The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Non‐Native Fish Introductions and the Decline of the Mountain Yellow‐Legged Frog from within Protected Areas
Abstract
Abstract: One of the most puzzling aspects of the worldwide decline of amphibians is their disappearance from within protected areas. Because these areas are ostensibly undisturbed, habitat alterations are generally perceived as unlikely causes. The introduction of non‐native fishes into protected areas, however, is a common practice throughout the world and may exert an important influence on amphibian distributions. We quantified the role of introduced fishes (several species of trout) in the decline of the mountain yellow‐legged frog ( Rana muscosa ) in California's Sierra Nevada through surveys openface> 1700 sites in two adjacent and historically fishless protected areas that differed primarily in the distribution of introduced fish. Negative effects of fishes on the distribution of frogs were evident at three spatial scales. At the landscape scale, comparisons between the two protected areas indicated that fish distribution was strongly negatively correlated with the distribution of frogs. At the watershed scale, the percentage of total water‐body surface area occupied by fishes was a highly significant predictor of the percentage of total water‐body surface area occupied by frogs. At the scale of individual water bodies, frogs were three times more likely to be found and six times more abundant in fishless than in fish‐containing waterbodies, after habitat effects were accounted for. The strong effect of introduced fishes on mountain yellow‐legged frogs appears to result from the unique life history of this amphibian which frequently restricts larvae to deeper water bodies, the same habitats into which fishes have most frequently been introduced. Because fish populations in at least some Sierra Nevada lakes can be removed with minimal effort, our results suggest that the decline of the mountain yellow‐legged frog might be relatively easy to reverse.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
Tests of Null Models for Amphibian Declines on a Tropical Mountain
Pounds, J. A., Fogden, M. P. L., Savage, J. M., & Gorman, G. C. (1997) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95485.x · Cited by 192
Cited by
Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians
Wake, D. B., & Vredenburg, V. T. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0801921105 · Cited by 1,786
RESISTANCE AND RESILIENCE OF ALPINE LAKE FAUNA TO FISH INTRODUCTIONS
Knapp, R. A., Matthews, K. R., & Sarnelle, O. (2001) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1890/0012-9615(2001)071[0401:raroal]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 367
Self-citationTerrestrial Reserve Networks Do Not Adequately Represent Aquatic Ecosystems
HERBERT, M. E., MCINTYRE, P. B., DORAN, P. J., ALLAN, J. D., & ABELL, R. (2010) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01460.x · Cited by 99
Metadata
- Authors
- Knapp, R. A., & Matthews, K. R.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-04
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 428-438
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2165731142
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Non‐Native Fish Introductions and the Decline of the Mountain Yellow‐Legged Frog from within Protected Areas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99099.x
- The paper
- Knapp, R. A., & Matthews, K. R. (2000). Non‐Native Fish Introductions and the Decline of the Mountain Yellow‐Legged Frog from within Protected Areas. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99099.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.