Crotalus Horridus)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Rocky Reality of Roadways and Timber Rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus): An Intersection of Spatial, Thermal, and Road Ecology A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Garrett P. Sisson August 2017 © 2017 Garrett P. Sisson. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled The Rocky Reality of Roadways and Timber Rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus): An Intersection of Spatial, Thermal, and Road Ecology by GARRETT P. SISSON has been approved for the Department of Biological Sciences and the College of Arts and Sciences by Willem M. Roosenburg Professor of Biology Shawn R. Kuchta Associate Professor of Biology Robert Frank Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT SISSON, GARRETT P., M.S., August 2017, Biological Sciences The Rocky Reality of Roadways and Timber Rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus): An Intersection of Spatial, Thermal, and Road Ecology Directors of Thesis: Willem M. Roosenburg and Shawn R. Kuchta A major challenge in conservation biology is balancing human transportation needs with biodiversity. I studied a remnant population of Ohio-endangered Timber Rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus) in a forested landscape recently fragmented by a four- lane highway that featured crossing structures and exclusion fencing. I evaluated the success of mitigation structures for reptiles while also quantifying the impacts of the road on rattlesnake spatial and thermal ecology using a combination of radio telemetry, mark- recapture, mortality surveys, camera traps, operative temperature modeling, and resource selection functions. Fencing was not successful in excluding reptiles from the right-of- way due to structural and design failings, and reptiles did not use the crossing structures to maintain connectivity across the road. Gravid rattlesnakes used habitats within the road corridor throughout gestation, while conspecifics avoided open canopy areas beyond the forest edge. The road corridor provided warmer temperatures for more hours of the day compared with the forest, but also exceeded voluntary maximum temperatures at the surface. My models indicated that most of the available gestation habitat was predicted to be concentrated within the road corridor. The placement of exclusion fencing should be adjusted to allow access to favorable habitats within the road corridor while also preventing road mortality. 4 DEDICATION To Teal Richards-Dimitrie, who’s mentorship and contagious enthusiasm instilled in me the confidence I needed to pursue these curiosities. And for ingraining “people, animals, data, and always in that order” which has helped to keep me grounded. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank my advisors Willem Roosenburg and Shawn Kuchta for their patience, support, knowledge, and guidance—steering me when needed, while allowing me the freedom to pursue outside endeavors. Their mentorship pushed me in unexpected directions that made me a more rounded and stronger biologist, and those outside endeavors provided me with some delusion of life balance. I thank my committee members, Viorel Popescu and Joe Johnson: Joe, for engaging in quality discussion at seminar (and the bar), and Viorel, my de facto third advisor, for providing generous analytical and professional advice. I thank my cohort and lab-mates for their support and friendship, especially: Maggie Hantak, Kaili Boarman, Tom Radomski, Melissa Liotta, and Alayna Tokash for putting up with my antics, and also Steve Krichbaum, Paul Converse, Anthony Gilbert, Vinny Farallo, and Eric Gorscak for deepening my understanding of many topics. I thank my housemates Don Cerio, Almir de Paula, and Buba. Their sleep and sanity have been repeatedly victimized by my musical noodling and obnoxiously loud guests. “Afugundo as magoas.” I thank my professors, Jim Dyer, Don Miles, Molly Morris, Gaurav Sinha, and Kelly Williams, for their perspectives both inside and outside of the classroom. I thank the people who helped me (suffered for me) in the field: Christine Hanson, Adam Kabrick, Phil Miller, Seth Cones, Kellie Johnson, Isabel Fisk Baruque, Mike McTernan, Tyler Stewart, Aspen Wilson, among others. I thank all that supported this work as a collaborator: Charlene Hopkins, Steve Porter, Gary Conley, Matt Trainer, Rob Wiley, Eileen Wyza, and others at the Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs. I thank the Ohio Department of Transportation for 6 funding this research, and personally thank Matt Perlik, Mike Austin, Steve Williams, and Kelly Nye for their enthusiastic support. I thank the Wayne National Forest, and especially Lynda Andrews and her field technicians. I also thank the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Division of Wildlife: Ryan Harris, Kate Parsons, Mike Reynolds, Allen Patton, Chris Dodge, Jared Abele, and all other wildlife officers and staff who supported this work through permits, enthusiasm, or by helping me extract rattlesnakes from private land. I thank my colleagues: Chris Howey, Bill Peterman, and Doug Wynn, who all provided critical advice or resources. I thank the Department of Biological Sciences staff: Cindy Meyer, Wendy Kaaz, and Karen Keesey. I thank the Ohio University IACUC for approving our protocol: 14-L-018. Finally, I thank Ryan Friebertshauser, Mike Driscoll, Eli Chambers, Mike Varga, Emily Harger, and Merri Collins, who brought much needed distraction, relief, laughter, debate, adventure, love, friendship, and growth. 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Dedication ........................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 5 List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 10 List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 11 General Introduction ......................................................................................................... 12 Roads & Wildlife .......................................................................................................... 12 Impacts Beyond the Pavement ...................................................................................... 13 Ectothermic Organisms in Focus .................................................................................. 15 Consequences for Mitigation ........................................................................................ 16 The Nelsonville Bypass ................................................................................................ 17 Chapter 1: Effectiveness of Rattlesnake Mitigation Structures at the Nelsonville Bypass ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 19 Materials and Methods .................................................................................................. 23 Study Species ............................................................................................................ 23 Study Site .................................................................................................................. 25 Mitigation Structures: Snake Fence .......................................................................... 28 Mitigation Structures: Small Wildlife Ecopassages ................................................. 28 Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Rattlesnake Exclusion Fence ........................... 31 Radio Telemetry ........................................................................................................ 31 Live Trapping and Measuring ................................................................................... 32 Marking ..................................................................................................................... 33 Road Mortality Surveys ............................................................................................ 33 Evaluating Space and Habitat Use ............................................................................ 34 Evaluating Road Avoidance ..................................................................................... 35 Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Small Wildlife Ecopassages ............................. 37 8 Results ........................................................................................................................... 39 Radio Telemetry ........................................................................................................ 39 Fence Crossings by Capture-Mark-Recapture .......................................................... 46 Reptile Road Mortality Data ..................................................................................... 48 Correlated Random Walk ......................................................................................... 54 Ecopassage Photo Data ............................................................................................. 54 Discussion ....................................................................................................................