dcsimg

Description

provided by AmphibiaWeb articles
This frog is a member of the mountain yellow-legged frog complex, which is comprised of two species: Rana muscosa and Rana sierrae. Both species are highly aquatic and are always found within a meter or two from the edge of water. Like Rana sierrae, Rana muscosa is yellowish or reddish brown from above, with black or brown spots or lichen-like markings. Toe tips are usually dusky. Underside of hind legs and sometimes entire belly is yellow or slightly orange, usually more opaque than in the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog, Rana boylii. Yellow coloration often extends forward to level of forelimbs. Dorsolateral folds present but frequently indistinct. The tadpoles are black or dark brown and are large (total length often exceeds 10 cm) and metamorphose in 1-4 years depending on the elevation. Rana muscosa differs from Rana sierrae in having relatively longer legs. When a leg is folded against the body the tibio-tarsal joint typically extends beyond the external nares. The mating call of R. muscosa is significantly different from that of R. sierrae in that they lack transitions between pulsed and noted sounds. Both species call underwater. Males can be heard above water but only from a short distance away (

References

  • Bradford, D. F. (1989). "Allotopic distribution of native frogs and introduced fishes in high Sierra Nevada lakes of California: implication of the negative effect of fish introductions." Copeia, 1989, 775-778.
  • Bradford, D. F. (1989). ''Allotopic distribution of native frogs and introduced fishes in high Sierra Nevada lakes of California USA: Implication of the negative effect of fish introductions.'' Copeia, 1989(3), 775-778.
  • Bradford, D. F., Tabatabai, F., and Graber, D. M. (1993). ''Isolation of remaining populations of the native frog, Rana muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California.'' Conservation Biology, 7, 882-888.
  • Briggs, C. J., Knapp, R. A., and Vredenburg, V. T. (2010). ''Enzootic and epizootic dynamics of the chytrid fungal pathogen of amphibians.'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(21), 9695-9700 .
  • Davidson, C. (2004). ''Declining downwind: Amphibian population declines in California and historical pesticide use.'' Ecological Applications, 14, 1892-1902.
  • Davidson, C., Shaffer, H. B., and Jennings, M. R. (2002). ''Spatial tests of the pesticide drift, habitat destruction, UV-B, and climate-change hypotheses for California amphibian declines.'' Conservation Biology, 16, 1588-1601.
  • Finlay, J. and Vredenburg, V. T. (2007). ''Introduced trout sever trophic connections between lakes and watersheds: consequences for a declining montane frog.'' Ecology, 88(9), 2187-2198.
  • Grinnell, J., and Storer, T. I. (1924). Animal Life in the Yosemite. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
  • Knapp, R. A. and Matthews, F. (2000). ''Non-native fish introductions and the decline of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog from within protected areas.'' Conservation Biology, 14(2), 428-439.
  • Knapp, R. A., Boiano, D. M., Vredenburg, V. T. (2007). ''Recovery of a declining amphibian (Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, Rana muscosa) following removal of non-native fish.'' Biological Conservation, 135, 11-20.
  • Knapp, R.A. (1996). ''Non-native trout in the natural lakes of the Sierra Nevada: an analysis of their distribution and impacts on native aquatic biota.'' Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Center for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California (Davis), Davis, California, 363-390.
  • Lewis, T. R. (2009). ''New population of mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) discovered.'' Herpetological Bulletin, 108, 1-2.
  • Livezey, R. L., and Wright, A. H. (1945). ''Descriptions of four salientian eggs.'' American Midland Naturalist, 34, 701-706.
  • Rachowicz, L. J., Knapp, R. A., Morgan, J. A. T., Stice, M. J., Vredenburg, V. T., Parker, J. M., and Briggs, C. J. (2006). ''Emerging infectious disease as a proximate cause of amphibian mass mortality.'' Ecology, 87, 1671-1683.
  • Salzberg, A. (2009). ''Population of nearly extinct Mountain Yellow-legged Frog discovered.'' Herpetological Digest, 9, 4.
  • Voyles, J., Vredenburg, V. T., Tunstall, T. S., Parker, J. M., Briggs, C. J., and Rosenblum, E. B. (2012). ''Pathophysiology in mountain yellow-legged frogs (Rana muscosa) during a chytridiomycosis outbreak .'' PLoS ONE, 7(4), e35374. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035374.
  • Vredenburg, V. T. (2004). ''Reversing introduced species effects: Experimental removal of introduced fish leads to rapid recovery of a declining frog.'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 7646-7650.
  • Vredenburg, V. T., (2007). ''Concordant molecular and phenotypic data delineate new taxonomy and conservation priorities for the endangered mountain yellow-legged frog (Ranidae: Rana muscosa).'' Journal of Zoology, 271, 361-374.
  • Vredenburg, V. T., Fellers, G., and Davidson, C. (2005). ''The mountain yellow-legged frog Rana muscosa (Camp 1917).'' Status and conservation of U.S. Amphibians. M. Lannoo, eds., University of California Press, Berkeley, 563-566.
  • Vredenburg, V. T., Knapp, R. A., Tunstall, T. S., and Briggs, C. J. (2010). ''Dynamics of an emerging disease drive large-scale amphibian population extinctions.'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(21), 9689-9694.
  • Zweifel, R. G. (1955). ''Ecology, distribution, and systematics of frogs of the Rana boylei group.'' University of California Publications in Zoology, 54, 207-292.

license
cc-by-3.0
author
Vance T. Vredenburg
original
visit source
partner site
AmphibiaWeb articles

Distribution and Habitat

provided by AmphibiaWeb articles
Rana muscosa is endemic to California, U.S.A. The Southern Mountain Yellow-legged Frog once ranged from Palomar Mountain in San Diego County through the San Jacinto, San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains of Riverside, San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties in southern California. These formed four isolated clusters of montane populations. In addition the species occurred as an isolated cluster of populations on Breckenridge Mountain, south of the Kern River in Kern County, and in the Sierra Nevada mountains in Tulare, Inyo, and Fresno counties, extending north to Mather Pass. The distribution of Rana muscosa in the Sierra Nevada is bordered by the crest of Sierra Nevada. No populations occur east of the crest. The mountain ridges that separate the headwaters of the South Fork Kings River from the Middle Fork Kings River, from Mather Pass on the John Muir Trail to the Monarch Divide, form the northern border of the range. R. muscosa is extinct on Palomar and Breckenridge mountains.In summer 2009 a population of Rana muscosa was discovered in the San Jacinto Mountains by a team of USGS and San Diego Natural History Museum biologists (Salzberg 2009; Lewis 2009). The frogs were found at two localities in Tahquitz Creek and one of its tributaries, Willow Creek, about 2.5 miles apart (Salzberg 2009; Lewis 2009). The newly discovered San Jacinto population appears to be occupying a larger area than the other known populations, although the extent and population number are not yet known (Salzberg 2009; Lewis 2009). A total of eight other populations are known from the San Jacinto, San Bernardino, and San Gabriel mountain ranges, each occupying less than half a mile of stream (Salzberg 2009; Lewis 2009).
license
cc-by-3.0
author
Vance T. Vredenburg
original
visit source
partner site
AmphibiaWeb articles

Life History, Abundance, Activity, and Special Behaviors

provided by AmphibiaWeb articles
Similar to R. sierrae, breeding begins soon after ice-melt or early in spring and can range from April at lower elevations to June and July in higher elevations (Wright and Wright 1949; Stebbins 1951; Zweifel 1955). Eggs are deposited underwater in clusters attached to rocks, gravel, and under banks, or to vegetation in streams or lakes (Wright and Wright 1949; Stebbins 1951; Zweifel 1955). Livezey and Wright (1945) report an average of 233 eggs per mass (n=6, range 100-350) for R. sierrae, but egg counts per egg mass appear similar for R. muscosa (Vredenburg, unpublished data). Eggs contain a vitelline capsule, and three gelatinous envelopes, all clear and transparent (see illustrations in Stebbins 2003). In laboratory breeding experiments egg hatching times ranged from 18-21+ days at temperatures ranging from 5-13.5 degrees C (Zweifel 1955). The length of the larval stage depends upon the elevation. At lower elevations where the summers are longer, tadpoles are able to grow to metamorphosis in a single season (Storer 1925). At higher elevations where the growing season can be as short as three months, tadpoles must overwinter at least once and may take two to four years of growth before they are large enough to transform (Wright and Wright 1949; Zweifel 1955).
license
cc-by-3.0
author
Vance T. Vredenburg
original
visit source
partner site
AmphibiaWeb articles

Life History, Abundance, Activity, and Special Behaviors

provided by AmphibiaWeb articles
Rana muscosa have declined dramatically despite the fact that most of the habitat is protected in National Parks and National Forest lands. A study that compared recent surveys (1995-2005) to historical localities (1899-1994; specimens from the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and the California Academy of Sciences) found that 96.2% of populations had gone extinct, with only 3 remaining out of 79 resurveyed sites (Vredenburg et al. 2007). The two most important factors leading to declines in R. sierrae and R. muscosa are introduced predators and disease. Introduced trout prey on R. sierrae (Needham and Vestal, 1938; Mullally and Cunningham, 1956) and have been implicated in a number of studies as one of the sources of decline in both R. sierrae and R. muscosa (Bradford 1989; Bradford et al. 1993; Jennings 1994; Knapp 1996; Drost and Fellers 1996; Knapp and Matthews 2000). Whole lake field experiments have shown that when non-native trout are removed, both Rana sierrae and Rana muscosa populations rebound (Vredenburg 2004; Knapp et al. 2007). While it is clear that introduced trout negatively affect R. sierrae and R. muscosa mainly through predation on tadpoles, trout also compete for resources with adult frogs. A food web study that used stable isotopes to trace energy through food webs in Sierran lakes concluded that introduced trout are superior competitors and suppress the availability of large aquatic insects that make up a major portion of the diets of adult frogs (Finlay and Vredenburg 2007). Trout removal by the California Department of Fish and Game has reduced fish populations in the Little Rock Creek in the Angeles National Forest, resulting in increased numbers of Rana muscosa (Salzberg 2009; Lewis 2009). A lethal disease, chytridiomycosis (http://www.amphibiaweb.org/chytrid/chytridiomycosis.html), caused by an aquatic fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Berger et al. 1998) has caused population extinctions in R. muscosa and R. sierrae in the Sierra Nevada (Rachowicz et al. 2006). Long-term studies reveal that infection intensity is key; once a critical threshold of Bd fungal infection is reached, death ensues (Vredenburg et al. 2010). Population extirpation is the most common outcome, but a few mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae and Rana muscosa) populations have survived in low numbers. Modeling shows that chytriodiomycosis outcome at the population level (extirpation vs. persistence) can result solely from density-dependent host-pathogen dynamics, which may hold for other wildlife diseases as well (Briggs et al. 2010). A new study conducted during an outbreak of chytridiomycosis in the Sierra Nevada has shown that electrolyte depletion (sodium and potassium) for heavily infected wild mountain yellow-legged frogs is even more extensive than studies done in captivity have suggested, and is accompanied by severe dehydration despite the frogs' aquatic environment (Voyles et al. 2012). See also the NSF commentary (http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=123871&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click). In an effort to rescue the last surviving mountain yellow-legged frogs, the Vredenburg lab is treating adult frogs in the field with anti-fungal medication; frogs are bathed for five minutes daily over the course of a week (Lubick 2010). Electrolyte supplementation may also be a way to help save individual frogs (Voyles et al. 2012). Other possible causes for decline in R. muscosa include air pollution from pesticide drift (Davidson et al. 2002; Davidson 2004), UV-B radiation, and long term changes in weather patterns, especially concerning the severity and duration of droughts. Acidification from atmospheric deposition has been suggested as another cause, but Bradford et al. (1994) found no evidence to support this hypothesis. The San Diego's Institute for Conservation Research has instituted a captive breeding program for this species (Salzberg 2009; Lewis 2009). In 2006, tadpoles were rescued from a drying creek in the San Jacinto Wilderness and were reared in captivity (Salzberg 2009; Lewis 2009). In December 2008 a pair of these frogs laid a clutch of 200 eggs in captivity; only a handful of these eggs were fertile, due to the young parental age, and a single offspring has survived to maturity (Salzberg 2009; Lewis 2009). The most recent breeding season, however (December 2009-March 2010) was very successful and biologists have just reintroduced about 500 eggs into the wild, as of April 23, 2010, into deep permanent pools at the University of California Riverside’s James San Jacinto Mountains Reserve (http://www.jamesreserve.edu/). Tadpoles that hatch from these eggs will take about two years to mature into adults. The adults are expected to stay within the reserve since they do not migrate. The tadpole rescue and frog breeding effort has been funded by Caltrans, as part of mitigation for emergency work necessary to stabilize a slope and reopen State Route 330 near Rana muscosa habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains (Salzberg 2009; Lewis 2009).
license
cc-by-3.0
author
Vance T. Vredenburg
original
visit source
partner site
AmphibiaWeb articles

Relation to Humans

provided by AmphibiaWeb articles
Mountain yellow-legged frogs (the amphibian species complex including Rana muscosa and Rana sierrae) were once the most common vertebrates in the high elevation Sierra Nevada. Documented historical accounts go back to the turn of the last century (1915) from surveys conducted by Joseph Grinnell and Tracy Storer (published in 1924) from the University of California's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Joseph Grinnell was instrumental in the foundation of Yosemite National Park, one of the crown jewels of the United States National Park Service.
license
cc-by-3.0
author
Vance T. Vredenburg
original
visit source
partner site
AmphibiaWeb articles

Mountain yellow-legged frog

provided by wikipedia EN

The mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), also known as the southern mountain yellow-legged frog, is a species of true frog endemic to California in the United States.[1][2] It occurs in the San Jacinto Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and San Gabriel Mountains in Southern California and the Southern Sierra Nevada. It is a federally listed endangered species,[3] separated into two distinct population segments (DPS): a northern DPS, listed endangered in 2014,[4] and a southern DPS that was listed endangered in 2002.[5]

Populations formerly classified as Rana muscosa in the northern Sierra Nevada have since been redescribed as a new species: Rana sierrae, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog has also been classified as a federally endangered species since 2014.[4] The mountains separating the headwaters of the South Fork and Middle Fork of the Kings River mark the boundary between the ranges of the two species.[1]

Description

Mountain yellow-legged frog

Rana muscosa is 4 to 8.9 centimetres (1.6 to 3.5 in) long. Females tend to be larger than males.[6] Its color and patterning are variable. It is yellowish, brownish, or olive with black and brown markings. The underside of its hind legs can be different hues of yellow, from a bold sun yellow to a lighter pale yellow; larger ones may can hints of orange on their hind legs. The throats of it range from white to yellow.[7] Along with its variable coloration, the frog also has a dorsal pattern with dark spots in different shapes and sizes. Its species name muscosa is from the Latin meaning "mossy" or "full of moss", inspired by its coloration. It may have light orange or yellow thighs. When handled, the frog emits a defensive odor reminiscent of garlic.[8]

Habitat

The frog occurs in mountain creeks, lakes and lakeshores, streams, and pools, preferring sunny areas. It rarely strays far from water, and can remain underwater for a very long time, likely through cutaneous gas exchange. As such, adults can be found on rocks around shorelines. Close proximity to water is important because eggs are either laid underwater attached to rocks or in shallow waters. The tadpoles require a permanent water habitat for at least two years while they develop. This is because tadpoles can die from a lack of moisture, especially dry summers. The frog has been noted at elevations of between about 1,214 and 7,546 feet (370 and 2,300 m) in Southern California.[1] These habitats are primarily found in north of California in Sierra Nevada and south of California in the Transverse ranges.

Reproduction and early life

Tadpole stage

The frog emerges from its wintering site soon after snowmelt. Its breeding season begins once the highest meltwater flow is over, around March through May in the southern part of its range, and up to July in higher mountains to the north. Fertilization is external, and the egg cluster is secured to vegetation in a current, or in still waters sometimes left floating free. How long it takes for breeding onset varies from 1–4 years depending on the levels of snow and temperature. Very cold temperatures may cause death of larvae.[7] The juvenile may be a tadpole for 3 to 4 years before undergoing metamorphosis.[8] However, this rate heavily varies depending on the temperature and elevation of the area.[7] There are two classes of tadpoles: first year tadpoles and second year tadpoles. Metamorphosis tends to happen the second summer of tadpole life. They are called metamorphs when this transition from tadpole to young frog is occurring. They are then called a juvenile when it survives one winter. It becomes ready to reproduce after 2 years of the juvenile stage. It is found that the growth and development rate is slower at higher elevations.[7]

Behavior

The frog lacks a vocal sac. Its call is raspy, rising at the end. During the day, it calls underwater.[8] The frogs tend to be less active during the winters and more active during the mating season. For years when there is heavy snow at high elevations, they may only be active for 90 days in the summer.[7] Hibernation tends to happen underwater or in the crevices of stream banks. This occurs during the cold months of winter. Hibernation ends in the spring to start the breeding season.[3] This species feeds on aquatic insects and benthic invertebrates. Their diet varies depending on the habitat type. When living in streams, it tends to eat terrestrial insects such as beetles, ants, bees, wasps, flies, and dragonflies.[7] They are also known to eat larvae of other frogs and toads, as well as commit cannibalism.[8]

Decline

Mountain Yellow-Legged frog.jpg

Once a common species, Rana muscosa was absent from much of its native range by the 1970s. Over the course of the last hundred years, 90% of its populations have been eliminated.[9] The frog was known from 166 locations in the Southern California mountains, and as of 2007, only seven or eight remained.[1] The 2009 discovery of R. muscosa at two locations in the San Bernardino National Forest was newsworthy.[10] The frog is represented in the Sierra Nevada by three or four populations.[1] Its decline is attributed to many factors, including introduced species of fish such as trout, livestock grazing,[11] chytrid fungus,[12] and probably pesticides, drought, and ultraviolet radiation.[11] Recreational activities in streams have also had an impact.[13]

Introduced fish species

Trout were introduced to lakes and streams throughout the Sierra Nevada in the late 1800s to increase recreational fishing in the area. 90% of these Sierra Nevada lakes and streams did not previously have fish in them, although the trout were regionally present.[14] The fish feed on tadpoles, a main prey item. Some of the fish types that prey on tadpoles include the brown, golden, and rainbow trout, as well as the brook char.[15] The introduced trout have changed the distribution of several native species in the local ecosystems.[9] Most of the mountain yellow-legged frog populations did not evolve to adapt to the trout. The trout caused populations to isolate, restricted the amount of available habitats, and increased the chances of extinction. After the removal of fish from several lakes, the frog reappeared and its populations increased.[9] These frogs then began to disperse to other suitable habitats nearby.[16]

Pesticides

The decline of the frog from its historic range has been associated with pesticide drift from agricultural areas.[17][18] Frogs that have been reintroduced to water bodies cleared of fish have failed to survive, and analysis has isolated pesticides in their tissues.[19] Pesticides are considered by some authorities to be a greater threat to the frog than the trout.[20] The relative roles that pesticides and introduced fish play in frog declines are still debated, and the loss of R. muscosa in its former range has probably been influenced by multiple factors.[19]

Chytridiomycosis

Rana muscosa

This species is one of many amphibians affected by the fungal disease chytridiomycosis. Ample research has explored the biology of the fungus and how to prevent related amphibian declines.[12] The fungus attacks keratinized areas of a frog's body. Tadpoles are not severely affected because only their jaw sheaths and tooth rows are heavily keratinized.[21] Infection in a tadpole can be identified by changes in the pigmentation of these parts.[22] Adults have keratin-rich skin and suffer worse infections.

In studies, healthy adult frogs exposed to infected frogs for at least two weeks developed the disease. Transmission takes longer in tadpoles, generally over seven weeks.[22] Frogs may be predisposed to infection if their immune systems are weakened by other factors, such as pesticide.[23] Studies indicate that R. muscosa is naturally more susceptible to the chytrid fungus than many other frogs.[24]

Conservation status and efforts

The frog is an endangered species under the US Endangered Species Act.[3] It is separated into two distinct population segments (DPS): a northern DPS, listed endangered since 2014,[4] and a southern DPS that was listed endangered in 2002.[5] The two DPS are separated by the Tehachapi Mountains, and occupy unique habitats: the northern DPS lives in lakes or slow-moving water bodies at alpine and subalpine elevations in the Sierra Nevada, while the southern DPS lives in faster flowing and warmer waters of the chaparral, although it may also occur at higher elevations in the Transverse Range.[4]: 24263–2464  In addition, the DPS show genetic divergence, likely reflecting ancient reproductive isolation.[4]: 24263–2464 

The International Union for Conservation of Nature has also listed the mountain yellow-legged frog as endangered.[1] Its NatureServe conservation status is "critically imperiled."[25]

The first successful captive breeding of the frog occurred in 2009 when three tadpoles were reared at the San Diego Zoo. Conservation workers at the zoo plan to release any more surviving captive-bred frogs in the San Jacinto Mountains, part of their native range.[15][26]

In 2015 frogs and tadpoles of the species were reintroduced to Fuller Mill Creek in the San Bernardino Mountains and San Bernardino National Forest.[27] They were bred and raised the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center for Conservation Research in Escondido, one of the organizations that have partnered with the San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research (ICR) to save the species from extinction.[27] The Los Angeles Zoo is also a coalition partner and is raising two groups of wild collected tadpoles from two localities in the San Gabriel Mountains where they are released when ready.[27][28]

In 2015, the Oakland Zoo began a rehabilitation project of the frog in order to fuel efforts to save the species.[29] Every year, a group of tadpoles are taken from native lakes throughout California and brought to the zoo. There, the tadpoles are grown to juvenile frogs, while also undergoing an inoculation process to render them immune to the chytridiomycosis fungus disease. Once ready, the now chytrid immune juvenile frogs are released back into the lakes they were found. In 2016, the Oakland Zoo released 53 specimens into various lakes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.[30] The program is set to release 130 inoculated individuals into lakes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and Inyo National Forest in 2017.

In 2021, the Aquarium of the Pacific partnered with government organizations like the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to create a facility for taking care of mountain yellow-legged frogs. This was in response to recent wildfires which harmed their habitats. Following the wildfires, wildlife agencies found and moved these frogs into places like the facility established by the Aquarium of the Pacific. These efforts help the species recover from natural disasters and prevent extinction.[31][32]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2022). "Rana muscosa". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2022: e.T19177A118975294. Retrieved April 28, 2023.
  2. ^ a b Frost, Darrel R. (2021). "Rana muscosa Camp, 1917". Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.1. American Museum of Natural History. doi:10.5531/db.vz.0001. Retrieved February 16, 2021.
  3. ^ a b c "Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa)". Environmental Conservation Online System. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Retrieved April 28, 2023.
  4. ^ a b c d e 79 FR 24256
  5. ^ a b 67 FR 44382
  6. ^ "Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa) | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service". FWS.gov. Retrieved October 21, 2022.
  7. ^ a b c d e f United States Department of Agriculture (2014). “MOUNTAIN YELLOW-LEGGED FROG CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT for the SIERRA NEVADA MOUNTAINS OF CALIFORNIA, USA.
  8. ^ a b c d Rana muscosa - Southern Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, California Herps: A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. 2013.
  9. ^ a b c Knapp, R. A., et al. (2007). "Removal of nonnative fish results in population expansion of a declining amphibian (mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa)' Biological Conservation 135(1):11-20.
  10. ^ Discovery Channel (July 24, 2009). Nearly extinct California frog rediscovered. NBC News. Retrieved 28 April 2023.
  11. ^ a b Vredenburg, V. The Mountain Yellow-legged Frog - Can They be Saved? Archived 2019-04-20 at the Wayback Machine Sierra Nature Notes Volume 1. January, 2001.
  12. ^ a b The Amphibian Chytrid Fungus and Chytridiomycosis. Archived 2009-02-21 at the Wayback Machine Amphibianark.org. Retrieved 04 August 2013.
  13. ^ Bailey, Tia (September 21, 2022). "Yellow-Legged Frogs To Be Reintroduced to San Gabriel Mountains". Outsider. Retrieved September 22, 2022.
  14. ^ "Sierra Nevada Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog - Sierra Forest Legacy". www.sierraforestlegacy.org. Retrieved October 21, 2022.
  15. ^ a b Mountain Yellow-legged Frog Hopping for Survival. Archived 2013-05-13 at the Wayback Machine San Diego Zoo Global.
  16. ^ Vredenburg, V. T. (2004). "Reversing introduced species effects: Experimental removal of introduced fish leads to rapid recovery of a declining frog". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 101 (20): 7646–7650. doi:10.1073/pnas.0402321101. PMC 419660. PMID 15136741.
  17. ^ Davidson, Carlos; Shaffer, H. Bradley & Jennings, Mark R. (2002). "Spatial tests of the pesticide drift, habitat destruction, UV-B, and climate-change hypotheses for California amphibian declines". Conservation Biology. 16 (6): 1588–1601. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01030.x.
  18. ^ Davidson, Carlos (2004). "Declining downwind: amphibian population declines in California and historical pesticide use". Ecological Applications. 14 (6): 1892–1902. doi:10.1890/03-5224.
  19. ^ a b Davidson, Carlos & Knapp, Roland A. (2007). "Multiple stressors and amphibian declines: dual impacts of pesticides and fish on yellow-legged frogs". Ecological Applications. 17 (2): 587–597. doi:10.1890/06-0181. PMID 17489262.
  20. ^ Taylor, Sharon K.; Williams, Elizabeth S. & Mills, Ken W. (1999). "Effects of malathion on disease susceptibility in Woodhouse's toads". Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 35 (3): 536–541. doi:10.7589/0090-3558-35.3.536. PMID 10479088.
  21. ^ Andre, Sara E.; Parker, John & Briggs, Cheryl J. (July 2008). "Effect of temperature on host response to Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis infection in the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa)". Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 44 (3): 716–720. doi:10.7589/0090-3558-44.3.716. PMID 18689660. Archived 2013-08-05 at archive.today
  22. ^ a b Rachowicz, Lara J. & Vredenburg, Vance T. (2004). "Transmission of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis within and between amphibian life stages" (PDF). Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 61 (1–2): 75–83. doi:10.3354/dao061075. PMID 15584413.
  23. ^ Rachowicz, Lara J.; Knapp, Roland A.; Morgan, Jess A. T.; Stice, Mary J.; Vredenburg, Vance T.; Parker, John M. & Briggs, Cheryl J. (July 2006). "Emerging infectious disease as a proximate cause of amphibian mass mortality" (PDF). Ecology. 87 (7): 1671–1683. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1671:EIDAAP]2.0.CO;2. PMID 16922318.
  24. ^ Rollins-Smith, Louise A.; Woodhams, Douglas C.; Reinert, Laura K.; Vredenburg, Vance T.; Briggs, Cheryl J.; Nielsen, Per F. & Michael Conlon, J. (January 2006). "Antimicrobial peptide defenses of the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa)" (PDF). Developmental & Comparative Immunology. 30 (9): 831–842. doi:10.1016/j.dci.2005.10.005. PMID 16330099.
  25. ^ NatureServe (April 7, 2023). "Rana muscosa". NatureServe Network Biodiversity Location Data accessed through NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia: NatureServe. Retrieved April 28, 2023.
  26. ^ "Precious Cargo: Brighter Future For 100 Juvenile Mountain Yellow Legged Frogs, Tadpoles". U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. November 7, 2016. Retrieved January 1, 2017.
  27. ^ a b c SoCal Wild.com: "Building a Mountain Frogtown for Yellow-Legged Frogs"; Brenda Rees, editor; 10 August 2015.
  28. ^ Sahagun, Louis (August 15, 2019). "Meet the 'rock star' frog breeder vying to save Southern California's rarest amphibian". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
  29. ^ "Oakland Zoo". www.oaklandzoo.org. Archived from the original on July 30, 2017. Retrieved July 13, 2017.
  30. ^ "From the Brink of Extinction: Oakland Zoo Releases Critically Endangered Frogs into the Wild : The Outdoor Wire". www.theoutdoorwire.com. Retrieved July 13, 2017.
  31. ^ Aquarium of the Pacific. "Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog". www.aquariumofpacific.org. Retrieved October 19, 2022.
  32. ^ "Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa) | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service". FWS.gov. Retrieved October 19, 2022.
license
cc-by-sa-3.0
copyright
Wikipedia authors and editors
original
visit source
partner site
wikipedia EN

Mountain yellow-legged frog: Brief Summary

provided by wikipedia EN

The mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), also known as the southern mountain yellow-legged frog, is a species of true frog endemic to California in the United States. It occurs in the San Jacinto Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and San Gabriel Mountains in Southern California and the Southern Sierra Nevada. It is a federally listed endangered species, separated into two distinct population segments (DPS): a northern DPS, listed endangered in 2014, and a southern DPS that was listed endangered in 2002.

Populations formerly classified as Rana muscosa in the northern Sierra Nevada have since been redescribed as a new species: Rana sierrae, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog has also been classified as a federally endangered species since 2014. The mountains separating the headwaters of the South Fork and Middle Fork of the Kings River mark the boundary between the ranges of the two species.

license
cc-by-sa-3.0
copyright
Wikipedia authors and editors
original
visit source
partner site
wikipedia EN