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

Material Information

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

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Birds ( jstor )
Conservation areas ( jstor )
Edge effects ( jstor )
Forest conservation ( jstor )
Forest habitats ( jstor )
Forests ( jstor )
Species ( jstor )
Urban forestry ( jstor )
Vegetation ( jstor )
Wetlands ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation thesis, M.S
City of Gainesville ( local )
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:
Copyright Dawson, Daniel Eugene. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
7/23/2007
Resource Identifier:
003874852 ( alephbibnum )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


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




Full Text

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



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.