On Monday, 7 September, I found Female 53 missing from the hollow log where she had been gestating with Female 39, who was still present. This is the hollow log where I photographed a new baby on 6 September (see my last post) and I could glimpse youngsters deep inside the log again on the 7th. After considerable searching, I detected 53’s radio signal and followed it to a sycamore tree near the edge of the American River, 368 meters (402 yards) from where she had been. Since that day, she has moved a hundred meters or so back toward the oak woodland but has settled into a small cavity in the rocky riverbed.
This morning, 15 September, I found multiple shed “skins” from babies back at the hollow log and Female 39 was gone. I had checked the log yesterday and found no neonatal sheds.
Female 39’s radio signal led me to her 195 meters away, where she was coiled in dappled sun with lots of loose skin hanging on her. The babies shedding over the past 20 hours and the departure of Female 39 confirms that the kids were hers and were only a day or two old when discovered on 6 September (about 11 days between birth and the postpartum shed). Inspection of the inside of the log today with the BurrowCam revealed no rattlesnakes.
Then, when I checked Female 53 in her rocky riverbed hole this morning, she no longer appeared pregnant. In the BurrowCam video (link after the still photos below), look closely beyond her, just right of the center of the frame (next to the snail), beginning about 41 seconds into the clip. For the next 8 seconds, you can see a shiny wet baby moving behind her! I have circled the place to look in this still frame:
Also, compare the appearance of her abdomen in today’s video to her 3 September photo (in my last post).
Today’s 60-second BurrowCam video can be viewed on YouTube (click here).
Meanwhile, Female 75 remains in her burrow, still without kids, while Female 80 is still high on the bluff and inaccessible.
Well, we are entering that time of the season when we can expect to find baby rattlesnakes any day now. Of course, the youngsters will not be roaming around where they might encounter people for about 10-14 days after birth…so we usually don’t encounter them on trails and in yards until early September.
But our six telemetered females are displaying a variety of behaviors indicating that all may not be about to produce babies. Six weeks ago I reported that Females 39, 41, and 53 were all pregnant and in the gestation shelters they have used repeatedly to thermoregulate before giving birth in previous years. Furthermore, I could feel six fetuses in Female 80’s belly when I implanted her transmitter in June.
Since that mid-July report, Females 39 and 53 have behaved predictably for expecting moms, remaining in their gestation shelter, and both appear to be about to produce kids. In the photos below, note the abdominal girth of these females, with scales pulled widely apart.
This will be the third consecutive year that Female 39 has produced offspring and the second for Female 53, so far as we know. We were not monitoring them previously. Between the first of July and yesterday, 23 August, the average body temps for Females 39 and 53 have been 28C (82F) and 29C (84F), respectively.
Six weeks ago, Female 41 had just returned to the gestation shelter she used the previous two years, which led me to believe she was likely pregnant again. However, after staying only three weeks, she left and has been spending her days mostly out of sight in various ground squirrel burrows during August. I have not been able to get a good look at her in recent weeks but her behavior and average body temperature of 26C (79F) suggest that she may not reproduce this year. Although Female 41 produced kids in both 2014 and 2015, I want to remind readers that skipping a year or two between broods is far more common than annual reproduction for temperate-latitude pitvipers.
Our remaining three telemetered females are new to the study this year, so I have no data from previous years. Female 66 has behaved quite normally for a non-reproductive year: hunting continuously throughout the spring and summer. Her July-August average body temp has been 22C (72F).
Female 75, however, appears ready to produce babies, although she has been moving back and forth frequently between two ground squirrel burrows 17 meters (56 feet) apart. Her average body temperature during July and August has been 27C (81F).
Finally, there is Female 80. When I captured her and implanted her transmitter in June, I could clearly feel six fetuses lined up in her abdomen. Shortly after I released her at her capture site near the base of the bluff, she climbed up the hillside and has remained near the top ever since. On three occasions, I have climbed that steep, loose, and treacherous slope but have failed to locate her. Her radio signal seems to emanate from thick ornamental ivy growing down from a residential backyard under fig and valley oak trees. She is also just above an underground wasp nest. Just to be clear, I am far more comfortable with rattlesnakes than a nest of wasps – especially where I cannot easily run away! Since I have no previous data from her, she could be in her usual gestation shelter. However, her July-August body temperatures are not consistent with a gestating female, with an average of 23C (73F). I’m not sure how this is going to play out…
Just for comparison, the seven telemetered males have been moving around a lot, hunting and occasionally hanging out with the pregnant girls for a day or two at a time. Their average July-August body temps range from 17C (63F) to 26C (79F), with the average between the boys of 23C (73F). Note how closely these data match non-reproductive Female 66’s average body temp of 22C (72F) during the same period.
That’s it for now. Next post will almost certainly be (cute!?!?) baby pics!
We currently have transmitters implanted in six female rattlesnakes. We have been tracking Female 39 since 2014 and Females 41 and 53 since 2015 and all are currently pregnant and in their gestation shelters where they will likely thermoregulate for six weeks or more. Furthermore, they have all produced a brood during each season we have been following them, so this will be the third year in a row for Female 39 and the second in a row for 41 and 53. And we don’t know how many consecutive years they might have reproduced before that! Each has returned to the same gestation refuge each year, although 41 uses a different location than 39 and 53, who gestate together. We have also found pregnant unmarked females in both places in past seasons with these girls.
That’s not all. We have three new females this season, numbers 66, 75 and 80. These snakes do not appear to have settled into gestation shelters yet (and I don’t know where they were in previous years) but I just implanted a transmitter in Female 80 a few weeks ago and could feel six fetuses in her belly…it felt like she had swallowed six soft ping pong balls! I’m not sure about the reproductive status of 66 and 75, since their surgeries were earlier in the year and both had so much material in their intestines that it made identifying small embryos with confidence difficult.
Another opportunity to assess the health and growth of the rattlesnakes at Effie Yeaw Nature Center occurred day-before-yesterday (13 July) when Kelly came across an adult rattlesnake at the end of the Visitor Center building early in the morning. Per protocol, she expertly maneuvered it into the capture bag and deposited it in the holding barrel for me. It turned out to be Male 52, a rattlesnake previously captured, processed, and released without a transmitter early in May 2015. At that time, he was 30.7 inches in total length and weighed 11.6 ounces. He now measures 33.5 inches and weighs 18.9 ounces. While increasing 9% in length and 63% in mass in 14 months, he has shed three times (see photo below).
The constant growth of all the rattlesnakes being sampled and the annual reproduction of many of the females attests to the health of not just the rattlesnake population but the overall small animal community in the riparian habitat at Effie Yeaw Nature Center. While the region is undeniably in a severe long-term drought, enough local rainfall has occurred to keep the annual plants, shrubs, some trees, and the food web they support healthy.
Finally, I want to share with you a little bit about a presentation I made at the annual Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists last week in New Orleans. I have reproduced the published abstract (summary) of my talk below. Please excuse the Latin names. Crotalus scutulatus is the scientific term for the Mohave rattlesnake and Crotalus oreganus is our own northern Pacific rattlesnake. While recent drought has not yet affected the rattlesnakes or their prey in the areas of northern California I have sampled, 2002 was a rainless year in the Mohave Desert, with no plant growth and a dramatic reduction in the availability of kangaroo rats and other small mammals that make up the great majority of the rattlesnakes’ diet there. During 2002, Mohave rattlesnakes changed their behavior very significantly, staying tightly coiled and avoiding wind and sun while moving very little and not courting or mating.
The take-home message I delivered in New Orleans was that (1) these animals are used to hot dry summers and get most of their water from their prey; (2) regional drought does not necessarily equal local drought; (3) rattlesnake behavior is probably not affected by drought until prey availability is affected; (4) water-stressed rattlesnakes minimize exposed skin by remaining coiled most of the time; (5) when water-stressed, they don’t move more, they move a lot less than usual; and (6) there is no evidence that they leave their normal home range during a drought.
In other words, there is zero evidence to support the frequent news media claims that drought drives rattlesnakes into yards.