Here some data from different papers (I already tried to "translate" everything into the same "format"!!!):
Schwarz, A. (1997): Möglichkeiten der Ermittlung von Raumnutzung und Populationsdichte bei der Kreuzotter (Vipera b. berus L.).- In: Henle, K. & Veith, M. (Hrsg.): Naturschutzrelevante Methoden der Feldherpetologie, Mertensiella 7: 247-260
total area: 368 ha
potential habitat: 147 ha
used habitat: 45 ha
-
1,8 adult animals (counted) / ha (used habitat)
Thomas, B. (2004): Die Kreuzotter (Vipera b. berus [L.]) im Toten Moor in der Region Hannover.- In: Joger, U. & Wollesen, R. (Hrsg.): Verbreitung, Ökologie und Schutz der Kreuzotter (Vipera berus [Linnaeus, 1758]), Mertensiella 15: 175-185
total area: 480 ha
potential habitat: 215 ha
used habitat: 75 ha
0,4 adult animals (counted) / ha (potential habitat)
1 adult animals (counted) / ha (used habitat)
Weinmann, K.., Beck, C., Madl, R., Penner, J., Sound, P., Wollesen, R. & Joger, U. (2004): Zur Ökologie und Raum-Zeit-Einbindung einer Kreuzotterpopulation (Vipera berus [L.)) im hessischen Spessart.- In: Joger, U. & Wollesen, R. (Hrsg.): Verbreitung, Ökologie und Schutz der Kreuzotter (Vipera berus [Linnaeus, 1758]), Mertensiella 15: 197-212
total area: 250 ha
potential habitat: 16,7 ha
-
4,1 adult animals (median from counted animals between 1998 and 2003) / ha (potential habitat)
-
Wollesen, R. (2000): Zur Ökologie der Kreuzotter (Vipera berus berus L:) an einem anthropogen beeinflußten Sekundärstandort.- Faunistisch-ökologische Mitteilungen 8: 9-59
-
potential habitat: 28 ha
used habitat: 4 ha
1 adult animals (counted) / ha (potential habitat)
6,8 adult animals (counted) / ha (used habitat)
Wollesen, R. & Schwarze, M. (2004): Vergleichende Betrachtungen zweier linearer Kreuzotter-Habitate (Vipera berus [Linnaeus, 1758] in der norddeutschen Tiefebene.- In: Joger, U. & Wollesen, R. (Hrsg.): Verbreitung, Ökologie und Schutz der Kreuzotter (Vipera berus [Linnaeus, 1758]), Mertensiella 15: 164-174
-
potential habitat: 17 ha
used habitat: 1,6 ha
0,7 - 1 adult animals (counted 2001 and 2002) / ha (potential habitat)
6,9 - 10,6 adult animals (counted 2001 and 2002) / ha (used habitat)
Looking at my own data (status 2011)...
total area: I simply draw a polygon around all known spots (staus 2011)
potential habitat: Everything inside the polygon that looks suitable for me to find berus ;-D
used habitat: I draw a circle with R=10m around every spot I found an animal, dont ask me what all the others did to measure this!!!
animals / ha: median of the counted* adult animals from 2006 to 2011 / potential habitat or known used area from 2006-2011
* counted means what I found in this year + all animals that I found before and after that year but not in the year!
Pop A
total area: 396 ha
potential habitat: 29,9 ha
known used area 2006-2011: 8,2 ha
1,9 adult animals (counted) / ha (potential habitat)
7,0 adult animals (counted) / ha (used habitat)
Pop A
total area: 147 ha
potential habitat: 27,1 ha
known used area 2006-2011: 8,9 ha
3,4 adult animals (counted) / ha (potential habitat)
10,4 adult animals (counted) / ha (used habitat)
But looking at one subpopulation with a terrifying decrease:
using the peak year (2008) with the known used habitat from 2006-2008 I get 17,7 Ind. /ha
using the worst year (2012) with the known used habitat vom 2006-2012 I get 1.6 Ind. /ha
that really hurts