Lithobates pipiens - (Schreber, 1782)
Northern Leopard Frog
Other English Common Names: northern leopard frog
Synonym(s): Rana pipiens Schreber, 1782
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lithobates pipiens (Schreber, 1782) (TSN 775108)
French Common Names: grenouille léopard
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101454
Element Code: AAABH01170
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Amphibians - Frogs and Toads
Image 11280

© Larry Master

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
Concept Reference: Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B85FRO01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Rana pipiens
Taxonomic Comments: Much published information on "Rana pipiens" actually pertains to other species that have been described or recognized since the early 1970s.

Hoffman and Blouin (2004) used mtDNA data to develop a hypothesis regarding the evolutionary history and phylogeography of Rana pipiens.
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10May2016
Global Status Last Changed: 26Nov2001
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large range throughout much of the U.S. and southern Canada; still common in many areas and in a diverse array of pristine and disturbed habitats; populations have declined in some areas due to habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation, interactions with non-native species, and unknown causes, but the overall range remains essentially undiminished.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Nov1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (10May2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Arizona (S2), California (S2), Colorado (S3), Connecticut (S2), Idaho (S2), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S2), Iowa (S5), Kentucky (S3), Maine (S3), Maryland (S4), Massachusetts (S3S4), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (S4), Missouri (S2), Montana (S1,S4), Navajo Nation (S2), Nebraska (S5), Nevada (S2S3), New Hampshire (S3), New Jersey (SNR), New Mexico (S1), New York (S5), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (SNR), Oregon (S1S2), Pennsylvania (S2S3), Rhode Island (S2), South Dakota (S5), Texas (S1), Utah (S3), Vermont (S4), Washington (S1), West Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (S4?), Wyoming (S3)
Canada Alberta (S2), British Columbia (S1), Labrador (S3S4), Manitoba (S4), New Brunswick (S5), Northwest Territories (S1S2), Nova Scotia (S5), Nunavut (SNR), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (S4S5), Quebec (S5), Saskatchewan (S3)

Other Statuses

Implied Status under the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC):E,SC,NAR
Comments on COSEWIC: Southern Mountain population (BC) is designated Endangered. Western Boreal/Prairie populations (NT, AB, SK, MB) are designated Special Concern. Eastern population (ON, QC, NB, NS, NI, LB) is designated Not At Risk.
IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Range extends from the Great Slave Lake, Hudson Bay, and Labrador, Canada, south to southern New England, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Arizona, west to southeastern British Columbia, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and eastern California (Conant and Collins 1991, Stebbins 2003). Distribution is spotty in the west, where this frog has been introduced in many localities.

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Represented by many and/or large occurrences throughout most of the range. Ranked S4 or S5 in more than 15 states/provinces.

Population Size: 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size likely is in the hundreds of thousands or millions.

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threats and degree of threat vary greatly across the range. Threats include habitat loss, commercial overexploitation, and, in some areas, probably competition/predation by bullfrogs or other introduced species. Exposure to pH 5.5 or lower increases vulnerability to bacterial infection (Simon et al. 2002). Decline in Rocky Mountains (Corn et al. 1989) is not due to acidification of breeding habitats (Corn and Vertucci 1992). Laboratory results suggests that there may be an interaction between crowding, temperature, and mortality from bacterial infection (e.g., red-leg disease); there was higher mortality when frogs were subjected to crowding and high temperatures (Brodkin et al. 1992). In Ontario, Canada, leopard frog population density was negatively affected by vehicular traffic within a radius of 1.5 km (Carr and Fahrig 2001).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Probably declining in population size, area of occupancy, and condition of occurrences.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: Still widespread and common in many areas, especially in lowland areas, but many other populations appear to have declined, especially in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana, where the species no longer is extant in most localities where historically it occurred (Corn and Fogleman 1984; Corn et al. 1989; Koch and Peterson 1995; J. Reichel, unpublished map, 1996). Has nearly disappeared from the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, though natural wetland habitats remain apparently undisturbed with acceptable water quality (Koch and Peterson 1995). Apparently extirpated from most of historical range in Washington (Leonard et al. 1999). Not observed in recent years in the few historical localities in Oregon (Csuti et al. 1997). Local extirpations have been reported for Alberta (Russell and Bauer 1993) and British Columbia (Orchard 1992). Declined in northwestern Indiana between the 1930s and 1990s (Brodman et al. 2002).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Moderate to broad.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Range extends from the Great Slave Lake, Hudson Bay, and Labrador, Canada, south to southern New England, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Arizona, west to southeastern British Columbia, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and eastern California (Conant and Collins 1991, Stebbins 2003). Distribution is spotty in the west, where this frog has been introduced in many localities.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AZ, CA, CO, CT, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NN, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NS, NT, NU, ON, PE, QC, SK

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

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

U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Apache (04001), Coconino (04005), Greenlee (04011), Mohave (04015), Navajo (04017), Yavapai (04025)
CA El Dorado (06017)*, Imperial (06025)*, Inyo (06027), Kern (06029)*, Merced (06047)*, Modoc (06049)*, Mono (06051)*, Orange (06059)*, Placer (06061)*, Riverside (06065)*, Tulare (06107)*
CO Adams (08001)*, Arapahoe (08005), Archuleta (08007), Delta (08029), Denver (08031)*, Dolores (08033), Douglas (08035), El Paso (08041), Garfield (08045), Grand (08049)*, Gunnison (08051), Hinsdale (08053), Jackson (08057), Jefferson (08059), La Plata (08067), Larimer (08069)*, Lincoln (08073), Moffat (08081), Montezuma (08083)*, Montrose (08085), Rio Blanco (08103), Routt (08107), Teller (08119)
CT Fairfield (09001)*, Hartford (09003), Litchfield (09005), Middlesex (09007), New Haven (09009)*
ID Ada (16001), Bannock (16005), Bear Lake (16007), Bingham (16011), Blaine (16013), Bonner (16017)*, Bonneville (16019), Boundary (16021)*, Butte (16023)*, Canyon (16027)*, Caribou (16029), Cassia (16031), Elmore (16039), Franklin (16041), Fremont (16043), Gem (16045)*, Gooding (16047)*, Idaho (16049), Jefferson (16051)*, Jerome (16053)*, Madison (16065), Minidoka (16067), Oneida (16071), Owyhee (16073), Power (16077), Twin Falls (16083), Washington (16087)*
IN Allen (18003), Boone (18011), Brown (18013)*, Fulton (18049), Hamilton (18057), Henry (18065), Jackson (18071), Jasper (18073), Jay (18075), Kosciusko (18085), La Porte (18091)*, Lagrange (18087), Lake (18089), Marion (18097), Marshall (18099), Newton (18111), Parke (18121)*, Porter (18127), Pulaski (18131), Putnam (18133)*, Rush (18139)*, St. Joseph (18141), Starke (18149), Steuben (18151), Vigo (18167), Wayne (18177)*, Wells (18179)*, White (18181), Whitley (18183)
KY Boone (21015), Bourbon (21017), Carroll (21041), Fayette (21067)*, Franklin (21073), Gallatin (21077)*, Grant (21081)*, Greenup (21089), Harrison (21097), Henry (21103), Jessamine (21113)*, Kenton (21117)*, Lewis (21135), Madison (21151), Mason (21161)*, Owen (21187), Pendleton (21191)*, Scott (21209), Woodford (21239)*
MO Atchison (29005), Mercer (29129)
MT Flathead (30029), Lincoln (30053)
NH Belknap (33001), Cheshire (33005), Coos (33007), Grafton (33009), Hillsborough (33011), Merrimack (33013), Rockingham (33015), Sullivan (33019)
NM Bernalillo (35001), Cibola (35006), Colfax (35007), Mckinley (35031), Mora (35033), Rio Arriba (35039), San Juan (35045), San Miguel (35047), Sandoval (35043), Santa Fe (35049), Socorro (35053), Taos (35055), Union (35059)*
NV Churchill (32001)*, Douglas (32005), Elko (32007), Lincoln (32017), Lyon (32019)*, Storey (32029), Washoe (32031), White Pine (32033)
OR Malheur (41045)
PA Crawford (42039), Erie (42049)
RI Bristol (44001), Newport (44005), Providence (44007)
UT Beaver (49001), Box Elder (49003), Cache (49005), Carbon (49007), Daggett (49009), Davis (49011), Duchesne (49013), Emery (49015), Garfield (49017), Grand (49019), Iron (49021), Juab (49023), Kane (49025), Millard (49027), Morgan (49029), Piute (49031)*, Rich (49033), Salt Lake (49035), San Juan (49037), Sanpete (49039), Sevier (49041), Summit (49043), Tooele (49045)*, Uintah (49047), Utah (49049), Wasatch (49051), Washington (49053), Wayne (49055), Weber (49057)*
WA Grant (53025)+, Whitman (53075)+
WV Cabell (54011), Tyler (54095)*
WY Albany (56001), Carbon (56007), Converse (56009), Crook (56011), Fremont (56013), Goshen (56015), Johnson (56019), Lincoln (56023), Natrona (56025), Platte (56031), Sheridan (56033), Sublette (56035), Sweetwater (56037), Uinta (56041), Weston (56045)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Upper Androscoggin (01040001)+, Piscataqua-Salmon Falls (01060003)+, Merrimack (01070006)+, Upper Connecticut (01080101)+, Middle Connecticut (01080201)+, Lower Connecticut (01080205)+, Farmington (01080207)+, Narragansett (01090004)+, Quinnipiac (01100004)+*, Housatonic (01100005)+
02 Long Island Sound (02030203)+*
04 Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, St. Joseph (04050001)+, St. Joseph (04100003)+, St. Marys (04100004)+, Chautauqua-Conneaut (04120101)+
05 French (05010004)+, Shenango (05030102)+, Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)+*, Whitewater (05080003)+*, Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)+, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Middle Ohio-Laughery (05090203)+, Licking (05100101)+*, South Fork Licking (05100102)+, Lower Kentucky (05100205)+, Upper Wabash (05120101)+, Salamonie (05120102)+*, Eel (05120104)+, Tippecanoe (05120106)+, Sugar (05120110)+*, Middle Wabash-Busseron (05120111)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Eel (05120203)+*, Driftwood (05120204)+, Muscatatuck (05120207)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+*
07 Kankakee (07120001)+, Iroquois (07120002)+, Chicago (07120003)+
10 Little Bighorn (10080016)+, Upper Tongue (10090101)+, Clear (10090206)+, Beaver (10120107)+, Redwater (10120203)+, North Platte Headwaters (10180001)+, Upper North Platte (10180002)+, Pathfinder-Seminoe Reservoirs (10180003)+, Sweetwater (10180006)+, Middle North Platte-Casper (10180007)+, Glendo Reservoir (10180008)+, Upper Laramie (10180010)+*, Lower Laramie (10180011)+, Horse (10180012)+, South Platte Headwaters (10190001)+*, Upper South Platte (10190002)+, Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek (10190003)+, Clear (10190004)+, St. Vrain (10190005)+, Cache La Poudre (10190007)+*, Kiowa (10190010)+*, Bijou (10190011)+*, Keg-Weeping Water (10240001)+, Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)+*, Thompson (10280102)+
11 Upper Arkansas (11020002)+, Fountain (11020003)+, Horse (11020008)+, Cimarron headwaters (11040001)+, Canadian headwaters (11080001)+, Cimarron (11080002)+, Upper Canadian (11080003)+, Mora (11080004)+, Ute (11080007)+
13 Upper Rio Grande (13020101)+, Rio Chama (13020102)+, Rio Grande-Santa Fe (13020201)+, Jemez (13020202)+, Rio Grande-Albuquerque (13020203)+, Rio Puerco (13020204)+, Arroyo Chico (13020205)+, Rio San Jose (13020207)+, Rio Salado (13020209)+, Pecos headwaters (13060001)+
14 Colorado headwaters (14010001)+, Colorado headwaters-Plateau (14010005)+, Upper Gunnison (14020002)+, North Fork Gunnison (14020004)+, Lower Gunnison (14020005)+, Westwater Canyon (14030001)+, Upper Dolores (14030002)+, San Miguel (14030003)+, Lower Dolores (14030004)+, Upper Colorado-Kane Springs (14030005)+, New Fork (14040102)+, Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir (14040106)+, Blacks Fork (14040107)+, Great Divide closed basin (14040200)+, Upper Yampa (14050001)+, Little Snake (14050003)+, Upper White (14050005)+, Piceance-Yellow (14050006)+*, Lower White (14050007)+, Lower Green-Diamond (14060001)+, Ashley-Brush (14060002)+, Duchesne (14060003)+, Lower Green-Desolation Canyon (14060005)+, Willow (14060006)+, Price (14060007)+*, Lower Green (14060008)+*, San Rafael (14060009)+, Upper Lake Powell (14070001)+, Muddy (14070002)+, Fremont (14070003)+, Escalante (14070005)+, Lower Lake Powell (14070006)+, Paria (14070007)+*, Upper San Juan (14080101)+, Piedra (14080102)+, Blanco Canyon (14080103)+, Animas (14080104)+, Middle San Juan (14080105)+, Chaco (14080106)+, Lower San Juan-Four Corners (14080201)+, Chinle (14080204)+, Lower San Juan (14080205)+
15 Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon (15010001)+, Kanab (15010003)+, Hualapai Wash (15010007)+, Upper Virgin (15010008)+, Lower Virgin (15010010)+, White (15010011)+, Meadow Valley Wash (15010013)+*, Little Colorado headwaters (15020001)+*, Upper Little Colorado (15020002)+, Zuni (15020004)+, Silver (15020005)+*, Upper Puerco (15020006)+, Middle Little Colorado (15020008)+, Chevelon Canyon (15020010)+, Canyon Diablo (15020015)+, Lower Little Colorado (15020016)+, Moenkopi Wash (15020018)+*, San Francisco (15040004)+, Black (15060101)+*, White (15060102)+, Upper Salt (15060103)+, Upper Verde (15060202)+, Lower Verde (15060203)+
16 Upper Bear (16010101)+, Central Bear (16010102)+, Bear Lake (16010201)+, Middle Bear (16010202)+, Little Bear-Logan (16010203)+, Lower Bear-Malad (16010204)+, Upper Weber (16020101)+, Lower Weber (16020102)+, Utah Lake (16020201)+, Spanish Fork (16020202)+, Provo (16020203)+, Jordan (16020204)+, Hamlin-Snake Valleys (16020301)+, Rush-Tooele Valleys (16020304)+*, Southern Great Salt Lake Desert (16020306)+, Curlew Valley (16020309)+, Great Salt Lake (16020310)+, Upper Sevier (16030001)+, East Fork Sevier (16030002)+, Middle Sevier (16030003)+, San Pitch (16030004)+, Lower Sevier (16030005)+, Escalante Desert (16030006)+, Beaver Bottoms-Upper Beaver (16030007)+, Lower Beaver (16030008)+, Upper Humboldt (16040101)+, Lake Tahoe (16050101)+*, Truckee (16050102)+, Pyramid-Winnemucca Lakes (16050103)+, Granite Springs Valley (16050104)+*, Upper Carson (16050201)+, Middle Carson (16050202)+*, Carson Desert (16050203)+*, Walker (16050303)+*, Long-Ruby Valleys (16060007)+, Spring-Steptoe Valleys (16060008)+, Dry Lake Valley (16060009)+
17 Upper Kootenai (17010101)+, Lower Kootenai (17010104)+*, Flathead Lake (17010208)+, Lower Clark Fork (17010213)+*, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+*, Lower Crab (17020015), Idaho Falls (17040201)+*, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Lower Henrys (17040203)+, Teton (17040204)+, Willow (17040205)+, American Falls (17040206)+, Blackfoot (17040207)+, Portneuf (17040208)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Raft (17040210)+, Goose (17040211)+*, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Salmon Falls (17040213)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+*, Big Lost (17040218)+*, Big Wood (17040219)+*, Little Wood (17040221)+, C. J. Idaho (17050101)+, Bruneau (17050102)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, South Fork Boise (17050113)+*, Lower Boise (17050114)+, Lower Malheur (17050117)+, Willow (17050119)+, Weiser (17050124)+*, Brownlee Reservoir (17050201)+*, Palouse (17060108), South Fork Clearwater (17060305)+
18 Upper Pit (18020002)+*, Middle Kern-Upper Tehachapi- (18030003)+*, Upper Kaweah (18030007)+*, Middle San Joaquin-Lower (18040001)+*, Santa Ana (18070203)+*, Surprise Valley (18080001)+*, Crowley Lake (18090102)+, Owens Lake (18090103)+*, Salton Sea (18100204)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Basic Description: A medium-sized spotted frog.
General Description: A slim, long-legged, green or brownish frog usually with well-defined, pale-bordered, oval or round dark dorsal spots; white stripe on upper jaw; white or cream below; well-defined, pale dorsolateral ridges that are not inset at the posterior end; dark dorsal spots may be reduced or absent in young; during the breeding season, adult males have swollen, darked thumb bases and usually have vestigial oviducts; adults generally are 5-9 cm in snout-vent length, sometimes up to 11 cm (Stebbins 1985). In Minnesota and adjacent states, the dorsum sometimes has few or no dark dorsal spots or much dark pigment between the dark spots (Conant and Collins 1991).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from RANA PALUSTRIS in having rounded rather than squarish dorsal spots and in lacking yellow or orange pigment on the usually concealed surfaces of the hind limbs and groin. Differs from other leopard frogs as follows: RANA BLAIRI is never green, usually has a distinct pale spot on the eardrum, has the posterior end of the dorsolateral ridges inset or angled inward, and lacks vestigial oviducts in males. RANA CHIRICAHUENSIS has a "salt-and-pepper" pattern of small tubercles on the back of the thighs, and stockier proportions (Stebbins 1985). RANA ONCA is smaller, with shorter legs, the spotting toward the head often is reduced, and the underside of the hind limbs is yellow to yellow-orange (Stebbins 1985). RANA YAVAPAIENSIS is stockier and paler (Stebbins 1985). RANA BERLANDIERI is paler and has the dorsolateral ridges inset medially at the rear end.
Reproduction Comments: The time of egg deposition varies with latitude and elevation. Egg deposition occurs typically in April in southern Quebec, New York, and the Great Lakes region, late April to late May farther north in Manitoba and Nova Scotia (see Gilbert et al. 1994). In Colorado, eggs are laid mainly in early spring at low elevations, in late spring in the mountains (Hammerson 1999). Breeding often peaks when water temperatures reach about 10 C. At a particular site, egg deposition generally occurs within a span of about 10 days. Egg masses include several hundred to several thousand ova. Aquatic larvae metamorphose into small frogs in early to late summer, a few months after egg deposition. Females are sexually mature usually in two years in most areas, three years in high elevation populations. Density of egg masses often reaches a few hundred per ha in favorable habitat, sometimes >1000/ha.
Ecology Comments: In Michigan, the average nightly movement during rain was 36 m, occasionally moved more than 100 m. See Mazerolle (2001) for information on movement patterns of frogs in fragmented peat bogs in New Brunswick.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Pool, SPRING/SPRING BROOK
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Grassland/herbaceous
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: Northern leopard frogs live in the vicinity of springs, slow streams, marshes, bogs, ponds, canals, flood plains, reservoirs, and lakes; usually they are in or near permanent water with rooted aquatic vegetation. In summer, they commonly inhabit wet meadows and fields. The frogs take cover underwater, in damp niches, or in caves when inactive. Wintering sites are usually underwater, though some frogs possibly overwinter underground.

Eggs are laid and larvae develop in shallow, still, permanent water (typically), generally in areas well exposed to sunlight. Generally eggs are attached to vegetation just below the surface of the water. In northern Minnesota, successful reproduction in acidic bog water either does not occur or is a rare event (Karns 1992).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Metamorphosed frogs eat various small invertebrates obtained along water's edge or in nearby meadows or fields; rarely eats small vertebrates. Larvae eat algae, plant tissue, organic debris, and probably some small invertebrates.
Adult Phenology: Circadian, Hibernates/aestivates
Immature Phenology: Circadian, Hibernates/aestivates
Length: 13 centimeters
Economic Attributes
Economic Comments: In some areas, has been subject to heavy commercial exploitation for research and teaching. For example, a harvest of over 100,000/year in Quebec was reported in the early 1980s (see Gilbert et al. 1994).
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Population/Occurrence Delineation
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
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 25Jan2010
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 25Jan2010
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).

  • 2000 COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens) in Canada. Southern Mountain population, Prairie Population.

  • Andersen, M.D. 2011. Maxent-based species distribution models. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Andersen, M.D. and B. Heidel. 2011. HUC-based species range maps. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques d'amphibiens du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 2 pages.

  • BEAUVAIS, G.P. 1999. VERTEBRATES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN ON THE PITCHFORK RANCH. Unpublished report for the Pitchfork Ranch by WYNDD-University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

  • BEAUVAIS, G.P., R. THURSTON, and D. KEINATH. 2003. PREDICTIVE RANGE MAPS FOR 15 SPECIES OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION OF THE USDA FOREST SERVICE. Unpublished report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region by the Wyoming National Diversity Database-University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

  • Baxter, G. T. 1952. The relation of temperature to the altitudinal distribution of frogs and toads in southeastern Wyoming. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Mich. Publ. 3468. 157 p.

  • Baxter, G. T., and M. D. Stone. 1980. Amphibians and reptiles of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 137 pp.

  • Baxter, G.T. and M.D. Stone. 1985. Amphibians and Reptiles of Wyoming, second edition. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne Wyoming.

  • Beauvais, G. P. 1999. The status of rare vertebrates in the Bighorn landscape. Unpublished report prepared by WYNDD for the Wyoming Field Office of The Nature Conservancy.

  • Behler, J.L., and F.W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf Inc., New York, New York.

  • Bighorn National Forest. 1996. Endangered and Sensitive animal species of the Bighorn National Forest. Unpublished draft report on file at Bighorn NF Supervisor's Office, Sheridan, Wyoming.

  • 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.

  • Brodkin, M.A., M.P. Simon, A.M. DeSantis and K.J. Boyer. 1992. Response of Rana pipiens to graded doses of the bacterium Pseudomnas aeruginosa. Journal of Herpetology. 26:490-495.

  • 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.

  • CARCNET-Canadian Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Network
    Accessed 4 Oct. 2004

  • Carpenter, C.C. 1953. An ecological survey of the Herpetofauna of the Grand Teton-Jackson Hole area of WY Copeia 3:170-174

  • Carr, L. W., and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. Conservation Biology 15:1071-1078.

  • 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.

  • Conant, R., and J. T. Collins. 1998. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central North America. Third edition, expanded. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 616 pp.

  • Cook, F. R. 1984. Introduction to Canadian amphibians and reptiles. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

  • Corn, P. S., W. Stolzenburg, and R. B. Bury. 1989. Acid precipitation studies in Colorado and Wyoming: interim report of surveys of montane amphibians and water chemistry. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 80(40.26). 56 pp.

  • Corn, P. S., and F. A. Vertucci. 1992. Descriptive risk assessment of the effects of acidic deposition on Rocky Mountain amphibians. J. Herpetol. 26:361-369.

  • Corn, P. S., and J. C. Fogleman. 1984. Extinction of montane populations of the northern leopard frog (RANA PIPIENS) in Colorado. J. Herpetol. 18:147-152.

  • Corn, P.S. and Fogleman, J.C. 1984. Extinction of montane populations of the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) in Colorado. Journal of Herpetology 18(2):147-152.

  • Corn, P.S. and L.J. Livo. 1989. Leopard frog and wood frog reproduction in Colorado and Wyoming. Northwestern Naturalist 70: 1-9.

  • Corn, P.S., and L.J. Livo. 1989. Leopard Frog and Wood Frog reproduction in Colorado and Wyoming. Northwestern Naturalist 70:1-9.

  • Corn, S.P. 1982. Selection pressures affecting a dorsal color polymorphism in Rana pipiens. Ph.D. diss., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins. 107pp.

  • 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. 94 pp.

  • Csuti, B., A. J. Kimmerling, T. A. O'Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M.M.P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon wildlife: distribution, habitat, and natural history. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 492 pp.

  • Cunjak, R. A. 1986. Winter habitat of northern leopard frogs, RANA PIPIENS, in a southern Ontario stream. Can. J. Zool. 64:255-257.

  • DeGraaf, R. M., and D. D. Rudis. 1983a. Amphibians and reptiles of New England. Habitats and natural history. Univ. Massachusetts Press. vii + 83 pp.

  • Dean, N.K. and A.D. Stock. 1961. Amphibians and reptiles of the Navajo Reservoir Basin. Univ. Utah Anthro. Pap. 55:123-127.

  • Desroches, J.-F. et D. Rodrigue 2004. Amphibiens et reptiles du Québec et des Maritimes. Éditions Michel Quintin. 288 pages.

  • Dole, J.W. 1965. Summer movement of adult leopard frogs, Rana pipiens (Schreger), in northern Michigan. Ecology 46:236-255.

  • Douglas, C.L. 1966. Amphibians and reptiles of Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. University of Kansas Publication, Museum of Natural History 15(15): 711-744.

  • Eddy, S.B. 1976. Population ecology of the leopard frog Rana pipiens pipiens Schreber at Delta Marsh, Manitoba. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB.

  • Ellis, M.M. and J. Henderson. 1915. Amphibia and reptilia of Colorado. The University of Colorado Studies, Part II. XI(4):253-264.

  • Finch, D.M. 1992. Threatened, endangered, and vulnerable species of terrestrial vertebrates in the Rocky Mountain Region. General Technical Report RM-215. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins CO. 38 p.

  • Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.

  • Frost, D. R. 2002. Amphibian Species of the World: an online reference. V2.21 (15 July 2002). Electronic database available at

  • Frost, D. R. 2010. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 5.4 (8 April 2010). Electronic Database accessible at American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.

  • Frost, D.R., et al., 2006. The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History no. 297: 1-370. [15 Mar 2006]

  • Garber, C.S. 1994. A status survey for spotted frogs (RANA PRETIOSA), wood frogs (RANA SYLVATICA) and boreal toads (BUFO FOREAS) in the mountains of southern and eastern Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO, Cooperative Agreement No. 14-48-0006-92-919.

  • Garber, C.S. 1995. A survey for U.S. Forest Service listed "Sensitive" amphibians including the spotted frog (RANA PRETIOSA), leopard frog (RANA PIPIENS), tiger salmander (AMBYSTOMA TIGRINUM) and the boreal toad (BUFO BOREAS) on the north half of the Shoshone National Forest. Unpublished report prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY, for the U.S. Forest Service, Shoshone National Forest, Cody, WY.

  • Garber, C.S. 1995. Addendum #1 to "A status survey for spotted frogs (RANA PRETIOSA), wood frogs (RANA SYLVATICA) and boreal toads (BUFO BOREAS) in the mountains of southern and eastern Wyoming." Unpublished report prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

  • Garber, C.S. and P.A. White. 1991. A report on the locations of formerly occupied sites of the federally Endangered Wyoming toad (BUFO HEMIOPHRYS BAXTERI) and a summary of areas searched in historical habitat. Unpublished report prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Wyoming State Office, 2617 Lincoln Way, Cheyenne, WY.

  • Gerhart, W.A., R.A. Olson. 1982. Handbook for evaluating the importance of Wyoming's riparian habitat to terrestrial wildlife. Wyoming Game and Fish Dept.

  • Gilbert, M., R. Leclair, Jr., and R. Fortin. 1994. Reproduction of the northern leopard frog (RANA PIPIENS) in floodplain habitat in the Richelieu River, P. Quebec, Canada. J. Herpetol. 28:465-470.

  • Green, D. M., editor. 1997. Amphibians in decline: Canadian studies of a global problem. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation No. 1.

  • Hahn, D.E. 1968. A biogeographic analysis of the herpetofauna of the San Luis valley, Colorado. M.S. thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 103pp.

  • Hammerson, G. A. 1982b. 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 D. Langlois. 1981. Colorado reptile and amphibian distribution latilong study. 2nd Ed. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Non Game Section, Denver CO. 24 pp.

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

  • Hayes, T., Haston, K., Tsui, M., Hoang, A., Haeffele, C. and Vonk, A. 2002. Feminization of male frogs in the wild. Nature. 419:895-896.

  • Hitchcock, C.J. 2001. The status and distribution of the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) in Nevada. Master of Science in Biology Thesis, University of Nevada Reno, M.M. Peacock and C.R. Tracy (advisors).

  • Hoffman, E. A., and M. S. Blouin. 2004. Evolutionary history of the northern leopard frog: reconstruction of phylogeny, phylogeography, and historical changes in population demography from mitochondrial DNA. Evolution 58:145-159.

  • Hoppe, D. M. and R. G. McKinnell. 1991. Distribution and prevalence of the Kandiyohi Frog in Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 4+ pp.

  • Hoppe, D. M. and R. G. McKinnell. 1991. Minnesota's mutant leopard frogs. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Volunteer. 11 pp.

  • Hoppe, D. M., and R. G. McKinnell. 1997. Observations on the status of Minnesota leopard frog populations. Pages 38-42 in J. J. Moriarty, and D. Jones, editors. Minnesota amphibians and reptiles; their conservation and status; proceedings of a symposium. Serpent's Tale Natural History Book Distributors. 75 pp.

  • Hoppe, David M. & Robert G. McKinnell. 1987-1989. Leopard Frog Survey. Funded by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Results in unpublished report.

  • Hoppe, David M. and Robert G. McKinnell. 1990-1991. Distribution and Prevalence of the Kandiyohi Frog in Minnesota. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. Results in unpublished report.

  • Hunter, B. R., D. L. Carlson, E. D. Seppanen, P. S. Killian, B. K. McKinnell, R. G. McKinnell. 1989. Are renal carcinomas increasing in Rana pipiens after a decade of reduced prevalence? Amer. Midl. Natur. (in press).

  • Ibáñez, R., Solís, F., Jaramillo, C. and Rand, S. 2000. An overwiew of the herpetology of Panama. Pages 159-170 in J.D. Johnson, R.G. Webb, and O.A. Flores-Villela (eds.) Mesoamerican Herpetology: Systematics, Zoogeography and Conservation. The University of Texas at El Paso, Texas.

  • Karns, D. R. 1992. Effects of acidic bog habitats on amphibian reproduction in a northern Minnesota peatland. J. Herpetol. 26:401-412.

  • Keinath, D.A. 2002. Riparian Herpetofauna of F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Prepared for the F.E. Warren Air Force Base by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database - University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Koch, E. D., and C. R. Peterson. 1995. Amphibians & reptiles of Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. xviii + 188 pp.

  • Koch, E.D. and C.R. Peterson. 1995. Amphibians and reptiles of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 188 pp.

  • Leonard, W. P., K. R. McAllister, and R. C. Friesz. 1999. Survey and assessment of northern leopard frog (RANA PIPIENS) populations in Washington state. Northwestern Naturalist 80:51-60.

  • Lewis, D. L., G. T. Baxter, K. M. Johnson, and M. D. Stone. 1985. Possible extinction of the Wyoming toad, BUFO HEMIOPHRYS BAXTERI. J. Herpetology 19:166-168.

  • Livio, L.J. 1995. Identification guide to montane amphibians of the southern Rocky Mountains. Published by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service. 26 pp.

  • Mazerolle, M. J. 2001. Amphibian activity, movement patterns, and body size in fragmented peat bogs. Journal of Herpetology 35:13-20.

  • McGee, M., D.A. Keinath, and G.P. Beauvais. 2002. Survey for rare vertebrates in the Pinedale Field Office of the USDI Bureau of Land Management (Wyoming). Unpublished report prepared for USDI Bureau of Land Management - Wyoming State Office by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database - University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • McKinnell, Robert G. and Barbara R. Hunter, etal. 1987-1988. Are Renal Carcinomas Increasing in Rana pipiens after a Decade of Reduced Prevalence? Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Nongame Research Program; The Grotto Foundation, Inc.; and Research Grant RD-248 from the American Cancer Society, Inc. Author Affiliation: University of MN-Twin Cities. Published.

  • Merrell, D. J. 1977. Life history of the leopard frog, Rana pipiens, in Minnesota. Bell Museum of Natural History, University of Minnesota Occasional Papers 15. 23 pp.

  • Merrell, D.J. 1968. A comparison of the estimated size and the "effective size" of breeding populations of the leopard frog, Rana pipiens. Evolution 22: 274-283.

  • Merrill, E.H., T.W. Kohley, and M.E. Herdendorf. 1996. Wyoming Gap Analysis terrestrial vertebrate species map atlas. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie WY. 982 pp. in 2 volumes.

  • Mills, S. and M. Neighbours. 1995. Intensive data gathering project (fine-filter analysis) for occurrences of rare, threatened, endangered and sensitive species in sections M331H and M331I, north central highlands and northern parks and ranges, in Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for Medicine Bow National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 294 pp.

  • NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at

  • Orchard, S. A. 1992. Amphibian population declines in British Columbia. Pages 10-13 in C. A. Bishop and K. E. Pettit, editors. Declines in Canadian amphibian populations: designing a national strategy. Canadian Wildlife Service, Occasional Paper 76.

  • Powell, G.L., R. Brisson, and A.P. Russell. 1997. A Preliminary Survey of the Amphibian and Turtle Species of Grasslands National Park. Report to Grasslands National Park, Val Marie, SK. 86 pp.

  • Rittschoff, D. 1975. Some aspects of the natural history andecology of the leopard frog, Rana pipiens. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Mich. 212 pp.

  • Russell, A. P., and A. M. Bauer. 1993. The amphibians and reptiles of Alberta. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Alberta, and University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Alberta. 264 pp.

  • Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre. 2005. Conservation Database. .

  • Seburn, C.N.L. 1992. The status of populations in Saskatchewan. Pages 17-18 in C. A. Bishop and K.E. Pettit, editors. Declines in Canadian amphibian populations: designing a national monitoring strategy. Canadian Wildlife Service, Occasional Paper 76. 120 pp.

  • Seburn, C.N.L., D.C. Seburn, and C.A. Paszkowski. 1997. Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) dispersal in relation to habitat. Pp. 64-72. In Amphibians in Decline: Canadian Studies of a Global Problem. D.M. Green (Ed.). Society of the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, St Louis, MO. pp.

  • Secoy, D.M. 1987. Status report on the reptiles and amphibians of Saskatchewan. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Endangered Species in the Prairie Provinces. G.L. Holroyd, W.B. McGillivray, P.H.R. Stepney, D.M. Ealey, G.C. Trottier, and K.E. Eberhart (Eds.). Natural History Occasional Paper No. 9., Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

  • Simon, M. P., I Vatnick, H. A. Hopey, K. Butler, C. Korver, C. Hilton, R. S. Weiman, and M. A. Brodkin. 2002. Effects of acid exposure on natural resistance and mortality of adult Rana pipiens. Journal of Herpetology 36:697-699.

  • Smith, B.E. and D. Keinath. 2004. Species assessment for the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) in Wyoming. Report prepared for USDI Wyoming Bureau of Land Management by Department of Biology Black Hills State University and Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath. 2007. Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Unpublished report prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project.

  • Species at Risk Branch. 2002. Species at risk range maps. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Online. Available:

  • Stebbins, R. C. 1985a. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. xiv + 336 pp.

  • Turner, B., G. Hochbaum, D. Caswell, and D. Nieman. 1987. Agricultural impacts on wetland habitats on the Canadian prairies, 1981-1985. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 52: 206-215.

  • University of Wyoming (UWYO), Museum of Zoology, University Station Box 3166, Laramie, WY 82071.

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

  • Weller, W. F., and D. M. Green. 1997. Checklist and current status of Canadian amphibians. Pages 309-328 in D. M. Green, editor. Amphibians in decline: Canadian studies of a global problem. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 1.

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential McLain Lake Research Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Big Horn and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential Tensleep Canyon Research Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Washakie County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Wiggins, D.A. 1992. Foraging success of leopard frogs (Rana pipiens). Journal of Herpetology 26: 87-88.

  • Young, B., Sedaghatkish, G., Roca, E. and Fuenmayor, Q. 1999. El Estatus de la Conservación de la Herpetofauna de Panamá: Resumen del Primer Taller Internacional sobre la Herpetofauna de Panamá. The Nature Conservancy Arlington, Virginia. 40 pp.

  • Zenisek, C.J. 1963. A study of the natural history and ecology of the leopard frog, Rana pipiens (Schreber). Ph.D Thesis, Ohio State Univ., Columbus. 153 pp.

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 were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
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 © 2017 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. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available (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:

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

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.