Map_thumbnail_large_font

Rana luteiventris

Status_ne_offStatus_dd_offStatus_lc_onStatus_nt_offStatus_vu_offStatus_en_offStatus_cr_offStatus_ew_offStatus_ex_off

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
ANIMALIA CHORDATA AMPHIBIA ANURA RANIDAE

Scientific Name: Rana luteiventris
Species Authority: Thompson, 1913
Common Name(s):
English Columbia Spotted Frog
Taxonomic Notes: Green, Kaiser, Sharbel, Kearsley and McAllister (1997) recognized Rana luteiventris as a distinct species from Rana pretiosa.

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Least Concern ver 3.1
Year Published: 2004
Date Assessed: 2004-04-30
Assessor(s): Geoffrey Hammerson
Reviewer(s): Global Amphibian Assessment Coordinating Team (Simon Stuart, Janice Chanson, Neil Cox and Bruce Young)
Justification:
Listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, presumed large population, and because it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category.

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description: This species is known to occur in North America from extreme southeastern Alaska, southwestern Yukon, northern British Columbia, and western Alberta south through Washington east of the Cascades, eastern Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana to Nevada (disjunctive, Mary's, Reese, and Owyhee river systems), southwestern Idaho (disjunctive), Utah (disjunctive, Wasatch Mountains and west desert), and western and north-central (disjunctive) Wyoming (Stebbins 1985; Green et al. 1996, 1997). Disjunctive populations occur on isolated mountains and in arid-land springs. It occurs from sea level to about 3,000m asl (Stebbins 1985).
Countries:
Native:
Canada; United States
Range Map: Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

Population: Its widespread, numerous populations (Hodge 1976, Nussbaum et al. 1983), though the disjunctive southern populations are limited in number. It is numerous in many areas in Canada and the Rocky Mountains. Significant declines have occurred in some areas of Utah and Wyoming. It has possibly declined in Idaho, but apparently numbers are still high (Phillips 1990; Groves pers. comm., 1992). Declines have been reported for disjunctive populations in the Wasatch Front in Utah. The West Desert (Bonneville) population has declined in range and abundance. Recent intensive surveys indicate severe declines in the Great Basin populations. See Federal Register, 7 May 1993, 2 April 1998. Northern populations appear to be stable.
Population Trend: Decreasing

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology: It is 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). Animals may disperse into forest, grassland, and brush land during wet weather. Breeds usually in shallow water in ponds or other quiet waters. See Munger et al. (1998) for quantitative information on habitat in southwestern Idaho.
Systems: Terrestrial; Freshwater

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s): Populations in western Utah are limited by scarce habitat (springs) and are potentially threatened by habitat degradation from cattle grazing and agricultural activities. Oil and gas exploration is a increasing threat. Water development could lower water tables and adversely impact spring habitats. Introduced bullfrogs and fishes might have an adverse impact, but the current degree of threat is unknown. Mosquito control agents pose a potential threat. Wasatch Front population is facing serious threats from habitat loss and modification, especially water development associated with the Central Utah Project; current and imminent threats include the Provo River Restoration Project and Wasatch County Efficiency Project; wetlands created as mitigation for the Central Utah Project have contributed only minimally to spotted frog reproduction. Additional threats include continued development along the Wasatch Front, water diversions for irrigation, cattle grazing, timber harvesting, and construction of roads and trails. A recent conservation agreement among the state of Utah and other agencies has significantly reduced the level of threat to the Wasatch Front and West Desert populations (Federal Register, 2 April 1998). Great Basin population has been adversely affected by habitat degradation resulting from mining, livestock grazing, road construction, agriculture, and direct predation by bullfrogs and non-native fishes. 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 (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).

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions: It is somewhat protected in several federal and state parks and refuges, though management usually ignores this species. A considerable portion of the range of the West Desert population is under management of the US Bureau of Land Management. Wasatch Front population occurs mainly on private land, with some federal ownership along Jordanelle Dam and the Provo River. Great Basin population occurs primarily on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. A conservation agreement for both the Wasatch Front and West Desert populations has been developed by state and federal agencies. Conservation activities implemented for the least chub should also benefit the West Desert population.

Bibliography [top]

Behler, J.L. and King, F.W. 1979. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. New York.

Blackburn, L., Nanjappa, P. and Lannoo, M.J. 2001. An Atlas of the Distribution of U.S. Amphibians. Ball State University, Muncie, IN, 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: 1100-1105.

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

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

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

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

Corn, P.S. and Vertucci, F.A. 1992. Descriptive risk assessment of the effects of acidic deposition on Rocky Mountain amphibians. Journal of Herpetology: 361-369.

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

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

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

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

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.

IUCN. 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 23 November 2004.

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

Munger, J.C., Ames, A. and Barnett, B. 1997. 1996 Survey for Columbia spotted frogs in the Owyhee Mountains of Southwestern Idaho. Technical Bulletin: 27 pp.

Munger, J.C., Gerber, M., Madrid, K., Carroll, M.-A., Petersen, W. and Heberger, L. 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: 320-330.

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

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

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

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

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

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Second Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

Turner, F.B. 1960. Population structure and dynamics of the western spotted frog, Rana p. pretiosa Aaird and Girard, in Yellowstone Park, Wyoming. Ecological Monographs: 251-178.

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

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

Washington Department of Wildlife. 1991. Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa. Unpublished report from Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia.


Citation: Geoffrey Hammerson 2004. Rana luteiventris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 02 September 2014.
Disclaimer: To make use of this information, please check the <Terms of Use>.
Feedback: If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please fill in the feedback form so that we can correct or extend the information provided