Herpetological Review Herpetological Review - Doczine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

364.DUELLMAN, W. E. 1978. The biology of an equatorial herpetofauna inAmazonian Ecuador. Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas. 65:1–352.––––––. 2005. Cusco Amazónico: The Lives of Amphibians and Reptilesin an Amazonian Rainforest. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NewYork.DUELLMAN, W. E., AND L. TRUEB. 1986. Biology of Amphibians. McGrawHill, New York.GUAYASAMIN, J. M., S. RON, D. F. CISNEROS-HEREDIA, W. LAMAR, AND S. F.MCCRACKEN. 2006. A new species of frog of the Eleutherodactyluslacrimosus assemblage (Leptodactylidae) from the western AmazonBasin, with comments on the utility of canopy surveys in lowlandrainforest. Herpetologica 62:191–202.HIETZ, P. 1998. Diversity and conservation of epiphytes in a changingenvironment, p. 2114. In International Conference on Biodiversity andBioresources: Conservation and Utilization. Vol. 70. Pure and AppliedChemistry, Phuket, Thailand.IUCN, C. INTERNATIONAL, AND NATURESERVE. 2006. Global AmphibianAssessment.KAYS, R., AND A. ALLISON. 2001. Arboreal tropical forest vertebrates: currentknowledge and research trends. Plant Ecol. 153:109–120.KITCHING, R. L. 2000. Food Webs and Container Habitats: the NaturalHistory and Ecology of Phytotelmata. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.MCCRACKEN, S. F., AND M. R. J. FORSTNER. 2006. Reproductive ecologyand behavior of Eleutherodactylus aureolineatus (Anura,Brachycephalidae) in the canopy of the Upper Amazon Basin, Ecuador.Phyllomedusa 5:135–143.––––––, ––––––, AND J. R. DIXON. 2007. A new species of theEleutherodactylus lacrimosus assemblage (Anura, Brachycephalidae)from the lowland rainforest canopy of Yasuni National Park, AmazonianEcuador. Phyllomedusa 6:23–35.MITCHELL, A. W., K. SECOY, AND T. JACKSON. 2002. Global Canopy Handbook:Techniques of Access and Study in the Forest Roof. GlobalCanopy Programme, Oxford, UK.NADKARNI, N. M. 1994. Diversity of species and interactions in the uppertree canopy of forest ecosystems. Am. Zool. 34:70–78.PALACIOS, W., C. CERÓN, R. VALENCIA, AND R. SIERRA. 1999. Lasformaciones naturales de la Amazonía del Ecuador. En: PropuestaPreliminar de un Sistema de Clasificación de Vegetación Para el EcuadorContinental. Proyecto INEFAN/GEF-BIRF y Ecociencia, Quito,Ecuador.RON, S., AND J. B. PRAMUK. 1999. A new species of Osteocephalus (Anura:Hylidae) from Amazonian Ecuador and Peru. Herpetologica 55:433–446.SCHIESARI, L., M. GORDO, AND W. HÖDL. 2003. Treeholes as calling, breeding,and developmental sites for the Amazonian canopy frog,Phrynohyas resinifictrix (Hylidae). Copeia 2003:263–272.Herpetological Review, 2008, 39(2), 174–179.© 2008 by Society for the Study of Amphibians and ReptilesEfficacy of PIT Tags for Tracking the TerrestrialAnurans Rana pipiens and Rana sylvaticaSEAN M. BLOMQUISTDepartment of Wildlife Ecology, 5755 Nutting HallUniversity of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469-5755, USAe-mail: sean.blomquist@umit.maine.eduJOSEPH D. ZYDLEWSKIUS Geological Survey, Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit5755 Nutting Hall, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469-5755, USAandMALCOLM L. HUNTER, JR.Department of Wildlife Ecology, 5755 Nutting HallUniversity of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469-5755, USAThe terrestrial ecology of many amphibians is poorly knowncompared with the aquatic stages (e.g., Regosin et al. 2003). Althoughadvances have employed radiotelemetry on terrestrial adults(e.g., Hodgkison and Hero 2001; Watson et al. 2003), the size andbattery life of transmitters are limitations on the use of radiotelemetryfor smaller amphibian species and life stages. Other approachesfor following small amphibians have included powdertracking, radioactive tags, and harmonic radar diodes, but each ofthese techniques has significant limitations (Heyer et al. 1994;Langkilde and Alford 2002).Passive integrated transponders (PIT tags) overcome many limitationsof these other techniques. PIT tags are small, glass-encasedelectromagnetic coils with a microchip containing a 10-spaceunique alphanumeric code that is emitted at a radio frequency (typically134.2 kHz) when the coil is activated. PIT tags are easilyapplied and relatively benign to the tagged animal, provide a uniqueand essentially permanent mark, and can be cost-effective (Arntzenet al. 2004; Gibbons and Andrews 2004; Ott and Scott 1999). As aresult, PIT tags have been increasingly used for marking fish,amphibians, reptiles, and other animals for demographic and behavioralstudies (e.g., Camper and Dixon 1988; Kurth et al. 2007;Reaser 2000; Rowe and Kelly 2005; Sinsch 1992). Usually, PITtag detection relies on the physical recapture of the tagged organismbecause the tag needs to be within range (usually ~ 0.3 m) ofan antenna to transmit the alphanumeric identification code to thetransceiver (see review by Gibbons and Andrews 2004). Portableantenna and transceiver systems (PIT-packs) are a new approachto locating and identifying a tagged organism without physicalrecapture, thereby minimizing associated disturbances (Hill et al.2006; Kurth et al. 2007; Zydlewski et al. 2001).We evaluated a PIT-pack as a tool to locate and identify confinedindividuals of two pond-breeding amphibian species, recentlymetamorphosed Rana pipiens (Northern Leopard Frogs) and adultR. sylvatica (Wood Frogs). We evaluated the detection range ofthe PIT-pack using PIT tags alone and the detection probability offrogs implanted with PIT tags and held in terrestrial enclosures.We used the PIT-pack to identify breeding pairs in a small vernalpool and collect information on the breeding ecology of R.sylvatica. In addition, we evaluated three surgical implant locationsand PIT-tag retention in recently metamorphosed R. pipiens.174 Herpetological Review 39(2), 2008
Methods.—The PIT-pack consisted of a battery-poweredDestron-Fearing transceiver (Model FS 2001A-ISO; Digital AngelCo., St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) and custom-built antenna. Theantenna head was constructed in an airtight oval (0.20 × 0.25 m)with 1.27-cm schedule 40 PVC. The antenna consisted of 20-gaugemulti-strand wire wrapped 26 times through the PVC frame untilan inductance of approximately 425 µH was reached. Capacitorswere attached to the antenna lead cable and enclosed in the PVC,fixing the capacitance at ~ 3300 pF. Fine-scale tuning was achievedwith a 400–1600 pF variable capacitor. The head of the antennawas mounted on an adjustable 1.5-m long handle at an angle of ~120° (Fig. 1). The instrument was tuned in water or air immediatelyprior to use at each site to maximize current at 3.0 to 3.3Amps. In theory, changes in soil or water density and chemistrycan affect the electromagmetic field generated by the antenna, andconsequently it is necessary to tune the antenna prior to use in theFIG. 1. Using a PIT-pack to search for PIT-tagged, recently metamorphosedRana pipiens in a terrestrial enclosure in a three-year old clearcutin Maine, USA. We held the transceiver in a shoulder bag, and constructedthe antenna using a modified forearm crutch for ergonomics. We variedthe angle of the antenna to increase the detection probability as we searchedfor concealed frogs, and an audible beep from the transceiver alerted usto detection of a tag. Photograph by Valerie Moreau.medium (i.e., air or water) in which it will be used to achieve themaximum detection range. The PIT-pack is light (3.1 kg) and portablein the terrestrial environment (Fig. 1), but the transceiver issmall and low-powered. Heavier equipment with a larger antennahead size (e.g., 0.55 × 0.40 m and 19.3 kg in Hill et al. 2006)would probably have greater detection ranges but would sacrificethe convenience of the smaller unit (Kurth et al. 2007; Zydlewskiet al. 2001). We used 12-mm PIT tags (134.2 kHz ISO tag; ModelTX1411SST, Digital Angel Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) in allexperiments because the small size of our study frogs. Tag sizemay contribute to performance, and larger tags may increase thedetection range for other applications (Hill et al. 2006; Roussel etal. 2000).Prior research with larger 23-mm tags and more powerful readersreported detection ranges of 30–38 cm in air and 60–91 cm inwater (Cucherousset et al. 2005; Hill et al. 2006). With a blindobserver, we evaluated the PIT-pack detection range for 30 PITtags in 30 mL polyethylene vials in each of two soil types commonlyfound in Maine, USA, forests (N = 60 total tags). We visuallyevaluated each area and assessed one to be predominantlyglaciomarine hydric soils found in wetlands and the second to bepredominantly well-drained till soils found in uplands (NaturalResources Conservation Service, 1963). One observer dispersedPIT tags in a 16 m 2 area (4 × 4 m) at depths ranging from the soilsurface to 76 cm by driving a measured metal rod to the desireddepths in the soil. A second observer, naive to the location andnumber of tags, searched the area with the PIT-pack by walking ina systematic zig-zag pattern through the area and making threepasses through the area to find the tags. The first observer, whoplaced the tags, recorded the number and identity of the tags foundon each pass. The first, informed observer then made one passthough the area and attempted to detect tags that were missed usingthe PIT-pack.We collected recently metamorphosed R. pipiens and adult R.sylvatica from the University of Maine’s Dwight B. Demeritt andPenobscot Experimental Forests (Penobscot County, Maine, USA,44°50'N, 68°35'W) with hand capture and pitfall traps in August2006. We housed all frogs in 125 L plastic tanks or 38 L glassaquaria in small groups ( 20 metamorphs and 5 adults) for 1–16 days prior to experiments (described below). Each containerhad leaf litter for cover, holes in the top, and a wet paper towel onthe bottom to maintain moisture. We fed captive frogs crickets adlibitum. We measured (snout–vent length [SVL], mass) and markedeach animal individually with a PIT tag.We surgically implanted PIT tags sub-dermally as recommendedfor small amphibians (Ott and Scott 1999). We anesthetized allfrogs using 0.5 g/L MS-222 (tricaine methanesulfonate; SigmaAldrich, St. Louis, Missouri, USA) in well water prior to surgery.We lightly anesthetized the frogs to minimize mortality associatedwith small frogs (e.g., Cecala et al. 2007), and held frogs inanesthesia only until they lost their righting response but remainedresponsive to touch (< 15 min in most cases). We made a 2-mmlong incision with a sterile, single-use blood lancet (Propper Mfg.Co., Long Island City, New York, USA). To cut only the skin, weplaced the blood lancet at an acute angle to the body of the frogand lightly pressed it into the skin until the skin began to foldupwards. We continued to apply pressure until we pierced the skin.After making the incision, we slipped a sterile PIT tag through theHerpetological Review 39(2), 2008 175
Page 1 and 2: HerpetologicalReviewVolume 39, Numb
Page 3 and 4: About Our Cover: Zonosaurus maramai
Page 5 and 6: Prey-specific Predatory Behavior in
Page 7 and 8: acid water treatment than in the co
Page 10 and 11: TABLE 1. Time-line history of croco
Page 12 and 13: The Reptile House at the Bronx Zoo
Page 14 and 15: FIG. 6. A 3.9 m (12' 11 1 / 2") Ame
Page 16 and 17: One of the earliest studies of croc
Page 18 and 19: TABLE 2. Dimensions and water depth
Page 20 and 21: we call it, is in flux.Forty years
Page 22 and 23: Feb. 20-25. abstract.------. 1979.
Page 24 and 25: yond current practices (Clarke 1972
Page 26 and 27: poles (Pond 1 > 10,000, Pond 2 4,87
Page 28 and 29: ------, R. MATHEWS, AND R. KINGSING
Page 30 and 31: Herpetological Review, 2008, 39(2),
Page 32 and 33: TABLE 2. Summary of running (includ
Page 34 and 35: FIG. 2. Responses of adult Regal Ho
Page 36 and 37: PIANKA, E. R., AND W. S. PARKER. 19
Page 38 and 39: BUSTAMANTE, M. R. 2005. La cecilia
Page 40 and 41: Fig. 3. Mean clutch size (number of
Page 42 and 43: facilitated work in Thailand. I tha
Page 44 and 45: preocular are not fused. The specim
Page 46 and 47: FIG. 2A) Side view photo of Aechmea
Page 50 and 51: incision, and placed one drop of Ba
Page 52 and 53: 13 cm deep (e.g., Spea hammondii; M
Page 54 and 55: FIG. 1. Medicine dropper (60 ml) wi
Page 56 and 57: esearchers and Hellbenders, especia
Page 58 and 59: FIG. 3. Relative success of traps p
Page 60 and 61: data on Hellbender population struc
Page 62 and 63: aits sometimes resulted in differen
Page 64 and 65: trapping system seems to be a relat
Page 66 and 67: AMPHIBIAN CHYTRIDIOMYCOSISGEOGRAPHI
Page 68 and 69: TABLE 1. Prevalence of B. dendrobat
Page 70 and 71: Conservation Status of United State
Page 72 and 73: TABLE 1. Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica)
Page 74 and 75: TABLE 1. Anurans that tested positi
Page 76 and 77: is, on average, exposed to slightly
Page 78 and 79: (10%) were dead but not obviously m
Page 80 and 81: Submitted by CHRIS T. McALLISTER, D
Page 82 and 83: FIG. 1. Oscillogram, spectrogram, a
Page 84 and 85: FIG. 1. Adult Physalaemus cuvieri r
Page 86 and 87: Répteis, Instituto Nacional de Pes
Page 88 and 89: discovered 145 live hatchlings and
Page 90 and 91: GRAPTEMYS GIBBONSI (Pascagoula Map
Page 92 and 93: College, and the Joseph Moore Museu
Page 94 and 95: FIG. 1. Common Ground Lizard (Ameiv
Page 96 and 97: havior unavailable elsewhere. Here
Page 98 and 99:
15% of predator mass, is typical fo
Page 100 and 101:
side the third burrow and began a f
Page 102 and 103:
We thank Arlington James and the st
Page 104 and 105:
mm) S. viridicornis in its mouth in
Page 106 and 107:
NECTURUS MACULOSUS (Common Mudpuppy
Page 108 and 109:
LITHOBATES CATESBEIANUS (American B
Page 110 and 111:
Research and Collections Center, 13
Page 112 and 113:
BRONCHOCELA VIETNAMENSIS (Vietnam L
Page 114 and 115:
Oficina Regional Guaymas, Guaymas,
Page 116 and 117:
MICRURUS TENER (Texas Coralsnake).
Page 118 and 119:
declining in this recently discover
Page 120 and 121:
80.7372°W). 02 November 2005. Stev
Page 122 and 123:
this effort, 7% of the 10 × 10 km
Page 124 and 125:
the knowledge of the group. The aut
Page 126 and 127:
which is listed under “Rhodin, A.
Page 128 and 129:
noting that Sphenomorphus bignelli
Page 130 and 131:
256 Herpetological Review 39(2), 20
Page 132:
ISSN 0018-084XThe Official News-Jou
show all

Herpetological Review Herpetological Review - Doczine

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?