A. tigrinum in Kentucky

[justin]

I'm currently doing a study on colonization rates of ambystoma species that are indigenous to the Blue Grass Region of Kentucky.

I'm currently having trouble locating native populations of A. tigrinum and A. maculatum.

A. barbori and A. opacum seem to be more abundant around the Louisville area?

Thanks.

 

[justin]

Thanks for the spelling correction. Those guys (A. barbouri) are quiet prevalent in the area...I encounter them more than any other species. Quite hardy as well.

The study is a comparison of sorts. I'm working an angle comparing colonization rates with disturbed areas using artificial ponds that I've constructed on my property. 3 ponds are each being stocked with a different species (N. viridescenes, A. maculatum, and A. tigrinum). A fourth is being left empty and is placed within proximity to the other 3 (10 meters away). There are many artifical ponds being constructed in sprawling neighborhoods which initially decimate local amphibian populations. I'm trying to get an idea of how long it would take to have breeding populations reestablish themselves (if ever) if the constructed ponds are left fish-free. Ponds that are adjacent to wooded lots. That's it in a nutshell.

 

[justin]

The area is heavily wooded and the ponds have been placed in a measured range of disturbance. That is from least wooded/vegetated to heavily wooded/vegetated. This isn't a neighborhood location...typical subdivided farmland bordered by wooded streams and thick stretches of mixed woodland forest. Many farms in this area are being sold and subdivided for development. That's the source of this study.

Initially 3 of the ponds are stocked with a single species. Part of the measure is to determine if different species will colonize vernal pools with established N. viridescens populations (time vs. initial disturbance).

Remember this is ultimately a measure of re-population using indigenous species commonly found in Kentucky; such as interspecific competition in aquatic verses terrestrial phases. During the aquatic phase one species may out-compete another, but during the terrestrial phase there may be little to no interaction. Some species such as N. viridescens are explosive colonizers in recently disturbed areas, but it's presence may positively affect other species (such as A. maculatum) due to Mullerian Mimicry. That's another aspect of this study.

Lets not jump to conclusions about what 'I really should have read before starting this,' without considering what I may have read prior to actually starting or who I may be affiliated with. Recent studies have also shown N. viridescens larvae to be heavily preyed upon by A. maculatum larvae (Petranka).

Remember this is a study about amphibian re-population after anthropogenic disturbance and land-use vs. biodiversity.

Thanks for the article links.

(Message edited by jelkins on January 14, 2005)

(Message edited by jelkins on January 14, 2005)

 

[justin]

The study isn't affiliated with a university its a private company developing agricultural land to residential. There is some concern about converting it to residential or preserving a portion as "natural"; which is subjective depending on what someone views as natural (before human disturbance or natural disturbance...). They've hired on a consulting company to determine some aspects of leaving/converting a portion to a natural area and re-establishing certain native species. We happen to own property next to the development.

If you'll re-read my SECOND post, you'll notice that I mention each pond being stocked with an DIFFERENT ('single' is out of context with what I was trying to convey to you, single was used to denote a unique species) species initially.

There's a direct correlation between re-population and species (N. viridescens) that are still in the area. We're looking at the totality of the interactions. Warning coloration/spotting is distinguishable by predators across similar species of prey. Toxicity of N. viridescens (spotted) may benefit A. maculatum due to it's spotted pattern. Simply by the fact that both are dorsally spotted.

I'm not arguing about what studies you know about, how recent they are, what you think you know, and what you don't. You seem to want to pick fights with people by blabbing about how much more you think you know, without considering other's backgrounds. Bases on your egotistical retorts you're obviously clueless about a lot of things. You want to pick it apart more go ahead. When you're getting paid the big bucks to show off how much you know let know please. Bear in mind that your future employers aren't going to ask you questions to determine how smart you think you are. <message deleted due to inappropriate content>}}}.

We're simply trying to locate some naturally occurring populations to compare with the artificial ones we've created. Hoping to establish species that were once common in this particular area.

<font color="ff0000">{Justin-I edited this message due to your highly inappropriate personal attacks made concerning me personally</font>}

(Message edited by mike_g on January 15, 2005)

 

[dot]

Having read this thread from the beginning, I don't believe that Mike was at all being offensive or insulting. He was offering information to help you with your study. In the second sentence of his second post, he states "Here is some information that you really should have before starting this" as opposed to what it seems to have been misinterpreted as - "Here is some information that you really should have read before starting this".

I am interested in how this study is being conducted. Please do keep us informed.

 

[peter]

Actually, Justin, Mike was just trying to help. He even gave you articles to reference, and expressed interest in what you were doing. He's got years of experience, has done field research on ambystomids, and frequently reads up on all new information. He's probably one of the more knowledgable ambystomid experts in the country, so what he said holds merit.

 

[dot]

The caudata.org forum is not a place to flame or knock down others, especially when the individual being attacked is trying to lend a hand and offer some help.

The comment that was made stating "Lets not jump to conclusions about what 'I really should have read before starting this,' without considering what I may have read prior to actually starting or who I may be affiliated with" applies to you as well. And it is incredibly inappropriate, not to mention immature, to make lewd comments about anyone's mental or physical state, especially when you do not know them personally. This is not high school.

C.org takes pride in the fact that it's better than other places, like kingsnake.com or faunaclassifieds.com simply because of the community's kind, understanding and welcoming atmosphere. Also, bear in mind that Mike had already apologised if his questions came across as offensive, although nothing he'd said before that or afterwards was at all rude or insulting.

 

[Steve B]

Is there any research still going on in KY?