Factors influencing anuran distribution in coastal dune wetlands in southern Brazil

Journal of Natural History

Volumn 44, Issue 23, 2010, Pages 1493-1507

  Moreira, L F B ^a   Machado, I F ^a   Garcia, T V ^a   Maltchik, L ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDADE DO VALE DO RIO DOS SINOS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Anurans; Coastal dunes; Habitat diversity; Hydroperiod; Southern brazil

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; COASTAL WETLAND; FROG; HABITAT STRUCTURE; HYDROPERIOD; SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS; SPECIES RICHNESS; VEGETATION COVER;

ATLANTIC COAST [BRAZIL]; ATLANTIC COAST [SOUTH AMERICA]; BRAZIL;

ANURA;

EID: 77952677558     PISSN: 00222933     EISSN: 14645262     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00222931003632690     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Afonso LG, Eterovick PC. 2007. Spatial and temporal distribution of breeding anurans in streams in southern Brazil. J Nat Hist. 41:13-16.
2. Babbitt, KJ, Baber MJ, Tarr TL. 2003. Patterns of larval amphibian distributions along a wetland hydroperiod gradient. Can J Zool. 81:1539-1552.
3. Babbitt KJ, Tanner GW. 1998. Effects of cover and predator size on survival and development of Rana utricularia tadpoles. Oecologia 114:258-262.
4. Both C, Kaefer IL, Santos TG, Cechin SZ. 2008. An austral anuran assemblage in neotropics: a seasonal occurrence pattern correlated with photoperiod. J Nat Hist. 42:205-222.
5. Both C, Solé M, Santos TG, Cechin SZ. 2009. The role of spatial and temporal descriptors for Neotropical tadpoles communities in southern Brazil. Hydrobiologia 624:125-138.
6. Brooks RT. 2000. Annual and seasonal variation and the effects of hydroperiod on benthic invertebrates of seasonal forest ("vernal") ponds in central Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 20: 707-715.
7. Canavero A, Arim M. 2009. Clues supporting photoperiod as the main determinant of seasonal variation in amphibian activity. J Nat Hist. 43(47-48):2975-2984.
8. Canavero A, Arim M, Naya DE, Camargo A, Rosa I, Maneyro R. 2008. Calling activity patterns in an anuran assemblage: the role of seasonal trends and weather determinants. North-West J Zool. 4:29-41.
9. Carvalho-E-Silva SP, Izecksohn E, Carvalho-E-Silva AMPT. 2000. Diversidade e ecologia de anfibios em restingas do sudeste brasileiro. In: Esteves FA, Lacerda LD, editors. Ecologia de Restingas e Lagoas Costeiras. Macaé: Nupem/Ufrj.; pp. 89-97.
10. Colombo P, Kindel A, Vinciprova G, Krause L. 2008. Composição e ameaças à conservação dos anfibios anuros do Parque Estadual de Itapeva, município de Torres, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil [Internet]. Biota Neotropica 8. Available from: http:// www.biotaneotrop-ica.org.br/ v8n3/pt/abstract?inventory+bn01208032008.
11. Crump ML, Scott NJ. 1994. Standard techniques for inventory and monitoring: visual encounter surveys. In: Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek LC, Foster MS, editors. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for Amphibians. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 84-92.
12. Dayton GH, Fitzgerald LA. 2001. Competition, predation, and distribution of four desertanurans. Oecologia 129:430-435.
13. Duellman WE, Trueb L. 1994. Biology of Amphibians. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
14. Eterovick PC, Barata IM. 2006. Distribution of tadpoles within and among Brazilian streams: the influence of predators, habitat size and heterogeneity. Herpetologica 62:365-377.
15. Eterovick PC, Sazima I. 2000. Structure of an anuran community in a montane meadow in southeastern Brazil: effects of seasonality, habitat, and predation. Amphibia-Reptilia 21:439-461.
16. Gotthard K. 2001. Growth strategies of ectothermic animals in temperate environments. In: Atkinson D, Thorndyke M, editors. Environment and animal development. Oxford: BIOS Scientific Publishers. pp. 287-304.
17. Guerry AD, Hunter ML. 2002. Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conserv Biol. 16:745-754.
18. Hecnar SJ, Closkey RTM. 1996. Amphibian species richness and distribution in relation to pond water chemistry in south western Ontario, Canada. Freshwater Biol. 36:7-15.
19. Heyer WR. 1969. The adaptive ecology of the species groups of the genus Leptodactylus (Amphibia, Leptodactylidae). Evolution 23:1-28.
20. Irgang BE, Gastal CVS. 1996. Plantas aquáticas da planície costeira do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre: Edição dos autores.
21. Kopp K, Eterovick PC. 2006. Factors influencing spatial and temporal structure of frog assemblages at ponds in southeastern Brazil. J Nat Hist. 40:1813-1830.
22. Kopp K, Wachlevski M, Eterovick PC. 2006. Environmental complexity reduces tadpole predation by water bugs. Can J Zool. 84:136-140.
23. Krishnamurthy SV. 2003. Amphibian assemblages in undisturbed and disturbed areas of Kudremukh National Park, Central Western Ghats, India. Environ Conserv. 30:272-282.
24. Kupferberg SJ. 1997. Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) invasion of California river: the role of larval competition. Ecology 75:1736-1751.
25. Kwet A. 2001. Frösche im brasilianischen Araukarienwald - Anurengemeinschaft des Araukarienwaldes von Rio Grande do Sul: Diversität, Reproduktion und Ressorcenaufteilung. Münster: Natur und Tier-Verlag.
26. Loebmann D. 2005. Guia Ilustrado: Os Anfíbios da Região Costeira do Extremo Sul do Brasil. Pelotas: Useb.
27. Loebmann D, Vieira JP. 2005. Relação dos anfíbios do Parque Nacional da Lagoa do Peixe, RS, Brasil. Rev Brasil Zool. 22:339-341.
28. Machado IF, Maltchik L. 2007. Check-list da diversidade de anuros no Rio Grande do Sul (Brasil) e proposta de classificação para as formas larvais. Neotrop Biol Conserv. 2:101-116.
29. Maltchik L. 2003. Three new wetlands inventories in Brazil. Interciência 28:421-423.
30. Maltchik L, Costa ES, Becker CG, Oliveira AE. 2003. Inventory of wetlands of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). Pesquisas Bot. 53:89-100.
31. McCune B, Mefford MJ. 1999. PC-ORD - multivariate analysis of ecological data, version 4.2. Gleneden Beach (OR): MjM Software Design.
32. Moreira LFB, Machado IBF, Lace ARGM, Maltchik L. 2007. Calling period and reproductive modes in an anuran community of a temporary pond in southern Brazil. S Am J Herpetol. 2:129-135.
33. Palmer MW. 1993. Putting things in even better order - the advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 74:2215-2230.
34. Parris KM, McCarthy MA. 1999. What influences the structure of frogs assemblages at forest streams? Aust J Ecol 24:495-502.
35. Peltzer P, Lajmanovich RC. 2004. Anuran tadpole assemblages in riparian areas of the Middle Paraná River, Argentina. Biodivers Conserv. 13:1833-1842.
36. Prado CPA, Uetanabaro M, Haddad CFB. 2005. Breeding activity patterns, reproductive modes, and habitat use by anurans (Amphibia) in a seasonal environment in the Pantanal, Brazil. Amphibia-Reptilia 26:211-221.
37. Rambo B. 2000. A Fisionomia do Rio Grande do Sul: Ensaio de Monografia Natural. São Leopoldo: Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS).
38. Rocha CFD, Hatano FH, Vrcibradic D, Van Sluys M. 2008. Frog species richness, composition and β-diversity in coastal Brazilian restinga habitats. Brazil J Biol. 68:101-107.
39. Rozas LP, Odum WE. 1988. Occupation of submerged aquatic vegetation by fishes: testing the roles of food and refuge. Oecologia 7:101-106.
40. Santos TG, Rossa-Feres DC, Casatti L. 2007. Diversidade e distribuição espaço-temporal de anuros em região com pronunciada estação seca no sudeste do Brasil. Iheringia 97:37-49.
41. Schneider JAP, Teixeira, RL. 2001. Relacionamento entre anfibios anuros e bromélias da restinga de Regência, Linhares, Espírito Santo, Brasil. Iheringia 91:41-48.
42. Semlitsch RD, Scott DE, Pechmann JHK, Gibbons JW. 1996. Structure and dynamics of a community: evidence from 16-year study of a natural pond. In: Cody ML, Smallwood JA, editors. Long-term studies of vertebrate communities. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 217-248.
43. Shaffer HB, Alford RA, Woodward BD, Richards SJ, Altig RG, Gascon C. 1994. Standard techniques for inventory and monitoring: quantitative sampling of amphibian larvae. In: Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek LC, Foster MS, editors. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for Amphibians. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 130-141.
44. Skelly DK, Werner EE, Coutwright S. 1999. Long-term distributional dynamics of a Michigan amphibian assemblage. Ecology 80:2326-2337.
45. Snodgrass JW, Komoroski MJ, Bryan AL, Burger J. 2000. Relationships among isolated wetlands size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implication for wetlands regulations. Conserv Biol. 14:414-419.
46. Systat 2007. 'Systat Software.' Richmond (CA): Systat.
47. Tagliani PRA. 1995. Estratégia de planificação ambiental para o sistema ecológico da restinga da Lagoa dos Patos - planície costeira do Rio Grande do Sul [Doctoral thesis]. Universidade Federal de São Carlos.
48. Ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P. 1998. Canoco reference manual and user's guide to Canoco for Windows: software for canonical community ordination, Version 4. Ithaca (NY): Microcomputer Power.
49. Vallan D. 2002. Effects of anthropogenic environmental changes in amphibian diversity in the rain forests of eastern Madagascar. J Trop Ecol. 18:725-742.
50. Vasconcelos TS, Rossa-Feres DC. 2005. Diversidade, distribuição espacial e temporal de anfibios anuros (amphibia, anura) na região noroeste do estado de São Paulo, Brasil [Internet]. Biota Neotropica 5: http://www.biotaneotropica.org.br/vfn2/pt/abstract?article+bn01705022005.
51. Wellborn GA, Skelly DK, Werner EE. 1996. Mechanism creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 27:337-363.
52. Zimmerman BL, Simberloff D. 1996. An historical interpretation of habitats use by frogs in a Central Amazonian Forest. J Biogeog. 23:27-46.
53. Zina J, Ennser J, Pinheiro SCP, Haddad CFB, Toledo LF. 2007. Taxocenose de anuros de uma mata semidecídua do interior do Estado de São Paulo e comparações com outras taxocenoses do Estado, sudeste do Brasil [Internet]. Biota Neotropica 7: http:// www.biotane-otropica.org.br/vfn2/pt/abstract?article+BN00607022007