Browsing by Author "Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Assessing the effects of climate change on distributions of Cape Floristic Region amphibians
    (Academy of Science of South Africa, 2015) Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M.; Rodder, Dennis; Measey, G. John
    Climatic changes have had profound impacts on species distributions throughout time. In response, species have shifted ranges, adapted genetically and behaviourally or become extinct. Using species distribution models, we examined how changes in suitable climatic space could affect the distributions of 37 endemic frog species in the Cape Floristic Region (CFR) – an area proposed to have evolved its megadiversity under a stable climate, which is expected to change substantially in future. Species distributions were projected onto mean climate for a current period (1950 to 2000), hindcasted to palaeoclimate (Last Glacial Maximum; LGM ≈ 21 kya and Holocene Glacial Minimum; HGM ≈ 6 kya) and forecasted for two emissions scenarios (A2a and B2a) for the year 2080. We then determined the changes in area sizes, direction (longitude and latitude), fragmentation index and biotic velocity, and assessed if these were affected by life-history traits and altitude. We found that the biotic velocity at which the CFR amphibian community is expected to shift north (A2a ≈ 540.5 km/kya) and east (B2a ≈ 198 km/kya) far exceeds historical background rates (≈1.05 km/kya, north and west ≈ 2.36 km/kya since the LGM). Our models further suggest that the CFR amphibian community has already lost about 56% of suitable climate space since the LGM and this loss is expected to accelerate under future emission scenarios (A2a ≈ 70%; B2a ≈ 60%). Lastly, we found that highland species were more fragmented than lowland species between the LGM and current period, but that the fragmentation of lowland species between current and future climates is expected to increase.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Frog eat frog : exploring variables influencing anurophagy
    (PeerJ, 2015) Measey, G. John; Vimercati, Giovanni; De Villiers, F. Andre; Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M.; Davies, Sarah J.; Edwards, Shelley; Altwegg, Res
    Background - Frogs are generalist predators of a wide range of typically small prey items. But descriptions of dietary items regularly include other anurans, such that frogs are considered to be among the most important of anuran predators. However, the only existing hypothesis for the inclusion of anurans in the diet of post-metamorphic frogs postulates that it happens more often in bigger frogs. Moreover, this hypothesis has yet to be tested. Methods - We reviewed the literature on frog diet in order to test the size hypothesis and determine whether there are other putative explanations for anurans in the diet of post-metamorphic frogs. In addition to size, we recorded the habitat, the number of other sympatric anuran species, and whether or not the population was invasive. We controlled for taxonomic bias by including the superfamily in our analysis. Results - Around one fifth of the 355 records included anurans as dietary items of populations studied, suggesting that frogs eating anurans is not unusual. Our data showed a clear taxonomic bias with ranids and pipids having a higher proportion of anuran prey than other superfamilies. Accounting for this taxonomic bias, we found that size in addition to being invasive, local anuran diversity, and habitat produced a model that best fitted our data. Large invasive frogs that live in forests with high anuran diversity are most likely to have a higher proportion of anurans in their diet. Conclusions - We confirm the validity of the size hypothesis for anurophagy, but show that there are additional significant variables. The circumstances under which frogs eat frogs are likely to be complex, but our data may help to alert conservationists to the possible dangers of invading frogs entering areas with threatened anuran species.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians
    (Wiley Open Access, 2017) Kumschick, Sabrina; Measey, G. John; Vimercati, Giovanni; De Villiers, F. Andre; Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M.; Davies, Sarah J.; Thorp, Corey J.; Rebelo, Alexander D.; Blackburn, Tim M.; Kraus, Fred
    The magnitude of impacts some alien species cause to native environments makes them targets for regulation and management. However, which species to target is not always clear, and comparisons of a wide variety of impacts are necessary. Impact scoring systems can aid management prioritization of alien species. For such tools to be objective, they need to be robust to assessor bias. Here, we assess the newly proposed Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) used for amphibians and test how outcomes differ between assessors. Two independent assessments were made by Kraus (Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 46, 2015, 75-97) and Kumschick et al. (Neobiota, 33, 2017, 53-66), including independent literature searches for impact records. Most of the differences between these two classifications can be attributed to different literature search strategies used with only one-third of the combined number of references shared between both studies. For the commonly assessed species, the classification of maximum impacts for most species is similar between assessors, but there are differences in the more detailed assessments. We clarify one specific issue resulting from different interpretations of EICAT, namely the practical interpretation and assigning of disease impacts in the absence of direct evidence of transmission from alien to native species. The differences between assessments outlined here cannot be attributed to features of the scheme. Reporting bias should be avoided by assessing all alien species rather than only the seemingly high-impacting ones, which also improves the utility of the data for management and prioritization for future research. Furthermore, assessments of the same taxon by various assessors and a structured review process for assessments, as proposed by Hawkins et al. (Diversity and Distributions, 21, 2015, 1360), can ensure that biases can be avoided and all important literature is included.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Impact assessment with different scoring tools : how well do alien amphibian assessments match?
    (Pensoft Publishers, 2017-01-27) Kumschick, Sabrina; Vimercati, Giovanni; De Villiers, F. Andre; Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M.; Davies, Sarah J.; Thorp, Corey J.; Rebelo, Alexander D.; Measey, G. John; Rabitsch, W.
    Classification of alien species’ impacts can aid policy making through evidence based listing and management recommendations. We highlight differences and a number of potential difficulties with two scoring tools, the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT) and the Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS) using amphibians as a case study. Generally, GISS and EICAT assessments lead to very similar impact levels, but scores from the schemes are not equivalent. Small differences are attributable to discrepancies in the verbal descriptions for scores. Differences were found in several impact categories. While the issue of disease appears to be related to uncertainties in both schemes, hybridisation might be inflated in EICAT. We conclude that GISS scores cannot directly be translated into EICAT classifications, but they give very similar outcomes and the same literature base can be used for both schemes.