Occasional Papers Museum of Texas Tech University Number 201 14 December 2000 Ecotourism and Conservation: Richness of Terrestrial Vertebrates across Texas With a global human population of 6 billion and rising, the habitat for many species is being lost at an unprecedented rate. The 20 plus million residents of Texas are rapidly altering native habitat largely by removal or fragmentation. An objective of the Texas GAP Analysis Project was to develop fine-scale distribution maps for terrestrial vertebrates of Texas. As a first step we examined published range maps to determine areas of high biological diversity (biodiversity) that would be of interest to ecotourists, conservationists, landowners, and natural resource managers. A map depicting the seven major geographic regions was used as a backdrop to analyze distribution of 908 terrestrial vertebrates of Texas. This map was part of a Geographical Information System including soils, vegetation, and elevations used to define habitat for terrestrial vertebrates. Species richness ranged from a low of 378 in the Piney Woods to a high of 514 in the South Texas Plains. These maps provide a guide to the biodiversity of Texas and therefore reflect the potential for expansion of ecotourism. Ecotourism is one means available to landowners to develop an economically sustainable lifestyle and yet conserve natural resources for generations to come. In a state with only 3.2% of its area in public ownership, the importance of private landowner stewardship to maintain biodiversity is essential. Access to accurate information on biodiversity is critical to economic development and conservation biology. Front cover: The seven major geographic regions of Texas (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 1999). Ecotourism and Conservation: Richness of Terrestrial Vertebrates across Texas Eric A. Holt, KellyE. Allen, Nick C. Parker, and Robert! Baker Wilson (1998) predicted that the world contains The first systematic biological collection of the between 5 and 30 million species; however, he also flora and fauna of Texas was conducted by Vernon recognizes that this number may be as high as 100 Bailey during the period of 1896 to 1905 (Bailey, 1905). million (Wilson, 1999). Of these species only about Since then, a century of work has led to the produc¬ 1.4 million have been described by scientists (Wilson, tion of range maps in Texas for mammals (e.g,, Davis 1999). In all comers of the world, humans have been and Sclimidly, 1994), amphibians (e.g., Garrett and dependent upon species for food and fiber. For ex¬ Barker, 1994), reptiles (e.g., Garret and Barker, 1994; ample, at a global population of 5 billion, more than Tennant, 1998), and birds (e.g., Rappole and Blacklock, 40% of the world’s primary net production has been 1994; Kutac, 1998). These range maps are based on converted for use by humans (Ehrlich, 1988). Now, voucher specimens housed in museum collections, with a population of 6 billion and rising, the habitat for data collected during biological surveys, large scale many species is being lost at an unprecedented rate. ecological boundaries, and expert opinion. In fact, the extinction of species today is estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times above the background rate An objective of the Texas Gap Analysis Project (Tuxill, 1998). (TX-GAP)(Parker et ah, 1998) and a component of the National Gap Analysis Program (Scott et al., 1993; As European explorers, and later settlers, moved Csutti, 1996), was to develop fine-scale distribution across the United States they, like the native peoples, maps for the terrestrial vertebrates living in Texas. relied heavily on resident vertebrates, especially large These distribution maps are based primarily on wild¬ mammals, as their primary food source (Bakeless, life habitat relationship models that incorporate spatial 1964). Bison (Bos bison), pronghorn antelope data on vegetation, soil, elevation, temperature, pre¬ (Antilocapra americand), and white-tailed deer cipitation, and other environmental factors influencing (Odocoileus virginianus ) were prominent game spe¬ the distribution of species. These distribution maps cies taken in Texas by explorers and settlers (Doughtry, improve upon existing range maps by identifying the 1989). In addition, other vertebrates including small habitat within the range extent where the species are manmials [e.g., rabbits (Sylvilagus sp.), birds [e.g., expected to be found (Scott et al., 1993). Although quail (Coltnus virginianus and Callipepla squamata), range maps, as opposed to distribution maps, are too and ducks (Anas sp., Aythya sp., etc.)] were also uti¬ course to meet the resolution requirements of TX-GAP, lized heavily as food sources. Early Texans learned they are useful for evaluating the distribution of spe¬ firsthand the distributions of these game species and cies at larger resolutions (Holt 1999, MS thesis). The other groups of vertebrates that directly affected their objective of this study was to use published range maps lives, such as predators and poisonous reptiles, by di¬ of terrestrial vertebrates to determine areas of high rect observation. In contrast, today’s Texas explorer biological diversity (biodiversity) that would be of in¬ relies on range maps published in established field terest to ecotourists, conservationists, landowners, and guides, brochures, or on the Internet to identify where, natural resource managers. and when, they may discover their particular verte¬ brates, invertebrates or plants of interest. Methods A geographic infonnation system (GIS) was (1994), Gairetand Barker (1994), and Tennant (1998). used to digitize, store, and analyze range maps from These electronic range maps were overlaid to produce Davis and Schmidly (1994), Rappole and Blacklock five composite maps— one each for mammals, am- Holt et al.. 2000. Ecotourjsm and Conservation: Richness of Terrestrial Vertebrates across Texas Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 201: i-i-l-lO 2 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University phibians, reptiles, birds, and a composite of vertebrate Schmidly (1994), Rappole and Blacklock (1994), Garret diversity. The 908 vertebrate species chosen were and Barker (1994), and Tennant (1998). selected based on criteria as follows: Maps of environmental factors influencing the 1. resident within the state of Texas, distribution of vertebrates were downloaded from the 2. have been known to breed within the state of Texas Natural Resource Information Service (TNRIS) Texas within the past 30 years, (<http://www.tnris.state.tx.us>) and printed for com¬ 3. native to Texas, and parison of spatial patterns in soils (Fig. 1), vegetation 4. exist as free-ranging wild populations. (Fig. 2), and elevations (Fig. 3). The soil map, devel¬ oped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural These criteria eliminated exotic and introduced Resources Conservation Service as the STATSGO species such as feral pigs {Sus scrofa); species main¬ (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994) database, and tained only in captivity, such as bison; and species the elevation map, prepared by the U,S. Geological such as the hairy-legged vampire bat (Diphylla Survey (U.S. Department of Interior, 1990), were ob¬ ecaudata), found only rarely in Texas as an immigrant tained from TNRIS. A map depicting the seven ma¬ from Mexico (Davis and Schmidly, 1994). Infomia- jor geographic regions of Texas was digitized (Fig. 4) tion regarding these criteria was obtained from Texas from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (1999) and Parks and Wildlife (1997), Kutac (1998), Davis and used as the backdrop to analyze distribution of verte¬ brates. Results and Discussion Overlaying range maps for the 908 terrestrial All areas of the state contain vertebrates, inver¬ vertebrate species in Texas indicates that vertebrate tebrates and plants of interest to landowners, conser¬ richness ranged from a low of 378 species in the vationists, scientists, birders, hikers, photographers, Piney woods of East Texas to a high of 514 species in and hunters. Biologically diverse areas containing large the South Texas Plains (Fig. 5 and Table 1). At the populations of humans are the areas likely to experi¬ taxonomic class level, mammalian richness ranged ence the greatest change due to population growth. from 55 species in the Pineywoods to 96 species in The establishment of conservation reserves, parks, the Big Bend (Fig. 6). Amphibian richness was lowest wildlife refuges, and easements to limit future devel¬ (n = 20 species) in the Panhandle Plains and highest (n opment would likely be most effective if placed in ar¬ ” 48 species) in the Prairies and Lakes Region (Fig. eas of high biodiversity with potential for future com¬ 7). Reptile richness ranged from 67 species in the mercial development of open space. At the same time, Pineywoods to 109 species in the South Texas Plains these areas are also pnme spots for the development (Fig. 8) and avian richness was lowest (n = 194 spe¬ of ecotourism or travel oriented around natural sites, cies) in the Panhandle Plains and highest (n = 283 spe¬ native species, and traditional cultural practices (Tuxill, cies) in the South Texas Plains (Fig. 9). 1998). Ranchers, farmers, and even absentee land- owners are realizing the economic potential of The eastern edge of the Edwards Plateau of Cen¬ ecotourism. Honey (1999) presents several definitions tral Texas, the northwestern edge of the South Plains of ecotourism and subcomponents including nature region, and the Big Bend area are clearly demarked by tourism, wildlife tourism, and adventure tourism. spatial patterns in soil, vegetation, and elevations- These Ecotourism has been narrowly defined as travel “to regions contain a high diversity, not only in geomor¬ relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas phology, but also of vertebrate species. Agriculture with the specific object of studying, admiring, and and urbanization along the Balconies Fault has dra¬ enjoying the scenery of its wild plants and animals, as matically altered habitat on the eastern edge of the well as any existing cultural aspects found in these Edwards Plateau and agricultural development along areas” and also as travel “to learn about and appreciate the Rio Grande has altered habitat in the sparsely popu¬ the environment” (Honey 1999). We use the term lated westem regions. ecotourism in its broadest definition to include travel. Holt et al.“ Terrestrial Vertebrates of Texas: Ecotourism and Conservation 3 150 200 Miles 200 300 Kilometct^ Panhahdie Rains Pi^iies ^nd takes "|*iii'eywbiod^ HilVCo^nii^, GulfCoas] Soujh Texasl Plains" Figure 1 .—The seven major geographic regions of Texas (Texas Parks and Wildlife Depanment, 1999). outdoor recreation and other activities which can be is now the number one industry in Texas and has the conducted in a sustainable environment. On some potential for tremendous expansion. Nationwide in West Texas ranches such as the Old Alazan Ranch 1991, 108.7 individuals in the U.S. participated in out¬ (Robinson, 1999), the Cibolo Creek Ranch (Morrison, door recreation and spent a total of $59 billion (U.S. 1999), the Prude Ranch, and the Y.O. Ranch (Banks, Department of Interior et ah, 1993a). In 1991, 35,6 1999), the revenue from ecotourism today is increas¬ million anglers spent $24 billion and 14.1 million hunt¬ ingly important and, in some cases, may exceed the ers spent $12 billion. An additional 76.1 million (73.9 revenue from traditional ranching activities. Tourism million residents and 30 million non-residents) partici- 4 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 0 so 100 150 200 Miles 0 100 200 300 Kilometcni Figure 2.—The vertebrate diversity of Texas. Species richness increases from low to high with increased shading. The inset represents the range extent for 908 vertebrate species. pated in non-consumptive outdoor recreation and spent ceipts from agriculture of $13 billion ($5 billion crops, a total of $18.1 billion m pursuit of their sport. $8 billion livestock), and the $12.8 billion of energy and mining (Rylander, 1999). In 1997 Texas had the The economic impact of travel, of both tourists second greatest number of tourists, (160 million) in and non-tourists, in Texas was $22.6 billion in 1995 the nation. These tourists spent over $16 billion, of (Texas Department of Economic Development, 1996) which 67% (over $ 10 billion) was for leisure travel. In and S34.6 billion in 1998 compared to the cash re¬ 1998, 34% of the visitors to Texas participated in out- Holt et al,— Terrestrial Vertebrates of Texas: Ecotourism and Conservation 5 0 50 100 150 200 Miles 0 100 200 300 Kilonieiera Figure 3.—The mammal diversity of Texas. Species richness increases from low to high with increased shading. The inset represents the composite range extent for all Texas mammals (Davis and Schmidly, 1994). door sports, tonring and nature activities, while an In 1991,2,650,000 anglers in Texas spent $1.47 additional 17% participated in cultural activities includ¬ billion pursuing their sport while 1,018,000 hunters ing visits to historical sites (See the Texas Travel Facts spent $ 1.0 billion for equipment and trip related ex¬ booklet January 2000, or contact Texas Department penses (U.S, Department of Interior et al., 1993/?), of Economic Development; Tourism Division; P.O. The 4,016,000 participants of non-consumptive wild¬ Box 12728; Austin, TX 78711-2728 for additional data life recreation spent $877 million for equipment, trips, on travel in Texas), and related activities. Economic data and days of par- 6 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 0 50 JW 150 200 Miles 0 100 200 300 Killjmelers FigiLire 4^—The amphibian diversity of Texas, Species richness increases from low to high with increased shading, The inset represents the composite range extents for all Texas amphibians (Garret and Barker, 1994). ticipation (Table 2) have been compiled and analyzed photography reported as activities on Texas ranches for participants of bass fishing, deer hunting, and wild¬ (Banks, 1999). life watching (U.S. Department of Interior, 1994). However, no data were found to reflect a fiill range of The biological and geological resources of Texas outdoor activities including cattle-driving, roping, sheet are prime attractions for ecotourists. The 20 million shooting, horseback riding, floating rivers, hayrides, residents of Texas today are expected to expand to 34 geological tours, spelunking, hiking, camping, and million by 2030 (Ramos and Plocheck, 1999) and will Holt et al.