Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70138850

Home range and movements of American alligators ( Alligator mississippiensis ) in an estuary habitat

Abstract

Background Understanding movement patterns of free-ranging top predators throughout heterogeneous habitat is important for gaining insight into trophic interactions. We tracked the movements of five adult American alligators to delineate their estuarine habitat use and determine drivers of their activity patterns in a seasonally-fluctuating environment. We also compared VHF- and satellite-tracks of one of the alligators to examine tradeoffs in data quality and quantity. Results All tracked alligators showed high site fidelity in the estuary, but estimated home range size and core-use areas were highly variable. Two alligators were relatively sedentary and remained in the upper stream zone. One alligator traveled to a transition zone between freshwater marsh and estuary habitat, but primarily remained in the upstream area. Two alligators traveled to the downstream zone into saline conditions and showed high salinity tolerance. Overall movement rates were highly influenced by salinity, temperature, and season. Both satellite and VHF radio telemetries resulted in similar home range, core-use area, and activity centers. Conclusions This study reveals consistent use of estuary habitat by American alligators. The alligators showed variations in their movement pattern and seasonal habitat, with movement attributable to environmental factors. Although satellite-derived locations were more dispersed compared to locations collected using VHF radio-tags, data collected from VHF tracking omitted some habitat used for a short period of time, indicating the effectiveness of satellite telemetry to continuously track animals for ecosystem-scale studies.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 25.180087808990645° to 25.547397663603196° latitude; -81.243896484375° to -80.76599121093749° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ikuko Fujisaki, Kristen M. Hart, Frank J. Mazzotti, Michael S. Cherkiss, Autumn R. Sartain-Iverson, Brian M. Jeffery, Jeffrey S. Beauchamp, Mathew J. Denton. 2014. Home range and movements of American alligators ( Alligator mississippiensis ) in an estuary habitat. https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-3385-2-8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Case report: Observations on expulsions from 20 years of radiotransmitter implantation in adult Burmese pythons

Background Radiotelemetry as a research tool has advanced our understanding of snake behavior and ecology. However, surgical transmitter implantation can lead to health complications for study animals, including expulsion, which may also interfere with research objectives. Two implantation methods include intramuscular and coelomic placements, and we evaluate expulsion rates of transmitters using these methods in Burmese pythons ( Python bivittatus ) in southern Florida. Results From 2005 to 2024, we implanted 305 transmitters in 142 adult Burmese pythons, primarily using intramuscular implantation ( n = 221), then transitioning to include coelomic placement ( n = 84). There were no observations of transmitter-related mortality. Overall, 98.7% of transmitters were retained, with a 1.3% expulsion rate ( n = 4 transmitters). Expelled transmitters were only observed in intramuscularly implanted transmitters from 4 of 13 gravid females. Conclusions We observed no mortality related to transmitter implantation and few instances of transmitter expulsion, indicating that both intramuscular and coelomic implantation techniques are effective for monitoring adult pythons in the wild. However, there is some risk that females may expel transmitters when gravid, and this risk may be reduced when implanting transmitters intracoelomically. Our findings may be useful for studies of other large-bodied snake populations worldwide where radiotransmitter implantation is appropriate and logistically feasible.

Florida

Bird predation obscures detection of acoustic telemetry tags in fish

Increasing application of acoustic telemetry for determining survival, migration and habitat use of fishes highlights the need to improve interpretation of tracks that end abruptly: when is fishing mortality, predation, or some other cause to be inferred? Significant technological advances have led to the development of tags that “sense” predation and can be used to infer information about the type of predator that consumed the tagged fish. However, growing evidence suggests that bird predation is not effectively quantified by the technology. We hypothesized that reduction in sound transmission from acoustic tags in the gut of a bird combined with short bird diving intervals would eliminate detections of acoustic telemetry tags from the surface and severely reduce detection efficiency at depth. We test this hypothesis indirectly with two experiments using cormorant carcasses containing tagged fish in which carcasses were either tethered to a mooring for several hours or lowered through the water to simulate diving behavior. Detection of tagged prey fish in the gut of bird carcasses was severely reduced or negated completely, supporting our hypothesis. By comparison, as expected, tagged fish that were not in the gut of bird carcasses were detected at a higher frequency. Depth and distance to passive moored receivers also affected detection probability of tagged fish with more detections at depth and when closer to the receiver. Our results emphasized the importance of accounting for avian predation of tagged fish in studies of prey species in surface waters. Further, while recent development of predation sensing tags has illustrated a few examples of bird predation, our results demonstrate that determining that a tagged fish has been consumed by a diving bird will be difficult and will likely require alternative methods or technologies.

Animal Biotelemetry

Home ranges of economically important reef fishes at North Carolina artificial reefs

Home range is a vital component to understanding animal ecology and can vary with factors like species, body size, and habitat. Artificial reefs are increasingly used to supplement or enhance habitat for reef fish. Quantifying reef fish home range sizes and the factors affecting home ranges is thus critical to understanding the efficacy of artificial reefs to sustain communities that reflect those on natural reefs. We estimated home ranges of reef fishes at artificial reefs in the southeast United States, evaluated what factors affected those home ranges, and compared them to home ranges of similarly sized fish on natural reefs. From June–October 2021 and 2022, we deployed acoustic tags on five fishery targeted reef species, black sea bass ( Centropristis striata ), gag ( Mycteroperca microlepis ), greater amberjack ( Seriola dumerili ), almaco jack ( S. rivoliana ), and red snapper ( Lutjanus campechanus ), on four artificial reefs near Cape Lookout, North Carolina. Tagged fish were tracked using a fine-scale positioning system for ~ 120 days. Home ranges varied by species and fish size (i.e., total length). Black sea bass had the smallest home ranges (mean = 6266 m 2 ), gag and red snapper had moderate home ranges (38,265 m 2 and 53,553 m 2 , respectively), and almaco jack and greater amberjack had the largest (152,146 m 2 , and 414,107 m 2 , respectively). Black sea bass, gag, and red snapper displayed increased home range size with total length while greater amberjack and almaco jack home ranges remained relatively constant across lengths. Greater amberjack home ranges were further influenced by artificial reef complex area with an increase in reef area leading to a larger home range. Our data from artificial reefs showed considerable overlap in the relationship between home range and body size when compared to similarly sized predatory reef fish on natural reefs. This information will be vital in improving ecological understanding of how artificial reefs can influence area use of reef-associated species to help inform future artificial reef deployments. Moreover, these results provide an important comparison between artificial reefs and natural reefs as habitats for reef-associated species, a topic that will become increasingly important as the quantity of artificial structures in our oceans increases. deployments. Moreover, these results provide an important comparison between artificial reefs and natural reefs as habitats for reef-associated species, a topic that will become increasingly important as the quantity of artificial structures in our oceans increases.

North Carolina