Effects of Riparian Timber Management on Amphibians in Maine
Riparian areas are one of the most complex, diverse, and dynamic environments in forested ecosystems. In areas managed for timber, riparian areas are often protected with unharvested forested buffers, but it is unclear whether these buffers are adequate to maintain the floral and faunal diversity of...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of wildlife management 2006-06, Vol.70 (3), p.657-670 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 670 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 657 |
container_title | The Journal of wildlife management |
container_volume | 70 |
creator | PERKINS, DUSTIN W HUNTER, MALCOLM L |
description | Riparian areas are one of the most complex, diverse, and dynamic environments in forested ecosystems. In areas managed for timber, riparian areas are often protected with unharvested forested buffers, but it is unclear whether these buffers are adequate to maintain the floral and faunal diversity of riparian areas. Amphibians are sensitive to forest management, have high diversity in riparian areas, and are among the most abundant vertebrates in temperate forests; therefore, they are excellent candidates to use in a study of the effects of riparian timber management. We conducted a field experiment with 15 headwater streams in western Maine, USA, randomly assigned to 5 silvicultural treatments. We examined amphibian abundance for 1 year prior to and 2 years following treatment. We also undertook a retrospective study on 12 headwater streams representing 3 treatments where harvests had occurred 4–10 years earlier. We used pitfall traps with drift fences and cover-controlled, active-searches to sample terrestrial and stream amphibians. Wood frogs (Rana sylvatica), eastern red-backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereus), and spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) were sensitive to timber harvesting along headwater streams. American toads (Bufo americanus) were either unaffected or increased in abundance postharvest. Buffers ranging in width from 11 to 35 m appeared to partially mitigate the effects of timber harvest because abundances were generally higher within the buffer than in the adjacent clearcut for wood frogs, American toads, and to a lesser extent red-backed salamanders. Partial harvests adjacent to headwater streams had the least effect on the riparian amphibian community and should be considered for harvests along headwater streams when managing at the stream scale. Our results show that managers can conduct riparian timber harvesting in a manner that allows a diverse suite of amphibian species to persist in the first years after harvest. It is plausible that these same practices may also mitigate the effects of timber harvesting on other forest species. Long-term effects of riparian timber harvesting on amphibians and other forest species population persistence and viability is a logical next step. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[657:EORTMO]2.0.CO;2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20721604</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3803420</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3803420</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b5536-3269d71ee91e1bac0259f88dace82b931c0123dfcba43269bb48f989ae3b80e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqdkMFv0zAUhyMEEmXwHyARcUBwSHm2k9gBLlNUCtNKta1okxB6stOX4dLExU4F--9xFdQDx53e4ff5k_UlScZgylkl3gJwnhU5u3nNAco3Er6VhXw3W16uFsvvfArTevmeP0gmkZUZV0w-TCbHN4-TJyFsAARjqpwkH2ZtS80QUteml3anvdV9urKdIZ8udK9vqaN-SF2fnna7H9bEOaS2j5vt6WnyqNXbQM_-3ZNk9XG2qj9l58v55_r0PDNFIcpM8LJaS0ZUMWJGN8CLqlVqrRtS3FSCNcC4WLeN0fmBNSZXbaUqTcIoIHGSvBq1O-9-7SkM2NnQ0Hare3L7gBwkZyXkEXz5H7hxe9_HryEXOWcc8ipCsxFqvAvBU4s7bzvt75ABHvrioRUeWuGhL0rA2BfHvsgRsI4nes5Gz2-7pbv7SfDsejGXrIyy56NsEwbnjzKhIP4b4pyNsw0D_TnO2v_EUgpZ4PWXOd5ccVVfzC9wEfkXI99qh_rW24BfrzgwAaByoSoRiXokjHWup3s2-Atzn7vx</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>234212049</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of Riparian Timber Management on Amphibians in Maine</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>PERKINS, DUSTIN W ; HUNTER, MALCOLM L</creator><creatorcontrib>PERKINS, DUSTIN W ; HUNTER, MALCOLM L</creatorcontrib><description>Riparian areas are one of the most complex, diverse, and dynamic environments in forested ecosystems. In areas managed for timber, riparian areas are often protected with unharvested forested buffers, but it is unclear whether these buffers are adequate to maintain the floral and faunal diversity of riparian areas. Amphibians are sensitive to forest management, have high diversity in riparian areas, and are among the most abundant vertebrates in temperate forests; therefore, they are excellent candidates to use in a study of the effects of riparian timber management. We conducted a field experiment with 15 headwater streams in western Maine, USA, randomly assigned to 5 silvicultural treatments. We examined amphibian abundance for 1 year prior to and 2 years following treatment. We also undertook a retrospective study on 12 headwater streams representing 3 treatments where harvests had occurred 4–10 years earlier. We used pitfall traps with drift fences and cover-controlled, active-searches to sample terrestrial and stream amphibians. Wood frogs (Rana sylvatica), eastern red-backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereus), and spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) were sensitive to timber harvesting along headwater streams. American toads (Bufo americanus) were either unaffected or increased in abundance postharvest. Buffers ranging in width from 11 to 35 m appeared to partially mitigate the effects of timber harvest because abundances were generally higher within the buffer than in the adjacent clearcut for wood frogs, American toads, and to a lesser extent red-backed salamanders. Partial harvests adjacent to headwater streams had the least effect on the riparian amphibian community and should be considered for harvests along headwater streams when managing at the stream scale. Our results show that managers can conduct riparian timber harvesting in a manner that allows a diverse suite of amphibian species to persist in the first years after harvest. It is plausible that these same practices may also mitigate the effects of timber harvesting on other forest species. Long-term effects of riparian timber harvesting on amphibians and other forest species population persistence and viability is a logical next step.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-541X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[657:EORTMO]2.0.CO;2</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JWMAA9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Ambystoma maculatum ; American toad ; Amphibia ; Amphibians ; Buffers ; Bufo americanus ; Caudata ; Clearcutting ; coniferous forests ; Creeks & streams ; eastern red-backed salamander ; first-order stream ; Forest habitats ; Forest management ; Freshwater ; Frogs ; hardwood forests ; Harvesting ; headwater streams ; logging ; Maine ; mixed forests ; partial harvests ; Pitfall traps ; Plethodon cinereus ; population size ; Rana sylvatica ; Reptiles & amphibians ; Riparian buffers ; Riparian ecology ; Riparian forests ; riparian zone ; Salamanders ; salamanders and newts ; stream salamanders ; Streams ; Temperate forests ; Timber ; Timber management ; Toads ; Wildlife management ; wood frog</subject><ispartof>The Journal of wildlife management, 2006-06, Vol.70 (3), p.657-670</ispartof><rights>The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>Copyright 2006 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>2006 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>Copyright Alliance Communications Group, A Division of Allen Press, Inc. Jun 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b5536-3269d71ee91e1bac0259f88dace82b931c0123dfcba43269bb48f989ae3b80e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b5536-3269d71ee91e1bac0259f88dace82b931c0123dfcba43269bb48f989ae3b80e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3803420$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3803420$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>PERKINS, DUSTIN W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HUNTER, MALCOLM L</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of Riparian Timber Management on Amphibians in Maine</title><title>The Journal of wildlife management</title><description>Riparian areas are one of the most complex, diverse, and dynamic environments in forested ecosystems. In areas managed for timber, riparian areas are often protected with unharvested forested buffers, but it is unclear whether these buffers are adequate to maintain the floral and faunal diversity of riparian areas. Amphibians are sensitive to forest management, have high diversity in riparian areas, and are among the most abundant vertebrates in temperate forests; therefore, they are excellent candidates to use in a study of the effects of riparian timber management. We conducted a field experiment with 15 headwater streams in western Maine, USA, randomly assigned to 5 silvicultural treatments. We examined amphibian abundance for 1 year prior to and 2 years following treatment. We also undertook a retrospective study on 12 headwater streams representing 3 treatments where harvests had occurred 4–10 years earlier. We used pitfall traps with drift fences and cover-controlled, active-searches to sample terrestrial and stream amphibians. Wood frogs (Rana sylvatica), eastern red-backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereus), and spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) were sensitive to timber harvesting along headwater streams. American toads (Bufo americanus) were either unaffected or increased in abundance postharvest. Buffers ranging in width from 11 to 35 m appeared to partially mitigate the effects of timber harvest because abundances were generally higher within the buffer than in the adjacent clearcut for wood frogs, American toads, and to a lesser extent red-backed salamanders. Partial harvests adjacent to headwater streams had the least effect on the riparian amphibian community and should be considered for harvests along headwater streams when managing at the stream scale. Our results show that managers can conduct riparian timber harvesting in a manner that allows a diverse suite of amphibian species to persist in the first years after harvest. It is plausible that these same practices may also mitigate the effects of timber harvesting on other forest species. Long-term effects of riparian timber harvesting on amphibians and other forest species population persistence and viability is a logical next step.</description><subject>Ambystoma maculatum</subject><subject>American toad</subject><subject>Amphibia</subject><subject>Amphibians</subject><subject>Buffers</subject><subject>Bufo americanus</subject><subject>Caudata</subject><subject>Clearcutting</subject><subject>coniferous forests</subject><subject>Creeks & streams</subject><subject>eastern red-backed salamander</subject><subject>first-order stream</subject><subject>Forest habitats</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Frogs</subject><subject>hardwood forests</subject><subject>Harvesting</subject><subject>headwater streams</subject><subject>logging</subject><subject>Maine</subject><subject>mixed forests</subject><subject>partial harvests</subject><subject>Pitfall traps</subject><subject>Plethodon cinereus</subject><subject>population size</subject><subject>Rana sylvatica</subject><subject>Reptiles & amphibians</subject><subject>Riparian buffers</subject><subject>Riparian ecology</subject><subject>Riparian forests</subject><subject>riparian zone</subject><subject>Salamanders</subject><subject>salamanders and newts</subject><subject>stream salamanders</subject><subject>Streams</subject><subject>Temperate forests</subject><subject>Timber</subject><subject>Timber management</subject><subject>Toads</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><subject>wood frog</subject><issn>0022-541X</issn><issn>1937-2817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqdkMFv0zAUhyMEEmXwHyARcUBwSHm2k9gBLlNUCtNKta1okxB6stOX4dLExU4F--9xFdQDx53e4ff5k_UlScZgylkl3gJwnhU5u3nNAco3Er6VhXw3W16uFsvvfArTevmeP0gmkZUZV0w-TCbHN4-TJyFsAARjqpwkH2ZtS80QUteml3anvdV9urKdIZ8udK9vqaN-SF2fnna7H9bEOaS2j5vt6WnyqNXbQM_-3ZNk9XG2qj9l58v55_r0PDNFIcpM8LJaS0ZUMWJGN8CLqlVqrRtS3FSCNcC4WLeN0fmBNSZXbaUqTcIoIHGSvBq1O-9-7SkM2NnQ0Hare3L7gBwkZyXkEXz5H7hxe9_HryEXOWcc8ipCsxFqvAvBU4s7bzvt75ABHvrioRUeWuGhL0rA2BfHvsgRsI4nes5Gz2-7pbv7SfDsejGXrIyy56NsEwbnjzKhIP4b4pyNsw0D_TnO2v_EUgpZ4PWXOd5ccVVfzC9wEfkXI99qh_rW24BfrzgwAaByoSoRiXokjHWup3s2-Atzn7vx</recordid><startdate>200606</startdate><enddate>200606</enddate><creator>PERKINS, DUSTIN W</creator><creator>HUNTER, MALCOLM L</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>The Wildlife Society</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200606</creationdate><title>Effects of Riparian Timber Management on Amphibians in Maine</title><author>PERKINS, DUSTIN W ; HUNTER, MALCOLM L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b5536-3269d71ee91e1bac0259f88dace82b931c0123dfcba43269bb48f989ae3b80e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Ambystoma maculatum</topic><topic>American toad</topic><topic>Amphibia</topic><topic>Amphibians</topic><topic>Buffers</topic><topic>Bufo americanus</topic><topic>Caudata</topic><topic>Clearcutting</topic><topic>coniferous forests</topic><topic>Creeks & streams</topic><topic>eastern red-backed salamander</topic><topic>first-order stream</topic><topic>Forest habitats</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Frogs</topic><topic>hardwood forests</topic><topic>Harvesting</topic><topic>headwater streams</topic><topic>logging</topic><topic>Maine</topic><topic>mixed forests</topic><topic>partial harvests</topic><topic>Pitfall traps</topic><topic>Plethodon cinereus</topic><topic>population size</topic><topic>Rana sylvatica</topic><topic>Reptiles & amphibians</topic><topic>Riparian buffers</topic><topic>Riparian ecology</topic><topic>Riparian forests</topic><topic>riparian zone</topic><topic>Salamanders</topic><topic>salamanders and newts</topic><topic>stream salamanders</topic><topic>Streams</topic><topic>Temperate forests</topic><topic>Timber</topic><topic>Timber