바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN2287-8327
  • E-ISSN2288-1220
  • SCOPUS, KCI

ISSN : 2287-8327

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.2

Citation Share

Colonization and Extinction Patterns of a Metapopulation of Gold-spotted Pond Frogs, Rana plancyi chosenica

Journal of Ecology and Environment / Journal of Ecology and Environment, (P)2287-8327; (E)2288-1220
2009, v.32 no.2, pp.103-107



& (2009). Colonization and Extinction Patterns of a Metapopulation of Gold-spotted Pond Frogs, Rana plancyi chosenica. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 32(2), 103-107.

Abstract

We investigated colonization and extinction patterns in a metapopulation of the gold-spotted pond frog (Rana plancyi chosenica) near the Korea National University of Education, Chungbuk, Korea, by surveying the frogs in the nine occupied habitat patches in the study area four times per breeding season for three years (2006～2008) and recording whether the patches were occupied by frogs as well as how many frogs were calling in the patches. We then developed five a priori year-specific models using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). The models predicted that: 1) probabilities of colonization and local extinction of the frogs were better explained by year-dependent models than by constant models, 2) there are high local extinction and low colonization probabilities, 3) approximately 31% number of patches will be occupied at equilibrium, and 4) that considerable variation in occupation rate should occur over a 30-year period, due to demographic stochasticity (in our model, the occupation rate ranged from 0.222 to 0.889). Our results suggest that colonization is important in this metapopulation system, which is governed by mainly stochastic components, and that more constructive conservation effects are needed to increase local colonization rates.

keywords
Akaike Information Criterion, Demographic stochasticity, Metapopulation, Rana plancyi chosenica

Reference

1.

Alford RA, Richards SJ. 1999. Global amphibian declines: a problem in applied ecology. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 30: 133-165.

2.

Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 1998. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York: Springer.

3.

Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-theoretic Approach, 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, New York.

4.

Clinchy M, Krebs CJ, Jarman PJ. 2001. Dispersal sinks and handling effects: interpreting the role of immigration in common brushtail possum populations. J Anim Ecol 70: 515-526.

5.

Dodd CK, Smith LL. 2003. Habitat destruction and alteration: historical trends and future prospects for amphibians. In Amphibian Conservation (Semlitsch RD, ed). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp 94-112.

6.

Fryxell JM. 2001. Habitat suitability and source-sink dynamics of beavers. J Anim Ecol 70: 310-316.

7.

Gilpin ME, Diamond JM. 1976. Calculation of immigration and extinction curves from the species-area-distance relation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 73: 4130-4134.

8.

Gilpin ME, Hanski IA. 1991. Metapopulation Dynamics: Empirical and Theoretical investigations. Academic Press. San Diego

9.

Goodman D. 1987. The demography of chance extinction. In Viable Populations for Conservation. (Soulé ME, ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 11-34.

10.

Gotelli NJ. 1998. A Primer of Ecology, 2nd edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

11.

Gotelli NJ. 2001. A Primer of Ecology, 3rd edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

12.

Gu W, Swihart RK. 2003. Are patch occupancy data sufficient for inferring metapopulation dynamics using spatially explicit patch occupancy models? Acta Zool Sinica 49: 787-794.

13.

Hanski I, Pakkala T, Kuussaari M, Lei G. 1995. Metapopulation persistence of an endangered butterfly in a fragmented landscape. Oikos 72: 21-28.

14.

Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE. 2004. Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution of Metapopulations. Academic Press, San Diego.

15.

Harrison S, Murphy DD, Ehrlich PR. 1988. Distribution of the bay checkerspot butterfly, Euphydras editha bayensis: evidence for a metapopulation model. Am Nat 132: 360-382.

16.

Levins R. 1970. Extinction. in: Some Mathematical Problems in Biology (Desternhaber M, ed). American Mathematical Society, Providence, pp 77-107.

17.

Lopez JE, Pfister CA. 2001. Local population dynamics in metapopulation models: implications for conservation. Conserv Biol 15: 1700-1709.

18.

McDiarmid RW, Donnelly MA. 1994. Supplemental approaches to studying amphibian biodiversity. Group activities and field trips. In Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity (Heyer RH, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek LC, Foster MS, eds). Standard Methods for Amphibians, pp 175-182.

19.

MacKenzie DI. 2005. What are the issues with presence-absence data for wildlife managers? J Wildlife Management 69: 849-860.

20.

MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, Langtimm CA. 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83: 2248-2255.

21.

MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Knutson MG, Franklin AB. 2003: Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84: 2200-2207.

22.

MacKenzie, DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE. 2006. Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence. Elsevier, San Diego, California.

23.

Moilanen A. 1999. Patch occupancy models of metapopulation dynamics: Efficient parameter estimation using implicit statistical inference. Ecology 80: 1031-1043.

24.

Pellet J, Schmidt BR. 2005. Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. Biol Conserv 123: 27-35.

25.

Pellet J, Fleishman E, Dobkin DS, Gander A, Murphy D. 2007. An empirical evaluation of the area and isolation paradigm of metapopulation dynamics. Biol Conserv 136: 483-495.

26.

Pope SE, Fahrig, L, Merriam HG. 2000. Landscape complementation and metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations. Ecology 81: 2498-2508.

27.

Ra NY, Sung HA, Cheong S, Lee JH, Eom J, Park D. 2008. Habitat use and home range of the endangered gold-spotted pond frog (Rana chosenica). Zool Sci 25: 894-903.

28.

Smith MA, Green DM. 2005. Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecography 28: 110-128.

29.

Sjögren P. 1991. Extinction and isolation gradients in metapopulations: the case of the pool frog (Rana lessonae). Biol J Linn Soc 42: 135-147.

30.

Skelly DK, Meir E. 1997. Rule-based models for evaluating mechanisms of distributional change. Conserv Biol 11: 531-538.

31.

Skelly DK, Werner EE, Cortwright SA. 1999. Long-term distributional dynamics of a Michigan amphibian assemblage. Ecology 80: 2326-2337.

32.

Sung, HC, Kim SK, Park SR, Park DS. 2005. Effectiveness of mating call playbacks in anuran call monitoring: a case study of threestriped pond frogs (Rana nigromaculata). Integ Bios 9: 199-203.

33.

Sung HC, Cha SM, Kim SK, Park DS, Park SR, Cheong SK. 2007. Monitoring extensive breeding populations and daily call activity of the gold-spotted pond frog, Rana chosenica in Chungju City and Chungwon Gun. Korean J Environ Biol 25: 94-99.

34.

Vuilleumier S, Wilcox C, Cairns BJ, Possingham HP. 2007. How patch configuration affects the impact of disturbances on metapopulation persistence. Theor Popul Biol 72: 77-85.

35.

Zar JH. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Journal of Ecology and Environment

e-Submission OA Policy