Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 15, Issue 10, pp 2179–2191 | Cite as

Investigating the dispersal routes used by an invasive amphibian, Lithobates catesbeianus, in human-dominated landscapes

  • Anna C. PetersonEmail author
  • Katherine L. D. Richgels
  • Pieter T. J. Johnson
  • Valerie J. McKenzie
Original Paper

Abstract

Clarifying how species move across and utilize human-modified landscapes is key to the conservation of declining populations, as well as to the management and control of invasive species. The North American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) is a globally distributed invasive amphibian that has been implicated in the decline of native amphibians across its invasive range and may also act as a transport vector for a number of deadly amphibian pathogens. Identifying the landscape-level features that facilitate or hinder this species as it moves across an ever-changing landscape is necessary to inform control efforts and limit this species’ impact on already declining amphibian populations. We conducted surveys of 243 wetlands across the Colorado Front Range and used an information-theoretic approach to evaluate the contribution of wetland-specific characteristics and landscape-level factors in determining the detection of bullfrog populations and breeding bullfrog populations. Specifically, our goal was to determine whether features related to overland dispersal or to the connectivity of wetlands were better predictors of bullfrog occurrence. Our results indicated that landscape-level factors that may either hinder or facilitate overland movement, such as topographic complexity and the density of wetlands, were the best predictors of bullfrog occurrence at the scale of our analysis, rather than characteristics relating to the connectivity of wetlands to lotic waterway systems. We suggest that when considering the control or eradication of this species, efforts should be directed at reducing hydroperiod of wetlands and should target regions with a high density of wetlands and/or low topographic relief.

Keywords

Biological invasions Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus Landscape ecology Dispersal Habitat alteration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

For assistance with field surveys, we thank R. Adams, A. Jensen, M. Evans, A. Massaro, A. Brown, R. Parkhill, R. Jadin, K. Dorsa and L. Arellano. For assistance with property access and logistical support we would like to acknowledge Boulder County Parks and Open Space, City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, Jefferson County Open Space, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, White River National Forest, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Colorado State Parks, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, and the cities of Fort Collins, Arvada, Northglenn, Thornton, and Westminster. Field research was conducted over numerous years, and as such we would like to gratefully acknowledge funding from a number of sources, including the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Boulder County Parks and Open Space Small Grants Program, the Society of Wetland Scientists, the Morris Animal Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Finally, we would like to thank our anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

References

  1. Adams MJ (2000) Pond permanence and the effects of exotic vertebrates on anurans. Eco Apps 10:559–568Google Scholar
  2. Adams MJ, Pearl CA, Bruce Bury R (2003) Indirect facilitation of an anuran invasion by non-native fishes. Ecol Lett 6:343–351. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00435.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birx-Raybuck DA, Price SJ, Dorcas ME (2009) Pond age and riparian zone proximity influence anuran occupancy of urban retention ponds. Urban Ecosystems 13:181–190. doi: 10.1007/s11252-009-0116-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boone MD, Semlitsch RD, Mosby C (2008) Suitability of golf course ponds for amphibian metamorphosis when bullfrogs are removed. Conserv Biol 22:172–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00817.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Casper GS, Hendricks R (2000) Rana catesbeiana. In: Lannoo MJ (ed) Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  7. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO et al (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 81:163–182. doi: 10.1017/S1464793105006950 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fahrig L, Pedlar JH, Pope SE et al (1995) Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biol Conserv 73:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ficetola FG, De Bernardi F (2004) Amphibians in a human-dominated landscape: the community structure is related to habitat features and isolation. Biol Conserv 119:219–230. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49. doi: 10.1017/S0376892997000088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fishman NS, Roberts SB (2001) Energy resources and changing land use, Front Range of Colorado. USGS Open-file report 01-172Google Scholar
  12. Fuller TE, Pope KL, Ashton DT, Welsh HH (2011) Linking the distribution of an invasive amphibian (Rana catesbeiana) to habitat conditions in a managed river system in northern California. Restor Ecol 19:204–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00708.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hammerson GA (1999) Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado, 2nd edn. University Press of Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife, NiwotGoogle Scholar
  14. Havel JE, Lee CE, Zanden MJV (2005) Do reservoirs facilitate invasions into landscapes? BioScience 55:518–525Google Scholar
  15. Hohausova E, Lavoy RJ, Allen MS (2010) Fish dispersal in a seasonal wetland: influence of anthropogenic structures. Mar Freshw Res 61:682–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ingram WM, Raney EC (1943) Additional studies on the movement of tagged bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana Shaw. Am Midl Nat 29:239–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson PTJ, Olden JD, Vander Zanden MJ (2008) Dam invaders: impoundments facilitate biological invasions into freshwaters. Front Ecol Environ 6:357–363. doi: 10.1890/070156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson PTJ, McKenzie VJ, Peterson AC et al (2011) Regional decline of an iconic amphibian associated with elevation, land-use change, and invasive species. Conserv Biol 25:556–566. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01645.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knutson MG, Sauer JR, Olsen DA et al (1999) Effects of landscape composition and wetland fragmentation on frog and toad abundance and species richness in Iowa and Wisconsin, USA. Cons Bio 13:1437–1446Google Scholar
  20. Manel S, Williams HC, Ormerod SJ (2001) Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. J Appl Ecol 38:921–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maret TJ, Snyder JD, Collins JP (2006) Altered drying regime controls distribution of endangered salamanders and introduced predators. Biol Conserv 127:129–138. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McKinney M, Lockwood J (1999) Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol 14:450–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moyle PB (1973) Effects of introduced bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana, on the native frogs of the San Juoaquin Valley, California. Copeia 1973:18–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murphy MA, Evans JS, Storfer A (2010) Quantifying Bufo boreas connectivity in Yellowstone National Park with landscape genetics. Ecology 91:252–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C (2005) Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308:405–408. doi: 10.1126/science.1107887 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rahel FJ (2002) Homogenization of freshwater faunas. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:291–315. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rahel FJ (2007) Biogeographic barriers, connectivity and homogenization of freshwater faunas: it’s a small world after all. Freshw Biol 52:696–710. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01708.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ray N, Lehmann A, Joly P (2002) Modeling spatial distribution of amphibian populations: a GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability. Biodivers Conserv 11:2143–2165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Richter KO, Azous AL (2001) Amphibian distribution, abundance, and habitat use. In: Azous AL, Horner R (eds) Wetlands and urbanization: implications for the future. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, pp 143–165Google Scholar
  30. Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ et al (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774Google Scholar
  31. Schloegel LM, Picco AM, Kilpatrick AM et al (2009) Magnitude of the US trade in amphibians and presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and ranavirus infection in imported North American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Biol Conserv 142:1420–1426. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schloegel LM, Ferreira CM, James TY et al (2010) The North American bullfrog as a reservoir for the spread of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in Brazil. Anim Conserv 13:53–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00307.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Semlitsch RD (2008) Differentiating Migration and Dispersal Processes for Pond-Breeding Amphibians. J Wildl Manage 72:260–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Skelly DK, Yurewicz KL, Werner EE, Relyea RA (2003) Estimating decline and distributional change in amphibians. Conserv Biol 17:744–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith MA, Green DM (2005) Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation : are all amphibian populations metapopulations ? Ecography 28:110–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith SV, Renwick WH, Bartley JD, Buddemeier RW (2002) Distribution and significance of small, artificial water bodies across the United States landscape. Sci Total Environ 299:21–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA et al (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science (New York, NY) 306:1783–1786. doi: 10.1126/science.1103538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Development Core Team (2000) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. www.R-project.org. Accessed 1 Jan 2012
  39. Wiener JD, Dwire KA, Skagen SK et al (2008) Riparian ecosystem consequences of water redistribution along the Colorado Front Range. Water Resources IMPACT 10:18–21Google Scholar
  40. Willis YL, Moyle DL, Baskett TS (1956) Emergence, breeding, hibernation, movements and transformation of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana, in Missouri. Copeia 1956:30–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. With KA (2002) The landscape ecology of invasive spread. Conserv Biol 16:1192–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wright AH (1914) North American Anura: Life histories of the anura of Ithaca. Carnegie institution of Washington, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna C. Peterson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katherine L. D. Richgels
    • 1
  • Pieter T. J. Johnson
    • 1
  • Valerie J. McKenzie
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations