DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report CLP Project ID & Project Title: 1457

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report CLP Project ID & Project Title: 1457 Conservation Leadership Programme: Final Report CLP project ID & Project title: 1457 - Saving the Endangered Giant Squeaker Frog, Arthroleptis krokosua Host country, site location and the dates in the field: Ghana, Sui River Forest Reserve. Dates in the field: 07-11/06/2013, 17-25/08/2013, 06-15/09/2013, 12-16/07/2014, 10-20/12/2014. Participating Organisations or Institutions: The Forestry Commission of Ghana, SAVE THE FROGS! USA, Sefwi-Wiaso District Assembly and Traditional Council, logging companies; Logs and Lumber Ltd. and John Bitar & Co. Ltd., SAVE THE FROGS! Ghana undergraduate chapters, and Ghana Education Service. The overall aim summarised in 10–15 words: Contribute data on the habitat and population ecology of the Giant Squeaker Frog (Arthroleptis krokosua). Full names of author(s): Gilbert Baase Adum (Project Leader), Jacqueline Sapoama Kumadoh, Alfred Kofi Bara, Ohene Boakye Adomako and Sandra Owusu-Gyamfi Permanent contact address, email and website: SAVE THE FROGS! Ghana, Box KS 15924, Adum-Kumasi, Ghana, e-mail: [email protected]. Website: www.savethefrogs.com/ghana Date which the report was completed: 28/11/2015 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Partners & Collaborators .................................................................................................... 5 SECTION 1: ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Conservation Value of the Project work ......................................................................................... 6 The Conservation Problem and Issues Addressed .......................................................................... 6 Background to the Project Site and its Conservation Significance .................................................. 6 Key Project Partners and Their Role ................................................................................................ 7 Project Members ............................................................................................................................. 8 SECTION 2: ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Aim and Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 9 Overall goal: ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Objectives: ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Changes to Original Project Plan ..................................................................................................... 9 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 10 Objective 1 Population Estimates of the Giant Squeaker Frog ..................................................... 10 Objective 2 Habitat Use and Identification of Threats .................................................................. 10 Objective 3 Conservation Education Programme (Awareness Creation)...................................... 10 Objective 4 Stakeholder Involvement and Capacity Building in Amphibian Conservation ........... 11 Outputs and Results ...................................................................................................................... 11 Objective 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Objective 2 ................................................................................................................................... 133 Objective 2.1 Habitat Use .............................................................................................................. 13 Objective 2.2 Identification of Threats.. ...................................................................................... 133 Logging .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Agriculture ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Mining ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Alien Plant Invasion ....................................................................................................................... 14 Charcoaling .................................................................................................................................... 14 Objective 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Objective 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 17 2 Communication & Application of Results ...................................................................................... 18 Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 19 Achievements and Impacts ........................................................................................................... 19 Objective 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Objective 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Objective 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Objective 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Capacity Development and Leadership Capabilities ..................................................................... 21 SECTION 3: ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Problems Encountered and Lessons Learnt .................................................................................. 22 Successful Activities ....................................................................................................................... 22 Problems Encountered .................................................................................................................. 22 Assessment of Project Methods .................................................................................................... 23 Lessons Learnt ............................................................................................................................... 23 In the Future .................................................................................................................................. 23 Financial Report ............................................................................................................................. 24 SECTION 4: ..................................................................................................................................... 26 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix 4.1 Recorded anuran amphibian species and their current conservation status ......... 26 Appendix 4.2 Links to Website Reports about The Giant Squeaker Frog ..................................... 27 Appendix 4.3 Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 28 Appendix 4.4 Abstract of Presentation at the Universities of Cambridge and Nottingham ......... 29 Appendix 4.5 Publication by a Project Member ............................................................................ 30 Appendix 4.6 Unpublished Theses of Undergraduates on the Project ......................................... 31 Appendix 4.7 A Sample of Circulated SAVE THE FROGS! Newsletters .......................................... 31 Appendix 4.8 CLP M&E Measures ................................................................................................. 32 Appendix 4.9 Recent Reassessment of The Giant Squeaker Frog by IUCN ................................... 34 3 Figures Fig. 1: Location of the Sui River Forest Reserve including admitted farms ..................................... 8 Fig 2: The rediscovered Giant Squeaker Frog ................................................................................ 12 Fig 3: Co-occurring frogs: Coast River Frog (Phrynobatrachus plicatus)………………….………………… 12 Fig 4: Co-occurring frogs: Boutry River Frog (Phrynobatrachus
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exploratory Trip to Democratic Republic of the Congo, August 20 – September 15, 2004
    Exploratory Trip to Democratic Republic of the Congo, August 20 – September 15, 2004 Trip Report for International Programs Office, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Final version: December 15, 2004 Bruce G. Marcot, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, 620 S.W. Main St., Suite 400, Portland, Oregon 97205, 503-808-2010, [email protected] Rick Alexander, USDA Forest Service Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, 1323 Club Dr., Vallejo CA 94592, 707 562-9014, [email protected] CONTENTS 1 Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………… 4 2 Introduction and Setting ………………………………………………………….…………… 5 3 Terms of Reference ……………………….…………………...……………………………… 5 4 Team Members and Contacts ………………………………………………….……………… 6 5 Team Schedule and Itinerary …………………………………………..….………...………… 6 6 Challenges to Community Forestry ...…………………………………………….…………… 7 6.1 Use of Community Options and Investment Tools (COAIT) ……………………… 7 6.2 Feasibility and Desirability of Lac Tumba Communities Engaging in Sustainable Timber Harvesting ..……………………………………….….…… 10 7 Conclusions, Recommendations, and Opportunities ..………………………...……………... 15 7.1 Overall Conclusions ...……………………………………………….………….…. 15 7.2 Recommendations …………………………………………………….…………… 19 7.2.1 Potential further involvement by FS .…………………………...………. 19 7.2.2 Aiding village communities under the IRM COAIT process .………..… 20 7.2.3 IRM’s community forest management program ..…………………...….. 23 7.2.4 USAID and CARPE .………………………………………….………… 26 7.2.5 Implementation Decrees under the 2002 Forestry Code ……………….. 28 8 Specific Observations ..……………………………………………...…………………….…. 32 8.1 Wildlife and Biodiversity …………………………………………..……………… 32 8.1.1 Endangered wildlife and the bushmeat trade .………………………..…. 32 8.1.2 Wildlife of young and old forests .…………………………………...…. 34 8.1.3 Forest trees and their associations .………………………………….….. 37 8.1.4 Caterpillars and trees .……………………………………………….….. 38 8.1.5 Islands and trees …………………………………………………….….. 39 8.1.6 Army ants ………………..………………………….………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Protected Area Management Plan Development - SAPO NATIONAL PARK
    Technical Assistance Report Protected Area Management Plan Development - SAPO NATIONAL PARK - Sapo National Park -Vision Statement By the year 2010, a fully restored biodiversity, and well-maintained, properly managed Sapo National Park, with increased public understanding and acceptance, and improved quality of life in communities surrounding the Park. A Cooperative Accomplishment of USDA Forest Service, Forestry Development Authority and Conservation International Steve Anderson and Dennis Gordon- USDA Forest Service May 29, 2005 to June 17, 2005 - 1 - USDA Forest Service, Forestry Development Authority and Conservation International Protected Area Development Management Plan Development Technical Assistance Report Steve Anderson and Dennis Gordon 17 June 2005 Goal Provide support to the FDA, CI and FFI to review and update the Sapo NP management plan, establish a management plan template, develop a program of activities for implementing the plan, and train FDA staff in developing future management plans. Summary Week 1 – Arrived in Monrovia on 29 May and met with Forestry Development Authority (FDA) staff and our two counterpart hosts, Theo Freeman and Morris Kamara, heads of the Wildlife Conservation and Protected Area Management and Protected Area Management respectively. We decided to concentrate on the immediate implementation needs for Sapo NP rather than a revision of existing management plan. The four of us, along with Tyler Christie of Conservation International (CI), worked in the CI office on the following topics: FDA Immediate
    [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]
  • Tri-Trophic Interactions of a Predator- Parasite-Host Assemblage in New Zealand
    Tri-trophic interactions of a predator- parasite-host assemblage in New Zealand BY KIRSTY JANE YULE A thesis submitted to Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Victoria University of Wellington (2016) 1 2 This thesis was conducted under the supervision of Associate Professor Kevin Burns (Primary Supervisor) Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand 3 4 Abstract Parasites are ubiquitous and the antagonistic relationships between parasites and their hosts shape populations and ecosystems. However, our understanding of complex parasitic interactions is lacking. New Zealand’s largest endemic moth, Aenetus virescens (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae) is a long-lived arboreal parasite. Larvae grow to 100mm, living ~6 years in solitary tunnels in host trees. Larvae cover their tunnel entrance with silk and frass webbing, behind which they feed on host tree phloem. Webbing looks much like the tree background, potentially concealing larvae from predatory parrots who consume larvae by tearing wood from trees. Yet, the ecological and evolutionary relationships between the host tree, the parasitic larvae, and the avian predator remain unresolved. In this thesis, I use a system-based approach to investigate complex parasite-host interactions using A. virescens (hereafter “larvae”) as a model system. First, I investigate the mechanisms driving intraspecific parasite aggregation (Chapter 2). Overall, many hosts had few parasites and few hosts had many, with larvae consistently more abundant in larger hosts. I found no evidence for density- dependent competition as infrapopulation size had no effect on long-term larval growth. Host specificity, the number of species utilised from the larger pool available, reflects parasite niche breadth, risk of extinction and ability to colonise new locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Prey Composition of Two Syntopic Phrynobatrachus Species in the Swamp Forest of Banco National Park, Ivory Coast
    Prey composition of two syntopic Phrynobatrachus species SALAMANDRA 44 3 177-186 Rheinbach, 20 August 2008 ISSN 0036-3375 Prey composition of two syntopic Phrynobatrachus species in the swamp forest of Banco National Park, Ivory Coast N’Goran Germain Kouamé, Blayda Tohé, N’Guessan Emmanuel Assemian, Germain Gourène & Mark-Oliver Rödel Abstract. We studied the diet of two syntopic and morphologically very similar leaf litter frogs, Phryno- batrachus ghanensis and P. phyllophilus, in Banco National Park, south-eastern Ivory Coast. We deter- mined the prey composition of females of both species to understand the potential avoidance of compe- tition for food. Insects dominated (> 80%) the general diet of both species. We determined insect prey items down to the level of the order. At this level the diet of both species differed, however not signifi- cantly. Whereas P. ghanensis preyed mainly on hymenoptera (65.6%, mostly ants); P. phyllophilus mainly preyed on coleoptera (56.8%). With respect to seasons these differences were even larger, although again not statistically significant. Hence, there seem to be some differences in the food preference of the two species. However, the large overlap in prey can be taken as a hint that competition for food does not play a major role between these two frogs. The slightly different diets are more likely the result of so far unde- tected differences in habitat preferences and / or activity patterns. Key words. Amphibia: Anura: Phrynobatrachidae: Phrynobatrachus ghanensis, P. phyllophilus, diet, swamp forest, syntopic occurrence, West Africa. Résumé. Les régimes alimentaires de Phrynobatrachus ghanensis et P. phyllophilus, deux grenouilles de litière vivant en sympatrie et morphologiquement très proches ont été étudiés dans le Parc National du Banco, sud-est de la Côte d’Ivoire.
    [Show full text]
  • Froglognews from the Herpetological Community Regional Focus Sub-Saharan Africa Regional Updates and Latests Research
    July 2011 Vol. 97 www.amphibians.orgFrogLogNews from the herpetological community Regional Focus Sub-Saharan Africa Regional updates and latests research. INSIDE News from the ASG Regional Updates Global Focus Leptopelis barbouri Recent Publications photo taken at Udzungwa Mountains, General Announcements Tanzania photographer: Michele Menegon And More..... Another “Lost Frog” Found. ASA Ansonia latidisca found The Amphibian Survival Alliance is launched in Borneo FrogLog Vol. 97 | July 2011 | 1 FrogLog CONTENTS 3 Editorial NEWS FROM THE ASG 4 The Amphibian Survival Alliance 6 Lost Frog found! 4 ASG International Seed Grant Winners 2011 8 Five Years of Habitat Protection for Amphibians REGIONAL UPDATE 10 News from Regional Groups 23 Re-Visiting the Frogs and Toads of 34 Overview of the implementation of 15 Kihansi Spray Toad Re- Zimbabwe Sahonagasy Action plan introduction Guidelines 24 Amatola Toad AWOL: Thirteen 35 Species Conservation Strategy for 15 Biogeography of West African years of futile searches the Golden Mantella amphibian assemblages 25 Atypical breeding patterns 36 Ankaratra massif 16 The green heart of Africa is a blind observed in the Okavango Delta 38 Brief note on the most threatened spot in herpetology 26 Eight years of Giant Bullfrog Amphibian species from Madagascar 17 Amphibians as indicators for research revealed 39 Fohisokina project: the restoration of degraded tropical 28 Struggling against domestic Implementation of Mantella cowani forests exotics at the southern end of Africa action plan 18 Life-bearing toads
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria Email: [email protected]
    Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies & Management 9 (1): 22 – 34, 2016. ISSN:1998-0507 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v9i1.3 Submitted: July 06, 2015 Accepted: January 07, 2015 DISTRIBUTION, DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF ANURAN SPECIES IN THREE DIFFERENT VEGETATION HABITATS IN SOUTHWESTERN NIGERIA ONADEKO, A.B. Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria Email: [email protected] Abstract The distribution, diversity and abundance of anuran species in three different vegetation habitats of Southwestern Nigeria were investigated. A total mean number of 388 individuals comprising 32 species were observed in the forest, 766 individuals in 28 species were recorded in the fallowed farmland and 278 individuals in 21 species in the savanna. There was significant difference (F 2, 129 = 3.602) between the numbers of anuran species inhabiting the three vegetation habitats at P < 0.05 as well as significant difference (F 2, 129 = 5.811) between the number of individuals of anuran species in the three vegetation habitats (P<0.01). The dominant species in the forest was Arthroleptis variabilis (9.02%) and the least abundant species in the forest were Leptopelis macrotis, Phlyctimantis boulengeri and Nectophryne afra each having 0.26%. Amietophrynus maculatus and A. regularis were both abundant in the fallowed farmland and savanna habitats. The least abundant species in the fallowed farmland was Leptopelis calcaratus (0.13%) while the least abundant in the savanna were Xenopus muelleri and Afrixalus dorsalis each with 0.72%. Thirty percent of anuran species observed occurred in all the vegetation habitats, while 27%, 11% and 7% were restricted to the forest, fallowed farmland and savanna respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tadpoles of Four Central African Phrynobatrachus Species
    SALAMANDRA 51(2) 91–102 30 JuneTadpoles 2015 of ISSNfour Phrynobatrachus0036–3375 species The tadpoles of four Central African Phrynobatrachus species Tilo Pfalzgraff1, Mareike Hirschfeld1, Michael F. Barej1, Matthias Dahmen1, L. Nono Gonwouo2, Thomas M. Doherty-Bone3,4 & Mark-Oliver Rödel1 1) Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Invalidenstr. 43, 10115 Berlin, Germany 2) Cameroon Herpetology-Conservation Biology Foundation (CAMHERP-CBF), PO Box 8218, Yaoundé, Cameroon 3) Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom 4) School of Geography & School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom Corresponding author: Mark-Oliver Rödel, e-mail: [email protected] Manuscript received: 1 April 2014 Accepted: 17 July 2014 by Stefan Lötters Abstract. We describe the tadpoles of four Cameroonian Phrynobatrachus species, P. auritus, P. chukuchuku, P. jimzimkusi, and P. manengoubensis. While P. auritus is a widespread frog of Central African rainforests, the other three species are endemic to parts of the Cameroonian Volcanic Line. All tadpoles have the short and rotund body shape that is typical of Phrynobatrachus, with comparatively short tails and delicate jaw sheaths. We describe morphological characters suited to differentiate between these species, in particular labial tooth row formulae and the presence or absence of particular papil- lae, and summarize corresponding data for other described tadpoles of the genus. As far as is currently known, different reproductive modes, as well as morphology and biology of Phrynobatrachus tadpoles is not mirrored in the phylogenetic relationships of the respective species. We further point out profound morphological differences between P.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSERVATION of the CRITICALLY ENDANGERED TOGO SLIPPERY FROG ( Conraua Derooi ), in EASTERN GHANA
    CONSERVATION OF THE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED TOGO SLIPPERY FROG ( Conraua derooi ), IN EASTERN GHANA Submitted by Ofori-Boateng, C., A. Damoah, G.B. Adum, S. Nsiah, E. Nkrumah and D. Saykay-Tuabeng E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: +233 (0)243038771 April 2012 CONSERVATION OF THE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED TOGO SLIPPERY FROG ( Conraua derooi ), IN EASTERN GHANA CLP project ID: 0143510 This project aimed at protecting the last known viable population of a Critically Endangered frog (the Togo slippery; Conraua derooi ) in Eastern Ghana Project duration: August 2010 – April 2011 Author (s) Ofori-Boateng, C., A. Damoah, G.B. Adum, S. Nsiah, E. Nkrumah and D. Saykay-Tuabeng [email protected] ©April 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We thank the Forestry Commission of Ghana for permission to carry out this research and conservation work in the Atewa Mountains. We are very grateful to Mr. Moses Sam, (regional manager, Ghana Wildlife Division offices in the western and central regions of Ghana) for supporting this project from the onset. We are thankful to several community members for their help and enthusiasm to promote conservation in their respective communities. Mr. Duodu assisted with our community entry and meeting planning in Sagyimase village. Mr. Mike Ofosu-Takyi provided accommodation for the team members anytime we were near Kibi township. We are also grateful to Mr. Philip Amankwah, Mr. Ibrahim Entsi, Antwi Kwame Prosper and several students and community members who participated in our field work. This work was funded by a future conservationist award from the Conservation Leadership Program (CLP). We are particularly grateful to various help provided by the CLP team particularly, Julie, Stuart, Kiragu and Robyn.
    [Show full text]
  • The Amphibians of the Yakassé-Mé Village Forest, a Threatened Rainforest of South-Eastern Ivory Coast
    Herpetology Notes, volume 7: 657-665 (2014) (published online on 12 November 2014) The amphibians of the Yakassé-Mé village forest, a threatened rainforest of south-eastern Ivory Coast N’Goran Germain Kouamé1,*, Jean Christophe B.Y.N. Konan2, Abouo Béatrice Adepo-Gourène2, Germain Gourène2 and Mark-Oliver Rödel3,* Abstract. We report on the amphibian fauna of the Yakassé-Mé village forest, south-eastern Ivory Coast. We recorded a total of 24 frog species. These frogs are typical for the rainforest and degraded rainforest habitats of this region. Some species which we expected, but were lacking from our records include the regional endemics Astylosternus laticephalus, Hyperolius viridigulosus, Morerella cyanophthalma, Phrynobatrachus ghanensis. Although the Yakassé-Mé village forest is only a relatively small forest remnant, we urge for its future protection as it represents an important refuge for the forest fauna in the south-east of Ivory Coast, where only few forests persisted until today. Keywords. Anura, biodiversity assessment, conservation status, Côte d’Ivoire, Upper Guinea hotspot. Introduction border, are amongst the most highly threatened African forests (Norris et al., 2010; Mayaux et al., 2013). They Whereas the amphibian fauna in Ivory Coast has been suffer from steadily increasing human encroachment, in intensively investigated in the forests in the West (e.g. particular logging, shifting agriculture and conversion Rödel and Branch, 2002; Ernst et al., 2006), the forest- of forests into plantations (Zadou et al., 2011). There is savannah mosaic in the Center (e.g. Lamotte, 1967; thus a clear need for basic faunistic studies. Some of the Barbault, 1967, 1972; Rödel, 2003; Rödel and Ernst, few remaining forests are possessed and managed by 2003; Adeba et al., 2010), as well as in the savannahs of villages.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibian Diversity the Origin and Evolution of Amphibians
    Amphibian Diversity The Origin and Evolution of Amphibians • The three living groups of amphibians are descended from a diverse group of tetrapods that first appeared in the Devonian Period, about 400 million years ago • The ancient continents were uniting into a single large landmass, Pangaea, much of which was situated in tropical or subtropical latitudes. • The climate is assumed to have been relatively warm and equable for terrestrial life. Land communities were characterized by assemblages of relatively primitive plants and arthropods. Phylogeny of Devonian tetrapods Phylogeny of Devonian tetrapods, with diagrammatic representations of skull structure of major clades. Ichthyostega is considered the sister group to the later tetrapods. The Origin of Modern Amphibians Alternative phylogenetic hypotheses for the relationships of lissamphibians, amniotes, and early tetrapods. (A)Traditional hypothesis showing lissamphibians related to temnospondyls. (B) Hypothesis of Laurin and Reisz (1997), showing lissamphibians related to lepospondyls and to microsaurs in particular. General Characteristics of Living Amphibians • Three major groups of amphibians are very different : 1. Frogs and toads (order Anura) : specialized for jumping, with greatly enlarged hind legs, shortened bodies, no tail, and large heads and eyes. 2. Salamanders and newts (order Urodela): more elongate, with front and back legs of approximately equal size and a long tail (this clade is called Caudata by some systematists, derived from the Latin rather than the Greek word for “tail”). 3. Caecilians (order Gymnophiona) : specialized for life underground. They have elongated, snakelike bodies that lack legs, and they have greatly reduced eyes. Reconstructions of The Earliest Anuran and Caecilian Fossils (A) Triadobatrachus massinoti, a froglike amphibian from an early Triassic deposit in Madagascar.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity and Habitat Preferences of Anurans in The
    University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DIVERSITY AND HABITAT PREFERENCES OF ANURANS IN THE ATEWA RANGE FOREST RESERVE, EASTERN REGION, GHANA BY HAMDIA MAHAMA (10395800) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MPHIL ZOOLOGY DEGREE JULY, 2014 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DECLARATION I declare that this thesis submitted for the award of Master Philosophy in Zoology, is the result of research undertaken by me. References to other people‟s work have been duly acknowledged. ………………………………………………… HAMDIA MAHAMA (Student) Date………………………………… ………………………………………………… PROFESSOR DANIEL K. ATTUQUAYEFIO (Principal Supervisor) Date……………………………….. …………………………………………………….. DR. JAMES K. ADOMAKO (Supervisor) Date……………………………….. i University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank God for my life and for giving me strength to complete this work successfully. I would like to thank my Supervisors, Prof. Daniel K. Attuquayefio and Dr. James K. Adomako for their patience, guidance and immense support during the research. I am also grateful to my sister, Ruby and husband, Emmanuel J. Wumbeidow for their continual prayers and motivation. I am extremely grateful to Dr. Caleb Ofori-Boateng and Mr. Gilbert Adum for their time, dedication, useful criticisms, technical support and encouragement in amphibian studies. Philip Amankwaa and Jojo Ibrahim, trained specialists in amphibian identification and field techniques, were tremendously hardworking and supported me throughout the field work. I am indebted to Mr. Charles Gyekye, of the Begoro District Forestry Office, Forestry Commission, for assisting with the identification of trees, support and also providing a forest guard during the entire research period.
    [Show full text]