|Scientific Name:||Lithobates pipiens|
|Species Authority:||(Schreber, 1782)|
Rana pipiens Schreber, 1782
|Taxonomic Notes:||The animals in Panama belonging to the Lithobates pipiens complex have not yet been named as a separate species. They are therefore treated here under the name Lithobates pipiens, though they are clearly not conspecific with true L. pipiens from North America.|
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Least Concern ver 3.1|
|Assessor(s):||Geoffrey Hammerson, Frank Solís, Roberto Ibáñez, César Jaramillo, Querube Fuenmayor|
|Reviewer(s):||Global Amphibian Assessment Coordinating Team (Simon Stuart, Janice Chanson, Neil Cox and Bruce Young)|
Listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, tolerance of a degree of habitat modification, presumed large population, and because it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category.
|Range Description:||This species is known from Great Slave Lake and Hudson Bay, Canada, south to Kentucky and New Mexico, USA (Stebbins 1985, Conant and Collins 1991). It has a spotty distribution in the west, where it has been introduced in many localities. It is also known from Panama where it is endemic to the central cordillera and western Pacific lowlands, although this is most likely an undescribed species (see taxonomic note). It occurs at approximately 100-600m asl in the eastern portion of the Panamanian distribution.|
Native:Canada; Panama; United States
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||In North America there are thousands of populations. The total adult population size is probably in the hundreds of thousands or millions. It is still widespread and common in many areas, especially in lowland areas, but many other populations appear to have declined, especially in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana, where the species no longer is extant in most localities where historically it occurred (Corn and Fogleman 1984; Corn et al. 1989; Koch and Peterson 1995; J. Reichel, unpublished map, 1996). It has nearly disappeared from the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, though natural wetland habitats remain apparently undisturbed with acceptable water quality (Koch and Peterson 1995). It is apparently extirpated from most of its historical range in Washington (Leonard et al. 1999). It has not been observed in recent years in the few historical localities in Oregon (Csuti et al. 1997). Local extirpations have been reported for Alberta (Russell and Bauer 1993) and British Columbia (Orchard 1992). In Panama it can be common in some areas but declining in parts of its range.|
|Current Population Trend:||Decreasing|
|Habitat and Ecology:||Springs, slow streams, marshes, bogs, ponds, canals, flood plains, reservoirs, and lakes; usually permanent water with rooted aquatic vegetation. In summer, commonly inhabits wet meadows and fields. Takes cover underwater, in damp niches, or in caves when inactive. Over winters usually underwater. Eggs are laid and larvae develop in shallow, still, permanent water (typically), generally in areas well exposed to sunlight. Generally eggs are attached to vegetation just below the surface of the water. In northern Minnesota, successful reproduction in acidic bog water either does not occur or is a rare event (Karns 1992).
In Panama, it is a largely terrestrial species of humid lowland and montane forest.
|Major Threat(s):||Threats and degree of threat vary greatly across its range. Threats include habitat loss, commercial over-exploitation, and in some areas, probably competition/predation by bullfrogs or other introduced species. The decline in Rocky Mountains (Corn et al. 1989) is not due to acidification of breeding habitats (Corn and Vertucci 1992). Laboratory results suggest that there might be an interaction between crowding, temperature, and mortality from bacterial infection (e.g., red-leg disease); there was higher mortality when frogs were subjected to crowding and high temperatures (Brodkin et al. 1992). Agricultural chemicals such as atrazine have caused feminisation of frogs in agricultural areas (Hayes et al. 2002). In Panama it is threatened by general habitat loss due to the destruction of natural forests.|
|Conservation Actions:||Populations exist in dozens or hundreds of protected areas, though management of those areas might not take leopard frogs into consideration. In Panama it has been recorded from Parque Nacional Altos de Campana. Taxonomic research is needed to resolve this species complex.|
|Citation:||Geoffrey Hammerson, Frank Solís, Roberto Ibáñez, César Jaramillo, Querube Fuenmayor. 2004. Lithobates pipiens. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58695A11814172. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58695A11814172.en . Downloaded on 06 October 2015.|