4.0 Article

Life stage specific variation in the occupancy of ponds by Litoria aurea, a threatened amphibian

期刊

AUSTRAL ECOLOGY
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 543-547

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2012.02452.x

关键词

aggregation; dispersal; distribution; frog; reproduction

类别

资金

  1. ARC Linkage grant [LP0989459]
  2. Australian Research Council
  3. Sydney Olympic Park Authority
  4. Strathfield council
  5. South Australian Museum
  6. NSW Roads and Traffic Authority
  7. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage)
  8. Australian Research Council [LP0989459] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Breeding aggregations are a reproductive strategy to increase mate finding opportunity. However, because aggregations skew the distribution of mature animals through conspecific attraction, rather than resource availability, the distribution of breeding sites may be reduced, so that not all suitable breeding sites are used. To examine the relationship between landscape and reproductive strategies of a threatened frog, Litoria aurea, we studied its distribution at Sydney Olympic Park over two breeding seasons. We aimed to: (i) determine the distribution and predictors of breeding ponds; and (ii) assess the significance of dispersal in the juvenile age-class. We found that the distribution of the calling males was highly skewed and occurred in large, well-connected ponds. Despite this, breeding ponds were not aggregated; pond size was the single factor explaining the distribution of breeding ponds. Juvenile frogs dispersed from breeding ponds and were not associated with a specific pond characteristic. Less breeding occurred in the second season during which fewer ponds were used for breeding including many different ponds from the previous year. These changes suggest that breeding effort and breeding pond choice are dynamic and therefore knowledge of the factors that drive breeding events will be a powerful tool in managing species, particularly in light of changing climatic regimes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据