Skip navigation
Skip navigation

Amphibians in agricultural landscapes: the habitat value of crop areas, linear plantings and remnant woodland patches

Hansen, Nicole A.; Scheele, Ben C.; Driscoll, Don; Lindenmayer, David B

Description

Mitigating the negative impacts of agriculture on amphibians requires knowledge of how different land uses affect species distribution and community composition. In the case of frogs, there is currently insufficient information on their use of terrestrial habitats in cropping landscapes to inform conservation planning. We examined how four different farmland types (linear plantings, cereal crops, grazing paddocks and woody mulch) and crop harvesting influenced amphibian abundance, richness,...[Show more]

dc.contributor.authorHansen, Nicole A.
dc.contributor.authorScheele, Ben C.
dc.contributor.authorDriscoll, Don
dc.contributor.authorLindenmayer, David B
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-25T02:23:10Z
dc.identifier.citationHansen, N.A., Scheele, B.C., Driscoll, D.A. and Lindenmayer, D.B. (2019). Amphibians in agricultural landscapes: the habitat value of crop areas, linear plantings and remnant woodland patches. Animal Conservation, 22, 72-82.
dc.identifier.issn1367-9430
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/156504
dc.description.abstractMitigating the negative impacts of agriculture on amphibians requires knowledge of how different land uses affect species distribution and community composition. In the case of frogs, there is currently insufficient information on their use of terrestrial habitats in cropping landscapes to inform conservation planning. We examined how four different farmland types (linear plantings, cereal crops, grazing paddocks and woody mulch) and crop harvesting influenced amphibian abundance, richness, body condition and movement. We found the abundance of frogs was significantly higher in linear plantings compared to grazing paddocks and adjacent patches of remnant woodland vegetation. However, species richness and abundance of three individual species did not vary significantly between farmland types. For the most common frog Uperoleia laevigata, body condition was higher at the edges of the woody debris treatment (coupled with higher abundance) and lower in farmland with debris and linear plantings. The body condition of Limnodynastes tasmaniensis and L. interioris was not influenced by farmland type. Frog abundance and condition was largely unaffected by crop harvesting. However, frogs were less common after harvesting at the edges of farmland and within remnant patches. Movement patterns did not suggest mass movement out of crops after harvest, where almost half of all individuals recaptured remained within the farmland. These results suggest that some generalist frog species may have an affinity for habitats within agricultural paddocks, particularly when key habitat features like plantings are present. However, we found overall frog richness was low and did not differ between remnant patches, edges and farmland which may be an indication of habitat degradation within terrestrial habitats across the landscape. Although protection of remnant native vegetation is important, conservation strategies for the protection of amphibians will be ineffective if they do not consider the variety of land uses and the relationships of different species and their microhabitats within and outside of patches.
dc.description.sponsorshipFunding was provided by the Australian Government Research Training Program, Central Tablelands Local Land Services, NSW Environmental Trust and the Lake Cowal Foundation.
dc.format11 pages
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherWiley
dc.rights© 2018 The Zoological Society of London
dc.sourceAnimal Conservation
dc.subjectbody condition index
dc.subjectrestoration
dc.subjectmatrix
dc.subjecthabitat quality
dc.subjectland-use
dc.subjectagricultural land
dc.subjectamphibians
dc.subjectspecies richness
dc.titleAmphibians in agricultural landscapes: the habitat value of crop areas, linear plantings and remnant woodland patches
dc.typeJournal article
local.identifier.citationvolume22
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-06-27
dc.date.issued2018-08-12
local.publisher.urlhttps://www.wiley.com/en-gb
local.type.statusAccepted Version
local.contributor.affiliationHansen, N. A., Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University
local.contributor.affiliationScheele, B. C., Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University
local.contributor.affiliationLindemayer, David B., Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University
local.description.embargo2019-08-12
local.identifier.essn1469-1795
local.bibliographicCitation.issue1
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage72
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage82
local.identifier.doi10.1111/acv.12437
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Access
dc.provenancehttp://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/1367-9430/ Author can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing). Author can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) with 12 months embargo (Sherpa/Romeo as of 25/2/2019).
CollectionsANU Research Publications

Download

File Description SizeFormat Image
Amphibians in agricultural landscapes t...rop areas etc - AnimConserv ACC MS.pdf2.12 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail


Items in Open Research are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Updated:  22 January 2019/ Responsible Officer:  University Librarian/ Page Contact:  Library Systems & Web Coordinator