See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/215960202

Can management practices in rice fields contribute to amphibian

conservation in southern Brazilian wetlands?

Article in Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · January 2009

DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1070

CITATIONS READS

76 337

2 authors:

Ibere F Machado Leonardo Maltchik

Instituto Boitatá de Etnobiologia e Conservação da Fauna, Goiânia, Brazil Universidade Federaldo Rio Grande
60 PUBLICATIONS 478 CITATIONS 193 PUBLICATIONS 3,698 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ecology, Diversity and Conservation of Annual Fishes (Cyprinodontiformes: Rivulidae) in Subtropical Grasslands of South America View project

Conservation status of Podocnemis expands in the region of the middle Araguaia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ibere F Machado on 03 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 20: 39–46 (2010)
Published online 28 September 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1070

Can management practices in rice fields contribute to amphibian

conservation in southern Brazilian wetlands?

IBERÊ FARINA MACHADO and LEONARDO MALTCHIK

Laboratory Ecology and Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystems, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, UNISINOS. Av. Unisinos,
no. 950, CEP 93.022-000.São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

ABSTRACT
1. Rice field expansion is one of the activities associated with the disappearance of 90% of the wetlands in
southern Brazil. Worldwide, rice agriculture has been recognized as having considerable potential value for many
aquatic species. Nevertheless, management practices in such systems must be ameliorated and better investigated.
2. This study evaluated the potential role of rice fields as refugia for amphibians, and whether different
hydrologic management practices after rice cultivation could contribute to wetland amphibian conservation in
southern Brazil.
3. Six collections were made in six rice fields with different management practices after cultivation (three dry
and three flooded) and three natural wetlands. The amphibians were sampled through six random 15-min visual
transects per collection in each rice field and the natural wetlands.
4. In total, 2139 anuran individuals were observed in rice fields (798) and Reserva Lake (1341), comprising 12
anuran species distributed among five anuran families. Anuran richness and abundance varied over the rice
cultivating cycle, and they were higher in the growing phases than in the fallow phases. The mean anuran richness
and abundance was higher in Reserva Lake than in flooded and dry rice fields.
5. The different management practices adopted after the harvesting period (presence or lack of surface water)
did not influence the anuran richness and abundance. It did, however, influence species composition.
6. The difference in species composition between the management practices adopted is an interesting result in
terms of biodiversity conservation. Rice producers could maintain part of their agricultural land flooded during
the fallow phase as a strategy to preserve a higher diversity of anurans. These results should be taken into
consideration in wetland conservation plans in southern Brazil; however, the percentage of each agricultural land
that should be kept flooded should be decided by Brazilian agricultural and conservation policies. Such a strategy
would reconcile agricultural/economic needs with the conservation of biodiversity in southern Brazil, where more
than 90% of wetland systems have already been lost.
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 9 January 2009; Revised 10 July 2009; Accepted 30 July 2009

KEY WORDS: anura; management practices; rice cultivating cycle; Neotropical region

INTRODUCTION wetlands throughout the world (Czech and Parsons, 2002). As

Wetlands are important conservation sites because they
support rich biodiversity and high productivity (Davis et al.,
1996; Getzner, 2002). However, more than 50% of wetlands in
parts of North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand
were converted during the twentieth century (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Agricultural expansion is one of
the main human activities responsible for the decline of natural
part of this expansion, rice cultivation (Oryza sativa L.) plays
an important role as the most important cereal crop in the
developing world (Juliano, 1993). In 2003, approximately 151
million hectares of land were cultivated with rice globally,
and Asia accounted for 89% of that (FAO Stat, 2004).
Worldwide, rice fields have been recognized as having
considerable potential value for many species of aquatic
invertebrates, plants, and vertebrates such as fish,

*Correspondence to: L. Maltchik, Laboratory Ecology and Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystems, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos,
UNISINOS, Av. Unisinos, no. 950, CEP 93.022-000.São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. E-mail: maltchik@unisinos.br

Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

40 I.F. MACHADO AND L. MALTCHIK
amphibians, and birds (Fernando et al., 1979; Miller et al.,
1989; Burhanuddin, 1993; Brouder and Hill, 1995; Elphick and
Oring, 1998, 2003; Czech and Parsons, 2002; Bambaradeniya
and Amarasinghe, 2003).
Given that agricultural wetlands, such as rice crops, grow at
the expense of natural wetlands, the important question from
the point of view of biodiversity conservation is whether these
agricultural wetlands can function adequately to maintain high
levels of biodiversity. Therefore, the development of new
concepts and management practices that reconcile the
sustainability of rice fields and the conservation of species
will demand greater understanding of these complex
agroecosystems. For instance, Californian rice producers
usually flood their plantations after harvesting to accelerate
straw decomposition. This may be an important strategy for
biodiversity conservation, given that such action creates
important habitats for waterbird communities (Brouder and
Hill, 1995; Elphick and Oring, 2003). Since protected areas
cover only 11.5% of the planet’s surface (Rodrigues et al.,
2004), rice fields and their large inundated areas may be
essential in the conservation of wetland species.
One of the main hydrological characteristics of South
America is the existence of large wetlands (Neiff, 2001). In
southern Brazil, approximately 72% of wetlands are smaller
than 1 km2 (Maltchik, 2003). This pattern is a consequence of
severe habitat fragmentation due to agricultural expansion,
especially rice plantations (Gomes and Magalhães, 2004).
Conservative estimates indicate that approximately 90% of
wetlands have disappeared in southern Brazil. Several studies
have analysed biodiversity patterns in fragmented wetlands in
southern Brazil (Rolon and Maltchik, 2006; Guadagnin and
Maltchik, 2007; Stenert and Maltchik, 2007; Rolon et al.,
2008; Stenert et al., 2008), but the role of rice fields as
biodiversity refuges in the Neotropics remains poorly known.
Such information is extremely important to guide policies for
biodiversity conservation, since protected areas correspond to
less than 1% of the land in southern Brazil (Brasil, 2006), a
number far below the goal of 10% proposed by the Brazilian
Ministry of Environment (Ministério do Meio Ambiente
Brasileiro–Brasil, 2006).
Wetlands serve as important breeding sites for many
amphibian species (Moler and Franz, 1987; Dodd, 1992;
Semlitsch, 1998), and some anuran species breed only in
wetland systems (Dodd and Cade, 1998). The loss of wetland
Figure 1. Study area and rice fields studied, Mostardas municipality, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (F 5 flooded fields with retained water during the
fallow phase; D 5 dry fields that were dry during the fallow phase; LR 5 Reserva Lake).
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
systems can compromise several anuran species in southern
Brazil, including endemic ones (Silvano and Segalla, 2005). In
Japan, rice fields are important habitats for many species of
anurans at some stage of their life cycles, especially as breeding
habitat (Fujioka and Lane, 1997). However, the importance of
rice fields to the conservation of amphibian species in the
Neotropical region is scarcely studied. This information is
extremely important in southern Brazil, given that the region
has about 11% of the anuran species identified in Brazil, the
country with the largest amphibian diversity in the world
(Machado and Maltchik, 2007; SBH, 2009).
Irrigated rice fields in southern Brazil present a dynamic
hydrologic regime, with variation between aquatic and
terrestrial phases, remaining without surface water for
2 years during the fallow phase. The fallow phase represents
the period when the agricultural land remains without rice
culture. In this phase, the agricultural land is drained.
However, some rice fields are kept flooded because they are
located in lower arable lands. The objectives of this study were:
(1) to analyse the anuran richness, abundance and composition
in rice fields over the rice cultivating cycle; (2) to compare the
richness, abundance, and composition of anuran amphibians
in rice fields with different hydrological management practices
(flooded and dry); (3) to compare anuran amphibian richness,
abundance, and composition in rice fields with that in natural
wetlands.
METHODS
Study area
The state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS) is located in southern
Brazil (271040 –331450 S; 491420 –571380 W) and has an area of
282.184 km2 (Figure 1). The Coastal Plain of Rio Grande do
Sul is an important irrigated rice producer in South America
(Azambuja et al., 2004). The Coastal Plain is one of the regions
in southern Brazil with the highest concentration of wetlands
(Maltchik et al., 2003). The climate is humid subtropical and
the mean annual temperature is 17.51C. The mean annual
rainfall reaches 1250 mm yr1 and ranges between 1150 and
1450 mm yr1 (Tagliani, 1995). The absence of hills and the
low altitude (lower than 20 m above sea level) throughout the
study area makes the climatic conditions (precipitation and
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 20: 39–46 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/aqc
 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN RICE FIELDS AND AMPHIBIAN CONSERVATION
temperature) very similar among the study wetland systems
(Rambo, 2000).
The study was carried out in Mostardas County (Coastal
Plain of Rio Grande do Sul). Mostardas is the eighth largest
producer of irrigated rice in southern Brazil, and the rice
cropping area covers approximately 33.397 ha (IRGA, 2007).
In the rice fields, glyphosate application is ordinarily
conducted in two phases: tillage (4 L ha1) and the beginning
of rice emergence (2 L ha1). Rice fields are fertilized with urea
(200 kg ha1) before irrigation and after rice emergence.
Field sampling
Rice fields were categorized as two types according to
management practice after harvesting: (1) flooded,
representing sites in lower arable lands which are kept
flooded; and (2) dry, for sites in the upper lands, which are
drained and used for cattle grazing (Figure 1). A set of 20 rice
fields with different hydrological management practices was
selected (10 flooded and 10 drained), and six were selected
randomly — three dry fields and three flooded fields
(Figure 1). Each rice field investigated was approximately 1 ha.
In each rice field, six collections were carried out over the
rice cultivating cycle (June 2005 to June 2006), which
comprised the main phases: two collections in the fallow
phase (June 2005 and September 2005), one collection during
the tillage phase (November 2005), two collections in the rice
growing season (rice emergence — January 2006, and tilling —
March 2006), and one collection after harvesting (June 2006).
The fallow phase represents the period when the agricultural
land remains without rice culture, and the tillage phase
represents the period when the soil is prepared for planting,
including ploughing, herbicide and fertilizer application and
sowing. In flooded rice fields, the surface water was present
during all phases of the cycle, except in the tillage phase,
whereas in the dry rice fields the surface water was present only
during the growing season (rice emergence and tilling).
Three surveys were conducted within a single large natural
wetland remnant (Reserva Lake — area about 9.93 km2), due
to the lack of small wetland natural fragments with similar size
and hydroperiods of rice fields along the study area. Reserva
Lake was chosen for three reasons: it was the natural remnant
closest to the study rice fields; it is the only water supply for
the rice fields; and the wetland margin drought and the
hydroperiod of three natural surveys were similar to the
rice fields. Ten sampling sites of 1 ha each were selected along
the lake margin (Figure 1), and three were selected randomly.
The minimum distance between the sampling sites was 1.5 km
to increase the independence of the sampled areas. Six
collections were made over the rice cultivating cycle
(June 2005 to June 2006).
The amphibians were sampled through visual transects
between sunset and 01:00. On each occasion, six 15-min
transects were sampled in each rice field (three dry and three
wet), and in the three sampling sites of Reserva Lake. This
amounted to 90 min of sampling at each sampling site. Each
transect had its starting point randomized and they were
sequentially distributed perpendicular to the length of the rice
fields studied and the sampling sites of Reserva Lake. On each
sampling occasion, the sequence of the visits was randomized
using a table of random numbers. All of the observed
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
41
individuals were counted and identified according to Cei
(1980), Loebmann (2005) and Rosset (2008).
Data analysis
The total and mean anuran richness and abundance per
sampled area were the cumulative and mean values of species
and individuals observed, respectively. Differences in anuran
richness and abundance between rice fields (flooded and dry)
and Reserva Lake over time (six phases) were tested using
repeated measures ANOVA. The analysis was performed using
SPSS (2002). In order to reduce heteroscedasticity, anuran
abundance was square-root transformed. The Levene’s test
verified the homogeneity of variance and Mauchy’s test
verified the sphericity assumption. The repeated measures
ANOVA approach assumes a compound symmetry
(homogeneity of the variance–covariance matrix); the G-G
corrections were used for the F test (von Ende, 1993).
The variation in composition of anurans in the rice fields
and Reserva Lake during the study period was analysed using
Principal Components Analysis (PCA) (Goodall, 1954), in
PC-ORD Version 4.2 (McCune and Mefford, 2006). In the
ordination analysis, the rice fields were separated according
to the management practice (flooded and dry) in order to
highlight possible differences in the temporal succession of the
anuran composition. The ordination was performed using the
abundance of flooded rice fields (n 5 3), dry rice fields (n 5 3)
and Reserva Lake (n 5 3) over the study period. Only species
occurring in more than two collections were included in the
analysis.
The difference between flooded rice fields (n 5 3), dry rice
fields (n 5 3) and Reserva Lake (n 5 3) for the anuran species
composition was verified by MRPP (Multi-Response
Permutation Procedures) (PC-ORD 4.0, McCune and
Mefford, 2006). The MRPP tests differences between two or
more groups. For MRPP analyses, the chance-corrected
within-group agreement (A) describes within-group
homogeneity compared with the random expectation. When
all samples are identical within groups, A 5 1, and when
heterogeneity within groups equals that expected by random
chance, A 5 0. If there was more heterogeneity within groups
than expected by chance, Ao0. Indicator Species Analysis
(Dufrene and Legendre, 1997) was used to determine the
relative abundance and fidelity of a species to particular rice
management practices (flooded and dry) and Reserva Lake
over the study period. The significance of the discriminating
power was determined by the Monte-Carlo test (5000
permutations).
RESULTS
Twelve species distributed among five anuran families were
collected during the study period in the rice fields (12 species)
and in Reserva Lake (nine species). The families with highest
representation in the surveys were Hylidae (five and four,
respectively), followed by Leiuperidae (three species) and
Leptodactylidae (two and one species, respectively). Two
families were represented only by a single species: Bufonidae
(Rhinella fernandezae was found in rice fields and Reserva
Lake) and Cycloramphidae (Odontophrynus maisuma was
found only in rice fields). In total, 2139 anuran individuals
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 20: 39–46 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/aqc
42 I.F. MACHADO AND L. MALTCHIK

were observed in rice fields (798) and Reserva Lake (1341). (F5,20 5 3.429, P 5 0.021); the abundance was higher in
Hylidae represented the majority of the individuals observed in flooded than in dry rice fields in fallow 1 and in growing
rice fields (293) and in Reserva Lake (859), followed by season 1 (Figure 2(b)). The mean abundance was higher in
Leptodactylidae (270 and 222, respectively), and Leiuperidae Reserva Lake than in flooded and dry rice fields over the study
(201 and 231, respectively) (Table 1). Dendropsophus minutus period (F10,30 5 2.849, P 5 0.013) (Figure 2(b)).
was sampled in one collection only. One specimen of The first three axes generated by PCA explained 71.3% of
Chthonerpeton indistinctum (Reinhardt and Lütken, 1862) the variation in anuran composition (41.03% first and 18.59%
(Amphibia: Gymnophiona) was also found in Reserva Lake. second axis) in flooded and dry rice fields and in Reserva
The total anuran richness ranged from two to eight species Lake over the study period (Figure 3). The anuran composition
in rice fields, and from five to eight species in Reserva Lake in flooded rice fields was different from that in dry rice fields
during the study period. The mean anuran richness changed over the cultivating cycle (MRPP: A 5 0.1037; P 5 0.012), and
over time in rice fields and in Reserva Lake (F5,30 5 5.752; it was different between the rice fields (flooded1dry) and
P 5 0.001), and it was higher in the growing seasons (1 and 2) Reserva Lake (MRPP: A 5 0.3401; Po0.001) (Figure 3). The
than in the first fallow collection and after harvesting (Tukey, anuran composition of Reserva Lake was different from
Po0.05). The mean anuran richness was similar between the composition found in the flooded rice fields (MRPP:
flooded and dry rice fields (F1,4 5 2.174, P 5 0.214), and there A 5 0.2762; P 5 0.001) and in dry rice fields (MRPP:
was no interaction between management practices and rice A 5 0.3983; P 5 0.0006) (Figure 3). While Leptodactylus
cultivation phases (F5,20 5 0.620, P 5 0.686), except in fallow 1, gracilis was more abundant in rice fields (flooded and dry),
when the mean richness was higher in flooded than in dry rice Leptodactylus ocellatus, Physalaemus biligonigerus, and Rhinella
fields (Figure 2(a)). The mean anuran richness was higher in fernandezae were associated with flooded rice fields in the
Reserva Lake than in flooded and dry rice fields (F2,6 5 14.390, growing phase. The density of the other species was higher in
P 5 0.005), and also there was no interaction between systems Reserva Lake (Figure 3). The change in the anuran composition
(flooded and dry rice fields and Reserva Lake) and time between flooded and dry rice fields was observed mainly in the
(F10,30 5 1.349, P 5 0.251) (Figure 2(a)). tillage and rice growing phase 1 (Figure 3). The anuran
The total anuran abundance ranged from 3 to 66 composition after the harvesting phase (D6 and F6) was similar
individuals in rice fields, and from 54 to 139 individuals in to the composition of the fallow phases in rice fields (flooded
Reserva Lake over the study period. The mean abundance and dry–D1, D2 and D6, and F1, F2 and F6). Pseudopaludicola
changed over time in rice fields and Reserva Lake falcipes (IV 5 52.5), Pseudis minuta (IV 5 59.6), Dendropsophus
(F5,30 5 26.199, Po0.001), and it was higher in the growing sanborni (IV 5 79.1), Hypsiboas pulchellus (IV 5 84.8) and
seasons (1 and 2) than in the other collections during the study Scinax squalirostris (IV 5 97.1) were indicator species for
period (Tukey, Po0.05). The lowest values for abundance Reserva Lake (Indicator Species Analysis, Po0.05).
were found in fallow phases (1 and 2) and after the harvesting
phase (Tukey, Po0.05). The mean anuran abundance was
similar between flooded and dry rice fields (F1,4 5 4.414,
DISCUSSION
P 5 0.104). However, there was interaction between
management practices and rice cultivation phases Twelve anuran species were found in rice fields, representing
more than 13% of the richness from natural wetlands in
southern Brazil, and 75% of the richness observed in the study
Table 1. Cumulative number of individuals per anuran species in rice region (Loebmann, 2005; Machado and Maltchik, 2007,
fields and Reserva Lake observed over the annual rice cultivation cycle respectively). However, the composition of the species
(2005/2006) observed in Reserva Lake was different from that in rice
Species Abundance fields, mainly due to the high dominance of hylids and
leptodactylids, which corresponded to about 50% of the total
Flooded Dry rice Reserva observed species. In this study, it was observed that some
rice fields fields Lake
anuran species reproduced in both natural wetlands and rice
Bufonidae fields. Vocalizations, tadpoles and metamorphosing
Rhinella fernandezae 14 15 29 individuals of D. sanborni, H. pulchellus, L. ocellatus,
Cycloramphidae P. biligonigerus, P. falcipes, P. minuta, R. fernandezae and
Odontophrynus maisuma 4 1 0 S. squalirostris were observed in both systems. No species
Hylidae
Dendropsophus minutus 0 3 0 of conservation concern were recorded in either habitat;
Dendropsophus sanborni 27 16 163 however, there is only one listed species found in the Coastal
Hypsiboas pulchellus 31 3 189 Plain (Melanophryniscus dorsalis). The majority of the species
Pseudis minuta 174 33 306 in the study region use rice fields as complementary habitat,
Scinax squalirostris 6 0 201
Leptodactylidae
either as reproductive habitat or as movement corridors
Leptodactylus gracilis 0 14 0 linking adjacent natural wetlands (Brode and Bury, 1984;
Leptodactylus ocellatus 136 120 222 Semlitsch and Bodie, 2003). Further studies are necessary to
Leiuperidae evaluate the real use of these systems by the anuran
Physalaemus biligonigerus 17 8 15 community.
Pseudopaludicola falcipes 57 105 179
Physalaemus gracilis 11 3 37 Anuran richness and abundance changed over the rice
cultivating cycle, and the highest value was observed during
Total Richness 10 11 9 growing phases (G1 and G2). The largest amphibian richness
Total Abundance 477 321 1341
and abundance coincided with the summer (high temperatures)

Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 20: 39–46 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/aqc
 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN RICE FIELDS AND AMPHIBIAN CONSERVATION 43

Figure 2. (a) Anuran mean richness (7SD) in the study rice fields (dry and flooded) and in Reserva Lake during the 2005/2006 cultivating cycle; and
(b) anuran mean abundance (7SD) in the flooded and dry fields and in Reserva Lake during the 2005/2006 cultivating cycle.

and with the occurrence of surface water during the growing
phases. The anuran assemblages are strongly influenced by air
temperature and hydroperiod (Pechmann et al., 1989; Duellman
and Trueb, 1994; Bertoluci and Rodrigues, 2002). Temperature
influences several amphibian physiological and behavioural
processes, such as water balance, calling, metamorphosis,
development and immune response (Rome et al., 1992). The
hydroperiod is one of the most important factors determining
species richness, productivity and habitat suitability for pond-
breeding amphibians (Babbitt and Tanner, 2000). Variations in
water level may affect the abundance and diversity of species
of amphibians in wetland systems (Pechmann et al., 1989).
In the present study, the largest richness and abundance of
amphibians was also associated with the observed reproductive
period of species in southern Brazil (Achaval and Olmos, 1997;
Kwet and Di Bernardo, 1999).
In the study rice fields, the control of aquatic plants with
herbicide was carried out during the tillage phase and at the
beginning of the growing season. Glyphosate, one of the main
herbicides used in rice fields, is a non-selective systemic
herbicide used to kill weeds, especially sedges and grasses
(Baird et al., 1971; Shibayama, 2001). Recent studies have
shown that tadpoles are one of the vertebrate groups most
sensitive to the toxic effects of glyphosate herbicides
(Govindarajulu, 2008). Glyphosate herbicides cause sub-
lethal effects on anuran communities, including reduced
growth and development rates, behavioural impairment, and
genomic effects (Govindarajulu, 2008). However, the
population-level consequences of these sub-lethal effects have
not been tested under field conditions (Govindarajulu, 2008).
Despite this, no sign was found of detrimental effects of
herbicides in the rice fields. However, if rice fields are to be
used as conservation tools, the use of herbicides and other
chemicals must be carefully evaluated.
The hydroperiod is an important determinant factor for
anuran composition in wetland systems (Pechmann et al., 1989;
Moreira et al., 2007). In the present study, some species (e.g.
Hypsiboas pulchellus, Scinax squalirostris, Pseudopaludicola
falcipes, and Pseudis minuta) were important to discriminate
flooded, dry rice fields and Reserva Lake. The variation in
anuran composition followed a similar pattern along the
cultivating cycle (in both management practices — flooded
and dry rice fields). Anuran composition after the harvesting
phase was very similar to the composition found during the
fallow phases. This indicated that species composition in these
agroecosystems tended to return to the initial condition after

Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 20: 39–46 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/aqc
44 I.F. MACHADO AND L. MALTCHIK

Figure 3. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) ordination plot of rice fields (flooded and dry fields during the fallow phase) and Reserva Lake based
on the anuran composition on each sampling occasion for the cultivating cycle 2005/2006. F 5 flooded rice fields, D 5 dry rice fields, R 5 Reserva
Lake; 1 5 Fallow phase 1 (Jun/05); 2 5 Fallow phase 2 (Sep/05); 3 5 Tillage phase (Nov/05); 4 5 beginning of growing season — rice emergence
(Jan/06); 5 5 end of growing season — rice tilling (Mar/06); 6 5 after harvesting (Jun/06).

the rice cultivating period, indicating a strong seasonality to
anuran presence in rice fields in southern Brazil.
The different management practices adopted after the
harvesting period (presence or lack of surface water) did not
influence the anuran richness and abundance; however, it
influenced the composition. Studies that analyse the dynamics
of aquatic organisms in rice fields and that compare different
hydrologic management practices are scarce, and most of them
focus on the zooplankton and bird community in temperate
regions (Kurasawa, 1956; Rossi et al., 1974; Elphick et al.,
2007; Manley, 2008). The results of this study show that even
though management practices in rice fields produced similar
anuran richness and abundance, species composition was
different between the study areas. Lack of surface water in dry
rice fields during most of the cultivating cycle favoured the
development of terrestrial species, such as Bufonidae,
Cycloramphidae, and Leptodactylidae. In rice fields that
remained flooded, hylids were more abundant. Thus, the
mosaic created by the variation of wetlands and dry lands
resulting from rice culture is appropriate to preserve a high
diversity of anurans.
The difference in species composition between the adopted
management practices is an interesting result in terms of
biodiversity conservation. Rice producers could maintain part
of their agricultural land flooded during the fallow phase. The
existence of dry and flooded rice fields during the fallow phase
may help to support auxiliary populations of anurans that will
re-colonize natural adjacent wetlands, thereby enhancing
biodiversity in these systems. These results should be taken
into consideration in wetland conservation plans in southern
Brazil. Managing rice fields to maximize their utility as
amphibian habitat could effectively increase the amount of
wetland habitat available in southern Brazil by 30% and
would represent a powerful conservation action.
This study suggests that rice fields can help to conserve an
important fraction of the amphibian richness in wetlands of
southern Brazil, acting as refuges for biodiversity. However,
the rice fields must not be viewed as surrogate systems for
natural wetlands, given that the more complex natural systems
play an important part in aquifer recharge, climatic stability
and water storage. Furthermore, the anuran richness,
abundance and composition were different between natural
and artificial wetlands. Nevertheless the management practices
proposed here could be an important strategy for biodiversity
conservation in areas that are not established as Units of
Conservation. Such a strategy would reconcile agricultural and
economic needs with the conservation of biodiversity in
southern Brazil, where more than 90% of wetland systems
have already been lost and those remaining are at high risk
owing to the expansion of rice production.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by funds from UNISINOS
(02.00.023/00-0) and CNPq (52370695.2).
Leonardo Maltchik holds a Brazilian Research Council
CNPq Research Productivity grant. Aline Regina Gomes
Moraes Lace helped in the field surveys. Dr Alexandre

Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 20: 39–46 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/aqc
 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN RICE FIELDS AND AMPHIBIAN CONSERVATION
F. Souza (UNISINOS) and Dr Elvio S. F. Medeiros (UEPB)
are thanked for collaboration in the revision and suggestions
to this manuscript. We also thank two anonymous referees,
and the landowners who allowed access to rice fields on their
properties. We declare that the data collection complied with
the Brazilian current laws.
REFERENCES
Achaval F, Olmos A. 1997. Anfibios e Reptiles del Uruguay.
Facultad de Ciencias Universad de la Republica Oriental del
Uruguay: Montevideo, Uruguay.
Azambuja IHV, Vernetti JFJ, Magalhães JAM. 2004.
Aspectos socioeconômicos da produc- ão do arroz. In Arroz
irrigado no Sul do Brasil, Gomes AS, Magalhães JAM (eds).
Embrapa Informac- ão Tecnológica: Brası́lia; 23–44.
Babbitt KJ, Tanner GW. 2000. Use of temporary wetlands by
anurans in a hydrologically modified landscape. Wetlands
20: 313–322.
Baird D, Upchurch R, Homesly W, Franz J. 1971.
Introduction of a new broad spectrum postemergence
herbicide class with utility for herbaceous perennial weed
control. In Proceedings of the 26th North Central Weed
Control Conference, North Central Weed Science Society,
Kansas City; 64–68.
Bambaradeniya CNB, Amerasinghe FP. 2003. Biodiversity
associated with the rice field agroecosystem in Asian
countries: a brief review. International Water Management
Institute 63: 1–29.
Bertoluci J, Rodrigues MT. 2002. Seasonal patterns of
breeding activity of Atlantic Rainforest anurans at
Boracéia, Southeastern Brazil. Amphibia-Reptilia 23:
161–167.
Brasil. 2006. Third National Report to the Convention on
Biological Diversity. Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brası́lia.
Brode JM, Bury RB. 1984. The importance of riparian systems
to amphibians and reptiles. In California Riparian Systems.
Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management,
Warner RE, Hendrix KM (eds). University of California
Press: Berkeley; 30–36.
Brouder SM, Hill JE. 1995. Winter flooding of ricelands
provides waterfowl habitat. California Agriculture 49: 1–58.
Burhanuddin MN. 1993. Use and management of riverine
wetlands and rice fields in Peninsula Malaysia. In Towards
Wise Use of Asian Wetlands, Isozaki H, Ando M, Natori Y
(eds). Proceedings of the Asian Wetland Symposium,
International Lake Environment Committee Foundation,
Kusitsu City, Japan; 15–20.
Cei JM. 1980. Amphibians of Argentina. Monitore Zoologico
Italiano 2: 1–609.
Czech HA, Parsons KC. 2002. Agricultural wetlands and
waterbirds: a review. Waterbirds 25: 56–65.
Davis TJ, Blasco D, Carbonell M. 1996. Manual de la
Convencion de Ramsar. Una guia a la Convencion sobre los
humedales de importancia internacional. Oficina de la
Convención de Ramsar: Gland.
Dodd KC. 1992. Biological diversity of a temporary pond
herpetofauna in north Florida sandhills. Biodiversity and
Conservation 1: 125–142.
Dodd KC, Cade BS. 1998. Movement patterns and the
conservation of amphibians breeding in small, temporary
wetlands. Conservation Biology 12: 331–339.
Duellman WE, Trueb L. 1994. Biology of Amphibians. The
Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
45
Dufrene M, Legendre P. 1997. Species assemblages and
indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical
approach. Ecological Monographs 67: 345–366.
Elphick CS, Oring LW. 1998. Winter management of
Californian rice fields waterbird comment. Journal of
Applied Ecology 35: 95–108.
Elphick CS, Oring LW. 2003. Conservation implications
of flooding rice fields on winter waterbird communities.
Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 94: 17–29.
Elphick CS, Zuur AF, Ieno EN. 2007. Investigating the
effects of rice farming on aquatic birds with mixed
modelling. In Analysing Ecological Data, Zuur AF,
Ieno EN, Smith GM (eds). Springer: New York; 417–434.
FAO Stat. 2004. FAO Statistical Databases. Available online
at http://apps.fao.org.
Fernando CH, Furtado JI, Lim RP. 1979. Aquatic fauna of
the world’s rice fields. Wallaceana Supplement Kuala Lumpur
2: 1–105.
Fujioka M, Lane SJ. 1997. The impact of changing irrigation
practices in rice fields on frog populations of the
Kanto Plain, central Japan. Ecological Research 12:
101–108.
Getzner M. 2002. Investigating public decisions about
protecting wetlands. Journal of Environmental Management
64: 237–246.
Gomes ADS, Magalhães AMD. 2004. Arroz irrigado no Sul do
Brasil. Embrapa: Pelotas.
Goodall DW. 1954. Objective methods for the classification of
vegetation. III. An essay in the use of factor analysis.
Australian Journal of Botany 2: 304–324.
Govindarajulu PP. 2008. Literature review of impacts of
glyphosate herbicide on amphibians: what risks can the
silvicultural use of this herbicide pose for amphibians in
B.C.? B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Wildlife
Report No. R-28.
Guadagnin DL, Maltchik L. 2007. Habitat and landscape
factors associated with Neotropical waterbird occurrence
and richness in wetland fragments. Biodiversity and
Conservation 16: 1231–1244.
IRGA. 2007. Arroz irrigado: safra 2006/2007 – produc- ão
municipal. Instituto Riograndense do Arroz. Sec- ão de Polı́tica
Setorial–DCI: Porto Alegre.
Juliano BO. 1993. Rice in Human Nutrition. Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) and International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI): Manila, Philippines.
Kurasawa H. 1956. The weekly succession in the
standing crop of plankton and zoobenthos in the
paddy field. Miscellaneous Reports of the Research
Institute for Natural Resources. Tokyo. 4(41/42), 86–98 (in
Japanese).
Kwet A, Di-Bernardo M. 1999. Pró-Mata-Anfı´bios.
Amphibien. Amphibians. EDIPUCRS: Porto Alegre.
Loebmann D. 2005. Guia Ilustrado: Os anfı´bios da região
costeira do extremo sul do Brasil. USEB: Pelotas.
Machado IF, Maltchik L. 2007. Check-list da diversidade de
anuros no Rio Grande do Sul (Brasil) e proposta de
classificac- ão para as formas larvais. Neotropical Biology
and Conservation 2: 101–116.
Maltchik L. 2003. Three new wetlands inventories in Brazil.
Interciencia 28: 421–423.
Maltchik L, Costa ES, Becker CG, Oliveira AE. 2003.
Inventory of wetlands of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil).
Pesquisas: Botânica 53: 89–100.
Manley SW. 2008. Conservation in Ricelands of North America.
The Rice Foundation.
McCune B, Mefford MJ. 2006. PC-ORD. Multivariate
Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 5.10 MjM Software,
Gleneden Beach, Oregon.
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 20: 39–46 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/aqc
46 I.F. MACHADO AND L. MALTCHIK
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and
Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World
Resources Institute: Washington, DC.
Miller RR, Williams JD, Williams JE. 1989. Extinctions of
North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14:
22–38.
Moler PE, Franz R. 1987. Wildlife values of small, isolated
wetlands in the Southeastern coastal plain. In Proceedings of
the Third Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium,
Odom RR, Riddleberger KA, Ozier JC (eds). Georgia
Department of Natural Resources; 234–241.
Moreira LFB, Machado IF, Lace ARGM, Maltchik L.
2007. Calling period and reproductive modes in an
anuran community of a temporary pond in Southern
Brazil. South American Journal of Herpetology 2: 129–135.
Neiff JJ. 2001. Diversity in some tropical wetland systems of
South America. In Biodiversity in Wetlands: Assessment,
Function and Conservation, Gopal B, Junk WJ, Davis JA
(eds). Backhuys Publishers: Leiden.
Pechmann JHK, Scott DE, Gibbons JW, Semlitsch RD. 1989.
Influence of wetland hydroperiod on diversity and
abundance of metamorphosing juvenile amphibians.
Wetlands Ecology and Management 1: 3–11.
Rambo B. 2000. A fisionomia do Rio Grande do Sul: ensaio de
monografia natural. Unisinos: São Leopoldo.
Rodrigues ASL, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L,
Brooks TM, Cowling RM, Fishpool LDC, Fonseca GAB,
Gaston KJ, Hoffmann M et al. 2004. Effectiveness of the
global protected area network in representing species
diversity. Nature 428: 640–643.
Rolon AS, Maltchik L. 2006. Environmental factors as
predictors of aquatic macrophyte richness and composition
in wetlands of southern Brazil. Hydrobiologia 556: 221–231.
Rolon AS, Lacerda T, Maltchik L, Guadagnin DL. 2008.
The influence of area, habitat and water chemistry on
richness and composition of macrophyte assemblages in
southern Brazil wetlands. Journal of Vegetation Science 19:
221–228.
Rome LC, Stevens ED, John-Adler HB. 1992. The influence of
temperature and thermal acclimation on physiological
Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
View publication stats
function. In Environmental Physiology of the Amphibians,
Feder ME, Burggren WW (eds). University of Chicago
Press: Chicago; 183–205.
Rosset SD. 2008. New species of Odontophrynus Reinhardt
and Lütken 1862 (Anura: Neobatrachia) from Brazil and
Uruguay. Journal of Herpetology 42: 134–144.
Rossi O, Moroni A, Baroni P, Caravello U. 1974. Annual
evolution of the zooplankton diversity in twelve Italian
ricefields. Bollettino di Zoologia 41: 157–181.
SBH. 2009. Brazilian amphibians — List of species. Accessible
at http://www.sbherpetologia.org.br. Sociedade Brasileira de
Herpetologia. Captured on 22/apr/2009.
Semlitsch RD. 1998. Biological determination of terrestrial
buffer zones for pond-breeding salamanders. Conservation
Biology 12: 1113–1119.
Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR. 2003. Biological criteria for buffer
zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians
and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17: 1219–1228.
Shibayama H. 2001. Weeds and weed control management in
rice production in Japan. Weed Biology and Management 1:
53–60.
Silvano DL, Segalla MV. 2005. Conservation of Brazilian
amphibians. Conservation Biology 19: 653–658.
SPSS. 2002. Statistical Package for Social Sciences. Chicago.
Stenert C, Maltchik L. 2007. Influence of area, altitude and
hydroperiod on macroinvertebrate communities in southern
Brazil wetlands. Marine and Freshwater Research 58:
993–1001.
Stenert C, Bacca RC, Mostardeiro CC, Maltchik L. 2008.
Environmental predictors of macroinvertebrate communities
in coastal wetlands of southern Brazil. Marine and
Freshwater Research 59: 540–548.
Tagliani PRA. 1995. Estratégia de Planificac- ão Ambiental
para o Sistema Ecológico da Restinga da Lagoa dos Patos —
Planı́cie Costeira do Rio Grande do Sul. PhD thesis,
Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil.
von Ende CN. 1993. Repeated-measures analysis: growth and
other time dependent measures. In The Design and Analysis
of Ecological Experiments, Scheiner S, Gurevitch I (eds).
Chapman and Hall; 113–137.
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 20: 39–46 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/aqc