Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influences of Design and Landscape Placement Parameters on Amphibian Abundance in Constructed Wetlands

  • Article
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As natural wetlands disappear, constructed wetlands may play vital roles in amphibian conservation. However, previous investigations have concluded that artificial wetlands do not adequately replace lost wildlife habitat. Nevertheless, constructed wetlands serve as breeding habitat for amphibians where extensive natural wetland loss has occurred. To investigate the roles of engineered wetland features on amphibian abundance, we surveyed 49 constructed wetlands throughout northern Missouri. Cricket frogs (Acris crepitans), bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), and leopard frogs (Lithobates blairi/sphenocephalus complex) each occurred in over 80% of surveyed wetlands. Salamanders and hylid frogs were rarely encountered. We used an information theoretic approach to examine relationships between individual species and habitat features associated with wetland designs and placements. We found that models incorporating design features of open water ponds best explained abundances of most commonly encountered species. At the placement level, models that included nearby aquatic habitat ranked highest for common species. Salamanders and most hylid frogs responded positively to aquatic vegetative cover but negatively to fish abundance and anthropogenic disturbance-related features in the landscape. Our results indicate that to be effective amphibian conservation tools, constructed wetlands should be fish-free, heavily vegetated, include shallows, and placed within areas of low anthropogenic disturbance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams M, Pearl C, Bury R (2003) Indirect facilitation of an anuran invasion by non-native fishes. Ecological Letters 6:343–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose R, Lee S (2004) An evaluation of compensatory mitigation projects permitted under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board, 1991–2002. California State Water Resources Control Board, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone M, Semlitsch R, Mosby C (2008) Suitability of golf course ponds for amphibian metamorphosis when bullfrogs are removed. Conservation Biology 22:172–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brand A, Snodgrass J (2010) Value of artificial habitats for amphibian reproduction in altered landscapes. Conservation Biology 24:295–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham K, Anderson D (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl T (1990) Wetlands losses in the United States, 1780′s to 1980′s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl T (2006) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1999–2004. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel R, Edmond B (2010) Atlas of Missouri amphibians and reptiles for 2009. http://atlas.moherp.org/pubs/atlas09.pdf. Accessed 05 May 2010

  • Deal C, Edwards J, Pellmann N, Tuttle R, Woodward D (1997) Ponds—planning, design, construction. In: Mattinson M, Glasscock L (eds) Agriculture handbook number 590. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodd C, Smith L (2003) Habitat destruction and alteration. Historical trends and future prospects for amphibians. In: Semlitsch R (ed) Amphibian conservation. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp 94–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Laboratory (1987) Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Pedlar J, Pope S, Taylor P, Wegner J (1995) Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73:177–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figiel C Jr, Semlitsch R (1990) Population variation in survival and metamorphosis of larval salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum). Copeia 1990:818–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Findlay C, Bourdages J (2000) Response time of wetland biodiversity to road construction on adjacent lands. Conservation Biology 14:86–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné S, Fahrig L (2007) Effect of landscape context on anuran communities in breeding ponds in the National Capitol Region, Canada. Landscape Ecology 22:205–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gahl M, Calhoun A, Graves R (2009) Facultative use of seasonal pools by American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Wetlands 29:697–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner T, Barlow J, Peres C (2007) Paradox, presumption, and pitfalls in conservation biology: the importance of habitat change for amphibians and reptiles. Biological Conservation 138:166–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerry A, Hunter M Jr (2002) Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition. Conservation Biology 16:745–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper E, Semlitsch R (2007) Density dependence in the terrestrial life history stage of two anurans. Oecologia 153:879–889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harper E, Rittenhouse T, Semlitsch R (2008) Demographic consequences of terrestrial habitat loss for pool-breeding amphibians: predicting extinction risks associated with inadequate size of buffer zones. Conservation Biology 22(5):1205–1215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartel T, Nemes S, Cogălniceanu D, Öllerer K, Schweiger O, Moga C, Demeter L (2007) The effect of fish and aquatic habitat complexity on amphibians. Hydrobiolgia 583:173–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazell D, Hero K, Lindenmayer D, Cunningham R (2004) A comparison of constructed and natural habitat for frog conservation in an Australian agricultural landscape. Biological Conservation 119:61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecnar S, M’Closkey R (1997) The effects of predatory fish on amphibian species richness and distribution. Biological Conservation 79:123–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hocking D, Rittenhouse T, Rothermel B, Johnson J, Connor C, Harper E, Semlitsch R (2008) Breeding and recruitment phenology of amphibians in Missouri oak-hickory forests. American Midland Naturalist 160:41–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houlahan J, Findlay C (2003) The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1078–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson T (2000) The amphibians and reptiles of Missouri. Missouri Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson City

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson J, Knouft J, Semlitsch R (2007) Sex and seasonal differences in the spatial terrestrial distribution of gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) populations. Biological Conservation 140:250–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen B (1997) 200 years of amphibian water economy: from Robert Townsend to the present. Biological Review 1997:153–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Kats L, Petranka J, Sih A (1988) Antipredator defenses and persistence of amphibian larvae with fishes. Ecology 69:1865–1870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettlewell C, Bouchard V, Porej D, Micacchion M, Mack J, White D, Fay L (2008) An assessment of wetland impacts and compensatory mitigation in the Cuyahoga River Watershed, Ohio, U.S.A. Wetlands 28:57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kihslinger R (2008) Success of wetland mitigation projects. National Wetlands Newsletter 30:14–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutson M, Sauer J, Olsen D, Mossman M, Hemesath L, Lannoo M (1999) Effects of landscape composition and wetland fragmentation on frog and toad abundance and species richness in Iowa and Wisconsin, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 13(6):1437–1446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knutson M, Sauer J, Olsen D, Mossman M, Hemesath L, Lannoo M (2000) Landscape associations of frog and toad species in Iowa and Wisconsin, U.S.A. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Sciences 107:134–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutson M, Richardson W, Reineke D, Gray B, Parmelee J, Weick S (2004) Agricultural ponds support amphibian populations. Ecological Applications 14:669–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lannoo M (1998) Amphibian conservation and wetland management in the upper Midwest: a catch-22 for the cricket frog? In: Lannoo M (ed) Status and conservation of Midwestern Amphibians. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, pp 330–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Lannoo M (ed) (2005) Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Mack J, Micacchion M (2006) An ecological assessment of Ohio mitigation banks: vegetation, amphibians, hydrology, and soils. Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2006-1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, Ohio, USA

  • Madison D, Farrand L III (1998) Habitat use during breeding and emigration in radio-implanted tiger salamanders, Ambystoma tigrinum. Copeia 1998:402–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh D, Trenham P (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conservation Biology 15:40–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkin P, Ladd R (2003) Success of Corps-required mitigation in New England. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England District, Concord, Massachusetts, USA. http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/wholereport.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2010

  • Mitsch W, Gosselink J (1993) Wetlands, 2nd edn. Van Norstrand Reinhold, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigh T, Schroeder W (2002) Atlas of Missouri ecoregions. Missouri Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson City

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl C, Adams M, Leuthold N, Bury R (2005) Amphibian occurrence and aquatic invaders in a changing landscape: implications for wetland mitigation in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, USA. Wetlands 25:76–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pechmann J, Estes R, Scott D, Gibbons J (2001) Amphibian colonization and use of ponds created for trial mitigation of wetland loss. Wetlands 21:93–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry K (2006) Missouri pond handbook. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City

    Google Scholar 

  • Porej D, Hetherington T (2005) Designing wetlands for amphibians: the importance of predatory fish and shallow littoral zones in structuring amphibian communities. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:445–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porej D, Micacchion M, Hetherington T (2004) Core terrestrial habitat of local populations of salamanders and wood frogs in agricultural landscapes. Biological Conservation 120:399–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittenhouse T, Semlitsch R (2007) Distribution of amphibians in terrestrial habitat surrounding wetlands. Wetlands 27:153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schloegel L, Picco A, Kilpatrick A, Davies A, Hyatt A, Daszak P (2009) Magnitude of the US trade in amphibians and presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and ranavirus infection in imported North American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Biological Conservation 142:1420–1426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semlitsch R (2002) Critical elements for biologically-based recovery plans of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Conservation Biology 16:619–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semlitsch R (2008a) Moving wetland mitigation towards conservation banking. National Wetlands Newsletter 30:16

    Google Scholar 

  • Semlitsch R (2008b) Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond-breeding amphibians. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72:260–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semlitsch R, Bodie J (1998) Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation Biology 12:1129–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semlitsch R, Bodie J (2003) Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17:1219–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semlitsch R, Scott D, Pechmann J, Gibbons J (1996) Structure and dynamics of an amphibian community: evidence from a 16-year study of a natural pond. In: Cody M, Smallwood J (eds) Long-term studies of vertebrate communities. Academic, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulse C (2010) Building better wetlands for amphibians: investigating the roles of engineered wetland features and mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) on amphibian abundance and reproductive success. Dissertation, University of Missouri

  • Simon J, Snodgrass J, Casey R, Sparling D (2009) Spatial correlates of amphibian use of constructed wetlands in an urban landscape. Landscape Ecology 24:361–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelly D (1995) A behavioral trade-off and its consequences for the distribution of Pseudacris treefrog larvae. Ecology 76(1):150–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelly D (1996) Pond drying, predators, and the distribution of Psuedacris tadpoles. Copeia 1996:599–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelly D, Werner E, Cortwright S (1999) Long-term distributional dynamics of a Michigan amphibian assemblage. Ecology 80:2326–2337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snodgrass J, Komoroski M, Bryan A Jr, Burger J (2000) Relationships among isolated wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implications for wetland regulations. Conservation Biology 14:414–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stratman D (2000) Using micro and macrotopography in wetland restoration. Indiana Biology technical note 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart S, Chanson J, Cox N, Young B, Rodrigues A, Fischman D, Waller R (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783–1786

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tweedie M (1984) An index which distinguishes between some important exponential families. In: Ghosh J, Roy J (eds) Statistics: Applications and new directions. Proceedings of the Indian Statistical Institute Golden Jubilee International Conference. Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta

    Google Scholar 

  • Wake D, Vredenburg V (2008) Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 105:11466–11473

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walls S (1995) Differential vulnerability to predation and refuge use in competing larval salamanders. Oecologia 101:86–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walston L, Mullin S (2007) Responses of a pond-breeding amphibian community to the experimental removal of predatory fish. American Midland Naturalist 157:63–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner E, McPeek M (1994) Direct and indirect effects of predators on two anuran species along an environmental gradient. Ecology 75:1368–1382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams B (2008) A multi-scale investigation of ecologically relevant effects of agricultural runoff on amphibians. Dissertation, University of Missouri

  • Willis Y, Moyle D, Baskett T (1956) Emergence, breeding, hibernation, movements, and transformation of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana, in Missouri. Copeia 1956:30–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the staff of the Missouri Department of Transportation, Missouri Department of Conservation, University of Missouri Division of Biological Sciences, and University of Missouri Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, especially Gene Gardner, Jeff Briggler, Gayle Unruh, and Buck Brooks. Tracy Rittenhouse, Bethany Williams, Julia Earl, William Peterman, and three anonymous reviewers provided insightful comments on this manuscript. Dana Drake and Andrea Drayer provided dedicated service in the field. United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VII Wetland Development Grant CD-98769101-0 funded this project. We worked under Missouri Department of Conservation Wildlife Collector’s Permit 13024 and University of Missouri Animal Care and Use Protocol 4189.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Missouri Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 1067, Highway 61 South, Hannibal, MO, 63401, USA

    Christopher D. Shulse & Arnold D. Williams

  2. Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Christopher D. Shulse & Raymond D. Semlitsch

  3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Kathleen M. Trauth

Authors
  1. Christopher D. Shulse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raymond D. Semlitsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathleen M. Trauth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arnold D. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher D. Shulse.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Resource Table 1

Surveyed wetlands and characteristics. Temporary wetlands are in bold (DOC 117 kb).

Online Resource Fig. 1

Locations of surveyed wetlands in northern Missouri. Some dots represent 2 wetlands due to proximity (DOC 178 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shulse, C.D., Semlitsch, R.D., Trauth, K.M. et al. Influences of Design and Landscape Placement Parameters on Amphibian Abundance in Constructed Wetlands. Wetlands 30, 915–928 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-010-0069-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-010-0069-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation