DOCSLIB.ORG

National Frog Survey of Ireland 2010/11

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Frog Survey of Ireland 2010/11 National Frog Survey of Ireland 2010/11 Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 58 National Frog Survey of Ireland 2010/11 Neil Reid 1*, S. Karina Dingerkus 2, Richard E. Stone 2, Stéphane Pietravalle 3, Ruth Kelly 1, John Buckley 4, Trevor J.C. Beebee 5 and John W. Wilkinson 4 1 Quercus, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast. BT9 7BL. UK. 2 Giorria Environmental Services, Ardacarha, Bohola, Co. Mayo. Republic of Ireland. 3 Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) , Sand Hutton, York. YO41 1LZ. UK 4 Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, 655A Christchurch Road, Boscombe, Bournemouth. Dorset. BH1 4AP. UK. 5 University of Sussex, School of Life Sciences, Falmer, Brighton. BN1 9QG. UK. Citation: Reid, N., Dingerkus, S.K., Stone, R.E., Pietravalle, S., Kelly, R., Buckley, J., Beebee, T.J.C. & Wilkinson, J.W. (2013) National Frog Survey of Ireland 2010/11. Irish Wildlife Manual s, No. 58. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland. The NPWS Project Officer for this report was Dr Ferdia Marnell: [email protected] Cover photo: © Joan O'Neill, Sixmilebridge, Co. Clare. Irish Wildlife Manuals Series Editors: F. Marnell & N. Kingston © National Parks and Wildlife Service 2013 ISSN 1393 – 6670 Frog Survey of Ireland 2010/11 Contents Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................................7 Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................................9 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................10 1.1 Species biology and ecology...........................................................................................................10 1.2 Amphibian declines and threats to the common frog ................................................................11 1.3 Associated habitats..........................................................................................................................13 1.4 National Conservation Assessment ..............................................................................................14 1.4.1 Current status ..............................................................................................................................15 1.4.2 Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................15 1.4.2 Estimating density and abundance ..........................................................................................16 1.6 Aims of the current study...............................................................................................................17 2. Methods...........................................................................................................................................................18 2.1 Quantifying historical pond loss ...................................................................................................18 2.2 Breeding frog surveys .....................................................................................................................19 2.2.1 Availability of suitable breeding frog habitat .........................................................................19 2.2.2 Spawn surveys ............................................................................................................................21 2.2.3 Estimating water body size .......................................................................................................21 2.2.4 Estimating frog density..............................................................................................................22 2.2.5 Future prospects (preceived pressures) ...................................................................................23 2.2.6 Aquatic and terrestrial habitats.................................................................................................23 2.3 Estimating total frog abundance....................................................................................................24 2.4 Frog distribution..............................................................................................................................25 2.5 GIS biogeographical modelling .....................................................................................................26 2.6 National conservation assessment ................................................................................................28 3. Results .............................................................................................................................................................29 3.1 Quantifying historical pond loss ...................................................................................................29 4 Frog Survey of Ireland 2010/11 3.2 Breeding frog surveys..................................................................................................................... 30 3.2.1 Aquatic & terrestrial habitats and Future prospects (preceived pressures) ....................... 33 3.3 Estimating total frog abundance ................................................................................................... 33 3.3.1 Population trends ....................................................................................................................... 37 3.4 Frog distribution.............................................................................................................................. 38 3.5 GIS biogeographical modelling..................................................................................................... 39 3.6 National conservation assessment ................................................................................................ 39 4. Discussion....................................................................................................................................................... 47 4.1 National frog survey of Ireland.................................................................................................... 47 4.2 Current conservation status.......................................................................................................... 50 4.3 Proposed monitoring protocol....................................................................................................... 51 4.3.1 Surveyors ..................................................................................................................................... 51 4.3.2 Health & Safety ........................................................................................................................... 51 4.3.3 Site access..................................................................................................................................... 51 4.3.4 Technical support ....................................................................................................................... 52 4.3.5 Training........................................................................................................................................ 52 4.3.6 Timing .......................................................................................................................................... 52 4.3.7 Survey sheets............................................................................................................................... 53 4.3.8 Quality assurance and data manipulation .............................................................................. 53 4.4 Conservation Assessments............................................................................................................. 53 4.4.1 Range............................................................................................................................................ 53 4.4.2 Population.................................................................................................................................... 53 4.4.3 Habitat.......................................................................................................................................... 55 4.4.4 Future propects (preceived pressures) .................................................................................... 55 4.4.5 Overall assessment ..................................................................................................................... 55 References............................................................................................................................................................ 56 APPENDIX I - Habitat Data Recording Form ................................................................................................ 60 APPENDIX II - Spawn Data Recording Form ................................................................................................ 61 5 Frog Survey of Ireland 2010/11 APPENDIX III - Candidate list of 500m squares for future monitoring .....................................................63 6 Frog Survey of Ireland 2010/11 Executive Summary 1) This is the first study to make a quantitative assessment of the conservation status of the EU Annex V Species 1213 Rana temporaria throughout the Republic of Ireland. 2) Numbers of farmland ponds (water
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Amphibian Identification
    Amphibian Identification Common frog Adults 6-7 cm. Smooth skin, which appears moist. Coloration variable, includes brown, yellow and orange. Some females have red markings on lower body. Usually has a dark ‘mask’ marking behind the eye. Breeding male Markings also variable, Grey/pale blue including varying amounts throat. of black spots and stripes. Thick front legs. Dark (nuptial) pad on inner toes of Young froglets look like the front feet. Spawn is laid in gelatinous smaller versions of the clumps. adults. Common toad Adults 5-9 cm. Rough skin. Brown with darker markings. Less commonly, some individuals are very dark, almost black, others are brick-red. Breeding pair Males smaller than females. Breeding males can also be distinguished by dark (nuptial) pads on innermost two toes of the front feet. Toad spawn is laid in gelatinous strings, wrapped around vegetation. Less conspicuous than common frog spawn. Makes small hops rather than jumps of common frog. Toadlets transforming from the Juveniles are tadpole stage are often very dark similar colours in colour. to adults, including brick-red. ARG UK Natterjack toad Strictly protected species, requiring Similar in size and appearance to common toad, a licence to handle but with a pale stripe running along the back. or disturb. This is a rare species, unlikely to be found outside specific dune and heathland habitats. On hatching common frog and toad tadpoles Frog Tadpoles are black. As they develop, common frog tadpoles become mottled with bronze, whereas toad tadpoles remain uniformly dark until the last stages of development. Common frog and toad tadpoles generally complete Toad development in the summer, but development rates are variable; some tadpoles may not transform until later in the year, or they may even remain as tadpoles over winter, becoming much larger than normal.
    [Show full text]
  • Triturus Cristatus) and Smooth Newt (Lissotriton Vulgaris) in Cold Climate in Southeast Norway
    diversity Article Assessing the Use of Artificial Hibernacula by the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) and Smooth Newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) in Cold Climate in Southeast Norway Børre K. Dervo 1,*, Jon Museth 1 and Jostein Skurdal 2 1 Human Dimension Department, Norwegian Institute of Nature Research (NINA), Vormstuguvegen 40, NO-2624 Lillehammer, Norway; [email protected] 2 Maihaugen, Maihaugvegen 1, NO-2609 Lillehammer, Norway; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +47-907-600-77 Received: 27 May 2018; Accepted: 3 July 2018; Published: 5 July 2018 Abstract: Construction of artificial overwintering habitats, hibernacula, or newt hotels, is an important mitigation measure for newt populations in urban and agricultural areas. We have monitored the use of four artificial hotels built in September 2011 close to a 6000 m2 breeding pond in Norway. The four hotels ranged from 1.6 to 12.4 m3 and were located from 5 to 40 m from the breeding pond. In 2013–2015, 57 Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus) and 413 Smooth Newts (Lissotriton vulgaris) spent the winter in the hotels. The proportions of juveniles were 75% and 62%, respectively, and the hotels may be important to secure recruitment. Knowledge on emigration routes and habitat quality for summer use and winter hibernation is important to find good locations for newt hotels. The study documented that newts may survive a minimum temperature of −6.7 ◦C. We recommend that newt hotels in areas with harsh climate are dug into the ground in slopes to reduce low-temperature exposure during winter. Keywords: Triturus cristatus; Lissotriton vulgaris; climate; hibernacula 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Palmate Newt • Smooth Newt Rare Species
    Identifying amphibians Which species are we looking for? Priorities . • Great Crested Newt • Common Frog • Common Toad But also . • Palmate Newt • Smooth Newt Rare species Rare species – Natterjack Toads and Pool Frogs have very limited distributions. You are very unlikely to encounter these species unless you are surveying a site where their presence is already known. Non-native species • Non-native animals are still relatively uncommon and isolated. • But they do occur and it’s worth keeping an eye out for anything unusual. North American Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeiana Common Frog Rana temporaria • Frogs have smooth skins and are relatively athletic, for example leaping about if netted. Dark patch usually present behind the eye Variable coloration and markings Common Frog • Occasional large aggregations in excess of 2000 individuals but usually much less • Often lays spawn in ephemeral ponds which dry up during summer • Wide range of pond pH recorded 4.5 – 8.5 Green (water) frogs • Most likely non native species. • Also variable in coloration. • No dark patch behind eye. • Bask in and around pond. • Call loudly from late spring to summer. • Difficult to approach. Marsh Frog Pelophylax ridibundus Common Toad Bufo bufo • Toads have rough, warty skins, so are readily identifiable from common frogs. Toad spawn • Toad spawn is deposited in long gelatinous strings, wound around water plants. It is usually produced a little after frogspawn. It is harder to spot than the more familiar frogspawn – but it may be revealed during netting. Common Frog and Toad tadpoles • On hatching both species are very dark. However, frog tadpoles become mottled with bronze spots.
    [Show full text]
  • Strasbourg, 22 May 2002
    Strasbourg, 21 October 2015 T-PVS/Inf (2015) 18 [Inf18e_2015.docx] CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS Standing Committee 35th meeting Strasbourg, 1-4 December 2015 GROUP OF EXPERTS ON THE CONSERVATION OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES 1-2 July 2015 Bern, Switzerland - NATIONAL REPORTS - Compilation prepared by the Directorate of Democratic Governance / The reports are being circulated in the form and the languages in which they were received by the Secretariat. This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. Ce document ne sera plus distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire. T-PVS/Inf (2015) 18 - 2 – CONTENTS / SOMMAIRE __________ 1. Armenia / Arménie 2. Austria / Autriche 3. Belgium / Belgique 4. Croatia / Croatie 5. Estonia / Estonie 6. France / France 7. Italy /Italie 8. Latvia / Lettonie 9. Liechtenstein / Liechtenstein 10. Malta / Malte 11. Monaco / Monaco 12. The Netherlands / Pays-Bas 13. Poland / Pologne 14. Slovak Republic /République slovaque 15. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” / L’« ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine » 16. Ukraine - 3 - T-PVS/Inf (2015) 18 ARMENIA / ARMENIE NATIONAL REPORT OF REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA ON NATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES ON THE CONSERVATION OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE COUNTRY AND ITS BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Armenia is a small landlocked mountainous country located in the Southern Caucasus. Forty four percent of the territory of Armenia is a high mountainous area not suitable for inhabitation. The degree of land use is strongly unproportional. The zones under intensive development make 18.2% of the territory of Armenia with concentration of 87.7% of total population.
    [Show full text]
  • Edna Increases the Detectability of Ranavirus Infection in an Alpine Amphibian Population
    viruses Technical Note eDNA Increases the Detectability of Ranavirus Infection in an Alpine Amphibian Population Claude Miaud 1,* ,Véronique Arnal 1, Marie Poulain 1, Alice Valentini 2 and Tony Dejean 2 1 CEFE, EPHE-PSL, CNRS, Univ. Montpellier, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, IRD, Biogeography and Vertebrate Ecology, 1919 route de Mende, 34293 Montpellier, France; [email protected] (V.A.); [email protected] (M.P.) 2 SPYGEN, 17 Rue du Lac Saint-André, 73370 Le Bourget-du-Lac, France; [email protected] (A.V.); [email protected] (T.D.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +33-(0)4-67-61-33-43 Received: 15 March 2019; Accepted: 4 June 2019; Published: 6 June 2019 Abstract: The early detection and identification of pathogenic microorganisms is essential in order to deploy appropriate mitigation measures. Viruses in the Iridoviridae family, such as those in the Ranavirus genus, can infect amphibian species without resulting in mortality or clinical signs, and they can also infect other hosts than amphibian species. Diagnostic techniques allowing the detection of the pathogen outside the period of host die-off would thus be of particular use. In this study, we tested a method using environmental DNA (eDNA) on a population of common frogs (Rana temporaria) known to be affected by a Ranavirus in the southern Alps in France. In six sampling sessions between June and September (the species’ activity period), we collected tissue samples from dead and live frogs (adults and tadpoles), as well as insects (aquatic and terrestrial), sediment, and water. At the beginning of the breeding season in June, one adult was found dead; at the end of July, a mass mortality of tadpoles was observed.
    [Show full text]
  • Systematic List of the Romanian Vertebrate Fauna
    Travaux du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle © Décembre Vol. LIII pp. 377–411 «Grigore Antipa» 2010 DOI: 10.2478/v10191-010-0028-1 SYSTEMATIC LIST OF THE ROMANIAN VERTEBRATE FAUNA DUMITRU MURARIU Abstract. Compiling different bibliographical sources, a total of 732 taxa of specific and subspecific order remained. It is about the six large vertebrate classes of Romanian fauna. The first class (Cyclostomata) is represented by only four species, and Pisces (here considered super-class) – by 184 taxa. The rest of 544 taxa belong to Tetrapoda super-class which includes the other four vertebrate classes: Amphibia (20 taxa); Reptilia (31); Aves (382) and Mammalia (110 taxa). Résumé. Cette contribution à la systématique des vertébrés de Roumanie s’adresse à tous ceux qui sont intéressés par la zoologie en général et par la classification de ce groupe en spécial. Elle représente le début d’une thème de confrontation des opinions des spécialistes du domaine, ayant pour but final d’offrir aux élèves, aux étudiants, aux professeurs de biologie ainsi qu’à tous ceux intéressés, une synthèse actualisée de la classification des vertébrés de Roumanie. En compilant différentes sources bibliographiques, on a retenu un total de plus de 732 taxons d’ordre spécifique et sous-spécifique. Il s’agît des six grandes classes de vertébrés. La première classe (Cyclostomata) est représentée dans la faune de Roumanie par quatre espèces, tandis que Pisces (considérée ici au niveau de surclasse) l’est par 184 taxons. Le reste de 544 taxons font partie d’une autre surclasse (Tetrapoda) qui réunit les autres quatre classes de vertébrés: Amphibia (20 taxons); Reptilia (31); Aves (382) et Mammalia (110 taxons).
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding of Rana Dalmatina and Rana Arvalis (Livada Plain, Romania)
    North-Western Journal of Zoology, Vol.1, pp. 25-30 Food composition of two Rana species on a forest habitat (Livada Plain, Romania) Lilla ASZALÓS1, Horia BOGDAN2, Éva-Hajnalka KOVÁCS2, Violeta-Ionela PETER2 1Msc student, University of Oradea, Faculty of Science 2Bsc student, University of Oradea, Faculty of Science, Department of Biology Abstract. The aim of this study was to bring new information regarding the feeding of two amphibian species, Rana arvalis (moor frog) and Rana dalmatina (agile frog), in a forest habitat (Livada Plain, Romania). We have focused our attention upon the trophical spectrum variations that occur, depending on the species and the studying period. We noticed an increased diversity of prey taxa in the stomachal contents of the agil frog. The bugs, spiders and butterfly larvas are the most important prey for both species. There is an increased high mobility prey taxa amount (flying insects for instance) only in the agile frog's stomachal contents. We'd like to emphasize the fact that both species were hunting in terrestrial habitat. Introduction The first studies in Romania, referring to moor frog's trophical spectrum, were realized by Covaciu-Marcov and his collaborators (2002a,b) and by Sas and his collaborators (2002a,b) in Ier Valley region (Western Plain). In other countries, there are as well studies made on this specie's trophical spectrum: Hungary (Lőw et al. 1990, Kovács & Török 1992, Török & Csörgő 1992), Sweden (Loman 1979), Finland (Itäimes 1982), Poland (Mazur 1966, Zimka 1966, 1974) and Russia (Vershinin & Seredyuk 2000, Izometzev 1969). The information related to the agile frog,s trophical spectrum, though, is much less (Guibaldi et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Parasitic Nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax Lessonae) in the Volga Basin
    Revista MVZ Córdoba ISSN: 0122-0268 ISSN: 1909-0544 [email protected] Universidad de Córdoba Colombia Parasitic nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax lessonae) in the Volga Basin V. Chikhlyaev, Igor; B. Ruchin, Alexander; I. Fayzulin, Alexander Parasitic nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax lessonae) in the Volga Basin Revista MVZ Córdoba, vol. 24, no. 3, 2019 Universidad de Córdoba, Colombia Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=69360322014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.1501 This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International. PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative Revista MVZ Córdoba, 2019, vol. 24, no. 3, September-December, ISSN: 0122-0268 1909-0544 Original Parasitic nematodes of Pool Frog (Pelophylax lessonae) in the Volga Basin Parásitos nematodos de la rana de piscina (Pelophylax lessonae) en la cuenca del Río Volga Igor V. Chikhlyaev DOI: https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.1501 Institute of Ecology of the Volga River Basi, Rusia Redalyc: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=69360322014 [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9949-233X Alexander B. Ruchin Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park , Rusia [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2653-3879 Alexander I. Fayzulin Institute of Ecology of the Volga River Basi, Rusia [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2595-7453 Received: 04 February 2019 Accepted: 08 July 2019 Published: 29 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.
    [Show full text]