Habitat Use by Three Species of Snakes at the Middle Fork Fish and Wildlife Area, Illinois

Keller, Wesley; Heske, Edward J.

doi:10.2307/1565271

Cited by 32 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, fox snake and black ratsnake predation was positively and negatively influenced by developed cover, respectively. Although fox snakes seem to prefer anthropogenic habitats (DeGregorio, Putman, & Kingsbury, ), black ratsnakes seem to avoid them (Keller & Heske, ; but see Reidy & Thompson, ). Importantly, the divergent relationships with developed and forested land cover between snake species illustrates that even closely related predators can differ in their responses to landscape composition (Hethcoat & Chalfoun, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking landscape composition to predator‐specific nest predation requires examining multiple landscape scales

Chiavacci

Benson

Ward

2018

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape composition around bird nests can strongly influence nest predation, a major cause of reproductive failure for many species. Understanding this relationship may improve the effectiveness of management actions aimed at reducing predation. Despite attempts to link landscape composition to nest predation, consistent patterns have proven elusive, likely because studies often examine only one landscape scale, thereby overlooking scale‐specific interactions between predators and landscape features. To demonstrate the value of incorporating scale‐dependence when connecting nest predation to landscape composition, we identified predators and analysed predator‐specific patterns among land cover types at four scales (200 m, 500 m, 1 km, 2.5 km). We video monitored 468 nests of 22 shrub‐nesting bird species, documented 212 predation events, and modelled relationships between landscape composition and predation by seven common predators. The direction and strength of predator‐specific relationships varied among land cover types and scales. No single scale best predicted predation by all predators, though effects appeared to be stronger at larger scales. Two ecologically similar predators (fox snakes [Pantherophis vulpinus] and black ratsnakes [P. obsoletus]) showed contrasting relationships with different land cover types and one commonly cited predator (raccoon [Procyon lotor]) showed positive and negative links to developed cover across scales. Synthesis and applications. Our results illustrate that elucidating the complex relationships between different nest predator species and the landscape composition surrounding nests requires the incorporation of scale‐dependence. Although such an undertaking may involve intensive nest monitoring to identify predators, it can provide managers with a more complete understanding of the linkages between predation and the landscape surrounding nests. With this knowledge, managers could employ structured decision making in an adaptive management framework to identify optimal strategies that address nest predation and allow them to confront potentially unexpected changes in predation patterns following management actions. Ultimately, by acknowledging that predator species differ in their relationships with landscape composition among different landscape scales, and incorporating this fact into future research, we can improve our ability to focus management on the habitats and scales most likely to impact predators of interest.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking landscape composition to predator‐specific nest predation requires examining multiple landscape scales

Chiavacci

Benson

Ward

2018

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patterns of predation risk follow those expected based on the ecology (habitat use and activity) of the major snake predators. Endotherm specialists have an affinity for forest edge habitat (Durner and Gates , Keller and Heske , Blouin‐Demers and Weatherhead , DeGregorio et al ), so it is unsurprising that these snakes were most likely to prey on nests in forests. Generalists and garter snakes preferentially use grassland and shrubland (Plummer and Congdon , Dodd and Barichivich ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Snake predation on North American bird nests: culprits, patterns and future directions

DeGregorio

Chiavacci

Weatherhead

et al. 2014

Journal of Avian Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predation is the leading cause of nest failure for most birds. Thus, for ornithologists interested in the causes and consequences of variation in nest success, knowing the identity and understanding the behavior of dominant nest predators is likely to be important. Video documentation of nests has shown that snakes are frequent predators. Here we reviewed 53 North American studies that used nest cameras and used these data to identify broad patterns in snake predation. Snakes accounted for 26% (range: 0–90%) of recorded predation events, with values exceeding 35% in a third of studies. Snakes were more frequent nest predators at lower latitudes and less frequent in forested habitat relative to other nest predators. Although 12 species of snakes have been identified as nest predators, ratsnakes Elaphe obsoleta, corn snakes E. guttata and fox snakes E. vulpina were the most frequent, accounting for > 70% of all recorded nest predation events by snakes and have been documented preying on nests in 30–65% of studies conducted within their geographic ranges. Endotherm‐specialist snakes (Elaphe and Pituophis genera) were more likely to depredate nests in forests and the canopy relative to other snakes, due to their affinity for edge habitat. Predation by only ratsnakes and corn snakes was predominantly nocturnal and only ratsnakes were more likely to prey on nests during the nestling stage. Snakes were not identified to species in over 30% of predation events, underlining the need for more complete reporting of results. A review of research to date suggests the best approach to investigating factors that bring snakes and nests into contact involves combining nesting studies with radio tracking of locally important snake nest predators.

show abstract

“…Habitat partitioning at the landscape scale has been previously documented in snakes. Keller and Heske () documented habitat partitioning in a snake community in east‐central Illinois. Black rat snakes ( Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta ), fox snakes ( E. vulpina vulpina ), and blue racers ( Coluber constrictor foxii ) hibernated communally in this area, although they dispersed into forested habitats, prairies, and old fields, respectively, during the active season.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Keller and Heske () documented habitat partitioning in a more southern snake community in Illinois, USA, but no previous studies, to our knowledge, have documented habitat partitioning in peripheral populations. Northern snake communities are of particular interest because many species hibernate communally in a limited number of dens, and therefore share winter habitat followed by dispersal into summer habitat (Hirth et al , Fitch and Shirer , Brown and Parker , Prior and Weatherhead , Keller and Heske ). Conservation plans for hibernating snake communities usually include buffers around known den locations, but these are likely not large enough to encompass summer habitats (Martino et al , Williams et al ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

Balancing the dumbbell: Summer habitats need protection in addition to winter dens for northern snake communities

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The grasslands of southwestern Saskatchewan, Canada are home to several snake species of conservation concern at the northern extreme of their geographic range. To aid conservation assessment and management planning for these snakes, we used radio‐telemetry, a geographic information system, and multivariate modeling to identify and compare macrohabitat selection by eastern yellow‐bellied racers (n = 33; Coluber constrictor flaviventris), bullsnakes (n = 16; Pituophis catenifer sayi), and prairie rattlesnakes (n = 23; Crotalus viridis). All 3 species shared communal hibernacula in the inactive winter season, but dispersed into different macrohabitats across the landscape during the spring and summer. Their home ranges varied in size by species and were dumbbell‐shaped with activity centers near hibernacula and in well‐defined summer grounds; activity centers were connected by narrow movement corridors. Racers strongly selected for riparian areas, bullsnakes selected for valley grassland habitats, and rattlesnakes selected for areas associated with prairie dog colonies. Some rattlesnakes traveled great distances (over 11 km) from the dens compared to the other species (bullsnake max. = 4 km; racer max. = 5 km), which may be a result of their selected macrohabitat being more patchily distributed in the landscape. Our results indicate that management plans for these snakes must consider the den area, corridors, and separate summering grounds, as well as differences in home range size and movement patterns for each species. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Habitat Use by Three Species of Snakes at the Middle Fork Fish and Wildlife Area, Illinois

Cited by 32 publications

References 24 publications

Linking landscape composition to predator‐specific nest predation requires examining multiple landscape scales

Linking landscape composition to predator‐specific nest predation requires examining multiple landscape scales

Snake predation on North American bird nests: culprits, patterns and future directions

Balancing the dumbbell: Summer habitats need protection in addition to winter dens for northern snake communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About