DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Washington State Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Washington State Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Plan DRAFT State of Washington Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Plan Lisa A. Hallock Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 May 2013 In 1990, the Washington Wildlife Commission adopted procedures for listing and de-listing species as endangered, threatened, or sensitive and for writing recovery and management plans for listed species (WAC 232-12-297 [Appendix A]). The procedures, developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies, require preparation of recovery plans for species listed as threatened or endangered. Recovery, as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened species is arrested or reversed, and threats to its survival are neutralized, so that its long-term survival in nature can be ensured. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has adopted this definition. This is the Draft State of Washington Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Plan. The preliminary draft has undergone agency and scientific review. It summarizes what is known of the historical and current distribution and abundance of Oregon Spotted Frog populations in Washington and describes factors affecting these populations and occupied habitat. It prescribes strategies to recover the species, such as protecting populations and existing habitat, evaluating and restoring habitat, developing potential reintroductions of Oregon Spotted Frogs into vacant habitat and initiating research and cooperative programs. Target population objectives and other criteria for reclassification are identified. As part of the State’s listing and recovery procedures, the draft recovery plan is available for a 90-day public comment period. Please submit written comments on this report by August 9, 2013 via e-mail: [email protected] or by mail to: Endangered Species Section Manager Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091 This report should be cited as: Hallock, Lisa. 2013. Draft State of Washington Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 93 +v pp. Photos in text by author unless otherwise credited Title page illustration by Darrell Pruett DRAFT May 2013 ii Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The recovery plan was improved by substantial comments and suggestions from the following people: Harriet Allen (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]), David Anderson (WDFW), Jennifer Bohannon (WDFW), Marian Bailey (US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]), Eric Gardner (WDFW), Marc Hayes (WDFW), Dave Hays (WDFW), Shannon Ludwig (USFWS), Deanna Lynch (USFWS), Kelly McAllister (Washington Department of Transportation), Blake Murden (Port Blakely Tree Farms), Heidi Newsome (USFWS), Nathan Pamplin (WDFW), Greg Schirato (WDFW), Tammy Schmidt (WDFW), Derek Stinson (WDFW), David Wilderman (Washington Department of Natural Resources’ Natural Areas Program), Michelle Tirhi (WDFW), Tiffany Hicks (WDFW) and Gary Wiles (WDFW). Peer review was provided by Michael Adams (US Geological Survey), Christine Bishop (Environment Canada Science & Technology Branch), and Christopher Pearl (US Geological Survey). Derek Stinson provided guidance and feedback throughout development of the plan and also provided assistance with document formatting and layout. Photographs were provided by Dana Hagin, Tiffany Hicks, Regina Johnson, Kelly McAllister, Ken Risenhoover, Julie Tyson and Jan Wieser. Lori Salzer created Figures 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 and 26. The following people provided unpublished data for this report: Marian Bailey, Bonnie Blessing Earle, Joseph Engler, Sanders Freed, Marc Hayes, Regina Johnson, William Leonard, Kelly McAllister, Blake Murden, Claudine Reynolds, Tammy Schmidt, Michelle Tirhi, Julie Tyson and Joshua Wallace. Lori Salzer provided information from the WDFW WSDM database. Deanna Lynch, USFWS, provided access to her library of Oregon Spotted Frog literature. Apologies to anyone omitted. The majority of funding to develop the Recovery Plan came from a Competitive State Wildlife Grant (SWG) written by Marc Hayes. The Conservation Endowment Fund of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums also provided funding toward this effort. The WDFW Endangered Species Section, funded by Personalized License Plates, Orca Background Plates and SWG Endangered Species Recovery Funds, provided multiple reviews of the document. WDFW acknowledges the many conservation efforts of the Washington Oregon Spotted Frog Working Group from 2008 to present. Members include biologists from state and federal agencies, Port Blakely Tree Farms, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Center for Natural Lands Management, and The Evergreen State College. Also participating are members of the Northwest Zoo and Aquarium Alliance including staff from Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium, Mountain View Conservation and Breeding Center, Woodland Park Zoo, Northwest Trek, and Oregon Zoo. DRAFT May 2013 iii Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ vii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 TAXONOMY ............................................................................................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................................. 2 Similar Species.............................................................................................................................................. 5 Hybridization ................................................................................................................................................ 7 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................... 8 NATURAL HISTORY ................................................................................................................................. 8 Reproduction ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Sources of Mortality ................................................................................................................................... 12 Diet…… ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Activity Patterns, Home Range, Seasonal Movements and Dispersal ........................................................ 15 Interspecific Interactions among Native Ranids ......................................................................................... 17 Environmental Health, Medical Applications and Ecological Importance ................................................. 17 HABITAT REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................... 19 WASHINGTON POPULATION STATUS ............................................................................................... 23 Historical Distribution ................................................................................................................................ 23 Historical Abundance .................................................................................................................................. 25 Current Distribution and Status in Washington .......................................................................................... 26 Puget Trough Ecoregion ............................................................................................................................. 27 East Cascades Ecoregion ............................................................................................................................ 32 WASHINGTON HABITAT STATUS ....................................................................................................... 36 Past……. ..................................................................................................................................................... 36 Present….. ................................................................................................................................................... 38 Puget Trough Ecoregion ............................................................................................................................. 38 East Cascades Ecoregion ............................................................................................................................ 41 LEGAL STATUS ......................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • First Documented Observation of Ringed Kingfisher in Arizona by Jeff Coker, Vail, Az 85641 ([email protected])
    Arizona Birds - Journal of Arizona Field Ornithologists Volume 2019 FIRST DOCUMENTED OBSERVATION OF RINGED KINGFISHER IN ARIZONA BY JEFF COKER, VAIL, AZ 85641 ([email protected]) On 9 September 2018 a Ringed Kingfisher (Megaceryle torquata, Figure 1) was observed at Dankworth Pond, Graham County, Arizona. This sighting is the first reported record of this species for Arizona. The bird remained in the general geographical area for approximately the next 6 months. The initial discovery of the Ringed Kingfisher was a very brief encounter. At approximately 0845 (MST) on 9 September 2018, I was birding along the southeast shore of Dankworth Pond just west of the small marsh with the pond’s outflow pipe (N 32° 43’ 08.89”, W 109° 42’ 14.76”). I looked to the north above the cattails (Typha spp.) and observed a kingfisher for about 2 seconds as it flew south across the pond towards me at a height of about 3.0-4.5 m above the surface before it dove behind the cattails and disappeared from Figure 1. Ringed Kingfisher 20 February 2019. my sight. The bird had a solid dark rufous/chestnut colored belly, a Photo by Lyndie M. Warner wide bold white band on the chin/neck, dark slate blue on the back, and a very large bill. My initial impression was that it was a Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), but I knew that species did not have an all-rufous belly. The rufous belly was indicative of Ringed Kingfisher, a species unexpected in southeast Arizona. I quickly walked back to the east along the pond’s shore, climbed on a picnic table, and scanned the pond, focusing on the southeast corner.
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Summary for June 21-22, 2017
    Item No. 13 STAFF SUMMARY FOR JUNE 21-22, 2017 13. FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED FROG Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Determine whether listing foothill yellow-legged frog as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) may be warranted pursuant to Section 2074.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Summary of Previous/Future Actions • Received petition Dec 14, 2016 • FGC transmitted petition to DFW Dec 22, 2016 • Published notice of receipt of petition Jan 20, 2017 • Receipt of DFW's 90-day evaluation Apr 26-27, 2017; Van Nuys • Today’s determine if listing may be warranted June 21-22, 2017; Smith River Background A petition to list foothill yellow-legged frog was submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity on Dec 14, 2016. On Dec 22, 2016, FGC transmitted the petition to DFW for review. A notice of receipt of petition was published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on Jan 20, 2017. California Fish and Game Code Section 2073.5 requires that DFW evaluate the petition and submit to FGC a written evaluation with a recommendation (Exhibit 1). Based upon the information contained in the petition and other relevant information, DFW has determined that there is sufficient scientific information available at this time to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. Significant Public Comments (N/A) Recommendation FGC staff: Accept DFW’s recommendation to accept and consider the petition for further evaluation. DFW: Accept and consider the petition for further evaluation. Exhibits 1. Petition 2. DFW memo, received Apr 19, 2017 3. DFW 90-day evaluation, dated Apr 2017 Author: Sheri Tiemann 1 Item No.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Sierra Frogs
    State of Sierra Frogs A report on the status of frogs & toads in the Sierra Nevada & California Cascade Mountains State of Sierra Frogs A report on the status of frogs & toads in the Sierra Nevada & California Cascade Mountains By Marion Gee, Sara Stansfield, & Joan Clayburgh July 2008 www.sierranevadaalliance.org State of Sierra Frogs 1 Acknowledgements The impetus for this report was the invaluable research on pesticides by Carlos Davidson, professor at San Francisco State University. Davidson, along with Amy Lind (US Forest Service), Curtis Milliron (California Department of Fish and Game), David Bradford (United States Environmental Protection Agency) and Kim Vincent (Graduate Student, San Francisco State University), generously donated their time and expertise to speak at two public workshops on the topics of Sierra frogs and toads as well as to provide comments for this document. Our thanks to the other reviewers of this manuscripts including Bob Stack (Jumping Frog Research Institute), Katie Buelterman, Dan Keenan, and Genevieve Jessop Marsh. This project was fortunate to receive contributions of photography and artwork from John Muir Laws, Elena DeLacy, Bob Stack, Ralph & Lisa Cutter and Vance Vredenburg. Photo credits are found with each caption. This work was made possible by generous grants from the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment and the State Water Resources Control Board. Funding for this project has been provided in part through an Agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) pursuant to the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000 (Proposition 13) and any amendments thereto for the implementation of California’s Non-point Source Pollution Control Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana Pretiosa) Movement and Demography at Dilman Meadow: Implications for Future Monitoring
    Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) Movement and Demography at Dilman Meadow: Implications for Future Monitoring By Nathan D. Chelgren, Christopher A. Pearl, Jay Bowerman, and Michael J. Adams Prepared in cooperation with the Sunriver Nature Center Open-File Report 2007-1016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Meyers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2006 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This analysis was made possible by a grant from the Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program. We thank C. Korson and L. Zakrejsek at the US Bureau of Reclamation for their work in all aspects of the translocation. Reviews by L. Bailey and two anonymous reviewers improved the manuscript. We thank R. B. Bury for suggestions on field techniques and assistance throughout the early years of the study. We thank S. Ackley, R. Diehl, B. McCreary, and C. Rombough for assistance with field work. We also thank Deschutes National Forest, US Fish and Wildlife Service, North Unit Irrigation District, and Sunriver Nature Center for the logistical and personnel support they dedicated.
    [Show full text]
  • Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle Alcyon
    Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Folk Name: Diver Status: Resident Abundance: Fairly Common Habitat: Lakes, ponds, streams, wires along roads with wet ditches The Belted Kingfisher is a popular and well-known bird here in the Central Carolinas. Solitary kingfishers can be found foraging on almost every local creek, wetland, pond, or lake at some point during the year. Though not numerous, residents living along the shoreline of our many lakes and ponds might see or hear one almost daily. The kingfisher is easily identified by its conspicuous field marks, its behavior, and its distinctive call. At 13 inches, it is about 2 inches larger than the Blue Jay—our only other bird with a crested blue head, blue back, and in pairs, instead of waking up the dead, with that blue tail. Unlike the jay, however, the kingfisher has a large outlandish voice from your great big head? head, stout bill, and a band of pale blue crosses its white Now you are not a game bird, Mr. Kingfisher, breast underneath. Female kingfishers have an additional nor have you any notes worth while, but the chatter belly band of rust underneath. The fishing behavior of the from that big head can be heard for quite a mile. kingfisher is distinctive as well. No other bird of this size hovers and dives, or perches and dives, into water to catch Ten years later in Charlotte, William McIlwaine wrote: fish. “Down by the creek I heard a sort of low rattling sound. The Belted Kingfisher is a year-round resident in this Going to investigate I caught the barest glimpse of a wing.
    [Show full text]
  • Function of the Respiratory System - General
    Lesson 27 Lesson Outline: Evolution of Respiratory Mechanisms – Cutaneous Exchange • Evolution of Respiratory Mechanisms - Water Breathers o Origin of pharyngeal slits from corner of mouth o Origin of skeletal support/ origin of jaws o Presence of strainers o Origin of gills o Gill coverings • Form - Water Breathers o Structure of Gills Chondrichthyes Osteichthyes • Function – Water Breathers o Pumping action and path of water flow Chondrichthyes Osteichthyes Objectives: At the end of this lesson you should be able to: • Describe the evolutionary trends seen in respiratory mechanisms in water breathers • Describe the structure of the different types of gills found in water breathers • Describe the pumping mechanisms used to move water over the gills in water breathers References: Chapter 13: pgs 292-313 Reading for Next Lesson: Chapter 13: pgs 292-313 Function of the Respiratory System - General Respiratory Organs Cutaneous Exchange Gas exchange across the skin takes place in many vertebrates in both air and water. All that is required is a good capillary supply, a thin exchange barrier and a moist outer surface. As you will remember from lectures on the integumentary system, this is often in conflict with the other functions of the integument. Cutaneous respiration is utilized most extensively in amphibians but is not uncommon in fish and reptiles. It is not used extensively in birds or mammals, although there are instances where it can play an important role (bats loose 12% of their CO2 this way). For the most part, it: - plays a larger role in smaller animals (some small salamanders are lungless). - requires a moist skin which is thin, has a high capillary density and no thick keratinised outer layer.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of the East Texas Baptist University Campus with Birds Observed Off-Campus During BIOL3400 Field Course
    Birds of the East Texas Baptist University Campus with birds observed off-campus during BIOL3400 Field course Photo Credit: Talton Cooper Species Descriptions and Photos by students of BIOL3400 Edited by Troy A. Ladine Photo Credit: Kenneth Anding Links to Tables, Figures, and Species accounts for birds observed during May-term course or winter bird counts. Figure 1. Location of Environmental Studies Area Table. 1. Number of species and number of days observing birds during the field course from 2005 to 2016 and annual statistics. Table 2. Compilation of species observed during May 2005 - 2016 on campus and off-campus. Table 3. Number of days, by year, species have been observed on the campus of ETBU. Table 4. Number of days, by year, species have been observed during the off-campus trips. Table 5. Number of days, by year, species have been observed during a winter count of birds on the Environmental Studies Area of ETBU. Table 6. Species observed from 1 September to 1 October 2009 on the Environmental Studies Area of ETBU. Alphabetical Listing of Birds with authors of accounts and photographers . A Acadian Flycatcher B Anhinga B Belted Kingfisher Alder Flycatcher Bald Eagle Travis W. Sammons American Bittern Shane Kelehan Bewick's Wren Lynlea Hansen Rusty Collier Black Phoebe American Coot Leslie Fletcher Black-throated Blue Warbler Jordan Bartlett Jovana Nieto Jacob Stone American Crow Baltimore Oriole Black Vulture Zane Gruznina Pete Fitzsimmons Jeremy Alexander Darius Roberts George Plumlee Blair Brown Rachel Hastie Janae Wineland Brent Lewis American Goldfinch Barn Swallow Keely Schlabs Kathleen Santanello Katy Gifford Black-and-white Warbler Matthew Armendarez Jordan Brewer Sheridan A.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana Luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Great Basin Distinct Population Segment Photo by Jim Harvey Photo: Jim Harvey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 8 Reno Fish and Wildlife Office Reno, Nevada Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Species status assessment report for the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment. Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. vii + 86 pp. ii Executive Summary In this Species Status Assessment (SSA), we evaluate the biological status of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the Great Basin both currently and into the future through the lens of the species’ resiliency, redundancy, and representation. This SSA Report provides a comprehensive assessment of biology and natural history of Columbia spotted frogs and assesses demographic risks, stressors, and limiting factors. Herein, we compile biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future stressors (causes and effects) facing Columbia spotted frogs in the Great Basin. Columbia spotted frogs are highly aquatic frogs endemic to the Great Basin, northern Rocky Mountains, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska. Columbia spotted frogs in southeastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and northeastern and central Nevada make up the Great Basin Distinct Population Segment (DPS; Service 2015, pp. 1–10). Columbia spotted frogs are closely associated with clear, slow-moving streams or ponded surface waters with permanent hydroperiods and relatively cool constant water temperatures (Arkle and Pilliod 2015, pp. 9–11). In addition to permanently wet habitat, streams with beaver ponds, deep maximum depth, abundant shoreline vegetation, and non-salmonid fish species have the greatest probability of being occupied by Columbia spotted frogs within the Great Basin (Arkle and Pilliod 2015, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • V77 P349 Bull.PDF
    EvelynL. Bull,rUSDA Forest Service, Pac f c NorthwestResearch Station, 1401 Geke er Lane,La crande Oreqon 97850 Dietand PreyAvailability of ColumbiaSpotted Frogs in Northeastern Oregon Abstract Baseline infoflnation on the die! and prcv a\ajlabilirl of Columbia \potted fiogs i\ hcking fron nrort of lhc spccicsrrnge. Diet $as detemined nom Jurrethrough Octobcr 2002 lbr 296 hogs in nonheastemOregon. Number of pre,vi!ems. diet compositioD. and biomass indices $crc comparcd by scx. sire classes.$ater type (ponds versusrivers). montl. and nudy site. Alailable invertebrateswere dctcrmincd iiom slickr' trupsand dip netiing in ponds amddvers. A total of 1.199prc,"- ilcns were identified $ith an averageof,l.:1 prcr ilcn\ in each sanple lrange = 0 - 28). A wide vadety of prey were idcntiilcd including 33 laDrilie\ l-rom20 ordersof invcrtebrales$,ilh only i ofder! represenring>107. of the composirion:beetles (l l%). ants/wasps(:1fZ ). and flies(10ti).Onl) l,l9Zoftheprev\lcrcinthclarlals|ages.Femaleiiogsaieabou{60%morebiomassthanalcsoflhc same size. presumablybecause oftheir needto produceeggs. Bionrassof male iiog diet samplesrvere greater in rivers than in ponds with a higher percenlageofstoneflies. *,ater striders.and beetles.Frog! aclilcly fonged all sulnner with the highestbiomass in Scptcmb.r and lhe lowest in July. Ovef the sumnrer.composition of spiders.bcctlcs. and llies decrersed while true bugsand anrs/ \rasps incrcasedir tbe diet. Among studt sites.ants/r'asps were mos! abundanrar |he higher elevations.A higher proportion of inlertebratesoccurred in the larger sizesin the dier comparedwi!h samplcsof availttbleinvetebrates. lntroduction EndangeredSpecies Act. Declincsin thisspecies havcbccn repoftedinYellowstone National Palk Amphibiansmake up an inlponant componentof (Patlaand Peterson 1999). Utah (Hovingh 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Related to the Distribution and Prevalence
    Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 2913–2921 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Factors related to the distribution and prevalence of the fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in Rana cascadae and other amphibians in the Klamath Mountains ⇑ Jonah Piovia-Scott a,b, , Karen L. Pope c, Sharon P. Lawler a,d, Esther M. Cole e, Janet E. Foley b a Center for Population Biology, University of California – Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA b Department of Veterinary Medicine and Epidemiology, University of California – Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA c United States Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1700 Bayview Drive, Arcata, CA 95521, USA d Department of Entomology, University of California – Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA e Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California – Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA article info abstract Article history: The fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), which causes the disease chytridiomycosis, has Received 5 May 2011 been associated with declines and extinctions of montane amphibians worldwide. To gain insight into Received in revised form 29 July 2011 factors affecting its distribution and prevalence we focus on the amphibian community of the Klamath Accepted 22 August 2011 Mountains in northwest California. The Cascades frog (Rana cascadae), one of the most common amphib- Available online 5 October 2011 ians in these mountains, experienced increased mortality as a result of Bd exposure in laboratory trials and has experienced recent, dramatic declines in other parts of California. We surveyed 112 sites in Keywords: the Klamaths, all of which supported R.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Red-Legged Frog,Rana Aurora
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Northern Red-legged Frog Rana aurora in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2015 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2015. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Northern Red-legged Frog Rana aurora in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 69 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 2004. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Red-legged Frog Rana aurora in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 46 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Waye, H. 1999. COSEWIC status report on the red-legged frog Rana aurora in Canada in COSEWIC assessment and status report on the red-legged frog Rana aurora in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-31 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Barbara Beasley for writing the status report on the Northern Red- legged Frog (Rana aurora) in Canada. This report was prepared under contract with Environment Canada and was overseen by Kristiina Ovaska, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Amphibian and Reptile Species Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la Grenouille à pattes rouges du Nord (Rana aurora ) au Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Saprolegnia Species in Norwegian Salmon Hatcheries: Field Survey Identifies S
    Vol. 114: 189–198, 2015 DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS Published June 3 doi: 10.3354/dao02863 Dis Aquat Org OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Saprolegnia species in Norwegian salmon hatcheries: field survey identifies S. diclina sub-clade IIIB as the dominating taxon E. Thoen1, T. Vrålstad1, E. Rolén1, R. Kristensen1, Ø. Evensen2, I. Skaar1,* 1Norwegian Veterinary Institute, PO Box 750 Sentrum, 0106 Oslo, Norway 2Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep., 0033 Oslo, Norway ABSTRACT: Saprolegnia isolates within the recognized clades encompassing the taxa S. parasit- ica and S. diclina act as opportunist and aggressive pathogens to both fish and their eggs. They are responsible for significant economic losses in aquaculture, particularly in salmonid hatcheries. However, the identity, distribution and pathogenic significance of involved species often remain unexplored. In this study, 89 Saprolegnia isolates were recovered from water, eggs and salmon tis- sue samples that originated from salmon (Salmo salar) hatcheries along the coast of Norway. The cultures were characterized morphologically and molecularly in order to provide an overview of the species composition of Saprolegnia spp. present in Norwegian salmon hatcheries. We demon- strate that S. diclina clearly dominated and contributed to 79% of the recovered isolates. Parsi- mony analyses of the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region split these isolates into 2 strongly supported sub-clades, S. diclina sub-clade IIIA and IIIB, where sub-clade IIIB accounted for 66% of all isolates. A minor portion of the isolates constituted other taxa that were either conspecific or showed strong affinity to S. parasitica, S. ferax, S. hypogyna and Scoliolegnia asterophora.
    [Show full text]