Testing wetland features to increase amphibian reproductive success and species richness for mitigation and restoration
2012; Wiley; Volume: 22; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1890/1051-0761-22.5.1675
ISSN1939-5582
AutoresChristopher D. Shulse, Raymond D. Semlitsch, Kathleen M. Trauth, James E. Gardner,
Tópico(s)Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
ResumoEcological ApplicationsVolume 22, Issue 5 p. 1675-1688 Article Testing wetland features to increase amphibian reproductive success and species richness for mitigation and restoration Christopher D. Shulse, Corresponding Author Christopher D. Shulse [email protected] Missouri Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 270, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 USAE-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorRaymond D. Semlitsch, Raymond D. Semlitsch Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 USASearch for more papers by this authorKathleen M. Trauth, Kathleen M. Trauth Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 USASearch for more papers by this authorJames E. Gardner, James E. Gardner Missouri Department of Conservation, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 USASearch for more papers by this author Christopher D. Shulse, Corresponding Author Christopher D. Shulse [email protected] Missouri Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 270, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 USAE-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorRaymond D. Semlitsch, Raymond D. Semlitsch Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 USASearch for more papers by this authorKathleen M. Trauth, Kathleen M. Trauth Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 USASearch for more papers by this authorJames E. Gardner, James E. Gardner Missouri Department of Conservation, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 July 2012 https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0212.1Citations: 58 Corresponding Editor: D. S. Schimel. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract Aquatic habitat features can directly influence the abundance, species richness, and quality of juvenile amphibians recruited into adult populations. We examined the influences of within-wetland slope, vegetation, and stocked mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) on amphibian metamorph production and species richness during the first two years post-construction at 18 experimental wetlands in northeast Missouri (USA) grasslands. We used an information theoretic approach (AICc) to rank regression models representing total amphibian metamorph production, individual amphibian species metamorph production, and larval amphibian species richness. Total amphibian metamorph production was greatest at shallow-sloped, fish-free wetlands during the first year, but shallow-sloped wetlands with high vegetation cover were best the second year. Species richness was negatively associated with fish and positively associated with vegetation in both survey years. Leopard frog (Rana blairi/sphenocephala complex) metamorph quality, based on average metamorph size, was influenced by slope and the number of cohorts in the wetland. However, the tested variables had little influence on the size of American toads (Bufo americanus) or boreal chorus frogs (Pseudacris maculata). Our results indicate that wetlands designed to act as functional reproductive habitat for amphibians should incorporate shallows, high amounts of planted or naturally established vegetation cover, and should be fish-free. Supporting Information Filename Description https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3295514 Research data pertaining to this article is located at figshare.com: Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. Literature Cited Babbitt, K. J.,and G. W. Tanner. 1997. Effects of cover and predator identity on predation of Hyla squirella tadpoles. Journal of Herpetology 31: 128–130. 10.2307/1565342 Web of Science®Google Scholar Baber, M. J.,and K. J. Babbitt. 2004. Influence of habitat complexity on predator-prey interactions between the fish (Gambusia holbrooki) and tadpoles of Hyla squirella and Gastrophryne carolinensis. Copeia 1: 173–177. 10.1643/CE-03-056R1 Web of Science®Google Scholar Berven, K. A.,and D. E. Gill. 1983. Interpreting geographic variation in life-history traits. American Zoologist 23: 85–97. 10.1093/icb/23.1.85 PubMedGoogle Scholar Binckley, C. A.,and Resetarits, W. J. Jr. 2008. Oviposition behavior partitions aquatic landscapes along predation and nutrient gradients. Behavioral Ecology 19: 552–557. 10.1093/beheco/arm164 Web of Science®Google Scholar Blaustein, L. 1991. Negative interactions between two predatory fishes in rice fields: relevance to biological control. Israel Journal of Zoology 37: 164. Google Scholar Boone, M. D., R. D. Semlitsch,and C. Mosby. 2008. Suitability of golf course ponds for amphibian metamorphosis when bullfrogs are removed. Conservation Biology 22: 172–179. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00817.x PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Bowerman, J., P. T. Johnson,and T. Bowerman. 2010. Sublethal predators and their injured prey: linking aquatic predators and severe limb abnormalities in amphibians. Ecology 91: 242–251. 10.1890/08-1687.1 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Brodman, R., J. Ogger, M. Kolaczyk, R. Pulver, A. J. Long,and T. Bogard. 2003. Mosquito control by pond-breeding salamander larvae. Herpetological Review 34: 116–119. Google Scholar Brooks, R. T. 2000. Annual and seasonal variation and the effects of hydroperiod on benthic macroinvertebrates of seasonal forest ("vernal") ponds in central Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 20: 707–715. 10.1672/0277-5212(2000)020[0707:AASVAT]2.0.CO;2 Web of Science®Google Scholar Brown, C. J., B. Blossey, J. C. Maerz,and S. J. Joule. 2006. Invasive plant and experimental venue affect tadpole performance. Biological Invasions 8: 327–338. 10.1007/s10530-004-8244-x Web of Science®Google Scholar Burnham, K. P.,and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA. Google Scholar Daniel, R. E.,and B. S. Edmond. 2010. Atlas of Missouri amphibians and reptiles for 2009. http://atlas.moherp.org/pubs/atlas09.pdf Google Scholar Deal, C., J. Edwards, N. Pellmann, R. W. Tuttle,and D. Woodward. 1997. In M. R Mattinsonand L. S Glasscock editors. Ponds–planning, design, construction. Agriculture Handbook Number 590. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., USA. Google Scholar DuRant, S. E.,and W. A. Hopkins. 2008. Amphibian predation on larval mosquitoes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 86: 1159–1164. 10.1139/Z08-097 Web of Science®Google Scholar Duryea, R., J. Donnelly, D. Guthrie, C. O'Malley, M. Romanowski,and R. Schmidt. 1996. Proceedings of the Eighty-third Annual Meeting of the New Jersey Mosquito Control Association 1996: 95–102. Google Scholar Fairbairn, S. E.,and J. J. Dinsmore. 2001. Local and landscape-level influences on wetland bird communities of the prairie pothole region of Iowa, USA. Wetlands 21: 41–47. 10.1672/0277-5212(2001)021[0041:LALLIO]2.0.CO;2 Web of Science®Google Scholar Faragher, S. J.,and R. G. Jaeger. 1998. Tadpole bullies: examining mechanisms of competition in a community of larval anurans. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 144–153. 10.1139/z97-177 Web of Science®Google Scholar Gibbons, J. W., et al . 2006. Remarkable amphibian biomass and abundance in an isolated wetland: implications for wetland conservation. Conservation Biology 20: 1457–1465. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00443.x PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Grubb, J. C. 1972. Differential predation by Gambusia affinis on the eggs of seven species of anuran amphibians. American Midland Naturalist 88: 102–108. 10.2307/2424491 Web of Science®Google Scholar Hamer, A. J.,and K. M. Parris. 2011. Local and landscape determinants of amphibian communities in urban ponds. Ecological Applications 21: 378–390. 10.1890/10-0390.1 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Hartel, T., S. Nemes, D. Cogălniceanu, K. Öllerer, O. Schweiger, C. I. Moga,and L. Demeter. 2007. The effect of fish and aquatic habitat complexity on amphibians. Hydrobiolgia 583: 173–182. 10.1007/s10750-006-0490-8 Web of Science®Google Scholar Hazell, D., J. M. Hero, D. Lindenmayer,and R. Cunningham. 2004. A comparison of constructed and natural habitat for frog conservation in an Australian agricultural landscape. Biological Conservation 119: 61–71. 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.10.022 Web of Science®Google Scholar Hobbs, R. J., et al. 2006. Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15: 1–7. 10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00212.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Indermaur, L., M. Schaub, J. Jokela, K. Tockner,and B. R. Schmidt. 2010. Differential response to abiotic conditions and predation risk rather than competition avoidance determine breeding site selection by anurans. Ecography 33: 887–895. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06150.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Johnson, T. R. 2000. The amphibians and reptiles of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, USA. Google Scholar Karraker, N. E., J. Arrigoni,and D. Dudgeon. 2010. Effects of increased salinity and an introduced predator on lowland amphibians in Southern China: species identity matters. Biological Conservation 143: 1079–1086. 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.020 Web of Science®Google Scholar Kats, L. B.,and R. P. Ferrer. 2003. Alien predators and amphibian declines: review of two decades of science and the transition to conservation. Diversity and Distributions 9: 99–110. 10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00013.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Kats, L. B., J. W. Petranka,and A. Sih. 1988. Antipredator defenses and persistence of amphibian larvae with fishes. Ecology 69: 1865–1870. 10.2307/1941163 Web of Science®Google Scholar Knutson, M. G., W. B. Richardson, D. M. Reineke, B. R. Gray, J. R. Parmelee,and S. E. Weick. 2004. Agricultural ponds support amphibian populations. Ecological Applications 14: 669–684. 10.1890/02-5305 Web of Science®Google Scholar Laird, M. 1977. Enemies and diseases of mosquitoes. Their natural regulatory significance in relation to pesticide use, and their future as marketable components of integrated control. Mosquito News 37: 331–339. Web of Science®Google Scholar Lawler, S. P., D. Dritz, T. Strange,and M. Holyoak. 1999. Effects of introduced mosquitofish and bullfrogs on the threatened California red-legged frog. Conservation Biology 13: 613–622. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98075.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Leu, T., B. Lüscher, S. Zumbach,and B. R. Schmidt. 2009. Small fish (Leucaspius delineatus) that are often released into garden ponds and amphibian breeding sites prey on eggs and tadpoles of the common frog (Rana temporaria). Amphibia-Reptilia 30: 290–293. 10.1163/156853809788201153 Web of Science®Google Scholar Micacchion, M. 2004. Integrated Wetland Assessment Program. Part 7: Amphibian index of biotic integrity (AmphIBI) for Ohio Wetlands. Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2004-7. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Wetland Ecology Group, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Google Scholar National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Google Scholar Pearman, P. B. 1993. Effects of habitat size on tadpole populations. Ecology 74: 1982–1991. 10.2307/1940841 Web of Science®Google Scholar Pearman, P. B. 1995. Effects of pond size and consequent predator density on two species of tadpoles. Oecologia 102: 1–8. 10.1007/BF00333303 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Pechmann, J. H. K., R. A. Estes, D. E. Scott,and J. W. Gibbons. 2001. Amphibian colonization and use of ponds created for trial mitigation of wetland loss. Wetlands 21: 93–111. 10.1672/0277-5212(2001)021[0093:ACAUOP]2.0.CO;2 Web of Science®Google Scholar Pechmann, J. H. K., D. E. Scott, J. W. Gibbons,and R. D. Semlitsch. 1989. Influence of wetland hydroperiod on diversity and abundance of metamorphosing juvenile amphibians. Wetlands Ecology and Management 1: 3–11. 10.1007/BF00177885 Google Scholar Pellet, J., A. Guisan,and N. Perrin. 2004. A concentric analysis of the impact of urbanization on the threatened European tree frog in an agricultural landscape. Conservation Biology 18: 1599–1606. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.0421a.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Perry, K. 2006. Missouri pond handbook. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, USA. Google Scholar Petranka, J. W., E. M. Harp, C. T. Holbrook,and J. A. Hamel. 2007. Long-term persistence of amphibian populations in a restored wetland complex. Biological Conservation 138: 371–380. 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.05.002 Web of Science®Google Scholar Pflieger, W. L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, USA. Google Scholar Pope, K. L. 2008. Assessing changes in amphibian population dynamics following experimental manipulations of introduced fish. Conservation Biology 22: 1572–1581. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00998.x PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Porej, D. P. 2003. An inventory of Ohio compensatory wetland mitigation. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency report to US Environmental Protection Agency Region 5. Grant No. CD97576201-0. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Google Scholar Porej, D.,and T. E. Hetherington. 2005. Designing wetlands for amphibians: the importance of predatory fish and shallow littoral zones in structuring amphibian communities. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13: 445–455. 10.1007/s11273-004-0522-y Google Scholar Pyke, G. H. 2008. Plague minnow or mosquito fish? A review of the biology and impacts of introduced Gambusia species. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39: 171–191. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173451 Web of Science®Google Scholar Pyke, G. H.,and A. W. White. 2000. Factors influencing predation on eggs and tadpoles of the endangered Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea by the introduced Plague Minnow Gambusia holbrooki. Australian Zoologist 31: 496–505. 10.7882/AZ.2000.011 Google Scholar Schaefer, J. F., S. T. Heulett,and T. M. Farrell. 1994. Interactions between two poeciliid fishes (Gambusia holbrooki and Heterandria formosa) and their prey in a Florida marsh. Copeia 1994: 516–520. 10.2307/1447002 Google Scholar Semlitsch, R. D. 2002. Critical elements for biologically-based recovery plans of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Conservation Biology 16: 619–629. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00512.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Semlitsch, R. D.,and J. R. Bodie. 1998. Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation Biology 12: 1129–1133. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.98166.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Semlitsch, R. D., D. E. Scott, J. H. K. Pechmann,and J. W. Gibbons. 1996. Structure and dynamics of an amphibian community: evidence from a 16-year study of a natural pond. Pages 217–248 in M. L Codyand J. A Smallwood editors. Long-term studies of vertebrate communities. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA. 10.1016/B978-012178075-3/50010-6 Google Scholar Semlitsch, R. D.,and D. K. Skelly. 2007. Chapter 6. Pool-breeding amphibians. Pages 127–147 in A. J. K Calhounand P. G deMaynadier editors. Science and conservation of vernal pools in northeastern North America. CRC Press, New York, New York, USA. 10.1201/9781420005394.ch7 Google Scholar Shoo, L. P., et al. 2011. Engineering a future for amphibians under climate change. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 487–492. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01942.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Shulse, C. D. 2011. Building better wetlands for amphibians: investigating the roles of engineered wetland features and mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) on amphibian abundance and reproductive success. Dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA. Google Scholar Shulse, C. D., R. D. Semlitsch, K. M. Trauth,and A. D. Williams. 2010. Influences of design and landscape placement parameters on amphibian abundance in constructed wetlands. Wetlands 30: 915–928. 10.1007/s13157-010-0069-z Web of Science®Google Scholar Simon, J. A., J. W. Snodgrass, R. E. Casey,and D. W. Sparling. 2009. Spatial correlates of amphibian use of constructed wetlands in an urban landscape. Landscape Ecology 24: 361–373. 10.1007/s10980-008-9311-y Web of Science®Google Scholar Skelly, D. K. 1995. A behavioral trade-off and its consequences for the distribution of Pseudacris treefrog larvae. Ecology 76: 150–164. 10.2307/1940638 Web of Science®Google Scholar Snodgrass, J. W., M. J. Komoroski, Bryan, A. L. Jr.,and J. Burger. 2000. Relationships among isolated wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implications for wetland regulations. Conservation Biology 14: 414–419. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99161.x Web of Science®Google Scholar SPSS. 2007. SPSS version 16.0. SPSS, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Google Scholar Stewart, T. W.,and J. A. Downing. 2008. Macroinvertebrate communities and environmental conditions in recently constructed wetlands. Wetlands 28: 141–150. 10.1672/06-130.1 Web of Science®Google Scholar Stratman, D. 2000. Using micro and macrotopography in wetland restoration. Indiana Biology Technical Note 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Google Scholar Tarr, T. L.,and K. J. Babbitt. 2002. Effects of habitat complexity and predator identity on predation of Rana clamitans larvae. Amphibia-Reptilia 23: 12–20. 10.1163/156853802320877591 Web of Science®Google Scholar Van Buskirk, J.,and D. C. Smith. 1991. Density-dependent population regulation in a salamander. Ecology 72: 1747–1756. 10.2307/1940973 Web of Science®Google Scholar Webb, C.,and J. Joss. 1997. Does predation by Gambusia holbrooki (Atheriformes: Poeciliidae) contribute to declining frog populations? Australian Zoologist 30: 316–324. 10.7882/AZ.1997.007 Google Scholar Young, T. P. 2000. Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Biological Conservation 92: 73–83. 10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00057-9 Web of Science®Google Scholar Young, T. P., J. M. Chase,and R. T. Huddleston. 2001. Succession and assembly as conceptual bases in community ecology and ecological restoration. Ecological Restoration 19: 5–19. 10.3368/er.19.1.5 Web of Science®Google Scholar Young, T. P., D. A. Petersen,and J. J. Clary. 2005. The ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realms. Ecology Letters 8: 662–673. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00764.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Zedler, J. B. 2000. Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 402–407. 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01959-5 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume22, Issue5July 2012Pages 1675-1688 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)