Herpetological Review Herpetological Review - Doczine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

data on Hellbender population structure, including age structureand habitat usage, we recommend a combined approach usingextensive summer rock turning, bank searches focused on appropriatecobble piles adjacent to large rock areas, and limited trappingin areas of deeper water, or where unliftable substrate rendersother search methods impossible.Acknowledgments.—We thank Richard Bothner for advice and helpingto find the original sites. We are greatly indebted to the followingpeople for help in the field: Joshua Daigler, Dan Kinsey, Gary Klock,Brian Landahl, Holly Morehouse, Noelle Rayman, Heather Warner, andnumerous others we may have unintentionally missed. Thanks to ChrisPennuto for field advice and manuscript review. Thanks also to ChrisPhillips and two anonymous reviewers. This project was supported inpart by State Wildlife Grant T-2-1 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceto the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and administeredby Buffalo State College. Field work was conducted under a protocolapproved August 2, 2004 by Buffalo State College’s InstitutionalAnimal Care and Use Committee.LITERATURE CITEDBISHOP, S. C. 1941. The Salamanders of New York. New York State MuseumBulletin No. 324. The University of the State of New York. Albany,New York.BOTHNER, R. C., AND J. A. GOTTLIEB. 1991. A study of the New York Statepopulations of the hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensisalleganiensis. Proc. Rochester Acad. Sci. 17:41–54.FOSTER, R. L. 2006. A Study of the Hellbender Salamander(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) in the Allegheny River Drainage ofNew York State: Examination of Population Trends, Assessment ofCapture Methods, and Development of Genetic Techniques. Unpublishedthesis. Buffalo State College. Buffalo, New York. 117 pp.HUMPHRIES, W. J. 2007. Diurnal seasonal activity of Cryptobranchusalleganiensis (Hellbender) in North Carolina. Southeast. Nat. 6:135–140.––––––, AND T. K. PAULEY. 2000. Seasonal changes in nocturnal activityof the hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, in West Virginia. J.Herpetol. 34:604–607.KERN, W. H. 1984. The hellbender, C. alleganiensis, in Indiana. Unpublishedthesis. Indiana State University. Terre Haute , Indiana. 48 pp.LORENZ ELWOOD, J. R., AND D. CUNDALL. 1994. Morphology and behaviorof the feeding apparatus in Cryptobranchus alleganiesis (Amphibia:Caudata). J. Morphol. 220:47–70.NICKERSON, M. A., AND K. L. KRYSKO. 2003. Surveying for hellbendersalamanders, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis (Daudin): A review andcritique. Appl. Herpetol. 1:37–44.––––––, ––––––, AND R. D. OWEN. 2002. Ecological status of the hellbender(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) and the mudpuppy (Necturusmaculosus) salamanders in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.J. North Carolina Acad. Sci. 118:27–34.––––––, ––––––, AND ––––––. 2003. Habitat differences affecting age classdistributions of the hellbender salamander, Cryptobranchusalleganiensis. Southeast. Nat. 2:619–629.––––––, AND C. E. MAYS. 1973. The Hellbenders: North American “GiantSalamanders.” Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 106pp.PAULEY, T. W., W. J. HUMPHRIES, AND M. B. WATSON. 2003. USGS manager’smonitoring manual: various techniques for hellbenders.www.pwrc.usgs.gov/monmanual/techniques/hellbendersvarious.htm[Accessed April 5, 2006]PETERSON, C. L., R. F. WILKINSON, JR., M. S. TOPPING, AND D. E. METTER.1983. Age and growth of the Ozark hellbender (Cryptobranchusalleganiensis bishopi). Copeia 1983:225–231.SOULE, N., AND A. J. LINDBERG. 1994. The use of leverage to facilitate thesearch for the hellbender. Herpetol. Rev. 25:16.WILLIAMS, R. D., J. E. GATES, AND C. H. HOCUTT. 1981. An evaluation ofknown and potential sampling techniques for hellbender,Cryptobranchus alleganiensis. J. Herpetol. 15:23–27.Herpetological Review, 2008, 39(2), 186–188.© 2008 by Society for the Study of Amphibians and ReptilesRelative Efficacy of Three Different Baits forTrapping Pond-dwelling Turtles in East-centralKansasR. BRENT THOMAS*IAN M. NALLandWILLIAM J. HOUSEDepartment of Biological Sciences, Emporia State UniversityEmporia, Kansas 66801-5087, USA*Corresponding author; e-mail: rthomas2@emporia.eduThe diverse array of collection methods used to sample freshwaterturtles (e.g., Gibbons 1990; Glorioso and Niemiller 2006;Plummer 1979; Vogt 1980) do not necessarily provide equivocalresults in ecological studies of freshwater turtles. Using differentmethods may significantly influence estimates of abundance, sexratio, and population/community structure (Frazer et al. 1990;Gamble 2006; Ream and Ream 1966; Thomas et al. 1999). Frazeret al. (1990) argued that studies designed to compare differentmethods of capturing turtles were needed to ensure that the resultsof ecological studies accurately reflect reality.Baited funnel traps of various designs are commonly used tosample freshwater turtle populations/communities, using a varietyof baits (see Gibbons 1990; Kennett 1992; Plummer 1979).We are aware of three published studies that attempt to quantitativelycompare the effectiveness of different baits on the capturerate of freshwater turtles (Ernst 1965; Jensen 1998; Voorhees etal. 1991). We experimentally examined the effectiveness of threetypes of bait in funnel traps to capture Trachemys scripta elegansand Chrysemys picta bellii. The baits selected were canned creamedcorn (Zea mays), canned Jack Mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus),and frozen fish (Pomoxis annularis or Lepomis cyanellus); thesebaits were selected because they were commonly used in previousstudies.Methods.—Rectangular frame nets (65 × 90 cm frame coveredwith 3.8 cm treated nylon mesh; Nichols Net & Twine Inc.) wereused to capture Red-eared Sliders (T. s. elegans) and WesternPainted Turtles (C. p. bellii) in a complex of eight manmade ponds(pond sizes ranged from 0.2–9.6 ha) located on or within 2.5 kmof Emporia State University’s Ross Natural History Reservation(RNHR; Spencer 1988) near Americus, Kansas, USA (38.49491°Ν,96.33540°W; NADS 1983). Three frame nets were set in each ofthe eight ponds (total = 24 frame nets). Baits were placed in perforatedPVC tubes so that turtles could detect but not consume baits.The three frame nets within each of the eight study ponds werebaited either with canned creamed corn, canned jack mackerel, orfrozen fish (i.e., each of the three frame nets within a single pondwere baited with a different bait). The initial assignment of bait186 Herpetological Review 39(2), 2008
FIG. 1. Mean (+ SE) number of turtles captured/pond during 13 days oftrapping (A = Trachemys scripta elegans; N = 7 ponds; B = Chrysemyspicta bellii; N = 8 ponds) with canned creamed corn, canned mackerel,and frozen fish. Means sharing the same lower case letter were not significantlydifferent (Fisher’s Protected LSD; α = 0.05).type to the three frame nets within a pond was random. Thereafter,frame nets were checked daily and the position of the PVCtubes containing the different baits systematically rotated dailyamong the three frame nets. The purpose of systematically rotatingthe baits among the three traps within each pond was to equallydistribute the possible influence of differences in capture ratesbetween specific trap locations within a given pond. Baits wereremoved from the perforated PVC tubes and replenished with freshbait every other day.Frame nets were set in 1–3 ponds/day over the 5 d period thatbegan 14 May 2007. We reversed this staggered schedule for removalof frame nets at the end of the 13 d study period to maintainan approximately equal number of trap hours in all ponds. Thus,all ponds were sampled continuously for a total of 13 d with substantialtemporal overlap of the trapping schedules (i.e., all trappingconducted from mid- to late May). There were 3 traps/pondfor 13 d in eight ponds (overall, 7488 trap hours summed acrossall three baits, 2496 trap hours/ bait, 936 trap hours/pond, and 312trap hours/pond/bait).All C. p. bellii and T. s. elegans captured were uniquely markedusing the system described by Cagle (1939). We considered allcaptures (original captures and recaptures) as independent in statisticalanalyses.Trap success may have been influenced by inherent site-specificvariation among the eight ponds and/or the temporal variationthat may have resulted from slight differences in the precisetrapping schedules among sites. Because of possible site-specificvariation, we used Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) within a randomizedblock design to compare the mean number of turtles (ofeach species) captured with each of the baits during the 13 d studyperiod. Blocking designs are desirable in such situations becausethey increase the precision of the model by removing one sourceof known (or suspected) variation (e.g., inherent site-specific variationin capture rates among ponds) from experimental error(Peterson 1985; Sokal and Rohlf 1995). The eight study pondswere considered as blocks, the different baits were the treatments,and mean number of turtles (i.e., either C. p. bellii or T. s. elegans)captured/pond with each of the three baits served as the responsevariable. Separation of means was accomplished using Fisher’sProtected Least Significant Difference (LSD; Peterson 1985) andalpha was set at 0.05 in all statistical tests.Results.—We captured 93 (69 original captures + 24 recaptures)C. p. bellii and 81 (50 original captures + 31 recaptures) T. s. elegansduring the 13 d study period. We captured C. p. bellii in all pondsand caught T. s. elegans with one or more of the baits in all but onepond. Therefore, we excluded this pond from the analyses for T. s.elegans. We observed a significant bait effect for both species (T.s. elegans: F = 5.25; d.f. = 2, 12; P = 0.023; R 2 = 0.69; C. p. bellii:F = 4.73; d.f. = 2, 14; P = 0.027; R 2 = 0.75). We captured significantlymore T. s. elegans in frame nets baited with frozen fish thanwith creamed corn, but observed no significant difference betweenfrozen fish and canned mackerel or between canned mackerel andcreamed corn (Fig. 1A). Mean separation procedures for C. p. belliirevealed that both canned mackerel and frozen fish were significantlymore effective than creamed corn but canned mackerel andfrozen fish were not significantly different from each other (Fig.1B).Discussion.—We concluded that both canned mackerel and frozenfish were significantly “better” than creamed corn for attractingthese two species to frame nets. First, we discuss several potentiallyconfounding factors that are known to influence capturerates. For example, captured females may serve as an additionalenticement for males to enter nets (Frazer et al. 1990; Jensen 1998;Thomas et al. 1999). However, we did not observe unusually largenumbers of males within traps containing females (see Jensen1998), and we see no reason to expect that the particular food baitwithin a trap would alter the attractiveness of a female within thattrap. Therefore, the influence of this factor should have been equalacross all three baits. Likewise, individual turtles sometimes exhibitso-called “trap-happy” or “trap-shy” behaviors (Deforce etal. 2004; Koper and Brooks 1998). But, we do not think that theobserved differences were an artifact of such behaviors. First, becauseof the short duration of our study period many individualswere never recaptured (i.e., captured only once) and most of thosethat were recaptured were recaptured only once. Second, turtleswere not rewarded for entering a trap (i.e., not allowed to consumethe baits) and the bait tubes were systematically rotated everyday among the three traps within each pond. Therefore, wehave no reason to expect the propensity for “trap-happiness” or“trap-shyness” to have differed among the three baits. Therefore,the influence of such behaviors (if any) should have been equalacross all three baits.Consistent with previous studies, we found that using differentHerpetological Review 39(2), 2008 187
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 48 and 49: 364.DUELLMAN, W. E. 1978. The biolo
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?