Cited by 233Amphibian and Reptile BiologySpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeBat Biology and Ecology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

POTENTIAL CAUSES FOR AMPHIBIAN DECLINES IN PUERTO RICO

Abstract

We monitored 11 populations of eight species of Eleutherodactylus in Puerto Rico from 1989 through 2001. We determined relative abundance of active frogs along transects established in the Caribbean National Forest (El Yunque), Carite Forest, San Lorenzo, and in the vicinity of San Juan. Three species (Eleutherodactylus karlschmidti, E. jasperi, and E. eneidae) are presumed to be extinct and eight populations of six different species of endemic Eleutherodactylus are significantly declining at elevations above 400 m. Of the many suspected causes of amphibian declines around the world, we focused on climate change and disease. Temperature and precipitation data from 1970–2000 were analyzed to determine the general pattern of oscillations and deviations that could be correlated with amphibian declines. We examined a total of 106 tissues taken from museum specimens collected from 1961–1978 and from live frogs in 2000. We found chytrid fungi in two species collected at El Yunque as early as 1976, this is the first report of chytrid fungus in the Caribbean. Analysis of weather data indicates a significant warming trend and an association between years with extended periods of drought and the decline of amphibians in Puerto Rico. The 1970's and 1990's, which represent the periods of amphibian extirpations and declines, were significantly drier than average. We suggest a possible synergistic interaction between drought and the pathological effect of the chytrid fungus on amphibian populations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1655/03-50

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Colón, 1983, Acta Científica, 1, 55
  2. Ingram, 1990, Wildlife Australia, 27, 6
  3. La Marca, 1991, Herpetological Review, 22, 125
  4. Stewart, 1995, Journal of Herpetology, 28, 369
  5. Wake, 1991, Alytes, 9, 33

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 233

Metadata

Authors
Burrowes, P. A., Joglar, R. L., & Green, D. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Puerto Rico System (PR)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
Corresponding author
Burrowes, Patricia A.
Venue
Herpetologica
Published
2004-06
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
141-154
ISSN
  • 0018-0831 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-5099
OpenAlex
W2072987737
Cited by
231
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 14
FWCI
16.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Herpetologica (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Bat Biology and Ecology Studies
Keywords
amphibian decline, Eleutherodactylus, chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, climate change, drought, temperature warming, amphibian extinction, El Yunque National Forest, Puerto Rico

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