sometimes
parasitized by mistletoe, which is an important winter food
source for birds. None was noted on the mesquite trees in
this area.
The wash area to the northwest of the pond displays a
small variety of herbaceous plants, large creosote bushes,
desert willows, and Mexican and blue palo verdes. However,
cottonwoods and willow trees are missing from the area.
They require a large amount of water but they also
additional habitat for the area.
7
L
L
L
,, ,
~
,
L
I
I
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
CHAPTER 4 TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SURVEY
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Domestic Fowl Population
Birds in this survey considered domestic fowl are
ducks, geese, chickens, turkeys, guinea hens, and rock
doves. No attempts were made to distinguish between
varieties. The gender of ducks and chickens was determined
by counting the males that can be positively identified by
coloration and plumage. All others are assumed to be
females. I was unable to determine the gender of geese
conclusively, but pairing indicates that the population
gender is probably a 50-50 ratio. Gender of others is
unknown (see Table 9).
Count # 1 took place on March 12 (see Table 8). We
counted from the east end of the pond as a group and
remained stationary. Three people counted the birds on
land, four others counted the birds in the water. Count #2
occurred on April 9 (see Table 8). Chickens were excluded.
This count was taken from a stationary position at the west
end of the pond to the center and from the east end of the
pond to the center. I then added the numbers to obtain a
total population count. The third sample was taken on the
same day only 15 minutes later (see Table 8). This count
was taken from the north side of the pond in a stationary
position at the center and counted in a clockwise direction.
Count #3 took place on April 16 (see Table 8). This
accounted for ducks, geese, and rock doves only. This count
was begun at the west end of the pond and moving in a
clockwise direction, ending on the east side. The fifth and
final sample took place on April 29 (see Table 8). I
counted ducks and geese only. I took this sample beginning
at the west end of the pond, moving in a counterclockwise
direction, and ending at the east end. The pond was divided
into four sections, west end (1), west of center (2), east
of center (3), and east end (4). Geese were counted first
in sections 1 and 3 and second in sections 2 and 4.
Bird Species Survey (Excluding Domestic Fowl)
I determined the presence of birds through direct
observation of the birds themselves and nests. Birds were
identified by songs and plumage using field guides (see
Table 10). Marie McGee aided in identification of species.
Binoculars were used to obtain clear and accurate
descriptions. A transect was plotted following the trails
around the pond, by the wash area, and through the garden.
The transect route was walked for approximately 4 hours on
each of the following days: March 12, 19, 26, and April 9,
between the hours of 0700 and 1200 hours. Birds were
identified and observed to determine breeding behavior.
8
L
L
L
L
I L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Mammals and Reptiles
I determined the presence of mammals and reptiles
throughout the entire garden and pond area by direct
observation, identification of dens, scats, and tracks (see
Table 11). A total of 29 Havahart traps, varying in size,
were utilized. The traps were placed in areas believed to
be travelled by mammals. They were also strategically
placed near den openings located on the north side of the
pond and around the side of the hill, also on the north
side. The traps were baited and left overnight. A variety
of baits were used including peanut butter, shelled pecans,
sunflower seeds, apple slices, and canned cat food. Any
casual observations of mammals or reptiles were recorded
throughout the survey.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Count #5 is probably the most accurate count as the
majority of the population was on or near the pond. They
remained relatively calm and docile during the sample
period. It was observed that the ducks tend to fly from the
pond area to the garden area and occasionally into the
fairgrounds. The actual number of chickens have declined
since the beginning of the study (see Table 8). This
decline is reinforced by the absence of 5 chicks and the
presence of carcasses. The rock dove population appears to
have more than doubled since the beginning of the study;
this increase is probably seasonal. The turkey disappeared
after count #3. The male duck population is too high,
displaying an approximate sex ratio of 2: 1. Additional
evidence is excessive fighting and injuries of nearly all
females, including blindness, pecking scars, bleeding, and
general ill health.
Verdin and House Finch were actively breeding. House
Sparrow, Lesser Nighthawk, European Starling, Great-tailed
Grackles, and Western Kingbirds are believed to be breeding.
European Starling and House Sparrow are considered
undesirable because they are aggressive, introduced species
that compete with natives for nest spots. Road Runners are
predators on nestlings and lizards. Great-tailed Grackles,
also thought to be nest predators, are increasing greatly in
abundance around human residences in the Yuma area
(Rosenberg et al 1991). We observed a Verdin mobbing and
pursuing a grackle at the garden.
Trapping revealed no specimens. There are 7 feral cats
inhabiting the garden. Skunk odor was detected, though the
animal was never observed. A small number of rabbits were
observed. Failure in trapping was probably due to a variety
of factors, inclUding the time of year and cool evening
temperatures. Types of rodents that could be present are
Round-tailed Ground Squirrels, Woodrats, Kangaroo Rats, and
Pocket Mice. It is my belief that the cats and skunks are
9
,
L
I
L
L
L
L
,
L
L
L
L
L
L
I
L
L
i L
I
L
L
L
heavy predators on the rodent, lizard, and domestic bird
populations. Five of the cats are timid but do not appear
to be completely feral and could be tamed and adopted if
done so quickly.
10
,
~
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
C HAP T E R 5 AQUATIC ORGANISM SURVEY
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Observation
Three daytime and two nighttime observations were made.
The daytime observations were performed visually and with
the aid of binoculars. The nocturnal observations were
performed visually and with the aid of an infra-red night
scope. All were performed around the entire perimeter of
the pond, where access permitted. The hilltop to the north
also served as an observation point. The daytime
observations were performed 0800 and 1130 hours. Nighttime
observations were performed between 2000 and 2230 hours.
Hook and Line
The hook and line method was employed to capture fish
and amphibians. Two spinnerbaits (a type of artificial
lure), one yellow and blue and the other orange and black,
were utilized. The color variation was meant to attract
only those predatory game fish, such as the Largemouth Bass
(Micropterus salmodes). 15 to 20 casts were made at each
accessible location, approximately 10 meters apart. The
depth ranged from 5-90cm. Baited hooks were employed for
bottom feeding fish such as the Flathead Catfish (Pylodictis
olivaris) and carp (Cyprinus carpio). The bait used was
chicken liver on a #5 treble hook. An attempt was also made
to capture turtles using this method. Fresh bait was
applied to the hook as needed.
Seine-Netting
A 0.25 inch mesh seine was employed to take random
samples of fish found in the pond. The net is approximately
30 feet in length and 4 feet in height. Two 5 foot poles
are on either end, and the bottom is weighted by sinkers.
The net was utilized in arching sweeps of 90 degrees and
then pulled to the shoreline, closing in on anything
trapped within its boundary. This method was used on 2
separate occasions. Six sweeps were made on March 19, one
on the west end of the pond and the other 5 on the east
end. Two additional sweeps were conducted on April 9 in
the northwest section of the pond. Deep mud prohibited
seining the center of the pond. All fish captured in these
sweeps were identified by species, and where possible,
measured and checked for abnormalities.
Aquatic Slide Sampling
Designed to allow growth of microorganisms, slide
sampling was employed at various locations throughout the
pond. On March 12, three 12 cm by 9 cm microscope slide
boxes containing 10 to 12 standard microscope slides were
placed in the pond. Slide box #1 was placed at the
I I
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
northeast corner at a depth of 20 em. The area was exposed
to direct sunlight through most of the day. Box #2 was at
the west end of the pond at a depth of 28 em. It was exposed
to direct sunlight for 3-4 hours daily. Box #3 was placed
at the south side of the pond at a depth of 28 em, receiving
direct sunlight 6-7 hours daily. All slide boxes were
weighted down with pebbles and secured by rubber bands to
hold them in place. They remained in the pond for 4 weeks.
The results of growth were to be viewed under compound and
dissecting microscopes which were used on identifying
microscopic organisms (Cole 1975 and Reid 1967).
Plankton Net
A plankton net was pulled behind the boat at a depth of
approximately 20-40 em. We transected the pond from west to
east. The samples obtained from the net were then placed in
a sample jar for further study under a light microscope.
RESULTS
Observation
General observation revealed two significant finds. On
March 12, 15-20 small fish were observed at the east end of
the pond. They ranged in size from 1.5-4 cm, but I was
unable to determine species. A second school were noted on
the west end of the pond a few minutes later.
A large soft shelled turtle was observer basking on a
rock in the middle of the pond. This occurred on May 5.
The turtle was quite large at approximately 1 foot in
diameter'. Species identification could not be made.
Hook and Line
Hook and line results were negative with one exception;
on March 12, during a nocturnal sample period, one strike
was made at the chicken liver I was using as bait for my
hook. The encounter lasted for about 40 seconds until the
unidentified organism broke the line. The fishing reel drag
was set at light and close observation of the broken end of
the line revealed a sharp cut about 13 cm below the weight.
Seine-Netting
The seine-netting method produced positive results in
4 of 8 attempts (see Table 12). Four species of fish were
observed and over 135 individuals were captured and
released. One fatality occurred. The four fish present are
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), shad (Dorosoma petenense),
carp (Cyprinus carpio), and largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmodes) •
Aquatic Slide Sampling
Submersed microscope slides yielded mixed results. On
April 9, the recovery of the slides was attempted. Slide
12
i
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
It was decided to extract a sample of pond bottom at the
same area it was originally placed (see Table 14). Slide
sample #2 was recovered but was full of pond silt.
Microscopic observation of the sample revealed parameciums,
daphnia, roundworms, and rotifers, which were the most
abundant organism. Slide sample #3 was recovered; however,
the slides were missing from the box. The contents of the
box itself was used as a sample. It yielded the same
microorganisms as sample '2 along with water bears (see
Table 13).
Plankton Net
The final sampling method revealed mostly
green algae mixed with rotifers and daphnia (see Table 14).
DISCUSSION
The data gathered in this survey indicates that the
pond does support a significant amount of aquatic life.
Although the carp and the majority of the microscopic
organisms found in the pond can survive in brackish or even
stagnant water, the discovery of Threadfin Shad (Dorosoma
perenense) inhabiting the pond in significant numbers
suggests a good dissolved oxygen content. Shad inhabit
cleaner, free-flowing bodies of water, not brackish
backwaters. The shad, in turn, provide a food source for
the largemouth bass which were found in the pond. They may
also provide a food source for the herons which spend some
time in the garden. Also, most rotifers and water bears are
indicator species of highly oxygenated environments
(Meglitsch 1972).
This survey cannot, however,
representation of the population of
methods available could not provide
pond area. The extent of deep,
difficult to maneuver effectively
utilizing the seine.
be used as a true
fish in the pond. The
access to much of the
soft bottom made it
in the pond while
We have no explanation for the apparent lack of
amphibians.
13
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
C HAP T E R 6 TERRESTRIAL IIIVERTEBRATE SURVEY
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Insect netting
The primary sampling technique involved the use of a
heavy duty insect net. This net was used to capture insects
by sweeping it twenty times around bushy trees such as the
Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), and Arrow weed (Pluchea
sericea). After the last sweep was made, the net was gently
shaken to force the captured insects to the bottom.
Clutching the net directly above the bottom area where the
insects collected, the data collector inverted the net over
the killing jar and proceeded to place the bottom of the net
into the jar. The jar was then sealed with its lid. After
a period of 1-3 minutes, depending on the size of the
insects, the lid was removed. The sample organisms were
taken out and put into sealable plastic bags with a label
indicating the sample number, collecting method, and
location. This technique was also used to collect diurnal
flying insects.
Direct Removal
Another sampling technique used was the direct removal
of the insect from plants and rocks using a pair of
tweezers. After the insects were collected, they were
placed in the killing jar and, subsequently, into labeled
plastic bags. This collecting technique was more
appropriate for slow moving terrestrial insects.
Small Jar
The third technique coexisted of the use of a small jar
to capture small insects flying over areas of the pond in
which the use of the bulky net was not effective or
appropriate. Once again, the killing jar was utilized to
kill the captured insects.
Night Sampling
Two night sampling techniques were used. The first
required the use of an ultraviolet light to detect
scorpions; the scorpion's exoskeleton glows when exposed to
ultraviolet light. The white sheet method was also
utilized. It consists of placing a bright light behind a
draped white sheet. The insects attracted are then
collected.
RESULTS
There were nine samples taken
sample taken from a rock. However I
14
from plants and one
no large numbers of
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
insects were collected. Terrestrial invertebrates found
include honey bees, harvester ants, a swarm of midges,
American cockroaches, a few moths, a crab spider, daddy
long-legs, and black widow spider.
DISCUSSION
Flowers are the food source for many types of insects.
Moreover, insects require warm weather conditions to become
fully active due to their lack of an internal temperature
regulatory system. Therefore, prevalent windy conditions
during the sampling dates, along with a minute number of
flowering plants, kept the samples very limited in number.
The samples that were collected from the few flowering
plants yeilded scarce results due to the strong winds. In
addi tien, the nocturnal sampling took place during a cold
night. Once again, a minimal quantity of insects were
collected during either of the night sampling events. No
scorpions were observed.
In conclusion, it was not possible to determine the
actual abundance of the insects found or the total insect
population inhabiting the pond since such a small number was
collected.
15
I
L
L
L
L
,
L
,
L_
L
L
I
L
L
L
L
L
CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are intended to be
suggestions that may enhance the quality and fitness of the
Yuma Conservation Garden for wildlife habitat enhancement
and for educational uses. Based on the studies outlined in
the above research some recommendations may be implemented
without further study. Most recommendations, however, will
need to be accompanied by further study to completely assess
the ecological impact.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
Continue water quality monitoring.
Water quality monitoring will signal the Conservation
Board in the event of major fluctuations which could be
potentially disastrous to the aquatic organisms.
Initiate monthly cleanup procedures around the pond.
The high quantity of human generated trash distracts
from the beauty of the area and can be potentially lethal to
the aquatic organisms. An organized monthly cleanup program
would keep this ongoing problem in check and would
alleviate, to a lesser extent, damage to wildlife.
Initiate water quality study.
An in depth water quality study would be an asset to
the future of the Yuma Conservation Garden. The lack of
aquatic plants seems to be directly attributed to the
turbidity of the pond. A water quality study could addresss
this problem with possible positive benefits.
PLAHTS
Initiate growth of Mesquite and cottonwoods.
Mesquite and Cottonwoods planted in the wash area
provide several benefits for wildlife. In addition to
providing additional ground cover, they provide diverse
nesting sites for a wide variety of desert dwelling birds.
The flowers and seed pods produced also increase the amount
of available food for many types of animals(Rosenberg et al
1991) •
Landscape with native annuals and flowering shrubs with
varied flowering periods.
These plants would be a low maintenance addition to the
area. Not only would the available habitat be increased but
they would provide an added food source. The flowering
plants would act as an insect attractant. Varied flowering
16
L
L
I
L
L
I
L
I
L
I
L
L
L
L
L
L
I
L
L
L
L
L
periods would allow a greater variety of birds and insects
to take advantage of their resources.
Remove tamarisk.
The tamarisk is a very intrusive, non-native plant
species. There are only four located around the pond. But
if left unchecked they can proliferate rapidly, choking out
other native plant species. Young tamarisk are growing in
the wash area.
Maintain some open shoreline.
Maintaining open shoreline allows sunlight to penetrate
the water. This facilitates the proliferation of aquatic
plants. It also allows animal access to the pond and sunny
areas on shore, and facilitates viewing and access for
educational purposes.
Landscape fence paralleling Hwy 80, particularly the
southeast corner.
Shrubs along the fenceline would act as a noise buffer
for the wildlife, and it would provide additional habitat
for birds. The southeast corner should be landscaped for
aesthetic purposes, promoting greater visitation. However,
the view of the pond from outside the fence would be
obstructed.
TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES
Option 1.
Maintain population at current level.
The current population levels of domestic fowl is
determined to be excessively high. This large population
has certain negative effects on the surrounding wildlife.
They discourage the use of the garden by migratory and
native birds. The current population levels propagate
negative health effects, especially in females. A human
health danger exists due to high bacterial levels stemming
from the fecal matter of the fowl.
Option 2.
Reduce population.
Reducing the population would continue to serve as an
attraction for visitors and would alleviate some of the
negative aspects currently being experienced. It would also
increase the use of the garden by migratory and native
birds.
Option 3.
Eliminate all domestic fowl.
The elimination of all domestic fowl would encourage
extensive use of the area by migratory and native birds.
Water conditions would also be improved, in turn, reducing
17
L
L
L
L
L
I ,
L
L
L
L
,
L
I
L
L
L
L
the risk to public health.
would be the main drawback of
Decreased public
this option.
attraction
Post "No Dumping" policy and educate the public concerning
the reasons.
