8 - Reptiles
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2012
Edited by
Summary
Introduction
Most common survey methods employed to estimate the abundance of reptiles involve capturing individuals (Table 8.1). This is for two reasons: (a) reptiles tend to be mobile and/or shy and cryptic, so not all members of a population will be visible (and therefore amenable to counting by sight) at any one time; and (b) much more information can be obtained from an animal that has been captured than can be obtained from an animal that has simply been seen. For example, the animal may be weighed and measured, have its sex and reproductive condition determined, and have its parasite load assessed. An identifying mark may also be placed on the animal so that it can be re-identified, should it be recaptured at a later time. As well as providing advice on capturing reptiles, we also provide information on common techniques for marking individuals.
Reptiles are ectotherms. That is, they obtain their body heat from the external environment. This has major implications for any survey technique, in that weather conditions may greatly affect the activity and therefore the catchability of reptiles. The effect of weather can vary seasonally, as well as on a daily basis. This should be kept in mind when designing a survey programme.
Because it is unlikely that the whole population will be counted in any one census period (some individuals will be missed), statistical mark–recapture methods should generally be used to estimate population sizes/densities or survival probabilities for reptile populations (see Chapter 3).
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ecological Census TechniquesA Handbook, pp. 297 - 307Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
& (1992). The use of mouse glue traps to capture lizards. Herpetological Review 23, 112–113.Google Scholar
, & (2001). A noose trap for catching a large arboreal lizard, Varanus olivaceus. Herpetological Review 32, 167–168.Google Scholar
(1996). The “skink scooper:” a device for catching leaf litter skinks. Herpetological Review 27, 189.Google Scholar
, & (1991). A new method of trapping gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus). Herpetological Review 22, 19–21.Google Scholar
& (1988). Evaluation of a microchip marking system for amphibians and reptiles. Research Publication 7100-159. Austin, Texas, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
(1997). A new trap for the live capture of large lizards. Herpetological Review 28, 79.Google Scholar
& (1998). Sticky traps: an effective way to catch small terrestrial lizards. Herpetological Review 29, 94.Google Scholar
, & (1995). Two efficient techniques for catching skinks. Herpetological Review 26, 137.Google Scholar
(1996). A capture technique for small, smooth-scaled lizards. Herpetological Review 27, 12–13.Google Scholar
(1998). An easy capture method for brown tree snakes (Boiga irregularis). The Snake 28, 101–102.Google Scholar
Fitch, H. S. (1987). Collecting and life-history techniques. In Snakes: Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, ed. , & , New York, Macmillan, pp. 143–164.Google Scholar
, , & (1989). Influence of pitfall and drift fence design on capture rates of small vertebrates in semi-arid habitats of Western Australia. Australian Wildlife Research 16, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2001). Utilizzo di trappole del tipo “bagno di sole artificiale” per la cattura di testuggini palustri. Pianura 13, 153–155Google Scholar
(1989). Comparative ecology of sympatric scincid lizards (Ctenotus) in spinifex grasslands of central Australia. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Sydney.Google Scholar
(1991). Population dynamics, demography and life history of sympatric scincid lizards (Ctenotus) in central Australia. Herpetologica 47, 194–210.Google Scholar
(1994). Test for detrimental effects of PIT tags in neonatal snakes. Copeia, 226–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2001). Comparison of two methods to sample snake communities in early successional habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29, 153–157.Google Scholar
(1989). A simple method for capturing large Nile crocodiles. African Journal of Ecology 27, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1960). A simple and inexpensive device for trapping freshwater turtles. Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Science 37, 63–66.Google Scholar
, , & (1988). Relative efficiency of different pit-trap systems for sampling reptiles in spinifex grasslands. Australian Wildlife Research 15, 571–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (1999). Problem Snake Management; the Habu and the Brown Treesnake. Ithaca, New York, Comstock Publishing Associates.Google Scholar
, & (1993). Two new simple methods for catching small fast lizards. Herpetological Review 24, 22–23.Google Scholar
(1996). A new device for capturing small and medium-sized lizards by hand: the lizard grabber. Herpetological Review 27, 130–131.Google Scholar
(1956). Uses of marking animals in ecological studies: marking amphibians and reptiles. Ecology 37, 670–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1995). Techniques for capturing arboreal lizards. Herpetological Review 26, 136–137.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 15
- Cited by