Limited influence of stream networks on the terrestrial movements of three wetland-dependent frog species

Biological Conservation

Volumn 153, Issue , 2012, Pages 169-176

  Westgate, Martin J ^a,b   Driscoll, Don A ^a,b   Lindenmayer, David B ^a,b  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Amphibian; Anuran; Hydrological networks; Migration; Topography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; BREEDING SITE; CONNECTIVITY; DISPERSAL; FROG; JUVENILE; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; MICROHABITAT; MIGRATION; MOVEMENT; PATCHINESS; POND; STREAM CHANNEL; TOPOGRAPHIC EFFECT; TRANSECT;

AUSTRALIA;

AMPHIBIA; ANIMALIA; ANURA;

EID: 84862731477     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.030     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Baguette M., Van Dyck H. Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol. 2007, 22:1117-1129.
2. Baldwin R.F., deMaynadier P.G. Assessing threats to pool-breeding amphibian habitat in an urbanizing landscape. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142:1628-1638.
3. Baldwin R.F., Calhoun A.J.K., deMaynadier P.G. Conservation planning for amphibian species with complex habitat requirements: a case study using movements and habitat selection of the wood frog Rana sylvatica. J. Herpetol. 2006, 40:442-453.
4. Barker J., Grigg G.C., Tyler M.J. A Field Guide to Australian Frogs 1995, Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton.
5. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., 2011. lme4: Linear Mixed-effects Models Using S4 Classes. R Package Version 0.99937542. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
6. Bradford D.F., Neale A.C., Nash M.S., Sada D.W., Jaeger J.R. Habitat patch occupancy by toads (Bufo punctatus) in a naturally fragmented desert landscape. Ecology 2003, 84:1012-1023.
7. Bulger J.B., Scott N.J., Seymour R.B. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-legged frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 110:85-95.
8. Calhoun A.J.K., Miller N.A., Klemens M.W. Conserving pool-breeding amphibians in human-dominated landscapes through local implementation of best development practices. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 2005, 13:291-304.
9. Camper J.D. Core terrestrial habitat around wetlands: contributions from the spatial ecology of the redbelly watersnake (Nerodia erythrogaster erythrogaster). Copeia 2009, 556-562.
10. Carthew S.M., Horner B., Jones K.M.W. Do utility corridors affect movements of small terrestrial fauna?. Wildl. Res. 2009, 36:488-495.
11. Cogger H.G. Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia 1996, Reed Publishers.
12. Davis R.A., Roberts J.D. Population genetic structure of the western spotted frog, Heleioporus albopunctatus (Anura: Myobatrachidae), in a fragmented landscape in south-western Australia. Aust. J. Zool. 2005, 53:167-175.
13. Driscoll D.A. Mobility and metapopulation structure of Geocrinia alba and Geocrinia vitellina, two endangered frog species from southwestern Australia. Aust. J. Ecol. 1997, 22:185-195.
14. Driscoll D.A. Genetic structure of the frogs Geocrinia lutea and Geocrinia rosea reflects extreme population divergence and range changes, not dispersal barriers. Evolution 1998, 52:1147-1157.
15. Fahrig L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 34:487-515.
16. Fahrig L. Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct. Ecol. 2007, 21:1003-1015.
17. Funk W.C., Blouin M.S., Corn P.S., Maxell B.A., Pilliod D.S., Amish S., Allendorf F.W. Population structure of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) is strongly affected by the landscape. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14:483-496.
18. Gamble L.R., McGarigal K., Compton B.W. Fidelity and dispersal in the pond-breeding Ambystoma opacum: implications for spatio-temporal population dynamics and conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139:247-257.
19. Gibbons J.W., Winne C.T., Scott D.E., Willson J.D., Glaudas X., Andrews K.M., Todd B.D., Fedewa L.A., Wilkinson L., Tsaliagos R.N., Harper S.J., Greene J.L., Tuberville T.D., Metts B.S., Dorcas M.E., Nestor J.P., Young C.A., Akre T., Reed R.N., Buhlman K. Remarkable amphibian biomass and abundance in an isolated wetland: implications for wetland conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20:1457-1465.
20. Goates M.C., Hatch K.A., Eggett D.L. The need to ground truth 30.5m buffers: a case study of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas). Biol. Conserv. 2007, 138:474-483.
21. Grant E.H.C., Nichols J.D., Lowe W.H., Fagan W.F. Use of multiple dispersal pathways facilitates amphibian persistence in stream networks. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107:6936-6940.
22. Greven S., Kneib T. On the behaviour of marginal and conditional AIC in linear mixed models. Biometrika 2010, 97:773-789.
23. Griffen B.D., Drake J.M. Environment, but not migration rate, influences extinction risk in experimental metapopulations. Proc. Roy. Soc. B - Biol. Sci. 2009, 276:4363-4371.
24. Haila Y. A conceptual geneology of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12:321-334.
25. Hanski I. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 1998, 396:41-49.
26. Harper E.B., Rittenhouse T.A.G., Semlitsch R.D. Demographic consequences of terrestrial habitat loss for pool-breeding amphibians: predicting extinction risks associated with inadequate size of buffer zones. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22:1205-1215.
27. Hawkes C. Linking movement behaviour, dispersal and population processes: is individual variation a key?. J. Anim. Ecol. 2009, 78:894-906.
28. Hazell D., Cunningham R., Lindenmayer D.B., Mackey B., Osborne W. Use of farm dams as frog habitat in an Australian agricultural landscape: factors affecting species richness and distribution. Biol. Conserv. 2001, 102:155-169.
29. Hovestadt T., Binzenhoefer B., Nowicki P., Settele J. Do all inter-patch movements represent dispersal? A mixed kernel study of butterfly mobility in fragmented landscapes. J. Anim. Ecol. 2011, 80:1070-1077.
30. Jacobson B., Peres-Neto P.R. Quantifying and disentangling dispersal in metacommunities: how close have we come? How far is there to go?. Landscape Ecol. 2010, 25:495-507.
31. Johst K., Drechsler M., van Teeffelen A.J.A., Hartig F., Vos C.C., Wissel S., Waetzold F., Opdam P. Biodiversity conservation in dynamic landscapes: trade-offs between number, connectivity and turnover of habitat patches. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48:1227-1235.
32. Jones N., Abell R., Jacobson G. Hydrology. Jervis Bay: A Place of Cultural, Scientific and Educational Value 1995, 53-64. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. G. Cho, A. Georges, R. Stoutjesdijk, R. Longmore (Eds.).
33. Kingsford R.T., Watson J.E.M., Lundquist C.J., Venter O., Hughes L., Johnston E.L., Atherton J., Gawel M., Keith D.A., Mackey B.G., Morley C., Possingham H.P., Raynor B., Recher H.F., Wilson K.A. Major conservation policy issues for biodiversity in oceania. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23:834-840.
34. Lauck B. The impact of recent logging and pond isolation on pond colonization by the frog Crinia signifera. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 111:50-60.
35. Leibold M.A., Holyoak M., Mouquet N., Amarasekare P., Chase J.M., Hoopes M.F., Holt R.D., Shurin J.B., Law R., Tilman D., Loreau M., Gonzalez A. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7:601-613.
36. Lemckert F., Mahony M. Core calling periods of the frogs of temperate New South Wales, Australia. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 3:71-76.
37. Lindenmayer D.B., Fischer J. Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change 2006, Island Press, Washington.
38. Lindenmayer D.B., Fischer J. Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22:127-132.
39. Lowe W.H., Likens G.E., McPeek M.A., Buso D.C. Linking direct and indirect data on dispersal: isolation by slope in a headwater stream salamander. Ecology 2006, 87:334-339.
40. MacArthur R.H., Wilson E.O. The Theory of Island Biogeography 1967, Princeton University Press.
41. Marsh D.M., Trenham P.C. Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2001, 15:40-49.
42. Mazerolle M.J., Vos C.C. Choosing the safest route: frog orientation in an agricultural landscape. J. Herpetol. 2006, 40:435-441.
43. Merrill A.G., Benning T.L., Fites J.A. Factors controlling structural and florisitic variation of riparian zones in a mountainous landscape of the western United States. West. North Am. Naturalist 2006, 66:137-154.
44. Parker J.M., Anderson S.H. Habitat use and movements of repatriated Wyoming toads. J. Wildl. Manage. 2003, 67:439-446.
45. Patrick D.A., Harper E.B., Hunter M.L., Calhoun A.J.K. Terrestrial habitat selection and strong density-dependent mortality in recently metamorphosed amphibians. Ecology 2008, 89:2563-2574.
46. Penman T.D., Brassil T.E. Management of amphibian populations in Booderee National Park, South-eastern Australia. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 5:73-79.
47. Petranka J.W., Holbrook C.T. Wetland restoration for amphibians: should local sites be designed to support metapopulations or patchy populations?. Restor. Ecol. 2006, 14:404-411.
48. Pinheiro J.C., Bates D.M. Mixed-effects Models in S and S-PLUS 2000, Springer.
49. Popescu V.D., Hunter M.L. Clear-cutting affects habitat connectivity for a forest amphibian by decreasing permeability to juvenile movements. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21:1283-1295.
50. R Core Development Team, 2010. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Version 2.11.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
51. Regosin J.V., Windmiller B.S., Homan R.N., Reed J.M. Variation in terrestrial habitat use by four pool-breeding amphibian species. J. Wildl. Manage. 2005, 69:1481-1493.
52. Richards-Zawacki C.L. Effects of slope and riparian habitat connectivity on gene flow in an endangered Panamanian frog, Atelopus varius. Divers. Distrib. 2009, 15:796-806.
53. Richter-Boix A., Llorente G.A., Montori A. Structure and dynamics of an amphibian metacommunity in two regions. J. Anim. Ecol. 2007, 76:607-618.
54. Rittenhouse T.A.G., Semlitsch R.D. Post-breeding habitat use of wood frogs in a missouri oak-hickory forest. J. Herpetol. 2007, 41:645-653.
55. Rittenhouse T.A.G., Semlitsch R.D., Thompson F.R. Survival costs associated with wood frog breeding migrations: effects of timber harvest and drought. Ecology 2009, 90:1620-1630.
56. Robertson J.G.M. Male territoriality, fighting and assessment of fighting ability in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Anim. Behav. 1986, 34:763-772.
57. Roe J.H., Georges A. Heterogeneous wetland complexes, buffer zones, and travel corridors: landscape management for freshwater reptiles. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 135:67-76.
58. Rothermel B.B. Migratory success of juveniles: a potential constraint on connectivity for pond-breeding amphibians. Ecol. Appl. 2004, 14:1535-1546.
59. Rowley J.J.L., Alford R.A. Movement patterns and habitat use of rainforest stream frogs in northern Queensland, Australia: implications for extinction vulnerability. Wildl. Res. 2007, 34:371-378.
60. Schwarzkopf L., Alford R.A. Nomadic movement in tropical toads. Oikos 2002, 96:492-506.
61. Seagle S.W., Sturtevant B.R. Forest productivity predicts invertebrate biomass and ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) reproduction in Appalachian landscapes. Ecology 2005, 86:1531-1539.
62. Semlitsch R.D. Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond-breeding amphibians. J. Wildl. Manage. 2008, 72:260-267.
63. Semlitsch R.D., Bodie J.R. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17:1219-1228.
64. Semlitsch R.D., Todd B.D., Blomquist S.M., Calhoun A.J.K., Gibbons J.W., Gibbs J.P., Graeter G.J., Harper E.B., Hocking D.J., Hunter M.L., Patrick D.A., Rittenhouse T.A.G., Rothermel B.B. Effects of timber harvest on amphibian populations: understanding mechanisms from forest experiments. Bioscience 2009, 59:853-862.
65. Sjogren-Gulve P. Spatial movement patterns in frogs: target-oriented dispersal in the pool frog, Rana lessonae. Ecoscience 1998, 5:31-38.
66. Smith M.A., Green D.M. Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations?. Ecography 2005, 28:110-128.
67. Smith M.A., Green D.M. Sex, isolation and fidelity: unbiased long-distance dispersal in a terrestrial amphibian. Ecography 2006, 29:649-658.
68. Stevens V.M., Leboulenge E., Wesselingh R.A., Baguette M. Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental assessment of boundary permeability for the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Oecologia 2006, 150:161-171.
69. Storfer A., Murphy M.A., Spear S.F., Holderegger R., Waits L.P. Landscape genetics: where are we now?. Mol. Ecol. 2010, 19:3496-3514.
70. Swanack T.M., Grant W.E., Forstner M.R.J. Projecting population trends of endangered amphibian species in the face of uncertainty: a pattern-oriented approach. Ecol. Model. 2009, 220:148-159.
71. Sztatecsny M., Schabetsberger R. Into thin air: vertical migration, body condition, and quality of terrestrial habitats of alpine common toads, Bufo bufo. Can. J. Zool. 2005, 83:788-796.
72. Taws N. Vegetation Survey and Mapping of Jervis Bay Territory: A report to Environment Australia 1997, Taws Botanical Research, Canberra.
73. Timm B.C., McGarigal K., Compton B.W. Timing of large movement events of pond-breeding amphibians in Western Massachusetts, USA. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 136:442-454.
74. Timm B.C., McGarigal K., Jenkins C.L. Emigration orientation of juvenile pond-breeding amphibians in Western Massachusetts. Copeia 2007, 685-698.
75. Todd B.D., Winne C.T., Willson J.D., Gibbons J.W. Getting the drift: Examining the effects of timing, trap type and taxon on herpetofaunal drift fence surveys. Am. Midl. Nat. 2007, 158:292-305.
76. Todd B.D., Luhring T.M., Rothermel B.B., Gibbons J.W. Effects of forest removal on amphibian migrations: implications for habitat and landscape connectivity. J. Appl. Ecol. 2009, 46:554-561.
77. Tracy C.R., Christian K.A., Tracy C.R. Not just small, wet, and cold: effects of body size and skin resistance on thermoregulation and arboreality of frogs. Ecology 2010, 91:1477-1484.
78. Vaida F., Blanchard S. Conditional Akaike information for mixed-effects models. Biometrika 2005, 92:351-370.
79. Van Dyck H., Baguette M. Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: routine or special movements?. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2005, 6:535-545.
80. Vogt P., Ferrari J.R., Lookingbill T.R., Gardner R.H., Ritters K.H., Ostapowicz K. Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol. Ind. 2009, 9:64-71.
81. Walls S.S., Kenward R.E., Holloway G.J. Weather to disperse? Evidence that climatic conditions influence vertebrate dispersal. J. Anim. Ecol. 2005, 74:190-197.
82. Westgate M.J., Driscoll D.A., Lindenmayer D.B. Can the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis and Information on Species Traits Predict Amphibian Responses to Fire? 2012, Oikos.
83. Zhan A.B., Li C., Fu J.Z. Big mountains but small barriers: Population genetic structure of the Chinese wood frog (Rana chensinensis) in the Tsinling and Daba Mountain region of northern China. BMC Genet. 2009, 10.