Lithobates capito

Geographic Range

Rana capito , also known as Lithobates capito , is found mainly in the Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States. Its range extends from central North Carolina to the east and west coasts of southern Florida. There are isolated populations in central and southeastern Alabama, central Tennessee and southwestern Georgia.

• Biogeographic Regions
• nearctic nearctic
  • native native

Habitat

The primary habitat of gopher frogs is native xeric upland habitats, comprised mainly of longleaf pine and sandy substrates. The habitat also contains xeric to mesic hardwoods such as sand pine scrub, longleaf pine flatwoods, and xeric hammocks. These habitats in early successional stages are ideal. Gopher frogs seek shelter in underground refuges, such as the burrows of gopher tortoises , after which they were names, and several species of small mammals , such as rodents , as well as under logs and in stump holes. Gopher frogs also use clumps of grass and leaf litter as refuge during its migration. Refuges protect against adverse weather and predation. Newly metamorphosed gopher frogs are at a high risk of predation and desiccation due to their unfamiliarity with refuge habitat. Fire-maintained habitats with open canopy contain a higher density of gopher tortoise and small mammal burrows. Thus, juvenile gopher frogs avoid closed-canopy habitat and select open-canopy habitat that has been maintained by fire. As a result of fire suppression, habitat loss and degradation, many wildlife species including the gopher frog associated with longleaf pine forests have declined. Gopher frogs breed in temporary or semipermanent (seasonally flooded) ponds but spend the majority of their lives in the burrows of surrounding terrestrial habitat.

• Habitat Regions
• temperate temperate
• terrestrial terrestrial

• Terrestrial Biomes
• forest forest
• scrub forest scrub forest

• Aquatic Biomes
• temporary pools

• Other Habitat Features
• suburban suburban
• agricultural agricultural

Physical Description

Gopher frogs have robust, stocky bodies with relatively short forelimbs. They have tapered snouts and a single lateral ridge down each side of the back. Their light-colored body is marked with dark brown or black blotches of various sizes and shapes. Adult snout-vent length ranges from 6 to 9 cm and weight ranges from 47 to 151 g. Adult males are smaller than adult females. Skin texture can ranges from rough to smooth and the color ranges from yellow-white to brown or gray. The venter is often white, cream, or yellow and usually mottled with dark spots. Tadpoles range from yellow-green to olive-green or gray with large black spots on the upper body, tail and fin. Tadpoles typically reach a length of 84 mm; however, in North Carolina tadpoles can exceed 90 mm in length.

• Other Physical Features
• ectothermic ectothermic
• heterothermic heterothermic
• bilateral symmetry bilateral symmetry

• Sexual Dimorphism
• female larger

Development

Little is known of development of gopher frogs. Egg masses are laid in semiperminant ponds just below the surface of the water. Tadpoles metamorphose after 87 to 225 days and disperse into drier upland habitat.

• Development - Life Cycle
• neotenic/paedomorphic
• metamorphosis metamorphosis

Reproduction

Gopher frogs are polygynous and breed from January to April, immediately after a heavy rain. Males actively call to potential mates during this time. Males occupy breeding ponds for about a month while females stay less than a week.

• Mating System
• polygynous polygynous

Breeding generally occurs during winter and early spring from January through April. Reproduction can occur as early as September and October following heavy rains. Breeding sites are seasonally flooded isolated ponds free of predatory fish. Males usually occupy breeding ponds for about a month while the females stay less than a week. Females lay cluster containing thousands of eggs. Eggs are gray to gray-black and range in size from 1.67 to 2.7 mm in diameter. Evidence suggests that each female lays one egg mass per breeding season. She deposits the egg mass near the surface of the water on a rigid support (e.g., semi-submerged shrub) in order to keep the eggs at a desired depth. As surface waters warm, development of embryos progresses. Tadpoles metamorphose after a larval period ranging from 87 to 225 days, and disperse into the drier uplands.

• Key Reproductive Features
• iteroparous iteroparous
• seasonal breeding seasonal breeding
• gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate)
• sexual sexual
• fertilization fertilization
  • external external
• oviparous oviparous

Similar to most amphibians , once eggs are laid and fertilized, adult gopher frogs abandon the eggs. Young are completely independent upon hatching.

• Parental Investment
• no parental involvement

Lifespan/Longevity

Gopher frogs can live for up to 6 years in the wild and 7 years in captivity.

Behavior

Gopher frogs live in hot, dry areas; as a result, desiccation is a major concern. Thus, gopher frogs spend considerable time underground to prevent drying as well as for protection from predation and adverse weather. Evidence suggests that if gopher frogs find refuge within their first 8 days of life, risk of mortality is only 4% for the first few weeks of life. Gopher frogs travel up to 691 m from its natal pond and travel up to 2 km to breeding ponds to find open habitat. Since this distance is substantial for an animal of its size, it commonly takes temporary refuge in tortoise burrows along the way. Movement normally coincides with high amounts of rain during breeding season. Gopher frogs are nocturnal, and although they may leave the burrow to forage, they often remain near the burrow entrance to quickly jump back into the burrow if threatened.

• Key Behaviors
• terricolous
• saltatorial saltatorial
• nocturnal nocturnal
• motile motile
• sedentary sedentary
• solitary solitary

Home Range

There is no information available about the home range of gopher frogs.

Communication and Perception

The call of gopher frogs is often described as a deep, throaty “snore”, which can last up to two seconds and can be heard nearly 0.4 km away. They have also been documented calling while submerged. Their calls can be heard throughout the year, especially after heavy rains, but are much more abundant during breeding season.

• Communication Channels
• acoustic acoustic

• Perception Channels
• visual visual
• tactile tactile
• acoustic acoustic
• chemical chemical

Food Habits

Gopher frogs are carnivorous and are known to consume a variety of invertebrates, including earthworms , cockroaches , spiders , grasshoppers , beetles as well as other toads and frogs . They travel significant distance at night to forage. Tadpoles eat microscopic algae, organic debris, bacteria and protozoans found on underwater vegetation or along the pond bottom. Water quality and lack of canopy cover have a significant impact on prey abundance.

• Primary Diet
• carnivore carnivore
  • insectivore insectivore
• herbivore herbivore
  • algivore

• Animal Foods
• amphibians
• insects
• terrestrial non-insect arthropods
• other marine invertebrates

• Plant Foods
• algae
• phytoplankton phytoplankton

Predation

Caddisfly larvae are significant predator on gopher frog egg masses, however, dragonfly nymphs, diving beetles and turtles also prey on egg masses. Occasionally, snakes have been documented at breeding sites. Gopher frogs breed in seasonally flooded ponds absent of predatory fish. Transitioning from aquatic habitat as tadpoles to the terrestrial habitat as juveniles results in high mortality. Juveniles are unfamiliar with their new habitat and the location of burrows, making them easy targets for predation. Approximately 5% of fertilized eggs develop into juveniles. Gopher frogs use burrows to escape potential predators and their camouflaged coloration likely helps reduce predation risk.

• Anti-predator Adaptations
• cryptic cryptic

Ecosystem Roles

Both as larvae and adults, gopher frogs are preyed upon by a number of vertebrate and invertebrate predators. In general, amphibians are often used as biological indicators of habitat quality.

Economic Importance for Humans: Positive

Gopher frogs, and amphibians in general, are often used as biological indicators of habitat quality. Biological indicators are species that are sensitive to environmental change such as pollution or climate change. Because of their permeable skin they are susceptible to environmental stress in both aquatic and terrestrial environments and serve as an early warning to conservationists of poor aquatic habitat conditions.

Economic Importance for Humans: Negative

There no known adverse effects of gopher frogs on humans.

Conservation Status

Because of declining populations, Rana capito is listed as “near threatened” on the IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species. Mississippi gopher frogs , a subspecies of Rana capito , is listed as endangered on the U.S. Federal List. Major threats include fire suppression, habitat loss and fragmentation from roads and construction, agriculture and off-road vehicles. Gopher tortoise populations are also declining, leaving fewer burrows for R. capito to use. In general, the area occupied by this species is rather small and is very specific, leaving R. capito highly vulnerable to habitat change. Although precise numbers are difficult to estimate, recent population estimates suggest that less 10,000 individuals remain in the wild, which is significantly reduced from historical numbers.

Other Comments

In recent years, there has been a taxonomic reassignment of genus Rana to Lithobates . There is still ongoing research to determine if the reassignment is correct. As a result, Rana capito is also known as Lithobates capito .

Additional Links

AmphibiaWeb

Encyclopedia of Life

BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Contributors

Rachel Sines (author), Northern Michigan University, Mary Martin (editor), Northern Michigan University, John Berini (editor), Animal Diversity Web Staff, Catherine Kent (editor), Special Projects.

References

Bailey, M. 1991. The dusky gopher frog in Alabama. Alabama Academy of Science , 62: 28-34.

Blihovde, W. 2006. Terrestrial Movements and Upland Habitat Use of Gopher Frogs in Central Florida. Southeastern Naturalist , Vol. 5, No. 2: 265-276. Accessed February 13, 2011 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3878206 .

Brodman, R. 1995. Annual Variation in Breeding Success of Two Syntopic Species of Ambystoma Salamanders. Journal of Herpetology , 29: 111-113. Accessed March 14, 2011 at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1565093 .

Conant, R., J. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central North America. Third edition . Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Denton, J., T. BeeBee. 1993. Summer and winter refugia of Natterjacks (Bufo calamita) and Common Toads (Bufo bufo) in Britain. Herpetological Journal , 3: 90-94.

Franz, R., C. Dodd, Jr., C. Jones. 1998. Life history notes: RANA AREOLATA AESOPUS (Florida gopher frog). Herpetological Review , 19: 33.

Gentry, J., M. Smith. 1968. Food habits and burrow associates of PEROMYSCUS POLIONOTUS. Mammology , 49: 562-565.

Godley, J. 1992. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. III. Amphibians and reptiles . Gainesville, FL: Univ. Press of Florida.

Gregoire, D., M. Gunzburger. 2008. Effects of Predatory Fish on Survival and Behavior of Larval Gopher Frogs (Rana Capito) and Southern Leopard Frogs (Rana Sphenocephala). Journal of Herpetology , 42(1): 97-103. Accessed February 12, 2011 at http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1670/07-039.1 .

Jensen, J., J. Palis, M. Bailey. 1995. RANA CAPITO SEVOSA (Dusky Gopher Frog) submerged vocalization. Herpetological Review , 26: 98.

Jensen, J., M. Bailey, E. Blankenship, C. Camp. 2003. The Relationship between Breeding by the Gopher Frog, Rana capito (Amphibia: Ranidae) and Rainfall. American Midland Naturalist , Vol. 150, No. 1: 185-190. Accessed February 13, 2011 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3566606 .

Lee, D. 1968. Herpetofauna associated with central Florida mammals. Herpetologica , 24: 83-84.

Miller, B., D. Campbell. 1996. Geographic distribution: Rana capito. Herpetological Review , 27: 86-87.

Palis, J., L. Glass-Godwin, G. Hammerson. 2010. "Rana capito - LeConte, 1855 Carolina Gopher Frog" (On-line). Accessed February 14, 2011 at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=tabular_report.wmt&loadTemplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehensive.wmt&summaryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=105963&paging=home&save=true&startIndex=1&nextStartIndex=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKey=105963&offPageSelectedElType=species&offPageYesNo=true&post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutton&selectedIndexes=105963&selectedIndexes=104106&selectedIndexes=105824 .

Palis, J. 1998. Breeding Biology of the Gopher Frog, Rana capito, in Western Florida. Journal of Herpetology , Vol. 32, No. 2: 217-223. Accessed February 13, 2011 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1565300 .

Richter, S. 2000. Larval Caddisfly Predation on the Eggs and Embryos of Rana capito and Rana sphenocephala. Journal of Herpetology , Vol. 34, No. 4: 590-593. Accessed February 13, 2011 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1565275 .

Roznik, E., S. Johnson, C. Greenberg, G. Tanner. 2009. Terrestrial movements and habitat use of gopher frogs in longleaf pine forests: A comparative study of juveniles and adults. Forest Ecology and Management , Volume 259, Issue 2: 187-194. Accessed February 15, 2011 at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6X-4XNMBWG-1&_user=972151&_coverDate=12%2F15%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000049654&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=972151&md5=657d08beb42224c11bed68ab49dbb2c8&searchtype=a .

Roznik, E., S. Johnson. 2009. Burrow Use and Survival of Newly Metamorphosed Gopher Frogs (Rana capito). Journal of Herpetology , 43(3): 431-437. Accessed February 12, 2011 at http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1670/08-159R.1?prevSearch=&cookieSet=1 .

Roznik, E., S. Johnson. 2009. Canopy Closure and Emigration by Juvenile Gopher Frogs. Journal of Wildlife Management , 73(2): 260-268. Accessed February 12, 2011 at http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2193/2007-493 .

Seebacher, F., R. Alford. 2002. Shelter microhabitats determine body temperature and dehydration rates of a terrestrial anuran (Bufo marinus). Journal of Herpetology , 36: 69-75. Accessed March 14, 2011 at http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1670/0022-1511%282002%29036%5B0069:SMDBTA%5D2.0.CO%3B2 .

Semlitsch, R., J. Gibbons, T. Tuberville. 1995. Timing of reproduction and metamorphosis in the Carolina gopher frog (RANA CAPITO CAPITO) in South Carolina. Journal of Herpetology , 29: 612-614.

Semlitsch, R. 2008. Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond-breeding amphibians. Journal of Wildlife Management , 72: 260-267.

Thorson, T. 1955. The relationship of water economy to terrestrialism in amphibians. Ecology , 36: 100-116. Accessed March 14, 2011 at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1931435 .

Volpe, E. 1958. The early development of RANA CAPITO SEVOSA. Tulane Studies in Zoology , 5: 207-225.

Wright, A., A. Wright. 1933. Handbook of Frogs and Toads of the United States and Canada . Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Company.

Wright, A., A. Wright. 1949. Handbook of Frogs and Toads of the United States and Canada . Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Company.