DOCSLIB.ORG

Status of Bullfrogs and Northern Leopard Frogs at Fisu Springs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status of Bullfrogs and Northern Leopard Frogs at Fisu Springs STATUS OF BULLFROGS AND NORTHERN LEOPARD FROGS AT FISU SPRINGS NATLONAL WILDLU'E REFUGE, JUAB COUNTY, UTAR 1 2 2 2 Matthew n. McKell ) , Scott Peterson , Keiko Kobayashi , Ryoko Miyazato , Donovan 2 2 3 Sherratt , Michael P. Oonov-dil\and Ten:y D. Schwaner • Running head: 'BULLFROGS AND LEOPARD FROGS AT FISH SPRlNGS 1Prcsent nddrc:;:;: Department ofZoo logy, Brigham Young University, Provo, Uf 84602. 2Dcpartment of Biology, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, ln' 84720 USA; telephone 435-586-7929, fax 435-865-8065. 3 Author to whom requests lor reprints should be sent. AnSTRACT.- Rutlfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) introduced into the western United States prey on other frogs, apparently, sometimes leading to the extinction of native amphibians. This hypothesis is confounded by alteroativcs, including differences in habitat disturbance, other potential predators, and competitors, as well as the dl~cts of ultraviolet radiation, parasites and pollutants. In most cases, a test requires situations where variables can be controlled. ln tllis paper we describe aspects of the ecology and natural history of bullfrogs introduced to Fisll Springs National Wildlite Refuge, a IIU!jor habitat for migratory waterfowl, and their apparent efl:ccts on putative native populations of leopard frogs also found in the area. Generally, we Jow1d size-age structure, growth, heba>~.or and reproduction of bullfrogs and leopard frogs to be similar to other populations of these species. However, both species have restricted patterns of distribution, abundance and diet that could be rdated to habitat differences and/or to predation by bullfrogs on leopard frogs. Because buUfrogs are non-native and non­ essential to the ecology ofthe refuge, their systematic removal with continued monitoring ofleopard frog distributions and ahundance, could provide a controlied test oftbe predation hypothesis. Key words: Rona catesheiana, R. pipiens, distribution, abundance, size, growth, age, ske/ctochronology, diet j The bullfrog, Rana C/1tesbeiana, is not native west of the Rocky Mountains, but has been successlully introduced into every state in that region (Stebbins 1985). nullfrogs were introduced to Fish Springs National Wildliti.~ Refuge (FSNWR), Juab County, Utah, in 1954, prior to the area being designated a federal wildlife refuge, to supply frog legs to local restaurants in nearby Salt Lake City (J. Banta pers. comrn.). Fish Springs is located within the natur<d r.mge oft.he northern leopard frog, Rana pipiens pipiens (Stebbins 1985). Whether this species v.>as al~o introducw or is native to the area is unclear; a natural population ofleopa rd frogs exists in Snake Valley just southwest of !'SNWR (Tiovingh 1997). General ecological, life history and behavioral studies (summarized in Bury and Whelan 1984, and Clarkson and DeVos 1986) indicated negative interspecific effects or bullfrogs on other ran.id frogs, including tadpole crowding that affected growth ofboth bullfrogs and other anurans (Licht 1967) and adult territoriality, possibly responsible for declines ofnativ e ranid populations in California (Moyle 1973). Hrurummon (1982a) found lower abundances of leopard frogs in at<:ll~ of Colorado inhabitw by buUfrogs. However, JcrUJings and Hays (1984) and Hayes and Jennings ( 1986) cited the lack of experimcntaJ evidence and suggested causal factors other than bullfrog introductions for these d<:elines. Su~quently, Hecnar and M'Closkcy (1996) documented increased abundances and distrib.utions ofnative ranids following the apparent extinction of bullfrogs from a national park in Canada. Similar studies 1bund reduced populations of red-legged frogs (Rona aurora) and ye11ow-legged frogs (R. boylii) in areas where bullirogs had been introduced (Kiesecker and Rlaustcilt 1997, 1998; Kupferberg 1997). Our study adds to tltis controversy by describing the distnbutions, abundances, sW:-age structure, gTO\vth, diet, and hahil~ of bullfrogs and Jeopard frogs at FSNWR. The descriptive results suggest a test ofth e null hypothesis of 5 Each captured frog was sexed, mta:;ured for snout to vent length (SVL in mm), weighed (WT in g), and toe-clipped with a unique mark (after Ferner 1979). We used the Peterson index (Canghley 1977) to ~tiroate population si7.es of bullfrogs in three transect~. Toe bones were prt:lit!rved in I 0 percent formalin cleaned of ~kin, muscle and tendons, de-minernlizcd overnight in 3 percent nitric acid, sectioned with a freeze­ microtome, stained with Ehrlich' ~ hematoxylin, and viewed a.nd photographed with a light microscope. We asswned lines of arrested growth (LAGs) formed during ~easonal inactivity and separating ~~a:;onal growth areas represented years since metamorphosis (F.stcoo.u ct al. 1996). We computed growth rote~ as SVLt2-SVLtdt2-ts, where t, = time of initial capture and t2 =time in days for frogs recaptured 20 or more da~ since initial capture (Andrews 1982). We flushed stomachs with water from a 50cc syringe fitted with a plastic tube. Stomach contents were preserved in 10 percent formalin and later tran~l~m:d to alcohol for analysis. Stomneh items were sort~d into groups, identified, :md measured for volume by water displacement in a graduated cylinder. Occurrence of a prey category was the number ofstomach:~ in which the item occurred divided by the total number of stomachs examined. Volume percentages were the total volume of a specific item divided by the total voiUlll\: for all samples. Statistical comparisons followed Sokal and Rohlf(\981). We uscu tltt: Kruskal­ Wallace test and Fcidman's method ofrandomized blocks to examine the abundances of fTogs in five transects over lour :sainpling periods. Spennnnn rank correlation tested the n.ssocwtio11 ofre lative abundances of bullfrogs and leopnrd frogs in the five transects. Chi-square tested the assumption of even distributions of frogs in Transects 4 and 5, and the null model!: I sex ratio for adult~. Analysis of cov<.tri;mc.;e (ANCOV/1.) compared the 6 functional relationship of length and weight in adult males and ti:ma!t:s and linear regression determined the amount of variation in growth rate explained by body length. RESULTS Distnbutions In February and March, we observed bullfrogs in springs directly connected to the main channel by permanent water flows (i.e., those m~ar transects 1 and 2, including House.Spring), and in Waller Spring connected to the main channel by a long canal system with reduced or intcrmillcnt water during late summer. We saw larval (>80 mm total length), juvenile <md adult bullirog$ in $prings adjacent to Transects I and 2, and the main charUlel, where water temperatures were > l9°C; bullfrogs were not seen in Avocet, Curle:;w, Shoveler, Egret, Ibis, Gadwall, Pintail and Harrison pools, or in roadside ponds with water temperatures below I o•c. From June to August, male bullfrogs called from springs, canals coru1ecting springs to the main channel, pools and roadside ponds adjacent to the main chrumel. We obseJ:Ved clasping pairs and egg masses only itl the main channel and canals connecting springs and adjacent pooL~ along Transects 1-4. Bullfrogs were absent from North Spd.ng, Deadmatl Spring, and the northernmost pools (Harrison, Pintail, Gadwall <md Ibis), at all times during the study. Leopard frogs became active in March-April. We observed them along the maio ch.am1el and in dense vegetation at the edge ofc<mals <md adjacent pools in Transects 1-5, when water temperatures were >l5°C. Leopard frog~ inhabited the easternmost margins of Egret Pool and Curlew Pool and adjacent roadside ponds (Fig. I). However, we rarely ob~erved leopard frogs in the springs or in canals connecting the springs with the main channel in Transects 1 and 2. 'I Abundances We counted a total of 77 1 bull !Togs and 165 leopard frogs in systematic surveys along tr.msects, monthly from April to July. For both species, the relative numbers of frogs (adjusted to observations per one kilometer t.ransect, Tabk I) did not differ among sampling dates (Kruskal-Wallis tests: bullfi:ogs, H - 1.58, df- 3, P = 0.66; leopard frogs, II = 4. 73, df .. 3, P- 0.19); among transects, however, we found highly significant differences in relnt.ive nbundauces of both species (Friedman's method for randomized blocks: bullfrogs, x2 = 11.8, df= 4, p < 0.025; leopard 6·ogs, x_2 = 23.5, df- 4, I' < 0.001). Total counts of bullfrogs and kopard !Togs per transect (Fig. 2), adjusted to observations pc::r km, show a significant negative relationship (Spearman rank correlation = -1.00, p < 0.001). In Transects I and 2, we marked 82 bull !Togs between April and July, and r~:eaptured only two frogs; however, eighteen of82 adult buUfrogs (SVL > 110nun) captured between August and October were recaptures. In Transect 5, we marked 15 bullfrogs and recaptured none between April and July; however, seven of 11 adults captured between August and October were recaprurcs. Applying a simple Petersen estimate (Caughlcy 1977) to these data gave population estimates and 95 percent confidence limits of358 ± 138 bullfTog.~ fur Transects 1 and 2, and 23 ± 81in Tr.msect5 (a difference in average densitic~ of 179 vs.l2 frogslkm, respectively). Although we marked 68 leopard frogs between April and July (51 !Tom Transect 5), and captured 52 (SVL > 60 mm SVL) between August and October (33 in Transect 5), only 3 were n:o.:aptured, all in Transect 5. These data do not give accurate density results (95% wnfidence limits exceed the population estimate by a fuctor of2, for Transect 5) due to the small number.; ofrecaptures. We arbitrarily designated bullfrogs as smaU, mcditun or large, in our April 1999, direct count, survey of the five transects. Later, when bullfrogs were caught and measured, small frogs were fuund to be juveniles in their second growing sea~on, post­ metamorphosis; medium and large bullfrogs represented adult~ ofvarious ages. Small bullfrogs C{)mprised 18 percent of totals in TrrulSccts 1-4, but were abt;t:nt in Transect 5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Species Assessment for the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens)
    SPECIES ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG (RANA PIPIENS ) IN WYOMING prepared by 1 2 BRIAN E. SMITH AND DOUG KEINATH 1Department of Biology Black Hills State University1200 University Street Unit 9044, Spearfish, SD 5779 2 Zoology Program Manager, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave, Dept. 3381, Laramie, Wyoming 82071; 307-766-3013; [email protected] prepared for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office Cheyenne, Wyoming January 2004 Smith and Keinath – Rana pipiens January 2004 Table of Contents SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 3 NATURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................................................... 5 Morphological Description ...................................................................................................... 5 Taxonomy and Distribution ..................................................................................................... 6 Taxonomy .......................................................................................................................................6 Distribution and Abundance............................................................................................................7
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Farm Ponds As Critical Habitats for Native Amphibians
    23 January 2002 Melinda G. Knutson Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 2630 Fanta Reed Rd. La Crosse, WI 54603 608-783-7550 ext. 68; FAX 608-783-8058; Email [email protected] Farm Ponds As Critical Habitats For Native Amphibians: Field Season 2001 Interim Report Melinda G. Knutson, William B. Richardson, and Shawn Weick 1USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, 2630 Fanta Reed Rd., La Crosse, WI 54603 [email protected] Executive Summary: We studied constructed farm ponds in the Driftless Area Ecoregion of southeastern Minnesota during 2000 and 2001. These ponds represent potentially significant breeding, rearing, and over-wintering habitat for amphibians in a landscape where natural wetlands are scarce. We collected amphibian, wildlife, invertebrate, and water quality data from 40 randomly-selected farm ponds, 10 ponds in each of 4 surrounding land use classes: row crop agriculture, grazed grassland, ungrazed grassland, and natural wetlands. This report includes chapters detailing information from the investigations we conducted. Manuscripts are in preparation describing our scientific findings and several management and public information documents are in draft form. Each of these components will be peer reviewed during winter 2002, with a final report due to LCMR by June 30, 2002. The USGS has initiated an Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI) over the last 2 years. We obtained additional funding ($98K) in 2000 and 2001 for the radiotelemetry component of the project via a competitive USGS ARMI grant. Field work will be ongoing in 2002 for this component. USGS Water Resources (John Elder, Middleton, WI) ran pesticide analyses on water samples collected June 2001 from seven of the study ponds.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Leopard Frog Reintroduction
    Northern Leopard Frog Reintroduction Year 3 (2001) Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 42 Northern Leopard Frog Reintroduction Year 3 (2001) Kris Kendell Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 42 February 2002 Project Partners: Publication No.: I/059 ISBN: 0-7785-2014-5 (Printed Edition) ISBN: 0-7785-2015-3 (On-line Edition) ISSN: 1496-7146 (Printed Edition) ISSN: 1496-7146 (On-line Edition) Illustration: Brian Huffman For copies of this report, contact: Information Centre – Publications Alberta Environment/Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Main Floor, Great West Life Building 9920 108 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 2M4 Telephone: (780) 422-2079 OR Information Service Alberta Environment/Alberta Sustainable Resource Development #100, 3115 12 Street NE Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2E 7J2 Telephone: (403) 297-3362 OR Visit our web site at: http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/riskspecies/ This publication may be cited as: Kendell, K. 2002. Northern leopard frog reintroduction: Year 3 (2001). Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 42, Edmonton, AB. 45 pp. ii DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the policies or positions of the Department or the Alberta Government. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................viii
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Forests for Fish and Wildlife
    Wildlife Habitat Management Institute Managing Forests for Fish and Wildlife December 2002 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 18 Forested areas can be managed with a wide variety of objectives, ranging from allowing natural processes to dictate long-term condition without active management of any kind, to maximizing production of wood products on the shortest rotations possible. The primary purpose of this document is to show how fish and wildlife habitat management can be effectively integrated into the management of forestlands that are subject to periodic timber harvest activities. For forestlands that are not managed for production of timber or other forest products, many of the principles U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station in this leaflet also apply. Introduction Succession of Forest Vegetation Forests in North America provide a wide variety of In order to meet both timber production and wildlife important natural resource functions. Although management goals, landowners and managers need commercial forests may be best known for production to understand how forest vegetation responds following of pulp, lumber, and other wood products, they also timber management, or silvicultural prescriptions, or supply valuable fish and wildlife habitat, recreational other disturbances. Forest vegetation typically opportunities, water quality protection, and other progresses from one plant community to another over natural resource benefits. In approximately two-thirds time. This forest succession can be described in four of the forest land (land that is at least 10% tree- stages: covered) in the United States, harvest of wood products plays an integral role in how these lands are managed. Sustainable forest management applies Fish and Wildlife Air and Water biological, economic, and social principles to forest Wood Products Habitat Quality regeneration, management, and conservation to meet the specific goals of landowners or managers.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Leopard Frogs Range from the Northern United States and Canada to the More Northern Parts of the Southwestern United States
    COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE Leopard Frogs ASSESSING HABITAT QUALITY FOR PRIORITY WILDLIFE SPECIES IN COLORADO WETLANDS Species Distribution Range Northern leopard frogs range from the northern United States and Canada to the more northern parts of the southwestern United States. With the exception of a few counties, they occur throughout Colorado. Plains leopard frogs have a much smaller distribution than northern leopard frogs, occurring through the Great Plains into southeastern Arizona and eastern Colorado. NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG © KEITH PENNER / PLAINS LEOPARD FROG © RENEE RONDEAU, CNHP RONDEAU, FROGRENEE © LEOPARD PLAINS / PENNER FROGKEITH © LEOPARD NORTHERN Two species of leopard frogs occur in Colorado. Northern leopard frogs (Lithobates pipiens; primary photo, brighter green) are more widespread than plains leopard frogs (L. blairi; inset). eral, plains leopard frogs breed in more Species Description ephemeral ponds, while northern leopard Identification frogs use semi-permanent ponds. Two leopard frogs are included in this Diet guild: northern leopard frog (Lithobates Adult leopard frogs eat primarily insects pipiens) and plains leopard frog (L. blairi). and other invertebrates, including They are roughly the same size (3–4 inches crustaceans, mollusks, and worms, as as adults). Northern leopard frogs can be well as small vertebrates, such as other green or brown and plains leopard frogs amphibians and snakes. Leopard frog are typically brown. Both species have two tadpoles are herbivorous, eating mostly light dorsolateral ridges along the back; in free-floating algae, but also consuming plains leopard frog there is a break in this some animal material. ridge near the rear legs. Conservation Status Preferred Habitats Northern leopard frog populations have Due to their complicated life history traits, declined throughout their range; they are leopard frogs occupy many habitats during listed in all western states and Canada different seasons and stages of develop- as sensitive, threatened, or endangered.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of New York
    CHECKLIST OF AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, BIRDS AND MAMMALS OF NEW YORK STATE Including Their Legal Status Eastern Milk Snake Moose Blue-spotted Salamander Common Loon New York State Artwork by Jean Gawalt Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish and Wildlife Page 1 of 30 February 2019 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Diversity Group 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233-4754 This web version is based upon an original hard copy version of Checklist of the Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of New York, Including Their Protective Status which was first published in 1985 and revised and reprinted in 1987. This version has had substantial revision in content and form. First printing - 1985 Second printing (rev.) - 1987 Third revision - 2001 Fourth revision - 2003 Fifth revision - 2005 Sixth revision - December 2005 Seventh revision - November 2006 Eighth revision - September 2007 Ninth revision - April 2010 Tenth revision – February 2019 Page 2 of 30 Introduction The following list of amphibians (34 species), reptiles (38), birds (474) and mammals (93) indicates those vertebrate species believed to be part of the fauna of New York and the present legal status of these species in New York State. Common and scientific nomenclature is as according to: Crother (2008) for amphibians and reptiles; the American Ornithologists' Union (1983 and 2009) for birds; and Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals. Expected occurrence in New York State is based on: Conant and Collins (1991) for amphibians and reptiles; Levine (1998) and the New York State Ornithological Association (2009) for birds; and New York State Museum records for terrestrial mammals.
    [Show full text]
  • Quick Guide to Calling Amphibians Reference: Maine’S Amphibians and Reptiles
    Quick Guide to Calling Amphibians Reference: Maine’s Amphibians and Reptiles Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer): One of Maine’s most widespread species and our smallest frog, measuring under an inch and a half, with a dark, imperfect cross or “X” pattern on the back. It has relatively smooth skin and is generally brown to gray with some yellow on the throat. A full chorus of these tiny frogs can be heard up to a half-mile away; each male makes a shrill, pure, high-pitched breeding call. Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica): The first frog to emerge in the spring, the wood frog can tolerate cold and even freezing temperatures for short periods of ©USGS NEARMI time. It has a dark mask over and below each eye ©USGS NEARMI and is otherwise dark red or tan. Wood frogs are widespread in Maine but limit their breeding generally to temporary or vernal pools. The wood frog’s call sounds like the quack of a duck. ©James Hardy ©James Hardy American Toad (Bufo americanus): Maine’s only toad, the American toad has dry, bumpy skin and is largely terrestrial, going in water only to breed and lay eggs. Its call is a high, musical trill that can last 30 seconds or more. Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens): Apparent declines in the population make the northern leopard frog a species of “Special Concern” in the state of Maine. The leopard frog and its close cousin the pickerel frog are the only frogs in Maine with distinct spots. The leopard frog has two to three unevenly spaced rows of irregular oval spots on its back.
    [Show full text]
  • Frogs and Toads of the Atchafalaya Basin
    Frogs and Toads of the Atchafalaya Basin True Toads (Family Bufonidae) Microhylid Frogs and Toads Two true toads occur in the Atchafalaya Basin: (Family Microhylidae) True Toads Fowler’s Toad and the Gulf Coast Toad. Both The Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Toad is the Microhylid Frogs and Toads of these species are moderately sized and have only representative in the Atchafalaya Basin dry, warty skin. They have short hind limbs of this family. It is a plump frog with smooth and do not leap like other frogs, but rather skin, a pointed snout, and short limbs. There they make short hops to get around. They are is a fold of skin across the back of the head active primarily at night and use their short that can be moved forward to clear the hind limbs for burrowing into sandy soils eyes. They use this fold of skin especially during the day. They are the only two frogs when preying upon ants, a favorite food, to in the basin that lay long strings of eggs, as remove any attackers. Because of its plump opposed to clumps laid by other frog species. body and short limbs the male must secrete a Fowler’s Toad Gulf Coast Toad Both of these toad species possess enlarged sticky substance from a gland on its stomach Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Toad (Anaxyrus fowleri ) (Incilius nebulifer) glands at the back of the head that secrete a to stay attached to a female for successful (Gastrophryne carolinensis) white poison when attacked by a predator. mating; in most other frogs, the limbs are When handling these toads, one should avoid long enough to grasp around the female.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Leopard Frog
    Species Status Assessment Class: Amphibia Family: Ranidae Scientific Name: Lithobates sphenocephalus utricularius Common Name: Southern leopard frog Species synopsis: NOTE: More than a century of taxonomic confusion regarding the leopard frogs of the East Coast was resolved in 2012 with the publication of a genetic analysis (Newman et al. 2012) confirming that a third, cryptic species of leopard frog (Rana [= Lithobates] sp. nov.) occurs in southern New York, northern New Jersey, and western Connecticut. The molecular evidence strongly supported the distinction of this new species from the previously known northern (R. pipiens [= L. pipiens]) and southern (R. sphenocephala [=L. sphenocephalus]) leopard frogs. The new species’ formal description, which presents differences in vocalizations, morphology, and habitat affiliation (Feinberg et al. in preparation), is nearing submission for publication. This manuscript also presents bioacoustic evidence of the frog’s occurrence in southern New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and as far south as the Virginia/North Carolina border, thereby raising uncertainty about which species of leopard frog occur(s) presently and historically throughout the region. Some evidence suggests that Long Island might at one time have had two species: the southern leopard frog in the pine barrens and the undescribed species in coastal wetlands and the Hudson Valley. For simplicity’s sake, in this assessment we retain the name “southern leopard frog” even though much of the information available may refer to the undescribed species or a combination of species. The southern leopard frog occurs in the eastern United States and reaches the northern extent of its range in the lower Hudson Valley of New York.
    [Show full text]
  • WDFW Status Report for the Northern Leopard Frog
    STATE OF WASHINGTON October 1999 WashingtonWashington StateState StatusStatus ReportReport forfor thethe NorthernNorthern LeopardLeopard FrogFrog by Kelly R. McAllister, William P. Leonard, Dave W. Hays and Ronald C. Friesz WWashingtonashington Department of FISH AND WILDLIFE WWildlifeildlife Management Program WDFW 632 Washington State Status Report for the Northern Leopard Frog by Kelly R. McAllister William P. Leonard David W. Hays and Ronald C. Friesz Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Management Program 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 October 1999 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of endangered, threatened and sensitive species (Washington Administrative Codes 232-12-014 and 232-12-011, Appendix). In 1990, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted listing procedures developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies (Washington Administrative Code 232-12-297, Appendix). The procedures include how species listing will be initiated, criteria for listing and delisting, public review and recovery and management of listed species. The first step in the process is to develop a preliminary species status report. The report includes a review of information relevant to the species’ status in Washington and addresses factors affecting its status including, but not limited to: historic, current, and future species population trends, natural history including ecological relationships, historic and current habitat trends, population demographics and their relationship to long term sustainability, and historic and current species management activities. The procedures then provide for a 90-day public review opportunity for interested parties to submit new scientific data relevant to the status report, classification recommendation, and any State Environmental Policy Act findings.
    [Show full text]