Risk Assessment of the Nonnative Argentine Black and White Tegu
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Risk Assessment of the Nonnative Argentine Black and White Tegu, Salvator merianae, in South Florida by Liz Anne Barraco A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Charles E. Schmidt College of Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL May 2015 Copyright 2015 by Liz Anne Barraco ii Acknowledgements The author wishes to express thanks to the countless people who offered assistance and support throughout this project. This work would not have have been possible without the thoughtful support, humor and friendship of Jenny Ketterlin Eckles. Dr. Colin Hughes took me in as a student and gave me the opportunity to start over with something that interested and inspired me, I could not be more grateful. Jake Edwards provided, literally, the legs of this operation during a very sticky time, unending field companionship and some very thoughtful edits. Ashley Taylor was an incredible assistant with organizing and catalouging diet items, no matter how stinky. Dr. Frank Mazzotti and his widllfie crew at University of Florida provided field support, dead lizards and pizza which were all equally appreciated. Jennifer Possley provided field expertise in the identification of multiple plant species. Lastly, and most importantly, my husband Jeff (the squirrel tamer) who never failed to be supportive, understanding and wonderful throughout this process. iv Abstract Author: Liz Anne Barraco Title: Risk Assessment of the Nonnative Argentine Black and White Tegu, Salvator merianae, in South Florida Institution: Florida Atlantic University Thesis Advisor: Dr. Colin Hughes Degree: Master of Science Year: 2015 The Argentine black and white tegu, Salvator merianae, is a nonnative species that has invaded parts of Florida. The potential impacts of this species on native Florida wildlife are not yet known. This study looks at the stomach contents of 169 S. merianae captured between 2011 and 2013 in south Florida to infer potential impacts of S. merianae and spatial or seasonal shifts in diet. Analysis of 169 GI tracts showed that S. merianae is an omnivorous, terrestrial forager with a broad dietary range which includes insects, fruits, plants, snails, crayfish, carrion, birds, small mammals, turtles, snakes, lizards, frogs and eggs. S. merianae diet composition varied with capture habitat, the fattest tegus were collected from disturbed/agricultural areas and these samples contained, primarily, gastropods and insects. Tegu dietary habits threaten local endangered and state listed species such as the American crocodile, Crocodylus acutus, and the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis. Dedicated funds v and efforts need to be focused on this species to limit its further spread and future impact on native species. vi Risk Assessment of the Nonnative Argentine Black and White Tegu, Salvator merianae, in South Florida Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii Figures ...........................................................................................................................ix Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 10 Sample collection ....................................................................................................... 10 Diet analysis .............................................................................................................. 10 Variables .................................................................................................................... 12 Sex ......................................................................................................................... 12 Size class ................................................................................................................ 12 Capture habitat ....................................................................................................... 13 Collection season .................................................................................................... 14 Body condition ....................................................................................................... 15 Statistical analysis ...................................................................................................... 16 Results........................................................................................................................... 18 Sample collection ....................................................................................................... 18 Diet description .......................................................................................................... 19 Resource use variation ............................................................................................... 19 Spatial and Seasonal Variation in Population ............................................................. 21 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 23 Spatial Variation in Diet ............................................................................................. 24 Spatial and Seasonal Variation in Population ............................................................. 26 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 29 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................. 49 vii Tables Table 1. Tegu collections by variable, 169 tegu samples ................................................ 33 Table 2. Frequency of occurrence (FO) of stomach contents, 169 samples ..................... 34 Table 3. ANOSIM results for diet comparisons, plant and insect families ...................... 35 Table 4. Pairwise ANOSIM results for diet comparisons, plant and insect families among capture habitat ..................................................................................... 36 Table 5. SIMPER results for diet comparisons among capture habitat ............................ 37 Table 6. SIMPER results for plant family among capture habitat ................................... 39 Table 7. SIMPER results for insect family among capture habitat .................................. 41 Table 8. Person’s Chi-Square statistical results for contingency tables ........................... 43 Table 9. Frequency of occurrence (FO) of stomach contents, 115 samples ..................... 45 viii Figures Figure 1. Map of proposed study area for S. merianae collection ................................... 31 Figure 2. Map of actual S. merianae collections, icons indicate capture habitat .............. 32 Figure 3. Bar graphs of S. merianae sex and size class collections by month And collection season ..................................................................................... 44 ix Introduction Invasions of new areas by nonnative species are a major conservation concern when they threaten native biodiversity and natural area resources (Simberloff 2011, Hardin 2007, Devine 1998, Duffy 2009, Anderson et. al. 2004). A wide variety of nonnative species have spread into new areas, changing ecosystems and threatening biodiversity (Schmitz and Simberloff 1997, Simberloff 2013, Snow et. al. 2007). Preserving biodiversity, against this and other threats, is important for many reasons including that systems with mixtures of species produce more biomass than systems with fewer species (Duffy 2009). Biodiversity can also serve as insurance to protect an ecosystem from drastic fluctuations in populations and production and maintain its overall stability (Hooper et. al. 2005, Loreau et. al. 2001). Additionally, native biodiversity has aesthetic, cultural, and economic importance, all which are threatened by invasions (Simberloff 2013). While it can be easy to identify nonnative species, identifying species that are nonnative and invasive can be challenging; invasive species are those that spread into a natural environment and negatively affect the ecosystem (Lambertini 2011, Simberloff 2010). Impacts of invasive, nonnative species (hereafter ‘invasive species’) are second only to habitat degradation and destruction caused by humans (Wilcove et. al. 1998). Fully 42% of the animals protected under the U.S Endangered Species Act are listed as endangered, at least in part, as a result of interactions with invasive species (Wilcove et. al. 1998). Invasive species also impose a high economic cost; managing invasive species 1 takes hundreds of millions of dollars from state and federal budgets annually, draining substantial resources from other conservation efforts (Anderson et. al. 2004, Pimentel et. al. 2004). Having continuous funding is imperative for adequately controlling a nonnative invasion, as gaps in control efforts allow invasive species to proliferate and return to previous levels (Simberloff et. al. 2005). The impact of individual invasive species is challenging to determine and may not be assessed until eradication is no longer a viable option (Anderson et. al. 2004, Simberloff 2014). To ameliorate negative effects of invasive species, the impact of newly established populations