By Erica Leiserowitz

Over a century ago, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae) was abundant throughout the watersheds of the Sierra Nevada mountains, located on the East side of California. But soon, this frog’s life took a dramatic turn. With the increase of humans living in the area, and more and more visitors to Yosemite National Park, the landscape began to change. There was more development, more pollution, and some of their habitat was destroyed due to construction and pollution. Perhaps most damaging was the decision to stock naturally fishless habitats with nonnative fish (usually trout) so that anglers could fish for recreation.  Those fish predate on tadpoles of native amphibians, including R. sierrae, which did not evolve with fish as predators. Then, in the 1970’s, Bd (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), a fungal pathogen that causes Chytridiomycosis, a very devastating and lethal infectious disease, emerged in the Sierra Nevadas. All of these factors, and possibly more, led to R. sierrae disappearing from >93% of its historical distribution. This story is, unfortunately, not a rare one, and is shared by many amphibian species around the world. But this is where the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog’s story becomes unique. Despite the presences of disease, new predators, habitat loss, and more, the R. sierrae is showing signs of recovery.

              In a scientific article published in 2016, researchers studying R. sierrae in Yosemite have found data that shines a ray of hope on the world of amphibian conservation. The article is called “Large-scale recovery of an endangered amphibian despite ongoing exposure to multiple stressors.” Over a 20 year study period surveying the total population of R. sierrae, they determined that the population increased by an average of 11% annually, which is a more than sevenfold increase in abundance over 20 years. These surveys involve researchers and technicians hiking and backpacking all over Yosemite to get to various ponds and lakes, no matter how remote. At the sites, they walk around the edges of the pond, count what they see, and take notes. These population counts are compared to previous years, and allows researchers to notice trends in population size, but also how many individuals were infected with Bd, or how many frogs are at one pond compared to another. I interviewed one of the authors of this article, US Geological Survey Ecologist Patrick Kleeman. His research focuses on amphibians in Yosemite and the surrounding areas, and the results of this study were as much as a surprise to him as they were to me.

“It gives me a sense of hope!”

He explained to me that from a personal level, it is not just exciting, but also very gratifying. It shows that there is a chance for recovery for endangered species, and that protection policies have an impact.

              It is unclear why the R. sierrae population is increasing. It might be because the National Park Service (NPS) stopped introducing trout into the watershed, and the number of fishless lakes increased. It also might be that R. sierrae is becoming resistant to Bd, due to Bd’s now long-term presence in the area. Because there are so many factors causing declines, it is often hard to pinpoint exactly what is causing an increase.

Patrick Kleeman says that this is why keeping up long-term surveys is so important.

“We might not have noticed this trend if we hadn’t been conducting large scale surveys in Yosemite since 1993. It allows you to compare your data to the previous years, and notice changes or patterns in population.”

I asked Kleeman why the public should care about this increase in R. sierra. He explained that even though frogs like R. sierrae may not be the most charismatic animals, they are still important. Even people who don’t like frogs should pay attention to global amphibian declines. Amphibians like R. sierra are important parts of the ecosystem. They prey on organisms and in turn are prey for other animals. Their presence is woven into the food web. Amphibians have also benefitted humans directly, as they have been used in medical research.  While there are increases in R. sierrae in Yosemite, complete recovery is still a long way off, so the policies used to protect this species, like preventing dumping pollutants into watersheds, or preventing stocking fish into naturally fishless areas still need to remain in place. In the meantime, we are still cheering for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, and hope that other amphibians will also take their lead.

By Hannah Ladner

Everyone has heard their fair share of ghost stories but here is a story that you may not have heard.  In the Salinas Valley in California, there are seemingly endless agriculture fields that are plagued by an unstoppable horde.  On dark misty nights, these creatures will emerge from the irrigation canals and ditches lining the fields and move into the vast fields of lettuce and spinach.  When the sun comes up, these creatures take refuge in the greens and the growers return to their crops.  Then, they are unknowingly harvested, packaged, and sent to terrorize unwitting, innocent consumers! 

While this tale is an exaggeration, its basis lies in fact.  Every year, there are a number of cases where people purchase pre-packaged vegetables from stores only to discover that an animal, often a frog, toad, or lizard, is also enclosed.  This isn’t a common occurrence, there are only a couple of incidents a year, but when mainstream news hears about it, it often goes viral.  Between 2004 and 2018, there have been at least 40 incidents where an animal has been found, with most of these (75%) being amphibians or reptiles.  In 9 of these cases, the stowaways were alive and intact, allowing for the people who found them to release them or keep them as pets.  This is a serious issue because of the risks of spreading disease to naïve wildlife populations or even cross breed with native species.

Despite lacking hard data on the true scale of the issue, the Salinas Valley lettuce growers knew something had to be done and they assembled a team.  Dr. Danny Hughes was one of these researchers brought in to determine how to reduce the frequency of these incidents.  In the past, Dr. Hughes has been involved in research on evolution and ecology studying species including leopard frogs, African burrowing snakes, and the Central African forest chameleon.  The main concerns that he had were how to keep tree frogs out of the salad fields, how to apply knowledge of frog ecology to develop better harvesting practices, how this issue may be contributing to the spread of disease, and how to better keep track of future incidents.

Frogs: Keep Out!

So how would Dr. Hughes keep the treefrogs, the main offenders, out of the salad fields; mini frog fences?  After a brief study, they found that this was in fact true! Of the many fences they developed, two of the novel fence ideas were effective at keeping out frogs most of the time.  One of these was a fence made of sandpaper with a grit matching the size of tree frog toe-pads preventing them from gripping the surface while the other design was a solid fence with a lip on top.  This second design prevented frogs from passing the fence 100% of the time.  If you’ve ever encountered a treefrog yourself, you may know first-hand what good jumpers and climbers they are so you can imagine what an impressive feat this is!

Using Frog Cycles.

Dr Hughes’ idea is to show growers a cost-effective solution combined with knowledge of frog phenology, or the seasonal cycles of frog movements and habits.  Frogs often migrate during wet, rainy nights and during mating season.  Foresight of these events will provide growers with the knowledge to prevent accidentally harvesting frogs hiding in their lettuce.  This would include what weather events are likely to trigger the animals to leave the irrigation canals as well as what times of the year certain frog species breed and migrate.  This knowledge combined with a cost-effective fence may be the best way of preventing the accidental harvest of wildlife. 

Flattening the Frog Curve.

Another concern that the public had was the risk of bacterial diseases being spread by these frogs.  Dr. Hughes said that the chances of a frog being a reservoir or host for diseases such as E. coli is extremely low.  He was more concerned about frogs transmitting diseases to other amphibians throughout the country because in many cases where animals were found alive, they were often released.  These non-native species have the potential to be extremely damaging to native species.  The Pacific Tree Frog was one of these commonly found species and is known to carry the Chytrid fungus without showing any symptoms.  Chytrid is a fungal pathogen that is currently threatening many of the world’s frog species.  By releasing these animals, this disease may be able spread to areas previously unaffected by the fungus. 

Future Incidents.

In the future, Dr. Hughes said that he hopes to develop an online portal for consumers to report any future wildlife findings.  This would allow for a greater amount of transparency to the public and enable researchers to find larger patterns of these incidents.  With the limited data that is available now, the true extent of this issue isn’t able to be determined.  The data that this study was able to analyze were only the incidents from popular Google-search results that “blew up” and there’s no way of knowing how many people discovered animals and simply didn’t make a fuss about it.  If this portal were to be developed, differences between conventional and organic crops could be studied as well as to see if there are any patterns in when these incidents occur.

The truth of the matter is that there isn’t “actually” a horde that wants to get into your salad bag, just a little tree frog in the wrong place at the wrong time. We simply need more research to be conducted, published, and brought to the attention of salad eaters worldwide to address the problems outlined in this article.

By Sophie Kogut

Introduction:

There’s a new threat looming over amphibian populations – Ranavirus. Ranaviruses are a class of virus that pose an increasing threat to aquatic ecosystems, as infection can lead to devastating mass mortality events. A ranavirus is a large, double-stranded DNA virus that causes a hemorrhagic response, or excessive bleeding,  in young toads and frogs which is often fatal. Ranavirus outbreaks may result in the decimation of entire generations of amphibian larvae. Even more concerning is that these viruses are not picky – they are capable of infecting amphibians, fish, and reptiles. Infection spreads rapidly through aquatic ecosystems because the virus is relatively stable. This is bad news, because according to disease ecologist Erin Sauer, “amphibians around the globe are already in peril”. Climate change, habitat destruction, the pet trade—the odds are stacked against many amphibian species, and it looks like ranavirus is just another enemy amphibians are up against.

What is behavioral fever?

When we get infected with a virus, one of our body’s immediate responses is to increase the body’s temperature, which results in uncomfortable sweating and chills: a fever. This signals to your immune system that something is wrong, and the immune system responds by kicking into overdrive: all hands on deck in an effort to destroy the pathogen. The initial fever is detected by the hypothalamus, which then directs your body to warm itself up.  Unlike mammals, toads are ectothermic, meaning they must rely on their environment to regulate their body temperature. This is why you frequently see lizards basking in the sun, or salamanders cooling off under a log. When infected by a virus, toad immune systems are incapable of inducing a fever on their own. However, Sauer has been studying a clever adaptation that may allow herps to fight viruses: a behavioral fever.

A behavioral fever occurs after the immune system detects the invasion of a pathogen, much like how a home security system detects an intruder. When the sensors on a home security system are triggered, a command center is alerted to the presence of the intruder; the command center will then alert the homeowner and provide instructions on how to respond. The hypothalamus in the brain of a toad acts like a command center, which, upon viral intrusion, instructs the toad to move to a warmer location, thus increasing its body temperature. This process is summarized below:

This phenomenon has been observed in many ectothermic species, but it does not occur with all types of pathogens. For example, infection by another infamous pathogen, chytrid fungus, does not induce toads to exhibit a behavioral fever. A behavioral fever is thought to kickstart the immune system in a similar way to fever in endotherms, where the fever acts as a messenger that facilitates a longer immune response, rather than a method to destroy the pathogens.

Dr. Sauer and her team designed an experiment to quantify the effects of behavioral fever on ranavirus. Their experiment yielded that adult Anaxyrus terrestris, or southern toads, are able to successfully reduce their viral load using this method, which is encouraging – to a point. Ranavirus is most deadly to younger animals, where large quantities of the virus may overwhelm the developing amphibian and result in a quicker death. Adult toads were tested using a method similar to COVID-19 testing: a swab sample was used to determine the presence of the virus, based on the quantity of viral DNA present. Unfortunately, the mouths of the younger toads were too small to be swabbed, so these frogs had to be analyzed post-mortem to determine viral presence; therefore, the results of this study apply more to adult toads.

Why should I care?

The changing climate may increase the frequency of disease outbreaks, so learning the strategies by which other animals fight these pathogens may prove to be extremely important in the context of endangered or threatened species. Also, there are serious economic and public health concerns when it comes to outbreaks—according to Sauer, there are “direct impacts on people getting sick, economic impacts on our [livestock] getting sick,” not to mention, “ these epidemic events could be an indicator that there’s something else going on in the ecosystem”. The current global pandemic is indeed a good example of how disruptive a microscopic virus can be. SARS-CoV-2 jumped from animals to humans and has since brought the world to  its knees. Regardless of whether a pathogen is capable of affecting humans right now, it is essential that we continue to monitor the ecological patterns and consequences of these outbreaks.

Bottom line:

This study concluded that while cold-blooded toads could not fight infections like mammals do, they are able to change their behavior in a way that enhances their ability to combat disease.

What’s next:

More research is needed before we can determine if other species can use this mechanism to fight ranavirus in the way A. terrestris has. As the virus mutates and infects other species, behaviors and responses may shift, and it is imperative to keep studying them. In Wisconsin, Sauer is continuing to study the effects of urbanization on amphibian populations with respect to other diseases.

Where to find it: Sauer, E. L., Trejo, N., Hoverman, J. T., & Rohr, J. R. (2019). Behavioural fever reduces ranaviral infection in toads. Functional Ecology, 33(11), 2172-2179

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.