Fluctuations in amphibian populations : a meta-analysis

By D. M. Marsh. 2001

109 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/def176c152ceb05a2aabb23ca66cb4b86a8d78ae

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

1. R. Rannap
2. T. Gardner
3. R. Griffiths
4. T. Beebee
5. Andrew Storfer
6. M. Wilkinson
7. D. Gower
8. Marco Goicochea

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. T. Gardner
2. R. Rannap
3. Andrew Storfer
4. R. Griffiths
5. D. Gower
6. M. Wilkinson
7. Marco Goicochea
8. T. Beebee

In Global and Planetary Change

1. R. Rannap
2. T. Gardner
3. Andrew Storfer
4. R. Griffiths
5. T. Beebee
6. M. Wilkinson
7. D. Gower
8. Marco Goicochea

Citations in the corpus

• Site fidelity and patterns of short- and long-term movement in the brilliant-thighed poison frog Allobates femoralis (Aromobatidae) (2009, background): “Considering the fluctuating nature of amphibian populations (Marsh 2001), the total individual counts and the number of recaptures from year to year (cf.”
• Monitoring Terrestrial Salamanders: Biases Caused by Intense Sampling and Choice of Cover Objects (2003, background): “High population variability also makes detecting trends in aquatic-breeding species particularly difficult (Pechmann et al., 1991; Marsh, 2001).”
• Conservation Biology of Caecilian Amphibians (2005, background): “Populations of other amphibians can fluctuate dramatically (e.g., Semlitsch et al. 1996) even in the absence of anthropogenic factors, and long-term study is required to accurately estimate population size without undue influence of stochastic factors (Meyer et al. 1998; Marsh 2001).”
• Effects of Forest Management on Amphibians and Reptiles in Missouri Ozark Forests (2004, background): “The inherent variation in population abundance through time (Pechmann et al. 1991; Marsh 2001) and the patchy distribution of many amphibian and reptile species further limit interpretation of results from postdisturbance studies.”
• Declining amphibian populations: a global phenomenon in conservation biology (2001, background): “A number of ecological variables have been proposed as predictors of variability in amphibian populations, including; habitat type (WILLIAMS & HERO, 1998, 2001), reproductive mode and density dependent processes (SEMLITSCH et al., 1996; ALFORD & RICHARDS, 1999; MARSH, 2001), rainfall, taxanomic fami”
• Impacts of habitat loss and restoration on amphibian populations (2009, background): “Because those relationships appeared for the areas at the beginning of the periods explored, they were most likely related to the key role of initial population size (large populations are more resistant to annual fluctuations, i.e. stochastic extinction; Halley et al. 1996, Marsh 2001).”
• The amphibian decline crisis: A watershed for conservation biology? (2005, background): “However, a meta-analysis of amphibian population fluctuations showed that life history mode, family and latitude were all predictors of variation in population size (Marsh, 2001).”
• Amphibian declines: future directions (2003, background): “This observed trend goes against the expectation that CVs will level off through time, suggesting power for even long-term amphibian monitoring datasets may be low (Marsh, 2001).”
• The recent decline of a New Zealand endemic: how and why did populations of Archey's frog Leiopelma archeyi crash over 1996–2001? (2004, background): “In order to elucidate real declines from stochastic fluctuations, Gardner (2001) notes that a long time series is highly desirable, although few studies are longer than five years, and even fewer are more than 10 (Alford and Richards, 1999; Houlahan et al., 2000; Marsh, 2001; Young et al., 2001).”