# Another Chytrid victum



## dragonfrog (Feb 16, 2006)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5172424,00.html

This article appeared in todays Denver Rocky Mountain News. Notice how the writer forgot the name of Tom Weaver and started to refer to him as "Watson".


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

Wow a non-local article in the RM News. And finally something worth reading about. Must be much bigger problem than most realize to make it here. 

Poor Panama, she had held on for quite a while.

Just a couple/few years ago you would see plagues of boreal toads, huge decline so quickly. Toads as big as dinner plate, won't ever see them again...


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

The article comment about the boreal toad is vague and seems oddly out of place. I'm not buying the link between chytrid and the decline of boreal toads. I just completed a conservation assessment in Montana that included boreal toads as one of the focal species. Boreal toads are declining in areas where chytrid is not known to occur and where chytrid does infect boreal toads, the populations seem to have a fair resistance (according a leading expert on the species that I spoke to). This resistance is likely due to the periodic hot days the toads experience in summer even up in alpine areas. What really irks me about some of the excuses being made for the decline of boreal toads, northern leopard frogs, tiger salamanders, and other amphibian in the Rocky Mountains, is that the introduction of fish (both native and non-native) into historically fishless breeding pools is likely a major culprit. But of course the recreational fishing industry generates a lot of cash so we have to blame everything BUT the real threat. It is shocking how high the percentage of high mountain lakes and ponds that have been stocked with fish. It should come as no surprise that Rocky Mountain amphibians are tanking.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

The introduction of trout into montane fishless lakes has been shown to be a major cause of decline in Red and Yellow legged frogs. 

Some of the newer stuff that is coming out on chytrid is showing that some anurans have some resistance to it via basking so you can have a population of adults that are reproductive but when the tadpoles metamorph chytrid wipes out all of the metamorphs preventing recruitment. 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Being most familiar with boreal toads, this was once the most abundant amphibian in the mountainous areas of the Northern Rockies. They are now in decline - still common in many areas but no where in former numbers. The declines are widespread and they are listed as a "species of special concern" but the US Forest Service. But there is no evidence of chytrid in many areas where declines have been documented. Because of this, and the well-documented negative effects of introduced salmonids (trout) on numerous species of amphibians makes me a bit testy when I see attempts to blame chytrid for these declines. To me it is just a hopeful attempt to ignore the real problem.

The problem is also compounded by attempts to conserve native trout which are in decline because of the introductions of non-native trout. One tactic is to stock native trout in waters that are above natural or artificial fish barriers so the natives can establish populations that are protected from the ravages of the non-natives. Of course the amphibians once again get screwed because those natural barriers were what historically provided secure breeding sites for them.


----------



## dragonfrog (Feb 16, 2006)

Very interesting Brent. Are they not aware of the problem that the introduction of native and non-native trout does to the frog population? And if they are why does it go on? Creating a larger problem that may one day be too late to stop.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

dragonfrog said:


> Very interesting Brent. Are they not aware of the problem that the introduction of native and non-native trout does to the frog population? And if they are why does it go on? Creating a larger problem that may one day be too late to stop.


They know but there is a lot of momentum to overcome to get anything done about it. For about 50 years a lot of money was spent dumping trout out of airplanes and helicopters into these mountain lakes and recreational fishing generates a lot of money and has a lot of powerful friends. Therefore, any effort to reverse the damage that has been done has to be done delicately. I will say that stocking lakes with fish is falling out of favor and I'm not sure if aerial stocking is very widespread anymore. But the majority of lakes and ponds have already been stocked so it is a bit of a moot point. Some areas have actually gotten fairly agressive about removing fish from some of these lakes but in other areas the debate is only beginning. In the mean time, you can expect fingers to be pointed at all of these additional stressors like chytrid that are contributing to an already bad situation.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

You're deffinately right on that Brent. For why they pin chytrid on the boreal toad is only w/ relation to time of a larger family crisis. Although I'm (hate to use the word) 'glad' they brought it up as somehow relavent to the issue of overall loss.

One thing I can say w/ certainty (on the boreals behalf) is that the decline is deffinately not attributable to invasive fish or over stocking. The reason is that the toads don't typically brood in open open water. Usually in an offset pool either close off shore (especially now w/ the lowering water levels these are now common place) or far away in rain run off/ ditch pools. Tadpoles were/are still many but the remaining adults are what is declining.

I noticed a few years ago near beached lakes/dams that I would run across toads (most if not all) that (for some reason) were missing most of their digits as if they were burnt off from the hot sand. Now I thought maybe that it was possibly due to having jumped into campfires. But in that case I would have noticed from the start. Not only that but they weren't ever chared but w/ a more mealted appearance. Not to meantion I've never seen any toad escape (on their own accord) after having entered a camp fire. They are strangley attracted/suicidal. So warming effects in many different ways I thought this may be one of th many. 1 Degree increase of air temperature would be comparable to at least a 10 degree jump in thermal temperature of sand/land, which is already incredably hot prior to an increase.

Polution no doubt adds too.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

stchupa said:


> One thing I can say w/ certainty (on the boreals behalf) is that the decline is deffinately not attributable to invasive fish or over stocking. The reason is that the toads don't typically brood in open open water. Usually in an offset pool either close off shore (especially now w/ the lowering water levels these are now common place) or far away in rain run off/ ditch pools. Tadpoles were/are still many but the remaining adults are what is declining.


I don't know what the heck those "southerner" toads are doing but that's not what we see up here. Sure, they do breed in side pools and ditches but also in larger ponds and lakes. Our largest breeding population in this area is also in the largest lake in the area. Also, there have been some good studies out of Idaho that show increased mortality at all life stages in lakes that harbor salmonid fish. Admittedly though, the toads have a little advantage over other anurans in the area because their toxicity makes them a little prone to predation. But still, the evidence is clear that introduced fish (both exotic and native) are taking their toll. Most likely this is in combination with a number of other stressors. Finally, the assesment I did will be released this month and has been reviewed by numerous wildlife and fisheries biologists from several agencies. None refutted the connection between fish and toad declines.

The "burnt" digits makes me suspicios of chemical pollutants. There is some evidence that pesticides may be drifting in the atmosphere and coming down in concentrations high enough to harm amphibians. How's the acid rain in your area? That would be another one that would be suspect.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

bbrock said:


> stchupa said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I can say w/ certainty (on the boreals behalf) is that the decline is deffinately not attributable to invasive fish or over stocking. The reason is that the toads don't typically brood in open open water. Usually in an offset pool either close off shore (especially now w/ the lowering water levels these are now common place) or far away in rain run off/ ditch pools. Tadpoles were/are still many but the remaining adults are what is declining.
> ...


We'll sure, of course I don't doubt the ones here do the same and end up getting eatin when they are layed in the open. But what I was saying is that would happen regardless of invasive species taking advantage. That and they're so heavily populated in the offset pools (and emerge formed) that it leads me to point out that it is more due to something (largely) happening to full fledge adult portion of the population. It has to be. But then aqain something is still laying the eggs and maybe that's just due to them hidding out (and we're not seeing them) because of other factors such as warming. Plus they've always seemed more noctornal. The truely gigantic ones I used to see have disapeared, that's likely to do w/ people capturing. Genitic viability might play a role along w/ everything whether it being a large contrbution or not, the strong genes being displaced/lost. Segregation of habitat, by encroachment and conversion of land by pasture, farming, daming and scaring of roads dividing pathways, that once may have been traversed (just as an example: painted turtles, in the spring move to condensed pools to bulk up and breed [giving a better chance to diversify their gentics by congregation of seperative groups], in the fall they trek back to larger ponds lakes to lay/hibernate, some/manytimes miles) I also know (as strange as it may sound to some), that boreals (did?) retain a capability of extended exposure/migration that water reptiles don't have. Meaning, I can only imagine (through seasonality purpose) how far they really can go (when/if allowed).



> Our largest breeding population in this area is also in the largest lake in the area.


A good pin point location/land mark to get together for an orgy, wouldn't you say?



> Also, there have been some good studies out of Idaho that show increased mortality at all life stages in lakes that harbor salmonid fish. Admittedly though, the toads have a little advantage over other anurans in the area because their toxicity makes them a little prone to predation.


I'm not intirely sure on this but it lends me to think that the Northern, typically remains a lesser damed area, because in the loation I'm considering is heavily damed and there are no salmonid fish (perhaps once, we still do get eels, being uninhibited by dams) stocked or otherwise able to make up this point.



> But still, the evidence is clear that introduced fish (both exotic and native) are taking their toll. Most likely this is in combination with a number of other stressors. Finally, the assesment I did will be released this month and has been reviewed by numerous wildlife and fisheries biologists from several agencies. None refutted the connection between fish and toad declines.


Like I've said many times (more than I should have to) it's never just one thing. Things that naturally would predate kept the balance and in some case/places those are now gone and on the other hand there's the additionals placed (where they should not be) teetering a different effect. It won't ever be fixed until people can put and two and two tegether.

Make sure you post it when you get the chance, I would enjoy reveiwing it.



> The "burnt" digits makes me suspicios of chemical pollutants. There is some evidence that pesticides may be drifting in the atmosphere and coming down in concentrations high enough to harm amphibians. How's the acid rain in your area?


Funny you ask, that could bring up one hell of a conversation. Last I bothered to check (the only reason I did is because I suspected the odd) was I think two years or better ago. It came out w/ the results you'd expect out of a concrete mixer. I kid you not, the PH was nearly 9. Now I know average rain water typically stands for around 5.1-6. for Colorado as I understand it. Something (I knew it was, as why I checked) was adversly effecting and counteracting the petrol polutants in the air. Something metalic/aloid aluminum was in the water. Was not a contamination on my part in any way as I prepared the catching glass myself for this purpose just prior. We have some snow in the ground and I'll check it tonight, but I'm going to guess now that it'll be within a normal range. The rain I checked was not in the vacinity of the boreal toads I observe (which are in Eastern CO/farming areas). But I know we do (supposed to) have boreal toads right near where we live that I never see.



> That would be another one that would be suspect.


Oh yeah, deffinately, there's high use of many many many things, dioxens (among others seen/unseen) are reaching an irreparable limit.
Irregation channels are mostly for corn crops/govt. hemp which (don't have to) HAVE TO BE heavily fertilized/chemicalized. I swear I can't get by how stupid people are, there are so many more than appropriate alternatives. It's not the people (govt.) ordering/regulating the laborors/farmers (who unfortunately are un/misinformed/greed driven) that are stupid (but at fault), but those who never question and do as intended as machines (that are not at fault. Slaves aren't at fault, robots aren't at fault, puppets aren't at fault, it's those who pull the strings and cartel the once granted now lost common sense.

Very few do cover crops anymore, is becoming taboo. I don't get that, except it seems people are slowly (being) disknowledg(ed)ing themselves (not) from what was taught long ago. Never became broken, never needed fixing. Increase production, increase production, milk it for more than it's worth, take not only what is given but everything has become more than just excepted, the right has been completely forgotten.  The 'instigations' have become stupendous and work exact to the specification of the uninformed (influence to not want to be informed) major.

I have to say it again, many things are easily attributable (very evident from my point of veiw) and as far as being the "canaries of the mine" they've held out damn well considering what all has been thrust upon them. Nothing suprizes me to this day and I can't imagine how anyone can be and w/ such discredit to what we can easily see is not meant to be lacing our enviroment. Even the sensitive have to remain persistant, they beat the dinos, apparently/supposedly. Or at least kept up with.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

stchupa said:


> I also know (as strange as it may sound to some), that boreals (did?) retain a capability of extended exposure/migration that water reptiles don't have. Meaning, I can only imagine (through seasonality purpose) how far they really can go (when/if allowed).


Paul Bartelt, who has done some of the more extensive studies of boreals, helped me with my model. He has learned that life for a boreal toad is really a tight rope of staying warm enough to be able to move around and hunt, but moist enough to not dry out. So they move around in open areas where they can soak up the sun but close enough to shade or humid pockets where they can conserve moisture. Willow habitats and aspen groves provide some excellent habitat as do open meadows and forest openings. Fire supression is reducing all of these habitats which is just one more factor that could be affecting the toads.



> I'm not intirely sure on this but it lends me to think that the Northern, typically remains a lesser damed area, because in the loation I'm considering is heavily damed and there are no salmonid fish (perhaps once, we still do get eels, being uninhibited by dams) stocked or otherwise able to make up this point.


It is hard to believe that trout (a salmonid) have not been stocked extensively in the high country of CO. Most of those high mountain lakes, now famous for the great fishing, historically had no fish in them at all because natural barriers and beaver dams kept them isolated. Now it is difficult to find a mountain lake or pond that doesn't have trout snapping at everything that moves. I was lucky enough to get data for fish stocking in Montana and it is pretty shocking how many lakes and ponds were changed from fishless, to full of trout over the past 60 years.



> Like I've said many times (more than I should have to) it's never just one thing. Things that naturally would predate kept the balance and in some case/places those are now gone and on the other hand there's the additionals placed (where they should not be) teetering a different effect. It won't ever be fixed until people can put and two and two tegether.


Whenever I give a talk about the assessment I did, I always include slides of the boreal toad habitat because they are affected by so many more factors than any of the other 12 species analyzed. I always say, "it sucks to be a toad". When you compare potential habitat and actual habitat in a GIS, it is pretty shocking how much habitat has been degraded.



> Make sure you post it when you get the chance, I would enjoy reveiwing it.


It was getting printed last week. Hopefully there will be a downloadable PDF although it is a whopper of a file with over 200 pages and 50+ color maps.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

bbrock said:


> Paul Bartelt, who has done some of the more extensive studies of boreals, helped me with my model. He has learned that life for a boreal toad is really a tight rope of staying warm enough to be able to move around and hunt, but moist enough to not dry out. So they move around in open areas where they can soak up the sun but close enough to shade or humid pockets where they can conserve moisture. Willow habitats and aspen groves provide some excellent habitat as do open meadows and forest openings. Fire supression is reducing all of these habitats which is just one more factor that could be affecting the toads.


OK i'm trying to help you repicture the location I speak of. As I said earlier I don't get to observe toads near where I mainly live (aside one event where I encountered a mass of toadlets just emerging on the green belt). I have some land in Eastern CO, that used to be prime (and considering what they have elsewhere, still is) habitat. Every once in a while (mostly at night) I would see a toad here or there (basically in the middle of nowhere) usually readying itself for a toast on the bom fire. Along w/ the more common spadefoot, chorus and such (which stay close to water and don't trek more than a few yards, typically aside freak storms that move them). The closest available water sorce being a mile or so away from home place, and those are only seasonal if that, some years they never fill. If you're unfamiliar, the land in Eastern CO is nothing like near the mountain/front range, all plains (not flat, but rolling hills). Isands of trees here and there (far inbetween) if your lucky, the rest is pasture and farming land. In other words nothing like idaho, and the boreals apart from here-there are likely an unoticed subspecies (I'm sure you hate that term). These toads here are 'tough' like elephant hide spliced w/ sand paper. There's no doubt for them to be there they have to be able to trek a mile+ in nights time (talk about a shot in the dark, start off a few inches in the wrong direction you're in trouble, amazing how the 'know'), and maybe burry themselves in a patty during the day. The only permanant water source nearest is 40+ miles (aside from stock tanks held above ground level, no toad's using those).




> It is hard to believe that trout (a salmonid) have not been stocked extensively in the high country of CO. Most of those high mountain lakes, now famous for the great fishing, historically had no fish in them at all because natural barriers and beaver dams kept them isolated. Now it is difficult to find a mountain lake or pond that doesn't have trout snapping at everything that moves. I was lucky enough to get data for fish stocking in Montana and it is pretty shocking how many lakes and ponds were changed from fishless, to full of trout over the past 60 years.


The high country definately, they stock down to about foot hill level/my level, below that trout can't exist let alone thrive extensively since past that point the water reaches too high a temp. Definately not in Eastern CO, that's perch, whiper, muskey, bull head territory. A misconception on CO being known for trout fishing, which it is/was in the high country for now though not naturally and will only continue w/ artificial stocking. Last I heard (couple years ago) most indigenous trout were dying out, cut throats/browns and such which 5 or so already had. Before that I thought there were only five natives, if that. Now all that can maintain seem to be the hybrids, splake and the alike, although elusively rare. Not suprizing.

OK enough w/ the friggen fish.




> Whenever I give a talk about the assessment I did, I always include slides of the boreal toad habitat because they are affected by so many more factors than any of the other 12 species analyzed. I always say, "it sucks to be a toad". When you compare potential habitat and actual habitat in a GIS, it is pretty shocking how much habitat has been degraded.


Still not a too suprizing when you consider how much humans have taking from. Had to make a dent, the concave is quicken fold by fold ever more. Amazing how well they held out. I see the amphibian crisis as an unsensed analogy to what is happening to the human population as well, but humans are just to stupid to be aware and don't listen to their own bodies/can't feel/see others'. We have all these problem/health issues (nation wide/worldwide) that we we play dumb w/ by not willing to admit it's all THIS of what we added/created. It'll INSTANTLY jump leaps and bounds and "hit like a ton o bricks" before we realize altogether. I actually think/hope that most do know but do nothing because they aren't immediately sensitive (they've been desensitized, man that must suck at least I'm sure toads can feel) to the effects. They don't trust themselves. Then there are those that know, and know nothing can/will be done about it, then wait and say nothing.



> [quote:nym4mmtp]Make sure you post it when you get the chance, I would enjoy reveiwing it.


It was getting printed last week. Hopefully there will be a downloadable PDF although it is a whopper of a file with over 200 pages and 50+ color maps.[/quote:nym4mmtp]

I can read, if it has reason, I will. Overlapp all available. There's nothing complex about this, just the available information makes it seem as so.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

I forgot what thread this was. Leaving all this under such a title seems a little odd. Should've probably started off new. Chytrid is definately the smallest (if any) of the problems for boreals. As Ed stated A basking toad is least than ideal host.

So when you get that together Brent, post something up, there's a lot to consider and I think it deserves its own place.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

OK I did the test (worste possible time to do it), winter plus the snow been laying out for a while. Snow absorbs everything from the air when compared to rain. I did take it from a lower level of snow, not the top portion. I doubt that made much if any difference since the snow has been melting through.

As I figured since it was snow (there's no accuracy) it was acidic. The PH tester I use in the house only has a range of 6.0 at the lowest end and it was off the chart so. The other broad range tester is under the house and don't really want to rumage through all that til spring. It's expensive to use and don't want to waste it on something that's guaranteed to be inacurrate anyway.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Sorry for the late response on this but a request was made in this thread for a link to a report that I referenced. The report has now been made available online at: http://www.wcs.org/international/northamerica/yellowstone/settingprioritiesforconservation But here is the direct link to save having to search for it. http://www.wcs.org/media/file/WCS_MadisonValleyConsAssess_FullReport.pdf

Only one chapter deals with amphibians directly. Well, two chapters actually. I'm not sure why those aren't showing as hyperlinks but you all know how to copy and paste.


----------

