ArticlePloS one2021
Do urban open spaces provide refugia for frogs in urban environments?
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urban-Wild Interface Diversity: A Comprehensive Checklist of Herpetofauna of Guayaquil, Ecuador.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Anuran responses to urbanization: evaluating life history traits ofCurrent zoology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urbanization is among the largest threats to wildlife populations through factors such as fragmentation, isolation, and habitat destruction. Urban open spaces, such as parks and golf courses, have the potential to provide wildlife with suitable habitat within an urbanized matrix. These refugia may be particularly important for amphibians, which represent one of the most endangered and least vagile vertebrate groups on earth. During the spring and summer of 2018, we conducted surveys to determine the presence of anurans at 51 wetland sites within the Piedmont ecoregion of South Carolina. Nearly one-third of these wetlands were located within urban open spaces, one-third in low development areas, and one-third in highly developed areas. Impervious surface and total road length surrounding the wetlands were measured at two scales, a core habitat scale (300 m) and average maximum migration scale (750 m), and we measured several within-wetland habitat variables. Urban Open Space wetlands had levels of surrounding impervious surface similar to High Urbanization wetlands at the larger scale and were intermediate between Low and High Urbanization wetlands at the smaller scale. The total length of road segments occurring within buffers (at both scales) surrounding our study wetlands was higher for Urban Open Space compared to Low and High Urbanization sites. Among the within-wetland variables measured, Low Urbanization sites had higher canopy cover and were more likely to have a terrestrial buffer zone relative to the other categories. Species richness decreased significantly as total road length increased among all wetlands. Wetland category was not a significant driver explaining species richness, but β-diversity was more variable among Urban Open Space wetlands than either Low or High Urbanization wetlands. Urban Open Space wetlands did not appear to increase suitability for anurans relative to High Urbanization wetlands. Urban Open Space wetlands had higher variability in species composition, which was perhaps attributable to the diversity among sites represented in the Urban Open Space category.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.