Biological Invasions

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 799–815 | Cite as

Effects of the non-native amphibian species Discoglossus pictus on the recipient amphibian community: niche overlap, competition and community organization

  • Alex Richter-Boix
  • Núria Garriga
  • Albert Montori
  • Marc Franch
  • Olatz San Sebastián
  • Dani Villero
  • Gustavo A. Llorente
Original Paper

Abstract

The painted frog, Discoglossus pictus, was introduced into the Iberian Peninsula 100 years ago and its distribution has steadily increased since then. We studied the effects of this non-native amphibian species on the native ones in the northeastern area of the peninsula. We compared amphibian assemblages in regions with and without D. pictus to estimate niche overlap between species. Additionally, we carried out a laboratory evaluation of the effects of competition between the non-native and the two native species with which it overlaps most commonly: Bufo calamita and Pelodytes punctatus. The presence of D. pictus larvae reduced the survival, body mass and activity of B. calamita, and increased time to metamorphosis. Furthermore, D. pictus showed the highest consumption rate while P. punctatus showed the lowest. One possible consequence of these competitive interactions is an alteration of species co-occurrence patterns in the recipient community on a regional scale. In the non-invaded area, the checkerboard score (C-score) of co-occurrence indicated that the community was structured, whereas the standardized C-score in the invaded area indicated that the community did not differ significantly from having a random structure. These results suggest that competition between native and non-native species can cause recipient communities to become less structured.

Keywords

Invasive species Competition Community response Co-occurrence 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Parc Natural del Garraf and the Departament de Medi Ambient i Habitatge of the Generalitat de Catalunya for their support and permission to collect clutches. ARB was supported by a Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture postdoctoral grant (MEC2007-0944) and a Catalan postdoctoral fellowship (BP-DGR 2008). We also thank Emili García-Berthou, G. F. Ficetola, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments. All of the animals subjected to the laboratory experiments were cared for in accordance with the guidelines of the Animal Experimentation Ethics Committee (Comitè Ètic d’Experimentació Animal—CEEA) of the University of Barcelona.

References

  1. Alford RA (1999) Ecology: resource use, competition, and predation. In: McDiarmid RW, Altig R (eds) Tadpoles: the biology of Anuran larvae. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 240–278Google Scholar
  2. Altwegg R, Reyer HU (2003) Patterns of natural selection on size at metamorphosis in water frogs. Evolution 57:872–882PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson J (1967) A comparison of the life histories of coastal and montane populations of Ambystoma macrodactylum in California. Amer Midl Nat 77:323–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anholt BR, Werner EE (1995) Interaction between food availability and predation mortality mediated by activity. Ecology 76(7):2235–2239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beard KH, Pitt WC (2005) Potential consequences of the coqui frog invasion in Hawaii. Diversity Distrib 11:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S, Carlton JT, Duncan RP, Jarošík V, Wilson JRU, Richardson DM (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 26:333–339. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.023 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blaustein AR, Kiesecker JM (2002) Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecol Lett 5(4):597–608. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00352.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bøhn T, Amundsen P, Sparrow A (2008) Competitive exclusion after invasion? Biol Invasions 10:359–368. doi: 10.1007/s10530-007-9135-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burns KC (2007) Patterns in the assembly of an island plant community. J Biogeogr 34:760–768. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01625.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheylan M, Geniez P, Cambrony M (1987) Le Discoglosse peint Discoglossus pictus. In: Geniez P, Cheylan M (eds) Atlas de distribution des Reptiles et Amphibiens du Languedoc-Roussillon, 1st edn. Laboratoire de Biogéographie et Écologie des Vertébrés (EPHE), Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur les Vertébrés, Montpellier, pp 26–27Google Scholar
  11. Clavero M, García-Berthou E (2005) Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol Evol 20(3):110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox N, Chanson J, Stuart SN (2006) The status and distribution of reptiles and amphibians of the mediterranean basin. IUCN, GlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crossland MR (1998) A comparison of cane toad and native tadpoles as predators of native anuran eggs, hatchlings and larvae. Wild Res 25(4):373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crossland MR, Shine R (2010) Vulnerability of an Australian anuran tadpole assemblage to the toxic eggs of the invasive cane toad (Bufo marinus). Aust Ecol 35:197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparison of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:183–211. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Amore A, Hemingway V, Wasson K (2010) Do a threatened native amphibian and its invasive congener differ in response to human alteration of the landscape? Biol Invasions 12:145–154. doi: 10.1007/s10530-009-9438-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invisibility. J Ecol 88(3):524–534. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00473.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Castri F (1990) On invading species and invaded ecosystems: the interplay of historical chance and biological necessity. In: Di Castri F, Hansen AJ, Debussche M (eds) Biological invasions in Europe and the mediterranean basin. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eklöv P, Halvarsson C (2000) The trade-off between foraging activity and predation risk for Rana temporaria in different food environments. Can J Zool 78(5):734–739. doi: 10.1139/z00-001 Google Scholar
  20. Escoriza D, Boix D (2012) Assessing the potential impact of an invasive species on a Mediterranean amphibian assemblage: a morphological and ecological approach. Hydrobiologia 680:233–245. doi: 10.1007/s10750-011-0936-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ficetola GF, Thuiller W, Miaud C (2007) Prediction and validation of the potential global distribution of problematic alien invasive species—the American bullfrog. Divers Distrib 13(4):476–485. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00377.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ficetola GF, Siesa ME, Manenti R, Bottoni L, de Bernardi F, Padoa-Schioppa E (2011) Early assessment of the impact of alien species: differential consequences of an invasive crayfish on adult and larval amphibians. Divers Distrib 17:1141–1151. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00797.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fradet V, Geniez P (2004) La répartition du Discoglosse peint Discoglossus pictus Otth, 1837 (Amphibien, Anoure, Discoglossidés) dans le Sud de la France: note sur sa présense dans le département de l’Hérault. Bulletin de la Société Herpétologique de France 109:35–41Google Scholar
  24. Franch M, Llorente GA, Montori A, Richter-Boix A, Carranza S (2007) Discovery of an introduced population of Discoglossus pictus beyond its known distributional range. Herpetol Rev 38:356–359Google Scholar
  25. Geiger W, Alcorlo P, Baltanás A, Montes C (2005) Impact of an introduced crustacean on the trophic webs of Mediterranean wetlands. Biol Invasions 7(1):49–73. doi: 10.1007/s10530-004-9635-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  27. Gotelli NJ (2000) Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81(9):2606–2621. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[2606:NMAOSC]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gotelli NJ, Arnett AE (2000) Biogeographic effects of red fire ant invasion. Ecol Lett 3(4):257–261. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2000.00138.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2002) Assembly rules for New England ant assemblages. Oikos 99:591–599. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.11734.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gotelli NJ, Entsminger GL (2007) EcoSim: Null models software for ecology. Version 7. Acquired Intelligence Inc. and Kesey-Bear. Jericho, VT 05465. http://garyentsminger.com/ecosim.htm Accessed 14 July 2010
  31. Griffiths RA (1991) Competition between common frog, Rana temporaria, and natterjack toad, Bufo calamita, tadpoles: the effect of competition density and interaction level on tadpole development. Oikos 61(2):187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gurevich J, Morrison JA, Hedges LV (2000) The interaction between competition and predation: a metaanalysis of field experiments. Am Nat 155(4):435–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hayes KR, Barry SC (2008) Are there any consistent predictors of invasion success? Biol Invasions 10(4):483–506. doi: 10.1007/s10530-007-9146-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hecnar SJ, M’Closkey RT (1997) Changes in the composition of a ranid frog community following bullfrog extinction. Am Midl Nat 137:145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heusser H (1972a) Intra- und interspezifische crowding- Effekte bei Kaulquappen einheimischer Anuren-Arten. Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich 1972:121–128Google Scholar
  36. Heusser H (1972b) Intra- und interspezifische Crowding-Effekte bei Kaulquappen der Kreuzkröte, Bufo calamita. Oecologia 10:93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek LAC, Foster MS (1994) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  38. IUCN (2000) IUCN guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien invasive species[online]. http://iucn.org./themes/ssc/pubs/policy/invasivesEng.htm. Accessed 2 Sept 2010
  39. IUCN (2010) IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2010.3[online]. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 2 Sept 2010
  40. Kats LB, Ferrer RP (2003) Alien predators and amphibian declines: review of two decades of science and the transition to conservation. Divers Distrib 9(2):99–110. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00013.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keymer JE, Marquet PA, Velasco-Hernández JX, Levin SA (2000) Extinction thresholds and metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes. Am Nat 156(5):478–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kiesecker JM, Blaustein AR (1998) Effects of introduced bullfrogs and smallmouth bass on microhabitat use, growth, and survival of native red-legged frogs (Rana aurora). Conserv Biol 12(4):776–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kiesecker JM, Blaustein AR, Belden LK (2001) Complex causes of amphibian population declines. Nature (Lond) 410:681–683. doi: 10.1038/35070552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Knight CM, Parris MJ, Gutzke WHN (2009) Influence of priority effects and pond location on invaded larval amphibian communities. Biol Invasions 11(4):1033–1044. doi: 10.1007/s10530-008-9314-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kraus F, Campbell EW III (2002) Human-mediated escalation of a formerly eradicable problem: the invasion of Caribbean frogs in the Hawaiian Islands. Biol Invasions 4(3):327–332. doi: 10.1023/A:1020909205908 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kupferberg SJ (1997) Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) invasion of a California river: the role of larval competition. Ecology 78(6):1736–1751Google Scholar
  47. Laurila A (2000) Competitive ability and the coexistence of anuran larvae in freshwater rock-pools. Freshw Biol 43(2):161–174. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2000.00533.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lawlor LR (1980) Structure and stability in natural and randomly constructed competitive communities. Am Nat 116(3):394–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lillo F, Faraone FP, Lo Valvo M (2011) Can the introduction of Xenopus laevis affect native amphibian populations? Reduction of reproductive occurrence in presence of the invasive species. Biol Invasions 13(7):1533–1541. doi: 10.1007/s10530-010-9911-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Llorente GA, Montori A, Santos X, Carretero MA (1995) Atlas de distribució dels Amfibis i Rèptils de Catalunya i Andorra. El Brau Edicions, FigueresGoogle Scholar
  51. Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions-lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 8(4):133–137. doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(93)90025-K PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Londsale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecol Appl 10(3):689–710. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0689:BICEGC]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Martens H, Veith M (1987) Considerations on origin and chorology of Discoglossus pictus Otth, 1837 in the eastern Pyrenees. In: Van Gelder JJ, Strijbosch H, Bergers PJM (eds). In: Proceedings of the 4th ordinary meeting S. H. E. Catholic University of Nijmegen. Faculty of Science, Nijmegen. pp 267–269Google Scholar
  54. Martín Vide J, Olcina J (2001) Climas y tiempos de España. Alianza Editorial, MadridGoogle Scholar
  55. Melbourne BA, Cornell HA, Davies KF, Dugaw CJ, Elmendorf S, Freestone AL, Hall RJ, Harrison S, Hastings A, Holland M, Holyoak M, Lambrinos J, Moore K, Yokomizo H (2007) Invasion in a heterogeneous world: resistance, coexistence or hostile takeover? Ecol Lett 10(1):77–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00987.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Montori A, Llorente GA, Richter-Boix A, Villero D, Franch M, Garriga N (2007) Colonización y efectos potenciales de la especie invasora Discoglossus pictus sobre las especies nativas. Munibe 25:14–27Google Scholar
  57. Morin PJ (1983) Predation, competition, and the composition of larval anuran guilds. Ecol Monogr 53(2):119–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morin PJ, Johnson EA (1988) Experimental studies of asymmetric competition among anurans. Oikos 53:398–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ortega YK, Pearson DE (2005) Weak vs. strong invaders of natural plant communities: assessing invisibility and impact. Ecol Appl 15(2):651–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Osunkoya OO, Polo C, Alan NA (2011) Invasion impacts on biodiversity: responses of ant communities to infestation by cat’s claw creeper vine, Macfadyena unguis-cati (Bignoniaceae) in subtropical Australia. Biol Invasions. doi: 10.1007/s10530-011-0040-9
  61. Pascal M, Lorvelec O, Vigne JD, Keith P, Clergeau P (2003) Évolution holocène de la faune de Vertébrés de rance: invasions et disparitions. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Rapport au Ministère de l’Écologie et du Développement Durable (Direction de la Nature et des Paysages)Google Scholar
  62. Pearl CA, Adams MJ, Bury RB, McCreary B (2004) Asymmetrical effects of introduced bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) on native ranid frogs in Oregon. Copeia 2004(1):11–20Google Scholar
  63. Pechmann JHK, Scott DE, Gibbons JW, Semlitsch RD (1989) Influence of wetland hydroperiod on diversity and abundance of metamorphosing juvenile amphibians. Wetl Ecol Manag 1(1):3–11. doi: 10.1007/BF00177885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pechmann JHK, Estes RA, Scott DE, Gibbons JW (2001) Amphibian colonization and use of ponds created for trail mitigation of wetland loss. Wetlands 21(1):93–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Phillips BL, Brwon GP, Greenlees M, Webb JK, Shine R (2007) Rapid expansion of the cane toad (Bufo marinus) invasion front in tropical Australia. Austral Ecol 32:169–176. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2007.01664.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pianka ER (1973) The structure of lizard communities. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pleguezuelos JM (1997) Distribución y biogeografía de los anfibios y reptiles en España y Portugal. Monográfica Tierras del sur. Universidad de Granada–Asociación Herpetológica Española. GranadaGoogle Scholar
  68. Pleguezuelos JM, Márquez R, Lizana M (2002) Atlas y libro rojo de los anfibios y reptiles de España. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza–Asociación Herpetológica Española. MadridGoogle Scholar
  69. Rebelo R, Amaral P, Bernardes M, Oliveira J, Pinheiro P, Leitão D (2010) Xenopus laevis (Daudin, 1802), a new exotic amphibian in Portugal. Biol Invasions 12:3383–3387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rejmanek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plants species more invasive? Ecology 77(6):1655–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ricciardi A, Cohen J (2007) The invasiveness of an introduced species does not predict its impact. Biol Invasions 9(3):309–315. doi: 10.1007/s10530-006-9034-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Richardson JML (2002) A comparative study of phenotypic traits related to resource utilization in anuran communities. Evol Ecol 16(2):101–122. doi: 10.1023/A:1016381122862 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Richter-Boix A, Llorente GA, Montori A (2006) Breeding phenology of an amphibian community in a Mediterranean area. Amphibia-Reptilia 27:544–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Richter-Boix A, Llorente GA, Montori A (2007a) Structure and dynamics of an amphibian metacommunity in two regions. J Anim Ecol 76(3):607–618. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01232.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Richter-Boix A, Llorente GA, Montori A (2007b) A comparative study of predator-induced phenotype in tadpoles across a pond permanency gradient. Hydrobiologia 583:43–56. doi: 10.1007/s10750-006-0475-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Richter-Boix A, Llorente GA, Montori A (2007c) Hierarchical competition in pond-breeding anuran larvae in a Mediterranean area. Amphibia-Reptilia 28(2):247–261. doi: 10.1163/156853807780202549 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sanders NJ, Gotelli NJ, Heller NE, Gordon DM (2003) Community disassembly by an invasive species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(5):2474–2477. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0437913100 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Savage RM (1952) Ecological, physiological and anatomical observations on some species of anuran tadpoles. Proc Zool Soc London 122(2):467–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Semlitsch RD, Scott DE, Pechmann JHK, Gibbons JW (1996) Structure and dynamics of an amphibian community. Evidence from a 16-year study of a natural pond. In: Cody LM, Smallwood JA (eds) Long-term studies of vertebrate communities. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 217–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. SIARE (2008) Servidor de información de anfibios y reptiles de España [online]. http://siare.herpetologica.es/index.php. Accessed 11 Nov 2009
  81. Skelly DK (1994) Activity level and the susceptibility of anuran larvae to predation. Anim Behav 47:465–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Skelly DK (1996) Pond drying, predators, and the distribution of Pseudacris treefrog tadpoles. Copeia 1996(3):599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Smith DC (1983) Factors controlling tadpole populations of the chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata) on Isle Royale. Michigan. Ecology 64(3):501–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smith KG (2005) Effects of nonindigenous tadpoles on native tadpoles in Florida: evidence of competition. Biol Conserv 123(4):433–441. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Snodgrass JW, Bryan AL, Burger J (2000) Development of expectations of larval amphibian assemblage structure in southeastern depression wetlands. Ecol Appl 10(4):1219–1229. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1219:DOEOLA]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stocks R, McPeek MA (2003) Predators and life histories shape Lestes damselfly assemblages along a freshwater habitat gradient. Ecology 84(6):1576–1587. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[1576:PALHSL]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stone L, Roberts A (1990) The checkerboard score and species distribution. Oecologia 85(1):74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, Fischman DL, Waller RW (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science (Wash DC) 306(5702):1783–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Urban MC, Phillips BL, Skelly DK, Shine R (2008) A toad more traveled: the heterogeneous invasion dynamics of cane toads in Australia. Am Nat 171:E134–E148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Van Buskirk J (2003) Habitat partitioning in European and North American pond-breeding frogs and toads. Diversity Distrib 9:399–410. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00038.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Van Buskirk J (2005) Local and landscape influence on amphibian occurrence and abundance. Ecology 86(7):1936–1947. doi: 10.1890/04-1237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Schlaepfer D, Jeschke JM, Fischer M (2010) Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecol Lett 13:947–958. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01503.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Wassersug RJ (1980) Internal oral features of larvae from eight anuran families: functional, systematic, evolutionary and ecological considerations. Misc Publ Mus Nat Hist Univ Kansas 68:1–146Google Scholar
  94. Wellborn GA, Skelly DK, Werner EE (1996) Mechanism creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecography 22(1):5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wintrebert P (1908) Présence à Banyuls-sur-Mer (Pyrénées Orientales) du Discoglossus pictus Otth. B Soc Zool Fr 33:54Google Scholar
  97. Woodward BD (1982) Tadpole competition in a desert anuran community. Oecologia 54(1):96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Woodward BD (1983) Predator–prey interactions and breeding-pond use of temporary-pond species in a desert anuran community. Ecology 64(6):1549–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wu J, Levin SA (1994) A spatial dynamic modeling approach to pattern and process in an annual grassland. Ecol Monogr 64(4):447–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zangari F, Cimmaruta R, Nascetti G (2006) Genetic relationships of the western Mediterranean painted frogs based on allozymes and mitochondrial markers: evolutionary and taxonomic inferences (Amphibia, Anura, Discoglossidae). Biol J Linn Soc 87(4):515–536. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2006.00585.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex Richter-Boix
    • 1
    • 2
  • Núria Garriga
    • 3
  • Albert Montori
    • 3
  • Marc Franch
    • 2
    • 3
  • Olatz San Sebastián
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Dani Villero
    • 5
  • Gustavo A. Llorente
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Population Biology and Conservation BiologyUppsala UniversitetUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Fundació EmysRiudarenes, GironaSpain
  3. 3.Departament de Biologia Animal (Vertebrats), Facultat de BiologiaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi, Departamento de HerpetologíaSan SebastiánSpain
  5. 5.Grup d’Ecologia del Paisatge, Centre Tecnològic Forestal de CatalunyaCarretera de Sant Llorenç de MorunysLleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations