Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 141, Issue 1, pp 40–46 | Cite as

Demographic dynamics of the afro-tropical pig-nosed frog, Hemisus marmoratus: effects of climate and predation on survival and recruitment

  • T. Ulmar Grafe
  • Stefan K. Kaminsky
  • Johannes H. Bitz
  • Hedje Lüssow
  • K. Eduard Linsenmair
Population Ecology

Abstract

We studied the population ecology of the West African pig-nosed frog, Hemisus marmoratus, to understand the relative contributions of adult survival and recruitment to population growth rate in savannah frogs using mark-recapture modelling. We marked a total of 821 adult frogs over 6 years and recaptured 74 at least once between years. Between-year adult survival was sex-specific and varied between 0.06 and 0.53 for males and 0.07–0.41 for females. Adult survival was significantly associated with annual rainfall and is cause for concern if rainfall declines further in the study region as predicted by changes in the global climate. There was a significant interaction between rainfall and sex with dry weather having a stronger negative effect on males than females. Pig-nosed frogs experienced boom and bust years with a single decline more dramatic than increases. Recruitment (in situ and immigration; 0.67–0.88) was substantially more important than adult survival (0.12–0.33) in determining realised population growth. In situ recruitment was highly variable between years with 1–36% of eggs and tadpoles released by females into the pond surviving to metamorphosis. Years of low tadpole survival were associated with high numbers of predatory tortoises. Thus, like other pond-breeding anurans, pig-nosed frogs showed highly variable juvenile recruitment, low adult survival and density-independent effects on population growth by predators and weather.

Keywords

Population ecology Mark-recapture Amphibians Tortoises Tadpoles 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the government of the Ivory Coast for granting the necessary research permits to conduct this study. For help with field work we thank Minnattallah Boutros, Alexandra Kaminsky, Martin Kaltenpoth, Koffi Kouadio, Christiane Meyer, Matthias Mösl, Claudia Müller, and Annette Schmidt. We thank Benedikt Schmidt and Michael Schaub for comments on the manuscript. This study was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 251/B3) and a seed grant from the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force.

References

  1. Alford RA, Richards SJ (1999) Global amphibian declines: a problem in applied ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:133–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altwegg R, Reyer H-U (2003) Patterns of natural selection on size at metamorphosis in water frogs. Evolution 57:872–882PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson DR, Burnham KP (1999a) General strategies for the analysis of ringing data. Bird Study 46 [Suppl]:261–270Google Scholar
  4. Anderson DR, Burnham KP (1999b) Understanding information criteria for selection among capture-recapture or ring recovery models. Bird Study 46(suppl):14–21Google Scholar
  5. Anholt BR, Hotz H, Guex G-D, Semlitsch RD (2003) Overwinter survival of Rana lessonae and its hemiclonal associate Rana esculenta. Ecology 84:391–397Google Scholar
  6. Biek R, Funk WC, Maxell BA, Mills LS (2002) What is missing in amphibian decline research: insights from ecological sensitivity analysis. Conserv Biol 16:728–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blaustein AR, Kiesecker JM, Chivers DP, Hokit DG, Marco A, Belden LK, Hatch A (1998) Effects of ultraviolet radiation on amphibians: field experiments. Am Zool 38:799–812Google Scholar
  8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Caldwell JP (1987) Demography and life history of two species of chorus frogs (Anura: Hylidae) in South Carolina. Copeia 1987:114–127Google Scholar
  10. Choquet R, Reboulet AM, Pradel R, Gimenez O, Lebreton JD (2003) U-Care version 2.0. CEFE/CNRS, Montpellier. ftp://ftp.cefe.cnrs-mop.fr/biom/Soft-CR/
  11. Conroy SDS, Brook BW (2003) Demographic sensitivity and persistence of the threatened white- and orange-bellied frogs of Western Australia. Popul Ecol 45:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooch E, White G (2003) Using mark—a gentle introduction, 2nd edn. http://wwwcnrcolostateedu/~gwhite/mark/markhtm
  13. Eggleton P, Bignell DE, Sands WA, Mawdsley NA, Lawton JH, Wood TG, Bignell NC (1996) The diversity, abundance and biomass of termites under differing levels of disturbance in the Mbalmayo Forest Reserve, southern Cameroon. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 351:51–68Google Scholar
  14. Gomez-Mestre I, Keller C (2003) Experimental assessment of turtle predation on larval anurans. Copeia 2003:349–356Google Scholar
  15. Grafe TU, Kaminsky SK, Linsenmair KE (in press) Terrestrial larval development and nitrogen excretion in the afro-tropical pig-nosed frog, Hemisus marmoratus. J Trop EcologyGoogle Scholar
  16. Green DM (2003) The ecology of extinction: population fluctuation and decline in amphibians. Biol Conserv 111:331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hellriegel B (2000) Singe- or multistage regulation in complex life cycles: does it make a difference? Oikos 88:239–249Google Scholar
  18. Houlahan JE, Findlay CS, Schmidt BR, Meyer AH, Kuzmin SL (2000) Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature 404:752–755CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson JB, Omland KS (2004) Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 19:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaminsky SK, Linsenmair KE, Grafe TU (1999) Reproductive timing, nest construction and tadpole guidance in the African pig-nosed frog Hemisus marmoratus. J Herpetol 33:119–123Google Scholar
  21. Kaminsky SK, Grafe TU, Spieler M, Linsenmair KE (2004) A new method for immobilizing fossorial frogs after radio-transmitter implantation and notes on movement patterns in the pig-nosed frog, Hemisus marmoratus. Herpetol Rev 35:146–148Google Scholar
  22. Kendall WL, Pollock KH, Brownie C (1995) A likelihood-based approach to capture-recapture estimation of demographic parameters under the robust design. Biometrics 51:293–308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kiesecker JM, Blaustein AR (1998) Effects of introduced bullfrogs and smallmouth bass on microhabitat use, growth, and survival of native red-legged frogs (Rana aurora). Conserv Biol 12:776–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kluge AG (1981) The life history, social organization, and parental behavior of the gladiator frog Hyla rosenbergi Boulenger, a nest-building gladiator frog. Miscellaneous publications of the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, vol 160. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Mich., pp 1–170Google Scholar
  25. Kuhn J (1994) Lebensgeschichte und Demographie von Erdkrötenweibchen Bufo bufo bufo (L.). Z Feldherpetol 1:3–87Google Scholar
  26. Lampert KP, Linsenmair KE (2002) Alternative life cycle strategies in the West African reed frog Hyperolius nitidulus: the answer to an unpredictable environment? Oecologia 130:364–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lebreton J-D, Burnham KP, Clobert J, Anderson DR (1992) Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. Ecol Monogr 62:67–118Google Scholar
  28. Linsenmair KE (1997) Risk spreading and risk reducing tactics of West African anurans in an unpredictable and stressful environment. In: Newbery DM, Brown N, Prins HHT (eds) Dynamics of tropical communities. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 221–241Google Scholar
  29. Meyer AH, Schmidt BR, Grossenbacher K (1998) Analysis of three amphibian populations with quarter-century long time-series. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 265:523–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Murphy PJ (2003) Context-dependent reproductive site choice in a Neotropical frog. Behav Ecol 14:626–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nichols JD, Hepp GR, Pollock KH, Hines JE (1987) The Husting dilemma: a methodological note. Ecology 68:213–217Google Scholar
  32. Nichols JD, Hines JE, Lebreton J-D, Pradel R (2000) Estimation of contributions to population growth. a reverse-time capture-recapture approach. Ecology 81:3362–3376Google Scholar
  33. Pechmann JHK, Scott DE, Semlitsch RD, Caldwell JP, Vitt LJ, Gibbons JW (1991) Declining amphibian populations: the problem of separating human impacts from natural fluctuations. Science 253:892–895Google Scholar
  34. Pollack KH, Nichols JD, Brownie C, Hines JE (1990) Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildl Monogr 107:1–197Google Scholar
  35. Pradel R (1996) Utilization of capture-mark-recapture for the study of recruitment and population growth rate. Biometrics 53:60–72Google Scholar
  36. Richter SC, Seigel RA (2002) Annual variation in the population ecology of the endangered gopher frog, Rana sevosa goin and netting. Copeia 2002:962–972Google Scholar
  37. Richter SC, Young JE, Johnson GN, Seigel RA (2003) Stochastic variation in reproductive success of a rare frog, Rana sevosa: implications for conservation and for monitoring amphibian populations. Biol Conserv 111:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riis N (1991) A field study of survival, growth, biomass and temperature dependence of Rana dalmatina and Rana temporaria larvae. Amphibia–Reptilia 12:229–243Google Scholar
  39. Rödel M-O (1999) Predation on tadpoles by hatchlings of the freshwater turtle Pelomedusa subrufa. Amphibia–Reptilia 20:173–184Google Scholar
  40. Rödel M-O, Spieler M, Grabow K, Böckheler C (1995) Hemisus marmoratus (Peters, 1854) (Anura: Hemisotidae), Fortpflanzungsstrategien eines Savannenfrosches. Bonn Zool Beitr 45:191–207Google Scholar
  41. Ryszkowski L, Truszkowski J (1975) Estimation of the abundance and biomass of transformed amphibians in a field pond. Bull Pol Acad Sci Biol Sci 23:109–113Google Scholar
  42. Schmidt BR, Schaub M, Anholt BR (2002) Why you should use capture-recapture methods when estimating survival and breeding probabilities: on bias, temporary emigration, overdispersion, and common toads. Amphibia–Reptilia (23):375–388Google Scholar
  43. Semlitsch RD (1993) Effects of different predators on the survival and development of tadpoles from the hybridogenetic Rana esculenta complex. Oikos 67:40–46Google Scholar
  44. Semlitsch RD (2002) Critical elements for biologically based recovery plans of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Conserv Biol 16:619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vonesh JR, De la Cruz O (2002) Complex life cycles and density dependence: assessing the contribution of egg mortality to amphibian declines. Oecologia 133:25–333Google Scholar
  46. Wake DB (1991) Declining amphibian populations. Science 253:860Google Scholar
  47. White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46 [Suppl]:120–139Google Scholar
  48. Wood KV, Nichols JD, Percival HF, Hines JE (1998) Size–sex variation in survival rates and abundance of pig frogs, Rana grylio, in northern Florida wetlands. J Herpetol 32:527–535Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Ulmar Grafe
    • 1
  • Stefan K. Kaminsky
    • 1
  • Johannes H. Bitz
    • 1
  • Hedje Lüssow
    • 1
  • K. Eduard Linsenmair
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Zoologie 3University of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations