Biology and conservation of the eastern long-necked turtle along a natural-urban gradient. Bruno O. Ferronato

Transcription

1 Biology and conservation of the eastern long-necked turtle along a natural-urban gradient Bruno O. Ferronato UMCN AGM 2017

2 Talk outline Background Turtle biology Results of PhD research Future studies

3 Piracicamirim Creek Piracicaba City - Sao Paulo State

4

5

6

7 Prof. Arthur Georges (UC-IAE) Assist. Prof. John H. Roe (UNCP)

8 Introduction Urbanisation = biodiversity loss and extinction Interacting factors climate (rainfall) L. Wolfe

9 Study species Chelodina longicollis Overland migration Terrestrial aestivation Slow rate of desiccation (Chesmann 1984, Roe et al. 2008, Roe and Georges 2007) S. Brown

10 Movement dynamics wet / dry cycles Permanent/ephemeral J. Roe (Kennett and Georges 1990, Roe and Georges 2008)

11 Study site Upper Ginninderra Creek Drainage

12 (Rees et al. 2009, Roe et al. 2011) Previous study ( ) Drought - El Niño (464 mm/yr) Lower urban development rates Responses: Suburbs(water levels maintained): turtles more abundant, grew faster, more vagile, no terrestrial aestivation Nature Reserve (ponds dried): terrestrial aestivation, moved to urban ponds Similar survivorship

13 Present study ( ) Wet period- La Niña: 602 mm/yr U a isatio Hu a populatio / T affi volu e > 70% Predator-proof fence (2009)

14 Aims Evaluate behavioral and population responses brought about by increasing urbanisation and rainfall

15 Methods Radio-telemetry (known fate models)

16 Methods Capture-Mark-Recapture (CJS models)

17 Spatial ecology and survivorship in wet years

18 MCP b (ha) Range length (Km) WET Distance moved (Km) Wetland used (n) Inter-wetland movements (n) Proportion of terrestrial locations Nature reserve 17.2 ± 4.2 ( ) 0.8 ± 0.1 ( ) 3.7 ± 0.3 ( ) 1.9 ± 0.1 (1-3) 1.3 ± 0.2 (0-3) 0.01 ± (0-0.06) Suburb 11.9 ± 3.7 ( ) 0.9 ± 0.1 ( ) 4.9 ± 0.3* ( ) 1.6 ± 0.2 (1-3) 1.7 ± 0.7 (0-7) ± 0.01 (0-0.02)

19 MCP b (ha) Range length (Km) WET Distance moved (Km) Wetland used (n) Inter-wetland movements (n) Proportion of terrestrial locations Nature reserve 17.2 ± 4.2 ( ) 0.8 ± 0.1 ( ) 3.7 ± 0.3 ( ) 1.9 ± 0.1 (1-3) 1.3 ± 0.2 (0-3) 0.01 ± (0-0.06) Suburb 11.9 ± 3.7 ( ) 0.9 ± 0.1 ( ) 4.9 ± 0.3* ( ) 1.6 ± 0.2 (1-3) 1.7 ± 0.7 (0-7) ± 0.01 (0-0.02) DROUGHT MCP b (ha) Range length (Km) Distance moved (Km) Wetland used (n) Inter-wetland movements (n) Proportion of terrestrial locations Nature reserve 8.7 ± 2.2 ( ) 0.6 ± 0.2 ( ) 1.5 ± 0.2 ( ) 2.3 ± 0.3 (1-4) 1.5 ± 0.4 (0-4) 0.28 ± 0.76* (0-0.77) Suburb 14.2 ± 4.7 ( ) 0.8 ± 0.2 ( ) 3.0 ± 0.6 * ( ) 2.3 ± 0.4 (1-5) 1.9 ± 0.7 (0-6) 0 ± 0

20 MCP b (ha) Range length (Km) WET Distance moved (Km) Wetland used (n) Inter-wetland movements (n) Proportion of terrestrial locations Nature reserve 17.2 ± 4.2 ( ) 0.8 ± 0.1 ( ) 3.7 ± 0.3 ( ) 1.9 ± 0.1 (1-3) 1.3 ± 0.2 (0-3) 0.01 ± (0-0.06) Suburb 11.9 ± 3.7 ( ) 0.9 ± 0.1 ( ) 4.9 ± 0.3* ( ) 1.6 ± 0.2 (1-3) 1.7 ± 0.7 (0-7) ± 0.01 (0-0.02) DROUGHT MCP b (ha) Range length (Km) Distance moved (Km) Wetland used (n) Inter-wetland movements (n) Proportion of terrestrial locations Nature reserve 8.7 ± 2.2 ( ) 0.6 ± 0.2 ( ) 1.5 ± 0.2 ( ) 2.3 ± 0.3 (1-4) 1.5 ± 0.4 (0-4) 0.28 ± 0.76* (0-0.77) Suburb 14.2 ± 4.7 ( ) 0.8 ± 0.2 ( ) 3.0 ± 0.6 * ( ) 2.3 ± 0.4 (1-5) 1.9 ± 0.7 (0-6) 0 ± 0

21 MCP b (ha) Range length (Km) WET Distance moved (Km) Wetland used (n) Inter-wetland movements (n) Proportion of terrestrial locations Nature reserve 17.2 ± 4.2 ( ) 0.8 ± 0.1 ( ) 3.7 ± 0.3 ( ) 1.9 ± 0.1 (1-3) 1.3 ± 0.2 (0-3) 0.01 ± (0-0.06) Suburb 11.9 ± 3.7 ( ) 0.9 ± 0.1 ( ) 4.9 ± 0.3* ( ) 1.6 ± 0.2 (1-3) 1.7 ± 0.7 (0-7) ± 0.01 (0-0.02) DROUGHT MCP b (ha) Range length (Km) Distance moved (Km) Wetland used (n) Inter-wetland movements (n) Proportion of terrestrial locations Nature reserve 8.7 ± 2.2 ( ) 0.6 ± 0.2 ( ) 1.5 ± 0.2 ( ) 2.3 ± 0.3 (1-4) 1.5 ± 0.4 (0-4) 0.28 ± 0.76* (0-0.77) Suburb 14.2 ± 4.7 ( ) 0.8 ± 0.2 ( ) 3.0 ± 0.6 * ( ) 2.3 ± 0.4 (1-5) 1.9 ± 0.7 (0-6) 0 ± 0

22 WET No prolonged terrestrial aestivation Differences in survivorship (known fate models) Nature reserve turtles (1.00) Suburban turtle (0.67) S. Brown

23 Causes? Movement metrics x traffic volume

24 Population dynamics and reproduction in wet years L. Schneider

25 Wet Period Recaptures Percentage growing Carapace growth rate (mm/yr) a,b (n) Period Group J A J A N Mean ± SE (range) Nature Reserve A ± 1.7 ( ) Rural A ± 3.0 ( ) Urban A ± 1.4 ( ) Similar growth rates / secondary productivity

26 Reproduction Breeding season Percentage of gravid females Clutch sizes

27

28 Recruitment Similar population sizes and sex ratio i size f e ue y dist i utio Similar survivorship (CMR)

29 Flood/dry cycles gradient (influence of rainfall)

30 Pest-fencing

31 L. Schneider (Ferronato et al. 2014)

32 Records (n=1052) Chelodina longicollis Tiliqua rugosa Pogona barbata Tiliqua scincoides Pseudonaja textilis Egernia cunninghami Deaths (n=108)

33 Implications Resilient to urbanisation CMR x telemetry

34 Managers and urban planners Suburbs: stable / Natural: fluctuating Connectivity long distance movements Mitigations fence / population regulation

35 Turtle patrols / volunteers Jude S. Brown

36 Patrols: Oct 2015 Apr volunteers shifts Monitored daily 249 turtles relocated

37 Future research Citizen science Turtle sightings needed Turtle records in the ACT and region Hot spots of road kills (mitigation) Canberra Nature Map

38 Ginninderra Creek Turtle Dispersal (+1000 animals marked) Health assessment blood biochemistry + Waterwatch data

39 Turtles in Sullivans Creek

40 Murray River turtle native to the ACT?

41 Eastern long-necked turtle records and nesting biology - Cooma

42 Acknowledgments