arenk EERBSE 4 BSEERARE RR 7 VOLUME 1 NUMBER 1 FALL 1996 &XMPHIBLAN VSTION CONSERVATION THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE WORLDWIDE PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILIAN DIVERSITY — Oe Amphibian Declines ln Rattlesnake Roundups ‘Herpetofauna in the Wildlif@lam Trade and Nature ! & i ‘ 2. , S ye + we : ‘ » a he'd Pg . - er, a : : = = hs ’ gm, € ‘ lg t { ° taal aE, caf 5 wie Te . 2 x 643 Florida 3 What is BLUE CHAMELEON VENTURES? Bill and Kathy Love operate the business based near Ft. Myers in southwest Florida. We specialize in providing quality photography for books, maga- zines, calendars, web sites, signs, slideshows, and all forms of commercial advertising. Our area of expertise is herpetology - reptiles and am- phibians, and also invertebrates. A huge stock of color slides is available. Or, we'll be glad to dis- cuss taking new shots of animals, displays, or other subjects needed to illustrate your next project. Please call if we can help you with any photo needs. Our slides have appeared in hundreds of publica- tions over the past 17 years. Bill’s photos appear in every issue of REPTILES magazine where he au- thors a monthly question and answer column. He is also a former partner of Glades Herp, Inc., a promi- nent and respected breeder and supplier of herpetofauna to zoos and collectors worldwide. Other Aspects We lead wildlife safaris to Madagascar, and also captive breed many of the most beautiful spe- cies of snakes and other herps. Please request further information on both of these other as- pects of our company. NATURE PHOTOGRAPHY Tens of 1000’s of superb color slides are available of reptiles, amphibians and arachnids - all aspects of their ecology, biol- ogy, habitat, and captive main- tenance and breeding. Query us with your needs for use in books, magazines, calenders, as teaching/lecture aids, etc. WORLD ECO-TOURS We offer guided adventure tours/photo safaris to some of the most unique and biologi- cally interesting places on Earth. Our specialty is the unparalleled mini continent of Madagascar. Contact us for the brochures detailing our up- coming “once-in-a-lifetime” trips overseas. HERPETOCULTURE For over a decade, we’ve con- centrated on selectively propa- gating the most beautiful and variable species in captivity. Our emphasis has been on de- fining and enhancing the color and pattern traits that hold the broadest appeal. Request our annual breeder list. A hungry Parson’s chameleon captures a grasshopper with its long adhesive tongue. wh x INE ssi BS Matjaz Rojc and Michael Francis photograph- ing a sleeping Leaftail Gecko on a recent tour. Captive - bred hypomelanistic Honduran Milk snake, a new inheritable trait that really glows! ERRATUM SHEET (AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE CONSERVATION VOL 1 NO. 1) To increase the accuracy of the journal and reduce the number of errors a new policy is now in place. This policy was not followed in the first issue due to time constraints. All authors will now receive galley proofs once their article has been edited and the layout completed. These proofs will be reviewed one last time by the author(s). All errors should be brought to the attention of the editor as soon as possible. The following journal corrections should be noted. 1) Page 3. Masthead. a) The premiere issue (Vol. 1 No. 1) are now $12 each. b) Back issues are $9 each (exception, Vol. 1 No. 1). 2) Page 10. In the Key Words section the word Viridi_ should be spelled Viridis. 3) Page 16. Under the photo caption the word Plethedon should be spelled Plethodon. 4) Page 20. The third sentence of the body of the article should read “Inbreeding depression may adversely affect small populations by unmasking recessive deleterious alleles and reducing heterozygosity.” 5) Pages 24-26. Column. a) The personal communication on page 25 (Groombridge 1994) was not attributed to Dr. Brian Groombridge of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), Cambridge, England. b) The WCMC database, referred to in the column, is in fact the CITES database of trade records. WCMC have developed and maintain it on behalf of the CITES Secretariat. c) By comparing export records and import records, and checking against known countries of origin, it is in fact possible to get some idea of the extent of misreporting. The up-dated information for this particular article was provided by Brian Groombridge on November 8, 1996. NOTE - The most up-to-date Writer’s Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation instructions can always be found at the Amphibian & Reptile Conservation website at: http://www.byu.edu/~arcon/ * } t 5 - - ihe RS ue 1h ea re ata AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE CONSERVATION THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE WORLDWIDE PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILIAN DIVERSITY Volume 1, No. 1, Fall 1996 FOUNDER Craig Hassapakis Editor and p Amphibian & Reptile Conservation ADVISORY BOARD Allison ( Center for Reproductio oological Park ian Institution Departm: Villanova L Joseph T. Collins Natural History Musewm University of Kansas Cari Gans rtment of Biology ty of Michigan Dep Uni Howard E. Lawler Executy ctor, Bio: Tucson, Arizona Roy W. McDiarmid National B: A Mittermeier reation International Washington, DC George B. Rabb Chairman, IUCN, Species Survival Commission President, Chicago Zoological Society Hobart M, Smith Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology University of Colorado EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr. Southeastern Biological Scie National Biological e Center rvice Lee A. Fitzgerald Department of Biology University of New Mexico Steven D. Garber Wildlife Biologist John F. Kennedy International Airport Julian C. Lee Department of Biology University of Miami Joseph C. Mitchell Department of Biology University of Richmond Henry R. Mushinaky Department of Biology University of South Florida Chri Center for Envi pher J. Razworthy ental Research and Conservation mbia University Nelson Jorge da Silva. Jr. Centro de Estudos ¢ Pesquisas Biologicas Universidade Catolica de Goias, Brazil Andrew T. Storfer Center far Ecology, E' ion and Behavior University of Kentucky Robert J. Wiese Assistant Director, Conservation and Science American Zoo and Aquarium Association CONTRIBUTORS Section Editor Amphibian Ecology & Conservation Jamie K. Reaser Center for Conservation Biology Stanford University Columnist Allen Salzbery New York Turtle & Tortoise Society Neic York, Neto York Zoo Liaison Frank L. Slavens Curator of Reptiles Woodland Park Zoological Gardens Editorial Assistants Guenevere Nelson-Melby David D, Adam. Art Directors Carin Young Samuel D, Ashley Amy Stout Computer Support David J. Owens Printed on recycled paper with soy based ink On the Cover A male Golden toad (Bufo periglenes) at the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve, Costa Rica. Sadly, there have been no confirmed sightings of Golden toads seen since May of 1989, when a single male was seen. No one knows why this species disappeared from its pristine forest sur- roundings, far from human activities. Golden toad photographs generously donated by Michael and Patricia Fogden, Natural His- tory Photographers, Kinbuck, Dunblane, Perthshire FK15 9JU, Scotland, UK. Tel/fax: +44 1786 822069. Contents Features 4 The Elucidation of Amphibian Declines Jamie K. Reaser 9 Rattlesnake Roundup in Kansas: A Brief History David L. Reber and Allison Smith Reber Scientific 15 Effects of Timber Harvesting Practices on Peaks of Otter Salamander (Plethodon hubrichti) Populations Joseph C. Mitchell, Jill. A. Wicknick, and Carl D. Anthony Departments 20 Commentary Population Biology and Herpetological Conservation: A Cautionary Note Andrew Storfer 24 Column Herpetofauna in the Wildlife Trade and Nature: On the Difficulty of Estimation Allen Salzberg 27 News and Notes 29 Writer’s Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation Editorial 28 Words from the Editor Craig Hassapakis Next Issue Conservation of South African’s Endemic Dwarf Chameleons Scope: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (ISSN 1083-4 wide preservation and management of amphibian and repti tended for a wide readership from the amateur to the professional and is therefore written with abstracts, explanatory text, full references, ample photographs, tables, figures, diagrams, and other illustrations to help elucidate the text. Foc phibian & Reptile Conservation concentrates on publishing timely information in the form of feature articles, reviews, short communications, columns, commentaries, book reviews, and news and notes. Frequency: Amphibian & Reptile Conser- vation is published quarterly in the spring, summer, fall, and winter. Publisher: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, 2255 North University Parkway No. 15, Provo, Utah 84604-7506 USA. Subseriptions: Annual subscription rate categories are individual subscription $18.00 (US) and institutional $36.00 including postage. All subscriptions outside the United States include $7.00 for shipping (individual $25 and institutional $43). Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is distributed to e country in the world (subscribers worldwide) and delivery is guaranteed. Contributions: Contributions to the journal 3 cepted. These resources are used to further the conservation efforts of reptiles and amphibians and the goals of the journal. Categories in- clude friends of ARC $40, supporting $50, contributing $100, patro } aining $500 and founder (includes lifetime sub- scription to Amphibian & Reptile Conservation) $1,000. All other contributors receive four issues of Amphibian & Reptile Conservation. Back Issues: Back issues are available from the publisher for $8 each. The premiere issue can be purchased for $10. Payment: All journal orders must be prepaid in US currency drawn on a US bank or with an international mone Communications: It is recommended that all correspondence be conducted via electronic mail (e-mail) whenever po other correspondence should be directed to Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, 2255 North University Parkway No. 15, Provo, Utah 84604 6 USA, B-mail; ARC@byu.edu. URL:http://www.byu.edu/~arcon/ Postmaster: Please send change of address to publisher (Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, & North University Parkway No. 15, Provo, Utah 84604-7506 US. weeks prior to moye. Copyright: © Amphibian & Reptile Conservation. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro- duced, stored in a retrie ‘stem or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Production; Manufactured and printed in the United States of America. X) is an international peer reviewed journal devoted to the world- Audience: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is in- m- ports, e ‘UspsO BloIIjeg pure [evyoI, © yystaAdon ‘uapsog eloieg pue jevyory Aq pozeuop Ajsnoraues oJ0Yg “VolY BISOD ‘}Se10q PNO[D eptoaaquow ‘Jood Surpeeaq vB ye (sauapbiiad ofng) speoz Uep[ory e[VUl OUTN *] eansig © Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (Fall 1996), 1(1): 4-9 Printed in the United States. All rights reserved The Elucidation of Amphibian Declines Are Amphibian Populations Disappearing? Jamie K. Reaser Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, Cali- fornia 94305-1901 Key Words Population declines, extinction, conservation, research, monitoring, amphibians Abstract Information regarding most am- phibian declines is anecdotal and _ natural fluctuations in amphib- ian population size are not un- common. However, biologists can no longer find amphibians in re- gions where they were once nu- merous, and have directly ob- served population declines and species extinction. Inventory and monitoring programs are being established worldwide in order to assess the status of amphibian populations and to attempt to identify causes of declines. Fac- tors that may be contributing to local amphibian declines include natural population fluctuations, natural succession and other changes in vegetation, introduced predators and competitors, patho- gens, excessive collecting, toxic compounds, and habitat destruc- tion. Climate disturbance, pollut- ants, and increases in UV-B ra- diation have been implicated in some well documented regional amphibian losses. These factors may decrease amphibian popula- tion size by causing mass mortal- ity, reducing the ability of indi- viduals to produce viable off- spring, and/or by inhibiting dis- persal of individuals. A loss of amphibians will have a significant Correspondence, tel: (415) 725-9915, fax: (415) 723-5920, e-mail: jkrtoad@ leland.Stanford.edu impact on the state of the environ- ment, as well as a decline in our cultural heritage and human well- being. Both biologists and con- cerned citizens have vital roles in amphibian conservation. A brief list of possible citizen actions to help protect amphibious life is pre- sented here. Amphibian populations world- wide seem to be declining. Even the causal observer can not find frogs, toads, and other amphib- ians as numerously as they once could. Within the few short de- cades of our lifetimes, a wide va- riety of amphibians seem to have been disappearing. Population declines and species extinction dot the pages of personal journals. Biologists now search harder than ever, asking “why” and hoping to find the answers so that future generations don’t have to be told what they are missing. Finding answers is no easier than finding frogs. There is ample evidence that humankind has greatly impacted the distribution and abundance of animal and plant species worldwide through extensive habitat alteration and degradation. Such observations can be made daily, and by non- biologists. What we need to know, however, is how specific land uses impact the population dynamics of amphibians, and at what spatial and temporal scales. We also need to know what the loss of amphib- ians means for the continued func- tioning of ecosystems. Ultimately, we need to know what the disap- pearance of amphibians signifies for human well-being. The paucity of data Unfortunately, information re- garding most amphibian declines is anecdotal. For several species, range reductions are well docu- mented, but local population de- clines are less evident. For most species, studies only provide frag- mentary pictures of populations on population trends. Research on amphibian ecol- ogy has historically lagged behind that of other vertebrate groups because amphibians are often dif- ficult to study and funding is harder to obtain. Those concerned about the loss of Neotropical mi- gratory birds can reference broad ranging, standardized datasets from numerous monitoring pro- grams. Several of these datasets span multiple decades; one was ini- tiated as early as 1900. However, long-term (decade or longer) moni- toring programs exist for only a few amphibian species and only at specific sites. Amphibian popula- tion dynamics can typically be de- scribed as “boom or bust;” natural 6 Jamie K. Reaser fluctuations may be the rule rath- er than the exception. Thus, only very long-term datasets are use- ful in validating suspected trends and elucidating the mechanisms of amphibian population declines. The first worldwide effort to assimilate data and hypothesize the causes and consequences of amphibian declines was held in Irvine, California in 1990 (Blau- stein and Wake 1990). Since this meeting, an international investi- gatory team, entitled the Declin- ing Amphibian Populations Task Force (DAPTF) of the Species Survival Commission (SSC), In- ternational Union for the Conser- vation of Nature (IUCN), has been formed and working groups have been designated to address poten- tial causes (e.g., toxins, UV-B ra- diation, pathogens) and geogra- phic regions. The findings of work- ing groups and individual scien- tists are published quarterly in the DAPTF newsletter, Froglog, making information readily avail- able. Conservation organizations, naturalist societies, and regional agencies have been successful in establishing local amphibian in- ventory and monitoring programs that often effectively utilize a mas- sive volunteer work force. County- and continent-wide initiatives, such as the North American Am- phibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP), are in various stages of design, testing, and implementa- tion. What we do know Amphibian populations can fluctu- ate greatly between years; varia- tions in moisture, predation, com- petition, disease, and catastrophic events may greatly influence popu- lation size. Populations may suffer great losses. Yet, if the same popu- lations experience “good years” that result in many surviving off- spring, the long-term population trend may be stable. Long-term stability may also be attained if amphibians from other locations recolonize sites where popula- tions have been annihilated. For example, Norman Weitzel and Howard Panik observed Pacific chorus frogs (Pseudacris regilla) in Nevada and found that in 80% of the years between 1975 and 1989 frogs produced offspring that became members of the next gen- eration. The population was anni- hilated from the breeding pond ten times by natural disturbances that included flash floods, stream dry- ups, and sudden increases in water temperature. Yet, after each local extinction event, this population was soon reestablished by coloniz- ing chorus frogs. Extremely long-term data- sets are required to distinguish be- tween natural population fluctua- tions and anthropogenically in- duced declines. Joseph Pechmann and his colleagues monitored populations of one species of frog and three species of aquatic- breeding salamanders in the southeastern U.S. for twelve con- secutive years. They found no evi- dence of drastic declines for any species, although the populations sizes did fluctuate. However, bi- ologists Michael Reed and An- drew Blaustein recently reana- lyzed Pechmann’s data as well as that from four other long-term studies using a statistical tool called power analysis. All these studies, analyzed by this method, indicated no declines. While the datasets from these studies were not extensive enough to reveal statistical evidence of a decline, the lack of decline in populations of these amphibians could not be supported. Thus, even with twelve years worth of scientifically rigor- ous data, the status of these am- phibian populations cannot be de- FEATURE (Scientific) finitively assessed. Amphibians cannot be found in many of the locations where they were once numerous. Yellow-leg- ged frogs, red-legged frogs, spot- ted frogs, leopard frogs, western toads, cricket frogs, and tiger sala- manders are a few of the North American amphibians dwindling in the number of sites of occur- rence and population size. The am- phibian queue for listing under the United States’ federal Endan- gered Species Act has become so long that species ruled as justified for protection are precluded from it for years by stacks of preceding paperwork. Herpetologists have wit- nessed the vanishing of amphibian populations, and even entire spe- cies. Biologists Stephen Corn and James Fogleman conducted an ex- ceptional study, documenting six populations of the leopard frog (Rana pipiens) in Colorado for the decade 1973-1982. In 1973 only a single population failed to repro- duce. For frogs this may not be un- usual, but by 1981 no leopard frogs could be found at any of the sites. The study ended with a total ab- sence of R. pipiens in the region. The golden toad (Bufo per- iglenes) of Costa Rica, so named because of the male’s bright or- ange color, never failed to show up for its annual spring breeding orgy (see Figure 1, page 4) from the early 1970s through 1987. Martha Crump and her colleagues counted 1500 individual adult golden toads in 1987, but noted that only 29 tad- poles metamorphosed and joined the population. From 1988 to 1990 these biologists located only 11 toads. Bufo periglenes has not been seen at the study site since. In Australia, just north of Brisbane, a bizarre little frog was discovered in 1973. The gastric brooding frog (Rheobatrachus silus), so named because it swal- FEATURE (Scientific) lowed and brooded its young in its stomach, was an immediate won- der to science and a potential boon for physiologists interested in find- ing cures for ulcers and possibly other gastric disorders in humans. A loss of worldwide significance, the frog has not been seen since 1979, leaving little clue as to what caused its extinction. Strangely enough, its natural habitat was found in seemingly pristine tropi- cal forest, far from routine human disturbance. Why are amphibians declining? Could the above mentioned frogs have succumbed to natural, local- ized climatic disturbances such as drought ... been the victims of op- portunistic pathogens ... suffered from a yet, undetected global at- mospheric phenomenon? Could the little known golden toad and gastric brooding frog merely be sitting it out underground, await- ing what they consider more fa- vorable conditions? It is difficult to generalize as to the causes of amphibian disap- pearances. Not every amphibian population, nor every species, is declining. And, those that are de- clining are doing so at varying rates and scales. Figuring out what is happening to amphibians and why is exasperatingly difficult and exhaustingly time consuming. Locally, factors that may be contributing to amphibian de- clines include natural population fluctuations, natural succession and other changes in vegetation, introduced predators and com- petitors, pathogens, excessive col- lecting, toxic compounds, and habi- tat destruction. Climate distur- bance, pollutants (particularly those associated with acid deposi- tion and pesticides), and increases The Elucidation of Amphibian Declines 7 in UV-B radiation have been im- plicated in some well documented regional amphibian losses (see re- views by Barinaga 1990; Wyman 1990; Blaustein and Wake 1990; Tyler 1991; Phillips 1994; Blau- stein and Wake 1995). Unfortunately, there may be a significant time lag between the negative influence of a factor on amphibians and evidence of a population decline. Prospecting for cause and effect relationships is, therefore, exceptionally difficult even in contemporary studies. Di- agnosis is further complicated be- cause factors can act in concert and their relationship is rarely ob- vious. For example, frogs have been observed to die of an infec- tion caused by a common, wide- spread microbe called Aeromonas hydrophilla that is not normally pathogenic. Any number of other factors may inhibit frogs’ immune systems, making them susceptible to infection. Three general hypotheses illustrate the mechanisms by which various factors can cause the extinction of amphibian popu- lations, and eventually species: 1) Mass Mortality hypothesis A factor or combination of factors influences amphibians in such a manner as to induce mortality of individuals, sometimes entire populations. Different factors may contribute to mortality at varying points in amphibian de- velopment. However, the decline of many populations is not merely a problem of producing viable off- spring. It is apparent that some factors are influencing adult sur- vivorship because many of the rapid declines are occurring in periods far shorter than the ani- mals’ life span. 2) Reduction of Fitness hypothesis One or more sublethal factor(s) reduces the ability of individual amphibians to produce viable off- spring (7.e., “fitness”). This eventu- ally leads to population declines and even population- and species- level extinction. Genetic variation, growth rate, size at maturity, lon- gevity, and physiological con- straints all influence the fitness of amphibians. Some amphibians have such specific conditions for breeding that even subtle environ- mental changes can result in the failure of a population to breed. 3) Failure to Rescue hypothesis The observed declines are prima- rily driven by the failure to rees- tablish populations following lo- cal extinction. Typically, when a local population goes extinct, the habitat is colonized by amphib- ians dispersing from nearby sources (this reestablishment is termed the “rescue effect”). Under this scenario, changes in the chemical or structural environ- ment prevent amphibians from dispersing widely. Several biological character- istics of amphibians are likely to impede recolonization following local extinction: (1) physiological limitations (particularly water re- quirements) make it difficult, even impossible, for amphibians to persist in or travel through suboptimal habitat; (2) amphib- ians tend to have small home ranges, many move only short dis- tances, and rarely “wander”; and (3) amphibians, especially the adults of many species are ex- tremely faithful to a specific loca- tion, or set of locations, and are un- likely to abandon sites even if they can no longer breed there. 8 Jamie K. Reaser The specific means (e.g., physiological processes) by which these general mechanisms operate are not well understood and are rarely investigated. In part, this is due to the fact that solving the puzzle requires the cooperation of experts across disciplines as di- verse as geology and genetics. Re- egretfully, most biologists are highly specialized and rarely trained or encouraged to work with col- leagues from other fields. When they have, however, pieces of the puzzle fall into place. For example, and interdisciplinary team in Or- egon led by Andrew Blaustein is now able to illustrate how strato- spheric ozone depletion may lead to amphibian population decline. It works like this: Ultraviolet-b radia- tion penetrates the Earth’s thin- ning, protective ozone shield and beams its way to earth where it comes in contact with amphibian eggs. The high-level and/or pro- longed exposure to radiation caus- es damage to eggs’ DNA (the ge- netic information template) mol- ecules, which in turn results in the death of cells and thus tadpoles do not develop. As adult frogs die and are not replaced by new genera- tions, the population declines and eventually goes extinct. Blaustein and the other investigators further learned that different amphibian species have varying amounts of photolase, an enzyme that can re- pair DNA damage. The declining Cascades frog is low in photolase, while the coexisting and successful Pacific chorus frog has good DNA repair capabilities; extra copies of photolase genes secure protection. The impact of amphibian declines A loss of amphibians will have a significant impact on the state of the environment. Amphibians are vital components of the world’s ecosystems. Amphibians comprise one-quarter of all vertebrate spe- cies on earth and sometimes con- stitute the highest percentage of vertebrate biomass in a given area. This measure may be posi- tively correlated with a species’ contribution to ecosystem func- tion; 7.é., it is one indication of the organisms’ importance to main- taining the system’s integrity. Am- phibians consume aquatic vegeta- tion, invertebrates and other ver- tebrates, and are eaten by numer- ous predators. Therefore, amphib- ians play multiple, vital roles in the food chain of ecosystems. Amphibians are apparently declining even in seemingly pris- tine, protected areas worldwide. Because of these trends, many biologists are pondering whether amphibian declines should be in- terpreted as a warning signal; that is to say that the disappear- ance of amphibians indicates that something is gravely amiss in the biosphere. Because amphibians have permeable gills, skin, and eggs; have diverse life histories; are widely distributed and occupy a variety of habitats, their popu- lation dynamics may qualify as reliable gauges of environmental health Gf only we can learn to in- terpret the signals). Frogs are totems of luck for numerous native culture; many hunting poisons, ceremonial hallu- cinogens, and medicinal drugs are amphibian products. Amphibians are chemical factories and the compounds they produce may hold cures to all sorts of ills, in- cluding AIDS and cancer. If you’ve had painkillers adminis- tered recently, you may have a frog or two to thank. For an excel- lent review of amphibian contribu- tions to medicine, see Grenard’s (1994) Medical Herpetology. FEATURE (Scientific) You can make a difference Approximately 5,000 amphibians have been described by science, with additional descriptions being cataloged at a rate of 1 to 2 per- cent a year. The rate of loss is immeasurable; we don’t know how many amphibians have come and gone without recognition. The amphibian decline “cri- ses” demands that the status of amphibian populations be rapidly assessed and that where declines are apparent, mechanisms be iden- tified, managed, and recovery pro- grams established. This is much more easily stated than accom- plished. There are far more am- phibians than biologists investigat- ing their declines. Funding is hard to come by, particularly for the long-term studies that are critical to understanding amphibian popu- lation dynamics. Also, time is not on the side of the amphibian popu- lation dynamics—human popula- tion and resource consumption continue to increase, rapidly changing the landscape that am- phibians have been evolving in for roughly 350 million years. Yes, there is hope. Amphib- ian populations have rebounded and sites have been recolonized following massive die-offs. Main- tenance and recovery of environ- mental quality, and the restora- tion of fragmented landscapes will enable amphibians to persist. As a citizen concerned about amphibians, your role in amphib- ian conservation is as critical as that of any highly trained biologist. The following is a very brief list of the many actions that you can take to help protect amphibians, and maintain their vital roles in the circle of life. e Become a volunteer assistant for a local amphibian monitoring pro- FEATURE (Scientific) gram or research project. Contact your regional wildlife agency for information on studies in your area. e Enlighten other people to the wonders and plight of amphibians by harnessing your enthusiasm and knowledge. Talk to children, the media, local officials, and the voting public. ¢ Support legislation that pro- motes healthy, intact ecosystems. ¢ Fight legislation that weakens control of pollution and land de- velopment. ¢ Encourage government agen- cies to fund long-term research projects on amphibians. ¢ Respect your wetlands by keep- ing them healthy. Do not pollute them with unnatural refuse such as litter and harmful chemicals (e.g., petroleum products and pes- ticides). * Organize routine cleanup pro- jects. ¢ Admire amphibians in the wild; don’t keep them as pets (animals kept for research, in legitimate conservation breeding projects, and as educational displays such as in zoological parks and aquari- ums are not considered pets and contribute to the conservation of species). By joining forces, biologists and con- cerned citizens around the world can become a very powerful lobby for the conservation of amphibians. And amphibians, inventoried and monitored by these people, may be a powerful gauge for ensuring the protection of all life. The Elucidation of Amphibian Declines 9 References Barinaga, M. 1990. Where have all the froggies gone? Science 24: 1033-1034. Blaustein, A.R. 1994. UV repair and resistance to solar UV-B in amphibian eggs: A link to population declines? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 91: 1791-1795. Blaustein, A.R. and Wake, D.B. 1990. Declining amphibian populations: A global phenomenon? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5: 7. Blaustein, A.R. and Wake, D.B. 1995. The puzzle of declining amphibian populations. Scientific American 272(4): 52-57. Corn, PS. and Fogleman, J.C. 1984. Ex- tinction of montane populations of the northern leopard from (Rana pipiens) in Colorado. Journal of Herpetology 18: 147-152. Crump, M.L., Hensley, FR., and Clark, K.L. 1992. Decline of the golden toad: Underground or extinct? Copeia 1992: 413-420. Grenard, S. 1994. Medical Herpetology. Reptile and Amphibian Magazine, Potts- ville, Pennsylvania. 139 pp. Pechmann, J.H.K. and Wilbur, H.M. 1994. Putting declining amphibian populations in perspective: Natural fluctuation and human impacts. Herpetologica 50: 65- 84. Pechmann, J.H.K., Scott, D.E., Sem- litsch, R.D., Caldwell, J.P, Vitt, L.J., and Gibbons, J.W. 1991. Declining am- phibian populations: The problem of sep- arating human impacts from natural fluctuations. Science 253: 892-895. Phillips, K. 1994. Tracking the Vanishing Amphibians. St. Martin’s Press, New York. 244 pp. Reed, J.M. and Blaustein, A.R. 1995. Assessment of “non-declining” amphibian populations using power analysis. Con- servation Biology. In Press. Tyler, M.J. 1991. Declining amphibian populations—a global phenomenon? An Australian perspective. Altyes 9: 43-50. Weitzel, N.H. and Panik, H.R. 1993. Long-term fluctuations of an isolated population of the Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla) in northwestern Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 53: 379-384. Wyman, R.L. 1990. What’s happening to the amphibians? Conservation Biology 4: 350-352. While the Bird Conservation Specialist for the Smithsonian Institution’s Mi- gratory Bird Center, Jamie K. Reaser coauthored her first book, Bring Back The Birds: What You Can Do To Save Threatened Species (Stackpole Press 1995). In 1993 Dr. Paul Ehrlich, pre- sented Jamie with the opportunity to pursue her interest in amphibians through formal investigation as his doctoral student at Stanford Univer- sity. Both Jamie and Dr. Paul Ehrlich are interested in what amphibian pop- ulation trends might indicate about the health status of the biosphere. One of Jamie’s greatest rewards of her work with amphibians is the oppor- tunity to mentor undergraduate stu- dents who are interested in amphibian ecology and conservation. An open in- vitation is extended to those interested to visit her at Stanford University. © Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (Fall 1996), 1(1): 10-14 Printed in the United States. All rights reserved Rattlesnake Roundup in Kansas: A Brief History David L. Reber’ and Alison Smith Reber? ‘Assistant Director, Natural Heritage Center, Inc., 25124 Linwood Road, Lawrence, Kansas 66044-7311, “Director, Natural Heritage Center, Inc. and Chair, Kansas Herpetological Society, Education and Conserva- tion Initiatives, 303 West 39th Street, Hays, Kansas 67601-1518 Key Words Rattlesnake roundups, commercialization, prairie rattlesnake, Kansas, conservation, legislation, poach- ing, Crotalus viridi Abstract Organized hunting (“roundups”) of rattlesnakes for commercial profit has occurred for 50 or more years in several states in the U.S. For along period, such roundups went unnoticed by wildlife agen- cies, biologists, and herpetologists. In recent years, there has been increasing concern that such in- tense and largely unregulated hunting could have an adverse effect on wild populations of rattlesnakes. There have been few conclusive studies on the topic. The first organized rattlesnake roundup to occur in Kansas was held in September of 1992 in the small town of Sharon Springs, and it is the intent of this paper to outline a series of events which occurred in the first, formative years of the roundup. Prior to the introduction of rattlesnake round- ups into Kansas, all native am- phibians and reptiles were pro- tected from commercial interests by state law. The first roundup had little economic benefit for the participants, as all carcasses were either given or thrown away. Be- fore the second roundup (held less than a year later) the organizers of the roundup succeeded in changing ‘Correspondence, tel/fax: (913) 843-2205 (must contact in advance before send- ing faxes), e-mail: reber@idir.net state wildlife laws to accommodate their economic interests. The ob- jections and recommendations of the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks (KDWP), conservation organizations, and professional biologists were essentially ignored so that a select few might profit from commercial use of rattle- snakes. It became clear that eco- nomic gain for the roundup pro- moters and vendors held a higher priority than sound wildlife man- agement. The legalized sale of rattlesnakes and their parts, in- cluding meat for human con- sumption, raised new concerns regarding meat inspection laws in Kansas. Shortly before the third roundup, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) informed the roundup organizers that their practice of selling uninspected meat was ille- gal. Nonetheless, the sponsors sold rattlesnake meat the following weekend. Clearly, the roundup or- ganizers intended to violate the law as long as there was money to be made. The roundup organizers were never prosecuted and no fines were levied. Although a rattle- snake roundup has taken hold and continues to prosper in Kansas, it is clear that without the efforts of biologists and concerned citizens the situation would be much worse. Many of the more mali- cious aspects of the roundup have been tempered as a direct result of the efforts of relatively few indi- viduals and organizations. Word travels fast in the Kansas Herpetological Society (KHS). All were astounded and appalled that the unthinkable was on the verge of occurring right here in our very own herpetologically enlightened state. It can’t happen here. Bad things, you know, always happen somewhere else. Yet there, in gi- ant black type on ugly electric yel- low paper, was the announcement: “Kansas’s First Ever Rattlesnake Roundup!” It was to be held in Sharon Springs, Kansas—spitting distance from Colorado—on La- bor Day Weekend 1992. We were all too familiar with the broad- ranging destructiveness of rattle- snake roundups in other states: the unregulated taking of wild ani- mals for commercial profit, the use of gasoline to flush snakes out of shelters, the neglect and abuse of captive animals, and the perpetu- ation of antisnake sentiment. This roundup was advertised as a fundraiser; a family oriented event with the added benefit of “control- ling overpopulation” of rattle- snakes which, sponsors claimed, FEATURE (Popular) cause immeasurable damage to humans and domestic animals in western Kansas. Hosting a rattlesnake round- up was not an idea that citizens of Sharon Springs conceived on their own. Members of the sponsoring organizations had friendly ties with James White, owner of the “Fangs and Rattlers Show” from Granbury, Texas. In fact, one wo- man from Sharon Springs served as a bridesmaid in White’s wed- ding—a wedding that took place in a snake pit. Sharon Springs was looking for a fund-raiser, and James White was looking for another gig. The snakes, they believed, were free for the taking. A rattlesnake roundup in Sharon Springs was the perfect solution. Herpetologists did not agree. At the time, Kansas law prohibited the sale of any wild reptile or amphibian, includ- ing prairie rattlesnakes, and limited possession to five ani- mals. The roundup sponsors did plan a few tricks to bypass these existing laws, such as giving away rattlesnake meat, provided that the re- cipient purchased a bun on which to eat it. Many herpe- tologists concerned about the rattlesnake roundups were confi- dent that the state’s wildlife agency would not stand for such attempts to circumvent the law. Several of these herpetologists sent token letters of concern to various individuals and agencies, and returned responses ranged from reassurance to hostility. Kan- sas Herpetological Society (KHS) representatives made several vain attempts to educate roundup sponsors and to shape the event into something less destructive. Nonetheless, the roundup com- menced as planned. An estimated 2000 people Rattlesnake Roundup in Kansas 11 attended the roundup; among them were KHS members Henry and Virginia Fitch and Travis Taggart, who had been contracted by the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks (KDWP) to collect data on the size and reproductive condi- tion of captured snakes. This data collection alone provided little in- formation about the effects of the roundup. Other KHS members in attendance to observe and report on the activities of the roundup included Dr. David Edds of Empo- on One of the sideshow type tricks shown at the “Fangs and Rattler” show. ria State University, Randall Reis- erer, and David Reber of the Uni- versity of Kansas. Several veter- ans of Oklahoma’s roundups were also in attendance, to help in the “snake pit” and to guide groups in search of prairie rattlesnakes. A total of 75 prairie rattlesnakes were turned in (Edds 1992), 18 of which were born at the roundup. All 75 were ultimately killed. The snake meat sales trick failed, and most of the meat was either given away or thrown away, as were all other snake parts. The roundup did earn a substantial amount of mon- ey, through assorted trinket ven- dors, snake products from other states, food service, and tickets to the “Fangs and Rattlers Show,” direct from Granbury, Texas. The “Fangs and Rattlers Show” was typical roundup entertainment, the announcer cajoling the crowd while the pit crew performed dare- devil tricks, most of which involved unnecessary rough treatment of the animals. Children were invited to pet loosely restrained rattle- snakes, and dangle inflated bal- loons into the pit in hopes of entic- ing a strike. Overall, a carnival- like atmosphere pervaded and, with current laws prohib- iting the sale of wild caught prairie rattlesnakes, the snakes themselves were not the central money maker. Those of us in attendance at the roundup remained confi- dent that the roundup organiz- ers would lose interest and move on to something less de- structive. The thought that ex- isting laws could be legislated moot never crossed our minds. Enter Sheila Frahm, Senate majority leader repre- senting the Sharon Springs area. Senator Frahm began her political career as a mem- ber of the Sharon Springs lo- cal school board. Unknown to us, Senator Frahm had also at- tended the first roundup, even helping to weigh the snakes. Then, during the 1993 legislative ses- sion, she introduced a bill (Senate Bill 137) that, if passed, would not only allow the sale of prairie rattle- snakes, but would raise the limit from 5 to 30, and remove all man- agement authority from the De- partment of Wildlife & Parks. Once again we thought: it can’t happen here. We all assumed that our enlightened legislature would never pass such an anticonserva- tion bill. Still, KHS and numerous herpetologists provided testi- mony against the bill, as did the DAVID L. REBER 12 David L. Reber and Alison Smith Reber Kansas Wildlife Federation, the Kansas Audubon Council, the To- peka Zoo, the Sedgwick County Zoological Society, the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club, and even the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks (KDWP). Appar- ently politics, not prudence, drove the issue, as the bill passed with little opposition. There was some success for conservationists; the final bill was altered to place regulation of the roundup back into the hands of KDWP. Before KDWP could enact regulations, a second roundup was held in the spring of 1993, less than one month after Senate Bill 137 became law. A springtime roundup was recommended by repre- sentatives of Oklahoma and Texas roundups. This, combined with the gener- ous bag limit allowed by the legislature, resulted in over 170 snakes being taken—more than double the number of the first roundup (Western Times 1993). Senator Frahm and her daughter Chrissy were in attendance and, in recognition of her “heroic” efforts, Frahm was presented with her very own snake bucket and tongs. Shortly after the second roundup, KDWP began the long process of developing regulations for commercial use of prairie rattlesnakes. Initially, KDWP asked Oklahoma officials for ad- vice on the issue, in spite of the fact that Oklahoma roundups tar- get a different (and much more prolific) species, the western dia- mondback. Roundup organizers lobbied KDWP, asking for no pos- session limit, a year-round season, and no restrictions on the open area. KHS (1993) president Dr. David Edds attended virtually ev- ery meeting of the Wildlife & Parks Commission, recommend- ing that KDWP reset the posses- sion limit at 5 snakes, limit the open area to only the counties surrounding Sharon Springs, and limit the open season to the round- up weekend. Many others ad- dressed the Commission as well, advocating moderation in light of the glaring lack of sound biologi- cal information. In spite of their testimony, each draft of the regu- lations proved more lenient. Fur- thermore, when herpetologists at- Another one of the sideshow type tricks shown at the “Fangs and Rattler” show. tended, the issue was often re- moved from the meeting agenda, as if the Commission were at- tempting to push regulations through without input from the sci- entific community. Again, politics drove the issue. It was decided by the KHS that their position statement must be reinforced using the avail- able scientific literature and pub- lished, for permanent record and to assist policymakers. Thus, a po- sition paper was written, totaling 11 pages and 48 references. The paper included recommendations for regulating the roundup—rec- ommendations aimed at pro- moting sportsmanship and a sus- tainable yield of Crotalus viridis. FEATURE (Popular) A copy of the paper was provided to each member of the Wildlife & Parks Commission, as well as to the Department Secretary, Theo- dore Ensley. At the final ruling in January of 1994, conservationists were extremely disappointed. The lenient draft regulations passed with few modifications. The only successes were lowering the pos- session limit from 30 to 20, limit- ing the open season to a 30 day period prior to the roundup, and limiting the open area to the west- ern third of the state (approxi- mately one half of the prai- rie rattlesnake’s range in Kansas). One major loop- hole remained: the spon- soring organizations were not subject to a possession limit. Thus, one person could conceivably catch their limit, sell their catch to the roundup sponsors, then head back for more, effectively circumventing the existing possession limit. KDWP defended the regulations as a compro- mise between interest groups. Clearly, arguments based on the biology of the prairie rattle- snake and sound wildlife manage- ment were not taken seriously. The bottom line was money, and a way to touch the bankbooks of the roundup sponsors was badly needed if their plans were to be altered. KHS discovered that the Kansas Department of Health and Environ- ment (KDHE) has strict regulations pertaining to the butchering and sale of meat. Essentially, both the butch- ering facility and the meat itself must be inspected and passed by KDHE before any meat can be sold. A letter was sent by KHS to KDHE immediately, along with an expla- nation of the past butchering pro- cess and an advertising flyer for the upcoming roundup. KDHE repre- DAVIDL REBER FEATURE (Popular) Rattlesnake Roundup in Kansas 13 a possibly fashioned into an item such as a hatband). sentatives contacted the roundup organizers, explained meat pro- cessing and sales laws, and in- formed them of the penalties for vio- lating those laws. The third roundup was held in May of 1994. The take totaled over 300 animals, again doubling the previous year’s take (Fitch 1994). KDWP’s research indicated most of these snakes had been stockpiled for extended periods, despite the open season having been only one month. Virtually ev- ery snake exhibited dermal rot- ting, lesions, abrasions, lacera- tions, or paralysis, and most were severely emaciated (Taggart 1994). Some were dead, presum- ably having been crushed under the accumulated mass of snakes in small containers. Owing to the poor condition and small size of the prairie rattlesnakes, and the tediousness of butchering small, tough-skinned snakes, the round- up sponsors purchased a number of western diamondback rattle- snakes to butcher and sell. The butchering facility, located in a livestock wash area at the local fairgrounds, had been cleaned up a bit (members of the audience were no longer invited to ceremo- niously behead snakes with a rusted hatchet, for example); however, they continued to ille- gally butcher and sell uninspected meat. The violations were re- ported to KDHE. In spite of prior warnings, the roundup sponsors pleaded ignorance and received only a letter of reprimand—no fine was levied. KDHE officials did state, however, that a second of- fense would be prosecuted. The Kansas Herpetological Society has always encouraged conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Kansas. Laws protect- ing wildlife from commercializa- tion had provided a strong foun- dation for these efforts, but the advent of the rattlesnake roundup Prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus) which was taken at a roundup in 1992 (it can be assumed that it was slaughtered— has weakened that foundation con- siderably. It will be an arduous task to regain what we once had, but it can be done. Efforts to date have resulted in many significant improvements, and have buffered many of the more negative as- pects of the roundup. Some of the more malicious aspects of the first roundup have been diminished or eliminated altogether. For ex- ample, at the first roundup the butcher shop offered spectators a chance to swing the hatchet. This was done ceremoniously, and was portrayed as insidious revenge on the rattlesnake. By the third roundup, the “ceremony” was gone, and the butchering was nothing more and nothing less than butchering. Direct negative effects on children have also been reduced slightly. At the first roundup, children were invited to participate (for a fee, of course) in the torment of rattlesnakes via “balloon fishing”. Children waved DAVID L REBER 14 David L. Reber and Alison Smith Reber inflated balloons over the heads of rattlesnakes while the pit atten- dant stomped at the snakes in an effort to elicit a strike. The “bal- loon fishing” activity has now been eliminated. Furthermore, the roundup sponsors no longer ad- vertise the event as a means of “controlling overpopulation” of rattlesnakes. Nor do they continu- ally deride the animals as the scourge of the prairie. Overall, these small improvements add up to an event that is much less per- nicious to young minds than it might have been. However, there have been some less-than-honest attempts to pacify the conserva- tion community. For the third roundup, the sponsors had desig- nated several areas totaling 88 square miles as “rattlesnake pre- serves” where hunting of rattle- snakes was not allowed. Further investigation revealed that these areas were nothing more than land for which the owners had de- nied permission to trespass. Thus, the roundup sponsors did not in fact designate “rattlesnake pre- serves,” but simply capitalized on inaccessible land as a public rela- tions gimmick. Some headway has been made with respect to regulating the roundup. Although a 20 snake limit is still far too high, and a 30 day season far too long, it is likely that, without the efforts of many herpetologists and conservation- ists, the sponsors would have been granted their request of no posses- sion limit and a 12 month season. In addition, the entire state of Kansas would likely have been opened to the roundup, despite the fact that prairie rattlesnakes only live in the western half. Having no limit on where rattlesnakes could be collected throughout the state could have placed other species, including the state-protected tim- ber rattlesnake, at risk. Much has been accomplished, yet there is still much to be done. Several changes have oc- curred since the third roundup. Senator Frahm is now Lieutenant Governor Frahm. Because she has lost her powerful position in the legislature, she has much less abil- ity to persuade other legislators, and less power also with the KDWP. In addition, she is now subject to more intense scrutiny than in the past, and thus she may be less apt to promote anticonser- vation measures. Also, there is some question about the location of the fourth roundup, as it is ru- mored it will move to the nearby town of Colby, Kansas, the home- town of Sheila Frahm. Whether these changes are good or bad is largely up to the conservation community, and how it acts con- cerning them. There are several trump cards yet to be played, but in the long run it is the grassroots effort that will keep the snakes in the grass—where they belong. References Edds, D. 1992. Observations on the 1992 Sharon Springs Rattlesnake Roundup. Kansas Herpetological Society News- letter, No. 90. Fitch, H.S. 1994. The Sharon Springs rattlesnake roundup. April 29-May 1, 1994. Unpublished report to Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks. 10 pages. Taggart, T. 1994. Letter to Robert F. Hartmann, Investigation and Inventory Supervisor, Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks. Kansas Herpetol- ogical Society Newsletter, No. 98. Western Times, The. 1993. Large Crowd Attend Rattlesnake Hunt. The Western Times, May 6, 1993. FEATURE (Popular) David L. Reber earned a BS in Systemat- ics and Ecology from the University of Kansas in 1991. He then pursued grad- uate work at the University of Kansas in the School of Education, and in 1995 received a Kansas Teaching Certificate for middle and secondary level science. During his graduate work, David was voted president-elect of the Kansas Herpe- tological Society (KHS), of which he had been a member since 1980. During his three years on the KHS executive council, he has focused the society’s efforts on conservation issues includ- ing, but not limited to, rattlesnake roundups. He now teaches at the Natwr- al Heritage Center, Inc., where he is also associate director, and at Raintree Ele- mentary School in Lawrence, Kansas. In 1985, he saw a photograph of a young field biologist with four bull- snakes in her lap; he later married her. Alison L. Reber earned a bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies from the University of Kansas in 1994. She has been an active member of KHS, is coauthor of the KHS Position Paper Regarding Rattlesnake Roundups, and has coordinated many efforts to reduce the impact of commercial taking of prat- rie rattlesnakes in Kansas. Alison has provided hundreds of children with hands-on natural history experiences, often emphasizing herpetology. In early 1995, she founded the Natural Heritage Center, Inc. (NHC), a nonprofit chil- dren’s science education center in Lawrence, Kansas, which she now di- rects. She also teaches at Raintree Montessori School in Lawrence. Alison is a firm believer in the power of edu- cation. Both authors hope that early, positive experiences with nature will help people make wiser decisions re- garding our natural resources. For further reading about rattle- snake roundups the authors suggest the Kansas Herpetological Society Position Paper Regarding Rattlesnake Round- ups, (Kansas Herpetological Society Newsletter, No. 96: 9-20, 1994), The Sweetwater Rattlesnake Roundup: A Case Study in Environmental Ethics, by Jack Weir (Conservation Biology, Vol- ume 6, Number 20), and Driving Out the Dread Serpent, by Ted Williams (Audubon, September 1990). ry © Amphibian & Reptile Conservation i Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (Fall 1996), 1(1): 15-19 Printed in the United States. All rights reserved Effects of Timber Harvesting Practices on Peaks Of Otter Salamander (Plethodon hubrichti) Populations Joseph C. Mitchell’, Jill A. Wicknick?, and Carl D. Anthony’ ‘Department of Biology, University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia 23173-0002, °>Department of Biol- ogy, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana 70504, *Department of Biology, Univer- sity of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana 70504 Abstract The Peaks of Otter salamander (Plethodon hubrichti) 7s endemic to a small portion of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia. Much of its range lies within a high timber producing area owned by the National Forest Service. Comparisons of salamander abundance on replicated transects in recent clearcuts, older clearcuts, recent shelterwood sites, and mature sites revealed no significant differences. However, recent clearcuts, supported consistently fewer salamanders than other sites. Salamanders in mature sites con- sumed significantly more soft-bodied prey than in other sites. Numbers of hard-bodied prey did not differ among sites. Timber harvesting practices do not eliminate this species but may diminish population size and diet quality. Key words Plethodon hubrichti, timber harvesting, populations, Peaks of Otter salamander, conservation, ecology, natural history, Virginia Introduction The entire range of the Peaks of Otter salamander (Plethodon hubrichti) is limited to an approximately 19 kilometers (km) long portion of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Bedford and Botetourt Counties, Vir- ginia (Highton 1986; Pague and Mitchell 1991). Its habitat is limited to elevations above 443 meters (m) in deciduous forest and densities are highest in ar- eas containing mature hardwoods. Logging impact on terrestrial salamanders has resulted in complete extirpation of local populations of other terrestrial plethodontids and in population fragmentation with probable genetic and demographic consequences (Ash 1988; Buhlmann, et al. 1988; Dodd 1989, 1991; Petranka, et al. 1993, 1994). If long-term conserva- tion of the Peaks of Otter salamander is to prevail it will require that populations not be severely im- pacted by timbering practices that lead to local ex- tinctions. Several kinds of timber operations (clearcuts, Correspondence, tel: (804) 740-7086, fax: (S04) 289-8233, e-mail: mitchell@urvax.urich.edu shelterwood cuts, group selection cuts) and poten- tial, defoliation by gypsy moths may affect the salamander’s forest floor habitat. Drying of leaf lit- ter and humus layers due to canopy removal (Pough, et al. 1987; Dodd 1991; Dupuis, et al. 1995) limits salamander movements and the ability to for- age. Jaeger (1990) and Jaeger and Barnard (1981) clearly show that Red-backed salamanders (Pleth- odon cinereus) foraged less and consumed fewer prey in dry periods than in wet periods. If the canopy ina logged site is eliminated and the forest floor becomes relatively drier (as compared to a forested site), then we would expect salamanders to be able to forage less often and obtain fewer prey. Lowered prey con- sumption may affect other aspects of their life his- tory. Assessments of the impact of timber harvest- ing practices on terrestrial salamanders such as the Peaks of Otter salamander are necessary for biolo- gists and resource managers interested in its con- servation and in the economic uses of the forest. In this preliminary report on a multiyear study, we address the following objectives: (1) To compare the size of P. hubrichti populations in sites that have received four different types of timber management, 16 Joseph C. Mitchell, et al. SCIENTIFIC Table 1. Average numbers (+/- one standard deviation and range) of Peaks of Otter salamanders in replicates of three types of timber management and mature forest stands in fall 1994 and spring 1995. Treatment No. Replicates Fall 1994 Recent clearcut 6 4.7 +/- 4.6 (0-12) Older clearcut 6 8.0 +/- 9.2 (0-25) Shelterwood 5 8.0 +/- 10.8 (1-27) Mature 6 8.8 +/- 5.0 (1-15) Overall 7.4 +/- 7.7 and (2) To elucidate prey use patterns of populations in the various treatments. Materials and Methods A total of 23 transects were established 16-18 June 1994 in the following treatment categories: recent (4-5 years) clear cuts (number (n) = 6), 12-18 year old clearcuts (n = 6), 2-4 year old shelterwood cuts (n = 5), and mature (>80 years old) hardwood sites (n = 6). There were too few separate shelterwood cuts in the area to obtain a sixth site. At each site, we established a 1 x 50 m tran- sect by flagging woody vegetation and by placing wire flagging in the ground at every 10 meters. Each tran- sect remained permanent from season to season, = coal FAS ** A topotype specimen of a Peaks of Otter salamander (Plethedon hubridhti). Bedford County, Virginia. Spring 1995 4.0 +/- 3.8 (0-8) 3.7 +/- 4.0 (0-9) 3.2 +/- 2.9 (0-7) 7.3 +/- 5.8 (3-17) 4.6 +/- 4.3 except for two that were vandalized during the win- ter of 1994-1995. These were reestablished in the exact locations of the original transects in spring 1995. All transects were separated from each other by a different type of stand, roads, or a distance >100 meters. Searches for Peaks of Otter salamanders were conducted in fall 1994 (12 September to 17 October) and spring 1995 (9 May to 3 June) at night during or just after rain when the forest floor was wet. Transects were selected in random order each night surveys that were conducted and each was walked slowly by 1-2 people using headlamps. All sala- manders during the spring sampling season were released at their capture locations within a few min- utes; in the fall sampling period they were released o , - WAYNE VAN DEVENDER SCIENTIFIC *. 5 . 5 =, y =e x 5 SH = =. ye yo ze q : oes = TSS ese Se = ss A Peaks of Otter S several days later (see below). During the fall sampling period, we obtained stomach contents by stomach flushing salamanders (Fraser 1976). Prey were preserved in alcohol in in- dividually labeled vials for later analysis. All sala- manders were released within 5 m of their original capture locations 2-4 days after collection. In the laboratory, we identified 96% of prey items to order and where possible, to family following Borrer, et al. (1989). Remaining prey were identified to phylum or class. Results Population sizes varied among stand types and be- tween the fall and spring seasons (Table 1). Numbers of salamanders ranged from 0 at a recent clearcut site to 27 at a shelterwood site. In the fall, the average number of salamanders in recent clearcuts was nearly half that in the other stand types. However, the wide variation in numbers of salamanders within stand types, especially for shelterwood cuts, resulted in no significant differences (ANOVA, F = 0.35, P = 0.792). The spring assessment yielded fewer sala- manders compared to the previous fall season (Table 1). The spring trend in numbers per stand type was similar to that for the fall sample except for the lower counts in the shelterwood and older clearcut sites. The average number of salamanders within mature stands was higher than those in clearcuts and shelterwood cuts (Table 1). However, the variation in numbers of salamanders in stand types did not differ significantly (ANOVA, F = 1.10, P = 0.372). We found 949 taxonomically identifiable prey items in the stomachs of 80 salamanders from 20 sites. Ants (Hymenoptera) and collembolans (Collembola) made up 54.6% of all individual prey items in salamander stomachs. Of these, ants com- prised 32.2% of the sample and collembolans 67.8%. Effects of Timber Harvesting Practices on Salamander Populations alamander (Plethodon hubrichti). Bedford County, Virginia. IT WAYNE VAN DEVEND! We compared the numbers of ants and collembolans separately among the four stand types with Kruskal-Wallis tests. There was no significant dif- ference in the numbers of ants (hard-bodied prey, Jaeger 1990) consumed among the four stand types (H = 2.102, df = 3, P = 0.552) (Figure 1a). In contrast, there was a significant difference among the num- bers of collembolans (soft-bodied prey, Jaeger 1990) consumed (H = 16.794, df =3, P < 0.001) (Figure 1b). Multiple comparison tests showed that salamanders from mature stands ate more collembolans than sala- manders from the old clearcuts (z = 2.68, P < 0.05) and the shelterwood cuts (z = 3.98, P < 0.05). Mean no. of ants per stomach recent shelterwood clearcut clearcut cut sy ey Nn ff OO Mean no. of collembolans per stomach o recent old mature shelterwood clearcut clearcut cut Figure 1. Average number of ants (a) and collembolans (b) per stomach in Peaks of Otter salamanders in four forest stand types. The distribution of the letters refers to statistical results (see text). 18 Joseph C. Mitchell, et al. Discussion Population sizes of terrestrial salamanders are vari- able and depend on a wide range of factors. These include soil depth, soil temperature, soil moisture, aspect, slope angle, underground shelter availabil- ity, nest site availability, number of surface cover sites for territories, prey quality and abundance, predator abundance, and presence of known competi- tors (Plethodon cinereus) (Buhlmann, et al. 1988; Dodd 1991; Wicknick 1995). Clearing of the canopy vegetation and the majority of understory trees, a common result from clearcutting, changes the physi- eal environmental characteristics (e.g., soil and log moisture) of the area (Heatwole 1962; Blymyer and McGinnes 1977; Dodd 1989, 1991; Dupuis, et al. 1995). Loss of individual salamanders occurs directly from logging operations that include road building, the use of skidders and other heavy equipment, and mechani- cal site preparation (Dodd 1991). Individuals not di- rectly impacted by the immediate logging operation are probably subjected to stresses associated with reduced or altered prey resources and changes in the physical characteristics of the soil/litter ecosystem. We would thus expect to find reduced numbers of Peaks of Otter salamanders in such areas. Shelterwood cuts allow a possible solution to the problems attached to clearcutting. Unfortu- nately, shelterwood operations that leave a small basal area (7.e., as few canopy trees) act identically to clearcuts and they produce similar effects on sala- manders. Our data show that the numbers of Peaks of Otter salamanders in shelterwood cuts ranged from one to 27, the largest range of variation in any of the stand types. The numbers of Peaks of Otter salamanders in shelterwood sites were, on average, 10-66% lower than in adjacent mature sites. The wide variation may be related to the number of standing trees remaining. Thus, different levels of shelterwood cuts may have dramatically different effects on Peaks of Otter salamanders because of the interaction between the amount of basal area re- maining and the quality of the habitat present be- fore and after the operation takes place. Population sizes in our study were, on aver- age, consistently higher in mature sites that had not been logged in 80 or more years when compared to recent and older clearcuts and shelterwood cuts. The high variation in number of salamanders within stand types complicates the interpretation of these data. The lack of statistical significance does not SCIENTIFIC mean that there are no detrimental effects caused by these logging practices. Such effects may not be detectable at the population level because of histori- cal factors (e.g., past logging history and habitat qual- ity), and differences in relative abundances due to slope angle and aspect. The size of the impacted area and its proximity to mature stands containing large populations may influence the length of time for P. hubrichti populations to achieve prelogging levels. The effects of logging may be more clearly elu- cidated by analysis of diet quality. The quantity of collembolans consumed by Peaks of Otter sala- manders was significantly higher in mature stands than in recent clearcuts and shelterwood cuts. Col- lembolans are soft-bodied prey (Jaeger 1990) which presumably pass through P. hubrichti digestive tracts quickly and with high assimilation efficiency, as do other soft-bodied prey such as termites in the congener P. cinereus (Gabor and Jaeger 1995). Dif- ferences in diet quality among stand types suggests that there may also be differences in salamander growth and reproduction. Mature sites, therefore, appear to offer a higher quality habitat to Peaks of Otter salamanders than timbered sites because they presumably have a more intact and functional soil/ litter ecosystem due to the types and quality of downed woody debris, canopy shelter that affects the thermal and moisture regime, and higher prey quality. Results from our forthcoming analyses of data on prey quality and availability in wet and dry years will provide a detailed assessment of differ- ential affects of stand types at the individual level. Conclusions The preliminary results of our study allow several tentative conclusions. Peaks of Otter salamander populations are not always completely eliminated from a site within their range by timber operations of clearcutting and shelterwood cutting. They are reduced 45-47% by clearcutting and 10-66% by shelterwood cutting, as compared to populations in adjacent mature sites. Salamanders in mature sites may obtain a higher quality diet than those in sites treated by some form of timber management. Peaks of Otter salamander populations remain at varying levels of risk from timber management depending on the type of harvesting practice used. Such prac- tices undoubtedly cause small scale geographic variation in growth, diet, reproduction, and popu- lation recruitment. SCIENTIFIC Acknowledgments We thank John Bellemore, Fred Huber, Larry Neuhs, and Glen Szarzinski for facilitating our research in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest. Paul Sattler and Gordon Wilson assisted in the field. For the analysis of stomach contents, we thank Darryl Felder for laboratory space and equipment and Caitlin Gabor and Sergio Nates for references. Ken Dodd provided a thorough review of the manuscript. This study is funded by grants from the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jill Wicknick and Carl Anthony were also supported, in part, by NSF grant #DEB-9314081 to Robert G. Jaeger. References Ash, A.N. 1988. Disappearance of salamanders from clearcut plots. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 104: 116-122. Blymyer, M.J. and McGinnes, B.S. 1977. Observations on possible detrimental effects of clearcutting on terrestrial amphibians. Bulletin of the Maryland Herpetological Society 13: 79-83. Borrer, D.J., Triplehorn, C.A., and Johnson, N.F. 1989. An Introduction to the Study of Insects, 6th edition. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 875 pp. Buhlmann, K.A., Pague, C.A., Mitchell, J.C., and Glasgow, R.B. 1988. Forestry operations and terrestrial salamanders: Techniques in a study of the Cow Knob salamander, Plethodon punctatus, pp. 38-44 in Szaro, R.C. et al. (editors). Manage- ment of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166. 458 pp. Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1989. Status of the Red Hills salamander is reassessed. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin 24: 10-11. Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1991. The status of the Red Hills salamander, Phaeognathus hubrichti, Alabama, USA, 1976-1988. Biological Conservation 55: 57-75. Dupuis, L.A., Smith, J.N.M., and Bunnell, F. 1995. Relation of terrestrial-breeding amphibian abundance to tree-stand age. Conservation Biology 9: 645-653. Fraser, D.F. 1976. Empirical evaluation of the hypothesis of food competition in salamanders of the genus Plethodon. Ecology 57: 458-471. Gabor, C.R. and Jaeger, R.G. 1995. Resource quality affects the agonistic behaviour of territorial salamanders. Animal Behaviour 49: 71-79. Heatwole, H. 1962. Environmental factors influencing local distribution and activity of the salamander, Plethodon cinereus. Ecology 43: 460-472. Effects of Timber Harvesting Practices on Salamander Populations 19 Highton, R. 1986. Plethodon hubrichti. Catalogue of Amer- ican Amphibians and Reptiles. 393.1-393.2. Jaeger, R.G. 1990. Territorial salamanders evaluate size and chitinous content of arthropod prey, pp. 111-126 in Hughes, R.N. (editor). Behavouwrial Mechanisms of Food Selection. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. 886 pp. Jaeger, R.G. and Barnard, D.E. 1981. Foraging tactics of a terrestrial salamander: Choice of diet in structurally simple environments. American Naturalist 117: 639-664. Pague, C.A. and Mitchell, J.C. 1991. Plethodon hubrichti Thurow, Peaks of Otter Salamander, pp. 436-437 in Terwilliger, K. (coordinator). Virginia’s Endangered Species. McDonald and Woodward Publication Co., Blacksburg, Virgina. 672 pp. Petranka, J.W., Brannon, M.P, Hopey, M.E., and Smith, C.K. 1994. Effects of timber harvesting on low elevation popula- tions of southern Appalachian salamanders. Forest Ecology and Management 67: 135-147. Petranka, J.W., Eldridge, M.E., and Haley, K.E. 1993. Effects of timber harvesting on southern Appalachian salamanders. Conservation Biology 7: 363-370. Pough, F.H., Smith, E.M., Rhodes, D.H., and Callazo, A. 1987. The abundance of salamanders in forest stands with different histories of disturbance. Forest Ecology and Management 20: 1-9. Wicknick, J.A. 1995. Interspecific competition and territoriality between a widespread species of salamander and a species with alimited range. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayatte, Lowisiana. 152 pp. Joseph C. Mitchell received his Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee in 1982. Presently, he is an Adjunct Professor in the School of Continuing Studies at the University of Richmond and self-employed. Dr. Mitchell has published over 100 papers and magazine articles, as well as two books. Dr. Mitchell was the past secretary for the Herpetologists’ League and is now the president-elect. Jill A. Wicknick received her Ph.D. from the University of Southwestern Louisiana in 1995. She also holds a postdoctoral degree from the same institution. Dr: Wicknick specializes in the behavioral ecology of salamanders. Dr: Wicknick has published in herpetological journals and the highly respected journals Animal Behavior and Ecology. Carl D. Anthony recewed his Ph.D. from the University of Southwestern Louisiana in 1995. Dr. Anthony is finish- ing his postdoctoral appointment at USWLA under Robert Jaeger and will serve as an Assistant Professor at John Carroll University starting Fall 1996. Carl specializes in salamander behavioral ecology and parasitology. Dr. An- thony has published in herpetological journals as well as the journal Ecology. ee © Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Printed in the United States. All rights reserved Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (Fall 1996), 1(1): 20-23 Population Biology and Herpetological Conservation: A Cautionary Note Andrew Storfer Center for Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, 101 TH. Morgan Hall, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0225 Abstract Common endangered species conservation management practices, such as translocations and captive breed- ing and release of individuals, tend to mix populations. This mixture is most often assumed to be benefi- cial because it increases effective population size and may also increase genetic variation. However, when populations are adapted to different local conditions, mixing populations can dilute local adaptation and could theoretically result in population declines. Resource managers should therefore be careful when the mixture of populations is considered, particularly in low dispersing species that are prone to local adap- tation, such as salamanders. Key Words Demographics, gene flow, conservation, populations, management, inbreeding depression, amphibian, rep- tile Major concerns for small population management There are two major concerns in the conservation of small populations: genetic and demographic fac- tors. The genetic factors are inbreeding depression and the loss of genetic variation through genetic drift. Inbreeding depression threatens and reduc- ing small populations with the possibility of unmask- ing recessive deleterious alleles and a reduction in heterozygosity. Each of these factors can, in turn, affect individual fecundity and consequently reduce population growth. When genetic variation is lost, a population may decline because of its potential in- ability to track environmental shifts (Frankel and Soulé 1981; Lande and Barrowclough 1987). Demo- graphic factors, such as the allee affect, where a population is so small that individuals have difficulty finding mates, can also severely affect small popu- JAMIE K. REASER COMMENTARY (Scientific) lations. These factors are becoming more widely recognized as tantamount to species extinction’s (Lande 1988; Schemske, et al. 1994). There is some debate about whether genetic or demographic factors should be the primary focus in the study and management of small populations. However, the conservation programs that deal spe- cifically with threatened or endangered populations are often solutions to both problems. These manage- ment schemes include: movement corridors between nature reserves, captive breeding and release of in- dividuals, and translocations of individuals between populations. All of these strategies tend to enhance gene flow, or the movement of individuals and the integration of their genes, among populations. The issue of Gene Flow All of these potential solutions, therefore, are based upon the assumption that gene flow is beneficial to managed populations. Population genetic theory in- dicates that gene flow can act as a “creative force” by maintaining genetic variation and increasing ef- fective population size and thus combating the nega- tive consequences of inbreeding depression and de- mographic stochasticity (Slatkin 1987). However, there has been little consideration of the potential detrimental effects that gene flow may have on popu- lations despite the theory and empirical data to sup- port such effects. For example, high levels of gene flow among populations with different environments (and consequently different selection regimes) can swamp local adaptation and drive populations to adapt to the average of local conditions (Wright 1951; Slatkin 1987); therefore, populations are not well adapted. Associated with this swamping of lo- cal adaptation can be a reduction in fitness, which is known as outbreeding depression (Templeton 1986). In the long-term, gene flow can also preclude sub- population differentiation and eventually prevent speciation by maintaining genetic contact (Mayr 1963, 1969). Along with many examples of the enhancement of gene flow resulting in the decline of managed popu- lations (see Greig 1979), there are also examples of gene flow acting as an evolutionary constraint for natural amphibian and reptile species. A well-known reptilian example is the Lake Erie water snake, Nerodia sipedon. Banded snakes were found to be more cryptic (and much more common) in the wooded areas of the mainland surrounding Lake Erie, and Correspondence, tel: (606) 323-5491, fax: (606) 257-1717, e-mail: Storf@ceeb.uky.edu A Cautionary Note on Herpetological Conservation 21 unbanded snakes were more common and cryptic in the open, rocky areas of the islands (Camin and Ehrlich 1958; King 1992). Varying degrees of band- ing have consistently been found in the juvenile is- land populations, despite its selective disadvantage (Camin and Ehrlich 1958; King 1987). Observations of snake dispersal and recent estimates of gene flow indicated that individuals were dispersing from the mainland to the islands (King 1987). Quantitative genetic analyses indicated that color pattern was largely genetically determined and that selection, in the absence of gene flow, was strong enough to elimi- nate the noneryptic (or banded) morph on the islands (King 1993a). King recently concluded that gene flow from the mainland population was overwhelming the effect of selection, which caused an observed decline in population fitness (King 1987, 1993a, 19930). One amphibian example comes from research on the stream-breeding salamander, Ambystoma barbowri. In some streams that are deep enough to support permanent pools, A. barbowri larvae face a major selection pressure that comes from predatory green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellis. In these streams the optimal larval strategy entails reduced activity level to remain inconspicuous and avoid predation (Sih, et al. 1988; Kats, et al. 1988). In other shallow streams, a key selection pressure is habitat ephemerality, where the optimal larval strategy entails increased activity level to feed rapidly in order to reach a large enough size to metamorphose before the stream dries up (Petranka and Sih 1987). Recent work has shown that gene flow is high enough between these two population types to swamp local adaptation (Storfer, wnpublished data). Additional data indicate that this gene flow has caused adaptation to the average of local conditions because a number of behavioral (7.e., refuge use, escape re- sponse) and life history assays (7.e., stage at hatching) associated with predator avoidance have been shown not to differ significantly between two populations (one with fish, the other ephemeral) connected by gene flow (Storfer, wnpublished data). Even so, isolated popula- tions do differ significantly in those traits associated with fish avoidance. Therefore, gene flow may be swamping local adaptation in some populations of A. barbown and making them potentially more suscep- tible to fish predation. Management implications Gene flow can play a major role in the management of threatened or endangered species. In particular, it is important for conservation biologists and re- source managers to gain a better understanding of gene flow as a constraining force. That is, there is 22 Andrew Storfer enough uncertainty about whether gene flow acts as a disrupter of local adaptation to warrant caution toward management plans that include the enhance- ment of interpopulation connection and gene flow. Gene flow can be a particularly important issue for amphibian species. For example, salamanders have typically low levels of gene flow, thus making popu- lations naturally subdivided (Larsen et al. 1984; Slatkin 1985). Enhancement of gene flow for conser- vation purposes may therefore not be warranted based upon the fact that natural historical associa- tions may not exist between the populations. It is therefore important to conduct more studies of gene flow in amphibian and reptile species, especially since techniques of measuring gene flow have be- come more and more accessible (see Slatkin 1985). Studies of gene flow provide insight into population structure and historical associations between popu- lations helping resource managers to avoid mixture of populations without high levels of gene flow, ex- hibited by many amphibians species in nature. It is essential to conduct ecological surveys of habitat types and major selection pressures that af- fect species which are management candidates, such as limiting resources (7.e., prey, space, nest sites, etc.), major predators, and intrinsic habitat differences (7.e., climatic differences). These brief surveys would not slow critical conservation decisions, yet they would provide extremely valuable information so that populations that are most ecologically alike could be those that are mixed (when such manage- ment may be warranted). Without such data, re- source managers cannot be sure that mixing popula- tions will not negatively affect the very populations that they are trying to save. References Camin, J. and Ehrlich, P 1958. Natural selection in water snakes, (Natria sipedon L.) on islands in Lake Erie. Evolution 12: 504-511. Frankel, O.H. and Soulé, M.E. 1981. Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. 327 pp. Greig, J.C. 1979. Principles of genetic conservation in relation to wildlife management in South Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Restoration 9: 57-78. Kats, L.B., Petrauka, J.W., and Sih, A. 1988. Antipredator responses and the persistence of amphibian larvae with fishes. Ecology 69: 1865-1870. King, R.B. 1993a. Color pattern variation in lake Erie water snakes: Prediction and measurement of natural selection. Evolution 47: 1819-1833. King, R.B. 1993b. Color pattern in lake Erie water snakes: Inheritance. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 1985-1990. COMMENTARY (Scientific) King, R.B. 1992. Lake Erie water snakes revisited: Morph and age specific variation in relative crypsis. Evolutionary Ecology 6: 115-124. King, R.B. 1987. Color pattern polymorphism in the lake Erie water snake, Nerodia sipedon insularium. Evolution 41: 241-255. Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological con- servation. Science 241: 1455-1460. Lande, R. and Barrowclough, G.F. 1987. Effective population size, genetic variation, and their use in population manage- ment, pp. 87-125 in Soulé, M.E. (editor). Viable Populations for Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, United Kingdom. 189 pp. Larsen, A., Wake, D.B., and Yanev, K.P. 1984. Measuring gene flow among populations having high levels of genetic fragmentation. Genetics 106: 293-308. Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 797 pp. Mayr, E. 1969. Principle of Systematic Zoology. McGraw- Hill, New York, New York. 428 pp. Petranka, J.W. and Sih, A. 1987. Habitat duration, length of the larval period and the evolution of a complex life cycle of an amphibian. Hvolution 41: 1347-1356. Schemske, D. et al. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75: 584- 606. Sih, A., Petranka, J.W., and Kats, L.B. 1988. The dynamics of prey refuge use: a model and tests with sunfish and salamander larvae. American Naturalist 132: 463-483. Slatkin, M. 1985. Gene flow in natural populations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16: 393-430. Slatkin, M. 1987. Gene flow and the geographic structure of natural populations. Science 236: 787-792. Templeton, A.R. 1986. Coadaptation and outbreeding depres- sion, pp. 105-116 in Soulé, M.E. (editor). Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 584 pp. Wright, S. 1951. The genetical structure of populations. Annals of Eugenics 15: 323-354. After a brief stint as a Fish and Wildlife Biologist for the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 1992, Andrew Storfer began work as a graduate student in the Center for Ecology, Evolution and Behavior at the University of Kentucky. Since that time, he has been studying the evolutionary effects of gene flow in a stream-dwelling salamander that is endemic to Kentucky. His research incorporates aspects of genetics, population ecology and behavior in an unusually integrative project. Andrew expects his Ph.D. in May of 1997. ee Volume 1 Number 1 fc 2 7) 1996 Enjoy a full year of o ; satis ee the CORSERUATION latest research, news, and much more. Find out what you can do to help. We i need your support. Nowis [a the time to make a —_ difference. Subscribe today to the only journal devoted entirely to herpetological conservation. a AMPHIBIANG REPTILE CON SERVATION HE I ven ONAL JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE WORLDWIDE PRESERVATION ID MANAGEMENT OF AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILIAN DIVERSITY I would like to support Amphibian & Reptile Conservation. Please ‘YES! send me a one year subscription (four quarterly issues) at the low rate of only US$18.00 (US$25.00 outside the US). Send this order form along with check or money order (made payable to: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation) to: Name ACESS (a Journal Subscription Department Address Amphibian & Reptile Conservation fe 2255 North University Parkway No. 15 aay, Provo, Utah 84604-7506 USA State/Province Please list topics that you would like to see in future issues. Other Zip/Postal Code comments are also welcome. Country Telephone Facsimile (FAX) E-Mail © Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (Fall 1996), 1(1): 24-26 Printed in the United States. All rights reserved Herpetofauna in the Wildlife Trade and Nature: On the Difficulty of Estimation Allen Salzberg New York Turtle and Tortoise Society, 163 Amsterdam Avenue, Suite 365, New York, New York 10023-5001 Key Words Population estimation, numbers, wildlife trade, reptiles, amphibians Abstract Due to the compleaity of animal populations both in the wild and the marketplace, it is difficult for scientists to estimate the actual numbers. Obstacles in the mar- ketplace include: illegal activities, inefficient estimation procedures, and understaffed monitoring agencies. Most experts agree that the existing numbers often times are estimated extremely low. All numbers should be used with cau- tion. Further research and tighter controls are called for. One of the first things we learn as children is the art of counting. As adults, counting large numbers is replaced by complicated estima- tion techniques. Large numbers of variables makes estimation diffi- cult. Nowhere is this more true than when trying to measure the trade in reptiles and amphibians and its impact on wild populations. Simply, the problem is that reliable numbers of how many animals are being sold, collected, or in the wild do not exist. At least, numbers which are precise. Take for example the seemingly simple act of esti- mating how many animals are sold in a given year. Any well run business has this statistic but is Correspondence, e-mail: Asalzberg@ aol.com reluctant to make it public un- less it is somehow mandated by law. This is especially true of some dealers and collectors of live animals who are afraid of a sudden surge in a certain species attracting the unwanted attention of their competi- tion, scientists, conserva- tionists or law enforce- ment officers (Enge 1994). So ruling out the pass- ing of new laws, for example, how does one find out how many reptiles and amphib- ians are sold within the United States? Currently the only numbers on pet herpetofauna in the U.S. that exist are guesses made by two recent pet industry sur- veys (American Pet Prod- ucts Manufacturers 1994, American Veterinary Medi- cal Association 1992). They estimate in the United States there are between one to four million reptiles and amphibians kept as pets. Not only is this number too broad to be usable, sur- veys failed to ask specific questions that would supply data which would be more useful. They asked pet owners if they owned a snake or a turtle. If they had asked, more specifically, what species owners had then sci- entists could better estimate how many amphibians and reptiles are caught and sold each year and their impact on wild populations. One would have better luck trying to find the numbers of herpetofauna being sold into and out of the United States. At least Greek tortoises from Jordan in their original shipping crates. The shipper of these turtles had a CITES permit for a specific number of animals. But as many CITES shipments do, this shipment had 43 more animals than allowed, so the excess animals were confiscated. Due to infrequent inspections most “padded” shipments go through, indicating that official CITES numbers do not reflect actual number traded. there exists established trade data bases; LEMIS, or The Law En- forcement Management Informa- tion System run by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and a count of CITES animals traded, put out © 1994 ANITA SALZBERG COLUMN (Popular) by England’s World Conser- vation Moni- toring Centre (WCMC). LEMIS shows that the USS. either im- ports or ex- ports up to ten million live or dead reptiles and amphib- ians per year. But even here there are prob- lems. LEMIS doesn’t include all species. The all mysterious category of non-CITES reptiles in- cludes hundreds of thousands of animals, of unknown species, each year. Entire families of lizards such as skinks, agamas and geckos are only listed by their common family name. And then certain rep- tiles, like Graptemys and Apalone are listed only by genus. (The situ- ation for these two genera im- proved last year with the addition of several species for both). This forced the wildlife officer entering the data to list numerous species and subspecies together, thus los- ing valuable data. Documents are most often wrong. The right thing would be to open each crate and count each animal, something which few Fish & Wildlife Inspec- tors have the time to do unless they are suspicious of some wrong- doing (Luiijf 1994). The WCMC collects the numbers submitted by CITES countries of just CITES listed animals which have been traded. Though the species listing is more exact, the problem here is that WCMC has no enforcement or checking ability. It’s purely an honor system. So a local CITES Baby sliders in a Florida dealer’s sho 6 million of these were shipped out of the US last year alone. Estimation Difficulties in the Wildlife Trade and Nature 25 i 3 officer who is allowing a lot of CITES animals out, and doesn’t want to attract attention, might just fudge his country’s numbers (Groombridge 1994). One common gap that both these databases share is that there is no record keeping of the animals’ ages (Anderson 1994). When it comes to reptiles, espe- cially turtles, this is very impor- tant information since collection of adults does more harm to a wild populations than of hatchlings (Congdon 1994). Counting is also a problem when keeping track of wild popu- lations. Examples exist of popula- tion studies which have proven in- accurate because they didn’t take into account the animal’s natural habits. This resulted in scientists looking for animals where they were least likely to find them (Gib- bons 1993). We also know that popula- tions often naturally increase or decrease tremendously, and only long-term population studies take that into account and more accu- rately measure a population’s trend (Gibbons 1993). p awaiting shipment. It is estimated that over Another problem is who does the col- lecting. My fa- vorite example of this is a sto- ry about Caret- tochelys inculp- ta. It originally was believed to be a very rare species. It turned out that the scientists who first dis- covered this animal were to- tally dependent on natives to collect their specimens. They asked the natives to bring back any turtle they caught when they would go upriver. The problem was that the natives like to eat Carettochelys and so gave the scientists only the bad tasting turtles (Pritchard 1993). Now does this mean that these numbers are useless? No. Even if the numbers are incom- plete they are useful. Most herpe- tologists believe the numbers are way too low, (Enge 1994) describ- ing live animal shipments that are smuggled through customs with invoices listing the boxes’ con- tents as light bulbs and so they are never seen by Wildlife officers (Luiijf 1993). And like the canary in the mines, LEMIS and WCMC data can act as a warning to trade ac- tivities, excessive or illegal. Large numbers, even of just liz- ards or softshells, suddenly being reported can indicate to conserva- tionists and scientists that further study or action is necessary. Recently, Togo and Ghana was reporting to WCMC an in- credible amount of reptiles being exported, more than those small © 1994 ALLEN SALZBERG Se 26 Allen Salzberg countries could possibly collect. This tipped off wildlife officials to investigate. They discovered that Togo and Ghana was laundering animals illegally collected from other countries (Ventura 1994). But still we have to figure out how best to estimate amphib- ians and reptiles, both collected and traded (these two numbers are usually different because ani- mals do die in transit, or are kept for personal use by the collector). The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service needs to be encouraged to im- prove LEMIS soit reflects the bio- logical and natural history of the animals being counted. Every shipment should be opened and counted. And any animal traded should be on that system. Herpe- tologists and conservationists need to conduct their own surveys of what is being sold in pet shops. As for counting amphibians oO ia int 5 x a z a 4 3g = A typical storage set up for small snakes at a Florida dealer. A common marketing technique of animal dealers is to under-list the amount of animals available in their mail order catalogs—by as much as 90 %. This creates the illusion of rarity and thus boosts demand for the animal. and reptiles in the wild, an excel- lent reference is Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphib- ians (Heyer et al. 1994). Though I look forward to an edition on rep- tiles, this book, with its detailed studies of different collection and recording techniques, should give anyone doing population studies on reptiles help on how to formu- late a useful, comparable, popula- tion study. Simply: You can’t save what you don’t know you have. References Anderson, Mary. 1994. Personal Com- munication. September. Independent Researcher, Roanoke, Virginia. American Pet Products Manufacturers Association. 1994. 1994 National Pet Owners Survey, pp. 180-197. American Pet Products Manufacturers Asso- ciation, Scarsdale, New York. American Veterinary Medical Asso- ciation. 1992. The Veterinary Service Market for Companion Animals, 1992, pp. 103-106. Center for Information Management, American Veterinary Med- ical Association, Scaumburg, Illinois. 120 pp. Bright, E. 1994. An analysis of U.S. Fish & Wildlife reptile and amphibian num- bers in their LEMIS system. Unpub- lished manuscript. Conant, R. and Collins, J.T. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphib- ians Eastern/Central North America. 3rd Edition. Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 450 pp. Congdon, J.D., Dunham, A.E., and Van Loben Sels, R.C. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and demographics of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): Impli- cations for conservation and manage- ment on longlived organisms. Conser- vation Biology (2): 387-399. Enge, K.M. 1994. Herptile Use and Trade in Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission Nongame Wildlife COLUMN (Popular) Program Final Performance Report, Tallahasse, Florida. 102 pp. Gibbons, J.W. 1993. Measuring declines and natural variation in populations of turtles: spatial lessons from longterm studies. Presentation at Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles an International Conference. July, Purchase, New York. Groombridge, L. 1994. Personal Com- munications. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Heyer, W. R., Donnelly, M.A., MeDiar- mid, R.W., Hayek, L.C., and Fraser, M.S. 1994. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Luiijf, W. 1993. The role of CITES in controlling tortoise trade. Presentation at Conservation, Restoration, Management of Tortoises and Turtles and Interna- tional Conference. July, Purchase, New York. Pritchard, Dr. PRC.H. 1993. Personal Communications. Vice Preseident, Flor- ida Audubon Society, Casseberry, Florida. Ventura, J. 1994. Personal Communica- tion. Supervisory Wildlife Inspector, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Port of New York, John F. Kennedy Airport. Warwick, C. 1994. Personal Commun- ications. People’s Trust for Endangered Species, Surrey, England. Allen Salzberg’s interests in environ- mental issues began back in 1965 after he saw his first wild turtle. Mr: Salzberg has written numerous articles on the environment for magazines including Health, Outside, and The New York Times. Recently, he completed a report titled The Preliminary Report: Live Freshwater Turtle & Tortoise Trade in the United States for the US Humane Society and Humane Society Interna- tional. He is presently working on wp- dating and expanding that report to include all reptiles. With his wife, Anita Baskin Salzberg, he has cowritten a children’s book on turtles for “all those kids like me back in 65.” ee NEWS and NOTES ANNOUNCEMENTS New Organization: African Herpetofaunal Biodiversity Programme (AHBP) The AHBP is a new and developing programme designed to identify, assess, inventory, and monitor conservation areas in Africa and Madagascar. Since herpe- tofaunas’ remains much neglected with only the crocodilians and, to a degree, the chelonians receiving major attention rep- tiles and amphibians will be a major focus of the AHBP In order to proceed further, itis necessary to elect a coordinating com- mittee, find a home for the programme (at present, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa), and to prepare initiatives to secure start- up funding and project linkages. Help is also needed in setting up a permanent list server site to promote communication between collaborators, adding new mem- bers to the administrating committee, and assisting with other projects. All those in- terested or who can help are urged to con- tact Lynn Raw, PO Box 200, Merrivale, 3291, South Africa. Tel: +27-331- 460796, fax: +27-331-460895, e-mail: Raw @zoology.unp.ac.za. Presently, e-mail and a mailing list (AFRIHERP-L) are being used to aid communication between AHBP members. To subscribe to the mail- ing list send this e-mail message (subscribe AFRIHERP-L “Your name”) to: listproc@wemc.org.uk. To post mes- sages to the list send them to: Afriherp@wemce.org.uk. The list adminis- trator is Lynn Raw. The AHBP “Interim” Committee members are: Lynn Raw (South Africa), Chairman (coordinating facilitator); Ivan Ineich (France), Secre- tary; Craig Hassapakis (United States), Public Relations Officer; Preston Hardison (United States), Data Manage- ment Officer; Neil Burgess (Denmark), Mapping; Michael Lambert (United King- dom), Project Coordinator, and Martin Kundrat (Slovak Republic) Project Coor- dinator. Dr. lan R. Swingland named Professor of Conservation Biology Dr. Ian R. Swingland has been named Professor and Chair of Conservation Bi- ology at the Durrell Institute of Conser- vation and Ecology (DICE), University of Kent, Canterbury, England. Following many years of field work on Aldabra gi- ant tortoises, Dr. Swingland was also the Director of the First World Congress of Herpetology, held in Canterbury in 1989, instrumental in the formation of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist group, and has worked for the past six years on the development of DICE. DICE now has an international program of postgraduate training in con- servation biology, drawing students from around the world for a unique Masters of Science (M.Sc.) degree in Conservation Biology. MEETINGS Third World Congress of Herpetology, 2-10 August, 1997 For more information contact: c/o Czech Medical Association, J.E. Purkyne, Con- gress Department, PO Box 88, Sokolska 31, 120 26, Praha 2, Czech Republic. Tel: (++42-2) 296889 (or) (+ +42-2) 249151195, fax: (++42-2) 294610 (or) (++42-2) 24216836. The web site address is: http:// www.gli.cas.cz/herpet/ Conference to be Hosted in Vietnam: Conservation and Biodiversity of Amphibians and Reptiles of Tropical Rain Forests The proposed site for the conference is Hanoi, Vietnam, sometime in 1998. Those interested should contact one of the fol- lowing: Dr. Harold Heatwole, Department of Zoology, Box 7617, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695 USA. Tel: (919) 515-2741, fax: (919) 515-5327; Dr. Natalia Ananyeva, Depart- ment of Herpetology, Zoological Institute, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia. E-mail: any@zisp.spb.su; Dr. Cao Van Sung, Insti- tute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Nghia Do, Tu Liem, Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel: 361 440, fax: (844) 361 196, e-mail: sung@iebr.ac.vn CALL FOR INFORMATION Live Reptile and Amphibian Trade Database Information for a database for analysis is being gathered on the trade in live rep- tiles and amphibians. The purpose of the database is to monitor the live trade and issue occasional reports and suggestions 27 on how to improve the trade, making it more humane and environmentally sound (one recent use was to get the North American box turtle listed as an CITES II species). Notes of anecdotes, stories of people handling herpetofauna for the live animal trade would be use- ful additions to the database. These in- clude copies of articles or papers on the trade’s effect on wild populations, sto- ries of arrests, or visits to turtle farms. Include other topics which are relevant, whether favorable for the trade or not. Farming of amphibians and reptiles and sustainable harvesting stories are also appreciated, as well as suggestions of how to improve the trade. Send infor- mation to: Allen Salzberg, 6787 Booth Street 5B, Forest Hills, New York 11375. Tel/fax: (718) 275-3307, e-mail: Asalzberg@aol.com BOOKS RECEIVED Murphy, J.B., Adler, K., and Collins, J.T. (editors). 1994. Captive Management and Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca, New York. 408 pp. Musgrave, R.S. and Mary A.S. 1993. State Wildlife Laws Handbook. Government Institutes, Inc., Rockville, Maryland. 840 pp. Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E., Sadlier, R., and Eggler, P 1993. The Action Plan for Australian Reptiles. Aus- tralian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra, ACT. 254 pp. Shine, R. 1991. Australian Snakes: A Natural History. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 223 pp. Roughgarden, J. 1995. Anolis Lizards of the Caribbean: Ecology, Evolution, and Plate Tectonics. Oxford Uni- versity Press, New York. 200 pp. Stebbins, R.C. and Cohen, N.W. 1995.A Natural History of Amphibians. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 316 pp. Hudson, R., Alberts, A., Ellis, S., and Byers, O. 1994. Con- servation Assessment and Management Plan for Iguanidae and Varanidae. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, Minnesota. IUDZG/CBSG (IUCN/SSC). 1993. The World Zoo Con- servation Strategy: The Role of the Zoos and Aquaria of the World in Global Conservation. Chicago Zoologi- cal Society, Brookfield, Illinois. 76 pp. Wiese, R.J. and Hutchins, M. 1994. Species Survival Plans: Strategies for Wildlife Conservation. Ameri- can Zoo and Aquarium Association, Wheeling, West Vir- ginia. 64 pp. Slavens, F. and Slavens, K. 1994. Reptiles and Amphib- ians in Captivity, Breeding-Longevity and Inventory, Current January 1, 1994. Slaveware, Seattle, Washing- ton. 532 pp. Hunter, Jr., M.L., Albright, J., and Arbuckle, J. (editors). 1992. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Maine. Maine Ag- ricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 838. 188 pp. 28 EDITORIAL LITERATURE Cree, A., et al. 1995. Reproduction of a rare New Zealand reptile, the tuatara Sphe- nodon punctatus, on rat-free and rat-inhabited islands. Conservation Biology 9(2): 373-383. Kiesecker, J.M. and Blaustein, A.R. 1995. Synergism between UV-B radiation and a pathogen magnifies amphibian embryo mortality in nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 92(24): 11049-11052. Durbin, J., Rajafetra, V, Reid, D., and Razandrizanakanirina, D. 1996. Local people and project Angonoka—conservation of the ploughshare tortoise in north-western Mada- gascar. Oryx 30(2): 113-120. Kaiser, H. 1994 The conservation status of Lesser Antillean frogs. Herpetological Natural History 2(2): 41-56, Daugherty, C.H., Patterson, G.B., and Hitehmough, R.A. 1994. Taxonomic and conser- vation review of New Zealand herpetofauna. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 21(4): 317-323. Brown, D. 1994. Transfer of Hamilton’s frog, Leiopelma hamiltoni, to a newly cre- ated habitat on Stephen’s Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 21(4): 425-430. Towns, D.R. 1994. The role of ecological restoration in the conservation of Whitaker’s skink (Cyclodina whitakeri), arare New Zealand lizard (Lacertilia: Scincidae). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 21(4): 457-471. Herpetological Conservation. This new publication is a book-length monograph se- ries on the conservation of amphibians and reptiles. HC is published approximately once per year and will concentrate on a single subject. For information contact Paul Stephen Corn, Editor, National Biological Service, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Insti- tute, 709 East Beckwith Avenue, PO Box 8089, Missoula, Montana USA. Tel: (406) 542- 4190, fax: (406) 543-2663, e-mail: Steve_Corn@nbs.gov. ce ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A great tribute must be given to the early support I received for the journal from sub- scribers, editors, advisors, and many others. Of great support were Jamie K. Reaser, David Galbraith, Andrew T. Holyeross, Bill Love, Kraig Adler, Ken Dodd, Russell Mittermeier, Michael Hutchins, Aaron Bauer, Allison Alberts, Jonathan Ballou, Joseph T. Collins, Carl Gans, Howard Lawler, Roy McDiarmid, George B. Rabb, Hobart Smith, Lee Fitzgerald, Steven Garber, Julian Lee, Joe Mitchell, Henry Mushinsky, Christo- pher Raxworthy, Nelson da Silva, Andrew Storfer, Robert Wiese, Frank Slavens, Michael and Patrica Fogden, Anders Rhodin, Karen Toepfer, Robert Hansen, John Baker, Eric Thiss, Lynn Raw, Martin Kundrat, Allen Salzberg, Dave Adams, Amy Stout, Sam Ashely, Dave Owens, Ian Straw, Bret Bottger, and early subscribers, too many to list here. Needed information and help have always been provided by the excellent staffs at the IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG), International Species Inventory System (ISIS), and World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). A special thanks is extended to Cornell University Press, Princeton University Press, and American Graphics for all their help. Helpful assistance was provided by Brigham Young University particularly the Zoology Department, Computer Services, the Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, the Harold B. Lee Library (HBLL), and the HBLL Interlibrary Loan Office. Individuals from Brigham Young University I would like to personally thank for there help and encouragement are Richard Tolman, Hal Black, Clayton White, Jack Sites, Dr. Shiozawa, Nathan Smith, Wilmer Tanner, Doug Cox, Ri- chard Jensen, Richard Soares, Roger Flick, John Higginbotham, and Stan Peters. Spe- cial thanks goes to Walter “Wally” Tordoff, III at California State University at Stanislaus for help when I was a young bubbling herpetologist. A tribute is given in honor to the late Michael Parks of Ceres High School, Ceres, California. His friendship, humor, and enthusiasm for education and the sciences will always be remembered. I would also like to acknowledge some friendships which have always been there when I needed them: Scott Pittel, Mark Adkison, Dave Pennock, Sally Midgley, Michael Jensen, M.D., Troy Rowan, David Owens, Richard Soares and Tony Marren. The idea to publish a journal and technical support was provided by Jay Vilhena. Without Jay I would not be publish- ing this journal. At a very critical time the project would have never been completed without the help, support, and friendship of Carin Young. Special thanks go to the fol- lowing individuals who have exhibited a special effort to myself individually and in this project: Jamie K. Reaser, Bob Wiese, Jay Vilhena, Troy Rowan, David Owens, Tony Marren, Richard Soares, and Carin Young. Last but not least I would like to acknowl- edge my parents Anthony and Frances Hassapakis and my two brothers Steve and Greg Hassapakis. Thank you all for your unfailing support and friendship. EDITORIAL Finally, I am proud to announce the first issue of Amphibian & Rep- tile Conservation!!! The work has been under construction now for over 1 1/2 years with many improvements and refinements being added. It is my hope that this publication will become a valuable tool for conservation and in educating people about the need to pre- serve our herptofauna heritage. It was my vision to publish a journal about amphibian and reptile con- servation that would appeal to as many people as possible while consist- ing of the best science available. In the past this would have meant pub- lishing a science journal with limited appeal in the private sector. I have always believed that both could be accomplished together, a readable science journal that the public could better understand and enjoy. I think Ihave accomplished this vision by creating a journal style with elements of a magazine (color photos and pleasing graphic design), scientific infor- mation (original data, scientific article format, and respected science au- thors), and a newsletter type section for all other useful information. The result will be a stronger more educated public who have more time, money, and enthusiasm to contribute to conservation; something that is often in short supply in the conservation community. The professional scientific conservation community is a limited resource and is often strained to its limits. Conservation is too important of an area to limit to these hard working individuals. There is power in numbers. By increasing our read- ership and their education we will have a greater impact toward helping others do something about the conservation efforts of amphibians and rep- tiles. Let’s not take a back seat to our commitment to educating ourselves and others about what is being done in the field of herpetological conser- vation. Make a commitment now to become a subscriber to ARC and con- tribute by writing articles, reporting your research finds, loaning your prized photographs, and telling others of this exciting new venue for con- servation. What better way is there than this to show your commitment and support for reptile and amphibian conservation? All of the good will and individual effort in the world will not make ARC asuccess without your help, support, and valuable feedback. What is being done in your part of the world to conserve its herpetofauna? Why not drop ARC a line and tell us. Now with computers and the Internet ARCis only an e-mail away! It is my hope that through Amphibian & Reptile Conservation we can all unite and make a big difference toward the conservation efforts of am- phibians and reptiles worldwide, as well as all life. With sincere hopes, Craig Hassapakis DEDICATION This journal is dedicated in honor of my grandparents, Alla Mae “Mona” and Lawton Lail “Grandad” Hendricks. Our rides through the countryside, their spe- cial friendship and unfailing support for all my projects will never be forgotten. Lawton Lail “Grandad” Alla Mae “Mona” Hendricks Hendricks (1911 - 1976) (1914- ) MT. HOOD, OREGON, USA (1941) AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE CONSERVATION THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE WORLDWIDE PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILIAN DIVERSITY Scope Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (ARC) is an international peer reviewed journal devoted to the worldwide preservation and management of amphibian and reptilian diversity. Goals The primary goals of Amphibian & Reptile Conservation are to: + Provide a forum for scientists and others to publish data pertinent to amphib- ian and reptile conservation. + Report on herpetological conservation efforts worldwide. + Assure the protection of all taxa of amphibians and reptiles, particularly those = - Seon, need ete on the’ ‘numbers of animals \ Gndividuals, populations, and species) in “captivity, the witdlife Aili he tS maatiee for S abiciion which inform, exe Feport new iscoyeries, offer: solutions, present new information, and summarize rese ch) mpiemaand areas of interest. Manuscripts may cover any aspect of amphibian an biology with an emphasis. on conservation. ARC is particularly interested in ma aeene dealing with topical re- views, zoo biology, population status (both in captivity and nature), rare, threatened, and endangered species, human exploitation, resource management, , geographic dis- tribution, herpetofaunal diversity, area checklists, exploration and discovery, allareas of conservation biology (from such topics as economics and politics to held biology and . techniques) and articles which relate animals to specific geographical locations and countries (¢.g., The Endangered Frogs of Costa Rica and The Lizard Fatigaigitlads> gascar with Particular Emphasis on Threatened Species). 3 { INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE ON EDITORIAL AND ADVISORY BOARDS Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is interested in attracting qualified individuals to participate on the editorial review or advisory boards. Please send Curriculum Vita, list of publications, and a list of other offices and/or positions held to the editor for consideration at 2255 North University Parkway No. 15, Provo, Utah 84604-7506 USA. WRITER'S GUIDELINES AND MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION General Information Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is intended for a wide readership from the ama- teur to the professional. The study of conservation addresses a tremendous variety of disciplines and occupations, experts in one area may not be knowledgeable in others. Contributors are therefore encouraged to present their subject matter in simple, lu- cid, and concise terms, appealing to amateur herpetologists, the general public, and sci- entists. Articles should include abstracts, explanatory text (especially statistical and mathematical methodologies), full references, ample photographs, tables, figures, dia- grams, and other illustrations to help elucidate the text, whenever possible. All contri- butions should be submitted to Amphibian & Reptile Conservation exclusively. If accepted, papers and all other contributions become copyright of Amphibian & Rep- tile Conservation. Full horizontal journal size measures 8 x 10.75 inches. Comments Comments are invited to ensure that Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is the best journal possible. Feedback is very important. We appreciate submission of comments, suggestions for improvements and/or corrections. Publication Categories All contributions should be designed to one of the following categories (see below Feature and Scientific Articles, Departments [Short Communications, Commentar- ies, Book Reviews, News and Notes - Brief Reports, Announcements, Meetings, Calls for Information, Books Received, Literature, and Forthcoming], Editorial, and Col- umn) for publication. However, new sections to the journal are encouraged. Proposals should be discussed with the editor directly. FEATURE AND SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES Feature and Scientific Articles and other submissions listed in the Departments sec- tion should follow the submission format listed below, unless otherwise stated. Fea- Writer’s Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation 29 ture articles maybe popular science articles and reviews. Scientific articles include sci- entific contributions which report new information based on original research and reviews summarizing areas of research. Please label contributions as Feature, Sci- entific, Review, Commentary, Popular or combination (7.e., Review [Popular]) in the upper left hand corner of the title page. All articles should also contain the following information and conform to the format below. Title Page The title page of the manuscript should consist of a single page and should include the complete title of the paper; the names of the authors and their affiliations, address (in- clude extra 4 digit zip code e.g., 94305-1901), fax and telephone numbers as well as e- mail addresses (when available. If no e-mail is available please indicate by stating “No e-mail available”); a short title (no more than 40 characters including spaces) to be used as arunning header on top of nontitled pages; and the name of the person to whom edi- torial correspondence, page proofs, and reprints requests should be sent. Please write the total word count of the article in the upper right hand corner. Abstract A brief abstract (generally not exceeding 5% of the length of the text), intelligible without reference to the main body of the text, should be provided to appear at the head of the paper. At least six key words and/or phrases (to be used for subject matter indexing) should appear on a separate line directly following the abstract. Table of Contents Provide a table of contents. Manuscripts Authors submitting manuscripts should send three paper copies, double-spaced, and on one side of standard letter-sized paper, 21.5 x 28 centimeters (8.5 x 11 inches). Manuscripts : should) peaubmitted i in electronic media and postal mailed along with the the “Internet” (on Internet Submissions). i satus of Amphibian & rele. Conservation for examples of style. For further as tance on the proper ‘style and formatof manuscripts (not described in these - guidelines), consult Scientific: Style and Format: Dhe CBE Manual for Authors, Edi- tors, and. Publishers (6th edition, 1994, Council of ‘Biology Editors, Inc., 11 South _-LaSalle, Suite’ 1400, ‘Chicago, ‘linols ss} Welk * Submissions — Es ___ Final versions sof all! submissions to the Foumnal Brent be on3.1/2 Siac computer disks or Iomega Zip disks suitable for IBM compatible computers. Please label all disks with _ the name of the Software (e.g., Microsoft Word 6.0). ASCII is preferred but MicroSoft Wor “Submission of electronicillustrations i is strongly encouraged, but not required (see Te lustrations, Bap All authors receive one copy of the journal free. ~~ “BE Internet Submissions i y The Internet provi¢ es.the, uickest method for subitting’ Simian PARC. es: ; pecially near deadlines. This i is also the preferred method ito communicate direetly with the editor, submit pr: oposals, and quickly? review. manuscripts for possible publication. Pictures can also be retrieved over the Internet as as rencoded files.) , These are then de- coded by the editor for reviewing, Detoder/encoder programs Ge WINCODE) can be downloaded to your computeras shareware (free of charge) via | the Internet. Please contact a computer consultant-or the. editor for specific details on-how'to s send and retrieve encoded internet messages: eg mnder, what conditions to make Sbgigrrange- ments. Text ’ Regular articles should not exceed 10 manuscript} pages. RéviewScan be up to 20 pages = in length and should include an introduction and conclusions: will be considered, however,’ and the editor should be contacted to discuss s possible. publication, for articles longer than the above standards. 3) Submission ions less fhan 4 pages > are categorized as aShort Communication. The News and ote setin should only include essential.in formation i in a succinet: fashion usually less,than nena Resiilts and information should be presented i in clear format using photographs. ustrations, and tables to enhance the text whenever possible. A statement of compliance with the guidelines for the use of animals in research, as published in Animal Behavior, Volume 43, 1992, must be provided in appropriate cases. For field research consult Pisani, G.R. et al. 1987. Guidelines for the Use of Live Amphibians and Reptiles in Field Re- search published by the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Nonstand- ard abbreviations should be kept to a minimum and defined in the text. Vernacular names can be used where appropriate, with the scientific name given in italics following the common name of the first mention of the species. All measurements should be spelled out on the first usage, with the abbreviation in parentheses, and the abbreviated form used thereafter. Use the metric system unless English measurements are clearly more appropriate (then give metric equivalents in parentheses). Indicate the approximate placement of figures, tables, photographs, and maps on the manuscript. Formatting such as bolding should be kept to a minimum and, if done, follow examples from the jour- nal. Double-space lines between sentences. USE ONLY ONE SPACE AFTER ALL PUNCTUATION MARKS SUCH AS PERIODS AND SEMICOLONS. DO NOT hyphenate on line breaks (e.g., DO NOT justify the margins). Footnotes should be avoided. Use italics for et al., i.e., ande.g. and scientific names of species. Use the word “herpetofauna” in place of “herps.” Careful attention should be paid to accents and dia- critical marks on foreign words. Add them by hand if not available on the typewriter or computer. ‘and Word Perfect/are also aceeptable formats to submit manuscripts. Authors __shétild:feeltree | to.suggest at least one referee qualified to judge the work objectively. \ ~ ortsJonger than'20 pages ~ + 30 Writer’s Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation References References should follow the Harvard system. When more than two authors are ref- erenced in the text et al. follows the name of the first author, for example (Mittermeier et al. 1996). Use initials for all names in the references except surnames leaving no spaces between letters. Italicize book and journal titles using the language and spelling of the original and give English translations, in square parentheses when needed. With hard to obtain papers listed in the references, include contact information for obtain- ing copies. List total page numbers for books at the end of the reference. For examples of the format used see below. Lande, R. and Barrowclough, G.H. 1987. Effective population size, genetic varia- tion, and their use in population management, pp. 87-125 in Soulé, M_E. (editor). Viable Populations for Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, United Kingdom. 189 pp. Mittermeier, R.A., Werner, T.B., and Lees, A. 1996. New Caledonia—a conser- vation imperative for an ancient land. Oryx 30(2): 104-112. Stebbins, R.C. and Cohen, N.W. 1995. A Natural History of Amphibians. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 316 pp. Acknowledgments Limit acknowledgments to individuals and organizations who contributed directly to researching and funding. Keep them as brief as is consistent with courtesy. Author Biography A brief biography of the author is included at the end of each article. Information pro- vided should be limited to titles, academic positions, employment, past and recent re- search projects, and details containing brief descriptions of the authors and the over- all research projects within which the published work has been carried out. This will provide readers with an outline of the structure and objectives of the research teams, or groups responsible for the work. Correspondence Designate a correspondence author to whom all communications concerning the paper should be directed. List the most up-to-date telephone and fax numbers along with an e-mail address. Promptly notify the editor if any of these numbers should change before publication. Illustrations Illustrations (line drawings, diagrams and other illustrations such as Photographs, Tables, and Figures—see below) should be submitted as both electronic versions and hard copy with author’s name and figure number attached. These works should be suitable for 50% reduction without loss of clarity. Exceptions are photographs where 90% reduction is acceptable. Submission of electronic illustrations are highly encour- aged, but are not an absolute requirement. Submit illustrations on computer disk as separate files from the text in EPS, WMF or DXF format or as quality hard copies. Always include a printed copy of all electronic illustrations along with descriptive cap- tions. It is suggested that individuals submitting electronic work contact the editor in advance for more detailed instructions and clarification of techniques. Disks will usu- ally not be returned. Photographs Halftone photographs (both color and black and white) should be submitted as 35 mm slides or larger (large format transparencies 7.e¢., 4 x 5 inches). If slides are not avail- able glossy prints should be selected of a large size if possible, e.g., 8 x 10 inches. Details about the photographs (place, time, date, and description) should accompany all pictures. A hard copy description of the photographs should be typed consecutively on separate sheets of paper and also sent to the editor on a computer disc. If identifiable human subjects are used in photographs a signed letter of consent must be included. Tables Tables must be typed double-spaced without vertical rules and should not duplicate any material in the text or illustrations. Tables should be tab delimited using such programs as Microsoft Notepad, Word, or Excel, and submitted in electronic media. Provide all tables with complete but brief headings. Type them on separate sheets of paper, num- ber them consecutively within the text, and include them on a computer disk. Figures Type figure legends double-spaced on consecutively numbered separate pages and include them on a computer disk. Proofs Proofs will be sent whenever possible but because of publishing deadlines this may not always be possible and/or necessary. After acceptance, papers may be edited to en- hance clarity, The senior author will be notified of significant changes in content or style. Page Charges Page charges of $35 per page will be assessed for publication costs for those who have grants or institutional support, $10 per page for others. This fee will be waived if a state- ment is signed indicating that neither there is no institutional support for publication and/or that $10 per page cannot be paid. Charges will be collected by the publisher. An author's inability to pay will in no way influence acceptance of the paper for publication. Offprints The publisher will supply the author with 25 free offprints. An offprint order form will be included with the page proofs and authors may order further offprints. For pricing, please contact the editor. DEPARTMENTS Not all sections of the Departments section will appear in each issue of Amphibian & Reptile Conservation and new sections will be added as warranted. Short Communications Papers shorter than four pages should be prepared as Short Communications. Commentaries Commentaries are explanatory or illustrative, systematic series of comments or opinions based on critical notes or observations. Book Reviews Book Reviews are critical evaluations on books. Publishers requesting that their book(s) be reviewed should contact the editor. Whenever possible two copies should be sent with a written request to review. Persons wanting to review books should contact the editor with a proposal. News and Notes News and Notes is the newsletter section of the journal. Submissions should be con- fined to timely news of interest to the herpetological conservation community. These contributions will be placed in one of the following subsections. Brief Reports Brief Reports should be fashioned after the “Briefly Section” in the Journal of the Fauna & Flora Preservation Society (London), Orya. Announcements Announcements are important timely reports of activities in the herpetological conservation community and should be reported here. Meetings Meetings includes references to upcoming conferences, symposiums, and workshops. Calls for Information Calls for Information is a service provided to researchers. It is intended to elicit contributions from others and to further the effort. Books Received Books Received is a listing of books received for review . It will include full bib- liographic data and (sometimes) brief comments. Literature Literature cites important works which directly (or indirectly) relate to the conservation of amphibians and reptiles. Recent literature is most often listed but other important literature such as classical works may be also included. Forthcoming Forthcoming brings attention to future articles solicited or in press in Amphib- ian & Reptile Conservation. EDITORIAL The editorial is a topical subject commentary which is usually written by the editor, On oceasion, guest editorials may be solicited. COLUMN Columns are assigned by the editor. Potential contributors should contact the editor for consideration. ADVERTISEMENT POLICIES Advertisements are subject to approval by the editor. The editor reserves the right to refuse any advertisement. Rates are available upon request from the editor. BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE All communications should be directed to: Craig Hassapakis, editor and publisher AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE CONSERVATION 2255 North University Parkway No. 15 Provo, Utah 84604-7506 USA E-mail: ARC@byu.edu A Natural History of Amphibians ROBERT C. STEBBINS AND NATHAN W. COHEN This is a book for all readers who want to learn about amphib- ians. It draws on many years of classroom teaching, laboratory experience, and field observation by the authors. Robert Stebbins and Nathan Cohen lead readers on a fascinating odyssey as they explore some of nature’s most interesting creatures, interspersing their own observations throughout the book. A Natural History of Amphibians can serve as a textbook for students and independent learners, as an overview of the field for professional scientists and land managers, and as an engaging introduction for general readers. Amphibian populations are being rapidly decimated around the globe, largely due to the encroach- ment of humans on amphibian habitats and from growing human-caused environmental pollution, discussed at length in the final chapter. The authors focus our attention on the “natural history” of amphibians worldwide and emphasize their interactions with their environments over time: where they live; how they reproduce; how they have been affected by evolutionary processes; what factors will deter- mine their destinies over time. Through the experienced eyes of the authors, we come to see and under- stand the place of amphibians in the natural world. Cloth: $29.95 ISBN 0-691-03281-5 eS, Lizard Ecology Historical and Experimental Perspectives EDITED BY LAURIE J. VITT AND ERIC R. PIANKA In this rich collection, leading lizard ecologists demonstrate the utility of the phylogenetic approach in understanding the evolution of morphology, physiology, behavior, and life histories. Lizards have been the subject of reciprocal transplant experiments and of manipulations of resource availability, habitat structure, population density, and entire sections of food webs. Such experiments are rapidly rebuilding ecological theories as they apply to all organisms. As a demonstration of state-of-the-art historical and experimental research and as a call for philosophical engagement, this volume will join its predecessors—Lizard Ecology: A Symposium and Lizard Ecology: Studies of a Model Organism—in directing ecological research for years to come. “The topics [in this volume] represent an impressive diversity of approaches, rang- ing from detailed life-history studies of single species and in-depth analyses of lizard commu- nities to broad-based comparisons of multiple traits across all groups of lizards. . . . [Lizard Ecology] not only provides a context in which to view these individual studies but opens a unique window on lizard ecology past, present, and future.”—Science Cloth: $39.50 ISBN 0-691-03649-7 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS AVAILABLE AT FINE BOOKSTORES OR DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLISHER: 800-777-4726 WORLD WIDE WEB SITE: HTTP: //AAUP.PUPRESS.PRINCETON.EDU/PUPRESS Amphibian & reptile conservation : the international journal devoted to the worldwide preservation and management of amphibian and reptilian diversit HERPETOLOGICAL ECOTOUR AN. MUS. NAT. HIST. LIBRARY Received on: @8-10-98 WN WITT IAM HH | HT Will Hl DATES? 8 - 21 December 1996 Are you a_herptile enthusiast® Have you ever dreamt of visiting Madagascars YES - then here is your chance to jein a herpetologist on an unforgettable holiday. UNUSUAL DESTINATIONS is of fering a_ special herpetological tour to Madagascar. With over 300 reptile species and nearly [70 frog species, Ooh is one of the best places in the world to visit for it’s her solder tailed kapidolo tortoises, giant hog-nosed snakes, blood-re > frogs, turquoise Parson’s chameleons the size of small cats, jex Ur 3 os edged with mantellas, flat- other bizarre reptiles bians await the avid frills, iridescent boas and man herpetologist on this island. For two weeks Marius Bu hilst exploring some of Madagascar’s prime herpeto _Perinet Nosy Mangabe and Ambanizana (Masoala_ Penins and lvaty near Toliaras Marius has } reptiles and amphibians. He is an avid herpetological photographer Featuring in the current edition of A Fieldguide To The Amphibians Of Madagascar (Glaw & Vences), on the recent cover of Herpefological f 27(2), June 1996 and also in a few books on South African reptiles and amphibians. traveled extensively on this UNUSUAL DESTINATIONS, have endless experience in tour operator responsible for the travel arrangements, s of organizing group tours - their leaders include renowned experts such as lan Sinclair and Hilary Bradt. A Malagasy guide, fluent in English and French, will accompany the group throughout the trip, ensuring a for I2 people is R8 404.-- (+/- US$ 2,155.--). Bookings 26 by which time a 10% deposit should be paid- Balance 1996. problem-free holiday. Price close by 30 September |9 is due by 3! October For further details and an expanded itinerary, please contact Marius Burger, Private Bag 1006, Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa, Tel? 27-46I-272I6, Fax’ 27-46l-27270, E-mails marius@kudureserueaceza or UNUSUAL DESTINATIONS, P.O. Box 1583, Vorna Valley, 1686, South Africa, Tel? 27-II-8054833 or 34, Fax’ 27-ll-8054835, E-mail: unusdest@global.co.za>