Near Threatened Amphibian Species - Amphibian Specialist Group

632Threatened Amphibians of the WorldBenning (where 60-110 breeding adults were recorded in a two acre pond; Andrews pers. comm.), Fort Stewart (18breeding sites recorded; D.J. Stevenson pers. comm.), McIntosh County, Baker County (at least five sites), CharltonCounty (C.W. Seyle unpubl.), Taylor County (three breeding sites), and Marion County. It is known from two sites(Savannah River Ecology Lab and Santee Coastal Reserve) in South Carolina. In North Carolina, it breeds at 11 sites(A.L. Braswell unpubl.). Though few data are available concerning changes in the species’ population status, muchinformation exists on the reduction of its habitat and breeding sites. The longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) community, theecosystem primarily inhabited by this species, has been reduced to less than 5% of its historical range (Frost 1993;Outcalt and Sheffield 1996). Bailey (1994) reported that eight of 14 known breeding sites in Alabama are consideredhistoric and of the six extant ponds, only three supported substantial populations. However, since that study, onehistoric site has been reconfirmed as extant, two additional breeding ponds have been discovered, and one previouslyknown breeding site has been extirpated due to the introduction of predatory fish (M.A. Bailey pers. comm.;J.B. Jensen pers. comm.). Although a few new North Carolina sites have been documented in recent years (Beaneand Hoffman 1995, 1997), Braswell (1993) found only 11 of 32 previously known breeding sites to be active in NorthCarolina. Twelve sites are known from South Carolina, though only four remain extant (S.H. Bennett pers. comm.).Of 23 historic breeding sites in Georgia investigated by Seyle (1994) 12 were judged suitable, eight were considereddegraded but marginally suitable, and three were judged unsuitable. Only one site was found to contain the frogsduring two extensive surveys of Georgia’s coastal plain in late winter and early spring of 1995. However, heavy rainsduring the autumn of the previous year might have contributed to early breeding, and therefore low detectabilityduring the survey period (Moulis 1995a,b). Extensive surveys are lacking for Florida. The total population size of thisspecies is not known but it is apparently declining in many areas. Its primary habitat is native xeric upland habitats,particularly longleaf pine-turkey oak sand hill associations; also xeric to mesic longleaf pine flat woods, sand pinescrub, xeric oak hammocks, and ruderal successional stages of these habitats. It is absent from most coastal islandsand dunes (Godley 1992). Burrows of the gopher tortoise or rodents are used for shelter (Gentry and Smith 1968; Lee1968; Franz 1986), and it also hides under logs and under or in stumps (Wright and Wright 1949). Breeding occurs inephemeral to semi-permanent graminoid-dominated wetlands that lack large predatory fish (Bailey 1991; Moler andFranz 1987; J.G. Palis unpubl.). This species does not adapt well to habitat degradation or the introduction of predatorsto its breeding habitat. Threats to this species are many and include loss of longleaf pine habitat through maximumyieldtimber management (for example, through establishment of pine monocultures) and decreased frequency of fire;introduction of predatory fish into breeding ponds; road construction near breeding sites; and declining populationsof gopher tortoises whose burrows are used extensively by gopher frogs (Bailey 1991; Godley 1992). Mechanical sitepreparation techniques (such as roller chopping) destroy burrow openings, which may trap inhabitants. Routine pinestraw harvest and associated removal of herbaceous vegetation also degrades the habitat quality (A.L. Braswell pers.comm.). Introduction of predatory game fishes (Lepomis spp. and Micropterus spp.) is detrimental as these speciesfeed upon gopher frog tadpoles and possibly eggs. In some instances, introduction of mosquito fish (Gambusia spp.)can also be detrimental to gopher frogs and other larval amphibians (A.L. Braswell pers. comm.). Breeding sites areoften degraded by off-road recreational vehicle (ORV) use or by sand roads that pass through or adjacent to the pondsas vehicular traffic disrupts pond floor micro-topography and eliminates herbaceous vegetation (J.G. Palis pers. comm.).More specifically, large tires of ORVs may break the organic hardpan that lies below the pond floor. This hardpanprevents water from draining into the sand below the wetland (LaClaire and Franz 1991), so breaking the hardpancould result in a shorter hydroperiod and thus make some wetlands unsuitable for gopher frog reproduction. Loss ofherbaceous vegetation from ORV use could also discourage gopher frog reproduction since egg masses are attachedto stems of herbaceous vegetation (Bailey 1990; J.G. Palis pers. comm.). Erosion of unpaved roads lying adjacent tobreeding sites may result in sedimentation into the ponds. Introduction of sediment is exacerbated by the placementof wing ditches that divert water from roads into ponds. Heavy grazing by cattle in summer in dried pond basins mightreduce or eliminate frog oviposition sites and/or alter pond nutrient cycling. A number of protected areas occur onvarious public lands throughout the species’ range. The most abundant populations are on federal lands, includingConecuh National Forest (Alabama), Eglin Air Force Base (Florida), and Fort Benning (Georgia). These areas receiveat least some protection relevant to the needs of this frog. Elsewhere, existing regulatory mechanisms probably areinsufficient for adequate protection of breeding and non-breeding habitat. It is listed as a species of special concernin Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and is protected in Alabama. The United States Fish and WildlifeService is currently evaluating the range-wide status of this frog to determine if it warrants federal recommendationas a threatened species (L.V. LaClaire pers. comm.).Taxonomy: This species was removed from the synonymy of Rana areolata by Case (1978) and Young and Crother (2001).Bibliography: Altig, R. and Lohoefener, R. (1983), Auffenberg, W. and Franz, R. (1982), Bailey, M.A. (1990), Bailey, M.A. (1991), Bartlett,R.D. and Bartlett, P.P. (1999), Beane, J.C. and Hoffman, E.L. (1995), Blackburn, L., Nanjappa, P. and Lannoo, M.J. (2001), Blihovde, W.B.(2000), Braswell, A.L. (1993), Case, S.M. (1978), Collins, J.T. (1990), Collins, J.T. (1997), Conant, R. and Collins, J.T. (1991), Cronin, J.T. andTravis, J. (1986), Diemer, J.E. (1989), Dundee, H.A. and Rossman, D.A. (1989), Einem, G.E. and Ober, L.D. (1956), Eisenberg, J.F. (1983),Franz, R. (1986), Franz, R. (1991), Franz, R., Dodd, Jr, C.K. and Jones, C. (1988), Gentry, J.B. and Smith, M.H. (1968), Gibbons, J.W. andSemlitsch, R.D. (1981), Godley, J.S. (1992), Goin, C.J. and Netting, M.G. (1940), Greenberg, C.H. (2001), Jensen, J.B. (2000), Jensen, J.B.and Richter, S. (2005), Jensen, J.B., Palis, J.G. and Bailey, M.A. (1995), Jensen, R.C. and LaClaire, L.V. (1995), Jensen. J.B. et al. (2003),LaClaire, L.V. (1995b), LaClaire, L.V. and Franz, R. (1990), LaClaire, L.V. and Franz, R. (1990), Lee, D.S. (1968), Martof, B.S. et al. (1980),Means, D.B. (1986b), Means, D.B. (2001), Miller, B.T. and Campbell, D.L. (1996), Miller, B.T. and Campbell, D.L. (1996), Moler, P.E. and Franz,R. (1987), Moulis, R.A. (1995a), Moulis, R.A. (1995b), Mount, R.H. (1975), Palis, J.G. (1998), Palis, J.G. and Jensen, J.B. (1995), Redmond,W.H. and Scott, A.F. (1996), Robbins, L.E. and Myers, R.L. (1992), Semlitsch, R.D., Gibbons, J.W. and Tuberville, T.D. (1995), Semlitsch,R.D., Gibbons, J.W. and Tuberville, T.D. (1995), Seyle, C.W. (1994), Shaffer, H.B. et