IIS 



Reptiles uiul Amphibians — Our Liviiii; Resoiirees 



discovered in reiutiveiy populated parts of liie 

 counti7 (e.g., salamanders from California; D. 

 Wake, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. 

 University of California, Berkeley, personal 

 communication). 



Baseline information of the status and health 

 of U.S. populations of amphibians and reptiles 

 is remarkably sparse. No national program of 

 monitoring populations of amphibians and rep- 

 tiles, comparable to the North American 

 Breeding Bird Survey (now coordinated by the 

 National Biological Service), is operational. 

 Programs in some states (e.g., Kansas. Illinois, 

 Maryland. Wisconsin) have been moderately 

 successful in monitoring amphibians, but clear- 

 ly a national program is needed. Long-term data 

 (more than 10 years) from specific sites in many 

 habitats in different parts of the country were 

 and are essential to detect continental or global 

 patterns of change in the distribution and abun- 

 dance of species' populations. A recent publica- 

 tion (Heyer et al. 1994) recommended standard 

 guidelines and techniques for monitoring 

 amphibian populations and habitats; a similar 

 volume on reptiles is planned. What remains is 

 to establish a national program for such moni- 

 toring studies; the Declining Amphibian 

 Populations Task Force, a part of the Species 

 Survival Commission of the World 

 Conservation Union, together w ith the National 

 Biological Service, should play major roles in 

 establishing such programs for amphibians. 

 Similarly, organizations that deal with the con- 

 servation of turtles and crocodilians need to be 

 expanded to develop an effective national mon- 

 itoring program for reptiles. 



Habitat degradation and loss seem to be the 

 most important factors adversely affecting 

 amphibian and reptile populations in North 

 America. The drainage and loss of small aquat- 

 ic habitats and their associated wetlands have 

 had a major adverse effect on many amphibian 

 species and some reptiles. 



Many other factors in the decline of reptiles 

 and amphibians have been implicated: most, 

 perhaps all, are human-caused. For example. 



non-native species of gamefish introduced for 

 sport have been implicated in the decline of frog 

 populations in mountainous areas of some west- 

 em states. Similarly, the introduction, acciden- 

 tal or intentional, of other non-native species 

 (e.g., bullfrogs in western states, anoline lizards 

 in south Florida, and snakes in Guam) has 

 harmed native species in other parts of the coun- 

 try. Although populations of a few species have 

 been severely impacted for diverse reasons (see 

 the articles on California native frogs and the 

 Tarahumara frog \Raua larahiiiiuinie]). it is not 

 too late to prevent the extirpation of others. 

 Certain management and conservation deci- 

 sions based on adequate scientific data and 

 careful planning ha\e proven successful (see 

 articles on Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard 

 [Uiiui inomatci] and the American alligator 

 [Alligator luississippiensis]). but too often these 

 initiatives are reactive and occur only after a 

 species is in trouble. 



Clearly, a better coordinated national pro- 

 gram that looks at all species of amphibians and 

 reptiles is desirable. Local and state programs to 

 monitor amphibian and reptile populations are 

 beginning; these efforts need to be expanded 

 nationally. It is obvious that early detection of 

 problems is crucial to successful remedial 

 action. In many ways, a national program of 

 monitoring amphibian and reptile populations is 

 like preventive medicine; the earlier a problem 

 is detected, the greater the likelihood of suc- 

 cessful treatment and the lower the cost. A 

 proactive national program based on standard- 

 ized scientific methodology and applied across 

 all species and habitats will go a long way 

 toward ensuring that amphibians and reptiles 

 remain a healthy component of our national bio- 

 logical heritage. They are too important overall 

 to receive anything less. 



Reference 



Heyer. W.R.. M.A. Donnelly, R.W. McDiarmid, L.-A.C. 

 Hayek, and M.S. Foster, eds. 1994. Measunng and mon- 

 itoring biological diversity: standard methods for 

 amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington. 

 DC. 364 pp. 



l\irtles 



by 



Jeffrey E. Lovich 



National Biological Service 



Turtles have existed virtually unchanged for 

 the last 200 million years. Unfortunately, 

 some of the same traits that allowed them to 

 survive the ages often predispose them to 

 endangerment. Delayed maturity and low and 

 variable annual reproductive success make tur- 

 tles unusually susceptible to increased mortality 

 through exploitation and habitat modifications 

 (Brooks et al. 1991; Congdon et al. 1993). 



In general, turtles are overlooked by wildlife 

 managers in spite of their ecological signifi- 

 cance and importance to humans. Turtles are, 

 however, important as scavengers, herbivores. 



and carnivores, and often contribute significant 

 biomass to ecosystems. In addition, they are an 

 important link in ecosystems, providing disper- 

 sal mechanisms for plants, contributing to envi- 

 ronmental diversity, and fostering symbiotic 

 associations with a diverse array of organisms. 

 Adults and eggs of many turtles have been used 

 as a food resource by humans for centuries 

 (Brooks et al. 1988; Lovich 1994). As use pres- 

 sures and habitat destruction increase, manage- 

 ment that considers the life-history traits of tur- 

 tles will be needed. 



