Volume 9, 2022 Urban Naturalist No. 53 Biodiversity Between Buildings: Results of a Two- Year Vertebrate Survey on a University Campus John David Curlis, Rebecca Scott, Emily Evans, Michelle Cawthorn, C. Ray Chandler, James Roberts, Lance McBrayer Urban Naturalist The Urban Naturalist (ISSN # 2328-8965) is published by the Eagle Hill Institute, PO Box 9, 59 Eagle Hill Road, Steuben, ME 04680- 0009. Phone 207-546-2821 Ext. 4, FAX 207-546-3042. E-mail: office@eaglehill.us. Webpage: http://www.eaglehill.us/urna. Copyright © 2022, all rights reserved. Published on an article by article basis. Special issue proposals are welcome. The Urban Naturalist is an open access journal. Authors: Submission guidelines are available at http://www.eaglehill.us/urna. Co-published journals: The Northeastern Naturalist, Southeastern Naturalist, Caribbean Naturalist, and Eastern Paleontologist, each with a separate Board of Editors. The Eagle Hill Institute is a tax exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation of the State of Maine (Federal ID # 010379899). Board of Editors Hal Brundage, Environmental Research and Consulting, Inc, Lewes, DE, USA Sabina Caula, Universidad de Carabobo, Naguanagua, Venezuela Sylvio Codella, Kean University, Union New Jersey, USA Julie Craves, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, MI, USA Ana Faggi, Universidad de Flores/CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina Leonie Fischer, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany Chad Johnson, Arizona State University, Glendale, AZ, USA Sonja Knapp, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Halle (Saale), Germany David Krauss, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA Joerg-Henner Lotze, Eagle Hill Institute, Steuben, ME. Publisher Kristi MacDonald, Hudsonia, Bard College, Annandale-on- Hudson, NY, USA Tibor Magura, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary Brooke Maslo, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA Mike McKinney, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA. Journal Editor Desirée Narango, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA Zoltán Németh, Department of Evolutionary Zoology and Human Biology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary Joseph Rachlin, Lehman College, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA Travis Ryan, Center for Urban Ecology, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN, USA Michael Strohbach, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Institute of Geoecology, Braunschweig, Germany Katalin Szlavecz, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA Advisory Board Myla Aronson, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA Mark McDonnell, Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Charles Nilon, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA Dagmar Haase, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Leipzig, Germany Sarel Cilliers, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa Maria Ignatieva, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia ♦ The Urban Naturalist is a peer-reviewed and edited interdisciplinary natural history journal with a global focus on urban areas (ISSN 2328- 8965 [online]). ♦ The journal features research articles, notes, and research summaries on terrestrial, freshwater, and marine organisms and their habitats. ♦ It offers article-by-article online publication for prompt distribution to a global audience. ♦ It offers authors the option of publishing large files such as data tables, and audio and video clips as online supplemental files. ♦ Special issues - The Urban Naturalist welcomes proposals for special issues that are based on conference proceedings or on a series of invitational articles. Special issue editors can rely on the publisher’s years of experiences in efficiently handling most details relating to the publication of special issues. ♦ Indexing - The Urban Naturalist is a young journal whose indexing at this time is by way of author entries in Google Scholar and Researchgate. Its indexing coverage is expected to become comparable to that of the Institute's first 3 journals (Northeastern Naturalist, Southeastern Naturalist, and Journal of the North Atlantic). These 3 journals are included in full-text in BioOne.org and JSTOR.org and are indexed in Web of Science (clarivate.com) and EBSCO.com. ♦ The journal's staff is pleased to discuss ideas for manuscripts and to assist during all stages of manuscript preparation. The journal has a page charge to help defray a portion of the costs of publishing manuscripts. Instructions for Authors are available online on the journal’s website (http://www.eaglehill.us/urna). ♦ It is co-published with the Northeastern Naturalist, Southeastern Naturalist, Caribbean Naturalist, Eastern Paleontologist, Eastern Biologist, and Journal of the North Atlantic. ♦ It is available online in full-text version on the journal's website (http://www.eaglehill.us/urna). Arrangements for inclusion in other databases are being pursued. Cover Photograph: A sampling of the vertebrate species encountered on the Georgia Southern University campus, including (from top to bottom) the Southern Leopard Frog, the Wood Stork, the Northern Raccoon, the Banded Pygmy Sunfish, and the Common Garter Snake. All photos © John David Curlis. Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 1 Vol. 9, 2022 Urban Naturalist 53:1–38 Biodiversity Between Buildings: Results of a Two-Year Vertebrate Survey on a University Campus John David Curlis*1,2,3, Rebecca Scott1,4, Emily Evans1,5, Michelle Cawthorn1, C. Ray Chandler1, James Roberts1, and Lance McBrayer1 Abstract - As urbanization increases worldwide, areas that possess both urbanized spaces and natural or semi-natural greenspaces, such as university campuses, present ideal settings in which to measure biodiversity in the modern era. From 2015 to 2017, we documented the vertebrate species that occurred on the main campus of Georgia Southern University (GSU) in the southeastern United States. To maximize the number of species encountered, we sampled using a broad array of surveying and trapping techniques and engaged citizen scientists for assistance. In total, we recorded 206 vertebrate species, representing 46% of the species documented in the surrounding county and 58% of the county species that we would realistically expect to encounter on campus due to species-specific habitat requirements or rarity. While this biodiversity was generally concentrated in the less-intensely urbanized regions of campus, our findings suggest that even partially developed and highly fragmented landscapes can support a relatively high richness of species. Our results underscore the importance and benefits of greenspaces in urban planning and species conservation. We further emphasize that spaces like university campuses should be better leveraged to document contemporary patterns of biodiversity and can serve as ideal study sites for long-term monitoring of species assemblages in an ever-changing world. Introduction Biodiversity loss is one of the most pressing environmental issues facing the world today (Cardinale et al. 2012). Many biologists consider the earth to be undergoing a sixth mass extinction event (Barnosky et al. 2011, Ceballos et al. 2020), and it is clear that recent and current extinction rates are significantly higher than “background” extinction rates inferred from the fossil record (Ceballos et al. 2015). One of the driving factors of today’s biodiversity loss is the degradation, fragmentation, and destruction of natural habitats by human activities (Díaz et al. 2019, Fahrig 2003). In particular, anthropogenic land development and urbanization play a major role in the decline of native species and populations (Aronson et al. 2014). Because of this, developed and urbanized areas have not received as much conservation or research attention as designated natural areas (Soanes et al. 2019). However, in a world where biodiversity is declining and urbanization is spreading, it is increasingly important to document urban biodiversity in order to better understand where and how to deploy contemporary means of conservation (Mitchell et al. 2015, Ziter 2015). Moreover, a 1Department of Biology, Georgia Southern University, 4324 Old Register Road, Statesboro, GA 30458, USA. 2Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, 1105 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. 3University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, 3600 Varsity Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA. 4College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, 140 7th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, USA. 5Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 3911 Highway 2321, Panama City, FL 32409, USA. *Corresponding author: curlisjd@ umich.edu. Associate Editor: Sonja Knapp, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ. Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 2 number of studies support the idea that urban areas can actually support a surprisingly high amount of biodiversity (Derby Lewis et al. 2019, Ives et al. 2016, Kühn et al. 2004, Soanes et al. 2019). “Urbanization” broadly refers to the anthropogenic conversion of natural and seminatural land-cover types (e.g., forest, grassland, agricultural fields) via construction of buildings, neighborhoods, parking lots, and roads. However, the effects of urbanization on biodiversity may vary drastically depending on the intensity of the land-cover change (Alberti et al. 2003, Ziter 2015). For example, the conversion of a natural area into a botanical garden or park would likely have markedly different effects on local wildlife than would the conversion of a natural area into a parking lot or office building. One way to minimize the negative impacts of urbanization on biodiversity is via the creation of “greenspaces,” areas within an urbanized patchwork that contain natural vegetation, both managed and unmanaged. Such greenspaces can serve as refugia, nesting sites, corridors, stopover points, and hunting/foraging sites for a wide range of animals (González-García et al. 2009, Hutto and Barrett 2021, Partridge and Clark 2018, Partridge et al. 2020, Rutz 2006), which might otherwise avoid an urban area entirely if no greenspaces are present (Lepczyk et al. 2017, Streicher et al. 2021). In addition, the maintenance of greenspaces can provide financial incentives for businesses and institutions that wish to meet certain sustainability goals and/ or properly manage natural resources (Aronson et al. 2017). Because a key metric of sustainable practice is the maintenance or enhancement of native biological diversity (reviewed in Niesenbaum 2019, Verma et al. 2020), one must have detailed baseline biodiversity data for future assessment of sustainability practices or future environmental impacts. The various benefits provided by greenspaces have proven to be highly attractive to landowners and urban planners, such that many development projects are being intentionally designed with ample greenspaces in mind (Aronson et al. 2017). Numerous, large greenspaces are often a hallmark of university and college campuses. These campuses have long recognized greenspace utility not only for the psychological benefits to students and faculty, but also for recreation, outdoor classrooms, and/or ecological study sites. As such, college and university campuses often balance heavily and partially urbanized areas with greenspaces, making them ideal sites to measure biodiversity (Liu et al. 2017). As noted by Liu et al. (2021), colleges and universities often have faculty, staff, and students who are trained in biology, environmental science, wildlife management, and/ or forestry, making them (presumably) motivated and well-equipped to accurately identify groups of organisms. Moreover, campuses often harbor nature enthusiasts who may not necessarily be trained in such fields, but who may serve as valuable citizen scientists in biodiversity surveys (Colding and Barthel 2017, Silvertown 2009). Finally, many urban areas, especially colleges and universities, are undergoing a rapid transition to increase awareness and application of sustainable practices, promotion of more sustainable development, and reduction of environmental impacts (Colding and Barthel 2017). In short, college and university campuses are ideal sites to measure biodiversity, preserve biodiversity, and engage the public about the environment, conservation, and the benefits of sustainable practices. While the number of campus biodiversity surveys has indeed increased since 2000, only about 1.2% of universities worldwide have taken advantage of this largely untapped potential (Liu et al. 2021). In this study, we leveraged the collective knowledge and surveying efforts of citizen scientists, undergraduates, graduate students, and university professors to inventory the vertebrate biodiversity on the campus of Georgia Southern University (GSU). The central goal of our study was to quantify the total number of species of fishes, birds, reptiles, amUrban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 3 phibians, and mammals observed on campus over two years. We combined standardized sampling methods (e.g., encounter surveying, electrofishing, live trapping), opportunistic encounters, and citizen science data to generate a species inventory and demonstrate the utility of campuses in harboring vertebrate diversity. In addition, we wanted to develop a framework whereby survey and monitoring efforts could be continued and expanded upon in the future. Thus, we developed an on-going iNaturalist project that involves researchers and citizen scientists alike. To provide broad context to the vertebrate biodiversity data on the GSU campus, we compared our findings with known species records for the surrounding region (Bulloch County), and we considered these comparisons in light of differences in habitat availability between campus and county. Ultimately, the results of our comprehensive and systematic survey serve as a reliable assessment of how well campus biodiversity reflects the regional biodiversity, as well as a reference for future monitoring or assessment of future environmental impacts to the campus or region. Materials and Methods Study Site Our vertebrate survey took place on the main campus of Georgia Southern University (GSU), in Statesboro, Bulloch County, Georgia, U.S.A. Statesboro is located in the Southeastern Plains ecoregion (Omernik 1987), an area dominated by pine/oak forest, scrub, sandhill, and wetland habitats. Much of the land surrounding Statesboro has been developed or converted to farmland for row crops (cotton, peanuts, and soybeans) or pasture, but some large patches and corridors of relatively natural bottomland forest, upland scrub, and freeflowing blackwater rivers and streams are present. The main campus of GSU is comprised of 365 contiguous hectares and hosts roughly 21,000 students, faculty, and staff (Georgia Southern University Office of Institutional Research 2018). Our survey area was bounded by Fair Road (Georgia State Highway 67) to the northeast, South Main Street (United States Highway 301) to the northwest, Veterans Memorial Parkway (United States Highway 25 Bypass) to the southwest, and Lanier Drive to the southeast (Fig. 1). Like many university campuses, the area is a heterogeneous patchwork of habitats with varying degrees of anthropogenic alteration, ranging from paved parking lots to mature forests and from constructed ponds with fountains to natural and degraded wetlands. Standardized Surveying and Trapping From 1 July 2015 to 1 July 2017, we surveyed for fishes, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals on the campus of GSU. Because these different taxa can have highly dissimilar behaviors, life history strategies, habitat requirements, and degrees of rarity, we determined that a multifaceted surveying approach would be critical to documenting a high proportion of the vertebrates found in the area. Accordingly, we utilized both generalized and taxonspecific techniques when sampling (Fig. 2). All methods were approved under Georgia Southern University IACUC protocols and Georgia Department of Natural Resources Scientific Collecting Permits (see Acknowledgments). Our most heavily relied-upon method of sampling was the encounter survey. This consisted of actively searching for vertebrates, which were identified by sight (and possibly by sound, if the animals were calling or singing). Encounter surveys mostly involved scanning the sky, vegetation, substrate, and ponds for animals out in the open, yet they also included overturning rocks, logs, and debris to locate reclusive species. We were able to identify many taxa from a distance (especially birds and large mammals), but reptiles and amphibUrban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 4 ians were caught by hand to allow for close observation and counts of meristic traits like scales and costal grooves, which can be diagnostic. We conducted encounter surveys in all seasons both during the day and the night (using flashlights), as well as in a variety of weather conditions, to maximize the potential species encountered. Photographs were taken whenever possible to aid or confirm species identification. To capture aquatic amphibians, turtles, and fishes, we used dipnets, seines, gill-nets, minnow traps, rod-and-reel, and Halltech direct-current backpack electrofishers (Halltech Environmental Inc., Guelph, Ontario, Canada). In contrast to non-electrofishing methods that rely heavily on the user’s skill/speed, electrofishers allow for broader, more effective sampling by delivering a low-voltage charge that immobilizes fishes long enough for collection and identification (Vaux et al. 2000). Electrofishers were set at 60 Hz for all sampling, and voltage was adjusted as needed according to measured conductivity (ranging from 450–650 V). Aquatic vertebrates were identified in the hand or in a small holding aquarium and then immediately released at the site of capture. We sampled reptiles and amphibians by creating, deploying, and monitoring artificial refugia and drift fence arrays, both of which are common tools in herpetofaunal surveys (Curlis et al. 2020, Willson and Gibbons 2009). Artificial refugia included coverboards, which are pieces of sheet metal laid on the ground, and frog tubes, which are pieces of PVC pipe with a rubber cap on one end that are oriented vertically and strapped to trees (Willson and Gibbons 2009). In total, we put out and regularly checked 73 coverboards and 11 frog tubes. In addition, we Figure 1. Map of the 365- ha contiguous survey area of Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, Georgia, U.S.A. showing 11 different habitat types. Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 5 deployed seven drift fence arrays, which prevent the natural movement of animals across an area and redirect them into traps from which they cannot escape (Willson and Gibbons 2009). Drift fences were made of 10m-long, 0.5m-high (~30 ft-long, ~1.5-ft high) aluminum flashing positioned between two five-gallon buckets (the pitfall traps) buried in the ground on each end. Pitfall trap buckets had tiny holes drilled into their bottoms so that they would not fill with rainwater. Foldable funnel traps (Terrestrial Ecosystems, Mt. Claremont, Washington, USA) made of nylon mesh were placed on either side of each drift fence arm to maximize species sampling at drift fences (Greenberg et al. 1994). Drift fence arrays were operational only when pitfall and funnel traps could be checked twice daily to ensure that animals did not overheat, become hypothermic, starve, and/or die. During any periods in which traps could not be checked so frequently, buckets were covered with tight-fitting lids and funnel traps were removed, preventing captures. All animals captured in any kind of trap or found in any artificial refuge were released immediately after identification. Figure 2. Equipment and techniques used to survey for vertebrates, including a) a PVC-style track tube, b) a Sherman trap, c) backpack electrofishing, d) a cover board, e) a frog tube, and f) a drift fence with buckets. Photograph of Sherman trap © C. Ray Chandler, all other photographs © John David Curlis. Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 6 We sampled mammals through the use of live-trapping, camera-trapping, and track-detection techniques. Rodents were captured by Sherman live-traps baited with sunflower seeds and placed throughout various habitats on GSU’s campus. We set Sherman traps two hours before dusk and checked each within four hours of sunrise the following day to reduce the amount of time animals were in traps. We used camera traps (a combination of Reconyx [Reconyx, Holmen, Wisconsin, USA] and Browning [Browning Trail Cameras, Birmingham, Alabama, USA]) to passively survey for larger mammals that might be using game trails or otherwise moving through the forests. We placed cameras traps in four locations around campus at a height of 0.5–1.0m (~1.5–3.3ft) above the ground and did not bait them. Cameras were set to automatically trigger when motion was detected, and the sensitivity was set to take three to five pictures per trigger. Lastly, we surveyed for small mammals using modified track plates that allowed us to detect footprints (Loggins et al. 2010, Wilkinson et al. 2012). We used two styles of these “track tubes” for sampling both arboreal and semi-fossorial mammals: PVC tubes and gutter tubes. PVC tubes of 30cm x 5cm (11.81in x 1.96in) were outfitted with a downward facing 90° elbow on one end (the opening) and an end cap on the other. Tubes were placed on small stilts that kept the opening 8–12cm (3.15–4.72in) from the ground. On the inside of the tube, an inkpad was placed towards the opening and sunflower seeds were placed as bait towards the opposite end. In between the inkpad and bait, a strip of cardstock paper was placed. As animals crawled from the entrance of the tube to the bait, they would leave a trail of ink footprints on the cardstock, which was later brought back to the lab for footprint identification. In a similar manner, we constructed gutter tubes to obtain tracks from animals that were too large to fit in the PVC tubes (Drennan et al. 1998). These gutter tubes consisted of two sections of 12cm x 60 cm (4.72in x 23.6in) K-style gutters taped together along their long edges to create an enclosed tube. Rather than having only one open end, we positioned the bait in the center of the gutter tube and placed an inkpad at both ends, with cardstock in between. These tubes were placed on tree limbs and secured with bungee cords. In total, we surveyed 46 locations with 35 PVC tubes and 11 gutter tubes and checked them on a weekly basis. Opportunistic Encounters, Reports, and Citizen Science In order to document as much diversity as possible, we did not want to risk excluding unique or important observations simply because they occurred outside of a standardized survey effort or were obtained by someone not directly affiliated with the overall survey. To address this, we documented opportunistic encounters in which a vertebrate was encountered outside of an official survey (e.g., when walking between buildings, driving through campus, etc.). In addition, we utilized information from GSU students and the general public as a way to increase our likelihood of recording species that we might not have observed ourselves. We generated an online and a hard-copy data form that asked observers to report the species, time, location, behavior, and any other relevant information regarding any animal they encountered on campus. We also created a group project in the mobile application and online website iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/georgia-southern-biological-survey), which allowed users to upload information about their sightings directly from a mobile phone or computer. All observations that came from data forms and iNaturalist were vetted by at least one member of the survey team before being included in the dataset. For most observations, a photograph or video was required for approval. Variation in Survey Intensity The number of people who took part in each sampling effort varied widely, but we estimate that more than 100 individuals were involved in sampling in some capacity throughout Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 7 the course of our two-year survey. The most experienced individual surveyors conducted encounter surveys and checked traps on a near daily basis. Every few months, we conducted “Bioblitzes” in which a large group of surveyors (both experienced and inexperienced) was split into smaller taxon-focused teams that each attempted to find as many species as possible in a day. Information about the overall project, Bioblitzes, data forms, and the iNaturalist project were disseminated to multiple biology classes at GSU, including General Biology, Environmental Biology, Field Biology, Fisheries Biology, Ichthyology, Ornithology, Herpetology, and Mammalogy. We also presented our progress and goals at a poster session to the public, hosted by the Georgia Southern Center for Sustainability, to garner interest in our study. In this manner, we had researchers, students, and citizen-scientist students engaged in both formal and informal surveys nearly continuously throughout 2015–2017. Determining Expected Species One of our main objectives was to assess the extent to which biodiversity (measured as species richness) on the GSU campus reflects regional diversity. For our purposes, we considered Bulloch County the region of interest. Bulloch County is characterized by an area of approximately 178,450 hectares, a human population size of 79,608 (United States Census Bureau 2019), and a similar mix of natural and anthropogenically modified habitat conditions as those described above for Statesboro. We tabulated vertebrate species collection records for Bulloch County by searching the scientific literature and Georgia Department of Natural Resources databases. However, even in the absence of anthropogenic influences, we would not expect the GSU campus species list to perfectly match the Bulloch County species list simply due to species-specific preferences for habitat or diet. For example, the GSU campus does not contain any large rivers, nor does it contain any scrub or natural sandhill habitats, yet these are found in Bulloch County. Moreover, some species are so exceedingly rare in (or have even been extirpated from) Bulloch County that their likelihood of appearing in an area as small as the GSU campus would be extremely low. We therefore created a list of “expected species” by taking the Bulloch County list and removing certain species, as determined from expert opinion (the authors of this study include research professors, each of whom have over 20 years of experience working with their respective taxonomic group), and a number of printed reference materials (Dunn and Alderfer 2011, Jensen et al. 2008, Page and Burr 2011, Powell et al. 2016, Reid 2006), as well as online databases (eBird 2020, Fishes of Georgia [Straight et al. 2009]). We used these same resources to designate each species recorded for Bulloch County and for the GSU campus as either native or non-native. Land Cover and Habitat Analysis Habitat classification for both the GSU campus and Bulloch County was performed using ArcMap v.10.5.1 (ESRI, Redlands, California, USA). Land cover data was compiled from the GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011 Dataset (USGS Gap Analysis Project 2016) and clipped to the geographic extent of both areas of interest. We used a raster analysis to determine and compare the land cover composition of the GSU campus and Bulloch County. We also overlayed our vertebrate observations onto the survey area, allowing us to assess campus biodiversity within each habitat type. Results During our two-year survey on the GSU campus, we encountered a total of 206 vertebrate species, including 20 fishes, 126 birds, 22 reptiles, 20 amphibians, and 18 mammals Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 8 (Fig. 3, Appendix 1). These 206 species represent 58.4% of all vertebrates that we would expect to encounter on the GSU campus and 46.0% of all vertebrates recorded from Bulloch County. Representation by taxon is as follows: 37.7% of the fish species we would expect to encounter on campus and 32.3% of all fishes recorded from Bulloch County; 64.0% and 49.8% for birds; 51.2% and 40.0% for reptiles; 60.6% and 54.1% for amphibians; and 66.7% and 43.9% for mammals (Fig. 3, Appendix 2). Of the total 206 species, nine were non-native: Carassius auratus (Goldfish), Cyprinus carpio (Common Carp), Columba livia (Rock Dove), Streptopelia decaocto (Eurasian Collard-Dove), Phasianus colchicus (Ring-necked Pheasant), Passer domesticus (House Sparrow), Sturnus vulgaris (European Starling), Rattus norvegicus (Brown Rat), and Sus scrofa (Wild Boar). Seven species were listed on the IUCN Red List as species of conservation concern as of 2017: Chaetura pelagica (Chimney Swift), Passerina ciris (Painted Bunting), Lanius ludovicianus (Loggerhead Shrike), Hylocichla mustelina (Wood Thrush), and Melanerpes erythrocephalus (Red-headed Woodpecker) were listed as Near Threatened; Terrapene carolina (Eastern Box Turtle) was listed as Vulnerable; and Anguilla rostrata (American Eel) was listed as Endangered. In addition, Plethodon ocmulgee (Ocmulgee Slimy Salamander) has not yet been assessed by the IUCN but has an extremely restricted range in southeastern Georgia. Figure 3. Results of the vertebrate survey on the campus of Georgia Southern University (GSU), showing the number of species encountered on campus, the number of expected species on campus based on available habitats and rarity, and the number of species documented in Bulloch County. Species observed on the GSU campus outside of the two-year survey period are not included. For a full list of observed, expected, and county species, see Appendices 1 and 2. Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 9 Outside of the two-year survey, but less than two years before the start or after the end, we encountered an additional 14 species, including one fish, nine birds, one mammal, and three reptiles (Appendix 1). If added to the 206 species from our survey period, this represents 62.3% of all vertebrate species that we would expect to encounter on campus and 49.1% of all vertebrate species documented for Bulloch County. Of these additional 14 species, one reptile was non-native, Hemidactylus turcicus (Mediterranean Gecko). One bird, Colinus virginianus (Northern Bobwhite), was listed as Near Threatened by the IUCN Red List in 2017. The proportions and types of habitats differ substantially between the GSU campus and Bulloch County (Fig. 4). Almost 85% of the university’s campus can be classified as developed or disturbed land, with dominant subcategories including open developed land (33.7%), followed by low intensity (23.6%) and medium intensity (18.9%) developed land. With respect to non-developed land, GSU contains 6.8% flooded and swamp forest and 4.6% mixed hardwood forest. In contrast, only 15.1% of Bulloch County is classified as developed or disturbed, and the county contains much higher proportions of flooded and swamp forest (29.7%), mixed hardwood forest (17.7%), and pasture or hay fields (27.7%). As expected, the number of species we documented during our survey was highly variable across habitat types on the GSU campus (Fig. 5a). The least biodiversity (19 species) was observed in agricultural habitat areas, while a total of 180 species were observed in forested/woodland zones, and 135 species were observed in temperate flooded/open water zones. The greatest number of unique species was documented in developed and disturbed land cover types, with a total of 183 species encountered. However, when accounting for land area covered by each habitat type on the campus of GSU, the patterns change (Fig. 5b): 6.5 species/ha were observed in agricultural areas, 0.6 species/ha were observed in developed/disturbed areas, 4.7 species/ha were observed in forested/woodland areas, and 4.4 species/ha were observed in temperate flooded/open water areas. Breaking these habitat types down into sub-categories showed substantial variation within habitat types as well (Fig. 6). Figure 4. A comparison of relative proportions of habitat types on the campus of Georgia Southern University a) and in Bulloch County b). Habitat type “Agriculture” includes land cover categories “Agriculture (Row & Close Grain Crop)” and “Agriculture (Pasture & Hay Field Crop).” Habitat type “Developed/Disturbed” includes land cover categories “Disturbed/Successional” and all “Developed” classifications. Habitat type “Forested/Wetland” includes land cover categories “Longleaf Pine Woodland” and “Mixed Hardwood Forest.” Habitat type “Temperate Flooded/Open Water” includes land cover categories “Temperate Flooded & Swamp Forest” and “Open Water.” Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 10 Figure 5. The total number of species a) and the total number of species per hectare b) documented in each broad habitat type on the Georgia Southern University campus. Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 11 Discussion Throughout two years of surveying the main campus of Georgia Southern University (GSU), we documented almost half of all vertebrate species found in Bulloch County, as well as nearly 60% of the vertebrate species that we would expect to encounter based on habitat availability and rarity. Consistent with previous research (Aronson et al. 2014), we found that developed and disturbed areas of campus exhibited a small fraction (roughly 9–14%) of the vertebrate biodiversity found in more natural areas. However, the fact that the 365-ha GSU campus could harbor such a high proportion of regional diversity despite being considered nearly 85% developed underscores the notion that biodiversity can remain present in relatively urbanized areas, especially when ample greenspaces are present (reviewed in Liu et al. 2021). Although our results were likely impacted by sampling bias—more people spent more time surveying (at least opportunistically) in developed/disturbed areas than in forested areas—and a higher likelihood of edge/disturbed habitat species on campus than in the county, it is likely that our findings are typical of university campuses that possess a mixture of developed and natural areas. Figure 6. The number of species from each vertebrate group documented in each subcategory of a) Agriculture, b) Developed/Disturbed, c) Forested/Wetland, and d) Temperate Flooded/Open Water habitat types on the Georgia Southern University campus. Note that the “Open Water” habitat type included ponds too deep to effectively sample without the use of watercraft (thus we were unable to record any fish species in these areas), but some non-fish species were documented flying above or swimming at the surface of such ponds. Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 12 A number of the species encountered during our survey were species of conservation concern, suggesting that the campus (and other urbanized areas more generally; Casanelles- Abella et al. 2021) may be suitable for even some sensitive species. Our survey documented one endangered fish species, one vulnerable reptile, five near-threatened bird, and an amphibian with a highly restricted range. Moreover, we documented several notable species that are not necessarily of conservation concern but are not particularly abundant in semiurbanized areas of southeastern Georgia, including Mycteria americana (Wood Stork), Rallus limicola (Virginia Rail), Piranga ludoviciana (Western Tanager), Ophisaurus ventralis (Eastern Glass Lizard), Scaphiopus holbrookii (Eastern Spadefoot), and Castor canadensis (American Beaver). Masticophis flagellum (Coachwhip) and Lontra canadensis (North American River Otter) were also rather surprising, though they were encountered outside the timeframe of the official survey. The presence of these uncommon and sensitive species, coupled with the scarcity of non-native species (approximately 4% of the species encountered during our survey, a relatively low proportion; Guénard 2015), is likely indicative of a healthy, intact ecosystem on the GSU campus. Finding such a high diversity of species, especially species of conservation concern and rare species, on a busy university campus also suggests that such areas may serve as refugia for animals facing intense habitat loss or disturbance. Although the GSU campus and Bulloch County show no overlap in the predominant habitat types today (Fig. 4), both the campus and the county would have been dominated by xeric longleaf pine and mesic mixed hardwood forests prior to colonial settlement (Frost 1993). Such an ecosystem was historically maintained by anthropogenic and lightning-induced fire regimes (Van Lear et al. 2005) and therefore would have been characterized by both mature stands and forests at various stages of succession. The fact that the GSU campus still contains longleaf pine stands, mixed hardwood forest, wetlands, and successional areas as “greenspaces” is one of the likely mechanisms that allows a high proportion of the county’s biodiversity to persist on the campus. Furthermore, the GSU campus is managed by a single landowner, which has and should continue to provide opportunities for habitat and biodiversity conservation that would be more challenging on much of the privately owned land elsewhere in Bulloch County. The success of our survey not only shows the utility of university campuses as ideal study sites for measuring and preserving biodiversity (Colding and Barthel 2017), but it also demonstrates the usefulness of leveraging iNaturalist for conducting such surveys. Users of the application can easily view and access all data, as well as contribute observations to the dataset in the form of photographs. Although iNaturalist generally relies upon crowdsourcing to identify a species in a photograph (an observation is considered “research grade” if two thirds or more of the identifiers, who can be any users, agree upon a taxon), the program can be made to further ensure the veracity of user submissions by requiring approval from a qualified project leader (in this case, the authors) before being included. The accumulation of large, verified datasets is thus relatively straightforward using iNaturalist, and the long-term ease of continued data collection cannot be overstated; our iNaturalist project for the GSU campus continues to add vertebrate observations and now includes 92 species of arthropods, coleopterans, and odonates as well. As we and others have found, undergraduate students became particularly interested in the iNaturalist project (Niemiller et al. 2021), making it an ideal tool to develop further teaching (e.g., Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences, Dolan 2016) and outreach to local communities and/or K–12 schools. Here, we demonstrate that university campuses and other semi-urbanized areas with greenspaces are important sites for assessing, monitoring, and maintaining biodiversity. We found a degree of species richness on campus that reflects nearly 60% of what we might Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 13 expect to find based upon the available habitat types, including several rare species and species of concern for which habitat availability is likely limiting. We show that university campuses can leverage existing expertise of professors and graduate students and the availability of willing and able undergraduate surveyors to quantify and curate biodiversity data. While we recognize that GSU represents a particularly favorable campus for a vertebrate survey due to the rich biodiversity of the region and the easy access to a great number of local scientists and citizens (which may limit GSU’s broad representation of other campuses), we strongly encourage universities around the world to conduct similar biodiversity inventories so that broad comparisons and generalizations can be made in the future. Moreover, the long history and probable future permanence of universities make these institutions ideal settings in which to begin or continue long-term biodiversity studies, the results of which can be used to assess species and population trends through time in an ever-changing, increasingly urbanized world. Acknowledgments We are deeply grateful to everyone who assisted in any capacity with surveying vertebrates at Georgia Southern University. We thank Megan Arp, Amber Bell, Devon Campbell, Houston Chandler, Jessica Coleman, Julie Cobb, Mary Daniel, Anna Duren, James Graham, Chase Kinsey, Sterling Lewis, Rachel Liebman, Rosemary Kramer, Jamie Metzger, Sarah Miles, Isabel Moran, Richard Orton, Taylor Post, Dillon Richter, Megan Sanders, Casey Seamone, Daniel Streetman, and George Todd for directly contributing data, checking traps, and/or analyzing data. We would also like to thank Alan Harvey and Christian Cox for incorporating this vertebrate survey into their Field Biology and Herpetology classes. Lastly, we thank all of the faculty, graduate students, undergraduates, and Statesboro residents who submitted datasheets, participated in surveys, and/or uploaded observations via iNaturalist. This work was conducted under Georgia Southern University IACUC permits I11002, I18013, and I16000. Georgia Department of Natural Resources collecting permits were 29-WJH-15- 71, 29-WJH-15-176, 29-WJH-14-138, and 1000566472. Funding was provided by Georgia Southern University Sustainability Fee grant 3600127. Literature Cited Alberti, M., J.M. Marzluff, E. Schulenberger, G. Bradley, C. Ryan, and C. Zumbrunnen. 2003. Integrating humans into ecology: Opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. BioScience 53:1169–1179. Aronson, M.F., F.A. La Sorte, C.H. Nilon, M. Katti, M.A. Goddard, C.A. Lepczyk, P.S. Warren, N.S. Williams, S. Cilliers, B. Clarkson, C. Dobbs, R. Dolan, M. Hedblom, S. Klotz, J.L. Kooijmans, I. Kuhn, I. Macgregor-Fors, M. McDonnell, U. Mortberg, P. Pysek, S. Siebert, J. Sushinsky, P. Werner, and M. Winter. 2014. A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20133330. Aronson, M.F.J., C.A. Lepczyk, K.L. Evans, M.A. Goddard, S.B. Lerman, J.S. MacIvor, C.H. Nilon, and T. Vargo. 2017. Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green space management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15:189–196. Barnosky, A.D., N. Matzke, S. Tomiya, G.O. Wogan, B. Swartz, T.B. Quental, C. Marshall, J.L. Mc- Guire, E.L. Lindsey, K.C. Maguire, B. Mersey, and E.A. Ferrer. 2011. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471:51–57. Cardinale, B.J., E. Duffy, A. Gonzalez, D.U. Hooper, C. Perrings, P. Venail, A. Narwani, G.M. Mace, D. Tilman, D.A. Wardle, A.P. Kinzig, G.C. Daily, M. Loreau, J.B. Grace, A. Larigauderie, D. Srivastava, and S. Naeem. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67. Casanelles-Abella, J., Y. Chauvier, F. Zellweger, P. Villiger, D. Frey, C. Ginzler, M. Moretti, and L. Pellissier. 2021. Landscape and Urban Planning 214:104137. Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 14 Ceballos, G., P.R. Ehrlich, A.D. Barnosky, A. García, R.M. Pringle, and T.M. Palmer. 2015. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances 1:e1400253. Ceballos, G., P.R. Ehrlich, and P.H. Raven. 2020. Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117:13596–13602. Colding, J., and S. Barthel. 2017. The role of university campuses in reconnecting humans to the biosphere. Sustainability 9:2349. Curlis, J.D., E.C. Fisher, W.K. Muhic, J. Moy, M. Garro-Cruz, and J.J. Montero-Ramírez. 2020. A survey of the reptiles and amphibians at the University of Georgia Costa Rica field station in San Luis de Monteverde, Costa Rica. Check List 16:1433–1456. Derby Lewis, A., M.J. Bouman, A.M. Winter, E.A. Hasle, D.F. Stotz, M.K. Johnston, K.R. Klinger, A. Rosenthal, and C.A. Czarnecki. 2019. Does nature need cities? Pollinators reveal a role for cities in wildlife conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:1–8. Díaz, S., J. Settele, B.E.S., H.T. Ngo, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K.A. Brauman, S.H.M. Butchart, K.M.A. Chan, L.A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S.M. Subramanian, G.F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R.R. Chowdhury, Y. Shin, I. Visseren-Hamakers, K.J. Willis, and C.N. Zayas. 2019. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366:eaax3100. Dolan, E.L. 2016. Course-based undergraduate research experiences: Current knowledge and future directions. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., USA. Drennan, J.E., P. Beier, and N.L. Dodd. 1998. Use of track stations to index abundance of sciurids. Journal of Mammalogy 79:352–359. Dunn, J.L. and J.K. Alderfer. 2011. National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C., USA. 574 pp. eBird. 2020. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Available online at http://www.ebird.org. Accessed 12 March 2020. Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34:487–515. Frost, C.C. 1993. Four centuries of changing landscape patterns in the longleaf pine ecosystem. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 18:17-43. Georgia Southern University Office of Institutional Research. 2018. University Fact Book. Available online at https://em.georgiasouthern.edu/ir/facts-and-figures/factbook. Accessed 17 December 2021. González-García, A., J. Belliure, A. Gómez-Sal, and P. Dávila. 2009. The role of urban greenspaces in fauna conservation: The case of the iguana Ctenosaura similis in the ‘patios’ of León city, Nicaragua. Biodiversity and Conservation 18:1909–1920. Greenberg, C.H., D.G. Neary, and L.D. Harris. 1994. A comparison of herpetofaunal sampling effectiveness of pitfall, single-ended, and double-ended funnel traps used with drift fences. Journal of Herpetology 28:319–324. Guénard, B., A. Cardinal-De Casas, and R.R. Dunn. 2015. High diversity in an urban habitat: Are some animal assemblages resilient to long-term anthropogenic change? Urban Ecosystems 18:449–463. Hutto Jr., D., and K. Barrett. 2021. Do urban open spaces provide refugia for frogs in urban environments? PLoS One 16:e0244932. Ives, C.D., P.E. Lentini, C.G. Threlfall, K. Ikin, D.F. Shanahan, G.E. Garrard, S.A. Bekessy, R.A. Fuller, L. Mumaw, L. Rayner, R. Rowe, L.E. Valentine, and D. Kendal. 2016. Cities are hotspots for threatened species. Global Ecology and Biogeography 25:117–126. Jensen, J.B., C.D. Camp, J.W. Gibbons, and M.J. Elliot. 2008. Amphibians and Reptiles of Georgia. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA, USA. 600 pp. Kühn, I., R. Brandl, and S. Klotz. 2004. The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evolutionary Ecology Research 6:749–764. Lepczyk, C.A., M.F.J. Aronson, K.L. Evans, M.A. Goddard, S.B. Lerman, and J.S. MacIvor. 2017. Biodiversity in the city: Fundamental questions for understanding the ecology of urban green Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 15 spaces for biodiversity conservation. BioScience 67:799–807. Liu, J., M. Yu, K. Tomlinson, and J.W.F. Slik. 2017. Patterns and drivers of plant biodiversity in Chinese university campuses. Landscape and Urban Planning 164:64–70. Liu, J., Y. Zhao, X. Si, G. Feng, F. Slik, and J. Zhang. 2021. University campuses as valuable resources for urban biodiversity research and conservation. Urban Forestr y & Urban Greening 64:127255. Loggins, R.E., J.A. Gore, L.L. Brown, L.A. Slaby, and E.H. Leone. 2010. A modified track tube for detecting beach mice. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1154–1159. Mitchell, M.G.E., E.M. Bennett, A. Gonzalez, M.J. Lechowicz, J.M. Rhemtulla, J.A. Cardille, K. Vanderheyden, G. Poirier-Ghys, D. Renard, S. Delmotte, C.H. Albert, B. Rayfield, M. Dumitru, H. Huang, M. Larouche, K.N. Liss, D.Y. Maguire, K.T. Martins, M. Terrado, C. Ziter, L. Taliana, and K. Dancose. 2015. The Montérégie Connection: Linking landscapes, biodiversity, and ecosystem services to improve decision making. Ecology and Society 20:15. Niemiller, K.D.K., M.A. Davis, and M.L. Niemiller. 2021. Addressing ‘biodiversity naivety’ through project-based learning using iNaturalist. Journal for Nature Conservation 64:126070. Niesenbaum, R.A. 2019. The integration of conservation, biodiversity, and sustainability. Sustainability 11:4676. Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118–125. Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 2011. Peterson Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA. 688 pp. Partridge, D.R., and J.A. Clark. 2018. Urban green roofs provide habitat for migrating and breeding birds and their arthropod prey. PLoS One 13:e0202298. Partridge, D.R., K.L. Parkins, S.B. Elbin, and J.A. Clark. 2020. Bat activity correlates with moth abundance on an urban green roof. Northeastern Naturalist 27:77–89. Powell, R., R. Conant, and J.T. Collins. 2016. Peterson Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA. 512 pp. Reid, F.A. 2006. Peterson Field Guide to the Mammals of North America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA. 579 pp. Rutz, C. 2006. Home range size, habitat use, activity patterns and hunting behaviour of urban-breeding Northern Goshawks Accipiter gentilis. Ardea 94:185–202. Silvertown, J. 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24:467–471. Soanes, K., M. Sievers, Y.E. Chee, N.S.G. Williams, M. Bhardwaj, A.J. Marshall, and K.M. Parris. 2019. Correcting common misconceptions to inspire conservation action in urban environments. Conservation Biology 33:300–306. Straight, C.A., B. Albanese, and B.J. Freeman. 2009. Fishes of Georgia. Georgia Museum of Natural History, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA. Available online at http://fishesofgeorgia.uga. edu. Accessed 23 August 2019. Streicher, J.P., T. Ramesh and C.T. Downs. 2021. An African urban mesocarnivore: Navigating the urban matrix of Durban, South Africa. Global Ecology and Conservation 26: e01482. United States Census Bureau. 2019. QuickFacts: Bulloch County, Georgia. Available online at https:// www.census.gov/quickfacts/bullochcountygeorgia. Accessed 17 December 2021. USGS Gap Analysis Project, 2016. GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011 [Data file]. U.S. Geological Survey. Available online at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZS2TM0. Accessed 17 December 2021. Van Lear, D.H., W.D. Carroll, P.R. Kapeluck, and R. Johnson. 2005. History and restoration of the longleaf pine-grassland ecosystem: Implications for species at risk. Forest Ecology and Management 211:150–165. Vaux, P.D., T.R. Whittier, G. DeCesare, and J.P. Kurtenbach. 2000. Evaluation of a backpack electrofishing unit for multiple lake surveys of fish assemblage structure. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:168–179. Verma, A.K., P.R. Rout, E. Lee, P. Bhunia, J. Bae, R.Y. Surampalli, T.C. Zhang, R.D. Tyagi, P. Lin, and Y. Chen. 2020. Biodiversity and Sustainability. Pp. 255–275, In R. Surampalli, T. Zhang, M. K. Goyal, S. Brar, and R. Tyagi (Eds.). Sustainability: Fundamentals and Applications. Wiley, Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 16 Hoboken, NJ, USA. 696 pp. Wilkinson, E.B., L.C. Branch, D.L. Miller, and J.A. Gore. 2012. Use of track tubes to detect changes in abundance of beach mice. Journal of Mammalogy 93:791–798. Willson, J.D., and J.W. Gibbons. 2009. Drift fences, coverboards, and other traps. Pp. 229–245, In C. K. Dodd (Ed.). Amphibian Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 556 pp. Ziter, C. 2015. The biodiversity–ecosystem service relationship in urban areas: A quantitative review. Oikos 125:761–768. Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 17 Appendix 1. List of all vertebrate species observed on the campus of Georgia Southern University. Non-native species are indicated with an asterisk, and species observed outside of the survey period (but within two years of the start or end) are indicated by a dagger. The values in the column “No. recorded” indicate the number of individuals documented during the survey period (for individuals only documented before/after the survey period, this value is “N/A”) and are included for a rough measure of relative abundances, but these values do not account for individuals encountered multiple times nor for discrepancies in sampling effort across taxa (e.g., fishes were sampled less often than birds). The IUCN status column lists the conservation classification of each species as of 2017, with LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, VU = Vulnerable, EN = Endangered, and N/A = Not Applicable (for non-native species or species not assessed by IUCN). Class Order Family Species Common Name No. Recorded IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Actinopterygii Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva Bowfin 2 LC Linnaeus Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American Eel 3 EN (Lesueur) Cypriniformes Catostomidae Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker 84 LC (Lacépède) Cyprinidae Carassius auratus * Goldfish 1 N/A (Linnaeus) Cyprinus carpio * Common Carp 1 N/A Linnaeus Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner 191 LC (Mitchill) Cyprinodontiformes Poeciliidae Gambusia holbrooki Eastern Mosquitofish 395 LC Girard Esociformes Esocidae Esox americanus Redfin Pickerel 29 LC Gmelin Lepisosteiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus platyrhincus † Florida Gar N/A LC DeKay Perciformes Centrarchidae Centrarchus macropterus Flier Sunfish 31 LC Lacépède Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish 393 LC (Linnaeus) Lepomis gulosus Warmouth 84 LC (Cuvier) Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 46 LC Rafinesque Lepomis marginatus Dollar Sunfish 5 LC (Holbrook) Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish 5 LC (Günther) Lepomis punctatus Spotted Sunfish 6 LC (Valenciennes) Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass 37 LC (Lacépède) Elassomatidae Elassoma zonatum Banded Pygmy Sunfish 37 LC Jordan Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 18 Class Order Family Species Common Name No. Recorded IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Percidae Etheostoma fusiforme Swamp Darter 1 LC (Girard) Siluriformes Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead 20 LC (Lesueur) Ameiurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead 1 LC (Lesueur) Amphibia Anura Bufonidae Anaxyrus terrestris Southern Toad 81 LC (Bonnaterre) Hylidae Acris gryllus Southern Cricket Frog 23 LC (LeConte) Hyla chrysoscelis Cope’s Gray Treefrog 11 LC Cope Hyla cinerea Green Treefrog 40 LC (Schneider) Hyla femoralis Pine Woods Treefrog 32 LC (Bosc) Hyla gratiosa Barking Treefrog 2 LC (LeConte) Hyla squirella Squirrel Treefrog 15 LC (Bosc) Pseudacris crucifer Spring Peeper 36 LC (Wied-Neuwied) Pseudacris ocularis Little Grass Frog 1 LC (Holbrook) Microhylidae Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern Narrowmouthed Frog 67 LC (Holbrook) Ranidae Rana catesbeiana American Bullfrog 60 LC (Shaw) Rana clamitans Green Frog 29 LC (Latreille) Rana sphenocephala Southern Leopard Frog 56 LC (Cope) Scaphiopodidae Scaphiopus holbrookii Eastern Spadefoot 1 LC (Harlan) Caudata Amphiumidae Amphiuma means Two-toed Amphiuma 8 LC Garden Plethodontidae Eurycea cirrigera Southern Two-lined Salamander 6 LC (Green) Eurycea quadridigitata Dwarf Salamander 33 LC (Holbrook) Plethodon ocmulgee Ocmulgee Slimy Salamander 17 N/A Highton Sirenidae Siren intermedia Lesser Siren 10 LC Barnes Siren lacertina Greater Siren 9 LC Österdam Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 19 Class Order Family Species Common Name No. Recorded IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Aves Accipitriformes Accipitridae Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s Hawk 9 LC (Bonaparte) Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk 1 LC Vieillot Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk 14 LC (Gmelin) Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk 22 LC (Gmelin) Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk 1 LC (Vieillot) Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite 1 LC (Linnaeus) Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle 1 LC (Linnaeus) Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi Kite 4 LC (Wilson) Pandionidae Pandion haliaetus Osprey 10 LC (Linnaeus) Anseriformes Anatidae Aix sponsa Wood Duck 38 LC (Linnaeus) Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 31 LC Linnaeus Aythya americana Redhead 6 LC (Eyton) Branta canadensis Canada Goose 493 LC (Linnaeus) Dendrocygna autumnalis † Black-bellied Whistling-duck N/A LC (Linnaeus) Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser 2 LC (Linnaeus) Caprimulgiformes Apodidae Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift 31 NT (Linnaeus) Caprimulgidae Antrostomus carolinensis † Chuck-will’s-widow N/A LC (Gmelin) Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk 18 LC (Forster) Trochilidae Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated Hummingbird 13 LC (Linnaeus) Cathartiformes Cathartidae Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture 52 LC (Linnaeus) Coragyps atratus Black Vulture 18 LC (Bechstein) Charadriiformes Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus Killdeer 14 LC Linnaeus Scolopacidae Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper 8 LC Linnaeus Scolopax minor American Woodcock 1 LC Gmelin Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 20 Class Order Family Species Common Name No. Recorded IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper 2 LC Wilson Ciconiiformes Ciconiidae Mycteria americana Wood Stork 12 LC Linnaeus Columbiformes Columbidae Columba livia * Rock Dove 9 N/A Gmelin Streptopelia decaocto * Eurasian Collared-Dove 14 N/A Frivaldszky Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove 275 LC (Linnaeus) Coraciiformes Alcedinidae Megaceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher 10 LC (Linnaeus) Cuculiformes Cuculidae Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo 3 LC (Linnaeus) Falconiformes Falconidae Falco sparverius American Kestrel 1 LC Linnaeus Galliformes Odontophoridae Colinus virginianus † Northern Bobwhite N/A NT (Linnaeus) Phasianidae Phasianus colchicus * Ring-necked Pheasant 1 N/A (Linnaeus) Gruiformes Rallidae Rallus limicola Virginia Rail 1 LC Vieillot Passeriformes Bombycillidae Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing 271 LC Vieillot Cardinalidae Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal 282 LC (Linnaeus) Passerina caerulea † Blue Grosbeak N/A LC (Linnaeus) Passerina ciris Painted Bunting 9 NT (Linnaeus) Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting 4 LC (Linnaeus) Piranga ludoviciana Western Tanager 1 LC (Wilson) Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager 1 LC (Gmelin) Piranga rubra Summer Tanager 4 LC (Linnaeus) Corvidae Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow 31 LC Brehm Corvus ossifragus Fish Crow 33 LC Wilson Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay 124 LC (Linnaeus) Fringillidae Haemorhous mexicanus House Finch 226 LC (Müller) Haemorhous purpureus † Purple Finch N/A LC (Gmelin) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 21 Class Order Family Species Common Name No. Recorded IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Spinus pinus Pine Siskin 52 LC (Wilson) Spinus tristis American Goldfinch 30 LC (Linnaeus) Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow 22 LC Linnaeus Progne subis Purple Martin 3 LC (Linnaeus) Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Roughwinged Swallow 3 LC (Audubon) Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow 7 LC (Vieillot) Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird 230 LC (Linnaeus) Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole 3 LC (Linnaeus) Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole 2 LC (Linnaeus) Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird 410 LC (Boddaert) Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle 236 LC (Linnaeus) Laniidae Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike 25 NT Linnaeus Mimidae Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird 39 LC (Linnaeus) Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird 218 LC (Linnaeus) Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher 57 LC (Linnaeus) Paridae Baeolophus bicolor Tufted Titmouse 143 LC Linnaeus Poecile carolinensis Carolina Chickadee 87 LC (Audubon) Parulidae Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat 20 LC (Linnaeus) Helmitheros vermivorum Worm-eating Warbler 1 LC (Gmelin) Leiothlypis celata Orange-crowned Warbler 4 LC (Say) Mniotilta varia Black-and-white Warbler 8 LC (Linnaeus) Parkesia noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush 4 LC (Gmelin) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 22 Class Order Family Species Common Name No. Recorded IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Seiurus aurocapilla Ovenbird 5 LC (Linnaeus) Setophaga americana Northern Parula 5 LC (Linnaeus) Setophaga caerulescens Black-throated Blue Warbler 3 LC (Gmelin) Setophaga citrina † Hooded Warbler N/A LC (Boddaert) Setophaga coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler 446 LC (Linnaeus) Setophaga dominica Yellow-throated Warbler 5 LC (Linnaeus) Setophaga fusca Blackburnian Warbler 1 LC (Müller) Setophaga palmarum Palm Warbler 6 LC (Gmelin) Setophaga pensylvanica † Chestnut-sided Warbler N/A LC (Linnaeus) Setophaga pinus Pine Warbler 38 LC (Linnaeus) Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart 7 LC (Linnaeus) Setophaga striata Blackpoll Warbler 4 LC (Forster) Setophaga tigrina Cape May Warbler 5 LC (Gmelin) Passerellidae Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow 1 LC (Gmelin) Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco 8 LC (Linnaeus) Melospiza georgiana Swamp Sparrow 6 LC (Latham) Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow 5 LC (Wilson) Passerculus sandwichensis † Savannah Sparrow N/A LC (Gmelin) Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern Towhee 30 LC (Linnaeus) Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow 549 LC (Bechstein) Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow 1 LC (Wilson) Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated Sparrow 111 LC (Gmelin) Passeridae Passer domesticus * House Sparrow 2 N/A (Linnaeus) Polioptilidae Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 13 LC (Linnaeus) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 23 Class Order Family Species Common Name No. Recorded IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Regulidae Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet 38 LC (Linnaeus) Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned Kinglet 5 LC Lichtenstein Sittidae Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch 1 LC Linnaeus Sitta pusilla Brown-headed Nuthatch 76 LC Latham Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris * European Starling 206 N/A Linnaeus Troglodytidae Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina Wren 102 LC (Latham) Troglodytes aedon House Wren 1 LC Vieillot Turdidae Catharus fuscescens Veery 1 LC (Stephens) Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush 10 LC (Pallas) Catharus ustulatus Swainson’s Thrush 2 LC (Nuttall) Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush 2 NT (Gmelin) Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird 31 LC (Linnaeus) Turdus migratorius American Robin 219 LC Linnaeus Tyrannidae Contopus virens Eastern Wood-pewee 8 LC (Linnaeus) Empidonax virescens Acadian Flycatcher 2 LC (Vieillot) Myiarchus crinitus Great Crested Flycatcher 30 LC (Linnaeus) Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe 22 LC (Latham) Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird 19 LC (Linnaeus) Vireonidae Vireo flavifrons Yellow-throated Vireo 2 LC Vieillot Vireo griseus White-eyed Vireo 4 LC (Boddaert) Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo 16 LC (Linnaeus) Vireo solitarius Blue-headed Vireo 6 LC (Wilson) Pelecaniformes Ardeidae Ardea alba Great Egret 17 LC Linnaeus Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron 12 LC Linnaeus Butorides virescens Green Heron 5 LC (Linnaeus) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 24 Class Order Family Species Common Name No. Recorded IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron 3 LC (Linnaeus) Egretta thula Snowy Egret 2 LC (Molina) Egretta tricolor † Tricolored Heron N/A LC (Müller) Threskiornithidae Eudocimus albus White Ibis 3 LC (Linnaeus) Piciformes Picidae Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker 41 LC (Linnaeus) Dryobates pubescens Downy Woodpecker 20 LC (Linnaeus) Dryobates villosus Hairy Woodpecker 1 LC (Linnaeus) Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker 2 LC (Linnaeus) Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied Woodpecker 31 LC (Linnaeus) Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed Woodpecker 39 NT (Linnaeus) Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied Sapsucker 12 LC (Linnaeus) Podicipediformes Podicipedidae Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe 7 LC (Linnaeus) Strigiformes Strigidae Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl 4 LC (Gmelin) Strix varia Barred Owl 2 LC Barton Suliformes Anhingidae Anhinga anhinga Anhinga 1 LC (Linnaeus) Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant 6 LC (Lesson) Mammalia Artiodactyla Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer 37 LC (Zimmermann) Suidae Sus scrofa * Wild Boar 1 N/A Linnaeus Carnivora Canidae Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray Fox 19 LC (Schreber) Mustelidae Lontra canadensis † North American River Otter N/A LC (Schreber) Procyonidae Procyon lotor Northern Raccoon 15 LC (Linnaeus) Chiroptera Molossidae Tadarida brasiliensis Mexican Free-tailed Bat 1 LC (I. Geoffroy) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 25 Class Order Family Species Common Name No. Recorded IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Vespertilionidae Lasiurus seminolus Seminole Bat 1 LC (Rhoads) Cingulata Dasypodidae Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded Armadillo 3 LC Linnaeus Didelphimorphia Didelphidae Didelphis virginiana Virginia Opossum 27 LC Kerr Eulipotyphla Soricidae Blarina carolinensis Southern Short-tailed Shrew 1 LC (Bachman) Talpidae Scalopus aquaticus Eastern Mole 2 LC (Linnaeus) Lagomorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail 5 LC (J.A. Allen) Rodentia Castoridae Castor canadensis American Beaver 3 LC Kuhl Cricetidae Sigmodon hispidus Hispid Cotton Rat 6 LC Say & Ord Peromyscus gossypinus Cotton Mouse 1 LC (Le Conte) Muridae Rattus norvegicus * Brown Rat 1 N/A (Berkenhout) Sciuridae Glaucomys volans Southern Flying Squirrel 1 LC (Linnaeus) Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Gray Squirrel 180 LC Gmelin Sciurus niger Fox Squirrel 1 LC Linnaeus Reptilia Squamata Anguidae Ophisaurus ventralis Eastern Glass Lizard 1 LC (Linnaeus) Colubridae Coluber constrictor North American Racer 6 LC Linnaeus Masticophis flagellum † Coachwhip N/A LC (Shaw) Diadophis punctatus Ringneck Snake 2 LC (Linnaeus) Nerodia erythrogaster Plainbelly Watersnake 3 LC (Forster) Nerodia fasciata Southern Watersnake 8 LC (Linnaeus) Opheodrys aestivus Rough Greensnake 3 LC (Linnaeus) Pantherophis alleghaniensis Eastern Ratsnake 6 LC (Holbrook) Pantherophis guttatus Red Cornsnake 1 LC (Linnaeus) Storeria dekayi † Dekay’s Brownsnake N/A LC (Holbrook) Storeria occipitomaculata Redbelly Snake 10 LC (Storer) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 26 Class Order Family Species Common Name No. Recorded IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Thamnophis sauritus Eastern Ribbonsnake 1 LC (Linnaeus) Thamnophis sirtalis Common Garter Snake 9 LC (Linnaeus) Dactyloidae Anolis carolinensis Green Anole 20 LC (Voigt) Gekkonidae Hemidactylus turcicus *† Mediterranean House Gecko N/A N/A (Linnaeus) Scincidae Plestiodon fasciatus Common Five-lined Skink 3 LC (Linnaeus) Plestiodon laticeps Broadhead Skink 4 LC (Schneider) Scincella lateralis Ground Skink 39 LC (Say) Teiidae Aspidoscelis sexlineata Six-lined Racerunner 3 LC (Linnaeus) Testudines Chelydridae Chelydra serpentina Common Snapping Turtle 6 LC (Linnaeus) Emydidae Terrapene carolina Eastern Box Turtle 21 VU (Linnaeus) Trachemys scripta Yellow-bellied Slider 80 LC (Schoepff) Kinosternidae Kinosternon subrubrum Eastern Mud Turtle 1 LC (Lacépède) Sternotherus odoratus Eastern Musk Turtle 6 LC (Sonnini & Latreille) Trionychidae Apalone ferox Florida Softshell 6 LC (Schneider) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 27 Appendix 2. List of all vertebrate species documented in Bulloch County but not documented on the campus of Georgia Southern University during the two-year survey. All species were “expected” to occur on the campus Georgia Southern University unless they had specific habitat/dietary requirements that would preclude them from doing so or if they were exceedingly rare in the county. Non-native species are indicated with an asterisk, and species observed outside of the survey period (but within two years of the start or end) are indicated by a dagger. The IUCN status column lists the conservation classification of each species as of 2017, with LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, VU = Vulnerable, EN = Endangered, and N/A = Not Applicable (for non-native species or species not assessed by IUCN). Class Order Family Species Common Name Expected on Campus? IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Actinopterygii Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Acipenser oxyrhynchus Atlantic Sturgeon No NT Mitchill Atheriniformes Atherinopsidae Labidesthes sicculus Brook Silverside Yes LC (Cope) Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa mediocris Hickory Shad No LC (Mitchill) Alosa sapidissima American Shad No LC (Wilson) Cypriniformes Catostomidae Erimyzon oblongus Creek Chubsucker Yes LC (Mitchill) Minytrema melanops Spotted Sucker Yes LC (Rafinesque) Cyprinidae Ctenopharyngodon idella* Grass Carp No N/A (Valenciennes) Cyprinella leedsi Bannerfin Shiner Yes LC (Fowler) Hybopsis rubrifrons Rosyface Chub Yes LC (Jordan) Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner Yes LC (Cope) Notropis cummingsae Dusky Shiner Yes LC Myers Notropis maculatus Taillight Shiner Yes LC Hay Notropis petersoni Coastal Shiner Yes LC Fowler Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose Minnow Yes LC Hay Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Yes LC Rafinesque Pteronotropis stonei Lowland Shiner Yes LC (Fowler) Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub Yes LC (Mitchill) Cyprinodontiformes Fundulidae Fundulus chrysotus Golden Topminnow Yes LC (Günther) Fundulus lineolatus Lined Topminnow Yes LC (Agassiz) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 28 Class Order Family Species Common Name Expected on Campus? IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Esociformes Esocidae Esox niger Chain Pickerel Yes LC Lesueur Umbridae Umbra pygmaea Eastern Mudminnow Yes LC (DeKay) Lepisosteiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Yes LC (Linnaeus) Lepisosteus platyrhincus † Florida Gar Yes LC DeKay Perciformes Centrarchidae Acantharchus pomotis Mud Sunfish Yes LC (Baird) Enneacanthus gloriosus Blue-spotted Sunfish Yes LC (Holbrook) Enneacanthus obesus Banded Sunfish Yes LC (Girard) Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Yes LC (Lesueur) Elassomatidae Elassoma evergladei Everglades Pygmy Sunfish Yes LC Jordan Moronidae Morone saxatilis Striped Bass No LC (Walbaum) Percidae Etheostoma hopkinsi Christmas Darter Yes LC (Fowler) Etheostoma olmstedi Tessellated Darter Yes LC Storer Etheostoma serrifer Sawcheek Darter Yes LC (Hubbs & Cannon) Percina nigrofasciata Blackbanded Darter Yes LC (Agassiz) Percopsiformes Amblyopsidae Chologaster cornuta Swampfish Yes LC Agassiz Aphredoderidae Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate Perch Yes LC (Gilliams) Siluriformes Ictaluridae Ameiurus brunneus Snail Bullhead Yes LC Jordan Ameiurus catus White Bullhead No LC (Linnaeus) Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Yes LC (Rafinesque) Ameiurus platycephalus Flat Bullhead Yes LC (Girard) Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish No LC (Rafinesque) Noturus gyrinus Tadpole Madtom Yes LC (Mitchill) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 29 Class Order Family Species Common Name Expected on Campus? IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Noturus leptacanthus Speckled Madtom Yes LC Jordan Amphibia Anura Bufonidae Anaxyrus quercicus Oak Toad Yes LC (Holbrook) Hylidae Hyla avivoca Bird-voiced Tree Frog No LC Viosca Pseudacris nigrita Southern Chorus Frog Yes LC (LeConte) Pseudacris ornata Ornate Chorus Frog Yes LC (Holbrook) Ranidae Rana grylio Pig Frog Yes LC Stejneger Rana heckscheri River Frog Yes LC Wright Caudata Ambystomatidae Ambystoma opacum Marbled Salamander Yes LC (Gravenhorst) Ambystoma talpoideum Mole Salamander Yes LC (Holbrook) Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger Salamander Yes LC (Green) Plethodontidae Desmognathus auriculatus Southern Dusky Salamander No LC (Holbrook) Desmognathus conanti Spotted Dusky Salamander No N/A Rossman Eurycea guttolineata Three-lined Salamander Yes LC (Holbrook) Pseudotriton montanus Mud Salamander No LC Baird Pseudotriton ruber Red Salamander Yes LC (Sonnini de Manoncourt & Latreille) Stereochilus marginatus Many-lined Salamander Yes LC (Hallowell) Salamandridae Notophthalmus viridescens Eastern Newt Yes LC (Rafinesque) Sirenidae Pseudobranchus striatus Northern Dwarf Siren Yes LC (LeConte) Aves Accipitriformes Accipitridae Circus hudsonius Northern Harrier Yes LC (Linnaeus) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 30 Class Order Family Species Common Name Expected on Campus? IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Anseriformes Anatidae Alopochen aegyptiaca * Egyptian Goose No LC (Linnaeus) Anas acuta Northern Pintail Yes LC Linnaeus Anas crecca Green-winged Teal Yes LC Gmelin Anser albifrons Greater Whitefronted Goose No LC (Scopoli) Anser caerulescens Snow Goose No LC (Linnaeus) Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup Yes LC (Eyton) Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck Yes LC (Donovan) Aythya valisineria Canvasback Yes LC (Wilson) Bucephala albeola Bufflehead Yes LC (Linnaeus) Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye Yes LC (Linnaeus) Dendrocygna autumnalis † Black-bellied Whistling Duck Yes LC (Linnaeus) Mareca americana American Wigeon Yes LC (Gmelin) Mareca strepera Gadwall Yes LC (Linnaeus) Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser No LC Linnaeus Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck Yes LC (Gmelin) Spatula clypeata Northern Shoveler Yes LC (Linnaeus) Spatula discors Blue-winged Teal Yes LC (Linnaeus) Caprimulgiformes Caprimulgidae Antrostomus carolinensis † Chuck-will’s Widow Yes LC (Gmelin) Antrostomus vociferus Eastern Whip-poor-will Yes LC (Wilson) Trochilidae Selasphorus rufus Rufous Hummingbird No LC (Gmelin) Charadriiformes Charadriidae Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover No LC Bonaparte Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 31 Class Order Family Species Common Name Expected on Campus? IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Pluvialis dominica American Golden Plover No LC Müller Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied Plover No LC (Linnaeus) Vanellus vanellus Northern Lapwing No NT (Linnaeus) Laridae Chlidonias niger Black Tern No LC (Linnaeus) Chroicocephalus philadelphia Bonaparte’s Gull Yes LC (Ord) Hydroprogne caspia Caspian Tern No LC (Pallas) Larus argentatus Herring Gull No LC Pontoppidan Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull Yes LC Ord Leucophaeus atricilla Laughing Gull No LC Linnaeus Sterna forsteri Forster’s Tern No LC Nuttall Sterna hirundo Common Tern No LC Linnaeus Recurvirostridae Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt No LC (Müller) Recurvirostra americana American Avocet No LC Gmelin Scolopacidae Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper Yes LC (Bechstein) Calidris alpina Dunlin No LC (Linnaeus) Calidris bairdii Baird’s Sandpiper No LC (Coues) Calidris fuscicollis White-rumped Sandpiper No LC (Vieillot) Calidris himantopus Stilt Sandpiper Yes LC (Bonaparte) Calidris mauri Western Sandpiper Yes LC (Cabanis) Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper Yes LC (Vieillot) Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper Yes LC (Vieillot) Calidris pusilla Semipalmated Sandpiper Yes NT (Linnaeus) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 32 Class Order Family Species Common Name Expected on Campus? IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Calidris subruficollis Buff-breasted Sandpiper Yes NT (Vieillot) Gallinago delicata Wilson’s Snipe Yes LC (Ord) Limnodromus griseus Short-billed Dowitcher No LC (Gmelin) Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed Dowitcher No LC (Say) Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs Yes LC (Gmelin) Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs Yes LC (Gmelin) Tringa semipalmata Willet No LC (Gmelin) Columbiformes Columbidae Columbina passerina Common Ground- Dove Yes LC (Linnaeus) Falconiformes Falconidae Falco columbarius Merlin Yes LC Linnaeus Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon No LC Tunstall Galliformes Odontophoridae Colinus virginianus † Northern Bobwhite Yes NT (Linnaeus) Phasianidae Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey Yes LC Linnaeus Gaviiformes Gaviidae Gavia immer Common Loon No LC (Brünnich) Gruidae Antigone canadensis Sandhill Crane Yes LC (Linnaeus) Rallidae Fulica americana American Coot Yes LC Gmelin Gallinula galeata Common Gallinule Yes LC (Lichtenstein) Porzana carolina Sora Yes LC (Linnaeus) Rallus elegans King Rail No NT Audubon Passeriformes Alaudidae Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark Yes LC (Linnaeus) Cardinalidae Passerina caerulea † Blue Grosbeak Yes LC (Linnaeus) Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak Yes LC (Linnaeus) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 33 Class Order Family Species Common Name Expected on Campus? IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Spiza americana Dickcissel No LC (Gmelin) Certhiidae Certhia americana Brown Creeper Yes LC Bonaparte Fringillidae Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening Grosbeak No LC (Cooper) Haemorhous purpureus † Purple Finch Yes LC (Gmelin) Hirundinidae Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow Yes LC Vieillot Riparia riparia Bank Swallow No LC (Linnaeus) Icteridae Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Yes LC (Linnaeus) Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird Yes VU (Müller) Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s Blackbird Yes LC (Wagler) Icterus bullockii Bullock’s Oriole No LC (Swainson) Quiscalus major Boat-tailed Grackle No LC Vieillot Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark Yes LC (Linnaeus) Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yellow-headed Blackbird No LC (Bonaparte) Icteriidae Icteria virens Yellow-breasted Chat Yes LC (Linnaeus) Motacillidae Anthus rubescens American Pipit Yes LC (Tunstall) Parulidae Cardellina canadensis Canada Warbler No LC (Linnaeus) Cardellina pusilla Wilson’s Warbler No LC (Wilson) Geothlypis formosa Kentucky Warbler Yes LC (Wilson) Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson’s Warbler Yes LC (Audubon) Oreothlypis peregrina Tennessee Warbler Yes LC (Wilson) Parkesia motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush Yes LC (Vieillot) Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary Warbler Yes LC (Boddaert) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 34 Class Order Family Species Common Name Expected on Campus? IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Setophaga castanea Bay-breasted Warbler Yes LC (Wilson) Setophaga cerulea Cerulean Warbler No VU (Wilson) Setophaga citrina † Hooded Warbler Yes LC (Boddaert) Setophaga discolor Prairie Warbler Yes LC (Vieillot) Setophaga magnolia Magnolia Warbler Yes LC (Wilson) Setophaga pensylvanica † Chestnut-sided Warbler Yes LC (Linnaeus) Setophaga petechia Yellow Warbler Yes LC (Linnaeus) Setophaga virens Black-throated Green Warbler Yes LC (Gmelin) Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler No NT (Linnaeus) Vermivora cyanoptera Blue-winged Warbler No LC (Linnaeus) Passerellidae Centronyx henslowii Henslow’s Sparrow Yes NT (Audubon) Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow No LC (Say) Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s Sparrow Yes LC (Audubon) Passerculus sandwichensis † Savannah Sparrow Yes LC (Gmelin) Passerella iliaca Fox Sparrow Yes LC (Merrem) Peucaea aestivalis Bachman’s Sparrow Yes NT (Lichtenstein) Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow Yes LC (Gmelin) Spizella pallida Clay-colored Sparrow No LC (Swainson) Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned Sparrow Yes LC (Forster) Sittidae Sitta carolinensis White-breasted Nuthatch Yes LC Latham Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 35 Class Order Family Species Common Name Expected on Campus? IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Troglodytidae Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren No LC (Wilson) Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren No LC (Naumann) Troglodytes hiemalis Winter Wren Yes LC Vieillot Turdidae Catharus minimus Gray-cheeked Thrush No LC (Lafresnaye) Tyrannidae Empidonax flaviventris Yellow-bellied Flycatcher No LC (Baird & Girard) Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher No LC (Baird & Baird) Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird No LC Say Vireonidae Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo No LC (Vieillot) Vireo philadelphicus Philadelphia Vireo No LC (Cassin) Pelecaniformes Ardeidae Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern No LC (Rackett) Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Yes LC (Linnaeus) Egretta tricolor † Tricolored Heron Yes LC (Müller) Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern No LC (Gmelin) Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Yes LC (Linnaeus) Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron No LC (Linnaeus) Threskiornithidae Platalea ajaja Roseate Spoonbill No LC (Linnaeus) Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis No LC (Linnaeus) Podicipediformes Podicipedidae Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe No VU (Linnaeus) Strigiformes Strigidae Megascops asio Eastern Screech- Owl Yes LC (Linnaeus) Tytonidae Tyto alba Barn Owl No LC (Scopoli) Mammalia Carnivora Canidae Vulpes vulpes Red Fox No LC (Linnaeus) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 36 Class Order Family Species Common Name Expected on Campus? IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat No LC (Schreber) Mephitidae Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk No LC (Schreber) Mustelidae Lontra canadensis † North American River Otter No LC (Schreber) Mustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel No LC Lichtenstein Neovison vison American Mink No LC (Schreber) Ursidae Ursus americanus Black Bear No LC Pallas Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Aeorestes cinereus Hoary Bat Yes LC (Palisot de Beauvois) Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis Yes LC (Rhoads) Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat Yes LC (LeConte) Lasiurus borealis Eastern Red Bat Yes LC (Müller) Nycticeius humeralis Evening Bat Yes LC (Rafinesque) Eulipotyphla Soricidae Cryptotis parva Least Shrew Yes LC (Say) Sorex longirostris Southeastern Shrew No LC Bachman Lagomorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus palustris Marsh Rabbit No LC (Bachman) Rodentia Cricetidae Ondatra zibethicus Common Muskrat No LC (Linnaeus) Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse Yes LC (Harlan) Microtus pinetorum Woodland Vole No LC (LeConte) Reithrodontomys humulis Eastern Harvest Mouse No LC (Audubon & Bachman) Neotoma floridana Eastern Woodrat Yes LC (Ord) Peromyscus polionotus Oldfield Mouse No LC (Wagner) Muridae Mus musculus House Mouse Yes LC Linnaeus Rattus rattus Roof Rat Yes LC (Linnaeus) Reptilia Crocodilia Alligatoridae Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator No LC (Daudin) Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 37 Class Order Family Species Common Name Expected on Campus? IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Squamata Anguidae Ophisaurus attenuatus Slender Glass Lizard Yes LC Cope Colubridae Cemophora coccinea Scarlet Snake Yes LC (Blumenbach) Drymarchon couperi Indigo Snake No LC (Holbrook) Farancia abacura Mud Snake No LC (Holbrook) Farancia erytrogramma Rainbow Snake No LC (Latreille) Haldea striatula Rough Earthsnake Yes LC (Linnaeus) Heterodon platirhinos Eastern Hognose Snake Yes LC Latreille Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake No VU (Linnaeus) Lampropeltis elapsoides Scarlet Kingsnake Yes LC (Holbrook) Lampropeltis getula Eastern Kingsnake Yes LC (Linnaeus) Liodytes rigida Crayfish Snake Yes LC (Say) Masticophis flagellum † Coachwhip Yes LC (Shaw) Nerodia taxispilota Brown Watersnake No LC (Holbrook) Pituophis melanoleucus Pine Snake No LC (Daudin) Storeria dekayi † Dekay’s Brownsnake Yes LC (Holbrook) Tantilla coronata Southeastern Crowned Snake Yes LC Baird & Girard Elapidae Micrurus fulvius Eastern Coral Snake Yes LC (Linnaeus) Gekkonidae Hemidactylus turcicus *† Mediterranean House Gecko Yes N/A (Linnaeus) Phrynosomatidae Sceloporus undulatus Eastern Fence Lizard Yes LC (Bosc & Daudin) Scincidae Plestiodon egregius Mole Skink Yes LC Baird Urban Naturalist J.D. Curlis, R. Scott, E. Evans, M. Cawthorn, C.R. Chandler, J. Roberts, and L. McBrayer Vol. 9, 2022 No. 53 38 Class Order Family Species Common Name Expected on Campus? IUCN Status (2017) Species Authority Plestiodon inexpectatus Southeastern Five-lined Skink Yes LC (Taylor) Viperidae Agkistrodon contortrix Eastern Copperhead Yes LC (Linnaeus) Agkistrodon piscivorus Northern Cottonmouth Yes LC (Lacépède) Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake No LC Beauvois Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake No LC Linnaeus Testudines Emydidae Clemmys guttata Spotted Turtle No EN (Schneider) Deirochelys reticularia Chicken Turtle Yes N/A (Latreille) Pseudemys floridana Coastal Plain Cooter Yes LC (LeConte) Kinosternidae Kinosternon baurii Striped Mud Turtle Yes LC (Garman) Sternotherus minor Loggerhead Musk Turtle Yes LC (Agassiz) Testudinidae Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise No VU (Daudin) Trionychidae Apalone spinifera Spiny Softshell No LC (Lesueur)