DOCSLIB.ORG

IUCN Guidelines for Amphibian Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations First Edition Edited by Luke J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IUCN Guidelines for Amphibian Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations First Edition Edited by Luke J IUCN Guidelines for amphibian reintroductions and other conservation translocations First edition Edited by Luke J. Linhoff, Pritpal Soorae, Gemma Harding, Maureen A. Donnelly, Jennifer M. Germano, David A. Hunter, Michael McFadden, Joseph R. Mendelson III, Allan P. Pessier, Michael J. Sredl and Mallory E. Eckstut IUCN/SSC Conservation Translocation Specialist Group i ii IUCN Guidelines for amphibian reintroductions and other conservation translocations First edition Edited by Luke J. Linhoff, Pritpal Soorae, Gemma Harding, Maureen A. Donnelly, Jennifer M. Germano, David A. Hunter, Michael McFadden, Joseph R. Mendelson III, Allan P. Pessier, Michael J. Sredl and Mallory E. Eckstut i The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN. IUCN is pleased to acknowledge the support of its Framework Partners who provide core funding: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland; Government of France and the French Development Agency (AFD); the Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea; the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad); the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the United States Department of State. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Created by: IUCN SSC Conservation Translocation Specialist Group Copyright: © 2021 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other noncommercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: Linhoff, L.J., Soorae, P.S., Harding, G., Donnelly, M.A., Germano, J.M., Hunter, D.A., McFadden, M., Mendelson III, J.R., Pessier, A.P., Sredl, M.J. and Eckstut, M.E. (eds.) (2021). IUCN Guidelines for amphibian reintroductions and other conservation translocat ions, First edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. ISBN: 978-2-8317-2111-8 Cover photo: (clockwise from top-left) Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis ) © Brian Gratwicke, Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens) © Lea Randall, Natterjack Toad ( Epidalea calamita) © Jim Foster, Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus ) © Brett Lewis Photo of Phil Bishop: Debbie Bishop Design & Layout: Pritpal Soorae & Luke Linhoff Available from: IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland, Switzerland www.iucn-ctsg.org/policy-guidelines/taxon-specific-guidelines/ www.iucn-amphibians.org/resources/publications/ www.iucn.org/resources/publications ii Table of Contents Tribute to Phillip John Bishop (1957-2021) .......................................................... v Executive summary ................................................................................................ vi Key message related to amphibian conservation translocations and reintroductions ...................................................................................................... vii Authors ................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... ix Acronyms & abbreviations ................................................................................... x Introduction and scope of guidelines .................................................................. 1 Definitions and classifications .............................................................................. 3 Reasons for amphibian translocation .................................................................. 5 Conservation translocations ............................................................................. 5 Mitigation conservation translocations ............................................................. 6 Suitability of amphibians for translocations ...................................................... 6 Future directions in amphibian translocations .................................................. 7 Deciding when a translocation is the best option .............................................. 8 Pre-translocation planning and risk assessment ............................................... 10 Setting objectives and defining success .......................................................... 11 Feasibility and design ...................................................................................... 11 Resource availability ................................................................................ 11 Resource categories for consideration ................................................... 12 Developing knowledge about the focal species and environment ........... 13 Topics for developing a knowledge base that may be useful for assessment ....................................................................................... 14 Identifying initial causes of declines prior to amphibian reintroductions ... 14 Addressing threats and/or known causes of decline ................................ 14 Considerations for source and release sites .................................................... 15 Selecting a release site ........................................................................... 16 Planning for long-term stability and climate change ................................ 17 Demographic and population considerations ................................................... 19 Modelling reintroduced amphibian populations ........................................ 19 Demographic source & release site considerations ................................. 19 Resource box: Modelling ........................................................................ 20 Resource box: Demographic considerations .......................................... 21 Genetic considerations for amphibian reintroductions ..................................... 22 iii Basic genetic principles in amphibian translocations ............................. 22 Resource box: Genetic considerations ................................................... 24 Environmental and ecological impacts ............................................................ 25 Captivity-specific considerations ...................................................................... 26 Importance of husbandry in amphibian translocations ............................ 26 Developing amphibian husbandry protocols ........................................... 27 Planning for population management of amphibians in captivity ............. 28 Behavioural issues of amphibians in captivity ......................................... 29 Animal welfare of amphibians in translocations ................................................. 30 Resource box: Amphibian welfare and use in research ......................... 31 Disease and amphibian reintroductions ............................................................. 32 General disease considerations of amphibian reintroductions ........................ 32 Pre-release disease screening ........................................................................ 33 Risk assessment of amphibian diseases in reintroductions ............................. 34 Flow chart 1. Decision tree for dealing with pathogens in amphibian translocations ......................................................................................... 35 Social feasibility ..................................................................................................... 37 Incorporating experimental research into amphibian translocations ........................................................................................................ 38 Translocation implementation .............................................................................. 39 Capture-specific considerations ....................................................................... 40 Post-capture and pre-release health screening ....................................... 40 Transport-specific considerations .................................................................... 42 Pre-release monitoring .................................................................................... 44 Release-specific considerations ...................................................................... 44 Multi-species amphibian reintroductions .......................................................... 47 Post-release monitoring and reporting ................................................................ 48 Post-release monitoring and continuing management ..................................... 49 Resource box: Post-release monitoring ................................................. 51 Dissemination of information ........................................................................... 52 Resource box: Places to disseminate amphibian translocation results 53 Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 54 Appendix I: Global
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS by ZOO ATLANTA STAFF 1978–Present
    RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS BY ZOO ATLANTA STAFF 1978–Present This listing may be incomplete, and some citation information may be incomplete or inaccurate. Please advise us if you are aware of any additional publications. Copies of publications may be available directly from the authors, or from websites such as ResearchGate. Zoo Atlanta does not distribute copies of articles on behalf of these authors. Updated: 22 Jan 2020 1978 1. Maple, T.L., and E.L. Zucker. 1978. Ethological studies of play behavior in captive great apes. In E.O. Smith (Ed.), Social Play in Primates. New York: Academic Press, 113–142. 1979 2. Maple, T.L. 1979. Great apes in captivity: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In J. Erwin, T.L. Maple, G. Mitchell (Eds.), Captivity and Behavior: Primates in Breeding Colonies, Laboratories and Zoos. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 239–272. 3. Strier, K.B., J. Altman, D. Brockman, A. Bronikowski, M. Cords, L. Fedigan, H. Lapp, J. Erwin, T.L. Maple, and G. Mitchell (Eds.). 1979. Captivity and Behavior: Primates in Breeding Colonies, Laboratories and Zoos. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 286. 1981 4. Hoff, M.P., R.D. Nadler, and T.L. Maple. 1981. Development of infant independence in a captive group of lowland gorillas. Developmental Psychobiology 14:251–265. 5. Hoff, M.P., R.D. Nadler, and T.L. Maple. 1981. The development of infant play in a captive group of lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). American Journal of Primatology 1:65–72. 1982 6. Hoff, M.P., R.D. Nadler, and T.L. Maple.
    [Show full text]
  • Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana Chiricahuensis)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Final Recovery Plan April 2007 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Rana chiricahuensis) RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director, or Director, as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation of this document should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. + Appendices A-M. Additional copies may be obtained from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Southwest Region 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 500 Gold Avenue, S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SIXTH EXTINCTION: an UNNATURAL HISTORY Copyright © 2014 by Elizabeth Kolbert
    The author and publisher have provided this e-book to you for your personal use only. You may not make this e-book publicly available in any way. Copyright infringement is against the law. If you believe the copy of this e-book you are reading infringes on the author’s copyright, please notify the publisher at: us.macmillanusa.com/piracy. THE SIXTH EXTINCTION: AN UNNATURAL HISTORY Copyright © 2014 by Elizabeth Kolbert. All rights reserved. For information, address Henry Holt and Co., 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010. www.henryholt.com Jacket photograph from the National Museum of Natural History, courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution e-ISBN 978-0-8050-9979-9 First Edition: February 2014 If there is danger in the human trajectory, it is not so much in the survival of our own species as in the fulfillment of the ultimate irony of organic evolution: that in the instant of achieving self- understanding through the mind of man, life has doomed its most beautiful creations. —E. O. WILSON Centuries of centuries and only in the present do things happen. —JORGE LUIS BORGES CONTENTS Title Page Copyright Notice Copyright Epigraph Author’s Note Prologue I: The Sixth Extinction II: The Mastodon’s Molars III: The Original Penguin IV: The Luck of the Ammonites V: Welcome to the Anthropocene VI: The Sea Around Us VII: Dropping Acid VIII: The Forest and the Trees IX: Islands on Dry Land X: The New Pangaea XI: The Rhino Gets an Ultrasound XII: The Madness Gene XIII: The Thing with Feathers Acknowledgments Notes Selected Bibliography Photo/Illustration Credits Index About the Author Also by Elizabeth Kolbert AUTHOR’S NOTE Though the discourse of science is metric, most Americans think in terms of miles, acres, and degrees Fahrenheit.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List the Relict Leopard Frog (Rana Onca) As an Endangered Species Under the Endangered Species Act
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST THE RELICT LEOPARD FROG (RANA ONCA) AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE PETITIONERS May 8, 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The relict leopard frog (Rana onca) has the dubious distinction of being one of the first North American amphibians thought to have become extinct. Although known to have inhabited at least 64 separate locations, the last historical collections of the species were in the 1950s and this frog was only recently rediscovered at 8 (of the original 64) locations in the early 1990s. This extremely endangered amphibian is now restricted to only 6 localities (a 91% reduction from the original 64 locations) in two disjunct areas within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada. The relict leopard frog historically occurred in springs, seeps, and wetlands within the Virgin, Muddy, and Colorado River drainages, in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. The Vegas Valley leopard frog, which once inhabited springs in the Las Vegas, Nevada area (and is probably now extinct), may eventually prove to be synonymous with R. onca. Relict leopard frogs were recently discovered in eight springs in the early 1990s near Lake Mead and along the Virgin River. The species has subsequently disappeared from two of these localities. Only about 500 to 1,000 adult frogs remain in the population and none of the extant locations are secure from anthropomorphic events, thus putting the species at an almost guaranteed risk of extinction. The relict leopard frog has likely been extirpated from Utah, Arizona, and from the Muddy River drainage in Nevada, and persists in only 9% of its known historical range.
    [Show full text]
  • Owlspade 2020 Web 3.Pdf
    Owl & Spade Magazine est. 1924 MAGAZINE STAFF TRUSTEES 2020-2021 COLLEGE LEADERSHIP EXECUTIVE EDITOR Lachicotte Zemp PRESIDENT Zanne Garland Chair Lynn M. Morton, Ph.D. MANAGING EDITOR Jean Veilleux CABINET Vice Chair Erika Orman Callahan Belinda Burke William A. Laramee LEAD Editors Vice President for Administration Secretary & Chief Financial Officer Mary Bates Melissa Ray Davis ’02 Michael Condrey Treasurer Zanne Garland EDITORS Vice President for Advancement Amy Ager ’00 Philip Bassani H. Ross Arnold, III Cathy Kramer Morgan Davis ’02 Carmen Castaldi ’80 Vice President for Applied Learning Mary Hay William Christy ’79 Rowena Pomeroy Jessica Culpepper ’04 Brian Liechti ’15 Heather Wingert Nate Gazaway ’00 Interim Vice President for Creative Director Steven Gigliotti Enrollment & Marketing, Carla Greenfield Mary Ellen Davis Director of Sustainability David Greenfield Photographers Suellen Hudson Paul C. Perrine Raphaela Aleman Stephen Keener, M.D. Vice President for Student Life Iman Amini ’23 Tonya Keener Jay Roberts, Ph.D. Mary Bates Anne Graham Masters, M.D. ’73 Elsa Cline ’20 Debbie Reamer Vice President for Academic Affairs Melissa Ray Davis ’02 Anthony S. Rust Morgan Davis ’02 George A. Scott, Ed.D. ’75 ALUMNI BOARD 2019-2020 Sean Dunn David Shi, Ph.D. Pete Erb Erica Rawls ’03 Ex-Officio FJ Gaylor President Sarah Murray Joel B. Adams, Jr. Lara Nguyen Alice Buhl Adam “Pinky” Stegall ’07 Chris Polydoroff Howell L. Ferguson Vice President Jayden Roberts ’23 Rev. Kevin Frederick Reggie Tidwell Ronald Hunt Elizabeth Koenig ’08 Angela Wilhelm Lynn M. Morton, Ph.D. Secretary Bridget Palmer ’21 Cover Art Adam “Pinky” Stegall ’07 Dennis Thompson ’77 Lara Nguyen A.
    [Show full text]
  • CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Lithobates [Rana] Chiricahuensis)
    CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Lithobates [Rana] chiricahuensis) Chiricahua Leopard Frog from Sycamore Canyon, Coronado National Forest, Arizona Photograph by Jim Rorabaugh, USFWS CONSIDERATIONS FOR MAKING EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING AND AVOIDING ADVERSE EFFECTS Developed by the Southwest Endangered Species Act Team, an affiliate of the Southwest Strategy Funded by U.S. Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program December 2008 (Updated August 31, 2009) ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document was developed by members of the Southwest Endangered Species Act (SWESA) Team comprised of representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BoR), Department of Defense (DoD), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Dr. Terry L. Myers gathered and synthesized much of the information for this document. The SWESA Team would especially like to thank Mr. Steve Sekscienski, U.S. Army Environmental Center, DoD, for obtaining the funds needed for this project, and Dr. Patricia Zenone, USFWS, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, for serving as the Contracting Officer’s Representative for this grant. Overall guidance, review, and editing of the document was provided by the CMED Subgroup of the SWESA Team, consisting of: Art Coykendall (BoR), John Nystedt (USFWS), Patricia Zenone (USFWS), Robert L. Palmer (DoD, U.S. Navy), Vicki Herren (BLM), Wade Eakle (USACE), and Ronnie Maes (USFS). The cooperation of many individuals facilitated this effort, including: USFWS: Jim Rorabaugh, Jennifer Graves, Debra Bills, Shaula Hedwall, Melissa Kreutzian, Marilyn Myers, Michelle Christman, Joel Lusk, Harold Namminga; USFS: Mike Rotonda, Susan Lee, Bryce Rickel, Linda WhiteTrifaro; USACE: Ron Fowler, Robert Dummer; BLM: Ted Cordery, Marikay Ramsey; BoR: Robert Clarkson; DoD, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana Muscosa)
    mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) Southern California Distinct Population Segment 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) and habitat. Photocredit: Adam Backlin (USGS). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Carlsbad, California July 13, 2012 2012 5-year Review for mountain yellow-legged frog 5-YEAR REVIEW mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) Southern California Distinct Population Segment I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened Species List Spain
    THREATENED SPECIES LIST SPAIN Threatened species included in the national inventory of the Ministry of MARM and/or in the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) that are or may be inhabited in the areas of our Hydro Power Stations. 6 CRITIC ENDANGERED SPECIES (CR) GROUP SPECIE COMMON NAME CATEGORY (MARM) (IUCN) Birds Neophron percnopterus Egyptian Vulture CR EN Botaurus stellaris Great Bittern CR LC Mammals Lynx pardinus Iberian Lynx CR CR Ursus arctos Brown Bear CR (Northern Spain) LC Invertebrates Belgrandiella galaica Gastropoda CR No listed Macromia splendens Splendid Cruiser CR VU 24 ENDANGERED SPECIES (EN) GROUP SPECIE COMMON NAME CATEGORY (MARM) (IUCN) Amphibians Rana dalmatina Agile Frog EN LC Birds Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Chough EN LC Hieraaetus fasciatus Bonelli´s Eagle EN LC Alectoris rufa Barbary Partridge EN LC Parus caeruleus Blue Tit EN LC Tyto alba Barn Owl EN LC Burhinus oedicnemus Stone Curlew EN LC Corvus corax Common Raven EN LC Chersophilus duponti Dupont´s Lark EN NT Milvus milvus Red Kite EN NT Aquila adalberti Spanish Imperial Eagle EN VU Cercotrichas galactotes Alzacola EN LC Reptiles Algyroides marchi Spanish Algyroides EN EN Emys orbicularis European Pond Turtle EN NT Mammals Rhinolophus mehelyi Mehely´s Horseshoe Bat EN VU Mustela lutreola European Mink EN EN Myotis capaccinii Long –Fingered bat EN VU Freshwater fish Salaria fluviatilis Freshwater blenny EN LC Chondrostoma turiense Madrija (Endemic) EN EN Cobitis vettonica Colmilleja del Alagón EN EN (Endemic) Invertebrates Gomphus
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Italian Stream Frog (Rana Italica Dubois, 1987) an Opportunistic Exploiter of Cave Twilight Zone?
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal Subterranean IsBiology the Italian 25: 49–60 stream (2018) frog (Rana italica Dubois, 1987) an opportunistic exploiter... 49 doi: 10.3897/subtbiol.25.23803 SHORT COMMUNICATION Subterranean Published by http://subtbiol.pensoft.net The International Society Biology for Subterranean Biology Is the Italian stream frog (Rana italica Dubois, 1987) an opportunistic exploiter of cave twilight zone? Enrico Lunghi1,2,3, Giacomo Bruni4, Gentile Francesco Ficetola5,6, Raoul Manenti5 1 Universität Trier Fachbereich VI Raum-und Umweltwissenschaften Biogeographie, Universitätsring 15, 54286 Trier, Germany 2 Museo di Storia Naturale dell’Università di Firenze, Sezione di Zoologia “La Spe- cola”, Via Romana 17, 50125 Firenze, Italy 3 Natural Oasis, Via di Galceti 141, 59100 Prato, Italy 4 Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Boulevard de la Plaine 2, 1050 Ixelles, Bruxelles, Belgium 5 Department of Environmen- tal Science and Policy, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 26, 20133 Milano, Italy 6 Univ. Greno- ble Alpes, CNRS, Laboratoire d’Écologie Alpine (LECA), F-38000 Grenoble, France Corresponding author: Enrico Lunghi ([email protected]) Academic editor: O. Moldovan | Received 22 January 2018 | Accepted 9 March 2018 | Published 20 March 2018 http://zoobank.org/07A81673-E845-4056-B31C-6EADC6CA737C Citation: Lunghi E, Bruni G, Ficetola GF, Manenti R (2018) Is the Italian stream frog (Rana italica Dubois, 1987) an opportunistic exploiter of cave twilight zone? Subterranean Biology 25: 49–60. https://doi.org/10.3897/subtbiol.25.23803 Abstract Studies on frogs exploiting subterranean environments are extremely scarce, as these Amphibians are usually considered accidental in these environments. However, according to recent studies, some anurans actively select subterranean environments on the basis of specific environmental features, and thus are able to inhabit these environments throughout the year.
    [Show full text]
  • Helminth Parasites of the Eastern Spadefoot Toad, Pelobates Syriacus (Pelobatidae), from Turkey
    Turk J Zool 34 (2010) 311-319 © TÜBİTAK Research Article doi:10.3906/zoo-0810-2 Helminth parasites of the eastern spadefoot toad, Pelobates syriacus (Pelobatidae), from Turkey Hikmet S. YILDIRIMHAN1,*, Charles R. BURSEY2 1Uludağ University, Science and Literature Faculty, Department of Biology, 16059, Bursa - TURKEY 2Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, Shenango Campus, Sharon, Pennsylvania 16146 - USA Received: 07.10.2008 Abstract: Ninety-one eastern spadefoot toads, Pelobates syriacus, were collected from 3 localities in Turkey between 1993 and 2003 and examined for helminths. One species of Monogenea (Polystoma sp.) and 3 species of Nematoda (Aplectana brumpti, Oxysomatium brevicaudatum, Skrjabinelazia taurica) were found. Pelobates syriacus represents a new host record for Polystoma sp. and S. taurica. Key words: Monogenea, Nematoda, eastern spadefoot toads, Pelobates syriacus, Turkey Türkiye’den toplanan toprak kurbağası (Pelobates syriacus)’nın (Pelobatidae) helmint parazitleri Özet: 1993-2003 yılları arasında Türkiye’den 3 değişik yerden 91 toprak kurbağası helmintleri belirlenmek üzere toplanmıştır. İnceleme sonucunda 4 helmint türüne rastlanmıştır. Bunlardan biri Monogenea (Polystoma sp), 3’ü (Aplectana brumpti, Oxsyomatium brevicaudatum, Skrjabinelazia taurica) Nematoda’ya aittir. Pelobates syriacus, Polystoma sp. ve S. taurica için yeni konak kaydıdır. Anahtar sözcükler: Monogen, Nematoda, toprak kurbağası, Pelobates syriacus, Türkiye Introduction reported an occurrence of Aplectana brumpti and The eastern spadefoot toad, Pelobates syriacus Yıldırımhan et al. (1997a) found Oxysomatium brevicaudatum. The purpose of this paper is to present Boettger, 1889, a fossorial species from Israel, Syria, a formal list of helminth species harbored by P. and Turkey to Transcaucasica, lives in self- syriacus. constructed burrows in loose and soft soil at elevations up to 1600 m, except during the breeding periods.
    [Show full text]
  • Relict Leopard Frog Monitoring and Management
    Relict Leopard Frog Monitoring and Management 2014 Annual Report April 2015 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Steering Committee Members Federal Participant Group California Participant Group Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service City of Needles National Park Service Coachella Valley Water District Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Board of California Bureau of Indian Affairs Bard Water District Western Area Power Administration Imperial Irrigation District Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Palo Verde Irrigation District Arizona Participant Group San Diego County Water Authority Southern California Edison Company Arizona Department of Water Resources Southern California Public Power Authority Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Arizona Game and Fish Department California Arizona Power Authority Central Arizona Water Conservation District Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Nevada Participant Group City of Bullhead City City of Lake Havasu City Colorado River Commission of Nevada City of Mesa Nevada Department of Wildlife City of Somerton Southern Nevada Water Authority City of Yuma Colorado River Commission Power Users Electrical District No. 3, Pinal County, Arizona Basic Water Company Golden Shores Water Conservation District Mohave County Water Authority Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Native American Participant Group Mohave Water Conservation District North Gila Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Hualapai Tribe Town of Fredonia Colorado River Indian Tribes Town of Thatcher Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Town of Wickenburg Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Unit “B” Irrigation and Drainage District Conservation Participant Group Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District Yuma County Water Users’ Association Ducks Unlimited Yuma Irrigation District Lower Colorado River RC&D Area, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 GSOC Highest Awards Girl Scout Yearbook
    Melanoma Recognizing Orange County 2018 Highest Awards Girl Scouts: Bronze Award Girl Scouts, Silver Award Girl Scouts, and Gold Award Girl Scouts Earned between October 2017 - September 2018 1 The Girl Scout Gold Award The Girl Scout Gold Award is the highest and most prestigious award in the world for girls. Open to Girl Scouts in high school, this pinnacle of achievement recognizes girls who demonstrate extraordinary leadership by tackling an issue they are passionate about – Gold Award Girl Scouts are community problem solvers who team up with others to create meaningful change through sustainable and measurable “Take Action” projects they design to make the world a better place. Since 1916, Girl Scouts have been making meaningful, sustainable changes in their communities and around the world by earning the Highest Award in Girl Scouting. Originally called the Golden Eagle of Merit and later, the Golden Eaglet, Curved Bar, First Class, and now the Girl Scout Gold Award, this esteemed accolade is a symbol of excellence, leadership, and ingenuity, and a testament to what a girl can achieve. Girl Scouts who earn the Gold Award distinguish themselves in the college admissions process, earn scholarships from a growing number of colleges and universities across the country, and immediately rise one rank in any branch of the U.S. military. Many have practiced the leaderships skills they need to “go gold” by earning the Girl Scout Silver Award, the highest award for Girl Scout Cadettes in grade 6-8, and the Girl Scout Bronze Award, the highest award for Girl Scout Juniors in grades 4-5.
    [Show full text]