Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 325–340 | Cite as

Common reed (Phragmites australis) invasion and amphibian distribution in freshwater wetlands

  • Marc J. MazerolleEmail author
  • Amélie Perez
  • Jacques Brisson
Original Paper


Invasive plants can substantially modify wetland structure and animal distribution patterns. In eastern North America, a Eurasian haplotype of the common reed (Phragmites australis, haplotype M) is invading wetlands. We studied the invasion of common reed in freshwater wetlands of an urbanized landscape and its effects on the distribution of amphibians at different life stages. Specifically, we hypothesized that the probability of reed invasion would be greatest in wetlands near anthropic disturbances. We predicted that the probability of desiccation at sampling stations increases with reed cover. Furthermore, we expected that wetlands invaded by common reed would have lower amphibian abundances, apparent survival, and rates of recruitment. We conducted trapping surveys to compare anuran assemblages of tadpoles, juveniles, and adults in 50 wetlands during two field seasons. The probability of reed invasion in wetlands increased with the cover of heavily-managed areas within 1,000 m and the distance to the nearest forest, but decreased with the length of roads within 1,000 m. The probability of station desiccation increased with reed cover. We found no evidence of a negative effect of reed presence on anuran population parameters, at any life stage. Landscape variables, such as the percent cover of forest or heavily-managed areas within a given radius from each wetland, influenced the abundance or the apparent survival of juvenile frogs and the abundance of ranid tadpoles. Our results show that amphibian patterns depend more strongly on the structure of the landscape surrounding wetlands than on exotic reed invasion in wetlands.


Anurans Demographic parameters Detectability Frogs Landscape structure Invasive species Exotic plant 



Thanks to D. Chatillon, V. Vermette, D. Rodrigue, J.-F. Houle, S. Comptois for granting park access and lending field equipment. We used the Colosse high performance computing cluster of Calcul Québec to run certain models and assess model fit. This study was funded by National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Fonds Québécois pour la recherche en nature et technologie (FQRNT), Ducks Unlimited Canada, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and the Quebec department of natural resources and wildlife (MRNF). V. Spinelli, V. Jourdan, V. Bonner, A.-A. Marmette, A. Daoust-Labelle, and A.-A. G. Payette assisted with the field work. S. Rouleau assisted in site selection. Comments from two anonymous reviewers improved the manuscript.


  1. Able KW, Hagan SM (2000) Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) invasion on marsh surface macrofauna: response of fishes and decapod crustaceans. Estuaries Coasts 23:633–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams M, Richter K, Leonard W (1997) Surveying and monitoring pond-breeding amphibians using aquatic funnel traps. In: Olson D, Leonard WP, Bury RB (eds) Sampling amphibians in lentic habitats: methods and approaches for the Pacific Northwest. Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology, Olympia, Washington, pp 47–54Google Scholar
  3. Altwegg R, Reyer H-U (2003) Patterns of natural selection on size at metamorphosis in water frogs. Evol Anthropol 57:872–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson DR (2001) The need to get the basics right in wildlife field studies. Wildl Soc Bull 29:1294–1297Google Scholar
  5. Andrews KM, Gibbons JW, Jochimsen DM (2008) Ecological effects of roads on amphibians and reptiles: a literature review. In: Mitchell JC, Jung Brown RE, Bartholomew B (eds) Urban herpetology. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Salt Lake City, Utah, pp 121–143Google Scholar
  6. Babbitt KJ, Baber MJ, Tarr TL (2003) Patterns of larval amphibian distribution along a wetland hydroperiod gradient. Can J Zool 81:1539–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2012) Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0.
  8. Bart D, Burdick D, Chambers R, Hartman JM (2006) Human facilitation of Phragmites australis invasions in tidal marshes: a review. Wetl Ecol Manag 14:53-65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benoit LK, Askins RA (1999) Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut tidal marshes. Wetlands Ecol Manag 19:194–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berven KA, Grudzien TA (1990) Dispersal in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica): implications for genetic population structure. Evol Anthropol 44:2047–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bouchard J, Ford AT, Eigenbrod FE, Fahrig L (2009) Behavioral responses of northern leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) to roads and traffic: implications for population persistence. Ecol Soc 14:23. Google Scholar
  12. Bradford DF, Neale AC, Nash MS, Sada DW, Jaeger JR (2003) Habitat patch occupancy by toads (Bufo punctatus) in a naturally fragmented desert landscape. Ecol Freshw Fish 84:1012–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brisson J, De Blois S, Lavoie C (2010) Roadside as invasion pathway for common reed (Phragmites australis). Invasive Plant Sci Manag 3:506–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burba GG, Verma SB, Kim J (1999) A comparative study of surface energy fluxes of three communities (Phragmites australis, Scirpus acutus, and open water) in a prairie wetland ecosystem. Wetlands Ecol Manag 19:451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information–theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Canhoto C, Laranjeira C (2007) Leachates of Eucalyptus globulus in intermittent streams affect water parameters and invertebrates. Int Rev Hydrobiol 92:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chambers RM, Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K (1999) Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquat Bot 64:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cheruvelil KS, Soranno PA, Madsen JD, Roberson MJ (2002) Plant architecture and epiphytic macroinvertebrate communities: the role of an exotic dissected macrophyte. J N Am Benthol Soc 21:261–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen JS, Maerz JC, Blossey B (2012) Traits, not origin, explain impacts of plants on larval amphibians. Ecol Appl 22:218–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cotten TB, Kwiatkowski MA, Saenz D, Collyer M (2012) Effects of an invasive plant, Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera), on development and survival of anuran larvae. J Herpetol 46:186-193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dail D, Madsen L (2011) Models for estimating abundance from repeated counts of an open population. Biometrics 67:577–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davis MA (2009) Invasion biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Desroches J-F, Rodrigue D (2004) Amphibiens et reptiles du Québec et des Maritimes. Éditions Michel Quintin, Waterloo, QCGoogle Scholar
  24. Dodd CK Jr (1996) Use of terrestrial habitats by amphibians in the sandhill uplands of north-central Florida. Alytes 14:42–52Google Scholar
  25. Dole JW (1965) Summer movements of adult leopard frogs, Rana pipiens Schreber, in northern Michigan. Ecol Freshw Fish 46:236–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dole JW (1968) Homing in leopard frogs, Rana pipiens. Ecol Freshw Fish 49:386–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dole JW (1971) Dispersal of recently metamorphosed leopard frogs, Rana pipiens. Copeia 1971:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Drake JA, Mooney HA, Di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmánek M, Williamson M (1989) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  29. ESRI (2008) ArcGISTM. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  30. Fahrig L, Pedlar JH, Pope SE, Taylor PD, Wegner JF (1995) Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biol Conserv 73:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fiske I, Chandler R, Royle JA, Kéry M (2012) Unmarked: models for data from unmarked animals. R package version 0.9-9.
  32. Guerry AD, Hunter ML Jr (2002) Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conserv Biol 16:745–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gurevitch J, Padilla DK (2004) Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends Ecol Evol 19:470–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hamer AJ, Mahony MJ (2010) Rapid turnover in site occupancy of a pond-breeding frog demonstrates the need for landscape-level management. Wetlands Ecol Manag 30:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hamer AJ, Parris KM (2011) Local and landscape determinants of amphibian communities in urban ponds. Ecol Appl 21:378–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hecnar SJ, M’Closkey RT (1998) Species richness patterns of amphibians in southwestern Ontario ponds. J Biogeogr 25:763–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Kercher SM, Zedler JB (2004) Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study. Oecologia 138:455–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE, Nizam A (1998) Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods, 3rd edn. Duxbury Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  40. Knapp RA, Matthews KR, Preisler HK, Jellison R (2003) Developing probabilistic models to predict amphibian site occupancy in a patchy landscape. Ecol Appl 13:1069–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knutson MG, Sauer JR, Olsen DA, Mossman MJ, Hemesath LM, Lannoo MJ (1999) Effects of landscape composition and wetland fragmentation on frog and toad abundance and species richness in Iowa and Wisconsin, USA. Conserv Biol 13:1437–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knutson MG, Richardson WB, Reineke DM, Gray BR, Parmelee JR, Weick SE (2004) Agricultural ponds support amphibian populations. Ecol Appl 14:669–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laan R, Verboom B (1990) Effects of pool size and isolation on amphibian communities. Biol Conserv 54:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Laurila A, Kujasalo J (1999) Habitat duration, predation risk and phenotypic plasticity in common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles. J Anim Ecol 68:1123–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. League M, Seliskar D, Gallagher J (2007) Predicting the effectiveness of Phragmites control measures using a rhizome growth potential bioassay. Wetl Ecol Manag 15:27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Le Cessie S, van Houwelingen JC (1991) A goodness-of-fit test for binary regression models, based on smoothing residuals. Biometrics 47:1267–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lelong B, Lavoie C, Jodoin Y, Belzile F (2007) Expansion pathways of the exotic common reed (Phragmites australis): a historical and genetic analysis. Divers Distrib 13:430–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lelong B, Lavoie C, Thériault M (2009) Quels sont les facteurs qui facilitent l’implantation du roseau commun (Phragmites australis) le long des routes du sud du Québec? Ecoscience 16:224–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lockwood JL, Simberloff D, McKinney ML, Von Holle B (2001) How many, and which, plants will invade natural areas? Biol Invasions 3:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Macdonald IAW, Loope LL, Usher MB, Hamann O (1989) Wildlife conservation and the invasion of nature reserves by introduced species: a global perspective. In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmánek M, Williamson M (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp 215–255Google Scholar
  51. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Maerz JC, Brown CJ, Chapin CT, Blossey B (2005a) Can secondary compounds of an invasive plant affect larval amphibians? Funct Ecol 19:970–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maerz JC, Blossey B, Nuzzo V (2005b) Green frogs show reduced foraging success in habitats invaded by Japanese knotweed. Biodivers Conserv 14:2901–2911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Maerz JC, Cohen JS, Blossey B (2010) Does detritus quality predict the effect of native and non-native plants on the performance of larval amphibians? Freshw Biol 55:1694–1704Google Scholar
  55. Marsh DM, Milam GS, Gorham NP, Beckman NG (2005) Forest roads as partial barriers to terrestrial salamander movement. Conserv Biol 19:2004–2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Martin LJ, Murray BR (2011) A predictive framework and review of the ecological impacts of exotic plant invasions on reptile and amphibians. Biol Rev 86:407–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Martof B (1953) Home range and movements of the green frog, Rana clamitans. Ecol Freshw Fish 34:529–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mazerolle MJ (2012) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 1.26.
  59. Mazerolle MJ, Desrochers A (2005) Landscape resistance to frog movements. Can J Zool 83:455–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mazerolle MJ, Desrochers A, Rochefort L (2005) Landscape characteristics influence pond occupancy by frogs after accounting for detectability. Ecol Appl 15:824–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mazerolle MJ, Vos CC (2006) Choosing the safest route: frog orientation in an agricultural landscape. J Herpetol 40:435–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Meyer SW (2003) Comparative use of Phragmites australis and other habitats by birds, amphibians, and small mammals at Long Point, Ontario. M. Sc. thesis, University of Western OntarioGoogle Scholar
  64. Meyerson LA, Chambers RM, Vogt KA (1999) The effects of Phragmites removal on nutrient pools in a freshwater tidal marsh ecosystem. Biol Invasions 1:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Obert H-J (1976) Some effects of external factors upon the reproductive behavior of the grass frog Rana t. temporaria L. (Ranidae, Anura). Oecologia 24:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Oseen KL, Wassersug RJ (2002) Environmental factors influencing calling in sympatric anurans. Oecologia 133:616–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pearl CA, Adams MJ, Leuthold N, Bury RB (2005) Amphibian occurrence and aquatic invaders in a changing landscape: implications for wetland mitigation in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, USA. Wetlands Ecol Manag 25:76–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Perez A, Mazerolle MJ, Brisson J (2013) Effects of exotic common reed (Phragmites australis) on wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) tadpole development and food availability. J Freshw Ecol 28:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pollock KH (1982) A capture–recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. J Wildl Manag 46:752–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pope SE, Fahrig L, Merriam HG (2000) Landscape complementation and metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations. Ecol Freshw Fish 81:2498–2508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Porej D, Hetherington TE (2005) Designing wetlands for amphibians: the importance of predatory fish and shallow littoral zones in structuring of amphibian communities. Wetl Ecol Manag 13:445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. R Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  73. Rogalski MA, Skelly DK (2012) Positive effects of nonnative invasive Phragmites australis on larval bullfrogs. PLoS ONE 7:e44420PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rooth JE, Stevenson JC, Cornwell JC (2003) Increased sediment accretion rates following invasion by Phragmites australis: the role of litter. Estuaries Coasts 26:475–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rothermel BB (2004) Migratory success of juveniles: a potential constraint on connectivity for pond-breeding amphibians. Ecol Appl 14:1535–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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
  77. Royle JA (2004) N-mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics 60:108–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Royle JA, Dorazio RM (2008) Hierarchical modeling and inference in ecology: the analysis of data from populations, metapopulations, and communities. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  79. Saltonstall K (2002) Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:2445–2449PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Semlitsch RD (2002) Critical elements for biologically based recovery plans of aquatic breeding amphibians. Conserv Biol 16:619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Semlitsch RD (2008) Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond breeding amphibians. J Wildl Manag 72:260–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR (2003) Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conserv Biol 17:1219–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shulse CD, Semlitsch RD, Trauth SE (2013) Mosquitofish dominate amphibian and invertebrate community development in experimental wetlands. J Appl Ecol 50:1244–1256Google Scholar
  84. Silliman BR, Bertness MD (2004) Shoreline development drives invasion of Phragmites australis and the loss of plant diversity on New England salt marshes. Conserv Biol 18:1424–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sinsch U (1990) Migration and orientation in anuran amphibians. Ethol Ecol Evol 2:65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Steen DA, McClure CJW, Graham SP (2013) Relative influence of weather and season on anuran calling activity. Can J Zool 91:462–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Talley T, Levin L (2001) Modification of sediments and macrofauna by an invasive marsh plant. Biol Invasions 3:51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Thorson T, Svihla A (1943) Correlation of the habitats of amphibians with their ability to survive the loss of body water. Ecol Freshw Fish 24:374–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Thorson TB (1955) The relationship of water economy to terrestrialism in amphibians. Ecol Freshw Fish 36:100–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vos CC, Chardon JP (1998) Effects of habitat fragmentation and road density on the distribution pattern of the moor frog Rana arvalis. J Appl Ecol 35:44–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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
  92. Warren RS, Fell PE, Grimsby JL, Buck EL, Rilling GC, Fertik RA (2001) Rates, patterns, and impacts of Phragmites australis expansion and effects of experimental Phragmites control on vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish within tidelands of the lower Connecticut River. Estuaries Coasts 24:90–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Watling JI, Hickman CR, Lee E, Wang K, Orrock JL (2011a) Extracts of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii increase mortality and alter behavior of amphibian larvae. Oecologia 165:153–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Watling JI, Hickman CR, Orrock JL (2011b) Invasive shrub alters native forest amphibian communities. Biol Conserv 144:2597–2601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Weyrauch SL, Grubb TC Jr (2004) Patch and landscape characteristics associated with the distribution of woodland amphibians in an agricultural fragmented landscape: an information–theoretic approach. Biol Conserv 115:443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wilbur HM (1980) Complex life cycles. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:67–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  98. Windham L, Lathrop RG (1999) Effects of Phragmites australis (common reed) invasion on aboveground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marsh of the Mullica River, New Jersey. Estuaries Coasts 22:927–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wright AH, Wright AA (1949) Handbook of frogs and toads of the United States and Canada, 3rd edition. Comstock Publishing Company, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  100. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2004) Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:431–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc J. Mazerolle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amélie Perez
    • 2
  • Jacques Brisson
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre d’étude de la forêtUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueRouyn-NorandaCanada
  2. 2.Centre d’étude de la forêt, Institut de recherche en biologie végétaleUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations