2007
DOI: 10.1898/1051-1733(2007)88[147:acogat]2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Ground-Based and Tree-Based Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe Refugia for Capturing Pseudacris Regilla in Northwestern California

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
4
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
3
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We started sampling on March 5, 2021, approximately two weeks after the setup. This latency period allows frogs time to discover the refugia on the trees and is consistent with similar studies (Boughton et al 2000, Zacharow 2003, Myers et al 2007, Windes 2010). We continued sampling every two weeks until September 5, 2021, near the peak of Florida hurricane season, which resulted in 14 sampling events.…”
Section: Data Collectionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…We started sampling on March 5, 2021, approximately two weeks after the setup. This latency period allows frogs time to discover the refugia on the trees and is consistent with similar studies (Boughton et al 2000, Zacharow 2003, Myers et al 2007, Windes 2010). We continued sampling every two weeks until September 5, 2021, near the peak of Florida hurricane season, which resulted in 14 sampling events.…”
Section: Data Collectionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…We incidentally observed eight species (Table ). Trapping success was lower than that reported in the Americas, for example, 79% (Bartareau, ), 23% (Myers et al ., ), 2.5–4.3% (Pittman et al ., ) and 6% (Ferreira et al ., ) (though some of these studies included recaptures). Several factors that might have contributed to our low trapping success are given as follows: Pipes might not have provided attractive refugia.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many design factors have been investigated in relation to capture success (e.g. diameter, length and colour); while our 44‐mm‐diameter pipes appeared more effective than 16 mm and ground and tree pipes both worked, other trap designs could be investigated (see Boughton, Staiger & Franz, ; Bartareau, ; Johnson, Knouft & Semlitsch, ; Myers et al ., ; Johnson, Mahan & Semlitsch, ; Pittman et al ., ; Ferreira et al ., ). Natural refugia provided by plants may have outcompeted pipes (Hoffmann, Johnson & McGarrity, ). Dracaena aletriformis and Strelitzia nicolai are prevalent in the undergrowth, and their leaf axils provide hiding places for frogs (du Preez & Carruthers, ). The sampling period may have been too short for frogs to find the pipes (Myers et al ., ), which could have compounded the effects of competition with natural refugia.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When a sampling session was over, whole lids were secured on the buckets. We deployed 25 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes (3.81 cm diameter and 60 cm long) as treefrog retreats (Boughton et al 2000), which were elevated off the ground by fastening them to a standalone stake or a post along the fence (Myers et al 2007). The bottom of the pipe was sealed to allow water to fill and a small hole was drilled 6 cm from the bottom of the pipe for drainage.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%