Advertisement

Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 269–279 | Cite as

The relative importance of wetland size and hydroperiod for amphibians in southern New Hampshire, USA

  • Kimberly J. Babbitt
Article

Abstract

In the United States, the regulatory approach to wetland protection has a traditional focus on size as a primary criterion, with large wetlands gaining significantly more protection. Small, isolated wetlands have received less protection; however, these wetlands play a significant role in the maintenance of biodiversity of many taxonomic groups, including amphibians. An important question for directing conservation and management efforts for amphibians is whether size is a useful criterion for regulatory decisions. Because hydroperiod has an important influence on amphibian composition in wetlands, I conducted a study to examine the relative influence of wetland size and hydroperiod on amphibian occurrence. I sampled 103 wetlands in southern New Hampshire in 1998 and 1999 using dipnet sampling to document the presence of larval amphibians. Wetlands were placed into one of three hydroperiod categories; short (<4 months), intermediate (4–11 months), or long (permanent) based on field observations of drying pattern. Wetland size was determined from digitized national wetland inventory (NWI) maps (most wetlands) or measured in the field. I examined patterns of amphibian species richness and individual species occurrence using generalized linear models. Wetland size ranged from 0.01 to 3.27 ha. Overall, species richness was significantly influenced by hydroperiod (χ2 = 18.6, p <0.001), but not size (χ2 = 1.4, p = 0.24). Examination within hydroperiod categories revealed several significant relationships with wetland size. Species richness was related to wetland size in wetlands with short and intermediate hydroperiods, but not wetlands with long hydroperiods. Wetland size does not appear to be a useful sole criterion for determining wetland functional value for amphibians; assessments of functions of seasonally inundated wetlands for amphibians would benefit from examination of hydroperiod.

Keywords

Amphibians Hydroperiod Hydrological gradient New Hampshire Wetland size 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Altig, R. 1970A key to the tadpoles of the continental United States and CanadaHerpetologica26180207Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babbitt, K.J., Baber, M.J, Tarr, T.L. 2003Patterns of larval amphibian distribution along the wetland hydroperiod gradientCan. J. Zool.8115391552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Binckley, C.A., Resitarits, W.J.,Jr. 2003Functional equivalence of non-lethal effects: generalized fish avoidance␣determines distribution of gray treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelislarvaeOikos102623629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calhoun, A.J.K., Walls, T.E., Stockwell, S.S., McCollough, M. 2003Evaluating vernal pools as a basis for conservation strategies: a Maine case studyWetlands227081Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christie, J., Hausmann, S. 2003Various state reactions to the SWANCC decisionWetlands23653662Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Egan, R.S., Paton, P.W.C. 2004Within-pond parameters affecting oviposition by wood frogs and spotted salamandersWetlands24113Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ESRI inc. 1999. ArcInfo User’s Manual, Version 7.2.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. Redlands, California, USA.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gibbs, J.P. 1993Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local populations of wetland-associated animalsWetlands132531Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gibbs, J.P. 2000Wetland loss and biodiversity conservationConserv. Biol.14314317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hecnar, S.J., Mȁ9Closkey, R.T. 1996Regional dynamics and the status of amphibiansEcology7720912097Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hopey, M.E., Petranka, J.W. 1994Restriction of wood frogs to fish-free habitats: how important is adult choice?Copeia199410231025Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaiser, J. 1998New wetlands proposal draws flakScience279980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCullagh, P., Nelder, J.A. 1989Generalized linear modelsChapman & HallLondon, UK2nd ed.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moler, P.E., Franz, R. 1987Wildlife values of small, isolated wetlands in the southeastern coastal plainOdum, R.R.Riddleberger, K.A.Ozier, J.C. eds. Proceedings of the 3rd Southeast Nongame and Endangered Wildlife SymposiumGeorgia Department of Natural ResourcesAtlantaGeorgiaUSA234240Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orton, G. 1939Key to New Hampshire amphibian larvaeWarfel, H.E. eds. Biological Survey of the Connecticut WatershedNew Hampshire Fish and Game DepartmentConcordNew HampshireUSAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paton, P.W.C., Crouch III., W.B. 2002Using the phenology of pond-breeding amphibians to develop conservation strategiesConserv. Biol.16194204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richter, K.O., Azous, A.L. 1995Amphibian occurrence and wetland characteristics in the Puget Sound BasinWetlands15305312Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    SAS2001SAS/STAT software Version 8 m SAS instituteCaryNorth CarolinaUSAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Semlitsch, R.D., Bodie, J.R. 1998Are small, isolated wetlands expendable?Conserv. Biol.1211291133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Semlitsch, R.D. 2000Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibiansJ. Wildlife Manage.64615631Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skelly, D.K. 1996Pond drying, predators, and the distribution of Pseudacris tadpolesCopeia1996599605Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Snodgrass, J.W., Komoroski, M.J., Bryan, A.L.,Jr., Burger, J. 2000Relationships among isolated wetland sizehydroperiodand amphibian species richness: implications for wetland regulationsConserv. Biol.14414419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tiner, R.W., Bergquist, H.C., DeAlessio, G.P., Greene, J.L. 2002Geographically isolated wetlands: a preliminary␣assessment of their characteristics and status in selected areas of the United StatesU.S. Department of the InteriorFish and Wildldife Service Northeast RegionHadley, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Travis, J. 1981A key to the tadpoles of North CarolinaBrimleyana6119127Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wellborn, G.A., Skelly, D.K., Werner, E.E. 1996Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradientAnn. Rev. Ecol. Syst.27337363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Woodward, B.D. 1983Predator-prey interactions and breeding-pond use of temporary species in a desert anuran communityEcology6415491555Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural ResourcesUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations