Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T12:25:29.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mechanisms underlying the occurrence of species in complex modified tropical landscapes: a case study of amphibians in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2018

Tanya J. Hawley Matlaga*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, 1301 Memorial Drive, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124-0421, USA
*
*Email: matlagat@susqu.edu. Current address: 514 University Avenue, Department of Biology, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA 17870, USA

Abstract:

The mechanisms underlying occupancy patterns of species in modified tropical landscapes are poorly understood. The presence of adults in a modified habitat may not necessarily indicate the quality of the habitat for sub-adult stages. These issues were addressed by examining patterns in breeding-site use by adult frogs and tadpole performance across a pasture-forest gradient in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. The use of artificial pools by adult frogs for breeding activity was quantified along three transects, with a pool located at the edge (0 m) and 10, 30 and 50 m into forest and pasture. Next, survival, size at metamorphosis and time to metamorphosis were quantified for tadpoles of Engyptomops pustulosus and Dendrobates auratus in artificial pools at the edge, pasture and forest. Adult frogs used breeding pools non-randomly; two species used pools only in pasture, whereas three species used pools only in forest. In addition, Smilisca phaeota used pools in pasture and at the edge while E. pustulosus used pools across the pasture-forest gradient. The habitat where adults used breeding pools generally also yielded high performance of their tadpoles, with some exceptions. Tadpole survival to metamorphosis was low in pastures (<5%) and higher in edge and forest (>18%) for D. auratus; in contrast, survival of E. pustulosus was over 80% in each habitat. Metamorphs of D. auratus were largest in edges but larval period did not differ among habitats. Metamorphs of E. pustulosus were 18% larger and larval period was 27% shorter in pastures compared with forest. These results suggest that modified habitats represent an ecological jackpot for some species, such that offspring performance is enhanced compared with that in forest habitat. Populations of other species may be restricted to forest habitat because of intolerable abiotic conditions in modified habitats. The results of this study indicate that adult breeding site use and tadpole performance contribute to mechanisms that underlie patterns of species occupancy in modified tropical landscapes.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

LITERATURE CITED

ARMSTRONG, D. P. 2005. Integrating the metapopulation and habitat paradigms for understanding broad-scale declines of species. Conservation Biology 19:14021410.Google Scholar
CANHAM, C. D. 1988. An index for understory light levels in and around canopy gaps. Ecology 69:16341638.Google Scholar
CUSHMAN, S. A. 2006. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biological Conservation 128:231240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAHRIG, L. & MERRIAM, G. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology 8:5059.Google Scholar
FRAZER, G. W., CANHAM, C. D. & LERTZMAN, K. P. 1999. Gap Light Analyzer (GLA): Imaging software to extract canopy structure and gap light transmission indices from true-colour fisheye photographs, users manual and program documentation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, and the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York. 36 pp.Google Scholar
GASCON, C. 1993. Breeding-habitat use by five Amazonian frogs at forest edge. Biodiversity and Conservation 2:438444.Google Scholar
GOSNER, K. L. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183190.Google Scholar
HARTSHORN, G. S. 1983. Plants: introduction. Pp. 118157 in Janzen, D. H. (ed.). Costa Rican natural history. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
HOCKING, D. J. & SEMLITSCH, R. D. 2007. Effects of timber harvest on breeding-site selection by gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor). Biological Conservation 138:506513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KORBECK, R. G. & MCROBERT, S. P. 2005. The effects of temperature on development and survival in tadpoles of the tropical poison frog Dendrobates auratus . Russian Journal of Herpetology 12:1316.Google Scholar
LEVESQUE, R. 2007. SPSS Programming and Data Management: A Guide for SPSS and SAS Users, Fourth Edition. SPSS Inc., Chicago. 540 pp.Google Scholar
MARSH, D. M., FEGRAUS, E. H. & HARRISON, S. 1999. Effects of breeding pond isolation on the spatial and temporal dynamics of pond use by the tungara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Journal of Animal Ecology 68:804814.Google Scholar
MENDENHALL, C. D., FRISHKOFF, L. O., SANTOS-BARRERA, G., PACHECO, J., MESFUN, E., MENDOZA QUIJANO, F., EHRLICH, P. R., CEBALLOS, G., DAILY, G. C. & PRINGLE, R. M. 2014. Countryside biogeography of Neotropical reptiles and amphibians. Ecology 95:856870.Google Scholar
MORRIS, D. W. 2003. Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136:113.Google Scholar
PULLINAM, H. R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132:652661.Google Scholar
ROTHERMEL, B. B. 2004. Migratory success of juveniles: a potential constraint on connectivity for pond-breeding amphibians. Ecological Applications 14:15351546.Google Scholar
SAVAGE, J. M. 2002. The amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 954 pp.Google Scholar
SCHIESARI, L. 2006. Pond canopy cover: a resource gradient for anuran larvae. Freshwater Biology 51:412423.Google Scholar
SCHLAEPFER, M. A., RUNGE, M. C. & SHERMAN, P. W. 2002. Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 117:474480.Google Scholar
SEMLITSCH, R. D. 2000. Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:615631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SEMLITSCH, R. D., SCOTT, D. E. & PECHMANN, J. H. K. 1988. Time and size at metamorphosis related to adult fitness in Ambystoma talpoideum . Ecology 69:184192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SHOEMAKER, V. H., HILLMAN, S. S., HILLYARD, S. D., JACKSON, D. C., MCCLANAHAN, L., WITHERS, P. C. & WYGODA, M. L. 1992. Exchange of water ions, and respiratory gases in terrestrial amphibians. Pp. 125150 in Feder, M. E. & Burggren, W. W. (eds). Environmental physiology of the amphibians. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
SILVA, F. S., OLIVERIRA, T. A. L., GIBBS, J. P. & ROSSA-FERES, D. C. 2012. An experimental assessment of landscape configuration effects on frog and toad abundance and diversity in tropical agro-savannah landscapes of southeastern Brazil. Landscape Ecology 27:8796.Google Scholar
SKELLY, D. K. 1996. Pond drying, predators, and the distribution of Pseudacris tadpoles. Copeia 3:559605.Google Scholar
TOFT, C. 1985. Resource partitioning in amphibians and reptiles. Copeia 1985:121.Google Scholar
TOCHER, M. D., GASCON, C. & MEYER, J. 2001. Community composition and breeding success of Amazonian frogs in continuous forest and matrix habitat aquatic sites. Pp. 235247 in Bierregaard, R. O., Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T. E. & Mesquita, R. C. G. (eds). Lessons from Amazonia. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
TORAL, E. C., FEINSINGER, P. & CRUMP, M. L. 2002. Frogs and cloud-forest edge in Ecuador. Conservation Biology 16:735744.Google Scholar
URBINA-CARDONA, J. N., OLIVARES-PÉREZ, M. & REYNOSO, V. H. 2006. Herpetofauna diversity and microenvironment correlates across a pasture-edge-interior ecotone in tropical rainforest fragments in the Los Tuxlas Biosphere Reserve of Veracruz, Mexico. Biological Conservation 132:6175.Google Scholar
VANDERMEER, J. & PERFECTO, I. 2007. The agricultural matrix and a future paradigm for conservation. Conservation Biology 21:274277.Google Scholar
WILBUR, H. M. 1980. Complex life cycles. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11:6793.Google Scholar