Lithobates okaloosae - (Moler, 1985)
Florida Bog Frog
Other English Common Names: Bog Frog, Florida bog frog
Synonym(s): Rana okaloosae Moler, 1985
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lithobates okaloosae (Moler, 1985) (TSN 775103)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102983
Element Code: AAABH01240
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Amphibians - Frogs and Toads
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Amphibia Anura Ranidae Lithobates
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: 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.
Concept Reference Code: B90COL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Rana okaloosae
Taxonomic Comments: Smallest member of the Rana catesbeiana group of eastern North America. Apparently sometimes hybridizes with Rana clamitans (Moler 1992).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 18Feb2014
Global Status Last Changed: 21Nov2001
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Very narrow range limited to three adjacent counties in Panhandle Florida; roughly two dozen known sites, but these represent fewer occurrences. Though the species occurs almost entirely on federal lands, it is not federally listed, and national security has priority over wildlife.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2 (05Nov1996)

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 Florida (S2)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: VU - Vulnerable

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 250-5000 square km (about 100-2000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Endemic to Yellow and East Bay river drainages in Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton counties, Florida, USA (Moler 1993). Approximately 90% of total range is within Eglin Air Force Base. See Moler (1992, 1993).

Area of Occupancy: 6-125 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Area of occupancy is unknown but may be less than 20 sq km, assuming that occurrences average less than 1 sq km.

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 20
Number of Occurrences Comments: Known from approximately two dozen localities along tributaries of the East Bay, Shoal and Yellow rivers in Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton counties, Florida, USA.

Population Size: Unknown
Population Size Comments: Number of adult individuals is unknown, but species probably is common in appropriate habitat.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few to few (1-12)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Depends in part upon how occurrences are delineated.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Improper watershed management is a potential threat; at some sites, siltation stemming from poor placement of roads or poor forest management in surrounding uplands has degraded habitat, but frog populations often are not negatively affected by this (Moler 1992). Greatest threats are stream impoundment and habitat succession (Moler 1992). Limited range and habitat-dependence make this species vulnerable.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: A presumption given that habitat is within a military base and largely undisturbed.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: A presumption given that habitat is within a military base and largely undisturbed.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Known populations should be periodically monitored; survey for potentially undiscovered populations.

Protection Needs: Protect occurrences with ecologically sound watershed management. Assure that all future Eglin Air Force Base management plans address this species as they do now.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (250-5000 square km (about 100-2000 square miles)) Endemic to Yellow and East Bay river drainages in Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton counties, Florida, USA (Moler 1993). Approximately 90% of total range is within Eglin Air Force Base. See Moler (1992, 1993).

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: endemic to a single state or province

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States FL

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: IUCN, Conservation International, NatureServe, and collaborators, 2004


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
FL Okaloosa (12091), Santa Rosa (12113), Walton (12131)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Yellow (03140103)+, Pensacola Bay (03140105)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Florida bog frog
General Description: Dorsum yellowish green to yellowish brown, unspotted; upper lip greenish yellow; light dorsolateral ridges stop short of groin; very little webbing between toes (on the longest toe, at least 3 phalanges extend beyond the webbing); small, generally 3.5-4.4 cm snout-vent length (to 4.9 cm); larva is olive brown, with numerous buff spots on the tail and numerous white spots on the venter (Conant and Collins 1991; Moler 1992, 1993).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from RANA CATESBEIANA, R. GRYLIO, and R. HECKSCHERI in having dorsolateral ridges and by its small size (not over 5 cm snout-vent length). Differs from RANA SPHENOCEPHALA by lacking dorsal spots. Differs from RANA CLAMITANS CLAMITANS by its smaller size, reduced webbing on hind feet, and lack of an elevated center on the tympanum. (Conant and Collins 1991). Larva differs from that of RANA CLAMITANS in having numerous white spots on the venter (Moler 1992, 1993).
Reproduction Comments: Calling has been heard from mid-April to mid-September; lays eggs probably from April through August; larvae apparently overwinter prior to metamorphosis (Moler 1985, 1992).
Ecology Comments: Syntopic with RANA CLAMITANS, ACRIS GRYLLUS, and sometimes HYLA ANDERSONII.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Pool, SPRING/SPRING BROOK
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic, Fallen log/debris
Habitat Comments: Early successional shrub bog communities; in or near shallow, nonstagnant, acid (pH 4.1-5.5) seeps and along shallow, boggy overflows of larger seepage streams that drain extensive sandy uplands, frequently in association with lush beds of sphagnum moss. Often associated with black titi and Atlantic white cedar. In areas where streamside vegetation is more mature, hardwood forest occurs, typically only in disturbed sites, such as utility right-of-way crossings (Moler 1992). Eggs are laid in thin masses at the water surface in pools in adult habitat. Males typically call from shallow water surrounded by sphagnum (Moler 1993).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Metamorphosed frogs probably eat various small invertebrates. Larvae probably eat algae, plant tissue, organic debris, and possibly some small invertebrates.
Length: 4 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Management Research Needs: Additional information is needed on population dynamics, life history, habitat requirements, and possible competiton with the bronze frog (Moler 1992).
Biological Research Needs: Determine susceptibility to various pathogens, including chytrid fungus.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Ranid Frogs

Use Class: Not applicable
Subtype(s): Breeding Location
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, especially at night, such that frogs rarely if ever cross successfully; urban development dominated by buildings and pavement; habitat in which site-specific data indicate the frogs virtually never occur.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: BARRIERS/UNSUITABLE HABITAT: Rivers may or may not be effective barriers, depending on stream width and flow dynamics; identification of streams as barriers is a subjective determination. Ranid frog species vary in habitat use, but even the most aquatic species may traverse upland habitat when conditions are suitable (Pope and Matthews 2001); natural and seminatural upland habitat generally does not constitute a barrier. Here, unsuitable habitat refers to upland habitat devoid or nearly devoid of wetlands, streams, ponds, or lakes. Bodies of water dominated by predatory fishes may be barriers to some species but suitable habitat for others; in most cases, such waters probably should be regarded as unsuitable habitat.

SUITABLE HABITAT: Suitable habitat includes riparian/riverine corridors, wetlands, and wetland/upland mosaics in which wetland patches are separated by less than 1 km of upland habitat; it also includes any upland habitat regularly used for feeding or wintering (e.g., mesic forest for wood frogs).

MOVEMENTS: Available information indicates that individual ranids occasionally move distances of several km (R. luteiventris: Reaser 1996, cited by Koch et al. 1997; R. blairi: Gillis 1975) but most individuals stay within a few kilometers of their breeding sites (R. aurora draytonii: USFWS, Federal Register, 11 September 2000; R. capito: Franz et al. 1988; R. clamitans: Lamoureux and Madison 1999; R. luteiventris: Turner 1960, Hollenbeck 1974, Bull and Hayes 2001). Similarly, maximum distance between capture points generally is a few kilometers or less (R. aurora: Hayes et al. 2001; USFWS, Federal Register, 11 September 2000; R. catesbeiana: Willis et al. 1956; R. luteiventris: Reaser and Pilliod, in press; Engle 2000; R. muscosa: Pope and Matthews 2001). Dispersal data for juveniles are lacking for most species.

Adult and juvenile R. sylvatica readily traveled in excess of 300 m from their pools of origin (Vasconcelos and Calhoun 2004). Bellis (1965) determined that adult and juvenile R. sylvatica in a peat bog had traveled at least 410 m from the nearest breeding pool. Berven and Grudzien (1990) found that dispersing R. sylvatica juveniles traveled an average of 1,208 m from their natal pools. In the Shenandoah Mountains, data for R. sylvatica indicated that ponds separated by a distance greater than 1,000 m should experience little gene flow (Berven and Grudzien 1991). In contrast, populations in Minnesota were very similar in allelic frequencies, even at distances greater than several kilometers (Squire and Newman 2002). However, sample sizes and number of loci examined were small, and genetic patterns do not necessarily reflect movement distances.

The preponderance of data for ranids indicate that a separation distance of several kilometers may be appropriate for suitable habitat and practical for occurrence delineation, despite occasional movements that are longer and that may allow some genetic interchange between distant populations. The movement data for ranids are here regarded as consistent enough to allow the same separation distance to be used for different species; much of the apparent variation in movements doubtless reflects differences in study methods and in the ability to detect long-distance movements.

Date: 01Apr2005
Author: Hammerson, G.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
Justification: Use the Generic Element Occurrence Rank Specifications (2008).
Key for Ranking Species Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (2008).
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 18Feb2014
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Jackson, D. R. (2014); Jackson, D. R., J. G. Palis, and G. Hammerson (2002)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 23Mar1993
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
  • Ashton, R. E., Jr., and P. S. Ashton. 1988. Handbook of reptiles and amphibians of Florida. Part Three. The amphibians. Windward Publ. Co., Miami.

  • Bartlett, R. D., and P. P. Bartlett. 1999b. A field guide to Florida reptiles and amphibians. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas. xvi + 278 pp.

  • Bishop, D. C. 2005. Ecology and distribution of the Florida bog frog and flatwoods salamander on Eglin Air Force Base. Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.

  • Bishop, D. C. 2005. Ecology and distribution of the Florida bog frog and flatwoods salamander on Eglin Air Force Base. Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.

  • Blackburn, L., P. Nanjappa, and M. J. Lannoo. 2001. An Atlas of the Distribution of U.S. Amphibians. Copyright, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA.

  • Carmichael, P., and W. Williams. 1991. Florida's Fabulous Reptiles and Amphibians. World Publ., Tampa, FL. 122 pp.

  • 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.

  • Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central North America. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 450 pp.

  • Frost, D. R. 2002. Amphibian Species of the World: an online reference. V2.21 (15 July 2002). Electronic database available at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html.

  • Frost, D. R. 2010. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 5.4 (8 April 2010). Electronic Database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.php. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.

  • Gorman, T. A. 2009. Ecology of two rare amphibians of the Gulf Coastal Plain. Unpubl. PhD diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

  • Gorman, T. A. 2009. Ecology of two rare amphibians of the Gulf Coastal Plain. Unpubl. PhD diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

  • Gorman, T. A., D. C. Bishop, and C. A. Haas. 2009. Spatial interactions between two species of frogs: Rana okaloosae and R. clamitans clamitans. Copeia 2009:138-141.

  • Gorman, T. A., D. C. Bishop, and C. A. Haas. 2009. Spatial interactions between two species of frogs: Rana okaloosae and R. clamitans clamitans. Copeia 2009:138-141.

  • Gorman, T. A., and C. A. Haas. 2011. Seasonal microhabitat selection and use of syntopic populations of Lithobates okaloosae and Lithobates clamitans clamitans. Journal of Herpetology 45(3):313-318.

  • Gorman, T. A., and C. A. Haas. 2011. Seasonal microhabitat selection and use of syntopic populations of Lithobates okaloosae and Lithobates clamitans clamitans. Journal of Herpetology 45(3):313-318.

  • Krysko, K. L., K. M. Enge, and P. E. Moler. 2011. Atlas of amphibians and reptiles in Florida. Final report to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Submitted 15 December 2011.

  • Moler, P. E. 1985. A new species of frog (Ranidae: Rana) from northwestern Florida. Copeia 1985:379-383.

  • Moler, P. E. 1992. Florida bog frog RANA OKALOOSAE Moler. Pages 30-3 in P. E. Moler (editor). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume III. Amphibians and Reptiles. University Press of Florida.

  • Moler, P.E. 1993. Rana okaloosae. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. 561:1-3.

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 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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.