Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Publicado
Habitat selection of the Central American boa Boa imperator (Serpentes, Boidae) in a pasture landscape of Costa Rica
Selección del hábitat de la boa centroamericana Boa imperator (Serpentes, Boidae) en un pastizal de Costa Rica
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/caldasia.v48.117203Palabras clave:
generalist, home range, radiotracking, sit-and-wait, translocated snakes (en)Acecho, dominio vital, generalista, radioseguimiento, serpientes translocadas (es)
Descargas
The Central American boa has large populations, a wide distribution and inhabits natural, and anthropized environments alike. However, human activity can negatively affect some populations’ viability, raising the need for conservation plans. Knowing the habitat requirements is essential in order to apply corrective measures, such as translocation programs, but also to establish control policies in the places where this species may be invasive. In this study, we monitored nine radio tagged Central American boas, five of them were translocated, in pasturelands of Costa Rica. The snakes behaved as a sit and wait predator, hiding in holes or shelters most of the time (76 % of locations) and passing up to 36 days in the same hole. Home ranges (MPCs: 4.8554.39 ha) did not show differences between sexes or between translocated and resident individuals. Analyses on relation of available and used habitat pointed out that the Central American boa selected positively buildings, crops and riparian habitats while avoiding forests and pasturelands. Two snakes did not perform habitat selection while the remaining seven showed great variability, selecting each snake different habitat types. Hence, this study shows that the Central American boa behaves as a generalist species that benefits by inhabiting human transformed ecosystems. This, combined with the fact that it remains hidden most of the time, makes locating and removing strategies difficult, enhancing its invasive potential.
La boa centroamericana mantiene poblaciones abundantes, una amplia distribución y habita entornos naturales y antropizados. Sin embargo, la actividad humana puede afectar negativamente la viabilidad de algunas poblaciones que podrían necesitar la adopción de medidas de conservación. Conocer sus requerimientos de hábitat resulta imprescindible para implementar medidas correctivas, tales como programas de translocación. También lo es para la aplicación de políticas de control en aquellos lugares donde esta especie invasiva pudiera establecerse. En este estudio realizamos el radioseguimiento de nueve boas centroamericanas, cinco de ellas translocadas, en pastizales de Costa Rica. Las serpientes se comportaron como depredadores acechadores, permaneciendo escondidas en cavidades o refugios la mayor parte (76 %), llegando a ocupar una misma cavidad hasta 36 días. No se observaron diferencias entre sexos ni entre individuos residentes y translocados en la extensión del dominio vital (MPCs=4.85-54.39 ha). Los análisis sobre la relación entre el uso y la disponibilidad del hábitat indicaron que esta especie seleccionó positivamente edificaciones, cultivos y hábitats riparios, evitando bosques y pastizales. Dos serpientes no realizaron selección de hábitat, mientras que las siete restantes mostraron gran variabilidad, seleccionando diferentes tipos de hábitat. Este estudio muestra que la boa centroamericana es una especie generalista que se beneficia ocupando ecosistemas transformados por el hombre. Esto, unido a que la mayor parte del tiempo permanece oculta, puede dificultar la adopción de medidas para su localización y erradicación, aumentando el potencial invasivo de la especie.
Referencias
Bartoszek IA, Smith BJ, Reed RN, Hart KM. 2021. Spatial ecology of invasive Burmese pythons in southwestern Florida. Ecosphere. 12(6): e03564. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3564.
Baxley DL, Qualls CP. 2009. Black Pine Snake (Pituophismelanoleucuslodingi): Spatial Ecology and Associations between Habitat Use and Prey Dynamics. J. Herpetol. 43(2): 284-293. doi: https://doi.org/10.1670/08-074R1.1
Bernat-P E, Gil-Delgado JA, López-I GM. 2022. Efectos de las características de las ciudades occidentales contemporáneas sobre la avifauna urbana. Ecosistemas 31(1): 2158. doi: https://doi.org/10.7818/ECOS.2158
Bouskila A. 1995. Interactions between predation risk and competition: a field study of kangaroo rats and snakes. Ecology. 76(1): 165-178. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1940639.
Buchnan SW, Timm BC, Cook RP, Couse R, Hazard LC. 2017. Spatial Ecology and Habitat Selection of Eastern Hognose Snakes J. Wildl. Manage. 81(3): 509-520. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21218.
Burger RM. 2018. The Banana Industry: A Zoological Goldmine. Bull. Chic. Herpetol. Soc. 53(9): 191-192.
Calenge C. 2006. The package “adehabitat” for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol. Model. 197(3-4): 516-519. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.03.017.
De la Quintana P, Rivas JA, Valdivia F, Pacheco LF. 2017. Home range and habitat use of Beni anacondas (Eunectes beniensis) in Bolivia. Amphib.-Reptil. 38(4): 547-553. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00003124.
Donald PF, Evans AD. 2006. Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider implications of agri-environment schemes. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 209-218. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01146.x.
Dodd CK Jr. 1993. Strategies for snake conservation. In: Seigel RA, Collins JT, editors. Snakes: Ecology and Behavior. Caldwell, New Jersey: The Blackburn Press;p. 363-393.
Donald PF, Green RN, Heath MF. 2001. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of European’s farmland bird populations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 268: 25-29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1325.
Dorcas ME, Willson JD, Gibbons JW. 2011. Can invasive Burmese pythons inhabit temperate regions of the southeastern United States?. Biol. Invasions 13: 793-802. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9869-6.
Downes SJ. 2002. Size-dependent predation by snakes: selective foraging or differential prey vulnerability?. Behav. Ecol. 13(4): 551-560. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/13.4.551.
Drechsler R, Vilalta M, Monrós JS. 2016. Analysis of movement patterns and macrohabitat use in Hermann’s tortoises (Testudo hermanni hermanni, Gmelin 1789) reintroduced in a coastal area dominated by pinewood in eastern Spain. Amphib.-Reptil. 37(4): 359-371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00003065.
Duque-T D, Aponte-G A, Molina-M T, Arteaga A. c2024. Central American Boa (Boa imperator). In: Arteaga A, Bustamante L, Vieira J, editors. Reptiles of Ecuador: Life in the middle of the world.. [Last accessed: 29 oct 2025] doi: https://doi.org/10.47051/DVNA9462
Eichhorn M. 2016. Natural systems: the organisation of life. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118905982
Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK. 2005. Global Consequences of Land Use. Science 309: 570-574. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772.
Freitas C. Kovacs KM, Lydersen C. Ims RA. 2008. A novel method for quantifying habitat selection and predicting habitat use. J. Appl. Ecol. 45: 1213-1220. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01505.x.
Gómez J, Gil-Delgado JA, Monrós JS. 2001. Double-brooding in the Boat-billed Heron. Waterbirds 24(2): 282-284. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1522043.
Hart KM, Cherkiss MS, Smith BJ, Mazzotti FJ, Fujisaki I, Snow RW, Dorcas ME. 2015. Home range, habitat use, and movement patterns of non-native Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park, Florida, USA. Anim. Biotelemetry 3(1): 8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-015-0022-2.
Heard GW, Black D, Robertson P. 2004. Habitat use by the inland carpet python (Morelia spilota metcalfei: Pythonidae): seasonal relationships with habitat structure and prey distribution in a rural landscape. Austral Ecol. 29: 446-460. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2004.01383.x.
Holtzman D, Shifley S, Sisson D. 2007. Spatial ecology of resident and displaced Boa constrictors (Boa constrictor imperator) on Ometepe island, Nicaragua: implications for conservation. In. Henderson RW, Powell R, editors. Biology of Pythons and Boas. Utah, USA: Eagle Mountain Publishing. p. 364-372.
Julliard R, Jiguet F, Couvet D. 2004. Evidence for the impact of global warming on the long-termpopulation dynamicsof common birds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271: 490-492. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2004.0229.
Khan I. 2018. The Burmese Python: An Invasive Species Who Eats to Its Heart’s Content. Eukaryon 14: 103-105.
Krysko K. c2017. Boa imperator (Central American Boa) Invasive species compendium. [Last accessed: 18 jun 2020] doi: https://doi.org/10.1079/cabicompendium.112730.
Leclerc M, VandeWal E, Zedrosser A, Swenson JE, Kindberg J, Pelletier F. 2016. Quantifying consistent individual differences in habitat selection. Oecologia 180: 697-705. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3500-6.
Luiselli L. 2006. Food niche overlap between sympatric potential competitors increases with habitat alteration at different trophic levels in rain-forest reptiles (omnivorous tortoises and carnivorous vipers). J. Trop. Ecol. 22(6): 695-704. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467406003634.
Madsen T, Shine R. 1993. Costs of reproduction in a population of European adders. Oecologia 94(4): 488-495. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00566963.
Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL. 2002. Resource selection by animals: Statistical design and analysis for field studies. London: Chapman and Hall.
Martínez-M MA, Cuarón AD. 1999. Boa constrictor, an introduced predator threatening the endemic fauna on Cozumel Island, Mexico. Biodivers. Conserv. 8(7): 957-963. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008815004072.
Mayor SJ, Schneider DC, Schaeffer JA, Mahoney SP. 2009. Habitat selection at multiple scales. Ecoscience 16(2): 238-247. doi: https://doi.org/10.2980/16-2-3238.
Mena-V O. 2002. Estudio poblacional de productos no maderables del bosque (PNMB) en un bosque secundario en Santa Clara, Florencia, San Carlos. [Proyecto de Graduación]. [Cartago, Costa Rica]: Escuela de Ingeniería Forestal, Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica.
Moen R., Pastor J., and Cohen Y. 1997. Accuracy of GPS telemetry collar locations with differential correction. J. Wildl. Manag. 61: 530-539. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3802612.
Monrós JS. 1997. El dominio vital y algunos aspectos de la ecología de la culebra bastarda Malpolon monspessulanus en los naranjales. [Doctoral Thesis]. [Valencia]: Universidad de Valencia.
Montgomery GG, Rand AS. 1978. Movements, body temperature and hunting strategy of a Boa constrictor. Copeia 1978(3): 532-533. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1443622
Montgomery CE, da Cunha O. c2018. Boa imperator. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018. [Last accessed: 29 oct 2025] doi: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T203879A2771951.en.
Newman BC, Henke SE, Wester DB, Shedd TM, Perotto-B HL, Rudolph DC. 2019. Determining the suitability of the Jamaican Boa (Chilabothrus subflavus) for short-distance translocation in Cockpit Country, Jamaica. Caribb. J. Sci. 49(2-3): 222-238. doi: https://doi.org/10.18475/cjos.v49i2.a11.
Pearson D, Shine R, Williams A. 2003. Thermal biology of large snakes in cool climates: a radio-telemetric study of carpet pythons (Morelia spilota imbricata) in south-western Australia. J. Therm. Biol. 28: 117-131. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4565(02)00048-7.
Pearson D, Shine R, Williams A. 2005. Spatial ecology of a threatened python (Morelia spilota imbricata) and the effects of anthropogenic habitat change. Austral Ecol. 30(3): 261-274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2005.01462.x.
Pough FH, Andrews RM, Cadle JE, Crump ML, Savitzky AH, Wells KD. 2001. Herpetology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Quintino EP, Bicca-M JC. 2013. Predation of Alouatta puruensis by Boa constrictor. Primates 54: 325-330. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-013-0377-z
QGIS Development Team. c2018. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. [Last accessed: 29 oct 2025] http://qgis.osgeo.org.
R Core Team c2025. R: A language and Environment for Statistical Computing. [Last accessed: 29 oct 2025] http://www.R-project.org/.
Reed RN, Rodda GH. 2009. Giant constrictors: biological and management profiles and an establishment risk assessment for nine large species of pythons, anacondas, and the boa constrictor. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1202, 302 p. doi: https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20091202.
Reed RN, Boback SM, Montgomery CE., Green S, Stevens Z, Watson D. 2007. Ecology and Conservation of an Exploited Insular Population of Boa constrictor (Squamata: Biodae) on the Cayos Cochinos, Honduras. En: Henderson RW, Powell R, editors. Biology of Boas, Pythons. Utah: Eagle Mountain Publishing. p. 388-403.
Reinert HK, Rupert JrRR. 1999. Impacts of translocation on behavior and survival of timber rattlesnakes, Crotalus horridus. J. Herpetol. 33(1): 45-61. doi:
https://doi.org/10.2307/1565542.
Rempel RS, Rodgers AR. 1997. Effects of differential correction on accuracy of a GPS animal location system. J. Wildlife. Manage. 61(2): 525-530. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3802611.
Rivas JA. 2015. Natural History of the Green Anaconda: With Emphasis on its Reproductive Biology. South Carolina, USA: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.
Romero-N I, Cuarón AD, González-B C. 2006 Distribution, abundance, and habitat use of introduced Boa constrictor threatening the native biota of Cozumel Island, Mexico. In: Hawksworth DL, Bull AT, editors. Vertebrate Conservation and Biodiversity. Dordrecht, Switzerland: Springer.
Ross CT, Winterhalder B. 2015. Sit-and-wait versus active-search hunting: A behavioral ecological model of optimal search mode. J. Theor. Biol. 387: 76-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.09.022.
Secor SM. 1995. Ecological aspects of foraging mode for the snakes Crotaluscerastes and Masticophis flagellum. Herpetol. Monogr. 9: 169-186. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1467004.
Shine R, Ambariyanto, Harlow PS. and Mumpuni. 1999. Reticulated pythons in Sumatra: biology, harvesting and sustainability. Biol. Conserv. 87: 349-357. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00068-8.
Shine R, Goiran C, Shilton C, Meiri S, Brown GP. 2019. The life aquatic: an association between habitat type and skin thickness in snakes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 128: 975-986. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blz136.
Simková O, Frýdlová P, Zampachová B, Frynta D, Landova E. 2017. Development of behavioural profile in the Northern common boa (Boa imperator): Repeatable independent traits or personality?. PloS One 12(5): e0177911. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177911.
Slip DJ, Shine R. 1988. Feeding habits of the diamond python, Morelia s. spilota: ambush predation by a boid snake. J. Herpetol. 22(3): 323-330. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1564156.
Smaniotto NP, Moreira LF, Rivas JA, Strüssmann C. 2020. Home range size, movement, and habitat use of yellow anacondas (Eunectes notaeus). Salamandra 56(2): 141-150.
Smith SN, Jones MD, Marshall BM, Waengsothorn S, Gale GA, Strine CT. 2021. Native Burmese pythons exhibit site fidelity and preference for aquatic habitats in an agricultural mosaic. Sci. Rep. 11: 7014. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86640-1.
Suárez-A M, Cuarón AD, Vázquez-D E. 2019. Deciphering Geographical Affinity and Reconstructing Invasion Scenarios of Boa imperator on the Caribbean Island of Cozumel. Copeia 107(4): 606-621. doi: https://doi.org/10.1643/CG-18-102
Vázquez-D E, Suárez-A M, Booth W, González-B C, Cuarón AD. 2012. Genetic evidence of a recent successful colonization of introduced species on islands: Boa constrictor imperator on Cozumel Island. Biol. Invasions 14(10): 2101-2116. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0217-x.
Walters TM, Mazzotti FJ, Fitz HC. 2016. Habitat selection by the invasive species Burmese python in southern Florida. J. Herpetol. 50: 50-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1670/14-098.
Wasko DK, Sasa M. 2009. Activity patterns of a neotropical ambush predator: spatial ecology of the Fer‐de‐lance (Bothrops asper, Serpentes: Viperidae) in Costa Rica. Biotropica 41(2): 241-249. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00464.x.
Wisler C, Hofer U, Arlettaz R. 2008. Snakes and Monocultures: Habitat Selection and Movements of Female Grass Snakes (Natrix natrix L.) in an Agricultural Landscape. J.Herpetol. 42 (2): 337-346. doi: https://doi.org/10.1670/07-027.1.
Zoroa N, Fernández-S MJ, Zoroa P. 2011. A foraging problem: Sit-and-wait versus active predation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 208: 131-141. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.08.001.
Cómo citar
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Descargar cita
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Aquellos autores/as que tengan publicaciones con esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes:
- Los autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra, el cual estará simultáneamente sujeto a la Licencia de reconocimiento de Creative Commons que permite a terceros compartir la obra siempre que se indique su autor y su primera publicación esta revista.
- Los autores/as podrán adoptar otros acuerdos de licencia no exclusiva de distribución de la versión de la obra publicada (p. ej.: depositarla en un archivo telemático institucional o publicarla en un volumen monográfico) siempre que se indique la publicación inicial en esta revista.
- Se permite y recomienda a los autores/as difundir su obra a través de Internet (p. ej.: en archivos telemáticos institucionales o en su página web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, lo cual puede producir intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de la obra publicada. (Véase El efecto del acceso abierto).
