DOCSLIB.ORG

FROGS in an EFFLUENT SOCIETY Risks, Remedies and Responsibilities by Dr Sara Broomhall First Published in June 2004 by WWF Australia © WWF Australia 2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FROGS in an EFFLUENT SOCIETY Risks, Remedies and Responsibilities by Dr Sara Broomhall First Published in June 2004 by WWF Australia © WWF Australia 2004 FROGS IN AN EFFLUENT SOCIETY Risks, Remedies and Responsibilities by Dr Sara Broomhall First published in June 2004 by WWF Australia © WWF Australia 2004. All Rights Reserved. ISBN: 1 875941 67 3 Author: Dr Sara Broomhall WWF Australia GPO Box 528 Sydney NSW Australia Tel: +612 9281 5515 Fax: +612 9281 1060 www.wwf.org.au For copies of this booklet or a full list of WWF Australia publications on a wide range of conservation issues, please contact us on [email protected] or call 1800 032 551. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of WWF. Special thanks to Craig Cleeland for supplying the photographs for this booklet. CONTENTS FROGS AS ENVIRONMENTAL BAROMETERS The aim of this booklet is to help What is a pollutant? 2 you understand: Australian frogs 2 How do frogs interact with their environment? 3 What pollutants are – Life stages 3 – Habitat requirements 3 How frogs interact with their environment – Ecological position 3 – Frogs and pollutants in the food chain 3 Why water pollution affects frogs Why is environmental pollution a frog issue? 3 – Are frogs more sensitive to environmental pollutants than other species? 3 Where pollutants come from and how they enter the environment WHAT WE DO AND DON’T KNOW Why don’t we have all the answers? 4 How you may be polluting water – How relevant are these toxicity tests to real world situations anyway? 4 Categories of pollutants (such as pesticides) Where do pollutants come from? 4 How many chemicals do we use here in Australia? 4 and their effects on frogs Who produces pollutants? 4 Where you can go for further information WHAT’S HAPPENING? So how am I polluting? 6 What alternatives there are and Let’s take a ride through the wastewater system 6 what products you can substitute – The ins and outs of waste water 7 What do we know about agricultural pesticides and where they go? 8 THE USUAL SUSPECTS What can we really say about the effects that all the chemicals we use have on Australian Frogs? 9 – Pesticides 9 Organochlorines 9 Organophosphates 9 Carbamates 9 – Herbicides and fungicides 9 – Surfactants 10 – Additives 10 – Endocrine disrupting chemicals 10 – Fertilisers 10 – Combinations 10 – Metabolites 11 TAKING ACTION Where can I find out about these chemicals? 11 So what can you do? 12 – What can you do with leftover hazardous household products or pesticides? 13 – Some alternative suggestions 13 1 FROGS AS ENVIRONMENTAL BAROMETERS What is a pollutant? Australian frogs Pollutants are potentially harmful, Australia really is a lucky country – we have and sometimes lethal. It’s easy to think of more than 210 species of frogs! What is more, chemicals such as pesticides, detergents, because Australia has been isolated from industrial chemicals and so forth as pollutants. other land-masses for so long, our frog species Less obvious examples might be extremely are quite different from the species found high nitrogen or phosphorus levels in water in other countries. In Australia, we have due to fertiliser runoff and sewerage discharges, three main native frog families. They are the or sediment from cleared lands. Salinity and Myobatrachidae (or ground frogs), the Hylidae litter also cause pollution problems. (tree frogs), and the tropical Microhylidae. For the purposes of this booklet, our main emphasis is water-borne pollutants - those readily identifiable culprits such as pesticides, household detergents, assorted chemicals, and fertilisers. Pesticides are substances (or mixtures of substances) that are intended to prevent, kill, or repel a particular pest. ‘Pests’ are species that we want to get rid of, for any number of reasons. Pests can include insects, mice and other animals, unwanted plants (weeds), fungi, or microorganisms like bacteria and viruses. The term ‘pesticide’ therefore also includes herbicides and fungicides. Unfortunately, most pesticides have some risk of harm to non-pest species precisely because they are designed to be harmful. Of course, many things can be toxic in high enough amounts, even caffeine and parsley, but such high amounts are very unlikely to occur. Problems arise when the amounts we use regularly are directly harmful, or accumulate to harmful concentrations in nature. 2 How do frogs interact with Ecological position Why is environmental their environment? Frogs are important components of many pollution a frog issue? ecological communities, consuming vast Life stages amounts of invertebrates and, in turn, providing The skin of a frog is very permeable. The Frogs generally start their life cycle as eggs an abundant food source for many other tadpole stage also relies on gills for breathing. encased in jelly capsules. Depending on the predators, such as birds and snakes. Both of these physiological characteristics make species, the eggs develop on land or in water. frogs and tadpoles very susceptible to a number Frogs and pollutants in the food chain They gradually turn into tadpoles, hatch, and of contaminants, which often easily penetrate If pollutants affect frogs, this can then have become free-swimming. Tadpoles breathe via exposed surfaces such as gills and skin. carry-on effects on the ecological community. gills, like fish. They continue to grow until they Pollutants that may not be easily excreted Consequently, because frogs inhabit water and reach a certain stage, when a complex hormonal or broken down by the body, can accumulate in land, they may have more opportunities to be process kicks in that changes them into frogs. body tissues. This is known as ‘bioaccumulation’. exposed to environmental contaminants than This is called ‘metamorphosis’, and it is really When these animals or insects are then many other animals. Frogs also have more ways quite remarkable. When they crawl out onto consumed by another animal, the toxins in the of being exposed than other animals, because land, the frogs are then mostly terrestrial and prey can then accumulate in the predator’s they have gills as tadpoles and a very permeable breathe via their skin and the back of their body. This process is called ‘biomagnification’. skin as an adult. throat. Frogs have an essentially "naked" egg After eating a few contaminated prey items, (it doesn’t have a shell) and, along with other Frog limb abnormalities have been proposed the concentrations of toxins in the body of amphibians such as salamanders and caecilians as a possible indicator of environmental top predators can become extremely high. (neither of which are native to Australia), are the abnormalities, particularly in agricultural areas. Frogs can bioaccumulate toxins by ingesting only vertebrate group that has both an aquatic However, deformed frogs are rare in Australia. contaminated insects and also through direct and terrestrial phase. exposure to pollutants, particularly in the water. Are frogs more sensitive to environmental Habitat requirements When frogs are killed by these pollutants, either pollutants than other species? Frogs need an environment that is moist, directly, or because the pollutants make them Yes and no. In some situations, and for some because they ‘drink’ and breathe through very sick and unable to escape a predator, then toxins, frogs may be particularly susceptible their skin. Most species lay their eggs in water, this causes problems all the way up the food to contamination. For example, the insecticide so the availability of water is essential. Some chain. Frogs, with their toxic payload, may make endosulfan is ten times more toxic to Rana frogs have evolved to take advantage of the animals that eat them very sick. With fewer tadpoles than to catfish or damselfly nymphs. temporary pools of water that are created frogs to eat insects, there are ecological We rarely test the effects various contaminants by heavy rain. Others lay their eggs in rivers, problems down the food chain as well. have on adult frogs so in many cases, we and yet others congregate around permanent simply don’t know how sensitive they are. ponds and streams. Unfortunately, there is not enough research to provide a definitive answer to this question for most frog species. 3 WHAT WE DO AND DON’T KNOW Why don’t we have all Where do pollutants Who produces pollutants? the answers? come from? The list of who produces pollutants is We are blessed with lots of frog species, Outside of natural disasters, almost all enormous because many things that we use in but environmental toxicology is a relatively new pollutants are the result of human activities, day to day life either cause pollution while being field here in Australia. The majority of aquatic whether created directly, or as by-products manufactured, or become a pollutant when toxicological testing usually focuses on species of production processes. we finish with them. such as fish, shrimp, and invertebrates. Take, for example, most peoples’ morning routine. How applicable are studies on fish and How many chemicals do we use here in Australia? You get out of bed. If it’s a wooden invertebrates to frogs? Good question!! bed, the wood has usually been treated with Generalisations are hard to make because a For a start, there are over 40,000 industrial preservatives and anti-fungal agents, perhaps frog’s sensitivity also varies according to the chemicals listed by regulatory authorities, and sealed with a varnish. Many of these treatment specific toxin tested. For example, we know that over 4,500 agricultural and 3,000 veterinary processes discharge waste water, not to frogs do not react to mercury the same way fish products registered for use in Australia. Do we mention the initial process to produce the do. Consequently, we cannot assume that frogs know the effects that each of these chemicals preservatives and varnishes, all of which are will react the same way as other animals – or have? Frogs are not a standard test species, so likely to be toxic to frogs in variable amounts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Differential Host Susceptibility to Batrachochytrium Dendrobatidis, an Emerging Amphibian Pathogen
    Contributed Paper Differential Host Susceptibility to Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, an Emerging Amphibian Pathogen C. L. SEARLE,∗§ S. S. GERVASI,∗ J. HUA,# J. I. HAMMOND,# R. A. RELYEA,# D. H. OLSON,† AND A. R. BLAUSTEIN∗ ∗Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A. #Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, U.S.A. †United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A. Abstract: The amphibian fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) has received considerable attention due to its role in amphibian population declines worldwide. Although many amphibian species appear to be affected by Bd, there is little information on species-specific differences in susceptibility to this pathogen. We used a comparative experimental approach to examine Bd susceptibility in 6 amphibian species from the United States. We exposed postmetamorphic animals to Bd for 30 days and monitored mortality, feeding rates, and infection levels. In all species tested, Bd-exposed animals had higher rates of mortality than unexposed (control) animals. However, we found differences in mortality rates among species even though the amount of Bd detected on the different species’ bodies did not differ. Of the species tested, southern toads (Anaxyrus terrestris) and wood frogs (Lithobates sylvaticus) had the highest rates of Bd-related mortality. Within species, we detected lower levels of Bd on individuals that survived longer and found that the relationship between body size and infection levels differed among species. Our results indicate that, even under identical conditions, amphibian species differ in susceptibility to Bd. This study represents a step toward identifying and understanding species variation in disease susceptibility, which can be used to optimize conservation strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Fauna of Australia 2A
    FAUNA of AUSTRALIA 9. FAMILY MICROHYLIDAE Thomas C. Burton 1 9. FAMILY MICROHYLIDAE Pl 1.3. Cophixalus ornatus (Microhylidae): usually found in leaf litter, this tiny frog is endemic to the wet tropics of northern Queensland. [H. Cogger] 2 9. FAMILY MICROHYLIDAE DEFINITION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Microhylidae is a family of firmisternal frogs, which have broad sacral diapophyses, one or more transverse folds on the surface of the roof of the mouth, and a unique slip to the abdominal musculature, the m. rectus abdominis pars anteroflecta (Burton 1980). All but one of the Australian microhylids are small (snout to vent length less than 35 mm), and all have procoelous vertebrae, are toothless and smooth-bodied, with transverse grooves on the tips of their variously expanded digits. The terminal phalanges of fingers and toes of all Australian microhylids are T-shaped or Y-shaped (Pl. 1.3) with transverse grooves. The Microhylidae consists of eight subfamilies, of which two, the Asterophryinae and Genyophryninae, occur in the Australopapuan region. Only the Genyophryninae occurs in Australia, represented by Cophixalus (11 species) and Sphenophryne (five species). Two newly discovered species of Cophixalus await description (Tyler 1989a). As both genera are also represented in New Guinea, information available from New Guinean species is included in this chapter to remedy deficiencies in knowledge of the Australian fauna. HISTORY OF DISCOVERY The Australian microhylids generally are small, cryptic and tropical, and so it was not until 100 years after European settlement that the first species, Cophixalus ornatus, was collected, in 1888 (Fry 1912). As the microhylids are much more prominent and diverse in New Guinea than in Australia, Australian specimens have been referred to New Guinean species from the time of the early descriptions by Fry (1915), whilst revisions by Parker (1934) and Loveridge (1935) minimised the extent of endemism in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Balance of Field-Excavated Aestivating Australian Desert Frogs
    3309 The Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 3309-3321 Published by The Company of Biologists 2006 doi:10.1242/jeb.02393 Water balance of field-excavated aestivating Australian desert frogs, the cocoon- forming Neobatrachus aquilonius and the non-cocooning Notaden nichollsi (Amphibia: Myobatrachidae) Victoria A. Cartledge1,*, Philip C. Withers1, Kellie A. McMaster1, Graham G. Thompson2 and S. Don Bradshaw1 1Zoology, School of Animal Biology, MO92, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia and 2Centre for Ecosystem Management, Edith Cowan University, 100 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia *Author for correspondence (e-mail: [email protected]) Accepted 19 June 2006 Summary Burrowed aestivating frogs of the cocoon-forming approaching that of the plasma. By contrast, non-cocooned species Neobatrachus aquilonius and the non-cocooning N. aquilonius from the dune swale were fully hydrated, species Notaden nichollsi were excavated in the Gibson although soil moisture levels were not as high as calculated Desert of central Australia. Their hydration state (osmotic to be necessary to maintain water balance. Both pressure of the plasma and urine) was compared to the species had similar plasma arginine vasotocin (AVT) moisture content and water potential of the surrounding concentrations ranging from 9.4 to 164·pg·ml–1, except for soil. The non-cocooning N. nichollsi was consistently found one cocooned N. aquilonius with a higher concentration of in sand dunes. While this sand had favourable water 394·pg·ml–1. For both species, AVT showed no relationship potential properties for buried frogs, the considerable with plasma osmolality over the lower range of plasma spatial and temporal variation in sand moisture meant osmolalities but was appreciably increased at the highest that frogs were not always in positive water balance with osmolality recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • North Central Waterwatch Frogs Field Guide
    North Central Waterwatch Frogs Field Guide “This guide is an excellent publication. It strikes just the right balance, providing enough information in a format that is easy to use for identifying our locally occurring frogs, while still being attractive and interesting to read by people of all ages.” Rodney Orr, Bendigo Field Naturalists Club Inc. 1 The North Central CMA Region Swan Hill River Murray Kerang Cohuna Quambatook Loddon River Pyramid Hill Wycheproof Boort Loddon/Campaspe Echuca Watchem Irrigation Area Charlton Mitiamo Donald Rochester Avoca River Serpentine Avoca/Avon-Richardson Wedderburn Elmore Catchment Area Richardson River Bridgewater Campaspe River St Arnaud Marnoo Huntly Bendigo Avon River Bealiba Dunolly Loddon/Campaspe Dryland Area Heathcote Maryborough Castlemaine Avoca Loddon River Kyneton Lexton Clunes Daylesford Woodend Creswick Acknowledgement Of Country The North Central Catchment Management Authority (CMA) acknowledges Aboriginal Traditional Owners within the North Central CMA region, their rich culture and their spiritual connection to Country. We also recognise and acknowledge the contribution and interests of Aboriginal people and organisations in the management of land and natural resources. Acknowledgements North Central Waterwatch would like to acknowledge the contribution and support from the following organisations and individuals during the development of this publication: Britt Gregory from North Central CMA for her invaluable efforts in the production of this document, Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority for allowing use of their draft field guide, Lydia Fucsko, Adrian Martins, David Kleinert, Leigh Mitchell, Peter Robertson and Nick Layne for use of their wonderful photos and Mallee Catchment Management Authority for their design support and a special thanks to Ray Draper for his support and guidance in the development of the Frogs Field Guide 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Chemical Defense in Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Ecology, Pharmacokinetics, and Autoresistance
    Chapter 21 A Review of Chemical Defense in Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Ecology, Pharmacokinetics, and Autoresistance Juan C. Santos , Rebecca D. Tarvin , and Lauren A. O’Connell 21.1 Introduction Chemical defense has evolved multiple times in nearly every major group of life, from snakes and insects to bacteria and plants (Mebs 2002 ). However, among land vertebrates, chemical defenses are restricted to a few monophyletic groups (i.e., clades). Most of these are amphibians and snakes, but a few rare origins (e.g., Pitohui birds) have stimulated research on acquired chemical defenses (Dumbacher et al. 1992 ). Selective pressures that lead to defense are usually associated with an organ- ism’s limited ability to escape predation or conspicuous behaviors and phenotypes that increase detectability by predators (e.g., diurnality or mating calls) (Speed and Ruxton 2005 ). Defended organisms frequently evolve warning signals to advertise their defense, a phenomenon known as aposematism (Mappes et al. 2005 ). Warning signals such as conspicuous coloration unambiguously inform predators that there will be a substantial cost if they proceed with attack or consumption of the defended prey (Mappes et al. 2005 ). However, aposematism is likely more complex than the simple pairing of signal and defense, encompassing a series of traits (i.e., the apose- matic syndrome) that alter morphology, physiology, and behavior (Mappes and J. C. Santos (*) Department of Zoology, Biodiversity Research Centre , University of British Columbia , #4200-6270 University Blvd , Vancouver , BC , Canada , V6T 1Z4 e-mail: [email protected] R. D. Tarvin University of Texas at Austin , 2415 Speedway Stop C0990 , Austin , TX 78712 , USA e-mail: [email protected] L.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Species of Australian Frog (Myobatrachidae: Uperoleia) from the New South Wales Mid-North Coast Sandplains
    Zootaxa 4184 (2): 285–315 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2016 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4184.2.3 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8A38E47C-5F24-4B2A-A7E8-7D99592252DD A new species of Australian frog (Myobatrachidae: Uperoleia) from the New South Wales mid-north coast sandplains SIMON CLULOW1,5, MARION ANSTIS1, J. SCOTT KEOGH2 & RENEE A. CATULLO2,3,4 1 School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, NSW 2308 Australia 2 Evolution, Ecology & Genetics, Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia 3 Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109 Australia 4School of Science & Health, Western Sydney University, NSW 2751 Australia 5Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The discovery of new vertebrate species in developed countries is still occurring at surprising rates for some taxonomic groups, especially the amphibians and reptiles. While this most often occurs in under-explored areas, it occasionally still happens in well-inhabited regions. We report such a case with the discovery and description of U. mahonyi sp. nov., a new species of frog from a highly populated region of New South Wales, Australia. We provide details of its morphology, calls, embryos and tadpoles, and phylogenetic relationships to other species of eastern Uperoleia. We also provide the results of targeted surveys to establish its distribution and provide observations of its habitat associations. As a consequence of these surveys, we comment on the likely restricted nature of the species’ distribution and habitat, and place this in the context of a preliminary assessment of its putative conservation status, which should be assessed for listing under the IUCN’s red list.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Relations of the Burrowing Sandhill Frog, Arenophryne Rotunda (Myobatrachidae)
    J Comp Physiol B (2005) DOI 10.1007/s00360-005-0051-x ORIGINAL PAPER V. A. Cartledge Æ P. C. Withers Æ G. G. Thompson K. A. McMaster Water relations of the burrowing sandhill frog, Arenophryne rotunda (Myobatrachidae) Received: 24 July 2005 / Revised: 17 October 2005 / Accepted: 26 October 2005 Ó Springer-Verlag 2005 Abstract Arenophryne rotunda is a small (2–8 g) terres- Keywords Arid Æ Dehydration Æ Osmolality Æ trial frog that inhabits the coastal sand dunes of central Rehydration Æ Soil water potential Western Australia. While sand burrowing is a strategy employed by many frog species inhabiting Australia’s Abbreviations EWL: Evaporative water loss semi-arid and arid zones, A. rotunda is unique among burrowing species because it lives independently of free water and can be found nocturnally active on the dune Introduction surface for relatively extended periods. Consequently, we examined the physiological factors that enable this Despite the low and irregular rainfall, frogs are found in unique frog to maintain water balance. A. rotunda was most Australian desert regions and are often the most not found to have any special adaptation to reduce EWL abundant vertebrate species in a given area (Main 1968; (being equivalent to a free water surface) or rehydrate Read 1999). Most frogs inhabiting Australia’s semi-arid from water (having the lowest rehydration rate mea- and arid regions burrow into the soil to reduce desic- sured for 15 Western Australian frog species), but it was cation. Some of these burrowing frogs (Neobatrachus able to maintain water balance in sand of very low and Cyclorana spp.) form a cocoon by accumulating moisture (1–2%).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10. Amphibians of the Palaearctic Realm
    CHAPTER 10. AMPHIBIANS OF THE PALAEARCTIC REALM Figure 1. Summary of Red List categories Brandon Anthony, J.W. Arntzen, Sherif Baha El Din, Wolfgang Böhme, Dan Palaearctic Realm contains 6% of all globally threatened amphibians. The Palaearctic accounts for amphibians in the Palaearctic Realm. CogĄlniceanu, Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovic, Pierre-André Crochet, Claudia Corti, for only 3% of CR species and 5% of the EN species, but 9% of the VU species. Hence, on the The percentage of species in each category Richard Griffiths, Yoshio Kaneko, Sergei Kuzmin, Michael Wai Neng Lau, basis of current knowledge, threatened Palaearctic amphibians are more likely to be in a lower is also given. Pipeng Li, Petros Lymberakis, Rafael Marquez, Theodore Papenfuss, Juan category of threat, when compared with the global distribution of threatened species amongst Manuel Pleguezuelos, Nasrullah Rastegar, Benedikt Schmidt, Tahar Slimani, categories. The percentage of DD species, 13% (62 species), is also much less than the global Max Sparreboom, ùsmail Uøurtaû, Yehudah Werner and Feng Xie average of 23%, which is not surprising given that parts of the region have been well surveyed. Red List Category Number of species Nevertheless, the percentage of DD species is much higher than in the Nearctic. Extinct (EX) 2 Two of the world’s 34 documented amphibian extinctions have occurred in this region: the Extinct in the Wild (EW) 0 THE GEOGRAPHIC AND HUMAN CONTEXT Hula Painted Frog Discoglossus nigriventer from Israel and the Yunnan Lake Newt Cynops Critically Endangered (CR) 13 wolterstorffi from around Kunming Lake in Yunnan Province, China. In addition, one Critically Endangered (EN) 40 The Palaearctic Realm includes northern Africa, all of Europe, and much of Asia, excluding Endangered species in the Palaearctic Realm is considered possibly extinct, Scutiger macu- Vulnerable (VU) 58 the southern extremities of the Arabian Peninsula, the Indian Subcontinent (south of the latus from central China.
    [Show full text]
  • 3Systematics and Diversity of Extant Amphibians
    Systematics and Diversity of 3 Extant Amphibians he three extant lissamphibian lineages (hereafter amples of classic systematics papers. We present widely referred to by the more common term amphibians) used common names of groups in addition to scientifi c Tare descendants of a common ancestor that lived names, noting also that herpetologists colloquially refer during (or soon after) the Late Carboniferous. Since the to most clades by their scientifi c name (e.g., ranids, am- three lineages diverged, each has evolved unique fea- bystomatids, typhlonectids). tures that defi ne the group; however, salamanders, frogs, A total of 7,303 species of amphibians are recognized and caecelians also share many traits that are evidence and new species—primarily tropical frogs and salaman- of their common ancestry. Two of the most defi nitive of ders—continue to be described. Frogs are far more di- these traits are: verse than salamanders and caecelians combined; more than 6,400 (~88%) of extant amphibian species are frogs, 1. Nearly all amphibians have complex life histories. almost 25% of which have been described in the past Most species undergo metamorphosis from an 15 years. Salamanders comprise more than 660 species, aquatic larva to a terrestrial adult, and even spe- and there are 200 species of caecilians. Amphibian diver- cies that lay terrestrial eggs require moist nest sity is not evenly distributed within families. For example, sites to prevent desiccation. Thus, regardless of more than 65% of extant salamanders are in the family the habitat of the adult, all species of amphibians Plethodontidae, and more than 50% of all frogs are in just are fundamentally tied to water.
    [Show full text]
  • Anura: Microhylidae)
    Herpetology Notes, volume 14: 657-660 (2021) (published online on 12 April 2021) Notes on the breeding behaviour of Elachistocleis helianneae Caramaschi, 2010 (Anura: Microhylidae) Jackson Cleiton Sousa and Carlos Eduardo Costa-Campos* The neotropical microhylid genus Elachistocleis Amplexus lasted about two hours (10:37–12:37 h) and Parker, 1927 comprises 19 species, distributed included five ovipositions in a single event. The female laid throughout the Neotropics from Panama to central approximately 30 eggs in each oviposition that floated on Argentina (Frost, 2020). Members of this genus are the water surface. Uninterrupted video was recorded for 2 terrestrial, active during both day and night, and usually h with a Sony HDR-CX 440 Full HD camera positioned found in lowland ecosystems and swampy open areas 1 m from the amplexed couple, using headlamps with red (Lima et al., 2012; Frost, 2020). However, there are still filters to minimize disturbance. We analysed 87 min of many species of microhylid for which basic aspects of recording until the oviposition was interrupted. The video their reproductive biology are unknown (e.g., Rodrigues recording was deposited at Fonoteca Neotropical Jacques et al., 2003; Thomé and Brasileiro, 2007; Altig and Vielliard (ZUEC-VID 790). Rowley, 2014; Pombal and Cruz, 2016; Elgue and After 2 h of recording, the couple remained in Maneyro, 2017). amplexus without further oviposition activity. The frogs Elachistocleis helianneae Caramaschi, 2010 is a and five of the clutches were collected and placed in small-sized frog (snout-vent length of 22.6–28.7 mm in plastic bags containing water; inside the plastic bag, the males, 29.3–36.4 mm in females) that is distributed in female continued to oviposit.
    [Show full text]
  • Frogs and Toads of the Atchafalaya Basin
    Frogs and Toads of the Atchafalaya Basin True Toads (Family Bufonidae) Microhylid Frogs and Toads Two true toads occur in the Atchafalaya Basin: (Family Microhylidae) True Toads Fowler’s Toad and the Gulf Coast Toad. Both The Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Toad is the Microhylid Frogs and Toads of these species are moderately sized and have only representative in the Atchafalaya Basin dry, warty skin. They have short hind limbs of this family. It is a plump frog with smooth and do not leap like other frogs, but rather skin, a pointed snout, and short limbs. There they make short hops to get around. They are is a fold of skin across the back of the head active primarily at night and use their short that can be moved forward to clear the hind limbs for burrowing into sandy soils eyes. They use this fold of skin especially during the day. They are the only two frogs when preying upon ants, a favorite food, to in the basin that lay long strings of eggs, as remove any attackers. Because of its plump opposed to clumps laid by other frog species. body and short limbs the male must secrete a Fowler’s Toad Gulf Coast Toad Both of these toad species possess enlarged sticky substance from a gland on its stomach Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Toad (Anaxyrus fowleri ) (Incilius nebulifer) glands at the back of the head that secrete a to stay attached to a female for successful (Gastrophryne carolinensis) white poison when attacked by a predator. mating; in most other frogs, the limbs are When handling these toads, one should avoid long enough to grasp around the female.
    [Show full text]
  • Data on Metabolic Rates Across Anurans
    Table S3. Species of anurans and outgroups used for the phylogenetic inference and meta-analysis of the metabolic parameters in Anura. Data include accession numbers, metabolic measurements, and references of physiological data. VO2RES VO2RES VO2EX VO2EX (ml/h) Mass (ml/h) Mass (ml/h) Mass (ml/h) Mass Family Genus species 1216S 20°C (g) 25°C (g) 20°C (g) 25°C (g) Ref. Lepidosirenidae Lepidosiren paradoxa NC003342 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Phasianidae Gallus gallus AP003319 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Hominidae Homo sapiens AC000021 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Typhlonectidae Typhlonectes natans NC002471 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Caeciliidae Gegeneophis ramaswamii NC006301 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Rhinatrematidae Rhinatrema bivittatum NC006303 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Hynobiidae Hynobius formosanus NC008084 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Plethodontidae Eurycea bislineata AY728217 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Ambystomatidae Ambystoma mexicanum NC005797 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Alytidae Alytes obstetricans * -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Alytidae Discoglossus galganoi NC006690 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Alytidae Discoglossus pictus * 1.142 30.71 -- -- 8.166 30.70 -- -- (1) Arthroleptidae Arthroleptis variabilis DQ283081 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Arthroleptidae Trichobatrachus robustus AY843773 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Batrachophrynidae Caudiverbera caudiverbera DQ283439 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- (1) Bombinatoridae Bombina orientalis AY957562 0.149 2.62 0.340 3.79 1.230 2.60 -- -- (2) Brevicipitidae Callulina kreffti AY326068 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bufonidae Atelopus peruensis AY819329
    [Show full text]