Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 22, Issue 9, pp 2057–2070 | Cite as

Leaf-litter herpetofaunal richness, abundance, and community assembly in mono-dominant plantations and primary forest of northeastern Costa Rica

Original Paper

Abstract

Given current deforestation and land-use change in species-rich tropical forests, a pressing need in conservation biology is to understand how converted, human-modified landscapes support biodiversity. Here, we measured the species richness, abundance, and community composition of amphibians and reptiles in reference primary forest and mono-dominant plantations of three native tree species (Pentaclethra macroloba, Virola koschnyi, Vochysia guatemalensis) at La Selva Biological Station in the Caribbean lowlands of northern Costa Rica. Because these plantation species generate markedly different forest-floor habitats, we hypothesized that tree species would support different assemblages of leaf-litter herpetofauna. Primary forest, Virola, and Vochysia supported greater richness of frogs than Pentaclethra. Frog densities were significantly lower in Pentaclethra and Vochysia than in nearby primary forest. Using non-metric multidimensional scaling and permutational multivariate analysis of variance, we found Pentaclethra to support significantly different assemblages of frogs and lizards than primary forest reference sites, while Vochysia supported a unique assemblage of frogs. Our results suggest that some tree species plantations can support herpetofaunal assemblages comparable to primary forest in richness, community assembly, and abundance. While herpetofaunal community ecology varies among plantation species, our study provides a compelling example of how plantation landscapes can facilitate the restoration of native fauna on degraded landscapes.

Keywords

Conservation Frogs Lizards Neotropics Virola koschnyi Vochysia guatemalensis 

References

  1. Alford RA, Richards SJ (1999) Global amphibian declines: a problem in applied ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:133–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bawa KS, Seidler R (1998) Natural forest management and conservation of biodiversity in tropical forests. Conserv Biol 12:46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell KE, Donnelly MA (2006) Influence of forest fragmentation on community structure of frogs and lizards in northeastern Costa Rica. Conserv Biol 20:1750–1760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhagwat SA, Willis KJ, Birks HJB, Whitaker RJ (2008) Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evol 23:261–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bickford D, Howard SD, Ng DJJ, Sheridan JA (2010) Impacts of climate change on the amphibians and reptiles of Southeast Asia. Biodivers Conserv 19:1043–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaustein AR, Kiesecker JM (2002) Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecol Lett 5:597–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradshaw CJA, Sodhi NS, Brook BW (2009) Tropical turmoil: a biodiversity tragedy in progress. Front Ecol Environ 7:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chazdon RL, Harvey CA, Komar O, Griffith DM, Ferguson BG, Martínez-Ramos M, Morales H, Nigh R, Soto-Pinto L, van Breugel M, Philpott SM (2009) Beyond reserves: a research agenda for conserving biodiversity in human-modified tropical landscapes. Biotropica 41:142–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins JP, Storfer A (2003) Global amphibian declines: sorting the hypotheses. Divers Distrib 9:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colwell RK (2004) Estimates, version 7: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples (Software and User’s Guide). Freeware for Windows and Mac OsGoogle Scholar
  11. Crump ML, Scott NJ (1994) Visual encounter surveys. In: Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek LC, Foster MS (eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Cushmann SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doan TM (2003) Which methods are most effective for surveying rain forest herpetofauna? J Herpetol 37:72–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  15. Fauth JE, Crother BI, Slowinski JB (1989) Elevational patterns of species richness, evenness, and abundance of the Costa Rican leaf-litter herpetofauna. Biotropica 31:669–674Google Scholar
  16. Frankie GW, Baker HG, Opler PA (1974) Comparative phenological studies of trees in tropical wet and dry forests in the lowlands of Costa Rica. J Ecol 62:881–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freedman B, Zelazny V, Beaudette D, Fleming T, Flemming S, Forbes G, Gerrow JS, Johnson G, Woodley S (1996) Biodiversity implications of changes in the quantity of dead organic matter in managed forests. Environ Rev 4:238–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gardner TA, Barlow J, Peres CA (2007a) Paradox, presumption and pitfalls in conservation biology: the importance of habitat change for amphibians and reptiles. Biol Conserv 138:166–179Google Scholar
  19. Gardner TA, Ribeiro-Júnior MA, Barlow J, Ávila-Pires TCS, Hoogmoed MS, Peres CA (2007b) The value of primary, secondary, and plantation forests for a Neotropical herpetofauna. Conserv Biol 21:775–787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gardner TA, Barlow J, Chazdon R, Ewers RM, Harvey CA, Peres CA, Sodhi NS (2009) Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecol Lett 12:561–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibbons JW, Scott DE, Ryan TJ, Buhlmann KA, Tuberville TD, Metts BS, Greene JL, Mills T, Leiden Y, Poppy S, Winne CT (2000) The global decline of reptiles, déjà vu amphibians. Bioscience 50:653–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gotelli N, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guyer C (1988) Food supplementation in a tropical mainland anole, Norops humilis: effects on individuals. Ecology 69:362–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guyer C (1994) The reptile fauna: diversity and ecology. In: McDade LA, Bawa K, Hespenheide H, Hartshorn G (eds) La Selva: ecology and natural history of a neotropical rainforest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 210–216Google Scholar
  25. Hartley MJ (2002) Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. For Ecol Manag 155:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartshorn GS (1972) The ecological life history and population dynamics of Pentaclethra macroloba, a tropical wet forest dominant, and Stryphnodendron excelsum, an occasional associate. University of Washington, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  27. Hartshorn GS (1983) Introduction. In: Janzen DH (ed) Costa Rican natural history. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 118–157Google Scholar
  28. Heatwole HF (2012) Quadrat sampling. In: Foster MS, Guyer C, Gibbons JW, Chernoff N, McDiarmid RW (eds) Reptile biodiversity: standard methods for inventory and monitoring. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 220–226Google Scholar
  29. Heinen JT (1992) Comparisons of the leaf-litter herpetofauna in abandoned cacao plantations and primary rain forest in Costa Rica: some implications for faunal restoration. Biotropica 24:431–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek LC, Foster MS (1994) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Kleber M, Schwendenmann L, Veldkamp E, Röbner J, Jahn R (2007) Halloysite versus gibbsite: silicon cycling as a pedogenetic process in two lowland Neotropical rain forest soils of La Selva, Costa Rica. Geoderma 138:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lieberman SS (1986) Ecology of the leaf-litter herpetofauna of a Neotropical rainforest: La Selva, Costa Rica. Acta Zool Mex 15:1–72Google Scholar
  33. Lieberman M, Lieberman D (2007) Nearest-neighbor tree species combinations in tropical forest: the role of chance, and some consequences of high diversity. Oikos 116:377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lovich RE, Hayes WK, Mushinsky H, Rodda GH (2012) Transect surveys, including line distance. In: McDiarmid RW, Foster MS, Guyer C, Gibbons JW, Chernoff N (eds) Reptile biodiversity: standard methods for inventory and monitoring. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 227–234Google Scholar
  35. Lugo AE (1997) The apparent paradox of reestablishing species richness on degraded lands with tree monocultures. For Ecol Manag 99:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mazerolle MJ, Bailey LL, Kendall WL, Royle JA, Converse SJ, Nichols JD (2007) Making great leaps forward: accounting for detectability in herpetological field studies. J Herpetol 41:672–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McDade LA, Hartshorn GS (1994) La Selva biological station. In: McDade LA, Bawa KS, Hespenheide HA, Hartshorn GS (eds) La Selva: ecology and natural history of a neotropical rainforest. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 6–14Google Scholar
  38. Pawar SS, Rawat GS, Choudhury BC (2004) Recovery of frog and lizard communities following primary habitat alteration in Mizoram, Northeast India. BMC Ecol 4:10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pearman PB, Velasco AM, López A (1995) Tropical amphibian monitoring: a comparison of methods for detecting inter-site variation in species’ composition. Herpetologica 51:325–337Google Scholar
  40. Pineda E, Halffter G (2004) Species diversity and habitat fragmentation: frogs in a tropical montane landscape in Mexico. Biol Conserv 117:499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pounds JA, Crump ML (1994) Amphibian declines and climate disturbance: the case of the golden toad and the harlequin frog. Conserv Biol 8:72–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
  43. Raich JW, Russell AE, Bedoya-Arrieta R (2007) Lignin and enhanced litter turnover in tree plantations of lowland Costa Rica. For Ecol Manag 239:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reider KE, Carson WP, Donnelly MA (2013) Effects of collared peccary (Pecari tajacu) exclusion on leaf litter amphibians and reptiles in Neotropical wet forest, Costa Rica. Biol Conserv 163:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 263:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rodda GH, Campbell EW (2002) Distance sampling of forest snakes and lizards. Herp Rev 33:271–274Google Scholar
  47. Rothermel BB, Semlitsch RD (2002) An experimental investigation of landscape resistance of forest versus old-field habitats to emigrating juvenile amphibians. Conserv Biol 16:1324–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Russell AE, Raich JW (2012) Rapidly growing tropical trees mobilize remarkable amounts of nitrogen in ways that differ surprisingly among species. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:10398–10402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Russell AE, Raich JW, Valverde-Barrantes OJ, Fisher RF (2007) Tree species effects on soil properties in experimental plantations in tropical moist forest. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:1389–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Russell AE, Raich JW, Bedoya R, Valverde-Barrantes O, González E (2010) Impacts of individual tree species on carbon dynamics in a moist tropical forest environment. Ecol Appl 20:1087–1100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sanford RL Jr, Paaby P, Luvall JC, Phillips E (1994) Climate, geomorphology, and aquatic systems. In: McDade LA, Bawa KS, Hespenheide HA, Hartshorn GS (eds) La Selva: ecology and natural history of a neotropical rain forest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 19–33Google Scholar
  52. Scott NJ Jr (1976) The abundance and diversity of the herpetofaunas of tropical forest litter. Biotropica 8:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seebacher F, Alford RA (2002) Shelter microhabitats determine body temperature and dehydration rates of a terrestrial amphibian (Bufo marinus). J Herpetol 36:69–75Google Scholar
  54. Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Clements R, Wanger TC, Hill JK, Hamer KC, Clough Y, Tscharntke T, Posa MRC, Lee TM (2010) Conserving Southeast Asian forest biodiversity in human-modified landscapes. Biol Conserv 143:2375–2384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Steen D, Guyer C, Smith L (2012) A case study of relative abundance in snakes. In: McDiarmid RW, Foster MS, Guyer C, Gibbons JW, Chernoff N (eds) Reptile biodiversity: standard methods for inventory and monitoring. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 287–294Google Scholar
  56. Stuart SM, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, Fischman DL, Waller RW (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions. Science 306:1783–1786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Urbina-Cardona JN, Olivares-Pérez M, Reynoso VH (2006) Herpetofauna diversity and microenvironment correlates across a pasture-edge-interior ecotone in tropical rainforest fragments in the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve of Veracruz, Mexico. Biol Conserv 132:61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. von May R, Jacobs JM, Santa-Cruz R, Valdivia J, Huamán JM, Donnelly MA (2010) Amphibian community structure as a function of forest type. J Trop Ecol 26:509–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vonesh JR (2001) Patterns of richness and abundance in a tropical African leaf-litter herpetofauna. Biotropica 33:502–510Google Scholar
  60. Watling JI (2005) Edaphically-biased distributions of amphibians and reptiles in a lowland tropical rainforest. Stud Neotrop Fauna E 40:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Whitfield SM, Donnelly MA (2006) Ontogenetic and seasonal variation in diets of a Costa Rican leaf-litter herpetofauna. J Trop Ecol 22:409–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Whitfield SM, Bell KE, Philippi T, Sasa M, Bolaños F, Chaves G, Savage JM, Donnelly MA (2007) Amphibian and reptile declines over 35 years at La Selva, Costa Rica. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:8352–8356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesOhio UniversityAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations