Movement and habitat selection of the western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) in southern California

Autoři: Katherine L. Baumberger aff001;  M. V. Eitzel aff002;  Matthew E. Kirby aff003;  Michael H. Horn aff004
Působiště autorů: Environmental Studies Program, California State University at Fullerton, Fullerton, California, United States of America aff001;  Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America aff002;  Department of Geological Sciences, California State University at Fullerton, Fullerton, California, United States of America aff003;  Department of Biological Science, California State University at Fullerton, Fullerton, California, United States of America aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article


Agricultural activity, urban development and habitat alteration have caused the disappearance of the western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) from 80% of its geographic range in southern California. Despite the western spadefoot’s continuing decline, little research has been conducted on its natural history. The home range of adult spadefoots is unknown, and their use of upland habitat is poorly understood. Both factors are important for the long-term conservation of the species because adult spadefoots spend the majority of their lives away from breeding pools in self-excavated burrows. Between January 2012 and January 2013, we surgically implanted radio transmitters in 15 spadefoots at two locations and recorded their movements and habitat use. The mean distance moved between burrow locations was 18 m (SD ± 24.1 m, range1–204 m). The mean distance of burrows from the breeding pools was 40 m (SD ± 37.42 m, range 1–262 m). Rain was a significant predictor of spadefoot movement, with more rain predicting higher probability of movement and larger distances moved. At remote sensing scale (1 m) spadefoots selected grassland habitat for their burrow locations. At the microsite scale (< 1 m) spadefoots strongly selected duff over grass or shrub cover. Spadefoots burrowed in friable, sandy/loam soil with significantly less clay than random pseudoabsence points. This research enhances our understanding of a little-studied species and will contribute to the development of effective management plans for the western spadefoot.

Klíčová slova:

California – Conservation science – Crystals – Grasses – Habitats – Shrubs – Aestivation – Wilderness


1. Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, Fischman DL, et al. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science. 2004;306: 1783–1786. doi: 10.1126/science.1103538 15486254

2. Cushman SA. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biol Conserv. 2006;128: 231–240.

3. Collins JP, Crump ML. Extinction in Our Times: Global Amphibian Decline. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.

4. Hof C, Araujo MB, Jetz W, Rahbek C. Additive threats from pathogens, climate and land-use change for global amphibian diversity. Nature. 2011;480: 516–520. doi: 10.1038/nature10650 22089134

5. Semlitsch RD, Skelly DK. Ecology and conservation of pool-breeding amphibians. In: Calhoun AJK, DeMaynadier PG, editors. Science and conservation of vernal pools in northeastern North America. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2007. pp. 128–42.

6. Trenham PC, Shaffer HB. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for population viability. Ecol Appl. 2005;15: 115–1168.

7. Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD. Distribution of amphibians in terrestrial habitat and surrounding wetlands. Wetlands. 2007;27: 153–161.

8. McDonough C, Paton PWC. Salamander dispersal across a forested landscape fragmented by a golf course. J Wildl Manage. 2007;71: 1163–1169.

9. Goates MC, Hatch KA, Eggett DL. The need to ground truth 30.5m buffers: A case study of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas). Biol Conserv. 2007;138: 474–483.

10. Harper EB, Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD. Demographic consequences of terrestrial habitat loss for pool-breeding amphibians: Predicting extinction risks associated with inadequate size of buffer zones. Conserv Biol. 2008;22: 1205–1215. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01015.x 18717698

11. Scott DE, Komoroski MJ, Croshaw DA, Dixon PM. Terrestrial distribution of pond-breeding salamanders around an isolated wetland. Ecology. 2013;94: 2537–2546. doi: 10.1890/12-1999.1 24400505

12. Semlitsch RD, Brodie JR. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conserv Biol. 2003;17: 1219–1228.

13. Timm BC, McGarigal K, Cook RP. Upland movement patterns and habitat selection of adult eastern spadefoots (Scaphiopus holbrookii) at Cape Cod National Seashore. J Herpetol. 2014;48: 84–97.

14. Garner JL. Movement and habitat-use of the great basin spadefoot (Spea intermontana) at its northern range limit. M.S. Thesis, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada. 2012.

15. Richardson JS, Oaten D. Critical breeding, foraging, and overwintering habitats of Great Basin spadefoot toads (Spea intermontana) and western toads (Anaxyrus boreas) within grassland ecosystems: 2013 final report. Prepared for Can. Wildl. Fed., Kanata, ON; 2013.

16. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plan for vernal pool ecosystems of California and southern Oregon. Portland (OR): U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 2005. pp. II-220–II-235.

17. Stebbins RC, McGinnis SM. Field guide to amphibians and reptiles of California. California Natural History Guides. Revised Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2012.

18. Thomson RC, Wright AN, Shaffer HB. California amphibian and reptile species of special concern. Oakland: University of California Press; 2016.

19. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Evaluation of a petition to list the western spadefoot toad as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Federal Register. 2015;80: 37578–37579.

20. Fisher RN, Shaffer HB. The decline of amphibians in California's Great Central Valley. Conserv Biol. 1996;10: 1387–1397.

21. Dimmitt MA, Ruibal R. Environmental correlates of emergence in spadefoot toads (Scaphiopus). J Herpetol. 1980;14: 21–29.

22. Keeley JE, Zedler PH. Characterization and global distribution of vernal pools. In: Witham CW, Bauder ET, Belk D, Ferren WR Jr., Ornduff R, editors. Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems. Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, CA; 1998. Pp.1–14.

23. Morey SR. Spea hammondii. In: Lannoo MJ, editor. Amphibian declines: The conservation status of United States species. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2005. pp. 514–517.

24. Beaupre SJ, Jacobsen ER, Lillywhite HB, Zamudia K. Guidelines for use of live amphibians and reptiles in field and laboratory research. Herpetological Animal Care and Use Committee (HACC) of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologist, 2004 Second Edition.

25. NOAA. 2016. Daily summary details for Laguna Beach, CA. Available from: Cited 1 October 2016.

26. Eggert C, Guyetant R. Safeguard of a spadefoot toad (Pelobates fuscus) population: a French experience. In: Ferri V, editor. Atti del Terza Convergno Salvaguardia Anfibi. Progetto ROSPI & Museo cantonale di Storia Naturale di Lugano. Penne: Cogecstre Ediz; 2002. pp. 47–52.

27. Goldberg CS, Goode MJ, Schwalbe CR, Jarchow JL. External and implanted methods of radio transmitter attachment to a terrestrial anuran (Eleuthodactylus augusti). Herpetol Rev. 2002;33:191–194.

28. Hoover MD, Lunt HA. A key for the classification of forest humus types. Soil Science Society Proceedings. 1952;1952: 368–370.

29. Beyer HL. Geospatial modelling environment, Version [software]. 2012 [cited 2015 Sep 20]. Available from:

30. Baldwin RF, Calhoun AJK, deMaynadier PG. Conservation planning for amphibian species with complex habitat requirements: a case study using movements and habitat selection of the wood frog Rana sylvatica. J Herpetol. 2006;40: 442–453.

31. Kirby ME, Lund SP, Patterson WP, Anderson MA, Bird BW, Ivanovici L, et al. A Holocene record of Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO)-related hydrologic variability in southern California (Lake Elsinore, CA). J Paleolimnol. 2010;44: 819–839.

32. Dean WE Jr. Determination of carbonate and organic matter in calcareous sediments and sedimentary rocks by loss on ignition: comparison with other methods. J Sediment Petrol. 1974;44: 242–248.

33. Wentworth CK. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. J Geol. 1922;30: 377–392.

34. Sheldrick BH, Wang C. Particle size distribution. In Carter MR, editor. Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers; 1993. pp. 499–511.

35. Getz WM., Wilmers CC. A local nearest-neighbor convex-hull construction of home ranges and utilization distributions. Ecography. 2004;27: 489–505.

36. Getz WM, Fortmann-Roe S, Cross PC, Lyons AJ, Ryan SJ, Wilmers CC. LoCoH: Nonparametric kernel methods for constructing home ranges and utilization distributions. PLoS ONE. 2007: 2(2): e207. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000207 17299587

37. Signer J, Balkenhol N. Reproducible home ranges (rhr): a new, user-friendly R package for analysis of wildlife telemetry data. Wildl Soc Bull. 2015. doi: 10.1002/wsb.539

38. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2014. Available from:

39. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP. Resource selection by animals: Statistical design and analysis for field studies. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Springer; 2002.

40. Fournier DA, Skaug HJ, Ancheta J, Ianelli J, Magnusson A, Maunder M, et al. AD model builder: Using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim Methods Softw. 2012;27: 233–249.

41. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer; 2009.

42. Orange County Public Works. 2013. OC watersheds Laguna Beach rain station number 100, Lat. 33-32-49, Long. -117-46-53. Available from: rainfall_data. Cited 20 September 2015.

43. University of Texas McDonald Observatory. StarDate: Moon phases. 2013. Available from: Cited 20 September 2015.

44. Gray MJ, Miller DL, Smith LM. Coelomic response and signal range of implant transmitters in Bufo cognatus. Herpetol Rev. 2005;36: 285–288.

45. Ruibal R, Tevis L Jr., Roig V. The terrestrial ecology of the spadefoot toad Scaphiopus hammondii. Copeia. 1969;1969: 571–584.

46. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Appendix I: CDFW’s conservation measures for biological resources that may be affected by program-level actions. In: Horizon Water and Environment, editors. San Joaquin River restoration program: Salmon conservation and research facility and related Management actions project-draft environmental impact report; 2013. pp. I1–I16.

47. D’Antonio CM, Malmstrom C, Reynolds SA, Gerlach J. Ecology of invasive non-native species in California grassland. In: Stromberg MR, Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM, editors. California grasslands: Ecology and management. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2007. pp. 67–83.

48. Vetaas OR. Micro-site effects of trees and shrubs in dry savannas. J Veg Sci. 1992;3: 337–344.

49. Laundre JW. Effects of small mammal burrows on water infiltration in a cool desert environment. Oecologia. 1993;94: 43–48. doi: 10.1007/BF00317299 28313856

50. Reichman OJ, Seabloom EW. The role of pocket gophers as subterranean ecosystem engineers. Trends Ecol and Evol. 2002;17: 44–49.

51. Brattstrom BH., Warren JW. Observations on the ecology and behavior of the Pacific treefrog, Hyla regilla. Copeia. 1955;1955: 181–191.

52. Muths E. Home range and movements of boreal toads in undisturbed habitat. Copeia. 2003;2003: 160–165.

53. Bartelt PE, Peterson CR, Klaver RW. Sexual differences in the post-breeding movements and habitats selected by western toads (Bufo boreas) in southeastern Idaho. Herpetologica. 2004;60: 455–467.

54. Schmetterling DA, Young MK. Summer movements of boreal toads (Bufo boreas boreas) in two western Montana basins. J Herptol. 2008;42:111–123.

55. Searcy CA, Gabbai-Saldate E, Shaffer HB. Microhabitat use and migration distance of an endangered grassland amphibian. Biol Conserv. 2013;158: 80–87.

56. Smith MA, Green DM. Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecography. 2005;28: 110–128.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10
Nejčtenější tento týden