![]() However, relatively few field data are available for judging which wetland species are most sensitive.Īcidification. Fish and Wildlife Service's "Contaminant Hazard Reviews" series that summarizes data on arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, mirex, carbofuran, toxaphene, PCBs, and chlorpyrifos. Some laboratory based toxicological data for individual species may be found in USEPA (1986), EPA's "AQUIRE" database, and the U.S. Speculation about causes of regionwide or even global declines in several wetland amphibians ( e.g., northern leopard frog, boreal toad, spotted frog, tiger salamander in the Rocky Mountains) has often focused on either (a) effects of airborne contaminants on growth and development of tadpoles (Phillips 1990), or (b) effects of increased ultraviolet-B radiation as a result of trophospheric ozone depletion, since such declines have been noted in otherwise seemingly pristine wetlands. The effects of heavy metals, pesticides, oil, and other contaminants on the overall community structure of herptiles apparently have seldom been documented in wetlands, and indicator assemblages of "most sensitive species" remain speculative for such stressors. Anderson (1965) noted that a moderate amount of sanitary sewage pollution seemingly increased the dominance of soft-shelled and snapping turtles in parts of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, but heavy industrial waste nearly eradicated turtles for miles downstream, especially the Ouachita map turtle, in part a mollusk-eater.Ĭontaminant Toxicity. Toxicological data were reviewed by Birge et al. The effects of severe organic loading, e.g., from wastewater outfalls, on overall community structure of herptiles apparently have not been documented in wetlands, and indicator assemblages of "most sensitive species" remain undefined for this stressor. In southern England, Beebee (1987) found that the bullfrog, Bufo calamita, consistently selected the more eutrophic wetlands. The effects of enrichment on overall community structure of herptiles apparently have not been documented in wetlands, and indicator assemblages of "most sensitive species" remain speculative for this stressor. A possible approach for using assemblages of anuran amphibian species (frogs and toads) as indicators of wetland condition is described by Beiswenger (1988).Įnrichment/Eutrophication. Advantages and disadvantages of use of herptiles as indicators are shown in Appendix A. Most recent ecological research on herptiles can be characterized as assessments of the occurrence and abundance of particular species in specific micro-habitats. However, with only a few exceptions (Brooks and Croonquist 1990, Corn and Bury 1989), their responses to anthropogenic stressors in wetlands have barely been studied in the United States at the community level. Most amphibian species and many reptiles spend all or critical parts of their life in wetlands. ![]() The life histories and requirements of amphibians differ greatly from those of reptiles, and species within each group also differ significantly. ![]() This discussion addresses the monitoring of "herptiles"-turtles, frogs, salamanders, snakes, crocodilians, and lizards that occur in wetlands. (now out of print) 10.1 USE AS INDICATORS Impacts on Quality of Inland Wetlands of the United States:Ī Survey of Indicators, Techniques, and Applications of Community Level Biomonitoring Data ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |