DOCSLIB.ORG

V77 P349 Bull.PDF

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
V77 P349 Bull.PDF EvelynL. Bull,rUSDA Forest Service, Pac f c NorthwestResearch Station, 1401 Geke er Lane,La crande Oreqon 97850 Dietand PreyAvailability of ColumbiaSpotted Frogs in Northeastern Oregon Abstract Baseline infoflnation on the die! and prcv a\ajlabilirl of Columbia \potted fiogs i\ hcking fron nrort of lhc spccicsrrnge. Diet $as detemined nom Jurrethrough Octobcr 2002 lbr 296 hogs in nonheastemOregon. Number of pre,vi!ems. diet compositioD. and biomass indices $crc comparcd by scx. sire classes.$ater type (ponds versusrivers). montl. and nudy site. Alailable invertebrateswere dctcrmincd iiom slickr' trupsand dip netiing in ponds amddvers. A total of 1.199prc,"- ilcns were identified $ith an averageof,l.:1 prcr ilcn\ in each sanple lrange = 0 - 28). A wide vadety of prey were idcntiilcd including 33 laDrilie\ l-rom20 ordersof invcrtebrales$,ilh only i ofder! represenring>107. of the composirion:beetles (l l%). ants/wasps(:1fZ ). and flies(10ti).Onl) l,l9Zoftheprev\lcrcinthclarlals|ages.Femaleiiogsaieabou{60%morebiomassthanalcsoflhc same size. presumablybecause oftheir needto produceeggs. Bionrassof male iiog diet samplesrvere greater in rivers than in ponds with a higher percenlageofstoneflies. *,ater striders.and beetles.Frog! aclilcly fonged all sulnner with the highestbiomass in Scptcmb.r and lhe lowest in July. Ovef the sumnrer.composition of spiders.bcctlcs. and llies decrersed while true bugsand anrs/ \rasps incrcasedir tbe diet. Among studt sites.ants/r'asps were mos! abundanrar |he higher elevations.A higher proportion of inlertebratesoccurred in the larger sizesin the dier comparedwi!h samplcsof availttbleinvetebrates. lntroduction EndangeredSpecies Act. Declincsin thisspecies havcbccn repoftedinYellowstone National Palk Amphibiansmake up an inlponant componentof (Patlaand Peterson 1999). Utah (Hovingh 1993). the aquatichabitats in the BIue Mountains.These and Nevada (Reaser2000). The oausesof the speciesserve as good indicatorsofoverall health declinesin.lude habitat loss rnd lrlgmentrrion. offorest and rangelandecosystems because they introductionof prcdators,cattle gruzing,and tlte dependon $,ater for reproduction.and because loss of naturalflood disturbances.Many ol these their permeableskin makesthempafiicularly sen- factorscould also influenceprey availability. sitiveto environmcntaltoxins (Morell J999).We know relativelylittle aboutthe biology o[ therela- Studiesof fbod habitsof the Columbia spot tive healthof their populations,particularly *ith tcd fiog haveshown this speciesto be an oppor- re-qardto disturbances.Increasing incidence and tunistic feeder.taking whateverinveftebrates are intensity of fires and other disturbanceagcnts on, near,or underwater(Turner 1959, Miller 1978, (tloods, drought. introduction of fish, habitat al Whitaker et al. 1983) . teration.livestock -srazing. noxious weed control) Baselineinfonnation on dict and prey avail- in easternOregon may threatenthese animals and ability of Columbiaspotted frogs is lacking in the integrity of the aquatic habitat. Large-scale nofiheastemOregon and other ponions ofits range. disturbancessuch as fire. may have direct and This frog typically breedsin permanentponds but indirect consequenceson frogs resulting in pre- may spendthe summer.fall, and winter in ponds dation.loss in habitat,or changesin dietand prey or rivers(8u11 and Hayes. 2001. 2002). The fac availability. tors driving the selectionofpond or river habitat This studyprovides basic ecological infornra- arenot fully known, althoughdiet may be one ol' tion on the dietofthe Columbiaspotted frog (Raza severalcontributing factors. The focus ofthis study lLtteirentris).This frog specicsis of interest to was to compareColumbia spottedfrog diet and managersbccause it is classitiedas imperiled by invertebrateavailability betwecnpond and river the Oreg,'nNatural Heritage Program. rs \ensi- habitatsat six studysites. This studywas designed tive by the USDA Forest Scrvice in Region 6, to answerthe tbllowing five questions:1) wcre and as a candidatetbr listing under the Federal frogs consuming invcrtebratesin propofiion to theirabundancet2) did frogs sclcctfor largerprey itemsto maximizetheir energy expenditure for- E-meil:ebulllsf\.fcJ u\ aging;3)did pondor river habitatprovide a greater North$'estScience. Vol.77, No. rl, 2003 349 O200lh) theNonh"en Scientil'jcA$o.iarion Alll-shcrcsc^rd abundanccof prey or larger prey items for frogs: samplcs.Sampling startedin early Juneafter all 4) $as trog diet the sameat different study arcas; breedingwas completedand cndedin rnid-Octo 5) for what durationof thc summerdid lrogs tbr- ber when nighttimc tcmperaturesdropped below age and did diet di11'er? lreczing.Because activiry level of arthropodsvaries uith timeolday. the ordcr that \luJ) \ires\\cre Methods sampledwas rotatedeach sampling period. StudyArea Frogs were capturedwith dip ncts while I walked along the pond perimeteror dver edgeat Thi: studlur\ condu.ledat \i\ \iter in luo ur cach of the fbur study sites.Sex and snout-vent tershedsin northeastemOrcgon betweenJune and length (SVL) were recordcdfbr eachfiog, and a October2002 (Table 1). Study arcas were selected diet samplewas obtainedby flushing the ston- basedon the presence()f known breeding sites ach of the lrog with a catheter(2 mm wide, 56 eurdprevious knowledge offiog movements.Each cm long) attachedto a 65-cc sydnge inserted study site hasat leastone breedingpond in lcntic through the mouth and esophagusof the frog habitat(Palustrinc system) (Cowardin et al. l979) (Leglerand Sullivan 1979, Whitakcr et al.I983). and an adjacentlotic habitat (Riverine system) Diet sampleswerc preservedin vialsof 75clretha- widrin,l00 m. exceptthcRainbow site, u'hichlacks nol alcohol and returnedto the lab for identifica- a lolic system.All ponds(lentic) and river habi- tion. I assumedthe entiredict samplewas flushed tats (lotic) are in forestedhabitats and have per- from the frog becauseLegler and Sullivan(1979) manent$,ater in typical years.The breedingponds were confident that they recoveredall the mate range from 60 to 30.000 m'?in size.The e;Lrliest rial in the stomachsof lizards basedon dissec- breedingactivity occurs at the Hohman pond in tion of a few lizards after f'lushingthe stomach; late March and the latestoccurs at Rainbowpond however,no fiogs werekilled to testthis assump- in late April or early May (Table 1). The infor- tion. We attemptedto collect tive diet samples mationonbreeding dates was obained by checking from thc first five frogs capturedin both thc pond the ponds every l-2 days atier ice melted. Tim and river at eachstudy site, but limited the time ing of breedingactivity at thesestudy sites is a searchingfor frogsto 2 hr at eachsite. Food frag- function of elevation.exposure, and temperature mentswere identified to ordcr or family and cat ofthe water source.The pondsat HohmanrrLrely egorizedinto six sizeclasses (l-.1.5. 5-9.5. l0- fieeze,while all otherpond srufaces typically frccze 14.5,l5 19.5.20-21.5,>25 rnm)when enough in Novemberand thaw betweenMarch and May. ol'the inr enebrute u r( presentto estirnate.i,/e. Biomass (mg) was determinedby oven-dry- D et Sample ing cach samplefor 24 hr at 40' C. The largest Diet sampleswere collcctcd every 2 wk fiom tiogs sampleswere dried for,18hr. Because size offrog capturedin pond and river habitatsat thc Gun, largely determinedtlte size and amount of prey Starkey.Tailings, irnd Rainbow study areas.Five the frog could consume,I devised an index to percent standardizefor frog size(biomass divided by SVL of frogs captured lacked any stomach * contents.and thcse fiogs were not included in 100). thc sample.Diet was not determinedin two study The nunber ol prey items, diet composition, sites due to difnculty in locating fiogs firr diet andbiornass indices were compared by ( 1) sex. TABLE l. Pond sizc and depth. datesof breedimg,elevation, and location of sir study sites usedto monitor Columbia spotted liogs in northeanem Oregon,2002. Study Area Pund depth t|ll) Dalcs of egg layiDg Elevation(m) Gun 887 0.8 7 17Apr 02 921 Hohman 100 I 3l N{ar-I 2 Apr 02 935 Starke)_ '1,132 30 N{aFApr 98 1.001 30,000 0.1 8 1'1Apr02 t.188 Tailings 86 26,1 0.6-2 15 25Apr 02 1,380 Ranrbo'\, 28,526 3 ll 2EMa! 02 1,810 350 Bull (2) frog sizeclass (355 mn. 56-70mm. and>70 The two methodsof samplingprovide a mea- mm SVL), (3) watertype (pond versusriver), (,1) sureof the relativeabundance of aerialand aquatic month. and (5) study site. For number of prey invertebrutes, but theyare not dfuecdycompamble. itemsand biomass iodices. t-tests were used for Forinvefiebratescaptured on sticky trapsand dip comparisonsbetween sexes and water types. nets,the numberof jnvertebrates,the number by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and a post-hoc invertebratesize class, and the compositionwere Tukey's B pair-wise comparisoutest were used comparedby water type, month (June through to comparc frog sizc classes.months. and study August),and site usingt-tests and ANOVA and a arcas.Chi-squarc Lcsts wcrc usedfor all diet com- post-hocTukey's B pair wise comparisontest. The po.itioneonrprri.onr. lt' thc initialcomlrri:on compositionoforders comprising >5'l,: ofthe total betweensex revealeddifferences, subsequent numberol pre; item. ul. usedfor comparison. compadsonswere done for each sex separately. Becausedata were aggregatedby day, the mean Significancelevel was sel at P = 0.05. tbr multiple samplescollected on individual days was usedas thc variable.The relativeabundance lnvertebrate Ava ability (proportion)ofinvertebrates occuning in thc diet and within
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana Pretiosa) Movement and Demography at Dilman Meadow: Implications for Future Monitoring
    Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) Movement and Demography at Dilman Meadow: Implications for Future Monitoring By Nathan D. Chelgren, Christopher A. Pearl, Jay Bowerman, and Michael J. Adams Prepared in cooperation with the Sunriver Nature Center Open-File Report 2007-1016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Meyers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2006 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This analysis was made possible by a grant from the Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program. We thank C. Korson and L. Zakrejsek at the US Bureau of Reclamation for their work in all aspects of the translocation. Reviews by L. Bailey and two anonymous reviewers improved the manuscript. We thank R. B. Bury for suggestions on field techniques and assistance throughout the early years of the study. We thank S. Ackley, R. Diehl, B. McCreary, and C. Rombough for assistance with field work. We also thank Deschutes National Forest, US Fish and Wildlife Service, North Unit Irrigation District, and Sunriver Nature Center for the logistical and personnel support they dedicated.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana Luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Great Basin Distinct Population Segment Photo by Jim Harvey Photo: Jim Harvey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 8 Reno Fish and Wildlife Office Reno, Nevada Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Species status assessment report for the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment. Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. vii + 86 pp. ii Executive Summary In this Species Status Assessment (SSA), we evaluate the biological status of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the Great Basin both currently and into the future through the lens of the species’ resiliency, redundancy, and representation. This SSA Report provides a comprehensive assessment of biology and natural history of Columbia spotted frogs and assesses demographic risks, stressors, and limiting factors. Herein, we compile biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future stressors (causes and effects) facing Columbia spotted frogs in the Great Basin. Columbia spotted frogs are highly aquatic frogs endemic to the Great Basin, northern Rocky Mountains, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska. Columbia spotted frogs in southeastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and northeastern and central Nevada make up the Great Basin Distinct Population Segment (DPS; Service 2015, pp. 1–10). Columbia spotted frogs are closely associated with clear, slow-moving streams or ponded surface waters with permanent hydroperiods and relatively cool constant water temperatures (Arkle and Pilliod 2015, pp. 9–11). In addition to permanently wet habitat, streams with beaver ponds, deep maximum depth, abundant shoreline vegetation, and non-salmonid fish species have the greatest probability of being occupied by Columbia spotted frogs within the Great Basin (Arkle and Pilliod 2015, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Rana Luteiventris</I>
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey 2005 Population Structure of Columbia Spotted Frogs (Rana luteiventris) is Strongly Affected by the Landscape W. Chris Funk University of Texas at Austin, [email protected] Michael S. Blouin U.S. Geological Survey Paul Stephen Corn U.S. Geological Survey Bryce A. Maxell University of Montana - Missoula David S. Pilliod USDA Forest Service, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Part of the Geology Commons, Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons, Other Earth Sciences Commons, and the Other Environmental Sciences Commons Funk, W. Chris; Blouin, Michael S.; Corn, Paul Stephen; Maxell, Bryce A.; Pilliod, David S.; Amish, Stephen; and Allendorf, Fred W., "Population Structure of Columbia Spotted Frogs (Rana luteiventris) is Strongly Affected by the Landscape" (2005). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 659. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/659 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors W. Chris Funk, Michael S. Blouin, Paul Stephen Corn, Bryce A. Maxell, David S. Pilliod, Stephen Amish, and Fred W. Allendorf This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ usgsstaffpub/659 Molecular Ecology (2005) 14, 483–496 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02426.x BlackwellPopulation Publishing, Ltd. structure of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) is strongly affected by the landscape W.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Red-Legged Frog,Rana Aurora
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Northern Red-legged Frog Rana aurora in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2015 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2015. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Northern Red-legged Frog Rana aurora in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 69 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 2004. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Red-legged Frog Rana aurora in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 46 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Waye, H. 1999. COSEWIC status report on the red-legged frog Rana aurora in Canada in COSEWIC assessment and status report on the red-legged frog Rana aurora in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-31 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Barbara Beasley for writing the status report on the Northern Red- legged Frog (Rana aurora) in Canada. This report was prepared under contract with Environment Canada and was overseen by Kristiina Ovaska, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Amphibian and Reptile Species Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la Grenouille à pattes rouges du Nord (Rana aurora ) au Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Spotted Frog Habitat Restoration Projects
    Making A Difference Frogs And Our Environment U.S. Fish and Wildlife Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office Preserving the biological diversity of the Great Agencies are continuing to conduct spring Scientists have known for years that frogs are Basin, Eastern Sierra & Mojave Desert egg mass and summer adult frog surveys. indicators of the health of the environment. The results of these annual surveys will be They are very sensitive to changes in air and used to track population trends, assess water quality. If a frog population is in threats, and determine the effectiveness of decline, there is probably a decline in the Columbia Spotted Frog habitat restoration projects. health of the environment. Their role as (Rana luteiventris) environmental indicators makes them an Since 2004, conservation efforts have been important species to monitor and protect. focused on completing a long-term monitoring plan, coordinating the A 1998 international workshop determined monitoring surveys, completing a species that since the 1970s, there have been management plan, and implementing significant and unusual declines in both habitat restoration actions. population sizes and numbers of populations of amphibians worldwide. Four factors appear to be the cause of these declines: 1) habitat destruction, 2) invasive species, 3) disease, and 4) environmental degradation from man-made, toxic chemicals. Throughout the world, researchers are working to determine how best to address The Columbia spotted frog belongs these factors and stop the decline in to the Ranidae family and is native amphibian populations. to Nevada. This frog is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. For more information contact: In 2004, 22 new open water ponds were U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Spotted Frog LENGTH: 5 to 10CM 10 Rana Luteiventris
    factsheet Columbia Spotted Frog LENGTH: 5 TO 10CM 10 Rana luteiventris WALLACE EDWARDS At A Glance The Columbia Spotted Frog and the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) were long considered members of the same species. While tough to tell apart, these two frogs have non-overlapping ranges (live in different areas) and can be identified by where they are found. The Columbia Spotted Frog is a medium- YELLOW-LISTED SPECIES MANAGED sized frog with irregular black spots, usually THROUGH ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ARE light-centred, on the head, back, sides and legs. Adult frogs can be green, brown or reddish-brown while juveniles are SPECIES THAT ARE SECURE, WELL DISTRIBUTED brown or olive green. Two dorsolateral folds (ridges of skin) run from the frog’s head partway along the IN APPROPRIATE HABITAT AND WILL SURVIVE back. The eyes are set so that they are angled slightly upwards, like those of the Oregon Spotted Frog. IN HABITATS THAT ARE MANAGED FOR Undersides tend to be cream-coloured with mottled reddish or salmon-coloured pigmentation on the lower REPRESENTATIVENESS AND CONNECTIVITY. abdomen and hind-legs, but can also be yellow in some populations. Adult females are slightly larger than the males and can grow to a length of 5 to 10 centimetres (snout to rump). Webbing on the feet extends to the ends of the toes. Tadpoles are dark brownish-green, with gold flecks above and iridescent yellow to bronze below. Intestines are visible through the skin, and the broad-finned tail is often twice the length of the body. The Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora) looks somewhat similar to the Columbia Spotted Frog.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of the Columbia Spotted Frog in Northeastern Oregon
    United States Department of Agriculture Ecology of the Columbia Forest Service Pacific Northwest Spotted Frog in Research Station General Technical Northeastern Oregon Report PNW-GTR-640 July 2005 Evelyn L. Bull The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sus- tained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and manage- ment of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, reli- gion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. USDA is committed to making the information materials accessible to all USDA customers and employees Author Evelyn L. Bull is a research wildlife biologist, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. Cover photo Columbia spotted frogs at an oviposition site with an egg mass present (lower center of photo).
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibian Identifier 20
    21 MOLE SALAMANDERS Family Ambystomatidae Amphibian Identifier 20 Long-toed Salamander Tiger Salamander 19 Ambystoma macrodactylum Ambystoma mavortium • Yellow or olive-green stripe from head to tip HIND FOOT 18 • Dark spots and stripes often creating a net-like pattern; of tail; may be broken into a series of blotches may become relatively uniform in colour and spotted with age 1 • Fine white or bluish flecks on sides and legs • Broad and flat head, with small eyes 2 17 • Long fourth toe on each hind foot • Background colour: yellow-brown, grey, olive-green to black • Background colour: brownish-grey to black 3 • Total length: up to 25 cm 5 16 • Total length: up to 15 cm 4 Long-toed salamander 15 14 13 Tiger salamander 12 photo: John P. Clare photo: ACA, Kris Kendell 11 TRUE FROGS Family Ranidae 10 9 Northern Leopard Frog Wood Frog Columbia Spotted Frog Lithobates pipiens 8 Lithobates sylvaticus Rana luteiventris • White or cream-coloured ridges of skin (dorsolateral folds) • Dark eye mask extends from snout through eye, ending • Small irregular dark spots with light centers 7 along sides of back behind eardrum; contrasts sharply with whitish jaw stripe • Underside of hind legs and lower belly becomes • Large round or oval dark spots with light borders • Ridges of skin (dorsolateral folds) along sides of back orange-red or pinkish with age • Background colour: green to brown 6 • May have light stripe down middle of back • Ridges of skin (dorsolateral folds) or tan; rarely golden • Background colour: brown, pink-tan, olive-green, grey along sides of back • Body length: up to 13 cm 5 to almost black • Eyes positioned towards top of • Call: three or more snore-like sounds • Body length: up to 8 cm head and angled upwards followed by interspersed grunting and 4 • Call: series of short, raspy • Background colour: light to dark brown chuckling sounds duck-like quacking sounds • Body length: up to 10 cm 3 • Call: series of quick low-pitched click sounds 2 photo: ACA, Kris Kendell 1 photo: Twan Leenders photo: Richard D.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Spotted Frog
    Alaska Species Ranking System - Columbia spotted frog Columbia spotted frog Class: Amphibia Order: Anura Rana luteiventris Review Status: Peer-reviewed Version Date: 08 May 2018 Conservation Status NatureServe: Agency: G Rank:G4 ADF&G: IUCN:Least Concern Audubon AK: S Rank: S2 USFWS: BLM: Final Rank Conservation category: V. Orange unknown status and either high biological vulnerability or high action need Category Range Score Status -20 to 20 0 Biological -50 to 50 -19 Action -40 to 40 24 Higher numerical scores denote greater concern Status - variables measure the trend in a taxon’s population status or distribution. Higher status scores denote taxa with known declining trends. Status scores range from -20 (increasing) to 20 (decreasing). Score Population Trend in Alaska (-10 to 10) 0 Statewide trend is unknown. May be declining on the northern end of Mitkof Island (Ream 2016). Distribution Trend in Alaska (-10 to 10) 0 Unknown. Status Total: 0 Biological - variables measure aspects of a taxon’s distribution, abundance and life history. Higher biological scores suggest greater vulnerability to extirpation. Biological scores range from -50 (least vulnerable) to 50 (most vulnerable). Score Population Size in Alaska (-10 to 10) -6 In southeast Alaska, described as "fairly common along mainland river valleys" by Carstensen et al. (2003). Field surveys in the Stikine River area, which covered only a small portion of its statewide range, detected nearly 500 individuals (Ream 2016). J. Ream (UAF, pers. comm.) estimates that there >10,000 individuals in the state. We rank this question as E- Population unknown, but suspected large. Range Size in Alaska (-10 to 10) -2 Patchily distributed on the mainland of southeast Alaska from the Taku River south to British Columbia (Waters 1992; Lindell and Grossman 1998; MacDonald 2010; Ream 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Spotted Frogs in Dry Creek
    2011 Monitoring Report Dry Creek, Oregon by Marisa Meyer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service La Grande Field Office 3502 Highway 30 La Grande, Oregon 97850 ii Prepared for the Vale District Bureau of Land Management Intra-Governmental Order #L09PG00147 2011 SURVEYORS Todd Allai Bureau of Land Management Vale District Office, Vale, Oregon Brett Amdor Bureau of Land Management Vale District Office, Vale, Oregon Ruth Brandt-Miller U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Volunteer La Grande Field Office, La Grande, Oregon Steve Christensen Bureau of Land Management Vale District Office, Vale, Oregon Aimee Huff Bureau of Land Management Vale District Office, Vale, Oregon Gary Miller U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service La Grande Field Office, La Grande, Oregon Shaney Rockefeller Bureau of Land Management Vale District Office, Vale, Oregon Naomi Wilson Bureau of Land Management Vale District Office, Vale, Oregon CONTRIBUTING RESEARCHERS Janice Engle U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program, Arlington, Virginia Cynthia Tait U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Regional Office, Ogden, Utah i PREFACE This study was initiated in 2001 by the Vale District Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office in Boise, Idaho in order to monitor long-term population trends, demographics and movement patterns for Columbia spotted frogs in Dry Creek. The Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office was responsible for the monitoring along Dry Creek until Janice Engle’s departure to Sacramento, California in 2006. In 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s La Grande Field Office took over responsibility for the monitoring and reporting of the Dry Creek Columbia spotted frog monitoring study.
    [Show full text]
  • Clarifying Distributions of Four Species of Rana in Southwestern British Columbia Using Edna Methods
    Clarifying Distributions of Four Species of Rana in Southwestern British Columbia Using eDNA Methods Final report, 2016 – 2018 Prepared for: Habitat Conservation Trust Fund HCTF Project #: CAT19‐0‐500 Prepared by: Kristiina Ovaska, Lennart Sopuck, and Christian Engelstoft, Biolinx Environmental Research Ltd., 1759 Colburne Place, North Saanich, BC V8L 5A2; [email protected] Jared Hobbs, Hemmera, 303-1221 Broad Street, Victoria, BC V8W 2A4; current address: J Hobbs Ecological Consulting Ltd., 9809 Spalding Road, Pender Island, BC; [email protected] In partnership with: Caren C. Helbing, Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2; [email protected] APRIL 2019 1 Acknowledgments Co-funding for this project came from Habitat Conservation Trust Fund (HCTF) and Forest Enhancement Society of British Columbia (FESBC) through a grant to Biolinx Environmental Research Ltd. Additional funding for laboratory analysis of samples was obtained from BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (South Coast). We are grateful to the Oregon spotted frog Recovery Team and our contact, Kendra Morgan, for her unfailing support for this project. We also thank our collaborators Dr. Caren Helbing, Dr. Nik Veldhoen, Jessica Round, Michael Allison, and Lauren Bergman at Dr. Helbing’s lab (Biochemistry, University of Victoria), who developed the tests for the four target species of frogs, conducted the laboratory analyses, and promptly responded to our queries, including reanalysis of some of the samples to confirm the accuracy of the results. Kendra Morgan, Aleesha Switzer, Dr. Leslie Anthony, and Danielle Courceles provided able and enthusiastic assistance in the field. Cover photograph: Habitat in Skagit Valley where eDNA of Cascades frog was found in two of three years of study (photo by Lennart Sopuck) 2 Executive Summary Environmental DNA (eDNA) methodologies are rapidly expanding our knowledge of distributions of species at risk, including amphibians in various geographical areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Road Traffic on Two Amphibian Species of Differing Vagility
    Effect of Road Traffic on Two Amphibian Species of Differing Vagility LAURIE W. CARR AND LENORE FAHRIG Ottawa-Carleton Institute of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada, email [email protected] Abstract: Vehicular traffic can be a major source of mortality for some species. Highly vagile organisms may be at a disadvantage in landscapes with roads because they are more likely to encounter roads and incur traffic mortality. To test this prediction, we assessed the population abundance of two anuran species of dif- fering vagility, the leopard frog ( Rana pipiens, more vagile) and the green frog ( Rana clamitans, less vagile), at 30 breeding ponds. Traffic density, an index of the amount of potential traffic mortality, was measured in concentric circles radiating from the ponds out to 5 km. We conducted multiple linear regressions relating population abundance to traffic density, pond variables, and landscape habitat variables and found that leopard frog population density was negatively affected by traffic density within a radius of 1.5 km. There was no evidence that the presence of vehicular traffic affected green frog populations. These results suggest that traffic mortality can cause population declines and that more vagile species may be more vulnerable to road mortality than less vagile species. Efectos del Tráfico Carretero sobre Dos Especies de Anfibios de Diferente Movilidad Resumen: El tráfico vehicular puede ser une causa importante de mortalidad para algunas especies. Organ- ismos altamente móviles pueden estar en desventaja en paisajes con carreteras, debido a que su probabil- idad de encontrar carreteras e incurrir en mortalidades por tráfico es mayor.
    [Show full text]