Advertisement

Wetlands

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 76–88 | Cite as

Amphibian occurrence and aquatic invaders in a changing landscape: Implications for wetland mitigation in the willamette valley, Oregon, USA

  • Christopher A. Pearl
  • Michael J. Adams
  • Niels Leuthold
  • R. Bruce Bury
Article

Abstract

Despite concern about the conservation status of amphibians in western North America, few field studies have documented occurrence patterns of amphibians relative to potential stressors. We surveyed wetland fauna in Oregon’s Willamette Valley and used an information theoretic approach (AIC) to rank the associations between native amphibian breeding occurrence and wetland characteristics, non-native aquatic predators, and landscape characteristics in a mixed urban-agricultural landscape. Best predictors varied among the five native amphibians and were generally consistent with life history differences. Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla) and long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) occurrence was best predicted by the absence of non-native fish. Northern red-legged frog (Rana a. aurora) and northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile) were most strongly related to wetland vegetative characteristics. The occurrence habitats, was best predicted by greater forest cover within 1 km. The absence of non-native fish was a strong predictor of occurrence for four of the five native species. In contrast, amphibians were not strongly related to native fish presence. We found little evidence supporting negative effects of the presence of breeding populations of bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) on any native species. Only the two Ambystoma salamanders were associated with wetland permanence. Northwestern salamanders (which usually have a multi-year larval stage) were associated with permanent waters, while long-toed salamanders were associated with temporary wetlands. Although all the species make some use of upland habitats, only one (rough-skinned newt) was strongly associated with surrounding landscape conditions. Instead, our analysis suggests that within-wetland characteristics best predict amphibian occurrence in this region. We recommend that wetland preservation and mitigation efforts concentrate on sites lacking non-native fish for the conservation of native amphibians in the Willamette Valley and other western lowlands.

Key words

AIC amphibian bullfrog fish landscape non-native species permanence temporary wetland Ambystoma Pseudacris Rana aurora Rana catesbeiana Taricha 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Adams, M. J. 1999. Correlated factors in amphibian decline: exotic species and habitat change in western Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1162–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, M. J. 2000. Pond permanence and the effects of exotic vertebrates on anurans. Ecological Applications 10:559–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams, M. J., R. B. Bury, and S. A. Swarts. 1998. Amphibians of the Fort Lewis Military Reservation, Washington: sampling techniques and community patterns. Northwestern Naturalist 79:12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adams, M. J., C. A. Pearl, and R. Bruce Bury. 2003. Indirect facilitation of an anuran invasion by non-native fishes. Ecology Letters 6:343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Adams, M. J., K. O. Richter, and W. P. Leonard. 1997. Surveying and monitoring pond-breeding amphibians using aquatic funnel traps. p. 47–54. In D. H. Olson, W. P. Leonard, and R. B. Bury (eds.) Sampling Amphibians in Lentic Habitats: Methods and Approaches for the Pacific Northwest: Northwest Fauna 4. Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology, Olympia, WA, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control AC 19:716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Akaike, H. 1985. Prediction and entropy. p. 1–24. In A. C. Atkinson and S. E. Fienberg (eds.) A Celebration of Statistics. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Altman, B., C. M. Henson, and I. R. Waite. 1997. Summary of information on aquatic biota and their habitats in the Willamette Basin, Oregon, through 1995. U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Portland, OR, USA. Report 97-4023.Google Scholar
  9. Bahls, P. 1992. The status of fish populations and management of high montane lakes in the western United States. Northwest Science 66:183–193.Google Scholar
  10. Benner, P. A. and J. R. Sedell. 1997. Upper Willamette River landscape: a historic perspective. p. 23–47. In A. Laenen and D. A. Dunnette (eds.) River Quality: Dynamics and Restoration. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Blaustein, A. R., P. D. Hoffman, D. G. Hokit, J. M. Kiesecker, S. C. Walls, and J. B. Hays. 1994. UV repair and resistance to solar UV-B in amphibian eggs: A link to population declines? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 91:1791–1795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bull, E. L. and D. B. Marx. 2002. Influence of fish and habitat on amphibian communities in high elevation lakes of northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 76:240–248.Google Scholar
  13. Burnham, K. P. and D. R. Anderson. 1998. Model Selection and Inference: a Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Burnham, K. P. and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: a Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Bury, R. B. 1999. A historical perspective and critique of the declining amphibian crisis. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:1064–1068.Google Scholar
  16. Carr, L. W. and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. Conservation Biology 15: 1071–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crump, M. L., F. R. Hensley, and K. L. Clark. 1992. Apparent decline of the golden toad: underground or extinct? Copeia 1992: 413–420.Google Scholar
  18. Dow, C. L. and R. A. Zampella. 2000. Specific conductance and pH as watershed disturbance indicators in streams of the New Jersey Pinelands, U.S.A. Environmental Management 26:437–445.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Findlay, S. C. and J. Houlahan. 1997. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in Southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology 11:1000–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher, R. N. and H. B. Shaffer. 1996. The decline of amphibians in California’s Great Central Valley. Conservation Biology 10: 1387–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. U. S. Forest Service, Portland, OR, USA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8.Google Scholar
  22. Gibbs, J. P. 1998. Amphibian movements in response to forest edges, roads, and streambeds in southern New England. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:584–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hayes, M. P. 1994. Current status of the spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in western Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR, USA. Technical Report #94-1-01.Google Scholar
  24. Hayes, M. P. and M. R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology 20:490–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayes, M. P., C. A. Pearl, and C. J. Rombough. 2001. Rana aurora aurora (Northern red-legged frog). Movement. Herpetological Review 32:35–36.Google Scholar
  26. Hazell, D. 2003. Frog ecology in modified Australian landscapes: a review. Wildlife Research 30:193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hecnar, S. J. and R. T. M’Closkey. 1997. The effects of predatory fish on amphibian species richness and distribution. Biological Conservation 79:123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heyer, W. R., M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L.-A. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster (eds.). 1994. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Hulse, D. W., S. Gregory, and J. Baker (eds.). 2002. Willamette River Basin: a Planning Atlas. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Hynes, H. B. N. 1950. The food of freshwater sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus and Pygosteus pungitius), with a brief review of methods used in studies of the food of fishes. Journal of Animal Ecology 19:35–58.Google Scholar
  31. Insightful, 2002. S-PLUS resample library user’s manual. Insightful Corp., Seattle, WA, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Jameson, D. J. 1956. Growth, dispersal and survival of the Pacific tree frog. Copeia 1956:25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Kentula, M. E., J. C. Sifneos, J. W. Wood, M. Rylko, and K. Kunz. 1992. Trends and patterns in Section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA. Environmental Management 16:109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kiesecker, J. M. and A. R. Blaustein. 1998. Effects of introduced bullfrogs and smallmouth bass on microhabitat use, growth, and survival of native red-legged frogs (Rana aurora). Conservation Biology 12:776–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kiesecker, J. M., A. R. Blaustein, and C. L. Miller. 2001. Potential mechanisms underlying the displacement of native red-legged frogs by introduced bullfrogs. Ecology 82:1964–1970.Google Scholar
  37. Klock, C., S. Smith, T. O’Neil, R. Goggans, and C. Barret. 1998. Willamette Valley Land Use/Land Cover Map Informational Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Larson, G. L. and R. L. Hoffman. 2002. Abundances of northwestern salamander larvae in montane lakes with and without fish, Mount Rainier National Park, Washington. Northwest Science 76:35–40.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Magee, T. K., T. L. Ernst, M. E. Kentula, and K. A. Dwire. 1999. Floristic comparison of freshwater wetlands in an urbanizing environment. Wetlands 19:517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCullagh, P. and J. A. Nelder. 1989. Generalized Linear Models. 2nd Edition. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  42. Monello, R. J. and R. G. Wright. 1999. Amphibian habitat preferences among artificial ponds in the Palouse region of northern Idaho. Journal of Herpetology 33:298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Muths, E., P. S. Corn, A. P. Pessier, and D. E. Green. 2003. Evidence for disease-related amphibian decline in Colorado. Biological Conservation 110:357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, Jr., and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID, USA.Google Scholar
  45. Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 1995. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Palen, W. J., D. E. Schindler, M. J. Adams, C. A. Pearl, R. B. Bury, and S. A. Diamond. 2002. Optical characteristics of natural waters protect amphibians from UV-B in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Ecology 83:2951–2957.Google Scholar
  47. Pearl, C. A., M. J. Adams, R. B. Bury, and B. McCreary. 2004. Asymmetrical effects of introduced bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) on native ranid frogs in Oregon, USA. Copeia 2004:11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pearl, C. A., M. J. Adams, G. S. Schuytema, and A. V. Nebeker. 2003. Behavorial responses of anuran larvae to chemical cues of native and introduced predators in the Pacific Northwestern United States. Journal of Herpetology 37:572–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Petranka, J. W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  50. Richter, K. O. and A. L. Azous. 1995. Amphibian occurrence and wetland characteristics in the Puget Sound basin. Wetland 15:305–312.Google Scholar
  51. Richter, K. O. and A. L. Azous. 2000. Amphibian distribution, abundance and habitat use. p. 143–165. In A. L. Azous and R. R. Horner (eds.) Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  52. Scheerer, P. D. 2002. Implications of floodplain isolation and connectivity on the conservation of an endangered minnow, Oregon chub, in the Willamette River, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:1070–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Semlitsch, R. D. 1998. Biological determination of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breeding salamanders. Conservation Biology 12: 1113–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Snodgrass, J. W., M. J. Komoroski, A. L. Bryan, Jr., and J. Burger. 2000. Relationships among wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implications for wetland regulations. Conservation Biology 14:414–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sparling, D. W., G. M. Fellers, and L. McConnell. 2001. Pesticides and Amphibian Declines in California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20:1591–1595.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Sredl, M. J. and J. P. Collins. 1992. The interaction of predation, competition, and habitat complexity in structuring an amphibian community. Copeia 1992:607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Venables, W. N. and B. D. Ripley. 1999. Modern Applied Statistics with S-PLUS: 3rd Edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  58. Vogelmann, J., T. Sohl, and S. Howard. 1998. Regional Characterization of Land Cover Using Multiple Sources of Data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 64:45–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher A. Pearl
    • 1
  • Michael J. Adams
    • 1
  • Niels Leuthold
    • 1
  • R. Bruce Bury
    • 1
  1. 1.USGS-Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science CenterCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations