CATAWBA RIVER CORRIDOR COVERBOARD PROGRAM: A CITIZEN SCIENCE APPROACH TO AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE INVENTORY

Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Sciences, 1(4), 006, pp. 14-151 CATAWBA RIVER CORRIDOR COVERBOARD PROGRAM: A CITIZEN SCIENCE APPROACH TO AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE INVENTORY SHANNON E. PITTMAN and MICHAEL E. DORCAS Department of Biology Davidson College Davidson, NC805-7118 Abstract: Coverboards are a useful inventory tool for many species of amphibians and reptiles, and provide a simple and effective method to involve the public in scientific research. The Davidson College Catawba River Corridor Coverboard Program (CRCCP) was initiated in 00 to help coordinate the efforts of public and private sectors in surveying amphibians and reptiles. Fourteen sites were established within the Catawba River Corridor in North and South Carolina. Participants included schools, private industries and locally-operated nature preserves. The Davidson College Herpetology Laboratory and Duke Power Environmental Laboratory helped set out coverboards at each site. The CRCCP website (www.ccari.org) provided participants with assistance in species identification, protocols and online datasheets. A total of 8 species was documented between 00 and 005, including 18 species of amphibians and 0 species of reptiles. Coverboards proved more effective for inventory of salamanders, anurans and lizards (47%, 44% and 48%, respectively, of within-range species), and less effective for snakes and turtles (5%, and 4%, respectively, of within-range species). The CRCCP provided the opportunity for many people, including numerous school children, to become involved in scientific research. Although acceptance of species identification necessitates caution without voucher photographs, the program has added significantly to our knowledge of the distributions of amphibians and reptiles in the region. Data collected through the CRCCP are essential to the development of effective monitoring programs and conservation measures. Key Words: coverboard; inventory; herpetology; citizen science; outreach; PVC pipes; survey. INTRODucnON Amphibians and reptiles are often considered good indicators of ecological integrity, and knowledge of the status of local amphibian and reptile diversity can be valuable in assessing overall ecosystem integrity (Burton and Likens, 1975; de Maynadier and Hunter, 1995). Coverboards are useful tools for the inventory of many species of amphibians and reptiles (Ryan et al. 001). Coverboards alone are insufficient to provide a comprehensive census of all amphibian and reptile species in an area. Coverboards complement other sampling techniques, such as drift fences, and provide valuable data on certain species for scientists in situations that other monitoring techniques could not (Ryan et al. 001). Coverboards are relatively easy to construct, set up, and check and a minimal amount of site preparation is required 14

PI1TMAN AND DORCAS: COVERBOARD INVENTORY 14 (Grant et al. 199). Coverboards are also a "passive" sampling technique; unlike trapping, they do not need to be checked frequently or even regularly (Grant et al. 199). Failure to check coverboards does not lead to mortality or stress to the study animals. Coverboards may provide information on trends in populations of certain amphibian and reptile species when used over long periods of time (Grant et al. 199). Because coverboards are simple to use, they offer an easy and efficient method by which the general public can become involved in scientific research. There are many benefits to involving the non-scientific community in research, especially research focused on conservation (Budischak et al. 006). Scientific projects involving the public provide a way for the community to become familiar with local conservation issues and scientific endeavors, as well as introduce novel, field-oriented educational opportunities to school children. Biology education is greatly enhanced with the inclusion offield research in which students actively participate and fosters a sense of appreciation for and understanding of conservation efforts and research (Kennedy and Hickman, 1981; Orr 1989).. The Catawba River Corridor Coverboard Program (CRCCP) was initiated in 00 by a group of people interested in amphibian and reptile conservation within the Catawba River corridor in North Carolina and South Carolina from academic, government, and private industry. The CRCCP was managed by the Davidson College Herpetology Laboratory as part of the Central Carolina Amphibian and Reptile Initiative and was aimed at coordinating the efforts of public and private sectors for the purpose of inventorying amphibian and reptile species using coverboards. We report on the progress of the CRCCP from initiation in 00 through 005. Specifically, a summary is provided of all data collected, a description of the benefits gained from the project, and suggestions of how such a program can be implemented by other researchers. METHODS Participating organizations in the CRCCP were chosen based on proximity to the Catawba River, possession of land suitable for coverboards, willingness to participate and the presence of an individual for supervision of the program at the site. Selected sites consisted of nature preserves, schools and locations of private industry (Fig. 1). Members of the Davidson College Herpetology Laboratory and Duke Power Environmental Laboratory helped set out coverboards at each of the sites. Each site was provided with between 0 and 80 boards, but most sites had 40. Boards used were 0.95 cm thick and 0.61 X 1. m oriented strand board (OSB) and were placed roughly 10 m apart on ground with existing leaf litter raked away before placement. Boa~ds at each site were numbered and in some cases flagged to facilitate locating the boards. Participants were encouraged to leave the boards out for at least two months before checking to allow time for animals to begin using them as refugia. Some participants chose to add polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC) refugia to complement their coverboards (Boughton et al. 000). PVC pipes were.8 cm outside diameter and approximately 1.5 m long and were pounded vertically into the ground, one pipe corresponding to one coverboard and checked along with the coverboards. Inclusion of these pipes facilitated the capture of treefrog species.

~ 144 JOURNAL OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 1(4) ~J. ~ A ;h CaroUna ~. Charlotte p Q FIG. 1. Map of Catawba River corridor and locations of all sites sampled. Letters correspond to site names in Table. Davidson College provided a website (www.ccari.org) with instructions for checking boards and participants agreed to check their boards and record all amphibians and reptiles found at least once each spring, summer, autumn and winter (i.e., four times per year). Participants were encouraged to also record any amphibians and reptiles observed while checking the boards that were not found specifically underneath a board. Data were recorded onto datasheets provided by the website. Datasheets included site name, date, time, temperature, date of last rainfall, cloud cover (%), wind speed (scaled 0-), board number, number of a~als found under board, genus and species and comments. Completed datasheets were then mailed or e-mailed to the Davidson College Herpetology Laboratory and entered into a master database. All data entered into Davidson College Herpetology Laboratory's masterdatabase between 00 and December 005 was consolidated for presentation herein. A list was generated of within-range species for the study area based on geographic distribution maps published by (Conant and Collins, 1998) to evaluate the effectiveness of detecting species whose geographic ranges encompass all or part of the program area. Linear regression was used to analyze the relationship between the number of individuals and the number of species captured among all sites and an alpha of 0.05 was used to determine significance. RESULTS A total of 8 species was documented from all sites since 00, including 18 species of amphibians and 0 species of reptiles (Table 1). Most commonly found species included Plethodon cylindraceus (479 captures), Amybstoma opacum (164 captures), Hyla chyrsoscelis (87 captures), and Carphophis amoenus (74 captures; Table 1).

PnTMAN AND DORCAS: CoVERBOARD INVENTORY 145 Table 1. Amphibians and reptiles found from 00 to 005 as part of the Catawba River Corridor Coverboard Program. Salamanders Ambystoma maculatum Ambystoma opacum Desmognathus fuscus Eurycea cirrigera Eurycea guttolineata Notophthalmus viridescens Plethodon cylindraceus Pseudo triton montanus Anurans Acris crepitans Bufo americanus Bufo fowleri Gastrophryne carolinensis Hyla chrysoscelis Pseudacris crucifer Pseudacris feriarum Rana catesbeiana Rana clamitans Rana sphenocephela Snakes Agkistodon contortrix Carphophis amoenus Coluber constrictor Diadophus punctatus Heterodon platirhinos Lampropeltis calligaster Lampropeltis getula Storeria dekayi Storeria occipitomaculata Thamnophis sirtalis Virginia striatula Virginia valeriae Lizards Anolis carolinensis Aspidocelis sexlineatus Eumeces fasciatus Sceloporus undulatus Scincella lateralis Turtles Chrysemys picta Pseudemys concinna Terrapene carolina Spotted Salamander Marbled Salamander Northern Dusky Salamander Two-lined Salamander Three-lined Salamander Red-spotted Newt Slimy Salamander Mud Salamander Northern Cricket Frog American Toad Fowler's Toad Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad Cope's Gray Treefrog Spring Peeper Upland Chorus Frog Bullfrog Green Frog Southern Leopard Frog Copperhead WOrnl Snake Black Racer Ring-necked Snake Eastern Hog-nosed Snake Mole Kingsnake Eastern Kingsnake Northern Brown Snake Red-bellied Snake Eastern Garter Snake Rough Earth Snake Smooth Earth Snake Green Anole Six-lined Racerunner Five-lined Skink Eastern Fence Lizard Ground Skink Painted Turtle Eastern River Cooter Eastern Box Turtle # reported 0 164 8 14 5 7 479 6 8 46 6 87 7 1 1 74 9 10 1 4 4 7 5 7 16 4 15 1 9 Terrapene carolina and Aspidocelis sexlineatus were the most commonly found turtle and lizard, respectively (9 and 16 captures; Table 1). Coverboards in North Carolina proved more effective for inventory of salamanders, anurans, and lizards based on the percentage of within-range species found (47%, 44% and 48%, respectively; Fig. ), and less effective for snakes, and turtles (5%, and 4%; Fig. ). A positive

146 JOURNAL OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 1(4) B) South Carolina (/).~ (.) Q) C- oo - 0... Q).c E~ z v.~~~~ FIG.. Comparison of numbers of within-range species and species found. Note that, in general, a larger percentage of lizard, anuran, and salamander species were found than snakes and turtles. The dis~repancy between the number of anuran species recorded in North Carolina and South Carolina can be attributed to the use of PVC pipe refugia in a few North Carolina sites.

. PI1TMAN AND DORCAS: COVERBOARD INVENTORY 147 0 50 100 # captures 150 00 0 10 0 # captures 0 40 0 # captures 4 LIzards 4" I UI -.. "G..,-. a. UI., 1- o. 0 5 10 15 0 # captures y = 0.8x + 0.616 R=0.715 FIG.. Relationships between number of captures and number of species documented in the CRCCP. We found positive relationships between species richness and number of individuals captured within all subgroups (salamanders p = 0.006, anuransp < 0.001, snakes p < 0.001, lizardsp < 0.001, turtlesp <0.001). correlation existed between species richness and number of individuals captured within all subgroups (salamanders, R = 0.7, p = 0.006; anurans, R = 0.57, P < 0.001; snakes, R = 0.87, P < 0.001; lizards, R = 0.715, P < 0.001; turtles R = 0.858, p < 0.001; Fig. ). Sites varied substantially in number of species documented. The most amphibian and reptile species found at anyone site was 10 and 11, respectively (Table ). The greatest combined species total found at one site was 19 (Table ). Site managers submitted data between 1 and times, with most site managers submitting data between 4 and 9 times (Table ). No relationship was evident between type of site and number of submissions, although, on the whole, schools submitted data more documented consistently than more nature species preserves (; Table and ). private industries, although nature - preserves DISCUSSION The CRCCP has been successful in involving the public in research, promoting awareness of the status of amphibians and reptiles in the wild and has provided data

148 JOURNAL OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 1(4) Table. Description of study sites for the Catawba River Corridor Coverboard Program. Letters after site names refer to letters on map in Fig. 1. Schools Anne Springs -Fort Mill Elementary (M) Anne Springs -Gold Hill Elementary (N) Anne Springs -Lake Haigler (L) Anne Springs -Springfield Elementary (0) Anne Springs Close Greenway (S) Davidson Elementary School (B) Davidson College -Lake Campus (C) Iredell County Outdoor Education Center (A) Nature Preserves Cowan's Ford Wildlife Refuge (H) Latta Plantation Nature Preserve (I) McDowell Nature Center (K) Blackjacks Heritage Preserve (Q) Historic Brattonsville (P) Brackett Bluff Nature Preserve (D) Landsford Canal State Park (R) Private Industry ~ American Efird Textile Mills(J) Energy Explorium -Duke Power (G) Vulcan Quarry -Cabarrus County (E) Vulcan Clear Creek Quarry (F) 0 no 5 0 no 6 0 no 9 0 no 4 0 no 6 40 no 5 1 40 no 7 40 no 4 80 10 9 yes 0 80 yes 5 11 1 4 7 80 40 50 70 40 yes no no no 0 0 80 no 5 0 0 no 0 6 40 no 7 8 0 4 10 5 I useful to conservation programs in the region. Providing datasheets and instructions on the website substantially facilitated the collection and sending of data by project participants and informed others who may be interested in participating about the program. The level of site participation in the program was highly variable. Managers at each site checked their boards and submitted data at least once between January 00 and the end of 005, and many submitted data nine times or more, or at least once per season. No association existed between amount of participation and site

PI1TMAN AND DORCAS: CoVERBOARD INVENTORY 149 type (nature preserve, school, or private industry). The level of participation for any site depended primarily on the activity of the particular site manager and the most effective managers were not necessarily the most knowledgeable about amphibians and reptiles. Personnel working at nature preserves may have been able to check coverboards more frequently than other organizations -Cowan's Ford Wildlife Refuge, Latta Plantation Nature Preserve and McDowell Nature Center all checked their boards at least 0 times. However, not all nature preserves in the study participated so frequently. Some site managers, especially within private industry, required assistance in checking their boards, and members of the Davidson College Herpetology Laboratory occasionally traveled to these sites and helped the site manager check boards. At other sites where managers required help with species identification, images and sometimes specimens were sent to Davidson College for correct identification. Certain species were captured substantially more frequently than other species. Capture frequency can, in many instances, be explained by the natural history of the animal (i.e., the eastern worm snake [Carphophis amoenus] is a fossorial snake for which coverboards seem to provide suitable habitat; Brown 199). Mole salamanders (Family: Ambystomatidae) also appear to use coverboards on a frequent basis in areas where they occur (Brown 199). Note that some captures may represent recapture of the same individual because animals were not marked and determination of recaptures was not possible. Mark-recapture studies of treefrogs have indicated that they have very high site fidelity (S. Pittman unpublished data). Some species common in the area were not recorded (i.e., the eastern rat snake (Elaphe alleghaniensis) is a common snake in the region and often uses large cover objects, but was not recorded; Rice et al. 001). One mud salamander (Pseudo triton montanus), a rare species in the region, was recorded at the Historic Brattonsville site. The positive relationship between number of individual captures and number of sp~cies at a site is likely indicative of habitat quality in that higher quality habitats, such as those found on many of the nature preserves, provide areas that support large populations of numerous species of amphibians and reptiles (Fig. ). The CRCCP has provided opportunities for many school children to participate in field research. An estimated 450 children at Davidson Elementary School have participated in sampling the coverboards and recording data. Three hundred twentysix students and approximately 76 adults at Anne Springs Close Greenway have been involved. The CRCCP program has given many children and adults the opportunity to find animals in their natural habitat and to learn about the ecology of the animals. Additionally, participants gain experience in field sampling techniques and proper methods of how to collect and record data. This program serves to bolster students' confidence in becoming involved in research in their own communities because it encourages students to actively participate in scientific research. The CRCCP also provided an opportunity for employees from private industry and nature preserves to learn more about the ecology of amphibians and reptiles. An increased knowledge of and appreciation for animal ecology is the first step towards better implementation of conservation strategies. Our experiences in organizing and operating the CRCCP allow us to provide a few recommendations for others wishing to initiate similar programs elsewhere.

150 JOURNAL OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 1(4) Implementation of a program such as this should be straightforward, as long as certain logistical issues are followed. Suitable sites should be chosen and durable boards set out in an array, preferably near wetlands or streams. The array should facilitate finding and checking boards, and placing them near wetlands or streams will often increase the number of captures. Boards can be marked with numbers spray-painted on the board itself. Small plastic flags positioned next to the board, with the number marked on the flag, facilitated in the locating of boards when covered by leaves. Use of PVC pipes is also recommended, as it greatly increases number of captures of treefrogs with little additional effort. Managers with substantial interest in and enthusiasm for the program should be sought in choosing participants, as this will often increase participation and success of the program. Acknowledgements: Thanks to the following site managers: Gene Vaughan, Dottie Metzler, Steve Fields, AI James, John Smith, Dawn Reeves, Jim Sorrow, Rosemary Klein, Kimberly Coffey, Mark Stanback, Bruce Hodges, Chris McEwen. Michelle Gooch and Leslie Cook served as previous student managers of the program. Gene Vaughan provided assistance distributing coverboards and Dottie Metzler coordinated the program in South Carolina. Tony Mills, Joe Mitchell, and Steve Price provided helpful comments on the manuscript. Steve Price provided help making the map. Manuscript preparation was aided by the Environmental Remediation Sciences Division of the Office of Biological and Environmental Research, U.S. Department of Energy through Financial Assistance Award number DE-FCO9-96SR18546 to the University of Georgia Research Foundation. Funding provided by Duke Power, Department of Biology at Davidson College, and National Science Foundation Grants (REU DBI-O1915 and DEB-O476) to MED. LITERATURE CITED BOUGHTON, R. G., J. STAIGER, AND R. FRANZ. 000. Use of PVC pipe refugia as a sampling technique for hylid treefrogs. Am. Mid. Nat. 144:168-177. BROWN, E. E. 199. Notes on amphibians and reptiles of the western piedmont of North Carolina. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 108:8-54. BUDISCHAK, S. A., J. M. HESTER, S. J. PRICE, AND M. E. DORCAS. 006. Natural history of box turtles, Terrapene carolina, in a urbanized landscape. Southeastern Nat. 5: 191-04. BURTON, T. M., AND G. E. LIKENS. 1975. Salamander populations and biomass in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Copeia 1975:541-546. CONANT, R., AND J. T. COLLINS. 1998. Reptiles and Amphibians: Eastern/Central North America, rd Expanded/Edition. Houghton Miffiin Co., Boston, MA. 616 pp. DEMAYNADIER, P. G., AND M. L. HUNTER. 1995. The relationship between forest management and amphibian ecology: a review of the North American literature. Environmental Rev. :0-61. GRANT, G. W., A. D. TUCKER, J. E. LOVICH, A. M. MILLS, P. M. DIXON, AND J. W. GIBBONS. 1991. The use of coverboards in estimating patterns of reptile and amphibian biodiversity. Pp. 79-40 in D. R. McCullough and R. H. Barrett (eds.), Wildlife 001: Populations. Elsevier Applied Sci., NY. KENNEDY, M. H., AND F. M. HICKMAN. 1981. A new decade for biology education. Bioscience. 1:741-745. ORR, D. W. 1989. The campus and the biosphere. Conserv. Bioi. :18-19. RICE, A. N., T. L. ROBERTS IV, J. G. PRITCHARD, AND M. E. DORCAS. 001. Historical trends and perceptions of amphibian and reptile diversity in the western Piedmont of North Carolina. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 117:64-7.

151 PI1TMAN AND DORCAS: COVERBOARD INVENTORY RYAN, T. J., T. PHILLIPPI, L. A. YALE, M. E. DORCAS, T. B. WIGLEY, AND J. W. GIBBONS. 001. Monitoring herpetofauna in a managed forest landscape: effects of habitat types and census techniques. Forest Ecol. Mgt. 167:8-90. Received 6 June 006