Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 424, 2023
Biological conservation, ecosystems restoration and ecological engineering
Article Number 26
Number of page(s) 8
Published online 05 December 2023
  • Adams MJ, Richter KO, Leonard WP. 1997. Surveying and monitoring amphibians using aquatic funnel traps. Northwest Fauna 4: 47–54. [Google Scholar]
  • Anderson TL, Ousterhout BH, Peterman WE, Drake DL, Semlitsch RD. 2015. Life history differences influence the impacts of drought on two pond‐breeding salamanders. Ecol Appl 25: 1896–1910. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Antonishak M, Muñoz D, Miller D. 2017. Using glow sticks to increase funnel trap capture rates for adult vernal pool amphibians. Herpetol Rev 48 : 544–549. [Google Scholar]
  • ARG UK. 2010. Advice note 5: great crested newt habitat suitability index, Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • Arntzen JW, Goudie IBJ, Halley J, Jehle R. 2003. Cost comparison of marking techniques in long-term population studies: PIT-tags versus pattern maps. Amphib Reptil 25: 305–3015. [Google Scholar]
  • Arntzen JW, Zuiderwijk A. 2020. Sampling efficiency, bias and shyness in funnel trapping aquatic newts. Amphib Reptil 41: 413–420. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Baker J. 2013. Effect of bait in funnel-trapping for great crested and smooth newts Triturus cristatus and Lissotriton vulgaris. Herpetol Bull 124: 17–20. [Google Scholar]
  • Baker JMR. 1999. Abundance and survival rates of great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) at a pond in central England: monitoring individuals. Herpetol J 9: 55–63 [Google Scholar]
  • Briggs L, Rannap R, Pappel P, Bibelriether F, Päivärinta A. 2006. Monitoring methods for the Great crested newt Triturus cristatus. Project Report: Protection of Triturus cristatus in the Eastern Baltic region; LIFE2004NAT/EE/000070. Action A2 [Google Scholar]
  • Bock D, Hennig V, Steinfartz S. 2009. The use of fish funnel traps for monitoring crested newts (Triturus cristatus) according to habitats directive. Z Feldherpetol 15: 317–326. [Google Scholar]
  • Campbell HW, Christman SP.1982. Field techniques for herpetofaunal community analysis. In: Scott NJ Jr., ed. Wildlife Research Report 13, Washington DC: U. S. Dept. of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, pp. 193–200. [Google Scholar]
  • Calef GW. 1973. Natural mortality of tadpoles in a population of Rana aurora. Ecology 54: 741–758. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cayuela H, Schmidt BR, Weinbach A, Besnard A, Joly P. 2019. Multiple density-dependent processes shape the dynamics of a spatially structured amphibian population. J Anim Ecol 88: 164–177. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Corn PS. 1994. Straight-line drift fences and pitfall traps. In Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek LC, Foster MS, eds. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 109–117. [Google Scholar]
  • Crosswhite DL, Fox FS, Thill RE. 1999. Comparison of methods for monitoring reptiles and amphibians in Upland Forests of the Ouachita Mountains. Proc Okla Acad Sci 79: 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  • Davis CL, Miller DAW, Walls SC, Barichivich WJ, Riley JW, Brown ME. 2017. Species interactions and the effects of climate variability on a wetland amphibian metacommunity. Ecol Appl 27: 285–296. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dejean T, Miaud C, Schmeller D. 2010. Protocole d'hygiène pour limiter la dissémination de la Chytridiomycose lors d'interventions sur le terrain. Bull Soc Herpétologique Fr 134: 47–50. [Google Scholar]
  • Denoël M, Perez A, Cornet Y, Ficetola GF. 2013. Similar local and landscape processes affect both a common and a rare newt species. PLoS ONE. 8. 5. [Google Scholar]
  • Dervo BK, Museth J, Skurdal J, Berg OK, Kraabøl M. 2014. Comparison of active and passive sampling methods for detecting and monitoring the smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) and the endangered northern crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetol Notes 7: 265–272. [Google Scholar]
  • Dodd CK. 1991. Drift fence-associated sampling bias of amphibians at a Florida sandhills temporary pond. Herpetol J 25: 296–301. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Drechler A, Bock D, Ortmann D, Steinfartz S 2010. Ortmann's funnel trap − a highly efficient tool for monitoring amphibian species. Herpetol Notes 3: 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  • Falaschi M, Giachello S, Lo Parrino E, Muraro M, Manenti R, Ficetola GF. 2021. Long-term drivers of persistence and colonization dynamics in spatially structured amphibian populations. Conserv Biol 35: 1530–1539. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Falaschi M, Muraro M, Gibertini C, Delle Monache D, Lo Parrino E, Faraci F, Ficetola GF. 2022. Explaining declines of newt abundance in northern Italy. Freshw Biol 67 : 1174–1187. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ficetola GF, Barzaghi B, Melotto A, Muraro M, Lunghi E, Canedoli C, Lo Parrino E, Nanni V, Silva-Rocha I, Urso A, Carretero MA, Salvi D, Scali S, Scarì G, Pennati R, Andreone F, Manenti R. 2018. N-mixture models reliably estimate the abundance of small vertebrates. Sci Rep 8: 10357. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Goverse E, Smit GFJ, Zuiderwijk A, van der Meij T. 2006. The national amphibian monitoring program in the Netherlands and NATURA 2000. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica, pp. 39–42. [Google Scholar]
  • Graeter GJ, Buhlmann KA, Wilkinson LR, Gibbons JW. 2013. Inventory and monitoring: recommended techniques for reptiles and amphibians with application to the United States and Canada, Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, 321 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Grayson KL, Row AW. 2007. Glow sticks as effective bait for capturing aquatic amphibians in funnel traps. Herpetol Rev 38: 168. [Google Scholar]
  • Greenburg CH, Neary DG, Harris LD. 1994. A comparison of herpetofaunal sampling efficiency of pitfall, single-ended, and double-ended funnel traps used with drift fences. Herpetol J 28: 319–324. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Griffiths RA. 1985. A simple funnel trap for studying newt populations and an evaluation of trap behaviour in smooth and palmate newts, Triturus vulgaris and Triturus helveticus. Herpetol J 1 : 5–10. [Google Scholar]
  • Gustafson D. 2011. Choosing the best of both worlds: the double life of great crested newt, Doctoral thesis. Skinnskatteberg: Faculty of forest science, Swedish university of agricultural sciences, 64 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Halliday, T. 2006. Amphibians. In: Sutherl WJ, ed. Ecological Census Techniques, a Handbook, Cambridge University Press pp. 278–296. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, Foster M, McDiarmid RW, eds. 1994. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians Washington D. C. : Smithsonian Institution Press, 384 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Hutchens SJ, DePerno CS. 2009. Efficacy of sampling techniques for determining species richness estimates of reptiles and amphibians. Wildl Biol 15: 113–122. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jehle R, Thiesmeier B, Foster J. 2011. The Crested Newt: a dwindling pond-dweller. Bielefeld: Laurenti-Verlag, 152 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Jeřábková L, Boukal D. 2011. Živolovné pasti: účinná metoda průzkumu čolků a vodních brouků. Ochrana Přírody 5: 23–25. [Google Scholar]
  • Johnson ML, Berger L, Philips L, Speare R. 2003. Fungicidal effects of chemical disinfectants, UV light, desiccation and heat on the amphibian chytrid Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Diseases Aq Org 57: 255–260. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kålås JA, Viken Å, Henriksen S, Skjelseth S, eds. The 2010 Norwegian red list for species, Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre.xx xxxx [Google Scholar]
  • Kellner KF, Swihart RK. 2014. Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology: a quantitative review. PLoS One 9: e111436. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Langton TES, Beckett CL, Foster JP. 2001. Great crested newt: conservation handbook, Halesworth: Froglife, 59 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Malmgren J, Gustafson D, Pettersson CJ, Gradin U, Rygne H. 2005. Inventering och övervakning av större vattensalamander. Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm (In Swedish). [Google Scholar]
  • Manenti R, Ghia D, Fea G, Ficetola GF, Padoa-Schioppa E, Canedoli C. 2019. Causes and consequences of crayfish extinction: stream connectivity, habitat changes, alien species and ecosystem services. Freshw Biol 64: 284–293. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Marchetti MP, Esteban E, Limm M, Kurth R. 2004. Evaluating aspects of larval light trap bias and specificity in the northern Sacramento River system: do size and color matters. Am Fish Soc Symp 39: 269–279. [Google Scholar]
  • Miller DAW, Grant EHC. 2015. Estimating occupancy dynamics for large scale monitoring networks: amphibian breeding occupancy across protected areas in the northeast United States. Ecol Evol 5: 4735–4746. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • NARRS. 2021. Widespread Amphibian & Reptile Surveys, NARRS. Available: [Google Scholar]
  • Nichols JD. 2014. The role of abundance estimates in conservation decision making. In Verdade LM, Lyra-Jorge MC, Piña CI, eds. Applied Ecology and Human Dimensions in Biological Conservation Berlin: Springer, pp. 117–131. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Oldham RS, 2000. Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetol J 10 : 143–155. [Google Scholar]
  • Ortmann D. 2009. Kammeloch monitoring Krefeld − Populationsökologie einer europaweit bedeutsamen population des Kammeloches (Triturus cristatus) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung naturschutzrelevanter Fragestellungen, PhD Thesis. Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Univeristät Bonn. [Google Scholar]
  • Pellet J, Kröpfli M, Heer P. 2010. Cost-effectiveness of two monitoring strategies for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Amphib-Reptil 31: 403–410. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • R Core Team. 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
  • Richter O. 1995. A simple aquatic funnel trap and its application to wetland amphibian monitoring. Herpetol Rev 26: 90–91. [Google Scholar]
  • Sachteleben J, Fartmann T. 2010. Bewertung des Erhaltungszustandes der Arten nach Anhang II und IV der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie in Deutschland. Überarbeitete Bewertungsbögen der Bund-Länder-Arbeitkreise als Grundlage für ein bundesweites FFH-Monitoring. München: PAN/ILÖK. [Google Scholar]
  • Sannolo M, Gatti F. 2017. To bait or not to bait: it depends on the context. Salamandra (Frankf) 53 : 426–428. [Google Scholar]
  • Seber GAF. 1982. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters, 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: Griffin. [Google Scholar]
  • Skei JK, Dolmen D, Ronning L, Ringsby TH. 2006. Habitat use during the aquatic phase of the newts Triturus vulgaris (L.) and T. cristatus (L.) in central Norway: proposition for a conservation and monitoring area. Amphib-Reptil 27: 309–324. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • van Gelder JJ. 1973. Ecological observations on Amphibia in the Netherlands II. Triturus helveticus Razoumowski: migration, hibernation and neoteny. Neth J Zool 23: 86–108. [Google Scholar]
  • Vogt RC, Hine RL. 1982. Evaluation of techniques for assessment of amphibian and reptile populations in Wisconsin. In: Scott NJ Jr., ed. Wildlife Research Report 13, Washington DC: U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, pp. 201–217. [Google Scholar]
  • Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ. 2002. Analysis and management of animal populations. New York: Academic Press, 817 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Williams C. 2014. The invisible issue: animals enviable super senses. New Sci 221: 40–41. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wilson CR, Pearman PB. 2010. Sampling characteristics of aquatic funnel traps for monitoring populations of adult rough-skinned newts (Taricha granulosa) in lentic habitats. Northwest Nat 81: 31–34. [Google Scholar]
  • Willson JD, Gibbons JW. 2009. Drift fences, coverboards, and other traps. In: Dodd K Jr., ed. Amphibian Ecology and Conservation Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, pp.229–245. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.