Abstract
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

• 1.1 The Thousand Islands Ecosystem
• 1.2 Ecosystem Management
• 1.3 Status of Current Knowledge and Research
• 1.4 Data Collection in SLINP and the TIE

2.0 Monitor Protocols

• 2.1 Overview
• 2.2 Site Selection and Description
• 2.3 Sampling Frequency
• 2.4 Mark-Recapture Methodology
• 2.5 Physiological Data of Marked Specimens
• 2.6 Data Tabulation and Analysis
• 2.7 Data Management for Perpetuity
• 2.8 Knowledge Status Updating
• 2.9 Other

3.0 Recommendations

List of References

APPENDIX A - Data Blocks for the Frontenac Axis
APPENDIX B - Master Frog Data Sheets
APPENDIX C - Master Habitat Data Sheets
APPENDIX D - Indicator Criteria
APPENDIX E - Ecosystem Stressors
APPENDIX F - Contacts

1.0 Introduction

The status of bullfrog populations, and amphibian populations in general, has become a great concern to resource managers and biologists in recent years (Bishop and Pettit 1992, Heyer et al 1994, Coleman and Cholmondeley 1994). While numerous unproven theories have been postulated regarding the worldwide phenomenon of general amphibian decline, the bullfrog's situation is exascerbated by its economic position as a species harvested for both human consumption (the frogleg industry) and use in biological education (dissection) (Bury and Whelan 1985). This use has been largely indiscriminate, without any real awareness or knowledge of the impact our consumption has on the overall vitality of the species (Coleman and Cholmondeley 1994).

The impetus of this proposed study is, however, not to address the need for an increased understanding of bullfrog population ecology or declines per se. Rather, it will be an attempt to gauge the rate and extent of human disturbance within a limited area by using aquired population statistics as an ecological indicator of trends in identified stressors (See Appendix E). As a species native to the 1000 Islands area, whose habitat needs may be directly compromised by local human activities such as shoreline development, pollution, and the filling-in of wetlands in addition to the stresses of direct consumption, the bullfrog would seem to be well-suited as a potential indicator of the extent and rate of human disturbance in the immediate ecosystem.
 

1.1 The Thousand Islands Ecosystem

The delineation of an ecosytem in the Thousand Islands area was born out of a realization by Parks Canada (specifically St. Lawrence Islands National Park [SLINP]) that its heritage protection mandate can be better achieved by recognizing the larger ecosystem within which SLINP is located and working with other heritage protection and resource management agencies, as well as private landowners, to maintain or enhance the integrity of this ecosystem. The Thousand Islands Ecosystem (TIE) focusses on the area where the Frontenac Axis crosses the St. Lawrence River. It includes all the islands, a portion of the Ontario mainland, a roughly equal portion of mainland New York State, and the river itself. More specifically it is bounded by Brockville and Morristown towards the east, Kingston and Cape Vincent towards the west, Charleston Lake to the north, and Black Lake and the Indian River to the south. It is an area of approximately 4300 km², of which some 22% is open water (Reichl 1995). The area has experienced a 50-90% loss of wetlands as a result of pressures from agricultural, urban, and other land use development (Lynch-Stewart 1996).

The TIE is essentially an area of cooperation identified by an international multi-partner group called FASTLINE (Frontenac Axis - St. Lawrence Information Network on the Environment) that was initiated by SLINP and includes the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, Queen's University, the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, SLINP, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. An ecosystem conservation plan was completed for SLINP in November of 1995.
 

1.2 Ecosystem Management

In recent years managers of core protected areas, such as national parks, have come to accept that the natural and cultural character of regional ecosystems can have a significant influence over natural resources and processes within park boundaries. It is becoming apparent that biogeographic links with other protected and non-protected areas are essential to successfully maintain currently known levels of biodiversity (i.e. baseline status). The TIE supports one of the highest levels of biodiversity associated with any of Canada's national parks (Leggo 1997).

The entire Frontenac Axis can be viewed as a wildlife corridor connecting two contemporary refugia, these being Algonquin Provincial Park to the north and Adirondack Park to the south (Reichl 1994). The 1000 Islands themselves act as "stepping stones" and stopover points for migrating species. Current management actions (as well as research and monitoring initiatives) by SLINP and FASTLINE may focus on individual species, population levels, and/or biodiversity at the community level, but are ultimately viewed within this larger spatial context. It has been decided that methodologies/protocols need to be developed for identifying and quantifying any positive or negative deviations from the above-mentioned baseline status. The knowledge gained from ecological monitoring programs can be used to justify and implement management actions that attempt to counteract any undesirable trends such as the imminent collapse of a local species' population.

The bullfrog was identified as a prime candidate species for genetic- and population-level monitoring during an indicator selection exercise conducted in 1996 (Leggo 1997). The selection of the bullfrog was based on a combination of factors including the availability of baseline data (harvesting statistics and some sightings data), good monitor criteria scores (See Appendix D), and the species' potential response to changes in the extent and types of human disturbance (See Appendix E) identified in the management plan.
 

1.3 Status of Current Knowledge and Research

A search of the literature and personal communication with numerous recognized herpetologists, as well as queries posted to several internet newsgroups, proved to be quite discouraging with respect to the initial goals of this research project. There has been no work done anywhere on bullfrog genetics (Green 1997, Seburn 1997, Weatherhead 1997) upon which to base any monitoring protocols for the TIE. We know virtually nothing about what constitutes a minimum viable population for any amphibian species (Green 1997), though it is not unreasonable to assume that there must be critical thresholds for amphibian species (like most lifeforms) below which health and vitality are compromised and extirpation or even extinction are the inevitable result. Protocols for a genetic-level monitor have unfortunately been deemed unfeasible at this time.

The development and deployment of statistically valid population sampling techniques is largely in response to the perceived phenomenon of world-wide amphibian population declines. Herpetologists, biologists, ecologists, and naturalists concerned with these declines are debating and postulating methodologies for large-scale sampling with a near-palpable sense of urgency. Ontario is an active participant in two such large-scale efforts:

DAPCAN (Taskforce on Declining Amphibian Populations in Canada) - our contribution to a global directive addressing amphibian declines spear-headed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

(Note: more detailed information on these programs can be found in the accompanying binder "A Compendium of Bullfrog Literature" or by contacting Christine Bishop or Carolyn Seburn (Canada), Sam Droege or Michael Dorcas (US) - See Appendix F for contact information).

Numerous reports and articles (See List of References, pg14) have been written about various aspects of the bullfrog's life history, mating behaviour, physiology, ecology, habitat preferences, and economic importance. This author would suggest that Coleman and Cholmondeley 1994, and Bury and Whelan 1985, be considered as essential background reading for information on these topics.

The most comprehensive long-term study (since 1985) of bullfrog populations seems to be the work of Dr. Ron Brooks of the University of Guelph at Lake Sasajewun in Algonquin Provincial Park (See Shirose et al 1993, Brooks and MacDonald 1996, MacDonald and Brooks 1997). Other research into bullfrog populations has been less frequent, including work done at Nogies' Creek (near Peterborough) and the Queen's University Biological Station. The de facto reference for amphibian monitoring to date would appear to be Heyer et al, 1994 (Note: copy available from Regional Office Library).
 

1.4 Data Collection in SLINP and the TIE

One of the tasks for this research project was to assess the effectiveness of current data collection on bullfrogs at SLINP. Data on bullfrogs from the past 20-30 years exist in a variety of formats and come from an equally variegated number of sources including Parsons and Smith 1976, Kamstra and Towle 1991, Blazeski and Leggo 1994, Blazeski and Leggo 1995, Iverson and Leggo 1996, and Oldham 1997, as well as additional miscellaneous SLINP sightings cards and files (See Table, top of next page). When viewed collectively all of these data were gathered at varying intensities and differing spatial and temporal scales and represent relatively sporadic sightings (or noted calls) of bullfrog adults and larvae. While they offer reliable information about species presence for specific areas at specific times, they are overall statistically unsuitable for comparison and the postulation of any quantitative insights into the status of bullfrog populations would almost certainly be fallacious.

1 - does not include SLINP data or New York State atlas data
2 - does not include SLINP or TIE data
3 - does not include data listed elsewhere in this summary table
4 - totals (and all numbers) only represent the number of records that exist, not the actual number of bullfrogs observed
5 - records from SLINP card files and warden herp surveys 1982, 1985-1987 (1983, 1984 are included in Herp Atlas)

As summarized in the above table, there are a total of 77 records of bullfrog occurrence within SLINP, an additional 49 records within the Ontario portion of the TIE, and a further 166 records within the Frontenac Axis (See Appendix A for an approximation of which atlas blocks and squares fall within the Frontenac Axis). Each record represents at least one occurrence (sighting or distinct call) of an adult or larval bullfrog, though often individual records describe a specific number greater than one or a generalization (eg. "a couple", "a few", "several", "some", "many", "50+"). New York State's Reptile and Amphibian Atlas summary of data blocks from 1990-1995 lists the occurrence of bullfrogs in 294 of the state's 985 quadrangles, including nine Jefferson County (TIE) quadrangles: Alexandria Bay (Town of Alexandria); Lake Bonaparte, Muskellunge Lake, and Theresa (Town of Antwerp); Saint Lawrence (Town of Cape Vincent); Clayton, and Saint Lawrence (Town of Clayton); Ellisburg, and Henderson (Town of Ellisburg) (Litwhiler 1997).

Given the spatial and temporal disparities among these monitoring efforts, and the fact that all deal virtually only with occurrence reporting, a new and more intensive monitoring program based on a clearly defined set of protocols for quantitatively assessing the status of populations is urgently required. Data from previous studies cannot be reasonably and reliably compared if each new study uses a new set of parameters and approaches. The NAAMP program is one example of a monitoring project that attempts to address these disparities of the past with a clearly defined set of continent-wide standards. In the following section, protocols for a population-level monitor within the TIE (under the assumption that it will be expanded to include other randomly selected areas of the Frontenac Axis) are described based on the most reliable methodologies known to exist at this time.

Back to Table of Contents

2.0 Monitor Protocols

This section will outline the protocols for site selection, site description, sampling frequency, mark-recapture methodology, physiological data of marked specimens, data tabulation and analysis, data management, and knowledge status updating.
 

2.1 Overview

A large-scale call-count effort is currently underway in both New York State and Ontario (the NAAMP program). Its capacity to provide insights into population stability, growth, or decline is still not entirely certain, though validation tests are underway (Shirose et al 1995, Shirose et al 1996). Intensive mark-recapture studies are still considered to be the most reliable approaches for quantifying any given population (Green 1997), especially if they are done at regular intervals over long periods of time and incorporate some approach for marking individual specimens within random, stratified sampling areas.

The work of Dr. Ron Brooks (See Appendix F) is one such long-term study whose criteria would seem well-suited for implementation in the TIE. His work involves the mark-recapture of individual bullfrogs (as well as 2 other ranid species) within Algonquin Park (the northern terminus of the corridor described in Section 1.2). The implementation of a similar study in this area would be the best alternative at this time for meeting the needs of FASTLINE ecologists, since the technique is well-established and this congruency will allow for reasonably reliable data comparison and corroboration as well as address the perennial issue of compatability.
 

2.2 Site Selection and Description

P1) Monitoring will initially be done at three sites within the TIE:

• YEAR ONE
  • Hill Island Pond: a site within SLINP, that is already part of the current herptile monitor for the park, will serve as the pilot site (for testing, fine-tuning, and debugging the methodology)
• YEAR TWO
  • Hill Island Pond, plus...
  • Landon Bay: a formerly-harvested site by Gananoque, and
  • Jones Creek: a site at the eastern edge of the Frontenac Axis near Browns Bay Provincial Park

Sites will always be sampled in the same sequence.

P2) Other sites will be added as temporal, financial, and human resources permit based on the following approach:

• i) All permanent water wetlands on the Frontenac Axis will be numbered.
• ii) Individual sites will be randomly selected but preference should initially be given to at least one New York site within the TIE and one site outside and north of the TIE.

P3) Each site will be described thoroughly according to the criteria in Appendix C. All sites will be described by the same person each year (and ideally from year to year).

P4) Descriptions will be reviewed during subsequent sampling years and a new sheet will be completed at the start of each sampling year, noting especially any significant changes that may have occurred. Significant changes include the absence of previously noted plant species (or presence of previously absent species), construction or other alteration/modification on adjacent lands, and alteration/modification of the shoreline.

P5) At least three water samples will be collected from each site for every sampling year (See 2.3 below) and submitted to an appropriate agency for testing beginning with the first year of frog-marking. The precise location from which each water sample is taken will be documented using GPS.  Samples will be taken at 1m below the surface on May 1, July 1, and September 1. Analysis will include the following paramaters:

• i) acidity
• ii) dissolved oxygen
• iii) dissolved organic carbon concentration
• iv) pesticide concentrations
• v) calcium, aluminum, sodium, magnesium, potassium, sulphate and nitrate concentrations

P6) Aerial photos will be taken of each site (or aquired) every 5-10 years beginning with the first year of sampling (i.e. if sampling begins in 1997, then photos will be obtained for 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017, etc...).  Aquisition of aerial photos could be linked with the concurrent change detection monitor being initiated by SLINP, and could be augmented with ground-level photos (taken at the sites) or digital imagery (from change detection monitor).

P7) The following general environmental parameters will also be noted during each sampling year:

• i) seasonal and yearly precipitation levels
• ii) maximum/minimum daily temperatures
  • a) minimum winter temperatures
• iii) daily UV radiation levels (PAR, UV-B)
• iv) water levels
• v) snow and ice cover

2.3 Sampling Frequency

P1) Sampling will occur on a 25-year rotation based on the following breakdown:

• i) Sampling will occur annually for the first six consecutive years.
• ii) Sampling will occur every five years thereafter for 20 years. If sampling begins in 1997, then sampling will occur in the following years:
  • 1997-1998-1999-2000-2001-2002 - 2007 - 2012 - 2017 -
  • 2022-2023-2024-2025-2026-2027 - 2032 - 2037 - 2042 -
  • 2047-2048-2049-2050-2051-2052 - 2057 - 2062 - 2067 -
  • 2072-2073-2074-2075-2076-2077 - 2082 - 2087 - 2092 - etc......

2.4 Mark-Recapture Methodology

P1) An automated data-logger (See Dorcas 1993; Heyer et al 1994, pg 54-56) will be set up at the Hill Island and Landon Bay sites on May 1 and set to begin recording vocalizations at 18:00 for one minute out of every 12 (5min/hr). The marking period will begin two days after the first bullfrog call is recorded at either station (eg. if the first bullfrog call is recorded between 18:00-24:00 on the 17th of May, so far the earliest call date record in the TIE (Oldham 1997), then marking will begin on the 19th. Typically, bullfrogs in the area will not begin calling until late May to early June, however beginning to scan for calling activity at the start of May will ensure that an 'early' season is taken into consideration (global warming increases the possibility of earlier calling activity in the future). An early recording date will also yield incidental presence/absence data and call activity of other frogs and avifauna at these sites.

P2) The amount of time allotted to each diurnal and nocturnal capture session will be the same. Diurnal capture sessions will begin at 9:00 and finish at 12:00. Nocturnal sessions will begin at 21:00 and finish at 24:00 (See also 2.4-P6). There will be two days at each site for each session, including one day where capturers proceed on foot and one day via canoe.

P3) At least three people will participate in each session. Tasks such as capturing, measuring, or recording will be assigned to each individual.  The recorder and measurer will assist with capturing as specimen capture volume permits.

P4) Both bullfrogs and green frogs will be captured and marked.

P5) As many bullfrogs and green frogs as possible will be captured during each session. Capturers will use dip nets and/or their hands to capture specimens.

P6) Each capture session will last for three hours. Processing of specimens will be done as soon as possible, but is not included in the 3-hour capture time. The recapture session will commence no sooner than 30 days after the capture session.

P7) Captured specimens may be 'stock-piled' in containers if the capture rate exceeds the processing rate, but they will be sorted by size to minimize predation and cannibalism.

P8) Each specimen will be allotted an identification number based on one of the following techniques:

• i) Transponder-fitting of all adult bullfrogs (See Heyer et al 1994, pg279)
• ii) Toe-clipping (one toe only; a different toe each year) of all green frogs and transformant bullfrogs. Do not include the innermost front toe (See Bishop and Pettit 1992, pg38-39; Heyer et al 1994, pg279-282)

P9) Injuries, disease, and discomfort to specimens will be minimized by:

• i) Ensuring that bare hands are not used to handle specimens after these same hands were used to apply an insect repellent.  Hands should be washed thoroughly. At best, the use of repellants should be avoided entirely.
• ii) Applying bactine (a disinfectant) to all wounds that result from marking.
• iii) Working in the shade whenever possible.
• iv) All piercing and cutting equipment will be disinfected/cleaned with alcohol after each use.

P10) These procedures are subject to CEAA approval.
 

2.5 Physiological Data of Marked Specimens

P1) Physiological data will be recorded for each specimen according to the criteria in Appendix B.

P2) All measurements taken during each capture session will be made by the same person using the same calipers and scales. A Pesola spring scale is recommended for weighing specimens.

P3) Any physiological abnormalities that could be symptomatic of disease will be investigated. Once symptoms have developed and been observed in at least three individuals within the sampled populations, a 'diseased' specimen will be collected (making note of where (i.e. the site), when (i.e. date and time), and by whom) and promptly submitted for diagnosis. The specimen will be photographed (in such a manner that the symptoms are clearly visible) before it is killed and preserved (See Heyer et al 1994, pg291-292). These 'disease protocols' will apply only to bullfrogs.
 

2.6 Data Tabulation and Analysis

P1) Data will be analysed using the Jolly-Seber Stochastic Method (See Schemnitz 1980, pg238-239; Heyer et al 1994, pg195-200).

P2) Recaptures of specimens recaptured during the marking session will be omitted from calculations. Recaptures of specimens that are marked during the recapture session and captured again will also be excluded.

P3) Software programs may be used to assist with data analysis. The following programs have been submitted with this document:

• i) Jolly
• ii) Jollyage
• iii) Monitor (See compendium for manual)

P4) Data will be analysed and/or graphed after each sampling season and will include:

• Frogs - growth rates, survivorship, age-sex ratios, size and age at maturity, and maximum size of females
• Water - all parameters (See 2.2-P5)
• Environmental - all parameters (See 2.2-P7)

P5) Absolute abundance and population density at each sampling site will be calculated after each sampling year and averages calculated after Year6 and Year20 of each 25-year rotation.

P6) A power analysis of the data will be done at the end of each sampling year.
 

2.7 Data Management for Perpetuity

P1) At least two copies of all "soft data" (including dbase files and digital images) will be maintained at all times. Archived files will be refreshed every 6-12 months onto two different media (tape, cd-rom, DVD, etc...) and stored in a location that is isolated from magnetic fields. Additionally, all database files will be backed up in ASCII format (again using two different media) to facilitate the inevitable movement to another computer system in the future.

P2) Data sheets (and the ink used to mark them) will be of archival quality.

P3) Data may be initially recorded in a field book, but all information will be copied over to the appropriate data sheets at the same time it is entered into the database. Archive-quality copies of all data sheets for the year will be made and stored, along with a copy of these protocols, in a documented separate location (eg. one copy at SLINP, one copy at ORO in Cornwall).

P4) A map of the locations of all hard and soft copies of all data, papers, equipment, notes, protocols, etc.... will be created and maintained. The map should combine an inventory list with each item's location described and, if possible, a diagram of the actual shelf or building locations.

P5) Monitoring results will be documented in a final report to be prepared after each sampling year.
 

2.8 Knowledge Status Updating

P1) The knowledge status of research into bullfrog ecology, anuran population monitoring, and anuran genetics will be investigated every five years in tandem with the aquisition of aerial photos and digital images (See Section 2.2-P6).

P2) The afore-mentioned investigation will include:

• i) a search of the literature, including journals, texts, articles, and theses
• ii) keyword searches on the internet
• iii) contact with (but not limited to) the individuals listed in Appendix F.

P3) Copies of relevant papers will be aquired whenever possible and added to the compendium. Copies will be double-sided to conserve compendium space and trees. Additional compendiums will retain the format of the original (i.e. individual documents will be in alphabetical order by principal author and eventually arranged in an encyclopedic manner [eg. Volume 1 A-M, Volume 2 N-Z] as binders are added) and a master Table of Contents will be maintained.

P4) New contacts will be added to Appendix F with a note as to the year of their addition to the list. A 'contacts log' will be kept so that future researchers are aware of address/phone/e-mail changes, who was recontacted when, who can no longer be contacted, and who is a new 'player in the field'.
 

2.9 Other

P1) All personnel directly involved with the monitor will familiarize themselves thoroughly beforehand with:

• i) these protocols.
• ii) the distinguishing features that differentiate male and female bullfrogs and green frogs (See Blazeski and Leggo 1994, 1995).
• iii) the sites to be sampled.
• iv) the equipment that will be used.
• v) the precautionary measures regarding Salmonella (See Blazeski and Leggo 1994, 1995).
• vi) the pertinent background literature (Coleman and Cholmondeley1994; Bury and Whelan 1985; MacDonald and Brooks 1997) located in the "Compendium of Bullfrog Literature".

P2) The input of the survey party members will be solicited at the end of each sampling year regarding logistical and practical refinements to the protocols outlined in this document. These inputs will be logged in an appendix to this report and given consideration and adopted only if long-term data consistency and integrity will not be compromised. Under no circumstances should survey party members be permitted to make any procedural changes 'on the fly' or of their own volition.

Back to Table of Contents

3.0 Recommendations

The actual protocol is based on the work of Brooks and his students at Algonquin Provincial Park. It is, however, not an exact mirror study. Brooks' work was chosen over Lake Opinicon and Nogies' Creek research because of a more intensive sampling ratio in an environment that would seem to parallel that of the TIE. Rationale for various protocol elements was not included in the body of the protocols to maintain instructional clarity.

A draft copy of the protocols was posted on the Internet and was visited over 200 times in just a couple of weeks. There is obviously a lot of interest in what Parks Canada is proposing to undertake with this type of study. Here are some additional recommendations/thoughts to round out this project:
 

1) SLINP should aquire a copy of Heyer et al, 1994.

2) SLINP should forward its unsubmitted records to the HerpAtlas (card files with X in top right corner, warden surveys for 1982 and 1985-1987, herp survey for 1994-1996).

3) Bullfrogs, because of their low heterozygosity, may be a poor choice for genetic-level monitoring. Tree frogs are probably a better choice (See Bishop and Pettit 1992, pg51)

4) Ideally, beginning the monitor in 1997 will mean that the program will start in the first season that bullfrogs will not be legally harvested in the area.

5) An effort should be made to maintain contact with the individuals who helped fine-tune these protocols. Many of them have a professional or academic interest in this type of work and were enthusiastic with their contributions.  No doubt they would appreciate updates of SLINP's progress. SLINP should use the ECOLOG-L and HERP-L lists on the Internet to see who would like to be kept up-to-date on the monitor, and what media would be best for achieving this.

6) An atmospheric scientist should be contacted regarding the best, most cost-effective method for measuring UV radiation. At the very least, the general conditions from the nearest weather stations should be noted.

7) Lenny Shirose has offered to come and do an initial mark-recapture using transponders this summer.

8) If the number of recaptures is too low for any realistic population estimates (i.e. high emigration rates), the protocol should be modified to include portions of any adjacent riverine systems.

9) Mink frogs should be added to the monitor when and where they occur. They should be 'processed' in the same manner as green frogs.

10) Dave Vincent may a good candidate to do monitoring at Landon Bay.

11) Call counts based on NAAMP protocols (contact Christine Bishop) could be conducted in the "off" years of the 25-year rotation.

The following sources of information were consulted in the preparation of this report.  Papers with an asterisk(*) preceding them can be found in the accompanying binder entitled "A Compendium of Bullfrog Literature", compiled by the author for this project.  See notes at the end of this section regarding sources of online papers and other information sources in the 'cybersphere'.
 

*Benton, A.H. "The Bullfrog". Reptile & Amphibian Magazine, July/August 1991: 51-55.

Blazeski, V. and J.Leggo. Herpetofaunal Monitor: St. Lawrence Islands National Park.  Mallorytown, Ontario: Unpublished report, SLINP, 1994.

-----. Herpetofaunal Monitor: St. Lawrence Islands National Park. Mallorytown, Ontario: Unpublished report, SLINP, 1995.

Bishop, C. and K.E. Pettit(eds). Declines in Canadian Amphibian Populations: Designing a National Monitoring Strategy. Ottawa, Ontario: Occasional Paper Number 76, Canadian Wildlife Service, 1992.

Bishop, C. et al. A Proposed North American Amphibian Monitoring Program. Proceedings from the 1994 North American Amphibian Monitoring Program Conference. 1994.

*-----. Protocols and Strategies for Monitoring North American Amphibians. NAAMP, 1996.

*Bishop, C. Amphibian monitoring in Canada. Froglog v16, February, 1996.

*Brooks, R.J. and C. MacDonald. Ranid population monitoring in Algonquin Provincial Park.  Froglog v16, February, 1996.

*Bury, R.B. and J.A. Whelan. Ecology and Management of the Bullfrog. Washington, DC: Publications Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985.

Cadman, M.D. et al. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo Press, 1987.

*Coleman, K. and R. Cholmondeley (eds). Bullfrog Management in Ontario: Workshop Proceedings. Kingston, Ontario: Southern Region Science & Technology Transfer Unit, Workshop Proceedings WP-005, 1994.

*Collins, J.P. Intrapopulation variation in the body size at metamorphosis and timing of metamorphosis in the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Ecology v60, 1979: 738-749.

Cook, Dr. Francis. Personal communication, February-April, 1997. Kemptville/North Augusta, Ontario.

CPS (Parks Canada). Proceedings of the Frontenac Axis Research Needs Symposium.  Mallorytown, Ontario: SLINP, 1995.

*Dale, J.M. et al. Acidity and associated water chemistry of amphibian habitats in Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Zoology v63, 1985: 97-105.

Dickerson, M.C. "The Common Bullfrog" in The Frog Book. New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1969: 227-240.

*Dodd, C.K. Movements of Amphibians. 1996.

*Dorcas, M. Frog-logger: an automated recording system. Froglog v13, July, 1993.

----- (Dorcas, Dr. Michael). Personal communication, February-March, 1997.

*Dorit, R.L. et al. "Population Ecology" and "Amphibians" in Zoology. Toronto, Ontario: Saunders College, 1991: 843-859, 959-977.

*Droege, S. Tools, Documents, and Resources. NAAMP, 1996a.

*-----. A Heuristic Approach to Validating Monitoring Programs Based on Count Indices. NAAMP 3 online paper, 1996b.

----- (Droege, Dr. Sam). Personal communication, February-March, 1997. Patuxent Wildlife Research Centre, Laurel, MD.

Egger, K.N. and S.M. Carr. Conserving Canada's Genetic Resources: An Assessment of the Need for Molecular Genetics Research in Canada's National Parks System. St. John's, Nfld: Dept. of Biology, Memorial University, 1992.

EMCO(Ecological Monitoring Coordinating Office). The Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network National Meeting Report. Burlington, Ontario: Unpublished report, EMCO, 1995.

*Ewens, W.J. et al. "Minimum viable population size in the presence of catastrophes" in Viable Populations for Conservation (Soulé, M.E, Ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1987: 59-68.

*Gascon, C. and J.R. Bider. The effect of pH on bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana, and green frog, Rana clamitans melanota, tadpoles. Canadian Field Naturalist v2, 1985: 259-261.

*Geissler, P.H. Randomization and Sampling Issues. NAAMP 3 online paper, 1996.

*Gibbs, J.P. MONITOR Users Manual: Software for Estimating the Power of Monitoring Programs to Detect Trends in Plant and Animal Abundance. New Haven, Connecticut: Dept. Of Biology, Yale University, 1995.

*-----. Sampling Requirements for Detecting Trends in Amphibian Populations. NAAMP 3 online paper, 1996.

*Graves, B.M. and S.H. Anderson. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Bullfrogs. Washington, DC: Biological Report 82, National Ecology Center, Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1987.

*Green, D.M. Variation in abundance and age stucture in Fowler's toads, Bufo fowleri, at Long Point, Ontario. Froglog v16, February 1996.

----- (Green, Dr. David). Personal communication, February-March, 1997. McGill University, Montreal, Québec.

Ecosystem Monitoring and Protected Areas. Wolfville, Nova Scotia: Science and Management  of Protected Areas Association, 1995.

Heyer, W.R. et al. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994.

*Howard, R.D. The influence of male-defended oviposition sites on early embryo mortality in bullfrogs. Ecology v59, 1978a: 789-798.

*-----. The evolution of mating strategies in bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. Evolution v32, 1978b: 850-871.

*-----. Sexual dimorphism in bullfrogs. Ecology v62, 1981: 303-310.

*-----. Alternative mating behaviours of young male bullfrogs. American Zoologist v24, 1984: 397-406.

*Ishchenko, V.G. Problems of demography and declining populations of some euroasiatic brown frogs. Russian Journal of Herpetology v3, n2, 1996: 143-151.

Iverson, D. and J. Leggo. Herpetofaunal Monitor: St. Lawrence Islands National Park.  Mallorytown, Ontario: Unpublished report, SLINP, 1996.

Kamstra, J. and K. Towle. A Herpetofaunal Inventory of St. Lawrence Islands National Park 1989-1990. Gartner Lee Ltd, 1991.

*Kingsmill, S. "Bullfrog Blues". Seasons, Summer 1990: 16-19, 36.

*Lande, R. and G.F.Barrowclough. "Effective population size, genetic variation, and their use in population management" in Viable Populations for Conservation(Soulé, M.E, Ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1987: 87-123.

Leggo, J. Ecological Integrity Monitor, Genetic and Population Level, Bullfrog, St. Lawrence Islands National Park, Contract Terms of Reference. Mallorytown, Ontario: SLINP, 1997.

Litwhiler, Stephen W. Personal communication, February-March, 1997. NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation.

Lynch-Stewart, P. et al. The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation: Implementation Guide for Federal land Managers. Ottawa, Ontario: Habitat Conservation Division, Canadian Wildlife Service, 1996.

*MacDonald, C. and R.J. Brooks. Abundance and Age Distribution of Three Species of Ranid Frogs in Algonquin Park. Guelph, Ontario: Dept. of Zoology, University of Guelph, 1997.

*McAlpine, D.F. and T.G. Dilworth. Microhabitat and prey size among three species of Rana (Anura: Ranidae) sympatric in eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology v76, 1989: 2244-2252.

Mosquin, Dr. Ted. Personal communication, February-March, 1997. Ecospherics Ltd., Lanark, Ontario.

*Mossman, M. et al. Wisconson Frog Survey Analysis: Sample Size Estimation for Amphibian Calling Surveys and Some Surprising Trends from an 11-year Analysis of Wisconsin Frog and Toad Survey Data. NAAMP 2. 1995.

Norris, Todd. Personal communication, February-March, 1997. OMNR, Kingston, Ontario.

Oldham, M.J. Printout of bullfrog and green frog records in the Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary database from square blocks 18UD, 18VD, 18UE, 18VE. Peterborough, Ontario:  NHIC(Natural Heritage Information Centre), 1997.

*Orchard, S. Why are most amphibians declining. Animalwatch web page.

Parsons, H.J. and D.A. Smith. A Spring Herpetological Survey of St. Lawrence Islands National Park and Some Adjacent Areas in Ontario, 1974. Ottawa, Ontario: Unpublished report for Parks Canada, Carleton University, 1976.

*Proulx, M. "Can we predict the fluctuations of ecosystem species richness?". Global Biodiversity, v6, n3, Winter 1996: 13-15.

Raney, E.C. Summer movements of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana Shaw, as determined by the jaw-tag method. American Midland Naturalist v23, 1940: 733-745.

Raney, E.C. and W.M. Ingram. Growth of tagged frogs (Rana catesbeiana Shaw and Rana clamitans Daubin) under natural conditions. American Midland Naturalist v24, 1941: 201- 206.

Reichl, O.K. A Natural Heritage Review of the Thousand Islands Ecosystem. Mallorytown, Ontario: Unpublished paper, SLINP, 1994.

-----. Terms of Reference for a Gap Analysis of the Thousand Islands Ecosystem. Mallorytown, Ontario: Unpublished paper, SLINP, 1995.

Rivard, Don. Personal communication, February-March, 1997. CPS, Hull, Québec.

*Sargent, L. Michigan Frog and Toad Survey. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Dept. Of Natural Resources.

*Schemnitz, S.D.(ed). Wildlife Management Techniques Manual(4th Ed). Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society, 1980: 238-242.

Seburn, David. Personal communication, February-March, 1997. Kemptville, Ontario.

*Schueler, F.W. Ontario Biological Monitoring and Atlassing Projects that could be used as partof Woodland Management Plans. Bishops Mills, Ontario: Biological Checklist of the Kemptville Creek Drainage Basin, 1997.

Shirose, L.J. Population Ecology of the Postmetamorphic Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana Shaw) in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Guelph, Ontario: Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of Guelph, November, 1990.

-----. Personal communication, February-March, 1997. Canada Centre for Inland Waters.

*Shirose, L.J. and T. Boughen (eds.). The Ontario Chorus v1(3), January, 1997.

*Shirose, L.J. and R.J. Brooks. Fluctuations in abundance and age structure in three species of ranids in Algonquin park from 1985-1993. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph.

*Shirose, L.J. et al. Intersexual differences in growth, mortality, and size at maturity in bullfrogs in central Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology v71, 1993: 2363-2369.

*-----. Validation tests of an amphibian call count survey technique in Ontario, Canada.  Burlington, Ontario: Canada Centre for Inland Waters, 1995.

*-----. Further validation tests of an amphibian call count survey technique in Ontario, Canada.  Burlington, Ontario: Canada Centre for Inland Waters, 1996.

*Skelly, D.K. "Tadpole Communities" in American Scientist v85, Jan/Feb 1997: 36-45.

Skibicki, A. et al. Ecological Monitoring and National Parks. Working Paper 7. Waterloo, Ontario: Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, 1994.

Snetsinger, Mary-Alice. Personal communication, February-March, 1997. SLINP.

*Toner, G.C. and N. de St Remy. Amphibians of eastern Ontario. Copeia, 1941: 10-13.

*Weatherhead, P. Monitoring Frog Populations at the Queen's University Biological Station.  Report submitted to Parks Canada and OMNR. Ottawa, Ontario: Carleton University, 1996.

----- (Weatherhead, Dr. Patrick). Personal communication, February-March, 1997.

Weaver, J.C. Indicator species and scale of observation. Conservation Biology v9, n4, August 1995: 939-942

*Werner, E.E. et al. Diet composition on postmetamorphic bullfrogs and green frogs: implications for interspecific predation and competition. Journal of Herpetology v29, 1995: 600-607.

Woodley, S. Monitoring for Ecological Integrity in Canadian National Parks. Waterloo, Ontario:  Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, 1993.
 

ONLINE RESEARCH

The internet addresses (URLs) for downloaded papers (mainly NAAMP 3 papers) can be found in the top-right corner of each page (See papers in compendium). The newsgroup SCI.BIO.HERP and the associated list HERP-L were also helpful. In the exceedingly dynamic world of the Net, URLs frequently change or are discontinued. Keyword searches using the various search engines can be very helpful - use words such as 'amphibian decline' or 'frogs'. The searchword 'bullfrog' will give you endless information about a basketball team from Anaheim.

1 - Use a unique combination of two letters appropriate to the site.
 
 
 

1 - Number each new combination of people sequentially.
 
 

Notes:
1 - Date format - month/dd/year (eg. May 18, 1997)
2 - Insert the appropriate site code
3 - Insert the appropriate survey party code
4 - Check either Transformant or Adult

5 - Recaptures

6 - Note any physiological or behavioural abnormalities

7 - Maximum of 25

1 - Insert two-letter site code
2 - Note type and number of water-based developments such as docks, boathouses, cribbing, unnatural beaches, culverts, commercial fishing sites (nets), etc.....
3 - Note type and number of land-based developments such as cottages, marinas, outbuildings, roads, bridges, etc....
4 - Note land uses adjacent to the study site, such as residential, agricultural, commercial, utility corridors (hydro/phone), transportation corridors, recreational, etc.....
5 - Circle one; if yes, give details.

The following is a list of criteria that should be considered in the development of a monitoring program that addresses concerns of ecological integrity.

Easy to monitor - monitoring measures should be relatively easily and reliably measured in the field.

Regular evaluation - a monitoring program should be evaluated at regular intervals.

(Source: Adapted from Leggo 1997, and Woodley 1993)

The following are considered to be the most significant stressors of the Thousand Islands Ecosystem as determined by Parks Canada's ecosystem management team for St. Lawrence Islands National Park. Numbering nine in total, these stressors are listed and described here in no particular order of importance.
 

1) Human disturbance - occurs within the ecosystem inside and outside the park at an inter-regional scale.  The trend is increasing with a very wide range of impacts. The recovery time is unknown.

9) Forestry - is occurring on a small scale within the ecosystem at the regional level. There is increased use of wood as fuel but there is also a considerable increase in positive management actions in woodlots. The stressor trend is probably decreasing, but it may still affect community structure, contribute to habitat fragmentation and habitat loss, and cause direct changes to the physical environment.  Recovery time ranges from 10-100 years.
 

(Source: Adapted from Leggo 1997, and Snetsinger 1997)

Christine Bishop, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario
Phone: 905-336-4999 E-Mail: cab.bishop@cciw.ca

Pat Weatherhead, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario
Phone: 613-520-2600 ext. 3869 E-Mail: pweather@biology.queensu.ca