<%BANNER%>

Use of edge and interior habitat of urban forest remnants by avifauna and herpetofauna

HIDE
 Main
 University of Florida wildlife...
University of Florida Institutional Repository

PAGE 1

1 USE OF EDGE AND INTERIOR HABITA T OF URBAN FOREST REMNANTS BY AVIFAUNA AND HERPETOFAUNA By DANIEL EUGENE DAWSON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 Copyright 2007 by Daniel Eugene Dawson

PAGE 3

3 To my family, especially my mother and fath er, who have gone far be yond their obligation as parents to help me succeed academically and develop professionally

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Several parties must be acknowledged for the suc cessful completion of this thesis. First, I thank the University of Florida department of Facilities and Constr uction Planning, and the University of Florida/IFAS Cooperative Extens ion Service for funding this project. Second, I thank my committee, especially my advisor, Dr Mark Hostetler, for tirelessly addressing my concerns and answering my questions for this project. Third, I thank the numerous volunteers, including undergraduate students, graduate students, and good frie nds who helped construct and install sampling equipment, assisted me dur ing wildlife censuses, and helped review presentations with me. Lastly, I thank my fam ily and my parents for continuing to support me, financially and morally, throughout my education experience.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........8 LIST OF OBJECTS................................................................................................................ .........9 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 USE OF EDGE AND INTERIOR HABITA T OF URBAN FOREST REMNANTS BY AVIFAUNA....................................................................................................................... ....12 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........12 Edge Effects and Urban Effects on Habitat Use.............................................................12 Seasonal Influence on Use of Urban Forest Remnants...................................................13 Use of Edge Versus Interior Habitat...............................................................................14 Objective...................................................................................................................... ....15 Methods........................................................................................................................ ..........15 Study Site..................................................................................................................... ....15 Sampling Methods...........................................................................................................15 Avian sampling........................................................................................................15 Vegetation sampling.................................................................................................17 Analyses....................................................................................................................... ...18 Individual species.....................................................................................................18 Residency groups.....................................................................................................19 Vegetation sampling analysis...................................................................................20 Results........................................................................................................................ .............21 Birds.......................................................................................................................... ......21 Vegetation..................................................................................................................... ...23 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........24 Individual Species...........................................................................................................24 Residency Status..............................................................................................................26 Combined Fall and Spring Migrants...............................................................................28 Summary and Conclusions..............................................................................................29 2 USE OF EDGE AND INTERIOR HABITA TS OF URBAN FOREST REMNANTS BY HERPETOFAUNA..........................................................................................................40 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........40 Urban and Edge Effects on Herpetofauna.......................................................................40 Objective...................................................................................................................... ....41

PAGE 6

6 Methods........................................................................................................................ ..........41 Study Site..................................................................................................................... ....41 Herpetofaunal Sampling..................................................................................................42 Analysis....................................................................................................................... ....44 Results........................................................................................................................ .............47 Individual Species...........................................................................................................47 Taxa-Groups....................................................................................................................47 General taxa-subgroup.............................................................................................47 Specific taxa-subgroup.............................................................................................48 Species Richness.............................................................................................................48 Species Composition.......................................................................................................48 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........48 Edge vs. Interior Habitat Use..........................................................................................48 Habitat Use among Forest Remnants..............................................................................49 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... ..51 APPENDIX A SPECIES ABBREVIATIONS, RESIDENC Y STATUS, AND INCLUSION IN COMMON OR UNCOMMON GROUPS FO R ALL BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED PER SEASON..................................................................................................................... ...56 B ALL SPECIES OF HERPETOFAUNA DETECTED BY HERPETOFAUNAL SAMPLING ARRAYS DURING THE SUMMERS OF 2005 AND 2006...........................58 C UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WILDLI FE SURVEY AND MONITORING PROGRAM: ONE YEAR RESULTS AND DATA SUMMARY.........................................59 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..60 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................66

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Individual species and resi dency groups analyzed for wi nter bird count surveys of edge and interior locations within fore st remnants in Gainesville Florida........................32 1-2 Individual species and re sidency groups analyzed for spring bird count surveys of edge and interior locations within fore st remnants in Gainesville Florida........................33 1-3 Individual species and resi dency groups analyzed for summer bird count surveys of edge and interior locations within fore st remnants in Gainesville, Florida.......................34 1-4 Individual species and resi dency groups analyzed for fall bird count surveys of edge and interior locations within forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida................................35 1-5 Vegetation analysis results for edge and in terior locations of urban forest remnants during the dormant season in Gainesville, Florida............................................................36 1-6 Vegetation analysis results for edge and in terior locations of urban forest remnants during the growing seasons in Gainesville, Florida...........................................................38 2-1 Average daily relative abundance of he rpetofauna species and groups, as well as species richness between e dges and interiors of 5 urban forest remnants in Gainesville, FL................................................................................................................ ...54 2-2 Herpetofauna species and groups shown to be significantly affected by remnant in urban forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida....................................................................55 2-3 Horn compositional similarity values for species assemblages between edges and interiors within urban forest remn ants in Gainesville, Florida..........................................55 A-1 Species abbreviations, residency status and inclusion in common or uncommon groups for all bird species observed per season.................................................................56 B-1 All species of herpetofa una detected by herpetofaunal sampling arrays during the summers of 2005 and 2006................................................................................................58

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Urban forest remnants on the University Florida Campus in Gainesville, Florida...........30 1-2 Illustration of edge and in terior point count locations fo r bird surveys within forest remnants, in Gainesville, Florida. Edge was defined as the habitat < 40m from the remnant boundary. Interior was defined as all habitat > 40m from the remnant boundary....................................................................................................................... .....31 2-1 Forest remnants on the University of Florida campus in Gainesville, Florida..................52 2-2 Illustration of edge and interior locati on of herpetofauna sampling arrays within forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida. An edge array was within 20 m from the boundary of a remnant and an interior array was situated greater than 40 m from a remnant boundary. Arrays were positioned to be at least 100 m apart to maintain independence from each other...........................................................................................53

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF OBJECTS Object page C-1 PDF of University of Florida wildlif e survey and monitoring program: one year survey results and monitoring program.............................................................................59

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science USE OF EDGE AND INTERIOR HABITA T OF URBAN FOREST REMNANTS BY AVIFAUNA AND HERPETOFAUNA By Daniel Eugene Dawson May 2007 Chair: Mark Hostetler Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Urban forest remnants are utilized by various wildlife species, but little research has been conducted on whether certain species avoid or pr efer edges of urban remnants. The objective of this study was to determine whether avifauna and herpetofauna differentially use edge and interior habitat of urban forest remnants. With avifauna, I used point counts to survey 6 urban fo rest remnants (2.6.6 ha) in Gainesville, Florida from November 2004 throug h October 2005. I compared the average daily relative abundances of indivi dual species and residency grou ps within the winter, spring, summer, and fall seasons at edge locations (40 m from edge) a nd interior locations (beyond 40 m from edge). I measured a suite of vegetative stru cture characteristics at edges and interiors during both the dormant and growing seasons. Out of 77 species sighted, only a few individual bird species and residency groups were found to use edges and interiors differently. During the summer, the two groups of all and uncomm on year-round residents had higher relative abundances at edges. In addi tion, during the fall, groups containing all migrants, common migrants, summer migrants, and uncommon migr ants had higher abundances at interiors. Analyses of vegetative structur e revealed very few differences between edges and interiors during either the growing season or the dormant season.

PAGE 11

11 With herpetofauna, I used pitfall/funnel trap-P VC pipe sampling arrays to survey 5 urban forest remnants (3.0.6 ha) in Gainesville, Florida during the summers of 2005 and 2006. I compared the average daily rela tive abundances of individual speci es and taxa groups (Order and Suborder-level; Family-level), as well as species richness at edge locations (40 m from edge) and interior locations (beyon d 40 m from edge). Results showed that neither the relative abundances of individual species and taxa groups, nor species richness was significa ntly different between edges and interiors. However, the relative abundances of the species Hyla squirella the Ranid and Anuran groups, and the Sub-order Serpente s group (Snakes), as well as species richness were significantly greater in some remnants than others. Overall, results show that there is little segr egation in the use of e dge and interior habitat of these urban forest remnants by either birds or herpetofauna, which may be partially driven by similarities in vegetative structure between e dges and interiors. For avifauna, however, the greater use of interiors by fall migrants suggests that the interiors of these small urban forest fragments should be managed to reduce future le vels of human disturbances. For herpetofauna, larger, connected remnants with wetlands may ha ve led to increased spec ies richness and greater relative abundances of Hyla squirella Ranids, Anurans, and snakes.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 USE OF EDGE AND INTERIOR HABITA T OF URBAN FOREST REMNANTS BY AVIFAUNA Introduction The impact of urbanization on wildlife and th e natural environment is of growing interest as the level of urbanization continues to incr ease in the world (Marzl uff 2001, Alig, Jeffrey, and Lichtenstein 2004). Birds are among the best stud ied urban wildlife because they are the most visible and easy to study, they are charismatic, and they are sensitive to factors at different temporal and spatial scales in urban envir onments (Mensing, Galatowitsch, and Tester 1998, Hostetler 1999, Hostetler and Knowles-Yanez 20 03, Hostetler, Scot, and Paul 2005, Atchinson and Rodewald 2006). Urban birds are often transi ent, seasonally-varying or ganisms that are in close proximity to human disturbance. Urban la ndscapes are frequently made up of fragmented forest remnants with large edge -to-interior ratios, and these re mnants are often isolated from other remnants or larger tracks of habitat. Desp ite these challenges, a number of bird species do utilize habitat fragments in a variety of urba n/suburban environments throughout the year. Edge Effects and Urban Effects on Habitat Use Edges of habitats have been long recognized as often having higher de nsities, and higher diversities of species than interior fore sts (Lay 1938, Gates and Gysel 1978, Noss 1991). For example, Noss (1991) found that in a large tract of mature upland deciduous forest near Gainesville, Florida, bird densit ies were significantly higher in both edges next to roads and edge-gaps within interior forests than within in terior forests themselves during most seasons. Edge habitats often have more sunlight exposur e and more emergent vegetation than interiors, providing good opportunities for foraging on fru it and invertebrates (Noss 1991, McCollin 1998, Rodewald and Brittingham 2004). Therefore, hab itat edges are important habitat components, and are associated with a number of species. Howe ver, some bird species have been shown to be

PAGE 13

13 edge-indifferent, and others have been shown to require or pref er forest interior habitat and actively avoid edge habitat (Whitcomb et al. 1981, Noss 1991). Interior fo rest species tend to nest at forest interiors (Whitcomb et al. 1981), or prefer to forage on more moisture dependent insects and shade dependent plants found in th e interior (Villard 1998) In addition, species associated with forest interiors may be negatively affected by disturbances such as traffic noise (Reijnen et al. 1997, Fernndez-Juricic 2001), and pedestrian presence (Fernndez-Juricic and Tellaria 2000). In urban forest remnants, there is often a disproportiona tely large amount of forest-edge habitat compared to forest-interior ha bitat, leading to more prevalent use by edge or edge-indifferent species than by interior-associated birds (Whitcomb et al. 1981, McIntyre 1995, Chase 2006). Seasonal Influence on Use of Urban Forest Remnants In temperate North America, seasonal diffe rences in habitat use by birds depend upon breeding, wintering, or migrati on stop-over needs. During the br eeding season, species have a broad range of habitat require ments and limitations, depending upon the breeding and nesting strategies they employ. For inst ance, during the breeding season, in terior-forest specialists may not use the edges of habitats because they have inappropriate cover and nesting substrates, are prone to nest predation or parasitism, or ar e too close to human disturbance (Tilghman 1987a, McIntyre 1995, Villard 1998, Mrtberg 2001). Likewise, edge-specialists species may not use patch interiors if nesting subs trates and food resources are mo re readily available on edges (McIntyre 1995, Fernndez-Jurici c 2001). In contrast with the breeding season, habitat use of forest patches in temperate North America durin g the winter and fall/spring migration periods generally revolves around access to food resources. During fall/spring migration, food resources at stop-over locations are especia lly important to birds because of the need to refuel for travel (Moore, Gauthreaux, Kerlinger, and Simons 1995) In addition, there may be an underlying and

PAGE 14

14 innate strategy for arriving a nd leaving stop-over foraging hab itat in order to maximize the chances of gaining access to higher energy foods at other stop-over locations, and arriving at end destinations faster to gain access to better qual ity breeding or wintering habitat (Moore et al. 1995). Likewise, the winter hab itat use of many species al so revolves around food intake. Because of this, habitat requirements for both st op-over migrants and winter migrants can be more flexible than during the breeding season, and birds utilize urban/suburban landscapes (Yaukey 1996, Jokimki and Suhonen 1998, Ho stetler and Holling 2000, Rodewald and Brittingham 2004, Atchinson and Rodewald 2006). Sp ecifically, it has been hypothesized that birds may use edge-dominated, urban/suburban ha bitat during the winter and stop-over periods because of access to fruit-bearing ornamental plants, access to human-supplied feeders, and warmer average temperatures than non-urban habitat (Atchinson and Rodewald 2006, Shochat, Warren, Faeth, McIntyre, and Hope 2006). Use of Edge Versus Interior Habitat Despite the considerable amount of research on the use of ur ban remnants by birds, little research has compared edge versus interior habitat use in any season. In one such study by Fernndez-Juricic (2001), avian habitat use in Madrid, Spain was compared between the edge and interiors of urban parks dur ing the breeding season. He determ ined that species generally more habituated to human contact with generalist habitat requirements used edges significantly more than interiors, whereas species with spec ific forest habitat requirements used interior habitats significantly more than edges. This result suggests that certain birds differentially use edges and interiors, but similar studies have not been replicated in other urban environments, especially across seasons.

PAGE 15

15 Objective The objective of my study was to determine if birds differentially use edges and interiors of urban forest remnants during winter, spring, summer, and fall. Methods Study Site The University of Florida Gainesville campus is located in north-central peninsular Florida. This study took place in 6 urban forest remnants on the University of Florida campus: Harmonic Woods (3.7 ha), Fraternity Wetlands ( 2.6 ha), Graham Woods (3.0 ha), Bartram-Carr Woods (3.5 ha), Lake Alice Conservation Area (11.3 ha), and Bivens Arm Forest (16.6 ha) (Figure 1-1). Three of the four smallest remn ants (Harmonic Woods, Fraternity Wetlands and Bartram-Carr Woods) included largely upland mixe d pine-hardwood forest, with all containing or being immediately adjacent to small streams or low-lying areas. Graham woods consisted of a mixture of low-lying bottomland hardwood and upland mixed pine-hardwood forest, and contained a small network of streams. One of th e two largest remnants, Lake Alice Conservation Area, consisted largely of upland mixed pine-h ardwood forest, had some regenerating clear-cut habitat, and was adjacent to a large marsh, and therefore contained some flood-plain forest as well. The other large remnant, Bivens Forest, consisted of mostly bottomland-hardwood swamp in its interior, but was ringed by mixed pine-hardwood forest on three of its four edges, with its fourth edge being adjacent to a lake. Bivens Forest, Graham W oods, and portions of Lake Alice Conservation Area and Bartram-Carr Woods were subject to occasional flooding. Sampling Methods Avian sampling To compare the use of edge versus interior locations by birds, I c onsidered the first 40 m from the remnant boundary toward the interior as edge, and all space beyond 40 m from the

PAGE 16

16 boundary of the remnant I considered as interior (Fig 1-2). Edge habitat was within 40 m of remnant boundaries because most remnants were sma ll (< 4 ha), and this width was similar to the 50 m width used by Fernndez-Juricic (2001). To survey birds, I used point counts randomly located at the edge and interior of each forest remnant. To assure some degree of equal sampling effort per forest remnant, I allocated a one point per 2 ha ratio, with a maximum of 10 poi nts given to a remnant. I chose a 20 m radius point count sampling area for each point count loca tion so that the diameter of the edge point sampling radius was completely contained within edge habitat. To ensure that interior counts were entirely enclosed within interior habitat, I selected all interior points between 60 m to approximately 100 m from the edge. To reduce the possibility of double counting, I designed points to be 140 m from each othe r, which, when the 20 m sampling radius is factored in, gives at least 100 m between sampling radii within remnants. Howeve r, because of remnant-size limitations and additional points a dded during the spring and fall, a couple of points were located less than 140 m apart; I sampled these on different days to eliminate the possibility of double counting. The point count sampling technique used was si milar to the technique used by Smith et al. (1993). For each of the four seasons, all birds th at were heard and/or seen within a fixed, 20 m radius over a 10 min count, exclud ing fly-overs, were recorded. I conducted all counts in the first 3 hours after sunrise. To reduce sampling bias due to time of day, I systematically rotated the time each point location was surveyed during each sampling morning. Because I wanted to capture as much diversity as possible, I varied sampling intensity and frequency per season. In particular, I increased sampling efforts during the spring and fall to account for anticipated increased migrant diversity during those seas ons. During the winter (11/04/05), I conducted

PAGE 17

17 counts at a total of 12 points tw ice a week, every other week, with the exception of 4 points in the Lake Alice Conservation Area, which I only sampled once a week. During the spring (4/05 5/05), I surveyed 32 points once a week. During the summer (5/05/05), I surveyed 20 points once a week, every other week. In the fall (9/05 11/05), I again surveyed 32 points once a week. Vegetation sampling To determine whether structural difference s occurred, I conducted vegetation sampling at both edge and interior locations during both the growing (spring, summer, and fall) and dormant seasons (winter). Because woody stem density, tree density, and standing snag measures were considered perennial habitat features, these were only sampled during the dormant season. I carried out vegetation sampling onl y at point count locations used during the winter season. I did this because the winter had the least sampling in tensity in terms of the number of point count locations sampled, and therefore was the most logist ically practical set of points to collect data from. I sampled woody shrub stem density ( 1 m in height, < 8 cm dbh) on two, perpendicular, randomly assigned, 20 m transects running from the center of the point count sampling radii to the margin (James and Shugart 1970). Following modified procedures from Tilghman (1987a) and James and Shugart (1970), I ra ndomly established four, 1 m2 subplots within each point count sampling radii, and estimated several m easures at each subplot. I counted woody shrub stems (< 8 cm dbh) to document shrubs less than 1m in height. I visually estimated ground cover for cover classes representing percentages of cover (including, 0%, >0%, 10%, 26%, 51%, > 75%) of bare ground, grass, dead debris, forbs, shrubs (woody or herbaceous), trees (woody stems >8 cm dbh), and vines. The pr oportion of occurrence (i.e., how many 1 m2 subplots a cover class occurred in) of each cover class per cover variable was averaged over the four 1 m2 subplots per 20 m point count sampling radi i. I visually noted vertical vegetative structure for each type of vegetati on that was at < 1 m in height, 1 m and < 5 m in height, and

PAGE 18

18 5m in height. I measured over-story canopy cover using a spherical densiometer. If there was a significant mid-story (< 5 m) that prevented reasonable sighting of the over-story canopy, then I used the location within 5 m of the point that presented the most un-obstructed view of the canopy was used. I observed canopy cover in all car dinal directions, and averaged it per 1 m2 subplot. I measured visual obstruction between 0 m in height by r ecording the number of decimeters in each m section of a marked sighting pole that were > 25% obstructed by vegetation. I placed the pole at the center of each 1 m2 subplot and observed at a distance of 4 m, at a height of 1 m, and I observed it in each ca rdinal direction. I aver aged these data per m section, per 1 m2 subplot (Robel, Briggs, Dayton, and Hu rlbert 1970). I averaged all data collected at 1 m2 subplots over all four subplots per 20 m ra dius plot. I measured the number of trees (> 8 cm dbh) and standing snags in a 10 m ra dius subplot, stemming from the center of each 20 m radius plot. I scaled all measures of shrub and tree density to densities per ha. Analyses Individual species I analyzed bird count data for each season. I generated average daily relative abundances of birds for the edge and interior of each fo rest remnant by summing the total count data per species for the edge and interior point locations of a given fore st remnant, and then dividing by the total number of survey days ca rried out at the edge and interior locations of that remnant. For example, if a remnant had two edge point count locations that were each sampled 5 days apiece, then I would sum the count data for a species fo r those two points, and divide by 10 (the total number of sample days for that remnants ed ge) to produce the averag e daily relative abundance per that remnant edge. I removed one point at the edge of the Lake Alice Conservation Area from the analysis because it was inadvertently pla ced too far away from the edge. I entered data into a one-way ANOVA model blocked for forest remnant in which relative abundance was the

PAGE 19

19 response variable and location (Edge or Interior) was trea ted as the independent variable. Prior to analysis, the data were checked for the assumpti ons of normality and equa l-variance with RyanJoiner and Levine tests. Data were square-root if they did not meet the assumptions. Some species did not meet normality and equal-variance assumptions regardless of transformation, and I tested them with the non-parametric equi valent of the randomized block ANOVA, the Friedman test. Because of the effects on the relative abundance distribution of many zeros, and because I wanted to limit individual analysis to fairly well-represented species, I only individually analyzed species that occurred in at least 6 out of the possible 12 edge and interior areas across the 6 remnants. An alpha of 0.1 was used for all statistical tests. Residency groups I grouped species according to residency stat us per season, and average daily relative abundances of each residency group at the edge and interior of each forest remnant were calculated per season. Residency groups included year-round residents, winter migrants (those that only wintered in the Gainesville area), su mmer migrants (those that bred in the Gainesville area but migrated south), stop-over migrants (thos e that only use the Gainesville area as stopover habitat during spring and fall migration), an d all migrants. Residenc y status was assigned based on species information and range maps as reported in Poole (2005). To reduce the influence of underand over-represented species, I further sub-grouped residency groups into three categories per season, includ ing: only species that weren t abundant enough to be tested individually (uncommon group) only species that were abundant enough to be tested individually (common group), a nd all species combined. I anal yzed all residency groups as described above for individual species. Due to the low number of occurrences of stop-over migrants during the spring and the fall seasons, I calculated a combined relative average daily abundance for stop-over migrants during those seas ons. I analyzed them with the non-parametric

PAGE 20

20 Friedman test, as they failed tests for non-nor mality and transformations were not effective (alpha = 0.1). Vegetation sampling analysis I analyzed measures of shrub and tree densi ties, canopy cover, and visual obstruction in each m height section with the same ANOVA model as described fo r the bird analysis. Normality and equal variance assumptions were checked in a similar way. To analyze ground cover, I separately compared each cover class of each ground cover variable between edges and interiors (e.g., for grass, I compared the 25% cover class between remnant edges and interiors). To do this, I took th e average proportion of occurrence of each cover class per cover variable that was calculated previously for each point count location, and calculated the average per remnant edge and interior. I then entered the data into the same ANOVA model previously described. Normality and equal variance assumptions were checked as described above, and nonnormal distributions were tested with the non-parametric Friedman test. Due to an inconsistency in data collection during the growing season, I was unable to analyze the > 0%, and >10 25% cover classes for ground cover variables for th at season. Vertical st ructure was analyzed both by individual vegetation and structure components, and by gr oups containing all vegetation (vegetation dead debris), and all structure (vegetation + dead debris) in case the absence or presence of dead debris in overall vegetative st ructure was of significance. In a manner similar to Tilghman (1987a) and Karr (1968), I analyzed th e vertical structure offered by individual structure components by cons idering the total of thr ee layers to be an in dex of presence/absence between 000 for each structure component per poi nt. I analyzed total vegetation structure per vertical section (< 1 m in height, 1m and < 5 m in height, and 5 m in height), and I calculated it for each sample point as an index between 000, with the presence/absence of each vegetation component representing 1/5 of the tota l index value, not including dead debris. I

PAGE 21

21 analyzed total structure (vegetati on + dead debris) in a similar way, but each vertical section was calculated out of an index between 0 because of the addition of dead debr is to the analysis. I analyzed resultant index values for each categ ory with the same ANOVA model as previously described in the bird analyses, and normality and equal variance assumptions were checked similarly. An alpha of 0.1 was used for all statistical tests. Results Birds I observed a total of 77 speci es across all four seasons. A list of species detected in all four seasons, along with their residency status, their residency sub-group status, and their abbreviations can be found in Appendix A. During the winter, I observed a total of 45 species. Of 21 species common enough to be analyzed in dividually, 4 species ha d significantly higher relative abundances at edges th an interiors, including the Ca rolina Chickadee, Cedar Waxwing, Blue Jay, and Northern Mockingbird (Table 1-1). With residency status categories, no group was shown to have significantly higher relative a bundances at edges or interiors (Table 1-1). During the spring, I observed a total of 42 sp ecies. Of 14 species common enough to be individually analyzed, Carolina Wren and Ruby-crowned Kinglet ha d significantly higher relative abundances at interiors than edges (Table 1-2). With re sidency status categories, the common summer migrants group was shown to have significantly higher relative abundances at edges than interiors (Table 1-2). During the summer season, I observed a tota l of 31 species. Of 9 species common enough to be individually analyzed, no individual specie s had significantly differe nt relative abundances between edges and interiors (Table 1-3). With residency status categories, both the year-round resident uncommon group and the year-round resi dent all species group were found to have significantly higher relative abunda nces at edges than interior s (Table 1-3). The year-round

PAGE 22

22 resident uncommon group was made up of 17 sp ecies; Northern Mockingbird was the most widely represented member of the group and re presented, on average, 24.4% and 23.4% of the cumulative edge and interior re lative abundance of the group. To test for the effect of this individual species on the group, I re-analyzed the y ear-round resident uncommon group with Northern Mockingbird excluded. After this, th e pattern of signifi cantly higher relative abundances at edges was no longer present ( P = 0.126), though the overall pa ttern still persisted for the group. During the fall season, I observed a total of 42 species. Of 14 species common enough to be individually analyzed, 3 species were found to have significantly hi gher relative abundances at edges than interiors, including the Northe rn Mockingbird, the Red-bellied Woodpecker, and the Downy Woodpecker (Table 1-4). In additi on, Eastern Tufted Titmouse had significantly higher relative abundances at inte riors than edges. When I groupe d species together according to various residency status categor ies, the groups that included all migrants, the migrant uncommon group, the migrant common group, and the summ er migrant group were shown to have significantly higher relative abundances at interiors th an edges (Table 1-4). The uncommon migrant group was made up of 14 species: the combined abundances of Ruby-crowned Kinglet and Baltimore Oriole made up, on average, 25.0% and 50.3% of the cumulative edge and interior rela tive abundances of the group, respectively. To test for the effect of these individual species on the group, I rean alyzed the uncommon migrant group with Rubycrowned Kinglet and Baltimore Oriole excluded. Af ter this, the significant pattern of higher relative abundances at inte riors was no longer present ( P = 0.46). The migrant common group was made up of four species: the Gray Catb ird made up, on average, 57.6% and 53.2% of the cumulative edge and interior abundances of the group, respectively. After reanalyzing the

PAGE 23

23 migrant common group without the Gray Catbird, the pattern of significantly higher relative abundances at interiors was no longer present ( P = 0.215); though the general pattern still persisted for the group. The summer migrant group is made up of 5 species: the Red-eyed Vireo contributed, on average, 60% and 66% of th e cumulative relative abundance at edges and interiors of the group, respectiv ely. With the Red-eyed Vireo removed a non-significant result was found for the summer migrant uncommon group ( P = 0.699). Lastly, the results of the non-pa rametric Friedman test for the combined spring/fall stopover migrants showed no significant difference in the relative abundances of migrants between edges and interiors ( P = 0.414). However, only 2 migrants (American Redstart and Prairie Warbler) of the 7 species recorded (Appendix A) occurred at edges, while all 7 recorded migrants occurred at interiors. Vegetation Analysis of average shrub stem density < 1 m and 1 m, canopy cover, visual obstruction, and density of trees and snags show ed no significant differences in vegetation characteristics between edge and interior areas in either season. When I analyzed vertical structures during the winter, dead-debris was found to be significantly more present in the vertical strata in interiors th an in edges during the winter. Wh en I analyzed ground cover during the dormant season, there were a significantl y greater occurrence of bare ground making up 25 50% of the ground cover at interiors than edges, and a significantly grea ter occurrence of grass making up < 10% of the ground cover on edges then interiors (Table 15). During the growing season, there was a significantly higher presence of vegetation < 1 m in height, and presence of shrubs in the vertical strata at interiors than edges. Du ring the growing season, there was significantly greater occurrenc e of vines making up between 25% of the ground cover at interiors than edges (Table 1-6).

PAGE 24

24 Discussion Only a couple of bird species and a few bird groups used habitat edges significantly differently than interiors in any season. A possi ble reason that few species preferred edge or interior locations was that edges were largely not vegetatively diffe rent from interiors, and that remnants may have been viewed as edge habitat. This assertion is supp orted in a review study by McCollin (1998) that found small forest remnan ts to be predominantly edge habitat. In addition, Fernndez-Juricic (2001) found a simila r lack of vegetation structure differences between interior and edge habitats of urba n remnants, though severa l bird species still differentiated in use between e dges and interiors in that stud y. Likewise in my study, some species and groups of birds did differentiate between edge and interior habitats. I discuss possible reasons for this below. Individual Species The Blue Jay during the winter and the Nort hern Mockingbird duri ng the winter and the fall exhibited significantly highe r relative abundances at edge habitats. These are commonly observed species in urban habitats in Northern Florida and are often associated with habitat edges (Derrickson and Breitwisch 1992, Tarvin and Wolfenden 1999, Poole 2005). The Northern Mockingbird is highly associated with open habitat, apparently preferring very low grass or bare substrate to lunge at insects just above the ground (Breitwisch, Diaz and Lee 1987, Derrickson and Breitwisch 1992). Roth (1979) even suggested that too much cover i nhibits foraging success for this species. Though edges in my study were no t overly open as a rule, adjacent matrix was often open urban surfaces, such as maintained gr ass. In addition, analysis of vegetation showed that interior habitats during th e non-dormant seasons had signifi cantly higher representation of shrubs in the vertical strata, a nd higher vegetation representati on < 1 m in height than edges, which may have negatively influenced the No rthern Mockingbird. Further, Blue Jay is a

PAGE 25

25 generalized forager, and it has often been obser ved foraging in urban lawns for insects (Tarvin and Wolfenden 1999). Both species take fruit as well (Poole 2005), and forest edges also typically have more fruiting plants than fo rest interiors (Noss 1991, McCollin 1998, Rodewald and Brittingham 2004). The Cedar Waxwing was also shown to occu r more often on edges during the winter. However, the flocking behavior of this species may be the cause of this result. Cedar Waxwing often occurs in large flocks in Florida duri ng non-breeding seasons (Kale and Maeher 1990). In this study, flocks were not seen that often but when they were, a large number of individuals were recorded. They may have occurred in the in terior and were not recorded because of limited observation time. Throughout the year, and especi ally during the winter, Cedar Waxwing is highly associated with the pres ence of fruit-bearing plants (W itmer 1996a Witmer, Mountjoy, and Elliot 1997), and is commonly seen in urban ma trices during the winter, feeding on the fruits and flowers of cultivated and/or ornamental shrubs (McPherson 1987, Witmer 1996b, Witmer et al. 1997). Though I did not survey remnant edges, interiors, or the urban matrix surrounding the forest remnants for fruit or frui ting species abundance, the presence of fruiting cultivated trees and bushes in the surrounding matrix may have influenced Cedar Waxwing to use edges more than interiors. The Carolina Chickadee had higher relative abun dances at edges than interiors during the winter and same for the Red-bellied Woodp ecker and Downy Woodpecker during the fall. Unlike Northern Mockingbird and Blue Jay, whic h are generally considered edge species, Carolina Chickadee, Red-bellied Woodpecker, a nd Downy Woodpecker are generally considered to be edge-indifferent (Poole 2005), utilizing a variety of habitat types ranging from mature forests to urban parks throughout the year. For Carolina Chickadee, though, there is some

PAGE 26

26 evidence that fruit becomes mo re important as a food source during the winter (Brewer 1963, Mostrom, Curry, and Lohr 2002). More fruiting bushes and trees, as well as possibly more invertebrates, may exist on edges during the winter (Noss 1991). Red-bellied woodpeckers utilize a very broad array of habitats and ar e generally arthropod-eaters (Shackelford, Brown, and Conner 2000). However, this species has been observed foraging on fruit trees in suburban habitats in south Florida at the same rate as on tree trucks for insects (Breitwisch 1977, Shackelford et al. 2000). If more fruits occurred on edges of thes e remnants, then the Red-bellied woodpeckers may have concentrated on edges du ring the fall. Therefor e, determining fruit abundance in future studies may be important in determining habitat use patterns for these species. Carolina Wren and Ruby-crowned Kinglet used interiors significantly more than edges during the spring, and Eastern Tufted Titmouse us ed interiors significantly more than edges during the fall. Greater occurrence of shrubs < 1 m in height and of shrubs in the vertical strata might have contributed to higher interior use by Carolina Wren, as it prefers dense shrub cover (Haggerty and Morton 1995). However, this pattern is curious beca use these specie s all typically use a wide variety of habitat types during thes e seasons (Poole et al. 2005), and Carolina Wren and Eastern Tufted Titmouse are both year-round re sident species that di d not exhibit a similar pattern in other seasons. This pattern may be explained by factors not c onsidered in this study, and additional research is required to clarify it. Residency Status During the summer, year-round residents may use edges more than interiors, as evidenced by the groups of all year-round residents and uncommon year-round residents having significantly higher relative abundanc es at edges. However, this pa ttern was partially a result of the high counts of the Northern Mockingbird. Of the 9 species making up the summer common

PAGE 27

27 group, only the Northern Parula is not considered an edge-preferri ng or edge-indifferent species (Poole et al. 2005). This is consistent with Dunford and Freemark (2004), who found that many resident breeding birds in suburban habitat in Ca nada were generally edge, or edge-indifferent species. In addition, though there was no significant difference for common year-round residents, the relative abundance at edges for this gr oup was higher than the relative abundance on interiors. Some vegetative differences occurred between edge and inte rior areas; edges had significantly lower vegetation < 1 m in height and lower amounts of shrubs in the vertical strata than interior locations. Edges were closer to the more open, sunnier matrix than interior locations. So, while increased amounts of unders tory cover at interiors may have provided predator protection, the condition and matrix-adj acent position of edges may have created more opportunities for foraging on fruiting plants and i nvertebrates. In addition, these species are probably tolerant of human distur bance, as increased human presen ce and increased traffic noise on edges has been shown to influence habitat use by birds (Reijnen, Foppen, and Veenbaas 1997, Fernndez -Juricic and Tella ria 2000, Brontos and Horrondo 2001, Fernndez-Juricic 2001). During the fall, migrants may use interiors mo re than edges, as evidenced by the higher relative abundances at interiors for the a ll migrant group, the uncommon migrant group, the common migrant group, and the summer migran t group. However, the common migrant group result is partially driven by the relative abunda nce contributed by Gray Catbird. In addition, the uncommon migrant group is partially driven by the relative abundances contributed by Rubycrowned Kinglet and Baltimore Oriole. Lastly, th e summer migrant group result is partially driven by the relative ab undances contributed by the Red-eyed Vireo. Despite the ambiguities mentioned above, a reason to consider the biological relevancy of the findings is that 14 of the 18 total migrant speci es during the fall have re lative abundances that

PAGE 28

28 are at least slightly higher at interiors than edges. This sugge sts that an under lying ecological cause might be present that drives migrant specie s to use interiors more, or avoid edges of these urban forest remnants. There are se veral studies that show that wi ntering birds and fall migrants use a variety of habitat types, including urba n/suburban sites (Tilghman 1987b, Winker, Warner, and Weisbrod 1992, Yaukey 1996, Rodewald and Brittingham 2002, Rodewald and Brittingham 2004, Atchison and Rodewald 2006). In my study, migrants may select foraging and resting areas away from edges of urban forest remnan ts. The patterns of higher vegetation in the understory (< 1 m) and a higher representation of shrubs in the vertical strata at interiors than edges may be contributing factors, as th ese structural features provide be tter cover from predators. In addition, remnant interiors may provide protecti on from human disturbances near edges. Combined Fall and Spring Migrants No difference in edge and interior habitat use by stop-over migrants was demonstrated, but the analyses were limited because of few observations of these birds. Similar to a previous avian study in Gainesville (Hostetler et al. 2005), I observed few occurr ences of stop-over migrants in the urban forest remnants. It was noted, though, th at only 2 of 7 species occurred at edges and that all 7 migrants occurred at interiors. Two of those species, Acadian Flycatcher and Blackpoll Warbler, are generally considered interior fore st birds (Poole 2005) a nd the others are edgeindifferent or edge preferring. Gi ven the limited nature of the data an underlying trend of edge avoidance by stop-over migrants is problematic but it warrants furthe r study. I found that the vegetation structure at edges and interiors during the spring and fall were only different in a few ways (e.g., significantly greater pres ence of vegetation < 1 m in he ight, and significantly greater vertical presence of shrubs in general on interior s). These differences could have lent to better protection from predators on interiors than edges, which Moore et al. (1995) mentions as being an important feature of stop-over habitats. Stop-over habitat is e ssential for migrating birds to

PAGE 29

29 replenish fat supplies, to rest be fore the next leg of migration, and to provide protection against predators (Moore et al. 1995). Ur ban green space can serve as important stop-over habitat because these spaces may serve as more productive habitat, or as the only stop-over habitats for birds along some migratory r outes (Moore et al. 1995). Summary and Conclusions Most results indicated a lack of differentiation by birds between edges and interiors, possibly due to vegetative simila rities between edges and interior s. However, results indicated that year-round residents as a group may use edge s more than interiors during the summer and that some migrants might use in teriors more than edges during fall migration. However, because of the dominance of one or a few species in each group, it is not clear wh ether these patterns of the greater use of edge and interior habitats dur ing the summer and fall are biologically relevant. Despite this, the data indicates that certain bird s may differentially use in terior areas (greater than 40 m from an edge) and/or edges (less th an 40 m from an edge) of small urban forest remnants, and that this pattern of habitat-use may be modified by season. These results suggest that the interiors of these urban forest remnan ts may be managed for migrant species during the fall, possibly by reducing human disturbance in th e interior. Lastly, the study results point out that urban forest remnants are used by a number of different species thro ughout the year, and that their conservation contributes toward the dive rsity of the surrounding urban environment.

PAGE 30

30 Figure 1-1. Urban forest remnants on the Univers ity Florida Campus in Gainesville, Florida.

PAGE 31

31 Figure 1-2. Illustration of edge a nd interior point count locations for bird surveys within forest remnants, in Gainesville, Florida. Edge was defined as the habitat < 40m from the remnant boundary. Interior was defined as all habitat > 40m from the remnant boundary.

PAGE 32

32 Table 1-1. Individual species and residency groups analyzed for winter bird count surveys of edge and interior locations w ithin forest remnants in Gainesville Florida. Shown are overall average daily relative abundances with accompanying standard error (SE) values at edges and interiors, and test statistics (T.S.) results with accompanying P values. Unless noted, statistical test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n = 6 for edge and interior areas. For specie s abbreviations, see appendix A. Residency codes: WR=winter resident, SM=summer mi grant, AM=all migrants, and YR=yearround residents. Subgroup Number of species per subgroup Residency Group/Species Edge SE Interior SE T.S. P All Species 15 WR 2.86 0.41 2.63 0.67 0.09 0.781 18 AM 2.89 0.41 3.11 0.45 0.17 0.697 28 YR** 3.47 0.68 2.48 0.41 0.67 0.414 Common 10 WR 2.78 0.38 2.95 0.46 0.12 0.247 11 YR* 1.72 0.11 1.49 0.14 1.72 0.743 Uncommon 5 WR 0.090 0.054 0.095 0.016 3.25 0.105 2 SM 0.013 0.009 0.096 0.054 0.19 0.670 8 AM** 0.111 0.054 0.112 0.040 2.67 0.102 17 YR** 0.784 0.394 0.399 0.075 0.67 0.414 AMCR 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.958 AMGO** 0.24 0.15 0.55 0.36 0.00 1.000 AMRO** 0.43 0.20 0.57 0.43 0.67 0.414 BAWW 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.62 0.467 BGGC** 0.19 0.08 0.17 0.03 2.67 0.102 BLJA 0.26 0.06 0.12 0.04 4.64 0.084 CACH** 0.16 0.05 0.01 0.01 6.00 0.014 CARW 0.44 0.10 0.54 0.18 0.15 0.718 CEWA** 0.21 0.08 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.014 DOWO 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.13 0.734 EAPH 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.769 ETTI 0.26 0.06 0.20 0.07 0.53 0.499 GRCA** 0.11 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.00 1.000 MODO* 0.19 0.09 0.04 0.02 2.25 0.194 NOCA 0.81 0.11 0.85 0.15 0.04 0.845 NOMO 0.25 0.07 0.06 0.03 4.83 0.079 PAWA 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.53 0.508 RBWO 0.32 0.11 0.23 0.06 0.55 0.490 RCKI** 0.76 0.10 0.59 0.08 0.67 0.414 YBSA 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.45 0.534 YRWA* 0.82 0.21 0.88 0.17 0.38 0.567 *square-root transformed **tested with non-parametric Friedman test.

PAGE 33

33 Table 1-2. Individual species a nd residency groups analyzed fo r spring bird count surveys of edge and interior locations w ithin forest remnants in Gainesville Florida. Shown are overall average daily relative abundances with accompanying standard error (SE) values at edges and interiors, and test statistics (T.S.) results with accompanying P values. Unless noted, statistical test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n = 6 for edge and interior areas. For specie s abbreviations, see appendix A. Residency codes: WR=winter resident, SM=summer mi grant, AM=all migrants, and YR=yearround residents. Subgroup Number of species per subgroup Residency group/Species Edge SE Interior SE T.S P All Species 4 SM 0.63 0.200.49 0.09 0.50 0.513 13 WR** 1.04 0.201.20 0.29 0.67 0.414 21 AM 1.70 0.181.73 0.22 0.09 0.778 21 YR 3.16 0.543.64 0.57 0.40 0.557 Common 3 SM* 0.62 0.140.47 0.31 5.04 0.075 3 WR* 0.75 0.081.01 0.21 0.95 0.375 6 AM** 1.37 0.131.48 0.42 0.20 0.655 7 YR 2.51 0.433.16 0.43 1.27 0.312 Uncommon 10 WR* 0.29 0.150.19 0.07 0.14 0.721 15 AM* 0.33 0.140.28 0.08 0.04 0.855 14 YR 0.65 0.200.47 0.15 0.63 0.464 BHCO* 0.19 0.100.25 0.11 2.10 0.207 BLJA* 0.24 0.110.10 0.04 1.34 0.299 CARW* 0.42 0.060.83 0.25 5.77 0.061 DOWO** 0.08 0.030.13 0.09 0.00 1.000 ETTI** 0.21 0.090.09 0.09 2.67 0.102 GCFL 0.35 0.050.22 0.08 1.97 0.219 GRCA 0.25 0.090.26 0.10 0.00 0.994 MODO** 0.08 0.020.06 0.04 0.33 0.564 NOCA** 1.11 0.161.34 0.27 0.20 0.655 NOPA** 0.16 0.080.15 0.08 0.17 0.564 RBWO** 0.42 0.140.47 0.08 0.67 0.414 RCKI* 0.31 0.080.63 0.15 5.03 0.075 REVI* 0.12 0.070.09 0.04 0.00 0.949 YRWA 0.19 0.070.11 0.06 0.50 0.511 *square-root transformed **tested with non-parametric Friedman test.

PAGE 34

34 Table 1-3. Individual species and residency groups analyzed for summer bird count surveys of edge and interior locations w ithin forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida. Shown are overall average daily relative abundances with accompanying standard error (SE) values at edges and interiors, and test statistics (T.S.) results with accompanying P values. Unless noted, statistical test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n = 6 for edge and interior areas. For specie s abbreviations, see Appendix A. Residency codes: WR=winter resident, SM=summer mi grant, AM=all migrants, and YR=yearround residents. Subgroup Number of species per subgroup Residency group/Species Edge SE Interior SE T.S P All Species 3 SM 0.45 0.110.34 0.11 0.440.535 7 AM* 0.48 0.140.37 0.10 0.340.584 24 YR 4.77 0.573.60 0.60 5.460.067 Common 2 SM 0.40 0.110.31 0.12 0.240.645 7 YR 3.59 0.283.24 0.54 0.350.580 Uncommon 5 AM 0.08 0.040.05 0.03 0.320.598 17 YR 1.18 0.520.36 0.09 8.110.036 BHCO* 0.08 0.050.15 0.09 0.330.593 BLJA* 0.55 0.220.14 0.07 4.000.102 CARW** 1.30 0.331.25 0.21 0.670.414 DOWO** 0.21 0.040.06 0.05 2.670.102 ETTI 0.18 0.060.21 0.10 0.070.809 GCFL 0.35 0.100.25 0.09 0.420.543 NOCA 0.78 0.201.11 0.24 0.710.437 NOPA* 0.05 0.020.07 0.05 0.020.891 RBWO 0.49 0.120.32 0.07 2.670.163 *square-root transformed **tested with non-parametric Friedman test.

PAGE 35

35 Table 1-4. Individual species and residency groups analyzed for fa ll bird count surveys of edge and interior locations within forest remn ants in Gainesville, Florida. Shown are overall average daily relative abundances with accompanying standard error (SE) values at edges and interiors, and test statistics (T.S.) results with accompanying P values. Unless noted, statistical test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n = 6 for edge and interior areas. For specie s abbreviation, see appendix A. Residency codes: WR=winter resident, SM=summer mi grant, AM=all migrants, and YR=yearround residents. Subgroup Number of species per subgroup Residency group/Species Edge SE Interior SE T.S P All Species 5 SM** 0.08 0.020.21 0.08 6.310.054 8 WR 0.31 0.100.58 0.15 3.600.116 18 AM 0.47 0.150.86 0.19 8.040.036 26 YR 5.51 0.614.39 0.63 2.670.102 Common 2 WR 0.23 0.090.43 0.13 2.240.195 3 AM 0.33 0.120.62 0.15 4.780.080 9 YR* 4.80 0.463.92 0.55 2.100.207 Uncommon 4 SM 0.05 0.030.06 0.02 0.170.699 6 WR* 0.08 0.040.14 0.05 3.990.102 14 AM* 0.14 0.040.25 0.08 14.010.013 17 YR 0.70 0.210.47 0.10 1.280.309 AMRE** 0.07 0.030.03 0.01 0.200.655 BAWW** 0.03 0.020.06 0.03 1.000.317 BLJA* 0.55 0.130.37 0.07 2.480.176 CARW 1.14 0.191.18 0.28 0.040.843 DOWO 0.22 0.050.07 0.03 4.060.100 ETTI 0.11 0.030.28 0.07 5.680.063 GRCA 0.20 0.080.37 0.12 1.600.261 MODO 0.05 0.030.06 0.03 0.030.867 NOCA 1.63 0.261.42 0.20 0.380.566 NOMO* 0.37 0.120.09 0.05 21.970.005 RBWO 0.53 0.080.29 0.06 10.430.023 REVI** 0.03 0.020.15 0.06 1.800.180 WEVI** 0.19 0.060.16 0.05 1.800.180 *square-root transformed **tested with non-parametric Friedman test

PAGE 36

36 Table 1-5. Vegetation analysis re sults for edge and interior loca tions of urban forest remnants during the dormant season in Gainesville, Florida. Shown are overall averages and accompanied SE values for both edge and in terior locations for each listed variable measured, and (T.S.) test statistics and accompanying P-values. Unless noted, statistical test is one way ANOVA. For a ll tests, df = 1, and n = 6 for edge and interior areas. Variable Sub-variable Edge SE Interior SE T.S. P Woody shrub 0-2.5 cm dbh* 108333.33 72029.12 125208.33 48457.90 0.16 0.263 density per ha 2.5-8 cm dbh* 2500.00 1118.03 3750.00 1796.99 0.26 0.630 < 8 cm dbh, > 1 m in height* 6020.83 1841.41 5885.42 1143.42 0.11 0.754 Trees per hectare 381.25 96.16 312.50 107.24 0.02 0.883 Snags per hectare 22.92 12.25 35.42 14.58 0.29 0.611 Visual Obstruction 0-0.5 m** 3.22 0.47 2.80 0.59 2.67 0.102 0.5 m 2.55 0.53 2.04 0.50 0.03 0.875 11.5 m 1.84 0.42 1.48 0.42 0.00 1.000 1.5.0 m 1.53 0.45 1.57 0.46 0.79 0.416 Overstory Density 73.53 6.01 76.28 6.93 0.14 0.727 Index of vertical Dead Debris 120.83 11.49 175.00 17.38 10.97 0.021 vegetation structure Forbes 89.58 6.78 85.42 6.78 0.29 0.611 (0-300) Grass 56.25 15.73 33.33 17.87 0.89 0.388 Shrubs 125.00 29.76 160.42 13.85 1.09 0.344 Trees 95.83 19.81 87.50 24.79 0.16 0.709 Vines* 83.33 22.05 129.17 32.54 0.86 0.396 Index of vertical All vegetation (< 1 m) 272.92 27.08 243.75 32.56 1.52 0.272 vegetation structure All vegetation (>1 m, 5 m) 106.25 34.12 166.67 17.87 2.11 0.206 (0-500) All vegetation (> 5 m) 70.83 18.73 85.42 14.58 0.38 0.567 Index of vertical All structure variables (< 1 m) 364.58 28.94 343.75 32.56 0.78 0.419 vegetation structure All structure variables (> 1 m, 5 m) 131.25 43.27 225.00 22.36 3.46 0.122 (0-600) All structure variables (> 5 m) 75.00 20.67 102.08 13.85 1.40 0.290 Distribution of ground Bare Ground (0%)* 79.17 9.50 58.33 12.36 3.29 0.129 cover Bare Ground (<10%) 16.67 7.68 33.33 13.57 2.39 0.183 Bare Ground (10%)** 0.00 0.00 14.58 8.18 3 0.083 Bare Ground (25%)** 0.00 0.00 2.08 2.08 1 0.317 Bare Ground (50%)** 4.17 4.17 0.00 0.00 1 0.317 Bare Ground (75-100%)** 0.00 0.00 8.33 8.33 1 0.317 Dead Debris (0%)** 8.33 5.27 4.17 4.17 1 0.317 Dead Debris (< 10%)** 8.33 5.27 6.25 4.27 0 1.000 Dead Debris (10-25%) 14.58 8.18 18.75 6.25 0.29 0.611 Dead Debris (25-50%) 20.83 6.97 27.08 8.18 0.32 0.597 Dead Debris (5075%) 27.08 11.37 16.67 8.33 0.39 0.558 Dead Debris (75100%) 20.83 7.68 35.42 9.36 1.24 0.315 Forbes (0%)** 10.42 6.78 18.75 8.98 0.33 0.564 Forbes (< 10%) 50.00 7.22 62.50 12.08 1.36 0.296 Forbes (10%) 18.75 7.74 10.42 6.78 0.62 0.465 Forbes (25%)** 10.42 5.02 6.25 4.27 0.33 0.564 Forbes (50%)** 2.08 2.08 6.25 4.27 1 0.317 Forbes (75100%)** 8.33 8.33 4.17 4.17 0 1.000 Grass (0%) 43.75 15.73 75.00 12.91 2.95 0.146 Grass (< 10%)** 18.75 8.98 4.17 4.17 3 0.083

PAGE 37

37 Table 1-5. Continued Variable Sub-variable Edge SE Interior SE T.S. P Grass (10%)** 10.42 8.18 8.33 5.27 0.33 0.564 Grass (25%) 12.50 4.56 10.42 5.02 0.09 0.771 Grass (50%)** 6.25 4.27 2.08 2.08 1 0.317 Grass (75100%)** 8.33 8.33 0.00 0.00 1 0.317 Shrubs (0%) 31.25 16.38 18.75 6.25 0.79 0.415 Shrubs (< 10%) 22.92 11.37 25.00 6.45 0.03 0.880 Shrubs (1025%) 16.67 8.33 25.00 6.45 0.36 0.576 Shrubs (2550%) 22.92 11.37 10.42 5.02 1.25 0.314 Shrubs (5%)** 6.25 4.27 8.33 5.27 0 1.000 Shrubs (7500%)** 0.00 0.00 4.17 4.17 1 0.317 Trees (0%)** 87.50 5.59 77.08 15.95 0.33 0.564 Trees (< 10%)** 0.00 0.00 4.17 4.17 1 0.317 Trees (1025%)** 12.50 5.59 4.17 4.17 2 0.157 Trees (2550%)** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1.000 Trees (5075%)** 0.00 0.00 2.08 2.08 1 0.317 Trees (7500%)** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1.000 Vines (0%) 54.17 16.67 29.17 16.35 0.92 0.381 Vines (> 10%) 22.92 8.18 45.83 18.73 0.48 0.520 Vines (1025%) 22.92 9.36 8.33 5.27 1.24 0.315 Vines (250%)** 0.00 0.00 4.17 4.17 1 0.317 Vines (505%)** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1.000 Vines (75100%)** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1.000 *square-root transformed **tested with non-parametric Friedman test

PAGE 38

38 Table 1-6. Vegetation analysis resu lts for edge and interior locatio ns of urban forest remnants during the growing seasons in Gainesville, Florida. Includes the overall average and accompanied SE values for both edge and in terior locations for each listed variable measured, and test statistic s (T.S.) and associated P -values. Unless noted, statistical test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n = 6 for edge and interior areas. Variable Sub-variable Edge SE Interior SE T.S. P Overstory Density 72.42 10.87 85.01 5.96 1.04 0.354 Visual Obstruction 00.5 m* 4.89 1.53 3.76 0.34 0.18 0.690 0.51 m* 4.03 1.47 3.04 0.41 0.01 0.933 11.5 m 3.85 1.46 2.54 0.36 0.97 0.371 1.52.0 m** 3.51 1.31 2.58 0.24 0.67 0.414 Index of vertical Dead Debris 119.44 20.91 104.17 10.54 0.42 0.545 vegetation structure Forbes 51.39 13.89 66.67 10.54 1.45 0.282 (0-300) Grass 39.58 15.95 56.25 15.05 1.04 0.355 Shrubs 136.11 24.69 179.17 11.93 5.04 0.075 Trees 111.11 18.31 125.00 14.43 0.59 0.478 Vines 140.28 30.69 141.67 32.06 0.00 0.977 Index of vertical All vegetation (< 1 m) 218.75 27.34 291.67 30.73 4.54 0.086 vegetation structure All vegetation (> 1, 5 m) 172.92 29.30 170.83 11.93 0.01 0.934 (0-500) All vegetation ( > 5 m) 86.81 18.83 106.25 11.06 0.84 0.402 Index of vertical All structure variab les (<1 m) 302.08 37.97 379.17 35.01 2.74 0.159 vegetation structure All structure variables (> 1 m, 5 m)206.94 36.79 187.50 11.18 0.43 0.540 (0-600) All structure variables (> 5 m) 88.89 18.96 106.25 11.06 0.63 0.465 Distribution of Bare Ground (0%) 54.17 13.94 42.36 12.19 0.95 0.374 ground cover Bare Ground (2550%)** 8.33 8.33 10.42 8.18 1.00 0.317 Bare Ground (5075%)** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 Bare Ground (75100%)** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 Dead Debris (0%)** 12.50 12.50 4.17 4.17 0.00 1.000 Dead Debris (2550%) 18.75 8.98 31.94 11.47 1.31 0.303 Dead Debris (5075%) 16.67 6.18 20.83 7.68 0.25 0.638 Dead Debris (75100%) 25.00 15.81 15.97 5.73 0.21 0.663 Forbes (0%) 45.83 13.57 22.22 12.11 3.05 0.141 Forbes (2550%)** 2.08 2.08 8.33 5.27 2.00 0.157 Forbes (5075%)** 10.42 6.78 2.08 2.08 2.00 0.157 Forbes (75100%)** 0.00 0.00 2.08 2.08 1.00 0.317 Grass (0%) 62.50 17.97 39.58 14.50 3.25 0.131 Grass (25%)** 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 0.00 1.000 Grass (50%)** 4.17 4.17 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.317 Grass (75-100%)** 18.75 16.38 5.56 5.56 2.00 0.157 Shrubs (0%) 35.42 17.20 11.81 5.93 2.02 0.215 Shrubs (2550%) 8.33 5.27 24.31 8.36 2.20 0.199 Shrubs (5075%) 12.50 6.45 12.50 6.45 0.00 1.000 Shrubs (75100%)** 2.08 2.08 4.17 2.64 1.00 0.317 Trees (0%) 91.67 8.33 74.31 11.20 2.65 0.165 Trees (2550%)** 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 0.00 1.000 Trees (5075%)** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 Trees (75100%)** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 Vines (0%) 27.08 15.28 25.00 15.81 0.01 0.939 Vines (2550%)** 4.17 4.17 25.69 9.65 4.00 0.046

PAGE 39

39 Table 1-6. Continued Variable Sub-variable Edge SE Interior SE T.S. P Vines (5075%)** 2.08 2.08 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.317 Vines (75100%)** 8.33 6.18 5.56 5.56 0.33 0.564 *square-root transformed **tested with non-parametric Friedman test

PAGE 40

40 CHAPTER 2 USE OF EDGE AND INTERIOR HABITATS OF URBAN FOREST REMNANTS BY HERPETOFAUNA Introduction Reptiles and amphibians face numerous challenges in coexisting with an urbanizing world (Rubbo and Kiesecker 2004, McKinney 2006). Res earch has shown that urbanization can negatively affect herpetofauna because of the in creased amount of imperv ious surfaces (Richter and Azous 1995), habitat isolation caused by dispersa l barriers such as roads (Ficetola and De Bernardi 2004, Parris 2006), the degradation of we tlands through the destruct ion of habitat, and the alteration of hydroperiod and flow regimes (Delis, Mushinsky, and McCoy 1996, Riley et al. 2005). For amphibians, the effect of urbanization ha s been paid particular attention because of their need for access to water to breed in. Both re ptiles and amphibians are at risk from habitat fragmentation and other anthropoge nic threats on a global scale (G ibbons et al. 2000), with the IUCN estimating that 1/3 of he rpetofaunal species worldwide are threatened with extinction (Baillie, Hilton-Taylor, and St uart 2004, and Cushman 2006). Urban and Edge Effects on Herpetofauna Urbanization often causes habitat fragmentati on, and reptiles and amphibians can persist within forest remnants (Demayandier and Hunter 1998, Schlaepfer and Gavin 2001), including habitat remnants within ur ban matrices (Enge, Robson, and Krysko 2004, Ficetola and De Bernardi 2004, Rubbo and Kiesecker 2005, Parris 2006). Habitat fragmentation creates a higher amount of edge habitat in relation to the amount of interior habitat. From a habitat use standpoint, this is important because habitat e dges are often used differently than habitat interiors. Indeed, edges have l ong been recognized for often ha ving higher diversities and higher abundances of species than habitat interiors, pa rticularly of game species and birds (Lay 1938, Yahner 1988). This pattern is partially due to fa ctors such as increase d sunlight exposure,

PAGE 41

41 increased emergent vegetation, a nd increased abundances of invert ebrates along edges. However, for herpetofauna, particularly amphibians, inte rior habitats generally offer cooler, moister conditions, and therefore may be more conducive to survival, particul ar during dry periods (Lehtinen, Ramanamanjato, and Raveloarison 2005). Research comparing edge and interior use of forest remnants has shown that herpetofauna can respond to edge differentially, and may part ition their species assemblages into edgeassociated, interior-associate d, and edge-indifferent specie s (Schlaepfer and Garvin 2001, Urbina-Cardona, Olivares-Perez, and Reynoso 2006, Lehtinen et al. 2005). These findings have varied depending upon the ecological system that was studied, as well as the season it was studied in. For example, Lehtinen et al. (2005) and Schlaepfer a nd Garvin (2001) found herpetofauna to differentially us e edges and interiors of remnan ts within desert and pasture matrices, respectively, but that these results were highly dependent upon season. Contrastingly, Urbina-Cardona et al. (2006) found differential habitat use by herpet ofauna at edges and interiors in remnants within another pasture matrix, but found that these eff ects were largely not influenced by season. Currently, very little is kno wn about whether indivi dual species, or taxagroups avoid edges and preferentially utilize interior areas of urban forest remnants. Objective The objective of my study was to determin e whether species and taxa-groups of amphibians and reptiles differentiall y use edge and interior habitat within urban forest remnants during the summer. Methods Study Site This study took place in 5 forest remnants on th e University of Florida campus, located in Gainesville, Florida. They included Harmoni c Woods (3.7 ha), Graham Woods (3.0 ha),

PAGE 42

42 Bartram-Carr Woods (3.5 ha), Lake Alice Conser vation Area (11.3 ha), a nd Bivens Arm Forest (16.6 ha) (Figure 2-1). The University of Florida Gainesville campus is located in north-central peninsular Florida, which experiences hot, hum id, and generally rainy summers. Two of the three smallest remnants (Harmonic Woods a nd Bartram-Carr Woods) included largely upland mixed pine-hardwood forest habitat, with all c ontaining or being immediately adjacent to small streams or low-lying areas. The third small pa tch (Graham Woods) consis ted of a mixture of low-lying bottomland hardwood and upland mixed pine-hardwood habitat, and contained a small network of streams. One of the two largest remnants, Lake Alice Conservation Area, consisted of upland mixed pine-hardwood forest, some regenera ting clear-cut habitat, and was adjacent to a large marsh (25 ha), and theref ore contained some fl ood-plain forest as well. The other large remnant, Bivens Forest, consisted of mostly bottomland-hardwood swamp in its interior, but was ringed by mixed pine-hardwood forest on three of its four edges, with the fourth edge being adjacent to a lake. All remnants except Harm onic Woods were subject to occasional flooding. Herpetofaunal Sampling I sampled Herpetofauna during the summers of 2005 and 2006 from May until August, using drift fence arrays with p itfall traps and funnel traps, along with Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe refugia to sample for tree frogs. I made drift fences out of approximately 30 cm wide silt fencing (Enge 1997). Following a modification of a design by Moseley, Castleberry, and Schweitzer (2003), I formed arrays in the shap e of a Y, with the th ree, 7.6 m long wings conjoined around a single pitf all trap, and placed at 120o angles to each ot her. I placed funnel traps at the distal ends of each wing, making su re they were flush to the ground (Johnson, S., Personal communication). I made pitfall traps of 19.1 L plastic buckets. For funnel traps, I used a modification of the format described by Enge (1997), using aluminum window screening approximately 76 cm in length to build cylindrical traps of the same length with a funnel in one

PAGE 43

43 end, and with the other end closed. To preven t desiccation of captured specimens, I placed a dampened sponge inside each trap. Originally, I drilled holes into the bottom of buckets for drainage. However, in remnants with high leve ls of ground water, water would flood the bucket from the bottom up. Therefore, in these remnants and places that tende d to flood, I installed buckets without holes in the bot tom, and I used iron rebar stakes to hold buckets in the ground against hydro-static wate r pressure (Enge, K., personal comm unication). I scooped out rainwater collected in pitfall traps each sa mpling day as necessary. PVC pipe refugia were used to attract various species of tree frogs. I used pipes of bot h 2.5 cm and 5 cm diameter-widths, with lengths of about 76 cm. I drove pipes into the ground at a depth suitable for the pipe to stand up on its own (Zacharow, Barichivich, and Dodd 2003). I placed one pipe of each diameter width between each wing of the Y-shaped fence array (Moseley et al. 2003), resulting in 6 total PVC pipes per sampling array. This design was well suited to sampling in multiple small-sized areas, because it was compact as well as cost effective. Because this sampling method does not rely on human observations, detection probabilities for species should have been similar within remnants, assuming that species moved in the same manne r throughout remnants. In addition, as sampling methods should reflect the detection probability of the study subjects in order to be effective (MacKensie and Royle 2005), this method allowed me to sample for a relatively wide amount of diversity, given resour ce constraints. To compare edge and interior locations (Figure 2-2), I consid ered the first 40 m from the remnant boundary toward the interior as edge, and I considered all space beyond 40 m from the boundary of the remnant to be interior. I decided to place ar rays at edge locations between 20 m from boundary edges due to the close proxim ity of remnants to the urban environment,

PAGE 44

44 and the potential for human interference. Except fo r this specification, I placed sampling arrays randomly within edge and interior areas of remnants. To assure some degree of equal sampling effort per forest remnant, I allo cated a one array per 2 ha ratio, up to a maximum of 4 arrays per remnant. I specified all arrays within remnants to be at least 100 m apart from each other (Campbell and Christman 1982), though in two re mnants (Lake Alice Conservation Area and Bivens Forest), logistical di fficulties (unsuitable substrates ) only allowed a maximum distance of 80 m between sampling arrays. Using these para meters, I placed a total of 7 interior and 7 edge arrays in 5 forest remnants ar ound the University of Florida campus. When I sampled herps, I opened traps for peri ods of four days apiece, and checked them every day. I opened and checked traps in a systema tic sequence so that they were checked at the approximate corresponding time they were set on th e previous day. This as sured that all traps would be open to sample for the same amount of time each day (approx. 24 hr), allowing for equal sampling effort per trap. On the fourth day, I closed traps until the next sampling period. Each day, I identified captured specimens to sp ecies, and then promptly released them. I operated sampling arrays from May through A ugust, every other week. Occasionally, heavy rains forced the closure of some traps due to fl ooding. In this situation, closed traps were reopened during the same week for the amount of sampling time lost to inclement weather. The presence of ants at sampling locations also nece ssitated the closure of f unnel traps indefinitely when trapped individuals we re negatively affected. Analysis I conducted data analyses comparing aver age daily relative ab undance of individual species, at the Order/Suborder ta xa-level (including Snake, Frog, Lizard), and the Family taxalevel (Ranid, Hylids, Skinks, Anol es) between edges and interiors. I also conducted an analysis of overall species richness between edges and interiors. I calc ulated average daily relative

PAGE 45

45 abundance per species for each edge or interior location within a forest remnant (e.g., Harmonic Woods) by dividing the summed count data per remnant edge and in terior by total trap effort (i.e., number of trap nights). Total trap effort was modified by sampli ng methodologies utilized (e.g., 3 funnel traps and 1 pitfall=4/4, or 100% operat ional) per trap night. For example, if a total of 10 frogs were caught over 4 nights in which th e pitfall trap and only 2 of the 3 funnel traps were open, then I would cal culated this average as : 10/(4 [3/4]) = 3.33. For most species, three funnel traps and one pitf all trap per array constituted the applicable sampling methodologies at each array. For tree frogs, the sampling involved only the 6 PVC pipes per array (e.g., 6 pipes = 6/6 or 100% operational). For Anolis sagrei which were caught using all sampling methodologies, the applicable sa mpling devices included the pipes, the funnel traps, and the pitfall traps (e.g., 3 funnel traps, 1 pitfa ll, and 6 pipes = 10/10 or 100% operational). I used this analyti cal approach because sampling e ffort per array was occasionally reduced when traps or pipes were lost te mporarily due to extreme weather or unknown disturbances (i.e. raccoon interference), or intentionally removed due to ant predation. In Harmonic Woods, Graham Woods, and Ba rtram-Carr Woods, there were only 2 sampling arrays (1 at edge, 1 at interior). Lake Alice Conservation Area and Bivens Forest were larger and had two sampling arrays per edge and interior. However, I inadvertently placed 1 edge location in each of the larger remnants (Bivens Forest and La ke Alice Conservation Area) too far from boundaries of these remnants (i.e., > 20 m from patch boundaries ). I excluded these arrays from analysis to prevent undue bias on any actual edge effect. In addition, I only sampled Bartram-Carr Woods through the first week of July in 2006 because of building construction that began in that remnant.

PAGE 46

46 I entered calculated data in to a one-way ANOVA model blocked for forest remnant in which average daily relative abundance was the depe ndent variable, and edge or interior location was the independent variable. Because I was not interested in the effect of sampling year, I averaged the relative abundances for each anal yzed species and group between both years. I tested the data for normality with the Ryan-Joine r test, and for equal-variance with the Levine test. I square-root transformed non-normal and heteroskedastic distributions for individual species and groups. I used the non-parametric Fr iedman test to analyze species and groups unable to meet parametric test assumptions af ter transformation. Because there were 5 sampled forest remnants with both edge and interior locat ions, this resulted in a total of 10 possible forest remnant locations. In order to de al with non-normality issues due to having too many zeros in the data, I only statistically analyzed individual groups in each level of analysis if they were present in at least half (5) of the 10 possible forest remnant locati ons. An alpha of 0.1 was used for all statistical tests. I calculated species richness (e dge and interior) per forest remnant and entered it into a one-way ANOVA model blocked by forest remn ant in which number of species was the dependant variable, and edge or interior location was the independent variable. Similar to the count data, I averaged species richness data betw een both years. I tested normality and variance assumptions as previously described (alpha=0.1). Lastly, in order to gauge similarities in sp ecies assemblages at edges and interiors, I computed Horn similarity index values between edges and interiors within each remnant. To do this, I used R Statistical Program, using the Vegan Community Analysis package.

PAGE 47

47 Results Over the summers of 2005 and 2006, I checked 12 arrays a total of 552.5 trap nights for tree frogs, 548.6 trapping nights for Anolis sagrei and 542.75 trapping nights for all remaining species. I caught a total of 23 species in sampling arrays, shown in Appendix B. Individual Species Only 6 species were present in enough fore st remnant locations in both years to be individually analy zed. After analyzing Anolis sagrei, Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp ., Hyla cinera, Hyla squirella, Rana clamitans, and Scincella lateralis none were found to have significantly higher relative abundances at either edges or interiors (Table 2-1). Hyla squirella was found to be significantly affected by remn ant (Table 2-2), with 89.76% of the cumulative average daily relative abunda nce of this species found in Bivens Forest. Taxa-Groups General taxa-subgroup When I grouped the species into general-taxa subgroups, including the order Anura (frogs), and the suborders Serpentes (snakes) and Lacertilia (lizards) of the order Squamata, there were no groups that had significantly high er relative abundances at edge s or interiors (Table 2-1). Frogs were significantly affected by forest remnant, with 80.52% of this groups cumulative average relative abundance found in Bivens Forest and Lake Alice Conservation Area (Table 22). Snakes showed a similar remnant effect with 60.98% of the groups cumulative average relative abundance represented in Bivens Fore st and Lake Alice Cons ervation area, and 32.69% of the groups cumulative averag e relative abundance represented in Harmonic Woods (Table 22).

PAGE 48

48 Specific taxa-subgroup When I grouped species into more specific-ta xa subgroups, including Ranidae (true frogs), Scincidae (skinks), Hylidae (tree-frogs), and Polychrotidae (Anolis lizards), no groups had significantly higher daily relative abundances at edges or in teriors (Table 2-1). Ranids were significantly affected by forest remnant, with 69.42% of this group s cumulative relative abundance found in Bivens Forest and Lake Alice Conservation Area (Table 2-2). Species Richness The number of species between edge and interi or locations was not significantly different (Table 2-1). Species richness was significantly aff ected by forest remnant, with the most species occurring in Bivens Forest (19 species) and Lake Alice Conservation Area (16 species) (Table 2-2). Species Composition The Horn similarity index is based on a scal e of 0, with 0 representing a completely different species composition, and 1 representi ng completely identical compositions. When I calculated the similaritie s between the edges and interiors of individua l remnants, it was found that similarity values ranged from 0.520.890, with a mean value of 0.775 (Table 2-3). Discussion Edge vs. Interior Habitat Use For herpetofauna, I found no difference in the use of edge or interior habitat for any individual species, family-level taxa group, or order/suborder-l evel taxa group. I also found no difference in species richness betw een edges and interiors. Furthe r, species similarity indices between edges and interiors ranged from moderately similar to highly similar. Taken together, herpetofauna analyzed in my study do not appear to differentially use edges or interiors of these small urban remnants. Though edge effects for herp etofauna in urban matrices have not been

PAGE 49

49 well studied, there has been previous evidence of differential use of edge and interior habitat of forest remnants in rural se ttings (Schlaepfer and Gavin 2001, Lehtinen et al. 2003, UrbinaCardona et al. 2006). A co mmon finding is that canopy cover tends to increase with distance from edge (Urbina-Cardona et al. 2006, Schlaep fer and Gavin 1999). This generally contributes toward interior forest remnant conditions of lowe r temperatures and increased levels of relative humidity than edges (Urbina-Cardona 2006, Le htien et al. 2003, Schlaepfer and Gavin 1999). This leads to higher use of fore st interior by moisture-sensitive amphibians, and an even some species of reptiles for higher breeding success (Schlaepfer and Gavin 1999). In addition, significant differences in under-story density betw een edges and interiors may favor species that prefer sparser vegetation densit ies typically found at interiors, or greater vege tation densities typically found at edges (Schlaepfer a nd Gavin 2001, Urbina-Cardona et al. 2006). In my study, one reason for a lack of segrega tion could be the small amount of structural habitat differences between edge and interior ha bitats, particularly overstory density (Chapter 1). Further, herpetofauna in my study were only sampled during the summer rainy season, and species during this seaso n, particularly amphibians, may have been inclined to use the entire forest remnant if they were dispersing in search of wetlands for breeding activities. This is consistent with seasonal differences in habita t use by herpetofauna found by Lehtinen et al. (2003) in tropical fragments, and suggests that se asonality may need to be accounted for in future research in my study area. Lastly, only 5 spec ies were sufficiently common to be analyzed individually. The sampling methodol ogy may not have been effective in capturing other species or other herps may not be abundant in these urban remnants. Habitat Use among Forest Remnants Although no edge effects were detected for he rpetofauna in this system of remnants, species richness was greater and more Hyla squirella Ranids, Anurans (Frogs), and Snakes,

PAGE 50

50 were found in certain forest remnants. Several ha bitat features within particular remnants may have contributed to a forest remnant effect. Fi rst, the presence or amount of wetlands in or adjacent to the remnant may have been an importa nt contributor. Bivens Forest and Lake Alice Conservation Area contained or were directly ad jacent to the largest am ount of wetlands out of the 5 remnants. Bivens Forest was adjacent to a lake and was largely made up of bottomland hardwood habitat, while Lake A lice Conservation Area was adjacent to a marsh and a lake, and was made up largely of mesic, mixed pine-har dwood forest. These two remnants contained the highest relative abundances of Ra nids and Anurans, with Biven s Forest containing the highest counts of Hyla squirella and the most species. This is consiste nt with previous findings that these groups of herpetofauna are often most abundant near wetlands (Houlah an and Findlay 2003). My study was also conducted during the rainy seas on, and frogs would be most attracted to wet areas for breeding. Second, remnant size might also be a factor, as Bivens Forest (16.59 ha), and Lake Alice Conservation Area (11.27 ha) were the largest remnants out of the 5. The relative abundance of the Snake group was the highest in Bivens Forest and Lake Alice Conser vation Area. Therefore, for the Anuran group, the Ranid group, and the Sn ake group, larger remnants may attract more individuals and species. This is consistent with previous resear ch that found higher abundances of herpetofauna in larger forest re mnants (Gibbs 1998, Cushman 2006, Parris 2006). Finally, these two areas were also the least isol ated of all the 5 remnants, with Lake Alice Conservation Area being directly adjacent to a la rge marsh and Bivens Forest being located next to agricultural fields, forested land, and a lake. Roads or buildi ngs circumscribed the other three remnants. Isolation, particularly by urban, impe rvious surfaces such as roads have been implicated as being negatively associated with species richness and abundance in remnants

PAGE 51

51 (Houlahan and Findlay 2003, Ficetola and De Be rnardi 2004, Parris 2006) because roads are a barrier to dispersal (Gibbs 1998, deMaynadi er and Hunter 2000, Cushman 2006). Conclusion No differences in relative abundance and speci es richness for any species or group of herpetofauna, as well as similar species compos itions between edges and interiors of remnants suggests that herpetofauna may not differentiate between edge and interior areas of these forest remnants. This is possibly due to the fact that herps may widely disperse during the summer, searching for breeding sites. Also, vegetative characteristics were similar between edge and interior habitats in this system. However, a couple of remnants had more herpetofauna, suggesting that remnant size, wetland presence, and isolation by urban surfaces of certain may influence the distributio n of herpetofauna.

PAGE 52

52 F Figure 2-1. Forest remnants on the University of Florida campus in Gainesville, Florida.

PAGE 53

53 Figure 2-2. Illustration of edge and interior lo cation of herpetofauna sampling arrays within forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida. An edge array was within 20 m from the boundary of a remnant and an interior array was situated greater than 40 m from a remnant boundary. Arrays were positioned to be at least 100 m apart to maintain independence from each other.

PAGE 54

54 Table 2-1. Average daily relativ e abundance of herpetofauna species and groups, as well as species richness between e dges and interiors of 5 urban forest remnants in Gainesville, FL. Shown are the means and sta ndard error (SE) values for the average daily abundances and species ri chness of both edges and interi ors, the test statistics (T.S) and associated P -values for all indivi dually analyzed species and groups. Also shown are the number of species per taxa group. Unless noted, statis tical test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n = 5 for edge and interior areas. Taxa Group Number of Species per group Taxa Group/ Species/ Species Richness Edge SE Interior SE T.S. P Order-level 10 Anura 0.59 0.27 0.62 0.33 0.19 0.69 7 Squamata, suborder Serpentes 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.17 0.70 5 Squamata, suborder Lacertilia 0.43 0.13 0.23 0.09 1.43 0.30 Family-level 2 Hylidae** 0.27 0.19 0.36 0.32 0.00 1.00 2 Polychrotidae* 0.15 0.04 0.12 0.06 0.19 0.69 3 Ranidae 0.21 0.08 0.17 0.07 3.39 0.14 3 Scincidae 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.05 2.63 0.18 Anolis sagrei* 0.15 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.42 0.55 Eleutherodactylus planirostris* 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.94 0.39 Hyla cinera** 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 1.00 0.32 Hyla squirella* 0.25 0.19 0.33 0.31 0.33 0.56 Rana clamitans 0.13 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.95 Scincella lateralis 0.24 0.12 0.09 0.05 1.84 0.25 Species Richness 7.40 1.75 8.20 2.03 1.43 0.30 *square-root transformed **tested with non-parametric Friedman test

PAGE 55

55 Table 2-2. Herpetofauna species and groups show n to be significantly affected by remnant in urban forest remnants in Gainesville, Florid a. Shown are average daily abundances of each species or group in each remnant, the remnant mean accompanied by the standard errors (SE), test-s tatistics (T.S.) and associat ed P-values. The number of species per taxa group are also shown. Un less noted, statistical test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 4, and n = 5 for remnants sampled. Remnant abbreviations: HW=Harmonic woods, GW =Graham Woods, BF=Bivens Forest, HCP=Health Center Park, and LA CA=Lake Alice Conservation Area. Taxa Group Number of Species per group Taxa group/ Species/ Species richness HW GW HCP BF LACA Mean SE T.S. P Order-level 10 Anura 0.340.100.150.751.700.61 0.30 71.52<0.00 7 Squamata, suborder Serpentes 0.050.000.010.070.030.03 0.01 5.000.07 Family-level 3 Ranidae 0.180.100.010.430.220.19 0.07 63.19<0.00 Hyla squirella* 0.000.000.031.290.120.33 0.29 8.000.09 Species Richness 7.002.506.0012.5011.507.90 1.84 19.340.01 *tested with non-parametric Friedman test Table 2-3. Horn compositional similarity values for species assemblages between edges and interiors within urban forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida. Values closer to 1 indicate similar sp ecies composition. Remnant Horn Similarity Index Value Harmonic Woods 0.855 Graham Woods 0.741 Bartram-Carr Woods 0.863 Biven's Forest 0.897 Lake Alice Conservation Area 0.520 Mean 0.775

PAGE 56

56 APPENDIX A SPECIES ABBREVIATIONS, RESIDENCY ST ATUS, AND INCLUSION IN COMMON OR UNCOMMON GROUPS FOR ALL BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED PER SEASON. Table A-1. Species abbreviations residency status, and inclusion in common or uncommon groups for all bird species observed pe r season. Residency codes: WR=winter resident, SM=summer, migrant, SO = stopover migrants and YR=year-round residents. C indicates it was included in the common subgroup during a given season. U indicates it was included in the uncommon subgroup during a given season. Species Abbreviation Status Winter Spring Summer Fall Acadian Flycatcher ACFL SO U American Crow AMCR YR C U U U American Goldfinch AMGO WR C U American Redstart AMRE SO U U C American Robin AMRO WR C U Baltimore Oriole BAOR WR U U U Black and White Warbler BAWW WR C U C Barred Owl BDOW YR U Belted Kingfisher BEKI YR U Blue-Gray gnatcatcher BGGC YR C U Brown-headed cowbird BHCO YR U C C U Blue-headed Vireo BHVI WR U C Blue Jay BLJA YR C U C C Blackpoll Warbler BPWA SO U Brown Thrasher BRTH YR U U U U Boat-tailed Grackle BTGR YR U Carolina Chickadee CACH YR C U U U Carolina Wren CARW YR C C C C Cedar Waxwing CEWA WR C U Chimney Swift CHSW SM U Common Grackle COGR YR U U U Common Yellowthroat COYE YR U U Downy Woodpecker DOWO YR C C C C Eastern Phoebe EAPH WR C U Eurasian-collared dove ECDO YR U Eastern Tufted Titmouse ETTI YR C C C C Fish Crow FICR YR U U U U Great Blue Heron GBHE YR U Great Crested Flycatcher GCFL SM C C Gray Catbird GRCA WR C C U C Hermit Thrush HETH WR U U House Finch HOFI YR U U U U

PAGE 57

57 Table A-1. Continued Species Abbreviation Status Winter Spring Summer Fall House Wren HOWR WR U U U Indigo Bunting INBU SO U Loggerhead Shrike LOSH YR U Magnolia Warbler MAWA SO U Mourning Dove MODO YR C C U C Northern Cardinal NOCA YR C C C C Northern Flicker NOFL YR U U Northern Mockingbird NOMO YR C U U C Northern Parula NOPA SM U C C U Orange Crowned Warbler OCWA SO U Oprey OSPR YR U U U Ovenbird OVEN WR U U Palm Warbler PAWA WR C U U Pine Warbler PIWA YR U U Pileated Woodpecker PIWO YR U U U U Prairie Warbler PRWA SO U U Red-bellied Woodpecker RBWO YR C C C C Ruby-crowned Kinglet RCKI WR C C C Red-eyed Vireo REVI SM U C C Red-headed Woodpecker RHWO YR U Rock Dove RODO YR U Red-Shouldered Hawk RSHA YR U U U Red-Tailed Hawk RTHA YR U U Red-winged Blackbird RWBB YR U Summer Tanager SUTA SM U U Swainson's Thrush SWTH SO U Tree Swallow TRES WR U White-eyed Vireo WEVI YR U U U C Wild Turkey WITU YR U Wood Thrush WOTH SM U Yellow-breasted Chat YBCH SO U Yellow-billed Cuckoo YBCU SO U Yellow-bellied Sapsucker YBSA WR C U U Yellow-rumped Warbler YRWA WR C C Yellow-throated Warbler YTWA YR U U U

PAGE 58

58 APPENDIX B ALL SPECIES OF HERPETOFAUNA DETEC TED BY HERPETOFAUNAL SAMPLING ARRAYS DURING THE SUMMERS OF 2005 AND 2006. Table B-1. All species of herpet ofauna detected by herpetofa unal sampling arrays during the summers of 2005 and 2006. Species Order-level taxa group Family-level taxa group Anolis carolinensis Lizard Polychotidae Anolis sagrei Lizard Polychotidae Apalone ferox Turtle* N/A Bufo terrestris Anura Bufonidae* Bufo quercicus Anura Bufonidae* Coluber constrictor Snake N/A Diadolphus punctatus Snake N/A Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. Anura N/A Eumeces fasciatus Lizard Scincidae Eumeces laticeps Lizard Scincidae Farancia abacura Snake N/A Gastrophryne carolinenis Anura N/A Hyla cinera Anura Hylidae Hyla squirella Anura Hylidae Rana catesbiana Anura Randiae Rana clamitans Anura Randiae Rana sphenocephalus Anura Randiae Rhadinaea flavilata Snake N/A Scaphiopus holbrookii Anura N/A Scincella lateralis Lizard Scincidae Storeria dekayi victa Snake N/A Thamnophis sauritus Snake N/A Thamnophis sirtalis Snake N/A Trachemys Scripta Turtle* N/A *Insufficient data for analysis

PAGE 59

59 APPENDIX C UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WILDLIFE SU RVEY AND MONITORING PROGRAM: ONE YEAR RESULTS AND DATA SUMMARY Object C-1. PDF of University of Florida wi ldlife survey and monitoring program: one year results and data summary

PAGE 60

60 LIST OF REFERENCES Alig. R.J., D.K. Jeffrey, and M. Lichtenstei n. 2004. Urbanization on the US landscape: Looking ahead in the 21st century. Lands cape and Urban Planning 69: 219. Atchinson, K.A. and A.D. Rodewald. 2006. The va lue of urban forests to wintering birds. Natural Areas Journal 26: 280. Baillie, J.E.M, C. Hilton-Taylor, S. N. Stuart 2004. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Global Species Assessment. IUCN Gl and, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Breitwisch, R. J. 1977. The ecology and be havior of the Red-bellied Woodpecker, Centurus carolinus (Linnaeus; Aves: Picidae), in south Florida. Thesis, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. Breitwisch, M. Diaz, and R. Lee 1987. Foraging efficiencies and tech niques of juvenile and adult Northern Mockingbirds ( Mimus polyglottos). Behaviour 101: 225. Brewer, R. 1963. Ecological and reproductive re lationships of Black-capped and Carolina chickadees. Auk 80: 9. Campbell, H.W. and S.P. Christman. 1982. Fiel d techniques for herpetofaunal community analysis. Pages 193 in N. J. Scott, Jr. (ed.), Herpetol ogical Communities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wildlife Research Report 13, Washington, D.C., USA. Chase, J.F. and J.J. Walsh. 2006. Urban effect s on native avifauna: a review. Landscape and Urban Planning 74: 46. Cushman, S. A. 2006. Effects of habitat loss a nd fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biological Conservation 128: 231. Delis, P.R., H.R. Mushinsky, and E.D. McCoy. 1996. Decline of some west-central Florida anuran populations in response to habitat degradation. Biodi versity and Conservation 12: 1579. DeMaynadier, P.G., M.L. Hunter Jr. 2000. Road e ffects on amphibian movements in a forested landscape. Natural Areas Journal 20: 56. Derrickson, K. C. and R. Breitwisch. 1992. Northern Mockingbird. Account no. 7 in A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America Online, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and The American Ornithologists Union, Washington, DC., USA. Dunford, W. and K. Freemark. 2004. Matrix matters : Effects of surrounding land uses on forest birds near Ottawa, Canada Landscape Ecology 20: 497.

PAGE 61

61 Enge, K.M. 1997. Use of silt fencing and funnel trap s for drift fences. Herpetological Review 28: 30. Enge, K. M., M. S. Robson, and K. L. Krysko. 2004. Reptile surveys on pine rockland habitat in six Miami-Dade county parks. Bi ological Sciences 67: 195. Enge, Kevin M. 2005. Herpetological biologist. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Florida, USA. Fernndez, J.C. and J.L. Tellaria. 2000. Effect s of human disturbance on spatial and temporal Feeding patterns of black bird Turdus merula in urban parks in Madrid, Spain. Bird-Study. 2000 47: 13. Fernndez-Juricic, E. 2000. Bird community composition patterns in urban parks in Madrid: The role of age, size and isolation. Ecological Research 15: 373. Fernndez -Juricic, E. 2001. Avian spatial segregation at edges and interiors of urban parks in Madrid, Spain. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1303. Ficetola, G. F. and F. De Bernardi. 2004. Am phibians in a human-domi nated landscape: The community structure is related to habitat f eatures and isolation. Biological Conservation 199: 219. Gates, J.E. and L. W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest dispersion and fledging su ccess in field-forest ecotones. Ecology 59: 871. Gibbs, J.P. 1998. Amphibian movements in response to forest edges, roads, and streambeds in southern New England. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 584. Gibbons, J.W., D.E. Scott, T.R. Avis, J. Ryah, K. A. Buhlmann, T.D. Tuberville, B. S. Metts, J.L. Greene, T.Mills, Y. Leiden, S. Poppy, and C. T. Winne. 2000. The global decline of reptiles, deja vu amphibians. Bioscience 50: 253. Haggerty, T. M., and E.S. Morton. 1995. Carolina Wren ( Thryothorus ludovicianus ). Account 188 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America Online, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and The American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Hostetler, M.E. 1999. Scale, birds, and human d ecisions: A potential for in tegrative research in urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 45: 15. Hostetler, M.E., and C.S. Holling. 2000. Detecting the scales at which birds respond to structure to structure in urban landscap es. Urban Ecosystems 4: 25. Hostetler, M.E. and K. Knowles-Yanez. 2003. Land use, scale, and bird distributions in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Landscap e and Urban Planning 62: 55.

PAGE 62

62 Hostetler, M.E., D. Scot, and J. Paul. 2005. Po st-construction effects on an urban development on migrating, resident, and wintering bird s. Southeastern Naturalist 4: 421. Houlahan J.E. and S. C. Findlay. 2003. Th e effects of land use on wetland species and community composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 1078 1094. James, F.C., and H.H. Shugart. 1970. A quantitative method of habitat description. Audubon Field Notes 24: 727. Johnson, Steven Albert. 2005. Assistant professor in the department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation. University of Florid a. Gainesville, Florida, USA. Jokimki, J. and J. Suhonen. 1998. Distribution and ha bitat selection of wintering birds in urban environments. Landscape and Urban Planning 39: 253. Kale II, H. W. and Maehr, D. S. 1990. Florid as Birds. A handbook and reference. Pineapple Press. Sarasota, Florida. USA. Karr, J.R. 1968. Habitat and avian diversity on strip-mined land in east-central Illinois. Condor 70: 348. Lay, D. 1938. How valuable are woodland cleari ngs to birdlife? Wilson Bulletin 50: 254. Lehtinen, R.M., J.B. Ramanamanjato, and J.G. Raveloarison. 2003. Edge effects and extinction proneness in a herpetofauna from Madagasc ar. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 1357 1370. MacKenzie, D.I., and J.A. Royle. 2005. Designi ng occupancy studies: General advice and allocating survey effort. Journa l of Applied Ecology 42: 1105. Marzluff, J.M. 2001. Worldwide urbanizati on and its effects on birds. Pages 19 in J.M. Marzluff, R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly, edito rs. Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publishe rs. Boston, Massachusetts, USA, Dordrect, GER, and London, UK. McCollin, D. 1998. Forest edges and habitat se lection by birds; A functional approach. Ecography 21: 247. McIntyre, N.E. 1995. Effects of forest patch size on avian diversity. Landscape Ecology 10: 85 99. McKinney, M.L. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 127: 247. McPherson, J.M. 1987. A field study of winter fruit preferences of Cedar Waxwings. Condor 89: 293.

PAGE 63

63 Mensing, D.M., S.M. Galatowitsch, and J. R. Tester. 1998. Anthropogenic effects on the biodiversity of riparian wetlands of a nor thern temperate landscape. Journal of environmental management 53: 349. Moore, F.R, S. A. Gauthreaux, P. Kerlinger, and T.R. Simons. 1995. Habitat requirements during migration: Important link in conservation. 121 in T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch, editors. Ecology and management of neotropical migrat ory birds. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA. Mrtberg, U.M. 2001. Resident bird species in urban forest re mnants: Landscape and habitat Perspectives. Landscape Ecology 16: 193. Moseley, K.R., S.B. Castleberry, and S.H. Sc hweitzer. 2003. Effects of prescribed fire on herpetofauna in bottomland hardwood fore sts. Southeastern Naturalist 2: 475. Mostrom, A. M., R. L. Curry, and B. Lohr. 2002. Carolina Chickadee ( Poecile carolinensis ). Account 636 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvani a, and The American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Noss, R. 1991. Effects of edge an internal patc hiness on avian habitat use in an old-growth Florida hammock. Natural Areas Journal 11: 35. Parris, K. 2006. Urban amphibian assemblages as metacommunities. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 757. Poole, A. (Editor). 2005. The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornit hologists Union, Wash ington, D.C., USA. Reijnen R, R. Foppen, and G. Veenbaas. 1997. Di sturbance by traffic of breeding birds: Evaluation of the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 567. Richter, K. O., and A.L. Azous. 1995. Amphibian occurence and wetland ch aracteristics in the pudget sound basin. Wetlands 15: 305. Riley, S.P.D., G. T. Busteed, L. B. Kats, T L. Vandergon, L. F. S. Lee, R. G. Dagit, J. L. Kerby, R. N. Fisher, and R. M. Sauvajot. 2005. E ffects of urbanization on the distribution of amphibians and invasive species in southern California streams. C onservation Biology 19: 1894. Robel, R.J., J.N. Briggs, A.D. Dayton, and L. C. Hurlbert. 1970. Relationships between visual obstruction and weight of gr assland vegetation. Journal of Wildlife Management 23: 295 297. Rodewald, P.G. and M.C. Brittingham. 2002. Habita t use and behavior of mixed species landbird flocks during fall migration. Wilson Bulletin 114: 87.

PAGE 64

64 Rodewald, P. G., and M.C. Brittingham. 2004. Stopove r habitats of landbirds during fall: Use of edgedominated and early successional forests. The Auk 121: 1040. Roth, R.R. 1979. Foraging behavior of mockingbirds: The effect of too much grass. The Auk 96: 421. Rubbo, M. J. and J.M. Kiesecker. 2005. Amphibi an breeding distributi on in an urbanized landscape. Conservati on Biology 19: 504. Schlaepfer M. A. and T.A. Gavin. 2001. Edge eff ects on lizards and frogs in tropical forest fragments. Conservation Biology 15: 1079. Shackelford, C. E., R. E. Brown, and R. N. Conner. 2000. Red-bellied Woodpecker ( Melanerpes carolinus ). Account 500 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists Union, Wa shington, D.C., USA. Shochat, E., P.S. Warren, S.H. Faeth, N.E. McIntrye, and D. Hope. 2006. From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban eco logy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 186. Smith, W.P., D.J. Twedt, D.A. Widenfeld, P.B. Hamel, R.P. Ford, R.J. Cooper. 1993. Point counts of birds in bottomland hardwood forest s of the Mississippi alluvial plain. U.S. Forest Service, Forest Service Southern Fore sts Experimentation Station, Research Paper SO-274, Washington, D.C., USA. Tarvin, K. A., and G.E. Wolfenden. 1999. Blue Jay ( Cyanocitta cristata ). Account 469 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The Ameri can Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Tilghman, N.G. 1987a. Characteristics of urban w oodlands affection breedi ng bird diversity and abundance. Landscape and Urban Planning 14: 481. Tilghman, N.G. 1987b. Characteristics of urban w oodlands affection winter bird diversity and abundance. Forest Ecology and Management 21: 163. Urbina-Cardona, J. N., M. Olivares-Perez, V. H. Reynoso. 2006. Herpetofauna diversity and microenvironment correlates across a pasture-edge -interior ecotone in tropical rainforest fragments in the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve of Veracruz Mexico. Biological Conservation 132: 61. Villard, M. A. 1998. On forest interior species, e dge avoidance, area sensitivity and dogmas in avian conservation. The Auk 115: 801.

PAGE 65

65 Whitcomb. R.F., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch, B.L. Whitcomb, K. Limkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. 1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avif auna of the eastern deciduous forest. 125 in R.L. Burgess and D. M. Sharpe, eds. Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. Springer-Verlag, Ne w York, New York. USA. Winker, K., D.W. Warner, and A. Weisbrod. 1992. Migration of w oodland birds at a fragmented woodland stopover site. The Wilson Bulletin 104: 580. Witmer, M.C. 1996a. Annual diet of Cedar Waxw ing based on U.S. Biological Survey records (1885) compared to diet of American Robin: contrasts in dietary patterns and natural history. The Auk 113: 414. Witmer, M.C. 1996b. Consequences of an alien shrub on the plumage coloration and ecology of Cedar Waxwings. The Auk 113: 735. Witmer, M. C., D. J. Mountjoy, and L. Elliot. 1997. Cedar Waxwing ( Bombycilla cedrorum ). Account 309 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Bi rds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvani a, and The American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Yaukey, P.H. 1996. Patterns of avian population dens ity, habitat use, and flocking behavior in urban and rural habitats during winter. Professional Geographer 48: 70. Yahner, R. H. 1988. Changes in wildlife commun ities near edges. Conservation Biology 2: 333 339. Zacharow, M., W.J. Barichivich, and K.C. Dodd, Jr. 2003. Using ground-placed PVC pipes to monitor hylid treefrogs: capture bias es. Southeastern Naturalist 2: 574.

PAGE 66

66 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dan Dawson received his High School Di ploma from W.R. Boone High School in Orlando, Florida in the spring of 2000. He attended th e University of Florida, where he attained a Bachelor of Science degree in the College of Agriculture and Life Science with a major in wildlife ecology and conservation in the summer of 2004. He further attended the University of Florida for graduate school, and studied wildli fe diversity and conser vation within the urban environment. He was awarded a Master of Scie nce degree from the College of Agriculture and Life Science with a major in wildlife ecology and conservation in the spring of 2007.


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 E20101114_AAAABJ INGEST_TIME 2010-11-14T07:54:59Z PACKAGE UFE0018420_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 11249 DFID F20101114_AAAPLG ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH WildlifeSurvey_Page_35.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b2a4fe96778a463d6df9eed0eed733c6
SHA-1
277e17be6c322840242946a6216c56d70f4f9b59
10015 F20101114_AAAPKS WildlifeSurvey_Page_27.QC.jpg
b586d9724f8ba1fdc11e2b386b1bed6e
ecdf7295e6b27de56a34972204c5e26e23a7948d
42331 F20101114_AAAOIE WildlifeSurvey_Page_18.jp2
d1cdbf30fe2fce563cc9a16b9212a06e
efa7f7a0fc762dac47c4f41590a8e13a70c57a67
35932 F20101114_AAAOHQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_40.jpg
7010ebf249b75897fd1ad989323649ac
2f24accc01ca2912df7b6cb954bfbbd1213c6880
4098 F20101114_AAAPLH WildlifeSurvey_Page_35thm.jpg
feeb4d017c04d1f92e5303be12400da7
a8bcd90865c77364edeac4b8662c91d40fe28afc
3137 F20101114_AAAPKT WildlifeSurvey_Page_27thm.jpg
41fb7f507248e91e40cbf8043d2a8008
e74264c728dc6fb75e13bc1f799170dbde38d360
29178 F20101114_AAAOIF WildlifeSurvey_Page_39.jpg
24b2ec1995224d972f8454e36ba64bd1
196b94a51b16b430a256638427855c4ede65146e
1119 F20101114_AAAOHR WildlifeSurvey_Page_43.txt
39cd23dbc2728083e0cec85f8949b43f
a17778dc733e3670afe9d7b2499bb2c9a5e76132
4112 F20101114_AAAPLI WildlifeSurvey_Page_36thm.jpg
80a60d7ee440f1589dc361363b8768db
2d8f2e1b5907801adb220e14d5a1ae7c9bc5b627
14959 F20101114_AAAPKU WildlifeSurvey_Page_28.QC.jpg
a0edbda1fd6ea1537d3f210cab7f149c
aa43a475991dcefacf42429d8267b30275d3855c
5938 F20101114_AAAOIG WildlifeSurvey_Page_45thm.jpg
bdaa8878fbbf95e7264834ccddad7653
da4c7f379a276b62eb0446e4318743051f71caeb
14870 F20101114_AAAOHS WildlifeSurvey_Page_20.QC.jpg
ee543571cadb02336fbe3f00e9dd514e
4f254d3f2aa49eba850468f7af548a2ab3e39636
14349 F20101114_AAAPLJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_37.QC.jpg
345e943a433205f3cd0d22754196a589
5dd182b4a71e7260bfa8bb38dbd0079ef95a331f
5051 F20101114_AAAPKV WildlifeSurvey_Page_29thm.jpg
572652ddc7e42d31e0bcf2bbfa7e82fc
7731cf1b611eff5c0f48a1fc9db23852d224deb3
161794 F20101114_AAAOIH WildlifeSurvey_Page_07.jp2
c061a0e9ba298d2c1a78d7af827b0310
492527a76066e0535bc155dc3a43c89612ce9f2f
1053954 F20101114_AAAOHT WildlifeSurvey_Page_47.tif
aae88ee5f14b4d3d71e577c7128bd62f
5674bfe5da0f7a037ee0d123d0de21eb8d0b397d
4912 F20101114_AAAPLK WildlifeSurvey_Page_38thm.jpg
c289bc101f7a7cd096c0ebedb9309e3e
a9e1016b07b7d1d9086677285e490dbc1b4720f0
14071 F20101114_AAAPKW WildlifeSurvey_Page_30.QC.jpg
a0727a9583d90aef3a15afb97ea04df7
c56b8e404b3ed38ac01562bed1ac2908e7d32614
12947 F20101114_AAAOII dawson_d_Page_53.QC.jpg
43871ac169cec73d0ef102a785e8faf1
eaf406d4476c796f05dd50aaa95453c112723de3
F20101114_AAAOHU dawson_d_Page_10.tif
3eaaa6a21e125032d0deb7fe33c8540f
18cbb2eb8c94b8754a83ba57a50816f1468fc25a
13607 F20101114_AAAPMA WildlifeSurvey_Page_51.QC.jpg
dd43e37642c250ee2ab9138a729f7eb1
562fb8e6958666802523f2ffb1a76eb171eac79d
9023 F20101114_AAAPLL WildlifeSurvey_Page_39.QC.jpg
d42f22f7b7556f916364c8858eb83771
9fef29bf02cc911afe2a471b6474268e9b948094
4153 F20101114_AAAPKX WildlifeSurvey_Page_30thm.jpg
98a826759137232ab68f7bd1c0f71d73
b3f2237b232ed36d0e03f80f28d7d6977ebb4ea8
478 F20101114_AAAOIJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_21.txt
492b12c6dc7ae4d19e1c7063af5a7d9c
8e41c3e379c5a861d86d4b3aec002ef9a945b8ee
42889 F20101114_AAAOHV dawson_d_Page_37.jpg
ac365046eae7ff30db3731b784016a96
816768ff5c73fd4749b5c9846cc808f289977520
3990 F20101114_AAAPMB WildlifeSurvey_Page_51thm.jpg
a632801d4fd7674e0a68600e5250bbb5
6d0a37f34ec2efbe8269301071388cd33c310f08
3304 F20101114_AAAPLM WildlifeSurvey_Page_39thm.jpg
14b72deccd298ec91116b24b15264ced
e9575cded70aa5c7226458beaa468665d9881e63
12825 F20101114_AAAPKY WildlifeSurvey_Page_31.QC.jpg
25a2dc7ec582aeaf491706008d2eb1e2
ef84f934c3080f7bd1cd9361919f2c8495bf43c1
41878 F20101114_AAAOIK WildlifeSurvey_Page_06.QC.jpg
4c5ba63b9afb3b68d153b11d27a7dfa6
529b95b5ff00fd1f927be3212ee70f9b5434c53c
8501 F20101114_AAAOHW dawson_d_Page_24thm.jpg
727f673fe81f5af2cb6d2b4df54b97f1
25dfc729fe241f7787b149b8bee5a09b9bf17efe
17601 F20101114_AAAPMC WildlifeSurvey_Page_52.QC.jpg
585450ea22a1d3b7170d1d618267d680
0ca1e86934f12545acbef452bfd7781a7e269d87
12070 F20101114_AAAPLN WildlifeSurvey_Page_40.QC.jpg
22b27d2d08e07023bcd11fea387d58e0
bcef6b70aa33cbf4838853e11d18d9b372d5c917
4058 F20101114_AAAPKZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_31thm.jpg
9c7deffa39a92906fb966f7361d8373c
48a38acac5010dcd07aa3fe6eef414677c48a34b
35362 F20101114_AAAOJA dawson_d_Page_22.QC.jpg
f8cf52f035e5618b48186908e0dbd8ff
05959fefea6425f938156b11a0ff08024dc3eb83
36990 F20101114_AAAOIL dawson_d_Page_18.QC.jpg
0c3e1404c6191eeaf81a6dd463324422
b221e7a7f8073575a4ffe9cba0902ad5453b70b5
12971 F20101114_AAAOHX WildlifeSurvey_Page_27.pro
f2070a0f4dcff0e5edcd958531f1bde2
8c976f80320384043d7215967005b9c7d772a467
5349 F20101114_AAAPMD WildlifeSurvey_Page_52thm.jpg
fe56919417cad7fbf224140d6d171a09
53c6640b301d993c11805a87fc0c561089cf0003
3993 F20101114_AAAPLO WildlifeSurvey_Page_40thm.jpg
d793a75865d6838af4dc6cdb432f645e
5815100c1b588f3982426492f664c99d9ce43159
12893 F20101114_AAAOJB dawson_d_Page_03.jp2
2b1c1539cebb5aff618cd5fb0fa02558
d2fc92efd46b02c4ae70b891d4cb9e91f606acfa
57639 F20101114_AAAOIM dawson_d_Page_42.pro
66d35ccb143adfeeb7c909b5775b5ffb
9c7c37e216b4b6b235cc981bac06a825272e5225
7075 F20101114_AAAOHY dawson_d_Page_35thm.jpg
d51ab42728dd7ffaf3958478e30f0d3d
21d8913782ec59b7b0e5b4cf22838711521345de
7769 F20101114_AAAPLP WildlifeSurvey_Page_43.QC.jpg
d4fcda2c846a5d5fd0b1e4c721960050
a3a3a4282c003f4913a2b8a1c3d573ea7e100777
2770 F20101114_AAAOIN WildlifeSurvey_Page_52.txt
a32b8c776abf7e5ffb735545830d9be0
a09575b4ebc8606216edc865b812005f8095e76d
28980 F20101114_AAAOHZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_03.QC.jpg
f2cd0eff8555a10dd370d40bce735dcb
5df2fe926a7e075e7f38c2752cdfe3807dc46408
10617 F20101114_AAAPME WildlifeSurvey_Page_53.QC.jpg
f472690041dc83d5b6503e85fe94f848
22de143e54795089d5abd799d16f9edea26c1227
2664 F20101114_AAAPLQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_43thm.jpg
11d03cd8761e34920ff4cb8b57c6a46e
3cadb5e57205658b2b942a99db90653a85e33729
38881 F20101114_AAAOJC WildlifeSurvey_Page_38.jp2
b9d0fe8a049a968333f5085ef740234e
616542b69a380d92e5d9e7f9c48db1dd4228028a
29886 F20101114_AAAOIO WildlifeSurvey_Page_19.pro
3a1808724d640774467c218ea91a768e
f98bf80b6cf42eb7456ee53325a4435e987bf286
3143 F20101114_AAAPMF WildlifeSurvey_Page_53thm.jpg
a6a229098dca4b4cda1f87e4c127eb8f
8a532177da7f34cc1505d6d46f945347ac9012cf
12990 F20101114_AAAPLR WildlifeSurvey_Page_44.QC.jpg
3b9528c11ebddd9bae9637b1af80dabd
bb937cf581a7d1ff37235e415d7900300de16d43
36849 F20101114_AAAOJD dawson_d_Page_12.QC.jpg
fb4ebde02f1d1fb74c7e535ffc2d792e
6f066eef78c4ea0da07660a930d34047c98ccc4a
25271604 F20101114_AAAOIP WildlifeSurvey_Page_56.tif
819fb0f0513b7f7b86029ec9469007e0
0c405cf7db866df905e10f083429bebb5381a85b
11928 F20101114_AAAPMG WildlifeSurvey_Page_54.QC.jpg
c1533a1daffe4ee55eeb2776f077dd0c
51369b439ce8a5c322b2fb81e17216593765330d
22300 F20101114_AAAPLS WildlifeSurvey_Page_45.QC.jpg
1642d15e10197784b337070d7f35a426
32d794041b681496ff6ca84c14b1e63a4357feae
118205 F20101114_AAAOJE WildlifeSurvey_Page_16.jp2
b6865f026ddde9124c35f4c5e0f58aea
b99501a89d6cec3bcd98ce9090c6c2f5f10ffc9b
7127 F20101114_AAAOIQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_23thm.jpg
85fb233b3e1d2ed2b0d71d3bd9bc5a79
84d296d54e9461b1cc97458c2167d2dcbbe96c3f
4162 F20101114_AAAPMH WildlifeSurvey_Page_54thm.jpg
2527458a095a2246401f55beaca37f7a
3d6663fa7101bfc078bbcbc9484aeee86f8d1420
22694 F20101114_AAAPLT WildlifeSurvey_Page_46.QC.jpg
8cff1c8c79b9838d81c6947c5f71fb02
41dd4ef51007e2ec514eaf2f7beac7cf0a4518e9
3562 F20101114_AAAOJF dawson_d_Page_32.txt
c8578d6510e4a55bb18620bd9791aaa8
2ec65e4e5cf2f3379427a5db6333aa513384fa4b
F20101114_AAAOIR WildlifeSurvey_Page_58.tif
c032b77a339ae1828d986ef346f59306
9132c460f084646bbd7bce430b85499c2c85a5c2
16991 F20101114_AAAPMI WildlifeSurvey_Page_55.QC.jpg
0284113df6125995554e325d6c89c8d2
38bef1c254aa137bbd51948f170fa793ad471d9b
22143 F20101114_AAAPLU WildlifeSurvey_Page_47.QC.jpg
2323ce49779af8c36994566724db5016
0e66876e58638d045276c65e9103963a4f2edc02
79125 F20101114_AAAOJG WildlifeSurvey_Page_07.pro
04470ff9b9ca7b6ae838c99df59100ad
5bf62e4dfca4945e7e6a21c7ada02e8702285fcd
2272 F20101114_AAAOIS dawson_d_Page_17.txt
962d3259cc6cb348347fe71fa1484477
5bfdc30c033609c3dca4c4a7ac8292408569a554
12277 F20101114_AAAPMJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_56.QC.jpg
93f7a593c45d6a4ee15672fc6e8fac23
b711a9ed324f9aeac9346a1581cdebd4d7485172
6049 F20101114_AAAPLV WildlifeSurvey_Page_47thm.jpg
0c963c959c788c715e8db232ff8ef238
5c7ab3681353a2177d49da32b42f756d188aed8f
2236 F20101114_AAAOJH dawson_d_Page_13.txt
2480dd3f7f95bfde91541e90a4e258b2
ee2fe4ca36173527a87373f6338aead990f07eee
3297 F20101114_AAAOIT dawson_d_Page_37thm.jpg
cf20746aa0f57931a9f2258baee100d3
67e0106e6b22767f5e61a6c4c623f543ab39b9fa
4056 F20101114_AAAPMK WildlifeSurvey_Page_56thm.jpg
0477ab08dfe4c99634b95897bf683ccc
010e5fc6a6aa3cf7430cad696de2c21fe3999505
4981 F20101114_AAAPLW WildlifeSurvey_Page_48.QC.jpg
15d3ddd4e4d3d0dd8294d69b51998e29
27797897da74cc5ac2815ea9db2b50191d6c64b2
35306 F20101114_AAAOJI WildlifeSurvey_Page_58.pro
2229612efd0a6da8e8bbb68e9ad562ee
b7530c5e61ec0fff806681a96e6973083267cb25
63831 F20101114_AAAOIU WildlifeSurvey_Page_02.pro
a96c2256a734241b6c6fe845793f3a90
96e4f5b2ef3b2385dc217a753e641813eaa6f90b
26386 F20101114_AAAPML WildlifeSurvey_Page_57.QC.jpg
fa0554c242f3b7a290a98d7e85002fb9
da7ae75ed81578a7acde0762f25c81d330003060
13751 F20101114_AAAPLX WildlifeSurvey_Page_49.QC.jpg
cd639eb57b4cbab38f8cbaae8a627cbe
90d0feae723541b195198bec4504179107ed90dc
105049 F20101114_AAAOJJ dawson_d_Page_32.jp2
5235dec95f3a80be43ad32e6d5fe88f0
fc57ec2bf5e40a42f8f3421da0f19a24b7c10058
6433 F20101114_AAAOIV WildlifeSurvey_Page_46thm.jpg
e405e4eb4765ee380bb4bcf13734679d
421d169f57d5938f1606ed32156b263f67b79477
21471 F20101114_AAAPMM WildlifeSurvey_Page_58.QC.jpg
84a1bf501e4defcaba8d46e26b44545d
9b72a908ba1d7a7c8451d80f84bdcbbad950b8ce
14601 F20101114_AAAPLY WildlifeSurvey_Page_50.QC.jpg
289720891c9723b38ab19b365bd6f10e
f1175b2fd9b18e75d2739a7fd67bdcddfa4467ee
F20101114_AAAOJK WildlifeSurvey_Page_48.tif
c5e276f3054e94884952d12992d54fa5
193b9dcc61e91946695def35ba9c6d451b4bab9a
39604 F20101114_AAAOIW WildlifeSurvey_Page_11.QC.jpg
50d7172b7f241effe0fc6679980d31f1
0963be339a83444249d5e3749864b6f959dddca9
6327 F20101114_AAAPMN WildlifeSurvey_Page_58thm.jpg
37a8ee2bf41d61e306fa3a3e8cccaf4b
b62743f71df695c5e337589f4418632ece52ecbe
4545 F20101114_AAAPLZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_50thm.jpg
1ee7a90da68f6acf4fa9f8a5e2d8e5e7
aa7bc371e2d6b7da349e8bbba7ba6bb64e21db88
F20101114_AAAOJL WildlifeSurvey_Page_31.tif
d140b5de6b292a65c61ed79e7abcb487
cec9c76a674b8d225399e32bdb73dadddf95ab6c
5811 F20101114_AAAOIX dawson_d_Page_34thm.jpg
0171bf7e9020b2b3748a503af9216fdc
bcffb70970632faf496031da716888cbc96e5c4d
2208 F20101114_AAAOKA WildlifeSurvey_Page_23.txt
5f1730ef44335c8b3297abc1219714ea
0a81e1ae60b3ad50d07b8498cd9946efd82015ff
10926 F20101114_AAAPMO WildlifeSurvey_Page_59.QC.jpg
ca8b5d5e2a01180545e178d13f4c2fbe
757a5b778ee89350448ddd41d1d0241508b24c22
F20101114_AAAOJM WildlifeSurvey_Page_51.tif
95f529102df97345d339f0e5e31fb690
24b5b32c957d8cb77455d123b73b064969aa06bb
8706 F20101114_AAAOIY dawson_d_Page_44thm.jpg
4fe3cffb805d64003656f69cbd7c2976
8be75ae459d6b07a9d774bbed3e6fd8d313d2a7a
6155 F20101114_AAAOKB WildlifeSurvey_Page_25thm.jpg
de6fd8cbd64bb7f70af1ef90a20d7ea7
4683cf57b1a40de9d7395ebf318e27e73eb43f98
3333 F20101114_AAAPMP WildlifeSurvey_Page_59thm.jpg
542f4f126dc097fbdd22732f3b03188d
ebdce60a708e8ef7c9d0f85fe0aca1100d3d1e2c
48158 F20101114_AAAOJN WildlifeSurvey_Page_50.jpg
03edc481cfdcdc7a7c64390e2595dd76
2f6cca8aaf103b0011bd6501e194f341287c01c4
119359 F20101114_AAAOIZ dawson_d_Page_44.jp2
2b27d0d8ea6841fefe5650139ef86c0c
d8300647d838ba71c6723f0a769acae2817ee40f
85494 F20101114_AAAOKC dawson_d_Page_11.jp2
a2d3da5fccfa8aece714fb46e2ce6e42
456b5937e28d26840d9a50406ec2c4b7bdcd7401
97909 F20101114_AAAOJO dawson_d_Page_46.jpg
4540735515de591288eb4689dd7f43de
37f6c9ab24dac249412ec81b5021816cfba9b141
47445 F20101114_AAAOJP dawson_d_Page_04.jpg
258c2ca5f4709e56fdf4ab3529c7ddb6
30978eae219e514051854b2295cd9724d91b2127
32485 F20101114_AAAOKD WildlifeSurvey_Page_53.jpg
1121f7eb366eb50ef40896e5aebdb986
052a1b49e0e296fbf1e51cf160fa85255db2ec80
38212 F20101114_AAAOJQ dawson_d_Page_11.pro
65e3f2522370189a1faa523391802edb
dbbc87845b7eb388505f940bee5b06921c836b15
10296 F20101114_AAAOKE dawson_d_Page_30thm.jpg
86d38560df7782e039025d771d79187a
2d73bb29c37d887278106ead661c3c3822835cba
1339 F20101114_AAAOJR WildlifeSurvey_Page_22.txt
429734201ab712c57ef1634ec46a211d
211007b19f29b9a7f417b26384a0878b91be5753
11487 F20101114_AAAOKF WildlifeSurvey_Page_42.QC.jpg
991c92ca62572f1ba8a81480a294bf41
5e1fcbcf2a33b71c2e7a79b065747edc68d34831
102388 F20101114_AAAOJS WildlifeSurvey_Page_23.jp2
a83893d58d056e34f2b0dcc27b186abd
40b369e552b069b8021c240342c0360122fc308a
8847 F20101114_AAAOKG dawson_d_Page_12thm.jpg
64f494a088150401da7837109a90e137
ec71bd3009a8ae1ece175e4c003f14a5d9fd501e
1555 F20101114_AAAOJT WildlifeSurvey_Page_48thm.jpg
c8a58b699fced1eef9e273bd0c6c9c67
b9dce440a283c26214a4deb6be8328b8e7f6363e
261 F20101114_AAAOKH dawson_d_Page_30.txt
943a126bb967e241dc7b504e7534772b
0206df1951fd1de5ac3d0064174a564b97d0efa9
8844 F20101114_AAAOJU dawson_d_Page_43thm.jpg
849fc5ddd02d704a505075109e5ca335
6a127951bb3a27c6e83cbdbd05e7a612e1be0e68
30988 F20101114_AAAOKI WildlifeSurvey_Page_35.jpg
8b7d54aba605bf55f8a31865a061100c
83faccd455bfedc2eca0268240baafa4898c9939
72488 F20101114_AAAOJV WildlifeSurvey_Page_25.jpg
36c914232cd059ee44b8864ca753d45f
379eeaf5f6abfc33da4c929226ddc9042a0032d6
54305 F20101114_AAAOKJ dawson_d_Page_16.pro
9fc4f3d97fd69171ca87d2c9b2dc6353
9dadf51dd5bf7e70c263d2d42ee269809a9e7d71
163528 F20101114_AAAOJW WildlifeSurvey_Page_10.jpg
a0d0e2463867b0daefc29cf0c88f92be
452b118012d3d80e1e1b27c0bb5f4e73ba5a6292
114554 F20101114_AAAOKK dawson_d_Page_49.jpg
5614c8a87eb1312d3d6979db8c27077e
9576b75d56d5cd9867252f0f1661307c6c435469
509718 F20101114_AAAOJX WildlifeSurvey_Page_20.jp2
47340b3d529f8cab4180d9e3c23fecc7
198e1e65cb6e324f3faa3b50f1bd2ecaadd7ed5a
17616 F20101114_AAAOLA WildlifeSurvey_Page_29.QC.jpg
1b8b0350e53044ff3a8a200e74b4d5ef
5b5527c7136811dfe3483f115c202be4d2548bc1
9099 F20101114_AAAOKL dawson_d_Page_42thm.jpg
416b38542df57abba305bf7c150a5192
7709d5de61fe5b4f34f86ac3bae49074448429d2
9528 F20101114_AAAOJY WildlifeSurvey_Page_06thm.jpg
75c434dde955b4c32851931e68e3bc84
3e80150bd168e8ffdfa4861bf6be63722033ccfc
263456 F20101114_AAAOLB dawson_d_Page_59.jp2
00f4da029f0dedadc9313e9728bbaade
f6e612d1582dc38dfbd4206f752345043edd7d1d
2661 F20101114_AAAOKM dawson_d_Page_63.txt
cf0bf37547e27d1b4c0cf9888ce62f79
a57fb6619fc06160281edc13fda7dc6df14618c7
26106 F20101114_AAAOJZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_35.pro
1f075f321fa2a80c81e172d377dfb8ce
ed7eb3e22f797299633a7b9bf14f72876f3f232b
50960 F20101114_AAAOLC WildlifeSurvey_Page_55.jpg
a1ef8f98a049a23fc99484f0626b581b
eb5a4e2969ca26d67e33216aae1e3bef8b73783f
2628 F20101114_AAAOKN WildlifeSurvey_Page_17.txt
5c462392f57f1e1b40320d7fe353672d
6f1b3adfa7e09f463078d79a6d1b0f31c8815016
23031 F20101114_AAAOLD dawson_d_Page_51.pro
2f0a5763cccb5a16d6fdfb58a84077ce
4b718db9e7b065410e11198fb61f7f917d23db07
F20101114_AAAOKO WildlifeSurvey_Page_19.tif
590dccc0bbf5aa5102b3dd8841ecdc58
567cbd4b46109b66fc525648e5a7423df42e0376
3873 F20101114_AAAOKP dawson_d_Page_31thm.jpg
084957037b89e081c15495a401229225
833ff041d173091fc75e18c978907e26c49e8667
111912 F20101114_AAAOLE dawson_d_Page_20.jpg
d073079ab8f7a9c7247867e6c09c8210
9a030dc9531b578c3510632fe1248b918985f499
10372 F20101114_AAAOKQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_05thm.jpg
67a6c61429ff437eecaaf6fa81bb7f78
d656a09178070e07db21afb3110a1ebe882949b5
15021 F20101114_AAAOLF WildlifeSurvey_Page_38.QC.jpg
f760ac3d804232270b855dcbba65d1be
f849839ad4e7b63de2a781d6654b3bf542cec6f5
9065 F20101114_AAAOKR dawson_d_Page_13thm.jpg
f2a3716a28bfe5943b3b846475736898
125ad5c9f2fc7725bae335ba0a16b150c0fea245
F20101114_AAAOLG dawson_d_Page_05.tif
ffd51950d89be4024577244edb0c5eae
8ace3f9de7a16af60acc8f7135553c1c6a3fc16c
428 F20101114_AAAOKS WildlifeSurvey_Page_56.txt
3a8aa1ae992746250e2791e3e0ed7156
177cf79fbbbb337dd764426353846c0c3b53af51
307 F20101114_AAAOLH dawson_d_Page_59.txt
f322b82fb6b280f41c532f241f6053db
487fb19eb5fbab2514e25ca839ebf79d4a8a6be7
19721 F20101114_AAAOKT dawson_d_Page_54.QC.jpg
c79b8cb5cce1fe5890021ed881dc0ede
6e969fe9f0971e558c7cfd66b7957983079aaa36
44779 F20101114_AAAOLI WildlifeSurvey_Page_38.jpg
0a0e916e2130bc92ce55e818ce6a6ad6
89aaf10fd26ecedf6b88e7b3a3ca201f8720ac8f
48010 F20101114_AAAOKU WildlifeSurvey_Page_14.QC.jpg
0d20575b95acd9e220541ac99da5913c
5e16967a1e2d343f58617c43a1788b05257bcf39
114377 F20101114_AAAOLJ dawson_d_Page_16.jp2
0c715238232784cbfb0bb36167ab3f17
1b3bca195e3c31f395d6bd576c9fe7e80d6b7c3c
103970 F20101114_AAAOKV dawson_d_Page_33.jp2
ee866a81371fffca314a7c2df89e3ce9
f944e313a81c0a40fda06c71ad28434d0e476927
F20101114_AAAOLK dawson_d_Page_66.tif
15b330d25e3662a9d89236f08d5e5d57
4b3aa5dc4b6f094ce70ee0ebc5d9b69252e9caf9
53447 F20101114_AAAOKW dawson_d_Page_22.pro
51c0d0f3e85aadb8300b7500bb472c38
89cc1450e7d83df0e55b59a11532ec574af3448b
17642 F20101114_AAAOMA WildlifeSurvey_Page_26.QC.jpg
b4f3efb35ab0bdc2909ccd79fa7eafc1
41484794acae18e70576e145b1d1a61123aacf3f
5553 F20101114_AAAOLL dawson_d_Page_55thm.jpg
978780d437a89d4754b1a50c814b1f8a
4d20862b352b46a6a992ad65dea85324607cf555
F20101114_AAAOKX WildlifeSurvey_Page_08.tif
94ace8e28008bdaafc804150d4f1a0e3
c757dceeb07f10510763fb107cb8694060345c5e
59811 F20101114_AAAOLM dawson_d_Page_28.pro
8a198cf9836ede0e18c6db5f0d11b46a
0a0a0b8ecdcd4a22150e453ad36df466eec62f6e
F20101114_AAAOKY dawson_d_Page_20.tif
46786c343d77a44c7a685aab500dc5e7
58518bc569963a0ffa3bf9d68fdd91facbddc370
5611 F20101114_AAAOMB WildlifeSurvey_Page_55thm.jpg
c04f846201fc08d59f7647f6c847d71f
a3fa72b53a518a23c4d2e72bc0b2f10456abfb42
76747 F20101114_AAAOLN dawson_d_Page_55.jpg
88fd6a2d48b04e4773182115afa13f51
79f0dc2d4bf8cd6a1e77da58135f316a54aceca0
34984 F20101114_AAAOKZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_27.jp2
d4786fd19157c55411221caf32e9f8d4
9362df312afb0187e21523d5e98eeea4268affe8
35052 F20101114_AAAOMC WildlifeSurvey_Page_42.jpg
96255b0b07ecc009631f7d28bc96f692
1ab8eeb47b48cf71f02d136743adaa3c45e71f37
97799 F20101114_AAAOLO dawson_d_Page_10.jpg
b9e30ffc8810316969a3b6107100e061
1c8908649af8c28e1144f6fbb3b51bec93045c6a
13175 F20101114_AAAOMD WildlifeSurvey_Page_36.QC.jpg
4b5ffd7d0d055b1f723276a085c5f8d9
e4c33f043d79ef67c6c07c9ac0928c4aae395663
41599 F20101114_AAAOLP WildlifeSurvey_Page_09.QC.jpg
57991ac1ff9f2f65655ec770c55cdbfc
751eff5cf0101c5d108aace9cfd85949b2a9c236
90577 F20101114_AAAOME WildlifeSurvey_Page_08.pro
d8cdfce860b0bfcc552ab35417004d92
17ffe7d8c53173da86419bd9fd2a81692a6e3e25
198694 F20101114_AAAOLQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_14.jpg
a844873c5fcd760d1a36e4af082d26e2
cf31c9733a79cedd3d7179501c79a638a4c00610
57048 F20101114_AAAOLR dawson_d_Page_62.pro
6b64e7b1d8fef6007967e9abbcaa3ea9
979fbc8b0850e7b519028a0e621d3ae945d92748
12496 F20101114_AAAOMF dawson_d_Page_66.QC.jpg
520025d9ebe7918f95f8ea743278c9fd
c64fbae0a86914abe4362f7fbf22b30a1a377a0f
32489 F20101114_AAAOLS WildlifeSurvey_Page_40.jp2
57838910b72617b919b737237015356e
b340bdc8280317555a199a65ec0a648d2bfb12f6
3266 F20101114_AAAOMG dawson_d_Page_66thm.jpg
9b5a93c68637a4c59be96365271caee5
207f46682f793db6bb12cb9b7e2663d1cf336a8b
668 F20101114_AAAOLT dawson_d_Page_02thm.jpg
bd5ea8f2cef286c589eeb90e35503d19
e017a203e0a86d0fe6a1c207a61ffd25b41c1d66
4653 F20101114_AAAOMH WildlifeSurvey_Page_49thm.jpg
5399c2c24a60753c16008b533e605f1f
974159af2eee9d7eb368085a7828e81a9101f652
69220 F20101114_AAAOLU WildlifeSurvey_Page_17.jp2
6d93056c5bd53e272ae519303a1940e0
760db012d083ba5f831f15b73d3b633566eff9ff
7889 F20101114_AAAOMI dawson_d_Page_14thm.jpg
80c267082089bd5ba3bcf92de0a488e2
3a4d80e12e65abdc606aae951798d2e8108f9360
26053 F20101114_AAAOLV WildlifeSurvey_Page_02.QC.jpg
38419612339443214e9149cc112895e9
c75de4d42de0a6f6d66a3966a09ab357e5bb54e5
40530 F20101114_AAAOMJ dawson_d_Page_52.QC.jpg
7a3ea9deea755d6b32298c5e38655858
bcedaa2c590a932d2a075f15ed500dbc05488b28
27386 F20101114_AAAOLW WildlifeSurvey_Page_23.QC.jpg
e1c634fc954308bccf8733b743e4bc0e
526f5ee9d4234128e916963dc9ef51e81abf35af
2752 F20101114_AAAOMK dawson_d_Page_30.pro
3a6f3a004da4a69dd58b6c5760136a0b
42c01ccfbd1c01fbacea7fbefddf1eef4838b0b4
2438 F20101114_AAAOLX dawson_d_Page_07.txt
c61e50954b4df3aea9097eb8fbb50373
c1f3273a40be9588f85a8a6ab71e9322902dc5f5
166138 F20101114_AAAONA WildlifeSurvey_Page_11.jp2
1cc7d486940686d4b1e4912446d739fc
42d8d4836b1f569991edf9ba066c8c51102324c5
37721 F20101114_AAAOML dawson_d_Page_13.QC.jpg
beeea2649030035b8f3507a0ae768642
83120a83654b0cf922c2c32d450cbce5b4a5035c
524513 F20101114_AAAOLY dawson_d.pdf
b580d154156ec7d10552ef75f9ea3507
951a9c3335a1070e9f4faa1fe9c2ce664664687d
21494 F20101114_AAAONB WildlifeSurvey_Page_25.QC.jpg
60509599445ab47bcbe94f4637c1610c
0ac04f12550dfc1454169e8e63e249f299cb2ad4
37202 F20101114_AAAOMM dawson_d_Page_54.pro
82a049d4570838507ccb2d7cbfc1643a
9ddfdad2b13a132d8289b49935e67a426ea9564c
220818 F20101114_AAAOLZ WildlifeSurvey.pdf
90385e8cfb3de3631d1eab0aad7c3c0d
95a0bf3c4eda6bc0398e5be71a203ff3348b4808
37061 F20101114_AAAONC WildlifeSurvey_Page_45.pro
2d6c3f7dd06f5a6faa4ad1bc9f2db13f
44350f433aa886baddc4bb7639d6ea382bede9b6
F20101114_AAAOMN dawson_d_Page_33.tif
8697f90543229aa7432e8a593dd85cc4
5cc61b7aed25448c8722aeae38606be1d2db06e6
189361 F20101114_AAAOND UFE0018420_00001.xml FULL
a28b6cac80e0365235e85bcf5df56996
29b16f513ff4c9f8190acb25441fd1f561e766f8
119390 F20101114_AAAOMO dawson_d_Page_50.jp2
298e2043814b3d9a58d5356298280883
dfd70d4b399a47603a863646ee6c0ebe4a8ebc5a
95775 F20101114_AAAOMP WildlifeSurvey_Page_02.jpg
2835e22c3830f9008dc08404fd4fbea3
4f8ee53deca473e2d58b2edb24ce7302b49fc74b
116875 F20101114_AAAOMQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_03.jpg
1d7410a9b5c44199c845b0ac2fa7ffa8
a472b164d6618b6eddb8f0f40fec0b552cd4c03f
2237 F20101114_AAAOMR dawson_d_Page_49.txt
b9b9fc557878832d5fabd3dd31ac4bbc
70f430c98edf7915468919cc556e6e4172429b00
25638 F20101114_AAAONG dawson_d_Page_01.jpg
b9efd9f9611a934a101a60fc8dc9e1c6
ce97bf7d1c5165070ed36d32b16accdc9952a956
9107 F20101114_AAAOMS dawson_d_Page_19thm.jpg
694dd15f64622a1a99f03fa02513a636
57dcd413eaed4400e793f08a478a2928e5949791
11058 F20101114_AAAONH dawson_d_Page_03.jpg
eb3fe7d9246cc9c2e844486547d48a3c
fdcc1b073f8a008621abdfb2aa0eb1f9cff36ff5
F20101114_AAAOMT dawson_d_Page_45.tif
0a1d110f5e76e41b43a3a86e009d09b2
c831a6c1d65e34983670f057d1a84cda0995f70f
115571 F20101114_AAAONI dawson_d_Page_05.jpg
0a25d5fc10525386b399fc877f480ea1
af351e983e1f79d5920cff22a2d52f02d92abf25
52676 F20101114_AAAOMU dawson_d_Page_23.pro
902c2848addb79c21e6e4a4c5c8990f6
ea77883626b54fe35928179b9dbf46fcebabf46d
113075 F20101114_AAAONJ dawson_d_Page_07.jpg
818423c42d4def6cca08fe0021993a2d
dd883cbbe1b6fbd2a19cccc6b26278a70809c20e
1911 F20101114_AAAOMV dawson_d_Page_15.txt
a8280df6fb2009663cba281ac69e99ed
8c60be2b665bad1d8eae65c4483adb481048d333
59098 F20101114_AAAONK dawson_d_Page_08.jpg
220fd2ec371e1d82c6ba261aaef1f76c
eb5d04612d5ce3cc55c5e299ae28f52f2454e2b4
F20101114_AAAOMW dawson_d_Page_03.tif
4693a3d46524ee6e4f2baf4a3fe30510
30a81cf0ec9d0ed370ddcc881dc463ec2297a281
109339 F20101114_AAAOOA dawson_d_Page_26.jpg
115788c33a2ad810a868cba12998ccc2
2996810f55459f5345826e2dab4dffa06300a78d
16224 F20101114_AAAONL dawson_d_Page_09.jpg
8481f23c44ce1a47ee40f0fab3edd39f
556f4c3f1ac62b9f5cf1bf0728eb88db22e68ed3
88537 F20101114_AAAOMX dawson_d_Page_06.jpg
3ade5d1f35d6da54829d0f46dc2cccbe
d20332b9f8508627627292a23497a5f706849851
114571 F20101114_AAAOOB dawson_d_Page_27.jpg
4d53440097e5976f6f6aab2940106399
3a9ab928886acb1f498172309cae4cd08a82c6f5
78115 F20101114_AAAONM dawson_d_Page_11.jpg
21035f634912176757f77f2325a80536
61d35d5382c27d18b4b628319e57ee89512ba896
8615 F20101114_AAAOMY dawson_d_Page_23thm.jpg
9eecf24d22c802a8e6ceb9e767b54f17
e2d7ca056a0c936eb526c540fa2b8fbfe41b5904
120617 F20101114_AAAOOC dawson_d_Page_28.jpg
a3df77596c8596182f16363d95a708d8
514b730271a83e842d8b61e8d6fb84e6051c91e8
110297 F20101114_AAAONN dawson_d_Page_12.jpg
cf0692a230b45c41bb6ad8c56db5c80b
ff9f068043d853edbaf73b4b7606f1ec0085fed7
F20101114_AAAOMZ dawson_d_Page_53.tif
9717cbaab187dcc6411f064f15431250
34782bfd1535ceb3a796148fffb334abca2df3a4
85307 F20101114_AAAOOD dawson_d_Page_29.jpg
ccf4dd1f1ccf97583e3b18af6c3c7e09
0371889afc36ace715ceb3459269924d2331c981
116601 F20101114_AAAONO dawson_d_Page_13.jpg
53beac59e94e6ab45c2c41b486fa75de
99541249328d22881f2863465d84e9557c32ce8b
154386 F20101114_AAAOOE dawson_d_Page_30.jpg
39ea9e5962cdfc377281227be4b693c0
19dd858355e752add687c61d91ad253f0f0e8915
102085 F20101114_AAAONP dawson_d_Page_14.jpg
41c06b7a87686f57081ea6dfab9d91c1
c424d1745f1d36715999f16247b35da1a802afe8
31000 F20101114_AAAOOF dawson_d_Page_31.jpg
254f5efc1d09f8d3385fb9d02fe66c6f
743e1845dcbfbbd1f94da943687858800572a53f
98854 F20101114_AAAONQ dawson_d_Page_15.jpg
ff1a3b9ce7ee32312c0f962db2fb3090
ce2586fac3af8868c76c7451edb40e1a709619c3
100452 F20101114_AAAOOG dawson_d_Page_32.jpg
7f1c365b2d0d528d89664969c390d6a2
5bf4ebdf2afe91b67d2313d7a271667d1a06abb9
108374 F20101114_AAAONR dawson_d_Page_16.jpg
4037914481293187942ae1cd0115f19e
cd8ed4cd95f9dcd298fdca642f48756468aec3df
117467 F20101114_AAAONS dawson_d_Page_17.jpg
7e4a0c403f85ca08ad081cba2669e7b0
aa3c2fcd76eba4de228d8c463c0c7281440d0ac5
81906 F20101114_AAAOOH dawson_d_Page_34.jpg
da6c34d61fa1316b9727af108aa7b31a
f66927a7dc208e17fd95d3b147c5a15e6293a8dc
111080 F20101114_AAAONT dawson_d_Page_18.jpg
3ecd124c7aaa3a73971e3db1d9c19ef1
fcb76e0d0ef7a1f9872362e9ed66988fa32ca697
102003 F20101114_AAAOOI dawson_d_Page_35.jpg
284c37936bf471c5168762a2921b1b50
217debc938d71a73f9aa1a8305b092686f528a3f
114983 F20101114_AAAONU dawson_d_Page_19.jpg
b355a8284d55fd735fcbc1f0edd745ad
ae448f41753843f723e26cae10d203b0fe974da5
96245 F20101114_AAAOOJ dawson_d_Page_36.jpg
98ed0ac566c169a662e372efd37c7fb6
687fd4a3d94867633bdda8280b60d395334bab3f
106203 F20101114_AAAONV dawson_d_Page_21.jpg
41a00a1ce581b9ba3f40b68605492410
976ac072025c9bce49ba7ea1b3552ae01c885f3f
108951 F20101114_AAAOOK dawson_d_Page_38.jpg
6eb31278446124ca51504a7ba39e6f3f
63abfb85d247b00d6bcc43a3d0d2ccb67cc838d5
109870 F20101114_AAAONW dawson_d_Page_22.jpg
0c9dd73c3f25438e19ff87c520c6476d
41b06109d2f3a06b77c9e085ce0ac54f32306977
15880 F20101114_AAAOOL dawson_d_Page_39.jpg
00212c60ada2eef1d0147c2925d70b5d
3d850884af5530fcb3643e17abfd9a6f9a4e688f
106725 F20101114_AAAONX dawson_d_Page_23.jpg
372e11e50a5e16427356e6de8a5f39b8
acb82c6dbeb96d6e37db787c71efb45ea9411577
77913 F20101114_AAAOPA dawson_d_Page_57.jpg
397a58e1c64e0baf644c78180cf98450
b1c271a83c58d3d6aff56cfce15c17d7469475e0
109041 F20101114_AAAOOM dawson_d_Page_40.jpg
6675aaf29e9bf3cf6ef189bde965a9c5
0e6e2d702c75ae72529001ca4324a56865668bf9
108206 F20101114_AAAONY dawson_d_Page_24.jpg
e596a626a8e4c4f30ce9fd26872f8d3a
6bda0daa93ad54e672c4b78b4ec9737f52f8503c
62533 F20101114_AAAOPB dawson_d_Page_58.jpg
7531283a23d8a760d7838d34eec2de04
27131c7ed9ad72dc8da229471f4b468ba107e876
98004 F20101114_AAAOON dawson_d_Page_41.jpg
c5284583636192928dfdc6145e785d18
b582fbf34873a5f77c1139dc21978dc8b77cce40
107302 F20101114_AAAONZ dawson_d_Page_25.jpg
81b5d1c8910a090dec462fcb7fa721e6
35cc908f082a4820625925ec2b2cfd89554728ac
20985 F20101114_AAAOPC dawson_d_Page_59.jpg
9bba03a8768c8df92e4c067aacbfbde5
c6fbe7bbbe1159e17a43598c1e1ff6b1ac657e5d
118427 F20101114_AAAOOO dawson_d_Page_42.jpg
b3cc5f780c3bb2b2b9538cf1bd05ff2c
04554363ada92c825dfa905346060617f020d5f7
119554 F20101114_AAAOPD dawson_d_Page_61.jpg
9afa1523a8c3f989b91b1b06c92bb783
57994b21ebd852351df51596a8eab83efd1180b9
108450 F20101114_AAAOOP dawson_d_Page_43.jpg
0ce02df383e41bf5e31afd43bdfc97a4
ef310afeeb4024fcadef0db797e77d13dafabba8
129138 F20101114_AAAOPE dawson_d_Page_63.jpg
ef3a41ca4ee95f0d29c831644970dd3e
6b8849e35eae61167807643d54dd7b623c604fdc
112380 F20101114_AAAOOQ dawson_d_Page_44.jpg
f2bda93ab429cf9ce1a63fb07299f7a8
dd03682436b0bf487a55e28b6e41dd5f2137ef43
119851 F20101114_AAAOPF dawson_d_Page_64.jpg
6db87a49e370b806e0051304fbd0eb33
dc227924d0df885914a0ac7ff233070f281dba9a
105670 F20101114_AAAOOR dawson_d_Page_45.jpg
b48522acb557a9fb92523337813e6cc3
d6059b60654cc28615f04c22f03689cafbac6366
84540 F20101114_AAAOPG dawson_d_Page_65.jpg
621e2d34da5119cc8db6971f2fb811ca
fe30c8d827f82bcd9e0e97662b94becedad5a807
89150 F20101114_AAAOOS dawson_d_Page_47.jpg
afea059dec829be9e7a66dab5f17971d
f6abd966d26e451539c9e450c2185532f1994ddf
40056 F20101114_AAAOPH dawson_d_Page_66.jpg
aa48f5618f984f9a3596c50ac530ef53
30554eec442877b3fe1f6383ac6ee0900024b97b
98955 F20101114_AAAOOT dawson_d_Page_48.jpg
5b62d9952cd7510eeed5976d696741ac
22e0ecd2dfb5f550fb1e5599769103bbd6e015d6
111815 F20101114_AAAOOU dawson_d_Page_50.jpg
11d92348ec5ee237f6a0a0560f2a73dd
cb9e3c04d9eecdca25809cf972046348e03da77f
23200 F20101114_AAAOPI WildlifeSurvey_Page_01.jpg
48435dbf521242b0e39becab1007fb4f
9afe6f919ec24b2e52774e8765bd2ce92b39a099
49767 F20101114_AAAOOV dawson_d_Page_51.jpg
95e61139a5c93713698349dd9273bed9
9d0b46ee611e8a9691e8eac01f0175f061b71ab4
112968 F20101114_AAAOPJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_04.jpg
321b14ad203ac7533163982c39303418
6c3b2de5efad782012ee588b2f16655a6dd3859c
145731 F20101114_AAAOOW dawson_d_Page_52.jpg
416a422410d988033fc6714156018fd3
5bb5c599bd35e562fff7f1b579b7e4132b7ff088
179633 F20101114_AAAOPK WildlifeSurvey_Page_05.jpg
5ceda57d3c04d9590041312c171e83df
e64c1fe40ee2a2bb269155ab69c7851e7748f5fe
38357 F20101114_AAAOOX dawson_d_Page_53.jpg
1bec76ccc683f70f9697c595e3afed6c
4bf7303905ac6390a88f245583a4e3a32364fa6d
35927 F20101114_AAAOQA WildlifeSurvey_Page_27.jpg
b935cf04880bf071e4890770644dcc80
82f59348699821934fbec1853e4aa232755692f4
164370 F20101114_AAAOPL WildlifeSurvey_Page_06.jpg
b4ac72b0af7a0681a589eb129d2a308e
45ee9d28a3f7a5f0cdaad910cf4c032bfad95089
74326 F20101114_AAAOOY dawson_d_Page_54.jpg
a9be81e116f67711c8d6606a5862ca75
c517321dbf8c5fb6482d2d0b3f13213890c25fcd
40343 F20101114_AAAOQB WildlifeSurvey_Page_28.jpg
30c6b94e2a2c04c3a4e71b385878ef4b
b87ae0896bb1dd30b30dce70eb80f7eada801d84
155066 F20101114_AAAOPM WildlifeSurvey_Page_07.jpg
4ee1e0b0b9ffbd3daf667c6402511829
325bc009434d3c85bcba991c700d1620434a357d
53636 F20101114_AAAOQC WildlifeSurvey_Page_29.jpg
e3d0be604ee772c2732fdbeddadd4944
8fe099229877b688fe94b10b5d957d6b2301507f
170304 F20101114_AAAOPN WildlifeSurvey_Page_08.jpg
a95410485df03f656aa9fb9986b00581
677713a3e776052f5fc814b4450c31305832d349
103202 F20101114_AAAOOZ dawson_d_Page_56.jpg
b200875fbd27f821a4c4079181ad84c9
99655b1ae779764b8e04c2fcbc4dc351916521f2
40425 F20101114_AAAOQD WildlifeSurvey_Page_30.jpg
cfa35cd5ed3c5ab0e4cfdf3c35551208
f98d769940e0c60eeb7ee534db20d68f99f1d9c2
164829 F20101114_AAAOPO WildlifeSurvey_Page_09.jpg
00f7d2f61f753f0cd5b6db7da9a412f3
0c194352919e523b11ada9b41316f6d867f95313
37710 F20101114_AAAOQE WildlifeSurvey_Page_31.jpg
489a02abebf1f3e9064d1a916c716e97
7a1b4683892af02b949ed8d52e4e51b31c014816
154587 F20101114_AAAOPP WildlifeSurvey_Page_11.jpg
9d1b3aac570fef9420e8603aa4be3792
48a7e5bdff0b424bb15e5b9bb8ad37c4b4641515
38990 F20101114_AAAOQF WildlifeSurvey_Page_32.jpg
a3768a8c10b2ea9c16739a2132c74b43
7d51045695dfbc7c7854d342c4aa5dce8520c7bc
181290 F20101114_AAAOPQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_13.jpg
fb4683636881dde620efccec98999d95
e1c734205438f90bc01484a1f71c467f7946017c
33686 F20101114_AAAOQG WildlifeSurvey_Page_33.jpg
b598f1ebabb1bd9ff275ce94aa2a5a90
f5453da69ee37ba4e619a5e750b7eba2152bb5ed
209726 F20101114_AAAOPR WildlifeSurvey_Page_15.jpg
094dff3337557bf5e8f77ac428225251
775beee8016efca5bd071e85f147d39789c121c6
37085 F20101114_AAAOQH WildlifeSurvey_Page_34.jpg
8cc9420b702b1b0e49eb3c4d5857e502
98cc507bc4bfd522826de56777b734fe03c937b0
120466 F20101114_AAAOPS WildlifeSurvey_Page_16.jpg
0ab0323390731c4a78c1a5bc3185da71
09adf930381a9a42874c7fb0176f52dd5691c548
38838 F20101114_AAAOQI WildlifeSurvey_Page_36.jpg
5a41800f055a944cae2cc4c074585e07
b53e657759e1861b5da1c9e1b453b2a80841c028
79241 F20101114_AAAOPT WildlifeSurvey_Page_17.jpg
164ac67f909172c5ac0b581a7b6cd754
b93f7a57af9e8d53a225c987a4c6b1478d62a8d4
51375 F20101114_AAAOPU WildlifeSurvey_Page_18.jpg
3b1fa3356020a4b1b417cb624d2b67ee
c22a68a04d188c4e533d6cfedd2bdbc23dd9e7f5
43813 F20101114_AAAOQJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_37.jpg
cbb881e452c140d95c3c5bb883dde5e5
6b8151649abe3635f5eb6cdf3b4f57fcbe866398
47556 F20101114_AAAOPV WildlifeSurvey_Page_21.jpg
28f76b68d819bafa575bee7e7333706d
babed68fa596b00547003ddd2614e2c263881da2
36250 F20101114_AAAOQK WildlifeSurvey_Page_41.jpg
9262a1541391542f26241d3801fcfd5c
edbf03ff347e777f6a1e807d8dcacb5fd1d4e2b1
68301 F20101114_AAAOPW WildlifeSurvey_Page_22.jpg
99213bcdd01e66bf6f714f4b0639c74d
58a1230ad94e2fb0695be35177128b18bf304c6e
35231 F20101114_AAAOQL WildlifeSurvey_Page_44.jpg
53eb5d15a6055d83adb57948e445877b
37283a26dc7fce1c94c670709a2b811c5468bac2
98579 F20101114_AAAOPX WildlifeSurvey_Page_23.jpg
33cc9372fb007aae87a3000371362a80
7caa8e09794c17c0b46d63d02d6891a8a62aff4c
1051986 F20101114_AAAORA dawson_d_Page_06.jp2
76decd92dbd7c755abf4b85b23ca4197
3a71eb424d443653f8298910bdc1eaf3193bd38b
71633 F20101114_AAAOQM WildlifeSurvey_Page_45.jpg
c5057607fcd7bc0f4db81f3b732464c3
309c07d0b947b0343d74c841211c6405845b392b
92002 F20101114_AAAOPY WildlifeSurvey_Page_24.jpg
3db9fe4cb85824cdf57782d163787821
18cbc5908d4ad5e2e5480049ef202bbc30b13a3f
1051980 F20101114_AAAORB dawson_d_Page_07.jp2
527a69d1f51bc682bcfc65dc9c8a29c4
42fc026050ee703a1f6cb16f775e590618aa0dbb
80425 F20101114_AAAOQN WildlifeSurvey_Page_46.jpg
09a4a0dd63cccef7544edeef03ad5b9b
c00a1af5e3e884642b093acfd469a85343b94f7e
58673 F20101114_AAAOPZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_26.jpg
a74e219a1a2b80d2aa95c2be8907416c
6603add8acf20665df36c79a83b4c15615993818
1051937 F20101114_AAAORC dawson_d_Page_08.jp2
17d9f543d70d14284e787ff29e528624
643c0f10e6d80e3b40f785acdc240478af43db15
16671 F20101114_AAAOQO WildlifeSurvey_Page_48.jpg
38aecb8100c0a116eff798c54234bad2
dedd6e6a1f0be85afdf4da7c0a4def6cabdaecf1
225298 F20101114_AAAORD dawson_d_Page_09.jp2
d29fa51cfd6a0a4a9f37e5c72e549c47
d0a86b659dac63d8af78de7d8b7d6e15ddbc5825
41004 F20101114_AAAOQP WildlifeSurvey_Page_49.jpg
4567d6f9034badfb119266df26959a4d
925f7190b73de49bb52893eb99235d9b2ed27be5
102538 F20101114_AAAORE dawson_d_Page_10.jp2
52800635009b53f2f17f8b2e56aa0983
373fcdb12a2c62d3421d601f3ccd9c3ffee6fc43
42908 F20101114_AAAOQQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_51.jpg
e82705253d9b50fb3c23d9108d08bb61
ba0828beebce1c7d365532b27b4b856df832f944
116726 F20101114_AAAORF dawson_d_Page_12.jp2
8379ce10a476c49f912485f4de13908d
d3e4865ab927ba1e189b0277393251099b950458
54912 F20101114_AAAOQR WildlifeSurvey_Page_52.jpg
42bcb56b5ad894bfd33bd104664f613a
45f04895f8a04b0fc674d04583191e3dc32e555a
123126 F20101114_AAAORG dawson_d_Page_13.jp2
3341baf8aa53ef860c84f5e3ad6975e8
0e9bb25d7436d818ea911960feb9d2296bc43ea6
34007 F20101114_AAAOQS WildlifeSurvey_Page_54.jpg
84e8012773f3a1002738f31cc18c5b3f
ac21f12876dfe73e51aaf8bbdead55d044859c40
109084 F20101114_AAAORH dawson_d_Page_14.jp2
2292ec188d562dfd4c3dd27f6238ecf8
6ff4771b2041ef3cc762dd79ad2d5f09d491d84d
34887 F20101114_AAAOQT WildlifeSurvey_Page_56.jpg
2e0e817a2a86f3a2cc4b7cb19665c32f
2335cc3445e501a1382f7b750e2f7d7522da2e88
104265 F20101114_AAAORI dawson_d_Page_15.jp2
1af2802283233f37f2438200458cdac3
f5065728c486ef95282cbddd4069a59889f77671
85513 F20101114_AAAOQU WildlifeSurvey_Page_57.jpg
b4f2776cef90ac6267f97d13dcf065eb
eb5ca7db9158dab3edfdf13f70a79b8eb09287ea
125262 F20101114_AAAORJ dawson_d_Page_17.jp2
5303f3990698039755d7192d2b4e929a
8c18da88ff796867eec73f0fa7ff59f2a693f092
71874 F20101114_AAAOQV WildlifeSurvey_Page_58.jpg
194b0bb439da27431b6797e0d4859434
6399356dbf63ae5a1b481ba8b8715fac4ac83d77
31082 F20101114_AAAOQW WildlifeSurvey_Page_59.jpg
e63241ce2f432982eb78bdb724b17613
00cc7f7bb971cc5695fcf2452def0d676d689ecb
118618 F20101114_AAAORK dawson_d_Page_18.jp2
0a158ad7c4c9ccde129c0e2cdd6a028d
e88aebfe707b435c4ff345b3bcd00384cd023c0d
25807 F20101114_AAAOQX dawson_d_Page_01.jp2
4b8d8c6326b2c715b4fb7143c3260547
35bf001320cdd4a685f06cbd1bc93cfc8a2a18ef
116949 F20101114_AAAOSA dawson_d_Page_38.jp2
f53f566da720058e4ebfee5abaa88c37
2a5495888ba6e35632eeb048f9acd1bc1e0c0d56
121048 F20101114_AAAORL dawson_d_Page_20.jp2
44614b8f48a82972502f8cf2b4bb980a
a11fedd34e5128871db8a57c0ab4fac691aea14c
6226 F20101114_AAAOQY dawson_d_Page_02.jp2
b9a43d10c5cd777e055550ce17946847
f6f00648a4dbe628f2307515a94707157f09a339
15830 F20101114_AAAOSB dawson_d_Page_39.jp2
94942181833564ac038f4c8e8fcef5a2
4d17f4ab92543b36884e29d549b7e624ee8891a0
114078 F20101114_AAAORM dawson_d_Page_21.jp2
64a0d9ad5f2ab03e9ecf6dbf7863c1bc
1581a9fd5549e0ad5e01a535a8a756f4b7e5e1e1
1051961 F20101114_AAAOQZ dawson_d_Page_05.jp2
1af69e256c6e12e441ec0787306469df
a53e07b42f3d61a8eb3c636bf2f88dd25c7ceae8
115603 F20101114_AAAOSC dawson_d_Page_40.jp2
30eac68c763fec6c950ab342a3cc1b61
d281b2c4430879dd863a9839ece1256f65bd60f5
117767 F20101114_AAAORN dawson_d_Page_22.jp2
e9a1ab701e00686eec455bdc2e3fda8e
1ec7365b52d390a312092ccaf4caf0b161ffc993
123910 F20101114_AAAOSD dawson_d_Page_42.jp2
fb624e9aae92cec59b4225eb344f28c0
24de7b81970d4f51e09ca8632883f59f431c85da
115005 F20101114_AAAORO dawson_d_Page_23.jp2
68863a5ebaedff79c7b517190a00ca32
72594b20aa2533ca7f80838fd66366a5e5991dd5
115537 F20101114_AAAOSE dawson_d_Page_43.jp2
db83d4d8d00aff673572cc2344776663
054b94d8c79d1882edf57ef9e8d6ba9b49ed9643
115976 F20101114_AAAORP dawson_d_Page_25.jp2
f5d70dfdf35207ee7be8dca343c71a9a
725f1e8a136697cc120ccb1be351252dd7bc302a
112342 F20101114_AAAOSF dawson_d_Page_45.jp2
e3ff9bd42ae58613911070373aaf3391
fe4ca6016e4ad9b0eab8c23b22acb458ad58f704
116225 F20101114_AAAORQ dawson_d_Page_26.jp2
6e3da57ed03861b7c45e68e69ced3136
bfed0e25d8bda03aded9089685e005b4396d2187
104776 F20101114_AAAOSG dawson_d_Page_46.jp2
18b84c9545934147723315490371c1b1
4d0b7ee4fb726fa9f2be4df51c1071f2db9fbc83
121678 F20101114_AAAORR dawson_d_Page_27.jp2
5d912eec0f394d819806b12c6f6dbf8e
5511e2aab34ddfa4b6e5200aa94b7492401f3154
97462 F20101114_AAAOSH dawson_d_Page_47.jp2
b59c42ae6e66334e4db256caff0b3803
427b486d6de346ad660a35405c9fac136f439361
126898 F20101114_AAAORS dawson_d_Page_28.jp2
d42460a615bb3d2e55a41c3eb2a65410
ff666b644a5220ffd22afab2b87a31fc2c308de6
123061 F20101114_AAAOSI dawson_d_Page_49.jp2
90b71641165ae1d9b07a35590915bb75
4ac03774dd4d93dc686df241ccedf597f3eb6844
92725 F20101114_AAAORT dawson_d_Page_29.jp2
f3690c7b3d4699fd1d8dbb0ceda5ec0e
7c8bb5f490d38129caf77763c4f9abbaf665ac27
1051964 F20101114_AAAOSJ dawson_d_Page_52.jp2
79ade7c1d01f1d8bbef8819e58462c9f
b9befc6fcf0a8123d013c3b421fb9618da2eb2a4
1051978 F20101114_AAAORU dawson_d_Page_30.jp2
b28ef22a5e53a143725c92ed4526f6a3
e3cfa05af7f10588f87051164bce3380c6b93046
446520 F20101114_AAAOSK dawson_d_Page_53.jp2
da83ccf0e4e736cb3ee3dea9a20c66a9
35882493629b693b6daf35251479012aa65312f1
318362 F20101114_AAAORV dawson_d_Page_31.jp2
8c2c7a56e7414858cc6f1c3a497974ae
180151915a5f58fc72d1e42ffa3bffde70ccf312
84117 F20101114_AAAORW dawson_d_Page_34.jp2
09969596e7cde969d82f2621841b0158
3748fb09b3686e9285b737d43c5480afc4a30463
115228 F20101114_AAAOTA WildlifeSurvey_Page_04.jp2
add6a4bc793d531022e64a7d965144b0
57e67e025db29eec79e59f74b8bff38c6b0ae0a8
77248 F20101114_AAAOSL dawson_d_Page_54.jp2
842746f74efbece5a8cb9e1a388283de
8b2085caca49c4085638fedc58d888d59c2aa6ee
102362 F20101114_AAAORX dawson_d_Page_35.jp2
4b917a85638b8c89b8dcbf3a55e29753
5130d0afd8309b3aab7904e4edc036e6d2c992d2
186565 F20101114_AAAOTB WildlifeSurvey_Page_05.jp2
4dc9282bbcde676366ae06231a32a9f8
fa992f3f13ba9f63f5430ccbd62424e4fcdc06d3
79374 F20101114_AAAOSM dawson_d_Page_55.jp2
4f44b98734005121bd5b41a66ae2d2dd
ad652b51f079ee2abb68202c7d6574e576079029
100344 F20101114_AAAORY dawson_d_Page_36.jp2
5ba68ab4a8903acbb2c3cd26489dbd0d
3ae85833fd8420d10d9f64f285456faaee36787b
172932 F20101114_AAAOTC WildlifeSurvey_Page_06.jp2
b093f10fe5abcba4178564e434dd95f9
8fb433bf3ae8489ccdd90c5d83034afd370d0270
99821 F20101114_AAAOSN dawson_d_Page_56.jp2
45d8b011cec2cb8b5f0468bcba5d0ca7
ccec79e6b1db7c97969da3d90648105e4dcab65a
43414 F20101114_AAAORZ dawson_d_Page_37.jp2
395232c63e188db6b4253b8efdbc5e55
7bf8d7664cbdf2aad9390ea670bc1e85344d5f0c
179327 F20101114_AAAOTD WildlifeSurvey_Page_08.jp2
2086e8a1f04184b6aa2334f5a9733af4
42fe938937aecb19fa3836675c52b94d1f62e1dd
75593 F20101114_AAAOSO dawson_d_Page_57.jp2
e40b9c01b4278c916539f530e65d006e
afdb2e9f1d803f6bfc9c2b14011c46e72341c2c3
175931 F20101114_AAAOTE WildlifeSurvey_Page_09.jp2
b36d8b9f70d4d86f106c504e5978f463
c4544ec9329f08cf2dcdd58407a9eb86b33647c6
65824 F20101114_AAAOSP dawson_d_Page_58.jp2
39ec34fba38d02137eeecdb0d89997ed
269b5b4bf9b987a6ffd14c36687aaf443eb4c4ed
169986 F20101114_AAAOTF WildlifeSurvey_Page_10.jp2
59c7d0c7b99e57ba5ea82abf008c23d5
0a02ee465f606a46c8a92ed76a80415b659b02cd
124274 F20101114_AAAOSQ dawson_d_Page_60.jp2
0ab68dedc728018c8acee5b6d007cbd3
c7cc000175c7ad6652c37d2245dfd6e81544350b
169987 F20101114_AAAOTG WildlifeSurvey_Page_12.jp2
d74871a06a847a3cce54d34ebcd737e0
9730ab376ef34ce13bccdcf627fd371c40d6e1e2
130718 F20101114_AAAOSR dawson_d_Page_61.jp2
d9bae5dbc1b830d55651cbc4b24f4073
0dac3fbc74b967d5cbc3f254bf1759991fa256ac
186882 F20101114_AAAOTH WildlifeSurvey_Page_13.jp2
36d2a34b5e3755302e450b72d511f16f
5d768988a4ac43b7be8ea276db7ca2baf4b6aac1
122081 F20101114_AAAOSS dawson_d_Page_62.jp2
e2119c7cbadb5e3d4cb25b3e469b08c1
3ff880d9f429545e693f9e9d1bce0e4e3d5f7299
205236 F20101114_AAAOTI WildlifeSurvey_Page_14.jp2
362edfaa720be3267ef42f98f612fac8
d5cce9f60d1355957f27892ca760a5872c6d4ce3
136279 F20101114_AAAOST dawson_d_Page_63.jp2
ce933e0faf171dc4d1241f4bd3b905b0
64bc58799ee2f3b143e3fd791fc7f9b2fd81dfca
217271 F20101114_AAAOTJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_15.jp2
159e9f79c03a958d00a0b3717e0030aa
7416f2a3d798e528a2de948d96dc799ad03a79d4
128725 F20101114_AAAOSU dawson_d_Page_64.jp2
f7bee8d5dd041e59d511f6874a0cbeaa
a4f4ce85aef5bf95cf169f56cae70c8e613feb1c
25396 F20101114_AAAOTK WildlifeSurvey_Page_19.jp2
6398132aa2e47cbe7f9d75e518b3689e
b2b5a55459f3927c66a31f70ccdbee00bf2499b1
87576 F20101114_AAAOSV dawson_d_Page_65.jp2
e3aedd3103118ce967c2bcf7123db023
bf5c81bb4593066b7299a4a6a744212b2eb0c0b4
537869 F20101114_AAAOTL WildlifeSurvey_Page_21.jp2
ee57f40790e23ffaa38c53d0d55e903e
fc928db532fb8a63bd9060506bba85a0b182b908
41894 F20101114_AAAOSW dawson_d_Page_66.jp2
cd8a89ef8a1b133299d802f85ee08a51
0a46d4220913f9b6f54f72bc3d01e6c8bdb66848
22512 F20101114_AAAOSX WildlifeSurvey_Page_01.jp2
db55590a3a95b4a5a94aeabc8d75eacc
a2e492bbc60dff63f041207b31ce4ba387f50e34
26616 F20101114_AAAOUA WildlifeSurvey_Page_39.jp2
c7ef9121db2da135b142d1871bcc6b44
84e359f1d6ab00e967532c7dfc4ac21a1b757a08
62803 F20101114_AAAOTM WildlifeSurvey_Page_22.jp2
76f8e0655fe828ae0c61120b8f1d20e5
2034bc7a38c776285447b51ab6bcf9fa66f3ba70
88785 F20101114_AAAOSY WildlifeSurvey_Page_02.jp2
800084255d4ff4ff89094e0a8f464a52
cf9e96a4acd4d82d177b9412a880776160a5c057
32427 F20101114_AAAOUB WildlifeSurvey_Page_41.jp2
709a994d64af553da0940dae3667deff
913f3d247ecd14d49c5f8be34f01f52d152336f2
93119 F20101114_AAAOTN WildlifeSurvey_Page_24.jp2
37d133fb881f270324937c085793ac35
bd4ba6c6a5426317667dedd35c5ef8ea152262e6
105544 F20101114_AAAOSZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_03.jp2
aa65b3521a8deb169ee2806c3701060c
30a152ec41129ec45379b1537b146ba9c83e6e63
31065 F20101114_AAAOUC WildlifeSurvey_Page_42.jp2
c77a49990b8283ba27fd9eb6bc38ebe6
5cb66ba9ea2446c717f6f4c620b9e335cee67d42
75253 F20101114_AAAOTO WildlifeSurvey_Page_25.jp2
2d9f66766915ec67335a53794ddd8948
08be88d5784206fb9a4d7aa58905849c7441a3fa
403726 F20101114_AAAOUD WildlifeSurvey_Page_44.jp2
b408610b1132242dbc0fa42cfaa767c3
b534ac07fd807aa4688051b04cb7b557b0b8b4f1
59677 F20101114_AAAOTP WildlifeSurvey_Page_26.jp2
3dba97dbf538db9a4c7c686647125df0
a9c301a1b58470713b28879ddec8ee3f54518a41
71582 F20101114_AAAOUE WildlifeSurvey_Page_45.jp2
1ae1893bbc780579241aa32c5ebea94d
b85fa404b398f6948f0a94a25d056d827754dc40
427808 F20101114_AAAOTQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_28.jp2
dd184d85570e094d356ed01eeb39f682
ecb2cab5b1110be411bb1ed659db81a5d8b7b75e
85503 F20101114_AAAOUF WildlifeSurvey_Page_46.jp2
7ea095c3047b93ec9f5775c27924c6b0
ea70e4ecb7e7aa170945a661efdba6decf67faed
51298 F20101114_AAAOTR WildlifeSurvey_Page_29.jp2
dcb93e429de544d6f0e0e34d8907b0ce
4331e18955522eab49d8a4b4e1f3a30fd201f0f0
6092 F20101114_AAAPAA dawson_d_Page_59.pro
236c03a07cb9c2d96529231b75b22435
3f2eebad78dfa73b7fd89485da3ff0454403025f
85581 F20101114_AAAOUG WildlifeSurvey_Page_47.jp2
e0073f0e039ca46d79e32622a16e83a0
f25adeb313799c9416cfa267079d1c73bad5aca3
36732 F20101114_AAAOTS WildlifeSurvey_Page_30.jp2
79a3f1644bbe51fde4f8c9170dcddfa6
bfd72b51f263a68047d5368cc055ae3ee2b67de5
58935 F20101114_AAAPAB dawson_d_Page_60.pro
b86a54ec5e775253cbb208b2de5de6ca
96cbe4f82abddaf863a5a26e37c676fcbcc50128
16439 F20101114_AAAOUH WildlifeSurvey_Page_48.jp2
cc03561c86a91cd9f771f57410e7de93
72295ca6b9eb902bf6238b1bae0e43fbeb588d28
34850 F20101114_AAAOTT WildlifeSurvey_Page_31.jp2
409f0a88395012df613478054b201d90
6ae96d24c54bb3c52fbc63d7a2f27c3bb76931ce
62825 F20101114_AAAPAC dawson_d_Page_61.pro
cb1ee9003a01e305e922c77abbb55057
08bf0d2d0220f6187b733870668a2cc8ca8eff40
421994 F20101114_AAAOUI WildlifeSurvey_Page_49.jp2
925ad773fdcde44f1efcfd9323476331
1c1603cce16722b7af51a1d4479a570b434225a0
35181 F20101114_AAAOTU WildlifeSurvey_Page_32.jp2
671da72c807351098cea167822c1acaa
064d46de380397fe1bac03d45d852ac4843d807c
65863 F20101114_AAAPAD dawson_d_Page_63.pro
85aae3bfff0d3b7953daaebb597493a7
6361b6ce49179aef262c8fbe64900cffc84cecdb
48377 F20101114_AAAOUJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_50.jp2
58975d171af82439f8284ba8f45505c7
e359bb9c240a9862b99902463ad49aeb25cf4037
30774 F20101114_AAAOTV WildlifeSurvey_Page_33.jp2
8d0f62f61a1138a5fadbd33b50d4e93a
98d286ceedebc904fb25c695527cd69a4787fc80
61212 F20101114_AAAPAE dawson_d_Page_64.pro
32f7657ef2e0a2b8e99a1a15c7880ff9
7e896fa35d0fe9f1bdbd3ca0a92679fba5427842
43482 F20101114_AAAOUK WildlifeSurvey_Page_51.jp2
1ea1d7d8a918e6621633900a72512df3
efb655d4ddd5ae22049319469c6a493e0e3d01ba
40185 F20101114_AAAPAF dawson_d_Page_65.pro
5d7088a87074ce84a2d70000d292527f
5d8865aa98c10668d3166cb28ef3b8943e1727d5
59314 F20101114_AAAOUL WildlifeSurvey_Page_52.jp2
2f13e8a0187b0fba68808c9d7a19ce9e
70841bcb40761d753dd0572f12a32e9b07cbd73e
33388 F20101114_AAAOTW WildlifeSurvey_Page_34.jp2
bc7c285d69a6510cc481b50312f03cd1
1d5f2e1376648794952426fd901780b8485b5842
17265 F20101114_AAAPAG dawson_d_Page_66.pro
9a56f77e9a678418f73ef54f81ba2c84
ebcbf266385c46a49bb740c6f2c5c584fcfa0381
F20101114_AAAOVA dawson_d_Page_13.tif
eb335e03fca7308864fe8af6be10fdcd
c57782930317235f7423cd1a0242b7333cfced95
379400 F20101114_AAAOUM WildlifeSurvey_Page_54.jp2
df15001571d08e2b7614879ee71e4dbe
868cb5e5aa43fb55b69f4c962c9070383f44a80c
29288 F20101114_AAAOTX WildlifeSurvey_Page_35.jp2
cef6b62c8d4900a448378572a30b85bb
3acd8701c8e3f317b9accb5dca21a140700bddb7
6999 F20101114_AAAPAH WildlifeSurvey_Page_01.pro
7048035512f7ab639621126989740ac8
4c3255259e11f956464926803d16fc284e21a0bc
F20101114_AAAOVB dawson_d_Page_15.tif
201118f71d0cc191953fbe0622762221
29b4e3ccbf971544bad4f47ddd0bea2757c16f2a
35043 F20101114_AAAOTY WildlifeSurvey_Page_36.jp2
85129c69f4b58d684ca6231a6ec41099
bfa34994facfa053cbec9be1b9457001c679b8f2
82723 F20101114_AAAPAI WildlifeSurvey_Page_03.pro
fccec29efd8bb550c592c6097a46793f
90e44fd7a461ac658bbf780b473ccbf7a6a1723c
F20101114_AAAOVC dawson_d_Page_16.tif
1b8e50c24d94772ecc39bdcae95cd5a3
74eeeac1405863a3a33e8433e06e24f73db733e2
54920 F20101114_AAAOUN WildlifeSurvey_Page_55.jp2
df11a610c93b3373597ecbd9167c44b5
2db920309749452d361953ff98490fad7888ea76
37424 F20101114_AAAOTZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_37.jp2
a5394f1256bbfa169bd9a4785e06d791
0fbb9bfde3c789bd68eb3a7d398bf525f09dea3a
62061 F20101114_AAAPAJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_04.pro
0eb17c13bd6f2cdc28d45e41f94b5ca8
9fab329553fbd192cd849f2dd54bb0a438aac398
F20101114_AAAOVD dawson_d_Page_17.tif
155665a4aeb92c837788ae60d2c85c8c
f580902956bfd480a6e34ad4db8e7d9de9124f12
367256 F20101114_AAAOUO WildlifeSurvey_Page_56.jp2
3e35e7351bd1f37ab698ff2b92ea70fa
f95338081350817dae0f8125f8d47ad9b91561ce
93593 F20101114_AAAPAK WildlifeSurvey_Page_05.pro
3d3e676345f911a9fa3b80a15128eaf5
9ae684b9501286286aa87aa501d2cafbaf16fb1d
F20101114_AAAOVE dawson_d_Page_18.tif
4d7b265d02706269572e30c4dbe1edfa
f2038df23ed5fdffcaead170288e6a6b73260645
892681 F20101114_AAAOUP WildlifeSurvey_Page_57.jp2
bbd07c63168a5de4790955c0741c76a4
af32a148e020b1703b7341ea4a6349ed82714656
86455 F20101114_AAAPAL WildlifeSurvey_Page_06.pro
0f6e136c2960b165cfbf91359088c45d
aadd92d5916ab69ffd263ca51c39b6c4fc76c7e0
F20101114_AAAOVF dawson_d_Page_19.tif
70622c764b625317aec6f15c9f7dab0e
5e087f543794aa83b88787b6ed6f742edc24320a
1051974 F20101114_AAAOUQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_58.jp2
9221f3a1d2c1acc07b2ad3f4a3535748
23523664c3b7d8db171adf00a877a9b80073d65e
86688 F20101114_AAAPAM WildlifeSurvey_Page_09.pro
40dc530d5ec03804b2fceb2b6ec2782d
0ef085d2311bd41fefafb8b41573d5a34ca0b548
F20101114_AAAOVG dawson_d_Page_21.tif
5d9eb7180d80b2f2545164e20e662321
de7791ef6a95e8a0a24e6a5a552c80a8abfccccd
F20101114_AAAOUR dawson_d_Page_01.tif
140cdac93665d5109406c61cbca19612
466a5eed596eb69a0aa2273c8564b5256cc48fd1
43626 F20101114_AAAPBA WildlifeSurvey_Page_24.pro
c0f866d4edbd33d01df29715c5901b08
3d659229bf3f7650680ab903267efae1b9e84c42
84945 F20101114_AAAPAN WildlifeSurvey_Page_10.pro
f8ac8593352157632825569b67a45e05
7357a6eb6a91e86cb4a9bb40e5ddc5de7af9e2e8
F20101114_AAAOVH dawson_d_Page_22.tif
99c723487904b51f2cbd1c2fb93f5d14
d4bbcb17d459282891a211f336aa5efdf5f7de75
F20101114_AAAOUS dawson_d_Page_02.tif
9ec700563250a6c2ccba153f8912581d
a7ea3e87df02b70feefbabec0953a3bb1a425ceb
38840 F20101114_AAAPBB WildlifeSurvey_Page_25.pro
f9fe984d791f732439eae74530545cdc
4017473d97001da19ea343901b96e83d99d2440b
83145 F20101114_AAAPAO WildlifeSurvey_Page_11.pro
8fdd10b2eb72d1f1bcf5e5e8584c4c71
d43ca20f1a39a6c4ea13643749ca43c39b364655
F20101114_AAAOVI dawson_d_Page_23.tif
79ad467ae742ad78e1f365135073ecc1
6c97e53f708df8f2236377f8195342bcf3e346f9
F20101114_AAAOUT dawson_d_Page_04.tif
49a7afaaaa57c1d3e9544bd8c02e50b2
f553d3062b813a4647015bc33da2ecb65c4530c0
37624 F20101114_AAAPBC WildlifeSurvey_Page_26.pro
cade22380392b0681a212430afbbe5ae
59ac2ecbac74432ef537ddfaf5a003d3b768171c
85150 F20101114_AAAPAP WildlifeSurvey_Page_12.pro
d0981179b40422cd368c4c1c64c2d1f7
b77cb31c088a0f7bcf47950a07231cba0823f181
F20101114_AAAOVJ dawson_d_Page_25.tif
9624b00a8446044d5fc10e4a7dbd4b6f
1f947d314b453491590c5dde2e72f5f9b5cce5af
F20101114_AAAOUU dawson_d_Page_06.tif
b46222f8ee8ba65ce567987fb6c9daec
702aa71eec8043071c5218a102dcb33c411b7ca5
9413 F20101114_AAAPBD WildlifeSurvey_Page_28.pro
81d4075ca51ff8b7371b48914e4b1e2e
922ca454e01e35331cbe2b98cd84ead8989ae399
94501 F20101114_AAAPAQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_13.pro
5026ac1b262412ee80accfcc27379446
5271b8be6eb15a84a58e295d08aa3ab125046f67
F20101114_AAAOVK dawson_d_Page_26.tif
4ca2b79609ae582942104f931e2606d3
10bf1d2d0d5a60ce6bf9448626449a21c411b87f
F20101114_AAAOUV dawson_d_Page_07.tif
a2e5ae81e99a2922a7efa43439e00308
336da9a040da47dd927c1977e516adf58b366815
42067 F20101114_AAAPBE WildlifeSurvey_Page_29.pro
2463775fb9ff07a686d51fb87612b225
aa505e5dd162683566ec8d9a46d4f1ca65841de8
106400 F20101114_AAAPAR WildlifeSurvey_Page_14.pro
05ae53255ea61a88b38b905132a167a1
5bc504abcc0eeb8661c03e61bd97b7b7b2672faf
F20101114_AAAOVL dawson_d_Page_27.tif
a65a21dcfe9dd206d03731f5ad836293
b64e33a2839f0af78c6dc8a66cc2020c466f6197
F20101114_AAAOUW dawson_d_Page_08.tif
c04f805de1f233ebb539e68067583e15
f625709f4a60348e0d272d4353688d892668089f
24766 F20101114_AAAPBF WildlifeSurvey_Page_31.pro
f2dee966cce8d271f76ea6e698d16a07
2f1f04fda8fba92b6952dc25b6ce0cd712f8ea77
112296 F20101114_AAAPAS WildlifeSurvey_Page_15.pro
f59bb5020fc786032acaec71c1bdd1b8
1662e833e791252f2ab1b4d97766c0ace324633e
F20101114_AAAOVM dawson_d_Page_28.tif
ab5f24f7f6ce282e6b9fb119616b7fbe
e0b93fe4a02669938f90f8c98aafd18d805406ae
F20101114_AAAOUX dawson_d_Page_09.tif
75aabcddcd12fee9e89f37fc1fdf3d8b
163a77a5796325b3a7277bcdde94b91e25e15fd3
27184 F20101114_AAAPBG WildlifeSurvey_Page_32.pro
b1abac2caae5760bc312b4f8a6b46572
f9720ee8edf9fb728087c24001e93219c92e690c
F20101114_AAAOWA dawson_d_Page_47.tif
9df94be878459a3cebc04dabd45ef097
90d9bfe116f9af872fd2cfa87da18d5c7ad82fa7
60947 F20101114_AAAPAT WildlifeSurvey_Page_16.pro
8e5af486bb08c55014b04485944a4621
560064063f9dd73fc49c9494a4c4874a8906d513
F20101114_AAAOVN dawson_d_Page_29.tif
30666f30833ed5444d1cb89657d9df0f
15269ce9843a47aeea1b66bb5416479435456b42
F20101114_AAAOUY dawson_d_Page_11.tif
a4a15de9d81cd98ab22398ad0ed63e47
56e539173e68dbe8a4fce54a8935e9d4dc072c78
21105 F20101114_AAAPBH WildlifeSurvey_Page_33.pro
811939a9326ada88232ab52bc960ef54
a25a357f1b73bd578e359d2f5cdffd9601cc4adf
F20101114_AAAOWB dawson_d_Page_48.tif
a2002054d8c96241316d7c40a1f642ee
4b853a2744ce39611353215430a77165c734e9ff
F20101114_AAAOUZ dawson_d_Page_12.tif
fe4617e4eee1faf8acec02518f4fe40b
0cd5544a158696add10cd72ee6bb96714b01eac1
26002 F20101114_AAAPBI WildlifeSurvey_Page_34.pro
7521f9ef3b0aa5a57cb30bde220e0a01
d882e29724d19ca402956cb8f09e3353cb92cd60
F20101114_AAAOWC dawson_d_Page_49.tif
0db09aa2e167d53e8e5a470bda6b306b
f955da3cafbaacc941cbc49a96130af1d241ad8e
48445 F20101114_AAAPAU WildlifeSurvey_Page_17.pro
bbffa3ebd0b0b7f36d840936f1a5395a
346cea59fc143240771e9608b3f8fe8d27c4e504
F20101114_AAAOVO dawson_d_Page_30.tif
6284a7689bff69b2fd99ddaf57dc201b
4e3329a784b1b8c7ccf31af4dbd80b4f17c35b90
32355 F20101114_AAAPBJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_36.pro
36414c68386bb18ac023c5a4bb3e5257
77f20eb4b89f0de31710423a318ffaf4cabcceea
F20101114_AAAOWD dawson_d_Page_50.tif
32d9869191789b44f0bf7da0ecef90d9
6a14fc5deb3766ea58bec58b12a260f88989a2b7
39314 F20101114_AAAPAV WildlifeSurvey_Page_18.pro
b1324e27b5520fc6d38b1d96496a6043
4b3487d82db9c9cdce5531ddfb9c2a0821878c4c
F20101114_AAAOVP dawson_d_Page_31.tif
ea5269af2b2a7122573432803fd53c02
4938cefdb64b05527eee7011a0936d5d08a11c5f
40272 F20101114_AAAPBK WildlifeSurvey_Page_37.pro
1c42b20aa1ddbf6241903aedbe9a747b
961171d1b0b7cc048d45863c04bce70c2dbb2410
F20101114_AAAOWE dawson_d_Page_51.tif
2b7673127fecebf03fcf04895292a53a
674ff5a6c4759d5bc6c5003fa7f5d7aefec126b2
10195 F20101114_AAAPAW WildlifeSurvey_Page_20.pro
d273fd041c8708afec720ced441138b0
fe79ca9ccb933d82420f45163f74e29835cd9544
F20101114_AAAOVQ dawson_d_Page_34.tif
d3dc58bc8b9d8460c8b10a00ea9983da
bce068b73fb936af5d6ccd5a7f54d4d7f2da4ece
35053 F20101114_AAAPBL WildlifeSurvey_Page_38.pro
616ff6affc3bcf3ee0738b3734096af4
a655b6db94768e9f0357e8defb1c7aeed0e2af4d
F20101114_AAAOWF dawson_d_Page_52.tif
88c0c521ca8880a93101a4e39d8de1a1
907762d75a5beaa40107d73737beebfb5971220b
10504 F20101114_AAAPAX WildlifeSurvey_Page_21.pro
2fd54f51aba1a981326acdc9e0e54ae8
69251c484f63a3196df23f2f3e80f35eed538092
F20101114_AAAOVR dawson_d_Page_35.tif
17b9575bf37154a3ba7c711fd02416ff
400c0a3454131950e02fef364e255c3e379cd17a
9438 F20101114_AAAPCA WildlifeSurvey_Page_54.pro
38e60f733098f75aa5dd8e36dbeb7ba6
84c4f617b6b3b74556aefc504240fd3e29bb4a51
15901 F20101114_AAAPBM WildlifeSurvey_Page_39.pro
7712dc2570e7eb2920cf8896a6783115
bb67a675b28de5c0df1cf6943603cedc8c493f62
F20101114_AAAOWG dawson_d_Page_54.tif
7ee7fd833385785eccebafcd19f31a1a
d6ae84e3a185e08c8e50c5d8885c8218ec378028
F20101114_AAAOVS dawson_d_Page_36.tif
ba172a418a2f93098c8f00d072a10989
ba28d81aebd959eb0d6e994fe1cda81ab8f90add
33097 F20101114_AAAPCB WildlifeSurvey_Page_55.pro
79d6f48c12f526ecbd3cf4d1feeb4366
30b985a92e01a81b83b14cea6a0ec7d3492cab13
25617 F20101114_AAAPBN WildlifeSurvey_Page_40.pro
2e99d66c5cff0cf10a38c6f61b1746f8
df4277defe750d2a510b46b0aa78d0d86c54acdc
F20101114_AAAOWH dawson_d_Page_55.tif
9e4804617de222f739ef644ea25ab126
e853f2d122a0e507c9c31a02e7c2db8ec3a01d67
32459 F20101114_AAAPAY WildlifeSurvey_Page_22.pro
b243a4a062e38fa3ffda7aa505ad0d24
42e6df774d2d28ac47b046cea959805a9c6d2a81
F20101114_AAAOVT dawson_d_Page_37.tif
3601f754daea1a32d77a4cc2b9097582
f1fecc94eddf06146c742ffde182ca56fb6f7dd3
9380 F20101114_AAAPCC WildlifeSurvey_Page_56.pro
61fa38b61029bc51041e0001e12446d6
d78cfd9b6228bd1b7bc2af3c13e23ade098d34ee
25357 F20101114_AAAPBO WildlifeSurvey_Page_41.pro
f605075894cf4051325a6eb73b3cd6c5
c28d1d925a5aec81e84d6924dc5aa59de5b86a2c
F20101114_AAAOWI dawson_d_Page_56.tif
07f1bb7d3bba211a5b2fd1520c50f6bf
f2b4d54441a39ed3bb2ff012853e506ddd586adb
53388 F20101114_AAAPAZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_23.pro
50f6f2f6ecc1e3da044f0038468c55ef
82d82cfbfb209807615c63f7ed15c9e84e330eb5
F20101114_AAAOVU dawson_d_Page_38.tif
6404149f854869dc356c49e60639f76d
75456dbad096fd0857a8852bc276246399a581d7
42311 F20101114_AAAPCD WildlifeSurvey_Page_57.pro
0695b1fda92dedc47eda2bcabc567cb7
5974ebc99dd5748a00a8a7164f9d7e4c555a8394
23279 F20101114_AAAPBP WildlifeSurvey_Page_42.pro
ec00905387f017244797cb3d56ab6158
d3d5ee83a6b8d07943f729f27ff4d79794896444
F20101114_AAAOWJ dawson_d_Page_57.tif
5d393efe4de938ae57863e405259419d
aefb52a6afc539100a5f4c499d7ffc78d731993b
F20101114_AAAOVV dawson_d_Page_39.tif
14eef9658800222b36e4273b8c216ec2
fd941c472417dd42d793b1dfb2b2a3c568ba16bf
21458 F20101114_AAAPCE WildlifeSurvey_Page_59.pro
1961426f06efc1e66686debcd9c51046
9cf3684af9a41e33265d86640ef68f3c30593806
17527 F20101114_AAAPBQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_43.pro
78d83a139c7d4cc2e32eac5ce97fa2e7
5e446ce2e60f42584d26b5c578bc70cb972b73b0
F20101114_AAAOWK dawson_d_Page_59.tif
1bb162391c76498856a06e92bdef3764
bd455ee61f94e3486b8ef24621288f798840d957
F20101114_AAAOVW dawson_d_Page_40.tif
837634d8134d683fdf55758c27810afd
ab322318f71c1a6523953234551f34abcbf4f028
480 F20101114_AAAPCF dawson_d_Page_01.txt
c3685852f187e2cabab2f8a8aadb176a
9ecfccbce0a2d68edc69e1a993860bd780ff5c75
8878 F20101114_AAAPBR WildlifeSurvey_Page_44.pro
83eba492fcc188200d1455e264bac27d
dd970a446c91ce6e3de57d86daf8ec0bb4638349
F20101114_AAAOWL dawson_d_Page_61.tif
19e0326556cb08de6b6437dac6bf42a4
013cd0e753200b9290c1220a00ef799dab8f1c6e
F20101114_AAAOVX dawson_d_Page_42.tif
ad482476dd3a8ddde73f05522180ca11
5a1baa113aec336499f3ccf96d4ebccdb5390c86
894 F20101114_AAAPCG dawson_d_Page_04.txt
6eb4cd4c8a79e119d64b8ee16cbe83b8
399acc0cada6eb01be4553ed23fcc958ca20b020
F20101114_AAAOXA WildlifeSurvey_Page_13.tif
31218001d211a44d8228e5207402f7e9
b330832cf26dd716e3c5839adce97029b34e0c45
44247 F20101114_AAAPBS WildlifeSurvey_Page_46.pro
2d6c7103fdbcba00f508edb87b56f0e9
0caedb47c879afdb4051e19531f23ab5e462ce05
F20101114_AAAOWM dawson_d_Page_62.tif
9126b2df77c4d6f8d3c24e0f8cc47180
4b262ca382653888ea4b7610ba55c6522d1715b0
F20101114_AAAOVY dawson_d_Page_43.tif
b09b37d65b08569e090e8bcb16847b5f
479bbcbde03327631fcc22f24fbf6b54987f6a0d
3752 F20101114_AAAPCH dawson_d_Page_05.txt
8e6a5afb0582831746f245fd9c53afab
f70a509a6b81126c728fa054575d37b4b5693d76
F20101114_AAAOXB WildlifeSurvey_Page_14.tif
1770cb8d96d68471285ae6ca7b2ef894
cdd3c18c26937dd6fdae7cde49cd6e90cefbfb71
46902 F20101114_AAAPBT WildlifeSurvey_Page_47.pro
84fcf02f28ef0ec2bc1d5f5d733436dc
7199fd1160d09018bf5c6fe7829ffa80ca1404c2
F20101114_AAAOWN dawson_d_Page_63.tif
7c4728a0e1641c47c105462b882ae6de
72739edb98d30882938d2ecdbf4c06a060bc207c
F20101114_AAAOVZ dawson_d_Page_46.tif
622b5061ba73ffd2e2dfc9e173531dfd
a7cf025b1994f3199bcaf039200d8d03738c4d8c
2699 F20101114_AAAPCI dawson_d_Page_06.txt
7d21800cd18271579a4d4f08e1f8f3b3
a6fdcf9ebce99bab18eec9c96a0b28debc66fb9d
F20101114_AAAOXC WildlifeSurvey_Page_15.tif
484e5e8061f7c1772a56face12b65718
25f22e753401fe8fed3299113ef2c6f94228abf0
7218 F20101114_AAAPBU WildlifeSurvey_Page_48.pro
54325e7f4ab2f025c32fddb51f7e22bb
36e0862a4f35dc79e5b03b154ea242f17c88e9f4
F20101114_AAAOWO dawson_d_Page_64.tif
7272ea2a599b75ae67ca6c6fd25443cb
03e7b6931f09b4c2ce59b84c9f0273c40334c202
1199 F20101114_AAAPCJ dawson_d_Page_08.txt
6a1471b0b41afd93525679a111917609
44e0eb12e91a023fd849e31aa167097e48686f42
F20101114_AAAOXD WildlifeSurvey_Page_16.tif
70ac787ee79c9f135feee580dffa02dd
ccd1831e248ccaab51623a90f8aa06b89a420896
9845 F20101114_AAAPBV WildlifeSurvey_Page_49.pro
e76e1660171695d98635d9f8dbea1b06
56eaf014304f21fa94b3b3e0df2ef1ebb38bdad5
267 F20101114_AAAPCK dawson_d_Page_09.txt
9a7f80a4818fa50f6d4a40e073913aca
8dc9cdd85d0c306aef8c527135615e46dd7dab39
F20101114_AAAOXE WildlifeSurvey_Page_17.tif
b989c3068170136a358dd5350d8617ba
1f1359f457849d7c2a12a2d1cd917f45d3cadaa1
29293 F20101114_AAAPBW WildlifeSurvey_Page_50.pro
07cb769842ddcd2c45c3e1e5e4d690fd
04359eb8e73e4d8d3143c728b27a642f03a0b1ea
F20101114_AAAOWP dawson_d_Page_65.tif
1d81bf3db222e5e193fee0cd8e91079e
147a923393fb351c1c9db969788a5a91ce3f747d
2027 F20101114_AAAPCL dawson_d_Page_10.txt
0c5eb62912228b9f53de07d4252b7383
945e1e5f719620c5385626ef4216b9b38e9ca93d
F20101114_AAAOXF WildlifeSurvey_Page_18.tif
1327f6e569576d9e8262c171bd88614b
fc3daa5410d4959ebf8173166cafe817b68e6309
26979 F20101114_AAAPBX WildlifeSurvey_Page_51.pro
5b424421cb7dc1730b0251b8e29c7b76
f9a03498fb3ca16c4c3861d9837ed227b9b3af78
F20101114_AAAOWQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_02.tif
ae600a8f59241c59232f0f47d6d89e55
afc022479a704550e6f4d02cebdc54cc48c0342a
1949 F20101114_AAAPCM dawson_d_Page_14.txt
eb6644d2d9d16f3fb4044a9c6c854ce6
f80d7034fc2ce884851b447344f76b50f46ca245
F20101114_AAAOXG WildlifeSurvey_Page_20.tif
faf82b70c58025e401729d5b178c2b9c
caab2c591fdaeaddd17bf75da8fc62662ae0ce9c
45072 F20101114_AAAPBY WildlifeSurvey_Page_52.pro
706db9fb9f114a747ec41863143a2791
839b2f384ed92b4ed021b3cfbccfe3a94fa24680
F20101114_AAAOWR WildlifeSurvey_Page_03.tif
cf53be84a2be1f089e6a2edd16e6214e
96e62092f380ed0b50a35d2ea36caaf4fac6d3ad
2853 F20101114_AAAPDA dawson_d_Page_37.txt
decadd306cc8bcbcad0dbb49d681caac
3d22f8897b431143d4397523f3ce118f45a3be7f
2132 F20101114_AAAPCN dawson_d_Page_16.txt
a4ed71e79c33b034aef4de869129b285
ff95c33fdcd875b9bdf16aa0bc16af9b841566ef
F20101114_AAAOXH WildlifeSurvey_Page_21.tif
bc7a2dba71a83595e204cdbb1df58f7b
8baa93bb15c6c0ba261250f7ff721212efe878d0
F20101114_AAAOWS WildlifeSurvey_Page_04.tif
fcc018c3eb55059debc8d833ab9099c4
b4a00b9978818b5a83741c42cc3a98cfdc221f7c
3688 F20101114_AAAPDB dawson_d_Page_38.txt
1f162accc6c9c354029a0b69eedcd444
1e69a1134ce76c66ae07c10421c3eb3ef880f353
2190 F20101114_AAAPCO dawson_d_Page_18.txt
c539fb87225cbeda185d0d5b35c32b31
8d9eacc1222ddb2e07fbe14708385dfe7afebeca
F20101114_AAAOXI WildlifeSurvey_Page_22.tif
0448875c7e148b2fa15b6706e1781669
30e300f064c8fd1f0a67bb647c6f76e59b28ad03
18740 F20101114_AAAPBZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_53.pro
4464355f60e4a560896393b9a810a593
13a1fb3689e11b13304e5e60cd43ab694ca98f50
F20101114_AAAOWT WildlifeSurvey_Page_05.tif
ba6f6f02a7671563c7121e1521250553
a676c212a627f5522557713af6c586a68845f6a0
1975 F20101114_AAAPDC dawson_d_Page_41.txt
28eab61a6064cb174a08d656cb8042a9
e6d6d69a3d048fc26859f6a26c6fdd5193b56737
2226 F20101114_AAAPCP dawson_d_Page_19.txt
342fe7f754f78d9b1747d23b3ea5355f
c4d2b33168af483adf981c6444d719872d05db97
F20101114_AAAOXJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_23.tif
db16c6771a7bd9a942e01ba0aa4fc2ef
84acb7e2ba2846c4a94c2946e9cf3c6e788e8a27
F20101114_AAAOWU WildlifeSurvey_Page_06.tif
b8c875f26b9c1a2508aa6f7de1db7ce3
d26d1877e1ea428cddd02128831563daf4a00b5b
2249 F20101114_AAAPDD dawson_d_Page_42.txt
c457a01c9b8247408443ba2215ba9b87
99b44af420cb64746dfe8b905363c9ac2fbc7ff3
2194 F20101114_AAAPCQ dawson_d_Page_20.txt
869072c414a696becbc81d43f072efe5
cea07b75eab3a6ea9285bafaef6d0c2a3984bbea
F20101114_AAAOXK WildlifeSurvey_Page_24.tif
54f7bf7e2131c9961dd1efc80ceb336c
58fec9c72c66f5e28654ece202e8f6e75c712570
F20101114_AAAOWV WildlifeSurvey_Page_07.tif
374bbc208fada8b1da7ce2bee55b6bc7
31327e8e7ecc9953e117ab80de941816db112d70
2117 F20101114_AAAPDE dawson_d_Page_43.txt
becda3e35883679fce9eb2505e242dcf
7e0081e9176d75f6fba63b64f4e8490a85aeef26
2099 F20101114_AAAPCR dawson_d_Page_22.txt
3a3c20fdb2ba3f62c52197427f9815cb
9d4994fc3562185c0b0d6abcb1c442fae1964171
F20101114_AAAOXL WildlifeSurvey_Page_25.tif
f9c6acabd121e298cd0404b04844ee0b
303e30c65cf56533ec7bc41534bf7a57fb43ffeb
F20101114_AAAOWW WildlifeSurvey_Page_09.tif
c02d700d6222e7ec5defa772af92edc3
bd46cd8ab2ee5640441e4d79df50a3f30493601c
2188 F20101114_AAAPDF dawson_d_Page_44.txt
972fbf13425372394234ebcebd00ef01
22828055cbf13c373b72f515f419a4fd413a3bec
F20101114_AAAOYA WildlifeSurvey_Page_43.tif
a24d61b4373007e2a2eb1d4e9cadb5dc
1d3c6b8c2b653c463d719c1e749d591f479cc7ae
2149 F20101114_AAAPCS dawson_d_Page_24.txt
b47a53ddcbc9dad0ed2a4c2075b5aa5b
adf7892c723725f8e3a8e3311c1a53957e8227eb
F20101114_AAAOXM WildlifeSurvey_Page_26.tif
45bcda0256bb7e55638353ad733c234e
9aec18b373bc167cdcc730205334036cd204d6f8
F20101114_AAAOWX WildlifeSurvey_Page_10.tif
2a65211260af86baf81fc46cec040596
4f45d627857432d8a793e27ebcb0d29b7ee3c368
2067 F20101114_AAAPDG dawson_d_Page_45.txt
0b924eec03ddd43686ee14eb5516ddb6
feec9149320982cfa58a0007e5a0c769705d7a57
F20101114_AAAOYB WildlifeSurvey_Page_45.tif
6c076a2916879e34fa633ca0e1a588ca
378eef90b23b5443ef6f57ff002d5a62f9bfee5e
2120 F20101114_AAAPCT dawson_d_Page_26.txt
cf3c838c6cb2b2241a118f652154f114
c0bd5d63dde140438424724c94d4050f591c9f4b
F20101114_AAAOXN WildlifeSurvey_Page_27.tif
f3af92170407ee65156255001ad07635
33418a994bc50b9b1630dfd69c6e4e48bd465ee3
F20101114_AAAOWY WildlifeSurvey_Page_11.tif
9ebcb50bd9c3eee57481584691e038d7
0294d7949373371648a5df986380871fc100ad16
1923 F20101114_AAAPDH dawson_d_Page_46.txt
2285663a8702616c72c757f60e8a25f6
638a2b7674b6e1e890d14aa02a189f4872efdd62
F20101114_AAAOYC WildlifeSurvey_Page_49.tif
7340d933d144f35dfd268f137215935f
fc5cfd2507c6637656f49cc4e20e4d62425ad603
2216 F20101114_AAAPCU dawson_d_Page_27.txt
c0dfcf86a3f9a5509271b1740b85f78a
4c86f95b7a4d54910ce1b55522f6474a5d039263
F20101114_AAAOXO WildlifeSurvey_Page_28.tif
da935ca13dab1d258eea783ecea36a27
35466043512563ce82bd817336c9891d1875f601
F20101114_AAAOWZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_12.tif
e75bbe8261b5772f35c14dae0ddb3270
58ea0d2dc6c30d0be572b620cc736fd1999e40d9
1747 F20101114_AAAPDI dawson_d_Page_47.txt
3a61faeb33a22f08c7bc10ae3bca644a
e4a49bbb03e6bce8e6f87b4a72980aea4952b81b
F20101114_AAAOYD WildlifeSurvey_Page_50.tif
7ce88381f8811d7893f9666178b44719
81ccc9cc53b47e18e56203c705dc899568c36685
2332 F20101114_AAAPCV dawson_d_Page_28.txt
68ebc05e8272c443e3287d6782e4cb4b
bdda2ab9ac9377d3e4db68f461f06ba48e6c4a20
F20101114_AAAOXP WildlifeSurvey_Page_30.tif
c1ecfa9c203dae73d310bfb82df150de
5840efe2826c20f7f6ed08771370ea5bcfdb9ea3
2163 F20101114_AAAPDJ dawson_d_Page_50.txt
4ab70f7b3d2e143fb0052b4437479e5d
10f91d1ae4ed7833689475d6e937474eee4cd521
F20101114_AAAOYE WildlifeSurvey_Page_52.tif
3c67ab480e4f07112224f72dc487203b
7781abf7bce323a2e2bbed38a10d27bc8530844a
1675 F20101114_AAAPCW dawson_d_Page_29.txt
7d0516ee94e395baa9bd63d95ff8fb2f
8f448dd57ac32771d5dc33f5eb3013a39eab1baa
921 F20101114_AAAPDK dawson_d_Page_51.txt
f28e4d66406b904749519dedfc0879fb
1cdcc5299132beed4a637f79deae6200a9eda66c
F20101114_AAAOYF WildlifeSurvey_Page_53.tif
625814e31c7e83dfcee3540f5a8f5340
f813c2ad8b12d8715f1bd36eb175ca7c0a1c4ac0
477 F20101114_AAAPCX dawson_d_Page_31.txt
cce4788f3ef8d581f8a89c66ef376851
300b9bc58f68473e7bd8bd034025ef1cf94603b5
F20101114_AAAOXQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_32.tif
57fb5f71f0923227c1f8fd30487ccb96
5c5042df6e7e6c5f5cdf1300a5cf6c82987e638a
F20101114_AAAPDL dawson_d_Page_52.txt
e88905c769d00ff6a6c364641d3f4f9e
8748e90dbac410abe2e72f0102026c51d4076150
F20101114_AAAOYG WildlifeSurvey_Page_54.tif
e3db4685f0aa5fe96ced26e9af09f45a
a24e17381ebdb24d75d9a45142c97966a679872f
1744 F20101114_AAAPCY dawson_d_Page_34.txt
084088ffe9f1be57db935e1a1c84439e
9dcb09b430effbbaf63626a2e0dbd2e1a5af0189
F20101114_AAAOXR WildlifeSurvey_Page_34.tif
8bf0bacd1594b51c16026a0c1b94ffc7
ddf16d4143ecfc87b5d7e520b68c49de578c082d
3461 F20101114_AAAPEA WildlifeSurvey_Page_08.txt
4ba7673f7618f4c93ad1d665f6b51592
8a1f29fe368d10987628cd5688de99a268b749e5
575 F20101114_AAAPDM dawson_d_Page_53.txt
8086bc9bdd1547bd6b58e8abd1340bf5
7e6c47b6a424c357153af65630e76d428370c2f5
F20101114_AAAOYH WildlifeSurvey_Page_55.tif
85d24470b5ca3aaa19e74b8278ec9289
14fb6196257b12cc5a8cd0f1ab4bfe7ab746a597
2072 F20101114_AAAPCZ dawson_d_Page_35.txt
5f7be78c1555985f4b3862e23ed9a96b
2ddfa9f307d7d096e836bb15cc502a1724c616cd
F20101114_AAAOXS WildlifeSurvey_Page_35.tif
db9f92ad90a124d326113a0741d76ca6
83081e6ecc41729fa0989f291337ec2d76bdd5d1
3319 F20101114_AAAPEB WildlifeSurvey_Page_09.txt
eee36d90bb6af161d6b97d93b68e1f5b
f3e1b2b92cdff7351d4b76f576a0473a1f444c81
1715 F20101114_AAAPDN dawson_d_Page_54.txt
43bbcad332a54af4c8710193e7393338
d8fbf13ee1ed91eef6f883660d74f9a472610489
F20101114_AAAOYI WildlifeSurvey_Page_57.tif
9289b202fabd70ecb706d7e466aa5767
e2ea21bcb51c289d6b5464c5a83eaabaf841ab02
F20101114_AAAOXT WildlifeSurvey_Page_36.tif
a80553d2cbffc1ed124bd39cf79259b9
45718a6c03aa597920ae6a08395151e4fd63c55b
3250 F20101114_AAAPEC WildlifeSurvey_Page_10.txt
c378c0f1f89045ea82ba76f2ec4077f8
eca9054e91c6e51465872cd5ac08c57db0e86ab8
1759 F20101114_AAAPDO dawson_d_Page_55.txt
652e01e7713e5c7cf0a58d45b365ee32
00fbfcf529ec6988357685b4267a7de73058617f
F20101114_AAAOYJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_59.tif
34589d0976702eef8202b12b3dbb5413
24c883ad5bb94356c3d0c6f9a651f4cd98f95312
F20101114_AAAOXU WildlifeSurvey_Page_37.tif
0f1bbb0998ee777184398fb6d957f0f7
cfd765520018992990c98989f9ac81a2719cd5fa
3429 F20101114_AAAPED WildlifeSurvey_Page_11.txt
86b3cac90af22b3cfbc4a9c2de798f6f
a57a6fa74fec312b099ce7332871d9b1a29497d1
2940 F20101114_AAAPDP dawson_d_Page_56.txt
83abc0f42b4664237fafc70063c79b05
02ea846ae38df53096f388e72a6d527840740910
8268 F20101114_AAAOYK dawson_d_Page_01.pro
8ae877207356114ef0d8d008217de3b0
1236e594a3b0a586bd0d8a4427fc3974258dff8b
F20101114_AAAOXV WildlifeSurvey_Page_38.tif
abf38a2bb0aed9040da30dacea5b413a
98c177c10f092ab3de4ebd5ea0d4ab6bc432d88f
3460 F20101114_AAAPEE WildlifeSurvey_Page_12.txt
f3fb9d4bc4c2a29d4c9f7931df86f2b1
ca39163fd3e6f10eac3eabc63d7052e602405278
1120 F20101114_AAAPDQ dawson_d_Page_57.txt
510cc289ab6d0c53d062a1b68987a8f0
b7da718e8820b59aa61da793742a2872fb89afc2
1304 F20101114_AAAOYL dawson_d_Page_02.pro
b28059d236ca2d005aadb6e84169886c
2308c39aae0a0bb55163a9534b2e10bbf79e00a6
F20101114_AAAOXW WildlifeSurvey_Page_39.tif
83bbd3c7de31f1de9f6b397b9f2c89d6
9bcb61e8b13b49a7473ad26eb98960a117f4148c
3622 F20101114_AAAPEF WildlifeSurvey_Page_13.txt
1f22eafb6a5cc6336b485ad733a1a4bf
9dc0732a506217b5263382522eddbd4014304c05
2404 F20101114_AAAPDR dawson_d_Page_60.txt
86a89661f87b3ccdd452a4ffd70fb9bc
052fe5c6be003d5c57f423e654983276280f84b8
4409 F20101114_AAAOYM dawson_d_Page_03.pro
a3fdbd14417a5e390cd40577c072d7a6
f70f544a10a0352b6474b7e77de26682be346f09
F20101114_AAAOXX WildlifeSurvey_Page_40.tif
0b2c81391093679a08cd98fda39a808a
ab5432697262fb3c11bd9f259b00f34ef5b12267
4081 F20101114_AAAPEG WildlifeSurvey_Page_14.txt
96fa617fbe0249772698863287f752bb
6e231e9da9e4a2135ccb4e948f6b38917056c850
53743 F20101114_AAAOZA dawson_d_Page_24.pro
44b17a3abbab6c86cd3d3e1a33af8c9b
6dc14694a16c1a97a44c03a29975dc575cb59c5b
2486 F20101114_AAAPDS dawson_d_Page_64.txt
f443b1ad17bd54ae355df0fb60a669b3
abaa5dc0851e2189240576aa881a9ceacec6da52
21534 F20101114_AAAOYN dawson_d_Page_04.pro
b0a732b90c27ec28f56b02a68b8d0b2f
7848008d280b683f9a52fdd5ee2728e56425ba9e
F20101114_AAAOXY WildlifeSurvey_Page_41.tif
0ce0775c095c8bdadad74c410a0e5a67
9202dd604a95c3ff0fdea29dda5a41ec986f1e1e
4301 F20101114_AAAPEH WildlifeSurvey_Page_15.txt
27d26ba59c0b2705699418c9866d8cac
300023ded6870439d55b1797bb6462f1daf6b268
53955 F20101114_AAAOZB dawson_d_Page_26.pro
90d5c238c49a23171c07be4704840037
8567c9ddfcf33f0c4398e591cfefbcb2baecd54d
1642 F20101114_AAAPDT dawson_d_Page_65.txt
de75a3ecbc7b8fa8f19e2ba410897d6a
ea93d962e1cd2fa883a24e58e19ed9dd5a142cea
90210 F20101114_AAAOYO dawson_d_Page_05.pro
aa070028ab5085fbde67d5e0da0218f1
76ddac672fa18b73f7c3d6ce03ab3ab22c23c3b4
F20101114_AAAOXZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_42.tif
6ccd4455ec039498af9b5a651106f8b8
0baa01c7d5c97945ca23c79510225c6d3f6c8a21
2781 F20101114_AAAPEI WildlifeSurvey_Page_16.txt
1fafdee9e1f7537c8f561026d684cc0d
33a165d6c12ac48dd5593167a0dbf9db6dcb22ad
56446 F20101114_AAAOZC dawson_d_Page_27.pro
3ba7bafb9ddd719b2d0727c81d4cf76b
99374ed87d6d76b64fddce69b01891165ddfa4f9
723 F20101114_AAAPDU dawson_d_Page_66.txt
41c9844067c6ef97f445315d13d5a6ca
ab2a1674a2f3193473d500224a839e5d9c4be638
58920 F20101114_AAAOYP dawson_d_Page_07.pro
f81baaaf03bd2ac369e0af1ba7c22927
4b64725a4abc15bfbd76b7e6e50df2e95dddf0ac
2545 F20101114_AAAPEJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_18.txt
e4d394c8052aae6786c073e453435f02
25a631e546e0a303b5489b99c073066d41f5171a
42168 F20101114_AAAOZD dawson_d_Page_29.pro
1c58eb0392955fdf7374b17bd027b1f5
842de34a832b817957df7c95696cd15fe8f31142
445 F20101114_AAAPDV WildlifeSurvey_Page_01.txt
e9b62fc13d6015c5272e083f87f44912
2160858f801197bc83abdd6511d7357fe51ecff9
28380 F20101114_AAAOYQ dawson_d_Page_08.pro
4b88a469a5873deed8f1d971d9ac023e
39b2efdb76f21a9ba6ca37a0e42b479afdab6309
2107 F20101114_AAAPEK WildlifeSurvey_Page_19.txt
17e9b3030e04d4eeeafc616ddd981e42
455d6e0a8f12d19e874520c3cdd58249a9e192ba
8575 F20101114_AAAOZE dawson_d_Page_31.pro
5272eb28a0a98e8fe34528c0c43f4e2e
e7be6573ef7098ed6ff5ec959058ae5a7c343ced
2616 F20101114_AAAPDW WildlifeSurvey_Page_02.txt
509f688fe63c203835c4260ebc2735ba
7b748c56f87a6b78140e9e754ebf53df73416831
605 F20101114_AAAPEL WildlifeSurvey_Page_20.txt
fa8e84be30f72c2cae50e6e2689243ae
e4b5b6d66a3296041463ad458c6decff65d0281d
63366 F20101114_AAAOZF dawson_d_Page_32.pro
acf4fdea0ca5aa3e66609b09c9d062cc
1d2da48eb77edd6965718a7860cf337711d56620
3542 F20101114_AAAPDX WildlifeSurvey_Page_03.txt
6476afc6efc7a1a442597f28f5c0ca60
b817f840469b73aa0ccd6bc54ed18efa6832c746
46215 F20101114_AAAOYR dawson_d_Page_10.pro
524e7fa43de7a5810f3125f8614e1a2a
b8734f0dc536f316b248fb47eaa3f14995ceb159
1611 F20101114_AAAPFA WildlifeSurvey_Page_41.txt
0209ad5e7eb20b8ae1617f37dd7a4a29
ac3a094e9038f4c7cb2b3b323c10d44757cb0d6b
2668 F20101114_AAAPEM WildlifeSurvey_Page_26.txt
1ae3f46cc9f44958ed40532bfad66a40
97acd1c6936ab5df1238d2e0118320d0d1df474c
39249 F20101114_AAAOZG dawson_d_Page_34.pro
bad22ec71e929bec69bc3869c0d2482c
0f07ed64935c7d290d1afedd4507d4f7c9121963
2515 F20101114_AAAPDY WildlifeSurvey_Page_04.txt
a5bdd3b2406ee123e1114c23695016a6
74b5d2ff968ce6e69a5e8f72e269da8fd74fc775
53623 F20101114_AAAOYS dawson_d_Page_12.pro
d25bd5101ab5eae411967ad5f09aad7b
90e108cb980360bce955021c017e49b727a2d86c
1384 F20101114_AAAPFB WildlifeSurvey_Page_42.txt
1b39f51d6c1e76fa1708f06b6219a31b
b1e04568fec97d48b1aed38e5490fba7f2b2402e
384 F20101114_AAAPEN WildlifeSurvey_Page_28.txt
0b48b6b195a8b32d708c4acaadba7c0a
bf184bdd21b5b3d720cd6878ee64d158b81bc332
71916 F20101114_AAAOZH dawson_d_Page_36.pro
713a15fc0341b010b8d1e6ecb8845cda
3f4bf2f89c8fceeeadf4c83c72528e788348b004
3588 F20101114_AAAPDZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_05.txt
03a3201afd40174fb97880d720281b48
affb64f4361b0f42f3b95b5ca7107a1cedb8c7f7
414 F20101114_AAAPFC WildlifeSurvey_Page_44.txt
3c3a1d18d382dd81a33a99da060c82de
751ebe61248559d34750458702688be82f9ceea8
2207 F20101114_AAAPEO WildlifeSurvey_Page_29.txt
f2fda3013c89cb09ef20064850c4b01c
557b0ec7486d28ee353919c32ebb64eb3afc8922
44604 F20101114_AAAOZI dawson_d_Page_37.pro
ceaba343b268bc806883f84c636d73c1
63fcb0968a47e33827b0898a2b24abfad66a758b
57291 F20101114_AAAOYT dawson_d_Page_13.pro
f0d73b13c2e9a01be6890d0181933ec9
a67c1051d2c99578d65db99400405443b6252083
1864 F20101114_AAAPFD WildlifeSurvey_Page_45.txt
afd32024b747a389ecca3a7664e2d590
b1d3ca3f74242c71ace73cdb36132cec91ec298f
1670 F20101114_AAAPEP WildlifeSurvey_Page_30.txt
3e747d38522126c7e6cd63b8fa0bbb4b
1eaf4958105f0d59e89b3dd41c76e56d0cc2ba19
78224 F20101114_AAAOZJ dawson_d_Page_38.pro
613f2d1a5979add9ce73d5190a14bbf4
d4180879d3b54aa7b60cefcc39cf68bce257b8fe
49444 F20101114_AAAOYU dawson_d_Page_14.pro
fff965627b703d5183dad24e0746f27d
bd7717766775428758a5b14ce3272e4a34aa5cd6
1932 F20101114_AAAPFE WildlifeSurvey_Page_46.txt
98c742f82e0bd1207a8ff661ab573ca5
b39f15651a3267ec27fdd22b87916f2d185b09b9
1368 F20101114_AAAPEQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_31.txt
a6a368fc7fe520409f5ebd925e09889e
66a0c541d7ed0c1284ccab918e8c22302b4a0d46
6651 F20101114_AAAOZK dawson_d_Page_39.pro
b6a7e08134f02740d5c99e5c9bf15215
37ce24a78e7a97b24595804186df40f9981baeb3
47163 F20101114_AAAOYV dawson_d_Page_15.pro
b74e2681b0e42be5d38669b923a5ad9b
59fa093d27ddc900be25c99a7d4871f4f76d994f
2503 F20101114_AAAPFF WildlifeSurvey_Page_47.txt
a6230b81cee2cd1e766ca7dbc00bd089
2c3945f65f3a9545c9eee512e4fcae28129c03ea
1600 F20101114_AAAPER WildlifeSurvey_Page_32.txt
84aeedd8f00280af869dc6f4295417d1
fe9c883408cfa8ca280ece8597bbc471895ee89a
52456 F20101114_AAAOZL dawson_d_Page_40.pro
a3d310b7546173f0184b29b6a7109376
7e891e3e03d6a008d4161b90271fecb10cf2ba7b
58221 F20101114_AAAOYW dawson_d_Page_17.pro
24f8d5c7be2867325419b1cc382f6b1a
21d4365c8f99da66c9487ee9152356eddc207da9
369 F20101114_AAAPFG WildlifeSurvey_Page_48.txt
048e00b7bc8fcba053d22aa9d6ded1be
7cd246b3a499cf1f469487d28eb631e4fd9732df
1283 F20101114_AAAPES WildlifeSurvey_Page_33.txt
98e3dfa909967c2acea8afc4594d60b6
3567e1141f2c98f8a2d4d462f47c36c0406f293d
48635 F20101114_AAAOZM dawson_d_Page_41.pro
3eb3149bb0ec6d6e436a025c4f204e94
be1489da194ab7a7734c3ed5c164ba2ce4f2ffd0
56999 F20101114_AAAOYX dawson_d_Page_19.pro
1f9a62d9643372912564c8810eb7ebd0
d2510e0062e8c46ec91e30f8aa6d6526607d9861
415 F20101114_AAAPFH WildlifeSurvey_Page_49.txt
b5f7249af21978771f3ec063499cea83
5eeabfb32dae0f26e4559f3d5ca9783fe648f754
1514 F20101114_AAAPET WildlifeSurvey_Page_34.txt
caccfd87a90df0038da5e19602b2a3b6
f27f4d8feaf833807e11d4eafa275f0157a05b54
53908 F20101114_AAAOZN dawson_d_Page_43.pro
ee371deacab63c001d92c3a3cb31a88a
3226a32a20dccecb9a863449939267b32da7dd1e
56206 F20101114_AAAOYY dawson_d_Page_20.pro
3d4bef59d57978fef19b20cbff2af153
31aca924c9d969d93a92246f3db8323a8e135c3b
1591 F20101114_AAAPFI WildlifeSurvey_Page_50.txt
6dcb95d7a734017399683e6e5cd73bbf
16c89799673f282b519537473174fe2650773cde
1575 F20101114_AAAPEU WildlifeSurvey_Page_35.txt
5807517ff033bcb567abd5c24f3ee07e
cb5f8230c5fd6cb31c1f1fc32121023b41f40e5b
55724 F20101114_AAAOZO dawson_d_Page_44.pro
2daf9e439ab0891bae23600371f6c931
e28cb223b0182f79cdf7cbf315c1fb39accc369a
52515 F20101114_AAAOYZ dawson_d_Page_21.pro
5d98822ffbb7b8022785287520606c14
6c4ce1e69d4e6fa9ac9d65731448959e23cf4f42
1876 F20101114_AAAPFJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_51.txt
55fb6758c76313c464736a3293c5d602
a72e9b0b2c9fe36a176a85f9f0432012909a8957
1961 F20101114_AAAPEV WildlifeSurvey_Page_36.txt
ffad9864059aef2fa0cacf3628e682e2
d61a59cca009fedf24d9b21f85428047c2e45921
52366 F20101114_AAAOZP dawson_d_Page_45.pro
6ba73e15f0d9b195196f40fd5c9bec98
665e443b63b989d35d2cd9aa99a934b5cd28fb69
1115 F20101114_AAAPFK WildlifeSurvey_Page_53.txt
9e7b7276729628a70b32e0af0b09bb4d
516794bdb300cbfb2e1229bae71d859e3b3ea34d
2473 F20101114_AAAPEW WildlifeSurvey_Page_37.txt
ff6a7c4070f1488ba8fac1a72da67db6
d26cc118ffdee62760a2a5d2bc93007de1f68bde
48439 F20101114_AAAOZQ dawson_d_Page_46.pro
82f55e7715044573415035a3b6deeb3d
c9c340edca26183b19292a66f622b0858088e993
534 F20101114_AAAPFL WildlifeSurvey_Page_54.txt
94336e38f01e25c189a189759e979dc6
fc0d5208ab2f1dc66fab1482c4ac20834e280800
2204 F20101114_AAAPEX WildlifeSurvey_Page_38.txt
6f2790f2b3c0642e657e248564477673
bd91b7ccbb4886b81d439f8e762904c3a35309a5
42699 F20101114_AAAOZR dawson_d_Page_47.pro
0787a19d3314686927cea63604cb7304
e8eaeec8fd697a31a64ce352ba7ac16002859630
1963 F20101114_AAAPFM WildlifeSurvey_Page_55.txt
b7d58decf705a631232d478546eaa86b
6bd4a315ac547524948f6e9d96700b2d55cb3476
1043 F20101114_AAAPEY WildlifeSurvey_Page_39.txt
3c0488295d5d2bf041e2fee7ef617fb3
60d9df3571326353905f57ff3a4e6112c6d5c004
5385 F20101114_AAAPGA dawson_d_Page_06thm.jpg
c676fcff15cb3944750b7a1a3202cf73
1d356c78800c7713f26eab4c07de1039a9126ed6
1730 F20101114_AAAPFN WildlifeSurvey_Page_57.txt
d33dd97bcbd9eea8ac28ba63e16d069d
91d5efd7679516f35af6d55e92838b320a9539d6
1520 F20101114_AAAPEZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_40.txt
06dbb9d744dd985c182960a80c77179a
8bf4f8ba79a35bc161e6f7d959d223220d3d17dc
56950 F20101114_AAAOZS dawson_d_Page_49.pro
205d40f8007f98c4a46f695781b3d375
b9221b93cf24f6ee074492edcb154ce771b2e9ed
30732 F20101114_AAAPGB dawson_d_Page_07.QC.jpg
53ebe377eda426f09dff4b899b24678d
88c41b6e93eac915cbd71e5e108e8d79f4845209
1644 F20101114_AAAPFO WildlifeSurvey_Page_58.txt
e29ecb27ec3c059634c7f3a60a2740c8
65acb0a45c58d1acb5029ea6cc3d22e1451f0dbb
55138 F20101114_AAAOZT dawson_d_Page_50.pro
dbaa6cf4dcf4534a47a4d5e05cf77a83
038be421b17c43f97f133d3bdc89c02b31c45175
7597 F20101114_AAAPGC dawson_d_Page_07thm.jpg
6b80a3fc6c407fa0f20538d5e121e78d
e5b5236aa9ca77cffe6320fb676c694d07d1d163
1429 F20101114_AAAPFP WildlifeSurvey_Page_59.txt
9bf182714528053a9101f30baee9fd04
7800ab709caf96af83e19612b280d1b96e4bf69c
2857 F20101114_AAAOZU dawson_d_Page_52.pro
97c7a9431c15406241c95375e214427a
ca36373229b7ec6d27c79dddc29d08b1f7d29896
4459 F20101114_AAAPGD dawson_d_Page_09.QC.jpg
52a116d61b95e5c7ebf243f50a3a9b2d
7b36ac754f131b955df1f50153c505add9f6a225
2013 F20101114_AAAPFQ dawson_d_Page_01thm.jpg
0c38507a3ff710527e55e4da286f182e
69ee8b4047c25e0730ddfcc245a2ab3e5a87246e
11233 F20101114_AAAOZV dawson_d_Page_53.pro
d29e126c937aef33c46924c74ed6a51b
230a52360fe37dff068ce928555ab29194cb94b0
30022 F20101114_AAAPGE dawson_d_Page_10.QC.jpg
d7a9027cc1d2419a144c9fc61fb91531
c7b5e29cf0409459a498f428c25b24e8f4e3f036
39720 F20101114_AAAOZW dawson_d_Page_55.pro
230035b1464849057c55a3f51370324d
61cbe02621b74b637b190c9ab4ed578c18259faf
7733 F20101114_AAAPGF dawson_d_Page_10thm.jpg
6f8a6db43f0377b059776c97a2bab99d
f387c85e122eaf9d24598b4ba7b45bfd4e4fca1c
8169 F20101114_AAAPFR dawson_d_Page_01.QC.jpg
bdec63e2bf1468c52cb20d0411eebfcd
7087afb811079028b0b096a49ee5c474cd52240b
59980 F20101114_AAAOZX dawson_d_Page_56.pro
94e29e0fdd4bbe005029e2c6bbf71cf8
4508f005d14b4344af76b468b5fe1312f1bcdbea
26473 F20101114_AAAPGG dawson_d_Page_11.QC.jpg
26bbd5a23737ea410a74ca9fd0bcabeb
69ddbf4daab5261d4454816f81e38b18fe6bedc7
1768 F20101114_AAAPFS dawson_d_Page_02.QC.jpg
9cf584a8c9d2a82215a85344020d4082
5ace48e59b48e2ac9be24cf1c146c9d87e324f27
27319 F20101114_AAAOZY dawson_d_Page_57.pro
c39b578d447bf556a938049085e8460c
4ebb06c4fb8cd93f60e1d98503e5d4c3829272d5
6470 F20101114_AAAPGH dawson_d_Page_11thm.jpg
043b35a8eda6c3886a21565a5b239300
8b741c15af85e18684fd578af391750dbc625350
3628 F20101114_AAAPFT dawson_d_Page_03.QC.jpg
3a017ad616bc2b0d8c82bdaa5f9634a3
58dbdd570e7b60de334b79781daf9e1b454b5fe4
39166 F20101114_AAAOZZ dawson_d_Page_58.pro
acd827a82b43514301f2711709138fae
8705f323023ab895c9c16d84b81581309ebd6fee
33150 F20101114_AAAPGI dawson_d_Page_14.QC.jpg
3d4f5b3aa5fa009e1262833927f8bc8d
504ad991a8f673d343066fe30055c82a3f478246
1228 F20101114_AAAPFU dawson_d_Page_03thm.jpg
2d2bde11f132f2efe3224db82c49f632
e3fdb21932279d5125b613b8aad2168935735819
31123 F20101114_AAAPGJ dawson_d_Page_15.QC.jpg
855c96724c645b3af8605bb645e48257
a044d4255d1a4ac203d3c63fb1e16bebee0a315f
15366 F20101114_AAAPFV dawson_d_Page_04.QC.jpg
380fc81bc4e4eddd7fec26f0a8348c0b
43b7ee5b6524c740e088300122e70a84f02c3d9e
8031 F20101114_AAAPGK dawson_d_Page_15thm.jpg
61c53f1faf99be854e1465ab11324c27
45da903bd5e1d7f2a308f5cd85ef89398e61359c
3914 F20101114_AAAPFW dawson_d_Page_04thm.jpg
2e7e86df0e6c92e6929bfe58436e7665
1173d8f628630791d942dd466630b4b7031b9b9e
35139 F20101114_AAAPGL dawson_d_Page_16.QC.jpg
d0bfe9c0dd7815bdb63a4ebafb3859c0
dc29b72f74095eec3f5d49398de541e394e9e906
25053 F20101114_AAAPFX dawson_d_Page_05.QC.jpg
781c4385f8b6a0c114bc1037bb95cdc9
53e03a521dbe867ec3586703c9f9a501d6bf0c45
9128 F20101114_AAAPHA dawson_d_Page_27thm.jpg
6a5895d6ee7c49b6485c3dfcbe4ec1d6
3eb91c9e72564ae1eb62c504ff778e0a6ff81f52
8929 F20101114_AAAPGM dawson_d_Page_16thm.jpg
658a3d4f974347e2552aa22e66cfe848
13ad5fa6e01ec89f8b8a8d266d1f5783730f7855
6439 F20101114_AAAPFY dawson_d_Page_05thm.jpg
f76cf78ffe16388c59d4e8c19bdf44be
71e3989c6430cd30f09a339be86fc66e76508f93
39295 F20101114_AAAPHB dawson_d_Page_28.QC.jpg
17ef96901ae767b8f70d187025919e80
bcd92cc42161eb3ba30fe0959cc98fdc7f0f89d5
38702 F20101114_AAAPGN dawson_d_Page_17.QC.jpg
edf73d8d7061c3a87ef49ea4844823bc
a17053f285efed45221e7d087fc65b23b5a6e012
21192 F20101114_AAAPFZ dawson_d_Page_06.QC.jpg
c46335ac6787bfe0446a29bdd054d10c
003da6e0447c109d242df67fd6800babb3fd3157
9420 F20101114_AAAPHC dawson_d_Page_28thm.jpg
fe4151b7bef7709950326fbf0efbdceb
1899fcaa4138302e8c26ee1437e5c3213c355ef0
9400 F20101114_AAAPGO dawson_d_Page_17thm.jpg
1fc4422b9036cc9bc77c8de0bcf897e2
bb434109a795d4b226055403c765724fb456b6ec
27855 F20101114_AAAPHD dawson_d_Page_29.QC.jpg
f1276249113b5369e5692e135833c11e
985d55dd0ef2bff0a5649fd2dd6338187d0081ae
8746 F20101114_AAAPGP dawson_d_Page_18thm.jpg
f30314892e11d07bab95a8623b859f64
66ececbe9d75b942726c2c76404296617f38b041
6943 F20101114_AAAPHE dawson_d_Page_29thm.jpg
4c9a33f6157c88227eb8171ab2739372
d766e532224f44b5bd396a5672aece7ad77d051f
37388 F20101114_AAAPGQ dawson_d_Page_19.QC.jpg
4c98917fa1d418b89768dfc83f8f64e5
6920160278a187f7a9ae6ac4816a35ba577769c8
40940 F20101114_AAAPHF dawson_d_Page_30.QC.jpg
289ea4592e0cb73e97d1c97ec355c10e
949cfe4b533f16ebc5c75911ef7caf1cde38e870
37291 F20101114_AAAPGR dawson_d_Page_20.QC.jpg
2219636605e8fe59fd995045adbaffdd
1bf695e401205e3feb01d310829f246350e9be7b
10911 F20101114_AAAPHG dawson_d_Page_31.QC.jpg
4204a7d4985010baab7ea60ccfe98366
77bdff4630c2d005b67c3f1c31b42c55e1b5dea2
34769 F20101114_AAAPGS dawson_d_Page_21.QC.jpg
0ef49d8cdd14347ba78d12281690d1e6
358cb4965b82118b6459656a5ab88dd3bdd27b6a
6840 F20101114_AAAPHH dawson_d_Page_32thm.jpg
8aab65fa9e8059b9461090782c129320
b0fc2ecce8f9bf80ea5a757555ae82c4361a9be7
8331 F20101114_AAAPGT dawson_d_Page_21thm.jpg
2d7688aa63922d4f847017e200f42aa8
e55d3ac7157da100c102d7bdfbd1c2723f183e25
29385 F20101114_AAAPHI dawson_d_Page_33.QC.jpg
993579f7406a79ad2925c4dafcf70f93
e8561ef4851bddb0fd48ad6cbf04b0b74979f989
34987 F20101114_AAAPGU dawson_d_Page_23.QC.jpg
791a655d7a089fc71cd320a680e8a8b0
dd84d98be9722d45d453c3d02e1bc144c5d61c66
7215 F20101114_AAAPHJ dawson_d_Page_33thm.jpg
b817c68dedaaa23aee5a61ef5fb78c04
92df74fa8ffd6cae5669d91636421de8242915d2
35680 F20101114_AAAPGV dawson_d_Page_24.QC.jpg
72deb2818b869a9e276177569c5c131f
404733b30c9c8d687463a4deca8190d85fb80bbc
23629 F20101114_AAAPHK dawson_d_Page_34.QC.jpg
f5472dc8c94d60e62d35e8c2f996297a
eca9517c1bb96a986237fe4d9ef5b7204cdb38f6
35807 F20101114_AAAPGW dawson_d_Page_25.QC.jpg
90f22e0e3fea1c44b801059dbb517635
bbef240a9281741359899a50b78acf78577aec67
28527 F20101114_AAAPHL dawson_d_Page_35.QC.jpg
19479efa823cfdfbf1e205a3800569f9
fa41da4dceaba6e5c87652f0b482172bfad48df7
9219 F20101114_AAAPGX dawson_d_Page_25thm.jpg
82a353aac2de870963501e5420bcca8c
39279a9ee366429751bab17b3925576cb1df13a4
27225 F20101114_AAAPHM dawson_d_Page_36.QC.jpg
617bd262c6a6a42ba75a65183c6339f6
127099be5d8a65910e850484b4e348f83c073f5f
8745 F20101114_AAAPGY dawson_d_Page_26thm.jpg
2cc8697c21df6b497a9bf4e7a0ddb505
d98ec775f039a8ce809fead96729d4fa5c9477d3
34918 F20101114_AAAPIA dawson_d_Page_45.QC.jpg
359dcaa2ae796359d1030e0bc04cc1af
ec50adf20491404307c36691662898a36aa3b560
6579 F20101114_AAAPHN dawson_d_Page_36thm.jpg
0697882c7a9a91a4a4d56cd3eaab670e
aca3feaf79d26f75153e19ab475cf040c685b4ae
37042 F20101114_AAAPGZ dawson_d_Page_27.QC.jpg
a22280d5a73ec186b55617c32f1cb462
e31ba9d7fc92b2372527154855ea3e36d9c8f180
8414 F20101114_AAAPIB dawson_d_Page_45thm.jpg
9240db38a4c0d26c6be1410a476f04b1
130b818d9a94f0df8a5b8ddea5841a7f25d64683
12835 F20101114_AAAPHO dawson_d_Page_37.QC.jpg
786fa14b43075ac192d34bcb2f0fbaa1
babf9bfb8ec6e5e951951e7c83d5c66001941eee
10690 F20101114_AAAOFA WildlifeSurvey_Page_14thm.jpg
8d2ca8dcd86bc7356483acf0a742c025
3fc76211d750b3a3e2e0afe79e34d9d6b6aee095
32824 F20101114_AAAPIC dawson_d_Page_46.QC.jpg
97ec0251589d8873638504475a2d5b26
a6a7af3df01482fd3301833a21dc1289db74918b
29753 F20101114_AAAPHP dawson_d_Page_38.QC.jpg
74c99d222d034150289131a30ec3f14b
cd5e18942b30ea3e5ac186088363b2cbc5c9a460
122450 F20101114_AAAOFB dawson_d_Page_19.jp2
9d5bf0be3d3bb8d91dc6c36bef076aa1
e77e8335ded0f77b4157bb0d3518ed20f29fc059
7787 F20101114_AAAPID dawson_d_Page_46thm.jpg
6183c376faebbf35af9811cac08a1920
c823f86615af80f95df23d7c46cc54f2f8b0cd6e
7069 F20101114_AAAPHQ dawson_d_Page_38thm.jpg
9b5b5e0122a32878d0d2af4741744d4e
b5bb991f1f08eb9e0b1f2abad8d5c6cfd8cf43a3
2540 F20101114_AAAOFC dawson_d_Page_61.txt
5423d58ceab3609f120590116910b248
854faf39c91f965fa88db66daba3610e5f7184ea
28086 F20101114_AAAPIE dawson_d_Page_47.QC.jpg
bfaba84aab5e70444c628962f2b613c5
ff94d417a70d8a962836d68b18196272c2f34030
4780 F20101114_AAAPHR dawson_d_Page_39.QC.jpg
ce5d43e9b8383fd68ca6c2387cea233c
fa168b46fe41b3351e2155b1f8f9b4e9cceaf2c8
F20101114_AAAOFD dawson_d_Page_48.txt
b2db40a0e014ae9788303733111c8f29
dd357f4b94b3176fc19e0cffafeecb3995ff2536
7177 F20101114_AAAPIF dawson_d_Page_47thm.jpg
1182f59964aaf7e0cf65cbc8a4d2f79a
09bfe525a7df73491556891b6fa42ce3c46cf915
1356 F20101114_AAAPHS dawson_d_Page_39thm.jpg
df88bf16c02c9652c238d8a1492fd5df
e6eed7f5b25a1d49f6fea3f851aa77dea7417b6f
2109 F20101114_AAAOFE dawson_d_Page_21.txt
2c0c500636feb88873583bddb7478398
32fab7bdf165197fe084976c387f678579519b35
31808 F20101114_AAAPIG dawson_d_Page_48.QC.jpg
8a210b353a7e77f8f31b2f60a267a06e
186621b14afe2d6b6e973f1a00b4d9e49885af37
36454 F20101114_AAAPHT dawson_d_Page_40.QC.jpg
e4b0a6974f0c78ed57ddfcdc56c88408
91377dd1120c7fdd6e55c1be03eef5a342f05567
3876 F20101114_AAAOFF WildlifeSurvey_Page_42thm.jpg
bf958237c04b4076100606c969cd3583
618315a6159dcf74721afe504cf03be987d18a52
7701 F20101114_AAAPIH dawson_d_Page_48thm.jpg
4fb78bcfdc1e20e3c8d1143d28f3cd64
8caf25d78a29d8446cf7ab313f852d2345665d20
8833 F20101114_AAAPHU dawson_d_Page_40thm.jpg
af69b0e31c84fae564c3269675037216
ce586755af9ec8089deebfb05140812f099cbeae
2592 F20101114_AAAOFG WildlifeSurvey_Page_25.txt
a3c863c899f236ff1c769e316e1eb5b2
8a957668b9007155a70292d2df880e2592ff2380
38008 F20101114_AAAPII dawson_d_Page_49.QC.jpg
306fa17117dd9d8a89d897b6e8b523a9
999ce42352bec6a067940af88e205227353a4478
F20101114_AAAOET WildlifeSurvey_Page_01.tif
43eb7ce89851138d483a5da6f766dbd3
23cd5fac2b3f1e97f8c9f4e2e580ced97c2c6aff
33599 F20101114_AAAPHV dawson_d_Page_41.QC.jpg
7796ee6c53fca73eeb4165b6d5c9626f
e3543ce37388f8329608be25ac10d026d0f214dd
F20101114_AAAOFH dawson_d_Page_60.tif
04d92f86465051be325bb185fddf7625
d68dc4ecb52fa2736d0e52a17802d1720bbcb985
9100 F20101114_AAAPIJ dawson_d_Page_49thm.jpg
80d9128f3baae7e78a47e8272100f2d0
901d4d69a283864309078b5df1e7d5e70e9e5ce9
F20101114_AAAOEU dawson_d_Page_32.tif
cc3ee580455fddc19ee65d47143b844a
3e26fac66d71d0f7095d77fd2ecfdc585dc80242
8305 F20101114_AAAPHW dawson_d_Page_41thm.jpg
9daff1a63b4f5bdf81141eee98c99f14
c50dbc0186fe28eff42fa1c5eaad974139c7736a
34980 F20101114_AAAOFI WildlifeSurvey_Page_53.jp2
4283b0aaf671612db2a529c9f40ec273
265407357ee26cbf8610f64cf4aad1d8cc6fd1e8
36737 F20101114_AAAPIK dawson_d_Page_50.QC.jpg
f7567459225a2064c01b742c7cdf2c9f
e8cde1497acfaa2aaff224fb5fa5485b22bfcd38
34807 F20101114_AAAPJA dawson_d_Page_60.QC.jpg
63db43182ad9f6487f4040243fe29c0d
87dc7b7d76ef525e339dd7af4745b4798c9b510e
29463 F20101114_AAAOEV WildlifeSurvey_Page_30.pro
20615c3327944302e066993c4b3acbd8
b9eb901ea9638c8902498b1aa10d70d02ea44a25
39006 F20101114_AAAPHX dawson_d_Page_42.QC.jpg
efc604a1a1c4dfd9913914fc8ca7ca66
1c80091f683acbeca76af2ad9ea831b437734f04
3894 F20101114_AAAOFJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_41thm.jpg
e0e37f5bd71e5be65fd55f84018e14a1
a1f362fca621781437b4b8a10459dc6a3e733bc0
9078 F20101114_AAAPIL dawson_d_Page_50thm.jpg
617f3db0af18ad27052e981a1cac5400
5c77382b091b37b35043bd1f410c6d5b928fe283
2062 F20101114_AAAOEW dawson_d_Page_25.txt
dd36f41c2580db4867f4dc1a80d4e632
0c985afc50e56c16e0487b300dcf08232d78348a
35442 F20101114_AAAPHY dawson_d_Page_43.QC.jpg
e367e1ed3ebd3b49250b2d15eb36443c
76412e32109c854c85cf2505a0d73b36b672b370
9199 F20101114_AAAOFK WildlifeSurvey_Page_12thm.jpg
11b1fac49290305e28a13d4b65295177
92ce45b6e5f4a0bd3839dfa6b152b58d1466622e
17084 F20101114_AAAPIM dawson_d_Page_51.QC.jpg
46ef5e5a2e73f1d0df52ee49a21c1bf0
2dc0573cd3fc6d7b3d96e514ee282468d4d4e3c4
8871 F20101114_AAAPJB dawson_d_Page_60thm.jpg
71dda2075eaa73f0cd15dcbbf7f85eda
9912362e4a187cedc064ebd607cc6e7e6d883d36
3056 F20101114_AAAOEX WildlifeSurvey_Page_07.txt
b40a2b5fd3a625d75bdc52da468050ce
549f3b0224b241225e2d5b9cef7b70569e27a765
37069 F20101114_AAAPHZ dawson_d_Page_44.QC.jpg
1a34cf19ee37ef14d9a03bcba7e88005
d7c6c3b9370d3333153be41c28105601d8f636d2
35668 F20101114_AAAOFL dawson_d_Page_26.QC.jpg
f071a73c1066b602dae37b40962821f3
e74f8b1689b78f6f9784f1906fa9668e9778975f
4353 F20101114_AAAPIN dawson_d_Page_51thm.jpg
e3ee92f3d07940f41239743776059567
8e0dc193a635b1780ee2f0bc61242536bdf87e0f
35443 F20101114_AAAPJC dawson_d_Page_61.QC.jpg
039fb6d168d7139a647a8b30a5a58972
fa77bfa096f910756b7a761026a1aaee54b40422
25254 F20101114_AAAOEY WildlifeSurvey_Page_17.QC.jpg
6d996e13aa9167d3ad0436d4fdc4ccef
8fc7161a68bb004bc108c1874aa4b83e82b9e324
43716 F20101114_AAAOGA WildlifeSurvey_Page_20.jpg
862b143f988b3db7f27dfe4d6bebe1f3
bffbf34c763f83a0dfe4f063a63b1bc430dce46e
107195 F20101114_AAAOFM dawson_d_Page_33.jpg
5e71ac4ed7d58cbbeac6d20ee7ee21e3
3c64bbe29d7fc6bd5605a0aff862c603bfbf6c61
9895 F20101114_AAAPIO dawson_d_Page_52thm.jpg
6091654816bd224b24d08ec416b83da3
40331c9b6c91486c8b43fb44cc858059097db137
8919 F20101114_AAAPJD dawson_d_Page_61thm.jpg
00bbb8eb9ee5c6bf0727068c174ee07d
b01b49426c294776901f0a8af4f383799aba519f
F20101114_AAAOEZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_06.txt
298fd1dbf2bb31ae1260df2a3440bb6c
9d9e9d2181fca8ad385d0480437d49a4474c2321
50487 F20101114_AAAOGB dawson_d_Page_33.pro
fd62362fb147c8479911cf47e8c1abd6
e5819c35ee472706097d2cc870479bfa88842907
24107 F20101114_AAAOFN WildlifeSurvey_Page_43.jpg
e4976882a7200c01c6704bbe478890a8
04f18130df668f7db22ac124a4d3a4eb202ced5c
4501 F20101114_AAAPIP dawson_d_Page_53thm.jpg
0b683448858c2e5f58e2486c7a84d307
bb4fa5d5f936571e39775bf870a3d3c0c6d97aef
8765 F20101114_AAAPJE dawson_d_Page_62thm.jpg
395e14e52750bc27389f951904850b6c
a180c13c7db89af23882a10ccd78882b524a7ea1
56026 F20101114_AAAOGC dawson_d_Page_18.pro
5224a13b587c21e5d1f8eb3c04829402
cfff9d2c102c97356192301f2be346444eff81c1
126558 F20101114_AAAOFO dawson_d_Page_60.jpg
bef825cc03bcf2a61c950809f3292366
c609c55adc824cac6f5317350030b006d6d6f9f1
5057 F20101114_AAAPIQ dawson_d_Page_54thm.jpg
cf216ba94e0501ca50414633b07ebe01
6f85c6786c7bd031bf96096b7d9328f3751d13d2
36756 F20101114_AAAPJF dawson_d_Page_63.QC.jpg
06b185da69f6951796eb8f279dd99b5a
77ff2a0706c47b7fccf709a1c30a1c583c45a2fc
200 F20101114_AAAOGD dawson_d_Page_03.txt
941255e1b8d1b9f9172a19b7e238639b
21731aed52a126f28822d8fc03709b6042be7acf
F20101114_AAAOFP WildlifeSurvey_Page_33.tif
6dd4a2e956f322f1c7223961935c8b66
06c7fee3a6bfd32e315a12d1e19482c02d3e112a
21182 F20101114_AAAPIR dawson_d_Page_55.QC.jpg
932ebafe25f8a3e644b1be7d4ceab6e7
d898f977788bfce21b3a4d187e8240668ab14af9
9010 F20101114_AAAPJG dawson_d_Page_63thm.jpg
172daf225f3f454e93d01196fd9d90fc
cd6f603c454201e19c322ee118c17024a64ae62a
8820 F20101114_AAAOGE dawson_d_Page_22thm.jpg
ae1a8fc06e3c4d6419a0de4bd5d0b0c3
49b4ed4cc2f091e0d875013d385372212819e3e9
2321 F20101114_AAAOFQ dawson_d_Page_62.txt
0505b651dfd068ba4c36fec822110742
7ea350b756b2aed614d976055fb7d51393ea3015
30057 F20101114_AAAPIS dawson_d_Page_56.QC.jpg
de90c2287317d11bafb73259e0cedfc5
1729bd6e7dfc7f6700cf6af6fe8d4e205206df7d
34741 F20101114_AAAPJH dawson_d_Page_64.QC.jpg
7c230ca056e37159f56de0675fee4743
50dc72a9c1bc6d44d871a1ded63531f636eeea71
116757 F20101114_AAAOGF dawson_d_Page_24.jp2
b9bfa7a48170bf89e6fe7e181b9b2ba2
6a2fef89ca032c9e5f50165a79c87d8ad0722e61
52504 F20101114_AAAOFR dawson_d_Page_25.pro
9a474af91447262453e4e8b842621e50
031a6e7eb8cba00821f96970a24891e1d541da65
7759 F20101114_AAAPIT dawson_d_Page_56thm.jpg
ae497129711e07d000d225f8fc370c74
e653764cca1c2dc76a8a1e35eda985be53cd240a
8626 F20101114_AAAPJI dawson_d_Page_64thm.jpg
c13023d254aa874b18666411946fef32
327aa78c183175f944b5bd1eb7c0513734a0b239
11969 F20101114_AAAOGG WildlifeSurvey_Page_41.QC.jpg
c2391a3d0eb8021c29186ce5ec77ba7b
02be1b4eb82ef82d8e5d93c624bd6a19de2fae7a
47187 F20101114_AAAOFS dawson_d_Page_48.pro
79f6ec6aac93fa22173fbb3464b6fe62
6659b2669e17decee0e1c88eaa9708f968d632e3
23196 F20101114_AAAPIU dawson_d_Page_57.QC.jpg
3a44142ef6ed6ac4834db2749de2fdf2
41c046d4ea18531a098d9d08530cc5e6b0e782fe
23882 F20101114_AAAPJJ dawson_d_Page_65.QC.jpg
fe0654e28088a0d3744373dd38c8cb4e
66a246c127f3d35096e38d7019680c95facbbde5
F20101114_AAAOGH WildlifeSurvey_Page_29.tif
325ee7fec3874ea978a631098d7eba5b
4eb13b85e0d5fdcafc21ec23ed55dc9c92a01871
F20101114_AAAOFT dawson_d_Page_58.tif
fecfbe0d1a302e055aeedc15f42080d1
968f554b3803be2292deb4c1657f8bdcc9f2e1de
6395 F20101114_AAAPIV dawson_d_Page_57thm.jpg
fefd2efdae35677d2b816256942129d6
a12886a1e59343f78d05decc1bda0390c209538a
6063 F20101114_AAAPJK dawson_d_Page_65thm.jpg
c8a34ba9ccd9d3f5926f5b6ce17eb066
ab8bda96ee754fcef1c798709e540130a49d8e03
67797 F20101114_AAAOGI dawson_d_Page_06.pro
6cfbe5665d140f0732647514fcef1765
655154689b495f6b14dbf0ec4937256edbc987a3
348 F20101114_AAAOFU dawson_d_Page_39.txt
401b6c12a32afa200d790900f943e407
b73b87897082ac1e47caa52c64a6272884c177ee
17472 F20101114_AAAPIW dawson_d_Page_58.QC.jpg
d78f89e0c1d60c2c96694d35ed862741
a61e9bda97aeba76f5129cc1b3c60e917204be80
8977 F20101114_AAAPKA WildlifeSurvey_Page_11thm.jpg
879ac18ce04260ffb71920a24eeca933
ff9a2da6ff03b0f36ced4694297aa18d020b611d
146249 F20101114_AAAPJL UFE0018420_00001.mets
23d1ab5ea282c09060b32853296a8ae6
3b0780cea2e2ebfb2e15cb186c9d0c0a62591701
18628 F20101114_AAAOGJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_18.QC.jpg
f8685410e905cd42a5f9eb33b7d32247
f0095dad8e27f53ccc4fd716dc89ce6e30d144c6
158900 F20101114_AAAOFV WildlifeSurvey_Page_12.jpg
f3d2214ea63d4f0fde13ad78b9e2544a
8db38b8baa3797de5297f138b4bd274e5026c2c6
4652 F20101114_AAAPIX dawson_d_Page_58thm.jpg
1c751c806ebd7118a2a1659e0254c0fe
5ec0983e881ac4cf8e736094c3150359d0c58881
40218 F20101114_AAAPKB WildlifeSurvey_Page_12.QC.jpg
99e06b539386cc37ff3f1750222b994f
37a81831420e81e65d6fdd38ece52238a7a97b6d
7093 F20101114_AAAPJM WildlifeSurvey_Page_01.QC.jpg
2aa2fe277a5ab0c93c42eccd1d9c2622
2303432213427a38c9d92fed11dc5201a250bdef
3800 F20101114_AAAOGK dawson_d_Page_36.txt
12abc6afc95ddd29312e0607d2f55db1
acc15acd0f6fe5cc090e9e328f54321a6c780aa7
49973 F20101114_AAAOFW WildlifeSurvey_Page_15.QC.jpg
869ebd89db3038b0ce0ca7c4b45b2f03
3da74d893b3c1ac0baf298d667152dde41da8796
6645 F20101114_AAAPIY dawson_d_Page_59.QC.jpg
d71940e6c9187f9261a1ef99d6c61822
44ddd70cb47108324ff896e51a9caa6df6bc388d
2083 F20101114_AAAPJN WildlifeSurvey_Page_01thm.jpg
197f3863af38c94891a6263aee1b00f7
db9b451c207fc7737994a916c91aae1070039ffb
2164 F20101114_AAAPIZ dawson_d_Page_59thm.jpg
474e4e65ba722df77733ecee82514604
e5de939b7ca6421d4b5174a396ccc3ef91a5e93d
F20101114_AAAOGL dawson_d_Page_41.tif
6e04f0145b06de618348b27e03555ed9
2983bd7d7502d8cc97afd01684a97e0b9f9475f6
4585 F20101114_AAAOFX WildlifeSurvey_Page_37thm.jpg
af558de313ebea418c49e0a4a3824f52
64fb8046cae0b27e780f9ce6a73ee0388307142a
45044 F20101114_AAAPKC WildlifeSurvey_Page_13.QC.jpg
c65ffe78a4b72c20c03cc93dce8cea92
3dfff1f2c1b3ed811f61c96223853118895b8ea4
6143 F20101114_AAAPJO WildlifeSurvey_Page_02thm.jpg
2203790721bce9d148b574e60e5bd8cc
3450bd704bf637287156faccf7b94a1902d71705
49227 F20101114_AAAOHA dawson_d_Page_35.pro
abf2b68762461d4f3ec7650e8d5f182a
b486b45bae089dd6a722a45ee3bbf3e3585ff62c
6995 F20101114_AAAOGM WildlifeSurvey_Page_57thm.jpg
9a27daba98f28d751fcf77330413258d
209c188e2c00a7572e7536f69f7a0b9e3f7e7ea0
F20101114_AAAOFY dawson_d_Page_44.tif
c12182a661ce61cd4ea5f94ac4c8036e
5143353ffc6c27b65d3c4ea16d60ba62a74bee95
10187 F20101114_AAAPKD WildlifeSurvey_Page_13thm.jpg
c473cf31d4c6a1b8ffc8aa9046737716
408743d5cd98d2bfb9afb5bb4cc234cbed2067a4
6196 F20101114_AAAPJP WildlifeSurvey_Page_03thm.jpg
9227d8eeabd8f2bf199e3b18481421b8
6d9e31174986358a23aca2145cd71703f07da687
F20101114_AAAOHB WildlifeSurvey_Page_46.tif
e91aadac78b715d27dbfc42a81f5771c
5caaec1391d448b6bc157fa6d618e3f6411a14a5
15265 F20101114_AAAOGN dawson_d_Page_08.QC.jpg
e01a44f86ecd14871a7688fbf54d0602
10eeb620b64f830cdf4a93a42d0b1cdae6f9a659
F20101114_AAAOFZ dawson_d_Page_09.pro
48c0737c34c4399b122d35241d92f6f4
9ad6e7935061f3ede797f41f005aa44ad4e56f6a
10739 F20101114_AAAPKE WildlifeSurvey_Page_15thm.jpg
46f07be871d9a065fcba8986617afb7f
167387e237acdc231d0497255bea60b4959703da
29855 F20101114_AAAPJQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_04.QC.jpg
c2e477359c25f62707bb9eb9fbbb6da0
be6c059f5489a37c7b6474c60a31d54fa5cd7758
5041 F20101114_AAAOHC WildlifeSurvey_Page_26thm.jpg
f97f270d8e5bbc2d51d2e1e6c95eca36
d37adf30abd8e0e11aab425f846fecb94bc98179
8887 F20101114_AAAOGO dawson_d_Page_20thm.jpg
25ac791445ac0148cb8667f71c65042f
7f474da42a3e50afe49abfc4ff78396e71d2055e
32063 F20101114_AAAPKF WildlifeSurvey_Page_16.QC.jpg
a3b97cd1d3f21d62967dbd17074435ff
4d29a9c1f5e65a46e1faf2305c540a077004e5a9
7652 F20101114_AAAPJR WildlifeSurvey_Page_04thm.jpg
af6c2eebb7a3015d490af2dbd79550fc
ae023e033769beaa86bbc4685cb197b45497373e
F20101114_AAAOGP WildlifeSurvey_Page_44.tif
b13f0d806dc27db8200ad7c56fc2a2cd
b4816517a37f4dddde02ec97c6af67a819892f84
107271 F20101114_AAAOHD dawson_d_Page_41.jp2
7b980c4d611cebe57d149970e7666f08
bdc27f4688105fdccc117e85ad9f93953d035caa
7827 F20101114_AAAPKG WildlifeSurvey_Page_16thm.jpg
647bc2543a864b1675ce04163920a407
85695c98d48fba691e85e0f2984b880c23a74023
44376 F20101114_AAAPJS WildlifeSurvey_Page_05.QC.jpg
e77fabae0d383f3dff0e0aac2c79c6ba
c2201867043133a1801a9c88a001a006c9f1e6b9
53951 F20101114_AAAOGQ dawson_d_Page_51.jp2
97ef25945c1ccc992089ab5bf15a8862
c2f747b182c76ea064f16561be4a387ee5b458e1
1583 F20101114_AAAOHE dawson_d_Page_09thm.jpg
be646591940c2260e888092068cd2b95
a20cbc096e925fa4021749153cdd21e9270dca28
7376 F20101114_AAAPKH WildlifeSurvey_Page_17thm.jpg
f602a36dfe5c1cf61317307ccdffe546
530c37b799269eb969ac2c973ea54f09e07b3534
39439 F20101114_AAAPJT WildlifeSurvey_Page_07.QC.jpg
fda327647551c59b3ec6176d00a8b85b
e24ce6591e75f315eb4287a313ff3a03567ddb1d
20277 F20101114_AAAOGR WildlifeSurvey_Page_43.jp2
9e73406e22823be0568004ed0c2f8659
5e4a546a64ff64e7c1ae4545a5d015d08d0520d2
2035 F20101114_AAAOHF dawson_d_Page_58.txt
a3e0f1112e06d659bf5c045bf25c73ec
3ba2f759a2a39fba1b49925b60a727bd1e96e350
5648 F20101114_AAAPKI WildlifeSurvey_Page_18thm.jpg
d9f7aebaa5516980f4807fab572774a6
ab10a1a86a82e78f27e1d194854ef46807250827
8819 F20101114_AAAPJU WildlifeSurvey_Page_07thm.jpg
160984e7081ae3e2b9f7c955d1f5a56d
66a73119fa9a9d4657b37e9018d9651998163861
324145 F20101114_AAAOGS WildlifeSurvey_Page_59.jp2
399b5ebe6199faf22d64562215f6865c
175de662ddb3062836a48c22c9281105df0c1e96
34697 F20101114_AAAOHG dawson_d_Page_62.QC.jpg
414f8a80a79e83b5bb0ac4efcd897663
59c0085ac6c2ccbd1d630bc3b8b134ee220e8d48
11310 F20101114_AAAPKJ WildlifeSurvey_Page_19.QC.jpg
3cdf9ce28df2b1b244b375ec1271ddf3
a9faf7a3f9980d58f3181a0838ba1bbf05bb4974
41257 F20101114_AAAPJV WildlifeSurvey_Page_08.QC.jpg
ccd89a14faa75704ddd72f90860edc32
1fadd027debe9b29045533ab4ccf28d6def36917
2231 F20101114_AAAOGT dawson_d_Page_33.txt
2c784d0e7baa08a2fcb825fb58ff0d1f
220a2409fe2550e7e8664c699015c718efd67dea
28105 F20101114_AAAOHH dawson_d_Page_32.QC.jpg
2b0f35c49d3e77bc2149e87cee73812b
d9d9aaace98f39e7e621e73df6db3e20b471580f
3836 F20101114_AAAPKK WildlifeSurvey_Page_19thm.jpg
974e2746e9e7c41cb4d4da4591469e2f
c0d016de992031db96240e8fdf2957c03c6e0b61
9368 F20101114_AAAPJW WildlifeSurvey_Page_08thm.jpg
3b467d472b9e6c372a6a5676c910ddd2
878bf0f3a8fefb92a267113c3760b6dc09a8dbd9
F20101114_AAAOGU dawson_d_Page_14.tif
f799be4c0215a84d7352f9d40351af48
92996415fa87cef98dc55f1a9dc5b44cd1ac3ea8
2070 F20101114_AAAOHI dawson_d_Page_23.txt
472fd8d73e71e5281beb6b6ac8d9b828
a77228945d839753b5f084c05e3bedac581a29fe
13138 F20101114_AAAPLA WildlifeSurvey_Page_32.QC.jpg
26b5507d77daefc1da83bf9d3e16d86e
4abb502481463f535ca628fa4c6f1c55204eb466
5030 F20101114_AAAPKL WildlifeSurvey_Page_20thm.jpg
c7c7e8d8bb3254d3b96e17d6756e86eb
caeadb460dacbc6a5db52d55a44868c7282112a6
9457 F20101114_AAAPJX WildlifeSurvey_Page_09thm.jpg
c07d00e27e2ef86bca09af2bd129dffa
14209db3ac9f5141a2e6d30e3754d2685ed495e3
F20101114_AAAOGV dawson_d_Page_24.tif
7a1a14c6329555523b4c471eb436898c
39c63561447b6a54fff965797a68a90c44cd8438
103559 F20101114_AAAOHJ dawson_d_Page_48.jp2
f051d8e4ac319a33ed7f38c4321b66cf
14955a86e1e5c9cf17a79b27f44f066e2fd3d7b7
4344 F20101114_AAAPLB WildlifeSurvey_Page_32thm.jpg
3951158f7fa1a80a179eec586571f86c
fa77265fa633ca630ed7e9ac45f042b011c174c2
16505 F20101114_AAAPKM WildlifeSurvey_Page_21.QC.jpg
9ef4d05a63b0ec1847257665ee8ebaef
ce32c09e20d6757f22c76fe4de461ef97a566a62
40237 F20101114_AAAPJY WildlifeSurvey_Page_10.QC.jpg
309c64613b8e1db01eb25fa47f63de8b
e03cb765c9aa0834f277f0bfea01b80045327004
5181 F20101114_AAAOGW dawson_d_Page_02.jpg
0557328fa6fbd2c869c58cacd66593ac
d072eaa2124d901b36cbd9aa59a32edfd80b381b
2170 F20101114_AAAOHK dawson_d_Page_40.txt
6188f8c6af2f4722fcd8c6d049111d97
e7fde6e34d1200c7d02b7cff3f03421d22c6ab81
11495 F20101114_AAAPLC WildlifeSurvey_Page_33.QC.jpg
30868b38aed93601abaf778d6fe05110
2c0feb6d2c3fba228a1c8d32f3a724264582d390
5214 F20101114_AAAPKN WildlifeSurvey_Page_21thm.jpg
bd29bdcb238d8c35dfecaaa68b48c569
4aac350590f1f4de6af8924e5c8de010cc53d726
9419 F20101114_AAAPJZ WildlifeSurvey_Page_10thm.jpg
edf6bbe5f67f2c48ef9d2d3edea9179b
8b7368f7aaca7180c3e3251092d62d21935aa036
50113 F20101114_AAAOGX dawson_d_Page_04.jp2
8195d77d06ef25dd3eb13f9727b27ab8
4b22b655f236155d8f8818f28ac60cb72b0103e5
120 F20101114_AAAOIA dawson_d_Page_02.txt
47fec8eaf1e99acd67162b421ec8b222
2b9f66ed9318646af2b34d8134fbb04360da54b8
868 F20101114_AAAOHL WildlifeSurvey_Page_27.txt
f570593b2582bc9c873c9af3b66d048d
3f24ea8f4548437455dfdb9370e6e4fdfe7d0e32
20728 F20101114_AAAPKO WildlifeSurvey_Page_22.QC.jpg
5a8d30323051cd4d5723bee677b9035f
5daeb2cbf822e048be69c4168c09edd18b7527d4
31489 F20101114_AAAOGY WildlifeSurvey_Page_19.jpg
989293069803102e6279ca8db03e6d2e
7a4b5a0979c401aecc385729535036f252b7b294
2220 F20101114_AAAOHM WildlifeSurvey_Page_24.txt
dab4d972932e6481e85b6e74d4687a8a
a70237a7f417d27c2a68c0ab391aa72433ff8082
3592 F20101114_AAAPLD WildlifeSurvey_Page_33thm.jpg
706a44e6f483bbc6872ae6a0968fc632
66f3846689b74a206ed66fd65a0320422a6182ef
5083 F20101114_AAAPKP WildlifeSurvey_Page_22thm.jpg
3e37dfaff26844b98a261c397720e85d
b2bc849733d92d1b860522bdcd6ec3a19875f655
2221 F20101114_AAAOGZ dawson_d_Page_12.txt
480bc17cd62c11d0f5a093ab859be9fe
d76cea7aec2fa59ff5ab87f34da1818b3b56f0c5
4763 F20101114_AAAOIB WildlifeSurvey_Page_28thm.jpg
f2fa105e8575b765bdce4f2905158623
feb02946636f2e8152b5779be93eb8e5227742da
4377 F20101114_AAAOHN WildlifeSurvey_Page_44thm.jpg
0282df26a40cf113f397293d7a7a67d6
889bbffd16858bc2cb20165b110aea5f0f7be645
12686 F20101114_AAAPLE WildlifeSurvey_Page_34.QC.jpg
4996fc1e9215d9c809a12b58338f6338
46a23accc9dfa8dcba79b6dcfcd9e71cc0a8edbd
25977 F20101114_AAAPKQ WildlifeSurvey_Page_24.QC.jpg
499d1c72b39c96258700e20bcc763824
0fd667f259a3a611f15e1b59e0676f1adcd3edc4
116385 F20101114_AAAOIC dawson_d_Page_62.jpg
fc75efdcbda5e816f526457611b22dc0
24ea1a85a4e295ebfbf2f7b8b0d658545a923aa9
1526 F20101114_AAAOHO dawson_d_Page_11.txt
50ff341941b67e9fd4a90775f2bce200
0e3d9d6b73790e39ac9c49824b44548535d36423
4033 F20101114_AAAPLF WildlifeSurvey_Page_34thm.jpg
3102c0366910c59c2743f57417fe6447
48f24305cd8476774434a41ebc86c3c5f5998831
7200 F20101114_AAAPKR WildlifeSurvey_Page_24thm.jpg
c42de355ae668924f551a1d2b8d2a837
6b2ce86f68d98b07a46618a03225c31601df9a3a
78321 F20101114_AAAOID WildlifeSurvey_Page_47.jpg
15e1dd70714af2d9fba6a4ee874786c9
34d04449d677eec836ead17348c77eae0cac6b21
3989 F20101114_AAAOHP dawson_d_Page_08thm.jpg
3d4b081b0effda354bf8c71888bae4e1
2206ee40cdb0178166f1d65ffbc2945412d72eca



PAGE 1

1University of Florida Wildlife Inve ntory and Monitoring Program: One Year Survey Result s and Data Summary Daniel Dawson, Graduate Student Faculty Advisor: Dr. Mark Hostetler Dept. of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation University of Florida 8/29/05

PAGE 2

2 Contents Background Overall Report on Sampling Program and Final Update of Sampling Protocols Birds 5 Herps 6 Mammals Small Mammals ....7 Meso-Mammals ....8 Sampling Results and Summar y of One Years Data Birds .8 Herps ..9 Mammals Small Mammals ...........9 Meso-Mammals .10 Note on volunteer effort .10 Management Recommendations..........10 Site-Specific Recommendations..12 Notes on sampling effort in UF Conservation Areas for future researchers Tables Over-all Table 1 : Numbers of sample locations per Area for each sampling technique Table 2: Conservation Area name abbreviations .17 Table 3: Total Number of Surveys per sampling point per taxa per season in the University of Florida Conservation Areas.17 Birds Table 4 : GPS locations of Annual Group avian point counts .22 Table 5 : GPS locations of Migrant Group avian point counts ....22 Table 6 : 4-letter avian species abbreviations ...23 Table 7 : All bird species detected per area between October 2004 and August 2005 in the University of Fl orida Conservation Areas ... Table 8 : For each conservation area, the maximum abundances of each bird species detected at each point during one survey w ithin a 40m sample radius over all dates sampled in the University of Florida Conservation Areas a. Harmonic Woods... ...29

PAGE 3

3 b. Fraternity Wetlands........30 c. Graham Woods...31 d. Health Center Park.....32 e. McCarty Woods.....33 f. Lake Alice South g. Bivens Rim Forest h. Bivens Forest East i. Lake Alice Main.40 j. Surge Wetlands...42 Herps Table 9 : GPS locations of Herpetofaunal arrays within the University of Florida Conservation Areas ..44 Table 10 : All herp species detected be tween October 2004 and August 2005 in the University of Florida Conservation Areas; grouped by taxa...45 Table 11 : Species of herps detected per c onservation area between October 2004 and August 2005 in the University of Florida Conservation Areas...46 Table 12 : Total number of individuals per species of herps captured per herpetofaunal trapping array over all trapping dates from 5/2005 through August 2005 in the University of Florida Conservation Areas: a. Harmonic Woods ..50 b. Fraternity Wetlands c. Graham Woods. .50 d. Health Center Park.....51 e. Lake Alice South....51 f. Bivens Rim Forest.51 g. Bivens Forest East h. Lake Alice Main....52 i. Surge Wetlands...53 j. McCarty Woods..53 Mammals Table 13 : GPS coordinates of edge-starting point s of small mammal trapping grids in the University of Florida Conservation Areas.....55 Table 14: GPS coordinates of meso-mammal sampling locations within the University of Florida Conservations Areas Table 15 : Total mammal species detected between October 2004 and August 2005 in the University of Florida Conservation Areas.........57 Table 16 : Total mammal species detected pe r area between October 2004 and August 2005 in the University of Fl orida Conservation Areas.. ...57

PAGE 4

4 Table 17 : Small mammal captures per area in the University of Florida Conservation Areas over all tr apping methods and dates..58 Figures Birds Figure 1 : Avian point count locations surveyed on an annual basis in the University of Florida Conservation Areas...20 Figure 2 : Avian point count locations added to capture migrant diversity in the University of Florida Conservation Areas.....21 Figure 3 : All sampled conservation areas depicted in terms of detected avian species richness (darker color indicates more sp ecies) in the University of Florida Conservation Areas between October 2004 and August 2005..28 Herps Figure 4 : Locations of herpetofaunal arrays within the University of Florida Conservation Areas....44 Figure 5: All sampled conservation areas depicted in terms of detected herpetofaunal species richness (darker color indicates more species) in the University of Florida Conservation Areas between October 2004 and August 2005..49 Mammals Figure 6 : Locations of small mammal trapping grids within the University of Florida Conservation Areas Figure 7 : Meso-mammal sampling locations within the University of Florida Conservation Areas....56 Background Facilities Planning & Construction (FP&C), as part of UFs Master Plan, has backed the creation of a program aimed at monitoring wildlife populations in several selected conservation areas on the UF campus. This program was establis hed during fall 2004, and was conducted through August 20, 2005. This report details the results of the monitoring of birds, herps, and mammals in those selected conservation areas, and presents a summary of collected data. Selected areas included in the program are: Harmonic woods, Fraternity Wetlands, Graham woods, Health Center Park, McCa rty Woods, Lake Alice Conserva tion Area, Lake Alice South, Bivens Rim Forest, Bivens Fore st East, and Surge Wetlands. The project started on 23 August 2004 and is scheduled to end on 20 August 2005.

PAGE 5

5 Final Report on Wildlife Moni toring Design and Protocols The main focus of the sampling design was to m easure species richness within the conservation areas, but relative abundance information was co llected for as many taxa as possible. After approximately 9 months of sampling, meaningful relative abundance information is available for both birds and herps. Mammals were only ab le to be sampled for species detection. In order to assure that sa mpling effort be applied to each taxa in each area as equally as possible, I placed proportionately more sample points in larg er areas. As indicated in the two previous reports, I placed sampling points within an edge-int erior sampling regime, w ith edge for all taxa designated as the first forty meters from the boundary to the inside of the area. All sample locations have been made in Ar cView GIS 3.2. Appendix 1 gives abbr eviations used in tables for each conservation area name. Table 1 gives the number of sampling points for all taxa in each conservation area. Table 2 gives the number of surveys made per taxa per sampling point per season of sampling effort( Fall 2004, a nd Winter, Spring, a nd Summer 2005). Birds In the fall of 2004, I initially established 24 bi rd points throughout all 10 conservation areas. During the remainder of the fall (11/2004), a nd the winter (12/2004 through 3/2005), the points were regularly sampled. In order to increase my ability to sample for spring migrants, between 3/2005 and 4/2005 I increased the number of point s sampled within the conservation areas, resulting in a total of 46 points. The majority of the additional poi nts were considered a separate group that I deemed as migrant, while the or iginal group of points was deemed annual. The addition of the migrant group was made possibl e by sampling on different days than annual points, allowing me to place m igrant points much closer to annual points to meet area restrictions. Area restrictions between points within the migrant group were the same as between points within the annual group. The mig rant group did not include any locations in Lake Alice Conservation Area or Surge wetla nds because my sampling schedule already includes the approximate maximum number for those areas. Also, because of a horse disease in the adjacent pastures, I could only include 1 poi nt in Lake Alice South within the migrant group. Due to size requirements, an edge versus interior comparis on can be made in 7 of the 10 areas. Avian sampling took precedence during the entire month of April and first week of May to capture the spring migration. During this peri od, all points were sampled once a week, every week. After this period, I reverted back to the orig inal bird sampling schedule, in which birds were sampled every other week, an d only at points in the annual gr oup. I also further modified this schedule for the summer by only sampling bird points once during sampling weeks due to the lower diversity and lower abundances of avian species during the summer months, and a greater emphasis on herp and mammal sampling. Du ring the Fall of 2005, I will resume a bird sampling schedule similar to the spring migra tion period, including both annual and migrant groups in order to capture the fall migration. Out of courtesy to the Facilities Construction and Planning department, the department will be updated on species detected within conservation areas during this period, and it will receive a report updating det ected species abundances. See

PAGE 6

6 figures 1 & 2 for the locations of the annual a nd migrant group point counts, respectively. See table 2 for GPS locations of all sample points. Herps Herpetofaunal trapping arrays have been used to sample herps within the conservation areas. Positions for 18 trapping arrays we re established within a GIS, and arrays were installed at or near those positions by myself and a few ot hers between November 2004 and early May 2005. Initially, herp arrays were planned to be samp led for 1 week out of a sampling month for four successive nights, with traps being opened on for four nights, checked every day, and then closed after sampling after the fourth night of that week. After a preliminar y sampling session in December, however, sampling was suspended due to cold weather until a session in March, which was again met with limited success. Sampling was again halted until May in order to capture the spring avian migration. Herp samp ling was then resumed in May and continued through August. Because of the lack of activity during the winter and spring, and the potential of more herp activity during summer, I decided to operate the herpetofauna l arrays for two weeks per month over summer instead of the initially planned one week per month. Herpetofaunal sampling was often combined with avian samp ling during a given sampling week to increase sampling efficiency. There have been some difficulties in array insta llation and maintenance, especially in low-lying and/or wetland areas. In general, pitfall trap bucke ts have a tendency to fill with water after rainfall. Though one solution is to drill holes in th e bucket bottom for drainage, in wetland or lowlying areas, the high water-table may push wate r up through the holes. This was generally the case after it rained recently and/or frequently. In buckets with holes in this situat ion, I was forced to either close the buckets until water levels receded, or floati ng material was placed inside buckets to prevent drowning. Buckets could also be placed without holes in the bottom, and then could be simply drained of collected water on a daily basis with a sco op to prevent drowning. However, in this situation, water pressure fr om below would often push buckets out of the ground. A solution to this was to use iron rebar stakes to hold the buckets in the ground against the water pressure. However, this also failed to prevent to buckets from pushing out of the ground when soil was soft, or when very heavy or very frequent rain intensified ground water pressure. In general, re-install ation of buckets was a weekly o ccurrence in at least a few areas. Also, the wood stakes used to erect fences te nded to rot extremely fast during the hot, wet summer months. Stakes frequently broke and had to be replaced with additional wood stakes, or held in place by materials found near th e site, i.e. sticks and branches. See figure 3 for location of Arrays. See Table 6 fo r GPS positions of all existent and scheduled arrays. I have also performed one timeconstrained visual assessment of herp diversity in McCarty Woods(8/10/05), in which I search ed for one hour for herpetofa unal species. I have not been able to conduct night-time surv eys for frog diversity due to time constraints, but I may perform

PAGE 7

7 such surveys before the onset of cooler, drye r weather. Out of courtesy to the Facilities Construction and Planning department, the depa rtment will be updated on species detected within conservation areas during thes e surveys, should they occur. Mammals Small Mammals : Beginning in 11/2004, I esta blished trapping transects in 8 of the 10 areas to sample for small-mammal diversity, with one tr ansect in each area. Mc Carty woods and Bivens Rim Forest were not included in effort. Trapping transects were or iginally scheduled to be run for 5 successive nights, four times a year. During the fall and winter, I ra n three trapping sessions (11/30/2004-12/03/2004, 1/25/2005 -1/29/2005, 3/22/2005-3/26/2005), bu t I had had very limited success due to direct interferen ce with traps by raccoons. Overa ll, raccoon interference led to very low capture rates, stolen traps, and an ot herwise frustrating experience. My attempts to reduce interference during these times by covering traps with de bris, and wearing protective gloves when baiting, failed. Because of these di fficulties, and the small amount of data I had collected, I decided to change my approach to sampling this taxa over the summer months by using trapping grids inst ead of transects. Rectangular trapping grids were established in each area except McCarty woods between June and August 2005. When possible, grids were estab lished by incorporating th e original trapping transect and simply extending two additional transects of equal le ngth adjacent to it, each twenty meters apart. When previous transects could not be used for the basis of grids because of area constraints, or in order to a void wetlands, new starting points were selected within the GIS environment. This resulted in 8 grids that cont ained 3 times the number of locations of original transects. In one area, Bivens Rim Forest, only one transect wa s able to be added because the shape and size of the area was not conducive to the placement of a grid. Unlike the original transects, which were intended to begin at an edge and end within an interior location to assess edge a ffects of rodent diversity and abundan ces, the trapping grids were simply intended to assess diversity in general. Therefor e transects within grids were only required to start 20m from an edge for consistency, and only had to end with conservation area boundaries. Also, grids could not be placed in inundated or partially inundated wetland areas for safety. Grids were sampled once, in two groups. The fi rst group included Harmonic Woods, Fraternity Wetlands, Graham Woods, Health Center Park, and Lake Alice Conservation Area. The second group included Lake Alice South, Bivens Rim Fo rest, Bivens Forest East, and Surge Wetlands. Due to time constraints, each group was only sampled for, four-night period each (7/12/20057/16/2005, and 8/10/2005-8/14/2005) See figure 4 for location of transects and starti ng points. See table 8 for GPS positions of all transect start points.

PAGE 8

8 Meso-mammals: Formal sampling for meso-mammals was attempted by way of scent-track traps distributed randomly thorough the areas within the same edge-to-interior scheme that was used for the other two taxa. A total of 24 sampling points were established wi thin a GIS environment within all 10 areas, and a total 22 sampling point s were installed by me within those areas. 2 locations within Lake Alice South proved to be inaccessible, and it became impractical to install additional points. Meso-mammal track sta tions consisted of a circle of sand (area=0.5m2), in the center of which was a stake with a container of scent attached to it. I attempted to use both human urine and sardines as scent baits. Originally, meso-mammal stations were to be sa mpled for four successive nights, one week per month, st arting in May 2005. Stations would be monitored for mammal tracks each day, than raked smooth for the ne xt night, and unidentif iable tracks could be photographed and/or duplicated with plaster molds to be identified at a later time. However, due to weather, substrate difficulties, and time issues, very little data was collected in this manner. When I initially settled upon the summer to tr y meso-mammal traps due to increased mammal activity, I failed to take into acc ount the increased and often dail y rainfall that accompanies the season. Unfortunately, rainfall affectively dis-arms a foot-print trap, erasing most to all signs of activity. During the two sessions that I attempted this techni que, frequent and heavy rainfall occurred throughout the weeks. Attempts to wo rk around the generally predictable nature of summer weather in Florida, that is, afternoon rain-showers, were foiled by unpredictable weather activity, namely morning and night rain. In addition to rainfall, the substrate I used, sand, often did not provide a recognizable print; usually ju st an un-interpretable blob. Attempts to use hydrated lime as a substrate enhancer failed due to high humidity. Lastly, in trying out new substrates, including lime and simply adding mo re sand, as well as running the rest of the sampling program, I ran out of time to actually sa mple meso-mammal diversity in this manner. However, despite the failure to gather data effectively in this technique, I feel that through incidental observations and/or captures, and because the expected diversity of meso-mammals was very low to begin with, I have been ab le to garner a good approximation of the mesomammal diversity present in the conservation areas. Results Birds As of August, I have detected w ith certainty, 94 bird species with in, flying-over, or within close proximity of the 10 areas that I have been sa mpling. The conservation area with the greatest number of species detected is Bivens Forest East (BFE) with 65 positively detected species (69% of total avifaunal richness detected), and the area with least number of species detected is McCarty Woods (MW) at 26 positively detected sp ecies (27% of the tota l avifaunal richness detected). A more complete picture of the av ian community will be drawn from the upcoming Fall migration, which was largely missed during Fall 2004. See figure 3 for a visual comparison of the avian species richness det ected per conservation area. See table 3 for a list of species detected and their associated fou r-letter codes. See table 4 for lis ts of species detected within,

PAGE 9

9 flying-over, or shortly out side of each conservation area. Bi rds were sampled within an edge versus interior frame-work. Because edge points were located 20m from area edges, and abundances were recorded within a distance of 40m from the poi nt location, some birds counted outside the area boundaries are included in th e reported abundances. See table 5 for the maximum abundances of species detected during one survey within 40 m distance of sampling locations over all sampled dates. Herps The summer 2005 sampling season for herps was successful, with a total of 767 captures of 20 species, and incidental observations or array-as sociated observations of an additional 15 species, for a total of 35 species detected overall during a period of 23 trap nights. Some species, especially tree frogs in PVP, maybe repeat capt ures, so the total number of captures is not necessarily a good indicator of th e total number of animals present. When tree frog captures via PVP pipe refugia are excluded, a total of 558 captures have been made via arra y traps. In addition there have been 34 observations of speci es on or near arrays, and multiple observations of species unassociated with arra ys. I have detected the most sp ecies in Lake Alice Conservation Area, with a total of 23 species. I have detected the least specie s in Graham Woods with a total of 2 species. The number of species for Grah am Woods maybe misleading, however, because I had substantial difficulties in maintaining herp a rray in that area. The Cuban Brown anole is the most commonly detected species, having been inform ally or formally detected in all areas. See Table 8 for species and abundances detect ed thus far in each conservation area. Mammals Small mammals I had moderate success in detecting the divers ity of the small-mamm al community after I switched trapping methodologies. With the gr id methodology, I detected both previously detected species ( Rattus rattus and Peromyscus gossypinus ), and a new species, Rattus norvegicus in three areas (HW, HCP, GW). I also detected cotton mice in two new areas (LAM, BRF). Through informal means, I also detected Oldfield mouse ( Peromyscus polionotus ) in two areas, and Eastern Gray Squirrel ( Sciurius carolinenisis ) in all areas. In addition, cotton rat ( Sigmidon hispidus) was noted in a herp array pitfall at Lake Alice Conservation Area. The total number of small mammal species detected was 6, w ith only 3 of those det ected by formal means. The area with the highest number of species was Harmonic Woods with 5, and area with the lowest is Lake Alice South, with 1. In general, the raccoon interference experien ced during the grid me thodology trapping session was far less than the transect methodology, and even virtually nonexistant in some areas, which may suggest that indeed, raccoons may have been satia ted by the number of traps available. However, this may also have been due to the increased food availability for raccoons during the summer that was not present during the winter an d spring. Overall, though, I would suggest that the grid methodology is more effective than th e transect methodology used previously, even though several grid lines were pr evious single transects. It ma y be that in urban areas, where

PAGE 10

10 densities of native rodents may be low, it might be mo re relevant to cover larger areas, than to try to exploit territoriality behavi or that might be altered nonexistent in the system. Meso-mammals Only two formal meso-mammal trapping sessions were attempted, and both only resulted in armadillo sign and raccoon tracks. I made far mo re incidental observations of meso-mammals than I did by way of footprint traps. Procyon lotor (accoon) are the most commonly detected species, with tracks, visual observations, or racc oon-related small mammal trap activity in every area. Didelphis virgianus (Virginia opossum) would be expected in all areas as well, though few signs have been present. It should be noted, however, that caught baby opossums in small mammal traps in HCP, as well as in a herp pitfa ll trap at LAM. It would seem that most areas also have Dasypus novemcincus (9-banded armadillo), with armadillo holes and live observations made throughout many conservation ar eas. I have detected the most species of meso-mammalss in Bivens Forest East, wi th four species. A few areas only have P. lotor as being the only meso-mammal officially detected. Ho wever, I would be very surprised to not find either D. virginianus or D. novemcinctus with a more thorough searc h. I also expect that feral cats may be more prominent than my detections of them would indicate. See table 10 for species and abundances detected thus far in each cons ervation area for both small and meso-mammals. Volunteer Effort Only a small group of students from the UF Stud ent Chapter of The Wild life Society that have accompanied me while conducting point counts, he rp, and small mammal trapping during the course of the year. I believe this was due to both extremely busy schedules, prohibitively time consuming and irrelevant prerequi sites to volunteering required by the UF IACUC, and general apathy on the part of most undergraduates. Howeve r, those who did help often helped more than once and were generally in good spir its about it. I had planned to pa ss the project along to the UF Student Chapter of TWS, so that perhaps small amounts of data may be collected in the years elapsing between times this study was to be re plicated. Depending upon st udent interest, this may or may not happen. I will continue my involv ement in this organization, and strive to see that at least in part, data can continue to be collected. Management Recommendations No areas sampled contained threatened or enda ngered species, with the exception of Bivens Forest East, which occasionally was used by Bald Eagl es to perch in. This species also been seen flying near or over other areas as well. However, the University of Florida Conservation Areas do play host to a variety of othe r wildlife species, including a large number of migratory and winter-resident bird species with a smaller subset of annual resi dent avian species, a moderate diversity of herpetofauna, and a few small mammal and meso-mammal species. Therefore, Conservation Areas should be managed in order to maintain and increase that diversity of over time, in addition to their maintaining their roles as passive recreation areas. The following

PAGE 11

11 management recommendations were already sugge sted in a previous re port, but have been updated with additional information gained since then: Invasive/Exotic Plant Control : For almost all of the sites we recommend invasive/exotic plant control, either by manua l and/or chemical means. Particularly, we would target Air Potato ( Dioscorea bulbefera ), Coral Ardesia ( Ardesia crenata ), and White-flowered Wandering Jew ( Tradescantia flumenisis ) for this effort. They are all common and numerous in almost all of the 10 areas, and the latter two are significant parts of the under-story of many of the upland areas. Of the th ree, Coral Ardesia interacts with wildlife the most. Dan has observed bi rds eating Ardesia berries and large amounts of berries are present in racc oon scat. Therefore, both of thes e taxa help to spread Coral Ardesia. Maintaining Trails : The recent hurricanes have caused many large trees to fall in several of the conservation areas. The affect of this has been generally positive for wildlife because of the increased structur e on the ground. However, to maintain the passive recreation goal for some of the ar eas, we recommend clearing hurricane-felled trees off of established trails, as well as actively maintaining established trails. This should discourage people from making new trails and further di sturbing wildlife and wildlife habitat. In areas such as Health Center Park, which is fragmented by crisscrossing trails, we recommend actively maintain ing the most used trails and discouraging use on the others. Posted signs would greatly help this effort. Creating a Heterogeneous Environment : Though increased vegetative structure generally makes for better wildlife habitat (f or some species), areas with both open understory and dense vegetation make the c onservation areas more heterogeneous. A heterogeneous environment will support a more diverse number of wildlife species. Several of the areas are (or will become) choked over time with large amounts of vegetation, particularly vines. With a le ngthy drought, these regions could turn into potential fire hazards. To reduce this threat, as well as to maintain the heterogeneity of the conservation areas, we recommend period ic, selective thinning out of vines and woody-shrub vegetation in some dense upland ar eas (either with fire or by mechanical means). Water Quality Monitoring : Though its already being done in some areas, we recommend increased water-quality monitori ng for areas containing wetlands, namely Graham Woods, Lake Alice South, Surge Wetla nds, and Bivens Forest East. These areas contain many small pools in which Dan has noticed tadpoles, and there are sizeable numbers of frogs present. These areas also co ntain the highest overall diversity of avian and herpetofaunal species, and the continuanc e of the presence of habitable wetlands in these areas may be important in maintaining th is diversity. All of th ese areas subject to run-off from road and/or ag ricultural contaminants. In a ddition, Dan has noted that on one occasion, a nearby swimming pool was drained into Graham Woods. Perhaps

PAGE 12

12 chemical testing sites and silt-traps in some creek areas that drain into these conservation areas would be appropriate. Trash : Most of the areas are littered with tr ash, though some are wors e than others. If only for aesthetic reasons, we would recomm end some concerted effort to clean up the trash in several of the areas, the placing of trashcans, or the posting of signs prohibiting trash dumping. Graham Woods and Bivens Fore st East are particularly littered with human garbage of various sorts. Graham woods is very near several sports stadiums and dorm areas, so perhaps placing more trash cans along its edge will prevent so much trash from being dumped into it. In Bivens Forest East, a large amount of the trash has washed in from Bivens Arm Lake when it has flooded. Also, the large drainage canal that leads from 13th St. to the eastern border of Bivens Fore st East brings a lot of trash from 13th st. into the area, distributing garbage throughout syst em of streams in the area. Perhaps the posting signs or placing trashc ans can prevent so much trash from ending up in that conservation area. General Maintenance of Nearby Facilities & Land : All of the conservation areas are located near human habitation. We suggest informational signs and/or maintenance restrictions for any conservation areas next to land maintained or frequented by people. In particular, limit pesticides or on turf next to conservati on areas. Also, bright lights should be avoided near conser vation areas (i.e., it can dist urb wildlife). Signage should inform people about the near by conservation area (e.g., species found, type of habitat, etc.) and impacts people coul d have on it (e.g., going off or making new trails; littering; releasing exotic pets; loud huma n disturbances, etc.). For any conservation areas that are right next to turf or any type of impervi ous surface, we suggest creating a vegetative buffer (e.g., bushes or tall grass) that will prevent people from entering these areas and also help filter out pollutants in runoff. Acquisition of adjacent land: Bivens Rim Forest, Bivens Forest East, and Health Center Park conservation areas are adjacent to wooded habitat that is continuous with wooded habitat contained in the areas. To make a buffer more consistent with the boundaries of these conservation areas, we recommend that the boundaries be expanded to include such habitat. Site Specific Recommendations Harmonic Woods : Removal of Ardesia, maintaining of established trails. Fraternity Wetlands : Removal of White-flower Wandering Jew along stream. Graham Woods : Removal of Air Potato, White-flower Wandering Jew. Extensive trash cleanup. Health Center Park : Removal of multiple exotic plants. Reduction of trails. Because this is very open habitat in some places, plant some buffer shrubs around the more open edges. Expansion of boundaries to include adjacent portions of contin uous wooded habitat, particularly the wooded habitats bordering the northwest and southwest boundaries of the property. McCarty Woods : Exotic plant removal, maintenance of trails. Lake Alice Conservation Area : Trash removal Lake Alice South : Trash removal. Water-quality monitoring.

PAGE 13

13 Surge Wetlands : Trash removal. Water-quality monitoring. Bivens Rim Forest : Expansion of boundaries to include portions of continuous wooded habitat adjacent to its borders, particularly the wooded hab itat adjacent to the south-western portion that borders Bivens Arm lake. Bivens Forest East : Exotic plant removal. Water-qual ity monitoring. Extensive trash cleanup. Would recommend either the placement of trash cans, or the posting of signs near the large drainage canal leading from 13th street to the eastern border th at prohibit the dumping of trash dumping near canal or on UF property. E xpansion of boundaries to include portions of continuous wooded habitat adjacen t to its borders, particular the wooded habitat in the southwestern portion between the Veterinary sc hool horse pastures and Bivens Arm Lake. NOTES ON SAMPLING WITHIN UF CONSERVATION AREAS Sampling conditions within the UF conservati on areas can be of va ried complication and success depending upon the topography, the condition of the vegetation, and the presence or absence of wetlands. Most sites with primaril y upland habitat, such as HW, FW, HCP, MW, BRF, SW, and most of sampled LAM are relatively easily sampled for all taxa. Main concerns in these areas are the increasingly thick undera nd mid-story vegetation, large fallen trees, occasional flooding during heavy rain, and open-ne ss in places. These issues become most relevant with the installation of herp trappi ng arrays, small mammal transects, and mesomammal traps. Generally, suitable sites within these upland areas for the theses sampling methods can be found relatively easily, however thick vegetation and fallen trees can pose a substantial challenge to site location and installation of sample methods, depending upon the circumstance. Occasional flooding may cause herp buckets to come up out of the ground, and hasten the deterioration of w ooden fence stakes. Openness of ha bitat can become a problem for both herp array installation and small mammal tr apping grid placement if exposure to the public is high. I have not personally experienced any vandalism or larceny by the public concerning trapping arrays, but I have also intentionally positioned herp and mammal traps in vegetation so as not to be noticed by the general public. However, this concern can limit the number of locations available for the installation of traps, particularly in HW an d HCP which have high openness in places and higher public e xposure than other areas. Most sampling difficulties that I have experi enced have been faced in areas that are constituted by a sizeable percentage of bottomland hardwood-type forest or swamp wetlands, namely in GW, LAS, parts of LAM, and BFE. GW is more or less bowl-shaped, and is essentially a drainage area for much of the su rrounding areas. So, there are a number of streams that pour into it from the surrounding development. Because of this, stream levels can fluctuate enough to flood the ground in the part s of the bottom of bowl into very mucky, very lose soil. I would definitely recommend re-locating the edge herp array in this area to a place with firmer soil. As it is, the pitfall trap could not be held in the ground, even with rebar stakes, because the ground was just too soft after rain. This area can also be challenging in general because the vegetation is thick, and with the la rge number of sizeable fallen trees, there are parts that are very difficult to get around in, establish herp arrays in, and run mammal transects through. In terms of

PAGE 14

14 small mammal traps, though, once a transect is established, it is usually easy enough to find dry land to place it on. Lastly, the t opography in this area is unusual in that si nce its bowl shaped, there is some relatively steep terrain towards the northern edge, which effectively make large permanent structures there impractical. Also, becau se of the drainage streams, there are small ravine-like crevices that can make north-south movement a bit perilous and sampling a bit difficult. Lake Alice South is an unusual area in that ar ound half of it is horse pasture, so it was difficult to decide how to sample it area-wis e. Like GW, it acts like a drainage area for surrounding development and horse pastures, with water levels fluctuati ng widely with rains. Again, with more rain, the streams tend to flood over a bit into the already soggy land, creating pretty mucky conditions in lower-lying parts, which constitute majority of the wooded area. Consequently, the selection of herp array and ma mmal trap transect locations can be difficult. Also, installation can be challenging due to th e seemingly vast abundance of briars and blackberry bushes, as well as thick vegetation, and fa llen trees (which tend to leave small ponds at their bases). Lastly, there are several old barbed-w ire topped fences in this area that must be traversed and dealt with in various locations. The entire area is surrounded by fences in various states of repair; some old fences with wholes that can be used for access, and some newer, tall fences that have to be either avoided or jumped over. Consequen tly, access to this area can be somewhat limited. I have generally accessed it by pa rking behind a cattle fence east of the Jiffy Lube and just west of the Jimmy Johns on Arch er road. After the ca ttle fence is jumped, I usually get into the area by heading away from the adjacent horse pasture, and towards the forested canopy, where I use a hole in an old, s hort barbed-wire fence made by a fallen tree. Another way to access this area is to go through a gated fen ce directed next to the WEC/SFRC vehicle compound which will lead you the aforementi oned hole in the fence. If one was to gain a key to this fence, access would probably be more convenient than it is now. Lake Alice Main is what I call the northern portion of the Lake A lice Conservation Area. The southern portion of that is a large freshwater marsh that I had initially intended upon targeting for sampling, but after several traverse s into it, I decided it was inaccessible enough to prohibit sampling it due to time concerns. Lake Alice Main, however, is a relatively large, reasonably-open, upland patch of ha bitat that is comparatively easy to sample. The two main concerns with LAM are people and flooding in parts. Unlike other areas, LAM receives a good number of visitors and its tr ails are frequently used by dogwalkers. Therefore, I would recommend that herp arrays again be conscienti ously built away from the open view of people for the safety of captured specimens. Also, one of th e interior herp arrays is in a clear-cut that is dominated by tall, weedy species. I would reco mmend that if arrays are built there again, plans for the field be investigated so that any herp ar ray to be installed isnt accidentally destroyed by Bush-hog or a prescribed fire. In addition, because it is so open at this location, I would recommend raised shade boards over both pitfall and funnel tr aps to prevent desiccation. The second concern, flooding, is really only applicable to the far wester n portion that is a bit lower and has several streams that run through it. Herp array pitfall traps have had a tendency to pop out of the ground after rain, even with rebar stak es, and I would advise caution when installing traps there. However, I would say that despite the problems with arrays in wetland areas, the far west LAM herp array has produced the only salamanders caught ove r the entire field season, so I consider the effort worthwhile.

PAGE 15

15 Bivens Forest East is by far the most challe nging area to sample in the entire group of sampled areas. It is shaped like a large N-S oriented bowl, with a thinner pan-handle that stretches E-W along Bivens Arm Lake. The terra in of the bowl glades from mixed pinehardwoods forest on the northern, western, and eastern edges, to a hardwood swamp in the northern bowl bottom, to stream-crossed bottomland hardwood forest in the middle, and back towards hardwood swamp towards the southern end as it approaches the lake. This area poses many challenges because of the varied topogr aphy and corresponding vegetation. Though the edges and southern panhandle of this area are mainly upland habita t, the majority of habitat in this area is some form of wetland. Again, this ca uses problems for herp array installation, mesomammal trap installation, and small-mammal tra pping transect placement. The placement of herp arrays in this area definitely takes some knowledge of current conditions, including vegetation density, which is often high, access to th e site, and soil type, which can be extremely mucky. Also, the hurricanes of 2004 caused significant damage to these areas, causing massive tree-fall and effectively creating walls of vegetation that mu st be circumvented or in which paths must be discovered or cut through. In genera l, the vegetation itself varies with topography, and during spring and summer months, the vegeta tion growth, especially of wild taro and elderberry plants, can make what was relativ ely open bottom-land swamp into very thickly vegetated habitat in a matter of weeks. In fa ct, during the height of summer, commonly used paths in these areas can become overgrown with plan ts in a matter of days. Lastly, this area, like the previous ones, serves for drainage purposes for the surrounding area, and thus has a number of streams. There is also a large canal built on the central eastern borde r of the property built expressively for this purpose. I would advi se caution during rainstorms in BFE. Water accumulates extremely fast, and small streams only inches deep can become running creeks several feet deep very quickly du ring rain-storms. Naturally, floodi ng also is an issue, and care must be taken when planning small mammal trappi ng locations so that tr aps are not placed in potentially floodable locations. In fa ct, because of the variation in wa ter level, especially over the spring and summer, I would recommend that sma ll mammal trapping be done in the southern panhandle area, which is more re liably upland. So, notwithstanding, the challenges of the terrain, which can range from fairly solid ground to ex traordinarily mucky ground over a short distance, and the variable vegetation and fallen trees, ca n make the establishment of sampling points and sampling in general difficult, and travel within BFE very time consuming and slow. In addition, the shape, size, and position of th e conservation area make access an issue. It is situated mainly south of the Veteran hospital and residential areas, and east of horse pastures owned by the school of veterinary medicine. Because it is long and relatively thin, and surrounded by intact fences on all si des access to it is limited to two main locations within the UF campus boundaries. The best access point by road is a grass path between the adjacent horse pastures that ends in a small turn around area directly next to the c onservation area boundaries. There are several holes in the barb-wire fences in this location, and it is central to the conservation area in general. An access key has to be acquired from Vet Med in order to use this access point. The other location, which I began to use after the aforementioned pastures were quarantined due to a horse disease, is the Winn-Di xie Hope Lodge. Parking is restricted here, and a parking permit must be obtained. This locati on, though also at the conservation area boundary is at the northern end of the property, and therefor e the entire length of th e area must usually be traversed to get to sampling poi nts. Other access points include private property locations on 13th St. which must be investigated further prior to their use. There is also an access point to the

PAGE 16

16 southern panhandle by taki ng another road in between horse pastures to the conservation area boundary. However, a ladder is recomme nded to scale the fence safely. Despite the challenges, because of its heterogeneity, BFE offers habitat for a wide number of wildlife species, and should be sampled as best as possible to capture that diversity. Lastly, I offer a note for herp sampling. I experien ced a number of amphibian deaths in pitfall traps and funnel traps due to desiccation, iso-tonic water c onditions, and predation. I would recommend that water always be added to s ponges in pitfall and funnel traps. Captured specimens may still not use them, and crawl into a co rner to desiccate, but it is worth it for the species that are more apt to us e the sponges. I would also recomme nd that when water is not able to drain, either soil or somethi ng large enough to float out of th e water be put in the bucket. I experienced a large number of bron ze frog juvenile deaths that I believe were due to isotonic water conditions. Soil, especially with minerals in it, or floating debris generally alleviates the problem. Unfortunately, nothing can be done to prevent predation on pit-fall captured specimens. However, one idea may be to place a raised cover over the open bucket. Such a cover, as mentioned before, may be placed over the pitfal l trap of sun-exposed arrays to prevent desiccation, as well to preven ted further predation events fr om occurring, at least by mammalian predators. If predation events become frequent it might be worth it to prevent needless loss of specimens. Appendices Table 1: Numbers of sample location s per Area for each sampling technique Conservation Area No. of Hectares (reported by FC&P and verified by calculation in ArcView 3.2) Total no. of avian point count locations No. of Herp Arrays Length of Small mammal transects(m) No. of mesomammal scent/track stations Harmonic Woods 3.670 5 2 60 2 Fraternity Wetlands 2.572 4 1 60 2 Graham Woods 3.043 4 2 60 2 Health Center Park 3.519 4 2 80 2 McCarty Woods 1.153 2 0 1 Lake Alice Main 48.14 6 4 240 4

PAGE 17

17 Table 1: continued Lake Alice South 6.606 4 1 80 1 Bivens Rim Forest 3.308 4 1 2 Bivens Forest East 16.592 10 4 240 4 Surge Wetlands 4.964 3 1 80 2 Table 2: University of Florida Conservation Area name abbreviations BFE=Bivens Forest East HW= Harmonic Woods BRF=Bivens Rim Forest LAM=La ke Alice Conservation Area FW=Fraternity Wetlands LAS=Lake Alice South GW=Graham Woods MW=McCarty Woods HCP=Health Center Park SW=Surge Wetlands Table 3: Total Number of Surveys per samplin g point per taxa per season in the University of Florida Conservation Areas Number of Surveys Conducted per Season Taxa Area Sample Point ID Fall (11/04-12/04) Winter (12/04-4/04) Spring (4/05-5/05) Summer (5/05-8/05) Total # of Surveys Birds HW 1 4 16 5 7 32 HW 2 4 14 4 6 28 FW 3 4 16 5 7 32 FW 4 4 16 5 7 32 GW 5 4 15 5 7 31 GW 6 4 15 5 5 29 HCP 7 4 15 5 7 31 HCP 8 3 15 5 7 30 MW 9 4 15 5 7 31 LAS 10 3 17 5 6 31 LAS 11 3 17 4 7 31 LAS 12 2 16 4 7 29 BRF 14 3 16 4 6 29 BRF 15 3 16 4 6 29 BFE 16 3 15 4 7 29 BFE 17 3 15 4 7 29 BFE 18 3 14 4 7 28 BFE 19 3 14 4 7 28

PAGE 18

18 Table 3: Continued LAM 20 1 8 4 5 18 LAM 21 5 4 5 14 LAM 22 5 4 5 14 LAM 23 1 8 3 5 17 SW 24 1 7 4 5 17 SW 25 6 4 5 15 HW 28 3 5 7 15 BFE 31 1 4 7 12 LAM 33 1 4 4 9 LAM 34 1 4 4 9 SW 35 1 3 4 8 HW 101 4 4 HW 102 4 4 FW 103 4 4 FW 104 4 4 GW 105 4 4 GW 106 4 4 HCP 107 4 4 HCP 108 4 4 MW 109 4 4 LAS 111 3 3 BRF 113 3 3 BRF 114 3 3 BFE 116 3 3 BFE 117 3 3 BFE 118 3 3 BFE 119 3 3 BFE 200 3 3 Herps HW 1 24 24 HW 2 24 24 FW 3 24 24 GW 4 24 24 GW 5 24 24 LAM 6 24 24 LAM 7 24 24 LAM 8 24 24 SW 9 24 24 HCP 11 24 24 HCP 12 24 24 LAS 13 24 24 BRF 14 24 24 BFE 15 23 23 BFE 16 22 22 BFE 17 22 22 BFE 18 23 23 LAM 19 24 24 MW N/A 1 1 Small Mammals HW N/A 1 2 3

PAGE 19

19 Table 3: Continued TRANSECT METHOD FW N/A 1 2 3 GW N/A 1 2 3 HCP N/A 1 2 3 LAS N/A 1 2 3 SW N/A 1 2 3 BRF N/A 1 2 3 BFE N/A 1 2 3 LAM N/A 1 2 3 Small Mammals HW 1 1 GRID METHOD FW 1 1 GW 1 1 HCP 1 1 LAS 1 1 SW 1 1 BRF 1 1 BFE 1 1 LAM 1 1 MesoMammals HW 8 8 FW 8 8 GW 8 8 HCP 8 8 LAS 8 8 SW 8 8 BRF 8 8 BFE 8 8 LAM 8 8

PAGE 20

20 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 23 10 25 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 24 22 21 33 34 35 31Reportwlinv.shp Bivens Rim East Bivens Rim South Fraternity WL Graham woods Harmonic woods Health Center Pk Lake Alice South Lake Alice north McCarty woods Surge Wetlands#Pcpointsmarch05.shpAnnual Group Avian Point Count Locations FIGURE 1: Avian point count locations surveyed on an annual basis

PAGE 21

21 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #2 1 4 3 6 5 7 8 9 16 20 15 14 12 10 11 18 17 19Reportwlinv.shp Bivens Rim East Bivens Rim South Fraternity WL Graham woods Harmonic woods Health Center Pk Lake Alice South Lake Alice north McCarty woods Surge Wetlands#Migrantpcmarch05.shpMigrant Group Avian Point Count Locations Figure 2: Avian point count locations added to capture migrant diversity

PAGE 22

22 Table 4: GPS locations of Annual Group avian point counts Long: 82deg W Lat: 29deg N Area 1 21' 34.73'' 38' 44.33'' HW 2 21' 30.90'' 38' 44.49'' HW 3 21' 20.41'' 38' 45.66" FW 4 21' 22.52" 38' 49.16" FW 5 21' 6.07" 38" 47.33" GW 6 21' 9.54" 38' 49.87" GW 7 20' 41.28" 38' 43.67" HCP 8 20' 43.60" 38' 34.23" HCP 9 20' 39.29" 38' 34.49" MW 10 21' 18.76" 38' 15.93" LAS 11 21' 14.76" 38' 15.00" LAS 12 21' 13.05" 38' 11.95" LAS 14 21' 14.25" 37' 43.88" BRF 15 21' 12.72 37' 39.66" BRF 16 20' 37.39" 37' 57.29" BFE 17 20' 41.21" 37' 51.35" BFE 18 20' 35.41" 37' 51.90" BFE 19 20' 37.12" 37' 43.19" BFE 20 21' 20.16" 38' 39.02" LAM 21 21' 18.14" 38' 32.43" LAM 22 21' 19.94" 38' 29.42" LAM 23 21' 8.26" 38' 32.44" LAM 24 21' 10.16" 38" 24.20" SW 25 21' 6.52" 38' 21.39" SW 28 21' 32.46" 38' 48.33" HW 31 20' 36.40" 37' 47.08" BFE 33 21' 13.58" 38' 31.20" LAM 34 21' 31.32 38' 35.90" LAM 35 21.55.90" 37' 59.56" SW Table 5: GPS locations of Migrant Group avian point counts Long: 82deg W Lat: 29deg N Area 1* 21' 29.13" 38' 42.82" HW 2* 21' 32.90" 38' 45.88" HW 3* 21' 22.01 38' 46.23 FW 4* 21' 22.21 38' 50.16" FW 5* 21' 10.34 38' 52.97" GW 6* 21' 7.93" 38' 49.09" GW 7* 20' 47.28" 38' 33.80" HCP

PAGE 23

23 Table 5 continued: 8* 20' 42.10" 38' 34.43" HCP 9* 20' 42.17" 38' 43.10" MW 11* 21' 13.56" 38' 9.20" LAS 14* 21' 13.02 37' 46.03 BRF 15* 21' 11.82" 37' 38.19" BRF 16* 20' 40.87" 37' 58.49" BFE 17* 20' 47.39" 37' 45.92" BFE 18* 20' 36.10" 37' 54.12" BFE 19* 20' 38.24" 37' 49.09" BFE 20* 20' 40.4" 37' 45.9" BFE Table 6: 4-letter avian species abbreviations Abbreviation Common Name Abbreviation Common Name AMCR American Crow MODO Mourning Dove AMGO American Goldfinch NOCA Northern Cardinal AMRE American Redstart NOFL Northern Flicker AMRO American Robin NOMO Northern Mockingbird ANHI Anhinga NOPA Northern Parula BAEA Bald Eagle NOWA Northern Waterthrush BAOR Baltimore Oriole OCWA Orange Crowned Warbler BAWW Black and White Warbler OROR Orchard Oriole BBWD Black-Bellied Whistling Duck OSPY Oprey BDOW Barred Owl OVEN Ovenbird BEKI Belted Kingfisher PABU Painted Bunting BGGC Blue-Gray gnatcatch er PAWA Palm Warbler BHCO Brown-headed cowb ird PIWA Pine Warbler BHVI Blue-headed Vireo PIWO Pileated Woodpecker BLJA Blue Jay PROW Prothonotary Warbler BLVU Black Vulture PRWA Prairie Warbler BOBO Bobolink PUMA Purple Martin BPWA Blackpoll Warbler RBGU Ring-billed Gull BRTH Brown Thrasher RBW O Red-bellied Woodpecker BTBW Black Throated Blue Warbler RCKI Ruby-crowned Kinglet BTGR Boat-tailed Grackle REVI Red-eyed Vireo CACH Carolina Chickadee RH WO Red-headed Woodpecker CARW Carlolina Wren RODO Rock Dove CEWA Cedar Waxwing RSHA Red-Shouldered Hawk CHSP Chipping Sparrow RTHA Red-Tailed Hawk CHSW Chimney Swift RTHU Ruby-throated Hummingbird COGR Common Grackle RWBB Red-winged Blackbird COHA Cooper's Hawk SACR Sandhill Crane COYE Common Yellowthroat SNEG Snowy Egret DCCO Double-Crested Cormorant SSHA Sharp-shinned Hawk DOWO Downy Woodpecker SUTA Summer Tanager EABL Eastern Bluebird SWWA Swainson's Warbler EAPH Eastern Phoebe TRSW Tree Swallow

PAGE 24

24 Table 6: Continued ETTI Eastern Tufted Titmous e TUVU Turkey Vulture EUST European Starling UNID-duck Unidentified duck FICR Fish Crow UNID-egr et Unidentified egret GBHE Great Blue Heron UNID-gull Unidentified gull GCFL Great Crested Flycatcher UN ID-sparrow Unidentified sparrow GRCA Gray Catbird UNID-war bler Unidentified warbler GREG Great Egret UNID-waterbird Unidentified wader/waterbird GRHE Green Heron WEVI White-eyed Vireo HETH Hermit Thrush WEWA Worm-eating Warbler HOFI House Finch WHIB White Ibis HOSP House Sparrow WITU Wild Turkey HOWR House Wren WTSP White-Throated Sparrow INBU Indigo Bunting YBCH Yellow-breasted Chat KILL Killdeer YBSA Yellow-bellied Sapsucker LBHE Little Blue Heron YRWA Yellow-rumped Warbler LOSH Loggerhead Shrike YTVI Yellow-throated Vireo MIKI Mississipi Kite YTWA Yellow-throated Warbler Table 7: All bird species detected per area between October 2004 and August 2005 in the University of Florida Conservation Areas Harmonic Woods Fraternity Wetlands Graham Woods Health Center Park AMCR AMCR AMCR AMCR AMGO AMGO AMGO AMGO AMRE AMRE AMRE AMRO AMRO AMRO AMRO BAWW BAWW BAWW BAOR BEKI BGGC BGGC BAWW BGGC BHCO BHCO BGGC BHCO BHVI BHVI BHVI BHVI BLJA BLJA BLJA BLJA BRTH BRTH CACH BRTH BTBW BTBW* CARW BTGR BTGR CACH CEWA CACH CACH CARW CHSW CARW CARW CEWA COGR CEWA CEWA CHSP COYE CHSW CHSW CHSW DCCO COGR DCCO COHA DOWO DOWO DOWO DOWO EAPH EAPH EAPH EAPH ETTI ETTI ETTI ETTI EUST FICR FICR FICR FICR GCFL GCFL GCFL GBHE GRCA GRCA GRCA GCFL HETH HETH HOFI GRCA HOFI HOFI HOWR HOFI LOSH HOWR MODO HOWR MODO

PAGE 25

25 Table 7: Continued INBU NOCA HOSP NOCA MODO NOFL MODO NOFL NOCA NOMO NOCA NOMO NOMO NOPA NOFL NOPA NOPA OSPY NOMO PAWA OSPY PAWA NOPA PIWA OVEN PIWO OCWA PIWO PAWA PROW* OROR RBWO PIWA PRWA* OSPR RCKI PIWO RBWO PIWO RODO RBWO RCKI RBWO RSHA RCKI REVI RCKI RWBB REVI RODO REVI SACR RSHA RSHA RODO SACR RWBB RWBB RSHA TUVU SUTA SUTA RWBB UNID-egret TRSW TUVU SUTA UNID-gull TUVU UNID-gull UNID-gull WEVI UNID-gull YBCH WEVI WHIB WEVI YRWA YBSA YBSA YBSA YTWA YRWA YRWA YRWA YTWA YTWA YTWA Table 7: Continued Lake Alice South Bivens Rim Forest Bivens Forest East Lake Alice Main AMCR AMCR AMCR AMCR AMGO AMGO AMGO AMGO AMRO AMRO AMRE AMRO ANHI ANHI AMRO BAOR BAEA BAEA ANHI BAWW BAOR BAWW BAEA BDOW BAWW BEKI BAOR BGGC BEKI BGGC BAWW BHCO BGGC BHCO BBWD BHVI BHCO BLJA BDOW BLJA BHVI BRTH BEKI BOBO BLJA BTGR BGGC BRTH BLVU CACH BHCO BTGR BRTH CARW BHVI CACH BTGR CHSW BLJA CARW CACH COGR BPWA CEWA CARW COHA BRTH CHSW CEWA COYE BTBW COGR CHSW DCCO BTGR DOWO COGR DOWO CACH EAPH DCCO EABL CARW ETTI DOWO EAPH CEWA EUST EABL ETTI CHSW GBHE

PAGE 26

26 Table 7: Continued EAPH FICR COGR FICR ETTI GBHE COYE GCFL EUST GCFL DCCO GRCA FICR GRCA DOWO GREG GCFL GREG EAPH HETH GRCA HETH ETTI HOFI GREG HOFI FICR HOWR HETH HOWR GBHE KILL HOFI IBIS GCFL MODO HOSP KILL GRCA NOCA HOWR LBHE GRHE NOFL INBU LOSH HETH NOMO KILL MODO HOFI NOPA LOSH NOCA HOWR NOWA MODO NOFL INBU OSPY NOCA NOMO KILL PAWA NOFL NOPA MIKI PIWA NOMO OSPR MODO PIWO NOPA PABU NOCA RBGU OSPR PAWA NOFL RBWO PAWA PIWA NOMO RCKI PIWA PIWO NOPA REVI PIWO PROW* OSPY RSHA PUMA PRWA OVEN RWBB RBGU RBWO PAWA SACR RBWO RCKI PIWA SWWA RCKI RODO PIWO SUTA REVI RSHA PRWA TUVU RHWO RTHA RBWO WEVI RODO RWBB RCKI WHIB RSHA SACR REVI WITU RTHA SNEG RSHA YBSA RWBB TUVU RTHA YRWA SACR UNID-sparrow RTHU YTWA SSHA WEVI RWBB TRES WHIB SACR TUVU YRWA SNEG UNID-duck YTVI* SUTA WHIB YTWA TRES WTSP TUVU YBSA WEVI YRWA WHIB YBSA YRWA YTVI* YTWA

PAGE 27

27 Table 7: Continued McCarty Woods Surge Wetlands AMCR AMCR AMGO AMGO AMRE AMRO AMRO BAWW BAWW BGGC BHCO BHCO BLJA BHVI BRTH BLJA BPWA BTGR CACH CACH CARW CARW CEWA CEWA COGR CHSW DOWO COGR ETTI COYE FICR DOWO GCFL EAPH GRCA ETTI HETH FICR HOFI GCFL MODO GRCA NOCA HETH NOMO HOSP PROW HOWR RBWO LBHE RCKI MODO REVI NOCA UNID-gull NOMO WEWA NOPA YBSA OSPY YRWA PAWA PIWA PIWO PRWA RBWO RCKI REVI RHWO RSHA RTHU RWBB SUTA TUVU WEVI YRWA YTVI

PAGE 28

28 Speciesrichness.shp 0 1 30 31 48 49 61 62 69Avian Species Richess by Area Figure 3: All sampled conservation areas depi cted in terms of detected avian species richness (darker color indicates more species) in the University of Florida Conservation Areas between October 2004 and August.

PAGE 29

29 Table 8: For each conservation area, the maximum abundances of each bird species detected at each point durin g one survey within a 40m sa mple radius over all dates sampled in the University of Florida Conservation Areas *=Migrant Point Count UNID=Unidentified Species Note: High UNID values generally indicate unidentifiable flocks a. Harmonic Woods Point ID 1 2 101* 102* 28 Edge/Interior Edge Interior Edge Interior Edge # of observations 32 29 4 4 15 Species # individuals # individuals # individuals # individuals # individuals AMCR 1 1 AMGO 3 30 AMRE 2 1 AMRO 15 29 BAWW 1 1 1 1 1 BGGC 1 2 2 BHCO 2 1 1 BHVI 1 BLJA 2 2 1 3 BRTH 2 BTGR 1 CACH 3 1 1 CARW 11 6 3 1 7 CEWA 1 2 CHSW 1 1 2 1 DCCO 10 DOWO 2 2 2 1 1 EAPH 1 1 1 ETTI 2 4 2 2 GCFL 2 2 1 1 2 GRCA 1 3 2 1 HOFI 1 3 1 HOWR 1 1 1 INBU 1 MODO 1 1 NOCA 3 6 2 3 5 NOMO 1 1 2 NOPA 1 3 1 1 2 OSPR 1 1 PAWA 1 PIWA 1 1 2 PIWO 1 RBWO 3 2 2 1 2

PAGE 30

30 Table 8a: Continued RCKI 5 2 3 2 REVI 1 2 1 1 2 RWBB 3 SUTA 1 TRES 1 TUVU 1 1 1 UNID 20 5 3 1 WEVI 1 1 YBSA 1 1 YRWA 6 3 5 YTWA 1 1 1 1 1 b. Fraternity Wetlands Point ID 3 4 103* 104* Edge/Interior Edge Interior Edge Interior # of observations 32 32 4 4 Species # individuals # individuals # individuals # individuals AMCR 2 2 1 AMGO 18 7 AMRE 2 AMRO 22 23 BAWW 1 BGGC 3 1 BHCO 10 4 1 BLJA 3 4 1 2 BRTH 3 1 CACH 2 2 2 CARW 3 5 2 3 CEWA 6 22 CHSW 16 3 1 1 DOWO 1 1 1 EAPH 3 ETTI 3 1 2 1 FICR 1 GCFL 3 2 3 1 GRCA 1 1 1 HOFI 5 2 1 HOWR 1 1 1 1 MODO 3 3 1 NOCA 3 4 5 5 NOFL 1 NOMO 3 3 1 NOPA 2 2 1 OSPR 2 1

PAGE 31

31 Table 8b: Continued PAWA 1 PIWO 2 1 RBWO 2 3 1 2 RCKI 3 3 2 1 REVI 1 1 1 RODO 1 RWBB 20 1 SUTA 1 TRES 1 TUVU 1 UNID 4 4 2 YBCH 1 YRWA 5 4 2 YTWA 1 c. Graham Woods Point ID 5 6 105* 106* Edge/Interior Edge Interior Edge Interior # of observations 31 29 4 4 Species # individuals # individuals # individuals # individuals AMCR 6 16 3 AMGO 2 2 1 AMRE 3 1 AMRO 28 60 BAOR 2 1 6 BAWW 2 1 BGGC 1 1 BHCO 2 1 BLJA 2 2 1 CACH 1 2 CARW 6 6 1 6 CEWA 3 1 1 CHSW 2 COGR 3 COYE 1 1 DCCO 1 2 DOWO 3 1 EAPH 1 ETTI 1 4 1 FICR 1 1 1 GBHE 1 GCFL 3 3 2 2 GRCA 2 2 1 1 HOFI 2 1

PAGE 32

32 Table 8c: Continued HOSP 1 HOWR 1 1 MODO 1 2 NOCA 4 4 2 5 NOFL 1 NOMO 2 2 3 NOPA 1 OCWA 1 OROR 1 OSPR 1 2 PIWO 1 RBWO 2 2 1 1 RCKI 2 3 1 2 REVI 1 RODO 1 RSHA 2 RWBB 3 1 SUTA 1 UNID 14 7 5 1 WEVI 1 YBSA 1 1 1 YRWA 5 3 d. Health Center Park Point ID 7 8 107* 108* Edge/Interior Interior Edge Interior Edge # of observations 31 30 4 4 Species # individuals # individuals # individuals # individuals AMCR 2 6 2 AMGO 4 1 1 AMRO 63 119 BAWW 1 1 1 BEKI 1 BGGC 2 2 BHCO 3 5 5 BLJA 4 4 2 2 BRTH 1 1 1 BTGR 1 2 CACH 1 2 CARW 4 4 3 2 CEWA 2 3 CHSW 1 2 COGR 1 DOWO 2 1 1

PAGE 33

33 Table 8d: Continued EAPH 1 ETTI 3 2 1 FICR 1 GCFL 3 4 3 2 GRCA 1 1 HETH 1 HOFI 1 2 1 LOSH 1 MODO 10 2 NOCA 5 4 2 3 NOFL 1 NOMO 2 4 3 2 NOPA 1 1 PAWA 3 3 PIWA 2 PIWO 1 RBWO 3 3 1 1 RCKI 3 2 1 1 RODO 2 3 RSHA 1 RWBB 2 30 SACR 1 TUVU 1 UNID 4 11 1 WEVI 1 WHIB 1 YBSA 1 YRWA 4 6 YTWA 2 e. McCarty Woods Point ID 9 109* Edge/Interior N/A N/A # of observations 31 4 Species # individuals # individuals AMCR 12 1 AMGO 2 AMRE 1 AMRO 109 BAWW 1 BHCO 1 BLJA 2 BRTH 2 2 CACH 1

PAGE 34

34 Table 8e: Continued CARW 3 3 CEWA 9 COGR 1 DOWO 1 ETTI 3 3 FICR 2 GCFL 2 3 GRCA 1 HETH 1 HOFI 3 1 MODO 3 1 NOCA 4 3 NOMO 4 2 PROW 1 RBWO 1 RCKI 1 1 REVI 1 1 UNID 5 YBSA 1 YRWA 5 f. Lake Alice South Point ID 10 11 12 111* Edge/Interior Edge Interior Edge Interior # of observations 30 30 29 3 Species # of individuals # of individuals # of individuals # of individuals AMCR 1 1 2 1 AMGO 11 5 1 AMRO 7 25 13 ANHI 2 BAEA 1 1 BAOR 1 1 BAWW 1 1 BEKI 3 BGGC 2 2 BHCO 20 2 BHVI 1 1 BLJA 2 2 3 1 BLVU 5 BRTH 1 1 BTGR 2 1 1 CACH 1 2 CARW 2 4 2 2 CHSW 6 1 2

PAGE 35

35 Table 8f: Continued COGR 2 DCCO 1 5 DOWO 1 2 1 EABL 2 3 EAPH 1 1 ETTI 2 1 1 1 EUST 3 FICR 1 GCFL 3 2 2 4 GRCA 6 2 3 GREG 1 HETH 1 HOFI 4 8 2 1 HOWR 1 1 INBU 1 KILL 4 LOSH 3 MODO 18 5 10 1 NOCA 3 5 1 2 NOFL 1 1 NOMO 2 2 4 NOPA 2 1 OSPR 2 1 2 PAWA 2 13 PIWA 1 1 PIWO 1 1 1 PUMA 1 1 RBGU 5 2 RBWO 1 2 1 1 RCKI 2 2 1 RHWO 1 2 RODO 3 4 RSHA 2 RTHA 1 RWBB 30 6 30 SACR 60 SSHA 1 TRES 3 TUVU 1 2 1 UNID 10 21 29 1 WHIB 1 1 YBSA 1 1 YRWA 5 3 2

PAGE 36

36 g. Bivens Rim Forest Point ID 14 15 114* 115* Edge/Interior N/A N/A N/A N/A # of observations 30 29 3 3 Species # of individuals # of individuals # of individuals # of individuals AMCR 5 1 AMGO 4 5 AMRO 7 11 ANHI 1 2 BAEA 1 1 BAWW 1 BEKI 1 2 BGGC 1 1 BHCO 1 1 1 2 BLJA 2 2 BRTH 1 1 BTGR 1 2 1 CACH 3 2 CARW 1 2 2 CHSW 2 1 COGR 1 1 COYE 2 2 DCCO 2 7 DOWO 3 2 EABL 1 EAPH 1 ETTI 1 1 1 FICR 2 GBHE 1 2 GCFL 1 GRCA 1 2 1 GREG 2 2 HOFI 2 HOWR 2 1 KILL 1 LBHE 2 MODO 5 2 1 NOCA 4 3 3 1 NOFL 1 NOMO 2 1 1 NOPA 1 1 1 OSPR 2 3 1 PABU 1 PAWA 1 3 PIWO 1 RBWO 3 1 1 1 RCKI 3 3 1 2 REVI 1 1

PAGE 37

37 Table 8g: Continued RODO 5 2 RSHA 2 1 1 RWBB 3 11 2 SACR 4 SNEG 1 TUVU 3 1 UNID 15 7 1 2 WEVI 1 2 1 1 WHIB 1 YRWA 15 3 YTWA 1 h. Bivens Forest East Point ID 16 17 18 19 31 Edge/Interior Edge Edge Interior Interior Interior # of observations 29 29 28 27 11 Species # of individuals # of indivi duals # of individuals # of individuals # of individuals AMCR 1 2 3 1 AMGO 1 3 8 1 AMRE 2 1 2 AMRO 2 5 10 1 ANHI 2 1 1 BAEA 3 2 1 BAOR 1 BAOW 2 BAWW 1 1 1 BEKI 2 BGGC 1 1 1 2 BHCO 1 3 BHVI 1 1 BLJA 3 4 4 1 2 BPWA 1 BRTH 2 1 BTBW 2 BTGR 2 CACH 1 1 2 CARW 3 4 3 4 4 CEWA 20 3 2 CHSW 1 COGR 1 COYE 1 DCCO 2 1 3 DOWO 1 1 1 1 EAPH 1 2 2

PAGE 38

38 Table 8h: Continued ETTI 2 2 2 2 1 FICR 2 1 GBHE 1 1 GCFL 2 2 2 2 1 GRCA 1 2 1 1 1 HETH 1 1 HOFI 1 1 1 HOWR 2 MODO 2 3 2 NOCA 6 4 3 3 3 NOFL 1 1 NOMO 2 2 2 1 NOPA 1 1 2 1 2 OSPR 1 1 1 1 OVEN 1 PAWA 6 1 1 PIWA 1 PIWO 1 1 2 1 PRWA 1 RBWO 2 3 3 1 1 RCKI 3 4 1 2 REVI 1 1 1 1 RSHA 3 1 1 RTHA 1 RWBB 20 11 15 TRES 1 TUVU 1 1 1 UNID 3 4 23 4 2 WEVI 1 1 1 WHIB 3 YBSA 1 2 1 YRWA 4 20 10 15 2 YTWA 2 1 h. Bivens Forest East continued: Point ID 116* 117* 118* 119* 200* Edge/Interior Edge Edge Interior Interior Edge # of observations 3 3 3 3 3 Species # of individuals # of indivi duals # of individuals # of individuals # of individuals AMCR AMGO AMRE AMRO ANHI

PAGE 39

39 Table 8h: Continued BAEA BAOR BAOW BAWW 1 BEKI 1 BGGC BHCO 1 BHVI BLJA 1 1 1 2 BPWA BRTH BTBW BTGR CACH 1 1 CARW 2 2 1 2 2 CEWA 1 5 CHSW COGR COYE DCCO DOWO 1 1 1 EAPH ETTI 1 FICR GBHE GCFL 1 2 4 1 GRCA 1 1 3 1 HETH HOFI HOWR MODO NOCA 2 3 3 2 NOFL NOMO NOPA 2 1 1 OSPR OVEN PAWA PIWA PIWO 1 PRWA RBWO 2 2 1 RCKI 1 REVI 1 RSHA RTHA RWBB TRES TUVU

PAGE 40

40UNID 1 1 1 10 WEVI 2 1 1 WHIB YBSA YRWA 2 YTWA i. Lake Alice Conservation Area Point ID 20 21 22 Edge/Interior Edge Interior Interior # of observations 19 15 15 Species # of individuals # of indi viduals # of individuals AMCR 1 9 1 AMGO 1 5 2 AMRO 4 1 1 BAOL 1 BAOR BAWW 1 1 BGGC 1 1 1 BHCO 1 1 BHVI 1 BLJA 1 2 BRTH 1 BTGR CACH 1 2 2 CARW 6 7 3 CEWA 1 CHSW 1 4 COGR 2 2 DOWO 1 2 EAPH 2 1 ETTI 2 4 4 FICR 2 GBHE GCFL 2 2 2 GRCA 2 1 1 GREG 1 HETH 1 HOFI 1 HOWR 1 1 MODO 2 NOCA 3 4 3 NOMO 2 NOPA 1 2 2 OSPR 1 1 PAWA 2 2

PAGE 41

41 Table 8i: Continued PIWA 3 PIWO 1 RBWO 2 1 1 RCKI 2 2 3 REVI 2 RSHA RWBB SWWA 1 TUVU 1 UNID 2 1 131 WEVI 1 1 2 WHIB 2 WITU 1 YBSA 1 1 1 YRWA 4 3 6 YTWA 1 1 i. Lake Alice Conservation Area continued: Point ID 23 33 34 Edge/Interior Edge Interior Edge # of observations 18 10 10 Species # of individuals # of indi viduals # of individuals AMCR 1 AMGO 1 AMRO 30 BAOL 1 BAOR 1 BAWW 2 1 BGGC 2 BHCO BHVI 1 BLJA 3 2 4 BRTH 1 BTGR 1 CACH 1 1 CARW 3 6 4 CEWA CHSW 2 1 COGR 1 DOWO 1 EAPH 1 ETTI 2 1 FICR 2 2 GBHE 1

PAGE 42

42 Table 8i: Continued GCFL 4 1 2 GRCA 2 1 2 GREG HETH HOFI 3 HOWR 1 MODO 2 NOCA 4 4 3 NOMO 1 NOPA 1 1 OSPR 1 1 PAWA 2 PIWA PIWO 1 1 RBWO 1 2 1 RCKI 2 1 2 REVI 1 1 RSHA 1 RWBB 3 SWWA TUVU 1 UNID 11 1 WEVI 1 2 WHIB WITU YBSA 1 1 YRWA 9 10 YTWA j. Surge Wetlands Point ID 24 25 35 Edge/Interior N/A N/A N/A # of observations 18 16 9 Species # of individuals # of indi viduals # of individuals AMCR 2 2 AMGO 1 3 AMRO 1 BAWW 1 BGGC 1 BHCO 1 1 1 BHVI 1 BLJA 1 1 1 BTGR 2 1 1 CACH 2 1

PAGE 43

43 Table 8j: Continued CARW 2 2 3 CEWA 2 CHSW 1 COGR 1 1 COYE 1 DOWO 2 2 1 ETTI 2 1 1 GCFL 1 3 1 GRCA 1 1 1 HOFI 1 HOSP 1 LBHE 1 MODO 1 1 NOCA 2 3 4 NOMO 1 2 NOPA 1 2 PAWA 1 1 PIWA 1 1 1 PIWO 1 1 RBWO 2 2 2 RCKI 1 2 1 REVI 1 1 RHWO 2 RSHA 1 RTHU 1 RWBB 1 1 SUTA 1 1 TUVU 1 1 UNID 5 1 7 WEVI 1 YRWA 6 5

PAGE 44

44 ________________________ _____________________ _________________________ # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #1 2 3 5 4 6 7 9 8 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Herpsites1.shp Biven's Rim(sout Bivens Forest Ea Bivens Rim Fores Fraternity Wetla Graham woods Harmonic Woods Health Center Pa Lake Alice Main Lake Alice South Surge wetlands#Herp_gps.shpHerp Array Locations ________________________ _____________________ _________________________ Figure 4: Locations of herpetofaunal arrays within the University of Florida Conservation Areas

PAGE 45

45 Table 9: GPS locations of Herpetofaunal arrays within the University of Florida Conservation Areas Area Edge/Interior/N/A ID # Latitude(29 deg N) Longitude(82 deg W) HW E 1 38' 48.2" 21' 31.6" HW I 2 38' 44.7" 21' 32.4" FW N/A 3 38' 47.2" 21' 21.8" GW I 4 38' 49.8" 21' 8.6" GW E 5 38' 48.0" 21' 5.8" LAM I 6 38' 35.6" 21' 26.7" LAM I 7 38' 36.5" 21' 18.1" LAM E 8 38' 34.5" 21' 14.4" LAM E 19 38' 35.6" 21' 29.8" SW N/A 9 37' 59.0" 21' 58.8" HCP E 11 38' 31.7" 20' 44.2" HCP I 12 38' 34.1" 20' 42.7" LAS N/A 13 38' 11.5" 21' 17.2" BRF N/A 14 37' 39.9" 21' 12.2" BFE E 15 37' 44.0" 20' 47.5" BFE I 16 37' 50.1" 20' 36.8" BFE I 17 37' 47.5" 20' 37.9" BFE E 18 37' 55.1" 20' 38.2" Table 10: All herp species detected be tween October 2004 and August 2005 in the University of Florida Conservat ion Areas; grouped by taxa Amphibians Scientific name Common name Frogs Bufo terrestris Southern toad ** Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. Greenhouse frog Gastrophryne carolinenis Eastern narrowmouth toad Hyla cinera Green treefrog Hyla gratiosa Barking treefrog Hyla squirella Squirrel treefrog Rana catesbiana Bull frog Rana clamitans Bronze frog Rana grylio Pig frog Rana sphenocephalus Southern leopard frog Scaphiopus holbrookii Eastern spadefoot toad Salamanders Eurycea quadrdigitata Dwarf salamander Reptiles

PAGE 46

46 Table 10: Continued Scientific name Common name Crocodillians Alligator mississipiensis American alligator Lizards Anolis carolinensis Green anole ** Anolis sagrei Cuban brown anole Eumeces fasciatus Five-lined skink Eumeces laticeps Broad-headed skink Scincella lateralis Common ground skink Snakes *Agkistrodon piscivorous Eastern cottonmouth Coluber constrictor Black racer Diadolphus punctatus Southern ringneck snake Farancia abacura Mud Snake Nerodia fasciata fasciata Banded watersnake Nerodia fasciata pictiventris Florida watersnake Rhadinaea flavilata Pinewoods Snake Thamnophis sauritus sp Eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Eastern garter snake Turtles Apalone ferox Florida softshell turtle Chelydra serpentina Common snapping turtle Dierochlemys reticularia Chicken turtle Kinosternon baurii Striped mud turtle *Kinosternon subrubrum Eastern mud turtle Pseudemys floridana penisularis Penisular cooter Terrepene carolinana bauri Florida box turtle Trachemys scripta scripta Yellow-bellied slider *=exotic **=sited but not positively ID'd Table 11: Species of herps detected per conservation area between October 2004 and August 2005 in the University of Florida Conservation Areas Harmonic Woods Fraternity Wetlands Graham Woods Anolis sagrei Anolis sagrei Anolis sagrei Bufo terrestris Eleuth erodactylus planirostris sp. Rana clamitans Diadolphus punctatus Hyla squirrela Eleutherodactylus planirostr is sp. Rana clamitans Hyla cinera Scincella lateralis Hyla squirella Terrepene carolina bauri Rana clamitans Thamnophis sirtalis Rhadinaea flavilata Scincella lateralis Thamnophis sirtalis

PAGE 47

47 Table 11: Continued Health Center Park McCarty Woods Lake Alice South Alligator mississipiensis Anolis sagrei Anolis carolensis Anolis sagrei Eumece fasciata or inexpectatus Anolis sagrei Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. Hyla squirella Chelydra serpentina Hyla cinera Diadolphus puct atus Gastrophryne carolinensis Scincella lateralis Hyla squirella Nerodia fasciata pictiventris Rana clamitans Rana grylio Terrepene carolina bauri Lake Alice Main Bivens' Forest East Biven's Rim Forest Alligator mississipiensis Alligator mississipiensis Anolis sagrei Anolis sagrei Anolis carolinensis Anolis carolinensis Apalone ferox Anolis sagrei Bufo terrestris Coluber constrictor Apalone ferox Coluber constrictor Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. Bufo terr estris Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. Eumeces fasciatus Chelydra serpentina Eumeces fasciatus Eumeces fasciatus or inexpectatus Coluber constrictor Eumeces laticeps Eumeces laticeps Eleutherodactylus plan irostris sp. Gastro phryne carolinenis Eurycea quadrdigitata Eumeces fasciatus Hyla cinera Farancia abacura Eumeces laticeps Hyla squirella Gastrophryne carolinenis Gastrophr yne carolinenis Rana catesbiana Hyla cinera Hyla squi rella Rana clamitans Hyla gratiosa Kinosternon baurii Rana grylio Hyla squirella Rana catesbiana Rana sphenocephala Nerodia fasciata fasciata Rana clamitans Nerodia fasciata pictiventris Rana sphenocephalus Pseudemys floridana penisularis Scaphiopus holbrookii Rana clamitans Scincella laticeps Rana sphenocephalus Terrepene carolinana bauri Scincella lateralis Thamnophis sirtalis Thamnophis sauritus sp. UNID Kinosternid or Sternotherid turtle Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Trachemys scripta scripta Surge Wetlands Anolis sagrei Bufo terrestris

PAGE 48

48 Table 11: Continued Diadolphus punctatus Dierochlemys reticularia Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. Eumeces faciatus Gastrophryne carolinenis Hyla cinera Hyla squirella Rana clamitans Rana grylio Rana sphenocephala Scaphiopus holbrookii Thamnophis sirtalis

PAGE 49

49 Speciesrichness.shp 0 2 3 5 6 10 11 14 15 23Species Richness of Herps by Area Figure 5: All sampled conservation areas depi cted in terms of detected herpetofaunal species richness (darker colo r indicates more species) in the University of Florida Conservation Areas between October 2004 and August 2005.

PAGE 50

50 Table 12: Total number of individuals per sp ecies of herps captured per herpetofaunal trapping array over all trapping dates between 5/2005 and 8/2005 in the University of Florida Conservation Areas a. Harmonic Woods Herp Array ID 1 2 Edge/Interior Edge Interior # of Observations 24 24 Species # individuals # individuals Anolis sagrei 3 2 Bufo terrestris 1 Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. 4 3 Hyla cinera 2 Rana clamitans 9 7 Rana sphenocephalus 1 Rhadinaea flavilata 1 Scincella lateralis 18 5 Thamnophis sirtalis 1 b. Fraternity Wetlands Herp Array ID 3 Edge/Interior N/A # of Observations 24 Species # individuals Anolis sagrei 1 Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. 19 Rana clamitans 1 Scincella lateralis 4 Thamnophis sirtalis 1 c. Graham Woods Herp Array ID # 5 4 Edge/Interior Edge Interior # of Observations 24 24

PAGE 51

51 Table 10c: Continued Species # individuals # individuals Anolis sagrei 1 Rana clamitans 6 1 d. Health Center Park Herp Array ID # 11 12 Edge/Interior Edge Interior # of Observations 23 23 Species # individuals # individuals Anolis sagrei 2 8 Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. 2 2 Hyla cinera 4 Scincella lateralis 2 6 e. Lake Alice South Herp Array ID # 13 Edge/Interior N/A # of Observations 23 Species # individuals Anolis sagrei 3 Hyla squirella 8 Rana clamitans 7 f. Bivens Rim Forest Herp Array ID # 14 Edge/Interior N/A # of Observations 23 Species # individuals Anolis sagrei 1 Bufo terrestris 7 Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. 5 Eumeces fasciatus 1 Gastrophryne carolinenis 2 Hyla cinera 1 Hyla squirella 6 Rana clamitans 4

PAGE 52

52 Table 12f: Continued Rana sphenocephalus 2 Scincella lateralis 3 g. Bivens Forest East Herp Array ID # 15 18 16 17 Edge/Interior Edge Edge Interior Interior # of Observations 22 22 21 21 Species # individuals # individuals # individuals # individuals Anolis carolinensis 1 1 Anolis sagrei 8 Bufo terrestris 1 14 8 Coluber constrictor 2 Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. 3 5 Eumeces fasciatus 3 Eumeces laticeps 1 Gastrophryne carolinenis 2 5 Hyla squirella 116 25 8 21 Rana catesbiana 1 Rana clamitans 41 10 3 12 Rana sphenocephalus 1 1 Scaphiopus holbrookii 2 2 Scincella lateralis 3 Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis 1 h. Lake Alice Conservation Area Herp Array ID # 8 19 6 7 Edge/Interior Edge Edge Interior Interior # of Observations 23 23 23 23 Species # individuals # individuals # individuals# individuals Anolis sagrei 6 2 1 Coluber constrictor 1 1 1 1 Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. 1 Eumeces fasciatus 3 Eurycea quadridigitata 2 Farancia abacura 1 Gastrophryne carolinenis 3 4 4 7 Hyla cinera 1 1 2 Hyla gratiosa 1 Hyla squirella 2 1 1 Rana clamitans 3 33 10 6

PAGE 53

53 Table 12h: Continued Rana sphenocephalus 17 14 9 3 Scincella lateralis 9 1 1 2 i. Surge Wetlands k. McCarty Woods Herp Array ID # 9 Edge/Interior N/A # of Observations 23 Species # individuals Anolis sagrei 3 Bufo terrestris 123 Diadolphus punctatus 3 Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. 5 Eumeces fasciatus 3 Gastrophryne carolinenis 5 Hyla cinera 1 Hyla squirella 12 Rana clamitans 6 Rana sphenocephalus 3 Scaphiopus holbrookii 3 Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis 1 McCarty Woods Visual Survey 1 Species Anolis sagrei Diadolphus punctatus Eumeces sp.

PAGE 54

54 x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z x z Conservationareas.shp BRS_south Biven's Rim Fore Bivens Forest Ea Fraternity Wetla Graham woods Harmonic woods Health Center Pa Lake Alice South Lake Alice north McCarty woods Surge Wetlandsx zSmgridstartpoints.shp Smtransects.shpSmall Mammal Trapping Gridlines ________________________ __________________ Figure 6: Locations of small mammal trappi ng grids within the University of Florida Conservation Areas.

PAGE 55

55 Table 13: GPS coordinates of edge-startin g points of small ma mmal trapping grids Area LINE Long(82 deg W) Lat(29 deg N) No. trap stations Transect Bearing Harmonic Woods A 21' 34.78" 38' 46.33" 12 124 deg B 21' 34.73" 38' 46.98" C 21' 34.82" 38' 45.68" Fraternity Wetlands A 21" 21.07" 38' 48.54" 12 295 deg B 21' 21.04" 38' 49.19" C 21' 21.05" 38' 47.90" Graham Woods A 21' 9.76" 38' 52.97" 12 163 deg B 21' 10.52" 38' 52.97" C 21' 9.02 38" 52.96" Health Center Park A 20' 41.98" 38' 35.95" 15 207 deg B 20' 42.57" 38' 36.36" C 20' 41.57" 38' 35.63" Lake Alice South A 21' 18.11" 38' 10.42" 15 335 deg B 21' 17.37" 38' 10.39" C 21' 21.63" 38' 10.38" Biven's Rim Forest A 7 N/A Bivens Forest East A 20' 53.44" 37' 43.65" 36 74 deg B 20' 53.22" 37" 43.02" C 20' 53.02" 37" 42.36" Lake Alice Main A 21' 16.04" 38' 36.47" 36 261 deg B 21' 16.23" C Surge Wetlands A 22' 0.21" 37' 59.51" 15 90 deg B 22' 0.23" 37' 58.26" C 22' 0.24" 37" 58.21" D 22' 0.28" 37' 57.55"

PAGE 56

56 _______________________________________________________________________ W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WConservationareas.shp BRS_south Biven's Rim Fore Bivens Forest Ea Fraternity Wetla Graham woods Harmonic woods Health Center Pa Lake Alice South Lake Alice north McCarty woods Surge Wetlands' WMesomammal points.shpMeso-mammal Sampling Points Figure 7: Meso-mammal sampling locations wi thin the University of Florida Conservation areas.

PAGE 57

57 Table 14: GPS coordinates of meso-mammal sampling locations within the University of Florida Conservation Areas ID LONG: 82 deg LAT: 29 deg ID LONG: 82 deg LAT: 29 deg 1 21' 33.0" 38' 45.6" 1321' 10.2" 38' 32.8" 2 21' 27.1" 38' 43.1" 1421' 18.0" 38' 12.8" 3 21' 22.5" 38' 49.9" 1521' 12.3" 38' 10.5" 4 21' 21.1" 38' 46.2" 1621' 16.3" 38' 15.9" 5 21' 8.5" 38' 49.4" 1721' 17.8" 37' 38.6" 6 21' 10.8" 38' 53.5" 1821' 12.7" 37' 46.4" 7 20' 47.4" 38' 34.0" 1920' 38.9" 37' 50.1" 8 20' 43.1" 38' 34.4" 2020' 37.5" 37" 42.6" 9 20' 38.2" 38' 44.2" 2120' 40.1" 37' 46.0" 10 21' 17.9" 38' 35.9" 2220' 40.9" 37' 58.4" 11 21' 26.2" 38' 35.7" 2321' 56.9" 37' 56.9" 12 21' 30.8" 38' 36.6" 2421' 57.0" 37' 51.6" Table 15: Total mammal species detected between October 2004 and August 2005 in the University of Florida Conservation Areas. Scientific Name Common Name Small mammals Peromyscus gossypinus Cotton mouse Peromyscus polionotus Oldfield Mouse Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat Rattus rattus Black Rat Sigmadon hispidus Hispid Cotton Rat Sciurus carolinensis Gray Squirrel Meso-mammals Dasypus novemcinctus Armadillo Didelphis virginiaus Virginia Oppossum Felis domesticus Feral Cat Procyon lotor Common Racoon Urocyon cinereoargenteus Grey Fox Table 16: Total mammal species detected p er area between October 2004 and August 2005 in the University of Florida Conservation Areas Harmonic Woods Fraternity Wetlands Graham Woods *Peromyscus polionotus Rattus rattus Rattus norvegicus

PAGE 58

58 Table 16: Continued Peromyscus gossypinus Sciuru s carolinensis Rattus rattus Rattus norvegicus Sciurus carolinensis Rattus rattus Sciurus carolinensis Dasypus novemcinctus Dasypus no vemcinctus Felis domesticus Procyon lotor Procyon lotor Procyon lotor Health Center Park McCarty Woods Lake Alice South Peromyscus gossypinus Sciuru s carolinensis Rattus rattus Rattus norvegicus Sciurus carolinensis Rattus rattus Sciurus carolinensis Didelphis virginiaus Procyon lotor Dasypus novemcinctus Procyon lotor Felis domesticus Procyon lotor Bivens Forest East Biven's Rim Forest Lake Alice Main *Peromyscus polionotus Peromyscus gossypinus *Rattus rattus Rattus rattus Sciurus carolinen sis Peromyscus gossypinus Sciurus carolinensis Sciurus carolinensis Sigmadon hispidus Dasypus novemcinctus Procyon lotor Dasypus novemcinctus Felis domesticus Dasypus nove mcinctus Felis domesticus Procyon lotor Procyon lotor Urocyon cinereoargenteus Didelphis virginiaus Surge Wetlands Legend Sciurus carolinensis Red=Small Mammal Blue=Meso-Mammal Felis domesticus =Detected through dead Procyon lotor specimen found Table 17. Small mammal captures per area in the University of Florida Conservation Areas over all trapping methods and dates. Grid Method1 attempt per group (7/12/20057/16/2005; 8/10/2005-8/14/2005)

PAGE 59

59 Table 10: Continued Area Species # of Individuals Caught HW Rattus norvegicus 1 Rattus rattus 2 GW Rattus norvegicus 1 HCP Peromyscus gossypinus 2 Rattus norvegicus 1 Rattus rattus 1 LAM Peromyscus gossypinus 9 BRF Peromyscus gossypinus 3 Transect Method3 attempts (11/30/2004 12/03/2004; 1/25/2005-1/29/2005; 3/22/2005-3/26/2005) Area Species # of Individuals Caught HW Peromyscus gossypinus 1 Rattus rattus 3 FW Rattus rattus 3 GW Rattus rattus 2 HCP Peromyscus gossypinus 1 Rattus rattus 2 LAS Rattus rattus 1


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0018420/00001

Material Information

Title: Use of edge and interior habitat of urban forest remnants by avifauna and herpetofauna
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Dawson, Daniel Eugene ( Dissertant )
Hostetler, Mark E. ( Thesis advisor )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007
Copyright Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation thesis, M.S
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States--Florida--Gainesville

Notes

Abstract: Urban forest remnants are utilized by various wildlife species, but little research has been conducted on whether certain species avoid or prefer edges of urban remnants. The objective of this study was to determine whether avifauna and herpetofauna differentially use edge and interior habitat of urban forest remnants. With avifauna, I used point counts to survey 6 urban forest remnants (2.6-16.6 ha) in Gainesville, Florida from November 2004 through October 2005. I compared the average daily relative abundances of individual species and residency groups within the winter, spring, summer, and fall seasons at edge locations (40 m from edge) and interior locations (beyond 40 m from edge). I measured a suite of vegetative structure characteristics at edges and interiors during both the dormant and growing seasons. Out of 77 species sighted, only a few individual bird species and residency groups were found to use edges and interiors differently. During the summer, the two groups of all and uncommon year-round residents had higher relative abundances at edges. In addition, during the fall, groups containing all migrants, common migrants, summer migrants, and uncommon migrants had higher abundances at interiors. Analyses of vegetative structure revealed very few differences between edges and interiors during either the growing season or the dormant season. With herpetofauna, I used pitfall/funnel trap-PVC pipe sampling arrays to survey 5 urban forest remnants (3.0-16.6 ha) in Gainesville, Florida during the summers of 2005 and 2006. I compared the average daily relative abundances of individual species and taxa groups (Order and Suborder-level; Family-level), as well as species richness at edge locations (40 m from edge) and interior locations (beyond 40 m from edge). Results showed that neither the relative abundances of individual species and taxa groups, nor species richness was significantly different between edges and interiors. However, the relative abundances of the species Hyla squirella, the Ranid and Anuran groups, and the Sub-order Serpentes group (Snakes), as well as species richness were significantly greater in some remnants than others. Overall, results show that there is little segregation in the use of edge and interior habitat of these urban forest remnants by either birds or herpetofauna, which may be partially driven by similarities in vegetative structure between edges and interiors. For avifauna, however, the greater use of interiors by fall migrants suggests that the interiors of these small urban forest fragments should be managed to reduce future levels of human disturbances. For herpetofauna, larger, connected remnants with wetlands may have led to increased species richness and greater relative abundances of Hyla squirella, Ranids, Anurans, and snakes.
Subject: birds, ecology, forest, herpetofauna, migration, remnant, residency, season, urban, wildlife
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 66 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 003874852
System ID: UFE0018420:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0018420/00001

Material Information

Title: Use of edge and interior habitat of urban forest remnants by avifauna and herpetofauna
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Dawson, Daniel Eugene ( Dissertant )
Hostetler, Mark E. ( Thesis advisor )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007
Copyright Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation thesis, M.S
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States--Florida--Gainesville

Notes

Abstract: Urban forest remnants are utilized by various wildlife species, but little research has been conducted on whether certain species avoid or prefer edges of urban remnants. The objective of this study was to determine whether avifauna and herpetofauna differentially use edge and interior habitat of urban forest remnants. With avifauna, I used point counts to survey 6 urban forest remnants (2.6-16.6 ha) in Gainesville, Florida from November 2004 through October 2005. I compared the average daily relative abundances of individual species and residency groups within the winter, spring, summer, and fall seasons at edge locations (40 m from edge) and interior locations (beyond 40 m from edge). I measured a suite of vegetative structure characteristics at edges and interiors during both the dormant and growing seasons. Out of 77 species sighted, only a few individual bird species and residency groups were found to use edges and interiors differently. During the summer, the two groups of all and uncommon year-round residents had higher relative abundances at edges. In addition, during the fall, groups containing all migrants, common migrants, summer migrants, and uncommon migrants had higher abundances at interiors. Analyses of vegetative structure revealed very few differences between edges and interiors during either the growing season or the dormant season. With herpetofauna, I used pitfall/funnel trap-PVC pipe sampling arrays to survey 5 urban forest remnants (3.0-16.6 ha) in Gainesville, Florida during the summers of 2005 and 2006. I compared the average daily relative abundances of individual species and taxa groups (Order and Suborder-level; Family-level), as well as species richness at edge locations (40 m from edge) and interior locations (beyond 40 m from edge). Results showed that neither the relative abundances of individual species and taxa groups, nor species richness was significantly different between edges and interiors. However, the relative abundances of the species Hyla squirella, the Ranid and Anuran groups, and the Sub-order Serpentes group (Snakes), as well as species richness were significantly greater in some remnants than others. Overall, results show that there is little segregation in the use of edge and interior habitat of these urban forest remnants by either birds or herpetofauna, which may be partially driven by similarities in vegetative structure between edges and interiors. For avifauna, however, the greater use of interiors by fall migrants suggests that the interiors of these small urban forest fragments should be managed to reduce future levels of human disturbances. For herpetofauna, larger, connected remnants with wetlands may have led to increased species richness and greater relative abundances of Hyla squirella, Ranids, Anurans, and snakes.
Subject: birds, ecology, forest, herpetofauna, migration, remnant, residency, season, urban, wildlife
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 66 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 003874852
System ID: UFE0018420:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Table of Contents
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
    University of Florida wildlife inventory and monitoring program
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
Full Text





USE OF EDGE AND INTERIOR HABITAT OF URBAN FOREST REMNANTS BY
AVIFAUNA AND HERPETOFAUNA



















By

DANIEL EUGENE DAWSON


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

2007

































Copyright 2007

by

Daniel Eugene Dawson















To my family, especially my mother and father, who have gone far beyond their obligation as
parents to help me succeed academically and develop professionally









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Several parties must be acknowledged for the successful completion of this thesis. First, I

thank the University of Florida department of Facilities and Construction Planning, and the

University of Florida/IFAS Cooperative Extension Service for funding this project. Second, I

thank my committee, especially my advisor, Dr. Mark Hostetler, for tirelessly addressing my

concerns and answering my questions for this project. Third, I thank the numerous volunteers,

including undergraduate students, graduate students, and good friends who helped construct and

install sampling equipment, assisted me during wildlife censuses, and helped review

presentations with me. Lastly, I thank my family and my parents for continuing to support me,

financially and morally, throughout my education experience.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

L IST O F TA B L E S .......... .... .............. ................................................................... 7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

L IST O F O B JE C T S ...................................................... .......................... 9

A B S T R A C T ................................ ............................................................ 10

CHAPTER

1 USE OF EDGE AND INTERIOR HABITAT OF URBAN FOREST REMNANTS BY
A V IF A U N A .............................................................................. 12

Introduction ................... ................... .............................. .......... 12
Edge Effects and Urban Effects on Habitat Use .................................. ............... 12
Seasonal Influence on Use of Urban Forest Remnants ................................................13
U se of E dge V ersus Interior H habitat .................................................................... ..... 14
O bje ctiv e ................................................................................ 1 5
M e th o d s ...........................................................................1 5
S tu d y S ite .......................................................1 5
Sam pling M methods ..................................................... ............... .. ... .... 15
A vian sam pling .......................................................................15
V egetation sam pling ............ ............................................................. ...... .... .. ..17
A n aly se s ................................................................................ 18
Individual species .................................... .......................... .... ........ .18
Residency groups .................................... ..... .......... ......... .... 19
V egetation sam pling analysis........................................................ ............... 20
R e su lts ................... ...................2...................1..........
B ird s ..........................................................................2 1
V eg etatio n ................................................................................ 2 3
D iscu ssio n ................... ...................2...................4..........
In d iv id u a l S p e cie s ..................................................................................................... 2 4
Residency Status ................................................. ... ................................... 26
Com bined Fall and Spring M grants ....................................................... 28
Summary and Conclusions ................... ............. ............... 29

2 USE OF EDGE AND INTERIOR HABITATS OF URBAN FOREST REMNANTS
BY HERPETOFAUNA ................ ......... ..... ...............40

Introduction ................................................... ......................40
Urban and Edge Effects on Herpetofauna ....................................... 40
Objective ......... .......... ................................. ............... 41










M e th o d s ...........................................................................4 1
S tu d y S ite .......................................................4 1
H erpetofaunal Sam pling ...................................................................... ..... .................42
A n aly sis ...................... .................................................................... ............... 4 4
R e su lts ............................... ......... ... ................................................................. 4 7
In d iv id u a l S p e cie s ..................................................................................................... 4 7
T ax a -G ro u p s .................................................. ... ...................................................4 7
G en eral tax a-sub grou p ....................................................................................... 4 7
Sp ecific tax a-sub group p ....................................................................................... 4 8
Species R richness ....................................................... 4 8
S p ecies C om p o sitio n ................................................................................................. 4 8
D isc u ssio n ......................................................................................................................... 4 8
Edge vs. Interior H habitat U se ............................................................. 48
Habitat Use among Forest Remnants ................................. ...............49
C o n c lu sio n ................................................................................................................. 5 1

APPENDIX

A SPECIES ABBREVIATIONS, RESIDENCY STATUS, AND INCLUSION IN
COMMON OR UNCOMMON GROUPS FOR ALL BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED
P E R SE A SO N ................................................................................................................. 56

B ALL SPECIES OF HERPETOFAUNA DETECTED BY HERPETOFAUNAL
SAMPLING ARRAYS DURING THE SUMMERS OF 2005 AND 2006 ........................58

C UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WILDLIFE SURVEY AND MONITORING
PROGRAM: ONE YEAR RESULTS AND DATA SUMMARY ................ ...............59

LIST OF REFEREN CES ......... ........... ......................... ...........................60

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ................................................................................................... 66









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1-1 Individual species and residency groups analyzed for winter bird count surveys of
edge and interior locations within forest remnants in Gainesville Florida......................32

1-2 Individual species and residency groups analyzed for spring bird count surveys of
edge and interior locations within forest remnants in Gainesville Florida......................33

1-3 Individual species and residency groups analyzed for summer bird count surveys of
edge and interior locations within forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida .....................34

1-4 Individual species and residency groups analyzed for fall bird count surveys of edge
and interior locations within forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida ............................35

1-5 Vegetation analysis results for edge and interior locations of urban forest remnants
during the dormant season in Gainesville, Florida. ................................ ..................36

1-6 Vegetation analysis results for edge and interior locations of urban forest remnants
during the growing seasons in Gainesville, Florida............... ................................ 38

2-1 Average daily relative abundance of herpetofauna species and groups, as well as
species richness between edges and interiors of 5 urban forest remnants in
G ain esv ille, F L ............................................................................ 54

2-2 Herpetofauna species and groups shown to be significantly affected by remnant in
urban forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida................... ........ ................. 55

2-3 Horn compositional similarity values for species assemblages between edges and
interiors within urban forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida. .......................................55

A-i Species abbreviations, residency status, and inclusion in common or uncommon
groups for all bird species observed per season............ ...... ......... .... .............. 56

B-1 All species of herpetofauna detected by herpetofaunal sampling arrays during the
sum m ers of 2005 and 2006 .......................... ............................................ ............... ...58









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Urban forest remnants on the University Florida Campus in Gainesville, Florida. ..........30

1-2 Illustration of edge and interior point count locations for bird surveys within forest
remnants, in Gainesville, Florida. Edge was defined as the habitat < 40m from the
remnant boundary. Interior was defined as all habitat > 40m from the remnant
boundary ........................................................................................ 3 1

2-1 Forest remnants on the University of Florida campus in Gainesville, Florida ................52

2-2 Illustration of edge and interior location of herpetofauna sampling arrays within
forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida. An edge array was within 20-40 m from the
boundary of a remnant and an interior array was situated greater than 40 m from a
remnant boundary. Arrays were positioned to be at least 100 m apart to maintain
independence from each other. ............................................... ............................... 53










LIST OF OBJECTS


Object


C-1 PDF of University of Florida wildlife survey and monitoring program: one year
survey results and m monitoring program ........................................ ......................... 59


page









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

USE OF EDGE AND INTERIOR HABITAT OF URBAN FOREST REMNANTS BY
AVIFAUNA AND HERPETOFAUNA

By

Daniel Eugene Dawson

May 2007

Chair: Mark Hostetler
Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

Urban forest remnants are utilized by various wildlife species, but little research has been

conducted on whether certain species avoid or prefer edges of urban remnants. The objective of

this study was to determine whether avifauna and herpetofauna differentially use edge and

interior habitat of urban forest remnants.

With avifauna, I used point counts to survey 6 urban forest remnants (2.6-16.6 ha) in

Gainesville, Florida from November 2004 through October 2005. I compared the average daily

relative abundances of individual species and residency groups within the winter, spring,

summer, and fall seasons at edge locations (40 m from edge) and interior locations (beyond 40 m

from edge). I measured a suite of vegetative structure characteristics at edges and interiors during

both the dormant and growing seasons. Out of 77 species sighted, only a few individual bird

species and residency groups were found to use edges and interiors differently. During the

summer, the two groups of all and uncommon year-round residents had higher relative

abundances at edges. In addition, during the fall, groups containing all migrants, common

migrants, summer migrants, and uncommon migrants had higher abundances at interiors.

Analyses of vegetative structure revealed very few differences between edges and interiors

during either the growing season or the dormant season.









With herpetofauna, I used pitfall/funnel trap-PVC pipe sampling arrays to survey 5 urban

forest remnants (3.0-16.6 ha) in Gainesville, Florida during the summers of 2005 and 2006. I

compared the average daily relative abundances of individual species and taxa groups (Order and

Suborder-level; Family-level), as well as species richness at edge locations (40 m from edge) and

interior locations (beyond 40 m from edge). Results showed that neither the relative abundances

of individual species and taxa groups, nor species richness was significantly different between

edges and interiors. However, the relative abundances of the species Hyla squirella, the Ranid

and Anuran groups, and the Sub-order Serpentes group (Snakes), as well as species richness

were significantly greater in some remnants than others.

Overall, results show that there is little segregation in the use of edge and interior habitat

of these urban forest remnants by either birds or herpetofauna, which may be partially driven by

similarities in vegetative structure between edges and interiors. For avifauna, however, the

greater use of interiors by fall migrants suggests that the interiors of these small urban forest

fragments should be managed to reduce future levels of human disturbances. For herpetofauna,

larger, connected remnants with wetlands may have led to increased species richness and greater

relative abundances of Hyla squirella, Ranids, Anurans, and snakes.









CHAPTER 1
USE OF EDGE AND INTERIOR HABITAT OF URBAN FOREST REMNANTS BY
AVIFAUNA

Introduction

The impact of urbanization on wildlife and the natural environment is of growing interest

as the level of urbanization continues to increase in the world (Marzluff 2001, Alig, Jeffrey, and

Lichtenstein 2004). Birds are among the best studied urban wildlife because they are the most

visible and easy to study, they are charismatic, and they are sensitive to factors at different

temporal and spatial scales in urban environments (Mensing, Galatowitsch, and Tester 1998,

Hostetler 1999, Hostetler and Knowles-Yanez 2003, Hostetler, Scot, and Paul 2005, Atchinson

and Rodewald 2006). Urban birds are often transient, seasonally-varying organisms that are in

close proximity to human disturbance. Urban landscapes are frequently made up of fragmented

forest remnants with large edge-to-interior ratios, and these remnants are often isolated from

other remnants or larger tracks of habitat. Despite these challenges, a number of bird species do

utilize habitat fragments in a variety of urban/suburban environments throughout the year.

Edge Effects and Urban Effects on Habitat Use

Edges of habitats have been long recognized as often having higher densities, and higher

diversities of species than interior forests (Lay 1938, Gates and Gysel 1978, Noss 1991). For

example, Noss (1991) found that in a large tract of mature upland deciduous forest near

Gainesville, Florida, bird densities were significantly higher in both edges next to roads and

edge-gaps within interior forests than within interior forests themselves during most seasons.

Edge habitats often have more sunlight exposure and more emergent vegetation than interiors,

providing good opportunities for foraging on fruit and invertebrates (Noss 1991, McCollin 1998,

Rodewald and Brittingham 2004). Therefore, habitat edges are important habitat components,

and are associated with a number of species. However, some bird species have been shown to be









edge-indifferent, and others have been shown to require or prefer forest interior habitat and

actively avoid edge habitat (Whitcomb et al. 1981, Noss 1991). Interior forest species tend to

nest at forest interiors (Whitcomb et al. 1981), or prefer to forage on more moisture dependent

insects and shade dependent plants found in the interior (Villard 1998). In addition, species

associated with forest interiors may be negatively affected by disturbances such as traffic noise

(Reijnen et al. 1997, Fernandez-Juricic 2001), and pedestrian presence (Fernandez-Juricic and

Tellaria 2000). In urban forest remnants, there is often a disproportionately large amount of

forest-edge habitat compared to forest-interior habitat, leading to more prevalent use by edge or

edge-indifferent species than by interior-associated birds (Whitcomb et al. 1981, McIntyre 1995,

Chase 2006).

Seasonal Influence on Use of Urban Forest Remnants

In temperate North America, seasonal differences in habitat use by birds depend upon

breeding, wintering, or migration stop-over needs. During the breeding season, species have a

broad range of habitat requirements and limitations, depending upon the breeding and nesting

strategies they employ. For instance, during the breeding season, interior-forest specialists may

not use the edges of habitats because they have inappropriate cover and nesting substrates, are

prone to nest predation or parasitism, or are too close to human disturbance (Tilghman 1987a,

McIntyre 1995, Villard 1998, Mortberg 2001). Likewise, edge-specialists species may not use

patch interiors if nesting substrates and food resources are more readily available on edges

(McIntyre 1995, Fernandez-Juricic 2001). In contrast with the breeding season, habitat use of

forest patches in temperate North America during the winter and fall/spring migration periods

generally revolves around access to food resources. During fall/spring migration, food resources

at stop-over locations are especially important to birds because of the need to refuel for travel

(Moore, Gauthreaux, Kerlinger, and Simons 1995). In addition, there may be an underlying and









innate strategy for arriving and leaving stop-over foraging habitat in order to maximize the

chances of gaining access to higher energy foods at other stop-over locations, and arriving at end

destinations faster to gain access to better quality breeding or wintering habitat (Moore et al.

1995). Likewise, the winter habitat use of many species also revolves around food intake.

Because of this, habitat requirements for both stop-over migrants and winter migrants can be

more flexible than during the breeding season, and birds utilize urban/suburban landscapes

(Yaukey 1996, Jokimaki and Suhonen 1998, Hostetler and Holling 2000, Rodewald and

Brittingham 2004, Atchinson and Rodewald 2006). Specifically, it has been hypothesized that

birds may use edge-dominated, urban/suburban habitat during the winter and stop-over periods

because of access to fruit-bearing ornamental plants, access to human-supplied feeders, and

warmer average temperatures than non-urban habitat (Atchinson and Rodewald 2006, Shochat,

Warren, Faeth, McIntyre, and Hope 2006).

Use of Edge Versus Interior Habitat

Despite the considerable amount of research on the use of urban remnants by birds, little

research has compared edge versus interior habitat use in any season. In one such study by

Fernandez-Juricic (2001), avian habitat use in Madrid, Spain was compared between the edge

and interiors of urban parks during the breeding season. He determined that species generally

more habituated to human contact with generalist habitat requirements used edges significantly

more than interiors, whereas species with specific forest habitat requirements used interior

habitats significantly more than edges. This result suggests that certain birds differentially use

edges and interiors, but similar studies have not been replicated in other urban environments,

especially across seasons.









Objective

The objective of my study was to determine if birds differentially use edges and interiors

of urban forest remnants during winter, spring, summer, and fall.

Methods

Study Site

The University of Florida Gainesville campus is located in north-central peninsular

Florida. This study took place in 6 urban forest remnants on the University of Florida campus:

Harmonic Woods (3.7 ha), Fraternity Wetlands (2.6 ha), Graham Woods (3.0 ha), Bartram-Carr

Woods (3.5 ha), Lake Alice Conservation Area (11.3 ha), and Biven's Arm Forest (16.6 ha)

(Figure 1-1). Three of the four smallest remnants (Harmonic Woods, Fraternity Wetlands and

Bartram-Carr Woods) included largely upland mixed pine-hardwood forest, with all containing

or being immediately adjacent to small streams or low-lying areas. Graham woods consisted of a

mixture of low-lying bottomland hardwood and upland mixed pine-hardwood forest, and

contained a small network of streams. One of the two largest remnants, Lake Alice Conservation

Area, consisted largely of upland mixed pine-hardwood forest, had some regenerating clear-cut

habitat, and was adjacent to a large marsh, and therefore contained some flood-plain forest as

well. The other large remnant, Biven's Forest, consisted of mostly bottomland-hardwood swamp

in its interior, but was ringed by mixed pine-hardwood forest on three of its four edges, with its

fourth edge being adjacent to a lake. Biven's Forest, Graham Woods, and portions of Lake Alice

Conservation Area and Bartram-Carr Woods were subject to occasional flooding.

Sampling Methods

Avian sampling

To compare the use of edge versus interior locations by birds, I considered the first 40 m

from the remnant boundary toward the interior as "edge", and all space beyond 40 m from the









boundary of the remnant I considered as "interior" (Fig 1-2). Edge habitat was within 40 m of

remnant boundaries because most remnants were small (< 4 ha), and this width was similar to the

50 m width used by Fernandez-Juricic (2001).

To survey birds, I used point counts randomly located at the edge and interior of each

forest remnant. To assure some degree of equal sampling effort per forest remnant, I allocated a

one point per 2 ha ratio, with a maximum of 10 points given to a remnant. I chose a 20 m radius

point count sampling area for each point count location so that the diameter of the edge point

sampling radius was completely contained within edge habitat. To ensure that interior counts

were entirely enclosed within interior habitat, I selected all interior points between 60 m to

approximately 100 m from the edge. To reduce the possibility of double counting, I designed

points to be 140 m from each other, which, when the 20 m sampling radius is factored in, gives

at least 100 m between sampling radii within remnants. However, because of remnant-size

limitations and additional points added during the spring and fall, a couple of points were located

less than 140 m apart; I sampled these on different days to eliminate the possibility of double

counting.

The point count sampling technique used was similar to the technique used by Smith et al.

(1993). For each of the four seasons, all birds that were heard and/or seen within a fixed, 20 m

radius over a 10 min count, excluding fly-overs, were recorded. I conducted all counts in the first

3 /2 hours after sunrise. To reduce sampling bias due to time of day, I systematically rotated the

time each point location was surveyed during each sampling morning. Because I wanted to

capture as much diversity as possible, I varied sampling intensity and frequency per season. In

particular, I increased sampling efforts during the spring and fall to account for anticipated

increased migrant diversity during those seasons. During the winter (11/04-4/05), I conducted









counts at a total of 12 points twice a week, every other week, with the exception of 4 points in

the Lake Alice Conservation Area, which I only sampled once a week. During the spring (4/05-

5/05), I surveyed 32 points once a week. During the summer (5/05-8/05), I surveyed 20 points

once a week, every other week. In the fall (9/05-11/05), I again surveyed 32 points once a week.

Vegetation sampling

To determine whether structural differences occurred, I conducted vegetation sampling at

both edge and interior locations during both the growing (spring, summer, and fall) and dormant

seasons (winter). Because woody stem density, tree density, and standing snag measures were

considered perennial habitat features, these were only sampled during the dormant season. I

carried out vegetation sampling only at point count locations used during the winter season. I did

this because the winter had the least sampling intensity in terms of the number of point count

locations sampled, and therefore was the most logistically practical set of points to collect data

from. I sampled woody shrub stem density (> 1 m in height, < 8 cm dbh) on two, perpendicular,

randomly assigned, 20 m transects running from the center of the point count sampling radii to

the margin (James and Shugart 1970). Following modified procedures from Tilghman (1987a)

and James and Shugart (1970), I randomly established four, 1 m2 subplots within each point

count sampling radii, and estimated several measures at each subplot. I counted woody shrub

stems (< 8 cm dbh) to document shrubs less than Im in height. I visually estimated ground cover

for cover classes representing percentages of cover (including, 0%, >0-10%, 10-25%, 26-50%,

51-75%, > 75%) of bare ground, grass, dead debris, forbs, shrubs (woody or herbaceous), trees

(woody stems >8 cm dbh), and vines. The proportion of occurrence (i.e., how many 1 m2

subplots a cover class occurred in) of each cover class per cover variable was averaged over the

four 1 m2 subplots per 20 m point count sampling radii. I visually noted vertical vegetative

structure for each type of vegetation that was at < 1 m in height, > 1 m and < 5 m in height, and >









5m in height. I measured over-story canopy cover using a spherical densiometer. If there was a

significant mid-story (< 5 m) that prevented reasonable sighting of the over-story canopy, then I

used the location within 5 m of the point that presented the most un-obstructed view of the

canopy was used. I observed canopy cover in all cardinal directions, and averaged it per 1 m2

subplot. I measured visual obstruction between 0-2 m in height by recording the number of

decimeters in each 12 m section of a marked sighting pole that were > 25% obstructed by

vegetation. I placed the pole at the center of each 1 m2 subplot and observed at a distance of 4 m,

at a height of 1 m, and I observed it in each cardinal direction. I averaged these data per 12 m

section, per 1 m2 subplot (Robel, Briggs, Dayton, and Hurlbert 1970). I averaged all data

collected at 1 m2 subplots over all four subplots per 20 m radius plot. I measured the number of

trees (> 8 cm dbh) and standing snags in a 10 m radius subplot, stemming from the center of each

20 m radius plot. I scaled all measures of shrub and tree density to densities per ha.

Analyses

Individual species

I analyzed bird count data for each season. I generated average daily relative abundances

of birds for the edge and interior of each forest remnant by summing the total count data per

species for the edge and interior point locations of a given forest remnant, and then dividing by

the total number of survey days carried out at the edge and interior locations of that remnant. For

example, if a remnant had two edge point count locations that were each sampled 5 days apiece,

then I would sum the count data for a species for those two points, and divide by 10 (the total

number of sample days for that remnant's edge) to produce the average daily relative abundance

per that remnant edge. I removed one point at the edge of the Lake Alice Conservation Area

from the analysis because it was inadvertently placed too far away from the edge. I entered data

into a one-way ANOVA model blocked for forest remnant in which relative abundance was the









response variable and location (Edge or Interior) was treated as the independent variable. Prior to

analysis, the data were checked for the assumptions of normality and equal-variance with Ryan-

Joiner and Levine tests. Data were square-root if they did not meet the assumptions. Some

species did not meet normality and equal-variance assumptions regardless of transformation, and

I tested them with the non-parametric equivalent of the randomized block ANOVA, the

Friedman test. Because of the effects on the relative abundance distribution of many zeros, and

because I wanted to limit individual analysis to fairly well-represented species, I only

individually analyzed species that occurred in at least 6 out of the possible 12 edge and interior

areas across the 6 remnants. An alpha of 0.1 was used for all statistical tests.

Residency groups

I grouped species according to residency status per season, and average daily relative

abundances of each residency group at the edge and interior of each forest remnant were

calculated per season. Residency groups included year-round residents, winter migrants (those

that only wintered in the Gainesville area), summer migrants (those that bred in the Gainesville

area but migrated south), stop-over migrants (those that only use the Gainesville area as stop-

over habitat during spring and fall migration), and all migrants. Residency status was assigned

based on species information and range maps as reported in Poole (2005). To reduce the

influence of under- and over-represented species, I further sub-grouped residency groups into

three categories per season, including: only species that weren't abundant enough to be tested

individually (uncommon group), only species that were abundant enough to be tested

individually (common group), and all species combined. I analyzed all residency groups as

described above for individual species. Due to the low number of occurrences of stop-over

migrants during the spring and the fall seasons, I calculated a combined relative average daily

abundance for stop-over migrants during those seasons. I analyzed them with the non-parametric









Friedman test, as they failed tests for non-normality and transformations were not effective

(alpha = 0.1).

Vegetation sampling analysis

I analyzed measures of shrub and tree densities, canopy cover, and visual obstruction in

each 12 m height section with the same ANOVA model as described for the bird analysis.

Normality and equal variance assumptions were checked in a similar way. To analyze ground

cover, I separately compared each cover class of each ground cover variable between edges and

interiors (e.g., for grass, I compared the 25-50% cover class between remnant edges and

interiors). To do this, I took the average proportion of occurrence of each cover class per cover

variable that was calculated previously for each point count location, and calculated the average

per remnant edge and interior. I then entered the data into the same ANOVA model previously

described. Normality and equal variance assumptions were checked as described above, and non-

normal distributions were tested with the non-parametric Friedman test. Due to an inconsistency

in data collection during the growing season, I was unable to analyze the > 0-10%, and >10-

25% cover classes for ground cover variables for that season. Vertical structure was analyzed

both by individual vegetation and structure components, and by groups containing all vegetation

(vegetation dead debris), and all structure (vegetation + dead debris) in case the absence or

presence of dead debris in overall vegetative structure was of significance. In a manner similar to

Tilghman (1987a) and Karr (1968), I analyzed the vertical structure offered by individual

structure components by considering the total of three layers to be an index of presence/absence

between 0-300 for each structure component per point. I analyzed total vegetation structure per

vertical section (< 1 m in height, > Im and < 5 m in height, and > 5 m in height), and I calculated

it for each sample point as an index between 0-500, with the presence/absence of each

vegetation component representing 1/5 of the total index value, not including dead debris. I









analyzed total structure (vegetation + dead debris) in a similar way, but each vertical section was

calculated out of an index between 0-600 because of the addition of dead debris to the analysis. I

analyzed resultant index values for each category with the same ANOVA model as previously

described in the bird analyses, and normality and equal variance assumptions were checked

similarly. An alpha of 0.1 was used for all statistical tests.

Results

Birds

I observed a total of 77 species across all four seasons. A list of species detected in all four

seasons, along with their residency status, their residency sub-group status, and their

abbreviations can be found in Appendix A. During the winter, I observed a total of 45 species.

Of 21 species common enough to be analyzed individually, 4 species had significantly higher

relative abundances at edges than interiors, including the Carolina Chickadee, Cedar Waxwing,

Blue Jay, and Northern Mockingbird (Table 1-1). With residency status categories, no group was

shown to have significantly higher relative abundances at edges or interiors (Table 1-1).

During the spring, I observed a total of 42 species. Of 14 species common enough to be

individually analyzed, Carolina Wren and Ruby-crowned Kinglet had significantly higher

relative abundances at interiors than edges (Table 1-2). With residency status categories, the

common summer migrants group was shown to have significantly higher relative abundances at

edges than interiors (Table 1-2).

During the summer season, I observed a total of 31 species. Of 9 species common enough

to be individually analyzed, no individual species had significantly different relative abundances

between edges and interiors (Table 1-3). With residency status categories, both the year-round

resident uncommon group and the year-round resident all species group were found to have

significantly higher relative abundances at edges than interiors (Table 1-3). The year-round









resident uncommon group was made up of 17 species; Northern Mockingbird was the most

widely represented member of the group and represented, on average, 24.4% and 23.4% of the

cumulative edge and interior relative abundance of the group. To test for the effect of this

individual species on the group, I re-analyzed the year-round resident uncommon group with

Northern Mockingbird excluded. After this, the pattern of significantly higher relative

abundances at edges was no longer present (P = 0.126), though the overall pattern still persisted

for the group.

During the fall season, I observed a total of 42 species. Of 14 species common enough to

be individually analyzed, 3 species were found to have significantly higher relative abundances

at edges than interiors, including the Northern Mockingbird, the Red-bellied Woodpecker, and

the Downy Woodpecker (Table 1-4). In addition, Eastern Tufted Titmouse had significantly

higher relative abundances at interiors than edges. When I grouped species together according to

various residency status categories, the groups that included all migrants, the migrant uncommon

group, the migrant common group, and the summer migrant group were shown to have

significantly higher relative abundances at interiors than edges (Table 1-4).

The uncommon migrant group was made up of 14 species: the combined abundances of

Ruby-crowned Kinglet and Baltimore Oriole made up, on average, 25.0% and 50.3% of the

cumulative edge and interior relative abundances of the group, respectively. To test for the effect

of these individual species on the group, I reanalyzed the uncommon migrant group with Ruby-

crowned Kinglet and Baltimore Oriole excluded. After this, the significant pattern of higher

relative abundances at interiors was no longer present (P = 0.46). The migrant common group

was made up of four species: the Gray Catbird made up, on average, 57.6% and 53.2% of the

cumulative edge and interior abundances of the group, respectively. After reanalyzing the









migrant common group without the Gray Catbird, the pattern of significantly higher relative

abundances at interiors was no longer present (P = 0.215); though the general pattern still

persisted for the group. The summer migrant group is made up of 5 species: the Red-eyed Vireo

contributed, on average, 60% and 66% of the cumulative relative abundance at edges and

interiors of the group, respectively. With the Red-eyed Vireo removed a non-significant result

was found for the summer migrant uncommon group (P = 0.699).

Lastly, the results of the non-parametric Friedman test for the combined spring/fall stop-

over migrants showed no significant difference in the relative abundances of migrants between

edges and interiors (P = 0.414). However, only 2 migrants (American Redstart and Prairie

Warbler) of the 7 species recorded (Appendix A) occurred at edges, while all 7 recorded

migrants occurred at interiors.

Vegetation

Analysis of average shrub stem density < 1 m and > 1 m, canopy cover, visual

obstruction, and density of trees and snags showed no significant differences in vegetation

characteristics between edge and interior areas in either season. When I analyzed vertical

structures during the winter, dead-debris was found to be significantly more present in the

vertical strata in interiors than in edges during the winter. When I analyzed ground cover during

the dormant season, there were a significantly greater occurrence of bare ground making up 25-

50% of the ground cover at interiors than edges, and a significantly greater occurrence of grass

making up < 10% of the ground cover on edges then interiors (Table 1-5). During the growing

season, there was a significantly higher presence of vegetation < 1 m in height, and presence of

shrubs in the vertical strata at interiors than edges. During the growing season, there was

significantly greater occurrence of vines making up between 25-50% of the ground cover at

interiors than edges (Table 1-6).









Discussion

Only a couple of bird species and a few bird groups used habitat edges significantly

differently than interiors in any season. A possible reason that few species preferred edge or

interior locations was that edges were largely not vegetatively different from interiors, and that

remnants may have been viewed as "edge" habitat. This assertion is supported in a review study

by McCollin (1998) that found small forest remnants to be predominantly edge habitat. In

addition, Fernandez-Juricic (2001) found a similar lack of vegetation structure differences

between interior and edge habitats of urban remnants, though several bird species still

differentiated in use between edges and interiors in that study. Likewise in my study, some

species and groups of birds did differentiate between edge and interior habitats. I discuss

possible reasons for this below.

Individual Species

The Blue Jay during the winter and the Northern Mockingbird during the winter and the

fall exhibited significantly higher relative abundances at edge habitats. These are commonly

observed species in urban habitats in Northern Florida and are often associated with habitat

edges (Derrickson and Breitwisch 1992, Tarvin and Wolfenden 1999, Poole 2005). The Northern

Mockingbird is highly associated with open habitat, apparently preferring very low grass or bare

substrate to lunge at insects just above the ground (Breitwisch, Diaz and Lee 1987, Derrickson

and Breitwisch 1992). Roth (1979) even suggested that too much cover inhibits foraging success

for this species. Though edges in my study were not overly open as a rule, adjacent matrix was

often open urban surfaces, such as maintained grass. In addition, analysis of vegetation showed

that interior habitats during the non-dormant seasons had significantly higher representation of

shrubs in the vertical strata, and higher vegetation representation < 1 m in height than edges,

which may have negatively influenced the Northern Mockingbird. Further, Blue Jay is a









generalized forager, and it has often been observed foraging in urban lawns for insects (Tarvin

and Wolfenden 1999). Both species take fruit as well (Poole 2005), and forest edges also

typically have more fruiting plants than forest interiors (Noss 1991, McCollin 1998, Rodewald

and Brittingham 2004).

The Cedar Waxwing was also shown to occur more often on edges during the winter.

However, the flocking behavior of this species may be the cause of this result. Cedar Waxwing

often occurs in large flocks in Florida during non-breeding seasons (Kale and Maeher 1990). In

this study, flocks were not seen that often but when they were, a large number of individuals

were recorded. They may have occurred in the interior and were not recorded because of limited

observation time. Throughout the year, and especially during the winter, Cedar Waxwing is

highly associated with the presence of fruit-bearing plants (Witmer 1996a, Witmer, Mountjoy,

and Elliot 1997), and is commonly seen in urban matrices during the winter, feeding on the fruits

and flowers of cultivated and/or ornamental shrubs (McPherson 1987, Witmer 1996b, Witmer et

al. 1997). Though I did not survey remnant edges, interiors, or the urban matrix surrounding the

forest remnants for fruit or fruiting species abundance, the presence of fruiting cultivated trees

and bushes in the surrounding matrix may have influenced Cedar Waxwing to use edges more

than interiors.

The Carolina Chickadee had higher relative abundances at edges than interiors during the

winter and same for the Red-bellied Woodpecker and Downy Woodpecker during the fall.

Unlike Northern Mockingbird and Blue Jay, which are generally considered edge species,

Carolina Chickadee, Red-bellied Woodpecker, and Downy Woodpecker are generally considered

to be edge-indifferent (Poole 2005), utilizing a variety of habitat types ranging from mature

forests to urban parks throughout the year. For Carolina Chickadee, though, there is some









evidence that fruit becomes more important as a food source during the winter (Brewer 1963,

Mostrom, Curry, and Lohr 2002). More fruiting bushes and trees, as well as possibly more

invertebrates, may exist on edges during the winter (Noss 1991). Red-bellied woodpeckers

utilize a very broad array of habitats and are generally arthropod-eaters (Shackelford, Brown,

and Conner 2000). However, this species has been observed foraging on fruit trees in suburban

habitats in south Florida at the same rate as on tree trucks for insects (Breitwisch 1977,

Shackelford et al. 2000). If more fruits occurred on edges of these remnants, then the Red-bellied

woodpeckers may have concentrated on edges during the fall. Therefore, determining fruit

abundance in future studies may be important in determining habitat use patterns for these

species.

Carolina Wren and Ruby-crowned Kinglet used interiors significantly more than edges

during the spring, and Eastern Tufted Titmouse used interiors significantly more than edges

during the fall. Greater occurrence of shrubs < 1 m in height and of shrubs in the vertical strata

might have contributed to higher interior use by Carolina Wren, as it prefers dense shrub cover

(Haggerty and Morton 1995). However, this pattern is curious because these species all typically

use a wide variety of habitat types during these seasons (Poole et al. 2005), and Carolina Wren

and Eastern Tufted Titmouse are both year-round resident species that did not exhibit a similar

pattern in other seasons. This pattern may be explained by factors not considered in this study,

and additional research is required to clarify it.

Residency Status

During the summer, year-round residents may use edges more than interiors, as evidenced

by the groups of all year-round residents and uncommon year-round residents having

significantly higher relative abundances at edges. However, this pattern was partially a result of

the high counts of the Northern Mockingbird. Of the 9 species making up the summer common









group, only the Northern Parula is not considered an edge-preferring or edge-indifferent species

(Poole et al. 2005). This is consistent with Dunford and Freemark (2004), who found that many

resident breeding birds in suburban habitat in Canada were generally edge, or edge-indifferent

species. In addition, though there was no significant difference for common year-round residents,

the relative abundance at edges for this group was higher than the relative abundance on

interiors. Some vegetative differences occurred between edge and interior areas; edges had

significantly lower vegetation < 1 m in height and lower amounts of shrubs in the vertical strata

than interior locations. Edges were closer to the more open, sunnier matrix than interior

locations. So, while increased amounts of understory cover at interiors may have provided

predator protection, the condition and matrix-adjacent position of edges may have created more

opportunities for foraging on fruiting plants and invertebrates. In addition, these species are

probably tolerant of human disturbance, as increased human presence and increased traffic noise

on edges has been shown to influence habitat use by birds (Reijnen, Foppen, and Veenbaas 1997,

Fernandez -Juricic and Tellaria 2000, Brontos and Horrondo 2001, Fernandez-Juricic 2001).

During the fall, migrants may use interiors more than edges, as evidenced by the higher

relative abundances at interiors for the all migrant group, the uncommon migrant group, the

common migrant group, and the summer migrant group. However, the common migrant group

result is partially driven by the relative abundance contributed by Gray Catbird. In addition, the

uncommon migrant group is partially driven by the relative abundances contributed by Ruby-

crowned Kinglet and Baltimore Oriole. Lastly, the summer migrant group result is partially

driven by the relative abundances contributed by the Red-eyed Vireo.

Despite the ambiguities mentioned above, a reason to consider the biological relevancy of

the findings is that 14 of the 18 total migrant species during the fall have relative abundances that









are at least slightly higher at interiors than edges. This suggests that an underlying ecological

cause might be present that drives migrant species to use interiors more, or avoid edges of these

urban forest remnants. There are several studies that show that wintering birds and fall migrants

use a variety of habitat types, including urban/suburban sites (Tilghman 1987b, Winker, Warner,

and Weisbrod 1992, Yaukey 1996, Rodewald and Brittingham 2002, Rodewald and Brittingham

2004, Atchison and Rodewald 2006). In my study, migrants may select foraging and resting

areas away from edges of urban forest remnants. The patterns of higher vegetation in the under-

story (< 1 m) and a higher representation of shrubs in the vertical strata at interiors than edges

may be contributing factors, as these structural features provide better cover from predators. In

addition, remnant interiors may provide protection from human disturbances near edges.

Combined Fall and Spring Migrants

No difference in edge and interior habitat use by stop-over migrants was demonstrated, but

the analyses were limited because of few observations of these birds. Similar to a previous avian

study in Gainesville (Hostetler et al. 2005), I observed few occurrences of stop-over migrants in

the urban forest remnants. It was noted, though, that only 2 of 7 species occurred at edges and

that all 7 migrants occurred at interiors. Two of those species, Acadian Flycatcher and Blackpoll

Warbler, are generally considered interior forest birds (Poole 2005) and the others are edge-

indifferent or edge preferring. Given the limited nature of the data, an underlying trend of edge

avoidance by stop-over migrants is problematic, but it warrants further study. I found that the

vegetation structure at edges and interiors during the spring and fall were only different in a few

ways (e.g., significantly greater presence of vegetation < 1 m in height, and significantly greater

vertical presence of shrubs in general on interiors). These differences could have lent to better

protection from predators on interiors than edges, which Moore et al. (1995) mentions as being

an important feature of stop-over habitats. Stop-over habitat is essential for migrating birds to









replenish fat supplies, to rest before the next leg of migration, and to provide protection against

predators (Moore et al. 1995). Urban green space can serve as important stop-over habitat

because these spaces may serve as more productive habitat, or as the only stop-over habitats for

birds along some migratory routes (Moore et al. 1995).

Summary and Conclusions

Most results indicated a lack of differentiation by birds between edges and interiors,

possibly due to vegetative similarities between edges and interiors. However, results indicated

that year-round residents as a group may use edges more than interiors during the summer and

that some migrants might use interiors more than edges during fall migration. However, because

of the dominance of one or a few species in each group, it is not clear whether these patterns of

the greater use of edge and interior habitats during the summer and fall are biologically relevant.

Despite this, the data indicates that certain birds may differentially use interior areas (greater

than 40 m from an edge) and/or edges (less than 40 m from an edge) of small urban forest

remnants, and that this pattern of habitat-use may be modified by season. These results suggest

that the interiors of these urban forest remnants may be managed for migrant species during the

fall, possibly by reducing human disturbance in the interior. Lastly, the study results point out

that urban forest remnants are used by a number of different species throughout the year, and that

their conservation contributes toward the diversity of the surrounding urban environment.


















































Figure 1-1. Urban forest remnants on the University Florida Campus in Gainesville, Florida.












30


































0.07 0 0.07 0.14 Miles







Figure 1-2. Illustration of edge and interior point count locations for bird surveys within forest
remnants, in Gainesville, Florida. Edge was defined as the habitat < 40m from the
remnant boundary. Interior was defined as all habitat > 40m from the remnant
boundary.










Table 1-1. Individual species and residency groups analyzed for winter bird count surveys of
edge and interior locations within forest remnants in Gainesville Florida. Shown are
overall average daily relative abundances with accompanying standard error (SE)
values at edges and interiors, and test statistics (T.S.) results with accompanying P-
values. Unless noted, statistical test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n
6 for edge and interior areas. For species abbreviations, see appendix A. Residency
codes: WR=winter resident, SM=summer migrant, AM=all migrants, and YR=year-
round residents.

Number of
species per Residency
Subgroup subgroup Group/Species Edge SE Interior SE T.S. P
All Species 15 WR 2.86 + 0.41 2.63 + 0.67 0.09 0.781
18 AM 2.89 + 0.41 3.11 + 0.45 0.17 0.697
28 YR** 3.47 + 0.68 2.48 + 0.41 0.67 0.414
Common 10 WR 2.78 + 0.38 2.95 + 0.46 0.12 0.247
11 YR* 1.72 + 0.11 1.49 + 0.14 1.72 0.743
Uncommon 5 WR 0.090 + 0.054 0.095 + 0.016 3.25 0.105
2 SM 0.013 + 0.009 0.096 + 0.054 0.19 0.670
8 AM** 0.111 0.054 0.112 + 0.040 2.67 0.102
17 YR** 0.784 + 0.394 0.399 + 0.075 0.67 0.414
AMCR 0.04 + 0.02 0.04 + 0.02 0.00 0.958
AMGO** 0.24 + 0.15 0.55 + 0.36 0.00 1.000
AMRO** 0.43 + 0.20 0.57 + 0.43 0.67 0.414
BAWW 0.04 + 0.02 0.09 + 0.04 0.62 0.467
BGGC** 0.19 + 0.08 0.17 + 0.03 2.67 0.102
BLJA 0.26 + 0.06 0.12 + 0.04 4.64 0.084
CACH** 0.16 + 0.05 0.01 + 0.01 6.00 0.014
CARW 0.44 + 0.10 0.54 + 0.18 0.15 0.718
CEWA** 0.21 + 0.08 0.00 + 0.00 6.00 0.014
DOWO 0.06 + 0.02 0.05 + 0.01 0.13 0.734
EAPH 0.06 + 0.03 0.05 + 0.02 0.10 0.769
ETTI 0.26 0.06 0.20 0.07 0.53 0.499
GRCA** 0.11 + 0.03 0.12 + 0.06 0.00 1.000
MODO* 0.19 + 0.09 0.04 + 0.02 2.25 0.194
NOCA 0.81 + 0.11 0.85 + 0.15 0.04 0.845
NOMO 0.25 + 0.07 0.06 + 0.03 4.83 0.079
PAWA 0.07 + 0.04 0.06 + 0.03 0.53 0.508
RBWO 0.32 + 0.11 0.23 + 0.06 0.55 0.490
RCKI** 0.76 + 0.10 0.59 + 0.08 0.67 0.414
YBSA 0.03 + 0.02 0.05 + 0.02 0.45 0.534
YRWA* 0.82 + 0.21 0.88 + 0.17 0.38 0.567
*square-root transformed
**tested with non-parametric Friedman test.









Table 1-2. Individual species and residency groups analyzed for spring bird count surveys of
edge and interior locations within forest remnants in Gainesville Florida. Shown are
overall average daily relative abundances with accompanying standard error (SE)
values at edges and interiors, and test statistics (T.S.) results with accompanying P-
values. Unless noted, statistical test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n =
6 for edge and interior areas. For species abbreviations, see appendix A. Residency
codes: WR=winter resident, SM=summer migrant, AM=all migrants, and YR=year-
round residents.


Number of
species per
subgroup
4
13
21
21
3
3
6
7
10
15
14


Residency
group/Species
SM
WR**
AM
YR
SM*
WR*
AM**
YR
WR*
AM*
YR
BHCO*
BLJA*
CARW*
DOWO**
ETTI**
GCFL
GRCA
MODO**
NOCA**
NOPA**
RBWO**
RCKI*
REVI*
YRWA


*square-root transformed
**tested with non-parametric Friedman test.


Subgroup
All Species




Common




Uncommon


Edge
0.63
1.04
1.70
3.16
0.62
0.75
1.37
2.51
0.29
0.33
0.65
0.19
0.24
0.42
0.08
0.21
0.35
0.25
0.08
1.11
0.16
0.42
0.31
0.12
0.19


SE
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.54
0.14
0.08
0.13
0.43
0.15
0.14
0.20
0.10
0.11
0.06
0.03
0.09
0.05
0.09
0.02
0.16
0.08
0.14
0.08
0.07
0.07


Interior
0.49 +
1.20 +
1.73 +
3.64 +
0.47 +
1.01 +
1.48 +
3.16 +
0.19 +
0.28 +
0.47 +
0.25 +
0.10 +
0.83 +
0.13 +
0.09 +
0.22 +
0.26 +
0.06 -
1.34 -
0.15 +
0.47 +
0.63 +
0.09 +
0.11 +


SE
0.09
0.29
0.22
0.57
0.31
0.21
0.42
0.43
0.07
0.08
0.15
0.11
0.04
0.25
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.04
0.27
0.08
0.08
0.15
0.04
0.06


T.S
0.50
0.67
0.09
0.40
5.04
0.95
0.20
1.27
0.14
0.04
0.63
2.10
1.34
5.77
0.00
2.67
1.97
0.00
0.33
0.20
0.17
0.67
5.03
0.00
0.50


P
0.513
0.414
0.778
0.557
0.075
0.375
0.655
0.312
0.721
0.855
0.464
0.207
0.299
0.061
1.000
0.102
0.219
0.994
0.564
0.655
0.564
0.414
0.075
0.949
0.511










Table 1-3. Individual species and residency groups analyzed for summer bird count surveys of
edge and interior locations within forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida. Shown are
overall average daily relative abundances with accompanying standard error (SE)
values at edges and interiors, and test statistics (T.S.) results with accompanying P-
values. Unless noted, statistical test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n =
6 for edge and interior areas. For species abbreviations, see Appendix A. Residency
codes: WR=winter resident, SM=summer migrant, AM=all migrants, and YR=year-
round residents.


Number of
species per
Subgroup subgroup
All Species 3
7
24
Common 2


Uncommon


Residency
group/Species
SM
AM*
YR
SM
YR
AM
YR
BHCO*
BLJA*
CARW**
DOWO**
ETTI
GCFL
NOCA
NOPA*
RBWO


*square-root transformed
**tested with non-parametric Friedman test.


Edge SE Interior SE T.S P


0.45
0.48
4.77
0.40
3.59
0.08
1.18
0.08
0.55
1.30
0.21
0.18
0.35
0.78
0.05
0.49


0.11
0.14
0.57
0.11
0.28
0.04
0.52
0.05
0.22
0.33
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.20
0.02
0.12


0.34
0.37
3.60
0.31
3.24
0.05
0.36
0.15
0.14
1.25
0.06
0.21
0.25
1.11
0.07
0.32


0.11
0.10
0.60
0.12
0.54
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.21
0.05
0.10
0.09
0.24
0.05
0.07


0.44
0.34
5.46
0.24
0.35
0.32
8.11
0.33
4.00
0.67
2.67
0.07
0.42
0.71
0.02
2.67


0.535
0.584
0.067
0.645
0.580
0.598
0.036
0.593
0.102
0.414
0.102
0.809
0.543
0.437
0.891
0.163









Table 1-4. Individual species and residency groups analyzed for fall bird count surveys of edge
and interior locations within forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida. Shown are
overall average daily relative abundances with accompanying standard error (SE)
values at edges and interiors, and test statistics (T.S.) results with accompanying P-
values. Unless noted, statistical test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n =
6 for edge and interior areas. For species abbreviation, see appendix A. Residency
codes: WR=winter resident, SM=summer migrant, AM=all migrants, and YR=year-
round residents.


Number of
species per
subgroup


*square-root transformed
**tested with non-parametric Friedman test


Edge
0.08 +
0.31 +
0.47 z
5.51 +
0.23 +
0.33 z
4.80 +
0.05 +
0.08 +
0.14 +
0.70 +
0.07 +
0.03 +
0.55 +
1.14 +
0.22 +
0.11 +
0.20 z
0.05 +
1.63 +
0.37 +
0.53 +
0.03 +
0.19 +


SE Interior
0.02 0.21 +
0.10 0.58 +
0.15 0.86 +
0.61 4.39 +
0.09 0.43 +
0.12 0.62 +
0.46 3.92 +
0.03 0.06 +
0.04 0.14 +
0.04 0.25 +
0.21 0.47 +
0.03 0.03 +
0.02 0.06 -
0.13 0.37 -
0.19 1.18 -
0.05 0.07 +
0.03 0.28 +
0.08 0.37 +
0.03 0.06 +
0.26 1.42 +
0.12 0.09 +
0.08 0.29 +
0.02 0.15 +
0.06 0.16 +


Residency
group/Species
SM**
WR
AM
YR
WR
AM
YR*
SM
WR*
AM*
YR
AMRE**
BAWW**
BLJA*
CARW
DOWO
ETTI
GRCA
MODO
NOCA
NOMO*
RBWO
REVI**
WEVI**


Subgroup
All Species




Common



Uncommon


SE
0.08
0.15
0.19
0.63
0.13
0.15
0.55
0.02
0.05
0.08
0.10
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.28
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.03
0.20
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.05


T.S
6.31
3.60
8.04
2.67
2.24
4.78
2.10
0.17
3.99
14.01
1.28
0.20
1.00
2.48
0.04
4.06
5.68
1.60
0.03
0.38
21.97
10.43
1.80
1.80


P
0.054
0.116
0.036
0.102
0.195
0.080
0.207
0.699
0.102
0.013
0.309
0.655
0.317
0.176
0.843
0.100
0.063
0.261
0.867
0.566
0.005
0.023
0.180
0.180














Table 1-5. Vegetation analysis results for edge and interior locations of urban forest remnants

during the dormant season in Gainesville, Florida. Shown are overall averages and

accompanied SE values for both edge and interior locations for each listed variable

measured, and (T.S.) test statistics and accompanying P-values. Unless noted,

statistical test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n = 6 for edge and

interior areas.


Variable

Woody shrub

density per ha


Trees per hectare

Snags per hectare

Visual Obstruction


Overstory Density

Index of vertical

vegetation structure

(0-300)






Index of vertical

vegetation structure

(0-500)

Index of vertical

vegetation structure

(0-600)

Distribution of ground

cover


Sub-variable

0-2 5 cm dbh*

2 5-8 cm dbh*

< 8 cm dbh, > 1 m in height*




0-0 5 m**

05-1 m

11 5m

15-20m


SE Interior


10833333

2500 00

6020 83

381 25

2292

3 22

255

1 84

1 53

73 53


Dead Debris

Forbes

Grass

Shrubs

Trees

Vines*

All vegetation (< 1 m)

All vegetation (>1 m, 5 m)

All vegetation (> 5 m)

All structure variables (< 1 m)

All structure variables (> 1 m, < 5 m)

All structure variables (> 5 m)

Bare Ground (0%)*

Bare Ground (<10%)

Bare Ground (10-25%)**

Bare Ground (25-50%)**

Bare Ground (50-75%)**

Bare Ground (75-100%)**

Dead Debris (0%)**

Dead Debris (< 10%)**

Dead Debris (10-25%)

Dead Debris (25-50%)

Dead Debris (50-75%)

Dead Debris (75-100%)

Forbes (0%)**

Forbes (< 10%)

Forbes (10-25%)

Forbes (25-50%)**

Forbes (50-75%)**

Forbes (75-100%)**

Grass (0%)

Grass (< 10%)**


7202912

1118 03

1841 41

96 16

1225

047

053

042

045

601


12083

89 58

56 25

125 00

95 83

83 33

272 92

10625

70 83

36458

131 25

7500

79 17

1667

0 00

0 00

417

0 00

8 33

8 33

1458

20 83

2708

20 83

1042

50 00

18 75

1042

208

8 33

43 75

18 75


12520833

3750 00

588542

31250

3542

2 80

204

1 48

1 57

7628


17500

8542

3333

16042

8750

129 17

24375

16667

85 42

34375

225 00

10208

58 33

33 33

1458

208

000

8 33

417

625

1875

2708

1667

35 42

1875

6250

1042

625

625

417

7500

417


SE TS P

4845790 016 0263

179699 026 0630

114342 011 0754

10724 002 0883

1458 029 0611

059 267 0102

050 003 0 875

042 000 1 000

046 079 0416

693 014 0727

1738 1097 0021

678 029 0611

1787 089 0388

1385 109 0344

2479 016 0709

32 54 0 86 0396

3256 1 52 0272

1787 211 0206

1458 038 0567

3256 078 0419

22 36 346 0 122

13 85 140 0290

1236 329 0129

1357 239 0183

818 3 0083

208 1 0317

000 1 0317

833 1 0317

417 1 0317

427 0 1 000

625 029 0611

818 032 0597

833 039 0558

936 124 0315

88 98 0 33 0 564

1208 136 0296

678 062 0465

427 033 0564

427 1 0317

417 0 1 000

1291 295 0146

417 3 0083














Table 1-5. Continued

Variable Sub-variable Edge SE Interior SE T S P
Grass (10-25%)** 1042 818 833 527 033 0564
Grass (25-50%) 1250 456 1042 502 009 0771
Grass (50-75%)** 625 427 208 208 1 0317
Grass (75-100%)** 833 833 000 000 1 0317
Shrubs (0%) 3125 1638 1875 625 079 0415
Shrubs (< 10%) 2292 1137 2500 645 003 0880
Shrubs (10-25%) 1667 833 2500 645 036 0576
Shrubs (25-50%) 2292 1137 1042 502 125 0314
Shrubs (5-75%)** 625 427 8 33 527 0 1 000
Shrubs (75-100%)** 000 000 417 417 1 0317
Trees (0%)** 8750 559 7708 1595 033 0564
Trees (< 10%)** 000 000 417 417 1 0317
Trees (10-25%)** 1250 559 417 417 2 0157
Trees (25-50%)** 000 000 000 000 0 1 000
Trees (50-75%)** 000 000 208 208 1 0317
Trees (75-100%)** 000 000 000 000 0 1 000
Vines (0%) 5417 1667 2917 1635 092 0381
Vines (> 10%) 2292 818 45 83 1873 048 0520
Vines (10-25%) 2292 936 8 33 527 124 0315
Vines (25-50%)** 000 000 417 417 1 0317
Vines (50-75%)** 000 000 000 000 0 1 000
Vines (75-100%)** 000 000 000 000 0 1 000
*square-root transformed

**tested with non-parametric Friedman test













Table 1-6. Vegetation analysis results for edge and interior locations of urban forest remnants
during the growing seasons in Gainesville, Florida. Includes the overall average and

accompanied SE values for both edge and interior locations for each listed variable
measured, and test statistics (T.S.) and associated P-values. Unless noted, statistical
test is one way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n = 6 for edge and interior areas.


Variable
Overstory Density
Visual Obstruction





Index of vertical
vegetation structure
(0-300)





Index of vertical
vegetation structure
(0-500)
Index of vertical
vegetation structure
(0-600)
Distribution of
ground cover


Sub-variable


0-0.5 m*
0.5-1 m*
1-1.5m
1.5-2.0 m**
Dead Debris
Forbes
Grass
Shrubs
Trees
Vines
All vegetation (< 1 m)
All vegetation (> 1, < 5 m)
All vegetation ( > 5 m)
All structure variables (<1 m)
All structure variables (> 1 m,
All structure variables (> 5 m)
Bare Ground (0%)
Bare Ground (25-50%)**
Bare Ground (50-75%)**
Bare Ground (75-100%)**
Dead Debris (0%)**
Dead Debris (25-50%)
Dead Debris (50-75%)
Dead Debris (75-100%)
Forbes (0%)
Forbes (25-50%)**
Forbes (50-75%)**
Forbes (75-100%)**
Grass (0%)
Grass (25-50%)**
Grass (50-75%)**
Grass (75-100%)**
Shrubs (0%)
Shrubs (25-50%)
Shrubs (50-75%)
Shrubs (75-100%)**
Trees (0%)
Trees (25-50%)**
Trees (50-75%)**
Trees (75-100%)**
Vines (0%)
Vines (25-50%)**


Edge
72.42
4.89
4.03
3.85
3.51
119.44
51.39
39.58
136.11
111.11
140.28
218.75
172.92
86.81
302.08
206.94
88.89
54.17
8.33
0.00
0.00
12.50
18.75
16.67
25.00
45.83
2.08
10.42
0.00
62.50
4.17
4.17
18.75
35.42
8.33
12.50
2.08
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
27.08
4.17


SE Interior
10.87 85.01
1.53 3.76
1.47 3.04
1.46 2.54
1.31 2.58
20.91 104.17
13.89 66.67


15.95
24.69
18.31
30.69
27.34
29.30
18.83
37.97
36.79
18.96
13.94
8.33
0.00
0.00
12.50
8.98
6.18
15.81
13.57
2.08
6.78
0.00
17.97
4.17
4.17
16.38
17.20
5.27
6.45
2.08
8.33
8.33
0.00
0.00
15.28
4.17


56.25
179.17
125.00
141.67
291.67
170.83
106.25
379.17
187.50
106.25
42.36
10.42
0.00
0.00
4.17
31.94
20.83
15.97
22.22
8.33
2.08
2.08
39.58
4.17
0.00
5.56
11.81
24.31
12.50
4.17
74.31
8.33
0.00
0.00
25.00
25.69


SE T.S.
5.96 1.04
0.34 0.18
0.41 0.01
0.36 0.97
0.24 0.67
10.54 0.42
10.54 1.45
15.05 1.04
11.93 5.04
14.43 0.59
32.06 0.00
30.73 4.54
11.93 0.01
11.06 0.84
35.01 2.74
11.18 0.43
11.06 0.63
12.19 0.95
8.18 1.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
4.17 0.00
11.47 1.31
7.68 0.25
5.73 0.21
12.11 3.05
5.27 2.00
2.08 2.00
2.08 1.00
14.50 3.25
4.17 0.00
0.00 1.00
5.56 2.00
5.93 2.02
8.36 2.20
6.45 0.00
2.64 1.00
11.20 2.65
8.33 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
15.81 0.01
9.65 4.00


P
0.354
0.690
0.933
0.371
0.414
0.545
0.282
0.355
0.075
0.478
0.977
0.086
0.934
0.402
0.159
0.540
0.465
0.374
0.317
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.303
0.638
0.663
0.141
0.157
0.157
0.317
0.131
1.000
0.317
0.157
0.215
0.199
1.000
0.317
0.165
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.939
0.046












Table 1-6. Continued
Variable Sub-variable
Vines (50-75%)**
Vines (75-100%)**
*square-root transformed

**tested with non-parametric Friedman test


SE Interior
2.08 0.00
6.18 5 56


SE T.S. P
0.00 1.00 0.317
5 56 0 33 0 564









CHAPTER 2
USE OF EDGE AND INTERIOR HABITATS OF URBAN FOREST REMNANTS BY
HERPETOFAUNA

Introduction

Reptiles and amphibians face numerous challenges in coexisting with an urbanizing world

(Rubbo and Kiesecker 2004, McKinney 2006). Research has shown that urbanization can

negatively affect herpetofauna because of the increased amount of impervious surfaces (Richter

and Azous 1995), habitat isolation caused by dispersal barriers such as roads (Ficetola and De

Bernardi 2004, Parris 2006), the degradation of wetlands through the destruction of habitat, and

the alteration of hydroperiod and flow regimes (Delis, Mushinsky, and McCoy 1996, Riley et al.

2005). For amphibians, the effect of urbanization has been paid particular attention because of

their need for access to water to breed in. Both reptiles and amphibians are at risk from habitat

fragmentation and other anthropogenic threats on a global scale (Gibbons et al. 2000), with the

IUCN estimating that 1/3 of herpetofaunal species worldwide are threatened with extinction

(Baillie, Hilton-Taylor, and Stuart 2004, and Cushman 2006).

Urban and Edge Effects on Herpetofauna

Urbanization often causes habitat fragmentation, and reptiles and amphibians can persist

within forest remnants (Demayandier and Hunter 1998, Schlaepfer and Gavin 2001), including

habitat remnants within urban matrices (Enge, Robson, and Krysko 2004, Ficetola and De

Bernardi 2004, Rubbo and Kiesecker 2005, Parris 2006). Habitat fragmentation creates a higher

amount of edge habitat in relation to the amount of interior habitat. From a habitat use

standpoint, this is important because habitat edges are often used differently than habitat

interiors. Indeed, edges have long been recognized for often having higher diversities and higher

abundances of species than habitat interiors, particularly of game species and birds (Lay 1938,

Yahner 1988). This pattern is partially due to factors such as increased sunlight exposure,









increased emergent vegetation, and increased abundances of invertebrates along edges. However,

for herpetofauna, particularly amphibians, interior habitats generally offer cooler, moister

conditions, and therefore may be more conducive to survival, particular during dry periods

(Lehtinen, Ramanamanjato, and Raveloarison 2005).

Research comparing edge and interior use of forest remnants has shown that herpetofauna

can respond to edge differentially, and may partition their species assemblages into edge-

associated, interior-associated, and edge-indifferent species (Schlaepfer and Garvin 2001,

Urbina-Cardona, Olivares-Perez, and Reynoso 2006, Lehtinen et al. 2005). These findings have

varied depending upon the ecological system that was studied, as well as the season it was

studied in. For example, Lehtinen et al. (2005) and Schlaepfer and Garvin (2001) found

herpetofauna to differentially use edges and interiors of remnants within desert and pasture

matrices, respectively, but that these results were highly dependent upon season. Contrastingly,

Urbina-Cardona et al. (2006) found differential habitat use by herpetofauna at edges and interiors

in remnants within another pasture matrix, but found that these effects were largely not

influenced by season. Currently, very little is known about whether individual species, or taxa-

groups avoid edges and preferentially utilize interior areas of urban forest remnants.

Objective

The objective of my study was to determine whether species and taxa-groups of

amphibians and reptiles differentially use edge and interior habitat within urban forest remnants

during the summer.

Methods

Study Site

This study took place in 5 forest remnants on the University of Florida campus, located in

Gainesville, Florida. They included Harmonic Woods (3.7 ha), Graham Woods (3.0 ha),









Bartram-Carr Woods (3.5 ha), Lake Alice Conservation Area (11.3 ha), and Biven's Arm Forest

(16.6 ha) (Figure 2-1). The University of Florida Gainesville campus is located in north-central

peninsular Florida, which experiences hot, humid, and generally rainy summers. Two of the

three smallest remnants (Harmonic Woods and Bartram-Carr Woods) included largely upland

mixed pine-hardwood forest habitat, with all containing or being immediately adjacent to small

streams or low-lying areas. The third small patch (Graham Woods) consisted of a mixture of

low-lying bottomland hardwood and upland mixed pine-hardwood habitat, and contained a small

network of streams. One of the two largest remnants, Lake Alice Conservation Area, consisted of

upland mixed pine-hardwood forest, some regenerating clear-cut habitat, and was adjacent to a

large marsh (25 ha), and therefore contained some flood-plain forest as well. The other large

remnant, Biven's Forest, consisted of mostly bottomland-hardwood swamp in its interior, but

was ringed by mixed pine-hardwood forest on three of its four edges, with the fourth edge being

adjacent to a lake. All remnants except Harmonic Woods were subject to occasional flooding.

Herpetofaunal Sampling

I sampled Herpetofauna during the summers of 2005 and 2006 from May until August,

using drift fence arrays with pitfall traps and funnel traps, along with Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC)

pipe refugia to sample for tree frogs. I made drift fences out of approximately 30 cm wide silt

fencing (Enge 1997). Following a modification of a design by Moseley, Castleberry, and

Schweitzer (2003), I formed arrays in the shape of a Y, with the three, 7.6 m long wings

conjoined around a single pitfall trap, and placed at 1200 angles to each other. I placed funnel

traps at the distal ends of each wing, making sure they were flush to the ground (Johnson, S.,

Personal communication). I made pitfall traps of 19.1 L plastic buckets. For funnel traps, I used a

modification of the format described by Enge (1997), using aluminum window screening

approximately 76 cm in length to build cylindrical traps of the same length with a funnel in one









end, and with the other end closed. To prevent desiccation of captured specimens, I placed a

dampened sponge inside each trap. Originally, I drilled holes into the bottom of buckets for

drainage. However, in remnants with high levels of ground water, water would flood the bucket

from the bottom up. Therefore, in these remnants and places that tended to flood, I installed

buckets without holes in the bottom, and I used iron rebar stakes to hold buckets in the ground

against hydro-static water pressure (Enge, K., personal communication). I scooped out rainwater

collected in pitfall traps each sampling day as necessary. PVC pipe refugia were used to attract

various species of tree frogs. I used pipes of both 2.5 cm and 5 cm diameter-widths, with lengths

of about 76 cm. I drove pipes into the ground at a depth suitable for the pipe to stand up on its

own (Zacharow, Barichivich, and Dodd 2003). I placed one pipe of each diameter width between

each wing of the Y-shaped fence array (Moseley et al. 2003), resulting in 6 total PVC pipes per

sampling array.

This design was well suited to sampling in multiple small-sized areas, because it was

compact as well as cost effective. Because this sampling method does not rely on human

observations, detection probabilities for species should have been similar within remnants,

assuming that species moved in the same manner throughout remnants. In addition, as sampling

methods should reflect the detection probability of the study subjects in order to be effective

(MacKensie and Royle 2005), this method allowed me to sample for a relatively wide amount of

diversity, given resource constraints.

To compare edge and interior locations (Figure 2-2), I considered the first 40 m from the

remnant boundary toward the interior as "edge", and I considered all space beyond 40 m from

the boundary of the remnant to be "interior". I decided to place arrays at edge locations between

20-40 m from boundary edges due to the close proximity of remnants to the urban environment,









and the potential for human interference. Except for this specification, I placed sampling arrays

randomly within edge and interior areas of remnants. To assure some degree of equal sampling

effort per forest remnant, I allocated a one array per 2 ha ratio, up to a maximum of 4 arrays per

remnant. I specified all arrays within remnants to be at least 100 m apart from each other

(Campbell and Christman 1982), though in two remnants (Lake Alice Conservation Area and

Biven's Forest), logistical difficulties (unsuitable substrates) only allowed a maximum distance

of 80 m between sampling arrays. Using these parameters, I placed a total of 7 interior and 7

edge arrays in 5 forest remnants around the University of Florida campus.

When I sampled herps, I opened traps for periods of four days apiece, and checked them

every day. I opened and checked traps in a systematic sequence so that they were checked at the

approximate corresponding time they were set on the previous day. This assured that all traps

would be open to sample for the same amount of time each day (approx. 24 hr), allowing for

equal sampling effort per trap. On the fourth day, I closed traps until the next sampling period.

Each day, I identified captured specimens to species, and then promptly released them. I

operated sampling arrays from May through August, every other week. Occasionally, heavy

rains forced the closure of some traps due to flooding. In this situation, closed traps were re-

opened during the same week for the amount of sampling time lost to inclement weather. The

presence of ants at sampling locations also necessitated the closure of funnel traps indefinitely

when trapped individuals were negatively affected.

Analysis

I conducted data analyses comparing average daily relative abundance of individual

species, at the Order/Suborder taxa-level (including Snake, Frog, Lizard), and the Family taxa-

level (Ranid, Hylids, Skinks, Anoles) between edges and interiors. I also conducted an analysis

of overall species richness between edges and interiors. I calculated average daily relative









abundance per species for each edge or interior location within a forest remnant (e.g., Harmonic

Woods) by dividing the summed count data per remnant edge and interior by total trap effort

(i.e., number of trap nights). Total trap effort was modified by sampling methodologies utilized

(e.g., 3 funnel traps and 1 pitfall=4/4, or 100% operational) per trap night. For example, if a total

of 10 frogs were caught over 4 nights in which the pitfall trap and only 2 of the 3 funnel traps

were open, then I would calculated this average as: 10/(4 [3/4]) = 3.33.

For most species, three funnel traps and one pitfall trap per array constituted the applicable

sampling methodologies at each array. For tree frogs, the sampling involved only the 6 PVC

pipes per array (e.g., 6 pipes = 6/6 or 100% operational). For Anolis sagrei, which were caught

using all sampling methodologies, the applicable sampling devices included the pipes, the funnel

traps, and the pitfall traps (e.g., 3 funnel traps, 1 pitfall, and 6 pipes = 10/10 or 100%

operational). I used this analytical approach because sampling effort per array was occasionally

reduced when traps or pipes were lost temporarily due to extreme weather or unknown

disturbances (i.e. raccoon interference), or intentionally removed due to ant predation.

In Harmonic Woods, Graham Woods, and Bartram-Carr Woods, there were only 2

sampling arrays (1 at edge, 1 at interior). Lake Alice Conservation Area and Biven's Forest were

larger and had two sampling arrays per edge and interior. However, I inadvertently placed 1 edge

location in each of the larger remnants (Biven's Forest and Lake Alice Conservation Area) too

far from boundaries of these remnants (i.e., > 20-40 m from patch boundaries). I excluded these

arrays from analysis to prevent undue bias on any actual edge effect. In addition, I only sampled

Bartram-Carr Woods through the first week of July in 2006 because of building construction that

began in that remnant.









I entered calculated data into a one-way ANOVA model blocked for forest remnant in

which average daily relative abundance was the dependent variable, and edge or interior location

was the independent variable. Because I was not interested in the effect of sampling year, I

averaged the relative abundances for each analyzed species and group between both years. I

tested the data for normality with the Ryan-Joiner test, and for equal-variance with the Levine

test. I square-root transformed non-normal and heteroskedastic distributions for individual

species and groups. I used the non-parametric Friedman test to analyze species and groups

unable to meet parametric test assumptions after transformation. Because there were 5 sampled

forest remnants with both edge and interior locations, this resulted in a total of 10 possible forest

remnant locations. In order to deal with non-normality issues due to having too many zeros in the

data, I only statistically analyzed individual groups in each level of analysis if they were present

in at least half (5) of the 10 possible forest remnant locations. An alpha of 0.1 was used for all

statistical tests.

I calculated species richness (edge and interior) per forest remnant and entered it into a

one-way ANOVA model blocked by forest remnant in which number of species was the

dependant variable, and edge or interior location was the independent variable. Similar to the

count data, I averaged species richness data between both years. I tested normality and variance

assumptions as previously described (alpha=0.1).

Lastly, in order to gauge similarities in species assemblages at edges and interiors, I

computed Horn similarity index values between edges and interiors within each remnant. To do

this, I used R Statistical Program, using the Vegan Community Analysis package.









Results

Over the summers of 2005 and 2006, I checked 12 arrays a total of 552.5 trap nights for

tree frogs, 548.6 trapping nights for Anolis sagrei, and 542.75 trapping nights for all remaining

species. I caught a total of 23 species in sampling arrays, shown in Appendix B.

Individual Species

Only 6 species were present in enough forest remnant locations in both years to be

individually analyzed. After analyzing Anolis sagrei, Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp., Hyla

cinera, Hyla squirella, Rana clamitans, and Scincella lateralis, none were found to have

significantly higher relative abundances at either edges or interiors (Table 2-1). Hyla squirella

was found to be significantly affected by remnant (Table 2-2), with 89.76% of the cumulative

average daily relative abundance of this species found in Biven's Forest.

Taxa-Groups

General taxa-subgroup

When I grouped the species into general-taxa subgroups, including the order Anura (frogs),

and the suborders Serpentes (snakes) and Lacertilia (lizards) of the order Squamata, there were

no groups that had significantly higher relative abundances at edges or interiors (Table 2-1).

Frogs were significantly affected by forest remnant, with 80.52% of this group's cumulative

average relative abundance found in Biven's Forest and Lake Alice Conservation Area (Table 2-

2). Snakes showed a similar remnant effect, with 60.98% of the group's cumulative average

relative abundance represented in Biven's Forest and Lake Alice Conservation area, and 32.69%

of the group's cumulative average relative abundance represented in Harmonic Woods (Table 2-

2).









Specific taxa-subgroup

When I grouped species into more specific-taxa subgroups, including Ranidae (true frogs),

Scincidae skinkss), Hylidae (tree-frogs), and Polychrotidae (Anolis lizards), no groups had

significantly higher daily relative abundances at edges or interiors (Table 2-1). Ranids were

significantly affected by forest remnant, with 69.42% of this group's cumulative relative

abundance found in Biven's Forest and Lake Alice Conservation Area (Table 2-2).

Species Richness

The number of species between edge and interior locations was not significantly different

(Table 2-1). Species richness was significantly affected by forest remnant, with the most species

occurring in Biven's Forest (19 species) and Lake Alice Conservation Area (16 species) (Table

2-2).

Species Composition

The Horn similarity index is based on a scale of 0-1, with 0 representing a completely

different species composition, and 1 representing completely identical compositions. When I

calculated the similarities between the edges and interiors of individual remnants, it was found

that similarity values ranged from 0.520-0.890, with a mean value of 0.775 (Table 2-3).

Discussion

Edge vs. Interior Habitat Use

For herpetofauna, I found no difference in the use of edge or interior habitat for any

individual species, family-level taxa group, or order/suborder-level taxa group. I also found no

difference in species richness between edges and interiors. Further, species similarity indices

between edges and interiors ranged from moderately similar to highly similar. Taken together,

herpetofauna analyzed in my study do not appear to differentially use edges or interiors of these

small urban remnants. Though edge effects for herpetofauna in urban matrices have not been









well studied, there has been previous evidence of differential use of edge and interior habitat of

forest remnants in rural settings (Schlaepfer and Gavin 2001, Lehtinen et al. 2003, Urbina-

Cardona et al. 2006). A common finding is that canopy cover tends to increase with distance

from edge (Urbina-Cardona et al. 2006, Schlaepfer and Gavin 1999). This generally contributes

toward interior forest remnant conditions of lower temperatures and increased levels of relative

humidity than edges (Urbina-Cardona 2006, Lehtien et al. 2003, Schlaepfer and Gavin 1999).

This leads to higher use of forest interior by moisture-sensitive amphibians, and an even some

species of reptiles for higher breeding success (Schlaepfer and Gavin 1999). In addition,

significant differences in under-story density between edges and interiors may favor species that

prefer sparser vegetation densities typically found at interiors, or greater vegetation densities

typically found at edges (Schlaepfer and Gavin 2001, Urbina-Cardona et al. 2006).

In my study, one reason for a lack of segregation could be the small amount of structural

habitat differences between edge and interior habitats, particularly over-story density (Chapter

1). Further, herpetofauna in my study were only sampled during the summer rainy season, and

species during this season, particularly amphibians, may have been inclined to use the entire

forest remnant if they were dispersing in search of wetlands for breeding activities. This is

consistent with seasonal differences in habitat use by herpetofauna found by Lehtinen et al.

(2003) in tropical fragments, and suggests that seasonality may need to be accounted for in future

research in my study area. Lastly, only 5 species were sufficiently common to be analyzed

individually. The sampling methodology may not have been effective in capturing other species

or other herps may not be abundant in these urban remnants.

Habitat Use among Forest Remnants

Although no edge effects were detected for herpetofauna in this system of remnants,

species richness was greater and more Hyla squirella, Ranids, Anurans (Frogs), and Snakes,









were found in certain forest remnants. Several habitat features within particular remnants may

have contributed to a forest remnant effect. First, the presence or amount of wetlands in or

adjacent to the remnant may have been an important contributor. Biven's Forest and Lake Alice

Conservation Area contained or were directly adjacent to the largest amount of wetlands out of

the 5 remnants. Biven's Forest was adjacent to a lake and was largely made up of bottomland

hardwood habitat, while Lake Alice Conservation Area was adjacent to a marsh and a lake, and

was made up largely of mesic, mixed pine-hardwood forest. These two remnants contained the

highest relative abundances of Ranids and Anurans, with Biven's Forest containing the highest

counts ofHyla squirella and the most species. This is consistent with previous findings that these

groups of herpetofauna are often most abundant near wetlands (Houlahan and Findlay 2003).

My study was also conducted during the rainy season, and frogs would be most attracted to wet

areas for breeding.

Second, remnant size might also be a factor, as Biven's Forest (16.59 ha), and Lake Alice

Conservation Area (11.27 ha) were the largest remnants out of the 5. The relative abundance of

the Snake group was the highest in Biven's Forest and Lake Alice Conservation Area. Therefore,

for the Anuran group, the Ranid group, and the Snake group, larger remnants may attract more

individuals and species. This is consistent with previous research that found higher abundances

of herpetofauna in larger forest remnants (Gibbs 1998, Cushman 2006, Parris 2006).

Finally, these two areas were also the least isolated of all the 5 remnants, with Lake Alice

Conservation Area being directly adjacent to a large marsh and Biven's Forest being located next

to agricultural fields, forested land, and a lake. Roads or buildings circumscribed the other three

remnants. Isolation, particularly by urban, impervious surfaces such as roads have been

implicated as being negatively associated with species richness and abundance in remnants









(Houlahan and Findlay 2003, Ficetola and De Bernardi 2004, Parris 2006) because roads are a

barrier to dispersal (Gibbs 1998, deMaynadier and Hunter 2000, Cushman 2006).

Conclusion

No differences in relative abundance and species richness for any species or group of

herpetofauna, as well as similar species compositions between edges and interiors of remnants

suggests that herpetofauna may not differentiate between edge and interior areas of these forest

remnants. This is possibly due to the fact that herps may widely disperse during the summer,

searching for breeding sites. Also, vegetative characteristics were similar between edge and

interior habitats in this system. However, a couple of remnants had more herpetofauna,

suggesting that remnant size, wetland presence, and isolation by urban surfaces of certain may

influence the distribution of herpetofauna.





















































Figure 2-1. Forest remnants on the University of Florida campus in Gainesville, Florida.










52






























0.07 0 0.07 0.14 Miles



Figure 2-2. Illustration of edge and interior location of herpetofauna sampling arrays within
forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida. An edge array was within 20-40 m from the
boundary of a remnant and an interior array was situated greater than 40 m from a
remnant boundary. Arrays were positioned to be at least 100 m apart to maintain
independence from each other.












Table 2-1. Average daily relative abundance of herpetofauna species and groups, as well as
species richness between edges and interiors of 5 urban forest remnants in
Gainesville, FL. Shown are the means and standard error (SE) values for the average
daily abundances and species richness of both edges and interiors, the test statistics
(T. S) and associated P-values for all individually analyzed species and groups. Also
shown are the number of species per taxa group. Unless noted, statistical test is one
way ANOVA. For all tests, df = 1, and n = 5 for edge and interior areas.


Number
of Species
Taxa Group per group
Order-level 10
7
5
Family-level 2
2
3
3


Taxa Group/ Species/ Species
Richness
Anura
Squamata, suborder Serpentes
Squamata, suborder Lacertilia
Hylidae**
Polychrotidae*
Ranidae
Scincidae
Anolis sagrei*
Eleutherodactylus planirostris*
Hyla cinera**
Hyla squirella*
Rana clamitans
Scincella lateralis
Species Richness


*square-root transformed
**tested with non-parametric Friedman test


Edge
0.59
0.03
0.43
0.27
0.15
0.21
0.27
0.15
0.07
0.02
0.25
0.13
0.24
7.40


Interior
0.62 -
0.04 -
0.23 -
0.36 -
0.12 -
0.17 -
0.11 -
0.12 -
0.05 -
0.03 -
0.33 -
0.13 -
0.09 -
8.20 -


T.S.
0.19
0.17
1.43
0.00
0.19
3.39
2.63
0.42
0.94
1.00
0.33
0.01
1.84
1.43


P
0.69
0.70
0.30
1.00
0.69
0.14
0.18
0.55
0.39
0.32
0.56
0.95
0.25
0.30










Table 2-2. Herpetofauna species and groups shown to be significantly affected by remnant in
urban forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida. Shown are average daily abundances of
each species or group in each remnant, the remnant mean accompanied by the
standard errors (SE), test-statistics (T.S.) and associated P-values. The number of
species per taxa group are also shown. Unless noted, statistical test is one way
ANOVA. For all tests, df = 4, and n = 5 for remnants sampled. Remnant
abbreviations: HW=Harmonic woods, GW=Graham Woods, BF=Biven's Forest,
HCP=Health Center Park, and LACA=Lake Alice Conservation Area.


Number of
Species per Taxa group/ Species/ Species
Taxa Group group richness


Order-level


10 Anura
7 Squamata, suborder Serpentes


Family-level 3 Ranidae
Hyla squirella*
Species Richness
*tested with non-parametric Friedman tes


HW GW HCP BF LACA Mean SE T.S.
0.34 0.10 0.15 0.75 1.70 0.61 0.30
0.05 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.01
0.18 0.10 0.01 0.43 0.22 0.19 0.07
0.00 0.00 0.03 1.29 0.12 0.33 0.29
7.00 2.50 6.00 12.50 11.50 7.90 1.84
st


Table 2-3. Horn compositional similarity values for species assemblages between edges and
interiors within urban forest remnants in Gainesville, Florida. Values closer to 1
indicate similar species composition.
Remnant Horn Similarity Index Value


Harmonic Woods
Graham Woods
Bartram-Carr Woods
Biven's Forest
Lake Alice Conservation Area


0.855
0.741
0.863
0.897
0.520

0.775


Mean









APPENDIX A
SPECIES ABBREVIATIONS, RESIDENCY STATUS, AND INCLUSION IN COMMON OR
UNCOMMON GROUPS FOR ALL BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED PER SEASON.

Table A-1. Species abbreviations, residency status, and inclusion in common or uncommon
groups for all bird species observed per season. Residency codes: WR=winter
resident, SM=summer, migrant, SO = stopover migrants and YR=year-round
residents. "C" indicates it was included in the "common" subgroup during a given
season. "U" indicates it was included in the "uncommon" subgroup during a given
season.
Species Abbreviation Status Winter Spring Summer Fall
Acadian Flycatcher ACFL SO U
American Crow AMCR YR C U U U
American Goldfinch AMGO WR C U
American Redstart AMRE SO U U C
American Robin AMRO WR C U
Baltimore Oriole BAOR WR U U U
Black and White Warbler BAWW WR C U C
Barred Owl BDOW YR U
Belted Kingfisher BEKI YR U
Blue-Gray gnatcatcher BGGC YR C U
Brown-headed cowbird BHCO YR U C C U
Blue-headed Vireo BHVI WR U C
Blue Jay BLJA YR C U C C
Blackpoll Warbler BPWA SO U
Brown Thrasher BRTH YR U U U U
Boat-tailed Grackle BTGR YR U
Carolina Chickadee CACH YR C U U U
Carolina Wren CARW YR C C C C
Cedar Waxwing CEWA WR C U
Chimney Swift CHSW SM U
Common Grackle COGR YR U U U
Common Yellowthroat COYE YR U U
Downy Woodpecker DOWO YR C C C C
Eastern Phoebe EAPH WR C U
Eurasian-collared dove ECDO YR U
Eastern Tufted Titmouse ETTI YR C C C C
Fish Crow FICR YR U U U U
Great Blue Heron GBHE YR U
Great Crested Flycatcher GCFL SM C C
Gray Catbird GRCA WR C C U C
Hermit Thrush HETH WR U U
House Finch HOFI YR U U U U










Table A-1. Continued
Species
House Wren
Indigo Bunting
Loggerhead Shrike
Magnolia Warbler
Mourning Dove
Northern Cardinal
Northern Flicker
Northern Mockingbird
Northern Parula
Orange Crowned Warbler
Oprey
Ovenbird
Palm Warbler
Pine Warbler
Pileated Woodpecker
Prairie Warbler
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Red-eyed Vireo
Red-headed Woodpecker
Rock Dove
Red-Shouldered Hawk
Red-Tailed Hawk
Red-winged Blackbird
Summer Tanager
Swainson's Thrush
Tree Swallow
White-eyed Vireo
Wild Turkey
Wood Thrush
Yellow-breasted Chat
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Yellow-throated Warbler


Abbreviation
HOWR
INBU
LOSH
MAWA
MODO
NOCA
NOFL
NOMO
NOPA
OCWA
OSPR
OVEN
PAWA
PIWA
PIWO
PRWA
RBWO
RCKI
REVI
RHWO
RODO
RSHA
RTHA
RWBB
SUTA
SWTH
TRES
WEVI
WITU
WOTH
YBCH
YBCU
YBSA
YRWA
YTWA


Status
WR
SO
YR
SO
YR
YR
YR
YR
SM
SO
YR
WR
WR
YR
YR
SO
YR
WR
SM
YR
YR
YR
YR
YR
SM
SO
WR
YR
YR
SM
SO
SO
WR
WR
YR


Winter
U


Spring
U
U


Summer Fall
U










APPENDIX B
ALL SPECIES OF HERPETOFAUNA DETECTED BY HERPETOFAUNAL SAMPLING
ARRAYS DURING THE SUMMERS OF 2005 AND 2006.

Table B-1. All species of herpetofauna detected by herpetofaunal sampling arrays during the
summers of 2005 and 2006.
Order-level Family-level
Species taxa group taxa group
Anolis carolinensis Lizard Polychotidae
Anolis sagrei Lizard Polychotidae
Apalone ferox Turtle* N/A
Bufo terrestris Anura Bufonidae*
Bufo quercicus Anura Bufonidae*
Coluber constrictor Snake N/A
Diadolphus punctatus Snake N/A
Eleutherodactylus planirostris sp. Anura N/A
Eumeces fasciatus Lizard Scincidae
Eumeces laticeps Lizard Scincidae
Farancia abacura Snake N/A
Gastrophryne carolinenis Anura N/A
Hyla cinera Anura Hylidae
Hyla squirella Anura Hylidae
Rana catesbiana Anura Randiae
Rana clamitans Anura Randiae
Rana sphenocephalus Anura Randiae
Rhadinaea flavilata Snake N/A
Scaphiopus holbrookii Anura N/A
Scincella lateralis Lizard Scincidae
Storeria dekayi victa Snake N/A
Thamnophis sauritus Snake N/A
Thamnophis sirtalis Snake N/A
Trachemys Scripta Turtle* N/A
*Insufficient data for analysis









APPENDIX C
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WILDLIFE SURVEY AND MONITORING PROGRAM: ONE
YEAR RESULTS AND DATA SUMMARY



Object C-1. PDF of University of Florida wildlife survey and monitoring program: one year
results and data summary











LIST OF REFERENCES

Alig. R.J., D.K. Jeffrey, and M. Lichtenstein. 2004. Urbanization on the US landscape: Looking
ahead in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 219-234.

Atchinson, K.A. and A.D. Rodewald. 2006. The value of urban forests to wintering birds.
Natural Areas Journal 26: 280-288.

Baillie, J.E.M, C. Hilton-Taylor, S. N. Stuart. 2004. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Global Species Assessment. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Breitwisch, R. J. 1977. The ecology and behavior of the Red-bellied Woodpecker, Centurus
carolinus (Linnaeus; Aves: Picidae), in south Florida. Thesis, University of Miami, Coral
Gables, FL.

Breitwisch, M. Diaz, and R. Lee 1987. Foraging efficiencies and techniques of juvenile and adult
Northern Mockingbirds (Mimuspolyglottos). Behaviour 101: 225-235.

Brewer, R. 1963. Ecological and reproductive relationships of Black-capped and Carolina
chickadees. Auk 80: 9-47.

Campbell, H.W. and S.P. Christman. 1982. Field techniques for herpetofaunal community
analysis. Pages 193-200 in N. J. Scott, Jr. (ed.), Herpetological Communities. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Wildlife Research Report 13, Washington, D.C., USA.

Chase, J.F. and J.J. Walsh. 2006. Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landscape and
Urban Planning 74: 46-69.

Cushman, S. A. 2006. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and
prospectus. Biological Conservation 128: 231-240.

Delis, P.R., H.R. Mushinsky, and E.D. McCoy. 1996. Decline of some west-central Florida
anuran populations in response to habitat degradation. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:
1579-1595.

DeMaynadier, P.G., M.L. Hunter Jr. 2000. Road effects on amphibian movements in a forested
landscape. Natural Areas Journal 20: 56-65.

Derrickson, K. C. and R. Breitwisch. 1992. Northern Mockingbird. Account no. 7 in A. Poole, P.
Stettenheim, and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America Online, The Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and The American Ornithologists' Union,
Washington, DC., USA.

Dunford, W. and K. Freemark. 2004. Matrix matters: Effects of surrounding land uses on forest
birds near Ottawa, Canada. Landscape Ecology 20: 497-511.









Enge, K.M. 1997. Use of silt fencing and funnel traps for drift fences. Herpetological Review 28:
30-31.

Enge, K. M., M. S. Robson, and K. L. Krysko. 2004. Reptile surveys on pine rockland habitat in
six Miami-Dade county parks. Biological Sciences 67: 195-204.

Enge, Kevin M. 2005. Herpetological biologist. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission. Florida, USA.

Fernandez, J.C. and J.L. Tellaria. 2000. Effects of human disturbance on spatial and temporal
Feeding patterns of black bird Turdus merula in urban parks in Madrid, Spain. Bird-Study.
2000 47: 13-21.

Fernandez-Juricic, E. 2000. Bird community composition patterns in urban parks in Madrid: The
role of age, size and isolation. Ecological Research 15: 373-383.

Fernandez -Juricic, E. 2001. Avian spatial segregation at edges and interiors of urban parks in
Madrid, Spain. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1303-1316.

Ficetola, G. F. and F. De Bernardi. 2004. Amphibians in a human-dominated landscape: The
community structure is related to habitat features and isolation. Biological Conservation
199:219-230.

Gates, J.E. and L. W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in field-forest
ecotones. Ecology 59: 871-883.

Gibbs, J.P. 1998. Amphibian movements in response to forest edges, roads, and streambeds in
southern New England. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 584-589.

Gibbons, J.W., D.E. Scott, T.R. Avis, J. Ryah, K. A. Buhlmann, T.D. Tuberville, B. S. Metts,
J.L. Greene, T.Mills, Y. Leiden, S. Poppy, and C. T. Winne. 2000. The global decline of
reptiles, deja vu amphibians. Bioscience 50: 253-266.

Haggerty, T. M., and E.S. Morton. 1995. Carolina Wren (Tln,,ili,, //i ludovicianus). Account
188 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America Online, The Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and The American Ornithologists' Union,
Washington, D.C., USA.

Hostetler, M.E. 1999. Scale, birds, and human decisions: A potential for integrative research in
urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 45: 15-19.

Hostetler, M.E., and C.S. Holling. 2000. Detecting the scales at which birds respond to structure
to structure in urban landscapes. Urban Ecosystems 4: 25-54.

Hostetler, M.E. and K. Knowles-Yanez. 2003. Land use, scale, and bird distributions in the
Phoenix metropolitan area. Landscape and Urban Planning 62: 55-68.









Hostetler, M.E., D. Scot, and J. Paul. 2005. Post-construction effects on an urban development
on migrating, resident, and wintering birds. Southeastern Naturalist 4: 421-434.

Houlahan J.E. and S. C. Findlay. 2003. The effects of land use on wetland species and
community composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 1078-
1094.

James, F.C., and H.H. Shugart. 1970. A quantitative method of habitat description. Audubon
Field Notes 24: 727-735.

Johnson, Steven Albert. 2005. Assistant professor in the department of Wildlife Ecology and
Conservation. University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Jokimaki, J. and J. Suhonen. 1998. Distribution and habitat selection of wintering birds in urban
environments. Landscape and Urban Planning 39: 253-263.

Kale II, H. W. and Maehr, D. S. 1990. Florida's Birds. A handbook and reference. Pineapple
Press. Sarasota, Florida. USA.

Karr, J.R. 1968. Habitat and avian diversity on strip-mined land in east-central Illinois. Condor
70:348-357.

Lay, D. 1938. How valuable are woodland clearings to birdlife? Wilson Bulletin 50: 254-245.

Lehtinen, R.M., J.B. Ramanamanjato, and J.G. Raveloarison. 2003. Edge effects and extinction
proneness in a herpetofauna from Madagascar. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 1357-
1370.

MacKenzie, D.I., and J.A. Royle. 2005. Designing occupancy studies: General advice and
allocating survey effort. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 1105-1114.

Marzluff, J.M. 2001. Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. Pages 19-48 in J.M.
Marzluff, R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly, editors. Avian ecology and conservation in an
urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, Massachusetts, USA, Dordrect,
GER, and London, UK.

McCollin, D. 1998. Forest edges and habitat selection by birds; A functional approach.
Ecography 21: 247-260.

McIntyre, N.E. 1995. Effects of forest patch size on avian diversity. Landscape Ecology 10: 85-
99.

McKinney, M.L. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological
Conservation 127: 247-260.

McPherson, J.M. 1987. A field study of winter fruit preferences of Cedar Waxwings. Condor 89:
293-306.









Mensing, D.M., S.M. Galatowitsch, and J.R. Tester. 1998. Anthropogenic effects on the
biodiversity of riparian wetlands of a northern temperate landscape. Journal of
environmental management 53: 349-377.

Moore, F.R, S. A. Gauthreaux, P. Kerlinger, and T.R. Simons. 1995. Habitat requirements during
migration: Important link in conservation. 121-144 in T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch, editors.
Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds. Oxford University Press, New
York, New York, USA.

Mortberg, U.M. 2001. Resident bird species in urban forest remnants: Landscape and habitat
Perspectives. Landscape Ecology 16: 193-203.

Moseley, K.R., S.B. Castleberry, and S.H. Schweitzer. 2003. Effects of prescribed fire on
herpetofauna in bottomland hardwood forests. Southeastern Naturalist 2: 475-486.

Mostrom, A. M., R. L. Curry, and B. Lohr. 2002. Carolina Chickadee (Poecile carolinensis).
Account 636 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, The Academy
of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists' Union,
Washington, D.C., USA.

Noss, R. 1991. Effects of edge an internal patchiness on avian habitat use in an old-growth
Florida hammock. Natural Areas Journal 11: 35-47.

Parris, K. 2006. Urban amphibian assemblages as metacommunities. Journal of Animal Ecology
75: 757-764.

Poole, A. (Editor). 2005. The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA.

Reijnen R, R. Foppen, and G. Veenbaas. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds:
Evaluation of the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors.
Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 567-581.

Richter, K. O., and A.L. Azous. 1995. Amphibian occurence and wetland characteristics in the
budget sound basin. Wetlands 15: 305-312.

Riley, S.P.D., G. T. Busteed, L. B. Kats, T L. Vandergon, L. F. S. Lee, R. G. Dagit, J. L. Kerby,
R. N. Fisher, and R. M. Sauvajot. 2005. Effects of urbanization on the distribution of
amphibians and invasive species in southern California streams. Conservation Biology 19:
1894-1907.

Robel, R.J., J.N. Briggs, A.D. Dayton, and L.C. Hurlbert. 1970. Relationships between visual
obstruction and weight of grassland vegetation. Journal of Wildlife Management 23: 295-
297.

Rodewald, P.G. and M.C. Brittingham. 2002. Habitat use and behavior of mixed species landbird
flocks during fall migration. Wilson Bulletin 114: 87-98.









Rodewald, P. G., and M.C. Brittingham. 2004. Stopover habitats of landbirds during fall: Use of
edge- dominated and early successional forests. The Auk 121: 1040-1055.

Roth, R.R. 1979. Foraging behavior of mockingbirds: The effect of too much grass. The Auk 96:
421-422.

Rubbo, M. J. and J.M. Kiesecker. 2005. Amphibian breeding distribution in an urbanized
landscape. Conservation Biology 19: 504-511.

Schlaepfer M. A. and T.A. Gavin. 2001. Edge effects on lizards and frogs in tropical forest
fragments. Conservation Biology 15: 1079-1090.

Shackelford, C. E., R. E. Brown, and R. N. Conner. 2000. Red-bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes
carolinus). Account 500 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, The
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American
Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA.

Shochat, E., P.S. Warren, S.H. Faeth, N.E. Mclntrye, and D. Hope. 2006. From patterns to
emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:
186-191.

Smith, W.P., D.J. Twedt, D.A. Widenfeld, P.B. Hamel, R.P. Ford, R.J. Cooper. 1993. Point
counts of birds in bottomland hardwood forests of the Mississippi alluvial plain. U.S.
Forest Service, Forest Service Southern Forests Experimentation Station, Research Paper
SO-274, Washington, D.C., USA.

Tarvin, K. A., and G.E. Wolfenden. 1999. Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Account 469 in A.
Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.,
USA.

Tilghman, N.G. 1987a. Characteristics of urban woodlands affection breeding bird diversity and
abundance. Landscape and Urban Planning 14: 481-495.

Tilghman, N.G. 1987b. Characteristics of urban woodlands affection winter bird diversity and
abundance. Forest Ecology and Management 21: 163-175.

Urbina-Cardona, J. N., M. Olivares-Perez, V. H. Reynoso. 2006. Herpetofauna diversity and
microenvironment correlates across a pasture-edge-interior ecotone in tropical rainforest
fragments in the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve of Veracruz, Mexico. Biological
Conservation 132: 61-75.

Villard, M. A. 1998. On forest interior species, edge avoidance, area sensitivity and dogmas in
avian conservation. The Auk 115: 801-805.









Whitcomb. R.F., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch, B.L. Whitcomb, K. Limkiewicz, and D. Bystrak.
1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. 125-205
in R.L. Burgess and D. M. Sharpe, eds. Forest island dynamics in man-dominated
landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. USA.

Winker, K., D.W. Warner, and A. Weisbrod. 1992. Migration of woodland birds at a fragmented
woodland stopover site. The Wilson Bulletin 104: 580-592.

Witmer, M.C. 1996a. Annual diet of Cedar Waxwing based on U.S. Biological Survey records
(1885-1950) compared to diet of American Robin: contrasts in dietary patterns and natural
history. The Auk 113: 414-430.

Witmer, M.C. 1996b. Consequences of an alien shrub on the plumage coloration and ecology of
Cedar Waxwings. The Auk 113: 735-743.

Witmer, M. C., D. J. Mountjoy, and L. Elliot. 1997. Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum).
Account 309 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, The Academy
of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists' Union,
Washington, D.C., USA.

Yaukey, P.H. 1996. Patterns of avian population density, habitat use, and flocking behavior in
urban and rural habitats during winter. Professional Geographer 48: 70-81.

Yahner, R. H. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology 2: 333-
339.

Zacharow, M., W.J. Barichivich, and K.C. Dodd, Jr. 2003. Using ground-placed PVC pipes to
monitor hylid treefrogs: capture biases. Southeastern Naturalist 2: 574-590.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Dan Dawson received his High School Diploma from W.R. Boone High School in

Orlando, Florida in the spring of 2000. He attended the University of Florida, where he attained a

Bachelor of Science degree in the College of Agriculture and Life Science with a major in

wildlife ecology and conservation in the summer of 2004. He further attended the University of

Florida for graduate school, and studied wildlife diversity and conservation within the urban

environment. He was awarded a Master of Science degree from the College of Agriculture and

Life Science with a major in wildlife ecology and conservation in the spring of 2007.








University of Florida Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Program:
One Year Survey Results and Data Summary































Daniel Dawson, Graduate Student
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Mark Hostetler
Dept. of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
University of Florida
8/29/05












Contents

Background...................................... ... ......................... ........ 4

Overall Report on Sampling Program and Final Update of Sampling Protocols
Birds .................................................................. ...........
H erps .................. ............................................. ...........
Mammals
Small Mammals .....................................................................
Meso-Mammals ..........................................8

Sampling Results and Summary of One Year's Data
Birds ............................................................ ...........
Herps ....................................................... ................. 9
Mammals
Small Mammals ............... .................. ...... ............
M eso-M am m als ............... ............................ ........ 10

N ote on volunteer effort .................. ............... ............................... ..........10
Management Recommendations........................ ................... ........................10
Site-Specific Recommendations .............. .... .....................................12
Notes on sampling effort in UF Conservation Areas for future researchers.......................13


Tables

Over-all

Table 1: Numbers of sample locations per Area for each sampling technique ........... 16
Table 2: Conservation Area name abbreviations ................... .... ..............17
Table 3: Total Number of Surveys per sampling point per taxa per season in
the University of Florida Conservation Areas................... .... ............... 17


Birds
Table 4: GPS locations of Annual Group avian point counts ................ ............22
Table 5: GPS locations of Migrant Group avian point counts ........... ................22
Table 6: 4-letter avian species abbreviations ................ ... .... .......... ........ 23
Table 7: All bird species detected per area between October 2004 and August
2005 in the University of Florida Conservation Areas ...................................24
Table 8: For each conservation area, the maximum abundances of each bird species
detected at each point during one survey within a 40m sample radius over all dates
sampled in the University of Florida Conservation Areas
a. H arm onic W oods.................................................... ........ ... 29









b. Fraternity W etlands......... .. ................................. ..... ...... 30
c. Graham W oods.................. ................. .................. ............ 31
d. Health Center Park.................................. ............ .............. 32
e. M cCarty W oods.................................................................. 33
f. Lake Alice South.................. ................................... ......... 34
g. Biven's Rim Forest........... ....... ......................... ............ 36
h. Biven's Forest East........... ....... ......................... ............ 37
i. Lake A lice M ain....................................................... ........ 40
j. Surge W etlands...................................... .......................... 42



Herps
Table 9: GPS locations of Herpetofaunal arrays within the University of Florida
Conservation Areas........................................ ............ .... ........ ... .. 44
Table 10: All herp species detected between October 2004 and August 2005
in the University of Florida Conservation Areas; grouped by taxa..........................45
Table 11: Species of herps detected per conservation area between October 2004
and August 2005 in the University of Florida Conservation Areas........................46
Table 12: Total number of individuals per species of herps captured per herpetofaunal
trapping array over all trapping dates from 5/2005 through August 2005 in the
University of Florida Conservation Areas:
a. Harmonic W oods .................. ....... ........................ ......... 50
b. Fraternity W etlands.................. ................. ................... ....... 50
c. Graham W oods ............. ... ..... .. ...... .................... ......... 50
d. Health Center Park.................................. ............ .............. 51
e. Lake Alice South.................. ................................... ...........51
f. Biven's Rim Forest.................. ............................... ........... 51
g. Biven's Forest East.................. ............... .. ............ ........... 52
h. Lake Alice M ain...................................................... ......... 52
i. Surge W etlands...................................... .......................... 53
j. M cCarty W oods.................. ................ .................... ........ ..53



Mammals
Table 13: GPS coordinates of edge-starting points of small mammal trapping grids in the
University of Florida Conservation Areas............. ... ...... ...... ..... .. ..........55
Table 14: GPS coordinates of meso-mammal sampling locations within the
University of Florida Conservations Areas............... .......... ................... 57
Table 15: Total mammal species detected between October 2004 and August 2005 in the
University of Florida Conservation Areas.............................. ......... .............. 57
Table 16: Total mammal species detected per area between October 2004 and August
2005 in the University of Florida Conservation Areas.............. ................57









Table 17: Small mammal captures per area in the University of Florida
Conservation Areas over all trapping methods and dates................. ...................58



Figures

Birds
Figure 1: Avian point count locations surveyed on an annual basis in the University
of Florida Conservation Areas ..................... ... .... ........................ ...20
Figure 2: Avian point count locations added to capture migrant diversity in the
University of Florida Conservation Areas............ ......... ................... ............21
Figure 3: All sampled conservation areas depicted in terms of detected avian species
richness (darker color indicates more species) in the University of Florida
Conservation Areas between October 2004 and August 2005........... .............28

Herps
Figure 4: Locations of herpetofaunal arrays within the University of Florida
Conservation Areas ........... .. .............. ................... ........... ....44
Figure 5: All sampled conservation areas depicted in terms of detected herpetofaunal
species richness (darker color indicates more species) in the University of Florida
Conservation Areas between October 2004 and August 2005........... .............49

Mammals
Figure 6: Locations of small mammal trapping grids within the University of Florida
Conservation Areas .............. ............ ... ..... .. ............ 54
Figure 7: Meso-mammal sampling locations within the University of Florida
Conservation Areas ......................................... .....56






Background

Facilities Planning & Construction (FP&C), as part of UF's Master Plan, has backed the creation
of a program aimed at monitoring wildlife populations in several selected conservation areas on
the UF campus. This program was established during fall 2004, and was conducted through
August 20, 2005. This report details the results of the monitoring of birds, herps, and mammals
in those selected conservation areas, and presents a summary of collected data.

Selected areas included in the program are: Harmonic woods, Fraternity Wetlands, Graham
woods, Health Center Park, McCarty Woods, Lake Alice Conservation Area, Lake Alice South,
Biven's Rim Forest, Biven's Forest East, and Surge Wetlands. The project started on 23 August
2004 and is scheduled to end on 20 August 2005.










Final Report on Wildlife Monitoring Design and Protocols

The main focus of the sampling design was to measure species richness within the conservation
areas, but relative abundance information was collected for as many taxa as possible. After
approximately 9 months of sampling, meaningful relative abundance information is available for
both birds and herps. Mammals were only able to be sampled for species detection.

In order to assure that sampling effort be applied to each taxa in each area as equally as possible,
I placed proportionately more sample points in larger areas. As indicated in the two previous
reports, I placed sampling points within an edge-interior sampling regime, with edge for all taxa
designated as the first forty meters from the boundary to the inside of the area. All sample
locations have been made in ArcView GIS 3.2. Appendix 1 gives abbreviations used in tables for
each conservation area name. Table 1 gives the number of sampling points for all taxa in each
conservation area. Table 2 gives the number of surveys made per taxa per sampling point per
season of sampling effort( Fall 2004, and Winter, Spring, and Summer 2005).

Birds

In the fall of 2004, I initially established 24 bird points throughout all 10 conservation areas.
During the remainder of the fall (11/2004), and the winter (12/2004 through 3/2005), the points
were regularly sampled. In order to increase my ability to sample for spring migrants, between
3/2005 and 4/2005 I increased the number of points sampled within the conservation areas,
resulting in a total of 46 points. The majority of the additional points were considered a separate
group that I deemed as "migrant", while the original group of points was deemed "annual". The
addition of the "migrant" group was made possible by sampling on different days than "annual"
points, allowing me to place "migrant" points much closer to "annual" points to meet area
restrictions. Area restrictions between points within the "migrant" group were the same as
between points within the "annual" group. The "migrant" group did not include any locations in
Lake Alice Conservation Area or Surge wetlands because my sampling schedule already
includes the approximate maximum number for those areas. Also, because of a horse disease in
the adjacent pastures, I could only include 1 point in Lake Alice South within the "migrant
group". Due to size requirements, an edge versus interior comparison can be made in 7 of the 10
areas. Avian sampling took precedence during the entire month of April and first week of May to
capture the spring migration. During this period, all points were sampled once a week, every
week.
After this period, I reverted back to the original bird sampling schedule, in which birds
were sampled every other week, and only at points in the "annual group". I also further modified
this schedule for the summer by only sampling bird points once during sampling weeks due to
the lower diversity and lower abundances of avian species during the summer months, and a
greater emphasis on herp and mammal sampling. During the Fall of 2005, I will resume a bird
sampling schedule similar to the spring migration period, including both "annual" and "migrant"
groups in order to capture the fall migration. Out of courtesy to the Facilities Construction and
Planning department, the department will be updated on species detected within conservation
areas during this period, and it will receive a report updating detected species abundances. See









figures 1 & 2 for the locations of the annual and migrant group point counts, respectively. See
table 2 for GPS locations of all sample points.


Herps


Herpetofaunal trapping arrays have been used to sample herps within the conservation areas.
Positions for 18 trapping arrays were established within a GIS, and arrays were installed at or
near those positions by myself and a few others between November 2004 and early May 2005.
Initially, herp arrays were planned to be sampled for 1 week out of a sampling month for four
successive nights, with traps being opened on for four nights, checked every day, and then closed
after sampling after the fourth night of that week. After a preliminary sampling session in
December, however, sampling was suspended due to cold weather until a session in March,
which was again met with limited success. Sampling was again halted until May in order to
capture the spring avian migration. Herp sampling was then resumed in May and continued
through August. Because of the lack of activity during the winter and spring, and the potential of
more herp activity during summer, I decided to operate the herpetofaunal arrays for two weeks
per month over summer instead of the initially planned one week per month. Herpetofaunal
sampling was often combined with avian sampling during a given sampling week to increase
sampling efficiency.

There have been some difficulties in array installation and maintenance, especially in low-lying
and/or wetland areas. In general, pitfall trap buckets have a tendency to fill with water after rain-
fall. Though one solution is to drill holes in the bucket bottom for drainage, in wetland or low-
lying areas, the high water-table may push water up through the holes. This was generally the
case after it rained recently and/or frequently. In buckets with holes in this situation, I was forced
to either close the buckets until water levels receded, or floating material was placed inside
buckets to prevent drowning. Buckets could also be placed without holes in the bottom, and then
could be simply drained of collected water on a daily basis with a scoop to prevent drowning.
However, in this situation, water pressure from below would often push buckets out of the
ground. A solution to this was to use iron rebar stakes to hold the buckets in the ground against
the water pressure. However, this also failed to prevent to buckets from pushing out of the
ground when soil was soft, or when very heavy or very frequent rain intensified ground water
pressure. In general, re-installation of buckets was a weekly occurrence in at least a few areas.
Also, the wood stakes used to erect fences tended to rot extremely fast during the hot, wet
summer months. Stakes frequently broke and had to be replaced with additional wood stakes, or
held in place by materials found near the site, i.e. sticks and branches.

See figure 3 for location of Arrays. See Table 6 for GPS positions of all existent and scheduled
arrays.


I have also performed one time-constrained visual assessment of herp diversity in McCarty
Woods(8/10/05), in which I searched for one hour for herpetofaunal species. I have not been
able to conduct night-time surveys for frog diversity due to time constraints, but I may perform









such surveys before the onset of cooler, dryer weather. Out of courtesy to the Facilities
Construction and Planning department, the department will be updated on species detected
within conservation areas during these surveys, should they occur.



Mammals


Small Mammals: Beginning in 11/2004, I established trapping transects in 8 of the 10 areas to
sample for small-mammal diversity, with one transect in each area. McCarty woods and Biven's
Rim Forest were not included in effort. Trapping transects were originally scheduled to be run
for 5 successive nights, four times a year. During the fall and winter, I ran three trapping sessions
(11/30/2004-12/03/2004, 1/25/2005-1/29/2005, 3/22/2005-3/26/2005), but I had had very limited
success due to direct interference with traps by raccoons. Overall, raccoon interference led to
very low capture rates, stolen traps, and an otherwise frustrating experience. My attempts to
reduce interference during these times by covering traps with debris, and wearing protective
gloves when baiting, failed. Because of these difficulties, and the small amount of data I had
collected, I decided to change my approach to sampling this taxa over the summer months by
using trapping grids instead of transects.

Rectangular trapping grids were established in each area except McCarty woods between June
and August 2005. When possible, grids were established by incorporating the original trapping
transect and simply extending two additional transects of equal length adjacent to it, each twenty
meters apart. When previous transects could not be used for the basis of grids because of area
constraints, or in order to avoid wetlands, new starting points were selected within the GIS
environment. This resulted in 8 grids that contained 3 times the number of locations of original
transects. In one area, Biven's Rim Forest, only one transect was able to be added because the
shape and size of the area was not conducive to the placement of a grid.

Unlike the original transects, which were intended to begin at an edge and end within an interior
location to assess edge affects of rodent diversity and abundances, the trapping grids were simply
intended to assess diversity in general. Therefore transects within grids were only required to
start 20m from an edge for consistency, and only had to end with conservation area boundaries.
Also, grids could not be placed in inundated or partially inundated wetland areas for safety.

Grids were sampled once, in two groups. The first group included Harmonic Woods, Fraternity
Wetlands, Graham Woods, Health Center Park, and Lake Alice Conservation Area. The second
group included Lake Alice South, Biven's Rim Forest, Biven's Forest East, and Surge Wetlands.
Due to time constraints, each group was only sampled for, four-night period each (7/12/2005-
7/16/2005, and 8/10/2005-8/14/2005).

See figure 4 for location of transects and starting points. See table 8 for GPS positions of all
transect start points.









Meso-mammals: Formal sampling for meso-mammals was attempted by way of scent-track traps
distributed randomly thorough the areas within the same edge-to-interior scheme that was used
for the other two taxa. A total of 24 sampling points were established within a GIS environment
within all 10 areas, and a total 22 sampling points were installed by me within those areas. 2
locations within Lake Alice South proved to be inaccessible, and it became impractical to install
additional points.

Meso-mammal track stations consisted of a circle of sand (area=0.5m2), in the center of which
was a stake with a container of scent attached to it. I attempted to use both human urine and
sardines as scent baits. Originally, meso-mammal stations were to be sampled for four successive
nights, one week per month, starting in May 2005. Stations would be monitored for mammal
tracks each day, than raked smooth for the next night, and unidentifiable tracks could be
photographed and/or duplicated with plaster molds to be identified at a later time. However, due
to weather, substrate difficulties, and time issues, very little data was collected in this manner.

When I initially settled upon the summer to try meso-mammal traps due to increased mammal
activity, I failed to take into account the increased and often daily rainfall that accompanies the
season. Unfortunately, rainfall effectively "dis-arms" a foot-print trap, erasing most to all signs
of activity. During the two sessions that I attempted this technique, frequent and heavy rainfall
occurred throughout the weeks. Attempts to work around the generally predictable nature of
summer weather in Florida, that is, afternoon rain-showers, were foiled by unpredictable weather
activity, namely morning and night rain. In addition to rainfall, the substrate I used, sand, often
did not provide a recognizable print; usually just an un-interpretable blob. Attempts to use
hydrated lime as a substrate enhancer failed due to high humidity. Lastly, in trying out new
substrates, including lime and simply adding more sand, as well as running the rest of the
sampling program, I ran out of time to actually sample meso-mammal diversity in this manner.
However, despite the failure to gather data effectively in this technique, I feel that through
incidental observations and/or captures, and because the expected diversity of meso-mammals
was very low to begin with, I have been able to garner a good approximation of the meso-
mammal diversity present in the conservation areas.

Results


Birds


As of August, I have detected with certainty, 94 bird species within, flying-over, or within close
proximity of the 10 areas that I have been sampling. The conservation area with the greatest
number of species detected is Biven's Forest East (BFE) with 65 positively detected species
(69% of total avifaunal richness detected), and the area with least number of species detected is
McCarty Woods (MW) at 26 positively detected species (27% of the total avifaunal richness
detected). A more complete picture of the avian community will be drawn from the upcoming
Fall migration, which was largely missed during Fall 2004. See figure 3 for a visual comparison
of the avian species richness detected per conservation area. See table 3 for a list of species
detected and their associated four-letter codes. See table 4 for lists of species detected within,









flying-over, or shortly outside of each conservation area. Birds were sampled within an edge
versus interior frame-work. Because edge points were located 20m from area edges, and
abundances were recorded within a distance of 40m from the point location, some birds counted
outside the area boundaries are included in the reported abundances. See table 5 for the
maximum abundances of species detected during one survey within 40 m distance of sampling
locations over all sampled dates.


Herps


The summer 2005 sampling season for herps was successful, with a total of 767 captures of 20
species, and incidental observations or array-associated observations of an additional 15 species,
for a total of 35 species detected overall during a period of 23 trap nights. Some species,
especially tree frogs in PVP, maybe repeat captures, so the total number of captures is not
necessarily a good indicator of the total number of animals present. When tree frog captures via
PVP pipe refugia are excluded, a total of 558 captures have been made via array traps. In
addition there have been 34 observations of species on or near arrays, and multiple observations
of species unassociated with arrays. I have detected the most species in Lake Alice Conservation
Area, with a total of 23 species. I have detected the least species in Graham Woods, with a total
of 2 species. The number of species for Graham Woods maybe misleading, however, because I
had substantial difficulties in maintaining herp array in that area. The Cuban Brown anole is the
most commonly detected species, having been informally or formally detected in all areas. See
Table 8 for species and abundances detected thus far in each conservation area.

Mammals

Small mammals
I had moderate success in detecting the diversity of the small-mammal community after I
switched trapping methodologies. With the grid methodology, I detected both previously
detected species (Rattus rattus and Peromyscus gossypinus), and a new species, Rattus
norvegicus, in three areas (HW, HCP, GW). I also detected cotton mice in two new areas (LAM,
BRF). Through informal means, I also detected Oldfield mouse (Peromyscus polionotus) in two
areas, and Eastern Gray Squirrel (Sciurius carolinenisis) in all areas. In addition, cotton rat
(Sigmidon hispidus) was noted in a herp array pitfall at Lake Alice Conservation Area. The total
number of small mammal species detected was 6, with only 3 of those detected by formal means.
The area with the highest number of species was Harmonic Woods with 5, and area with the
lowest is Lake Alice South, with 1.

In general, the raccoon interference experienced during the grid methodology trapping session
was far less than the transect methodology, and even virtually non-existant in some areas, which
may suggest that indeed, raccoons may have been satiated by the number of traps available.
However, this may also have been due to the increased food availability for raccoons during the
summer that was not present during the winter and spring. Overall, though, I would suggest that
the grid methodology is more effective than the transect methodology used previously, even
though several grid "lines' were previous single transects. It may be that in urban areas, where









densities of native rodents may be low, it might be more relevant to cover larger areas, than to try
to exploit territoriality behavior that might be altered non-existent in the system.


Meso-mammals
Only two formal meso-mammal trapping sessions were attempted, and both only resulted in
armadillo sign and raccoon tracks. I made far more incidental observations of meso-mammals
than I did by way of footprint traps. Procyon lotor ( accoon) are the most commonly detected
species, with tracks, visual observations, or raccoon-related small mammal trap activity in every
area. Didelphis virgianus (Virginia opossum) would be expected in all areas as well, though few
signs have been present. It should be noted, however, that caught baby opossums in small
mammal traps in HCP, as well as in a herp pitfall trap at LAM. It would seem that most areas
also have Dasypus novemcincus (9-banded armadillo), with armadillo holes and live
observations made throughout many conservation areas. I have detected the most species of
meso-mammalss in Biven's Forest East, with four species. A few areas only have P. lotor as
being the only meso-mammal officially detected. However, I would be very surprised to not find
either D. virginianus or D. novemcinctus with a more thorough search. I also expect that feral
cats may be more prominent than my detections of them would indicate. See table 10 for species
and abundances detected thus far in each conservation area for both small and meso-mammals.


Volunteer Effort


Only a small group of students from the UF Student Chapter of The Wildlife Society that have
accompanied me while conducting point counts, herp, and small mammal trapping during the
course of the year. I believe this was due to both extremely busy schedules, prohibitively time
consuming and irrelevant prerequisites to volunteering required by the UF IACUC, and general
apathy on the part of most undergraduates. However, those who did help often helped more than
once and were generally in good spirits about it. I had planned to pass the project along to the UF
Student Chapter of TWS, so that perhaps small amounts of data may be collected in the years
elapsing between times this study was to be replicated. Depending upon student interest, this
may or may not happen. I will continue my involvement in this organization, and strive to see
that at least in part, data can continue to be collected.

Management Recommendations

No areas sampled contained threatened or endangered species, with the exception of Biven's
Forest East, which occasionally was used by Bald Eagles to perch in. This species also been seen
flying near or over other areas as well. However, the University of Florida Conservation Areas
do play host to a variety of other wildlife species, including a large number of migratory and
winter-resident bird species with a smaller subset of annual resident avian species, a moderate
diversity of herpetofauna, and a few small mammal and meso-mammal species. Therefore,
Conservation Areas should be managed in order to maintain and increase that diversity of over
time, in addition to their maintaining their roles as passive recreation areas. The following









management recommendations were already suggested in a previous report, but have been
updated with additional information gained since then:




Invasive/Exotic Plant Control: For almost all of the sites we recommend
invasive/exotic plant control, either by manual and/or chemical means. Particularly, we
would target Air Potato (Dioscorea bulbefera), Coral Ardesia (Ardesia crenata), and
White-flowered Wandering Jew (Tradescantiaflumenisis) for this effort. They are all
common and numerous in almost all of the 10 areas, and the latter two are significant
parts of the under-story of many of the upland areas. Of the three, Coral Ardesia interacts
with wildlife the most. Dan has observed birds eating Ardesia berries and large amounts
of berries are present in raccoon scat. Therefore, both of these taxa help to spread Coral
Ardesia.

Maintaining Trails: The recent hurricanes have caused many large trees to fall in
several of the conservation areas. The affect of this has been generally positive for
wildlife because of the increased structure on the ground. However, to maintain the
passive recreation goal for some of the areas, we recommend clearing hurricane-felled
trees off of established trails, as well as actively maintaining established trails. This
should discourage people from making new trails and further disturbing wildlife and
wildlife habitat. In areas such as Health Center Park, which is fragmented by criss-
crossing trails, we recommend actively maintaining the most used trails and discouraging
use on the others. Posted signs would greatly help this effort.


Creating a Heterogeneous Environment: Though increased vegetative structure
generally makes for better wildlife habitat (for some species), areas with both open
understory and dense vegetation make the conservation areas more heterogeneous. A
heterogeneous environment will support a more diverse number of wildlife species.
Several of the areas are (or will become) choked over time with large amounts of
vegetation, particularly vines. With a lengthy drought, these regions could turn into
potential fire hazards. To reduce this threat, as well as to maintain the heterogeneity of
the conservation areas, we recommend periodic, selective thinning out of vines and
woody-shrub vegetation in some dense upland areas (either with fire or by mechanical
means).

Water Quality Monitoring: Though its already being done in some areas, we
recommend increased water-quality monitoring for areas containing wetlands, namely
Graham Woods, Lake Alice South, Surge Wetlands, and Biven's Forest East. These areas
contain many small pools in which Dan has noticed tadpoles, and there are sizeable
numbers of frogs present. These areas also contain the highest overall diversity of avian
and herpetofaunal species, and the continuance of the presence of habitable wetlands in
these areas may be important in maintaining this diversity. All of these areas subject to
run-off from road and/or agricultural contaminants. In addition, Dan has noted that on
one occasion, a nearby swimming pool was drained into Graham Woods. Perhaps









chemical testing sites and silt-traps in some creek areas that drain into these conservation
areas would be appropriate.

Trash: Most of the areas are littered with trash, though some are worse than others. If
only for aesthetic reasons, we would recommend some concerted effort to clean up the
trash in several of the areas, the placing of trashcans, or the posting of signs prohibiting
trash dumping. Graham Woods and Biven's Forest East are particularly littered with
human garbage of various sorts. Graham woods is very near several sports stadiums and
dorm areas, so perhaps placing more trash cans along its edge will prevent so much trash
from being dumped into it. In Biven's Forest East, a large amount of the trash has washed
in from Biven's Arm Lake when it has flooded. Also, the large drainage canal that leads
from 13th St. to the eastern border of Biven's Forest East brings a lot of trash from 13th st.
into the area, distributing garbage throughout system of streams in the area. Perhaps the
posting signs or placing trashcans can prevent so much trash from ending up in that
conservation area.

General Maintenance of Nearby Facilities & Land: All of the conservation areas are
located near human habitation. We suggest informational signs and/or maintenance
restrictions for any conservation areas next to land maintained or frequented by people.
In particular, limit pesticides or on turf next to conservation areas. Also, bright lights
should be avoided near conservation areas (i.e., it can disturb wildlife). Signage should
inform people about the nearby conservation area (e.g., species found, type of habitat,
etc.) and impacts people could have on it (e.g., going off or making new trails; littering;
releasing exotic pets; loud human disturbances, etc.). For any conservation areas that are
right next to turf or any type of impervious surface, we suggest creating a vegetative
buffer (e.g., bushes or tall grass) that will prevent people from entering these areas and
also help filter out pollutants in runoff.

Acquisition of adjacent land: Biven's Rim Forest, Biven's Forest East, and Health
Center Park conservation areas are adjacent to wooded habitat that is continuous with
wooded habitat contained in the areas. To make a buffer more consistent with the
boundaries of these conservation areas, we recommend that the boundaries be expanded
to include such habitat.

Site Specific Recommendations

Harmonic Woods: Removal of Ardesia, maintaining of established trails.
Fraternity Wetlands: Removal of White-flower Wandering Jew along stream.
Graham Woods: Removal of Air Potato, White-flower Wandering Jew. Extensive trash cleanup.
Health Center Park: Removal of multiple exotic plants. Reduction of trails. Because this is very
open habitat in some places, plant some buffer shrubs around the more open edges. Expansion of
boundaries to include adjacent portions of continuous wooded habitat, particularly the wooded
habitats bordering the northwest and southwest boundaries of the property.
McCarty Woods: Exotic plant removal, maintenance of trails.
Lake Alice Conservation Area: Trash removal
Lake Alice .N,,mh Trash removal. Water-quality monitoring.









Surge Wetlands: Trash removal. Water-quality monitoring.
Biven 's Rim Forest: Expansion of boundaries to include portions of continuous wooded habitat
adjacent to its borders, particularly the wooded habitat adjacent to the south-western portion that
borders Biven's Arm lake.
Biven's Forest East: Exotic plant removal. Water-quality monitoring. Extensive trash cleanup.
Would recommend either the placement of trash cans, or the posting of signs near the large
drainage canal leading from 13th street to the eastern border that prohibit the dumping of trash
dumping near canal or on UF property. Expansion of boundaries to include portions of
continuous wooded habitat adjacent to its borders, particular the wooded habitat in the
southwestern portion between the Veterinary school horse pastures and Biven's Arm Lake.



NOTES ON SAMPLING WITHIN UF CONSERVATION AREAS


Sampling conditions within the UF conservation areas can be of varied complication and
success depending upon the topography, the condition of the vegetation, and the presence or
absence of wetlands. Most sites with primarily upland habitat, such as HW, FW, HCP, MW,
BRF, SW, and most of sampled LAM are relatively easily sampled for all taxa. Main concerns in
these areas are the increasingly thick under- and mid-story vegetation, large fallen trees,
occasional flooding during heavy rain, and open-ness in places. These issues become most
relevant with the installation of herp trapping arrays, small mammal transects, and meso-
mammal traps. Generally, suitable sites within these upland areas for the theses sampling
methods can be found relatively easily, however, thick vegetation and fallen trees can pose a
substantial challenge to site location and installation of sample methods, depending upon the
circumstance. Occasional flooding may cause herp buckets to come up out of the ground, and
hasten the deterioration of wooden fence stakes. Openness of habitat can become a problem for
both herp array installation and small mammal trapping grid placement if exposure to the public
is high. I have not personally experienced any vandalism or larceny by the public concerning
trapping arrays, but I have also intentionally positioned herp and mammal traps in vegetation so
as not to be noticed by the general public. However, this concern can limit the number of
locations available for the installation of traps, particularly in HW and HCP which have high
openness in places and higher public exposure than other areas.

Most sampling difficulties that I have experienced have been faced in areas that are
constituted by a sizeable percentage of bottom-land hardwood-type forest or swamp wetlands,
namely in GW, LAS, parts of LAM, and BFE. GW is more or less bowl-shaped, and is
essentially a drainage area for much of the surrounding areas. So, there are a number of streams
that pour into it from the surrounding development. Because of this, stream levels can fluctuate
enough to flood the ground in the parts of the "bottom" of bowl into very mucky, very lose soil. I
would definitely recommend re-locating the edge herp array in this area to a place with firmer
soil. As it is, the pitfall trap could not be held in the ground, even with rebar stakes, because the
ground was just too soft after rain. This area can also be challenging in general because the
vegetation is thick, and with the large number of sizeable fallen trees, there are parts that are very
difficult to get around in, establish herp arrays in, and run mammal transects through. In terms of









small mammal traps, though, once a transect is established, it is usually easy enough to find dry
land to place it on. Lastly, the topography in this area is unusual in that since its bowl shaped,
there is some relatively steep terrain towards the northern edge, which effectively make large
permanent structures there impractical. Also, because of the drainage streams, there are small
ravine-like crevices that can make north-south movement a bit perilous and sampling a bit
difficult.

Lake Alice South is an unusual area in that around half of it is horse pasture, so it was
difficult to decide how to sample it area-wise. Like GW, it acts like a drainage area for
surrounding development and horse pastures, with water levels fluctuating widely with rains.
Again, with more rain, the streams tend to flood over a bit into the already soggy land, creating
pretty mucky conditions in lower-lying parts, which constitute majority of the wooded area.
Consequently, the selection of herp array and mammal trap transect locations can be difficult.
Also, installation can be challenging due to the seemingly vast abundance of briars and black-
berry bushes, as well as thick vegetation, and fallen trees (which tend to leave small ponds at
their bases). Lastly, there are several old barbed-wire topped fences in this area that must be
traversed and dealt with in various locations. The entire area is surrounded by fences in various
states of repair; some old fences with wholes that can be used for access, and some newer, tall
fences that have to be either avoided or jumped over. Consequently, access to this area can be
somewhat limited. I have generally accessed it by parking behind a cattle fence east of the Jiffy
Lube and just west of the Jimmy Johns on Archer road. After the cattle fence is jumped, I
usually get into the area by heading away from the adjacent horse pasture, and towards the
forested canopy, where I use a hole in an old, short barbed-wire fence made by a fallen tree.
Another way to access this area is to go through a gated fence directed next to the WEC/SFRC
vehicle compound which will lead you the aforementioned hole in the fence. If one was to gain a
key to this fence, access would probably be more convenient than it is now.

Lake Alice Main is what I call the northern portion of the Lake Alice Conservation Area.
The southern portion of that is a large freshwater marsh that I had initially intended upon
targeting for sampling, but after several traverses into it, I decided it was inaccessible enough to
prohibit sampling it due to time concerns. Lake Alice Main, however, is a relatively large,
reasonably-open, upland patch of habitat that is comparatively easy to sample. The two main
concerns with LAM are people and flooding in parts. Unlike other areas, LAM receives a good
number of visitors and its trails are frequently used by dog-walkers. Therefore, I would
recommend that herp arrays again be conscientiously built away from the open view of people
for the safety of captured specimens. Also, one of the "interior" herp arrays is in a clear-cut that
is dominated by tall, weedy species. I would recommend that if arrays are built there again, plans
for the field be investigated so that any herp array to be installed isn't accidentally destroyed by
Bush-hog or a prescribed fire. In addition, because it is so open at this location, I would
recommend raised shade boards over both pitfall and funnel traps to prevent desiccation. The
second concern, flooding, is really only applicable to the far western portion that is a bit lower
and has several streams that run through it. Herp array pitfall traps have had a tendency to pop
out of the ground after rain, even with rebar stakes, and I would advise caution when installing
traps there. However, I would say that despite the problems with arrays in wetland areas, the far
west LAM herp array has produced the only salamanders caught over the entire field season, so
I consider the effort worthwhile.










Biven's Forest East is by far the most challenging area to sample in the entire group of
sampled areas. It is shaped like a large N-S oriented bowl, with a thinner "pan-handle" that
stretches E-W along Biven's Arm Lake. The terrain of the bowl glades from mixed pine-
hardwoods forest on the northern, western, and eastern edges, to a hardwood swamp in the
northern bowl bottom, to stream-crossed bottom-land hardwood forest in the middle, and back
towards hardwood swamp towards the southern end as it approaches the lake. This area poses
many challenges because of the varied topography and corresponding vegetation. Though the
edges and southern panhandle of this area are mainly upland habitat, the majority of habitat in
this area is some form of wetland. Again, this causes problems for herp array installation, meso-
mammal trap installation, and small-mammal trapping transect placement. The placement of
herp arrays in this area definitely takes some knowledge of current conditions, including
vegetation density, which is often high, access to the site, and soil type, which can be extremely
mucky. Also, the hurricanes of 2004 caused significant damage to these areas, causing massive
tree-fall and effectively creating "walls" of vegetation that must be circumvented or in which
paths must be discovered or cut through. In general, the vegetation itself varies with topography,
and during spring and summer months, the vegetation growth, especially of wild taro and
elderberry plants, can make what was relatively open bottom-land swamp into very thickly
vegetated habitat in a matter of weeks. In fact, during the height of summer, commonly used
paths in these areas can become overgrown with plants in a matter of days. Lastly, this area, like
the previous ones, serves for drainage purposes for the surrounding area, and thus has a number
of streams. There is also a large canal built on the central eastern border of the property built
expressively for this purpose. I would advise caution during rainstorms in BFE. Water
accumulates extremely fast, and small streams only inches deep can become running creeks
several feet deep very quickly during rain-storms. Naturally, flooding also is an issue, and care
must be taken when planning small mammal trapping locations so that traps are not placed in
potentially floodable locations. In fact, because of the variation in water level, especially over the
spring and summer, I would recommend that small mammal trapping be done in the southern
panhandle area, which is more reliably upland. So, notwithstanding, the challenges of the terrain,
which can range from fairly solid ground to extraordinarily mucky ground over a short distance,
and the variable vegetation and fallen trees, can make the establishment of sampling points and
sampling in general difficult, and travel within BFE very time consuming and slow.
In addition, the shape, size, and position of the conservation area make access an issue. It
is situated mainly south of the Veteran hospital and residential areas, and east of horse pastures
owned by the school of veterinary medicine. Because it is long and relatively thin, and
surrounded by intact fences on all sides access to it is limited to two main locations within the
UF campus boundaries. The best access point by road is a grass path between the adjacent horse
pastures that ends in a small turn around area directly next to the conservation area boundaries.
There are several holes in the barb-wire fences in this location, and it is central to the
conservation area in general. An access key has to be acquired from Vet Med in order to use this
access point. The other location, which I began to use after the aforementioned pastures were
quarantined due to a horse disease, is the Winn-Dixie Hope Lodge. Parking is restricted here, and
a parking permit must be obtained. This location, though also at the conservation area boundary
is at the northern end of the property, and therefore the entire length of the area must usually be
traversed to get to sampling points. Other access points include private property locations on 13th
St. which must be investigated further prior to their use. There is also an access point to the









southern panhandle by taking another road in between horse pastures to the conservation area
boundary. However, a ladder is recommended to scale the fence safely.
Despite the challenges, because of its heterogeneity, BFE offers habitat for a wide
number of wildlife species, and should be sampled as best as possible to capture that diversity.

Lastly, I offer a note for herp sampling. I experienced a number of amphibian deaths in pitfall
traps and funnel traps due to desiccation, iso-tonic water conditions, and predation. I would
recommend that water always be added to sponges in pitfall and funnel traps. Captured
specimens may still not use them, and crawl into a corer to desiccate, but it is worth it for the
species that are more apt to use the sponges. I would also recommend that when water is not able
to drain, either soil or something large enough to float out of the water be put in the bucket. I
experienced a large number of bronze frog juvenile deaths that I believe were due to isotonic
water conditions. Soil, especially with minerals in it, or floating debris generally alleviates the
problem. Unfortunately, nothing can be done to prevent predation on pit-fall captured specimens.
However, one idea may be to place a raised cover over the open bucket. Such a cover, as
mentioned before, may be placed over the pitfall trap of sun-exposed arrays to prevent
desiccation, as well to prevented further predation events from occurring, at least by mammalian
predators. If predation events become frequent, it might be worth it to prevent needless loss of
specimens.





Appendices




Table 1: Numbers of sample locations per Area for each sampling technique


Conservation Area No. of Total no. of No. of Herp Length of No. of
Hectares avian point Arrays Small meso-
(reported by count mammal mammal
FC&P and locations transects(m) scent/track
verified by stations
calculation
in ArcView
3.2)
Harmonic Woods 3.670 5 2 60 2
Fraternity Wetlands 2.572 4 1 60 2
Graham Woods 3.043 4 2 60 2
Health Center Park 3.519 4 2 80 2
McCarty Woods 1.153 2 0 1
Lake Alice Main 48.14 6 4 240 4










Table 1: continued
Lake Alice South 6.606 4 1 80 1
Biven's Rim Forest 3.308 4 1 2
Biven's Forest East 16.592 10 4 240 4
Surge Wetlands 4.964 3 1 80 2


Table 2: University of Florida Conservation Area name abbreviations


BFE=Biven's Forest East HW= Harmonic Woods
BRF=Biven's Rim Forest LAM=Lake Alice Conservation Area
FW=Fraternity Wetlands LAS=Lake Alice South
GW=Graham Woods MW=McCarty Woods
HCP=Health Center Park SW=Surge Wetlands


Table 3: Total Number of Surveys per sampling point per taxa per season in the University
of Florida Conservation Areas



Number of Surveys Conducted per Season
Total # of

Sample Fall Winter Spring Summer Surveys
Taxa Area Point ID (11/04-12/04) (12/04-4/04) (4/05-5/05) (5/05-8/05)
Birds HW 1 4 16 5 7 32
HW 2 4 14 4 6 28
FW 3 4 16 5 7 32
FW 4 4 16 5 7 32
GW 5 4 15 5 7 31
GW 6 4 15 5 5 29
HCP 7 4 15 5 7 31
HCP 8 3 15 5 7 30
MW 9 4 15 5 7 31
LAS 10 3 17 5 6 31
LAS 11 3 17 4 7 31
LAS 12 2 16 4 7 29
BRF 14 3 16 4 6 29
BRF 15 3 16 4 6 29
BFE 16 3 15 4 7 29
BFE 17 3 15 4 7 29
BFE 18 3 14 4 7 28
BFE 19 3 14 4 7 28











Table 3: Continued
LAM 20 1 8 4 5 18
LAM 21 5 4 5 14
LAM 22 5 4 5 14
LAM 23 1 8 3 5 17
SW 24 1 7 4 5 17
SW 25 6 4 5 15
HW 28 3 5 7 15
BFE 31 1 4 7 12
LAM 33 1 4 4 9
LAM 34 1 4 4 9
SW 35 1 3 4 8
HW 101 4 4
HW 102 4 4
FW 103 4 4
FW 104 4 4
GW 105 4 4
GW 106 4 4
HCP 107 4 4
HCP 108 4 4
MW 109 4 4
LAS 111 3 3
BRF 113 3 3
BRF 114 3 3
BFE 116 3 3
BFE 117 3 3
BFE 118 3 3
BFE 119 3 3
BFE 200 3 3


HW
HW
FW
GW
GW
LAM
LAM
LAM
SW
HCP
HCP
LAS
BRF
BFE
BFE
BFE
BFE
LAM
MW


Herps


Small
Mammals HW N/A 1 2 3










Table 3: Continued
TRANSECT N/A
METHOD FW 1 2 3
GW N/A 1 2 3
HCP N/A 1 2 3
LAS N/A 1 2 3
SW N/A 1 2 3
BRF N/A 1 2 3
BFE N/A 1 2 3
LAM N/A 1 2 3
Small
Mammals HW 1 1
GRID
METHOD FW 1 1
GW 1 1
HCP 1 1
LAS 1 1
SW 1 1
BRF 1 1
BFE 1 1
LAM 1 1
Meso-
Mammals HW 8 8
FW 8 8
GW 8 8
HCP 8 8
LAS 8 8
SW 8 8
BRF 8 8
BFE 8 8
LAM 8 8












Annual Group Avian Point

Count Locations








## 3









4,
18
31
V41 19
# Pcpointsmarch05.shp ', 15
Reportwlinv.shp
SBivens Rim East
SBivens Rim South
Fraternity WL
SGraham woods
SHarmonic woods
Health Center Pk
Lake Alice South
Lake Alice north
SMcCarty woods
M Surge Wetlands


FIGURE 1: Avian point count locations surveyed on an annual basis













Migrant Group Avian Point

Count Locations


56'


i 121
12


Migrantpcmarch05.shp
Reportwlinv.shp
Bivens Rim East
SBivens Rim South
SFraternity WL
SGraham woods
SHarmonic woods
SHealth Center Pk
SLake Alice South
Lake Alice north
McCarty woods
Surge Wetlands


Figure 2: Avian point count locations added to capture migrant diversity


14,
_1/


1P













Table 4: GPS locations of Annual Group avian point counts


Long: 82deg W
21'34.73"
21'30.90"
21'20.41"
21'22.52"
21'6.07"
21'9.54"
20' 41.28"
20' 43.60"
20' 39.29"
21'18.76"
21'14.76"
21'13.05"
21' 14.25"
21'12.72
20' 37.39"
20' 41.21"
20' 35.41"
20' 37.12"
21'20.16"
21' 18.14"
21'19.94"
21'8.26"
21' 10.16"
21'6.52"
21'32.46"
20' 36.40"
21'13.58"
21'31.32
21.55.90"


Lat: 29deg N
38' 44.33"
38' 44.49"
38' 45.66"
38' 49.16"
38" 47.33"
38' 49.87"
38' 43.67"
38' 34.23"
38' 34.49"
38' 15.93"
38' 15.00"
38' 11.95"
37' 43.88"
37' 39.66"
37' 57.29"
37' 51.35"
37' 51.90"
37' 43.19"
38' 39.02"
38' 32.43"
38' 29.42"
38' 32.44"
38" 24.20"
38' 21.39"
38' 48.33"
37' 47.08"
38' 31.20"
38' 35.90"
37' 59.56"


Table 5: GPS locations of Migrant Grouo


avian Doint counts


Area
HW
HW
FW
FW
GW
GW
HCP
HCP
MW
LAS
LAS
LAS
BRF
BRF
BFE
BFE
BFE
BFE
LAM
LAM
LAM
LAM
SW
SW
HW
BFE
LAM
LAM
SW


Long: 82deg W Lat: 29deg N Area
1* 21' 29.13" 38' 42.82" HW
2* 21' 32.90" 38' 45.88" HW
3* 21' 22.01 38' 46.23 FW
4* 21'22.21 38' 50.16" FW
5* 21'10.34 38' 52.97" GW
6* 21'7.93" 38' 49.09" GW
7* 20' 47.28" 38' 33.80" HCP











Table 5 continued:
8* 20' 42.10" 38' 34.43" HCP
9* 20'42.17" 38'43.10" MW
11* 21' 13.56" 38' 9.20" LAS
14* 21'13.02 37'46.03 BRF
15* 21' 11.82" 37' 38.19" BRF
16* 20' 40.87" 37' 58.49" BFE
17* 20' 47.39" 37' 45.92" BFE
18* 20' 36.10" 37' 54.12" BFE
19* 20' 38.24" 37' 49.09" BFE
20* 20' 40.4" 37' 45.9" BFE


Table 6: 4-letter avian species abbreviations


Abbreviation
AMCR
AMGO
AMRE
AMRO
ANHI
BAEA
BAOR
BAWW
BBWD
BDOW
BEKI
BGGC
BHCO
BHVI
BLJA
BLVU
BOBO
BPWA
BRTH
BTBW
BTGR
CACH
CARW
CEWA
CHSP
CHSW
COGR
COHA
COYE
DCCO
DOWO
EABL
EAPH


Common Name
American Crow
American Goldfinch
American Redstart
American Robin
Anhinga
Bald Eagle
Baltimore Oriole
Black and White Warbler
Black-Bellied Whistling Duck
Barred Owl
Belted Kingfisher
Blue-Gray gnatcatcher
Brown-headed cowbird
Blue-headed Vireo
Blue Jay
Black Vulture
Bobolink
Blackpoll Warbler
Brown Thrasher
Black Throated Blue Warbler
Boat-tailed Grackle
Carolina Chickadee
Carlolina Wren
Cedar Waxwing
Chipping Sparrow
Chimney Swift
Common Grackle
Cooper's Hawk
Common Yellowthroat
Double-Crested Cormorant
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Bluebird
Eastern Phoebe


Abbreviation
MODO
NOCA
NOFL
NOMO
NOPA
NOWA
OCWA
OROR
OSPY
OVEN
PABU
PAWA
PIWA
PIWO
PROW
PRWA
PUMA
RBGU
RBWO
RCKI
REVI
RHWO
RODO
RSHA
RTHA
RTHU
RWBB
SACR
SNEG
SSHA
SUTA
SWWA
TRSW


Common Name
Mourning Dove
Northern Cardinal
Northern Flicker
Northern Mockingbird
Northern Parula
Northern Waterthrush
Orange Crowned Warbler
Orchard Oriole
Oprey
Ovenbird
Painted Bunting
Palm Warbler
Pine Warbler
Pileated Woodpecker
Prothonotary Warbler
Prairie Warbler
Purple Martin
Ring-billed Gull
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Red-eyed Vireo
Red-headed Woodpecker
Rock Dove
Red-Shouldered Hawk
Red-Tailed Hawk
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Red-winged Blackbird
Sandhill Crane
Snowy Egret
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Summer Tanager
Swainson's Warbler
Tree Swallow











Table 6: Continued


ETTI
EUST
FICR
GBHE
GCFL
GRCA
GREG
GRHE
HETH
HOFI
HOSP
HOWR
INBU
KILL
LBHE
LOSH
MIKI


Eastern Tufted Titmouse
European Starling
Fish Crow
Great Blue Heron
Great Crested Flycatcher
Gray Catbird
Great Egret
Green Heron
Hermit Thrush
House Finch
House Sparrow
House Wren
Indigo Bunting
Killdeer
Little Blue Heron
Loggerhead Shrike
Mississipi Kite


TUVU
UNID-duck
UNID-egret
UNID-gull
UNID-sparrow
UNID-warbler
UNID-waterbird
WEVI
WEWA
WHIB
WITU
WTSP
YBCH
YBSA
YRWA
YTVI
YTWA


Table 7: All bird species detected per area between October 2004 and August 2005 in the
University of Florida Conservation Areas


Harmonic Woods
AMCR
AMGO
AMRE
AMRO
BAWW
BGGC
BHCO
BHVI
BLJA
BRTH
BTBW
BTGR
CACH
CARW
CEWA
CHSW
DCCO
DOWO
EAPH
ETTI
FICR
GCFL
GRCA
HETH
HOFI
HOWR


Fraternity Wetlands
AMCR
AMGO
AMRE
AMRO
BAWW
BGGC
BHCO
BHVI
BLJA
BRTH
BTBW*
CACH
CARW
CEWA
CHSP
CHSW
COHA
DOWO
EAPH
ETTI
FICR
GCFL
GRCA
HOFI
HOWR
MODO


Graham Woods
AMCR
AMGO
AMRE
AMRO
BAOR
BAWW
BGGC
BHVI
BLJA
CACH
CARW
CEWA
CHSW
COGR
COYE
DCCO
DOWO
EAPH
ETTI
EUST
FICR
GBHE
GCFL
GRCA
HOFI
HOWR


Health Center Park
AMCR
AMGO
AMRO
BAWW
BEKI
BGGC
BHCO
BHVI
BLJA
BRTH
BTGR
CACH
CARW
CEWA
CHSW
COGR
DOWO
EAPH
ETTI
FICR
GCFL
GRCA
HETH
HOFI
LOSH
MODO


Turkey Vulture
Unidentified duck
Unidentified egret
Unidentified gull
Unidentified sparrow
Unidentified warbler
Unidentified wader/waterbird
White-eyed Vireo
Worm-eating Warbler
White Ibis
Wild Turkey
White-Throated Sparrow
Yellow-breasted Chat
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Yellow-throated Vireo
Yellow-throated Warbler











Table 7: Continued
INBU NOCA HOSP NOCA
MODO NOFL MODO NOFL
NOCA NOMO NOCA NOMO
NOMO NOPA NOFL NOPA
NOPA OSPY NOMO PAWA
OSPY PAWA NOPA PIWA
OVEN PIWO OCWA PIWO
PAWA PROW* OROR RBWO
PIWA PRWA* OSPR RCKI
PIWO RBWO PIWO RODO
RBWO RCKI RBWO RSHA
RCKI REVI RCKI RWBB
REVI RODO REVI SACR
RSHA RSHA RODO SACR
RWBB RWBB RSHA TUVU
SUTA SUTA RWBB UNID-egret
TRSW TUVU SUTA UNID-gull
TUVU UNID-gull UNID-gull WEVI
UNID-gull YBCH WEVI WHIB
WEVI YRWA YBSA YBSA
YBSA YTWA YRWA YRWA
YRWA YTWA YTWA
YTWA


Table 7: Continued
Lake Alice South
AMCR
AMGO
AMRO
ANHI
BAEA
BAOR
BAWW
BEKI
BGGC
BHCO
BHVI
BLJA
BLVU
BRTH
BTGR
CACH
CARW
CEWA
CHSW
COGR
DCCO
DOWO
EABL


Biven's Rim Forest
AMCR
AMGO
AMRO
ANHI
BAEA
BAWW
BEKI
BGGC
BHCO
BLJA
BRTH
BTGR
CACH
CARW
CHSW
COGR
COHA
COYE
DCCO
DOWO
EABL
EAPH
ETTI


Bivens Forest East
AMCR
AMGO
AMRE
AMRO
ANHI
BAEA
BAOR
BAWW
BBWD
BDOW
BEKI
BGGC
BHCO
BHVI
BLJA
BPWA
BRTH
BTBW
BTGR
CACH
CARW
CEWA
CHSW


Lake Alice Main
AMCR
AMGO
AMRO
BAOR
BAWW
BDOW
BGGC
BHCO
BHVI
BLJA
BOBO
BRTH
BTGR
CACH
CARW
CEWA
CHSW
COGR
DOWO
EAPH
ETTI
EUST
GBHE










Table 7: Continued
EAPH FICR COGR FICR
ETTI GBHE COYE GCFL
EUST GCFL DCCO GRCA
FICR GRCA DOWO GREG
GCFL GREG EAPH HETH
GRCA HETH ETTI HOFI
GREG HOFI FICR HOWR
HETH HOWR GBHE KILL
HOFI IBIS GCFL MODO
HOSP KILL GRCA NOCA
HOWR LBHE GRHE NOFL
INBU LOSH HETH NOMO
KILL MODO HOFI NOPA
LOSH NOCA HOWR NOWA
MODO NOFL INBU OSPY
NOCA NOMO KILL PAWA
NOFL NOPA MIKI PIWA
NOMO OSPR MODO PIWO
NOPA PABU NOCA RBGU
OSPR PAWA NOFL RBWO
PAWA PIWA NOMO RCKI
PIWA PIWO NOPA REVI
PIWO PROW* OSPY RSHA
PUMA PRWA OVEN RWBB
RBGU RBWO PAWA SACR
RBWO RCKI PIWA SWWA
RCKI RODO PIWO SUTA
REVI RSHA PRWA TUVU
RHWO RTHA RBWO WEVI
RODO RWBB RCKI WHIB
RSHA SACR REVI WITU
RTHA SNEG RSHA YBSA
RWBB TUVU RTHA YRWA
SACR UNID-sparrow RTHU YTWA
SSHA WEVI RWBB
TRES WHIB SACR
TUVU YRWA SNEG
UNID-duck YTVI* SUTA
WHIB YTWA TRES
WTSP TUVU
YBSA WEVI
YRWA WHIB
YBSA
YRWA
YTVI*
YTWA











Table 7: Continued
McCarty Woods
AMCR
AMGO
AMRE
AMRO
BAWW
BHCO
BLJA
BRTH
BPWA
CACH
CARW
CEWA
COGR
DOWO
ETTI
FICR
GCFL
GRCA
HETH
HOFI
MODO
NOCA
NOMO
PROW
RBWO
RCKI
REVI
UNID-gull
WEWA
YBSA
YRWA


Surge Wetlands
AMCR
AMGO
AMRO
BAWW
BGGC
BHCO
BHVI
BLJA
BTGR
CACH
CARW
CEWA
CHSW
COGR
COYE
DOWO
EAPH
ETTI
FICR
GCFL
GRCA
HETH
HOSP
HOWR
LBHE
MODO
NOCA
NOMO
NOPA
OSPY
PAWA
PIWA
PIWO
PRWA
RBWO
RCKI
REVI
RHWO
RSHA
RTHU
RWBB
SUTA
TUVU
WEVI
YRWA
YTVI











Avian Species Richess by Area


"N


Speciesrichness.shp
- 10
SI1 30
S31 48
M 49 61
M 62 69


Figure 3: All sampled conservation areas depicted in terms of detected avian species
richness (darker color indicates more species) in the University of Florida Conservation
Areas between October 2004 and August.


4


caQ


(^


eoc













Table 8: For each conservation area, the maximum abundances of each bird species
detected at each point during one survey within a 40m sample radius over all dates
sampled in the University of Florida Conservation Areas
*=Migrant Point Count
UNID=Unidentified Species
Note: High UNID values generally indicate unidentifiable flocks

a. Harmonic Woods


Point ID 1 2 101* 102* 28
Edge/Interior Edge Interior Edge Interior Edge
# of
observations 32 29 4 4 15
# # # # #
Species individuals individuals individuals individuals individuals
AMCR 1 1
AMGO 3 30
AMRE 2 1
AMRO 15 29
BAWW 1 1 1 1 1
BGGC 1 2 2
BHCO 2 1 1
BHVI 1
BLJA 2 2 1 3
BRTH 2
BTGR 1
CACH 3 1 1
CARW 11 6 3 1 7
CEWA 1 2
CHSW 1 1 2 1
DCCO 10
DOWO 2 2 2 1 1
EAPH 1 1 1
ETTI 2 4 2 2
GCFL 2 2 1 1 2
GRCA 1 3 2 1
HOFI 1 3 1
HOWR 1 1 1
INBU 1
MODO 1 1
NOCA 3 6 2 3 5
NOMO 1 1 2
NOPA 1 3 1 1 2
OSPR 1 1
PAWA 1
PIWA 1 1 2
PIWO 1
RBWO 3 2 2 1 2











Table 8a: Continued
RCKI 5 2 3 2
REVI 1 2 1 1 2
RWBB 3
SUTA 1
TRES 1
TUVU 1 1 1
UNID 20 5 3 1
WEVI 1 1
YBSA 1 1
YRWA 6 3 5
YTWA 1 1 1 1 1


b. Fraternity Wetlands


Point ID 3 4 103* 104*
Edge/Interior Edge Interior Edge Interior
# of
observations 32 32 4 4
# # # #
Species individuals individuals individuals individuals
AMCR 2 2 1
AMGO 18 7
AMRE 2
AMRO 22 23
BAWW 1
BGGC 3 1
BHCO 10 4 1
BLJA 3 4 1 2
BRTH 3 1
CACH 2 2 2
CARW 3 5 2 3
CEWA 6 22
CHSW 16 3 1 1
DOWO 1 1 1
EAPH 3
ETTI 3 1 2 1
FICR 1
GCFL 3 2 3 1
GRCA 1 1 1
HOFI 5 2 1
HOWR 1 1 1 1
MODO 3 3 1
NOCA 3 4 5 5
NOFL 1
NOMO 3 3 1
NOPA 2 2 1
OSPR 2 1











Table 8b: Continued
PAWA 1
PIWO 2 1
RBWO 2 3
RCKI 3 3
REVI 1 1
RODO 1
RWBB 20 1
SUTA 1
TRES 1
TUVU 1
UNID 4 4
YBCH 1
YRWA 5 4
YTWA 1


2


c. Graham Woods

Point ID 5 6 105* 106*
Edge/Interior Edge Interior Edge Interior
# of
observations 31 29 4 4
# # # #
Species individuals individuals individuals individuals
AMCR 6 16 3
AMGO 2 2 1
AMRE 3 1
AMRO 28 60
BAOR 2 1 6
BAWW 2 1
BGGC 1 1
BHCO 2 1
BLJA 2 2 1
CACH 1 2
CARW 6 6 1 6
CEWA 3 1 1
CHSW 2
COGR 3
COYE 1 1
DCCO 1 2
DOWO 3 1
EAPH 1
ETTI 1 4 1
FICR 1 1 1
GBHE 1
GCFL 3 3 2 2
GRCA 2 2 1 1
HOFI 2 1











Table 8c: Continued
HOSP 1
HOWR 1 1
MODO 1 2
NOCA 4 4 2 5
NOFL 1
NOMO 2 2 3
NOPA 1
OCWA 1
OROR 1
OSPR 1 2
PIWO 1
RBWO 2 2 1 1
RCKI 2 3 1 2
REVI 1
RODO 1
RSHA 2
RWBB 3 1
SUTA 1
UNID 14 7 5 1
WEVI 1
YBSA 1 1 1
YRWA 5 3


d. Health Center Park


Point ID 7 8 107* 108*
Edge/Interior Interior Edge Interior Edge
# of
observations 31 30 4 4
Species # individuals # individuals # individuals # individuals
AMCR 2 6 2
AMGO 4 1 1
AMRO 63 119
BAWW 1 1 1
BEKI 1
BGGC 2 2
BHCO 3 5 5
BLJA 4 4 2 2
BRTH 1 1 1
BTGR 1 2
CACH 1 2
CARW 4 4 3 2
CEWA 2 3
CHSW 1 2
COGR 1
DOWO 2 1 1











Table 8d: Continued
EAPH 1
ETTI 3 2 1
FICR 1
GCFL 3 4 3 2
GRCA 1 1
HETH 1
HOFI 1 2 1
LOSH 1
MODO 10 2
NOCA 5 4 2 3
NOFL 1
NOMO 2 4 3 2
NOPA 1 1
PAWA 3 3
PIWA 2
PIWO 1
RBWO 3 3 1 1
RCKI 3 2 1 1
RODO 2 3
RSHA 1
RWBB 2 30
SACR 1
TUVU 1
UNID 4 11 1
WEVI 1
WHIB 1
YBSA 1
YRWA 4 6
YTWA 2


e. McCarty Woods


Point ID 9 109*
Edge/Interior N/A N/A
# of
observations 31 4
Species # individuals # individuals
AMCR 12 1
AMGO 2
AMRE 1
AMRO 109
BAWW 1
BHCO 1
BLJA 2
BRTH 2 2
CACH 1











Table 8e: Continued
CARW 3 3
CEWA 9
COGR 1
DOWO 1
ETTI 3 3
FICR 2
GCFL 2 3
GRCA 1
HETH 1
HOFI 3 1
MODO 3 1
NOCA 4 3
NOMO 4 2
PROW 1
RBWO 1
RCKI 1 1
REVI 1 1
UNID 5
YBSA 1
YRWA 5


f. Lake Alice South


Point ID 10 11 12 111*
Edge/Interior Edge Interior Edge Interior
# of
observations 30 30 29 3
Species # of individuals # of individuals # of individuals # of individuals
AMCR 1 1 2 1
AMGO 11 5 1
AMRO 7 25 13
ANHI 2
BAEA 1 1
BAOR 1 1
BAWW 1 1
BEKI 3
BGGC 2 2
BHCO 20 2
BHVI 1 1
BLJA 2 2 3 1
BLVU 5
BRTH 1 1
BTGR 2 1 1
CACH 1 2
CARW 2 4 2 2
CHSW 6 1 2