DOCSLIB.ORG

Mapping Threats for Oklahoma's Ozark Karst Species

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mapping Threats for Oklahoma's Ozark Karst Species FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT Federal Aid Grant No. F14AF01228 (T-81-1) Mapping Priority Areas for Oklahoma’s Ozark Karst Species of Greatest Conservation Concern Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2016 Mapping Priority Areas for Oklahoma’s Ozark Karst Species of Greatest Conservation Concern Michael E. Slay, Cory Gallipeau, Final Report for Oklahoma State Wildlife Grant and Jay Pruett Number T-81-1 The Nature Conservancy 10 November 2016 ii Table of Contents A. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 1 B. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 C. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 3 D. APPROACH ............................................................................................................................. 3 Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 3 Species Range Maps ................................................................................................................... 3 Threat Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 4 Terrestrial Community Group..................................................................................................... 5 Sites and Assessment Areas .................................................................................................... 5 Risk Model: Visitation (RVI) ................................................................................................. 5 Visitation Sub-Model: Population (RVIP).............................................................................. 5 Visitation Sub-Model: Access (RVIA) ................................................................................... 6 Visitation Sub-Model: Proximity (RVIX) .............................................................................. 6 Calculation of the Visitation Risk Model ............................................................................... 7 Calculation of the Terrestrial Community Threat Model ....................................................... 7 Bat Community Group ................................................................................................................ 7 Sites and Assessment Areas .................................................................................................... 7 Risk Model: Visitation (RVI) ................................................................................................. 7 Risk Model: Bat Habitat (RBH) ............................................................................................. 7 Bat Habitat Sub-Model: Forest (RBHF) ................................................................................. 7 Bat Habitat Sub-Model: Riparian (RBHR) ............................................................................. 8 Calculation of the Bat Habitat Risk Model ............................................................................. 8 Calculation of the Bat Community Threat Model .................................................................. 9 Aquatic Community Group......................................................................................................... 9 Sites and Assessment Areas .................................................................................................... 9 Risk Model: Visitation .......................................................................................................... 10 Risk Model: Surface Water Quality and Quantity (RWQ) ................................................... 10 Surface Water Sub-Model: Sediment (RWQS) .................................................................... 10 Surface Water Sub-Model: Nutrients (RWQN) .................................................................... 10 Surface Water Sub-Model: Pollutants (RWQP) ................................................................... 11 Surface Water Sub-Model: Hydrologic Alteration (RWQH) ............................................... 11 Calculation of the Water Quality and Quantity (RWQ) ....................................................... 12 iii Groundwater Vulnerability Model: DRASTIK .................................................................... 12 Groundwater Vulnerability Model Selection ........................................................................ 12 DRASTIC Model Background ............................................................................................. 12 DRASTIC Model Modifications........................................................................................... 13 Project Methodology ............................................................................................................. 14 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Depth to Water (D) ......................................................................... 15 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Recharge (R) ................................................................................... 15 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Aquafer Media (A) ......................................................................... 15 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Soil Media (S)................................................................................. 16 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Topography (T) .............................................................................. 16 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Impact of the Vadose Zone (I)........................................................ 16 DRASTIK Sub-Model: Karst Features (K) .......................................................................... 16 Calculation of the Groundwater Vulnerability Model: DRASTIK ....................................... 16 Calculation of the Groundwater Sensitivity Model: RWQ + DRASTIK ............................. 16 Calculation of the Aquatic Community Threat Model ......................................................... 17 E.1. RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 17 Threat Assessment .................................................................................................................... 46 Terrestrial Community Group................................................................................................... 46 E.2. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................ 49 E.2. APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 66 APPENDIX A. Descriptions of risk index variables and calculations. ................................... 67 APPENDIX B. DRASTIC Parameter ratings. ......................................................................... 72 APPENDIX C. Raw index values and scaled scores for components of the Visitation Risk Model for each terrestrial cave species population at each site. Scaled values are scaled from 0-1, with 1 being the score with the most ecological benefit. Threat scores (THREAT Scaled column) discussed in the text are generated by subtracting scaled values from 1 (e.g. [1- (RVI Scaled)] equals overall threat from visitation). Descriptions of abbreviations used in this table can be found in Appendix A. ...................................................................................................................... 75 APPENDIX D. Raw index values and scaled scores for components of the Visitation Risk Model, Bat Habitat Risk Model, and overall Bat Community Threat Model for each bat species population at each site. Scaled values are scaled from 0-1, with 1 being the score with the most ecological benefit. Threat scores (THREAT Scaled column) discussed in the text are generated by subtracting scaled values from 1 (e.g. [1- (RVI Scaled)] equals overall threat from visitation). Descriptions of abbreviations used in these tables can be found in Appendix A. ................................. 77 APPENDIX E. Raw index values and scaled scores for components of the Visitation Risk Model, Water Quality and Quantity Risk Model, Groundwater Vulnerability iv Model, Groundwater Sensitivity Model, and overall Aquatic Community Threat Model for each aquatic cave species population at each site. Scaled values are scaled from 0-1, with 1 being the score with the most ecological benefit. Threat scores (THREAT Scaled column) discussed in the text are generated by subtracting scaled values from 1 (e.g. [1- (RVI Scaled)] equals overall threat from visitation). Descriptions of abbreviations used in these tables can be found in Appendix A. ...................................................................................................................... 88 F. SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: ............................................................................................. 133 PREPARED BY: ........................................................................................................................ 133 DATE: ......................................................................................................................................... 133 APPROVED BY: .......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Natural History, Distribution, and Phenotypic Variation of Cave-Dwelling Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus Spp
    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 2005 The aN tural History, Distribution, and Phenotypic Variation of Cave-dwelling Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus spp. Cope (Plethodontidae), in West Virginia Michael Steven Osbourn Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Osbourn, Michael Steven, "The aN tural History, Distribution, and Phenotypic Variation of Cave-dwelling Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus spp. Cope (Plethodontidae), in West Virginia" (2005). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 735. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Natural History, Distribution, and Phenotypic Variation of Cave-dwelling Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus spp. Cope (Plethodontidae), in West Virginia. Thesis submitted to The Graduate College of Marshall University In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Science Biological Sciences By Michael Steven Osbourn Thomas K. Pauley, Committee Chairperson Daniel K. Evans, PhD Thomas G. Jones, PhD Marshall University May 2005 Abstract The Natural History, Distribution, and Phenotypic Variation of Cave-dwelling Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus spp. Cope (Plethodontidae), in West Virginia. Michael S. Osbourn There are over 4000 documented caves in West Virginia, potentially providing refuge and habitat for a diversity of amphibians and reptiles. Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus porphyriticus, are among the most frequently encountered amphibians in caves. Surveys of 25 caves provided expanded distribution records and insight into ecology and diet of G.
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Salamandra Salamandra</I>
    International Journal of Speleology 46 (3) 321-329 Tampa, FL (USA) September 2017 Available online at scholarcommons.usf.edu/ijs International Journal of Speleology Off icial Journal of Union Internationale de Spéléologie Subterranean systems provide a suitable overwintering habitat for Salamandra salamandra Monika Balogová1*, Dušan Jelić2, Michaela Kyselová1, and Marcel Uhrin1,3 1Institute of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Science, P. J. Šafárik University, Šrobárova 2, 041 54 Košice, Slovakia 2Croatian Institute for Biodiversity, Lipovac I., br. 7, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia 3Department of Forest Protection and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamýcká 1176, 165 21 Praha, Czech Republic Abstract: The fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) has been repeatedly noted to occur in natural and artificial subterranean systems. Despite the obvious connection of this species with underground shelters, their level of dependence and importance to the species is still not fully understood. In this study, we carried out long-term monitoring based on the capture-mark- recapture method in two wintering populations aggregated in extensive underground habitats. Using the POPAN model we found the population size in a natural shelter to be more than twice that of an artificial underground shelter. Survival and recapture probabilities calculated using the Cormack-Jolly-Seber model were very constant over time, with higher survival values in males than in females and juveniles, though in terms of recapture probability, the opposite situation was recorded. In addition, survival probability obtained from Cormack-Jolly-Seber model was higher than survival from POPAN model. The observed bigger population size and the lower recapture rate in the natural cave was probably a reflection of habitat complexity.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 MO Cave Comm.Pdf
    Caves and Karst CAVES AND KARST by William R. Elliott, Missouri Department of Conservation, and David C. Ashley, Missouri Western State College, St. Joseph C A V E S are an important part of the Missouri landscape. Caves are defined as natural openings in the surface of the earth large enough for a person to explore beyond the reach of daylight (Weaver and Johnson 1980). However, this definition does not diminish the importance of inaccessible microcaverns that harbor a myriad of small animal species. Unlike other terrestrial natural communities, animals dominate caves with more than 900 species recorded. Cave communities are closely related to soil and groundwater communities, and these types frequently overlap. However, caves harbor distinctive species and communi- ties not found in microcaverns in the soil and rock. Caves also provide important shelter for many common species needing protection from drought, cold and predators. Missouri caves are solution or collapse features formed in soluble dolomite or lime- stone rocks, although a few are found in sandstone or igneous rocks (Unklesbay and Vineyard 1992). Missouri caves are most numerous in terrain known as karst (figure 30), where the topography is formed by the dissolution of rock and is characterized by surface solution features. These include subterranean drainages, caves, sinkholes, springs, losing streams, dry valleys and hollows, natural bridges, arches and related fea- Figure 30. Karst block diagram (MDC diagram by Mark Raithel) tures (Rea 1992). Missouri is sometimes called “The Cave State.” The Mis- souri Speleological Survey lists about 5,800 known caves in Missouri, based on files maintained cooperatively with the Mis- souri Department of Natural Resources and the Missouri Department of Con- servation.
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles & Crocodilians
    STANDARD COMMON AND CURRENT SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR NORTH AMERICAN AMPHIBIANS, TURTLES, REPTILES & CROCODILIANS Sixth Edition Joseph T. Collins TraVis W. TAGGart The Center for North American Herpetology THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY www.cnah.org Joseph T. Collins, Director The Center for North American Herpetology 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 (785) 393-4757 Single copies of this publication are available gratis from The Center for North American Herpetology, 1502 Medinah Circle, Lawrence, Kansas 66047 USA; within the United States and Canada, please send a self-addressed 7x10-inch manila envelope with sufficient U.S. first class postage affixed for four ounces. Individuals outside the United States and Canada should contact CNAH via email before requesting a copy. A list of previous editions of this title is printed on the inside back cover. THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY BO A RD OF DIRE ct ORS Joseph T. Collins Suzanne L. Collins Kansas Biological Survey The Center for The University of Kansas North American Herpetology 2021 Constant Avenue 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Kelly J. Irwin James L. Knight Arkansas Game & Fish South Carolina Commission State Museum 915 East Sevier Street P. O. Box 100107 Benton, Arkansas 72015 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Walter E. Meshaka, Jr. Robert Powell Section of Zoology Department of Biology State Museum of Pennsylvania Avila University 300 North Street 11901 Wornall Road Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Kansas City, Missouri 64145 Travis W. Taggart Sternberg Museum of Natural History Fort Hays State University 3000 Sternberg Drive Hays, Kansas 67601 Front cover images of an Eastern Collared Lizard (Crotaphytus collaris) and Cajun Chorus Frog (Pseudacris fouquettei) by Suzanne L.
    [Show full text]
  • H:\Ken\Salamander\SALAMANDERS W-Cover & Toc.Wpd
    Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................1 II. Species Accounts ....................................................1 A. Cave Salamander, Eurycea lucifuga Rafinesque ......................1 1. Taxonomy and Description .................................1 2. Historical and Current Distribution ...........................1 3. Species Associations .....................................2 4. Population Sizes and Abundance ............................2 5. Reproduction ...........................................3 6. Food and Feeding Requirements ............................3 B. Many Ribbed Salamander, Eurycea multiplicata geiseogaster ...........3 1. Taxonomy and Description .................................3 2. Life History and Ecological Information ........................3 C. Grotto Salamander, Typlotriton spealaeus Stejneger ...................4 1. Taxonomy and Description .................................4 2. Life History Information and Habitats .........................4 D. Long-tailed Salamander Eurycea longicauda melanopleura Cope ........5 1. Taxonomy and Description .................................5 2. Historical and Current Distribution ...........................5 3. Life History Information ...................................6 III. Ownership of Species Habitats ..........................................6 IV. Potential Threats to Species or Their Habitats ...............................6 V. Protective Laws .....................................................7 A. Federal .....................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Obligate Salamander
    DOI: 10.1111/jbi.13047 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Hydrologic and geologic history of the Ozark Plateau drive phylogenomic patterns in a cave-obligate salamander John G. Phillips1 | Dante B. Fenolio2 | Sarah L. Emel1,3 | Ronald M. Bonett1 1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, USA Abstract 2Department of Conservation and Research, Aim: Habitat specialization can constrain patterns of dispersal and drive allopatric San Antonio Zoo, San Antonio, TX, USA speciation in organisms with limited dispersal ability. Herein, we tested biogeo- 3Department of Biology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA graphic patterns and dispersal in a salamander with surface-dwelling larvae and obli- gate cave-dwelling adults. Correspondence John G. Phillips, Department of Biological Location: Ozark Plateau, eastern North America. Sciences, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, Methods: A population-level phylogeny of grotto salamanders (Eurycea spelaea com- USA. Current Email: [email protected] plex) was reconstructed using mitochondrial (mtDNA) and multi-locus nuclear DNA (nucDNA), primarily derived from anchored hybrid enrichment (AHE). We tested Funding information Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Grant - patterns of molecular variance among populations and associations between genetic American Museum of Natural History; distance and geographic features. University of Tulsa, Grant/Award Number: 20-2-1211607-53600; Oklahoma Results: Divergence time estimates suggest rapid formation of three major lineages Department of Wildlife Conservation, Grant/ in the Middle Miocene. Contemporary gene flow among divergent lineages appears Award Number: E-22-18 and E22-20; National Science Foundation, Grant/Award negligible, and mtDNA suggests that most populations are isolated. There is a signif- Number: DEB 1050322; Oklahoma icant association between phylogenetic distance and palaeodrainages, contemporary NSF-EPSCoR Program, Grant/Award Number: IIA-1301789 drainages and sub-plateaus of the Ozarks, as all features explain a proportion of genetic variation.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Priority Ecoregions for Amphibian Conservation in the U.S. and Canada
    Acknowledgements This assessment was conducted as part of a priority setting effort for Operation Frog Pond, a project of Tree Walkers International. Operation Frog Pond is designed to encourage private individuals and community groups to become involved in amphibian conservation around their homes and communities. Funding for this assessment was provided by The Lawrence Foundation, Northwest Frog Fest, and members of Tree Walkers International. This assessment would not be possible without data provided by The Global Amphibian Assessment, NatureServe, and the International Conservation Union. We are indebted to their foresight in compiling basic scientific information about species’ distributions, ecology, and conservation status; and making these data available to the public, so that we can provide informed stewardship for our natural resources. I would also like to extend a special thank you to Aaron Bloch for compiling conservation status data for amphibians in the United States and to Joe Milmoe and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program for supporting Operation Frog Pond. Photo Credits Photographs are credited to each photographer on the pages where they appear. All rights are reserved by individual photographers. All photos on the front and back cover are copyright Tim Paine. Suggested Citation Brock, B.L. 2007. Identifying priority ecoregions for amphibian conservation in the U.S. and Canada. Tree Walkers International Special Report. Tree Walkers International, USA. Text © 2007 by Brent L. Brock and Tree Walkers International Tree Walkers International, 3025 Woodchuck Road, Bozeman, MT 59715-1702 Layout and design: Elizabeth K. Brock Photographs: as noted, all rights reserved by individual photographers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Missouri's Cave Life
    A GUIDE TO MISSOURI’S CAVE by William R. Elliott LIFE 70 Cave Species Brought to Light Introduction This guide fills a need for a field identification manual and introduction to the typical cave life of Missouri. It will be useful throughout the Ozark Region and adjacent states, where many of the same species or genera occur. The audience for this guide includes cavers, naturalists, cave guides, teachers and experienced students. You may access this guide on the Biospeleology Web site at http://www. utexas.edu/tmm/sponsored_sites/biospeleology. The Missouri Department of Conservation also publishes other material on caves and karst. About 900 species of animals are known from Missouri caves. In an Ozark cave you will encounter related species that look like some of the 70 images in this guide. Avoid making the subject fit the photo, and read the captions to see if the identification fits. Many small creatures have features that only an expert could identify on a preserved specimen. Please do not handle wildlife unless you are a qualified biologist. Do not remove wildlife from a cave except under a Missouri Wildlife Collector’s Permit, including small invertebrates, even for educational use. The permit is available from the Missouri Department of Conservation. Do not handle wild mammals, as they may harbor communicable diseases. Rabies occurs at low rates in bats, and is more common in skunks, but wild mammals, especially carnivores, should only be handled when necessary by those who have been vaccinated against rabies. Avoid close examination and photography of bats unless it is necessary for a scientific study.
    [Show full text]
  • Corel Ventura
    The Missouri Cave Life Survey William R. Elliott, Ph.D. Lawrence Ireland Missouri Department of Conservation Abstract The purpose of this project is to assess the status of common cave-dwell- ing animals in Missouri. The Missouri Department of Conservation began systematic surveys of cave life in 1978. James E. and Treva Gardner visited 436 caves and 10 springs, where they collected specimens for identification, recorded observation, and counted vertebrates. The invertebrate data were published by James E. Gardner (1986). The vertebrate count data are the focus of the current study. We incorporated Gardner’s records on 483 species into the Missouri Biospeleological Database from which we pro- duced candidate lists of caves to visit in all seasons and from a wide geographic area. We obtained a “Partnerships in Wildlife” grant from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct follow-up surveys of 40 caves, utilizing volunteers from the Missouri Caves and Karst Conservancy, Missouri West- ern State College, and the University of Missouri/Columbia. Dozens of cavers were trained to identify and record species and other observations in the caves using a pictorial guide, data forms, rulers, and digital thermometers. A water sampling program is being led by Dr Robert Lerch. Samples are analyzed for typical parameters and selected contaminants. Prelilminary data will be presented, and at project’s end, we will provide a summary report on the status of eastern pipistrelle bats, grotto salamanders, pickerel frogs, and other species. The results will be used for making land manage- ment decisions regarding cave communities. Introduction than 800 caves.
    [Show full text]
  • Observations on the Population Ecology of the Cave Salamander, Eurycea Lucifuga (Rafinesque, 1822)
    J. Gavin Bradley and Perri K. Eason. Observations on the population ecology of the cave salamander, eurycea lucifuga (rafinesque, 1822). Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 81, no. 1, p. 1-8. DOI:10.4311/2017LS0037 OBSERVATIONS ON THE POPULATION ECOLOGY OF THE CAVE SALAMANDER, EURYCEA LUCIFUGA (RAFINESQUE, 1822) J. Gavin Bradley1 and Perri K. Eason2 Abstract Salamanders are potentially important constituents of subterranean ecosystems, but relatively little is known about their effects in caves. A common facultative hypogean salamander in the eastern United States is the Cave salamander, Eurycea lucifuga (Rafinesque, 1822). Despite being common and widespread, little more than basic information exists for this species. Herein, we provide new data concerning open population modeling, demographics, wet-biomass, and density estimation for a population in a small Kentucky spring cave. We have found population abundances of this spe- cies to be much higher than previously reported, and describe low capture probabilities and high survival probabilities. Average wet-weight per individual was 2.90 g, and estimated seasonal population wet-biomass peaked at 1426.8 g. Mean salamander density and wet-biomass density are 0.08 salamanders m2 and 0.22 g m2, respectively. The data we provide indicate that Cave salamanders have important ecological impacts on small spring cave systems. Introduction The Cave salamander, Eurycea lucifuga (Rafinesque, 1822), is a facultative cave dweller that is native to the east- ern United States (Hutchison, 1958; Williams, 1980; Petranka, 1998; Camp et al., 2014). The classification scheme of cave-dwelling organisms is in flux due to a lack of consensus for terminology that defines the gradations of dependency that organisms have on cave environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Life History, Demography, and the Influence of Cave- Roosting Bats on a Population of the Grotto Salamander (Eurycea Spelaea) Fr
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 9(2):394–405. Submitted: 13 November 2014; Accepted: 21 February 2014; Published: 12 October 2014. LIFE HISTORY, DEMOGRAPHY, AND THE INFLUENCE OF CAVE- ROOSTING BATS ON A POPULATION OF THE GROTTO SALAMANDER (EURYCEA SPELAEA) FROM THE OZARK PLATEAUS OF OKLAHOMA (CAUDATA: PLETHODONTIDAE) DANTÉ B. FENOLIO1, MATTHEW L. NIEMILLER2, RONALD M. BONETT3, G. O. GRAENING4, BRET A. COLLIER5, AND JIM F. STOUT6 1Department of Conservation and Research, San Antonio Zoo, 3903 North St. Mary’s Street, San Antonio, Texas 78212, USA, e-mail: [email protected] 2Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61821, USA. 3Department of Biological Science, University of Tulsa, 800 S. Tucker Drive, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104, USA. 4Department of Biological Sciences, California State University at Sacramento,6000 J Street, Sacramento, California 95819, USA. 5School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA. 6Oklahoma Biological Survey, 111 E. Chesapeake Street, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA. Abstract.—Salamanders are among the few vertebrates that have successfully colonized and exploited subterranean habitats, demonstrating flexibility in behavior and physiology. However, our knowledge of the ecology and life history of many subterranean salamanders is poor because of the limits and challenges of studying organisms in subterranean habitats. The Grotto Salamander (Eurycea spelaea) is an obligate subterranean plethodontid salamander, endemic to the Ozark Plateau Ecoregion of North America, and a top predator in many caves. We conducted a 25-mo mark-release- recapture study of E. spelaea within a 440-m section of a cave in Delaware County, Oklahoma to better understand the life history and demography of the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Coprophagy in a Cave-Adapted Salamander; the Importance of Bat Guano Examined Through Nutritional and Stable Isotope Analyses Dante´ B
    Proc. R. Soc. B doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3341 Published online Coprophagy in a cave-adapted salamander; the importance of bat guano examined through nutritional and stable isotope analyses Dante´ B. Fenolio1,*, G. O. Graening2, Bret A. Collier3 and Jim F. Stout4 1Department of Zoology, University of Oklahoma, 730 Van Vleet Oval, Norman, OK 73019, USA 2The Nature Conservancy, 601 North University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA 3Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2258, USA 4Oklahoma City Zoo and Botanical Gardens, 2101 Northeast 50th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73111, USA During a two year population ecology study in a cave environment, 15 Eurycea (ZTyphlotriton) spelaea were observed ingesting bat guano. Furthermore, E. spelaea capture numbers increased significantly during the time that grey bats (Myotis grisescens) deposited fresh guano. We investigated the hypothesis that this behaviour was not incidental to the capture of invertebrate prey, but a diet switch to an energy-rich detritus in an oligotrophic environment. Stable isotope assays determined that guano may be assimilated into salamander muscle tissue, and nutritional analyses revealed that guano is a comparable food source to potential invertebrate prey items. This is the first report of coprophagy in a salamander and in any amphibian for reasons other than intestinal inoculation. Because many temperate subterranean environments are often energy poor and this limitation is thought to select for increased diet breadth, we predict that coprophagy may be common in subterranean vertebrates where it is not currently recognized. Keywords: Eurycea spelaea; coprophagy; stable isotope analysis; subterranean food web; bat guano; omnivory 1.
    [Show full text]