Landscape Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 205–215 | Cite as

Effect of landscape context on anuran communities in breeding ponds in the National Capital Region, Canada

  • Sara A. Gagné
  • Lenore Fahrig


Land cover change, predominantly habitat conversion to agricultural use and urbanization, has recently been recognized as the primary cause of biodiversity loss in terrestrial ecosystems. We evaluated the relative effects of urban and agricultural landscapes on anuran species richness and the abundance of six anuran species found at breeding ponds in and around the cities of Ottawa, Ontario and Gatineau, Quebec. We performed six call surveys at 29 permanent focal ponds surrounded by one of three landscape contexts: primarily urban, primarily agricultural, and primarily forested. We also measured three local pond variables to control for the effects of local habitat quality in our analyses. We found that anuran species richness was significantly lower in breeding ponds in urban landscapes compared to forested and agricultural landscapes, which exhibited no significant difference in species richness. The abundances of individual anuran species were also consistently lower in urban landscapes for all species except one, which exhibited no response to landscape type. Three species had their highest abundances in ponds in forested landscapes, whereas two species had their highest abundances in ponds in agricultural landscapes. We conclude that ponds embedded in urban landscapes support lower biodiversity than ponds in agricultural settings. We suggest that landscapes composed of a mosaic of forest and open habitats surrounding wetlands would hold the highest biodiversity of these species.


Land use Urbanization  Agriculture Forest cover Amphibian conservation Species richness Abundance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



First and foremost, we thank the volunteers and landowners who made the fieldwork for this study possible. We also thank the members of the Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Research Laboratory for their support. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada grants supported S.A.G. and L.F. This research is dedicated to Lionel.


  1. Atauri JA, de Lucio JV (2001) The role of landscape structure in species richness distribution of birds, amphibians, reptiles and lepidopterans in Mediterranean landscapes. Landsc Ecol 16:147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonin J, Desgranges J-L, Rodrigue J, Ouellet M (1997) Anuran species richness in agricultural landscapes of Quebec: foreseeing long-term results of road call surveys. In: Green DM (ed) Amphibians in decline: Canadian studies of a global problem. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, pp 141–149Google Scholar
  4. Bradley G (1995) Urban forest landscapes: integrating multidisciplinary perspectives. In: Bradley G (ed) Urban forest landscapes: integrating multidisciplinary perspectives. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA, pp 3–11Google Scholar
  5. Canadian Biodiversity Information Network (2004) Urban biodiversity. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Available from (accessed August 2005)
  6. Carr LW, Fahrig L (2001) Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. Conserv Biol 15:1071–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscience 50:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dam A (2005) Landscape structure affects different eastern Ontario anuran species at different spatial scales. MSc Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp 69Google Scholar
  9. DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP (2004) Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front Ecol Environ 2:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. deMaynadier PG, Hunter ML Jr (2000) Road effects on amphibian movements in a forested landscape. Natl Areas J 20:56–65Google Scholar
  11. Duguay S (2004) Effect of landscape context on the plant species richness of forest fragments. MSc Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp 53Google Scholar
  12. Dunford W (2001) Effects of agricultural and urban land uses on birds breeding in forest fragments near Ottawa, Ontario. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp 91Google Scholar
  13. Environmental Systems Research Institute (1999) ArcView (3)2x. Redlands, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahrig L, Pedlar JH, Pope SE, Taylor PD, Wegner JF (1995) Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biol Conserv 73:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ficetola GF, De Bernardi F (2004) Amphibians in a human-dominated landscape: the community structure is related to habitat features and isolation. Biol Conserv 119:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibbs JP, Whiteleather KK, Schueler FW (2005) Changes in frog and toad populations over 30 years in New York State. Ecol Appl 15:1148–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray MJ, Smith LM, Brenes R (2004) Effects of agricultural cultivation on demographics of Southern High Plains amphibians. Conserv Biol 18:1368–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grimm NB, Grove JM, Pickett STA, Redman CL (2000) Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 50:571–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guerry AD, Hunter ML Jr (2002) Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conserv Biol 16:745–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hecnar SJ, M’Closkey RT (1998) Species richness patterns of amphibians in southwestern Ontario ponds. J Biogeogr 25:763–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heinen JT (1993) Substrate choice and predation risk in newly metamorphosed American toads Bufo americanus: an experimental analysis. Am Midl Nat 130:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Houlahan JE, Findlay CS (2003) The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:1078–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Insightful (2001) S-PLUS 6.0. Seattle, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson CM, Johnson LB, Richards C, Beasley V (2002) Predicting the occurrence of amphibians: an assessment of multiple-scale models. In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufler JB, Raphael MG, Wall WA, Samson FB (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, pp 157–170Google Scholar
  26. Joly P, Miaud C, Lehmann A, Grolet O (2001) Habitat matrix effects on pond occupancy in newts. Conserv Biol 15:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knight RL, Landres PB (1998) Stewardship across boundaries. Island Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Knutson MG, Sauer JR, Olsen DA, Mossman MJ, Hemesath LM, Lannoo MJ (1999) Effects of landscape composition and wetland fragmentation on frog and toad abundance and species richness in Iowa and Wisconsin, USA. Conserv Biol 13:1437–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kolozsvary MB, Swihart RK (1999) Habitat fragmentation and the distribution of amphibians: patch and landscape correlates in farmland. Can J Zool 77:1288–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laan R, Verboom B (1990) Effects of pool size and isolation on amphibian communities. Biol Conserv 54:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lehtinen RM, Galatowitsch SM, Tester JR (1999) Consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation for wetland amphibian assemblages. Wetlands 19:1–12Google Scholar
  32. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at the following web site:
  33. Mensing DM, Galatowitsch SM, Tester JR (1998) Anthropogenic effects on the biodiversity of riparian wetlands of a northern temperate landscape. J Environ Manage 53:349–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA, pp 86Google Scholar
  35. Phelps A-M (2001) Investigating the fish community of the Rideau River, Ontario, with respect to historical changes and current land-use practices. MSc Thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp 176Google Scholar
  36. Platt RH (2004) Toward ecological cities: adapting to the 21st century metropolis. Environment 46:11–27Google Scholar
  37. Pope SE, Fahrig L, Merriam NG (2000) Landscape complementation and metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations. Ecology 81:2498–2508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Relyea RA (2005) The lethal impact of Roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecol Appl 15:1118–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Richter KO, Azous AL (1995) Amphibian occurrence and wetland characteristics in the Puget Sound Basin. Wetlands 15:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Riley SPD, Busteed GT, Kats LB, Vandergon TL, Lee LFS, Dagit RG, Kerby JL, Fisher RN, Sauvajot RM (2005) Effects of urbanization on the distribution and abundance of amphibians and invasive species in southern California streams. Conserv Biol 19:1894–1907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sanzo D, Hecnar SJ (2006) Effects of road de-icing salt (NaCl) on larval wood frogs (Rana sylvatica). Environ Pollut 140:247–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. SPSS (2003) SPSS 12.0 for Windows. Chicago, Illinois, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 306:1783–1786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trenham PC, Koenig WD, Mossman MJ, Stark SL, Jagger LA (2003) Regional dynamics of wetland-breeding frogs and toads: turnover and synchrony. Ecol Appl 13:1522–1532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weyrauch SL, Grubb TC Jr (2004) Patch and landscape characteristics associated with the distribution of woodland amphibians in an agricultural fragmented landscape: an information-theoretic approach. Biol Conserv 115:443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilcox BA, Murphy DD (1985) Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. Am Nat 125:879–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilson JD, Dorcas ME (2003) Effects of habitat disturbance on stream salamanders: implications for buffer zones and watershed management. Conserv Biol 17:763–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Woods M, McDonald RA, Harris S (2003) Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. Mammal Rev 33:174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Research Laboratory, Ottawa-Carleton Institute of BiologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations