CH 1999(1)

Contemporary Herpetology
1999 Number 1
8 June 1999

ISSN 1094-2246

REVIEW: AMPHIBIAN SURVEYS IN FORESTS AND WOODLANDS

Kirsten M. Parris (parrisk@cres.anu.edu.au)

Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia

Abstract. Amphibian surveys provide information on the distribution, abundance and habitat requirements of species, and the environmental variables that control diversity. Such information is needed for effective conservation planning and management of forests and woodlands, including monitoring of amphibian populations in a period of apparent global decline. Amphibian surveys can be time-consuming and expensive, and many issues must be addressed to maximize the reliability of the resulting data. Sampling techniques that are effective in one region or habitat type may be less so in another, and a preliminary study comparing different techniques before undertaking a survey may be necessary. Data collected in poorly designed surveys can be unsuitable for statistical analysis, and may sometimes present a misleading picture of the distribution, abundance and habitat requirements of amphibian species. This review examines issues of survey design, assesses past amphibian surveys in forest and woodland habitats, and provides recommendations for planning an amphibian survey. Firstly, the study area and survey aims should be identified, and proposed sampling techniques assessed using relevant literature or a pilot study. Ethical issues associated with proposed sampling techniques should also be considered. The number, size and arrangement of the survey units (e.g. plots, sites or transects) should be sufficient to address the survey aims. The survey units should be systematically surveyed several times with appropriate sampling techniques.

Declining amphibian populations have been observed around the world in the last 20 years. For example, 28 Australian frog species have reportedly declined in this period (Osborne, 1989; Czechura and Ingram, 1990; McDonald, 1990; Ingram and McDonald, 1993; Richards et al., 1993; Hollis, 1995; Gillespie and Hollis, 1996; Mahoney, 1996), with a number apparently disappearing altogether (Ingram and McDonald, 1993). The majority of these species are forest-dwelling frogs that breed in streams. The causes of Australian frog declines are uncertain, but possibilities include climate change (Osborne 1989; Ingram, 1990), depletion of the ozone layer and an increase in ultra-violet radiation (Ferraro and Burgin, 1993b), disease (Laurance et al., 1996; Berger et al., 1998), habitat destruction (Tyler and Davies, 1985; Ferraro and Burgin, 1993a), salinity (Ferraro and Burgin, 1993b) and pollution of water and soil with heavy metals and pesticides (Tyler, 1994). There is no evidence that a single factor is responsible for all amphibian declines (Halliday, 1998; cf Laurance et al., 1996), and a synergistic effect may be operating. For example, pollution of waterways or increased ultra-violet radiation may lead to physiological stress and increased susceptibility to disease.

In many cases, lack of baseline information on population sizes and natural fluctuations has hindered assessment of amphibian declines in Australia and elsewhere (Pechmann and Wilbur, 1994; Gillespie and Hollis, 1996). Without long-term data on species distributions and population sizes, it is difficult to distinguish declines from natural population fluctuations (Pechmann et al., 1991; Blaustein et al., 1994; Pechmann and Wilbur, 1994). Surveys provide data for assessing the distribution and habitat requirements of species and assemblages. These data are needed to assist conservation of biological diversity in forests and woodlands, including planning and management of effective, representative nature reserves (Burbidge, 1991; Ferrier, 1991; Stohlgren et al., 1995).

Faunal surveys can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive (Margules and Austin, 1991), and there are many issues to consider when planning a survey to maximize the value and reliability of the resulting data. These include choice of appropriate sampling techniques, sufficient survey effort to fulfill the aims of the study, and a systematic design. Data collected during a systematic survey or monitoring program, undertaken at replicated, independent sites, are suitable for statistical analysis (Heyer et al., 1994). This review examines four components of survey design, and reviews previous amphibian surveys in forest and woodland habitats. It also provides recommendations for planning amphibian surveys and identifies areas for further research.

SURVEY DESIGN

1. Sampling Techniques

There is a variety of techniques for sampling amphibians (Heyer et al., 1994). Each is suitable for detecting species with particular life history traits and behavior. The most commonly used techniques for sampling amphibians include opportunistic and systematic searches, pitfall traps, listening for and recording the advertisement calls of male anurans (frogs and toads), larval sampling, and the use of artificial coverboards. A summary of the target species, advantages and disadvantages of 11 sampling techniques appears in Table 1.

An amphibian fauna may be comprised of large and small, burrowing, ground-dwelling and arboreal species, explosive and prolonged breeders, and species that may or may not require free water to breed (e.g., Czechura, 1991). Because each technique for sampling amphibians best detects a certain subset of the fauna, use of complementary sampling techniques is often necessary to detect all the species in a survey area (Bury and Raphael, 1983; Friend, 1984; Osborne, 1985; Heyer et al., 1994). However, few studies have systematically compared different sampling techniques and determined the most appropriate ones for a given habitat or region and its corresponding amphibian fauna (e.g., Greenburg et al., 1994; Pearman et al., 1995; Parris et al., in press). Other, less systematic studies have used different sampling techniques at different times or in different places, confounding comparisons (e.g., Bury and Raphael, 1983; Mitchell et al., 1993). A summary of studies comparing techniques for sampling amphibians in forests and woodlands appears in Table 2.

Searches for amphibians take many forms (Heyer et al., 1994). Searches can be conducted during the day or at night, at streams, ponds and dams or in forest areas away from water, in pre-determined plots or transects or in an opportunistic fashion. The intensity of searches varies from observation of active amphibians (Crump and Scott, 1994) to investigation of likely refuges such as leaf litter, logs and rocks (Jaeger, 1994; Jaeger and Inger, 1994; Gillespie and Hollis, 1996), to destruction of microhabitats with hoes, machetes or metal claws (e.g., Heyer and Berven, 1973).

All seven studies comparing nocturnal searches with other techniques for sampling amphibians in forests and woodlands found nocturnal searches to be the most effective (Braithwaite, 1985; Berrill et al., 1992; Denton and Beebee, 1992; Pearman et al. 1995; Holloway, 1997; Shirose et al., 1997; Parris et al., in press). Nocturnal searches detected more species and/or more individuals than diurnal searches, pitfall traps, tadpole netting, counts of calling males, automatic tape recorders, artificial coverboards and artificial aquatic habitats (Table 2). Searches of daytime refuges can detect certain species if suitable microhabitats are investigated (Heyer and Berven, 1973; Gillespie and Hollis, 1996). However, only one of six studies comparing diurnal searches with other sampling techniques found it to be the most effective for detecting amphibians (Bury and Raphael, 1983; Table 2).

Night driving is a search technique that uses a road as a transect. It involves driving slowly along a section of road at night, counting the amphibians seen per unit time with spotlights or the vehicle’s headlights (Shaffer and Juterbock, 1994). Night driving is suitable for detecting large, active species that move through the landscape away from breeding sites, and works best on wet nights when these amphibians are moving. Campbell and Christman (1982) detected more amphibian species with night driving than with pitfall traps or two types of diurnal searches during a comparative study in Florida. The majority of the species not detected with night driving were small amphibians that may have been difficult to see from a moving vehicle. Data derived from night driving may be of limited use in discerning the habitat requirements of the species found. The road and its surroundings may be hostile habitats that the amphibians are moving through on their way to somewhere more favorable, such as a breeding site.

Pitfall traps consist of holes in the ground lined with buckets, tins or pipes, that animals fall into (Corn, 1994). They are often set with drift fences, which are arranged to guide animals moving along the ground into the traps (Corn, 1994). Dry pitfall traps are empty except for a wet sponge or some leaf litter placed in the bottom to provide refuge and moisture for captured animals (Greenburg et al., 1994). Wet pitfall traps contain preservatives such as alcohol and formalin, and are designed to preserve the captured animals as specimens. Because wet pitfall traps kill all animals they catch including invertebrates, reptiles, mammals and amphibians, they can cause large-scale mortality, especially when left open for long periods of time (e.g., Webb, 1991; Mitchell et al., 1993, 1997).

Pitfall traps are suitable for sampling active, ground-dwelling species that are not strong jumpers or climbers (Osborne, 1985; Dodd, 1991; Corn, 1994). Arboreal or inactive species that are unlikely to encounter a trap, and species that can climb or jump out of a trap are not well sampled with this technique. Pitfall trapping was the most effective sampling technique in two of six comparative studies, detecting more amphibian species than funnel traps in the Ocala National Forest, Florida (Greenburg et al., 1994) and artificial coverboards in forest wetlands in Virginia and South Carolina (Mitchell et al., 1993). Research on the efficiency of various pitfall trap systems indicates that traps > 30 cm deep set on both sides of drift fences > 15 m long catch the most animals (Vogt and Hine 1982; Braithwaite, 1983; Friend, 1984; Osborne, 1985; Bury and Corn, 1987; Table 2). Osborne (1985) tested the ability of eleven species of frogs to escape from pitfall traps of different depths. He found that tree frogs could climb out of traps of any depth, but that terrestrial myobatrachid frogs generally could not jump out of traps > 30 cm deep.

The advertisement calls of male frogs are a distinguishing character that can be used to identify species (Blair, 1958; Littlejohn, 1968). Amphibians calling along a transect or in a quadrat can be counted and their calls recorded. Calls can also be periodically recorded at study sites using tape recorders with automatic timing devices, which turn on and off at specified times (Peterson and Dorcas, 1994). This technique only detects species that are calling at the time of survey. Calling activity varies seasonally and diurnally, and in response to recent and prevailing weather conditions (Heyer et al., 1994). It can be difficult to count frogs accurately when they are calling in chorus. In these cases, an index of calling activity can be used to estimate numbers. The number of Fowler’s toads and bullfrogs detected with call count surveys was proportional to but consistently lower than the number found with intensive nocturnal searches when the two techniques were compared in Ontario (Shirose et al., 1997). Automatic tape recorders detected fewer species of amphibians than nocturnal searches during a comparative study in Queensland, Australia (Parris et al., in press). The four species not detected with tape recorders either did not call during the survey or had quiet calls that were difficult to record.

Sampling amphibians with artificial coverboards involves arranging wooden boards, roof tiles or metal sheeting in standard arrays in the study area, then looking underneath them at regular intervals for sheltering amphibians (DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 1992; Denton and Beebee, 1992; Mitchell et al., 1993; Fellers and Drost, 1994; Davis, 1997). The coverboards act as artificial shelter for amphibians. Coverboards work especially well for salamanders, which generally shelter below surface objects such as logs during wetter periods of the year (Fellers and Drost, 1994). Denton and Beebee (1992) found artificial cover in the form of roof tiles to be of limited value for detecting natterjack toads Bufo calamita in England. Both B. calamita and B. bufo used the artificial cover during spring and autumn, but left in summer to take refuge further underground and avoid hot, dry conditions (Denton and Beebee, 1992).

Sampling amphibian larvae can be an effective way to detect species breeding at a site, and is particularly useful when adult animals are no longer present. Larvae can be sampled with seines, dipnets, rigid enclosures or underwater traps (Shaffer et al., 1994), and counted to give information on the species present and their abundance. The adults of explosive breeding species such as Litoria brevipalmata, the green-thighed frog from eastern Australia, may only be present at a body of water for one or two nights per breeding season, while their larvae will usually spend weeks or months developing to metamorphosis (Natrass and Ingram, 1993; Tyler, 1994). Larval sampling can therefore detect species that other techniques miss (e.g. Pearman et al., 1995). However, in some regions there is no comprehensive guide to amphibian larvae and problems with identification, particularly in areas of high species richness, may mean that larvae must be raised to metamorphosis (e.g. Osborne, 1985). This may be impractical for studies with a large number of survey sites, as larvae from each site would need separate aquaria.

Results of the comparative studies summarized in Table 2 indicate that nocturnal searching is a consistently effective technique for detecting amphibians in a range of forest and woodland habitats. Conversely, diurnal searches and pitfall traps appear to be less effective. However, it may be inappropriate to extrapolate the results of previous studies to different habitats or regions, as techniques that are effective in one place may be less so in another. For example, Braithwaite (1985) surveyed the frog fauna of Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory, Australia using diurnal searches, nocturnal searches and dry pitfall traps with drift fences. Dry pitfall traps detected 15 out of 23 frog species found, with a capture rate of 25.1/100 trap nights in the wet season (Braithwaite, 1985). In contrast, dry pitfall traps detected only seven frog species out of 34 at a capture rate of 2.1/100 trap nights during recent fauna surveys in the forests of northeast New South Wales, Australia (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1994). Most of the amphibians caught in pitfall traps during both studies were burrowing and ground-dwelling frogs, but they comprised a larger proportion of the frog fauna at Kakadu. A preliminary or pilot study determining the most effective combination of techniques for sampling the amphibian fauna in a study area may be a useful first step in planning a survey (e.g., Pearman et al., 1995). Pilot studies are particularly helpful, if not essential, when an amphibian fauna is poorly known.

2. Survey Effort

Amphibian activity, and thus detectability, varies spatially, seasonally and with current or recent weather conditions (Duellman and Trueb, 1986; Heyer et al., 1994). As a consequence, several visits to a survey site are generally required to detect all the amphibian species present (e.g., Hecnar, 1997; Pearman, 1997). Hasty surveys may fail to find some species, especially those that are rare, cryptic or active for short periods of time such as explosive breeders. The survey effort required to fulfill the aims of a survey will vary with season, habitat conditions, the diversity, composition and activity patterns of the amphibian fauna in the study area, and the sampling techniques used. Again, a pilot field study can provide information on the survey effort needed when using different sampling techniques in a given study area.

There is little information on the survey effort required to detect a specified proportion of the species at a site with a given technique (Osborne, 1985), or to be confident that a species is absent when not detected. However, previous studies indicate that more repeat sampling is required with trapping than nocturnal searching. Months of continuous pitfall or funnel trapping may be required to detect all the species at a site (Bury and Corn, 1987; Greenburg et al., 1994), although arboreal species are unlikely to be detected with pitfall traps, regardless of survey effort. Parris et al. (in press) estimated the survey effort required to be confident that a frog species is absent when not detected with different sampling techniques. Up to 140 nights of pitfall trapping but only six nights of nocturnal searching or tape recording are needed to be 95% sure of the absence of Pseudophryne raveni, a common, ground-dwelling frog, from forest streams in Queensland, Australia.

In general, more survey effort will be required to detect rare or cryptic species than common species. This can be important in studies investigating possible effects of human activities in forests, such as logging, on the resident amphibian fauna. Rarer species may be most vulnerable to habitat disturbance, but least likely to be detected in pre-logging surveys or environmental impact assessments. The survey effort required to detect all species of an amphibian fauna is likely to increase with its diversity. Amphibian surveys conducted outside the main breeding season in cold or temperate habitats are unlikely to find most species present, regardless of survey effort, resulting in unreliable data (Heyer et al., 1994).

3. Statistical Considerations

Data collected during a systematic survey or monitoring program, undertaken at replicated, independent survey sites, are suitable for statistical analysis of relationships between the amphibians at a site and habitat variables, amphibian activity and weather conditions, or population trends over time (e.g. Pechmann et al., 1991; Denton and Beebee, 1992; Petranka et al., 1994; Welsh and Lind, 1995). Ideally, survey sites should represent the range of environmental variation in the study area, such as variation in climate, forest type, land systems or aquatic habitats (Austin and Heyligers, 1991; Petranka et al., 1994; Pearman, 1997). Sites should be far enough apart that the presence of a species at one site is not influenced by its presence or absence at another (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981).

An unsystematic experimental design, insufficient replication or dependence between sites reduce the value of survey data. Differences in sampling techniques or survey effort between sites may invalidate comparisons of their amphibian fauna. Insufficient replication of sites will limit the power of consequent statistical analyses to detect significant effects. For example, in a study of habitat variables influencing amphibian assemblages in the Appalachian forests of Virginia, Mitchell et al. (1997) surveyed five sites, one in each of five forest types. They found no significant relationships between the number or diversity of amphibians and habitat variables, and did not fulfill the aims of their study. Dependence between survey sites will compromise analyses of between-site variation, resulting in inflated estimates of statistical significance (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981).

4. Ethics

Field surveys involve active observation of animals and may result in accidental or deliberate disturbance of amphibians in their natural habitat. Non-destructive sampling techniques are important for maintaining the integrity of a study population, and protecting rare and endangered species (Gibbons, 1988). Use of sampling techniques that kill animals or severely disturb their habitat raises ethical issues (Farnsworth and Rosovsky, 1993). Researchers need to consider possible negative impacts on their study animals before using destructive sampling techniques.

Investigative searching that destroys the refuges of amphibians and reptiles in and under trees, logs, leaf litter and soil can have a considerable adverse effect on the resident herpetofauna and its habitat (Davis, 1997). Wet pitfall traps containing alcohol or other preservatives kill all animals that fall into them, including rare and endangered species, and can cause large-scale mortality (Webb, 1991; Mitchell et al., 1993, 1997). For example, researchers caught 40 hip-pocket frogs (Assa darlingtoni) and 21 sphagnum frogs (Philoria sphagnicolus) in wet pitfall traps established to catch invertebrates during a survey in forests in northeast New South Wales, Australia (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1994). Both are listed as vulnerable and rare (Schedule 12) species in New South Wales.

