USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Herpetofauna”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

97 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS2010

Saltcedar and Russian olive interactions with wildlife: Chapter 4

Riparian areas of flood plains typically provide a mosaic of productive habitats (Stanford and others, 2005; Latterell and others, 2006) capable of supporting many wildlife species, particularly in the arid and semiarid Western United States. The establishment of nonnative invasive plants can alter riparian habitat by inhibiting native plant recruitment and by increasing the risk of wildfire (Howe and Knopf, 1991; Busch and Smith, 1995). However, the effects of nonnative plants are not necessarily always negative. Many wildlife species will use the exotic plants to some extent, especially when mixed with native vegetation (van Riper and others, 2008), but overall, species of wildlife exhibit a negative or neutral response to exotic habitat. In many areas of the Western United States where riparian systems have been degraded via anthropogenic activities (for example, flood control or groundwater pumping), native vegetation may have difficulty persisting and nonnative vegetation may provide the only available habitat for some species of wildlife (Katz and Shafroth, 2003; Stromberg and others, 2007). Therefore, where possible, the ultimate goal of ecological restoration activities should be the reestablishment of native riparian plant communities and a return to more natural hydrological regimes. Nonnative saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) are the second and fifth most abundant plants in riparian areas in the Western United States (see chap. 2, this volume; Friedman and others, 2005). Methods for controlling nonnative vegetation can alter riparian areas, often in unpredictable ways, and have the potential to impact a variety of habitat types used by wildlife (Bateman, Chung-MacCoubrey, Finch, and others, 2008). Therefore, understanding how wildlife utilize saltcedar and Russian olive and the effects of control activities on wildlife are important for resource managers who must balance management decisions such as nonnative plant control with protecting critical wildlife habitat. In this chapter, we present a synthesis of published literature on the use of saltcedar and Russian olive by wildlife and discuss how wildlife respond or are likely to respond to control measures for saltcedar and Russian olive and subsequent restoration efforts. We discuss responses of several groups of wildlife, including arthropods, birds, mammals, herpetofauna, and fish.

Book chapter↗
USGS2006

Natural history, field ecology, conservation biology and wildlife management: Time to connect the dots

Natural history and field ecology are essential building blocks for successful conservation and management of herpetofauna. Thus, natural history and field ecology merit major infusions of funding and increased recognition of their importance in science and management. Others have stated matters well: (1) Academic training in natural history should receive high priority; (2) we need to integrate our work across disciplines (from molecules to communities), and use all of our knowledge toward common goals; (3) natural history is not dead but today is a flourishing enterprise; and (4) mutual respect and collaboration between disciplines best serve our own mental health as well as the future of natural history. We need to merge the best natural history, field ecological data, and biological questions with the latest advances in other fields of inquiry if we are to advance science and solve key environmental issues. It takes a scientific community and many concerned parties to save a species, let alone an ecosystem. We must connect these dots to see the big picture.

Herpetological Conservation and Biology↗
USGS2018

Biodiversity of amphibians and reptiles at the Camp Cady Wildlife Area, Mojave Desert, California and comparisons with other desert locations

We examined the biodiversity of amphibian and reptile species living in and near constructed ponds in the riparian area at the Camp Cady Wildlife Area (CCWA) in the Mojave Desert of San Bernardino County, California, based on field work from 1998-1999, 2016-2017, review of the literature, and searches for museum specimens using VertNet.org. A total of 11 species (201 captures), including two frogs and toads (one non-native frog), one turtle, three snakes, and five lizards were captured at terrestrial drift fences with pitfall traps encircling two ponds (0.5 hectares total) on the property in 1999. Four additional species (one frog, one lizard, and two snakes) were previously reported in 1978 from a ranch 1.6 km southwest from CCWA for a total of 15 species in the local area. The southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida), was commonly observed at CCWA from 1998 to 1999 and documented as a breeding population. However, the species was extirpated at CCWA sometime after 2014 when the last individuals were photographed, and none have been detected since then despite significant efforts to do so. Biodiversity of amphibians and reptiles at CCWA is relatively low compared with sites elsewhere in the Mojave Desert with more elevational diversity. The 14 native species documented at CCWA accounts for approximately 21% of the native reptile and amphibian species reported by Stewart (1994) for the entire Mojave Desert, including peripheral species. Our smaller sample likely represents a group of easily detected species and is biased toward those found in or near water, especially amphibians. However, the relative proportion of amphibians vs. reptiles that inhabited CCWA in the last 40 years is not significantly different from the recently compiled proportions at five military installations in the California deserts. The herpetofauna inhabiting CCWA is notable for including riparian obligates like the western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), Northern Baja California treefrog (Pseudacris h. hypochondriaca), and A. pallida that are otherwise absent from large portions of the Mojave Desert. Other species are typical of those that are expected in the low-elevation creosote scrubdominated ecosystem in the area.

California↗
USGS2021

Enhanced between-site biosecurity to minimize herpetofaunal disease-causing pathogen transmission

Pathogens and their associated diseases have the potential to severely affect wildlife populations, including herpetofauna. Concern is increasing for transmission pathways of herpetofaunal diseases, especially for amphibians affected by the fungal pathogens Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd: Longcore et al. 1999) and B. salamandrivorans (Bsal: Martel et al. 2013), and amphibians and reptiles affected by Iridoviruses of the genus Ranavirus (Rv: Gray and Chinchar 2015) for which global human-mediated pathogen transmission is increasingly implicated (e.g., Fisher and Garner 2007; Picco and Collins 2008; Walker et al. 2008; Schloegel et al. 2009; Auliya et al. 2016; Martel et al. 2013, 2014; Fisher et al. 2012; Nguyen et al. 2017; O’Hanlon et al. 2018). Preventing the novel introductions of emerging infectious diseases is of paramount importance (Gray et al. 2015; Grant et al. 2016), as once they gain a foothold, they can be “essentially unstoppable” (Fisher et al. 2012). In order to minimize anthropogenic influences on disease dynamics, biosecurity procedures and decision-support systems for biosecurity prioritization have been developed. In general, such procedures for herpetofaunal emerging infectious diseases have been framed relative to the stages of pathogen emergence (pre-arrival, invasion front, epidemic, and establishment: e.g., Garner et al. 2016; Grant et al. 2017) as well as the intertwining contexts of herpetological research, natural resource management activities, integrated biodiversity conservation practices, and the human dimension of transmission of novel pathogens, (e.g., Gray et al. 2018; More et al. 2018).

Herpetological Review↗
USGS1995

Reptiles and amphibians in the endangered longleaf pine ecosystem

The Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States contains a rich diversity of reptiles and amphibians (herpetofauna). Of the 290 species native to the Southeast, 170 (74 amphibians, 96 reptiles) are found within the range of the remnant longleaf pine ( Pinus palustris ) ecosystem (Fig. 1). Many of these species are not found elsewhere, particularly those amphibians that require temporary ponds for reproduction. Many Coastal Plain species are listed federally or by states as endangered or threatened or are candidates for listing (Fig. 1). Examples include the flatwoods salamander ( Ambystoma cingulatum ), striped newt ( Notophthalmus perstriatus ), Carolina and dusky gopher frogs ( Rana capito capito and R.c. sevosa ), eastern indigo snake ( Drymarchon corais couperi ), gopher tortoise ( Gopherus polyphemus), eastern diamondback rattlesnake ( Crotalus adamanteus ), and Florida pine snake ( Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus ).

Book chapter↗
USGS1995

Bullfrogs: Introduced predators in southwestern wetlands

In the American Southwest, much of the native fish fauna is facing extinction (Minckley and Deacon 1991); frogs in California (Fellers and Drost 1993) and frogs and garter snakes in Arizona (Schwalbe and Rosen 1988) are also in critical decline. Habitat destruction and introduced predators appear to be primary causes of native frog declines (Jennings and Hayes 1994), and habitat modification often yields ponds and lakes especially suitable for introduced species. Introduced bullfrogs ( Rana catesbeiana ) have been blamed for amphibian declines in much of western North America (e.g., Hayes and Jennings 1986; Leonard et al. 1993; Vial and Saylor 1993). Extensive cannibalism by bullfrogs renders them especially potent predators at the population level. The tadpoles require only perennial water and grazeable plant material; hence, transforming young can sustain a dense adult bullfrog population even if alternate prey are depleted. This may increase the probability that native species may be extirpated by bullfrog predation. Introduced predatory fishes are apparently an important cause of frog declines (Hayes and Jennings 1986). They have been strongly implicated in one important case of decline of native ranid frog (family Ranidae, the "true" frogs; Bradford 1989). Some introduced crayfish may also be devastating in some areas (Jennings and Hayes 1994). In our study region, however, neither introduced fishes nor crayfish are dominant. We present results that sustain a "bullfrog hypothesis" for some native ranid declines, and we present our study as an example of how evidence accumulates to support such a hypothesis. In 1985 we began documenting historical localities for wetland herpetofaunas (reptiles and amphibians), based on museum records and personal interviews, then revisited these and additional areas to determine current species' status. Results of this process, plus circumstantial evidence, suggested that the bullfrog was a primary cause for declines of leopard frogs and garter snakes in southern Arizona (Schwalbe and Rosen 1988). In 1986-89 and 1992-93 we conducted removal censuses of bullfrogs at San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge (SBNWR), Cochise County, Arizona. We simultaneously monitored native Chiricahua leopard frogs ( R. chiricahuensis ) and Mexican garter snakes ( Thamnophis eques ) at the sites of bullfrog removal. A control site, with no bullfrog removal, was established in comparable habitat at Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (BANWR), Pima County, Arizona.

Book chapter↗