DOCSLIB.ORG

Amphibian Conservation Evidence for the Effects of Interventions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Amphibian Conservation Evidence for the Effects of Interventions Amphibian Conservation Evidence for the effects of interventions Rebecca K. Smith & William J. Sutherland SYNOPSES OF CONSERVATION EVIDENCE SERIES Amphibian Conservation Global evidence for the effects of interventions Rebecca K. Smith and William J. Sutherland Synopses of Conservation Evidence, Volume 4 Pelagic Publishing | www.pelagicpublishing.com Copyright © 2014 William J. Sutherland This should be quoted as Smith, R.K. and Sutherland, W.J. (2014) Amphibian conservation: Global evidence for the effects of interventions. Exeter, Pelagic Publishing. 2 Contents 1. About this book ................................................................. 10 2. Threat: Residential and commercial development ............. 17 Key messages ................................................................................................................ 17 2.1. Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites ................................................... 17 2.2. Restrict herbicide, fungicide and pesticide use on and around ponds on golf courses ................................................................................................................. 17 2.3. Legal protection of species ........................................................................ 18 3. Threat: Agriculture ............................................................ 20 Key messages – engage farmers and other volunteers ................................................ 20 Key messages – terrestrial habitat management ......................................................... 20 Key messages – aquatic habitat management ............................................................. 21 Engage farmers and other volunteers .......................................................................... 21 3.1. Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures ....................... 21 3.2. Engage landowners and other volunteers to manage land for amphibians23 Terrestrial habitat management .................................................................................. 26 3.3. Manage cutting regime ............................................................................. 26 3.4. Manage grazing regime ............................................................................. 26 3.5. Reduce tillage ............................................................................................ 29 3.6. Maintain or restore hedges ....................................................................... 29 3.7. Plant new hedges....................................................................................... 29 3.8. Manage silviculture practices in plantations ............................................. 30 Aquatic habitat management ....................................................................................... 30 3.9. Exclude domestic animals or wild hogs by fencing ................................... 30 3.10. Manage ditches ...................................................................................... 32 4. Threat: Energy production and mining ............................... 34 Key messages ................................................................................................................ 34 4.1. Artificially mist habitat to keep it damp .................................................... 34 5. Threat: Transportation and service corridors ..................... 35 Key messages ................................................................................................................ 35 5.1. Install culverts or tunnels as road crossings .............................................. 35 5.2. Install barrier fencing along roads ............................................................. 46 5.3. Modify gully pots and kerbs ...................................................................... 49 5.4. Use signage to warn motorists .................................................................. 49 5.5. Close roads during seasonal amphibian migration ................................... 50 5.6. Use humans to assist migrating amphibians across roads ........................ 51 6. Threat: Biological resource use .......................................... 53 Key messages – hunting & collecting terrestrial animals ............................................. 53 Key messages – logging & wood harvesting ................................................................. 53 Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals ....................................................................... 54 6.1. Use amphibians sustainably ...................................................................... 54 6.2. Reduce impact of amphibian trade ........................................................... 55 6.3. Use legislative regulation to protect wild populations ............................. 56 6.4. Commercially breed amphibians for the pet trade ................................... 56 Logging & wood harvesting .......................................................................................... 57 3 6.5. Thin trees within forests ............................................................................ 57 6.6. Harvest groups of trees instead of clearcutting ........................................ 61 6.7. Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting ............................ 63 6.8. Use leave-tree harvesting instead of clearcutting .................................... 64 6.9. Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting ................................. 65 6.10. Leave standing deadwood/snags in forests ........................................... 68 6.11. Leave coarse woody debris in forests .................................................... 69 6.12. Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest ............................... 72 7. Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance ........................ 78 Key messages ................................................................................................................ 78 7.1. Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance .......................... 78 8. Threat: Natural system modifications ................................ 79 Key messages ................................................................................................................ 79 8.1. Use prescribed fire or modifications to burning regime ........................... 79 8.2. Use herbicides to control mid-storey or ground vegetation ..................... 86 8.3. Mechanically remove mid-storey or ground vegetation ........................... 88 8.4. Regulate water levels ................................................................................ 89 9. Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species ......... 92 Key messages – reduce predation by other species ...................................................... 92 Key messages – reduce competition with other species ............................................... 93 Key messages – reduce adverse habitat alteration by other species ........................... 93 Key messages – reduce parasitism and disease – chytridiomycosis ............................. 93 Key messages – reduce parasitism and disease – ranaviruses ..................................... 95 Reduce predation by other species ............................................................................... 95 9.1. Remove or control mammals .................................................................... 95 9.2. Remove or control fish population by catching ........................................ 96 9.3. Remove or control fish using Rotenone .................................................... 99 9.4. Remove or control fish by drying out ponds ........................................... 102 9.5. Exclude fish with barriers ........................................................................ 104 9.6. Encourage aquatic plant growth as refuge against fish predation ......... 104 9.7. Remove or control invasive bullfrogs ...................................................... 104 9.8. Remove or control invasive viperine snake ............................................. 106 9.9. Remove or control non-native crayfish ................................................... 106 Reduce competition with other species ...................................................................... 107 9.10. Reduce competition from native amphibians ..................................... 107 9.11. Remove or control invasive cane toads ............................................... 107 9.12. Remove or control invasive Cuban tree frog ....................................... 108 Reduce adverse habitat alteration by other species ................................................... 109 9.13. Prevent heavy usage or exclude wildfowl from aquatic habitat ......... 109 9.14. Control invasive plants ......................................................................... 109 Reduce parasitism and disease ................................................................................... 110 Chytridiomycosis ......................................................................................................... 110 9.15. Sterilize equipment when moving between amphibian sites ............. 111 9.16. Use gloves to handle amphibians ........................................................ 113 9.17. Remove the chytrid fungus from ponds .............................................. 114 9.18. Use zooplankton to remove zoospores ............................................... 115 4 9.19.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Breeding Activity of the Agile Frog Rana Dalmatina in a Rural Area M
    Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 41.2 (2018) 405 Breeding activity of the agile frog Rana dalmatina in a rural area M. Biaggini, I. Campetti, C. Corti Biaggini, M., Campetti, I., Corti, C., 2018. Breeding activity of the agile frog Rana dalmatina in a rural area. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 41.2: 405–413, Doi: https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2018.41.0405 Abstract Breeding activity of the agile frog Rana dalmatina in a rural area. Rural landscapes can host many protected species that are constantly threatened by agriculture intensification and abandonment of traditional manage- ments. Amphibians are severely affected by both processes due to loss and alteration of aquatic and terrestrial habitats. We monitored the breeding activity of Rana dalmatina in a lowland rural area focusing on spawning sites in open habitats, namely ditches amid traditional arable lands and pastures with varying vegetation fea- tures, size, and distances from woodlots. Egg clump density and clump size differed between sites, probably depending on environmental and ecological factors (i.e., larval competition, food availability, and predation). The sites next to woodlots showed the highest clump density (up to 0.718 n/m2). Our observations indicate that the maintenance and correct management of water bodies connected to traditional rural activities can be key to amphibian conservation in agricultural areas. Key words: Agriculture, Amphibians, Breeding sites, Conservation, Rana dalmatina Resumen Actividad reproductiva de la rana ágil Rana dalmatina en una zona rural. Los territorios agrícolas pueden ser refugio de varias especies protegidas que, sin embargo, están constantemente amenazadas por la intensificación de la agricultura y el abandono de las prácticas tradicionales.
    [Show full text]
  • Parasitic Nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax Lessonae) in the Volga Basin
    Journal MVZ Cordoba 2019; 24(3):7314-7321. https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.1501 Research article Parasitic nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax lessonae) in the Volga Basin Igor V. Chikhlyaev1 ; Alexander B. Ruchin2* ; Alexander I. Fayzulin1 1Institute of Ecology of the Volga River Basin, Russian Academy of Sciences, Togliatti, Russia 2Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park «Smolny», Saransk, Russia. *Correspondence: [email protected] Received: Febrary 2019; Accepted: July 2019; Published: August 2019. ABSTRACT Objetive. Present a modern review of the nematodes fauna of the pool frog Pelophylax lessonae (Camerano, 1882) from Volga basin populations on the basis of our own research and literature sources analysis. Materials and methods. Present work consolidates data from different helminthological works over the past 80 years, supported by our own research results. During the period from 1936 to 2016 different authors examined 1460 specimens of pool frog, using the method of full helminthological autopsy, from 13 regions of the Volga basin. Results. In total 9 nematodes species were recorded. Nematode Icosiella neglecta found for the first time in the studied host from the territory of Russia and Volga basin. Three species appeared to be more widespread: Oswaldocruzia filiformis, Cosmocerca ornata and Icosiella neglecta. For each helminth species the following information included: systematic position, areas of detection, localization, biology, list of definitive hosts, the level of host-specificity. Conclusions. Nematodes of pool frog, excluding I. neglecta, belong to the group of soil-transmitted helminthes (geohelminth) and parasitize in adult stages. Some species (O. filiformis, C. ornata, I. neglecta) are widespread in the host range.
    [Show full text]
  • Herpetofauna of the Podkielecki Landscape Protection Area
    Environmental Protection and Natural Resources Vol. 30 No 2(80): 32-40 Ochrona Środowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych DOI 10.2478/oszn-2019-0008 Dariusz Wojdan*, Ilona Żeber-Dzikowska**, Barbara Gworek***, Agnieszka Pastuszko****, Jarosław Chmielewski***** Herpetofauna of the Podkielecki Landscape Protection Area * Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach, ** Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa w Płocku, *** Szkoła Główna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie, **** Instytut Ochrony Środowiska - Państwowy Instytut Badawczy w Warszawie, ***** Wyższa Szkoła Rehabilitacji w Warszawie; e-mail: [email protected] Keywords: Amphibians, reptiles, occurrence, biology, phenology, Podkielecki Landscape Protection Area Abstract The study was conducted in 2016-2017 in the Podkielecki Landscape Protection Area (area 26,485 ha). It was focused on the occurrence and distribution of amphibians and reptiles, the biology of the selected species and the existing threats. Established in 1995, the Podkielecki Landscape Protection Area surrounds the city of Kielce from the north, east and south-east, and adjoins several other protected areas. It covers the western part of the Świętokrzyskie Mountains (part of the Klonowskie and Masłowskie ranges) and the southern part of the Suchedniów Plateau. The studied area is mostly covered by forest and thicket communities (48.1%) and farmlands (39.9%), followed by built-up areas (7.8%), industrial areas (0.5%), roads and railways (2.7%), and surface water bodies (1%). The protected area is developed mainly on Palaeozoic rocks, including Cambrian and Ordovician sandstones, Silurian and Carboniferous shales, and Devonian marls. Podzolic soils predominate among soils. The largest rivers include Lubrzanka, Czarna Nida, Bobrza and Belnianka. There are no natural lakes within the PLPA limits, and the largest artificial reservoirs include the Cedzyna Reservoir, Morawica Reservoir, Suków Sandpit and two sedimentation reservoirs of the Kielce Power Plant.
    [Show full text]
  • THE AGILE FROG Species Action Plan Rana Dalmatina SUMMARSUMMARSUMMARYYY DOCUMENT
    THE AGILE FROG Species Action Plan Rana dalmatina SUMMARSUMMARSUMMARYYY DOCUMENT The agile frog Rana dalmatina is Despite the efforts of these distributed widely throughout much of organisations, the future of Jersey’s southern and central Europe, but is agile frog is still far from secure. The found in only a few northern locations factors which probably played a key including Jersey - the frog is not found role in the frogs decline are still very anywhere else in the British Isles. The much in evidence: Jersey population of the agile frog has been declining in both range and •water quality and quantity, as a result SSSpppecial pointsss ofofof numbers since the early 1900’s. In the of intensive agriculture, are still below inininteresteresteresttt::: 1970’s only seven localities were listed EU standards in many areas; The agile frog is protected where the frog could still be found, and •the continuing alteration, disturbance, under schedule 1 of the by the mid 1980’s this had fallen to and loss of potentially suitable Conservation of Wildlife only two sites. In 1987 one of the amphibian habitat; (Jersey) Law 2000. remaining two populations was lost as a •the growing numbers of predatory result of a lethal spill of agricultural ducks, cats, and feral ferrets. DESCRIPTION pesticide into the breeding pond. The The agile frog Rana dalmatina species is now believed to be confined These and other factors have combined is a European brown frog, to a single vulnerable population in the to reduce the frog population to the growing up to 90 mm (snout south-west of the island.
    [Show full text]
  • Biolcons Damen 2011.Pdf
    Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 989–997 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Will climate change reduce the efficacy of protected areas for amphibian conservation in Italy? ⇑ Manuela D’Amen a, , Pierluigi Bombi b, Peter B. Pearman c, Dirk R. Schmatz c, Niklaus E. Zimmermann c, Marco A. Bologna a a Department of Environmental Biology, University of ‘‘Roma Tre’’, Viale G. Marconi 446, 00146 Rome, Italy b SPACE Environment, via Maria Giudice 23, 00135 Rome, Italy c Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland article info abstract Article history: Amphibians are an important and imperiled component of biodiversity. In this study we analyze the effi- Received 14 April 2010 cacy of Italian reserve network for protecting multiple amphibian species in a climate change scenario, Received in revised form 21 August 2010 considering both nationally designated areas and Natura 2000 sites. Our approach is based on ensemble Accepted 1 November 2010 niche modeling estimate of potential range shift under two carbon emission scenarios (A1FI and B1) and Available online 22 January 2011 two dispersal assumptions. The predicted distributions were used to perform gap and irreplaceability analyses. Our findings show that the current Italian reserve network incompletely represents current Keywords: amphibian diversity and its geographic pattern. The combination of the nationally designated protected Global warming areas and the Natura 2000 sites improves current representation of amphibians, but conservation targets Gap analysis Irreplaceability based on geographic range extent are achieved for only 40% of species. Under the future scenarios, Natura Conservation priorities 2000 sites become a crucial component of the protected areas system.
    [Show full text]
  • Strange Tadpoles from the Lower Miocene of Turkey: Is Paedogenesis Possible in Anurans?
    Strange tadpoles from the lower Miocene of Turkey: Is paedogenesis possible in anurans? ALAIN DUBOIS, STÉPHANE GROSJEAN, and JEAN−CLAUDE PAICHELER Dubois, A., Grosjean, S., and Paicheler, J.−C. 2010. Strange tadpoles from the lower Miocene of Turkey: Is paedogenesis possible in anurans? Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 55 (1): 43–55. Fossil material from the lower Miocene collected in the basin lake of Beşkonak (Turkey) included 19 slabs showing 19 amphibian anuran tadpoles of rather large size, at Gosner stages 36–38. These well preserved specimens show many mor− phological and skeletal characters. They are here tentatively referred to the genus Pelobates. Two of these tadpoles show an unusual group of black roundish spots in the abdominal region, and a third similar group of spots is present in another slab but we were unable to state if it was associated with a tadpole or not. Several hypotheses can be proposed to account for these structures: artefacts; intestinal content (seeds; inert, bacterial or fungal aggregations; eggs); internal or external parasites; diseases; eggs produced by the tadpole. The latter hypothesis is discussed in detail and is shown to be unlikely for several reasons. However, in the improbable case where these spots would correspond to eggs, this would be the first reported case of natural paedogenesis in anurans, a phenomenon which has been so far considered impossible mostly for anatomical reasons (e.g., absence of space in the abdominal cavity). Key words: Amphibia, Anura, egg, fossil, paedogenesis, tadpole, Miocene, Turkey. Alain Dubois [[email protected]] and Stéphane Grosjean [[email protected]], Département de Sytématique & Evolu− tion, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, UMR 7205 Origine, Structure et Evolution de la Biodiversité, Reptiles et Amphibiens, Case 30, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France; Jean−Claude Paicheler [[email protected]], Laboratoire de Paléoparasitologie, UFR de Pharmacie, 51 rue Cognacq Jay, 51096 Reims Cedex, France.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Section Introduction
    Re-introduction Practitioners Directory - 1998 RE-INTRODUCTION PRACTITIONERS DIRECTORY 1998 Compiled and Edited by Pritpal S. Soorae and Philip J. Seddon Re-introduction Practitioners Directory - 1998 © National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development, 1998 Printing and Publication details Legal Deposit no. 2218/9 ISBN: 9960-614-08-5 Re-introduction Practitioners Directory - 1998 Copies of this directory are available from: The Secretary General National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development Post Box 61681, Riyadh 11575 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Phone: +966-1-441-8700 Fax: +966-1-441-0797 Bibliographic Citation: Soorae, P. S. and Seddon, P. J. (Eds). 1998. Re-introduction Practitioners Directory. Published jointly by the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Re-introduction Specialist Group, Nairobi, Kenya, and the National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 97pp. Cover Photo: Arabian Oryx Oryx leucoryx (NWRC Photo Library) Re-introduction Practitioners Directory - 1998 CONTENTS FOREWORD Professor Abdulaziz Abuzinadai PREFACE INTRODUCTION Dr Mark Stanley Price USING THE DIRECTORY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PART A. ANIMALS I MOLLUSCS 1. GASTROPODS 1.1 Cittarium pica Top Shell 1.2 Placostylus ambagiosus Flax Snail 1.3 Placostylus ambagiosus Land Snail 1.4 Partula suturalis 1.5 Partula taeniata 1.6 Partula tahieana 1.7 Partula tohiveana 2. BIVALVES 2.1 Freshwater Mussels 2.2 Tridacna gigas Giant Clam II ARTHROPODS 3. ORTHOPTERA 3.1 Deinacrida sp. Weta 3.2 Deinacrida rugosa/parva Cook’s Strait Giant Weta Re-introduction Practitioners Directory - 1998 3.3 Gryllus campestris Field Cricket 4. LEPIDOPTERA 4.1 Carterocephalus palaemon Chequered Skipper 4.2 Lycaena dispar batavus Large Copper 4.3 Lycaena helle 4.4 Lycaeides melissa 4.5 Papilio aristodemus ponoceanus Schaus Swallowtail 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Development and Evolution of the Vertebrate Primary Mouth
    Journal of Anatomy J. Anat. (2012) doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2012.01540.x REVIEW Development and evolution of the vertebrate primary mouth Vladimı´r Soukup, Ivan Hora´ cek and Robert Cerny Department of Zoology, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic Abstract The vertebrate oral region represents a key interface between outer and inner environments, and its structural and functional design is among the limiting factors for survival of its owners. Both formation of the respective oral opening (primary mouth) and establishment of the food-processing apparatus (secondary mouth) require interplay between several embryonic tissues and complex embryonic rearrangements. Although many aspects of the secondary mouth formation, including development of the jaws, teeth or taste buds, are known in con- siderable detail, general knowledge about primary mouth formation is regrettably low. In this paper, primary mouth formation is reviewed from a comparative point of view in order to reveal its underestimated morpho- genetic diversity among, and also within, particular vertebrate clades. In general, three main developmental modes were identified. The most common is characterized by primary mouth formation via a deeply invagi- nated ectodermal stomodeum and subsequent rupture of the bilaminar oral membrane. However, in salaman- der, lungfish and also in some frog species, the mouth develops alternatively via stomodeal collar formation contributed both by the ecto- and endoderm. In ray-finned fishes, on the other hand, the mouth forms via an ectoderm wedge and later horizontal detachment of the initially compressed oral epithelia with probably a mixed germ-layer derivation. A very intriguing situation can be seen in agnathan fishes: whereas lampreys develop their primary mouth in a manner similar to the most common gnathostome pattern, hagfishes seem to undergo a unique oropharyngeal morphogenesis when compared with other vertebrates.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigations Into the Life History Stages of the Common Frog (Rana Temporaria) Affected by an Amphibian Ranavirus in the United Kingdom
    260 AMPHIBIAN DISEASES Herpetological Review, 2013, 44(2), 260–263. © 2013 by Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Investigations into the Life History Stages of the Common Frog (Rana temporaria) Affected by an Amphibian Ranavirus in the United Kingdom Ranaviruses are emerging infectious disease agents that af- owned land, so in order to maintain confidentiality we are un- fect a wide range of ectothermic and poikilothermic vertebrates: able to provide more detailed location information than is pro- fish, reptiles (including turtles and tortoises) and amphibians vided in Tables 1 and 2. (Ahne et al. 1997; Chinchar et al. 2009; Miller et al. 2011). In the Live tadpoles were transported in a common container in United Kingdom (UK), amphibian ranaviruses began to emerge pond water to the Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of in the late 1980s and early 1990s in southeast England (Cunning- London, London, UK. Upon arrival, tadpoles were euthanized ham et al. 1996) and manifested as adult mass morbidity and using an overdose of MS-222 (1g/L tricaine methanesulphonate, mortality events (Cunningham et al. 1993; Cunningham et al. Thompson & Joseph Ltd., Norwich, UK) buffered to pH 7.0 with 1996; Drury et al. 1995). sodium bicarbonate. Tissue samples were then dissected out Evidence for local ranavirus outbreaks in the UK have, to and frozen at -80°C for ranavirus screening. In the case of larger date, relied exclusively upon reports of moribund or dead adult tadpoles, tissues included the right anterior quarter of the body, common frogs (e.g. Cunningham et al. 1993; Cunningham et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranavirus Could Facilitate Local Extinction of Rare Amphibian Species
    Ranavirus could facilitate local extinction of rare amphibian species Julia E. Earl, Jordan C. Chaney, William B. Sutton, Carson E. Lillard, Andrew J. Kouba, Cecilia Langhorne, Jessi Krebs, et al. Oecologia ISSN 0029-8549 Volume 182 Number 2 Oecologia (2016) 182:611-623 DOI 10.1007/s00442-016-3682-6 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy Oecologia (2016) 182:611–623 DOI 10.1007/s00442-016-3682-6 CONSERVATION ECOLOGY – ORIGINAL RESEARCH Ranavirus could facilitate local extinction of rare amphibian species Julia E. Earl1 · Jordan C. Chaney2 · William B. Sutton3 · Carson E. Lillard2 · Andrew J. Kouba4,8 · Cecilia Langhorne5 · Jessi Krebs6 · Rebecca P. Wilkes7 · Rachel D. Hill2 · Debra L. Miller2,7 · Matthew J. Gray2 Received: 30 September 2015 / Accepted: 14 June 2016 / Published online: 25 June 2016 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016 Abstract There is growing evidence that pathogens play of six life stages tested.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Comments on the Breeding Biology of Pelodytes
    TurkJZool 31(2007)53-64 ©TÜB‹TAK SomeCommentsontheBreedingBiologyof Pelodytescaucasicus Boulenger,1896(Anura:Pelodytidae)fromUzungöl,NortheastAnatolia HüseyinARIKAN1,*,MuratTOSUNO⁄LU2,MehmetK.ATATÜR1,BayramGÖÇMEN1 1EgeUniversity,FacultyofScience,DepartmentofBiology,ZoologySection,35100Bornova,‹zmir-TURKEY 2ÇanakkaleOnsekizMartUniversity,FacultyofArtsandScience,BiologyDepartment,Çanakkale-TURKEY Received:05.12.2005 Abstract: Observationsduring2001and2002atUzungölLake(Trabzon),situatedwithinthedistributionareaof Pelodytes caucasicus intheEasternBlackSearegionofTurkey,establishedthattheusualbreedingseasonofthespeciesextendedfrommid JulytomidSeptember.Periodicdayandnightmeasurementsofsomeecologicalcharacteristicsofthelake(temperature,pH, dissolvedoxygen)wererecordedduringthebreedingseason.Thefirstspawningwasobservedduringthenightof22July2001. Clutches(eggmasses)werelaidinthedeeperpartsofthelake,onsubmergedvegetation.Theclutchescontainedbetween446and 492eggs.Thefirstlarvaehatched5daysafterthespawning.Theycompletedtheirmetamorphosisin31-35daysandthenemerged onland.Afterthefirst(2001)breedingseason,non-metamorphosedhibernatinglarvaewereseenduringthewinterandspring months. KeyWords: EasternBlackSeaRegion,CaucasianParsleyFrog, Pelodytescaucasicus,Anura,BreedingBiology Kuzeydo¤uAnadolu,Uzungöl’deYaflayanPelodytescaucasicus Boulenger, 1896(Anura:Pelodytidae)’unÜremeBiyolojisiÜzerineBaz›Yorumlar Özet: Pelodytescaucasicus’unDo¤uKaradenizBölgesi’ndekida¤›l›flsahas›içindeyeralanUzungöl(Trabzon)’de2001-2002y›llar› aras›nda(2y›l)yap›langözlemleregöre,türünüremedönemininTemmuzortalar›ndanEylülortalar›nakadarsürdü¤üsaptanm›flt›r
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Helminth Parasites of Turkish Anurans (Amphibia)
    Sci Parasitol 13(1):1-16, March 2012 ISSN 1582-1366 REVIEW ARTICLE Review of the helminth parasites of Turkish anurans (Amphibia) Omar M. Amin 1, Serdar Düşen 2, Mehmet C. Oğuz 3 1 – Institute of Parasitic Diseases, 11445 E. Via Linda # 2-419, Scottsdale, Arizona 85259, USA. 2 – Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Arts, Pamukkale University, Kinikli 20017, Denizli, Turkey. 3 – Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Ataturk University, 25240 Erzurum, Turkey. Correspondence: Tel. 480-767-2522, Fax 480-767-5855, E-mail [email protected] Abstract. Of the 17 species of anurans (Amphibia) known from 6 families in Turkey, 12 species were reported infected with helminths including monogenean, digenean, cestode, nematode, and acanthocephalan parasites. The 17 species are Bufo bufo (Linnaeus, 1758), Bufo verrucosissimus (Pallas, 1814), Bufo (Pseudepidalea ) viridis Laurenti 1768 (Bufonidae), Bombina bombina (Linnaeus, 1761) (Discoglossidae), Hyla arborea (Linnaeus, 1758), Hyla savignyi Audoin, 1827 (Hylidae), Pelobates fuscus (Laurenti, 1768), Pelobates syriacus (Boettger, 1889) (Pelobatidae), Pelodytes caucasicus Boulenger (1896) (Pelodytidae), Pelophylax bedriagae (Camerano, 1882), Pelophylax ridibundus (Pallas, 1771) (formerly known as Rana ridibunda ), Pelophylax caralitanus (Arikan, 1988), Rana camerani (Boulanger, 1886), Rana dalmatina Bonaparte, 1838, Rana holtzi Werner, 1898, Rana macrocnemis Boulanger, 1885, Rana tavasensis Baran and atatür, 1986 (Ranidae). Helminths were not reported in B. verrucosissimus , H. savignyi , P. fuscus , P. bedriagae , and P. caralitanus . The most heavily infected host was P. ridibundus. This host is known to be an aggressive feeder and highly adaptable to a wide variety of habitats and diet. Host species with restricted distribution and limited diet show very light infections, if any.
    [Show full text]