Comparative survey techniques for a cryptic Australian snake (

Abstract

Ecologists endeavour to develop survey techniques that are cost-effective for the species they target and robust enough for statistical analysis. Using time as a measure of effort, we compared visual encounter surveys with artificial cover objects (strapped to trees), targeting an arboreal elapid, the pale-headed snake (Hoplocephalus bitorquatus) and its potential prey (geckos). Within a red gum forest vegetation community with relatively high snake density, capture rates were 0.6 ± 0.1 (s.e.) snakes/person-hour using visual encounter surveys, compared with only 0.1 ± 0.1 snakes/person-hour using cover objects. The probability of detection of pale-headed snakes was estimated from occupancy modelling at 0.70 ± 0.06 in visual encounter surveys and 0.19 ± 0.09 in cover object surveys. Gecko capture rates (among all vegetation communities) were significantly greater (P < 0.001) using cover objects. The probability of detection of geckos was estimated from occupancy modelling at 0.77 ± 0.05 in visual encounter surveys and 0.97 ± 0.02 in cover object surveys. Geckos favoured (P < 0.001) cover objects facing south during all seasons except winter. Artificial cover objects may provide some value in detecting pale-headed snakes in vegetation communities where habitat resources are limited; however, where resources are plentiful, visual encounter surveys are likely to remain the most cost-effective survey option.