Biology and conservation of the eastern long-necked turtle along a natural-urban gradient Bruno O. Ferronato UMCN AGM 2017
Talk outline Background Turtle biology Results of PhD research Future studies
Piracicamirim Creek Piracicaba City - Sao Paulo State
Prof. Arthur Georges (UC-IAE) Assist. Prof. John H. Roe (UNCP)
Introduction Urbanisation = biodiversity loss and extinction Interacting factors climate (rainfall) L. Wolfe
Study species Chelodina longicollis Overland migration Terrestrial aestivation Slow rate of desiccation (Chesmann 1984, Roe et al. 2008, Roe and Georges 2007) S. Brown
Movement dynamics wet / dry cycles Permanent/ephemeral J. Roe (Kennett and Georges 1990, Roe and Georges 2008)
Study site Upper Ginninderra Creek Drainage
(Rees et al. 2009, Roe et al. 2011) Previous study (2006-2007) 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
Present study (2011-2014) Wet period- La Niña: 602 mm/yr U a isatio Hu a populatio / T affi volu e > 70% Predator-proof fence (2009)
Aims Evaluate behavioral and population responses brought about by increasing urbanisation and rainfall
Methods Radio-telemetry (known fate models)
Methods Capture-Mark-Recapture (CJS models)
Spatial ecology and survivorship in wet years
MCP b (ha) Range length (Km) 2011-2014 WET Distance moved (Km) Wetland used (n) Inter-wetland movements (n) Proportion of terrestrial locations Nature reserve 17.2 ± 4.2 (0.3-70.6) 0.8 ± 0.1 (0.1-1.5) 3.7 ± 0.3 (1.2-5.5) 1.9 ± 0.1 (1-3) 1.3 ± 0.2 (0-3) 0.01 ± 0.004 (0-0.06) Suburb 11.9 ± 3.7 (1.6-53.5) 0.9 ± 0.1 (0.4-2.1) 4.9 ± 0.3* (3.0-6.4) 1.6 ± 0.2 (1-3) 1.7 ± 0.7 (0-7) 0.001 ± 0.01 (0-0.02)
MCP b (ha) Range length (Km) 2011-2014 WET Distance moved (Km) Wetland used (n) Inter-wetland movements (n) Proportion of terrestrial locations Nature reserve 17.2 ± 4.2 (0.3-70.6) 0.8 ± 0.1 (0.1-1.5) 3.7 ± 0.3 (1.2-5.5) 1.9 ± 0.1 (1-3) 1.3 ± 0.2 (0-3) 0.01 ± 0.004 (0-0.06) Suburb 11.9 ± 3.7 (1.6-53.5) 0.9 ± 0.1 (0.4-2.1) 4.9 ± 0.3* (3.0-6.4) 1.6 ± 0.2 (1-3) 1.7 ± 0.7 (0-7) 0.001 ± 0.01 (0-0.02) 2006-2007 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 (0.7-31.8) 0.6 ± 0.2 (0.2-1.9) 1.5 ± 0.2 (0.7-2.9) 2.3 ± 0.3 (1-4) 1.5 ± 0.4 (0-4) 0.28 ± 0.76* (0-0.77) Suburb 14.2 ± 4.7 (0.3-37.2) 0.8 ± 0.2 (0.1-1.9) 3.0 ± 0.6 * (0.7-6.6) 2.3 ± 0.4 (1-5) 1.9 ± 0.7 (0-6) 0 ± 0
MCP b (ha) Range length (Km) 2011-2014 WET Distance moved (Km) Wetland used (n) Inter-wetland movements (n) Proportion of terrestrial locations Nature reserve 17.2 ± 4.2 (0.3-70.6) 0.8 ± 0.1 (0.1-1.5) 3.7 ± 0.3 (1.2-5.5) 1.9 ± 0.1 (1-3) 1.3 ± 0.2 (0-3) 0.01 ± 0.004 (0-0.06) Suburb 11.9 ± 3.7 (1.6-53.5) 0.9 ± 0.1 (0.4-2.1) 4.9 ± 0.3* (3.0-6.4) 1.6 ± 0.2 (1-3) 1.7 ± 0.7 (0-7) 0.001 ± 0.01 (0-0.02) 2006-2007 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 (0.7-31.8) 0.6 ± 0.2 (0.2-1.9) 1.5 ± 0.2 (0.7-2.9) 2.3 ± 0.3 (1-4) 1.5 ± 0.4 (0-4) 0.28 ± 0.76* (0-0.77) Suburb 14.2 ± 4.7 (0.3-37.2) 0.8 ± 0.2 (0.1-1.9) 3.0 ± 0.6 * (0.7-6.6) 2.3 ± 0.4 (1-5) 1.9 ± 0.7 (0-6) 0 ± 0
MCP b (ha) Range length (Km) 2011-2014 WET Distance moved (Km) Wetland used (n) Inter-wetland movements (n) Proportion of terrestrial locations Nature reserve 17.2 ± 4.2 (0.3-70.6) 0.8 ± 0.1 (0.1-1.5) 3.7 ± 0.3 (1.2-5.5) 1.9 ± 0.1 (1-3) 1.3 ± 0.2 (0-3) 0.01 ± 0.004 (0-0.06) Suburb 11.9 ± 3.7 (1.6-53.5) 0.9 ± 0.1 (0.4-2.1) 4.9 ± 0.3* (3.0-6.4) 1.6 ± 0.2 (1-3) 1.7 ± 0.7 (0-7) 0.001 ± 0.01 (0-0.02) 2006-2007 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 (0.7-31.8) 0.6 ± 0.2 (0.2-1.9) 1.5 ± 0.2 (0.7-2.9) 2.3 ± 0.3 (1-4) 1.5 ± 0.4 (0-4) 0.28 ± 0.76* (0-0.77) Suburb 14.2 ± 4.7 (0.3-37.2) 0.8 ± 0.2 (0.1-1.9) 3.0 ± 0.6 * (0.7-6.6) 2.3 ± 0.4 (1-5) 1.9 ± 0.7 (0-6) 0 ± 0
2011-2014 WET No prolonged terrestrial aestivation Differences in survivorship (known fate models) Nature reserve turtles (1.00) Suburban turtle (0.67) S. Brown
Causes? Movement metrics x traffic volume
Population dynamics and reproduction in wet years L. Schneider
Wet Period Recaptures Percentage growing Carapace growth rate (mm/yr) a,b (n) Period Group J A J A N Mean ± SE (range) 2011-2014 Nature Reserve 4 25 100 48 16 5.7 A ± 1.7 (0.94-27.31) Rural 8 3 100 67 10 8.0 A ± 3.0 (0.83-26.83) Urban 11 24 100 75 29 7.7 A ± 1.4 (0.63-28.01) Similar growth rates / secondary productivity
Reproduction Breeding season Percentage of gravid females Clutch sizes
Recruitment Similar population sizes and sex ratio i size f e ue y dist i utio Similar survivorship (CMR)
Flood/dry cycles gradient (influence of rainfall)
Pest-fencing
L. Schneider (Ferronato et al. 2014)
Records (n=1052) Chelodina longicollis Tiliqua rugosa Pogona barbata Tiliqua scincoides Pseudonaja textilis Egernia cunninghami Deaths (n=108)
Implications Resilient to urbanisation CMR x telemetry
Managers and urban planners Suburbs: stable / Natural: fluctuating Connectivity long distance movements Mitigations fence / population regulation
Turtle patrols / volunteers Jude S. Brown
Patrols: Oct 2015 Apr 2016 60 volunteers shifts Monitored daily 249 turtles relocated
Future research Citizen science Turtle sightings needed Turtle records in the ACT and region Hot spots of road kills (mitigation) Canberra Nature Map
Ginninderra Creek Turtle Dispersal (+1000 animals marked) Health assessment blood biochemistry + Waterwatch data
Turtles in Sullivans Creek
Murray River turtle native to the ACT?
Eastern long-necked turtle records and nesting biology - Cooma
Acknowledgments