The addition of domestic fowl continues to be a problem
for the garden. A "No Dumping" policy set forth in a sign
would reinforce a commitment to maintaining a stable
population. The sign should also educate the general public
on the negative effects of dumping animals arbitrarily into
the garden.
Erect cavity nesting boxes for birds and bats througbout the
garden.
Nest cavities are a limited resource. cavity nesting
boxes would allow more birds to take advantage of the garden
while protecting themselves from certain species of
aggressive birds. This could be considered an excellent
project for school groups or children's organizations.
Specific plans to build nest boxes are available from
Arizona Game and Fish and other organizations.
Initiate periodic trapping of feral cats.
Feral cats pose a health risk to the domestic fowl and
humans alike. Capture and exportation from the garden would
greatly decrease the risks associated with them. Public
education is again recommended.
AQUATIC ORGANISMS
stock with more Largemouth bass and initiate a children' s
fish and release program.
Initiating a fish and release program would increase
the young poeple's awareness of conservation. It could be
promoted to educate as well as being a fun event for
children. We considered the use of the pond for endangered
fish breeding. This idea would be impractical due to the
use of the pond water for irrigation by the fairgrounds.
Undertake further fish population study and monitoring.
Due to the muddy bottom of the pond, effectiveness of
sampling by seining is limited. An electroshocker may be
used for more thorough sampling. An increased awareness of
the fish population would assist in the education of garden
patrons. A continual monitoring program would track changes
in the population structure and help indicate problems.
18
,
"-
L
L
I,
"-
,
"-
L
L
L
L
L
I L
L
L
L
L
INSECTS
Mount an educational insect collection.
A mounted insect collection would be a welcome addition
to the educational programs that currently exist at the
garden. This would be an excellent project for school age
children. Collecting and identifying can be a real learning
tool and can be done throughout the summer.
Move feed boxes away from public access.
The feed boxes attract Harvester Ants which inflict a
painful sting. The removal of the boxes would decrease this
risk substantially.
19
,
~
L
,
L
, ,
I
~
I
L
,
L
L
L
L
TABLE 1. water analysis comparison of Imperial Dam and Yuma
Conservation Garden pond.
Parameter
Bacteria
pH
TDS
DO ("gauging rock")
(west end)
(east end)
Nitrogen
Silica
23,000
3,000
8.01
922 ppm
(east)
(west)
14.9 ppm @ 2.5 ft.
15.5 ppm @ 1.0 ft.
16.3 ppm @ 1.5 ft.
0.0 mg/L
5.0 mg/L
20
Imperial Dam
16,000
8.30
824 ppm
8.0-9.2
0.8 mg/L
10.7 mg/L
'-TABLE 2.
USGS Station Number:
DESCRIPTION:
LAB NUMBER:
ywaa Desalting Plant Laboratory
Cbeaical Analysis of water saaples
SITECOOE: W0990
DUCK POND (TRACE, NH4, P04)
3090.00 SAMPLED BY:
DATE COLLECTED: 03/14/94
03/14/94
TIME COLLECTED: 15:00
DATE RECEIVED: DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 03/25/94
STATIC WATER LEVEL IN FT.:
DYNAMIC WATER LEVEL IN FT.:
RESERVOIR SURFACE
ELEVATION IN FT.:
ELECTROCONOUCTIVITY (EC) in microaiemene/cm:
~-TOS: BY EVAPORATION AT 180 deg. C.:
TOS: BY SUMMATION WITH HC03 CORRECTION (HC03/2.03):.
pH: 8.01 Field Temp, deg C,
~ N. in mg/L: 150 Si02 in mg/L:
K in mg/L: 6.7 B in mg/L:
C. in mg/L: 98.9 F in mg/L:
Kg in mg/L: 39.2 NH, in mg/L:
~
C03 in mg/L: 0·0 PO, in mg/L:
~ HC03 in mg/L: 19' Fe in mg/L:
cl in mg/L: 131 Kn in mgjL:
'- 5°4 1n mgjL: 350 B. in Hicrogm/L:
N03 in mg/L: 0.0 Sr in Hicrogm/L:
;
~
,
L cations, mE/L:
L Anions, mE/L: • DIFFERENCE:
21
1420
922
877
16.5
5.0
0.16
N,.r 7,,£f;J.
Tv,,('(z'
;"t>C"e:
0.13
0.04
221
1.406
14.90
14.16
2.54%
L
LTABLE 3. Yuma De.alting Plant Laboratory
Cheaical Analysis of Water Samples
L
L USGS Station Number: SITECODE: W0990
L DESCRIPTION, DUCK POND (HPC ONLY) EAST SIDE
LAB NUMBER:
L DATE L DATE
COLLECTED:
RECEIVED:
3091.00
03/14/94
03/14/94
LS TATIC WATER LEVEL IN FT.: DYNAMIC WATER LEVEL IN FT.:
SAMPLED BY:
TIME COLLECTED:
DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED:
RESERVOIR SURFACE
ELEVATION IN FT.:
LELECTROCONDUCTIVITY (Eel in microsiemens/cm:
TDS: BY EVAPORATION AT 180 deg. C.:
TDS: BY SUMMATION WITH HC03 CORRECTION (HC03/2.03):.
L
pH:
L Na in mgjL:
L K in rng/L:
Ca in mgfLt
L 8g in mg/L:
C03 in mg/L:
L Hoo3 in mg/L:
LeI in mg/L:
504 in mg/L:
L N03 in mg/L:
L
L
Field Temp, deg C,
5i02 in mgjL:
B in mgjL:
F in mg/L:
NH4 in mgjL:
P04 in mg/L:
Fe in ""J/L '
Mn in mg/L:
Ba in Microgm/L:
Sr in MicrogmjL:
Cations, mE/L:
Anions, mE/L:
, DIFFERENCE:
22
15:00
03/18/94
o ,
L
LrABLE 4.
L
l USGS Station Number:
L DESCRIPTION:
LAB NUMBER:
IL
DATE COLLECTED:
Yuaa Desalting plant Laboratory
che.ical Analysis of water saaplea
SITECODE: W0990
DUCK POND (HPC ONLY) NORTH SIDE
3092.00 SAMPLED BY:
TIME COLLECTED: 15 : 00
DATE RECEIVED:
03/14/94
03/14/94 DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 03/18/94
STATIC WATER LEVEL IN FT.:
DYNAMIC WATER LEVEL IN FT.:
RESERVOIR SURFACE
ELEVATION IN FT.:
ELECTROCONDUCTIVITY (Ee) in microsiemensjcm:
TOS: BY EVAPORATION AT 180 deg. C.:
TOS: BY SUMMATION WITH HC03 CORRECTION (HC03/2.03):.
pH:
'--- Na in mg/L:
K in mg/L:
'- Ca in mg/L:
M9 in mg/L:
C03 in mg!L:
i HC03 in mg/L: L
C1 in mg/L:
L so, in mg/L:
L N03 in mg/L:
L
L
Field Temp, deg c:
Si02 in mgjL:
B in mg/L:
F in mg!L:
NH4 in mg/L:
P04 in mg/L:
Fe in mg/L:
1m in mg/L:
Sa in Microgm/L:
Sr in Microgm/L:
Cations, mEfL:
Anions, mEfL:
\; DIFFERENCE:
23
o ,
L
L TABLE S.
L
USGS Station Number:
L DESCRIPTION:
L LAB NUMBER:
Yu.a Desalting Plant Laboratory
Cheaical Analysis of Water Saaples
SITECODE: W0990
GEO - E. DUCK POND
4394.00 SAMPLED BY: Fred Croxen
L DATE COLLECTED: 04/17/94
04/20/94
TIME COLLECTED~ 15:24
L
L
~
L
~
~
,
L
I
L
L
L
L
DATE RECEIVED: DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 04/27/94
STATIC WATER LEVEL IN FT.:
DYNAMIC WATER LEVEL IN FT.:
RESERVOIR SURFACE
ELEVATION IN FT.:
ELECTROCQNDUCTIVITY (ECl in microsiemens/cm:
TDS: BY EVAPORATION AT 180 deg. C.:
TOS: BY SUMMATION WITH BC03 CORRECTION (HC03/2.03):.
pH, 8.22 Field Temp, deg c,
Na in mg/L: 139 Si02 in mg/L:
K in mg/L: 5.7 B in mg/L:
Ca in mg/L: 82.5 F in mg/L:
Ng in mg/L: 36.5 NH4 in mg/L:
c03 in mg/L: p04 in mg/L:
BC03 in mg/L: 144 Fe in mg/L:
C1 in mg/L: 128 Mn in mg/L:
5°4 in mg/L: 324 Ba in Microgm/L:
N03 in mg/L: Sr in Microgm/L:
Cations, mE/L,
Anions, mE/L:
% DIFFERENCE:
24
1260
852
787
0.12
0.01
171
1263
13.34
12.72
2.41%
;
L
L TABLE 6. Yuma Desalting Plant Laboratory
Chemical Analysis of Water Samples
L USGS Station Number:
L DESCRIPTION:
L LAB NUMBER:
COLLECTED:
DATE RECEIVED:
I
GEO - N. DUCK POND
4395.00
04/17/94
04/20/94
L STATIC WATER LEVEL IN FT.:
DYNAMIC WATER LEVEL IN FT.:
SITECODE: W0990
SAMPLED BY: Fred Croxen
TIME COLLECTED:
DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED:
RESERVOIR SURFACE
ELEVATION IN FT.:
ELECTROCONDUCTIVITY (Ee) in microsiemensjcm:
~
L
L
L
i
L
L
L
L
L
L
TOS: BY EVAPORATION AT 180 deq. C.:
TOS: BY SUMMATION WITH HC03 CORRECTION (HCD3/2.0J):.
pH: 8.32
Na in mg/L: 139
K in mgjL: 5.6
c. in mg/L: 82.4
Mg in mg/L: 36.6
C03 in mgjL: 0.2
HC03 in mg!L: 145
Cl in mg/L: 12B
S04 in mg/L: 324
N03 in mgjL:
Field Temp, deg C,
Si02 in mg/L:
B in mg/L:
F in mg!L:
NR4 in rng!L:
p04 in mg/L:
Fe in mgjL:
Mn in rng/L:
Ba in Hicrogm/L:
Sr in MicrogmjL:
Cations, mE/L:
Anions, mE/L:
% DIFFERENCE:
25
15:30
04/27/94
1260
848
787
0.12
0.01
192
1268
13.35
12.74
2.32%
Table 1 - Plants Species List
Species marked with • were pressed & mounted
Common Name
Tree Types
Fan Palm
DatePaIm
·Honey mesquite
·Eucalyptus or Silver Dollar
Gum
·Blue palo verde
·Mexican palo verde
Shrub Types
"'Arrowweed
·Common Reed
*Tamarisk or salt-cedar
Latin Name
Washingtonia filifera
Phoeni.x dactylifera
Prosopis
hybrid
Eucalyptus polyanthemos
Schauer
Cercidium floridum
A Gray
Parkinsonia aculeata
L.
Pluchea sericea
(Nutt) Cov.
Phragmites australis
(Cav.) Steudel
Tamarix chinen sis
Lour.
__ J _J
Table 7
Comments
29 trees in pond area, most over 6 m. tall.
6 trees in pond area, 2 are less than 1 m. tall.
One large canopy-forming tree at west end of pond
and a large thicket of shrub-types north of pond
area;oorolla is yellow.
One large canopy forming tree at west end of pond.
Small trees growing in wash area, approx. 4-5 m.
tall and in mesquite thicket north of pond area;
corolla is yellow.
Small trees growing in wash area, approx. 4-5 m. tall;
corolla is yellow with one petal having red spots
Growing in numerous locations around pond area.
Three large, dense groups growing in pond area.
Six bushy shrubs, one approx. 6 m. tall; corolla
is pink
... .1 _--.J .--.l
Table 7-cont.
·Seep Willow
·Creosotebush
·Papyrus
Saltbush
Cattails
*Fagonia
-Desert willow
-Range ratany
·White bursage
Succulent Types
Yucca
_J J
Table 7
Baccharis salicifolia
(Ruiz Lopez & Parvon) Pers. Corolla is white to off-white
Larrea tridentata Growing on north side of pond; corolla is yellow.
(D.C.) Cov.
Cyperus alrernisolius Growing in two locations, east and west of pond
Atriplex canescans Small plant at west end of pond
(Pursh) Nutt.
Typha latirolia Growing in one location on north side of pond
L.
Fagonia laevis
Standley
Chilopsis lineans
Cov.
Krameria erecta
Schultes
Ambrosia dumosa
(A Gray) Payne
[Franseria dumosa}
A Gray
Yucca
'p.
J
Growing in rocky hills on north side of pond;
corolla is purple.
Growing in wash area; corolla is bell shaped, colored
white with pale purple in throat, grouped in clusters.
Growing in wash area, 2-3 m. tall; low-brWlched
shrub; corolla is red-purple.
Growing in wash area and north of pond; low shrub.
Large group growing on north side of pond.
~ __ .J __ J J _J ~-~ ~~
Table 7-cont.
Prickly pear
Aloe
Herbaceous Types
·Sunflower
"'Yellow sweetclover
·Popcorn flower
"'Filaree
·Desert-sunflower
·Black mustard
·London rocket
"'Wire-lettuce
Opuntia
'p.
AJoe
'p.
Helianthus annuus
L.
Me/i/otus officinalis
(L.) Pall.
Cryptantha angustiso/ia
(Torr.) Greene
Erodium cicutarium
(L.) L'He'r
Geraea canescens
A Gray
Brassica nigra
L.
Sisymbrium irio
L.
Stephanomeria pauciflora
(Nutt.) Nelson
Table 7
Growing on north side of pond.
Growing on north side of pond.
Growing in wash area; corolla is yellow with
black/brown center.
Growing in was area; corolla is yellow, attracts bees.
Growing in wash area; corolla is white.
Growing in wash area, 0.5 m. tall; beneficial weed,
provides food for wildlife; corolla is pink/purple.
Growing in wash area, 2-3 m. tall; corolla is yellow.
Growing in wash area, 2-3 m. tall.
Growing in wash area; mustard family.
Growing in wash area.
__ .-1 _J
'N"
L
L
L
TABLE 8. POPULATION COUNTS FOR DOMESTIC FOWL AND ROCK DOVES L
Count Ducks Geese Chickens Turkeys Guinea Hens Rock Doves
L
1 100 33 20 1 3 I.
L Weather: Clear, windy and warm.
2 106 32 8 1 3 I.
L Weather: Cold, sunny, scattered cumulus clouds, mild breeze.
3 124 31 13 1 3 14
..
Weather: Cold, sunny, scattered cumulus clouds, mild breeze.
• III 40 I - 0 - 32 L
Weather: Clear, hot, slight breeze.
L 5 135 I 41 - \ - - -
L Weather: sunny and warm, cirrocumulus cloud coverage, gentle breeze.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L 29
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
,
I
L
L
I
L
L
L
L
TABLE 9.
Species Males
Ducks 72
Geese
Chickens 5
Turkey
Guinea
Hen
Rock
Dove
DOMESTIC BIRD POPULATION
Females Total comments
43 l15 Observed mating and laying eggs but
not setting.
35 Observed mating and laying. One pair
setting for three weeks then nest
was excavated. Predator is unknown.
9 14 Laying and setting eggs. Absence
of 5 chicks since count #1
indicates chicks are not reaching
maturity.
1 , ,
3
32
30
L
L
L
L
L
L
,-
1
L
L
L
L
L
L
,
L
L
L
L
L
TABLE 10. BIRD SPECIES LIST (excluding domestic fowl)
Common Name (NO'S)
Great Blue Heron (1)
Egret (1)
Black-crowned
Night Heron (1)
Harris Hawk (2)
American Coot (1)
Rock Dove (32)
Common Ground
Dove (2)
Greater
Roadrunner (1)
Lesser Nighthawk (4)
Costa's
HUlllminghird (4)
Gila Woodpecker (1)
Western Kingbird (3)
Verdin (7)
Cactus Wren (0)
Northern
Mockingbird (2)
European
starlings (10+)
Breeding
#
+
+
•
o
#
#
Comments
Seen frequently on shore or hill north
of pond
Unidentified.
trees west of
Seen
pond
in flight and in
Flushed from roost on several occasions
in reeds or trees on west end of pond
Seen in flight over farm machinery west
of pond and garden
Seen only-on first day of study
Seen in garden area north of pond hill
Seen on trails north of pond hill
Seen in far east end of garden carry-ing
nesting materials
Males seen defending feeding territories
Unidentified females seen. This species
does not form monogamous pairs.
Seen on Saguaro cactus north of pond hill
Seen as individuals early in study
Later seen far east end of garden with
nest material
3 breeding territories with paired birds
Nestlings confirmed in one nest. 1
apparently unpaired male calling from
tree-tops.
None seen or heard. several nests were
found dilapidated and old
Seen in far north side of garden
Probably nesting in palm trees
31
L
L
L
L
,
L
I
L
L
I
L
L
L
L
TABLE 10. BIRD SPECIES LIST cont.
Common Name (NO'S) Breeding comments
Black-throated - Seen in Palo Verde north of pond hill
Sparrow ( 1 )
Great-tailed + Males displaying to females. This
Grackle (10+) species does not form monogamous pairs.
Seen carrying nest material.
House Finch (14+) * 7 active nests (eggs and/or young) found
all in chelIa cactus
House Sparrow (10+) + Seen carrying nest material to palm trees
KEY TO BREEDING SYMBOLS
(* )
( +)
( I)
(x)
(- )
(0 )
Numbers
number.
Eggs or babies seen in nest
Nest or nest building
Pair seen in suitable breeding environment
Exhibit mating or territorial behavior
Individual(s)
Evidence that species was once present but is no longer here
in parenthesis after cammon names of birds indicate the approximate
The designation 10+ was used for those species that are numerous.
J 2
L
L
L
TABLE II. MAMMALS AND REPTILES L Name No. Comments
Common House Cat 7 1 Lg. (M) orange tabby, 1 Sm. orange tabby, 1
black tabby, 1 black and white long-haired,
1 siamese (possibly lactating), 1 solid black
medium-haired, 1 solid black short-haired
L
lactating female.
Skunk - Identif ied by smell, never seen. L
L Desert cottontail 2 There are at least two, observed in garden
area north of pond.
Black-tailed 2 Two observed in southwest area of garden.
Jackrabbit
Unidentified - Presence
Rodents L identified by den holes and scats.
Unidentified - Approximately 6 seen primarily in far east
Lizards area of garden and under creosote bush
north end of pond. L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L J3
Table 12· Seining results in the Yuma Conservation Garden Pond
Date/Time Location Pass f Number and Species Size
March 19
0900 hours west end 1 nil nil
0920 hours southeast corner 2 nil nil
0930 hours southeast corner 3 nil nil
0940 hours east corner 4 nil nil
0950 hours northeast corner 5 1 bluegill 10 em.
48 shad 8-10 em.
2 carp Approx. 75 em.
1 largemouth bass Approx. 50 em.
~
~
1010 hours northeast corner 6 11 bluegill 8-14 em.
April 09
1000 hours northeast comer 1 3 shad 8·10 em.
1015 hours northeast corner 2 3 shad 8-10 em.
J
L
L
L
L
1
L
L
,
'-
L
L
L
Table 13. Microscopic Organisms Found in Pond Sediments and
Surface Scrapings
Kingdom Protists
Phylum Chrysophyta - diatoms
Navicula
Phylum Ciliophora - ciliated protozoa
Paramecium
various ciliates
Acineta - suctorian
Kingdom Multicelled Plants
Division Chlorophyta - Green Algae
Cladophora
Spirogyra
Chiarella
Scenedesmus
Kingdom Multicelled Animals
Phylum Platyhelminthes - flatworms
Phylum Nematoda - roundworms
Phylum Rotifera - rotifers or wheel animals
Phylum Annelida - segmented worms
Phylum Tardigrada - water bears
Phylum Arthropoda
cladoceran crustaceans - daphnia or water fleas
ostracod crustacenas - seed shrimp
3S
Table 14 - Microscopic Organisms found in Ywna Conservation Garden Pond
Method of Sampling
April 09 Plankton net
-~
Location
20-'40 em. in
depth throughout
the pond
_ J
Type of Species Found
rotifers
daphnia
various ciliates
J J
Figure
'"I
I
oe a
Z
~ jO'71DO
CONSERVATION GARDEN & DUCK POND
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
·25500
Contour Interval = meter
_J
Figure 2. Relief Map of the Yuma Conservation Garden
00
M
_. J
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
'--
,
L
I,
L
L
L
L
L
~
S
=
"-
~
~igUre 3 - Y~ma Conservation Garden Water O-epth Data]
2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
12-Mar 19·Mar 9-Apr 16-Apr 30-Apr
Date of Reading
39
L
L
L
L
L
L
;
~
~
L
'-
~
L
L
L
L
L
L
~
~ 'u
0;
u
~ w
~
~ w =
Figure 4 - Yuma Conservation Garden Water Temperature Data
21
20
19
18
17
16 ~
15
12-Mar 19-Mar I6-Apr 30-Apr
Date of Reading
40
i
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Figure 6 Map of Pia Locations at Yuma Conservation Garden Pond
>'~j-1--------I--------
•• --~ -1--- ------+'-d-i--+_ ----I--------I----"--H-----'
1
s' ----'-1-+----,
"-,,-10-
, 1
III 1
I ,
42
P liill!, code
----1/ II
willow ~
palm---- ...
Fan balm------- iii
pear-wheel
& P~I?«:l1rl
Area I'·
•
'~
,
'-
~
,
,
L
~
L
L
L
L
Figure 7. Foliage Height Diversity of Yuma Conservation
G a rd e n
I
I
, "
. ----- •• ~,~<-'.'
r • ,
r'-- --
., __ .1
" Figure 7 - A Foliage diversity in the vertical plane
Foliage over 6 rreters tall
F l{jUL'c 7 - f, Foliacp diversity in the vertical plane
Foliage 2-6 rrcters tall
• , •
"
1... .......... -.-
Figure 7-C Foliage diversity in the vertical plane
Foliage less than 2 neters tall
43
Appendix I.
01/19/93 176 5.0
02/01193 176 4.9
02/16/93 158 5.1
03/01193 110 4.5
03/15/93 81 4.5
04/05/93 110 4.8
04/19/93 123 4.7
05/03/93 129 4.8
05/17/93 133 5.0
06107/93 126 5.1
06/21/93 129 4.9
07/06/93 123 4.9
07119/93 130 5.1
OS/02/93 137 5.0
OS/16/93 130 4.8
09/07/93 136 4.9
09122193 138 5.0
10/04/93 141 5.2
10/18/93 134 4.8
11/01/93 132 5.0
11115/93 147 4.6
12106/93 144 5.1
COLORADO RIVER CHEMICAL ANALYSES
GROUND-WATER STATUS REPORT-1993
89
88
90
66
56
72
82
87
88
87
86
86
86
88
87
87
88
90
86
86
96
90
36
34
33
25
21
27
32
34
34
34
34
33
33
35
34
35
35
36
34
34
36
35
39
21
4
174 216 375
166 219 333
148 204 305
99 168 223
71 151 176
95 167 211
114 174 303
120 174 304
121 181 319
113 173 315
117 177 297
113 173 301
116 173 297
118 175 306
116 172 297
125 168 309
127 173 305
127 173 317·
120 172 303
126 172 305
129 184 318
133 173 323
174 222 375
71 151 176
22 17 43
1.0 11.5 0.20
0.6 13.2 0.19
0.8 13.2 0.18
1.4 13.4 0.12
1.0 13.7 0.08
0.8 13.5 0.11
0.9 6.0 0.12
1.3 . 7.0 0.13
1.0 10.0 0.14
0.9 10.6 0.13
0.9 9.6 0.13
1.0 7.1 0.10
0.0 10.3 0.13
0.7 9.0 0.13
0.7 9.4 0.14
0.6 10.1 0.14
0.6 11.0 0.14
0.7 10.6 0.15
0.7 10.3 0.14
0.8 10.2 0.15
0.8 11.8 0.14
0.8 10.7 0.15
1.4 13.7 0.20
0.0 6.0 O.OS
0.3 2.0 0.03
0.4 0.00 0.00 0.11
0.4 0.00 0.00 0.11
0.4 0.00 0.00 0.10
0.4 0.02 0.00 O.OS
0.4 0.03 0.00 O.OS
0.4 0.02 0.00 0.10
0.4 O,oj 0.00 0.12
0.5 0.01 0.00 0.13
0.4 0.00 0.00 0:13
0.3 0.00 0.00 0.12
0.3 0.00 0.00 0.12
0.3 0.00 0.00 0.13
0.4 0.00 0.00 0.12
0.4 0.00 0.00 0.13
0.4 0.00 0.00 0.13
0.4 0.00 0.00 0.13
0.4 o,oj 0.00 0.14
0.4 0.00 0.00 0.14
0.4 0.00 0.00 0.13
0.4 0.00 0.00 0.13
0.4 0.02 0.00 0.14
0.4 0.00 0.00 0.13
0.00 0.16
0.5 0.03 0,00 0.16
0.3 0.00 0.00 o.OS
0.0 0.01 0.00 0.02
1.35 992
1.25 1000
1.17 874
0.89 620
0.73 510
0.91 632
1.13 798
1.18 794
1.20 820
1.21 780
1.20 820
1.17 814
1.21 822
1.24 816
1.21 836
1.23 824
1.25 840
1.28 820
1.25 834
1.25 856
1.29 870
1.28 876
1.42 1030
0.73 510
0.15 111
1490
1470 8.37
1340 8.2
973 8.2
812 8.1
960 8.2
1180 8.3
1210 8.2
1240 8.3
1200 8.3
1230 8.4
1200 8.3
1230 8.4
1240 8.3
1240 8.3
1260 8.3
1250 8.3
1230 8.3
1250 8.3
1250 8.2
1300 8.3
1300 8.2
1490 8.4
812 8.1
151 0.1
4.0
4.0
3.6
2.9
2.3
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.1 25.0
3.1
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.2 26.0
3.3 22.0
4.0 26.0
2.3 22.0
0.4 1.8
Appendix 2 . Colorado River Above Imperial Dam· Water Quality Analysis
January 28
March 24
May 19
Colifom
Bacteria
Streptococci
3,OOO/100ml '14,000/100ml
4,000/100ml '12,000/100ml
14,000/100ml ,28,000/100ml
8.3
8.1
8.2
J
Solids Water Dissolved
Residue Temp. Oxygen % Saturation Nitrogen
785ppm 12.0 C lO.6ppm 98 O.210ppm
788ppm 18.5 C 9,2ppm 98 O.230ppm
790ppm 26.0 C B.Oppm 99 O.210ppm
9.4ppm
8.9ppm
8.6ppm
L
L
L
,
I
'-
,
L
L
L
L
,
L
L
!
L
L
L
L
Literature Cited
Anon. 1994. Arizona Fishing Regulations. Arizona Game and
Fish.
Cole, Gerald A. 1975. Textbook of Limnology. Saint Louis.
The C.V. Mosby Company.
Foley, Duncan. Garry O. McKenzie, and Russell O. Utgard.
1993. Investigations in Environmental Geology.
Macmillan Publishing Company. Ney York.
Meglitsch, Paul A. 1972. Invertebrate Zoology. 2nd ed.
Oxford University Press. New York.
Reid, George K. 1967. Pond Life: A Guide to Common Plants
and Animals of North America, Ponds and Lakes. Golden
Press. New York.
Reid, George. 1961. Ecology of Inland waters and Estuaries.
Van Nostraud Reinhold Company. New York.
Rosenberg, Kenneth Ro, Robert D. Ohmart, William C. Hunter,
and Bertin W. Anderson. 1991. Birds of the Lower
Colorado River Valley. The University of Arizona Press.
Tucson.
46