DOCSLIB.ORG

General Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Introduction Disease threats to Belgian anurans – Implications for amphibian conservation and human health Mojdeh Sharifian Fard Thesis submitted in fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor in veterinary science (PhD), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 2014 Promoters: Prof. dr. An Martel Prof. dr. Frank Pasmans Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Department of Pathology, Bacteriology and Poultry Diseases Sharifian Fard Mojdeh Disease threats to Belgian anurans – Implications for amphibian conservation and human health 2014 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University Printed by University Press, Zelzate ISBN: 9789058643889 Dedicated to my mother (Giti) and father (Hafez) In memory of Sepanta CONTENTS Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1. Indigenous Amphibians of Belgium ................................................................................... 3 1.1. Indigenous species: definition ...................................................................................... 3 1.2. Indigenous amphibians of Belgium .............................................................................. 3 1.2.1. Anura ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1.1. Alytes obstetricans, Common midwife toad ................................................... 4 1.2.1.2. Bombina variegata, Yellow-bellied toad ......................................................... 5 1.2.1.3. Bufo bufo, Common toad ............................................................................... 6 1.2.1.4. Epidalea calamita, Natterjack toad ................................................................. 7 1.2.1.5. Hyla arborea, Common tree frog .................................................................... 8 1.2.1.6. Pelobates fuscus, Common spadefoot toad..................................................... 9 1.2.1.7. Pelophylax lessonae, Pool frog .................................................................... 10 1.2.1.8. Pelophylax kl. esculentus, Edible frog ......................................................... 11 1.2.1.9. Rana arvalis, Moor frog ................................................................................ 12 1.2.1.10. Rana temporaria, Common frog .................................................................. 13 1.2.2. Caudata ................................................................................................................ 14 1.2.2.1. Ichthyosaura alpestris, Alpine newt .............................................................. 15 1.2.2.2. Lissotriton helveticus, Palmate newt ............................................................ 16 1.2.2.3. Lissotriton vulgaris, Smooth newt ................................................................ 17 1.2.2.4. Salamandra salamandra, Fire salamander ................................................... 18 1.2.2.5. Triturus cristatus, Great crested newt ........................................................... 19 2. Invasive amphibians ......................................................................................................... 20 2.1. Invasive species: definition ........................................................................................ 20 2.2. Invasive amphibians of Belgium ................................................................................ 21 2.2.1. Lithobates catesbeianus, American bullfrog ....................................................... 22 2.2.2. Pelophylax ridibundus, Marsh frog ..................................................................... 24 3. Amphibian Diseases ......................................................................................................... 26 3.1. Ranavirosis ................................................................................................................ 27 3.1.1. Background ......................................................................................................... 27 3.1.2. General characteristics ......................................................................................... 29 3.1.3. Replication cycle ................................................................................................. 30 3.1.4. Transmission and pathogenesis ........................................................................... 31 I CONTENTS 3.1.5. Clinical signs and pathology ............................................................................... 33 3.1.6. Diagnosis ............................................................................................................. 35 3.1.7. Conservation strategies ....................................................................................... 36 3.2. Chytridiomycosis ........................................................................................................ 37 3.2.1. Background ......................................................................................................... 37 3.2.2. Phylogenetic characteristics of B. dendrobatidis ................................................ 40 3.2.3. Lifecycle stages ................................................................................................... 40 3.2.4. Susceptibility to B. dendrobatidis ....................................................................... 41 3.2.5. Clinical signs, gross pathology and pathogenesis ............................................... 43 3.2.6. Transmission ....................................................................................................... 44 3.2.7. Amphibian defense against chytridiomycosis ..................................................... 44 3.2.8. Diagnosis ............................................................................................................. 45 3.2.9. Preventative management strategies ................................................................... 46 3.3. Zoonotic bacterial diseases ........................................................................................ 48 3.3.1. Chlamydia ........................................................................................................... 48 3.3.2. Salmonella ........................................................................................................... 49 3.4. Mesomycetozoans ...................................................................................................... 50 3.5. Parasites .................................................................................................................... 50 3.6. Non-infectious diseases .............................................................................................. 53 3.6.1. Heavy metal disorders ......................................................................................... 53 3.6.1.1. Trace metals ................................................................................................. 53 3.6.1.1.1. Copper .................................................................................................... 54 3.6.1.1.2. Zinc ......................................................................................................... 55 3.6.1.2. Xenobiotic metals ......................................................................................... 57 3.6.1.2.1. Lead ........................................................................................................ 57 3.6.1.2.2. Mercury .................................................................................................. 58 3.6.1.2.3. Cadmium ................................................................................................ 59 4. References ........................................................................................................................ 61 SCIENTIFIC AIMS ............................................................................................................... 89 STUDY 1 ................................................................................................................................. 93 Road-killed common toads (Bufo bufo) in Flanders (Belgium) reveal low prevalence of ranaviruses and Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis II CONTENTS STUDY 2 ............................................................................................................................... 103 Ranavirosis in invasive bullfrogs, Belgium STUDY 3 ............................................................................................................................... 109 The novel ‘Candidatus Amphibiichlamydia ranarum’ is highly prevalent in invasive exotic bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) STUDY 4 ............................................................................................................................... 119 Chironomidae bloodworms larvae as aquatic amphibian food STUDY 5 ............................................................................................................................... 139 Migrating common toads (Bufo bufo) in rural temperate regions: reservoirs of Salmonella? STUDY 6 ............................................................................................................................... 151 The absence of zoonotic agents in invasive bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) in Belgium and The Netherlands GENERAL DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effects of Emerging Infectious Diseases on Amphibians: a Review of Experimental Studies
    diversity Review Effects of Emerging Infectious Diseases on Amphibians: A Review of Experimental Studies Andrew R. Blaustein 1,*, Jenny Urbina 2 ID , Paul W. Snyder 1, Emily Reynolds 2 ID , Trang Dang 1 ID , Jason T. Hoverman 3 ID , Barbara Han 4 ID , Deanna H. Olson 5 ID , Catherine Searle 6 ID and Natalie M. Hambalek 1 1 Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA; [email protected] (P.W.S.); [email protected] (T.D.); [email protected] (N.M.H.) 2 Environmental Sciences Graduate Program, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA; [email protected] (J.U.); [email protected] (E.R.) 3 Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA; [email protected] 4 Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York, NY 12545, USA; [email protected] 5 US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA; [email protected] 6 Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence [email protected]; Tel.: +1-541-737-5356 Received: 25 May 2018; Accepted: 27 July 2018; Published: 4 August 2018 Abstract: Numerous factors are contributing to the loss of biodiversity. These include complex effects of multiple abiotic and biotic stressors that may drive population losses. These losses are especially illustrated by amphibians, whose populations are declining worldwide. The causes of amphibian population declines are multifaceted and context-dependent. One major factor affecting amphibian populations is emerging infectious disease. Several pathogens and their associated diseases are especially significant contributors to amphibian population declines.
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Ichthyosaura Alpestris</I>
    Volume 26 (January 2016), 49–56 FULL PAPER Herpetological Journal Published by the British Provenance of Ichthyosaura alpestris (Caudata: Herpetological Society Salamandridae) introductions to France and New Zealand assessed by mitochondrial DNA analysis Jan W. Arntzen1, Tania M. King2, Mathieu Denoël3, Iñigo Martínez-Solano4,5 & Graham P. Wallis2 1Naturalis Biodiversity Center, PO Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands 2Department of Zoology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand 3Behavioural Biology Unit, Department of Biology, Ecology and Evolution, University of Liège, Quai van Beneden 22, 4020 Liège, Belgium 4CIBIO-InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Universidade do Porto, Rua Padre Armando Quintas, s/n 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal 5(present address) Ecology, Evolution, and Development Group, Department of Wetland Ecology, Doñana Biological Station, CSIC, c/ Americo Vespucio, s/n, 41092, Seville, Spain The last century has seen an unparalleled movement of species around the planet as a direct result of human activity, which has been a major contributor to the biodiversity crisis. Amphibians represent a particularly vulnerable group, exacerbated by the devastating effects of chytrid fungi. We report the malicious translocation and establishment of the alpine newt (Ichthyosaura alpestris) to its virtual antipode in North Island of New Zealand. We use network analysis of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes to identify the original source population as I. a. apuana from Tuscany, Italy. Additionally, a population in southern France, presumed to be introduced, is identified as I. a. alpestris from western Europe. However, the presence of two differentiated haplotypes suggests a mixed origin.
    [Show full text]
  • R. P. LANE (Department of Entomology), British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 the Diptera of Lundy Have Been Poorly Studied in the Past
    Swallow 3 Spotted Flytcatcher 28 *Jackdaw I Pied Flycatcher 5 Blue Tit I Dunnock 2 Wren 2 Meadow Pipit 10 Song Thrush 7 Pied Wagtail 4 Redwing 4 Woodchat Shrike 1 Blackbird 60 Red-backed Shrike 1 Stonechat 2 Starling 15 Redstart 7 Greenfinch 5 Black Redstart I Goldfinch 1 Robin I9 Linnet 8 Grasshopper Warbler 2 Chaffinch 47 Reed Warbler 1 House Sparrow 16 Sedge Warbler 14 *Jackdaw is new to the Lundy ringing list. RECOVERIES OF RINGED BIRDS Guillemot GM I9384 ringed 5.6.67 adult found dead Eastbourne 4.12.76. Guillemot GP 95566 ringed 29.6.73 pullus found dead Woolacombe, Devon 8.6.77 Starling XA 92903 ringed 20.8.76 found dead Werl, West Holtun, West Germany 7.10.77 Willow Warbler 836473 ringed 14.4.77 controlled Portland, Dorset 19.8.77 Linnet KC09559 ringed 20.9.76 controlled St Agnes, Scilly 20.4.77 RINGED STRANGERS ON LUNDY Manx Shearwater F.S 92490 ringed 4.9.74 pullus Skokholm, dead Lundy s. Light 13.5.77 Blackbird 3250.062 ringed 8.9.75 FG Eksel, Belgium, dead Lundy 16.1.77 Willow Warbler 993.086 ringed 19.4.76 adult Calf of Man controlled Lundy 6.4.77 THE DIPTERA (TWO-WINGED FLffiS) OF LUNDY ISLAND R. P. LANE (Department of Entomology), British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 The Diptera of Lundy have been poorly studied in the past. Therefore, it is hoped that the production of an annotated checklist, giving an indication of the habits and general distribution of the species recorded will encourage other entomologists to take an interest in the Diptera of Lundy.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecol 483/583 – Herpetology Lab 3: Amphibian Diversity 2: Anura Spring 2010
    Ecol 483/583 – Herpetology Lab 3: Amphibian Diversity 2: Anura Spring 2010 P.J. Bergmann & S. Foldi (Modified from Bonine & Foldi 2008) Lab objectives The objectives of today’s lab are to: 1. Familiarize yourself with Anuran diversity. 2. Learn to identify local frogs and toads. 3. Learn to use a taxonomic key. Today’s lab is the second in which you will learn about amphibian diversity. We will cover the Anura, or frogs and toads, the third and final clade of Lissamphibia. Tips for learning the material Continue what you have been doing in previous weeks. Examine all of the specimens on display, taking notes, drawings and photos of what you see. Attempt to identify the local species to species and the others to their higher clades. Quiz each other to see which taxa are easy for you and which ones give you troubles, and then revisit the difficult ones. Although the Anura has a conserved body plan – all are rather short and rigid bodied, with well- developed limbs, there is an incredible amount of diversity. Pay close attention to some of the special external anatomical traits that characterize the groups of frogs you see today. You will also learn to use a taxonomic key today. This is an important tool for correctly identifying species, especially when they are very difficult to distinguish from other species. 1 Ecol 483/583 – Lab 3: Anura 2010 Exercise 1: Anura diversity General Information Frogs are a monophyletic group comprising the order Anura. Salientia includes both extant and extinct frogs. Frogs have been around since the Triassic (~230 ma).
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity and Resource Choice of Flower-Visiting Insects in Relation to Pollen Nutritional Quality and Land Use
    Diversity and resource choice of flower-visiting insects in relation to pollen nutritional quality and land use Diversität und Ressourcennutzung Blüten besuchender Insekten in Abhängigkeit von Pollenqualität und Landnutzung Vom Fachbereich Biologie der Technischen Universität Darmstadt zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doctor rerum naturalium genehmigte Dissertation von Dipl. Biologin Christiane Natalie Weiner aus Köln Berichterstatter (1. Referent): Prof. Dr. Nico Blüthgen Mitberichterstatter (2. Referent): Prof. Dr. Andreas Jürgens Tag der Einreichung: 26.02.2016 Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 29.04.2016 Darmstadt 2016 D17 2 Ehrenwörtliche Erklärung Ich erkläre hiermit ehrenwörtlich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit entsprechend den Regeln guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis selbständig und ohne unzulässige Hilfe Dritter angefertigt habe. Sämtliche aus fremden Quellen direkt oder indirekt übernommene Gedanken sowie sämtliche von Anderen direkt oder indirekt übernommene Daten, Techniken und Materialien sind als solche kenntlich gemacht. Die Arbeit wurde bisher keiner anderen Hochschule zu Prüfungszwecken eingereicht. Osterholz-Scharmbeck, den 24.02.2016 3 4 My doctoral thesis is based on the following manuscripts: Weiner, C.N., Werner, M., Linsenmair, K.-E., Blüthgen, N. (2011): Land-use intensity in grasslands: changes in biodiversity, species composition and specialization in flower-visitor networks. Basic and Applied Ecology 12 (4), 292-299. Weiner, C.N., Werner, M., Linsenmair, K.-E., Blüthgen, N. (2014): Land-use impacts on plant-pollinator networks: interaction strength and specialization predict pollinator declines. Ecology 95, 466–474. Weiner, C.N., Werner, M , Blüthgen, N. (in prep.): Land-use intensification triggers diversity loss in pollination networks: Regional distinctions between three different German bioregions Weiner, C.N., Hilpert, A., Werner, M., Linsenmair, K.-E., Blüthgen, N.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of Chordate Larvae Donald I Williamson* Marine Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZB, United Kingdom
    lopmen ve ta e l B Williamson, Cell Dev Biol 2012, 1:1 D io & l l o l g DOI: 10.4172/2168-9296.1000101 e y C Cell & Developmental Biology ISSN: 2168-9296 Research Article Open Access The Origins of Chordate Larvae Donald I Williamson* Marine Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZB, United Kingdom Abstract The larval transfer hypothesis states that larvae originated as adults in other taxa and their genomes were transferred by hybridization. It contests the view that larvae and corresponding adults evolved from common ancestors. The present paper reviews the life histories of chordates, and it interprets them in terms of the larval transfer hypothesis. It is the first paper to apply the hypothesis to craniates. I claim that the larvae of tunicates were acquired from adult larvaceans, the larvae of lampreys from adult cephalochordates, the larvae of lungfishes from adult craniate tadpoles, and the larvae of ray-finned fishes from other ray-finned fishes in different families. The occurrence of larvae in some fishes and their absence in others is correlated with reproductive behavior. Adult amphibians evolved from adult fishes, but larval amphibians did not evolve from either adult or larval fishes. I submit that [1] early amphibians had no larvae and that several families of urodeles and one subfamily of anurans have retained direct development, [2] the tadpole larvae of anurans and urodeles were acquired separately from different Mesozoic adult tadpoles, and [3] the post-tadpole larvae of salamanders were acquired from adults of other urodeles. Reptiles, birds and mammals probably evolved from amphibians that never acquired larvae.
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Impacts of Pacific Island Invasive Species. 8
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Publications Plant Health Inspection Service 2012 Biology and Impacts of Pacific Island Invasive Species. 8. Eleutherodactylus planirostris, the Greenhouse Frog (Anura: Eleutherodactylidae) Christina A. Olson Utah State University, [email protected] Karen H. Beard Utah State University, [email protected] William C. Pitt National Wildlife Research Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Olson, Christina A.; Beard, Karen H.; and Pitt, William C., "Biology and Impacts of Pacific Island Invasive Species. 8. Eleutherodactylus planirostris, the Greenhouse Frog (Anura: Eleutherodactylidae)" (2012). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 1174. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/1174 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Biology and Impacts of Pacific Island Invasive Species. 8. Eleutherodactylus planirostris, the Greenhouse Frog (Anura: Eleutherodactylidae)1 Christina A. Olson,2 Karen H. Beard,2,4 and William C. Pitt 3 Abstract: The greenhouse frog, Eleutherodactylus planirostris, is a direct- developing (i.e., no aquatic stage) frog native to Cuba and the Bahamas. It was introduced to Hawai‘i via nursery plants in the early 1990s and then subsequently from Hawai‘i to Guam in 2003. The greenhouse frog is now widespread on five Hawaiian Islands and Guam.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Morphometric Study on Tadpoles of Bombina Variegata (Linnaeus, 1758) (Anura; Bombinatoridae)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Firenze University Press: E-Journals Acta Herpetologica 5(2): 223-231, 2010 Morphometric study on tadpoles of Bombina variegata (Linnaeus, 1758) (Anura; Bombinatoridae) Anna Rita Di Cerbo*, Carlo M. Biancardi Centro Studi Faunistica dei Vertebrati, Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali, C.so Venezia 55, I-20121, Milano, Italy. *Correspondig author. E.mail: [email protected] Submitted on: 2009, 23th November; revised on 2010, 10th October; accepted on 2010, 12th November. Abstract. The tadpoles of Yellow-bellied toad (Bombina variegata) can be easily rec- ognized from other Italian anuran species, except those of B. pachypus (though the two congeneric species are allopatric). In this paper we report morphometric data on B. variegata tadpoles from a Lombard population living near a torrent at 450 m a.s.l. On a sample of 264 tadpoles (stages 19-44, according to Gosner, 1960) we meas- ured the following five variables: snout-vent length, tail length, maximum tail height, total length and weight. We found a slight allometric relationship between snout-vent length and tail length, while, as expected, the weight is nearly proportional to the cube of linear measures. According to literature data, our results point to highly constant proportions during the development phases up to prometamorphic stages. The ratio between snout-vent length and tail length was about 0.75 during the whole growing phase, while from stage 42 the proportion increases as the resorption of the tail starts. Keywords. Tadpole morphology, Yellow-bellied toad, Bombina variegata.
    [Show full text]
  • This Article Appeared in a Journal Published by Elsevier. the Attached
    (This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.) This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Toxicon 60 (2012) 967–981 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Toxicon journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/toxicon Antimicrobial peptides and alytesin are co-secreted from the venom of the Midwife toad, Alytes maurus (Alytidae, Anura): Implications for the evolution of frog skin defensive secretions Enrico König a,*, Mei Zhou b, Lei Wang b, Tianbao Chen b, Olaf R.P. Bininda-Emonds a, Chris Shaw b a AG Systematik und Evolutionsbiologie, IBU – Fakultät V, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Carl von Ossietzky Strasse 9-11, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany b Natural Drug Discovery Group, School of Pharmacy, Medical Biology Center, Queen’s University, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, Northern Ireland, UK article info abstract Article history: The skin secretions of frogs and toads (Anura) have long been a known source of a vast Received 23 March 2012 abundance of bioactive substances.
    [Show full text]
  • Diet Composition of the Karpathos Marsh Frog (Pelophylax Cerigensis): What Does the Most Endangered Frog in Europe Eat?
    Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 42.1 (2019) 1 Diet composition of the Karpathos marsh frog (Pelophylax cerigensis): what does the most endangered frog in Europe eat? P. Pafilis, G. Kapsalas, P. Lymberakis, D. Protopappas, K. Sotiropoulos Pafilis, P., Kapsalas, G., Lymberakis, P., Protopappas, D., Sotiropoulos, K., 2019. Diet composition of the Karpathos marsh frog (Pelophylax cerigensis): what does the most endangered frog in Europe eat? Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 42.1: 1–8, https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2019.42.0001 Abstract Diet composition of the Karpathos marsh frog (Pelophylax cerigensis): what does the most endangered frog in Europe eat? The Karpathos marsh frog (Pelophylax cerigensis) is considered the most endangered frog in Europe. Here we assess its feeding ecology and examine 76 individuals from the two known populations using the stomach flushing method. We also measured body weight, snout–vent length, mouth width and prey width and length. Pelophylax cerigensis follows the feeding pattern of green frogs of the adjacent areas, with Coleoptera, Araneae, Isopoda and Hymenoptera being the main prey groups. The two populations differed in body size but had similar values of prey abundance and frequency. It seems that P. cerigensis follows a strict feeding strategy. Further research on prey availability in its habitats will provide valuable insight. Key words: Diet, Endangered species, Islands, Frogs, Mediterranean Resumen Composición de la dieta de la rana de Kárpatos (Pelophylax cerigensis): ¿qué come la rana más amenazada de Europa? La rana de Kárpatos (Pelophylax cerigensis) es considerada la rana más amenazada de Europa. Aquí evaluamos su ecología alimentaria y examinamos 76 individuos de las dos poblaciones conocidas usando el método del lavado de estómago.
    [Show full text]
  • Terry Whitworth 3707 96Th ST E, Tacoma, WA 98446
    Terry Whitworth 3707 96th ST E, Tacoma, WA 98446 Washington State University E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Published in Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington Vol. 108 (3), 2006, pp 689–725 Websites blowflies.net and birdblowfly.com KEYS TO THE GENERA AND SPECIES OF BLOW FLIES (DIPTERA: CALLIPHORIDAE) OF AMERICA, NORTH OF MEXICO UPDATES AND EDITS AS OF SPRING 2017 Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 Materials and Methods ................................................................................................... 5 Separating families ....................................................................................................... 10 Key to subfamilies and genera of Calliphoridae ........................................................... 13 See Table 1 for page number for each species Table 1. Species in order they are discussed and comparison of names used in the current paper with names used by Hall (1948). Whitworth (2006) Hall (1948) Page Number Calliphorinae (18 species) .......................................................................................... 16 Bellardia bayeri Onesia townsendi ................................................... 18 Bellardia vulgaris Onesia bisetosa .....................................................
    [Show full text]