, Volume 177, Issue 3, pp 761–773 | Cite as

Abundance and phenology patterns of two pond-breeding salamanders determine species interactions in natural populations

  • Thomas L. AndersonEmail author
  • Daniel J. Hocking
  • Christopher A. Conner
  • Julia E. Earl
  • Elizabeth B. Harper
  • Michael S. Osbourn
  • William E. Peterman
  • Tracy A. G. Rittenhouse
  • Raymond D. Semlitsch
Community ecology - Original research


Phenology often determines the outcome of interspecific interactions, where early-arriving species often dominate interactions over those arriving later. The effects of phenology on species interactions are especially pronounced in aquatic systems, but the evidence is largely derived from experimental studies. We examined whether differences in breeding phenology between two pond-breeding salamanders (Ambystoma annulatum and A. maculatum) affected metamorph recruitment and demographic traits within natural populations, with the expectation that the fall-breeding A. annulatum would negatively affect the spring-breeding A. maculatum. We monitored populations of each species at five ponds over 4 years using drift fences. Metamorph abundance and survival of A. annulatum were affected by intra- and interspecific processes, whereas metamorph size and date of emigration were primarily influenced by intraspecific effects. Metamorph abundance, snout–vent length, date of emigration and survival for A. maculatum were all predicted by combinations of intra- and interspecific effects, but often showed negative relationships with A. annulatum metamorph traits and abundance. Size and date of metamorphosis were strongly correlated within each species, but in opposite patterns (negative for A. annulatum and positive for A. maculatum), suggesting that the two species use alternative strategies to enhance terrestrial survival and that these factors may influence their interactions. Our results match predictions from experimental studies that suggest recruitment is influenced by intra- and interspecific processes which are determined by phenological differences between species. Incorporating spatiotemporal variability when modeling population dynamics is necessary to understand the importance of phenology in species interactions, especially as shifts in phenology occur under climate change.


Ambystoma annulatum Ambystoma maculatum Competition Intraguild predation Pond Priority effects 



We thank the many volunteers and technicians who helped monitor drift fences, especially K. Malone, J. Bardwell, B. Scheffers, E. Wengert, J. Sias, and L. Rehard, and J. Briggler and G. Raeker of the Missouri Department of Conservation. We also thank R. Alford and two anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly improved this manuscript. This project was supported by NSF DEB 0239943 and conducted under MU-ACUC 3368.


  1. Alford RA (1989) Variation in predator phenology affects predator performance and prey community composition. Ecology 70:206–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alford RA, Wilbur HM (1985) Priority effects in experimental pond communities: competition between Bufo and Rana. Ecology 66:1097–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almany GR (2003) Priority effects in coral reef fish communities. Ecology 84:1920–1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amarasekare P (2003) Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecol Lett 6:1109–1122. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00530.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson TL, Semlitsch RD (2014) High intraguild predator density induces thinning effects on and increases temporal overlap with prey populations. Popul Ecol 56:265–273. doi: 10.1007/s10144-013-0419-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker BM (2013) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, R package version 1.0-5. Available at:
  7. Berven KA (2009) Density dependence in the terrestrial stage of wood frogs: evidence from a 21-year population study. Copeia 2009:328–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Blaustein L, Margalit J (1996) Priority effects in temporary pools: nature and outcome of mosquito larva-toad tadpole interactions depend on order of entrance. J Anim Ecol 65:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blois JL, Zarnetske PL, Fitzpatrick MC, Finnegan S (2013) Climate change and the past, present, and future of biotic interactions. Science 341:499–504. doi: 10.1126/science.1237184 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Boone MD, Scott DE, Niewiarowski PH (2002) Effects of hatching time for larval ambystomatid salamanders. Copeia 2002:511–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connell JH, Slatyer RO (1977) Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am Nat 111:1119–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eitam A, Blaustein L, Mangel M (2005) Density and intercohort priority effects on larval Salamandra salamandra in temporary pools. Oecologia 146:36–42. doi: 10.1007/s00442-005-0185-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Encinas-Viso F, Revilla TA, Etienne RS (2012) Phenology drives mutualistic network structure and diversity. Ecol Lett 15:198–208. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01726.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Geange SW, Stier AC (2009) Order of arrival affects competition in two reef fishes. Ecology 90:2868–2878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilman SE, Urban MC, Tewksbury J, Gilchrist GW, Holt RD (2010) A framework for community interactions under climate change. Trends Ecol Evol 25:325–331. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.03.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffin KA, Hebblewhite M, Robinson HS, Zager P, Barber-Meyer SM, Christianson D et al (2011) Neonatal mortality of elk driven by climate, predator phenology and predator community composition. J Anim Ecol 80:1246–1257Google Scholar
  18. Harper EB, Rittenhouse TA, Semlitsch RD (2008) Demographic consequences of terrestrial habitat loss for pool-breeding amphibians: predicting extinction risks associated with inadequate size of buffer zones. Conserv Biol 22:1205–1215. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01015.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hecnar SJ, M’Closkey RT (1996) Regional dynamics and the status of amphibians. Ecology 77:2091–2097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hernandez JP, Chalcraft DR (2012) Synergistic effects of multiple mechanisms drive priority effects within a tadpole assemblage. Oikos 121:259–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19221.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hocking DJ, Rittenhouse TAG, Rothermel BB, Johnson JR, Conner CA, Harper EB et al (2008) Breeding and recruitment phenology of amphibians in Missouri oak-hickory forests. Am Midl Nat 160:41–60Google Scholar
  22. Hunter AF, Elkinton JS (2001) Interaction between phenology and density effects on mortality from natural enemies. J Anim Ecol 68:1093–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutcherson JE, Peterson CL, Wilkinson RF (1989) Reproductive and larval biology of Ambystoma annulatum. J Herpetol 23:181–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kardol P, Souza L, Classen AT (2013) Resource availability mediates the importance of priority effects in plant community assembly and ecosystem function. Oikos 122:84–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20546.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawler SP, Morin PJ (1993) Temporal overlap, competition, and priority effects in larval anurans. Ecology 74:174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller-Rushing AJ, Hoye TT, Inouye DW, Post E (2010) The effects of phenological mismatches on demography. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 365:3177–3186. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morin PJ (1983) Predation, competition, and the composition of larval anuran guilds. Ecol Monogr 53:120–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H, O’Hara RB (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nyman S, Wilkinson RF, Hutcherson JE (1993) Cannibalism and size relations in a cohort of larval ringed salamanders (Amybstoma annulatum). J Herpetol 27:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Orizaola G, Dahl E, Nicieza AG, Laurila A (2013) Larval life history and anti-predator strategies are affected by breeding phenology in an amphibian. Oecologia 171:873–881. doi: 10.1007/s00442-012-2456-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Padeffke T, Suhling F (2003) Temporal priority and intra-guild predation in temporary waters: an experimental study using Namibian desert dragonflies. Ecol Entomol 28:340–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peterman WE, Earl JE, Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2013a) Demographic network and multi-season occupancy modeling of Rana sylvatica reveal spatial and temporal patterns of population connectivity and persistence. Landsc Ecol 28:1601–1613. doi: 10.1007/s10980-013-9906-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peterman WE, Locke JL, Semlitsch RD (2013b) Spatial and temporal patterns of water loss in heterogeneous landscapes: using plaster models as amphibian analogues. Can J Zool 91:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peterman WE, Anderson TL, Drake DL, Ousterhout BH, Semlitsch RD (2014) Maximizing pond biodiversity across the landscape: a case study of larval ambystomatid salamanders. Anim Conserv 17:275–285. doi: 10.1111/acv.12090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petranka JW (1998) Salamanders of the US and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Porensky LM, Vaughn KJ, Young TP (2012) Can initial intraspecific spatial aggregation increase multi-year coexistence by creating temporal priority? Ecol Appl 22:927–936CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, 3.0.2 edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  38. Rafferty NE, Caradonna PJ, Burkle LA, Iler AM, Bronstein JL (2013) Phenological overlap of interacting species in a changing climate: an assessment of available approaches. Ecol Evol 3:3183–3193. doi: 10.1002/ece3.668 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Revilla T, Encinas-Viso F, Loreau M (2013) (A bit) Earlier or later is always better: phenological shifts in consumer–resource interactions. Theor Ecol 7:149–162. doi: 10.1007/s12080-013-0207-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rittenhouse TA, Semlitsch RD, Thompson FR III (2009) Survival costs associated with wood frog breeding migrations: effects of timber harvest and drought. Ecology 90:1620–1630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Rothermel B, Semlitsch R (2006) Consequences of forest fragmentation for juvenile survival in spotted (Ambystoma maculatum) and marbled (Ambystoma opacum) salamanders. Can J Zool 84:797–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmidt BR, Hodl W, Schaub M (2012) From metamorphosis to maturity in complex life cycles: equal performance of different juvenile life history pathways. Ecology 93:657–667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Scott DE (1994) The effect of larval density on adult demographic traits in Ambystoma opacum. Ecology 75:1383–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Segev O, Blaustein L (2007) Priority effects of the early breeding fire salamander on the late breeding banded newt. Hydrobiologia 583:275–283. doi: 10.1007/s10750-006-0565-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Semlitsch RD, Caldwell JP (1982) Effects of density of growth, metamorphosis, and survivorship in tadpoles of Scaphiopus holbrooki. Ecology 63:905–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Semlitsch RD, Scott DE, Pechmann JH (1988) Time and size at metamorphosis related to adult fitness in Ambystoma talpoideum. Ecology 69:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Semlitsch R, Scott D, Pechmann J, Gibbons J (1996) Structure and dynamics of an amphibian community: evidence from a 16-year study of a natural pond. In: Cody ML, Smallwood JA (eds) Long-term studies of vertebrate communities. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 217–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Semlitsch RD, Conner CA, Hocking DJ, Rittenhouse TA, Harper EB (2008) Effects of timber harvesting on pond-breeding amphibian persistence: testing the evacuation hypothesis. Ecol Appl 18:283–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Semlitsch RD, Todd BD, Blomquist SM, Calhoun AJK, Whitfield Gibbons J, Gibbs JP et al (2009) Effects of timber harvest on amphibian populations: understanding mechanisms from forest experiments. Bioscience 59:853–862. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.7
  50. Semlitsch RD, Anderson TL, Ousterhout BH, Osbourn MS (2014) Structure and dynamics of ringed salamander (Ambystoma annulatum) populations in Missouri. Herpetologica 70:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shoop CR (1974) Yearly variation in larval survival of Ambystoma maculatum. Ecology 55:440–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shorrocks B, Bingley M (1994) Priority effects and species coexistence: experiments with fungal-breeding Drosophila. J Anim Ecol 63:799–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stenhouse SL (1985) Interdemic variation in predation on salamander larvae. Ecology 66:1706–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stenhouse SL (1987) Embryo mortality and recruitment of juveniles of Ambystoma maculatum and Ambystoma opacum in North Carolina. Herpetologica 43:496–501Google Scholar
  55. Stenhouse SL, Hairston NG, Cobey AE (1983) Predation and competition in Ambystoma larvae: field and laboratory experiments. J Herpetol 17:210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stier A, Geange SW, Hanson KM, Bolker B (2013) Predator density and timing of arrival affect reef fish community assembly. Ecology 94:1057–1068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Todd BD, Winne CT (2006) Ontogenetic and interspecific variation in timing of movement and responses to climatic factors during migrations by pond-breeding amphibians. Can J Zool 84:715–722. doi: 10.1139/z06-054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Todd BD, Scott DE, Pechmann JH, Gibbons JW (2011) Climate change correlates with rapid delays and advancements in reproductive timing in an amphibian community. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278:2191–2197. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1768 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trauth SE, Robison HW, Plummer MV (2004) The amphibians and reptiles of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, FayettevilleGoogle Scholar
  60. Urban MC (2007a) Predator size and phenology shape prey survival in temporary ponds. Oecologia 154:571–580. doi: 10.1007/s00442-007-0856-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Urban MC (2007b) Risky prey behavior evolves in risky habitats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:14377–14382. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704645104 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Urban MC (2010) Microgeographic adaptations of spotted salamander morphological defenses in response to a predaceous salamander and beetle. Oikos 119:646–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Buskirk J (2005) Local and landscape influence on amphibian occurrence and abundance. Ecology 86:1936–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Buskirk J, Yurewicz KL (1998) Effects of predators on prey growth rate: relative contributions of thinning and reduced activity. Oikos 82:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Visser ME, Both C (2005) Shifts in phenology due to climate change: the need for a yardstick. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 272:2561–2569. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vonesh J, De la Cruz O (2002) Complex life cycles and density dependence: assessing the contribution of egg mortality to amphibian declines. Oecologia 133:325–333. doi: 10.1007/s00442-002-1039-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Warton DI, Hui FK (2011) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92:3–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Wellborn GA, Skelly DK, Werner EE (1996) Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Werner EE, Yurewicz KL, Skelly DK, Relyea RA (2007) Turnover in an amphibian metacommunity: the role of local and regional factors. Oikos 116:1713–1725. doi: 10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16039.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Whiteman HH, Wissinger SA (2005) Amphibian population cycles and long-term data sets. In: Lannoo MJ (ed) Amphibian declines: conservation status of US species. California University Press, Los Angeles, pp 177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilbur HM, Alford RA (1985) Priority effects in experimental pond communities: responses of Hyla to Bufo and Rana. Ecology 66:1106–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wissinger SA (1992) Niche overlap and the potential for competition and intraguild predation between size-structured populations. Ecology 73:1431–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wissinger S, Whiteman HH, Denoel M, Mumford ML, Aubee CB (2010) Consumptive and nonconsumptive effects of cannibalism in fluctuating age-structured populations. Ecology 91:549–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Yang LH, Rudolf VH (2010) Phenology, ontogeny and the effects of climate change on the timing of species interactions. Ecol Lett 13:1–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01402.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas L. Anderson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel J. Hocking
    • 2
  • Christopher A. Conner
    • 1
  • Julia E. Earl
    • 3
  • Elizabeth B. Harper
    • 4
  • Michael S. Osbourn
    • 1
  • William E. Peterman
    • 5
  • Tracy A. G. Rittenhouse
    • 6
  • Raymond D. Semlitsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental ConservationUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  3. 3.National Institute for Mathematical and Biological SynthesisUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  4. 4.Division of Natural Resource Management and EcologyPaul Smiths CollegePaul SmithsUSA
  5. 5.Illinois Natural History Survey Prairie Research InstituteUniversity of IllinoisChampaignUSA
  6. 6.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations