Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Created wetlands managed for hydroperiod provide habitat for amphibians in Western Kentucky, USA

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Wetlands Ecology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Loss of wetlands worldwide has necessitated the creation of wetlands to counteract declines of fauna associated with these habitats. Ephemeral wetlands have been disproportionally lost and hydrology of ephemeral wetlands is challenging to restore. Created wetlands with water control structures may be a viable option. In Western Kentucky, we surveyed three ephemeral wetland types [managed open canopy (MOC), unmanaged open canopy (UMOC), and unmanaged closed canopy (UMCC); managed = created wetlands with water control structures] to estimate amphibian richness and occupancy among wetlands, and estimated abundance of three locally common species: Southern Leopard Frog (Lithobates sphenocephalus), Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), and Crawfish Frog (L. areolatus). In addition, we quantified physical characteristics and water quality among wetland types. Managed Open Canopy wetlands had a greater percent of submergent vegetation than both UMCC and UMOC wetlands, shallower depth at 1.0 m from the wetted wetland edge than UMOC wetlands, and were larger than UMCC wetlands. Mean predicted amphibian species richness and occupancy was highest at larger wetlands (0.15–0.78 ha). Occupancy of three common species was not influenced by management. Estimated abundance of L. areolatus, a species of conservation concern, was higher at MOC wetlands, and conversely, A. maculatum abundance was highest at UMCC wetlands. Larger wetlands had higher estimated abundances of L. areolatus and L. sphenocephalus. Our results suggest that created, open canopy wetlands managed for hydroperiod have similar species richness to unmanaged ephemeral wetlands. Furthermore, these managed wetlands provide habitat for a species of concern in Kentucky (i.e., L. areolatus).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ammon EM, Gorley CR, Wilson KW, Ross DA, Peterson CR (2003) Advances in habitat restoration for the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris): a case study from the Provo River population. In: Proceedings: California riparian systems: processes and floodplains management, ecology and restoration. Riparian Habitat Joint Venture and Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Sacramento, CA, pp 348–356

  • Ashpole S, Bishop C, Murphy S (2018) Reconnecting amphibian habitat through small pond construction and enhancement, South Okanagan River Valley, British Columbia, Canada. Diversity 10:108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babbitt KJ (2005) The relative importance of wetland size and hydroperiod for amphibians in southern New Hampshire, USA. Wetl Ecol Manage 13:269–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baecher JA, Vogrinc PN, Guzy JC, Kross CS, Willson JD (2018) Herpetofaunal communities in restored and unrestored remnant tallgrass prairie and associated wetlands in northwest Arkansas, USA. Wetlands 38:157–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biebighauser TR (2011) Wetland restoration and construction: a technical guide. Upper Susquehanna Coalition, Owego

    Google Scholar 

  • Bidwell JR (2013) Physical and chemical monitoring of wetland water. In: Anderson JT, Davis CA (eds) Wetland techniques. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 325–353

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bodelier P, Dedysh SN (2013) Microbiology of wetlands. Front Microbiol 4:79

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brix H (1994) Functions of macrophytes in constructed wetlands. Water Sci Technol 29:71–78

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brodman R, Ogger J, Bogard T, Long AJ, Pulver RA, Mancuso K, Falk D (2003) Multivariate analyses of the influences of water chemistry and habitat parameters on the abundances of pond-breeding amphibians. J Freshw Ecol 18:425–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2003.9663978

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown DJ, Street GM, Nairn RW, Forstner MR (2012) A place to call home: amphibian use of created and restored wetlands. Int J Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012989872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun AJ, Arrigoni J, Brooks RP, Hunter ML, Richter SC (2014) Creating successful vernal pools: a literature review and advice for practitioners. Wetlands 34:1027–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun AJ, Mushet DM, Bell KP, Boix D, Fitzsimons JA, Isselin-Nondedeu F (2017) Temporary wetlands: challenges and solutions to conserving a ‘disappearing’ ecosystem. Biol Conserv 211:3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capps KA, Berven KA, Tiegs SD (2015) Modelling nutrient transport and transformation by pool-breeding amphibians in forested landscapes using a 21-year dataset. Freshw Biol 60:500–511

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford JA, Shepard DB, Conner CA (2009) Diet composition and overlap between recently metamorphosed Lithobates areolatus and Lithobates sphenocephalus: implications for a frog of conservation concern. Copeia 2009:642–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl TE (1990) Wetlands losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., p 13

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl TE (2006) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., p 112

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl TE (2011) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., p 108

    Google Scholar 

  • Denton RD, Richter SC (2013) Amphibian communities in natural and constructed ridge top wetlands with implications for wetland construction. J Wildl Manag 77:886–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd CK (2013) Frogs of the United States and Canada, vol 2. JHU Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorazio RM, Royle JA (2005) Estimating size and composition of biological communities by modeling the occurrence of species. J Am Stat Assoc 100:389–398

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Drayer AN, Richter SC (2016) Physical wetland characteristics influence amphibian community composition differently in constructed wetlands and natural wetlands. Ecol Eng 93:166–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn OJ (1964) Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6:241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galatowitsch SM, Van der Valk AG (1994) Restoring prairie wetlands: an ecological approach. Iowa State University Press, Iowa

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamble DL, Mitsch WJ (2009) Hydroperiods of created and natural vernal pools in central Ohio: a comparison of depth and duration of inundation. Wetl Ecol Manage 17:385–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A, Rubin DB (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci 7:457–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons JW, Winne CT, Scott DE et al (2006) Remarkable amphibian biomass and abundance in an isolated wetland: implications for wetland conservation. Conserv Biol 20:1457–1465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gołdyn B, Kowalczewska-Madura K, Celewicz-Gołdyn S (2015) Drought and deluge: Influence of environmental factors on water quality of kettle holes in two subsequent years with different precipitation. Limnologica 54:14–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Google Earth (2015) https://www.google.com/earth/ Imagery. Accessed 5 Aug 2015

  • Google Earth (2019) https://www.google.com/earth/ Imagery. Accessed 29 Jul 2019

  • Greenberg AE, Clesceri LS, Eaton AD (1992) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 18th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammerson G, Parris M (2004) Lithobates areolatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58546A11799946.en. Accessed 02 Jul 2019

  • Heemeyer JL, Williams PJ, Lannoo MJ (2012) Obligate crayfish burrow use and core habitat requirements of Crawfish Frogs. J Wildl Manag 76:1081–1091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houlahan JE, Findlay CS (2003) The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:1078–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt SD, Guzy JC, Price SJ, Halstead BJ, Eskew EA, Dorcas ME (2013) Responses of riparian reptile communities to damming and urbanization. Biol Conserv 157:277–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman LK, Golladay SW, Laclaire L, Sutter R (1999) Biodiversity in southeastern, seasonally ponded, isolated wetlands: management and policy perspectives for research and conservation. J North Am Benthol Soc 18:553–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadlec RH (1999) Chemical, physical and biological cycles in treatment wetlands. Water Sci Technol 40:37–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kentucky’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2013) Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, #1 Sportsman's Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. https://fw.ky.gov/WAP/Pages/Default.aspx (Date updated 2/5/2013)

  • Kopp K, Wachlevski M, Eterovick PC (2006) Environmental complexity reduces tadpole predation by water bugs. Can J Zool 84:136–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kross CS, Richter SC (2016) Species interactions in constructed wetlands result in population sinks for wood frogs (Lithobates sylvaticus) while benefitting eastern newts (Notophthalmus viridescens). Wetlands 36:385–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47:583–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas EA, Reynolds WA (1967) Temperature selection by amphibian larvae. Physiol Zool 40:159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D (2000) WinBUGS-a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput 10:325–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnus R, Rannap R (2019) Pond construction for threatened amphibians is an important conservation tool, even in landscapes with extant natural water bodies. Wetl Ecol Manage 27:323–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comín FA, Yockteng R (2012) Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biol 10(1):e1001247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Myers N (1997) The rich diversity of biodiversity issues. In: Reaka-Kudla ML, Wilson DE, Wilson EO (eds) Biodiversity II: understanding and protecting our biological resources. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C., pp 128–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacifici K, Zipkin EF, Collazo JA, Irizarry JI, DeWan A (2014) Guidelines for a priori grouping of species in hierarchical community models. Ecol Evol 4:877–888

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Palik B, Batzer DP, Kern C (2006) Upland forest linkages to seasonal wetlands: litter flux, processing, and food quality. Ecosystems 9:142–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parris MJ, Semlitsch RD (1998) Asymmetric competition in larval amphibian communities: conservation implications for the Northern Crawfish Frog, Lithobates areolatus circulosa. Oecologia 116:219–226

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petranka JW (1998) Ambystoma maculatum. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 77–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Petranka JW, Harp EM, Holbrook CT, Hamel JA (2007) Long-term persistence of amphibian populations in a restored wetland complex. Biol Conserv 138:371–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock MM, Naiman RJ, Erickson HE, Johnston CA, Pastor J, Pinay G (1995) Beaver as engineers: influences on biotic and abiotic characteristics of drainage basins. Linking species & ecosystems. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 117–126

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Porej D, Hetherington TE (2005) Designing wetlands for amphibians: the importance of predatory fish and shallow littoral zones in structuring of amphibian communities. Wetl Ecol Manage 13:445–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price SJ, Guzy JC, Witzcak L, Dorcas ME (2013) Do ponds on golf courses provide suitable habitat for wetland-dependent animals? An assessment of turtle abundances. J Herpetol 47:243–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price SJ, Kreher T (2016) Amphibian habitat assessment at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and the West Kentucky State Wildlife Management Area. Prepared for University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research, Kentucky Research Consortium for Energy and Environment. UK/KRCEE Doc# P27.16.2015

  • R Development Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rannap R, Lohmus A, Briggs L (2009) Restoring ponds for amphibians: a success story. Hydrobiologia 634:87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regester KJ, Whiles MR (2006) Decomposition rates of salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) life stages and associated energy and nutrient fluxes in ponds and adjacent forest in southern Illinois. Copeia 2006:640–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberger MB, Vera MK, Germanoski D, Ramirez E (2019) Comparing amphibian habitat quality and functional success among natural, restored, and created vernal pools. Restor Ecol 27:881–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA (2004) N-mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics 60:108–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA, Dorazio RM (2008) Hierarchical modeling and inference in ecology: the analysis of data from populations, metapopulations and communities. Academic Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer JR, Link WA (2002) Hierarchical modeling of population stability and species group attributes from survey data. Ecology 83:1743–1751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semlitsch RD, Peterman WE, Anderson TL, Drake DL, Ousterhout BH (2015) Intermediate pond sizes contain the highest density, richness, and diversity of pond-breeding amphibians. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0123055

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sharip Z, Hipsey MR, Schooler SS, Hobbs RJ (2012) Physical circulation and spatial exchange dynamics in a shallow floodplain wetland. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics 7:274–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoemaker WB, Sumner DM, Castillo A (2005) Estimating changes in heat energy stored within a column of wetland surface water and factors controlling their importance in the surface energy budget. Water Resour Res 41:10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulse CD, Semlitsch RD, Trauth KM, Williams AD (2010) Influences of design and landscape placement parameters on amphibian abundance in constructed wetlands. Wetlands 30:915–928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelly DK, Freidenburg LK, Kiesecker JM (2002) Forest canopy and the performance of larval amphibians. Ecology 83:983–992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelly DK, Halverson MA, Freidenburg LK, Urban MC (2005) Canopy closure and amphibian diversity in forested wetlands. Wetl Ecol Manage 13:261–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelly DK, Bolden SR, Freidenburg LK (2014) Experimental canopy removal enhances diversity of vernal pond amphibians. Ecol Appl 24:340–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skelly DK, Richardson JL (2010) Larval sampling. In: Dodd CK (ed) Amphibian ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 55–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Snodgrass JW, Komoroski MJ, Bryan AL, Burger J (2000) Relationships among isolated wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implications for wetland regulations. Conserv Biol 14:414–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D (2003) WinBUGS Version 1.4. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge

  • Stahlschmidt P, Pätzold A, Ressl L, Schulz R, Brühl CA (2012) Constructed wetlands support bats in agricultural landscapes. Basic Appl Ecol 13:196–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strain GF, Turk PJ, Helmick J, Anderson JT (2017) Amphibian reproductive success as a gauge of functional equivalency of created wetlands in the Central Appalachians. Wildl Res 44:354–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturtz S, Ligges U, Gelman AE (2005) R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGS from R.

  • Tiner RW (2003) Estimated extent of geographically isolated wetlands in selected areas of the United States. Wetlands 23:636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toledo LF (2005) Predation of juvenile and adult anurans by invertebrates: current knowledge and perspectives. Herpetol Rev 36:395–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Skelly DK, Relyea RA, Yurewicz KL (2007) Amphibian species richness across environmental gradients. Oikos 116:1697–1712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams PJ, Robb JR, Karns DR (2012) Occupancy dynamics of breeding Crawfish Frogs in southeastern Indiana. Wildl Soc Bull 36:350–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whigham DF, Jordan TE (2003) Isolated wetlands and water quality. Wetlands 23:541–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zipkin EF, DeWan A, Royle AJ (2009) Impacts of forest fragmentation on species richness: a hierarchical approach to community modelling. J Appl Ecol 46:815–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zipkin EF, Grant EHC, Fagan WF (2012) Evaluating the predictive abilities of community occupancy models using AUC while accounting for imperfect detection. Ecol Appl 22:1962–1972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zipkin EF, DiRenzo GV, Ray JM, Rossman S, Lips KR (2020) Tropical snake diversity collapses after widespread amphibian loss. Science 367:814–816

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Tina Marshall, Marshall County High School (MCHS), MCHS Environmental Science and AP Physics students, Michaela Lambert, Jonathan Matthews, Rachel Pagano, Wendy Leuenberger, and Allison Davis for field assistance. Steve Hampson from the University of Kentucky (UK) Kentucky Research Consortium for Energy and Environment (KRCEE) Center for Applied Energy Research provided logistical support. Site management information was provided by Tim Kreher of Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (KDFWR). Research collection permits (SC1711110, SC1811095) were provided by KDFWR. Funding was provided by KRCEE and the United States Department of Energy Portsmouth Paducah Project Office, United States Department of Agriculture McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program (accession number 1001968), and UK Department of Forestry and Natural Resources. This research was approved under University of Kentucky Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee protocol (2013-1073).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    Andrea N. Drayer, Rachel Caro & Steven J. Price

  2. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

    Jacquelyn C. Guzy

Authors
  1. Andrea N. Drayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacquelyn C. Guzy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rachel Caro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steven J. Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Andrea N. Drayer or Steven J. Price.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Drayer, A.N., Guzy, J.C., Caro, R. et al. Created wetlands managed for hydroperiod provide habitat for amphibians in Western Kentucky, USA. Wetlands Ecol Manage 28, 543–558 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-020-09730-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-020-09730-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation