Reptiles of Ohio Guide
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Cfreptiles & Amphibians
WWW.IRCF.ORG/REPTILESANDAMPHIBIANSJOURNALTABLE OF CONTENTS IRCF REPTILES & IRCFAMPHIBIANS REPTILES • VOL 15,& NAMPHIBIANSO 4 • DEC 2008 •189 20(4):166–171 • DEC 2013 IRCF REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS CONSERVATION AND NATURAL HISTORY TABLE OF CONTENTS FEATURE ARTICLES Differential. Chasing Bullsnakes (Pituophis catenifer sayiHabitat) in Wisconsin: Use by Common On the Road to Understanding the Ecology and Conservation of the Midwest’s Giant Serpent ...................... Joshua M. Kapfer 190 . The Shared History of Treeboas (Corallus grenadensis) and Humans on Grenada: A WatersnakesHypothetical Excursion ............................................................................................................................ (Nerodia sipedonRobert W. Henderson) 198 Lorin A.RESEARCH Neuman-Lee ARTICLES1,2, Andrew M. Durso1,2, Nicholas M. Kiriazis1,3, Melanie J. Olds1,4, and Stephen J. Mullin1 . The Texas Horned Lizard in Central and Western Texas ....................... Emily Henry, Jason Brewer, Krista Mougey, and Gad Perry 204 1Department of Biological Sciences, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois 61920, USA . The Knight Anole (Anolis equestris) in Florida 2 Present ............................................. address: DepartmentBrian of Biology,J. Camposano, Utah Kenneth State L. University, Krysko, Kevin Logan, M. Enge, Utah Ellen 84321,M. Donlan, USA and ([email protected]) Michael Granatosky 212 3Present address: School of Teacher Education and Leadership, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84321, USA CONSERVATION4Present -
Nonnative Reptilies in South Florida ID Guide
Nonnative Reptiles in South Florida Identification Guide • The nonnative reptiles shown here are native to Central and South America, Asia, and Nonnative species are Africa. They were introduced to south Florida by human activity. sometimes confused with • Invasive species harm native species through direct predation, competition for resources, the Florida natives shown spread of disease, and disruption of natural ecosystems. Many of the nonnative reptiles on because their colorations this guide are, or have the potential to become, invasive. and patterns are very • Use this guide to identify invasive species and immediately report sightings of the black similar. Pay attention to the and white tegu, Nile monitor, and all invasive snakes to 1-888-IVE-GOT1. Take a distinct characteristics and photo and note the location relative to street intersections or with a GPS if possible. typical adult sizes listed on this guide to avoid • More photos can be found at www.flmnh.ufl.edu/herpetology/herpetology.htm. confusion when you • Be certain that an animal is a nonnative species before removing it. Warning-most encounter these animals. reptiles will bite or scratch if provoked. Nonnative Lizards NATIVE :- • ,,.., •· t ..... Look-a-Likes . ... ·-tt-..... • •. .. l . 1 '\..\ =- ' . ----.....·~·-· - - ',-<•'-' ' . \:,' . <! •.t'- . ,. '\. Dav id 13,irbsv ~ ·- ~ 9111'.', o:'"' w:' Black and White Tegu 2 to 3 ft. Dark bands with plentiful white dots between them Eastern Fence Lizard 3.5 to 7.5 in. Northern Curly-Tailed Lizard 7 to 10.5 in . Gray to tan with curled tail Florida Scrub Lizard 3.5 to 5.5 in. American Alligator 6 to 9 ft. Nile Monitor 4 to 6 ft. -
Identifying Amphibians and Reptiles in Zoos and Aquariums ZOO VIEW
290 ZOO VIEW Herpetological Review, 2015, 46(2), 290–294. © 2015 by Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Identifying Amphibians and Reptiles in Zoos and Aquariums PLUS ҫa ChanGe, PluS C’eST la même ChoSe [The more ThinGS ChanGe, Snakes and their allies were traditionally placed in the genus THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME] Elaphe but were recently referred to Pantherophis based on their —JEAN-BAPTISTE ALPHONSE KARR, 1849 close relationship to other lampropeltine colubrids of the New World (Burbrink and Lawson 2007). Different combinations are Reptiles and amphibians are relatively unique in the sense used by different authors and my colleagues are struggling with of constantly changing taxonomies. That phenomenon simply is these differences; in other words, which names should they use? not a big operative problem for bird and mammal zoo person- Some biologists believe that there is a rule that the most recent nel. To gain a sense of why this is happening, refer to Frost and taxonomic paper should be the one used but there is no such Hillis (1990). There is confusion caused by changes in both stan- established convention in the Code (The International Code of dard and scientific names in herpetology. The general principle Zoological Nomenclature). Recently, a convincing description of in a zoo is that one wants to be talking about the same species the dangers of taxonomic vandalism leading to potential desta- when putting live animals together for breeding or exhibit or bilization has appeared in the literature (Kaiser et al. 2013) and analyzing records for genealogy or research. -
Wild Species 2010 the GENERAL STATUS of SPECIES in CANADA
Wild Species 2010 THE GENERAL STATUS OF SPECIES IN CANADA Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council National General Status Working Group This report is a product from the collaboration of all provincial and territorial governments in Canada, and of the federal government. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2011. Wild Species 2010: The General Status of Species in Canada. National General Status Working Group: 302 pp. Available in French under title: Espèces sauvages 2010: La situation générale des espèces au Canada. ii Abstract Wild Species 2010 is the third report of the series after 2000 and 2005. The aim of the Wild Species series is to provide an overview on which species occur in Canada, in which provinces, territories or ocean regions they occur, and what is their status. Each species assessed in this report received a rank among the following categories: Extinct (0.2), Extirpated (0.1), At Risk (1), May Be At Risk (2), Sensitive (3), Secure (4), Undetermined (5), Not Assessed (6), Exotic (7) or Accidental (8). In the 2010 report, 11 950 species were assessed. Many taxonomic groups that were first assessed in the previous Wild Species reports were reassessed, such as vascular plants, freshwater mussels, odonates, butterflies, crayfishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Other taxonomic groups are assessed for the first time in the Wild Species 2010 report, namely lichens, mosses, spiders, predaceous diving beetles, ground beetles (including the reassessment of tiger beetles), lady beetles, bumblebees, black flies, horse flies, mosquitoes, and some selected macromoths. The overall results of this report show that the majority of Canada’s wild species are ranked Secure. -
Michigan Amphibian & Reptile Best Management Practices
I Michigan Amphibian & Reptile Best Management Practices Herpetological Resource & Management, LLC Michigan Amphibian & Reptile Best Management Practices Michigan Amphibian and Reptile Best Management Practices Copyright 2014 © Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC. Drawings & photographs by Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC. unless otherwise noted ISBN: 978-0-9915169-0-2 Suggested Citation: Mifsud, David A., 2014. Michigan Amphibian and Reptile Best Management Practices. Herpetological Resource and Management Technical Publication 2014. i Acknowledgements This project was funded by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency through a Region 05 Wetland Program Development Grant. This work was performed under the sponsorship of THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY and the Michigan Natural Features Inventory Michigan State University Extension. This work does not necessarily represent the views of the University or the sponsoring agency. Numerous organizations and individuals have contributed information, photographs, and resources instrumental in the creation of this publication including, MDEQ Wetlands, Lakes, and Streams Unit, The Nature Conservancy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Wildlife Division, MDNR Fisheries Division, MDEQ Office of the Great Lakes, Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), Michigan State University Museum, and The Stewardship Network. In addition to the organizations we would like to recognize the individuals who provided review and comment for their help and assistance: James Bettaso, Brittany Bird, Amy Derosier, David Dortman, Carly Eakin, Eric Ellis, Melanie Foose, James Francis, Chris Freiburger, Thomas Goniea, Anne Hokanson, Christopher Hoving, Spencer Kellum, Yu Man Lee, Amy Lounds, Mark Mackay, Christopher May, Mick Micacchion, Paul Muelle, Tim Payne, Mike Pennington, Lori Sargent, Matthew Smar, Pete Wilson, Richard Wolinski, and Sean Zera. -
Hybridization Between Multiple Fence Lizard Lineages in an Ecotone
Molecular Ecology (2007) 16, 1035–1054 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03194.x HybridizationBlackwell Publishing Ltd between multiple fence lizard lineages in an ecotone: locally discordant variation in mitochondrial DNA, chromosomes, and morphology ADAM D. LEACHÉ* and CHARLES J. COLE†‡ *Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and Department of Integrative Biology, 3101 Valley Life Sciences Building, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3160, USA, †Department of Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024-5192, USA Abstract We investigated a hybrid zone between two major lineages of fence lizards (Sceloporus cowlesi and Sceloporus tristichus) in the Sceloporus undulatus species complex in eastern Arizona. This zone occurs in an ecotone between Great Basin Grassland and Conifer Wood- land habitats. We analysed spatial variation in mtDNA (N = 401; 969 bp), chromosomes (N = 217), and morphology (N = 312; 11 characters) to characterize the hybrid zone and assess species limits. A fine-scale population level phylogenetic analysis refined the boundaries between these species and indicated that four nonsister mtDNA clades (three belonging to S. tristichus and one to S. cowlesi) are sympatric at the centre of the zone. Esti- mates of cytonuclear disequilibria in the population closest to the centre of the hybrid zone suggest that the S. tristichus clades are randomly mating, but that the S. cowlesi haplotype has a significant nonrandom association with nuclear alleles. Maximum-likelihood cline- fitting analyses suggest that the karyotype, morphology, and dorsal colour pattern clines are all coincident, but the mtDNA cline is skewed significantly to the south. A temporal comparison of cline centres utilizing karyotype data collected in the early 1970s and in 2002 suggests that the cline may have shifted by approximately 1.5 km to the north over a 30-year period. -
Lake Erie Watersnake (Nerodia Sipedon Insularum) in Canada
PROPOSED Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series Adopted under Section 69 of SARA Management Plan for the Lake Erie Watersnake (Nerodia sipedon insularum) in Canada Lake Erie Watersnake 2019 Recommended citation: Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2019. Management Plan for the Lake Erie Watersnake (Nerodia sipedon insularum) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. 2 parts, 28 pp. + 20 pp. For copies of the management plan, or for additional information on species at risk, including the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Status Reports, residence descriptions, action plans, and other related recovery documents, please visit the Species at Risk (SAR) Public Registry1. Cover illustration: © Gary Allen Également disponible en français sous le titre « Plan de gestion de la couleuvre d’eau du lac Érié (Nerodia sipedon insularum) au Canada [Proposition] » © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, 2019. All rights reserved. ISBN Catalogue no. Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. 1 www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry.html MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE (Nerodia sipedon insularum) IN CANADA 2019 Under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996), the federal, provincial, and territorial governments agreed to work together on legislation, programs, and policies to protect wildlife species at risk throughout Canada. In the spirit of cooperation of the Accord, the Government of Ontario has given permission to the Government of Canada to adopt the Blue Racer, Lake Erie Watersnake and Small-mouthed Salamander and Unisexual Ambystoma (Small- mouthed Salamander dependent population) – Ontario Government Response Statement (Part 2) under Section 69 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). -
Survey of Caledon Natural Area State Park
Survey of Caledon Natural Area State Park David A. Perry 316 Taylor Ridge Way Palmyra, VA 22963 Introduction Caledon Natural Area was originally established as Caledon plantation in 1659 by the Alexander family, founders of the city of Alexandria, Virginia. It remained in private hands until it was donated to the Com- monwealth in 1974 by Mrs. Ann Hopewell Smoot. In 1981, the Caledon Task Force was appointed by Governor Robb to develop a management plan for Caledon to help protect the summering bald eagle popu- lation. A no-boating zone along the Potomac shoreline, limited public access trails and buffer zones were created to help protect bald eagle habitat. These limits have remained basically in place through August 2012, with some amendments. With the delisting of the bald eagle as an endangered species, plans were developed and approved on April 25, 2012 to expand public access at Caledon. Most likely these plans will be initiated in 2013. Located in King George County, Caledon Natural Area is approximately 37 km (23 miles) east of Freder- icksburg and about 97 km (60 miles) northwest of the confluence of the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Within the park boundaries are a total of 1,044 hectares (2,579 acres) of diverse habitat; 953 hectares (2,355 acres) are forested (majority are mixed hardwood with some isolated softwood stands), 10.1 hect- ares (25 acres) are in old fields, 26.3 hectares (65 acres) are ponds and streams, 28.3 hectares (70 acres) are marshes, 6.1 hectares (15 acres) in Potomac shore and beach and 19.4 hectares (48 acres) are considered the original home site. -
Which Habitat Selection Method Is Most Applicable to Snakes? Case Studies of the Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus Catenatus) and Eastern Fox Snake (Pantherophis Gloydi)
Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6(3):372–382. Submitted: 19 January 2011; Accepted: 13 October 2011; Published: 31 December 2011. WHICH HABITAT SELECTION METHOD IS MOST APPLICABLE TO SNAKES? CASE STUDIES OF THE EASTERN MASSASAUGA (SISTRURUS CATENATUS) AND EASTERN FOX SNAKE (PANTHEROPHIS GLOYDI) 1,2 1 1 BRETT A. DEGREGORIO , BRIAN J. PUTMAN , AND BRUCE A. KINGSBURY 1Center for Reptile and Amphibian Conservation, Indiana-Purdue University at Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805, USA, e-mail: [email protected] 2University of Illinois at Champaign–Urbana, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA. Abstract.—Successful species conservation is dependent upon understanding that the habitat preferences of species occur on multiple spatial scales; however, effective synthesis of findings between studies can be hindered by the use of different methods. We applied two habitat selection analyses to two sets of snake radiotelemetry data, which led to differences in results. We discuss perceived strengths and weaknesses of each approach and how they can be used in future studies of snakes. Compositional Analysis (CA) is a classification-based approach, while Euclidean Distance Analysis (EDA) is a distance-based approach. Each method detected non-random habitat selection on both the landscape and home range level, indicating that both Eastern Massasaugas (Sistrurus catenatus) and Eastern Fox Snakes (Pantherophis gloydi) made habitat selection choices at multiple spatial scales. Eastern Massasaugas used a mosaic of habitat types but were consistently associated with forest edge and scrub-shrub wetland, while Eastern Fox Snakes were most often associated with upland edge and old field habitat types. The two methods drew different conclusions, however, and complete understanding of habitat associations may require the use of both methods, taking into account the limitations of each. -
Significant New Records of Amphibians and Reptiles from Georgia, USA
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION 597 Herpetological Review, 2015, 46(4), 597–601. © 2015 by Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Significant New Records of Amphibians and Reptiles from Georgia, USA Distributional maps found in Amphibians and Reptiles of records for a variety of amphibian and reptile species in Georgia. Georgia (Jensen et al. 2008), along with subsequent geographical All records below were verified by David Bechler (VSU), Nikole distribution notes published in Herpetological Review, serve Castleberry (GMNH), David Laurencio (AUM), Lance McBrayer as essential references for county-level occurrence data for (GSU), and David Steen (SRSU), and datum used was WGS84. herpetofauna in Georgia. Collectively, these resources aid Standard English names follow Crother (2012). biologists by helping to identify distributional gaps for which to target survey efforts. Herein we report newly documented county CAUDATA — SALAMANDERS DIRK J. STEVENSON AMBYSTOMA OPACUM (Marbled Salamander). CALHOUN CO.: CHRISTOPHER L. JENKINS 7.8 km W Leary (31.488749°N, 84.595917°W). 18 October 2014. D. KEVIN M. STOHLGREN Stevenson. GMNH 50875. LOWNDES CO.: Langdale Park, Valdosta The Orianne Society, 100 Phoenix Road, Athens, (30.878524°N, 83.317114°W). 3 April 1998. J. Evans. VSU C0015. Georgia 30605, USA First Georgia record for the Suwannee River drainage. MURRAY JOHN B. JENSEN* CO.: Conasauga Natural Area (34.845116°N, 84.848180°W). 12 Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 116 Rum November 2013. N. Klaus and C. Muise. GMNH 50548. Creek Drive, Forsyth, Georgia 31029, USA DAVID L. BECHLER Department of Biology, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, AMBYSTOMA TALPOIDEUM (Mole Salamander). BERRIEN CO.: Georgia 31602, USA St. -
Response of Reptile and Amphibian Communities to the Reintroduction of Fire T in an Oak/Hickory Forest ⁎ Steven J
Forest Ecology and Management 428 (2018) 1–13 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco Response of reptile and amphibian communities to the reintroduction of fire T in an oak/hickory forest ⁎ Steven J. Hromadaa, , Christopher A.F. Howeyb,c, Matthew B. Dickinsond, Roger W. Perrye, Willem M. Roosenburgc, C.M. Giengera a Department of Biology and Center of Excellence for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN 37040, United States b Biology Department, University of Scranton, Scranton, PA 18510, United States c Ohio Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Studies, Department of Biological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, United States d Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Delaware, OH 43015, United States e Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Hot Springs, AR 71902, United States ABSTRACT Fire can have diverse effects on ecosystems, including direct effects through injury and mortality and indirect effects through changes to available resources within the environment. Changes in vegetation structure suchasa decrease in canopy cover or an increase in herbaceous cover from prescribed fire can increase availability of preferred microhabitats for some species while simultaneously reducing preferred conditions for others. We examined the responses of herpetofaunal communities to prescribed fires in an oak/hickory forest in western Kentucky. Prescribed fires were applied twice to a 1000-ha area one and four years prior to sampling, causing changes in vegetation structure. Herpetofaunal communities were sampled using drift fences, and vegetation attributes were sampled via transects in four burned and four unburned plots. Differences in reptile community structure correlated with variation in vegetation structure largely created by fires. -
Ventral Coloration and Body Condition Do Not Affect Territorial Behavior in Two Sceloporus Lizards
Ventral coloration and body condition do not affect territorial behavior in two Sceloporus lizards 1Marina Kelada, 1Courtney Moulton, 2Casey Nguyen, 3Griselda Robles Olague 1University of California, Riverside; 2University of California, Irvine; 3University of California, Santa Barbara Sceloporus lizards are known to be defensive of their territories, which provide shelter, food, water, and mates. They often exhibit territorial behavior through visual displays of aggression, specifically with pushups. Along with aggression, this display can also expose the blue coloration on their ventral side, serving as an intraspecific communication between lizards that reveals information about their dominance, sex, and species membership. In this study, we compared how blue coloration and body condition affected territorial behavior in two Sceloporus lizards: the well-studied western fence (Sceloporus occidentalis) and the understudied sagebrush (Sceloporus graciosus), two closely related lizards with overlapping ranges in the San Jacinto Mountains. We also addressed whether these species would exhibit character displacement in their ventral coloration as a result of their sympatry. ImageJ and Adobe Photoshop were used for photo analyses to quantify the proportion and intensity of blue on each lizard’s ventral side. Territoriality was measured through number of pushups displayed and distance traveled. We found that both ventral coloration and body condition had no effect on the territoriality of either species, suggesting that territorial behavior