| Literature DB >> 27212145 |
Evan H Campbell Grant1, David A W Miller2, Benedikt R Schmidt3,4, Michael J Adams5, Staci M Amburgey2, Thierry Chambert2,6, Sam S Cruickshank3, Robert N Fisher7, David M Green8, Blake R Hossack9, Pieter T J Johnson10, Maxwell B Joseph10, Tracy A G Rittenhouse11, Maureen E Ryan12, J Hardin Waddle13, Susan C Walls14, Larissa L Bailey15, Gary M Fellers16, Thomas A Gorman17, Andrew M Ray18, David S Pilliod19, Steven J Price20, Daniel Saenz21, Walt Sadinski22, Erin Muths23.
Abstract
Since amphibian declines were first proposed as a global phenomenon over a quarter century ago, the conservation community has made little progress in halting or reversing these trends. The early search for a "smoking gun" was replaced with the expectation that declines are caused by multiple drivers. While field observations and experiments have identified factors leading to increased local extinction risk, evidence for effects of these drivers is lacking at large spatial scales. Here, we use observations of 389 time-series of 83 species and complexes from 61 study areas across North America to test the effects of 4 of the major hypothesized drivers of declines. While we find that local amphibian populations are being lost from metapopulations at an average rate of 3.79% per year, these declines are not related to any particular threat at the continental scale; likewise the effect of each stressor is variable at regional scales. This result - that exposure to threats varies spatially, and populations vary in their response - provides little generality in the development of conservation strategies. Greater emphasis on local solutions to this globally shared phenomenon is needed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27212145 PMCID: PMC4876446 DOI: 10.1038/srep25625
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Spatial distribution of the four hypothesized threats to amphibian populations.
Values are summarized and normalized at the HUC sub-basin scale, using ArcGIS (ver. 10.2. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute). (a) Human influence index. (b) Suitability for Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. (c) Average annual pesticide application. (a–c) Red indicates higher than average threat intensity while green is lower than average. Locations of amphibian community data indicated with circles; symbols indicate region groupings (see Table 1; circles = Northeast, diamonds = Southeast, plus = Midwest, triangles = West coast, squares = Rocky Mountains). (d) The mean difference in the 30-year normal from the 2001–11 annual average precipitation; blue indicates wetter sub-basins with above average difference in precipitation while red indicates drier sub-basins.
Estimated annual trends (transformed from the estimated of and lower and upper limits of 95% credible intervals) in number of occupied sites, across all sites and by region.
| All sites | −3.79% | −2.49% | −5.04% |
| Region 1 (Northeast) | −3.57% | −1.87% | −5.21% |
| Region 2 (Midwest) | −3.15% | −0.41% | −5.75% |
| Region 3 (Southeast) | −2.30% | −0.81% | −3.70% |
| Region 4 (West coast) | −5.17% | −3.00% | −7.24% |
| Region 5 (Rocky Mountains) | −4.93% | −2.37% | −7.43% |
Figure 2Normalized intensities for the 4 threats [HII = Human influence index; Bd = Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis suitability; Pest = annual average pesticide application; Prec = the difference in the 30-year normal from the annual average precipitation (2001–2011); droughts are represented as positive values to correspond with an increase in the threat] considered in our analysis (a) average exposure for each threat by sub-basin (sub-basins are sorted by number of threats with above-average values, and intensity of the climate threat; sub-basin identifiers omitted for clarity), (b) the frequency of above-average values of each of the four threats for all sub-basins and for those with time-series data for species, (c) the number of above-average threats for all sub-basins and species in our time-series, and (d) exposure to each threat for 54 anuran species and 2 anuran species complexes (A01–A56) and 29 caudate (C01–C29) species [corresponding species names in Table S3].
Figure 3Posterior probabilities of estimated effects (β parameters) of the 4 threats on amphibian population trends for the national dataset (a) and for each region separately (b–f).