Terrestrial Movements and Habitat Preferences of Male Cricket Frogs on a Golf Course Edward A. Ramirez 1,2 , Holly J. Puglis 1 , Alicia Ritzenthaler 1,3 , and Michelle Boone 1 Northern Cricket Frogs, Acris crepitans, are experiencing population declines throughout their range for unknown reasons. Habitat alteration is one potential explanation, so evaluating habitat use and movement of Cricket Frogs could be valuable to protect and manage this species. To understand how altered landscapes influence Cricket Frog movements, we initiated a study at a golf course to assess the dispersal of adults on a variety of terrestrial habitat types (mown grass, unmown grass, or the ecotone between mown and unmown grass) released at different distances from a single pond (10, 20, or 40 m). We monitored movements of adult male frogs by marking individuals with fluorescent powder. Distance from the pond did not appear to affect movement or orientation toward the pond. However, Cricket Frog movement was significantly affected by habitat type. Cricket Frogs produced longer paths in unmown grass and were more likely to orient toward the pond than frogs released at the ecotone, which may be beneficial during dispersal events. Frogs released in both unmown and mown grass moved in straighter paths than frogs released at the ecotone between these habitats, suggesting that, when given the choice, both habitat types are used to potentially optimize travel, foraging, and/or avoiding predation. Our research suggests that while managed green spaces may provide suitable habitat for connecting pond-breeding amphibians, habitat with more structure (i.e., unmown grass) may offer Cricket Frogs the greatest benefits. A major cause of amphibian population declines and the biodiversity crisis is habitat destruction and alteration (Blaustein et al., 1994; Alford and Richards, 1999; Stuart et al., 2004). In addition to reducing available habitat for species, habitat destruction also increases the distance between suitable patches and can lead to isolation (Semlitsch and Bodie, 1998), thereby increasing the risk of extinction. Evidence suggests that maintaining a connected network of populations increases the persistence and recol- onization probability by amphibians (Trenham et al., 2003), while habitat fragmentation can significantly hinder local dispersal and migration (Rothermel and Semlitsch, 2002; Rothermel, 2004; Graeter et al., 2008). Therefore, under- standing how amphibians use altered habitat, including green spaces in parks, golf courses, and/or agricultural areas, may allow us to know how permeable these habitats are and the potential for amphibians to colonize newly created habitats (especially ponds) in these altered areas. Altered landscapes, such as golf courses, have the potential to harbor local biodiversity (Hodgkison et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2008), especially in urban areas (Hodgkison et al., 2006; Harden and Dorcas, 2008; Mifsud and Mifsud, 2008). The typical golf course is over 50 ha of heterogeneous environment, including ponds, mown grass, and unmown grass. On average, 40–70% of a golf course is generally out of play or ‘‘rough’’ (Colding and Folke, 2009), which could provide suitable habitat for some species and provide a linkage between natural habitats (Semlitsch et al., 2007). Including conservation strategies in the management of landscapes like golf courses could benefit many amphib- ian species (Scott et al., 2002; Semlitsch et al., 2007; Boone et al., 2008; Cook, 2008). Northern Cricket Frogs, Acris crepitans, are experiencing population declines across their range (Russell et al., 2002; Gray et al., 2005; Lehtinen and Skinner, 2006), but the reasons for the decline remain unclear. Because Cricket Frogs may live only 4–16 months (Gray et al., 2005), populations are frequently extirpated when juvenile recruit- ment is low (Trenham et al., 2003). Therefore, the rescue effect from local populations may be particularly important and common for this species. Studies suggest that Cricket Frogs are frequent colonizers of new habitat (Porej and Hethrington, 2005; Church, 2008), which suggests they have strong dispersal capabilities and may be a colonizing species. Understanding movement of Cricket Frogs in the terrestrial habitat may be useful in evaluating the contribu- tion of habitat change to population declines by interfering with connectivity because it could influence risks of desiccation (Burkett, 1984), predation (Rothermel and Semlitsch, 2002; Paton et al., 2008), and starvation (Joseph and Braman, 2009). Furthermore, movement data can reveal whether artificial green spaces may serve as travel corridors for Cricket Frogs between ponds. Our principal objective was to determine if habitat type and distance from a pond affected the movement of Northern Cricket Frogs (Acris crepitans) at a single golf course pond. We hypothesized that frogs would be more successful orienting and moving directly toward a pond when they were released closer to a pond or released on mown grass, both of which we expected to improve visibility. Specifically, we predicted Cricket Frogs in mown habitat would move in straighter paths and move longer distances than Cricket Frogs in unmown or ecotone habitats. Additionally, we predicted that Cricket Frogs released closer to the pond would be more likely to orient toward the pond in all habitats. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study site and experimental design.—The study was conduct- ed at the edge of a single pond on the Hueston Woods State Park Golf Course in College Corner (Butler and Preble Co.), Ohio, USA; this site is approximately 5 km NW of the sites where Cricket Frogs were collected. We manipulated two Copeia cope-12-02-02.3d 17/3/12 13:48:28 191 Cust # CE-11-078R1 1 Department of Zoology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056; E-mail: (EAR) ear34@zips.uakron.edu; (HJP) hpuglis@usgs.gov; and (MDB) boonemd@muohio.edu. Send reprint requests to MDB. 2 Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00680. 3 Environmental Science Program, University of Evansville, Evansville, Indiana 47722. Submitted: 6 June 2011. Accepted: 24 January 2012. Associate Editor: J. D. Litzgus. F 2012 by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists DOI: 10.1643/CE-11-078 Copeia 2012, No. 2, 191–196