Journal of Tropical Ecology (2010) 26:509–519. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010 doi:10.1017/S0266467410000301

Amphibian community structure as a function of forest type in Amazonian Peru Rudolf von May∗,1 , Jennifer M. Jacobs†, Roy Santa-Cruz‡, §, Jorge Valdivia§, Jusmell M. Huam´an# and Maureen A. Donnelly∗ ∗

Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, OE-167, Miami, Florida, USA † Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA ‡ Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional de San Agust´ın de Arequipa, Arequipa, Per´u § Facultad de Ciencias Biol´ogicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Nacional de San Agust´ın de Arequipa, Arequipa, Per´u # Facultad de Ingenier´ıa Forestal, Universidad Nacional Amaz´onica de Madre de Dios, Puerto Maldonado, Madre de Dios, Per´u (Accepted 15 May 2010)

Abstract: The potential effect of forest type on the structuring of animal communities in western Amazonia remains poorly understood. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that amphibian species richness, composition and abundance differ across forest types in the lowland rain forest of south-eastern Peru. By using 320 individual transects, we compared the amphibian assemblages across four major forest types (floodplain, terra firme, bamboo and palm swamp) at each of four sites separated by 3.5–105 km. We identified 1967 individuals of 65 species in 11 families and found that a large proportion of the amphibian diversity in this region is attributed to habitat-related beta diversity. Overall, we found that forest type is more important than site in predicting both species composition and abundance. We also found that, when analyses are conducted separately for each forest type and include species abundance data, similarity between assemblages decreases with increasing geographic distance. In contrast to studies that considered species presence/absence but ignored species abundances, our results highlight the importance of including abundance data in the assessment of animal diversity patterns in western Amazonia. We conclude that evaluating community structure across forest types can improve our understanding of diversity patterns in this region. Key Words: Amazon, beta diversity, frogs, habitat filtering, species sorting, tropical forest

INTRODUCTION General assessments of biodiversity patterns in western Amazonia have focused on a variety of taxa, but data on animal community structure across major forest types remain scarce (Larsen et al. 2006, Pearson & Derr 1986, Peres 1997, S¨aa¨ ksj¨arvi et al. 2006). Most previous studies focusing on amphibian diversity in lowland Amazonia have compared assemblages across different sites without taking into account the effect of naturally occurring forest types on community structure (Azevedo-Ramos & Galatti 2002, Blair & Doan 2009, Dahl et al. 2009, Doan & Ariz´abal 2002). In other studies, researchers have defined habitats based on the degree of anthropogenic disturbance (e.g. primary forest, secondary forest, plantation; Gardner et al. 2007a,

1

Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Pearman 1997) or focused on only one type of forest (Aichinger 1987). In some cases, results from a study conducted in a single site and a single forest type (Allmon 1991) were regarded as representative of entire South American forests (Vasudevan et al. 2008). A recent comparison of amphibian assemblages across four major forest types in south-eastern Peru showed that these habitats may contribute to the local variation in amphibian species richness and composition (von May et al. 2009a). Because this comparison was made at only one site, and only species presence/absence data were used, the next step is to evaluate whether similar patterns exist at other sites in the region. A large-scale comparison, incorporating abundance data (this paper), allows us to improve our understanding of amphibian diversity in the region. Moreover, the inclusion of additional sites allows us to explore the relationship between species composition and geographic distance. Some studies have illustrated a negative association between similarity and geographic

RUDOLF VON MAY ET AL.

510

We surveyed four major forest types at each of four sites in the Madre de Dios region of south-eastern Peru: Los Amigos Research Center (CICRA is the Spanish acronym), 12◦ 34 07 S, 70◦ 05 57 W, 270 m asl; Centro de Monitoreo 1 (CM1), 12◦ 34 17 S, 70◦ 04 29 W, c. 250 m asl; Centro de Monitoreo 2 (CM2), 12◦ 26 57 S, 70◦ 15 06 W, 260 m asl; Tambopata Research Center (TRC), 13◦ 08 30 S, 69◦ 36 24 W, 350 m asl. The first three sites are 3.5–25 km away from each other and the fourth site (TRC) is 80–105 km away from the other three sites. At CICRA, annual rainfall is variable and ranges between 2700 and 3000 mm (http://atriumbiodiversity.org). The dry season (June–September) has less rainfall and is slightly cooler than the wet season. The mean annual temperature ranges between 21 ◦ C and 26 ◦ C (N. Pitman, pers. comm.). Details about our study sites can be found in Kratter (1997), Doan & Ariz´abal (2002) and maps are available at the Atrium Biodiversity Information System site (http://atrium-biodiversity. org).

et al. 2007, Mostacedo et al. 2006, Olivier 2007, Pitman et al. 1999, Silman et al. 2003). We did not follow the categories proposed by Phillips (1993) and Phillips et al. (1994) because their classification was limited to a small area (112.4 km2 ) that represents only 0.13% of Madre de Dios (85 300 km2 ) and does not include our study sites. The floodplain forest can be classified in two general categories: mature floodplain forest and primary successional floodplain forest (Pitman et al. 1999). We sampled only in mature floodplain forest (hereafter referred to as floodplain), which exhibits high plant diversity, a 25–35-m-tall canopy (except for gaps), numerous lianas and emergent tree species. Flooding may occur once a year or once every few years depending on river level fluctuations; inundation varies from > 1.0 m near the river to 0.1 m on more elevated terraces (Hamilton et al. 2007). Temporary bodies of water are common during the wet season as a result of rainwater accumulation. The terra firme forest (hereafter referred to as terra firme) is found on higher terrain that is never flooded by the river (Pitman et al. 1999). The terra firme at our sites is 20–40 m above the floodplain and is primarily found on flat upland terraces dissected by small permanent or temporary streams. We sampled on these terraces and avoided streams and ravines bordering streams. The terra firme has fewer temporary ponds than the floodplain because little rainwater is retained in the upper soil layers. The terra firme also exhibits high plant diversity, > 32 m tall canopy (except for gaps) and many species of emergent trees (Griscom & Ashton 2006). The bamboo forest (hereafter referred to as bamboo) is patchily distributed and covers extensive areas dominated by two native bamboo species, Guadua sarcocarpa and G. weberbaueri (Griscom et al. 2007, Olivier 2007). At our sites, bamboo forms patches of variable size (c. 1 ha to 100+ ha), is interspersed within the terra firme and its canopy is lower (up to 25 m) than the terra firme canopy (Griscom & Ashton 2006). The palm swamp forms patches of variable size, typically between tens to hundreds of hectares, dominated by the native palm Mauritia flexuosa. Palm swamp soils can be permanently or seasonally flooded, are nitrogenlimited and have abundant organic matter (Householder 2007, Kahn 1991). Slow decomposition results in acidic soil and water (pH 4.5–5.5; J. Janovec, pers. comm.). More than 50% of the palm swamps were flooded (0.1–0.7 m) during the study.

Forest types

Sampling methods

We followed the general categories of forest types recognized by plant ecologists working in Madre de Dios and nearby regions (Griscom & Ashton 2006, Griscom

We conducted standardized sampling between 18 January and 16 April 2008 (wet season). The average rainfall, as measured between December 2007 and April

distance (Azevedo-Ramos & Galatti 2002, Duellman & Thomas 1996), whereas other studies have found no association between similarity and geographic distance (Dahl et al. 2009, Doan & Ariz´abal 2002). Here, our primary goal was to test the hypothesis that amphibian species richness, composition and abundance differ across forest types in the lowlands of south-eastern Peru. We focused on four major forest types that are widespread and cover most of the lowlands of southwestern Amazonia: floodplain forest, terra firme forest, bamboo forest and palm swamp (Griscom et al. 2007, Mostacedo et al. 2006, Phillips et al. 1994, Pitman et al. 1999). Given that other animal assemblages have been shown to vary according to the type of forest (Larsen et al. 2006, Pearson & Derr 1986, Peres 1997), we predicted that amphibian species richness and abundance distribution patterns would also differ across forest types. Additionally, because geographic distance may influence the patterns of community structure (Ernst & R¨odel 2005, 2008; Parris 2004), we tested the hypothesis that sites close to each other are more similar than sites farther away from each other.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Study sites

Beta diversity of Amazonian amphibians 2008, was 159.4 mm mo−1 in 2008 (http://atriumbiodiversity.org). We sampled on flat terrain in all forest types and avoided slopes that mark the transition between forest types. These slopes represent an ecotone and may harbour a mix of species from different habitats. To account for the interspersion of replicated samples, we established twenty 50-m transects per habitat at each site. This number was selected following our preliminary work at CICRA and published reports from other tropical forests (Veith et al. 2004). We selected habitat patches dissected by at least 200 m of trail at each site and all transects were established away from trails to avoid bias associated with potential trail effects (von May & Donnelly 2009). We used a random number table (Heyer et al. 1994) to determine the distance along the trail from which each transect began. All transects were perpendicular with respect to the main trail, began 5 m away from the trail and were separated by at least 30 m. Because transects were established in several patches, transects representing each forest type were separated by up to 3 km. Thus, transects included the variability associated with each habitat. We used a compass and a 50-m string with orange flagging marked at every 5 m to establish each transect. Understorey vegetation was only disturbed when tangled vegetation blocked access; in those cases, we used a machete to clear a narrow path and waited for at least 3 d before sampling. Our sampling effort was 320 transects, and each transect was sampled only once to maintain independent sampling units (as opposed to other studies, where transects were re-sampled multiple times). We sampled all transects at night (19h00–01h30) because most amphibians are nocturnal, and night sampling using visual encounter surveys (VES; Crump & Scott 1994) is more effective than other sampling methods (Doan 2003). Our preliminary work showed that nocturnal surveys were effective for finding both diurnal and nocturnal species. Moreover, previous research in other tropical forests has shown that some diurnal species are found more often at night than during the day (Lieberman 1986). We used distance-and-time-constrained VES (50 × 4-m transect in 30 min) as an alternative to the traditional VES method. To reduce the variation in species detectabilities, which can be considered an issue in VES (Pearman et al. 1995), our search protocol included disturbance of the substrate (in traditional VES, the substrate is not effectively disturbed during search). While walking along a transect, we first visually scanned the area using our lights and then disturbed the substrate with a snake hook. Any frog that was not detected by our first visual assessment was eventually spotted as it jumped away from its original location. All individuals located within 2 m on either side of the centre line of the transect, and on substrate up to 2 m in height, were captured. We placed all

511

encountered individuals in separate plastic bags that were tied to the string marking the centre line of the transect. All sampling was conducted by two or three observers with headlamps. If there were three observers, only the first two actively searched while the third one recorded data. If there were only two observers, data recording was done at the end of each survey. Each transect took 30 min to complete, i.e. 1 person-hour was effectively invested per transect. We identified, measured and released all captured individuals. We collected voucher specimens only when field identification was not possible. These specimens were identified and deposited at the Museo de Historia Natural of Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, in Lima, Peru. Species nomenclature follows the on-line reference to amphibian taxonomy, Amphibian Species of the World (http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index. php).

Data analysis Because our primary interest was to evaluate amphibian community structure across forest types, we grouped and analysed most data with respect to forest type. In this paper, the term ‘abundance’ refers to ‘relative abundance’ under the assumption that the number of individuals counted in a transect represents the abundance in which species occur in a particular place and time. We first used sample-based rarefaction curves to compare patterns of species richness among forest types. We pooled data collected at all sites and used the program EstimateS, version 8.0 (http://viceroy.eeb.uconn. edu/estimates) for this comparison (Gotelli & Colwell 2001). We then used analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the average species richness among forest types, and graphically compared the minimum and maximum number of species recorded in each forest type across all sites. We plotted rank-abundance curves to compare the species abundance distributions among forest types. We arbitrarily defined as abundant species those that were represented by at least 20 individual observations (which correspond to approximately 1% of all identified individuals). We used the additive partitioning approach (Lande 1996) to describe patterns of beta diversity across the landscape. According to Lande (1996), gamma diversity is composed by the addition of the alpha and beta components, γ = α + β. We obtained γ by pooling the number of species recorded in all habitats ( = forest types), while α represented the mean number of species recorded in each habitat and β represented the mean number of species not found in each habitat. We estimated β by β = γ − α. Researchers have used this approach to describe

RUDOLF VON MAY ET AL.

512

60

Number of species

50 40 30 Floodplain

20

Terra firme Bamboo

10

Palm swamp

0 0

100

200

300 400 500 Number of individuals

600

700

Figure 1. Rarefaction curves based on data collected at four sites (CICRA, CM1, CM2 and TRC). Each curve represents the expected number of species for a given number of observed individuals, though the rarefaction was based on randomization of sample order. The bars indicate ± 1 SD. The dotted vertical line indicates the point of comparison for the four curves.

amphibian diversity patterns across habitats (Gardner et al. 2007a, Pineda & Halffter 2004). We used non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) plots to visualize patterns of community structure. For this analysis, each site had four habitat patches (sensu Leibold et al. 2004) and each patch represented a different forest type. The nMDS plots were based on a Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix, first using species presence/absence and then using species abundance data (Clarke & Warwick 1994). We also ran an analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) to test for relationship among forest types and calculated the similarity percentage contribution (SIMPER) to evaluate which species were most important in determining the dissimilarity between pairs of groups (Clarke & Warwick 1994). We applied the indicator species analysis procedure (Dufrene & Legendre 1997) to determine which species can be used as indicators of particular forest types. We used the statistical software Primer-E, version 5.0 (Clarke & Warwick 1994) to generate the nMDS plots and to run the ANOSIM and SIMPER, and we used PC-ORD version 5.0 (MjM Software, Gleneden Beach) for the indicator species analysis. We used a Mantel test to evaluate the correlation between similarity and geographic distance. As in the previous analyses, each site had four habitat patches. We used a matrix containing presence/absence data (Jaccard similarity index) and a matrix with the geographic distance among habitat patches. We also used a matrix containing abundance data (Bray–Curtis dissimilarity index) and a matrix with the geographic distance among habitat patches. First, we tested whether there was a correlation between similarity and distance when forest

types are not taken into account (as in previous studies). For this analysis, our matrix contained all possible pairs of habitat patches. Second, we tested whether there was a correlation between similarity and distance when forest types are taken into account. For this analysis, we ran a separate Mantel test for each forest type. We also performed Pearson correlations on the same dataset to further assess the relationship between similarity and distance (the values of distance, originally measured in km, were log-transformed in this case). We used an Excel spreadsheet integrated with PopTools (http://www.cse.csiro.au/poptools) to perform Mantel tests and SPSS version 14.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago) for the correlations.

RESULTS We captured and identified 1967 individuals of 65 amphibian species at four sites (Appendix 1). Fifty-one individuals (2.59%) escaped prior to identification and were not included in the analyses. As is typical for most amphibian communities in the Neotropics, the family Hylidae was the most species-rich (26 species). Ten other amphibian families were recorded, three of which were represented by only one species (Appendix 1). The only non-anuran family was Plethodontidae (lungless salamanders). Our sample size was sufficient to characterize the species richness and composition across forest types because the species accumulation curves approached an asymptote (Figure 1). Overall, we recorded more individuals and

Beta diversity of Amazonian amphibians

513

30

No. of species

25 20 15 10 5 0

Floodplain

Terra firme

Bamboo

Palm swamp

Figure 2. Mean (markers), minimum and maximum (bars) number of amphibian species recorded in each forest type, based on data collected at four sites (CICRA, CM1, CM2, TRC). Bars on top denote significantly different groups in Student–Newman–Keuls post hoc comparisons.

species in the floodplain than in other forest types (Figure 1). Accordingly, the mean number of species in the floodplain was higher than in other forest types (ANOVA, F3,12 = 5.37, P = 0.014) and the maximum and minimum numbers of species in this habitat were also higher than in other habitats (Figure 2). We recorded nearly the same number of individuals and species in the terra firme and bamboo, and both forest types exhibited similar pattern of species accumulation. We recorded the lowest number of species in the palm swamp, although this habitat ranked second in terms of total abundance. We found the same pattern when comparing species

Log(abundance + 1)

2.5

A

B

C

richness based on a standardized abundance (e.g. 350 individuals; Figure 1). The gamma diversity, according to the additive partitioning approach, can be expressed as: 65 [γ ] = 18.2 [α] + 46.8 [β]. Within each forest type, beta diversity contributed about half of the total gamma diversity (floodplain = 52%, terra firme = 54%, bamboo = 46%, palm swamp = 53%). Overall, mean diversity and evenness were higher in the floodplain than in the other forest types (Appendix 1). We found differences in species abundance distributions among forest types, as indicated by different shapes of the rank-abundance distribution curves (Figure 3). We found more abundant species (i.e. those with > 20 individuals) in the floodplain than in the other forest types, and the slope of the floodplain curve resembles the curve for all data combined. The species abundance distributions in the terra firme and the bamboo resemble each other and indicate that these forest types have less abundant species compared with the floodplain. The abundance distribution in the palm swamp also indicates that this forest type has less abundant species compared with the floodplain (Figure 3). Our indicator species analysis confirmed the patterns exhibited by the rank-abundance distribution curves and detected additional species that could be used to characterize each forest type. Overall, between one and six species could be used to characterize each forest type (these species are labelled with an asterisk in Appendix 1) and they contribute more than 50% to

DE F G H I

2.0

J K

1.5

L

M

R

All data

(Most abundant species)

Floodplain

(E, D, G, I, F, C, B, M, A, R)

Terra firme

(A, B, C, G, D, E, Q)

Bamboo

(A, B, D, C, E, U, O)

Palm swamp

(H, F, C, J, K, L)

1.0 0.5 0.0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Species abundance rank Figure 3. Rank-abundance distribution curves of species recorded across sites and forest types. The rank-abundance curve for all data combined is shown on top of the individual curves for each forest type. Each forest type includes pooled data from four sites. The most abundant species (> 20 individuals observed across all sites) are labelled with particular letters in the curve for all data; only four of the 18 most abundant species were not labelled, but they are N, O, P, Q (between labels M and R). For each forest type, the most abundant species (> 70%) are labelled in decreasing order in parentheses. The relative abundance was transformed to log(abundance + 1), where abundance is the number of individuals recorded in each forest type. Letter codes: A = Pristimantis reichlei, B = Leptodactylus (Adenomera) sp., C = Rhinella margaritifera, D = Pristimantis toftae, E = Engystomops freibergi, F = Leptodactylus petersii, G = Hamptophryne boliviana, H = Dendrophryniscus minutus, I = Chiasmocleis ventrimaculata, J = Ameerega hahneli, K = Hypsiboas cinerascens, L = Hypsiboas lanciformis, M = Phyllomedusa vaillanti, N = Noblella myrmecoides, O = Ameerega trivittata, P = Scinax ictericus, Q = Oreobates cruralis, R = Pristimantis carvalhoi, U = Dendropsophus minutus.

RUDOLF VON MAY ET AL.

514

Stress: 0.14

Floodplain

Terra firme

Bamboo

Palm swamp

Figure 4. Non-metric multidimensional scaling plot, four sites (CICRA, CM1, CM2 and TRC), four forest types, wet season 2008. Species abundance data were used for dissimilarity matrix and nMDS plot.

the total average dissimilarity between forest types. The SIMPER results show that the average dissimilarity between the floodplain and the terra firme was 73.2%. The average dissimilarity between the floodplain and bamboo was 75.1%, and for the floodplain and palm swamp, 81.0%. The terra firme and bamboo were the most similar habitats, as their average dissimilarity was 57.2%. In contrast, both sites were very different from the palm swamp, as the average dissimilarity was 86.7% and 86.2%, respectively. We found that community structure differs across forest types, as both the presence/absence and abundance matrices were effective at discriminating among forest types (Figure 4; only the nMDS plot based on the abundance matrix is shown). When considering abundance data, we found a significant pattern of turnover across forest types (ANOSIM, Global R = 0.524, P = 0.001; Figure 4). In contrast, there was no significant effect of site on assemblage turnover (Global R = 0.055, P = 0.262). Pairwise comparisons indicated that the floodplain differs from the other three forest types and that the palm swamp differs from both the terra firme and bamboo (all comparisons P < 0.029), but that the terra firme and bamboo do not differ from each other (P = 0.629). To verify whether this pattern is maintained in the absence of uncommon species, we repeated the same analyses excluding 16 species represented by singletons and doubletons (Appendix 1). Again, we found a significant pattern of turnover across forest types (ANOSIM, Global R = 0.513, P = 0.001), but no effect of site (Global R = 0.030, P = 0.576). In the Mantel tests, we only found a correlation between assemblage similarities and geographic distance when forest types and abundance data were included in the analyses. First, when forest types were not considered in the analysis, we found no correlation between similarity

and geographic distance. The lack of correlation was observed both with presence/absence data (Jaccard similarity index; Mantel test, r = − 0.078, P = 0.255) and abundance data (Bray–Curtis dissimilarity; Mantel test, r = 0.217, P = 0.068). When we conducted the analysis separately for each forest type, but only included presence/absence data, we found no correlation between similarity and geographic distance (Jaccard similarity index; Mantel tests and Pearson correlations, P > 0.05 for each forest type). Only when we conducted the analysis separately for each forest type and included species abundance data, we found a significant correlation between similarity and geographic distance in both floodplain and terra firme (Bray–Curtis dissimilarity; Figure 5a, b). We found no correlation in the bamboo and the palm swamp (Figure 5c, d). However, the trend observed in the bamboo suggests that it would be premature to exclude the possibility that similarity and geographic distance are correlated in this forest type. A linear function best fitted the data in the floodplain (y = 9.85x + 48.0, R2 = 0.78) and the terra firme (y = 23.7x + 18.8, R2 = 0.97), where y = Bray–Curtis dissimilarity and x = distance.

DISCUSSION Our results support the prediction that amphibian species richness, composition and abundance differ across forest types in the heterogeneous landscape of south-eastern Peru. Previous researchers have also shown that forest heterogeneity is important for maintaining amphibian diversity (Ernst & R¨odel 2006, 2008; Gardner et al. 2007a), but they often focused on different habitat ‘states’ such as primary and secondary forest. Here, we focused on differences among naturally occurring forest types in a region where patterns of amphibian diversity have not been studied in detail. Our results corroborate some general patterns (e.g. high species diversity in the floodplain; Crump 1971, Rodr´ıguez 1992) and improve the knowledge of amphibian community structure across other poorly studied habitats, especially bamboo and palm swamp. We found that a large proportion of amphibian gamma diversity in south-eastern Peru is attributed to habitat-related beta diversity. Although the numerically dominant species may vary across habitats or sites, our results indicate that forest type is more important than site location in predicting both species composition and abundance. The observation that bamboo and terra firme assemblages do not clearly differ from each other (except for a few species; Appendix 1) is not surprising as bamboo habitats are physically nested within a larger land area covered by terra firme. This pattern is consistent with findings by Silman et al. (2003), who demonstrated that

Beta diversity of Amazonian amphibians

100

100 Bray-Curtis dissimilarity

(a) Floodplain

90 Bray-Curtis dissimilarity

515

80 70 60 50 40

Mantel test r = 0.95, P = 0.037 Pearson correlation r = 0.88, P = 0.020

30 20 10

80 70 60 50 40

Mantel test r = 0.96, P = 0.038 Pearson correlation r = 0.98, P = 0.001

30 20 10

0

0 0.0

100

0.5

1.0

1.5 Log(distance+1)

2.0

2.5

0.0

100 Bray-Curtis dissimilarity

(c) Bamboo

90 Bray-Curtis dissimilarity

(b) Terra firme

90

80 70 60 50 40

Mantel test r = 0.92, P = 0.089 Pearson correlation r = 0.80, P = 0.060

30 20 10 0

0.5

1.0

1.5 Log(distance+1)

2.0

2.5

(d) Palm swamp

90 80 70 60 50 40

Mantel test r = 0.77, P = 0.172 Pearson correlation r = 0.68, P = 0.135

30 20 10 0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5 Log(distance+1)

2.0

2.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5 Log(distance+1)

2.0

2.5

Figure 5. Relationship between Bray–Curtis dissimilarity and geographic distance, for all possible pairwise comparisons, analysed separately for each forest type.

plant species composition in bamboo and terra firme in south-eastern Peru are similar to each other. However, more research is needed to make better generalizations about how the bamboo forest differs from terra firme in terms of animal communities. The patterns of community structure across forest types that we have observed in south-western Amazonia resemble those observed in other tropical regions (Ernst & R¨odel 2005, 2008; Gardner et al. 2007b, Watling 2005). For example, East African amphibian assemblages exhibit a significant association with forest types on a similar geographic scale (Gardner et al. 2007b). Although the number of species recorded in East Africa is much lower than in Amazonia, the patterns observed in both regions suggest that species-sorting across forest types (sensu Leibold et al. 2004) is important. Our results, and results from the studies cited above, suggest that habitat heterogeneity is important for maintaining phylogenetically distant amphibian faunas. Perhaps even more remarkable is the similarity of patterns exhibited by the amphibian assemblages in south-eastern Peru with those reported for tree assemblages in the same region (Pitman et al. 1999). Pitman et al. (1999) showed that, for most tree species, habitat preferences are driven by abundance distributions instead of restricted affinity to a given habitat: ‘habitat preferences of Amazonian plants are a matter of degree,

and not as strict as suggested by earlier researchers’ (Pitman et al. 1999: p. 2657). Likewise, most amphibian species we encountered occur in more than one forest type but usually exhibit high abundance in only one forest type. Hence, the results of indicator species analysis should be taken with caution because observing a particular species does not tell observers which forest type they are in. The indicator species analysis can be useful to characterize particular forest types, but it does not imply that those taxa are specialists to those forest types. The only exception might be Ranitomeya biolat, a poison frog that is strongly associated with the bamboo because it is the only anuran in the region that uses bamboo internodes as a reproduction and retreat site (von May et al. 2009b) and does not successfully breed in other forest types (R. von May, pers. obs.). We found that, when analyses are conducted separately for each forest type and include species abundance data, similarity between assemblages decreases with increasing geographic distance. Our results stand in contrast to findings by Dahl et al. (2009), who did not find a correlation between similarity and distance in southwestern Amazonia despite the fact that their sites were separated by up to 400 km. However, Dahl et al. (2009) did not standardize their sampling with respect to forest type and did not use abundance data (J. Moravec, pers. comm.). Likewise, we found no correlation between similarity

RUDOLF VON MAY ET AL.

516

and distance when forest type and abundance data were not included in the analysis. Thus, our results illustrate that abundance data and forest type should always be included in the analysis of amphibian community structure at relatively small regional scales (as small as 100 km in our study). Researchers working in other tropical and subtropical regions (and who included both abundance data and habitat characteristics in their analyses) also found that geographic distance is important for structuring amphibian assemblages (Keller et al. 2009, Parris 2004). The four forest types we studied are relatively discrete in western Amazonia and are, in part, defined by vegetation and different environmental conditions including soil type and flooding regime. Treating each forest type as a separate unit has many advantages and allows researchers to understand which major landscape features influence the structuring of taxonomic assemblages. An alternative method is to analyse the variation of amphibian communities across fine-scaled environmental gradients (e.g. soil type, humidity), with the aim of identifying which habitat characteristics are most relevant for community structure. Preliminary work on this topic has shown that amphibian species may respond individualistically to some substrate characteristics (e.g. soil pH, leaf-litter mass; Menin et al. 2007, Van Sluys et al. 2007, R. von May unpubl. data). More research is needed to link environmental gradients with animal diversity patterns in western Amazonia. In conclusion, evaluating community structure across forest types can improve our understanding of diversity patterns in Amazonian landscapes. At the same time, this type of information can aid in conservation. If different areas are set aside as corridors or small preserves, the inclusion of each forest type will maximize the amount of protected biodiversity in the region. Finally, given that many threatened amphibian species in Peru might be found outside protected areas, more information on species’ habitat requirements is needed to develop strategies for habitat conservation and reserve design.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Kelsey Reider, Lisseth Flores, Valeriano Quispe, ´ Thupa, Hern´an Collado, Jorge P´erez, Jerry Mart´ınez, Raul ´ Ramos and the staff Mario Napravnik, Kurt Holle, Jesus at CICRA, CM1, CM2 and TRC for help in field work and ´ C´ordova and C´esar Aguilar for logistics. We thank Jesus providing access to the herpetological collection in the Museo de Historia Natural Universidad de San Marcos. We thank Nigel Pitman, James Watling, Paul Fine, Alessandro Catenazzi, Evelyn Gaiser, Steve Oberbauer, Kyle Summers, Zhenmin Chen, Vivian Maccachero,

Monica Isola, Justin Nowakowski, Robert Hegna, Kelsey Reider, Seiichi Murasaki, Steven Whitfield, Tiffany Doan and two anonymous reviewers for providing constructive comments on the manuscript. We also thank Evelyn Gaiser, Tom Philippi and Zhenmin Chen for providing statistical advice. Collection of data and voucher specimens was authorized by an IACUC permit (Number 05-013) issued by Florida International University (FIU) and collection and export permits issued by the Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA), Peru (permit numbers 11-2008-INRENA-IFFS-DCB and 09 C/C-2008-INRENA-IANP). We thank Karina Ram´ırez and Carmen Jaimes for advice with permit applications. Funding for this study was provided by the Amazon Conservation Association, Wildlife Conservation Society, Tinker Foundation, Graduate Student Association and Latin American and Caribbean Center at FIU. RvM thanks FIU’s University Graduate School for a Doctoral Year Fellowship. This paper is contribution number 181 to FIU’s programme in tropical biology. LITERATURE CITED AICHINGER, M. 1987. Annual activity patterns of anurans in a seasonal Neotropical environment. Oecologia 71:583–592. ALLMON, W. D. 1991. A plot study of forest floor litter frogs, central Amazon, Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology 7:503–522. AZEVEDO-RAMOS, C. & GALATTI, U. 2002. Patterns of amphibian diversity in Brazilian Amazonia: conservation implications. Biological Conservation 103;103–111. BLAIR, C. & DOAN, T. M. 2009. Patterns of community structure and microhabitat usage in Peruvian Pristimantis (Anura: Strabomantidae). Copeia 2009:303–312. CLARKE, K. R. & WARWICK, R. M. 1994. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth. 144 pp. CRUMP, M. L. 1971. Quantitative analysis of the ecological distribution of a tropical herpetofauna. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, The University of Kansas 3:1–62. CRUMP, M. L. & SCOTT, N. J. 1994. Visual encounter surveys. Pp. 84– 92 in Heyer, W. R., Donnelly, M. A., McDiarmid, R. W., Hayek, L. C. & Foster, M. S. (eds.). Measuring and monitoring biological diversity, standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. DAHL, C., NOVOTNY, V., MORAVEC, J. & RICHARDS, S. P. 2009. Beta diversity of frogs in the forests of New Guinea, Amazonia and Europe: contrasting tropical and temperate communities. Journal of Biogeography 36:896–904. DOAN, T. M. 2003. Which methods are most effective for surveying rain forest herpetofauna? Journal of Herpetology 37:72–81. ´ DOAN, T. M. & ARIZABAL, W. 2002. Microgeographic variation in species composition of the herpetofaunal communities of Tambopata region, Peru. Biotropica 34:101–117. DUELLMAN, W. E. & THOMAS, R. 1996. Anuran amphibians from a seasonally dry forest in southeastern Peru and comparisons of the

Beta diversity of Amazonian amphibians

517

anurans among sites in the upper Amazon basin. Occasional Papers of

Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). The Coleopterists’ Bulletin 60:315–

the Museum of Natural History, The University of Kansas 180:1–34. DUFRENE, M. & LEGENDRE, P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological

324. LEIBOLD, M. A., HOLYOAK, M., MOUQUET, N., AMARASEKARE, P., CHASE, J. M., HOOPES, M. F., HOLT, R. D., SHURIN, J. B.,

Monographs 67:345–366. ¨ ERNST, R. & RODEL, M.-O. 2005. Anthropogenically induced changes of predictability in tropical anuran assemblages. Ecology 86:3111–

LAW, R., TILMAN, D., LOREAU, M. & GONZALEZ, A. 2004. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecology Letters 7:601–613.

3118. ¨ ERNST, R. & RODEL, M.-O. 2006. Community assembly and structure of tropical leaf-litter anurans. Ecotropica 12:113–129. ¨ ERNST, R. & RODEL, M.-O. 2008. Patterns of community composition in

LIEBERMAN, S. S. 1986. Ecology of the leaf litter herpetofauna of a Neotropical rain forest: La Selva, Costa Rica. Acta Zool´ogica Mexicana 15:1–72.

two tropical tree frog assemblages: separating spatial structure and environmental effects in disturbed and undisturbed forests. Journal of

MENIN, M., LIMA, A. P., MAGNUSSON, W. E. & WALDEZ, F. 2007. Topographic and edaphic effects on the distribution of terrestrially reproducing anurans in Central Amazonia: mesoscale

Tropical Ecology 24:111–120. ´ GARDNER, T. A., RIBEIRO-JUNIOR, M. A., BARLOW, J., AVILA-PIRES, T. C. S., HOOGMOED, M. S. & PERES, C. A. 2007a. The value

spatial patterns. Journal of Tropical Ecology 23:539–547. MOSTACEDO, B., BALCAZAR, J. & MONTERO, C. 2006. Tipos de bosque, diversidad y composici´on flor´ıstica en la Amazonia sudoeste de

of primary, secondary, and plantation forests for a Neotropical Herpetofauna. Conservation Biology 21:775–787.

Bolivia. Ecolog´ıa en Bolivia 41:99–116. OLIVIER, J. 2007. Etude spatio-temporelle de la distribution de bambous

GARDNER, T. A., FITZHERBERT, E. B., DREWES, R. C., HOWELL, K. M. & CARO, T. 2007b. Spatial and temporal patterns of abundance and diversity of an East African leaf litter amphibian fauna. Biotropica

dans le sud-ouest Amazonien (sud P´erou): histoire, dynamique et futur d’une v´eg´etation monodominante en forˆet tropicale humide. Ph.D. thesis, Universit´e Toulouse III – Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.

39:105–113. GOTELLI, N. J. & COLWELL, R. K. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species

PARRIS, K. M. 2004. Environmental and spatial variables influence the composition of frog assemblages in sub-tropical eastern Australia. Ecography 27:392–400.

richness. Ecology Letters 4:379–391. GRISCOM, B. W. & ASHTON, M. S. 2006. A self-perpetuating bamboo disturbance cycle in a neotropical forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology

PEARMAN, P. B. 1997. Correlates of amphibian diversity in an altered landscape of Amazonian Ecuador. Conservation Biology 11:1211– 1225. ´ PEARMAN, P. B., VELASCO, A. M. & LOPEZ, A. 1995. Tropical

22:587–597. GRISCOM, B. W., DALY, D. C. & ASHTON, M. S. 2007. Floristics of bamboo-dominated stands in lowland terra-firma forests of

amphibian monitoring: a comparison of methods for detecting intersite variation in species’ composition. Herpetologica 51:325–337.

southwestern Amazonia. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 134:108–125. HAMILTON, S. K., KELLNDORFER, J., LEHNER, B. & TOBLER, M.

PEARSON, D. L. & DERR, J. A. 1986. Seasonal patterns of lowland forest floor arthropod abundance in southeastern Peru. Biotropica 18:244– 256.

2007. Remote sensing of floodplain geomorphology as a surrogate for biodiversity in a tropical river system (Madre de Dios, Peru).

PERES, C. A. 1997. Primate community structure at twenty western Amazonian flooded and unflooded forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology

Geomorphology 89:23–38. HEYER, W. R., DONNELLY, M. A., MCDIARMID, R. W., HAYEK, L. C. & FOSTER, M. S. (eds.). 1994. Measuring and monitoring biological

13:381–405. PHILLIPS, O. 1993. Comparative valuation of tropical forests in Amazonian Peru. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.

diversity, standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 388 pp. HOUSEHOLDER, J. E. 2007. Diversity, natural history, and conservation

PHILLIPS, O., GENTRY, A. H., REYNEL, C., WILKIN, P. & GALVEZDURAND, C. 1994. Quantitative ethnobotany and Amazonian conservation. Conservation Biology 8:225–248.

of vanilla of Madre de Dios, Peru. Master’s thesis, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, USA. KAHN, F. 1991. Palms as key swamp forest resources in Amazonia.

PINEDA, E. & HALFFTER, G. 2004. Species diversity and habitat fragmentation: frogs in a tropical montane landscape in Mexico. Biological Conservation 117:499–508. ˜ PITMAN, N. C. A., TERBORGH, J., SILMAN, M. R. & NUNEZ, P. 1999.

Forest Ecology and Management 38:133–142. ¨ KELLER, A., RODEL, 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. KRATTER, A. W. 1997. Bamboo specialization by Amazonian birds.

Tree species distributions in an upper Amazonian forest. Ecology 80:2651–2661. RODR´IGUEZ, L. O. 1992. Structure et organization du peuplement

Biotropica 29:100–110. LANDE, R. 1996. Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and

d’anoures de Cocha Cashu, Parc National Manu, Amazonie Peruvienne. Revue d’Ecologie (Terre Vie) 47:151–197. ¨ AKSJ ¨ ¨ SA ARVI, I. E., RUOKOLAINEN, K., TUOMISTO, H., HAATAJA, ´ S., FINE, P. V. A., CARDENAS, G., MESONES, I. & VARGAS, V.

similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76:5–13. LARSEN, T. H., LOPERA, A. & FORSYTH, A. 2006. Extreme trophic and habitat specialization by Peruvian dung beetles (Coleoptera:

2006. Comparing composition and diversity of parasitoid wasps and plants in an Amazonian rain-forest mosaic. Journal of Tropical Ecology 22:167–176.

RUDOLF VON MAY ET AL.

518

SILMAN, M. R., ANCAYA, E. J. & BRINSON, J. 2003. Los bosques de bambu´ en la Amazon´ıa occidental. Pp. 63–72 in Leite, R., Pitman,

VON MAY, R. & DONNELLY, M. A. 2009. Do trails affect relative

N. & Alvarez, P. (eds.). Alto Purus: biodiversity, conservation, and management. Center for Tropical Conservation Press, Durham.

abundance estimates of rainforest frogs and lizards? Austral Ecology 34:613–620. ¨ VON MAY, R., SIU-TING, K., JACOBS, J. M., MEDINA-MULLER,

VAN SLUYS, M., VRCIBRADIC, D., ALVES, M. A. S., BERGALLO, H. G. & ROCHA, C. F. D. 2007. Ecological parameters of the leaflitter frog community of an Atlantic rainforest area at Ilha Grande,

M., GAGLIARDI, G., RODR´IGUEZ, L. O. & DONNELLY, M. A. 2009a. Species diversity and conservation status of amphibians ´ Herpetological Conservation and Biology 4: in Madre de Dios, Peru.

Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Austral Ecology 32:254–260. VASUDEVAN, K., KUMAR, A., NOON, B. R. & CHELLAM, R. 2008. Density and diversity of forest floor anurans in the rain forests of

14–29. ¨ VON MAY, R., MEDINA-MULLER, M., DONNELLY, M. A. & SUMMERS, K. 2009b. Breeding-site selection by the poison frog Ranitomeya biolat

southern Western Ghats, India. Herpetologica 64:207–215. ¨ ¨ VEITH, M., LOTTERS, S., ANDREONE, F. & RODEL, M. O. 2004. Measuring and monitoring amphibian diversity in tropical forests.

in Amazonian bamboo forests: an experimental approach. Canadian Journal of Zoology 87:453–464. WATLING, J. I. 2005. Edaphically-biased distributions of amphibians

II. Estimating species richness from standardized transect censing. Ecotropica 10:85–99.

and reptiles in a lowland tropical rainforest. Studies of Neotropical Fauna and the Environment 40:15–21.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Species of amphibian and number of individuals recorded in each forest type. Data from the four study sites were pooled (N = 20 transects per habitat per site). The asterisk(s) next to the number of individuals denotes that the species could be used as an indicator for that habitat (indicator species analysis: two asterisks, P < 0.05; one asterisk, 0.05 < P < 0.10). Diversity measures (mean ± SE) are included at the bottom of table. Species Aromobatidae Allobates conspicuus Allobates femoralis Allobates trilineatus Bufonidae Dendrophryniscus minutus Rhinella margaritifera Rhinella marina Ceratophrynidae Ceratophrys cornuta Dendrobatidae Ameerega hahneli Ameerega trivittata Ranitomeya biolat Hemiphractidae Hemiphractus scutatus Hylidae Dendropsophus koechlini Dendropsophus leali Dendropsophus minutus Dendropsophus parviceps Dendropsophus rhodopeplus Dendropsophus schubarti Hypsiboas boans Hypsiboas cinerascens Hypsiboas fasciatus Hypsiboas geographicus Hypsiboas lanciformis Osteocephalus buckleyi Osteocephalus cf. pearsoni Osteocephalus leprieurii Osteocephalus sp. Osteocephalus taurinus Phyllomedusa camba Phyllomedusa palliata

Floodplain

Terra firme

Bamboo

Palm swamp

All sites

0 3 11

8 0 0

2 0 0

0 0 0

10 3 11

5 38 0

1 39 1

0 16 2

3

1

0

1

5

18 5 0

7 8 0

1 12 6∗∗

33 2 0

59 27 6

0

1

0

0

1

2 4 0 2 6 3 1 10 13∗ 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 2

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 4 0 1 0 0 2 4 1 1 1

0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 1 2 0 3 0 0

0 0 3 0 0 1 0 33 1 3 27∗ 3 0 0 0 5 0 1

2 4 17 2 7 4 1 46 18 4 37 3 2 5 5 9 1 4

169∗ 77 0

175 170 3

Beta diversity of Amazonian amphibians

519

Appendix 1. Continued. Species Phyllomedusa vaillanti Scarthyla goinorum Scinax garbei Scinax ictericus Scinax pedromedinae Scinax ruber Trachycephalus coryaceus Trachycephalus venulosus Leiuperidae Engystomops freibergi Edalorhina perezi Leptodactylidae Leptodactylus (Adenomera) sp. Leptodactylus didymus Leptodactylus knudseni Leptodactylus lineatus Leptodactylus pentadactylus Leptodactylus petersii Leptodactylus rhodomystax Leptodactylus rhodonotus Microhylidae Chiasmocleis bassleri Chiasmocleis ventrimaculata Ctenophryne geayi Elachistocleis bicolor Hamptophryne boliviana Syncope antenori Plethodontidae Bolitoglossa altamazonica Strabomantidae Noblella myrmecoides Oreobates cruralis Pristimantis altamazonicus Pristimantis buccinator Pristimantis carvalhoi Pristimantis divnae Pristimantis fenestratus Pristimantis ockendeni Pristimantis reichlei Pristimantis skydmainos Pristimantis toftae Number of species Number of individuals Diversity, Shannon (H ) Diversity, Simpson (1 – λ ) Evenness, Pielou (J )

Floodplain

Terra firme

Bamboo

Palm swamp

All sites

29 0 13 11 5 4 1 0

0 0 0 6 1 3 0 0

4 0 0 6 0 10∗ 0 1

1 3 1 4 0 1 0 0

34 3 14 27 6 18 1 1

111∗ 2

10 0

15 0

0 0

136 2

33 2 1 0 2 39 1 1

55 0 0 2 0 7 1 0

78 3 0 0 0 5 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 79∗∗ 0 0

191 5 1 2 2 130 2 1

2 69∗∗ 11∗ 2 87∗∗ 4

0 6 3 0 33 3

0 10 0 0 3 9

0 2 0 0 1 0

2 87 14 2 124 16

1

0

3

13

9 12 1 4 21 0 3 0 23 12 89∗∗ 51 736 2.60 ± 0.14 0.89 ± 0.02 0.81 ± 0.04

7 9 0 6 0 3 0 3 118∗∗ 0 13 37 374 2.05 ± 0.13 0.80 ± 0.04 0.73 ± 0.03

9∗∗ 8 2 1 0 2 1 0 4 89 0 33 32 359 2.09 ± 0.11 0.80 ± 0.01 0.74 ± 0.20

5 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 30 498 1.70 ± 0.20 0.70 ± 0.07 0.65 ± 0.08

29 24 7 11 23 4 3 7 234 12 138 65 1967