al. (1994), Travis, J. (1994), Travis, J., Keen, W.H. andJuilianna, J. (1985), Volpe, E.P. (1958), Ware, S., Frost, C. and Doerr, P.D. (1993), Webster, W.D., Parnell, J.F. and Biggs, W.C. Jr. (1985),Wood, D.A. (1992), Wright, A.H. and Wright, A.A. (1949), Young, J.E. (1997), Young, J.E. and Crother, B.I. (2001)Data Providers: Geoffrey Hammerson, John JensenRana cascadae Slater, 1939CASCADES FROGThis species occurs in the Cascade Mountains from northern Washington south to northern California, USA. Populationsisolated from the main Cascade Mountains complex occur in the Olympic Mountains, Washington; Mount Shastaand Lassen Peak area, California; and the Trinity Mountains, California (Stebbins 1985b; Nussbaum, Brodie andStorm 1983; Pearl and Adams 2005). Its range is generally between 665 and 2,450m asl, although some Washingtonpopulations might occur at lower altitudes. Its prehistoric range might have included much lower altitudes (Leonardet al. 1993). In Washington State, hundreds of populations have been identified, but some of these are likely to beno longer extant, and others might be continuous with adjacent populations (Dvornich, McAllister and Aubry 1997).This species is very rare and possibly extirpated from the Mount Lassen area, California (Fellers and Drost 1993).However, a population persists at Trinity Alps, California (Bury 1973a; Jennings and Hayes 1994). Some declinesmight have occurred in the Oregon Cascades (Olson 2001), but there have been no declines documented in Olympic(Adams, Schindler and Bury 2001) and Mount Rainier National Parks in Washington State. This species inhabits wetmountain meadows, sphagnum bogs, ponds, lakes, and streams, in open coniferous forests. It hibernates in mud atthe bottom of ponds and in spring-water saturated ground up to at least 75m from ponds (Briggs 1987). It prefersquiet ponds for breeding and usually lays eggs in shallow open water. Non-breeding habitats are often more than100m from breeding sites, sometimes substantially more. Non-breeding habitats can be streams in lower altitudes.It is not clear how adaptable this species is to habitat degradation. Observed declines in Lassen Volcanic NationalPark are apparently due to a combination of local factors, including (1) the presence of non-native predatory fish thathave restricted available habitat and limited dispersal of frogs; (2) gradual loss of open meadows and associatedaquatic habitats; and (3) loss of breeding habitat due to a five-year drought (Fellers and Drost 1993). Pesticide driftvia prevailing winds might also have contributed to losses in California (Davidson, Shaffer and Jennings 2002). Introducedfish are implicated as limiting distribution in montane areas (Hayes and Jennings 1986; Jennings and Hayes1994; Adams, Schindler and Bury 2001). UV radiation shows negative effects in experimental settings, but effects atlandscape scale are unclear (Adams, Schindler and Bury 2001; Palen et al. 2002). Eggs are highly susceptible to thepathogenic fungus Saprolegnia ferax, which might be introduced during fish stocking (Kiesecker and Blaustein 1997).Some populations are within protected national park and wilderness areas in Oregon (such as Crater Lake NationalPark, and the Three Sisters wilderness area), Washington (Olympic and Mount Rainier National Parks), and California(Mount Lassen and Trinity Alps). However, factors such as pesticide drift, UV radiation, and fish introductions areprominent threats even in montane protected areas.Bibliography: Adams, M.J., Schindler, D.E. and Bury, R.B. (2001), Altig, R. and Dumas, P.C. (1971), Behler, J.L. and King, F.W. (1979),Blackburn, L., Nanjappa, P. and Lannoo, M.J. (2001), Blaustein, A.R. et al. (1994), Blaustein, A.R. et al. (1995), Briggs Sr, J.L. (1987),Briggs, J.L. and Storm, R.M. (1970), Bury, R.B. (1973a), Davidson, C., Shaffer, H.B. and Jennings, M.R. (2002), Dvornich, K.M., McAllister,K.R. and Aubry, K.B. (1997), Fellers, G.M. and Drost, C.A. (1993), Fite, K.V. et al. (1998), Frost, D.R. (1985), Green, D.M. (1986a), Green,D.M. (1986b), Hayes, M.P. and Jennings, M.R. (1986), Jennings, M.R. and Hayes, M.P. (1994), Kiesecker, J.M. and Blaustein, A.R. (1997),Leonard, W.P. et al. (1993), Macey, J.R. et al. (2001), Nussbaum, R.A., Brodie, Jr., E.D. and Storm, R.M. (1983), Olson, D.H. (2001), Palen,W.J. et al. (2002), Pearl, C.A. and Adams, M.J. (2005), Stebbins, R.C. (1985b), Sype, W.E. (1975)Data Providers: Geoffrey Hammerson, Christopher PearlRana chitwanensis Das, 1998This species is endemic to Nepal. Reports from north-east India reflect a misidentification with Rana danielii. It isa lowland species occurring below 500m asl in the foothills of the Himalayan range. It probably occurs a little morewidely, and can be expected to occur in India. The population status of this species is unknown. It is associated withterai grasslands, bushes and tropical Shorea forest in hilly areas. Specimens were collected by Das (1998) under logsin Shorea forest with scattered patches of short grass and bare earth. There is little information available concerningdetails of reproduction or larval habitat. The main threat to this species is habitat loss as a result of selectivelogging of forests and changes in water management regimes (such as dam construction). The original collection ofthis species occurred in Royal Chitwan National Park (Das 1998).Bibliography: Das, I. (1998a), Zug, G.R. and Mitchell, J.C. (1995)Data Providers: Sushil Dutta, Tej Kumar Shrestha, Annemarie OhlerRana curtipes Jerdon, 1853This species is widely distributed in the Western Ghats of India, from 500-2,000m asl. It probably occurs more widelythan current records suggest. This is a locally abundant species. It is a terrestrial leaf-litter frog, found in a number oftropical forest types (evergreen to semi-evergreen moist forest, and into dry deciduous forest). It is also found in lightlydegraded areas. It breeds in natural and artificial waterbodies (in both ponds and large lakes). The major threat to thisspecies is general habitat loss through conversion to agricultural land and plantations (including eucalyptus, coffee andtea), and exploitation of its habitat for timber and wood by local people. Road kill during migration to breeding habitatsis also a problem. The larvae of this species are collected for local consumption. It has been recorded from manyprotected areas in Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Goa, and it is protected by national legislation.Bibliography: Biju, S.D. (2001), Dutta, S.K. (1997), Hiragond, Ningappa C., Bhagyashri A. Shanbhag and Srinivas K. Saidapur (2001),Jerdon, T.C. (1853), Vasudevan, K., Kumar, A. and Chellam, R. (2001)Data Providers: S.D. Biju, Sushil Dutta, Robert IngerRana grafi Crochet, Dubois, Ohler and Tunner, 1995This species is present in southern France and north-eastern Spain (Catalonia, Aragon, Navarra and the Basque Country)(Crochet et al. 1995; Dubois and Ohler 1994). It is also present in the southern Rhone Valley (Pagano, Joly and Hotz1997). The species’ population has been greatly affected by the introduction of Rana ridibunda, and in many areaswhere it was previously found only the invasive species remains. Rana grafi occurs in mixed colonies with R. perezi,and lives in similar habitat, being found in a wide variety of temporary and permanent waterbodies (such as pools,streams, ditches, and irrigation canals), where it breeds. Terrestrial habitats include forests, scrubland, agriculturalareas and coastal marshes. The major threat to this species is displacement by the invasive species Rana ridibunda.It is possibly also threatened by the drainage of suitable wetlands for agricultural, urban and tourism development.Agrochemical pollution of breeding waterbodies is also presumed to be a threat. This species occurs in a number ofprotected areas, and is listed on Appendix III of the Berne Convention. Monitoring of the population is necessary todetermine the degree of decline as a result of invasive species.Taxonomy: Rana grafi is a kleptospecies (hybridogenetic hemilineage) associated with R. perezi and R. ridibunda (Crochet et al.1995).Bibliography: Arano, B. et al. (1995), Arano, B. and Llorente, G.A. (1995), Arnold, E.N. (2003), Crochet, P.-A. et al. (1995), Dubois, A. andOhler, A. (1995), Graf, J.-D., Karch, F. and Moreillon, M.C. (1977), Pagano, A., Joly, P. and Hotz, H. (1997), Pleguezuelos, J.M., Márquez,R. and Lizana, M. (2002), Sinnassamy, J.M. and Pineau, O. (1996)Data Providers: Miguel Tejedo, Iñigo Martínez-Solano, Alfredo Salvador, Mario García-París, Ernesto Recuero Gil, Pierre-André CrochetRana grahami Boulenger, 1917This species is known from hilly areas in south-western China in Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou, and possibly HunanProvinces, and from one location, Hoang Lien Son National Park, in northern Viet Nam (Ohler et al. 2000). It has beenrecorded from 1,150-3,200m asl. In China this species was formerly common, but it is now uncommon. In Viet Namit was found to be relatively common in appropriate habitat (S. Swan pers. comm.) It inhabits medium and smallhill streams in montane forest, and sometimes also occurs near still-water pools. It may on occasion leave water tolive in forest, shrubland and grassland, but it returns to breed in streams. The main threats to this species in Chinaare over-collecting for local consumption, and habitat destruction and degradation due to shifting agriculture andsmallholder farming (which might also be a threat in Viet Nam). Some protected areas are present within the rangeof this species in China. The one known location in Viet Nam is within Hoang Lien Son National Park.Bibliography: Fei, L. et al. (1999), MacKinnon, J. et al. (1996), Ohler, A. et al. (2000), Ye, C.-Y, Fei, L. and Hu, S.Q. (1993)Data Providers: Yang Datong, Lu Shunqing, Annemarie Ohler, Steven SwanRana iberica Boulenger, 1879IBERIAN FROGThis species is endemic to Portugal and north-western and central Spain. It mostly occurs in montane areas up to2,425m asl (such as the Sierra de Béjar, central Spain). Isolated populations of this species are present in the BasqueCountry, Central System Mountains, Extremadura in Spain and Marinha Grande and Serra de Sao Mamede in Portugal.It is reasonably common in northern Portugal and north-western Spain. Populations in the Central System Mountainsand Extremadura of Spain are declining very seriously. There is also evidence of population declines in the Sierra deGuadarrama (Madrid, Spain). This is an aquatic species usually found in shady habitats (with abundant vegetation)close to rivers, streams, lakes and marshes. The species’ terrestrial habitats include woods, moors, meadows andareas of low scrub. In the north of its range it can occur down to sea level along slower flowing rivers. Breeding andlarval development takes place within various shallow stagnant waterbodies. Threats to this species include pressurefrom tourism development, urbanization of the lowland range, habitat loss through intensification of agricultureand deforestation and re-afforestation with non-native monocultures, introduction of non-native predatory fi shes(salmonids) and mammals such as Mustela vison (American mink), desertification in southern Portugal, and habitatloss through hydroelectric projects. It is present in Parque Natural del Gorbea and Parque Natural de Izki in Spain,where it is also protected by national legislation and listed in the national Red Data Book as vulnerable. This speciesis listed on Appendix II of the Berne Convention and on Annex IV of the EU Natural Habitats Directive.