Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T02:52:37.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Road construction enables establishment of a novel predator category to resident anuran community: a case study from a primary lowland Bornean rain forest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2013

Oliver Konopik ,
Karl-Eduard Linsenmair  and
T. Ulmar Grafe
Oliver Konopik*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, University of Würzburg, Theodor-Boveri-Institut, Biozentrum, Am Hubland, D-97074 Würzburg, Germany
Karl-Eduard Linsenmair
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, University of Würzburg, Theodor-Boveri-Institut, Biozentrum, Am Hubland, D-97074 Würzburg, Germany
T. Ulmar Grafe
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Tungku Link, Gadong BE 1410, Brunei Darussalam
*
1Corresponding author. Email: oliver.konopik@uni-wuerzburg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

For a total of 17 mo, we investigated the impact of a road constructed through pristine tropical lowland rain forest, on the composition and structure of the resident anuran community in the Ulu Temburong National Park (Brunei Darussalam). One year after road construction, eight new anuran species had immigrated into the impacted area. Encounter surveys were conducted and radio-transmitters attached to a total of 16 frogs to identify habitat use and distribution of the largest (>130 mm SVL) immigrant species (Limnonectes ingeri) in comparison with a similar sized resident congener. A strong preference for roadside habitat was found for the immigrant. However, several incursions of more than 500 m beyond the road into the pristine forest were also recorded. Over 200 stomach content samples as well as stable nitrogen isotope ratios of 76 individuals were used to assess the trophic ecology of the two species. Invertebrate diet composition did not differ. However, the immigrant species ate over 400% more frogs than its resident congener and had a significantly higher δ15N ratio, indicating a higher position in the food web. This suggests that L. ingeri acts as a new top frog predator in the system and indicates that it may have a significant negative impact on the local anuran community. Overall, road construction in the absence of logging has led to the immigration of new frog species with impacts far beyond the linear disturbance of the road itself.

Keywords

AnuraBorneoBrunei Darussalamforest roadsloggingtropical rain forest
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 13 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

BATTIN, J. 2004. When good animals love bad habitats: ecological traps and the conservation of animal populations. Conservation Biology 18:1482–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BEAUPRE, S. J., JACOBSON, E. R., LILLYWHITE, H. B. & ZAMUDIO, K. R. 2004. Guidelines for use of live amphibians and reptiles in field and laboratory research. (Second edition). American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Miami.Google Scholar
BLÜTHGEN, N., MENZEL, F. & BLÜTHGEN, N. 2006. Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecology 6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BROWN, G. P., PHILLIPS, B. L., WEBB, J. K. & SHINE, R. 2006. Toad on the road: use of roads as dispersal corridors by cane toads (Bufo marinus) at an invasion front in tropical Australia. Biological Conservation 133:88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLLI, G. R. & ZAMBONI, D. S. 1999. Ecology of the worm-lizard Amphisbaena alba in the Cerrado of central Brazil. Copeia 3:733–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CRANBROOK, Earl of & EDWARDS, D. S. 1994. Belalong: a tropical rainforest. Sun Tree Publishing, Singapore. 389 pp.Google Scholar
DAS, I. 1995. Amphibians and reptiles recorded at Batu Apoi, a lowland dipterocarp forest in Brunei Darussalam. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 43:157–180.Google Scholar
DEHLING, J. M. 2009. Limnonectes ibanorum (rough-backed river frog). Diet. Herpetological Review 3:332.Google Scholar
DORMANN, C. F., GRUBER, B. & FRÜND, J. 2008. Introducing the bipartite package: analysing ecological networks. R News 8:8–11.Google Scholar
ERNST, R., LINSENMAIR, K.-E. & RÖDEL, M. 2006. Diversity erosion beyond the species level: dramatic loss of functional diversity after selective logging in two tropical amphibian communities. Biological Conservation 2:143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GASCON, C., LOVEJOY, T. E., BIERREGAARD, R. O., MALCOLM, J. R., STOUFFER, P. C., VASCONCELOS, H. L., LAURANCE, W. F., ZIMMERMAN, B., TOCHER, M. & BORGES, S. 1999. Matrix habitat and species richness in tropical forest remnants. Biological Conservation 91:223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GIBSON, L., LEE, T. M., KOH, L. P., BROOK, B. W., GARDNER, T. A., BARLOW, J., PERES, C. A., BRADSHAW, C. J. A., LAURANCE, W. F., LOVEJOY, T. E. & SODHI, N. S. 2011. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478:378–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GOOSEM, M. 2007. Fragmentation impacts caused by roads through rainforests. Current Science 93:1587–1595.Google Scholar
GRAFE, T. U. 2011. Beyond taxonomy: radiotelemetry of the giant river frog Limnonectes leporinus in the Ulu Temburong National Park, Brunei Darussalam. Pp. 50–60 in Das, I., Haas, A. & Tuen, A. A. (eds.). Biology and conservation of tropical Asian amphibians. Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan. 180 pp.Google Scholar
GRAFE, T. U. & KELLER, A. 2009. A Bornean amphibian hotspot: the lowland mixed dipterocarp rainforest at Ulu Temburong National Park, Brunei Darussalam. Salamandra 45:25–38.Google Scholar
GRAFE, T. U., GOUTTE, S., AHMADSAH, H. H., KONOPIK, O., SCHARMAN, M. & BAUER, U. 2010. Updated check list of the amphibians of the Ulu Temburong National Park and Brunei Darussalam. Scientia Bruneiana 11:53–59.Google Scholar
HART, R. K., CALVER, M. C. & DICKMAN, C. R. 2002. The index of relative importance: an alternative approach to reduce bias in descriptive studies of animal diets. Wildlife Research 29:415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INGER, R. F. 2009. Contributions to the natural history of seven species of Bornean frogs. Fieldiana: Zoology 116:1–25.Google Scholar
INGER, R. F. & GREENBERG, B. 1966. Ecological and competitive relations among three species of frogs (genus Rana). Ecology 57:746–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INGER, R. F. & STUEBING, R. B. 2005. Frogs of Borneo. (Second edition). Natural History Publications (Borneo) Sdn. Bhd., Kota Kinabalu. 201 pp.Google Scholar
INGER, R. F., STUEBING, R. B. & ZAINUDDIN, R. 2005. Peat swamp frogs of Borneo. Pp. 178–181 in Tuen, A. A. & Das, I. (eds.). Wallace in Sarawak – 150 Years Later. An International Conference on Biogeography and Biodiversity. Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan.Google Scholar
KELLER, A., RÖDEL, M.-O., LINSENMAIR, K.-E. & GRAFE, T. U. 2009. The importance of environmental heterogeneity for species diversity and assemblage structure in Bornean stream frogs. Journal of Animal Ecology 78:305–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KRAMEK, W. C. 1972. Food of the frog Rana septentrionalis in New York. Copeia 2:390–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KUPFER, A., LANGEL, R., SCHEU, S., HIMSTEDT, W. & MARAUN, M. 2006. Trophic ecology of a tropical aquatic and terrestrial food web: insights from stable isotopes (15N). Journal of Tropical Ecology 22:469–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KUSRINI, M. D. & ALFORD, R. A. 2006. Indonesia's exports of frogs’ legs. Traffic 21:13–24.Google Scholar
LAURANCE, S. G. W. 2004. Responses of understory rain forest birds to road edges in Central Amazonia. Ecological Applications 14:1344–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LAURANCE, W. F., Goosem, M. & Laurance, S. G. 2009. Impacts of roads and linear clearings on tropical forests. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:659–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MADISON, D. M., TITUS, V. R. & LAMOUREUX, V. S. 2010. Movement patterns and radiotelemetry. Pp. 185–202 in Dodd, C. K. (ed.). Amphibian ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
MALKMUS, R. & DEHLING, J. M. 2008. Anuran amphibians of Borneo as phytotelm-breeders – a synopsis. Herpetozoa 20:165–172.Google Scholar
MCLEOD, D. S. 2009. Limnonectes megastomias (big-mouthed frog). Diet and ornithophagy. Herpetological Review 2:205–206.Google Scholar
PHILLIPS, B. L., BROWN, G. P., GREENLEES, M., WEBB, J. K. & SHINE, R. 2007. Rapid expansion of the cane toad (Bufo marinus) invasion front in tropical Australia. Austral Ecology 32:169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SODHI, N. S., KOH, L. P., BROOK, B. W. & NG, P. K. L. 2004. Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:654–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SOLÉ, M. & RÖDDER, D. 2010. Dietary assessments of adult amphibians. Pp. 167–180 in Dodd, C. K. (ed.). Amphibian ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
SOLÉ, M., BECKMANN, O., PELZ, B., KWET, A. & ENGELS, W. 2005. Stomach-flushing for diet analysis in anurans: an improved protocol evaluated in a case study in Araucaria forests, southern Brazil. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 40:23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WARKENTIN, I. G., BICKFORD, D., SODHI, N. S. & BRADSHAW, C. J. A. 2009. Eating frogs to extinction. Conservation Biology 23:1056–1059.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed