Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 369–384 | Cite as

Anuran occupancy of created wetlands in the Central Appalachians

  • Gabriel F. Strain
  • Philip J. Turk
  • Andrew N. Tri
  • James T. Anderson
Original Paper

Abstract

Evaluating the adequacy of created wetlands to replace the functions of lost natural wetlands is important because wetland mitigation is a major tool used to offset wetland losses. However, measurements such as vegetative cover and presence of wildlife may not provide sufficient evidence that created wetlands are functioning properly and thus examining the ecology of wetland biota such as that of amphibians may be a more useful surrogate for function. The objectives of this study were to compare the occupancy and detection of calling anurans in created wetlands relative to beaver-created wetlands. Five-, 10-min, and broadcast call surveys were performed at 24 wetlands throughout the Central Appalachians once every month from March through August of 2009 and 2010. Occupancy modeling was used to estimate the occupancy and detection of individual species, incorporating relevant environmental variables. The occupancy of anurans did not differ between human-created and beaver (Castor canadensis)-created wetlands. Detection of anurans was largely unaffected by call survey type, but several environmental covariates had a significant effect on the detectability of calling anurans. Our results suggest that the function of providing adequate chorusing habitat for adult anurans is being fulfilled by the created wetlands that we examined.

Keywords

Anurans Call survey Compensatory mitigation Habitat Wetland function Wetland loss 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank E. Miller, B. Olejasz, A. Nemeyer, and N. McCoard for help in the field. Funding and logistical support was provided by the WVU Division of Forestry and Natural Resources through the McIntire-Stennis program, the WVU Environmental Research Center, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and a student research grant to GFS from the South Atlantic Chapter of the Society of Wetland Scientists. J.T. Anderson was supported by the National Science Foundation under Cooperative Agreement No. OIA-1458952 during manuscript preparation. This is scientific article number XXXX of the WVU Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alford RA, Richards SJ (1999) Global amphibian declines: a problem in applied ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:133–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balcombe CK, Anderson JT, Fortney RH, Kordek WS (2005a) Wildlife use of mitigation and reference wetlands in West Virginia. Ecol Eng 25:85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balcombe CK, Anderson JT, Fortney RH, Rentch JS, Grafton WN, Kordek WS (2005b) A comparison of plant communities in mitigation and reference wetlands in the mid-Appalachians. Wetlands 25:130–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balcombe CK, Anderson JT, Fortney RH, Kordek WS (2005c) Vegetation, invertebrate, and wildlife community rankings and habitat analysis of mitigation wetlands in West Virginia. Wetl Ecol Manag 13:517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balcombe CK, Anderson JT, Fortney RH, Kordek WS (2005d) Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages in mitigated and natural wetlands. Hydrobiologia 541:175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonner JL, Anderson JT, Rentch JS, Grafton WN (2009) Vegetative composition and community structure associated with beaver ponds in Canaan Valley, West Virginia, USA. Wetl Ecol Manag 17:543–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bridges AS, Dorcas ME (2000) Temporal variation in anuran calling behavior: implications for surveys and monitoring programs. Copeia 2000:587–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinson MM, Malvarez AI (2002) Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status, and threats. Environ Conserv 29:115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown DJ, Street GM, Nairn RW, Forstner MRJ (2012) A place to call home: amphibian use of created and restored wetlands. Inter J Ecol 2012:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Butterfield BP, Lannoo M, Nanjappa P (2005) Pseudacris crucifer. In: Lannoo M (ed) Amphibian declines. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 889–894Google Scholar
  12. Campbell DA, Cole CA, Brooks RP (2002) A comparison of created and natural wetlands in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetl Ecol Manag 10:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cole CA, Brooks RP (2000) A comparison of the hydrologic characteristics of natural and created mainstem floodplain wetlands in Pennsylvania. Ecol Eng 14:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cole CA, Shafer D (2002) Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986-1999. Environ Manage 30:508–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cook RP, Tupper TA, Paton PWC, Timm BC (2011) Effects of temperature and temporal factors on anuran detection probabilities at Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts, USA: implications for long-term monitoring. Herpetol Conserv Biol 6:25–39Google Scholar
  16. Corn PS, Muths E, Iko WM (2000) A comparison in Colorado of three methods to monitor breeding amphibians. Northwest Nat 81:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ED (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Publication FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  18. Crouch WB III, Paton PWC (2002) Assessing the use of call surveys to monitor breeding anurans in Rhode Island. J Herpetol 36:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cunnington GM, Fahrig L (2010) Plasticity in the vocalizations of anurans in response to traffic noise. Acta Oecol 36:463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dahl TE (1990) Wetlands losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980′s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Dahl TE (2006) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Dahl TE (2011) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Dahl TE, Johnson CE (1991) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, mid-1970’s to mid-1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Dixon PM (2002) Bootstrap resampling. In: El-Shaarawi AH, Piegorsch WW (eds) Encyclopedia of environmetrics. Wiley, Chichester, pp 212–220Google Scholar
  25. Dorcas ME, Price SJ, Walls SC, Barichivich WJ (2009) Auditory monitoring of anuran populations. In: Dodd K (ed) Conservation and ecology in amphibians. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 281–298Google Scholar
  26. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2012) Wetlands and people. http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/people.cfm. Accessed 10 Jul 2013
  27. Etnier DA, Starnes WC (1993) The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, KnoxvilleGoogle Scholar
  28. Fiske IJ, Chandler RB (2011) Unmarked: an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. J Stat Softw 43:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gallant AL, Klaver RW, Casper GS, Lannoo MJ (2007) Global rates of habitat loss and implications for amphibian conservation. Copeia 2007:967–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Genet KS, Sargent LG (2003) Evaluation of methods and data quality from a volunteer-based amphibian call survey. Wildl Soc Bull 31:703–714Google Scholar
  31. Gibbons JW (2003) Terrestrial habitat: a vital component for herpetofauna of isolated wetlands. Wetlands 23:630–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gingerich RT, Anderson JT (2011) Decomposition trends of five plant litter types in mitigated and reference wetlands in West Virginia, USA. Wetlands 31:653–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Green AW, Hooten MB, Grant EHC, Bailey LL (2013) Evaluating breeding and metamorph occupancy and vernal pool management effects for wood frogs using a hierarchical model. J Appl Ecol 50:1116–1123Google Scholar
  34. Guzy JC, McCoy ED, Deyle AC, Gonzalez SM, Halstead N, Mushinsky HR (2012) Urbanization interferes with the use of amphibians as indicators of ecological integrity of wetlands. J Appl Ecol 49:941–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hossler K, Bouchard V, Fennessy MS, Frey SD, Anemaet E, Herbert E (2011) No-net-loss not met for nutrient function in freshwater marshes: recommendations for wetland mitigation policies. Ecosphere 2:1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jelinski NA, Kucharik CJ, Zedler JB (2011) A test of diversity-productivity models in natural, degraded, and restored wet prairies. Restor Ecol 19:186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kery M, Dorazio RM, Soldaat L, van Strien A, Zuiderwijk A, Royle JA (2009) Trend estimation in populations with imperfect detection. J Appl Ecol 46:1163–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kirlin MS, Gooch MM, Price SJ, Dorcas ME (2006) Predictors of winter anuran calling activity in the North Carolina Piedmont. J N C Acad Sci 122:10–18Google Scholar
  39. Kurzava LM, Morin PJ (1998) Tests of functional equivalence: complementary roles of salamanders and fish in community organization. Ecology 79:477–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lehtinen RM, Galatowitsch SM (2001) Colonization of restored wetlands by amphibians in Minnesota. Am Midl Nat 145:388–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lesbarrerees D, Fowler MS, Pagano A, Lode T (2010) Recovery of anuran community diversity following habitat replacement. J Appl Ecol 47:148–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lotz A, Allen CR (2007) Observer bias in anuran call surveys. J Wildl Manag 71:675–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MacKenzie DI, Bailey LL (2004) Assessing the fit of site-occupancy models. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 9:300–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MacKenzie DI, Kendall WL (2002) How should detection probability be incorporated into estimates of relative abundance? Ecology 83:2387–2393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD (2004) Occupancy as a surrogate for abundance estimation. Anim Biodivers Conserv 24:461–467Google Scholar
  46. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Academic Press, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  48. Mannan RN (2008) An assessment of survey methodology, calling activity, and habitat associations of wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) and boreal chorus frogs (Pseudacris maculata) in a tundra biome. Thesis, Texas Tech University, LubbockGoogle Scholar
  49. Marsh DM, Trenham PC (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conserv Biol 15:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McClintock BT, Bailey LL, Pollock KH, Simons TR (2010) Experimental investigation of observation error in anuran call surveys. J Wildl Manag 74:1882–1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2007) Wetlands, 4th edn. Wiley and Sons, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  52. NAAMP (2005) USGS North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP). USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.pwrc.usgs. gov/naamp
  53. Naiman RJ, Johnston CA, Kelley JC (1988) Alteration of North American streams by beaver. Bioscience 38:753–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. National Research Council (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  55. Nichols JD (1992) Capture-recapture models: using marked animals to study population dynamics. Bioscience 42:92–102Google Scholar
  56. Oseen KL, Wassersug RJ (2002) Environmental factors influencing calling in sympatric anurans. Oecologia 133:616–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Pauley TK (2000) Amphibians and reptiles in wetland habitats of West Virginia. In: Proceedings of the West Virginia academy of sciences, vol 72, pp. 78–88Google Scholar
  58. Pauley TK, Lannoo M (2005) Rana clamitans. In: Lannoo M (ed) Amphibian declines. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 889–894Google Scholar
  59. Pechmann JHK, Estes RA, Scott DE, Gibbons JW (2001) Amphibian colonization and use of ponds created for trial mitigation of wetland loss. Wetlands 21:93–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pellet J, Schmidt BR (2005) Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. Biol Conserv 123:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Petranka JW, Kennedy CA, Murray SA (2003a) Response of amphibians to restoration of a southern Appalachian wetland: a long-term analysis of community dynamics. Wetlands 23:1030–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Petranka JW, Murray SA, Kennedy SA (2003b) Responses of amphibians to restoration of a southern Appalachian wetland: perturbations confound post-restoration assessment. Wetlands 23:278–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Phillips K (1990) Where have all the frogs and toads gone? Bioscience 40:422–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pierce BA, Gutzwiller KJ (2004) Auditory sampling of frogs: detection efficiency in relation to survey duration. J Herpetol 38:495–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pope SE, Fahrig L, Merriam HG (2000) Landscape complementation and metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations. Ecology 81:2498–2508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Porej D, Hetherington TE (2005) Designing wetlands for amphibians: the importance of predatory fish and shallow littoral zones in structuring of amphibian communities. Wetl Ecol Manag 13:445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Robb JT (2002) Assessing wetland compensatory mitigation sites to aid in establishing mitigation ratios. Wetlands 22:435–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Royle JA (2004) N-mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics 60:108–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR (1998) Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conserv Biol 12:1129–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shirose LJ, Bishop CA, Green DM, MacDonald CJ, Brooks RJ, Helferty NJ (1997) Validation tests of an amphibian call count survey technique in Ontario, Canada. Herpetologica 53:312–320Google Scholar
  71. Shulse CD, Semlitsch RD, Trauth KM, Williams AD (2010) Influences of design and landscape placement parameters on amphibian abundance in constructed wetlands. Wetlands 30:915–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shulse CD, Semlitsch RD, Trauth KM, Gardner JE (2012) Testing wetland features to increase amphibian reproductive success and species richness for mitigation and restoration. Ecol Appl 22:1675–1688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Stauffer JR, Boltz JM, White LR (1995) The fishes of West Virginia. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  74. Steelman CK, Dorcas ME (2010) Anuran calling survey optimization: developing and testing predictive models of anuran calling activity. J Herpetol 44:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stevens CE, Diamond AW, Gabor TS (2002) Anuran call surveys on small wetlands in Prince Edward Island, Canada restored by dredging of sediments. Wetlands 22:90–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Strain GF (2014) Functional equivalency of created and natural wetlands in the Central Appalachians: reproductive success, call phenology, and diet composition of amphibians. Dissertation, West Virginia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  77. Strain GF, Turk PJ, Anderson JT (2014) Functional equivalency of created and natural wetlands: diet composition of red-spotted newts (Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens). Wetl Ecol Manag 22:659–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. Turner RE, Redmond AM, Zedler JB (2001) Count it up by acre or function—mitigation adds up to net loss of wetlands. Natl Wetl Newslett 23:5–16Google Scholar
  81. Vasconcelos D, Calhoun AJK (2006) Monitoring created seasonal pools for functional success: a six-year study of amphibian responses, Sears Island, Maine, USA. Wetlands 26:992–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Walston LJ, Mullin SJ (2007) Responses of a pond-breeding amphibian community to the experimental removal of predatory fish. Am Midl Nat 157:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weir L, Royle JA, Nanjappa P, Jung RE (2005) Modeling anuran detection and site occupancy on North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP) routes in Maryland. J Herpetol 39:627–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Weir L, Fiske IJ, Royle JA (2009) Trends in anuran occupancy from northeastern states of the North American Amphibian Monitoring Program. Herpetol Conserv Biol 4:389–402Google Scholar
  85. Whigham DF (1999) Ecological issues related to wetland preservation, restoration, creation and assessment. Sci Total Environ 240:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 16:446–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zedler JB (1996) Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the forum. Ecol Appl 6:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zimmerman BL (1994) Audio strip transects. In: Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek LC, Foster MS (eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., pp 92–97Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel F. Strain
    • 1
  • Philip J. Turk
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrew N. Tri
    • 1
  • James T. Anderson
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Natural ResourcesWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  4. 4.West Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations