1 / 36

Rana pipiens Malformation Assessment

Rana pipiens Malformation Assessment. Katheryn M. Junglas, MSU Department of Biology Minot ND, 58707. Range. Range in North Dakota. Taken from Hoberg and Gause,. Deformed Frog sites. North Dakota Malformations. USGS- NWHC Information Report2001. Tadpoles development.

meda
Download Presentation

Rana pipiens Malformation Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rana pipiens Malformation Assessment Katheryn M. Junglas, MSU Department of Biology Minot ND, 58707

  2. Range

  3. Range in North Dakota Taken from Hoberg and Gause,

  4. Deformed Frog sites

  5. North Dakota Malformations USGS- NWHC Information Report2001

  6. Tadpoles development

  7. Normal Bone Structure

  8. Other Deformities

  9. X-Ray of Bone Structure

  10. Extra Limbs

  11. Deformed leg structures

  12. False elbow and Double bones

  13. No Regression of tail

  14. Missing the Right eye

  15. Salamander from our lab

  16. Possible causes for deformities • UV-B Radiation • Chemical Agents • Parasites -Ribeiroia -Alaria • Interactions

  17. Sexing frogs (female)

  18. Sexing frogs (male) Hayes (2002)

  19. Hermaphroditic frog

  20. Atrazine effects-normal histology- female

  21. Atrazine-normal male

  22. Atrazine-ovateste

  23. Habitat

  24. Habitat

  25. Habitat

  26. Finding Tadpoles

  27. Tadpole

  28. Normal Bone Structure

  29. Measuring

  30. Statistics • No significant difference in male and females • No Significant difference in lengths between sites • Healthy Ratio of Males to females 13:20

  31. Sexing animals (males)

  32. Assessment No deformities were found Mean of Female juvenile length- 42.2 mm Mean of Male juvenile length- 41.4 mm Mass of Gonads- in progress Skeletal development- so far good development of skeleton and cartilage

  33. Why We Should Continue to Observe • Small sample size • Teratogens and carcinogens in other organisms • Since no malformations yet, we can analyze what is or isn’t here, and the sooner we notice something, the easier to find out what that is. • Frogs are Cool!

  34. Acknowledgements • Dr. Christopher Beachy at Minot State • Dr. Cory Rubin, Project Manager Assistant • Regional Director Richard A. Coleman • All the staff at Upper Souris Wildlife Refuge • Fish-Wildlife Service Cost Share Agreement, grant #62680-4-J001 • Minot State University, Division of Biology

More Related