Landscape Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 609–615 | Cite as

Species absence in developed landscapes: an experimental evaluation

  • Alex Shepack
  • L. Kealoha Freidenburg
  • David K. Skelly
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Conversion of landscapes is widely associated with loss of biodiversity. While there are several competing hypotheses for the local extinction of species in developed landscapes, experimental approaches are seldom applied to elucidating mechanisms.

Objectives

In this study, we focus on the habitat degradation hypothesis and predict that poor quality of relictual wetlands in developed landscapes contributes to the absence of wood frogs (Rana sylvatica = Lithobates sylvaticus) by decreasing their performance.

Methods

In a translocation experiment, we reared wood frog larvae within enclosures in seven ponds where they naturally occur and in five ponds in developed landscapes where they are absent. Premature pond drying precluded assessing performance in one present pond and one absent pond.

Results

Absent ponds were surrounded by upland buffers dominated by developed land covers while ponds with wood frog breeding populations were surrounded primarily by intact forest. Ponds were largely similar in their attributes. Survival and growth rate did not differ between pond types. Development tended to be slightly more rapid in some absent ponds perhaps related to higher water temperatures.

Conclusions

Despite the highly altered landscapes surrounding them, we find no evidence that absent wetlands provide inferior habitat for wood frog larval recruitment. Performance in absent ponds matched or exceeded that observed in present ponds implying that absence of this species may stem from influences mediated by the upland landscape. These results provide a caution to the typically unexamined presumption that relictual habitats in developed landscapes are degraded in their utility for wildlife.

Keywords

Local extinction Suburbanization Amphibian Transplant Field experiment Habitat Wetland 

Supplementary material

10980_2016_464_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Online Appendix (DOCX 13 kb)
10980_2016_464_MOESM2_ESM.docx (114 kb)
Table S1 (DOCX 113 kb)
10980_2016_464_MOESM3_ESM.docx (92 kb)
Table S2 (DOCX 91 kb)

References

  1. Allan JD, Flecker AS (1993) Biodiversity conservation in running waters. BioScience 43:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin RF, Calhoun AJK, deMaynadier PG (2006) Conservation planning for amphibian species with complex habitat requirements: a case study using movements and habitat selection the wood frog Rana sylvatica. J Herpetol 40:442–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin RF, deMaynadier PG (2009) Assessing threats to pool-breeding amphibian habitat in an urbanizing landscape. Biol Conserv 142:1628–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer DM, Paton PWC, Swallow SK (2010) Are wetland regulations cost effective for species protection? A case study of amphibian metapopulations. Ecol Appl 20:798–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker CG, Fonseca CR, Haddad CFB, Batista RF, Prado PI (2007) Habitat split and the global decline of amphibians. Science 318:1775–1777CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Booth DB, Reinelt LE (1993) Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systems—measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies.In: Proceedings of the Watershed’93 conference, pp 545–550Google Scholar
  7. Brady SP (2013) Microgeographic maladaptive performance and deme depression in response to roads and runoff. PeerJ 1:e163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Brearley G, Rhodes J, Bradley A, Baxter G, Seabrook L, Lunney D et al (2012) Wildlife disease prevalence in human-modified landscapes. Biol Rev 88:427–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Calhoun AJK, Miller NA, Klemens MW (2005) Conserving pool-breeding amphibians in human-dominated landscapes through local implementation of best development practices. Wetl Ecol Manag 13:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Czech B, Krausmann PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. BioScience 50:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. David JA, Froend R (1999) Loss and degradation of wetlands in southwestern Australia: underlying causes, consequences and solutions. Wetl Ecol Manag 7:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2008) The relative effects of road traffic and forest cover on anuran populations. Biol Conserv 141:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falcucci A, Maiorano L, Boitani L (2007) Changes in land-use/land-cover patterns in Italy and their implications for biodiversity conservation. Landscape Ecol 22:617–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faulkner S (2004) Urbanization impacts on the structure and function of forested wetlands. Urban Ecosyst 7:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Felson AJ (2013) The design process as a framework for collaboration between ecologists and designers. In: Pickett STA, McGrath B (eds) Resilience in ecology and urban design: linking theory and practice in sustainable cities, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5341-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Findlay CS, Bourdages J (2000) Response time of wetland biodiversity to road construction on adjacent lands. Conserv Biol 14:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fry J, Xian G, Jin S, Dewitz J, Homer C, Yang L et al (2011) Completion of the 2006 national land cover database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77:858–864Google Scholar
  18. Gagne SA, Fahrig L (2007) Effect of landscape context on anuran communities in breeding ponds in the National Capital Region, Canada. Landscape Ecol 22:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbs JP (1998) Distribution of woodland amphibians along a forest fragmentation gradient. Landscape Ecol 16:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  21. Grimm NB, Foster D, Groffman P, Grove JM, Hopkinson CS, Nadelhoffer KJ et al (2008) The changing landscape: ecosystem responses to urbanization and pollution across climatic and societal gradients. Front Ecol Environ 6:264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Hamer AJ, McDonnell MJ (2005) Amphibian ecology and conservation in the urbanizing world: a review. Biol Conserv 141:2432–2449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hamilton PB, Nicol E, DeBastos ESR, Williams RJ, Sumpter JP, Jobling S et al (2014) Populations of a cyprinid fish are self-sustaining despite widespread feminization of males. BMC Biol 12:1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen AJ, Knight RL, Marzluff JM, Powell S, Brown K, Gude PH, Jones A (2005) Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecol Appl 15:1893–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harper EB, Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2008) Demographic consequences of terrestrial habitat loss for pool-breeding amphibians: predicting extinction risks associated with inadequate size of buffer zones. Conserv Biol 22:1205–1215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Heatwole H (1961) Habitat selection and activity of the Wood Frog, Rana sylvatica Le Conte. Am Midl Nat 66:301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Houlahan JE, Findlay CS (2004) Estimating the ‘critical’ distance at which adjacent land-use degrades wetland water and sediment quality. Landscape Ecol 19:677–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kowarik I (2011) Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ Pollut 159:1974–1983CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lenth BA, Knight RL, Gilgert WC (2006) Conservation value of clustered housing developments. Conserv Biol 20:1445–1456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McKinney ML, Lockwood JL (1999) Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol 14:450–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2008) Chapter 13. Wetland restoration, enhancement or creation restoration. In Part 650, Engineering Field Handbook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Patrick DA, Hunter ML, Calhoun AK (2006) Effects of experimental forestry treatments on a Maine amphibian community. Forest Ecol Manag 234:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pillsbury FC, Miller JR (2008) Habitat and landscape characteristics underlying anuran community structure along an urban-rural gradient. Ecol Appl 18:1107–1118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Porej D, Micacchion M, Hetherington TE (2004) Core terrestrial habitat for conservation of local populations of salamanders and wood frogs in agricultural landscapes. Biol Conserv 120:399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Regosin JV, Windmiller BS, Reed JM (2003) Terrestrial habitat use and winter densities of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). J Herpetol 37:390–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schlesinger MD, Manley PN, Holyoak M (2008) Distinguishing stressors acting on land bird communities in an urbanizing environment. Ecology 89:2302–2314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR (2003) Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conserv Biol 17:1219–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Semlitsch RD, Skelly DK (2007) Ecology and conservation of pool-breeding amphibians. In: Calhoun A, deMaynadier P (eds) Science and conservation of Vernal Pools in Northeastern North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 127–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH, McIntyre NE, Hope D (2006) From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 21:186–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Skelly DK (2001) Distributions of pond-breeding anurans: an overview of mechanisms. Isr J Zool 47:313–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skelly DK, Bolden SR, Dion K (2010) Intersex amphibians concentrated in suburban and urban landscapes. EcoHealth 7:374–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Skelly DK, Bolden SR, Holland MP, Freidenburg LK, Freidenfelds NA, Malcolm TR (2006) Urbanization and disease in amphibians. In: Collinge S, Ray C (eds) Ecology of disease: community context and pathogen dynamics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Skelly DK, Halverson MA, Freidenburg LK, Urban MC (2005) Canopy closure and amphibian diversity in forested wetlands. Wetlands Ecol Manag 13:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smits AP, Skelly DK, Bolden SR (2014) Amphibian intersex in suburban landscapes. Ecosphere 5:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Urban MC, Skelly DK, Burchsted D, Price W, Lowry S (2006) Stream communities across a rural-urban landscape gradient. Divers Distrib 12:337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zinn JA, Copeland C (1997) Wetland issues, CRS issue brief. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, p 14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex Shepack
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. Kealoha Freidenburg
    • 1
  • David K. Skelly
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Forestry & Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations