2.  Aldo Leopold’s Game Management - cornerstone text for U.S. federal wildlife agencies - three necessities for free-ranging wildlife: food, water, and cover  Inspired federal water development programs from 1940-1950 - evolving purpose and focal species - annual expenditure of > $1 million

3.  Artificial Drinkers - small catchments of water fed by underground wells, generally located near roads  Established by cattle and sheep ranchers before area received refuge status  Maintained by Sevilleta NWR to assess potential wildlife benefits

4.  Ecological unit surrounding water point used by grazing animals  “Sacrifice zone” within foraging space of disturbed vegetation

5.  Springs - free-standing natural occurrences of water - varied geological characteristics influence area and depth  Previous research reveals high ichthyological and microbial diversity - Great Artesian Basin Springs (Ponder 2002) - Western U.S. springs (Abell et al. 2000)

6.  Is there a higher diversity of terrestrial vertebrates visiting natural springs than artificial drinkers?  Does flora diversity play a role in water source usage at natural springs and artificial drinkers? - Is there a “sacrifice zone” at artificial drinkers?

7. 222 (Tule) WellGibbs WestWest Mesa South LadronSan LorenzoCibola Springs Study Site: Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge Selected Drinkers and Springs

8.  Non-Invasive Monitoring RECONYX Rapidfire RC55 Digital Infrared motion detecting cameras provided images of visitors from June 2 nd to July 13 th 2010 at each site

10. Cibola Springs 222 (Tule) Well Artificial Drinkers cameras established from 2009 more open, no geological obstructions Natural Springs 40° angle and 30 ft limitation focus on capturing game trail access points

11.  Artificial Drinkers and Springs - Percent cover estimate - 20 m transects in each cardinal direction from water source - 5 quadrats (50 x 50 cm) at 5 m intervals along transect  Artificial Drinkers - outside the “sacrifice zone” - second set of transects 100 m from each well

12.  20,604 images in 42 days  222 Well largest contributor  Complications from camera positioning and monsoon affected Ladron and Cibola output

14. Difference between springs and drinkers not significant (p-value >.05) Paired sites reveal disparities despite proximity

15. Simpson’s Index of Diversity DrinkersSprings

16. Simpson’s Index of Diversity

17.  No significant difference between diversity at springs and drinkers  Interesting trends between fauna diversity and flora diversity - lower average flora diversity at drinkers may be explained by history of disturbance - lower flora diversity at San Lorenzo due to disturbance or geology

18.  Increased sample size, study duration, and different camera set up at springs could shift results  Temporal variation in spring usage – are drinkers a more reliable source?  Compare effectiveness of individual artificial drinker structures - West Mesa South and 222 drinkers both within Juniper Woodland habitat, yet considerably different species richness  Evaluate springs as ecosystems – abiotic and biotic components  Comprehensive study of water source utilization across the Southwest

20. QUESTIONS?