Amphibian Research, Management Issues, and Tools for Resource Managers

1. http://mtnhp.org Amphibian Research, Management Issues, and Tools for Resource Managers U.S. Forest Service Fish and Watershed Webinar March 30th, 2011 Bryce A. Maxell Interim Director / Senior Zoologist Montana Natural Heritage Program (406) 444-3655 bmaxell@mt.gov

2. Links to Resources on Montana’s Amphibians and Reptiles • Powerpoint overview of Montana’s amphibian and reptile species, including identification, habitat use, site occupancy rates, and Maxent and CART model outputs: http://mtnhp.org/animal/presentations/060709_MT_Herps_ID_Status_files/frame.htm • MT Amphibian and Reptile Status Assessment, Literature Review, and Conservation Plan: http://mtnhp.org/reports/Amphibian_Reptile_Conservation_Plan.pdf • Montana Field Guide http://fieldguide.mt.gov/ • Montana Natural Heritage Tracker – access survey locations, observations, & photos http://mtnhp.org/Tracker/NHTMap.aspx

3. Overview of Research Goals Management Tools • Distribution • Watershed Occupancy • Lentic Site Occupancy Breeding 10 Amphibians 4 Reptiles (Maxell 2009) Wintering Foraging 14 Amphibians 17 Reptiles (Maxell 2009) 10 Amphibians 4 Reptiles (Maxell 2009) Columbia Spotted Frog (McAffery & Maxell 2010 PNAS 107(19): 8644-8649)

4. Statewide Status Assessment • 11 geographic strata • 429 random watersheds • 6,741 lentic sites • ~129 non-random watersheds • ~3,000 non-random sites Goals • Distribution • Naïve Watershed Occupancy Rates • Naïve Site Occupancy Rates • Identify Site Origins • Assess threats to habitats and species • Assess distribution of Chytrid Fungus • Make information easily available to resource managers

5. Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) • West of Continental Divide – 3 sites • Southwestern mountain Valleys – 2 new sites • Eastern Plains 60% (50-69) of watersheds 14% (12-16) of sites

6. Western Toad (Bufo boreas)

7. = Recent Positive = Historic samples all negative = Recent negative Distribution of Chytrid Fungus

8. Site Origins

12. Beaver, Willow, and Cattle Grazing in the Big Hole Valley 1942 2005

14. native breeding/foraging native overwintering Importance of Lentic Site Structure to Amphibian Habitat

15. Issues of Gene Flow Funk et al. 2005. Population structure of Columbia Spotted Frogs (Rana luteiventris) is strongly affected by the landscape. Molecular Ecology 14:483-496.

16. Beaver and Population Structure of Columbia Spotted Frogs Amish, S.J. 2006. Ecosystem engineering: beaver and the population structure of Columbia Spotted Frogs in western Montana. M.S. Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 82 pp. + appendices • Beaver occupied watersheds had four times as many lentic and breeding sites as non-beaver watersheds • Frog breeding sites were more evenly distributed across the elevation gradient in beaver occupied watersheds • Beaver occupied watersheds showed higher levels of genetic connectivity (i.e. less genetic divergence between breeding sites and overall higher levels of genetic diversity) Lentic Site Differences Differences in Population Structure

17. …one old male beaver, whom we fondly named "Geronimo,'" was dropped again and again on the flying field. Each time he scrambled out of the box, someone was on hand to pick him up. Poor fellow!  He finally became resigned, and as soon as we approached him, would crawl back into his box ready to go aloft again. You may be sure that "Geronimo" had a priority reservation on the first ship into the hinterland, and that three young females went with him. Heter, E. W. 1950. Transplanting beavers by airplane and parachute. Journal of Wildlife Management 14:143-147. Cost of Transplanting 4

18. Grazing Impacts

20. Montana Natural Heritage Program TRACKER MTNHP.ORG/Tracker Breeding Wintering Foraging View Photos of Sites Surveyed

21. Montana Natural Heritage Program TRACKER MTNHP.ORG/Tracker Structural Impactto Wetlands

22. Montana Natural Heritage Program TRACKER Structured Surveys and Observations of Western Toads http://mtnhp.org/Tracker/NHTMap.aspx

23. No Fish Fish 0.34 (0.01) 2119 No EVeg EVeg No EVeg EVeg 0.38 (0.01) 1767 0.15 (0.02) 352 0.04 (0.02) 82 0.18 (0.02) 270 0.24 (0.02) 372 0.42 (0.01) 1395 Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum)

24. David Pilliod and Robert Arkle

25. + = Positive Response - = Negative Response ● = No clear response Response Summary

26. EVeg No EVeg 0.02 (0.002) 3357 Ephemeral Permanent 0.005 (0.002) 976 0.03 (0.003) 2381 Not Logged Logged Not Burned Burned 0.02 (0.003) 1384 0.04 (0.006) 997 0.06 (0.03) 69 0.01 (0.003) 1315 0.04 (0.006) 983 0.29 (0.12) 14 Western Toad (Bufo boreas)

27. Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Random Watersheds Surveyed = 256 Random Sites Surveyed = 2,781 Naïve Watershed Occupancy = 65% (59-70) Naïve Site Occupancy = 29% (27 – 31)

28. Columbia Spotted Frog Predicted Distribution Little Rock Creek

29. Columbia Spotted Frog Predicted Distribution Little Rock Creek Breeding Wintering Foraging No EVeg EVeg 0.29 2781 Ephemeral Permanent 0.43 1857 0.02 924 No Fish Fish 0.36 1114 0.52 743 0.54 519 0.46 224

30. native breeding/foraging native overwintering Management Recommendations • In general don’t stock fish in areas they aren’t native (restoration in watersheds with more sites?) • Emergent vegetation is preferred and can be used to mitigate impacts of fish • Large numbers of natural and artifical lentic sites could be temporarily fenced to allow eveg to thrive • Consider site characteristics and landscape context to maintain connectivity at local patch and landscape scales. • When creating lentic sites consider full spectrum of hydroperiods species use

31. Links to Resources on Montana’s Amphibians and Reptiles • Powerpoint overview of Montana’s amphibian and reptile species, including identification, habitat use, site occupancy rates, and Maxent and CART model outputs: http://mtnhp.org/animal/presentations/060709_MT_Herps_ID_Status_files/frame.htm • MT Amphibian and Reptile Status Assessment, Literature Review, and Conservation Plan: http://mtnhp.org/reports/Amphibian_Reptile_Conservation_Plan.pdf • Montana Field Guide http://fieldguide.mt.gov/ • Montana Natural Heritage Tracker – access survey locations, observations, & photos http://mtnhp.org/Tracker/NHTMap.aspx

32. Acknowledgements Inspiration and Constructive Feedback Steve Corn, Chuck Peterson, Andrew Sheldon, Lisa Eby, Chris Funk, Mark Lindberg, Winsor Lowe, Scott Mills, Kathy Griffin, Justin Gude, Blake Hossack, Rebecca McAffrey, David Naugle, David Pilliod, Joy Ritter, Robin Russell, and Scott Story Funding • Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks SWG grant (Heidi Youmans, Kristi DuBois, and Allison Puchniak) • USGS Amphibian Research and Monitoring Program (Steve Corn) • Region 1 U.S. Forest Service(Linda Ulmer, Ann Carlson, Scott Barndt, Jim Brammer, Rob Brassfield, Marion Cherry, Jim Claar, Sandy Kratville, Barb Pitman, Brian Riggers, Chris Riley, Don Sasse, Scott Spaulding, Tom Wittinger) • Bureau of Land Management(Jo Christenson, Roxanne Falise, Joe Platz, Gayle Sitter, Jim Sparks, Marc Whisler) • Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Randy Apfelbeck and Lynda Saul) • Declining Amphibians Populations Task Force • Plum Creek Timber Company (Henning Stabins and Ron Steiner) Field and Office Assistance Steve Amish, Matthew Bell, Andy Brown, Peter Brown, Eric Dallalio, Ayla Doubleday,Sarah Fitzgerald, Ryan Killackey,Patrick Lizon, Alexis McEwan,Keif Storrar, John Thayer, Allan Thompson, Lisa Wilson, Franz Zikesch, Danielle Blanc, Mickey Bland, Anna Breuninger, Sean Burns, Mark Byall, Brent Cascaddan, Beth Clarke, Jessica Easley, Ashton Fink,, Matt Gates, Alex Gunderson, Teri Hamm, Chris Hays, David Herasimtchuk, Renee Hoadley, Grant Hokit and his Carroll College students, Letitia Jacques, Phil Jellen, Todd Leifer, Robert Lishman, Gary Maag, Lorraine McInnes, Andrew Munson, Rachelle Owen, Stacy Polkowske, Amy Puett, Thomas Schemm, David Stagliano, Tomi Sugahara, Anatole Suttschenko, Brian Tomson, Chris Welch, Keaton Wilson, Ryan Zajac, and Alison Zmud.