Macroecology and extinction risk correlates of frogs

By N. Cooper, J. Bielby, Gavin H. Thomas, Andy Purvis. 2008

181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Aim Our aim was to test whether extinction risk of frog species could be predicted from their body size, fecundity or geographical range size. Because small geographical range size is a correlate of extinction risk in many taxa, we also tested hypotheses about correlates of range size in frogs. Location Global. Methods Using a large comparative data set (n = 527 species) compiled from the literature, we performed bivariate and multiple regressions through the origin of independent contrasts to test proposed macroecological patterns and correlates of extinction risk in frogs. We also created minimum adequate models to predict snout–vent length, clutch size, geographical range size and IUCN Red List status in frogs. Parallel non-phylogenetic analyses were also conducted. We verified the results of the phylogenetic analyses using gridded data accounting for spatial autocorrelation. Results The most threatened frog species tend to have small geographical ranges, although the relationship between range and extinction risk is not linear. In addition, tropical frogs with small clutches have the smallest ranges. Clutch size was strongly positively correlated with geographical range size (r2 = 0.22) and body size (r2 = 0.28). Main conclusions Our results suggest that body size and fecundity only affect extinction risk indirectly through their effect on geographical range size. Thus, although large frogs with small clutches tend to be endangered, there is no comparative evidence that this relationship is direct. If correct, this inference has consequences for conservation strategy: it would be inefficient to allocate conservation resources on the basis of low fecundity or large body size; instead it would be better to protect areas that contain many frog species with small geographical ranges.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/746c26ae47695ef4cd0e5d1680f42292072263ba

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Beyond Reproductive Isolation: Demographic Controls on the Speciation Process (2019, background): “Traits such as home range size, dispersal ability, and growth rates have been found to effectively predict population recovery or resilience through time (Cooper et al. 2008,Montero-Serra et al. 2018).”
Understanding global patterns in amphibian geographic range size: does Rapoport rule? (2012, background): “, 2004), with much of the variation in extinction risk explained by range size (Cooper et al., 2008; Sodhi et al., 2008).”
Addressing knowledge gaps in reptile conservation (2016, background): “Heightened awareness of global amphibian declines has begun to shift the focus away from endothermic vertebrates (Cooper et al., 2008; Sodhi et al., 2008; Howard and Bickford, 2014), but studies of reptile extinction risk remain comparatively rare.”
Predicting susceptibility to future declines in the world's frogs (2008, background): “Narrow geographic distribution is an important predictor of high extinction risk and declines in many taxonomic groups (Cardillo et al. 2005; Fisher and Owens 2004; Purvis et al. 2000) including amphibians (Cooper et al. 2008; Murray and Hose 2005; Sodhi et al. 2008).”
Amphibian sensitivity to habitat modification is associated with population trends and species traits (2017, background): “…species with smaller geographical ranges are more likely to be declining or at greater risk of extinction than species with larger ranges, even after excluding range-based assessments of extinction risk (Cooper et al., 2008; Davidson et al., 2009; Murray, Rosauer, McCallum, & Skerratt, 2010).”
Rarest of the rare: advances in combining evolutionary distinctiveness and scarcity to inform conservation at biogeographical scales (2010, background): “, 1998; Von Euler, 2001) and amphibians (Cooper et al., 2008).”
Biases in the current knowledge of threat status in lizards, and bridging the ‘assessment gap’ (2016, unknown): “…and Owens, 1997; Owens and Bennett, 2000; Lee and Jetz, 2011), and amphibians (Stuart et al., 2004; Wake and Vrendenburg, 2008; Sodhi et al., 2008; Cooper et al., 2008; Howard and Bickford, 2014), thefirst global analysis of the conservation status of reptiles was completed relatively recently…”
Habitat availability for amphibians and extinction threat: a global analysis (2015, background): “As IUCN category is also strongly related to range size (Cooper et al., 2008), we also included range size in this model.”
An evaluation of the robustness of global amphibian range maps (2014, background): “…number of studies on amphibian biogeography, ecology, evolution and conservation, as well as in bioclimatic species distribution models (e.g. Cooper et al., 2008; Finer et al., 2008; van Wilgen et al., 2009; Lawler et al., 2010; Becker & Zamudio, 2011; Sandel et al., 2011; Hof et al.,…”
Global gaps in trait data for terrestrial vertebrates (2020, unknown): “TA B L E 1 Data sources for each trait Sources Taxa Traits BM BL L/ML MA GL LCS TL DA RS H Oliveira et al. (2017) Amphibians (✔) ✔ (✔) ✔ ✔ ~✔ ✔ Cooper et al. (2008) ✔ Sodhi et al. (2008) ✔ Wilman et al. (2014) Birds ✔ ~✔ ✔ BirdLifea ✔ ✔ ✔ Jones et al. (2009) Mammals ✔ (✔) (✔) (✔) ✔ ✔ Kissling et…”
Drivers of Extinction Risk in Terrestrial Vertebrates (2017, background): “2008), and has allowed researchers to identify a range of traits that influence vulnerability (e.g., Bennett & Owens 1997; Cooper et al. 2008; Davidson et al. 2009; Siliceo & Dı̀az 2010).”