Home Range Analysis of Timber Rattlesnakes

(Crotalus horridus)
Taylor Bookout, Ian Armesy, Samson Myers, Dr. Scott Eckert
Principia College

TIMBER RATTLESNAKES, WHY SHOULD WE CARE?

Populations are in decline

throughout most of their range

These snakes have been persecuted,

hunted for their skins, trapped and

sold into the pet trade, and killed
due to fear and ignorance
Habitat destruction and

fragmentation is extensive due to

logging, agriculture and human
habitation

INTRO
The timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) is a

Threatened species in Illinois, and one of the primary

reasons for its decline is habitat destruction.
Only 1% of pre-settlement forest remains in Illinois
The 2500 acre Principia College forest is prime

timber rattlesnake habitat, and supports a number of

winter hibernacula.
Large tracts of campus are

forested; ~80%

Source: The Changing Illinois Environment:

Critical Trends. Volume 3: Ecological
Resources. Illinois Natural History Survey,
1994.

INTRO: HOME RANGE

Home range: The general area around an

animals home where it carries out its daily

activities (W.H. Burt 1943)
Now expanded to include seasonally used

habitats, breeding sites and migration

corridors.
Understanding animal fidelity to their

home range areas is important in managing

critical habitats for those species.

http://designforlife.com.sg/thesis/fig41.jpg

METHODS
Snakes tracked using VHF telemetry
Located daily and coordinates gathered with GPS
Habitat identified surrounding each encounter

Used BIOTAS 2.0 to create 95% minimum convex polygons and Kernel

estimations around data points from 2015 and 2016

Mapped in ArcGIS

Area of overlap used to calculate site fidelity

METHODS: HABITAT
Habitats were classified as one of the

following categories at each snake

encounter
Forest is habitat with trees greater than 3m in

height
Edge habitat are the areas with in 5m of a fieldforest edge
Fields are areas with grass as the primary plant
Bluff areas are all areas on or near the bluff face
including rock outcrops and bluff prairies
Other areas included landscaped garden and
road edge

2015 HOME RANGE

In 2015, 11 rattlesnakes were radio

tracked for 141 days

10 snakes had enough data to
calculate home ranges
The average home range size was
33.5 ha
Male home ranges ranged from
64.66 ha to 13 ha and averaged
39.13 ha
Females had smaller home ranges
with the largest being 48.47 ha and
the smallest being 4.14 ha with an
average of 25.07 ha

2015 Home Ranges

Snake

Sex Area (ha)

1 F
4.14
2 F
29.60
3 M
64.66
5 F
48.47
6 M
32.81
7 M
40.50
8 F
18.06
9 M
30.51
10 M
12.98
11 M
53.32
Average
33.50

2016 HOME RANGE

Home range size ranged from

115.58 ha to 0.17 ha and averaged

27.19 ha
Males home ranges ranged from

0.71 ha to 115.58 ha and averaged

17.77
Non gravid females had 3.54 ha and

9.36 ha home ranges with an

average of 6.45 ha
The one gravid females home range

is 0.17ha

2016 Home Ranges

Snake Sex
2
F
3
M
5
F
6
M
7
M
8
F
10
M
11
M

2016
9.36
23.26
3.54
17.54
47.35
0.17
0.71
115.58

2015 HABITAT USE

Snakes spent 46.8% of their time on edge areas with short transit times

within the forest

2016 HABITAT USE

50% of snakes are spending > 50% of time in
forest
51% of the encounters occur in forested habitats

Average Percent of Observations in Habitats

Forested Edge
Average % 50.60

18.73

Field

Bluff

Other

10.56

16.33

3.78

DISCUSSION: OVERLAP
3 snakes had a greater than 50%
overlap of their 2016 and 2015
home ranges
5 snakes had a less than 50%
overlap of their 2016 and 2015
home ranges
The average home range overlap
between 2016 and 2015 was
53.41%

Area of 2016 Home Range within 2015 HR

Snake Sex
2
F
3
M
5
F
6
M
7
M
8
F
10
M
11
M

2015
29.60
64.66
48.47
32.81
40.50
18.06
12.98
53.32

2016
9.36
23.26
3.54
17.54
47.35
0.17
0.71
115.58

% Overlap
86.52
26.84
31.60
93.22
74.51
41.67
46.19
26.73

HOME RANGE FIDELITY

Snakes 2, 6 and 7 are using about the same areas that they did last year

Snake 7

Snake 6

Snake 2

2016

2015

HOME RANGE FIDELITY

Snake 3 is foraging outside its 2015
range in a forested area
Snake 5 is not using full extent of
range yet
2015 data not complete for this
time period
Snake was lost for about a
month in 2015

Snake 3

Snake 5

HOME RANGE FIDELITY

Snake 11 is using an area outside 2015
range as he was only tracked starting
7/7/15
2015 home range only accounts for half of
tracking year
Our largest snake which accounts for the
larger size of his home range
Some of the 2016 range includes his mating
season movements
Snake 5

DISCUSSION: ANOMALIES
Snake 8 is gravid in 2016 and is
remaining on the bluffs near her
hibernacula
Snake 10 was killed on 6/12/16 and
only began entering 2015 home range

Snake 8

Snake 10

HOME RANGE COMPARISONS

Home range had only slight differences between sexes in 2015*
*Only for the 8 snakes tracked in both years
Greater difference between sexes in 2016
Snake 11 was not included in average male size as his home range
is considerably larger and appears to be abnormal and not useful
Home Range Size (Ha)
as only half is available from 2015

Average Home Range Size (ha)

2015

2016

Non gravid Female

Male
Gravid Female

32.04
37.74
-

6.45
17.77
0.71

Snake
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
11

Sex
F
M
F
M
M
F
M
M

2015
29.60
64.66
48.47
32.81
40.50
18.06
12.98
53.32

2016
9.36
23.26
3.54
17.54
47.35
0.17
0.71
115.58

Delta
-20.24
-41.40
-44.93
-15.28
6.86
-17.89
-12.26
62.26

DISCUSSION: HABITAT USE

In 2015 more than 50% of all foraging locations
were in edge effect
In 2016 51% of the foraging areas were in
forested habitats
The reason for the change in foraging strategy is
unclear
Still only half a year of data and behavior may
change
Average Percent of Observations in Habitats
Average %

Forested

Edge

Field

Bluff

Other

50.60

18.73

10.56

16.33

3.78

WHY ARE SNAKES BEHAVING DIFFERENTLY?

Less precipitation
2015: 16.80 with more rain in June*

2016: 12.61 very little rain in June*

Possibly used more edge habitats as they were warmer and dryer with more sun

exposure than deep woods

A better set of data in 2016

Snakes located daily
Snake locations are more accurate

*www.wunderground.com/history

CONCLUSIONS
Snakes are using some of the areas they did last year but with some

variation
Gravid female is using less area focused on the bluffs near her hibernacula
Snake 5 is not foraging as far from the dens
Snakes 3, 7, and 11 are using different areas farther outside their 2015 range

Snakes seem to be largely utilizing forested areas so far this season for

foraging and transit

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank The National Great Rivers Research & Education

Center for funding our research and to Principia College for providing
room and board. I appreciate all the hard work of my co-interns and for
the guidance of Dr. Scott Eckert.

QUESTIONS?