, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 294–301 | Cite as

Influence of agricultural upland habitat type on larval anuran assemblages in seasonally inundated wetlands

  • Kimberly J. Babbitt
  • Matthew J. Baber
  • Daniel L. Childers
  • Daniel Hocking


Conservation initiatives in agricultural landscapes play an increasingly important role in ensuring the long-term persistence of amphibian biodiversity because native habitats continue to be lost to urban and commercial development. We examined larval anuran structure within seasonally inundated wetlands in four upland habitat types of southcentral Florida differing in degree of upland habitat modification for cattle ranching: native prairie at the Kissimmee Prairie Sanctuary (KPS); and improved pasture, rangeland (semi-native prairie), and woodland habitats at the MacArthur Agro-Ecology Research Center (MAERC). We sampled 24 wetlands monthly for tadpoles using throw-traps and dipnets during the 1999 wet season (June–October), recording 10,126 tadpoles of 10 species. Species richness, mean total abundance, and species abundances differed among upland habitat types. The most heavily modified habitat (pasture) had both species-poor assemblages and low tadpole abundances. Species richness in woodland, rangeland, and native prairie wetlands were similar, but woodland wetlands had higher tadpole abundances. Wetlands in the four habitats differed in the amount of nearby woodland and wetland habitats, length of hydroperiod, and percent cover of aquatic vegetation, which likely contributed to the observed amphibian richness and abundance patterns. Cattle ranches in Florida that retain a large proportion of woodland, rangeland, and temporary wetlands in the landscape are likely to contribute significantly to amphibian conservation initiatives on protected native lands.

Key Words

agriculture amphibians cattle-ranching landscape ecology prairie tadpole assemblages 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson, M. and R. Magleby. 1997. Agricultural resources and environmental indicators, 1996–1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Natural Resources and Environmental Division, Agricultural Handbook No. 712.Google Scholar
  2. Babbitt, K. J. and G. W. Tanner. 2000. Use of temporary wetlands by anurans in a hydrologically modified landscape. Wetlands 20: 313–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babbitt, K. J., M. J. Baber, and L. A. Brandt. 2006. The effect of woodland proximity and wetland characteristics on larval anuran assemblages in an agricultural landscape. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84: 510–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 2007: 173–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baber, M. J., D. L. Childers, K. J. Babbitt, and D. H. Anderson. 2002. Controls on fish distribution and abundance in temporary wetlands. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 1441–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, S. H., J. W. Gibbons, and J. Glanville. 1980. Terrestrial activity, abundance, and diversity of amphibians in differently managed forest types. American Midland Naturalist 103: 412–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biek, R., W. C. Funk, B. A. Maxell, and L. S. Mills. 2002. What is missing in amphibian decline research: insights from ecological sensitivity analysis. Conservation Biology 16: 728–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bishop, C. A., N. A. Mahony, J. Struger, P. Ng, and K. E. Pettit. 1999. Anuran development, density and diversity in relation to agricultural activity in the Holland River watershed, Ontario, Canada (1990–1992). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 57: 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blaustein, A. R., D. Wake, and W. P. Sousa. 1994. Amphibian declines: Judging stability, persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conservation Biology 8: 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonin, J., J. L. DesGraanges, J. Rodrigues, and M. Ouellet. 1997. Anuran species richness in agricultural landscapes of Quebec: foreseeing long-term results of road call surveys. p. 141–49. In D. M. Green (ed.) Amphibians in Decline: Canadian Studies of a Global Problem. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, St Louis, MS, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Bunnell, J. F. and R. A. Zampella. 1999. Acid water anuran pond communities along a regional forest to agro-urban ecotone. Copeia 1999: 614–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunning, J. B., B. J. Danielson, and H. R. Pulliam. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65: 169–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Environmental Systems Research Institute. 1996. ARC/INFO User’s Manual, Release 7.1. ESRI Redlands, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Florida Department of Agriculture. 1999. Florida Agricultural Facts Book. Scholar
  15. Hecnar, S. J. and R. T. M’Closkey. 1996. Regional dynamics and the status of amphibians. Ecology 77: 2091–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hocking, D. J. and R. D. Semlitsch. 2007. Effects of timber harvest on breeding-site selection by gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor). Biological Conservation 138: 506–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joly, P., C. Miaud, A. Lehmann, and O. Grolet. 2001. Habitat matrix effects on pond occupancy in newts. Conservation Biology 13: 1437–46.Google Scholar
  18. Knutson, M. G., J. R. Sauer, D. A. Olsen, M. J. Mossman, L. M. Hemesath, and M. J. Lannoo. 1999. Effects of landscape composition and wetland fragmentation on Frog and Toad abundance and species richness in Iowa and Wisconsin, USA. Conservation Biology 13: 1437–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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: 1288–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laan, R. and B. Verboom. 1990. Effects of pool size and isolation on amphibian communities. Biological Conservation 54: 251–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. McCallum, M. L., S. E. Trauth, M. N. Mary, C. McDowell, and B. A. Wheeler. Fallbreeding of the southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala) in northeastern Arkansas. Southeastern Naturalist 3:401–408.Google Scholar
  23. Meshaka, W. E. 1997. The herpetofauna of Buck Island Ranch: an altered wetland landscape in south-central Florida. Florida Scientist 60: 1–7.Google Scholar
  24. Myers, R. L. and J. J. Ewel. 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Pope, S. E., L. Fahrig, and H. G. Merriam. 2000. Landscape complementation and metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations. Ecology 81: 2498–2508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rittenhouse, T. A. G. and R. D. Semlitsch. 2007. Distribution of amphibians in terrestrial habitat surrounding wetlands. Wetlands 27: 153–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. SYSTAT 11.0. SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinios, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Semlitsch, R. D. 2000. Principles for management of aquaticbreeding amphibians. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 615–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shriver, W. B. and P. D. Vickery. 1999. Aerial assessment of potential Florida Grasshopper Sparrow habitat: conservation in a fragmented landscape. Florida Field Naturalist 27: 1–9.Google Scholar
  30. Skelly, D. K. 2001. Distributions of pond-breeding anurans: an overview of mechanisms. Israel Journal of Zoology 47: 313–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stuart, S. N., J. S. Chanson, N. A. Cox, B. E. Young, A. S. L. Rodrigues, D. L. Fishman, and R. W. Waller. 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306: 1783–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Travis, J. 1981. Key to the tadpoles of North Carolina. Brimleyana 6: 119–27.Google Scholar
  33. Van Buskirk, J. 2005. Local and landscape influence on amphibian occurrence and abundance. Ecology 86: 1936–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vonesh, J. R. and O. De la Cruz. 2002. Complex life cycles and density dependence: assessing the contribution of egg mortality to amphibian declines. Oecologia 133: 325–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wake, D. 1998. Action on amphibians. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 379–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weyrauch, S. L. and T. C. Grubb. 2004. Patch and landscape characteristics associated with the distribution of woodland amphibians in an agricultural fragmented landscape: an information-theoretic approach. Biological Conservation 115: 443–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kimberly J. Babbitt
    • 1
  • Matthew J. Baber
    • 2
  • Daniel L. Childers
    • 2
  • Daniel Hocking
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations