4.6 Review

Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation

Journal

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 40-49

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00129.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In many respects, amphibian spatial dynamics resemble classical metapopulation models, in which subpopulations in breeding ponds blink in and out of existence and extinction and colonization rates are functions of pond spatial arrangement. This ponds-as-patches view of amphibian spatial dynamics is useful in several respects. First, it highlights the importance of regional and landscape processes in determining local patterns of abundance. Second, it offers a straightforward, pond-based approach to monitoring and managing amphibian populations. For many species, however, the ponds-as-patches view may be an over-simplification and metapopulation structure may be more apparent than real. Changes in distribution may be caused by processes other than extinction and recolonization, and most extinctions probably result from deterministic factors, not stochastic processes. In addition, the effects of pond isolation appear to be important primarily in disturbed environments, and in many cases these isolation effects may be better explained by the distribution of terrestrial habitats than by the distribution of breeding ponds. These complications have important implications for both researchers and managers. For researchers, future efforts need to determine the mechanisms underlying patterns of abundance and distributional change and patterns in amphibian populations. For managers, effective conservation strategies must successfully balance metapopulation considerations with careful attention to local habitat quality. Furthermore, translocations and active management may be indispensable tools for conserving amphibians in landscapes containing multiple breeding ponds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available