management</topic><topic>Toads</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><topic>wood frog</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>PERKINS, DUSTIN W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HUNTER, MALCOLM L</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>PERKINS, DUSTIN W</au><au>HUNTER, MALCOLM L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of Riparian Timber Management on Amphibians in Maine</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle><date>2006-06</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>70</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>657</spage><epage>670</epage><pages>657-670</pages><issn>0022-541X</issn><eissn>1937-2817</eissn><coden>JWMAA9</coden><abstract>Riparian areas are one of the most complex, diverse, and dynamic environments in forested ecosystems. In areas managed for timber, riparian areas are often protected with unharvested forested buffers, but it is unclear whether these buffers are adequate to maintain the floral and faunal diversity of riparian areas. Amphibians are sensitive to forest management, have high diversity in riparian areas, and are among the most abundant vertebrates in temperate forests; therefore, they are excellent candidates to use in a study of the effects of riparian timber management. We conducted a field experiment with 15 headwater streams in western Maine, USA, randomly assigned to 5 silvicultural treatments. We examined amphibian abundance for 1 year prior to and 2 years following treatment. We also undertook a retrospective study on 12 headwater streams representing 3 treatments where harvests had occurred 4–10 years earlier. We used pitfall traps with drift fences and cover-controlled, active-searches to sample terrestrial and stream amphibians. Wood frogs (Rana sylvatica), eastern red-backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereus), and spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) were sensitive to timber harvesting along headwater streams. American toads (Bufo americanus) were either unaffected or increased in abundance postharvest. Buffers ranging in width from 11 to 35 m appeared to partially mitigate the effects of timber harvest because abundances were generally higher within the buffer than in the adjacent clearcut for wood frogs, American toads, and to a lesser extent red-backed salamanders. Partial harvests adjacent to headwater streams had the least effect on the riparian amphibian community and should be considered for harvests along headwater streams when managing at the stream scale. Our results show that managers can conduct riparian timber harvesting in a manner that allows a diverse suite of amphibian species to persist in the first years after harvest. It is plausible that these same practices may also mitigate the effects of timber harvesting on other forest species. Long-term effects of riparian timber harvesting on amphibians and other forest species population persistence and viability is a logical next step.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[657:EORTMO]2.0.CO;2</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-541X |
ispartof | The Journal of wildlife management, 2006-06, Vol.70 (3), p.657-670 |
issn | 0022-541X 1937-2817 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20721604 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Ambystoma maculatum American toad Amphibia Amphibians Buffers Bufo americanus Caudata Clearcutting coniferous forests Creeks & streams eastern red-backed salamander first-order stream Forest habitats Forest management Freshwater Frogs hardwood forests Harvesting headwater streams logging Maine mixed forests partial harvests Pitfall traps Plethodon cinereus population size Rana sylvatica Reptiles & amphibians Riparian buffers Riparian ecology Riparian forests riparian zone Salamanders salamanders and newts stream salamanders Streams Temperate forests Timber Timber management Toads Wildlife management wood frog |
title | Effects of Riparian Timber Management on Amphibians in Maine |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T01%3A32%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20Riparian%20Timber%20Management%20on%20Amphibians%20in%20Maine&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20wildlife%20management&rft.au=PERKINS,%20DUSTIN%20W&rft.date=2006-06&rft.volume=70&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=657&rft.epage=670&rft.pages=657-670&rft.issn=0022-541X&rft.eissn=1937-2817&rft.coden=JWMAA9&rft_id=info:doi/10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70%5B657:EORTMO%5D2.0.CO;2&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3803420%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=234212049&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3803420&rfr_iscdi=true |