Toads and Frogs
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Amphibian Identification Guide
Amphibian Migrations & Road Crossings Amphibian Identification Guide The NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program and Cornell University are working with communities to conserve forests, woodland pools, and the wildlife that depend on these critical habitats. This guide is designed to help volunteers of the Amphibian Migrations & Road Crossings Project identify species they observe during spring migrations, when many salamanders and frogs move from forest habitat to woodland pools for breeding. For more information about the project, visit http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/51925.html. spotted salamander* (Ambystoma maculatum) Black to dark gray body with two rows of yellow spots. Widespread distribution in the Hudson Valley. Total length 5.0-8.0 in. Jefferson/blue-spotted salamander complex* (Ambystoma jeffersonianum x laterale) Brown to grayish black with blue-silver flecking. Less common. Note: Hybridization between Jefferson and blue-spotted salamander has created very variable appearances and individuals may have features of both species. Because even experts have difficulty distinguishing these two species in the field, we consider any sightings to be the ‘complex.’ Total length 3.0-7.5 in. marbled salamander* (Ambystoma opacum) Black or grayish-black body with white or gray crossbars along length of body. Stout body with wide head. Less common. (Breeds in the fall.) Total length 3.5-5.0 in. *Woodland pool breeding species. 0 inches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Amphibian Migrations & Road Crossings: Amphibian Identification Guide Page 2 of 4 eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens) Terrestrial “red eft” stage of newt (above) is reddish-orange with two rows of reddish spots with black borders. -
Wood Frog (Rana Sylvatica): a Technical Conservation Assessment
Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project March 24, 2005 Erin Muths1, Suzanne Rittmann1, Jason Irwin2, Doug Keinath3, Rick Scherer4 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg C, Fort Collins, CO 80526 2 Department of Biology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837 3 Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, P.O. Box 3381, Laramie, WY 82072 4 Colorado State University, GDPE, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Muths, E., S. Rittman, J. Irwin, D. Keinath, and R. Scherer. (2005, March 24). Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/woodfrog.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the help of the many people who contributed time and answered questions during our review of the literature. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Dr. Erin Muths is a Zoologist with the U.S. Geological Survey – Fort Collins Science Center. She has been studying amphibians in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Region for the last 10 years. Her research focuses on demographics of boreal toads, wood frogs and chorus frogs and methods research. She is a principle investigator for the USDOI Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative and is an Associate Editor for the Northwestern Naturalist. Dr. Muths earned a B.S. in Wildlife Ecology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1986); a M.S. in Biology (Systematics and Ecology) from Kansas State University (1990) and a Ph.D. -
Sideration of the Population Sizes of Associated Pond Breeding Species
Adult Survivorship and Juvenile Recruitment in Populations of Crawfish Frogs (Lithobates Areolatus), with Additional Consideration of the Population Sizes of Associated Pond Breeding Species Item Type Thesis Authors Kinney, Vanessa C. Download date 01/10/2021 16:58:19 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10484/1808 ADULT SURVIVORSHIP AND JUVENILE RECRUITMENT IN POPULATIONS OF CRAWFISH FROGS (LITHOBATES AREOLATUS), WITH ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THE POPULATION SIZES OF ASSOCIATED POND BREEDING SPECIES _______________________ A thesis Presented to The College of Graduate and Professional Studies Department of Biology Indiana State University Terre Haute, Indiana ______________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science _______________________ by Vanessa C. Kinney May 2011 Vanessa C. Kinney 2011 Keywords: amphibian breeding, Lithobates areolatus, drift fences - i - COMMITTEE MEMBERS Committee Chair: Michael J. Lannoo, Ph.D. Professor of Anatomy and Cell Biology Indiana University Committee Member: William A. Mitchell, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biology Indiana State University Committee Member: John O. Whitaker, Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Biology Indiana State University Committee Member: John C. Maerz, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Vertebrate Ecology The University of Georgia - ii - ABSTRACT Crawfish Frog populations have declined significantly in both the northeastern and southwestern portions of their range, and are listed as state endangered in both Iowa and Indiana. They are animals with a secretive nature, and comparatively little is know about their basic life history and natural history. To address this gap, and to obtain the information necessary to manage for this species in areas of decline, I studied the breeding biology of two Crawfish Frog populations during 2009 and 2010. -
California Red-Legged Frog (Rana Aurora Draytonii) and Delta Smelt (Hypomesus Transpacificus)
Potential Risks of Atrazine Use to Federally Threatened California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) Pesticide Effects Determinations Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs Washington, D.C. 20460 February 19, 2009 Primary Authors: Mark Corbin, Senior Scientist Brian Anderson, Biologist Secondary Review: Paige Doelling, Ph.D., Acting Risk Assessment Process Leader James Hetrick, Ph.D., Senior Environmental Scientist Branch Chief, Environmental Risk Branch 3: Dana Spatz 2 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary..............................................................................................................7 1.1. Purpose of Assessment ..................................................................................................7 1.2. Assessed Chemicals.......................................................................................................7 1.3. Assessment Procedures..................................................................................................7 1.4. Atrazine Uses Assessed .................................................................................................9 1.5. Summary of Conclusions.............................................................................................10 2. Problem Formulation .........................................................................................................13 2.1 Purpose...........................................................................................................................13 -
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. -
The Natural History and Morphology of the Eastern Cricket Frog, Acris Crepitans Crepitans, in West Virginia
Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 1-1-2004 The aN tural History and Morphology of the Eastern Cricket Frog, Acris crepitans crepitans, in West Virginia Kimberly Ann Bayne Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Behavior and Ethology Commons Recommended Citation Bayne, Kimberly Ann, "The aN tural History and Morphology of the Eastern Cricket Frog, Acris crepitans crepitans, in West Virginia" (2004). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 462. 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 and Morphology of the Eastern Cricket Frog, Acris crepitans crepitans, in West Virginia. Thesis submitted to The Graduate School of Marshall University In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Biological Sciences By Kimberly Ann Bayne Marshall University Huntington, West Virginia April 2, 2004 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ ii List of Tables................................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures -
Frog Raising
COMMERCIAL POSSIBILITIES AND LIMITATIONS IN FROG RAISING While there may be some profit from selling frogs, artificial propa gation of frogs on a commercial basis has not been proved successful. The Fish and Wildlife Service has received thousands of inquiries about frog raising, but to the present time has heard of only two or three persons or institutions claiming any degree of success, so far as intensive frog culture is concerned. Much of the success claimed by a few II frog farms" appears to have been in the sale of breeding stock to would-be frog farmers. The Service has never engaged in frog culture and has never distributed or sold frogs, tadpoles, or frog eggs. Frog farming.--Most of the so-called frog farms, and those that should be least expensive and require the least labor, are simply natural marshy areas or ponds with food and environment suited to the needs of frogs. In such areas the frogs, left to themselves, will thrive and multiply; results may be improved by increasing the shoreline as mentioned below. A pond or swampy area may be stocked with adult frogs, or with eggs. In stocking with adults, better results may be obtained by introducing the frogs in late summer and fall in order that they may become accustomed to their ne~ surroundings before the egg-laying season--April iil the South and Mayor June farther north (in California some species begin breeding in January and February). Smaller species might be hatched to serve as food for the larger edible varieties, but the cannibalistic habit which this suggests dictates a segregation of the commercial species according to size to prevent their eat ing one another. -
Frogs and Toads Defined
by Christopher A. Urban Chief, Natural Diversity Section Frogs and toads defined Frogs and toads are in the class Two of Pennsylvania’s most common toad and “Amphibia.” Amphibians have frog species are the eastern American toad backbones like mammals, but unlike mammals they cannot internally (Bufo americanus americanus) and the pickerel regulate their body temperature and frog (Rana palustris). These two species exemplify are therefore called “cold-blooded” (ectothermic) animals. This means the physical, behavioral, that the animal has to move ecological and habitat to warm or cool places to change its body tempera- similarities and ture to the appropriate differences in the comfort level. Another major difference frogs and toads of between amphibians and Pennsylvania. other animals is that amphibians can breathe through the skin on photo-Andrew L. Shiels L. photo-Andrew www.fish.state.pa.us Pennsylvania Angler & Boater • March-April 2005 15 land and absorb oxygen through the weeks in some species to 60 days in (plant-eating) beginning, they have skin while underwater. Unlike reptiles, others. Frogs can become fully now developed into insectivores amphibians lack claws and nails on their developed in 60 days, but many (insect-eaters). Then they leave the toes and fingers, and they have moist, species like the green frog and bullfrog water in search of food such as small permeable and glandular skin. Their can “overwinter” as tadpoles in the insects, spiders and other inverte- skin lacks scales or feathers. bottom of ponds and take up to two brates. Frogs and toads belong to the years to transform fully into adult Where they go in search of this amphibian order Anura. -
Southern Cricket Frog Acris Gryllus Taxa: Amphibian SE-GAP Spp Code: Ascfr Order: Anura ITIS Species Code: 173518 Family: Hylidae Natureserve Element Code: AAABC01020
Southern Cricket Frog Acris gryllus Taxa: Amphibian SE-GAP Spp Code: aSCFR Order: Anura ITIS Species Code: 173518 Family: Hylidae NatureServe Element Code: AAABC01020 KNOWN RANGE: PREDICTED HABITAT: P:\Proj1\SEGap P:\Proj1\SEGap Range Map Link: http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/datazip/maps/SE_Range_aSCFR.pdf Predicted Habitat Map Link: http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/datazip/maps/SE_Dist_aSCFR.pdf GAP Online Tool Link: http://www.gapserve.ncsu.edu/segap/segap/index2.php?species=aSCFR Data Download: http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/datazip/region/vert/aSCFR_se00.zip PROTECTION STATUS: Reported on March 14, 2011 Federal Status: --- State Status: MS (Non-game species in need of management) NS Global Rank: G5 NS State Rank: AL (S5), FL (SNR), GA (S5), LA (S5), MS (S5), NC (S5), SC (SNR), TN (S4), VA (S4) aSCFR Page 1 of 4 SUMMARY OF PREDICTED HABITAT BY MANAGMENT AND GAP PROTECTION STATUS: US FWS US Forest Service Tenn. Valley Author. US DOD/ACOE ha % ha % ha % ha % Status 1 80,103.1 < 1 4,722.9 < 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 Status 2 144,696.9 1 29,300.0 < 1 0.0 0 535.1 < 1 Status 3 626.8 < 1 333,304.4 3 2,123.1 < 1 130,862.2 1 Status 4 23.6 < 1 < 0.1 < 1 0.0 0 8.1 < 1 Total 225,450.3 2 367,327.4 3 2,123.1 < 1 131,405.3 1 US Dept. of Energy US Nat. Park Service NOAA Other Federal Lands ha % ha % ha % ha % Status 1 0.0 0 31,265.7 < 1 9.3 < 1 6,820.2 < 1 Status 2 0.0 0 2,790.3 < 1 1,198.4 < 1 12.2 < 1 Status 3 18,019.8 < 1 153,795.6 1 0.0 0 1,204.1 < 1 Status 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Total 18,019.8 < 1 187,851.6 2 1,207.7 < 1 8,036.5 < 1 Native Am. -
Quick Guide to Calling Amphibians Reference: Maine’S Amphibians and Reptiles
Quick Guide to Calling Amphibians Reference: Maine’s Amphibians and Reptiles Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer): One of Maine’s most widespread species and our smallest frog, measuring under an inch and a half, with a dark, imperfect cross or “X” pattern on the back. It has relatively smooth skin and is generally brown to gray with some yellow on the throat. A full chorus of these tiny frogs can be heard up to a half-mile away; each male makes a shrill, pure, high-pitched breeding call. Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica): The first frog to emerge in the spring, the wood frog can tolerate cold and even freezing temperatures for short periods of ©USGS NEARMI time. It has a dark mask over and below each eye ©USGS NEARMI and is otherwise dark red or tan. Wood frogs are widespread in Maine but limit their breeding generally to temporary or vernal pools. The wood frog’s call sounds like the quack of a duck. ©James Hardy ©James Hardy American Toad (Bufo americanus): Maine’s only toad, the American toad has dry, bumpy skin and is largely terrestrial, going in water only to breed and lay eggs. Its call is a high, musical trill that can last 30 seconds or more. Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens): Apparent declines in the population make the northern leopard frog a species of “Special Concern” in the state of Maine. The leopard frog and its close cousin the pickerel frog are the only frogs in Maine with distinct spots. The leopard frog has two to three unevenly spaced rows of irregular oval spots on its back. -
NYSDEC Recovery Plan for NYS Populations of Northern Cricket Frog (Acris Crepitans)
Recovery Plan for New York State Populations of the Northern Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans) Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments iv Executive summary v Introduction 1 Natural history --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Taxonomic status 1 Physical description 2 Range 2 Breeding biology 2 Developmental biology 3 Non-breeding biology 4 Status Assessment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Population status and distribution 5 Threats to the species 6 Habitat loss and degradation 6 Upland habitat loss and degradation 7 Aquatic habitat loss and degradation 8 Other chemical pollutants 9 Climate change 10 Parasites and pathogens 11 Ultraviolet radiation 12 Non-native species 12 Assessment of current conservation efforts 13 Research and monitoring 13 Regulatory protection 14 Recovery Strategy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Goal 15 Strategy components 15 Recovery units 16 Recovery objectives 18 Recovery tasks 18 Monitoring tasks 19 Management tasks 19 Research tasks 20 Outreach tasks 21 Literature cited 22 Appendix I. Northern cricket frog Project screening process 42 Appendix II. Northern cricket frog Calling survey protocols 44 Appendix III. Population viability analysis 46 Appendix IV. Public comments and responses 66 iii Acknowledgments Thanks to Kelly McKean, Jason Martin and Kristen Marcell who provided significant review and -
Chapter 5: Maintaining Species in the South 113 Chapter 5
TERRE Chapter 5: Maintaining Species in the South 113 Chapter 5: S What conditions will be Maintaining Species TRIAL needed to maintain animal species associations in the South? in the South Margaret Katherine Trani (Griep) Southern Region, USDA Forest Service mammals of concern include the ■ Many reptiles and amphibians Key Findings Carolina and Virginia northern are long-lived and late maturing, flying squirrels, the river otter, and have restricted geographic ■ Geographic patterns of diversity and several rodents. ranges. Managing for these species in the South indicate that species ■ Twenty species of bats inhabit will require different strategies than richness is highest in Texas, Florida, the South. Four are listed as those in place for birds and mammals. North Carolina, and Georgia. Texas endangered: the gray bat, Indiana The paucity of monitoring data leads in the richness of mammals, bat, and Ozark and Virginia big- further inhibits their management. birds, and reptiles; North Carolina eared bats. Human disturbance leads in amphibian diversity. Texas to hibernation and maternity colonies dominates vertebrate richness by Introduction is a major factor in their decline. virtue of its large size and the variety of its ecosystems. ■ The South is the center of The biodiversity of the South is amphibian biodiversity in the ■ Loss of habitat is the primary impressive. Factors contributing to Nation. However, there are growing cause of endangerment of terrestrial that diversity include regional gradients concerns about amphibian declines. vertebrates. Forests, grasslands, in climate, geologic and edaphic site Potential causes include habitat shrublands, and wetlands have conditions, topographic variation, destruction, exotic species, water been converted to urban, industrial, natural disturbance processes, and pollution, ozone depletion leading and agricultural uses.