Does restricted access limit management of invasive urban frogs?
- 239 Downloads
Management recommendations that target urban invaders should consider environmental and socio-economic aspects peculiar to the urban landscape. Urbanization often leads to the fragmentation of the invaded landscape into subunits inaccessible to managers (restricted access) or for which detailed information is lacking. Using models to explore impact of these limitations on management success provides a useful approach to propose effective countermeasures. Here we deploy a spatially explicit age-structured model applied to a pond network to investigate how restricted access and lack of detailed information may affect management of three invasive anuran species across a peri-urban landscape. The target species, the guttural toad Sclerophrys gutturalis, the African clawed frog Xenopus laevis and the painted reed frog Hyperolius marmoratus, belong to different ecotypes (terrestrial, aquatic and arboreal, respectively) and have different life history traits. We show that restricted property access significantly constrains management success in two of the three species (the guttural toad and the painted reed frog), while lack of detailed information around the invaded landscape impedes successful management in only one species (the guttural toad). The species-dependent response we detected is due to contrasting demographic and spatial invasion dynamics linked to the different anuran ecotypes. Our work highlights the necessity to adopt a context-dependent approach when proposing management recommendations in urban environment.
KeywordsAge-structured model Amphibian ecotypes Context-dependent approach Information incompleteness Landscape fragmentation Social dimension
Funding was provided by the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology.
- Baker C, Bode M (2016) Placing invasive species management in a spatiotemporal context. Ecol Appl 26:712–725. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/15-0095/full
- Bishop PJ (2004) Hyperolius marmoratus Rapp, 1842. In: Minter LR, Burger M, Harrison JA, Braack HH, Bishop PJ, Kloepfer D (eds) Atlas and red data book of the frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., pp 141–143Google Scholar
- Davies SJ, Measey GJ, Du Plessis D, Richardson DM (2016) Science and education at the Centre for Invasion Biology. In: Castro P, Azeiteiro UM, Bacelar-Nicolau P, Leal Filho W, Azul AM (eds) Biodiversity and education for sustainable development, World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham, pp 93–105Google Scholar
- De Villiers A (2006) Amphibia: anura: Bufonidae Bufo gutturalis Power, 1927 guttural toad introduced population. Afr Herp News 40:28–30Google Scholar
- De Villiers FA (2016) The dispersal ability, performance and population dynamics of Cape Xenopus frogs. MSc thesis, Stellenbosch UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Feng YJ, Blackburn DC, Liang D, Hillis DM, Wake DB, Cannatella DC, Zhang P (2017) Phylogenomics reveals rapid, simultaneous diversification of three major clades of Gondwanan frogs at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:5864–5870. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704632114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Holden M, Nyrop J, Ellner S (2016) The economic benefit of time‐varying surveillance effort for invasive species management. J Appl Ecol 53:712–721. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12617/pdf
- Kohli RK, Batish DR, Singh HP, Dogra KS (2006) Status, invasiveness and environmental threats of three tropical American invasive weeds (Parthenium hysterophorus L., Ageratum conyzoides L., Lantana camara L.) in India. Biol Invasions 8:1501–1510. doi: 10.1007/s10530-005-5842-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lampo M, De Leo G (1998) The invasion ecology of the toad Bufo marinus: from South America to Australia. Ecol Appl 8:388–396Google Scholar
- Lever C (2001) The cane toad: the history and ecology of a successful colonist. Westbury Academic & Scientific Pub, OtleyGoogle Scholar
- Marchante E, Marchante H, Morais M, Freitas H (2010) Combining methodologies to increase public awareness about invasive alien plants in Portugal. In: 2nd International workshop on invasive plants in the mediterranean type regions of the world. European Environment Agency, Trabzon, pp 227–239Google Scholar
- Measey GJ, Tinsley RC (1998) Feral Xenopus laevis in South Wales. Herpetol J 8:23–27Google Scholar
- Olson LJ (2006) The economics of terrestrial invasive species: a review of the literature. Agric Resour Econ Rev 35:178–194. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/10181/1/35010178.pdf
- Steel J, Weiss J, Morfe T (2014) To weed or not to weed? The application of an agent-based model to determine the costs and benefits of different management strategies. Plant Prot Q 29:101–110Google Scholar
- Tingley R, Ward-Fear G, Schwarzkopf L, Greenlees MJ, Phillips BL, Brown G, Clulow S, Webb J, Capon R, Strive T (2017) New weapons in the toad toolkit: a review of methods to control and mitigate the biodiversity impacts of invasive cane toads (Rhinella Marina). Q Rev Biol 92:123–149. doi: 10.1086/692167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Van Wilgen BW, Scott DF (2001) Managing fires on the Cape Peninsula, South Africa: dealing with the inevitable. J Mediterr Ecol 2:197–208Google Scholar
- Vimercati G (2017) Exploring the invasion of the guttural toad Sclerophrys gutturalis in Cape Town through a multidisciplinary approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stellenbosch UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Vos CC, ter Braak CJF, Nieuwenhuizen W (2000) Incidence function modelling and conservation of the tree frog Hyla arborea in the Netherlands. Ecol Bull 48:165–180Google Scholar
- Withers P, Louw G, Nicolson S (1982) Water loss, oxygen consumption and colour change in ‘waterproof’ reed frogs (Hyperolius). S Afr J Sci 78:30–32Google Scholar