Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 29–40 | Cite as

Landscape connectivity may explain anuran species distribution in an Atlantic forest fragmented area

  • Mauricio Almeida-GomesEmail author
  • Carlos Frederico D. Rocha
Research Article


In this work we evaluated anuran species distribution in an Atlantic forest fragmented landscape, in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Sampling was carried out in three continuous forest sites, 12 forest fragments, and five pasture areas (matrix). We recorded, by visual encounter surveys, 2,495 individuals from 50 amphibian species for all sampled areas. Considering the pooled data, higher richness occurs in continuous forest area. Additionally, more than a third of species that occurred in continuous forest area did not occur in fragments or in matrix. Both ordination analyses showed that continuous forest sites clustered together and matrix areas seemed to be separated from other areas. This ordination resulted from the existence of species occurring only in continuous forest, suggesting that these species may be sensitive to habitat fragmentation. Besides, matrix appears separated from other areas due to occurrence of frog species typical from disturbed environments, which are not recorded in continuous forest sites or in sampled fragments. By analyzing the effect of landscape metrics, we found that there was a tendency for fragments with lower isolation to have higher species richness and proportion of species which did not occur in matrix areas and amphibian local communities seems to be affected in a more local scale by habitat changes. Because local matrix is apparently hostile to typically forest-associated amphibian species, many of them may be unable to reach most isolated fragments by dispersal, which may explain observed results.


Habitat fragmentation Tropical forest Anuran species Landscape structure Conservation 



This study was supported by research Grants from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (processes 304791/2010-5 and 470265/2010-8) and from Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) through “Cientistas do Nosso Estado” Program (process E-26/102.404.2009) to C. F. D. Rocha. M.A. Gomes received PhD fellowships from Conservation International do Brasil and FAPERJ and currently receives Post-Doctoral fellowship from PNPD-CAPES. We thank Nicholas J. Locke of the Reserva Ecológica de Guapiaçu (REGUA) for making many facilities available during our fieldwork in that area and all colleagues who helped us with data collection. We also thank Davor Vrcibradic for kindly revising a manuscript draft version, two anonymous reviewers who helped us to improve our manuscript, and Hermano G. Albuquerque for help with map.

Supplementary material

10980_2013_9898_MOESM1_ESM.docx (43 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 43 kb)


  1. Abrunhosa PA, Wogel H, Pombal JP Jr (2006) Anuran temporal occupancy in a temporary pond from the Atlantic rain forest, south-eastern Brazil. Herpetol J 16:115–122Google Scholar
  2. Alford RA, Richards SJ (1999) Global amphibian declines: a problem in applied ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:133–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida-Gomes M, Van Sluys M, Rocha CFD (2007) Ecological observations on the leaf-litter frog Adenomera marmorata in an Atlantic rainforest area of southeastern Brazil. Herpetol J 17:81–85Google Scholar
  4. Almeida-Gomes M, Vrcibradic D, Siqueira CC, Kiefer MC, Klaion T, Almeida-Santos P, Nascimento D, Ariani CV, Borges-Junior VNT, Freitas-Filho RF, Van Sluys M, Rocha CFD (2008) Herpetofauna of an Atlantic rainforest area (Morro São João) in Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. An Acad Bras Ciênc 80:29–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Almeida-Gomes M, Almeida-Santos M, Goyannes-Araújo P, Borges-Júnior VNT, Vrcibradic D, Siqueira CC, Ariani CV, Dias AS, Souza VV, Pinto RR, Van Sluys M, Rocha CFD (2010) Anurofauna of an Atlantic Rainforest fragment and its surroundings in Northern Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Braz J Biol 70:871–877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldwin RF, Calhoun AJK, de Maynadier PG (2006) Conservation planning for amphibian species with complex habitat requirements: a case study using movements and habitat selection of the wood frog Rana sylvatica. J Herpetol 40:442–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker CG, Fonseca CR, Haddad CFB, Batista RF, Prado PI (2007) Habitat split and the global decline of amphibians. Science 318:177–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker CG, Fonseca CR, Haddad CFB, Prado PI (2010) Habitat split as a cause of local population declines of amphibians with aquatic larvae. Conserv Biol 24:287–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bell KE, Donnelly MA (2006) Influence of forest fragmentation on community structure of frogs and lizards in northeastern Costa Rica. Conserv Biol 20:1750–1760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bender D, Fahrig L (2005) Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 86:1023–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benítez-Malvido J, Martínez-Ramos M (2003) Impact of forest fragmentation on understory plant species richness in Amazonia. Conserv Biol 17:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bernardo CSS, Lloyd H, Bayly N, Galetti M (2011) Modelling post-release survival of reintroduced Red-billed Curassows Crax blumenbachii. Ibis 153:562–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Crump ML, Scott NJ Jr (1994) Visual encounter surveys. In: Heyer WR, Donnely MA, Roy WM, Hayek LC, Foster MS (eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians, 1st edn. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 84–92Google Scholar
  15. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:23–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dixo M, Metzger JP (2010) The matrix-tolerance hypothesis: an empirical test with frogs in the Atlantic Forest. Biodivers Conserv 19:3059–3071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dixo M, Metzger JP, Morgante JS, Zamudio KR (2009) Habitat fragmentation reduces genetic diversity and connectivity among toad populations in the Brazilian Atlantic Coastal Forest. Biol Conserv 142:1560–1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duellman WE, Trueb L (1994) Biology of amphibians. The John Hopkins University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Dupuis LA, Smith JN, Bunnel F (1995) Relation of terrestrial-breeding amphibian abundance to tree-stand age. Conserv Biol 9:64–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eterovick PC, Carnaval A, Borges-Nojosa DM, Silvano DL, Segalla MV, Sazima I (2005) Amphibian declines in Brazil: an overview. Biotropica 37:166–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:48–515Google Scholar
  22. Faria D, Paciencia MLB, Dixo M, Laps RR, Baumgarten J (2007) Ferns, frogs, lizards, birds and bats in forest fragments and shaded cacao plantations of two contrasting landscapes in the Atlantic forest, Brazil. Biodivers Conserv 16:2335–2357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Funk WC, Mills LS (2003) Potential causes of population declines in forest fragments in an Amazonian frog. Biol Conserv 111:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard RO, Malcom JR, Stouffer PC, Vasconcelos H, Laurance WF, Zimmerman B, Tocher M, Borges S (1999) Matrix habitat and species persistence in tropical forest remnants. Biol Conserv 91:223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2004) A primer of ecological statistics. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Gotelli NJ, Entsminger GL (2004) EcoSim: null models software for ecology. Version 7. Acquired Intelligence Inc. & Kesey-Bear. Jericho, VT 05465.
  29. Haddad CFB, Prado CPA (2005) Reproductive modes in frogs and their unexpected diversity in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Bioscience 55:207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haddad CFB, Toledo LF, Prado CPA (2008) Anfíbios da Mata Atlântica: guia dos anfíbios anuros da Mata Atlântica. Editora Neotropica, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hillers A, Veith M, Rödel M-O (2008) Effects of forest fragmentation and habitat degradation on West African leaf-litter frogs. Conserv Biol 22:762–772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hof C, Araújo MB, Jetz W, Rahbek C (2011) Additive threats from pathogens, climate and land-use change for global amphibian diversity. Nature 480:516–519PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. IUCN Red List (2013) IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2012.2. Downloaded on 25 Feb 2013
  35. Joly CA, Ricardo RR, Metzger JP, Haddad CFB, Verdade LM, Oliveira MC, Bolzani VS (2010) Biodiversity conservation research, training, and policy in São Paulo. Science 328:1358–1359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laurance WF (1999) Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis. Biol Conserv 91:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  38. Leitão AB, Miller J, Ahern J, McGarigal K (2006) Measuring landscapes: a planner’s handbook. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Lips KR, Reeve JD, Witters L (2003) Ecological traits predicting amphibian population declines in Central America. Conserv Biol 17:1078–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marsh DM, Pearman PB (1997) Effects of habitat fragmentation on the abundance of two species of Leptodactylidae frogs in the Andean montane forest. Conserv Biol 11:1323–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mittermeier RA, Gil RP, Hoffman M, Pilgrim J, Brooks T, Mittermeier CG, Lamoreux J, Fonseca GAB (2005) Hotspots revisited: earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Conservation International, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Murcia C (1995) Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Tree 10:58–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Pineda E, Halffter G (2004) Species diversity and habitat fragmentation: frogs in a tropical montane landscape in Mexico. Biol Conserv 117:499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  45. Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM (2009) The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 142:1144–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rocha CFD, Bergallo HG, Alves MAS, Van Sluys M (2003) A biodiversidade nos grandes remanescentes florestais do Estado do Rio de Janeiro e nas restingas dos corredores da Mata Atlântica. Rima Editora, São CarlosGoogle Scholar
  48. Rocha CFD, Vrcibradic D, Kiefer MC, Almeida-Gomes M, Borges-Junior VNT, Carneiro PCF, Marra RV, Almeida-Santos P, Siqueira CC, Goyannes-Araújo P, Fernandes CGA, Rubiao ECN, Van Sluys M (2007) A survey of the leaf-litter frog assembly from an Atlantic forest area (Reserva Ecológica de Guapiaçu) in Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil, with an estimate of frog densities. Trop Zool 20:99–108Google Scholar
  49. Rothermel BB, Semlitsch RD (2006) Consequences of forest fragmentation for juvenile survival in spotted (Ambystoma maculatum) and marbled (A. opacum) salamanders. Can J Zool 84:797–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Semlitsch RD, Bodie R (2003) Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conserv Biol 17:1219–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Silva M, Hartling LA, Field SA, Teather K (2003) The effects of habitat fragmentation on amphibian species richness of Prince Edward Island. Can J Zool 81:563–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Silva FR, Prado VHM, Rossa-Feres DC (2011) Value of small forest fragments to amphibians. Science 332:1033PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the use and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tocher M, Gascon C, Zimmerman B (1997) Fragmentation effects on a central Amazonian frog community: a ten year study. In: Laurance WF, Bierregaard RO (eds) Tropical Forest remnants: Ecology, Management and Conservation of Fragmented Communities, 1st edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 124–137Google Scholar
  55. Todd BD, Andrews KM (2007) Response of a reptile guild to forest harvesting. Conserv Biol 22:753–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Todd BD, Luhring TM, Rothermel BB, Gibbons JW (2009) Effects of forest removal on amphibian migrations: implications for habitat and landscape connectivity. J Appl Ecol 46:554–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vallan D (2000) Influence of forest fragmentation on amphibian diversity in the nature reserve of Ambohitantely, highland Madagascar. Biol Conserv 96:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vieira MV, Olifiers N, Delciellos AC, Antunes VZ, Bernardo LR, Grelle CEV, Cerqueira R (2009) Land use vs. fragment size and isolation as determinants of small mammal composition and richness in Atlantic Forest remnants. Biol Conserv 142:1191–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zimmerman BL, Bierregaard RO (1986) Relevance of the equilibrium theory of island biogeography and species–area relations to conservation with a case from Amazonia. J Biogeogr 13:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mauricio Almeida-Gomes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carlos Frederico D. Rocha
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate Program in Ecology, Department of Ecology, Biology InstituteFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Department of EcologyState University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations