Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 468

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Principles for Management of Aquatic-Breeding Amphibians

Semlitsch, Raymond D.·2000·The Journal of Wildlife Management

Abstract

Coordinated efforts by ecologists and natural resource managers are necessary to balance the conservation of biological diversity with the potential for sustained economic development. Because some amphibians have suffered world-wide declines during the last 20 years, it is important to consider biologically based management strategies that will preserve local and regional populations. This paper provides a brief overview of potential threats to local and regional populations, the state of knowledge on population and landscape processes, and the critical elements needed for an effective management plan for amphibians. Local population dynamics and ecological connectivity of amphibian metapopulations must be considered in effective management plans. There are 3 critical factors to consider in a management plan (1) the number or density of individuals dispersing from individual wetlands, (2) the diversity of wetlands with regard to hydroperiod, and (3) the probability of dispersal among adjacent wetlands or the rescue and recolonization of local populations. Wetland losses reduce the total number of sites where pond-breeding amphibians can reproduce and recruit juveniles into the breeding population. Loss of small, temporary wetlands (<4.0 ha) may be especially harmful to amphibians because of their abundance and high species diversity. Alteration of wetlands, particularly hydrologic cycles, can severely impair completion of larval metamorphosis through either early pond drying (if hydroperiod is shortened) or through increased predation (if hydroperiod is lengthened or connections made with fish-infested lakes, rivers, or canals). Wetland loss also increases the distance between neigh-boring wetlands that is critical to metapopulation source-sink processes. Reduction in wetland density reduces the probablity that populations will be rescued from extinction by nearby source populations. Local populations cannot be considered independent of source-sink processes that connect wetlands at the landscape or regional level. Further, the fragmentation of natural habitats from timber harvesting, agriculture, roads, drainage canals, or urban development impedes or prevents dispersal and decreases the probability of wetland recolonization. If our goal is to maintain or enhance present levels of amphibian diversity, then resource managers must incorporate critical elements into plans that protect population and landscape processes thereby maintaining viable populations and communities of amphibians.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3802732

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Semlitsch, R. D.
Venue
The Journal of Wildlife Management
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
2000-07
Volume
64
Issue
3
Pages
615
ISSN
0022-541X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2325158470
Cited by
468
References
0
FWCI
13.74
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

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.