Wetlands

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 1079–1087 | Cite as

Breeding Habitat and Landscape Correlates of Frog Diversity and Abundance in a Tropical Agricultural Landscape

  • Fernando Rodrigues da Silva
  • James P. Gibbs
  • Denise de Cerqueira Rossa-Feres
Article

Abstract

The biodiversity values of temporary pools in tropical ecosystems are poorly understood. Such wetlands are often threatened by agriculture. Constructed pools provide a means to mitigate for loss of natural pools but design features associated with restoration successful are not known. In this paper, we evaluated the effects of environmental variables at local (breeding pools) and regional spatial scales (landscape configuration) on species richness and abundance of anurans in heavily altered landscapes of southeastern Brazil. Frog and toad communities of 18 constructed temporary breeding pools were sampled every 2 weeks from October 2008 to March 2009. Two variables—hydroperiod and percentage of vegetation in the interior of the pools—explained 62% of species richness variation. Three other variables—pool area, distance of pools to forest fragments, and distance of pools to road—explained between 22 and 46% of the variation in frog and toad abundance. Our results indicate that local- and regional-scale variables, and their interaction, are important drivers of the structure of frog and toad communities in these agricultural landscapes. To facilitate amphibian conservation we suggest that cattle ranchers create and maintain heavily vegetated temporary pools near protected forest reserves as both a water source for livestock and breeding habitat for amphibians.

Keywords

Amphibians Brazil, Conservation Hierarchical partitioning Scale Temporary pools 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP - grants 07/50738-5 and 04/04820-3); Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) - Programa de Doutorado no País com Estágio no Exterior (PDEE - grant 1186/09-4), and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq - grant to D.C. Rossa-Feres).

Supplementary material

13157_2011_217_MOESM1_ESM.doc (264 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 264 kb)

References

  1. AmphibiaWeb (2011) Information on amphibian biology and conservation. [web application]. Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Available via DIALOG, http://amphibiaweb.org/. Accessed 31 Jan 2011
  2. Babbitt KJ, Baber MJ, Childers DL, Hocking D (2009) Influence of agricultural upland habitat type on larval anuran assemblages in seasonally inundated wetlands. Wetlands 29:294–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barcha SF, Arid FM (1971) Estudo da evapotranspiração na região norte-ocidental do estado de São Paulo. Revista de Ciências da Faculdade de Ciências e Letras 1:94–122Google Scholar
  4. Becker CG, Fonseca CR, Haddad CFB, Batista RF, Prado PI (2007) Habitat split and the global decline of amphibians. Science 318:1775–1777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beja P, Alcazar R (2003) Conservation of Mediterranean temporary ponds under agricultural intensification: an evaluation using amphibians. Biological Conservation 114:317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bickford D, Ng TH, Qie L, Kudavidanage EP, Bradshaw CJA (2010) Forest fragment and breeding habitat characteristics explain frog diversity and abundance in Singapore. Biotropica 42:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bivant R, Anselin L, Assunção R, Berke O, Bernat A, Carvalho M, Chun Y, Dormann C, Dray S, Halbersma R, Krainski E, Lewin-Koh N, Tiefelsdorf M, Yu D (2009) spdep: Spatial dependence: weighting shemes, statistics and models. R package version 0.4-29. Available via DIALOG, http://cran.at.r-project.org/web/packages/spdep
  8. Burne MR, Griffin CR (2005) Habitat associations of pool-breeding amphibians in eastern Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model selection and inference. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Chevan A, Sutherland M (1991) Hierarchical partitioning. The American Statistician 45:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colwell RK (2004) EstimateS 8.20: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. User’s guide and application. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Available via DIALOG, http://purl.oclc.org/estimates
  12. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biological Conservation 128:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duellman WE, Trueb L (1994) Biology of amphibians. The Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  14. Egan RS, Paton PWC (2004) Within-pond parameters affecting ovoposition by wood frogs and spotted salamanders. Wetlands 24:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2008) The relative effects of road traffic and forest cover on anuran populations. Biological Conservation 141:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fahrig L, Pedlar JH, Pope SE, Taylor PD, Wegner JF (1995) Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Findlay CS, Houlahan J (1997) Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in Southeastern Ontario Wetlands. Conservation Biology 11:1000–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frost DR (2010) Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Available via DIALOG, http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/amphibia. Accessed 23 November 2010
  19. Gibbs JP (1998) Amphibian movements in response to forest edges, roads, and streambeds in Southern New England. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:584–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamer AJ, Parris KM (2011) Local and landscape determinants of amphibian communities in urban ponds. Ecological Applications 21:378–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herrmann HL, Babbitt KJ, Baber MJ, Congalton RG (2005) Effects of landscape characteristics on amphibian distribution in a forest-dominated landscape. Biological Conservation 123:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jansen DH (1997) Florestas tropicais secas. In: Wilson EO (ed) Biodiversidade, 1st edn. Editora Nova Fronteira, Rio de Janeiro, pp 166–176Google Scholar
  23. Joly CA, Rodrigues RR, Metzger JP, Haddad CFB, Verdade LM, Oliveira MC, Bolzani VS (2010) Biodiversity conservation research, training, and policy in São Paulo. Science 11:1358–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karraker NE, Gibbs JP (2009) Amphibian production in forested landscapes in relation to wetland hydroperiod: a case study of vernal pools and beaver ponds. Biological Conservation 142:2293–2302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laan R, Verboom B (1990) Effects of pool size and isolation on amphibian communities. Biological Conservation 54:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Legendre P (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74:1659–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lichtenberg JS, King SL, Grace JB, Walls SC (2006) Habitat associations of chorusing anurans in the lower Mississipi river alluvial valley. Wetlands 26:736–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mac Nally R (2000) Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: the distinction between - and reconciliation of - ‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:655–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mac Nally R (2002) Multiple regression and inference in ecology and conservation biology: further comments on identifying important predictor variables. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:1397–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nalon MA, Mattos IFA, Franco GADC (2008) Meio físico e aspectos da fragmentação da vegetação. In: Rodrigues RR, Joly CA, de Brito MCW, Paese A, Metzger JP, Casatti L, Nalon MA, Menezes N, Ivanauskas NM, Bolzani V, Bononi VLR (eds) Diretrizes para a restauração e conservação da biodiversidade no Estado de São Paulo, 1st edn. FAPESP, São Paulo, pp 15–24Google Scholar
  32. Oliveira-Filho AT, Fontes MAL (2000) Patterns of floristic differentiation among Atlantic Forests in southeastern Brazil and the influence of climate. Biotropica 32:793–810Google Scholar
  33. Otto CRV, Forester DC, Snodgrass JW (2007) Influences of wetland and landscape characteristics on the distribution of carpenter frogs. Wetlands 27:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2009) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-96, Available via DIALOG, http://cran.r-project.org/package=nlme
  35. Prado VHM, Borges R, Silva FR, Tognolo TT, Rossa-Feres DC (2008) Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae, Phyllomedusa azurea: distribution extension. Check List 4:55–56Google Scholar
  36. R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, reference index version 2.13.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available via DIALOG, http://www.Rproject.org
  37. Reh W, Seitz A (1990) The influence of land use on the genetic structure of populations of the common frog Rana temporaria. Biological Conservation 54:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodrigues RR, Joly CA, de Brito MCW, Paese A, Metzger JP, Casatti L, Nalon MA, Menezes N, Ivanauskas NM, Bolzani V, Bononi VLR (2008) Diretrizes para conservação e restauração da biodiversidade no Estado de São Paulo. FAPESP, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  39. Rossa-Feres DC, Martins M, Marques OAV, Martins IA, Sawaya RJ, Haddad CFB (2008) Herpetofauna. In: Rodrigues RR, Joly CA, de Brito MCW, Paese A, Metzger JP, Casatti L, Nalon MA, Menezes N, Ivanauskas NM, Bolzani V, Bononi VLR (eds) Diretrizes para a restauração e conservação da biodiversidade no Estado de São Paulo, 1st edn. FAPESP, São Paulo, pp 82–94Google Scholar
  40. Santos TG, Rossa-Feres DC, Casatti L (2007) Diversidade e distribuição espaço-temporal de anuros em região com pronunciada estação seca no sudeste do Brasil. Iheringia 97:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR (1998) Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation Biology 12:1129–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Silva FR, Rossa-Feres DC (2007) The use of forest fragments by open-area anurans (Amphibia) in northwestern São Paulo State, Brazil. Biota Neotropica 7:141–148Google Scholar
  44. Silva FR, Rossa-Feres DC (2011) Influence of terrestrial habitat isolation on the diversity and temporal distribution of anurans in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Tropical Ecology 27:327–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Silva FR, Prado VHM, Vasconcelos TS, Santos TG, Rossa-Feres DC (2009) Amphibia, Anura, Microhylidae, Chiasmocleis albopunctata: filling gap and geographic distribution map. Check List 5:314–316Google Scholar
  46. Silva FR, Prado VHM, Rossa-Feres DC (2010) Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae, Dendropsophus melanargyreus (Cope, 1887): distribution extension, new state record and geographic distribution map. Check List 6:402–404Google Scholar
  47. SMA/IF (Secretaria do Meio Ambiente / Instituto Florestal) (2005) Inventário florestal da vegetação natural do Estado de São Paulo. Imprensa Oficial do Estado de São Paulo, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  48. Snodgrass JW, Komoroski MJ, Bryan L Jr, Burger J (2000) Relationships among isolated wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implications for wetland regulations. Conservation Biology 14:414–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sutherland RW, Dunning PR, Baker WM (2010) Amphibian encounter rates on roads with different amounts of traffic and urbanization. Conservation Biology 24:1626–1635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Buskirk J (2005) Local and landscape influence on amphibian occurrence and abundance. Ecology 86:1936–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vasconcelos TS, Rossa-Feres DC (2005) Diversidade, distribuição espacial e temporal de anfíbios anuros (Amphibia, Anura) na região noroeste do estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Biota Neotropica 5:137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wassens S, Hall A, Osborne W, Watts RJ (2010) Habitat characteristics predict occupancy patterns of the endangered amphibian Litoria raniformis in flow-regulated flood plain wetlands. Austral Ecology 35:944–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wellborn GA, Skelly DK, Werner EE (1996) Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27:337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Werner EE, Relyea RA, Yurewicz KL, Skelly DK, Davis CJ (2009) Comparative landscape dynamics of two anuran species: climate-driven interaction of local and regional processes. Ecological Monographs 79:503–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernando Rodrigues da Silva
    • 1
  • James P. Gibbs
    • 2
  • Denise de Cerqueira Rossa-Feres
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidade Federal de São CarlosSorocabaBrazil
  2. 2.College of Environmental Science and ForestryState University of New YorkSyracuseUSA
  3. 3.Departamento de Zoologia e BotânicaUniversidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho – UNESPSão José do Rio PretoBrazil

Personalised recommendations