Distribution and Habitat of Rhyacotriton variegatus in Managed, Young Growth Forests in North Coastal California

Diller, Lowell V.; Wallace, Rick L.

doi:10.2307/1565508

Cited by 38 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the s h o~-t e m , clearcutting in the southern Appalachians prduces habitat conditions unfavorable for salamanders by increasing forest floor temprtllures (Johnson et at., 1985) and reducing leaf litter depth and microsite moisture (Ash, 1995). Recovery times for salamander communities following clearcutting may vary depending upon salamander community composition prior to timber harvest (Ash, 1988) and upon site characteristics such as elevation, aspect, and plant community (Diller and Wallace, 1994;., 1999; Harper and Guynn, 1999). Petranka et al (1 993, 1994) suggest that salamander communities require 50-80 years for full recovery to pre-harvest conditions following clearcutting in the southern Appalachians.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stand age and habitat influences on salamanders in Appalachian cove hardwood forests

Ford

Chapman

Menzel

et al. 2002

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We surveyed cove hardwood stands aged 15, 25, 50, and 285 years following clearcutting in the southern Appalachian Mountains of northem Georgia to assess the effects of stand age and stand habitat characteristics on salamander communities using drift-fence array and pitfall methodologies from May 1994 to April 1995. Over a 60,060 pitfall trapnight effort, we collected 3937 salamanders represented by Desmognathus aeneus, Desmognathus mtznticola, Desmognathus ocoee, Ilesmognathus quadramaculatus, Eurycea bislineata, Gyrinophilus porphyriticus, Pseudotriton ruber, Pkthodon glutinosus, Plethodon serratus, and Notophtlaalmus viridescens. Analysis of covariance with pitfall array to stream distance as the covariate showed that salamander species richness and diversity measures and numbers of Desmognathus aeneus and Desmognathus ocoee were highest in stands 285 years. Eutyeea bislineata and Plethodon glutinosus were more abundant in stands 250 years old than in stands 285 years. Within cove hardwood stands, species richness and diversity measures and relative abundances of Desmogmthus spp. and Gyrinophilus porphyriticus were negatively correlated with distance to stream. Species richness and diversity were positively correlated to mounts of emergent rock. Species richness, diversity and relative abundances of Desmognathus spp. were correlated with basal area within stands and extent of connected mesic, cove hardwood habitat and amount of cove habitat within 1 km radius among stands. Eurycea bislineata was negatively correlated with landfom index, a measure of surrounding landfom sheltering, and Plethodon glutinasus was positively correlated with elevation in cove hardwood stands. Our research indicates stand age is an important factor in explaining the abundance and community composition of salamanders in southern Appalachian cove hardwood communities. Because southern Appalachian woodland salamander communities are slow to recover and are substantially changed following disturbances such as clearcutting, populations in small, isolated cove hardwood stands might be more vulnerable to extirpation or may require longer recovery times than those in larger coves. Managers may need to assess habilat features such as cove extent and habitat connectivity to minimize impacts on these taxa by forest management activities in southern Appalachian cove hardwood communities. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stand age and habitat influences on salamanders in Appalachian cove hardwood forests

Ford

Chapman

Menzel

et al. 2002

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To protect stream conditions and adjacent riparian habitats, current forestry practices usually recommend or require riparian buffers along headwater streams and certain streams with sensitive fish species (Hawkins et al, 1983;Sedell and Swanson, 1984;Beschta et al, 1987;Bury, 1994;deMaynadier and Hunter, 1995;Diller and Wallace, 1996). In the Oregon Coast Range, riparian buffer strips (typically 20 m or more) may reduce the effects of prescription burning on streams, ponds, and wetlands, and provide amphibian habitat, at least in the short term (Cole et al, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fire and amphibians in North America

Pilliod

Bury²,

Hyde³

et al. 2003

Forest Ecology and Management

152

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information on amphibian responses to fire and fuel reduction practices is critically needed due to potential declines of species and the prevalence of new, more intensive fire management practices in North American forests. The goals of this review are to summarize the known and potential effects of fire and fuels management on amphibians and their aquatic habitats, and to identify information gaps to help direct future scientific research. Amphibians as a group are taxonomically and ecologically diverse; in turn, responses to fire and associated habitat alteration are expected to vary widely among species and among geographic regions.Available data suggest that amphibian responses to fire are spatially and temporally variable and incompletely understood. Much of the limited research has addressed short-term (1-3 yr) effects of prescribed fire on terrestrial life stages of amphibians in the southeastern United States.Information on the long-term negative effects of fire on amphibians and the importance of fire for maintaining amphibian communities is sparse for the high number of taxa in North America.Given the size and severity of recent wildland fires and the national effort to reduce fuels on federal lands, future studies are particularly needed to examine the effects of these landscape disturbances on amphibians. We encourage studies to address population-level responses of amphibians to fire by examining how different life stages are affected by changes in aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats. Research designs need to be rigorous and credible, yet provide information that is relevant for fire managers and those responsible for assessing the potential effects of various fuels reduction alternatives on rare, sensitive, and endangered amphibian species.

show abstract

“…This technique has also been used to estimate density (e.g., under the untested assumption that all individuals within a search area are detected. The high cost associated with rubble-rousing has impeded its application to large areas (Barr and Babbitt 2001), leading to the development of alternative methods (Diller and Wallace 1996, Pauley and Little 1998, Barr and Babbitt 2001, Adams and Bury 2002, Steele et al 2003.…”

Section: Project Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Two Techniques for Surveying Headwater Stream Amphibians

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: We compared rubble‐rousing versus light‐touch stream amphibian survey techniques in multiple 1‐m plots across 10 streams in southwest Washington, USA. Specifically, we wanted to determine if light‐touch surveys provide unbiased estimates of abundance (i.e., provide counts correlated with rubble‐rousing counts) and which method would provide more cost‐effective presence or absence information. Rubble‐rousing, a common technique for surveying stream‐associated amphibians in the Pacific Northwest, took 12 times as long as light‐touch to apply. Abundance estimates and standard errors for rubble‐rousing were consistently higher than those for light‐touch for all life stages for the coastal tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) and Columbia torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton kezeri). Except for eggs, light‐touch detected all life stages found during rubble‐rousing. For frogs, only some rubble‐rousing abundance estimates, mostly involving second‐year larvae, were highly correlated with their light‐touch counterparts, whereas for salamanders, similar comparisons generated high correlations across most life stages. Correlations between methods were consistently greater for salamanders than for frogs. However the smaller tailed frog sample sizes and the cryptozoic nature of some life stages may have contributed to this pattern. Depending on the degree to which researchers can tolerate false‐negative error rates, light‐touch may prove less costly than rubble‐rousing for detecting species presence. For the cost of obtaining one rubble‐rousing sample, many light‐touch samples can be used across a range of habitats for detecting species patchily distributed.

show abstract

Distribution and Habitat of Rhyacotriton variegatus in Managed, Young Growth Forests in North Coastal California

Cited by 38 publications

References 4 publications

Stand age and habitat influences on salamanders in Appalachian cove hardwood forests

Stand age and habitat influences on salamanders in Appalachian cove hardwood forests

Fire and amphibians in North America

Comparison of Two Techniques for Surveying Headwater Stream Amphibians

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About