CC BY
98
ON SOME FACTORS DRIVING THE PRESENCE OF AMPHIBIANS IN WATER BODIES OF THE UPPER OKA BASIN (CENTRAL RUSSIA)
Vjacheslav A. Korzikov1, Victor V. Aleksanov2
lHygienic and Epidemiological Centre of the Kaluga Region, Russia 2Eco-Biological Centre for pupils in Kaluga Region, Russia e-mail: [email protected]
Received: 01.04.2018
A better understanding of the factors influencing the distribution of amphibians is needed to conserve amphibian species in regions highly populated by people. A total of 71 water bodies were examined in the Upper Oka Basin (the Central Part of the Russian Plain, Russia, Kaluga Oblast and adjacent regions). For each site, the presence and absence of 11 amphibian species were determined. We use the logistic regression within the glm function from the R Stats Package to estimate the influence of predictors on the probability of the species presence. The species with the highest occurrence were Pelophylax lessonae, P. ridibundus, Rana temporaria, and Bufo bufo. The type of terrestrial vegetation that surrounded the water body was a significant factor for three amphibian species. We found R. temporaria and B. bufo avoiding open habitats; and P. ridibundus avoiding wooded habitats. The degree of water moving was a significant factor for two amphibian species. Lissotriton vulgaris was present more frequent at lentic waters, and P. ridibundus preferred lotic waters. The percentage of the vegetation covering the water surface was a significant factor for Rana arvalis, which was more often present in water with 50% or more coverage. Acidity was a significant factor for Pseudepidalea viridis, which was detected only in neutral and alkaline waters. Total dissolved salts and the area of water body were significant predictors for no amphibian species. The presence of the Chinese sleeper (Perccottus glenii), an invasive fish species, was not significantly important in predicting detection or non-detection for any species. Many water bodies in the Upper Oka Basin that were likely once suitable for amphibians may not be occupied by amphibians due to barriers to dispersal from other sites and due to stochastic extinction. To estimate the capability of amphibian immigration from other sources, we identified the presence of lotic and lentic permanent water bodies within 1 km of a surveyed site. These factors were not significant for any species. Further investigations may achieve the best measure of connectivity of amphibian habitats. To conserve amphibians we need to keep terrestrial habitats surrounding the water bodies, especially wooded habitats.
Key words: acidity, Amphibia, aquatic vegetation coverage, Chinese sleeper, lentic water, lotic water, River Oka, terrestrial vegetation, total dissolved salts, wooded habitat
Introduction
Amphibians have been the object of numerous ecological investigations in both field and in laboratory settings (Beebee, 1981, 1983; Kaufman, 1989; Fayzulin, 2010; Smirnov, 2013). Many investigations in amphibian ecology are concerned with the quality of breeding and residential water bodies, which has great value for the continued persistence of amphibian populations. The quality of amphibian habitats is influenced by the type of vegetation in the water body and surrounding terrestrial habitat, the hydroperiod and water quality, the presence of predators and competitors, the prevalence of diseases, and the nature and frequency of human disturbances (Hamer & McDonnell, 2008; Collins et al., 2009). Specifically, aquatic vegetation provides shelter for larval and adult amphibians and oviposition sites (Hartel et al., 2007). Terrestrial vegetation provides opportunities for dispersal, food, shelter and overwintering sites once individuals have metamorphosed
(Hamer & McDonnell, 2008). The terrestrial vegetation influences the water temperature, and the water temperature determines the development of eggs of amphibians (Nikolaev, 2007). The most important factor of water quality is water acidity, which can affect the success of reproduction and causes various morphological anomalies in some frogs (Flax, 1986; Nikolaev, 2007; Fayzulin, 2010). Amphibians are highly sensitive to environmental pollutants in the water; particularly, the presence of dissolved metals and salts in water (i.e. high conductivity) and high nutrient loads negatively affect amphibian populations in urban and suburban areas (Hamer & McDonnell, 2008). Water current and water transparency are also important to amphibians (Semenov et al., 2000).
Populations of amphibians across the globe have been declining for the last few decades due to climate change, habitat loss and diseases (Al-ford & Richards, 1999; Lips et al., 2003; Stuart et al., 2004; Collins et al., 2009). To conserve
threatened amphibian species we need to identify species' tolerance and optimal environmental conditions especially under increasing urbanisation and the development of recreational activities. Understanding why threatened species and biological communities persist in urbanised areas can help us create successful conservation management plans for preventing and reversing future declines (Valdez et al., 2015).
The vulnerability of amphibians to disturbance relates to their limited dispersal ability (Araújo et al., 2006). Many ponds may be not inhabited by amphibians due to the isolation of ponds and the limited dispersal distance of amphibians (Semenov et al., 2000; Smith & Green, 2005). For example, the number of permanent water bodies within a given distance of a surveyed water body has been shown to be the most important predictor for occupancy, colonisation, and abundance of amphibian species (Valdez et al., 2015). However, it has been shown that dispersal distance might be much larger than expected for amphibians (Smith & Green, 2005).
There is significant geographic variation in life-history characteristics of amphibians and in tolerance to some environmental factors (Ver-shinin, 1995; Morrison & Hero, 2003; Kuzmin, 2012). The different abilities of amphibians to cope with the effects of urbanisation are also likely to generate regionally contrasting long-term trends in their community dynamics (Hamer & McDonnell, 2008). So it is necessary to survey ecological features of species to conserve amphibians in a given region.
The Upper Oka Basin is one of the most populated and anthropogenically disturbed regions of Russia. Previous research focused on the species composition, distribution and abundance of amphibians in terrestrial habitats, bionomics, and feeding of amphibian species in this region (Alekseev & Sionova, 2002; Ruchin & Alekseev, 2008; Korzikov et al., 2014; Korzikov, 2016); but a better understanding of the factors influencing distributions of amphibians is needed to plan further investigations. Therefore, the aim of the study was to evaluate the parameters of water bodies, which determine the presence or absence of different amphibian species in the Upper Oka Basin.
Material and Methods
Study area
The Upper Oka Basin is located in the centre of the Russian Plain and contains the Basin of the River Oka from its source to the mouth of the River Nara near Serpukhov in Moscow Oblast. This region encompasses primary areas of the Kaluga oblast excluding western territories.
We surveyed a total of 71 water bodies from different districts of the Kaluga and Tula Oblast. We observed water bodies such as puddles, quarries, ponds, rivers, streams, and streams with one or several dams, backwaters (parts of a river in which there is little or no current), bogs, oxbows, and waterworks (Table 1). Sixty water bodies were permanent, and eleven water bodies were temporal. Forty-one sites were located in rural areas, and twenty-nine sites in urban areas.
We analysed four quantitative and five qualitative parameters of water bodies (Table 1).
Table 1. Examined parameters of water bodies of the Upper Oka Basin in which amphibians were surveyed
Parameters Levels / Range Number of sites
Type of terrestrial vegetation surrounding the water body Wooded habitat - with dense tree layer 21
Open habitat - with herbaceous vegetation without trees 28
Edge habitat - with intermediate features 22
Degree of water moving Lentic - water bodies with permanent flow 46
Semi-lentic - water bodies with permanent flow and limited with dam 13
Lotic - water bodies without flow 12
Presence of lentic permanent water bodies within a kilometre of a surveyed water body present 35
absent 36
Presence of lotic permanent water bodies within a kilometre of a surveyed water body present 32
absent 39
Presence of Perccottus glenii present 12
absent 59
Percentage of vegetation cover, % 3-100 71
pH 4.7-10.0 (precision = 0.01) 37
Total dissolved salts (TDS), mg/L 19-851 (precision - integer) 37
Area of water body, sq. m 10-63 006 71
Field surveys
Amphibian surveys were conducted from March to August in 2005-2016. The presence or absence of amphibian species was registered in every water body. Amphibians were detected in the daytime visually by hand and using a net with 0.6 m diameter of mouth, 1.7 m length of handle, and 2 mm diameter mesh. Most of the water bodies were surveyed at least three times during the season. A few ponds were surveyed one time during the season because they were located in hard-to-reach areas, and we assumed that single surveys are sufficient for the detection of amphibians based on expert experience (Alekseev, personal communication).
Species were identified using sounds and morphological characteristics. Species of the genus Pelophylax, which are not distinguishable by morphological characteristics, were identified using analysis of intron-1 of the serum albumin gene (SAI-1) from tissue of frogs through polymerase chain reaction (Plotner et al., 2009).
The Chinese sleeper, Perccottus glenii (Dy-bowski, 1877), is an introduced fish species, which is known to negatively impact populations of amphibians (Semenov et al., 2000; Reshetnikov, 2003). This fish was detected using dipnetting. The pH and total dissolved salts (TDS) were measured in 37 water bodies using portative electronic readers pH-009 and TDS-3 (equipment consisted 0.1 for pH and 1 mg to litre for TDS). Areas of water bodies were de-
tected using satellite images on Google Maps Calculator (https://3planeta.com/googlemaps/google-maps-calculator-ploschadei.html).
Data analysis
Data were analysed using R (R Core Team, 2014). The logistic regression within glm function from the R Stats Package was applied to estimate the influence of predictors on the probability of presence of every species using two different models. First, we computed the glm model for six factors which were measured in all 71 water bodies: type of terrestrial vegetation, degree of water moving, presence of lentic and lotic water bodies within 1 km, presence of Perccottus glenii, and percentage of the vegetation covering the water surface. Secondly, we computed the glm model for three factors, which were measured in the subset of 37 waterbodies: surface area, pH, TDS. Independent variables were uncorrected (p > 0.2 for Pearson's correlation).
Results
There were 11 amphibian species in water bodies of the Upper Poochye (Table 2). No species occupied more than half of all examined sites. Species with the highest frequency of occurrence were the Pool Frog (Pelophylax lessonae Camerano, 1882), the Common Frog (Rana temporaria Linnaeus, 1758), the Common Toad (Bufo bufo Linnaeus, 1758), and the Marsh Frog (Pelophylax ridibundus Pallas, 1771).
Table 2. Number of water bodies of different kinds, which were inhabited by different species of amphibians. Sample size in brackets after water body type
Species Puddle (7) Quarry (5) Pond (24) Cascade of ponds (5) Stream with dam (6) Stream (3) River (8) Backwater (2) 3) ад o B Oxbow (5) Other artificial water bodies (3) Percentage of occupied sites
Lissotriton vulgaris (Linnaeus, 1758) 2 l 7 2 l - - - l l l 23
Triturus cristatus (Laurenti, 1768) l l 4 l - - - - l - - ll
Bombina bombina (Linnaeus, 1761) l - 4 - - - - - l - s
Pelobates fuscus (Laurenti, 1768) - - 5 - - - - - l l lO
Bufo bufo (Linnaeus, 1758) 4 l ll 2 2 l - - l - - 31
Pseudepidalea viridis (Laurenti, 1768) l l 3 - l - - - - l lO
Rana temporaria Linnaeus, 1758 4 - lO 2 4 l l l l l - 35
Rana arvalis (Nilsson, 1842) - l s 2 2 - - l l - 25
Pelophylax ridibundus (Pallas, 1771) 2 2 6 - l - 7 l 2 - 30
Pelophylax lessonae (Camerano, 1882) - 3 l4 3 5 2 - - l 2 2 45
Pelophylax esculentus (Linnaeus, 1758) - - 4 2 2 - 2 - l l - 17
The type of terrestrial vegetation that surrounded the water body was a significant factor for three amphibian species (Appendix 1). Rana temporaria (p = 0.001) and Bufo bufo (p = 0.049) avoided open habitats, and Pelophylax ridibundus (p < 0.001) avoided wooded habitats (Table 3).
The degree of water flow was a significant factor for two amphibian species (Appendix 1, Table 4). The Smooth Newt (Lissotriton vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758) was present more frequently in lentic waters (p = 0.016), and Pelophylax ridibundus preferred lotic waters (p = 0.040).
The percentage of the vegetation covering the water surface was a significant factor (p=0.019) for Rana arvalis (Nilsson, 1842). This frog was more often present in waters with 50% or more coverage.
The presence of the Chinese sleeper and the presence of lotic or lentic water bodies within 1 km were not significant in predicting detection or non-detection for any species (Appendix 1).
The acidity was a significant factor (p = 0.048) for Pseudepidalea viridis (Laurenti, 1768), which was detected only in neutral and alkaline waters, with pH = 7-10 (Appendix 2). Total dissolved salts and the area of water body were significant predictors for no amphibian species (Appendix 2).
Discussion
The terrestrial vegetation was the best predictor of the presence of three amphibian species (Rana temporaria, Bufo bufo, and Pelophylax ridibundus). This result agrees with previous research from other regions: terrestrial habitat factors were found to be especially important in determining the suitability of breeding sites
for Rana temporaria in Ireland (Marnell, 1998) and Sweden (Loman & Lardner, 2006). Previous studies have also found the importance of terrestrial habitats for amphibians within conservation programmes (Valdez et al., 2017) and for females of the green and golden bell frog Litoria aurea (Lesson, 1830) (Valdez et al., 2016). The terrestrial vegetation can determine the temperature of water, which plays an important role in amphibian breeding and development (Moore, 1939). Wooded sites can provide superior refugia and feeding for adult amphibians, and some species require forests for part of their life cycle (Guerry & Hunter, 2002; Kuzmin, 2012). Rana temporaria is sensitive to air humidity (Dinesman, 1948), so it is a forest species to minimize the exposure to drier conditions (Kutenkov, 2017). Bufo bufo is also characterised as a forest species although it is less sensitive to humidity than the Common Frog (Kuzmin, 2012). Pelophylax ridibundus prefers open habitats because open habitats are often due to overflowing large rivers and ponds, and this species is connected with large rivers and ponds (Ruchin et al., 2009; Svinin, 2013).
The water quality significantly influenced the presence of Pseudepidalea viridis, a species that is not abundant in the Upper Oka Basin (Korzikov, 2016). The range of pH in which P. viridis was present in the Upper Oka Basin was close to those observed in the Middle Volga (6.6-10.0; Fayzulin, 2010). This species is qualified as synanthropic, e.g. it lives near, and benefit from, an association with humans and the somewhat artificial habitats that humans create around them (Alekseev & Sionova, 2002), and artificial water bodies tend to be more often alkaline than natural ones.
Table 3. Numbers of water bodies of different kinds occupied by amphibians in the Upper Oka Basin
Species Type of vegetation Degree of water moving
wooded (n = 21) edge (n = 22) open (n = 28) lentic (n = 46) semi-lentic (n = 13) lotic (n = 12)
Lissotriton vulgaris 6 7 3 14 2 0
Triturus cristatus 3 4 1 7 1 0
Bombina bombina 1 2 3 5 1 0
Pelobates fuscus 1 4 3 8 0 0
Bufo bufo 7 14 1 17 4 1
Pseudepidalea viridis 1 3 3 5 2 0
Rana temporaria 11 13 1 18 4 3
Rana arvalis 6 10 2 15 2 1
Pelophylax ridibundus 0 9 12 12 2 7
Pelophylax lessonae 11 15 6 22 8 2
Pelophylax esculentus 4 4 4 6 4 2
Table 4. Numbers of water bodies occupied by amphibians given presence or absence of other permanent water bodies within 1 km of a surveyed water body in the Upper Oka Basin
Species Lentic water bodies Lotic water bodies
Absent (n = 39) Present (n = 32) Absent (n = 36) Present (n = 35)
Lissotriton vulgaris 8 8 10 6
Triturus cristatus 3 5 5 3
Bombina bombina 3 3 1 5
Pelobates fuscus 2 6 4 4
Bufo bufo 10 12 14 8
Pseudepidalea viridis 6 1 4 3
Rana temporaria 10 15 14 11
Rana arvalis 7 11 10 8
Pelophylax ridibundus 12 9 9 12
Pelophylax lessonae 16 16 12 20
Pelophylax esculentus 7 5 4 8
Generally, the range of acidity and total dissolved salts sets were not limiting factors to the occurrence of amphibians in the Upper Oka Basin: the focal species in this study can tolerate a wide range of variation in pH and TDS (Kuzmin, 2012). Besides, the non-significance might be explained by the absence of extremely low or high values at the water bodies surveyed. Our data agrees with the results of research in Sweden (Loman & Lardner, 2006) that found the scarcity of amphibians in some areas could not be explained by water quality alone but the quality of the terrestrial habitat surrounding the ponds and the metapopulation structure.
Our results indicated that many water bodies are suitable for amphibians but are not occupied by amphibians now. It is known that some ponds may not be inhabited by amphibians owing to their isolation and barriers to migration of amphibians (Semenov et al., 2000). To estimate the capability of amphibians' immigrations from other sources we identified the presence of lotic and lentic permanent water bodies within 1 km of a surveyed site. These factors were not significant for any species. This fact contrasts with Valdez et al. (2015) who found that the number of permanent water bodies within a kilometre of surveyed sites was the best predictor of the occupancy of the green and golden bell frog (Lito-ria aurea), and also with the paper of Pellet et al. (2004) who found that the presence of calling males of the tree frog (Hyla arborea (Linnaeus, 1758)) is influenced by urbanisation around the pond and closeness of roads. This difference may be due to the fact that Valdez et al. (2015) used the number of water bodies rather than our study that simply used the presence or absence of water bodies. Furthermore, forest landscapes of the Up-
per Oka Basin due to relative soft microclimatic conditions in wooded habitats and numerous puddles of water may be less stressful for amphibians than industrial landscapes of Australia and landscapes of Switzerland, so the «ponds-as-patches» view (Marsh & Trenham, 2001) is less applicable to our data. Lastly, investigations of this subject require more rigorous assessment of amphibian populations based on the metapopulation approach (Marsh & Trenham, 2001; Smith & Green, 2005; Griffiths et al., 2010).
Our results suggest that the presence of our eleven species of amphibians was not entirely predicted from the environmental variables measured. Further research could better investigate amphibian habitats using field surveys and an occupancy-modelling framework. Now only two amphibian species - Bombina bombina (Linnaeus, 1761) and Pelophylax esculentus (Linnaeus, 1758) - are considered as rare species in this region (Red Data Book of Kaluga Region, 2017). However, anthropogenic transformation of forest landscapes can cause a decline of populations of other amphibian species. To conserve amphibians in the Upper Oka Basin, we suggest conserving not just separate ponds but the whole assemblage of water bodies and terrestrial habitats, especially forest habitats.
References
Alekseev S.K., Sionova M.N. 2002. Relation of amphibians (Amphibia) of Kaluga Oblast to urbanisation. Proceedings of the Kaluga Society of Nature Research in Native Land 5: 155-168. [In Russian] Alford R.A., Richards S.J. 1999. Global amphibian declines: a problem in applied ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30(1): 133-165. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.30.1.133
Araujo M.B., Thuiller W., Pearson R.G. 2006. Climate warming and the decline of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. Journal of Biogeography 33(10): 1712-1728. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01482.x Beebee T.J.C. 1981. Habitats of the British amphibians (4): Agricultural lowlands and a general discussion of requirements. Biological Conservation 21(2): 127-139. DOI: 10.1016/0006-3207(81)90075-6 Beebee T.J.C. 1983. Habitat selection by amphibians across an agricultural land-heathland transect in Britain. Biological Conservation 27(2): 111-124. DOI: 10.1016/0006-3207(83)90083-6 Collins J.P., Crump M.L., Lovejoy III T.E. 2009. Extinction in Our Times: Global Amphibian Decline. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 273 p. Dinesman L.G. 1948. Adaptation of amphibians to different conditions of air humidity. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 27(3): 231-240. [In Russian] Fayzulin A.I. 2010. Acidity analysis (pH) of spawning reservoirs as the ecological niche parameter of anurans of the middle Volga. Proceedings of Samara Scientific Centre of RAS 1(1): 122-125. [In Russian] Flax N.L. 1986. Influence of acidity and water temperature on the survival of Sakhalin anurans. In: Systematics and ecology of amphibians and reptiles. Proceedings of the Zoological Institute of AS USSR 157: 152-165. [In Russian]
Griffiths R.A., Sewell D., McCrea R.S. 2010. Dynamics of a declining amphibian metapopulation: survival, dispersal and the impact of climate. Biological Conservation 143(2): 485-491. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.11.017 Guerry A.D., Hunter Jr.M.L. 2002. Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conservation Biology 16(3): 745-754. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00557.x Hamer A.J., McDonnell M.J. 2008. Amphibian ecology and conservation in the urbanising world: a review. Biological Conservation 141(10): 2432-2449. DOI: 10.1016/j. biocon.2008.07.020 Hartel T., Nemes S., Cogalniceanu D., Ollerer K., Schweiger O., Moga C.I., Demeter L. 2007. The effect of fish and aquatic habitat complexity on amphibians. Hydrobiologia 583(1): 173-182. DOI: 10.1007/ s10750-006-0490-8 Kaufman B.Z. 1989. Preferencial behaviour of ectotermal vertebrates. Petrozavodsk: Karelian Research Centre of AS USSR. 149 p. [In Russian] Korzikov V.A. 2016. The fauna and ecology of amphibians in the northwest of Upper Poochye. PhD Thesis Abstract. Togliatti. 20 p. [In Russian] Korzikov V.A., Glushchenko A.M., Ruchin A.B. 2014. Trophology of five species of anurans larvae (Amphibia: Anura) from different habitats northwest top Poochya. Current Studies in Herpetology 14(3/4): 119-125. [In Russian]
Kutenkov A. 2017. Spatial-ecological divergence of the common frog (Rana temporaria L.) and the moor frog (Rana arvalis Nilss.) within their geographic ranges. Principles of the Ecology 6(1): 4-51. DOI: 10.15393/ j1.art.2017.5065 [In Russian] Kuzmin S.L. 2012. The Amphibians of the Former Soviet Union. Moscow: KMK Scientific Press Ltd. 370 p. [In Russian]
Lips K.R., Reeve J.D., Witters L.R. 2003. Ecological traits predicting amphibian population declines in Central America. Conservation Biology 17(4): 1078-1088. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01623.x Loman J., Lardner B. 2006. Does pond quality limit frogs Rana arvalis and Rana temporaria in agricultural landscapes? A field experiment. Journal of Applied Ecology 43(4): 690-700. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01172.x Marnell F. 1998. Discriminant analysis of the terrestrial and aquatic habitat determinants of the smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris) and the common frog (Rana temporaria) in Ireland. Journal of Zoology 244(1): 1-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00001.x Marsh D.M., Trenham P.C. 2001. Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conservation Biology 15(1): 40-49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.00129.x Moore J.A. 1939. Temperature tolerance and rates of development in the eggs of Amphibia. Ecology 20(4): 459478. DOI: 10.2307/1930439 Morrison C., Hero J. 2003. Geographic variation in life-history characteristics of amphibians: a review. Journal of Animal Ecology 72(2): 270-279. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00696.x Nikolaev V.I. 2007. Some ecological features of amphibians in bogs of the Upper Volga River Basin. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 86(9): 1113-1118. [In Russian] Pellet J., Hoehn S., Perrin N. 2004. Multiscale determinants of tree frog (Hyla arborea L.) calling ponds in western Switzerland. Biodiversity and Conservation 13(12): 2227-2235. DOI: 10.1023/B:BIOC.000004 7904.75245.1f Plötner J., Köhler F., Uzzell T., Beerli P., Schreiber R., Guex G.D., Hotz H. 2009. Evolution of serum albumin intron-1 is shaped by a 5' truncated non-long terminal repeat retrotransposon in western Palearctic water frogs (Neobatrachia). Molecular Phylogenet-ics and Evolution 53(3): 784-791. DOI: 10.1016/j. ympev.2009.07.037 R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from: http:// www.R-project.org/ Red Data Book of Kaluga Region. Rare and Endangered Species of Animals. Kaluga, 2017. 406 p. [In Russian] Reshetnikov A.N. 2003. The introduced fish, rotan (Perccottus glenii), depresses populations of aquatic animals (macroin-
vertebrates, amphibians, and a fish). Hydrobiologia 510(1-3): 83-90. DOI: 10.1023/B:HYDR.0000008634.92659.b4 Ruchin A.B., Alekseev S.K. 2008. On Rana temporaria (Anura, Amphibia) nutrition in Kaluga Region. Current Studies in Herpetology 8(1): 62-66. [In Russian] Ruchin A.B., Lada G.A., Borkin L.Ya., Litvinchuk S.N., Ro-sanov Yu.M., Ryzhov M.K., Zamaletdinov R.I. 2009. On habitat distribution of three green frog species of the Rana esculenta complex in the Volga River basin. Po-volzhskiy Journal of Ecology 2: 273-280. [In Russian] Semenov D.V, Leontyeva O.A., Pavlinov I.J. 2000. Analysis of the environmental determinants of the amphibian (Vertebrata: Amphibia) distribution on the urbanised territories in Moscow City. Bulletin of Moscow Society of Naturalists. Biological Series 105(2): 3-9. [In Russian] Smirnov N.A. 2013. On the ecology of Rana dalmatina (Anura, Ranidae) in the territory of the Cis-Carpathians (Ukraine). In: Modern herpetology: problems and ways of their solutions. Proceedings of the First International Conference of the Young Herpetologists of Russia and neighboring countries (Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 25-27 November 2013). Saint-Petersburg. 137-140. [In Russian] Smith M.A., Green D.M. 2005. Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecography 28(1): 110-128. DOI: 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.04042.x
Stuart S.N., Chanson J.S., Cox N.A., Young B.E., Rodrigues A.S., Fischman D.L., Waller R.W. 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306(5702): 1783-1786. DOI: 10.1126/science.1103538 Svinin A.O. 2013. Distribution and population system types of green frogs (Pelophylax Fitzinger, 1843) in Mari El Republic. Current Studies in Herpetology 13(3/4): 119125. [In Russian] Valdez J.W., Stockwell M.P., Klop-Toker K., Clulow S., Clu-low J., Mahony M.J. 2015. Factors driving the distribution of an endangered amphibian toward an industrial landscape in Australia. Biological Conservation 191: 520-528. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.010 Valdez J.W., Klop-Toker K., Stockwell M.P., Clulow S., Clulow J., Mahony M.J. 2016. Microhabitat selection varies by sex and age class in the endangered green and golden bell frog Litoria aurea. Australian Zoologist 38(2): 223-234. DOI: 10.7882/AZ.2016.031 Valdez J.W., Klop-Toker K., Stockwell M.P., Fardel, L., Clulow S., Clulow J., Mahony M.J. 2017. Differences in microhabitat selection patterns between a remnant and constructed landscape following management intervention. Wildlife Research 44(3): 248-258. DOI: 10.1071/WR16172 Vershinin V.L. 1995. Complex of Amphibia species in ecosystems of a big industrial city. Russian Journal of Ecology 26(4): 273-280. [In Russian]
Appendix 1. Logistic regression model of presence of amphibian species in water bodies in the Upper Oka Basin from five predictors: coefficients (Coef.) with standard errors (SE)
Species, predictors Coef. SE Z value P value
Lissotriton vulgaris
Intercept -0.20 0.88 -0.23 0.816
Type of terrestrial vegetation 0.51 0.45 1.12 0.261
Degree of water moving -1.81 0.75 -2.40 0.016
Percentage of vegetation cover -0.002 0.01 -0.14 0.891
Presence of lotic water bodies within 1 km -1.13 0.71 -1.60 0.109
Presence of lentic water bodies within 1 km -0.18 0.73 -0.25 0.802
Presence of Perccottus glenii -17.99 1746.0 -0.01 0.992
Triturus cristatus
Intercept -2.05 1.89 -1.89 0.059
Type of terrestrial vegetation 0.50 0.57 0.88 0.381
Degree of water moving -1.36 0.96 -1.42 0.157
Percentage of vegetation cover < 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.771
Presence of lotic water bodies within 1 km -0.67 0.85 -0.78 0.437
Presence of lentic water bodies within 1 km 0.49 0.89 0.55 0.582
Presence of Perccottus glenii -16.91 1807.00 -0.01 0.993
Bombina bombina
Intercept -3.88 1.69 -2.30 0.022
Type of terrestrial vegetation -0.65 0.64 -1.01 0.312
Degree of water moving -0.60 1.01 -0.59 0.554
Percentage of vegetation cover 0.03 0.02 1.58 0.114
Presence of lotic water bodies within 1 km 1.70 1.26 1.35 0.176
Presence of lentic water bodies within 1 km 0.59 1.02 0.58 0.562
Presence of Perccottus glenii -17.28 2824.09 -0.01 0.995
Pelobates fuscus
Intercept -1.31 1.24 -1.05 0.293
Type of terrestrial vegetation -0.78 0.61 -1.29 0.198
Species, predictors Coef. SE Z value P value
Degree of water moving -17.31 2419.00 -0.01 0.994
Percentage of vegetation cover 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.963
Presence of lotic water bodies within 1 km -0.22 0.93 -0.24 0.812
Presence of lentic water bodies within 1 km 1.26 0.98 1.29 0.196
Presence of Perccottus glenii -19.03 4616.00 -0.004 0.997
Bufo bufo
Intercept -1.13 0.74 -1.52 0.128
Type of terrestrial vegetation 0.77 0.39 1.97 0.049
Degree of water moving -0.83 0.46 -1.81 0.071
Percentage of vegetation cover < 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.762
Presence of lotic water bodies within 1 km -0.96 0.58 -1.64 0.101
Presence of lentic water bodies within 1 km 0.27 0.59 0.46 0.644
Presence of Perccottus glenii 0.41 0.70 0.58 0.560
Pseudepidalea viridis
Intercept 0.29 1.10 0.26 0.793
Type of terrestrial vegetation -0.74 0.62 -1.19 0.232
Degree of water moving -1.15 0.76 -1.51 0.132
Percentage of vegetation cover -0.01 0.02 -0.42 0.673
Presence of lotic water bodies within 1 km -1.04 1.03 -1.02 0.307
Presence of lentic water bodies within 1 km -2.29 1.22 -1.88 0.060
Presence of Perccottus glenii -0.47 1.29 -0.37 0.714
Rana temporaria
Intercept -1.88 0.78 -2.41 0.016
Type of terrestrial vegetation 1.39 0.43 3.22 0.001
Degree of water moving -0.54 0.43 -1.28 0.202
Percentage of vegetation cover -0.01 0.01 -0.99 0.324
Presence of lotic water bodies within 1 km -0.30 0.57 -0.52 0.604
Presence of lentic water bodies within 1 km 1.10 0.60 1.85 0.065
Presence of Perccottus glenii -0.40 0.77 -0.53 0.599
Rana arvalis
Intercept -2.17 0.86 -2.53 0.012
Type of terrestrial vegetation 0.45 0.41 1.09 0.278
Degree of water moving -0.76 0.54 -1.39 0.164
Percentage of vegetation cover 0.03 0.01 2.35 0.019
Presence of lotic water bodies within 1 km -0.48 0.64 -0.75 0.452
Presence of lentic water bodies within 1 km 0.60 0.64 0.94 0.346
Presence of Perccottus glenii -0.17 0.78 -0.21 0.831
Pelophylax ridibundus
Intercept -0.49 0.85 -0.58 0.565
Type of terrestrial vegetation -1.74 0.49 -3.56 < 0.001
Degree of water moving 0.93 0.45 2.05 0.040
Percentage of vegetation cover -0.01 0.01 -0.77 0.445
Presence of lotic water bodies within 1 km 1.04 0.71 1.47 0.143
Presence of lentic water bodies within 1 km 0.06 0.66 0.10 0.924
Presence of Perccottus glenii 0.85 0.82 1.03 0.305
Pelophylax lessonae
Intercept -1.66 0.74 -2.25 0.024
Type of terrestrial vegetation 0.59 0.35 1.65 0.099
Degree of water moving -0.31 0.38 -0.83 0.408
Percentage of vegetation cover 0.02 0.01 1.54 0.124
Presence of lotic water bodies within 1 km 1.00 0.54 1.85 0.064
Presence of lentic water bodies within 1 km 0.40 0.54 0.75 0.453
Presence of Perccottus glenii -0.78 0.75 -1.04 0.301
Pelophylax esculentus
Intercept -2.90 1.00 -2.90 0.004
Type of terrestrial vegetation < 0.01 0.42 0.01 0.994
Degree of water moving 0.57 0.46 1.26 0.209
Percentage of vegetation cover 0.02 0.01 1.35 0.177
Presence of lotic water bodies within 1 km 1.03 0.72 1.44 0.151
Presence of lentic water bodies within 1 km -0.04 0.68 -0.06 0.951
Presence of Perccottus glenii -0.97 1.15 -0.84 0.401
Appendix 2. Logistic regression model of presence of amphibian species in 37 water bodies of the Upper Oka Basin from three predictors: coefficients (Coef.) with standard errors (SE)
Species, predictors Coef. SE Z value P value
Lissotriton vulgaris
Intercept -3.90 4.36 -0.90 0.3l1
Area -0.00 0.00 -0.90 0.36l
pH 0.42 0.61 0.69 0.490
TDS -0.00 0.00 -0.40 0.686
Triturus cristatus
Intercept -4.49 5.56 -0.81 0.419
Area -0.00 < 0.01 -0.65 0.514
pH 0.38 0.ll 0.50 0.620
TDS -0.00 < 0.01 -0.10 0.91l
Bombina bombina
Intercept -6.34 8.l5 -0.l3 0.468
Area -0.00 < 0.01 -0.39 0.l01
pH 0.39 1.18 0.33 0.l44
TDS < 0.01 < 0.01 1.58 0.115
Pelobates fuscus
Intercept -3.l5 5.10 -0.l4 0.462
Area < 0.01 < 0.01 -0.64 0.526
pH 0.30 0.l1 0.42 0.6l8
TDS -0.00 < 0.01 -0.40 0.690
Bufo bufo
Intercept -4.96 3.88 -1.28 0.201
Area -0.00 < 0.01 -1.26 0.208
pH 0.62 0.54 1.15 0.249
TDS 0.00 < 0.01 -0.01 0.992
Pseudepidalea viridis
Intercept -22.l5 10.59 -2.15 0.032
Area -0.05 0.06 -1.00 0.340
pH 2.5l 1.30 1.98 0.048
TDS 0.01 < 0.01 1.60 0.110
Rana temporaria
Intercept 0.62 3.12 0.20 0.843
Area < 0.01 < 0.01 -0.45 0.655
pH -0.09 0.46 -0.19 0.853
TDS -0.01 < 0.01 -1.56 0.120
Rana arvalis
Intercept 2.22 3.1l 0.l0 0.483
Area < 0.01 < 0.01 0.80 0.426
pH -0.3l 0.46 -0.80 0.424
TDS -0.003 < 0.01 -1.14 0.254
Pelophylax ridibundus
Intercept -1.l4 3.60 -0.48 0.630
Area 0.00 0.00 0.l0 0.482
pH 0.01 0.51 0.02 0.986
TDS < 0.01 0.002 1.14 0.255
Pelophylax lessonae
Intercept -5.63 3.69 -1.53 0.126
Area < 0.01 < 0.01 -0.6l 0.505
pH 0.l8 0.52 1.50 0.134
TDS -0.003 < 0.01 -1.13 0.25l
Pelophylax esculentus
Intercept -6.l6 4.22 -1.60 0.110
Area 0.03 0.05 0.54 0.58l
pH 0.60 0.56 1.0l 0.28l
TDS -0.003 < 0.01 -0.l6 0.44l
О НЕКОТОРЫХ ФАКТОРАХ РАСПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ АМФИБИЙ В ВОДОЕМАХ ВЕРХНЕГО ПООЧЬЯ (ЦЕНТРАЛЬНАЯ РОССИЯ)
В. А. Корзиков1, В. В. Алексанов2
1Центр гигиены и эпидемиологии в Калужской области, Россия 2Калужский областной эколого-биологический центр учащихся, Россия e-mail: korzikoff_va@mail. ru
Обследован 71 водный объект на территории Верхнего Поочья (Россия, Калужская область и сопредельные регионы). В каждом местообитании выявлялось наличие либо отсутствие каждого из 11 видов земноводных. Влияние девяти параметров водных объектов на вероятность присутствия каждого вида оценивали при помощи логистической регрессии в среде R. Наиболее высокой встречаемостью обладали прудовая лягушка Pelophylax lessonae, озерная лягушка P. ridibundus, травяная лягушка Rana temporaria и серая жаба Bufo bufo. Тип наземной растительности оказался значимым фактором для трех видов амфибий. Травяная лягушка и серая жаба избегали открытых биотопов, озерная лягушка избегала лесных биотопов. Проточность водного объекта оказалась значимым фактором для двух видов: обыкновенный тритон Lissotriton vulgaris тяготел к стоячим водоемам, озерная лягушка - к проточным водным объектам. Процент покрытия зеркала воды водной растительностью был значим для остромордой лягушки Rana arvalis, которая чаще встречалась в водоемах, заросших более чем на 50%. Присутствие инвазионного вида рыб ротана головешки (Perccottus glenii) не оказалось значимым ни для одного вида земноводных. Кислотность была значима для зеленой жабы Pseudepidalea viridis, которая обнаружена только в нейтральных и щелочных водоемах. Общая минерализация и площадь водного объекта не оказались значимыми параметрами для амфибий. По-видимому, в условиях Верхнего Поочья значительная часть водных объектов, которые пригодны для обитания земноводных по параметрам среды, не заселены земноводными по причине затруднения миграций. В качестве показателя возможности заселения водного объекта мы определяли наличие постоянных проточных и стоячих водных объектов в радиусе 1 км от изучаемого объекта, однако влияние этих факторов на присутствие амфибий не обнаружено. Дальнейшие исследования экологии земноводных в условиях Верхнего По-очья требуют использования более точных показателей связности местообитаний земноводных.
Ключевые слова: Amphibia, кислотность, лесное местообитание, наземная растительность, общая жесткость, проточная вода, река Ока, ротан, степень зарастания водного зеркала водной растительностью, стоячая вода
