Evaluating GPS biologging technology for studying spatial ecology of large constricting snakes
Tóm tắt
GPS telemetry has revolutionized the study of animal spatial ecology in the last two decades. Until recently, it has mainly been deployed on large mammals and birds, but the technology is rapidly becoming miniaturized, and applications in diverse taxa are becoming possible. Large constricting snakes are top predators in their ecosystems, and accordingly they are often a management priority, whether their populations are threatened or invasive. Fine-scale GPS tracking datasets could greatly improve our ability to understand and manage these snakes, but the ability of this new technology to deliver high-quality data in this system is unproven. In order to evaluate GPS technology in large constrictors, we GPS-tagged 13 Burmese pythons (Python bivittatus) in Everglades National Park and deployed an additional 7 GPS tags on stationary platforms to evaluate habitat-driven biases in GPS locations. Both python and test platform GPS tags were programmed to attempt a GPS fix every 90 min. While overall fix rates for the tagged pythons were low (18.1%), we were still able to obtain an average of 14.5 locations/animal/week, a large improvement over once-weekly VHF tracking. We found overall accuracy and precision to be very good (mean accuracy = 7.3 m, mean precision = 12.9 m), but a very few imprecise locations were still recorded (0.2% of locations with precision > 1.0 km). We found that dense vegetation did decrease fix rate, but we concluded that the low observed fix rate was also due to python microhabitat selection underground or underwater. Half of our recovered pythons were either missing their tag or the tag had malfunctioned, resulting in no data being recovered. GPS biologging technology is a promising tool for obtaining frequent, accurate, and precise locations of large constricting snakes. We recommend future studies couple GPS telemetry with frequent VHF locations in order to reduce bias and limit the impact of catastrophic failures on data collection, and we recommend improvements to GPS tag design to lessen the frequency of these failures.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Cooke SJ, Hinch SG, Wikelski M, Andrews RD, Kuchel LJ, Wolcott TG, et al. Biotelemetry: a mechanistic approach to ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19:334–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.003.
Rutz C, Hays GC. New frontiers in biologging science. Biol Lett. 2009;5:289–92. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0089.
Klimley AP. Why publish animal biotelemetry? Anim Biotelemetry. 2013;1:2–4.
Martin J, Tolon V, Van Moorter B, Basille M, Calenge C. On the use of telemetry in habitat selection studies. In: Barculo D, Daniels J, editors. Telemetry: research, technology and applications. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 2009. p. 37–55.
Tomkiewicz SM, Fuller MR, Kie JG, Bates KK. Global positioning system and associated technologies in animal behaviour and ecological research. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365:2163–76. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0090.
Onorato DP, Criffield M, Lotz M, Cunningham M, McBride R, Leone EH, et al. Habitat selection by critically endangered Florida panthers across the diel period: implications for land management and conservation. Anim Conserv. 2011;14:196–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00415.x.
Hebblewhite M, Haydon DT. Distinguishing technology from biology: a critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365:2303–12. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0087.
Frair JL, Fieberg J, Hebblewhite M, Cagnacci F, DeCesare NJ, Pedrotti L. Resolving issues of imprecise and habitat-biased locations in ecological analyses using GPS telemetry data. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365:2187–200. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0084.
Cagnacci F, Boitani L, Powell RA, Boyce MS. Animal ecology meets GPS-based radiotelemetry: a perfect storm of opportunities and challenges. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365:2157–62. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0107.
Latham ADM, Latham MC, Anderson DP, Cruz J, Herries D, Hebblewhite M. The GPS craze: six questions to address before deciding to deploy GPS technology on wildlife. N Z J Ecol. 2015;39:143–53.
Recio MR, Mathieu R, Denys P, Sirguey P, Seddon PJ. Lightweight GPS-tags, one giant leap for wildlife tracking? An assessment approach. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e28225. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028225.
Schofield G, Bishop CM, MacLean G, Brown P, Baker M, Katselidis KA, et al. Novel GPS tracking of sea turtles as a tool for conservation management. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2007;347:58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2007.03.009.
Rosenblatt AE, Heithaus MR, Mazzotti FJ, Cherkiss M, Jeffery BM. Intra-population variation in activity ranges, diel patterns, movement rates, and habitat use of American alligators in a subtropical estuary. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2013;135:182–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.10.008.
Campbell HA, Dwyer RG, Irwin TR, Franklin CE. Home range utilisation and long-range movement of estuarine crocodiles during the breeding and nesting season. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e62127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062127.
Dwyer RG, Campbell HA, Irwin TR, Franklin CE. Does the telemetry technology matter? Comparing estimates of aquatic animal space-use generated from GPS-based and passive acoustic tracking. Mar Freshw Res. 2015;66:654–64.
Price-Rees SJ, Brown GP, Shine R. Spatial ecology of bluetongue lizards (Tiliqua spp.) in the Australian wet–dry tropics. Austral Ecol. 2013;38:493–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2012.02439.x.
Flesch JS, Duncan MG, Pascoe JH, Mulley RC. A simple method of attaching GPS tracking devices to free-ranging lace monitors (Varanus varius). Herpetol Conserv Biol. 2009;4:411–4.
Hart KM, Cherkiss MS, Smith BJ, Mazzotti FJ, Fujisaki I, Snow RW, et al. Home range, habitat use, and movement patterns of non-native Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park, Florida, USA. Anim Biotelemetry. 2015;3:8.
Henderson RW, Powell R. Biology of the boas and pythons. Eagle Mountain: Eagle Mountain Publishing; 2007.
Pearson D, Shine R, Williams A. Spatial ecology of a threatened python (Morelia spilota imbricata) and the effects of anthropogenic habitat change. Austral Ecol. 2005;30:261–74.
Heard GW, Black D, Robertson P. Habitat use by the inland carpet python (Morelia spilota metcalfei: Pythonidae): Seasonal relationships with habitat structure and prey distribution in a rural landscape. Austral Ecol. 2004;29:446–60.
Luiselli L, Bonnet X, Rocco M, Amori G. Conservation implications of rapid shifts in the trade of wild African and Asian pythons. Biotropica. 2012;44:569–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2011.00842.x.
Snow RW, Krysko KL, Enge KM, Oberhofer L, Warren-Bradley A, Wilkins L. Introduced populations of Boa constrictor (Boidae) and Python molurus bivittatus (Pythonidae) in southern Florida. In: Henderson RW, Powell R, editors. Biology of boas and pythons. Eagle Mountain: Eagle Mountain Publishing; 2007. p. 365–86.
Slip DJ, Shine R. Habitat use, movements and activity patterns of free-ranging diamond pythons, Morelia spilota spilota (Serpentes, Boidae): a radiotelemetric study. Aust Wildl Res. 1988;15:515–31.
Shine R, Fitzgerald M. Large snakes in a mosaic rural landscape: the ecology of carpet pythons Morelia spilota (Serpentes: Pythonidae) in coastal eastern Australia. Biol Conserv. 1996;76:113–22.
Pearson D, Shine R, Williams A. Thermal biology of large snakes in cool climates: a radio-telemetric study of carpet pythons (Morelia spilota imbricata) in south-western Australia. J Therm Biol. 2003;28:117–31.
Rivas JA, Molina CR, Corey SJ, Burghardt GM. Natural history of neonatal green anacondas (Eunectes murinus): a chip off the old block. Copeia. 2016;104:402–10. https://doi.org/10.1643/CE-15-238.
Alexander GJ, Maritz B. Sampling interval affects the estimation of movement parameters in four species of African snakes. J Zool. 2015;297:309–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12280.
Chiaraviglio M. The effects of reproductive condition on thermoregulation in the Argentina boa constrictor (Boa constrictor occidentalis) (Boidae). Herpetol Monogr. 2006;20:172. https://doi.org/10.1655/0733-1347(2007)20[172:teorco]2.0.co;2.
Rahman SC, Jenkins CL, Trageser SJ, Rashid SMA. Radio-telemetry study of Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus) and elongated tortoise (Indotestudo elongata) in Lawachara National Park, Bangladesh: a preliminary observation. In: Khan MAR, Ali MS, Feeroz MM, Naser MN, editors. The Festschrift of the 50th Anniversary of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Dhaka, Bangladesh: UCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature; 2014. p. 54–62.
Reinert HK, Cundall D. An improved surgical implantation method for radio-tracking snakes. Copeia. 1982;1982:702–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/1444674.
Walters TM, Mazzotti FJ, Fitz HC. Habitat selection by the invasive species burmese python in Southern Florida. J Herpetol. 2016;50:50–6. https://doi.org/10.1670/14-098.
Bruton MJ, McAlpine CA, Smith AG, Franklin CE. The importance of underground shelter resources for reptiles in dryland landscapes: a woma python case study. Austral Ecol. 2014;39:819–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12150.
Hart KM, Schofield PJ, Gregoire DR. Experimentally derived salinity tolerance of hatchling Burmese pythons (Python molurus bivittatus) from the Everglades, Florida (USA). J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2012;413:56–9.
Willson JD, Dorcas ME, Snow RW. Identifying plausible scenarios for the establishment of invasive Burmese pythons (Python molurus) in Southern Florida. Biol Invasions. 2011;13:1493–504.
Dorcas ME, Willson JD. Hidden giants: problems associated with studying secretive invasive pythons. In: Lutterschmidt WI, editor. Reptiles in research: investigations of ecology, physiology, and behavior from desert to sea. Hauppage: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 2013.
Smith BJ, Cherkiss MS, Hart KM, Rochford MR, Selby TH, Snow RW, et al. Betrayal: radio-tagged Burmese pythons reveal locations of conspecifics in Everglades National Park. Biol Invasions. 2016;18:3239–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1211-5.
Dorcas ME, Willson JD, Reed RN, Snow RW, Rochford MR, Miller MA, et al. Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:2418–22. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115226109.
McCleery RA, Sovie A, Reed RN, Cunningham MW, Hunter ME, Hart KM. Marsh rabbit mortalities tie pythons to the precipitous decline of mammals in the Everglades. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2015;282:20150120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0120.
Sovie AR, McCleery RA, Fletcher RJ, Hart KM. Invasive pythons, not anthropogenic stressors, explain the distribution of a keystone species. Biol Invasions. 2016;18:3309–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1221-3.
Beaupre SJ, Jacobson ER, Lillywhite HB, Zamudio K. Guidelines for the use of live amphibians and reptiles in field and laboratory research. Miami: Herpetological Animal Care and Use Committee, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists; 2004.
Hardy DL Sr, Greene HW. Surgery on rattlesnakes in the field for implantation of transmitters. Son Herpetol. 1999;12:25–7.
Anderson CD, Talcott M. Clinical practice versus field surgery: a discussion of the regulations and logistics of implanting radiotransmitters in snakes. Wildl Soc Bull. 2006;34:1470–1. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[1470:cpvfsa]2.0.co;2.
Didan K. MOD13Q1 MODIS/Terra Vegetation Indices 16-Day L3 Global 250 m SIN Grid V006. 2015.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2016. http://www.r-project.org.
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2014;67:51. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4:133–42.
Barton K. MuMIn: Multi-model inference. 2016. https://cran.r-project.org/package=MuMIn.
Kuznetsova A, Bruun Brockhoff P, Haubo Bojesen christensen R. lmerTest: tests in linear mixed effects models. 2016. https://cran.r-project.org/package=lmerTest.
Thurfjell H, Ciuti S, Boyce MS. Applications of step-selection functions in ecology and conservation. Mov Ecol. 2014;2:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/2051-3933-2-4.
Avgar T, Potts JR, Lewis MA, Boyce MS. Integrated step selection analysis: bridging the gap between resource selection and animal movement. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7:619–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12528.
Frair JL, Nielsen SE, Merrill EH, Lele SR, Boyce MS, Munro RHM, et al. Removing GPS collar bias in habitat selection studies. J Appl Ecol. 2004;41:201–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00902.x.
Ward MP, Sperry JH, Weatherhead PJ. Evaluation of automated radio telemetry for quantifying movements and home ranges of snakes. J Herpetol. 2013;47:337–45.