DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation Effects Assessment Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conservation Effects Assessment Project Conservation Effects Assessment Project Missouri Pilot Using NatureServe Information to Assess Farm Bill Practice Effects on At-risk Species and Habitats Final Report February 11, 2007 CEAP NatureServe is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing the scientific knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action. This study was funded by USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service under agreement # 68- 3A75-5-146. Citation: Comer, P., D. Diamond, S. Sowa, K. Goodin, D. Purcell, D. Butler, E. Cook, C. Hamilton, G. Hammerson, L. Master, T. Nigh, M. Ormes, D. True, and B. White. 2007. Using NatureServe Information to Assess Farm Bill Practice Effects on At-risk Species and Habitats. Report to the Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington DC. 53pp. plus appendices Front cover: Waterfowl over a re-flooded crop field enhancement practice in Scott County, Missouri. Photo by: Bill Holmes NatureServe 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor Arlington, VA 22209 703 908-1800 www.natureserve.org ii Conservation Effects Assessment Project Missouri Pilot Using NatureServe Information to Assess Farm Bill Practice Effects on At-risk Species and Habitats NatureServe Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership Missouri Department of Conservation Patrick Comer David Diamond Scott Sowa Kathleen Goodin Dyanna Purcell Dorothy Butler Elizabeth Cook Chris Hamilton Geoff Hammerson Larry Master Tim Nigh Margaret Ormes Diane True Bill White February 11, 2007 CEAP iii Acknowledgements This study was funded by USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service under agreement # 68- 3A75-5-146. We would like to acknowledge the following individuals whose contributions were essential to the success of this project: Charlie Rewa, Doug Helmers, Harold Deckerd, Kevin Dacey, Patrick Crist, Amanda Morris, Lindsay Elder, Jason McNees, and Leslie Honey. iv Table of Contents List of Figures.............................................................................................................................6 List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................6 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................7 Introduction ................................................................................................................................9 Background.................................................................................................................................9 Evaluating At-Risk Wildlife and Habitat Responses to NRCS Conservation Practices...............11 At-Risk Species and Habitats ................................................................................................11 Conservation Practices ..........................................................................................................11 Wildlife/Practice Matrix........................................................................................................12 Spatial Data Analysis and Reporting .........................................................................................24 GIS Data Acquisition ............................................................................................................30 Conservation Practices......................................................................................................30 At-risk Species Locations...................................................................................................30 Missouri Natural Heritage Data........................................................................................30 NRCS Modified Heritage Data (“Buffered Heritage”).......................................................31 GAP Species Distribution Models......................................................................................32 Buffered Heritage Occurrences Intersected with Gap Species Models ...............................33 Freshwater Aquatic Species Distributions .........................................................................34 Combining Wildlife Distributions with Mapped Conservation Practices................................35 Conservation Land Units Including Practice #512.............................................................35 Tabular Reporting.............................................................................................................37 Exploring Uncertainty with Overlain Spatial Data.................................................................38 Differences in Representation of Practices ........................................................................38 Differences in Representation of Wildlife Distributions......................................................40 Recommendations for Analysis and Reporting ..........................................................................42 Criteria for Wildlife Selection ...............................................................................................42 Species Selection ...............................................................................................................42 Habitat Selection...............................................................................................................43 Wildlife Distributions............................................................................................................44 At-Risk Freshwater Aquatic Species ..................................................................................44 Very Rare Terrestrial Species with Small Home Ranges ....................................................44 Other At-Risk Terrestrial Species with Small Home Ranges...............................................44 Other At-Risk Terrestrial Species with Larger Home Ranges.............................................45 More Common Terrestrial Species with Larger Home Ranges...........................................45 Conservation Practices ..........................................................................................................45 Conservation Effects Matrices...............................................................................................46 Spatial Analysis Units ...........................................................................................................47 Summary Units for Reporting ............................................................................................48 Recommendations for Conservation Effects Assessment at Regional and National Scales.........49 Assessing Impacts of Past and Current Practices ...................................................................49 Assessing Potential Impacts of Proposed Conservation Practices...........................................51 References ................................................................................................................................52 Appendix 1. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessment Methodology..................................53 Appendix 2 Missouri T&E Species Planning Matrix (2005) .....................................................59 v Appendix 3 Status of At-Risk Species Occurrence Data by State...............................................73 Table A3.1 Status of At-Risk Species Occurrence by State....................................................77 Appendices Provided Electronically Only Appendix 4 Draft Conservation Effects Matrix for Terrestrial Species Groups Appendix 5. Draft Conservation Effects Matrix for Aquatic Species Groups Appendix 6 Conservation Status Ranks by State Appendix 7 Species Occurrence Data Status By State List of Figures Figure 1. Study Area Locator Map ............................................................................................25 Figure 2. Buffered Heritage Occurrences of the Black-tailed Jackrabbit in the Spring River watershed ......................................................................................................................32 Figure 3. GAP distribution of the Black-tailed Jackrabbit in the Spring River watershed. .........33 Figure 4. GAP-Modified Buffered Heritage Occurrences of the Black-tailed Jackrabbit in the Spring River watershed..................................................................................................34 Figure 5. Segmentsheds and steam segments resulting from intersecting 512 CLUs with segmentsheds in the Spring River watershed, MO. ....................................................................36 Figure 7. Spreadsheet showing acreage of species affected by practice #512 per 14-digit HU....38 Figure 8. Total area (acres) of selected species affected by practices by CLUs & by 1 mile stream lengths ...............................................................................................................39 Figure 9 (a, b, c). Practice #512 overlapping (in red) with distributions of black-tailed jackrabbit (a) NRCS buffered Heritage polygons, (b) GAP distribution, and (c) GAP-modified NRCS buffered Heritage polygons.................................................................................41 List of Tables Table 1. Species groups used for analysis of practice effects on at-risk wildlife........................14 Table 2. Terrestrial Species Group (n=13) Responses to Conservation Practice Groups (n=71) 15 Table 3. Aquatic Species Group (n=22) Responses to Conservation Practice Groups (n=49).....20 Table 4. Acreage Affected By Conservation Practices That Have Strongly
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Population Status of the Illinois Chorus Frog
    ILLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. Population status of the Illinois chorus frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis) in Madison County, Illinois: Results of 1994 surveys IDOT CONTRACT 1-5-90179 FINAL REPORT ON 1994 RESULTS John K. Tucker Center for Aquatic Ecology Illinois Natural History Survey 4134 Alby Street Alton, Illinois 62002 and David P. Philipp Center for Aquatic Ecology Illinois Natural History Survey 607 E. Peabody Champaign, Illinois 61781 December 1995 J. K. Tucker Dr. David P. Philipp Co-Principal Investigator Co-Principal Investigator Center for Aquatic Ecology Center for Aquatic Ecology Illinois Natural History Survey Illinois Natural History Survey DISCLAIMER The findings, conclusions, and views expressed herein are those of the researchers and should not be considered as the official position of the Illinois Department of Transportation. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SUPPORT This research (contract number 1-5-90179) was funded by the Illinois Department of Transportation. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A study of the biology of the Illinois chorus frog, Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis, is reported. Surveys of Madison County for choruses of the frogs located seven choruses. Choruses previously reported at Granite City and South Roxana were not relocated and are thought to be extirpated. We estimated population size to be 420 frogs in April 1994 with a juvenile survivorship of 4.5%. Mean distance for 20 recaptured frogs from point of initial capture was 0.52 km with a range of 0 to 0.9 km. Habitat preference for 48 frogs found on roads appeared to be for old field habitats in preference to areas of agriculture or lawns.
    [Show full text]
  • Calling Site Characteristics of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris Streckeri Illinoensis) in Northeastern Arkansas
    Herpetological Natural History, 9(2), 2006, pages 195–198. 195 ©2006 by La Sierra University CALLING SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ILLINOIS CHORUS FROG (PSEUDACRIS STRECKERI ILLINOENSIS) IN NORTHEASTERN ARKANSAS Malcolm L. McCallum1,2 Environmental Sciences Ph.D. Program, Arkansas State University, PO Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467, USA Stanley E. Trauth, Charles McDowell, Robert G. Neal, and Tracey L. Klotz Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, PO Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467, USA Proper management of wildlife populations We here characterize the calling perch selection by requires an in-depth knowledge of habitat require- male P. s. illinoensis as applied to the conservation ments for each species (Anderson 1985). and management of this subspecies. Microhabitat use has been largely uninvestigated in amphibians and reptiles. Without knowing how MATERIALS AND METHODS species utilize the unique matrices of microhabitats within a general habitat, a species numbers could We visited breeding choruses of P. s. illinoen- easily decline for seemingly unknown reasons. This sis located in Clay County, Arkansas on 18, 28 may be especially true if the microhabitat structure February and 4 March 2000; 13, 15, 24 February is involved in reproduction. 2001; 14, 19, 23 February and 1, 8, 15 March 2002. Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis is a highly fos- We counted calling males at selected ponds, and sorial (Brown 1978; Brown et al. 1972) hylid frog recorded abnormalities as observed. We noted endemic to sand areas from extreme northeastern amplectant and calling behaviors in 2001. Arkansas and southeastern Missouri to the Mississippi and Illinois rivers in central and south- Calling Sites ern Illinois (Smith 1966).
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri's Toads and Frogs Booklet
    TOADSMissouri’s andFROGS by Jeffrey T. Briggler and Tom R. Johnson, Herpetologists www.MissouriConservation.org © 1982, 2008 Missouri Conservation Commission Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Missouri Department of Conservation is available to all individuals without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. Questions should be directed to the Department of Conservation, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, MO 65102, (573) 751-4115 (voice) or 800-735-2966 (TTY), or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Federal Assistance, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop: MBSP-4020, Arlington, VA 22203. Cover photo: Eastern gray treefrog by Tom R. Johnson issouri toads and frogs are colorful, harmless, vocal and valuable. Our forests, prairies, rivers, swamps and marshes are Mhome to a multitude of toads and frogs, but few people know how many varieties we have, how to tell them apart, or much about their natural history. Studying these animals and sharing their stories with fellow Missourians is one of the most pleasurable and rewarding aspects of our work. Toads and frogs are amphibians—a class Like most of vertebrate animals that also includes amphibians, salamanders and the tropical caecilians, which are long, slender, wormlike and legless. frogs and Missouri has 26 species and subspecies (or toads have geographic races) of toads and frogs. Toads and frogs differ from salamanders by having an aquatic relatively short bodies and lacking tails at adulthood. Being an amphibian means that tadpole stage they live two lives: an aquatic larval or tadpole and a semi- stage and a semi-aquatic or terrestrial adult stage.
    [Show full text]
  • Biobasics Contents
    Illinois Biodiversity Basics a biodiversity education program of Illinois Department of Natural Resources Chicago Wilderness World Wildlife Fund Adapted from Biodiversity Basics, © 1999, a publication of World Wildlife Fund’s Windows on the Wild biodiversity education program. For more information see <www.worldwildlife.org/windows>. Table of Contents About Illinois Biodiversity Basics ................................................................................................................. 2 Biodiversity Background ............................................................................................................................... 4 Biodiversity of Illinois CD-ROM series ........................................................................................................ 6 Activities Section 1: What is Biodiversity? ...................................................................................................... 7 Activity 1-1: What’s Your Biodiversity IQ?.................................................................... 8 Activity 1-2: Sizing Up Species .................................................................................... 19 Activity 1-3: Backyard BioBlitz.................................................................................... 31 Activity 1-4: The Gene Scene ....................................................................................... 43 Section 2: Why is Biodiversity Important? .................................................................................... 61 Activity
    [Show full text]
  • Annex13 Idnrresponsetoecocat
    Annex13_IDNRResponsetoEcocat May 29, 2019 William Blessman County Administrator 125 N Plum Havana, IL 62644 RE: Glacier Sands Wind Project Project Number(s): 1901976 County: Mason Dear Mr. Blessman, This letter addresses consultation on the development of a wind energy generation facility pursuant to the requirements of the Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act [525 ILCS 30/17], the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act [520 ILCS 10/11], and Title 17 Illinois Administrative Code Part 1075. Additionally, the Department may offer advice and recommendations for species covered under the Fish & Aquatic Life Code [515 ILCS 5, et seq.]; the Illinois Wildlife Code [520 ILCS 5, et seq.]; and the Herptiles-Herps Act [510 ILCS 69]. The proposed action being reviewed in this letter consists of development of the Glacier Sands wind farm in Mason County by Swift Current Energy. The project is generally located in the east-central area of Mason County. The purpose of this review is to provide advisory recommendations which the County has the discretion to adopt, modify, or reject in accordance with its authorities. The only exception is when the action would be certain to “kill or injure an Illinois listed animal species.” In that case, before the County may authorize the project, the applicant must demonstrate it has received an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) from the Department of Natural Resources pursuant to (520 ILCS 10/5.5 and 520 ILCS 10/11(b)). The statutes cited above require Mason County to consider whether the action it may authorize might adversely affect or modify protected natural resources. The Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act requires the Department to recommend measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for adverse effects to protected natural areas designated by the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Zootaxa,Conservation Implications of a Morphometric
    Zootaxa 1589: 23–32 (2007) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2007 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Conservation implications of a morphometric comparison between the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis) and Strecker’s Chorus Frog (P. s. streckeri) (Anura: Hylidae) from Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas JOY B. TRAUTH1,4, RONALD L. JOHNSON2, & STANLEY E. TRAUTH3 Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, State University, AR 72467. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 4Corresponding author Abstract Much uncertainty exists regarding the taxonomic status of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis Smith; ICF) relative to Strecker’s Chorus Frog (P. s. streckeri, Wright & Wright; SCF) of the southcentral United States (US). Molecular analyses have been inconsistent in providing taxonomic insight, and no formal morphological compar- isons have been previously performed. Each taxon possesses a wide range of background colors. We undertook mor- phometric analyses to help clarify their taxonomic relationship. Tibia length and mass were compared for live Arkansas (AR) specimens and snout-vent, head and tibia lengths were measured from preserved vouchered specimens. Tibia length and mass were significantly greater for living ICFs versus SCFs in AR. Among preserved specimens, tibia, snout- vent and head lengths were significantly greatly for AR ICFs relative to most intraspecific groups, and Texas (TX) SCFs were significantly smaller than most other groups. Principal components analysis was largely consistent with univariate analyses, although Missouri (MO) ICFs also partitioned distinctly from other sample groups. These data provide mor- phological evidence of geographic (clinal) variation within a species, but do not provide support for the taxonomic eleva- tion of the ICF to species status.
    [Show full text]
  • The Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan & Strategy
    State of Illinois Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor Department of Natural Resources Joel Brunsvold, Director THE ILLINOIS COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN & STRATEGY VERSION 1.0 AS PRESCRIBED BY THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION & RESTORATION PROGRAM AND STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS PROGRAM ILLINOIS COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN & STRATEGY Version 1.0 i. Partners in Plan/Strategy Development The Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan & Strategy was made possible with the help of these partners in conservation: ABATE of Illinois, Inc. Environmental Law & Policy Center Black Diamond Chapter Field Trial Clubs of Illinois American Bird Conservancy Fishing Buddies Association of Illinois Soil & Water Forest Preserve District of DuPage County Conservation Districts Forest Preserve District of Kane County Audubon Chicago Region Forest Preserve District of Will County Bird Conservation Network Friends of Johnson Park Boone County Conservation District Grand Prairie Friends Brookfield Zoo Henson Robinson Zoo Calhoun County Farm Bureau Illinois Association of Conservation Districts Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Illinois Association of REALTORS Central Illinois Musky Hunters Illinois Association of Regional Councils Champaign County Forest Preserve District Illinois Association of Resource Chicago Botanic Garden Conservation and Development Areas Chicago Wilderness Illinois Audubon Society Cook County Forest Preserve District Illinois Conservation Foundation Cosley Zoo Illinois Department of Agriculture D.J. Case & Associates Division
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List 53 Amphibians and Reptiles in the United States As Threatened Or Endangered Species Under the Endangered Species Act
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST 53 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES IN THE UNITED STATES AS THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY JULY 11, 2012 1 Notice of Petition _____________________________________________________________________________ Ken Salazar, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Dan Ashe, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Nicole Alt, Chief Division of Conservation and Classification, Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420 Arlington, VA 22203 [email protected] Douglas Krofta, Chief Branch of Listing, Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420 Arlington, VA 22203 [email protected] AUTHORS Collette L. Adkins Giese Herpetofauna Staff Attorney Center for Biological Diversity P.O. Box 339 Circle Pines, MN 55014-0339 [email protected] 2 D. Noah Greenwald Endangered Species Program Director Center for Biological Diversity P.O. Box 11374 Portland, OR 97211-0374 [email protected] Tierra Curry Conservation Biologist P.O. Box 11374 Portland, OR 97211-0374 [email protected] PETITIONERS The Center for Biological Diversity. The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) is a non- profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center is supported by over 375,000 members and on-line activists throughout the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plan4 SGCN
    Section 2. Species of Greatest Conservation Need Identification and prioritization.......................................... 6 How the SGCN list was created Criteria for inclusion on the SGCN list Taxa Association Team contribution and review Revising the SGCN list Developing the species priority score protocol SGCN ranking by Species Priority Score (in taxa associations) Distribution ..................................................................... 28 Element occurrence Ecoregions where the species occurs Habitats where the species occurs Terrestrial Aquatic Expert Assessments .......................................................... 41 Problems faced Research needs Conservation actions called for Monitoring strategy Comments and citations Species Reports Amphibians ........................................................................................45 Bird ..................................................................................................113 Crayfish ............................................................................................339 Fish ...................................................................................................411 Insects ...............................................................................................561 Invertebrates - other ..........................................................................713 Mammals ..........................................................................................815 Mussels .............................................................................................870
    [Show full text]
  • Are Tadpoles of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris Streckeri Illinoensis) Cannibalistic?
    Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science received 4/13/01 (2001), Volume 94, #3, pp. 171-178 accepted 8/15/01 Are Tadpoles of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis) Cannibalistic? Malcolm L. McCallum P.O. Box 847 Environmental Sciences Ph.D. Program Arkansas State University State University, AR 72467 [email protected] 1 (870) 972-3177 Stanley E. Trauth P.O. Box 899 Department of Biological Sciences Arkansas State University State University, AR 72467 [email protected] 1 (870) 972-3082 ABSTRACT Little is known about the ecology of Illinois chorus frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis) tadpoles. We reared Illinois chorus frog tadpoles from eggs and observed evidence that this species’ tadpoles are cannibalistic. This behavior appears to be facultative based on increased mortality rates of tadpoles raised on low protein rations compared to tadpoles raised on high protein rations. Additionally, a large tadpole was observed carrying a small living tadpole in its mouth. Despite netting this individual and handling during photography, it refused to release the small individual. Photographic evidence that Illi- nois chorus frog larvae of identical ages fed identical rations in identical housing condi- tions show differential development reminiscent of large and small larval morphotypes combined with the tenacity with which the large larvae maintained its grip on the small one provide evidence that some of these larvae develop into cannibalistic mophotypes under appropriate conditions. Key Words: Illinois chorus frog, Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis, tadpoles, cannibalism, Arkansas INTRODUCTION Evolutionarily strategies (ESS), conceptually derived from Game Theory, are those sets of rules of behavior that when adopted by a certain proportion of individuals in the 172 population cannot be replaced by any alternative strategy (Dawkins, 1980).
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Occupancy of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris Streckeri Illinoensis): Are Plots Or Ponds the Best Fine-Scaled Sampling Unit for Call Surveys?
    Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science received 1/26/15 (2015) Volume 108, pp. 53-58 accepted 12/16/15 Monitoring Occupancy of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis): Are Plots or Ponds the Best Fine-scaled Sampling Unit for Call Surveys? Andrew C. Hulin1, Eric P. Golden2, and Robert D. Bluett1,3 1Illinois Department of Natural Resources, One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, Illinois, 62702 2Sangamon County Soil & Water Conservation District, 2623 Sunrise Drive, Suite 1, Springfield, Illinois 62703 3Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT We conducted a pilot study to evaluate strategies for monitoring long-term trends in occupancy of the Illinois Chorus Frog (ICF; Pseu- dacris streckeri illinoensis) across its range in Illinois. Standard protocols for call surveys are not sensitive to extinctions of local pop- ulations of the ICF because its loud vocalizations create a large sampling area around each listening post. Therefore, we evaluated two spatially explicit, fine-grained alternatives – habitat polygons indicative of breeding sites and sections (a standard unit for land surveys; 2.59 km2). Our design relied on a GIS model to identify areas with suitable habitat. We tested the model by comparing its predictions to locations where ICFs were collected during an independent study. Most sections with records of ICFs had ≥1 habitat polygon (91%). Ability of the model to predict exact locations of collections was poor by comparison (54% occurred in a habitat polygon). We also evaluated effects of spatial scale on naïve rates of occupancy in central and southern Illinois during 2011‒2014. Call surveys (N = 171) conducted at 30 random sections with ≥1 habitat polygon (N = 119) yielded a greater naïve rate of occupancy for sections (63%) than individual breeding sites within those sections (40%) when years and regions were pooled.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography of the Anurans of the United States and Canada. Version 2, Updated and Covering the Period 1709 – 2012
    January 2018 Open Access Publishing Volume 13, Monograph 7 A female Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas) from Garibaldi Provincial Park, British Columbia, Canada. This large bufonid occurs throughout much of Western North America. The IUCN lists it as Near Threatened because it is probably in significant decline (> 30% over 10 years) due to disease.(Photographed by C. Kenneth Dodd). Bibliography of the Anurans of the United States and Canada. Version 2, Updated and Covering the Period 1709 – 2012. Monograph 7. C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr. ISSN: 1931-7603 Indexed by: Zoological Record, Scopus, Current Contents / Agriculture, Biology & Environmental Sciences, Journal Citation Reports, Science Citation Index Extended, EMBiology, Biology Browser, Wildlife Review Abstracts, Google Scholar, and is in the Directory of Open Access Journals. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE ANURANS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. VERSION 2, UPDATED AND COVERING THE PERIOD 1709 – 2012. MONOGRAPH 7. C. KENNETH DODD, JR. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 32611. Copyright © 2018. C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr. All Rights Reserved. Please cite this monograph as follows: Dodd, C. Kenneth, Jr. 2018. Bibliography of the anurans of the United States and Canada. Version 2, Updated and Covering the Period 1709 - 2012. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 13(Monograph 7):1-328. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS i PREFACE ii ABSTRACT 1 COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHIC TRIVIA 1 LITERATURE CITED 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY 2 FOOTNOTES 325 IDENTICAL TEXTS 325 CATALOGUE OF NORTH AMERICAN AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES 326 ADDITIONAL ANURAN-INCLUSIVE BIBLIOGRAPHIES 326 AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY 328 i Preface to Version 2: An Expanded and Detailed Resource. MALCOLM L.
    [Show full text]