Dry pitfall traps can also kill large numbers of animals if they not checked regularly enough, as captured animals can desiccate, starve or be eaten by predators (Buhlmann et al., 1988; Halliday, 1996). During a survey of forest vertebrates in Oregon and Washington, Bury and Corn (1987) initially checked their pitfall traps every three days, then only every seven days. Almost all 3904 mammals they caught died in the traps. Most of the 2180 amphibians and reptiles caught were still alive when the traps were checked, although the researchers subsequently collected them as specimens (Bury and Corn, 1987). This is an extreme example, but researchers need to justify a decision to include destructive techniques in their study, particularly in situations where more benign techniques could be used. Ethical concerns surrounding the use of destructive sampling techniques are compounded if surveys are not designed to ensure the research questions can be answered.

PREVIOUS AMPHIBIAN SURVEYS IN FORESTS AND WETLANDS

The design, sampling techniques, and survey effort used in 44 previous amphibian surveys in forests and woodlands around the world are summarized in Table 3. This is not an exhaustive list, but represents the range of approaches used to survey amphibians in forest and woodland habitats, excluding experimental and population studies. Over half the papers in Table 3 did not include sufficient information on the method of their survey for a reader to determine the number or independence of survey sites, or whether the survey was systematic or included repeat sampling. This information is needed for a survey to be scientifically evaluated.

The target species of the surveys in Table 3 varied from a single species to all the amphibians present in a large study area. Thirty of the 44 studies used a combination of sampling techniques, and 33 included repeat sampling with at least one technique. Twenty studies were classed as systematic, with systematically selected sites surveyed the same number of times with the same techniques. Thirteen systematic studies included repeat sampling at survey sites (Table 3). Only two studies included systematic repeat sampling with a combination of techniques at systematically selected, independent survey sites (NSW NPWS, 1994; Parris and McCarthy, in press).

Survey sites should be far enough apart that the presence of a species at one site is not influenced by its presence or absence at another (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). For the purposes of Table 3, I defined sites as independent if they were 1 km apart, although the actual distance needed to ensure independence will vary between species and habitats. Information on the proximity of survey sites was provided in only 20 of the papers listed in Table 3. Of these, nine studies had independent survey sites. This indicates that independence of sites has not been widely considered during survey planning, despite dependence between sites violating a key assumption of most statistical analyses. Six of the 11 studies in Table 3 with dependent sites (< 1 km apart) included statistical analysis of data between sites (Dalrymple, 1988; Petranka et al., 1994; Sjogren, 1994; Lemckert, 1995; Welsh and Lind, 1995; Woinarski and Gambold, 1992).

Many amphibian surveys in Australian forests and woodlands have been combined with surveys for other vertebrate groups, resulting in inadequate survey effort for amphibians, particularly rare and cryptic species (Milledge, 1993). Such surveys have frequently used inappropriate techniques for sampling amphibians, such as diurnal searches and pitfall traps in forest plots away from water bodies (e.g., Webb, 1991; Andrews et al., 1994; Smith et al., 1994, 1995; Fanning, 1995; Goldingay et al., 1996). A survey to investigate forestry impacts on the fauna of the Urbenville Forest Management Area in northern New South Wales detected only two frogs during diurnal searches at 180 forest plots, while wet pitfall traps caught just seven of the 42 frog species known from the study area (Andrews et al., 1994). Consequently, Andrews et al. (1994) found no effect of forest type or logging on the richness of amphibian species at their survey sites.

Pitfall trapping and diurnal searches away from water are unlikely to detect most amphibians in the temperate and sub-tropical forests of eastern Australia because they are rarely found in terrestrial areas. However, terrestrial sampling of amphibians can be effective in wetter forests such as those of northwestern North America, where much of the amphibian fauna breeds and/or shelters in terrestrial areas (Leonard et al., 1993). A series of amphibian surveys in Douglas-Fir forests in Washington, Oregon and California successfully used diurnal searches and pitfall trapping at terrestrial sites (Bury and Raphael, 1983; Corn and Bury, 1991; Gilbert and Allwine, 1991; Aubrey and Hall, 1991; Bury et al., 1991). Pitfall traps and time-constrained searches detected both salamanders and frogs, while searches of down wood detected salamanders sheltering in and under logs on the forest floor. This demonstrates the effectiveness of sampling techniques varying with the composition of the amphibian fauna in a study area, and the need to consider the biology of the target species when planning a survey.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Planning an amphibian survey to maximize its effectiveness and the value of the resulting data involves consideration of a wide range of issues. Suggested steps when planning an amphibian survey are:

1. Identify your study area and the question(s) you wish to answer (survey aims).

2. Review the literature on the amphibians in your study area. If they have been poorly studied, undertake a pilot study to compare the effectiveness of a number of sampling techniques, and assess the sampling effort that might be required to fulfill your survey aims. All sampling techniques should be used concurrently at the same sites to ensure a valid comparison.

3. Consider possible negative effects of destructive sampling techniques before deciding to use them. In some countries, ethics approval for a project will not be granted if use of destructive techniques is proposed.

4. Determine the size of sites, plots or transects (sampling units) appropriate for the study area and the survey questions.

5. Determine the number and arrangement of sites needed to address the survey questions. For example, if you are interested in the effects of forest fragmentation on amphibians, locate sites in a number of different patches and a number of contiguous forest areas.

6. Choose sites to represent the range of variation of one or more relevant parameters in the study area. In the example above, these could be the range of patch sizes and their proximity to contiguous forest. If planning to analyze variation between sites, ensure that sites are located far enough apart to be independent.

7. Systematically survey the selected sites with one or more sampling techniques suitable for your target species. Repeat, as indicated by the pilot study and the survey aims.

More information is needed on the effectiveness of different techniques for sampling amphibians in different forest and woodland habitats. In addition, the survey effort required to fulfill the aims of a study, such as detecting a particular species if it is present, is largely unknown in many areas of the world. These issues of amphibian survey design require further research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Michael McCarthy, Andrew Claridge, Tony Norton, Helen Neave, John Fauth and three anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments on the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

AICHINGER, M.: 1987. Annual activity patterns of anurans in a seasonal neotropical environment. Oecologia 71: 583-592.

ANDREWS, S. P., G. GRATION, D. QUIN AND A. P. SMITH.: 1994. Description and assessment of forestry impacts on fauna of the Urbenville Forestry Management Area. Urbenville Management Area: Environmental impact statement, supporting document No. 4. Armidale, State Forests of New South Wales.

AUBREY, K. B. AND P. A. HALL.: 1991. Terrestrial amphibian communities in the Southern Washington Cascade Range. Pages 327-338 in Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-Fir forests (K. B. Aubrey, M. H. Brookes, J. K. Agee, R. G. Anthony, J. F. Franklin, B. R. Noon, M. G. Raphael, R. M. Storm and J. Verner, eds). USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Technical Report No. 285.

_____, L.L. C. JONES AND P. A. HALL.: 1988. Use of woody debris by plethodontid salamanders in Douglas-fir forests in Washington. Pages 32-37 in Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America (R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson and D. R. Patton, eds). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166.

AUSTIN, M. P. AND P. C. HEYLIGERS.: 1991. New approaches to vegetation survey design: Gradsect sampling. Pages 31-36 in Nature conservation: Cost effective biological surveys and data analysis (C. R. Margules and M. P. Austin, eds). CSIRO, Canberra.

BEAUREGARD, N. AND R. LECLAIR.: 1988. Multivariate analysis of the summer habitat structure of Rana pipiens Schreber, in Lac Saint Pierre (Quebec, Canada). Pages 129-143 in Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America . USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166.

BERGER, L., R. SPEARE, P. DASZAK, D. E. GREEN, A. A. CIMMOMGJA, C. L. GOGGIN, R. SLOCOMBE, M. A. RAGAN, A. D. HYATT, K. R. MCDONALD, H. H. HINES, K. L. LIPS, G. MARANTELLI AND H. PARKES.: 1998. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95: 9031-9036.

BERRILL, M. S. BERTRAM, D. BRIGHAM AND V. CAMPBELL.: 1992. A comparison of three methods of monitoring frog populations. Pages 87-93 in Declines in Canadian amphibian populations: Designing a national strategy (C. A. Bishop and K. E. Pettit, eds). Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No. 76.

BLAIR, W. F.: 1958. Mating call in the speciation of anuran amphibians. American Naturalist 92: 27-51.

BLAUSTEIN, A. R., D. B. WAKE AND W. P. SOUSA.: 1994. Amphibian declines: Judging stability, persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conservation Biology 8: 60-71.

BRAITHWAITE, R. W.: 1983. A comparison of two pitfall trap systems. Victorian Naturalist 100: 163-166.; 1985. The Kakadu Fauna Survey: An ecological survey of Kakadu National Park. Report to Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology, Darwin.

BRANA, F., L. FRECHILLA AND G. ORIZAOLA.: 1996. Effect of introduced fish on amphibian assemblages in mountain lakes of northern Spain. Herpetological Journal 6: 145-148.

BUHLMANN, K. A., C. A. PAGUE, J. C. MITCHELL AND R. B. GLASGOW.: 1988. Forestry operations and terrestrial salamanders: Techniques in a study of the Cow Knob salamander, Plethodon punctatus. Pages 38-44 in Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America (R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson and D. R. Patton, eds). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166.

BURBIDGE, A. A.: 1991. Cost constraints on surveys for nature conservation. Pages 3-6 in Nature conservation: Cost effective biological surveys and data analysis (C. R. Margules and M. P. Austin, eds). CSIRO, Canberra.

BURY, R. B. AND P. S. CORN.: 1987. Evaluation of pitfall trapping in northwestern forests: Trap arrays with drift fences. Journal of Wildlife Management 51: 112-119.; 1988. Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon and Washington Cascades: Relation of the herpetofauna to stand age and moisture. Pages 11-22 in Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America (R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson and D. R. Patton, eds). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166.

_____, _____ AND K. B. AUBREY.: 1991. Regional patterns of terrestrial amphibian communities in Oregon and Washington. Pages 341-350 in Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-Fir forests (K. B. Aubrey, M. H. Brookes, J. K. Agee, R. G. Anthony, J. F. Franklin, B. R. Noon, M. G. Raphael, R. M. Storm and J. Verner, eds). USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Technical Report No. 285.

_____, _____ AND M. G. RAPHAEL.: 1983. Inventory methods for amphibians and reptiles. Pages 416-419 in Renewable resource inventories for monitoring changes and trends (J. F. Bell and T. Atterbury, eds). Oregon State University, Corvallis.

CAMPBELL, H. W. AND S. P. CHRISTMAN.: 1982. Field techniques for herpetofaunal community analysis. Pages 193-200 in Herpetological communities (N. J. Scott Jr., ed.). U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Service Wildlife Research Report 13.

COLLINS, J. P., T. R. JONES AND H. J. BERNA.: 1988. Conserving genetically distinct populations: The case of the Huachuca tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi Lowe). Pages 45-53 in Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America (R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson and D. R. Patton, eds). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166.

CORN, P. S.: 1994. Straight-line drift fences and pitfall traps. Pages 109-117 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians (W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek and M. S. Foster, eds). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

_____ AND R. B. BURY.: 1991. Terrestrial amphibian communities in the Oregon Coast Range. Pages 305-317 in Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-Fir forests (K. B. Aubrey, M. H. Brookes, J. K. Agee, R. G. Anthony, J. F. Franklin, B. R. Noon, M. G. Raphael, R. M. Storm and J. Verner, eds). USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Technical Report No. 285.

CRUMP, M. L. AND N. J. SCOTT.: 1994. Visual encounter surveys. Pages 84-92 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians (W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Fostereds, eds). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

_____, F. R. HENSLEY AND K. L. CLARKE.: 1992. Apparent decline of the golden toad: underground or extinct? Copeia 1992: 413-420.

CZECHURA, G. V.: 1991. The Blackall-Conondale Ranges: Frogs, reptiles and fauna conservation. Pages 311-324 in The rainforest legacy volume 2: Flora and fauna of the rainforests (G. Werren and P. Kershaw, eds). Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra.

_____ AND G. J. INGRAM.: 1990. Taudactylus diurnus and the case of the disappearing frogs. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 29: 361-65.

DALRYMPLE, G. H.: 1988. The herpetofauna of Long Pine Key, Everglades National Park, in relation to vegetation and hydrology. Pages 72-86 in Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America (R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson and D. R. Patton, eds). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166.

DAVIS, T. M.: 1997. Non-disruptive monitoring of terrestrial salamanders with artificial cover objects on southern Vancouver Island, British Colombia. Pages 161-174 in Amphibians in decline: Canadian studies of a global problem (D. M. Green, ed). Herpetological Conservation 1.

DEGRAAF, R. M. AND M. YAMASAKI.: 1992. A nondestructive technique to monitor the relative abundance of terrestrial salamanders. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 260-264.

DENTON, J. S. AND T. J. C. BEEBEE.: 1992. An evaluation of methods for studying natterjack toads (Bufo calamita) outside the breeding season. Amphibia-Reptilia 13: 365-374.

DODD, C. K.: 1991. Drift fence associated sampling bias of amphibians at a Florida sandhills temporary pond. Journal of Herpetology 25: 296-301.

DRISCOLL, D. A.: 1998. Counts of calling males as estimates of population size in the endangered frogs Geocrinia alba and G. vitellina. Journal of Herpetology 32: 475-481.

DUELLMAN, W. E. AND L. TRUEB.: 1986. Biology of amphibians. McGraw-Hill Publishing, New York.

FANNING, D.: 1995. Native fauna of the Tenterfield Management Area. Proposed forestry operations in the Tenterfield Management Area: Environmental impact statement, supporting document No. 4. Armidale, State Forests of New South Wales.

FARNSWORTH, E. J. AND J. ROSOVSKY.: 1993. The ethics of ecological field experimentation. Conservation Biology 7: 463-472.

FELLERS, G. M. AND C. A. DROST.: 1994. Sampling with artificial cover. Pages 146-150 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians (W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster, eds). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

FERRARO, T. J. AND S. BURGIN.: 1993a. Amphibian decline: A case study in western Sydney. Pages 197-204 in Herpetology in Australia: A diverse discipline (D. Lunney and D. Ayres, eds). Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales 1993.; 1993b. Review of environmental factors influencing the decline of Australian frogs. Pages 205-218 in Herpetology in Australia: A diverse discipline (D. Lunney and D. Ayres, eds). Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales 1993.

FERRIER, S.: 1991. Computer-based spatial extension of forest fauna survey data: Current issues, problems and directions. Pages 221-227 in Conservation of Australia’s forest fauna (D. Lunney, ed). Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney.

FRIEND, G. R.: 1984. Relative efficiency of two pitfall-drift fence systems for sampling small vertebrates. Australian Zoologist 21: 423-433.

_____ AND K. M. CELLIER.: 1990. Wetland herpetofauna of Kakadu National Park, Australia: Seasonal richness trends, habitat preferences and the effects of feral ungulates. Journal of Tropical Ecology 6: 131-152.

GASCON, C.: 1991. Population- and community-level analyses of species occurrences of central Amazonian rainforest tadpoles. Ecology 72: 1731-1746.

GIBBONS, J. W.: 1988. The management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America: The need for an environmental attitude. Pages 4-10 in Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America (R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson and D. R. Patton, eds). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166.

GILBERT, F. F. AND R. ALLWINE.: 1991. Terrestrial amphibian communities in the Oregon Cascade Range. Pages 319-324 in Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-Fir forests (K. B. Aubrey, M. H. Brookes, J. K. Agee, R. G. Anthony, J. F. Franklin, B. R. Noon, M. G. Raphael, R. M. Storm and J. Verner, eds). USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Technical Report No. 285.

GILLESPIE, G. R. AND G. J. HOLLIS.: 1996. Distribution and habitat of the spotted tree frog, Litoria spenceri Dubois (Anura: Hylidae), and an assessment of potential causes of population declines. Wildlife Research 23: 49-75.

GOLDINGAY R., G. DALY AND F. LEMCKERT.: 1996. Assessing the impacts of logging on reptiles and frogs in the montane forests of southern New South Wales. Wildlife Research 23: 495-510.

GREENBURG, C. H., D. G. NEARY AND L. D. HARRIS.: 1994. A comparison of herpetofaunal sampling effectiveness of pitfall, single-ended and double-ended funnel traps used with drift fences. Journal of Herpetology 28: 319-324.

HALLIDAY, T.: 1996. Amphibians. Pages 205-217 in Ecological census techniques, a handbook (W. J. Sutherland, ed). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.; 1998. A declining amphibian conundrum. Nature 394: 418-419.

HECNAR, S. J.: 1997. Amphibian pond communities in southwestern Ontario. Pages 1-15 in Amphibians in decline: Canadian studies of a global problem (D. M. Green, ed.). Herpetological Conservation 1.

_____ AND R. T. M’CLOSKEY.: 1997. Patterns of nestedness and species association in a pond-dwelling amphibian fauna. Oikos 80: 371-381.

HEYER, W. R. AND K. A. BERVEN.: 1973. Species diversities of herpetofaunal samples from similar microhabitats at two tropical sites. Ecology 54: 642-645.

_____, M. A. DONNELLY, R. W. MCDIARMID, L. C. HAYEK AND M. S. FOSTER.: 1994. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

HOLLIS, G. J.: 1995. Reassessment of the distribution, relative abundance and habitat of the Baw Baw frog (Philoria frosti Spencer). Victorian Naturalist 112: 190-201.

HOLLOWAY, S.: 1997. Survey protocols for the stream-breeding frogs of far east Gippsland: The application of habitat modelling and an assessment of techniques. M.S. Thesis, The University of Canberra, Canberra.

INGER, R. F. AND R. K. COLWELL.: 1977. Organization of contiguous communities of amphibians and reptiles in Thailand. Ecological Monographs 47: 229-253.

_____, H. B. SHAFFER, M. KOSHY AND R. BAKDE.: 1987. Ecological structure of a herpetological assemblage in South India. Amphibia-Reptilia 8: 189-202.

_____ AND F. K. VORIS.: 1993. A comparison of amphibian communities through time and from place to place in Bornean forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 9: 409-433.

INGRAM, G. J.: 1990. The mystery of the disappearing frogs. Wildlife Australia 27: 6-7.

_____ AND K. R. MCDONALD.: 1993. An update on the decline of Queensland’s frogs. Pages 297-303 in Herpetology in Australia: A diverse discipline (D. Lunney and D. Ayres, eds). Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales 1993.

JAEGER, R. G.: 1994. Patch sampling. Pages 107-109 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians (W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster, eds). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

_____ AND R. F. INGER.: 1994. Quadrat sampling. Pages 97-102 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians (W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster, eds). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

JONES, K. B.: 1988. Distribution and habitat associations of herpetofauna in Arizona: Comparisons by habitat type. Pages 109-128 in Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America (R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson and D. R. Patton, eds). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166.

LAURENCE, W. F., K. R. MCDONALD AND R. SPEARE.: 1996. Epidemic disease and the catastrophic decline of Australian rain forest frogs. Conservation Biology 10: 406-413.

LEMCKERT, F.: 1995. Dorrigo Management Area amphibian survey. In Fauna report. Proposed forestry operations in the Dorrigo Management Area: Interim (3 year) environmental impact statement, supporting document No. 3. Appendix 6 (L. Lim, ed.). Armidale, State Forests of New South Wales.

LEONARD W. P., H. A. BROWN, L. L. C. JONES, K. R. MCALLISTER AND R. C. STORM.: 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle.

LIPS, K. R.: 1998. Decline of a tropical montane amphibian fauna. Conservation Biology 12: 106-117.; 1999. Mass mortality and population declines of anurans at an upland site in western Panama. Conservation Biology 13: 117-125.

LITTLEJOHN, M. J.: 1968. Amphibian calls and the species problem. Australian Zoologist 14: 259-270.

MAHONEY, M.: 1993. The status of frogs in the Watagan Mountains area of the Central Coast of New South Wales. Pages 257-264 in Herpetology in Australia: A diverse discipline (D. Lunney and D. Ayres, eds). Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales 1993.
1996. The decline of the green and golden bell frog Litoria aurea viewed in the context of declines and disappearances of other Australian frogs. Pages 237-247 in The green and golden bell frog Litoria aurea: Biology and conservation (G. H. Pyke and W. S. Osborne, eds). Australian Zoologist 30.

MARGULES, C. R. AND M. P. AUSTIN.: 1991. Nature conservation: Cost effective biological surveys and data analysis. CSIRO, Canberra.

MARSH, D. M. AND P. B. PEARMAN.: 1997. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the abundance of two species of Leptodactylid frogs in an Andean montane forest. Conservation Biology 11: 1323-1328.

MCDONALD, K. R.: 1990. Rheobatrachus Liem and Taudactylus Straughn and Lee (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in Eungella National Park, Queensland: Distribution and decline. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 114: 187-194.

MILLEDGE, D.: 1993. The herpetofauna of northeastern New South Wales forests and the forestry EIS process. Pages 353-355 in Herpetology in Australia: A diverse discipline (D. Lunney and D. Ayres, eds). Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales 1993.

MITCHELL, J. C., S. Y. ERDLE AND J. F. PAGELS.: 1993. Evaluation of capture techniques for amphibian, reptile and small mammal communities in saturated forested wetlands. Wetlands 13: 130-136.

_____, S. C. RINERT, J. F. PAGELS, K. A. BUHLMANN AND C. A. PAGUE.: 1997. Factors influencing amphibian and small mammal assemblages in central Appalachian forests. Forest Ecology and Management 96: 65-76.

NATRASS, A. E. O. AND G. J. INGRAM.: 1993. New records of the rare green-thighed Frog. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 33: 348.

NEW SOUTH WALES NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.: 1994. Fauna of north-east NSW forests. North East Biodiversity Study report No. 3. Unpublished report, New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service.

OSBORNE, W. S.: 1985. An evaluation of techniques and strategies for sampling frog communities. Grad. Dip. Science Thesis, The Australian National University, Canberra.
1989. Distribution, relative abundance and conservation status of Corroboree Frogs, Pseudophryne corroboree Moore (Anura: Myobatrachidae). Australian Wildlife Research 16: 537-547.

PARRIS, K. M. AND M. A. MCCARTHY.: What influences the structure of frog assemblages at forest streams? Australian Journal of Ecology (in press).

_____, T. W. NORTON AND R. B. CUNNINGHAM.: A comparison of techniques for sampling amphibians in the forests of south-east Queensland, Australia. Herpetologica (in press).

PEARMAN, P. B.: 1997. Correlates of amphibian diversity in an altered landscape of Amazonian Ecuador. Conservation Biology 11: 1211-1225.

_____, A. M. VELASCO AND A. LOPEZ.: 1995. Tropical amphibian monitoring: A comparison of methods for detecting inter-site variation in species composition. Herpetologica 51: 325-337.

PECHMANN, J. H. K., D. E. SCOTT, R. D. SEMLITSCH, J. P. CALDWELL, L. J. VITT AND J. W. GIBBONS.: 1991. Declining amphibian populations: The problem of separating human impacts from natural fluctuations. Science 235: 892-895.

_____ AND H. M. WILBUR.: 1994. Putting declining amphibian populations in perspective: Natural fluctuations and human impacts. Herpetologica 50: 65-84.

PETERSON, C. R. AND M. E. DORCAS.: 1994. Automated data acquisition. Pages 47-57 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians (W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek and M. S. Foster, eds). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

PETRANKA, J. W., M. P. BRANNON, M. E. HOPEY AND C. K. SMITH.: 1994. Effects of timber harvesting on low elevation populations of southern Appalachian salamanders. Forest Ecology and Management 67: 135-147.

RAMOTNIK, C. A. AND N. J. SCOTT.: 1988. Habitat requirements of New Mexico’s endangered salamanders. Pages 54-63 in Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America (R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson and D. R. Patton, eds). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166.

RAXWORTHY, C. J. AND R. A. NUSSBAUM.: 1994. A rainforest survey of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals at Montagne D’Ambre, Madagascar. Biological Conservation 69: 65-73.

RICHARDS, S. J., K. R. MCDONALD AND R. A. ALFORD.: 1993. Declines in populations of Australia’s endemic tropical rainforest frogs. Pacific Conservation Biology 1: 66-77.

SAUGEY, D. A., G. A. HEIDT AND D. R. HEATH.: 1988. Utilization of abandoned mine drifts and fracture caves by bats and salamanders: Unique subterranean habitat in the Ouachita Mountains. Pages 64-71 in Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America (R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson and D. R. Patton, eds). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166.

SHAFFER, H. B., R. A. ALFORD, B. D. WOODWARD, S. J. RICHARDS, R. G. ALTIG AND C. GASCON.: 1994. Quantitative sampling of amphibian larvae. Pages pp 130-141 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians (W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek and M. S. Foster, eds). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

_____ AND J. E. JUTERBOCK.: 1994. Night driving. Pages 163-166 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians (W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek and M. S. Foster, eds). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

SHIROSE, L. J., C. A. BISHOP, D. M. GREEN, C. J. MACDONALD, R. J. BROOKS AND N. J. HELFERTY.: 1997. Validation tests of an amphibian call count survey technique in Ontario, Canada. Herpetologica 53: 312-320.

SJOGREN, P.: 1994. Distribution and extinction patterns within a northern metapopulation of the pool frog, Rana lessonae. Ecology 75: 1357-1367.

SMITH, A. P., S. P. ANDREWS AND D. M. MOORE.: 1994. Terrestrial fauna of the Grafton and Casino State Forest Management Areas - description and assessment of forestry impacts. Casino Management Area: Environmental impact statement, supporting document No. 6. Armidale, State Forests of New South Wales.
1995. Description and assessment of forestry impacts on fauna in the Urunga - Coffs Harbour Management Areas. Coffs Harbour/Urunga Management Areas: Environmental impact statement, supporting document No. 4. Armidale, State Forests of New South Wales.

SOKAL, R. R. AND F. J. ROHLF.: 1981. Biometry. Second edition. Freeman, New York.

STOHLGREN, T. J., J. F. QUINN, M. RUGGIERO AND G. S. WAGGONER.: 1995. Status of biotic inventories in US National Parks. Biological Conservation 71: 97-106.

STUMPEL, A. H. P. AND H. VAN DER VOET.: 1998. Characterizing the suitability of new ponds for amphibians. Amphibia-Reptilia 19: 125-142.

TORR, G. A.: 1993. A survey of the reptiles and amphibians of the Mossman Gorge section of Daintree national Park, Queensland. Pages 75-80 in Herpetology in Australia: A diverse discipline (D. Lunney and D. Ayres, eds). Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales 1993.

TYLER, M. J.: 1994. Australian Frogs. Second edition. Reed Books, Chatswood.

_____ AND M. DAVIES.: 1985. The gastric brooding frog Rheobatrachus silus. Pages 469-470 in The biology of Australasian frogs and reptiles (G. Grigg, R. Shine and H. Ehmann, eds). Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.

VOGT, R. C. AND R. L. HINE.: 1982. Evaluation of techniques for assessment of amphibian and reptile populations in Wisconsin. Pages 201-217 in Herpetological communities (N. J. Scott Jr., ed). US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research Report 13.

WEBB, G. A.: 1991. The effects of logging on populations of small ground-dwelling vertebrates in montane eucalypt forest in south-eastern New South Wales. M.S. Thesis, The Australian National University, Canberra.

WELSH, H. H. AND A. J. LIND.: 1995. Habitat correlates of the Del Norte Salamander, Plethodon elongatus (Caudata: Plethodontidae), in northwestern California. Journal of Herpetology 29: 198-210.

WOINARSKI, J. C. Z. AND N. GAMBOLD.: 1992. Gradient analysis of a tropical herpetofauna: Distribution patterns of terrestrial reptiles and amphibians in stage III of Kakadu National Park, Australia. Wildlife Research 19: 105-127.