Supplementary Information

Bernhard Schmid

Detlef Weigel

eLife Assessment
This valuable study analyses correlations between traits of Chinese frog species and their Red List status, finding differences between adults and larvae and thus pointing to the importance of considering different life-cycle stages in this and possibly other animal groups when assessing species extinction risks. The current study is, however, incomplete because of unclear threat categories for tadpoles, the omission of other key species traits, and insufficient statistical analysis.

anonymous

Reviewer #1 (Public review):
The manuscript shows that different traits of adults and larvae correlate with Red List status. The authors argue that this shows a big gap in the conservation of amphibians and that the traits of all life stages should be taken into account in amphibian conservation. Specifically, amphibian conservation should do more for the habitats where the larvae live.
The manuscript is well written and easy to understand. The methods are sound.
While the study will make an interesting contribution to conservation science, there are many things that I disagree with.
I don't think that amphibian larvae and their requirements are a "blind spot" as the title suggests. When reading the manuscript, I didn't learn how conservation practice should change in response to the results.
I wonder whether the relationship between species traits and extinction risk is of great importance for conservation. If a species is Data Deficient on the IUCN Red List, then species traits could be used to predict its Red List category. However, for other conservation projects, I don't see how this would work. How would traits be linked to captive breeding, conservation translocation, pond construction or habitat management in general? In some cases, I can envision a link between species traits and pond hydroperiod.
Species traits are body size and morphological traits. That makes sense. However, one of the species traits was microhabitat. I find it far-fetched to call habitat a species trait. This is standard habitat ecology. It is well known that habitats matter and that different habitat types face different threats, and consequently, the species that live in those habitats. Furthermore, habitat and morphology may be confounded. For example, tadpoles in lentic and lotic habitats have very different morphologies. So is it habitat or morphology?
I don't know how the threat status of Chinese amphibians is determined. IUCN has multiple reasons why a species can be Red Listed. One reason is range size, and another reason is population decline. Personally, I don't think they should be pooled in an analysis because they are fundamentally different reasons why a species has a high extinction risk. A reduction in population size of greater than 30% in 10 years or 3 generations is not the same thing as a small distribution range. Another issue is that IUCN developed the Green Status of species. The Green Status shows that even a species which is LC on the Red List may be significantly depleted.
The species traits in Table 1 are mostly functional/morphological and body size related (and microhabitat). While there may be correlations between traits and Red List status, it is unknown whether this is correlation or causation. In addition, it is difficult to know the conservation interventions that may be necessary now that we know that relative head with and Red List status are correlated.
In the discussion, the authors explain why body size and other traits may affect extinction risk and whether there is a causal relationship. I agree that body size may have a direct effect because larger species are harvested more frequently (it was interesting to learn that tadpoles are harvested as well). However, as macroecological studies show, smaller species often have larger populations than larger species. Abundance may matter.
I found it much harder to understand why relative head length and tympanum size correlated with Red List status. I wasn't convinced by the arguments in the discussion. Typanum size may be related to hearing and anthropogenic noise. Several studies are cited which show that frogs alter their calling behaviour in response to noise. Crucially, however, they describe changes in behaviour or properties of the advertisement call, yet none show that noise has effects on population viability. If some anthropogenic stressor affects individuals, then this does not mean that it will cause a population decline. When IUCN published the second global amphibian assessment, did they list noise as a major threat to amphibians?
There are statements that the tadpole stage is the most important stage: "a critical period for amphibian survival" (line 78-79). While there is high mortality in the tadpole stage, tadpole survival is rather unlikely to affect population survival. Many population models show this. See, for example, Biek et al. 2002 in Conservation Biology. Other papers have argued that the postmetamorphic juvenile stage is most important (Petrovan and Schmidt 2009 Biological Conservation).
The authors repeatedly make the statement that amphibian conservation should focus more on the tadpole stage. I don't understand why this statement is made. For example, a major activity in amphibian conservation is the restoration and de novo construction of ponds (see Calhoun et al. 2014 PNAS, Moor et al. 2022 PNAS). Ponds are habitats for tadpoles. Others removed fish from amphibian breeding sites because fish prey on tadpoles (and adults; see Vredenburg 2004 PNAS). Semlitsch (2002 in Conservation Biology) argued that the management of pond hydroperiod is a critical element of amphibian recovery plans. Ponds should be temporary because this effectively removes predators that consume tadpoles. Clearly, the tadpole stage is not a neglected stage in amphibian conservation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
In this study, the authors tried to examine whether there are differences in the association between functional traits and extinction risk in adult and tadpole stages in Chinese anurans.
Strengths:
Overall, I think the basic idea of the study is interesting and important. It can be applied to other taxa with complex life cycles throughout the animal kingdom.
Weaknesses:
I do not think the authors achieve their aims, as the results only partially support their conclusions. The study has several drawbacks that need to be clarified or revised, including the unclear threat categories for tadpoles, model selection and model averaging, the potential problem of AIC, and the omission of other important species traits.

Conservation Blind Spot: The Critical Role of Larval Stage in Assessing Extinction Risk

Figures and data

Functional traits and its potential ecological functions.

Distribution of threat status across anuran families in China, based on the China Biodiversity Red List – Vertebrates Volume (2020).

Regression analysis results of extinction risk for adult and tadpole stages.

Phylogenetically corrected associations between functional traits and extinction risk in Chinese anurans, separately for (A) adults and (B) tadpoles.

Relationships between tadpole and adult size within anuran families.

Be the first to read new articles from eLife