Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27386087›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2016

Frogs in the spotlight: a 16-year survey of native frogs and invasive toads on a floodplain in tropical Australia.

Gregory P Brown, Richard Shine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Gregory P BrownSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, A08 University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales 2006 Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2924-9040
Richard ShineSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, A08 University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales 2006 Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although widespread declines in anuran populations have attracted considerable concern, the stochastic demographics of these animals make it difficult to detect consistent trends against a background of spatial and temporal variation. To identify long-term trends, we need datasets gathered over long time periods, especially from tropical areas where anuran biodiversity is highest. We conducted road surveys of four anurans in the Australian wet-dry tropics on 4637 nights over a 16-year period. Our surveys spanned the arrival of invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina), allowing us to assess the invader's impact on native anuran populations. Our counts demonstrate abrupt and asynchronous shifts in abundance and species composition from one year to the next, not clearly linked to rainfall patterns. Typically, periods of decline in numbers of a species were limited to 1-2 years and were followed by 1- to 2-year periods of increase. No taxa showed consistent declines over time, although trajectories for some species showed significant perturbations coincident with the arrival of toads. None of the four focal frog species was less common at the end of the study than at the beginning, and three of the species reached peak abundances after toad arrival. Survey counts of cane toads increased rapidly during the initial stage of invasion but have subsequently declined and fluctuated. Distinguishing consistent declines versus stochastic fluctuations in anuran populations requires extensive time-series analysis, coupled with an understanding of the shifts expected under local climatic conditions. This is especially pertinent when assessing impacts of specific perturbations such as invasive species.

Indexed as

Amphibian populationsinvasion ecologytime seriestropical ecology

Identifiers

PMID27386087
PMCPMC4930992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.