, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1030–1042 | Cite as

Response of amphibians to restoration of a southern Appalachian wetland: A long-term analysis of community dynamics

  • James W. Petranka
  • Caroline A. Kennedy
  • Susan S. Murray


Although amphibians are increasingly being used to assess ecosystem function of compensatory wetlands, there are almost no long-term studies of responses to ecological restoration. Consequently, much uncertainty exists about the appropriate timeframes and best criteria for evaluating responses to wetland restoration. We studied aspects of pond colonization and long-term community dynamics in ponds created at a mitigation site in western North Carolina. We examined whether landscape variables influenced the initial colonization of 22 constructed ponds and conducted a long-term study of changes in species richness and community composition in ten constructed and ten reference ponds over seven breeding seasons. During the first year of pond filling, species richness and the number of egg masses of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) and spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) were positively correlated with pond size, depth, and hydroperiod but independent of distance to the nearest forest, paved road, or source pond. The ten constructed ponds in the long-term study first filled in 1996 and were larger, deeper, warmer, more oxygen-rich, and of longer seasonal hydroperiod than reference ponds. Seven species bred in the constructed ponds during the first year of filling, and species richness reached equilibrium within two years of initial pond filling. Most species colonized constructed ponds rapidly, but frequency of use by eastern newts (Notophthalmus viridescens) increased slowly over five years. Constructed ponds supported significantly more species than reference ponds, and the annual turnover rate of breeding populations was approximately 25% for both pond types. Our data suggest that post-restoration monitoring for 2–3 years may be sufficient to characterize species and communities that will utilize ponds for the first decade or so after pond creation.

Key Words

amphibians pond colonization community dynamics North Carolina mitigation banks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Babbitt, K. J. and G. W. Tanner. 2000. Use of temporary wetlands by anurans in a hydrologically modified landscape. Wetlands 20: 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berven, K. A. 1995. Population regulation in the wood frog,Rana sylvatica, from three diverse geographic localities. Australian Journal of Ecology 20:385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, S. C. and P. L. M. Veneman. 2001. Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 21:508–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crouch, W. B. and P. W. C. Paton. 2001. Using egg mass counts to monitor wood frog populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: 895–901.Google Scholar
  5. Findlay, C. S. and J. Houlahan. 1997. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology 11:1000–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Findlay, C. S., J. Lenton, and L. Zheng. 2001. Land-use correlates of anuran community richness and composition in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Ecoscience 8:336–343.Google Scholar
  7. Gibbs, J. P. 1993. Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local populations of wetland-associated animals. Wetlands 13: 25–31.Google Scholar
  8. Gibbs, J. P., S. Droege, and P. Eagle. 1998. Monitoring populations of plants and animals. BioScience 48:935–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gill, D. E. 1978. The metapopulation ecology of the red-spotted newt,Notophthalmus viridescens (Rafinesque). Ecological Monographs 48:145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hecnar, S. J. and R. T. M'Closkey. 1996. Regional dynamics and the status of amphibians. Ecology 77:2091–2097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heyer W. R., R. W. McDiarmid, and D. L. Weigmann. 1975. Tadpoles, predation, and pond habitats in the tropics. Biotropica 7: 100–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kats L. B., J. W. Petranka, and A. Sih. 1988. Antipredator defenses and the persistence of amphibian larvae with fishes. Ecology 69: 1865–1870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kolozsvary, M. B. and R. K. Swihart. 1999. Habitat fragmentation and the distribution of amphibians: patch and landscape correlates in farmland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1288–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lehtinen, R. M. and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2001. Colonization of restored wetlands by amphibians in Minnesota. The American Midland Naturalist 145:388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lehtinen, R. M., S. M. Galatowitsch, and J. R. Tester. 1999. Consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation for wetland amphibian assemblages. Wetlands 19:1–12.Google Scholar
  16. Marcus, M. J. and W. W. Smith. 1993. p. 170–174.In M. C. Landin (ed.) Wetlands: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference, Society of Wetland Scientists, New Orleans, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  17. Marsh, D. M. 2001. Fluctuations in amphibian populations: a metaanalysis. Biological Conservation 101:327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marsh, L. L., D. R. Porter, and D. A. Salvesen. 1996. Mitigation Banking: Theory and Practice. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Marsh, D. M. and P. C. Trenham. 2001. Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conservation Biology 15:40–49.Google Scholar
  20. Mierzwa, K. S. 2000. Wetland mitigation and amphibians: Preliminary observations at a southwestern Illinois bottomland hardwood restoration site. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 107:191–194.Google Scholar
  21. Mitsch, W. J. and R. F. Wilson. 1996. Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how, time, and self-design. Ecological Applications 6:77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moorhead, K. K. 2001. Seasonal water table dynamics of a southern Appalachian floodplain and associated fen. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moorhead, K. K. and I. M. Rossell. 1998. Southern mountain fens. p. 379–403.In M. G. Messina and W. H. Conner (eds.), Southern Forested Wetlands: Ecology and Management. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Moorhead, K. K., I. M. Rossell, J. W. Petranka, and C. R. Rossell, Jr. 2001. Tulula wetlands mitigation bank. Ecological Restoration 19:74–80.Google Scholar
  25. National Resource Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Paton, P. W. C. and W. B. Crouch III. 2002. Using the phenology of pond-breeding amphibians to develop conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 16:194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Petranka, J. W., M. E. Hopey, B. T. Jennings, S. D. Baird, and S. J. Boone. 1994. Breeding habitat segregation of wood frogs and American toads: The role of interspecific tadpole predation and adult choice. Copeia 1994:691–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Petranka, J. W. and C. A. Kennedy. 1999. Pond tadpoles with generalized morphology: is it time to reconsider their functional roles in aquatic communities? Oecologia 120:621–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Petranka, J. W., S. S. Murray, and C. A. Kennedy. 2003. Responses of amphibians to restoration of a southern Appalachian wetland: perturbations confound post-restoration assessment. Wetlands 23: 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petranka, J. W., A. W. Rushlow, and M. E. Hopey. 1998. Predation by tadpoles ofRana sylvatica on embryos ofAmbystoma maculatum: Implications of ecological role reversals byRana (predator) andAmbystoma (prey). Herpetologica 54:1–13.Google Scholar
  33. Pielou, E. C. 1974. Population and Community Ecology. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Pollet, I. and L. I. Bendell-Young. 2000. Amphibians as indicators of wetland quality in wetlands formed from oil sands effluent. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19:2589–2597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richter, K. O. 1997. Criteria for the restoration and creation of wetland habitats of lentic-breeding amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. p. 72–94.In K. B. MacDonald and F. Wienmann (eds.) Wetland and Riparian Restoration: Taking a Broader View. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 10, Seattle, WA, USA. EPA 910-R-97-007.Google Scholar
  36. Schneider, D. W. and T. M. Frost. 1996. Habitat duration and community structure in temporary ponds. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:64–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Semlitsch, R. D. 2000. Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:615–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Semlitsch, R. D. and J. R. Bodie. 1998. Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation Biology 12:1129–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. p. 217–248.In M. L. Cody and J. Smallwood (eds.) Long-Term Studies of Vertebrate Communities. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skelly, D. K. 1997. Tadpole communities. American Scientist 85: 36–45.Google Scholar
  41. Skelly, D. K., E. E. Werner, and S. A. Cortwright. 1999. Long-term distributional dynamics of a Michigan amphibian assemblage. Ecology 80:2326–2327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Snodgrass, J. W., J. W. Ackerman, A. L. Bryan, Jr., and J. Burger. 1999. Influence of hydroperiod, isolation, and heterospecifics on the distribution of aquatic salamanders (Siren andAmphiuma) among depressional wetlands. Copeia 1999:107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Snodgrass, J. W., A. L. Bryan, Jr., and J. Burger, Jr. 2000a. Development of expectations of larval amphibian assemblage structure in southeastern depression wetlands. Ecological Applications 10: 1219–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Snodgrass, J. W., M. J. Komoroski, A. L. Bryan Jr., and J. Burger, Jr. 2000b. Relationships among isolated wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implications for wetland regulations. Conservation Biology 14:414–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stevens, C. E., A. W. Diamond, and T. S. Gabor. 2002. Anuran call surveys on small wetlands in Prince Edward Island, Canada restored by dredging of sediments. Wetlands 22:90–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomas, L. 1997. Retrospective power analysis. Conservation Biology 11:276–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wellborn, G. A., D. K. Skelly, and E. E. Werner. 1996. Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27:337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Whigham, D. F. 1999. Ecological issues related to wetland preservation, restoration, creation and assessment. The Science of the Total Environment 240:31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zedler, J. B. 1996. Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the forum. Ecological Applications 6:33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • James W. Petranka
    • 1
  • Caroline A. Kennedy
    • 1
  • Susan S. Murray
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of North Carolina at AshevilleAshevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations