The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Metapopulation Dynamics and Amphibian Conservation
Abstract
Abstract: In many respects, amphibian spatial dynamics resemble classical metapopulation models, in which subpopulations in breeding ponds blink in and out of existence and extinction and colonization rates are functions of pond spatial arrangement. This “ponds-as-patches” view of amphibian spatial dynamics is useful in several respects. First, it highlights the importance of regional and landscape processes in determining local patterns of abundance. Second, it offers a straightforward, pond-based approach to monitoring and managing amphibian populations. For many species, however, the ponds-as-patches view may be an oversimplification and metapopulation structure may be more apparent than real. Changes in distribution may be caused by processes other than extinction and recolonization, and most extinctions probably result from deterministic factors, not stochastic processes. In addition, the effects of pond isolation appear to be important primarily in disturbed environments, and in many cases these isolation effects may be better explained by the distribution of terrestrial habitats than by the distribution of breeding ponds. These complications have important implications for both researchers and managers. For researchers, future efforts need to determine the mechanisms underlying patterns of abundance and distributional change and patterns in amphibian populations. For managers, effective conservation strategies must successfully balance metapopulation considerations with careful attention to local habitat quality. Furthermore, translocations and active management may be indispensable tools for conserving amphibians in landscapes containing multiple breeding ponds.
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
Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain
Pounds, J. A., Fogden, M. P. L., & Campbell, J. H. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/19297 · Cited by 1,429
Cited by
A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools
COMPTON, B. W., McGARIGAL, K., CUSHMAN, S. A., & GAMBLE, L. R. (2007) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00674.x · Cited by 283
Predicting Hot Spots of Herpetofauna Road Mortality Along Highway Networks
LANGEN, T. A., OGDEN, K. M., & SCHWARTING, L. L. (2009) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2193/2008-017 · Cited by 117
Effectiveness of amphibians as biodiversity surrogates in pond conservation
Ilg, C., & Oertli, B. (2017) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12802 · Cited by 20
Zaffaroni, M., Zamberletti, P., Creed, I. F., Accatino, F., De Michele, C., & DeVries, B. (2019) · JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/1752-1688.12751 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Marsh, D. M., & Trenham, P. C.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-02-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 40-49
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2148534663
- Cited by
- 719
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 25.47
- 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: Metapopulation Dynamics and Amphibian Conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00129.x
- The paper
- Marsh, D. M., & Trenham, P. C. (2001). Metapopulation Dynamics and Amphibian Conservation. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00129.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.