FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2085909123> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2085909123 abstract ": Edge effects on tropical faunas may differ between highland and lowland sites and may therefore require different conservation strategies. In northwestern Ecuador, we examined the frog fauna on both sides of a boundary between wet Andean forest and agricultural lands, asking the following questions: ( 1 ) What is the nature of the response of frogs to edge? ( 2 ) Does the response change with land use? ( 3 ) What conservation measures are suggested by the first two questions? We set up 12 study plots along 16 km of convoluted boundary in one watershed. Each plot contained an agricultural parcel bordering a rectangle extending into the forest. In the dry season of 1996, following local tradition each agricultural parcel was cleared of second-growth vegetation and then burned, planted, cultivated, and ( in six cases ) harvested 1 year later. Half the parcels were planted in pasture grasses; the others were planted with corn and beans. We randomly assigned each treatment to two sites within each of three blocks. At each site, parallel to the boundary we set up eight all transects, four on the forest side of the boundary and four on the agricultural side. We censused frogs in plots with visual-encounter surveys along all transects in four different seasons from just after planting to just before crop harvest. Regardless of land use or survey date, frog-capture frequencies changed abruptly at the forest-agriculture boundary and then remained constant regardless of distance into the forest or into the cultivated parcels. Forest transects provided 95% of the 2111 captures; all but 5 captures were of Eleutherodactylus spp. ( Leptodactylidae). Eleutherodactylus leoni dominated the forest frog fauna but was rare throughout agricultural parcels. The second most common species, E. w-nigrum, displayed the opposite pattern. The stepwise nature of these responses differs from results of studies in tropical lowlands and suggests that edge effects that might penetrate from highland agriculture into cloud forest may be of far less conservation concern than the absolute loss of habitat as the agricultural boundary creeps upslope. This suggestion should be viewed with caution because the scope of our study included only one watershed, two idiosyncratic land-use treatments, and a unique vertebrate taxon.Resumen: Los efectos de borde sobre la fauna tropical pueden diferir entre sitios altos y bajos y por lo tanto pueden llevar a distintas estrategias de conservacion. En el noroeste de Ecuador, examinamos la fauna de ranas en ambos lados de un borde entre bosque humedo andino y terrenos agricolas, preguntando (1) ?cual es la naturaleza de la respuesta de las ranas al borde?, (2) ?cambia la respuesta con el uso de suelo? y ( 3) ?que medidas de conservacion sugieren las contestaciones a 1 y 2? Establecimos 12 sitios de estudio a lo largo de 16 km de borde sinuoso en una microcuenca hidrografica. Cada sitio consistio en parcela contenia una parcela agricola de 1 hectarea mas un rectangulo del bosque advacente. Siguiendo las normas locales en la epoca seca de 1996 cada parcela agricola fue limpiada de vegetacion secundaria, quemada, sembrada, cultivada y (en seis casos) cosechada 1 ano despues. Seis de ellas fueron sembradas con gramines y seis con maiz y frijol. Aleatoreamente asignamos cada tratamiento a dos sitios en cada uno de tres bloques. En cada sitio, establicimos ocho transectos de 100 m y paralelos al borde cuatro en el lado de la parala agricola. Por medio de metodos de eneventro visual registramos las ranas a lo largo de los transectos en cuatro temporadas desde estaciones diferentes justo despues de la siembra hasta justo antes de la cosecha. A pesar del uso de suelo o la fecha de muestreo, las frecuencias de captura de ranas cambiaron abruptamente en el borde mismo pero permanecieron bastante firmes desde el borde hacia el interior del bosque hacia el interior de la parcela cultivada. Los transectos en bosque proporcionaron el 95% de las 2111 capturas; todas menos cinco capturas fueron de Eleutherodactylus spp. ( Leptodactylidae), Eleutherodactylus leoni predomino en la fauna del bosque pero fue escasa en las parcelas agricolas. La segunda especie mas comun, E. w-nigrum, presento el patron opuesto. La naturaleza abrupta de estas respuestas al borde difiere de los resultados de estudios en tierras tropicales bajas y sugiere que la penetracion de los efectos de borde hacia el interior podria ser de menor importancia a la conservacion de bosques nublados que la perdida absoluta de bosque a medida que la frontera, agricola, avanza hacia arriba. Esta sugerencia debe verse con precaucion porque el ambito del estudio se delimito a una sola microcuenca hidrografica, dos tratamientos idiosincrasicos de uso de suelo y un grupo unico de vertebrados." @default.
• W2085909123 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2085909123 creator A5014835304 @default.
• W2085909123 creator A5017032507 @default.
• W2085909123 creator A5062705954 @default.
• W2085909123 date "2002-06-01" @default.
• W2085909123 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2085909123 title "Frogs and a Cloud-Forest Edge in Ecuador" @default.
• W2085909123 cites W1982305236 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W1986821457 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2036875598 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2044689951 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2049516377 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2082679352 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2091601478 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2095552755 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2100738710 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2103362280 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2108959341 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2114607628 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2124260049 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2129775337 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2133658437 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2163554052 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2169604520 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2322425177 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2322751643 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W2495674529 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W4244762422 @default.
• W2085909123 cites W4247166349 @default.
• W2085909123 doi "https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00250.x" @default.
• W2085909123 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W2085909123 type Work @default.
• W2085909123 sameAs 2085909123 @default.
• W2085909123 citedByCount "39" @default.
• W2085909123 countsByYear W20859091232013 @default.
• W2085909123 countsByYear W20859091232014 @default.
• W2085909123 countsByYear W20859091232015 @default.
• W2085909123 countsByYear W20859091232016 @default.
• W2085909123 countsByYear W20859091232018 @default.
• W2085909123 countsByYear W20859091232019 @default.
• W2085909123 countsByYear W20859091232020 @default.
• W2085909123 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2085909123 hasAuthorship W2085909123A5014835304 @default.
• W2085909123 hasAuthorship W2085909123A5017032507 @default.
• W2085909123 hasAuthorship W2085909123A5062705954 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C118518473 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C125471540 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C23519681 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C2776133958 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C54286561 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C61782394 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C69661492 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConcept C97137747 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C118518473 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C125471540 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C142724271 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C166957645 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C18903297 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C205649164 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C23519681 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C2776133958 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C39432304 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C54286561 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C61782394 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C69661492 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C71924100 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C86803240 @default.
• W2085909123 hasConceptScore W2085909123C97137747 @default.
• W2085909123 hasLocation W20859091231 @default.
• W2085909123 hasOpenAccess W2085909123 @default.
• W2085909123 hasPrimaryLocation W20859091231 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W1986821457 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W1999444535 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2019960354 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2025002792 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2036875598 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2037356735 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2043017470 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2057384296 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2089015304 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2089866407 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2108959341 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2109935101 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2110090840 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2123950587 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2129775337 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2162348455 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2163554052 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2290190719 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2570649685 @default.
• W2085909123 hasRelatedWork W2724917819 @default.
• W2085909123 isParatext "false" @default.

• next