— Terrestrial Vertebrates of Texas: Ecotourism aind Conservation 7 Figure 5,—The reptile diversity of Texas. Species richness increases from low to high with increased shading. The inset represents the composite range extent for all Texas reptiles (Garret and Barker, 1994; Tennant, 1998). increasingly seek opportunities to experience Texas and through the preservation of biodiversity (Cairncross, Its rich biodiversity. The maps published herein pro¬ 1992). Worldwide, approximately 1 billion hectares vide a guide to the biodiversity of vertebrates in Texas (6%) of the earth's surface is designated as protected and therefore, the potential for expansion of ecotourism. habitat (Tuxill, 1998). However, in Texas only about 2.2 million hectares (3.2%) are set aside as public lands Ecotourism benefits not only those directly in¬ for conservation and management of natural resources volved with the economic activity, but all of society (Dept, of Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 1992). 8 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University Table !.—Vertebrate species by taxonomic group and vertebrate biodiversity (total of vertebrate species) for the seven major geographic regions. __ Vertebrates Big Bend Gulf Hill Panhandle Piney woods Prairies & South Texas Country Coast Country Plains Lakes Plains Amphibians 22 43 37 20 34 48 40 Birds 232 277 239 194 222 227 283 Mammals 96 79 90 82 55 70 82 Reptiles 89 95 101 84 67 96 109 Vertebrate biodiversity 439 494 467 380 378 441 514 Additionally, The Nature Conservancy of Texas (TNC) biodiversity. The best incentive for conservation of owns about 40,485 ha (personal communication, David biodiversity is establishing an economic benefit to those Wolf, TNC, Austin, Texas) and, combined with fed¬ who conserve and protect those resources. The ben¬ eral and state lands, about 3.4% of total land in Texas efit of a high economic value can be seen in elephant is afforded some type of protection. populations in Zimbabwe, where harvest by hunting brings substantial economic benefit to the people The need to protect biodiversity in Texas was (Campbell et al, 1996). The people protect elephant recognized over 100 years ago. The first game law in herds because they are a valuable resource and pro¬ Texas became effective February I860 and prohibited vide financial support for the basic needs of society quail hunting on Galveston Island for 2 years (Tuxill, (Child 1993). Alternately, in Kenya, elephants are not 1998), However, by the eve of the Great Depression hunted, but still serve as a major economic factor and the dust bowl days of the 1930s, the need for a (Leakey 1993; Honey 1999). national program in conservation was recognized. In September 1937 the Pittman-Robinson Act was signed It is fairly easy to envision how land owners with establishing a state and federal program for conserva¬ large tracks of land can develop bird watching tours, tion of America’s wildlife (Kallman et al., 1987). Since packaged hunts, and even trespass privileges that could then, state and federal programs have restored wildlife serve as a source of income from their property. How¬ throughout the nation, but especially in Texas—the bio¬ ever, for smaller landowners, the problem is more com¬ logical crossroads of North America (Doughtry, 1989). plex. In the Texas Panhandle, organized pheasant hunts Activities on private lands that economically benefit provided by the Lions Clubs and Chambers of Com¬ landowners, as well as wildlife, include the Conserva¬ merce might be appropriate models for small landown¬ tion Reser\'e Program (CRP) and the Wetland Reserve ers. In these examples, many landowners agree to Program (WRP). Many private landowners in Texas permit trespassing and hunting privileges marketed by directly improve habitat for white-tailed deer, quail and the organizing group. In the case of bird watching, a other game species and, in doing so, indirectly provide group of hotels or a Chamber of Commerce might habitat improvement for non-game wildlife and native organize bird watching or other outdoor activities. The plants. These programs and actions by private land- hosting organization can handle the advertising, serve owners are credited as having a major component to as a source for infonnation as to where different spe¬ the recent increase in duck populations (Young, 2000) cies and activities can be enjoyed, and even locate per¬ and the economic activity resulting from land leased sonal guides, if appropriate. The activities of the or¬ for hunting game species. ganizing group would boost the local economy in sev¬ eral ways including hotel occupation, increased res¬ Today, the burgeoning human population, com¬ taurant use, and general tourist activities. Small land- bined with urban expansion, is the greatest threat to owners can share some of the income for package