Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:53:51.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patterns of community composition in two tropical tree frog assemblages: separating spatial structure and environmental effects in disturbed and undisturbed forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

Raffael Ernst  and
Mark-Oliver Rödel
Raffael Ernst*
Affiliation:
Department of Biodiversity Dynamics, TU Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, 12165 Berlin, Germany
Mark-Oliver Rödel
Affiliation:
Department of Biodiversity Dynamics, TU Berlin, Rothenburgstr. 12, 12165 Berlin, Germany
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

An on-going controversy in community ecology involves the debate about the many factors that affect the assembly and composition of a given species assemblage. Theory suggests that community composition is influenced by environmental gradients or biotic processes. This study examines patterns of community composition in two tropical tree frog assemblages of primary and exploited lowland rain-forest sites in the Guiana Shield area of central Guyana, South America and the Upper Guinean rain-forest block of south-western Côte d'Ivoire, West Africa. We tested community composition and species abundance data of two adult tree frog communities collected on 21 standardized transects during a period of 5 y for evidence of spatial correlation in community composition. We applied simple and partial Mantel tests to separate the effects of environmental variables, spatial distance and spatial autocorrelation on community composition. Whenever environmental effects were accounted for, we found significant positive spatial correlation of community composition. All assemblages appeared to be spatially structured, i.e. sites in close proximity had similar species assemblages. However, spatially structured environmental variation (autocorrelation) did not account for the spatial structure of species incidence. Environmental factors did not prove to be significant predictors of species incidence in any of the assemblages analysed, even if we controlled for spatial effects. Observed correlation patterns of species composition were consistent within respective realms and disturbance regimes. Moreover, general correlation patterns were consistent between geographic regions. These results are in contrast to previously published results from a study on leaf-litter anurans and indicate that group-specific differences must not be neglected when analysing patterns of species composition in anurans as they may drastically alter the outcome of the analysis.

Keywords

community compositiondisturbanceGuyanaIvory Coastnorthern South Americatree frogstropical rain forestsspatial structureWest Africa
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , March 2008 , pp. 111 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

ANSELIN, L. 1995. Local indicators of spatial association – LISA. Geographical Analysis 27:93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AZAVEDO-RAMOS, C., MAGNUSSON, W. E. & BAYLISS, P. 1999. Predation as the key factor structuring tadpole assemblages in a savanna area in central Amazonia. Copeia 1999:22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BAHN, V. & MCGILL, B. J. 2007. Can niche-based distribution models outperform spatial interpolation? Global Ecology and Biogeography 16:733–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BEADLE, N. C. W. 1966. Soil phosphate and its role in molding segments of Australian flora and vegetation with special reference to xeromorphy and sclerophylly. Ecology 47:992–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BEEBEE, T. J. C. & GRIFFITHS, R. A. 2005. The amphibian decline crisis. A watershed for conservation biology? Biological Conservation 25:271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOCARD, D., LEGENDRE, P. & DRAPEAU, P. 1992. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73:1045–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOWNE, D. R. & BOWERS, M. A. 2004. Interpatch movements in spatially structured populations: a literature review. Landscape Ecology 19:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CARR, L. W. & FAHRIG, L. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of different vagility. Conservation Biology 15:1071–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHESSON, P. L. & WARNER, R. R. 1981. Environmental variability promotes coexistence in lottery competitive systems. American Naturalist 117;923–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CLEMENTS, F. E. 1916. Plant succession. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publications 242.Google Scholar
CONNELL, J. H. 1983. On the prevelance and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from experiments. American Naturalist 122:661–697.Google Scholar
CURRIE, D. J. 2007. Disentangling the roles of environment and space in ecology. Journal of Biogeography 34:2009–2011.Google Scholar
CUSHMAN, S. A. & MCGARIGAL, K. 2004. Hierarchical analysis of forest bird species-environment relationships in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecological Applications 14:1090–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DUELLMAN, W. E. 1988. Patterns of species diversity in anuran amphibians in the American tropics. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 75:79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DUELLMAN, W. E. 1999. Patterns of distribution of amphibians: a global perspective. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 648 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DUTILLEUL, P., SOCKWELL, D., FRIGON, D. & LEGENDRE, P. 2000. The Mantel-Pearson paradox: statistical considerations and ecological implications. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 5:131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ELMQVIST, T., FOLKE, C., NYSTRÖM, M., PETERSON, G., BENGTSSON, J., WALKER, B. & NORBER, J. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:488–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ERNST, R. & RÖDEL, M.-O. 2005. Anthropogenically induced changes of predictability in tropical anuran assemblages. Ecology 86:3111–3118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ERNST, R. & RÖDEL, M.-O. 2006. Community assembly and structure of tropical leaf litter anurans. Ecotropica 12:113–130.Google Scholar
ERNST, R., RÖDEL, M.-O. & ARJOON, D. 2005. On the cutting edge – the anuran fauna of the Mabura Hill Forest Reserve, Central Guyana. Salamandra 41:179–194.Google Scholar
ERNST, R., LINSENMAIR, K. E. & RÖDEL, M.-O. 2006. Diversity erosion beyond the species level: Dramatic loss of functional diversity after selective logging in two tropical amphibian communities. Biological Conservation 133:143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ERNST, R., LINSENMAIR, K. E., THOMAS, R. & RÖDEL, M.-O. 2007. Amphibian communities in disturbed forests – lessons from the Neo-, and Afrotropics. Pp. 61–87 in Tscharntke, T., Leuschner, C., Guhardja, E. & Bidin, A. (eds). The stability of tropical rainforest margins, linking ecological, economic and social constraints of land use and conservation. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
FAITH, D., MINCHIN, P. R. & BELBIN, L. 1987. Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69:57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GARDNER, T. A. & FITZHERBERT, E. B. 2007. Spatial and temporal patterns of abundance and diversity of an East African leaf litter amphibian fauna. Biotropica 39:105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GARDNER, T. A., RIBEIRO-JÚNIOR, M. A., BARLOW, J., SAUER ÁVILA-PIRES, T. C., HOOGMOED, M. S. & PERES, C. A. 2007. The value of primary, secondary, and plantation forests for a neotropical herpetofauna. Conservation Biology 21:775–787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GASTON, K. J. & BLACKBURN, T. M. 2000. Pattern and process in macroecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford. 377 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GLEASON, H. A. 1917. The structure and development of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 44:463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GLEASON, H. A. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 53:7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HECNAR, S. J. & M'CLOSKEY, R. T. 1997. Patterns of nestedness and species association in a pond-dwelling amphibian fauna. Oikos 80:371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HERO, J. M., GASCON, C. & MAGNUSSON, W. E. 1998. Direct and indirect effects of predation on tadpole community structure in the Amazon rain forest. Australian Journal of Ecology 23:474–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HOULAHAN, J. E. & FINDLAY, C. S. 2003. The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Canadian Journal of Fishery and Aquatic Sciences 60:1078–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JEFFRIES, M. J. 2003. Idiosyncratic relationships between pond invertebrates and environmental, temporal and patch-specific predictors of incidence. Ecography 26:311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEGENDRE, P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74:1659–1673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEGENDRE, P. 2000. Comparison of permutation methods for the partial correlation and partial Mantel tests. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 67:37–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEGENDRE, P. & FORTIN, M. J. 1989. Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80:107–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEGENDRE, P. & LEGENDRE, L. 1998. Numerical ecology. Developments in environmental modeling, 20. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam. 970 pp.Google Scholar
LEIBOLD, M. A., HOLT, R. D. & HOLYOAK, M. 2005. Adaptive and coadaptive dynamics in metacommunities – tracking environmental change at different spatial scales. Pp. 439–464 in Holyoak, M., Leibold, M. A. & Holt, R. D. (eds.). Metacommunities – spatial dynamics and ecological communities. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
LEPŠ, J. & ŠMILAUER, P. 2004. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice. 242 pp.Google Scholar
MAGURRAN, A. E. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 256 pp.Google Scholar
MCCARTHY, M. A. 1997. Competition and dispersal from multiple nests. Ecology 78:873–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCCARTHY, M. A. & LINDENMAYER, D. B. 2000. Spatially-correlated extinction in a metapopulation model of Leadbeater's possum. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCINTOSH, R. P. 1995. H. A. Gleason's ‘individualistic concept’ and theory of animal communities: a continuing controversy. Biological Reviews 70:317–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MUNDAY, P. L., JONES, G. P. & CALEY, M. J. 2000. Interspecific competition and coexistence in a guild of coral-dwelling fishes. Ecology 82:2177–2189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NEAVE, H. M., CUNNINGHAM, R. B., NORTON, T. W. & NIX, H. A. 1996. Biological inventory for conservation evaluation 3. Relationships between birds, vegetation and environmental attributes in southern Australia. Forest Ecology and Management 85:197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PARRIS, K. M. 2004. Environmental and spatial variables influence the composition of frog assemblages in sub-tropical eastern Australia. Ecography 27:392–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PLUMPTRE, A. J. 1996. Changes following 60 years of selective timber harvesting in the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Forest Ecology and Management 89:101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RIEZEBOS, E. P., VOOREN, A. P. & GUILLAUMET, J. L. 1994. Le Parc National de Taï, Côte d'Ivoire. Tropenbos Series 8, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 322 pp.Google Scholar
RÖDEL, M.-O. 2000. Herpetofauna of West Africa, Vol. I: Amphibians of the West African savanna. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt. 332 pp.Google Scholar
RÖDEL, M.-O. & ERNST, R. 2003. The amphibians of Marahoué and Mont Péko National Parks, Ivory Coast. Herpetozoa 16:23–39.Google 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
RÖDEL, M.-O., GIL, M., AGYEI, A. C., LEACHÉ, A. D., DIAZ, R. E., FUJITA, M. K. & ERNST, R. 2005. The amphibians of the forested parts of south-western Ghana. Salamandra 41:107–127.Google Scholar
SCHIØTZ, A. 1967. The treefrogs (Rhacophoridae) of West Africa. Spolio Zoologica Musei Hauniensis 25:1–346.Google Scholar
SKELLY, D. K. 1995. A behavioural trade-off and its consequences for the distribution of Pseudacris treefrog larvae. Ecology 76:150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SMOUSE, P. E., LONG, J. C. & SOKAL, R. R. 1986. Multiple regression and correlation extensions of the Mantel test of matrix correspondence. Systematic Zoology 35:627–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STUART, S. N., CHANSON, J. S., COX, N. A., YOUNG, B. E., RODRIGUES, A. S. L., FISCHMAN, D. L. & WALLER, R. W. 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783–1786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
TER STEEGE, H., BOOT, R. G. A., BROUWER, L. C., CAESAR, J. C., EK, R. C., HAMMOND, D. S., HARIPERSAUD, P. P., VAN DER HOUT, P., JETTEN, V. G., VAN KEKEM, A. J., KELLMAN, M. A., KHAN, Z., POLAK, A. M., PONS, T. L., PULLES, J., RAAIMAKERS, D., ROSE, S. A., VAN DER SANDEN, J. J. & ZAGT, R. J. 1996. Ecology and logging in a tropical rain forest in Guyana with recommendations for forest management. Tropenbos Series 14, Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen. 123 pp.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. 235–247 in Bierregaard, R. O., Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T. E. & Mesquita, R. (eds). Lessons from Amazonia: the ecology and conservation of a fragmented forest. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
URBAN, D., GOSLEE, S., PIERCE, K. & LOOKINGBILL, T. 2002. Extending community ecology to landscapes. Ecoscience 9:200–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VEITH, M., LÖTTERS, S., ANDREONE, F. & RÖDEL, M.-O. 2004. Measuring and monitoring amphibian diversity in tropical forests. II. Estimating species richness from standardised transect census. Ecotropica 10;85–99.Google Scholar
WHITTAKER, R. H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smokey Mountains. Ecological Monographs 26:1–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WILBUR, H. M. & ALFORD, R. A. 1985. Priority effects in experimental pond communities: responses of Hyla to Bufo and Rana. Ecology 66:1106–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar