Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 389–396 | Cite as

Urban croaking: diversity and distribution of anurans in a neotropical city

  • Ian MacGregor-ForsEmail author
  • Omar Hernández Ordoñez
  • Rubén Ortega-Álvarez


Anurans are excellent site-specific bioindicators. Although urbanization imposes diverse threats to wildlife species, little is known about its effect on tropical anurans. In this study we assessed the response of anurans to different conditions within an urban area (i.e. highly developed intra-urban residential areas, highly developed peri-urban residential areas, intra-urban abandoned lots, waterway). Our results show that: (1) 36 % of the regional anuran species pool was found within the boundaries of the studied city, (2) species richness peaked in highly developed peri-urban areas, (3) anuran abundance scores were highest in abandoned lots, and (4) highest similarity was found between the anuran community from highly developed peri-urban areas and abandoned lots. Although this study was carried out in a single city, and we only recorded four species, our results suggest that the urban semi-permeability process occurs for anuran communities, plus the fact that abandoned lots seem to offer better breeding habitat for anurans than a polluted waterway.


Frogs Mexico Morelia Toads Urban ecology 


  1. Anderies JM, Katti M, Shochat E (2007) Living in the city: resource availability, predation, and bird population dynamics in urban areas. J Theor Biol 247:36–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behler JL, King FW (1979) The Audubon society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. National Audubon Society, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair RB (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 6:506–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair RB (2004) The effects of urban sprawl on birds at multiple levels of biological organization. Ecol Soc 9:2Google Scholar
  5. Blair RB, Johnson EM (2008) Suburban habitats and their role for birds in the urban-rural habitat network: points of local invasion and extinction? Landsc Ecol 23:1157–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaustein A, Wake D, Wayne PS (1994) Amphibian declines: judging stability, persistence and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conserv Biol 6:60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 4:325–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins J, Storfer A (2003) Global amphibian declines: sorting the hypotheses. Diver Distrib 9:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colwell RK (2005) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Accessed 3 May 2012
  10. Croci S, Butet A, Clergeau P (2008) Does urbanization filter birds on the basis of their biological traits? Condor 110:223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crump M, Scott NY (1994) Visual encounter survey. In: Heyer W, Donnelley MA, McDiarmid RA, Hayek LC, Foster MC (eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution, USA, pp 84–92Google Scholar
  12. Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscience 50:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. (CONABIO) Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (2011) Sitio Oficial de la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, México. Accessed 3 May 2012
  14. Devictor V, Julliard R, Clavel J, Jiguet F, Lee A, Couvet D (2007) Functional biotic homogenization of bird communities in disturbed landscapes. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:252–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donnelly DM, Crump M (1998) Potential effects of climate change on two neotropical amphibian assemblages. Clim Chang 39:541–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duellman WE (1961) The amphibians and reptiles of Michoacan, Mexico. Univ Kans Publ Mus Nat Hist 15:1–148Google Scholar
  17. Gibbs J, Whiteleather K, Schueler F (2005) Changes in frog and toad populations over 30 years in New York State. Ecol Appl 15:1148–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golibiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamer A, McDonnell J (2008) Amphibian ecology and conservation in the urbanising world: a review. Biol Conserv 141:2432–2449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammerson G, Canseco-Márquez L (2009) Hyla eximia. IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2011.1. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Accessed 3 May 2012
  22. (IUCN) International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2011) List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. Accessed 3 May 2012
  23. Jones K (1986) Amphibians and reptiles. In: Boit RJ, Steward HR (eds) Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. Burland Manage, Denver, pp 267–290Google Scholar
  24. Lips KR, Reaser JK, Young BE, Ibáñez R (2001) Amphibian monitoring in Latin America: a protocol manual. Herpetological Circular No. 30, Society for the Study of Amphibians and ReptilesGoogle Scholar
  25. López E, Bocco G, Mendoza M, Duhau E (2001) Predicting land-cover and land-use change in the urban fringe: a case in Morelia city, Mexico. Landsc Urban Plan 55:271–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacGregor-Fors I (2010) How to measure the urban-wildland ecotone: redefining ‘peri-urban’ areas. Ecol Res 25:883–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnely R (2001) A historical perspective on urban bird research: trends, terms, and approaches. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnely R (eds) Avian conservation and ecology in an urbanizing world. Kluwer, Boston, pp 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McAleece N (1997) BioDiversity Pro. Version 2. The Scottish Association for Marine Science, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  30. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moreno CE (2001) Métodos para Medir la Biodiversidad. M&T–Manuales y Tesis SEA, ZaragozaGoogle Scholar
  33. Ortega-Álvarez R, MacGregor-Fors I (2009) Living in the big city: effects of urban land-use on bird community structure, diversity, and composition. Landsc Urban Plan 90:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pauchard A, Aguayo M, Peña E, Urrutia R (2006) Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: the case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepción, Chile). Biol Conserv 127:272–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Payton ME, Greenstone MH, Schenker N (2003) Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: what do they mean in terms of statistical significance? J Insect Sci 3:34Google Scholar
  36. Pechmann JHK, Wilbur HM (1994) Putting declining amphibian populations in perspective: natural fluctuations and human impacts. Herpetologica 50:65–84Google Scholar
  37. Ramirez-Bautista A, Hernández-Salinas U, García-Vázquez UO, Leyete-Manrique A, Canseco-Márquez L (2009) Herpetofauna de Valle de México: Diversidad y Conservación. UAEH-CONABIO, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  38. Reynoso-Rosales VH, Mendoza-Quijano F, Valdespino-Torres CS, Sanchéz Hernández X (2005) Anfibios y reptiles (Amphibians and reptiles). In: Bueno J, Alvarez F, Santiago S (eds) Biodiversidad del Estado de Tabasco. Instituto de Biología, UNAM, México, pp 241–260Google Scholar
  39. Rödel MO, Ernst R (2004) Measuring and monitoring amphibian diversity in tropical forests: an evaluation of methods with recommendations for standardization. Ecotropica 10:1–14Google Scholar
  40. Sánchez O, Medellín R, Aldama A, Goettsch B, Soberón J, Tambutti M (2007) Método de Evaluación del Riesgo de Extinción de las Especies Silvestres en México. Instituto Nacional de Ecología, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  41. Santos-Barrera G, Flores-Villela O (2004) Lithobates spectabilis. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. Accessed 3 May 2012
  42. (SEMARNAT) Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2010. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010. Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. Diario Oficial de la Federación, Segunda Sección, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, México, D.F., MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  43. Suazo-Ortuño I, Alvarado-Díaz J, Martínez-Ramos M (2008) Effects of conversion of dry tropical forest to agricultural mosaic on herpetofauna assemblages. Conserv Biol 22:362–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. United Nations (2008) World urbanization prospects: the 2007 revision, data, tables and highlights. Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Vargas Uribe G (2008) Urbanización y Configuración Territorial en la Región Valladolid-Morelia 1541-1991 Morevallado Editores, MoreliaGoogle Scholar
  47. Zug G, Vitt L, Cadwell J (2001) Herpetology: an introductory biology of amphibians and reptiles. Academic, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian MacGregor-Fors
    • 1
    Email author
  • Omar Hernández Ordoñez
    • 2
  • Rubén Ortega-Álvarez
    • 3
  1. 1.Red de Ambiente y Sustentabilidad, Instituto de EcologíaXalapaMexico
  2. 2.Laboratorio de Ecología de Poblaciones y Comunidades Tropicales, Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMoreliaMexico
  3. 3.Laboratorio de Ecología de la Restauración, Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMoreliaMexico

Personalised recommendations