Invasive species shifts ontogenetic resource partitioning and microhabitat use of a threatened native amphibian

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 534-541

  D'amore, Antonia ^a   Kirby, Erik ^b   Mcnicholas, Michael ^c  

^a Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve   (United States)

^b Cabrillo College   (United States)

^c HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

American bullfrogs; California red legged frogs; Invasive species removal; Ontogenetic resource partitioning

Indexed keywords

FROG; INVASIVE SPECIES; MICROCLIMATE; ONTOGENY;

AMPHIBIA; ANURA; RANA AURORA DRAYTONII; RANA CATESBEIANA; RANIDAE; SALIX;

EID: 68149120317     PISSN: 10527613     EISSN: 10990755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1026     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Adams MJ. 1999. Correlated factors in amphibian decline: exotic species and habitat change in western Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 1162-1171.
2. Alford RA, Crump ML. 1982. Habitat partitioning among size classes of larval southern Leopard frogs, Rana utricularia. Copeia 1982: 367-373.
3. Blumstein DT, Fernandez-Juricic E. 2004. The emergence of conservation behaviour. Conservation Biology 18: 1175-1177.
4. Brown JS, Luandre JW, Gurung M. 1999. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. Journal of Mammalogy 80: 385-399.
5. Christian KA. 1982. Changes in the food niche during postmetamorphic ontogeny of the frog Pseudacris triseriata. Copeia 1982: 73-80.
6. Clout MN, Craig JL. 1995. The conservation of critically endangered flightless birds in New Zealand. Ibis 137: 181-190.
7. Creel S, Winnie JA, Maxwell B, Hamlin K, Creel M. 2005. Elk alter habitat selection as an anti-predator response to wolves. Ecology 86: 3387-3397.
8. Davidson C. 2004. Declining downwind: Amphibian population declines in California and historic pesticide use. Ecological Applications 14: 1892-1902.
9. Davidson C, Shaffer HB, Jennings MR. 2000. Declines of the California red-legged frog: climate, UV-B, habitat and pesticides hypotheses. Ecological Applications 11: 464-479.
10. Donlan CJ, Tershy BR, Croll DA. 2002. Islands and introduced herbivores: using conservation as ecosystem experiments. Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 235-246.
11. Doubledee RA, Muller EB, Nisbet RM. 2003. Bullfrogs, catastrophes and the persistence of California red-;legged frogs. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 424-438.
12. Fisher RN, Shaffer HB. 1996. The decline of amphibians in California's great Central Valley. Conservation Biology 10: 1387-1397.
13. Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS. 2005. Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86: 1320-1330.
14. Foster SA, Garcia VB, Town MY. 1988. Cannibalism as the cause of an ontogenetic shift in habitat use by fry of the three-spine stickleback. Oecologia 74: 577-585.
15. Fritts TH, Rodda GH. 1998. The role of introduced species in the degradation of island ecosystems: A case history of Guam. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 113-140.
16. Hammerson GA. 1982. Bullfrogs eliminating leopard frogs in Colorado? Herpetological Review 13: 115-116.
17. Hayes MP, Jennings MR. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: Are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology 20: 490-509.
18. Hecnar SJ, M'Closkey RT. 1997. Changes in the composition of a ranid frog community following bullfrog extinction. American Midland Naturalist 137: 145-150.
19. Hirai T. 2002. Ontogenetic change in the diet of the pond frog Rana nigromaculata. Ecological Research 17: 639-644.
20. Holway DA, Suarez AV. 1999. Animal behavior: An essential component of invasion biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14: 328-330.
21. Kats LB, Breeding JA, Hanson KM, Smith P. 1994. Ontogenetic changes in California newts (Taricha torosa) in response to chemical cues from conspecific predators. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13: 321-325.
22. Keren-Rotem T, Bouskila A, Geffen E. 2006. Ontogenetic habitat shift and risk of cannibalism in the common chameleon (Chamaeleo chamaeleon). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 59: 723-731.
23. Kiesecker JM, Blaustein AR. 1997. Population differences in responses of red-legged frogs (Rana aurora) to introduced bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Ecology 78: 1752-1760.
24. Kupferberg SJ. 1997. Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) invasion of a California river: The role of larval competition. Ecology 78: 1736-1751.
25. Laundre JW, Hernandez L, Altendorf KB. 2001. Wolves, elk, and bison: Re-establishing the landscape of fear in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79: 1401-1409.
26. Lawler SP, Dritz D, Strange T, Holyoak M. 1999. Effects of introduced mosquitofish and bullfrogs on the threatened California red-legged frog. Conservation Biology 13: 613-622.
27. Lima S.L.. 1998. Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions. BioScience 48: 25-34.
28. Lima S.L., Dill L.M. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: Areview and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68: 619-640.
29. Losos JB, Schoener TW, Spiller DA. 2004. Predator-induced behavior shifts and natural selection in field-experimental lizard populations. Nature 432: 505-508.
30. Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M. 2000. 100 of the world's worst invasive alien species. Global Invasive Species Database, ISSG, SSC and IUCN.
31. McIntosh AR, Townsend CR. 1994. Interpopulation variation in mayfly antipredator tactics - differential effects of contrasting predatory fish. Ecology 75: 2078-2090.
32. Mittelbach GG. 1981. Foraging efficiency and body size: A study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills. Ecology 62: 1370-1386.
33. Moyle PB. 1973. Effects of introduced bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana, on the native frogs of San Joaquin Valley, California. Copeia 1973: 18-22.
34. Peacor SD, Werner EE. 2000. The effects of a predator on an assemblage of consumers through induced changes in consumer foraging behavior. Ecology 81: 1998-2010.
35. Peacor SD, Werner EE. 2001. The contribution of trait-mediated indirect effects to the net effects of a predator. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 3904-3908.
36. Pearl CA, Adams MJ, Bury RB, McCreary B. 2004. Asymmetrical effects of introduced bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) on native ranid frogs in Oregon. Copeia 2004: 11-20.
37. Polis GA, Myers CA. 1985. A survey of intraspecific predation among reptiles and amphibians. Journal of Herpetology 19: 99-107.
38. Relyea RA, Werner EE. 1999. Quantifying the relation between predator-induced behavior and growth performance in larval anurans. Ecology 80: 2117-2124.
39. Reznik AD, Bryga H, Endler JA. 1990. Experimentally induced life-history evolution in a natural population. Nature 46: 357-359.
40. Ryan MJ, Tuttle MD, Rand AS. 1982. Bat predation and sexual advertisement in a Neotropical anuran. American Naturalist 119: 136-139.
41. Savidge JA. 1987. Extinction of an island forest avifauna by an introduced snake. Ecology 68: 660-668.
42. Schoener TW. 1974. Competition and the form of habitat shift. Theoretical Population Biology 6: 265-307.
43. Schwalbe CR, Rosen PC. 1999. Bullfrogs - The dinner guests we're sorry we invited. Sonorensis 19: 8-10.
44. Sih A, Crowley P, McPeek M, Petranka J, Strohmeier K. 1985. Predation, competition, and prey communities: A review of field experiments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16: 269-311.
45. Stewart MM, Sandison P. 1972. Comparative food habits of sympatric mink frogs, bullfrogs, and green frogs. Journal of Herpetology 6: 241-244.
46. Toft CA. 1985. Resource partitioning in amphibians and reptiles. Copeia 1985: 1-21.
47. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Determination of threatened status for the California red-legged frog. Federal Register 61: 25813-25833.
48. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). US Fish & Wildlife Service: Portland, Oregon.
49. Vermeij GJ. 1996. An agenda for invasion biology. Biological Conservation 78: 3-9.
50. Werner EE, Anholt BR. 1996. Predator-induced behavioral indirect effects: consequences to competitive interactions in anuran larvae. Ecology 77: 157-169.
51. Werner EE, Gilliam JF. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15: 393-425.
52. Werner EE, Mittelbach GG, Hall DJ, Gilliam JF. 1983. Experimental tests of optimal habitat use in fish: The role of relative habitat profitability. Ecology 64: 1525-1539.
53. White EM, Wilson JC, Clarke AR. 2006. Biotic indirect effects: A neglected concept in invasion biology. Diversity and Distributions 12: 443-455.
54. Zavaleta ES, Hobbs RJ, Mooney HA. 2001. Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 454-459.