Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:56:13.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Amphibians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2012

Tim Halliday
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
William J. Sutherland
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The habits and life histories of amphibians are such as to pose a number of major problems for anyone seeking to estimate their abundance accurately (Table 7.1). Most are highly secretive in their habits and may spend the greater part of their lives underground or otherwise inaccessible to biologists. The limbless caecilians, for example, live entirely beneath the ground surface and little is known about most aspects of their biology. When amphibians do venture out they typically do so only at night. They have low food requirements and so can afford to emerge only when conditions are optimal, typically when the weather is warm and wet. Their activities are highly seasonal; most temperate amphibians hibernate over winter and many, notably desert species, aestivate during hot, dry periods.

Amphibians are typically most evident, and thus most easily censused, when they breed, but breeding activity is characteristically seasonal and may be very unpredictable. In some temperate amphibians breeding is ‘explosive’, with annual breeding activity being completed in one or two days. In such species, effective censusing can be achieved by intensive fieldwork over a limited period, provided that the censuser is alert to the climatic conditions that stimulate breeding. In tropical species, however, breeding may occur over an extended period of the year, sometimes sporadically, so censusing work has to be maintained over many weeks or months. In some desert species, breeding does not occur for one or more years if favourable wet conditions do not occur.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ecological Census Techniques
A Handbook
, pp. 278 - 296
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anthony, B. P. (2002). Results of the first batrachian survey in Europe using road call counts. Alytes 20, 55–66.Google Scholar
Arntzen, J. W., Goudie, I. B. J., Halley, J. & Jehle, R. (2004). Cost comparison of marking techniques in long-term population studies: PIT-tags versus pattern maps. Amphibia–Reptilia 25, 305–315.Google Scholar
Bailey, L. L. (2004). Evaluating elastomer marking and photo identification methods for terrestrial salamanders: marking effects and observer bias. Herpetological Review 35, 38–41.Google Scholar
Bailey, L. L., Simons, T. R. & Pollock, K. H. (2004a). Comparing population size estimators for plethodontid salamanders. Journal of Herpetology 38, 370–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, L. L., Simons, T. R. & Pollock, K. H. (2004b) Estimating site occupancy and species detection probability parameters for terrestrial salamanders. Ecological Applications 14, 692–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biek, R., Funk, C. W., Maxell, B. A. & Mills, L. S. (2002). What is missing in amphibian decline research: insights from ecological sensitivity analysis. Conservation Biology 16, 728–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, C. & Burgin, S. (2003). A rapid technique to detect chytrid infection in adult frogs. Herpetological Review 34, 124–126.Google Scholar
Buckley, J. & Beebee, T. J. C. (2004). Monitoring the conservation status of an endangered amphibian: the natterjack toad Bufo calamita in Britain. Animal Conservation 7, 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buech, R. R. & Egeland, L. M. (2002a). Efficacy of three funnel traps for capturing amphibian larvae in seasonal forest ponds. Herpetological Review 33, 182–185.Google Scholar
Buech, R. R. & Egeland, L. M. (2002b). A comparison of the efficacy of survey methods for amphibians breeding in small forest ponds. Herpetological Review 33, 275–280.Google Scholar
Camper, J. D. & Dixon, J. R. (1988). Evaluation of a microchip marking system for amphibians and reptiles. Research Publication 7100-159. Austin, Texas, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
Clarke, R. D. (1972). The effect of toe-clipping on survival in Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei fowleri). Copeia, 182–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, A. S. & Arnold, H. R. (2003). Night counting, netting and population dynamics of crested newts (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Bulletin 84, 5–14.Google Scholar
Crouch, W. B. & Paton, P. W. C. (2002). Assessing the use of call surveys to monitor breeding anurans in Rhode Island. Journal of Herpetology 36, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daugherty, C. H. (1976). Freeze-branding as a technique for marking anurans. Copeia, 836–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. B. & Halliday, T. R. (1979). Competitive mate searching in the common toad Bufo bufo. Animal Behaviour 27, 1263–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solla, S. R., Shirose, L. J., Fernie, K. J.et al. (2005). Effect of sampling effort and species detectability on volunteer based anuran monitoring programs. Biological Conservation 121, 585–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doan, T. M. (2003). Which methods are most effective for surveying rain forest herpetofauna?Journal of Herpetology 37, 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, C. K. & Dorazio, R. M. (2004). Using counts to simultaneously estimate abundance and detection probabilities in a salamander community. Herpetologica 60, 468–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmberg, J. (1989). Knee-tagging – a new marking technique for anurans. Amphibia–Reptilia 10, 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emlen, S. T. (1968). A technique for marking anuran amphibians for behavioral studies. Herpetologica 24, 172–173.Google Scholar
Funk, W. C., Almeida-Reinoso, D., Nogales-Sornosa, F. & Bustamente, M. R. (2003). Monitoring population trends of Eleutherdactylus frogs. Journal of Herpetology 37, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J. W. & Semlitsch, R. D. (1981). Terrestrial drift fences and pitfall traps: an effective technique for quantitative sampling of animal populations. Brimleyana 7, 1–16.Google Scholar
Gittins, S. P., Parker, A. G. & Slater, F. M. (1980). Population characteristics of the common toad (Bufo bufo) visiting a breeding site in mid-Wales. Journal of Animal Ecology 49, 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golay, N. & Durrer, H. (1994). Inflammation due to toe-clipping in natterjack toads (Bufo calamita). Amphibia–Reptilia 15, 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, R. A. (1985). A simple funnel trap for studying newt populations and an evaluation of trap behaviour in smooth and palmate newts, Triturus vulgaris and T. helveticus. Herpetological Journal 1, 5–10.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, T. (1973). Identification of newt specimens (Urodela Triturus) by recording the belly pattern and a description of photographic equipment for such registration. British Journal of Herpetology 4, 321–326.Google Scholar
Hairston, N. G. & Wiley, R. H. (1993). No decline in salamander (Amphibia: Caudata) populations: a twenty-year study in the southern Appalachians. Brimleyana 18, 59–64.Google Scholar
Harvey, E. (2003). Evaluation of fluorescent marking techniques using cannibalistic salamander larvae. Herpetology Review 34, 119–121.Google Scholar
Heyer, W. R., Donnelly, M. A., McDiarmid, R. W., Hayek, L.-A. C. & Foster, M. S. (eds.) (1994). Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard Methods for Amphibians. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. L., McGarigal, K. & Gamble, L. R. (2002). A comparison of aquatic surveying techniques used to sample Ambystoma opacum larvae. Herpetology Review 33, 33–35.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. L., McGarigal, K. & Gamble, L. R. (2003). Comparative effectiveness of two trapping techniques for surveying the abundance and diversity of reptiles and amphibians along drift fence arrays. Herpetological Review 34, 39–42.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. R. & Wallace, J. B. (2002). In situ measurement of larval salamander growth using individuals marked with acrylic polymers. Herpetological Review 33, 29–32.Google Scholar
Joly, P. & Miaud, C. (1989). Tattooing as an individual marking technique in urodeles. Alytes 8, 11–16.Google Scholar
Jung, R. E., Bonine, K. E., Rosenshield, M. L.et al. (2002a). Evaluation of canoe surveys for anurans along the Rio Grande in Big Bend National Park, Texas. Journal of Herpetology 36, 390–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, R. E., Dayton, G. H., Williamson, S. J., Sauer, J. R. & Droege, S. (2002b). An evaluation of population index and estimation techniques for tadpoles in desert pools. Journal of Herpetology 36, 465–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurashina, N., Utsunomiya, T., Utsunomiya, Y., Okada, S. & Okochi, I. (2003). Estimating the population size of an endangered population of Rana porosa brevipoda Ito (Amphibia: Ranidae) from photographic identification. Herpetological Review 34, 348–349.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B.et al. (2002). Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83, 2248–2255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, D. M. & Goicochea, M. A. (2003). Monitoring terrestrial salamanders: biases caused by intense sampling and choice of cover objects. Journal of Herpetology 37, 460–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martof, B. S. (1953). Territoriality in the green frog, Rana clamitans. Ecology 34, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, R. M. (2004). Ethics and amphibians. Nature 431, 403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, M. A. & Parris, K. M. (2004). Clarifying the effects of toe clipping on frogs with Bayesian statistics. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 780–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, K. A. & Harris, R. N. (2003). Integrating developmental stability analysis and current amphibian monitoring techniques: an experimental evaluation with the salamander Ambystoma maculatum. Herpetologica 59, 22–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullins, M. L., Pierce, B. A. & Gutzwiller, K. J. (2004). Assessment of quantitative enclosure sampling of larval amphibians. Journal of Herpetology 38, 166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nace, G. W. & Manders, E. K. (1982). Marking individual amphibians. Journal of Herpetology 16, 309–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. L. & Graves, B. M. (2004). Anuran population monitoring: comparison of the North American monitoring program's calling index with mark–recapture estimates for Rana clamitans. Journal of Herpetology 38, 355–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishikawa, K. C. & Service, P. M. (1988). A fluorescent marking technique for individual recognition of terrestrial salamanders. Journal of Herpetology 22, 351–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D. H., Leonard, W. P. & Bury, R. B. (eds.) (1997). Sampling Amphibians in Lentic Habitats. Olympia, Washington, Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology.Google Scholar
Ouellet, M. (2000). Amphibian abnormalities: current state of knowledge. In Ecotoxicology of Amphibians and Reptiles, ed. Sparling, D. W., Linder, G. & Bishop, C. A.. Pensacola, Florida, Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, pp. 617–661.Google Scholar
Pechmann, J. H. K., Scott, D. E., Semlitsch, R. D.et al. (1991). Declining amphibian populations: the problem of separating human impacts from natural fluctuations. Science 253, 892–895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellet, J. & Schmidt, B. R. (2005). Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. Biological Conservation 123, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, D. W. & Hunter, M. L. (2002). Effects of placing sticks in pitfall traps on amphibians and small mammal capture rates. Herpetological Review 33, 282–284.Google Scholar
Petranka, J. W., Smith, C. K. & Scott, A. F. (2004). Identifying the minimal demographic unit for monitoring pond-breeding amphibians. Ecological Applications 14, 1065–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, B. A. & Gutzwiller, K. J. (2004). Auditory sampling of frogs: detection efficiency in relation to survey duration. Journal of Herpetology 38, 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafinski, J. N. (1977). Autotransplantation as a method of permanent marking for urodele amphibians (Amphibia, Urodela). Journal of Herpetology 11, 241–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyer, H.-U. & Bättig, I. (2004). Identification of reproductive status in female frogs – a quantitative comparison of nine methods. Herpetologica 60, 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rödel, M.-O. & Ernst, R. (2004). Measuring and monitoring amphibian diversity in tropical forests. I. An evaluation of methods with recommendations for standardization. Ecotropica 10, 1–14.Google Scholar
Royle, J. A. (2004). Modeling abundance index data from anuran calling surveys. Conservation Biology 18, 1378–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, B. R. (2003). Count data, detection probabilities, and the demography, dynamics, distribution, and decline of amphibians. Comptes Rendus Biologies 326, S119–S124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, B. R. (2004). Declining amphibian populations: the pitfalls of count data in the study of diversity, distribution, dynamics, and demography. Journal of Herpetology 14, 167–174.Google Scholar
Schmidt, B. R., Schaub, M. & Anholt, B. R. (2002). Why you should use capture–recapture methods when estimating survival and breeding probabilities: on bias, temporary emigration, overdispersion, and common toads. Amphibia–Reptilia 23, 375–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirose, L. J., Bishop, C. A., Green, D. M.et al. (1997). Validation tests of an amphibian call count survey technique in Ontario, Canada. Herpetologica 53, 312–320.Google Scholar
Skelly, D. K., Yurewicz, K. L., Werner, E. E. & Relyea, R. A. (2003). Estimating decline and distributional change in amphibians. Conservation Biology 17, 744–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, C. E. & Paszkowski, C. A. (2004). Using chorus-size ranks from call surveys to estimate reproductive activity of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Journal of Herpetology 38, 404–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A.et al. (2004). Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306, 1783–1786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veith, M., Lötters, S., Andreone, F. & Rödel, M.-O. (2004). Measuring and monitoring amphibian diversity in tropical forests. II. Estimating species richness from standardized transect censussing. Ecotropica 10, 85–99.Google Scholar
Weddeling, K., Hachtel, M., Sander, U. & Tarkhnishvili, D. (2004). Bias in estimation of newt population size: a field study at five ponds using drift fences, pitfalls and funnel traps. Herpetological Journal 14, 1–7.Google Scholar
Willson, J. D. & Dorcas, M. E. (2003). Quantitative sampling of stream salamanders: comparison of dip- netting and funnel trapping techniques. Herpetological Review 34, 128–130.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. J. & Maret, T. J. (2002). A comparison of two methods for estimating the abundance of amphibians in aquatic habitats. Herpetological Review 33, 108–110.Google Scholar
Wisniewski, P. J., Paull, L. M., Merry, D. G. & Slater, F. M. (1980). Studies on the breeding migration and intramigratory movements of the common toad (Bufo bufo) using Panjet dye-marking techniques. British Journal of Herpetology 6, 71–74.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Amphibians
    • By Tim Halliday, Department of Biological Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
  • Edited by William J. Sutherland, University of East Anglia
  • Book: Ecological Census Techniques
  • Online publication: 05 September 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790508.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Amphibians
    • By Tim Halliday, Department of Biological Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
  • Edited by William J. Sutherland, University of East Anglia
  • Book: Ecological Census Techniques
  • Online publication: 05 September 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790508.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Amphibians
    • By Tim Halliday, Department of Biological Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
  • Edited by William J. Sutherland, University of East Anglia
  • Book: Ecological Census Techniques
  • Online publication: 05 September 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790508.008
Available formats
×