Disease Refuge or Ecological Trap: Location‐Specific Performance of Amphibian Hotspot Shelters
Open accessAbstract
Many terrestrial ectotherms (amphibians, reptiles) select warm retreat sites which may provide opportunities to escape the impacts of pathogens that cannot tolerate high temperatures. Recent research has exploited this mismatch in host‐pathogen thermal tolerance by providing sun‐heated artificial hotspot shelters to protect endangered frogs from the amphibian chytrid fungus ( Batrachochytrium dendrobatridis ), which causes the disease chytridiomycosis. Artificial shelters comprised of masonry bricks and small greenhouses allow endangered frogs to stay warm in winter, reducing and clearing chytrid infections and developing resistance to future infection even under cold temperatures. Such shelters can be a valuable tool for conservation in sunny cool weather, but cloudy weather reduces the thermal benefit; and in too‐cool conditions the warming creates a thermal regime where chytrid could grow faster. We monitored temperatures inside hotspot shelters constructed at two sites in Australia over winter: one in a cool semi‐arid climate (Werribee, Victoria, Australia), and one in a humid subtropical climate (Sydney, NSW, Australia), to evaluate the thermal performance of shelters in different chytrid‐impacted climates. Our monitoring of temperatures inside hotspot shelters found minor‐to‐negative outcomes at the cooler site, with shelters in Werribee exceeding 25°C for at least 1 h on only 13.1% of days, compared to 82.5% of days at the Sydney site. Hotspot shelters have great potential for frog conservation, but they are not a panacea because diversity in habitat conditions and target species responses will influence their success.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 2
- Authors
- Holmes, M. L., Kaiser, S. W., Basu, S. S., Berger, L., Skerratt, L. F., Shine, R., & Waddle, A. W.
- Affiliations
- Macquarie University (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Holmes, Madeleine L.
- Venue
- Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2026-03-30
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e72590-e72590
- ISSN
- 2045-7758 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC13107285
- OpenAlex
- W7143329675
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 5.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- American Australian Association
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Bat Biology and Ecology Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
- Keywords
- Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, chytridiomycosis, thermal refuges, thermal expansion mismatch, frog conservation, endangered frog
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review