, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 197–207

Wetland Reserve Program Enhances Site Occupancy and Species Richness in Assemblages of Anuran Amphibians in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, USA

  • Susan C. Walls
  • J. Hardin Waddle
  • Stephen P. Faulkner


We measured amphibian habitat use to quantify the effectiveness of conservation practices implemented under the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), an initiative of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. From February to June 2007, we quantified calling male anurans in cultivated cropland, former cultivated cropland restored through the WRP, and mature bottomland hardwood forest. Sites were located in two watersheds within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley of Arkansas and Louisiana, USA. We estimated detection probability and site occupancy within each land use category using a Bayesian hierarchical model of community species occurrence, and derived an estimate of species richness at each site. Relative to sites in cultivated cropland, nine of 1 l species detected were significantly more likely to occur at WRP sites and six were more likely to occur at forested sites. Species richness estimates were also higher for WRP and forested sites, compared to those in cultivated cropland. Almost half (45 %) of the species responded positively to both WRP and forested sites, indicating that patches undergoing restoration may be important transitional habitats. Wetland Reserve Program conservation practices are successful in restoring suitable habitat and reducing the impact of cultivation-induced habitat loss on amphibians in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley.


Anuran amphibians Conservation Effects Assessment Project Cultivation Occupancy Species richness USDA-NRCS Wetland Reserve Program Wetland restoration 


  1. Adams MJ, Miller DAW, Muths E, Corn PS, Grant EHC, Bailey LL, Fellers GM, Fisher RN, Sadinski WJ, Waddle H, Walls SC (2013) Trends in amphibian occupancy in the United States. PLoS ONE 8:e64347. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064347 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attademo AM, Peltzer PM, Lajmanovich RC (2005) Amphibians occurring in soybean and implications for biological control in Argentina. Agric Ecosyst Environ 106:389–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babbitt KJ, Baber MJ, Tanner GW (2005) The impact of agriculture on temporary wetland amphibians in Florida. In: Meshaka WE Jr, Babbitt KJ (eds) Amphibians and reptiles: status and conservation in Florida. Krieger, Malabar, pp 48–55Google Scholar
  4. Babbitt KJ, Baber MJ, Brandt LA (2006) The effect of woodland proximity and wetland characteristics on larval anuran assemblages in an agricultural landscape. Can J Zool 84:510–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babbitt KJ, Baber JM, Childers DL, Hocking D (2009) Influence of agricultural upland habitat type on larval anuran assemblages in seasonally inundated wetlands. Wetlands 29:294–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balas CJ, Euliss NH Jr, Mushet DM (2012) Influence of conservation programs on amphibians using seasonal wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region. Wetlands 32:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartzen BA, Dufour KW, Clark RG, Caswell FD (2010) Trends in agricultural impact and recovery of wetlands in prairie Canada. Ecol Appl 20:525–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker CG, Fonseca CR, Haddad CFB, Batista RF, Prado PI (2007) Habitat split and the global decline of amphibians. Science 318:1775–1777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Becker CG, Fonseca CR, Haddad CFB, Batista RF, Prado PI (2010) Habitat split as a cause of local population declines of amphibians with aquatic larvae. Conserv Biol 24:287–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Becker CG, Rodriguez D, Longo AV, Talaba AL, Zamudio KR (2012) Disease risk in temperate amphibian populations is higher at closed-canopy sites. PLoS ONE 7:e48205. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048205 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Binckley CA, Resetarits WJ Jr (2007) Effects of forest canopy on habitat selection in treefrogs and aquatic insects: implications for communities and metacommunities. Oecologia 153:951–958PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blann KL, Anderson JL, Sands GR, Vondracek B (2009) Effects of agricultural drainage on aquatic ecosystems: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 39:909–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brinson MM, Eckles SD (2011) U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation program and practice effects on wetland ecosystem services: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 21:S116–S127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown DJ, Street GM, Nairn RW, Forstner MR (2012) A place to call home: amphibian use of created and restored wetlands. International Journal of Ecology 2012: Article ID 989872, 11 pp. doi:10.1155/2012/989872
  15. Carr AF (1940) Dates of frog choruses in Florida. Copeia 1940:55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins JP (2010) Amphibian decline and extinction: what we know and what we need to learn. Dis Aquat Org 92:93–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collins JP, Storfer A (2003) Global amphibian declines: sorting the hypotheses. Divers Distrib 9:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crother BI (ed) (2012) Scientific and standard English and French names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 39:1–92, ShoreviewGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Dixon AD, Cox WR, Everham EM III, Ceilley DW (2011) Anurans as biological indicators of restoration success in the Greater Everglades ecosystem. Southeast Nat 10:629–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dodd CK Jr (2013) Frogs of the United States and Canada, vol 1 and 2. John Hopkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  22. Dorazio RM, Royle JA, Söderström B, Glimskär A (2006) Estimating species richness and accumulation by modeling species occurrence and detectability. Ecology 87:842–854Google Scholar
  23. Dundee HA, Rossman DA (1989) The amphibians and reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  24. Faulkner S, Barrow W Jr, Keeland B, Walls S, Telesco D (2011) Effects of conservation practices on wetland ecosystem services in the Mississippi Aluvial Valley. Ecol Appl 21:S31–S48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Felix ZI, Wang Y, Schweitzer CJ (2010) Effects of experimental canopy manipulation on amphibian egg deposition. J Wildl Manag 74:496–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fouquette MJ Jr, Delahoussaye AJ (1966) Noteworthy herpetological records from Louisiana. Southwest Nat 11:137–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fulmer T, Tumlison R (2004) Important records of the Bird-Voiced Treefrog (Hyla avivoca) in the headwaters of the Ouachita River Drainage of Southwestern Arkansas. Southeast Nat 3:259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gallant AL, Klaver RW, Casper GS, Lannoo MJ (2007) Global rates of habitat loss and implications for amphibian conservation. Copeia 2007:967–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Gibbons JW, Winne CT, Scott DE, Willson JD, Glaudas X, Andrews KM, Todd BD, Fedewa LA, Wilkinson L, Tsaliagos RN, Harper SJ, Greene JL, Tuberville TD, Metts BS, Dorcas ME, Nestor JP, Young CA, Akre T, Reed RN, Buhlmann KA, Norman J, Croshaw DA, Hagen C, Rothermel BB (2006) Remarkable amphibian biomass and abundance in an isolated wetland: implications for wetland conservation. Conserv Biol 20:1457–1465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guerry AD, Hunter ML Jr (2002) Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conserv Biol 16:745–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Halverson MA, Skelly DK, Kiesecker JM, Freidenburg LK (2003) Forest mediated light regime linked to amphibian distribution and performance. Oecologia 134:360–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hartel T, Băncila R, Cogălniceanu D (2011) Spatial and temporal variability of aquatic habitat use by amphibians in a hydrologically modified landscape. Freshw Biol 56:2288–2298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Herzon I, Helenius J (2008) Agricultural drainage ditches, their biological importance and functioning. Biol Conserv 141:1171–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hether, TD (2010) Using landscape genetics to assess population connectivity in a habitat generalist. Unpubl. MS thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  37. Hether TD, Hoffman EA (2012) Machine learning identifies specific habitats associated with genetic connectivity in Hyla squirella. J Evol Biol 25:1039–1052PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jobin B, Bélanger L, Boutin C, Maisonneuve C (2004) Conservation value of agricultural riparian strips in the Boyer River watershed, Québec (Canada). Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kéry M, Royle JA (2008) Hierarchical Bayes estimation of species richness and occupancy in spatially replicated surveys. J Appl Ecol 45:589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. King SL, Twedt DJ, Wilson RR (2006) The role of the Wetland Reserve Program in conservation efforts in the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. Wildl Soc Bull 34:914–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knutson MG, Richardson WB, Reineke DM, Gray BR, Parmelee JR, Weick SE (2004) Agricultural ponds support amphibian populations. Ecol Appl 14:669–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Korfel CA, Mitsch WJ, Hetherington TE, Mack JJ (2010) Hydrology, physiochemistry, and amphibians in natural and created vernal pool wetlands. Restor Ecol 18:843–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuo L, Mallick B (1998) Variable selection for regression models. Sankhya 60B:65–81Google Scholar
  44. Lesbarrères D, Fowler MS, Pagano A, Lodé T (2010) Recovery of anuran community diversity following habitat replacement. J Appl Ecol 47:148–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lichtenberg JS, King SL, Grace JB, Walls SC (2006) Habitat associations of chorusing anurans in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. Wetlands 26:736–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. MacDonald PO, Frayer WE, Clauser JK (1979) Documentation, chronology, and future projections of bottomland hardwood habitat loss in the lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain, v. 1, Basic Report: Washington, D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological ServicesGoogle 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, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  48. Maes J, Musters CJM, De Snoo GR (2008) The effect of agri-environment schemes on amphibian diversity and abundance. Biol Conserv 141:635–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maerz JC, Cohen JS, Blossey B (2010) Does detritus quality predict the effect of native and non-native plants on the performance of larval amphibians? Freshw Biol 55:1694–1704Google Scholar
  50. Maisonneuve C, Rioux S (2001) Importance of riparian habitats for small mammal and herpetofaunal communities in agricultural landscapes of southern Québec. Agric Ecosyst Environ 83:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martínez-Rivera CC, Gerhardt HG (2008) Advertisement-call modification, male competition, and female preference in the Bird-Voiced Treefrog Hyla avivoca. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:195–208PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meyer SR, Johnson ML, Lilieholm RJ (2012) Land conservation in the United States: evolution and innovation across the urban–rural interface. In: Laband DN, Lockaby BG, Zipperer W (eds) Urban–rural interfaces: linking people and nature. American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Madison, pp 225–255Google Scholar
  53. McCauley LA, Jenkins DG (2005) GIS-based estimates of former and current depressional wetlands in an agricultural landscape. Ecol Appl 15:1199–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mokany A, Wood JT, Cunningham SA (2008) Effect of shade and shading history on species abundances and ecosystem processes in temporary ponds. Freshw Biol 53:1917–1928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comín FA, Yockteng R (2012) Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biol 10:e1001247. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001247 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nickerson C, Ebel R, Borchers A, Carriazo F (2011) Major uses of land in the United States, 2007, EIB-89, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research ServiceGoogle Scholar
  57. Petranka JW (1998) Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  58. Piha H, Luoto M, Merila J (2007) Amphibian occurrence is influenced by current and historic landscape characteristics. Ecol Appl 17:2298–2309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Purrenhage JL, Niewiarowski PH, Moore FB-G (2009) Population structure of spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) in a fragmented landscape. Mol Ecol 18:235–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Riedel BL, Russell KR, Ford WM, O’Neill KP, Godwin HW (2008) Habitat relationships of eastern redbacked salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) in Appalachian agroforestry and grazing systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 124:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Royle JA, Dorazio RM (2008) Hierarchical modeling and inference in ecology. Academic, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  62. Rubbo MJ, Kiesecker JM (2004) Leaf litter composition and community structure: translating regional species changes into local dynamics. Ecology 85:2519–2525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rudis VA (1995) Regional forest fragmentation effects on bottomland hardwood community types and resource values. Landsc Ecol 10:291–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sacerdote AB, King RB (2009) Dissolved oxygen requirements for hatching success of two ambystomatid salamanders in restored ephemeral ponds. Wetlands 29:1202–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Semlitsch RD (2000) Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians. J Wildl Manag 64:615–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR (1998) Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conserv Biol 12:1129–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shulse CD, Semlitsch RD, Trauth DM, Williams AD (2010) Influences of design and landscape placement parameters on amphibian abundance in constructed wetlands. Wetlands 30:915–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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 22:1675–1688PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Skelly D, Werner E, Cortwright S (1999) Long-term distributional dynamics of a Michigan amphibian assemblage. Ecology 80:2326–2337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Skelly DK, Freidenburg LK, Kiesecker JM (2002) Forest canopy and the performance of larval amphibians. Ecology 83:983–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best NG, Lunn D (2003) WinBUGS version 1.4 user manual. MRC Biostatistics Unit, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  72. Stephens JP, Berven KA, Tiegs SD (2013) Anthropogenic changes to leaf litter input affect the fitness of a larval amphibian. Freshw Biol 58:1631–1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, Fischmann DL, Waller RW (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783–1786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stuart SN, Hoffmann M, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Berridge RJ, Ramani P, Young BE (2008) Threatened Amphibians of the World. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain; IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; Conservation International, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  75. The Nature Conservancy (2013) Arkansas Big Woods: ecological significance and threats. http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/arkansas/placesweprotect/big-woods-ecological-significance-and-threats.xml. Accessed 13 May 2013
  76. Thorpe AS, Stanley AG (2011) Determining appropriate goals for restoration of imperiled communities and species. J Appl Ecol 48:275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Twedt DJ, Loesch CR (1999) Forest area and distribution in the Mississippi alluvial valley: implications for breeding bird conservation. J Biogeogr 26:1215–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. USDA-NRCS (2013) Restoring America’s wetlands: a private lands conservation success story (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045079.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2013
  79. Venne LS, Tsai J, Cox SB, Smith LM, McMurry ST (2012) Amphibian community richness in cropland and grassland playas in the southern High Plains, USA. Wetlands 32:619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Waddle JH (2006) Use of amphibians as ecosystem indicator species. Unpubl. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  81. Waddle JH, Glorioso BM, Faulkner SP (2013) A quantitative assessment of the conservation benefits of the Wetlands Reserve Program to amphibians. Restor Ecol 21:200–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Williams BK, Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2008) Leaf litter input mediates tadpole performance across forest canopy treatments. Oecologia 155:377–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wright AH, Wright AA (1933) Handbook of frogs and toads of the United States and Canada. Comstock, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  84. Zedler JB (2003) Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Front Ecol Environ 1:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2005) Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:39–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

©  Society of Wetland Scientists (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan C. Walls
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Hardin Waddle
    • 1
  • Stephen P. Faulkner
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyNational Wetlands Research CenterLafayetteUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveySoutheast Ecological Science CenterGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological SurveyLeetown Science CenterKearneysvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations