Arizona’s iconic saguaros are being threatened. These are the perpetrators 40%

By Eleri Mosier63% Cronkite News27%

7/22/2026, 11:25:31 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Hasty Generalization, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.4% saturation with 183 hits. Analysis detected 976 faulty-reasoning hits from 994 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45% and a BS Rank of 40% (13,215 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.40% of the article peer group.

It’s hard to imagine a cactus without thinking of a saguaro. 
Adam Farrell-Wortman has spent more than a decade caring for saguaros at the Tucson Botanical Gardens, where he is the director of horticulture. 
“You can go anywhere around the world, (and if you tell) a random person to draw a cactus, they will draw a saguaro,” Farrell-Wortman says. 
“It is the icon of the Northern American desert.” 
But these towering cacti are vulnerable to other climate-related stressors  like extended temperatures, invasive species and fire. 
“I’ve lived here for 65 years,” says Flint Swerd, a retired high school teacher living in Cave Creek. 
“I’ve never seen so many saguaros dying.” 
Swerd often hikes and mountain bikes and has noticed saguaros rapidly disappearing as wildfires increase. 
“The desert ecology isn’t evolved with fire,” Farrell-Wortman says. 
Burns 
Saguaros’ strong interior could make them appear tough against fires. 
Kim Franklin, a conservation research scientist at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, says the cacti are less resilient than they appear. 
If saguaros are burned at their base, they have a better chance at survival than barrel cacti or baby saguaros, Franklin explained, which are low to the ground. 
But they still catch fire easily, with fire rapidly traveling from the bottom to the top. 
Once a saguaro is ignited, fire can burn its soft tissue. 
If enough of the epidermis, or inner skin, is burned, the saguaro dies completely, she said. 
If it survives, it’s never the same again; its epidermis can no longer act as a protective barrier against pathogens. 
“Think about if your legs were burned from the knees down pretty significantly,” Franklin says. 
“That would be pretty hard on you.” 
Surviving saguaros are left with permanent burn scars that appear as charred patches on the lower trunk and arms of the cactus. 
When saguaros die completely, they are left with their ribs  the woody structures that once supported its weight. 
Native species 
Saguaro damage isn’t just cosmetic– it threatens coexisting wildlife, too. 
Birds like the Gila woodpecker and the white-winged dove dig out holes in the saguaro to nest in, making cavities. 
When a fire kills a saguaro, the birds become displaced. 
The saguaro is also a food source for many forms of wildlife, and fires put that at risk. 
“They’re incredibly important to all sorts of pollinators  so many different species, insects, birds, bats, depend on saguaros, for their nectar, for the pollen and for their fruit,” Franklin says. 
Animals like bats are less threatened by saguaro fires because they can fly away, Franklin explains. 
But if a slower animal like a desert tortoise is nearby during a fire, the immediate impact could be death. 
Invasive species 
Invasive species are a major fire risk factor for saguaros and the wildlife that coexist with them. 
On the Fourth of July in 2017, fireworks were set off around Sentinel Peak in Tucson. 
It led to a fire that burned hundreds of saguaros. 
Part of this, Franklin explained, was related to buffelgrass, an invasive species growing on the mountain that catches fire easily. 
Buffelgrass has thin green stalks with fluffy lavender spikes like cleaning dusters sprouting from it. 
You can pull on it and spread the soft bristles through the air like a dandelion. 
It’s also one of the biggest threats to saguaros. 
It can fuel intense fires, which burns the epidermis, or skin, of the saguaro. 
If enough of the saguaro is damaged, it doesn’t only damage the skin and pathogens  it can completely kill the saguaro. 
Where the saguaros were burned on Sentinel Peak, the buffelgrass returned, lush and thick. 
It replaced the hundreds of saguaros that used to stand tall. 
“There’s hardly any saguaros left there,” Franklin explains. 
The fires also destroyed other plants that used to thrive alongside saguaros. 
“But there’s also nothing else either,” she continues. 
“There’s no palo verdes… there’s no creosote, there’s no other plants either. 
It’s just buffelgrass. 
 
Another invasive species that contributes to saguaros’ fire risk is stinknet, which is also starting to take off across Southern Arizona. 
In Phoenix, it’s already rampant. 
The invasive species appears like bright bunches of yellow flowers, but, like buffelgrass, it increases wildfire risk, she says. 
They form dense, flammable mats throughout the desert and pose a risk to surrounding saguaros. 
Buffelgrass and stinknet are replacing saguaros, not just threatening them. 
“People are really bad at long-term thinking, or maybe people don’t care because they’re going to get to see saguaros during their lifetime,” Franklin says. 
“But (their) grandkids are not going to get to see them. 
It’s just going to be a grassland.” 
The future 
Hope persists, thanks in part to the people working to preserve Arizona’s deserts. 
Tucson has a strong sense of place, Franklin explains, and the community cares deeply about biodiversity. 
“There’s hundreds, if not thousands, of people that go out every year to volunteer just to dig up buffelgrass or pull up stinknet,” Franklin says. 
Farrell-Wortman said the community usually steps up to help during environmental disasters. 
But they need to keep putting in the effort, he says. 
“We have to continue doing the things we are doing, like trying to pull out and remove invasive species,” Farrell-Wortman says. 
“We have to do things like replant  maybe putting even more effort, more resources  care more about the need to replant affected wild spaces so that they can recover from human activity. 
 
But the most important thing we can do is at a societal level, Farrell-Wortman explains. 
“We can no longer pretend that our actions aren’t having a major effect on the natural world around us,” Farrell-Wortman says. 
“We have to accept that climate change is happening, is occurring, and that we need to do things to mitigate the destructiveness of that.” 
*This article* first appeared on *Cronkite News* and is republished here under a *Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License*. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.2%Eleri Mosier: 0.4%Phoenix New Times: 1.5%Confirmation Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Eleri Mosier: 2.6%Phoenix New Times: 2.3%Availability Heuristic4.2%This article: 2.5%Eleri Mosier: 2.5%Phoenix New Times: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic2.5%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Eleri Mosier: 0.8%Phoenix New Times: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias2.5%This article: 2.6%Eleri Mosier: 2.4%Phoenix New Times: 3.5%Framing Effect2.6%This article: 2.0%Eleri Mosier: 1.3%Phoenix New Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion2.0%This article: 1.1%Eleri Mosier: 0.4%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Status Quo Bias1.1%This article: 3.4%Eleri Mosier: 1.1%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect3.4%This article: 1.3%Eleri Mosier: 0.9%Phoenix New Times: 2.8%Optimism Bias1.3%This article: 3.1%Eleri Mosier: 3.9%Phoenix New Times: 0.8%Pessimism Bias3.1%This article: 18.4%Eleri Mosier: 10.9%Phoenix New Times: 7.0%Negativity Bias18.4%This article: 2.5%Eleri Mosier: 0.8%Phoenix New Times: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.8%Phoenix New Times: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Eleri Mosier: 1.1%Phoenix New Times: 1.0%In-Group Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Eleri Mosier: 0.3%Phoenix New Times: 2.7%Halo Effect0.9%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.2%Eleri Mosier: 1.0%Phoenix New Times: 1.3%Recency Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.0%Eleri Mosier: 1.3%Phoenix New Times: 2.5%Appeal to Authority2.0%This article: 2.9%Eleri Mosier: 1.0%Phoenix New Times: 1.1%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 2.7%Eleri Mosier: 1.3%Phoenix New Times: 0.5%Slippery Slope2.7%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.2%Eleri Mosier: 5.8%Phoenix New Times: 4.3%Hasty Generalization8.2%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.0%Eleri Mosier: 1.7%Phoenix New Times: 0.4%Bandwagon5.0%This article: 5.9%Eleri Mosier: 3.1%Phoenix New Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion5.9%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.1%Eleri Mosier: 1.7%Phoenix New Times: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.1%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.8%Eleri Mosier: 3.6%Phoenix New Times: 2.4%Anecdotal6.8%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.2%Eleri Mosier: 0.4%Phoenix New Times: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.2%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 5.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 9.5%Eleri Mosier: 8.5%Phoenix New Times: 2.0%Indoctrination9.5%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 2.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleri Mosier: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

994 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers61%attributed speech385writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Farrell-Wortman • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Farrell-Wortman • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Farrell-Wortman • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageFlint Swerd • 18 words • 0.0% coverageFlint Swerd • 7 words • 0.0% coverageFlint Swerd • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Farrell-Wortman • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 28 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 31 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 12 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 19 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 25 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKim Franklin • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Farrell-Wortman • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Farrell-Wortman • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Farrell-Wortman • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Farrell-Wortman • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Farrell-Wortman • 15 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Farrell-Wortman • 21 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Farrell-Wortman • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Adam Farrell-Wortman

68%flagged-word coverage
204 attributed words33% of attributed speech58% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Indoctrination+46.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Adam Farrell-Wortman: 46.1%46.1%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.