Lithobates sylvaticus

Taxonomy

Assessment Information

Geographic Range

Population

Habitat and Ecology

Threats

Conservation Actions

View Printer Friendly

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom	Phylum	Class	Order	Family
ANIMALIA	CHORDATA	AMPHIBIA	ANURA	RANIDAE

Scientific Name:

Lithobates sylvaticus

Species Authority:

(LeConte, 1825)

Common Name/s:

English

–

Wood Frog

Synonym/s:

Lithobates sylvatica LeConte, 1825

Rana sylvatica LeConte, 1825

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria:	Least Concern ver 3.1
Year Published:	2004
Assessor/s:	Geoffrey Hammerson
Reviewer/s:	Global Amphibian Assessment Coordinating Team (Simon Stuart, Janice Chanson, Neil Cox and Bruce Young)
Contributor/s:
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 occurs in northern North America from Alaska to Labrador (Chubbs and Phillips 1998), south to New Jersey, northern Georgia, and northern Idaho; spotty distribution south to northern Colorado in Rocky Mountains; also disjunctive populations in Arkansas-Missouri (Stebbins 1985, Conant and Collins 1991). Ranges farther north than any other North American amphibian.
Countries:	Native: Canada; United States
Range Map:	Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

Population:	It is abundant and widespread.
Population Trend:	Stable

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology:	It occurs in various kinds of forest/woodland habitats; edges of ponds and streams; also willow thickets and grass/willow/aspen associations. When inactive, hides in logs, humus, leaf-litter, or under logs and rocks. Eggs are laid and larvae develop usually in small fish-free ponds, temporary or permanent, in wooded (usually) or open areas. In the Shenandoah Mountains, breeding adults were 100% faithful to the ponds in which they first bred; approximately 18% of the juveniles dispersed to breed in ponds other than the one of origin (Berven and Grudzien 1991). Experiments and field observations by Hopey and Petranka (1994) indicate that adults are able to assess the presence of fishes in ponds and may change breeding sites accordingly to avoid those with predatory fishes. In northern Minnesota, successful reproduction in acidic bog water either does not occur or is a rare event (Karns 1992).
Systems:	Terrestrial; Freshwater

Habitat and Ecology:

It occurs in various kinds of forest/woodland habitats; edges of ponds and streams; also willow thickets and grass/willow/aspen associations. When inactive, hides in logs, humus, leaf-litter, or under logs and rocks. Eggs are laid and larvae develop usually in small fish-free ponds, temporary or permanent, in wooded (usually) or open areas. In the Shenandoah Mountains, breeding adults were 100% faithful to the ponds in which they first bred; approximately 18% of the juveniles dispersed to breed in ponds other than the one of origin (Berven and Grudzien 1991). Experiments and field observations by Hopey and Petranka (1994) indicate that adults are able to assess the presence of fishes in ponds and may change breeding sites accordingly to avoid those with predatory fishes. In northern Minnesota, successful reproduction in acidic bog water either does not occur or is a rare event (Karns 1992).

Systems:

Terrestrial; Freshwater

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s):	Not threatened overall, but threats to local populations include intensive timber harvesting practices that reduce canopy closure, understorey vegetation, uncompacted forest litter, or coarse woody debris (moderately to well-decayed) in areas surrounding breeding sites (deMaynadier and Hunter 1999). Negative impacts of intensive timber harvesting extend at least 25-35m into uncut forest (deMaynadier and Hunter 1998). Not likely to be at risk from present acidification inputs in the Rocky Mountains (Corn and Vertucci 1992).

Major Threat(s):

Not threatened overall, but threats to local populations include intensive timber harvesting practices that reduce canopy closure, understorey vegetation, uncompacted forest litter, or coarse woody debris (moderately to well-decayed) in areas surrounding breeding sites (deMaynadier and Hunter 1999). Negative impacts of intensive timber harvesting extend at least 25-35m into uncut forest (deMaynadier and Hunter 1998). Not likely to be at risk from present acidification inputs in the Rocky Mountains (Corn and Vertucci 1992).

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions:	None needed. It occurs in many protected areas.

Conservation Actions:

None needed. It occurs in many protected areas.

Citation:	Geoffrey Hammerson 2004. Lithobates sylvaticus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 25 May 2013.
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