thermoregulation – Page 2 – EYNC Rattlesnake Study

A death mystery and rattlesnake season winding down

Male 37

Our wayward male shed on the morning of 7 October, five days after being recaptured. His faulty transmitter was surgically replaced that afternoon and he was released the following morning.

CROR37 recovering from anesthesia on 07 October 2015. Original Droid IMG_20151007_162411334.jpg — Male 37 recovering from anesthesia on a heated pad after his transmitter surgery on 7 October. He now measures 969 mm (just over 38″) total length, making him the largest rattlesnake I have measured at Effie Yeaw. Besides shedding four times in the past 16 months, his body mass has increased 26% (now 668 g or 1.5 lbs.), while his length increased by almost 5%. This is a very healthy rattlesnake!

CROR38 at release on 08 October 2015 Original RAW IMG_9094.CR2 — Male 37 on the morning of 8 October, disappearing into the hollow log where he was captured. Note that I marked his rattle again, since his original paint is only two segments away from being lost.

I took advantage of the necessity to allow Male 37 to shed before his surgery to collect some useful data. His pre-shed body mass was 693.5 g. By weighing him again and subtracting his post-shed mass of 668.4 g, we find that he lost 25.1 g (0.9 oz.), which was 3.6% of his body mass. Then, by drying his shed “skin” on a hot plate to drive off ambient moisture and subtracting that mass (5.1 g) from 25.1g, we can calculate that 80% of the mass he lost was water. Although these rattlesnakes are unaffected by California’s drought so far (more details here and here), that will eventually change and such data will be invaluable for calculating water loss and gain over time (water “flux”) and predicting when the snakes will become water stressed.

More Mortality

Another healthy postpartum female, CROR 47, was killed on the morning of 21 September. I may have been premature in assuming that a coyote killed Female 54 on 14 September (details). Female 47 was also very fresh when I found her, killed in the early morning in the meadow by something that did not eat her.

Death scene: CROR47 in meadow of Effie Yeaw Nature Preserve, morning of 21 September 2015 Original RAW IMG_8736.CR2 — Death scene: Female 47 in the meadow at Effie Yeaw Nature Preserve on the morning of 21 September. The posterior end of her abdomen was laying a few feet away. The edge of the bright red transmitter can be seen in the grass near the middle of the photo. Clearly, the carnivorous yellow jacket wasps found her quickly.

It was obvious that Female 47 had been pulled apart, with her body in two large pieces and internal organs and strips of skin pulled away. But she was all there. Maybe most interesting was the condition of her head: The top of her head was intact and unmarked but her lower jaw was mostly gone and the roof of her mouth was mangled, especially where the fangs had been (caution: graphic close-up).

In reconsidering the death of Female 54 a week before, I assumed that her missing head and neck had been eaten but it is entirely possible that I just didn’t find them. And I rationalized that a coyote dropped the snake as it probably fled (unseen) from me. But I see coyotes around the meadow frequently and, while they give people a wide birth, they are not panicked by our presence. If I interrupted a coyote with Female 54, why wouldn’t it have carried the rattlesnake away to finish the meal?

So what would encounter both rattlesnakes in the meadow early in the morning and pull them apart before leaving them uneaten? I have had coyotes kill Mohave rattlesnakes in southern California in the past but they eat the entire snake and chew the transmitters; these transmitters were undamaged. And what would remove the jaw and mangle the inside of the mouth?

My best idea is turkeys. Interestingly, I have found nothing in the scientific literature about wild turkeys killing adult rattlesnakes, although there are several anecdotal accounts in books, including Laurence Klauber’s Rattlesnakes (1972, Univ. California Press) of turkeys mobbing adult rattlers. Inquiries of my rattlesnake researcher colleagues has produced one witnessed account of a wild turkey killing and eating a two-foot timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) in Minnesota. And there is a video on YouTube of two turkeys apparently killing what appears to be a large gopher snake (Pituophis) on a golf course.

If anyone reading this has first-hand information about wild turkeys interacting with rattlesnakes, I would love to hear about it.

2015 Season almost over?

Well, it’s the last week in October and our eight telemetered rattlesnakes appear to be mostly settled into their winter shelters, despite relatively warm weather. Last year, we still had three telemetered rattlesnakes roaming around well into November (see my “Rattlesnake Update” from 26 November 2014).

This year, one of our telemetered animals has been stationary since 16 September and others have stopped moving since 6 October, 12 October (2 animals), and potentially three more in just the past couple of days. Most interesting of all is that five of them are in the same shelters they used last year – and a sixth may be on his way. This is a departure from behavior observed during my field work in El Dorado County, where the rattlesnakes did not return to the same locations winter-after-winter, although some returned to previously used sites after spending a winter or two in other locations.

This year at Effie Yeaw, our skinny geriatric Male 40 went immobile on 16 September under the same log he shared with Males 35 and 38 and Female 39 last winter. Then Male 35 and Female 39 joined him, arriving on 6 October and 12 October, respectively – although their radio signals indicate that they are not together under the large log. Male 38 is still on the move, even visiting the residents along Edgehill Lane three days ago (26 October). I was unable to gain access to his location due to the necessary residents apparently being away and, when I returned yesterday, I found that he had returned to the hillside within the nature preserve. Male 37 spent a few days in the same area on Edgehill Lane in August 2014 and also returned to the preserve before I could gain access to him. These are the only two times (in two full seasons) that telemetered animals have entered the residential area on the bluff. When this occurs, I try to contact the property owners and would remove the snake, if that’s the property owner’s desire and the snake is accessible. In both cases, however, the rattlesnakes returned to the preserve before I could make contact with the necessary residents. But back to Male 38, he was on the hillside yesterday morning and may be headed back to last year’s log with the others.

Male 37 went directly to the hillside after I released him with a new transmitter on 8 October and I have not detected a change in the location of his radio signal since 12 October – which sounds like the same place he spent last winter (again, refer to my “Rattlesnake Update” from 26 November 2014). Once I’m sure he’s down for the winter, I’ll make the treacherous climb and verify his exact location.

Female 41 arrived on 20 October at the log where she spent last winter. She moved a few meters away over a couple of days but has been back for the past three days, so she may also be done for this season. As far as I could determine last winter, she was alone. Male 46 and Female 53, neither of which were telemetered last winter (i.e., I don’t know where they spent last winter), are very close together under another large log and have been there for at least three days.

It is interesting to note that the rattlesnakes that are already in their winter shelters are not basking, preferring to remain out of sight with body temperatures mostly in the 60–65F range. Earlier in the activity season, when cool nights are followed by warm morning sun, the rattlesnakes come out and warm up by exposing some or all of their skin area, depending on ambient temperature and the intensity of the solar radiation. But in ectotherms (animals that get their body heat from the environment) like rattlesnakes, body temperature varies with the environment and both metabolic rate and water flux increase with higher body temperature, burning more stored energy and using more water. So, on the verge of four or five months of hibernation, the rattlesnakes are likely programmed by evolution to cool off and slow their metabolism, thereby conserving energy and water for use in the spring.

Once I’m sure the snakes are done moving for the year, I’ll summarize the season’s findings in the context of last year’s data and our original questions and study goals.

Missing males and waiting for kids

As birthing season approaches, I have been watching intently for signs of baby rattlesnakes. While postpartum mothers usually stay inside their shelters, the neonates are typically active and easily spotted. Although they do not leave their shelters before shedding the first time, babies can usually be seen crawling or basking at the entrance. And when we introduce the BurrowCam into the shelter, the kids can be seen exploring their new surroundings and crawling around on their mother. So far, there’s been no evidence of babies yet this year. This would be a bit early but quick warming last spring has me wondering about the potential for early births this year.

Remember that pregnant female rattlesnakes in our area hangout in carefully selected thermal shelters where they can maintain consistently warm body temperatures around the clock until they give birth. This period of thermoregulation lasts several months, during which the pregnant moms do not forage for food.

All five of our telemetered females are apparently pregnant, plus Female 55, who was processed and released without a transmitter in June (no transmitter surgery due to some old but significant trauma to her abdomen; click here for details). These females settled into their gestation shelters between 8 June and 1 July and have maintained body temperatures between 28ºC and 32ºC (82º–90ºF), almost without exception, ever since.

In fact, at dawn on a recent cool morning (16 August) when the ground temperature just before sunrise was in the mid-50s F, these girls still had body temps in the high 80s F. They maintain similar body temps during hot afternoons when the ground temperature (much hotter in the sun than air temp) outside is 120ºF and more. They thermoregulate like this by selecting logs or large rocks that have just the right thickness and sun exposure to stay warm at night but not get too hot in the afternoon sun. Such places are apparently scarce because three of our telemetered females are together in one shelter, while Female 41 is with non-telemetered Female 55 in another. Female 54 is in a third location, possibly by herself, but there could be others in there without radios. Females 39 and 41, both of whom produced broods in 2014, are in the same shelters as last year.

Flash photo of Female 41, tucked into her gestation refuge at sunrise on 16 August 2015. Note in the inset how her scales are pulled apart by her developing brood. Female 55 is also in this shelter but not visible on this morning.

On 27 August, the BurrowCam revealed Female 39’s abdomen to be greatly distended, extending all the way to the cloaca. So maybe delivery of her 2015 brood is not far off? The frame grab (below) from the BurrowCam video shows her abdominal scales pulled far apart. In the 50-second video (watch here), you’ll see what I see when we thread the BurrowCam into a passage. Female 39 is identified by red/blue (red-over-blue) paint in her rattle and the edge of another dark gray rattlesnake appears to be visible under 39’s coils. Known to be behind her in the passage (because of their radio signals) are Females 47 and 53, as well as Male 46. Additionally, in recent days, I have seen non-telemetered (and non-pregnant) Female 48 (green/green) and Male 36 (red/red; carrying a failed transmitter) in this log. It’s a popular place this time of year!

Frame grab from a 27 August BurrowCam video of the distended abdomen of telemetered Female 39, deep in her gestation refuge. — Frame grab from a 27 August BurrowCam video showing the distended abdomen of telemetered Female 39, deep in her gestation refuge.

As you may recall, Males 36 and 37 have been missing for months since their transmitters failed prematurely in September and December, respectively. Until last week, Male 36 had been last seen on the BurrowCam in a hollow log courting postpartum Female 41 on 2 October 2014, and I last saw Male 37 as his tail disappeared down a hole on 7 March 2015. There had been no sign of either of them since until a fellow photographer and herpetologist I encounter frequently at Effie Yeaw showed me a photo of Male 37 (IDed by his yellow/red rattle marking) crossing a trail on 20 August! Then, just 5 days later, while checking for babies in the shelter with Females 39, 47 and 54, and Male 46, I was surprised to see Male 36’s red/red rattle. (See photos below) So both are alive and well… but both still elude recapture.

Male36 (red/red paint in rattle) deep inside a hollow log with Female 41 on 02 October 2014.

Male 36 inside another hollow log on 25 August 2015 with at least three pregnant females and a smaller male. Compared to the 2 October photo (above), note that he has two additional rattle segments between the paint and the live black segment, indicating he has shed twice in the past ten months.

Earlier today, 29 August, I found Male 46 coiled in poison oak dozens of meters away from the log where he has been hanging out with the three pregnant girls continuously for the past two weeks. It is likely he has been chased off by a larger male, so maybe Male 36 is still in there. This refuge has a narrow deep passage that is nearly impossible to thread the BurrowCam into and, even when successful, I can usually only see whichever rattlesnake is closest to the top (for example, the 50-second video of Female 39, with the link earlier in this post).

So Baby Watch continues and I still hope to recapture missing Males 36 and 37.

Pregnant females, injuries, and shedding

First a quick general update: Spring courtship seems to be over; I have not seen a courting pair since 16 May. Since the end of May, the pregnant females have taken up refuge in ideal shelters where they can thermoregulate optimally. Females 39 and 41 are now in the same shelters where they gave birth last year (but not together) and Female 47 is with 39. Female 54 is by herself and has not moved since we implanted a transmitter and released her on 23 May. Neither 47 nor 54 were telemetered last year so I have no history for them. These soon-to-be mothers are all maintaining body temperatures within a couple of degrees of 30C (86F). The males and Female 53 (not pregnant?) have been hunting, mostly hanging around California ground squirrel burrows for the past month as the squirrels produce the first pups of the season (more on hunting ground squirrels) and the body temperatures of these foraging snakes has varied widely compared to the pregnant females (more on body temps).

In my last post, I showed you a photo of an unidentified rattlesnake in the refuge with Female 41 – the same refuge where Females 41 and 43 had babies last year. (You may remember that Female 43 was found dead at the refuge last October; click here for that account) While I could only see the new snake’s nose and a small area of flank at the first encounter, I saw her twice more over the next eight days. She was shades of dark brown, while Female 41 is quite pretty with chocolate brown dorsal blotches on a gray background. During the subsequent two sightings, I could also see the new animal’s rattle, which was long and unbroken (i.e., she still had her birth button). Then a week ago, I found Female 41 and the new rattlesnake basking next to each other and was able to capture the new animal (CROR55).

The first thing I noticed was that she was pre-shed. That is, her eyes and new rattle segment were milky white (more about shedding below). The next important discovery was that she is, indeed, a female – and quite heavy…maybe pregnant. A photo of her snout (bottom photo, below), when compared to the nose in the photos of the unidentified rattlesnake on 3 June (top photo, below) confirms that she is the same animal.

I have numbered some landmark scales in these photos that you can compare but also compare the size and arrangement of surrounding unnumbered scales. And while the fine pigmentation of the individual scales is obscured in the pre-shed photo, I have circled some larger pigmented areas that are visible. Keep in mind that the photos were taken from slightly different angles, making some scales that are visible in one hard or impossible to see in the other. The size, number, and arrangement of nose and crown scales on these rattlesnakes are a bit like fingerprints on primates: they are individually unique, so far as we know. Also note the whitish eyes and how the scales on her nose appear a bit swollen in the pre-shed photo.

As I examined her further, I made another interesting discovery: she has sustained a serious injury to her abdomen sometime in the past. Although well healed now, her skin is scarred on the dorsal midline 575 mm (23 in) from her nose (her body length, excluding tail [snout-vent length or SVL] is 720 mm [28 in]). Furthermore, her body is noticeably narrowed at the scar (photo below) and her abdomen is hard and dense to the touch for several inches on both sides of the scar.

Nonetheless, she looks and acts healthy and might, indeed, be pregnant. I could feel two masses in her anterior abdomen that were consistent with fetuses but could not differentiate anything posteriorly where her abdomen is apparently scarred internally. She would normally be a great transmitter candidate but I elected to release her without one because of the suspected internal scarring where the transmitter would be implanted, plus I did not want to damage her skin as she prepares to shed.

This brings up the point that life is not easy for these snakes. In addition to this healed injury to Female 55 and the death of Female 43 last year, you may remember that I processed and released a small male (CROR44) early last December that had recently sustained some significant trauma from a predator, including a deep penetrating abdominal wound that I suspected would prove fatal over the winter (more details). While processing Male 52 early last month, I removed a “foxtail” (a seed from one of the non-native Bromus grasses that blanket the preserve) from his cloaca (cloaca defined). This little floral harpoon had not yet caused much damage but I don’t know what would have prevented it from burrowing into his abdomen and causing a potentially fatal injury. My point is that these rattlesnakes, despite their formidable reputation, are susceptible to constant hazards.

Shedding (the technical term is ecdysis) is the sloughing or molting of the outer epidermal layer (the stratum corneum) in scaled reptiles. This corneal layer is a matrix of keratin (the same material as your hair and fingernails – and the rattlesnake’s rattle!) infused with lipid (fat) molecules that greatly slows the passage of water through the skin. Because this matrix is acellular (contains no cells), it cannot grow. Thus, as the snake grows, this layer must be replaced periodically. When the time comes, the snake’s body produces a new corneal layer under the old one. This creates the blue or whitish tint, most notable in the eyes. In rattlesnakes, a new segment is produced at the base of the rattle during each shed, which is also whitish at this stage. Once the new corneal layer is ready, the snake’s body secretes fluid between the old and new layers, separating them and softening the old one. When this fluid is secreted, the whitish color disappears (the eyes clear) and the snake is ready to shed. They then rub their face on any available surface and start to peel back the old layer from around the nose and mouth (photo below). They continue rubbing, eventually crawling out of the old “skin,” leaving it inside-out, usually in one piece.

A 10-day-old Northern Pacific Rattlesnake beginning his post-partum shed while being processed during my El Dorado Hills field study. — A 10-day-old Northern Pacific Rattlesnake beginning her post-partum shed while being processed during my El Dorado Hills field study. (Also note the “birth button” at the end of her tail)

I’ll leave it there until next time, when I’ll explain rattle growth and trying to estimate age from the rattle.

Mike

19 April: Things heat up and more courtship

The little male courting Female 47 in the video I posted on 4 April continued to court her until at least 11 April, staying with her a total of 9 days that I observed. During that time, the female made several short moves of just a few meters and I never observed any indication that she did anything but ignore the male. Presuming that she was trying to hunt (these rattlesnakes are predominantly sit-and-wait ambush predators), it is hard to imagine that she could have had much success with his nearly constant movement. Despite my best efforts, the little male evaded several attempts to catch him. On two occasions, I actually had him but was unable to get him into a bag before he wiggled loose and disappeared into thick grass. On both occasions, I was sure I had spooked him and he would abandon the female but he didn’t. He only became more wary and would vanish instantly the moment he detected my approach. Since I have enough photographs to identify him in the future, I have given him the next identification number: CROR51.

Then on 13 April, I found that Female 47 had made a 97 m (318 feet) move out into the meadow. When I located her, she was under a mat of old dry grass beneath the living grass. I did not find Male 51 with her but, because I had to dig around in the grass to find her, he certainly had time to flee unobserved. She was in the same spot with no other snake observed on 15 April, too. On 17 April, she had moved 58 m southeast, back into the edge of the forest. She was coiled in the grass, apparently hunting and alone.

Today, 19 April, she had moved only a couple of meters. But as I got close to her signal, a rattlesnake shot out of the grass near my feet and under a nearby log – Male51! When I actually found Female 47, she was about 5 m from where I had flushed Male 51 and I saw why Male 51 was not with her. She was being vigorously courted by Male 49, a much larger male that was processed and released in early March without a transmitter. In fact, Male 49 had courted this female between 22–26 March at another location 150 m away. You can see the value of marking the rattles with paint in the photo from today (below), Female 47’s rattle is marked with yellow/green paint and Male 49 is marked with white/green. Since Male 49 is not telemetered, he would not be identifiable without the paint in his rattle.

Sadly, Female 39’s radio signal disappeared on 3 April. Of the six animals implanted with that batch of refurbished transmitters, five failed early. I have found and replaced transmitters in three of them, Males 35, 38 and 40. At present, Males 36 and 37 and Female 39 are carrying transmitters with prematurely dead batteries. I am still hoping to either find them courting or being courted by telemetered snakes or to have them turn up around the buildings or Maidu Village where staff can capture them.

Now that we have accumulated some data this spring with three females that are not incubating late-term embryos, I can demonstrate more effectively a behavior I mentioned last year. During the last 2–3 months of pregnancy (generally about mid-July to October), females find shelters where they can thermoregulate to stay within a narrow body temperature range. That is, they need a shelter that keeps them warm at night but where they are protected from the midday heat. I have repeated the chart from last year below on the left, showing the body temperatures of two late-term pregnant females compared to the males. The chart on the right is corresponding data from this spring, comparing body temperatures of non-gestating females with the males.

In these charts, “frequency” is the percentage of observations where I recorded each body temperature for that sex during that period. In 2014, the average male body temp was 24C (75F) while the female average was 30C (86F). This spring, males have averaged 24C (75F) and females 22C (72F). Of course, the weather is cooler in the spring (even this spring) than in summer but there is ample opportunity for these snakes to get their body temperatures up above 30C (by late morning, ground surface temperatures are often above 40C in direct sunlight, even when air temps are relatively cool). But my point is that there is no real difference between average male and female body temperatures before the pregnant females go into their late-term thermoregulatory behavior… which is evident in the late summer data above where body temps of the pregnant females narrowly cluster around 30C (86F).

(For you statisticians that may read this, I admit that these data are not publishable in this form as they contain some significant pseudoreplication. Nonetheless, they serve to illustrate my point that gestating vs non-gestating female body temps are very different.)

Hopefully, we will get a few more females telemetered in the next month or so and, by mid summer, we should know if any are going to reproduce this season.

Stay tuned!