Steps towards better amphibian conservation

Animal Conservation

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 469-471

  Schmidt, B R ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b KARCH Switzerland   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMPHIBIA;

EID: 58049129207     PISSN: 13679430     EISSN: 14691795     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00222.x     Document Type: Note

References (27)

1. Beissinger, S.R., Walters, J.R., Catanzaro, D.G., Smith, K.G., Dunning, J.B., Haig, S.M., Noon, B.R. & Stith, B.M. (2006). Modeling approaches in avian conservation and the role of field biologists. Auk 123(Suppl.): 1-56.
2. Blaustein, A.R. & Kiesecker, J.M. (2002). Complexity in conservation: Lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecol. Lett. 5, 597-608.
3. Carlson, A. & Edenhamn, P. (2000). Extinction dynamics and the regional persistence of a tree frog metapopulation. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 267, 1311-1313.
4. Etienne, R.S., Vos, C.C. & Jansen, M.J.W. (2003). Ecological impact assessment in data-poor systems: A case study on metapopulation persistence. Environ. Mgmt. 32, 760-777.
5. Field, S.A., O'Connor, P.J., Tyre, A.J. & Possingham, H.P. (2007). Making monitoring meaningful. Austral Ecol. 32, 485-491.
6. Gilioli, G., Bodini, A., Baumgärtner, J., Weidmann, P. & Hartmann, J. (2008). A novel approach based on information theory to rank conservation strategies: An application to amphibian metapopulations. Anim. Conserv. 11, 453-462.
7. Harper, E.B., Rittenhouse, T.A.G. & Semlitsch, R.D. (2008). Demographic consequences of terrestrial habitat loss for pool-breeding amphibians: Predicting extinction risks associated with inadequate size of buffer zones. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1205-1215.
8. Hauser, C.E. & Possingham, H.P. (2008). Experimental or precautionary? Adaptive management over a range of time horizons. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 72-81.
9. Jehle, R., Burke, T. & Arntzen, J.W. (2005). Delineating fine-scale genetic units in amphibians: Probing the primacy of ponds. Conserv. Genet. 6, 227-234.
10. MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Sutton, N., Kawanishi, K. & Bailey, L.L. (2005). Improving inference in population studies of rare species that are detected imperfectly. Ecology 86, 1101-1113.
11. Mann, W., Dorn, P. & Brandl, R. (1991). Local distribution of amphibians: The importance of habitat fragmentation. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 1, 36-41.
12. Meir, E., Andelman, S. & Possingham, H.P. (2004). Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol. Lett. 7, 615-622.
13. Nichols, J.D. & Williams, B.K. (2006). Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 668-673.
14. Palen, W.J., Schindler, D.E., Adams, M.J., Pearl, C.A., Bury, R.B. & Diamond, S.A. (2002). Optical characteristics of natural waters protect amphibians from UV-B in the U.S. Pacific northwest. Ecology 83, 2951-2957.
15. Pellet, J., Fleishman, E., Dobkin, D.S., Gander, A. & Murphy, D.D. (2007). An empirical evaluation of the area and isolation paradigm of metapopulation dynamics. Biol. Conserv. 136, 483-495.
16. Petranka, J.W., Smith, C.K. & Scott, A.F. (2004). Identifying the minimal demographic unit for monitoring pond-breeding amphibians. Ecol. Appl. 14, 1065-1078.
17. Pullin, A.S. & Knight, T.M. (2005). Assessing conservation management's evidence base: A survey of management-plan compilers in the United Kingdom and Australia. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1989-1996.
18. Pyke, C.R. (2005). Assessing suitability for conservation action: prioritizing interpond linkages for the California tiger salamander. Conserv. Biol. 19, 492-503.
19. Runge, J.P., Runge, M.C. & Nichols, J.D. (2006). The role of local populations within a landscape context: Defining and classifying sources and sinks. Am. Nat. 167, 925-928.
20. Rustigian, H.L., Santelmann, M.V. & Schumaker, N.H. (2003). Assessing the potential impacts of alternative landscape designs on amphibian population dynamics. Landsc. Ecol. 18, 65-81.
21. Schmidt, B.R. & Pellet, J. (2005). Relative importance of population processes and habitat characteristics in determining site occupancy of two anurans. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 69, 884-893.
22. Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Young, B.E., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Fischman, D.L. & Waller, R.W. (2004). Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306, 1783-1786.
23. Sutherland, W.J., Pullin, A.S., Dolman, P.M. & Knight, T.M. (2004). The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 72, 305-308.
24. Van Buskirk, J. (2005). Local and landscape influence on amphibian occurrence and abundance. Ecology 86, 1936-1947.
25. Vonesh, J.R. & De la Cruz, O. (2002). Complex life cycles and density dependence: Assessing the contribution of egg mortality to amphibian declines. Oecologia 133, 325-333.
26. Werner, E.E. (1998). Ecological experiments and research program in community ecology. In Ecological experiments: Issues and perspectives: 3-26. Resetarits, W.J. & Bernardo, J. (Eds). New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Zanini, F., Klingemann, A., Schlaepfer, R. & Schmidt, B.R. (2008). Landscape effects on anuran pond occupancy in an agricultural countryside: Barrier-based buffers predict distributions better than circular buffers. Can. J. Zool. 86, 692-699.