Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 261–268 | Cite as

Canopy closure and amphibian diversity in forested wetlands

  • David K. SkellyEmail author
  • M. Anders Halverson
  • L. Kealoha Freidenburg
  • Mark C. Urban


The crowns of trees and shrubs often overtop temporary wetlands in forested regions. By shading pond basins, canopy can dramatically change the conditions experienced by residents such as amphibians. In this study, we estimated the presence of 8 amphibian species across 17 temporary wetlands at the Yale–Myers Forest in northeastern Connecticut, USA. In addition, we quantified the light environment using a grid of hemispherical canopy photographs to calculate Global Site Factor (GSF) within each wetland. Amphibian richness was low in most wetlands, and most wetlands were relatively shaded. Amphibian richness increased in lighter wetlands. This result was not confounded by relationships with wetland size. Most amphibian species tended to be absent from heavily shaded wetlands (‘open canopy specialists’). However, three species were often found in the shadiest wetlands (‘canopy generalists’). Field transplant experiments using one canopy generalist and one open canopy specialist showed that development of the generalist was less affected by wetland light levels compared with performance of the specialist. These findings suggest that canopy may be an important determinant of amphibian diversity patterns across wetlands. Further, conservation strategies dependent on universally applied, inviolate shoreline vegetation buffers may inadvertently contribute to species loss. Because species differ in their sensitivity to changes in canopy, these losses may be predictable.


Amphibian Buffer zone Canopy Community Distribution Experiment Forest Freshwater Global site factor 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Battaglia, L.L., Minchin, P.R., Pritchett, D.W. 2002Sixteen years of old-field succession and reestablishment of a bottomland hardwood forest in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial ValleyWetlands22117Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, P., Erhart, D.W., Smith, A.P. 1989Analysis of forest light environments. 1. Computerized estimation of solar-radiation from hemispherical canopy photographsAgric. For. Meteorol.44217232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calhoun, A.J.K., Walls, T.E., Stockwell, S.S., McCollough, M. 2003Evaluating vernal pools as a basis for conservation strategies: a Maine case studyWetlands237081Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canham, C.D. 1988Growth and canopy architecture of shade-tolerant trees: response to canopy gapsEcology69786795Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carlson, A., Edenhamn, P. 2000Extinction dynamics and the regional persistence of a tree frog metapopulationProc. R. Soc. Lon. Ser. B – Biol. Sci.26713111313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chazdon, R.L., Field, C.B. 1987Photographic estimation of photosynthetically active radiation: evaluation of a computerized techniqueOecologia73525532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delta T. 2001. Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Maynadier, P.G., Hunter, M.L. 1999Forest canopy closure and juvenile emigration by pool-breeding amphibians in MaineJ. Wildlife Manage.63441450Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dodd, D.K., Cade, B.S. 1998Movement patterns and the conservation of amphibians breeding in small, temporary wetlandsConserv. Biol.12331339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foster, D.R. 1992Vegetation dynamics and land use history in central New EnglandUSAJ. Ecol.80753772Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Francis, D.R., Foster, D.R. 2001Response of small New England ponds to historic land useHolocene11301312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibbs, J.P. 1993Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local-populations of wetland-associated animalsWetlands132531Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gill, D.E. 1978The metapopulation ecology of the red-spotted newtNotophthalmus viridescens (Rafinesque)Ecol. Monogr.48145166Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gosner, K. 1960A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identificationHerpetologica16183190Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Halverson, M.A., Swelly, D.K., Kiesecker, J.M., Freidenburg, L.K. 2003Forest mediated light regime linked to amphibian distribution and performanceOecologia134360364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Palik, B., Batzer, D.P., Buech, R., Nichols, D., Cease, K., Egeland, L., Streblow, D.E. 2001Seasonal pond characteristics across a chronosequence of adjacent forest ages in northern MinnesotaUSAWetlands21532542Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rothermel, B.B., Semlitsch, R.D. 2002An experimental study of landscape resistance of forest versus old-field habitats to emigrating amphibiansConserv. Biol.1613241332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Semlitsch, R.D. 1998Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breeding salamandersConserv. Biol.1211131119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Semlitsch, R.D. 2000Principles for management of aquatic breeding amphibiansJ. Wildlife Manage.64615631Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Semlitsch, R.D. 2002Critical elements for biologically based recovery plans of aquatic-breeding amphibiansConserv. Biol.16619629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Semlitsch, R.D., Bodie, J.R. 2003Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptilesConserv. Biol.1712191228Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skelly, D.K. 2001Distributions of pond-breeding anurans: an overview of mechanismsIsrael J. Zool.47313332Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Skelly, D.K., Freidenburg, L.K. 2000Effects of beaver on the thermal biology of an amphibianEcol. Lett.3483486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Skelly, D.K., Golon, J. 2003Digestive assimilation in tadpoles: the role of forest canopy coverHerpetologica593742Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Skelly, D.K., Freidenburg, L.K., Kiesecker, J.M. 2002Forest canopy and the performance of larval amphibiansEcology83983992Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Skelly, D.K., Werner, E.E., Cortwright, S.A. 1999Long-term distributional dynamics of a Michigan amphibian assemblageEcology8023262337Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Waldick, R.C., Freedman, B., Wassersug, R.J. 1999The consequences for amphibians of the conversion of natural, mixed species forests to conifer plantations in southern New BrunswickCan. Field Nat.113408418Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wellborn, G.A., Skelly, D.K., Werner, E.E. 1996Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradientAnnu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.27337363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Werner, E.E., Glennemeier, K.S. 1999Influence of forest canopy cover on breeding pond distributions of several amphibian speciesCopeia1999112Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • David K. Skelly
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • M. Anders Halverson
    • 1
  • L. Kealoha Freidenburg
    • 2
  • Mark C. Urban
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Forestry & Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology & Evolutionary BiologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations