USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 96256

The wood frog (Rana sylvatica): a technical conservation assessment

E. Muths·S. Rittmann·J. Irwin·D. Keinath·R. Scherer
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Overall, the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) is ranked G5, secure through most of its range (NatureServe Explorer 2002). However, it is more vulnerable in some states within the USDA Forest Service Region 2: S3 (vulnerable) in Colorado, S2 (imperiled) in Wyoming, and S1 (critically imperiled in South Dakota (NatureServe Explorer 2002); there are no records for wood frogs in Kansas or Nebraska. Primary threats to wood frog populations are habitat fragmentation (loss of area, edge effects, and isolation) and habitat loss due to anthropogenic causes (e.g., wetland draining, grazing) and natural changes as habitat succession occurs. Wood frogs are most conspicuous at breeding sites early in the spring, when snow and ice are often still present at pond margins. They tolerate frezzing and hibernate terrestrially in shallow depressions, under leaf litter, grasses, logs, or rocks (Bagdonas 1968, Bellis 1961a); there are no reports of aquatic hibernation for this species (Licht 1991, Pinder et al. 1992). Wood frogs require semi-permanent and temporary pools of natural origin and adjacent wet meadows, and landscape alterations that shorten the hydroperiod of ponds can result in catastrophic tadpole mortality. Plant communities utilized by wood frogs in the Rocky Mountains are hydric to mesic and include sedge and grass meadows, willow hummocks, aspen groves, lodgepole pine forests, and woodlands with leaf litter and/or herbaceous understory (Maslin 1947, Bellis 1961a, Roberts and Lewin 1979, Haynes and Aird 1981). Wood frogs are likely to disperse into surrounding marsh and woodlands soon after oviposition (Heatwole 1961, Haynes and Aird 1981). In the arly fall, wood frogs begin to seek hibernacula at or just below the ground surface, generally in upland forest habitat (Regosin et al. 2003). Licht (1991) demonstrated shelter-seeking behavior at 1.5 [degrees] C. Once they have concealed themselves for hibernation, wood frogs are very difficult to detecta?|

Explore related subjects

Report

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E. Muths, S. Rittmann, J. Irwin, D. Keinath, R. Scherer. 2005. The wood frog (Rana sylvatica): a technical conservation assessment. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/96256

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Factors affecting benthic macroinvertebrate health in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, 2020–2023

Major waterways in the City of Roanoke (City) have failed to meet Virginia’s aquatic life designated use since 1996. Segments of the upper Roanoke River lack healthy benthic macroinvertebrate communities which prompted a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) to identify the most probable stressor(s) causing the impairment. Excess fine sediment was identified as the most probable stressor impairing benthic macroinvertebrates on portions of the Roanoke River in 2006, and a watershed implementation plan published in 2016 required communities within the impaired watershed to implement projects that would reduce the load of fine sediment entering the Roanoke River. Additional benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and stream habitat assessments along the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek (a tributary to the Roanoke River that flows through the City) revealed continued impaired conditions, and subsequent stressor identification analysis was completed in 2023. Samples collected downstream of the City on the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek generally showed more impaired conditions relative to samples collected at locations upstream of the City. Based on this evaluation, sediment and sediment-bound polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were identified as probable stressors while specific conductance, total nitrogen, and sediment metals were possible stressors in Tinker Creek; however, only a sediment TMDL target was identified to address impaired benthic macroinvertebrate communities. In the Roanoke River upstream of the Niagara Dam, sediment and total phosphorus were identified as probable stressors, sediment polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and sediment PCB were considered possible stressors; however, the TMDL target was only for total phosphorus. The City partnered with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2016 to continuously monitor water quality and streamflow conditions on a major tributary of Tinker Creek, Lick Run, and by 2020, four similar monitoring stations were installed on the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek near the locations of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling. Monitored parameters included streamflow and/or gage height (water level), water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and turbidity. Turbidity is a measure of the relative clarity of the water and was previously used to model suspended-sediment concentrations at the monitoring stations. The City also contracted Kirk Environmental, LLP (KE) to collect benthic macroinvertebrate samples and stream habitat assessments near the locations of the water-quality monitoring stations. Identified benthic macroinvertebrates were used to calculate the Virginia Stream Condition Index (SCI), a multi-metric index composed of eight biological attributes that represent elements of the structure and function of the benthic macroinvertebrate community that measure diversity, composition, and tolerance to pollution. Study objective: In this report, benthic macroinvertebrate samples and stream habitat assessment scores collected at four locations on the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek by KE and the VDEQ between 2020 and 2023 were compared to measured water-quality and streamflow conditions prior to sampling to evaluate patterns between benthic macroinvertebrate health, water quality, and hydrology.

Virginia↗