Detectability of Elusive Reptiles under Artificial Cover Objects is Species- and Year-Specific

• Autorzy: Kolanek Aleksandra , Bury Stanisław

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.3161/15052249PJE2020.68.4.007

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Field surveys of rare and elusive reptiles often encounter the problem of low detectability. Therefore, several techniques have been invented to improve detection probability and artificial cover objects (ACOs) are among the most commonly used in reptile studies. However, the methodological effectiveness of ACOs has been rarely evaluated and focused mostly on spatial aspects. The temporal dimension of the ACOs effectiveness remains still understudied, despite well-known seasonal variation in reptile activity patterns. Here, we examined seasonal and between-year variation in the fraction of occupied ACOs, as a proxy for detectability, in two elusive reptile species, the slow worm Anguis fragilis and smooth snake Coronella austriaca. We found that the use of ACOs was species-specific and showed high temporal variation. In the case of smooth snakes, monthly usage varied between years; specifically within-year variation of the proportion in occupied ACOs was most pronounced in 2015, but seems vanishing in consecutive years. This loss of of seasonal pattern occurs only in the last year of survey in the case of slow worm and monthly use of ACOs seem not to vary between years. Considerably low detectability of the studied species by the ACO method in some years may not necessarily indicate their low population density, but rather results from shifts in their diurnal activity and/or microhabitat use dependent on ambient temperatures. Increasing between-year variation in weather conditions may reduce repeatability of seasonal patterns of ACO usage, making we suggest additional detection techniques that could bee incorporated.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

ACO; artificial cover objects; detectability; field survey; seasonality; shelter

PL

ACO; sztuczne obiekty pokrywkowe; wykrywalność; badanie terenowe; sezonowość; schron

• Wydawca: Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 68, nr 4
• Strony: 342--347
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 23 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Kolanek Aleksandra

• Department of Geoinformatics and Cartography, Institute of Geography and Regional Development, University of Wroclaw, pl. Uniwersytecki 1, 50-137 Wrocław, Poland
• NATRIX Herpetological Association, Opolska 41/1, 52-010 Wrocław, Poland

autor

Bury Stanisław

• NATRIX Herpetological Association, Opolska 41/1, 52-010 Wrocław, Poland
• Department of Comparative Anatomy, Institute of Zoology and Biomedical Research, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 9, 30-387 Kraków, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Arida E. A., Bull M. 2008 – Optimising the design of artificial refuges for the Australian skink, Egernia stokesii – Appl. Herpetol. 5: 161-172, https://doi.org/10.1163/15707540878464882.
• 2. Brown R. P., Roberts N. 2008 – Feeding state and selected body temperatures in the slow-worm (Anguis fragilis – Herpetol. J. 18: 59-62.
• 3. De Bont R. G., van Gelder J. J., Olders J. H. J. 1986 – Thermal ecology of the smooth snake, Coronella austriaca Laurenti, during spring – Oecologia, 69: 72-87, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00399040.
• 4. Engelstoft C., Ovaska K. E. 2000 – Artificial Cover-Objects as a Method for Sampling Snakes (Contia tenuis and Thamnophis spp.) in British Columbia – Northwest. Nat. 81: 35-43, https://doi.org/10.2307/3536898.
• 5. Grillet P., Cheylan M., Thirion J. M., Doré F., Bonnet X., Dauge C., Chollet S., March- and M. A. 2010 – Rabbit burrows or artificial refuges are a critical habitat component for the threatened lizard, Timon lepidus (Sauria, Lacertidae) – Biodivers. Conserv. 19: 2039-2051, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9824-y.
• 6. Hoare J. M., O`Donnell C. F. J., Westbrooke I., Hodapp D., Lettink M. 2009 – Optimising the sampling of skinks using artificial retreats based on weather conditions and time of day – Appl. Herpetol. 6: 379-390, https://doi.org/10.1163/157075309X12531848432985.
• 7. Hodges R. J., Seabrook C. 2016 – Use of artificial refuges by the northern viper Vipera berus. An experimental improvement to the thermal properties of refuges – Herpetol. Bull. 137: 19-23.
• 8. Joppa L., Williams C. K. O., Casper G. S., Temple S. A. 2009 – Environmental factors affecting sampling success of artificial cover objects – Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 5: 143-148.
• 9. Lelièvre H., Blouin-Demers G., Bonnet X., Lourdais O. 2010 – Thermal benefits of artificial shelters in snakes: A radiotelemetric study of two sympatric colubrids – J. Therm. Biol. 35: 324-331, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2010.06.011.
• 10. Lettink M., Norbury G., Cree A., Seddon P. J., Duncan R. P., Schwarz C. J. 2010 – Removal of introduced predators, but not artificial refuge supplementation, increases skink survival in coastal duneland – Biol. Conserv. 143: 72-77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.004.
• 11. Lettink M., Thierry A., Besson A., Cree A. 2009 – Thermal properties of artificial refuges and their implications for retreat-site selection in lizards – Appl. Herpetol. 6: 307-326, https://doi.org/10.1163/157075409X432931.
• 12. Márquez-Ferrando R., Pleguezuelos J. M., Santos X., Ontiveros D., Fernández-Cardenete J. R. 2009 – Recovering the Reptile Community after the Mine-Tailing Accident of Aznalcóllar (Southwestern Spain) – Restor. Ecol. 17: 660-667, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526100X.2008.00404.x.
• 13. Michael D. R., Cunningham R. B., Donnelly C. F., Lindenmayer D. B. 2012 – Comparative use of active searches and artificial refuges to survey reptiles in temperate eucalypt woodlands – Wildl. Res. 39: 149-162, https://doi.org/10.1071/WR11118.
• 14. Michael D. R., Lunt I. D., Robinson W. A. 2004 – Enhancing fauna habitat in grazed native grasslands and woodlands: use of artificially placed log refuges by fauna – Wildl. Res. 31: 65-71, https://doi.org/10.1071/wr02106.
• 15. Peterson C. R., Dorcas M. E. 1992 – The use of automated data-acquisition techniques in monitoring amphibian and reptile populations (In: Wildlife 2001: populations) – Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 369-378, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2868-1_30.
• 16. Platenberg R. J. 1999 – Population Ecology and Conservation of the Slow-worm Anguis fragilis in Kent – Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Kent at Canterbury.
• 17. Reading C. J. 1997 – A proposed standard method for surveying reptiles on dry lowland heath – J. Appl. Ecol. 1057-1069.
• 18. Schmidt B. R., Meier A., Sutherland C., Royle J. A. 2017 – Spatial capture-recapture analysis of artificial cover board survey data reveals small scale spatial variation in slow-worm Anguis fragilis density – R. Soc. Open Sci. 4: 170374, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170374.
• 19. Sewell D., Griffiths R. A., Beebee T. J. C., Wilkinson J. W. 2013 – Survey protocols for the British herpetofauna Version 1.0 22, http://m.narrs.org.uk/documents/Survey_protocols_for_the_British_herpetofauna.pdf [Accessed: 12 December 2019].
• 20. Sewell D., Guillera-Arroita G., Griffiths R. A., Beebee T. J. C. 2012 – When Is a Species Declining? Optimizing Survey Effort to Detect Population Changes in Reptiles – PLOS ONE 7: e43387, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043387.
• 21. Völkl W., Alfermann D. 2007 – Die Blindschleiche: die vergessene Echse – Laurenti Verlag. Germany.
• 22. Völkl W., Meier B. 1988 – Verbreitung und Habitatwahl der Schlingnatter Coronella austriaca Laurenti, 1768 in Nordstbayern – Salamandra, 24: 7-15.
• 23. Wiedemer R. L., Wilson D. J., Mulvey R. L., Clark R. D. 2007 – Sampling skinks and geckos in artificial cover objects in a dry mixed grassland-shrubland with mammalian predator control – N. Z. J. Ecol. 31: 169-185.