Landscape Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 8, pp 1601–1613 | Cite as

Demographic network and multi-season occupancy modeling of Rana sylvatica reveal spatial and temporal patterns of population connectivity and persistence

  • William E. Peterman
  • Tracy A. G. Rittenhouse
  • Julia E. Earl
  • Raymond D. Semlitsch
Research Article


Many populations are spatially structured with frequent extinction–colonization events. A clear understanding of these processes is necessary for making informed and effective management decisions. Due to the spatially and temporally dynamic nature of many systems, population connectivity and local extinction–colonization processes can be difficult to assess, but graph theoretic and occupancy modeling approaches are increasingly being utilized to answer such vital ecological questions. In our study, we used 6 years of egg mass counts from 34 ponds for Rana sylvatica to parameterize spatially explicit demographic network models. Our models revealed that the studied populations have spatial structure with strong source–sink dynamics. We also assessed the colonization and persistence probability of each pond using multi-season occupancy modeling. We observed extreme fluctuation in reproductive effort among years, resulting in variable levels of connectivity across the landscape. Pond colonization and persistence were most influenced by local population dynamics, but colonization was also affected by precipitation. Our demographic network model had moderate ability to predict reproductive effort, but accuracy was hindered by variation in annual precipitation. Source populations had higher colonization and persistence rates as well as a greater proportion of ravine habitat within 1,000 m than sink populations. By linking a spatially explicit connectivity model with a temporal occupancy/persistence model, we provide a framework for interpreting patterns of occupancy and dispersal that can serve as an initial guide for future habitat management and restoration.


Functional connectivity Graph theory Missouri Ozark Source–sink dynamics Spatially structured populations Wood frog 



We thank D. Leach, T. Luhring, M. S. Osbourn, S. E. Pittman, B. Scheffers, J. Sias, and E. Wengert for assistance with field surveys. This manuscript was greatly improved by N. Schumaker and two anonymous reviewers. Partial support for this research was provided by Trans World Airlines, University of Missouri Research Board (CB000402), DoD Strategic Environmental Research Development Program (RC2155), and NSF (DEB 0239943).


  1. Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol 22:1117–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bang-Jensen J, Gutin GZ (2010) Digraphs: theory algorithms and applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Berven KA (1990) Factors affecting population fluctuations in larval and adult stages of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Ecology 71:1599–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berven KA, Grudzien TA (1990) Dispersal in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica): implications for genetic population structure. Evolution 44:2047–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowne DR, Bowers MA (2004) Interpatch movements in spatially structured populations: a literature review. Landscape Ecol 19:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks CP (2006) Quantifying population substructure: extending the graph-theoretic approach. Ecology 87:864–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown JH (1984) On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am Nat 124:255–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charney ND (2012) Evaluating expert opinion and spatial scale in an amphibian model. Ecol Model 242:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Church DR (2008) Role of current versus historical hydrology in amphibian species turnover within local pond communities. Copeia 2008:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crosby MKA, Licht LE, Fu J (2008) The effect of habitat fragmentation on finescale population structure of wood frogs (Rana sylvatica). Conserv Genet 10:1707–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dilts T (2010) Topography tools for ArcGIS v. 9.3. Accessed 10 June 2013
  14. Fronhofer EA, Kubisch A, Hilker FM, Hovestadt T, Poethke HJ (2012) Why are metapopulations so rare? Ecology 93:1967–1978PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gustafson EJ, Gardner RH (1996) The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77:94–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanski I, Gilpin M (1997) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  17. Harary F (1969) Graph theory. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 DiegoGoogle Scholar
  19. Hecnar SJ, M’Closkey RT (1996) Regional dynamics and the status of amphibians. Ecology 77:2091–2097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hocking DJ, Rittenhouse TAG, Rothermel BB, Johnson BR, Conner CA, Harper EB, Semlitsch RD (2008) Breeding and recruitment phenology of amphibians in Missouri oak-hickory forests. Am Midl Nat 160:41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jenness J (2006). Jenness Enterprises. Topopgraphic Position Index (tpi_jen.avx) extension for ArcView 3.x, v. 1.3a. Accessed 22 March 2013
  22. Kool JT, Moilanen A, Treml EA (2013) Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives. Landscape Ecol 28:165–185Google Scholar
  23. Kuussaari M, Bommarco R, Heikkinen RK, Helm A, Krauss J, Lindborg R, Öckinger E, Pärtel M, Pino J, Rodà F, Stefanescu C, Teder T, Zobel M, Steffan-Dewenter I (2009) Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 24:564–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lannoo MJ (ed) (2005) Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  25. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Knutson MG, Franklin AB (2003) Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84:2200–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17:1771–1782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltz D, Smouse PE (2008) A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19052–19059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Connor MP, Sieg AE, Dunham AE (2006) Linking physiological effects on activity and resource use to population level phenomena. Integr Comp Biol 46:1093–1109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peterman WE, Feist SM, Semlitsch RD, Eggert LS (2013) Temporal and spatial influences on the genetic structure of peripheral wood frog (Rana sylvatica) populations. Biol Conserv 158:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richardson JL (2012) Divergent landscape effects on population connectivity in two co-occurring amphibian species. Mol Ecol 21:4437–4451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2007) Postbreeding habitat use of wood frogs in a Missouri oak-hickory forest. J Herpetol 41:645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2009) Behavioral response of migrating wood frogs to experimental timber harvest surrounding wetlands. Can J Zool 87:618–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rittenhouse TAG, Harper EB, Rehard LR, Semlitsch RD (2008) The role of microhabitats in the desiccation and survival of anurans in recently harvested oak-hickory forest. Copeia 2008:807–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD, Thompson FR III (2009) Survival costs associated with wood frog breeding migrations: effects of timber harvest and drought. Ecology 90:1620–1630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rozenfeld AF, Arnaud-Haond S, Hernández-García E, Eguíluz VM, Serrão EA, Duarte CM (2008) Network analysis identifies weak and strong links in a metapopulation system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:18824–18829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33:523–537Google Scholar
  38. Saura S, Torne J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schick RS, Lindley ST (2007) Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network. J Appl Ecol 44:1116–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Semlitsch RD, Conner CA, Hocking DJ, Rittenhouse TAG, Harper EB (2008) Effects of timber harvesting on pond-breeding amphibian persistence: testing the evacuation hypothesis. Ecol Appl 18:283–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor BE, Scott DE (1997) Effects of larval density dependence on population dynamics of Ambystoma opacum. Herpetologica 53:132–145Google Scholar
  42. Taylor P, Fahrig L, With KA (2006) Landscape connectivity: a return to basics. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thomas CD, Kunin WE (1999) The spatial structure of populations. J Anim Ecol 68:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trauth SE, Robison HW, Plummer MV (2004) The amphibians and reptiles of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, FayettevilleGoogle Scholar
  45. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12:260–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2000) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Wennergren U, Ruckelshaus M, Kareiva P (1995) The promise and limitations of spatial models in conservation biology. Oikos 74:349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Werner EE, Yurewicz KL, Skelly DK, Relyea RA (2007) Turnover in an amphibian metacommunity: the role of local and regional factors. Oikos 116:1713–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilbur HM (1987) Regulation of structure in complex systems: experimental temporary pond communities. Ecology 68:1437–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wright AH, Wright AA (1949) Handbook of frogs and toads. Comstock Publishing Associates, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  52. Zellmer AJ, Knowles LL (2009) Disentangling the effects of historic vs. contemporary landscape structure on population genetic divergence. Mol Ecol 18:3593–3602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • William E. Peterman
    • 1
  • Tracy A. G. Rittenhouse
    • 1
    • 2
  • Julia E. Earl
    • 1
    • 3
  • Raymond D. Semlitsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  3. 3.National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations