Five giant non-native snake species would pose high risks to the health of ecosystems in the United States should they become established in the country, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said today.
A 300-page report prepared by the agency details the risks of nine non-native boa, anaconda and python species that are invasive or potentially invasive in the U.S.
Burmese python (Python molurus), a Giant Constrictor Snake
Photo courtesy of Roy Wood, National Park Service
"Because all nine species share characteristics associated with greater risks, none was found to be a low ecological risk," USGS said in a statement released with the report.
Two of the giant snake species are documented as reproducing in the wild in South Florida, with population estimates for Burmese pythons in the tens of thousands, the agency noted.
A Burmese python peeks over the head of an alligator that holds the python's body in its mouth in Everglades National Park.
Photo courtesy of Lori Oberhofer, National Park Service
Small risk to people
Based on the biology and known natural history of the giant constrictors, individuals of some species may also pose a small risk to people, although most snakes would not be large enough to consider a person as suitable prey, USGS added.
"Mature individuals of the largest species---Burmese, reticulated, and northern and southern African pythons---have been documented as attacking and killing people in the wild in their native range, though such unprovoked attacks appear to be quite rare," the report authors wrote. The snake most associated with unprovoked human fatalities in the wild is the reticulated python.
"The situation with human risk is similar to that experienced with alligators: attacks in the wild are improbable but possible."
"The situation with human risk is similar to that experienced with alligators: attacks in the wild are improbable but possible."
"This report clearly reveals that these giant snakes threaten to destabilize some of our most precious ecosystems and parks, primarily through predation on vulnerable native species," said Robert Reed, a coauthor of the report and a USGS invasive species scientist and herpetologist.
Boa Constrictor (Boa constrictor) at a county park in southeastern Miami.
Photo courtesy of Mike Rochford, University of Florida.
USGS sorted the giant snakes into high-risk and medium-risk categories.
"High-risk species are Burmese pythons, northern and southern African pythons, boa constrictors, and yellow anacondas. High-risk species, if established in this country, put larger portions of the U.S. mainland at risk, constitute a greater ecological threat, or are more common in trade and commerce.
"Medium-risk species were reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda. These species constitute lesser threats in these areas, but still are potentially serious threats.
"Because all nine species share characteristics associated with greater risks, none was found to be low-risk."
A female Burmese python on her nest with eggs. Photo by Jemeema Carrigan, University of Florida. Courtesy of Skip Snow, National Park Service
The USGS scientists who authored the report emphasized that native U.S. birds, mammals, and reptiles in areas of potential invasion have never had to deal with huge predatory snakes before, the agency said in its statement.
"Individuals of the largest three species reach lengths of more than 20 feet and upwards of 200 pounds. The reticulated python is the world's longest snake, and the green anaconda is the heaviest snake. Both species have been found in the wild in South Florida, although breeding populations are not yet confirmed for either.
"Breeding populations have been confirmed in South Florida for Burmese pythons and the boa constrictor, and there is strong evidence that the northern African python may have a breeding population in the wild as well."
Skip Snow (National Park Service) measures the length of a captured Burmese python at the South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park.
Photo courtesy of Lori Oberhofer, NPS
"Compounding their risk to native species and ecosystems is that these snakes mature early, produce large numbers of offspring, travel long distances, and have broad diets that allow them to eat most native birds and mammals," said Gordon Rodda, a USGS scientist at the Fort Collins Science Center and the other coauthor of the report.
"Boa constrictors and northern African pythons...already live wild in the Miami metropolitan area."
In addition, he said, most of these snakes can inhabit a variety of habitats and are quite tolerant of urban or suburban areas. Boa constrictors and northern African pythons, for example, already live wild in the Miami metropolitan area.
This map from the USGS report suggests how much of the United States has a climate suitable (green area) for the establishment of the Burmese python.
Eradication is difficult
The report notes that there are no control tools yet that seem adequate for eradicating an established population of giant snakes once they have spread over a large area. "Making the task of eradication more difficult is that in the wild these snakes are extremely difficult to find since their camouflaged coloration enables them to blend in well with their surroundings," USGS added.
Yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) specimen captured at Big Cypress National Preserve. Photo courtesy of Skip Snow, National Park Service.
The lesson of Guam
"We have a cautionary tale with the American island of Guam and the brown treesnake," said Reed. "Within 40 years of its arrival, this invasive snake has decimated the island's native wildlife--10 of Guam's 12 native forest birds, one of its two bat species, and about half of its native lizards are gone. The python introduction to Florida is so recent that the tally of ecological damage cannot yet be made."
The researchers used the best available science to forecast areas of the country most at risk of invasion by these giant snakes, USGS said.
The USGS map shows where in the U.S. the climate is suitable for establishment of the southern African python.
"Based on climate alone, many of the species would be limited to the warmest areas of the United States, including parts of Florida, extreme south Texas, Hawaii, and America's tropical islands, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and other Pacific islands," the agency said.
"For a few species, however, larger areas of the continental United States appear to exhibit suitable climatic conditions. For example, much of the southern U.S. climatic conditions are similar to those experienced by the Burmese python in its native range.
However, many factors other than climate alone can influence whether a species can establish a population in a particular location," the report notes.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service will use the report to assist in further development of management actions concerning the snakes when and where these species appear in the wild.
In addition, the risk assessment will provide current, science-based information for management authorities to evaluate prospective regulations that might prevent further colonization of the U.S. by these snakes, USGS said.
Scientific names of the invasive giant snakes
Indian or Burmese python (Python molurus)
Northern African python (Python sebae)
Southern African python (Python natalensis)
Reticulated python (Python [or Broghammerus] reticulatus)
Boa constrictor (Boa constrictor)
Green anaconda (Eunectes murinus)
Yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus)
Beni or Bolivian anaconda (Eunectes beniensis)
De Schauensee's anaconda (Eunectes deschauenseei)
Giant Constrictor Risk Assessment:
Frequently Asked Questions (USGS)
What Others Had to Say
Added by dangles on November 9, 2009
That report is FRAUGHT with errors, misconceptions and downright lies. The authors have taken excessive liberties and have estimated the potential span of these large constrictors WAY WAY WAY outside the realistic range.
Boa constrictors have been household pets for DECADES and have only established insignificant breeding populations in one or two tiny spots in Florida. This is also true of the Burms.
Why is it that the Boa lives (natively) within a couple hundred miles of the Arizona/Mexico border, BUT HAVE NOT IN THOUSANDS OF YEARS expanded ANY farther north? And we're supposed to believe now that a couple irresponsible snake owners have released their snakes that they are all of a sudden a "high risk"?!
And why haven't the Burms expanded ANY farther north than the Everglades? Maybe it's because THEY CAN'T. This report only used TWO factors to determine "likely" suitable habitat. There are too many other factors to consider when determining this. Another (more complete) study used 19 factors, and found they are unlikely to spread any farther north than southern Florida! Why haven't you done an article on THAT? Maybe because it doesn't SCARE people like this one does...
This is INCREDIBLY irresponsible and will put THOUSANDS of people out of jobs. AND IT'S ALL LIES.
Added by dangles on November 9, 2009
and of course NOBODY will question this because "it's national geographic" or "it's the USGS"
"they don't have agendas."
HA!
Added by Dirty Boas on November 9, 2009
Here's the report Dangles is talking about.
Pyron et al. Claims of Potential Expansion Throughout the U.S. by Invasive Python Species Are Contradicted by Ecological Niche Models. PLoS ONE, 2008; 3 (8): e2931 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002931
It was written by two CUNY (City University New York) graduate students and Dr. Frank Burbrink. The study uses 19 variables to map potential US habitat for the Burmese Python. USGS survey only uses two.
"By using more complete climate data, in this case 19 variables measuring climatic extremes, averages and seasonal variation, we can make more accurate predictions of species distributions," said Alex Pyron. "Combining this climatic data with localities for the Burmese python allows us to create powerful models for predicting suitable habitat for the snakes."
Added by MLynch on November 9, 2009
Why wasn't this an issue 20 years ago? Or even 10 years ago? The answer: because it never was an issue. The reptiles that the USGS seeks to eliminate from the pet trade have been residing in households across the United States for decades and have never established a foot hold in any of the projected ecosystems, with the exception of only a couple of very small pockets. If the scenario put forth by the USGS were at all accurate residents of Washington DC; Richmond, VA; Bethesda, MD, Lawton, OK; Phoenix, AZ; and San Bernardino, CA would already be facing an ecological disaster as a result of these "invasive species." ...yet, oddly they are not.
This report is based more on media spurred paranoia, ignorance, and prejudice than actual scientific fact. ...And at what time did National Geographic stop caring about research? Had NatGeo actually looked at the situation in the Florida Everglades, studied it, as well as studied the 9 snakes the USGS is targeting the USGS report would have been found to be severely flawed.
And something the USGS report fails to address is how eliminating these snakes from the pet trade will have any benefit to the situation in the Everglades. Why? Because it won't. The problems faced in the Everglades will remain. The USGS has also stated that these snakes are moving north at a rate of about 1.5 miles a day. Really? Well if that's true then eliminating these snakes from the pet trade will do nothing to stop this northerly migration. However, I'd like to point out that if these snakes were moving north at such a rate we would have seen them well north of the Everglades long ago... and yet we haven't. So how is banning the 9 large constrictors an environmental issue? It's not because it will have no impact, what so ever, on any environmental issue we may be facing in southern Florida.
I'd also like to point out how much the USGS report resembles the so-called "studies" of Africanized Honey Bees back in the 1970's. They were also media fueled paranoia. We were told that these bees posed a serious risk to the environment and personal well being given their aggressive nature. We were also told that they were heading north and making headway every year and that by the early 1980's they'd be as far north as New York City... I live in Northern New Jersey, and I'm still waiting for the "Killer Bees" to arrive. Could it be that these "reports" were false and filled with little clinical study?
If reports are going to be made about the issue of non-native species thriving in the Florida Everglades then let's focus on facts and actual studies of the animals present in the Everglades, and how to address the issues. Instead of making sweeping theories based on paranoia and ignorance.
- Mike Lynch