Wetlands

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 992–1003 | Cite as

Monitoring created seasonal pools for functional success: A six-year case study of amphibian responses, Sears Island, Maine, USA

Article

Abstract

Assessing the success of created seasonal pools as mitigation for the loss of wooded wetlands is generally based on two or three years of monitoring. We monitored a wetland mitigation site in midcoast Maine, USA, from 1999 to 2004 to track populations of wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) and spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) in three created seasonal pools. Our goal was to study breeding patterns for six years to assess if presence of breeding animals in the first three years corresponded with long-term reproductive success and to track changes in vegetation development and hydrology in the mitigated pools. Breeding effort (egg masses/female) and reproductive success (juveniles/egg mass) were assessed using full enclosure drift fence/pitfall trap arrays and egg mass counts. Breeding effort was similar in all three pools for both species. However, for wood frogs, reproductive success was inversely related to hydroperiod and highest in the single pool that successfully replicated the desired seasonal water regime. The other two pools developed permanent and semi-permanent hydroperiods, thereby supporting populations of green frogs (Rana clamitans). Green frog tadpoles within these pools preyed upon wood frog eggs and embryos, causing almost complete losses in the last four years of the study. While spotted salamander reproductive success was also reduced in the permanent pool, spotted salamanders were more successful at producing metamorphs in the presence of green frogs. Over the study period, common cattail (Typha latifolia) dominated the pools, and although wetland vegetation did develop, it was not typical of forested seasonal pools. Our work shows that the presence of breeding amphibians characteristic of seasonal pools in the first three years is not sufficient to determine reproductive success of target species in created pools. Hydrology and canopy cover are elements of critical concern if created pools are to support native amphibian communities associated with seasonal pools.

Key Words

Ambystoma maculatum created wetlands Rana clamitans Rana sylvatica seasonal wetlands vegetation dynamics vernal pools wetland mitigation wetland monitoring 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Baldwin, R. F., A. J. K. Calhoun, and P. G. deMaynadier. In press. The significance of hydroperiod and stand maturity for pool-breeding amphibians in forested landscapes. Canadian Journal of Zoology.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, R. F. and A. J. K. Calhoun. 2002. Differential predation on ambystomatid egg masses by Rana sylvatica. Herpetological Review 33: 44–45.Google Scholar
  3. Berven, K. A. 1990. Factors affecting population fluctuations in larval and adult stages of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Ecology 71: 1599–1608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breaux, A. and F. Serefiddin. 1999. Validity of performance criteria and a tentative model for regulatory use in compensatory wetland mitigation permitting. Environmental Management 24: 327–336.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brodman, R. 1995. Annual variation in breeding success of two syntopic species of Ambystoma salamander. Journal of Herpetology 29: 111–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crouch, W. B. and P. W. C. Paton. 2000. Using egg-mass counts to monitor wood frog populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: 895–901.Google Scholar
  7. Cutko, A. 1997. A Botanical and Natural Community Assessment of Selected Vernal Pools in Maine. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation, Augusta, ME, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Denver, R. J., N. Mirhadi, and M. Phillips. 1998. Adaptive plasticity in amphibian metamorphosis: response of Scaphiopus hammondii tadpoles to habitat desiccation. Ecology 79: 1859–1872.Google Scholar
  9. Dietsch, M. B., H. G. Hanlin, E. D. Jones, and L. D. Wike. 1996. Dynamics of a herpetofaunal community in a restored freshwater wetland. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 77: 113.Google Scholar
  10. Galatowitsch, S. M. and A. G. van der Valk. 1996. Characteristics of recently restored wetlands in the prairie pothole region. Wetlands 16: 75–83.Google Scholar
  11. Gibbons, J. W. and R. D. Semlitsch. 1981. Terrestrial drift fences with pitfall traps: an effective technique for quantitative sampling of animal populations. Brimleyana 7: 1–16.Google Scholar
  12. Harris, R. N. 1980. The consequences of within-year timing of breeding in Ambystoma maculatum. Copeia 1980: 719–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herreid II C. F. and S. Kinney. 1966. Survival of Alaskan woodfrog (Rana sylvatica) larvae. Ecology 47: 1039–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ireland, P. H. 1989. Larval survivorship in two populations of Ambystoma maculatum. Journal of Herpetology 23: 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kolozsvary, M. B. 2003. Hydroperiod of wetlands and reproduction in wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) and spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum). Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Lehtinen, R. M. and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2001. Colonization of restored wetlands by amphibians in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 145: 388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lichko, L. E. and A. J. K. Calhoun. 2003. An assessment of vernal pool creation attempts in New England: a review of project documentation from 1991–2000. Environmental Management 32: 141–151.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mierzwa, K. S. 2000. Wetland mitigation and amphibians: preliminary observations at a southwestern Illinois bottomland hardwood forest restoration site. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 107: 191–194.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Normandeau Associates Inc. 1995. Sears Island dry cargo terminal: baseline wildlife and wetland studies: final report. Normandeau Associates, Inc., Nashua, NH, USA.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Perkins, D. W. and M. L. Hunter, Jr. 2002. Effects of placing sticks in pitfall traps on amphibian and small mammal capture rates. Herpetological Review 33: 282–284.Google Scholar
  24. Petranka, J. W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Petranka, J. W., C. A. Kennedy, and S. S. Murray. 2003a. Response of amphibians to restoration of a southern Appalachian wetland: Perturbations confound post-restoration assessment. Wetlands 23: 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Petranka, J. W., C. A. Kennedy, and S. S. Murray. 2003b. Response of amphibians to restoration of a southern Appalachian wetland: A long-term analysis of community dynamics. Wetlands 23: 1030–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quinn, G. and M. Keough. 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Race, M. S. and M. S. Fonseca. 1996. Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecological Applications 6: 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reinartz, J. A. and E. L. Warne. 1993. Development of vegetation in small created wetlands in southeastern Wisconsin. Wetlands 13: 153–164.Google Scholar
  31. Rowe, C. L. and W. A. Dunson. 1995. Impacts of hydroperiod on growth and survival of larval amphibians in temporary ponds of central Pennsylvania, USA. Oecologia 102: 397–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rowe, C. L., W. J. Sadinski, and W. A. Dunson. 1994. Predation on larval and embryonic amphibians by acid-tolerant caddisfly larvae (Ptilostomis postica). Journal of Herpetology 28: 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seigel, R. A. 1983. Natural survival of eggs and tadpoles of the wood frog, Rana sylvatica. Copeia 1983: 1096–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sexton, O. J., J. Bizer, D. C. Gayou, P. Freiling, and M. Moutseous. 1986. Field studies of breeding spotted salamanders, Ambystoma maculatum, in eastern Missouri, USA. Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in Biology and Geology no. 67:1–19.Google Scholar
  35. Shoop, C. R. 1974. Yearly variation in larval survival of Ambystoma maculatum. Ecology 55: 440–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Skelly, D. K., L. K. Freidenburg, and J. M. Kiesecker. 2002. Forest canopy and the performance of larval amphibians. Ecology 83: 983–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Skelly, D. K., E. E. Werner, and S. A. Cortwright. 1999. Longterm distributional dynamics of a Michigan amphibian assemblage. Ecology 80: 2326–2337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Snodgrass, J. W., M. J. Komoroski, A. L. Bryan Jr, and J. Burger. 2000. Relationships among isolated wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implications for wetland regulations. Conservation Biology 14: 414–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stangel, P. W. 1988. Premetamorphic survival of the salamander Ambystoma maculatum, in eastern Massachusetts. Journal of Herpetology 22: 345–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stenhouse, S. L. 1987. Embryo mortality and recruitment of juveniles of Ambystoma maculatum and Ambystoma opacum in North Carolina. Herpetologica 43: 496–501.Google Scholar
  41. SYSTAT. 2004. Systat for Windows, version 11. Systat Software, Inc., Richmond, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Vasconcelos, D. 2003. Amphibian and vegetation dynamics in a restored wetland in Maine. M.S. Thesis. University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA.Google Scholar
  43. Vasconcelos, D. and A. J. K. Calhoun. 2004. Movement patterns of adult and juvenile wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) and spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) in three restored vernal pools. Journal of Herpetology 38: 551–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ward, D. and O. J. Sexton. 1981. Anti-predator role of salamander egg membranes. Copeia 1981: 724–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Whitford, W. G. and A. Vinegar. 1966. Homing, survivorship, and overwintering of larvae in spotted salamanders, Ambystoma maculatum. Copeia 1966: 515–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilbur, H. M. 1972. Competition, predation, and the structure of the Ambystoma-Rana sylvatica community. Ecology 53: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilbur, H. M. 1976. Density-dependent aspects of metamorphosis in Ambystoma and Rana sylvatica. Ecology 57: 1289–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilbur, H. M. and J. P. Collins. 1973. Ecological aspects of amphibian metamorphosis. Science 182: 1305–1314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Zedler, J. B. and J. C. Callaway. 1999. Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restoration Ecology 7: 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wetlands Preservation, Inc.PlaistowUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant, Soil and Environmental SciencesUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations