Season's Greetings! Although this tends to be a hectic time of the year, we hope that you have a few minutes out of your busy schedule to look at the fruits of your collective efforts from last spring. Overall, we feel that your project was very successful in its inaugural year. Thanks to everyone who participated. The status of amphibian populations continues to be of great concern to biologists and non-biologists. For example, there has been quite a stir in the media this fall over the large number of "deformed" frogs (i.e. frogs with an abnormal number of limbs) appearing in populations across the country. These observations have placed a renewed emphasis on the health of frog species across North America. Indeed, the network of survey projects continues to grow and our MDI survey is now part of a larger North American Task Force with surveys being conducted in approximately 25 states and all of the Canadian provinces.
So what did we find out about the frogs and toads of MDI? We have summarized the data graphically {bar charts not available on the Web] in an attempt to show you easily discernible patterns in the number of species reported and the weather conditions in which you surveyed.
The data that you submitted certainly documented the cold spring and cool summer that we experienced this past year. In April, a number of volunteers surveyed on nights when it was snowing and the range of predominant nighttime temperatures was 38-45°F. As the bar chart shows [bar charts not available on the Web], the month of May remained cold. You may recall that it snowed in early May and the range of predominant nighttime temperatures during May surveys was 38-50°F, with one survey reporting a 30°F night! Thankfully, survey temperatures during June and July were more typical of what we normally experience on the island.
We were pleased to see that volunteers surveyed on calm nights throughout the survey period; frogs and toads tend to be more active on windless nights because desiccation is minimized. In addition, it was very encouraging to see that volunteers surveyed in a broad spectrum of temperatures during all four months, indicating nighttime temperature was not the primary determinant of when you surveyed. However, your data do suggest that most volunteers surveyed on nights without precipitation. Limited volunteer efforts on misty or rainy nights is common to most amphibian survey project in North America for obvious reasons - it is a lousy night to be outside. However, one has to think like an amphibian when surveying them and thus realize that their activity will be maximized on misty/rainy nights, especially if temperatures are favorable.
But was there a connection between the weather conditions in which you surveyed and the species heard at your site? We think so. While it is not surprising that you heard spring peepers through the spring and early summer (keep in mind that peepers are prolonged breeders with a 6-8 week breeding season), two participants reported hearing peepers calling in July! These two reports are much later than we would have anticipated. Collectively, peepers and woodfrogs were the predominate species in April and May, with very low numbers of new species reported for May.
It was in June that volunteers finally started to hear ranids (green frogs and a few pickerel frogs). However, spring peepers were still the predominant species reported in June, with 50% of the volunteers hearing large choruses of peepers. Although your data suggest that air temperatures were on the increase in June, keep in mind that water temperatures may have been trailing behind due to our cold spring.
Over the four month period of April to July, six species were reported. It is interesting that no one heard the American toad and the number of pickerel frogs and bullfrogs remained low throughout the survey period.
The cold spring and cool early summer had a and dramatic effect on the species heard this year. The spring peeper, an early spring breeder, was the most commonly heard species for the entire survey period. Although a total of six species was reported, two species - bullfrog and pickerel frog - were heard infrequently and in low numbers when heard. Moreover, only a few volunteers heard these two species. While species density at each site is important information to record, recall that your initial efforts are meant to build an atlas for the island (i.e. documenting the distribution, not population size, of each species) and to develop a better understanding about the breeding phenology of island species. Nonetheless, it is important for you to continue estimating population densities because it is our hope to eventually identify several sites on the island to monitor intensively for changes in population numbers over time (see last question of questionnaire below).
We also hope that this atlas project will eventually include survey locations that contain breeding populations of the American toad, northern leopard frog and gray treefrog. To achieve this objective, we will need to expand the program's coverage of the island. The enclosed map denotes the 1996 survey locations and illustrates those areas needing volunteers, such as the west and south side of the island (locations marked on map represent the survey locations of the 14 participants who sent in their results). Have a great winter and we hope to see you this coming spring.
The frog's life is most jolly;
he has no care
Who shall fill up his cup
for he has drink to spare
-- Theocritus
Abbreviations in bar charts [Note: bar charts not available on Web]:
number after name = highest reported number of calling males for that species (tmtc - too many to count)
percentage above column = percentage of participants reporting that species for a particular month
Names:
kz - Karen Zimmerman
ck - Craig Kesselheim
dh - Debra Henry
js - John Speh/Kate Tanski
rt - Ron & Helen Taylor
pd'a - Patti di'Angelo
ng - Nina Gormley
jb - John Brotzman
lp - Lee Patterson
jm - Jen Monat
ps - Paul Super
kg - Keith Graves
bb - Bob Breen
Your comments are important! Please take a few minutes to answer these questions and submit other comments about how the Backyard Frog and Toad Survey Program.
Q. Does the Backyard Survey Form adequately provide space for survey data? Are there other data that we should be collecting?
Q. Are the codes for categories of data clear and easily applied during field surveys? Are the instructions easily interpreted?
Q. Should all volunteers be provided with learning tapes and instructed to keep them during the survey as a reference? Do you believe asking for a small deposit for tapes is acceptable?
Q. Are the reference tapes or their presentation of calling males helpful? Would it be helpful to hear examples of mixed choruses of different species or the audible differences of same species on these tapes?
Q. Should we request that volunteers submit their survey forms at the end of each month to expedite the data analysis and sharing of the results?
Q. Last year we attempted to meet on three separate occasions. Do you feel additional meetings would be valuable in order to answer questions and hear what other volunteers are reporting? Or do you feel we could send additional newsletters to satisfy similar needs as well as allow preliminary results to presented? Is one better than the other or would you recommend a combination of these two methods of information exchange?
Q. Other survey techniques conducted concurrently have shown that additional information about amphibian species distributions and important habitats can be identified. Would you be interested in hearing and possibly participating in other survey programs that would expand our knowledge about amphibian species on the Mount Desert Island?
Additional Comments: