Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 185, Issue 11, pp 8879–8889 | Cite as

Weather variability permitted within amphibian monitoring protocol and affects on calling Hylidae

  • Robert MilneEmail author
  • Lorne Bennett
  • Mathew Hoyle


Anuran populations are sensitive to changing environmental conditions and act as useful indicators. Presently, much information collected concerning frog populations comes from volunteers following the North American Amphibian Monitoring Protocol. Does weather variability allowed within protocol affect the abundance of calling frogs? For 10 years, Credit Valley Conservation (Ontario, Canada) has been collecting anuran data concerning nine frog species employing three frog monitoring runs. Records include frog abundance by protocol code and five weather variables. Antecedent precipitation and temperature were determined from the nearest weather station. Locations with large source populations of two Hylidae species were selected (spring peeper calling in April and gray tree frog in May). Spearman correlations suggested there were no significant relationships between calling abundance of Hylidae species and ambient wind speed or humidity. However, gray tree frogs were temperature sensitive and calling was significantly related to increased water and air temperatures as well as day time high temperatures over the previous 2 weeks. Both species of calling Hylidae were affected by the volume and timing of precipitation (though, in different ways). Gray tree frogs seem to prefer drier conditions (when temperatures are significantly warmer) while spring peepers prefer to call during, or closely following, precipitation. Monitors targeting gray tree frog should track local weather conditions and focus on evenings when it is (a) warmer than the minimum temperatures and (b) drier than suggested by the protocol. It is recommended that an additional monitoring run could be added to reduce detection variability of this species.


Monitoring protocol Hylidae Weather Ambient temperature Antecedent precipitation Citizen science 



We would like to thank Credit Valley Conservation, Mississauga, ON for the continuing support as well as the many landowners for allowing continuous access to their properties over all these years. We would also like to acknowledge the continuing assistance of Marie Puddister, Department of Geography, University of Guelph, with the production of all figures and diagrams.


  1. Beebee, T. J. C., & Griffiths, R. A. (2005). The amphibian decline crisis: a watershed for conservation biology? Biological Conservation, 125, 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beever, E. A., & Woodward, A. (2011). Design of ecoregional monitoring in conservation areas of high-latitude ecosystems under contemporary climate change. Biological Conservation, 144, 1258–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop, C. A., Green, D. M., & Brooks, R. J. (1997). Validation tests of an amphibian call count survey technique in Ontario, Canada. Herpetologica, 53(3), 312–320.Google Scholar
  4. Cadman, M. D., Sutherland, D. A., Beck, G. G., Lepage, D. & Couturier, A. R. (2007). Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario: 20012005. Bird Studies Canada, Port Rowan.Google Scholar
  5. Carey, C., & Alexander, M. A. (2003). Climate change and amphibian declines: is there a link? Diversity and Distributions, 9(2), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conrad, C. C., & Hilchey, K. G. (2011). A review of citizen science and community based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 176(1–4), 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Credit Valley Conservation (CVC). (2009). Integrated watershed monitoring program: anuran monitoring report. Mississauga: Credit Valley Conservation.Google Scholar
  8. Crouch, W. B., & Patten, P. W. C. (2002). Assessing the use of call surveys to monitor breeding anurans in Rhode Island. Journal of Herpetology, 36(2), 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cushman, S. A. (2006). Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biological Conservation, 128, 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickinson, J. L., & Bonney, R. (2012). Citizen science: public participation in environmental research. Ithaca: Comstock.Google Scholar
  11. Ellingson, A. R., & Lukacs, P. M. (2003). Improving methods for regional landbird monitoring: a reply to Hutto and Young. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 31(3), 896–902.Google Scholar
  12. Formicki, G., Zamachowski, W., & Stawarz, R. (2003). Effects of UV-A and UV-B on oxygen consumption in common toad (Bufo bufo) tadpoles. Journal of Zoology, 259(3), 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gayou, D. (1984). Effects of temperature on the mating call of Hyla versicolor. Copeia, 1984(3), 733–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerhardt, H. C. (1978). Temperature coupling in the vocal communication system of the gray tree frog Hyla versicolor. Science, 199, 992–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbs, J. P., & Breisch, A. R. (2001). Climate warming and calling phenology of frogs near Ithaca, New York. 1900–1999. Conservation Biology, 15(4), 1175–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gooch, M. M., Heupel, A. M., Price, S. J., & Dorcas, M. E. (2006). The effects of survey protocol on detection probabilities and site occupancy estimates of summer breeding anurans. Applied Herpetology, 3(2), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guzy, J. C., McCoy, E. D., Devle, A. C., Gonzalez, S. M., Halstead, N., & Mushinsky, H. R. (2012). Urbanization interferes with the use of amphibians as indicators of ecological integrity of wetlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(4), 941–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hauselberger, K. F., & Alford, R. A. (2005). Effects of season and weather on calling in the Australian microhylid frogs Austrochaperina robusta and Cophixalus ornatus. Herpetologica, 61(4), 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hegg, D., Giroir, T., Ellenberg, U., & Seddon, P. J. (2012). Yellow-eyed Penguin (Megadyptes antipodes) as a case study to assess the reliability of nest counts. Journal of Ornithology, 153(2), 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hersikorn, B. D., & Smits, J. E. G. (2011). Compromised metamorphosis and thyroid hormone changes in wood frogs (Lithobates sylvaticus) raised on reclaimed wetlands on the Athabasca oil sands. Environmental Pollution, 159(2), 596–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hossack, B. R., Diamond, S. A., & Corn, P. S. (2006). Distribution of boreal toad populations in relation to estimated UV-B dose in Glacier National Park, Montana, USA. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 84(1), 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jordan, R., Brooks, W., Howe, D., & Ehrenfeld, J. (2012). Evaluating the performance of volunteers in mapping invasive plants in public conservation lands. Environmental Management, 49(2), 425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kats, L. B., & Ferrer, R. P. (2003). Alien predators and amphibian declines: review of two decades of science and the transition to conservation. Diversity and Distributions, 9(2), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Konze, K., & McLaren, M. (1997). Wildlife monitoring programs and inventory techniques for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northeast Science and Technology. Technical Manual TM-009.Google Scholar
  25. Krishnamurthy, S., & Smith, G. (2011). Combined effects of malathion and nitrate on early growth, abnormalities, and mortality of wood frog (Rana sylvatica) tadpoles. Ecotoxicology, 20(6), 1361–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LaCommare, K. S., Brault, S., Self-Sullivan, C., & Hines, E. M. (2012). Trend detection in a boat-based method for monitoring sirenians: Antillean manatee case study. Biological Conservation, 152, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Longcore, J. R., Longcore, J. E., Pessier, A. P., & Halteman, W. A. (2007). Chytridiomycosis widespread in anurans of Northeastern United States. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(2), 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mann, R. M., Hyne, R. V., Choung, C. B., & Wilson, S. P. (2009). Amphibians and agricultural chemicals: review of the risks in a complex environment. Environmental Pollution, 157(11), 2903–2927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Milne, R., Rosolen, S., Whitelaw, G., & Bennett, L. (2006). Multi-party monitoring in Ontario: challenges and emerging solutions. Environments, 34(1), 11–23.Google Scholar
  30. Nelson, G. L., & Graves, B. M. (2004). Anuran population monitoring: comparison of the North America Program’s calling index with mark-recapture estimates for Rana clamitans. Journal of Herpetology, 38(3), 355–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ortiz-Santaliestra, M. E., Fernández-Benéitez, A. M., & José, M. (2012). Density effects on ammonium nitrate toxicity on amphibians. survival, growth and cannibalism. Aquatic Toxicology, 110–111, 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oseen, K. L., & Wassersug, R. J. (2002). Environmental factors influencing calling in sympatric anurans. Oecologia, 133, 616–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pierce, B. A., & Gutzwiller, K. J. (2004). Auditory sampling of frogs: detection efficiency in relation to survey detection. Journal of Herpetology, 38(4), 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Price, S. J., Howe, R. W., Hanowski, J. M., Regal, R. R., Niemi, G. J., & Smith, C. R. (2007). Are anurans of Great Lakes coastal wetlands reliable indicators of ecological condition? Journal of Great Lakes Research, 33, 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Relyea, R. A., & Hoverman, J. T. (2008). Interactive effects of predators and a pesticide on aquatic communities. Oikos, 117(11), 1647–1658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ritke, M. E., Jeffrey, G. B., & Ritke, M. K. (1992). Temporal patterns of reproductive activity in the gray tree frog (Hyla chrysoscelis). Journal of Herpetology, 26, 107–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saenz, D., Baum, K. A., & Conner, R. N. (2006). Abiotic correlates of anuran calling phenology: the importance of rain, temperature, and season. Herpetological Monographs, 20, 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schiermeier, Q. (2011). Canadian ozone network faces axe: Arctic monitoring stations hit by budget constraints. Nature, 477, 257–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schneider, Η. (1977). Acoustic behavior and physiology of vocalization in the European tree frog Hyla arborea. In D. Η. Taylor & S. I. Guttman (Eds.), The reproductive biology of amphibians (pp. 295–336). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steelman, C. K., & Dorcas, M. E. (2010). Anuran calling survey optimization: developing and testing predictive models of anuran calling activity. Journal of Herpetology, 44(1), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. USGS (2012). North American Monitoring Program—protocol description. Accessed 4 Sept 2012.
  42. Van Sluys, M., Marra, R. V., Boquimpani-Freitas, L., & Rocha, C. F. D. (2012). Environmental factors affecting calling behavior of sympatric frog species at an Atlantic rain forest area, Southeastern Brazil. Journal of Herpetology, 46(1), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weeber R. C., & Vallianatos, M. (eds) (2000). The Marsh Monitoring Program 19951999: monitoring Great Lakes wetlands and their amphibian and bird inhabitants. Bird Studies Canada, Port RowanGoogle Scholar
  44. Weir, L. A., Royle, J. A., Nanjappa, P., & Jung, R. E. (2005). Modeling anuran detection and site occupancy on North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP) routes in Maryland. Journal of Herpetology, 39(4), 627–639.Google Scholar
  45. Wells, K. D., & Taigen, T. L. (1986). The effect of social interactions on the calling energetics in the gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 19(1), 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and Environmental StudiesWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations