1 / 26

Ruben D. Zamora Department of Biology University of Texas-Pan American Edinburg, Texas 78541

Size and Growth in Nerodia rhombifer ( Serpentes : Colubridae ) from the Lower Rio Grande Delta. Ruben D. Zamora Department of Biology University of Texas-Pan American Edinburg, Texas 78541. Description. (Clay, 1938; Conant, 1969; Conant and Collins, 1991).

connor-finch
Download Presentation

Ruben D. Zamora Department of Biology University of Texas-Pan American Edinburg, Texas 78541

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Size and Growth in Nerodiarhombifer (Serpentes: Colubridae) from the Lower Rio Grande Delta Ruben D. Zamora Department of Biology University of Texas-Pan American Edinburg, Texas 78541

  2. Description (Clay, 1938; Conant, 1969; Conant and Collins, 1991) A polytypic species: Nerodia rhombifera rhombifera, N.r. blanchardi, N.r. werleri Non-venomous, semi-aquatic Scale coloration Eye with round pupil, iris red to orange Strongly keeled scales, anal plate divided

  3. Range U.S Mexico(Conant, 1969; Smith and Smith, 1976; Conant and Collins, 1991; and Lee, 1996)

  4. Study Site

  5. Sampling Protocol Two trapping grids at Willow Lake on Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge.

  6. Methods • Capture-recapture • For two days at two week intervals • Effort per trapping period: 102 trap-days • Between August 1995 and December 1998 • 60 trapping periods. • PIT-tags (Gibbons and Andrews, 2004) • Date, total length (OAL), snout-vent length (SVL), mass, and water temperature were recorded.

  7. Gravid females were collected off the refuge and housed in lab until parturition. • Data Analyses • Data tested for normality • Assumption violated, nonparametric equivalents used. • SVL was controlled for in cases where dependent variable covaried. • Significance was taken at P 0.05

  8. Descriptive Statistics

  9. Comparison of Upper Decile SVL U = 3.00, P < 0.001 (Method for resolving SSD suggested by Case 1976)

  10. Comparison of Neonate SVL t36 = 1.009, P = 0.320

  11. Mass vs. SVL for Field Data

  12. Mass vs. SVL for Neonates

  13. TL vs. SVL for Field Captures

  14. Comparison of Relative Tail Length U = 782.0, P < 0.001

  15. TL vs. SVL for Neonates

  16. Growth Models • Cross-sectional data, used to estimate average growth trajectories (Marvin 2001). • Combination cross-sectional and longitudinal data were used to fit growth models using methods described by Van Devender (1978) and Kaufmann (1981). • Age of smallest individuals was estimated to year using size data from Scudder-Davis and Burghardt (1996).

  17. Growth Models (Van Devender 1978, Kaufmann 1981)

  18. Discussion • Size was comparable • Body size reported to range from: • SVL 18.0 cm – 126.0 cm • Mass 3.2 g – 2100 g (Keck 2004) • This study: • SVL 18.8 cm – 120.0 cm • Mass 5.9 g – 1793 g

  19. Discussion • Female biased sexual dimorphism for SVL and possibly mass. • Pattern exhibited by NA watersnakes (Gibbons and Dorcas 2004, Keck 2004) and other natricines (Winne et al. 2005) • Neonates were similar to an Arkansas Population (Plummer 1992). • No difference in SVL between sexes (P = 0.320) • Female biased for mass (P = 0.021)

  20. Discussion • As with other water snakes (Gibbons and Dorcas 2004) males had proportionally larger tails(P < 0.001). • Keck’s (2004, p. 165) data suggests that this proportionality is maintained throughout growth. • “Stub-tails” in this study?

  21. Discussion • Growth • As with other reptiles (Andrews 1982, Gibbons and Dorcas 2004), GR was a function of size. • Unlike Preston’s data (1970), the data suggest that females grow significantly faster than males throughout life. • Different growth rates between sexes and early maturation in males explain disparity in adult sizes (Andrews 1982).

  22. Discussion • Problems with growth curves • Longitudinal data = pseudo-replication • Ideal time intervals not realized • Too short, errors increase • Too long, parameter estimates become less reliable. • Despite problems, curves compare reasonably well with estimated age at maturation (Betz 1963, Preston 1970, Keck 2004).

  23. Discussion • Growth rates under proximate (Andrews 1982) and ultimate control (e.g. Scudder-Davis and Burghardt 1996, Bronikowski 2000). • What keeps males smaller in non-combative species? • Lower cost of maintenance? (reviewed by Weatherhead et al. 1995) • Lower cost of mobility? (reviewed by Weatherhead et al. 1995) • Cost of producing quality sperm? (Weatherhead et al. 1995) • Differential mortality? (Brito and Rebelo 2003) • Male tactile recognition and female choice? (Rivas and Burghardt 2001)

More Related