Literaturdatenbank
Literaturdatenbank |
|
 |
|
Riedle, D. J., Shipman, P. A., Fox, S. F., & Leslie, D. M. (2009). Habitat associations of aquatic turtle communities in eastern oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 89, 11–22.
Added by: Admin (06 Jan 2014 18:25:15 UTC) |
| Resource type: Journal Article BibTeX citation key: Riedle2009 View all bibliographic details  |
Categories: General Keywords: Apalone spinifera, Chelydra serpentina, Chelydridae, Emydidae, Graptemys geographica, Graptemys ouachitensis, Graptemys pseudogeographica, Habitat - habitat, Kinosternidae, Macrochelys temminckii, Nordamerika - North America, Pseudemys concinna, Schildkröten - turtles + tortoises, Sternotherus carinatus, Sternotherus odoratus, Trachemys scripta, Trionychidae Creators: Fox, Leslie, Riedle, Shipman Collection: Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science |
Views: 5/569
Views index: 15% Popularity index: 3.75% |
| Abstract |
|
North American river systems have experienced an array of anthropogenic influences. Very little baseline data exist for tracking population trends in relation to these activities. Between 1997 and 1999, we sampled 67 sites in 16 counties of eastern Oklahoma during a survey for the Alligator Snapping Turtle, Macrochelys temminckii. We captured 93% (13/14) of the aquatic turtle species that have been recorded from eastern Oklahoma. Canonical Correspondence Analysis of site-by-species-by-habitat separated some turtles by habitat type: (1) those of faster flowing, less turbid stretches with more pools and runs (Pseudemys concinna, Sternotherus carinatus), (2) those of middle, slower reaches of streams and backwater habitats (Chelydra serpentina, Macrochelys temminckii, Sternotherus odoratus, Trachemys scripta), and (3) those of lower reaches with slow-moving deep water with clay substrates and steep, overhanging banks (Apalone spinifera, Graptemys ouachitensis, Graptemys pseudogeographica). We compared our data with previous distributional records to reveal one range extension and one possible range contraction. We observed differences in capture rates among the 12 rivers in our study, with particularly low capture rates in the southeastern Kiamichi, Mountain Fork, and Little rivers.
Added by: Admin |