• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Executive summary
 Objectives and personnel
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Previous faunal surveys
 General survey methods
 Associated list of amphibians,...
 Significance of the Avon Park vertebrate...
 Road mortality census
 Bibliography
 Florida gopher frog survey
 Indigo snake survey
 Eastern diamondback rattlesnake...
 Florida mouse survey
 Florida round-tailed muskrat
 Sherman's fox squirrel survey
 Gopher tortoise survey
 Bibliography
 Impacts and general recommenda...






Title: Avon Park Air Force Range Project: Distribution and abundance of sensitive wildlife species at Avon Park Air Force Range
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00067423/00001
 Material Information
Title: Avon Park Air Force Range Project: Distribution and abundance of sensitive wildlife species at Avon Park Air Force Range
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Franz, Richard
Affiliation: University of Florida -- Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit -- Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Publisher: Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Publication Date: December 1998
 Notes
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00067423
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        i
    Executive summary
        ii
        iii
    Objectives and personnel
        iv
    Table of Contents
        v
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Previous faunal surveys
        Page 4
    General survey methods
        Page 5
    Associated list of amphibians, repitles, and small mammals
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Significance of the Avon Park vertebrate fauns
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
    Road mortality census
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
    Bibliography
        Page 24
    Florida gopher frog survey
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
    Indigo snake survey
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
    Eastern diamondback rattlesnake survey
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
    Florida mouse survey
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
    Florida round-tailed muskrat
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
    Sherman's fox squirrel survey
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
    Gopher tortoise survey
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
    Bibliography
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
    Impacts and general recommendations
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
Full Text






AVON PARK AIR FORCE RANGE PROJECT:

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF SENSITIVE WILDLIFE
SPECIES AT AVON PARK AIR FORCE RANGE



FINAL REPORT
PROJECT RWO-169

31 DECEMBER 1998










Richard Franz', David Maehr2, Alton Kinlaw3, Christopher O'Brien1, and
Richard D. Owen3
1) Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
2) Wilkison and Associates Inc., Naples FL, and Department of Forestry, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Ky
3) Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
32611









Executive Summary. We surveyed for seven species of sensitive wildlife (Florida gopher frogs,
gopher tortoise, eastern indigo snake, eastern diamondback rattlesnake, Florida mouse, Florida
roundtail muskrat, Sherman's fox squirrel) between October 1996 and May 1998 at Avon Park
Air Force Range (APR). The presence of 87 other species of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals
also were detected. Selected species of birds were noted, particularly if they were found dead on
APR roads. We recorded nine new county records of amphibians and reptiles from Polk and
Highlands counties, based on range maps presented in Ashton and Ashton (1981, 1985, 1988).
We discuss a biogeographic model based on the vertebrates recorded from APR, the Lake Wales
Ridge, and the low dune region along SR 64 to explain some of the distributional anomalies
associated with the Bombing Range Ridge and vicinity.

Based on project data, we found that eastern diamondback rattlesnakes and eastern indigo
snakes are widespread and occur in most natural habitats on APR. Gopher frogs and Florida mice
are specialists in upland habitats and are found primarily in native pine flatwoods, dry/scrubby
flatwoods, turkey oak scrub/xeric hammocks, and oak scrubs/sand pine. Gopher tortoises occur
on most dry sites, including North Florida slash pine timber stands. We believe that the gopher
tortoise's use of the latter ruderal habitat is marginal, with them entering during periods of
drought and leaving when sites become too wet. Florida round-tailed muskrats are locally
common in depression marshes and other shallow grassy wetlands. They appear rare in the
Arbuckle Marsh and Lake Arbuckle, and we did not find them in cypress domes or heavily
forested wetlands. Sherman's fox squirrels occur more abundantly in North Florida slash pine
plantations than in native pine flatwoods and other forested habitats.

All identified sensitive species are common in appropriate habitats on APR. Current level
of military missions does not appear to threat them, although ground operations could potentially
impact gopher tortoises, oak scrubs, and ephemeral wetlands. We have limited information about
these species on active military ranges since we only had occasional access to the more impacted
areas. Grazing may impact oak scrubs, ephemeral wetlands, and gopher tortoises. The most
serious consequence of recreational use is increased vehicular traffic and its accompanying
increased road mortality. Dog hunting may have serious consequences, particularly on gopher
tortoises, since dogs are known to harrass and kill these turtles. We have little information on
poaching other than at least three alligators that were deliberately killed and portions of their flesh
removed during the 1996-1997 hunting season.

Fire is probably the single most important management tool used on the property and
enhances populations of all identified sensitive species including wetlands species. We recommend
at least current levels of prescribed fire be continued in fire-related communities. Except for
target sites, we suspect that most identified sensitive species continue to exist on active ranges
where appropriate natural habitats and frequent fires occur. Fires in depression marshes and other
ephemeral wetlands retard the growth of woody species and keep the grassy aspect of the
wetlands, which favors populations of gopher frogs and Florida round-tailed muskrats. We
discourage ditching, construction of encircling fire lanes, and intensive grazing in ephemeral
wetlands. These practices create barriers for migrating amphibians and promote the invasion of


11


_s~ ~__~_










predatory fishes, which can negatively impact their use as breeding sites for specialize upland
amphibians.

We encourage additional research on the identified species and other sensitive wildlife
species and strongly recommend the protection of ephemeral ponds and oak scrub habitats. High
quality sites representing these habitats should be fenced to excluded cattles.


111










MISSION OBJECTIVES. (1) determine the distribution and relative abundance of 7 species
of sensitive wildlife (Florida roundtail muskrat, Sherman fox squirrel, Florida mouse, gopher
tortoise, Florida gopher frog, indigo snake, and eastern diamondback rattlesnake) on Avon Park
Air Force Range.
(2) determine both the positive and negative impacts of the Avon Park Air Force Range
land management practices, recreational uses, prescribed burning, and military missions.
(3) provide recommendations for management, which will ensure the long-term
persistence of each species. Recommendations will include a plan for monitoring the status of
each species on at least an annual basis and ecosystem based where possible.
(4) include data on the occurrences of other species of vertebrates that are observed
during normal operations.




PROJECT PERSONNEL
Project Director: Richard Franz, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611-7800.
Project Associates: David Maehr (Wilkison & Associates and the University of Kentucky),
Alton Kinlaw (University of Florida), Richard D. Owen (University of Florida), Christopher
O'Brien (University of Florida), James N. Layne (Archbold Biological Station), and Lora Smith
(University of Florida). Official volunteers included Kenny Wray (University of Florida), Mr. and
Mrs. Jack Reynolds (Avon Park), Rex Kinlaw (Orlando).


iv










TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. ii
M mission Statem ent........................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................ v

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1

PREVIOUS FAUNAL SURVEYS........................................................ .............. 2

SURVEY METHODS..................................................................................... 4

RESULTS........................................................................................................ 5
Annotated List of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals.................................. 5
Significance of Avon Park Air Force Range Vertebrate Fauna...................... 13
Road Mortality Census........................................................ 18
Florida Gopher Frog Survey............................................................................... 22
Eastern Indigo Snake Survey.................................................... ................... 30
Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake Survey............................................................ 33
Florida M house Survey..................................................................................... 37
Florida Round-Tailed Muskrat Survey................................................................... 49
Sherman's Fox Squirrel Survey........................................................................... 56
Gopher Tortoise Survey........................................ ..................................... 65

IMPACTS AND GENERAL RECOMMEDATIONS...................... .......... 88


V









INTRODUCTION


The Avon Park Air Force Range (APR) is a 106,074-acre military reservation located
approximately 9.5 (air) miles east of the town of Avon Park in Polk and Highlands counties,
south-central Florida. APR is used by the Air Force (AF) as an active bombing range. AF
operations are focused on an operations facility, natural resources facility, two air strips, and
seven military-use ranges (Foxtrot, Bravo, and Alpha Ranges north of Kissimmee Road; OQ,
Charlie, Echo, and Oscar south of Kissimmee Road). Three ranges (Foxtrot, Bravo, and Echo)
include active bombing target. A portion of the property is leased to the state of Florida
Department of Corrections (FDOC), which maintains a large prison facility. Some former AF
housing and support facilities are occupied by FDOC staff. Other AF buildings were abandoned
and boarded up during the course of the study, although there are recent attempts to renovate
these buildings for use as homes for "at risk" children. The AF and FDOC infrastructure is
concentrated in a small area in the west-central portion of APR, probably including no more than
3% of the property. Remaining acreage is maintained as North Florida slash pine plantations,
natural vegetation, pastures, recreational use areas, or military impact areas, and most is managed
for timber, cattle grazing, and/or wildlife resources. A series of paved (Kissimmee, Frostproof,
and Van Eeghen roads), shellrock, and unproved roads crisscross the property breaking it up into
a large series of management units and military ranges. APR is also available to recreationist on
weekends and for selected days during the week and to hunters during the various hunting
seasons. During these periods, the public has access to most of the property, except for the
restricted bombing ranges. The highest public use occurs during the hunting seasons. Public use
areas include four campgrounds (Entrance, Willingham, Morgan Hole, and Ft. Kissimmee
campgrounds), a private family cemetery, a nature trail (Lake Arbuckle access), and boat landings
(Kissimmee River and Arbuckle Creek).

Geography
APR is bounded on the east by the Kissimmee River and on the west by Arbuckle Creek,
including Lake Arbuckle and Arbuckle Marsh. The property is dominated topographically by a
north/south trending, sand ridge, referred to as the Bombing Range Ridge (BRR) (White, 1970).
It is widest in the north, tapering to a narrow ridge in the south. Formerly a dune complex, the
ridge represents a classic "drum-stick" barrier island, thought to have developed during an early
Pleistocene marine regression, similar to that which formed the Lake Wales Ridge. The BRR
slopes away to the Osceola Plain in the north and east and to the Okeechobee Plain in the south
(White 1970). A large area east of the Kissimmee River is state-owned and managed as the
Kissimmee River State Preserve. The ridge extends north and south of the APR boundaries.
These areas are privately owned and are not incorporated in the APR survey. North of the BRR
itself, the low-lying Osceola Plain includes a series of large freshwater lakes, including Lake
Kissimmee, Lake Rosalie, Tiger Lake, Lake Weohyakapka, and Reedy Lake. To the west, across
Arbuckle Creek, the ridge merges with a series of low sand ridges and swales that stretch
westward to the Lake Wales Ridge. The eastern portion of this area is the Arbuckle Tract of the
Lake Wales Ridge State Forest, managed by the Florida Division of Forestry. County Road 64
crosses these low dune ridges and connects the town of Avon Park with APR. This road is the


1






































I


I.


I


O
4-

0
r cm


4J U





ro
L0 0




cs-
0 0
,r- >
.-,
.r-->
L,- ,CC


t


I'.:) .


i


IL-f









primary access to APR. Elevations range on the site from 40 feet along the Kissimmee River to
146 feet above mean sea level at the crest of the BRR (Fig. In-1). The plain between the town of
Avon Park and APR lies at about 100 feet, while the Osceola and Okeechobee plains rarely
exceed 60 feet.

Vegetation
The vegetative communities have been mapped by AF Natural Resources staff using the
classification of the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). We attempted to follow the APR
cover type classification, but found it too finely divided making it difficult to reconcile with
vertebrate distributions. We plotted localities for some identified sensitive species on AP-GIS
vegetative cover maps. As for habitat analysis, however, we chose to combine certain of the APR
cover types into the following habitat categories (Table In-1): (1) oak scrub/sand pine (SCR), (2)
turkey oak scrub/xeric hammock (XH), (3) mature oak hammock (OH), (4) dry
flatwoods/scrubby flatwoods (SCF), with scrubby oak understory, (5) native pine flatwoods
(LLPF), with longleafpine and/or South Florida slash pine, with or without cutthroat grass, (6)
dry prairie/typical pine flatwoods (PRA), with light or no pine overstory, (7) planted pine/timber
stands (SLPF), with planted North Florida slash pine, (8) hardwood swamp forests (SWA), (9)
bay swamp/pine swamp/wet flatwoods (BAY), (10) cypress (CYP), (11) marsh/ wet prairie/lake
edge (WPR), (12) ephemeral ponds (EP), and (13) permanent water (PW), including Lake
Arbuckle, Kissimmee River, and deep borrow pits and canals.

Table In-1. Acreage for cover types and habitats at AP based on data provided by Steve Orzil,
botanist at APR.

Habitat Cover Types Acreage

Oak Scrub (SCR) 5,628.42
Turkey Oak Scrub/Xeric Hammock (XH) 51.76
Mature Oak Hammock (OH) 2,173.46
Dry Flatwoods/Scrubby Flatwoods (SCF) 375.75
Native Pine Flatwoods (LLPF) 62,080.63
Dry Prairie/ Typical Flatwoods (PRA) 1,444.55
Planted Pine Plantation/Timber Stand (SLPF) 15,000.00
Hardwood Swamp Forest (SWA) 1,924.02
Bay Swamp/Pine swamp/Wet Flatwoods (BAY) 13,421.76
Cypress (CYP) 3,136.27
Marsh/Wet Prairie/Lake Edge (WPR) 5,980.90
Ponds (EP) 181.08
Tame Pastures 1,790.00


2


~II









PREVIOUS FAUNAL SURVEYS


We are aware of five other faunal surveys that have been conducted at APR. The current
survey represents a sixth attempt to catalogue this unique property's biological richness. Some
voucher specimens from these older surveys have been deposited in the Florida Museum of
Natural History (UF) and the North Carolina State Museum (NCSM).

Funderburg Survey
The first attempt stemmed from an NSF grant to John Funderburg, then a professor at Florida
Southern College in Lakeland, in the mid-1960s. Collections of amphibians, reptiles, and
mammals were obtained by Funderburg and his students, particularly David S. Lee (currently
Curator of Birds, NCSM). Mammal specimens are catalogued in the mammal collection at
NCSM in Raleigh, North Carolina (Mary Kay Clark, Curator of Mammals, NCSM, pers. comm.).
The herpetological material was retained by Florida Southern following Funderburg's departure in
1971 to Randolph-Macon College in Virginia (D.S. Lee, pers. comm.). These specimens appear
to have been discarded in the interim. Lee and Funderburg published several notes on these and
other collections from the Lake Wales Ridge region as part of the grant, but a final report
apparently is no longer available.

Game Commission Survey
A second mammal collection was obtained by David H. Austin, J. L. Reece, and W. O. Wirtz
of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Initially housed in the Archbold
collection, the specimens were later transferred to the Florida Museum of Natural History. The
collection includes 6 species, about 50 specimens (Virginia opossum, cotton mouse, cotton rat,
cottontail, grey squirrel, and raccoon). The localities for UF specimens are listed as "Avon Park
Management Area, Lake Arbuckle, Highlands County" and "25 miles east of Fort Kissimmee,
Highlands County."

Christman Scrub Study
Christman inventoried the specialized biota of scrub sites in Florida, including those at APR
and Arbuckle Tract of the Lake Wales Ridge State Forest (Christman 1988). His report includes
information on the Avon Ridge North Scrub (HIGH 15) (T.33S, R.31E, Sec. 18), Old Bombing
Range Road Scrub (HIGH 49) (T.33S, R.29E, Sec.09), Avon Ridge Lower Scrub (HIGH 73)
(T.34S, R.31E, Sec. 06) in Highlands County; Lake Arbuckle SW Scrub (POLK 25) (T.32S,
R.29E, Sec.36), West Spur Ridge West Scrub (POLK 63) (T.32S, R.30E, Sec.09), Old Bravo
Scrub (POLK 74) (T.32S, R.30E, Sec 25), Rte. 64 Railroad Scrub (POLK 75) (T.32S, R.29E,
Sec. 34) in Polk County. Most of the inventory work involved plants but certain scrub
vertebrates were included (e.g., gopher tortoise, scrub lizards, blue-tailed mole skink, and sand
skinks).

Nico/Williams Fish- Crayfish-Mussel Survey
An aquatic survey was conducted by members of the National Biological Service of the U.S.
Geological Survey at APR in 1995-96. They collected approximately 20 samples of adult and


3


_









larval amphibians in conjunction with their sampling efforts. Most of the amphibians that they
found were common species in weedy habitats; however, they secured one species, Siren
lacertina, which other surveys including the current project apparently missed.

Branch/Hokit/Stith Herpetological Study
This effort produced a herpetofaunal list that included 12 amphibians and 26 reptiles at APR
and 3 amphibians and 8 reptiles at the Arbuckle Tract (Branch et al. 1997, see Table their 11.2).
We duplicated the species on their list for APR and added 27 other herpetological species. This
research effort included the use of drift fences in association with buckle traps, cover boards,
raking, and general collecting practices to sample scrub lizards (Sceloporus woodi), blue-tailed
mole skinks (Eumeces egregious lividus), and sand skinks (Neoseps reynoldsi) within oak scrub
patches at APR and the Arbuckle Tract. They found scrub lizards commonly at both study sites
and the rare skinks only at the Arbuckle Tract. Their considerable effort included searching scrub
patches for 358 person-hours, raking 3786 m2 appropriate microhabitat, trapping on arrays for
3496 trap nights, checking cover boards in 4912 visits, and trapping on girds for 61,600 trap
nights (Branch et al. 1997).

GENERAL SURVEY METHODS

Four methods described here provided information on vertebrate distributions on APR
amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. The road surveys helped us evaluate the importance of
vehicular mortality on sensitive and other wildlife species on local roads. We depended on these
methods, in particular, to gather information on eastern indigo snakes and eastern diamondback
rattlesnakes, since there are no practical methods to sample them. We describe other methods in
the individual species accounts that we used to target more difficult-to-observed species,
including five of the seven identified sensitive species.

Road Surveys
We established a mileage log in November (1996) that recorded observations of vertebrates
(amphibians, reptiles, mammals) associated with APR roadways. We began to record information
on birds in September (1997) when we discovered that no one was recording similar data on bird
mortality on the Range. The road log was kept each time a field team left the project office at the
Visiting Officer Quarters (VOQ) using project vehicles. Data sheets included beginning and
ending mileages, beginning and ending times of forays, and a map of the Range. The identity of
the animal, time of day on the road, status (dead or alive), location, and associated habitat were
recorded.

Incidental Sightings
Field teams recorded the occurrence of amphibians, reptiles, selected birds, and mammals or
their signs during routine field activities. Similar to road survey data, researchers noted the
identity, time of day, location, and associated habitat. The purpose was to provide supplemental
information on the distributions of identified sensitive and other wildlife at APR. Information also
was obtained from other professional contract biologists and Natural Resources staff. We also


4








circulated a poster that asked other interested parties to report sightings to the project office.

Museum Collections
We searched the data bases of 32 museums for specimens of amphibians and reptiles and three
museum for mammal data. We acquired museum data on amphibians, reptiles and mammals from
the Florida Museum of Natural History (UF) and on mammals from the North Carolina Museum
of Natural History (NCSM) and from Archbold Biological Station. These records augmented the
project list with three additional species (Siren lacertina) at UF, southern mole (Scalopus
aquaticus) and free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) at NCSM.

Burrow Camera and Illuminator Surveys
We used burrow cameras and illuminators to examine tortoise and armadillo burrows for
burrow commensals, particularly eastern indigo snakes, eastern diamondback rattlesnakes, gopher
frogs, and Florida mice. The light from illuminators, either reflected sunlight from mirrors or
strong flash light beams, penetrated the first portions of burrows, the distance dependent on the
curvature of the passage. The burrow cameras, illuminated by infra-red light sources, were
manufactured by Ed Wester, and were able to penetrate the burrow to a distance of 5 meters.

ANNOTATED LIST OF AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, AND SMALL MAMMALS

This list was compiled from road surveys, incidental sightings, captures, and museum records
found by us during the current APR project or reported by Nico/Williams fish-crayfish-mussel
survey, Branch/Hokit/Stith herpetofaunal study, Avon Park staff, contract researchers, and Marty
Martin rattlesnake survey (Table Fa-1). Specific records are provided in the accompanying list
when a species appeared rare or limited in distribution on APR. Peripheral records from outside
the property boundaries occasionally are provided to emphasize unique distributional anomalies.
The taxonomic treatments follow Conant and Collins (1991) for amphibians and reptiles and Hall
(1981) for mammals, except when modified by newer taxonomic interpretations and new
distributional information. Voucher specimens of unprotected species from the current survey
have been deposited in the herpetological collection at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

Table Fa-1. List of 94 species of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals recorded from APR.

AMPHIBIANS
(Frogs)
ELEUTH ERODACTYLIDAE
Greenhouse Frog, Eleutherodactyhls planirostris planirostris. Introduced. Common at
office and apartments on Easy Street, Williingham Campground, Morgan Hole Campground, and
between Echo Springs/Sandy Hill roads. Its presence at sites away from developed areas suggests
that this species has become naturalized in woodlands on APR.
BUFONIDAE
Marine Toad, Bufo marines. Introduced. Two individuals were found in the vicinity of
the apartments on Easy Street and near the Fire Tower and Natural Resources Cabin, POLK CO.


5









Breeding was not observed during the APR survey.
Oak Toad, Bufo quercicus. Abundant and ubiquitous on APR. Common statewide.
Southern Toad, Bufo terrestris. Abundant and ubiquitous. Common statewide.
HYLIDAE
Florida Cricket Frog, Acris gryllus dorsalis. Abundant in all wetlands. This subspecies
occurs throughout most of Florida and is replaced by another subspecies in parts of the Florida
panhandle.
Green Treefrog, Hyla cinerea. Abundant. Breeds in permanent wetlands. Common
statewide
Pinewoods Treefrog, Hylafemoralis. Common. Breeds in ephemeral wetlands. Resident
in native pine flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, and oak scrub. Common statewide.
Barking Treefrog, Hyla gratiosa. Common. Breeds in ephemeral ponds. Secretive,
sometimes in burrows. Resident in oak scrub, scrubby flatwoods, and turkey scrub. Locally
common statewide.
Squirrel Treefrog, Hyla squirrella. Abundant. Breeds in ephemeral wetlands. Resident in
scrubby flatwoods, turkey scrubs, oak hammocks, and around human habitations. Common
statewide.
Little Grass Frog, Pseudacris ocularis. Locally common in grassy flatwoods and dry
prairies. Breeds in shallow waters in ditches and grassy ponds. Common statewide. Highlands
County occurrences represent a new county record (Ashton and Ashton 1988).
Florida Chorus Frog, Pseudacris nigrita verrucosa. Locally common. Secretive. Breeds
in shallow water in grassy flatwoods ponds and ditches. Residential habitat unknown. This
subspecies is restricted to peninsular Florida; a second subspecies occurs in the panhandle. The
Highlands County observations represent a new county record (Ashton and Ashton 1988).
Cuban Treefrog, Osteoplius septentrionalis. Introduced. Common on the buildings on
Easy Street, with breeding occurring in the catchment ditches in back of the apartments, POLK
CO. The frog was not found away from human habitations.
MICROHYLIDAE
Eastern Narrowmouth Frog, Gastrophryne carolinensis. Abundant and ubiquitous.
Common statewide. Breeds in shallow, ephemeral pools and ditches.
RANIDAE
Florida Gopher Frog, Rana capitol aesopus. Locally common. Breeds in ephemeral
ponds associated with upland habitats. Frequent resident of gopher tortoise burrows oak scrubs,
native pine flatwoods, and turkey scrubs. See report. This subspecies occurs throughout east
Florida and is replaced by a second race in the panhandle. Protected in Florida.
Bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Recorded from four sites: calling males in ephemeral pond
south of Bravo and Frostproof, calling adults and tadpoles in pond on Frostproof 1 mi NW Jct of
Arnold Hammock Road, pond on Kissimmee Road on Main Base near prison, POLK CO.;
tadpoles in cattle pond on South Echo Springs Road, HIGHLANDS CO. Tadpoles of this
species also were found in an off-site ephemeral pond on north side of CR 64 in Arbuckle State
Forest, POLK CO. Common statewide, except for extreme south Florida. The Highlands County
specimens represent a new county record (Ashton and Ashton 1988). It reaches its most southern
limits in Highlands and Charlotte counties.


6









Pig Frog, Rana grylio. Common in permanent wetlands, borrow pits, deeper roadside
ditches, Lake Arbuckle, Arbuckle Marsh, and Kissimmee River. Common statewide.
Southern Leopard Frog, Rana utricularia. Abundant and ubiquitous. Breeds in most
wetlands on APR. Common statewide. There is a possibility that leopard frog populations in the
Florida peninsula may represent an undescribed taxon.

(Salamanders)
AMPHIUMIDAE
Two-toed Amphiuma, Amphiuma means. Probably common. Known only from a cypress
pond at jct. Kulhanek/Ramsey roads, HIGHLANDS CO. Common statewide.
PLETHODONTIDAE
Dwarf Salamander, Eurycea quadridigitata. Known only from cutthroat seepage slopes
associated with pine flatwoods along Billig Road, POLK CO. Common statewide. Certain
populations in the Florida panhandle apparently represent undescribed taxa.
SALAMANDRIDAE
Peninsula Newt, Notophthalmus viridescenspiaropicola. Probably common. Know from
cypress and bayhead ponds on Kulhanek, HIGHLANDS CO.; ditches on Kissimmee Road on
west side of OQ Range, HIGHLANDS CO. This subspecies is restricted to south Florida.
Another subspecies occurs in north and west Florida. The Highlands County specimens represent
a new county record for the species (Ashton and Ashton 1988).
SIRENIDAE
Greater Siren, Siren lacertina. Probably common in permanent wetlands. Know from
only one site: Rim Canal, ditch intersecting Utes Road, 100 m S jct Jennings Memorial Drive
POLK CO., 18 Mar 96, L. Nico, et al. (UF 108785). Common statewide.
Lesser Siren, Siren intermedia. Common in ephemeral wetlands and in cypress ponds.
Common in peninsular Florida; populations in west Florida represent several undescribed taxa
(P.E. Moler, pers. comm.).
Dwarf Siren, Pseudobranchus axanthus axanthus. Uncommon. Known from Arbuckle
Marsh at Sandy Point Refuge, southern edge of Foxtrot Range, POLK CO.; cypress pond Wjct
Alexander/Van Eeghen roads, HIGHLAND CO. The Highlands County specimens represent a
new county record (Ashton and Ashton 1988). This subspecies occurs in north Florida, reaching
its southern limits in the Avon Park area. A second subspecies occurs in south Florida. No
Pseudobranchus striatus are reported from this region (Paul Moler, pers. comm.).

REPTILES
(Alligators)
ALLIGATORIDAE
American Alligator, Alligator mississipiensis. Common in Lake Arbuckle, Arbuckle
Creek, Arbuckle Marsh, borrow ponds, road side ditches, and in some more permanent flatwoods
and upland ponds. Three were apparently killed and at least one butchered during hunting season
in 1997 and 1998; several others were found dead on the road (DOR). Common statewide.


7









(Turtles)
CHELYDRIDAE
Florida Snapping Turtle, Chelydra serpentina osceola. Possibly rare. One DOR turtle
near the Guard Meeting House, POLK CO. This subspecies is restricted to peninsular Florida;
another subspecies occurs in the Florida panhandle and extreme northeastern Florida.
EMYDIDAE
Florida Chicken Turtle, Deirochelys reticularia chrysea. Rare. One record from a pond
on Frostproof Road S of Carter Road, POLK CO. This record represents a new county record
(Ashton and Ashton 1985). This subspecies is restricted to peninsular Florida; another subspecies
occurs in the panhandle.
Peninsula Cooter, Pseudemysfloridanapeninsularis. Common in permanent wetlands,
especially along Frostproof Road, POLK CO. This subspecies is restricted to peninsula Florida.
Florida Redbelly Turtle, Pseudemys nelsoni. Common in permanent wetlands,
particularly along Frostproof and Degagne roads, POLK CO. The Polk County sightings
represent a new county record (Ashton and Ashton 1985). This species is endemic to peninsular
Florida.
Florida Box Turtle, Terrapene carolina bauri. Common and ubiquitous. This subspecies
occurs in peninsular Florida and is replaced by several other subspecies in the panhandle.
KINOSTERNIDAE
Striped Mud Turtle, Kinosternon bauripalmarum. Status unknown. A shell was found
in close proximity to a caracara nest near Kissimmee River, HIGHLANDS Co. This turtle is
thought to be restricted in peninsular Florida, although new molecular data indicate it may have a
wider distribution in the Atlantic coastal plain.
Florida Mud Turtle, Kinosternon subrubrum steindachneri. Apparently uncommon. One
record in pasture on the western end of Kissimmee Road, HIGHLANDS CO. This peninsular
subspecies is replaced by another subspecies in west and north Florida.
TESTUDINIDAE
Gopher Tortoises, Gopheruspolyphemus. Locally common in upland habitats. See
report. Statewide. Protected as a Species of Special Concern in Florida.
TRIONYCHIDAE
Florida Soft-shelled Turtles, Apaloneferox. Locally common. Records include a pond
near jct of Degagne/Frostproof roads, Lake Arbuckle Nature Trail, and roadside ditch on
Degagne Road, POLK CO.; Kissimmee Road at jct with OQ Range, HIGHLANDS CO.
Common statewide.

(Worm Lizards)
AMPHISBAENIDAE
Florida Worm Lizard, Rhineurafloridana. Secretive. Records include Willingham
Campground, 1 mile E of Lake Arbuckle, POLK COUNTY, 26 July 1990, Rick Howton. (P.
Walsh, pers. comm.); excavated during construction of drift fence in oak scrub during
Branch/Hokit project, HIGHLANDS CO. Primarily in peninsular Florida.


8


__~__________1_____111_1









(Lizards)
ANGUIDAE
Eastern Slender Glass Lizard, Ophisaurus attentuatus longicaudus. Secretive.
Unverified record. Probably statewide. Literature records from Polk County (Ashton and Ashton
198-), but not Highlands County. Report from APR needs verification.
Island Glass Lizard, Ophisaurus compressus. Secretive. Common on Kissimmee and
Bubba roads, associated with central ridge, HIGHLANDS CO. Uncommon in peninsular Florida
GEKKONIDAE
Indo-Pacific Gecko, Hemidactylus garnoti. Introduced. Found on buildings on Easy
Street, POLK CO.
IGUANIDAE
Green Anole, Anolis carolinensis. Abundant and ubiquitous. Common statewide.
Cuban Brown Anole, Anolis sagrei. Introduced. Found on buildings on Easy Street,
Willingham Campground, and borrow pit at jet of Degagne and Frostproof roads, POLK CO.; Air
Force Headquarters and Operations Building, HIGHLANDS CO.
Scrub Lizard, Sceloporus woodi. Abundant in oak scrub and scrubby flatwoods.
Restricted to peninsular Florida, south of the Oklawaha River.
SCINCIDAE
Southeastern Five-lined Skink, Eumeces inexpectatus. Abundant and ubiquitous. Occurs
in peninsular Florida, but it may be absent from the Florida panhandle based on current records.
Ground Skink, Scincella lateral. Abundant and ubiquitous. Common statewide.
TEIIDAE
Eastern Six-lined Racerunner, Cnemidophorus sexilineatus sexlineatus. Common in
upland habitats, particularly along sand roads and barrens. Common statewide.

(Snakes)
COLUBRIDAE
Florida Scarlet Snake, Cemophora coccinea coccinea. Secretive. Probably more
common than records indicate. Captured in pit fall traps in native pine flatwoods near Foxtrot
Range, POLK CO.; NW of Tschirhert Road, SWjct Ramsey/Kulhanek road, HIGHLANDS CO.
Specimens also reported by Branch-Hokit in scrub. The Highlands County observations represent
a new county record. Subspecies restricted to peninsular Florida; another subspecies occurs in the
Florida panhandle.
Southern Black Racer, Coluber constrictor priapus. Abundant and ubiquitous. Common
statewide, except for other subspecies in Apalachicola area and extreme south Florida.
Eastern Indigo Snake, Drymarchon corals couperi. See report. Statewide. Protected as
Threatened Species by United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Southern Ringneck Snake, Diadophispunctatus punctatus. Common in mixed
hardwood swamp forests and oak hammocks. Specific records include Lake Arbuckle Nature
Trail, SE corner of Foxtrot Range at Blood/Oliver roads, POLK CO.; jct Kissimmee/Bravo roads,
HIGHLANDS. Statewide.
Corn Snake, Elaphe guttata guttata. Common and ubiquitous. Common statewide.
Yellow Ratsnake, Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata. Common and ubiquitous. Subspecies


9









occurs in peninsular Florida; other subspecies in extreme south Florida and the Florida panhandle.
Eastern Mudsnake, Farancia abacura abacura. Probably common in permanent
wetlands. Known from one DOR record from jet of Tick Island and Wood roads. Common
statewide.
Eastern Hognose Snake, Heterodonplatirhinos. Possibly rare. Known from one record:
Kissimmee Road (Dave Leonard, pers. comm.). Statewide.
Scarlet Kingsnake, Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides. Probably more common at APR
than records indicate. APR records include 1 mi NW jct Kissimmee Road and Tschirhart Road,
POLK CO., 0.5 mi SW jct Ramsey Road and Kulhanek Road, HIGHLANDS CO. The Highlands
County observation represents a new county record (Ashton and Ashton 1981). Statewide.
Eastern Coachwhip, Masticophis flagellum flagellum. Probably common on most
upland sites. Common statewide.
Florida Green Watersnake, Nerodiafloridana. Probably common. Records include
ditches in dry prairie on Kissimmee Road and bomb craters on Echo Range, HIGHLANDS CO.
Statewide except for extreme west Florida.
Florida Watersnake, Nerodiafasciatapictiventris. Abundant in all wetlands. Subspecies
in peninsular Florida; another subspecies in west Florida.
Rough Green Snake, Opheodrys aestivus. Probably more common than records indicate.
Records include oak hammock jct Old Bravo/Smith roads, POLK CO.; oak hammock on E end
Kissimmee Road, flatwoods on W border of Charlie Range and Kissimmee Road, HIGHLANDS
CO. Statewide.
Florida Pine Snake, Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus. Rare. Secretive. Know from one
record in oak scrub on west side of Old Bravo Road, HIGHLANDS CO. Uncommon statewide.
Thought to be declining throughout the state.
Striped Crayfish Snake, Regina alleni. Uncommon. Records from roadside ditch on
Black Road S of Wood Road and Smith Grade atjct with Morgan Creek, POLK CO (O'Brien,
1998). Species restricted to peninsular Florida.
Pine Woods Snake, Rhadinaeaflavilata. Rare. Secretive. Two records from flatwoods
NE ofjct Blood/Oliver roads, POLK CO.; cut over flatwoods adjacent to wet prairie N ofjct
Morgan/Alexander, HIGHLANDS CO. Probably statewide; records lacking for most west Florida
counties. The Highlands County specimen represents a new county record (Ashton and Ashton
1981).
South Florida Swamp Snake, Seminatrixpygaea cyclas. Uncommon. One record from
W ofjct Morgan/Alexander roads, HIGHLANDS CO. Peninsular subspecies; another subspecies
in north and west Florida.
Florida Brown Snake, Storeria dekayi victa. Locally common. Multiple observations on
Tick Island Road, POLK CO. and Kissimmee Road, HIGHLANDS CO. Peninsular Florida with
other subspecies in west Florida.
Peninsula Crowned Snake, Tantilla relicta relicta. Locally common in scrub. Species
restricted to peninsular Florida. Several subspecies recognized in peninsular Florida.
Southern Ribbon Snake, Thamnophis sauritus sackeni. Abundant and ubiquitous,
particularly along Kissimmee Road. Peninsular Florida with other subspecies in west Florida.
Eastern Garter Snake, Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis. Common and ubiquitous. Statewide;


10









a second subspecies confined to Gulf Coast marshes.
ELAPIDAE
Eastern Coral Snake, Micrurusfulviusfulvius. Probably common. Known from two
records (DOR) on Kissimmee Road and in mature sand pine forest near north Sandy Hill Grade,
HIGHLANDS CO. Common statewide.
CROTALIDAE
Florida Cottonmouth, Agkistrodon piscivorus conanti. Common and ubiquitous in all
wetlands. Common statewide. Peninsular Florida subspecies; another subspecies in west Florida.
Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake, Crotalis adamanteus. See report. Statewide.
Considered declining throughout Florida.
Dusky Pigmy Rattlesnake, Sistrurus miliarius barbouri. Common and ubiquitous on
APR. Common statewide.

MAMMALS
(Marsupials)
DIDELPHIDAE
Virginia Opossum, Didelphis virginiana. Common and ubiquitous. Statewide. Specimen
in NCSM collection (NCSM 2118).

(Edentates)
DASYPODIDAE
Nine-banded Armadillo, Dasypus novemcinctus. Common and ubiquitous. Statewide.

(Insectivores)
SORCIDAE
Peninsula Short-tailed Shrew, Blarina carolinensispeninsulae. Apparently rare.
Secretive. Record based on specimen in photograph by Chris O'Brien. This race is confined to the
southern part of the Florida peninsula and is replaced by other subspecies in northern Florida and
in the area of Tampa on the Gulf coast.
Peninsula Least Shrew, Cryptotisparvafloridana. Apparently rare. Secretive. Record
based on specimen from 0.5 mi N jct Kissimmee Road and Tschirhart Grade, HIGHLANDS CO.
This race of shrew is confined to Florida with other subspecies found north of the state.
Specimens collected at APR in 1968-1969 in NCSM collection (NCSM 2180-2182).
TALPIDAE
Southern Mole, Scalopus aquaticus australis. Status unknown. Secretive. One specimen
collected at APR in 1968 in NCSM collection (NCSM 2179); no specific locality is listed with
specimen. The mole was common at APR in the 1960s (D.S. Lee, pers. comm.). We did not
encounter this mammal during our surveys. This subspecies occurs in Florida and southeastern
Georgia.

(Bats)
CHIROPTERA
Bats were commonly seen flying at dusk. No surveys were conducted, but at least eight


11


~I___~__ ____~_









species of bats in two families (Molassidae and Vespertilionidae) are suspected to occur at APR.
Specimens of free-tailed bats from APR are in the NCSM collection (NCSM 1647 and 1977)
obtained in 1964.

(Rabbits)
LEPORIDAE
Florida Cottontail, Sylvilagusfloridanusfloridanus. Common and ubiquitous.
Florida Marsh Rabbit, Sylvilaguspalustrispaludicola. Locally common in wetlands.

(Rodents)
CRICETIDAE
South Florida Cotton Mouse, Peromyscus gossypinuspalmarius. Abundant and
widespread. See report. This subspecies is restricted to peninsular Florida. Other subspecies
occur in north Florida, Sarasota area, coastal southwest Florida, and Lignum Vitae Key (Hall
1981).
South Florida Oldfield Mouse, Peromyscuspolionotus rhoadsi. Old field mice are less
common than other upland mouse species at APR. See report. This subspecies is restricted to
certain portions of peninsular Florida, reaching its southern extend in the vicinity of Avon Park.
Peripheral records include: Hicoria, Sebring and Auburndale. Other subspecies occur along the
southeast coastal strand south to Dade County and in the Tampa area (Hall 1981).
Florida Mouse, Podomysfloridanus. Locally common. See report for its distribution on
APR. Restricted to peninsular Florida, from the vicinity of the Suwannee River, south to Lake
Okeechebee and to Miami along the Atlantic coastal ridge. A isolated population may exist in
Taylor County, but there has been no recent collections to confirm this report. The Florida mouse
is the only endemic species of mammal in Florida.
Florida Golden Mouse, Ochrotomys nuttallifloridanus. Rare. APR record based on two
specimens from Mobile Trapping transects 92 and 113. See report. Restricted to peninsular
Florida, reaching the southern terminus of their range at APR and Hicoria in Polk County and
New Berlin on the Gulf Coast (Hall 1981).
South Florida Hispid Cotton Rat, Sigmodon hispidusfloridanus. Common. See report.
This subspecies is restricted to southern peninsula of Florida except in certain coastal areas, the
Everglades, and Big Pine Key where other subspecies occur (Hall 1981).
Central Florida Rice Rat, Oryzomyspalustris natator or coloratus. Locally common.
See report. This subspecies is restricted to north-central portion of peninsular Florida. Other
subspecies occur in north Florida, southwest Florida, Sanibel Island, south Florida, and the Lower
Keys (Hall 1981, Humphrey 1992). Specimens collected at APR in 1963 and 1969 in collection of
NCSM (NCSM uncat.).
Florida Round-tailed Muskrat, Neofiber alleni nigrescens. Locally common. See
report. The Florida round-tailed muskrat occurs from the Appalachicola River in Florida and
Valdosta and the Okefenokee Swamp in extreme southeast Georgia southward to the southern tip
of the peninsula. The species is absent from the Gulf Coast area from Dixie County to Hernando
County. This muskrat has been divided into five subspecies, with Neofiber alleni nigrescens
occurring in the vicinity of the APR (Hall 1981).


12









SCIURIDAE
South Florida Gray Squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis extimus. Locally common in
hammock habitats. This gray squirrel occurs specifically in the southern half of the Florida
peninsula with other subspecies in the northern peninsula and in the Florida Keys.
Sherman's Fox Squirrel, Sciurus niger shermani. Locally common in pine habitats
along the slopes and less commonly on the top of the central portion of the AP Bombing Range
Ridge. See report and accompanying range maps. Sherman's fox squirrel is restricted in
distribution to peninsular Florida, with other subspecies in extreme south Florida and in the
Florida panhandle. Specimen (DOR) collected at APR in 1964 in collection of NCSM (NCSM
2266).

(Carnivores)
CANIDAE
Coyoto, Canis latrans spp. Common and ubiquitous. Recent arrival in Florida.
Red Fox, Vulpesfulva spp. Record based on two sightings: flatwoods on north fence, 17
March 1997; pine plantation on Kissimmee Road, west of Old Bravo, 20 May 1997. Recent
arrival in central Florida, not present at APR in 1960s (D.S. Lee, pers. comm.).
Southeastern Gray Fox, Urocyon cinereoargenteusfloridanus. Common and ubiquitous.
Specimen collected at APR in 1969 in collection of NCSM (NCSM 3017).
PROCYONIDAE
Florida Raccoon, Procyon lotor elucus. Abundant and ubiquitous.
MUSTELIDAE
Florida Long-tailed Weasel, Mustelafrenatapeninsulae. Rare. One sighting on
Kissimmee Road near jet. with Van Eeghen (Pat Walsh, obs.).
Florida Spotted Skunk, Spilogale putorius ambarvalis. Occasionally seen. May be
locally common. This small skunk was encountered several times in association with small
mammal trapping on the southern part of APR. See Fig. S-1 for locality records. This race is
restricted to the Florida peninsula; another form occurs in the Florida panhandle. Specimen
collected from "scrub behind camp at Ft. Kissimmee" from APR in 1964 in collection ofNCSM
(NCSM 2105).
Southeastern River Otter, Lutra canadensis vaga. Occasionally seen. This mammal was
observed numerous times crossing roads associated with wetlands at APR. See Fig. 0-1 for
locality records. This race is confined to Georgia and Florida. Specimen collected at APR in 1965
in collection of NCSM (NCSM 1850).
FELIDAE
Southeastern Bobcat, Lynx rufusfloridanus. Occasionally seen and probably ubiquitous.

(Artiodactyls)
CERVIDAE
White-tailed Deer, Odocoileus virginianus seminola. Common and ubiquitous.


13































.I~ 1:


L.




I-
:
..; : .




1' -



'-- -, --
\ '


. '", "
A:


....--
- -A.


,, -"-",.






i. ,
.. ".


.' '* ..hM*< \
.- :' ,:


I- .. .j..

L. -. -- .. ..* \ \
,' I _

s- -4.



S- ': b /'
. ... ''' -Jl : .

.-* -L.,,_ .---'*** -^.


M
'* di


Ii


.. .,4 .

.
-T '~... *" "- JL*' .,, ';, .-

* dl2l .. '' '* *
Ii --V *
r dUrO'jffr p *iJ '~ '*.j**-' 4' ..



__ P- I
U :, % :'. L ,



,'- a
'' t" . '4 -:":":"I
*- .1 *-


'4


/^
* < "*


* i l IIIS8ll II
-9-a







*fl: 41 ** m


Ga





0

0

ul
-,
o


Ga
mf

0


I

4
i


I
5
a
U
U

p
4


/

/ .


/ I


*.44
49
49


'r131


4-
4,~


1


I


t


.-..:


r


i


i


ef


f,


I!






























.;Ei .4

.' .' '.

*'I ,.-t, *II


1-..


U




m
h

4
45
a
I








.C
.



I
I c,
r'

V"-"^ ^


'. ''"


*"'^ '


"'A


r


i





i
j -


Ii


I -e





.5 I


'- ...' "'r "_".. ::, :1
".:*'.-l^ :_. I
I.I


*1 "----'-'-:4" Z ... r. 4
__ -i




..- -.

*'.-... "

-- I ,~hi Lc'.
"


"I J- -,. .. i. , .-. -:, -. .


8 t




I I3


1 094.s l |t 1 Wm

**: A : .< 1 gaff i i


i1


A
. /*


~'


21-- --
!. t


r ^CBI^ ''. ..
. 1 ^





.'r^ : **


1)


...- .


'V. I


rn


) o



(I
o

o


qt
.0


6


<


~----i.


__ ."


- -~5


6


/, 1
4 -1 -


>

~
ir,


*


:~L~--- .~.---------









SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AVON PARK VERTEBRATE FAUNA


Amphibian Fauna. The amphibian fauna includes 17 species of frogs and six species of
salamanders, belonging to nine families. Two common amphibians in peninsular Florida
(spadefoot toad, one of the dwarf sirens) should occur on APR, but as yet have not been found,
although the spadefoot is common on the west side of Arbuckle Creek and Arbuckle Lake and on
the Lake Wales Ridge. Two salamanders (peninsula newt and narrow-striped mud siren) and three
frogs (little grass frog, southern chorus frog, and bullfrog) represent new county records.
Three species of frogs (greenhouse frog, marine toad, Cuban treefrog) are exotic on the site
and in Florida with founder populations originating in the neotropics. All three are widely
distributed in south Florida. Greenhouse frogs and Cuban treefrogs are reproducing on APR, with
most breeding occurring in the vicinity of buildings and the prison. Several colonies of greenhouse
frogs have been found on natural sites, indicating that this species has spread from ruderal sites
and has become naturalized on APR. The marine toad is presently known from only a few
specimens, and no breeding was observed.
The majority of frogs, including Florida gopher frogs, breed in temporary pools, which, for the
most part, are devoid of predatory fishes. Six species of frogs and salamanders (southern toad,
cricket frog, pig frog, southern leopard frog, dwarf salamander, peninsula newt) use both
temporary and permanent pools as breeding sites. The green treefrog and the rest of the
salamanders appear to favor permanent pools, although they may spread out from resident pools,
particularly those associated with cypress domes, into adjacent, less permanent pools and road side
ditches.
We recommend that the military consider additional studies on the ecology of southern chorus
frogs and Florida gopher frogs. Both species are near their distributional limits in Florida and may
be experiencing declines. The taxonomic status of peninsular Florida populations of peninsula
newts, bullfrogs and leopard frogs are still in question and may represent cryptic new taxa. The
Avon Park Air Force Range populations of these amphibians should be included in any future
studies of these taxa.

Reptile Fauna. We were contracted to survey for gopher tortoises, eastern indigo snakes, and
eastern diamondback rattlesnakes to determine their distribution and status on APR. During these
surveys, we encountered a reptile fauna that included the alligator, nine species of turtles, the
Florida worm lizard (an amphisbaenid), nine species of lizards, and 25 species of snakes, belonging
to 15 families. Two turtles (Florida redbelly turtle and chicken turtle) and two snakes (scarlet
kingsnake and pinewoods snake) represent new county records. Although other rare species may
eventually be found on APR, we believe that the list presents a comprehensive review the site's
reptile inhabitants. Consulting distributional guides, we determined that 12 other native reptiles
stinkpott turtle, mole skink, sand skink, eastern glass lizard, fence lizard, brown watersnake,
glossy crayfish snake, short-tailed snake, smooth earth snake, southern hognose snake, mole
kingsnake, Florida kingsnake) are potential for the site, but because of prehistoric events
associated with APR's position on the isolated Avon Park Bombing Range Ridge, the ranges of
most of these reptiles possibly do not include APR.
The aquatic segment of the fauna includes alligators, seven of the nine species of turtles, and


14









six of 26 species of snakes. Box turtles and three species of snakes (pine woods snakes, Florida
brown snakes, and ribbon snakes) are marginally aquatic and occupy the moister terrestrial sites.
The rest of the reptile fauna is primarily composed of terrestrial species, with seven snakes
(southern black racer, eastern indigo snake, corn snake, yellow ratsnake, eastern coral snake,
eastern diamondback rattlesnake, and dusky pigmy rattlesnake) ubiquitous in most terrestrial
habitats. The majority of the ubiquitous species consists of larger snakes that have large home
ranges that span a broad range of habitats.
Two lizards (Indo-Pacific gecko, Cuban brown anole) are exotic on the site and in Florida.
The gecko is circum-tropical in its distribution and has been transported from site to site on
commercial cargoes, while the anole has been moved primarily on exotic shrubs and other
decorative plants. Their impacts on local species are unknown at this point. The gecko appears
restricted to ruderal sites associated with buildings at APR. The Cuban brown anole is mostly
encountered on shrubs and buildings, but has been seen in disturbed natural habitats away from
ruderal habitats.
We encourage additional studies, possibly using radio-telemetry, on eastern indigo snakes and
eastern diamondback rattlesnakes to determine home range size and their use of planted slash pine
plantation and other pine habitats. Other species that would be candidates for further study
include Florida box turtles, island glass lizards, scarlet kingsnakes, and pine woods snakes.
Continued searches are recommended for short-tailed snakes, Florida kingsnakes, and southern
hognose snakes since these three snakes for unknown reasons have become extremely rare in many
parts of Florida and may have been subjected to severe declines. The record of the Florida pine
snake from the central part of the central ridge suggests that a population of this large rare snake
may exist on APR. We suggest that this species be targeted for additional surveys.

Mammal Fauna. We were contracted specifically to survey for Florida mice, Sherman fox
squirrels, and Florida round-tailed muskrats to determine their status, distribution and relative
abundance on APR. Incidental to these target species, we recorded sightings/incidental captures
of southeastern opossum, Florida least shrew, peninsula shorttail shrew, South Florida cotton
mouse, South Florida oldfield mouse, Florida golden mouse, South Florida hispid cotton rat,
Central Florida rice rat, peninsula gray squirrel, Florida raccoon, southeastern river otter (Fig. O-
1), Florida spotted skunk (Fig. S-1), southeastern bobcats, gray and red foxes, coyote, and
Peninsula whitetail deer. There also is a recent record of the Florida long-tailed weasel (Mustela
frentata) (Pat Walsh, pers. comm.). We did not encounter black bear or panthers in this survey,
although the ranges of these two landscape carnivores include APR.
Bats were commonly seen at APR feeding over water at many permanent water lakes and
ponds. These mammals require specialized trapping methods in order to sample them. Possibly as
many as 8 species potentially occur on APR, several of which may be declining in the state.
Specimens of the free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) from APR were collected in the late 1960s
and deposited in the collection of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences (NCSM
1647, 1977). We recommend that in the future a bat specialist be invited to APR to participate in a
survey of the bat fauna.
In addition, we encourage APR to sponsor studies on golden mice and otters to determine their
status and habitat use on the Range. The APR population of golden mice represents one of the


15









most southern colonies of this rare rodent in the United States, exceeded only by the population
near Archbold Biological Station at Lake Placid. The otter appears to be common at APR. It
represents a significant carnivore in aquatic habitats, and its presence in numbers probably exerts a
major influence on APR aquatic ecosystems.

Exotic Vertebrates. We found five species of non-indigenous frogs (greenhouse frog, marine
toad, and Cuban treefrog) and lizards (Indo-Pacific gecko and Cuban brown anole) on APR.
These exotic species were primarily associated with buildings at Range operations. These species
also probably occur at the prison, but we did not conduct surveys at this facility. Two species
(greenhouse frog and Cuban anole) are now found in disturbed natural habitats and may be
becoming naturalized. We did not find exotic rats (Rattus sp.) or house mice (Mus muscilus) on
APR during trapping efforts associated with abandoned housing. The nine-banded armadillos and
the coyote are now common throughout the property and are fully naturalized at APR; sightings of
red foxes appear to represent the first observations for APR.

Missing Species. Despite extensive efforts, we failed to located a number of amphibians
(spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus holbrooki), reptiles (southern fence lizard, Sceloporus undulatus;
mole skink, Eumeces egregious; sand skink, Neoseps reynoldsi), and small mammals (southeastern
pocket gopher, Geomyspinetus; wood rats, Neotomafloridana). These species should occur
based on museum records from Polk and Highlands counties and the literature, but we strongly
believe that they are absent from APR.

Faunal Interpretations of Bombing Range Ridge. The vetrebrate fauna of the Bombing Range
Ridge contains no unique vertebrate species. The species associated with the wetlands and pine
flatwoods segments of this fauna are widely distributed in south Florida and probably have a
history similar to their counterparts in the Osceola and Okeechobee plains. The upland segment,
however, presents some interesting deviations from expected patterns. Spadefoot toads, fence
lizards, mole skinks, sand skinks, wood rats, and pocket gophers occur on the more westerly Lake
Wales Ridge and some have spread eastward along the low dune complex toward the Range
(museum records, Christman 1987, our data), but are absent from the Avon Park Bombing Range
Ridge. The barrier for some species appears to be Arbuckle Creek. North, east, and south of
APR, upland habitats change dramatically to flatwoods, dry prairies, and wetlands as the Bombing
Range Ridge drops into the Osceola and Okeechobee plains.
To explain the missing species, we must assume that the species either arrived on BRR and
then became extinct, or that some species never made it to this ridge in the first place. We suspect
the latter explanation to be more plausible, since numerous burrowing and sand-loving species
survive on the ridge.
We propose that the upland fauna associated with APR originated with the fauna of the
Lake Wales Ridge and that either marine environments or emerging habitats between the Lake
Wales Ridge and Arbuckle Creek acted as a filter to expanding populations ofxeric-adapted
species. The species that failed to completely disperse across the filter are obligates of deep sands
and not prone to dispersal across present or historic water or moister habitat barriers. A few sand
species with greater dispersal abilities, e.g., gopher tortoise, scrub lizards, Florida mouse, gopher


16


~ ___~I~









frogs, however, made it. The presence of all except the amphisbaenid on the east side of the
Arbuckle Creek barrier can be explained by dispersal; the presence of the Florida worm lizards is
more difficult to explain since the reptile is extremely prone to drowning even in the smallest
amount of water and will be driven from saturated soils, similar to earthworms, during periods of
heavy rainfall.
The time of arrival for species on BRR is problematic. The base of this ridge, as well as
that of the Lake Wales Ridge, lies at about 70 feet above sea level. Based on prehistoric sea level
curves, this places the formation of both ridges in the early Pleistocene, possibly associated with
the Wicomico Terrace. According to Webb (1990), the Wicomico shoreline reached its most
southern extent with the Lake Wales Ridge in Highlands County and represented a high-energy
shoreline complex. We propose that the upland fauna gradually filtered down the Lake Wales
Ridge as marine environments gave way to terrestrial habitats associated with newly forming
islands and the BRR was slowly colonized from this source. Some species may have arrived on
the BRR earlier than others, possibly by direct over water dispersal; others may have come later
spreading out across the intermediate dune area as sea levels dropped in association with
subsequent sea level regressions associated with the onset of glaciation. The details of this history
might be hidden in the genetic makeup of pertinent species, especially the less vagile ones, e.g.,
Florida mice, scrub lizards, and Florida worm lizards.

LITERATURE CITED
Ashton, R.E. and P.S. Ashton. 1981. Handbook of Reptiles and Amphibians of Florida. Part.I. The
Snakes. Windward Publishing, Inc., Miami. 176 pp.

Ashton, R.E. and P.S. Ashton. 1988. Handbook of Reptiles and Amphibians of Florida. Pt. III.
The Amphibians. Windrard Press, Miami. 191 pp.

Branch, L.C., D.G. Hokit, and B.M. Stith. 1996. Landscape dynamics and scrub lizards: Assessing
the effects of landscape structure on populations at multiple scales. Unpub. Rep., U.S. Air Force.

Christman, S. P. 1988. Endemism and Florida's Interior Sand Pine Scrub. Final Report GFC-84-
101, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, NY. 1181 pp.

Humphrey, S.R. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. I. Mammals. Univ. Presses
Florida, Gainesville, FL. 392 pp.

Webb, S.D. 1990. Historical Biogeography. Pp. 70-100. In R.L. Meyers and J.J. Ewel.
Ecosystems of Florida. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

White, W.A. 1970. The geomorphology of the Florida peninsula. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Geol.
Bull. No.51.


17


I~









ROAD MORTALITY CENSUS


Road mortality poses a severe threat to wildlife. Mortality on roadways in Alachua County,
Florida, correlated positively with speed limit and density of vegetative cover (Cristoffer 1991).
Highest frequencies of individuals/km involved nine-banded armadillo, Virginia opossum, grey
squirrels, eastern cottontails, raccoons, snakes, passerine birds, and others (in descending order of
abundance) (Cristoffer 1991). A study of road-killed reptiles in Alabama produced 135 specimens
of 19 species recorded for 19,000 km roads surveyed (Dodd et al. 1987). Numbers varied
seasonally and were weakly correlated with daily rainfall. The number of DORs did correlated
with traffic volume. The only strong correlation was effort: the more kilometers driven, the greater
the number of reptiles encountered. The phenomenon has been noticed by researchers since the
advent of the automobile (Case 1978, Haugen 1944, McClure 1951, Scott 1938, Stoner 1925).
Road census information was obtained on 68 species of vertebrates during 207 tours of APR
during an 18-month period between November 1996 and April 1998 (Table R-1). We recorded
sightings of 11 amphibians, 34 reptiles, 9 birds, and 14 mammals. We drove a total 9,333 miles
during this period and made 526 observations of individual animals (0.056 individuals/mile) on the

TABLE R-1. List of the 21 most common amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species in
descending order of abundance on APR roads. Species with four or less sightings not included.


SPECIES NUMBER
Alligators 84
Sherman's fox squirrel 58
Nine-banded armadillos 49
Southern black racers 31
Eastern cottontails 29
Sandhill crane 22
Island glass lizards 19
Peninsula cooters 18
Eastern gray squirrels 17
Raccoons 17
Gopher tortoises 16
Dusky pigmy rattlesnakes 14
River otters 11
Peninsula ribbon snakes 10
Florida red-belly cooter 8
Florida box turtles 8
Virginia opossums 8
Southern leopard frog 7
Eastern diamondback rattlesnakes 6
Eastern garter snakes 6
Peninsula green snakes 5


REMARKS
three poached

high % mortality
high % mortality
high % mortality







high % mortality

high % mortality



high % mortality
high % mortality


18












TABLE R-2. Summary of vertebrate observations on APR roads between November 1996-April
1998.


1996 SPECIES INDIVIDUALS DEAD MILES ANIMALS/MILE

NOVEMBER 4 4 2 88 0.045

DECEMBER 7 9 4 362 0.025

1996 TOTAL 11 13 6 450 0.029

1997

JANUARY 7 21 3 566 0.037

FEBRUARY 19 39 3 784 0.05

MARCH 21 53 9 676 0.078

APRIL 16 53 8 702 0.075

MAY 19 47 3 562 0.084

JUNE 13 25 1 592 0.042

JULY 12 22 3 469 0.047

AUGUST 19 40 10 564 0.071

SEPTEMBER 16 35 12 1051 0.033

OCTOBER 23 64 13 830 0.077

NOVEMBER 13 36 10 547 0.018

DECEMBER 9 14 2 255 0.055

1997 TOTAL 65 449 77 7598 0.059

1998

JANUARY 13 29 4 393 0.074

FEBRUARY 8 12 2 279 0.043

MARCH 6 7 2 280 0.025

APRIL 10 16 6 333 0.048

98 TOTAL 22 64 14 1285 0.05

TOTAL 68 526 97 (18.4%) 9333 0.056


19









road or the road shoulders, 97 (or 18.4%) of which represented DOR animals (dead-on-
road)(Table R-2).
Sampling was biased toward large species that were visible at normal driving speeds.
Amphibians were probably under-counted with small frogs and salamanders being passed
unnoticed. These animals also probably would have represented the great majority of sightings
and experienced the highest mortality rates if we had been more conscientious.
We recorded the highest mortality rates on Kissimmee and Frostproof roads. These roads are
paved, receive the greatest traffic volume, are traveled at greater speeds, pass through large areas
of natural habitat, and are access routes to major recreational areas (campgrounds and fishing
access on the Kissimmee River).
American alligators, Sherman fox squirrels, nine-banded armadillos, black racers, cottontails
accounted for 47.7% of the total observations (Table R-l). Five of the seven target species were
recorded on APR roads-gopher frogs (1 obs.), eastern diamondback rattlesnakes (6 obs.), eastern
indigo snakes (2 obs.), gopher tortoises (16 obs.), and Sherman fox squirrels (58 obs.). Four
gopher tortoises, three diamondbacks, one indigo snake (off site), and two fox squirrels were
found DOR.
The highest number of species seen on APR roads in 1997 occurred in February-May and
August-October; lowest numbers, during the winter months, and in June and July before the
summer rains began. The highest numbers of individuals/observed/mile occurred in January (0.074
i/o/m), March (0.078 i/o/m), April (0.075 i/o/m), May (0.081 i/o/m), August (0.071 i/o/m), and
October (0.077 i/o/m) (Table R-2). The highest percentage of DORs were recorded in March-
April and August-November (Table R-2). This may correlate with increased traffic associated
with increased recreational use in spring and fall. Observations were significantly lower in 1996
and 1998, which are best explained by lower survey miles driven, the seasonality of the survey
tours, and drier conditions. The present road mortality rate is considered low on APR compared to
public highways. Current levels of road use associated with military, hunting and recreational
missions do not appeared to pose a severe hazard to wildlife, although we did record road
mortality in four of the identified sensitive species. More vehicular traffic on APR would
obviously increase risks to wildlife.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSERVATION

We suggest the following to help reduce wildlife mortality on APR roads:

1. Speed limits on APR roadways be established and enforced.

2. Placement of "Give Wildlife a Brake" type signs along major arteries, particularly Frostproof,
Kissimmee, and Van Eeghen roads, to caution military/corrections personnel and recreationists to
slow down and be more observant of wildlife.

3. A brochure on the need to protect native wildlife also could be made available through Natural
Resources to caution hunters and other recreationists to be more sensitive in protecting wildlife
and forest resources on APR.


20


_lm_____ll____l__~_______










LITERATURE CITED

Case, R.M. 1978. Interstate Highway road-killed animals: a data source for biologists. Wildl. Soc.
Bull. 6:8-13.

Cristoffer, C. 1991. Road mortalities on northern Florida vertebrates. Fla. Sci., 54:65-68.

Dodd, C.K., Jr., K.M. Enge, J. N. Stuart. 1987. Reptiles on highways in north-central Alabama:
species, mortality, and environmental influence. ASB Bulletin 34:119. (Abstract only).

Haugen, A. 0. 1944. Highway mortality of wildlife in southern Michigan. J. Mammal. 25:177-184.

McClure, H.L. 1951 .An analysis of animal victims on Nebraska' highways. J. Wildl. Manage.
15:410-420.

Stoner, D. 1925. The toll of the automobile. Science 61:56-57.


21









FLORIDA GOPHER FROG


The gopher frog is a member of a xeric-adapted fauna that inhabits upland habitats in the coastal
plain of the southeastern United States. This frog until recently was grouped with the crawfish
frogs of the Mississippi River drainage under the name Rana areolata. Most taxonomists now
placed this group of frogs under the name Rana capitol (Conant and Collins 1991) and consider
them closely related to the crawfish frogs (Rana areolata complex) and leopard frogs (Rana
pipiens complex) (Wallace et al., 1973). Under this arrangement, Rana capitol includes three
subspecies: R. c. capito from the Atlantic Coastal Plain, R. c. aesopus from southeast Georgia and
peninsular Florida, and R. c. sevosa from the Gulf Coastal Plain. The Avon Park population falls
within the range ofR. c. aesopus, although a paper by Lee (1973) suggested that populations in
south central Florida may represent a previously unrecognized, diminutive form, which might
represent a distinctive taxon.

Conservation Status
The Florida gopher frog (Rana capitol aesopus) is listed as Threatened by the Florida
Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA) (Godley 1992). The state of
Florida protects the gopher frog as a Species of Special Concern (Wood 1996) and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service lists the three subspecies of gopher frogs on their "species under review"
published in the Federal Register on 21 November 1991. A recent status survey of gopher frogs
sponsored by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission indicates that populations east
of the Appalachicola River have declined in the last 20 years (Franz, unpubl. report 1993). This
report lists gopher frogs from 259 sites in 45 counties in Florida, which included 32 sites in
Highlands and Polk counties. FNAI ranks this frog as a G4 (=apparently secure globally) and S3
(= very rare and local in Florida) in their global and state tracking system (Marois 1997).
Biology in brief: Gopher frogs are reported to reside in turkey oak scrubs/sand hills, scrubby
flatwoods, and oak scrub habitats and breed in isolated wetlands that lack predatory fishes (Carr
1940, Moler and Franz 1988, LaClaire and Franz 1990, Dodd and Charest 1988, Godley 1992).
This frog is remarkably cryptic in its behavior and physical appearance, which makes it difficult to
detect. They are fossorial at least during the terrestrial phase of their life cycles, probably
spending very little time at the surface (Franz 1986, 1988). Gopher frogs in peninsular Florida are
commonly associated with gopher tortoise burrows (Hallinan 1923, Franz 1986, 1988, Lips 1991),
although they also use other types of subterranean retreats including the burrows of oldfield mice
(Peromyscus polionotus), stump holes, the bottoms of post holes, crayfish burrows, and "rat
holes" (Carr 1940, Lee 1968, Wright 1932).
Gopher frogs migrate to temporary wetlands from terrestrial sites, traveling upwards of two km
between these sites (Franz et al. 1988). Males are reported to call during every month of the year
except July in north Florida (Franz, data). Calling bouts occur usually in association with periods
of heavy rainfall either associated with cold fronts or tropical storms. Gopher frog tadpoles
remain in ponds until late spring, with large numbers transforming in May and June. Volpe (1957)
indicated a larval period of 141-155 days in Louisiana. Froglets leave ponds and enter gopher
tortoise burrows shortly following metamorphosis at 35-40 mm snout-urostyle lengths (SUL)
(Franz 1988). Frogs at this site live in gopher tortoise burrows for more than two years until they


22








reached the minimum size for sexual maturity of 70-75 mm SUL.
Bailey (1990) recorded the behavior of 269 dusky gopher frogs at an Alabama ephemeral pond.
He found that males entered the pond in January and calling was not a reliable index of population
size. Females arrived during four wet periods in February. Frogs spend daylight hours on or near
the bottom of the pond concealed in vegetation. Females lost up to 30% of their body mass after
they deposited eggs. The mean number of eggs per egg mass was 1700. Females emigrated
following egg deposition several days after their arrival, leaving the pond in approximately the
same direction from which they had entered. This study suggested that frogs grew to 75-76 mm
SUL in 2 yrs, 80 mm in 3 yrs, 85-86 mm in 4 yrs, and 89-90 mm in 5 yrs. The largest frog at this
site was a female that measured 94 mm SUL.


METHODS

Aural Surveys
We visited 72 APR ponds and other wetlands after dark and documented the calling species.
To monitor seasonal use of wetlands, we made repeated visits to specific sites throughout the year.
Calling surveys are among the simplest methods to establish wetland use by breeding frogs. The
calls allow for accurate identifications of male frogs.

Larval Amphibian Survey
We collected larvae from 105 wetlands. Many larval amphibians are distinctive and can be
recognized using morphological and color pattern characters. We sampled wetlands for larval
amphibians with dip nets and dredges to supplement aural survey data. In some cases we raised
Rana tadpoles to insure species identification since the tadpoles of leopard frogs and gopher frogs
are very similar.

FIELD RESULTS
Pond Surveys
Most aural surveys recorded common species, particularly Acris gryllus, Bufo quercicus, Bufo
terrestris, Gastrophryne carolinensis, Hyla cinerea, Hyla squirella, Hylafemoralis, Hyla
gratiosa, Pseudacris nigita, Pseudacris ocularis, Rana catesbeiana, Rana grylio, and Rana
sphenocephala. Calling frogs were observed at 72 sites; tadpoles were found at 105 sites (Fig. F-
1, F-2). We detected the presence of gopher frogs at 11 ponds, 7 of which later also had gopher
frog larvae, indicating successful breeding at these sites.

Branch/Hokit/Stith Survey
A previous survey by Branch et al. (1996) reports the capture of 302 gopher frogs in drift fence
arrays at 13 of 85 different scrub patches across APR (patches 4, 16, 27, 30, 31, 34, 43, 44, 79,
80, 82, 83, and 84; see their figures II. 1 and 11.2). The occupied patches were concentrated in the
extreme northern part of the BRR along Degagne Road (8 in the North Cluster) and along Echo
Springs Road in the south (5 in the South Cluster). Their frog capture sites corresponded closely
to scrub patches also occupied by scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi). They report catching a broad


23

















'*r; 444
p _


'-4


4**. 4
. 44
, ___;.

4-' "' '


a


4ce

*:<^...^- I
f I
I


/2
I '


/
---^- ___.^,


I

''
:i.:i
""' '''
"~


"M B :s. v:, t ,


- -- ->- .-^ 4 .

N 2 i
*. *. i
444.44 44


4-
i-'-4.


.- ..: .
..~1 I I' ,.. : :.% .::
- ,. '- A 1

'" 'r <-. '*W^ ^t,


.' .1 4^ w .; "..
44c

<: 4" J- ,. ,, r,
--+- .....-^ -Y-. :.

.; / 7 "- -
4' .. :. '"''::



^ .; .
~"--- ^;"/


1'^ .*- -*^-



....' ".:Z ,"
i /: -.,,..
it,


I....'"
.,._ ". ,.,,:'' ,




._ :.;: __- '-


6





I0 0




na8*a a ::


I


Iiii


I




t




I
4


/4
/"


--
K-. *.d,$t'
4 .4 4 '4-


.44iO~
.4
0- 44


I


''44


r-4
/

At"


jt.~


/


O


0













U




aj
.2
C.










0
ID








cu
0





a
4.


U


/"


,- .


t


',


n


..'


t;



















Y
S... -1--.--
I-
-, **
*,, *
/ _


I
I.






I



/


..: 4-
I
:... ,
----~
\.


, /I VI



[Y I. 4..









ti i


t *
.--*


Ii


-..
i+ .
*


0


'a
5R'/


V 4-
/ -. ..j

I. p..."


ti
a A


.'-t .

. .*


. 4.


+.' J"+ -" + + .T'
i ++ : '<.: *: o' ; i


,/:':;: <^:^ *
--: + '* 41 '. +*.^ '.. */-- -_ '.. I
-*+ .A-^/ /' e ^ _+. _. / -. ,. y .- ......-j
-- ,... -

I 0
i- i .1 + ... .;.:-- .. ,'I







.. .- .. ., :....- + -+ :- : >'+ $-
.+'+ ..* **.\- .... .. '..
S..* -, -- -4 ---:---_-~.... -"i


S; I a .. :. ,'


3 0,
.... -"----1
.:... .. ++ +; I
'A .i : '-.I



I
". .
'"~ ~ :- ... .. "4''" "1


I' *. -J


\iY----
j p4' -7
i... ~ K


- "



S -, ._


I


E

^ 5 ii l i i||


0
-e

a,








0
0o
-e




C-4

-0




-o

Sb







F4-


.74

.4-' *


1


Z-


~~ ;
:;-- 3
:'
-i--


.i
-I
---,-_ .~ ?r


f *


1,


r


~


"ibj


~-----;-- , ,~


.*


`Ift~.


~-----








range of body sizes of gopher frogs (33-96 mm SUL) on APR, which are comparable to the
ranges of body sizes reported for northern populations (Lee 1973, Franz 1988, Bailey 1990).
They found no evidence to suggest that gopher frogs on APR are part of a dwarf race, which Lee
(1973) reported from the Lake Wales Ridge.

Distribution
We documented gopher frogs at a total of 15 sites (Fig. F-1, F-3-5). These records, combined
with 13 scrub patches from the Branch/Hokit/Stith study, indicate concentrations of gopher frogs
at the northern and southern ends of BRR, in the vicinity of Arnold Hammock Road on the east
side of Lake Arbuckle, and in isolated oak scrub patches between Alexander and Ellis roads and
north of Orange Hammock Road. A Delta Road record is based on a calling bout heard in a
wetland associated with native pine flatwoods. Residential areas for the Delta frogs may have been
in a band of dry flatwoods on the west side of Morgan Hole Creek. This distribution closely
parallels the distributions of other upland species, particularly Florida mice, at APR.

Breeding Ponds
We identified a total of 11 breeding sites for gopher frogs during the study. The greatest
number were concentrated on the southern end of BRR (Fig. F-3). We saw other typical ponds on
APR but because of spurious rainfall during the study period many depressions remained dry or
failed to fill at appropriate times to sponsor gopher frog breeding. Ponds used as breeding sites
were typically shallow depression wetlands with emergent grassy vegetation, particularly with
Hypericum and Andropogon and near oak scrub or dry flatwoods or dry prairies. Cypress was
occasionally presence on the sites, but frog choruses or larvae were usually associated with more
open portions of the wetland. Predatory fishes (e.g., sunfish, bass, and pickerel) were absent at
sites while breeding was occurring. Gambusia, killifishes, and cyprinodonts were present at 8
sites, but appear to have little or no impact on gopher frog breeding success.

Long Cypress Pond. Kidney bean-shaped pond, 200 feet by 50 feet, shallow <2m deep.
Vegetated with maidencane, surrounded by oak scrub. Pond with mosquito fish. Visitation
beginning on 20 Aug 1997, only pinewoods treefrogs and cricket frogs heard. First gopher frogs
heard on 3 Nov 1997. Gopher frog, cricket frog, leopard frog, and pine woods treefrog tadpoles
found in February 1998; gopher frog tadpoles were large and probably originated with November
1997 choruses.

Billig Pond. Circular pond, 200 feet diameter, maximum depth at 2-3meters. Maidencane present.
Pond on west slope of BRR, surrounded by oak scrub. We search the pond in August 1997 for
gopher frog larva and found none, although we retrieved specimens of pigmy sunfish,
mosquitofish, cricket frog tadpoles and leopard frog tadpoles. Gopher frogs first heard in
September 1997; this was the largest chorus that we heard during the entire study, probably more
than 50 adult males calling. A second calling bout was heard on 3 November 1997, with at least 10
individuals calling. We dipped the pond in January 1998 and found only warmouths, blue-spotted
sunfish, red-finned top minnow. We think that the fishes gained entrance to this pond from a
second deeper pond in the basin following a substantial rise in pond water levels. The second


24


._ _~_ __~~~ _________~









pond previously contained predatory fishes.


Frostproof Road Ponds. Two ponds occur at this site. The larger pond, a depression marsh, 200
by 100 feet, circular in shape and south of the smaller more northern pond. Both ponds were
surrounded by oak scrub and scrubby flatwoods. The northern pond contained mosquitofish and
red-finned top minnows. Both ponds were dominated by Hypericum and Andropogon. We also
found full grown tadpoles of bullfrogs and noted calling cricket frogs, bullfrogs, pig frogs, oak
toads, little grass frogs, and leopard frogs. We did not hear gopher frogs at this site, but full
grown tadpoles of this species were netted in February March 1998. In August 1998, small
warmouths were found in the northern pond, and the only tadpoles present were those of bullfrogs
and southern leopard frogs. The larger pond filled in October 1997. Mosquitofish and red-finned
topminnows were the only fish present in this pond after filling. First gopher frogs were heard
calling at the southern pond on 3 November 1997 and the first tadpole was collected on 21
February 1998 which we continually netted through April 1998. No gopher frog tadpoles were
present here in early August 98, and the only larvae netted were barking treefrogs and pinewoods
treefrogs during this time. Overall the frogs observed using the larger pond included leopard frogs,
cricket frogs, southern chorus frogs, little grass frogs, pig frogs, pine woods treefrogs, and barking
treefrogs.

South Ridge Palmetto Pond. Circular, about 200 feet in diameter, shallow, surrounded by
scrubby flatwoods and oak scrub, emergent zone dominated by Hypericum. Many tortoises in the
upland surrounding the pond. This pond was dry during the first year of the study, filling in fall
1997. First gopher frogs on 3 November 1997. Pond contained pigmy sunfish, mosquitofish, red-
finned topminnows, lined topminnows, and tadpoles of cricket frogs, pig frogs, and leopard frogs.
Gopher frog tadpoles were collected on 15 February 1998.

Scrub Patch Pond. Circular, about 100 feet in diameter, shallow, surrounded on the east and
south with oak scrub and on the other sides by native pine flatwoods. This pond was netted on 5
May 1998; we caught pygmy sunfish, mosquitofish and red-finned topminnows, lesser siren and
tadpoles of gopher frogs, narrow-mouth frogs, leopard frogs, and pig frogs.

East Alpha Range Pond. Circular pond, 200 feet in diameter, 1-2 meters in depth, dominated by
Hypericum and Andropogon, surrounded by scrubby flatwoods. On 5 May 1998, we netted
tadpoles of gopher frogs, leopard frogs, and cricket frogs, and we heard pig frogs calling. No
gopher frog choruses were ever detected during call surveys at the site.

