Rana luteiventris - Thompson, 1913
Columbia Spotted Frog
Other English Common Names: Columbia spotted frog
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Rana luteiventris Thompson, 1913 (TSN 550546)
French Common Names: grenouille maculée de Columbia
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105087
Element Code: AAABH01290
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Amphibians - Frogs and Toads
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Amphibia Anura Ranidae Rana
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Green, D. M., H. Kaiser, T. F. Sharbel, J. Kearsley, and K. R. McAllister. 1997. Cryptic species of spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa complex, in western North America. Copeia 1997:1-8.
Concept Reference Code: A97GRE01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Rana luteiventris
Taxonomic Comments: Formerly included in Rana pretiosa. Green et al. (1996) examined allozyme and morphometric variation in Rana pretiosa from 26 and 38 localities, respectively, and concluded that at least two species were represented, although morphometrically, the two species are "almost indistinguishable."

Green et al. (1997) determined that frogs from the vicinity of the type locality of Rana pretiosa are conspecific with the species residing in south-central Washington and the Cascade Mountains of Oregon. Hence, they concluded that populations from southwestern British Columbia, western Washington, western and central Oregon, and northeastern California are Rana pretiosa (Oregon spotted frog) and that spotted frogs from the remainder of the range are Rana luteiventris (Columbia spotted frog). Rana luteiventris was regarded as possibly comprising multiple weakly differentiated species.

Rana luteiventris includes three Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) in the southern part of the range of the species: Wasatch Front (R. luteiventris pop. 1), West Desert (R. luteiventris pop. 2), and Great Basin (R. luteiventris pop. 3).

As summarized by USFWS (2002) in a discussion of the status of the Wasatch Front population, further analyses of taxonomic relationships among range-wide spotted frog populations were performed by Bos and Sites (2001). This study revealed four genetically distinct lineages. Two of these lineages are represented in Utah (1) the Deep Creek lineage (Deep Creek-Ibapah population in the West Desert distinct population segment or DPS), and (2) the Bonneville lineage (all other populations in Utah, including the Wasatch Front and the remainder of the West Desert DPSs). The Wasatch Front DPS appears to have originated from the West Desert populations in relatively recent evolutionary time, during the recession of Lake Bonneville (Bos and Sites 2001, Toline and Seitz 1999). Therefore, genetic differences between these populations have not yet been established. However, separation of the West Desert and Wasatch Front DPSs is supported by ecological and demographic distinctiveness due to geographic isolation and habitat differences, including disparate biological, chemical, and thermal characteristics of occupied springs and wetlands (Hovingh 1993, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). In addition, due to the dependence of spotted frogs on aquatic habitats (Bos and Sites 2001) and population isolation (Toline and Seitz 1999), there is likely no gene flow existing between the Wasatch Front and West Desert DPSs.

Spotted frogs on Mitkof Island near Petersburg, Alaska, may exhibit a distinct phenotype of heavy dusky gray ventral coloring (MacDonald 2003).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Jan2008
Global Status Last Changed: 21Nov2001
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Moderately large range in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains; still common in British Columbia and the Rocky Mountains; southern, disjunct populations in the Great Basin are declining and face major threats, including habitat loss/degradation (especially dewatering), exotic species, and possibly global climate change; a recent conservation agreement has improved the status of the Wasatch Front and West Desert populations, which nevertheless remain of conservation concern.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (11Jul1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4 (02Aug2017)

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 Alaska (S2), Idaho (S4), Montana (S4), Nevada (S2S3), Oregon (S2S3), Utah (S3), Washington (S4), Wyoming (S3)
Canada Alberta (S3), British Columbia (S5?), Yukon Territory (S2S3)

Other Statuses

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R1 - Pacific
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Not at Risk (01May2000)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for Designation: Although this frog species is vulnerable to the introduction of predatory fish in its breeding habitats and other forms of habitat disturbance, it remains widespread and abundant.

Status History: Designated Not at Risk in May 2000. More recently (2015) considered a medium priority candidate for re-assessment.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Extreme southeastern Alaska, southwestern Yukon (Slough 2002), northern British Columbia, and western Alberta south through Washington east of the Cascades, eastern Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana to Nevada (disjunct, Mary's, Reese, and Owyhee river systems), southwestern Idaho (disjunct), Utah (disjunct, Wasatch Mountains and west desert), and western and north-central (disjunct) Wyoming (Green et al. 1996, 1997; Stebbins 2003). Disjunct populations occur on isolated mountains and in arid-land springs. Elevational range extends from near sea level to about 3,048 meters (10,000 feet) (Stebbins 2003).

The Wasatch Front population (R. luteiventris pop. 1) occurs in isolated springs or riparian wetlands in Juab, Sanpete, Summit, Utah, Tooele, and Wasatch counties; extirpated from the Salt Lake Valley and tributaries to the Jordan River and Great Salt Lake (USFWS 2002). Currently, there are seven localized populations that comprise the Wasatch Front population or DPS. The largest known concentration is currently in the Heber Valley; the remaining six locations are Jordanelle/Francis, Springville Hatchery, Holladay Springs, Mona Springs Complex/Burraston Ponds, Fairview, and Vernon (USFWS 2002).

The West Desert (Bonneville) population (R. luteiventris pop. 2) occurs in eastern Nevada and western Utah, mainly in two large spring complexes, with several additional concentrations in smaller nearby springs; it is extiprated from the northern portions of the historical range.

The Great Basin population (R. luteiventris pop. 3) occurs in southwestern Idaho, southeastern Oregon, and Nevada; it includes all Nevada populations of R. luteiventris except a small population on the eastern border of White Pine County, which is included in the West Desert population.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Represented by many and/or large occurrences throughout most of the range (Hodge 1976, Nussbaum et al. 1983), though the disjunct southern populations are limited in number.

See additional information for Wasatch Front, West Desert, and Great Basin populations (Rana luteiventris pops. 1, 2, and 3).

Population Size: 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but surely exceeds 100,000. Numerous in many areas in Canada and the Rocky Mountains.

See additional information for Wasatch Front, West Desert, and Great Basin populations (Rana luteiventris pops. 1, 2, and 3).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Some local populations are threatened by various forms of habitat degradation and by direct impacts of non-native species. This species is not likely to be at risk from present acidification inputs in the Rocky Mountains (Corn and Vertucci 1992). Possibly global climate changes are a factor in the decline of some populations in the arid southern part of the range (Hayes and Jennings 1986). At the embryonic stage, UV-B radiation currently does not seem to be contributing to population declines (Blaustein et al. 1999). Range-wide, most populations are not significantly unthreatened. See additional information for Wasatch Front, West Desert, and Great Basin populations (Rana luteiventris pops. 1, 2, and 3).



Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: See additional information for Wasatch Front, West Desert, and Great Basin populations (Rana luteiventris pops. 1, 2, and 3).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: Relatively stable in most of the range, but populations in the arid southern portion of the range have declined. Significant declines have occurred in some areas of Utah and Wyoming. Possibly has declined in Idaho, but numbers still apparently are high (Phillips 1990; Groves, pers. comm., 1992). See additional information for Wasatch Front, West Desert, and Great Basin populations (Rana luteiventris pops. 1, 2, and 3).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Moderate to broad.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Protection Needs: See additional information for Wasatch Front, West Desert, and Great Basin populations (Rana luteiventris pops. 1, 2, and 3).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Extreme southeastern Alaska, southwestern Yukon (Slough 2002), northern British Columbia, and western Alberta south through Washington east of the Cascades, eastern Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana to Nevada (disjunct, Mary's, Reese, and Owyhee river systems), southwestern Idaho (disjunct), Utah (disjunct, Wasatch Mountains and west desert), and western and north-central (disjunct) Wyoming (Green et al. 1996, 1997; Stebbins 2003). Disjunct populations occur on isolated mountains and in arid-land springs. Elevational range extends from near sea level to about 3,048 meters (10,000 feet) (Stebbins 2003).

The Wasatch Front population (R. luteiventris pop. 1) occurs in isolated springs or riparian wetlands in Juab, Sanpete, Summit, Utah, Tooele, and Wasatch counties; extirpated from the Salt Lake Valley and tributaries to the Jordan River and Great Salt Lake (USFWS 2002). Currently, there are seven localized populations that comprise the Wasatch Front population or DPS. The largest known concentration is currently in the Heber Valley; the remaining six locations are Jordanelle/Francis, Springville Hatchery, Holladay Springs, Mona Springs Complex/Burraston Ponds, Fairview, and Vernon (USFWS 2002).

The West Desert (Bonneville) population (R. luteiventris pop. 2) occurs in eastern Nevada and western Utah, mainly in two large spring complexes, with several additional concentrations in smaller nearby springs; it is extiprated from the northern portions of the historical range.

The Great Basin population (R. luteiventris pop. 3) occurs in southwestern Idaho, southeastern Oregon, and Nevada; it includes all Nevada populations of R. luteiventris except a small population on the eastern border of White Pine County, which is included in the West Desert population.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY
Canada AB, BC, YT

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)
AK Juneau (02110), Ketchikan Gateway (02130), Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (CA) (02201), Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon (CA) (02232), Wrangell-Petersburg (CA) (02280)
ID Owyhee (16073), Twin Falls (16083), Valley (16085)
NV Elko (32007), Eureka (32011), Humboldt (32013), Lander (32015)*, Nye (32023), White Pine (32033)
OR Baker (41001), Crook (41013), Deschutes (41017), Grant (41023), Harney (41025), Lake (41037), Malheur (41045), Umatilla (41059), Union (41061), Wallowa (41063), Wheeler (41069)
UT Davis (49011)*, Juab (49023), Millard (49027), Salt Lake (49035), Sanpete (49039), Summit (49043), Tooele (49045), Utah (49049), Wasatch (49051), Weber (49057)*
WA Chelan (53007), Columbia (53013), Ferry (53019), Kittitas (53037), Lincoln (53043), Okanogan (53047), Pend Oreille (53051), Skagit (53057), Spokane (53063), Stevens (53065), Whatcom (53073), Whitman (53075), Yakima (53077)
WY Big Horn (56003), Converse (56009), Fremont (56013), Johnson (56019), Lincoln (56023), Natrona (56025), Park (56029), Sheridan (56033), Sublette (56035), Teton (56039), Weston (56045)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
10 Madison (10020007)+, Gallatin (10020008)+, Yellowstone Headwaters (10070001)+, Clarks Fork Yellowstone (10070006)+, Upper Wind (10080001)+, Big Horn Lake (10080010)+, North Fork Shoshone (10080012)+, South Fork Shoshone (10080013)+, Upper Tongue (10090101)+, Beaver (10120107)+, Middle North Platte-Casper (10180007)+
14 Upper Green (14040101)+, New Fork (14040102)+, Blacks Fork (14040107)+, San Rafael (14060009)+
16 Upper Bear (16010101)+, Upper Weber (16020101)+*, Lower Weber (16020102)+, Utah Lake (16020201)+, Spanish Fork (16020202)+, Provo (16020203)+, Jordan (16020204)+, Hamlin-Snake Valleys (16020301)+, Tule Valley (16020303)+, Rush-Tooele Valleys (16020304)+, Southern Great Salt Lake Desert (16020306)+, San Pitch (16030004)+, Upper Humboldt (16040101)+, North Fork Humboldt (16040102)+, South Fork Humboldt (16040103)+, Pine (16040104)+*, Middle Humboldt (16040105)+*, Rock (16040106)+, Reese (16040107)+, Upper Quinn (16040201)+, Lower Quinn (16040202)+*, Thousand-Virgin (16040205)+*, Southern Big Smoky Valley (16060003)+, Northern Big Smoky Valley (16060004)+*
17 Priest (17010215)+, Pend Oreille (17010216)+, Hangman (17010306)+, Little Spokane (17010308)+, Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (17020001)+, Kettle (17020002)+, Colville (17020003)+, Sanpoil (17020004)+, Chief Joseph (17020005)+, Okanogan (17020006)+, Similkameen (17020007)+, Methow (17020008)+, Lake Chelan (17020009)+, Upper Columbia-Entiat (17020010)+, Wenatchee (17020011)+, Upper Crab (17020013)+, Upper Yakima (17030001)+, Naches (17030002)+, Snake headwaters (17040101)+, Gros Ventre (17040102)+, Greys-Hobock (17040103)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Lower Henrys (17040203)+, Teton (17040204)+, Salmon Falls (17040213)+, Bruneau (17050102)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, Upper Owyhee (17050104)+, South Fork Owyhee (17050105)+, East Little Owyhee. Nevada, (17050106)+*, Middle Owyhee (17050107)+, Jordan (17050108)+, Lower Owyhee (17050110)+, Upper Malheur (17050116)+, Lower Malheur (17050117)+, Bully (17050118)+, Willow (17050119)+, Brownlee Reservoir (17050201)+, Burnt (17050202)+, Powder (17050203)+, Imnaha (17060102)+, Upper Grande Ronde (17060104)+, Wallowa (17060105)+, Lower Grande Ronde (17060106)+, Lower Snake-Tucannon (17060107)+, Palouse (17060108)+, Rock (17060109)+, South Fork Salmon (17060208)+, Upper John Day (17070201)+, North Fork John Day (17070202)+, Middle Fork John Day (17070203)+, Lower John Day (17070204)+, Upper Deschutes (17070301)+, Little Deschutes (17070302)+, Beaver-South Fork (17070303)+, Upper Crooked (17070304)+, Lower Crooked (17070305)+, Upper Skagit (17110005)+, Harney-Malheur Lakes (17120001)+, Silvies (17120002)+, Donner Und Blitzen (17120003)+, Silver (17120004)+, Lake Abert (17120006)+, Warner Lakes (17120007)+
18 Goose Lake (18020001)+
19 Southeast Mainland (19010101)+, Prince of Wales (19010103)+, Mainland (19010201)+, Kuiu-Kupreanof-Mitkof-Etolin-Zarembo-Wrangell Isla (19010202)+, Baranof-Chichagof Islands (19010203)+, Lynn Canal (19010301)+, Taku River (19010304)+, Icy Strait-Chatham Strait (19010500)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A medium-sized frog.
Reproduction Comments: Breeds in February at sea level in British Columbia, mid-March at 1395 m in Utah, May-June at 2377 m in Wyoming; generally as early as winter thaw permits. In northeastern Oregon, eggs were not deposited on days when maximum water temperature was below 9.4 C; at 18 sites, duration of egg deposition ranged from 1 to 20 days (Bull and Shepherd 2003). Females may lay egg masses in communal clusters. Eggs hatch in 3-21 days (12-21 days in northeastern Oregon, Bull and Shepherd 2003), depending on temperature. Metamorphosis occurs by fall or tadpoles may overwinter and metamorphose the following spring. Sexually mature in 2-6 years, depending on location and elevation (matures at greater age at high elevations). In Wyoming, individual females breed yearly at low elevations, every 2-3 years at high elevations (Nussbaum et al. 1983).
Ecology Comments: In the Toiyabe Range in Nevada, Reaser (2000) captured 887 individuals over three years, with average mid-season density ranging from 2 to 24 frogs per 150 m of habitat.
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: In central Idaho, frogs moved up to 1030 m from breeding sites to reach summer habitats; females (the more mobile sex) moved an average of less than 500 m from breeding or overwintering sites to summer foraging areas; many frogs remained at or near breeding ponds; some males moved up to 1.5 km between lakes that had no riparian corridor; a few frogs moved up to at least 1.8 km away from breeding ponds, but the nature of these long movements is uncertain (Pilliod et al. 2002). Pilliod et al. (in Koch et al. 1997) reported that individual high mountain lake populations of R. luteiventris in Idaho are actually interdependent and are part of a larger contiguous metapopulation that includes all the lakes in the basin. In Nevada, Reaser (1996; in Koch et al. 1997) determined that one individual of R. luteiventris traveled over 5 km in a year.

In a three-year study of R. luteiventris movement within the Owyhee Mountain subpopulation of the Great Basin population in southwestern Idaho, Engle (2000) PIT-tagged over 1800 individuals but documented only five (of 468) recaptures over 1,000 m from their original capture point. All recaptures were along riparian corridors and the longest distance between capture points was 1,765 m. Although gender differences were observed, 88 percent of all movement documented was less than 300 m from the original capture point. Engle (2001) found a two-year-old individual 6.5 km downstream from its natal pond (a year after being marked and released).

Though movements of up to 6.5 km have been recorded, these frogs generally stay in wetlands and along streams within 1 km of their breeding pond (Turner 1960, Hollenbeck 1974, Bull and Hayes 2001, Pilliod et al. 2002). Frogs in isolated ponds may not leave those sites (Bull and Hayes 2001).

Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, MEDIUM RIVER, Pool, SPRING/SPRING BROOK
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic, Fallen log/debris
Habitat Comments: Highly aquatic; rarely found far from permanent quiet water; usually occurs at the grassy/sedgy margins of streams, lakes, ponds, springs, and marshes (Hodge 1976, Licht 1986). May disperse into forest, grassland, and brushland during wet weather, and may traverse uplands to reach wintering sites (Pilliod et al. 2002). Uses stream-side small mammal burrows as shelter (Blomquist and Tull 2002). Overwintering sites in the Great Basin include undercut stream banks and spring heads (K. Hatch, pers. comm., cited by Blomquist and Tull 2002). Wintering sites in central Idaho included deep lakes (Pilliod et al. 2002). Breeds usually in shallow water in ponds or other quiet waters. See Munger et al. (1998) for quantitative information on habitat in southwestern Idaho.
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Opportunistic. Eats a wide variety of insects as well as different mollusks, crustaceans, and arachnids. Larvae eat algae, organic debris, plant tissue, and minute organisns in water.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal, Hibernates/aestivates
Immature Phenology: Diurnal, Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: May move overland in spring and summer after breeding. Inactive in winter in north.
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 10 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: See Mullen (1999) for a brief description of a draft conservation strategy and agreement for spotted frogs in northeastern Nevada.

For the Wasatch Front population, USFWS (2002) concluded that the focus of conservation efforts can reasonably shift to acquisition of additional occupied and unoccupied, suitable habitats and range expansion efforts, including: (1) Land protection mechanisms, such as conservation easements and fee-title acquisitions generally provide the most long-term benefits for sensitive species. Voluntary conservation actions on parcels of private land may provide site-specific benefits to the frog. Future conservation should continue to focus on land acquisition and easements that include buffer zones sufficient to minimize direct and indirect impacts from land use as well as protection and maintenance of dispersal or migration corridors. Furthermore, steps should be taken to protect water sources (i.e., Juab Valley) where potential threats are identified. (2) Although there is no specific number of populations necessary to prevent extinction, reintroduced populations provide ecological redundancy in ecological function and genetic and demographic stochasticity. There are several habitats already identified which may provide suitable reintroduction sites. Future conservation should include reestablishment of spotted frog populations, and associated research and land management necessary to maintain new populations in: (a) Areas where populations previously occurred if suitable habitat remains and (b) other suitable habitat within the natural range of the species. (3) Some Wasatch Front spotted frog populations are notably small in size and vulnerable to risks of detrimental genetic processes (inbreeding, loss of genetic diversity) and demographic uncertainty. Springville Hatchery/T-Bone Bottom population is particularly vulnerable based on its current size and decreasing trend. Actions should be taken to augment or through some other process, increase the size of this population. Furthermore, the current trend should be evaluated to determine if specific land or water use activities are exacerbating the decrease. If specific threats are identified, priority should be placed on reducing these threats such that the population would remain secure into the future.

Monitoring Requirements: Bull (2000) compared two methods of attaching radio transmitters.
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: 09Jan2008
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 05Jan2004
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
  • Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). 2007. Alaska Natural Heritage Program Occurrence Database. Anchorage, AK.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 2000. Mammalian responses to forest fragmentation in the Central and Southern Rocky Mountains. Pages 179-201 IN: R.L. Knight, F.W. Smith, S.W. Buskirk, W.H. Romme, and W.L. Baker. Forest Fragmentation in the Southern Rocky Mountains. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

  • Behler, J. L., and F. W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 719 pp.

  • 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.

  • Blaustein, A.R., Hays, J.B, Hoffman, P.D., Chivers, D.P., Kiesecker, J.M., Leonard, W.P., Marco, A., Olson, D.H., Reaser, J.K. and Anthony, R.G. 1999. DNA repair and resistance to UV-B radiation in western spotted frogs. Ecological Applications 9:1100-1105.

  • Blomquist, S. M., and J. C. Tull. 2002. Rana luteiventris: burrow use. Herpetological Review 33:131.

  • Bos, D. H., and J. W. Sites, Jr. 2001. Phylogeography and conservation genetics of the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris; Amphibia, Ranidae). Molecular Ecology 10:1499-1513.

  • Briggs, J. L., Sr. 1987. Breeding biology of the Cascade frog, Rana cascadae, with comparisons to R. aurora and R. pretiosa. Copeia 1987:241-245.

  • British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2002b. Columbia Spotted Frog. B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Prot., Biodiv. Branch. 2pp.

  • Bull, E. L. 2000. Comparison of two radio transmitter attachments on Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris). Herpetological Review 31:26-28.

  • Bull, E. L., and J. F. Shepherd. 2003. Water temperature at oviposition sites of Rana luteiventris in northeastern Oregon. Western North American Naturalist 63:108-113.

  • Bull, E. L., and M. P. Hayes. 2001. Post-breeding season movements of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in northeastern Oregon. Western North American Naturalist 61:119-123.

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

  • Carstensen, R., M. Willson and R. Armstrong. 2003. Habitat use of amphibians in northern southeast Alaska. Unpublished report to Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, AK: Discovery Southeast.

  • Carstensen, R., M. Willson and R. Armstrong. 2003. Habitat use of amphibians in northern southeast Alaska. Unpublished report to Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, AK: Discovery Southeast.

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

  • 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.

  • DUNLAP, D.G. 1977. WOOD & WESTERN SPOTTED FROGS IN THE BIGHORN MOUNTAINS OF WYOMING JOURNAL OF HERPETOLOGY 11(1):85-87

  • Engle, J. C. 2001. Population biology and natural history of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the Owyhee Uplands of southwest Idaho: implications for monitoring and management. M.Sc. Boise State University, Boise, ID.

  • Engle, J.C. 2000. Columbia spotted frog Great Basin population (Owyhee Mountains subpopulation) long-term monitoring plan. Year 200 Results. (draft). Boise, ID.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Gomez, D. 1994. Conservation assessment for the spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in the intermountain region USFS. 30 p.

  • Gomez, Dale. 1994. Conservation Assessment for the Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in the Intermountain Region. United States Forest Service.

  • Green, D. M. 1991. Genetic divergence among populations of spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa complex. Unpublished report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6 pp.

  • Green, D. M., H. Kaiser, T. F. Sharbel, J. Kearsley, and K. R. McAllister. 1997. Cryptic species of spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa complex, in western North America. Copeia 1997:1-8.

  • Green, D. M., H. Kaiser, T. F. Sharbel, J. Kearsley, and K. R. McAllister. 1997. Cryptic species of spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa complex, in western North America. Copeia 1997: 1-8.

  • Green, D. M., T. F. Sharbel, J. Kearsley, and H. Kaiser. 1996. Postglacial range fluctuation, genetic subdivision and speciation in the western North American spotted frog complex, Rana pretiosa. Evolution 50:374-390.

  • Green, D.M. 1986a. Systematics and evolution of western North American frogs allied to Rana aurora and Rana boylii: karyological evidence. Systematic Zoology 35:273-282.

  • Green, D.M. 1986b. Systematics and evolution of western North American frogs allied to Rana aurora and Rana boylii: electrophoretic evidence. Systematic Zoology 35:283-296.

  • Green, D.M., H. Kaiser, T.F. Sharbel, J. Kearsley, and K.R. McAllister. 1997. Cryptic species of spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa complex, in western North America. Copeia 1997:1-8.

  • Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado: A Colordao field guide, Second Edition. University Press of Colorado and Colorado Divison of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado.

  • Hayes, M. P., and M. R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America.: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? J. Herpetol. 20:490-509.

  • Hodge, R. P. 1976. Amphibians and reptiles in Alaska, the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company Anchorage, Alaska. 89 pp.

  • Hodge, R.P. 1976. Amphibians & reptiles in Alaska, the Yukon, & Northwest Territories. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, Anchorage, AK. 89 p.

  • Hollenbeck, R. R. 1974. Growth rates and movements within a population of Rana pretiosa pretiosa Baird and Girard in south central Montana. M.A. thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman.

  • Hovingh, P. 1993. Aquatic habitats, life history observations and zoogeographic considerations of the spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in Tule Valley, Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 53(2):168-179.

  • Hovingh, Peter. 1986? Investigations of Great Basin springs and wetlands for leeches, mollusks, and amphibians. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Bonneville Chapter.

  • James, J.D. 1998. Status of the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) in Alberta. Wildlife Status Report No. 17. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Environmental Protection, Fisheries & Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association.

  • 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.

  • Koch, E.D., G. Williams, C.R. Peterson, and P.S. Corn. 1997. A summary of the conference on declining and sensitive amphibians in the Rocky Mountains and Pacific Northwest. November 7-8, 1996, Boise Idaho. Meeting sponsored by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Herpetological Society, Declining Amphibian Population Task Force Rocky Mountain Working Group, U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division, Idaho Museum of Natural History, Idaho State University.

  • Licht, L.E. 1971. Breeding habits and embryonic thermal requirements of the frogs, Rana aurora aurora and Rana pretiosa pretiosa, in the Pacific northwest. Ecology 52: 116-124.

  • Licht, L.E. 1975. Comparative life history features of the western spotted frog, Rana pretiosa, from low- and high-elevation populations. Can. J. Zool. 53:1254-1257.

  • Licht, L.E. 1986. Food and feeding behavior of sympatric red-legged frogs, Rana aurora, and spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa, in southwestern British Columbia. Canad. Field-Naturalist 100:22-31.

  • Lindell, J.R. and E. M. Grossman. 1998. Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) distribution and local abundance in southeast Alaska Juneau, Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Alaska Ecological Services.

  • Lindell, J.R. and E. M. Grossman. 1998. Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) distribution and local abundance in southeast Alaska Juneau, Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Alaska Ecological Services.

  • 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.

  • MacDonald, S.O. 2003. The amphibians and reptiles of Alaska. A Field Handbook. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK.

  • MacDonald, S.O. 2003. The amphibians and reptiles of Alaska. A Field Handbook. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK.

  • Matsuda, B.M., D.M. Green and P.T. Gregory. 2006. Royal BC Museum handbook amphibians and reptiles of British Columbia. Royal B.C. Mus., Victoria, BC. 266pp.

  • 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.

  • Mennell, L. 1997. Amphibians in southwestern Yukon and northwestern British Columbia. Pages 107-109 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.

  • Morris, R. L., and W. W. Tanner. 1969. The ecology of the western spotted frog, Rana pretiosa Baird and Girard, a life history study. Great Basin Natur. 29: 45-81.

  • Morris, R.L., and W.W. Tanner. 1969. The ecology of the western spotted frog, Rana pretiosa pretiosa Baird and Girard, a life history study. Great Basin Nat. 29(2): 45-81.

  • Mullen, C. 1999. Community-based stewardship in Nevada. Endangered Species Bulletin 24:9.

  • Munger, J. C., M. Gerber, K. Madrid, M.-A. Carroll, W. Petersen, and L. Heberger. 1998. U.S. National Wetland Inventory classifications as predictors of the occurrence of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) and Pacific treefrogs (Hyla regilla). Conservation Biology 12:320-330.

  • Munger, J.C., A. Ames, and Bruce Barnett. 1997. 1996 Survey for Columbia spotted frogs in the Owyhee Mountains of Southwestern Idaho. Technical Bulletin No. 97-13. Idaho Bureau of Land Management. 27 pp.

  • Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. Press of Idaho. 332pp.

  • Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University Press of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 332 pp.

  • Ovaska, K, S. Lennart, C Engelstoft, L. Matthias, E. Wind and J. MacGarvie. 2004. Best Management Practices for Amphibians and Reptiles in Urban and Rural Environments in British Columbia. Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Ecosystems Standards and Planning, Biodiversity Branch

  • Patla, D. and D.A. Keinath. 2005. Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris): a technical conservation assessment. Unpublished report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain region, Species Conservation Project.

  • Phillips, K. 1990. Where have all the frogs and toads gone? BioScience 40(6):422-424.

  • Pilliod, D. S., C. R. Peterson, and P. I. Ritson. 2002. Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:1849-1862.

  • Rana luteiventris/Columbia Spotted Frog. Copyright Dave Fraser.

  • Reaser, J. K. 1996. Rana pretiosa (spotted frog): Vagility. Herpetological Review 27:196-197.

  • Reaser, J. K. 2000. Demographic analysis of the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris): case study in spatiotemporal variation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1158-1167.

  • Reaser, J.K., 1994. Preliminary report on the status of Rana pretiosa in central Nevada. Stanford Univ. CA. 4 p.

  • Reaser. J.K. and R.E. Dexter. 1996. Rana pretiosa predation. Herpetological Review 27(2) p. 75.

  • Roberts, W. 1992. Declines in amphibian populations in Alberta. Pages 14-16 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.

  • Ross, D. A., D. L. Shirley, P. A. White, L. D. Lentsch. 1993. Distribution of the spotted frog along the Wasatch Front in Utah, 1991-1992. Publ. No. 93-4, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 25 pp.

  • Ross, D. A., M. C. Stanger, K. McDonald, D. L. Shirley, P. A. White, and L. D. Lentsch. 1994. Distribution, habitat use, and relative abundance indices of spotted frogs in the West Desert, Utah, 1993. Publ. No. 93-15, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 47 pp.

  • Shipman, M. and S. Anderson. 1997. General survey of the Great Basin population of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the Jarbidge, Mountain City, and Santa Rosa ranger districts of northern Nevada. Prepared for USFS Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko, Nevada.

  • Slough, B. G. 2002. Geographic distribution: Rana luteiventris. Herpetological Review 33:146.

  • Slough, B.G., and R.L. Mennell. 2006. Diversity and range of amphibians of the Yukon Territory. Canadian Field-Naturalist 120:87-92.

  • Spahr, R., L. Armstrong, D. Atwood, and M. Rath. 1991. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of the Intermountain Region. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.

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

  • Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Svihla, A. 1935. Notes on the western spotted frog, Rana pretiosa pretiosa. Copeia (3): 119-122.

  • TURNER, F.B. 1958. LIFE-HISTORY OF THE WESTERN SPOTTED FROG IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK. HERPETOLOGICA 14(2):96-100

  • Tanner, V. M. 1931. A synoptical study of Utah Amphibia. Proc. Utah Acad. Sci. 8: 159-198.

  • Toline, C.A. and A.M. Seitz. 1999. Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA variation within and among populations of Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) in Utah. Unpublished report prepared for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake, UT.

  • Toone, R.A. 1991. General Inventory for Western Spotted Frogs (Rana pretiosa) In the House Range Resource Area, Utah. Unpublished report. Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City. 10pps+.

  • Turner, F. B. 1958. Life history of the western spotted frog in Yellowstone National Park. Herpetologica 14:96-100.

  • Turner, F.B. 1958. Life-history of the western spotted frog in Yellowstone National Park. Herpetologica 14: 96-100.

  • Turner, F.B. 1960. Population structure & dynamics of the western spotted frog RANA P. PRETIOSA BAIRD & GIRARD, in Yellowstone Park, WY. Ecological Monograph 30(3):251-278.

  • Turner, F.B. 1960. Population structure and dynamics of the western spotted frog, Rana P. Pretiosa Baird & Girard, in Yellowstone Park, Wyoming. Ecological Monographs 30(3):251-278.

  • Turner, F.B. 1960. Population structure and dynamics of the western spotted frog, Rana p. pretiosa Aaird and Girard, in Yellowstone Park, Wyoming. Ecol. Monogr. 30(3):251-178.

  • Turner, F.B. 1960. Population structure and dynamics of the western spotted frog, Rana p. pretiosa Baird & Girard, in Yellowstone Park, Wyoming. Ecol. Monogr. 30: 251-278.

  • Turner, F.B. and Dumas, P.C. 1972. Rana pretiosa. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. 119:1-4.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: finding on petition to list the spotted frog. Fed. Register 58(87):27260-27263.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: new 12-month finding for a petition to list the Utah Wasatch Front and west desert populations of spotted frog. 30 April 2, 1998. Federal Register 63:16218-16220.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 30 August 2002. 12-month finding for a petition To list the Wasatch Front Columbia spotted frog as threatened throughout its range. Federal Register 67(169):55758-55767.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: finding on petition to list the spotted frog. Fed. Register 58(87):27260-27263.

  • Washington Department of Wildlife. 1991. Spotted Frog RANA PRETIOSA. Unpublished report from Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia. 4 pp.

  • Waters, D.L. 1992. Habitat associations, phenology, and biogeography of amphibians in the Stikine River basin and southeast Alaska. Unpubl. rep. of the 1991 pilot project. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 61 pp.

  • Waters, D.L. 1992. Habitat associations, phenology, and biogeography of amphibians in the Stikine River basin and southeast Alaska. Unpubl. rep. of the 1991 pilot project. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 61 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.

  • Winner, C. 1995. Silent spring? Wyoming Wildlife 59(6): 28-35.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

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

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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