Microhabitat choice and differential use by anurans in forest streams in southeastern Brazil

Journal of Natural History

Volumn 41, Issue 13-16, 2007, Pages 937-948

  Afonso, Lilian G ^a   Eterovick, Paula C ^a  

^a PONTIFICAL CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Anura; Breeding microhabitats; Neotropics; Spatial distribution

Indexed keywords

BREEDING SITE; FROG; HABITAT SELECTION; HABITAT USE; MICROHABITAT; NEOTROPICAL REGION; NICHE OVERLAP; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; SPECIALIST; SPECIES RICHNESS; SUBSTRATE;

BRAZIL; SOUTH AMERICA;

AMPHIBIA; ANURA;

EID: 34250213831     PISSN: 00222933     EISSN: 14645262     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00222930701309544     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bremset G. 2000. Seasonal and diel changes in behavior, microhabitat use, and preferences by young pool-dwelling salmon, Salmo salar, and brown trout, Salmo trutta. Environmental Biology of Fishes 59:163-179.
2. Caramaschi U, Kisteumacher G. 1989. Duas novas espécies de Ololygon Fitzinger, 1843, do sudeste do Brasil (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). Boletim do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro 327:1-15.
3. Cardoso AJ, Andrade GV, Haddad CFB. 1989. Distribuição espacial em comunidades de anfíbios (Anura) no sudeste do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 49:241-249.
4. Cardoso AJ, Haddad CFB. 1992. Diversidade e turno de vocalizaç ões de anuros em comunidade neotropical. Acta Zoologica Lilloana 41:93-105.
5. Cardoso AJ, Martins JE. 1987. Diversidade de anuros durante o turno de vocalização, em comunidades neotropicais. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 36:279-285.
6. Crump ML. 1971. Quantitative analysis of the neotropical herpetofauna. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, the University of Kansas 3:1-62.
7. Crump ML. 1982. Amphibian reproductive ecology on the community level. In: Scott Jr NJ, editor. Herpetological Communities. Washington, DC: Wildlife Research Report 13. pp. 21-36.
8. Donnelly MA. 1989. Demographic effects of reproductive resource supplementation in a territorial frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Ecological Monographs 59:207-221.
9. Duellman WE. 1989. Tropical herpetofaunal communities: patterns of community structure in neotropical rainforests. In: Harmelin-Vivien ML, Bourliere F, editors. Ecological Studies, vol. 69 - Vertebrates in complex tropical systems. New York: Springer-Verlag Inc. pp. 61-88.
10. Ernst R, Rödel M-O. 2006. Community assembly and structure of tropical leaf-litter anurans. Ecotropica 12:113-129.
11. Eterovick PC, Barros IS. 2003. Niche occupancy in south-eastern Brazilian tadpole communities in montane-meadow streams. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19:1-10.
12. Eterovick PC, Sazima I. 2004. Anfíbios da Serra do Cipó - Amphibians from the Serra do Cipó, Minas Gerais, Brasil. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Ed. PUC Minas. 152 p.
13. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM, Lawton JH. 1997. Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. Journal of Animal Ecology 66:579-601.
14. Gillespie GR, Lockie D, Scroggie MP, Iskandar DT. 2004. Habitat use by stream-breeding frogs in south-east Sulawesi, with some preliminary observations on community organization. Journal of Tropical Ecology 20:439-448.
15. Giulietti AM, Pirani JR. 1988. Patterns of geographic distribution of some plant species from the Espinhaço Range, Minas Gerais and Bahia. In: Vanzolini PE, Heyer WR, editors. Proceedings of a workshop on Neotropical distribution patterns. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Academia Brasileira de Ciências. p 36-69.
16. Giulietti AM, Pirani JR, Harley RM. 1997. Espinhaço Range region, Eastern Brazil. In: Davis SD, Heywood VH, Herrera-MacBryde O, Villa-Lobos J, Hamilton AC, editors. Centres of plant diversity, a guide and strategy for their conservation (v. 3). Oxford: Information Press. pp. 397-404.
17. Gotelli NJ, Entsminger GL. 2001. EcoSim: Null models software for ecology. Version 7.0. Acquired Intelligence Inc. and Kesey-Bear. http://homepages.together.net/~gentsmin/ecosim.htm.
18. Hastie LC, Boon PJ, Young MR. 2000. Physical microhabitat requirements of freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera (L.). Hydrobiologia 429:59-71.
19. Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek LAC, Foster MS. 1994. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for amphibians. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.
20. Inger RF. 1969. Organization of communities of frogs along small rain forest streams in Sarawak. Journal of Animal Ecology 38:123-148.
21. Jacobs J. 1974. Quantitative measurement of food selection: a modification of the forage ration and Ivlev's electivity index. Oecologia 14:413-417.
22. Kopp K, Eterovick PC. 2006. Factors influencing spatial and temporal structure of frog assemblages at ponds in southeastern Brazil. Journal of Natural History 40:1813-1830.
23. Kopp K, Wachlevski M, Eterovick PC. 2006. Environmental complexity reduces tadpole predation by water bugs. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84:136-140.
24. Kotiaho JS, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S. 2000. Microhabitat selection and audible sexual signalling in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata (Araneae, Lycosidae). Acta Ethologica 2:123-128.
25. Lehtinen RM. 2005. Competitive interactions and distributional dynamics in two Malagasy frogs. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21:569-576.
26. MacArthur RH. 1968. The theory of the niche. In: Lewontin RC, editor. Population biology and evolution. New York: Syracuse University Press. pp. 159-176.
27. MacArthur RH. 1972. Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribution of Species. New York: Harper and Row.
28. MacArthur RH, Levins R. 1967. The limiting similarity, convergence and divergence of coexisting species. American Naturalist 101:377-385.
29. Pianka ER. 1973. The structure of lizard communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:53-74.
30. Poe S. 2005. A study of the utility of convergent characters for phylogeny reconstruction: do ecomorphological characters track evolutionary history in Anolis lizards? Zoology 108:337-343.
31. Pombal-Jr JP. 1997. Distribuição espacial e temporal de anuros (Amphibia) em uma poça permanente na Serra de Paranapiacaba, sudeste do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 57:583-594.
32. Pough FH, Stewart MM, Thomas RG. 1977. Physiological basis of habitat partitioning in Jamaican Eleutherodactylus. Oecologia 27:285-293.
33. Pyron M. 1999. Relationships between geographical range size, body size, local abundance, and habitat breadth in North American suckers and sunfishes. Journal of Biogeography 26:549-558.
34. Resetarits WJ, Wilbur HM. 1991. Calling site choice by Hyla chrysoscelis: effect of predators, competitors, and oviposition sites. Ecology 72:778-786.
35. Rodda GH, Dean-Bradley K. 2002. Excess density compensation of island herpetofaunal assemblages. Journal of Biogeography 29:623-632.
36. Rossa-Feres DC, Jim J. 1994. Distribuição sazonal em comunidades de anfíbios anuros na região de Botucatu, São Paulo. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 54:323-334.
37. Schoener TW. 1982. The controversy over interspecific competition. American Scientist 70:586-595.
38. SYSTAT for Windows. 1998. Statistics, Version 9 Edition. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT, Inc.
39. Urbanič G, Toman MJ, Krušnik C. 2005. Microhabitat type selection of caddisfly larvae (Insecta: Trichoptera) in a shallow lowland stream. Hydrobiologia 541:1-12.
40. Zimmerman BL, Simberloff D. 1996. An historical interpretation of habitat use by frogs in a Central Amazonian Forest. Journal of Biogeography 23:27-46.