Conservation Genetics

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 313–322 | Cite as

Structure and fragmentation of growling grass frog metapopulations

  • Joshua M. HaleEmail author
  • Geoffrey W. Heard
  • Katie L. Smith
  • Kirsten M. Parris
  • Jeremy J. Austin
  • Michael Kearney
  • Jane Melville
Research Article


Metapopulations occur in fragmented landscapes, and consist of demographically-independent populations connected by dispersal. Nevertheless, anthropogenic habitat fragmentation may be fatal to metapopulations, as it disrupts dispersal and gene flow, and undermines the balance between population extinction and colonization. Understanding the extent to which particular land-use practices disrupt dispersal and gene flow is therefore crucial for conserving metapopulations. We examined the structure and fragmentation of metapopulations of the endangered growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis) in an urbanizing landscape in southern Australia. Population clustering analyses revealed three distinct genetic units, corresponding to the three wetland clusters sampled. Isolation-by-distance was apparent between populations, and genetic distance was significantly correlated with the presence of urban barriers between populations. Our study provides evidence that urbanization fragments metapopulations of L. raniformis. Managers of L. raniformis in urbanizing landscapes should seek to mitigate effects of urbanization on dispersal and gene flow.


Endangered Growling grass frog Metapopulation Habitat fragmentation Microsatellites Urbanization 



Funding for this project was provided by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant (LP0667815). Additional funding was provided to JH from the Holsworth Wildlife Endowment, Museum Victoria and the Loftus-Hills Memorial Grant (University of Melbourne). Tissue collection was conducted by GH with support from a David Myers Postgraduate Scholarship (La Trobe University), and grants from the Growling Grass Frog Trust Fund and Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment. Manuscript preparation was supported by Australian Research Council Linkage Grant (LP0990161). We thank M. Littlejohn, B. Malone, M. Scroggie and P. Robertson for expert advice. Technical support was provided by staff of the Sciences Department, Museum Victoria, and the Department of Zoology, La Trobe University. Private landholders in the Merri Creek catchment kindly allowed us access to their properties for sampling purposes.


  1. Arens P, Bugter R, Westende W, Zollinger R, Stronks J, Vos C, Smulders M (2006) Microsatellite variation and population structure of a recovering tree frog (Hyla arborea; L.) metapopulation. Conserv Genet 7:825–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin RF, Calhoun AJK, DeMaynadier PG (2006) Conservation planning for amphibian species with complex habitat requirements: a case study using movements and habitat selection of the wood frog Rana sylvatica. J Herpetol 40:442–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beebee TJC, Griffiths RA (2005) The amphibian decline crisis: a watershed for conservation biology? Biol Conserv 125:271–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouzat J, Johnson J, Toepfer J, Simpson S, Esker T, Westemeier R (2009) Beyond the beneficial effects of translocations as an effective tool for the genetic restoration of isolated populations. Conserv Genet 10:191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brand AB, Snodgrass JW (2010) Value of artificial habitats for amphibian reproduction in altered landscapes. Conserv Biol 24:295–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Burns EL, Ferrari G (2004) Microsatellite loci for the green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea). Conserv Genet 5:421–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapuis M-P, Estoup A (2007) Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Mol Biol Evol 24:621–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK (2006) Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am Nat 168:486–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DPCD (2009) Delivering Melbourne’s newest sustainable communities. Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebenhard T (1991) Colonization in metapopulations: a review of theory and observations. Biol J Linn Soc 42:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2009) Quantifying the road-effect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecol Soc 14:24Google Scholar
  15. Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S (2005) Arlequin ver 3.0: an integrated software package for population genetic analysis. Evol Bioinform Online 1:47–50Google Scholar
  16. Ferner JW (2007) A review of marking and individual recognition techniques for amphibians and reptiles. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Salt Lake CityGoogle Scholar
  17. Forman RTT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe D (2009) Introduction to conservation genetics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaggiotti OE, Hanski I (2004) Mechanisms of population extinction. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE (eds) Ecology, Genetics and Evolution of Metapopulations. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 337–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gemmell NJ, Akiyama S (1996) A simple and efficient method for the extraction of DNA. Trends Genet 12:338–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glista DJ, DeVault TL, DeWoody JA (2009) A review of mitigation measures for reducing wildlife mortality on roadways. Landsc Urban Plan 91:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goslee SC, Urban DL (2007) The ecodist package for dissimilarity-based analysis of ecological data. J Stat Softw 22:1–19Google Scholar
  23. Goslee SC, Urban DL (2012) Ecodist: dissimilarity-based functions for ecological analysis. Accessed 16 April 2012
  24. Haddad NM (1999) Corridor and distance effects on interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterflies. Ecol Appl 9:612–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hale JM (2010) Human-induced changes in the population genetic structure of frogs in south-eastern Australia. University of Melbourne, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  26. Hale JM, Heard G, Smith K, Blacket M, Austin J, Melville J (2011) Microsatellite loci for the endangered growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis), with cross amplification in other Australian frog species. Conserv Genet Resour 3:593–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamer AJ, McDonnell MJ (2008) Amphibian ecology and conservation in the urbanizing world: a review. Biol Conserv 141:2432–2449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamer AJ, Organ A (2008) Aspects of the ecology and conservation of the growling grass frog Litoria raniformis in an urban-fringe environment, southern Victoria. Aust Zool 34:393–407Google Scholar
  29. Hamer AJ, Lane SJ, Mahony MJ (2008) Movement patterns of adult green and golden bell frog Litoria aurea and the implications for conservation management. J Herpetol 42:397–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamer AJ, Lane SJ, Mahony MJ (2010) Using probabilistic models to investigate the disappearance of a widespread frog-species complex in high-altitude regions of south-eastern Australia. Anim Conserv 13:275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanski I, Simberloff D (1997) The metapopulation approach: its history, conceptual domain and application to conservation. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology: ecology genetics and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hanski I, Kuussaari M, Neimeinen M (1994) Metapopulation structure and migration in the butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Ecology 75:747–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harrison S, Ray C (2002) Plant population viability and metapopulation-level processes. In: Beissinger SR, McCullough DR (eds) Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 109–122Google Scholar
  36. Harrison S, Taylor AD (1997) Empirical evidence for metapopulation dynamics. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology. Ecology genetics and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harveson PM, Grant WE, Lopez RR, Silvy NJ, Frank PA (2006) The role of dispersal in Florida key deer metapopulation dynamics. Ecol Model 195:393–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heard GW, Scroggie MP, Clemann N (2010) Guidelines for managing the endangered Growling Grass Frog in urbanizing landscapes. Arthur Rylah Insitute for environmental research technical report series no. 208. Victorian Department of Sustainbility and Environment, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  39. Heard GW, Scroggie MP, Malone BS (2012) Classical metapopulation theory as a useful paradigm for the conservation of an endangered amphibian. Biol Conserv 148:156–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hedrick PW (2005) Genetic restoration: a more comprehensive perspective than genetic rescue. Trends Ecol Evol 20:109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hels T, Buchwald E (2001) The effects of road kills on amphibian populations. Biol Conserv 99:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hitchings SP, Beebee TJC (1997) Genetic substructuring as a result of barriers to gene flow in urban Rana temporaria (common frog) populations: implications for biodiversity conservation. Heredity 79:117–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hubisz MJ, Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2009) Inferring weak population structure with the assistance of sample group information. Mol Ecol Resour 9:1322–1332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kindvall O (1996) Habitat heterogeneity and survival in a bush cricket metapopulation. Ecology 77:207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kritzer JP, Sale PF (eds) (2006) Marine Metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  46. Lahaye WS, Gutiérrez RJ, Akcakaya HR (1994) Spotted owl metapopulation dynamics in southern California. J Anim Ecol 63:775–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  48. Lowe WH, Allendorf FW (2010) What can genetics tell us about population connectivity? Mol Ecol 19:3038–3051PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Magrach A, Larrinaga AR, SantamarÍA L (2012) Effects of matrix characteristics and interpatch distance on functional connectivity in fragmented temperate rainforests. Conserv Biol 26:238–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mahony M (1999) Review of the declines and disappearances within the bell frog species group (Litoria aurea species group) in Australia. In: Campbell A (ed) Declines and disappearances of Australian frogs. Environment Australia, Canberra, pp 81–93Google Scholar
  51. Marsh DM, Trenham PC (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conserv Biol 15:40–49Google Scholar
  52. Mata C, Hervás I, Herranz J, Suárez F, Malo JE (2008) Are motorway wildlife passages worth building? Vertebrate use of road-crossing structures on a Spanish motorway. J Environ Manag 88:407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Menges ES (1990) Population viability analysis for an endangered plant. Conserv Biol 4:52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moilanen A, Smith AT, Hanski I (1998) Long-term dynamics in a metapopulation of the American pika. Am Nat 152:530–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ng SJ, Dole JW, Sauvajot RM, Riley SPD, Valone TJ (2004) Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California. Biol Conserv 115:499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Noël S, Ouellet M, Galois P, Lapointe F-J (2007) Impact of urban fragmentation on the genetic structure of the eastern red-backed salamander. Conserv Genet 8:599–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ouborg NJ (1993) Isolation, population size and extinction: the classical and metapopulation approaches applied to vascular plants along the Dutch Rhine-system. Oikos 66:298–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Petranka JW, Harp EM, Holbrook CT, Hamel JA (2007) Long-term persistence of amphibian populations in a restored wetland complex. Biol Conserv 138:371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Possingham HP, Lindenmayer DB, Norton TW, Davies I (1994) Metapopulation viability analysis of the greater glider Petauroides volans in a wood production area. Biol Conserv 70:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Pritchard JK, Wen X, Falush D (2010) Documentation for structure software: version 2.3. Accessed 29 Jan 2012
  63. Pyke GH (2002) A review of the biology of the southern bell frog Litoria raniformis (Anura: Hylidae). Aust Zool 32:32–48Google Scholar
  64. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna. Accessed 16 April 2012
  65. Reed DH, Frankham R (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv Biol 17:230–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reh W, Seitz A (1990) The influence of land use on the genetic structure of populations of the common frog Rana temporaria. Biol Conserv 54:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Robertson OJ, Radford JQ (2009) Gap-crossing decisions of forest birds in a fragmented landscape. Austral Ecol 34:435–446Google Scholar
  68. Rousset F (2008) GENEPOP’007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sagvik J, Uller T, Olsson M (2005) Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria. Conserv Genet 6:205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Semlitsch RD (2002) Critical elements for biologically based recovery plans of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Conserv Biol 16:619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Semlitsch RD (2003) Conservation of pond-breeding amphibians. In: Semlitsch RD (ed) Amphibian conservation. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp 8–23Google Scholar
  72. Sherman CDH, Wapstra E, Uller T, Olsson M (2008) Males with high genetic similarity to females sire more offspring in sperm competition in Peron’s tree frog Litoria peronii. Proc R Soc B 275:971–978PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sjögren-Gulve P (1994) Distribution and extinction patterns within a northern metapopulation of the pool frog, Rana lessonae. Ecology 75:1357–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Skerratt L, Berger L, Speare R, Cashins S, McDonald K, Phillott A, Hines H, Kenyon N (2007) Spread of chytridiomycosis has caused the rapid global decline and extinction of frogs. EcoHealth 4:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Smith MA, Green DM (2005) Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibians metapopulations? Ecography 28:110–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Smouse PE, Peakall R (2006) GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Smouse PE, Long JC, Sokal RR (1986) Multiple regression and correlation extensions of the Mantel test of matrix correspondence. Syst Zool 35:627–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, Fischman DL, Waller RW (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783–1786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Suter W, Bollmann K, Holderegger R (2007) Landscape permeability: from individual dispersal to population persistence. In: Kienast F, Wildi O, Ghosh S (eds) A changing world, vol 8. Landscape series. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 157–174Google Scholar
  80. Tallmon DA, Luikart G, Waples RS (2004) The alluring simplicity and complex reality of genetic rescue. Trends Ecol Evol 19:489–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Trombulak SC, Frissell CA (2000) Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conserv Biol 14:18–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. UNFPA (2007) State of the world population 2007: unleashing the potential urban growth. United Nations Population Fund, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  83. Verboom J, Schotman A, Opdam PFM, Metz JAJ (1991) European nuthatch metapopulations in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Oikos 61:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vos CC, Antonisse-de Jong AG, Goedhart PW, Smulders MJM (2001) Genetic similarity as a measure for connectivity between fragmented populations of the moor frog (Rana arvalis). Heredity 86:598–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wassens S (2008) Review of the past distribution and decline of the southern bell frog Litoria raniformis in New South Wales. Aust Zool 34:446–452Google Scholar
  86. Wassens S, Watts RJ, Jansen A, Roshier D (2008) Movement patterns of southern bell frogs (Litoria raniformis) in response to flooding. Wildl Res 35:50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) The Analysis and Management of Animal Populations. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua M. Hale
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Geoffrey W. Heard
    • 3
    • 4
  • Katie L. Smith
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kirsten M. Parris
    • 3
  • Jeremy J. Austin
    • 1
    • 5
  • Michael Kearney
    • 2
  • Jane Melville
    • 1
  1. 1.Sciences DepartmentMuseum VictoriaMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.School of BotanyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Department of ZoologyLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  5. 5.Australian Centre for Ancient DNAUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations