Acris blanchardi - Harper, 1947
Blanchard's Cricket Frog
Other English Common Names: Blanchard's cricket frog
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Acris blanchardi Harper, 1947 (TSN 774220)
French Common Names: rainette grillon de Blanchard
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.828458
Element Code: AAABC01040
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Amphibians - Frogs and Toads
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Amphibia Anura Hylidae Acris
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Gamble, T., P. B. Berendzen, H. B. Shaffer, D. E. Starkey, and A. M. Simons. 2008. Species limits and phylogeography of North American cricket frogs (Acris: Hylidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48:112-125.
Concept Reference Code: A08GAM01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Acris blanchardi
Taxonomic Comments: Based on patterns of morphological variation, "Acris crepitans blanchardi" does not appear to be a valid taxon (McCallum and Trauth 2006). According to Crother (2008), "Two nominal subspecies have not been formally rejected though they are infrequently recognized. Whether these represent arbitrary or historical units is unknown and this requires further investigation." In contrast, a phylogeographic analysis by Gamble et al. (2008), based on mtDNA and nDNA, found that "existing A. crepitans subspecies, defined by morphology and call types, do not match the distributions of evolutionary lineages recovered using...genetic data." Gamble et al. (2008) revised the distributions of blanchardi and crepitans in the south-central part of their combined ranges and recognized A. blanchardi and A. crepitans as distinct species. This change was adopted by Frost (Amphibian Species of the World website), Collins and Taggart (2009), and Crother et al. (2012).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 22Jan2016
Global Status Last Changed: 18Oct1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Widespread and common in much of range in central United States, but major declines have occurred in northern part of range; cause of declines is uncertain, may involve differnet factors in different areas.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Nov1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: NX (22Jan2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Arkansas (S5), Colorado (SH), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S3?), Kansas (S5), Kentucky (S5), Louisiana (SNR), Michigan (S2S3), Minnesota (S1), Mississippi (SNR), Missouri (S5), Nebraska (S5), New Mexico (S3), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S5), South Dakota (S1), Texas (S5), West Virginia (SX), Wisconsin (S1)
Canada Ontario (SX)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (05Jun2003)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (06May2011)
Comments on COSEWIC: This small frog is widespread, but declining rapidly, in the U.S. In Canada, it is known only from extreme southwest Ontario. There have been no confirmed records in Canada since the early 1970s despite frequent searches. However, there have been unconfirmed reports of the species as recently as the mid-1990s. Consequently, it is slightly possible that the species still exists in Canada. Threats to this frog include destruction and alteration of its habitat and effects of pesticides, herbicides and other contaminants.
Designated Endangered in April 1990. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2001 and May 2011.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Range extends from southwestern South Dakota, southern Minnesota, central Wisconsin, southern Michigan, extreme southwestern Ontario (formerly), and northern Ohio south to southern Texas, part of immediately adjacent extreme northeastern Mexico, and southern Louisiana; west to northeastern Colorado (at least formerly) and eastern New Mexico (Gamble et al. 2008). Documented range is west of the Mississippi River and north of the Ohio River, except for small areas along the east side of the lower Mississippi River and south of the Ohio River in northern Kentucky.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by many and/or large occurrences throughout most of the range. Recently found at only 19 of 44 historical sites in southwestern Wisconsin (Jung 1992).

Population Size: 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but likely is at least several 100,000s. This frog is common in many areas.

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: This species appears to be significantly threatened primarily in the northern portion of its range. The reasons for the declines remain speculative but vegetation succession, climatic fluctuations, predation by native and exotic species, competition from other frog species, and water pollution caused by pesticides and/or other chemicals associated with agriculture are possibly significant (Harding 1997, Lannoo 1998, Hammerson 1999, Hammerson and Livo 1999).

Short-term Trend: Unknown
Short-term Trend Comments: Trend over the past 10 years or three generations is unknown.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: This frog has declined in the northern part of its distribution but remains apparently stable and common in most of its range. It has declined in Ontario, southeastern Michigan (Lehtinen 2002), Wisconsin (Jung 1992; Hay 1998, in Lannoo 1998), Minnesota (Oldfield and Moriarty 1994), Indiana (Brodman et al. 2002), Illinois (Mierzwa, in Lannoo 1998), Iowa (Hemesath, in Lannoo 1998), Colorado (Hammerson and Livo 1999), and probably elsewhere. In southeastern Michigan, it is apparently extirpated in 58 of 60 historical locations (Lehtinen 2002) (but species is extant in at least a few dozen sites in southwestern Michigan).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Range extends from southwestern South Dakota, southern Minnesota, central Wisconsin, southern Michigan, extreme southwestern Ontario (formerly), and northern Ohio south to southern Texas, part of immediately adjacent extreme northeastern Mexico, and southern Louisiana; west to northeastern Colorado (at least formerly) and eastern New Mexico (Gamble et al. 2008). Documented range is west of the Mississippi River and north of the Ohio River, except for small areas along the east side of the lower Mississippi River and south of the Ohio River in northern Kentucky.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AR, CO, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, NE, NM, OH, OK, SD, TX, WI, WVextirpated
Canada ONextirpated

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CO Yuma (08125)*
IN Boone (18011), Brown (18013), Cass (18017), Clark (18019), Clay (18021), Dubois (18037), Floyd (18043), Fountain (18045), Gibson (18051), Greene (18055), Hamilton (18057), Huntington (18069), Kosciusko (18085), La Porte (18091), Lake (18089), Monroe (18105), Newton (18111), Noble (18113), Pike (18125), Posey (18129), Spencer (18147), St. Joseph (18141), Sullivan (18153), Vigo (18167), Wabash (18169), Washington (18175)
MI Allegan (26005), Barry (26015), Berrien (26021), Branch (26023)*, Calhoun (26025), Cass (26027), Clinton (26037)*, Eaton (26045)*, Hillsdale (26059), Ingham (26065)*, Ionia (26067)*, Jackson (26075)*, Kalamazoo (26077), Kent (26081), Lapeer (26087), Leelanau (26089)*, Lenawee (26091), Livingston (26093), Monroe (26115), Oakland (26125)*, Ottawa (26139), St. Clair (26147), St. Joseph (26149)*, Van Buren (26159), Washtenaw (26161)
MN Chisago (27025)*, Dodge (27039)*, Fillmore (27045)*, Goodhue (27049)*, Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Mower (27099)*, Nobles (27105)*, Olmsted (27109)*, Pipestone (27117)*, Rock (27133)*, Winona (27169)
SD Bon Homme (46009), Charles Mix (46023), Clay (46027)*, Hanson (46061)*, Hutchinson (46067), Lincoln (46083)*, Tripp (46123)*, Turner (46125)*, Union (46127)*, Yankton (46135)
WI Adams (55001), Brown (55009), Calumet (55015), Columbia (55021), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Dodge (55027), Door (55029), Fond Du Lac (55039)*, Grant (55043), Green (55045), Iowa (55049), Jefferson (55055), Juneau (55057), Kenosha (55059)*, La Crosse (55063), Lafayette (55065), Manitowoc (55071), Marquette (55077), Milwaukee (55079)*, Outagamie (55087), Ozaukee (55089), Portage (55097)*, Racine (55101)*, Sauk (55111), Sheboygan (55117)*, Vernon (55123), Walworth (55127)*, Washington (55131), Waukesha (55133), Waupaca (55135), Waushara (55137)*, Wood (55141)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101)+, Door-Kewaunee (04030102)+, Upper Fox (04030201)+, Wolf (04030202)+, Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, Pike-Root (04040002)+*, Milwaukee (04040003)+, St. Joseph (04050001)+, Black-Macatawa (04050002)+, Kalamazoo (04050003)+, Upper Grand (04050004)+*, Maple (04050005)+*, Lower Grand (04050006)+, Thornapple (04050007)+, Betsie-Platte (04060104)+*, Flint (04080204)+, St. Clair (04090001)+, Clinton (04090003)+*, Huron (04090005)+, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+, Raisin (04100002)+, St. Joseph (04100003)+, Tiffin (04100006)+*
05 Salamonie (05120102)+, Middle Wabash-Deer (05120105)+, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Middle Wabash-Busseron (05120111)+, Lower Wabash (05120113)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Eel (05120203)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Patoka (05120209)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+
07 Lower Minnesota (07020012)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+*, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Zumbro (07040004)+*, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Black (07040007)+, Root (07040008)+*, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+, Baraboo (07070004)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Kickapoo (07070006)+, Upper Cedar (07080201)+*, Upper Rock (07090001)+, Crawfish (07090002)+, Pecatonica (07090003)+, Sugar (07090004)+, Kankakee (07120001)+, Chicago (07120003)+, Des Plaines (07120004)+*, Upper Fox (07120006)+
10 Fort Randall Reservoir (10140101)+, Keya Paha (10150006)+*, Lower James (10160011)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Vermillion (10170102)+*, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+*, Rock (10170204)+*, North Fork Republican (10250002)+*, South Fork Republican (10250003)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Lays clutch of up to a few hundred eggs in spring or summer, breeding earlier in south than in north. Aquatic larvae metamorphose in summer. Sexually mature in first year.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Low gradient, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND, TEMPORARY POOL
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Grassland/herbaceous
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic, Burrowing in or using soil, Fallen log/debris
Habitat Comments: This species inhabits the edges of sunny marshes, marshy ponds, and small slow-moving streams in open country. It may periodically range into adjacent nonwetland habitats in some regions. Eggs and larvae develop in the shallow water of ponds, marshes, ditches, slow streams, springs, or rain pools. Hibernation sites are underground on land near water; may hibernate communally (e.g., McCallum and Trauth 2003).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Metamorphosed frogs eat various small invertebrates obtained near or in water. Larvae eat suspended matter, organic debris, algae, and plant tissue.
Adult Phenology: Circadian, Hibernates/aestivates
Immature Phenology: Circadian, Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: Inactive during coldest months in north and at higher elevations, active throughout the year in areas with mild winter weather. Diurnal during cool weather, active day and night in warmer months.
Colonial Breeder: Y
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Hylid Frogs (Treefrogs)

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including larvae or eggs) in or near appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers: Busy major highway such that frogs rarely if ever cross successfully; intensive urban development dominated by buildings and pavement and lacking suitable vegetated frog refuges.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Available information is limited but indicates that hylids generally exhibit limited movements on a short-term basis. In New Jersey, Freda and Morin (1984) and Freda and Gonzalez (1986) demonstrated that individual Hyla andersonii often travel distances of 100 m from breeding ponds during the nonbreeding season. In montane Colorado, Spencer (1964) found that Pseudacris triseriata range into wet meadows usually within about 700 m of their breeding sites and sometimes cross a few hundred meters of upland habitat. Kay (1989) determined that most Pseudacris cadaverina individuals range over small segments of streamcourse; 83 percent of movements were less than 25 m in a 1-year study. In Michigan, nonbreeding home range diameters of Pseudacris crucifer, established around forest debris and vegetation, ranged from 1.2 to 5.5 m (Delzell 1958).

Based on this information it appears that 1 km is an appropriate separation distance for unsuitable habitat. Despite limited data suggesting restricted movements, dispersal data are scant, and these frogs are clearly physically capable of long moves. It seems unlikely that occupied locations separated by a gap of less than several kilometers of suitable habitat would represent independent occurrences over the long term.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Inferred extent distance pertains to distance from breeding sites.
Date: 21Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 24Aug2010
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 24Aug2010
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Berendzen, P. B., T. Gamble, and A. M. Simons. 2003. The genetic status of Northern Cricket Frogs in Minnesota. Final report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resoureces, Nongame Research Program. 43 pp.

  • Berthel, R. M., and G. Rysgaard. 1941-08-10. Collection of Blanchard's cricket frog.

  • Britton, D. 2000. Update COSEWIC Status Report on the Northern Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans) in Canada. Unpublished report prepared for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 19 pp.

  • Brodman, R., S. Cortwright, and A. Resetar. 2002. Historical changes of reptiles and amphibians of northwest Indiana fish and wildlife properties. American Midland Naturalist 147:135-144.

  • Brodribb, K.E., and M.J. Oldham. 2001. COSSARO Candidate V, T, E Species Evaluation Form for Blanchard's Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi). Natural Heritage Information Centre for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. 9 pp. + 5 appendices.

  • Burkett, R. D. 1984. An ecological study of the Cricket Frog, Acris crepitans. Pages 89-102 in R. A. Seigel, L. E. Hunt, J. L. Knight, L. Malaret, and N .L. Zuschlag, editors. Vertebrate ecology and systematics: a tribute to Henry S. Fitch. Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

  • Burkett, R.D. 1984. An ecological study of the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Pp. 89-101 in Vertebrate Ecology and Systematics. Edited by R.A. Seigel, L.E. Hunt, J.L. Knight, L. Malaret, and N.L. Zuchlag.. Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

  • COLLINS, J.T. 1982. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES IN KANSAS. UNIV.KANS.MUS.NAT.HIST., PUB.EDUCA.SERIES NO.8.

  • CONANT, R. 1975. A FIELD GUIDE TO REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OFEASTERN AND CENTRAL NORTH AMERICA.

  • Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 19. 41 pp.

  • Collins, J. T. 1993. Amphibians and reptiles in Kansas. Third edition, revised. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Public Education Series No. 13. xx + 397 pp.

  • Collins, J. T., and T. W. Taggart. 2009. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians, turtles, reptiles, and crocodilians. Sixth edition. The Center for North American Herpetology, Lawrance, Kansas. iv + 44 pp.

  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2011a. COSEWIC Assessment Results. May 2011.

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 37:1-84. Online with updates at: http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/comm_names/Index.php

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2012. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. 7th edition. SSAR Herpetological Circular 39:1-92.

  • Crother, B. I., editor. 2012. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico. ?? Edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 39. ?? pp.

  • Degenhardt, W. G., C. W. Painter, and A. H. Price. 1996. Amphibians and reptiles of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

  • Degenhardt, W. G., C. W. Painter, and A. H. Price. 1996. Amphibians and reptiles of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. xix + 431 pp.

  • Dixon, J. R. 2000. Amphibians and reptiles of Texas. Second edition. Texas A & M University Press, College Station. 421 pp.

  • Dundee, H. A., and D. A. Rossman. 1989. The amphibians and reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

  • Frost, D. R. 2008. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 5.2 (15 July 2008). Electronic Database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.php. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.

  • Frost, D. R. 2011. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 5.5 (31 January 2011). Electronic Database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.php. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.

  • Gamble, T., P. B. Berendzen, H. B. Shaffer, D. E. Starkey, and A. M. Simons. 2008. Species limits and phylogeography of North American cricket frogs (Acris: Hylidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48:112-125.

  • Gray, R. H., L. E. Brown, and L. Blackburn. 2005. Acris crepitan, Northern Cricket Frog. Pages 441-443 in M. J. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

  • Gray, R.H. 1984. Effective breeding size and adaptive significance of color polymorphism in the cricket frog (Acris crepitans) in Illinois, U.S.A. Amphibia-Reptilia 5:101-107.

  • Gray, R.H. and L.E. Brown. 2005. "Decline of Northern Cricket Frogs (Acris crepitans)". Pages 47-54. IN: Lannoo, M. ed. Amphibian Declines: The conservation status of United States species. University of California Press.

  • Green, N. B., and T. K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in West Virginia. University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. xi + 241 pp.

  • Grundel, Ralph. 2000. Cricket Frog Expedition. Research Report to IDNR Nature Preserves. 7 pp.

  • Hall, C. D. 1997. Minnesota County Biological Survey - amphibian and reptile results, 1988-1994. Pages 58-62 in J. J. Moriarty, and D. Jones, editors. Minnesota's amphibians and reptiles, their conservation and status: proceedings of a symposium. Serpent's Tale Natural History Book Distributors, Lanesboro, Minnesota.

  • Hammerson, G. A. 1982. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. vii + 131 pp.

  • Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado. Second edition. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. xxvi + 484 pp.

  • Hammerson, G. A., and L. J. Livo. 1999. Conservation status of the Northern Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans) in Colorado and adjacent areas at the northwestern extent of the range. Herpetological Review 30:78-80.

  • Hammerson, G. A., and L. J. Livo. 1999. Conservation status of the northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans) in Colorado and adjacent areas at the northwestern extent of the range. Herpetological Review 30:78-80.

  • Harding, J. H. 1997. Amphibians and reptiles of the Great Lakes region. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. xvi + 378 pp.

  • Hay, R. 1998. Blanchard's Cricket Frogs in Wisconsin: a status report. Pages 79-82 in M. J. Lannoo, editor. Status and conservation of Midwestern amphibians. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa.

  • Hay, R. 1998. Blanchard's Cricket Frogs in Wisconsin: a staus report. Pages 79-82 in: M. J. Lannoo, editor. Status and conservation of Midwestern amphibians. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa.

  • Holmes, J. C. 1949-09-04. Collection of Blanchard's Cricket Frog.

  • Irwin, J. T., J. P. Costanzo, and R. E. Lee, Jr. 1999. Terrestrial hibernation in the Northern Cricket Frog, Acris crepitans. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1240-1246.

  • Irwin, J.T., Costanzo, J.P., Lee, R.E. 1999. Terrestrial Hibernation in the Northern Cricket Frog, Acris crepitans. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 1240-1246. 

  • Johnson, Bruce K. and James L. Christiansen. 1976. The food and food habits of Blanchard's cricket frog, Acris crepitans blanchardi (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae), in Iowa. J. Herpetologica. 10(2):63-74.

  • Johnson, T. R. 2000. The amphibians and reptiles of Missouri. Second edition. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. 400 pp.

  • Jung, R. E. 1992. Blanchard's cricket frogs (ACRIS CREPITANS BLANCHARDI) in southwest Wisconsin. Abstract, 6th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, p. 140.

  • Jung, R.E. 1991. Blanchard's Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi) in southwest Wisconsin. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts Lett. 81: 79-87.

  • Lannoo, M. J. 1998. Amphibian conservation and wetland management in the upper Midwest: a catch-22 for the Cricket Frog? Pages 330-339 in M. J. Lanno, editor. Status and conservation of Midwestern amphibians. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa.

  • Lannoo, M. J., K. Lang, T. Waltz, and G. S. Phillips. 1994. An altered amphibian assemblage: Dickinson County, Iowa, seventy years after Frank Blanchard's survey. American Midland Naturalist 131(2):311-319.

  • Lannoo, M. J., editor. 1998. Status and conservation of Midwestern amphibians. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

  • Lehtinen, R. M. 2002. A historical study of the distribution of Blanchard's crickets frog (Acris creptians blanchardi) in southeastern Michigan. Herpetological Review 33:194-197.

  • Lehtinen, R.M. 2002. A historical study of the distribution of Blanchard's Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi) in Southeastern Michigan. Herpetological Review 33(3):194-197.

  • Lehtinen, R.M. and A.A. Skinner. 2006. The enigmatic decline of Blanchard's Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi): A test of the habitat acidification hypothesis. Copeia 2006(2): 159-167.

  • McCallum, M. L., and S. E. Trauth. 2006. An evaluation of the subspecies Acris crepitans blanchardi (Anura, Hylidae). Zootaxa (1104):1-21.

  • Minton, S. A., Jr. 2001. Amphibians & reptiles of Indiana. Revised second edition. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis. xiv + 404 pp.

  • Moriarty, J. J. 1984. Amphibians and reptiles of the Missouri River drainage of southwestern Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 19 pp.

  • Moriarty, J. J. 1985. A survey of the amphibians and reptiles in the southeastern Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 19 pp.

  • Moriarty, J. J. 1985. Amphibians and reptiles of the Missouri River Drainage of southwestern Minnesota. Occasional Papers of the Minnesota Herpetological Society 1(1):1-12.

  • Moriarty, J. J., A. Forbes, and D. Jones. 1998. Geographic distribution: Acris crepitans blanchardi. Herpetological Review 29(3):172.

  • Moriarty, John J. 1984-1985. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Missouri River Drainage of Southwestern Minnesota. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program. Results in published report.

  • Moriarty, John J. 1985. A Survey of the Amphibians and Reptiles in Southeastern Minnesota. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program and The Nature Conservancy. Published.

  • Nehl, Michael J. 1981-1982. Proposal for Herpetological Research. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program. Result in unpublished report.

  • Oldfield, B., and J. J. Moriarty. 1991. Amphibians and reptiles native to Minnesota. Draft final report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 20 pp.

  • Oldfield, B., and J. J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians & reptiles native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. xv + 237 pp.

  • Oldfield, B., and J. J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians and reptiles native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 237 pp.

  • Oldham, M.J. 1983. An update on the status of the blue racer, Lake Erie water snake, Blanchard's cricket frog, and smallmouth salamander on Pelee Island, Ontario. OMNR, Wildlife Branch, Toronto, Ontario.

  • Oldham, M.J. 1992. Declines in Blanchard's Cricket Frog in Ontario. Pp. 30-31, in, C.A. Bishop and K.E. Pettit (eds.) Declines in Canadian amphibian populations: designing a national monitoring strategy. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. Occasional Paper Number 76.

  • Oldham, M.J. and C.A. Campbell. 1986. Status Report on Blanchard's Cricket Frog, Acris crepitans blanchardi, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. 79 pp.

  • Phillips, C. A., R. A. Brandon, and E. O. Moll. 1999. Field guide to amphibians and reptiles of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 8. xv + 282 pp.

  • Ralin, D.B., and J.S. Rogers. 1972. Aspects of tolerance to desiccation in Acris crepitans and Pseudacris streckeri. Copeia 1972:519-524.

  • Russell, R.W., G.J. Lipps Jr., S.J. Hecnar, G.D. Haffner. 2002. Persistent organic pollutants in Blanchard's Cricket Frogs (Acris crepitans blanchardi) from Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 102(5): 119-122.

  • Rysgaard, G. 1939-09-03. Collection of Blanchard's cricket frog. Accension #001127.

  • SMITH,H.M.1956. HANDBOOK OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OF KANSAS. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS, MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. LAWRENCE.

  • Smith, G.R., A.Todd, J.E. Rettig and F. Nelson. 2003. Microhabitat selection by Northern Cricket Frogs (Acris crepitans) along a West-Central Missouri creek: Field and experimental observations. Journal of Herpetology 37)2):383-385.

  • Trauth, S. E., H. W. Robison, and M. V. Plummer. 2004. The amphibians and reptiles of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press.

  • Underhill, J. C. Collection of Acris crepitans.

  • Van Gorp, C. D. 1996. Survey for Blanchard's Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi) in southwestern Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 20 pp.

  • Van Gorp, C. D. and T. J. VanDeWalle. 1995. Survey for Blanchard's Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi) in southeastern Minnesota. Report submitted to the Minnesota County Biological Survey, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 24 pp.

  • Van Gorp, Christopher D. 1996. Survey for Blanchard's Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi) in Southwestern Minnesota. Funded by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Section of Wildlife. Results in unpublished report.

  • Vogt, R. C. 1981c. Natural history of amphibians and reptiles of Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum. 205 pp.

  • Whitford, P. C. 1991. Blanchard's Cricket Frog survey of southeastern Minnesota 1990-1991. Report submitted to the Nongame Wildlife Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Unpaged.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.