2010. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 119(1):64–73 A REVIEW OF THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF CRAWFISH FROGS (LITHOBATES AREOLATUS) IN INDIANA Nathan J. Engbrecht: Department of Biology, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana 47809 USA Michael J. Lannoo: Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Indiana University School of Medicine–TH, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana 47809 USA ABSTRACT. The conservation status of Crawfish Frogs (Lithobates areolatus) in Indiana has changed over the past several decades. Once described as being locally plentiful, declines led to the listing of Crawfish Frogs as a State Endangered Species in 1988. The status of Crawfish Frogs is difficult to assess because of their fossorial nature and abbreviated calling season. Several records for this species in Indiana are . 50 yrs old and have gone unconfirmed for several decades. The status of most populations along the northern and eastern periphery of their range is undetermined, and many are suspected to be extirpated. However, recent surveys performed by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources have confirmed the continued presence of Crawfish Frogs in parts of southwest Indiana. The discovery of populations in southeast (Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge) and extreme south-central (Spencer County) Indiana over the past several years has redefined the perceived range of this species in Indiana. Keywords: Distribution, status, Crawfish Frog, Lithobates areolatus Crawfish Frogs (Lithobates [Rana areolata] Crawfish Frogs are known to occur in a areolatus) are a cryptic and comparatively variety of habitats including open damp areas, understudied species distributed in portions of wooded mountain valleys, woodlands, and the Midwest, eastern Great Plains, and south- brushy fields (Bragg 1953; Phillips et al. 1999; central United States (Lannoo 2005). Parris Minton 2001; Parris & Redmer 2005). Howev- and Redmer (2005) described their distribution er, the northern subspecies circulosus, which as ‘‘disjunct’’ with populations being ‘‘localized occurs in Indiana, appears to favor grassland in areas of suitable habitat.’’ Crawfish Frogs and has been found almost exclusively in this have experienced declines in Illinois, Indiana, habitat in Oklahoma and Missouri (Bragg and Iowa (Christiansen & Bailey 1991; Phillips 1953; Johnson 2000). While Crawfish Frogs et al. 1999; Minton 2001). In Indiana, Crawfish use grassland habitats in Indiana, much of their Frogs are listed as State Endangered. In Iowa, range appears to occur in areas that were Crawfish Frogs are also listed as State Endan- largely forested during pre-settlement times gered, but they have not been documented in (Jackson 1997; Minton 2001). the state for several decades and may now be Crawfish Frogs are part of a four-species extirpated (Christiansen & Bailey 1991). clade contained within the Nenirana group of In their summary of the distributions of Hillis & Wilcox (2005) that includes Gopher amphibians and reptiles of Illinois and In- Frogs (Lithobates [Rana] capito) and Federally diana, Smith & Minton (1957) identified Endangered Dusky Gopher Frogs (Lithobates Crawfish Frogs as a ‘‘western species,’’ noting [Rana sevosa] sevosus). Both gopher frog species that most of their range occurs to the have a southern distribution along the Coastal southwest of the two states. In Indiana, the Plains except for two isolated L. capito majority of historic Crawfish Frog records are populations: one in central Alabama and one located in the western half of the state, in Tennessee (Jensen & Richter 2005; Richter & extending from Benton County southward to Jensen 2005). Dusky Gopher Frogs have the Ohio River (Minton 2001). An apparently become extremely rare and are currently known isolated population occurs at Big Oaks Na- from a single site in Harrison County, Mis- tional Wildlife Refuge in southeast Indiana sissippi (Richter & Jensen 2005). Gopher Frogs (Haswell 2004). are a protected species in North Carolina, 64 ENGBRECHT & LANNOO—CRAWFISH FROGS 65 Florida, and Alabama (Jensen & Richter 2005). Lodato witnessed the extirpation of Crawfish All three species are ecologically similar, Frogs from three sites near Evansville, Van- occupying natural and artificial holes, or derburgh County, all of which were likely burrows made by other species (Richter et al. extirpated by 1990 (Lodato, pers. comm.). 2001; Parris & Redmer 2005; Bilhovde 2006). One of these sites, located at Angel Mounds While listed as Endangered in Indiana, the State Historic Site, apparently supported a status of Crawfish Frogs in this state is poorly population of . 100 breeding adults before its known. As a component of a larger study to numbers diminished during the mid-1980s. Due understand the conservation biology of Craw- to their increased rarity in Indiana, Crawfish fish Frogs in the northern extreme of their Frogs were designated a Species of Special range, we provide an overview of the historic Concern in 1984 and elevated to State Endan- distribution of this species in Indiana, building gered status in 1988 (S. Klueh, Indiana upon the summary of Minton (2001) by Department of Natural Resources, pers. incorporating more recent survey data. comm.). In March 2003, Daryl Karns, Joseph Robb, HISTORIC OVERVIEW Erin Haswell, and others confirmed the pres- Early reports of Crawfish Frogs in Indiana ence of a large population of Crawfish Frogs date to the latter half of the 19th century. located within Big Oaks National Wildlife Crawfish Frogs were first reported in Indiana Refuge (Haswell 2004). This discovery added in 1878 by F.L. Rice and N.S. Davis from Jefferson, Jennings, and Ripley counties to the Benton County (Rice & Davis 1878). This Indiana distribution and extended the known specimen was collected by E.F. Shipman and is range of Crawfish Frogs approximately 90 km deposited in the Chicago Academy of Sciences eastward. The source of this apparently isolated collection (CA 160; Rice & Davis 1878; population is not known, and its status as a Table 1). Willis Blatchley reported two addi- natural or introduced population has not yet tional specimens collected by C. Stewart and H. been determined. Despite intensive surveys, no McIlroy from Vigo County in 1893 and 1894, populations have been located outside the respectively (Blatchley 1900). refuge. Others contributing early records of this species in Indiana include R. Mumford, A.P. METHODS Blair, H.P. Wright and G.S. Myers of Indiana To assess the historic status of Crawfish University (Wright & Myers 1927), and David Frogs in Indiana, we compiled a complete list and Paul Swanson, foresters for the Emergency of all known Crawfish Frog records in the Conservation Works and the Resettlement state. The historic records of Crawfish Frogs in Administration (Swanson 1939; Table 1). Sher- Indiana are based on locality data from man Minton secured a number of specimens museum and university specimens, literature from 1949 to 1954, documenting the presence accounts, Indiana Department of Natural of Crawfish Frogs in at least seven additional Resources (IDNR) Division of Fish and counties. David Rubin reported Crawfish Wildlife records, IDNR Division of Nature Frogs from a site now known as ‘‘Dave’s Preserves Heritage Database Center, and other Pond’’ in northern Vigo County (Rubin 1965). reliable reports. We confirmed these records The majority of specimens collected from this where possible by examining all known post- site are deposited in the Indiana State Univer- metamorphic museum specimens (Table 1). sity Vertebrate Collection. Many of the recent records contained in this Minton (1972, 2001) has provided the most report come from an Indiana Department of thorough descriptions of the biology of Craw- Natural Resources (IDNR) survey for Craw- fish Frogs in Indiana. According to Minton, fish Frogs performed from 2004–2008 (Z. Crawfish Frogs were considered ‘‘locally plen- Walker, pers. comm.). tiful’’ in western Indiana until about 1970 when We contacted the following colleges and populations began to experience unexplained universities to inquire about possible specimens declines. He noted the disappearance of this being stored in their collections: Indiana species at many localities in Indiana, including University-Bloomington, University of Notre sites appearing to have experienced little Dame, Purdue University, Indiana University- change in habitat. Evansville resident M.J. Purdue University Fort Wayne, University of 66 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Table 1.—Museum specimens of Lithobates areo- (FMNH), Chicago Academy of Sciences (CA), latus from Indiana. Specimens CAS-SU 13390–93 Harvard University Museum of Comparative were found to be misidentified and are not included Zoology (HUMCZ), Carnegie Museum of Nat- in the table. Specimen OUZ A1126 could not be ural History (CM), Texas Cooperative Wildlife located and may be lost. Collection (TCWC), California Academy of County Year Collection number Sciences (CAS-SU), Hanover College Herpetol- ogy Collection (DRK), and the Indiana State Benton pre-1879 CA 160 Museum (INSM). Data were obtained from Clay 1950 UMMZ 101623 records held in the following institutions and 1958 UMMZ 118078 accessed through HerpNET data portal (http:// 1966 ISUVC 1492 www.herpnet.org): TCWC, 16 September 2009; Daviess 1953 UMMZ 108125 Fountain 1951 FMNH 64663 CAS-SU, 16 September 2009; and CM, 20 Greene 1949 UMMZ 100304 August 2009. Jefferson 2003 FMNH 262589 Monroe 1926 CAS-SU 2174–80, RESULTS 13343–64 Minton