DOCSLIB.ORG

Monitoring Amphibians in Great Smoky Mountains National Park by C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Monitoring Amphibians in Great Smoky Mountains National Park By C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr. — Abstract — a national amphibian monitoring program on Federal lands, to develop the sampling techniques and bio- Amphibian species have inexplicably declined metrical analyses necessary to determine status and or disappeared in many regions of the world, and in trends, and to identify possible causes of amphibian some instances, serious malformations have been declines and malformations. observed. In the United States, amphibian declines The biological importance of Great Smoky frequently have occurred even in protected areas. Mountains National Park has been recognized by its Causes for the declines and malformations probably designation as an International Biosphere Reserve. are varied and may not even be related. The seem- As such, it is clearly the leading region of signifi- ingly sudden declines in widely separated areas, how- cance for amphibian research. Although no other ever, suggests a need to monitor amphibian region shares the wealth of amphibians as found in populations as well as identify the causes when the Great Smokies (31 species of salamanders, and declines or malformations are discovered. 13 of frogs), the entire southern and mid-section of In 2000, the President of the United States and the Appalachian Mountain chain is characterized by Congress directed Department of the Interior (DOI) a high diversity of amphibians, and inventories and agencies to develop a plan to monitor the trends in monitoring protocols developed in the Smokies likely amphibian populations on DOI lands and to conduct will be applicable to other Appalachian National Park research into possible causes of declines. The DOI Service properties. has stewardship responsibilities over vast land hold- From 1998 to 2001, USGS biologists carried ings in the United States, much of it occupied by, or out a pilot inventory and monitoring research project potential habitat for, amphibians. The U.S. Geologi- in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. A variety cal Survey (USGS) was given lead responsibility for of inventory, sampling, and monitoring techniques planning and organizing this program, named the were employed and tested. These included wide-scale Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative visual encounter surveys of amphibians at terrestrial (ARMI). Authorization carried the mandate to set up and aquatic sites, intensive monitoring of selected 1 plots, randomly placed small-grid plot sam- critique of what the results tell the observer, and pling, litterbag sampling in streams, monitoring a discussion of the limitations of the techniques nesting females of selected species, call sur- and the data. The report reviews considerations veys, and monitoring specialized habitats, such for site selection, outlines steps for biosecurity as caves. Coupled with information derived and for processing diseased or dying animals, from amphibian surveys on Federal lands using and provides resource managers with a decision various other techniques (automated frog call tree on how to monitor the Park’s amphibians data loggers, PVC pipes, drift fences, terrestrial based on different levels of available resources. and aquatic traps), an amphibian monitoring It concludes with an extensive list of references program was designed to best meet the needs of for inventorying and monitoring amphibians. biologists and natural resource managers after USGS and Great Smoky Mountains National taking into consideration the logistics, terrain, and life histories of the species found within Park biologists need to establish cooperative Great Smoky Mountains National Park. efforts and training to ensure that congression- This report provides an overview of the ally mandated amphibian surveys are per- Park’s amphibians, the factors affecting their formed in a statistically rigorous and distribution, a review of important areas of biologically meaningful manner, and that biodiversity, and a summary of amphibian life amphibian populations on Federal lands are history in the Southern Appalachians. In addi- monitored to ensure their long-term survival. tion, survey techniques are described as well as The research detailed in this report will aid examples of how the techniques are set up, a these cooperative efforts. Introduction The Florida Caribbean Science Center constraints. Survey teams sampled more than (now Florida Integrated Science Center) 500 sites (fig. 2) and recorded data on more than received funding in 1997 from the U.S. Geolog- 10,000 amphibians. All parts of the Park were ical Survey (USGS) Inventory and Monitoring visited in all seasons and in all weather (I&M) Program to conduct a pilot project for conditions. amphibians in the southeastern United States. The objectives of the Great Smoky After considering several locations, Great Mountains National Park I&M program were Smoky Mountains National Park (fig. 1) was to: (1) provide a geographically referenced selected for the survey because of its amphibian inventory of the amphibian resources of the diversity and the large number of potential Great Smoky Mountains National Park; threats to its varied ecosystems (Brown, 2000). (2) provide indices of abundance of Park During the course of the next 4 years, a field selected amphibian species, referenced to loca- research team of enthusiastic young biologists tions and habitat types; (3) develop and transfer was assembled to collect information on the to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park species richness and distribution of the Park=s and National Park Service a series of protocols amphibians. Researchers used a variety of sam- suitable for long-term monitoring of amphibian pling techniques, including 10 x 10-meter sur- populations in the “Smokies” and other Appala- vey plots, “permanent” 30 x 40-meter plots, chian parks; (4) evaluate current distributions coverboards, litter-bag surveys, and a great and abundance of amphibian species as possible number of time-constrained litter and stream in the Park with literature reports of past inves- searches. The team looked for previously tigations. This manual fulfills the third objective reported rare species, sampled historic loca- of the I&M program. Additional information on tions, investigated unique habitats (such as amphibian natural history, distribution, land- caves), and examined museum records and pub- scape ecology, trends analysis, and protocol lished literature. Survey activities and tech- development are published in Dodd and others, niques were designed to optimize the use of (2001), Waldron and others, (2003); Dodd, available personnel within budget and logistic (2004), or is under development. 2 84° 83°45′ 83°30′ 83°15′ 83° 411 Cosby 129 Pigeon 411 Fork Cosby Maryville 40 321 73 321 35°45′ Creek 321 Cosby L it Campground Gatlinburg tle Pig e Cosby o n Knob River Sugarlands Metcalf Visitor Center W Bottoms . P Creek r o 73 n g e e k Little River e L h re it c M S t Mount o C l o Foothills Parkway u e l e Whiteoak i g P d ige Le Conte a n o a n R t a Sink d r i a l la ve C e nd r C P M ro ou Cataloochee n n Abrams Ranger g t a Campground Station and Big Spring i reek n Campground C Cove Cades Cades Cove Cove 411 Oc s Campground ona Abram lu fte TENNESSEE e R i ver NORTH CAROLINA Clingmans Dome Smokemont GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS Creek NATIONAL PARK Blue Creek Big Cove R 19 Creek id ge 35°30′ Parkway Indian Cherokee Indian Hazel Reservation Deep 19 129 28 Bryson City Fontana Reservoir Great Smoky Mountains 411 B l National Park u e NC R 19 i TN d g 23 74 e SC P a 28 r MS GA Silva kw AL ay LA FL 19 74 23 411 Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, datum nad83 Albers Equal-Area Conic Projection, EXPLANATION ′′ ′ Standard parallels 29°° 30 and 45 30 , central meridian -83 ° 00 Shaded relief indicates area of Great Smoky Primary road (paved) Mountains National Park 0 5 10 15 MILES Secondary road (gravel) Cherokee Indian Reservation 0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS Park and Reservation boundaries 3 Figure 1. Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina and Tennessee. 84° 83°45′ 83°30′ 83°15′ 83° 35°45′ TENNESSEE NORTH CAROLINA 35°30′ Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, datum nad83, Albers Equal-Area Conic Projection, EXPLANATION Standard parallels 29°° 30′′ and 45 30 , central meridian -83° 00′ Great Smoky Mountains Primary road (paved) Park and Reservation National Park boundaries 0 5 10 MILES Secondary road (gravel) Cherokee Indian Sampling sites, 1998-2001 Park trails 0 5 10 KILOMETERS Reservation Figure 2. Location of U.S. Geological Survey sampling sites in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 1998 to 2001. Acknowledgments This manual is the result of collaborative survey National Park, particularly Keith Langdon, Dana efforts during 4 years of hard field work between 1998 Soehn, and Jack Piepenbring. and 2001 in the Great Smoky Mountains. The author For providing funding: Norita Chaney (USGS would like to thank the following individuals for their Inventory and Monitoring Program, Reston, support, assistance, dedication, and companionship: Virginia), Russell Hall (Florida Integrated Science For their field collecting skill, expertise, and gen- Center), and the USGS Amphibian Research and eral good humor during all kinds of weather condi- Monitoring Initiative (ARMI). tions, the USGS field crew from 1998 to 2001 (in For providing research permits: National Park alphabetical order): Jamie Barichivich, Jeff Corser, Service (Great Smoky Mountains National Park), Elizabeth Domingue, Marian Griffey, Kelly Irwin, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Christy Morgan, Rick >Bubba= Owen, Kevin G. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Smith, and Jayme Waldron. For figure 7: Todd For providing the beautiful illustrations of larval Campbell. For advice: James Petranka and Chuck amphibians: Jacqualine Grant. Smith. For reading the manuscript and making valuable For their support and assistance: the National Park comments: Jamie Barichivich, Marian Griffey, Service personnel at Great Smoky Mountains Russell Hall, Steve Johnson, Keith Langdon, and Jennifer Staiger.
Recommended publications
  • Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site Amphibian and Reptile Inventory March – September 2001

    Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site Amphibian and Reptile Inventory March – September 2001

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site Amphibian and Reptile Inventory March – September 2001 Natural Resource Report NPS/NETN/NRR—2010/248 ON THE COVER Northern two-lined salamander - Saugus Iron Works NHS is a locally important site for this stream-dwelling salamander. Photograph by: Dave Brotherton Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site Amphibian and Reptile Inventory March – September 2001 Natural Resource Report NPS/NETN/NRR—2010/248 Robert P. Cook National Park Service Cape Cod National Seashore Wellfleet, MA 02667 David K. Brotherton Department of Herpetology Wildlife Conservation Society Bronx Zoo Bronx, NY 10460-1099 John L. Behler1 Department of Herpetology Wildlife Conservation Society Bronx Zoo Bronx, NY 10460-1099 1 deceased September 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
  • The Natural History, Distribution, and Phenotypic Variation of Cave-Dwelling Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus Spp

    The Natural History, Distribution, and Phenotypic Variation of Cave-Dwelling Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus Spp

    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 2005 The aN tural History, Distribution, and Phenotypic Variation of Cave-dwelling Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus spp. Cope (Plethodontidae), in West Virginia Michael Steven Osbourn Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Osbourn, Michael Steven, "The aN tural History, Distribution, and Phenotypic Variation of Cave-dwelling Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus spp. Cope (Plethodontidae), in West Virginia" (2005). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 735. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Natural History, Distribution, and Phenotypic Variation of Cave-dwelling Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus spp. Cope (Plethodontidae), in West Virginia. Thesis submitted to The Graduate College of Marshall University In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Science Biological Sciences By Michael Steven Osbourn Thomas K. Pauley, Committee Chairperson Daniel K. Evans, PhD Thomas G. Jones, PhD Marshall University May 2005 Abstract The Natural History, Distribution, and Phenotypic Variation of Cave-dwelling Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus spp. Cope (Plethodontidae), in West Virginia. Michael S. Osbourn There are over 4000 documented caves in West Virginia, potentially providing refuge and habitat for a diversity of amphibians and reptiles. Spring Salamanders, Gyrinophilus porphyriticus, are among the most frequently encountered amphibians in caves. Surveys of 25 caves provided expanded distribution records and insight into ecology and diet of G.
  • Mercury in Northern Green Frogs and Snapping Turtles from Onondaga Lake, New York

    Mercury in Northern Green Frogs and Snapping Turtles from Onondaga Lake, New York

    MERCURY IN NORTHERN GREEN FROGS AND SNAPPING TURTLES FROM ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK Prepared by the New York Field Office of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service December 2015 For the Onondaga Lake Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Trustee Council i ABSTRACT This study was conducted to develop an initial understanding of the exposure of amphibians and reptiles at Onondaga Lake to mercury (Hg). Mercury in Onondaga Lake northern green frogs is within the range of Hg concentrations shown to affect metamorphosis and survival of southern leopard frog tadpoles and metamorphs, but less than concentrations associated with effects in wood frogs and American toads. Mercury in the toenails and blood of snapping turtles from Onondaga Lake was significantly higher than Hg in the toenails and blood of Hamlin Wildlife Management Area (reference area) snapping turtles. Onondaga Lake snapping turtles have more Hg in their keratinous tissue (toenails) than other snapping turtles sampled across New York State, but less Hg than found in keratinous tissues of snapping turtles from a Hg-contaminated area in Virginia. Snapping turtles appear fairly resistant to Hg, but the Hg concentrations found in Onondaga Lake snapping turtles are within the range of concentrations associated with altered thyroid function and immune suppression in other turtle species. Although the diversity of amphibians and reptiles has increased at Onondaga Lake over the past two decades, the herpetofaunal diversity and population densities remain lower than in surrounding areas. This study shows that Hg may be a factor inhibiting the reproduction and health of some amphibians and reptiles at Onondaga Lake.
  • 2004A IE Reports

    2004A IE Reports

    Contents Introduction…………………………………….…………………………………1 Using GIS to predict plant distributions: a new approach (Amy Lorang)……………………………………………………………………...3 Impacts of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid on Canadian and Carolina Hemlock Forests (Josh Brown)………………………………………………..……………………19 Effects of Adelgid-Induced Decline in Hemlock Forests on Terrestrial Salamander Populations of the Southern Appalachians: A Preliminary Study (Shelley Rogers)………………………………………………………………….37 Riparian zone structure and function in Southern Appalachian forested headwater catchments (Katie Brown)…………………………………………………………………….60 Successional Dynamics of Dulany Bog (Michael Nichols)………………………………………………………………...77 Mowing and its Effect on the Wildflowers of Horse Cove Road on the Highlands Plateau ((Megan Mailloux)……………………………………………………………….97 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………..114 1 Introduction In the Fall of 2004, twelve undergraduate students from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill had the opportunity to complete ecological coursework through the Carolina Environmental Program’s Highlands field site. This program allows students to learn about the rich diversity of plants and animals in the southern Appalachians. The field site is located on the Highlands Plateau, North Carolina, near the junction of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The plateau is surrounded by diverse natural areas which create an ideal setting to study different aspects of land use change and threats to biodiversity. The Highlands Plateau is a temperate rainforest of great biodiversity, a patchwork of rich forests, granite outcrops, and wet bogs. Many rare or interesting species can be found in the area, with some being endemic to a specific stream or mountaintop. Some of these are remnants of northern species that migrated south during the last ice age; others evolved to suit a particular habitat, with a slightly different species in each stream.
  • AMPHIBIANS of OHIO F I E L D G U I D E DIVISION of WILDLIFE INTRODUCTION

    AMPHIBIANS of OHIO F I E L D G U I D E DIVISION of WILDLIFE INTRODUCTION

    AMPHIBIANS OF OHIO f i e l d g u i d e DIVISION OF WILDLIFE INTRODUCTION Amphibians are typically shy, secre- Unlike reptiles, their skin is not scaly. Amphibian eggs must remain moist if tive animals. While a few amphibians Nor do they have claws on their toes. they are to hatch. The eggs do not have are relatively large, most are small, deli- Most amphibians prefer to come out at shells but rather are covered with a jelly- cately attractive, and brightly colored. night. like substance. Amphibians lay eggs sin- That some of these more vulnerable spe- gly, in masses, or in strings in the water The young undergo what is known cies survive at all is cause for wonder. or in some other moist place. as metamorphosis. They pass through Nearly 200 million years ago, amphib- a larval, usually aquatic, stage before As with all Ohio wildlife, the only ians were the first creatures to emerge drastically changing form and becoming real threat to their continued existence from the seas to begin life on land. The adults. is habitat degradation and destruction. term amphibian comes from the Greek Only by conserving suitable habitat to- Ohio is fortunate in having many spe- amphi, which means dual, and bios, day will we enable future generations to cies of amphibians. Although generally meaning life. While it is true that many study and enjoy Ohio’s amphibians. inconspicuous most of the year, during amphibians live a double life — spend- the breeding season, especially follow- ing part of their lives in water and the ing a warm, early spring rain, amphib- rest on land — some never go into the ians appear in great numbers seemingly water and others never leave it.
  • Sayen Gardens Herpetological Report Manning 2015

    Sayen Gardens Herpetological Report Manning 2015

    To Whom It May Concern, This document is a report summarizing a volunteer reptile and amphibian project performed at the request of the Township of Hamilton in Mercer County, New Jersey. The area of focus for this project was the Sayen Gardens property and the adjacent Hoagland Nursery property, both located on Hughes Drive in Hamilton. This project was officially initiated in January of 2015, although some preliminary observations were taken in October and November of 2014. This document was prepared for the Township of Hamilton. General Profile: Sayen Gardens is a municipal park and botanical garden with an area of approximately 30 acres. The features of the park include a historical house, maintenance building, several man‐made structures (including three fountain ponds), as well as a wooded area with trails, and a small section of the Miry Run Brook. The Hoagland property is the site of a former nursery with an area of approximately 5 acres. A variety of natural and man‐made habitats are present on the two properties, including a small field (Hoagland), a small deciduous forest (both), a stream (Sayen), and several ponds (Sayen). There are three naturally occurring intermittent ponds, one of which was observed with an obligate vernal pool species (the wood frog, Lithobates sylvaticus) breeding in it. The properties are located on the physiographic region known as the Inner Coastal Plain. General Fauna Profile: The Sayen property provides a variety of habitats for native fauna to flourish. Many species of invertebrates have been observed in the park. Checking under debris reveals centipedes, slugs, earthworms, pillbugs, ants, and harvestmen.
  • The Salamanders of Tennessee

    The Salamanders of Tennessee

    Salamanders of Tennessee: modified from Lisa Powers tnwildlife.org Follow links to Nongame The Salamanders of Tennessee Photo by John White Salamanders are the group of tailed, vertebrate animals that along with frogs and caecilians make up the class Amphibia. Salamanders are ectothermic (cold-blooded), have smooth glandular skin, lack claws and must have a moist environment in which to live. 1 Amphibian Declines Worldwide, over 200 amphibian species have experienced recent population declines. Scientists have reports of 32 species First discovered in 1967, the golden extinctions, toad, Bufo periglenes, was last seen mainly species of in 1987. frogs. Much attention has been given to the Anurans (frogs) in recent years, however salamander populations have been poorly monitored. Photo by Henk Wallays Fire Salamander - Salamandra salamandra terrestris 2 Why The Concern For Salamanders in Tennessee? Their key role and high densities in many forests The stability in their counts and populations Their vulnerability to air and water pollution Their sensitivity as a measure of change The threatened and endangered status of several species Their inherent beauty and appeal as a creature to study and conserve. *Possible Factors Influencing Declines Around the World Climate Change Habitat Modification Habitat Fragmentation Introduced Species UV-B Radiation Chemical Contaminants Disease Trade in Amphibians as Pets *Often declines are caused by a combination of factors and do not have a single cause. Major Causes for Declines in Tennessee Habitat Modification -The destruction of natural habitats is undoubtedly the biggest threat facing amphibians in Tennessee. Housing, shopping center, industrial and highway construction are all increasing throughout the state and consequently decreasing the amount of available habitat for amphibians.
  • Amphibian and Reptile Checklist

    Amphibian and Reptile Checklist

    KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ___ Eastern Rat Snake (Pantherophis alleghaniensis) – BLUE RIDGE (NC‐C, VA‐C) Habitat: Varies from rocky timbered hillsides to flat farmland. The following codes refer to an animal’s abundance in ___ Eastern Hog‐nosed Snake (Heterodon platirhinos) – PARKWAY suitable habitat along the parkway, not the likelihood of (NC‐R, VA‐U) Habitat: Sandy or friable loam soil seeing it. Information on the abundance of each species habitats at lower elevation. AMPHIBIAN & comes from wildlife sightings reported by park staff and ___ Eastern Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula) – (NC‐U, visitors, from other agencies, and from park research VA‐U) Habitat: Generalist at low elevations. reports. ___ Northern Mole Snake (Lampropeltis calligaster REPTILE C – COMMON rhombomaculata) – (VA‐R) Habitat: Mixed pine U – UNCOMMON forests and open fields under logs or boards. CHECKLIST R – RARE ___ Eastern Milk Snake (Lampropeltis triangulum) – (NC‐ U, VA‐U) Habitat: Woodlands, grassy balds, and * – LISTED – Any species federally or state listed as meadows. Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern. ___ Northern Water Snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon) – (NC‐C, VA‐C) Habitat: Wetlands, streams, and lakes. Non‐native – species not historically present on the ___ Rough Green Snake (Opheodrys aestivus) – (NC‐R, parkway that have been introduced (usually by humans.) VA‐R) Habitat: Low elevation forests. ___ Smooth Green Snake (Opheodrys vernalis) – (VA‐R) NC – NORTH CAROLINA Habitat: Moist, open woodlands or herbaceous Blue Ridge Red Cope's Gray wetlands under fallen debris. Salamander Treefrog VA – VIRGINIA ___ Northern Pine Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus) – (VA‐R) Habitat: Abandoned fields If you see anything unusual while on the parkway, please and dry mountain ridges with sandier soils.
  • Biodiversity from Caves and Other Subterranean Habitats of Georgia, USA

    Biodiversity from Caves and Other Subterranean Habitats of Georgia, USA

    Kirk S. Zigler, Matthew L. Niemiller, Charles D.R. Stephen, Breanne N. Ayala, Marc A. Milne, Nicholas S. Gladstone, Annette S. Engel, John B. Jensen, Carlos D. Camp, James C. Ozier, and Alan Cressler. Biodiversity from caves and other subterranean habitats of Georgia, USA. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 82, no. 2, p. 125-167. DOI:10.4311/2019LSC0125 BIODIVERSITY FROM CAVES AND OTHER SUBTERRANEAN HABITATS OF GEORGIA, USA Kirk S. Zigler1C, Matthew L. Niemiller2, Charles D.R. Stephen3, Breanne N. Ayala1, Marc A. Milne4, Nicholas S. Gladstone5, Annette S. Engel6, John B. Jensen7, Carlos D. Camp8, James C. Ozier9, and Alan Cressler10 Abstract We provide an annotated checklist of species recorded from caves and other subterranean habitats in the state of Georgia, USA. We report 281 species (228 invertebrates and 53 vertebrates), including 51 troglobionts (cave-obligate species), from more than 150 sites (caves, springs, and wells). Endemism is high; of the troglobionts, 17 (33 % of those known from the state) are endemic to Georgia and seven (14 %) are known from a single cave. We identified three biogeographic clusters of troglobionts. Two clusters are located in the northwestern part of the state, west of Lookout Mountain in Lookout Valley and east of Lookout Mountain in the Valley and Ridge. In addition, there is a group of tro- globionts found only in the southwestern corner of the state and associated with the Upper Floridan Aquifer. At least two dozen potentially undescribed species have been collected from caves; clarifying the taxonomic status of these organisms would improve our understanding of cave biodiversity in the state.
  • Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles & Crocodilians

    Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles & Crocodilians

    STANDARD COMMON AND CURRENT SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR NORTH AMERICAN AMPHIBIANS, TURTLES, REPTILES & CROCODILIANS Sixth Edition Joseph T. Collins TraVis W. TAGGart The Center for North American Herpetology THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY www.cnah.org Joseph T. Collins, Director The Center for North American Herpetology 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 (785) 393-4757 Single copies of this publication are available gratis from The Center for North American Herpetology, 1502 Medinah Circle, Lawrence, Kansas 66047 USA; within the United States and Canada, please send a self-addressed 7x10-inch manila envelope with sufficient U.S. first class postage affixed for four ounces. Individuals outside the United States and Canada should contact CNAH via email before requesting a copy. A list of previous editions of this title is printed on the inside back cover. THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY BO A RD OF DIRE ct ORS Joseph T. Collins Suzanne L. Collins Kansas Biological Survey The Center for The University of Kansas North American Herpetology 2021 Constant Avenue 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Kelly J. Irwin James L. Knight Arkansas Game & Fish South Carolina Commission State Museum 915 East Sevier Street P. O. Box 100107 Benton, Arkansas 72015 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Walter E. Meshaka, Jr. Robert Powell Section of Zoology Department of Biology State Museum of Pennsylvania Avila University 300 North Street 11901 Wornall Road Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Kansas City, Missouri 64145 Travis W. Taggart Sternberg Museum of Natural History Fort Hays State University 3000 Sternberg Drive Hays, Kansas 67601 Front cover images of an Eastern Collared Lizard (Crotaphytus collaris) and Cajun Chorus Frog (Pseudacris fouquettei) by Suzanne L.
  • Amphibian Taxon Advisory Group Regional Collection Plan

    Amphibian Taxon Advisory Group Regional Collection Plan

    1 Table of Contents ATAG Definition and Scope ......................................................................................................... 4 Mission Statement ........................................................................................................................... 4 Addressing the Amphibian Crisis at a Global Level ....................................................................... 5 Metamorphosis of the ATAG Regional Collection Plan ................................................................. 6 Taxa Within ATAG Purview ........................................................................................................ 6 Priority Species and Regions ........................................................................................................... 7 Priority Conservations Activities..................................................................................................... 8 Institutional Capacity of AZA Communities .............................................................................. 8 Space Needed for Amphibians ........................................................................................................ 9 Species Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................ 13 The Global Prioritization Process .................................................................................................. 13 Selection Tool: Amphibian Ark’s Prioritization Tool for Ex situ Conservation ..........................
  • Terrestrial Ecosystems 3 Chapter 1

    Terrestrial Ecosystems 3 Chapter 1

    TERRESTRIAL Chapter 1: Terrestrial Ecosystems 3 Chapter 1: What are the history, Terrestrial status, and projected future of terrestrial wildlife habitat types and Ecosystems species in the South? Margaret Katherine Trani (Griep) Southern Region, USDA Forest Service ■ Since presettlement, there have insect infestation, advanced age, Key Findings been significant losses of community climatic processes, and distur- biodiversity in the South (Noss and bance influence mast yields. ■ There are 132 terrestrial vertebrate others 1995). Fourteen communities ■ The ranges of many species species that are considered to be are critically endangered (greater cross both public and private of conservation concern in the South than 98-percent decline), 25 are land ownerships. The numbers of by State Natural Heritage agencies. endangered (85- to 98-percent imperiled and endangered species Of the species that warrant conser- decline), and 11 are threatened inhabiting private land indicate its vation focus, 3 percent are classed (70- to 84-percent decline). Common critical importance for conservation. factors contributing to the loss of as critically imperiled, 3 percent ■ The significance of land owner- as imperiled, and 6 percent as these communities include urban development, fire suppression, ship in the South for the provision vulnerable. Eighty-six percent of species habitat cannot be of terrestrial vertebrate species exotic species invasion, and recreational activity. overstated. Each major landowner are designated as relatively secure. has an important role to play in ■ The remaining 2 percent are either The term “fragmentation” the conservation of species and known or presumed to be extinct, references the insularization of their habitats. or have questionable status. habitat on a landscape.