A natural resource condition assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: Appendix 20a – Biodiversity

Schwartz, Mark; Thorne, James; Holguin, Andrew

We analyze biodiversity within Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (SEKI). Based on available data, we define biodiversity to in four key groups. We assess mammals and birds as straightforward taxonomic groups. We assess reptiles (snakes, lizards, turtles) and amphibians (frogs, salamanders) as a single entity that we describe as the herpetofauna. We mention fish diversity sparingly. We do not assess fish diversity because the fish fauna is very low in diversity, largely non-native; poorly sampled; and covered in the Sensitive Animals portion of this NRCA. For example, the natural resources species list for the parks incudes 5 native fish taxa, of which only three have been observed in the observation database and these observations comprise less than half a percent of the fish observations within the parks. We assess plant diversity to include all vascular and non-vascular plant taxa (species, sub-species and varieties). We do not assess biodiversity of invertebrate taxa of fungi owing to little available data. Information exists on the distribution and abundance of individual invertebrate taxa, but these were excluded from the analysis as they are few and highly selective. We include a brief anecdotal assessment of invertebrate taxa based on the 1996 Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Report. We focus our attention on assessing biodiversity using point count observations and plot data aggregated across a wide array of studies. Although data records begin in the late 19th century, most of animal data (96%) have been collected since 1970 and all plot-based plant data we used were collected since 1985. Much of the data comes as a consequence of particular focal studies, resulting in large amounts of data accrued on particular organisms, or locations, over a relatively short period of time. These features of the collection of data sets constrain our capacity to use the data to do temporal analyses. Thus, we present our assessment, discuss limitations of interpretation imposed by data constraints and recommend future studies to improve assessments of the various components of biodiversity. In assessing biodiversity, we must define terminology and report on word usage for this chapter. We refer to the number of species found in a location as species richness. Diversity is used in its ecological meaning to include species richness and a measure of the diversity of abundance of those species. Together, we treat these two entities, richness and diversity, as a reflection of biodiversity. Biodiversity may also include measures of ecological, functional, taxonomic, phylogenetic or genetic diversity represented in some spatial location. We do not include such measures within our assessment as these are beyond the scope of the critical questions posed or because measures to assess these levels of biodiversity (e.g., ecosystem functioning, or population genetic) are lacking. In assessing biodiversity, we are concerned with Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, which we refer to as SEKI or ―the Parks. When we compare different aspects of the Parks to diversity within the Sierra Nevada, specifically, we mean the Sierra Nevada Foothills and the High Sierra Nevada regions, as defined by the Jepson Manual of Plants (Hickman 1993).

A natural resource condition assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: Appendix 20a – Biodiversity

Series

Collections