2005
DOI: 10.1890/03-5408
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Changes in Frog and Toad Populations Over 30 Years in New York State

Abstract: Lack of historical data against which to measure population trends greatly hampers understanding the status of amphibians. In 2001-2002 we resurveyed a hitherto unexamined baseline of monitoring data established in 1973-1980 at some 300 sites in western, central, and northern New York State, USA, and contrasted population transitions with environmental conditions to identify correlates of population change in American toads (Bufo americanus), northern spring peepers (Pseudacris crucifer), western chorus frogs … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
75
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
3
75
2
Order By: Relevance
“…We found no long-term effects of timber harvesting or post-harvest silviculture on numbers of American toads 20 to 50 years after logging, suggesting that observed effects on species composition and stand structure were insufficient to affect this species. That American toads were common in these forests was in contrast to other studies suggesting that the toads prefer non-forest areas or deciduous stands (DeGraaf and Rudis 1990, Guerry and Hunter 2002, Gibbs et al 2005. For wood frogs, we cannot relate the low numbers in young basic 1 and basic 2 stands, compared to most other stand types, to any of the variables that we measured.…”
Section: Amphibianscontrasting
confidence: 87%
“…We found no long-term effects of timber harvesting or post-harvest silviculture on numbers of American toads 20 to 50 years after logging, suggesting that observed effects on species composition and stand structure were insufficient to affect this species. That American toads were common in these forests was in contrast to other studies suggesting that the toads prefer non-forest areas or deciduous stands (DeGraaf and Rudis 1990, Guerry and Hunter 2002, Gibbs et al 2005. For wood frogs, we cannot relate the low numbers in young basic 1 and basic 2 stands, compared to most other stand types, to any of the variables that we measured.…”
Section: Amphibianscontrasting
confidence: 87%
“…We calculated the percentage of land devoted to each land use class for areas of radii 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 km around each survey site. land use variables on a larger scale may be correlated with frog landscape ecology (e.g., Gibbs et al 2005), but in this case, a larger radius would result in some areas extending across the Ottawa river into adjacent Quebec, which did not seem ecologically meaningful. land use data from sites in eastern Ottawa were compared with known Boreal Chorus Frog sites in western Maximum combined nitrate and nitrite level in surface water was 6.6 mg/l in eastern Ottawa and 6.2 mg/l in western Ottawa.…”
Section: Study Area and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…it was once considered common southeast of MontrĂ©al (Bleakney 1959), but now appears completely absent from that area (Daigle 1997) and is extremely rare in Quebec (Desroches and rodrigue 2004;COSEWiC 2008*). it has also become less widespread in areas of northern new York state (Gibbs et al 2005;Corser et al 2012) and eastern Ontario near Cornwall (Seburn et al 2008) and appears to have been extirpated from vermont (Andrews 2013). largely as a result of declines in Quebec, the Great lakes/St.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Conclusions: 265 Wood frogs and green frogs are expected to exist at different points along a suburbanization 266 gradient, with wood frogs at the lower end (Gibbs 1998, Gibbs et al 2005 and green frogs at the 267 higher end (Skelly et al 2006(Skelly et al , 2010. LLC data support this with forest and lawn covers being …”
mentioning
confidence: 91%