Anuran responses to spatial patterns of agricultural landscapes in Argentina

Context: Amphibians are declining worldwide and land use change to agriculture is recognized as a leading cause. Argentina is undergoing an agriculturalization process with rapid changes in landscape structure. Objectives: We evaluated anuran response to landscape composition and configuration in two landscapes of east-central Argentina with different degrees of agriculturalization. We identified sensitive species and evaluated landscape influence on communities and individual species at two spatial scales. Methods: We compared anuran richness, frequency of occurrence, and activity between landscapes using call surveys data from 120 sampling points from 2007 to 2009. We evaluated anuran responses to landscape structure variables estimated within 250 and 500-m radius buffers using canonical correspondence analysis and multimodel inference from a set of candidate models. Results: Anuran richness was lower in the landscape with greater level of agriculturalization with reduced amount of forest cover and stream length. This pattern was driven by the lower occurrence and calling activity of seven out of the sixteen recorded species. Four species responded positively to the amount of forest cover and stream habitat. Three species responded positively to forest cohesion and negatively to rural housing. Two responded negatively to crop area and diversity of cover classes. Conclusions: Anurans within agricultural landscapes of east-central Argentina are responding to landscape structure. Responses varied depending on species and study scale. Life-history traits contribute to responses differences. Our study offers a better understanding of landscape effects on anurans and can be used for land management in other areas experiencing a similar agriculturalization process.Instituto de Recursos BiológicosFil: Suarez, Romina Paula. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; ArgentinaFil: Zaccagnini, Maria Elena. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; ArgentinaFil: Babbitt, Kimberly J. University of New Hampshire. Department of Natural Resources and the Environment; Estados UnidosFil: Calamari, Noelia Cecilia. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Paraná; ArgentinaFil: Natale, Guillermo S. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas. Departamento de Química. Centro de Investigaciones del Medio Ambiente; ArgentinaFil: Cerezo, Alexis. Asociación Aves Argentinas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos; ArgentinaFil: Codugnello, Nadia. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Laboratorio de Ecología; ArgentinaFil: Boca, Rosa Teresa. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Clima y Agua; ArgentinaFil: Damonte, María Jimena. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; ArgentinaFil: Vera Candioti, Josefina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Oliveros. Agencia De Extensión Rural Venado Tuerto; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Gavier Pizarro, Gregorio Ignacio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Recursos Biológicos; Argentin