Geology topics

Christopher L. Jenkins

Publications and source records attributed to Christopher L. Jenkins.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

Evaluating growth rates of captive, wild, and reintroduced populations of the imperiled Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi)

Reintroduction of species at sites where populations have been extirpated has become a common technique in wildlife conservation. To track progress towards reintroduction success, effective postrelease monitoring is needed to document vital rates of individuals and the corresponding impact on population trajectories. We assessed growth and body size in Eastern Indigo Snakes (Drymarchon couperi) using a data set from multiple projects across the species' distribution, including free-ranging wild snakes, snakes reared in captive-breeding programs, and snakes released at two reintroduction sites. We used these data to fit a von Bertalanffy growth model in a Bayesian framework to quantify differences in growth among three broad categories of snakes (wild, captive, and reintroduced), while accounting for measurement error across various projects. We also compared changes in body mass of captive-born individuals from four captive rearing facilities. Asymptotic snout–vent length across all groups was 185 cm (95% credible interval = 177–194 cm) for males and 157 cm (95% credible interval = 153–161 cm) for females. Reintroduced snakes had a higher growth coefficient than either captive or wild snakes (e.g., captive females = 1.20 [1.06–1.35] d –1 ; wild females = 1.22 [0.95–1.49] d –1 ; reintroduced females = 1.62 [1.21–2.05] d –1 ), indicating that current captive-breeding and rearing efforts for indigo snakes produce similar or faster growth trends compared to wild populations. Furthermore, daily changes in juvenile body weight relative to body size were similar in three of the four captive rearing facilities (mean for females at Orianne Center for Indigo Conservation = 0.57 [0.48–0.65]; Zoo Atlanta = 0.55 [0.37–0.72]; Welaka National Fish Hatchery = 0.55, [0.36–0.73]; Auburn University = 0.39 [0.21–0.58]). Long-term project success for indigo snake reintroductions will depend on continuing to implement best practices in an adaptive management framework.

Herpetologica↗

USGS2023

Eastern Indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) shelter site use In peninsular Florida, USA, and implicatIons for habItat conservatIon

Shelters are critical for many species as protection from predators and extreme temperatures. Successful conservation of reptiles requires understanding both shelter site requirements and availability. The Eastern Indigo Snake (EIS; Drymarchon couperi ) is endemic to the southeastern U.S. and is federally listed. Recovery has focused on maximizing unfragmented landscapes, with less attention on fine-scale features such as shelter sites. In the northern EIS range, Gopher Tortoise ( Gopherus polyphemus ) burrows are used extensively for shelter. Although EIS in peninsular Florida often shelter in tortoise burrows, they also use other shelters where tortoise burrows are scarce or absent. Solely focusing EIS survey and management efforts where Gopher Tortoises are present may overlook occupied habitats and misallocate resources. We investigated the importance of different shelter sites in central Florida using data from radio-tracked EIS. We modeled the use of shelter categories as a function of sex, season, and habitat using Bayesian multinomial Generalized Linear Models. Results showed that EIS in peninsular Florida used Gopher Tortoise burrows across all seasons and habitats. Tortoise burrow use was highest in xeric habitats and lowest in mesic habitats where burrows are most and least abundant, respectively. There was less variability in shelter site use in disturbed habitats and flatwoods. Tortoise burrow use by EIS in the cool season across sexes and habitats in our study was much lower than in southern Georgia. Our results indicate that EIS are less dependent on Gopher Tortoise burrows in peninsular Florida and that suitable habitats with few or no tortoise burrows could still provide conservation value for EIS.

Florida, Georgia↗

USGS2015

Comment on Spracklandus Hoser, 2009 (Reptilia, Serpentes, ELAPIDAE): request for confirmation of availability of the generic name and for the nomenclatural validation of the journal in which it was published (Case 3601; BZN 70:234–237; 71:30–38; 133-135,181-182 ,252-253)

In Case 3601 Raymond Hoser has asked the Commission to validate for the purposes of nomenclature the name Spracklandus Hoser, 2009, and ‘the journal in which it was published,’ issue 7 of the Australasian Journal of Herpetology (AJH). We note that the entire run of AJH has been written, edited, and published solely by Hoser. Although his requests to the Commission were presented as narrow and, in his words, ‘routine matters,’ we are convinced that they represent an important tipping-point with broad implications of major concern for zoological taxonomy and nomenclature as a whole and, by extension, the greater scientific community. Since Hoser’s actions and works have failed to follow scientific best practices (e.g. Turtle Taxonomy Working Group, 2007, 2014; Kaiser et al., 2013; Kaiser, 2014) and both the Commission’s general Recommendations and Code of Ethics in Appendix A, the global herpetological community has widely rejected his taxonomic decisions and resultant nomenclature. This has unfortunately caused a confusing dual nomenclature to develop in the herpetological community, with most boycotting or ignoring Hoser’s 700+ new names coined in the AJH, while he and a few personal followers actively promote their usage. We believe that suppression of the name Spracklandus , and all issues of AJH, is the only effective way to bring this contentious and confusing issue to resolution. The plenary power available under Article 81.1 of the Code exist specifically to allow the Commission to make rulings in individual cases that disturb stability and cause confusion, whether the works are Code-compliant or not. We maintain that it is in the interest of nomenclatural stability, not only for herpetology, but for all of zoological taxonomy, that the plenary power be invoked to declare the works in AJH unavailable, regardless of any narrow interpretation of their technical Code-compliance. We present our arguments for rejection of the validity of AJH in the following commentary. In view of the wide-reaching implications of this case for all of zoology, and reflecting the deep and broad-based community concern over these issues, our contributing authors include 70 global scientific leaders and accomplished amateurs from a wide variety of zoological disciplines.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature↗