Abstract
Habitat destruction is a key threatening process for amphibians. Modified or anthropogenic waterbodies can be used to compensate for habitat loss, with several amphibian species utilising created or modified waterbodies. We measured usage of anthropogenic/modified waterbodies by adult and tadpole frog species, including threatened species, in coastal wallum habitat in eastern Australia. Nine road trenches/ditches, 8 artificial ‘lakes’, 6 golf course waterbodies and 13 natural waterbodies were surveyed for frog adults and tadpoles during the summer/spring period 2011–2012. Additionally, we examined the relationship between frog assemblages and environmental factors (water chemistry, aquatic predators, vegetation types), focusing on Litoria olongburensis and Litoria fallax. Frog species richness differed between waterbody types, with two of three threatened frog species present in both natural and anthropogenic/modified waterbodies. The frog assemblage was influenced by pH, turbidity, salinity and percentage cover of certain vegetation types. Measured abundance of L. olongburensis adults and tadpoles were highest in natural waterbodies with high sedge density and low pH. The measured abundance of adult L. fallax was highest within artificial lakes. We conclude that differences in water chemistry and vegetation density can affect the amphibian assemblage within these environments. Therefore, effective conservation of all frog species would be enhanced by conserving a variety of waterbody types. However, natural waterbodies are more likely to be used by threatened species and the conservation of these waterbodies provides the best conservation outcomes. Where habitat offsets may be required, environmental managers should critically assess the quality of constructed habitat for specialist frog species including those associated with acidic, oligotrophic environments.
Highlights
Amphibian species are declining globally (Stuart et al 2004), with habitat loss/modification being one of the main threatening factors (Collins and Storfer 2003; Beebee and Griffiths 2005; Nowakowski et al 2017; Pyron 2018). This habitat loss could be compensated for by modified or anthropogenic waterbodies (e.g. Mazerolle et al 2006; Ruhı et al 2012), with several amphibian species within Australia (Hazell et al 2004; Sievers et al 2018), North America (Monello and Wright 1999; Brand and Snodgrass 2010; Brown et al 2012) and Europe (Rannap et al 2009; Brown et al 2012; Ruhı et al 2012; Magnus and Rannap 2019) utilising anthropogenic or modified waterbodies that were either designed to compensate for habitat loss or were opportunistically used by amphibians
Our results are similar to the majority of surveys conducted within the northern hemisphere that found frog species richness to be higher or equal in artificial, restored waterbodies
The differences and similarities of our findings to previous studies are likely explained by the ability of individual species to respond to differences in the environmental variables that significantly influenced the frog assemblage
Summary
Amphibian species are declining globally (Stuart et al 2004), with habitat loss/modification being one of the main threatening factors (Collins and Storfer 2003; Beebee and Griffiths 2005; Nowakowski et al 2017; Pyron 2018). This habitat loss could be compensated for by modified or anthropogenic waterbodies Species assemblages and richness can differ between anthropogenic/modified and natural waterbodies (Hazell et al 2004; Magnus and Rannap 2019), potentially due to differences in environmental factors that influence amphibian species distributions within waterbodies.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