Rhadinea Pond. Oblong, about 400 by 200 feet, shallow, except for deeper, alligator hole, in the
center, dominated by white water lilies and pickerelweed. Most of basin dominated by Hypericum
and Andropogon. The basin is surrounded by a recent clearcut of North Florida slash pine, except
for a small oak scrub patch on the west side. This pond was first visited during a calling survey on
17 January 1998, where a large chorus of gopher frogs were heard together with little grass frogs
and leopard frogs. Full grown tadpoles of gopher frogs were netted on 30 April 1998. We also
found pygmy sunfish, mosquitofish, red-finned topminnows and tadpoles of pig frogs, cricket


25







o

CO

0 0c
s- -c-
c4- -)-

wo

e- c

0 *n (1)






0 -0




0 r- E=*

C E
*OO
CY) CLM

LL 0) c




Sr- 0L
LL. .0 )


lsl-~ ~~~
























































































L-*,I


0

0

4-


S-
O












CL



0
CY)
o


























4--



t--





.-
+-







































0







.I)
ou


S- -
r-
4-,









































C,
3
5.



X3
r

dr





















s-





~I


C /L



C.





ii=


I-

o-


0









..
4O
n











S.-





o -




S0)
r


OC



















r- -
I-
-o











4.- -r-


*r- 0
L 3
Ea
0~


LL. c









frogs and leopard frogs.


Ellis Road Scrub Pond. Circular, 150 feet in diameter, less than a meter in depth, surrounded by
oak scrub and native pine flatwoods. Basin is dominated by Andropogon and Hypericum. It lies
about 1200 feet north of Rhadinea Pond. The pond was netted in May 1998 and we caught
tadpoles of gopher frogs, leopard frogs, and cricket frogs, and a black swamp snake and four fish
species: mosquitofish, pygmy sunfish, pigmy killifish, and red-finned topminnows.

East Echo Range Ponds. These ponds were not visited, but strong choruses of gopher frogs and
leopard frogs were heard on 3 November 1997 We suspect that ponds are depression marshes
associated with a broad wetland system that parallels the eastern side of BRR below Kissimmee
Road.

Abundance
The following facts suggest that a large population of Florida gopher frogs exists on APR:
1) Eleven breeding ponds were located during this survey,
2) Another 6-10 similar dry pond basins were found at the time of the survey and probably were
used by gopher frogs during periods of higher water tables.
3) Numerous gopher frogs were seen at tortoise burrows, and
4) 302 individuals were caught in 13 scrub patches in the Branch/Hokit/Stith study.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSERVATION
A. Field Study
Little is known about the behavior or general ecology of this species in south Florida. Based on
causal observations of Godley (1992), South Florida gopher frog populations diverge significantly
in their seasonal use of ponds and general behavior from conspecific relatives in north Florida and
south Alabama. We recommend a study that uses drift fences and associated traps around several
known gopher frog breeding ponds to understand the population dynamics of this and other
upland species on APR. The following list should be considered in establishing drift fence studies
(taken from Dodd and Charest 1988): (1) the pond and surrounding terrestrial residential sites are
critical, (2) ponds are used year-round despite drought or cold weather, (3) species composition at
ponds varies within a year, (4) reproductive output varies among species and between seasons and
years, (5) activity patterns at the ponds change seasonally and annually in response to
environmental cues, (6) spring and early summer are the best times to sample, (7) single season or
yearly sampling will not catch all of the species present at the site, (8) quick surveys underestimate
both the number of species and the number of individuals, and (9) long-term studies are critical to
understand the role of these ponds in the ecosystem.

B. Pond Monitoring
Identified breeding ponds should be regularly monitored for gopher frog breeding activity (call
surveys), presence of tadpoles as evidence for breeding success, invasion of predatory fishes, and
changes in water levels to understand hydro period periods. Gopher frogs and other specialized
frogs, such as pinewoods treefrogs, barking treefrogs, little grass frogs, and Florida chorus frogs,


26









require ponds with variable hydro periods and can not exists with predatory fishes. They have no
apparent behavioral or chemical mechanisms to escape fish predators, except to breed in ponds
where predatory species are excluded.


C. Protection of Breeding Ponds
We recommend that identified ponds and other similar ponds should be protected from ditching,
deepening, filling, or otherwise changing the natural configuration of the basin, in order to protect
the Florida gopher frog and other components of this unique group of wetland species. Fire lanes
dug into ephemeral pond basins could inadvertently provide invasion routes for predatory fishes
from other wetlands. Attempts should be made to fill unnecessary ditches in unique pond basins to
restore the natural hydro period. Fire is probably an important component in many of the
ephemeral wetland habitats, and prescribed fires that burn through these wetlands help to retard
the invasion of woody species, keeping an open, grassy aspect that seems important to these
species.

D. Protection of Upland Corridors and Resident Areas
Specialized upland amphibian communities use portions of upland habitats that surround
breeding ponds during non-reproductive periods in their life cycle. Gopher frogs are known to
move up to 2 km from breeding sites to residential sites (Franz et al. 1988). Some members use
terrestrial burrows of other animals, specifically gopher tortoises; others live in trees and/or in
logs. It is important to fire-manage migration corridors between ponds and residential sites as well
as the upland residential sites to insure appropriate habitats in these critical areas. Vehicular use of
roads in corridor areas will result in increased mortality during migrations.

LITERATURE CITED

Bailey, M.A. 1990. Movements of the dusky gopher frog (Rana areolata sevosa) at a temporary
pond in the lower coastal plain of Alabama. Pp. 27-43. IN Dodd, Ashton, Franz, and wester. Proc.
8th Ann. Meeting of Gopher Tortoise Council. 134 pp.

Branch, L.C., D.G. Hokit, and B.M. Stith. 1996. Landscape dynamics and scrub lizards: Assessing
the effects of landscape structure on populations at multiple scales. Unpubl. Rep., U.S. Air Force.

Carr, A. F. 1940. A contribution to the herpetology of Florida. Univ. Fla. Publ., Biol. Sci Ser. 3:1-
118.

Conant, R.and J.T. Collins 1991. A field guide to amphibians and reptiles of eastern and Central
North America. Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Mass. 450 pp.

Dodd, C.K. Jr., and B.G. Charest. 1988. The herpetological community of temporary ponds in
north Florida sandhills: species composition, temporal use, and management implications. Pp. 87-
97. IN R.C. Szaro, K.E. Severson, and D.R. Patton, tech. Coords. Proc. Symposium management


27


~ ___~__~I~ I~LI~









of reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals in North America. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.
RM-166.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1992. Biological diversity of a temporary pond herpetofauna in north Florida
sandhills. Biodiversity and Conservation. 1

Franz 1986. Life history notes: Gopheruspolyphemus (gopher tortoise): Burrow commensals.
Herpetol. Rev. 17:64.

Franz 1988. The Florida gopher frog and the Florida pine snake as burrow associates of the
gopher tortoise in northern Florida. Pp. 16-20. IN D.R. Jackson and R. J. Bryant (eds.) The
gopher tortoise and its community. Proc. 5th ann. Mtg., Gopher Tortoise Council

Franz, R. C.K. Dodd, Jr., and C. Jones. 1988. Life History notes: Rana areolata aesopus (Florida
gopher frog). Movement. Herpetol. Rev. 19:33.

Franz, R. And L. L. Smith. 1993. Distribution and status of the striped newt and Florida gopher
frog in peninsular Florida. Unpubl. Rep. Florida game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., 77 pp.

Godley, S. 1992. Gopher frog, Rana capitol. IN P.E. Moler. Rare and Endangered Biota of
Florida. Vol. III. Amphibians and Reptiles. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville, FL 291 pp.

Hallinan, T. 1923. Observations made in Duval County, northern Florida, on the gopher tortoise
(Gopheruspolyphemus). Copeia 1923): 11-20.

LaClaire, L.V. and R. Franz. 1990. Importance of isolated wetlands in upland landscapes. Pp. 9-
15. IN M. Kelly, ed.. Proc. 2nd Ann. Meet. Fla. Lake Management Soc.., Winter Haven, Fla.

Lee, D.S. 1968. Herpetofauna associated with central Florida mammals. Herpetologica 24:83-84.

Lee, D.S. 1973. Notes on an unique population of gopher frogs, Rana areolata, from central
Florida. Bull. Md. Herpetol. Soc., 9:1-5.

Lips, K.R. 1991. Vertebrates associated with tortoise (Gopheruspolyphemus) burrows in four
habitats in south-central Florida. Journ. Herpetol. 25(4):477-481.

Marois, K. C. 1997.Plants and lichens, vertebrates, invertebrates, and natural communities tracked
by Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL 32303.

Moler, P.E. and R. Franz. 1988. Wildlife values of small, isolated wetlands in the southeastern
coastal plain. Pp. 234-241. IN R.R. Odum, K.A. Riddlesburger, and J.C. Ozier, eds. Proc.
Southeast. Nongame and Endangered Wildl. Symposium No.3, Ga. Dep. Nat. Resour., Game and
Fish Div.


28










Volpe, E.P. 1957. The early development ofRana capitol sevosa. Tulane Sutd. Zool. 5:207-225.

Wallace, D.G., M. King, and A.C. Wilson. 1973. Albumin differences among frogs: taxonomic.and
phylogenetic implications. Syst. Zool. 22:1-13.

Wood, D.A. 1996. Florida's endangered species, threatened species and species of special
concern. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., Tallahassee, FL. 14 pp.

Wright, A.H. 1932. Life histories of the frogs of the Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia. Macmillan Co.,
New York. 497 pp.


29









INDIGO SNAKE


The eastern indigo snake occurs throughout Florida, except possibly for areas in the upper
parts of the Appalachicola basin, and occurs in habitats that range from mangrove swamps and wet
prairies to xeric pinelands and scrub (Lawler 1977, Palis 1990, Moler 1985, 1992). It is reported
to winter in gopher tortoise burrows in the northern part of the state and forage in more hydric
habitats during the warmer months. Steiner et al. (1983) listed 98 observations of indigo snakes in
the Florida Everglades, 30% of the observations in pinelands, 20% in hammock and in marsh, 14%
in former farmlands, 6% in mangrove swamps, and 4% in coastal prairie. The snake appears to
desiccate rapidly in high temperatures and is reported to die of dehydration with prolonged
exposures (Bogart and Cowles 1947), which may account for its tendency to use wetter sites in
warm weather.

Conservation Status
The eastern indigo snake is listed as Threatened both in the state of Florida and by USFWS
(Wood 1991) and as Threatened by FCREPA (Moler 1992). FNAI lists this snake as G4T3 (=G4,
globally secure as a species; T3, subspecies D. c. couperi, very rare and local throughout range of
the subspecies) and S3 (=very rare and local throughout Florida) in its Global and State Ranking
system (Marois 1997). Biology in Brief: The indigo snakes is completely diurnal and preys on
fish, frogs, toads, lizards, snakes, smaller turtles, birds, and small mammals (Tinkle 1951, Towson
1978, Steiner, et. al. 1983, Steiner 1981, Moler 1992). Keeled scales representing an unusual case
of sexual dimorphism is reported by Layne and Steiner (1984). Five studies describe the ecology
of the eastern indigo snake in Florida (Moulis 1976, Steiner 1981, Moler 1982, 1985, Smith
1987). Several studies by Speake and his colleagues at Auburn University investigated aspects of
the behavior of this snake in preparation for reintroduction into depleted areas in Georgia and
Florida (Speake et al. 1979, Speake and McGliney 1981, Speake 1983, Speake, et al. 1987). The
activity areas of indigo snakes may range from 50-100 ha (125-250 ac) or more (Moler 1992).
Moler (1985) radio-tracked four male and one female eastern indigos in Gulf Hammock in Levy
County, Florida. He estimated the size of activity areas to range from 48.2-533 ha for males and
50.8 ha for the one female, using a corrected polygon, proposed in Jennrich and Turner (1969).
Winter ranges for these snakes varied from 2.6-17.1 ha and snakes denned primarily in hollow root
channels and rodent burrows at the bases of large live oaks. Snakes were found most often to use
open hammock habitats and the ecotones between the hammocks and cutover areas, usually in
association with shallow ephemeral ponds. Males are territorial, at least in the breeding season
(Moler 1992). Mating has been recorded in captivity in fall and winter to as late as April and eggs
are laid in May or June; hatching occurs in August and September (Groves 1960, LeBuff 1953).
Hatchlings range in total length from 45.7-60.9 mm (Groves 1960, Moler 1992).

METHODS
Large snakes are difficult to survey and rarely enter traps (Enge 1997). Steiner et al. (1983)
reported that trapping is ineffectual for this species. They caught only one indigo snake in
intensive trapping efforts in the Everglades. Other drift fence and funnel trapping surveys support
this contention (summarized in Enge 1997). As a result, we depended on incidental observations


30








and road surveys for the 37 sightings listed in this report (Fig. I-1). We were unsuccessful in
locating indigo snakes with the burrow camera.

RESULT
Road Census
We observed two indigo snakes on the road during our road monitoring activities.

Incidental Observations
Most observations were made while conducting other activities. A number of the sightings
were reported to us by other contract biologists. Although not on the property, there is a report of
a road-killed indigo on C-64 near the dairy farm between the town of Avon Park and APR prior to
the beginning of this project.

Distribution
We recorded 37 observations for indigo snake on APR, 14 on BRR and the west slope and 9
on the eastern slope. They were found in native pine flatwoods (5 obs.), dry prairie (1 obs.), pine
plantations (10 obs.), oak hammocks (6 obs.), hardwood swamps (1 obs.), oak scrub (11 obs.),
sand pine (2 obs.), and disturbed sites (1 obs.). The majority of sites had water near, except for
some oak hammock and sand pine locations. Because of the groupings, we may have had multiple
sightings of individuals, so the actual number of snakes may be less than the 37 sightings indicated.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSERVATION.
The indigo snake is a wide ranging species that occurs in most habitats. Because of its
extremely large home ranges and diversified habitat use, it is best to consider this snake as a
landscape species, which makes it difficult to recommend specific actions. However, the biology
of the indigo is still poorly known, and we recommend an extensive telemetry project, the results
of which would provide information on home range sizes, habitat use, and general natural history
that could be used to address issues of its conservation at APR.

LITERATURE CITED
Bogert, C. M. And R. B. Cowles. 1947. Results of the Archbold Expeditions. No.58. Moisture
loss in relation to habitat selection in some Florida reptiles. Am. Mus. Novit. No. 1358. 34 p.

Enge, K. M. 1997. A standardized protocol for drift fence surveys. Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Comm., Technical Rep. No. 14. 68pp.

Groves, F. 1960. The eggs and young of Drymarchon corals couperi. Copeia 1960:51-53.

Layne, J.N. and T. Steiner. 1984. Sexual dimorphism in occurrence of keeled dorsal scales in
the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperi). Copeia 1984:776-778.

LeBuff, C. R., Jr. 1953. Observations on eggs and young of Drymarchon corals couperi.
Herpetologica 9:166.


31



















*1*-

0


A


7'
Irl .
1,
r:i
I ,


* ~ .t
1. *'.




~.I.
./ .. *' [7c~'.i --.




I ..' U -

'V..-- -jL
3-i~ xw S -
I l
---I S tt.. L
: .Jr
.. ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ z.i"'5L:~





~~ .,. hC
*: ,-' I *
''' :.s ;? i /
dl dv ii .


'r

.. *


I3
4 v

g sJ l ag

oo
* 1 l


*

ia
s 2


I



I


ab:


It)
to




(0i
(U
IL)

vr

Ga




to

0


F4


!


*s


I


----


I
I


*.


I_ i.









Moler, P.E. 1982. Indigo snake habitat determination. Fla Game and Fresh water Fish Comm,
Widl. Res. Lab.,Gainesville, FL, 17 pp.

Moler, P.E. 1985. Distribution of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi, in
Florida. Herpetol. Rev., 16:37-38.

Moler, P.E. 1985. Home range and seasonal activity of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon
corais couperi, in northern Florida. Unpubl. Report, Florida Game and Fresh Water
FisCommission, No. E-1-06. 17pp.

Moler, P.E. 1992. Eastern indigo snake. IN Moler, P.E. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
Vol. III. Amphibians and Reptiles. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Moulis, R. 1976. Autecology of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi. Bull. N. Y.
Herp. Soc. 12:14-23.

Palis, J. 1990. Geographic distribution: Drymarchon corais couperi (eastern indigo snake).
Herpetol. Rev. 21:23.

Smith, C.R. 1987. Ecology of juvenile and gravid eastern indigo snakes in north Florida. M.S.
Thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

Speake, D. W., J.A. McGlinch, and T.R. Calvin. 1979. Ecology and management of the eastern
indigo snake in Georgia: A progress report. Ala. Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, Auburn Univ.. Pp 64-
73.

Speake, D. W. and J. A. McGlincy. 1981. Response of indigo snakes to gassing their dens. Proc.
Annu. Conf Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 35:135-138.

Speake, D. W. 1983. Report of the survey of indigo snakes/gopher tortoise density on the Margo
study area of Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Unpub. Report to NASA. 24 pp.

Speake, D.W. D. McGlincy, and C. Smith. 1987. Captive breeding and experimental
reintroduction of the eastern indigo snake. Proc. Southeast. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife
Symp., 3:84-90

Steiner, T.M. 1981. Studies on the ecology of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais
couperi on the Archbold Biological Station and environs. Unpubl. Report to Archbold Biological
Sta., Lake Placid, Fl., 20 pp.

Steiner, T.M., O.L. Bass, Jr., and J.A. Kushlan. 1983. Status of the eastern indigo snake in
Florida national parks and vicinity. U.S. Natl. Park Service. South Fla. Res. Cent. Report
SFRC-83/01, 25 pp.


32


_I~L-_L-----_I~ -^-1I_~-I_--~ _1










EASTERN DIAMONDBACK RATTLESNAKE


Ashton and Ashton (1981) report this rattlesnake from most counties in Florida, including Polk
and Highlands counties, and, although it has suffered serious declines in Florida, it probably
continues to survive in most counties. In the past, it was much more abundance than present and
without doubt had a statewide distribution. Declines are the result of exploitation, urbanization,
road mortality, and a bad reputation.

Conservation Status
This rattlesnake is not protected in Florida, although fears of its decline may eventually lead to
its listing. A North Carolina group of concerned scientists considers this snake to be Endangered
in their state (Palmer 1977). FNAI lists this snake as G5 (=demonstrably secure globally) (Marois
1997). Biology in Brief: The eastern diamondback rattlesnake has received very little attention
from biologists, even though it is a wide-ranging species and at one time relatively common. The
two most comprehensive studies on this large rattlesnake were conducted in north Florida by D.
Bruce Means (1985, Leon Co.) and Walter Timmerman (1995, Putnam Co.); the Means study
remains unpublished. Radio-telemetry was the primary instrument used in the studies. There are
no other comparable studies from other parts of its range.
Home ranges for rattlesnakes in Leon County averaged 80 ha for females and up to 200 ha in
males (Means 1985); in Putnam County they ranged from 25.7-53.5 ha for females and 53.8-166.1
ha for males (Timmerman 1995). Means (1985) and Timmerman (1995) estimated rattlesnake
densities to be about 1 in 8 ha and 1 in 5 ha at their respective sites. Putnam County snakes
preferred wet prairies, swamp forests, and hardwood hammocks to longleaf pine sand hills. They
avoided old fields and other exposed areas altogether.
Putnam County snakes were active from March through November, traveled the greatest
distances/day in March-May and September-November, and moved less in June-August.
Rattlesnakes take shelter in holes below ground surface in winter (Means 1985, Timmerman
1995). Putnam County snakes disappeared into winter retreats between November 27 and
December 30, but periodically emerged during winter, sometimes moving to new retreats
(Timmerman 1995). Some snakes stayed on the surface through periods of cold weather before
retreating into winter refugia (Means 1985, Timmerman 1995). Retreats in Putnam County were
associated with mesic or xeric hammocks, primarily in armadillo holes, although some gopher
tortoise burrows and other holes occasionally were used.
The eastern diamondback rattlesnake is a sit-and-wait predator and often is found in a coiled
position at favored ambush sites (Timmerman 1995). Most general accounts include small birds
and mammals, particularly rabbits, squirrels, and mice, as important components of their diet
(Ashton and Ashton 1981, Conant and Collins 1991, Klauber 1956, Wright and Wright 1957). A
number of papers also indicate that quail and young turkey are common prey (summarized in
Klauber 1956). Timmerman (1995) lists rabbits, cotton rats, wood rats, and cotton mice from
dissected Alachua and Putnam County specimens.
Snakes often were found on the surface during shedding. The opaque stage lasted an average
of 18.2 days, with shedding interval of 246.1 days (1.5 sloughings/snake/year) (Timmerman 1995).


33


~ I~ll~r~ ~~1_1~









Young are born alive in August and September at 14 inches (35 cm) total length (Klauber
1956). They tend to aggregate together near the site of parturition until the first molt is completed
(10 days) (Means 1985). Adult females also have been reported in attendance with litters on at
least seven occasion (Butler et al. 1995). Parental attendance, in these cases, possibly functions
to deter predation during the young' vulnerable first few days after birth.

RESULTS
Road Survey
Six diamondback rattlesnakes, including three DORs, were found on APR roads during the
survey period. This represents only 1% of 526 animal sightings on APR roads.

Incidental Observations.
Most observations were made by us, other contract biologists, or APR staff, while conducting
other activities. One road-killed female (SVL 117 cm SVL, 125 cm TL) contained an adult cotton
rat in its stomach. The animal was hit as it moved from a pine plantation.

Burrow Camera and Illuminator Survey.
No rattlesnakes were encountered during visual surveys of gopher tortoise or armadillo holes
during the project.

Distribution and Abundance
We recorded 51 observations of eastern diamondback rattlesnakes on APR with 12 sightings
on BRR, 12 on the eastern slope of the ridge, and 27 on the western slope (Fig. D-l). Sightings
occurred primarily in pine-dominated habitats, especially dry prairie (15 obs.), dry or scrubby
flatwoods (6 obs.), oak scrub and sand pine (10 obs.), native pine flatwoods (6 obs.), and North
Florida slash pine plantations (12 obs). We had no sightings in oak hammock, ruderal sites, or wet
sites. The preponderance of sightings in dry prairie on the western slope is an artifact of sampling,
since they were recorded by grasshopper sparrow researchers who routinely worked, traveling by
foot, in this habitat. Sightings in the dry prairie area of Kissimmee Road and in the oak scrub and
scrubby flatwoods areas near Arbuckle Lake may represent multiple encounters with the same
individuals.
To make density estimates for rattlesnakes at APR is next to impossible and probably futile to
even try since we did not handle or mark any of individuals that were encountered in the field
because of safety considerations. We are even unsure as to the number of rattlesnakes the APR
observations actually represented. Some things, however, are assumable based on data presented
by Timmerman (1995) and Means (1985): 1) rattlesnakes operate within prescribed home ranges
of up to 200 ha, 2) individual home ranges can overlap, 3) snakes can move long distance in short
periods of time, and 4) density estimates vary from one rattlesnake in 5 ha (12.4 ac) and one in 8
ha (19.8 ac), respectively. Using these data, we suggest that the 20 isolated sightings clearly
represent 20 different snakes (Fig. D-1); however, we feel that the clusters of sightings in the
Arbuckle, Kissimmee, South BRR, and Alpha Range, represent multiple sightings of as few as 2,
6, 1, and 4 individuals, respectively. Using the Timmerman and Means data, we estimate that there
could be as many as 6895 rattlesnakes (at Timmerman's density) or 4268 rattlesnakes (at Means'


34






















7 5-F


-~ *.
p 0


A-.


/


'3

'I


C-i


I
'. ~ .
*


-
LU I


9' .\ '0
'9 : .




'- I "....
." _. .- -:.. : .A


74i


*-
- -' '
.. :. ~.. _

-rj


i --~- -- .r 7 2r 4


,5,


.r -.4, ~--
.* se K


=--." :. ",* ,C"^" "" -:'
~i I
- 4 -* 4:w
-. ". I r, ...
:-.-:-:-..-.. 1 I .. -- .
.--,.":". ..-- s -,- "-' '. "
I'" ** .r ~ C ^
i' '- -.. .. t i- -, ." .,
* "- **e ._ y -.. ", / ~\* i
'*l-- -7 ( -.
-----,, 4&*j

L.. -C- ,
-s I~: Y -%

I,

I,.2 ,


- --
.- -- .
- -

-r C^
-='~i-


j 0








* -: i j
3 71 u


k4i & .
10 00 ?4


o
St3


C
a,
-* -a



ai ,
m

Q


.0
0


6
a


0






a
ca
F>


m






I


'.4 :


'I


(U
'4

0


i' l1


- ~--~--~~~- ~


r ,
-'


L


,/


,,,,:'


--*"-'' ".


I


--


crs

"~~


i









density) in approximately 84,500 acres of available rattlesnake habitat at APR. In predicting these
number, we assume that densities of rattlesnakes at APR are similar to those at other sites and
densities are equal for each habitat type. One thing for sure is that the eastern diamondback
rattlesnake is commonly encountered and widespread on the property. To properly assess
densities and habitat use for this species, we strongly recommend the use of radio-telemetry.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSERVATION

We suspect that rattlesnakes are killed by hunters, recreationists, and AF and FDOC staff when
they are encountered. We recommend that snakes not be killed, especially in areas away from high
use areas. Current levels of road mortality are low, three snakes in 9,333 survey miles. We
encourage Natural Resources staff to prepare information on the need for conservation of this
species and dramatize the ecological importance of these snakes as predators of small mammals in
Florida habitats.

LITERATURE CITED

Ashton, R.E. and P. S. Ashton 1981. Handbook of Reptiles and Amphibians of Florida. Part 1.
The Snakes. Windward Publishing, Inc., Miami. 176 pp.

Butler, J.A., T.W. Hull, and R. Franz. 1995. Neonate aggregations and maternal attendance of
young in the eastern diamondback rattlesnake, Crotalus adamanteus. Copeia 1995 (1):196-198.

Klauber, L.M. 1956. Rattlesnakes: their habits, life histories, and influence on mankind. Univ.
California Press Berkley, CA. 2 volumes.

Marois, K.C. 1997. Plants and lichens, vertebrates and invertebrates and natural communities
tracked by Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee. 71 pp.

Means, D. B. 1986. Life history and ecology of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus
adamanteus). Final rep., Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., Tallahassee,

Palmer, W. M. 1977. Crotalus adamanteus, Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake. Pp. 308-310. IN
J.E. Cooper, S.S. Robinson, J/B. Funderburg (eds.) Endangered and Threatened Plants and
Animals of North Carolina. N.C. State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC

Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. Univ. North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill. 412 pp.

Timmerman, W. 1995.Home range, habitat use, and behavior of the eastern diamondback
rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) on the Ordway Preserve. Bull. Florida Mus. Nat. Hist. 38, Pt.
1(5):127-158.


35











Wright, A.H. and A.S. Wright. 1957. Handbook of snakes of the United States and Canada.
Comstock Publ. Assoc. 2 volumes


36


~I 1_1_~__~









FLORIDA MOUSE


"The Florida mouse is one of the vertebrates most closely associated with burrows of the
gopher tortoise-a fact reflected in one of its common names, the gopher mouse. Besides its
commensal relationship with the gopher tortoise, the Florida mouse is an unusual member of the
Florida fauna for other reasons. On the basis of distinctive morphological features it is assigned to
a monotypic genus. It has one of the smallest ranges and is the only species (and genus) of
mammal endemic to Florida. Finally, it is one of a group of Florida vertebrates with affinities to
the southwestern United States or Middle American region." (Layne 1990:1). It is linked to the
rodents Habromys and Netomodon of southern Mexico and Guatemala (Carleton 1980).
Most recent literature places the Florida mouse in the monotypic genus Podomys, although the
older literature and Hall (1981) consider Podomys a subgenus of the genus Peromyscus. The
Florida mouse differs from other peromyscine rodents by having 5 instead of 6 plantar tubercles on
the hind feet, differences in skull and tooth features, and modifications to the baculum and other
reproductive structures.
The Florida mouse (Fig. P-l) ranges from Taylor, Suwannee, and Clay counties in north
Florida, south to southern Sarasota County and south along the Lake Wales Ridge to southern
Highlands County. A second group of Florida mice occurs along the Altantic coastal ridge from
St. Johns County, southward to about Miami (Layne 1992). The status of a third population from
near Carabelle in Franklin County is currently unknown (Layne 1992). The current distribution
may stem from Pleistocene faunal exchange between North and South America as evidenced by
ancestral ties to the Middle American region and the xeric Madro-Tertiary woodland (Johnson and
Layne 1961, Layne 1992).

Conservation Status
Florida mouse populations are thought to be declining, and the Florida Game and Fresh Water
Commission lists the Florida mouse as a Species of Special Concern. FCREPA considers this
mouse Threatened because of habitat loss (Layne 1992). The mouse resides in xeric upland
habitats, which are favorable for residential and commercial development and for citrus (Layne
1992). FNAI ranks this mouse as G3 and S3 (=very rare and local throughout range and in
Florida, respectively) in their global and state ranking system (Marois 1997).
During the course of trapping, we caught spotted skunks and five other species of small
rodents (cotton mice, old field mice, golden mice, cotton rats, and rice rats). None of the species
or subspecies on APR are listed by the state of Florida, FCREPA, or FNAI as conservation issues,
although certain populations of old field mice, referred to as beach mice, Florida Keys' populations
of the cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola) and rice rat (Oryzomys palustris
natator) that occur outside this region are listed either as Endangered or Rare by the state of
Florida and FCREPA, and are tracked by FNAI (Marois 1997, Wood 1991). Several populations
of these rodents also are listed as Threatened by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. Biology in Brief: The close relationship between the Florida
mouse and gopher tortoise (Gopheruspolyphemus) burrows has been emphasized by Layne
(1978), Jones and Franz (1990), Jones and Layne (1993), Layne and Jackson (1994), Jones
(1990), and Newman (1997). The mouse is secretive and primarily nocturnal-traits that prevent


37













































































































0
r




















U-
r-








LL
o
a-

(0,


(/)


_I~_ I~ ____ ~~___~__~~~_~~ _








easy direct observations. It is a poor climber and nest-builder (Layne 1966), unlike the cotton
mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus) and the old field mouse (Peromyscus polionotus), rodent species
with which the Florida mouse shares habitat. These traits are likely the result offossorial
tendencies and living in well-insulated refugia such as those offered by gopher tortoises. The
Florida mouse is a member of a suite of species including the pocket gopher (Geomyspinetus),
gopher tortoise, indigo snake (Drymarchon corals), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), crested
caracara (Polyborus plancus), and Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma c. coerulescens)-species that
have close ties with the southwestern United States and Central America.

METHODS
Mobile Rodent Trapping
The specific goals of the mobile trapping effort were to determine the general distribution,
ecological distribution, and relative abundance of the Florida mouse on APR. Survey effort
centered on trapping with Sherman live traps in all habitats throughout the property using 150
meter transects, which included 10 trapping stations, each 15 meters apart. Transects were
grouped along roads to allow easy access to trapping sites. Most trapping was organized using
two transects set every 0.5 mile, one on each side of road, and positioned at right angles to the
road. Each station on a transect included one small and one standard-sized Sherman Live Trap.
Each trap was baited with a mixture of peanut butter and raw oats rolled in wax paper. This bait
protocol was developed to decrease the risk of fire ant predation and to allow for easier trap
maintenance. Cotton was provided for nest material during periods of cooler weather. The trap
line was run for 2 consecutive nights and checked each morning. Rodents caught on the first
morning were marked to assess the numbers of recaptures over the second night of trapping.
Captured individuals were marked individually with numbered monel ear tags (National Band and
Tag Co., Covington, KY). Rodents caught the second morning were release without marking
since further trapping at that specific site was not anticipated. We recorded weight, sex, and
reproductive condition for all captured rodents and categorized the general habitat information at
each transect. Spotted skunks were noted when trapped and released without the usual data
collection. The position of each transect was determined by landmarks, road mileages, and GPS
readings (Fig. P-2).

Stationary Rodent Transects
We established 16 permanent transects, eight in the north (vicinity of Billig Road) and the rest
in the south (vicinity of Echo Springs Road) in October 1996 (Figs. P-3-4). The purpose of these
transects was to establish long-term monitoring sites that could provide information on the
dynamics and reproductive output of Florida mice through time.
Transects were established within each of four fire-maintained habitat/successional types: early
successional sand pine scrub, mature sand pine scrub, turkey oak scrub, and scrubby flatwoods.
Each habitat was replicated twice within a north and a south sampling zone. Thus, a total of 16
trap lines were established in xeric habitats on APR. We established Sherman live trap transects in
xeric habitats most likely to support Podomys in a stratified random arrangement that avoided
ecotones. Trapping sessions were conducted in October (1996), January (1997), March, and July.
Similar to the Mobile Rodent Trapping protocol, we established 150-m long transects that


38






















i


L

I

4


* '--


r'
--
.1 *,* .


'4

I. _______


-- 'o .-. ..- .* *
Irj. -->



T^ R ^^s^- 'r-'^-
'It 44. 4 N
-, --r^-- r "." ',
1 "
.t" .. '., ,,, -; 9 '-.

^ 8 }.* As"-. ^- *
"f ." "1 "^ 1." ss ,' "' "^ <
--1 */ ,

*' r t- . t "s/ / "
: c d-k p9[ .. I '."oo
* "t -,



1 J ..a *^ *** ... .
r t "- -- "
A '.L.'' I .~ A'- .

; I
. .... ,,

w o -: n
I ,.. "
S 2r


-t'StI 's-


I S In
* S .


.1 N 1
4 i a
i :". 1i -,

S.------

-I, .---- .-
-r-
.* -_: .



S -. .. a



'fl^' "-- ^ t -

-{.- "' : ",
. .. :.:. i. '-
,; ,,,, ---. 4 .,| .. ,. -. .,.








,. .
-~r 44 0


C.
Fs

N
A-.


-I1


41
":':.'; '. *. J'
"' :..'S : I.? .";" "' "*


... ...


-'.

--- ----- 4;4' -l .
-,. IE
Y " ._ ** -....* *. s m- '
-. S ....... ..- ,, .... L .- .
... N- I ,,, .. .. a'r d 1 4









* 4-
,. : '*.. "-.," ' i., **






S* ... -.-.,.-


-C u


r*. ci .t

-, .J*1


-0

3 3




s 0a 0"
Bd m S




Jas too; mlia
Er*ii!E .* MIu ~a
K'^ ^ || iSp
-5"( T iud o f; ?.
.. : *. : in :


bO








a,
M
I..
c
n







C,
I
0

Oc

9Sf
0

[ *

1.


~-~--~-I-~


7-Od




































C
c








E
E
E


L-
0




0









a.
I-








Q.


ry
CL



c-


ro
S-
C











.-J
o
C-
0










LL


LO
4b















































6)
c



C









E
L-
1"0















O
0.

C
a.)



0
(D






Cu


Qz


C-





S-.
r





4-,
L
co




5-

0
C:

4--
0
4-,


0

Co

U-



cn
*r-
LL.










Table P-1. Mobile trapping data for transects 1-204.
Month Trapnights Transect No. Individuals Recaptures % Recaptures
October 96 320 1-8 1 0 0.0
November 920 9-31 6 1 14.3
December 400 32-41 33 3 8.3
January 97 240 42-47 34 4 10.5
February 440 48-57 39 6 13.3
March 1200 58-87 142 25 15.0
April 680 88-104 85 11 11.5
May 1160 105-130 173 26 13.1
August 120 131-133 1 0 0.0
September 1040 134-162 58 9 13.4
October 480 163-174 78 22 22.2
November 120 175-177 10 4 28.6
January 98 400 178-187 31 12 27.9
February 240 188-193 16 3 31.6
April 200 194-198 14 0 0.0
May 240 199-204 6 0 0.0
TOTAL 8160 1-204 727 126 17.3

included 10 stations, each 15 m apart, and 2 traps per station. Each set of transects were trapped
on three or four consecutive nights. All rodents were marked and released after recording
information on weight, sex and reproductive condition. Capture data were subjected to the
frequency-density transformation (Caughley 1977:20) in order to adjust for "the number of
animals that would have been caught per trap if the traps were capable of multiple captures."

Rodent Trapping at Tortoise Burrows
We trapped 100 tortoise burrows, 50 each in upland and flatwoods sites, using Sherman Live
Traps, to determine rodent use of tortoise burrows. A pair of Sherman live traps, one small and
one standard-sized, were placed on the burrow apron following the methods described by Jones
(1990) and Newman (1996). Traps were baited with oats and peanut butter rolled in wax paper.
Traps were baited in the late afternoon and checked the following morning for two consecutive
days. Burrows were trapped for a total of 400 total trap nights in October and November (1997)
(100 burrows X two traps X two days= 400 trap nights).

Rodent Trapping in Wetlands
We trapped a variety of wetlands to determine distribution and primary habitats utilized by rice
rats (Oryzomyspalustris) using the mobile transect method described above. Sites were trapped
for two consecutive nights and then moved to new sites. We attempted to set traps along natural


39


~~11~.1~__11 1_1_______1___11









edges of wetlands to avoid invasions of fire ants that were frequently found along road shoulders.

RESULTS
Mobile Trap Lines
Temporary transect lines were trapped at 204 sites on APR to determine the geographic and
habitat distributions of Florida mice and other rodent species. Mobile transects were sampled
during 16 months between October 1996 and May 1998 (Table P-l). Trap lines were positioned
on the property to sample all of the major habitats. We trapped on 74 and 130 transect sites south
and north of Kissimmee Road, respectively; 60 of these sites were located on the central ridge, 40
sites on the lowlands east of the ridge, and 104 west of the ridge (Fig. P-4). This trapping effort
yielded 274 captures of Florida mice (including 29 recaptures), 579 captures of five other rodent
species, and three captures of spotted skunks in 8160 trap nights (10.5% trapping success) (Table
P-l).
Rodent Distributions
Small rodents occur virtually throughout APR, although densities and species richness varies
with geography and habitat. Rodent densities appear to be higher in areas north of Kissimmee
Road (north-586 captures/5200 trap nights/130 transects, with trapping success of 11.7%; south-
267 captures/2960 trap nights/74 transects, with trapping success of 9.0%). Similar north/south
differences also were observed at the north and south permanent transects (see below). Density
differences in rodents also were found between the eastern and westerns parts of APR, with lowest
densities occurring in the eastern plains, highest in the west, and intermediate on the central ridge.
Florida mice and old field mice were restricted to upland sites (Fig. P-5-6). Old field mice had
the most limited distribution of the two rodents, being found essentially on the Bombing Range
Ridge (Fig. P-6). Florida mice were not only found on the ridge, but also at scrubby spots on the
east and west slopes (Fig. P-5). We identified 7 clusters of Florida mice: (1) (Arbuckle clusters)
western slope of BRR on the east side of Arbuckle Creek, (2) BRR, and (3) (Kissimmee clusters)
eastern slope of BRR on the west side of the Kissimmee River (Fig. P-7 thru P-9 ). The BRR
cluster probably represents a more or less continuous population of this rodent, with densities
greatest on the extreme northern part of the ridge and in the south (south Kissimmee Road). The
central part of the ridge appears to be only lightly populated. The upper most (Al) of the Arbuckle
clusters is the largest of the three and is located on the east side of Lake Arbuckle between Carter
Road and the Arbuckle Nature Trail (Fig. P-9). We trapped on 22 transects in oak scrub, turkey
oak scrub, and scrubby flatwoods patches in this area and caught Florida mice at 14 transects.
This site also produced captures of old field mice and one golden mouse. This cluster may be
continuous with BRR populations through a series of isolated scrub patches along Bravo Road
(Fig. P-8). A second Arbuckle cluster (A2) lies in a small oak scrub patch on the north side of
Arbuckle Marsh (Fig. P-7). This extremely isolated site is surrounded by inappropriate habitats
including Bahia pastures, cypress, and marsh, suggesting that it has little or no connectivity to
other Florida mouse populations. A third Arbuckle cluster (A3) is located between Morgan and
Ramsey roads in the extreme southwest corer of the range (Fig. P-7).This cluster includes four
oak scrub and scrubby flatwoods patches, one along Ramsey and the others between Alexander
and Ellis roads. They are separated from BRR populations by inappropriate habitats, which limit
dispersal between the A3 populations and the southern populations of the BRR cluster. A second


40


_~_______~~_~


~~I__~_~







































































Cl.



0

Q)
u
*r-
E



S-
r

LL

4-
0




c,
0




4-)

4-)















LL


1 ______1_______1__1_1_11_11_1~1__~__^ 111111111-14





































































CY






*r-
E





r-
*0

4-
4-





0

0


=
o
*r-







*-
I-
-4-)







CL

a)




LL


I~ __










series of clusters (KS, K6, K7) are present in extremely isolated oak scrub patches on the west side
of the Kissimmee River (Fig. P-8) and, like the lower Arbuckle clusters, we suspect that there is
little genetic connectivity between them and populations on BRR. In summary, the Arbuckle Lake
(Al) and the BRR clusters probably represent a more or less continuous population, and the lower
Arbuckle (A2-3) and Kissimmee (K 5, 6, and 7) clusters probably have little or no connection with
other clusters. A study is warranted to determine the genetic relationships of APR clusters to each
other and to populations of Florida mice on the Lake Wales Ridge.

Table P-2. Mobile transect data by habitat.
Habitat Total Transects Transects/ Transects/ % Transects/
No Captures Captures Captures
LLPF 41 6 35 85.4
SCF 36 5 31 86.1
SLPP 36 16 20 44.4
PR 22 12 10 55.6
SCR 18 0 18 100.0
WPR 18 4 14 87.7
XH 14 1 13 92.9
OH 5 1 4 80.0
RUD 5 5 0 0.0
CTPF 5 2 3 60.0
BAY 2 0 2 100.0
SWP 2 0 2 100.0
TOTAL 204 52 152 74.0


Rodent Habitats
Trapping success varies between habitats. We experienced the highest trapping successes in
oak scrub, bay swamp, and swamp forests habitats with 100 percent of the mobile transects
sampling rodents; the smallest capture successes occurred in North Florida slash pine timber
stands and dry prairie habitats. No rodents were caught in the vicinity of buildings and grounds
associated with Air Force operations or the prison (Table P-2). Cotton mice were the most
abundant small rodent caught in the mobile transects, followed by Florida mice and cotton rats
(Tables P-3 and P-4). Cotton mice and cotton rats are habitat generalist and are recorded from
almost every habitat on APR (Table P-4). Florida mice and old field mice are specialists on
upland sites; rice rats, together with Florida round-tailed muskrats, are specialists on wetland sites.
Golden mice are exceptually rare in our samples, which may be an artifact of sampling. The
golden mouse is thought to be primarily arboreal and may require specialized trapping techniques
to adequately sample them. We attempted to establish abundance of small rodent species in
sampled habitats at APR, based on frequencies of capture as shown in Tables P-3- P-4. Florida


41









V) U

U E




- + 0
U.3 -r-


C 4 0

r( 0 i-
0





LL r- *r-

**- LJ -a. Q.-








4-
0





co





*r-






Sa
() r--


ci)
. Q. *





0 I(






a- 0



S*r- Li-
r)* O

3. l LL.


_1_ _~1_11_


~I~-SW~l~--D~































1 : *





L> _T
/







I II



L, .-.-1
LiI -T~l I p




I |


I-L



kb;-r"-t-


I


Nb


II

S:1



I


I:


I.


IC

I~


r:'


-----~~~-


7 q l 1 I
1 1 1 1 "ll l 1 l 1ll 1l. 1 1 l


.


0
-0


r-
0






u)
-o





E
0




sC/
*r-








01
0

SI
0





S.-
C,










U
4-)
0)



5-
(J


r ~






f










mice are ranked the dominant species in dry or scrubby flatwoods and oak scrub habitats and an
important component of native pine flatwoods and xeric hammock habitats. The lower rates of
Florida mice in native pine flatwoods were related to higher water tables and less abundant scrub
vegetation, particularly mast-producing species. Its presence on drier sandy spots in native pine
flatwoods, however, suggests the species' tolerance for a wide range of well-drained habitat types.
Cotton mice are the most commonly trapped rodent at APR and are dominant in native pine
flatwoods, North Florida slash pine stands, dry prairie, turkey scrub, oak hammock, bay, and
hardwood swamp forest habitats (Tables P-3 and P-4). Rice rats dominate wet prairie and bay
habitats, although cotton mice and cotton rats also are commonly trapped.

Table P-3. Small rodents caught in transects in 12 habitats.

Habitats No. Transects FM OFM CM CR RR GM Rank of Abundance
LLPF 41 14 3 24 22 0 1 CM, CR, FM, OF,GM
SCF 36 23 5 18 14 0 1 FM, CM, CROF, FM
SLPP 36 0 0 7 19 0 0 CR, CM
PR 22 0 0 4 8 0 0 CR, CM
SCR 18 13 8 7 1 0 0 FM, OF, CM, CR
WPR 18 0 0 3 4 12 0 RR, CR, CM
XH 14 6 0 12 3 0 0 CM, FM, CR
OH 5 0 0 4 1 0 0 CM,CR
RUD 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 NONE
CTPF 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 CR
BAY 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 CM, CR, RR
SWA 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 CM
TOTAL 204 56 16 83 76 13 2


Rodent Use of Gopher Tortoise Burrows
We attempted to assess the importance of gopher tortoise burrows to rodents in upland sites at
APR. We trapped at 100 burrows, 50 each in natural uplands and in well-drained slash pine
stands, and caught 8 Florida mice, 6 cotton mice, and 2 cotton rats in upland traps, and 3 cotton
mice in slash pine traps.

Stationary Trap Lines
Data from the mobile trap line confirmed that Florida mice were restricted to the oak scrub,
native pine flatwoods and turkey scrub habitats at APR, and that our choices for the permanent


42










Table P-4. Numbers of small rodent captures by habitat.


Habitat No. Transects FM OFM CM CR RR GM RANK OF ABUNDANCE
LLPF 41 61 8 99 60 0 1 CM, FM, CR,OF, GM
SCF 36 121 25 58 39 0 1 FM, CM, CR, OF,GM
SLPP 36 0 0 15 40 0 0 CR,CM
PR 22 0 0 4 22 0 0 CR,CM
SCR 18 47 23 23 1 0 0 FM, OF, CM, CR
WPR 18 0 0 14 18 29 0 RRCR, CM
XH 14 45 0 39 3 0 0 FM,CM,CR
OH 5 0 0 8 2 0 0 CM,CR
RUD 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 NONE
CTPF 5 0 0 0 7 0 0 CR
BAY 2 0 0 4 2 7 0 RR, CM, CR
SWA 2 0 0 26 0 0 0 CM
TOTAL 204 274 56 290 195 36 2

trap line placement on the central ridge represented typical Florida mouse habitat for monitoring.
Therefore, sixteen permanent trap lines were established in xeric upland habitats on the central
ridge. As expected, Florida mice and cotton mice were the dominant rodents at these sites,
although old field mice and cotton rats were caught at a few sites.
Adjusted trap nights per transect ranged from 46.5-60 and averaged 57.8 (Table P-5).
Individual transect trap success ranged from 0-42.1% and averaged 10.2%. Although average
number of trap nights did not vary geographically, trapping success was higher (t=3.2, p=0.002,
62 d.f) on the northern trap lines (x=15.1%) than on the southern trap lines (x=5.4%). Trap
success was nearly three-fold greater in the northern study area. Analysis of variance indicated a
significant difference among seasonal capture success rates (p>0.0001, F=22.2, 3 d.f.) In the
northern study area. Capture rate was highest during spring, followed by winter; summer and fall
were not different from each other and were ranked last (Duncan's Multiple Range Test, p=0.05).
Analysis of variance also indicated a significant difference among seasonal capture success rates
(p=0.001, F=7.2, 3 d.f.) in the southern study area. Capture success was highest during spring,
whereas winter, fall, and summer were indistinguishable and ranked last (Duncan's Multiple Test,
p=0.05).
Trapline replicates were selected on the basis of successional and floristic similarity. Granted,
this was a subjective determination on our part, but it likely reduced potential bias due to study
site variability. Nonetheless, there were remarkable differences in rodent community composition
between the north and south study sites, similar to observations from the mobile transect trapping
effort. Over the duration of the study, more captures were made in the north study area than in
the south study area (Table P-6). Recaptures were not infrequent, and some individuals were


43









trapped over three capture seasons (Tables P-7 and P-8). All small mammal capture data are
presented in Table P-9.
All three common species ofperomyscine rodents exhibited similar seasonal trends with peak
capture success during spring (Table P-9, Figs. P 10-12). Florida mice dominated the rodent
community during all seasons in the northern study area, with spring captures 5 and 20 times
greater than cotton mice and old field mice, respectively (Fig. P-13). During fall and summer,
captures of all three species fell below 20 individuals, probably an artifact of increased natural food
and a reduction of recruitment into the populations. Cotton mice and Florida mice exhibited
similar seasonal patterns in the south study area; however, old field mice were co-dominant with
Florida mice (Fig. P-14). Overall, capture success was several times higher on the northern study
area. Capture success for old field mice was equal to or higher than Florida mice only on the
southern area.
From an individual habitat perspective capture success for all species and Podemys was lowest
in scrubby flatwoods (Figs. P-19-20). Capture success and total Florida mice captured was higher
in mature sand pine scrub (Figs. P-17-18), followed by turkey oak scrub (Fig. P-19), and highest in
early successional sand pine scrub (Figs. P-21-22).
Although the measurement of vegetative and landscape variables was not a part of this study,
the distribution and history of vegetation on APR may help explain the divergent capture success
between north and south. Scrub communities in the northern study area tended to possess better
developed understory vegetation and appeared to be more productive. Southern scrub sites
tended to have poorly developed understory vegetation and leaf litter and mineral soil appeared to
dominate these sites. There is some evidence that much of the forest in the southern study area
has developed over the last half century (R. Bowman, Archbold Biological Station, pers. comm.),
and that this area was originally much more open than it is now. While sand pine can rapidly
colonize suitable sites in the absence of fire, scrub oak species do not possess such dispersal
abilities. Sand pine readily regenerates by seed whereas other scrub species usually reproduce by
other means (Myers 1990). The low capture success in the southern area also coincides with
observations of low scrub jay density relative to the northern half of APR (R. Bowman, pers.
comm.). Just as scrub jays are dependent upon acorn production (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick
1984), Florida mice productivity also appears to be linked to oak mast (Layne 1990, 1992). A low
abundance and diversity of oak species may help explain the low capture rates of Podomys in the
southern study area.

Role of Predators
Predator abundance also may play a role in the differences we observed in the capture success.
Coyotes were occasionally heard, and their tracks were frequently seen on sandy trails in the
southern study area. In addition, fresh coyote and fox sign along southern trap lines may have
been related to the high rate of trap disturbance we encountered. Southern transects (S1, S2, S4,
and S7) experienced varying rates of disturbance by wild canids. This ranged from turning over
traps, biting holes in them, and urinating on them. It is unknown if the populations of wild canids
are unusually high in this area, and if their presence affects either rodent behavior, abundance, or
both; but such predator activity was not seen on the northern study area. Further, an abundance of
forest edge, and a predominance of forest in the south, may create habitat conditions that are


44









preferred by rodent-eating raptors such as great homed owls (Bubo virginianus), red-tailed hawks
(Buteojamaicensis), and red-shoulder hawks (Buteo lineatus). More open conditions in the north
may discourage predatory bird activity. In addition, the northern study area is adjacent to a
private hunting club that is used throughout the year. If hunting regulations are less stringent on
this private property, and if relatively wide-ranging mammalian carnivores such as coyotes, foxes,
and bobcats (Lynx rufus) are routinely harvested, then predator populations in the northern study
area may be reduced. This may result in artificially high rodent populations.

Incidental Captures
We caught seven spotted skunks, two towhees, one house wren, and a juvenile Virginia
opossum incidental to the mobile and stationary trapping efforts. We do not known how many
skunks were actually caught since we did not mark them. The skunks were captured in dry prairie,
oak scrub, and scrubby flatwoods habitats only in the area along Kissimmee Road and in southern
part of the central ridge, although they are reported to utilize a wide range of habitats throughout
its range (Cahalane 1961, Kirkland 1985). Three mobile transects and two permanent transects
produced three and four captures of spotted skunks, respectively. In addition to eating a variety
of plant foods, Spilogale also will frequently capture and consume rodents (Cahalane 1961, Maehr
1997), and it tends to be more weasel-like and carnivorous than striped skunks (Mephites
mephites). Because spotted skunks tend to avoid dense forests (Nowak 1991), the more open
understory conditions of the southern trap lines may explain their greater abundance there. The
food habits of the spotted skunk at APR are u known, but their carnivorous tendencies may
contribute to other factors that may reduce small mammal trapping success (and possibly
abundance) in the southern study area.

Mission Impacts
Military operations, moderate cattle grazing, or recreational uses appeared to little impact on
rodent populations. We believe that extensive land clearing, intense site preparation, and/or
conversion to pasture or agriculture, including citrus production, should be avoided. These uses
will negatively impact Florida mice and other rodents.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSERVATION

A. Field Monitoring
We recommend that Natural resources staff or their agents conduct annual trapping exercises
to access Florida mouse and old field mice populations at the 16 permanent transects on the
northern and southern study sites and develop a long-term data base, which then can be used as a
comparison with other more localized trapping efforts. We further recommend that permanent
transects be established in association with outlier clusters (A-2 and 3, K-5 thru 7) to determine
the continued health and persistence of these peripheral populations.

B. Habitat Modification
We recommend that natural resources personnel or their agents conduct pre- and post-mammal
trapping surveys on impacted upland sites to determine the short-term effects of tree harvests on


45


I ~~ _~~ _____ll___l___e__lY__P__~-lll_

















0 0
Sco
z 0










4E
aa











.4--
0.
I0 E


7; j a)a






,00- ( 0 -0
m 0) 4,







r-
LL
C)W i
I I I I


Y~


I_














C l























V.
C,,

Q. u




4r-








CLmm
V)




r -






0.. a)




LLL
















0 0
Z (0


I I I


.4


S I 1 1 1 1 I I
Io o n o li o oi o
COM MC N C- C-*
sainideo jemoj


h.
0)

E
E


0



C..
0,


z
0
LU)

C)
u.
on


C



-
L.
0)
'4,,
^c


-4:

a)

E
U
-o


U
-V
-o



a)
0
wc
C'

c\J

U-


to


U-.


. . I | .


..












w '
3 3

E C
o Ot


L.






0 I


s.
S.-o










-Z0
C )
o3 0


< 0^


c >

0
U)



In


o 0 0 0
N 0 00 0
- -c


a3uepunqv aA!elajl


r.


4)
E
E

(I)


C
c*L

UQ)

CoL

&.m/


4-




0
D-




c-
c-,



S-
0






c.-
C-







C"
o
a_


-0


-0
(U












c
c-
0
r-




0*)
U
L-



u-


0 0
IV C4


rU.


0


^I~









E 1



01' O
0
0 O
CL twM


1.









IC *
















0 40
Q) Ud

r LL




















0
ult


Ln o Ln Lm Ln


a9uvpunqv aApVj;a


L.


E


V)


c
60


C%

















SLL


c-"

o
-P
0
0
C


c-

0
C(
4-

0
c-










4-^
C
LS.
0
0->
4-
U

E
S-
0)
0V




0-
4-










CL
0)


-0



C





1-I




















Scrubby Flatwoods


FALL

40-

30

20

10

0-



SPRING

,.0 I


30t-


204


10+


0--


NORTH


SOUTH


WINTER


SUMMER


I4


NORTH


Fig. P-15. Trapping success in scrubby flatwoods at APR.


SOUTH


'"




















Scrubby Flatwoods

WINTER


"O

10- -
3








E SPRING
0 20-_

-0



Q015




01


NORTH


4.


SUMMER


*1


'J


.4


.4.


I
SOUTH


Fig. P-16. Total Florida mice captured in scrubby flatwoods at APR.


FALL


NORTH


SOUTH


.





















FALL


40

30

20

10

0



SPRING

40

30-

20-

10 "
0J


NORTH


SV UI di


.4


SUMMER


SOUTH


.4


-I


NORTH


SOUTH


Fig. P-17. Trapping success in mature sand pine scrub at APR.


Mature Sand Pine Scrub

WINTER


C,/)
C/)
0)
0





C,

CL

05

lX
o^


V



















Mature Sand Pine Scrub


FALL


20

15

10-

-5- -------------------


0


SPRING
20-


N


ORTH


SOUTH


WINTER


*1


*1


K


SUMMER


Fig. P-18. Total Florida mice captured in mature sand pine scrub at APR.


Q

0



E

0
o


j'- 11



0-
0 L


NORTH


SOUTH


















Turkey Oak Longleaf Pine Sandhill
FALL WINTER


40

30

20

10

0S


SPRING

An Ii


30-

20"

10-

0-


NORTH


SOUTH


Fig. P-19. Trapping success in turkey oak scrub at APR.


SUMMER


(n
cn
,)
o0
o


r)



.-
0o
c"


NORTH SOUTH


"


t~s~

















Turkey Oak Longleaf Pine Sandhill
FALL WINTER
20

15

10-


21

1:

1


SPRING


u

5-

0-

5-

0-


SUMMER


NORTH


.4


.4


i


SOUTH


NORTH


SOUTH


Fig. P-20. Total Florida mice captured in turkey oak scrub at APR.


-0
a,








E
0
"0
0
3





0O


H-
>,




-c3




'5


11 -1


~aar~a I



















Early Successional Sand Pine Scrub


WINTER


SUMMER


~I.


. --


.4.


NORTH SOUTH


NORTH SOUTH


Fig. P-21. Trapping success in early successional sand pine scrub at APR.


FALL
40


30


20


10-
O-L


SPRING
40"


0)
c

Q.-
CL
CL


05
.. ^

o


30-i

20-


10+


o1

















Early Successional Sand Pine Scrub
FALL WINTER


SUMMER


*6*


NORTH SOUTH


NORTH
NORTH


SOUTH


Fig. P-22. Total Florida mice captures in early successional sand pine scrub at APR.
at APR.


1U-

15 --

in -


LV

5-

0-


L
(D


3
.


to


E
0
0
0




O


SPRING
20

15

10-

50


I--


~









Table P-5. Adjusted trap nights and trap success for each small mammal transect at Avon Park Air
Force Range, October 1996 July 1997. Trap nights were adjusted by subtracting one half of the
total number of closed (empty) traps, and one half of the total number of recaptures, and one half
of the number of non-mammal captures from 60 (the maximum number of trap nights per
transect). Capture success was calculated by dividing the number of successful captures per
transect by the number of adjusted trap nights. ESS=early successional sand pine scrub,
MSP=mature sand pine scrub, TOL-turkey oak/longleafpine sandhill, SFW=scrubby flatwoods.
Transect Habitat Season Adjusted Trap Nights Capture Success (%)

N1 -ESS Fall 60 8.3

N2 TOL Fall 59 1.7

N3 MSP Fall 59 6.8

N4 ESS Fall 60 0

N5 MSP Fall 60 0

N6 SFW Fall 59.5 1.7

N7 SFW Fall 59.5 0

N8 TOL Fall 59.5 0

S1 SFW Fall 59.5 0

S2- SFW Fall 57.5 0

S3 TOL Fall 60 1.7

S4 TOL Fall 58.5 0

S5 -MSP Fall 59.5 0

S6 MSP Fall 60 0

S7 ESS Fall 57.5 1.7

S8 ESS Fall 59 1.7

N1 ESS Winter 55 10.1

N2 TOL Winter 57 42.1

N3 MSP Winter 57 10.5

N4 ESS Winter 58 29.3

N5 MSP Winter 59 6.8

N6 SFW Winter 58 31.0





Transect Habitat
N7 SFW
N8 -TOL
S1 SFW
S2 SFW
S3 -TOL
S4 TOL
S5 MSP
56 MSP
S7-ESS
S8-ESS
Nl -ESS
N2 -TOL
N3 MSP
N4 ESS
N5 MSP
N6 SFW
N7 SFW
N8 -TOL
S1 -ESS
S2 ESS
S3 TOL
S4- TOL
S5 MSP
S6 MSP
S7-ESS
S8 -ESS
NI -ESS


Season
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Spring
Spring
Spring
.Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Summer


Adjusted Trap Nights
60
57.5
54.5
46.5
57.5
57.5
60
60
54.5
60
56
54
57.5
56.5
55.5
56.5
60
57
58.5
59
55.5
54
54
58
54.5
54
57.5


I


I


Capture Success (%)
1.7
17.4
0
0
5.2
1.7
8.3
3.3
20.2
1.7
39.3
33.3
38.3
38.9
34.2
34.2
15.0
31.6
1.7
8.5
12.6
9.3
18.5
5.2
36.7
24.1
3.5


I





Transect Habitat
N2 -TOL
N3 MSP
N4 ESS
N5 MSP
N6 SFW
N7 SFW
N8 -TOL
S1 SFW
S2 SFW
S3 -TOL
S4 TOL
S5 MSP
S6 MSP
S7 ESS
S8-ESS


^---~-


I


Season
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer


Adjusted Trap Nights
57.5
59.5
57.5
59
59
59.5
56.5
59.5
60
57.5
59
59
60
59.5
58.5


Capture Success (%)
3.5
8.4
7.0
3.3
10.2
5.0
8.8
1.7
0
0
0
0
0
5.0
5.1


i


i










Table P-6.General characteristics of seasonal Sherman live-trapping results at Avon Park Air Force
.Range, October ...1996-July 19...97.
Season Captures Recaptures
North South North South
Fall 18 6 1 0
Winter 84 23 18 16
Spring 139 49 70 59
Summer 29 7 8 0
Total 270 85 97 75
Grand Total 355 172

Table P-7. Longevity records for individual small mammals at Avon Park Air Force Range, October
6 .. .........................................................................................................................................................................................


Species
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridan us
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P. floridanus
P.gossypinus
P.gossypinus
P.gossypinus
P.gossypinus
P.polionotus
P.polionotus
P.polionotus
P.polionotus
P.polionotus
P.polionotus
P.polionotus


Age/sex at
first capture
Adult F
Adult F
Adult F
Adult F
Adult F
Adult M
Adult F
Adult M
Subadult M
Adult M-
Subadult M
Juvenile F
Adult F
Subadult M
Adult F
Subadult M
Subadult M
Subadult M
Adult F
Juvenile F
Adult F
Adult M
Adult M
Adult M
Adult M
Subadult F
Adult F
Adult F
Adult M
Adult M
Adult F


Age at last
capture
Adult F
Adult F
Adult F
Adult F
Adult F
Adult M
Adult F
Adult M
Adult M
Adult M
Adult M
Adult F
Adult F
Adult M
Adult F
Adult M
Adult M
Adult M
Adult F
Adult F
Adult F
Adult M
Adult M
Adult M
Adult M
Adult F
Adult F
Adult F
Adult M
Adult M
Adult F


Capture
location
N2
N6
N8
N8
N1
N2
N2
N2
N2
N3
N4
N4
N6
N6
S4
S5
S5
S5
57
58
N3
N5
N5
S5
S7
S7
S7
S7
S7
S7
S7


I.D. number
039
005
028
029
157
154
104
147
171
102
161
141
167
165
015
008
009
016
017
022
133
176
163
025
020
052
018
019
021
013
012


Capture span
10/96-3/97
10/96-1/97
10/96-3/97
10/96-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97
1/97-3/97


111


----


-----


~I~-


I


111____11_~


~~_~_~_~_ _I________________~___ .__~~~I~________










Table P-8. Seasonal comparisons of north and south trapping areas at
October 1996 July 1997.


Avon Park Air Force Range,


Captures


Podomys


Season North South floridanus
Fall 18(1)a 6(0) 17(N)b 3(S)
Winter 84C(18) 23(16) 51(N) 9(S)
Spring 139(70) 49(59) 104(N) 26(S)
Summer 29(8) 7(0) 16(N) 5(S)
" Numbers in parentheses represent total recaptures
b N = north, S = south
SIncludes 24 cold-related trap mortalities


Species
Peromyscus
polionotus
0(N) 0(S)
0(N) 11(S)
4(N) 30(S)
3(N) 2(S)


Peromyscus
gossypinus
1(N) 1(S)
12(N) 3(S)
30(N) 9(S)
6(N) 0(S)


~ ~L~


.................................. ......... ........ .................................


[ I [ f I [


--









Florida mice and old field mice, when major human disturbance is scheduled on upland sites;
annual follow-up trapping at these sites should be considered to map the long-term impacts of the
disturbance. It is also essential that natural resource and forestry staff continued the use of
prescribed fires in oak scrub, scrubby flatwoods, turkey scrub, and native pine flatwoods sites in
appropriate fire frequencies that promotes and enhances the specific community types.

C. Future Studies
Although this study was of insufficient duration to detect population trends, it was adequate to
reveal distinct variation in small mammal abundance at APR. Capture success was greatest in
winter and spring for most species when populations had swelled due to recent production of
offspring, and when food supplies were waning. The spatial patterns observed may be linked to
historic vegetative and soil fertility patterns as well as to the influence of predation on small
mammal population dynamics. These are both areas of potential future investigations that could
help explain some of the interesting aspects ofbiogeography at APR. The patterns ofperomyscine
rodent distributions at APR may well lend themselves to unraveling recent questions in mammalian
landscape ecology (Kozakiewicz and Szacki 1995, Merriam 1995, Bowers 1997, Pastor et al.
1997). It is clear, however, that Podemysfloridanus is common in well drained habitats with
deep, sandy soils at APR. Future efforts to examine the dynamics of its populations at APR could
focus on annual capture efforts conducted during winter or spring. These seasons would likely
produce sufficient data to make valid year to year comparisons and establish reliable population
trends for the small rodent species common on the property.

LITERATURE CITED

Bowers, M.A. 1997. Mammalian landscape ecology. J. Mammal., 78:997-998.

Cahalane. V.H. 1961. Mammals of North America. The MacMillan Co., New York, NY. 682pp.

Carleton, M. D. 1980. Phylogenetic relationships in neotomine-peromyscine rodents (Muroidea)
and a reappraisal of the dichotomy within New World Cricitinae. Misc. Publ. Museum Zool.,
Univ. Michigan, 157:1-146.

Eisenberg, J. F. 1983. The gopher tortoise as a keystone species. Pp. 1-4. In: The gopher tortiose:
a keystone species. (R. J. Bryant and R. Franz, eds.). 4th Annual Meeting, Gopher Tortoise

Kirkland, G.L. 1985. Spotted skunk. Spec. Publ. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist., 11:373-375.

Kozakiewicz, M., and J. Szacki. 1995. Movements of small mammals in a landscape: patch
restriction or nomadism? Pages 78-94. In W.Z. Lidicker, Jr., ed. Landscape approaches in
mammalian ecology and conservation. Univ. Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

Krohne, D.T. 1997. Dynamics ofmetapopulations of small mammals. J. Mammals, 78:1014-
1026.


46









Johnson, P.T. and J.N.Layne. 1961. A new species ofPolygenis Jordan from Florida, with
remarks on its host relationships and zoogeographic significance. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash.
63:115-123.

Jones, C. A. 1990. Microhabitat use by Podomysfloridanus in the high pine lands of Putnam
County, Florida. Ph.D. diss., Univ. Florida, Gainesville. 160 pp.

Jones, C.A. and R. Franz. 1990. Use of gopher tortoise burrows by Florida mice (Podomys
floridanus) in Putnam County, Florida. Fla. Field Nat., 18:45.

Jonas, C.A. and J.N.Layne. 1993. Podomysfloridanus. Mammalian Species, 427:1-5.

Layne, J.N. 1966. Postnatal development and growth ofPeromyscus floridanus. Growth, 30:23-
45.

Layne, J.N. 1978. Florida mouse. Pp. 21-22, IN Layne (ed.). Rare and Endangered Biota of
Florida. Vol. 1: Mammals. Univ. Presses Florida.. Gainesville. 52 pp.

Layne, J.N. 1990. The Florida mouse. Pages 1-21 in C.K. Dodd, Jr. R.E. Ashton, Jr., R.Franz, and
E. Wester, eds. Burrow associates of the gopher tortoise. Proc. Th Ann. Meeting of the Gopher
Tortoise Council, Florida Mus. Nat. Hist., Gainesville, FL.

Layne, J.N. 1992. Florida Mouse. Pages 250-264. In S.R. Humphrey, ed. Rare and Endangered
biota of Florida. Vol.1: Mammals. Univ Presses Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Layne, J.N. and R.J. Jackson. 1994. Burrow use by the Florida mouse (Podomysfloridanus) in
south-central Florida. Amer. Midl. Nat., 131:17-23.

Layne, J.N., Stallcup, J.E., G.E. Woolfenden, M.N. McCauley, and D.J. Worley. 1977. Fish and
wildlife inventory of the seven-county region included in the central Florida phosphate
industry area wide environment impact study. Vol. II, U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv.. USDI.
Contract No. 14-16-0009-77-0005. 644pp

Maehr, D.S. 1997. Things that go bump in the engine compartment. Gulfshore Life, 26(1):18-24.

Marois, K. C. 1997. Plants and lichens, vertebrates, invertebrates and natural communities tracked
by Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL. 71 pp.

Merriam, G. 1995. Movement in spatially divided populations: response to landscape structure.
Pages 64-77. In W.Z. Lidicker, Jr., ed. Landscape approaches in mammalian ecology and
conservation. Univ. Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

Newman, C. 1997. The Florida mouse (Podomysfloridanus): Long term dynamics of a population


47


~__ __.~1__1_~1_411__111_I_









and its distribution in the high pine lands of Putnam County, Florida. Thesis, Univ. Florida,
Gainesville, 105 pp.

Nowak, R.M. 1991. Walker's mammals of the world. Fifth edition. Vol.2, Johns Hopkins Univ.
Press, Baltimore, MD.

Pastor, J. R. Moen, and Y. Cohen. 1997. Spatial heterogeneities, carrying capacity, and feedbacks
in animal-landscape interactions. J. Mammal. 78:1040-1052.

Wood, D.A. 1996. Official lists of endangered species and potentially endangered fauna and flora
in Florida. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Tallahassee.


48










Table P-9. Small mammal capture data at APAFR, October 1996 July 1997. Abbreviations: N =
north, S = south, PF = Podomys floridanus, PG = Peromyscus gossypinus, PP = Peromyscus
polionotus, SP = Spilogale putorius, SH = Sigmodon hispidus, F = female, M = male, A = adult,
SA = subadult, J = juvenile, REC = recapture.

APAFR SMALL MAMMAL TRAPPING RESULTS (29-31 October 1996)
Trnsct# Day #Traps Species Sex Age Weight ID#
N1 1 20 PF F A 56.5 004
2 20 PF F J 31.0 031
PF M A 37.0 032
PF F J 13.0 033
3 20 PF M A 35.0 037
N2 1 20 -
2 19 PF F J 14.0 030
PG? escaped
3 19 PF M J 16.0 036
N3 1 20 PF F A 40.5 002
PG F SA 17.5 003
2 20 PF M A 40.0 026
3 18 PF F A 32.0 034
N4 1 20 -
2 20 -
3 20 -
N5 1 20 -
2 20 -
3 20 -
N6 1 19 PF F A 41.5 005
2 20 --
3 20 -
N7 1 20 --
2 20 C. wren ---
3 20 --
N8 1 19 PF F A 46.0 028
PF F SA 38.0 029
2 20 PF M SA 035
3 20 ---
S1 1 20 -










2 19 -
3 20 -
S2 1 16 -
2 19 -
3 20 -
S3 1 20 PF M A 44.5 001
2 20 ---
3 20 -
S4 1 20 -
2 18 -
3 19 -
S5 1 19 -
2 20 -
3 20 -
S6 1 20 -
2 20 -
3 20 -
S7 1 18 -
2 18 -
3 19 PG M SA 14.5 escaped
S8 1 20 --
2 19 SP ? ? ?
3 19 -









APAFR SMALL MAMMAL TRAPPING RESULTS (17-20 March 1997)
Trnsct# Day #Traps Species Sex Age Weight ID#
N1 1 20 PF F A 44 301
PF M SA 29 302
PF F A 40 REC157
PP A 303
PP M A 11 304
PG M A 26 305
PF F A 33 306
PF F A 30 307
PF M A 38 308
PF F A 37 309
2 20 PF M A 36 310
PF REC
PF M A 33 311
PF 312
PP F A 11 314
PP REC
PG REC
PF M A 33 315
PF F SA 29 316
3 20 PF REC
PF REC
PF M A 33 317
PF REC
PP REC
PG REC
PG F A 28 318
PF F A 42 319
PF M SA 27 320
PF M SA 17 321
PF M A 41 322











Trnsct# Day #Traps Species Sex Age Weight ID#
N2 1 19 PF M A 32 323
PF M A 36 324
PF M A 38 REC154
PF F A 45 REC104
PF M A 40 325
PF M A 39 REC147
PF F A 39 326
PF M A 30 REC171
SH M A 142 327
PF -A 37 328
PF F A 34 329
PF M A 44 330
2 18 PF M A 38 REC154
PF F A 45 REC104
PF F SA 25 331

PF A 43 332
PF SA 27 333
SH REC
PF REC
PF --- REC
3 19 PF M SA 23 334
PF F A 41 335
PF F A 45 REC104
PF M A 30 REC171
PF F A REC039


~11~1


___I_ ~UII~










Trnsct# Day #Traps Species Sex Age Weight ID#
N3 1 20 PF F A 42 336
PF F A 31 337
PG F A 26 338
PG M A 30 339
PF M A 36 340
SH M SA 58 341
PF M A 33 342
PF F A 40 343
PF M A 37 344
PF F A 43 345
2 20 PF M SA 28 346
PG REC
PF A 31 REC102
PG M A 28 347
PG M A 19 348
PF F A 25 349
PG M A 30 350
PG M SA 21 351
PG A 26 REC133
PG F A 23 352
3 20 PF REC
PG M SA 14 353
PG REC
SH M SA 12 354
PG REC
PG REC
PG F A 16 355











Trnsct# Day #Traps Species Sex Age Weight ID#
N4 1 20 PF F A 36 356
PF F A 37 357
PF M A 43 358
PF F A 51 359
PF F A 51 360
PF M A 32 361
PF F A 30 362
PF F A 48 363
PF M A 46 364
PF M A 44 365
PF M A 30 366
PF M A 39 367
2 20 PF REC
PF REC
PF REC
PF 33 161
PF REC191
PF A 48 REC
PF M SA 27 368
PF SA 29 REC188
PF A 32 REC141
3 20 PF M A 37 369
PF A 36 REC178
PF --- REC
PF --- REC
PF A 370
PF M A 43 371
PF --- REC
PF F A 39 372


I ~_I^I_










Trnsct# Day #Traps Species Sex Age Weight ID#
N5 1 20 PG M A 29 REC176
PG F A 19 185
PG M A 20 REC163
PG M A 29 186
PG F A 28 373
PG F A 28 374
PG M A 24 375
PG F A 29 376
2 20 PG REC
PG M A 29 377
PG REC
PG A 23 REC163
PG M A 31 378
PG REC
PG M SA 15 379
PG F A 30 380
PG F A 27 381
SH SA SA 63 382
3 20 PG M A 29 REC176
PG M A 29 REC186
PG REC
PG A 30 383
PG REC
PG A 28 384
PG REC
PG F A 28 385
PG M A 17 386
PG M A 25 387










Trnsct# Day #Traps Species Sex Age Weight ID#
N6 1 20 PF F A 41 REC167
PF F A 30 192
SH M A 46 388
PF A 31 REC165
PF M A 37 177
SH M SA 59 389
PF M A 44 197
PF F A 30 196
PF M A 43 195
PF M SA 29 194
2 20 PF M A 43 390
SH M J REC
SH REC
PF F A 40 REC167
PF A 29 REC165
SH REC
PF M A 37 391
SH F A 62 392
PF M A 39 393
SH M SA 61 394
PF F A 37 395
PF M A 30 396
PF F A 31 REC196
SH M SA 49 397
3 20 PF -A 398
PF REC
SH M 56 SA 399
PF REC
PF F A 31 REC196
N7 1 20 PF F A 36 400
PF M A 39 401
PF M A 30 402
2 20 PF M A 34 403
PF F A 33 404
PF F A 31 405
PF M SA 21 406
3 20 PF F A 40 407
PF F A 39 408











Trnsct# Day #Traps Species Sex Age Weight ID#
N8 1 20 PF A 43 REC028
PF F J 18 409
PF F A 42 410
PF F J 20 411
PF M A 43 412
PF F A 35 413
PF F A 30 414
2 20 PF A 42 REC028
PF M A 30 415
PG M A 34 416
PF A 43 REC029
PF M SA 20 417
PF M REC
PF F SA 20 418
PF REC
PF F A 30 419
PF M A 33 420
3 20 PP M A 12 421
PF M A 30 422
PF A 43 REC029
PF F J 16 423
PF REC
PF F A 39 424
PF REC


~II __^_~ _II_~











Trnsct# Day #Traps Species Sex Age Weight ID#
S1 1 19 PP M A 12 121
2 20 PP M A 12 REC121
3 20 PP M A 12 REC121
S2 1 20 PP F A 12 120
PP F A 10 122
2 20 PP M A 12 072
PP M A 10 073
PP F A 12 REC122
3 19 PP F A 14 099
S3 1 19 PP F A 14 118
PF M A 35 117
PG F SA 16 119
2 14 PP F A 19 074
PP M A 12 075
PG F SA 16 REC119
3 20 PP F A 19 REC074
PF M SA 37 086
PF F SA 30 087
S4 1 17 PF M A 53 123
PF F A 39 REC015
PF F A 42 108
2 17 PF F A 37 REC015
PF M A 39 077
PF M A 53 REC123
PP M A 11 078
3 19 PF M A 30 REC123
PF M A 39 REC077
PP M A 11 REC078


_Is~l _)~I




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs