<%BANNER%>

Microhabitat preference of the introduced gecko Hemidactylus turcicus in an urban environment

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110109_AAAAYY INGEST_TIME 2011-01-10T00:40:22Z PACKAGE UFE0001213_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 190450 DFID F20110109_AACXHB ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH gomez_p_Page_012.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
a3f60903ba8da5f74e543ef4b885faa5
SHA-1
4bad0c87e7e7498097784d956beddf5494e87cf0
1963 F20110109_AACXGN gomez_p_Page_063.txt
946a32fd6ce9b72c29a905d26f758882
2bc72bcf010f115fd8f6dcc367371d36d0640379
24503 F20110109_AACXFZ gomez_p_Page_060thm.jpg
f6af0a5db8282eb976865fe0526eaf5c
70b5dc8064e070d6d774855bd5a025b2719f5bbe
208757 F20110109_AACXHC gomez_p_Page_014.jpg
6f7b50462d1ff8be2ff475174ad4e42b
973b0e5ff88f96a4033fa799c4ee831d7aaa1265
1892 F20110109_AACXGO gomez_p_Page_050.txt
bd94619d76c4635f4b37366cb8d4aa6f
b1f764d83efa97c8b37df2ee8486135016c2a4fb
209270 F20110109_AACXHD gomez_p_Page_015.jpg
bea7c3b36062143755bd5ea1db296f9f
15a22ced13994364686834f7ccd2ba7d2d2e939b
1053954 F20110109_AACXGP gomez_p_Page_101.tif
48b994a00ab70c00e2b167be062bea30
9f08507a534747327686cdb9c5821a576b4003a8
216370 F20110109_AACXHE gomez_p_Page_016.jpg
fdef2753bd3d2168ad68db4f50cf1c68
4166f1803bc220e046b99f3b2f4767a64be97e6b
121493 F20110109_AACXGQ UFE0001213_00001.mets FULL
8b79ea2601eed0dfd6b8e8a82795b9e4
987d72477d7b4d6a2e53cbd85f18c5108f71e548
77791 F20110109_AACXHF gomez_p_Page_018.jpg
1b1293d939b7b56a0e14c7ceba6192c3
11abddad89bbe7632f07d7573aae16bc020301ff
162618 F20110109_AACXHG gomez_p_Page_019.jpg
72f840add46d1dd9ffe6cc73cc787cc1
197acba281a386c40d9cde53b9c70e53534e6bbd
201912 F20110109_AACXHH gomez_p_Page_020.jpg
cfb4cf04cf4600822ff29bbc4b79487e
a0788ae4c417c0c8bb95e72d41e9e006cb4f4601
55135 F20110109_AACXGT gomez_p_Page_001.jpg
5fb1fee486ebc84c6e18fbd7fd66a7eb
8e6518a98f2036dce789521250f0c2483bd8a245
201531 F20110109_AACXHI gomez_p_Page_022.jpg
2d1a3229ce7df80378e964caf6daf5e7
453a52380ebc8f9b082d9b848c6fcc401c9ffd89
215175 F20110109_AACXGU gomez_p_Page_004.jpg
16c5dffe1e0544ff96663ad646159882
37201395a6a7da2f0639dd833950de1abb082bbd
208186 F20110109_AACXGV gomez_p_Page_005.jpg
4f0b4c2ec71da7f98efa0dfcaeb9e89b
631723c5a50095d77cd9c555d97f25f6acc02ae1
203923 F20110109_AACXHJ gomez_p_Page_023.jpg
7a10bd99ee19c7edaa6e7760ff6bc259
10e47b3325d35315d32d02c5b7341c744cc34ec3
197758 F20110109_AACXGW gomez_p_Page_007.jpg
62042ea7b074658e46c3d906e046b3a1
4b691b8d0d3c9ff01204d6c5fdbb805fae7563e4
214730 F20110109_AACXHK gomez_p_Page_024.jpg
0f7f7078b10676eca65df98c484f7300
f2a1124f7e42e36fcfa7f3489e7f0a8dec5681c8
227195 F20110109_AACXGX gomez_p_Page_008.jpg
c4e5fd1e70cc5c4642039bf28ede1b0c
9563299777649bdb31d54c86a44e024a6a0ea142
75638 F20110109_AACXIA gomez_p_Page_043.jpg
86482831563df50b52c9ef38b4839381
cd3fd111d3e22c35ef63129edb841c29a8aa694f
165359 F20110109_AACXHL gomez_p_Page_025.jpg
07e0979b507e94f10b1a182cbcc0d650
09842af29b661fc17745332eeae478a1c8a9d09c
171154 F20110109_AACXGY gomez_p_Page_009.jpg
7a454e503858ebe914f4f8ac093c36be
5c5ec10f7578fc1fc10314490d3207bcf78ff5f2
78491 F20110109_AACXIB gomez_p_Page_044.jpg
178704eaabae2d53781d176c1c6f5118
93a04cb86e684506fe2dc9e8604fbf13b4345d41
117257 F20110109_AACXHM gomez_p_Page_026.jpg
4a9f68ffc787ddf44dd22a29d4d7abb9
d8b7611994a41be183ffbb44879971153e4ba6d5
111575 F20110109_AACXGZ gomez_p_Page_010.jpg
72c70d7db5b4fcb78ab76fb5a41a4d81
fb97b17ade5ffb8f3cc4f0f8525a6dc2a33690cf
95646 F20110109_AACXHN gomez_p_Page_027.jpg
f239b421a0755713ae9a173c649a20c7
54f9806592bbce5c1d7ffe46882923d07593c32d
73828 F20110109_AACXIC gomez_p_Page_045.jpg
f019e8f76317a23a0edfb19935263de5
cac81317b9ceaa560199027e5edebc26fe5209d8
128166 F20110109_AACXHO gomez_p_Page_028.jpg
bdea534e7aa00dc741d8317c76eadcf4
2877f237999e67bd5c41e5b77d7b1c7a1d6d9800
71252 F20110109_AACXID gomez_p_Page_046.jpg
1189a55b9eb94441b76dc3c6bcaa7a6d
7c29708666a6c250c5f91cbf0cf3323067e18da1
100986 F20110109_AACXHP gomez_p_Page_029.jpg
cb6f1b9a7811dec9feae2e4450cd775b
1ec80c561592a7fd0d08bb76c4d68f699f625ae5
68558 F20110109_AACXIE gomez_p_Page_047.jpg
9eb9ab0d16180f1cd886b9513c53c239
5ffee03e875e1b3efcac0020750b28de44456480
89300 F20110109_AACXHQ gomez_p_Page_030.jpg
976176406a3f9d48ffc4de1f2f0f45c0
c8f9f4d55eef4bf636748566c433547fb056649b
67614 F20110109_AACXIF gomez_p_Page_048.jpg
8f48b392c0260f0e1a1a0612248f6770
e13b0137624318445b40969b724c4b814f45b7c2
184138 F20110109_AACXHR gomez_p_Page_034.jpg
dc9798131aa95b568202e90a5805d07a
3ee0b4c99875b6b0ca310a042bfd4b325271cbd0
198955 F20110109_AACXIG gomez_p_Page_052.jpg
9ce264613042fe8a7c116790ec3bd540
44fe8add4c4d6c145f463563ff7b7d232a403127
208570 F20110109_AACXHS gomez_p_Page_035.jpg
cd569c90298b311c87b0b500db4f5dd6
0ecd3a5785057d08e9c151a4469a05ec20ec1f6d
197794 F20110109_AACXIH gomez_p_Page_053.jpg
437ea24928a59cbd37be59cda765a5a3
29837c48c1e056ea90f9ccdc06cc58d65fb32bee
191341 F20110109_AACXHT gomez_p_Page_036.jpg
f13c8da544e3d1b433cf0792f34aabae
dc60bc570bfbf1b74769fd67f155135422971703
205395 F20110109_AACXII gomez_p_Page_054.jpg
205529ac25facd6a7eb3540eeb796fbe
2fd3bb7cea12ac814a1c0a9bff5d18c73d08e3a9
205278 F20110109_AACXHU gomez_p_Page_037.jpg
b089f454e960f67ee39abde2395fa4f5
5979bedfe4b496dc8d5019de78b5530494d5b665
198548 F20110109_AACXIJ gomez_p_Page_055.jpg
efee43d4a149ba4d2804ce6f8d462b9b
96535b36128b5856d0cefc9a8e30e3dbc1674ff3
206944 F20110109_AACXHV gomez_p_Page_038.jpg
bfe66af0f51955a861232daa692bd6a9
3d3e5ce642026da7708643bc501c4d1687951050
211019 F20110109_AACXIK gomez_p_Page_056.jpg
e864e10ef2023f0123b943f38cd8d298
bd726b008d644a51fe0019ef41cb3b7fad07707e
200849 F20110109_AACXHW gomez_p_Page_039.jpg
232d2020306dbd41dc2018b09f50f94c
4e09ec5525a90364a6ef93aa87b89140c6396f72
91004 F20110109_AACXJA gomez_p_Page_078.jpg
2352c3e5e94e41f15c22ae6103e23581
eaddb218014a5bd53624c4c92352cf5d923108cd
195883 F20110109_AACXIL gomez_p_Page_057.jpg
3afc4bc2d40ed6ac92e0eb77757c164a
8287ba80aff7be0c3591582dfde543f41f8e2bbe
43143 F20110109_AACXHX gomez_p_Page_040.jpg
5993fc753e313da341c2d7c70b596758
3f17518ec121c0161d9bfdbf61cffbf4f0988aad
74926 F20110109_AACXJB gomez_p_Page_080.jpg
f001195b80d033ea979d197d56857cd5
aec5f5f40b4c4ce8d07878c6db8122b0a4d3d2a3
164847 F20110109_AACXIM gomez_p_Page_058.jpg
46b3b5173ae0351676791cab22302e1a
dd25773310d6f8bdb4750044318833ec629dc0a2
104395 F20110109_AACXHY gomez_p_Page_041.jpg
04f00779f5f9dc6e97319bdfda6cdfe7
65dc4cce0d7ecd4be5d506647c9848a36506ff65
79424 F20110109_AACXJC gomez_p_Page_081.jpg
b1449a5171688af772a361bc08fcb23b
e4251c08c2544663d733160b14a42ff5e0274662
205544 F20110109_AACXIN gomez_p_Page_060.jpg
a2778d09cab2d327e0b8c62c8c55b0f8
409f49213b637db1e08f6ce6728ed35ec5aad10e
73857 F20110109_AACXHZ gomez_p_Page_042.jpg
a5796a6f179a095654a746d6b9c312ed
84701400f1cdf2889b8024dc93bbbf0d7b61f528
213299 F20110109_AACXIO gomez_p_Page_061.jpg
7219e4ecc323b238f74250d155b85185
ab1f5cbac72730fa04257f8136f659c6215fd0df
96749 F20110109_AACXJD gomez_p_Page_082.jpg
470b93db0350de59ac92a947865f0c4b
79b85f38f1867d864f22dc84be8d0e2820558433
215559 F20110109_AACXIP gomez_p_Page_063.jpg
3f8b92364fe8264790aca264f387c39d
701ae82d9110531b08f8615d485ea60011b02b50
77621 F20110109_AACXJE gomez_p_Page_083.jpg
d71228f73a741f3720c3b683ae91a2a9
8559c4ec0a867b73357ae97a3a9ce5d3616dc113
216775 F20110109_AACXIQ gomez_p_Page_064.jpg
da4b46ef827ed5585139cdb8b807ff73
078380a90acc28fe84f024dab242e069dd3ccfb0
179461 F20110109_AACXJF gomez_p_Page_084.jpg
9e3c9f2b4ae11f8733e62a0a6035dea7
d5b164e28b016984f7447314924175586bae057c
189686 F20110109_AACXIR gomez_p_Page_065.jpg
024af96345b175b61e7da71b826d9a4a
dd491699ae17e77f129ab59ce4ac3d032f6d18e6
211480 F20110109_AACXJG gomez_p_Page_085.jpg
8698b5f3ef42baf00b99163e23a85cdd
8804db3bd11fcd1688f5eec6fbe95aa34064a468
198878 F20110109_AACXIS gomez_p_Page_066.jpg
d71010710f0aed4effca62028c8a381d
80522a63721be0388b0ae1974936cc0f0f4f3572
211151 F20110109_AACXJH gomez_p_Page_086.jpg
98ec35967aff2408cef81f60cff18cda
8fe0c78b62ec0553f9855fb44c9ab21150b6dbcc
169939 F20110109_AACXIT gomez_p_Page_067.jpg
e8168f473cdc4f6f545d8f8e60b6dc57
e4801926733c24ddd380bb9b5dd60be76e71edbd
122452 F20110109_AACXJI gomez_p_Page_087.jpg
e83bb9351f7e4f8900baf262e85ba629
29fc1fce7a0722b3af288bab41603384354efbd8
51512 F20110109_AACXIU gomez_p_Page_068.jpg
57b78101c2f65903beb6ad3a33a327dd
7d1a78c4c71e839e4cddfa94a451917ef51e66b0
75708 F20110109_AACXJJ gomez_p_Page_089.jpg
153863286ce7e40c8b53fa7b138973ce
945748373a95d8c3c8751988470f15c1ff5aa3b2
70192 F20110109_AACXIV gomez_p_Page_070.jpg
ad15f7bab736e50d56071d31786ae521
81c3e62172c47125b6c7c09cefa9c8ef3473d830
156285 F20110109_AACXJK gomez_p_Page_091.jpg
b69cc3513725ad19d891f12c3f74eb28
287c0fca3a63b9b7c796fa09dd91b07db9864391
90663 F20110109_AACXIW gomez_p_Page_072.jpg
5dacb64777bc9e0375bfbbc7ca942189
7ab85e7e2a236eca16cb653934375d8d53431c55
169959 F20110109_AACXJL gomez_p_Page_092.jpg
06af4a7214233275843cafd16e0aa65f
d26c0753c5f82edaff668ee02d1e20b4b336897a
57527 F20110109_AACXIX gomez_p_Page_075.jpg
7acc34ef181e20b9589f499f49c6742c
d8aab32e70d662c20a0586f3c0803b19aee9f47a
85876 F20110109_AACXKA gomez_p_Page_009.jp2
f75ee6aa4bbaca2f7bc4a3d494172dfe
4d31ecbad8b6db1f09d9717f5cb01fe7ac3e4127
165622 F20110109_AACXJM gomez_p_Page_094.jpg
d24f1c281be465dac2fd6d922068589d
49a5fbde10ef8f5e7b2c952b268afda5fa63f0f4
28411 F20110109_AACXIY gomez_p_Page_076.jpg
ba3668ac48af719a1c72279a34277a37
be7184eda8ff5b611b00f3b50d17651ee2eedfce
57195 F20110109_AACXKB gomez_p_Page_010.jp2
686b35477ece1f9c1d2bd8fadcd8368d
b30407a9429d8e5581c8ab0cf8db8303a5c8afeb
164548 F20110109_AACXJN gomez_p_Page_095.jpg
f39a4ad2f381b1754924b0e9f84204ba
5d48ee37786bef4a3b0e11ff7f5f9683777e7267
84328 F20110109_AACXIZ gomez_p_Page_077.jpg
7a54a80e134aa69d5c2de7517971f2c3
b4dbd1125fe6121fd1b0ad8657e45538ccfd0dc9
95448 F20110109_AACXKC gomez_p_Page_011.jp2
e07e1489d90f6c7fa20a9ddd644891f0
4018a5a301c120188114b355cb5a36dd380010ba
167596 F20110109_AACXJO gomez_p_Page_097.jpg
b4b3672683400d3d0b2b75ccba2d7fa4
a7f4323d06865cb6eb494a6ee93b98658c2457fd
92075 F20110109_AACXKD gomez_p_Page_013.jp2
54846f59b504cd1ff06636000397c7bc
7de5abeee7f88394d97b991e997abcf0a1462fb3
167851 F20110109_AACXJP gomez_p_Page_098.jpg
0f6343e64262443ef126fc8b05ada0b4
69148d84b21077ae7af6787f15daefcbd654763a
132561 F20110109_AACXJQ gomez_p_Page_099.jpg
5e8c50d9f22ecd75f9518f30581ff2d4
fbece83bad7ffd81369fb8aec00c6d1bb6634c55
109386 F20110109_AACXKE gomez_p_Page_015.jp2
2b85964ee668ab1c570fd945a9755c56
89be36ef6524a12b6f2b61331d470c75f5ce1f29
243710 F20110109_AACXJR gomez_p_Page_102.jpg
c2e681693832b3b8b46474bf38d77d97
8cb9909fd14bf75b6ab379565f24e6ff10806eae
112788 F20110109_AACXKF gomez_p_Page_016.jp2
11c4e6823e3653a9b221efd4c986002b
f0f89dd53c5b9e19b5be47b31b13becd4051811f
235299 F20110109_AACXJS gomez_p_Page_103.jpg
664fcf9eb6baaa4565f85aa939944b0f
1e55b121368b72e61f6e7e1943b5175d3c001252
108893 F20110109_AACXKG gomez_p_Page_017.jp2
2d9be6144864f48f27e5c7e5e86c2912
614a6d323566df085232ecb7f4887d2a6c4a52e3
66233 F20110109_AACXJT gomez_p_Page_105.jpg
5e51be2b8233231538463a5aadd09275
34053ea05f6bdab14abe10ff8f0393d5c366f763
83883 F20110109_AACXKH gomez_p_Page_019.jp2
a3c96871ad1c140cc8af968dac86b0f2
c61fb93e4f3e4d2fe232a4259e7f3a22e827bfcb
6189 F20110109_AACXJU gomez_p_Page_002.jp2
d6131707435c066ade9eb0fdf7cc59a6
2c014cc0e8235ba6b1c699acb56e5c16aae63881
103379 F20110109_AACXKI gomez_p_Page_020.jp2
121789d1d2ae190ba4a61b543aba569b
59744f1929125e9ade82899232301ab683125e13
74276 F20110109_AACXJV gomez_p_Page_003.jp2
4ee56c78a64a7d0d1b0baa3e3108aadb
d7236fd963cec0ddda374ec956d357891fe88e3e
107935 F20110109_AACXKJ gomez_p_Page_021.jp2
7b3f3e4785de09a6dec44d42296ec557
e66053b9f15aea9c75793b4f5da1d2d7f65951f7
1051984 F20110109_AACXJW gomez_p_Page_004.jp2
a6c29da91f276ec62fec190cd4d92862
116160e46bdfbd28376f0935f70262a8e0c9216a
103108 F20110109_AACXKK gomez_p_Page_022.jp2
fd401aa479f65e7b20287c7ea22af239
eaeacbf947773392d89e7b94393451d42d7562c9
1051985 F20110109_AACXJX gomez_p_Page_006.jp2
85efdf70b81dc56f46c1b4e29dc7740b
ad5a4cd823ada4588f97ef5d504c433fdc12c3c3
218970 F20110109_AACXLA gomez_p_Page_042.jp2
b77b83f0c8a4c7fa3e34114a837c9747
c662649791405591cef2adfa4d14e41485d39dfa
106974 F20110109_AACXKL gomez_p_Page_023.jp2
93d8170c08c988cc2c7637644e9b489b
23aa9f12aab9927adbbc72792f47cb040b1eac8f
1051947 F20110109_AACXJY gomez_p_Page_007.jp2
a0f7e525bdb00cd4be3a626bf615c9e7
7b91ae5477ec3f6638c6e5487910e7fd7e024bca
231116 F20110109_AACXLB gomez_p_Page_043.jp2
ada8ea3d2274e8189638be2163bb6ebc
64c618ea611cbb2ac81bbdbfa1cc4794f0699644
109092 F20110109_AACXKM gomez_p_Page_024.jp2
51983e27af379f1fca561af2a712bf0c
49ddc7460ccfda071249214a19322a7009ff07b8
1051972 F20110109_AACXJZ gomez_p_Page_008.jp2
55f1ce84a7c971083ef153a7255dd22f
7ab10cc3d5f4e70bac71fb15bcb1a8f3b6914791
242170 F20110109_AACXLC gomez_p_Page_044.jp2
ac61c9856d233f2ed61e96bf6eb3c614
4c1be33c68a904629425cc53a49ec5fcfdd387a1
84715 F20110109_AACXKN gomez_p_Page_025.jp2
1f840a5363b7805126413d1500b8a451
2b9e84cd97d5d15abbb6ae4ae2ff60b9463b8a3c
178895 F20110109_AACXLD gomez_p_Page_046.jp2
e460c6c80fb7f9ec9a27ef68c64b4a18
db0204d56644939fb98e35f51c656ed4aa67e7e0
60359 F20110109_AACXKO gomez_p_Page_026.jp2
0096957f4168b550223bea11f1bf75c9
6bd2322ab3b7ad45d6bbc953827565768f65f83b
171581 F20110109_AACXLE gomez_p_Page_047.jp2
f3dda074ca58e9523f71787afabb79ae
e55d37fd862e90401f9962b92273492689ef3824
494169 F20110109_AACXKP gomez_p_Page_028.jp2
b1aaefa9e7b8662931985f5d575c6d89
74ce3347e14c4323527a9b05616722294680bd44
324903 F20110109_AACXKQ gomez_p_Page_029.jp2
3c80cbb7c4e94f23e0e45a78ea391907
4cf214f9ad026ef76b976ef9fb4b5d7b6d5db5d3
90841 F20110109_AACXLF gomez_p_Page_049.jp2
d2280d9aa524409be292e6542c9e01a6
2e45305f7f834aa42bcf29cb57df921315b73b4b
104696 F20110109_AACXKR gomez_p_Page_032.jp2
a611c05bfeca7449cd9aaa85ad4fa4f7
d7a48da792d4a06ff196f2afc853825777e208f9
105149 F20110109_AACXLG gomez_p_Page_050.jp2
fcd16b14cd2e965ded2de4ae3bc99f40
c029b82e025fb6608c4dbb1d6d56a0363bc869c1
101938 F20110109_AACXKS gomez_p_Page_033.jp2
daf59947bcb82ab69d5cf4deca5e7ddc
91b56d84b36e6ce2d846dba35ace69a4022f1a1f
109697 F20110109_AACXLH gomez_p_Page_051.jp2
ba735f133bb5003657d1c4d7f165a280
22b57ede03f69ee46be9657ebb7e8b26c1c0141a
95639 F20110109_AACXKT gomez_p_Page_034.jp2
0f5bf83b37304ab23a51114139e78eb3
362d2eb110655bdd96b4402dcb3871b59859c20d
102399 F20110109_AACXLI gomez_p_Page_052.jp2
20c562fb77ced558022f3bc334512db0
4bba3ae7457a56216bc561db168ae18da9714a4b
108831 F20110109_AACXKU gomez_p_Page_035.jp2
2453b770d7499bd2ec33aec6be7c01b1
782fea09264904291acd61ad9ac96755aa2e7193
106453 F20110109_AACXLJ gomez_p_Page_054.jp2
157aa21c44698cd9b55f9dbf0d6fdc2e
afff60d358b697cdab88f7f49b1861c16b9086ae
100087 F20110109_AACXKV gomez_p_Page_036.jp2
25af276f2ab4f86576f8da74218388f5
1f0e9a1fd810b15c88c08a5a1c9b0e4ec5479691
102037 F20110109_AACXLK gomez_p_Page_055.jp2
3f2f9f6cc56d856427eeb7f791986ed7
ac22663be24cfa72a434f6e5b22a53e8f4d334e2
106885 F20110109_AACXKW gomez_p_Page_037.jp2
fcc0cccea2487b9a60b26d127cc48284
2d9a9ef87f7e03605f3be4954e4e60a82629cf39
34967 F20110109_AACXMA gomez_p_Page_081.jp2
bf98e706aa30b73a60af0111345d1ac6
fca86c3f3b541f72fda4ed9e96668425de2d0942
100070 F20110109_AACXLL gomez_p_Page_057.jp2
7dc30ca76757f4ca26ed2a28e5a904a7
eb3ae73ee26153d4e8f5ea92adee8663d8ed8dcd
106951 F20110109_AACXKX gomez_p_Page_038.jp2
7c25a361e0a8d91958fb641509b7c4d2
8d61a66a1874efb68cc7f88e5f3f44a2e2f4f205
47754 F20110109_AACXMB gomez_p_Page_082.jp2
00270deec7e38148ff111bb85039a8e9
e78ee4bc86d12190b5be5aaa56d33171d3426835
83671 F20110109_AACXLM gomez_p_Page_058.jp2
5a94d8611dfe4ca56a9195925834c6b0
47b8b1766de41ec7f679f0deb7fd853ff48003d2
103998 F20110109_AACXKY gomez_p_Page_039.jp2
cf1331ab1f49762bc247d9837d5e1f25
f30b99314a92c8d014905b01f1fa452c1ed55065
92152 F20110109_AACXMC gomez_p_Page_084.jp2
350416c62d7707b82ce0823d479ade68
bdc2020d04807917c67647afb100eb805d828a8d
85488 F20110109_AACXLN gomez_p_Page_059.jp2
55859b130625f6dd002a0422d62f6be6
51d53026c0b29cfe64cf2dd7e7cbb53110c8693a
51174 F20110109_AACXKZ gomez_p_Page_041.jp2
f8462562dbbac983b34cc5fecab9f992
f480a6adf3081041389a602ef7f87514246cf5d5
108215 F20110109_AACXMD gomez_p_Page_085.jp2
b224824c7f50eb76694e7991a5157083
d2bcba89dc0fa41fcbad908ea314353df21484a4
105779 F20110109_AACXLO gomez_p_Page_060.jp2
6946e0439215a80176d9301c04515460
a7c0707115297568fb5e4ec80a77be523baa2353
110024 F20110109_AACXME gomez_p_Page_086.jp2
0a1a6cf742df9f40bde3fbfdf966a984
eec950560f6f7fdd578d6cda891bceadf6573035
110691 F20110109_AACXLP gomez_p_Page_061.jp2
0ca8bc8be36a5bb1038c85d1725a418a
94e6742230bcfa32be6b2361e8e5b1c8411f6496
63390 F20110109_AACXMF gomez_p_Page_087.jp2
fe956d45984d366ece16f8445d9cdc3a
f4bfc4f71a2727234f7ff487600e5d23ad947af1
99738 F20110109_AACXLQ gomez_p_Page_065.jp2
549081a7c87ff62fbb5fb9918ad6ad08
62dbf194860796efab7eef3fab5e32f3c71aa192
103134 F20110109_AACXLR gomez_p_Page_066.jp2
1c4bff908676a10b55368482d5515317
987378b2b5efa07717b38bdbcbb488162a62b2ea
87350 F20110109_AACXLS gomez_p_Page_067.jp2
8b23e5bf8af6684db44592d7ea117e64
576c540dc846c46253e4bc3b7ef64434aea585b3
74824 F20110109_AACXMG gomez_p_Page_088.jp2
1b39dbfc0a141535d9c46935ef705ae0
3550aadbb77589e14b53f0082de889c41a77f3df
36433 F20110109_AACXLT gomez_p_Page_068.jp2
82aba4b5310ff71b5a52f7c71ae15e4c
eddbf45ee65e094f07f5a190a22405b3e0a0b8a9
33775 F20110109_AACXMH gomez_p_Page_089.jp2
e8215743abc245ede73acb3e8bcd0aca
6d668680fa9857442b5c93818fb34722b2533fe4
18859 F20110109_AACXLU gomez_p_Page_069.jp2
cb475946a6ebf871da8c217760353ddb
020652911a464dc8c0410ac96900870c7b102211
68614 F20110109_AACXMI gomez_p_Page_091.jp2
89a1dacfe1b821057bc14e3f00998061
b6e1d34c30054017887c54f080cd95d6827f3676
50976 F20110109_AACXLV gomez_p_Page_070.jp2
7f81937f2be0bd05bc46865b7962f4a2
cc856e51f6c3c8b58e4c88f6674e6f9e947e4b42
74902 F20110109_AACXMJ gomez_p_Page_092.jp2
76807a96c33fe5ac4c35f3773e9afec1
a576f8364e8f836e237f96b5a1c939ce8b6f7080
63623 F20110109_AACXLW gomez_p_Page_072.jp2
9d20d1901341e227eec7dc1bd11f4440
32e16f36dad0a720b79d4f782be0593a9542cd66
6396 F20110109_AACXMK gomez_p_Page_093.jp2
08469f3c5cab73f8a54159bf6aa03901
78fb82f7f23287ac624d1a4d2a635c063e65492b
35690 F20110109_AACXLX gomez_p_Page_073.jp2
774a112d233670495fa258665488cc50
905f6a4d0ad4be17599ccf339611baf6f46adf14
F20110109_AACXNA gomez_p_Page_014.tif
3e9c492fcdbf1b5783826198a89859b5
40698bbf7bf74a612092a455b16fb1c9cccb9250
105382 F20110109_AACXML gomez_p_Page_096.jp2
0d462f411f3e43024bcac29e5b161b4f
f0e53d30b8c2e0966d15d284c912f17c5c41a480
21983 F20110109_AACXLY gomez_p_Page_076.jp2
236c23282cd413a17172eeecb65b6ea8
05e9f40607a35c5787faa7539ed967cc98766931
F20110109_AACXNB gomez_p_Page_017.tif
0889770009987ed6d81f72a894e10fb1
901a9b7916219cce03cc2b43add6a2dd462f5ab1
84172 F20110109_AACXMM gomez_p_Page_099.jp2
ba5da8f0a5a9b18755801c6336d5ca25
685e188d31d991cb1dca076288a635ab820c8ba0
33619 F20110109_AACXLZ gomez_p_Page_080.jp2
bb4252a96eeab64e0e42f9f6eb336791
eb00fe3d805bdbbac2d78e792f514d6ae6bbfe29
F20110109_AACXNC gomez_p_Page_018.tif
035bb6c102143279ee488e2f212b523f
1d452b8965156c9b4204aba887b8bd242edb4fc4
99228 F20110109_AACXMN gomez_p_Page_100.jp2
a798751b6c46a957e894c5112dcd7604
475983d0f0d85d781ef79ea45b46be2fa18a2b49
F20110109_AACXND gomez_p_Page_019.tif
b3f4faba809642dd53fffd6e4110dbd4
6eabc2cf9162eec6000e02b90b1ddf4786adaa1e
118936 F20110109_AACXMO gomez_p_Page_101.jp2
d08f048070f7a71c3baf428c3b68e43e
ae1293205338a2156768814546c053914f6b7f29
F20110109_AACXNE gomez_p_Page_020.tif
13ec691504038a0f4cf5b0da3f1b0443
de03aaf0de63a9608d2837363dd20be482010e00
123103 F20110109_AACXMP gomez_p_Page_102.jp2
52699cf44d43022a461a13aa7a3045a1
1158e6e6483caf5dc8c2a6586b64c1ab986b3a42
F20110109_AACXNF gomez_p_Page_021.tif
8a4259c0832ebcfe855c266fc12d01fd
8d15b70087c7dc9f2921866b0d5bdc3c17566ba1
69013 F20110109_AACXMQ gomez_p_Page_104.jp2
d73d0b24259617bd476c84705e428769
1e2c88caf5d0f2591adf29d5b2588839543e4397
F20110109_AACXNG gomez_p_Page_022.tif
a7278baf64afe465b3ad7ff6dbc8c9ba
213a8684ad29a5e2ae8480e0565e500cebec004c
33275 F20110109_AACXMR gomez_p_Page_105.jp2
cfeb0dde25f4eaf24e2bf45612a34197
24206d0860fd26aec75886dc4d654b433c04c1d6
F20110109_AACXMS gomez_p_Page_001.tif
c5e8472dfb57783ce4325e45b66a73f1
f1a43b109c447fb7ba7a8b743318f4041252b452
F20110109_AACXNH gomez_p_Page_023.tif
431372fdb879f868d17316789859c94d
483b906df569f1e31ff817bd75e96a0cc390b9bf
F20110109_AACXMT gomez_p_Page_002.tif
3deb74e717abd08cedf79d352a39be12
2ff0788734b3422f9ed4d6e1d7e8de7e26dba0fc
F20110109_AACXNI gomez_p_Page_024.tif
d30f57a310f63c8188ec2b0ce36c156e
e767a1b8caa58c1f4d87678cb89a5d28e14c1eb9
25271604 F20110109_AACXMU gomez_p_Page_004.tif
39cc9ec36567b85d3895e82c099447cc
e1fd67fa89e91a321bb9a1fc8b471aaff9ce35ae
F20110109_AACXNJ gomez_p_Page_025.tif
d24fc8658325b7b8e1124ba42359e348
076d73648892d23c522ba569aca685661bca4044
F20110109_AACXMV gomez_p_Page_006.tif
24154bb188af476a859cb99abcb0c2ba
dd861c9dec1c53591142f15ffe091c9836adfe35
F20110109_AACXNK gomez_p_Page_026.tif
6aaa305827fab1fae9fa7366c96ed07b
d632abe8ae6929e95426a4e89d1deadec68956fc
F20110109_AACXMW gomez_p_Page_007.tif
fc3f6623d04bd2c815db7b3d905766e2
43cf951926139fbd428d4f8aaa06e2ee28f4ca71
F20110109_AACXOA gomez_p_Page_052.tif
7ab14c46533fb38747fdce836f0929cb
c21ab0ada16d38cdb9378a0a8c7d151e6d5543c3
F20110109_AACXNL gomez_p_Page_027.tif
a45b290cde844b9003f4c48718dafee6
72671721d764afe1591c12b84bec88a5ccb6c80d
F20110109_AACXMX gomez_p_Page_009.tif
41c3ae315cdda5bf298734c6ea68d3d5
eed214e526d8dfabd80b4d5701cf97ac15dfb788
F20110109_AACXOB gomez_p_Page_053.tif
318d996750077d5ba54addeb60ad33e4
f2eb0e22c436c0c32b633f58177c39eb15edc571
F20110109_AACXNM gomez_p_Page_028.tif
a2c14e1ee7e187d6a1543ce845ecc184
c53110d701bf59ab5979e5892e18a9da80004160
F20110109_AACXMY gomez_p_Page_011.tif
c6ea8236632e9825bdd3a721112b6bf8
77be63a7e600093edfb65392d9f7f7d605e428bf
F20110109_AACXOC gomez_p_Page_055.tif
a92fa2f670a7b39c566f82d747534fa9
51bef73babdaecbeea0c7bc3bba8f2ad89fff017
F20110109_AACXNN gomez_p_Page_029.tif
7b0ef59d3fa0382028baa4bfd57232ea
8691e2573103cf2680f2fc038cdd6479b4b746bf
F20110109_AACXMZ gomez_p_Page_012.tif
5760db3ab9aa6c451424e63996ac37fb
80f5b7d5354f3b5912fd9282d0a4fe6411735cce
F20110109_AACXOD gomez_p_Page_056.tif
ba762bdb1de4898848bafa5755596824
6e758352fff178477365d688276d260b4ffbba07
F20110109_AACXNO gomez_p_Page_030.tif
06e1ff3ed8387d75d96f23d2e4faa6b4
7c45a4a074dbba1d0f2a140d9fb206ddf09e30a4
F20110109_AACXOE gomez_p_Page_058.tif
e66350276d422d410c92fa763c37f900
abd7da4d5704bf7d92cb44c8e50ba8eb537165a4
F20110109_AACXNP gomez_p_Page_031.tif
de88b9935db87cbbf3a5bdb0e7388ed5
a05345b75edc7e01afaeea8ecdea3715ff50dc24
F20110109_AACXOF gomez_p_Page_059.tif
af26f4078edf466a277674d921aedd2a
f20a13c7d7fd92ff067c90a57ccbde7835a95077
F20110109_AACXNQ gomez_p_Page_032.tif
ff2a04226d548a7e4ac58618796d92bc
6a896afbceb810094bf4d1273584c5faa00e5293
F20110109_AACXOG gomez_p_Page_060.tif
8977ca29804862393d878c5d5c590998
a26374ce1bac89eda1557a2fed3c90abcc16e36c
F20110109_AACXNR gomez_p_Page_033.tif
0dffd122eb63f71c178a2c3e7e3114aa
806f1112f10a443b65cc75a852b3f2f96fe5cc89
F20110109_AACXOH gomez_p_Page_061.tif
577b255eb8896a3a446b2deddddc0c2c
c0f64fef2792f6f1e9e1f1857d3bc5304ac25bfd
F20110109_AACXNS gomez_p_Page_034.tif
4c6e432d4136762239120e3385f30bcc
7085dc05408cd646a309714b4aa56588f9b3450b
F20110109_AACXNT gomez_p_Page_038.tif
c03997ebc2b9106b6528171759082c29
4f95ba4d29c6c8470709cdd3047dde57c1f193f0
F20110109_AACXOI gomez_p_Page_063.tif
4000040f2a76e85278a9e93d4d586eb5
1b172ac19c26310c4c4ae251f9b4eb305acd87bf
F20110109_AACXNU gomez_p_Page_039.tif
4d2ae00b9d9f3281a621e02e6b532060
2931852f3a81c9616493b29bfff6cd66e490d79e
F20110109_AACXOJ gomez_p_Page_064.tif
d5f5c61c7170e30913b613c1bcb7e6ba
88d845cbd575b6f90c16dfce238224303c1644d7
F20110109_AACXNV gomez_p_Page_041.tif
12914e53b56070b81db0b2658a00445e
94602a92a2f547758c746a7ba01d402ac481afcd
F20110109_AACXOK gomez_p_Page_065.tif
4c903e383315e484184ee8551593c4a5
bd02d6c3d606b7117bc6516f114e0093584e895c
F20110109_AACXNW gomez_p_Page_042.tif
5595a3ba4a195f86e28d75520569c570
b7d47ac0251493553ec8e3209608ad58110bd4e6
F20110109_AACXOL gomez_p_Page_066.tif
e1e43f04bbe0f25cd3a298efaa4f18b5
446f6b93b1b5f99b56ea63d670be87642c3d330d
F20110109_AACXNX gomez_p_Page_043.tif
1524668f599c02d78f991f43c428fe6b
5af57827e70dbda8c7f8ba32ea4f3bfdd80cc925
F20110109_AACXPA gomez_p_Page_087.tif
45a93f66b8bbdd3b5a6e5b1f2c1f62e8
67be16499e53fae74443cd2d86bf7b763c98f7a5
F20110109_AACXOM gomez_p_Page_067.tif
5e921dc97c59b66046300fc18c5bf9d2
c1ae9079e5e8851510e728aed4644bca9b8ef356
F20110109_AACXNY gomez_p_Page_045.tif
141e475538f20a75b181d13b78aefec0
b899c793d28c0709f2ffb8a1dd3a1d97c3630928
F20110109_AACXPB gomez_p_Page_088.tif
47a138d13837ca6558da18256b4375c6
dc29212023c2873a5ce31844e578d348f2f7cff0
1054428 F20110109_AACXON gomez_p_Page_068.tif
b7871a8d2a552193db1495bbb466bdac
2e1330cf08859cef9f90156642cd9524618f07b2
F20110109_AACXNZ gomez_p_Page_046.tif
15ddfc355803552e1b132726541bfd78
cee98f0ba37932c7436a6fab8cab795d5ecc723c
F20110109_AACXPC gomez_p_Page_089.tif
9ac64958eaa0d393ed90330c60df2a32
8c70e39ce704ddf7e24387d4c9ed6da5192e2ce8
F20110109_AACXOO gomez_p_Page_069.tif
6dd351b17928f3278d615677ee1a4b98
ea4f6a71fb8cf175fc6e6a6d57c348acab07eca9
F20110109_AACXPD gomez_p_Page_092.tif
82f685c8578f1c1c96eb0631afa57c67
693ca08d2a5fb153a3f5defe72b429f3eb2716d9
F20110109_AACXOP gomez_p_Page_072.tif
329ec8ee8ae41015c702405a6e13291d
ee19792de6de5fa03758d28e82c50978894391d0
F20110109_AACXPE gomez_p_Page_093.tif
9e228aa9c349415baa2d6541d9d2fa19
939cec0bc827f27fb565de00a706f1ca5e0b9605
F20110109_AACXOQ gomez_p_Page_073.tif
2763d82722057ffce029de2b97839406
84e1983c63809562212c09629fbd4e6dde49f8b8
F20110109_AACXPF gomez_p_Page_094.tif
54322ba138ad0b2b33135d97d21ca9ee
c58877b27e617fecbd8f1cd9d5f11774d80fe6e1
F20110109_AACXOR gomez_p_Page_074.tif
5bbbf6bd019ab12f5b50d93a274f0a0b
94efada16548793a82e0669ea163e50f7d19b978
F20110109_AACXPG gomez_p_Page_095.tif
bc7f47a6d749356c4274bbc6fcf51669
f8a479a29e279f2efc38e3b988485a75bc1c45fb
F20110109_AACXOS gomez_p_Page_075.tif
6ec3f761c7be2da3bc86ecb82824f061
efb404bbb567b2502f2507a30907934bf7587f9e
F20110109_AACXPH gomez_p_Page_096.tif
e42143c58874967f939271c61a71881f
5546663630cb44a7819bd84f558d29ebd7bee36b
F20110109_AACXOT gomez_p_Page_078.tif
3635a5c95ee76aa4eff866d8076f620b
8fda154bf2eb1bce1650c4e146928b3335d9ceb1
F20110109_AACXPI gomez_p_Page_097.tif
ac213b00579f6ed392f36c12c1ed9853
20eaa9d90a290b3d4d83eac07c3dcc899d76dfeb
F20110109_AACXOU gomez_p_Page_081.tif
e1d389dca99ca312067bf67dd2b50f6c
269fbc4dcd041f71404929043135ccd6e039cc5e
F20110109_AACXOV gomez_p_Page_082.tif
1835a4425bd4210bf244911b5adf55d7
61295527e7db4ffb89f44b2f4cacf2fd64e1e793
F20110109_AACXPJ gomez_p_Page_098.tif
ac304afa5511afe449d2af5e914ef506
6607a073549637ce711e8d5310fde513337881c9
F20110109_AACXOW gomez_p_Page_083.tif
3a0c51578a500a980a47af602e1e6b99
befd8c2f20bf1623c5de0b657d3780d6a6830247
F20110109_AACXPK gomez_p_Page_099.tif
3750e93d1efb14e23a34945f62f10a32
47a8f196f2ea5955d6d74545e55ec3f34c9eeded
F20110109_AACXOX gomez_p_Page_084.tif
2949c8fdac9ab1477218352e2ff4a265
332190cd2c98b09c341b7812a46a8fccba7cc4bb
50036 F20110109_AACXQA gomez_p_Page_017.pro
97dd54397cbcb47a17e354e412eb3a24
e6c44ff97fe86d66fd3def59f1179ab4d97c4400
F20110109_AACXPL gomez_p_Page_100.tif
62f52455d8dd2b73e43a03d1de7f403e
873247678e71c6b3ababdae2691f2144d855bc8b
F20110109_AACXOY gomez_p_Page_085.tif
9c2581dc42ec396c7fe4a54a88473d14
88207dcfed94157be306f995fffe096c48bbcd6a
37957 F20110109_AACXQB gomez_p_Page_019.pro
4ff0f1735cb518ec2e60b4aa21429e49
c9060864186c4e34cc2abb4da624088960691edc
F20110109_AACXPM gomez_p_Page_102.tif
ea8cb8bbda10a46828da43fc3e60e52e
6ef4399b95d77c17c8527cbe55d7dc4d1e08262a
F20110109_AACXOZ gomez_p_Page_086.tif
4b1efb89b913ea68d67cca6555966660
cef5f60f828717aa705ed3c1ea3796d9578f175b
49192 F20110109_AACXQC gomez_p_Page_020.pro
eea4f8ebaef82c9d0432bc5a368fb7cb
202389786d045ce1850afdcd99c22e6c8ec5c55a
F20110109_AACXPN gomez_p_Page_103.tif
1c67178ff75e2e6723e8c40674cf70f8
b8621141e5bc8e51ba2ba37f4bc65f378ccf1d00
51496 F20110109_AACXQD gomez_p_Page_021.pro
59894b4afe5bb1a5a4931fad139a41c5
f8141302dbbf80f6540488ce7f8c48888ea21ab0
F20110109_AACXPO gomez_p_Page_104.tif
5be033a80af3961f50f1b7420e422540
b01bcefdb9218b35ae40d4c8a3af46565ab51d29
46989 F20110109_AACXQE gomez_p_Page_022.pro
aa2428600b32a5f6e04abc4261fba728
16d999cafca3518a8a0843222c52e66475d6b7f6
F20110109_AACXPP gomez_p_Page_105.tif
2837cb6f869374b9a33b27658bb8cbc0
a8097a2c7cfb7981419523c5ec7cb67ec86dad36
51685 F20110109_AACXQF gomez_p_Page_024.pro
965b28ea16261f6437b6bc3b2acdfdab
bd1b8a221ce344795abd110cce6675eecb95ea2b
8627 F20110109_AACXPQ gomez_p_Page_001.pro
2f8f10f98c82564aab8c8def8e0fc002
d2ac2654fe36fc3518bce7a17af0dafa1ced8915
38996 F20110109_AACXQG gomez_p_Page_025.pro
43d70d567a94f133b62a4566fb3431a5
b50965227e474e479175e16b9d18898ebba2efca
1408 F20110109_AACXPR gomez_p_Page_002.pro
b387d1774fdd20aaed89dbe8f15cdf12
4fa5692a096a6efb9d3bd4a70ec9ddb8c0865a8c
42988 F20110109_AACXQH gomez_p_Page_031.pro
db9c87e71c47bde873c3eb84905f8165
e88f3fe6e3cef26c65ce69de8a51b4e578b5677a
33882 F20110109_AACXPS gomez_p_Page_003.pro
e2e69636156b0f14e329ce62107ef8d8
1416ce2ebeb8958cf3849e1ed454a7664946ab9c
47646 F20110109_AACXQI gomez_p_Page_032.pro
bf9153d274821bed08059d17f568aeb4
1a82982066b6d265f86a1a0275253c5d7580a50b
62314 F20110109_AACXPT gomez_p_Page_006.pro
8c259bddd669d5ac863c61f4f2909168
1ef5ab6be2bd4f48baf7b5dd8ad1b13f013e5d60
43132 F20110109_AACXQJ gomez_p_Page_034.pro
1717c2a4461d430db85ab21c119fcab4
c27d37a640916db0f966879aba38bb34b5078184
36815 F20110109_AACXPU gomez_p_Page_007.pro
a8662c8afc2f25a430ad8b21925a1bc5
bede3d1ab2c85dc4f7847c3c32aa2d503104f128
45709 F20110109_AACXPV gomez_p_Page_008.pro
e7e724b24a87ccfd81c458beaea99fb9
312cd87ad65a72dfd9c5ff34f4ad2b41567cdfe2
47685 F20110109_AACXQK gomez_p_Page_035.pro
f95c45ef3700f96f0222d44fb8394e9a
a8da6abaeb7fa02f62b4456198e6d1fdf8459362
39077 F20110109_AACXPW gomez_p_Page_009.pro
bd4a8e3b30d2aa972d20b00e3faeb944
184243fbcbb2b877c98b3cc02f3548d311aad6a8
48224 F20110109_AACXRA gomez_p_Page_060.pro
83d5eb4a679d8732eb1b09133605ea0c
5e3eacfb52eaba17c86b867e36ed3033bd1ccf0e
45257 F20110109_AACXQL gomez_p_Page_036.pro
5d813a512ce18de0838793d38a52fc6d
758771c02aac80459678220f02bc88a838773a8b
45724 F20110109_AACXPX gomez_p_Page_012.pro
45dc7d964fe9e0457baca2c1c75e49d6
35bfd55716c0a49ac6303211c378898b0084c26f
51123 F20110109_AACXRB gomez_p_Page_061.pro
a2b7e173ef1449de38175faf5f137f6b
07d76daf3ad19031ed447139b04bef33c837652e
49542 F20110109_AACXQM gomez_p_Page_037.pro
a2126d11f8934e3832618c90116b00e6
cb220b13d61b58045dfa9f5f5f45d37adbb5eaec
50261 F20110109_AACXPY gomez_p_Page_014.pro
756a935ce30cbfefcd936f3f5d6bde22
015ecfd9e9067adbf6d6816d0b9f06937aed2e05
41543 F20110109_AACXRC gomez_p_Page_062.pro
7e77c6ebe3a5287b6f87362b0a3e6a3e
431c928010e5af915f456e8937422890f52962f8
48294 F20110109_AACXQN gomez_p_Page_039.pro
e393e7f9a0893cd992e8caf075c8fe39
8df4a7c95fcc6f10a9eb8d4fb71981f841f1cecb
49848 F20110109_AACXPZ gomez_p_Page_015.pro
7bea710527c80821d7028ccf64af6148
2dec406571656490ee8bf47fb1c27b2a6df5618f
49640 F20110109_AACXRD gomez_p_Page_063.pro
e8f66a1513e27839590c7c4312e7af65
24a770ef32285a720ea70396648a79539fc1d056
8581 F20110109_AACXQO gomez_p_Page_040.pro
1a2c0645b20c99668b8c78dac759612b
1d400d2b69d36c2f108a39b786c2edd10a79ebfd
27602 F20110109_AACXQP gomez_p_Page_041.pro
d195fcc42a0edc9e7b10653e951baeea
99a77334db2c0e641ce37d65e0e0b0f53689a29b
50924 F20110109_AACXRE gomez_p_Page_064.pro
b25b5a00878191b4b441a0c0a6d79c0d
36380d47b8c1569b32c32746c54b730485a18996
6360 F20110109_AACXQQ gomez_p_Page_042.pro
790095da9df3ce5692b9660c6a2578e7
e27084de3bbb1287a2b36e0a877ea9e18ad2d630
46258 F20110109_AACXRF gomez_p_Page_065.pro
dd81ba9282aafb1ad875c3c3cdb9bdfa
22e9427b31b304a5a27e97940825ab921b123f14
5781 F20110109_AACXQR gomez_p_Page_045.pro
753f9a6f4b4133df2bca9c2ee8e7f273
8269c61c19af0e8a3d5f2c72130d71df09257c38
47995 F20110109_AACXRG gomez_p_Page_066.pro
60cbfff666beac71fb83c2350ac8c0a2
2ef5c2634e52a1b9a955b09893a11eb130f790a4
5178 F20110109_AACXQS gomez_p_Page_046.pro
8d0f25112416d9c21e1b9f684451731f
21c1043e9fd8ad3828401570b9f1592485d12732
30666 F20110109_AACXRH gomez_p_Page_070.pro
e831f29e0af378d7a0a8f2309c300041
daf1b25e10544db42e432722141081c250ebf202
5784 F20110109_AACXQT gomez_p_Page_047.pro
b29ab77033ee43fdef0e17fa8cc28c9c
60540e3057948f723b210927c19e3f1b03b16771
15799 F20110109_AACXRI gomez_p_Page_071.pro
da18200394859b1fd8b2f42706417003
fe1bc8bc1ab44f4caee309f7311a57ba7f0cf3c8
4727 F20110109_AACXQU gomez_p_Page_048.pro
bccabbd0677a3fef95e804de2e38e822
4a1888d87d4ce85022ec8caf5450db8f0afa8074
32924 F20110109_AACXRJ gomez_p_Page_072.pro
e71a067bd83c26789fed9f33c1c1ccd9
cea228352a5fac42d2ee6b7f4ceeb9cb88380349
50716 F20110109_AACXQV gomez_p_Page_051.pro
ec3d382e3a854b17dc9ab453da2ace5c
6e409c660ab8d617721b01f4bc3496e86bfdfe9a
37198 F20110109_AACXRK gomez_p_Page_073.pro
6150f8df48dea0c60a750e97f3598c8a
e283770c47a4102492d9fd36dd397a04a13a3a3c
48411 F20110109_AACXQW gomez_p_Page_052.pro
eaaa46290479a88f301f56fae4c4388b
6e5ec2b82374914312ba7c4efd497705f1b3599b
49768 F20110109_AACXQX gomez_p_Page_054.pro
1ff3f7f033bda1df15cb945d3213fa96
d5d25ae2a84a75578315abecbfeb442d258d79f8
60323 F20110109_AACXSA gomez_p_Page_096.pro
3fa22bdc32d7c8b3df48a6180e01f7e2
2e29ee94784e68970667ac0400904788c6083fe4
12061 F20110109_AACXRL gomez_p_Page_074.pro
f8bda95d7225c267333e22c629760ddd
bc96b70d302a7a3fb12db5b5419ffcd2508faf4a
47415 F20110109_AACXQY gomez_p_Page_055.pro
2ea7b27920857ae208560ecc00f234a1
5d1302d7d4f3652b56eaea2e840b20540e76c781
60077 F20110109_AACXSB gomez_p_Page_097.pro
154c413827fa48cd743e7e8e56ae5e68
fc289911c1b0be9af78043a215c0f70816d973f4
27272 F20110109_AACXRM gomez_p_Page_075.pro
a339b4374939925314076c0488a2ecfc
16fd8341d03d11d94f02f9aa555abbdf469d8429
38961 F20110109_AACXQZ gomez_p_Page_059.pro
87b51d4bec8e219629b498842dc0d76c
ceb1417c0ca072afa79e900ca43244c2e6da9cd1
59871 F20110109_AACXSC gomez_p_Page_098.pro
98d9797682db86413b0e5e470a5c7493
1d408e78f8c7d15a2055bb193546251d3c931cba
12327 F20110109_AACXRN gomez_p_Page_076.pro
791b30804c5133f4510df4cc5d147e6f
d0b87cd0d8517938c465bd65db5ba26dcf133906
47437 F20110109_AACXSD gomez_p_Page_099.pro
33eab9911c4a35a537e4f37e8973e6f7
ead5aadfc4a1bbbf73f161afb82be8853f2fd8c3
26039 F20110109_AACXRO gomez_p_Page_077.pro
ec54d5981f8b76e82cdb1a35f9e0fa22
8e362c65c795980e021764a735b3bce6dfbbe185
46414 F20110109_AACXSE gomez_p_Page_100.pro
22117d7366e45486504716767ef7fb37
2b00c622632e64ef90d42a68ad0651f65487b529
31063 F20110109_AACXRP gomez_p_Page_078.pro
62c3c03146e763fdb10ab1ab8fb6bf7c
adcffe58e8f4693209a8ed0288e23fbc859c101f
57763 F20110109_AACXSF gomez_p_Page_102.pro
e4e853af3b8e720d881b4ff5a6e5ab19
ac92c5c493df6f8afd9a5f8bb934173616dec417
18192 F20110109_AACXRQ gomez_p_Page_081.pro
816b437ba3bfcb3e02fe860ec6a58c94
bbb578ef1726646370650aeee1828e49823e08fb
56935 F20110109_AACXSG gomez_p_Page_103.pro
d597da492477fad3e739e3068728e348
ecf354b5af53cc511af4cdda77df75c4f3ce4d5a
28681 F20110109_AACXRR gomez_p_Page_082.pro
ee92f0d3b3502db933f7406d2bc4e946
6106dbcca48cae4c9717850445991ec98c781b26
30665 F20110109_AACXSH gomez_p_Page_104.pro
74d045980b2c855799945c8329e9daf5
682e7f711bc8f524c866f4d7877ca99a16e7b57a
24951 F20110109_AACXRS gomez_p_Page_083.pro
960e2104d28de2b07ca021b40be9d6bf
3d30ce705854be98607ccee490c0b31a890b62a7
492 F20110109_AACXSI gomez_p_Page_001.txt
067c42f886536706f15cbfd87f274545
cad24f55b00b7c5368cd05ddb54a254a8b1119a7
41317 F20110109_AACXRT gomez_p_Page_084.pro
47e94c72768cdd0c892538bb19cbce28
2c36790302ddd076aae715735dfba20923150cac
127 F20110109_AACXSJ gomez_p_Page_002.txt
bf67fc41b64ef7ded483748ec9ff5364
55b452cfaa252ad48dde18e2bdf569097bf9c355
49976 F20110109_AACXRU gomez_p_Page_085.pro
e24219d442e19f74dce94843684d1786
1a97b2984a9eb5126d73d09913ed71ab1632765e
1401 F20110109_AACXSK gomez_p_Page_003.txt
68b1e4e50d3a403dad598b42b0f14400
7c19a97718a26ee99524d1f70a27bb2ab5e3ad39
F20110109_AACXRV gomez_p_Page_086.pro
e270335fbd93ce9343b7fe61c9a5bcc1
3b2f707740b2e5028cfc43356ef78ed3259e9c29
2825 F20110109_AACXSL gomez_p_Page_004.txt
dfd19762f0310403c0a665ad82a24af4
1323c6d850c28d149da770f482b156f0654101fe
43657 F20110109_AACXRW gomez_p_Page_088.pro
0bdee28f66856b23f03699ff7a6d37f2
d50adff31e9036f989bb54783eb680a130d748bd
473 F20110109_AACXTA gomez_p_Page_027.txt
0d687eae370d9b2ee6ce7e85fbbc9b95
89329a4071eb016d426de66e4b6f0ab6d9db4e47
59890 F20110109_AACXRX gomez_p_Page_090.pro
5a78e22aeeb027edcaa943488c0d4b5c
4cc7721c484f8b2851bf6e4bd4f138570e6037b3
700 F20110109_AACXTB gomez_p_Page_030.txt
ae76475e39856bef7636a4ab200c83ca
c87629868ecef7e45b3c9442f1c0e48ee5631fbb
2517 F20110109_AACXSM gomez_p_Page_006.txt
fd56dfdffb122b9a5e1c8ab96b9588db
d773b39a416f1030fe510711cac9551ae0428408
44482 F20110109_AACXRY gomez_p_Page_092.pro
1bb51694732ebf2e44335c32bcc3111c
4b84195106a6582afec4927efda35fbf292acb58
1798 F20110109_AACXTC gomez_p_Page_031.txt
bbd4f16103fc209c9bfd095b39891f77
202cabc96003bb2c4c8b28d7b9505570e1828dc6
1486 F20110109_AACXSN gomez_p_Page_007.txt
b197495b0d4d5c3212e701100a0e488f
284f20565e31cd1de34fe3ef6874013a3600f62c
60019 F20110109_AACXRZ gomez_p_Page_095.pro
4c309241ea9c2783a3dde2e34efab2e8
a8f0088929681962b648a4e6662ae52ee75d6eb5
1957 F20110109_AACXTD gomez_p_Page_037.txt
e5845e0befa2dc6a90b8c8b7d706216d
23ec223412eff06d10c17ec12983a716b46d46ab
1023 F20110109_AACXSO gomez_p_Page_010.txt
e957200bf92a8949af0b39eeba651ca8
6f9583f0b30a3583f407e0d6b59c8529fca009f5
1949 F20110109_AACXTE gomez_p_Page_038.txt
1eaf0f07e7a26044823ccca0a4748922
88f72bdcc836aacf38db5f15b1d95cb20ed97e1a
1826 F20110109_AACXSP gomez_p_Page_011.txt
429440eb1967c51ba1e33d2eec267be0
0d60d1e1aa9e97522a4b43a5d4030d36bc4f1b68
2368 F20110109_AACXTF gomez_p_Page_041.txt
045cfb0f3d08ea3a4d9918e3688fd44b
6bd60a2d1002fdfe567e6d5c142f99323823f6ce
1850 F20110109_AACXSQ gomez_p_Page_012.txt
928f8bcaa203f7d80b4659a7ac515a48
a5d7b2b9269767fa134035206cc82f213ac10d04
509 F20110109_AACXTG gomez_p_Page_042.txt
99634b4f24ac6dc833005aae12f6b6a4
20893a7329e61b665bd774ca552a9b71f2eebae2
1735 F20110109_AACXSR gomez_p_Page_013.txt
89d9cf676b25b977fa17cd7e6d3f20bd
115598bb2f49b99263d284947ccbfcbb9babb541
294 F20110109_AACXTH gomez_p_Page_045.txt
0eaa2c7ab93927319a62c5431ce6ccff
c8f2ebed511afb933ced8f283f19c0c2e9f7024f
1980 F20110109_AACXSS gomez_p_Page_014.txt
7b68a61012552bbe20ce5936e0801448
72b5529c23b3975d10143773f7ce8c4accd130d7
284 F20110109_AACXTI gomez_p_Page_046.txt
11a99d9f72e6f1633857959a9bee2ce2
4a14d4c547f91df120b62f096d50822397611ca0
2064 F20110109_AACXST gomez_p_Page_016.txt
089adb2b049b30dbdce9bb3e655e56f3
c2c2e1f7c9dc82bc62bda7b567da93b5869ecdf2
F20110109_AACXTJ gomez_p_Page_047.txt
96ccd22ac804619f64eaa3ca1caffddd
0daeb69c0ed998f2ba77855d4e4a4827bb5f7b4a
733 F20110109_AACXSU gomez_p_Page_018.txt
ba9666fac6c0e406469ec88d26c83f00
7519e35f5ced2dce0fb14c75fa8ce96403331b92
396 F20110109_AACXTK gomez_p_Page_048.txt
74cb4a8f18efaa55c8fd464f1201db5d
e48dd0b6210d5626091a541d5c311ca267a31226
1650 F20110109_AACXSV gomez_p_Page_019.txt
2f78fcfdec31003c977edda7d9051a93
46932b2dfcbf1013e0297b08e0af540a454a7cd8
2029 F20110109_AACXTL gomez_p_Page_051.txt
dd87d6e76476246dbb4d70c949da6b87
29ee6b9a9b39460aa02ca8b889ba86a0250c3d28
2095 F20110109_AACXSW gomez_p_Page_021.txt
fd3a909ac6b260ad53207135bea8c676
a979fdef7be9c23b180d60f0552eaef829961d8d
1919 F20110109_AACXTM gomez_p_Page_052.txt
8349ff4e47f11cde1c081357d6a04dae
ecbf37462e224478eeab1479976e18c06464be85
2033 F20110109_AACXSX gomez_p_Page_024.txt
051334df09dd31cff5ac30253b76d9d8
abc9f1949525287e8929d34fde14f64cb9343d34
561 F20110109_AACXUA gomez_p_Page_069.txt
9e118ec605dc35f7b033459b123fc372
1005ae3fa8b2a032a25cc68d3ea32a6be1a47357
1553 F20110109_AACXSY gomez_p_Page_025.txt
8b0892226863ca60682aa2424a415204
189bb6e7cd009f530161a6a3a6defc913f79b466
2061 F20110109_AACXUB gomez_p_Page_070.txt
3ef6d1d9109057ba7f2ade14e4a15fba
a401eaa066aa129db01c9e6953e9ff56ca8a92ac
1827 F20110109_AACXTN gomez_p_Page_053.txt
c7e19c157f51febb5b9c534a880203c7
8d8715b22fd226a84e1c9b9ac5996177712e0cfc
3069 F20110109_AACXSZ gomez_p_Page_026.txt
48f4cf1b7c5f9928650b583fa52abc7a
c5e5ec3b2629f29742605606e295840131356ad5
1067 F20110109_AACXUC gomez_p_Page_071.txt
295a76e37f04e827dd04b6edb94eb018
e2ce34c5232b1f3904a7bdad4cb37ee46e419d10
1967 F20110109_AACXTO gomez_p_Page_054.txt
0611216227b38fc96a712cfd50975b07
f89c0587a181f5a05e8b4ec2421fcbce5d6340c6
1646 F20110109_AACXUD gomez_p_Page_072.txt
f72bb966be44c6020727a40b5d0e3312
a39519ea3671cf32b379feb4a1b7a5b53825bf75
1870 F20110109_AACXTP gomez_p_Page_055.txt
6b96918ae519c2dbb9c6a2f028f8255a
d84e3156b238ab71d6ddc5ab1ac67e7fb8bb65be
2564 F20110109_AACXUE gomez_p_Page_073.txt
036664e2b5042043f931eccfd1c54fde
45f27c37b941bf65cb910c957f918652de52e433
2020 F20110109_AACXTQ gomez_p_Page_056.txt
076c40afba3706c7b71bb6d670b3da10
aa0fcf7aacba003e03a39fa6eb74a5ba638c85bf
675 F20110109_AACXUF gomez_p_Page_074.txt
cba94189940bddf48b11be251fecc96a
c6b875b6e05fa7182177de575ac2d9e5d41ad288
F20110109_AACXTR gomez_p_Page_057.txt
b5aeef160ee3e365a0691129f6988726
f9d52c7e3f863f0521effd2d53f047a863c5b0bd
28935 F20110109_AACYAA gomez_p_Page_070.QC.jpg
1c3824286ae95fa9885ff0f55f548302
7741572687e52ed3222bf727ebc54f34a8470aa7
1819 F20110109_AACXUG gomez_p_Page_075.txt
1e86be3f8b17d589a585da8848d4cf6d
a3ccdb3f6fe2e45fb37de78a06636061f5607bb9
1726 F20110109_AACXTS gomez_p_Page_058.txt
cbea7a4e89818b807f19f08317912648
fb08e100d1501f4fa8005ad5f7447e59c1a4811c
10108 F20110109_AACYAB gomez_p_Page_070thm.jpg
0a9640193547f59e57b7cce09c25a0c2
e14f39f7633236ef7330103ddced811c960cf95d
940 F20110109_AACXUH gomez_p_Page_076.txt
9808f3ff87ee565928013a4a35900ff7
909a9420d8c006dde531c8161e8aafcb2c7ae4e9
1596 F20110109_AACXTT gomez_p_Page_059.txt
0c0717b6608dcecb00241a70f5085216
4d77053b111f85507845324ac05f12b8fe0e362d
15788 F20110109_AACYAC gomez_p_Page_071.QC.jpg
60c5bb4ee84e4413868fdd667272d57e
c075a96893dd68fcb759d79b2fe93b0a8db27438
1503 F20110109_AACXUI gomez_p_Page_078.txt
ed1ef7b921bfcd7d4be601ae5a9b6516
4b5f11f2598ab7ae1e704705928f470f570d7ac4
1911 F20110109_AACXTU gomez_p_Page_060.txt
e4e4cdbcbcd7ce2d259dd97811037ef9
fcd31c85908bd7941f1cb43f7807bbb395933337
11473 F20110109_AACYAD gomez_p_Page_072thm.jpg
6dcb722bbd3671b317a43fdfe8b6d9db
85f3fe9eda77b2b7da99b03cb822fe6cc5907d48
1723 F20110109_AACXUJ gomez_p_Page_079.txt
b4708d83d4989f70814f692ec9bd1842
e2da7aefe61019a7c7d65d1d1613affb864e7d8c
2006 F20110109_AACXTV gomez_p_Page_061.txt
888fb4e051c49dd200807b0e7c43e44c
b01abc15b3849fc3b57ac6f2dfd40b0a98d0f506
19955 F20110109_AACYAE gomez_p_Page_073.QC.jpg
8ca30648777a9cca4e569ae58a7ec5f6
973e7b96fad0ade7538e894108de81d02ef8a297
889 F20110109_AACXUK gomez_p_Page_080.txt
13339eedc9faa0b6f05de7ad244379e0
b1c20f7cafcd4026f2ec421c804b5850fcb5d1e2
2040 F20110109_AACXTW gomez_p_Page_064.txt
141afb1a7b78dd2063f5c819c1b22619
f69c1a0b2f04c289ee7d878f29b9cc7ec8f6210d
6721 F20110109_AACYAF gomez_p_Page_074thm.jpg
14d684b6dc17a5400a5b824137c5e1ef
ef60afb5e243f065af65d73b9a4e6ae068165fd8
1761 F20110109_AACXUL gomez_p_Page_083.txt
4cde2663c77dd67b75c5eba8ff25446c
1ec99fd7ee0634aea1f5e2451a8eb2f180b44e3e
1841 F20110109_AACXTX gomez_p_Page_065.txt
e2a01229f240db9fcdc4bf635795628e
a3c30b6c35abe6ffea70410e8348d1aa8d37951b
10167 F20110109_AACYAG gomez_p_Page_075thm.jpg
ea1b017d75982d8ef283cabf5dca77d3
4842ed76ed6ac450e7a908e39e51582197478585
2350 F20110109_AACXVA gomez_p_Page_103.txt
791821d1fdeefac97965982e33827b25
e9c609b754622cbb2bc8f39d059f3767508ebfa9
1684 F20110109_AACXUM gomez_p_Page_084.txt
3492e0431df48a6a4cf220232cb4360d
4c799f8095c6bd0db0ecea9e5b3f8d7683382b55
1901 F20110109_AACXTY gomez_p_Page_066.txt
6f82906d6e4fef66f6a128e540179fa8
4da7080ff032c7587065799ee72536bc016ba817
11665 F20110109_AACYAH gomez_p_Page_078thm.jpg
30e68e4e5b410c639e3830e08fca9f80
3bdfae57861cc3e144c3c7d06aca960de83175cb
1287 F20110109_AACXVB gomez_p_Page_104.txt
da3ee73baa67115ee38bc9f22bf9eed9
1bbb1ccadc6a5fd0e8e82b4866dc8f2793710c2c
1975 F20110109_AACXUN gomez_p_Page_085.txt
6c2e190b7bd8b0d43976a60b6b4f953d
e3c51c6dd3594b5c81c96a33a7b66f4e3053123e
3095 F20110109_AACXTZ gomez_p_Page_067.txt
3ae00da8136a45cca885049cd2e4eacb
302da6a5f908eabd00f61f2db582fdf562911b84
31774 F20110109_AACYAI gomez_p_Page_079.QC.jpg
14a5c41a1e9d483dd76017c8632927bd
361795137b8fb82f585b78e4cc1d954ee9c49829
586 F20110109_AACXVC gomez_p_Page_105.txt
1a016746b94b0ed68048b271c380f996
d2cdc8617ed2f6c9c2a2fd1d1c64674f2c004024
11213 F20110109_AACYAJ gomez_p_Page_079thm.jpg
f128dc4b611ec0a7adf2c57c36705a0f
d6b201a1936213bdf73fd6ac9f550f30696f179a
79183 F20110109_AACXVD gomez_p_Page_102.QC.jpg
65259edbea39754a30203743148e4d25
7cef30c38b090791419eb01521659a8ef78a871a
2013 F20110109_AACXUO gomez_p_Page_086.txt
d9b1f54e5875e6d83ef4b6e4545b8eb4
9237d6fa7550d8ed5dae50be94c89193f858af01
28556 F20110109_AACYAK gomez_p_Page_080.QC.jpg
6fafb72aa96b0cb6ed867df4b85c4ee0
1667e58de959aa20a3299c053a99507dababfb6c
5513 F20110109_AACXVE gomez_p_Page_071thm.jpg
963671e53268a68f5c5650f2a3f5adab
6413f5a13e4bd3bdc15924d6a6f86d1b66814d92
1133 F20110109_AACXUP gomez_p_Page_087.txt
8fe12986a72c977420f7c574506f1ad4
71650960dfcfdb8846fcbd2f215f9e756464b832
10596 F20110109_AACYAL gomez_p_Page_083thm.jpg
dcc4ed5cd4cbf7cf538c49f53ecc4341
101faec5ca343d4a41732547a91915a692f3116f
61956 F20110109_AACXVF gomez_p_Page_025.QC.jpg
434f558679a9ead74e85627137010229
2b93806b991214227d9291c883c426e414735fd1
2698 F20110109_AACXUQ gomez_p_Page_088.txt
4fd80b0a05f169e128b2284871094ef8
250efc51a89986cee57975bbbd82b35c682666f4
21772 F20110109_AACYAM gomez_p_Page_084thm.jpg
2e5d088411a62f5a71ebadc68f738075
b6ea32151d8bd78419db7b39ee1b44a4b6c8a93d
77394 F20110109_AACXVG gomez_p_Page_054.QC.jpg
a3f4080b5f5d36047574d7d04bc55312
a002bf33ddda0c43b957e0b12add7f53a18ddb06
1181 F20110109_AACXUR gomez_p_Page_089.txt
4053d8d947338e87b6588cab85b60732
9ce84d08509efbd61644b239dfffe81f4d803ac6
25257 F20110109_AACYBA gomez_p_Page_101thm.jpg
a33d8742bb8c9e14243e3f9d3e449f1c
5dc190cf9c94bc1ae625132eae11e2491cd4a4ff
47056 F20110109_AACYAN gomez_p_Page_087.QC.jpg
210d4003f3ab911bb8404cd853bd00fa
af430c9ae3c24443abeb95fe142b8c4513c58198
25040 F20110109_AACXVH gomez_p_Page_014thm.jpg
c81342caedc585f6fc3508891c479750
a25b36f77c4d9778042922b6cdbb0f4cae9b5184
3106 F20110109_AACXUS gomez_p_Page_090.txt
001101cd1bfb177da5b0e504f2bcc111
11178276438b2be92d27b6903d290639aedee7e9
24588 F20110109_AACYBB gomez_p_Page_102thm.jpg
31b7be6086f637a5b3bd3ed024551efe
2148079665c24aad38c6d6b5350fe0a30921c97a
14975 F20110109_AACYAO gomez_p_Page_087thm.jpg
26f75f06d035badc2d8ef9ebaa1720cd
26064e6fbdf8030b2871ec298cc74c5c8b78af65
41771 F20110109_AACXVI gomez_p_Page_041.QC.jpg
2da71e6b42f34daa97f5adbd5965e021
35f755e3513a63b3a855a91f021626cf190dd863
1887 F20110109_AACXUT gomez_p_Page_091.txt
fb5b94f03de554eae79349f9e6d0074c
bf4121679cdec80d01ce2f7a4174b51f932d60ab
75452 F20110109_AACYBC gomez_p_Page_103.QC.jpg
01c1640763729c4539e0ba193ab0a589
b92e9ddf8e634c6381d1a1f7f438702aa9ae7346
50517 F20110109_AACYAP gomez_p_Page_088.QC.jpg
b2365421c197dc71bc033cee5b4b979a
933220a35a8b6161d707111bd716306e409ac8ea
78652 F20110109_AACXVJ gomez_p_Page_061.QC.jpg
7267221927472fc623d3d2dec5169058
f0a7f3381421300574d62b67337d703d8b78216a
2238 F20110109_AACXUU gomez_p_Page_092.txt
eb49399cfef7a97415fd93f2271da8f2
66f6510e0ab1fcf0429d2b4fa32b45f28de4abf3
24963 F20110109_AACYBD gomez_p_Page_103thm.jpg
c2ea96bdcf1882c694eee0d7a2bbb974
782d8f740b2b236f19cb9d183855a34102d67991
22613 F20110109_AACYAQ gomez_p_Page_090thm.jpg
128bae100024885b9602233a3f84e693
3908ab13ec91afac3347841cf5f71d20e2f85eaf
24335 F20110109_AACXVK gomez_p_Page_066thm.jpg
ccbda4420d93fe2c0691f7b066167122
4205064ff5754b69090221afeb4de935208a8edf
78 F20110109_AACXUV gomez_p_Page_093.txt
41119618a8118a6532ebad456f991522
d3a75ca66cc09c8545742437d15f5714a27a79fa
14827 F20110109_AACYBE gomez_p_Page_104thm.jpg
0c5e161dbb70662806d47e041d681718
a51ef636e9b6f57909730949c170352745696ef1
14815 F20110109_AACYAR gomez_p_Page_091thm.jpg
aeecf979ee1f2e3db7018bebb7c5786a
c76f42ed62ef36bbee4ea45a92de035d548d1924
32598 F20110109_AACXVL gomez_p_Page_046thm.jpg
06d3743d2790877de33272ce5cfd0f79
a9b271cf381af43f80c9ef9ef925f1428463b720
2917 F20110109_AACXUW gomez_p_Page_098.txt
1b09cbdc6a771b519fc4bddbf50a2b45
f842947374babce3f8fcecad960dd8babbff5143
74431 F20110109_AACXWA gomez_p_Page_023.QC.jpg
cfe2a34dcbfe560beb71e35be92127b2
bdd620193457cfea9156d11525e2f7818547475e
50080 F20110109_AACYAS gomez_p_Page_095.QC.jpg
dbfa6628c9468eac01c6eab73736ffb9
a09b743f6c4d82b4e2d9046728140077237e4a72
24757 F20110109_AACXVM gomez_p_Page_061thm.jpg
d426e25a45ba4fa31836ea090e623ef9
dd39c9a23377ef9d7f104959e338cfb66b54a9b2
2329 F20110109_AACXUX gomez_p_Page_099.txt
f871a06a9faa18466a5b69665b7b6a59
8858a6480e0a11bec6cfee3a14245d3a777e75dc
15495 F20110109_AACYAT gomez_p_Page_095thm.jpg
4815d7b28dbe4d940ab7dc065ed51496
8c66098b5ef4190ab463cddaa0028bfc212d87d0
12843 F20110109_AACXVN gomez_p_Page_077thm.jpg
4ff0fd7b0fb36be48f8cc405382d4cfd
a416888299397a16007d3dc3ba140c8098c3b5ed
1918 F20110109_AACXUY gomez_p_Page_100.txt
8abed96d8e0e0e1fde8caf06454c166c
d5f9e89a8b67ee8933acfab8a41aa63834c6edd6
42178 F20110109_AACXWB gomez_p_Page_104.QC.jpg
7a4953926411c63054587816657b0e82
a3760cd6365448229dd317bae3f447489b905fab
50671 F20110109_AACYAU gomez_p_Page_097.QC.jpg
43eb10c98e03ba54920965089f43b7e5
edc9b2837552d737dbd759c9ca0f48c1575f430f
20534 F20110109_AACXVO gomez_p_Page_013thm.jpg
ca37f6a07a790b12db9a4482e2a21e68
a9e947dc41e524d204dc613e4d24504b0dd16e83
2383 F20110109_AACXUZ gomez_p_Page_102.txt
0eea0eeb35163edcda8f1f5c6b80afea
ac7651e6b90cf73befcdbfbf87971bdfa555f8c5
73485 F20110109_AACXWC gomez_p_Page_060.QC.jpg
50a63e3eb27a79ae85667b56826f2c0e
a5f923ca7969d162f0c321f265a23216e8a85c22
39065 F20110109_AACYAV gomez_p_Page_099.QC.jpg
6c3e1bc084f5ad91f1768c3b67a2f9fa
184186f6d22049544ee1625017ad10e1e4f47460
21612 F20110109_AACXWD gomez_p_Page_049thm.jpg
471524922324830854d037bb764a8613
899893445c2c26e9762aaef0eb7704ec49544a6a
12923 F20110109_AACYAW gomez_p_Page_099thm.jpg
1afb842f189fd2f493133c6c7edc9657
27100b9d86a5836bbc543f64c8ba4dfb4cdc04ad
30905 F20110109_AACXVP gomez_p_Page_081.QC.jpg
2ba66f694735fc53cd85cbbfde7f6912
9d683b2ca5d23c081152421c39a0bf27e3a91998
6348 F20110109_AACXWE gomez_p_Page_069thm.jpg
260238b3b4d795c0395c468d1a224f47
5bb69741ec4d0fa27450e6bf99381e9c575e8f80
65916 F20110109_AACYAX gomez_p_Page_100.QC.jpg
2a5a4b46e36151472bf90d53d759ad2d
aeb39a2be0e281038de589784f73e95795363fde
74254 F20110109_AACXVQ gomez_p_Page_032.QC.jpg
61f2aeffa122d068bd31ccae5722d9f9
8089be55efaa517b24220a1caa400b621ba0b47e
23677 F20110109_AACXWF gomez_p_Page_052thm.jpg
a2a1750a4668743a3916e2d2b4c03fcd
1c95c264945c0ef5ab3a3463db0a0f2dac2e8fa6
19840 F20110109_AACYAY gomez_p_Page_100thm.jpg
360e681de55d73c97db5289089d237cf
4c2664b40c5a36cd58bac5b899212d8731917a85
21398 F20110109_AACXVR gomez_p_Page_068.QC.jpg
e2feb8e263ded3863d6e8494be27c877
b677245029c5fa79be798b9c3226685547caa970
25093 F20110109_AACXWG gomez_p_Page_064thm.jpg
cf320c182990f359bfa085cb59423073
1f5b5f9087ccc45f1d9d7ac50b767516321a0c67
78771 F20110109_AACXVS gomez_p_Page_086.QC.jpg
cc0b668e6b270677d3bd408cddfb358d
815be3947a3b0532c0e755a7fb780768fc1fb43b
17340 F20110109_AACXWH gomez_p_Page_088thm.jpg
383251eacf24bd885dc370f817b6195f
acb39678ed8d87b167652ee503a5509d122f42e0
52094 F20110109_AACXVT gomez_p_Page_030.QC.jpg
81ec101b696055c2dcb8baf87ba0b6ed
9388a5aef044c778c7bcbe51f9c548b6aaef38a9
24886 F20110109_AACXWI gomez_p_Page_063thm.jpg
b2234bc985c740f1033ebf5faa9665de
a2ba384c4496bcb588fd49890bd95e12eb58b1ac
77234 F20110109_AACYAZ gomez_p_Page_101.QC.jpg
7bebf850daccb55713038909ecd0033a
01dde5c23957a672dbaab9ed53b9d8635283db8a
24064 F20110109_AACXVU gomez_p_Page_032thm.jpg
638db8ac6fd9bad2104d530abb6d8a7c
8d431769b6ea50ee7e70b7748c50e47e5bed05cf
24966 F20110109_AACXWJ gomez_p_Page_056thm.jpg
bd6b43c1620e7dd65b7e7538a1785f2d
7686f3f5b59cd875b8f408b9ac533b63986e231c
9846 F20110109_AACXVV gomez_p_Page_080thm.jpg
248dbe02a31d8abb245dff31900201af
c1b1f9c2e327f0830c9ee083647d1c3dc17a9e41
38260 F20110109_AACXWK gomez_p_Page_026.QC.jpg
cbad7d8a888563146770f35c5ba077e4
c179359987652f1edcf44bf68f7dee92a494b56d
20200 F20110109_AACXVW gomez_p_Page_059thm.jpg
2925034764875aa2cc3661332237212b
d8f27938f694e048f4377f558e4ffa4a564adabd
24155 F20110109_AACXWL gomez_p_Page_075.QC.jpg
df85d21f8f509313b05341d3b3f2e290
c900b50e3219e4a0e5113e2eff9710c230c73ace
74906 F20110109_AACXVX gomez_p_Page_022.QC.jpg
5a2b0304b1deb796184daba0d18755df
16725bb3e0603f9b6c7bd08ba90a4fce1e038fad
5854 F20110109_AACXXA gomez_p_Page_076thm.jpg
e27b4f5c713929a7765b2b09f024adbf
73b91096645598541719d9921a676ace4f45e53e
25256 F20110109_AACXWM gomez_p_Page_038thm.jpg
5fd63fe6877a5e047dc75972259cc599
56bd33cd6005d5a725d7f5103ff3fcab3ec7caf5
46598 F20110109_AACXVY gomez_p_Page_044.QC.jpg
645dc824849120e8b520974e5bbc5fd3
7c7f08ef297358403cb42624433f408891801967
35816 F20110109_AACXXB gomez_p_Page_027thm.jpg
623218109599f36c8bfe17607ea5f7c7
d6c2721cf45fbc349f28dffffc2be1dc5fd15b2e
35685 F20110109_AACXWN gomez_p_Page_078.QC.jpg
8d76a003d726e5fef686c4a01d27117d
9fca67bb0380545d11692190c798eaba92380fe5
54646 F20110109_AACXVZ gomez_p_Page_092.QC.jpg
0fddc804655dc3f4a24368fbae47dea8
57344af9465f6a219b405947666ad7eb6b3e3edc
8324 F20110109_AACXXC gomez_p_Page_073thm.jpg
ff9aec78979ec35396bfe5831ec24407
5af6988d0e84fe57671968eac36ee520d7f7a41f
24868 F20110109_AACXWO gomez_p_Page_023thm.jpg
95a589c874fda8ef5d44a6307e40484a
ada0ecfa60ccd785872b8329c48c237aa9b23248
84310 F20110109_AACXXD gomez_p_Page_004.QC.jpg
f2eb4b7e5038887b50847bf1fe4421ea
159f4327ddfa3f44a9867fa1ab707b776972ce2e
68366 F20110109_AACXWP gomez_p_Page_084.QC.jpg
683609e736aef5b10b0524179042849a
3c9143ad16690ac025b203a436d40e5090ca8dcd
24987 F20110109_AACXXE gomez_p_Page_016thm.jpg
e344e84c2b118d1f4ae326253c4ac1cb
1eb63fee4b431eec192ac2f3e7345c0456de3846
17206 F20110109_AACXXF gomez_p_Page_092thm.jpg
7e016e8d7b72c8c1594fa67c6cfdf681
63430a43ddc0355c64c30ef60ec22df2fa1f8048
59960 F20110109_AACXWQ gomez_p_Page_019.QC.jpg
81045354c128db0265efeb5a40d50331
226112f17e700e2b618ac46593b7a074f511d850
72804 F20110109_AACXXG gomez_p_Page_066.QC.jpg
c66b4b7830ae7718b11270768924201f
7a645ac78bf5440ff5d51f66779d4a8b4c8d4352
21937 F20110109_AACXWR gomez_p_Page_031thm.jpg
bbc2ded633b5fab065d9629bc8277925
ea3e08e4254a8fce9974333b252794508bca1f46
79595 F20110109_AACXXH gomez_p_Page_024.QC.jpg
c5bb6fa1cdf177182131675ede54dac3
a3ac62a3cae757fdb8219e72bb2d7c9c4d077c60
49162 F20110109_AACXWS gomez_p_Page_094.QC.jpg
700abc5f9006ea5c4cc05119896dc368
8aa9a04922d63a5eb41e91f9d8e9d4d0afa96ea9
64695 F20110109_AACXXI gomez_p_Page_028.QC.jpg
e4a1226da395b3cd676618f938c73489
9449c70c3950d90e8bd4d4d663fa831a1a153047
21601 F20110109_AACXWT gomez_p_Page_034thm.jpg
ebc9791ae8997b92677af5f354c66d99
b07bc67f6faeabeac688fbaba85db142f3587dc2
F20110109_AACXAA gomez_p_Page_008.tif
8b9473c951c5f5b4f87d49bb8b0ebf83
cd7bdf318d02a9d33228c42887f8748839cd4d35
30012 F20110109_AACXXJ gomez_p_Page_072.QC.jpg
a2063fde936fcafe042f2e50e36892ce
bc1cfa1eaaab01d81ef33b55062b69086b64d78e
50435 F20110109_AACXWU gomez_p_Page_096.QC.jpg
685faa07fc37803dd40e121c0df56a9d
edc22135f2d78e0a06e6ed362b23cc3b1b7dffa8
103027 F20110109_AACXAB gomez_p_Page_095.jp2
0f6ca93d20bd2b5d7ecf64236b181561
ba108642abba1dbe108b86bf82009a2ddb65ee6d
35944 F20110109_AACXXK gomez_p_Page_082.QC.jpg
d3f00f301c4bcba2212d31f9bd1dbd3f
5f817a713d9ebfdad52736a13093e528ce5eac5f
27431 F20110109_AACXWV gomez_p_Page_018.QC.jpg
5db2910f596535420b31d7ce3342df92
138cb4bc9eddc9310d7b3d3e36c50c5b88a71ef4
15569 F20110109_AACXAC gomez_p_Page_002.jpg
18a39337bb2a6c223851a3aa8a1fa45b
1dbf4bf0637dab7f6019d81da7a12b2dd33b9f14
46937 F20110109_AACXXL gomez_p_Page_008thm.jpg
de1bb1bde9b1ade3c03c93633a38364e
463e1fbaef2dd268a0bec9a61b00e88ce2e065e9
35288 F20110109_AACXWW gomez_p_Page_042thm.jpg
f5232a3e6c1939f3bc2de399a41cf048
38f30ae70d27895b1a53345b4a13b96ba02ab41f
179782 F20110109_AACXAD gomez_p_Page_013.jpg
4c460af2f2b96cccc636490c55ba5ca6
6a3ac2dca09644c886fe7f0f70d97727af13dfe8
18230 F20110109_AACXYA gomez_p_Page_003thm.jpg
2527a2303db2033972f484d0cd141c8a
7a949178c926e3d95c3073d91403d16f6724c3f3
19440 F20110109_AACXXM gomez_p_Page_058thm.jpg
a098d9fae4484e885a6c43a8b438d7c0
d138c8018114a6e23e30fc06fbca27467af52dc2
24837 F20110109_AACXWX gomez_p_Page_015thm.jpg
d3046750595d9ee5c4daca239004196e
af0dbc4d9e11ed1734cb43cb6dace85624e63544
12619 F20110109_AACXAE gomez_p_Page_082thm.jpg
d8bd3091a75c74287adc5ffa119dacd7
4cf297697f9f780cee89335e4641232c349d5c69
81432 F20110109_AACXYB gomez_p_Page_005.QC.jpg
465c34a45897fd92762bb830702e4216
e3722f787b8aea30deee2c2ddd4c1caafb3691ef
35178 F20110109_AACXXN gomez_p_Page_077.QC.jpg
3486024c17138fde520de9ad6e8d5f8f
f97c686c9ccdd5780d9a933c50a296e025940291
17762 F20110109_AACXWY gomez_p_Page_069.QC.jpg
05d264e78fbaceeb2b3ff05904b92abd
9e70656d579772554a6733b7b731309074f60694
1740 F20110109_AACXAF gomez_p_Page_049.txt
3cff2f1f28fd4b4b9f6931a40e5aab9d
e2ff99252647e1940798040d352843e35b6122c3
42716 F20110109_AACXYC gomez_p_Page_005thm.jpg
a55e90b1400fa6c0100e91898fd8a8d2
a2fa76295f67d279f183865e70c8fecc1ffbe82e
54277 F20110109_AACXXO gomez_p_Page_027.QC.jpg
aafc994223b937f7dbeb86ba86af2bb9
5ad6962713e4c83275786c71b218d80e02980908
34547 F20110109_AACXWZ gomez_p_Page_043thm.jpg
a1c681522d47d8cab4f333a0f1a72f1b
c0ad3b96ac302e12bc2f0c233a7c438108ee602b
210711 F20110109_AACXAG gomez_p_Page_017.jpg
d56d894324b51d7d39211a3193377650
3c641a9d327f125f91b59687144ea036db951bd2
112969 F20110109_AACXYD gomez_p_Page_006.QC.jpg
51e8223fedb4ee3c6b2c07f08e9d0319
7ebf52bc9baa60179c6ea1a9221f499e45555b47
76938 F20110109_AACXXP gomez_p_Page_035.QC.jpg
a6b9a1586ccbf0c50320a10ff7d9c82d
376dd0010f04944c5d36f878b437b6fe877bd808
F20110109_AACXAH gomez_p_Page_080.tif
775a81bb0aa091513fa9ca6ad9db28c5
f99f633e5bc9ec3d34a093ff0ad2863e9e5fac1b
50803 F20110109_AACXYE gomez_p_Page_006thm.jpg
8e34a8cc67b3f0d8f2fa4e02c3cf0721
2a3accb0bdbc91eb602fe5bed48956dcfc457379
96199 F20110109_AACXXQ gomez_p_Page_008.QC.jpg
76599d1b81b9f323f3ee46a65bfcb1e3
a1f0db3bac6f86b341c1d69f0b6cf14e5933cf24
2951 F20110109_AACXAI gomez_p_Page_097.txt
21b7cc2bc32eaf73686e4eb7165e2142
5af1b4d9b09d81168134947e178d9a6c8f4679d9
42641 F20110109_AACXYF gomez_p_Page_007thm.jpg
56901344b3d3bf9f08b063914c65a56d
105b22a8e4430d0ce5baba8fdc3705557b344020
46627 F20110109_AACXAJ gomez_p_Page_033.pro
633311618bba66411e4840f23046e3a5
3a8a5b1cfcb5d87f0ece5441cddf0075071810fb
66424 F20110109_AACXYG gomez_p_Page_011.QC.jpg
f4ec47fd6b65ada2e9c15ce066241d3b
48f611ca931f4ea7991bb11f27457fde37e54b40
76838 F20110109_AACXXR gomez_p_Page_037.QC.jpg
63557fde59e33fed0cd5d2956a73020e
e881351eaf87e8818441feeccc08a9f5c8730625
203287 F20110109_AACXAK gomez_p_Page_050.jpg
335f951cccff190085e664e94142daf3
79f404a7fbd137234dc202f60c166592461b8369
71892 F20110109_AACXYH gomez_p_Page_012.QC.jpg
16b2a43156f3dfaeaf5ab890b27ece36
6f1936c3e1b1c05262faadde7a7d149b9220cd9c
8838 F20110109_AACXXS gomez_p_Page_089thm.jpg
6b55259597ceec34f29f3c226166c37f
2c1dbc1ce5cdc390bc79837a1249c8d9a7277c26
43262 F20110109_AACXAL gomez_p_Page_046.QC.jpg
4005ee576ad01ff99cc15d104bc45c56
8f5f6aa757a037aad26a8011206db97d28eac564
23112 F20110109_AACXYI gomez_p_Page_012thm.jpg
39d0147418b9319aea61e261a2099f07
40897ca84a32aa33c59f3b8ece8c584cfe4e992b
3081 F20110109_AACXXT gomez_p_Page_093thm.jpg
76c13895590fb2c8b33b088b1c94739f
44c8ac4070e8a42a4895dc0f73662df2b7fcf1c8
32827 F20110109_AACXBA gomez_p_Page_079.pro
d0469ff59045018f3b0dd0ffd48aa1eb
f90b45c6e9e594d1c5b62c9294bc551f765b6bd4
706 F20110109_AACXAM gomez_p_Page_029.txt
e0da8cb1bd9411e70ad2866ab81fd4b9
a05583a930b8e61b533a79262bfae95cb8137be2
64142 F20110109_AACXYJ gomez_p_Page_013.QC.jpg
557bb62661472b0f778583d249c3aa78
28dc3f2a1b37a9ce7a85fa9209f3738249855758
12166 F20110109_AACXXU gomez_p_Page_076.QC.jpg
3917d305d44bb5e76a35fd37638b2166
7669e78ebc2f3f5f3ff8e5753954366f97978aa0
49498 F20110109_AACXBB gomez_p_Page_038.pro
682677016495c3c4b3df517f79a91678
1af72045c6a1c05b32ed97583ea673d763cccafb
102816 F20110109_AACXAN gomez_p_Page_090.jp2
02d040ff00c4107ed824d858d769aa6a
14b623ee9e955e68b561dbffe55a7d9cad94fefe
77779 F20110109_AACXYK gomez_p_Page_014.QC.jpg
15e1f00c2242e72a50be2781113af5f4
a79ef8d08c0611bcafbc4b837a7e69a090efc814
23756 F20110109_AACXXV gomez_p_Page_053thm.jpg
140a1ed8b50a89de83a9ba51b5b52b20
9d1558e1abba63b0a8e9524e69029d81f88b75ad
75616 F20110109_AACXBC gomez_p_Page_090.QC.jpg
1c218206fbe306ab23814b3b8e177397
45bb1aef06e8b3feb9cd5dd01c123d198e548585
26946 F20110109_AACXAO gomez_p_Page_071.jp2
5262f85f81320dfd2fd76c0fea311c94
c1fe7692031d09246a824f9931c850422688f3a4
82522 F20110109_AACXYL gomez_p_Page_016.QC.jpg
fd207a7d429ed16816b0c6437b67b11a
64366f32b65710f28217430d7da4bc1dff941dfc
42849 F20110109_AACXXW gomez_p_Page_010.QC.jpg
07a32e337f99477d8455f81b3b7c7a5f
16c9c4a0544e89d795c03c6b91a7813a6c1ea333
61110 F20110109_AACXBD gomez_p_Page_009.QC.jpg
08fdd4006493435d6525b1210a328758
b80648883beced576d3bc5d48f2479540a25c372
F20110109_AACXAP gomez_p_Page_040.tif
53369e6a9b788ddc5b19ed189889846f
2a3adffd58f59cf71ca63940faa57353f45abc2f
79123 F20110109_AACXYM gomez_p_Page_017.QC.jpg
9cfefc3bab47cbe669e6c32d88879df7
b58530dfdc8cdc660cf204f92201770fd7eaee4e
157460 F20110109_AACXXX UFE0001213_00001.xml
100686a931336e243702aef63c4cab44
f6fa5868d733cd6f8e8ce0c528589936abcdec38
46757 F20110109_AACXBE gomez_p_Page_091.QC.jpg
56784f8b06c21ea849f174e15de0ed10
a2fa365fcccdec688bcbc8865c40dc1848069b86
45445 F20110109_AACXAQ gomez_p_Page_077.jp2
e01b6fcd4897276a6bf587583ea3c244
d0a64aab23d40b5742d0855db2fb019d9ae91fce
23212 F20110109_AACXZA gomez_p_Page_036thm.jpg
622b0d374ee47f876cd80b3d69f776c2
f0e62b511c4bfe2958a0c9ef4515134878db0735
25003 F20110109_AACXYN gomez_p_Page_017thm.jpg
0c2cd77711f4c76a496e67927342cf12
bb335dcda9534f977419609e608a8dc46887c395
7589 F20110109_AACXXY gomez_p_Page_001thm.jpg
4eda4a6d5945d41a4b5f60e237c1393a
8ace1843ace6f78159411ccb9d13eca68a2e8cd5
17119 F20110109_AACXBF gomez_p_Page_067thm.jpg
443bd5931fa5d62852519e6acd4a572e
4553060ea35c8e237b3bd44277611b10df62b787
16097 F20110109_AACXAR gomez_p_Page_094thm.jpg
26ae6ad7e68291c2cbfb3b14cc9240bf
df05763bd2c6929f57b6c829831d6080363c8c42
24265 F20110109_AACXZB gomez_p_Page_039thm.jpg
a0b499829fd4bc5213248dab3d1c5963
b5d446a38cd76f668daf0bb480bc6ee10e50b1f2
9546 F20110109_AACXYO gomez_p_Page_018thm.jpg
902fbc20fcb7bff0c64fe2e6e5a48b14
13e2c923c4f0e719b61ebc0922175465ca0b9a5f
3188 F20110109_AACXXZ gomez_p_Page_002thm.jpg
52a228ae52ae9ece2e0c7293bbe68972
0601b2979bb38b84b172a1641dcc81e71db49797
1886 F20110109_AACXBG gomez_p_Page_032.txt
853d306d5d05b53d7dbe3ac6ce7385ec
72ac8a5a286b28455b57ba1cdb4418f2963d9029
24815 F20110109_AACXAS gomez_p_Page_085thm.jpg
33e1606eddf73dffc01db137f4ac8346
10f24e784b8c90cb0757308d74a58ff85058f9f8
16954 F20110109_AACXZC gomez_p_Page_040.QC.jpg
37d49e8112e05235e06d39ea622aab74
93670ee76f8c9fc96504cf102312434c651289ab
76256 F20110109_AACXYP gomez_p_Page_020.QC.jpg
3b67c5de9bdc1b5864771af76d0020ec
b4e50b8c4d08e06c6c9e9a285d119dc43dd80f67
8498 F20110109_AACXBH gomez_p_Page_105thm.jpg
1951d04f2f6f1b4834aa673ba46617b3
38653ee22a7ec91db4ff257793d2e47e67a2f18f
56182 F20110109_AACXAT gomez_p_Page_073.jpg
188ff55dc8c255ab99426c983e3905ee
79292c4dcfc2e7dcf6fd27cd6d54b5c80a819d6e
6679 F20110109_AACXZD gomez_p_Page_040thm.jpg
9955c8809023cb3c8a2b530d7bc9bfd5
69fc975909a2dc387ed6529b7f06198f4e058963
24341 F20110109_AACXYQ gomez_p_Page_020thm.jpg
fc1a7c5de6f90d03a383eb7f3ed96d7f
339ed8ec7abcfecbd29080bc9ca526e554bc856b
92579 F20110109_AACXBI gomez_p_Page_062.jp2
13c61c53e1f9959e4c77803f41423123
70de0bb34e7d9204fef1f05332dc51a9e0de4c43
17601 F20110109_AACXAU gomez_p_Page_074.QC.jpg
ccb059d1c66d4ee36edbcdbd71e112f9
491e8b83a13f174ffb78601232dcb63b8e67a580
13735 F20110109_AACXZE gomez_p_Page_041thm.jpg
6ea5f92e9afdeb674809c3a29563ff78
a13aed757f5f3012ccf69e3f8c6124c78c1e53f2
79707 F20110109_AACXYR gomez_p_Page_021.QC.jpg
7491d5be444bfb7fdc2ec6fb90bc9f1a
83e5217e79cb81117cc26e501f8dadb5ce6c1361
25454 F20110109_AACXBJ gomez_p_Page_001.jp2
0771bf39485b1eed029d459a13647a02
2ab04fc45a8a63abe0ecdf5e4d3db9c03f10d38e
13532 F20110109_AACXAV gomez_p_Page_105.pro
a58def5b085b6d8cd9118f7aa305f51c
56af684cd05a3039ea352bb1c7c6148a9d927cf4
45508 F20110109_AACXZF gomez_p_Page_042.QC.jpg
cceef60804edc2fce95bc9cec6e0fa87
276a1bd24aaf2944c32438df2de44b0d7088299c
F20110109_AACXBK gomez_p_Page_050.tif
64b9d1a8bfff8e62868da3af0755885b
193771a5eda406f947c677fc8babeaa6a9d0f11e
1664 F20110109_AACXAW gomez_p_Page_062.txt
e78e3ac528baae9b7268f6e199d6a9e1
6fcd27e3f9c0c34faf4b7cff3d66bb237c4e2dd3
44691 F20110109_AACXZG gomez_p_Page_043.QC.jpg
d062c8aaeca11cd735c1a631dcd90223
380f1ae432db2a6c36a4e8774381f5732f2ee67c
24104 F20110109_AACXYS gomez_p_Page_021thm.jpg
df64ea0ee76f452229247a446501c573
cca7586ee9a924f62bc7e881f9b0ef364b3b96aa
198472 F20110109_AACXBL gomez_p_Page_100.jpg
d4fc5c6728e18e5cba7c807554b12e5b
65ab06b3b14b690d7b4c22bc1cff581e3cd8bf60
1893 F20110109_AACXAX gomez_p_Page_035.txt
f15b3d33514c298a7b1ccafbc53ce221
5d28977d462e4bcd02cf74a731d6106f7cd61f6e
34833 F20110109_AACXZH gomez_p_Page_044thm.jpg
bb94070d24ec737f4c58bf12f53c859d
432481fec65a06f6048f1cfc29a25dc6cb611d1d
23581 F20110109_AACXYT gomez_p_Page_022thm.jpg
dc749540c3e3f2e4a4e49e1abbb8db35
68a0fcfb6b8a44bfc45d65a573d704156d188f27
41081 F20110109_AACXCA gomez_p_Page_049.pro
5f268951dddabc26eab544efcb0a53d7
54e981486184909bbd27d2898d8f1ec39719bd10
76389 F20110109_AACXBM gomez_p_Page_050.QC.jpg
3edf8203c2b82a15ec003406381a0f01
9a5e977897afb52dc40a7dcfc61ac6061a6f045b
46132 F20110109_AACXAY gomez_p_Page_053.pro
019cb98d440bd9ab70eb76dee8b13283
4405e92bd4be19aeb20a13426a7274b4234e5d78
45547 F20110109_AACXZI gomez_p_Page_045.QC.jpg
d3f88a2bfa08947077faad863aa2a259
79ea06ec349701176f8850d65cc0018fea05f107
25090 F20110109_AACXYU gomez_p_Page_024thm.jpg
655b8cbb614ef9da8097165b0fa5c8bc
daca1fe4a36dd1d503c74bd6e4493e4580825927
774 F20110109_AACXCB gomez_p_Page_028.txt
6560961267a58f15df247949995e9b79
33b1ad13ca923cdd4036c066945913fe8064915e
2298 F20110109_AACXBN gomez_p_Page_101.txt
bcbabe832b60b82e7e0aef6baed6fdc9
43f3131f77ca7d10c563d3ad73866c6fe76fb022
11796 F20110109_AACXAZ gomez_p_Page_081thm.jpg
2d72070246b9b381dbdb76024fbede84
440e342dbc82b9d14beaece6dd48625c7979725a
33529 F20110109_AACXZJ gomez_p_Page_045thm.jpg
16987defb42affa98049c21b5cbe0486
2f0a5cc30fa5c0f48c4d00a80e55f22bcefd1ab7
11896 F20110109_AACXYV gomez_p_Page_026thm.jpg
70288b93daa6f359dbfeb287bf1e4ace
88f700a89e6ff4b8dc824de7751d6c3507719010
286265 F20110109_AACXCC gomez_p_Page_006.jpg
120432698f47b27d8088e482318d9d74
1d856d8c19d0c9cdd5b7fda9dd2ce6057dc53f1f
1851 F20110109_AACXBO gomez_p_Page_082.txt
d389c6c7ebb022ce9e28d48cd0bf69c8
089f9051f6479d6f93df68a04682039ddc9c5065
43295 F20110109_AACXZK gomez_p_Page_047.QC.jpg
6790ab775c88569bfd4f591a07aecfac
6ec5522be09d7cf4e33d8267f537ead55a33e84d
39198 F20110109_AACXYW gomez_p_Page_029thm.jpg
f2d66b8de561a220fa44ab8ff908e0e1
a58b7adb4f78c961d6ea7f67992f2021fca1e8a0
39767 F20110109_AACXCD gomez_p_Page_069.jpg
5f4105ec9a0b7e546b673f01f497096e
8539fd63d6c086c6b93355df34944944062da788
91131 F20110109_AACXBP gomez_p_Page_079.jpg
1bd23cf50427260998ad5ae0f063a92f
ed71cce6bbd5d2cead05a5c312570d14014df58e
42327 F20110109_AACXZL gomez_p_Page_048.QC.jpg
c6178331f5c1510e5db1c93b7d61b254
8b92fcbe1dbf1a1031b3eb9d764afd0e40fbebc2
37093 F20110109_AACXYX gomez_p_Page_030thm.jpg
a3282cf1b4a848ce0c2d19c366c092a4
4263229d1c184e7b3a4bb75ce4707a5b8c156053
125214 F20110109_AACXCE gomez_p_Page_104.jpg
b2f9a403cf0d80d9259ee2757bd9177c
b96d769f7e6c1430db190637f34d5c89c073eab8
69536 F20110109_AACXBQ gomez_p_Page_004.pro
fac4ccbbd1e87e741fcc381ec75cad4b
0cd2d35ae9ee2a0ee708cb16a64404ff7de0c427
32321 F20110109_AACXZM gomez_p_Page_048thm.jpg
2d9e40816f47dfc7f2d3e161133e42a8
bf1ee4d214a1587905b3455174223c6a5d36f753
67758 F20110109_AACXYY gomez_p_Page_031.QC.jpg
e85eac18d2f23ece273ce4dca2ce18c2
0cc567a5fc5d9e5e4a7f1c4127d06b2575fcc258
204102 F20110109_AACXCF gomez_p_Page_032.jpg
673f91577d1f603d26c315a05103eca3
097d13d662b452db6fb071ddc8a67e4c805478eb
F20110109_AACXBR gomez_p_Page_091.tif
e44f9749622b0e4bea4dc80b2ccf6cf7
6cfbd7063d48427b749caf13102477743a56e032
66256 F20110109_AACXZN gomez_p_Page_049.QC.jpg
0fe19dad5abe9bf20303d935eb105f9a
1e17aa2b569cff8773ea9b0733762db3c39b2fc0
46308 F20110109_AACXCG gomez_p_Page_057.pro
1ee7094630be6fb5dfa59ead3ab04268
6f27c5a04714d40cb0fcf22ca2a40bd698d7c728
1452 F20110109_AACXBS gomez_p_Page_077.txt
489aba8e6933d0dcb19547197a62a307
95ae49196760084aa437e7d8a7d261ae1f882f43
23740 F20110109_AACXZO gomez_p_Page_050thm.jpg
06ad9c971658ad0ac420c2f7812a90c8
c4c38f6f2bc022081e08c59371e50cf916d064c6
23882 F20110109_AACXYZ gomez_p_Page_035thm.jpg
09ee12eca47f055dab5abf1fec01f123
48b91f34c7d2d77aea7ed0a0403d3c5b698315ec
1818 F20110109_AACXCH gomez_p_Page_009.txt
e458a1807b6522c88958743c1fbdd2c7
762a3d42dfd484e0e79982bbedd9c08e9354e962
273552 F20110109_AACXBT gomez_p_Page_030.jp2
f07665424c1d6da9e7a4f88043648b12
d1d7011ba2efea3038db84628603efcb5310fa07
24160 F20110109_AACXZP gomez_p_Page_051thm.jpg
36dcba27e62470c52529e163594d1a00
06ec1d3061b60d69a3c0dec3bdc56ecbd99e565a
100921 F20110109_AACXCI gomez_p_Page_053.jp2
3ddab29d2e935163dc23d3f8f3454042
e7e3cabd885d9fa358b5135ffe0bb249f3758a7e
43539 F20110109_AACXBU gomez_p_Page_011.pro
ab1c03f00e0ee3daed329f06e2ea23b2
d9cac8c8eb72e4f67ef71cad680b19a0a89739c6
74096 F20110109_AACXZQ gomez_p_Page_052.QC.jpg
666113d16cc540706b56b3efd57cc79f
838ea366316bb14ca67f3e077837029c711281fa
149236 F20110109_AACXCJ gomez_p_Page_003.jpg
82a6a05d3f8eacdf01f51be3ca3f8486
9ccf9f498371bc92b07aa076f1b52c8602f5250c
25998 F20110109_AACXBV gomez_p_Page_105.QC.jpg
eef864245f4fa4ef1a179f232b198416
e73ea52e8699f59114f8b6f12b716c281e171ec4
73837 F20110109_AACXZR gomez_p_Page_053.QC.jpg
515b30b232db109c70c35ad90288e221
2ef312b3ea3a423dfbdb87b9f7e8c18590463f17
78936 F20110109_AACXCK gomez_p_Page_051.QC.jpg
07ab9ac0b23dfeb666d4830162821d51
cd4fdca198b9c051bd3f514a3539178be229abca
5363 F20110109_AACXBW gomez_p_Page_043.pro
bccf6abcda5bd63cd50455b581d2deba
890dc56d6a5cb3bc2806c724bb2bcfbc44efa38e
74305 F20110109_AACXZS gomez_p_Page_055.QC.jpg
7652b0466383ed34b55092dea252ef02
2ed93c48989b505bc9dafbdfa76b4c81f296ca5c
80581 F20110109_AACXCL gomez_p_Page_063.QC.jpg
9bfe834a391306f05efe9713174ea752
7e9aa3896226888a9096709093e6acb9c3ef3a06
F20110109_AACXBX gomez_p_Page_048.tif
6bc5f13c10ad234c2425581ef16ebffa
f4d00ad3794cac53b1f3ef6ab36a28fd29998831
51171 F20110109_AACXBY gomez_p_Page_056.pro
cbb1ac042ac63b00228a07e05cc25ee0
2df5d2940f732367db1a968498a1661cb49eeb7f
22887 F20110109_AACXZT gomez_p_Page_055thm.jpg
e877df309a720b6229db17f288703934
dc53e99e935d11d3eb411dda2eeaf28c23e6e83a
47727 F20110109_AACXDA gomez_p_Page_050.pro
a19a6d0a9676e25fb67bed773102fd42
4e86071c0ddd29ae617227a5afe11781aa7ae3aa
76626 F20110109_AACXCM gomez_p_Page_038.QC.jpg
9c07d4f1dd339275b2990e0eb7c716ae
569f30bf96346cf1ae7bd462d0d627fb4adae2c3
50547 F20110109_AACXBZ gomez_p_Page_098.QC.jpg
8249ef6a5bb2a9630f0b8c9fbc32bc56
57d229cdada2c6fbe384b76c0342d552ef5dbfe5
79807 F20110109_AACXZU gomez_p_Page_056.QC.jpg
cf4a04e6b3f534f0e87dcc0e30480629
841370dd2603160340f944a451d30f1ae4bed7e8
21290 F20110109_AACXDB gomez_p_Page_040.jp2
a3e7f57faeadde87d0bf94c8ced7a5d0
7dec9cd840e5223c794e7014666dfb5cea0de322
F20110109_AACXCN gomez_p_Page_090.tif
1e720b2ca8b09a31317c50d05f0bde74
68735c7253d666f930b26544473175568591db50
22489 F20110109_AACXZV gomez_p_Page_057thm.jpg
ddcc35877a36e822e3e46ef7fe3fa164
f4c742dfa333eaeb60cc7ba0c271b51c1b4a3c72
55633 F20110109_AACXDC gomez_p_Page_101.pro
3f6ad9773f7c76a8e035a9330bbbc22f
1d6dacfb1de2733c21572f9b04e3baf629d45f8a
F20110109_AACXCO gomez_p_Page_047.tif
5b673339cb6ed3cc2c18115af0f252a0
195aaa7b721dbf4596a793a95aaa6501ba6138b5
66496 F20110109_AACXZW gomez_p_Page_062.QC.jpg
684312b3969104140e0a377f877840c8
f3a239f01675e1c0d190846eec46a5a882b2c9ad
F20110109_AACXDD gomez_p_Page_013.tif
953259419422c1615b6ddb33d1a954e0
4a2dcf95106ea9c80019b5d55ab6d345f79a625d
51480 F20110109_AACXCP gomez_p_Page_016.pro
4c6ef0511af07bd4582bd7dfdc2924bc
bb044484ad08dced889ca824b178baf0349799e1
21944 F20110109_AACXZX gomez_p_Page_062thm.jpg
11a30f2b155ab63d0472ca2f2d9acf2c
e537db474afb80209320a666e3ec2266fdf42c6b
71536 F20110109_AACXDE gomez_p_Page_036.QC.jpg
10b2c3e399f961b4d048ba90f5d2036e
8b79494a6deff3fbfa3d767d13337ea7e4ce338a
16525 F20110109_AACXCQ gomez_p_Page_080.pro
883e549eefce55c820283e26604e5530
3d564d81ba5db415d7d160d577e57d03e31146aa
72281 F20110109_AACXZY gomez_p_Page_065.QC.jpg
b76eba883583c576c5efb3f4b88d98cc
ef207fbc81e44ab85bc4fc70d5b9dad3ed3cc18e
40107 F20110109_AACXDF gomez_p_Page_028thm.jpg
58c0ad3f7c45b4dce54f7c3ae9e8b792
42128ad83d79fea2cd1ad4e42de3fdeb15dbca97
1748 F20110109_AACXCR gomez_p_Page_034.txt
b660ddeb5f0052ebabdbe8cf78898847
d2cde56368377e45aacc396c15dffa58f9a701db
53690 F20110109_AACXZZ gomez_p_Page_067.QC.jpg
4e168511f1fbedae8d8f92dcc9d10882
a09f3fe35540bbf98d49b71a4a03460183334eb2
7434 F20110109_AACXDG gomez_p_Page_068thm.jpg
8ee85aef6bea2bbe6369d8de59cfe052
4eb380dd890a77ef5ef930c28d1681ba8866dab9
105898 F20110109_AACXCS gomez_p_Page_097.jp2
45aa394d20848bd112e3bef449bbefff
f659ae22b846b39bedfbf6d4e42885812afffaf3
239047 F20110109_AACXDH gomez_p_Page_090.jpg
4f89721ecd7c5e821dfd8ff975a6ca80
1748cad352f7e7dd10d75341373c146ee41f63b1
18452 F20110109_AACXCT gomez_p_Page_009thm.jpg
3350f987ab0124ebedafc62c42942f8f
0b3ffab0f9c39533a359c34db824fc5fa2855379
F20110109_AACXDI gomez_p_Page_036.tif
ebc9a898a57c2b140e7bbc6cf62c0b43
bf6b6065ed9e9601203ad28099753b1a8180edf6
105328 F20110109_AACXCU gomez_p_Page_098.jp2
32620b707bad6277554aacf208f41681
db9775c04586f07a8316e60ca5790131fa3ec5e5
F20110109_AACXDJ gomez_p_Page_016.tif
19f0649a1bd808c56a01457e3a4e528f
fe72e331ade7764f6701e76cab4a0856b1e3942d
23125 F20110109_AACXCV gomez_p_Page_054thm.jpg
8341afef5533eb702f748d919f17fde8
eafeb2aef6cfd6f7852feb5c30bebd937821a8fe
13200 F20110109_AACXDK gomez_p_Page_010thm.jpg
287c260db1cdbac70b64dd43db4aa2a2
38f53c26d66f5da1d49726a894b82e21e067e71f
F20110109_AACXCW gomez_p_Page_037.tif
cf8baed121445794ae3bcf716023e4d1
c580ead11ba4ca55d780be2e80da084a28fa0826
43847 F20110109_AACXDL gomez_p_Page_004thm.jpg
e3a74afed35eda8a6f58b41a2d330853
2cea27bd63670af9aaa93dd806d6fb76db901f09
F20110109_AACXCX gomez_p_Page_062.tif
baef6925bb3746ec1c212602be454fd4
2e11b7a94593f0a7df45203c11402319a36b6743
60621 F20110109_AACXEA gomez_p_Page_078.jp2
d22fb2b5d45760865364acc38bbc6202
3820ef9be765b64e1519bd9af21cbe998555c86a
57813 F20110109_AACXDM gomez_p_Page_059.QC.jpg
289659266f7096de49508b46df1ef0c6
82632d150485dc5f504356a40f7ab2817e820beb
3013 F20110109_AACXCY gomez_p_Page_094.txt
f7039a05d189403370e16bf4414aa426
e7086efd22accd3e5d2b5b73db629468746383f5
110030 F20110109_AACXEB gomez_p_Page_014.jp2
9300bd623a12981231ff52bc84e92332
4bba77cc172ea1cbc56e8df01c498f4ad26af84b
F20110109_AACXDN gomez_p_Page_005.tif
3fb11e60d3923621cafb0f602676a343
aee323f07f7d5ff79bc2c1ab9b23c4b9e198dfbe
383 F20110109_AACXCZ gomez_p_Page_040.txt
028cf64e4ff3c4ac6c80b27a1a2d371e
87ec92134942b0ca54b27ff41de8d24b6d1d4ca0
96538 F20110109_AACXEC gomez_p_Page_031.jp2
aff9e6500eaae94bed3e48a48b1b2a14
1670b05ab20dc26a2daf67ae6799dbaa49bed356
24743 F20110109_AACXDO gomez_p_Page_037thm.jpg
f839e5243bae5046469ba46500ea4e27
c6ab18ba1e683729d7b92b29b2fb2ecea05945af
282 F20110109_AACXED gomez_p_Page_043.txt
d184b23b0ae57372872b93acf95c4786
3e67c2184c60adf575b42cb6ee5a76da199a0b49
78444 F20110109_AACXDP gomez_p_Page_085.QC.jpg
9d8b9a6eb4ad8cbaad3d4be604f92e09
10ee8bbee9b767c04c8c17d75fa2d8bbebd22c0a
F20110109_AACXEE gomez_p_Page_071.tif
1730f909109b001a54e33614b77ef840
44e50f080e5f63c2735844b1d20f6685334432c9
39891 F20110109_AACXDQ gomez_p_Page_018.jp2
d86ce85dd0b530d080fe406624a92ebb
f095517dcd59317c9bf7048d25f3c48430b26bcf
F20110109_AACXEF gomez_p_Page_079.tif
a9f02389bbb0afcb9e1239dc8dfd41f7
8870b78bf053070a3f44b42c9799a86dd19ee0a5
233259 F20110109_AACXDR gomez_p_Page_101.jpg
df2dcf1bd7881c876f2d16a757162276
7c5eaa01672bdd89f716f87c049231e62511e439
F20110109_AACXEG gomez_p_Page_003.tif
c0a0df4f23459592db7aa2568f57078c
fc9a690614c5bc08f15076b8ceefc91f60dbf721
211237 F20110109_AACWZA gomez_p_Page_021.jpg
88678c33c037e9f653bf4ee9c8bebf1d
b8c7d309cee0e83bfd1f07d3ff588003eafd14d6
F20110109_AACXDS gomez_p_Page_035.tif
687d7d74d3e0a18a7701bec908e5becf
e101c625a9bfb692102b8a68bfad71525c8a6923
45531 F20110109_AACXEH gomez_p_Page_074.jpg
2c26fd188f21688559356778cb6d6c48
05e2ed76afdfdaa0d484b2d798d754ca7984bfac
F20110109_AACWZB gomez_p_Page_015.tif
d022e9739de596f373781fdc5c103f8a
9a665045bb43f0c5d4429c73e4abb7664d532466
21528 F20110109_AACXDT gomez_p_Page_011thm.jpg
b0219ca42606bff5707800f4ce92da83
06f8b1e1e58259024d1ba585a299c23d140fa8b2
F20110109_AACXEI gomez_p_Page_076.tif
8de98c9bedde0395d32e96afa326fd18
a43523c9cae13dac5b2c6c2f57ff96dcce97c4d8
72144 F20110109_AACWZC gomez_p_Page_057.QC.jpg
c3c85af50d358e1a9ff77c75b2e7d617
7f73b469e59ed67ba94c33fcb99f36cc83e43951
F20110109_AACXDU gomez_p_Page_070.tif
920c08ba8e85b048d6da0eac9c13f4c1
4656773257ef99365bbb40a9b912c246dd107774
2950 F20110109_AACXEJ gomez_p_Page_096.txt
51054cec8d2d4aa06c0bfada2f9815d0
5f55a00e42b846649b9f6103e75d44a51b849ffc
1315 F20110109_AACWZD gomez_p_Page_093.pro
a5f8044dab252bb34f5d9a0959661946
7e4b69c8d64f82d2e85933c45b37d66f80b0bc2e
F20110109_AACXDV gomez_p_Page_010.tif
e357f14d0287916c2b13439d5c233db4
7d13be5aadfdc00be222244d5189cc22839073cc
178780 F20110109_AACXEK gomez_p_Page_049.jpg
581c94fe5d683f0426737ac7224a30ad
de7cb9241e30dcf325e614d42a75c584947a5bd0
1972 F20110109_AACWZE gomez_p_Page_017.txt
976421e5f7c47a503732a1ec5e7b2274
6cf8e9fdaef466a42f9c41844a94ea660e91b791
10254 F20110109_AACXDW gomez_p_Page_027.pro
80eafdb6ba548cf4926e1ab58bda59a2
8590c9d1e645cde2cd1c4b5134a56855e5cbf802
61466 F20110109_AACXEL gomez_p_Page_079.jp2
99910632b0f62c425145ac7e7db0e2d5
f5e387bfe881c74bf01dd660051b90fbe931dc1e
41492 F20110109_AACWZF gomez_p_Page_058.pro
9cf4d50f0cd7f85f80db0554718b60d1
688c9dfc49a35601ca8369d3b2441bb54812e687
57337 F20110109_AACXDX gomez_p_Page_029.QC.jpg
ef3bf69a38ab8e1d085b0c175dbfc2dc
9170e4a9fcf056fd7dd0d30db8764ace7c816815
113090 F20110109_AACXEM gomez_p_Page_063.jp2
80b38e7019fb3c3dc27a7eca50686e5e
89abf82049c3f9ff1a9511eb6ac25d3e50775470
39926 F20110109_AACWZG gomez_p_Page_026.pro
735c9afcc1a177d3774e08cf3ced9e6d
7921d549e9865c8a5f25aef00f84a7ade7fa648b
F20110109_AACXDY gomez_p_Page_023.txt
754418c6638bc1f6272ef94b095c1356
158881ebe8d9ce16a5a4ab0425044558950ab5fa
32637 F20110109_AACXFA gomez_p_Page_047thm.jpg
ad043c0d3b3284f7a73fcbfad5651a87
28919e5fe1e08d6dafe8a4089d93063377676227
F20110109_AACXEN gomez_p_Page_036.txt
1e9cc4199afb29ce3b8f5ddba3601f3d
ada660d84f1aa72996af2e6a276213d63cc6df7f
16368 F20110109_AACWZH gomez_p_Page_093.jpg
bb7ad51fbb18e618665680bae533ed2f
d616a3005f6e5cdda532f785d35805d3acfb17a1
112771 F20110109_AACXDZ gomez_p_Page_064.jp2
7ecc1ba18c10c9e089e74732e2fc33c8
fae6c9c9f4aa1c229c15ece661c9e4e025ed2d67
76275 F20110109_AACXFB gomez_p_Page_039.QC.jpg
e0e8307274ae1e3911108d593b23ac12
4bd2ca96a67cce1e05fbcf4266f63f05e9c5a0c7
78325 F20110109_AACXEO gomez_p_Page_015.QC.jpg
7db969a1c40fb2e92ce9ac04bb777eff
9ab09ad5d9a354ef927fcf35f83f7896395b79b5
19675 F20110109_AACWZI gomez_p_Page_019thm.jpg
313cd103970586f2b7073c73747bdf6e
31bc6a327b7ba319b109bdf665416bbe36cba7ca
1885 F20110109_AACWYT gomez_p_Page_033.txt
5a83298f07a16a90667ea85b7e3f466c
1fd80169c350e84af0a0a0153667b050032f9c41
12363 F20110109_AACXFC gomez_p_Page_029.pro
126afb17c3fc48b2b50100f0c7253f44
efb2dc2c476af8c29652c536f2d59c7e36f05d27
6207 F20110109_AACXEP gomez_p_Page_002.QC.jpg
7d542a78f1b5991881d4b9cb7c833ad0
b496509946e31877e59ef24ccb41f4526dbf6155
28547 F20110109_AACWZJ gomez_p_Page_087.pro
b9e55fc9d7d0d571904c863a00badf95
feb90237d58edd030656412e57835abd7b690f1d
103492 F20110109_AACWYU gomez_p_Page_094.jp2
0f8802f2882093eb49a8a9e5127f3013
1c1a4f92946b139fb115cbe87539a025efe023a4
45112 F20110109_AACXFD gomez_p_Page_075.jp2
9774342a5789c9a020da99dc4c2e877d
e1013ac980d28702880870d31071b01f5f69784f
56579 F20110109_AACXEQ gomez_p_Page_003.QC.jpg
e53268468dcab4ecba4afd37ce054c99
1fc79b7dc3d26906e43b68307d1608c0989f7152
59605 F20110109_AACWZK gomez_p_Page_058.QC.jpg
a92a6889c2adfd27f4a618b2f25b607a
686b2013bb349f2d8dfe53b16a716d17529c30c9
38763 F20110109_AACWYV gomez_p_Page_083.jp2
ff916cf1917f15414ac341ce72c8404b
605c09d43b0bb2fdd9604dda36c07df2f6cb5f51
1051951 F20110109_AACXFE gomez_p_Page_005.jp2
96f019dad69346f31b84d8d1e6400dfc
f0e1af8df19a672a9f6f8076f83dda49f92e5c1f
165624 F20110109_AACXER gomez_p_Page_048.jp2
c396ab443df0c94ca79a809778d5d06e
11722ae2ef2c5a3159f28f68866e11da4932f7e1
1948 F20110109_AACWZL gomez_p_Page_020.txt
d5f228fc63dcac2fa18817330e0922a1
2377060ca144f6acf59dc5bf9fb86d12cc2229be
59932 F20110109_AACWYW gomez_p_Page_094.pro
1133a4ca08cc4e8a8f7dd76139eb293b
e926bfb91e1e94f50616f25adae1e38acffea9f3
194885 F20110109_AACXFF gomez_p_Page_033.jpg
8c8d1d4de0c65cb299cd0591b9857ed4
40affd6ce298c7f41bb6d08d98bd76e19aacf30b
16065 F20110109_AACXES gomez_p_Page_098thm.jpg
da1f5de2154631f15145170f605a983e
c57165dff9237861075f8f1eff79b26142f27e48
79653 F20110109_AACWZM gomez_p_Page_064.QC.jpg
6c01f050b7e3fd378655bf52a0822fe1
8ea062beb626c3b208c167ad048e19781f07efdd
227923 F20110109_AACWYX gomez_p_Page_045.jp2
a7fc6167d0b0912254a14aa9c78c8297
09823f84e0d0ee8d7bec2965110b832b9ed647e5
53525 F20110109_AACXFG gomez_p_Page_067.pro
ebb56e7a8590950b63c46426e634aca1
38c10a513352986e76c5f7aec04ad42d5b8e45b4
49090 F20110109_AACXET gomez_p_Page_023.pro
487ff088fc655ded2e2c6211af2ba517
dcc54009dbad6f315406b6d9948d2a45049cd3af
121967 F20110109_AACWZN gomez_p_Page_103.jp2
a15c26d097cf3a06b4f0d95263c72af2
0f06d87852934ce4dcc2721b5a779edea6412544
F20110109_AACWYY gomez_p_Page_051.tif
3b4f162193d6594dbb0b93d57154f954
393a5d31f06741917533ef9602faadb650ac3465
209235 F20110109_AACXFH gomez_p_Page_051.jpg
da48f819be52eb8b782728a5f29f6ed8
5fd0f2cfceca4cec8ef19338bc02967d749e0667
7194 F20110109_AACXEU gomez_p_Page_044.pro
24ae2f74854f7a2b2aeeab779ac3cedc
e4cbcffda69d7388be199567fb285f73d7824b92
28382 F20110109_AACWZO gomez_p_Page_068.pro
30bce32e25f6492ad90466deefaf4575
317fae96eb71bfd0bd7763078761a9c2c980a454
F20110109_AACWYZ gomez_p_Page_015.txt
918c651ee7f3253d5b2e3221bd74eff1
c7e4b8b0b20276045429804a7781ca65e8efe197
23516 F20110109_AACXFI gomez_p_Page_065thm.jpg
c6df683037a4a1108ad3c88aa5bf1b8b
cd50b86f384b002cee1be577fc6d953fbc8e6465
25813 F20110109_AACXEV gomez_p_Page_010.pro
2395b94faf4af9a7ac743b304130e758
fda84d97dadd4b42de721059242a59eccc695642
71447 F20110109_AACWZP gomez_p_Page_034.QC.jpg
e10b74f9cdcfde4eab73aa048658aac3
c2255653c98c41a03062f4cdafbd7370c14fd827
36566 F20110109_AACXFJ gomez_p_Page_071.jpg
27dbda24754acd660bffb1442f216403
441666c259d38feae08248ffd01c40f8d67449be
1867 F20110109_AACXEW gomez_p_Page_008.txt
f18f6c4a30ff8cb4d6c890dd77e9b7ca
6e604fabce9a608d097b4383bcdbf2fd150827a4
F20110109_AACWZQ gomez_p_Page_054.tif
df722433b823286f58902c786ada2b1a
c8784f7ba1ef7c4a6c1c78cb0cc5f705b39799cf
24540 F20110109_AACXFK gomez_p_Page_089.QC.jpg
9d32cad3f0edffaf268969cbe9710ea8
16662e0aae0693bac0825bb4f6953271e43c8483
292977 F20110109_AACXEX gomez_p_Page_027.jp2
f40ad1f92cb0cd14493ae4e21e050559
010a0cfe889b304b002ba06b969ab7b8e6c8b05f
19501 F20110109_AACWZR gomez_p_Page_001.QC.jpg
d9fedb9745cc9e14d7ef79925e0b084b
47804231f4ef05d53ae3befd97c00e7a3cf39607
F20110109_AACXFL gomez_p_Page_057.tif
ee424e6c0bed7097ea54b1ab6e4fb125
df6b7ecf5733ccfa31618bc47c6a6dcd314cdeac
23470 F20110109_AACXEY gomez_p_Page_033thm.jpg
050bb9fbd4da9b73c85fb55eaaac8188
1f9d3c135bac21371095542570b58fd1826ea19a
16651 F20110109_AACWZS gomez_p_Page_018.pro
aa0c386a65e0ae6e4ed1138f7225f178
39367aaceacea31a06421155be67caef58bd839c
1914 F20110109_AACXGA gomez_p_Page_039.txt
b1c2ceec4ac9b5908babcec4086da7d0
23a4f992735cc728755473c17a55878b2b27299b
15330 F20110109_AACXFM gomez_p_Page_028.pro
de2c410ab4f6fcac3752360cbaf52f63
3f69d7efd64fb3648efc34e5222ecd5c45a8e18b
28903 F20110109_AACXEZ gomez_p_Page_083.QC.jpg
673873963158cc9c464d663d9e4923cb
1f344d6795f36bfaf4de59340a01fdc14426ab91
F20110109_AACWZT gomez_p_Page_044.tif
898c06ca728a0d9b30b03096a38ca8fb
098a7b54a2bb552f9272469a0e6dc91a50ce06cf
399 F20110109_AACXGB gomez_p_Page_044.txt
831f3fa727fa96bbae70b5bf76e42920
03ec4d3ecedcd9b3b1bcf4b30b29cdc43b907589
15872 F20110109_AACXFN gomez_p_Page_097thm.jpg
1a928b4d1cbf367e01afee6665042254
471b5f312a209ee63e819e64064d5501f59c555f
37218 F20110109_AACXGC gomez_p_Page_091.pro
19364c02d5f0a0c19967beb53b29a0b8
1ebd6e7dfcd24f182285b0b6a94c05cb103e6708
18053 F20110109_AACXFO gomez_p_Page_089.pro
38dee80fc3375131d0577f07cf9a5006
4556315c2a1d8fc0a836ef94b34aacf2634ca4bc
6541 F20110109_AACWZU gomez_p_Page_093.QC.jpg
81f5dca328ec7227de8fe4fff45045e7
4ea2cbcf9711b827e5b56b28554e091d00e352ea
F20110109_AACXGD gomez_p_Page_077.tif
bf672c3bd1df625d7c3585073cdaa398
3d58126d153a01cc60ba703ac808c48096798902
F20110109_AACXFP gomez_p_Page_049.tif
239248c8782c326b0af6194143495a44
078c9b637394f2853d93fbe7621bdd3a82b166ce
70455 F20110109_AACWZV gomez_p_Page_033.QC.jpg
4de6894a841b051291600a895a855b31
0d27d8728ae4e96dddd70b1323d8fdbf1a401ab2
19096 F20110109_AACXGE gomez_p_Page_025thm.jpg
bd82c90d8b2930cbd343c343630feb02
4b22fd89cab3a79b67ee41112df4c452f38e0540
187161 F20110109_AACXFQ gomez_p_Page_031.jpg
5b28853ffa6385b9d16f358788a757a3
a324485cf273942df18458360379a0f5603a4b75
1044 F20110109_AACWZW gomez_p_Page_081.txt
bd9e8c9bcce68150eadbbee77ee82746
06909827ca4821e3391a1f833f91434d9ff80757
41288 F20110109_AACXGF gomez_p_Page_013.pro
331af83e12a7e161e6d62654fa132240
e2a5082626dde1df809f41d5b37f16a1dccbea91
109084 F20110109_AACXFR gomez_p_Page_056.jp2
86a97d1a253ef98de9cd0f704f7dc5c2
42dfd42b706466b1313b78af31266cb3bbc68586
2335940 F20110109_AACWZX gomez_p.pdf
5e6bb7ad537b966a83b76c932cb5d6b9
7c8afe5ab9abb27fa075f7f932381ba1964d3933
1523 F20110109_AACXGG gomez_p_Page_068.txt
8130b56a481b8570483eced28c6c2f4b
efc5ce6e4e6d1b26a050578c3e1da0e12fd4f284
24666 F20110109_AACXFS gomez_p_Page_086thm.jpg
c7c7c4941c580c0638534b8b61e159d3
d76dc300d481c6d7686593808ff854351f61124a
1876 F20110109_AACWZY gomez_p_Page_022.txt
b87793f010596e15a347b11ec338de72
7e7655b281ecac34a0befd1b9bbdc222d62b7146
167798 F20110109_AACXGH gomez_p_Page_096.jpg
e7d616687c54328613990fe711381f1e
861c35f11ef47a4ae1716be765d6573619d8c934
10198 F20110109_AACXFT gomez_p_Page_030.pro
a7a35c2c669076164cf1a45096242f86
aa11eda044feba13f1600ea619ac9bee98b999a7
52567 F20110109_AACWZZ gomez_p_Page_005.pro
c448b85a9402a600ac9989b2ec6a183c
2c548aaf6b7564e10f91197fc1a97cab620668cf
169749 F20110109_AACXGI gomez_p_Page_088.jpg
6adfbb475d709e1703316eeebe696122
d98c3cf7fefbedae0f7c60d5371e40c68cbf8c23
100433 F20110109_AACXFU gomez_p_Page_012.jp2
e92f28e76fa79dddef203651ca703be4
3574b82ce688363d7945f3d8bb2ab48fe2f0c066
9683 F20110109_AACXGJ gomez_p_Page_069.pro
647836e9a3ffb315b85dd20b0998da6d
a1bf6d2d53dd5c0250eebd736c2bc893b7a4db7c
81845 F20110109_AACXFV gomez_p_Page_007.QC.jpg
768e0ef12ea9d21c84c80bb92460d2f4
1d35536a704b57252f47d7b544635f01541b517a
20765 F20110109_AACXGK gomez_p_Page_074.jp2
aeba5da2d0bd05b6238a0f57dff2ac6d
8881195f93c8916964596d23e177ed6d96ae55cf
173276 F20110109_AACXFW gomez_p_Page_062.jpg
09bf885a6b4af610813ba215719fff42
b50645427d50a87e91dbfdcf5233e518e7b8bbdf
188192 F20110109_AACXHA gomez_p_Page_011.jpg
b6e239c0414ece71efb5e64eaa20c53c
871952c6f81eee3b2ff11a58723c715961db06f3
16239 F20110109_AACXGL gomez_p_Page_096thm.jpg
73896a3f156dd0c91f61509b11a635da
48731aeacac16d2e2e1bbf09334f00ea1b9722a2
2137 F20110109_AACXFX gomez_p_Page_005.txt
8ccf98d8bc28e5c1101878afd9f81bc9
d9f3928deb38b91af0f79a5bb29376c00f8efdbc
2902 F20110109_AACXGM gomez_p_Page_095.txt
93b724bc264db8f632ba8374f7a48927
e9c220b7602b33a975cdedeab55d8713044bf80a
167607 F20110109_AACXFY gomez_p_Page_059.jpg
6d4e739ab3c197da3d47ee5b7895021f
f81bb48bdc108dd884acd474bd7d67d28eb9c5db



PAGE 1

MICROHABITAT PREFERENCE OF THE INTRODUCED GECKO Hemidactylus turcicus IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT By PATRICIA A.GOMEZ ZLATAR A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

Copyright 2003 by Patricia A. Gomez Zlatar

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my committee chair, Mike Moulton, for his constant support, mentoring, and enthusiasm. His friendship has been instrumental in the completion of this degree. I owe a great deal of thanks to committee member Ken Portier for the endless hours of guidance he provided. I am also grateful to committee member Dick Franz, for providing useful comments and ideas throughout the study. It has been both a privilege and pleasure to interact with them all. Many people made my fieldwork possible. I owe thanks to both the UF Physical Plant Division and to J. Darcy White for providing me with detailed maps and a wealth of information. I would like to thank the UF Campus Police Force and the VA Hospital Police Force for keeping my helpers and me safe during our nighttime surveys. I also want to give a big thanks to Chuck Knapp, Ester Langan, Elza Kephart, Alex Martin, and Robin Sternberg for providing endless hours of field assistance. Finally, I want to give immense gratitude to those closest to me. I give thanks to my family, especially my parents. Also, I want to thank my close friends (they know they are). Last, but not least, I want to thank Alex Martin for his patience, friendship, and love. I could not have done it without him. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Urban Ecology..............................................................................................................1 General Objective.........................................................................................................2 2 STUDY SPECIES AND STUDY SITES.....................................................................3 Study Species................................................................................................................3 Study Sites....................................................................................................................6 The Study Species in the Study Sites...........................................................................8 3 PRELIMINARY SURVEY..........................................................................................9 Introduction...................................................................................................................9 Methods........................................................................................................................9 Results.........................................................................................................................11 Discussion...................................................................................................................13 4 ADDITIONAL NATURAL HISTORY NOTES.......................................................21 Introduction.................................................................................................................21 Methods......................................................................................................................23 Results.........................................................................................................................24 Summer 2001.......................................................................................................24 Fall/Winter 2001..................................................................................................25 Spring 2002.........................................................................................................26 Discussion...................................................................................................................26 iv

PAGE 5

5 MICROHABITAT PREFERENCE IN THE INTRODUCED GECKO, HEMIDACTYLUS TURCICUS...................................................................................39 Introduction.................................................................................................................39 Methods and Results...................................................................................................41 Sampling Methods...............................................................................................41 Data Analysis 1....................................................................................................44 Results 1..............................................................................................................46 Data Analysis 2....................................................................................................48 Results 2..............................................................................................................49 Data Analysis 3....................................................................................................50 Results 3..............................................................................................................50 Data Analysis 4....................................................................................................51 Results 4..............................................................................................................52 Data Analysis 5....................................................................................................52 Results 5..............................................................................................................52 Discussion...................................................................................................................54 6 MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT....75 APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY SURVEY DATA............................................................................79 B NATURAL HISTORY DATA...................................................................................81 C MICROHABITAT PREFERENCE DATA...............................................................84 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................91 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................96 v

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Criteria of wall characterization variables used in preliminary survey....................16 4-1 Criteria of natural history variables..........................................................................31 4-2 Temperature measurements of wall surface for adult and subadult H. turcicus; fall/winter 2001........................................................................................................31 4-3 Temperature measurements of wall surface for adult H. turcicus; spring 2002.......31 5-1 Description of wall characterization variables for microhabitat study.....................57 5-2 Chi-square and Fisher Exact p-values for wall characterization variables..............58 5-3 The dependency of age, color, length, and texture on material................................59 5-4 Logistic regression models resulting from the backward elimination method using the variables: material; cardinal orientation, vegetation, light.......................60 5-5 Summary statistics of the significant predictor variables of the M*CO*V+M*CO*L model.....................................................................................62 5-6 Possible wall combinations involving the variables: material, cardinal orientation, vegetation, and light..............................................................................63 5-7 Number of observations per wall combination involving the variables: material, vegetation (2 levels), and light.................................................................................64 5-8 Logistic regression models resulting from the backward elimination method using the variables: material, vegetation (2 levels), and light..................................65 5-9 Number of observations per wall combination involving the variables: material, and light-vegetation (3 levels)..................................................................................67 5-10 Logistic regression models resulting from the backward elimination method using the variables: material, and light-vegetation (3 levels)...................................67 5-11 Chi-square test and Fishers Exact test for light-vegetation and gecko presence, controlling for material.............................................................................................68 vi

PAGE 7

5-12 Chi-square test and Fishers Exact test for material and gecko presence, controlling for light-vegetation................................................................................69 5-13 Chi-square test for light-vegetation and gecko presence.........................................70 5-14 Chi-square test for material and gecko presence......................................................71 5-15 Three-way contingency table of light-vegetation, controlling for material, with associated percentages and marginal associations...................................................72 5-16 Three-way contingency table of material, controlling for light-vegetation, with associated percentages and marginal associations...................................................73 A-1 Temperature readings of walls with respect to material and cardinal orientation....79 B-1 Temperature readings (C) for individual adult H. turcicus recorded during the fall/winter 2001 survey.............................................................................................81 B-2 Temperature readings (C) for individual sub-adult H. turcicus recorded during the fall/winter 2001 survey.......................................................................................82 B-3 Temperature readings (C) for individual adult H. turcicus recorded during the spring 2002 survey...................................................................................................83 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Depiction of the 45 angle leeway employed in the determination of wall cardinal orientation...................................................................................................17 3-2 Average wall temperature of different construction material..................................17 3-3 Average wall temperature of different cardinal locations........................................18 3-4 Average wall temperature of different construction materials at different cardinal locations......................................................................................................18 3-5 Average number of H. turcicus per building of different construction material......19 3-6 Number of H. turcicus on walls of different cardinal locations...............................19 3-7 Number of H. turcicus on walls of different vegetation levels................................20 3-8 Number of H. turcicus on walls of different light intensities...................................20 4-1 Perch height preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (summer 2001).............32 4-2 Perch height preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (fall/winter 2001).........33 4-3 Social preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (fall/winter 2001)...................34 4-4 Exposure preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (fall/winter 2001)..............35 4-5 Perch height preference of adult H. turcicus (spring 2002).....................................36 4-6 Social preference of adult H. turcicus (spring 2002)...............................................37 4-7 Exposure preference of adult H. turcicus (spring 2002)..........................................38 viii

PAGE 9

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science MICROHABITAT PREFERENCE OF THE INTRODUCED GECKO Hemidactylus turcicus IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT By Patricia A. Gomez Zlatar August 2003 Chair: Michael Moulton Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation I investigated microhabitat preference in the introduced gecko H. turcicus in Gainesville, Florida from summer 2001 through spring 2002. After collecting extensive natural history data in 2001, I then attempted to construct a model for microhabitat preference during 2002, using logistic regression. I characterized 160 walls by construction material, vegetative cover, artificial light intensity, cardinal orientation, age of building, length of wall, surface color, and surface texture. I sampled each wall twice for the presence or absence of H. turcicus. Chi-square analyses indicated that the age of building, length of wall, surface color, and surface texture were dependent on construction material (p< 0.05). I then fit a logistic regression model with the variables: construction material, vegetative cover, artificial light intensity, and cardinal orientation. I was unable to obtain a functional logistic regression model, probably owing to a small sample size. Thus, I condensed the dataset by eliminating the variable cardinal orientation and combining the variables ix

PAGE 10

vegetative cover and artificial light intensity. I was unable to obtain a significant logistic regression model (p<0.05) with this reduced dataset; and I therefore performed chi-square analyses instead. Results revealed no significance (p<0.05) between the presence of H. turcicus and the three wall variables examined. Hence, the presence of H. turcicus on a wall appears to be independent of construction material, vegetative cover, and artificial light intensity. This conclusion indicates that H. turcicus does not demonstrate a preference among walls of different material type, vegetative cover levels, and artificial light intensities. These results could reflect the generalist tendency of this gecko; and thus explain its overall resiliency as an introduced species. Alternatively, the inability to detect significance could reflect failure to gather a sufficient sample size; or failure to properly select variables relevant to microhabitat preference in this species. x

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Urban Ecology Urbanization is a significant global phenomenon (Grimm et al., 2000). Roughly half of the worlds population currently resides in cities, as the tendency toward urbanization is characteristic of both developed and developing nations (Lord et al., 2003). This trend is projected to increase over the next few decades, whereby the number and sizes of cities are expected to grow extensively (Pickett et al., 2001). The inevitable growth of urban areas, and their subsequent ecological impacts, makes the field of urban ecology timely and ultimately essential (Grimm et al., 2000). Urban ecology is a fairly young discipline that has increased in prominence over the last two decades (Rebele, 1994). Before this, ecological studies in urban environments were rare as ecologists generally considered urban areas ecologically inferior to natural ones; and thus demonstrated little interest and overall disregard for cities (Botkin and Beveridge, 1997; Gilbert, 1989). However, this anti-urban attitude began to progressively vanish when ecologists started to recognize and become concerned with the influence of humans on ecosystems (Niemela, 1999). Urban ecology first emerged as a discipline that mainly dealt with the ecology of habitats and organisms within cities (Pickett et al., 2001). It eventually expanded when it embraced and then advocated the notion that cities were ecosystems in themselves, with humans occupying the position of keystone species (Rees, 1997). With this new perspective, urban ecologists have recognized that the urban setting cannot be adequately understood and 1

PAGE 12

2 that findings are inapplicable without accounting for human influence (Grimm et al., 2000). As a consequence, urban ecology is in the process of developing into an integrated discipline that incorporates the social, behavioral, economic, physical, and ecological sciences (Niemela, 1999). Despite the surge in popularity of urban ecology, few studies have strictly dealt with urban species and/or been conducted in urban settings (McIntyre et al., 2000). In a review of leading ecology journals between 1993 and 1997, Collins at al. (2000) concluded that a mere 0.4% of papers surveyed (25 of 6157) were restricted specifically to urban habitat and/or urban wildlife. Although reasons for this paucity have not been specified, urban areas offer the distinct challenge of being controlled by strong and diverse human actions (Dow, 2000). An ongoing history of intense and varied micromanagement has made metropolitan landscapes into highly heterogeneous areas, their uniqueness wrought with logistical constraints (Dow, 2000; McIntyre et al., 2000). Of the few wildlife ecological studies performed in urban environments, most feature birds, mammals, and terrestrial invertebrates. Significantly less popular subjects are aquatic fauna, amphibians, and reptiles (Luniak and Pisarki, 1994). Many of these studies, in turn, are anecdotal in nature; thus making comparisons between locations and the formation of a general body of knowledge unfeasible (McIntyre et al., 2000). General Objective In light of the current shortcomings in urban ecology, the main objective of this study was to conduct a repeatable, quantitative ecological study on the microhabitat preferences of an introduced reptile in an urban environment.

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 2 STUDY SPECIES AND STUDY SITES Study Species The Mediterranean gecko Hemidactylus turcicus is an old world geckkonid lizard that has successfully extended its range into India and North America through human-assisted introductions (Conant and Collins, 1998). This species occurs naturally in the Middle East and Mediterranean regions. Hemidactylus turcicus is thought to have reached North America after being initially introduced through human agencies into the Antilles and Gulf-coastal Mexico. It first appeared in the United States in 1915 in Key West, Florida (Stejneger, 1922). Since then, H. turcicus has expanded onto the mainland where it has established itself in a number of localities throughout the southeastern and south-central states; specifically Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (Barbour, 1936; Etheridge, 1952; Conant, 1955; Conant and Collins, 1998). The Mediterranean gecko possesses a life history that, with human assistance, favors successful colonization of new areas. Both Davis (1974) and Meshaka Jr. (1995) have reported that the dispersal of H. turcicus in Texas and Florida parallels that of major highways; and that produce trucks were the most likely source of transportation for this gecko. The calcareous shelled eggs of H. turcicus are fairly resistant to desiccation; and egg survivorship appears to be extremely high. With an incubation period of 40 to 45 days, these eggs are ideal for surviving lengthy truck rides (Selcer, 1986). In 1986, 3

PAGE 14

4 Selcer confirmed this high egg survivorship when he obtained a 100% hatching success rate from 100 eggs he had collected in the field. The secretive nesting behavior of the Mediterranean gecko also favors it as a colonizing species. Nests in this species are usually constructed in hidden locations such as attics, storage rooms, under eaves of houses, closets, and rock crevices; and on a wide array of surfaces, including cardboard boxes, wood planks, and old clothing (Davis, 1974; Punzo, 2001a; Selcer, 1986; Trauth, 1985). Furthermore, eggs have reduced visibility as they are often covered with debris, including dirt, paper, eggshell and shed skin (Punzo, 2001a; Rose and Barbour, 1968; Selcer, 1986). Many of the nesting sites are in prime positions to be moved or transported in vehicles. Nests in H. turcicus range from solitary to communal, with some communal nests containing as many as 20 eggs (Selcer, 1986). Therefore, the possibility exists of unknowingly transporting a mini colony to a new locale. Mediterranean gecko hatchlings have also shown remarkable survivorship in dry environments, requiring no food or water for up to a month (Rose and Barbour, 1968). Thus, H. turcicus eggs/hatchling can survive dry and nutrient-poor environments for extended periods of time (over two months) making this gecko a resilient and ultimately successful stowaway on vehicles. Once at a new site, H. turcicus often occurs at extremely high densities: as many as 544 to 2210 geckos/hectare in Texas (Selcer, 1986); and 497 to 1463 geckos/hectare in Florida (Punzo, 2001a). A high population density coupled with a consistently encountered 1:1 sex ratio allows for the potential of a large, annual reproductive output by a population. Females are reproductively active between the months of April and September; and are believed to have two to three clutches a season, each clutch

PAGE 15

5 consisting of two eggs (Rose & Barbour, 1968; Selcer, 1986; Meshaka Jr., 1995; Punzo, 2001a). Hemidactylus turcicus is also characterized by being an early maturing species with a long lifespan; on average, juveniles require between eight and nine months to mature, and routinely live at least three years (Selcer, 1986). Hemidactylus turcicus is highly pre-adapted for life in urbanized areas; and this further aids in dispersal. The presence of scansors (adhesive pads on toes) allows the Mediterranean gecko to perch on vertical walls of buildings. In fact, the Mediterranean gecko is a familiar resident in many cities and towns around the world; and according to Luiselli and Capizzi (1999) is more often found in human-disturbed areas than in natural environments. In addition, H. turcicus is considered to be a generalized predator, as a number of studies have reported a wide array of mostly arthropod prey in this geckos diet (Carey, 1988; Punzo, 2001a; Saenz, 1996). Although Punzo (2001a) failed to detect ageor sex-related differences in diets, Saenz (1996) observed food partitioning between both juveniles and adults and males and females, although the latter remained inconclusive due to small sample size. Thus, under some circumstances, food partitioning could further contribute to the success of H. turcicus, since it would reduce intraspecific competition, and increase the feeding efficiency of a given population (Saenz, 1996). The Mediterranean gecko further increases its chances for establishment with a number of predator escape and avoidance tactics. As a nocturnal, arboreal, and cryptically colored lizard, H. turcicus has few known predators (Selcer, 1986). In a study conducted in Tampa Bay, Florida, Punzo (2001a) listed bats, Cuban tree frogs, large heteropodid crab and wolf spiders, giant tail scorpions, and feral domestic cats as

PAGE 16

6 possible predators. As expected, the most vulnerable period for this gecko is shortly after hatching; both Selcer (1986) and Punzo (2001a) showed that mortality was significantly greater for small juveniles when compared to large juveniles, adult females, and adult males. Accordingly, Selcer (1986) regularly observed an avoidance mechanism in juveniles termed "tail wagging"; when disturbed, H. turcicus juveniles draw attention away from their bodies by wagging their conspicuously banded tails, which can easily be autotomized for a rapid escape. Adult H. turcicus are adept at fleeing danger too, as noted by Selcer (1986) they use routine escape routes when harassed. Adults also have easily autotomized tails, which can startle and/or distract a predator while the gecko retreats to safety (Selcer, 1986). Most of the areas invaded by H. turcicus have little or no competitive pressure. Noted exceptions include competition with the introduced gecko Cyrtopodion scabrum in Texas, and the nonindigenous geckos Hemidactylus garnotii and Hemidactylus mabouia in south Florida (Klawinski et al., 1994; Punzo, 2001b). In both previously mentioned cases, H. turcicus appears to be competitively excluded and replaced in many locations. In Texas, the competitive failure of H. turcicus has been linked to the ability of C. scabrum to monopolize prey and force H. turcicus to undertake a dietary shift (Klawinski et al., 1994). In Florida, increased digestive and assimilation efficiencies, and continuous reproduction have been suggested as factors giving H. garnotii and H. mabouia a competitive edge over H. turcicus (Meshaka Jr., 1995; Punzo, 2001b). Study Sites My primary study area was the University of Florida campus located in the town of Gainesville in north central Florida. Since its official inception in 1906, the University of Florida has continuously expanded in size to become the fourth largest university in the

PAGE 17

7 United States. Following an extended construction boom starting in 1950 and ending in 1999, the 2,000-acre University of Florida campus has roughly 1,251 buildings that provide approximately 18, 670, 086 gross square feet of area. The University of Florida has just nearly 60,000 full and part-time students and employees, resulting in a vast amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. (University of Florida, 2002) My secondary study site was the Gainesville VA Medical Hospital Center within the boundaries of the University of Florida. Construction of the VA Medical Center commenced in 1964 and was completed in 1967. Presently it consists of 38 buildings (US Department of Veterans Affairs, 2003). The landscapes of both the University of Florida campus and the Gainesville VA Medical Center are highly heterogeneous, as both contain a wide assortment of facilities, each with its distinct type of architecture, ornamental vegetation and/or decorative natural scenery, walkway(s), road(s), and other associated features. This diversity is emphasized by the amount of variation present on each individual building, to the extent that it is a rare occurrence to encounter two identical walls. Walls are the principle habitat of Mediterranean geckos in this environment. Complexity depends on human factors such as stylistic trends, budgetary schemes, and logistics. This complexity was apparent during a preliminary survey that I undertook between the months of July 2001 and November 2001. A wide array of human activity continuously affected my sampling locations; these activities ranged from complete modification of existing vegetation, to the failure to repair damaged building structures. Thus, in an attempt to control for the fluctuating quality of campus buildings, I used categorical variables, as opposed to continuous variables, to quantify sampling locations.

PAGE 18

8 The Study Species in the Study Sites Records of H. turcicus for the University of Florida campus in Gainesville first began in 1956 (King, 1959). Although no official records of H. turcicus exist from the Gainesville VA Medical Center, the geckos presence on the premises was confirmed during a preliminary survey. Evidence of large populations of other nonindigenous hemidactyline geckos have not yet been recorded at either location, thus making these localities ideal for the investigation of the ecology of H. turcicus in the absence of potential behavioral changes caused by interference of directly competing species.

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 3 PRELIMINARY SURVEY Introduction Despite its widespread distribution and abundance on the campus of the University of Florida, the Mediterranean gecko has not been studied intensively. In 1956, King collected specimens of H. turcicus from a wood frame building on the campus. The following year, King and a colleague collected 49 H. turcicus individuals over three nights, also on frame buildings. A year later, Riemer collected an additional 44 specimens from the same buildings during one night of sampling (King, 1959). In an attempt to elucidate additional natural history patterns of H. turcicus, particularly with respect to habitat preference, and to obtain some general insight on their environment, I conducted a survey on the UF campus and VA Hospital, between July and August of 2001. Methods I randomly sampled 48 buildings over seven nights. I sampled each building by directing a flashlight systematically over all accessible walls from top to bottom, from right to left. I further characterized each wall by its type of construction material (one of four types: aluminum, brick, cement, and wood) and cardinal orientation. I arbitrarily used 50% of the surface area of a given wall for my material classification. Thus, I categorized a wall constructed with > 50% wood, as wood. The majority of the buildings were constructed from only one material. Some of the buildings consisted of more than 9

PAGE 20

10 one material. However, of these, I limited my survey to only those buildings that featured a predominate material. I determined the cardinal orientation of walls using official maps of the University of Florida (UF Physical Plant Division, 2000), and of the VA Hospital Engineering Department. For the cardinal orientation categories I used north, south, west, and east. Nearly all of the walls were clearly oriented in one of these directions. For those walls that were not clear-cut, I allowed a 45 angle of leeway on each side of the cardinal direction (Figure 3-1). For each gecko, I also recorded one of three vegetation levels. The three vegetation levels were all based on the height of the vegetation, rather than diversity. To facilitate measurement in the field, I based these heights using a simple system. Thus, the low level referred to flora no higher than my knees ( < 0.51 m), the medium level to floral height between my knees and shoulder ( > 0.51 m and < 1.37 m), and the high level comprised of flora reaching higher than my shoulders ( >1.37 m ). I limited my vegetation classification to an imaginary half sphere, coming out of the wall, with a onemeter radius and with the gecko as its center. I also determined light intensity with respect to each gecko, along the same lines as my vegetation classification. I used two categories to describe light intensity, again in an imaginary half sphere with a one-meter radius around each gecko. I assigned an area to the low light category if it had at most one dim light, whereas I classified an area as high light if there was either at least one bright light or at least two dim lights. The difference between dim and bright was fairly arbitrary; however, as a general rule of thumb, if I had to use a flashlight in the presence of a light to detect a gecko, I classified

PAGE 21

11 the area low light. A list of the criteria of these variables, and their associated levels is summarized in Table 3-1. A final variable I recorded for each gecko was the temperature of the center of each wall. I recorded the temperature using a Raytek Raynger ST model temperature gun. I also noted the number of geckos on each wall. Appendix A contains the complete dataset. I calculated averages, standard deviations and percentages where relevant. Results With respect to construction material, the average wall temperature was highest for brick (26.89 + 2.06 C; n = 16), followed by cement (26.14 + 1.42 C; n = 52), wood (25.13 + 1.38 C; n = 38), and aluminum (23.84 + 0.99 C; n = 78) (Figure 3-2). The average wall temperature for the four cardinal orientations is displayed in Figure 3-3. These average temperatures spanned a smaller range with north (25.17 + 1.89 C, n = 46) having the highest value, proceeded by east (25.03 + 1.74 C; n = 46), south (24.75 + 1.46 C, n = 47), and then west (24.5 + 1.80 C, n = 45). As summarized in Figure 3-4, brick walls of any cardinal location had a higher average temperature than any other construction material, while aluminum walls consistently had the lowest average temperature. Cement walls followed in second place for north, south and west facing walls, only to drop to third place for east facing walls. Wood walls, in turn, occupied third place for northern, southern and western walls, rising to second place for eastern walls. Brick walls reached their highest temperature on north-facing walls (27.16 + 3.1 C, n = 4), followed by west-facing walls (27 + 2.0 C; n = 4), east-facing walls (26.9 + 1.86 C; n = 4), and south-facing walls (26.42 + 1.92 C; n = 4). Average cement wall temperatures peaked on western walls (26.37 + 1.77 C; n = 13), and then continually decreased on northern walls (26.16 + 1.45 C, n = 13), western walls (25.82 + 0.89 C, n

PAGE 22

12 = 13), and eastern walls (24.02 + 1.55 C, n = 13). For wood walls, average wall temperature was highest on northern walls (25.41 + 1.66 C, n = 10), and then progressively decreased on eastern (25.17 + 1.29 C, n = 9), western (25.04 + 1.40 C, n = 9), and southern walls (24.89 + 1.31 C, n = 10) respectively. Aluminum walls attained their highest average temperature on west-facing walls (23.95 + 1.19C, n = 19), followed by, in decreasing order, west-facing walls (23.92 + 0.91 C, n = 19), east-facing walls (23.82 + 1.10 C, n = 20), and south-facing walls (23.65 + 0.77 C, n = 20). Of the 48 buildings I surveyed, five were brick, ten were wood, 13 were cement, and 20 were aluminum. All the brick buildings and cement buildings had geckos with totals of 27 and 40 individuals, respectively. Geckos were absent on one of the wood buildings, whereas the remaining nine contained 14 individuals. Aluminum buildings contained 30 individuals, although eight of these buildings had no geckos. I found the highest average number of H. turcicus on brick buildings with 5.4 geckos/building (27/5). Cement buildings had the second highest average with 3.08 geckos/building (40/13), whereas aluminum averaged 1.5 geckos/building (30/20), slightly ahead of wood, which averaged 1.4 geckos/building (14/10) (Figure 3-5). I sampled a total of 48 south walls, 47 north walls, 47 east walls, and 46 west walls. I found 86 geckos on north walls, resulting in an average of 1.83 geckos/wall (86/47). On south walls I tallied 76 geckos for an average of 1.58 geckos/wall (76/48), whereas walls oriented toward the east had a total of 49 geckos and averaged 1.04 geckos/wall (49/47), and west oriented walls had 47 geckos with an average of 1.02 geckos/wall (47/46) (Figure 3-6).

PAGE 23

13 I did not record the number of walls and/or areas within each type of vegetation level. However, of the 203 geckos that I recorded, 126 of them were located in areas that possessed a medium level of vegetation (62%). Meanwhile, areas bordered by low and high vegetation had considerably fewer geckos with 44 (22%) and 33 (16%), respectively (Figure 3-7). I also did not record the number of walls and/or areas of each type of light intensity level. I recorded a total of 235 geckos for this portion of the study. Of these 235 geckos, I observed 119 (51%) in areas with high light level and 116 (49%) in areas with a low light level (Figure 3-8). Discussion The materials brick, cement and wood all have similar average wall temperatures. The small difference in average wall temperature they display becomes irrelevant when their highly overlapping standard deviations are included. Aluminum possesses a lower average wall temperature, even when its standard deviation is considered. A walls cardinal orientation does not appear to have an effect on average wall temperature as all four directions have comparable temperatures, especially when assessed with their standard deviations. Each material has its own pattern of average wall temperature with respect to cardinal orientation. These results, however, should not be taken at face value, as the sample sizes are small and the standard deviations overlap each other. The thermal properties of walls are extremely complex and are only briefly mentioned here as they are beyond the scope of this study. Heat flow involves a variety of thermal parameters specific to the surface in question, such as its conductivity, convection capacity, and radiation constant. These parameters, in turn, are highly influenced by both climate conditions and the thermal property of the proximate

PAGE 24

14 environment (Nave, 2000). Additional work in describing the thermal habitat of H. turcicus is essential, as activity in ectothermic animals greatly depends on ambient temperature (Bartholomew, 1959). Furthermore, Frankenberg (1979) suggested that nocturnal animals are especially dependent on environmental temperature for activity since they cannot directly use the sun for thermoregulation. Brick and cement appear to be popular wall material types, as they both possess more H. turcicus per building than either aluminum or wood. However, the validity of these results rests on the assumption that I adequately sampled the buildings. I did not document the size of the buildings. Also, occurrence on a building constructed of a particular material type might be a result of other factors such as dispersal constraints rather than preference. A similar fate befalls the results dealing with the average number of H. turcicus on walls of different cardinal orientations. Although all four cardinal orientations share comparable averages, the areas of the walls were never recorded and thus, the results could be an artifact of this lack in rigor. Mediterranean geckos appear to prefer medium vegetation levels. Perhaps this indicates a balance between having sufficient vegetation for cover, but not too much foliage that it raises the vulnerability to predators. As for light levels, H. turcicus does not appear to have a preference for a particular light intensity. This was a surprising result as many researchers have reported that H. turicus has an affinity for lights because it aids in the capture of insect prey (Capula and Luiselli, 1994; Conant and Collins, 1998; Davis, 1974; Punzo, 2001a). This finding could imply that these geckos are merely easier to spot near lights, and that their attraction to light is a conclusion stemming from unintentional bias of the investigator. However, the reliability of my results is fairly

PAGE 25

15 limited, as I did not record the number of walls and/or areas of each vegetation and light level. Therefore, the pattern in my data might simply reflect a higher incidence of one vegetation and/or light level rather than a difference in gecko preference. Although the majority of these results have limitations, they served the function of illuminating some potentially interesting patterns, some of which merited further investigation. In addition, this preliminary survey allowed me to develop a reasonable and rigorous sampling regime for future work. First, it familiarized me with the cryptic coloration and secretive nature of the study species. Secondly, it revealed the numerous logistical considerations of the study site such as safety, accessibility, and the high degree of variation. Lastly, it encouraged me to make some important improvements on my sampling methods. Among these changes are the inclusion of wall size measurements, and the sampling of walls rather than buildings so as to avoid the possibility of counting the same gecko more than once. Also, to deal with the immense variability resulting from constant human manipulation, vegetation and light need to have broad and quantifiable levels. These levels, in turn, must pertain to the overall habitat and not the immediate vicinity of the gecko, as this vicinity will change with movement. Ultimately, this initial survey would prove to be key in shaping all aspects of my eventual microhabitat study.

PAGE 26

16 Table 3-1. Criteria of wall characterization variables used in preliminary survey Variables Levels Criteria North *Location of wall on official UF map South *Location of wall on official UF map West *Location of wall on official UF map Cardinal Orientation East *Location of wall on official UF map Low Presence of one dull light** or no light source within a 1m radius of the gecko Light High Presence of at least two dull light** sources or at least one bright light*** source within a 1m radius of the gecko Aluminum Physical observation; >50% of building surface area Brick Physical observation; >50% of building surface area Cement Physical observation; >50% of building surface area Material Wood Physical observation; >50% of building surface area Low Vertical measurement < 0.51 m within a 1m radius of the gecko Medium 0.51 m 1.37 m within a 1m radius of the gecko *Maps taken from 2000 Building Information List for the University of Florida, prepared by the UF Physical Plant Division, and official VA Hospital Engineering maps ** A dull light source is one where a flashlight is still needed to locate a gecko ***A bright light source is one where a flashlight is not needed to locate a gecko

PAGE 27

17 N 45 45 W E S Figure 3-1. Depiction of the 45 angle leeway employed in the determination of wall cardinal orientation 23.8426.8926.1425.1322232425262728AluminumBrick CementWoodConstruction MaterialAverage Wall Temperature (0C ) Figure 3-2. Average wall temperature of different construction material

PAGE 28

18 25.1724.7524.525.032022242628North SouthWest EastCardinal LocationAverage Wall Temperature (0C ) Figure 3-3. Average wall temperature of different cardinal locations 26.3723.9523.6523.9223.8427.1626.92726.4224.0225.8226.1625.0425.1724.8925.412021222324252627282930North SouthWest EastCardinal LocationsAverage Wall Temperature (0C ) Aluminum Brick Cement Wood Figure 3-4. Average wall temperature of different construction materials at different cardinal locations

PAGE 29

19 3.085.41.41.50123456CementBrickAluminumWoodConstruction MaterialAverage Number of Geckos Figure 3-5. Average number of H. turcicus per building of different construction material 1.581.021.041.8300.511.522.53NorthSouthWest EastCardinal LocationNumber of Geckos Figure 3-6. Number of H. turcicus on walls of different cardinal locations

PAGE 30

20 4412633020406080100120140LowMediumHighVegetation LevelNumber of Geckos Figure 3-7. Number of H. turcicus on walls of different vegetation levels 116119050100150LowHighLight IntensityNumber of Geckos Figure 3-8. Number of H. turcicus on walls of different light intensities

PAGE 31

CHAPTER 4 ADDITIONAL NATURAL HISTORY NOTES Introduction A large portion of the information regarding H. turcicus pertains to the reproductive cycle and associated activities. Few studies have documented natural history variables such as perch height, degree of sociality and exposure. And not much is known about any preferred temperature regime. Perch height in H. turcicus has only rarely been investigated. The only comprehensive study was conducted on a university campus in Texas, where Saenz (unpublished) found substantial dietary diversity among geckos at different perch heights. The diet of H. turcicus encountered below 1.52 m in height overlapped only 22.71% (Schoeners percent overlap; Schoener, 1970) with conspecifics occupying a perch over 3.05 m in height. Specifically, the geckos with lower perches ingested mostly ground-dwelling prey, whereas those at higher perches fed predominantly on flying insect taxa. In general, females tended to use perches of lower height than males, as 55.8% of females were recorded below 1.52 m in comparison to 30.2% of males. Meanwhile, 41.5% of males were recorded above 3.05 m as opposed to only 11.6% of females. Geckos captured at different perch heights also demonstrated a difference in the number of empty stomachs, with 13.04% for low geckos and 25% for high geckos (Saenz, unpublished). Other perch height studies include one by Capula and Luiselli (1994) in Rome, Italy. These authors concluded a close-to-the-ground existence for H. turcicus, as they showed that its diet consisted mainly of ground-dwelling prey, with 55.2% of the geckos 21

PAGE 32

22 diet being made up of ants and flightless insects. In addition, Klawinski (unpublished) observed a large number of Mediterranean geckos positioned close to the ground (40.95%), a result he felt stemmed from the need for shade from surrounding lights. In New Orleans, Rose and Barbour (1968) noticed several geckos on the third-floor level of a building, and also on the roof of another. Both Selcer (1986) and Klawinski (unpublished) recorded low average home range areas of 0.93 m2 and 4.073 m2, respectively, with very little home-range overlap. These results suggest that this species is territorial. Furthermore, observations have indicated that male H. turcicus emerge from winter retreats earlier then females, perhaps to establish territories before the breeding season (Klawinski, unpublished). In addition, Rose and Barbour (1968), Frankenberg (1982), Marcellini (1977), Klawinski (unpublished) have all witnessed aggressive displays ranging from tail waving to neck biting. A study of the vocal activity of H. turcicus revealed that only the dominant male in a group produces a multiple click call in response to an intruder of either sex (Frankenberg, 1978). In this same study, Frankenberg (1978) found that most of the vocalization in H. turcicus occurred during the day, a time when this gecko is grouped together in retreat-sites. This result indicates that social activity is perhaps separate from this species nocturnal foraging. In turn, this division between sociality and foraging could explain the peaceful interaction between two male H. turcicus behind a drainpipe witnessed by Rose and Barbour (1968). The degree of exposure once H. turcicus has emerged from its daytime retreat has not been formally studied. Rose and Barbour (1968) observed H. turcicus behind vertical

PAGE 33

23 storm drains. Through personal observations, I have noted geckos behind electrical boxes, pipes, and signs on walls. Few studies have focused on H. turcicus with respect to temperature. An exception is the study by Angilletta et al. (1999) where the body temperature for eight Mediterranean geckos was measured to be 27.8 C in the morning, and 29.1 C in the evening. Hoping to shed further light on the natural history of the Mediterranean gecko, I explored perch height, sociality, exposure, and selected surface temperature in three distinct field surveys. Methods The first survey took place during the months of July and August 2001 whereby I randomly sampled walls on 48 one-story buildings on the University of Florida campus and the VA Hospital. I systematically sampled each wall by scanning it with a flashlight from top to bottom, left to right. I classified each gecko I encountered as either an adult (greater than 40 mm) or subadult (less than 30 mm). Note that I omitted any geckos that I could not accurately size from any analysis. Lastly, I recorded the perch height of each gecko using two categories; low if the gecko was at most one meter above the ground, and high otherwise. Appendix B contains the complete dataset. In the second survey, I sampled 50 one-story walls located on the University of Florida campus and the VA Hospital. Between September 2001 and January 2002, I sampled each of these 50 walls on a weekly basis. Upon each visit, I again examined a wall by methodically examining it with a flashlight from top to bottom, left to right. Geckos were sized according to the method mentioned previously. In addition to documenting perch height (as above), I also quantified sociality, exposure, and selected

PAGE 34

24 surface temperature. I used three categories to describe sociality: a gecko that had no other individual within a 50 cm radius was termed alone, while two geckos within the same radius were designated a pair, and three or more geckos were considered a group. Furthermore, I labeled a gecko as exposed if it was in plain sight, and not exposed if the snout-vent portion of its body was hidden behind a wall fixture. Using a Raytek Raynger ST model temperature gun, I determined the selected surface temperature by measuring the temperature of a spot adjacent to the gecko. Appendix B contains the complete dataset. For the third survey, also on the University of Florida campus and the VA Hospital, I sampled 160 one-story walls between the months of March and June 2002. I visited each wall twice throughout the study. The sampling regime and equipment I used were identical to those previously mentioned in the second study. Appendix B contains the complete dataset. A list of the criteria of these variables, and their associated levels is summarized in Table 4-1. I calculated percentages, averages, standard deviations, maximum values and minimum values where appropriate. Results Summer 2001 During this study, I recorded a total of 187 gecko observations. Of these, 125 (67%) occurred at a high height, whereas 62 (33%) were at a low height. Upon separating these observations into adults and subadults, two distinct patterns emerged. Of the 131 adults I sampled, 97 (74%) were located high on walls and 34 (26%) were observed at a low height. The opposite was true for subadults, as 38 (84%) out of the 45

PAGE 35

25 recorded were found within one meter of the ground whereas the remaining 7 (16%) were located at a high height (Figure 4-1). Fall/Winter 2001 I used 576 gecko observations to test for perch height preference; 412 (71.5%) occupied high positions, whereas 164 (28.5%) occupied low positions. Of these 576 gecko observations, 355 were adults of which 296 (83.4%) were at a high position and 59 (16.6%) were at low positions. I recorded 221 subadult observations, where 116 (52.5%) were at a high position, and 105 (47.5%) were at a low portion of a wall (Figure 4-2). I used 577 gecko observations to investigate sociality. Of these, 506 (87.7%) geckos were alone, 56 (14.9%) were part of a pair, and 15 (4.2%) were part of a group. I counted 355 adult gecko observations where 287 (80.9%) were alone, 53 (14.9%) belonged to a pair, and 15 (4.2%) belonged to a group. Following a comparable trend, the 222 subadult observations resulted in 219 (98.7%) alone counts and 3 (1.3%) pair counts. No (0%) subadults were seen in any groups (Figure 4-3). Of 574 exposure observations, I tallied 397 (69.2%) as being exposed and 177 (30.8%) as not exposed. Further breakdown of these results revealed that 199 (56.7%) of the 351 adult observations were exposed, whereas 152 (43.3%) were not exposed. Of the 223 subadult observations I recorded, 198 (88.8%) fell in the exposed group, which contrasts with the 25 (11.2%) observations that I placed in the not exposed group (Figure 4-4). As summarized by Table 4-2, the average substrate temperature for adults was 23.22 C ( + 3.05), with a maximum value of 36.3 C and a minimum value of 12.7 C. Likewise, the average substrate temperature for subadults was 22.67 C ( + 2.80), with the maximum and minimum values being 30.8 C and 13.9 C, respectively.

PAGE 36

26 Spring 2002 I observed few subadults in this study, so I included only adult observations. With respect to perch height, I obtained 237 observations, with 170 (71.7%) at high positions and 67 (28.3%) at low positions (Figure 4-5). For sociality, I had 236 observations, of which 223 (94.5%) were alone, 13 (5.5%) belonged to a pair, and none (0%) were part of a group (Figure 4-6). I collected 237 exposure observations, of which 178 (75%) fell into the exposed category, and 59 (25%) into the not exposed category (Figure 4-7). The average substrate temperature for adults was 24.89 C ( + 2.94). The maximum temperature value I measured was 31.5 C, whereas the minimum value was 16.4 C (Table 4-3). Discussion Adult H. turcicus consistently occupied wall habitats that were greater than one meter above the ground. This trend was observed regardless of the time of year. Although not quantified, the majority of the high sightings were located in the upper portion of the walls, in close proximity to the roof awning. This high perch height could be beneficial for escaping predators, as I repeatedly witnessed startled geckos escape into crevices in the roof awning. However, it is important to mention that this result could be an artifact of the difference in surface area between the two height categories; the low category is restricted to a significantly smaller area than the high category. Thus, the greater number of adults located in high wall positions may be directly related to the greater area available. Interestingly, despite this disparity in area, subadults were recorded on wall habitats that were a maximum of one meter above the ground. This result was more pronounced

PAGE 37

27 during the summer survey, although it was still evident during the fall/winter sampling period. This tendency for subadults to occupy a low habitat could stem from a variety of reasons. First, the portion of a wall near the ground might not be an optimal habitat as it could increase a geckos vulnerability to predators. Subadults might be obliged to use this less desirable habitat as a result of being out-competed by adults for the high optimal ones. This scenario would be congruent with the significantly higher mortality rate found in geckos measuring less than 30 mm (Selcer, 1986). Secondly, the subadult age period could be the dispersal stage of H. turcicus. If subadults were the dispersers, they would frequently be on the lower portion of a wall as they would be continuously on the move. This idea might be supported by some circumstantial evidence that I have witnessed during the course of this study; on several occasions I have observed subadults on the ground some distance away from any building/wall. In fact, one particular individual was recorded in the middle of an expansive cement parking lot. Also, Rose and Barbour (1968) showed that hatchlings could survive without food or water for up to one month. This resilient quality of subadults would be ideal for the uncertainties of dispersing. Furthermore, this idea would be compatible with Selcers findings (1986), as dispersal would be expected to make subadults more vulnerable to predation and thus increase their mortality rate. Thirdly, subadult preference for low wall habitats might be a consequence of diet. Perhaps the preferred prey of subadults and/or prey size suitable for small mouths is more abundant on low dwellings. This is highly possible, as Saenz (unpublished), upon conducting a detailed dietary study on H. turcicus, concluded that the geckos height on a

PAGE 38

28 wall greatly influenced a geckos diet. Finally, the actual cause behind subadults occupying a low habitat could be any one of the three mentioned hypotheses, or a combination of these, or even still, none of these. During the summer survey, a greater proportion of subadults in my sample used perches at a low height than during the fall/winter survey. This discrepancy could be attributed to a number of factors such as seasonal changes in prey consumption, a decrease in adult competition due to adult turnover and/or the decrease of breeding activities, an increase in the establishment of subadults on walls due to a decrease in dispersal, an increase in subadult population, a combination of these, or none of the above. Sociality in the Mediterranean gecko during nocturnal foraging appears to be quite minimal. Both adults and subadults preferred being alone. This result is in agreement with the belief, held by many investigators, that H. turcicus is largely territorial. The majority of the pair and group observations involved only adults. Group sizes rarely exceeded three. I observed no aggressive display in any of these observations. Although no copulation was witnessed, perhaps the gecko pairings were associated in some way with breeding. Gecko groupings could also be linked to other stages of reproduction, as communal nesting has been documented in this species (Selcer, 1986). Since geckos were not sexed in this study, there is no way of telling if the pairs and groups consisted of same or different sex individuals. The tendency for H. turcicus to be solitary does not necessarily imply that this gecko species is not social. It has been shown that other nocturnal gecko species (Nephrurus milii and Christinus marmoratus) form large, non-random aggregations within retreat-sites (Kearney et al., 2001). The possibility that H.

PAGE 39

29 turicus displays this behavior has been alluded to by Frankenberg (1978), who showed that most vocalization in this species occurs in daytime retreats. Thus perhaps, H. turicus socializes during the daytime within retreat-sites, and then forages in solitude during the night, occasionally interacting with others for reproductive purposes and/or for prey exploitation. In general, the Mediterranean gecko remains exposed once it emerges from its retreat-site at night. Since the number of possible hiding places is extremely difficult to quantify and/or locate, this result could reflect my inability to find all hidden geckos and thus be skewed. In addition, this result could also simply be a product of availability of hiding places rather than preference. Subadults showed a greater propensity for remaining exposed than adults. This difference might stem from adult competition for hiding spaces, which could be intense if these spaces offer a significant increase in predator protection. This subadult trend might also be an artifact of a lower incidence of hiding places situated in the bottom portion of walls. The field temperatures of the wall surface selected by both adult and subadult H. turcicus were comparable. Although these temperatures are lower than previously measured field body temperatures (29.1 C, n = 8), it is not entirely surprising as some species of nocturnal geckos have been known to thermoregulate and achieve their preferred body temperature during the day in their retreats rather than at night (Angilletta et al., 1999). An important point when considering these results is the high possibility of pseudoreplication in the data. For the fall/winter 2001 survey, I visited the same 50 walls every week, whereas in the spring 2002 survey I visited the same 160 walls twice. These

PAGE 40

30 two sampling methods did not allow me to distinguish among individuals, and it is likely that I counted the same individual many times. Thus, conclusions should be made with caution. However, despite the fact that these results are limited in scope, they nevertheless provide some insight for future investigators.

PAGE 41

31 Table 4-1. Criteria of natural history variables Variable Levels Criteria Low Gecko < 1m above the ground Height High Gecko > 1m above the ground Alone 1 gecko within a 50cm radius Pair 2 geckos within a 50cm radius Sociality Group 3 or more geckos within a 50cm radius Exposed Snout-vent portion of gecko in plain sight Exposure Not Exposed Snout-vent portion of gecko not in plain sight Table 4-2. Temperature measurements of wall surface for adult and subadult H. turcicus; fall/winter 2001 Temperature Measurements Adult Subadult Average 23.220C 22.670C Standard Deviation 3.050C 2.800C Maximum Value 36.300C 30.80 0 C Minimum Value 12.70C 13.90 0 C Table 4-3. Temperature measurements of wall surface for adult H. turcicus; spring 2002 Temperature Measurements Adult Average 24.890C Standard Deviation 2.940C Maximum Value 31.50C Minimum Value 16.40C

PAGE 42

32 74%16%26%84%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%AdultSubadultPerch HeightPercent Geckos Observed Low High Figure 4-1. Perch height preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (summer 2001)

PAGE 43

33 16.6%47.5%83.4%52.5%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%AdultSubadultGecko AgePercent Gecko Observed High Low Figure 4-2. Perch height preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (fall/winter 2001)

PAGE 44

34 80.9%98.7%14.9%1.3%4.2%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%AdultSubadultGecko AgePercent Geckos Observed Group Pair Alone Figure 4-3. Social preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (fall/winter 2001)

PAGE 45

35 43.3%11.2%56.7%88.8%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%AdultSubadultGecko AgePercent Geckos Observed Exposed Not Exposed Figure 4-4. Exposure preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (fall/winter 2001)

PAGE 46

36 72%28%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%HighLowPerch HeightPercent Geckos Observed Figure 4-5. Perch height preference of adult H. turcicus (spring 2002)

PAGE 47

37 0.0%5.5%94.5%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%AlonePair GroupSocialityPercent Geckos Observed Figure 4-6. Social preference of adult H. turcicus (spring 2002)

PAGE 48

38 25%75%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%YesNoExposurePercent Gecko Observed Figure 4-7. Exposure preference of adult H. turcicus (spring 2002)

PAGE 49

CHAPTER 5 MICROHABITAT PREFERENCE IN THE INTRODUCED GECKO, HEMIDACTYLUS TURCICUS Introduction Although frequently seen on buildings in both its native and nonnative range, little is known of the microhabitat preferences of H. turcicus. Habitat studies on this species are largely nonexistent, and the little information available has mostly originated as incidental observations made during other studies. The only direct study, conducted in Rome, Italy, was a comparative study between H. turcicus and the sympatric gecko species Tarentola mauritanica. In this study, Luiselli and Cappizzi (1999) found that H. turcicus was more abundant on recently constructed buildings than debilitated ancient buildings dating back to the Roman Empire. Although this study provided some quantitative information on microhabitat preference in H. turcicus, the confounding effects of competition influenced the conclusions. Evidence of this is demonstrated by a survey Capula and Luiselli (1994) conducted in Rome years earlier, which concluded that H. turcicus was particularly common in Roman age archeological sites. Additional information consists primarily of incidental observations, and is anecdotal in nature. Although the natural habitat of H. turcicus may have been rocky cliffs, the primary habitat today appears to be structures associated with human habitation (Arnold, 1984). Investigators have reported seeing H. turcicus on a number of human-made constructions such as rock walls, burial vaults, and buildings of varying material 39

PAGE 50

40 including granite, cement, wood, metal, and stucco (Davis, 1974; Klawinski, unpublished; Meshaka Jr., 1995; Punzo, 2001a; Rose and Barbour, 1968; Saenz, unpublished; Selcer, 1986). In Texas, Selcer (1986) found that H. turcicus occurred at higher densities on brick versus metal structures, whereas in Florida Punzo (2001a) found higher densities of H. turcicus on wood as opposed to metal buildings. Investigators have always linked artificial light to the presence of H. turcicus on buildings, as lights presumably facilitate the capture of their insect prey (Capula and Luiselli, 1994; Conant and Collins, 1998; Davis, 1974; Punzo, 2001a). In Texas, Davis (1974) reported that H. turcicus preferred buildings that were lit by mercury-vapor lights. However, a number of studies have collected H. turcicus from buildings with varying light intensities, including complete darkness (Klawinski, unpublished; Meshaka Jr., 1995). Vegetation is another factor that has often been associated with Mediterranean gecko habitat. Throughout its native range, H. turcicus has been found commonly on trees (Loveridge, 1947). In its introduced range, buildings inhabited by H. turcicus have possessed grass, shrubs and/or trees in close proximity to its walls (Klawinski, unpublished, Saenz, 1996). Vegetative cover has been hypothesized by Saenz (1996) to provide H. turcicus with retreats. In a separate study, Klawinski (unpublished) found a weak association between the occurrence of H. turcicus on walls with both high light intensity and high vegetative cover. The majority of these findings are qualitative observations. The few results supported by quantitative data often lack a rigorous framework, making conclusions difficult to formulate. Thus, I embarked on a systematic study of microhabitat

PAGE 51

41 preference, in an attempt to contribute quantitative baseline data on the Mediterranean gecko. Specifically, I investigated the previously studied variables: construction material; vegetative cover; and light intensity. Furthermore, I examined cardinal location, building age, surface texture, surface color, and wall length, as I considered these characteristics to be potentially important to the habitat preference of this species. Methods and Results Sampling Methods Between the months of March and June of 2002, I conducted a survey detailing the microhabitat preference of H. turcicus on the University of Florida campus and VA Hospital in Gainesville. I selected 160 buildings according to their accessibility, and, for the sake of accurately detecting geckos, being one-story in height. I sampled only one randomly selected wall per building. I used a die to make my selection; the numbers 1, 2, 5, and 6 indicated north, south, west and east, respectively, whereas 3 and 4 denoted rolling the dice over again. Walls were considered a good representation of microhabitat use in this species, as H. turcicus has been shown to possess a small home range; Rose and Barbour (1968) reported an average recapture distance from initial capture site of 5.7 m, while Selcer (1986) estimated the mean range movement to be 0.93 m. Furthermore, Trout and Schwaner (1994) reported that H. turcicus maintains itself in discrete subpopulations in which differences in allele frequency have been found between populations only 100 m apart. Each selected wall was characterized by building material, presence or absence of light sources, surface color, surface texture, age of building, vegetation level, cardinal orientation, and length. Construction material was confined to four types: aluminum, brick, cement, and wood. Identical to my preliminary survey, I arbitrarily used 50% of the surface area of a

PAGE 52

42 given wall for my material classification. I restricted my survey to walls that featured a predominate material. I used two categories of light intensity, high and low. To account for gecko movement, light intensity was measured with respect to the wall as opposed to a small area around a gecko. Specifically, I classified walls as high light if they possessed at least one light source (any brightness), whereas walls containing no light source I assigned to the low light category. I classified wall color into two levels using a 3-inch by 5-inch white index card. I categorized a wall as dark if, upon fastening the index card to the wall, I could distinguish it at a perpendicular distance of 10 feet (3.048 m) in daylight. The opposite was true of walls appointed to the light level; the index card could not be perceived at a perpendicular distance of 10 feet. All the walls I surveyed were uniformly colored across their entire surface. I also quantified wall texture using two levels. I considered a wall to be smooth if I was able to draw a straight line, roughly10 cm in length, on white printer paper propped on three distinct points on a wall. These three positions were subjectively selected as the left edge, right edge, and middle point of the wall, approximately mid-wall in height. If I was unable to draw a straight line at all three points on a wall, I classified the wall as rough. Note that all lines were drawn with a relaxed handgrip. I determined building age information from literature provided by the University of Florida (UF Physical Plant Division, 2000), and an unofficial list created specifically for this study by the Veterans Administration Hospital Engineering Department. I arbitrarily assigned three age groups, all based on these sources. I categorized walls built between

PAGE 53

43 1900 and 1969 as early, between 1970 and 1989 as modern, and between 1990 and 2002 as contemporary. I ignored any possible renovations. The age of a building was used as an approximation for the number of daytime retreats (cracks and/or crevices) since Luiselli and Capizzi (1999) found that the age of a building and the condition of its walls were highly correlated. The necessity of using this approximation arose when, during my preliminary survey, it became apparent that estimating the number of retreats with the naked eye was highly unreliable. I classified walls into one of three vegetation levels. The three vegetation levels were based on the cement/vegetation ratio bordering the wall, rather than the diversity or height of the vegetation. I quantified the vegetation in this fashion because of the unpredictable management techniques encountered during my preliminary survey; primarily, workers constantly altered vegetation variety and height. Thus, the cement level referred to a wall where at least 60% of the length was bordered by cement, the mix level to a wall whose length was bordered more than 40% but less than 60% by either cement or vegetation, and the vegetation level to a wall whose length was bordered at least 60% by vegetation. I determined the cardinal orientation of walls using the same methods discussed in my preliminary survey. Using the 2000 Building Information List for the University of Florida and official maps of the VA Hospital Engineering Department, I classified walls as north, south, west, or east. For walls that were not clearly oriented in one of these directions, I allowed a 45 angle of leeway on each side of the cardinal direction. Figure 3-1 in chapter 3 has further details.

PAGE 54

44 I described length by means of three randomly created categories. I classified walls as small if their greatest length measured less than 20 m, as medium if their length was between 20 m and 40 m, and as large if they were 40 or more meters in length. Length was used as a general measure for size, since all walls had roughly the same height (one-story). A list of the criteria of these variables, and their associated levels is summarized in Table 5-1. My sampling regime consisted of visiting 10 walls per night, on two nights per week. Each visit occurred approximately two hours after sunset, which according to King (1959) is a period of high activity for H. turcicus in Gainesville. The number of walls I inspected per night was limited to 10 to keep sampling duration under two hours. This was done to homogenize weather conditions among walls. The four months I selected for the survey period coincided with part of the reproductive season of H. turcicus and further ensured gecko activity (Selcer, 1986). Thus, I examined each of the 160 walls twice for completeness, once during March/April and once during May/June. I sampled each wall by passing a flashlight systematically across the entire surface, going from right to left, top to bottom. I recorded the presence or absence of H. turcicus for each wall. I pooled data from the two visits, and considered a wall to have a gecko if at least 1 gecko was present during at least one of the two visits. The complete dataset is presented in Appendix C. Data Analysis 1 The data were initially analyzed using either a chi-square test or a Fisher's exact test in order to detect dependency among the eight variables of interest. The Fishers exact test is based on the hypergeometric distribution, rather than a chi-square distribution; when testing for independence, the p-value is obtained by adding the

PAGE 55

45 probabilities of outcomes as favorable to the alternative hypothesis (dependence) as the observed outcome (Agresti, 1996). I then used logistic regression in an effort to model the wall variables to the presence/absence of H. turcicus on a wall. I selected logistic regression because it functions on binary data, which was the format of the data I had collected. Only those variables deemed independent from the chi-square tests were used as predictors for the logistic regression in an attempt to avoid multicollinearity in the model. I determined the logistic regression model by using the backward elimination method (Agresti, 1996). In this method, one essentially begins with the full model, containing all possible variables and the interactions between them, and then systematically removes one term at a time, starting with the highest-order term. With the removal of each term, the deviation (G2 test of goodness of fit) of the new model is compared to that of the full model. Removals continue until the difference in deviation between the two models either reaches a specified value determined by the investigator and/or the difference reaches a large enough value that it becomes significant. Once significance is attained, further term removal would result in losing the integrity of the information provided by the dataset. In other words, this method is a balance between simplifying the model, and preserving a sufficient amount of the dataset information. Therefore, the number of retained terms is directly related to the objective of the investigator (Agresti, 1996). In this case, I decided to choose integrity of information over simplification, and thus I elected to use the simplest model that possessed the smallest difference in deviation from the full model.

PAGE 56

46 Once I had chosen an appropriate model, I calculated the odds ratio and a 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for each significant predictor. The odds ratio (), as defined by Agresti (1996) is the ratio of the odds of two events ( = odds1/ odds2), where the odds of each event is defined as the odds of success for that event. Thus for example, if the probability of success for event 1 is 0.75, then odds1= probability of success/probability of failure = 0.75/1-0.75 = 0.75/025 = 3. This signifies that success in event 1 is three times as likely as failure. Finally, if odds1= 3 and odds2 = 4, then the odds ratio = 3/4 = 0.75, which indicates that the odds of success for event 1 is 0.75 the odds of event 2. To put it into perspective, if the odds of finding a gecko on aluminum walls is 3, while the odds of finding a gecko on wood walls is 4, then the odds ratio of aluminum walls to wood walls would be 0.75; this signifies that the odds of finding a gecko on aluminum walls is 0.75 that of finding a gecko on wood walls. The odds ratio for each predictor was calculated by taking the exponent of the predictors estimate (eB, where B is the predictor estimate). I then calculated a 95% confidence interval for each odds ratio by finding the lower and upper bounds, and then taking their exponents; the bounds were found using the equation Bi +/1.96 (ASE), where Bi denotes the estimate of the predictor in question and ASE stands for the estimates asymptotic standard error. Thus, the 95% confidence intervals take the following form: (eBi-1.96 (ASE), eBi+1.96 (ASE)) (Agresti, 1996). In all of my statistical analyses, the significance value was set at the 0.05 level. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS, version 8.2. Results 1 The chi-square and the Fishers exact analyses revealed a number of associations among the variables. Specifically, material was highly dependent on building age, color,

PAGE 57

47 length, and texture. Furthermore, light was dependent on both length and vegetation, while color was dependent on both age and length. Table 5-2 contains additional information, including p-values. To avoid multicollinearity in the eventual model, I omitted the variables age, color, length, and texture from further analysis since they could be accounted for by the variable material. Table 5-3 describes the relationship between material and age, color, length, and texture. I fitted a logistic regression model using the variables cardinal orientation (CO), light (L), material (M), and vegetation (V). The backward elimination method supported the use of the interaction variables M*CO*V + M*CO*L model instead of the full model M*CO*V*L. The M*CO*V + M*CO*L model explained the same amount of variability as the full model (the difference in deviation was zero), but with fewer terms, thus making it easier to interpret. Table 5-4 presents additional details on the backward elimination method. The expanded, symbolic version of the logistic regression model M*CO*V + M*CO*L is the Equation 5-1. (Eq. 5-1) Y =M*CO*V + M*CO*L + M*CO + M*V + M*L + CO*V + CO*L + V*L + M + CO + V + L The M*CO*V + M*CO*L model is modeling the probability that y = 1, i.e. that H. turcicus is present on a wall. Table 5-5 contains the estimate, asymptotic standard error, p-value, odds ratio, and 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for all of the significant predictors. The numerical representation of the model is the Equation 5-2. (Eq. 5-2) Y= 68.3825 68.3825m1 91.7478m2 46.1655m3 + 18.3578v2 + 109.586co1 45.0170co2 67.2839l1 + 131.7139 m1co1 + 44.3238 m1co2 17.0373m2co3 18.3581v2 co2 Where m1 = 1 = Aluminum, and 0 otherwise

PAGE 58

48 m2 = 1 = Brick, and 0 otherwise m3 = 1 = Cement, and 0 otherwise m1 = m2 = m3 = 0 = Wood v1 = 1 = Cement, and 0 otherwise v2 = 1 = Mix, and 0 otherwise v1 = v2 = 0 = Vegetation co1 = 1 = East, and 0 otherwise co2 = 1 = North, and 0 otherwise co3 = 1 = South, and 0 otherwise co1 = co2 = co3 = 0 = West l1 = 1 = No light, and 0 otherwise l1 = 0 = Light However, parameter estimates of this model were unusually high or unusually low, resulting in equally extreme odd ratios. This suggests that despite this model being the best one my input could generate, it was inadequate as the estimates were too unrealistic. Although there is no written rule on estimate magnitude, the magnitudes of my estimates were so large as to render them unpredictable and useless (Ken Portier, personal communication). In general, I have noticed odds ratios take values between zero and five, occasionally larger but never greater than 10. Thus, I recommend using a value of 10 as a cut-off point for odds ratios. Accordingly, anything above 10 should be used with caution, and definitely examined further. With respect to a low boundary for odds ratio values, the mathematical minimum is zero. However, values close to zero that take the form of a low order decimal should also be considered with caution, and investigated further. Data Analysis 2 In an attempt to determine if the difficulty encountered in my first analysis was a result of the model selected, I fitted all of the possible models, even those that would explain less overall variability. Specifically, these were

PAGE 59

49 M*CO*V+ M*CO*L+ M*V*L + CO*V*L M*CO*V+ M*CO*L+ M*V*L M*CO*V+ M*CO*L + CO*V*L M*CO*V+ M*V*L + CO*V*L M*CO*L + M*V*L + CO*V*L M*CO*V+ M*V*L M*CO*L + M*V*L M*CO*L + CO*V*L M*CO*V M*CO*L These models correspond to #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #9, #12, #13, and, #14 in Table 5.4. In addition, I constructed a table of all the wall combinations I encountered during my survey in order to verify that my dataset was appropriate for logistic regression; too few observations per wall combination could cause the model to produce unrealistic estimates. Results 2 All 10 additional fitted models produced similar estimate and odds ratio values, either extremely high or extremely low in magnitude. In other words, these 10 models were inadequate too. Thus, this indicated that model selection was not the source of the problem. A possible cause of the problem could have been the large number of zeros and low among the various wall combinations (Table 5-6). The wall combination table revealed that of 96 possible wall combinations, 32 were never encountered during this study, and an additional 32 combinations occurred just once. Indeed, only 10 combinations of the 96 possible were represented by more than five occurrences, although none over 10. These results strongly point toward the conclusion that this dataset is not sufficiently large enough to accommodate logistic regression (Agresti, 1996; Ken Portier, personal communication).

PAGE 60

50 Data Analysis 3 Following a common statistical practice, I collapsed the wall combination table into a smaller, more concise table with fewer variables and/or levels. This can be accomplished most simply by removing and/or combining. Therefore, I removed cardinal orientation, as it was the least repeatable of all the variables; compass readings are linked to the magnetic poles, which are constantly changing locations (Natural Resources Canada, 2003). Furthermore, I decided to combine the cement and mix vegetation levels to increase cell numbers and eliminate zeros within the table. Thus, vegetation was described by two levels; the cement level referred to walls whose length were bordered more than 40% by cement, whereas the vegetation level referred to walls whose lengths were bordered at least 60% by vegetation of any species and height. Although there existed a number of distinct ways I could have collapsed my wall combinations table, I believe that the arrangement I selected was ecologically, the most parsimonious one. I then fitted a logistic regression model with the backward elimination method. I used the variables material (M), light (L), and the newly described vegetation (V). Estimates and odds ratios for parameters were calculated where pertinent. Results 3 The wall combination table resulting from the removal of cardinal orientation and the merging of two vegetation levels was significantly condensed; instead of 96 cells, this new table totaled only 16 (Table 5-7). This decrease in the number of cells eliminated zeros from the table, although six of the remaining 16 (37.5%; 6/16) values were less than five. The backward elimination method resulted in 16 logistic regression models, ranging from the highly complex three-factor interaction model to the simple no-factor

PAGE 61

51 model (Table 5-8). Theoretically, all 16 models were found to be functional, each having its own balance between simplicity and the amount of variability explained. Despite all models being usable, only the model M*V*L contained significant parameters. However, these parameter estimates and their resulting odds ratios were again found to be unusually high or unusually low. Although the remaining models had typical parameter estimates and odds ratios, none of the parameters were significant; in other words, these models would contain zero parameters, since only significant parameters are included in a model, thus these models were impractical. These results show that logistic regression models continue to crash with these data. Data Analysis 4 In a final attempt to obtain a successful logistic regression model, I combined the light and vegetation variables into one variable with three levels. Specifically, I pooled both vegetation levels under the high light level, and left the two vegetation levels under the low light level unchanged. Thus, I described the new light-vegetation variable (LVEG) as HCV (high/cement-vegetation) if a wall was characterized by high light and any kind of vegetation, as LC (low/cement) if a wall was classified as low light and cement, and as LV (low/vegetation) if a wall was classified as low light and vegetation. From an ecological perspective, this merging assumes that in the presence of a light source, vegetation is irrelevant to choice of walls by a gecko. Conversely, in the absence of light, vegetation becomes an important consideration in choice of walls by a gecko. For example, the overall significance could be that light sources always attract insect prey and thus render vegetation level irrelevant; whereas in the absence of light, vegetation might dictate the type and/or amount of insect prey and thus become a key component in microhabitat choice.

PAGE 62

52 I then fitted a logistic regression model using the variables material (M) and the newly formed light-vegetation (LVEG). I used the backward elimination method for model fitting. Results 4 Further variable condensation produced a wall combination table with no zeros or ones, with only two values smaller than five (Table 5-9). The backward elimination method generated five functional logistic regression models (Table 5-10). However, none of the models contained significant parameters. Consequently, these models were unusable. Data Analysis 5 A final analysis was performed on these data. I computed chi-square tests for material and gecko presence, light-vegetation and gecko presence, material and gecko presence while controlling for the light-vegetation variable, and light-vegetation and gecko presence while controlling for the material variable. I used the Fishers Exact test instead of the chi-square test for small samples. Lastly, I calculated relevant percentages for these data. Significance was set at the 5% level. Results 5 Using the Fishers exact test, light-vegetation was found to be independent of gecko presence at the 5% significance level when controlling for material (Table 5-11). Significance values for light-vegetation and gecko presence were 0.4098 for aluminum, 1.0000 for brick, 0.2416 for cement, and 0.6431 for wood. The cell chi-square values revealed that fewer cement walls of high light and any vegetation type had geckos than expected. Although this result is not significant, it points to a potential trend.

PAGE 63

53 When light-vegetation was controlled, the Fishers exact test concluded that material and gecko presence were independent at the 5% significance level (Table 5-12). Specifically, significance values were 0.8594 for high light/cement-vegetation, 0.6111 for low light/cement, and 0.2642 for low light/vegetation. A possible trend was also uncovered via the cell chi-square values; there was a greater number of aluminum, low light/vegetation walls that contained geckos than would be expected by chance. Two-way chi-square tests concluded that both light-vegetation (Table 5-13) and material (5-14) were independent of gecko presence at the 5% significance level. The significance value for light vegetation was 0.1402, whereas that of material was 0.2281. General, yet non-significant, trends included fewer high light/cement-vegetation walls inhabited by geckos, and a greater number of gecko-populated aluminum walls than predicted by randomness. These analyses revealed that 34% (13/38) of high light/cement-vegetation walls, 48% (40/83) of low light/vegetation walls and 56% (22/39) of low light/cement walls contained geckos (Table 5-15). With respect to aluminum walls, 42% (5/12) of high light/cement-vegetation walls, 63% (17/27) of low light/vegetation walls and 71% (5/7) of low light/cement walls recorded gecko presence. Following a similar pattern of gecko occurrence, cement and wood walls achieved the low values of 22% (2/9) and 25% (1/4) respectively when described as high light/cement-vegetation, followed by 44% (12/27) and 33% (5/15) when characterized as low light/vegetation, and peaked at 57% (13/23) and 67% (2/3) when categorized as low light/cement. When considering brick walls, in turn, 33% (2/6) of high light/cement-vegetation walls, 39% (5/13) of low light/cement walls and 43% (6/14) of low light/vegetation walls recorded geckos.

PAGE 64

54 With respect to material, 59% (27/46) of aluminum walls, 46% (27/59) of cement walls, 39% (13/33) of brick walls, and 36% (8/22) of wood walls had geckos (Table5-16). When controlling for high light/cement-vegetation, geckos occurred on 42% (5/12) of aluminum walls, 39% (5/13) of brick walls, 25% (1/4) of wood walls, and 22% (2/9) of cement walls. Walls described as low light/cement contained geckos 71% (5/7) of the time if they were made of aluminum, 67% (2/3) of the time if they were constructed of wood, 57% (13/23) of the time if they were cement, and 33% (2/6) of the time if they were build out of brick. Regarding low light/vegetation walls, 63% (17/27) of aluminum walls, 44% (12/27) of cement walls, 43% (6/14) of brick walls, and 33% (5/15) of wood walls were populated by geckos. Discussion Sample size proved to be a defining component in the outcome of my analyses. The realization that the number of sampled walls was too small to accommodate a logistic regression was unexpected, as my sample size (160 walls) greatly exceeded the general rule of 10 observations per variable (Agresti, 1996). Indeed, my sample size of 160 was twice that required for my original eight variables, and four times that needed for the four variables eventually used for the logistic regression model. Further investigation, however, revealed that overall sample size was not responsible for the model inadequacy. Instead, it was the mostly small, sometimes zero, sample size of individual wall combinations that contributed to the collapse of the model. Thus, even if the sample size for this study was substantially larger, a logistic regression model would continue to fail if there were wall combinations with a small number of samples. This could be a common dilemma in urban ecology studies, where investigators must work within rigid landscapes that offer few opportunities for manipulation. Thus,

PAGE 65

55 the possibility that study sites might not contain specific combinations of variables is often true, and highly unpredictable due to the human dimension involved. These statistical considerations should be an integral step in the planning of any urban ecology study. Once the data were sufficiently collapsed to compensate for the small sample size of certain wall combinations, both the logistic regression model and chi-square tests showed no significance at the 5% level. This lack of significance suggests a variety of scenarios. First, the microhabitat preference of H. turcicus with respect to material, light, and vegetation might be subtle and thus require a larger sample size to be exposed. Second, perhaps the microhabitat variables that were selected for this study are irrelevant to the microhabitat choice of H. turcicus, and the statistical conclusions merely report this. Theoretically, habitat selection in reptiles is believed to be most effective when controlled by reliable environmental cues that are independent of daily and/or seasonal fluctuations, and are evident in all situations (Heatwole, 1982). Although this was the case for material, light and vegetation were less consistent due to management regimes, and thus might not be used as a stimulus because they fail to accurately represent a given habitat. Other factors such as, but not limited to, microclimate quality, behavioral aspects and structural attributes may also play an important role in microhabitat selection and need to be considered in future studies (Heatwole, 1982). Lastly, it is possible that these results reflect the robust character of this proficient colonizing gecko species. Perhaps the extensive non-native range of H. turcicus stems

PAGE 66

56 from this geckos habitat flexibility, which allows it to thrive on any type of building/wall environment. Although no significant results were obtained in this study, some general trends were uncovered, and may pave the way for future research. In view of material, more aluminum walls than expected contained geckos, particularly those possessing low light and vegetation. Aluminum walls were also described as having a smooth texture, light color, small length and being modern in age. With respect to light-vegetation, fewer high light/cement-vegetation walls than expected possessed geckos, especially those constructed of cement. Further work is required to officially establish these trends, and to tease out the mechanisms behind them. As with all scientific studies, these data and its conclusions have some limitations. For instance, it is impossible to determine if the absence of H. turcicus on a wall is due to preference or if it is an artifact of this species dispersal ability and/or of extraneous circumstances. Also, shortcomings in sampling technique, such as not observing a wall throughout the entire night and frightening geckos as I approached a wall, could have resulted in an underestimation of walls containing geckos. Additional work, both in the field and in the lab, is needed to shed light on the microhabitat preferences of H. turcicus in urban environments. Key to future studies is the establishment of strict protocols that all investigators can follow anywhere in the world. This, in turn, would allow for meaningful comparisons between different sites, and when all studies are pooled, for meta-analyses on general patterns. Moreover, future work should explore and develop sampling and statistical methods that will enhance ecological studies in urban environments.

PAGE 67

57 Table 5-1. Description of wall characterization variables for microhabitat study Variables Levels Criteria Early *Built between 1900 to 1969 Modern *Built between 1970 to 1989 Age Contemporary *Built between 1990 to 2002 North **Location of wall on official maps South **Location of wall on official maps West **Location of wall on official maps Cardinal Orientation East **Location of wall on official maps Light *** The inability to perceive a 3x 5 white index card at a perpendicular distance of 10ft (3.048m) from the wall; during the day Color Dark ***The ability to perceive a 3x 5 white index card at a perpendicular distance of 10ft (3.048m) from the wall; during the day Small Measurement < 20m Medium 20m < measurement < 40m Length Large Measurement > 40m High Presence of at least one light source on the wall Light Low No light source present on the wall Aluminum Physical observation; > 50% of wall surface Brick Physical observation; > 50% of wall surface Cement Physical observation; > 50% of wall surface Material Wood Physical observation; > 50% of wall surface Smooth Ability to draw a straight line ~10cm in length on white printer paper propped on the wall Texture Rough Inability to draw a straight line ~10cm in length on white printer paper propped on the wall Cement > 60% of wall length bordered by cement Mix > 40% to <60% of wall length bordered by cement or vegetation Vegetation Vegetation > 60% of wall length bordered by any type or height of vegetation *Sources used: 2000 Building Information List for the University of Florida prepared by the UF Physical Plant Division,and unofficial list prepared by the VA Hospital Engineering Department **Sources used: 2000 Building Information List for the University of Florida prepared by the UF Physical Plant Division,and official VA Hospital Engineering maps *** Index cards were provided by AMPAQ, Dallas, TX, 75252

PAGE 68

Table 5-2. Chi-square and Fisher Exact p-values for wall characterization variables 58 Variables Age Cardinal Orientation Color Length Light Material Texture Vegetation Age -----0.6695 0.0297 *0.0845 0.7228 <0.0001 0.9564 0.1976 Cardinal Orientation ------------0.6043 *0.8805 0.1941 0.8859 0.7580 0.3484 Color -----------------*0.0481 *0.0922 <0.0001 *<0.0001 0.3426 Length ------------------------0.0005 *0.0041 0.0573 *0.2682 Light ------------------------------0.0622 *0.0846 0.0464 Material -----------------------------------<0.0001 0.0691 Texture ------------------------------------------0.7696 Vegetation ------------------------------------------------* Indicates the use of the Fishers Exact test Numbers in bold indicate significance

PAGE 69

59 Table 5-3. The dependency of age, color, length, and texture on material Material Age Color Length Texture Aluminum Modern Light Small Smooth Brick Early Dark Small/Modern Smooth Cement Early Light Small Rough Wood Modern/ Contemporary Dark Small Rough

PAGE 70

Table 5-4. Logistic regression models resulting from the backward elimination method using the variables: material; cardinal orientation, vegetation, light 60 Model Predictors Deviance DF Models Compared Difference P-Value 1 M*CO*V*L 141.5044 95 2 M*CO*V+ M*CO*L+ M*V*L+ CO*V*L 141.5044 95 2-1 0 >0.999 3 M*CO*V+M*CO*L+ M*V*L 141.5044 98 3-1 0 >0.999 4 M*CO*V+M*CO*L+ CO*V*L 141.5044 96 4-1 0 >0.999 5 M*CO*V+M*V*L+ CO*V*L 152.4738 100 5-1 10.9694 ~ 0.100 6 M*CO*L+M*V*L+ CO*V*L 152.9663 103 6-1 11.4619 > 0.250 7 M*CO*V+M*CO*L 141.5044 101 7-1 >0.999 8 M*CO*V+M*V*L 152.4738 104 8-1 10.9694 >0.100 9 M*CO*L+M*V*L 155.9364 108 9-1 14.4320 >0.100 10 M*CO*V+CO*V*L 156.7944 103 10-1 15.2900 <0.050 11 M*V*L+CO*V*L 171.1805 110 11-1 29.6761 <0.010 12 M*CO*L+CO*V*L 162.5828 109 12-1 21.0784 ~0.100 0

PAGE 71

Table 5-4. Continued. 61 Model Predictors Deviance DF Models Compared Difference P-Value 13 M*CO*V 158.7768 108 13-1 17.2724 ~0.100 14 M*CO*L 164.7604 114 14-1 23.2560 >0.100 15 M*V*L 176.4308 115 15-1 34.9264 <0.050 16 CO*V*L 178.6783 116 16-1 37.1739 <0.050 17 M*CO+M*V+M*L+ CO*V+CO*L+V*L 185.0743 121 17-1 43.5699 <0.050 Numbers in bold indicates significance Model 7, underlined and in bold, is the chosen model

PAGE 72

Table 5-5. Summary statistics of the significant predictor variables of the M*CO*V+M*CO*L model Predictor Estimate ASE P-value Odds Ratio 95%C.I.of Odds Ratio Aluminum 68.3825 1.4434 < 0.0001 2.0038 x 10-30 (1.18 x 10-31, 3.39 x 10-30 ) Brick 91.7478 1.6833 < 0.0001 1.4270 x 10-40 (5.27 x 10-42, 3.87 x 10-39 ) Cement 46.1655 1.3663 < 0.0001 8.9244 x 10-21 (6.13 x 10-22, 1.30 x 10-19 ) Wood 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------Mix 18.3578 1.5916 < 0.0001 9.3906 x 107 (4.15 x 106, 2.13 x 109 ) Vegetation 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------East 109.5860 1.0954 < 0.0001 3.9138 x 1047 (4.57 x 1046, 3.35 x 1048 ) North 45.0170 1.5275 < 0.0001 2.8143 x 10-20 (1.41 x 10-21, 5.62 x 10-19 ) West 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------No Light 67.2839 1.6583 < 0.0001 6.0114 x 10-30 (2.33 x 10-31, 1.55 x 10-28 ) Light 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------Aluminum / East 131.7139 1.5652 < 0.0001 1.5945 x 1057 (7.42 x 1055, 3.43 x 1058 ) Aluminum / North 44.3238 2.4152 < 0.0001 1.7766 x 1019 (1.56 x 1017, 2.02 x 1021 ) Aluminum / West 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------Brick / South 17.0373 2.0897 < 0.0001 3.9884 x 10-8 (6.64 x 10-10, 2.40 x 10-6 ) Brick / West 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------North / Mix Veg 18.3581 2.0083 < 0.0001 1.0646 x 10-8 (2.08 x 10-10, 5.45 x 10-7 ) North / Veg 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------62

PAGE 73

Table 5-6. Possible wall combinations involving the variables: material, cardinal orientation, vegetation, and light 63 Light Level = High Light Level = Low Vegetation Level Vegetation Level Cardinal Orientation Material Cement Mix Vegetation Cement Mix Vegetation Aluminum 0 0 3 1 3 5 Brick 2 2 2 0 0 0 Cement 1 1 1 2 5 6 North Wood 1 1 1 0 0 4 Aluminum 1 1 3 1 0 7 Brick 2 1 1 1 0 5 Cement 0 1 1 3 5 7 South Wood 0 0 0 1 1 7 Aluminum 0 0 2 0 1 6 Brick 0 0 1 2 2 3 Cement 1 0 1 1 2 8 West Wood 0 0 0 0 0 4 Aluminum 0 1 1 1 1 8 Brick 2 0 0 1 1 3 Cement 1 0 1 3 2 6 East Wood 1 0 0 1 0 0

PAGE 74

64 Table 5-7. Number of observations per wall combination involving the variables: material, vegetation (2 levels), and light Light Level = High Light Level = Low Vegetation Level Vegetation Level Material Cement Vegetation Cement Vegetation Aluminum 3 9 8 26 Brick 9 4 7 13 Cement 5 4 23 27 Wood 3 1 3 15

PAGE 75

Table 5-8. Logistic regression models resulting from the backward elimination method using the variables: material, vegetation (2 levels), and light 65 Model Predictors Deviance DF Models Compared Difference P-Value 1 M*V*L 207.9758 144 2 M*L+M*V+V*L 208.5680 147 2-1 0.5922 > 0.250 3 M*L+M*V 208.8361 148 3-1 0.8603 > 0.250 4 M*L+V*L 211.0082 150 4 -1 3.0324 > 0.250 5 M*V+V*L 210.8852 150 5-1 2.9094 > 0.250 6 M*L 211.6953 151 6-1 3.7195 >0.250 7 M*V 211.1258 151 7-1 3.15 >0.250 8 V*L 212.4750 153 8-1 4.4992 >0.250 9 M+V+L 212.8583 154 9-1 4.8825 > 0.250 10 M+L 213.4205 155 10-1 5.4447 > 0.250 11 M+V 216.6519 155 11-1 8.6761 > 0.250 12 V+L 217.7235 157 12-1 9.7477 >0.250

PAGE 76

Table 5-8. Continued. 66 Model Predictors Deviance DF Models Compared Difference P-Value 13 M 216.8310 156 13-1 8.8552 >0.250 14 V 221.1641 158 14-1 13.1883 >0.250 15 L 217.9192 158 15-1 9.9434 >0.250 16 NONE 221.1817 159 16-1 13.2059 > 0.250 Number in bold indicates model that contain significant parameters

PAGE 77

67 Table 5-9. Number of observations per wall combination involving the variables: material, and light-vegetation (3 levels) Light-Vegetation Levels Material High Light / Cement-Vegetation Low Light/Cement Low Light/Vegetation Aluminum 12 8 26 Brick 13 7 13 Cement 9 23 27 Wood 4 3 15 Table 5-10. Logistic regression models resulting from the backward elimination method using the variables: material, and light-vegetation (3 levels) Model Predictors Deviance DF Models Compared Difference P-Value 1 M*LVEG 209.8897 148 2 M+LVEG 212.3961 154 2-1 2.5064 > 0.250 3 M 216.8310 156 3-1 6.9413 > 0.250 4 LVEG 217.2007 157 4 -1 7.311 > 0.250 5 NONE 221.1817 159 5-1 11.292 > 0.250 Note that there is no model with significant parameters

PAGE 78

Table 5-11. Chi-square test and Fishers Exact test for light-vegetation and gecko presence, controlling for material 68 Material Aluminum Brick Cement Wood Gecko Presence Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Frequency 5 7 5 8 2 7 1 3 Expected Frequency 7.0435 4.9565 5.1212 7.8788 4.1186 4.8814 1.4545 2.5455 High Light / Cement Vegetation Cell Chi-Square 0.5929 0.8425 0.0029 0.0019 1.0898 0.9196 0.1420 0.0812 Frequency 5 2 2 4 13 10 2 1 Expected Frequency 4.1087 2.8913 2.3636 3.6364 10.525 12.475 1.0909 1.9091 Low Light / Cement Cell Chi-Square 0.1934 0.2748 0.0559 0.0364 0.5818 0.4909 0.7576 0.4329 Frequency 17 10 6 8 12 15 5 10 Expected Frequency 15.8480 11.1520 5.5152 8.4848 12.3560 14.644 5.4545 9.5455 Light Vegetation Low Light / Vegetation Cell Chi-Square 0.0838 0.1190 0.0426 0.0277 0.0103 0.0087 0.0379 0.0216 Total Chi-Square 2.1063 0.1674 3.1010 1.4732 P-Value for Chi-Square/ Fishers Exact* 0.3488 / 0.4098* 0.9197 / 1.0000* 0.2121 / 0.2416* 0.4787 / 0.6431*

PAGE 79

Table 5-12. Chi-square test and Fishers Exact test for material and gecko presence, controlling for light-vegetation Light-Vegetation High Light / Cement Vegetation Low Light / Cement Low Light / Vegetation Gecko Presence Yes No Yes No Yes No Frequency 5 7 5 2 17 10 Expected Frequency 4.1053 7.8947 3.9487 3.0513 13.012 13.9880 Aluminum Cell Chi-Square 0.195 0.1014 0.2799 0.3622 1.2222 1.1370 Frequency 5 8 2 4 6 8 Expected Frequency 4.4474 8.5526 3.3846 2.6154 6.7470 7.2530 Brick Cell Chi-Square 0.0687 0.0357 0.5664 0.7330 0.0827 0.0769 Frequency 2 7 13 10 12 15 Expected Frequency 3.0789 5.9211 12.9740 10.0260 13.0120 13.9880 Cement Cell Chi-Square 0.3781 0.1966 5.07x 10-5 0.0001 0.0787 0.0732 Frequency 1 3 2 1 5 10 Expected Frequency 1.3684 2.6316 1.6923 1.3077 7.2289 7.7711 Material Wood Cell Chi-Square 0.0992 0.0516 0.0559 0.0724 0.6872 0.6393 Total Chi-Square 1.1263 2.0700 3.9973 P-Value for Chi-Square/ Fishers Exact* 0.7707 / 0.8594* 0.5580 / 0.6111* 0.2618 / 0.2642* 69

PAGE 80

70 Table 5-13. Chi-square test for light-vegetation and gecko presence Gecko Presence Yes No Frequency 13 25 Expected Frequency 17.8130 20.1880 High Light / Cement Vegetation Cell Chi-Square 1.3002 1.1473 Frequency 22 17 Expected Frequency 18.2810 20.7190 Low Light / Cement Cell Chi-Square 0.7565 0.6675 Frequency 40 43 Expected Frequency 38.9060 44.0940 Light Vegetation Low Light / Vegetation Cell Chi-Square 0.0307 0.0271 Total Chi-Square 3.9293 P-Value for Chi-Square 0.1402

PAGE 81

71 Table 5-14. Chi-square test for material and gecko presence Gecko Presence Yes No Frequency 27 19 Expected Frequency 21.5630 24.4380 Aluminum Cell Chi-Square 1.3712 1.2099 Frequency 13 20 Expected Frequency 15.4690 17.5310 Brick Cell Chi-Square 0.3940 0.3476 Frequency 27 32 Expected Frequency 27.6560 31.3440 Cement Cell Chi-Square 0.0156 0.0137 Frequency 8 14 Expected Frequency 10.3130 11.6880 Material Wood Cell Chi-Square 0.5186 0.4576 Total Chi-Square 4.3282 P-Value for Chi-Square 0.2281

PAGE 82

72 Table 5-15. Three-way contingency table of light-vegetation, controlling for material, with associated percentages and marginal associations Gecko Presence Material Light-Vegetation Yes No Percent Gecko Present High Light / Cement -Vegetation 5 7 42% Low Light / Cement 5 2 71% Aluminum Low Light / Vegetation 17 10 63% High Light / Cement -Vegetation 5 8 39% Low Light / Cement 2 4 33% Brick Low Light / Vegetation 6 8 43% High Light / Cement -Vegetation 2 7 22% Low Light / Cement 13 10 57% Cement Low Light / Vegetation 12 15 44% High Light / Cement -Vegetation 1 3 25% Low Light / Cement 2 1 67% Wood Low Light / Vegetation 5 10 33% High Light / Cement -Vegetation 13 25 34% Low Light / Cement 22 17 56% All Materials Low Light / Vegetation 40 43 48%

PAGE 83

73 Table 5-16. Three-way contingency table of material, controlling for light-vegetation, with associated percentages and marginal associations Gecko Presence Light-Vegetation Material Yes No Percent Gecko Present Aluminum 5 7 42% Brick 5 8 39% Cement 2 7 22% High Light / Cement Vegetation Wood 1 3 25% Aluminum 5 2 71% Brick 2 4 33% Cement 13 10 57% Low Light /Cement Wood 2 1 67% Aluminum 17 10 63% Brick 6 8 43% Cement 12 15 44% Low Light / Vegetation Wood 5 10 33% Aluminum 27 19 59% Brick 13 20 39% Cement 27 32 46% All Light /Vegetation Levels Wood 8 14 36%

PAGE 84

CHAPTER 6 MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT Wildlife management and conservation in urban areas have a number of key goals. These include traditional objectives such as the promotion and/or maintenance of species composition, and the control of species abundance by either directly increasing or decreasing numbers (Nilon and Pais, 1997). More importantly, urban wildlife management and conservation programs also provide the public with opportunities to interact with wildlife, and disseminate information to the general public and appropriate professionals (Anderson, 2002). The latter two goals are essential to formulate ecologically advantageous policy, as the urban public's voting strength in legislatures is on the rise (Bolen and Robinson, 2003). The management of urban wildlife follows a holistic style, which differs dramatically from the conventional agriculture and hunting orientated approach (Bolen and Robinson, 2003). This difference is directly related to the non-consumptive, recreational attitude that many urban residents maintain toward wildlife. A study undertaken in metropolitan areas of New York State demonstrated this idea, as urbanites were found to prefer butterflies and songbirds to species sought for hunting such as waterfowl and pheasants (Brown et al., 1979). With the exception of nuisance animals and/or pests (cockroaches, rats, pigeons, sometimes raccoons, etc.) the urban public generally supports the notion of having wildlife in their surrounding environment (Bolen and Robinson, 2003). 75

PAGE 85

76 Despite the fact that the desire for wildlife is present in cities, it is a challenge to implement management and/or conservation plans in the myriad of interests and human beliefs usually present in urban areas (Lyons, 1997). Although public opinion is an integral part of most management and conservation initiatives, it is especially the case in urban environments (Anderson, 2002). 7 The intricacies that govern public perception are many, subtle, and highly susceptible to change. It has been shown that public perception varies enormously within a city, particularly between communities of different income, education, and race (Nilon and Pais, 1997). Knox (1991) alluded to this concept by illustrating that land use was directly related to social, economic, and demographic factors. This variation in public perception, in turn, tends to lead to equally variable public preferences (Schauman et al., 1986). Whitney and Adams (1980) showed this concept when they found that the types of plants in gardens were linked to fashion, taste, species availability, property value, and age of the house in question. Developing urban wildlife management and conservation strategies involves a multitude of participants and considerations, making each case unique (Lyons, 1997). The heterogeneity of public opinion, and the limitations imposed by both the intensity of urbanization and the land-use history of a given area require a great deal of creativity and cross-disciplinary thinking from an urban wildlife manger (Bolen and Robinson, 2003; Loeb, 1998; Lyons, 1997). Additional complexity results from the fact that few urban spaces are dedicated solely to wildlife, which requires most management plans to consider and, sometimes favor, other land uses (Bolen and Robinson, 2003). This multiple-use management approach requires urban wildlife managers to interact with a

PAGE 86

77 wide range of professionals (Lyons, 1997). A particularly important professional group is the urban landscape planners, as they execute the majority of urban wildlife initiatives (Nilon and Pais, 1997). Lastly, public approval and participation is a necessity: the public is directly affected by any management scheme, as the latter invariably becomes part of their everyday life. Thus, the public is a preeminent force behind any change (Lyons, 1997). In general, urban wildlife managers assume the role of solution facilitators rather than active problem solvers, as they provide insight, tools, and ideas to a number of different interest groups in an attempt to coalesce their sensibilities into common, feasible goals (Lyons, 1997). For example, if the creation of a neighborhood park is being considered, an urban wildlife manager might suggest programs that unite features attractive to wildlife with other objectives such as safety, specific recreational purposes, following city ordinance, remaining within a certain budget, and others. An urban wildlife manager will not, however, physically carry out the selected program. Instead, the logistics are left to specific groups such as the police force for safety, landscape planners for recreational structures, and city officials for monitoring compliance with city regulations. An equally important function of urban wildlife managers is as educators to the public via the media, pamphlets, and/or seminars (Anderson, 2002 In the case of H. turcicus in Gainesville, management strategies would be specific to the locality due to the geckos nonnative status. Although H. turcicus is an introduced species, it is has managed to occupy a vacant niche in Gainesville, and thus is not believed to possess a threat to any native species. Consequently, the eradication of this gecko, which would probably be costly due to its prolific colonization abilities and its

PAGE 87

78 potentially generalist microhabitat habits, would not be a necessity. In fact, the presence of H. turcicus could be beneficial; being easily observable on walls, this gecko could be wildlife that many in the public could interact with on a daily basis, hence familiarizing a number of citizens (and voters) with reptiles, a group often seen in a negative light. An integral part of the appreciation of H. turcicus would be the use of a number of formats to educate both adults and children on the interesting facts of not just this species, but of geckos and reptiles in general. Benefits of this species, such as their consumption of insects, would especially have to be emphasized since they have been labeled as pests by some homeowners in Gainesville, as a result of the mess they sometimes leave when they nest (shredded paper, etc.) (Franz, personal communication). Ultimately, I believe that a primary goal of urban ecologists, regardless of whether they hold a management position, should be to convey the intrinsic value of nature to all sectors of the urban population.

PAGE 88

APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY SURVEY DATA Table A-1. Temperature readings of walls with respect to material and cardinal orientation Cardinal Orientation Material North South West East Cement 25.00 25.43 24.75 24.98 Cement 25.28 24.68 24.48 24.75 Cement 24.48 25.03 24.78 24.58 Cement 25.53 26.30 25.88 25.38 Cement 25.33 24.83 25.03 25.10 Cement 26.73 25.93 27.25 27.18 Cement 26.40 26.53 27.15 27.03 Cement 25.45 25.38 25.33 24.78 Cement 25.58 25.53 25.30 26.10 Cement 25.68 24.98 25.55 25.35 Cement 28.60 26.98 29.10 29.08 Cement 26.50 26.58 29.35 27.98 Cement 29.55 27.50 28.88 28.40 Aluminum 23.10 23.08 Not Recorded 23.58 Aluminum 23.75 23.98 24.15 23.93 Aluminum 24.18 24.03 23.93 23.80 Aluminum 24.63 24.05 23.98 24.13 Aluminum 23.40 22.48 23.05 23.33 Aluminum 22.90 22.48 22.90 22.60 Aluminum 22.68 23.08 22.53 22.65 Aluminum Not Recorded 23.28 22.90 22.55 Aluminum 21.75 22.23 23.38 21.85 Aluminum 23.88 24.45 24.75 24.65 Aluminum 25.03 23.15 24.00 24.08 Aluminum 24.10 23.85 24.33 24.25 Aluminum 22.85 23.73 23.28 23.40 Aluminum 23.50 24.75 24.10 24.13 Aluminum 24.33 24.80 24.95 24.93 Aluminum 26.23 23.70 26.10 26.73 Aluminum 24.98 23.88 23.83 23.98 Aluminum 25.88 24.08 24.38 24.25 Aluminum 22.63 23.10 22.88 22.78 Aluminum 25.33 24.87 25.07 25.17 79

PAGE 89

80 Table A-1. Continued. Cardinal Orientation Material North South West East Brick 25.13 24.60 24.75 25.00 Brick 25.03 26.48 27.08 26.53 Brick 26.85 25.53 26.55 26.63 Brick 31.63 29.05 29.60 29.45 Wood 24.15 24.85 24.55 24.33 Wood 25.20 25.45 Not Recorded Not Recorded Wood 25.38 24.13 23.83 24.48 Wood 25.03 25.13 25.30 26.15 Wood 23.05 22.68 23.45 23.80 Wood 26.60 24.75 25.83 25.45 Wood 25.58 25.53 24.80 24.75 Wood 25.75 25.68 25.53 25.50 Wood 24.15 23.33 23.95 24.10 Wood 29.20 27.35 28.10 27.95

PAGE 90

APPENDIX B NATURAL HISTORY DATA Table B-1. Temperature readings (C) for individual adult H. turcicus recorded during the fall/winter 2001 survey 12.7 19.7 21.1 21.9 22.4 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.8 26.7 14.0 19.7 21.1 21.9 22.5 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.8 26.7 14.9 19.8 21.1 21.9 22.5 23.2 23.8 24.6 25.8 26.8 15.6 19.9 21.2 21.9 22.6 23.2 23.8 24.7 25.9 26.8 15.7 19.9 21.2 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.8 24.7 25.9 26.9 16.1 19.9 21.2 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.8 24.7 25.9 26.9 16.3 19.9 21.3 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.9 24.8 25.9 26.9 16.3 19.9 21.3 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.9 24.8 26.1 26.9 16.6 20.2 21.3 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.9 24.8 26.1 26.9 17.3 20.2 21.4 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.9 24.8 26.1 27.1 17.4 20.2 21.4 21.9 22.7 23.3 23.9 24.9 26.2 27.3 17.6 20.2 21.4 21.9 22.7 23.3 24.0 24.9 26.2 27.4 18.2 20.3 21.4 21.9 22.7 23.3 24.1 24.9 26.2 27.4 18.3 20.3 21.4 22.0 22.7 23.3 24.1 24.9 26.2 27.4 18.3 20.4 21.4 22.0 22.7 23.4 24.1 24.9 26.2 27.6 18.3 20.5 21.4 22.1 22.7 23.4 24.1 25.0 26.3 27.6 18.4 20.5 21.4 22.1 22.7 23.4 24.1 25.1 26.3 27.8 18.7 20.5 21.4 22.1 22.8 23.4 24.1 25.1 26.3 27.9 18.7 20.6 21.4 22.1 22.8 23.4 24.1 25.2 26.4 28.1 18.7 20.7 21.5 22.1 22.8 23.4 24.1 25.2 26.4 28.2 18.8 20.7 21.5 22.1 22.8 23.4 24.1 25.2 26.4 28.3 18.8 20.7 21.5 22.2 22.9 23.5 24.1 25.2 26.4 28.3 18.8 20.8 21.5 22.2 22.9 23.5 24.3 25.3 26.4 28.4 18.9 20.8 21.5 22.2 22.9 23.5 24.3 25.3 26.5 28.6 18.9 20.8 21.6 22.2 22.9 23.5 24.4 25.3 26.5 28.7 19.0 20.8 21.7 22.2 22.9 23.5 24.4 25.3 26.5 28.7 19.1 20.9 21.7 22.2 22.9 23.6 24.4 25.4 26.5 30.2 19.2 20.9 21.7 22.2 22.9 23.6 24.4 25.5 26.6 30.5 19.2 20.9 21.7 22.3 23.0 23.6 24.4 25.5 26.6 30.6 19.2 20.9 21.7 22.3 23.0 23.6 24.5 25.5 26.6 30.9 19.3 21.0 21.8 22.3 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.6 26.7 31.2 19.5 21.0 21.8 22.3 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.7 26.7 31.2 19.6 21.0 21.8 22.3 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.7 26.7 31.8 19.6 21.1 21.8 22.4 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.7 26.7 34.3 19.6 21.1 21.8 22.4 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.8 26.7 36.3 19.6 21.1 81

PAGE 91

82 Table B-2. Temperature readings (C) for individual sub-adult H. turcicus recorded during the fall/winter 2001 survey. 21.1 13.9 18.8 20.1 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.7 24.2 25.1 26.4 21.1 16.3 18.9 20.2 21.9 22.7 23.3 23.7 24.3 25.1 26.5 21.2 16.6 18.9 20.3 22.1 22.7 23.3 23.7 24.3 25.2 26.6 21.2 16.8 19.2 20.3 22.1 22.7 23.3 23.7 24.4 25.2 26.7 21.3 17.1 19.3 20.3 22.1 22.7 23.3 23.7 24.4 25.2 26.7 21.3 17.4 19.5 20.4 22.1 22.7 23.3 23.7 24.4 25.2 26.8 21.3 17.5 19.5 20.4 22.2 22.7 23.3 23.8 24.4 25.2 27.1 21.4 17.5 19.5 20.5 22.2 22.8 23.4 23.8 24.6 25.2 27.2 21.6 17.7 19.6 20.6 22.2 22.8 23.4 23.8 24.6 25.3 27.3 21.6 17.7 19.7 20.6 22.3 22.8 23.4 23.9 24.6 25.3 27.3 21.6 17.8 19.7 20.6 22.3 22.8 23.4 23.9 24.6 25.3 27.6 21.7 18.0 19.7 20.7 22.4 22.9 23.4 23.9 24.6 25.6 27.8 21.7 18.3 19.7 20.7 22.4 22.9 23.4 24.0 24.7 25.6 27.8 21.7 18.4 19.7 20.7 22.4 22.9 23.5 24.0 24.8 25.7 28.3 21.7 18.4 19.8 20.8 22.6 23.0 23.5 24.1 24.8 25.7 28.4 21.7 18.4 19.8 20.8 22.6 23.1 23.5 24.1 24.9 25.9 28.9 21.7 18.7 19.8 20.8 22.6 23.1 23.5 24.1 24.9 26.1 29.3 21.8 18.7 19.8 20.9 22.6 23.1 23.6 24.2 24.9 26.2 30.3 21.8 18.7 19.9 20.9 22.6 23.1 23.6 24.2 25.0 26.2 30.5 21.8 18.7 20.0 21.0 22.6 23.2 23.6 24.2 25.0 26.4 30.8 21.8 18.7 20.1 21.1

PAGE 92

83 Table B-3. Temperature readings (C) for individual adult H. turcicus recorded during the spring 2002 survey 16.4 22.6 24.1 25.1 26.2 27.3 16.6 22.7 24.1 25.1 26.2 27.3 16.8 22.7 24.2 25.2 26.3 27.4 17.0 22.7 24.2 25.2 26.3 27.4 17.2 22.8 24.2 25.2 26.3 27.6 17.7 22.8 24.2 25.2 26.4 27.6 17.7 22.8 24.2 25.2 26.4 27.6 18.6 22.8 24.3 25.2 26.5 27.7 18.6 22.9 24.3 25.2 26.6 27.9 18.7 22.9 24.3 25.3 26.6 27.9 18.9 22.9 24.3 25.3 26.6 28.1 19.0 23.0 24.3 25.5 26.6 28.1 19.2 23.0 24.3 25.5 26.7 28.3 19.3 23.0 24.3 25.5 26.7 28.3 19.3 23.2 24.5 25.5 26.7 28.4 19.4 23.2 24.5 25.6 26.7 28.6 19.4 23.3 24.6 25.6 26.7 28.7 19.9 23.3 24.6 25.6 26.7 28.8 19.9 23.3 24.6 25.6 26.7 28.8 20.7 23.4 24.7 25.6 26.7 28.8 20.7 23.4 24.7 25.6 26.8 28.9 20.8 23.4 24.7 25.7 26.8 29.2 20.9 23.4 24.7 25.7 26.8 29.4 21.2 23.5 24.7 25.7 26.8 29.4 21.2 23.5 24.8 25.7 26.8 29.7 21.3 23.6 24.8 25.7 26.8 29.7 21.4 23.6 24.8 25.7 26.8 29.8 21.7 23.7 24.8 25.8 26.9 29.9 21.8 23.7 24.8 25.8 26.9 30.1 21.9 23.8 24.9 25.8 26.9 30.1 22.1 23.8 24.9 25.8 26.9 30.2 22.1 23.8 24.9 25.8 27.1 30.2 22.1 23.9 24.9 25.9 27.1 30.3 22.1 23.9 25.0 25.9 27.1 30.4 22.3 24.0 25.0 25.9 27.1 30.6 22.3 24.1 25.1 26.1 27.1 30.8 22.3 24.1 25.1 26.1 27.2 30.8 22.4 24.1 25.1 26.2 27.2 30.9 22.4 24.1 25.1 26.2 27.2 31.5 22.5 24.1 25.1

PAGE 93

APPENDIX C MICROHABITAT PREFERENCE DATA

PAGE 94

85 Cardinal Presence Presence Material Orientation Vegetation Texture Color Age Length of Light of H.turcicus Wood North Cement Rough Light Contemporary Small Yes 1 Brick South Cement Smooth Dark Early Medium Yes 1 Aluminum East Vegetation Smooth Dark Contemporary Small No 0 Wood West Vegetation Rough Dark Contemporary Small No 1 Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1 Brick West Mix Smooth Dark Early Medium No 1 Brick North Mix Rough Light Early Medium Yes 0 Aluminum East Vegetation Rough Light Modern Medium No 0 Aluminum South Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 1 Wood North Vegetation Smooth Light Early Medium No 1 Wood South Vegetation Smooth Light Contemporary Small No 0 Cement North Mix Rough Light Early Large No 0 Brick West Cement Smooth Dark Modern Small No 0 Brick West Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Medium No 1 Brick North Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Medium Yes 1 Brick East Cement Smooth Dark Early Large Yes 1 Brick South Cement Smooth Dark Early Medium Yes 1 Brick East Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 1 Brick North Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Small No 0 Aluminum East Mix Rough Light Modern Small Yes 0 Brick South Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Medium No 1 Brick West Vegetation Smooth Dark Contemporary Small No 0 Cement South Mix Rough Light Early Small No 1 Cement North Mix Rough Light Early Small No 1 Brick South Vegetation Smooth Dark Contemporary Small No 0 Aluminum West Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 1

PAGE 95

86 Aluminum East Vegetation Rough Light Modern Medium No 1 Wood South Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Medium No 1 Aluminum East Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small Yes 1 Wood West Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small No 0 Wood North Vegetation Rough Dark Contemporary Small No 0 Wood South Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Large No 1 Brick South Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Medium Yes 0 Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1 Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 0 Cement South Cement Rough Light Early Small No 0 Cement South Cement Rough Light Early Small No 0 Cement East Cement Rough Light Early Small No 0 Aluminum South Mix Smooth Dark Early Medium Yes 1 Wood South Cement Smooth Light Early Small No 0 Aluminum South Cement Rough Light Modern Small No 0 Brick North Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Large Yes 1 Brick West Cement Smooth Dark Early Medium No 1 Aluminum West Vegetation Smooth Light Early Medium Yes 0 Cement West Mix Rough Light Early Small No 0 Cement South Mix Rough Light Early Small No 1 Wood West Vegetation Rough Light Early Large No 1 Cement North Cement Rough Light Modern Small Yes 0 Cement South Cement Rough Light Modern Medium No 1 Cement East Cement Rough Light Modern Small No 0 Cement East Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0 Aluminum East Mix Smooth Light Modern Small No 0 Cement North Mix Rough Light Modern Small No 1 Cement West Cement Rough Light Modern Medium Yes 1

PAGE 96

87 Cement East Mix Rough Light Early Small No 0 Cement South Mix Rough Light Early Small No 0 Aluminum West Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small Yes 1 Aluminum West Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 0 Cement North Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0 Aluminum North Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Small No 0 Cement North Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0 Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1 Cement North Mix Rough Light Modern Medium Yes 1 Cement East Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0 Aluminum North Mix Smooth Light Modern Small No 0 Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0 Brick East Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 1 Cement South Vegetation Smooth Light Early Small Yes 1 Aluminum South Vegetation Smooth Light Early Small No 0 Brick South Vegetation Smooth Dark Contemporary Medium No 0 Aluminum West Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Medium No 0 Aluminum East Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Small No 0 Wood South Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small No 0 Aluminum South Vegetation Rough Light Contemporary Small No 0 Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 0 Wood North Vegetation Rough Light Early Small Yes 1 Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1 Brick West Mix Smooth Dark Early Medium No 1 Wood East Cement Rough Light Early Small Yes 0 Aluminum North Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Small No 0 Aluminum East Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 0 Aluminum North Mix Smooth Light Modern Small No 0

PAGE 97

88 Cement North Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1 Aluminum North Mix Smooth Light Modern Small No 1 Cement North Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1 Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 1 Cement East Mix Rough Light Early Small No 0 Aluminum North Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 0 Aluminum South Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Medium Yes 1 Brick North Cement Smooth Dark Contemporary Small Yes 0 South Vegetation Sm Modern Sm Aluminum W ooth Dark all No 1 ood North Vegetation Rough Dark ContemporarySmall No 1 Wood East Cement Rough Dark ContemporarySmall No 1 Wood South Vegetation Rough Dark ContemporarySmall No 1 Cement South Vegetation Rough Light ContemporaryMedium No 0 Cement North Mix Rough Light ContemporarySmall No 0 Aluminum North Vegetation Rough Dark ContemporarySmall Yes 1 Aluminum South Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Small No 0 Brick North Cement Smooth Dark ContemporaryMedium Yes 1 Brick East Cement Smooth Dark ContemporarySmall No 0 Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Early Large No 0 Aluminum North Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0 Cement North Vegetation Rough Light Early Small Yes 0 Cement South Mix Rough Light Early Small No 1 Cement North Cement Rough Light Early Small No 0 Cement East Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 0 Cement North Cement Rough Light Early Small No 0 Cement North Mix Rough Light Early Small No 0 Brick East Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Large No 1 Cement East Vegetation Smooth Light Early Medium No 1

PAGE 98

Aluminum South Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small Yes 0 Aluminum West Vegetation Rough Light ContemporarySmall No 1 Aluminum North Vegetation Smooth Light ContemporarySmall Yes 0 89Brick South Mix Smooth Dark Modern Medium Yes 1 Brick North Mix Smooth Dark Early Medium Yes 1 Wood South Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small No 1 Aluminum South Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Small No 1 Cement North Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0 Cement East Vegetation Rough Light Modern Medium No 1 Aluminum West Vegetation Smooth Light N/A Small No 0 Aluminum South Cement Smooth Light Modern Small Yes 1 Aluminum West Mix Rough Light Modern Small No 0 Aluminum South Vegetation Rough Light ContemporarySmall No 1 Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 0 Cement South Mix Rough Light Modern Medium No 1 Wood South Mix Rough Dark Modern Medium No 0 Aluminum East Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 1 Aluminum North Cement Rough Light ContemporarySmall No 0 Aluminum West Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0 Aluminum East Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 1 Brick East Mix Smooth Dark Early Small No 1 Aluminum East Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Small No 1 Cement East Cement Rough Light Early Medium No 1 Wood West Vegetation Rough Dark ContemporarySmall No 1 Wood North Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small No 0 Brick East Cement Rough Dark Modern Small Yes 0 Wood South Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small No 1 Wood North Mix Rough Dark Modern Medium Yes 1

PAGE 99

90Brick South Cement Rough Dark ContemporarySmall No 1 Aluminum East Cement Smooth Dark Modern Small No 1 Brick West Vegetation Rough Dark Early Small No 1 Aluminum North Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Small No 0 Cement North Vegetation Rough Dark Early Medium No 1 Cement West Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small No 1 Cement South Mix Rough Dark Early Large Yes 1 Cement West Mix Rough Light ContemporaryMedium No 1 Aluminum South Vegetation Rough Light Modern Medium Yes 1 Cement East Vegetation Rough Dark Early Small Yes 1 Cement East Vegetation Rough Dark Early Small No 1 Cement East Cement Rough Dark Early Medium Yes 1 Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1 Cement West Cement Rough Light Modern Small No 1 Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Early Small Yes 1 Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 1 Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 1 Aluminum North Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Small Yes 0 Brick South Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Small No 0 Brick South Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 1 Brick West Vegetation Smooth Dark Contemporary Medium Yes 0 Brick North Vegetation Rough Dark Contemporary Small No 0

PAGE 100

91 2000. A new urban ecology. American Scientist 88: 416-425. REFERENCES Agresti, A. 1996. An introduction to categorical data. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, New York. Anderson, S. H. 2002. Managing our wildlife resources. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Angilletta, M. L., L. G. Montgomery, and Y. L. Werner. 1999. Temperature preference in geckos: diel variation in juveniles and adults. Herpetologica 55 (2): 212-222. Arnold, E. N. 1984. Ecology of lowland lizards in the eastern United Arab Emirates. Journal of Zoology: Preceedings of the Zoological Society of London 204: 329-354. Barbour, T. 1936. Two introduced lizards in Miami, Florida. Copeia 1936 (2): 113. Bartholomew, G. A. 1959. Photoperiodism in reptiles. In: Photoperiodism and related phenomena in plants and animals, edited by R. B. Withrow, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington D.C. Bolen, E. G. and W. L. Robinson. 2003. Wildlife ecology and management. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Botkin, D. B. and C. E. Beveridge. 1997. Cities as environments. Urban Ecosystems 1: 3-19. Brown T. L., C. P. Dawson, and R. L. Miller. 1979. Interests and attitudes of metropolitan New York residents about wildlife. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 44: 289-297. Capula, M. and L. Luiselli. 1994. Trophic niche overlap in sympatric Tarentola mauritanica and Hemidactylus turcicus: a preliminary study. Herpetological Journal 4: 24-25. Carey, S. D. 1988. Food habits of gulf coast Mediterranean geckos (Hemidactylus turcicus). Journal of the Alabama Academy of Sciences 59 (3): 103. Collins, J. P., A. Kinzig, N. B. Grimm, W. F. Fagan, D. Hope, J. G. Wu, and E. T. Borer.

PAGE 101

92 Conant, R. 1955. Notes on three Texas reptiles, including an addition to the fauna of the state. American Museum Novitates 1726: 1-6. Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1998. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern State University, Nacogdoches, Texas. and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, New York. Davis, W. K. 1974. The Mediterranean gecko, Hemidactylus turcicus in Texas. Journal of Herpetology 8 (1): 77-80. Dow, K. 2000. Social dimensions of gradients in urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosystems 4: 255-275. Etheridge, R. E. 1952. The warty gecko, Hemidactylus turcicus turcicus (Linnaeus), in New Orleans, Louisiana. Copeia 1952 (1): 47-48. Frankenberg, E. 1978. Intraspecific and seasonal variation of daily activity times in gekkonid lizards (Reptilia, Lacertilia). Journal of Herpetology 12 (4): 505-519. ---. 1979. Influence of light and temperature on daily patterns of 3 Israeli forms of Ptyodactylus (Reptilia: Gekkoninae). Journal of the Zoological Society of London 189: 21-30. ---. 1982. Vocal behavior of the Mediterranean house gecko, Hemidactylus turcicus." Copeia 1982 (4): 770-775. Gilbert, O. L. 1989. The ecology of urban habitats. Chapman & Hall, New York, New York. Grimm, N. B., J. M. Grove, S. T. A. Pickett, and C. L. Redman. 2000. Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 50 (7): 571-584. Heatwole, H. 1977. Habitat selection in reptiles. In: Biology of the Reptilia, Vol. 7 (Ecology and Behavior A), edited by C. Gans, Academic Press Inc., New York, New York. Kearney, M., R. Shine, S. Comber, and D. Pearson. 2001. Why do geckos group? An analysis of "social" aggregations in two species of Australian lizards. Herpetologica 57 (4): 411422. King, W. 1958. Observations on the ecology of a new population of Mediterranean gecko, Hemidactylus turcicus, in Florida. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Science 21 (4): 317-318. Klawinski, P. D. 1991. Home range, activity, and spatial distribution of the Mediterranean gecko, Hemidactylus turcicus. Master's Thesis, Stephen F. Austin

PAGE 102

93 Klawinski, P. D., R. K. Vaughan, D. saenz, and W. Godwin. 1994. Comparison of dietary overlap between allopatric and sympatric geckos. Journal of Herpetology 28 (2): 225-230. astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html, Accessed: April 19, 2003. Knox, P. L. 1991. The restless urban landscape: economic and sociocultural change and the transformation of metropolitan Washington, DC. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81: 181-209. Loeb, R. E. 1998. Urban ecosystem management and change during the past millennium: a case study from New York City. Urban Ecosystems 2: 17-26. Lord, C. P., E. Strauss, A. Toffler. 2003. Natural cities: urban ecology and the restoration of urban ecosystems. Virginia Environmental Law Journal 21: 317-381. Loveridge, A. 1947. Revision of the African lizards of the family Gekkonidae. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 98 (1): 1-469. Luiselli, L. and D. Capizzi. 1999. Ecological distribution of the geckos Tarentola mauritanica and Hemidactylus turcicus in the urban area of Rome in relation to age of buildings and condition of walls. Journal of Herpetology 33 (2): 316-319. Luniak, M. and B. Pisarski. 1994. State of research into the fauna of Warsaw (up to 1990). Memorabilia Zoology 49: 155-65. Lyons, J. R. 1997. Urban ecosystem management: bringing science and policy together. Urban Ecosystems 1: 77-83. Marcellini, D. L. 1977. Acoustic and visual display behavior of gekkonid lizards. American Zoology 17: 251-260. McIntyre, N. E., K. Knowles-Yanez, D. Hope. 2000. Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: differences in the use of "urban" between the social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosystems 4: 5-24. Meshaka, W. E., Jr. 1995. Reproductice cycle and colonization ability of the Mediterranean gecko (Hemidactylus turcicus) in south-central Florida. Florida Scientist 58 (1): 10-15. Natural Resources Canada. 2003. Geomagnatism, Geological Survey of Canada, (Online). Available at: http://www.geolab.nrcan.gc. ca/geomag/, Accessed: April 12, 2003. Nave R. 2000. Hyperphysics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, (Online). Available at: http://230nsc1.phy-

PAGE 103

94 Niemela, J. 1999. Is there a need for a theory of urban ecology? Urban Ecosystems 3: 57-65. Nilon, C. H. and R. C. Pais. 1997. Terrestrial vertebrates in urban ecosystems: developing hypotheses for the Gwynns Falls Watershed in Baltimore, Maryland. Urban Ecosystems 1: 247-257. Pickett, S. T. A., M. L. Cadenasso, J. M. Grove, C. H. Nilon, R. V. Pouyat, W. C. Zipperer, and R. Constanza. 2001. Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annual Review of Ecological and Systematics 32: 127-157. Punzo, F. 2001a. The Mediterranean gecko Hemidactylus turcicus: life in an urban landscape. Florida Scientist 64 (1): 56-66. Punzo, F. 2001b. A comparative study of digestive function in three species of hemidactyline geckos from Florida. Florida Scientist 64 (2): 124-130. Rebele, F. 1994. Urban ecology and special features of urban ecosystems. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 4: 173-187. Rees, W. E. 1997. Urban ecosystems: the human dimension. Urban Ecosystems 1: 63-75. Rose, F. L. and C. D. Barbour. 1968. Ecology and reproductive cycles of the introduced gecko, Hemidactylus turcicus, in the southern Unites States. The American Midland Naturalist 79 (1): 159-168. Saenz, D. 1992. Dietary analysis of Hemidactylus turcicus, the Mediterranean gecko, a population in Nagodoches, Texas. Master's Thesis, Stepehen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas. Saenz, D. 1996. Dietary overview of Hemidactylus turcicus with possible implications of food partitioning. Journal of Herpetology 30 (4): 461-466. Schauman S., S. Penland, M. Freeman. 1987. Public knowledge of and preferences for wildlife habitats in urban open space. In: Integrating Man and Nature in the Metropolitan Environment, edited by L. W. Adams and D. L. Leedy, National Institute for Urban Wildlife, Columbia, Maryland. Schoener, T. W. 1970. Nonsynchronous spatial overlap of lizards in patchy habitats. Ecology 51 (3): 408-418. Selcer, K. W. 1986. Life history of a successful colonizer: the Mediterranean gecko, Hemidactylus turcicus, in southern Texas. Copeia 1986 (4): 956-962.

PAGE 104

95 Stejneger, L. 1922. Two geckos new to the fauna of the United States. Copeia 1922 (108): 56. Trauth, S. E. 1985. Nest, eggs, and hatchlings of the Mediterranean gecko, Hemidactylus turcicus (Sauria: Gekkonidae). The Southwestern Naturalist 30 (2): 309-310. Trout, L. and T. D. Schwaner. 1994. Allozyme evidence for insularity in exotic populations of the Mediterranean gecko (Hemidactylus turcicus). Journal of Herpetology 28 (3): 391-393. University of Florida. 2002. Physical Facilities and Their Utilization, Office of Institutional Research (Online). Available at: http://www.ir.ufl.edu/factbook/facilities.htm, Accessed: March 25, 2003. University of Florida Physical Plant Division, Architecture/ Engineering Department. 2000. 2000 Building information list for the University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. United States Department of Veterans Affairs. 2003. Gainesville Division, North Florida/ South Georgia Veterans Health System (Online). Available at: http://www.va.gov/sta/guide/facility.asp?ID=54, Accessed: March 25, 2003. Whitney G. G. and S. D. Adams. 1980. Man as a maker of new plant communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 17: 431-448.

PAGE 105

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Patricia Gomez Zlatar was born in the small town of Punta Arenas, located at the southern tip of Chile. She eventually found her way to Montreal, Canada, where she received a bachelors degree in biology in 1999 from Concordia University. After a brief respite from academic life, she entered the University of Florida Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation in Gainesville during the fall of 2000. She received her Master of Science degree, with a minor in statistics, in 2003. 96


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0001213/00001

Material Information

Title: Microhabitat preference of the introduced gecko Hemidactylus turcicus in an urban environment
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Creator: Zlatar, Patricia A. Gomez ( Author, Primary )
Publication Date: 2003
Copyright Date: 2003

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0001213:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0001213/00001

Material Information

Title: Microhabitat preference of the introduced gecko Hemidactylus turcicus in an urban environment
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Creator: Zlatar, Patricia A. Gomez ( Author, Primary )
Publication Date: 2003
Copyright Date: 2003

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0001213:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












MICROHABITAT PREFERENCE OF THE INTRODUCED GECKO Hemidactylus turcicus
IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT















By

PATRICIA A.GOMEZ ZLATAR


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2003

































Copyright 2003

by

Patricia A. Gomez Zlatar















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank my committee chair, Mike Moulton, for his constant

support, mentoring, and enthusiasm. His friendship has been instrumental in the

completion of this degree. I owe a great deal of thanks to committee member Ken Portier

for the endless hours of guidance he provided. I am also grateful to committee member

Dick Franz, for providing useful comments and ideas throughout the study. It has been

both a privilege and pleasure to interact with them all.

Many people made my fieldwork possible. I owe thanks to both the UF Physical

Plant Division and to J. Darcy White for providing me with detailed maps and a wealth of

information. I would like to thank the UF Campus Police Force and the VA Hospital

Police Force for keeping my helpers and me safe during our nighttime surveys. I also

want to give a big thanks to Chuck Knapp, Ester Langan, Elza Kephart, Alex Martin, and

Robin Sternberg for providing endless hours of field assistance.

Finally, I want to give immense gratitude to those closest to me. I give thanks to

my family, especially my parents. Also, I want to thank my close friends (they know

they are). Last, but not least, I want to thank Alex Martin for his patience, friendship, and

love. I could not have done it without him.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................... .. .... ..... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ................................. .............. ............. .......... viii

ABSTRACT ........ .............. ............. ..... .......... .......... ix

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ............................................................. .. ......... ...... .....

U rban Ecology ................................................... ................ .............
G general O bj active ................................................................. ............. 2

2 STUDY SPECIES AND STUDY SITES ............. ............................ ...............3

Stu dy Sp ecies ................................................ 3
Study Sites ............................ .................................... 6
The Study Species in the Study Sites ........................................ ........................ 8

3 PRELIM INARY SURVEY ............................................................. .................9

Introduction..................................... ........................... .... ..... ........ 9
M e th o d s ............................................................. ................ 9
R results ....................................................... ...................... ............... 11
D iscu ssio n ...................................... ................................................. 13

4 ADDITIONAL NATURAL HISTORY NOTES .......................................................21

Intro du action ...................................... ................................................ 2 1
M eth o d s ..............................................................................2 3
R e su lts .................. ........................................................ ................ 2 4
Su m m er 2 00 1 .................................................................. ................. 24
Fall/W inter 2001 .................................... .......................... ........... 25
S p rin g 2 0 0 2 .................................................................................................... 2 6
D isc u ssio n .............................................................................................................. 2 6









5 MICROHABITAT PREFERENCE IN THE INTRODUCED GECKO,
H EM ID A CTYL US TURCICU S .......... ................. .................................................39

Introduction............ ........... ....................................................... ..... 39
M methods and Results ........... .... .... .. ........................ ........ ....... ..... 41
Sam pling M methods .............. ..... .... ........ .. .. .................... ...............41
D ata A n aly sis 1.............................................................4 4
R esu lts 1 ................................................................... 4 6
D ata A n aly sis 2 .............................................................4 8
R esu lts 2 .................................................................. 4 9
D ata A n aly sis 3 .............................................................50
R esu lts 3 .................................................................. 50
D ata A n aly sis 4 .............................................................5 1
R esu lts 4 .................................................................. 52
D ata A n aly sis 5 ..............................................................52
R esu lts 5 .................................................................. 52
D discussion ............... .. ..... .....................................................................54

6 MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT ....75

APPENDIX

A PRELIMINARY SURVEY DATA ....................................................................79

B NATURAL HISTORY DATA..................... ...............81

C MICROHABITAT PREFERENCE DATA ........................................ .....84

R E F E R E N C E S ................................................................9 1

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................................................................ 96
















LIST OF TABLES


Table pge

3-1 Criteria of wall characterization variables used in preliminary survey .................. 16

4-1 Criteria of natural history variables................................... .................. ... ......... 31

4-2 Temperature measurements of wall surface for adult and subadult H. turcicus;
fall/winter 2001 .................................... ............................... ........31

4-3 Temperature measurements of wall surface for adult H. turcicus; spring 2002.......31

5-1 Description of wall characterization variables for microhabitat study...................57

5-2 Chi-square and Fisher Exact p-values for wall characterization variables .............58

5-3 The dependency of age, color, length, and texture on material.............................59

5-4 Logistic regression models resulting from the backward elimination method
using the variables: material; cardinal orientation, vegetation, light .....................60

5-5 Summary statistics of the significant predictor variables of the
M *CO*V+M *CO*L m odel .............................................................................. 62

5-6 Possible wall combinations involving the variables: material, cardinal
orientation, vegetation, and light .................................... ................. ........ ....... 63

5-7 Number of observations per wall combination involving the variables: material,
vegetation (2 levels), and light ...................................................................... ..... 64

5-8 Logistic regression models resulting from the backward elimination method
using the variables: material, vegetation (2 levels), and light..................................65

5-9 Number of observations per wall combination involving the variables: material,
and light-vegetation (3 levels)........................................................ ............... 67

5-10 Logistic regression models resulting from the backward elimination method
using the variables: material, and light-vegetation (3 levels)................................67

5-11 Chi-square test and Fisher's Exact test for light-vegetation and gecko presence,
controlling for m aterial.......... ......................................................... .. .... ...... 68









5-12 Chi-square test and Fisher's Exact test for material and gecko presence,
controlling for light-vegetation ........................................... ......................... 69

5-13 Chi-square test for light-vegetation and gecko presence ......................................70

5-14 Chi-square test for material and gecko presence................................ ..............71

5-15 Three-way contingency table of light-vegetation, controlling for material, with
associated percentages and marginal associations .........................................72

5-16 Three-way contingency table of material, controlling for light-vegetation, with
associated percentages and marginal associations .........................................73

A-1 Temperature readings of walls with respect to material and cardinal orientation....79

B-l Temperature readings (C) for individual adult H. turcicus recorded during the
fall/w inter 200 1 survey .............................................................................. 8 1

B-2 Temperature readings (C) for individual sub-adult H. turcicus recorded during
the fall/w inter 2001 survey ........................................................ ............. 82

B-3 Temperature readings (C) for individual adult H. turcicus recorded during the
spring 2002 survey .................................... .... ... ...... ...............83
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

3-1 Depiction of the 45 angle leeway employed in the determination of wall
cardinal orientation ......... ................................................................ ...... .... ....17

3-2 Average wall temperature of different construction material ................................. 17

3-3 Average wall temperature of different cardinal locations ........... ...............18

3-4 Average wall temperature of different construction materials at different
cardin al lo cation s............................................................................ ............... 18

3-5 Average number of H. turcicus per building of different construction material......19

3-6 Number of H. turcicus on walls of different cardinal locations............................19

3-7 Number of H. turcicus on walls of different vegetation levels .............................20

3-8 Number of H. turcicus on walls of different light intensities................................20

4-1 Perch height preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (summer 2001) ............32

4-2 Perch height preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (fall/winter 2001) .........33

4-3 Social preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (fall/winter 2001) ...................34

4-4 Exposure preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (fall/winter 2001)..............35

4-5 Perch height preference of adult H. turcicus (spring 2002) ...................................36

4-6 Social preference of adult H. turcicus (spring 2002) ............................................37

4-7 Exposure preference of adult H. turcicus (spring 2002) .......................................38















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

MICROHABITAT PREFERENCE OF THE INTRODUCED GECKO Hemidactylus turcicus
IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT


By

Patricia A. Gomez Zlatar

August 2003

Chair: Michael Moulton
Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

I investigated microhabitat preference in the introduced gecko H. turcicus in

Gainesville, Florida from summer 2001 through spring 2002. After collecting extensive

natural history data in 2001, I then attempted to construct a model for microhabitat

preference during 2002, using logistic regression. I characterized 160 walls by

construction material, vegetative cover, artificial light intensity, cardinal orientation, age

of building, length of wall, surface color, and surface texture. I sampled each wall twice

for the presence or absence ofH. turcicus.

Chi-square analyses indicated that the age of building, length of wall, surface color,

and surface texture were dependent on construction material (p< 0.05). I then fit a

logistic regression model with the variables: construction material, vegetative cover,

artificial light intensity, and cardinal orientation. I was unable to obtain a functional

logistic regression model, probably owing to a small sample size. Thus, I condensed the

dataset by eliminating the variable cardinal orientation and combining the variables









vegetative cover and artificial light intensity. I was unable to obtain a significant logistic

regression model (p<0.05) with this reduced dataset; and I therefore performed chi-square

analyses instead. Results revealed no significance (p<0.05) between the presence ofH.

turcicus and the three wall variables examined. Hence, the presence ofH. turcicus on a

wall appears to be independent of construction material, vegetative cover, and artificial

light intensity. This conclusion indicates that H. turcicus does not demonstrate a

preference among walls of different material type, vegetative cover levels, and artificial

light intensities. These results could reflect the generalist tendency of this gecko; and

thus explain its overall resiliency as an introduced species. Alternatively, the inability to

detect significance could reflect failure to gather a sufficient sample size; or failure to

properly select variables relevant to microhabitat preference in this species.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Urban Ecology

Urbanization is a significant global phenomenon (Grimm et al., 2000). Roughly

half of the world's population currently resides in cities, as the tendency toward

urbanization is characteristic of both developed and developing nations (Lord et al.,

2003). This trend is projected to increase over the next few decades, whereby the number

and sizes of cities are expected to grow extensively (Pickett et al., 2001). The inevitable

growth of urban areas, and their subsequent ecological impacts, makes the field of urban

ecology timely and ultimately essential (Grimm et al., 2000).

Urban ecology is a fairly young discipline that has increased in prominence over

the last two decades (Rebele, 1994). Before this, ecological studies in urban

environments were rare as ecologists generally considered urban areas ecologically

inferior to natural ones; and thus demonstrated little interest and overall disregard for

cities (Botkin and Beveridge, 1997; Gilbert, 1989). However, this anti-urban attitude

began to progressively vanish when ecologists started to recognize and become

concerned with the influence of humans on ecosystems (Niemela, 1999). Urban ecology

first emerged as a discipline that mainly dealt with the ecology of habitats and organisms

within cities (Pickett et al., 2001). It eventually expanded when it embraced and then

advocated the notion that cities were ecosystems in themselves, with humans occupying

the position of keystone species (Rees, 1997). With this new perspective, urban

ecologists have recognized that the urban setting cannot be adequately understood and









that findings are inapplicable without accounting for human influence (Grimm et al.,

2000). As a consequence, urban ecology is in the process of developing into an

integrated discipline that incorporates the social, behavioral, economic, physical, and

ecological sciences (Niemela, 1999).

Despite the surge in popularity of urban ecology, few studies have strictly dealt

with urban species and/or been conducted in urban settings (McIntyre et al., 2000). In a

review of leading ecology journals between 1993 and 1997, Collins at al. (2000)

concluded that a mere 0.4% of papers surveyed (25 of 6157) were restricted specifically

to urban habitat and/or urban wildlife. Although reasons for this paucity have not been

specified, urban areas offer the distinct challenge of being controlled by strong and

diverse human actions (Dow, 2000). An ongoing history of intense and varied

micromanagement has made metropolitan landscapes into highly heterogeneous areas,

their uniqueness wrought with logistical constraints (Dow, 2000; McIntyre et al., 2000).

Of the few wildlife ecological studies performed in urban environments, most

feature birds, mammals, and terrestrial invertebrates. Significantly less popular subjects

are aquatic fauna, amphibians, and reptiles (Luniak and Pisarki, 1994). Many of these

studies, in turn, are anecdotal in nature; thus making comparisons between locations and

the formation of a general body of knowledge unfeasible (McIntyre et al., 2000).

General Objective

In light of the current shortcomings in urban ecology, the main objective of this

study was to conduct a repeatable, quantitative ecological study on the microhabitat

preferences of an introduced reptile in an urban environment.














CHAPTER 2
STUDY SPECIES AND STUDY SITES

Study Species

The Mediterranean gecko Hemidactylus turcicus is an old world geckkonid lizard

that has successfully extended its range into India and North America through human-

assisted introductions (Conant and Collins, 1998). This species occurs naturally in the

Middle East and Mediterranean regions. Hemidactylus turcicus is thought to have

reached North America after being initially introduced through human agencies into the

Antilles and Gulf-coastal Mexico. It first appeared in the United States in 1915 in Key

West, Florida (Stejneger, 1922). Since then, H. turcicus has expanded onto the mainland

where it has established itself in a number of localities throughout the southeastern and

south-central states; specifically Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida,

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (Barbour, 1936; Etheridge, 1952; Conant,

1955; Conant and Collins, 1998).

The Mediterranean gecko possesses a life history that, with human assistance,

favors successful colonization of new areas. Both Davis (1974) and Meshaka Jr. (1995)

have reported that the dispersal ofH. turcicus in Texas and Florida parallels that of major

highways; and that produce trucks were the most likely source of transportation for this

gecko. The calcareous shelled eggs ofH. turcicus are fairly resistant to desiccation; and

egg survivorship appears to be extremely high. With an incubation period of 40 to 45

days, these eggs are ideal for surviving lengthy truck rides (Selcer, 1986). In 1986,









Selcer confirmed this high egg survivorship when he obtained a 100% hatching success

rate from 100 eggs he had collected in the field.

The secretive nesting behavior of the Mediterranean gecko also favors it as a

colonizing species. Nests in this species are usually constructed in hidden locations such

as attics, storage rooms, under eaves of houses, closets, and rock crevices; and on a wide

array of surfaces, including cardboard boxes, wood planks, and old clothing (Davis,

1974; Punzo, 2001a; Selcer, 1986; Trauth, 1985). Furthermore, eggs have reduced

visibility as they are often covered with debris, including dirt, paper, eggshell and shed

skin (Punzo, 2001a; Rose and Barbour, 1968; Selcer, 1986). Many of the nesting sites

are in prime positions to be moved or transported in vehicles. Nests in H. turcicus range

from solitary to communal, with some communal nests containing as many as 20 eggs

(Selcer, 1986). Therefore, the possibility exists of unknowingly transporting a mini

colony to a new locale. Mediterranean gecko hatchlings have also shown remarkable

survivorship in dry environments, requiring no food or water for up to a month (Rose and

Barbour, 1968). Thus, H. turcicus eggs/hatchling can survive dry and nutrient-poor

environments for extended periods of time (over two months) making this gecko a

resilient and ultimately successful stowaway on vehicles.

Once at a new site, H. turcicus often occurs at extremely high densities: as many as

544 to 2210 geckos/hectare in Texas (Selcer, 1986); and 497 to 1463 geckos/hectare in

Florida (Punzo, 2001a). A high population density coupled with a consistently

encountered 1:1 sex ratio allows for the potential of a large, annual reproductive output

by a population. Females are reproductively active between the months of April and

September; and are believed to have two to three clutches a season, each clutch









consisting of two eggs (Rose & Barbour, 1968; Selcer, 1986; Meshaka Jr., 1995; Punzo,

2001a). Hemidactylus turcicus is also characterized by being an early maturing species

with a long lifespan; on average, juveniles require between eight and nine months to

mature, and routinely live at least three years (Selcer, 1986).

Hemidactylus turcicus is highly pre-adapted for life in urbanized areas; and this

further aids in dispersal. The presence of scansors (adhesive pads on toes) allows the

Mediterranean gecko to perch on vertical walls of buildings. In fact, the Mediterranean

gecko is a familiar resident in many cities and towns around the world; and according to

Luiselli and Capizzi (1999) is more often found in human-disturbed areas than in natural

environments. In addition, H. turcicus is considered to be a generalized predator, as a

number of studies have reported a wide array of mostly arthropod prey in this gecko's

diet (Carey, 1988; Punzo, 2001a; Saenz, 1996). Although Punzo (2001a) failed to detect

age- or sex-related differences in diets, Saenz (1996) observed food partitioning between

both juveniles and adults and males and females, although the latter remained

inconclusive due to small sample size. Thus, under some circumstances, food

partitioning could further contribute to the success of H turcicus, since it would reduce

intraspecific competition, and increase the feeding efficiency of a given population

(Saenz, 1996).

The Mediterranean gecko further increases its chances for establishment with a

number of predator escape and avoidance tactics. As a nocturnal, arboreal, and

cryptically colored lizard, H. turcicus has few known predators (Selcer, 1986). In a study

conducted in Tampa Bay, Florida, Punzo (2001a) listed bats, Cuban tree frogs, large

heteropodid crab and wolf spiders, giant tail scorpions, and feral domestic cats as









possible predators. As expected, the most vulnerable period for this gecko is shortly after

hatching; both Selcer (1986) and Punzo (2001a) showed that mortality was significantly

greater for small juveniles when compared to large juveniles, adult females, and adult

males. Accordingly, Selcer (1986) regularly observed an avoidance mechanism in

juveniles termed "tail wagging"; when disturbed, H. turcicus juveniles draw attention

away from their bodies by wagging their conspicuously banded tails, which can easily be

autotomized for a rapid escape. Adult H. turcicus are adept at fleeing danger too, as

noted by Selcer (1986) they use routine escape routes when harassed. Adults also have

easily autotomized tails, which can startle and/or distract a predator while the gecko

retreats to safety (Selcer, 1986).

Most of the areas invaded by H. turcicus have little or no competitive pressure.

Noted exceptions include competition with the introduced gecko Cyrtopodion scabrum in

Texas, and the nonindigenous geckos Hemidactylus garnotii and Hemidactylus mabouia

in south Florida (Klawinski et al., 1994; Punzo, 2001b). In both previously mentioned

cases, H. turcicus appears to be competitively excluded and replaced in many locations.

In Texas, the competitive failure ofH. turcicus has been linked to the ability of

C. scabrum to monopolize prey and force H. turcicus to undertake a dietary shift

(Klawinski et al., 1994). In Florida, increased digestive and assimilation efficiencies, and

continuous reproduction have been suggested as factors giving H. garnotii and

H. mabouia a competitive edge over H. turcicus (Meshaka Jr., 1995; Punzo, 2001b).

Study Sites

My primary study area was the University of Florida campus located in the town of

Gainesville in north central Florida. Since its official inception in 1906, the University of

Florida has continuously expanded in size to become the fourth largest university in the









United States. Following an extended construction boom starting in 1950 and ending in

1999, the 2,000-acre University of Florida campus has roughly 1,251 buildings that

provide approximately 18, 670, 086 gross square feet of area. The University of Florida

has just nearly 60,000 full and part-time students and employees, resulting in a vast

amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. (University of Florida, 2002)

My secondary study site was the Gainesville VA Medical Hospital Center within

the boundaries of the University of Florida. Construction of the VA Medical Center

commenced in 1964 and was completed in 1967. Presently it consists of 38 buildings

(US Department of Veterans Affairs, 2003).

The landscapes of both the University of Florida campus and the Gainesville VA

Medical Center are highly heterogeneous, as both contain a wide assortment of facilities,

each with its distinct type of architecture, ornamental vegetation and/or decorative natural

scenery, walkway(s), road(s), and other associated features. This diversity is emphasized

by the amount of variation present on each individual building, to the extent that it is a

rare occurrence to encounter two identical walls. Walls are the principle habitat of

Mediterranean geckos in this environment. Complexity depends on human factors such

as stylistic trends, budgetary schemes, and logistics. This complexity was apparent

during a preliminary survey that I undertook between the months of July 2001 and

November 2001. A wide array of human activity continuously affected my sampling

locations; these activities ranged from complete modification of existing vegetation, to

the failure to repair damaged building structures. Thus, in an attempt to control for the

fluctuating quality of campus buildings, I used categorical variables, as opposed to

continuous variables, to quantify sampling locations.






8


The Study Species in the Study Sites

Records of H. turcicus for the University of Florida campus in Gainesville first

began in 1956 (King, 1959). Although no official records ofH. turcicus exist from the

Gainesville VA Medical Center, the gecko's presence on the premises was confirmed

during a preliminary survey. Evidence of large populations of other nonindigenous

hemidactyline geckos have not yet been recorded at either location, thus making these

localities ideal for the investigation of the ecology of H. turcicus in the absence of

potential behavioral changes caused by interference of directly competing species.














CHAPTER 3
PRELIMINARY SURVEY

Introduction

Despite its widespread distribution and abundance on the campus of the University

of Florida, the Mediterranean gecko has not been studied intensively. In 1956, King

collected specimens ofH. turcicus from a wood frame building on the campus. The

following year, King and a colleague collected 49 H. turcicus individuals over three

nights, also on frame buildings. A year later, Riemer collected an additional 44

specimens from the same buildings during one night of sampling (King, 1959). In an

attempt to elucidate additional natural history patterns of H. turcicus, particularly with

respect to habitat preference, and to obtain some general insight on their environment, I

conducted a survey on the UF campus and VA Hospital, between July and August of

2001.

Methods

I randomly sampled 48 buildings over seven nights. I sampled each building by

directing a flashlight systematically over all accessible walls from top to bottom, from

right to left. I further characterized each wall by its type of construction material (one of

four types: aluminum, brick, cement, and wood) and cardinal orientation. I arbitrarily

used 50% of the surface area of a given wall for my material classification. Thus, I

categorized a wall constructed with > 50% wood, as wood. The majority of the buildings

were constructed from only one material. Some of the buildings consisted of more than









one material. However, of these, I limited my survey to only those buildings that

featured a predominate material.

I determined the cardinal orientation of walls using official maps of the University

of Florida (UF Physical Plant Division, 2000), and of the VA Hospital Engineering

Department. For the cardinal orientation categories I used north, south, west, and east.

Nearly all of the walls were clearly oriented in one of these directions. For those walls

that were not clear-cut, I allowed a 450 angle of leeway on each side of the cardinal

direction (Figure 3-1).

For each gecko, I also recorded one of three vegetation levels. The three vegetation

levels were all based on the height of the vegetation, rather than diversity. To facilitate

measurement in the field, I based these heights using a simple system. Thus, the low

level referred to flora no higher than my knees (< 0.51 m), the medium level to floral

height between my knees and shoulder (> 0.51 m and < 1.37 m), and the high level

comprised of flora reaching higher than my shoulders ( >1.37 m ). I limited my

vegetation classification to an imaginary half sphere, coming out of the wall, with a one-

meter radius and with the gecko as its center.

I also determined light intensity with respect to each gecko, along the same lines as

my vegetation classification. I used two categories to describe light intensity, again in an

imaginary half sphere with a one-meter radius around each gecko. I assigned an

area to the low light category if it had at most one dim light, whereas I classified an area

as high light if there was either at least one bright light or at least two dim lights. The

difference between dim and bright was fairly arbitrary; however, as a general rule of

thumb, if I had to use a flashlight in the presence of a light to detect a gecko, I classified









the area low light. A list of the criteria of these variables, and their associated levels is

summarized in Table 3-1.

A final variable I recorded for each gecko was the temperature of the center of each

wall. I recorded the temperature using a Raytek Raynger ST model temperature gun.

I also noted the number of geckos on each wall. Appendix A contains the complete

dataset. I calculated averages, standard deviations and percentages where relevant.

Results

With respect to construction material, the average wall temperature was highest for

brick (26.89 + 2.06 C; n = 16), followed by cement (26.14 + 1.42 C; n = 52), wood

(25.13 + 1.38 C; n = 38), and aluminum (23.84 + 0.99 C; n = 78) (Figure 3-2). The

average wall temperature for the four cardinal orientations is displayed in Figure 3-3.

These average temperatures spanned a smaller range with north (25.17 + 1.89 C, n = 46)

having the highest value, proceeded by east (25.03 + 1.74 C; n = 46), south (24.75 +

1.46 C, n = 47), and then west (24.5 + 1.80 C, n = 45). As summarized in Figure 3-4,

brick walls of any cardinal location had a higher average temperature than any other

construction material, while aluminum walls consistently had the lowest average

temperature. Cement walls followed in second place for north, south and west facing

walls, only to drop to third place for east facing walls. Wood walls, in turn, occupied

third place for northern, southern and western walls, rising to second place for eastern

walls. Brick walls reached their highest temperature on north-facing walls (27.16 + 3.1

C, n = 4), followed by west-facing walls (27 + 2.0 C; n = 4), east-facing walls (26.9 +

1.86 C; n = 4), and south-facing walls (26.42 + 1.92 C; n = 4). Average cement wall

temperatures peaked on western walls (26.37 + 1.77 C; n = 13), and then continually

decreased on northern walls (26.16 + 1.45 C, n = 13), western walls (25.82 + 0.89 C, n









= 13), and eastern walls (24.02 + 1.55 C, n = 13). For wood walls, average wall

temperature was highest on northern walls (25.41 + 1.66 C, n = 10), and then

progressively decreased on eastern (25.17 + 1.29 C, n = 9), western (25.04 + 1.40 C, n

= 9), and southern walls (24.89 + 1.31 C, n = 10) respectively. Aluminum walls attained

their highest average temperature on west-facing walls (23.95 + 1.190C, n = 19),

followed by, in decreasing order, west-facing walls (23.92 + 0.91 C, n = 19), east-facing

walls (23.82 + 1.10 C, n = 20), and south-facing walls (23.65 + 0.77 C, n = 20).

Of the 48 buildings I surveyed, five were brick, ten were wood, 13 were cement,

and 20 were aluminum. All the brick buildings and cement buildings had geckos with

totals of 27 and 40 individuals, respectively. Geckos were absent on one of the wood

buildings, whereas the remaining nine contained 14 individuals. Aluminum buildings

contained 30 individuals, although eight of these buildings had no geckos. I found the

highest average number of H. turcicus on brick buildings with 5.4 geckos/building (27/5).

Cement buildings had the second highest average with 3.08 geckos/building (40/13),

whereas aluminum averaged 1.5 geckos/building (30/20), slightly ahead of wood, which

averaged 1.4 geckos/building (14/10) (Figure 3-5).

I sampled a total of 48 south walls, 47 north walls, 47 east walls, and 46 west walls.

I found 86 geckos on north walls, resulting in an average of 1.83 geckos/wall (86/47).

On south walls I tallied 76 geckos for an average of 1.58 geckos/wall (76/48), whereas

walls oriented toward the east had a total of 49 geckos and averaged 1.04 geckos/wall

(49/47), and west oriented walls had 47 geckos with an average of 1.02 geckos/wall

(47/46) (Figure 3-6).









I did not record the number of walls and/or areas within each type of vegetation

level. However, of the 203 geckos that I recorded, 126 of them were located in areas that

possessed a medium level of vegetation (62%). Meanwhile, areas bordered by low and

high vegetation had considerably fewer geckos with 44 (22%) and 33 (16%), respectively

(Figure 3-7).

I also did not record the number of walls and/or areas of each type of light intensity

level. I recorded a total of 235 geckos for this portion of the study. Of these 235 geckos,

I observed 119 (51%) in areas with high light level and 116 (49%) in areas with a low

light level (Figure 3-8).

Discussion

The materials brick, cement and wood all have similar average wall temperatures.

The small difference in average wall temperature they display becomes irrelevant when

their highly overlapping standard deviations are included. Aluminum possesses a lower

average wall temperature, even when its standard deviation is considered. A wall's

cardinal orientation does not appear to have an effect on average wall temperature as all

four directions have comparable temperatures, especially when assessed with their

standard deviations. Each material has its own pattern of average wall temperature with

respect to cardinal orientation. These results, however, should not be taken at face value,

as the sample sizes are small and the standard deviations overlap each other.

The thermal properties of walls are extremely complex and are only briefly

mentioned here as they are beyond the scope of this study. Heat flow involves a variety

of thermal parameters specific to the surface in question, such as its conductivity,

convection capacity, and radiation constant. These parameters, in turn, are highly

influenced by both climate conditions and the thermal property of the proximate









environment (Nave, 2000). Additional work in describing the thermal habitat of H.

turcicus is essential, as activity in ectothermic animals greatly depends on ambient

temperature (Bartholomew, 1959). Furthermore, Frankenberg (1979) suggested that

nocturnal animals are especially dependent on environmental temperature for activity

since they cannot directly use the sun for thermoregulation.

Brick and cement appear to be popular wall material types, as they both possess

more H. turcicus per building than either aluminum or wood. However, the validity of

these results rests on the assumption that I adequately sampled the buildings. I did not

document the size of the buildings. Also, occurrence on a building constructed of a

particular material type might be a result of other factors such as dispersal constraints

rather than preference. A similar fate befalls the results dealing with the average number

of H. turcicus on walls of different cardinal orientations. Although all four cardinal

orientations share comparable averages, the areas of the walls were never recorded and

thus, the results could be an artifact of this lack in rigor.

Mediterranean geckos appear to prefer medium vegetation levels. Perhaps this

indicates a balance between having sufficient vegetation for cover, but not too much

foliage that it raises the vulnerability to predators. As for light levels, H. turcicus does

not appear to have a preference for a particular light intensity. This was a surprising

result as many researchers have reported that H. turicus has an affinity for lights because

it aids in the capture of insect prey (Capula and Luiselli, 1994; Conant and Collins, 1998;

Davis, 1974; Punzo, 2001a). This finding could imply that these geckos are merely

easier to spot near lights, and that their attraction to light is a conclusion stemming from

unintentional bias of the investigator. However, the reliability of my results is fairly









limited, as I did not record the number of walls and/or areas of each vegetation and light

level. Therefore, the pattern in my data might simply reflect a higher incidence of one

vegetation and/or light level rather than a difference in gecko preference.

Although the majority of these results have limitations, they served the function of

illuminating some potentially interesting patterns, some of which merited further

investigation. In addition, this preliminary survey allowed me to develop a reasonable

and rigorous sampling regime for future work. First, it familiarized me with the cryptic

coloration and secretive nature of the study species. Secondly, it revealed the numerous

logistical considerations of the study site such as safety, accessibility, and the high degree

of variation. Lastly, it encouraged me to make some important improvements on my

sampling methods. Among these changes are the inclusion of wall size measurements,

and the sampling of walls rather than buildings so as to avoid the possibility of counting

the same gecko more than once. Also, to deal with the immense variability resulting

from constant human manipulation, vegetation and light need to have broad and

quantifiable levels. These levels, in turn, must pertain to the overall habitat and not the

immediate vicinity of the gecko, as this vicinity will change with movement. Ultimately,

this initial survey would prove to be key in shaping all aspects of my eventual

microhabitat study.











Table 3-1. Criteria of wall characterization variables used in preliminary survey

Variables Levels Criteria

North *Location of wall on official UF map
Cardil O n South *Location of wall on official UF map
Cardinal Orientation
West *Location of wall on official UF map
East *Location of wall on official UF map
Presence of one dull light** or no
Low light source within a Im radius
of the gecko
Light Presence of at least two dull light**
sources or at least one bright
light*** source within a 1m
radius of the gecko
Al m Physical observation; >50% of
Aluminum
building surface area
Brick Physical observation; >50% of
Mateckal building surface area
Cement Physical observation; >50% of
building surface area
Material
W d Physical observation; >50% of
Cement
building surface area
Physical observation; >50% of
Wood
building surface area
Vertical measurement < 0.51 m
Low
within a Im radius of the gecko
0.51 m Vegetation Medium 1.37 m within a Im radius of the
gecko
Hih Vertical measurement > 1.37 m
Highwithin a Im radius of the gecko
*Maps taken from 2000 Building Information List for the University of Florida, prepared by the UF Physical Plant
Division, and official VA Hospital Engineering maps
** A dull light source is one where a flashlight is still needed to locate a gecko
***A bright light source is one where a flashlight is not needed to locate a gecko













45


Figure 3-1. Depiction of the 45 angle leeway employed in the determination of wall
cardinal orientation


26.89


26.14


25.13


23.84


l-l- -------------------------------
Aluminum Brick Cement Wood
Construction Material

Figure 3-2. Average wall temperature of different construction material


7


W










28




26




E 24
I-



E 22


24.5


West


East


Cardinal Location

Figure 3-3. Average wall temperature of different cardinal locations


West


-- Aluminum
--- Brick
Cement
Wood


East


Figure 3-4. Average wall temperature of different construction materials at different
cardinal locations


25.03


25.17


24.75


20 --


North


South


27.16 26.42 27 26.9
26. 16 26.37
25.82251
25.17
25.41 24.89 25.04 24.02

23.95 *23.92 23.84
23.65


North


South


Cardinal Locations


t---


t---











6



5
U)
0

4
4-
0

n3
E
z

S2



1


0 -




Figure 3-5.


3



2.5



t 2
0
4-
5 1.5


E
z 1


0.5


3.08


Cement Brick Aluminum Wood

Construction Material

Average number of H. turcicus per building of different construction material


1.58


1.02


1.04


0 I -- I I-
North South West East

Cardinal Location

Figure 3-6. Number of H. turcicus on walls of different cardinal locations


A I=











140
126

120


100
0
S80

0
60
E
44
S 40 33


20


0
Low Medium High

Vegetation Level

Figure 3-7. Number ofH. turcicus on walls of different vegetation levels


150 i


0 100


lO
0

o
--
.0
E
z 50


0!
Low High

Light Intensity

Figure 3-8. Number ofH. turcicus on walls of different light intensities














CHAPTER 4
ADDITIONAL NATURAL HISTORY NOTES

Introduction

A large portion of the information regarding H. turcicus pertains to the

reproductive cycle and associated activities. Few studies have documented natural

history variables such as perch height, degree of sociality and exposure. And not much is

known about any preferred temperature regime.

Perch height in H. turcicus has only rarely been investigated. The only

comprehensive study was conducted on a university campus in Texas, where Saenz

(unpublished) found substantial dietary diversity among geckos at different perch heights.

The diet ofH. turcicus encountered below 1.52 m in height overlapped only 22.71%

(Schoener's percent overlap; Schoener, 1970) with conspecifics occupying a perch over

3.05 m in height. Specifically, the geckos with lower perches ingested mostly ground-

dwelling prey, whereas those at higher perches fed predominantly on flying insect taxa.

In general, females tended to use perches of lower height than males, as 55.8% of females

were recorded below 1.52 m in comparison to 30.2% of males. Meanwhile, 41.5% of

males were recorded above 3.05 m as opposed to only 11.6% of females. Geckos

captured at different perch heights also demonstrated a difference in the number of empty

stomachs, with 13.04% for low geckos and 25% for high geckos (Saenz, unpublished).

Other perch height studies include one by Capula and Luiselli (1994) in Rome,

Italy. These authors concluded a close-to-the-ground existence for H. turcicus, as they

showed that its diet consisted mainly of ground-dwelling prey, with 55.2% of the gecko's









diet being made up of ants and flightless insects. In addition, Klawinski (unpublished)

observed a large number of Mediterranean geckos positioned close to the ground

(40.95%), a result he felt stemmed from the need for shade from surrounding lights. In

New Orleans, Rose and Barbour (1968) noticed several geckos on the third-floor level of

a building, and also on the roof of another.

Both Selcer (1986) and Klawinski (unpublished) recorded low average home range

areas of 0.93 m2 and 4.073 m2, respectively, with very little home-range overlap. These

results suggest that this species is territorial. Furthermore, observations have indicated

that male H. turcicus emerge from winter retreats earlier then females, perhaps to

establish territories before the breeding season (Klawinski, unpublished). In addition,

Rose and Barbour (1968), Frankenberg (1982), Marcellini (1977), Klawinski

(unpublished) have all witnessed aggressive displays ranging from tail waving to neck

biting. A study of the vocal activity ofH. turcicus revealed that only the dominant male

in a group produces a multiple click call in response to an intruder of either sex

(Frankenberg, 1978). In this same study, Frankenberg (1978) found that most of the

vocalization in H. turcicus occurred during the day, a time when this gecko is grouped

together in retreat-sites. This result indicates that social activity is perhaps separate from

this species' nocturnal foraging. In turn, this division between sociality and foraging

could explain the peaceful interaction between two male H. turcicus behind a drainpipe

witnessed by Rose and Barbour (1968).

The degree of exposure once H. turcicus has emerged from its daytime retreat has

not been formally studied. Rose and Barbour (1968) observed H. turcicus behind vertical









storm drains. Through personal observations, I have noted geckos behind electrical

boxes, pipes, and signs on walls.

Few studies have focused on H. turcicus with respect to temperature. An exception

is the study by Angilletta et al. (1999) where the body temperature for eight

Mediterranean geckos was measured to be 27.8 C in the morning, and 29.1 C in the

evening.

Hoping to shed further light on the natural history of the Mediterranean gecko, I

explored perch height, sociality, exposure, and selected surface temperature in three

distinct field surveys.

Methods

The first survey took place during the months of July and August 2001 whereby I

randomly sampled walls on 48 one-story buildings on the University of Florida campus

and the VA Hospital. I systematically sampled each wall by scanning it with a flashlight

from top to bottom, left to right. I classified each gecko I encountered as either an adult

(greater than 40 mm) or subadult (less than 30 mm). Note that I omitted any geckos that

I could not accurately size from any analysis. Lastly, I recorded the perch height of each

gecko using two categories; low if the gecko was at most one meter above the ground,

and high otherwise. Appendix B contains the complete dataset.

In the second survey, I sampled 50 one-story walls located on the University of

Florida campus and the VA Hospital. Between September 2001 and January 2002, I

sampled each of these 50 walls on a weekly basis. Upon each visit, I again examined a

wall by methodically examining it with a flashlight from top to bottom, left to right.

Geckos were sized according to the method mentioned previously. In addition to

documenting perch height (as above), I also quantified sociality, exposure, and selected









surface temperature. I used three categories to describe sociality: a gecko that had no

other individual within a 50 cm radius was termed alone, while two geckos within the

same radius were designated a pair, and three or more geckos were considered a group.

Furthermore, I labeled a gecko as exposed if it was in plain sight, and not exposed if the

snout-vent portion of its body was hidden behind a wall fixture. Using a Raytek Raynger

ST model temperature gun, I determined the selected surface temperature by measuring

the temperature of a spot adjacent to the gecko. Appendix B contains the complete

dataset.

For the third survey, also on the University of Florida campus and the VA Hospital,

I sampled 160 one-story walls between the months of March and June 2002. I visited

each wall twice throughout the study. The sampling regime and equipment I used were

identical to those previously mentioned in the second study. Appendix B contains the

complete dataset. A list of the criteria of these variables, and their associated levels is

summarized in Table 4-1.

I calculated percentages, averages, standard deviations, maximum values and

minimum values where appropriate.

Results

Summer 2001

During this study, I recorded a total of 187 gecko observations. Of these, 125

(67%) occurred at a high height, whereas 62 (33%) were at a low height. Upon

separating these observations into adults and subadults, two distinct patterns emerged. Of

the 131 adults I sampled, 97 (74%) were located high on walls and 34 (26%) were

observed at a low height. The opposite was true for subadults, as 38 (84%) out of the 45









recorded were found within one meter of the ground whereas the remaining 7 (16%) were

located at a high height (Figure 4-1).

Fall/Winter 2001

I used 576 gecko observations to test for perch height preference; 412 (71.5%)

occupied high positions, whereas 164 (28.5%) occupied low positions. Of these 576

gecko observations, 355 were adults of which 296 (83.4%) were at a high position and 59

(16.6%) were at low positions. I recorded 221 subadult observations, where 116 (52.5%)

were at a high position, and 105 (47.5%) were at a low portion of a wall (Figure 4-2).

I used 577 gecko observations to investigate sociality. Of these, 506 (87.7%)

geckos were alone, 56 (14.9%) were part of a pair, and 15 (4.2%) were part of a group. I

counted 355 adult gecko observations where 287 (80.9%) were alone, 53 (14.9%)

belonged to a pair, and 15 (4.2%) belonged to a group. Following a comparable trend,

the 222 subadult observations resulted in 219 (98.7%) alone counts and 3 (1.3%) pair

counts. No (0%) subadults were seen in any groups (Figure 4-3).

Of 574 exposure observations, I tallied 397 (69.2%) as being exposed and 177

(30.8%) as not exposed. Further breakdown of these results revealed that 199 (56.7%) of

the 351 adult observations were exposed, whereas 152 (43.3%) were not exposed. Of the

223 subadult observations I recorded, 198 (88.8%) fell in the exposed group, which

contrasts with the 25 (11.2%) observations that I placed in the not exposed group

(Figure 4-4).

As summarized by Table 4-2, the average substrate temperature for adults was

23.22 C (+ 3.05), with a maximum value of 36.3 C and a minimum value of 12.7 C.

Likewise, the average substrate temperature for subadults was 22.67 C (+ 2.80), with the

maximum and minimum values being 30.8 C and 13.9 C, respectively.









Spring 2002

I observed few subadults in this study, so I included only adult observations. With

respect to perch height, I obtained 237 observations, with 170 (71.7%) at high positions

and 67 (28.3%) at low positions (Figure 4-5).

For sociality, I had 236 observations, of which 223 (94.5%) were alone, 13 (5.5%)

belonged to a pair, and none (0%) were part of a group (Figure 4-6).

I collected 237 exposure observations, of which 178 (75%) fell into the exposed

category, and 59 (25%) into the not exposed category (Figure 4-7).

The average substrate temperature for adults was 24.89 C (+ 2.94). The maximum

temperature value I measured was 31.5 C, whereas the minimum value was 16.4 C

(Table 4-3).

Discussion

Adult H. turcicus consistently occupied wall habitats that were greater than one

meter above the ground. This trend was observed regardless of the time of year.

Although not quantified, the majority of the "high" sightings were located in the upper

portion of the walls, in close proximity to the roof awning. This high perch height could

be beneficial for escaping predators, as I repeatedly witnessed startled geckos escape into

crevices in the roof awning. However, it is important to mention that this result could be

an artifact of the difference in surface area between the two height categories; the low

category is restricted to a significantly smaller area than the high category. Thus, the

greater number of adults located in high wall positions may be directly related to the

greater area available.

Interestingly, despite this disparity in area, subadults were recorded on wall habitats

that were a maximum of one meter above the ground. This result was more pronounced









during the summer survey, although it was still evident during the fall/winter sampling

period.

This tendency for subadults to occupy a low habitat could stem from a variety of

reasons. First, the portion of a wall near the ground might not be an optimal habitat as it

could increase a gecko's vulnerability to predators. Subadults might be obliged to use

this less desirable habitat as a result of being out-competed by adults for the high optimal

ones. This scenario would be congruent with the significantly higher mortality rate found

in geckos measuring less than 30 mm (Selcer, 1986).

Secondly, the subadult age period could be the dispersal stage of H. turcicus. If

subadults were the dispersers, they would frequently be on the lower portion of a wall as

they would be continuously on the move. This idea might be supported by some

circumstantial evidence that I have witnessed during the course of this study; on several

occasions I have observed subadults on the ground some distance away from any

building/wall. In fact, one particular individual was recorded in the middle of an

expansive cement parking lot. Also, Rose and Barbour (1968) showed that hatchlings

could survive without food or water for up to one month. This resilient quality of

subadults would be ideal for the uncertainties of dispersing. Furthermore, this idea

would be compatible with Selcer's findings (1986), as dispersal would be expected to

make subadults more vulnerable to predation and thus increase their mortality rate.

Thirdly, subadult preference for low wall habitats might be a consequence of diet.

Perhaps the preferred prey of subadults and/or prey size suitable for small mouths is more

abundant on low dwellings. This is highly possible, as Saenz (unpublished), upon

conducting a detailed dietary study on H. turcicus, concluded that the gecko's height on a









wall greatly influenced a gecko's diet. Finally, the actual cause behind subadults

occupying a low habitat could be any one of the three mentioned hypotheses, or a

combination of these, or even still, none of these.

During the summer survey, a greater proportion of subadults in my sample used

perches at a low height than during the fall/winter survey. This discrepancy could be

attributed to a number of factors such as seasonal changes in prey consumption, a

decrease in adult competition due to adult turnover and/or the decrease of breeding

activities, an increase in the establishment of subadults on walls due to a decrease in

dispersal, an increase in subadult population, a combination of these, or none of the

above.

Sociality in the Mediterranean gecko during nocturnal foraging appears to be quite

minimal. Both adults and subadults preferred being alone. This result is in agreement

with the belief, held by many investigators, that H. turcicus is largely territorial. The

majority of the pair and group observations involved only adults. Group sizes rarely

exceeded three. I observed no aggressive display in any of these observations. Although

no copulation was witnessed, perhaps the gecko pairings were associated in some way

with breeding. Gecko groupings could also be linked to other stages of reproduction, as

communal nesting has been documented in this species (Selcer, 1986). Since geckos

were not sexed in this study, there is no way of telling if the pairs and groups consisted of

same or different sex individuals. The tendency for H. turcicus to be solitary does not

necessarily imply that this gecko species is not social. It has been shown that other

nocturnal gecko species (Nephrurus milii and Christinus marmoratus) form large, non-

random aggregations within retreat-sites (Kearney et al., 2001). The possibility that H.









turicus displays this behavior has been alluded to by Frankenberg (1978), who showed

that most vocalization in this species occurs in daytime retreats. Thus perhaps, H. turicus

socializes during the daytime within retreat-sites, and then forages in solitude during the

night, occasionally interacting with others for reproductive purposes and/or for prey

exploitation.

In general, the Mediterranean gecko remains exposed once it emerges from its

retreat-site at night. Since the number of possible hiding places is extremely difficult to

quantify and/or locate, this result could reflect my inability to find all hidden geckos and

thus be skewed. In addition, this result could also simply be a product of availability of

hiding places rather than preference. Subadults showed a greater propensity for

remaining exposed than adults. This difference might stem from adult competition for

hiding spaces, which could be intense if these spaces offer a significant increase in

predator protection. This subadult trend might also be an artifact of a lower incidence of

hiding places situated in the bottom portion of walls.

The field temperatures of the wall surface selected by both adult and subadult

H. turcicus were comparable. Although these temperatures are lower than previously

measured field body temperatures (29.1 C, n = 8), it is not entirely surprising as some

species of nocturnal geckos have been known to thermoregulate and achieve their

preferred body temperature during the day in their retreats rather than at night (Angilletta

et al., 1999).

An important point when considering these results is the high possibility of

pseudoreplication in the data. For the fall/winter 2001 survey, I visited the same 50 walls

every week, whereas in the spring 2002 survey I visited the same 160 walls twice. These






30


two sampling methods did not allow me to distinguish among individuals, and it is likely

that I counted the same individual many times. Thus, conclusions should be made with

caution. However, despite the fact that these results are limited in scope, they

nevertheless provide some insight for future investigators.











Table 4-1. Criteria of natural history variables
Variable Levels Criteria
Gecko < Im above the
Low
Height ground
H Gecko > Im above the
High ground
ground
Alone 1 gecko within a 50cm
Alone
radius
2 geckos within a 50cm
Sociality Pair
radius
3 or more geckos within
Group
Group a 50cm radius
Exp d Snout-vent portion of
Exposed
gecko in plain sight
Exposure Snout-vent portion of
posd gecko not in plain
Exposed sight
sight


Table 4-2. Temperature measurements of wall
fall/winter 2001


surface for adult and subadult H. turcicus;


Temperature Adult Subadult
Measurements

Average 23.220C 22.670C

Standard Deviation 3.050C 2.800C

Maximum Value 36.300C 30.800C

Minimum Value 12.70C 13.900C


Table 4-3. Temperature measurements of wall surface for adult H. turcicus; spring 2002
Temperature Adult
Measurements

Average 24.890C


Standard Deviation 2.940C


Maximum Value 31.50C


Minimum Value 16.40C












100%

90%

80%

e 70%

60%
O
Ch Low
._ 50%
SHigh
CD 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Adult Subadult
Perch Height

Figure 4-1. Perch height preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (summer 2001)













100%-

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


Adult


SHigh
SLow


Subadult


Gecko Age

Figure 4-2. Perch height preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (fall/winter 2001)












100% 4.2% 1.3%

90%

80%

70%

60%
O 6E Group
o 50% I Pair
gAlone
0. 40%
30%

20%

10%

0%
Adult Subadult

Gecko Age

Figure 4-3. Social preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (fall/winter 2001)














100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


Subadult


Gecko Age

Figure 4-4. Exposure preference of adult and subadult H. turcicus (fall/winter 2001)


Adult


I


* Exposed
* Not Exposed










100%

90%

80%72%

r 70%

60%
0
U)
o 50%

40%
S28%
o 30%

.20%

10%

0%
High Low
Perch Height


Figure 4-5. Perch height preference of adult H. turcicus (spring 2002)











100%
94.5%
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%
UC


o 40%

30%

20%
5.5%
10%
0% 0.0%

Alone Pair Group
Sociality


Figure 4-6. Social preference of adult H. turcicus (spring 2002)













100%

90%

80%75%

70%

.o 60%
0
0
5 50%

S40%
25%
30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No

Exposure

Figure 4-7. Exposure preference of adult H. turcicus (spring 2002)














CHAPTER 5
MICROHABITAT PREFERENCE IN THE INTRODUCED GECKO,
HEMIDACTYLUS TURCICUS

Introduction

Although frequently seen on buildings in both its native and nonnative range, little

is known of the microhabitat preferences ofH. turcicus. Habitat studies on this species

are largely nonexistent, and the little information available has mostly originated as

incidental observations made during other studies.

The only direct study, conducted in Rome, Italy, was a comparative study between

H. turcicus and the sympatric gecko species Tarentola mauritanica. In this study,

Luiselli and Cappizzi (1999) found that H. turcicus was more abundant on recently

constructed buildings than debilitated ancient buildings dating back to the Roman

Empire. Although this study provided some quantitative information on microhabitat

preference in H. turcicus, the confounding effects of competition influenced the

conclusions. Evidence of this is demonstrated by a survey Capula and Luiselli (1994)

conducted in Rome years earlier, which concluded that H. turcicus was particularly

common in Roman age archeological sites.

Additional information consists primarily of incidental observations, and is

anecdotal in nature. Although the natural habitat ofH. turcicus may have been rocky

cliffs, the primary habitat today appears to be structures associated with human habitation

(Arnold, 1984). Investigators have reported seeing H. turcicus on a number of human-

made constructions such as rock walls, burial vaults, and buildings of varying material









including granite, cement, wood, metal, and stucco (Davis, 1974; Klawinski,

unpublished; Meshaka Jr., 1995; Punzo, 2001a; Rose and Barbour, 1968; Saenz,

unpublished; Selcer, 1986). In Texas, Selcer (1986) found that H. turcicus occurred at

higher densities on brick versus metal structures, whereas in Florida Punzo (2001a) found

higher densities of H. turcicus on wood as opposed to metal buildings.

Investigators have always linked artificial light to the presence ofH. turcicus on

buildings, as lights presumably facilitate the capture of their insect prey (Capula and

Luiselli, 1994; Conant and Collins, 1998; Davis, 1974; Punzo, 2001a). In Texas, Davis

(1974) reported that H. turcicus preferred buildings that were lit by mercury-vapor lights.

However, a number of studies have collected H. turcicus from buildings with varying

light intensities, including complete darkness (Klawinski, unpublished; Meshaka Jr.,

1995).

Vegetation is another factor that has often been associated with Mediterranean

gecko habitat. Throughout its native range, H. turcicus has been found commonly on

trees (Loveridge, 1947). In its introduced range, buildings inhabited by H. turcicus have

possessed grass, shrubs and/or trees in close proximity to its walls (Klawinski,

unpublished, Saenz, 1996). Vegetative cover has been hypothesized by Saenz (1996) to

provide H. turcicus with retreats. In a separate study, Klawinski (unpublished) found a

weak association between the occurrence ofH. turcicus on walls with both high light

intensity and high vegetative cover.

The majority of these findings are qualitative observations. The few results

supported by quantitative data often lack a rigorous framework, making conclusions

difficult to formulate. Thus, I embarked on a systematic study of microhabitat









preference, in an attempt to contribute quantitative baseline data on the Mediterranean

gecko. Specifically, I investigated the previously studied variables: construction

material; vegetative cover; and light intensity. Furthermore, I examined cardinal

location, building age, surface texture, surface color, and wall length, as I considered

these characteristics to be potentially important to the habitat preference of this species.

Methods and Results

Sampling Methods

Between the months of March and June of 2002, I conducted a survey detailing the

microhabitat preference of H. turcicus on the University of Florida campus and VA

Hospital in Gainesville. I selected 160 buildings according to their accessibility, and, for

the sake of accurately detecting geckos, being one-story in height. I sampled only one

randomly selected wall per building. I used a die to make my selection; the numbers 1, 2,

5, and 6 indicated north, south, west and east, respectively, whereas 3 and 4 denoted

rolling the dice over again. Walls were considered a good representation of microhabitat

use in this species, as H. turcicus has been shown to possess a small home range; Rose

and Barbour (1968) reported an average recapture distance from initial capture site of

5.7 m, while Selcer (1986) estimated the mean range movement to be 0.93 m.

Furthermore, Trout and Schwaner (1994) reported that H. turcicus maintains itself in

discrete subpopulations in which differences in allele frequency have been found between

populations only 100 m apart. Each selected wall was characterized by building material,

presence or absence of light sources, surface color, surface texture, age of building,

vegetation level, cardinal orientation, and length.

Construction material was confined to four types: aluminum, brick, cement, and

wood. Identical to my preliminary survey, I arbitrarily used 50% of the surface area of a









given wall for my material classification. I restricted my survey to walls that featured a

predominate material.

I used two categories of light intensity, high and low. To account for gecko

movement, light intensity was measured with respect to the wall as opposed to a small

area around a gecko. Specifically, I classified walls as high light if they possessed at

least one light source (any brightness), whereas walls containing no light source I

assigned to the low light category.

I classified wall color into two levels using a 3-inch by 5-inch white index card. I

categorized a wall as dark if, upon fastening the index card to the wall, I could distinguish

it at a perpendicular distance of 10 feet (3.048 m) in daylight. The opposite was true of

walls appointed to the light level; the index card could not be perceived at a

perpendicular distance of 10 feet. All the walls I surveyed were uniformly colored across

their entire surface.

I also quantified wall texture using two levels. I considered a wall to be smooth if I

was able to draw a straight line, roughly10 cm in length, on white printer paper propped

on three distinct points on a wall. These three positions were subjectively selected as the

left edge, right edge, and middle point of the wall, approximately mid-wall in height. If I

was unable to draw a straight line at all three points on a wall, I classified the wall as

rough. Note that all lines were drawn with a relaxed handgrip.

I determined building age information from literature provided by the University of

Florida (UF Physical Plant Division, 2000), and an unofficial list created specifically for

this study by the Veterans Administration Hospital Engineering Department. I arbitrarily

assigned three age groups, all based on these sources. I categorized walls built between









1900 and 1969 as early, between 1970 and 1989 as modern, and between 1990 and 2002

as contemporary. I ignored any possible renovations. The age of a building was used as

an approximation for the number of daytime retreats (cracks and/or crevices) since

Luiselli and Capizzi (1999) found that the age of a building and the condition of its walls

were highly correlated. The necessity of using this approximation arose when, during my

preliminary survey, it became apparent that estimating the number of retreats with the

naked eye was highly unreliable.

I classified walls into one of three vegetation levels. The three vegetation levels

were based on the cement/vegetation ratio bordering the wall, rather than the diversity or

height of the vegetation. I quantified the vegetation in this fashion because of the

unpredictable management techniques encountered during my preliminary survey;

primarily, workers constantly altered vegetation variety and height. Thus, the cement

level referred to a wall where at least 60% of the length was bordered by cement, the mix

level to a wall whose length was bordered more than 40% but less than 60% by either

cement or vegetation, and the vegetation level to a wall whose length was bordered at

least 60% by vegetation.

I determined the cardinal orientation of walls using the same methods discussed in

my preliminary survey. Using the 2000 Building Information List for the University of

Florida and official maps of the VA Hospital Engineering Department, I classified walls

as north, south, west, or east. For walls that were not clearly oriented in one of these

directions, I allowed a 45 angle of leeway on each side of the cardinal direction. Figure

3-1 in chapter 3 has further details.









I described length by means of three randomly created categories. I classified walls

as small if their greatest length measured less than 20 m, as medium if their length was

between 20 m and 40 m, and as large if they were 40 or more meters in length. Length

was used as a general measure for size, since all walls had roughly the same height (one-

story). A list of the criteria of these variables, and their associated levels is summarized

in Table 5-1.

My sampling regime consisted of visiting 10 walls per night, on two nights per

week. Each visit occurred approximately two hours after sunset, which according to

King (1959) is a period of high activity for H. turcicus in Gainesville. The number of

walls I inspected per night was limited to 10 to keep sampling duration under two hours.

This was done to homogenize weather conditions among walls. The four months I

selected for the survey period coincided with part of the reproductive season of H.

turcicus and further ensured gecko activity (Selcer, 1986). Thus, I examined each of the

160 walls twice for completeness, once during March/April and once during May/June. I

sampled each wall by passing a flashlight systematically across the entire surface, going

from right to left, top to bottom. I recorded the presence or absence ofH. turcicus for

each wall. I pooled data from the two visits, and considered a wall to have a gecko if at

least 1 gecko was present during at least one of the two visits. The complete dataset is

presented in Appendix C.

Data Analysis 1

The data were initially analyzed using either a chi-square test or a Fisher's exact

test in order to detect dependency among the eight variables of interest. The Fisher's

exact test is based on the hypergeometric distribution, rather than a chi-square

distribution; when testing for independence, the p-value is obtained by adding the









probabilities of outcomes as favorable to the alternative hypothesis (dependence) as the

observed outcome (Agresti, 1996). I then used logistic regression in an effort to model

the wall variables to the presence/absence ofH. turcicus on a wall. I selected logistic

regression because it functions on binary data, which was the format of the data I had

collected. Only those variables deemed independent from the chi-square tests were used

as predictors for the logistic regression in an attempt to avoid multicollinearity in the

model.

I determined the logistic regression model by using the backward elimination

method (Agresti, 1996). In this method, one essentially begins with the full model,

containing all possible variables and the interactions between them, and then

systematically removes one term at a time, starting with the highest-order term. With the

removal of each term, the deviation (G2 test of goodness of fit) of the new model is

compared to that of the full model. Removals continue until the difference in deviation

between the two models either reaches a specified value determined by the investigator

and/or the difference reaches a large enough value that it becomes significant. Once

significance is attained, further term removal would result in losing the integrity of the

information provided by the dataset. In other words, this method is a balance between

simplifying the model, and preserving a sufficient amount of the dataset information.

Therefore, the number of retained terms is directly related to the objective of the

investigator (Agresti, 1996). In this case, I decided to choose integrity of information

over simplification, and thus I elected to use the simplest model that possessed the

smallest difference in deviation from the full model.









Once I had chosen an appropriate model, I calculated the odds ratio and a 95%

confidence interval of the odds ratio for each significant predictor. The odds ratio (0), as

defined by Agresti (1996) is the ratio of the odds of two events (0 = odds,/ odds2), where

the odds of each event is defined as the odds of success for that event. Thus for example,

if the probability of success for event 1 is 0.75, then odds= probability of

success/probability of failure = 0.75/1-0.75 = 0.75/025 = 3. This signifies that success in

event 1 is three times as likely as failure. Finally, if odds= 3 and odds2 = 4, then the

odds ratio 0 = 3/4 = 0.75, which indicates that the odds of success for event 1 is 0.75 the

odds of event 2. To put it into perspective, if the odds of finding a gecko on aluminum

walls is 3, while the odds of finding a gecko on wood walls is 4, then the odds ratio of

aluminum walls to wood walls would be 0.75; this signifies that the odds of finding a

gecko on aluminum walls is 0.75 that of finding a gecko on wood walls. The odds ratio

for each predictor was calculated by taking the exponent of the predictor's estimate (eB,

where B is the predictor estimate). I then calculated a 95% confidence interval for each

odds ratio by finding the lower and upper bounds, and then taking their exponents; the

bounds were found using the equation Bi +/- 1.96 (ASE), where Bi denotes the estimate

of the predictor in question and ASE stands for the estimate's asymptotic standard error.

Thus, the 95% confidence intervals take the following form: (eB-196 (), eBi+.96 (ASE)

(Agresti, 1996). In all of my statistical analyses, the significance value was set at the

0.05 level. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS, version 8.2.

Results 1

The chi-square and the Fisher's exact analyses revealed a number of associations

among the variables. Specifically, material was highly dependent on building age, color,









length, and texture. Furthermore, light was dependent on both length and vegetation,

while color was dependent on both age and length. Table 5-2 contains additional

information, including p-values. To avoid multicollinearity in the eventual model, I

omitted the variables age, color, length, and texture from further analysis since they could

be accounted for by the variable material. Table 5-3 describes the relationship between

material and age, color, length, and texture.

I fitted a logistic regression model using the variables cardinal orientation (CO),

light (L), material (M), and vegetation (V). The backward elimination method supported

the use of the interaction variables M*CO*V + M*CO*L model instead of the full model

M*CO*V*L. The M*CO*V + M*CO*L model explained the same amount of variability

as the full model (the difference in deviation was zero), but with fewer terms, thus

making it easier to interpret. Table 5-4 presents additional details on the backward

elimination method.

The expanded, symbolic version of the logistic regression model M*CO*V +

M*CO*L is the Equation 5-1.

(Eq. 5-1) Y =M*CO*V + M*CO*L + M*CO + M*V + M*L + CO*V + CO*L +
V*L +M+CO + V+L

The M*CO*V + M*CO*L model is modeling the probability that y = 1, i.e. that H.

turcicus is present on a wall. Table 5-5 contains the estimate, asymptotic standard error,

p-value, odds ratio, and 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for all of the significant

predictors. The numerical representation of the model is the Equation 5-2.

(Eq. 5-2) Y= 68.3825 68.3825m1 91.7478m2 46.1655m3 + 18.3578v2 +
109.586coi 45.0170co2 67.283911 + 131.7139 mlcoi + 44.3238 mico2
17.0373m2co3 18.3581v2 c02
Where


mi = 1 = Aluminum, and 0 otherwise










m2 = 1 = Brick, and 0 otherwise
m3 = 1 = Cement, and 0 otherwise
m = m2 = m3 = 0 = Wood

vi = 1 = Cement, and 0 otherwise
v2= 1 = Mix, and 0 otherwise
vl = v2 = 0 = Vegetation

col = 1 = East, and 0 otherwise
co2 = 1 = North, and 0 otherwise
co3 = 1 = South, and 0 otherwise
co = co2 = 3 = 0 = West

11 = 1 = No light, and 0 otherwise
11 = 0 = Light


However, parameter estimates of this model were unusually high or unusually low,

resulting in equally extreme odd ratios. This suggests that despite this model being the

"best" one my input could generate, it was inadequate as the estimates were too

unrealistic. Although there is no written rule on estimate magnitude, the magnitudes of

my estimates were so large as to render them unpredictable and useless (Ken Portier,

personal communication). In general, I have noticed odds ratios take values between

zero and five, occasionally larger but never greater than 10. Thus, I recommend using a

value of 10 as a cut-off point for odds ratios. Accordingly, anything above 10 should be

used with caution, and definitely examined further. With respect to a low boundary for

odds ratio values, the mathematical minimum is zero. However, values close to zero that

take the form of a low order decimal should also be considered with caution, and

investigated further.

Data Analysis 2

In an attempt to determine if the difficulty encountered in my first analysis was a

result of the model selected, I fitted all of the possible models, even those that would

explain less overall variability. Specifically, these were










M*CO*V+ M*CO*L+ M*V*L + CO*V*L
M*CO*V+ M*CO*L+ M*V*L
M*CO*V+ M*CO*L + CO*V*L
M*CO*V+ M*V*L + CO*V*L
M*CO*L + M*V*L + CO*V*L
M*CO*V+ M*V*L
M*CO*L + M*V*L
M*CO*L + CO*V*L
M*CO*V
M*CO*L
These models correspond to #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #9, #12, #13, and, #14 in Table 5.4.

In addition, I constructed a table of all the wall combinations I encountered during

my survey in order to verify that my dataset was appropriate for logistic regression; too

few observations per wall combination could cause the model to produce unrealistic

estimates.

Results 2

All 10 additional fitted models produced similar estimate and odds ratio values,

either extremely high or extremely low in magnitude. In other words, these 10 models

were inadequate too. Thus, this indicated that model selection was not the source of the

problem.

A possible cause of the problem could have been the large number of zeros and low

among the various wall combinations (Table 5-6). The wall combination table revealed

that of 96 possible wall combinations, 32 were never encountered during this study, and

an additional 32 combinations occurred just once. Indeed, only 10 combinations of the

96 possible were represented by more than five occurrences, although none over 10.

These results strongly point toward the conclusion that this dataset is not sufficiently

large enough to accommodate logistic regression (Agresti, 1996; Ken Portier, personal

communication).









Data Analysis 3

Following a common statistical practice, I collapsed the wall combination table into

a smaller, more concise table with fewer variables and/or levels. This can be

accomplished most simply by removing and/or combining. Therefore, I removed

cardinal orientation, as it was the least repeatable of all the variables; compass readings

are linked to the magnetic poles, which are constantly changing locations (Natural

Resources Canada, 2003). Furthermore, I decided to combine the cement and mix

vegetation levels to increase cell numbers and eliminate zeros within the table. Thus,

vegetation was described by two levels; the cement level referred to walls whose length

were bordered more than 40% by cement, whereas the vegetation level referred to walls

whose lengths were bordered at least 60% by vegetation of any species and height.

Although there existed a number of distinct ways I could have collapsed my wall

combinations table, I believe that the arrangement I selected was ecologically, the most

parsimonious one. I then fitted a logistic regression model with the backward elimination

method. I used the variables material (M), light (L), and the newly described vegetation

(V). Estimates and odds ratios for parameters were calculated where pertinent.

Results 3

The wall combination table resulting from the removal of cardinal orientation and

the merging of two vegetation levels was significantly condensed; instead of 96 cells, this

new table totaled only 16 (Table 5-7). This decrease in the number of cells eliminated

zeros from the table, although six of the remaining 16 (37.5%; 6/16) values were less

than five.

The backward elimination method resulted in 16 logistic regression models,

ranging from the highly complex three-factor interaction model to the simple no-factor









model (Table 5-8). Theoretically, all 16 models were found to be functional, each having

its own balance between simplicity and the amount of variability explained. Despite all

models being usable, only the model M*V*L contained significant parameters.

However, these parameter estimates and their resulting odds ratios were again found to be

unusually high or unusually low. Although the remaining models had typical parameter

estimates and odds ratios, none of the parameters were significant; in other words, these

models would contain zero parameters, since only significant parameters are included in

a model, thus these models were impractical. These results show that logistic regression

models continue to crash with these data.

Data Analysis 4

In a final attempt to obtain a successful logistic regression model, I combined the

light and vegetation variables into one variable with three levels. Specifically, I pooled

both vegetation levels under the high light level, and left the two vegetation levels under

the low light level unchanged. Thus, I described the new light-vegetation variable

(LVEG) as HCV (high/cement-vegetation) if a wall was characterized by high light and

any kind of vegetation, as LC (low/cement) if a wall was classified as low light and

cement, and as LV (low/vegetation) if a wall was classified as low light and vegetation.

From an ecological perspective, this merging assumes that in the presence of a light

source, vegetation is irrelevant to choice of walls by a gecko. Conversely, in the absence

of light, vegetation becomes an important consideration in choice of walls by a gecko.

For example, the overall significance could be that light sources always attract insect prey

and thus render vegetation level irrelevant; whereas in the absence of light, vegetation

might dictate the type and/or amount of insect prey and thus become a key component in

microhabitat choice.









I then fitted a logistic regression model using the variables material (M) and the

newly formed light-vegetation (LVEG). I used the backward elimination method for

model fitting.

Results 4

Further variable condensation produced a wall combination table with no zeros or

ones, with only two values smaller than five (Table 5-9).

The backward elimination method generated five functional logistic regression

models (Table 5-10). However, none of the models contained significant parameters.

Consequently, these models were unusable.

Data Analysis 5

A final analysis was performed on these data. I computed chi-square tests for

material and gecko presence, light-vegetation and gecko presence, material and gecko

presence while controlling for the light-vegetation variable, and light-vegetation and

gecko presence while controlling for the material variable. I used the Fisher's Exact test

instead of the chi-square test for small samples. Lastly, I calculated relevant percentages

for these data. Significance was set at the 5% level.

Results 5

Using the Fisher's exact test, light-vegetation was found to be independent of

gecko presence at the 5% significance level when controlling for material (Table 5-11).

Significance values for light-vegetation and gecko presence were 0.4098 for aluminum,

1.0000 for brick, 0.2416 for cement, and 0.6431 for wood. The cell chi-square values

revealed that fewer cement walls of high light and any vegetation type had geckos than

expected. Although this result is not significant, it points to a potential trend.









When light-vegetation was controlled, the Fisher's exact test concluded that

material and gecko presence were independent at the 5% significance level (Table 5-12).

Specifically, significance values were 0.8594 for high light/cement-vegetation, 0.6111 for

low light/cement, and 0.2642 for low light/vegetation. A possible trend was also

uncovered via the cell chi-square values; there was a greater number of aluminum, low

light/vegetation walls that contained geckos than would be expected by chance.

Two-way chi-square tests concluded that both light-vegetation (Table 5-13) and

material (5-14) were independent of gecko presence at the 5% significance level. The

significance value for light vegetation was 0.1402, whereas that of material was 0.2281.

General, yet non-significant, trends included fewer high light/cement-vegetation walls

inhabited by geckos, and a greater number of gecko-populated aluminum walls than

predicted by randomness.

These analyses revealed that 34% (13/38) of high light/cement-vegetation walls,

48% (40/83) of low light/vegetation walls and 56% (22/39) of low light/cement walls

contained geckos (Table 5-15). With respect to aluminum walls, 42% (5/12) of high

light/cement-vegetation walls, 63% (17/27) of low light/vegetation walls and 71% (5/7)

of low light/cement walls recorded gecko presence. Following a similar pattern of gecko

occurrence, cement and wood walls achieved the low values of 22% (2/9) and 25% (1/4)

respectively when described as high light/cement-vegetation, followed by 44% (12/27)

and 33% (5/15) when characterized as low light/vegetation, and peaked at 57% (13/23)

and 67% (2/3) when categorized as low light/cement. When considering brick walls, in

turn, 33% (2/6) of high light/cement-vegetation walls, 39% (5/13) of low light/cement

walls and 43% (6/14) of low light/vegetation walls recorded geckos.









With respect to material, 59% (27/46) of aluminum walls, 46% (27/59) of cement

walls, 39% (13/33) of brick walls, and 36% (8/22) of wood walls had geckos

(Table5-16). When controlling for high light/cement-vegetation, geckos occurred on

42% (5/12) of aluminum walls, 39% (5/13) of brick walls, 25% (1/4) of wood walls, and

22% (2/9) of cement walls. Walls described as low light/cement contained geckos 71%

(5/7) of the time if they were made of aluminum, 67% (2/3) of the time if they were

constructed of wood, 57% (13/23) of the time if they were cement, and 33% (2/6) of the

time if they were build out of brick. Regarding low light/vegetation walls, 63% (17/27)

of aluminum walls, 44% (12/27) of cement walls, 43% (6/14) of brick walls, and 33%

(5/15) of wood walls were populated by geckos.

Discussion

Sample size proved to be a defining component in the outcome of my analyses.

The realization that the number of sampled walls was too small to accommodate a

logistic regression was unexpected, as my sample size (160 walls) greatly exceeded the

general rule of 10 observations per variable (Agresti, 1996). Indeed, my sample size of

160 was twice that required for my original eight variables, and four times that needed for

the four variables eventually used for the logistic regression model. Further

investigation, however, revealed that overall sample size was not responsible for the

model inadequacy. Instead, it was the mostly small, sometimes zero, sample size of

individual wall combinations that contributed to the collapse of the model. Thus, even if

the sample size for this study was substantially larger, a logistic regression model would

continue to fail if there were wall combinations with a small number of samples.

This could be a common dilemma in urban ecology studies, where investigators

must work within rigid landscapes that offer few opportunities for manipulation. Thus,









the possibility that study sites might not contain specific combinations of variables is

often true, and highly unpredictable due to the human dimension involved. These

statistical considerations should be an integral step in the planning of any urban ecology

study.

Once the data were sufficiently collapsed to compensate for the small sample size

of certain wall combinations, both the logistic regression model and chi-square tests

showed no significance at the 5% level. This lack of significance suggests a variety of

scenarios.

First, the microhabitat preference ofH. turcicus with respect to material, light, and

vegetation might be subtle and thus require a larger sample size to be exposed.

Second, perhaps the microhabitat variables that were selected for this study are

irrelevant to the microhabitat choice ofH. turcicus, and the statistical conclusions merely

report this. Theoretically, habitat selection in reptiles is believed to be most effective

when controlled by reliable environmental cues that are independent of daily and/or

seasonal fluctuations, and are evident in all situations (Heatwole, 1982). Although this

was the case for material, light and vegetation were less consistent due to management

regimes, and thus might not be used as a stimulus because they fail to accurately

represent a given habitat. Other factors such as, but not limited to, microclimate quality,

behavioral aspects and structural attributes may also play an important role in

microhabitat selection and need to be considered in future studies (Heatwole, 1982).

Lastly, it is possible that these results reflect the robust character of this proficient

colonizing gecko species. Perhaps the extensive non-native range ofH. turcicus stems









from this gecko's habitat flexibility, which allows it to thrive on any type of building/wall

environment.

Although no significant results were obtained in this study, some general trends

were uncovered, and may pave the way for future research. In view of material, more

aluminum walls than expected contained geckos, particularly those possessing low light

and vegetation. Aluminum walls were also described as having a smooth texture, light

color, small length and being modem in age. With respect to light-vegetation, fewer high

light/cement-vegetation walls than expected possessed geckos, especially those

constructed of cement. Further work is required to officially establish these trends, and to

tease out the mechanisms behind them.

As with all scientific studies, these data and its conclusions have some limitations.

For instance, it is impossible to determine if the absence of H. turcicus on a wall is due to

preference or if it is an artifact of this species dispersal ability and/or of extraneous

circumstances. Also, shortcomings in sampling technique, such as not observing a wall

throughout the entire night and frightening geckos as I approached a wall, could have

resulted in an underestimation of walls containing geckos.

Additional work, both in the field and in the lab, is needed to shed light on the

microhabitat preferences ofH. turcicus in urban environments. Key to future studies is

the establishment of strict protocols that all investigators can follow anywhere in the

world. This, in turn, would allow for meaningful comparisons between different sites,

and when all studies are pooled, for meta-analyses on general patterns. Moreover, future

work should explore and develop sampling and statistical methods that will enhance

ecological studies in urban environments.











Table 5-1. Description of wall characterization variables for microhabitat study


Levels
Early
Modem
Contemporary
North
South
West
East


Criteria
*Built between 1900 to 1969
*Built between 1970 to 1989
*Built between 1990 to 2002
**Location of wall on official maps
**Location of wall on official maps
**Location of wall on official maps
**Location of wall on official maps


*** The inability to perceive a 3"x 5" white index
Light card at a perpendicular distance of 10ft
(3.048m) from the wall; during the day
***The ability to perceive a 3"x 5" white index
Dark card at a perpendicular distance of 10ft
(3.048m) from the wall; during the day
Small Measurement < 20m

Length Medium 20m < measurement < 40m

Large Measurement > 40m

High Presence of at least one light source on the wall
Light
Low No light source present on the wall
Aluminum Physical observation; > 50% of wall surface
Brick Physical observation; > 50% of wall surface
Material
Cement Physical observation; > 50% of wall surface
Wood Physical observation; > 50% of wall surface
Sm h Ability to draw a straight line -10cm in length on
Smooth
Texture white printer paper propped on the wall
Roh Inability to draw a straight line -10cm in length on
white printer paper propped on the wall
Cement > 60% of wall length bordered by cement

Veget n Mx > 40% to <60% of wall length bordered by
Vegetation Mix
cement or vegetation
> 60% of wall length bordered by any type or
Vegetation
height of vegetation
*Sources used: 2000 Building Information List for the University of Florida prepared by the UF Physical Plant Division,and
unofficial list prepared by the VA Hospital Engineering Department
**Sources used: 2000 Building Information List for the University of Florida prepared by the UF Physical Plant Division,and
official VA Hospital Engineering maps
*** Index cards were provided by AMPAQ, Dallas, TX, 75252


Variables


Cardinal
Orientation

















Table 5-2. Chi-square and Fisher Exact p-values for wall characterization variables
Cardinal
Variables Age Ort Color Length Light Material Texture Vegetation
Orientation
Age -- 0.6695 0.0297 *0.0845 0.7228 <0.0001 0.9564 0.1976

Cardinal
Cardinal 0.6043 *0.8805 0.1941 0.8859 0.7580 0.3484
Orientation

Color ------- ------- ------ *0.0481 *0.0922 <0.0001 *<0.0001 0.3426

Length ------- ------- ------- ------- 0.0005 *0.0041 0.0573 *0.2682

Light ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 0.0622 *0.0846 0.0464

Material ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ <0.0001 0.0691

Texture ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 0.7696

Vegetation --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Indicates the use of the Fisher's Exact test
Numbers in bold indicate significance







59


Table 5-3. The dependency of age, color, length, and texture on material

Material Age Color Length Texture

Aluminum Modem Light Small Smooth

Brick Early Dark Small/Moder Smooth

Cement Early Light Small Rough
Modern/
Wood Cotem Dark Small Rough
Contemporary
















Table 5-4. Logistic regression models resulting from the backward elimination method using the variables: material; cardinal
orientation, vegetation, light
Models
Model Predictors Deviance DF s Difference P-Value
Compared
1 M*CO*V*L 141.5044 95

M*CO*V+ M*CO*L+
2 M*C M* + 141.5044 95 2-1 0 >0.999
M*V*L+ CO*V*L
M*CO*V+M*CO*L+
3 *V *141.5044 98 3-1 0 >0.999
M*V*L
M*CO*V+M*CO*L+
4 141.5044 96 4-1 0 >0.999
CO*V*L
M*CO*V+M*V*L+
5 + 152.4738 100 5-1 10.9694 -0.100
CO*V*L
M*CO*L+M*V*L+
6 M*C+ 152.9663 103 6-1 11.4619 > 0.250
CO*V*L

7 M*CO*V+M*CO*L 141.5044 101 7-1 0 >0.999

8 M*CO*V+M*V*L 152.4738 104 8-1 10.9694 >0.100

9 M*CO*L+M*V*L 155.9364 108 9-1 14.4320 >0.100

10 M*CO*V+CO*V*L 156.7944 103 10-1 15.2900 <0.050

11 M*V*L+CO*V*L 171.1805 110 11-1 29.6761 <0.010

12 M*CO*L+CO*V*L 162.5828 109 12-1 21.0784 -0.100














Table 5-4. Continued.
Models
Model Predictors Deviance DF s Difference P-Value
Compared

13 M*CO*V 158.7768 108 13-1 17.2724 -0.100

14 M*CO*L 164.7604 114 14-1 23.2560 >0.100

15 M*V*L 176.4308 115 15-1 34.9264 <0.050

16 CO*V*L 178.6783 116 16-1 37.1739 <0.050

M*CO+M*V+M*L+
17 CO+*+*L185.0743 121 17-1 43.5699 <0.050
CO*V+CO*L+V*L
Numbers in bold indicates significance
Model 7, underlined and in bold, is the chosen model














Table 5-5. Summary statistics of the significant predictor variables of the M*CO*V+M*CO*L model

Predictor Estimate ASE P-value Odds Ratio 95%C.I.of Odds Ratio


Aluminum

Brick

Cement

Wood

Mix

Vegetation

East

North

West

No Light

Light

Aluminum / East

Aluminum / North

Aluminum / West

Brick / South

Brick/ West

North / Mix Veg

North / Veg


-68.3825

-91.7478

-46.1655

0.0000

18.3578

0.0000

109.5860

-45.0170

0.0000

-67.2839

0.0000

131.7139

44.3238

0.0000

- 17.0373

0.0000

-18.3581

0.0000


1.4434

1.6833

1.3663

0.0000

1.5916

0.0000

1.0954

1.5275

0.0000

1.6583

0.0000

1.5652

2.4152

0.0000

2.0897

0.0000

2.0083

0.0000


<0.0001

<0.0001

<0.0001


< 0.0001


< 0.0001

< 0.0001


< 0.0001


< 0.0001

< 0.0001


<0.0001


<0.0001


2.0038 x 10'30 (1.18 x 1031, 3.39 x 1030)

1.4270 x 10-40 (5.27 x 10-42, 3.87 x 1039)

8.9244 x 10-21 (6.13 x 10-22, 1.30 x 1019)


9.3906 x 10 (4.15 x 106,2.13 x 10)
9.3906 x 10' (4.15 x 106 2.13 x 109


3.9138 x 1047

2.8143 x 10-20


6.0114 x 10-30


1.5945 x 1057

1.7766 x 1019


3.9884 x 10-8


1.0646 x 10-


(4.57 x 1046, 3.35 x 1048)

(1.41 x 10-21, 5.62 x 1019)


(2.33 x 1031, 1.55 x 10-28)


(7.42 x 1055, 3.43 x 105 )

(1.56 x 101, 2.02 x 1021)


(6.64 x 10-10, 2.40 x 10-6)


(2.08 x 10-0, 5.45 x 10 )















Table 5-6. Possible wall combinations involving the variables: material, cardinal orientation, vegetation, and light
Cardinal Light Level = High Light Level = Low
Orientation Material Vegetation Level Vegetation Level
Cement Mix Vegetation Cement Mix Vegetation
Aluminum 0 0 3 1 3 5
N h Brick 2 2 2 0 0 0
North
Cement 1 1 1 2 5 6
Wood 1 1 1 0 0 4
Aluminum 1 1 3 1 0 7
Brick 2 1 1 1 0 5
South
Cement 0 1 1 3 5 7
Wood 0 0 0 1 1 7
Aluminum 0 0 2 0 1 6
Brick 0 0 1 2 2 3
West
Cement 1 0 1 1 2 8
Wood 0 0 0 0 0 4
Aluminum 0 1 1 1 1 8
East Brick 2 0 0 1 1 3
East
Cement 1 0 1 3 2 6
Wood 1 0 0 1 0 0










Table 5-7.


Number of observations per wall combination involving the variables:
material vegetation (2 levels) and lig t


Light Level = High Light Level = Low
Material Vegetation Level Vegetation Level

Cement Vegetation Cement Vegetation

Aluminum 3 9 8 26

Brick 9 4 7 13

Cement 5 4 23 27

Wood 3 1 3 15














Table 5-8. Logistic regression models resulting from the backward elimination method using the variables: material, vegetation
(2 levels), and light
Models
Model Predictors Deviance DF odes Difference P-Value
Compared
1 M*V*L 207.9758 144

2 M*L+M*V+V*L 208.5680 147 2-1 0.5922 > 0.250

3 M*L+M*V 208.8361 148 3-1 0.8603 > 0.250

4 M*L+V*L 211.0082 150 4 -1 3.0324 > 0.250

5 M*V+V*L 210.8852 150 5-1 2.9094 > 0.250

6 M*L 211.6953 151 6-1 3.7195 > 0.250

7 M*V 211.1258 151 7-1 3.15 > 0.250

8 V*L 212.4750 153 8-1 4.4992 > 0.250

9 M+V+L 212.8583 154 9-1 4.8825 > 0.250

10 M+L 213.4205 155 10-1 5.4447 > 0.250

11 M+V 216.6519 155 11-1 8.6761 > 0.250

12 V+L 217.7235 157 12-1 9.7477 > 0.250














Table 5-8. Continued.
Models
Model Predictors Deviance DF s Difference P-Value
Compared

13 M 216.8310 156 13-1 8.8552 > 0.250

14 V 221.1641 158 14-1 13.1883 > 0.250

15 L 217.9192 158 15-1 9.9434 > 0.250

16 NONE 221.1817 159 16-1 13.2059 > 0.250

Number in bold indicates model that contain significant parameters










Table 5-9. Number of observations per wall combination involving the variables:
material, and light-vegetation (3 levels)

Light-Vegetation Levels
Material
High Light /
ateial High Ligt Low Light/Cement Low Light/Vegetation
Cement-Vegetation
Aluminum 12 8 26

Brick 13 7 13

Cement 9 23 27

Wood 4 3 15



Table 5-10. Logistic regression models resulting from the backward elimination method
using the variables: material, and light-vegetation (3 levels)
Model Predictors Deviance DF Models Compared Difference P-Value

1 M*LVEG 209.8897 148

2 M+LVEG 212.3961 154 2-1 2.5064 > 0.250

3 M 216.8310 156 3-1 6.9413 > 0.250

4 LVEG 217.2007 157 4-1 7.311 > 0.250

5 NONE 221.1817 159 5-1 11.292 > 0.250

Note that there is no model with significant parameters














Table 5-11. Chi-square test and Fisher's Exact test for light-vegetation and gecko presence, controlling for material


High Light /
Cement -
Vegetation


Material Aluminum Brick Cement Wood


Gecko Presence

Frequency


Yes No


Yes No


Expected 7.0435 4.9565 5.1212 7.8788 4.1186 4.8814 1.4545 2.5455
Frequency


Cell Chi-Square


0.5929


0.8425


0.0029


0.0019


1.0898


0.9196


0.1420


0.0812


Frequency 5 2 2 4 13 10 2 1

Low Light / Expected
Cement Frequenc 4.1087 2.8913 2.3636 3.6364 10.525 12.475 1.0909 1.9091
Cement Frequency

Cell Chi-Square 0.1934 0.2748 0.0559 0.0364 0.5818 0.4909 0.7576 0.4329

Frequency 17 10 6 8 12 15 5 10


Low Light /
Vegetation


Expected 15.8480 11.1520 5.5152 8.4848 12.3560 14.644 5.4545 9.5455
Frequency


Cell Chi-Square


0.0838


0.1190


0.0426


0.0277


0.0103


0.0087


0.0379


0.0216


- r 4


Total Chi-Square


2.1063


0.1674


3.1010


1.4732


P-Value for
Chi-Square/ 0.3488 / 0.4098* 0.9197 / 1.0000* 0.2121 /0.2416* 0.4787/ 0.6431*
Fisher's Exact*














Table 5-12. Chi-square test and Fisher's Exact test for material and gecko presence, controlling for light-vegetation


Aluminum


High Light /
Light-Vegetation Low Light / Cement Low Light / Vegetation
LCement Vegetation


Gecko Presence


No


No


Yes


Frequency 5 7 5 2 17 10

Expected 4.1053 7.8947 3.9487 3.0513 13.012 13.9880
Frequency


Cell Chi-Square


0.195


0.1014


0.2799


0.3622


1.2222


1.1370


Frequency 5 8 2 4 6 8

Brick Expected 4.4474 8.5526 3.3846 2.6154 6.7470 7.2530
Frequency
Cell Chi-Square 0.0687 0.0357 0.5664 0.7330 0.0827 0.0769

Frequency 2 7 13 10 12 15

Cement Expected 3.0789 5.9211 12.9740 10.0260 13.0120 13.9880
Frequency
Cell Chi-Square 0.3781 0.1966 5.07x 10-5 0.0001 0.0787 0.0732

Frequency 1 3 2 1 5 10


Expected
Frequency
Cell Chi-Square


1.3684

0.0992


2.6316

0.0516


1.1263


1.6923

0.0559


1.3077

0.0724


2.0700


7.2289

0.6872


7.7711

0.6393


3.9973


P-Value for
Chi-Square/ 0.7707 / 0.8594* 0.5580 / 0.6111* 0.2618 / 0.2642*
Fisher's Exact*


Wood


-I 4 1


Total Chi-Square







70


Table 5-13. Chi-square test for light-vegetation and gecko presence


High Light /
Cement -
Vegetation


Gecko Presence


Frequency 13 25

Expected 17.8130 20.1880
Frequency


Cell Chi-Square


1.3002


1.1473


Frequency 22 17

Low Light / Expected 20.7190
Cement Frequency

Cell Chi-Square 0.7565 0.6675

Frequency 40 43


Low Light /
Vegetation


Expected 38.9060 44.0940
Frequency


Cell Chi-Square


Total Chi-Square


P-Value for
Chi-Square


0.0307


0.0271


3.9293


4


0.1402


- ~ 4.







71


Table 5-14. Chi-square test for material and gecko presence


Gecko Presence


Frequency 27 19


Aluminum


Expected 21.5630 24.4380
Frequency


Cell Chi-Square


1.3712


1.2099


Frequency 13 20

Brick Expected 15.4690 17.5310
Frequency

Cell Chi-Square 0.3940 0.3476

Frequency 27 32

Cement Expected 27.6560 31.3440
Frequency

Cell Chi-Square 0.0156 0.0137

Frequency 8 14


Wood


Expected 10.3130 11.6880
Frequency


Cell Chi-Square


0.5186


- 4.


Total Chi-Square


P-Value for
Chi-Square


0.4576


4.3282


0.2281










Table 5-15. Three-way contingency table of light-vegetation, controlling for material,
with associated percentages and marginal associations
Gecko Presence Percent
Material Light-Vegetation Gecko
Yes No Present

High Light / 7 42%
Cement -Vegetation
Aluminum Low Light / Cement 5 2 71%

Low Light / Vegetation 17 10 63%

High Light / 5 39
Cement -Vegetation
Brick Low Light / Cement 2 4 33%

Low Light / Vegetation 6 8 43%

High Light / 7 22%
Cement -Vegetation
Cement Low Light / Cement 13 10 57%

Low Light / Vegetation 12 15 44%

High Light / 1 3 25
Cement -Vegetation
Wood Low Light / Cement 2 1 67%

Low Light / Vegetation 5 10 33%

High Light / 25 34
Cement -Vegetation

All Materials Low Light / Cement 22 17 56%

Low Light / Vegetation 40 43 48%










Table 5-16. Three-way contingency table of material, controlling for light-vegetation,
with associated percentages and marginal associations

Light-Vegetation Material Gecko Presence Percent Gecko
Present
Yes No

Aluminum 5 7 42%

High Light/ Brick 5 8 39%
Cement Vegetation Cement 2 7 22%

Wood 1 3 25%

Aluminum 5 2 71%
Brick 2 4 33%
Low Light /Cement
Cement 13 10 57%
Wood 2 1 67%

Aluminum 17 10 63%

Low Light/ Brick 6 8 43%
Vegetation Cement 12 15 44%

Wood 5 10 33%
Aluminum 27 19 59%
All Brick 13 20 39%
Light /Vegetation
Levels Cement 27 32 46%
Wood 8 14 36%














CHAPTER 6
MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT

Wildlife management and conservation in urban areas have a number of key goals.

These include traditional objectives such as the promotion and/or maintenance of species

composition, and the control of species abundance by either directly increasing or

decreasing numbers (Nilon and Pais, 1997). More importantly, urban wildlife

management and conservation programs also provide the public with opportunities to

interact with wildlife, and disseminate information to the general public and appropriate

professionals (Anderson, 2002). The latter two goals are essential to formulate

ecologically advantageous policy, as the urban public's voting strength in legislatures is

on the rise (Bolen and Robinson, 2003).

The management of urban wildlife follows a holistic style, which differs

dramatically from the conventional agriculture and hunting orientated approach (Bolen

and Robinson, 2003). This difference is directly related to the non-consumptive,

recreational attitude that many urban residents maintain toward wildlife. A study

undertaken in metropolitan areas of New York State demonstrated this idea, as urbanites

were found to prefer butterflies and songbirds to species sought for hunting such as

waterfowl and pheasants (Brown et al., 1979). With the exception of nuisance animals

and/or pests (cockroaches, rats, pigeons, sometimes raccoons, etc.) the urban public

generally supports the notion of having wildlife in their surrounding environment (Bolen

and Robinson, 2003).









Despite the fact that the desire for wildlife is present in cities, it is a challenge to

implement management and/or conservation plans in the myriad of interests and human

beliefs usually present in urban areas (Lyons, 1997). Although public opinion is an

integral part of most management and conservation initiatives, it is especially the case in

urban environments (Anderson, 2002). 7

The intricacies that govern public perception are many, subtle, and highly

susceptible to change. It has been shown that public perception varies enormously within

a city, particularly between communities of different income, education, and race (Nilon

and Pais, 1997). Knox (1991) alluded to this concept by illustrating that land use was

directly related to social, economic, and demographic factors. This variation in public

perception, in turn, tends to lead to equally variable public preferences (Schauman et al.,

1986). Whitney and Adams (1980) showed this concept when they found that the types

of plants in gardens were linked to fashion, taste, species availability, property value, and

age of the house in question.

Developing urban wildlife management and conservation strategies involves a

multitude of participants and considerations, making each case unique (Lyons, 1997).

The heterogeneity of public opinion, and the limitations imposed by both the intensity of

urbanization and the land-use history of a given area require a great deal of creativity and

cross-disciplinary thinking from an urban wildlife manger (Bolen and Robinson, 2003;

Loeb, 1998; Lyons, 1997). Additional complexity results from the fact that few urban

spaces are dedicated solely to wildlife, which requires most management plans to

consider and, sometimes favor, other land uses (Bolen and Robinson, 2003). This

multiple-use management approach requires urban wildlife managers to interact with a









wide range of professionals (Lyons, 1997). A particularly important professional group

is the urban landscape planners, as they execute the majority of urban wildlife initiatives

(Nilon and Pais, 1997). Lastly, public approval and participation is a necessity: the

public is directly affected by any management scheme, as the latter invariably becomes

part of their everyday life. Thus, the public is a preeminent force behind any change

(Lyons, 1997).

In general, urban wildlife managers assume the role of solution facilitators rather

than active problem solvers, as they provide insight, tools, and ideas to a number of

different interest groups in an attempt to coalesce their sensibilities into common, feasible

goals (Lyons, 1997). For example, if the creation of a neighborhood park is being

considered, an urban wildlife manager might suggest programs that unite features

attractive to wildlife with other objectives such as safety, specific recreational purposes,

following city ordinance, remaining within a certain budget, and others. An urban

wildlife manager will not, however, physically carry out the selected program. Instead,

the logistics are left to specific groups such as the police force for safety, landscape

planners for recreational structures, and city officials for monitoring compliance with city

regulations. An equally important function of urban wildlife managers is as educators to

the public via the media, pamphlets, and/or seminars (Anderson, 2002

In the case ofH. turcicus in Gainesville, management strategies would be specific

to the locality due to the gecko's nonnative status. Although H. turcicus is an introduced

species, it is has managed to occupy a vacant niche in Gainesville, and thus is not

believed to possess a threat to any native species. Consequently, the eradication of this

gecko, which would probably be costly due to its prolific colonization abilities and its









potentially generalist microhabitat habits, would not be a necessity. In fact, the presence

ofH. turcicus could be beneficial; being easily observable on walls, this gecko could be

wildlife that many in the public could interact with on a daily basis, hence familiarizing a

number of citizens (and voters) with reptiles, a group often seen in a negative light. An

integral part of the appreciation of H. turcicus would be the use of a number of formats to

educate both adults and children on the interesting facts of not just this species, but of

geckos and reptiles in general. Benefits of this species, such as their consumption of

insects, would especially have to be emphasized since they have been labeled as "pests"

by some homeowners in Gainesville, as a result of the mess they sometimes leave when

they nest (shredded paper, etc.) (Franz, personal communication). Ultimately, I believe

that a primary goal of urban ecologists, regardless of whether they hold a management

position, should be to convey the intrinsic value of nature to all sectors of the urban

population.
















APPENDIX A
PRELIMINARY SURVEY DATA



Table A-1. Temperature readings of walls with respect to material and cardinal
orientation
.l Cardinal Orientation
Material
North South West East
Cement 25.00 25.43 24.75 24.98
Cement 25.28 24.68 24.48 24.75
Cement 24.48 25.03 24.78 24.58
Cement 25.53 26.30 25.88 25.38
Cement 25.33 24.83 25.03 25.10
Cement 26.73 25.93 27.25 27.18
Cement 26.40 26.53 27.15 27.03
Cement 25.45 25.38 25.33 24.78
Cement 25.58 25.53 25.30 26.10
Cement 25.68 24.98 25.55 25.35
Cement 28.60 26.98 29.10 29.08
Cement 26.50 26.58 29.35 27.98
Cement 29.55 27.50 28.88 28.40
Aluminum 23.10 23.08 Not Recorded 23.58
Aluminum 23.75 23.98 24.15 23.93
Aluminum 24.18 24.03 23.93 23.80
Aluminum 24.63 24.05 23.98 24.13
Aluminum 23.40 22.48 23.05 23.33
Aluminum 22.90 22.48 22.90 22.60
Aluminum 22.68 23.08 22.53 22.65
Aluminum Not Recorded 23.28 22.90 22.55
Aluminum 21.75 22.23 23.38 21.85
Aluminum 23.88 24.45 24.75 24.65
Aluminum 25.03 23.15 24.00 24.08
Aluminum 24.10 23.85 24.33 24.25
Aluminum 22.85 23.73 23.28 23.40
Aluminum 23.50 24.75 24.10 24.13
Aluminum 24.33 24.80 24.95 24.93
Aluminum 26.23 23.70 26.10 26.73
Aluminum 24.98 23.88 23.83 23.98
Aluminum 25.88 24.08 24.38 24.25
Aluminum 22.63 23.10 22.88 22.78
Aluminum 25.33 24.87 25.07 25.17












Table A-1. Continued.
Matel Cardinal Orientation
Material
North South West East
Brick 25.13 24.60 24.75 25.00
Brick 25.03 26.48 27.08 26.53
Brick 26.85 25.53 26.55 26.63
Brick 31.63 29.05 29.60 29.45
Wood 24.15 24.85 24.55 24.33
Wood 25.20 25.45 Not Recorded Not Recorded
Wood 25.38 24.13 23.83 24.48
Wood 25.03 25.13 25.30 26.15
Wood 23.05 22.68 23.45 23.80
Wood 26.60 24.75 25.83 25.45
Wood 25.58 25.53 24.80 24.75
Wood 25.75 25.68 25.53 25.50
Wood 24.15 23.33 23.95 24.10
Wood 29.20 27.35 28.10 27.95

















APPENDIX B
NATURAL HISTORY DATA

Table B-1. Temperature readings ( C) for individual adult H. turcicus recorded during
the fall/winter 2001 survey
12.7 19.7 21.1 21.9 22.4 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.8 26.7
14.0 19.7 21.1 21.9 22.5 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.8 26.7
14.9 19.8 21.1 21.9 22.5 23.2 23.8 24.6 25.8 26.8
15.6 19.9 21.2 21.9 22.6 23.2 23.8 24.7 25.9 26.8
15.7 19.9 21.2 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.8 24.7 25.9 26.9
16.1 19.9 21.2 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.8 24.7 25.9 26.9
16.3 19.9 21.3 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.9 24.8 25.9 26.9
16.3 19.9 21.3 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.9 24.8 26.1 26.9
16.6 20.2 21.3 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.9 24.8 26.1 26.9
17.3 20.2 21.4 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.9 24.8 26.1 27.1
17.4 20.2 21.4 21.9 22.7 23.3 23.9 24.9 26.2 27.3
17.6 20.2 21.4 21.9 22.7 23.3 24.0 24.9 26.2 27.4
18.2 20.3 21.4 21.9 22.7 23.3 24.1 24.9 26.2 27.4
18.3 20.3 21.4 22.0 22.7 23.3 24.1 24.9 26.2 27.4
18.3 20.4 21.4 22.0 22.7 23.4 24.1 24.9 26.2 27.6
18.3 20.5 21.4 22.1 22.7 23.4 24.1 25.0 26.3 27.6
18.4 20.5 21.4 22.1 22.7 23.4 24.1 25.1 26.3 27.8
18.7 20.5 21.4 22.1 22.8 23.4 24.1 25.1 26.3 27.9
18.7 20.6 21.4 22.1 22.8 23.4 24.1 25.2 26.4 28.1
18.7 20.7 21.5 22.1 22.8 23.4 24.1 25.2 26.4 28.2
18.8 20.7 21.5 22.1 22.8 23.4 24.1 25.2 26.4 28.3
18.8 20.7 21.5 22.2 22.9 23.5 24.1 25.2 26.4 28.3
18.8 20.8 21.5 22.2 22.9 23.5 24.3 25.3 26.4 28.4
18.9 20.8 21.5 22.2 22.9 23.5 24.3 25.3 26.5 28.6
18.9 20.8 21.6 22.2 22.9 23.5 24.4 25.3 26.5 28.7
19.0 20.8 21.7 22.2 22.9 23.5 24.4 25.3 26.5 28.7
19.1 20.9 21.7 22.2 22.9 23.6 24.4 25.4 26.5 30.2
19.2 20.9 21.7 22.2 22.9 23.6 24.4 25.5 26.6 30.5
19.2 20.9 21.7 22.3 23.0 23.6 24.4 25.5 26.6 30.6
19.2 20.9 21.7 22.3 23.0 23.6 24.5 25.5 26.6 30.9
19.3 21.0 21.8 22.3 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.6 26.7 31.2
19.5 21.0 21.8 22.3 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.7 26.7 31.2
19.6 21.0 21.8 22.3 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.7 26.7 31.8
19.6 21.1 21.8 22.4 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.7 26.7 34.3
19.6 21.1 21.8 22.4 23.1 23.7 24.6 25.8 26.7 36.3
19.6 21.1











Table B-2. Temperature readings (C) for individual sub-adult H. turcicus recorded
during the fall/winter 2001 survey.



21.1 13.9 18.8 20.1 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.7 24.2 25.1 26.4
21.1 16.3 18.9 20.2 21.9 22.7 23.3 23.7 24.3 25.1 26.5
21.2 16.6 18.9 20.3 22.1 22.7 23.3 23.7 24.3 25.2 26.6
21.2 16.8 19.2 20.3 22.1 22.7 23.3 23.7 24.4 25.2 26.7
21.3 17.1 19.3 20.3 22.1 22.7 23.3 23.7 24.4 25.2 26.7
21.3 17.4 19.5 20.4 22.1 22.7 23.3 23.7 24.4 25.2 26.8
21.3 17.5 19.5 20.4 22.2 22.7 23.3 23.8 24.4 25.2 27.1
21.4 17.5 19.5 20.5 22.2 22.8 23.4 23.8 24.6 25.2 27.2
21.6 17.7 19.6 20.6 22.2 22.8 23.4 23.8 24.6 25.3 27.3
21.6 17.7 19.7 20.6 22.3 22.8 23.4 23.9 24.6 25.3 27.3
21.6 17.8 19.7 20.6 22.3 22.8 23.4 23.9 24.6 25.3 27.6
21.7 18.0 19.7 20.7 22.4 22.9 23.4 23.9 24.6 25.6 27.8
21.7 18.3 19.7 20.7 22.4 22.9 23.4 24.0 24.7 25.6 27.8
21.7 18.4 19.7 20.7 22.4 22.9 23.5 24.0 24.8 25.7 28.3
21.7 18.4 19.8 20.8 22.6 23.0 23.5 24.1 24.8 25.7 28.4
21.7 18.4 19.8 20.8 22.6 23.1 23.5 24.1 24.9 25.9 28.9
21.7 18.7 19.8 20.8 22.6 23.1 23.5 24.1 24.9 26.1 29.3
21.8 18.7 19.8 20.9 22.6 23.1 23.6 24.2 24.9 26.2 30.3
21.8 18.7 19.9 20.9 22.6 23.1 23.6 24.2 25.0 26.2 30.5
21.8 18.7 20.0 21.0 22.6 23.2 23.6 24.2 25.0 26.4 30.8
21.8 18.7 20.1 21.1











Table B-3. Temperature readings (C) for individual adult H. turcicus recorded during
the spring 2002 survey


16.4 22.6 24.1 25.1 26.2 27.3
16.6 22.7 24.1 25.1 26.2 27.3
16.8 22.7 24.2 25.2 26.3 27.4
17.0 22.7 24.2 25.2 26.3 27.4
17.2 22.8 24.2 25.2 26.3 27.6
17.7 22.8 24.2 25.2 26.4 27.6
17.7 22.8 24.2 25.2 26.4 27.6
18.6 22.8 24.3 25.2 26.5 27.7
18.6 22.9 24.3 25.2 26.6 27.9
18.7 22.9 24.3 25.3 26.6 27.9
18.9 22.9 24.3 25.3 26.6 28.1
19.0 23.0 24.3 25.5 26.6 28.1
19.2 23.0 24.3 25.5 26.7 28.3
19.3 23.0 24.3 25.5 26.7 28.3
19.3 23.2 24.5 25.5 26.7 28.4
19.4 23.2 24.5 25.6 26.7 28.6
19.4 23.3 24.6 25.6 26.7 28.7
19.9 23.3 24.6 25.6 26.7 28.8
19.9 23.3 24.6 25.6 26.7 28.8
20.7 23.4 24.7 25.6 26.7 28.8
20.7 23.4 24.7 25.6 26.8 28.9
20.8 23.4 24.7 25.7 26.8 29.2
20.9 23.4 24.7 25.7 26.8 29.4
21.2 23.5 24.7 25.7 26.8 29.4
21.2 23.5 24.8 25.7 26.8 29.7
21.3 23.6 24.8 25.7 26.8 29.7
21.4 23.6 24.8 25.7 26.8 29.8
21.7 23.7 24.8 25.8 26.9 29.9
21.8 23.7 24.8 25.8 26.9 30.1
21.9 23.8 24.9 25.8 26.9 30.1
22.1 23.8 24.9 25.8 26.9 30.2
22.1 23.8 24.9 25.8 27.1 30.2
22.1 23.9 24.9 25.9 27.1 30.3
22.1 23.9 25.0 25.9 27.1 30.4
22.3 24.0 25.0 25.9 27.1 30.6
22.3 24.1 25.1 26.1 27.1 30.8
22.3 24.1 25.1 26.1 27.2 30.8
22.4 24.1 25.1 26.2 27.2 30.9
22.4 24.1 25.1 26.2 27.2 31.5
22.5 24.1 25.1















APPENDIX C
MICROHABITAT PREFERENCE DATA












Cardinal Presence Presence
Material Vegetation Texture Color Age Length
Orientation ______of Light of H.turcicus
Wood North Cement Rough Light Contemporary Small Yes 1
Brick South Cement Smooth Dark Early Medium Yes 1
Aluminum East Vegetation Smooth Dark Contemporary Small No 0
Wood West Vegetation Rough Dark Contemporary Small No 1
Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1
Brick West Mix Smooth Dark Early Medium No 1
Brick North Mix Rough Light Early Medium Yes 0
Aluminum East Vegetation Rough Light Modern Medium No 0
Aluminum South Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 1
Wood North Vegetation Smooth Light Early Medium No 1
Wood South Vegetation Smooth Light Contemporary Small No 0
Cement North Mix Rough Light Early Large No 0
Brick West Cement Smooth Dark Modern Small No 0
Brick West Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Medium No 1
Brick North Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Medium Yes 1
Brick East Cement Smooth Dark Early Large Yes 1
Brick South Cement Smooth Dark Early Medium Yes 1
Brick East Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 1
Brick North Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Small No 0
Aluminum East Mix Rough Light Modern Small Yes 0
Brick South Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Medium No 1
Brick West Vegetation Smooth Dark Contemporary Small No 0
Cement South Mix Rough Light Early Small No 1
Cement North Mix Rough Light Early Small No 1
Brick South Vegetation Smooth Dark Contemporary Small No 0
Aluminum West Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 1












Aluminum East Vegetation Rough Light Modern Medium No 1
Wood South Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Medium No 1
Aluminum East Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small Yes 1
Wood West Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small No 0
Wood North Vegetation Rough Dark Contemporary Small No 0
Wood South Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Large No 1
Brick South Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Medium Yes 0
Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1
Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 0
Cement South Cement Rough Light Early Small No 0
Cement South Cement Rough Light Early Small No 0
Cement East Cement Rough Light Early Small No 0
Aluminum South Mix Smooth Dark Early Medium Yes 1
Wood South Cement Smooth Light Early Small No 0
Aluminum South Cement Rough Light Modem Small No 0
Brick North Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Large Yes 1
Brick West Cement Smooth Dark Early Medium No 1
Aluminum West Vegetation Smooth Light Early Medium Yes 0
Cement West Mix Rough Light Early Small No 0
Cement South Mix Rough Light Early Small No 1
Wood West Vegetation Rough Light Early Large No 1
Cement North Cement Rough Light Modern Small Yes 0
Cement South Cement Rough Light Modem Medium No 1
Cement East Cement Rough Light Modern Small No 0
Cement East Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0
Aluminum East Mix Smooth Light Modern Small No 0
Cement North Mix Rough Light Modern Small No 1
Cement West Cement Rough Light Modern Medium Yes 1












Cement East Mix Rough Light Early Small No 0
Cement South Mix Rough Light Early Small No 0
Aluminum West Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small Yes 1
Aluminum West Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 0
Cement North Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0
Aluminum North Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Small No 0
Cement North Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0
Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1
Cement North Mix Rough Light Modern Medium Yes 1
Cement East Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0
Aluminum North Mix Smooth Light Modern Small No 0
Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0
Brick East Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 1
Cement South Vegetation Smooth Light Early Small Yes 1
Aluminum South Vegetation Smooth Light Early Small No 0
Brick South Vegetation Smooth Dark Contemporary Medium No 0
Aluminum West Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Medium No 0
Aluminum East Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Small No 0
Wood South Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small No 0
Aluminum South Vegetation Rough Light Contemporary Small No 0
Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 0
Wood North Vegetation Rough Light Early Small Yes 1
Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1
Brick West Mix Smooth Dark Early Medium No 1
Wood East Cement Rough Light Early Small Yes 0
Aluminum North Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Small No 0
Aluminum East Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 0
Aluminum North Mix Smooth Light Modern Small No 0












Cement North Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1
Aluminum North Mix Smooth Light Modern Small No 1
Cement North Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1
Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 1
Cement East Mix Rough Light Early Small No 0
Aluminum North Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 0
Aluminum South Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Medium Yes 1
Brick North Cement Smooth Dark Contemporary Small Yes 0
Aluminum South Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 1
Wood North Vegetation Rough Dark Contemporary Small No 1
Wood East Cement Rough Dark Contemporary Small No 1
Wood South Vegetation Rough Dark Contemporary Small No 1
Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Contemporary Medium No 0
Cement North Mix Rough Light Contemporary Small No 0
Aluminum North Vegetation Rough Dark Contemporary Small Yes 1
Aluminum South Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Small No 0
Brick North Cement Smooth Dark Contemporary Medium Yes 1
Brick East Cement Smooth Dark Contemporary Small No 0
Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Early Large No 0
Aluminum North Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0
Cement North Vegetation Rough Light Early Small Yes 0
Cement South Mix Rough Light Early Small No 1
Cement North Cement Rough Light Early Small No 0
Cement East Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 0
Cement North Cement Rough Light Earl Small No 0
Cement North Mix Rough Light Early Small No 0
Brick East Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Large No 1
Cement East Vegetation Smooth Light Early Medium No 1












Brick South Mix Smooth Dark Modern Medium Yes 1
Brick North Mix Smooth Dark Early Medium Yes 1
Wood South Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small No 1
Aluminum South Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Small No 1
Cement North Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0
Cement East Vegetation Rough Light Modern Medium No 1
Aluminum West Vegetation Smooth Light N/A Small No 0
Aluminum South Cement Smooth Light Modern Small Yes 1
Aluminum West Mix Rough Light Modern Small No 0
Aluminum South Vegetation Rough Light Contemporary Small No 1
Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 0
Cement South Mix Rough Light Modern Medium No 1
Wood South Mix Rough Dark Modern Medium No 0
Aluminum East Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 1
Aluminum North Cement Rough Light Contemporary Small No 0
Aluminum West Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 0
Aluminum East Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 1
Brick East Mix Smooth Dark Early Small No 1
Aluminum East Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Small No 1
Cement East Cement Rough Light Early Medium No 1
Wood West Vegetation Rough Dark Contemporary Small No 1
Wood North Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small No 0
Brick East Cement Rough Dark Modern Small Yes 0
Wood South Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small No 1
Wood North Mix Rough Dark Modern Medium Yes 1
Aluminum South Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small Yes 0
Aluminum West Vegetation Rough Light Contemporary Small No 1
Aluminum North Vegetation Smooth Light Contemporary Small Yes 0












Brick South Cement Rough Dark Contemporary Small No 1
Aluminum East Cement Smooth Dark Modern Small No 1
Brick West Vegetation Rough Dark Early Small No 1
Aluminum North Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Small No 0
Cement North Vegetation Rough Dark Early Medium No 1
Cement West Vegetation Rough Dark Modern Small No 1
Cement South Mix Rough Dark Early Large Yes 1
Cement West Mix Rough Light Contemporary Medium No 1
Aluminum South Vegetation Rough Light Modern Medium Yes 1
Cement East Vegetation Rough Dark Early Small Yes 1
Cement East Vegetation Rough Dark Early Small No 1
Cement East Cement Rough Dark Early Medium Yes 1
Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Early Small No 1
Cement West Cement Rough Light Modern Small No 1
Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Early Small Yes 1
Cement South Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 1
Cement West Vegetation Rough Light Modern Small No 1
Aluminum North Vegetation Smooth Light Modern Small Yes 0
Brick South Vegetation Smooth Dark Early Small No 0
Brick South Vegetation Smooth Dark Modern Small No 1
Brick West Vegetation Smooth Dark Contemporary Medium Yes 0
Brick North Vegetation Rough Dark Contemporary Small No 0
















REFERENCES


Agresti, A. 1996. An introduction to categorical data. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New
York, New York.

Anderson, S. H. 2002. Managing our wildlife resources. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.

Angilletta, M. L., L. G. Montgomery, and Y. L. Werner. 1999. Temperature preference
in geckos: diel variation in juveniles and adults. Herpetologica 55 (2): 212-222.

Arnold, E. N. 1984. Ecology of lowland lizards in the eastern United Arab Emirates.
Journal of Zoology: Preceedings of the Zoological Society of London 204: 329-
354.

Barbour, T. 1936. Two introduced lizards in Miami, Florida. Copeia 1936 (2): 113.

Bartholomew, G. A. 1959. Photoperiodism in reptiles. In: Photoperiodism and related
phenomena in plants and animals, edited by R. B. Withrow, American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington D.C.

Bolen, E. G. and W. L. Robinson. 2003. Wildlife ecology and management. Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Botkin, D. B. and C. E. Beveridge. 1997. Cities as environments. Urban Ecosystems 1:
3-19.

Brown T. L., C. P. Dawson, and R. L. Miller. 1979. Interests and attitudes of
metropolitan New York residents about wildlife. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 44: 289-297.

Capula, M. and L. Luiselli. 1994. Trophic niche overlap in sympatric Tarentola
mauritanica and Hemidactylus turcicus: a preliminary study. Herpetological
Journal 4: 24-25.

Carey, S. D. 1988. Food habits of gulf coast Mediterranean geckos (Hemidactylus
turcicus). Journal of the Alabama Academy of Sciences 59 (3): 103.

Collins, J. P., A. Kinzig, N. B. Grimm, W. F. Fagan, D. Hope, J. G. Wu, and E. T. Borer.
2000. A new urban ecology. American Scientist 88: 416-425.