Traditional water structures in villages support amphibian populations within a protected landscape
Abstract Amphibians are among the most globally threatened vertebrates, with habitat loss and degradation being the primary drivers of their decline. While natural waterbodies are essential for amphibian survival, artificial habitats can also serve as important refuges, particularly in human‐altered...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Ecosphere |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70294 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849719476889583616 |
|---|---|
| author | Jose W. Valdez Jeremy Dertien Haruna Fimmel Tim Eric Kaufmann Carolin Kremer Leonie Schilling Lena Hartmann Isabell Hummel Horst Paul Uellendahl Asha Majeed Henrique M. Pereira |
| author_facet | Jose W. Valdez Jeremy Dertien Haruna Fimmel Tim Eric Kaufmann Carolin Kremer Leonie Schilling Lena Hartmann Isabell Hummel Horst Paul Uellendahl Asha Majeed Henrique M. Pereira |
| author_sort | Jose W. Valdez |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Amphibians are among the most globally threatened vertebrates, with habitat loss and degradation being the primary drivers of their decline. While natural waterbodies are essential for amphibian survival, artificial habitats can also serve as important refuges, particularly in human‐altered landscapes. This study investigates the role of artificial waterbodies in supporting amphibian populations within villages and disturbed areas of Peneda‐Gerês National Park (PNPG), a protected area in northern Portugal. We surveyed 162 waterbodies, 68 artificial (tanks, drains, fountains, and cave‐like structures) and 94 natural (ponds, streams, stream pockets, and caves) sites within human‐altered areas to assess community composition, species richness, Shannon diversity, relative abundance, proportion of occupied sites, and breeding activity. We recorded 10 amphibian species, with species composition showing moderate overlap between the two habitat types, indicating both shared and distinct species assemblages. Natural waterbodies had higher observed species richness (nine species) than artificial sites (seven species). Shannon diversity was greater in natural waterbodies for adults, while juvenile/larvae diversity was greater in artificial habitats. Rana iberica was the most widespread species, found across all waterbody types but predominantly in natural sites. Salamandra salamandra juveniles/larvae were also primarily found and bred in natural habitats, especially stream pockets. In contrast, Lissotriton boscai and Triturus marmoratus were more commonly found and bred in artificial waterbodies, particularly historic water tanks. Natural waterbodies had a higher proportion of their sites occupied (76.6%) compared to artificial ones (51.5%), with stream pockets having the highest at 96.6% and other natural sites around two‐thirds. Among artificial sites, tanks were highest with 62.5% occupied. Breeding occurred in one‐fifth of surveyed sites, with breeding events recorded in half of stream pockets and over a quarter of tanks. Tanks supported the highest number of breeding species (four of five), compared to three in natural habitats. These findings highlight the importance of water tanks, traditionally used for laundry and water storage, in supporting amphibians in PNPG. They underscore the need to conserve both natural and artificial habitats to protect amphibian biodiversity, especially in human‐altered landscapes where artificial waterbodies provide crucial refuges as climate change reduces natural breeding sites. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-562ecc0892c446de84bbf09e15a13eb9 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2150-8925 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecosphere |
| spelling | doaj-art-562ecc0892c446de84bbf09e15a13eb92025-08-20T03:12:08ZengWileyEcosphere2150-89252025-05-01165n/an/a10.1002/ecs2.70294Traditional water structures in villages support amphibian populations within a protected landscapeJose W. Valdez0Jeremy Dertien1Haruna Fimmel2Tim Eric Kaufmann3Carolin Kremer4Leonie Schilling5Lena Hartmann6Isabell Hummel7Horst Paul Uellendahl8Asha Majeed9Henrique M. Pereira10German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle‐Jena‐Leipzig Leipzig GermanyGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle‐Jena‐Leipzig Leipzig GermanyInstitute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg Halle (Saale) GermanyInstitute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg Halle (Saale) GermanyInstitute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg Halle (Saale) GermanyInstitute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg Halle (Saale) GermanyInstitute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg Halle (Saale) GermanyInstitute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg Halle (Saale) GermanyInstitute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg Halle (Saale) GermanyInstitute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg Halle (Saale) GermanyGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle‐Jena‐Leipzig Leipzig GermanyAbstract Amphibians are among the most globally threatened vertebrates, with habitat loss and degradation being the primary drivers of their decline. While natural waterbodies are essential for amphibian survival, artificial habitats can also serve as important refuges, particularly in human‐altered landscapes. This study investigates the role of artificial waterbodies in supporting amphibian populations within villages and disturbed areas of Peneda‐Gerês National Park (PNPG), a protected area in northern Portugal. We surveyed 162 waterbodies, 68 artificial (tanks, drains, fountains, and cave‐like structures) and 94 natural (ponds, streams, stream pockets, and caves) sites within human‐altered areas to assess community composition, species richness, Shannon diversity, relative abundance, proportion of occupied sites, and breeding activity. We recorded 10 amphibian species, with species composition showing moderate overlap between the two habitat types, indicating both shared and distinct species assemblages. Natural waterbodies had higher observed species richness (nine species) than artificial sites (seven species). Shannon diversity was greater in natural waterbodies for adults, while juvenile/larvae diversity was greater in artificial habitats. Rana iberica was the most widespread species, found across all waterbody types but predominantly in natural sites. Salamandra salamandra juveniles/larvae were also primarily found and bred in natural habitats, especially stream pockets. In contrast, Lissotriton boscai and Triturus marmoratus were more commonly found and bred in artificial waterbodies, particularly historic water tanks. Natural waterbodies had a higher proportion of their sites occupied (76.6%) compared to artificial ones (51.5%), with stream pockets having the highest at 96.6% and other natural sites around two‐thirds. Among artificial sites, tanks were highest with 62.5% occupied. Breeding occurred in one‐fifth of surveyed sites, with breeding events recorded in half of stream pockets and over a quarter of tanks. Tanks supported the highest number of breeding species (four of five), compared to three in natural habitats. These findings highlight the importance of water tanks, traditionally used for laundry and water storage, in supporting amphibians in PNPG. They underscore the need to conserve both natural and artificial habitats to protect amphibian biodiversity, especially in human‐altered landscapes where artificial waterbodies provide crucial refuges as climate change reduces natural breeding sites.https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70294amphibiansartificial habitatsBosca's newt (Lissotriton boscai)cultural heritagedrainage systems (open channels and drains)fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) |
| spellingShingle | Jose W. Valdez Jeremy Dertien Haruna Fimmel Tim Eric Kaufmann Carolin Kremer Leonie Schilling Lena Hartmann Isabell Hummel Horst Paul Uellendahl Asha Majeed Henrique M. Pereira Traditional water structures in villages support amphibian populations within a protected landscape Ecosphere amphibians artificial habitats Bosca's newt (Lissotriton boscai) cultural heritage drainage systems (open channels and drains) fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) |
| title | Traditional water structures in villages support amphibian populations within a protected landscape |
| title_full | Traditional water structures in villages support amphibian populations within a protected landscape |
| title_fullStr | Traditional water structures in villages support amphibian populations within a protected landscape |
| title_full_unstemmed | Traditional water structures in villages support amphibian populations within a protected landscape |
| title_short | Traditional water structures in villages support amphibian populations within a protected landscape |
| title_sort | traditional water structures in villages support amphibian populations within a protected landscape |
| topic | amphibians artificial habitats Bosca's newt (Lissotriton boscai) cultural heritage drainage systems (open channels and drains) fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70294 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT josewvaldez traditionalwaterstructuresinvillagessupportamphibianpopulationswithinaprotectedlandscape AT jeremydertien traditionalwaterstructuresinvillagessupportamphibianpopulationswithinaprotectedlandscape AT harunafimmel traditionalwaterstructuresinvillagessupportamphibianpopulationswithinaprotectedlandscape AT timerickaufmann traditionalwaterstructuresinvillagessupportamphibianpopulationswithinaprotectedlandscape AT carolinkremer traditionalwaterstructuresinvillagessupportamphibianpopulationswithinaprotectedlandscape AT leonieschilling traditionalwaterstructuresinvillagessupportamphibianpopulationswithinaprotectedlandscape AT lenahartmann traditionalwaterstructuresinvillagessupportamphibianpopulationswithinaprotectedlandscape AT isabellhummel traditionalwaterstructuresinvillagessupportamphibianpopulationswithinaprotectedlandscape AT horstpauluellendahl traditionalwaterstructuresinvillagessupportamphibianpopulationswithinaprotectedlandscape AT ashamajeed traditionalwaterstructuresinvillagessupportamphibianpopulationswithinaprotectedlandscape AT henriquempereira traditionalwaterstructuresinvillagessupportamphibianpopulationswithinaprotectedlandscape |