Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 27, Issue 2–3, pp 323–341 | Cite as

Pond construction for threatened amphibians is an important conservation tool, even in landscapes with extant natural water bodies

  • Riin MagnusEmail author
  • Riinu Rannap
Original Paper


Ponds—small, isolated freshwater bodies—have vanished in large numbers during the last decades. Despite such great loss, the number of natural small water bodies has still remained quite high in Estonia. Nevertheless, many pond-related species, including amphibians such as the northern crested newt Triturus cristatus and the common spadefoot toad Pelobates fuscus—are in decline in Estonia, suggesting that the conditions of extant natural ponds might not be optimal. However, these conditions have never been examined. To halt the decline of these two pond-breeding species, more than 400 ponds have been constructed or restored from 2004 to 2014 in Estonia. In this study we compared 85 natural and 85 constructed ponds (which were created or restored especially for T. cristatus and/or P. fuscus) to find out: (i) what the main differences are between natural ponds and ponds specially created for threatened species; (ii) whether natural ponds provide breeding conditions for local amphibians; (iii) given the decline of T. cristatus and P. fuscus, what are the characteristics lacking in natural ponds, due to which they are not providing quality breeding habitats for these species. Whereas the constructed ponds were located in open habitats with mineral soils, the natural ponds were mainly in mires and forests, being thus more shaded. Amphibian diversity was higher in the constructed ponds and was positively related to the depth of the pond, the clarity of the water, the presence of slanting slopes, the absence of fish and the presence of nearby fields. T. cristatus preferred constructed ponds for reproduction, while the breeding site selection of P. fuscus was determined mainly by terrestrial habitat characteristics. Importantly, when the threatened species were removed from the sample, the diversity of common amphibians did not differ between natural and constructed ponds, suggesting that in our study sites natural water bodies act still as breeding sites for common species, but not for threatened ones. We conclude that pond construction is an important tool to halt the decline of threatened species, even in landscapes where natural ponds are still preserved.


Amphibian diversity Breeding pond selection Breeding pond characteristics Estonia Pelobates fuscus Triturus cristatus 



We thank E. Soomets, L. Remm, T. Kaasiku for help in the field, A. Lõhmus for constructive comments to the analysis and Sonya Thayer for language correction.


The study was financially supported by the Estonian Research Council (grants no IUT 34-7, 9051, PRG314, PUT1363) and EU LIFE + project LIFE08NAT/EE/000257(DRAGONLIFE).

Supplementary material

11273_2019_9662_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (1.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (JPEG 1788 kb)
11273_2019_9662_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (2.3 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (JPEG 2343 kb)
11273_2019_9662_MOESM3_ESM.jpg (1.3 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (JPEG 1307 kb)
11273_2019_9662_MOESM4_ESM.jpg (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 4 (JPEG 1537 kb)


  1. Adrados L, Rannap R, Briggs L (2010) Field guide of amphibians in Estonia. University of Tartu, Tallinn (in Estonian)Google Scholar
  2. Beebee TJC (1977) Habitats of the British Amphibians (1): chalk uplands. Biol Conserv 12:279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beebee TJC, Griffiths RA (2005) The amphibian decline crisis: a watershed for conservation biology? Biol Conserv 125:271–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beja P, Alcazar R (2003) Conservation of Mediterranean temporary ponds under agricultural intensification: an evaluation using amphibians. Biol Conserv 114:317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs L, von Fumetti S, Kelly-Quinn M (2017) The importance of small waterbodies for biodiversity and ecosystem services: implications for policy makers. Hydrobiologia 793:3–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brönmark C, Hansson LA (2002) Environmental issues in lakes and ponds: current state and perspectives. Environ Conserv 29:290–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brönmark C, Hansson LA (2005) The biology of lakes and ponds. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown DJ, Street GM, Nairn RW, Forstner MRJ (2012) A place to call home: amphibian use of created and restored wetlands. Int J Ecol. Google Scholar
  9. Bubíková K, Hrivnák R (2018) Comparative macrophyte diversity of waterbodies in the central European landscape. Wetlands 38:451–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP (2011) AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioural ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calhoun AJK, Walls TE, Stockwell SS, McCollough M (2003) Evaluating vernal pools as a basis for conservation strategies: a Maine case study. Wetlands 23:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caramujo MJ, Boavida MJ (2010) Biological diversity of copepods and cladocerans in Mediterranean temporary ponds under periods of contrasting rainfall. J Limnol 69:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carisio L, Sacchi R, Seglie D, Sindaco R (2014) Habitat selection in a fossorial toad Pelobates fuscus insubricus (Amphibia: Pelobatidae): Does the soil affect species occurrence? Acta Herpetol 9:51–59Google Scholar
  14. Céréghino R, Biggs J, Oertli B, Declerck S (2008) The ecology of European ponds: defining the characteristics of a neglected freshwater habitat. Hydrobiologia 597:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chester ET, Robson BJ (2013) Anthropogenic refuges for freshwater biodiversity: their ecological characteristics and management. Biol Conserv 166:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cirovic R, Radovic D, Vukov TD (2008) Breeding site traits of European newts (Triturus macedonicus, Lissotriton vulgaris, and Mesotriton alpestris: Salamandridae) in the Montenegrin karst region. Arch Biol Sci 60:459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Colburn EA, Weeks SC, Reed SK (2007) Diversity and Ecology of Vernal Pool Invertebrates. In: Calhoun AJK, DeMaynadier PG (eds) Science and conservation of vernal pools in Northeastern North America: ecology and conservation of seasonal wetlands in Northeastern North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 105–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Curado N, Hartel T, Arntzen JW (2011) Amphibian pond loss as a function of landscape change—a case study over three decades in an agricultural area of northern France. Biol Conserv 144:1610–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dalbeck L, Janssen J, Völsgen SL (2014) Beavers (Castor fiber) increase habitat availability, heterogeneity and connectivity for common frogs (Rana temporaria). Amph Rept 35:321–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davies BR, Biggs B, Williams P, Whitfield M, Nicolet P, Sear D, Bray S, Maund S (2008) Comparative biodiversity of aquatic habitats in European agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 125:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Denoël M (2012) Newt decline in Western Europe: highlights from relative distribution changes within guilds. Biodivers Conserv 21:2887–2898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Denoël M, Ficetola GF (2008) Conservation of newt guilds in an agricultural landscape of Belgium: the importance of aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Aquat Conserv 18:714–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Denoël M, Perez A, Cornet Y, Ficetola GF (2013) Similar local and landscape processes affect both a common and a rare newt species. PLoS ONE 8:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Denton JS, Hitchings SP, Beebee TJC, Gent A (1997) A recovery program for the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) in Britain. Conserv Biol 11:1329–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Edgar P, Bird DR (2006) Action Plan for the Conservation of the Crested Newt Triturus cristatus Species Complex in Europe. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  27. Eggert C (2002) Use of fluorescent pigments and implantable transmitters to track a fossorial toad (Pelobates fuscus). Herpetol J 12:69–74Google Scholar
  28. Eggert C, Guyétant R (1999) Age structure of a spadefoot toad Pelobates fuscus (Pelobatidae) population. Copeia 4:1127–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eggert C, Cogalniceanu D, Veith M, Dzukic G, Taberlet P (2006) The declining Spadefoot toad, Pelobates fuscus (Pelobatidae): paleo and recent environmental changes as a major influence on current population structure and status. Conserv Genet 7:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Elmberg J (1993) Threats to boreal frogs. Ambio 4:254–255Google Scholar
  31. Estonian nature information database, Accessed 1 Sep 2018
  32. EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Accessed 1 Sep 2018
  33. Ficetola GF, Rondinini C, Bonardi A, Baisero D, Padoa-Schioppa E (2015) Habitat availability for amphibians and extinction threat: a global analysis. Divers Distrib 21:302–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gustafson DH, Pettersson CJ, Malmgren JC (2006) Great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) as indicators of aquatic plant diversity. Herpetol J 16:347–352Google Scholar
  35. Gustafson DH, Malmgren JC, Mikusinski G (2011) Terrestrial habitat predicts use of aquatic habitat for breeding purposes—a study on the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Ann Zool Fenn 48:295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hartel T, Nemes S, Cogălniceanu D, Öllerer K, Schweiger O, Moga CI, Demeter L (2007) The effect of fish and aquatic habitat complexity on amphibians. Hydrobiologia 583:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harthun M (1999) Der Einfluss des Bibers (Castor fiber albicus) auf die Fauna (Odonata, Mollusca, Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, Diptera) von Mittelgebirgsbächen in Hessen (Deutschland). Limnologica 29:449–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hazell D, Hero J, Lindenmayer D, Cunningham R (2004) A comparison of constructed and natural habitat for frog conservation in an Australian agricultural landscape. Biol Conserv 119:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Heath DJ, Whitehead A (1992) A survey of pond loss in Essex, South-East England. Aquat Conserv 2:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hels T (2002) Population dynamics in a Danish metapopulation of spadefoot toads Pelobates fuscus. Ecography 25:303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hull A (1997) The Pond Life Project: a model of conservation and sustainability. In: Boothby J (ed) British Pond Landscape, Proceedings of the UK Conference of the Pond Life Project. Liverpool, pp 101–109Google Scholar
  43. Ildos AA, Ancona N (1994) Analysis of amphibian habitat preferences in a farmland area (Po plain, northern Italy). Amph Rept 15:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. IUCN 2009 Red list of threatened species: Accessed 1 Sep 2018
  45. Jehle R, Arntzen JW (2000) Post-breeding migrations of newts (Triturus cristatus and T. marmoratus) with contrasting ecological requirements. J Zool 251:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Joly P, Miaud C, Lehmann A, Grolet O (2001) Habitat matrix effect on pond occupancy in newts. Conserv Biol 15:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kauri H (1947) Die Verbreitung der Amphibien und Reptilen in Estland. Scripta Societatis Litterarum Esthonicae in Suecia, Ser. A. StockholmGoogle Scholar
  48. Laurila A (1998) Breeding habitat selection and larval performance of two anurans in freshwater rock-pools. Ecography 21:484–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lemmens P, Mergeay J, De Bie T, Van Wichelen J, De Meester L, Declerck SAJ (2013) How to maximally support local and regional biodiversity in applied conservation? Insights from pond management. PLoS ONE 8:e72538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martinez-Sanz C, Cenzano CSS, Fernández-Aláez M, Garcia-Criado F (2012) Relative contribution of small mountain ponds to regional richness of littoral macroinvertebrates and the implications for conservation. Aquat Conserv 22:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mazerolle MJ, Poulin M, Lavoie C, Rochefort L, Desrochers A, Drolet B (2006) Animal and vegetation patterns in natural and man-made bog pools: implications for restoration. Freshw Biol 51:333–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McDonald JH (2014) Handbook of biological statistics, 3rd edn. Sparky House Publishing, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  53. Miaud C (1994) Role of wrapping behavior on egg survival in three species of Triturus (Amphibia: Urodela). Copeia 2:535–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miaud C (1995) Oviposition site selection in three species of European newts (Salamandridae) genus Triturus. Amph Rept 16:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miró A, O’Brien D, Hall J, Jehle R (2017) Habitat requirements and conservation needs of peripheral populations: the case of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) in the Scottish Highlands. Hydrobiologia 792:169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Morand A, Joly P (1995) Habitat variability and space utilization by the amphibian communities of the French Upper-Rhone floodplain. Hydrobiologia 300(301):249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nielsen SM, Dige T (1995) A one season study of the common spadefoot, Pelobates fuscus. Memoranda Soc Fauna Flora Fennica 71:106–108Google Scholar
  58. Nöllert A (1990) Die Knoblauchkröte Pelobates fuscus. Die Neue Brehm Bücherei, Wittenberg LutherstadtGoogle Scholar
  59. Nyström P, Birkedal L, Dahlberg C, Brönmark C (2002) The declining spadefoot toad Pelobates fuscus: calling site choice and conservation. Ecography 25:488–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nyström P, Hansson J, Månsson J, Sundstedt M, Reslow C, Broström A (2007) A documented amphibian decline over 40 years: possible causes and implications for species recovery. Biol Conserv 138:399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Oertli B, Joye DA, Castella E, Juge R, Cambin D, Lachavanne JB (2002) Does size matter? The relationship between pond area and biodiversity. Biol Conserv 104:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Oertli B, Biggs J, Céréghino R, Grillas P, Joly P, Lachavanne JB (2005) Conservation and monitoring of pond biodiversity: introduction. Aquat Conserv 15:535–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Péntek AL, CsabaFV Zsuga K, Horváth Z (2017) Metacommunity dynamics of amphibians in years with differing rainfall. Aquat Ecol 51:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Per Sjögren-Gulve (1994) Distribution and extinction patterns within a Northern metapopulation of the pool frog, Rana lessonae. Ecology 75:1357–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Petranka JW, Holbrook CT (2006) Wetland restoration for amphibians: should local sites be designed to support metapopulations or patchy populations? Restor Ecol 14:404–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Petranka JW, Harp EM, Holbrook CT, Hamel JA (2007) Long-term persistence of amphibian populations in a restored wetland complex. Biol Conserv 138:371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Piha H, Louto M, Merila J (2007) Amphibian occurrence is influenced by current and historic landscape characteristics. Ecol Appl 17:2298–2309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Preisser EL, Kefer JY, Lawrence JD, Clark TW (2000) Vernal pool conservation in Connecticut: an assessment and recommendations. Environ Manage 26:503–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rannap R, Lõhmus A, Jakobson K (2007) Consequences of coastal meadow degradation: the case of the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) in Estonia. Wetlands 27:390–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rannap R, Lõhmus A, Briggs L (2009a) Restoring ponds for amphibians: a success story. Hydrobiologia 634:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rannap R, Lõhmus A, Briggs L (2009b) Niche position, but not niche breadth, differs in two coexisting amphibians having contrasting trends in Europe. Divers Distrib 15:692–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rannap R, Lõhmus A, Linnamägi M (2012) Geographic variation in habitat requirements of two coexisting newt species in Europe. Acta Zool Acad Sci H 58:69–86Google Scholar
  74. Rannap R, Markus M, Kaart T (2013) Habitat use of the common spadefoot toad (Pelobates fuscus) in Estonia. Amph Rept 34:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rannap R, Kaart T, Iversen LL, Briggs L, Vries W (2015) Geographically varying habitat characteristics of a wide-ranging amphibian, the common spadefoot toad (Pelobates fuscus), in Northern Europe. Herpetol Conserv Biol 10:904–916Google Scholar
  76. Red Data Book of Estonia 2008. Commission for Nature Conservation of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Accessed 1 Sep 2018
  77. Remm L, Lõhmus A, Rannap R (2015) Temporary and small water bodies in human-impacted forests: an assessment in Estonia. Boreal Environ Res 20:603–619Google Scholar
  78. Remm L, Vaikre M, Rannap R, Kohv M (2018) Amphibians in drained forest landscapes: conservation opportunities for commercial forests and protected sites. For Ecol Manag 428:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Reshetnikov AN (2003) The introduced fish, rotan (Perccottus glenii), depresses populations of aquatic animals (macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and a fish). Hydrobiologia 510:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rhazi L, Grillas P, Saber ER, Rhazi M, Brendonck L, Waterkeyn A (2012) Vegetation of Mediterranean temporary pools: a fading jewel? Hydrobiologia 689:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rooma I, Voiman V (2002) Estonian soils. Estonian Encyclopedia, 11, Tallinn (in Estonian)Google Scholar
  82. Rothermel BB (2004) Migratory success of juveniles: a potential constraint on connectivity for pond-breeding amphibians. Ecol Appl 14:1535–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schmidt BR, Van Buskirk J (2001) Verhalten, Wachstum und Morphologie von Kammolch-Larven in der An- und Abwesenheit von Libellenlarven. RANA Sonderheft 4:179–191Google Scholar
  84. Semlitsch RD (2000) Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians. J Wildl Manag 64:615–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Semlitsch RD (2002) Critical elements for biologically based recovery plans of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Conserv Biol 16:619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR (1998) Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conserv Biol 12:1129–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Skei JK, Dolmen D, Rønning L, Ringsby TH (2006) Habitat use during the aquatic phase of the newts Triturus vulgaris (L.) and T. cristatus (Laurenti) in central Norway: proposition for a conservation and monitoring area. Amph Rept 27:309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Soomets E, Rannap R, Lõhmus A (2016) Patterns of assemblage structure indicate a broader conservation potential of focal amphibians for pond management. PLoS ONE 11:e0160012. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Soomets E, Lõhmus A, Rannap R (2017) Brushwood removal from ditch banks attracts breeding frogs in drained forests. For Ecol Manage 384:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stevens CE, Paszkowski CA, Scrimgeour GJ (2006) Older is better: beaver ponds on Boreal streams as breeding habitat for the wood frog. J Wildl Manag 70:1360–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Suislepp K, Rannap R, Lõhmus A (2011) Impacts of artificial drainage on amphibian breeding sites in hemiboreal forests. For Ecol Manage 262:1078–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Székely D, Cogălniceanu D, Székely P, Denoël M (2017) Out of the ground: two coexisting fossorial toad species differ in their emergence and movement patterns. Zoology 121:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sztatecsny M, Jehle R, Schmidt B, Arntzen JW (2004) The abundance of premetamorphic newts (Triturus cristatus, T. marmoratus) as a function of habitat determinants: an a priori model selection approach. Herpetol J 14:89–97Google Scholar
  94. Tiberti R, Bogliani G, Brighenti S, Iacobuzio R, Liautaud K, Rolla M, von Hardenberg A, Bassano B (2018) Recovery of high mountain Alpine lakes after the eradication of introduced brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis using non-chemical methods. Biol Invasions. Google Scholar
  95. Vaikre M, Remm L, Rannap R, Voode M (2018) Functional assemblages of macroinvertebrates in pools and ditches in drained forest landscape. Wetlands 38:957–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Van Dyke F, Berthel A, Harju SM, Lamb RL, Thompson D, Ryan J, Pyne E, Dreyer G (2017) Amphibians in forest pools: does habitat clustering affect community diversity and dynamics? Ecosphere 8:e01671. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Vojar J, Doležalová J, Solský M, Smolová D, Kopecký O, Kadlec T, Knapp M (2016) Spontaneous succession on spoil banks supports amphibian diversity and abundance. Ecol Eng 90:278–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vuorio V, Heikkinen RK, Tikkanen O-P (2013) Breeding success of the threatened great crested newt in boreal forest ponds. Ann Zool Fenn 50:158–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Williams P, Whitfield M, Biggs J, Bray S, Fox G, Nicolet P, Sear D (2004) Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England. Biol Conserv 115:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wood PJ, Greenwood MT, Agnew MD (2003) Pond biodiversity and habitat loss in the UK. Area 35:206–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zero VH, Murphy MA (2016) An amphibian species of concern prefers breeding in active beaver ponds. Ecosphere 7:e01330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Institute of Ecology and Earth SciencesUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  2. 2.Department of Semiotics, Institute of Philosophy and SemioticsUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations