Lithobates sevosus - (Goin and Netting, 1940)
Dusky Gopher Frog
Other English Common Names: Mississippi Gopher Frog, dusky gopher frog
Synonym(s): Rana capito sevosa ;Rana sevosa Goin and Netting, 1940
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lithobates sevosus (Goin and Netting, 1940) (TSN 775113)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103781
Element Code: AAABH01310
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: Young, J. E., and B. I. Crother. 2001. Allozyme evidence for the separation of Rana areolata and Rana capito and for the resurrection of Rana sevosa. Copeia 2001(2):382-388.
Concept Reference Code: ANDYOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Rana sevosa
Taxonomic Comments: Rana sevosa formerly was included in Rana areolata and Rana capito. The scope of Rana sevosa is not the same as the traditionally recognized subspecies Rana areolata sevosa orRana capito sevosa (Young 1997, Young and Crother 2001). Young (1997) and Young and Crother (2001) examined genetic variation in Rana capito (sensu lato) from Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina and found that populations from Harrison County, Mississippi (the only known population of gopher frogs remaining in the area between Louisiana and the Mobile River delta) were genetically distinct from populations east of the Mobile River drainage (fixed difference at a single locus). Young and Crother (2001) resurrected Rana sevosa as a distinct species. "No other specific taxonomic divisions could be determined among the remaining populations of gopher frogs sampled" (USFWS 2000).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G1
Global Status Last Reviewed: 19Apr2007
Global Status Last Changed: 26Nov2001
Rounded Global Status: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: Formerly occurred in the Coastal Plain from Alabama to Mississippi and Louisiana; now known from a very small area in Mississippi; threatened by habitat destruction and degradation from a proposed housing development, construction and expansion of two highways, and a proposed reservoir.
Nation: United States
National Status: N1 (26Oct2000)

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 Alabama (SH), Louisiana (SH), Mississippi (S1)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE: Listed endangered (04Dec2001)
Comments on USESA: Previously listed Endangered as Rana capito sevosa, accepted as a species, R. sevosa, by FWS in June, 2012.

USFWS (June 3, 2010) proposed to designate critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog under the Endangered Species Act. A total of 792 hectares (1,957 acres) in 11 units are proposed for critical habitat designation. The proposed critical habitat is located within Forrest, Harrison, Jackson, and Perry Counties, Mississippi.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R4 - Southeast
IUCN Red List Category: CR - Critically endangered

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: <100 square km (less than about 40 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Historically occurred on the Coastal Plain from eastern Louisiana and southern Mississippi to the Mobile River delta in Alabama; now known from only one site in Harrison County, Mississippi (USFWS 2000, 2001; Young and Crother 2001) and a couple sites in Jackson County, Mississippi (S. Richter, pers. comm., 2004).

Number of Occurrences: 1 - 5
Number of Occurrences Comments: Only one extant occurrence was known as of 2000 (USFWS 2000); recently detected in a couple additional sites. Historically believed to occur in 9-10 counties/parishes in Louisiana (2-3), Mississippi (6), and Alabama (1). Recent surveys have been unable to document the continued existence of the species in Louisiana (Seigel and Doody 1992, Thomas 1996) or Alabama (Bailey 1992, 1994). The last observation of this gopher frog in Louisiana was made in 1967 (Gary Lester, Louisiana Natural Heritage, pers. comm., 1991) and in Alabama in 1922 (Bailey 1992). In 1987 and 1988, surveys of ponds in six Mississippi counties verified the presence of the species at only four sites in Harrison County (Crawford 1988). At three of the four sites, only one individual was observed. Subsequent to this work, surveys have documented the continued existence of only one population, represented by Crawford's fourth site in Harrison County.

Population Size: 50 - 250 individuals
Population Size Comments: Population in Harrison County comprises an estimated 100 adult frogs (Seigel, in USFWS 2001).

Overall Threat Impact: Unknown
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Range has declined primarily due to urbanization, conversion of longleaf pine habitat to pine plantations and agriculture, and conversion of open-canopy, temporary ponds to more permanent, closed-canopy ponds (USFWS 2001). Current threats include habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation due to a proposed housing development and construction and expansion of roads near the only known breeding site (USFWS 2001).

The little remaining longleaf pine habitat is usually degraded second-growth forest (Boyce and Martin 1993, Ware et al. 1993). Many areas have been converted to dense monocultures of sand, loblolly, or slash pine (Boyce and Martin 1993, Ware et al. 1993). The remaining breeding pond and most of the adult habitat are located on the DeSoto National Forest (DNF), most of which has been converted to slash pine or loblolly pine. Land management practices have altered the soil horizon, forest litter, herbaceous community, and occurrence of downed trees and stumps used as frog refugia. Breeding sites have been degraded by timber site preparation methods that alter existing hydrology, domestic animal grazing, clearing and draining for agricultural or urban uses, ditching, soil disturbance, and fire exclusion.

Fire suppression has degraded most historical habitat. Without fire, woody vegetation replaces the open, herbaceous character typical of suitable breeding ponds. In addition, fire releases nutrients bound in plant material. Release of nutrients results in a flush of primary productivity that is important to the herbivorous gopher frog tadpoles.

Expanding urbanization has degraded several historical sites. The land immediately north of the only known breeding site is slated for development as a retirement community and commercial area. Previous management of the area has left much of it unsuitable as gopher frog habitat.

Breeding sites have been degraded by roads, which are sources of sediment and petrochemicals during rainstorms. Poorly designed roads can act as dams and increase pond permanence, to the detriment of gopher frogs.

Off-road vehicles (ORVs) can kill tadpoles and adults (J. Jensen, pers. comm., 1996), disrupt pond floor contours, eliminate herbaceous vegetation, and alter hydrology (LaClaire, pers. obs., 1995). Loss of herbaceous vegetation could discourage reproduction, since egg masses are attached to stems of herbaceous vegetation (Bailey 1990, Palis 1995). ORV tracks have been documented in the remaining breeding site (G. Johnson, pers. comm., 1994).

Insecticides and herbicides may pose a threat. Aquatic larvae are likely most vulnerable. Adults could be affected by pesticides accumulated in their prey. If a golf course is built in the drainage area of the remaining breeding pond, as proposed, chemicals in runoff could pose a significant threat to frogs and habitat.

Predation may be a threat. Temporary ponds altered to be more permanent often are stocked with bass and sunfish, which prey on frog larvae. Introduction of predatory fishes has caused declines in gopher frog populations in Alabama (M. Bailey, pers. comm., 1995). Construction of drainage ditches and firebreaks into ponds may provide avenues for introduction of fishes into breeding sites. Significant egg mortality due to predation by caddisfly larvae has been documented, but population impacts are unknown (Richter and Seigel 1997, USFWS 2001).

Low reproductive potential may also represent a threat. Females may not breed until 2-3 years old and may breed only in alternate years and/or only once in their lifetime (Richter and Seigel 1997). In addition, metamorph survival may be extremely low. Drought can result in complete reproductive failure (Young et al. 1995; Richter and Seigel 1997) and if prolonged may eliminate local populations.

Studies of other ranid frogs (e.g., Berven and Grudzien 1990) suggest that many populations show strong metapopulation structure. Adults are faithful to breeding sites, but juveniles may disperse to new breeding areas before reaching maturity. Hence, reproductive failure at one pond can be offset by recruitment at another site. Such a strategy also leads to a lower probability of genetic isolation and inbreeding (Stacey et al. 1997). Because there is only one known breeding site, the remaining population is highly susceptible to genetic isolation, inbreeding, and random demographic events. Habitat fragmention around the remaining population has reduced opportunities for population interchanges should habitats and populations in the region be restored.

Much of this information is from USFWS (2001) and a 1998 "Candidate and Listing Priority Assignment Form" by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Short-term Trend Comments: Inadequate information available on Mississippi population to determine trends (Young and Seigel 1994). Number of breeding adults, number of egg masses deposited, and number of juveniles emerging from the breeding site in Mississippi exhibit large annual variations (Richter et al. 2003). Seigel and Richter (unpublished abstract) emphasized the difficulty of determining population trend, even for populations intensively studied for several years.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: "Viability of the population is contingent on consistent recruitment of juveniles with minimal years of reproductive failure" (Richter and Seigel 2002).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Protection Needs: Protect breeding sites and surrounding uplands. Encourage actions that enhance gopher tortoise populations.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (<100 square km (less than about 40 square miles)) Historically occurred on the Coastal Plain from eastern Louisiana and southern Mississippi to the Mobile River delta in Alabama; now known from only one site in Harrison County, Mississippi (USFWS 2000, 2001; Young and Crother 2001) and a couple sites in Jackson County, Mississippi (S. Richter, pers. comm., 2004).

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 nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, LA, MS

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)
LA St. Tammany (22103)*
MS Forrest (28035)*, Harrison (28047), Jackson (28059)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Pascagoula (03170006)+, Black (03170007)+*, Escatawpa (03170008)+, Mississippi Coastal (03170009)+, Lower Pearl. Mississippi (03180004)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A gopher frog.
General Description: A stubby frog with dorsolateral ridges, uniformly dark above or with irregular dorsal spots lacking light borders; throat and belly region generally pigmented, often heavily so (though the young have less spotting, especially on the abdomen); warts prominent on dorsum; generally 6-9 cm snout-vent length (Conant and Collins 1991).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from RANA CAPITO AESOPUS in having a darker dorsum and more prominent warts. Differs from RANA CAPITO CAPITO in have larger warts (Conant and Collins 1991).
Reproduction Comments: Adults move to the breeding site in association with heavy rains, usually January-late March (USFWS 2001). Age of maturity is 6-8 months in males and 24-36 months in females; annual survival ranged from 65-92 percent, but the rate at which adults returned to breed among years was 16-22 percent; the avergae number of seasons in which adults bred was 1.2, but nine individuals bred in 3-5 seasons; population turnover rate is high, most adults live less than seven years (Richter and Seigel 2002).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Twelve individuals made postbreeding movements that took them 50-300 m from the breeding pond center to terrestrial refugia (Richter et al. 2001). Dry conditions that likely limited movements in this study, and information on gopher frog movements in other locations suggest that longer movements of up to 2 km are probable (see USFWS 2001).
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND, TEMPORARY POOL
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Woodland - Conifer
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic, Burrowing in or using soil, Fallen log/debris
Habitat Comments: Habitat includes both upland sandy habitats historically forested with longleaf pine and isolated temporary wetland breeding sites imbedded within this forested landscape. This frog spends the majority of its life in or near underground refugia and historically used gopher tortoise burrows for this purpose (Allen 1932). The one remaining population occurs in an area presently lacking gopher tortoises, although tortoises probably occurred historically in the area and do occur nearby. Refugia include abandoned mammal burrows and holes in and under old stumps (LaClaire, pers. obs., 1996; Richter and Seigel 1997, Richter et al. 2001).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Adult Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 11 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Conservation efforts that are being considered, tested, and/or implemented include the reintroduction of gopher tortoises to the habitat adjacent to the breeding site in Mississippi (Glen's Pond), artificial lengthening of hydroperiod at Glen's Pond, translocation of eggs to other suitable and/or historical ponds, creation of artificial breeding sites, and alteration of existing ponds (R. Seigel, J. Pechmann, personal communication, cited by Richter and Jensen 2005).
Management Requirements: Richter et al. (2001) recommended establishment of a 1000-m protected buffer around the primary breeding site and each of two other potential breeding ponds.

Recent growing-season burns around the remaining breeding pond have improved habitat conditions, but the frequency and extent of burning need to be improved.

Biological Research Needs: Determine basic life history, larval ecology, and population genetics, and the degree to which tortoise burrows are used for shelter (Bailey 1990).
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
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 04Apr2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Clausen, M. K., G. Hammerson, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 07Feb2003
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
  • Allen, M. J. 1932. A survey of the amphibians and reptiles of Harrison County, Mississippi. American Museum Noviates 542:1-20.

  • Altig, R. and Lohoefener, R. 1983. Rana areolata. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. 324:1-4.

  • Bailey, M. A. 1990a. The dusky gopher frog in Alabama. Paper presented at Symposium of the Status of Endangered Species in Alabama. Alabama Academy of Science, Mobile College, Mobile, AL. 8 pp.

  • Bailey, M. A. 1990b. Movement of the dusky gopher frog (Rana areolata sevosa) at a temporary pond in the lower coastal plain of Alabama. Pp. 27-43 in C. K. Dodd Jr., R. E. Ashton Jr., R. Franz and E. Ester (eds.). Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Gopher Tortoise Council. Florida Museum of Natual History, Gainesville, FL.

  • Bailey, M. A. 1991. The dusky gopher frog in Alabama. J. Alabama Acad. Sci. 62(1):28-34.

  • Bailey, M. A. 1992. Dusky gopher frog inventory and management. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 5 pp.

  • Bailey, M. A. 1994. An investigation of the dusky gopher frog in Alabama. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi 9 pp. + map.

  • Berven, K. A., and T. A. Grudzien. 1990. Dispersal in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica): implications for genetic population structure. Evolution 44:2047-2056.

  • 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.

  • Boyce, S. G., and W. H. Martin. 1993. The future of the terrestrial communities of the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Pages 339-366 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

  • Case, S. M. 1978. Biochemical systematics of members of the genus RANA native to western North America. Syst. Zool. 27:299-311.

  • 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. 1991. Viewpoint: a new taxonomic arrangement for some North American amphibians and reptiles. SSAR Herpetol. Review 22:42-43.

  • 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.

  • Crawford, J. T. 1988. The status and distribution of the dusky gopher frog (Rana areolata sevosa) in Mississippi. Unpublished report submitted to Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi. 16 pp.

  • 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.

  • Crother, B. I., J. Boundy, J. A. Campbell, K. de Quieroz, D. Frost, D. M. Green, R. Highton, J. B. Iverson, R. W. McDiarmid, P. A. Meylan, T. W. Reeder, M. E. Seidel, J. W. Sites, Jr., S. G. Tilley, and D. B. Wake. 2003. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico: update. Herpetological Review 34:198-203.

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

  • Franklin, A. B. 1988. Breeding biology of the great gray owl in southeastern Idaho and northwestern Wyoming. Condor 90:689-696.

  • Franz, R., C. K. Dodd, Jr., and C. Jones. 1988a. Life history notes: Rana areolata aesopus (Florida gopher frog). SSAR Herpetol. Rev. 19:33.

  • 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/vz/herpetology/amphibia/ American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.

  • 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.

  • Frost, D.R., T. Grant, J. Faivovich, R. Bain, A. Haas, C.F.B. Haddad, R.O. de Sa´, S.C. Donnellan, C.J. Raxworthy, M. Wilkinson, A. Channing, J.A. Campbell, B.L. Blotto, P. Moler, R.C. Drewes, R.A. Nussbaum, J.D. Lynch, D. Green, and W.C. Wheeler. 2006. The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370. [Available online at http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/5781 ]

  • Godley, J. S. 1992. Gopher frog RANA CAPITO Le Conte. Pages 15-19 in P. E. Moler, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. III. Amphibians and reptiles. Univ. Press of Florida.

  • Goin, C. J. and M. G. Netting. 1940. A new gopher frog from the Gulf Coast, with comments upon the RANA AREOLATA group. Ann. Carnegie Mus., Art. 8:137-68.

  • Löding, H.P. 1922. A preliminary catalog of Alabama reptiles and amphibians. Alabama Museum of Natural History paper. 5:1-59.

  • Mirarchi, R. E., M. A. Bailey, T. M. Haggerty, and T. L. Best, editors. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 3. Imperiled amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 225 pages.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., editor. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pages.

  • Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pages.

  • Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pp.

  • Neill, W. T. 1957. The status of Rana capito stertens Schwartz and Harrison. Herpetologica 13:47-52.

  • Netting, M. G., and C. J. Goin. 1942. Additional notes on Rana sevosa. Copeia 1942:259.

  • Palis, J. G. 1995. Final report: Distribution and breeding biology of the flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) and gopher frog (Rana capito) on Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida.

  • Palis, J. G., and J. B. Jensen. 1995. Distribution and breeding biology of the flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) and gopher frog (Rana capito) on Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Final Report. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida.

  • Redmond, W. H., and A. F. Scott. 1996. Atlas of amphibians in Tennessee. The Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Miscellaneous Publication Number 12. v + 94 pp.

  • Richter, S. C., J. E. Young, G. N. Johnson, and R. A. Seigel. 2003. Stochastic variation in reproductive success of a rare frog, Rana sevosa: implications for conservation and for monitoring amphibian populations. Biological Conservation 111:171-177.

  • Richter, S. C., J. E. Young, R. A. Seigel, and G. N. Johnson. 2001. Postbreeding movements of the dark gopher frog, RANA SEVOSA Goin and Netting: implications for conservation and management. Journal of Herpetology 35:316-321.

  • Richter, S. C., and J. B. Jensen. 2005. Rana sevosa Goin and Netting, 1940. Dusky gopher frog. Pages 584-586 in M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley.

  • Richter, S. C., and R. A. Seigel. 1997. Demography and reproduction of gopher frogs in Mississippi. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi.

  • Richter, S. C., and R. A. Seigel. 2002. Annual variation in the population ecology of the endangered gopher frog, Rana sevosa Goin and Netting. Copeia 2002:962-972.

  • Richter, S.C. 2000. Larval caddisfly predation on the eggs and embryos of Rana capito and Rana sphenocephala. Journal of Herpetology. 34:590-593.

  • Richter, S.C. 2003. Review of draft Red List assessment for Rana sevosa. Unpublished report submitted to NatureServe. 4 pp.

  • Richter, S.C., J.E. Young, R.A. Seigel, and G.N. Johnson 2001. Postbreeding movements of the dark gopher frog, Rana sevosa Goin and Netting: Implications for conservation and management. Journal of Herpetology V.35(2):316-321.

  • Richter, S.C., Young, J.E., Johnson, G.N. and Seigel, R.A. 2003. Stochastic variation in reproductive success of a rare frog, Rana sevosa: implications for conservation and for monitoring amphibian populations. Biological Conservation. 111:171-177.

  • Seigel, R.A. and Doody, J.S. 1992. Status of the dusky gopher frog in Louisiana. Report to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, Louisiana.

  • Siegel, R. A., and J. S. Doody. 1992. Status of the dusky gopher frog in Louisiana. Report to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, Louisiana.

  • Stacy, P. B., M. L. Taper, and V. A. Johnson. 1997. Migration within populations. The impact upon local population dynamics. Pages 267-291 in I. Hanski and M. E. Gilpin, editors. Metapopulation Biology. Academic Press, New York.

  • Thomas, R. A. 1996. A final report: Survey of the potential habitat for the dusky gopher frog (Rana capito sevosa). Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 9 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Endangered and Threatened Species; Notice of Reclassification of 96 Candidate taxa. Federal Register 61(40):7457-7463.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 23 May 2000. Proposed rule to list the Mississippi gopher frog distinct population segment of dusky gopher frog as endangered. Federal Register 65:33283-33291.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 4 December 2001. Final rule to list the Mississippi gopher frog distinct population segment of dusky gopher frog as endangered. Federal Register 66(233)62993-63002.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014h. Technical/agency draft recovery plan for the dusky gopher frog (Rana sevosa). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 90 pages.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014i. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish; proposed rule; reopening of comment period. Federal Register 79(24):6871-6874.

  • Viosca, P., Jr. 1949. Amphibians and reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana Academy of Science, Population Science Bulletin 1:3-12.

  • Volpe, E. P. 1958. The early development of RANA CAPITO SEVOSA. Tulane Studies in Zool. 5:207-25.

  • Ware, S., C. Frost and P. D. Doerr. 1993. Southern mixed hardwood forest: the former longleaf pine forest. Pages 447-93 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht (editors). Biodiversity of the southeastern United States, lowland terrestrial communities. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

  • Wright, A. H., and A. A. Wright. 1942. Handbook of frogs and toads. The frogs and toads of the United States and Canada. Comstock Publishing Company, Ithaca, New York. 286 pp.

  • Wright, A. H., and A. A. Wright. 1949. Handbook of frogs and toads of the United States and Canada. Comstock Publishing Company, Ithaca, New York. xii + 640 pp.

  • Young, J. E. 1997. Taxonomic status of Rana capito and Rana sevosa: reproduction and movements of Rana sevosa in Mississippi. Master's thesis, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, Louisiana. 40 pp.

  • Young, J. E., J. S. Doody, and R. A. Seigel. 1995. Reproduction of gopher frogs (Rana capito) in southwestern Mississippi in 1994-1995, with a summary of data from 1988-1994. Unpublished report to Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 7 pp.

  • Young, J. E., and B. I. Crother. 2001. Allozyme evidence for the separation of Rana areolata and Rana capito and for the resurrection of Rana sevosa. Copeia 2001(2):382-388.

  • Young, J. E., and B. I. Crother. 2001. Allozyme evidence for the separation of Rana areolata and R. capito and for the resurrection of Rana sevosa. Copeia 2001:382-388.

  • Young, J. E., and R. A. Seigel. 1994. Movement patterns and reproductive biology of the dusky gopher frog, RANA CAPITO SEVOSA, in Mississippi. Final Reoport to the U.S. Forest Service. 16 pp.

  • Young, J.F. and B.I.Crother 2001. Allozyme evidence for the separation of Rana areolata and Rana capito and for the resurrection of Rana sevosa. Copeia. 2001(2):382-388.

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.