| Literature DB >> 27824915 |
Joseph R Milanovich1, Kyle Barrett2, John A Crawford3.
Abstract
Single-site experiments have demonstrated detritus quality in wetlands can have strongly negative, neutral, and even positive influences on wildlife. However, an examination of the influence of detritus quality across several regions is lacking and can provide information on whether impacts from variation in detritus quality are consistent across species with wide ranges. To address this gap in regional studies we examined effects of emergent and allochthonous detritus of different nutrient qualities on amphibians and assessed a mechanism that may contribute to potential impacts. We used aquatic mesocosms to raiseEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27824915 PMCID: PMC5100973 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166296
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Response to detritus quality.
| Parameter | Survival | Days of development | Mass | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | MS | F | df | MS | F | MS | F | P | |||
| Survival | – | – | – | – | 1 | 0.918 | 0.372 | 0.547 | 0.016 | 5.959 | 0.021 |
| Site | 1 | 7.111 | 1.096 | 0.304 | 1 | 0.013 | 0.457 | 0.504 | 0.760 | 288.522 | ≤ 0.001 |
| Treatment | 2 | 30.250 | 4.662 | 0.017 | 2 | 7.386 | 2.992 | 0.066 | 0.151 | 57.133 | ≤ 0.001 |
| Site*Treatment | 2 | 1.861 | 0.287 | 0.753 | 2 | 4.437 | 1.797 | 0.184 | 0.004 | 1.533 | 0.233 |
| Error | 30 | 6.489 | – | – | 29 | 2.468 | – | – | 0.003 | – | – |
General linear model results examining whether detritus nutrient quality (treatment) or site influence wood frog survival, and ANCOVAs examining whether mean number of days of development and mass at metamorphosis differed across sites, treatments, the interaction or a function of survival.
Fig 1Anuran fitness.
(a) Number of days of development, (b) number of surviving individuals, and (c) wet mass (g) for wood frogs at Clemson (CLEM) and Lindenwood (LIN) raised in the presence of low, high or mixed treatments. Sample sizes of individuals measured above each bar. Different upper case letters represent significant differences between treatments within a site. Error bars represents ±1 SD.
Fig 2Litter and anuran stoichiometry.
Mean (±1 SD) stoichiometry (%N, %P and C:N) of (a–d) low nutrient detritus (mixed native leaf litter), high nutrient detritus (purple loosestrife), and (e–h) metamorphic wood frogs raised in the presence of all treatments at Clemson (CLEM) and Lindenwood (LIN). * indicates significant differences between litter types plant stoichiometry. Amphibian %N and C:N was significantly different between sites. Error bars represent ±1 SD. Amphibian %N and C:N was significantly different across sites.
Stoichiometry statistics.
| Parameter | %N | %P | C:N | N:P | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | MS | F | MS | F | MS | F | P | MS | F | P | |||
| Site | 1 | 4.561 | 7.546 | 0.007 | 0.341 | 1.874 | 0.173 | 4.107 | 27.343 | ≤0.001 | 3.732 | 2.629 | 0.107 |
| Treatment | 2 | 0.736 | 1.217 | 0.299 | 0.001 | 0.007 | 0.993 | 0.453 | 3.016 | 0.052 | 0.388 | 0.274 | 0.761 |
| Site*Treatment | 2 | 0.046 | 0.077 | 0.925 | 0.264 | 1.449 | 0.238 | 0.088 | 0.583 | 0.560 | 0.150 | 0.106 | 0.900 |
| Error | 30 | 0.600 | – | – | 0.182 | – | – | 0.150 | – | – | 1.419 | – | – |
Two-way ANOVA results examining the influence of site and treatment on wood frog whole-body %N, %P, C:N and N:P.
Standing crop statistics.
| Parameter | Biomass | Standing crop of N | Standing crop of P | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | MS | F | MS | F | MS | F | P | |||
| Site | 1 | 5.600 | 35.070 | ≤0.001 | 0.058 | 31.121 | ≤0.001 | 0.002 | 30.174 | ≤0.001 |
| Treatment | 2 | 0.252 | 1.576 | 0.223 | 0.003 | 1.612 | 0.216 | ≤0.001 | 1.917 | 0.165 |
| Site*Treatment | 2 | 0.014 | 0.092 | 0.912 | 0.001 | 0.080 | 0.923 | ≤0.001 | 0.029 | 0.950 |
| Error | 30 | 0.160 | – | – | 0.002 | – | – | 0.002 | – | – |
Two-way ANOVA results examining the influence of site and treatment on wood frog biomass and standing crop of N and P.
Fig 3Standing stock of anurans.
(a–b) Standing stock of N and P and (c) biomass of metamorphic wood frogs raised in the presence of all treatments at Clemson (CLEM) and Lindenwood (LIN). Error bars represent ±1 SD. Biomass and standing crop of N and P was significantly different across sites.