DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Estimating Detection Probabilities and Site Occupancy Rates of Three Anuran Species Using Call Surveys in Haenam Gun, Korea

  • Sung, Ha-Cheol (Department of Biology Education, Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Kim, Su-Kyung (Department of Biology Education, Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Cheong, Seok-Wan (Department of Biology Education, Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Park, Shi-Ryong (Department of Biology Education, Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Roh, Dong-Chan (Jeonbuk Science High School) ;
  • Baek, Kyung-Whan (Haenam High School) ;
  • Lee, Jung-Hyun (Department of Science Education, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Park, Dae-Sik (Department of Science Education, Kangwon National University)
  • Published : 2006.08.30

Abstract

We investigated the distribution of three anuran species, Three-striped pond frogs (Rana nigromaculata), Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), and Narrow-mouthed toads (Kaloula borealis), in an administrative district, Haenam Gun, Junnam Province, Korea using volunteer call surveys. Twenty-eight volunteer call surveyors were assigned to each $2{\times}2km^2$ survey plot. Call surveys on whether the species are present or not were conducted for 5 minutes between 30 minutes after sunset and the midnight on rice fields and ponds from 10 April to 28 August in 2005. Depending on species, call surveys were carried out at seven to 28 plots with average 8.4 to 10.7 visits per the plot. We calculated the detection probabilities and occupancy rates of the three species using four models with three covariates: temperature, humidity, and the amount of water at the habitat. The model average detection probabilities of three anuran species of R. nigromaculata, R. catesbeiana, and K. borealis were 0.53, 0.74, and 0.41 respectively, and the site occupancy rates of them were 0.93, 0.94, and 0.86 respectively. Our results indicate that R. nigromaculata, R. catesbeiana, and K. borealis are common in Haenam Gun.

Keywords

References

  1. Alford RA, Richards SJ. 1999. Global amphibian declines: a problem in applied ecology. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 30: 133-165 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.30.1.133
  2. Bailey LL, Simons TR, Pollock KH. 2004. Spatial and temporal variation in detection probability of Plethodon salamanders using the robust capturerecapture design. J Wildl Manage 68: 14-24 https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[0014:SATVID]2.0.CO;2
  3. Bell BD, Carver S, Mitchell NJ, Pledger S. 2004. The recent decline of a New Zealand endemic: how and why did populations of Archey's frog Leiopelma archeyi crash over 1996-2001? Biol Conserv 120: 189-199 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.02.011
  4. Blaustein AR, Wake DB. 1990. Declining amphibian populations: a global phenomenon? Trends Ecol Evol 5: 203-204 https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(90)90129-2
  5. Bridges AS, Dorcas ME. 2000. Temporal variation in anuran calling behavior: implications for surveys and monitoring programs. Copeia 2000: 587-592 https://doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2000)000[0587:TVIACB]2.0.CO;2
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, New York
  7. Campbell SP, Clark JA, Crampton L, Guerry AD, Hatch LR, Hosseini PR, Lawler JJ, O'Connor RJ. 2002. An assessment of monitoring efforts in endangered species recovery plans. Ecol Appl 12: 674- 681 https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0674:AAOMEI]2.0.CO;2
  8. Cooke AS. 1972. Indications of recent change in status in the British Isles of the frog (Rana temporaria) and the toad (Bufo bufo). J Zool 167: 161-178
  9. Houlahan JE, Findlay CS, Schmidt BR, Meyer AH, Kuzmin SL. 2000 Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature (London) 404: 752-755 https://doi.org/10.1038/35008052
  10. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, Langtimm CA. 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83: 2248-2255 https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2248:ESORWD]2.0.CO;2
  11. MacKenzie DI. 2005. Was it there? Dealing with imperfect detection for species presence/absence data. Aust New Zealand J Stat 47: 65-74 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2005.00372.x
  12. McDiarmid RW, Donnelly MA. 1994. Group activities and field trips. In: Measuring and monitoring biological diversity-standard methods for amphibians (Heyer W, McDiarmid RW, Donnelly M, Hayek L, eds). Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington DC
  13. Pellet J, Schmidt BR. 2005. Monitoring distributions using call surveys: Estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. Biol Conserv 123: 27-35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.10.005
  14. Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Farnsworth G, Simons TR, Bailey L, Sauer JR. 2002. Large-scale wildlife monitoring studies: Statistical methods for design and analysis. Environmetrics 13: 1-15 https://doi.org/10.1002/env.492
  15. Richter SC, Young JE, Johnson GN, Seigel RA. 2003. Stochastic variation in reproductive success of a rare frog, Rana sevosa: implications for conservation and for monitoring amphibian populations. Biol Conserv 111: 171-177 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00260-4
  16. Royle JA. 2004. N-mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics 60:108-115 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.00142.x
  17. Schmidt BR. 2005. Monitoring the distribution of pond-breeding amphibians when species are detected imperfectly. Aquatic Conserv 15: 681-692 https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.740
  18. Storfer A. 2003. Amphibian declines: Future directions. Divers Distrib 9: 151-163 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00014.x
  19. Sung HC, Kim SK, Park SR, Park DS. 2005. Effectiveness of mating call playbacks in anuran call monitoring: a case study of Threestriped pond frogs (Rana nigromaculata). Integ Biosci 9: 199-203
  20. Wake DB. 1991. Declining amphibian populations. Science 253: 860 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.253.5022.860
  21. Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T. 2001. Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time; concepts, methods and designs. Trends Ecol Evol 16: 446-453 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02205-4

Cited by

  1. ) vol.27, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.2108/zsj.27.396
  2. Breeding Chorus Indices Are Weakly Related to Estimated Abundance of Boreal Chorus Frogs vol.2011, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1643/CH-10-190