Advertisement

Survival of the Sand Lizard (Lacerta Agilis Linnaeus, 1758) (Sauria, Lacertidae) in Relation to Habitat Quality and Heterogeneity

  • B. Märtens
  • K. Henle
  • W. Kuhn
  • R. Krug
  • K. Jost
  • W.-R. Grosse
  • C. Wissel
Part of the The GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 35)

Abstract

Lizards are important in the biocoenoses of a wide range of habitat types and are politically accepted target species for environmental impact assessments. They play an important part in food chains and are involved in the dynamics of microhabitats (Martens et al. in press). In some states of Germany, the sand lizard became endangered (Heusinger et al. 1992). A decline of the sand lizard, which results mainly from anthropogenic habitat alterations (Blab & Novak 1989), is also reported from England (Corbett 1988), Sweden (Andren et al. 1988), and other countries (Honegger 1981). Despite a large number of descriptive studies on habitat requirements, quantitative habitat models are lacking. This study analyses the significance of habitat quality and heterogeneity for the survival of sand lizards in fragmented landscapes and presents a habitat model to link local demographic data to the landscape level for environmental planning purposes.

Keywords

Plant Community Habitat Quality Landscape Level Environmental Impact Assessment Fragmented Landscape 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrén, C., S. A. Berglind & G. Nilson (1988). Distribution and conservation of the nothernmost populations of the sand lizard Lacerta agilis. Mertensiella 1, 84–85.Google Scholar
  2. Bischoff, W. (1984). Lacerta agilis LINAEUS 1758 - Die Zauneidechse. - In: W. Böhme (ed). Handbuch der Reptilien und Amphibien Europas. AULA, Wiesbaden, pp. 23–68.Google Scholar
  3. Blab, J. & E. Novak (1989). Gefahrdungscharakteristika und Rückgang bei Reptilien. Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 29, 210–214.Google Scholar
  4. Braun-Blanquet, J. (1964). Pflanzensoziologie. Springer, Wien.Google Scholar
  5. Caughley, G. (1980). Analysis of Vertebrate Populations. John Wiley, London.Google Scholar
  6. Corbett, K.F. (1988). Distribution and status of the sand lizard, Lacerta agilis agilis, in Britain. Mertensiella 1, 92–100.Google Scholar
  7. Den Boer, P. (1968). Spreading of risk and stabilization of animal numbers. Acta Biotheoretica 18, 165–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frank, K., M. Drechsler & C. Wissel (1994). Überleben in fragmentierten Lebensräumen - Stochastische Modelle zu Metapopulationen. Zeitschrift für Ökologie und Naturschutz 3, 167–178.Google Scholar
  9. Fuhn, I.E. (1963). Beobachtungen ueber Amphibien- und Reptilien-Bastarde in der freien Wildbahn. Acta Societas Zoologica Bohemica XXVII, 70–73.Google Scholar
  10. Glandt, D. (1991). The vegetation structure preferred by the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) and the common lizard (Lacerta vivipara). Acta Biologica Benrodis 3, 79–86.Google Scholar
  11. Henle, K. (1994). Naturschutzpraxis, Naturschutztheorie und theoretische Ökologie. Zeitschrift für Ökologie und Naturschutz 3, 139–153.Google Scholar
  12. Herter, K. (1940). Über Vorzugstemperaturen von Reptilien. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie 28, 105–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heusinger, G., J.E. Krach, G. Scholl & H. Schmidt (1992). Rote Liste gefährdeter Kriechtiere (Reptilia) Bayerns. Schriftenreihe des Bayerischen Landesamts für Umweltschutz 111, 35–37.Google Scholar
  14. Honegger, R.E. (1981). Threatened Amphibians and Reptiles in Europe. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  15. Jablokov, A.W. (1976). Prytkaja jaschtscheriza. Isd Nauka, Moskau.Google Scholar
  16. Jablokov, A.W., A.S. Baranov & A.S. Rozanov (1980). Population structure, geographic variation, and microphylogenesis of the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). Evolutionary Biology 12, 91–127.Google Scholar
  17. Klewen, R. (1988). Verbreitung und Schutz von Lacerta agilis im Ballungsraum Duisburg/Oberhausen. Mertensiella 1, 178–194.Google Scholar
  18. Krug, R., K. Johst, C. Wissel & B. Märtens (in press). Wirkung der räumlichen Heterogeneität innerhalb eines Habitats auf die mittlere Überlebensdauer einer Population. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie 25.Google Scholar
  19. Märtens, B. & W.R. Große (1996). Fotographische Wiedererkennung bei Zauneidechsen (Lacerta agilis L. 1758) - Adulti und Juvenes. Die Eidechse 7(17), 1–4.Google Scholar
  20. Märtens, B., K. Henle & R.W. Große (in press). Quantifizierung von Habitatqualität der Eidechsen am Beispiel der Zauneidechse (Lacerta agilis L. 1758). Mertensiella 7.Google Scholar
  21. Michels, C. & M. Woike (1994). Schafbeweidung und Naturschutz. Landesanstalt für Ökologie, Bodenordnung und Forsten/Landesamt für Agrarordnung Nordrhein Westfalen Mitteilungen 3/94, 16–25.Google Scholar
  22. Podloucky, R. (1988). Zur Situation der Zauneidechse, Lacerta agilis LINNAEUS, 1758, in Niedersachsen. Mertensiella 1, 146–166.Google Scholar
  23. Rykena, S. (1988). Ei- und Gelegemaße bei Lacerta agilis. Mertensiella 1, 75–83.Google Scholar
  24. Spellerberg, I.F. (1988). Ecology and management of Lacerta agilis-populations in England. - Mertensiella 1, 113–121.Google Scholar
  25. Strijbosch, H. & R.C.M. Creemers (1988). Comparative demography of sympatric populations of Lacerta vivipara und Lacerta agilis. Oecologia 76, 20–26.Google Scholar
  26. Strijbosch, H. & J.J. van Gelder (in press). Population structure of lizards in fragmented landscapes and causes of their decline. - In: W. Böhme, W. Bischoff & T. Ziegler (eds). Herpetologia bonnensis. Prague.Google Scholar
  27. Stoutjesdijk, P & J.J. Barkman (1992). Microclimate, Vegetation and Fauna. Opulus Press, Sweden.Google Scholar
  28. Timofeeff-Ressovsky, N.V., A.V. Jablokov & N.V. Glotov (1977). Grundriß der Populationslehre. Fischer, Jena.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Märtens
    • 1
  • K. Henle
    • 2
  • W. Kuhn
    • 3
  • R. Krug
    • 4
  • K. Jost
    • 4
  • W.-R. Grosse
  • C. Wissel
    • 5
  1. 1.Zoological Institute, Martin-Luther-University Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany
  2. 2.Department Semi-natural LandscapesCentre for Environmental Research (UFZ)LeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Landscape Planning and Ecology, University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  4. 4.Section Ecosystem AnalysisCentre for Environmental Research (UFZ)LeipzigGermany
  5. 5.Section Ecological ModellingCentre for Environmental Research (UFZ)LeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations