# Dis-biotopic displays



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

In talking with people who have traveled to areas of Central America and visited populations of _D. auratus_ and _O. pumilio_, one of the things I noticed is there comments about how they would often find frogs in trash piles and among human debris (some of the highest population densities I've heard people recount were in piles of garbage). These species seem pretty adaptive to disturbed areas and things like bottles, cans, bedpans--pretty much any vessel that can hold water--become excellent tadpole deposition sites.

In an attempt to make aspects of my pumilio and auratus enclosures as biotopically correct as possible, over the last year I've been experimenting with adding various bits of garbage and refuse. I started with some old beer bottles, but the water in those would turn rank as they didn't get washed out frequently enough and would fill up with dead fly carcasses. Old pieces of metal debris, however, rusty and aged with moss and lichen, have worked out really well and add an interesting element to the enclosures. The vast majority of it is just for looks, but in some tanks the only suitable deposition sites are cans, tins, etc. with collected water in them.

I recently set up some new vert tanks and had my camera, so I thought I would share a few images. Things will obviously look better when things start growing in and start looking nice and grungy:





































Sometimes, turning over cans and pieces of metal, you find one of these:










This is a peek inside a 30 gal tank that has been going for a while. You can see some fairly recently added cans and debris, but there are other pieces that have become completely covered with moss and epiphytes:


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

That's pretty interesting Ron. Do you do anything to sterilize the trash or do you just add it in as is?


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

I like the trashier one on the bottom


----------



## christina hanson (Feb 16, 2004)

I think that's really artistic and cool, it totally reminds me of an Alexis Rockman painting.

Not going to be copying that idea into the new display cages though .

Christina


----------



## maxdendros (May 29, 2009)

Looks very neat.


----------



## sNApple (Mar 19, 2007)

do the frogs get tetanus shots


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

Very cool idea! Reminds me of garbage and old junk in the ocean. I always get excited when I find old bottles underwater because they're always home to cool fish and other neat things.

Same thing when in the woods........old boards and other stuff are often the best place to find herps.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

> Do you do anything to sterilize the trash or do you just add it in as is?


I collect a lot of this stuff along rocky riverbanks, yanking it out from between stones and under roots. If a piece has a lot of sand/dirt/spiderwebs and whatnot on it on it I'll rinse it off a bit with some water...but no, I don't really worry about sterilizing it.



> I think that's really artistic and cool, it totally reminds me of an Alexis Rockman painting. Not going to be copying that idea into the new display cages though.


Wow, that's a huge compliment. But be careful with those new cages...I might sneak a rusted out coffee can or two into them at some point.



> do the frogs get tetanus shots


No...but _I've_ gotten pretty close to needing them.


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

What a novel Idea. Now I can stop paying for trash pickup and spend saved money on more frogs therefore using more trash


----------



## Derek Benson (Feb 19, 2004)

One of the first threads on dendroboard tht I am completely.... speechless? Interesting idea that's for sure. Everyone has a trashy side, I like to keep mine for parties with young girls, you like yours in your frog tank designs.


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

they look amazing, but aren't you a little scare that the rust woudl be harmful to the frogs?


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

I just got a tetanus shot, i might give that a try.


----------



## Jason (Oct 14, 2004)

skylsdale said:


> In talking with people who have traveled to areas of Central America and visited populations of _D. auratus_ and _O. pumilio_, one of the things I noticed is there comments about how they would often find frogs in trash piles and among human debris (some of the highest population densities I've heard people recount were in piles of garbage).



I wonder how many insects these trash piles produce, maybe that is why they find them so appealing. I love the tanks. Very different and cool idea.


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

I wouldn't worry about the rust, iron oxide is a natural product anyway. Many rainforest streams are loaded with iron oxide, its not really a big deal.

What would worry me would be traces of petroleum distillates/hydrocarbon solvents found in paint cans, waxes, and other hazardous products. And the older the container, the more likely it had toxic componant in it, ie lead, arsenic, etc. To top it off, I've seen many a completely disintegrated container that has holes in it and all, and yet the chemical inside is still there.....so traces can definately still be present.

If I was going to use trash, I'd at least get it out of streams where it's been washed for decades


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Jason said:


> I wonder how many insects these trash piles produce, maybe that is why they find them so appealing.


That could be part of it, but I think (and I thought there were some studies out there, but can't recall them specifically at the moment) that a large reason is available deposition sites. I know for auratus, and possibly for pumilio as well, that they tend to have a preference for secondary forest and areas of disturbance over the pristine primary forest areas we usually think of.



JoshH said:


> What would worry me would be traces of petroleum distillates/hydrocarbon solvents found in paint cans, waxes, and other hazardous products. And the older the container, the more likely it had toxic componant in it, ie lead, arsenic, etc. To top it off, I've seen many a completely disintegrated container that has holes in it and all, and yet the chemical inside is still there.....so traces can definately still be present.
> 
> If I was going to use trash, I'd at least get it out of streams where it's been washed for decades


That's a good point, Josh. And actually, the piece you see in there with the piece from the wax can, etc. I just put in there today and am rather wary about it. I will probably remove it, actually. Most of the rest are old tin cans (probably held food items) that were tossed down on the riverbank from my house probably sometime in the 1950's. Actually, the vast majority of it is stuff I've fished out of the river while snorkeling...so it's been thoroughly washed.


----------



## sNApple (Mar 19, 2007)

i have to say its more "natural" than a coconut hut!


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Another image of various tanks:


----------



## Marinarawr (Jan 14, 2009)

I feel like your vivs are what I'd be more likely to see were I trekking through the forests of South America (or most forests for that matter). While it's sad that there are refuse piles so numerous that they've become preferred homes for PDFs I must say that I'm happy to hear that fauna is adapting to the less than ideal conditions we've altered their homes to be. 

Anyway... Your tanks are surprisingly appealing! Very cool idea, and very original idea .


----------



## McBobs (Apr 26, 2007)

Derek Benson said:


> One of the first threads on dendroboard tht I am completely.... speechless? Interesting idea that's for sure. Everyone has a trashy side, I like to keep mine for parties with young girls, you like yours in your frog tank designs.


That ain't no lie either!


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

Only pumilio are in those, what morphs? I use those same shop lights, the amount of light they reflect is ridiculous


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

ChrisK said:


> Only pumilio are in those, what morphs?


The goal with my collection is to focus primarily on Central American species. The bottom row has three forms of pumilio (Cayo de Agua, Chiriqui Grande, Isla Bastimentos). The tank on the top left has _R. summersi_ (an exception) and the other two tanks are just growing in and getting established for future inhabitants.


----------



## eos (Dec 6, 2008)

christina hanson said:


> I think that's really artistic and cool


Couldn't agree more. Nice work


----------



## MeiKVR6 (Sep 16, 2008)

Very different! I've got to say... I really like the look of it.


----------



## andy321 (Jun 12, 2008)

Who knew trash could look so nice!


----------



## pygmypiranha (Jan 1, 2009)

I love these cages. Can't say that I am opposed to it. I have been trying to do a Mayan or ruins type cage design for awhile. Tho this is different, it's kindda in the same vein of a ruined landscape taken over by nature. I love this. Very nice.


----------



## wort (Sep 8, 2008)

They use old ships to form reef's why not this.
Very cool.


----------



## bronz (Jul 29, 2008)

Practical Fishkeeping magazine (UK) had an article a couple of months back on a British biotype housing sticklebacks that featured bricks and a discarded drink can! Quite a quirky idea and certainly nice to see a positive spin on humananity's worst habit.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Just because there are hi pops doesn`t mean it`s the best environment or healthiest populations. I think the trash feeds higher insect pops which lead to pop explosions. the opening that`s created by the trash making for better habitat than thick forests may be another reason. Our trash also makes for good water holding vessels but can water may be less then optimal for long term health of tads deposited there.
Look at LA and new york city, they may be dense pops but I don`t think they are the healthiest. I think it may be the same thing going on. Because there are ports there is room for hi pop densities in spite of the higher pollution value.
Nice looking tanks.


----------



## Rick (Apr 10, 2009)

ChrisK said:


> Only pumilio are in those, what morphs? I use those same shop lights, the amount of light they reflect is ridiculous


What shop lights are they? Where do you get them? 


These tanks have a unique look...


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

Rick said:


> What shop lights are they? Where do you get them?
> 
> 
> These tanks have a unique look...


These at Home Depot Lithonia Lighting - 4' Diamond plate Work light - 1241DPGESB - Home Depot Canada


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

frogfarm said:


> Just because there are hi pops doesn`t mean it`s the best environment or healthiest populations. I think the trash feeds higher insect pops which lead to pop explosions. the opening that`s created by the trash making for better habitat than thick forests may be another reason. Our trash also makes for good water holding vessels but can water may be less then optimal for long term health of tads deposited there.


Hi Aaron, I'm a bit confused by your comments. The reasons you give as to what may be contributing to population success are general population factors of success: ample food supply and suitable breeding sites. Disturbed areas and garbage piles have both, which would lead to higher success and densities of populations.



> Look at LA and new york city, they may be dense pops but I don`t think they are the healthiest. I think it may be the same thing going on. Because there are ports there is room for hi pop densities in spite of the higher pollution value.


I'm still confused...what do you mean by the term "healthy?" Assuming a population has a large density and continues to do so, one would infer that there is a plentiful enough food source and variety in territory and suitable breeding sites for it to remain viable and successful over the long term. 

I recently talked to an amphibian researcher who recalled visiting family in the Manoa valley frequently as a child, and he said the best spots for him to find auratus were a dump, a used tire pile, and a dumpster. In all of these locations were containers holding water (and immense mosquito populations). He posited that a critical component to auratus successfully establishing on Oahu was the fact that when the introduction of the species was made in 1932, fewer people lived in the valley but those that did were mostly from lower income groups and refuse piles were more common then that they are today. Along with a few plant nurseries that were also in the valley at the time of introduction, this created an abundance of tadpole deposition sites needed for them to establish a solid population.



> Nice looking tanks.


Thanks!


----------



## EricDoan (Jul 6, 2009)

Different... but unique. I like.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Hi Ron, Has anyone ever done studies on how long the animals in the dump live? I`m saying that life expectancy may be shorter and health problems may be higher if they are being reared in rust water or areas of hi toxin concentrations. Just because they are plentiful doesn`t mean that they live long and don`t suffer health problems not seen in more natural areas. We know they can reach maturity at under a year and breed quite prolifically. Lack of predators can also lead to higher densities than in their home environment. High densities mean good depo sites and food, not necessarily health. Iguanas fed from dump sites are plentiful but not necessarily healthy. I understand that more relates to nutrition found in the food we dump, but the situation could relate.
Funny, I was just watching "bones" as I was typing and she stated that crocadilians raised in clean water had larger genetalia than counterparts raised in polluted water. Until the dump raised are tracked and compared to natural populations as to thei life expectancy, resistance to disease, parasites etc. you can never know.



skylsdale said:


> Hi Aaron, I'm a bit confused by your comments. The reasons you give as to what may be contributing to population success are general population factors of success: ample food supply and suitable breeding sites. Disturbed areas and garbage piles have both, which would lead to higher success and densities of populations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick (Apr 10, 2009)

ChrisK said:


> These at Home Depot Lithonia Lighting - 4' Diamond plate Work light - 1241DPGESB - Home Depot Canada


Very nice...if you were to lay them on tanks would the tubes be hitting or the lip on the sides? That was kind of hard to understand...what im trying to say is if you put them on a flatt surface where is the weight of the fixture being distributed?


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

frogfarm said:


> Hi Ron, Has anyone ever done studies on how long the animals in the dump live? I`m saying that life expectancy may be shorter and health problems may be higher if they are being reared in rust water or areas of hi toxin concentrations. Just because they are plentiful doesn`t mean that they live long and don`t suffer health problems not seen in more natural areas.


I understand you better now. I don't think rust (i.e. iron oxide) is anything to be worried about as it is contained in the vast majority of tropical soils (hence the red/rust color) and many streams have a high iron oxide content. Also, I don't see any reason taht a can with water in it in the rainforest is going to be any less "clean" than a plant axil: both are getting washed out and refreshed, housing similar microbes, etc. Obviously toxins could be a concern that might be leaching out of the specific debris...but beyond that, I don't really see much of a difference (do you think debris piles have higher levels of "baddies" that could cause frogs illnesses...more than the various parasites found in the 'natural' rainforest?).

But you're right: until side-by-side studies are done, we just won't know. But just because something seems more unnatural to us, assuming fairly equal factors, doesn't necessarily mean it's harmful to the organisms involved.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Bromeliads could aid in keeping nitrogen levels lo, making for larger froglets or froglets that morph quicker. 
I`m not saying that the iron oxide is going to be a problem. I`m saying exposure to oils, solvents, etc. in a dumpsite could lead to reduced immunity to pathogens. Fertilizer runoff causes reduced resistance to the parasites that cause leg malformations in frogs(along w/ higher snail pops which harbor the parasite responsible). In a dump under abnormally high population, you could see higher instance and load of certain parasites from them being more in contact then in their natural densities. There is higher chance for disease to spread in abnormally dense populations. There are many possibiliteis when creating an abnormal environment.




skylsdale said:


> I understand you better now. I don't think rust (i.e. iron oxide) is anything to be worried about as it is contained in the vast majority of tropical soils (hence the red/rust color) and many streams have a high iron oxide content. Also, I don't see any reason taht a can with water in it in the rainforest is going to be any less "clean" than a plant axil: both are getting washed out and refreshed, housing similar microbes, etc. Obviously toxins could be a concern that might be leaching out of the specific debris...but beyond that, I don't really see much of a difference (do you think debris piles have higher levels of "baddies" that could cause frogs illnesses...more than the various parasites found in the 'natural' rainforest?).
> 
> But you're right: until side-by-side studies are done, we just won't know. But just because something seems more unnatural to us, assuming fairly equal factors, doesn't necessarily mean it's harmful to the organisms involved.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Hi Ron, Has anyone ever done studies on how long the animals in the dump live? I`m saying that life expectancy may be shorter and health problems may be higher if they are being reared in rust water or areas of hi toxin concentrations. Just because they are plentiful doesn`t mean that they live long and don`t suffer health problems not seen in more natural areas. We know they can reach maturity at under a year and breed quite prolifically. Lack of predators can also lead to higher densities than in their home environment. High densities mean good depo sites and food, not necessarily health. Iguanas fed from dump sites are plentiful but not necessarily healthy. I understand that more relates to nutrition found in the food we dump, but the situation could relate..


Hi Aaron,

One can't compare captive lifespans with wild life spans as the pressures affecting longevity are very different for wild populations...... 
Also the rate of maturity in captive populations which are kept under "ideal" conditions cannot be used to determine the rate of sexual maturity in wild populations... the rate of maturation in wild populations tends to be significantly delayed when compared to captive animals.. (for a extreme example, look at turtles where box turtles can take 8 years or more (and often 10-15) for a female become sexually mature yet this can happen in captive populations in about 2 years..) 
With respect to the rust, this does not appear to be toxic by itself based on the literature.. and once the rust forms, this significantly limits the amount of iron dissolved in solution (iron oxide is fairly insoluble in water..) which reduces or limits any risk of toxicity. 



frogfarm said:


> Funny, I was just watching "bones" as I was typing and she stated that crocadilians raised in clean water had larger genetalia than counterparts raised in polluted water. Until the dump raised are tracked and compared to natural populations as to thei life expectancy, resistance to disease, parasites etc. you can never know.


The polluted water reference was inexact as this is caused by excess endocrine disruptors in the water... 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Ed said:


> Hi Aaron,
> 
> One can't compare captive lifespans with wild life spans as the pressures affecting longevity are very different for wild populations......
> Also the rate of maturity in captive populations which are kept under "ideal" conditions cannot be used to determine the rate of sexual maturity in wild populations... the rate of maturation in wild populations tends to be significantly delayed when compared to captive animals.. (for a extreme example, look at turtles where box turtles can take 8 years or more (and often 10-15) for a female become sexually mature yet this can happen in captive populations in about 2 years..)
> ...


Doesn`t certain plastic leach estrogen mimicking compounds or endocrine disruptors or something of the like. Anything reared in that plastic could lead to similar problems?

I wasn`t comparing anything to captive pops other than the dump sites mimicking the excess amounts of food and breeding sites seen in our captive pops which could lead to higher population densities. I was comparing wild natural pops to unnatural wild dumpsite populations.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Doesn`t certain plastic leach estrogen mimicking compounds or endocrine disruptors or something of the like. Anything reared in that plastic could lead to similar problems?
> 
> I wasn`t comparing anything to captive pops other than the dump sites mimicking the excess amounts of food and breeding sites seen in our captive pops which could lead to higher population densities. I was comparing wild natural pops to unnatural wild dumpsite populations.


Hi Aaron
yes certain plastics do leach endocrine disruptors but this is very dependent on the plastic and not all plastics leach.. It is a interesting idea but if the effects were occuring it would depress the frog populations (see http://underc.nd.edu/east/education...drogenandestrogeneffectsonfrogdevelopment.pdf and cited references) as it would inhibit either sexual developement or even metamorphosis.. A item to consider is that concentrations of inhibitors in the deposition sites unlike rivers, lakes, streams or even many captive rearing situations are flushed with regularity with rain water which can reduce or eliminate the leachates and over time, the leach rates of the plastics will lower or disappear... 

If you aren't basing the rate of sexual maturity on captive populations, on what are you basing the one year reference? Outside of that, if you weren't referring to captive populations, then do you have any reference for how long, D. auratus normally live in the wild? Off hand, I think O. pumilio has something like a average of about 3 years.. but I could be misremebering.. 

Sorry if I misunderstood. 

Ed 
(welcome back.. your first post in a while and of course you and I have to have a discussion...  )


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

frogfarm said:


> I was comparing wild natural pops to unnatural wild dumpsite populations.


Also, just to clarify, I originally was just mentioning disturbed areas...not trash heaps. I don't think we can set natural utopias against unnatural wastelands and have those be the only options: there are many phases in between, and the frogs do very well, regardless of how we may or may not like the aesthetics.



> Doesn't certain plastic leach estrogen mimicking compounds or endocrine disruptors or something of the like. Anything reared in that plastic could lead to similar problems?


Then all sorts of things become suspect: what about people using film canisters for deposition or plastic containers for tad rearing? Or petri dishes for eggs and/or water pools? Or the INIBICO project nailing plastic jugs to trees to acquire tads?

I have to agree with Ed: so much dilution takes place in the wild that the aquatic ecosystem in most of these containers (natural or otherwise) should stay pretty "clean" and any possible toxins will most likely decrease over time. All that aside, all the debris I've placed in my tanks so far is metal:


----------



## Geckoguy (Dec 10, 2008)

I gotta say I love these vivs. I have thought of this as a concept for exhibits at work promoting pack in pack out showing ecosystems up close full of trash. However these look to good and may encourage dumping! jk.... What a great concept though you did a stellar job man the trash almost looks like it has been decomposing in place for years. love it!


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I understand that. I use sterilite containers and wash sinks for my breeders tanks. I wanted people to know that they do well in spite of the trash. Not that our trashplies make good habitat. The reason I went to trash is that anything natural can be "disturbed and the "trash" you had in the tanks doesn`t really represent our disturbance, it represents our pollution. I have seen many disturbed areas that were logged that created better environments for amphibians without trash. My point was that they survive in a disturbed area in spite of the trash. No one has tested what might be happening from film cannister tads and if they are making it generations down the road or if there are differences in genetalia size or anything of the sort. There could be stores and sinks in the trash populations and only tads raised in glass are making it to breeding age, we just don`t know. I wanted to show the difference between disturbance and trash piles.

I can make a list of materials I`ve used and brought successive generations to breeding but trash piles contain a lot of containers and substances I haven`t used.



skylsdale said:


> Also, just to clarify, I originally was just mentioning disturbed areas...not trash heaps. I don't think we can set natural utopias against unnatural wastelands and have those be the only options: there are many phases in between, and the frogs do very well, regardless of how we may or may not like the aesthetics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

And you mentioned trash in your first post in this thread


skylsdale said:


> In talking with people who have traveled to areas of Central America and visited populations of _D. auratus_ and _O. pumilio_, one of the things I noticed is there comments about how they would often find frogs in trash piles and among human debris (some of the highest population densities I've heard people recount were in piles of garbage). These species seem pretty adaptive to disturbed areas and things like bottles, cans, bedpans--pretty much any vessel that can hold water--become excellent tadpole deposition sites.
> 
> In an attempt to make aspects of my pumilio and auratus enclosures as biotopically correct as possible, over the last year I've been experimenting with adding various bits of garbage and refuse. I started with some old beer bottles, but the water in those would turn rank as they didn't get washed out frequently enough and would fill up with dead fly carcasses. Old pieces of metal debris, however, rusty and aged with moss and lichen, have worked out really well and add an interesting element to the enclosures. The vast majority of it is just for looks, but in some tanks the only suitable deposition sites are cans, tins, etc. with collected water in them.
> 
> ...


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

frogfarm said:


> I wanted to show the difference between disturbance and trash piles.


Aaron, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here because I think to some extent we're just talking past each other on this. 

Also, just to clarify, I consider trash piles to be disturbance...but within the greater habitat that a frog lives in. The "litter" in my tanks is disturbance. And _subjectively_ I agree with you: I don't like this stuff cluttering up and polluting ANY environment, let alone the one in which these amazing animals live. But _objectively_ I don't think we have the data to outright state that it's bad for them...because in a developed or degraded environment, this litter/trash/debris might actually be creating alternative deposition sites in place of the natural ones that are being removed.


----------



## housevibe7 (Sep 24, 2006)

Very nice Ron. I see you've expanded a bit past the tincs huh


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

skylsdale said:


> I don't think we have the data to outright state that it's bad for them...because in a developed or degraded environment, this litter/trash/debris might actually be creating alternative deposition sites in place of the natural ones that are being removed.


Likely the case, in my opinion. Similar cases happen all the time with many types of animals. One great example is what happens with all the cans and bottles on the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay. Almost every one has an oyster goby, striped blenny, or feather blenny living inside. These fish make their nest inside of gaping, empty oyster shells. Now with most of the oyster reefs destroyed, its actually far easier to find these species around trash and bottles then around oysters. The bottles/cans are actually offer better protection from predators then the shells as well.

Of course this is taking in the consideration of the refuse being inert. Glass bottles are relatively harmless......


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

An interesting study on munciple dumps..

ScienceDirect - Marine Pollution Bulletin : Ecotoxicological effects of a semi-submerged municipal dump (Castle harbour, Bermuda) on the Calico scallop Argopecten gibbus


and one on uptake of mercury and cadmium contamination from soils. 

http://www.helsinki.fi/biosci/environment/Asiakirjat/Publ13.pdf


----------



## Peter Keane (Jun 11, 2005)

I have seen many a blue jean pumilio in my jaunts through Costa Rica and have found them all over including dump sites, inside rusted out cans, tires filled with water containing frogs, mosquitos and tads. MAN I AM TIRED... it's 4:48am on the East Coast.. night night.. Peter


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Boo-t-ful...happy halloween


----------



## Quaz (Nov 13, 2005)

Nature has taken on a new meaning huh?


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Walked into the frog room the other morning and found some fresh tracks...


----------



## doncoyote (Apr 20, 2005)

Quaz said:


> Nature has taken on a new meaning huh?


It's all nature - there's no us and them. We're just a bunch of very successful primates - thinking that we're somehow separate from natural processes, feedback loops, population dynamics, etc. doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That doesn't mean that, on our current path, we've got a bright future in front of us but we might not be the first species to experience suicidal success (I'm thinking of the Medea hypothesis).


----------



## ZeeMan (Sep 19, 2008)

I like the look of the tanks!!!
I was researching Pumilios and came across an article that stated that Pumilios are recolonizing near "human" habitations.
I had the same idea but it was with colored drinking glasses and broken pieces of ceramic.

Good Job!

Zee


----------



## VivariumWorks (Feb 27, 2008)

Nice setups!

I can see both points of view on the disturbed habitat debate. Personally I would say that with the extreme sensitivities these animals have to disturbances and toxins and such, that the mere fact that they are capable of surviving and breeding in a disturbed area indicates its viability. I can see how a high population density can allow for a greater chance for a disease to move through and damage the population faster, however a thing to note could be that frogs found in these disturbed areas could have a greater "resistance" or greater "immunity" to many of the things that would kill wild population individuals due to the fact that they were raised in an environment with levels of these pollutants/diseases. I'm thinking less of a direct adaptation as low level accumulation allowing for the frog's system to be able to withstand these abnormally hazardous conditions.

In any rate I've seen a saltwater tank setup with nothing but garbage in it, and its a design I've been intending on mimicking one day, so I think its cool to see someone doing something similar with a viv. 

Also, if you've actually been to these places where these frogs live and have seen the millions of bacteria/fungi/plants species that inhabit it, you'd be surprised that any of them are even able to live at all. Truth is these things are much more hardy than we give them credit, its just because we try to scale down their habitat into a 55gallon tank that we find them challenging. They were all over the place both times I visited Costa Rica. Hell an arataus came out of my shower drain one time and hopped around in the shower with me. Kind of amusing, and awkward.


----------



## frogfannumero1 (Mar 15, 2009)

I have to say that I love this idea! I have seen displays similar to this at several zoos that use "garbage" in fish display tanks but I have never seen it utilized for an amphibian species. I doubt I can talk them into doing this at the zoo I work at, though. Anyway, this is a great thread and an awesome example of this idea. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## cbreon (Apr 25, 2005)

This has been a fascinating post to read, thanks!


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

Any updates Ron?


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Not really...except for the fact that this is just how I work with my tanks. As far as the images I posted at the beginning of this thread, some of the junk I took out, some has remained, and some of the vivariums have been completely renovated. 

The image below is where I am keeping a few extra vittatus--you can see there is an old rusty can forming sort of a "lean-to" toward the front. One of the frogs has staked this can out as their shelter and can always be found underneath it. 

With such a narrow footprint in a lot of these tanks (many of them are vertically-oriented 18 gal aquariums) I've found that cans with the tops and bottoms missing help provide different layers in the tank, allowing plants and bromeliads to grow over the top of them, but still providing an extra 'level' for frogs to pass through and hide in, breaking up the visual and spatial views they have of one another.


----------



## phytotelmata (Oct 20, 2011)

Hey skylsdale, what species of bromeliads are in the tanks at the beginning of this thread? Thanks


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Various species...not completely sure. Probably some "Fireball" and at least a few N. ampullacaea. Other than that I just received them as random pups from folks.


----------



## phytotelmata (Oct 20, 2011)

skylsdale said:


> Various species...not completely sure. Probably some "Fireball" and at least a few N. ampullacaea. Other than that I just received them as random pups from folks.


Ok, I was thinking the plain ones might be fireballs but thought I'd check. Thanks.


----------



## BethInAK (Jul 12, 2011)

I love it.
You are weird. And wonderful.


----------



## toxicterribilis (Mar 21, 2008)

Lmao... too funny..

Love the setups, very simple but incredible looking viv's...



sNApple said:


> do the frogs get tetanus shots


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/br...tus-novel-deposition-site-ron.html#post671432


----------



## chrism (Apr 11, 2007)

Bumping a VERY old post- but I keep returning to it!

Do these vivs still exist, and did anyone else do similar?


----------

