Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 155, Issue 2, pp 377–384 | Cite as

Leaf litter input mediates tadpole performance across forest canopy treatments

  • Bethany K. WilliamsEmail author
  • Tracy A. G. Rittenhouse
  • Raymond D. Semlitsch
Community Ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Understanding the mechanisms limiting the distributions of organisms is necessary for predicting changes in community composition along habitat gradients. In many areas of the USA, land originally cleared for agriculture has been undergoing a process of reforestation, creating a gradient of canopy cover. For small temporary wetlands, this gradient can alter abiotic conditions and influence the resource base of wetland food webs by affecting litter inputs. As distributions of amphibians and many other temporary wetland taxa correlate with canopy cover, we experimentally manipulated shade levels and litter types in pond mesocosms to explore mechanisms limiting species performance in wetlands with canopy cover. Most differences between ponds were mediated by litter type rather than direct effects of shading. Although all three amphibian species tested are open-canopy specialists, spring peepers were the only species to show decreased survival in shaded ponds. Pond litter type generally had strong effects on growth and development rates, with tadpoles of two species in grass litter ponds growing to twice the size of, and metamorphosing 7 days earlier than, those in leaf litter ponds. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, shade level and litter type showed very few significant interactions. Our results indicate that the effects of shading cannot be considered in isolation of vegetation changes in pond basins when evaluating the effects of forest succession on temporary pond communities.

Keywords

Amphibian Anuran Mesocosm Metamorphosis Shade 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Doyle, R. Mank, and B. Sonderman for assistance with the experiment. S. James and M. Boone provided support for fluorometric analyses, and the manuscript benefited from comments by W. McClain and S. Humfeld. Funding was provided by a University of Missouri Conservation Biology fellowship to T. A. G. Rittenhouse, a US Department of Education GAANN fellowship to B. K. Williams, and National Science Foundation Grant 0239943 to R. D. Semlitsch. Experiments were completed under University of Missouri Animal Care and Use Protocol no. 2774 and complied with all current laws of the USA.

References

  1. Alvarez M (2007) The state of America’s forests. Society of American Foresters, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  2. Batzer DP, Jackson CR, Mosner M (2000) Influences of riparian logging on plants and invertebrates in small, depressional wetlands of Georgia, USA. Hydrobiologia 441:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batzer DP, Palik BJ, Buech R (2004) Relationships between environmental characteristics and macroinvertebrate communities in seasonal woodland ponds of Minnesota. J North Am Benthol Soc 23:50–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beard KH, Vogt KA, Kulmatiski A (2002) Top-down effects of a terrestrial frog on forest nutrient dynamics. Oecologia 133:583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binckley CA, Resetarits Jr WJ (2005) Habitat selection determines abundance, richness and species composition of beetles in aquatic communities. Biol Lett 1:370–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binckley CA, Resetarits Jr WJ (2007) Effects of forest canopy on habitat selection in treefrogs and aquatic insects: implications for communities and metacommunities. Oecologia 153:951–958PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boone MD, James SM (2005) Aquatic and terrestrial mesocosms in amphibian ecotoxicology. Appl Herpetol 2:231–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boone MD, Semlitsch RD, Fairchild JF, Rothermel BB (2004) Effects of an insecticide on amphibians in large-scale experimental ponds. Ecol Appl 14:685–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burne MR, Griffin CR (2005) Habitat associations of pool-breeding amphibians in eastern Massachusetts, USA. Wetl Ecol Manage 13:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burton TM, Likens GE (1975) Salamander populations and biomass in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Copeia 1975:541–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter SR (1996) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77:677–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chalcraft DR, Binckley CA, Resetarits Jr WJ (2005) Experimental venue and estimation of interaction strength: comment. Ecology 86:1061–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colburn EA (2004) Vernal pools: natural history and conservation. McDonald and Woodward, BlacksburgGoogle Scholar
  14. Corbet PS (1999) Behavior and ecology of Odonata. Comstock, Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  15. deMaynadier PG, Hunter Jr ML (1999) Forest canopy closure and juvenile emigration by pool-breeding amphibians in Maine. J Wildl Manage 63:441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fauth JE, Resetarits Jr WJ (1991) Interactions between the salamander Siren intermedia and the keystone predator Notophthalmus viridescens. Ecology 72:827–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foster DR (1992) Land-use history (1730–1990) and vegetation dynamics in central New England, USA. J Ecol 80:753–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerhardt F, Foster DR (2002) Physiographic and historical effects on forest vegetation in central New England, USA. J Biogeogr 29:1421–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  21. Halverson MA, Skelly DK, Kiesecker JM, Friedenburg LK (2003) Forest mediated light regime linked to amphibian distribution and performance. Oecologia 134:360–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Harkey GA, Semlitsch RD (1988) Effects of temperature on growth, development, and color polymorphism in the ornate chorus frog Pseudacris ornata. Copeia 1988:1001–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hocking DJ, Semlitsch RD (2007) Effects of timber harvest on breeding site selection by gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor). Biol Conserv (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Kauppi PE, Ausubel JH, Fang J, Mather AS, Sedjo RA, Waggoner PE (2006) Returning forests analyzed with the forest identity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:17574–17579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore JA (1939) Temperature tolerance and rates of development in the eggs of Amphibia. Ecology 20:459–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore WG, Burn A (1968) Lethal oxygen thresholds for certain temporary pond invertebrates and their application to field situations. Ecology 49:349–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morin PJ (1981) Predatory salamanders reverse the outcome of competition among three species of anuran tadpoles. Science 212:1284–1286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morin PJ (1983) Predation, competition, and the composition of larval anuran guilds. Ecol Monogr 53:119–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Palik B, Batzer DP, Buech R, Nichols D, Cease K, Egeland L, Streblow DE (2001) Seasonal pond characteristics across a chronosequence of adjacent forest ages in northern Minnesota, USA. Wetlands 21:532–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reiskind MH, Wilson ML (2004) Culex restuans (Diptera:Culicidae) oviposition behavior determined by larval habitat quality and quantity in southeastern Michigan. J Med Entomol 41:179–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Relyea RA (2002) Local population differences in phenotypic plasticity: predator-induced changes in wood frog tadpoles. Ecol Monogr 72:77–93Google Scholar
  32. Resetarits Jr WJ, Fauth JE (1998) From cattle tanks to Carolina bays: the utility of model systems for understanding natural communities. In: Resetarits Jr WJ, Bernardo J (eds) Experimental ecology: issues and perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 133–151Google Scholar
  33. Resetarits Jr WJ, Wilbur HM (1989) Choice of oviposition site by Hyla chrysoscelis: role of predators and competitors. Ecology 70:220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Resetarits Jr WJ, Binckley CA, Chalcraft DR (2005) Habitat selection, species interactions, and processes of community assembly in complex landscapes: a metacommunity perspective. In: Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD (eds) Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 374–398Google Scholar
  35. Rieger JF, Binckley CA, Resetarits Jr WJ (2004) Larval performance and oviposition site selection along a predation gradient. Ecology 85:2094–2099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rittenhouse TAG, Harper EB, Rehard LR, Semlitsch RD (in review) The role of microhabitats in the desiccation and survival of amphibians in recently harvested oak-hickory forest. For Ecol ManageGoogle Scholar
  37. Rothermel BB, Semlitsch RD (2006) Consequences of forest fragmentation for juvenile survival in spotted (Ambystoma maculatum) and marbled (Ambystoma opacum) salamanders. Can J Zool 84:797–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rowe CL, Dunson WA (1994) The value of simulated pond communities in mesocosms for studies of amphibian ecology and ecotoxicology. J Herpetol 28:346–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rubbo MJ, Kiesecker JM (2004) Leaf litter composition and community structure: translating regional species changes into local dynamics. Ecology 85:2519–2525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schiesari L (2006) Pond canopy cover: a resource gradient for anuran larvae. Freshwater Biol 51:412–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schneider DW, Frost TM (1996) Habitat duration and community structure in temporary ponds. J North Am Benthol Soc 15:64–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR (2003) Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conserv Biol 17:1219–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Semlitsch RD, Scott DE, Pechmann JHK (1988) Time and size at metamorphosis related to adult fitness in Ambystoma talpoideum. Ecology 69:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skelly DK, Golon J (2003) Assimilation of natural benthic substrates by two species of tadpoles. Herpetologica 59:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Skelly DK, Kiesecker JM (2001) Venue and outcome in ecological experiments: manipulations of larval anurans. Oikos 94:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Skelly DK, Werner EE, Cortwright SA (1999) Long-term distributional dynamics of a Michigan amphibian assemblage. Ecology 80:2326–2337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Skelly DK, Freidenburg LK, Kiesecker JM (2002) Forest canopy and the performance of larval amphibians. Ecology 83:983–992Google Scholar
  48. Smith-Gill SJ, Berven KA (1979) Predicting amphibian metamorphosis. Am Nat 113:563–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Webster JR, Benfield EF (1986) Vascular plant breakdown in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:567–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wellborn GA, Skelly DK, Werner EE (1996) Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Werner EE, Glennemeier KS (1999) Influence of forest canopy cover on the breeding pond distributions of several amphibian species. Copeia 1999:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilbur HM (1997) Experimental ecology of food webs: complex systems in temporary ponds. Ecology 78:2279–2302Google Scholar
  53. Wissinger SA, Bohonak AJ, Whiteman HH, Brown WS (1999) Subalpine wetlands in central Colorado: habitat permanence, salamander predation, and invertebrate communities. In: Batzer DP, Rader RB, Wissinger SA (eds) Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North America: ecology and management. Wiley, New York, pp 757–790Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bethany K. Williams
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tracy A. G. Rittenhouse
    • 1
  • Raymond D. Semlitsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations