Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Wildlife Research Wildlife Research Society
Ecology, management and conservation in natural and modified habitats
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > WR > WR04083
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 32(4)

Population parameters and life-table analysis of two coexisting freshwater turtles: are the Bellinger River turtle populations threatened?

Sean J. Blamires A D , Ricky-John Spencer A B , Peter King C and Michael B. Thompson A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Heydon-Laurence Building A08, Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.

B Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.

C Department of Biology, Francis Marion University, PO Box 100547, Florence, SC 29501-0547, USA.

D Corresponding author. Email: sbla3978@mail.usyd.edu.au

Wildlife Research 32(4) 339-347 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR04083
Submitted: 20 September 2004  Accepted: 24 May 2005   Published: 5 July 2005

Abstract

Two species of freshwater turtle coexist in the Bellinger River: Elseya georgesi is common but limited to the Bellinger River, whereas Emydura macquarii is widespread but rare in the Bellinger River. The Bellinger River population of E. macquarii has been proposed as a distinct subspecies, so it may be endangered. Survivorship, fecundity, growth, size and age were determined for El. georgesi and the finite rate of increase (λ) was estimated by a life-table analysis using mark–recapture data from surveys between 1988 and 2004. These parameters were compared with those of well studied populations of E. macquarii to assess whether modelling the demographic parameters of El. georgesi could serve as a surrogate for estimating the influences of these demographic parameters on λ in the Bellinger River population of E. macquarii. We estimated that ~4500 El. georgesi inhabit the study area and, despite a size distribution strongly biased towards large individuals, the population is increasing (λ = 1.15) in the best-case scenario, or slightly decreasing (λ = 0.96) in the worst-case scenario. Comparing El. georgesi with E. macquarii from the Bellinger River and elsewhere suggests that E. macquarii grows faster, attains greater maximum size, has a greater clutch size and a higher fecundity than El. georgesi. Hence, El. georgesi does not serve as a good surrogate to determine demographic influences on λ in E. macquarii.


Acknowledgments

Research was funded by an ARC Linkage Grant and the National Parks and Wildlife Service through the Fox Threat Abatement Plan and Bellinger River Catchment Grant. Turtles were captured under NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service licence numbers S10957 and B1313, and University of Sydney Animal Ethics clearance numbers L04/12-2003/3/3843 and L04/12-94/2017 and NSW Fisheries licence number F86/2050. T. Landklide, D. Warner, J. Goudkamp, J. Herbert, and F. Seebacher provided valuable feedback on a draft of the paper. J. Cann provided miscellaneous feedback on the Bellinger River and its turtles. M. Murphy (NSW NPWS, Coffs Harbour) was responsible for instigating the study in 2000 and T. Scanlon and B. Nesbitt (NSW NPWS, Dorrigo) organised logistics and accommodation for 2000–04. We thank A. and A. Hickey, D. and P. Browning, N. and J. Ralph, L. Lemke, P. Kinmon, S. Eyre, J. Kramer, P. Krug, Thora Poll Herefords, Dreamtime, Kandahar, and Homelands Communities and Orama Public School for access to specific sites. The assistance of M. Murphy, G. McDonald, S. Hull, A. Ried, C. Browne, J. Sparrow, M. Blamires, D. Booth, F. Seebacher, D. Lim, T. Scanlon, A. Harber, T. Prior, and local volunteers was appreciated.


References

Allanson, M. A. , and Georges, A. (1999). Diet of Elseya purvisi and Elseya georgesi (Testudines: Chelidae), a sibling species pair of freshwater turtles from eastern Australia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3, 473–477.
Boyce M. S. (2002). Reconciling the small population and declining population paradigms. In ‘Population Viability Analysis’. (Eds S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCullough.) pp. 41–49. (University of Chicago Press: Chicago.)

Burnham K. P., and Anderson D. R. (1998). ‘Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach.’ (Springer-Verlag: New York.)

Cann J. (1998). ‘Australian Freshwater Turtles.’ (Beumont Publishing: Singapore.)

Caswell, H. (2000). Prospective and retrospective pertubation analyses: their roles in conservation biology. Ecology 81, 619–627.
Cogger H. G. (2000). ‘Amphibians and Reptiles of Australia.’ 6th edn. (Reed New Holland: Sydney.)

Cohen J. (1977). ‘Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.’ (Academic Press: New York.)

Congdon J. D., and Gibbons J. W. (1990). Turtle eggs: their ecology and evolution. In ‘Life History and Ecology of the Slider Turtle’. (Ed. J. W. Gibbons.) pp. 109–123. (Smithsonian Institute Press: Washington, DC.)

Crouse, D. T. , Crowder, L. B. , and Caswell, H. (1987). A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology 68, 1412–1423.
Ewart M. A. (1979). The embryo and its eggs: development and natural history. In ‘Turtles: Perspectives and Research’. (Eds M. Harless and H. Morlock.) pp. 333–413. (John Wiley and Sons: New York.)

Frazer, N. B. , Gibbons, J. W. , and Greene, J. L. (1990a). Exploring Faben’s growth interval model with data on a long lived vertebrate, Trachemys scripta (Reptilia, Testudinata). Copeia 1990, 112–118.
Frazer N. B., Gibbons J. W., and Greene J. L. (1990b). Life table of a slider turtle population. In ‘Life History and Ecology of the Slider Turtle’. (Ed. J. W. Gibbons.) pp. 183–200. (Smithsonian Institute Press: Washington, DC.)

Georges A., Limpus C. J., and Parmenter C. J. (1993). Natural history of the Chelonia. In ‘Fauna of Australia. Volume 2A, Amphibia and Reptilia’. (Eds C. J. Glasby, G. J. B. Ross and P. L. Beesley.) pp. 120–128. (Australian Government Printing Service: Canberra.)

Gibbs J. P., and Amato G. D. (2000). Genetics and demography in turtle conservation. In ‘Turtle Conservation’. (Ed. M. W. Klemens.) pp. 207–217. (Smithsonian Institute Press: Washington, DC.)

Gotelli N. J. (2001). ‘A Primer of Ecology.’ (Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA.)

Heppell, S. S. (1998). Application of life history theory and population model analysis to turtle conservation. Copeia 1998, 367–375.
Krebs C. J. (1989). ‘Ecological Methodology.’ (Harper Collins: New York.)

Lacy R. C. (1992). The effects of inbreeding on isolated populations: are minimum population sizes predictable. In ‘Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature’. (Eds P. L. Fielder and S. K. Jain.) pp. 277–296. (Chapman and Hall: New York.)

Lande R. (2002). Incorporating stochasticity in population viability analysis. In ‘Population Viability Analysis’. (Eds S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCulloch.) pp. 18–40. (University of Chicago Press: Chicago.)

Legler, J. M. , and Cann, J. (1980). A new genus and species of chelid turtle from Queensland. Contributions to Science of the Natural History Museum, Los Angeles County 324, 1–18.
Mahon P. (2001). ‘Threatened Species Abatement Plan – Foxes.’ (NSW Parks and Wildlife Service: Sydney.)

McCallum H. (2000). ‘Population Parameters: Estimation for Ecological Models.’ (Blackwell Scientific: Oxford.)

Mills L. S., and Lindeberg M. S. (2002). Sensitivity analysis to evaluate the consequences of conservation actions. In ‘Population Viability Analysis’. (Eds S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCullough.) pp. 338–366. (Chicago University Press: Chicago.)

Mitchell J. C., and Klemens M. W. (2000). Primary and secondary effects of habitat alteration. In ‘Turtle Conservation’. (Ed. M. W. Klemens.) pp. 5–32. (Smithsonian Institute Press: Washington, DC.)

Moll E. O., and Moll D. (2000). Conservation of river turtles. In ‘Turtle Conservation’. (Ed. M. W. Klemens.) pp. 126–155. (Smithsonian Institute Press: Washington, DC.)

Nisbet R. M., and Gurney W. S. C. (1986). The formulation of age structured models. In ‘Mathematical Ecology: An Introduction’. (Eds T. G. Hallam and S. A. Levin.) pp. 95–115. (Springer-Verlag: Heidelburg, Germany.)

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2001). ‘Bellinger River Emydura Emydura macquarii (Bellinger River) Recovery Plan.’ (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service: Sydney.)

Parmenter C. J. (1985). Reproduction and survivorship of Chelodina longicollis (Testudinata: Chelidae). In ‘Biology of Australasian Frogs and Reptiles’. (Eds G. Grigg, R. Shine and H. Ehmann.) pp. 53–61. (Surrey Beatty: Sydney.)

Pfister, C. A. (1998). Patterns of variance in stage-structured populations: evolutionary predictions and ecological implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95, 213–218.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | Ratkowsky D. A. (1983). ‘Nonlinear Regression Modeling: A Unified Approach.’ (M. Dekker: New York.)

Rosenzweig, M. L. , and McArthur, R. (1963). Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator–prey interactions. American Naturalist 97, 209–223.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Triggs B. E. (1996). ‘Scats Tracks and Other Traces.’ (Oxford University Press: Oxford.)

Vogt, R. C. , and Guzman, S. G. (1988). Food partitioning in a Neotropical freshwater turtle community. Copeia 1988, 37–47.
Werner E. E. (1988). Size, scaling, and the evolution of complex life cycles. In ‘Size Structured Populations: Ecology and Evolution’. (Eds B. Ebenman and L. Persson.) pp. 60–81. (Springer-Verlag: Berlin.)

Wilbur H. W., and Morin P. J. (1988). Life history evolution in turtles. In ‘Biology of the Reptilia. Vol. 16’. (Eds C. Gans and R. B. Huey.) pp. 387–439. (Alan Liss. Inc.: New York.)