By Eli Estey

Have you ever felt like differences in the company you keep, or the lack thereof has had the ability to change things like your own social behaviors, or other aspects of your person? If so, you’re not alone! Through investigating Early social environment influences on the behaviour of a family-living lizard, Dr. Julia Riley was able to uncover a variety of ways in which changes to social environments had significant impacts on behavior and other characteristics of tree-crevice skinks (Egernia striolata).

We often dissociate ourselves from reptiles such as thetree-crevice skink, it’s true, but thanks to researchers such as Dr. Julia Riley, we’re realizing now more than ever that we may have much more in common with reptiles than we’ve previously thought.

So often people find it difficult to relate to the ecology of species and why they do the things they do. For some reason this seems to be particularly true with species such as the tree-crevice skink. In cases of larger mammals, we often see bold, distinct similarities to ourselves in the ways that the animals care for each other, defend one another, and even play when circumstances allow.

Lucky for these species, emotional connections are often formed thanks to our superficial similarities. Oftentimes, perhaps otherwise uninterested folks make these connections through watching videos of goofy, charismatic, and almost ‘human-like’ displays of behavior. These sorts of relatable traits allow us as humans to feel closer to these species and more apt to support their conservation efforts. When it comes to gaining public support for scientific research or conservation efforts, the presence or absence of these emotional connections can be a matter of life or death, quite literally.

I had the privilege of speaking firsthand with Dr. Julia Riley about her time studying tree-crevice skinks, the barriers surrounding the conservation of reptiles, and more. We talked about both the differences and the similarities between research and conservation of mammals versus reptiles, and why some people may have a hard time seeing through the scales of these species in order to find out just how in tune with their social environments they are.

Through her research with Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, Dr. Julia Riley was able to spend months in the field, observing and collecting gravid tree-crevice skinks for this study. Once the skinks were captured, Dr. Riley and her team reared the young in a variety of settings simulating isolation and social rearing. Similar to how our own social environments may result in different actions, relationships between social environment, dominance/subordinance, aggressiveness, sociality and even size and growth rate were found in tree-crevice skinks (Riley et al. 2017).

One finding of many that came as a result of this study was that skinks reared in isolation exhibited more social behavior, as well as more bold and aggressive tendencies than subordinate skinks which were socially reared (Riley et al. 2017). It is Findings like these that are exactly the type that the public can readily connect with. I’m sure we can all relate to a bit of crankiness coming out of a long stretch being stuck with a friend or family member, and certainly the feeling of longing for social accompaniment after a long period of isolation. Perhaps we aren’t exactly alike when it comes to reptiles and humans, but through studies such as this, perhaps folks can find a better understanding of what life may be like as a reptile, how we might be similar, and what we can do to further their conservation.

To learn more about the sociality of reptiles, tree-crevice skinks and more take a look at rileybiology.com!

Literature Cited

Riley, J. L., D. W. A. Noble, R. W. Byrne, and M. J. Whiting. 2017. Early social environment influences the behaviour of a family-living lizard. Royal Society Open Science 4:161082.

Dr Julia Riley. n.d. <https://www.rileybiology.com/>. Accessed 6 Mar 2020.

By Sarah Clarke

Bright colors may be eye-catching but keep your distance! These are warning colors. Dendrobates tinctorius, also known as the dyeing poison frog, lives across the Guiana Shield rainforests of South America and indicates its toxicity through its bright yellow ring that can either be a broken or joined pattern. These warning colors and toxic defenses deter predation, but these frogs are not home-free. The dyeing poison frog is still subject to predation by unexperienced or specialized predators – primarily bird and snake species. However, it has another defense strategy up its sleeve. When viewed from a distance, its bright colors act as camouflage.

So how does this seemingly contradictory concept work? Typically, warning colorations have symmetrical patterns that are uniform among individuals so that predators can more easily recognize and avoid eating these species. The dyeing poison frog strays from this norm by having asymmetric and variable yellow ring patterns which are more characteristic of concealment strategies.

Previous research has mostly speculated on the potential for camouflage in brightly colored species with few studies actually illustrating this. James B. Barnett began the task of tackling this concept by pursuing his PhD and observing such coloration in caterpillars and moths. However, his interest in amphibians ultimately led him to apply for a grant to study distance and color-based defense strategies in dyeing poison frogs. He and his colleagues tested detectability at different viewing distances via computational models of avian, snake, mammal, and human sight on images of dyeing poison frogs. Their results suggested that at close range these frogs are easily detectable but become more difficult to see as the viewing distance increases.

To test these results in a more realistic setting, they placed model frogs on different backgrounds in the French Guianan rainforest to observe how avian predators would react. The yellow and black frogs (normal coloration) were attacked significantly less on the natural and printed leaf litter backgrounds, indicating that dyed poison frog survival appears to be dependent on certain background characteristics of the rainforest floor. Even humans were tricked by the camouflage ability of these frogs! During the screen-based detection experiment, people took longer to find the real frogs than frogs with altered color patterns at the same distance. These findings suggest that dyeing poison frogs use a specific ratio and distribution of coloration that allows for camouflage at a distance.

Bottom Line: This study shows that dyeing poison frogs have two primary defense strategies that are dependent on distance. At a close range their bright colors are easily detectible and effective as warning signals. At a distance their bright, asymmetrical patterns act as camouflage by blending with their background. This allows for two highly effective defense strategies against predation – warning coloration and camouflage.

Who Cares: Evidence for distance-dependent camouflage in species with bright, warning colors is limited, making these findings particularly fascinating and novel. While these findings may not have any conservation implications, they do influence the way we think about the evolution of defense strategies and coloration. Many species with warning coloration rely purely on their toxicity or mimicry of other toxic species to avoid predation. However, the dyeing poison frog has interestingly evolved a second and surprising way to avoid predation, and it is a mystery why this species has done so. Sexual selection further complicates this puzzle as females choose which males to mate with based off desirable qualities.

What’s Next: As of right now it is still unknown how the role of movement, varying habitats, lighting, and distance affect the visual acuity of predators and the effectiveness of camouflage. Further research on distant-dependent coloration is sure to follow as Barnett says, “the extent that it actually works needs further study. If you go far enough away from anything it’s going to eventually blend into the background enough that you wouldn’t be able to see it.” The distance at which camouflage is effective and the threshold at which warning colors switch to camouflage has yet to be determined. “I would like to see to what extent [warning-colored] species are doing this,” Barnett says, “as some of the work I’ve been doing since suggest that a lot of species aren’t doing this.” Specifically, some other species of poison dart frogs do not have distance-dependent camouflage patterns, meaning there must be some underlying reason why the dyeing poison frog is different. Who knew a tiny frog could raise so many questions?

Citation: Barnett, J., Michalis, C., Scott-Samuel, N., & Cuthill, I. (2018). Distance-dependent defensive coloration in the poison frog Dendrobates tinctorius, Dendrobatidae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(25), 6416-6421.

By Emil Assing

When most people think of the word “pet”, we think about our family’s beloved dog, our aunt’s grumpy cat, and the occasional parrot or snake that our one weird friend keeps in a tank or cage. The average person probably does not associate the word “pet” with international crime, smuggling, and corruption. Just beyond the legal pet trade, however, exists a startling underworld of illegally obtained and illegally bred animals that are just waiting to be sold as “pets”.

Unfortunately, to some people, the rarer or more endangered a species of animal is, the more desirable it is to own as a pet. This is a phenomenon that has fueled illegal capture and smuggling of all types of animals from around the world. Today the illegal trade of animals is an ongoing and underrecognized issue. Illegal trade of endangered animals contributes greatly to population declines and undermines conservation efforts. Luckily for these animals, there are people who care about them and spend their time trying to put a stop to the illegal trade of animals.

Amongst those people, on the front lines of this fight, are researchers, like Jordi Janssen and his colleagues at the Monitor Conservation Research Society. The Monitor Conservation Research Society is an organization, founded by Dr. Chris Shepherd, that aims to use research as a tool for improving legislation and regulation of the illegal and unsustainable trade of species. They specifically wish to use their research to shed light on little-known species that are threatened by human activity.

Jordi Janssen is a researcher and PhD student, from the Netherlands, who specializes in the illegal trade of reptile species. Reptiles are sought after in the illegal market as pets, but also for the sale of reptile skins and for use in traditional medicine. He worked as a consultant for the organization TRAFFIC before joining Monitor and he has published many scientific articles that illuminate the impacts of illicit trade and exploitation of animal species by humans. According to Jordi, researching illegal trade can be exciting, but also extremely complex and frustrating.

“Even if it is obvious that certain animals are being smuggled or illegally traded, it’s quite often difficult to prove that.” – Jordi Janssen, Monitor Conservation Research Society Researcher

Due to the shrouded nature of illegal markets, it can often be very difficult to obtain accurate data on the species and numbers of animals that are being captured, smuggled, and sold. The people who are involved are unlikely to be willing to share their personal knowledge of the trade for fear of incrimination. This means that researchers like Jordi need to use a diverse range of research methods.

Part of this work involves using case studies and descriptive research to get the word out about issues like captive breeding, illegal trade, and legislation. Other times researchers are forced to spend their time browsing shady websites and infiltrating exotic pet markets, that are suspected of trading in threatened and endangered species, in order to find out what species are being offered and at what price. Field work can involve undercover investigations of pet shops and markets where research is not welcome and, depending on the species, this can be dangerous.

“Depending on where you go you get to see a lot of things that are not pleasant to see.” – Jordi Janssen

International trade in plant and animal species is regulated by the CITES convention. CITES stands for Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species. This is an international trade agreement between over 180 countries with the goal of preventing trade from threatening the survival of species.

CITES regulation works through three categories or appendices. Appendix I regulates species that are threatened with extinction and almost all trade in these species is completely banned. Most animal species are designated under Appendix II, which covers species that are not threatened, but commercial trade needs to be regulated so that these species do not become threatened in the future. Species designated under Appendix III are protected in at least one country and this country needs international assistance in order to control trade.

In the modern world, CITES regulation is extremely important for conservation, because there is so much money involved in the illegal trade of threatened species. Greedy people risk their freedom to find ways to smuggle and trade species despite this regulation. When these criminals find out that a particular species is scheduled for CITES regulation, especially complete banning of trade, they work even harder to capture and smuggle the species. They know it will become more valuable in the illegal market. One example of this is the case study of the Earless Monitor Lizard that Jordi Janssen researched in 2018.

Earless Monitor Lizards are a remarkably beautiful species of lizard that live on the Island of Borneo which is part of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei. They look like baby dragons and they are sometimes referred to by reptile collectors as “the Holy Grail of Herpetology”. Little is known about the conservation status of this species. It is not listed on the IUCN Red List due to the lack of data on their population size and geographical extent. According to Jordi, however, a group of researchers that are working to list the species have recently submitted an analysis of the Earless Monitor’s conservation status. Unfortunately, the IUCN listing process is very time consuming and, in the meantime, the Earless Monitor Lizard is being heavily sought after in illegal trade markets.

In the 2018 paper, Left hung out to dry: How inadequate international protection can fuel trade in endemic species – The case of the earless monitor, Jordi Janssen and his co-author Kanitha Krishnasamy of the Southeast Asia branch of TRAFFIC argue that, in situations like that of the Earless Monitor Lizard, where there is inadequate enforcement and international protection, species should be preemptively listed under Appendix III prior to Appendix I proposals. This would require trade permits to accompany individual animals that are being traded and allow the international community to aid in the enforcement of illegal trade.

Furthermore, this Appendix III listing would not provide as great of an incentive for illegal animal smugglers to capture the species in the wild, because unlike Appendix I, trade would not be completely banned. This concept is very important for the conservation of all species, not just animals but plants as well, that are traded illegally around the globe. Jordi and his colleagues at Monitor Conservation Research Society are working hard to communicate this recommendation to

the governments and stakeholders involved with deciding CITES legislation.

Jordi described the problem by saying that the trade of Earless Monitors was banned in the three range states, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei, however the species kept turning up in places like Europe, Japan, and the United States. These countries never issued trade permits for these animals, however, illegal reptile dealers covered themselves by claiming the animals were bred in captivity. In 2015, at the 28^th meeting of the CITES Animals Committee, the Malaysian Government proposed that the Earless Monitor Lizard be listed under CITES Appendix I despite a recommendation from the TRAFFIC organization to list them under Appendix III prior to that.

This proposal lead to an increased demand for the species in the illegal market and while the convention tried to decide how to proceed, the species increasingly began to surface in online trade. Due to the lack of CITES regulation, authorities who encountered the species outside of the range states had no legal grounds to seize the animals. The lizards were hidden amongst shipments of other reptiles and once they were outside the borders of their home country no one could protect them. Eventually the Earless Monitor Lizard was listed by CITES under Appendix II, but for the animals already sold into the illegal market, this was too little too late.

The Monitor Conservation Research Society’s Website is linked below, as well as the article on the Earless Monitor Case Study and Jordi Janssen’s twitter profile, where he shares herpetology articles, updates on illegal wildlife markets, and seizures of illegally traded animals.

https://www.mcrsociety.org

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989418303986

By Lauren Berkley

It’s spring time in Vermont. Bright green buds are sprouting and the snow is finally melting. Black bears are waking up, songbirds are returning from their wintering grounds, and spring peepers are filling the evenings with their songs. But some have not fared the winter so well. While they took shelter from the cold, a disease quietly infected snakes throughout the country. They are now emerging from their dens in poor condition, and many will not survive.

Since 2006, there have outbreaks of a severe skin infection in snakes known as Snake Fungal Disease (SFD). The disease causes lesions on infected individuals, often leading to secondary infections or death. SFD has already led to a decline in timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) populations in the northeastern U.S. I interviewed Dr. Jeffrey Lorch from the National Wildlife Health Center about his paper “Snake fungal disease: an emerging threat to wild snakes” to gain a better understanding of the disease.

Where It All Began

SFD is caused by a fungus called Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola, which has been present in the environment for over a century. So why is it affecting snakes now? Climate change may very well be the answer.

“This pathogen has been around for a long time,” Dr. Lorch said, “but changes in the environment can facilitate the disease becoming more common or more severe.”

The Real Problems

Unlike mammals, amphibians and reptiles are ectotherms, so they rely on the environment to regulate their temperature. As a result, they are more susceptible to climate change. For example, reptiles can’t have “fevers” to help them fight off disease like mammals can. They have to relocate themselves to warmer areas to accomplish a similar effect. “Climate change has led to cooler and wetter springs in the northeastern United States, which is not ideal for snakes trying to fight off SFD,” Dr. Lorch explained.

Snakes often develop SFD during hibernation, likely due to increased transmission from groups of snakes concentrated in overwintering areas. This can lead to snakes exhibiting “risky” behavior, such as leaving their dens too early in search of sunlight to induce a fever.

Snakes are also having a hard time finding the microclimates they need due to fire suppression, development, and habitat fragmentation. If you combine the effects of all these factors with the effects of disease, the future of snake populations may be quite bleak.

To make matters worse, it’s hard to pin-point what causes disease. As Dr. Lorch likes to say, “reptiles decompose while they’re still alive.” On an infected reptile, you will find many pathogens. It can be challenging to differentiate the primary pathogen (the pathogen that caused the disease) from the pathogens that came after infection.

To find the pathogen that causes SFD, Dr. Lorch and fellow researchers had to act like detectives at a murder mystery party, searching through the pathogens present on snakes for the true criminal. Eventually, they found that Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola is indeed the SFD-causing agent when red corn snakes (Pantherophis guttatus) infected with the fungus developed SFD.

No Hope for a Cure

Unfortunately, a cure is not practical, which is true for most wildlife diseases. “Once a pathogen is established, it is almost impossible to get rid of it,” said Dr. Lorch. Eradication requires that you capture and treat every single infected animal. This is not realistic for most species, but especially not for snakes which are typically elusive.

SFD can persist in the environment, so eradication would also require treating entire ecosystems. Dr. Lorch emphasized that “when it comes to fungal diseases, exposure doesn’t result in lifelong immunity.” If the underlying problem is not addressed, animals will just become re-infected. It is more worthwhile to protect suitable habitats,  combat climate change, and prevent diseases from becoming an issue to begin with.

So what?

If you don’t like snakes, or perhaps even fear them, you should know that snakes benefit humans more than you might think. Snakes prey on animals that destroy agricultural crops and transmit disease. Rattlesnakes in the northeastern U.S. may even impact the populations of rodents that serve as reservoirs of Lyme disease. Snakes are also an important food source for many species of vertebrates, such as hawks and owls.

The Bigger Picture

Disease is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity around the globe. “Other environmental threats,” said Dr. Lorch, “such as habitat loss and overhunting, happen relatively gradually. Disease can be difficult to predict, and cause damage rapidly.”

As we are all now keenly aware, this rings true for human diseases as well. The COVID-19 pandemic is a zoonotic disease, which is a disease that can jump between animals and humans. While reptiles are rarely vectors of

zoonotic diseases, other wildlife such as bats and rodents certainly are. It has perhaps never been more clear that we must take action against these threats.

Disease may be unpredictable, but that doesn’t mean there is nothing we can do. The key to combating it is education and prevention. “In secondary school, many of us learned about the destruction of the ozone and the Amazon rainforest, but how many of us learned about invasive species? How many of us learned about disease ecology?” said Dr. Lorch.

We need to create curriculums based on comprehensive environmental health. We  must instill the profound value of wildlife and ecosystem services in young people. As Jane Goodall once said, “There is not much point in doing this conservation work…if we are not at the same time devoting huge amounts of energy to raising young people to be better stewards than we have been.”

By Juniper Nardiello Smith

Imagine you are a 0.002-pound frog burrowed in the mud on the edge of a forested pond with the exact coloration of the dead leaves that litter the ground around you. Now imagine that you notice fewer and fewer of your fellow species members around you, your population is decreasing. Global warming is changing the composition of your habitat. Your skin is too hot. Invasive plant species are taking over the landscape and making it harder and harder to find food. Pesticides sprayed on crop fields make you sick. Loud machinery breaks your habitat into many pieces as roads wind through the once whole landscape and buildings scatter the land. You find yourself risking your life to cross these roads. These obstacles are sadly the reality that amphibians, such as the little frog you imagined, toads, and salamanders face every day as their natural habitats are altered by humans. These are also some of the primary factors that contribute to making amphibians one of the most critically threatened group of organisms on the planet. Their small size, cryptic coloration, and varied habitat use make it hard to notice and understand, without really searching, how these factors are affecting amphibians. Because of this, I am taking this time to advocate for these organisms that often go unnoticed by discussing an eye-opening study that hits close to home. Unfortunately, here in Vermont, where there are more cows than people and corn fields seem to stretch out towards the mountains as far as the eye can see, we might be posing a bigger threat to these little guys than we realize.

An Eye-Opening Study

          Farming, something deeply rooted in the history and culture of Vermont, has been found to facilitate in a decline of amphibian survival. An article titled “Pesticides in the Real World: The Consequences of GMO-Based Intensive Agriculture on Native Amphibians” published earlier this year outlines a study conducted in South America to test how different pesticides used in agriculture affect amphibian survival. The motivation behind this study was due to the fact that the use of pesticides on agricultural fields has been suggested as a top driver of the amphibian decline we are seeing globally. Because our population continues to grow, so does our food demand. This will likely make it so GMOs and agriculture will only intensify resulting in an increase in pesticide use. To test these impacts researchers studied 71 ponds adjacent to agricultural fields that were likely to contain pesticides. Four species were selected to observe based on the knowledge that they tend to have their breeding sites in ponds found in agricultural fields.

Within each pond, mesh enclosures, like the ones pictured above, were built to hold tadpoles found within that pond for observation. Farmers determined the combinations of pesticides used to spray on their individual fields to meet the requirements of their crops. The researchers surveyed the tadpoles three times to determine how well they could move and their survival, 24 hours before pesticides, 24 hours after pesticides, and 48 hours after pesticides (Agostini et al., 2020). I wish I could say the frogs that involuntarily found themselves in this experiment were alright, but that would be far from the truth. The results from this study bring up a conflict in Vermont involving the continued use of pesticides found to be harmful in this study.

The Conflict

          With the exception of one, all of the pesticides used in this study are currently still being used in Vermont. Fortunately, the one pesticide banned in Vermont, endosulfan, was found to be the most toxic to frogs in this study. However, combinations of other pesticides like chlorpyrifos and glyphosate reduced survival to 1.8% and combinations of cypermethrin and glyphosate reduced survival to 10.5% after 48 hours. Glyphosate, known commonly as Roundup, is highly used in Vermont to the point where its use has almost doubled in the past decade. Glyphosate did not significantly reduce survival on its own but was found, along with all the other pesticides, to have significant negative effects on mobility. The effects of these pesticides on survival were so extreme that mobility could not be measured after 48 hours in all of the ponds due to the low number of surviving tadpoles. Although Vermont is a very different place than South America and contains different amphibians, all of them share the unique trait of highly sensitive skin. We also share the use of many of the same pesticides all of which have the same chance of showering down on a cattle pond or washing away with the rain into a nearby body of water. Here in Vermont, the pesticides have the same ability to coat the skin of frogs, covering their habitat, their food, providing young frogs with pesticides for breakfast. Despite these similarities a study conducted in South America cannot provide us with the data we need to make a change here in Vermont. A study must be conducted on our own sweet-smelling manure covered fields.

Why Does this Matter?

          Before I can convince you that a study must be done in Vermont to gain a better understanding of the impacts of our pesticide use on frogs and other amphibians, it is important to understand why they matter and why they are worth conserving. Currently 41% of all amphibian species are experiencing threatening populations levels. To put this into context only 12% of birds and 24% of all mammals are threatened. Focusing on amphibian conservation is very crucial right now as these small animals are experiencing a rapid decrease in biodiversity. However, conserving amphibians isn’t just in the best interest of all the frogs, toads, and salamanders out there. There is also some incentive for us to conserve amphibians because they provide us with several services. Most notable is their role as bioindicators. A term that they acquired because their sensitive skin makes them more susceptible to diseases, indicating to scientists’ locations that contain negative environmental factors. Amphibians also pose an important role in their food chain as they are food to larger prey and they eat many insects. These feeding habits maintain mosquito populations helping to reduce the spread of illnesses like malaria and regulate the populations of crop destroying insects. Amphibians in their aquatic stage also feed on algae which helps to keep our waters clear and clean. Among other services being studied, amphibians have the potential to help combat climate change and treat diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer through the particular chemical compositions found on their skin (Rosenberg, 2019). If we don’t begin advocating for amphibians, we may miss out on our chance to help them and in turn never know how much they really could have helped us. As much as amphibians need us right now, we need them.

Moving Forward

          If you’ve fallowed me this far it should be apparent that amphibians are in need of a fair amount of TLC. In a state where we heavily participate in an activity that is known to be a top driver of amphibian decline, reducing our impacts on such threatened species should be a top priority. The results from the study done in South America are disturbing and have pushed me to advocate for a study to be conducted in Vermont to test how our state’s top used pesticides are interfering with amphibian survival in our ponds and waterways. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to evaluate environmental risks such as risks to wildlife and threatened species when reviewing pesticides (US EPA, 2013). However, these risks cannot be assessed if data has not been collected on them. The issue of rapid amphibian decline, and the impacts of increasing pesticide use as a growing population demands more food is an issue that can’t change unless awareness, advocacy, and action are brought to the table. These 0.002 pound, borderline invisible, amphibians desperately need a voice to stick up for them. We all have the power to be this voice.

Literature Cited

Agostini, M. G., Roesler, I., Bonetto, C., Ronco, A. E., & Bilenca, D. (2020). Pesticides in the real world: The consequences of GMO-based intensive agriculture on native amphibians. Biological Conservation, 241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108355

Rosenberg, C. (2019). Why the loss of amphibians matters. MNN. https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/why-loss-amphibians-matters

US EPA. (2013). About Pesticide Registration [Overviews and Factsheets]. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/about-pesticide-registration

Photo one: https://hnyingshun.en.alibaba.com/product/60072219721-220635384/300_liter_orchard_fertilizer_farm_pesticide_tractor_sprayers_pump_for_sale.html

Photo two: Yagi, K. T., & Green, D. M. (2016). Mechanisms of Density-dependent Growth and Survival in Tadpoles of Fowler’s Toad, Anaxyrus fowleri: Volume vs.                  Abundance. Copeia, 104(4), 942–951.

By Rose Nixon

These adorable little critters are disappearing, and they need our help!

Warning! If you’re anything like me (a highly inquisitive yet highly distractible nature lover) you might soon find yourself in a spiral of searches about the small and adorable, Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata). After a series of searches myself, I soon learned that this long lived species is only found along the eastern US and Canada and is listed as globally endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. To find out more, I had a conversation with Hunter Howell, a PhD student at the University of Miami, about a paper on Spotted Turtles that he co-authored titled “Long-Term Turtle Declines: Protected Is a Verb, Not an Outcome” along with researchers Richard Legere Jr., David Holland, and Richard Seigel.

Hunter has had a lifelong love of working with turtles and got involved with this work after researchers who conducted a historic population study of Spotted Turtles in a protected area from 1987-1992 in Central Maryland asked for his teams help. The old researchers had historic data from this study but wanted to do something bigger for the hurting species…so a collaboration was born! The new research group set out to conduct an almost identical study of the two studied populations to see what had changed for the turtles in the past 30 years. Had their numbers grown? Shrank? Or was there something more they could find out about these little testudines? After doing a mixture of visual encounter surveys and trappings over four years, they found out an unsettling truth.

Even though these turtle populations live in a designated protected area, they had declined by almost 50% over the past 30 years. That may seem like a long time for animals fending for themselves against predators and in the elements, but 30 years is only about one generation length for Spotted Turtles, just the same as us. That’s not all: not only had their numbers dwindled but their age distribution had changed as well leaving the population older and with less younglings. This unbalanced age dynamic tells us that while the mature turtles are aging and eventually dying and leaving the population, the young ones aren’t entering in the first place. This creates somewhat of a generational gap and a less healthy overall population.

This spurred the research team to conduct a series of Population Viability Analyses (PVAs), a modeling tool conservation biologists frequently use to estimate the chance that a population will either persist or go extinct. They used both the historic and contemporary data and found the same trend: if business goes as usual, these populations that were booming not too long ago will be facing a 93-94% chance of quasi-extinction in the next 150 years. Even if these declines aren’t as dramatic as the PVA suggests, there is still a definite threat of these populations becoming non-viable—they may still exist, but they will hit a point of no return and shrink until they are locally extinct.

Bottom line: These turtles need our help

The biggest take away from Howell’s research is that even seemingly healthy populations of Spotted Turtles living in protected areas can be subject to serious declines. Turtles living in a protected area may be shielded from certain forms of human caused mortality and habitat loss/fragmentation, but they can still be affected by a slew of anthropogenic factors if in an unmanaged area. Road mortality, introduced predators, habitat succession, invasive species, and poaching have and continue to severely affect the survivorship or reproductive output in these turtles and occur in protected areas that have been set aside and left without an active management plan.

Howell stressed that there is a need for a paradigm shift in turtle conservation from assuming a population is stable until proven it’s declining to the opposite. Because these turtles are so long-lived (up to 50-100 years) a population that is declining can persist for decades or even centuries without disappearing yet lose the window for replenishing its members. Basically: just because they’re there doesn’t mean they have a viable population…it means they are there in spite of not being viable.

For a little humor-based clarity: imagine you just bought a big tub of ice-cream (aka our turtle population) and are saving it as a treat for later. You know that it will last for a very long time in the freezer and don’t have any worries of it disappearing or going bad quickly (long lived species). However, your roommate has been slowly sneaking a few bites here and there unbeknownst to you, until you pick up the carton one day and it’s basically empty (anthropogenic factors chipping away at our population). From an outsider’s perspective it looks like a full tub of ice-cream but in reality, it is only a shell of its past state (seemingly okay population but has seriously declined). This is unfortunately the case for many turtle species, they are on a long slow decline to extinction…no crash, no sudden disappearance, but instead a slow extinction vortex that may go unnoticed before it’s too late.

To make matters worse, the effects of climate change and sea level rise are going to have a significant effect on coastal Spotted Turtle communities. Howell spoke to his and other’s research in Maryland and explained that we are on track for a sea level rise that would extirpate the largest populations from state. This means that all of the sites from Howell’s study and 4 others on eastern shore will be completely underwater.

So What?

These are a long-lived species and due to lack of recruitment in the younger age classes, this population is set to age out and disappear for good. Because this is a globally endangered species, conservation of any population is crucial especially for ones seen in the study where management actions could potentially reverse the direction of the trends.

What’s next? Is there hope?

The short answer is yes! But with conditions. The bright side to this pretty depressing reality is that there is time to act because of how long this species lives and their use of a variety of habitats. Howell told me that we have decades to isolate factors of decline, but that doesn’t let us off the hook. There is the ongoing problem of getting people to get to care about and act on climate change which will ultimately shape the success of this species and countless others globally. If sites like the ones studied by Howell are actively managed and aren’t left to their own devices, there is a chance of saving the Spotted Turtle.

After finishing this research, Howell told me that he and his team have gone out and done a variety of things to switch from passive to active management. In 2017 they installed an exclusion fence near the site along a road where turtles were being struck to prevent unnecessary road mortality. Between 2018 and 2019, the area was continually monitored for visual encounters of turtles and there have been no road kills! Howell explained that by reducing road mortality alone, they could keep the population basically stable or at least at a much, much slower decrease. They also did a series of tree girdling to open the canopy, as well as invasive species removal to better create the preferred healthy, early successional habitat for our little Clemmys companions. Howell’s goal is to go back to the site in 2023 and do a complete resampling of the turtles to see if any of these actions will have helped increase their survival. However, because of their large generational gaps, he said that they may not be able to see a difference then, but hopefully by 2030.

What can we do?

Unfortunately, there’s only a limited number of hands-on things that the public can do to help this species. Due to Spotted Turtle’s high attractiveness to poachers and fear of human encroachment/disturbance of prime habitat, researchers like Howell can’t give out specifics on locations of populations without risking having their numbers dive. But you can help them by participating in road surveys! This is especially important at high density road crossings and during certain times of the year such as spring when they are most active and most likely to be moving between wetlands, to upland nesting sites, and or across roads.

If road surveys aren’t your thing, consider getting in touch with and donating to your local wildlife society or one that is conducting research for the Spotted Turtle. In this study’s case it is the Susquehannock Wildlife Society (for Vermonters, the VT Herp Atlas!); any amount is meaningful towards assisting the many conservation programs that they carry out including the continuation of research and active management for threatened wildlife populations.

Lastly, we all need to keep the conversation going about climate change by educating ourselves and each other on the ways it is and will continue to affect us, the ecosystems around us, and the ones who don’t have ways of speaking up. Informing ourselves about the seriousness of a changing climate can be extremely disheartening but can also be powerful in the ways that information can be used to help others, including the Spotted Turtle whose fate depends on our actions. We have a chance at saving this species, so why don’t we give it our all?

Where can I find this paper/more information?

The Paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335806336_Long-Term_Turtle_Declines_Protected_Is_a_Verb_Not_an_Outcome

Hunter’s Website: https://hunterjhowell.wordpress.com/

Susquehannock Wildlife Society Page: http://www.susquehannockwildlife.org/

Spotted Turtle Info: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/4968/97411228 & https://www.vtherpatlas.org/herp-species-in-vermont/clemmys-guttata/

By Ashley Novella

When a species goes extinct, more is lost than the animals themselves. Their role in the ecosystem, whether it’s spreading seeds or hunting herbivores, can have cascading effects on other species and the habitat itself. Reconciling the complex relationships maintained in an ecosystem requires extensive knowledge and serious predictive modeling. Dr. Elizabeth Hunter of Georgia Southern University has been researching a way to restore the ecosystem of the Floreana Island in the Galápagos. Her research aims to introduce a species of giant tortoise that is descendent from the extinct Floreana tortoise native to the island. This newfound species is believed to be hybridized, a crossbreed between a Floreana giant tortoise and another species inhabiting Isabella Island. By moving a subsection of the hybridized tortoise population to the Floreana Island, they can act as their extinct ancestors did, benefitting the whole ecosystem.

Working with researchers and local ecologists, Dr. Hunter developed pioneering modeling simulations that address conservation issues in a holistic manner. The discovery of the ancestrally linked tortoises on Isabella Island propelled this team of researchers to explore potential impacts of their introduction to Floreana across a variety of competing conservation goals. A goal of introducing the tortoises was to restore the ecosystem functions of their ancestors: spreading seeds and suppressing woody vegetation that could outcompete tree saplings and damage the ecosystem if left unchecked. While many conservation projects focus on a singular goal, Dr. Hunter saw the opportunity to press further, attempting to maximize the genetic representation of their extinct ancestors; in many ways, bringing back the extinct Floreana tortoise.

Dr. Hunter’s fascination with turtles began with her childhood pet, Toby the turtle. Observing Toby’s daily routines intrigued her so much that in college she went to Costa Rica for a hands-on study abroad conservation program. Faced with constraints and realities of conservation programs, she became dedicated to finding ways to balance the diversity of motivations behind conservation projects. Reflecting the complexity of ecosystems in the projects meant to mend them is a daunting task, one that required combining her statistical experience with her love of conservation.

Considering numerous factors, Dr. Hunter created models to predict the affect of the giant tortoises on Floreana Island. She had to ensure genetic diversity within the population to avoid harmful mutations that would damage their chances of survival. Yet, she is also attempting to maximize the representation of the ancestral DNA of the extinct native Floreana giant tortoise. Luckily, because there were historically giant tortoises on the island, some factors such as competing with other animals for food and habitat could be mitigated. Her modelling found a balance among these competing objectives within a two-million-dollar budget, another goal of the research.

When the time is right, the tortoises will be translocated, also called ‘assisted colonization,’ to the Floreana Island. As of now, 20 hybrids were flown from Isabella Island to the Galápagos National Park Directorate Tortoise Center on Santa Cruz Island. Since these tortoises naturally pull into their shells when disturbed, Dr. Hunter expressed that no tranquilization was needed to successfully helicopter them over. The hybrids are successfully breeding at the Tortoise Center, and the translocation is awaiting the maturity of their offspring to ensure the new population on Floreana will persist for years to come. In a successful case of translocation, the species would recover a threatened population while positively influencing the colonized habitat. Dr. Hunter’s project aims to do both: resurrecting the Floreana giant tortoise and restoring their ecosystem functions.

Translocation projects are increasingly used to assist species migration to more suitable habitats as climate change pushes them out of their native regions. Promoting habitat connectivity so they can move their naturally can work in some areas, but in the island chain of the Galápagos, human intervention is required. The native species of the Galápagos are enclosed by water, so they do not have the luxury to re-establish their home elsewhere. Historically, species planted their flag on these fruitful islands through swimming, flying or riding gusts of wind, or surfing rafts of tangled vegetation. It is likely that all living and extinct species of giant tortoise evolved in the Galápagos from a common ancestor that arrived from the mainland, floating on the ocean currents.

The evolved species of giant tortoise can now grow up to five feet tall, making them the largest in the world. These walking giants didn’t have any predators to fear, allowing them to significantly surpass the size of other tortoises. Being a flagship species to the islands, colonizers named the chain after the Spanish word ‘galápagos’, describing the saddle of the giant tortoise. The late human colonization is largely held accountable for the islands’ nearly immaculate condition until modern times¹. Unfortunately, over the past two centuries, four out 15 species of giant tortoises in the Galápagos Islands are extinct, including the Floreana giant tortoise. Although reviving an extinct species is a seemingly insurmountable task to achieve, Dr. Hunter’s research and subsequent intervention tactics are being implemented to restore the ecosystem to its former glory.

The Galápagos Islands are internationally appreciated as the crown jewel of conservation. This special corner of the world is home to species found nowhere else, called endemic species. According to the Galápagos Conservancy, a staggering 80% of land birds, 97% of reptiles and land mammals, and over 30% of plants found there are unique to these islands. The rare nature of this destination speaks to its vulnerability. At the unprecedented rate at which our climate is warming, the world has entered an era of rampant species extinction. With the tundra thawing, sea levels rising, and erratic weather patterns becoming more frequent, innovative solutions must be set in place in order to salvage the integrity of our planet’s ecosystems. Dr. Hunter’s complex modelling process can translate to other conservation projects with various objectives, serving as a beacon of hope against the rising tide of habitat destruction. The challenges in conservation- from accelerated climate change to habitat loss and fragmentation – all take place at the interface between humans and the environment. Thankfully, we are on the precipice of beneficial technologies and strategies that can mend the tattered relationship between humans and the natural world.

By Cooper Peterson

The return of Eastern Indigo Snakes in response to protecting the longleaf pine forests.

The longleaf pine forest is a unique type of forest throughout the southeastern United States and contains many types of reptiles and amphibians not found in other parts of North America. Following the thawing of the ice age, this type of forest sprung up across the coastal plain and can be found from Virginia to Florida and parts of Texas. Longleaf pine was described as beautiful and bountiful in the mid-sixteenth century by Spaniard explorers and Native Americans. It’s pinewood was key for construction of early colonial settlements such as Jamestown, Virginia.

As more colonies were built up in North America, the longleaf pine was altered by man. These changes put reptiles such as the eastern indigo snake which live within at great risk. Wildfire commonly occurs in longleaf pine so that undergrowth can be cleared out naturally. When humans built towns and cities, they actively prevented these fires. Therefore, the undergrowth grew up and prevented reptiles from digging dens and hunting prey as they once did. These alterations by man became so bad that species such as the eastern indigo snake became extremely rare; it was thought that this once-common species would become extinct. But upon closer inspection, there are glimmers of hope nesting in the undergrowth.

The Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi) is jet-black and glossy blue, a mild-mannered and non-venomous serpent. Eastern Indigos were once a common sight across Alabama,  Georgia, Mississippi, and Florida, but in 1978 they were listed as federally threatened. They were one of the first entries into the Federal Endangered Species Act. Captive breeding programs have gained notoriety in Alabama (Conecuh National Forest) as well as in Florida (Apalachicola Bluffs and Ravines Preserve) where history is in the making. From 1976 through 1987 an indigo snake recovery program was held at the Alabama Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit at Auburn University. This program aimed to restock local snake populations by bringing adult snakes from zoos and federal confiscations and breeding them on protected land.

By 1986, a total of 318 snakes were reintroduced via captive breeding programs across sites in Alabama. Despite this, eastern indigo were unable to reproduce in the wild due to poor quality habitats. Yet these programs kept trying; they called for public aid to restore the longleaf pine. Nature reserves that are protected by groups such as the Alabama Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit are managed carefully to maintain healthy, high-quality habitat that can foster species such as the eastern indigo. Strategies such as clear-cutting and controlled burns allow for parts of the longleaf pine to regenerate naturally while not posing risks to nearby human settlements. The Eastern Indigo Snake Reintroduction Project collaborated with private, public, state, and federal parties to preserve National Forests such as Conecuh and reintegrate the eastern indigo. Although Alabama had no eastern indigo sightings since the 1950s, in January of 2020, a wild sub-adult eastern indigo was captured and confirmed to be an offspring of a series reintroductions that occurred from 2000-2010. This find was a pivotal piece of evidence that these programs’ strategies are effective, and that hope is not lost for the longleaf pine nor the eastern indigo snake.

The momentum gained from this successful reintroduction in Alabama’s Conecuh have led to other programs weighing in support to conserve these snakes. The USDA Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources implemented federal and state programs to reintroduce species following major preservation of the longleaf pine forests. Other states have joined the programs with success as well. Eastern indigos had not been sighted in Florida since 1982. However Zoo Atlanta, the Tampa Zoo and Central Florida Zoo have joined together with The Orianne Society to reintroduce 12 zoo-reared indigos into Florida’s Apalachicola Bluffs and Ravines nature reserve. Alabama and Florida are the only two reintroduction programs that have had success with eastern indigo snakes and will undoubtably pave the way for further successful programs for this snake in other regions. Despite several decades passing with a once-common snake going unnoticed, it was the collaboration between organizations, federal authorities and the public that permitted the longleaf pine and these snakes to begin flourishing once again.

REFERENCES

An Apex Predator Returns. (n.d.). The Nature Conservancy.Available from https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/florida/stories-in-florida/paradise-regained/ (accessed April 12, 2020).

Eastern Indigo Snake. (n.d.). The Nature Conservancy. Available from https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/animals-we-protect/eastern-indigo-snake/ (accessed April 12, 2020).

Eastern indigo snake makes a comeback in Alabama | US Forest Service. (2019). Available from https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/delivering-mission/sustain/eastern-indigo-snake-makes-comeback-alabama (accessed April 12, 2020).

Godwin et al. (2011). Reintroduction of the Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi) into Conecuh National Forest. Available from https://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/Research/SWG%20Reports/SWG%20Indigo%20Final%20Report(2011).pdf (accessed April 12, 2020).

Godwin et al. (2008). Captive Propagation of the Threatened Eastern Indigo Snake for Reintroduction into Alabama. pdf (2008). Available from https://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/Research/SWG%20Reports/Indigo%20SWG%20final%20report(2008).pdf (accessed April 12, 2020).

By Laura Pinover

What You Need To Know

We’ve all seen the stickers, “The Three R’s of Life: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” and “Recycling is sexy!”. Have you ever thought about recycling wastewater? Seems like a genius idea, right? Used water goes back to a treatment plant and then is filtered right back into our toilets, bathroom sinks, and irrigation practices. However, studies are now showing that recycled wastewater doesn’t always filter out emerging contaminants (EC’s).

The Science

Emerging contaminants are synthetic or natural chemicals, such as Estrogen, and can’t always be filtered out by wastewater treatment facilities. Dr. Odette Mina, a researcher at Penn State University, studied how irrigated wastewater that contains EC’s effects vernal pools. EC’s that contain hormones get into our wastewater from the shampoos, detergents, cosmetics, and prescriptions we use in our homes. Vernal pools are freshwater pools that fill with water in the spring and only last a couple of months before they evaporate. They provide crucial breeding habitat for multiple species, including high numbers of amphibians. Up until recently, we did not know how to detect low concentrations of emerging contaminants. The only studies to explain the effects dealt with high concentrations of EC’s. Dr. Odette Mina and her team used advanced technology in their lab at Penn State and decided to see what effects low concentrations of EC’s in irrigated wastewater would have on vernal pool sites. The team discovered that hormonal emerging contaminants in wastewater, can last up to 20 days in environments. Longer lasting EC’s have the ability to cause endocrine disruption to amphibians breeding in vernal pools.

What’s Next?

The research Odette conducted concludes that we need to take into consideration where we are using our wastewater. With a push for recycled wastewater all throughout the environmentalism/sustainability movement, we need to assess where it is safe and unsafe to use irrigated wastewater at freshwater ecosystems. We should assess what freshwater ecosystems are close to irrigated wastewater agricultural areas and how they may be affected. Refining our wastewater management practices can help filter out more EC’s. Advocating for advanced technology in our wastewater treatments plants can help reduce the risks our freshwater ecosystems are faced with.

What YOU can do!

Hold local governments accountable for their spending when it comes to your local wastewater treatment facility. Check to see if the products you use at home contain synthetic hormones. If they do, look for natural alternatives that are safer for our environment.

By Chloe Sardonis

Forests are crucial to maintaining water quality, air quality, storing carbon, providing habitat, and providing us with a valuable resource: wood. There are ways to manage forests in such a way that we meet the needs of the landowner while focusing on new growth and the establishment of future forests. When forests are managed sustainably, a landowner can produce wood (yes, which means cutting trees) while also supplying the world with the services listed above. Forest management is more and more geared towards healthy forests, and healthy forests are being realized as a tool to fight climate change. However, while managing forests for the benefits of the forest and the health of the trees is great, we also need to think about the impacts of our forest management on the species that depend on them. Dr. Marlyse Duguid, director of the Yale Research Forest, has set out to answer the question “How does forest management affect non-target organisms?” Every organism has its own habitat needs and requirements, and while some requirements overlap, some are completely different.

Let’s look at the Eastern Red-backed Salamander and the Eastern Newt. Two salamander species that at first glance might seem like they are pretty similar. As a juvenile, the Eastern Newt (called a red eft during this life stage) and the Red-backed Salamander both live in our northeast forests. They are around the same size and they have a similar diet of invertebrates. If we were to cut trees in a way that is great for the forest, will it be great for salamanders? Do all salamanders respond to forest management the same way?

Yale Research Forest has been managed in a way that allow for these questions to be answered. The unique study site they have there is called a chronosequence. This is a set of sites within the forest that are ecologically similar but are all at different stages of the same type of management. This means they have one site that has just been cut in a specific way, one site that has not been cut at all, and sites in between that range from a year since the cutting to 25 years since the cutting. Essentially this allows Dr. Duguid and other researchers to look at the forest’s response to these cuttings over the course of time, except they can see it all at once!

I spoke to Dr. Marlyse Duguid, a forester, botanist, horticulturist, and ecologist, as well as being the Director of Research at the Yale Research Forest. She explained a chronosequence is not a perfect system, but it uses time as a proxy and allows for researchers to measure habitat for any forest species including birds, understory plant communities, and amphibians. Last summer, Dr. Duguid published a paper with Angus Mossman, Max Lambert, Mark Ashton, and Jessica Wikle that used the research forest to study the effects of a timber harvest on our two salamander species from above, the Eastern Newt and Red-backed Salamander. Using the Yale Research Forest, they were able to count the numbers of each species at each one of the sites, starting with immediately after the harvest and working up to 25 years after. They could then compare those numbers with the site that had never been cut.

The results were clear, not only does forest management have an effect on amphibians, it effects these amphibians on a species level. Both types of salamanders had their lowest numbers immediately after the timber harvest, although the Red-backed Salamander’s populations had recovered to even higher numbers 25 years after the timber harvest than they were in the uncut area. The Eastern Newt, though, fared differently and even 25 years after harvest, they still didn’t have the population numbers that they had in the uncut site.

If these differences can occur between organisms that are relatively alike, I was curious how a forester can think about management and consider everything at once, like the trees, the forest as a whole, all the different types of animals, etc.? With this background, Marlyse was the perfect person to ask how one measures what is “good” for the forest, or even what we are referring to when we speak on the “good of the forest?”

 “If you were just managing for carbon, you might just grow eucalyptus everywhere. You want a diverse portfolio of values.” Marlyse explained.

“You can’t serve every value.” Marlyse continued. She went on to say it was okay to stack values. There are so many different services provided by forests, that you have to choose what your values are when managing and be sure to not manage everything the same way.

As we saw in the research on salamanders, what is good for one species is going to be hard for another. Humans have to make these decisions and this research helps to inform management. For this reason, Dr. Duguid chose to publish this paper open access. It was more expensive, but she believed, because this paper is management-based, it should be accessible to everyone.

This study demonstrated that forest management affects the organisms living within the forest in different ways. Dr. Duguid emphasized that this study only looked at one small window of time and, even still, the results were clear. More research could be done for this and other amphibian-related forest-use studies.

With many challenges present for both the woods and the organisms in the woods, such as climate change, invasive species, pests, etc., forest management will need to be aware of the gives and takes of operations to continue providing the services we desperately need. While doing that, we can’t forget about the tiny creatures beneath the dead leaves and logs on the forest floor. Yale Research Forest and the work of Dr. Duguid can help us to understand our impacts in the forest beyond the trees.

The article, titled “Two salamander species respond differently to timber harvests in a managed New England forest” can be found at https://peerj.com/articles/7604.pdf.

Photo credits:

Top Left- Eastern Red-backed Salamanders from Virginia Herpetological Society

Top Right- Eastern Newt from Vermont Fish and Wildlife