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
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.
Urban Naturalist, No. 53 (2022)
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.
Download Full-text pdf
Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
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)